Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 69 references

Superconducting Diode Effect in Weak Localization Regime

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Disorder and interactions leave the diode effect's scaling intact.

desk verdict A serious one-loop GL calculation for the diode effect in dirty Rashba superconductors, with an honest but unquantified truncation caveat that barely keeps the central claim plausible. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21897 v3 pith:BQCZXIZZ submitted 2025-07-29 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hall

Naratip Nunchot , Youichi Yanase This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mes-hall
keywords superconductingdiodeeffectweaklocalizationnonlinearsigmamodelKeldyshfunctionalformalismRashbaspin-orbitcouplingGinzburg-LandautheoryCoulombinteractiondisorderedsuperconductors
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

The paper studies a dirty two-dimensional Rashba superconductor with an in-plane magnetic field and asks whether weak-localization corrections and electron-electron interactions ruin the superconducting diode effect. Using a nonlinear $\sigma$ model in the Keldysh formalism, it constructs a one-loop renormalized Ginzburg-Landau theory and finds that interactions lower the transition temperature, the critical magnetic field, and the tricritical point. Yet in the high-temperature, low-field regime the diode quality factor follows the same normalized scaling as the noninteracting case, approximately $\eta = \tilde{A}_1 h_r (1-\tau_r)^{1/2}$ for $\tau_r > 0.9$. The paper also computes the weak-localization conductivity of the resistive states and finds a trade-off: strong spin-orbit coupling favors a large diode effect but suppresses localization corrections.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a one-loop renormalized Ginzburg-Landau action built from the Keldysh nonlinear $\sigma$ model, expanded about a superconducting saddle point with generalized spectral angles. The modified Usadel equation determines the spectral functions $f_{1n\pm}$ and $f_{3n\pm}$, which feed the Ginzburg-Landau coefficients $\alpha_2$ and $\alpha_4$; the supercurrent and diode quality factor $\eta = (1-\xi)/(1+\xi)$ follow from minimizing the resulting free energy. The universal scaling emerges because the interacting and noninteracting transition lines nearly coincide when plotted on the normalized temperature and field axes $\tau_r = T/T_c$ and $h_r = h/h_c$, so the leading odd-field coefficient $\tilde{A}_1$ becomes the same in both cases.

What would settle it

A concrete check is to compute the second-cumulant contribution of the neglected terms in the simplest case and see whether the quartic coefficient $\alpha_4$ shifts enough to move the diode quality factor outside the claimed universal curve; alternatively, a numerical simulation of a disordered Rashba lattice model with interactions could test whether $\eta(T,h)$ collapses onto $\eta \approx \tilde{A}_1 (h/h_c) \sqrt{1 - T/T_c(h)}$ near $T_c$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the superconducting diode effect in a dirty two-dimensional Rashba superconductor is robust against weak-localization corrections from Cooper and long-range Coulomb interactions. Although these interactions suppress the zero-field transition temperature, the critical magnetic field, the helical Cooper-pair momentum, and the tricritical point, the normalized diode quality factor near the transition collapses onto the same universal curve as in the free case. Concretely, the diode quality factor obeys $\eta = F[1-\tilde{\tau}]^{1/2}$ with $F \simeq \tilde{A}_1 h_r$, and this law is shown numerically to hold for normalized temperatures $\tau_r > 0.9$, meaning the same diode efficiency can be obtained at lower magnetic fields once interactions are present.

Load-bearing premise

The main assumption is that the one-loop treatment is enough: the calculation leaves out certain two-propagator terms, arguing they are small at finite temperature, but it never computes them in the actual parameter regime.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Interactions suppress the transition temperature, critical magnetic field, helical Cooper-pair momentum, and tricritical point, with the long-range Coulomb interaction having a much larger effect than the Cooper channel.
  • In the high-temperature, low-field regime the diode quality factor follows the same normalized scaling with or without interactions, so comparable diode efficiency can be reached at lower magnetic fields.
  • At lower temperatures or higher fields the universal law breaks down, and the interaction can either enhance or suppress the diode effect depending on the regime.
  • The weak-localization conductivity of resistive states is suppressed by spin-orbit coupling, while a large spin-orbit coupling enhances the diode effect, implying a trade-off between the two.
  • The results point toward controlling superconducting, metallic, and insulating behavior through an electric current, since the resistive states have distinct localization properties.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is that diode-efficiency data from films with different disorder strengths should collapse onto one curve when plotted against $T/T_c(h)$ and $h/h_c(h)$ in the regime $\tau_r > 0.9$, a prediction that could be checked in measured critical-current anisotropies.
  • The robustness of the scaling suggests that the microscopic details of disorder may be irrelevant for low-field diode operation, with only the normalized distance to the transition and the normalized field mattering.
  • The neglected two-propagator corrections to $\alpha_4$ could shift the tricritical point and the low-temperature behavior; computing their second-cumulant contribution for realistic spin-orbit and Zeeman parameters would test how wide the universal regime really is.
  • The trade-off between diode efficiency and weak-localization strength in resistive states may be exploitable in device design, for example by tuning spin-orbit coupling to select whether a driven film becomes insulating or stays metallic.
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 manuscript constructs a Keldysh nonlinear-sigma-model description of a disordered two-dimensional Rashba superconductor in an in-plane Zeeman field, including Cooper and long-range Coulomb interactions. From a one-loop cumulant expansion about a superconducting saddle point, the authors derive a modified Usadel equation, obtain renormalized Ginzburg-Landau coefficients, and compute the phase diagram, the superconducting diode quality factor, and the weak-localization correction to the conductivity. The central claim is that in the high-normalized-temperature regime the diode quality factor obeys the universal scaling law eta = F sqrt(1 - tau_tilde) with F ≈ A_1 h_r (Eq. 18), with the same normalized amplitude in the free and interacting cases, so that the superconducting diode effect is robust against disorder and interaction corrections at low magnetic fields.

Significance. If the central claim survives scrutiny, the paper would be a valuable step beyond mean-field studies of the superconducting diode effect: it includes localization and Coulomb-interaction corrections in a systematic field-theoretic framework, and it makes a concrete, testable prediction about the normalized scaling of the diode quality factor near the transition line. The paper also provides an explicit derivation of the renormalized Ginzburg-Landau theory, documents the suppression of Tc and the tricritical field by interactions, and transparently compares interacting and noninteracting results. The supplemental material is unusually candid about the main technical approximation and its limitations, which is a strength. However, because the universal law is built on the fourth-order Ginzburg-Landau coefficient alpha_4, and because the consistency check in Supplemental Sec. III.D shows that the one-loop truncation changes alpha_4 already in the simplest limit, the robustness conclusion is not yet established at the level of the central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplemental Sec. III.D; main-text Eqs. (14), (16), (17), (18)] The one-loop cumulant expansion in Eq. (5) drops the term S_II in Eq. (4), and Supplemental Sec. III.D explicitly shows that in the simplest case alpha = h = A_i = 0 this produces a Delta^3-order mismatch between Eq. (S.76) and the established modified Usadel equation Eq. (S.77): the interaction denominator becomes Dq^2 + omega_n + omega'_n instead of Dq^2 + E_n + E'_n. Since alpha_4 is determined from f3n through Eqs. (14) and (16), and since alpha_4 enters the diode quality factor through Eq. (17), the omitted terms can directly affect the amplitude A_1 in Eq. (18) and the claimed free/interacting collapse. The authors argue that the missing [D(q)f]^2-type terms are higher order in 1/T and small at finite temperature, but they do not compute these terms for the actual parameters used in Figs. 1 and 2 (alpha/pF = 0.01, tau Tc0 = 1.5e-2, finite h and A_y). The consistency check is restricted to a regime where Eq. (18) is not claimed, so the magnitude of the correction to the universal coefficient remains unquantified. This is the load-bearing issue for the central claim and should be addressed, at least by an estimate of the omitted contribution in the parameter regime of Figs. 1-2.
  2. [Main text, Eq. (18) and Fig. 2] The 'universal law' in Eq. (18) is not derived parameter-free. The amplitude A_tilde (denoted A in Fig. 2) is obtained by fitting the numerically computed eta curve, and the collapse onto the tau_r-h_r scale relies on the fitted transition-line parameters h_c0, h_c, chi_c0, and chi_c reported in the text. This does not invalidate the numerical comparison between free and interacting cases, but it means the universality claim should be stated as an empirical scaling law within the model, with the fitted amplitude treated as a model output rather than a derived constant. The distinction matters because the central robustness claim is expressed through the equality of the normalized amplitude in the two cases.
  3. [Supplemental Sec. III.E and main-text Fig. 3] Supplemental Sec. III.E states that the weak-SOC parameter set used in Fig. 3 (alpha/pF = 0.002, tau Tc0 = 7.5e-3) does not satisfy either of the stated criteria for neglecting the triplet interaction channel (Gamma_r >> Tc0 and L >> L_DP). Despite this, the weak-SOC phase diagram and the weak-localization conductivity in the weak-SOC case are presented as results. The authors note that a bare triplet interaction may still be weak, but no concrete model or estimate is provided. Since the trade-off conclusion between the diode effect and weak localization is drawn partly from the weak-SOC panel, the validity of the triplet-channel neglect in that parameter regime should be justified or the affected conclusions should be restricted to the comparable-SOC case.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Main text, Eq. (18) and Fig. 2 caption] The notation for the fitted amplitude is confusing: Eq. (18) uses A_1 h_r, while Fig. 2 states 'setting A = 2.8 x 10^-3 tau_r^-1'; please clarify whether A is A_1, A_tilde, or a separately defined fit parameter.
  2. [Main text, reference list] There are typographical errors in the references: 'Proc. Nati. Acad. Sci.' should be 'Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.', and Ref. [21] contains 'Nonlinear sigma nodel' instead of 'Nonlinear sigma model'.
  3. [Supplemental material, Sec. I.A] The text contains minor typos such as 'avarage' for 'average' and 'high-order calculation' for 'higher-order calculation'; these should be corrected in a final revision.
  4. [Main text, WL conductivity section] The weak-localization conductivity calculation explicitly neglects e-e interaction corrections, while the abstract and summary state that localization behaviors are demonstrated; the distinction between the interaction-corrected superconducting properties and the noninteracting WL conductivity should be stated more clearly in the main text.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: Eq. (18) is a fit and the low-field τr–hr collapse is built into the normalization, but the core robustness comparison is an honest numerical result.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Main text, 'SD effect' section, after Eq. (18)]
    "We further find that this law is valid in a wide range of the phase diagram at high temperatures τr > 0.9, as demonstrated in Fig. 2a by setting A = 2.8 × 10−3τ −1 r . Based on these analyses, we conclude that the diode quality factor is robust against the corrections due to disorder and e-e interactions in the low-magnetic-field regime."

    The coefficient A in Eq. (18) is not computed from the GL coefficients α2 and α4 or from any first-principles input; it is set by fitting Eq. (18) to the numerically calculated η curve (green line in Fig. 2a). The subsequent statement that the law is 'valid' is therefore a fit-quality statement, not an independent test. The robustness conclusion does not reduce entirely to this fit because it also rests on the direct overlap of the interacting and free η curves, so the circularity is partial.

  2. self definitional [Main text, 'SD effect' section, transition-line fit paragraph before Eq. (18)]
    "We can fit transition lines in Fig.1a by Tc0(h)/Tc0 = [1 − χc0(h/hc0)2]1/χc0 and Tc(h)/Tc = [1 − χc(h/hc)2]1/χc . These reduce to the known behavior of the transition line τr ≃ 1 − h2 r at low fields, where hr ≡ h/hc0 (h/hc) and τr = T /Tc0 (T /Tc). Thus, the transition lines almost coincide on the τr-hr scale at low fields [Fig.1c]."

    The normalized field hr is defined by dividing h by the fitted scale hc0 or hc, and each fitted curve is forced to have the expansion τr ≈ 1 − h_r^2 near the origin. Therefore the low-field 'coincidence' of the two transition lines on the τr–hr scale is a property of the parametrization, not an emergent physical collapse. The fitted χ values (1.89 vs 1.84) do carry some information at higher fields, but the quoted low-field statement is built into the rescaling.

full rationale

The main derivation chain — NLSM action, one-loop cumulant effective action, modified Usadel equation, GL coefficients α2 and α4, and the current/diode-quality-factor calculation — is self-contained in the sense that each stage is computed from the preceding action and stated approximations; there is no hidden reuse of Eq. (18) to generate the numerical η. The central qualitative robustness claim is an honest comparison of independently computed interacting and free curves, and the paper does not rely on load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems. However, the quantitative 'universal law' Eq. (18) is presented as derived but its amplitude is fitted (A = 2.8×10−3 τ_r^{−1}), and the low-field τr–hr collapse is largely a consequence of defining hr with fitted hc0, hc. The one-loop truncation that drops SII, causing the Δ^3-order Usadel equation to disagree with the established result (Supplemental Eqs. S.76–S.77), is an approximation/correctness risk for α4 and hence for η, but it is not a circularity: it is an uncomputed higher-order correction rather than an input equated with the output. These issues make the universal-law claim partly circular, but the robustness conclusion retains independent numerical content.

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

The central scaling law Eq. (18) contains a numerically fitted amplitude A_tilde, and the tau_r-h_r collapse used to formulate it relies on fitted transition-line shapes. The derivation depends on an unverified spectral-angle ansatz, a neglected term S_II whose omission is known to produce a Delta^3-order discrepancy in the simplest limit, and an assumption about the triplet channel that is not justified for the weak-SOC parameter set. These are the main things the reader must grant before accepting the quantitative results.

free parameters (4)
  • A_tilde (amplitude of universal diode law, Eq. 18) = 2.8x10^{-3} tau_r^{-1}
    Chosen to match the numerically computed diode quality factor in Fig. 2a; the scaling law is then presented as a finding at least partly confirmed by the same data used to set this constant.
  • Transition-line shape parameters (h_c0, h_c, chi_c0, chi_c) = h_c0=3.61Tc0, h_c=3.28Tc0, chi_c0=1.89, chi_c=1.84
    Fitted to the computed zero-current transition lines in Fig. 1a to support the claim that the interacting and noninteracting transition lines coincide on the tau_r-h_r scale. These are empirical shape parameters, not predictions.
  • Model input parameters (Gamma_c, omega_D/E_F, E_F/T_c0)
    Hand-chosen physical inputs (0.2, 0.1309, 10^3) defining the weakly disordered BCS-like regime. They are not fitted to data but set the numerical regime in which the universal claim is tested, and the claim is only checked at one point in this space.
  • WL conductivity cutoffs (q_max=1/L_T, q_min=1/L_phi with L_phi p_F=10^6)
    Chosen by hand to regulate the divergent momentum integrals in the sigma_WL calculation. These cutoffs affect the reported conductivity values in Figs. 3.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Large dimensionless conductance g >> 1, so the nonlinear sigma model and one-loop perturbation theory are valid.
    The entire formalism rests on the NLSM in the weak-disorder regime; the authors confirm their two parameter sets satisfy g >> 1 in the main text.
  • ad hoc to paper Spectral-angle ansatz with the retarded-advanced relation f^R_{j epsilon +/-} = -f^A_{j -epsilon -/+} (Eq. 13) is imposed to cancel irregular divergences.
    Introduced to make the interaction contributions finite; established only in the SOC-free, interaction-free limit (Supplemental Sec. III.A), then assumed to hold generally.
  • ad hoc to paper The term S_II, containing W W structures, is omitted in the first cumulant expansion.
    Supplemental Sec. III.D shows this omission causes a Delta^3-order mismatch with the known modified Usadel equation in the simplest case; the correction is argued to be small at finite temperature but is not computed in the full problem.
  • domain assumption Triplet interaction channel can be neglected.
    Supplemental Sec. III.E notes the weak-SOC parameter set does not satisfy the established criteria (Gamma_r >> T_c0 or L_T >> L_DP) for dropping the triplet channel, yet the channel is still neglected; only the bare triplet interaction is assumed weak.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Superconducting Diode Effect in Weak Localization Regime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BQCZXIZZ

@misc{pith2026250721897,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Superconducting Diode Effect in Weak Localization Regime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BQCZXIZZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21897}
}
read the original abstract

We study a dirty two-dimensional superconductor with Rashba spin-orbit coupling and in-plane Zeeman fields described by the nonlinear sigma model that includes the Cooper and long-range Coulomb interactions. The renormalized Ginzburg-Landau theory, which includes the weak localization effects at the one-loop level, is constructed using the Keldysh functional formalism. It is shown that the transition temperature and magnetic field, as well as the tricritical point appearing in the phase diagram, are suppressed by the interactions. Nevertheless, we have found a universal behavior in the high-transition-temperature regime that demonstrates the robustness of the superconducting diode effect against the interactions. The conductivity of the resistive states emerging after the superconducting states are destroyed by the critical current is also calculated, and localization behaviors are demonstrated.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21897 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The diode quality [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The WL conductivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The gauge field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_1.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The zero-field SC transition temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The color map of the WL correction to conductivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F. Ando, Y. Miyasaki, T. Li, J. Ishizuka, T. Arakawa, Y. Shiota, T. Moriyama, Y. Yanase, and T. Ono, Obser- 6 vation of superconducting diode effect, Nature 584, 373 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Bauriedl, C

    L. Bauriedl, C. B¨ auml, L. Fuchs, C. Baumgartner, N. Paulik, J. M. Bauer, KQ. Lin, J. M. Lupton, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe et al. , Supercurrent diode ef- fect and magnetochiral anisotropy in few-layer NbSe2, Nat Commun 13, 4266 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    N. F. Q. Yuan and L. Fu, Supercurrent diode effect and finite-momentum superconductors, Proc. Nati. Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2119548119 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    The last term SII contains terms in the form ∼ Tr{(

    are listed in [ 42]. The last term SII contains terms in the form ∼ Tr{(. . . )W W} and ∼ Tr{W (. . .)W }, which do not make any contribution in the first order of ∆ q and thus are neglected. Now, we can find the effective action of the gap function, Seff . Regarding the terms other than S0[W ] as perturbative terms, Seff is given as exp ( iSeff) = ⟨exp (i [SMF...

    work page

  5. [5]

    J. J. He, Y. Tanaka, and N. Nagaosa, A phenomenolog- ical theory of superconductor diodes, New J. Phys. 24, 053014 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    Aoyama, Stripe order and diode effect in two- dimensional Rashba superconductors, Phys

    K. Aoyama, Stripe order and diode effect in two- dimensional Rashba superconductors, Phys. Rev. B 109, 024516 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Daido, Y

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

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    ( 10) and ( 11)

    with Eqs. ( 10) and ( 11). The quantum parts will be set to zero after performing the first derivatives with respect to them. Modified Usadel equation: Following the plan de- scribed in the previous paragraph, we determine the form of θc R(A),ǫ± by optimizing the effective action Seff with respect to each spectral angle. We work within the GL theory by expand...

    work page

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Nunchot and Y

    N. Nunchot and Y. Yanase, Nonlinear diode effect and Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless transition in purely tw o- dimensional noncentrosymmetric superconductors, Phys. Rev. B 111, 094515 (2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    Nunchot and Y

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

    2024

  3. [11]

    Banerjee and M

    S. Banerjee and M. S. Scheurer, Altermagnetic supercon- ducting diode effect, Phys. Rev. B 110, 024503 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Hasan, D

    J. Hasan, D. Shaffer, M. Khodas, and A. Levchenko, Su- perconducting diode efficiency from singlet-triplet mixing in disordered systems, Phys. Rev. B 111, 174514 (2025). [13] F. Wegner, The mobility edge problem: Continuous sym- metry and a conjecture, Z. Phys. B 35, 207 (1979)

    2025

  5. [13]

    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

  6. [14]

    Ikeda, A

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

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    A. M. Finkel’stein, Influence of Coulomb interaction on the properties of disordered metals, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 84, 168 (1983)

    1983

  8. [16]

    Hikami, Anderson localization in a nonlinear- σ-model representation, Phys

    S. Hikami, Anderson localization in a nonlinear- σ-model representation, Phys. Rev. B 24, 2671 (1981)

    1981

  9. [17]

    M. V. Feigel’man, A. I. Larkin, and M. A. Skvortsov, Keldysh action for disordered superconductors, Phys. Rev. B 61, 12361 (2000)

    2000

  10. [18]

    Kamenev and A

    A. Kamenev and A. Andreev, Electron-electron inter- actions in disordered metals: Keldysh formalism, Phys. Rev. B 60, 2218 (1999)

    1999

  11. [19]

    Levchenko and A

    A. Levchenko and A. Kamenev, Keldysh Ginzburg- Landau action of fluctuating superconductors, Phys. Rev. B 76, 094518 (2007)

    2007

  12. [20]

    I. V. Yurkevich and I. V. Lerner, Nonlinear σ model for disordered superconductors, Phys. Rev. B 63, 4522 (2001)

    2001

  13. [21]

    Virtanen, F

    P. Virtanen, F. S. Bergeret, and I. V. Tokatly, Nonlinear σ nodel for disordered systems with intrinsic spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. B 105, 224517 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    SD effect: Let us discuss the SD effect with focus on the diode quality factor η

    that solves the MF gap equation rigorously, our ap- proach cannot describe the first-order transition because the ∆ cl-term in the free energy is up to the 4th order. SD effect: Let us discuss the SD effect with focus on the diode quality factor η. Since η is tiny in the weak SOC...

  15. [23]

    E. J. K¨ onig, A. Levchenko, I.V. Protopopov et al. , Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless transition in homoge- neously disordered superconducting films, Phys. Rev. B 92, 214503 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Ili´ c, P

    S. Ili´ c, P. Virtanen, D. Crawford, T. T. Heikkil¨ a, and F. S. Bergeret, Superconducting diode effect in diffusive superconductors and Josephson, junctions with Rashba spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. B 110, L140501 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    P. W. Anderson, Theory of dirty superconductors, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 11, 26 (1959)

    1959

  18. [26]

    Maekawa and H

    S. Maekawa and H. Fukuyama, Localization effects in two-dimensional superconductors, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 51, 1380 (1982)

    1982

  19. [27]

    A. M. Finkel’stein, Superconductivity-transition temper - ature in amorphous films, JETP Lett. 45, 37 (1987); Suppression of superconductivity in homogeneously dis- ordered systems, Phys. B: Condens. Matter 197, 636 (1994)

    1987

  20. [28]

    Oreg and A

    Y. Oreg and A. M. Finkel’stein, Suppression of Tc in Superconducting Amorphous Wires, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 191 (1999)

    1999

  21. [29]

    M. V. Feigel’man, L. B. Ioffe, V. E. Kravtsov, and E. A. Yuzbashyan, Eigenfunction Fractality and Pseudo- gap State near the Superconductor-Insulator Transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 027001 (2007)

    2007

  22. [30]

    I. S. Burmistrov, I. V. Gornyi, and A. D. Mirlin, En- hancement of the Critical Temperature of Superconduc- tors by Anderson Localization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 017002 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    I. S. Burmistrov, I. V. Gornyi, and A. D. Mirlin, Superconductor-insulator transitions: Phase diagram and magnetoresistance, Phys. Rev. B 92, 014506 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    I. S. Burmistrov, I. V. Gornyi, and A. D. Mirlin, Multifractally-enhanced superconductivity in thin films, Ann. Phys. 435, 168499 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Fukuyama and S

    H. Fukuyama and S. Maekawa, Anderson Localization and Proximity Effect, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 55, 1814 (1986)

    1986

  26. [34]

    Takayanagi, J

    H. Takayanagi, J. B. Hansen, and J. Nitta, Localiza- tion Effects on the Critical Current of a Superconductor- Normal-Metal-Superconductor Junction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 162 (1995)

    1995

  27. [35]

    H. Raffy, R. B. Laibowitz, P. Chaudhari, and S. Maekawa, Localization and interaction effects in two- dimensional W-Re films, Phys. Rev. B 28, 6607 (1983)

    1983

  28. [36]

    J. M. Graybeal and M. R. Beasley, Localization and in- teraction effects in ultrathin amorphous superconducting films, Phys. Rev. B 29, 4167 (1984)

    1984

  29. [37]

    Chand, G

    M. Chand, G. Saraswat, A. Kamlapure, M. Mondal, S. Kumar, J. Jesudasan, V. Bagwe, L. Benfatto, V. Tripathi, and P. Raychaudhuri, Phase diagram of the strongly disordered s-wave superconductor NbN close to the metal-insulator transition, Phys. Rev. B 85, 014508 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Y. Noat, V. Cherkez, C. Brun, T. Cren, C. Carbillet, F. Debontridder, K. Ilin, M. Siegel, A. Semenov, H.-W. H¨ ubers, and D. Roditchev, Unconventional superconduc- tivity in ultrathin superconducting NbN films studied by scanning tunneling spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. B 88, 014503 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    Banerjee, L

    A. Banerjee, L. J. Baker, A. Doye, M. Nord, R. M. Heath, K. Erotokritou, D. Bosworth, Z. H. Barber, I. MacLaren, and R. H. Hadfield, Characterisation of amor- phous molybdenum silicide (MoSi) superconducting thin films and nanowires, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 30, 084010 (2017). [...

    2017

  32. [40]

    P. A. Nosov, I. S. Burmistrov, and S. Raghu, Inter- play of superconductivity and localization near a two- dimensional ferromagnetic quantum critical point, Phys. Rev B 107, 144508 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    E. S. Andriyakhina, P. A. Nosov, S. Raghu, and I.S. Burmistrov, Quantum fluctuations and multifractally- enhanced superconductivity in disordered thin films, J. Low Temp. Phys. 217, 187 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Schwiete and A

    G. Schwiete and A. D. Finkel’stein, Keldysh approach to the renormalization group analysis of the disordered electron liquid, Phys. Rev. B 89, 075437 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    See Supplemental Material for detail

  36. [44]

    Ozaki, Continued fraction representation of the Fermi- Dirac function for large-scale electronic structure calcu - lations, Phys

    T. Ozaki, Continued fraction representation of the Fermi- Dirac function for large-scale electronic structure calcu - lations, Phys. Rev. B 75, 035123 (2007)

    2007

  37. [45]

    Hikami, A

    S. Hikami, A. I. Larkin, and Y. Nagaoka, Spin-Orbit In- teraction and Magnetoresistance in the Two Dimensional Random System, Prog. Theor. Phys. 63, 707 (1980)

    1980

  38. [46]

    Maekawa and H

    S. Maekawa and H. Fukuyama, Magnetoresistance in Two-Dimensional Disordered Systems: Effects of Zeeman Splitting and Spin-Orbit Scattering, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 50, 2516 (1981)

    1981

  39. [47]

    Bergmann, Weak localization in thin films: a time-of- flight experiment with conduction electrons, Phys

    G. Bergmann, Weak localization in thin films: a time-of- flight experiment with conduction electrons, Phys. Rep. 107, 1 (1984)

    1984

  40. [49]

    Kashuba, L

    O. Kashuba, L. I. Glazman, and V. I. Fal’ko, Influence of spin dynamics of defects on weak localization in param- agnetic two-dimensional metals, Phys. Rev. B 93, 045106 (2016)

    2016

  41. [50]

    D. C. Marinescu, Cubic Dresselhaus interaction parame- ter from quantum corrections to the conductivity in the presence of an in-plane magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B 96, 115109 (2017)

    2017

  42. [51]

    I. S. Burmistrov and E. V. Repin, Quantum corrections to conductivity of disordered electrons due to inelas- tic scattering off magnetic impurities, Phys. Rev. B 98, 045414 (2018)

    2018

  43. [52]

    Hijano, S

    A. Hijano, S. Ili´ c, and F. S. Bergeret, Weak localization at arbitrary disorder strength in systems with generic spin- dependent fields, Phys. Rev. Research 6, 023100 (2024)

    2024

  44. [53]

    Maki and T

    K. Maki and T. Tsuneto, Pauli Paramagnetism and Su- perconducting State, Prog. Theor. Phys. 31, 945 (1964)

    1964

  45. [54]

    T. T. Heikkil¨ a, M. Silaev, P. Virtanen, and F. S. Bergeret, Thermal, electric and spin transport in superconductor/ferromagnetic-insulator structures, Prog. Surf. Sci. 94, 100540 (2019). [54] D. F. Agterberg and R. P. Kaur, Magnetic-field-induced helical and stripe phases in ...

    2019

  46. [55]

    A. I. Buzdin, Proximity effects in superconductor- ferromagnet heterostructures, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 935 (2005). Supplemental material I. ACTIONS A. Explicit forms of actions To obtain the action mentioned in the main text, we start with the par tition function ˜Z = ∫ D[∆, Q] e...

    2005

  47. [56]

    Using ˇLr, ˇAx, and ˇAy, we have ˇE = ˇLr(ǫτ3 + hσ1) ˇLr = τ3(ǫ + hσ3) as in the main text and ˇFxy = ∂x ˇAy− ∂y ˇAx− i[ ˇAx, ˇAy] = 2 α2τ0σ1

    Note that the terms proportional to α in the gauge field matrices are spin gauge fields that contribute to th e Rashba SOC. Using ˇLr, ˇAx, and ˇAy, we have ˇE = ˇLr(ǫτ3 + hσ1) ˇLr = τ3(ǫ + hσ3) as in the main text and ˇFxy = ∂x ˇAy− ∂y ˇAx− i[ ˇAx, ˇAy] = 2 α2τ0σ1. The other va...

  48. [57]

    E. S. Andriyakhina, P. A. Nosov, S. Raghu, and I.S. Burmis trov, Quantum fluctuations and multifractally-enhanced superconductivity in disordered thin films, J. Low Temp. Phy s. 217, 187 (2024)

    2024

  49. [58]

    I. S. Burmistrov, I. V. Gornyi, and A. D. Mirlin, Multifra ctally-enhanced superconductivity in thin films, Ann. Phys . 435, 168499 (2021)

    2021

  50. [59]

    Schwiete and A

    G. Schwiete and A. D. Finkel’stein, Keldysh approach to t he renormalization group analysis of the disordered electr on liquid, Phys. Rev. B 89, 075437 (2014)

    2014

  51. [60]

    A. M. Finkel’stein, Influence of Coulomb interaction on t he properties of disordered metals, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 84, 168 (1983)

    1983

  52. [61]

    Kamenev and A

    A. Kamenev and A. Andreev, Electron-electron interacti ons in disordered metals: Keldysh formalism, Phys. Rev. B 60 , 2218 (1999)

    1999

  53. [62]

    M. V. Feigel’man, A. I. Larkin, and M. A. Skvortsov, Keldy sh action for disordered superconductors, Phys. Rev. B 61, 12361 (2000)

    2000

  54. [63]

    Kamenev, Field Theory of Non-Equilibrium Systems (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011)

    A. Kamenev, Field Theory of Non-Equilibrium Systems (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011)

    2011

  55. [64]

    E. S. Andriyakhina and I. S. Burmistrov, Multifractally -Enhanced Superconductivity in Two-Dimensional Systems w ith Spin-Orbit Coupling, J. Theor. Phys. 135, 484 (2022)

    2022

  56. [65]

    A. M. Finkel’stein, Superconductivity-transition tem perature in amorphous films, JETP Lett. 45, 37 (1987); Suppre ssion of superconductivity in homogeneously disordered systems , Phys. B: Condens. Matter 197, 636 (1994)

    1987

  57. [66]

    I. S. Burmistrov, I. V. Gornyi, and A. D. Mirlin, Superco nductor-insulator transitions: Phase diagram and magneto resis- tance, Phys. Rev. B 92, 014506 (2015)

    2015

  58. [67]

    Kashuba, L

    O. Kashuba, L. I. Glazman, and V. I. Fal’ko, Influence of s pin dynamics of defects on weak localization in paramagneti c two-dimensional metals, Phys. Rev. B 93, 045106 (2016)

    2016

  59. [68]

    D. C. Marinescu, Cubic Dresselhaus interaction parame ter from quantum corrections to the conductivity in the pres ence of an in-plane magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B 96, 115109 (2017)

    2017

  60. [69]

    I. S. Burmistrov and E. V. Repin, Quantum corrections to conductivity of disordered electrons due to inelastic scat tering off magnetic impurities, Phys. Rev. B 98, 045414 (2018)

    2018

  61. [70]

    Hijano, S.Ili´ c, and F

    A. Hijano, S.Ili´ c, and F. S. Bergeret, Weak localization at arbitrary disorder strength in systems with generic sp in-dependent fields, Phys. Rev. Research 6, 023100 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.