pith. sign in

arxiv: 1906.08130 · v1 · pith:XB5O7MUAnew · submitted 2019-06-19 · ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con · cond-mat.mtrl-sci· cond-mat.str-el

Superconductivity of mixed parity and frequency in an anisotropic spin-orbit coupling

Mehdi Biderang , Mohammad-Hossein Zare , Alireza Akbari This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 19:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-el
keywords noncentrosymmetric superconductivityspin-orbit couplingmixed parityspin fluctuationsrandom phase approximationHubbard modelquantum wellsferromagnet junction
0
0 comments X

The pith

Broken inversion symmetry mixes even- and odd-parity in the superconducting gap of noncentrosymmetric quantum wells.

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

This paper studies spin-fluctuation-mediated superconductivity in [001]-grown noncentrosymmetric quantum wells that have anisotropic Rashba and Dresselhaus spin-orbit couplings together with on-site Hubbard repulsion. The central finding is that the lack of inversion symmetry forces the gap to contain both even-parity and odd-parity pieces, whereas inversion-symmetric cases yield only d-wave pairing. When a ferromagnet is attached, its exchange field additionally mixes even-frequency and odd-frequency components of the order parameter. The calculations are performed in the random-phase approximation.

Core claim

Within the random phase approximation for spin-fluctuation-mediated pairing on a Hubbard model, broken inversion symmetry in the presence of anisotropic spin-orbit coupling mixes even- and odd-parity components in the superconducting gap, and a ferromagnet exchange field in a superconductor-ferromagnet junction produces an admixture of even- and odd-frequency components.

What carries the argument

Antisymmetric spin-orbit coupling from broken inversion symmetry, which mixes parity in the gap, and exchange field mixing frequencies.

If this is right

  • The symmetry of the mixed-parity gap varies with the strength of the Hubbard interaction.
  • The mixing occurs for various filling levels despite dominant d-wave pairing when inversion is present.
  • In superconductor-ferromagnet junctions the order parameters are modified by the frequency admixture.
  • The anisotropic spin-orbit couplings of Rashba and Dresselhaus type both contribute to the mixing.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Such mixed-parity gaps may produce distinctive signatures in tunneling conductance or critical current measurements.
  • Changing the anisotropy ratio between Rashba and Dresselhaus terms could control the relative weight of even and odd parity components.
  • The frequency mixing in junctions might enable new types of superconducting diodes or phase-sensitive devices.

Load-bearing premise

The pairing is assumed to arise solely from spin fluctuations within the random phase approximation applied to a Hubbard model containing only on-site repulsion.

What would settle it

A calculation or measurement showing a purely even-parity gap at finite values of the Rashba and Dresselhaus couplings would falsify the mixing claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1906.08130 by Alireza Akbari, Mehdi Biderang, Mohammad-Hossein Zare.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (Color online) Fermi surfaces, longitudinal and transverse components of RPA susceptibility for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (Color online) (a) Density of states (DOS) at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (Color online) Filling dependence of the effective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online) Phase diagrams derived from the dependence of the effective superconducting coupling constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online) Schematic diagram of the NCS-FM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Color online) The momentum dependence of the am [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (Color online) Magnitude of singlet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (Color online) Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (Color online) Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We illuminate the superconducting phases in [001]-grown-noncentrosymmetric quantum wells with an anisotropic spin-orbit coupling in the presence of on-site Hubbard interaction. Within the random phase approximation, we investigate the spin-fluctuation-mediated pairing in the presence of Rashba/Dresselhaus antisymmetric spin-orbit couplings. Although the existence of spatial inversion symmetry desires a dominant d-wave pairing for all filling levels, a broken inversion symmetry generates antisymmetric spin-orbit coupling and mixes the even- and odd-parity in the superconducting gap. We study the symmetry of the mixed-parity gap for various strengths of Hubbard interaction. Besides, we consider a superconductor-ferromagnet junction to survey the modifications of superconducting order parameters and observe an admixture of even- and odd-frequencies due to the ferromagnet exchange field.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies spin-fluctuation-mediated superconductivity in [001]-grown noncentrosymmetric quantum wells with anisotropic Rashba/Dresselhaus spin-orbit coupling and on-site Hubbard repulsion, treated in the random phase approximation. It reports that broken inversion symmetry mixes even- and odd-parity components in the gap for various Hubbard U strengths, and that a ferromagnet exchange field in a superconductor-ferromagnet junction induces even-odd frequency admixture.

Significance. If the RPA modeling assumptions are valid for the examined fillings and SOC strengths, the results would clarify how inversion breaking and exchange fields produce mixed-parity and mixed-frequency pairing, with potential relevance to hybrid quantum-well devices. The work does not supply machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, or parameter-free derivations.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claims of mixed even/odd parity (from broken inversion + anisotropic SOC) and even/odd frequency admixture (from FM exchange) rest on the assumption that pairing is generated entirely by spin fluctuations in RPA on a Hubbard model with only on-site repulsion; no independent check (comparison to other channels, parameter regimes, or alternative interactions) is supplied to confirm this holds at the specific fillings and Rashba/Dresselhaus strengths studied.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and constructive feedback. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claims of mixed even/odd parity (from broken inversion + anisotropic SOC) and even/odd frequency admixture (from FM exchange) rest on the assumption that pairing is generated entirely by spin fluctuations in RPA on a Hubbard model with only on-site repulsion; no independent check (comparison to other channels, parameter regimes, or alternative interactions) is supplied to confirm this holds at the specific fillings and Rashba/Dresselhaus strengths studied.

    Authors: The manuscript is devoted to the consequences of anisotropic SOC and broken inversion symmetry within the established RPA treatment of spin-fluctuation-mediated pairing on the Hubbard model with on-site repulsion. This framework is standard for capturing the dominant antiferromagnetic fluctuations that produce d-wave pairing when inversion is present; the parity mixing then follows directly from the antisymmetric SOC term. The same holds for the frequency mixing induced by the exchange field in the junction geometry. While the referee correctly notes that we do not compare to other interaction channels or perform independent checks outside this model, our central claims concern the symmetry mixing that appears inside the RPA spin-fluctuation channel, not a claim of uniqueness. We will revise the abstract and the opening of the methods section to state explicitly that all results are obtained within the RPA Hubbard model at the fillings and SOC strengths examined, thereby clarifying the scope without altering the calculations. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; standard RPA computation on Hubbard model yields model outputs

full rationale

The paper performs an explicit random-phase-approximation calculation of the spin-fluctuation-mediated pairing interaction on a Hubbard model with on-site repulsion, Rashba/Dresselhaus SOC, and an optional exchange field. The reported mixed-parity gaps and even/odd-frequency admixtures are direct numerical outputs of the linearized gap equation under those model assumptions; they are not obtained by fitting parameters to the target observables and then relabeling the fit as a prediction, nor by self-citation chains that close on themselves. No equations in the supplied abstract or description reduce the central claims to tautological redefinitions of the input U, filling, or SOC strengths. The modeling choice is stated up front and is therefore an assumption whose validity can be tested externally, not a circular step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms or invented entities; the modeling assumptions (RPA, on-site Hubbard only, [001] growth) are implicit but cannot be enumerated without the full text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5682 in / 1172 out tokens · 21273 ms · 2026-05-25T19:55:19.659741+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sigrist, AIP Conference Proceedings 789, 165 (2005)

    M. Sigrist, AIP Conference Proceedings 789, 165 (2005)

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    J. R. Schrieffer, X. G. Wen, and S. C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 39, 11663 (1989)

    work page 1989

  3. [3]

    P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. 130, 439 (1963)

    work page 1963

  4. [4]

    Maiti and A

    S. Maiti and A. V. Chubukov, AIP Conference Proceed- ings 1550, 3 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Sigrist and K

    M. Sigrist and K. Ueda, Rev. Mod. Phys. 63, 239 (1991)

    work page 1991

  6. [6]

    Bauer and M

    E. Bauer and M. Sigrist, Non-Centrosymmetric Super- conductors: Introduction and Overview (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Bauer, G

    E. Bauer, G. Hilscher, H. Michor, C. Paul, E. W. Scheidt, A. Gribanov, Y. Seropegin, H. No¨ el, M. Sigrist, and P. Rogl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 027003 (2004)

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Mineev, K

    V. Mineev, K. Samokhin, and L. Landau, Introduction to unconventional superconductivity (CRC Press, 1999)

    work page 1999

  9. [9]

    D. J. Scalapino, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1383 (2012)

    work page 2012

  10. [10]

    J. F. Annett, Contemporary Physics 36, 423 (1995), https://doi.org/10.1080/00107519508232300

    work page doi:10.1080/00107519508232300 1995

  11. [11]

    Scalapino, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 117, 179 (1999)

    D. Scalapino, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 117, 179 (1999)

    work page 1999

  12. [12]

    D. J. Scalapino, E. Loh, and J. E. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. B 34, 8190 (1986)

    work page 1986

  13. [13]

    Greco and A

    A. Greco and A. P. Schnyder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 177002 (2018)

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    Ghadimi, M

    R. Ghadimi, M. Kargarian, and S. A. Jafari, Phys. Rev. B 99, 115122 (2019)

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    J. E. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 1317 (1985)

    work page 1985

  16. [16]

    A. T. Rømer, A. Kreisel, I. Eremin, M. A. Malakhov, T. A. Maier, P. J. Hirschfeld, and B. M. Andersen, Phys. Rev. B 92, 104505 (2015)

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    Triola, D

    C. Triola, D. M. Badiane, A. V. Balatsky, and E. Rossi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 257001 (2016)

    work page 2016

  18. [18]

    Cayao and A

    J. Cayao and A. M. Black-Schaffer, Phys. Rev. B 98, 075425 (2018)

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    Linder and A

    J. Linder and A. V. Balatsky, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1709.03986 (2017), arXiv:1709.03986 [cond- mat.supr-con]

    work page arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    M. R. Aliabad and M.-H. Zare, Phys. Rev. B 97, 224503 (2018)

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    P. M. R. Brydon, A. P. Schnyder, and C. Timm, Phys. Rev. B 84, 020501 (2011)

    work page 2011

  22. [22]

    Sigrist, D

    M. Sigrist, D. F. Agterberg, M. H. Fischer, J. Goryo, F. Loder, S.-H. Rhim, D. Maruyama, Y. Yanase, T. Yoshida, and S. J. Youn, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 83, 061014 (2014), https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.83.061014

    work page doi:10.7566/jpsj.83.061014 2014

  23. [23]

    A. P. Schnyder, P. M. R. Brydon, and C. Timm, Phys. Rev. B 85, 024522 (2012)

    work page 2012

  24. [24]

    Biderang, H

    M. Biderang, H. Yavari, M.-H. Zare, P. Thalmeier, and A. Akbari, Phys. Rev. B 98, 014524 (2018)

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    The European Physical Journal B 91, 217 (2018)

    work page 2018

  26. [26]

    V. L. Berezinskii, LETP Lett. 20, 287 (1974)

    work page 1974

  27. [27]

    Balatsky and E

    A. Balatsky and E. Abrahams, Phys. Rev. B 45, 13125 (1992)

    work page 1992

  28. [28]

    Linder and J

    J. Linder and J. W. A. Robinson, Nature Physics 11, 307 (2015)

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

    K.-R. Jeon, C. Ciccarelli, A. J. Ferguson, H. Kure- bayashi, L. F. Cohen, X. Montiel, M. Eschrig, J. W. A. Robinson, and M. G. Blamire, Nature materials 17, 499 (2018)

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    A. P. Schnyder, C. Timm, and P. M. R. Brydon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 077001 (2013)

    work page 2013

  31. [31]

    P. M. R. Brydon, C. Timm, and A. P. Schnyder, New Journal of Physics 15, 045019 (2013). 12

    work page 2013

  32. [32]

    Scharf, F

    B. Scharf, F. Pientka, H. Ren, A. Yacoby, and E. M. Hankiewicz, Phys. Rev. B 99, 214503 (2019)

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    K. V. Samokhin and V. P. Mineev, Phys. Rev. B 77, 104520 (2008)

    work page 2008

  34. [34]

    Sato and S

    M. Sato and S. Fujimoto, Phys. Rev. B79, 094504 (2009)

    work page 2009

  35. [35]

    Sumita and Y

    S. Sumita and Y. Yanase, Phys. Rev. B 97, 134512 (2018)

    work page 2018

  36. [36]

    Ishizuka and Y

    J. Ishizuka and Y. Yanase, Phys. Rev. B 98, 224510 (2018)

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    K. V. Samokhin, E. S. Zijlstra, and S. K. Bose, Phys. Rev. B 69, 094514 (2004)

    work page 2004

  38. [38]

    P. A. Frigeri, D. F. Agterberg, A. Koga, and M. Sigrist, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 097001 (2004)

    work page 2004

  39. [39]

    Dresselhaus, Phys

    G. Dresselhaus, Phys. Rev. 100, 580 (1955)

    work page 1955

  40. [40]

    E. I. Rashba, Sov. Phys. Soild State 2, 1109 (1960)

    work page 1960

  41. [41]

    H. Hu, L. Jiang, X.-J. Liu, and H. Pu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 195304 (2011)

    work page 2011

  42. [42]

    Yu and H

    Z.-Q. Yu and H. Zhai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 195305 (2011)

    work page 2011

  43. [43]

    Dell’Anna, G

    L. Dell’Anna, G. Mazzarella, and L. Salasnich, Phys. Rev. A 86, 053632 (2012)

    work page 2012

  44. [44]

    Z. Li, L. Covaci, and F. Marsiglio, Phys. Rev. B 85, 205112 (2012)

    work page 2012

  45. [45]

    He and X.-G

    L. He and X.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 145302 (2012)

    work page 2012

  46. [46]

    S. D. Ganichev, V. V. Bel’kov, L. E. Golub, E. L. Ivchenko, P. Schneider, S. Giglberger, J. Eroms, J. De Boeck, G. Borghs, W. Wegscheider, D. Weiss, and W. Prettl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 256601 (2004)

    work page 2004

  47. [47]

    J. D. Koralek, C. P. Weber, J. Orenstein, B. A. Bernevig, S.-C. Zhang, S. Mack, and D. D. Awschalom, Nature (London) 458, 610 (2009)

    work page 2009

  48. [48]

    C. O. Dias, H. O. Frota, and A. Ghosh, physica status solidi (b) 253, 1824 (2016)

    work page 2016

  49. [49]

    Biderang, A

    M. Biderang, A. Leonhardt, N. Raghuvanshi, A. P. Schnyder, and A. Akbari, Phys. Rev. B 98, 075115 (2018)

    work page 2018

  50. [50]

    Xiao, G.-B

    D. Xiao, G.-B. Liu, W. Feng, X. Xu, and W. Yao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 196802 (2012)

    work page 2012

  51. [51]

    F. F. Tafti, T. Fujii, A. Juneau-Fecteau, S. Ren´ e de Cotret, N. Doiron-Leyraud, A. Asamitsu, and L. Taille- fer, Phys. Rev. B 87, 184504 (2013)

    work page 2013

  52. [52]

    Engels, J

    G. Engels, J. Lange, T. Sch¨ apers, and H. L¨ uth, Phys. Rev. B 55, R1958 (1997)

    work page 1997

  53. [53]

    Nitta, T

    J. Nitta, T. Akazaki, H. Takayanagi, and T. Enoki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1335 (1997)

    work page 1997

  54. [54]

    Ikegaya and Y

    S. Ikegaya and Y. Asano, Phys. Rev. B95, 214503 (2017)

    work page 2017

  55. [55]

    J. D. Sau, R. Sensarma, S. Powell, I. B. Spielman, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B 83, 140510 (2011)

    work page 2011

  56. [56]

    Y.-T. Hsu, A. Vaezi, M. H. Fischer, and E.-A. Kim, Nature Communications 8, 14985 (2017)

    work page 2017

  57. [57]

    P. M. R. Brydon, L. Wang, M. Weinert, and D. F. Agter- berg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 177001 (2016)

    work page 2016

  58. [58]

    N. P. Butch, P. Syers, K. Kirshenbaum, A. P. Hope, and J. Paglione, Phys. Rev. B 84, 220504 (2011)

    work page 2011

  59. [59]

    S. Cobo, F. Ahn, I. Eremin, and A. Akbari, Phys. Rev. B 94, 224507 (2016)

    work page 2016

  60. [60]

    Schliemann, International Journal of Modern Physics B 20, 1015 (2006)

    J. Schliemann, International Journal of Modern Physics B 20, 1015 (2006)

    work page 2006

  61. [61]

    S. D. Ganichev and L. E. Golub, physica status solidi (b) 251, 1801 (2014)

    work page 2014

  62. [62]

    N. F. Berk and J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 433 (1966)

    work page 1966

  63. [63]

    Akbari and P

    A. Akbari and P. Thalmeier, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 102, 57008 (2013); The European Physical Journal B 86, 495 (2013)

    work page 2013

  64. [64]

    Triola, E

    C. Triola, E. Rossi, and A. V. Balatsky, Phys. Rev. B 89, 165309 (2014)

    work page 2014