# Proximity Induced Josephson-Quasiparticle Process in a Single Electron Transistor

## Abstract

We have performed the first experiments in a superconductor - normal metal - superconductor single electron transistor in which there is an extra superconducting strip partially overlapping the normal metal island in good metal-to-metal contact. Superconducting proximity effect gives rise to current peaks at voltages below the quasiparticle threshold. We interpret these peaks in terms of the Josephson-quasiparticle process and discuss their connection with the proximity induced energy gap in the normal metal island. 

Proximity effect, i.e., penetration of the order parameter of a superconductor (S) into a normal metal (N) through a good contact, has been known and studied for almost 40 years . It is again under an active investigation. Progress in nanolithographic techniques has made it possible to study the proximity effect on length scales smaller than the normal coherence length, $`\xi _N(T)`$, which determines the depth of penetration of superconducting order into the normal metal (for a recent review see Ref. ). Evaporated metals are in the dirty limit, where $`\xi _N(T)=(\mathrm{}D/2\pi k_BT)^{1/2}>l_e`$; here $`D=v_Fl_e/3`$ is the electronic diffusion constant, $`v_F`$ the Fermi velocity, and $`l_e`$ the elastic mean free path in N.

Transport properties due to the proximity effect are very nontrivial. For example, the resistance of a normal metal wire in contact with a single superconductor can either increase or decrease even at length scales much larger than $`\xi _N(T)`$ when the sample is cooled below $`T_c`$, the transition temperature of the superconductor . At very low temperatures the resistance approaches the normal-state value . On the other hand, a normal wire in good contact to a superconductor at both ends can transport a supercurrent if the length of the wire is of the order of $`\xi _N(T)`$ or shorter .

We have performed electrical transport measurements in a new kind of a proximity structure: a superconductor - normal metal - superconductor single electron transistor (SNS-SET), which has an extra superconducting strip across the normal metal island in good metal-to-metal contact (see Fig. 1). We call this structure an SPS-SET where P stands for proximity-induced superconductivity. It has been predicted that the proximity effect should induce a constant energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ into the central island if it is not too long compared with $`\xi _N(T)`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ is expected to be of the order of Thouless energy $`E_T=\mathrm{}D/L^2`$ as long as $`E_T<\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the energy gap of the superconducting strip  (see Fig. 1 for our definition of $`L`$). This is in contrast with the semi-infinite structure studied by Guéron et al.  \- a long normal metal wire in good contact with a superconductor on one end. In that structure a pseudogap, i.e., a nonzero minimum in the density of states at the Fermi energy, was observed in the normal metal at submicron distances from the NS contact, in a reasonable quantitative agreement with theory .

We fabricate the samples on a nitridised silicon substrate by multiple angle evaporation through a mask made of a PMMA / P(MMA-MAA) double layer resist and patterned using electron beam lithography. Copper is used as a normal metal and aluminium as a superconductor. In our typical sample (see Fig. 1), a 21-nm thin layer of Al is first evaporated from ”left” at an angle of 23 degrees with respect to the normal of the substrate. After oxidising in pure O<sub>2</sub> at $`p0.5`$ mbar for about 30 seconds, a 5-nm layer of Al is evaporated from ”right” at an angle of 60 degrees; in that way, the unwanted shadow of the vertical line is deposited on the wall of the resist as in Ref.  and is removed in the liftoff. Immediately after evaporating Al, a 27-nm layer of Cu and another 26-nm layer of Al are evaporated from ”right” using angles of 23 and 60 degrees, respectively. In this process, AlO<sub>x</sub> tunnel junctions are formed between the 100-nm wide vertical Cu line and the two 100-nm wide Al lines on the left. On the other hand, there is a pure metal-to-metal contact between the Cu line and the 200-nm wide Al strip on the right, without a tunnel barrier in between. Note that in this process a layer of Cu is deposited between Al films in some parts of the horizontal lines (shaded regions in Fig. 1). In order to check that this Cu layer does not affect our results, we have fabricated some of the samples with a slightly different structure, in which Cu is evaporated from ”top” (see Fig. 1) at an angle of 35 degrees, such that the Cu and Al lines are separated. Results are similar in both structures. 

The resistivity of our evaporated Cu film is typically 1.7$``$10<sup>-8</sup> $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$m at $`T=4.2`$ K. This gives $`l_e=39`$ nm and $`D=0.020`$ m<sup>2</sup>/s, corresponding to the coherence length $`\xi _N(T)=T^{1/2}0.16`$ $`\mu `$m when $`T`$ is expressed in kelvins.

Figure 2 shows an example of the measured low-temperature current-voltage (IV) characteristics of an SNS-SET (Fig. 2a) and an SPS-SET (Fig. 2b), which were fabricated simultaneously on the same chip a few microns apart. The only difference between the samples is the extra Al strip in the SPS-SET. The SPS-SET has $`L=0.65`$ $`\mu `$m (see Fig. 1), such that we would expect the proximity effect to induce an energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ of about $`E_T30`$ $`\mu `$eV in the central island. The measurement was made at $`T=70`$ mK, such that $`k_BTE_T`$, and $`\xi _N(T)0.6`$ $`\mu `$m was only slightly smaller than $`L`$.

The quasiparticle current can flow through a single electron transistor only when the bias voltage $`V`$ exceeds a threshold $`V_T`$, which varies between $`V_{T,\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`V_{T,\mathrm{max}}`$, depending periodically on the gate voltage $`V_g`$. Ideally, $`V_{T,\mathrm{max}}=V_{T,\mathrm{min}}+2E_C`$ where $`E_C=e^2/2C_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the single-electron charging energy and $`C_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the total capacitance of the central island; for an SNS-SET $`V_{T,\mathrm{min}}=2\mathrm{\Delta }/e`$, and for an SS’S-SET consisting of two superconductors with energy gaps $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$, respectively, $`V_{T,\mathrm{min}}=2(\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }^{})/e`$. In the samples of Fig. 2, $`E_C`$ was made rather small, less than 20 $`\mu `$eV, such that the $`V_g`$ dependence of the IV curves is very weak. Based on the estimates presented above, we expected that $`V_{T,\mathrm{min}}`$ of the SPS-SET would be larger than that of the SNS-SET by $`2\mathrm{\Delta }^{}/e2E_T/e60`$ $`\mu `$V. However, the measured large-scale IV characteristics of both samples are very similar. We have not observed any systematic difference in $`V_{T,\mathrm{min}}`$ of simultaneously fabricated SNS-SET / SPS-SET pairs. The reproducibility of this result is about 20 $`\mu `$V; there are differences of this magnitude even in $`V_{T,\mathrm{min}}`$ of two similar SNS-SETs fabricated simultaneously in immediate neighbourhood of each other.

However, when the IV characteristics of the SNS-SET and the SPS-SET are studied on a more sensitive current scale, they look very different from each other: that of the SNS-SET is smooth, whereas the SPS-SET has a clear current peak at $`V0.2`$ mV. Similar peaks were observed in all our 12 SPS-SET samples in which the Cu line and the extra Al strip were in direct metal-to-metal contact. On the other hand, no current peaks were observed if there was a tunnel barrier with resistance $`R_T10`$ k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ between the Cu line and the Al strip. Thus, the new peak is clearly caused by the proximity-induced superconductivity in the normal metal. 

In order to explain the origin of this peak, we note that the so-called Josephson-quasiparticle (JQP) process gives rise to very similar features in superconducting (SSS) single electron transistors . In that process, a Cooper pair first tunnels into (or from) the island through one junction, and then two quasiparticles tunnel separately through the other junction. Because Cooper pair tunnelling can only take place when the energy does not change in the process, the JQP cycle is possible only at resonance voltages given by 

$$V=\frac{4E_C}{e}(n\pm \frac{Q_0}{e}),$$
(1)   
where $`n`$ is an integer which is related to the number of extra electrons in the central island of the transistor. In our asymmetric voltage bias, in which one terminal of the transistor is grounded and the bias voltage $`V`$ is applied in the other terminal, $`Q_0=C_g(V_gV/2)+Q_b`$, where $`C_g`$ is the gate capacitance and $`Q_b`$ is the background charge induced by charged impurities near the island .

In an SS’S-SET the basic JQP process is possible at bias voltages $`(\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }^{}+E_C)/e<V<(\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }^{}+3E_C)/e`$. Thus, when $`E_C\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }^{})`$, the JQP current peak is located at $`V(\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }^{})/eV_T/2`$ independent of the gate voltage, as we have earlier observed in SSS-SETs. The current peak of the SPS-SET of Fig. 2b has this property. 

When $`E_C`$ is not very small, Eq. (1), which is valid even when the energy gap in the island of the transistor is different from that in the terminals, gives a series of lines in the $`V_gV`$ plane at which the JQP cycle is possible. When $`V`$ is ramped at a constant $`V_g`$ as in Fig. 2 or, alternatively, $`V_g`$ is ramped at a constant $`V`$, a current peak can be observed when one of those lines is crossed. The latter method was used in the measurements of Fig. 3a, which shows current $`I`$ as a function of $`V_g`$ at several bias points $`V<2\mathrm{\Delta }/e`$ in one of our SPS-SET samples. We can see clear current peaks which move when $`V`$ is changed. The positions of the peaks in the $`V_gV`$ plane are plotted in Fig. 3b, with lines corresponding to Eq. (1) with $`e/C_g=1.0`$ mV, $`Q_b/e=0.05`$ and $`E_C=48`$ $`\mu `$eV. The good fit supports strongly the interpretation of these features in terms of the JQP process.

The fitted $`E_C`$ is in agreement with the depth $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$ of the zero-voltage dip of the dynamic conductance in normal state. The value measured at $`T=4.2`$ K and scaled with the asymptotic conductance $`G_T=1/R_T`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }G/G_T=0.062`$. If the electromagnetic environment of the transistor is not taken into account, we would expect a somewhat smaller value $`\mathrm{\Delta }G/G_T=E_C/(3k_BT)=0.044`$ when $`E_C=48`$ $`\mu `$eV . However, assuming a resistive environment with $`RZ_0=377`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the free space impedance, as in Ref. , the expected value increases to $`\mathrm{\Delta }G/G_T0.058`$, which agrees well with the measured value. The agreement was good in our other samples, too. On the other hand, the gate voltage dependence of the threshold voltage of quasiparticle current, $`V_T`$, was much weaker than expected. For the sample of Fig. 3, the measured $`V_{T,\mathrm{max}}V_{T,\mathrm{min}}20`$ $`\mu `$eV instead of the expected $`2E_C/e96`$ $`\mu `$eV.

A somewhat naive way to estimate the expected height $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ of the JQP peak in the SPS-SET is to use the result derived for the SSS-SET :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }I\frac{2e^3}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{E_{J}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}R_T}{eV+E_C}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2[K(\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Delta }^2/\mathrm{\Delta }^2})]^2}{2R_Te(eV+E_C)},$$
(2)   
where we have used the Ambegaokar-Baratoff (AB) value  for the Josephson coupling constant,

$$E_J=\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}{2R_Te^2}K(\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Delta }^2/\mathrm{\Delta }^2}),$$
(3)   
between two superconductors having energy gaps $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ ($`<\mathrm{\Delta }`$) at $`T=0`$. Here $`K(x)`$ is the complete elliptic integral of the first kind and $`R_T`$ is the tunnelling resistance of a single junction. If we now assume that the proximity effect induces an energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}E_T`$ in the central island of the SPS-SET transistor, Eq. (2) predicts a JQP peak with height $`\mathrm{\Delta }I1.4`$ nA for the sample of Fig. 2b, for example. The measured value is more than two orders of magnitude smaller, $`\mathrm{\Delta }I8`$ pA, suggesting that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ is about an order of magnitude smaller than expected. The observed width of the peak, $`\mathrm{\Delta }V=53`$ $`\mu `$V, is in a reasonable agreement with the expected $`\mathrm{\Delta }V\mathrm{}(eV+E_C)/(e^3R_T)=39`$ $`\mu `$V.

In all of our samples the observed peak height was much smaller than predicted by Eq. (2), by a factor between about 30 and 300. This is in agreement with not observing any difference in $`V_{T,\mathrm{min}}`$ between SNS and SPS transistors. Equation (2) is based on the AB value of $`E_J`$, which often predicts supercurrents which are orders of magnitude larger than those experimentally observed in samples with submicron Josephson junctions . Note also that Eq. (3) would predict for the sample of Fig. 2b the maximum ”supercurrent” near $`V=0`$ of $`I_c^{\mathrm{max}}eE_J/\mathrm{}2.7`$ nA, whereas the observed value is only about 1 pA. The observed supercurrents were very small in our other SPS-SETs, as well. 

If the JQP peaks in the SPS-SET are caused by a proximity-induced energy gap proportional to $`E_T`$ in the central island, their height $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ should depend strongly on the dimension $`L`$ of the sample: because $`E_TL^2`$, Eq. (2) predicts that $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ is roughly proportional to $`L^4`$. We tested this prediction in two samples, each of which consisted of three separate SPS-SETs with $`L=0.50`$, 0.90 and 1.15 $`\mu `$m fabricated simultaneously on the same chip. In sample 1, $`d`$ was varied in such a way that the tunnel junctions were always near the ends of the Cu island, whereas in sample 2, $`d`$ was kept constant. The results are shown in Fig. 4, in which the small-current IV characteristics of the transistors are shown with the gate voltage $`V_g`$ adjusted in such a way that the JQP peak was strongest; this corresponds to the situation in which two JQP lines in Fig. 3b cross. The measurements were made at $`T40`$ mK, such that $`\xi _N(T)0.8`$ $`\mu `$m. Current is multiplied by the resistance of a single tunnel junction, $`R_T`$, in order to remove the $`1/R_T`$ dependence of the peak heights (see Eq. (2)).

In both samples 1 (Fig. 4a) and 2 (Fig. 4b) the scaled peak height $`\mathrm{\Delta }(R_TI)`$ depends strongly on $`L`$. The insets of Fig. 4 show the measured $`\mathrm{\Delta }(R_TI)`$ as a function of $`L^4`$, together with the prediction based on Eq. (2) but divided by 55. Even though the observed peaks are again almost two orders of magnitude smaller than predicted by Eq. (2), the dependence of the peak height on $`L`$ is in good agreement with the expectation based on the existence of an energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}E_T`$ in the Cu island. This is especially remarkable in sample 2, in which only the length of the island was varied but the distance between the measuring junctions and the extra Al strip of the island was kept constant. This suggests strongly that the proximity effect really induces in the Cu island a constant energy gap, whose size depends on the length of the island. 

In conclusion, we have studied the charge transport properties of a new kind of a single electron transistor, which consists of superconducting leads, normal island and a superconducting strip evaporated in metal-to-metal contact across the normal island. We have observed new current peaks caused by the superconducting proximity effect in this structure. Based on the gate voltage dependence of the positions of the features, we interpret them as the Josephson-quasiparticle (JQP) peaks. The dependence of the JQP peak heights on the dimensions of the sample suggests the existence of a proximity-induced energy gap in the normal metal island of the transistor. This gap is, however, smaller than the order-of-magnitude theoretical estimate that we have used, and too small to modify the large-scale current-voltage characteristics on an observable level. 

We thank the Academy of Finland for financial support.

FIGURE CAPTIONS