Eye-Movement behavior identification for AD diagnosis

Abstract: In the present work, we develop a deep-learning approach for differentiating the eye-movement behavior of people with neurodegenerative diseases over healthy control subjects during reading well-defined sentences. We define an information compaction of the eye-tracking data of subjects without and with probable Alzheimer's disease when reading a set of well-defined, previously validated, sentences including high-, low-predictable sentences, and proverbs. Using this information we train a set of denoising sparse-autoencoders and build a deep neural network with these and a softmax classifier. Our results are very promising and show that these models may help to understand the dynamics of eye movement behavior and its relationship with underlying neuropsychological correlates.

\section{Introduction}
Alzheimer's disease (\textit{AD}) is a nonreversible neurodegenerative disease characterized by progressive impairment of cognitive and memory functions that develops over a period of years being the most prevalent cause of dementia in elderly subjects.
Initially, people experience memory loss and confusion, which may be mistaken for the kinds of memory changes that are sometimes associated with normal aging \cite{waldemar2007recommendations}.
The subtle changes in behavior and response of the early manifestation of this disease make it difficult to diagnose by using the classical neuropsychological tests such as the Mini-Mental State Examination.
The use of more advanced diagnosis tools such as MRI and PET results is critical for its early diagnosis.
Since \textit{AD} is nonreversible, its early treatment can improve the patient's life delaying the full manifestation of the disease.
In the last years, the study of the eye movement, known as \textit{eye-tracking}, during reading, has proved to help performing this task \citep{fernandez2015patients, fernandezpatients, fernandez2015diagnosis, fernandez2013eye}.

Reading is a cognitive activity that has received considerable attention of researchers to evaluate human cognitive performance.
This requires the integration of several central cognitive subsystems, from attention and oculomotor control to word identification and language comprehension.
Eye movements show a reproducible pattern during normal reading.
Each eye movement ends up in a fixation point, which allows the brain to process the incoming information and to program the following saccade.
Different neuropsychiatric pathologies produce abnormalities in eye movements and disturbances in reading, having each of them a particular pattern that can be registered and measured \citep{fernandez2016word, fernandez2016contextual, holzman1974eye, iacono1992smooth, riby2009looking, kellough2008time}.
Eye movements can be classified into three groups:
\begin{itemize}
    \item Movement for maintaining the image on the fovea (area of the retina with acuity vision), compensating head or object movements;
    \item Movements for shifting the eyes, when the attention changes from one object to another. There are subtypes of shifting movements: saccades (looking for a new center of visual attention), monitoring and vergence (slower than saccades and are responsible for carrying the image of interest to both foveae, allowing stereoscopic vision);
    \item Movements of binocular fixation that also prevent fading of the image. These movements have three variations: tremor, drift, and microsaccade.
\end{itemize}
Saccades are rapid big eye movements particularly important from the cognitive point of view since cognitive processes have a direct influence on such movements.
Each saccade has its direction.
People, depending on language, read from left to right and most of the saccadic eye movements are oriented accordingly.
These normal reading movements are called forward saccades.
Reading movements going from right to left are called regressions.
The saccade movement alternates with a fixation made when the eyes are directed to a particular target (See \citep{rayner1998eye} for a review).
As shown in \citep{fernandez2013eye}, patients with early Alzheimer disease show alterations during the execution of tasks, such as reading, and these alterations can be related to an impairment in their working memory \citep{fernandez2014registering, fernandezpatients}.
In fact, it has been shown that through this differentiation in the eye-movements, it is possible to infer a diagnosis \citep{fernandez2015diagnosis}.

The use of computer-aided diagnosis is a key challenge since the growth of computational power permits the creation of more complex models.
These models can be used to create biomarkers that help in disease identification.
Since the popularization of \textit{deep-learning} neural networks \cite{schmidhuber2015deep, deng2014deep}, many efforts have been made in their use in the field of medicine.
This technique is commonly used in conjunction with imaging diagnoses such as PET or MRI mainly because the feature representation that this technology provides may help even when data is incomplete \cite{li2014deep}.
Specifically, there were advances in the detection and pattern differentiation of the physical brain alterations that neurodegenerative diseases produce, such as \textit{AD} and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) \cite{suk2013deep, suk2014hierarchical}.
Even there were advances in its early diagnostic \cite{liu2014early}.
The problem is that, when a brain physical alteration is observable, the damages made to the brain are irreversible (even though the disease is in an early stage) and may cause deterioration in the quality of life of the patient.
The eye-tracking technique allows us to find subtler changes that were made by the brain to alleviate small memory deficits in the patient.
These changes are not noticed by the patient but small changes in the way they read our set of sentences can be found with the technique presented in this paper.

In this work, we use a deep-learning neural network trained on reading information extracted from controls and patients with probable \textit{AD} in order to identify the patterns made by them in the reading process and later cluster them in their respective groups.
Throughout this work, we may use \textit{AD} patients and patients with probable \textit{AD} in an interchangeable manner because of the nature of the \textit{AD} diagnosis.
The hypothesis was that using deep-learning in the feature identification of the key characteristics of the patient's eye behavior during reading sentences may lead to a correct classification that can be used to infer a diagnosis.
Using this type of technology may improve the results obtained in \citep{fernandez2015diagnosis} since it provides a smaller granularity in the detection of the disease and consequently, a better performance.
Additionally, this technology allows us to improve the effectiveness of the classification as we collect more ground truth subjects.

\section{Methods}

\subsection{Ethics Statement}
The investigation adhered to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Bioethics Committee of the Hospital Municipal de Agudos (Bah{\'i}a Blanca, Buenos Aires, Argentina).
All patients and their caregivers, and all control subjects signed an informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study.

\subsection{Participants}
Twenty six patients (mean age $69$ years, $SD=7.3$ years) with the diagnosis of probable \textit{AD} were recruited at Hospital Municipal of Bah{\'i}a Blanca (Buenos Aires, Argentina).
The clinical criteria to diagnose \textit{AD} at its early stages remains under debate \cite{mckhann1984clinical}.
In the present work, the diagnosis was based on the criteria for dementia outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV).
All \textit{AD} patients underwent a detailed clinical history revision, physical/neurological examination and thyroid function test.
They all presented an APO E3E4 Genotype.
Magnetic resonance images were obtained from twelve patients and computerized tomography scans from the other.
All the patients underwent biochemical analysis to discard other common pathologies (hemoglobin, full blood count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, urea and electrolytes, blood glucose).
All this data provided a more precise diagnosis of \textit{AD}.
Patients were excluded if: (1) they suffered from any medical conditions that could account for, or interfere with, their cognitive decline; (2) had evidence of vascular lesions in computed tomography or FMRI; (3) had evidence for an Axis I diagnosis (e.g. major depression or drug abuse) as defined by the DSM-IV.
To be eligible for the study, patients had to have at least one caregiver providing regular care and support.
Patients taking cholinesterase inhibitors (ChE-I) were not included. None of the subjects were taking hypnotics, sedative drugs or major tranquilizers.
The control group consisted of $43$ elderly adults (mean age $71$ years, $SD=6.1$ years), with no known neurological or psychiatric disease according to their medical records, and no evidence of cognitive decline or impairment in daily activities.
A one-way ANOVA showed no significant differences between the ages of \textit{AD} and \textit{Control} individuals.
Those participants diagnosed of suffering from Ophthalmologic disease such as glaucoma, visually significant cataract or macular degeneration as well as visual acuity less than 20/20 were excluded from the study.

The mean scores of \textit{Controls} and \textit{AD} patients in the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) \cite{folstein1975mini} were $27.8$ ($SD=1.0$) and $24.2$ ($SD=0.8$), respectively, the latter suggesting early mental impairment.
A one-way ANOVA evidenced significant differences between MMSE in \textit{AD} patients and \textit{Controls} ($p<0.001$). The mean score of \textit{AD} patients in the Adenbrook's Cognitive Examination - Revised (ACE-R) \cite{mioshi2006addenbrooke} was $84.4$, ($SD=1.1$), the cut-off being of $86$.
The mean school education trajectories in \textit{AD} patients and \textit{Controls} were $15.2$ ($SD=1.3$) years and $15.1$ ($SD=1.0$) years, respectively.
A one-way ANOVA showed no significant differences between the education of \textit{AD} and \textit{Control} individuals.

\subsection{Apparatus and eye movement data}
Single sentences were presented on the center line of a 20-inch LCD Monitor ($1024$\textit{x}$768$ pixels resolution; font: regular; New Courier; 12 points, $0.2^{\circ}$ in height). Participants sat at a distance of 60 cm from the monitor. Head movements were minimized using a chin rest. Correction for the 60 cm viewing distance was performed by using the \textit{Eyelink1000} corneal reflection system, which assessed changes in gaze position by measuring both the reflection of an infrared illuminator on the cornea and the pupil size, by means of a video camera sensitive to light in the infrared spectrum.

Eye movements were recorded with an \textit{EyeLink1000 Desktop Mount} (SR Research) eye tracker, with a sampling rate of 1000 Hz and an eye position resolution of a 20-s arc.
All recordings and calibration were binocular.
Eye movement data from $69$ participants reading $184$ sentences resulted in a total of $48716$ fixations - $13002$ for \textit{Control} and $35714$ for the people with \textit{AD}.
This data was cleaned from blinks and track losses.
Prior to removing the analysis fixations shorter than $51ms$ and longer than $750ms$, and fixations on the first and last word of each sentence (see \citep{kliegl2006tracking} for a description of the analytic procedure), we measured, for each patient, the elapsed time between the instant when sentences were first presented, and the instant when participants looked at the final spot: mean reading time in high-predictable sentences was $3495 ms$ vs. $5635 ms$ (Controls and \textit{AD}) and $4828 ms$ vs. $6881 ms$ (controls and \textit{AD}) in low predictable-sentences.

\subsection{Procedures}
Participant's gaze was calibrated with a standard 13-point grid for both eyes.
After validating the calibration, a \textit{trial} began with the appearance of a fixation point on the position where the first letter of the sentence was to be presented.
As soon as both eyes were detected within a radius equal to $1^{\circ}$ from the fixation spot, the sentence was presented.
After reading it, participants looked at a dot in the lower right corner of the screen; when the gaze was detected on the final spot, the \textit{trial} ended. Occasionally, external factors such as minor movements and slippages of the head gear could cause small drifts. To avoid them, we performed a drift correction before the presentation of each spot.

To assess whether subjects comprehended the texts, they were presented with a three alternative multiple-choice question about the sentence in progress in $20\%$ of the sentence \textit{trials}. Participants answered the questions by moving a mouse and choosing the response with a mouse click. Overall mean accuracy was $95\%$ ($SD=3.2\%$) in \textit{Control} and $91\%$ ($SD=5.4\%$) in \textit{AD}. A one-way ANOVA showed no significant differences between comprehension of the answers in \textit{Controls} and in \textit{AD} patients. The latter were only marginally less accurate than \textit{Control} subjects, probably because they were in an early stage of the pathology, as indicated by the MMSE and ACE-R values. Once the comprehension test ended, the next \textit{trial} started with the presentation of the fixation spot. An extra calibration was done after 15 sentences or if the eye tracker did not detect the eye at the initial fixation point within 2 s.

\subsection{Sentence corpus}
The sentence corpus was composed of short sentences of a line with $75$ low predictable sentences, $45$ high-predictable sentences and $64$ proverbs (e.g., \say{Maria is always laughing and in a good mood}, \say{It is worthwhile to think before talking} and \say{A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush})\cite{fernandez2014eye}.
All the sentences comprised a well-balanced number of content and function words and had similar grammatical structure.

\subsubsection{Word and Sentence Lengths}
Sentences ranged from a minimum of $5$ words to a maximum of $14$ words.
Mean sentence length was $8.1$ ($SD=1.4$) words for low predictability sentences, $7.6$ words ($SD=1.5$) for high predictability sentences and $7.3$ words ($SD=1.9$) for proverbs.
Words ranged from $1$ to $14$ letters.
Mean word length was $4.6$, $4.1$ and $4.0$ ($SD=2.5$, $SD=2.3$ and $SD=2.0$) for low-, high-predictable sentences and proverbs, respectively.

\subsubsection{Word Frequencies}
We used the Spanish Lexical Lexesp corpus \cite{sebastian2000lexesp} for assigning a frequency to each word of the sentence corpus. Word frequencies ranged from 1 to 264721 per million, so we transformed it to $log_{10}(frequency)$. Mean $log_{10}(frequency)$ was 3.4 ($SD=1.3$) for low predictability sentences, 3.4 ($SD=1.5$) for high predictability sentences and $3.47$ ($SD=1.36$) for proverbs.

\subsubsection{Word Predictability}
It was measured in an independent experiment with $18$ researchers of the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department of Universidad Nacional del Sur.
We used an incremental cloze task procedure in which participants had to guess the next word given only the prior words of the sentence.
Participants guessed the first word of the unknown sentence and entered it via the keyboard.
In return, the computer presented the first word of the original sentence on the screen.
Responding to this, participants entered their guess for the second word and so on, until a period indicated the end of the sentence.
Correct words stayed on the screen.
Participants were between 31 and 62 years old and did not participate in the reading experiment.
Academic background of the reading experiment group and the cloze task group was similar.
Word predictabilities ranged from $0$ to $1$ with a mean of $0.38$ ($SD=0.36$).
The average predictability measured from the cloze task was transformed using a $logit$ function $0.5*ln(pred/(1 - pred))$; predictabilities of zero were replaced with $1/(2*18) = - 2.55$ and those among  the five perfectly predicted words with $(2*18 - 1)/(2*18) = +2.55$, where 18 represents the number of complete predictability protocols.
Mean $logit$ predictability was $- 0.9$ ($SD=0.9$) for low predictability sentences, $0.0$ ($SD=1.29$) for high predictability sentences and $0.08$ ($SD=1.23$) for proverbs.

As in other languages, we find strong correlations in Spanish between word length, word frequency, and word predictability.
Long words are of low frequency ($r = -0.80$ and $r = -0.75$ in low and in high predictability sentences, respectively).
Frequent words are highly predictable ($r = 0.47$ and $r = 0.37$ in low and in high predictability sentences, respectively), and highly predictable words tend to be short words ($r = -0.47$ and $r = -0.38$ in low and in high predictability sentences, respectively).

\subsection{Used information}
The information used for this work was a \textit{trial-wise} compaction of the original data where we keep descriptors of the mean reading behavior of the subjects in each read sentence.
We measured the saccade amplitude, fixation duration and duration of the fixation on a single word of the subject during the reading of each sentence but only kept the mean and the standard deviation.
In addition, we measured the total number of fixations and classified them by first pass fixations, refixations, unique fixations and total fixations:
\begin{itemize}
    \item First pass fixations: The first fixation on a specific word of the sentence.
    \item Unique fixations: Fixations that occur once in a word that was skipped in the first pass.
    \item Multiple fixations: Multiple fixations on a word in the first pass.
    \item Refixations: Fixations that take place once a word that already has a \textit{first pass fixation} or a \textit{unique fixation} implying a regression.
\end{itemize}

Categorical data as the diagnosis (used as training labels) was replaced by numerical values in order to unify the data types and improve during the classification process.
An integer with two possible values was used for the diagnosis information construction: $0$ for \say{Control} and $1$ for \say{AD}.
The identification and the diagnosis information of the subject were kept apart from the data.
A detail of the variables used as input for the model construction is shown in table \ref{tab:varnames}.
Since the tag (\textit{AD} or \textit{Control}) is associated to the patient and not to each sentence, and, since we use a per-trial classification approach, the subject's tag was applied to all the sentences read by him/her.
Following this approach may introduce noise in the classifying stage because, as we use a per-trial classification approach, a \textit{Control} subject could, for example, be distracted during the reading of a specific sentence thus making him read as a non-healthy person.
Anyway, the system should be able to detect and ignore these artifacts because many samples are used in the training stage.

\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\caption{Used variables for the model construction.}{\begin{tabular}{  l  l }
    \textbf{Name} & \textbf{Description} \\ \cline{1-2}
    nw & Number of words in the sentence.\\ \hline
    gaze & Global (sentence) mean of the sum of fixation durations on the same word.\\ \hline
    sd\_gaze & Standard deviation of \textit{gaze}.\\ \hline
    as & Mean saccade amplitude in the sentence.\\ \hline
    sd\_as & Standard deviation of \textit{as}\\ \hline
    ntf & Count of the total number of fixations on the sentence.\\ \hline
    ntm & Count of the number of multifixations on the sentence.\\ \hline
    dfp & Mean duration of the first pass fixations on the sentence.\\ \hline
    sd\_dfp & Standard deviation of \textit{dfp}.\\ \hline
    fpp & Count of the number of first pass fixations on the sentence. \\\hline
    rf & Count of refixations on the sentence.\\ \hline
    nfu & Count of unique fixations on the sentence.\\ \hline
    dfu & Mean duration of unique fixations on the sentence.\\ \hline
    sd\_dfu & Standard deviation of \textit{dfu}.\\ \hline
    \end{tabular}}
\label{tab:varnames}
\end{center}
\end{table}

All the data was previously outlier-checked by establishing a dropout policy in order to use a cleaner dataset.
The outlier check policy consisted of finding the mean and the $SD$ of each condition group and checking the two groups separately.
All the \textit{trials} where the standard deviation was bigger than two times the standard deviation of the group were considered as outliers and was dropped out, resulting in a $10\%$ samples lost.
The sentence identiﬁcation, order, and type were kept separate from the training information.
This is because the standard deviations in the information for the \textit{AD} patients for proverbs and high predictability sentences, appear to be particularly high after the data is outlier-checked, causing a highly unbalanced dataset.

The resulting dataset consisted on $3235$ \textit{trials} with mean $46.88$ ($SD=10.76$) \textit{trials} per subject.
The dataset was splitted in two groups: one for the training of the network with data of $61$ subjects and other for testing with data of $8$ subjects randomly picked.
Finally, the training dataset consisted on $2922$ \textit{trials} of $61$ subjects - $39$ \textit{Control} and $22$ \textit{AD} - with $47.9$ ($SD=10.47$) mean \textit{trials} each; the testing dataset consisted on $313$ \textit{trials} of $8$ subjects - $4$ \textit{Control} and $4$ \textit{AD} - with $39.12$ ($SD=10.37$) mean \textit{trials} each.
Splitting the data in this way ensures that the network can't infer the condition in other way, avoids over-fitting and ensures that the testing data is totally unknown by the network.

\subsection{Deep learning with \textit{denoising sparse-autoencoders}}
In this work we used \textit{sparse-autoencoders} for the codification stage.
The \textit{sparse-autoencoders} work just as regular \textit{autoencoders}, i.e. there are neural networks under supervised learning with the targets set equal to the input (the identity) but, in the case of \textit{sparse-autoencoders}, an average number of activations per neuron restriction was applied in the hidden layer by penalizing the average number of activations different from the desired (known as sparsity proportion) adding a penalty term to the cost function.
This restriction is introduced so that each neuron specializes on a particular feature.
The lower the sparsity proportion, the more  specific the feature.
The resulting trained neural network can be thought of as: an encoder, involving the input and the hidden layer, and a decoder, involving the hidden and the output layer.
In this case, we set an activation restriction equal to $10\%$.

In a \textit{denoising-autoencoder}, the idea is to force the hidden layer to discover more robust features and to prevent it from simply learning the identity, by training the \textit{autoencoder} to reconstruct the input from a corrupt version.
The altered version of the input was generated by introducing noise, which was obtained by clamping some of the fields to zero.
The corrupt data was used as the \textit{sparse-autoencoder} input, and the clean (unaltered) data as the target.
Using this type of data corruption mechanism forces the network to learn a way of reconstructing a field based on others.
This, combined with the sparsity restriction, results in more robust features.

The deep-learning neural network was built using two stages of these \textit{denoising sparse-autoencoders}.
In each stage, we train the \textit{autoencoder} by corrupting the encoded clean data obtained from the previous stage, and providing it to the next as its input.
At the end of the two stages, we set a \textit{softmax} layer as a classifier, training it with uncorrupted data and the corresponding tag.
As we used a \textit{per-trial} classification approach, the patient diagnosis was extended to all the sentences read by him and the classifier was trained with this data as the target.
The \textit{softmax} layer is a non-linear, multiclass generalization of the binary \textit{Logistic Regression}, and its output is the \say{probability} for each class (we quoted the word \say{probability} because it's shape depends on of the regularization used in the training stage, it can be more diffuse or peaky).

\section{Results}
Several configurations were generated by varying the sparsity proportion, the number of units and layers and the shape of the network (same vs. decreasing number of units between layers).
We adopted the one that produced the best results which consisted of two layers of \textit{denoising sparse-autoencoders} with $16$ and $4$ hidden units in the hidden layer each, using a sparsity proportion of $10\%$.
After the training of the network, a series of tests were performed with data not included in the training dataset.
This dataset, as mentioned, was composed of $313$ sentences from $8$ subjects - $4$ \textit{Control} and $4$ \textit{AD} - with $39.12$ ($SD=10.37$) mean \textit{trials} each.
We used a \textit{softmax} layer for the classification trained using the condition translation with $0$ for \textit{Control} subjects and $1$ for \textit{AD} subjects.
This means that we have a single class \say{AD} and, since the output of the classifier is a real number between $0$ and $1$, the read sentences classified by the network with values close to $0$ have a small \say{probability} of being read by an \textit{AD} patient (i.e. high probability of being read by a \textit{Control} patient) and vice-versa.
The \say{ground truth} values are known, so we can split the output into groups and observe the number of sentences misclassified by the network.
Based on this, we show the output of the network where values below $0.5$ are considered as classified as \textit{Control}, and higher values are considered as classified as \textit{AD} (see Figure \ref{fig:hist}).
As can be seen, the output of the network was consistent with the expected values.

\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{hist}
\caption{Classification results histogram representing number of sentences, split by \say{ground truth} values. Values below 0.5 are considered as classified as \textit{Control}, and higher values are considered as classified as \textit{AD}.}
\label{fig:hist}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{confusion}
\caption{Classification results. Values below 0.5 are considered as classified as \textit{Control} (class 0), and higher values are considered as classified as \textit{AD} (class 1).}
\label{fig:confusion}
\end{figure}

Now, we can round the values so we can plot a confusion matrix and approximate the number of misclassified sentences in order to measure the performance of the network.
In the figure \ref{fig:confusion} we can see a confusion matrix of the output.
The \say{X} axis represents the expected output values and the \say{Y} axis the rounded output of the network.
As can be seen, the overall performance of the network was good giving a $89.8\%$ of well-classified sentences.
The performance of the network using sentences read by \textit{Control} patients ($88.7\%$ correctness) approximates to the performance observed using sentences read by \textit{AD} patients ($91.0\%$ correctness).

\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{type}
\caption{Number of misclassified sentences by type, split by \say{ground truth} label.}
\label{fig:type}
\end{figure}

On the other hand, misclassified sentences were not concentrated on a particular type of sentence as can be seen in figure \ref{fig:type}.
Here we can see the original concentration of sentences types in the testing dataset and the correctness of the classification following the mentioned method.

\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.81\textwidth]{near-data-codification}
\caption{Parallel coordinates plot with two subsets (one composed of \textit{AD} patients and the other of \textit{Control} subjects) of trials that have similar values for the input in each field and its codification during the different stages of the network. As expected, similar values encoded \say{together}. \textit{Control} subjects encoded closer than \textit{AD} subjects; This may be due the high \say{within group} variability of the \textit{AD} group.}
\label{fig:encoding-near}
\end{figure}

This result, added to the fact that neither was a concentration of misclassiﬁcation in a particular sentence, may suggest that most of the misclassiﬁcations occurred due to presumably stochastic processes.
In addition, the trained networks were evaluated using a spread result test in order to determine the softness of the model.
These tests checked if similar information is encoded in a similar way in the subsequent stages of the network.
A significant differentiation in later stages of encoding may show over-fitting in the network (and/or in the different stages).

Two subsets (one composed of \textit{AD} patients and the other of \textit{Control} subjects) of \textit{trials} that have similar values for the input in each field are shown in Figure \ref{fig:encoding-near}.
As shown, similar input values map to similar encoded values on each stage of the \textit{autoencoders}. This is because the modeled function is smooth. Furthermore, the data through the subsequent stages of codification tends to group.
These results have shown that the output information such as the encoding in the different stages are reliable.
On the other hand, they show that certain neurons in later stages tend to specialize on the detection of specific \textit{AD} or \textit{Control} input features.

\section{Conclussions and future work}
The results showed that using a deep-learning architecture for identifying the characteristic eye movements patterns of neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's disease is a good approach since this technology is focused on pattern finding and is suitable for this work.
Moreover, the high performance in a per-trial classification approach, leads us to conclude that, since a single patient reads many sentences, the assertion rate per patient is higher than the $89.8\%$ accuracy reported in this work.
Using the policy that network outputs higher than $0.5$ are classified as \textit{AD} and below as \textit{Control}, if we tag each patient using \say{majority voting} over all of his/her read sentences, the network gets a $100\%$ classification accuracy for the testing set - $8$ well classified subjects from $8$ total -.
This was expected since, on this test set, the total number of missclassified sentences is $32$ and every patient, after the dataset cleaning, have $39.12$ ($SD=10.37$) mean sentences.

\begin{table}[h!]
\begin{center}
\caption{Comparison of mean value given by the network and \say{severity of the disease} score given by psychiatrists.}{\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\textbf{IDPat}& \textbf{Mean}& \textbf{S D} & \textbf{Score} & \textbf{Difference} \\ \cline{1-5}
58         & 0,97         & 0,17                     & 0,9   & 0,07       \\
57         & 0,95         & 0,17                     & 0,5   & 0,45       \\
66         & 0,49         & 0,32                     & 0,5   & 0,01       \\
60         & 0,95         & 0,16                     & 0,6   & 0,35       \\
56         & 0,96         & 0,16                     & 0,8   & 0,16       \\
55         & 0,94         & 0,17                     & 0,7   & 0,24       \\
63         & 0,87         & 0,25                     & 0,8   & 0,07       \\
64         & 0,51         & 0,34                     & 0,5   & 0,01       \\
70         & 0,90         & 0,24                     & 0,5   & 0,40       \\
69         & 0,84         & 0,25                     & 0,5   & 0,34       \\
65         & 0,91         & 0,22                     & 0,6   & 0,31       \\
59         & 0,58         & 0,36                     & 0,6   & 0,02       \\
71         & 0,75         & 0,33                     & 0,6   & 0,15       \\
62         & 0,76         & 0,32                     & 0,6   & 0,16       \\
67         & 0,47         & 0,35                     & 0,5   & 0,03       \\
68         & 0,40         & 0,31                     & 0,8   & 0,40       \\
53         & 0,84         & 0,31                     & 0,8   & 0,04       \\ \cline{1-5}
           &              &                          & \textbf{Mean}  & 0,19       \\ \cline{4-5}
           &              &                          & \textbf{SD}    & 0,15
\end{tabular}}
\label{tab:score_comp}
\end{center}
\end{table}

Additionally, we asked the head psychiatrists of other \textit{AD} patients (that were not included in training process) to elaborate a score of the overall severity of the disease of each patient on the traditional tests using a scale from $0$ to $1$, without knowing the results given by our network.
The process of creating the score required that the physicians have a deep knowledge of the psychiatric history of each patient, the recompilation of the results of every neuropsychological tests made by the patient and its comprehension.
Table \ref{tab:score_comp} shows the scores given by the psychiatrists compared with the mean value obtained in our network for all the sentences read by the subjects and its standard deviation (S D).
As seen, for most of the patients, the values obtained are very similar to the scores given by the psychiatrists with a mean value of $0.19$ ($SD=0.15$).
The obtained results show that the created marker is reasonably close to the score but involves a much simpler process.

Finding a better way to interpret the output of the classifier is left as future work.
An improvement is required because values near $0.5$ are not determined to be identified as \textit{AD} or \textit{Control} (equal \say{probabilities}).
The policy chosen in this work is a first rough approach that doesn't reflect the actual power of the network.
Using a fuzzy-logic encoder to obtain the overall diagnosis of a patient might lead to a more accurate result.
Determining whether the number given by the classiﬁer is related to the severity of the disease is left as a future improvement.
This task is particularly difficult since there are no ground truth measurements to corroborate the information due to the current psychological testing methods.
Anyway, although we adopted a per-trial classification approach, it's easy to think that the overall diagnosis may be related to a measurement extracted from the entire test and not from a single \textit{trial}.
As shown before, even with the policy used on this work and simply using the mean of the scores or the \say{controlling} label, this network behaved as expected.

\bibliographystyle{plainnat}

Neural and Evolutionary Computing (cs.NE); Neurons and Cognition (q-bio.NC)


An Upper Limit on Gas Production from 3200 Phaethon

Abstract: Asteroid 3200 Phaethon resembles a comet in some ways, including a highly-eccentric orbit (e=0.89) and a strong associated meteor shower (the Geminids). Yet this object has never been observed to exhibit any cometary activity, i.e., gas production. We observed 3200 Phaethon with the Caltech Submillimeter Observatory on two occasions, once while it was near its closest approach to Earth as it neared perihelion, and another while it was further from Earth post-perihelion. Observations of the J=2-1 and J=3-2 rotational transitions of 12CO, typically strong lines in comets and indicative of gas production, yielded no detection. Upper limits on the 12CO production of 1.8e28 molecules/s and 7.6e28 molecules/s for Phaethon were determined on these two occasions.

\section{Introduction}

Asteroid 3200 Phaethon was discovered by the Infrared Astronomical
Satellite in 1983 \citep{grekow83}. Almost immediately thereafter its
orbit was noted to be very similar to that of the Geminid meteor
shower \citep{whi83}. This makes it the only asteroid linked to a
strong meteor shower.  A possible exception is asteroid 2003~EH1,
which is associated with the Quadrantid shower
\citep{jen04,wilryabat04,wiebro05}) but which has not yet been
observed near perihelion and thus whether it is asteroidal or cometary
in nature remains unclear.

The link between Phaethon and the Geminid meteor shower is also based
on the closeness of their orbits, thus one could argue that they are
simply aligned by coincidence. However, based on the very small
difference between their orbits (see Table~1) and the absence of other
objects on orbits nearby, \citet{wiebro04a} determined that
probability of the orbital similarity of Phaethon and the Geminids
being due to a chance alignment is less than one in a thousand. Though
Phaethon's current activity (if any) is certainly low, intermittent or both,
a study of the orbits of observed Geminids has indicated that they are
consistent with cometary release no more than 2000 years ago and
possibly within the last 600 years \citep{gus89}. Thus ongoing,
perhaps sporadic, gas production by this object remains a
possibility.

If 3200~Phaethon is not a comet, this does not mean it cannot be the
parent body of the Geminids. A collision or impact might have released
the material which formed the Geminid stream. A new rare population of
{}``main-belt comets'' has been uncovered in the last several years
\citep{hsijew06}, bodies whose gas and dust production may be partly
the result of collisions. However, the sublimation of volatiles from the
body's surface also has a role to play, as evidenced by the seasonal cycle of
activity that has been seen in one of them (133P/Elst-Pizarro) to date
\cite[]{hsijewlow07}.

We note that Geminid meteors are much more durable than
typical cometary meteors: studies of their ablation in Earth's atmosphere
have shown that they have mean densities of 2.9~g~cm$^{-3}$ \citep{bab02},
the highest of any of the streams measured. This may imply that the
Geminids are made of relatively strong rocky asteroidal material rather
than more porous and fragile cometary material. However, the question
is complicated by the small (0.14~AU \citep{coo73}) perihelion distance
of the Geminid stream. Smaller than is typical of comets, this low
perihelion distance could result in extreme baking and sintering of
the meteoroid particles, producing more durable meteoroids than might
otherwise be expected of a cometary meteoroid stream.

Phaethon's association with a strong meteor shower and its highly
eccentric orbit ($e\approx0.89$) make it a candidate cometary object.
Yet in the over two decades since its discovery (which include many
perihelion passages of its 1.43-year orbit), no cometary activity has
ever been observed \citep{cocbar84,chamcfsch96,hsijew05}.

Phaethon's spectral type is B \cite[]{gremeadav85}, a primitive type
associated with the outer portion of the main asteroid belt, though
its albedo (0.11-0.17) is somewhat higher than would be expected of
such a type \cite[]{veekowmat84,gremeadav85}, as was pointed out by
\cite{weibotlev02}.  Visible and near IR spectroscopy of Phaethon
support its identification as an asteroid rather than a comet nucleus
\cite[]{liccammot07}.  Phaethon has been also linked with the smaller
asteroid 2005~UD, with which it shares a bluish colour, an absence of
dust production \cite[]{jewhsi06} and an orbital similarity
\cite[]{ohtsekkin06}.  Is Phaethon then an asteroid, and if so, how
did it produce its meteor stream?

The question of the nature of this unusual object can only be answered
by ongoing observations. In particular, observations which might reveal
gas production by this body are the most important to undertake, as
a positive detection would unequivocally identify this object as a
comet, though its muted activity might imply it was extinct or dormant.
Given the lack of previous detection of gas from Phaethon, its gas
production rate is undoubtedly low, and observations should ideally
be conducted near perihelion, or as close to it as can be managed
given the interfering presence of the Sun.

In this paper we describe our attempts to measure gas production on
Phaethon through the detection of $J=2\rightarrow1$ and
$J=3\rightarrow2$ rotational transitions of the $^{12}$CO molecule at
the Caltech Submillimeter Observatory (CSO), located atop Mauna Kea,
Hawaii.  Observations in the mm/sub-mm range suffer the constraints of
bad weather even more than traditional optical astronomy. This project
arose from an idea to use time on the CSO that was unsuitable for
projects requiring excellent atmospheric conditions for other
purposes.  The choice of Phaethon as a target, despite its lack of
observed activity, was motivated by its meteor stream and the
intermittency of activity seen in other comets eg. in the main-belt:
ongoing monitoring of this object seems justifiable.  The
$J=2\rightarrow1$ and $J=3\rightarrow2$ rotational transitions of
carbon monoxide (CO) are strong in bright comets, though not perhaps
ideal indicators of gas production for Phaethon. They were chosen as
being among our best bets given our observational window during
mediocre conditions ($\tau_{225~GHz} \sim 0.15$). In fact our upper
limit on gas production using these lines is comparable to that of
a moderate-activity comet, and by observing as close to perihelion as
possible, we hoped to catch Phaethon in outburst. Though our attempt
was unsuccessful, only by ongoing observations will Phaethon's nature
be clarified.

We present the three spectra we obtained from corresponding sets of
observations and discuss our results in the next sections.

\section{Observations}

The three sets of observations were taken at the Caltech Submillimeter
Observatory, with the 200-300 GHz receiver on 5 November 2004 and 13
September 2005 for the $^{12}$CO($J=2\rightarrow1$) transition, and
with the 300-400 GHz receiver on 5 November 2004 for the
$^{12}$CO($J=3\rightarrow2$) transition. All spectra were obtained
with the high-resolution acousto-optics spectrometer (AOS) of 50 MHz
total bandwidth and approximately 100 kHz resolution. The CSO has a
10.4-meter dish and a beam diameter of approximately 30 and 20
arcseconds at the frequencies in question (i.e., approximately 230 GHz
and 345 GHz for $^{12}$CO $J=2\rightarrow1$ and $J=3\rightarrow2$,
respectively). For all of our observations, the data were taken using
the beam switching mode (i.e., by wobbling the secondary mirror) to
allow for cancellation of sky background emission. While reducing the
data we have set the receiver efficiencies to 70\% for both
transitions.  This corresponds to situations where not only the main
beam of the telescope probes the source, but also the sidelobes. This
technique has been used by other investigators observing
cometary lines at the CSO (eg. \cite{bocliswin00}). We assume that this
would be applicable to our observations if there were a gas cloud
surrounding 3200 Phaethon from which the sought transitions were
detected (see Discussion below) .

For the observations obtained on 5 November 2004, 3200 Phaethon was
1.05~AU from Earth, allowing us a close look at the object as it
passed, and 1.894~AU from the Sun, approaching perihelion. Its
elevation angle varied from $54^{\circ}$ to $28^{\circ}$ in the
morning sky, as it was moving rapidly towards the Sun. We obtained 50
minutes of observation (ON-source), but the $J=2\rightarrow1$
rotational transition line from $^{12}$CO was not detected. Given
mediocre sky conditions ($\tau_{225\,{\rm {GHz}}}\simeq0.15$) and a
system temperature of $T_{{\rm {sys}}}\simeq444{\rm {K}}$, we were
able to integrate down to a noise floor of 14~mK (with a velocity
resolution of $\simeq1\,{\rm {km\, s^{-1}}}$ after {}``smoothing'' the
spectrum to lower the noise level), and determine an upper limit
($3\sigma$) of approximately $T\simeq42\,{\rm {mK}}$ for the
brightness temperature of the line. We also attempted to detect the
$J=3\rightarrow2$ transition from $^{12}$CO previously on the same
night, when Phaethon was at an elevation of $70^{\circ}$ to
$59^{\circ}$ with a similar outcome. For these observations, with a
system temperature $T_{{\rm {sys}}}\simeq918{\rm {K}}$, the 48 minutes
of ON-source integration yielded an upper limit of
$T\simeq69\,{\rm {mK}}$ in a velocity resolution of
$\simeq0.7\,{\rm {km\, s^{-1}}}$. Our last set of data was obtained on
13 September 2005 when we again attempted to observe the
$J=2\rightarrow1$ transition from $^{12}$CO under comparable observing
conditions (i.e., $\tau_{225\,{\rm {GHz}}}\simeq0.16$ and $T_{{\rm
    {sys}}}\simeq440{\rm {K}}$). On that night, 3200 Phaethon was
1.904~AU from Earth and 2.298~AU from the Sun approaching aphelion.
Earlier observations nearer perihelion were impossible because Phaethon
had been in the daytime sky for many months.  This new set of data (50
minutes of integration ON-source), obtained at elevation angles
ranging from $35^{\circ}$ to $70^{\circ}$, yielded no detection and an
upper limit of approximately $T\simeq48\,{\rm {mK}}$, again with
a velocity resolution of $\simeq1\,{\rm {km\, s^{-1}}}$.  The spectra
that resulted from our observations are presented in Figure
\ref{fig:spectra}.

\section{Discussion}

The submillimeter rotational transitions of $^{12}$CO have been studied
in detail for comets and the strength of the lines can be linked to
gas production rates \citep{croleb83}.

Assuming a lifetime of $^{12}$CO against dissociation by solar UV
radiation at 1~AU of $\tau=1.5\times10^{6}$~s (\citet{huecar79} from
\cite{croleb83}) and assuming a gas expansion velocity $v_{{\rm {\rm
}{exp}}}=800$ m/s (the pre-perihelion value determined for Hyakutake
from submillimeter observations by \citet{bivboccro99}), any $^{12}$CO
cloud around 3200 Phaethon should have a diameter
$\sim2.4\times10^{6}$~km, with an angular size of about 0.9 degree at
1~AU. A comparison of this angular size with the CSO main beam sizes
quoted earlier for our observations justifies the efficiency adopted
for our observations (i.e., 70\%).

Assuming fluorescence equilibrium and a Haser distribution \citep{has57,bercosque98}
with $\gamma_{{\rm {\rm }{CO}}}=v_{{\rm {\rm }{exp}}}\tau=1.2\times10^{6}$~km,
and using an emission constant $T_{B}\Delta v/\langle N_{{\rm {\rm }{CO}}}\rangle$
of $3.65\times10^{-16}$~K~km~s$^{-1}$~(molec. cm$^{-2}$)$^{-1}$
and $8.08\times10^{-16}$~K~km~s$^{-1}$~(molec. cm$^{-2}$)$^{-1}$
for the $J=2\rightarrow1$ and $J=3\rightarrow2$ transitions, respectively
\citep{croleb83}, we can derive a corresponding upper limit on $Q_{{\rm {\rm {\rm }{CO}}}}$,
the rate of $^{12}$CO production, of approximately $1.8\times10^{28}$~$\rm{molecules}\cdot\rm{s}^{-1}$
for 5 November 2004 (from the $J=3\rightarrow2$ transition). More
precisely, at 1.05~AU (the distance between Earth and 3200 Phaethon
during the corresponding observations) the dependence on the measured
and assumed parameters can be expressed as

\begin{equation}
Q_{{\rm {\rm }{CO}}}\approx3.60\times10^{28}\left(\frac{v_{{\rm {\rm }{exp}}}}{800~\textrm{{m/s}}}\right)^{2}\left(\frac{T_{B}}{42~\textrm{{mK}}}\right)\textrm{molecules}\cdot\textrm{s}^{-1}\label{eq:Q2-1}\end{equation}

\noindent for the $J=2\rightarrow1$ transition, and

\begin{equation}
Q_{{\rm {\rm }{CO}}}\approx1.77\times10^{28}\left(\frac{v_{{\rm {\rm }{exp}}}}{800~\textrm{{m/s}}}\right)^{2}\left(\frac{T_{B}}{69~\textrm{{mK}}}\right)\textrm{molecules}\cdot\textrm{s}^{-1}\label{eq:Q3-2}\end{equation}

\noindent for the $J=3\rightarrow2$ transition. Using an equation
similar to equation (\ref{eq:Q2-1}) for a distance of 1.904~AU we also
establish an upper limit of $Q_{{\rm {\rm
}{CO}}}\approx7.6\times10^{28}$~$\rm{molecules}\cdot\rm{s}^{-1}$  for 13 September 2005.

These upper limits are lower than production rates observed for very
bright comets at the same heliocentric distance, e.g., C/1995 O1
(Hale-Bopp), $Q_{{\rm {\rm }{CO}}}=2.07\times10^{30}$~$\rm{molecules}\cdot\rm{s}^{-1}$
\citep{dismumdel01}. The limits are comparable to the production rate of
C/1996 B2 Hyakutake, $Q_{{\rm {\rm }{CO}}}\approx5\times10^{28}$~$\rm{molecules}\cdot\rm{s}^{-1}$
near 1~AU \citep{bivboccro99}, though it is a long-period comet and
expected to be rich in ices.

Comet 2P/Encke, an old low-activity comet, might provide a better
benchmark. Though its carbon monoxide production has not been measured
to our knowledge, we can estimate this from its H$_{2}$O production
rate, which has measured at 0.8 to $2.6\times10^{28}$
molecules~s$^{-1}$ at similar heliocentric distances
\citep{maksilsch01}. The $^{12}$CO to H$_{2}$O ratio in comets is
variable, ranging from 0.5\% to 22\% \citep{bivboccro99,
dismumdel01,mumdeldis01b, mumdeldis01, mummcldis01,
disdelmag02,felweabur02,dismumdel03,disandvil07}. Taking the ratio to
be 5\%, we can derive a corresponding expected $^{12}$CO production
rate of $0.4\times10^{27}$ to $1.3\times10^{27}$~molecules~s$^{-1}$
for comet Encke. Though a nearly-extinct comet could produce $^{12}$CO
at even lower rates, this presents us with a target measurement
sensitivity of $Q_{\mathrm{CO}}\sim10^{27}$~molecules~s$^{-1}$.

In view of these numbers it will be necessary to make deeper observations
of 3200 Phaethon in order to detect any $^{12}$CO production or to
reduce significantly our derived upper limits.  It follows that we
need to increase our sensitivity by at least an order of
magnitude. The results discussed here were obtained under relatively
poor sky conditions and improving these limits should be feasible with
a combination of longer exposure times and better observing conditions
(e.g., $\tau_{225\,{\rm {GHz}}}\simeq0.05$), as is relatively common
(20\% to 25\% of the time) on Mauna Kea. The sensitivity can also be
increased by observing Phaethon when it is closest to Earth, as the
detection limit drops approximately linearly with the Earth-comet
distance. Observations of this object during its upcoming close
approach to Earth ($\las0.13$~AU in December 2007) would thus be
particularly recommended.

\acknowledgements{M.H.'s research is funded through the NSERC
Discovery Grant, Canada Research Chair, Canada Foundation for
Innovation, Ontario Innovation Trust, and the University of Western
Ontario's Academic Development Fund programs. This work was supported
in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada. The Caltech Submillimeter Observatory is funded by the NSF
through contract AST 05-40882.}

\newpage{}\bibliographystyle{icarusbib}


Enhancement of supercurrent through ferromagnetic materials by interface engineering

Abstract: Josephson junctions containing ferromagnetic materials exhibit interesting physics and show promise as circuit elements for superconducting logic and memory. For memory applications, the properties of the junction should be controllable by changing the magnetic configuration inside the junction. To achieve good magnetic switching properties, one should choose a soft magnetic material such as NiFe (permalloy); however, NiFe exhibits poor supercurrent transmission in Josephson junctions. In this work we put thin layers of Ni on either side of the NiFe and characterize the magnetic behavior and supercurrent transmission properties of the Ni/NiFe/Ni trilayers as a function of Ni and NiFe thicknesses. Using a Ni thickness of 0.4 nm, we find that the magnetic switching behavior of the trilayers is not severely degraded relative to plain NiFe, while the maximum supercurrent in the $\pi$-state of the trilayer Josephson junctions is increased by a factor of four relative to that of NiFe junctions. We speculate that the supercurrent enhancement is due to the different spin-dependent transport properties of the Cu/Ni and Cu/NiFe interfaces.

\section{Introduction}
Josephson junctions containing ferromagnetic materials are the subject of intense study both because of their rich physics \cite{Buzdin2005} and because they show promise for applications in superconducting digital logic and memory \cite{Ryazanov2012,Soloviev2017} and for various superconducting qubit designs for quantum computing \cite{Ioffe1999, Blatter2001, Yamashita2005, Feofanov2010}. Due to the exchange splitting between the majority and minority spin bands in ferromagnetic (F) materials, spin-singlet Cooper pairs undergo rapid phase oscillations and decay in the F layer \cite{Demler1997,Buzdin2005}. As a result of these oscillations, the ground-state phase difference across the junction can be either 0 or $\pi$ depending on the thickness of the F layer \cite{Ryazanov2001,Kontos2002}. Such $\pi$-junctions have been proposed as circuit elements in single-flux-quantum (SFQ) logic and memory circuits of several different kinds \cite{Ustinov2003, Ortlepp2006, Khabipov2010, Kamiya2018,Takeshita2021, Katam2018}. Interest in SFQ circuits has risen in recent years due to their potential for energy-efficient computing \cite{Holmes2013} or for use as an interface to a cryogenic quantum computer \cite{Howington2019}.

For memory applications it would be advantageous to be able to change the properties of a junction by changing the magnetic configuration inside the junction \cite{Krivoruchko2001, Golubov2002}. That can be achieved by inserting two independent F layers inside the junction in a ``pseudo spin-valve” configuration, in which the magnetization of one layer remains fixed while the other is free to rotate in a small external field. Using such a scheme, several groups have demonstrated modulation of the critical current amplitude \cite{Bell2004,Baek2014,Qader2014} or the phase state of the junction \cite{Gingrich2016,Dayton2018,Madden2018}.

The applications mentioned above can be divided into two classes: those where the ferromagnetic Josephson junction acts as a passive phase shifter, always remaining in the supercurrent-carrying state, and those where the critical current is occasionally exceeded, causing the junction to switch momentarily into the voltage state. In the former case, the junction is typically surrounded by conventional superconductor/insulator/superconductor (S/I/S) junctions, which undergo switching during logic or memory read operations. The ferromagnetic (S/F/S) junction must then have larger critical current ($I_c$) than the nearby S/I/S junctions to avoid switching of the S/F/S junction into the voltage state. While one can increase $I_c$ simply by increasing the lateral area of the junction, that is undesirable because it causes the magnetic layers to be in a multi-domain state, which is detrimental to their magnetic switching properties. Instead, it is preferable for the S/F/S junction to have a critical current density, $J_c$, that is much larger than that of the nearby S/I/S junctions. In the latter case where the junction switches into the voltage state during logic operations, one desires instead to have a large $I_cR_N$ product, where $R_N$ is the normal-state resistance of the junction, because the speed at which the junction switches from the supercurrent state to the voltage state is proportional to $I_cR_N$. That can be achieved by inserting a thin insulating barrier inside the junction in tandem with an extra superconducting layer to make a so-called S/I/s/F/S junction \cite{Larkin2012,Vernik2013}. In this work we are interested in the first class of junctions; hence our goal is to optimize $J_c$ as opposed to $I_cR_N$.

The Josephson junctions used in many of the junction-modulation demonstrations mentioned earlier \cite{Bell2004,Baek2014,Qader2014, Gingrich2016, Dayton2018} used permalloy (a Ni-Fe alloy with approximately 80\% Ni) as the free layer, because it is a soft magnetic material with low coercivity. Unfortunately, supercurrent transmission through permalloy is low compared to, for example, pure Ni \cite{Robinson2006,Glick2017,Baek2018}. But the latter has high coercivity, not suitable for a free layer, and was in fact used as the fixed magnetic layer in most of the demonstrations mentioned above \cite{Baek2014,Qader2014, Gingrich2016, Dayton2018}. The relative size of the supercurrent transmission through permalloy (henceforth called ``NiFe”) and Ni has not been addressed theoretically, because nearly all the theory papers describing S/F/S Josephson junctions treat the band structure of the F materials in an oversimplified way \cite{Buzdin2005}. (We will discuss the one exception \cite{Ness2022} later.) To achieve our goal of increasing the critical current density, $J_c$, we must turn to empirical knowledge gained either from previous studies of S/F/S junctions (such as those cited above), or from related studies of spin-polarized transport in the normal state. For the latter, we are very fortunate. Through studies of Giant Magnetoresistance (GMR) of metallic multilayers, the spin-dependent transport properties of many ferromagnetic materials and their interfaces with normal metals have been measured by Bass and Pratt and their collaborators at Michigan State University, and tabulated in a review article \cite{Bass2016}. It is known, for example, that the minority-spin electrons in NiFe have a very short mean free path and also have poor transmission at a NiFe/Cu interface \cite{Vila2000}. Those two properties may largely be responsible for the small supercurrent in NiFe-containing Josephson junctions, as well as its rapid decay with increasing NiFe thickness. The GMR work cited above has shown that both the boundary resistance and spin-scattering asymmetry are smaller for the Cu/Ni interface than for the Cu/NiFe interface \cite{Bass2016}. Based on those results, our strategy in this work is to ameliorate the poor interface transmission by inserting thin Ni layers at each Cu/NiFe interface -- i.e. by replacing NiFe with a Ni/NiFe/Ni trilayer. The results of this strategy are promising: we find that we can increase the supercurrent transmission through NiFe by about a factor of 4 by using 0.4 nm of Ni on each side of the trilayer. The magnetic switching behavior of the trilayer is only slightly degraded compared to that of a NiFe film of comparable thickness.

\section{Fabrication and Measurement}
\subsection{Thin films}
Thin multilayer films with structure base/Ni(0.4)/NiFe($d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}$)/Ni(0.4)/cap (layer thicknesses in nanometers) were deposited on 0.5 inch$\times$0.5 inch Si chips by dc triode magnetron sputtering. The base layer used was [Nb(25)/Al(2.4)]$_3$/Nb(20)/Cu(2) to match the base electrode of our Josephson junctions. The deposited films were capped with Cu(2)/Nb(5) to prevent oxidation. Our NiFe sputtering target has a nominal composition of Ni$_{81}$Fe$_{19}$, while energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) analysis of thick sputtered films suggest a film composition closer to Ni$_{82}$Fe$_{18}$. Sputtering deposition was performed at an Ar pressure of 0.3 Pa and a substrate temperature of 250 K. The base pressure of the sputtering chamber was $4 \times 10^{-6}$ Pa. The NiFe layer thickness, $d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}$ was varied from 0.4 to 3.2 nm in steps of 0.4 nm. For comparison, we sputtered thin NiFe($d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}$) samples with the same $d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}$. We also sputtered Ni(0.2)/NiFe($d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}$)/Ni(0.2) trilayers with the same base and capping layers with $d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}$ varying from 0.4 to 1.8 nm in steps of 0.2 nm. All depositions were performed in the presence of a small magnetic field of about 20 mT to align the magnetocrystalline anisotropy of the NiFe in a known direction. The target voltages and currents used for different materials are listed in \cite{Glick2017Thesis}. The sputter rates are highly stable and are measured every few minutes to ensure there is no variation during the process. The stability of the sputter rates along with the computer control of the deposition times make the deposition of extremely thin layers highly reproducible from sample to sample and across different runs. Film thicknesses for several materials have been verified using low-angle X-ray reflection measurements. Polarized neutron reflectometry studies of superlattices also confirm that the thicknesses are very close to the nominal deposition thicknesses \cite{Quarterman2020}.

The moment vs field measurements for all sets of thin films were performed using a SQUID-based Vibrating Sample Magnetometer (VSM) at a temperature of 10 K.

\subsection{Josephson junctions}
The detailed fabrication process for ferromagnetic Josephson junctions has been published previously \cite{Glick2017}. The bottom lead photo-lithographic stencil was patterned on a Si substrate, and then [Nb(25)/Al(2.4)]$_3$/Nb(20)/Cu(2)/F/Cu(2)/Nb(5)/Au(10) was sputtered where F denotes the set of ferromagnetic layers. We deposited three different sets of junctions: in the first set, the F layers consisted of Ni(0.4)/NiFe($d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}$)/Ni(0.4) where $d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}$ was varied from 0.4 to 3.4 nm in steps of 0.2 nm; in the second set, the F layers were Ni(0.2)/NiFe($d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}$)/Ni(0.2) where $d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}$ was varied from 0.2 to 1.6 nm in steps of 0.2 nm; in the third set the F layers were NiFe($d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}$) where $d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}$ was varied from 1.0 to 3.7 nm in steps of 0.1 nm. The depositions were performed at similar substrate temperature and Ar pressure as our thin films described earlier. Elliptical junctions with lateral dimensions of \SI{1.25}{\micro \meter}$\times$\SI{0.5}{\micro \meter} and major axis oriented along the magnetic easy axis defined by the magnetocrystalline anisotropy were then patterned by e-beam lithography with a negative ma-N2401 e-beam resist followed by ion-milling. The area surrounding the junctions was then covered with $\mathrm{SiO_x}$ \textit{in-situ} to avoid shorting between the bottom and top superconducting electrodes. The e-beam resist was then removed, and the top lead stencil was patterned using photolithography. After 5 nm of the previous Au(10) capping layer was ion milled \textit{in-situ}, the top Nb(150)/Au(10) superconducting electrodes were deposited by sputtering.

Josephson junctions were mounted on a probe with a built-in superconducting magnet and inserted inside a liquid helium dewar for transport measurements at 4.2 K. The samples were first initialized in a magnetic field of 0.2 T applied along the magnetic easy axis (elliptical major axis) to fully saturate the magnetic layers. Then $I$-$V$ curves were measured as a function of field, in fields up to 0.1 T in both directions.

\section{Results}
\subsection{Thin film magnetics}
Fig \ref{fig:MvH} shows the moment per unit area vs field for a selected set of Ni(0.4)/NiFe($d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}$)/Ni(0.4) and NiFe($d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}$) samples. As expected, each trilayer behaves as a single ferromagnetic film due to the strong exchange coupling across the interfaces. The coercivities of the samples with Ni are higher than those of plain NiFe samples, but they are still relatively low. The switching profile is also relatively sharp even though we see traces of slow Ni switching near the closing of the hysteresis loops. Note that the total thickness of each sample in the left panel is 0.8 nm greater than the corresponding sample in the right panel due to the Ni layers, so one should compare a Ni/NiFe/Ni sample with a NiFe sample that is $\approx 0.8$ nm thicker.

\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig1_MvH.eps}
\caption{Moment/Area ($m/\mathrm{Area}$) vs field ($H$) for selected Ni(0.4)/NiFe($d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}$)/Ni(0.4) (left) and NiFe($d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}$) (right) samples measured at $T = 10$ K.  The values of $d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}$ are shown in both panels.}
\label{fig:MvH}
\centering
\end{figure}

Fig. \ref{fig:Hc_Comparison} shows the coercivities vs total ferromagnetic (F) layer thickness for NiFe($d_{F}$), Ni(0.2)/NiFe($d_{F}$-0.4)/Ni(0.2) and Ni(0.4)/NiFe($d_{F}-0.8$)/Ni(0.4) samples. We chose the total F-layer thickness instead of the NiFe thickness as the x-axis to better compare these samples with varying Ni thicknesses. (This method makes more sense than comparing samples with the same NiFe thicknesses, but it is not perfect since Ni and NiFe have different magnetizations.) The figure shows that addition of the two thin Ni layers increases the coercivity of NiFe considerably in the thinnest samples, but only by a small amount in the thicker samples.

\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig2_Hc_Comparison.eps}
\caption{Coercivity ($H_c$) vs total F-layer thickness ($d_F$) for NiFe($d_{F}$) (black squares), Ni(0.2)/NiFe($d_{F}-0.4$)/Ni(0.2) (green triangles) and Ni(0.4)/NiFe($d_{F}-0.8$)/Ni(0.4) (red circles) samples measured at $T = 10$ K.}
\label{fig:Hc_Comparison}
\centering
\end{figure}

Assuming that magnetization reversal in thin films proceeds largely by domain wall motion, the large coercivities of the thinnest films imply that domain wall pinning is dominated by surface effects. For applications in sub-micron Josephson junctions, it is advisable to make the junctions small enough so that the nanomagnets are single-domain and switch via coherent rotation of the magnetization (Stoner-Wohlfarth switching). In that case, shape anisotropy supplies an additional energy barrier to switching. As a result, the coercive fields shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Hc_Comparison} should be viewed as lower bounds to the switching fields of the magnetic layers in the Josephson junctions.

Fig. \ref{fig:Msat_NiNiFe} shows the saturation moment/area vs $d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}$ for Ni(0.4)/NiFe($d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}$)/Ni(0.4) samples. The error bars represent 5\% uncertainty attributed to the area measurement method.  (The film deposition does not cover the edge of the chips completely because of the shape of the sample holders; this small non-deposited area is hard to distinguish with 100\% accuracy under the microscope during area measurements.) By fitting these points to a straight line, we determine the value of $M_{\mathrm{NiFe}}$ from the slope to be $952 \pm 14$ kA/m and the value of $M_{\mathrm{Ni}}$ from the intercept to be $507 \pm 36$ kA/m. Our Ni value is very close to the nominal low-temperature magnetization value for bulk Ni of 510 kA/m \cite{OHandley2000}, implying that there are minimal magnetic ``dead layers" at the Cu/Ni and Ni/NiFe interfaces. Our NiFe value is somewhat higher than expected; O'Handley \cite{OHandley2000} lists the low-temperature magnetization of Ni$_{80}$Fe$_{20}$ as 930 kA/m, so the magnetization for our concentration should be somewhat less. We attribute the discrepancy to the uncertainty in the sample areas and the small thickness range explored.

\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig3_Msat_NiNiFe.eps}
\caption{Saturation moment per unit area vs NiFe thickness for Ni(0.4)/NiFe($d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}$)/Ni(0.4) samples measured at $T = 10$ K.  The line is linear fit to the data discussed in the text.}
\label{fig:Msat_NiNiFe}
\centering
\end{figure}

\subsection{Josephson junction transport}
Josephson junctions containing ferromagnetic materials exhibit overdamped dynamics in the absence of an insulating barrier in the junction. The $I-V$ curves of these junctions can be fit to the Resistively Shunted Junction model: \cite{BaronePaterno1982}
\begin{equation}
    V = \mathrm{sign}(I) R_N \mathrm{Re}\left\{\sqrt{I^2-I_c^2}\right\}
\end{equation}
where the critical current, $I_c$ and the normal-state resistance, $R_N$ can be estimated from fitting the experimental data with the above equation.

Fig. \ref{fig:Fraunhofers} shows the dependence of $I_c$ on varying magnetic field $H$ applied along the long-axis of the elliptical junctions for two representative samples: Ni(0.4)/NiFe(0.6)/Ni(0.4) and Ni(0.4)/NiFe(2.2)/Ni(0.4). The blue and red data points were acquired during the field downsweep and upsweep, respectively.

\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig4_Fraunhofers.eps}
\caption{Critical current vs magnetic field for Josephson junctions containing Ni(0.4)/NiFe(0.6)/Ni(0.4) (left) and Ni(0.4)/NiFe(2.2)/Ni(0.4) (right). The red and blue points represent data taken during field upsweep and downsweep, respectively. The solid lines are fits to Eqn. \ref{Eqn:Airy}.}
\label{fig:Fraunhofers}
\centering
\end{figure}

For elliptical junctions with the field applied along a principal axis, the data are expected to follow an Airy function \cite{BaronePaterno1982}:
\begin{equation} \label{Eqn:Airy}
    I_c(\Phi) = I_{c0} \left| \frac{2 J_1 \left( \frac{\pi \Phi}{\Phi_0} \right) }{\frac{\pi \Phi}{\Phi_0}} \right|
\end{equation}
where $I_{c0}$ is the maximum value of $I_c$, $J_1$ is the Bessel function of the first kind, $\Phi_0 = 2 \times 10^{-15}$ Tm$^2$ is the flux quantum, and the total magnetic flux through the junction is given by:
\begin{equation} \label{Eqn:Flux}
    \Phi = \mu_0 H w (2\lambda_{\mathrm{eff}} + d_N + d_F) + \mu_0 M w d_F
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_{\mathrm{eff}}$ is the effective London penetration depth, $d_N$ is the thickness of the normal layers, $d_F$ is the thickness of the ferromagnetic layers, $M$ is a weighted average of the Ni and NiFe magnetizations, and $w$ is the width of the junctions transverse to the field direction. (Note that Eqn. \ref{Eqn:Flux} neglects the very small demagnetizing field as well as any flux from the F layer that returns inside the junction -- i.e. between the bottom and top S electrodes.)  The solid lines in Fig. \ref{fig:Fraunhofers} are fits of Eqn. \ref{Eqn:Airy} to the experimental data. The center of the Airy pattern is shifted in either direction because of hysteresis arising from the internal magnetization of the ferromagnetic layers in the junction. There is also a sudden drop in $I_c$ around $\pm 10$ mT due to the switch in the direction of the magnetization. The field shift and switching field depend on the magnetic properties of the ferromagnetic layers and vary with NiFe thickness. Due to this sudden switch, the value of $I_{c0}$ in Eqn. \ref{Eqn:Airy} is typically higher than the value realized experimentally and must be extracted from the fit, as shown by the extended fit lines in the figure. We chose these two representative samples to show that all the above properties, including the maximum $I_c$, are dependent on the thickness of the ferromagnetic layer via the flux $\Phi$. The period of the Airy pattern is dependent on the shape and size of the ellipse and should be the same for all samples. However, there is a difference in the periods of the two Airy patterns that is not fully understood, but is partly due to some variation in the junction widths during fabrication, discussed in Appendix A.

To obtain the maximum critical current density, $J_{c0}$, one would divide the measured value of $I_{c0}$ for each junction by the junction area. Due to the process variation discussed in Appendix A and the difficulty in obtaining accurate values of the individual junction areas, we plot instead the product of $I_c$ times the measured normal state resistance, $R_N$. The $I_c R_N$ product is nearly independent of junction area and serves as a surrogate for $J_c$. Figure \ref{fig:ICRN}(a) shows $I_c R_N$ vs total F-layer thickness $d_F=d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}+d_{\mathrm{Ni}}$ for all the measured Josephson junctions containing either Ni(0.4)/NiFe($d_F$-0.8)/Ni(0.4) or Ni(0.2)/NiFe($d_F$-0.4)/Ni(0.2). For comparison, Fig. \ref{fig:ICRN}(b) shows $I_c R_N$ vs NiFe thickness $d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}$ for a set of junctions containing only a single NiFe layer of thickness $d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}$, without any Ni. Just by looking at the raw data without doing any fitting, one can see immediately that the maximum value of $I_c R_N$ in the $\pi$-state of the junctions shown in panel (a), occurring at $d_F \approx 1.6$ nm, is four to five times larger for the Ni(0.4)/NiFe/Ni(0.4) junctions and about three times larger for the Ni(0.2)/NiFe/Ni(0.2) junctions, compared with the NiFe junctions shown in panel (b) at $d_{\mathrm{NiFe}} \approx 2.1$ nm. That is the main result of this work.

\begin{figure*}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig5_ICRN.eps}
\caption{(a) $I_c R_N$ vs total F-layer thickness $d_F$ = $d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}+d_{\mathrm{Ni}}$ for Ni(0.4)/NiFe($d_F$-0.8)/Ni(0.4) (red circles), Ni(0.2)/NiFe($d_F$-0.4)/Ni(0.2) (black diamonds) and (b) $I_c R_N$ vs NiFe thickness $d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}$ (right) for NiFe($d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}$). Each data point represents the average of the field upsweep and downsweep data for a single Josephson junction. The solid lines represent the fits to Eqn. \ref{Eqn:Diffusive} discussed in the text. The fits for Ni(0.2)/NiFe($d_F$-0.4)/Ni(0.2) and NiFe($d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}$) sets are extended to the same range as the Ni(0.4)/NiFe/Ni(0.4) data for better comparison. Due to the absence of data points for higher thicknesses, the thicknesses for the second 0-$\pi$ transitions seen in the plot for these two data sets might be unreliable.}
\label{fig:ICRN}
\centering
\end{figure*}

For completeness, we mention that $I_c R_N$ data on NiFe junctions has been previously published by Robinson \textit{et al.} \cite{Robinson2006}, Dayton \textit{et al.} \cite{Dayton2018} and by Glick \textit{et al.} \cite{Glick2017}. The junctions in the latter study were fabricated and measured in our laboratory and exhibit $I_c R_N$ products similar to those shown in the right panel of Fig. \ref{fig:ICRN}, but with more scatter in the data.

To obtain values of $J_c$ from the data shown in Fig. \ref{fig:ICRN}, one should divide $I_c R_N$ by the area-resistance product, $AR_N$. In junctions with very thick F layers, one expects $AR_N$ to increase linearly with $d_F$ due to the resistivity of the F material \cite{Khaire2009}. Because the F layers are so thin in the junctions studied here, $AR_N$ is dominated by the interface resistance between the superconducting Nb electrodes and the F layer \cite{Fierz1990}. (The Cu spacer layers make no discernible difference.) Typical S/F boundary resistances lie in the range $AR_N$ = 5--\SI{8}{\femto \ohm \meter^2}, which for a junction with area of \SI{0.5}{\micro \meter^2} translates to a resistance of 10--\SI{16}{\milli \ohm}. Our junctions have resistances that cluster around 16--\SI{21}{\milli \ohm} for most of the junctions -- see Fig. \ref{fig:WR} in Appendix A. We attribute these slightly higher resistance values to the extra interfaces associated with the 5-nm Nb layer deposited in the initial sputtering run, which serves to protect the F layers from oxidation during the subsequent processing steps. The important point is that the resistances of the junctions with the extra Ni layers, 19.3 $\pm$ 2.4 m$\Omega$, are similar to those for the reference junctions without Ni layers, 20.1 $\pm$ 4.9 m$\Omega$. So the factor of four enhancement of $I_c R_N$ shown in Figure 5 translates to an equivalent enhancement of $J_c$.

\section{Discussion}

The behavior of $I_c R_N$ versus ferromagnet thickness has been calculated theoretically \cite{Buzdin2005} and measured experimentally by many groups for a number of ferromagnetic materials \cite{Ryazanov2001, Kontos2002, Blum2002, Sellier2003}. The $I_c R_N$ versus F layer thickness function is predicted to oscillate and decay either algebraically for ballistic transport \cite{Buzdin1982} or exponentially for diffusive transport \cite{Buzdin1991}. For very weak ferromagnets with nearly identical majority and minority spin bands, the Usadel equations govern this oscillatory-decay behavior \cite{Buzdin2005}. However, those equations are not appropriate for strong ferromagnetic materials because they do not take into account the complex band structures of the materials and the mismatches of Fermi surfaces that occur at each interface. At the very least, the theoretical models should incorporate the differences in the densities of states and diffusion constants for majority and minority spins. More realistic microscopic calculations based on Density Functional Theory and the Bogulibov-deGennes equations have been performed for the special case of Nb/Ni/Nb Josephson junctions by Ness \textit{et al.} \cite{Ness2022}, but unfortunately such calculations have not yet been carried out for any other ferromagnetic material, or for junctions that contain more than one material.

\begin{table*}[!htbp]
    \centering
    \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Sample & $V_0$ (\SI{}{\micro \volt}) & $\xi_{F1}$ (nm) & $\xi_{F2}$ (nm) & $d_{0-\pi}$ (nm)\\
 \hline
Ni(0.4)/NiFe($d_F$-0.8)/Ni(0.4) &  $800\pm110$ & $0.64\pm0.02$ & $0.78\pm0.01$ & $1.00\pm0.02$\\
Ni(0.2)/NiFe($d_F$-0.4)/Ni(0.2) &  $349\pm39$ &  $0.76\pm0.05$ & $0.78$ (fixed) & $0.92\pm0.01$\\
NiFe($d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}$) & $252\pm48$ & $0.71\pm0.04$ & $0.74\pm0.06$ & $1.49\pm0.01$\\
 \hline
    \end{tabular}
    \caption{Parameters determined from fits of Eqn. \ref{Eqn:Diffusive} to the data shown in Fig. \ref{fig:ICRN} for junctions containing Ni(0.4)/NiFe($d_F$-0.8)/Ni(0.4), Ni(0.2)/NiFe($d_F$-0.4)/Ni(0.2) and NiFe($d_{\mathrm{NiFe}}$). We fabricated and measured fewer of the junctions with 0.2 nm Ni layers, so there are not enough data points to establish the oscillation period. Hence we fixed the value of $\xi_{F2}$ to the value obtained from the first data set, $0.78$ nm.}
    \label{tab:parameters}
\end{table*}

Due to the rather short mean free path of minority electrons in NiFe \cite{Vila2000} as well as the multiple NiFe/Cu or Ni/Cu interfaces in our junctions, we expect the transport through our junctions to be diffusive. Hence we fit our $I_c R_N$ vs thickness data to the following equation:
\begin{equation} \label{Eqn:Diffusive}
    I_c R_N = V_0\; \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{-d_F}{\xi_{F1}}\right) \left| \mathrm{sin} \left( \frac{d_F - d_{0-\pi}}{\xi_{F2}} \right)  \right|
\end{equation}
where $V_0$ sets the overall magnitude of $I_c R_N$, $\xi_{F1}$ and $\xi_{F2}$ are length scales that control the decay and oscillation period in the ferromagnet F, and $d_{0-\pi}$ is the thickness where the first $0-\pi$ transition occurs. Even though Ni and NiFe have different values of $\xi_{F1}$ and $\xi_{F2}$, for simplicity we consider the Ni/NiFe/Ni trilayer as a single F layer instead of three separate ones. The solid lines in Fig. \ref{fig:ICRN} are fits of Eqn. \ref{Eqn:Diffusive} to the data with experimental uncertainties determined from the Airy function fits discussed previously. (The uncertainties are smaller than the symbol size in Fig. \ref{fig:ICRN}.) The fit parameters for all three data sets are tabulated in Table \ref{tab:parameters}.

The enhancement of the critical current in the $\pi$-state of NiFe Josephson junctions has been achieved by adding 0.4 nm of Ni at each NiFe/Cu interface. But how does this ``interface engineering" actually work? We offer several perspectives on this question. Conceptually, one may think of this effect as analogous to impedance matching of transmission lines. The major difference, of course, is that the impedance is a single number, whereas at a solid-solid interface one has to sum the transmissions of the k-states over the entire Fermi surfaces of both materials at the interface. Using simplified models of interfaces that neglect details of band structure, Pugach \textit{et al.} \cite{Pugach2011} and Heim \textit{et al.} \cite{Heim2015} have shown theoretically that the properties of the S/F interface can have a strong influence on both the F-layer thickness where the 0-$\pi$ transition occurs and on the magnitude of the maximum critical current in the $\pi$ state. Indeed, both effects are present in the data shown in Fig. \ref{fig:ICRN} and in the fit parameters in Table \ref{tab:parameters}. Those indicate that the position of the first 0-$\pi$ transition has been shifted from an F-layer thickness of 1.5 nm for the case of NiFe to a total F-layer thickness of $0.9 - 1.0$ nm for the NiFe surrounded by thin Ni layers. As a result of that shift, the F-layer thickness corresponding to the maximum value of $I_c$ in the $\pi$-state is reduced from about 2.1 nm to about 1.6 nm in the junctions with the thin Ni layers. And since part of that 1.6 nm is pure Ni, there is substantially less NiFe in the junctions with the Ni layers compared to those without. So a simple explanation for the enhancement of $I_c$ is that there is less NiFe, hence less decay of $I_c$ due to NiFe.

Our own perspective on this issue is somewhat different, and derives from studies of Giant Magnetoresistance (GMR) of magnetic multilayers over the past 30 years \cite{Bass2016}. In particular, when measurements are performed in the current-perpendicular-to-plane (CPP) geometry, the magnetoresistance can often be calculated using a simple ``two-current series resistor'' (2CSR) model, which is valid when the spin diffusion length is much longer than the total thickness of the multilayer \cite{Zhang1991,Lee1993,Valet1993}. In the 2CSR model, the area-resistance product (AR) of the multilayer with arbitrary but collinear magnetization directions of the various ferromagnetic layers can be expressed in terms of the various layer thicknesses and a set of parameters characterizing the spin-dependent resistivities in the bulk materials and spin-dependent boundary resistances at the interfaces. For example, transport through an F/N interface is decribed by two interface specific resistances:  $AR^{\uparrow}_{F/N}$ and $AR^{\downarrow}_{F/N}$, where $\uparrow$ and $\downarrow$ indicate conduction electron moment pointing parallel or antiparallel to the F-layer magnetization, respectively. Alternatively one can use the following parameters: the dimensionless interface scattering asymmetry $\gamma_{F/N} = (AR^{\uparrow}_{F/N}-AR^{\downarrow}_{F/N})/(AR^{\uparrow}_{F/N}+AR^{\downarrow}_{F/N})$ and twice the enhanced interface specific resistance $2AR^*_{F/N}= (AR^{\uparrow}_{F/N} + AR^{\downarrow}_{F/N})/2$. Clearly a large interface resistance is indicative of a low average transmission probability for electrons crossing an interface. Since the Cooper pairs coming from the conventional superconducting electrodes consist of electrons with opposite spins, a strong interfacial scattering asymmetry indicates poor transmission of one spin species across the interface. Hence we suggest that supercurrent will tend to be large in systems with small values of both $2AR^*$ and $\gamma$. (To achieve large GMR, on the other hand, one generally wants large values of those quantities.) The parameters for the interfaces discussed in our paper are tabulated in Table \ref{tab:interface}. Indeed, the Cu/Ni interface has lower values of both quantities than the Cu/NiFe interface. We acknowledge that the
advantage of lower $2AR^*$ and $\gamma$ might be partially offset by the addition of the two Ni/NiFe interfaces to the junctions; given how thin the Ni layers are, however, it is plausible that one can view the Ni/NiFe/Ni trilayer as a single material with a spatial gradient in the Fe concentration, rather than as a trilayer of three distinct materials.

\begin{table}[!htbp]
    \centering
    \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
 F/N Interface & $\gamma_{F/N}$ & $2AR^*_{F/N}$ (\SI{}{\femto \ohm \meter^2})\\
 \hline
 NiFe/Cu &  0.7 & 1.0\\
 Ni/Cu & 0.3 & 0.36 \\
\hline
    \end{tabular}
    \caption{Interface spin scattering asymmetry $\gamma_{F/N}$ and interface resistance $2AR^*_{F/N}$ for NiFe/Cu and Ni/Cu interfaces obtained from GMR studies \cite{Bass2016}.}
    \label{tab:interface}
\end{table}

As a final note, we mentioned in the Introduction that one can achieve high $I_cR_N$ product in ferromagnetic junctions with structure S/I/s/F/S. For example, the junctions reported in Refs. \cite{Ryazanov2012, Larkin2012, Vernik2013, Caruso2018} achieve values of $I_cR_N$ of about 0.7 mV -- not much smaller than that in Nb-based S/I/S junctions. The critical current densities of those junctions, however, are quite small: $J_c \approx 4.5$ kA/cm$^2$, so they would not be appropriate for applications requiring large $J_c$. In contrast, the critical current densities of our junctions in the $\pi$ state are about 400 kA/cm$^2$.

\section{Conclusion}
In conclusion, supercurrent transmission through NiFe Josephson junctions can be enhanced by adding thin layers of Ni at the interface on both sides. The cost to magnetic switching properties is minimal for samples with Ni(0.2) and Ni(0.4) layers. For samples with Ni(0.4) layers, there was roughly a factor of 4-5 improvement in the supercurrent transmission in the $\pi$-state. We suggest that this is due to better band-matching at the Cu/Ni interface versus the Cu/NiFe interface. First-principles band-structure calculations coupled with calculations of Josephson junction supercurrent, similar to those performed in ref. \cite{Ness2022}, would be helpful to study this effect quantitatively and establish the exact mechanism.

\begin{acknowledgments}
The authors thank V. Aguilar, T.F. Ambrose, M.G. Loving, A.E Madden, D.L. Miller, and N.D. Rizzo for helpful discussions. N.O. Birge acknowledges many years of stimulating discussions with J. Bass and W.P. Pratt, Jr. We also thank B. Bi and D. Edmunds for technical assistance, and we acknowledge use of the W. M. Keck Microfabrication Facility. This research was supported by Northrop Grumman Corporation.
\end{acknowledgments}

Superconductivity (cond-mat.supr-con); Mesoscale and Nanoscale Physics (cond-mat.mes-hall)