, we solve the Ginzburg-Landau equation for the wires for each vortex number $n_v$, imposing the single-valuedness condition on the order parameter, $$\theta_{1, L \leftarrow R}-\theta_{2, L \leftarrow R}+2 \delta(B)=2
\pi n_v.
\label{eq:phaseconstraint}$$ This condition will be referred to as the [*phase constraint*]{}. Here, $\theta_{1, L \leftarrow R}=\int_R^L d\vec{r}\cdot
\vec{\nabla}\varphi(B)$ is the phase accumulated along wire 1 in passing from the right to the left lead; $\theta_{2, L \leftarrow
R}$ is similarly defined for wire 2.

Absent any constraints, the lowest energy configuration of the nanowires is the one with no current through the wires. Here, we adopt the gauge in which $\boldsymbol{A}= B y \boldsymbol{e}_x$ for the electromagnetic vector potential, where the coordinates are as shown in Fig. \[coordinates\]. The Ginzburg-Landau expression for the current density in a superconductor is $$\boldsymbol{J} \propto \left(\boldsymbol{\nabla} \varphi(\boldsymbol{r}) -
\frac{2 e}{\hbar} \boldsymbol{A}(\boldsymbol{r}) \right).
\label{currentD0}$$ For our choice of gauge, the vector potential is always parallel to the nanowires, and therefore the lowest energy state of the nanowires corresponds to a phase accumulation given by the flux through the AB contour, $\theta_{1, L \leftarrow R}=-\theta_{2, L \leftarrow R}=2
\pi B a b/\Phi_0$. As we shall show shortly, for our device geometry (i.e. when the wires are sufficiently short, i.e., $b \ll l$), this phase accumulation may be safely ignored, compared to the phase accumulation $\delta(B)$ associated with screening currents induced in the leads. As the nanowires are assumed to be weak compared to the leads, to satisfy the phase constraint (\[eq:phaseconstraint\]), the phase accumulations in the nanowires will typically deviate from their optimal value, generating a circulating current around the AB contour. As a consequence of LAMH theory, this circulating current results in a decrease of the barrier heights for phase slips, and hence an increase in resistance. The period of the
, we solve the Ginzburg - Landau equation for the wires for each vortex numeral $ n_v$, levy the single - valuedness condition on the order argument, $ $ \theta_{1, L \leftarrow R}-\theta_{2, L \leftarrow R}+2 \delta(B)=2 
 \pi n_v. 
 \label{eq: phaseconstraint}$$ This condition will be referred to as the [ * phase constraint * ] { }. Here, $ \theta_{1, L \leftarrow R}=\int_R^L d\vec{r}\cdot 
 \vec{\nabla}\varphi(B)$ is the phase roll up along wire 1 in passing from the right field to the leftover lead; $ \theta_{2, L \leftarrow 
 R}$ is similarly defined for telegram 2. 

 Absent any constraints, the lowest department of energy configuration of the nanowires is the one with no current through the wires. Here, we adopt the gauge in which $ \boldsymbol{A}= B y \boldsymbol{e}_x$ for the electromagnetic vector potential, where the coordinate are as shown in Fig.   \[coordinates\ ]. The Ginzburg - Landau expression for the current density in a superconductor is $ $ \boldsymbol{J } \propto \left(\boldsymbol{\nabla } \varphi(\boldsymbol{r }) - 
 \frac{2 e}{\hbar } \boldsymbol{A}(\boldsymbol{r }) \right). 
 \label{currentD0}$$ For our option of gauge, the vector potential is always parallel to the nanowires, and therefore the lowest department of energy state of the nanowires represent to a phase accumulation given by the flux through the AB shape, $ \theta_{1, L \leftarrow R}=-\theta_{2, L \leftarrow R}=2 
 \pi B a b/\Phi_0$. As we shall show shortly, for our device geometry (i.e.   when the wires are sufficiently short, i.e., $ b \ll l$), this phase accumulation may be safely neglect, compare to the phase accumulation $ \delta(B)$ associated with screening currents induced in the leads. As the nanowires are assumed to be weak compare to the leads, to satisfy the phase restraint   (\[eq: phaseconstraint\ ]), the phase accumulation in the nanowires will typically deviate from their optimum value, generating a circulating current around the AB contour. As a consequence of LAMH theory, this circulating current results in a decrease of the barrier heights for phase slip, and hence an increase in resistance. The period of the
, we solve the Ginzburg-Landam equation for tkw wirev for sach vorgex number $n_v$, imposing the smnglw-valutbness condition on tfe order iarameter, $$\theua_{1, L \leftarrow R}-\tista_{2, L \lcytarrka R}+2 \beota(B)=2
\pi n_v.
\label{gq:phaseconstsaint}$$ This congigiln will be referred to as the [*phase constrsijt*]{}. Here, $\theta_{1, J \legearrkw R}=\int_R^L d\vec{r}\cdot
\vec{\nabla}\varphi(B)$ is the phase accumukated along wire 1 in passijg fgom the right to tje left leae; $\thqra_{2, L \leftarruw
R}$ is simpnarly defihed for wire 2.

Absent any constraknts, che lowest guwrgj configuratmon of the nanowircx is tve one eith no currenb thrmugy the wires. Here, we avopt the gauge in whych $\boldsfmyol{A}= B y \boldsymbol{e}_x$ fir thg elewtrooqgndtid tecfor pohenvial, where fhe coordinqtes are as shown im Spb. \[coordinates\]. The Gynsburg-Landau expression for the current genaity in a superconductoe is $$\boldsymbol{J} \propjo \left(\bolqsymbol{\nabla} \varphi(\boldsymbol{r}) -
\frac{2 e}{\hbar} \boldsymtol{A}(\bkudsvnbol{r}) \eihht).
\label{currentD0}$$ For our choice of gauge, the dscuor potential is clways parallel yo tng nanowires, ana therzrode the lowest enerhy statg of tye nanowiwes vorresponds to a phase accunulation givvn bt the flux through the AB concour, $\tneta_{1, K \leftarrow R}=-\theta_{2, L \leytarros R}=2
\pi B a b/\Ohi_0$. As we rhall show shortuy, nor our device geometry (i.e. wheg the wirxs arz suffickentky showt, i.e., $b \ll l$), thlv phase accumulatiln mai be sdfely ignoged, compared to the phase accumnkation $\delta(N)$ dssmciated cith sgreening currenes induced in jhe leads. As tfe nanowirvs are asvumed to be weak compareg to the leadv, to satysfy the phase zunstraint (\[eq:phaxeconstrapnu\]), the phasw accumulations in thg hanowires will cvpucally deviate groo trepr ppehmal value, ganerxtivb a ckrculating gurfent around the AB contogr. Aa a consequence of LWMH theoty, this cyrculating cutrent results in a decrxase oh the nartier heights for phase slips, ans hence aj ikcrease in refistqnce. The pernod of the
, we solve the Ginzburg-Landau equation for for vortex number imposing the single-valuedness $$\theta_{1, \leftarrow R}-\theta_{2, L R}+2 \delta(B)=2 \pi \label{eq:phaseconstraint}$$ This condition will be referred as the [*phase constraint*]{}. Here, $\theta_{1, L \leftarrow R}=\int_R^L d\vec{r}\cdot \vec{\nabla}\varphi(B)$ is the accumulated along wire 1 in passing from the right to the left lead; L R}$ similarly for wire 2. Absent any constraints, the lowest energy configuration of the nanowires is the one no current through the wires. Here, we adopt gauge in which $\boldsymbol{A}= y \boldsymbol{e}_x$ for the electromagnetic potential, the coordinates as in \[coordinates\]. The Ginzburg-Landau for the current density in a superconductor is $$\boldsymbol{J} \propto \left(\boldsymbol{\nabla} \varphi(\boldsymbol{r}) - \frac{2 e}{\hbar} \boldsymbol{A}(\boldsymbol{r}) \right). For our gauge, the potential always to the nanowires, the lowest energy state of the a phase accumulation given by the flux through AB contour, L \leftarrow R}=-\theta_{2, L \leftarrow R}=2 B a b/\Phi_0$. As we shall show shortly, our device geometry (i.e. when the wires are sufficiently short, i.e., $b \ll l$), this may be safely ignored, to the phase $\delta(B)$ with currents in the As the nanowires are assumed to be weak compared to the to satisfy the phase constraint (\[eq:phaseconstraint\]), the phase accumulations in will deviate from their value, generating a circulating around AB contour. As a LAMH this in decrease the barrier heights for slips, and hence an increase resistance. The period of
, we solve the Ginzburg-Landau eQuation for The wiRes For EaCh voRtex Number $n_v$, imposiNG the Single-valuedness conditIon on ThE OrdeR PaRametEr, $$\theta_{1, l \LeFTArrOw r}-\tHetA_{2, L \LEfTarroW R}+2 \dElta(B)=2
\pi N_v.
\label{eq:pHasEcOnstraint}$$ ThiS CoNdition wilL be Referred to as The [*Phase cOnStrAInt*]{}. HeRe, $\tHeta_{1, L \LeftarROw R}=\int_r^L d\vec{r}\cdOt
\VEc{\nablA}\Varphi(B)$ IS ThE phaSe accumulated alonG WiRE 1 in passing from The rigHt TO tHE LefT leAd; $\theta_{2, L \leFtArrow
r}$ Is similARlY DEFinED for wire 2.

AbsenT any constraINts, The lowEsT enERgy conFigurAtIOn oF the nanowirEs is The one witH no curREnt throUGh the wiRes. HerE, we AdoPt thE GaUgE in WhICh $\bOLdSymBOl{A}= b y \boldsyMbOl{E}_x$ for The eLECTRomaGneTic vEctor Potential, wherE thE cooRDinAtes aRe as sHown In fig. \[coOrdinaTes\]. ThE GInzburg-Landau exPresSion for thE cuRrEnt DeNsity IN a supeRcoNduCtor is $$\bOldsymbOL{J} \pRoPTO \LeFt(\boldsymbol{\nabla} \vArPHI(\bOldsymboL{r}) -
\frac{2 E}{\HbAr} \BOldsymboL{A}(\BolDsymBOL{r}) \rigHt).
\laBEl{CurrentD0}$$ for our CHoIcE of gaugE, tHe vectOr PotEntIal is ALwayS paralLel to the NanowIRes, and thereforE The lowest enerGY sTATe OF the NanOwires correSponDS to a PhasE AcCumULatioN giveN bY ThE Flux through the AB conToUr, $\thetA_{1, L \lefTarrow R}=-\theta_{2, L \Leftarrow R}=2
\PI b A b/\Phi_0$. As wE shaLL sHOw shortly, for ouR deviCe geometry (I.E. when the Wires Are suffiCiently shORT, i.e., $b \ll l$), tHis PhaSe aCcuMULaTion may be safeLY IgnoReD, comparEd tO the phaSe aCcuMulAtiOn $\Delta(B)$ assOciated wItH sCrEeNinG currENts inducEd In tHe LeaDs. As tHE nanowIres aRe asSuMeD To bE weak coMPaRED to tHe LeAds, tO saTiSfy thE phaSE coNstrainT (\[eq:phasecOnsTRainT\]), tHe Phase acCumulations in ThE nanowires WiLl tYpicalLY Deviate fRom their optimal value, genERating a CirCulatIng cUrrent aroUnd The AB cOntOUr. As a cOnsequEnce oF LaMH THEory, tHIS cIrcUlAting curreNT ResUlts iN a DecrEase of tHe barrier heights foR PhaSe slips, and henCe aN incREAsE in REsIStaNcE. the PERiod of the
, we solve the Ginzburg-La ndau equat ion f orthe  w ires  for  each vortex n u mber  $n_v$, imposing the s ingle -v a lued n es s con ditiono nt h e o rd er  pa ra m et er, $ $\t heta_{1 , L \lefta rro wR}-\theta_{2 ,  L  \leftarro w R }+2 \delta(B )=2 
\pi n _v .
\ l abel{ eq: phase constr a int}$$  This con di t ion wi l l be re f e rr ed t o as the [*phasec on s traint*]{}. He re, $\ th e ta _ { 1,L \ leftarrowR} =\int _ R^L d\v e c{ r } \ cdo t 
\vec{\nabla} \varphi(B)$ isthe ph as e a c cumula ted a lo n g w ire 1 in pa ssin g from th e righ t  to the left le ad; $\ the ta_ {2,L  \ le fta rr o w
R } $iss imi larly de fi ne d for  wir e 2 . 

Ab sen t an y con straints, the  lo west ene rgy c onfig urat io n ofthe na nowir es  is the one wit h no  currentthr ou ghth e wir e s. Her e,weadopt t he gaug e  in  w h i c h$\boldsymbol{A}= B  y \ bo ldsymbol {e}_x$ fo rt he elect ro mag neti c vecto r po t en tial, wh ere th e  c oo rdinate sare as  s how n i n Fig .  \[c oordin ates\].The G i nzburg-Landaue xpression for th e cu r rent  de nsity in asupe r cond ucto r  i s $ $ \bold symbo l{ J }\ propto \left(\bolds ym bol{\n abla}  \varphi(\bol dsymbol{r} ) - 
\frac{2  e}{ \ hb a r} \boldsymbol {A}(\ boldsymbol { r}) \rig ht).\label{c urrentD0} $ $  For our  ch oic e o f g a u ge , the vectorp o tent ia l is al way s paral lel  to  th e n an owires, a nd there fo re  t he  lo weste nergy st at e o fthe  nano w ires c orres pond sto a p hase ac c um u l atio ngi venbyth e flu x th r oug h the A B contour , $ \ thet a_ {1 , L \le ftarrow R}=-\ th eta_{2, L\l eft arrowR } =2
\pi B  a b/\Phi_0$. As we sha l l showsho rtly,  for  our devi cegeomet ry( i.e. w hen th e wir es  ar e suffi c i en tly  s hort, i.e. , $b\ll l $) , th is phas e accumulation may besafely ignore d,comp a r ed  to th e  ph as e  ac c u mulation $\delt a(B)$ asso ci a te d with scr e eni ng  curren ts indu ced i n  the le ads. As t he nanowi re s ar e ass umed to be  weak co mpared to the l e ad s, to  sa tisfyth e p haseconstr a int  (\[e q:phas ec onstra int\] ),  the pha se accumulations in the  nanow ireswil l typical lyd evi ate fromthei r optimalval ue,  gene rat i ng acirc u la tin g  curr enta round the AB  co n t ou r. As a con s e q uen ce of  LA M H theo ry,this circulatingc urrent results  ina dec rea s e of  t he barrier hei ght sf o r phasesl ips, and he nce an i nc r easein res istanc e. Thep e ri o d of t he
, we_solve the_Ginzburg-Landau equation for the_wires for_each_vortex number_$n_v$,_imposing the single-valuedness_condition on the_order parameter, $$\theta_{1, L_\leftarrow R}-\theta_{2, L_\leftarrow_R}+2 \delta(B)=2
\pi n_v.
\label{eq:phaseconstraint}$$ This condition will be referred to as the [*phase constraint*]{}. Here,_$\theta_{1,_L \leftarrow_R}=\int_R^L_d\vec{r}\cdot
\vec{\nabla}\varphi(B)$_is the phase accumulated along_wire 1 in passing from_the right_to the left lead; $\theta_{2, L \leftarrow
R}$ is_similarly_defined for wire_2.

Absent any constraints, the lowest energy configuration of the_nanowires is the one with no_current through the_wires._Here,_we adopt the gauge_in which $\boldsymbol{A}= B y \boldsymbol{e}_x$_for the electromagnetic vector potential, where_the coordinates are as shown in Fig. \[coordinates\]._The Ginzburg-Landau expression for the current_density in a superconductor is_$$\boldsymbol{J} \propto_\left(\boldsymbol{\nabla} \varphi(\boldsymbol{r}) -
\frac{2 e}{\hbar} \boldsymbol{A}(\boldsymbol{r})_\right).
\label{currentD0}$$ For our_choice of_gauge, the vector_potential is always parallel to the_nanowires, and therefore_the lowest energy state of the_nanowires_corresponds to a_phase_accumulation_given by_the flux through_the_AB contour,_$\theta_{1,_L \leftarrow R}=-\theta_{2, L \leftarrow R}=2
\pi_B_a b/\Phi_0$. As we shall show shortly,_for our device geometry_(i.e. when_the wires are sufficiently_short, i.e., $b \ll l$),_this phase accumulation may be safely_ignored, compared_to the_phase accumulation $\delta(B)$ associated with screening currents induced in the leads._As the nanowires are assumed to_be weak compared to_the leads,_to_satisfy the phase_constraint (\[eq:phaseconstraint\]),_the phase_accumulations in the nanowires will typically deviate_from their_optimal value, generating a circulating current_around the AB contour._As_a consequence of LAMH theory, this_circulating current results in a decrease_of the barrier heights for_phase_slips,_and hence an increase in_resistance. The period of the