Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 2 minor 120 references

North-South Asymmetry of the Solar Activity at Different Spatial Scales

T0 review · 4 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the Sun's 11-year cycle and its short-lived sunspot distribution are generated by two distinct physical mechanisms—a mean-field dynamo for the long-term large-scale field and a separate subsurface spot-production proce

desk verdict The solar asymmetry paper cannot be assessed from this submission: the attached full text is a superconductivity manuscript, so only the abstract is available, and the two-mechanism claim is a plausible but unverified leap. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.04866 v1 pith:Z6JHAAJ5 submitted 2025-08-06 astro-ph.SR

V.N.Obridko , A.S.Shibalova , D.D.Sokoloff , I.M.Livshits This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solarcyclenorth-southasymmetrymean-fielddynamosunspotformationnear-surfaceshearlayerleptoclineactivitytimescales
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 claims that solar activity on the ~11-year cycle scale and on the ~1-year scale are not two aspects of the same dynamo but products of two distinct mechanisms. It rests this claim on a difference in north-south asymmetry: the long-term large-scale magnetic field is basically (anti)symmetric with respect to the solar equator, while the short-term sunspot distribution is more or less random. The paper concludes that the 11-year cycle is created by the mean-field dynamo in the convection zone, whereas the transformation of magnetic flux into spots and active regions happens in the subsurface layer (the near-surface shear layer or leptocline) as a separate physical mechanism. A sympathetic reader would care because this split, if correct, changes how solar-cycle forecasts are built and where the dynamo's surface manifestations should be modeled.

What carries the argument

The central object is the contrast in north-south asymmetry between two spatial scales of solar activity: the large-scale magnetic field pattern that is (anti)symmetric over the 11-year cycle, versus the sunspot distribution that is random on the ~1-year scale. The paper uses this asymmetry contrast to separate the dynamo-generated long-term structures (mean-field dynamo, operating in the convection zone) from the short-term spot-production process located in the near-surface shear layer (leptocline).

What would settle it

A quantitative re-analysis of sunspot and magnetogram records that applies a transparent time-scale decomposition (e.g., filtering out the 11-year cycle and its harmonics) and tests whether the residual short-term distribution is statistically different from symmetry would settle the claim. If the residual asymmetry turns out to be consistent with random fluctuations, or if the 11-year and short-term components are indistinguishable once cycle phase is removed, the two-mechanism conclusion would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the scale of a solar cycle (~11 years), solar activity appears basically (anti)symmetric with respect to the equator, while on a short timescale (~1 year) the sunspot distribution looks more or less random. Using sunspot data and the surface large-scale magnetic field, the authors investigate the spatial distributions of magnetic structures on both timescales and arrive at a two-mechanism interpretation: the long-term structures are created by the mean-field dynamo, and the short-term structures by spot production considered as a separate physical mechanism. The conversion of magnetic flux into spots and active regions is argued to take place on much shorter timescales, in the subsurface

Load-bearing premise

The claim depends on the statistical reality of the contrast between the (anti)symmetric 11-year pattern and the 'more or less random' short-term sunspot distribution, and on the ability to cleanly separate the two time scales in the data; if that contrast is sampling noise or an artifact of the decomposition, the two-mechanism conclusion does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 11-year cycle and the short-lived sunspot population are not generated by the same dynamo mechanism; they must be modeled separately.
  • Sunspot formation is a near-surface process: the transformation of magnetic flux into spots happens in the NSSL/leptocline, on short timescales.
  • North-south asymmetry statistics can be used as a diagnostic to separate dynamo-driven large-scale structures from stochastic spot-production processes.
  • Solar-cycle predictions based only on mean-field dynamo models would not directly capture short-term sunspot activity; forecasts would need to include the separate subsurface mechanism.
  • The dynamo's surface manifestation (large-scale field) and the spot-producing processes can, in principle, evolve independently, which may explain why spot emergence patterns and large-scale field patterns do not always match.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the two mechanisms are truly separate, then the random-looking short-term asymmetry could be a probe of the leptocline's local dynamics rather than noise; one could test this by checking whether the randomness persists when the dataset is restricted to spots that emerge within the NSSL's latitude band.
  • A testable extension is to apply the same asymmetry separation to a longer, multi-cycle sunspot record and a magnetogram record with matched spatial resolution; if the short-term component still shows no symmetry after accounting for the cycle phase, the two-mechanism claim gains support.
  • The paper's split also suggests that solar dynamo models and sunspot-formation models should be coupled only through boundary conditions at the surface, rather than treating spots as the dynamo's direct output—an implication the authors leave implicit.
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

4 major / 2 minor

Summary. The submission, identified as arXiv:2508.04866 (astro-ph.SR), consists of an abstract on the North-South asymmetry of solar activity and a full text that is in fact arXiv:2508.04867v2, an unrelated condensed-matter paper on surface superconductivity in γ-PtBi2. The abstract claims that solar activity displays two distinct spatial/time-scale regimes: an 11-year cycle that is basically (anti)symmetric about the equator, and a short-term sunspot distribution that is 'more or less random.' The paper concludes that these regimes are created by separate mechanisms: a mean-field dynamo for the long-term large-scale field, and a 'spot production' process in the near-surface shear layer (NSSL or leptocline) for short-term structures. The submitted material contains no solar data, no description of the decomposition into time scales, no statistical analysis, and no comparison with alternative models.

Significance. If the conclusion were established, it would be of interest to the solar dynamo and sunspot-formation communities, since it would imply that the cycle-scale magnetic field and the process that turns magnetic flux into spots are physically distinct and spatially separate. However, the manuscript as submitted provides none of the evidence needed to support such a claim. There is no quantitative measure of the asymmetry contrast, no significance test for the 'random' short-term component, no description of the spatial filtering applied to the magnetograms, and no model comparison with a single dynamo that produces stochastic small-scale emergence. The attached full text is not the supporting analysis; it is an unrelated superconductivity manuscript. Thus the paper currently offers only an unsupported inference, and no reproducible or machine-checked content is available for assessment.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, entire text] The full text supplied with this submission is arXiv:2508.04867v2 on γ-PtBi2 surface superconductivity, not a solar-physics analysis. The central claim of the abstract—that the 11-year symmetric large-scale field and the short-term sunspot distribution are produced by distinct mechanisms—is therefore made without any supporting methods, data description, or results. This is a load-bearing absence: there is no way to check the decomposition of the two time scales, the definition of 'large-scale,' or the statistical significance of the quoted asymmetry contrast.
  2. [Abstract, first paragraph] The load-bearing premise is the statement that the sunspot distribution is 'more or less random' on the one-year scale while the 11-year cycle is '(anti)symmetric.' No number of solar cycles, no null hypothesis, no test statistic, and no error bars are reported. If the apparent randomness of the short-term component is sampling noise or a consequence of how sunspot catalogs are binned, the two-mechanism conclusion does not follow. A quantitative test against a null model of stochastic emergence is needed before this premise can support the paper's conclusion.
  3. [Abstract, second paragraph] The comparison is made 'in terms of sunspots and the surface large-scale magnetic field.' These are not commensurate measurements: a large-scale field map is a smoothed/averaged quantity that by construction emphasizes low-order (anti)symmetric harmonic components, whereas sunspot positions sample the small-scale tail of the magnetic-field distribution. Without projecting both data sets onto a common spatial-scale basis, the reported dichotomy may be an artifact of the different data products rather than a property of solar physics. This concern is not addressed anywhere in the submitted material.
  4. [Abstract, conclusion] The paper concludes that spot production is a 'separate physical mechanism' operating near the surface. The abstract provides no model comparison against the standard alternative that a single mean-field dynamo generates the cycle-symmetric large-scale field while stochastic emergence noise produces a more-or-less random small-scale spot distribution. Since the supporting text is the unrelated superconductivity paper, this alternative is not tested or excluded. The conclusion is at present an inference to the best explanation without supporting evidence.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract, first sentence] The phrase 'seems quite understandable' is informal; if this statement is meant as a summary of previous work, references or a precise formulation would be appropriate.
  2. [Abstract, final sentence] The terms NSSL and leptocline are introduced without definition or references. A journal submission should define these layers and cite sources, especially because the conclusion assigns them a causal role.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; the abstract is an observational inference and the provided full text is an unrelated superconductivity manuscript with no derivational chain to audit.

full rationale

The submitted abstract for arXiv:2508.04866 asserts that long-term (anti)symmetric structures arise from the mean-field dynamo while short-term sunspot distributions arise from a separate spot-production mechanism. This is presented as an inference from comparing sunspot statistics with surface large-scale magnetic-field data. No equations, fitted parameters, filtering/decomposition procedure, uniqueness theorems, or self-citations are given in the abstract, so no step can be exhibited as reducing to its own input by construction. The attached full text is a completely unrelated superconductivity paper (arXiv:2508.04867v2), so there is no solar-activity derivation chain to walk. That mismatch is a serious input/integrity concern, but it is not a circularity. The reader's concern that the two datasets differ by construction is a plausible measurement-interpretation risk, but the abstract does not provide the quantitative decomposition needed to demonstrate that the conclusion is definitionally forced. Under the hard rule requiring quotable evidence of a specific reduction, no circular step can be identified. Score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Ledger compiled from the abstract only. No free parameters or invented entities are visible. The named subsurface layers (NSSL, leptocline) are existing concepts from prior literature, not new entities introduced by the paper. The two listed axioms are the background assumptions the mechanism conclusion rests on: comparability of the two data products and the statistical reality of the time-scale contrast. A full audit would require the missing full text, which in this submission belongs to arXiv:2508.04867v2, a paper on superconductivity in gamma-PtBi2, not to the solar activity paper under review.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Sunspot records and large-scale surface magnetic field maps can be compared on a common footing as indicators of the same underlying magnetic activity at both time scales.
    The abstract compares the spatial distribution of magnetic structures 'in terms of sunspots and the surface large-scale magnetic field'; this presupposes that the two data products can be placed on a common physical footing, yet the abstract offers no calibration or cross-check.
  • domain assumption The contrast between the (anti)symmetric 11-year pattern and the roughly random short-term distribution is statistically significant and not a sampling artifact.
    The two-mechanism conclusion rests on this contrast. The abstract reports no significance levels, sample sizes, or cycle counts, so the reality of the contrast is an unshown premise.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of North-South Asymmetry of the Solar Activity at Different Spatial Scales." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z6JHAAJ5

@misc{pith2026250804866,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: North-South Asymmetry of the Solar Activity at Different Spatial Scales},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z6JHAAJ5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.04866}
}
read the original abstract

Solar activity seems quite understandable when considered on the scales comparable with a solar cycle, i.e. about 11 years, and on a short time scale of about a year. A solar cycle looks basically (anti)symmetric with respect to the solar equator, while the sunspot distribution is more or less random. We investigated the difference in the spatial distribution of magnetic structures on both time scales in terms of sunspots and the surface large-scale magnetic field and arrived at the conclusion that the structures of each type are created by a specific mechanism. For long-term structures, it is the mean-field dynamo. For the short-term ones, it is the spot production considered as a separate physical mechanism. The relationship between the mean-field dynamo mechanism and the processes of sunspot formation is a complex problem of current interest. The 11-year cycle itself is created by the mean-field dynamo and is most likely determined by processes in the convection zone. However, the transformation of magnetic flux into spots and active regions occurs, apparently, on significantly shorter time scales and probably develops directly in the subsurface layers, i.e., Near-Surface Shear Layer (NSSL) or leptocline.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

120 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Yan and C

    B. Yan and C. Felser, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics8, 337 (2017)

    2017

  2. [2]

    N. P. Armitage, E. J. Mele, and A. Vishwanath, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 015001 (2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    G. E. Volovik, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters70, 609 (1999)

    1999

  4. [4]

    Fu and C

    L. Fu and C. L. Kane, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 096407 (2008)

    2008

  5. [5]

    C. W. J. Beenakker, P. Baireuther, Y. Herasymenko, I. Adagideli, L. Wang, and A. R. Akhmerov, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 146803 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    Beenakker, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics4, 113 (2013)

    C. Beenakker, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics4, 113 (2013)

    2013

  7. [7]

    Alicea, Reports on Progress in Physics75, 076501 (2012)

    J. Alicea, Reports on Progress in Physics75, 076501 (2012)

    2012

  8. [8]

    Sun and J.-F

    H.-H. Sun and J.-F. Jia, npj Quantum Materials2, 34 (2017)

    2017

Show all 120 references
  1. [9]

    Nomani and P

    A. Nomani and P. Hosur, Phys. Rev. B108, 165144 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    X. Bai, W. LiMing, and T. Zhou, New Journal of Physics 27, 013003 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    Mæland, M

    K. Mæland, M. Bahari, and B. Trauzettel, Phonon- mediated intrinsic topological superconductivity in Fermi arcs (2025), arXiv:2506.03250 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Gibson and et al., Phys

    Q. Gibson and et al., Phys. Rev. B91, 205128 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    Kuibarov, O

    A. Kuibarov, O. Suvorov, R. Vocaturo, A. Fedorov, R. Lou, L. Merkwitz, V. Voroshnin, J. I. Facio, K. Koepernik, A. Yaresko, G. Shipunov, S. Aswartham, J. v. d. Brink, B. B¨ uchner, and S. Borisenko, Nature 626, 294 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Zabala, V

    J. Zabala, V. F. Correa, F. J. Castro, and P. Pedrazzini, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter36, 285701 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    D. L. Bashlakov, O. E. Kvitnitskaya, G. Shipunov, S. Aswartham, O. D. Feya, D. V. Efremov, B. B¨ uchner, and Y. G. Naidyuk, Low Temperature Physics48, 747 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Schimmel, Y

    S. Schimmel, Y. Fasano, S. Hoffmann, J. Besproswanny, L. T. Corredor Bohorquez, J. Puig, B.-C. Elshalem, B. Kalisky, G. Shipunov, D. Baumann, S. Aswartham, B. B¨ uchner, and C. Hess, Nature Communications15, 9895 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Y. Guo, J. Yan, W.-H. Dong, Y. Li, Y. Peng, X. Di, C. Li, Z. Wang, Y. Xu, P. Tang, Y. Yao, W. Duan, Q.-K. Xue, and W. Li, Topological surface states in γ-PtBi2 evidenced by scanning tunneling microscopy (2025), arXiv:2505.10808 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Hoffmann, S

    S. Hoffmann, S. Schimmel, R. Vocaturo, J. Puig, G. Shipunov, O. Janson, S. Aswartham, D. Baumann, B. B¨ uchner, J. v. d. Brink, Y. Fasano, J. I. Facio, and C. Hess, Advanced Physics Research4, 2400150 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    Read and D

    N. Read and D. Green, Phys. Rev. B61, 10267 (2000)

    2000

  12. [20]

    Nayak, S

    C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 1083 (2008)

    2008

  13. [21]

    Sato and Y

    M. Sato and Y. Ando, Reports on Progress in Physics 80, 076501 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Nature556, 43 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    T. Han, Z. Lu, Z. Hadjri, L. Shi, Z. Wu, W. Xu, Y. Yao, A. A. Cotten, O. Sharifi Sedeh, H. Weldeyesus, J. Yang, J. Seo, S. Ye, M. Zhou, H. Liu, G. Shi, Z. Hua, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, P. Xiong, D. M. Zumb¨ uhl, L. Fu, and L. Ju, Nature643, 654 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    P. S. Mahapatra, H. Pan, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. H. Pixley, and E. Y. Andrei, Quantum criticality and tunable Griffiths phase in superconducting twisted tri- layer graphene (2025), arXiv:2507.10687 [cond-mat.mes- hall]

    2025

  17. [25]

    Kezilebieke, M

    S. Kezilebieke, M. N. Huda, V. Vaˇ no, M. Aapro, S. C. Ganguli, O. J. Silveira, S. G lodzik, A. S. Foster, T. Oja- nen, and P. Liljeroth, Nature588, 424 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    H. Deng, H. Qin, G. Liu, T. Yang, R. Fu, Z. Zhang, X. Wu, Z. Wang, Y. Shi, J. Liu, H. Liu, X.-Y. Yan, W. Song, X. Xu, Y. Zhao, M. Yi, G. Xu, H. Hohmann, S. C. Holbæk, M. D¨ urrnagel, S. Zhou, G. Chang, Y. Yao, Q. Wang, Z. Guguchia, T. Neupert, R. Thomale, M. H. Fischer, and J....

    2024

  19. [27]

    Dutta, I

    S. Dutta, I. Roy, J. Jesudasan, S. Sachdev, and P. Ray- chaudhuri, Phys. Rev. B103, 214512 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Lechermann, S

    F. Lechermann, S. B¨ otzel, and I. M. Eremin, Phys. Rev. Mater.8, 074802 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    S. Fan, M. Ou, M. Scholten, Q. Li, Z. Shang, Y. Wang, J. Xu, H. Yang, I. M. Eremin, and H.-H. Wen, Supercon- ducting gap structure and bosonic mode in La 2PrNi207 thin films at ambient pressure (2025), arXiv:2506.01788 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    F. Ming, X. Wu, C. Chen, K. D. Wang, P. Mai, T. A. Maier, J. Strockoz, J. W. F. Venderbos, C. Gonz´ alez, J. Ortega, S. Johnston, and H. H. Weitering, Nature Physics19, 500 (2023)

    2023

  23. [32]

    W. Gao, X. Zhu, F. Zheng, M. Wu, J. Zhang, C. Xi, P. Zhang, Y. Zhang, N. Hao, W. Ning, and M. Tian, Nature Communications9, 3249 (2018)

    2018

  24. [33]

    O’Leary, Z

    E. O’Leary, Z. Li, L.-L. Wang, B. Schrunk, A. Eaton, P. C. Canfield, and A. Kaminski, Phys. Rev. B112, 085154 (2025)

    2025

  25. [34]

    B. Wu, V. Barrena, H. Suderow, and I. Guillam´ on, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 022042 (2020)

    2020

  26. [35]

    Veyrat, V

    A. Veyrat, V. Labracherie, D. L. Bashlakov, F. Caglieris, J. I. Facio, G. Shipunov, T. Charvin, R. Acharya, Y. Naidyuk, R. Giraud, J. van den Brink, B. B¨ uchner, C. Hess, S. Aswartham, and J. Dufouleur, Nano Letters 23, 1229 (2023)

    2023

  27. [36]

    J. Wang, X. Chen, Y. Zhou, C. An, Y. Zhou, C. Gu, M. Tian, and Z. Yang, Phys. Rev. B103, 014507 (2021)

    2021

  28. [37]

    Besproswanny, S

    J. Besproswanny, S. Schimmel, Y. Fasano, G. Shipunov, S. Aswartham, D. Baumann, B. B¨ uchner, and C. Hess, 20 Temperature dependence of surface superconductivity in t-PtBi2 (2025), arXiv:2507.10187 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [38]

    See Supplemental Material [url] for additional details and experiments, which includes references [71–121]

  30. [39]

    Suderow, I

    H. Suderow, I. Guillamon, and S. Vieira, Review of Scientific Instruments82, 033711 (2011)

    2011

  31. [40]

    Fern´ andez-Lomana, B

    M. Fern´ andez-Lomana, B. Wu, F. Mart ´ ın-Vega, R. S´ anchez-Barquilla, R.´Alvarez Montoya, J. M. Castilla, J. Navarrete, J. R. Marijuan, E. Herrera, H. Suderow, and I. Guillam´ on, Review of Scientific Instruments92, 093701 (2021)

    2021

  32. [41]

    Mart ´ ın-Vega, V

    F. Mart ´ ın-Vega, V. Barrena, R. S´ anchez-Barquilla, M. Fern´ andez-Lomana, J. Benito Llorens, B. Wu, A. Fente, D. Perconte Duplain, I. Horcas, R. L´ opez, J. Blanco, J. A. Higuera, S. Ma˜ nas-Valero, N. H. Jo, J. Schmidt, P. C. Canfield, G. Rubio-Bollinger, J. G. Ro- drigo,...

    2021

  33. [42]

    Horcas, R

    I. Horcas, R. Fernandez, J. M. Gomez-Rodriguez, J. Colchero, J. Gomez-Herrero, and A. M. Baro, Rev. Sci. Instrum.78, 013705 (2007)

    2007

  34. [43]

    LowTemperaturesUAM, GitHub, ������������������� ������������������

  35. [44]

    Herrera, I

    E. Herrera, I. Guillam´ on, J. A. Galvis, A. Correa, A. Fente, R. F. Luccas, F. J. Mompean, M. Garc ´ ıa- Hern´ andez, S. Vieira, J. P. Brison, and H. Suderow, Phys. Rev. B92, 054507 (2015)

    2015

  36. [45]

    Herrera, B

    E. Herrera, B. Wu, E. O’Leary, A. M. Ruiz, M. ´Agueda, P. G. Talavera, V. Barrena, J. Azpeitia, C. Munuera, M. Garc ´ ıa-Hern´ andez, L.-L. Wang, A. Kaminski, P. C. Canfield, J. J. Baldov ´ ı, I. Guillam´ on, and H. Suderow, Phys. Rev. Mater.7, 024804 (2023)

    2023

  37. [46]

    Mart ´ ın-Vega, E

    F. Mart ´ ın-Vega, E. Herrera, B. Wu, V. Barrena, F. Mompe´ an, M. Garc ´ ıa-Hern´ andez, P. C. Canfield, A. M. Black-Schaffer, J. J. Baldov ´ ı, I. Guillam´ on, and H. Sud- erow, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 023241 (2022)

    2022

  38. [47]

    Guillam´ on, H

    I. Guillam´ on, H. Suderow, S. Vieira, L. Cario, P. Diener, and P. Rodi` ere, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 166407 (2008)

    2008

  39. [48]

    Fente, W

    A. Fente, W. R. Meier, T. Kong, V. G. Kogan, S. L. Bud’ko, P. C. Canfield, I. Guillam´ on, and H. Suderow, Phys. Rev. B97, 134501 (2018)

    2018

  40. [49]

    Garc ´ ıa Talavera, J

    P. Garc ´ ıa Talavera, J. A. Moreno, E. Herrera, A. I. Buzdin, S. L. Bud’ko, P. C. Canfield, I. Guillam´ on, and H. Suderow, Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism38, 158 (2025)

    2025

  41. [50]

    Blatter, M

    G. Blatter, M. V. Feigel’man, V. B. Geshkenbein, A. I. Larkin, and V. M. Vinokur, Rev. Mod. Phys.66, 1125 (1994)

    1994

  42. [51]

    E. H. Brandt, Reports on Progress in Physics58, 1465 (1995)

    1995

  43. [52]

    Zhang, H

    H. Zhang, H. Chen, Z. Huang, Z.-A. Wang, G. Han, R. Ma, X. Zhu, W. Ning, C. Shen, Q. Huan, and H.-J. Gao, Chinese Physics Letters42, 120708 (2025)

    2025

  44. [53]

    Blatter, M

    G. Blatter, M. Feigel’man, V. Geshkenbein, A. Larkin, and A. van Otterlo, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 566 (1996)

    1996

  45. [54]

    Guillam´ on, H

    I. Guillam´ on, H. Suderow, A. Fern´ andez-Pacheco, J. Ses´ e, R. C´ ordoba, J. M. De Teresa, M. R. Ibarra, and S. Vieira, Nature Physics5, 651 (2009)

    2009

  46. [55]

    Duhan, S

    R. Duhan, S. Sengupta, R. Tomar, S. Basistha, V. Bagwe, C. Dasgupta, and P. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Rev. B108, L180503 (2023)

    2023

  47. [56]

    Duhan, S

    R. Duhan, S. Sengupta, J. Jesudasan, S. Basistha, and P. Raychaudhuri, Nature Communications16, 2100 (2025)

    2025

  48. [57]

    Suderow, I

    H. Suderow, I. Guillam´ on, J. G. Rodrigo, and S. Vieira, Superconductor Science and Technology27, 063001 (2014)

    2014

  49. [58]

    J.-Y. Ge, V. N. Gladilin, J. Tempere, C. Xue, J. T. Devreese, J. Van de Vondel, Y. Zhou, and V. V. Moshchalkov, Nature Communications7, 13880 (2016)

    2016

  50. [59]

    Pearl, Applied Physics Letters5, 65 (1964)

    J. Pearl, Applied Physics Letters5, 65 (1964)

    1964

  51. [60]

    Vocaturo, K

    R. Vocaturo, K. Koepernik, J. I. Facio, C. Timm, I. C. Fulga, O. Janson, and J. van den Brink, Phys. Rev. B 110, 054504 (2024)

    2024

  52. [61]

    Caroli, P

    C. Caroli, P. De Gennes, and J. Matricon, Physics Letters 9, 307 (1964)

    1964

  53. [62]

    H. F. Hess, R. B. Robinson, and J. V. Waszczak, Phys. Rev. Lett.64, 2711 (1990)

    1990

  54. [63]

    S. Park, V. Barrena, S. Ma˜ nas-Valero, J. J. Baldov ´ ı, A. Fente, E. Herrera, F. Mompe´ an, M. Garc ´ ıa-Hern´ andez, ´A. Rubio, E. Coronado, I. Guillam´ on, A. L. Yeyati, and H. Suderow, Nature Communications12, 4668 (2021)

    2021

  55. [64]

    Hayashi, T

    N. Hayashi, T. Isoshima, M. Ichioka, and K. Machida, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 2921 (1998)

    1998

  56. [65]

    Renner, A

    C. Renner, A. D. Kent, P. Niedermann, O. Fischer, and F. L´ evy, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 1650 (1991)

    1991

  57. [66]

    Masaki and Y

    Y. Masaki and Y. Kato, Journal of Physics: Conference Series969, 012054 (2018)

    2018

  58. [67]

    Masaki, Phys

    Y. Masaki, Phys. Rev. B99, 054512 (2019)

    2019

  59. [68]

    L. Yang, L. Li, Z.-M. Yu, M. Wu, and Y. Yao, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 186801 (2024)

    2024

  60. [69]

    Jiang, T

    G. Jiang, T. Heikkil¨ a, and P. T¨ orm¨ a, Ideal quantum geometry of the surface states of rhombohedral graphite and its effects on the surface superconductivity (2025), arXiv:2504.03617 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025

  61. [70]

    T. T. Heikkil¨ a, N. B. Kopnin, and G. E. Volovik, JETP Letters94, 233 (2011)

    2011

  62. [71]

    Tersoff and D

    J. Tersoff and D. R. Hamann, Phys. Rev. B31, 805 (1985)

    1985

  63. [72]

    J. Y. Park, G. M. Sacha, M. Enachescu, D. F. Ogletree, R. A. Ribeiro, P. C. Canfield, C. J. Jenks, P. A. Thiel, J. J. S´ aenz, and M. Salmeron, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 136802 (2005)

    2005

  64. [73]

    Y. L. Wang, H.-J. Gao, H. M. Guo, H. W. Liu, I. G. Batyrev, W. E. McMahon, and S. B. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B70, 073312 (2004)

    2004

  65. [74]

    C. R. Ast, B. J¨ ack, J. Senkpiel, M. Eltschka, M. Etzkorn, J. Ankerhold, and K. Kern, Nature Communications7, 13009 (2016)

    2016

  66. [75]

    Sadeghi, A

    A. Sadeghi, A. Baratoff, and S. Goedecker, Phys. Rev. B88, 035436 (2013)

    2013

  67. [76]

    McEllistrem, G

    M. McEllistrem, G. Haase, D. Chen, and R. J. Hamers, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 2471 (1993)

    1993

  68. [77]

    Guillam´ on, Nature Physics17, 1077 (2021)

    I. Guillam´ on, Nature Physics17, 1077 (2021)

    2021

  69. [78]

    D. I. Khomskii and A. Freimuth, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 1384 (1995)

    1995

  70. [79]

    S. K. Sahu, S. Mandal, S. Ghosh, M. M. Deshmukh, and V. Singh, Nano Letters22, 1665 (2022), pMID: 35147441

    2022

  71. [80]

    Machida and T

    M. Machida and T. Koyama, Physica C: Superconduc- tivity378-381, 443 (2002)

    2002

  72. [81]

    Faur´ e, B

    M. Faur´ e, B. Lounis, and A. I. Buzdin, Europhysics Letters77, 17005 (2007)

    2007

  73. [82]

    Ohuchi, H

    M. Ohuchi, H. Ueki, and T. Kita, Phys. Rev. B105, 064514 (2022)

    2022

  74. [83]

    O. B. Hyun, D. K. Finnemore, L. Schwartzkopf, and J. R. Clem, Phys. Rev. Lett.58, 599 (1987). 21

    1987

  75. [84]

    J. T. Zhang, J. Kim, M. Huefner, C. Ye, S. Kim, P. C. Canfield, R. Prozorov, O. M. Auslaender, and J. E. Hoffman, Phys. Rev. B92, 134509 (2015)

    2015

  76. [85]

    J. R. Clem, Phys. Rev. B43, 7837 (1991)

    1991

  77. [86]

    A. I. Larkin and Y. N. Ovchinnikov, Journal of Low Temperature Physics34, 409 (1979)

    1979

  78. [87]

    E. H. Brandt, Journal of Low Temperature Physics26, 709 (1977)

    1977

  79. [88]

    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, Phys. Rev. B88, 014503 (2013)

    2013

  80. [89]

    S. V. Postolova, A. Y. Mironov, V. Barrena, J. Benito- Llorens, J. G. Rodrigo, H. Suderow, M. R. Baklanov, T. I. Baturina, and V. M. Vinokur, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033307 (2020)

    2020

  81. [90]

    Dutta, J

    S. Dutta, J. Jesudasan, and P. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Rev. B105, L140503 (2022)

    2022

  82. [91]

    S. D. Edkins, A. Kostin, K. Fujita, A. P. Mackenzie, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, S. Sachdev, M. J. Lawler, E.-A. Kim, J. C. S. Davis, and M. H. Hamidian, Science364, 976 (2019)

    2019

  83. [92]

    Matsuba, H

    K. Matsuba, H. Sakata, N. Kosugi, H. Nishimori, and N. Nishida, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan72, 2153 (2003)

    2003

  84. [93]

    J. G. Rodrigo, H. Suderow, S. Vieira, E. Bascones, and F. Guinea, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter16, R1151 (2004)

    2004

  85. [94]

    Fente, E

    A. Fente, E. Herrera, I. Guillam´ on, H. Suderow, S. Ma˜ nas Valero, M. Galbiati, E. Coronado, and V. G. Kogan, Phys. Rev. B94, 014517 (2016)

    2016

  86. [95]

    V. G. Kogan and N. V. Zhelezina, Phys. Rev. B71, 134505 (2005)

    2005

  87. [96]

    P. G. de Gennes, Physik der kondensierten Materie3, 79 (1964)

    1964

  88. [97]

    J. G. Rodrigo, H. Suderow, and S. Vieira, The European Physical Journal B - Condensed Matter and Complex Systems40, 483 (2004)

    2004

  89. [98]

    Ternes, W.-D

    M. Ternes, W.-D. Schneider, J.-C. Cuevas, C. P. Lutz, C. F. Hirjibehedin, and A. J. Heinrich, Phys. Rev. B74, 132501 (2006)

    2006

  90. [99]

    R. C. Dynes, V. Narayanamurti, and J. P. Garno, Phys. Rev. Lett.41, 1509 (1978)

    1978

  91. [100]

    Herman and R

    F. Herman and R. Hlubina, Phys. Rev. B94, 144508 (2016)

    2016

  92. [101]

    P. C. Canfield, T. Kong, U. S. Kaluarachchi, and N. H. Jo, Philosophical Magazine96, 84 (2016)

    2016

  93. [102]

    P. C. Canfield, Canfield crucible set (2015)

    2015

  94. [103]

    P. C. Canfield, Reports on Progress in Physics83, 016501 (2019)

    2019

  95. [104]

    Okamoto, Journal of Phase Equilibria12, 207 (1991)

    H. Okamoto, Journal of Phase Equilibria12, 207 (1991)

    1991

  96. [105]

    Hohenberg and W

    P. Hohenberg and W. Kohn, Phys. Rev.136, B864 (1964)

    1964

  97. [106]

    Kohn and L

    W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev.140, A1133 (1965)

    1965

  98. [107]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 1396 (1997)

    1997

  99. [108]

    P. E. Bl¨ ochl, Phys. Rev. B50, 17953 (1994)

    1994

  100. [109]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Phys. Rev. B54, 11169 (1996)

    1996

  101. [110]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Computational Materials Science6, 15 (1996)

    1996

  102. [111]

    H. J. Monkhorst and J. D. Pack, Phys. Rev. B13, 5188 (1976)

    1976

  103. [112]

    Marzari and D

    N. Marzari and D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B56, 12847 (1997)

    1997

  104. [113]

    Souza, N

    I. Souza, N. Marzari, and D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B 65, 035109 (2001)

    2001

  105. [114]

    Marzari, A

    N. Marzari, A. A. Mostofi, J. R. Yates, I. Souza, and D. Vanderbilt, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 1419 (2012)

    2012

  106. [115]

    Inoue, A

    H. Inoue, A. Gyenis, Z. Wang, J. Li, S. W. Oh, S. Jiang, N. Ni, B. A. Bernevig, and A. Yazdani, Science351, 1184 (2016)

    2016

  107. [116]

    M. P. L. Sancho, J. M. L. Sancho, and J. Rubio, Journal of Physics F: Metal Physics14, 1205 (1984)

    1984

  108. [117]

    M. P. L. Sancho, J. M. L. Sancho, J. M. L. Sancho, and J. Rubio, Journal of Physics F: Metal Physics15, 851 (1985)

    1985

  109. [118]

    Q. Wu, S. Zhang, H.-F. Song, M. Troyer, and A. A. Soluyanov, Computer Physics Communications224, 405 (2018)

    2018

  110. [119]

    Grimme, J

    S. Grimme, J. Antony, S. Ehrlich, and H. Krieg, The Journal of Chemical Physics132, 154104 (2010)

    2010

  111. [120]

    Shipunov, I

    G. Shipunov, I. Kovalchuk, B. R. Piening, V. Labracherie, A. Veyrat, D. Wolf, A. Lubk, S. Subakti, R. Giraud, J. Dufouleur, S. Shokri, F. Caglieris, C. Hess, D. V. Efremov, B. B¨ uchner, and S. Aswartham, Phys. Rev. Mater.4, 124202 (2020)

    2020

  112. [121]

    Takaki, M

    K. Takaki, M. Yamamoto, M. Nakajima, T. Takeuchi, H. Y. Nguyen, M. Nohara, Y. Kishioji, T. Fujii, K. Yoshino, S. Miyasaka, and K. Kudo, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan91, 034703 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.