Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Anisotropic vortex motion and two-dimensional superconducting transition

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that an anisotropic vortex-pinning potential explains why the same two-dimensional superconductor can show different critical temperatures and upper critical fields for current flowing along two perpendicular directions.

desk verdict A plausible new mechanism for anisotropic apparent Tc in 2D superconductors, but the central prediction lives in the extrapolated part of the simulation; worth refereeing, not desk rejecting. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05830 v2 pith:ZVXGFJU6 submitted 2025-06-06 cond-mat.supr-con

Zhipeng Xu , Kun Jiang , Jiangping Hu This is my paper
classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords BKTtransitionvortexpinninganisotropicsuperconductivitytwo-dimensionalsuperconductorsuppercriticalfieldKTaO3interfacesLangevindynamicsmobility
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Two-dimensional superconductors can appear to have different critical temperatures depending on the direction of the applied current, as reported for the EuO/KTaO3(110) interface, even though a single thermodynamic system cannot truly have two transitions. This paper proposes that the apparent split is a kinetic effect of anisotropic vortex pinning: a periodic potential with unequal barrier heights along two perpendicular directions slows vortex motion unequally, making the vortex-induced resistance direction-dependent. Below the BKT (Berezinskii–Kosterlitz–Thouless) transition the resistance is $R/R_n = s(J/J_0)^{2+s/2}/[I_0(\beta U_0)]^2$, so the direction whose vortex drift crosses the taller barrier shows a higher apparent critical temperature, where $R$ crosses the experimental detection floor. Dynamical simulations of vortices in the mixed state give the analogous split in the upper critical field, $H^x_{c2}>H^y_{c2}$. If this picture is right, engineered pinning patterns offer a general route to anisotropic—and direction-selectable—superconducting transport.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the anisotropic periodic pinning potential $U(x,y)=U_x\cos(2\pi x/L)+U_y\cos(2\pi y/L)$, with $U_x\neq U_y$. In the BKT regime the argument is carried by the exact steady-velocity solution for a Brownian particle in a tilted 1D cosine potential, whose mobility is suppressed by the factor $1/[I_0(\beta U_0)]^2$; multiplying the unpinned vortex-unbinding resistance by this factor yields Eq. (9) and hence two direction-dependent $R(T)$ curves. The 2D mapping matters: for current along x, vortex drift is along y, so the relevant barrier is $U_y$, while for current along y the relevant barrier is $U_x$. In the mixed state, the same potential enters a stochastic equation of motion for the vortex lattice; the steady vortex velocity from that equation, inserted into $R/R_n=\tilde{n}_v|\tilde{v}|/\tilde{J}$, produces the anisotropic $R(H)$ curves from which $H^x_{c2}$ and $H^y_{c2}$ are read.

What would settle it

Measure the two directional resistance curves while sweeping the minimum detectable resistance $R_{\min}$, for example by changing voltage resolution or probe current: the mechanism predicts the apparent $T^x_c-T^y_c$ split shrinks as $R_{\min}\to 0$ and both directions converge to the true BKT temperature, so a split that survives the zero-resolution limit, or reverses sign when the pinning orientation is reversed, would falsify the operational-definition explanation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that anisotropic pinning turns one BKT transition into two direction-dependent operational transition curves without any true thermodynamic splitting. With the periodic potential $U(x,y)=U_x\cos(2\pi x/L)+U_y\cos(2\pi y/L)$ and $U_x\ll U_y$, a current along x drives vortices along y, across the taller $U_y$ barriers, so flux-flow resistance is strongly suppressed; a current along y drives vortices along x across the shorter $U_x$ barriers, so resistance is close to the unpinned value. The exact mobility reduction of a tilted 1D cosine potential, $1/[I_0(\beta U_0)]^2$, applied separately with $U_0=U_y$ and $U_0=U_x$, generates two $R(T)$ curves below $T_c$; the strongly suppressed curve crosses the minimum-detectable resistance $R_{\min}$ at a higher temperature, defining the higher apparent $T^x_c$. Langevin simulations of the vortex lattice in the mixed state yield $H^x_{c2}>H^y_{c2}$ under the same potential, matching the experimental 50%-normal-resistance criterion. The paper thus argues that the material has a single true BKT transition, and the two “critical temperatures” are an anisotropic vortex-motion filter applied to it.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the mobility suppression computed for one particle in a tilted cosine potential, $1/[I_0(\beta U_0)]^2$, remains valid for the whole two-dimensional vortex–antivortex gas at every temperature below the BKT transition, and that the real EuO/KTaO3(110) sample has a periodic pinning potential with a taller barrier in the direction that matters for x-directed current.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 2D superconductor with anisotropic pinning can display two apparent critical temperatures for orthogonal current directions while the underlying BKT transition remains a single thermodynamic event.
  • The direction with the higher apparent $T_c$ (here x) is the one whose vortex drift crosses the taller barrier ($U_y$), so the sign of the anisotropy encodes which pinning axis is stronger.
  • The same mechanism produces direction-dependent upper critical fields, with $H^x_{c2}>H^y_{c2}$ for $U_x\ll U_y$, matching the KTaO3(110) data over the whole temperature range.
  • The normalized difference $|T^x_c-T^y_c|/(T^x_c+T^y_c)$ is predicted to grow with probing current, giving a quantitative signature that can be checked in transport experiments.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the mobility-reduction factor is a single-particle, purely kinetic result, the same $1/[I_0(\beta U_0)]^2$ suppression should appear in any two-dimensional conductor with a cosine washboard pinning landscape—for instance sliding charge-density waves or vortex lattices in artificial pinning arrays—offering a transferable way to test the mechanism outside superconductors.
  • The operational definition of $T_c$ via $R_{\min}$ implies the measured anisotropy should also depend on voltage resolution, not just current; a split that shrinks as $R_{\min}$ is lowered would confirm the kinetic picture, while a resolution-independent split would point to intrinsic electronic anisotropy.
  • A microscopic calculation of the pinning barriers, from the ferromagnetic EuO stripe texture or structural domains, would turn the phenomenological $U_x,U_y$ into a predictive model and could guide materials design.
  • At larger currents or higher fields the vortex–vortex interactions neglected in the BKT derivation become relevant; interacting vortex clusters may partially average out the pinning anisotropy, predicting that the $T_c$ and $H_{c2}$ splits shrink at high excitation—a test beyond the paper's stated regime.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that an anisotropic periodic pinning potential acting on vortices can explain the directional dependence of the superconducting transition observed in EuO/KTaO3(110). For the mixed state under a magnetic field, the authors simulate the 2D Langevin dynamics of vortices and obtain R(H) curves that give distinct upper critical fields H_x^c2 > H_y^c2 for current along the x and y directions. For the BKT transition, they combine the Halperin-Nelson resistance formula with the 1D tilted-cosine mobility suppression, obtaining Eq. (9), R/Rn = s(J/J0)^(2+s/2)/[I0(βU0)]^2, and argue that with U_y > U_x the experimental critical temperature, defined as the R = R_min crossing, is higher for current along x than along y. The paper also compares the analytical BKT curves with full 2D simulations, though the low-temperature parts of the simulated curves are extrapolated.

Significance. If established, this mechanism would provide a simple and general explanation for apparent multiple critical temperatures in 2D superconductors and a natural interpretation of the anisotropic transport in oxide heterostructures. The magnetic-field part is directly supported by the 2D Langevin simulation, and the analytical derivation of the 1D mobility suppression factor is standard. The paper also makes a falsifiable qualitative prediction that the anisotropy should depend on the probing current. The main weakness is that the central BKT prediction is not actually simulated in the temperature region where the experimental critical temperature is defined, and the sign of the effect is put in by hand through the choice U_y > U_x.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplemental Material I; Fig. 3(b)] The low-temperature branches of the numerical R–T curves in Fig. 3(b) are not simulated: Supplemental Material I states that below the lowest numerically tractable temperature (where only one vortex and one antivortex are present) the resistance is estimated by substituting the velocity |v| computed at that lowest temperature into Eq. (4). Because the experimental critical temperature is defined as the R = R_min crossing, the predicted T_x^c > T_y^c is determined in the extrapolated branch, not in the region where the 2D Langevin dynamics were actually solved. This leaves the central BKT prediction dependent on the assumption that the vortex velocity remains frozen at its coldest simulated value at all lower temperatures, which is not derived from the model. I ask the authors to either extend the simulations into the low-temperature regime (e.g., with larger system sizes, bias/umbrella sampling, or an analytic low-T creep calculation) or to explicitly restrict the claim to the regime that is actually simulated.
  2. [Eq. (9); Eqs. (5a)–(8)] The derivation of Eq. (9) multiplies the unpinned Halperin–Nelson vortex density s(J/J0)^(2+s/2) by the 1D single-particle mobility suppression 1/[I0(βU0)]^2. This assumes that the anisotropic pinning potential changes only the vortex mobility and not the vortex–antivortex pair-unbinding rate, the renormalized stiffness, or the interaction kernel. The 2D simulation uses the same density formula as input, so it does not test the effect of pinning on the density; and it tests the velocity suppression only in the high-temperature window. At lower temperatures, pinning-induced changes to pair dynamics or thermally activated creep could modify the exponent or the denominator in Eq. (9), with the risk of shifting, narrowing, or reversing the R_min crossings. The manuscript should provide a supporting argument or a separate numerical test for the multiplicative factorization.
  3. [Critical Field section; Fig. 2; Fig. 3] The sign of the predicted anisotropy (T_x^c > T_y^c and H_x^c2 > H_y^c2) is an input rather than an output: it follows from choosing U_y > U_x. The paper does not derive U_x and U_y from the stripe structure of EuO/KTaO3(110) reported in Ref. [16], nor does it provide independent estimates for these barriers. The comparison with experiment is therefore illustrative and cannot by itself validate the mechanism. The authors should state which measured quantities would constitute a quantitative test (for example, the current dependence shown in Fig. S1, or the temperature dependence of H_x^c2/H_y^c2) and should avoid presenting the agreement with the sign of the observed anisotropy as confirmation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; main text] The phrase 'critical temperatures' is used for the operational R = R_min crossing rather than the thermodynamic BKT transition; this distinction should be made explicit at first use to avoid a misleading reading.
  2. [Fig. 3(a)] The non-monotonic dip near T_c is dismissed as outside the applicable range of Eq. (5a); the precise domain of validity of Eq. (9) should be stated before presenting the curves.
  3. [Eq. (5a)] The parameters b and τ_c are not discussed beyond being 'of order unity'; a brief discussion and a sensitivity analysis of the R_min crossings to these parameters would strengthen the quantitative claims.
  4. [Fig. 3(b)] The caption should identify which dashed curve corresponds to the x- and y-directions and should state explicitly that the dashed parts are extrapolations, as the current caption leaves this to the Supplemental Material.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the anisotropic result is a consequence of explicitly chosen anisotropic input parameters, not a derivation that reduces to its own prediction.

full rationale

The paper proposes a mechanism: an anisotropic pinning potential U(r)=Ux cos(2πx/L)+Uy cos(2πy/L) with Uy>Ux suppresses vortex motion anisotropically, which produces direction-dependent resistance and apparent critical temperatures. This is a sufficiency demonstration, not a circular derivation: the output (T_x^c > T_y^c, H_x^c2 > H_y^c2) follows from the input (U_y > U_x) through the stated equations, but no claim is made that the anisotropy is derived from an isotropic input or from data. The 1D tilted-cosine mobility factor 1/[I0(βU0)]^2 is taken from the independent analytical solution of a Langevin equation (Eqs. 6-8, citing Refs. [28,41]), and the unpinned BKT resistance is taken from Halperin-Nelson (Eq. 5a, Ref. [22]). Combining them to form Eq. (9) is a legitimate model construction, not a self-referential fit. The directional dependence is introduced by identifying U0 with Ux and Uy in Eq. (9); this is an assumption, but it is an assumption about the input potential, not a hidden reuse of the predicted quantity. The 2D Langevin simulations in Fig. 3(b) validate the 1D reduction in the numerically accessible temperature window; the low-temperature dashed lines are extrapolations, which is a correctness and applicability caveat (the apparent Tc crossing lies in that extrapolated branch), but extrapolation is not circularity. The current-dependence prediction in Supplemental II is a self-contained consequence of Eq. (9). There are no load-bearing self-citations: Refs. [22,28,41] are independent prior works, and Ref. [16] is the experimental report. The central claim is ultimately a 'can' claim: anisotropic pinning can produce multiple apparent critical temperatures. That claim is not circular, even though the sign of the effect is inherited from the chosen sign of U_y - U_x.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central demonstration depends on a set of chosen parameters (barrier heights, pinning period, current, BKT parameters) rather than on data-derived values, and on the assumption that a 1D mobility factor captures 2D vortex dynamics. The paper is honest about the unknown origin of the pinning potential, but the quantitative predictions are model-dependent.

free parameters (8)
  • Ux (pinning barrier along x) = 3.4 (dimensionless, critical-field) / 0.115 meV (BKT)
    Barrier height of the periodic pinning potential along x; chosen smaller than Uy to produce the observed anisotropy direction; not measured or fitted to data.
  • Uy (pinning barrier along y) = 8.6 (dimensionless, critical-field) / 0.291 meV (BKT)
    Barrier height along y; chosen larger than Ux so that resistance along x (vortex drift along y) is suppressed more, giving T_x^c > T_y^c.
  • L (pinning period) = 400 nm
    Period of the cosine pinning potential; chosen to match an assumed stripe period at the KTaO3 interface; no measurement cited.
  • J (probing current) = 0.19 (dimensionless, critical-field) / J/J0=0.1 (BKT)
    Applied current density in the simulations; chosen in the small-current regime; not tied to the experimental measurement current.
  • kBTc (BKT transition temperature) = 0.10 meV
    The isotropic BKT transition temperature used in both directions; chosen to be in the range of typical interface superconductors; the apparent Tc splitting depends on this scale relative to Rmin.
  • tau_c = (T0_c - Tc)/Tc = 0.15
    Parameter in the Halperin-Nelson formula controlling the vortex density near Tc; chosen by hand; not fitted to the experiment.
  • b = 1
    Dimensionless constant of order unity in the Halperin-Nelson formula (Eq. 5a); set to 1 without further justification.
  • Rmin (minimum detectable resistance) = not specified
    Operational threshold defining the experimental critical temperature in Figs. 3; its value determines where the R-T curves cross, but it is never quantified in the paper.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The 2D superconducting transition is described by BKT vortex-antivortex unbinding, and the resistance is given by the Halperin-Nelson formula R/Rn = s(J/J0)^(2+s/2) (Eq. 5a).
    Standard BKT theory is assumed to apply to the 2D superconductor, including the form of the vortex density near Tc; the paper cites Refs. [22, 38-40].
  • ad hoc to paper The 1D Langevin solution for a tilted cosine potential (Refs. [28,41]) yields a steady velocity reduced by 1/[I0(βU0)]^2, and this factor is used for the 2D vortex dynamics.
    The paper's central BKT result, Eq. (9), equates the 2D resistance for each current direction to the 1D mobility result. This reduction is validated by 2D simulation only in the tractable temperature window.
  • ad hoc to paper The pinning potential does not modify the BKT transition temperature Tc or the vortex-antivortex interaction strength; it only affects vortex mobility.
    The model keeps a single isotropic Tc and ascribes the different apparent critical temperatures solely to resistance suppression from pinning. No renormalization of stiffness by the periodic potential is considered.
  • domain assumption In the BKT regime, the vortex-antivortex interaction can be neglected because the current-induced vortex density is low.
    The paper states this in the BKT section to justify the single-particle 1D treatment; it may fail near Tc where the density grows, though the authors restrict their use to below Tc.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anisotropic vortex motion and two-dimensional superconducting transition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZVXGFJU6

@misc{pith2026250605830,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anisotropic vortex motion and two-dimensional superconducting transition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZVXGFJU6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05830}
}
abstract

Vortex motion plays a central role in determining the resistance of two-dimensional superconductors, both in the context of the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) transition and in the mixed state of type-II superconductors under magnetic fields. In this study, we introduce an anisotropic pinning potential to investigate vortex-induced resistance across the BKT transition and the upper critical field $H_{c2}$ transition. Our results demonstrate that the anisotropic pinning potential gives rise to distinct critical temperatures and upper critical fields along two orthogonal directions of current transport. These findings provide a general route toward the realization of multiple "critical temperatures" in two-dimensional superconductors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05830 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Illustration of the three crystallographic directions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Schematic illustration of the periodic pinning potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Analytical and (b) numerical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Superconducting stripes induced by ferromagnetic proximity in an oxide heterostruc- ture,

    Xiangyu Hua, Zimeng Zeng, Fanbao Meng, Hongxu Yao, Zongyao Huang, Xuanyu Long, Zhaohang Li, Youfang Wang, Zhenyu Wang, Tao Wu, Zhengyu Weng, Yihua Wang, Zheng Liu, Ziji Xiang, and Xianhui Chen, “Superconducting stripes induced by ferromagnetic proximity in an oxide heterostruc- ture,” Nature Physics 20, 957–963 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Emergent phenomena at oxide interfaces,

    H. Y . Hwang, Y . Iwasa, M. Kawasaki, B. Keimer, N. Nagaosa, and Y . Tokura, “Emergent phenomena at oxide interfaces,” Na- ture Materials 11, 103–113 (2012)

    work page 2012

  3. [2]

    A high-mobility electron gas at the LaAlO 3/SrTiO3 heterointerface,

    A. Ohtomo and H. Y . Hwang, “A high-mobility electron gas at the LaAlO 3/SrTiO3 heterointerface,” Nature 427, 423–426 (2004)

    work page 2004

  4. [3]

    Superconducting interfaces between insulat- ing oxides,

    N. Reyren, S. Thiel, A. D. Caviglia, L. Fitting Kourkoutis, G. Hammerl, C. Richter, C. W. Schneider, T. Kopp, A.-S. R¨uetschi, D. Jaccard, M. Gabay, D. A. Muller, J.-M. Triscone, and J. Mannhart, “Superconducting interfaces between insulat- ing oxides,” Science 317, 1196–1199 (2007)

    work page 2007

  5. [4]

    Tuning spin-orbit coupling and superconductivity at the SrTiO 3/LaAlO3 interface: A magnetotransport study,

    M. Ben Shalom, M. Sachs, D. Rakhmilevitch, A. Palevski, and Y . Dagan, “Tuning spin-orbit coupling and superconductivity at the SrTiO 3/LaAlO3 interface: A magnetotransport study,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 126802 (2010)

    work page 2010

  6. [5]

    Di- rect imaging of the coexistence of ferromagnetism and super- conductivity at the LaAlO 3/SrTiO3 interface,

    Julie A. Bert, Beena Kalisky, Christopher Bell, Minu Kim, Ya- suyuki Hikita, Harold Y . Hwang, and Kathryn A. Moler, “Di- rect imaging of the coexistence of ferromagnetism and super- conductivity at the LaAlO 3/SrTiO3 interface,” Nature Physics 7, 767–771 (2011)

    work page 2011

  7. [6]

    Super- conducting and ferromagnetic phases in SrTiO3/LaAlO3 oxide interface structures: Possibility of finite momentum pairing,

    Karen Michaeli, Andrew C. Potter, and Patrick A. Lee, “Super- conducting and ferromagnetic phases in SrTiO3/LaAlO3 oxide interface structures: Possibility of finite momentum pairing,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 117003 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [7]

    Two-dimensional superconductivity at the (111)LaAlO3/SrTiO3 interface,

    A. M. R. V . L. Monteiro, D. J. Groenendijk, I. Groen, J. de Bruijckere, R. Gaudenzi, H. S. J. van der Zant, and A. D. Caviglia, “Two-dimensional superconductivity at the (111)LaAlO3/SrTiO3 interface,” Phys. Rev. B 96, 020504 5 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 41 references
  1. [8]

    Interface-induced high-temperature super- conductivity in single unit-cell FeSe films on SrTiO 3,

    Wang Qing-Yan, Li Zhi, Zhang Wen-Hao, Zhang Zuo-Cheng, Zhang Jin-Song, Li Wei, Ding Hao, Ou Yun-Bo, Deng Peng, Chang Kai, Wen Jing, Song Can-Li, He Ke, Jia Jin-Feng, Ji Shuai-Hua, Wang Ya-Yu, Wang Li-Li, Chen Xi, Ma Xu-Cun, and Xue Qi-Kun, “Interface-induced high-temperature s...

    2012

  2. [9]

    Highly mobile two- dimensional electron gases with a strong gating e ffect at the amorphous LaAlO3/KTaO3 interface,

    Hui Zhang, Hongrui Zhang, Xi Yan, Xuejing Zhang, Qinghua Zhang, Jing Zhang, Furong Han, Lin Gu, Banggui Liu, Yuan- sha Chen, Baogen Shen, and Jirong Sun, “Highly mobile two- dimensional electron gases with a strong gating e ffect at the amorphous LaAlO3/KTaO3 interface,” ACS A...

    2017

  3. [10]

    Two-dimensional superconductivity and anisotropic transport at KTaO 3 (111) interfaces,

    Changjiang Liu, Xi Yan, Dafei Jin, Yang Ma, Haw-Wen Hsiao, Yulin Lin, Terence M. Bretz-Sullivan, Xianjing Zhou, John Pearson, Brandon Fisher, J. Samuel Jiang, Wei Han, Jian-Min Zuo, Jianguo Wen, Dillon D. Fong, Jirong Sun, Hua Zhou, and Anand Bhattacharya, “Two-dimensional sup...

    2021

  4. [11]

    Electric field control of superconductivity at the LaAlO3/KTaO3(111) interface,

    Zheng Chen, Yuan Liu, Hui Zhang, Zhongran Liu, He Tian, Yanqiu Sun, Meng Zhang, Yi Zhou, Jirong Sun, and Yanwu Xie, “Electric field control of superconductivity at the LaAlO3/KTaO3(111) interface,” Science 372, 721–724 (2021)

    2021

  5. [12]

    High-mobility spin-polarized two- dimensional electron gases at EuO /KTaO3 interfaces,

    Hongrui Zhang, Yu Yun, Xuejing Zhang, Hui Zhang, Yang Ma, Xi Yan, Fei Wang, Gang Li, Rui Li, Tahira Khan, Yuan- sha Chen, Wei Liu, Fengxia Hu, Banggui Liu, Baogen Shen, Wei Han, and Jirong Sun, “High-mobility spin-polarized two- dimensional electron gases at EuO /KTaO3 interfa...

    2018

  6. [13]

    Gate tunability of the superconducting state at the EuO/KTaO3 (111) interface,

    Weiliang Qiao, Yang Ma, Jiaojie Yan, Wenyu Xing, Yunyan Yao, Ranran Cai, Boning Li, Richen Xiong, X. C. Xie, Xi Lin, and Wei Han, “Gate tunability of the superconducting state at the EuO/KTaO3 (111) interface,” Phys. Rev. B 104, 184505 (2021)

    2021

  7. [14]

    Tun- able two-dimensional superconductivity and spin-orbit cou- pling at the EuO /KTaO3(110) interface,

    Xiangyu Hua, Fanbao Meng, Zongyao Huang, Zhaohang Li, Shuai Wang, Binghui Ge, Ziji Xiang, and Xianhui Chen, “Tun- able two-dimensional superconductivity and spin-orbit cou- pling at the EuO /KTaO3(110) interface,” npj Quantum Mate- rials 7, 97 (2022)

    2022

  8. [15]

    Tunable super- conductivity and its origin at KTaO 3 interfaces,

    Changjiang Liu, Xianjing Zhou, Deshun Hong, Brandon Fisher, Hong Zheng, John Pearson, Jidong Samuel Jiang, Dafei Jin, Michael R. Norman, and Anand Bhattacharya, “Tunable super- conductivity and its origin at KTaO 3 interfaces,” Nature Com- munications 14, 951 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Un- conventional superconductivity in magic-angle graphene super- lattices,

    Yuan Cao, Valla Fatemi, Shiang Fang, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Efthimios Kaxiras, and Pablo Jarillo-Herrero, “Un- conventional superconductivity in magic-angle graphene super- lattices,” Nature 556, 43–50 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Highly crys- talline 2d superconductors,

    Yu Saito, Tsutomu Nojima, and Yoshihiro Iwasa, “Highly crys- talline 2d superconductors,” Nature Reviews Materials2, 16094 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    Destruction of long range order in one- dimensional and two-dimensional systems having a continu- ous symmetry group. I. Classical systems,

    V . L. Berezinsky, “Destruction of long range order in one- dimensional and two-dimensional systems having a continu- ous symmetry group. I. Classical systems,” Sov. Phys. JETP32, 493–500 (1971)

    1971

  12. [20]

    Ordering, metastability and phase transitions in two-dimensional systems,

    J M Kosterlitz and D J Thouless, “Ordering, metastability and phase transitions in two-dimensional systems,” Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 6, 1181 (1973)

    1973

  13. [21]

    The critical properties of the two-dimensional xy model,

    J M Kosterlitz, “The critical properties of the two-dimensional xy model,” Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 7, 1046 (1974)

    1974

  14. [22]

    Resistive transition in su- perconducting films,

    B. I. Halperin and David R. Nelson, “Resistive transition in su- perconducting films,” Journal of Low Temperature Physics 36, 599–616 (1979)

    1979

  15. [23]

    Theory of an infinitely anisotropic phase of a two-dimensional super- conductor,

    Zi-Xiang Li, Steven A Kivelson, and Dung-Hai Lee, “Theory of an infinitely anisotropic phase of a two-dimensional super- conductor,” arXiv:2407.10269 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Tinkham, Introduction to Superconductivity (McGraw Hill, 1996)

    M. Tinkham, Introduction to Superconductivity (McGraw Hill, 1996)

    1996

  17. [25]

    N. B. Kopnin, Theory of Nonequilibrium Superconductivity (Clarendon Press, 2001)

    2001

  18. [26]

    Theory of the motion of vortices in superconductors,

    John Bardeen and M. J. Stephen, “Theory of the motion of vortices in superconductors,” Phys. Rev. 140, A1197–A1207 (1965)

    1965

  19. [27]

    Viscous flow of flux in type-ii superconductors,

    M. Tinkham, “Viscous flow of flux in type-ii superconductors,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 804–807 (1964)

    1964

  20. [28]

    Nonreciprocal charge transport in two- dimensional noncentrosymmetric superconductors,

    Shintaro Hoshino, Ryohei Wakatsuki, Keita Hamamoto, and Naoto Nagaosa, “Nonreciprocal charge transport in two- dimensional noncentrosymmetric superconductors,” Phys. Rev. B 98, 054510 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Zwanzig, Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics (Oxford University Press, 2001)

    R. Zwanzig, Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics (Oxford University Press, 2001)

    2001

  22. [30]

    Dynamic melting of the vortex lattice,

    A. E. Koshelev and V . M. Vinokur, “Dynamic melting of the vortex lattice,” Phys. Rev. Lett.73, 3580–3583 (1994)

    1994

  23. [31]

    Anisotropic scaling in thresh- old critical dynamics of driven directed lines,

    Deniz Ertas ¸ and Mehran Kardar, “Anisotropic scaling in thresh- old critical dynamics of driven directed lines,” Phys. Rev. B53, 3520–3542 (1996)

    1996

  24. [32]

    Langevin simulations of the out-of-equilibrium dynamics of vortex glasses in high-temperature superconduc- tors,

    Sebastian Bustingorry, Leticia F. Cugliandolo, and Daniel Dom´ınguez, “Langevin simulations of the out-of-equilibrium dynamics of vortex glasses in high-temperature superconduc- tors,” Phys. Rev. B75, 024506 (2007)

    2007

  25. [33]

    Depinning and creep motion in glass states of flux lines,

    Meng-Bo Luo and Xiao Hu, “Depinning and creep motion in glass states of flux lines,” Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 267002 (2007)

    2007

  26. [34]

    Theory and simulations on strong pinning of vortex lines by nanoparticles,

    A. E. Koshelev and A. B. Kolton, “Theory and simulations on strong pinning of vortex lines by nanoparticles,” Phys. Rev. B 84, 104528 (2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    Relaxation dynamics in type-ii superconductors with point-like and correlated disorder,

    Ulrich Dobramysl, Hiba Assi, Michel Pleimling, and Uwe C. T¨auber, “Relaxation dynamics in type-ii superconductors with point-like and correlated disorder,” The European Physical Journal B 86, 228 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    Relaxation dynam- ics of vortex lines in disordered type-ii superconductors follow- ing magnetic field and temperature quenches,

    Hiba Assi, Harshwardhan Chaturvedi, Ulrich Dobramysl, Michel Pleimling, and Uwe C. T ¨auber, “Relaxation dynam- ics of vortex lines in disordered type-ii superconductors follow- ing magnetic field and temperature quenches,” Phys. Rev. E92, 052124 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    Disordered vortex matter out of equilibrium: a langevin molecular dynamics study,

    Hiba Assi, Harshwardhan Chaturvedi, Ulrich Dobramysl, Michel Pleimling, and Uwe C. T ¨auber, “Disordered vortex matter out of equilibrium: a langevin molecular dynamics study,” Molecular Simulation 42, 1401–1409 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Dissipation in two-dimensional superfluids,

    Vinay Ambegaokar, B. I. Halperin, David R. Nelson, and Eric D. Siggia, “Dissipation in two-dimensional superfluids,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 783–786 (1978)

    1978

  31. [39]

    Dissipation near the critical point of a two-dimensional superfluid,

    B. A. Huberman, R. J. Myerson, and S. Doniach, “Dissipation near the critical point of a two-dimensional superfluid,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 780–782 (1978)

    1978

  32. [40]

    Quasiequilibrium statistical mechanics of two-dimensional superfluids and the two-dimensional coulomb gas,

    R. J. Myerson, “Quasiequilibrium statistical mechanics of two-dimensional superfluids and the two-dimensional coulomb gas,” Phys. Rev. B18, 3204–3213 (1978)

    1978

  33. [41]

    Giant acceleration of free di ffu- 6 sion by use of tilted periodic potentials,

    P. Reimann, C. Van den Broeck, H. Linke, P. H ¨anggi, J. M. Rubi, and A. P ´erez-Madrid, “Giant acceleration of free di ffu- 6 sion by use of tilted periodic potentials,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 010602 (2001). 1 Supplemental Material I. Details of the 2D simulation for the BKT ca...

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.