# Superconducting Proximity Effect and Universal Conductance Fluctuations

## Abstract

We examine universal conductance fluctuations (UCFs) in mesoscopic normal-superconducting-normal (N-S-N) structures using a numerical solution of the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equation. We discuss two cases depending on the presence (“open” structure) or absence (“closed” structure) of quasiparticle transmission. In contrast to N-S structures, where the onset of superconductivity increases fluctuations, we find that UCFs are suppressed by superconductivity for N-S-N structures. We demonstrate that the fluctuations in “open” and “closed” structures exhibit distinct responses to an applied magnetic field and to an imposed phase variation of the superconducting order parameter.

Transport properties of mesoscopic structures in contact with superconducting segments have attracted a great deal of interest . In these structures, the superconducting proximity effect induces novel transport phenomena, including sub-gap anomalies in normal-superconducting (N-S) contacts and phase-dependent conductances in Andreev interferometers. Quasiclassical theory, which has been widely applied, has been successful in explaining phenomena associated with ensemble-averaged properties but it cannot describe fluctuations about the mean .

In normal diffusive nanostructures of size smaller than the phase coherence length $`l_\varphi `$ but larger than the elastic mean free path $`l_{\text{el}}`$, the conductance fluctuates by an amount of order $`e^2/h`$. These fluctuations can be observed by varying either the magnetic field, gate potential, or impurity configuration. The fluctuations are universal within the diffusive regime: their magnitude is partly determined by symmetry and does not depend on the degree of disorder or system size. Such a symmetry-breaking operation is the application of an external magnetic field which breaks time reversal (TR) symmetry and decreases the rms fluctuations by a factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$.

For normal-superconducting systems, it has been shown  that the onset of superconductivity increases the rms magnitude of UCFs by a factor which depends on the underlying order parameter. Beenakker and Brouwer (BB)  predict that in the absence of phase gradients for the order parameter, breaking TR symmetry has a negligible effect on the rms conductance fluctuations $`\delta G_{\text{NS}}`$ of a N-S structure. Altland and Zirnbauer (AZ) , on the other hand, find that $`\delta G_{\text{NS}}`$ decreases by a factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$, provided that the average phase change of an Andreev-reflected quasiparticle is zero. When the latter condition is satisfied, AZ predict that in zero magnetic field,

$$\delta G_{\text{NS}}(B=0)=2\sqrt{2}\delta G_{\text{NN}}(B=0),$$
(1)   
where $`\delta G_{\text{NN}}`$ is the rms conductance fluctuation when the S contact is in the normal state. Since switching on a magnetic field decreases both $`\delta G_{\text{NS}}`$ and $`\delta G_{\text{NN}}`$ by a factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$, they also find

$$\delta G_{\text{NS}}(B0)=2\sqrt{2}\delta G_{\text{NN}}(B0)=2\delta G_{\text{NN}}(B=0).$$
(2)   
In contrast, since BB predict that $`\delta G_{\text{NS}}`$ is almost insensitive to TR symmetry breaking, they obtain

$$\delta G_{\text{NS}}(B=0)2\delta G_{\text{NN}}(B=0)$$
(3)   
$$\delta G_{\text{NS}}(B0)=2\sqrt{2}\delta G_{\text{NN}}(B0)=2\delta G_{\text{NN}}(B=0).$$
(4)   
Thus the AZ and BB scenarios yield essentially the same fluctuations for finite $`B`$, a result which has recently been tested experimentally , whereas they yield fluctuations of different magnitudes in zero field.

In this paper we examine for the first time the crossover between the AZ and BB scenarios and predict that this crossover is observable in closed Andreev interferometers. The BB and AZ calculations are applicable to N-S structures with a single N contact, whereas many experiments involve two or more N contacts . We also examine the field and phase dependence of fluctuations in the conductance $`G_{\text{NSN}}`$ of N-S-N structures possessing two normal (N) contacts . For the considered geometries, these have not been explored before in the literature.

We consider the two limiting cases of N-S-N structures shown in Fig. 1, comprising two N-reservoirs attached to a normal diffusive region with superconducting contacts and a current flowing from left to right. In Fig. 1a, the two superconductors do not intersect the diffusive normal region and affect transport only through the proximity effect. In this structure, quasiparticle transmission between the reservoirs is possible and therefore we refer to this as “open”. In the second, “closed”, structure of Fig. 1b, a superconductor of length $`L_\text{S}`$ divides the diffusive region into two normal regions, each of length $`L_\text{N}`$. The length $`L_\text{S}`$ of the superconducting segment is much greater than the superconducting coherence length $`\xi `$ and therefore quasiparticle transmission through the superconductor is suppressed.

FIG. 1. a) An open Andreev interferometer where the superconducting segments are located outside the classical path of the current. The N-S interfaces contain an optional Schottky barrier with transmissivity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (i.e., transmission probability per channel). The S segments have an order-parameter phase difference of $`\varphi =\varphi _1\varphi _2`$ b) A closed interferometer where the superconducting segments divide the normal diffusive region into two halves with no transmission from left to right. At the interface between the S segments there is a tunnel barrier of width 1 site and transmissivity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$.

In the linear-response limit and at zero temperature, the relationship between the current $`I`$ and the reservoir potential difference $`v_1v_2`$ was first obtained in  and the corresponding conductance (in units of $`2e^2/h`$) may be written in the form ,

$$G_{\text{NSN}}=T_0+T_a+2\left[\frac{R_aR_a^{}T_aT_a^{}}{R_a+R_a^{}+T_a+T_a^{}}\right],$$
(5)   
where unprimed \[primed\] quantities $`T_0`$ and $`R_0`$ ($`T_a`$ and $`R_a`$) are normal (Andreev) transmission and reflection probabilities for quasiparticles from lead 1 \[lead 2\]. To evaluate this expression, we solve the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equation numerically on a two-dimensional tight-binding lattice with diagonal disorder, utilizing the decimation method to evaluate the transport coefficients of a two-probe structure . The magnetic field is introduced via the Peierls substitution and the disorder in the normal diffusive area is introduced by varying the site energies at random within the range $`[w/2,w/2]`$.

Conductance fluctuations are universal only if transport through the normal structures is diffusive. Therefore, following , we choose the disorder $`w`$ such that the conductivity of the diffusive normal region is independent of its length $`L`$. For a sample of width $`M=35`$, in the absence of superconductivity, Fig. 2 shows the dimensionless conductivity $`l=GL/M`$ as a function of $`L`$ for four different values of disorder $`w`$. In the quasi-ballistic regime, $`G`$ approaches the Sharvin conductance and $`l`$ increases linearly with $`L`$, whereas at intermediate $`L`$, $`l`$ exhibits a plateau, corresponding to the diffusive regime of interest. In units of the lattice constant, this plateau value of $`l`$ is equal to the elastic mean free path $`l_{\text{e}l}`$. Therefore, Fig. 2 represents a mapping between the model-dependent parameter $`w`$ and the experimentally accessible quantity $`l_{\text{e}l}`$. Finally, for values of $`L`$ larger than the localization length $`\lambda Nl_{\text{el}}`$, where $`N=30`$ is the number of open channels, $`l`$ decreases with increasing $`L`$. In Figs. 4–5 we choose $`w=1.5`$, corresponding to a mean free path of $`l_{\text{el}}8`$. The other length scales (in units of the lattice constant) are $`M=35`$, $`L_\text{N}=75`$, $`L_\text{S}=40`$, $`W=10`$ and $`\xi =10`$, where $`\xi `$ is the superconducting coherence length setting the scale for the decay of zero-energy wavefunctions within the superconductor .

FIG. 2. Quantity $`GL/M`$ plotted as function of $`L`$ for different strengths $`w`$ of disorder. The region where the curve is essentially constant corresponds to diffusive transport. The constant defines the mean free path $`l_{\text{el}}`$. The dotted lines at $`l=l_{\text{el}}`$ are guides to the eye.

Figure 3 shows the rms fluctuations as a function of $`l`$ for a normal structure in the absence of superconductivity and for the N-S-N structures of Fig. 1 (with zero magnetic field and a constant order-parameter phase); it demonstrates that fluctuations are independent of $`l`$. This universal behavior is in agreement with previous numerical  and analytical  works. In the diffusive regime, the presence of superconductivity for both structures in Fig. 1 suppresses the fluctuations by a factor of order $`\sqrt{2}`$.

For the closed structure in Fig. 1b, all transmission coefficients necessarily vanish, and for structures of type 1a, the presence of disorder and a proximity-induced suppression of the density of states may also cause transmission coefficients to be negligible. In this case, Eq. (5) reduces to a sum of two N-S resistances, $`G_{\text{NSN}}=1/(2R_a)+1/(2R_a^{})`$, associated with Andreev reflection of quasiparticles from the two decoupled reservoirs. By adding two statistically independent N-S resistances in series, one finds that in the absence of transmission, the fluctuations $`\delta G_{\text{NSN}}`$ of the total conductance are related to the fluctuations $`\delta G_{\text{NS}}`$ of the N-S-conductance by $`\delta G_{\text{NSN}}=\delta G_{\text{NS}}/2\sqrt{2}`$. Therefore, in the absence of transmission, the $`\sqrt{2}`$ decrease in $`\delta G_{\text{NSN}}`$ due to the onset of superconductivity is a consequence of this relation and Eq. (3) .

FIG. 3. Universal conductance fluctuations (rms deviations) in units of $`2e^2/h`$ as function of $`l`$ for a normal structure (crosses), open N-S-N structure (open circles), and closed N-S-N structure (closed circles), obtained from over 500 realizations of disorder. The mean free path extends over three regimes: localized ($`l<6`$), diffusive ($`6<l<35`$) and quasiballistic ($`l>35`$). The solid lines at $`\delta G=\delta G_\text{N}=0.358`$ and $`\delta G=\delta G_\text{S}=0.267`$ show the average of the standard deviations within the diffusive regime in the normal and superconducting cases, respectively. The dashed lines indicate 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 4a shows that in the presence of a large enough magnetic field, the rms fluctuations of both a normal structure and the open structure in Fig. 1a are suppressed by a factor of order $`\sqrt{2}`$. However, in agreement with the prediction of BB, the suppression of $`\delta G_{\text{NSN}}`$ for the closed structure of Fig. 1b is at most of the order of 10%.

To demonstrate that a crossover from the BB to the AZ scenario is possible in such interferometers, we have also investigated the effect of imposing a difference $`\varphi `$ between the order parameter phases of the two superconductors. The results of these calculations are shown in Fig. 4b. For the closed structure, in the absence of magnetic field (solid line), $`\delta G_{\text{NSN}}`$ increases monotonically as $`\varphi `$ increases from zero, reaching a maximum at $`\varphi =\pi `$. The enhancement factor at $`\varphi =\pi `$ is of order $`\sqrt{2}`$, which is the ratio of the AZ and BB predictions for UCFs, thereby demonstrating that a crossover is indeed possible in closed interferometers. In the presence of a magnetic field (dashed line), the fluctuations become nearly independent of the phase difference $`\varphi `$ since time reversal symmetry is already broken by the field. Remarkably, the corresponding curve for the open structure shows no phase dependence. At present, there exists no analytic derivation of this result. In contrast with the mean conductance $`G`$, which at $`E=0`$ is independent of $`\varphi `$, but exhibits large-scale oscillations at finite $`E`$ , we have found no significant phase dependence in the fluctuations, even at energies of the order of the Thouless energy.

Figures 3 and 4 demonstrate that if the N-S interfaces are clean enough, the magnitude of UCFs are sensitive to the onset of superconductivity in the S contacts. As a final result, we note that this effect is suppressed by the presence of Schottky barriers at the N-S interfaces. This

FIG. 4. a) External magnetic field breaks time reversal symmetry and decreases the magnitude of fluctuations by a factor of 1.3 both in a normal structure (crosses) and in an open interferometer (open circles). However, for the closed structure of Fig. 1b (solid circles), the suppression is only of the order of 10%. The dashed lines at $`\delta G_{\text{NSN}}(B0)=0.207`$, $`\delta G_{\text{NSN}}(B0)=0.254`$ and $`\delta G_{\text{NN}}(B0)=0.275`$ show the average of fluctuations for fluxes $`\mathrm{\Phi }>\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2=h/2e`$ in open, closed, and normal structures, respectively. b) Magnitude $`\delta G_{\text{NSN}}`$ of universal conductance fluctuations as functions of the phase difference $`\varphi =\varphi _1\varphi _2`$ between the superconducting segments in the absence (solid line and circles) and the presence (dashed line and triangles) of a magnetic field. Results are presented for both closed (solid markers) and open interferometers (open markers).

is demonstrated in Fig. 5 which shows $`\delta G_{\text{NSN}}`$ as a function of the barrier conductance $`G_B=N\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for different numbers of channels $`N`$ in the contact and transmissivities $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For $`G_B10e^2/h`$, the fluctuations approach those of a purely normal structure and for $`G_B20e^2/h`$ fluctuations characteristic of a N-S-N structure with no barriers are obtained. From an experimental viewpoint, this suppression could be used as a novel probe of the strength of such barriers.

In summary, we have used the numerical solution of the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations to demonstrate that conductance fluctuations in normal-superconducting mesoscopic structures depend on (i) the presence or absence of quasiparticle transmission through the structure, (ii) the external magnetic field, and (iii) the order-para-

FIG. 5. Tunnel barrier at the N-S interface of the open structure in Fig. 1a weakens the effect of superconductivity and for barrier conductance $`G_B10e^2/h`$, the fluctuations start to resemble those in the absence of superconductivity. Here the barrier conductance is expressed in the units of $`2e^2/h`$ and fluctuations are plotted for 47 (solid square markers), 38 (open squares), 35 (solid circles), 23 (open triangles) and 19 (solid triangles) open channels at the interface.

meter phase difference between the superconducting contacts. If the phase of the superconducting order parameter is constant and time-reversal symmetry is not broken by a magnetic field, the open and closed structures possess the same UCFs, namely $`\delta G_{\text{NSN}}0.26[2e^2/h]`$. In contrast to the predictions of AZ and BB for N-S structures, this is smaller by roughly a factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$ than the normal-state fluctuations $`\delta G_{\text{NN}}`$. Applying a magnetic field to the open structure decreases $`\delta G_{\text{NSN}}`$ by an additional factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$, a result which lies outside current analytic calculations , whereas for the closed structure the suppression is found to be much weaker (roughly 10 %), as suggested by BB. We have also examined the phase dependence of UCFs and shown that for a closed structure, $`\delta G_{\text{NSN}}`$ increases by almost $`\sqrt{2}`$ as the phase difference between two superconducting segments is varied from zero to $`\pi `$, thereby demonstrating a crossover

from the BB scenario to the AZ scenario. In contrast for the open structure, we find that $`\delta G_{\text{NSN}}`$ is essentially independent of phase. The calculated magnitudes of the UCFs are summarized in Table I.

The numerical simulations have been performed in a Cray C94 of the Center for Scientific Computing (CSC, Finland). TH acknowledges the postgraduate scholarship awarded by Helsinki University of Technology and the hospitality of the Lancaster University.