Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 77 references

Orbital FFLO and layer-selective FFLO phases in trilayer NbSe$_2$

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper predicts that an in-plane magnetic field can drive trilayer NbSe2 into a superconducting phase in which finite-momentum and zero-momentum Cooper pairs coexist on different layers, visible as a V-shaped tunneling spectrum.

desk verdict A credible new odd-layer FFLO phase, but the model drops the interlayer orbital phase that real 2H stacking would introduce. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19706 v2 pith:4O4J7TSF submitted 2025-06-24 cond-mat.supr-con

Michiya Chazono , Youichi Yanase This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con PACS 74.20.-z74.25.-q
keywords finite-momentumsuperconductivityorbitalFFLOstatelayer-selectivephaseIsingsuperconductortrilayerNbSe2Bogoliubov-deGennesequationChebyshevpolynomialmethodlocaldensityofstates
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

This paper asks what superconducting phases a three-layer Ising superconductor like NbSe2 can host under an in-plane magnetic field, when the orbital motion of electrons is included along with the usual Zeeman pair-breaking and spin-orbit locking. Solving the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations on a large lattice, it finds two distinct finite-momentum states at high field. In the orbital FFLO phase, the outer layers carry Cooper pairs with momenta +q0 and -q0 while the middle layer is nearly normal. At lower temperature, the middle layer develops a nodeless order parameter that is a phase-wave superposition of zero-momentum Ising pairing and induced FFLO pairing: the authors call this the layer-selective FFLO phase, where finite- and zero-momentum Cooper pairs coexist. The two phases are separated by a second-order transition, and their local densities of states differ, so the coexistence phase should be visible in scanning-tunneling spectroscopy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the layer-resolved orbital Fermi-surface shift created by the in-plane field: with vector potential A^(1) = +Hd x̂, A^(2) = 0, A^(3) = -Hd x̂, the outer layers' Fermi surfaces move by opposite amounts while the middle layer stays put, so the natural Cooper-pair momenta are +q0 on the top layer, 0 on the middle, and -q0 on the bottom, with |q0| ≃ 2eHd found numerically. The argument then decomposes each layer's gap into an FF component Δ_FFLO $e^{{±i q0 x}}$ and an Ising component Δ_Ising, plus small proximity corrections; the layer-selective FFLO phase is precisely the coexistence of these two order parameters, with the middle-layer gap fitted by Δ_Ising $e^{{iθ}}$ + δΔ_FFLO cos(q0(x - x̄)). Large-scale Bogoliubov-de Gennes solutions via the Chebyshev polynomial method supply the amplitude and phase profiles, the order-parameter temperature dependence, and the local density of states used to identify the phases.

What would settle it

Include the orbital Peierls phase in the interlayer hopping term of the model and re-solve the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations at μ_B H_y/T_c0 = 1.6 and T/T_c0 = 0.4: if the middle-layer gap acquires nodes or vanishes, the layer-selective FFLO phase is an artifact of the gauge choice. Experimentally, scan the local density of states on the top layer of a clean trilayer NbSe2 device under a high in-plane field: a V-shaped spectrum with site-to-site modulation supports the phase, while a flat residual zero-bias spectrum in the high-field range contradicts it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the trilayer 2H-NbSe2 model, the paper claims that the orbital effect of an in-plane field shifts the top and bottom layers' Fermi surfaces by opposite momenta, ±eHd, while leaving the middle layer unshifted, and that the energetically favored Cooper-pair momenta are therefore layer-dependent. At μ_B H_y/T_c0 = 1.6 and T/T_c0 = 0.4, the Bogoliubov-de Gennes solution has outer-layer gaps close to Δ_FFLO $e^{{±i q0 x}}$ and a middle-layer gap close to Δ_Ising $e^{{iθ}}$ + δΔ_FFLO cos(q0(x - x̄)), with both Δ_FFLO and Δ_Ising nonzero: finite-momentum and zero-momentum Cooper pairs coexist. The paper calls this the layer-selective FFLO phase, argues that it is reached from the orbital FFLO phase by a second-order transition that breaks a discrete translational symmetry, and shows that the two phases have different local densities of states, the layer-selective one being V-shaped.

Load-bearing premise

The layer-selective FFLO phase rests on the assumption that the orbital magnetic field shifts only the outer layers' momenta, leaving the middle layer genuinely unshifted; the model enforces this by omitting the orbital Peierls phase from interlayer hopping, and if that phase matters the coexistence may be weakened or absent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the layer-selective FFLO phase is real, trilayer NbSe2 provides a tunable two-order-parameter superconductor whose middle-layer zero-momentum pairing and outer-layer finite-momentum pairing can be controlled independently by field and temperature.
  • The second-order transition from the orbital FFLO phase to the layer-selective FFLO phase breaks a discrete translational symmetry, so a Landau-type multicritical point should appear where the two transition lines meet.
  • Scanning tunneling spectroscopy can distinguish the phases without fitting the full gap structure: a V-shaped, spatially modulated local density of states signals the layer-selective phase, while residual zero-bias density of states signals the orbital FFLO phase.
  • Because the coexistence relies only on an odd-layer stack with an unshifted interior layer, the same phase should appear in other odd-layer transition-metal dichalcogenides, not only NbSe2.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The near-π/2 relative phase between the Ising and FFLO components on the middle layer makes the effective order parameter complex-valued; this phase texture could host circulating supercurrents or a nonreciprocal diode-like response, though the paper does not compute transport.
  • Generalizing the odd-layer logic, a five-layer stack with layer-dependent shifts +, 0, -, 0, + would have two zero-momentum layers and could make the coexistence phase even more robust; this is a direct extension the paper leaves implicit.
  • Disorder is likely the main killer of this state, as the paper itself notes, so a clean trilayer flake with a long mean free path is the experimental target, and the predicted V-shaped local density of states gives a parameter-free check.
  • The structure of alternating finite-momentum outer layers and a zero-momentum middle layer forms a natural S-FFLO-S junction; Josephson-like interference between the layers might produce field oscillations in the critical current that could be tested in a trilayer device.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a minimal three-layer tight-binding model of NbSe2 with Ising spin-orbit coupling, including both the orbital and paramagnetic effects of an in-plane magnetic field. Using a linearized gap equation and real-space Bogoliubov-de Gennes calculations with the Chebyshev polynomial method, the authors map out the temperature-field phase diagram and identify two finite-momentum superconducting states: the orbital FFLO state, in which all layers carry a finite pair momentum, and a layer-selective FFLO state, in which the two outer layers carry momenta +q0 and -q0 while the middle layer develops a nodeless zero-momentum Ising-type gap. The paper claims these two states are separated by a second-order transition and can be distinguished spectroscopically by their local density of states.

Significance. If the layer-selective FFLO phase is robust, it is a new example of coexisting finite- and zero-momentum Cooper pairs in a single material, directly relevant to the active field of orbital FFLO and finite-momentum superconductivity in transition metal dichalcogenides. The paper gives a concrete, falsifiable prediction: the LDOS changes from residual zero-energy spectral weight in the orbital FFLO state to a V-shaped spectrum in the layer-selective FFLO state on the outer layers. The numerical work is careful in several respects: the Chebyshev implementation is documented, a convergence check is provided in Fig. S2, and the real-space solutions are consistent with the linearized gap equation. The principal risk is the model's treatment of interlayer hopping, which omits orbital Peierls phases and may affect the central coexistence phase.

major comments (2)
  1. [Model, Eq. (1)] The layer-selective FFLO phase relies on the middle layer being unaffected by the orbital field, which is implemented by setting A^(2)=0 and by omitting Peierls phases in H_perp. This is gauge-consistent only for strictly vertical interlayer bonds. In actual 2H-NbSe2 stacking, adjacent Nb layers are laterally offset, so a realistic interlayer bond has an in-plane displacement and, under A=Hz xhat, carries an orbital Peierls phase of the same order as the intralayer phases. Since t_perp is comparable to the intralayer hoppings (Table S1), including this phase would give the middle layer an effective orbital shift through interlayer hybridization and could weaken or destroy the zero-momentum Ising component that defines the layer-selective FFLO state. The authors should justify the vertical-bond approximation for their effective Nb-only model or test the sensitivity of the phase to a finite in-plane offset in the interlayer hopping.
  2. [Phase transition, Fig. 5] The conclusion that the orbital-FFLO to layer-selective-FFLO transition is second-order is based on the smooth temperature dependence of the order parameters Delta_FFLO and Delta_Ising extracted from a fit to Eq. (14). No free-energy comparison between the two BdG solutions is reported for this transition. Since BdG solutions are stationary points of the mean-field free energy, the thermodynamic stability of the layer-selective phase and the order of the transition should be verified by comparing the free energies of the two solutions as a function of temperature.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (14), Figs. 3-5] The order parameters Delta_FFLO, delta_Delta_FFLO, delta'_Delta_FFLO, Delta_Ising, and delta_Delta_Ising are extracted by fitting spatial profiles to Eq. (14), but the fitting procedure is not described. Please specify the fitting method (e.g., complex least squares), the number of free parameters, and show residuals or error estimates in Figs. 3-5.
  2. [LDOS, Fig. 6] The spectroscopic distinction is illustrated by LDOS at a single site in each phase. Because the layer-selective FFLO gap amplitude is spatially modulated, the LDOS varies with position, as shown in Figs. S5-S6. A statement on how representative the chosen sites are, or a spatially averaged LDOS, would make the prediction more robust.
  3. [Results, Fig. 2; SM Sec. III] The first-order boundary between the uniform Ising and layer-selective FFLO phases at mu_B H/T_c0 approximately 0.7 relies on q0 taking discrete values on the 400-site lattice, as the authors acknowledge. Please state the discretization step Delta_q and the resulting uncertainty in the boundary, or provide a finite-size scaling.
  4. [Method, Chebyshev implementation] The convergence check in Fig. S2 verifies the uniform gap at mu_B H/T_c0 = 1.6 and T/T_c0 = 0.4. It would be helpful to state whether the same cutoff N_c = 10000 was tested for the inhomogeneous solutions at other parameter points.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the layer-selective FFLO state is an emergent BdG solution, not an input; Eq. (14) is a diagnostic fit, and the only overlapping-author citation is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim is obtained by self-consistently solving the real-space BdG equation, and the phase diagram, gap profiles, relative phase, and transition order are outputs of that numerical solution rather than imposed inputs. The layer-dependent vector potentials A^(1)=+Hd xhat, A^(2)=0, A^(3)=-Hd xhat are model inputs, but the coexistence of finite- and zero-momentum Cooper pairs, the specific phase relationship, and the second-order transition line are not forced by construction; they emerge from the self-consistent calculation. Equation (14) is a post-solution fitting form used to extract order parameters from the BdG gap profiles, so it is diagnostic rather than circular. The model parameters in Table S1 are taken from external ab initio band-structure calculations, not fitted to the layer-selective FFLO phase, and the Chebyshev BdG implementation is validated by reproducing the uniform momentum-space gap. The companion experiment [64] is cited as motivation and consistency, but the theoretical derivation does not depend on it, so the overlapping-authors citation is not load-bearing. The paper's own remark that finite-size effects prevent precise determination of the low-field transition line is a stated limitation, not a circular step. The omission of an orbital Peierls phase in H_perp is a modeling assumption that could affect quantitative conclusions, but it is a correctness or sensitivity concern, not a circular reduction. No self-definitional, fitted-input, or self-citation circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a mean-field tight-binding model with parameters carried over from prior ab initio fits, plus a gauge and modeling choice that removes the orbital shift from the middle layer. No new particle or force is introduced. The layer-selective FFLO phase is an emergent mean-field state, not an input; its falsifiable handles are the predicted LDOS and phase-diagram features.

free parameters (5)
  • chemical potential mu = 0.023 eV
    Set to reproduce monolayer NbSe2 band dispersion from ab initio; shifts the Fermi surface and affects where pairing pockets live.
  • intralayer hoppings t1-t5 = 0.0134, 0.097, 0.0066, -0.0102, -0.0144 eV
    Tight-binding parameters fitted to ab initio monolayer NbSe2 bands; determine the Fermi surface geometry that fixes q0 and the layer-selective phase.
  • Ising SOC amplitudes alpha_Z1, alpha_Z2 = 0.0163, 0.0013 eV
    Fitted to the monolayer spin splitting; Ising SOC suppresses Pauli depairing, enabling the high-field superconducting phases.
  • interlayer hopping t_perp = 0.012 eV
    Controls coupling and proximity between outer and middle layers; no orbital Peierls phase is included in this term.
  • onsite attraction U = 0.156 eV
    Attractive Hubbard interaction; sets the pairing scale and T_c0 and is carried over from prior modeling of monolayer NbSe2.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Mean-field decoupling of the onsite attractive interaction
    Equation (2); neglects pairing fluctuations and treats the superconducting order parameters as classical fields.
  • domain assumption Single-orbital tight-binding model with only Nb d-orbitals
    Supplemental Model; justified by the ab initio Fermi surface but ignores multi-orbital and orbital-mixing effects.
  • domain assumption Cooper pair momentum is along x and the state is uniform in y
    Model section; the orbital shift acts along x, but other q directions and spatial modulations are not searched.
  • ad hoc to paper Orbital field enters only through intralayer minimal substitution, not in H_perp
    Model section; the vector potential A^(m) = +/-Hd xhat shifts each layer's intralayer k, while interlayer hopping retains bare k. This is the modeling choice that leaves the middle layer unshifted.
  • domain assumption Clean system without disorder, interlayer pairing, or fluctuations
    Discussion; the authors note that disorder suppresses FFLO and may explain the absence of finite-momentum phases in some thin samples.
  • domain assumption Finite-size periodic lattice (400 x 100 sites) approximates the infinite system
    Method; convergence is shown for the uniform gap, but the low-field q0 is discretized and the transition line is uncertain.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Orbital FFLO and layer-selective FFLO phases in trilayer NbSe$_2$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4O4J7TSF

@misc{pith2026250619706,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Orbital FFLO and layer-selective FFLO phases in trilayer NbSe$_2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4O4J7TSF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19706}
}
abstract

Finite-momentum superconductivity has become an important research topic in condensed matter physics. In particular, the orbital Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov (FFLO) state, which is stabi lized in atomically thin films by the orbital effect of an external magnetic field, has been getting attention as a fascinating finite-momentum superconducting state recently. We study the phase diagram of the trilayer Ising superconductor NbSe$_2$ in the in-plane magnetic field, taking into ac count the orbital effect, the paramagnetic effect, and the spin-orbit coupling. The finite-momentum gap structure in the high-field region is shown by a large-scale numerical calculation based on the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equation. We find an exotic superconducting phase, a layer-selective FFLO phase, in which finite-momentum Cooper pairs coexist with zero-momentum Cooper pairs, separated from the orbital FFLO phase.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19706 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic image of the model Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Superconducting phase diagram obtained by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5. Temperature dependence of the order parameters of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. LDOS in (a) the orbital FFLO state at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Fulde and R

    P. Fulde and R. A. Ferrell, Superconductivity in a Strong Spin-Exchange Field, Phys. Rev.135, A550 (1964)

    1964

  2. [2]

    A. I. Larkin and Y. N. Ovchinnikov, Nonuniform state of superconductors, Sov. Phys. JETP.20, 762 (1965)

    work page 1965

  3. [3]

    Bauer and M

    E. Bauer and M. Sigrist,”Non-centrosymmetric super- conductors: introduction and overview”(Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012)

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    phase change is preserved in the orbital FFLO state

    The symbols are highlighted by red (blue) in the layer- selective FFLO (orbital FFLO) phase. phase change is preserved in the orbital FFLO state. However, this symmetry is broken in the layer-selective FFLO state because the uniform component is present (∆Ising,δ∆ Ising̸= 0). Therefore, these two superconduct- ing phases are distinguished by symmetry. We ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Smidman, M

    M. Smidman, M. B. Salamon, H. Q. Yuan, and D. F. Agterberg, Superconductivity and spin–orbit coupling in non-centrosymmetric materials: a review, Reports on Progress in Physics80, 036501 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Kittaka, Y

    S. Kittaka, Y. Kono, K. Tsunashima, D. Kimoto, M. Yokoyama, Y. Shimizu, T. Sakakibara, M. Yamashita, and K. Machida, Modulation vector of the Fulde-Ferrell- Larkin-Ovchinnikov state in CeCoIn 5 revealed by high- resolution magnetostriction measurements, Phys. Rev. B 107, L220505 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    Asaba, M

    T. Asaba, M. Naritsuka, H. Asaeda, Y. Kosuge, S. Ikemori, S. Suetsugu, Y. Kasahara, Y. Kohsaka, T. Terashima, A. Daido, Y. Yanase, and Y. Matsuda, Evidence for a finite-momentum Cooper pair in tricolor d-wave superconducting superlattices, Nature Communi- cations15, 3861 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Shimahara, S

    H. Shimahara, S. Matsuo, and K. Nagai, Nonuniform su- perconductivity due to the orbital magnetic effect in a d-wave superconductor in a magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B 53, 12284 (1996)

    work page 1996

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Kanasugi and Y

    S. Kanasugi and Y. Yanase, Anapole superconductiv- ity fromPT-symmetric mixed-parity interband pairing, Communications Physics5, 39 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Chazono, S

    M. Chazono, S. Kanasugi, T. Kitamura, and Y. Yanase, Piezoelectric effect and diode effect in anapole and monopole superconductors, Phys. Rev. B107, 214512 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Kitamura, S

    T. Kitamura, S. Kanasugi, M. Chazono, and Y. Yanase, Quantum geometry induced anapole superconductivity, Phys. Rev. B107, 214513 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Kitamura, A

    T. Kitamura, A. Daido, and Y. Yanase, Quantum geo- metric effect on Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov super- 6 conductivity, Phys. Rev. B106, 184507 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Shaffer, F

    D. Shaffer, F. J. Burnell, and R. M. Fernandes, Weak- coupling theory of pair density wave instabilities in tran- sition metal dichalcogenides, Phys. Rev. B107, 224516 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    N. S. Ticea, S. Raghu, and Y.-M. Wu, Pair density wave order in multiband systems, Phys. Rev. B110, 094515 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Velasco and M

    V. Velasco and M. B. S. Neto, Gap fluctuations, Cooper pairs with finite center-of-mass momentum, and suppres- sion of superconductivity in inhomogeneous systems with dopant superpuddles agglomerates, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter35, 415602 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Setty, J

    C. Setty, J. Zhao, L. Fanfarillo, E. W. Huang, P. J. Hirschfeld, P. W. Phillips, and K. Yang, Exact solu- tion for finite center-of-mass momentum Cooper pairing, Phys. Rev. B108, 174506 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Sumita and Y

    S. Sumita and Y. Yanase, Superconductivity in magnetic multipole states, Phys. Rev. B93, 224507 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    Sumita, T

    S. Sumita, T. Nomoto, and Y. Yanase, Multipole Su- perconductivity in Nonsymmorphic Sr 2IrO4, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 027001 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    Sumita, M

    S. Sumita, M. Naka, and H. Seo, Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin- Ovchinnikov state induced by antiferromagnetic order in κ-type organic conductors, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 043171 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Zhang, L.-H

    S.-B. Zhang, L.-H. Hu, and T. Neupert, Finite- momentum Cooper pairing in proximitized altermagnets, Nature Communications15, 1801 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Mootz, L

    M. Mootz, L. Luo, C. Huang, J. Wang, and l. E. Perakis, Multidimensional coherent spectroscopy of light-driven states and their collective modes in multiband supercon- ductors, Phys. Rev. B109, 014515 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Clepkens and H.-Y

    J. Clepkens and H.-Y. Kee, Finite-momentum and field- induced pairings in orbital-singlet spin-triplet supercon- ductors, Phys. Rev. B109, 214512 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Sboychakov, A

    A. Sboychakov, A. Rakhmanov, and A. Rozhkov, Super- conductivity and spin density wave in AA stacked bi- layer graphene, Physica E: Low-dimensional Systems and Nanostructures165, 116118 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    F. Ando, Y. Miyasaka, T. Li, J. Ishizuka, T. Arakawa, Y. Shiota, T. Moriyama, Y. Yanase, and T. Ono, Obser- vation of superconducting diode effect, Nature584, 373 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Narita, J

    H. Narita, J. Ishizuka, R. Kawarazaki, D. Kan, Y. Sh- iota, T. Moriyama, Y. Shimakawa, A. V. Ognev, A. S. Samardak, Y. Yanase, and T. Ono, Field-free supercon- ducting diode effect in noncentrosymmetric superconduc- tor/ferromagnet multilayers, Nature Nanotechnology17, 823 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    J.-X. Lin, P. Siriviboon, H. D. Scammell, S. Liu, D. Rhodes, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Hone, M. S. Scheurer, and J. I. A. Li, Zero-field superconducting diode effect in small-twist-angle trilayer graphene, Na- ture Physics18, 1221 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    B. Pal, A. Chakraborty, P. K. Sivakumar, M. Davydova, A. K. Gopi, A. K. Pandeya, J. A. Krieger, Y. Zhang, M. Date, S. Ju, N. Yuan, N. B. M. Schr¨ oter, L. Fu, and S. S. P. Parkin, Josephson diode effect from Cooper pair momentum in a topological semimetal, Nature Physics 18, 1...

    2022

  20. [28]

    M. Y. Levichev, I. Y. Pashenkin, N. S. Gusev, and D. Y. Vodolazov, Finite momentum superconductivity in su- perconducting hybrids: Orbital mechanism, Phys. Rev. B108, 094517 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    N. F. Q. Yuan and L. Fu, Supercurrent diode effect and finite-momentum superconductors, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119, e2119548119 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Daido, Y

    A. Daido, Y. Ikeda, and Y. Yanase, Intrinsic Super- conducting Diode Effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 037001 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    J. J. He, Y. Tanaka, and N. Nagaosa, A phenomenological theory of superconductor diodes, New Journal of Physics 24, 053014 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    H. D. Scammell, J. I. A. Li, and M. S. Scheurer, Theory of zero-field superconducting diode effect in twisted trilayer graphene, 2D Materials9, 025027 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Ili´ c and F

    S. Ili´ c and F. S. Bergeret, Theory of the Supercurrent Diode Effect in Rashba Superconductors with Arbitrary Disorder, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 177001 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    H. F. Legg, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, Superconducting diode effect due to magnetochiral anisotropy in topologi- cal insulators and Rashba nanowires, Phys. Rev. B106, 104501 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Daido and Y

    A. Daido and Y. Yanase, Superconducting diode effect and nonreciprocal transition lines, Phys. Rev. B106, 205206 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Ikeda, A

    Y. Ikeda, A. Daido, and Y. Yanase, Intrinsic su- perconducting diode effect in disordered systems, arXiv:2212.09211

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    J. J. He, Y. Tanaka, and N. Nagaosa, The supercurrent diode effect and nonreciprocal paraconductivity due to the chiral structure of nanotubes, Nature Communica- tions14, 3330 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Nunchot and Y

    N. Nunchot and Y. Yanase, Chiral superconducting diode effect by Dzyaloshinsky-Moriya interaction, Phys. Rev. B 109, 054508 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Nakamura, A

    K. Nakamura, A. Daido, and Y. Yanase, Orbital effect on the intrinsic superconducting diode effect, Phys. Rev. B109, 094501 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Zhang, Fabry-Perot superconducting diode, Phys

    X.-P. Zhang, Fabry-Perot superconducting diode, Phys. Rev. B109, 184513 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Daido and Y

    A. Daido and Y. Yanase, Rectification and nonlinear Hall effect by fluctuating finite-momentum Cooper pairs, Phys. Rev. Res.6, L022009 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Matsumoto, Y

    T. Matsumoto, Y. Yanase, and A. Daido, Reciprocal and nonreciprocal paraconductivity in bilayer multiphase su- perconductors, Phys. Rev. B111, 064501 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    Nagaosa and Y

    N. Nagaosa and Y. Yanase, Nonreciprocal Transport and Optical Phenomena in Quantum Materials, Annual Re- view of Condensed Matter Physics15, 63 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Nadeem, M

    M. Nadeem, M. S. Fuhrer, and X. Wang, The super- conducting diode effect, Nature Reviews Physics5, 558 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    P. Wan, O. Zheliuk, N. F. Q. Yuan, X. Peng, L. Zhang, M. Liang, U. Zeitler, S. Wiedmann, N. E. Hussey, T. T. M. Palstra, and J. Ye, Orbital Fulde–Ferrell–Larkin–Ovchinnikov state in an Ising su- perconductor, Nature619, 46 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    D. Zhao, L. Debbeler, M. K¨ uhne, S. Fecher, N. Gross, and J. Smet, Evidence of finite-momentum pairing in a centrosymmetric bilayer, Nature Physics19, 1599 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    woo Cho, K

    C. woo Cho, K. T. Lo, C. Y. Ng, T. T. Lortz, A. R. Allan, M. Abdel-Hafiez, J. Park, B. Cho, K. Park, and R. Lortz, Evidence for the novel type of orbital Fulde- Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov state in the bulk limit of 2H- NbSe2, arXiv:2312.03215

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    F. Z. Yang, H. D. Zhang, S. Mandal, F. Y. Meng, 7 G. Fabbris, A. Said, P. M. Lozano, A. Rajapitamahuni, E. Vescovo, C. Nelson, S. Lin, Y. Park, E. M. Clements, T. Z. Ward, H. N. Lee, H. C. Lei, C. X. Liu, and H. Miao, Signature of Orbital Driven Finite Momentum Pairing in a 3D...

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    Z. Cao, M. Liao, H. Yan, Y. Zhu, L. Zhang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. F. Morpurgo, H. Liu, Q.-K. Xue, and D. Zhang, Spectroscopic evidence for a first-order tran- sition to the orbital Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov state, arXiv:2409.00373

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    J.-Y. Ji, Y. Hu, T. Bao, Y. Xu, M. Huang, J. Chen, Q.- K. Xue, and D. Zhang, Continuous tuning of spin-orbit coupled superconductivity in NbSe 2, Phys. Rev. B110, 104509 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    X. Zhao, G. Guo, C. Yan, N. F. Q. Yuan, C. Zhao, H. Guan, C. Lan, Y. Li, X. Liu, and S. Wang, Or- bital Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov state in 2H-NbS2 flakes, arXiv:2411.08980

  44. [52]

    Watanabe, T

    T. Watanabe, T. Yoshida, and Y. Yanase, Odd-parity superconductivity by competing spin-orbit coupling and orbital effect in artificial heterostructures, Phys. Rev. B 92, 174502 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    Liu, Unconventional Superconductivity in Bilayer Transition Metal Dichalcogenides, Phys

    C.-X. Liu, Unconventional Superconductivity in Bilayer Transition Metal Dichalcogenides, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 087001 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    Nakamura and Y

    Y. Nakamura and Y. Yanase, Odd-parity superconduc- tivity in bilayer transition metal dichalcogenides, Phys. Rev. B96, 054501 (2017)

    2017

  47. [55]

    Masutomi, T

    R. Masutomi, T. Okamoto, and Y. Yanase, Unconven- tional superconducting phases in multilayer films with layer-dependent Rashba spin-orbit interactions, Phys. Rev. B101, 184502 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    Qiu and Y

    G.-W. Qiu and Y. Zhou, Inhomogeneous superconduct- ing states in two weakly linked superconducting ultrathin films, Phys. Rev. B105, L100506 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    Xie and K

    Y.-M. Xie and K. T. Law, Orbital Fulde-Ferrell Pairing State in Moir´ e Ising Superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 016001 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    N. F. Q. Yuan, Orbital Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov state in an Ising superconductor, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 043122 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    U. Nag, J. Schirmer, E. Rossi, C. X. Liu, and J. K. Jain, BCS Stripe Phase in Coupled Bilayer Superconductors, arXiv:2408.00689

    arXiv

  52. [60]

    H. Yan, H. Liu, Y. Liu, D. Zhang, and X. C. Xie, Orbital- FFLO State and Josephson Vortex Lattice Melting in Layered Ising Superconductors, arXiv:2409.20336

    arXiv

  53. [61]

    N. F. Q. Yuan, Orbital Fulde-Ferrell State versus Orbital Larkin-Ovchinnikov State, arXiv:2502.18075

    arXiv

  54. [62]

    Zhu, Y.-Z

    J. Zhu, Y.-Z. Chou, Y. Huang, and S. D. Sarma, In-plane magnetic field-induced orbital FFLO superconductivity in twisted WSe 2 homobilayers, arXiv:2503.18946

    arXiv

  55. [63]

    X. Xi, Z. Wang, W. Zhao, J.-H. Park, K. T. Law, H. Berger, L. Forr´ o, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Ising pairing in superconducting NbSe 2 atomic layers, Nature Physics 12, 139 (2016)

    2016

  56. [64]

    Saito, Y

    Y. Saito, Y. Nakamura, M. S. Bahramy, Y. Kohama, J. Ye, Y. Kasahara, Y. Nakagawa, M. Onga, M. Toku- naga, T. Nojima, Y. Yanase, and Y. Iwasa, Supercon- ductivity protected by spin–valley locking in ion-gated MoS2, Nature Physics12, 144 (2016)

    2016

  57. [65]

    Y. M. Itahashi, Y. Nohara, M. Chazono, H. Mat- suoka, K. Arioka, T. Nomoto, Y. Kohama, Y. Yanase, Y. Iwasa, and K. Kobayashi, Misfit layered supercon- ductor (PbSe) 1.14(NbSe2)3 with possible layer-selective FFLO state, arXiv:2506.14106

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    Sticlet and C

    D. Sticlet and C. Morari, Topological superconductiv- ity from magnetic impurities on monolayer NbSe 2, Phys. Rev. B100, 075420 (2019)

    2019

  59. [67]

    See Supplemental Material for details

  60. [68]

    Weiße, G

    A. Weiße, G. Wellein, A. Alvermann, and H. Fehske, The kernel polynomial method, Rev. Mod. Phys.78, 275 (2006)

    2006

  61. [69]

    Covaci, F

    L. Covaci, F. M. Peeters, and M. Berciu, Efficient Numer- ical Approach to Inhomogeneous Superconductivity: The Chebyshev-Bogoliubov–de Gennes Method, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 167006 (2010)

    2010

  62. [70]

    Nagai, Y

    Y. Nagai, Y. Ota, and M. Machida, Efficient Numeri- cal Self-Consistent Mean-Field Approach for Fermionic Many-Body Systems by Polynomial Expansion on Spec- tral Density, J. Phys. Soc. Japan81, 024710 (2012)

    2012

  63. [71]

    Nagai,N-independent Localized Krylov–Bogoliubov- de Gennes Method: Ultra-fast Numerical Approach to Large-scale Inhomogeneous Superconductors, J

    Y. Nagai,N-independent Localized Krylov–Bogoliubov- de Gennes Method: Ultra-fast Numerical Approach to Large-scale Inhomogeneous Superconductors, J. Phys. Soc. Japan89, 074703 (2020)

    2020

  64. [72]

    A. B. Vorontsov, J. A. Sauls, and M. J. Graf, Phase diagram and spectroscopy of Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin- Ovchinnikov states of two-dimensionald-wave supercon- ductors, Phys. Rev. B72, 184501 (2005)

    2005

  65. [73]

    Mayaffre, S

    H. Mayaffre, S. Kr¨ amer, M. Horvati´ c, C. Berthier, K. Miyagawa, K. Kanoda, and V. F. Mitrovi´ c, Evidence of Andreev bound states as a hallmark of the FFLO phase inκ-(BEDT-TTF) 2Cu(NCS)2, Nature Physics10, 928 (2014)

    2014

  66. [74]

    Matsuda and H

    Y. Matsuda and H. Shimahara, Fulde–Ferrell–Larkin–Ovchinnikov State in Heavy Fermion Superconductors, Journal of the Phys- ical Society of Japan76, 051005 (2007), https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.76.051005

    2007 doi

  67. [75]

    Y. Ding, J. He, S. Zhang, H. Zuo, P. Gu, J. Cai, X. Zeng, P. Yan, J. Cai, K. Cao, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. Dong, Y. Zhang, Y. Wu, X. Zhou, J. Wang, Y. Chen, Y. Ye, J. Liu, and J. Li, Con- structing the Fulde–Ferrell–Larkin–Ovchinnikov State in a CrOCl/NbSe2 van der Waals ...

    2024

  68. [76]

    W.-Y. He, B. T. Zhou, J. J. He, N. F. Q. Yuan, T. Zhang, and K. T. Law, Magnetic field driven nodal topolog- ical superconductivity in monolayer transition metal dichalcogenides, Communications Physics1, 40 (2018)

    2018

  69. [77]

    Wickramaratne, S

    D. Wickramaratne, S. Khmelevskyi, D. F. Agterberg, and I. I. Mazin, Ising Superconductivity and Magnetism in NbSe2, Phys. Rev. X10, 041003 (2020). 8 Supplemental Material for ”Orbital FFLO and layer-selective FFLO phases in trilayer NbSe 2” I. DET AILS OF MODEL HAMIL TONIAN Fi...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.