Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Evidence of the inverse proximity effect in tunnel magnetic Josephson Junctions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Inverse proximity effect governs the low-temperature magnetic response of Nb-based tunnel magnetic Josephson junctions.

desk verdict A solid comparative Nb/Al dataset shows a real low-temperature anomaly in SIsFS junctions, but the inverse-proximity interpretation rests on an unmeasured interface resistance and a qualitative broadening argument. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15870 v1 pith:TDKWX4KS submitted 2024-11-24 cond-mat.supr-con

Roberta Satariano , Anatoly Fjodorovich Volkov , Halima Giovanna Ahmad , Luigi Di Palma , Raffaella Ferraiuolo , Zafar Iqbal , Antonio Vettoliere , Carmine Granata
show 6 more authors
Domenico Montemurro Loredana Parlato Giovanni Piero Pepe Francesco Tafuri Giovanni Ausanio Davide Massarotti
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con PACS 74.50.+r85.25.Cp75.70.Cn
keywords JosephsonjunctionsinverseproximityeffectferromagneticspinscreeningSIsFSmagneticfieldpatternpermalloyferro-transmon
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the low-temperature magnetic response of Nb-based tunnel magnetic Josephson junctions is governed by the inverse proximity effect, not by the ferromagnet's own magnetization. At base temperature, the critical-current field patterns show no hysteresis and no shift, with a broadened central peak, and these features disappear above about 4 K. The authors attribute this behavior to full spin screening: the magnetic moment induced in the superconductor at the S/F interface cancels the ferromagnet's moment, so the junction no longer remembers the field history. The same ferromagnetic layer in aluminum-based junctions keeps the conventional hysteretic pattern because a poor S/F interface transparency prevents the screening regime. The result matters for ferromagnetic transmon qubits, because preserving magnetic hysteresis requires engineering the S/F interface to avoid full spin screening.

What carries the argument

The central object is the S/F interface energy scale $\varepsilon_{b,F} = \hbar D_F/(R_b \sigma_F d_F)$, where $D_F$ is the ferromagnet's diffusion coefficient, $R_b$ the interface resistance per unit area, $\sigma_F$ its conductivity, and $d_F$ its thickness. The full-screening regime occurs when this scale exceeds the superconducting gap $\Delta$ while the exchange energy $J$ stays below it ($J < \varepsilon_{b,F}$); then the Cooper pairs at the interface are spin-polarized and the induced moment $m_{SC}$ fully compensates the ferromagnetic moment $m_F$. The paper uses this comparison between Nb/Py and Al/Py interfaces to argue that the same ferromagnet can either show conventional magnetic memory or lose it completely depending on interface transparency.

What would settle it

Measure R_b of the actual Nb(10-30 nm)/Py(3 nm) interface in the same devices at base temperature: if the derived epsilon_{b,F} falls below the exchange energy J (i.e., R_b is too small for full screening), the zero-shift and hysteresis-free patterns cannot be explained by the claimed regime. A complementary check is to fabricate an identical junction with a deliberately inserted thin oxide at the Nb/Py interface and observe whether the conventional hysteretic Ic(H) pattern is restored.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

By comparing nominally identical SIsFS junctions built with Nb and with Al electrodes, the paper shows that the appearance of zero-centered, hysteresis-free Ic(H) patterns at temperatures below about 4 K correlates with a transparent Nb/Py interface, while Al/Py junctions with an interface oxide retain the standard shifted and hysteretic patterns. The authors conclude that the inverse proximity effect—the leakage of ferromagnetic order into the superconductor at the S/F interface—polarizes Cooper pairs and induces a superconductor moment m_SC opposite to the ferromagnet moment m_F. In the full screening limit, the flux from m_SC cancels the flux from m_F, eliminating the field shift and the memory effect, and the simultaneous broadening of the central diffraction peak appears as a qualitative signature of the induced magnetization.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that these Nb/Py devices really enter the full-screening regime, J < epsilon_{b,F}, at low temperature; the paper does not measure the interface resistance R_b directly but infers it from literature values, and it concedes that the available calculation of the peak broadening does not apply to its SIsFS geometry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Below about 4 K, Nb-based tunnel MJJs of the type studied here cannot serve as magnetic memory elements because the Ic(H) pattern loses both its shift and its hysteresis.
  • Al-based SIsFS junctions with a naturally oxidized S/F interface retain the conventional hysteretic response at the same temperature and are therefore the safer route for ferromagnetic transmon qubits.
  • The temperature dependence of the shift provides a direct way to identify the onset of full spin screening: hysteresis reappears as T rises above roughly 4 K.
  • Engineering the S/F interface, for example by adding a thin insulating oxide or metallic buffer layer, should prevent full spin screening and preserve the memory functionality needed for quantum circuit control.
  • The broadening of the central Fraunhofer peak can serve as a qualitative fingerprint of induced spin polarization even in junctions where the phase drop occurs across the tunnel barrier.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If full spin screening is the correct explanation, then directly measuring the induced moment in the Nb layer of the same stacks—for example by low-temperature magnetic microscopy—should reveal a moment opposite to the Py magnetization whose magnitude grows as the temperature is lowered below 4 K.
  • A systematic series of devices with deliberately varied S/F interface resistance R_b would test the J < epsilon_{b,F} boundary: reducing R_b should suppress the zero-shift behavior, while increasing it should restore it.
  • The full-screening condition may also affect qubit coherence: a screened ferromagnet could reduce low-frequency magnetic noise from the F layer, but at the cost of the non-volatile tuning that motivates the ferro-transmon, so the trade-off deserves separate study.
  • The broadening of the central peak, if quantitatively modeled for the SIsFS geometry in which the phase drop is across the SIs barrier, could provide a calibrated measure of the induced superconductor moment rather than a qualitative signature.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a comparative experimental study of the magnetic-field dependence of the critical current Ic(H) in tunnel magnetic Josephson junctions (SIsFS) with a strong Permalloy (Py) ferromagnetic layer, using both Nb-based and Al-based superconducting electrodes. At base temperature (10 mK), the Nb-based junctions show two anomalous features: the absence of hysteresis in Ic(H) and a zero field shift of the diffraction pattern, together with a broadening of the central peak. These anomalies disappear above approximately 4 K, recovering a conventional hysteretic behavior. In contrast, Al-based SIsFS junctions show a standard hysteretic, shifted Fraunhofer pattern even at base temperature. The authors attribute the Nb-device behavior to the inverse proximity effect (IPE) and full spin screening of the ferromagnetic moment by an induced magnetic moment in the superconductor, invoking the condition J < ε_b,F, where ε_b,F is a scaling energy set by the S/F interface resistance. The paper concludes that the IPE must be considered when designing tunnel MJJs for quantum circuits operating below 4 K.

Significance. If the interpretation is correct, the paper provides evidence for a regime that has been theoretically predicted but has remained elusive in experiments: full spin screening of a ferromagnet by the inverse proximity effect in a tunnel Josephson junction. This would be practically relevant for hybrid superconducting quantum devices such as the ferro-transmon, where the magnetic hysteresis of the junction is used for frequency control and would be destroyed by the IPE. The experimental work has clear strengths: the SIsS reference junctions fit the Airy pattern well, the comparison between Nb- and Al-based devices is a meaningful internal control, the temperature dependence showing recovery at about 6 K is a clean observation, and the Py magnetization loops are independently measured and shown to be temperature-independent, ruling out a trivial source of the temperature effect. The central claim is therefore plausible and worthy of publication if the quantitative link to the IPE theory can be strengthened.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Discussion] The central attribution to full spin screening rests on the inequality J < ε_b,F, with ε_b,F = ħD_F/(R_b σ_F d_F). However, R_b is never measured for the actual junctions studied; the authors state that ε_b,F/Δ ≥ 10 'corresponds to a value of R_b of the same order of magnitude (fΩm^2) of MJJs with Nb/Py interface [64]'. Since the conclusion flips if R_b differs by a factor of two to three, this is load-bearing. The paper should either provide a direct measurement of the S/F interface resistance for the same fabrications, or a more robust estimate based on the measured junction parameters (e.g., from the normal-state resistance and geometry) together with a sensitivity analysis showing that the inequality holds within the full uncertainty range.
  2. [§3, Discussion] The broadening of the central peak, which is presented as one of the two main fingerprints of the IPE, is explicitly conceded not to be covered by the existing calculation in Ref. [36] because the phase drop in SIsFS junctions occurs across the tunnel barrier rather than across the F layer. The paper offers only a qualitative ascription. Since the zero shift and the broadening are the only two signatures used to identify the IPE, the identification would be substantially strengthened by a geometry-appropriate calculation of the Ic(H) pattern for a SIsFS stack in the full-screening regime, or by a quantitative comparison of the temperature dependence of the width with the predictions of the theory.
  3. [§2, Magnetic field patterns, and §3] The paper does not explicitly exclude alternative mechanisms for the low-temperature loss of hysteresis and zero shift, such as flux trapping in the Nb electrodes, an asymmetric current-density distribution, or a different magnetization reversal mode of the patterned Py layer induced by the transport current or by the junction geometry. The SIsS reference measurements and the temperature-independent VSM loops rule out some obvious sources, but it would be helpful to show that the effect is not affected by the magnetic field sweep range or history, and to discuss why the standard domain-related hysteresis mechanism (cited in Ref. [56]) would fail below 4 K while reappearing above 4 K.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3, Discussion] The text states 'we have found ρ_F = 84 Ωcm' for the 3 nm-thick Py layer; presumably this is a typo for 84 μΩ·cm (or a similar value), since the given ρ_F l_F product from Ref. [63] is in μΩ·cm^2 units. Please correct the units and the resulting estimate of l_F and D_F.
  2. [Eq. (3)] The sign convention in Eq. (3) is confusing: it reads '±μ0H_shift = ∓ μ0 M_F d_F / d_m'. Please clarify the correspondence between the plus/minus signs and the field sweep direction, and verify that the sign is consistent with the data shown in Figs. 2 and 4.
  3. [References] Reference [62] is a duplicate of reference [6] (Robinson et al., PRL 97, 177003, 2006). Please consolidate.
  4. [Fig. 4] The blue and green dots in Fig. 4(c) and (d) are described as expected temperature behaviors with error bars, but the error bars are not visible in the figure as reproduced. Please ensure that the uncertainty propagation is clear in the figure itself or in the caption.
  5. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'strong ferromagnetic barrier' is used loosely; in SIsFS junctions the F layer is not the tunneling barrier, since the thin s layer and the tunnel barrier set the transport. Please use consistent terminology, e.g., 'ferromagnetic interlayer' rather than 'barrier', throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the IPE interpretation is an inference from independently published theory and unconverted estimates, not a reduction of the conclusion to fitted inputs.

full rationale

Score 0: no step in the paper's argument reduces to its own inputs. The central claim—that full spin screening by the inverse proximity effect explains the zero-shifted, hysteresis-free Ic(H) curves in Nb-based SIsFS junctions below 4 K—is an inference from independently published theory (Refs. [35,36]) plus temperature-dependent transport data. The full-screening condition J < ε_b,F is checked by an order-of-magnitude estimate (measured ρ_F, literature J/Δ ~ 10, literature R_b), not fitted to the observed zero shift, so this is an unverified premise rather than a fitted input renamed as prediction. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the Ref. [36] broadening calculation is not applicable to the SIsFS geometry ('calculations on the shape of the magnetic field pattern reported in Ref. [36] cannot be applied to our SIsFS JJs'), which weakens the broadening fingerprint but is a stated limitation, not a circular step. Several cited theory papers share authors with this work, but they are general, peer-reviewed results with stated assumptions independent of the present data; self-citation alone is not circularity. The Nb/Al comparison and the temperature dependence provide external, non-fitted checks. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard Josephson diffraction theory, on a single-junction approximation for the SIsFS stack, on the assumption that isolated-dot VSM loops represent the in-junction Py layer, on the applicability of the full-screening theory of Ref. [35] to this geometry, and on an assumed value of ε_b,F/Δ. The main fitted input is λ_L from the reference junction; the main hand-chosen input is the assumed lower bound for ε_b,F/Δ.

free parameters (2)
  • London penetration depth λ_L = 120 ± 20 nm
    Fitted from the Airy pattern of the Nb SIsS reference junction (Fig. 2a, Eq. 1); used to compute the expected temperature dependence of H_shift and ΔH.
  • Interface transparency parameter ε_b,F/Δ = ≥ 10 (assumed lower bound)
    Chosen so that the full-screening condition J < ε_b,F is satisfied for Nb/Py, using J/Δ ≈ 10 from Ref. [62]; the corresponding R_b is argued to be in a literature range but is not measured on the measured junctions.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math The Airy diffraction pattern Eq. (1) describes Ic(H) of a circular tunnel junction with homogeneous current density.
    Used to fit the SIsS reference and to define H_min and ΔH.
  • domain assumption The SIsFS stack behaves as a single junction with respect to the external field because ds < λ_L, so the total flux is Φ = μ0 H 2R d_m + μ0 M_F 2R d_F (Eq. 2).
    Justifies interpreting the Ic(H) curve as a standard Fraunhofer pattern with a field shift.
  • domain assumption The Py magnetization in the actual junction follows the VSM-measured hysteresis loops of isolated 5 μm dots, which are temperature-independent below 6 K.
    Used to rule out the F-layer M(T) as the cause of the observed temperature dependence; the dots may not exactly replicate the in-junction magnetic state.
  • domain assumption Full spin screening occurs when J < ε_b,F, with ε_b,F = ħD_F/(R_b σ_F d_F), as derived in Ref. [35], and this theory applies to the SIsFS geometry.
    This is the central interpretive framework; the authors concede the related broadening calculation in Ref. [36] does not directly apply to their SIsFS junctions.
  • domain assumption For Nb/Py, the exchange energy ratio J/Δ ≈ 10.
    Taken from Ref. [62] and used together with the assumed ε_b,F/Δ ≥ 10 to place the system in the full-screening regime.
  • domain assumption Al-based SIsFS junctions have an interfacial oxide layer at the s/F interface that decouples the superconducting and ferromagnetic layers.
    Inferred from the fabrication process with vacuum breaking, used to explain the standard magnetic behavior of the Al devices; no direct interface characterization is reported.
  • domain assumption The London penetration depth follows the Ginzburg-Landau temperature dependence λ(T).
    Used to estimate the expected 20% variation in shift and semiwidth between base temperature and 6 K.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evidence of the inverse proximity effect in tunnel magnetic Josephson Junctions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TDKWX4KS

@misc{pith2026241115870,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evidence of the inverse proximity effect in tunnel magnetic Josephson Junctions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TDKWX4KS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15870}
}
read the original abstract

Magnetic Josephson Junctions (MJJs) are a special class of hybrid systems where antagonistic correlations coexist, thus providing a key for advances in weak superconductivity, superconducting spintronics and quantum computation. So far, the memory properties of MJJs have been mostly investigated in view of digital electronics and for spintronic devices at liquid-helium temperature. At the operating temperature of quantum circuits, a magnetic order can rise in a Superconductor (S) at the S/Ferromagnet (F) interface, i.e., the inverse proximity effect (IPE), thus leading to a significant modification of the magnetic field patterns in MJJs. In this work, we have carried out a comparative investigation of the magnetic behavior of tunnel MJJs with a strong ferromagnetic layer inserted in the layout of both Nb and Al JJs, respectively. The comparative analysis validates the crucial role of the temperature, the fundamental scaling energies of S/F coupling systems, and the transparency of the S/F interface. This investigation points out that the IPE is a key aspect to consider when designing tunnel MJJs operating well below 4 K and thus in the perspective of hybrid superconducting quantum architectures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15870 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Hysteresis loops of a 3 nm-thick continuous Py film (black line) and of a 3 nm-thick Py square dot with lateral size of 5 𝜇m (red line) at T = 12 K. Inset: hysteresis loops at low field. (b) Hysteresis loops of a 3 nm-thick Py square dot with lateral size of 5 𝜇m (red line) measured at different temperatures. Inset: AFM images of some 3 nm-thick Py dot with a lateral size of 5 μm. In all the panels, the Py has b… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Normalized Ic as a function of the magnetic field H for (a) a circular SIsS [Nb (200 nm)/AlOx/Nb (10 nm)/Nb (350 nm)] JJ with radius R = 1.5 μm, (b) a circular SIsFS [Nb (200 nm)/ Al-AlOx/Nb (30 nm)/Py (3 nm)/Nb (350 nm)] JJ with R = 1.5 μm, and (c) a circular SIsFS [Nb (200 nm)/ Al-AlOx/Nb (10 nm)/Py (3 nm)/Nb (350 nm)] JJ with R = 2 μm. In both panels b and c, the black and red curves are the magnetic patterns in … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. a) Current-voltage curve for a SIsS [Al (200 nm)/ Al-AlOx/Al (30 nm)/Al (350 nm): black curve] and SIsFS [Al (200 nm)/ Al-AlOx/Al (30 nm)/Py (3 nm)/Al (350 nm): red curve)] JJ with a radius R = 2 μm. Critical current vs in-plane magnetic field (Ic(H) curves) measured at T = 10 mK for (b) a SIsS JJ with radius R = 2 μm, showing the familiar Airy diffraction pattern (red line) and (c) for a SIsFS JJ with radius R = 2 … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Magnetic dependence of the critical current Ic(H) by sweeping the field in the range (-22, 22) mT is reported in (a) in the downward and in (b) upward direction of the magnetic field, respectively. The color in the legend indicates the temperature T at which the measur…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [36]

    S. M. Dahir, A. F. Volkov and I. M. Eremin, «Phase-dependent Spin Polarization of Cooper Pairs in Magnetic Josephson Junctions,» Phys. Rev. B, vol. 100, p. 134513, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [64]

    C. Bell, R. Loloee, G. Burnell and M. G. Blamire, «Characteristics of strong ferromagnetic Josephson junctions with epitaxial barriers,» Phys. Rev. B, vol. 71, n. 18, p. 180501, May 2005

    work page 2005

  3. [56]

    Marchegiani, L

    G. Marchegiani, L. Amico and G. Catelani, «Quasiparticles in Superconducting Qubits with Asymmetric Junctions,» PRX Quantum, vol. 3, n. 4, p. 040338, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [1]

    F. S. Bergeret, A. F. Volkov and K. B. Efetov, «Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena in superconductor-ferromagnet structures,» Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 77, n. 4, pp. 1321--1373, 2005

    work page 2005

  5. [2]

    A. I. Buzdin, «Proximity effects in superconductor-ferromagnet heterostructures,» Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 77, n. 3, pp. 935--976, 2005

    work page 2005

  6. [3]

    A. A. Golubov, M. Y. Kupriyanov and E. Il'ichev, «The current-phase relation in Josephson junctions,» Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 76, n. 2, p. 411469, 2004

    work page 2004

  7. [4]

    V. V. Ryazanov, V. A. Oboznov , A. Y. Rusanov, A. V. Veretennikov, A. A. Golubov and J. Aarts, «Coupling of Two Superconductors through a Ferromagnet: Evidence for a π Junction,» Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 86, n. 11, pp. 2427--2430, 2001

    work page 2001

  8. [5]

    V. A. Oboznov, V. V. Bol'ginov, A. K. Feofanov, V. V. Ryazanov and A. I. Buzdin, «Thickness Dependence of the Josephson Ground States of Superconductor-Ferromagnet-Superconductor Junctions,» Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 96, n. 19, p. 197003, 2006

    work page 2006

Show all 64 references
  1. [6]

    J. W. A. Robinson, S. Piano, G. Burnell, C. Bell and M. G. Blamire, «Critical Current Oscillations in Strong Ferromagnetic π Junctions,» Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 97, n. 17, p. 177003, 2006

    2006

  2. [7]

    N. O. Birge and N. Satchell, «Ferromagnetic Materials for Josephson π Junctions,» APL Materials, vol. 12, n. 4, p. 041105, 2024

    2024

  3. [8]

    Banerjee, C

    N. Banerjee, C. B. Smiet, R. G. J. Smits, A. Ozaeta, F. S. Bergeret, M. G. Blamire and J. W. A. Robinson, «Evidence for spin selectivity of triplet pairs in superconducting spin valves,» Nat. Commun., vol. 5, n. 1, p. 3048, 2014

    2014

  4. [9]

    J. W. A. Robinson, J. D. S. Witt and M. G. Blamire, «Controlled Injection of Spin-Triplet Supercurrents into a Strong Ferromagnet,» Science, vol. 329, n. 5987, pp. 59-61, 2010

    2010

  5. [10]

    Klose, T

    C. Klose, T. S. Khaire, Y. Wang, W. P. Pratt, N. O. Birge, B. J. McMorran, T. P. Ginley, J. A. Borchers, B. J. Kirby, . B. B. Maranville and J. Unguris, «Optimization of Spin-Triplet Supercurrent in Ferromagnetic Josephson Junctions,» Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 108, n. 12, p. 127002, 2012

    2012

  6. [11]

    H. G. Ahmad, M. Minutillo, R. Capecelatro, A. Pal, R. Caruso, G. Passarelli, M. G. Blamire, F. Tafuri, P. Lucignano and D. Massarotti , «Coexistence and tuning of spin-singlet and triplet transport in spin- filter Josephson junctions,» Commun. Phys., vol. 5, n. 1, p. 2, 2022

    2022

  7. [12]

    Linder and J

    J. Linder and J. W. A. Robinson, «Superconducting spintronics,» Nat. Phys., vol. 11, n. 4, pp. 307-315, 2015

    2015

  8. [13]

    Eschrig, «Spin-polarized supercurrents for spintronics: a review of current progress,» Rep

    M. Eschrig, «Spin-polarized supercurrents for spintronics: a review of current progress,» Rep. Prog. Phys., vol. 78, n. 10, p. 104501, 2015

    2015

  9. [14]

    I. I. Soloviev, N. V. Klenov, S. V. Bakurskiy, M. Y. Kupriyanov, A. L. Gudkov and A. S. Sidorenko, «Beyond Moore’s technologies: operation principles of a superconductor alternative,» Beilstein J. Nanotechnol., vol. 8, p. 2689–2710, 2017

    2017

  10. [15]

    R. Cai, I. Žutić and W. Han, « Superconductor/Ferromagnet Heterostructures: A Platform for Superconducting Spintronics and Quantum Computation,» Adv Quantum Technol., vol. 6, n. 1, p. 2200080, 2023

    2023

  11. [16]

    A. K. Feofanov, V. A. Oboznov, V. V. Bol’ginov, J. Lisenfeld, S. Poletto, V. V. Ryazanov, A. N. Rossolenko, M. Khabipov, D. Z. Balashov, P. N. Dmitriev, V. P. Koshelets and A. V. Ustinov, «Implementation of superconductor/ferromagnet/ superconductor π-shifters in superconducti...

    2010

  12. [17]

    A. V. Shcherbakova, K. G. Fedorov, K. V. Shulga, V. V. Ryazanov, V. V. Bolginov, V. A. Oboznov, S. V. Egorov, V. O. Shkolnikov, M. J. Wolf, D. Beckmann and A. V. Ustinov, «Fabrication and measurements of hybrid Nb/Al Josephson junctions and flux qubits with π-shifters,» Superc...

    2015

  13. [18]

    Yamashita, S

    T. Yamashita, S. Kim, H. Kato, W. Qiu, K. Semba, A. Fujimaki and H. Terai, «π phase shifter based on NbN-based ferromagnetic Josephson junction on a silicon substrate,» Sci. Rep. , vol. 10, p. 13687, 2020

    2020

  14. [19]

    Kawabata, S

    S. Kawabata, S. Kashiwaya, Y. Asano, Y. Tanaka and A. Golubov, «Macroscopic quantum dynamics of π junctions with ferromagnetic insulators,» Phys. Rev. B, vol. 74, n. 18, p. 180502, 2006

    2006

  15. [20]

    S. Kim, L. V. Abdurakhimov, D. Pham, W. Qiu, H. Terai, S. Ashhab, S. Saito, T. Yamashita and K. Semba, «Superconducting flux qubit with ferromagnetic Josephson pi junction operating at zero magnetic field,» arXiv, p. 2401.14597, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [21]

    Sickinger, A

    H. Sickinger, A. Lipman, M. Weides, R. G. Mints, H. Kohlstedt, D. Koelle, R. Kleiner and E. Goldobin, «Experimental Evidence of a π Josephson Junction,» Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 109, n. 10, p. 107002, 2012

    2012

  17. [22]

    T. I. Larkin, V. V. Bol’ginov, V. S. Stolyarov, V. V. Ryazanov, I. V. Vernik, S. K. Tolpygo and O. A. Mukhanov, «Ferromagnetic Josephson switching device with high characteristic voltage,» Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 100, n. 22, p. 222601, 2012

    2012

  18. [23]

    Weides, M

    M. Weides, M. Kemmler, E. Goldobin, D. Koelle, R. Kleiner, H. Kohlstedt and A. Buzdin, «High quality ferromagnetic 0 and π Josephson tunnel junctions,» Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 89, n. 2006, p. 122511, 89

    2006

  19. [24]

    Parlato, R

    L. Parlato, R. Caruso, A. Vettoliere, R. Satariano, H. G. Ahmad, A. Miano, D. Montemurro, D. Salvoni, G. Ausanio, F. Tafuri, G. P. Pepe, D. Massarotti and C. Granata, «Characterization of scalable Josephson memory element containing a strong ferromagnet,» J. Appl. Phys., vol. ...

    2020

  20. [25]

    Vettoliere, R

    A. Vettoliere, R. Satariano, R. Ferraiuolo, L. Di Palma, H. G. Ahmad, G. Ausanio, G. P. Pepe, F. Tafuri, D. Montemurro, C. Granata, L. Parlato and D. Massarotti, «Aluminum-ferromagnetic Josephson tunnel junctions for high quality magnetic switching devices,» Appl. Phys. Lett.,...

    2022

  21. [26]

    Senapati, M

    K. Senapati, M. G. Blamire and Z. H. Barber, «Spin-filter Josephson junctions,» Nat. Mater., vol. 10, pp. 849-852, 2011

    2011

  22. [27]

    H. G. Ahmad, R. Caruso, A. Pal, G. Rotoli, G. P. Pepe, M. G. Blamire, F. Tafuri and D. Massarotti, «Electrodynamics of Highly Spin-Polarized Tunnel Josephson Junctions,» Phys. Rev. Appl., vol. 13, n. 1, p. 014017, 2020

    2020

  23. [28]

    Massarotti, A

    D. Massarotti, A. Pal, G. Rotoli, L. Longobardi, M. G. Blamire and F. Tafuri, «Macroscopic quantum tunnelling in spin filter ferromagnetic Josephson junctions,» Nat. Commun., vol. 6, p. 7376, 2015

    2015

  24. [29]

    Massarotti, H

    D. Massarotti, H. G. Ahmad, R. Satariano, R. Ferraiuolo, L. Di Palma, P. Mastrovito, G. Serpico, A. Levochkina, R. Caruso, A. Miano, M. Arzeo, G. Ausanio, C. Granata, P. Lucignano, D. Montemurro, L. Parlato, A. Vettoliere, R. Fazio, 0. Mukhanov, G. Pepe and F. Tafuri, «A feasi...

    2023

  25. [30]

    H. G. Ahmad, V. Brosco, A. Miano, . L. Di Palma, M. Arzeo, D. Montemurro, L. Lucignano, G. P. Pepe, F. Tafuri, R. Fazio and D. Massarotti, «Hybrid ferromagnetic transmon qubit: Circuit design, feasibility, and detection protocols for magnetic fluctuations,» Phys. Rev. B. , vol...

    2022

  26. [31]

    Satariano, L

    R. Satariano, L. Parlato, A. Vettoliere, R. Caruso, . H. G. Ahmad, A. Miano, L. Di Palma, D. Salvoni, D. Montemurro, C. Granata, G. Lamura, F. Tafuri, G. P. Pepe, D. Massarotti and G. Ausanio, «Inverse magnetic hysteresis of the Josephson supercurrent: Study of the magnetic pr...

    2021

  27. [32]

    Satariano, A

    R. Satariano, A. F. Volkov, H. G. Ahmad, L. Di Palma, R. Ferraiuolo, A. Vettoliere, C. Granata, D. Montemurro, L. Parlato, G. P. Pepe, F. Tafuri, G. Ausanio and D. Massarotti, «Nanoscale spin ordering and spin screening effects in tunnel ferromagnetic Josephson junctions,» Com...

    2024

  28. [33]

    F. S. Bergeret, A. F. Volkov and K. B. Efetov, «Induced ferromagnetism due to superconductivity in superconductor-ferromagnet structures,» Phys. Rev. B, vol. 69, n. 17, p. 174504, 2004

    2004

  29. [34]

    F. S. Bergeret, A. F. Volkov and K. B. Efetov, «Spin screening of magnetic moments in superconductors,» EPL, vol. 66, n. 1, p. 111, 2004

    2004

  30. [35]

    A. F. Volkov, F. S. Bergeret and K. B. Efetov, «Spin polarization and orbital effects in superconductor- ferromagnet structures,» Phys. Rev. B, vol. 99, n. 14, p. 144506, 2019

    2019

  31. [37]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson and W. D. Oliver, «A quantum engineer's guide to superconducting qubits,» Appl. Phys. Rev., vol. 6, n. 021318, 2019

    2019

  32. [38]

    B. M. Niedzielski, E. C. Gingrich, R. Loloee, W. P. Pratt and N. O. Birge, «S/F/S Josephson junctions with single-domain ferromagnets for memory applications,» Supercond. Sci. Technol., vol. 28, n. 8, p. 085012, 2015

    2015

  33. [39]

    A. E. Qader, R. K. Singh, S. N. Galvin, L. Yu, J. M. Rowell and N. Newman, «Switching at small magnetic fields in Josephson junctions fabricated with ferromagnetic barrier layers,» Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 104, n. 2, p. 022602, 2014

    2014

  34. [40]

    Siddiqi, «Engineering high-coherence superconducting qubits,» Nat

    I. Siddiqi, «Engineering high-coherence superconducting qubits,» Nat. Rev. Mater., vol. 6, n. 10, pp. 875-891, 2021

    2021

  35. [41]

    Oliver and P

    W. Oliver and P. Welander, «Materials in superconducting quantum bits.,» MRS Bulletin, vol. 38, n. 10, p. 816–825, 2013

    2013

  36. [42]

    Osman, J

    A. Osman, J. Simon, A. Bengtsson, S. Kosen, P. Krantz, D. Lozano, M. Scigliuzzo, P. Delsing, J. Bylander and A. Fadavi Roudsari, «Simplified Josephson-junction fabrication process for reproducibly high-performance superconducting qubits,» Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 118, p. 064002, 2021

    2021

  37. [43]

    Anferov, K.-H

    A. Anferov, K.-H. Lee, F. Zhao, J. Simon and D. I. Schuster, «Improved coherence in optically defined niobium trilayer-junction qubits,» Phys. Rev. Appl., vol. 21, n. 2, p. 024047, 2024

    2024

  38. [44]

    L. S. Uspenskaya, O. A. Tikhomirov, S. I. Bozhko, S. V. Egorov and A. A. Chugunov, «Domain structure and magnetization of the permalloy/niobium bilayers,» J. Appl. Phys., vol. 16, n. 16, p. 163907, 2013

    2013

  39. [45]

    Volmer and J

    M. Volmer and J. Neamtu, «Simulated and measured hysteresis curves for thin films,» Physica B Condens., vol. 372, n. 1, pp. 198-201, 2006

    2006

  40. [46]

    R. P. Cowburn, «Property variation with shape in magnetic nanoelements,» J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys, vol. 33, n. 1, p. R1

  41. [47]

    Schneider and H

    M. Schneider and H. Hoffmann, «Magnetization loops of submicron ferromagnetic permalloy dot arrays,» J. Appl. Phys., vol. 86, n. 8, pp. 4539-4543, 1999

    1999

  42. [48]

    A. I. Gubin, K. S. Il'in, S. A. Vitusevich, M. Siegel and N. Klein, «Dependence of magnetic penetration depth on the thickness of superconducting Nb thin films,» Phys. Rev. B, vol. 72, n. 6, p. 064503, 2005

    2005

  43. [49]

    Vettoliere, R

    A. Vettoliere, R. Satariano, R. Ferraiuolo, L. Di Palma, H. G. Ahmad, G. Ausanio, G. P. Pepe, F. Tafuri, D. Massarotti, D. Montemurro, C. Granata and L. Parlato, «High-Quality Ferromagnetic Josephson Junctions Based on Aluminum Electrodes,» Nanomaterials, vol. 12, n. 23, p. 4155, 2022

    2022

  44. [50]

    Barone and G

    A. Barone and G. Paterno, Physics and Application of the Josephson Effect, John Wiley & Sons, 1982

    1982

  45. [51]

    O. M. Kapran, T. Golod, A. Iovan, A. S. Sidorenko, A. A. Golubov and V. M. Krasnov, «Crossover between short- and long-range proximity effects in superconductor/ferromagnet/superconductor junctions with Ni-based ferromagnets,» Phys. Rev. B, vol. 103, n. 9, p. 094509, 2021

    2021

  46. [52]

    V. N. Gubankov, M. P. Lisitskii, I. L. Serpuchenko, F. N. Sklokin and M. V. Fistul, «Influence of trapped Abrikosov vortices on the critical current of the Josephson tunnel junction,» Supercond. Sci. Technol., vol. 5, pp. 168-173, 1992

    1992

  47. [53]

    Cirillo, S

    C. Cirillo, S. Voltan, E. A. Ilyina, J. M. Hernàndez, A. Garcìa-Santiago, J. Aarts and C. Attanasio, «Long-range proximity effect in Nb-based heterostructures induced by a magnetically inhomogeneous permalloy layer,» New J. Phys., vol. 19, n. 2, p. 023037, 2017

    2017

  48. [54]

    S. V. Bakurskiy, N. V. Klenov, I. I. Soloviev, V. V. Bol'ginov, V. V. Ryazanov, I. V. Vernik, O. A. Mukhanov, M. Y. Kupriyanov and A. A. Golubov, «Theoretical model of superconducting spintronic SIsFS devices,» App. Phys. Lett., vol. 102, n. 19, p. 192603, 2013

    2013

  49. [55]

    T. S. Khaire, W. P. Pratt and N. O. Birge, «Critical current behavior in Josephson junctions with the weak ferromagnet PdNi,» Phys. Rev. B, vol. 79, n. 9, p. 094523, 2009

    2009

  50. [57]

    S. V. Bakurskiy, N. V. Klenov, I. I. Soloviev, M. Y. Kupriyanov and A. A. Golubov, «Theory of supercurrent transport in SIsFS Josephson junctions,» Phys. Rev. B, vol. 88, n. 14, p. 144519, 2013

    2013

  51. [58]

    H. G. Ahmad, V. Brosco, A. Miano, L. Di Palma, M. Arzeo, R. Satariano, R. Ferraiuolo, P. Lucignano, A. Vettoliere, C. Granata, L. Parlato, G. Ausanio, D. Montemurro, G. P. Pepe, R. Fazio, F. Tafuri and D. Massarotti, «Competition of Quasiparticles and Magnetization Noise in Hy...

    2023

  52. [59]

    J. Xia, V. Shelukhin, M. Karpovski, A. Kapitulnik and A. Palevski, «Inverse Proximity Effect in Superconductor-Ferromagnet Bilayer Structures,» Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 102, n. 8, p. 087004, 2009

    2009

  53. [60]

    Khaydukov, B

    Y. Khaydukov, B. Nagy, J. H. Kim, T. Keller, A. Rühm, Y. V. Nikitenko, K. N. Zhernenkov, J. Stahn, L. F. Kiss, A. Csik, L. Bottyán and V. L. Aksenov, «On the feasibility to study inverse proximity effect in a single S/F bilayer by Polarized Neutron Reflectometry,» JETP Letters...

    2013

  54. [61]

    M. G. Flokstra, R. Stewart, N. Satchell, G. Burnell, H. Luetkens, T. Prokscha, A. Suter, E. Morenzoni and S. L. Lee, «Meissner screening as a probe for inverse superconductor-ferromagnet proximity effects,» Phys. Rev. B, vol. 104, n. 6, p. L060506, 2021

    2021

  55. [62]

    J. W. A. Robinson, S. Piano, G. Burnell, C. Bell and M. G. Blamire, «Critical Current Oscillations in Strong Ferromagnetic π Junctions,» Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 97, n. 17, p. 177003, October 2006

    2006

  56. [63]

    A. F. Mayadas, J. F. Janak and A. Gangulee, «Resistivity of Permalloy thin films,» J. Appl. Phys., vol. 45, n. 6, pp. 2780-2781, 1974

    1974

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.