Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Anomalous terahertz nonlinearity in disordered s-wave superconductor close to the superconductor-insulator transition

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Strong disorder in NbN films produces a third-harmonic terahertz signal above the superconducting critical temperature, a signal that persists in high magnetic fields and is attributed to disorder-modified electron dynamics; below T_c, the

desk verdict Solid experimental evidence that normal-state THG in disordered NbN is not from superconducting fluctuations; the negative control needs a stated pump field. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.17674 v1 pith:CHYMK5FT submitted 2025-10-20 cond-mat.supr-con

Hao Wang , Jiayu Yuan , Hongkai Shi , Haojie Li , Xiaoqing Jia , Xiaohui Song , Liyu Shi , Tianyi Wu
show 8 more authors
Li Yue Yangmu Li Kui Jin Dong Wu Jianlin Luo Xinbo Wang Tao Dong Nanlin Wang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords terahertznonlinearitythird-harmonicgenerationHiggsmodesuperconductor-insulatortransitiondisorderNbNIoffe-Regelparametermesoscopicinhomogeneity
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 investigates how disorder affects the terahertz third-harmonic generation (THG) of superconducting NbN films with different Ioffe-Regel parameters k_Fl. It finds that in strongly disordered films near the superconductor-insulator transition, a weak THG signal appears above the superconducting critical temperature T_c, whereas cleaner superconducting and non-superconducting films show none. Because this signal is insensitive to magnetic fields up to 9 T, the authors rule out superconducting fluctuations as its origin; they attribute it to disorder-induced electronic structure modifications or to the disparity between energy and momentum relaxation times. Below T_c, THG increases sharply, indicating a dominant Higgs-mode contribution, and the spectrum develops a multi-peak structure with time-domain beating, which they interpret as quantum path interference between normal-state and Cooper-pair channels within emergent superconducting islands. These results show that disorder tunes nonlinear terahertz response and that normal-state nonlinearity can couple to the Higgs mode, offering a new probe of mesoscopic superconducting inhomogeneity.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the coexistence and coupling of two THG channels: (1) the disorder-enhanced normal-state nonlinearity, which the authors attribute to band anharmonicity or to the ratio of energy to momentum relaxation times, and (2) the driven Higgs mode of the superconductor. In the strongly disordered sample, the THz electric field at 0.42 THz generates a third harmonic at 1.26 THz; below T_c, the two channels interfere, producing a time-domain beating and spectral peak splitting (energy repulsion). The level of inhomogeneity is quantified via a depairing parameter η extracted from a coherence-factor fit to the optical conductivity.

What would settle it

Measure the cleanest NbN sample (T_c=15 K) with an internal 0.42 THz field of at least 2 kV/cm, matching the strongly disordered sample's pump strength; if a THG signal appears above T_c, the central claim that normal-state THG is specific to strongly disordered films would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors report that in NbN with k_Fl~2.5, a THG signal persists above the global T_c (up to ~100 K, and up to room temperature with stronger drive), while samples with k_Fl~7.2, 5.5, and <1 show no such normal-state signal. The signal's intensity is unchanged in magnetic fields up to 9 T, which would suppress superconducting fluctuations, so the authors conclude it is a material property of strongly disordered metal, not a precursor of superconductivity. Below T_c, THG intensity rises sharply consistent with resonant driving of the Higgs amplitude mode, and the THG spectrum exhibits a broadened, multi-peak structure with a beating in the time domain. Using a depairing-parameter analysis

Load-bearing premise

The claim that normal-state THG is absent in cleaner NbN relies on measurements at roughly 4.5 times lower pump intensity than that used for the strongly disordered sample, so the apparent absence might be a sensitivity limit rather than a real material difference.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Higgs mode remains a dominant contributor to nonlinear terahertz response even in strongly disordered superconducting films near the SIT, not just in clean superconductors.
  • Normal-state THG signals observed previously in disordered superconductors cannot be automatically assigned to superconducting fluctuations; magnetic-field dependence can distinguish the two origins.
  • The multi-peak/beating pattern in THG spectra is a new indicator of mesoscopic superconducting inhomogeneity, supplementing linear conductivity measurements.
  • The dome-shaped disorder dependence of THG in both NbN and Au suggests a universal disorder-enhanced nonlinearity in metals, relevant for any strongly disordered conductor.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the normal-state nonlinearity indeed scales with the energy-to-momentum relaxation time ratio, then films with tailored electron-phonon coupling (e.g., varying thickness or substrate) should show corresponding changes in the THG dome; this could separate the relaxation-disparity mechanism from band-anharmonicity.
  • The interference peak separation and its temperature dependence may be used to extract the typical size or coupling strength of superconducting islands; a quantitative theory linking peak splitting to the spatial distribution of the pairing gap would be a testable extension.
  • The magnetic-field-insensitive THG in the normal state could serve as a background-free probe of local electronic correlations in other disordered systems, independent of macroscopic superconductivity.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports THz third-harmonic generation (THG) measurements on NbN thin films with four disorder levels (kFl ≈ 7.2, 5.5, 2.5, and <1) plus a series of disordered Au films. The central observation is that a weakly disordered clean sample (kFl≈7.2) shows no normal-state THG, moderate disorder (kFl≈5.5) shows none, but a strongly disordered sample near the SIT (kFl≈2.5, Tc=5.9 K) exhibits a weak THG signal above Tc that persists to high temperature and is insensitive to a 9 T magnetic field. The authors interpret this normal-state nonlinearity as a disorder-induced material property (band anharmonicity or τE/τM disparity) rather than superconducting fluctuations. Below Tc, the THG intensity increases sharply and is attributed to a dominant Higgs-mode contribution; in the strongly disordered sample, the THG spectrum develops a multi-peak structure attributed to quantum-path interference between normal-state and superconducting channels. The paper includes supporting measurements: fluence scaling (E^3), magnetic-field-dependent optical conductivity, LO-model fits to determine gap inhomogeneity, and Au-film controls.

Significance. If the central observation is correct, this is a significant experimental result: it identifies a normal-state THG response that appears only in strongly disordered superconductors near the SIT, independent of superconducting correlations, and it shows that disorder can non-monotonically tune the nonlinear THz response. The paper has several notable strengths: the THG signal is verified by cubic fluence scaling (SM Fig. S6); the Tc=13 K film provides a cleaner superconducting control measured at nearly identical internal field (2.12 vs 2.13 kV/cm); the field-insensitivity and room-temperature persistence independently argue against a superconducting-fluctuation origin; the Au dome-shaped response, though in a different disorder range, supports a universal disorder-driven effect; and echo simulations rule out spurious reflections. These elements make the core observation credible. However, the negative-control claim for the non-superconducting kFl<1 film is not yet supported at matched sensitivity, and the Higgs-mode and strong-coupling interpretations are more speculative than the abstract suggests. The paper is a strong candidate for publication after revision.

major comments (5)
  1. [SM §IV and Fig. 1(d)] The claim that normal-state THG is absent in the non-superconducting kFl<1 sample is not supported at matched sensitivity. SM §IV lists internal pump fields for the Tc=15, 13, and 5.9 K films only; no internal field or noise floor is given for the Tc=0 K film. Since THG ∝ E^3, a factor-of-two reduction in internal field suppresses the signal ~8-fold. Without a stated internal field (ideally 2.13 kV/cm) and a demonstrated noise floor, "THG becomes undetectable" is not established as a material property. Please provide this information or explicitly weaken the negative-control claim.
  2. [Fig. 1(e,g) and SM §IV] The Tc=15 K sample was pumped at 1.29 kV/cm internal field versus 2.13 kV/cm for the kFl~2.5 sample; at equal χ(3), its normal-state THG would be ~0.22× that of the disordered film, likely below noise. The matched cleaner control is the Tc=13 K sample at 2.12 kV/cm. The statement "absent in both cleaner superconducting counterparts" is therefore stronger than the data warrant. Please present the Tc=15 K result as consistent with, but not independently decisive for, the absence claim.
  3. [Fig. 2(e) and §2] The field-insensitivity experiment is cited as excluding superconducting fluctuations as the origin of normal-state THG. However, no quantitative estimate is given for how much a 9 T field should suppress the fluctuation-induced THG; within the stated noise floor, a partial suppression would not be detected. The room-temperature persistence at 0.7 THz (SM Fig. S5) independently disfavors the fluctuation scenario, but the wording "excludes" is too strong. Please soften or add an estimate of the expected suppression.
  4. [Fig. 1(c),(g); Fig. 4(a)] The claim that the low-temperature THG is dominated by the driven Higgs mode is not directly established. For the kFl~2.5 sample, the LO fit gives 2Δ=0.31 THz, well below 2ω=0.84 THz, so the enhancement below Tc is off-resonance. No resonance condition is shown for this sample, and the sharp increase at Tc is also consistent with other superconducting nonlinearities. The paper's own statement that a THz pump-probe study is needed to resolve the Higgs oscillation supports this concern. Please either provide resonant evidence or soften the Higgs attribution.
  5. [Fig. 2(c,d) and §4] The interpretation of the multi-peak structure as quantum-path interference between normal-state and Higgs channels, and the abstract's "strong coupling" claim, are presented without a quantitative model. The echo analysis rules out reflections, but inhomogeneous gap distributions or multiple superconducting islands could produce split peaks without invoking strong interference. Since the authors note that "complementary theoretical studies are essential," this should be framed as a hypothesis rather than an established finding.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1(h)] The Tc=0 K sample is normalized using Tc=5.9 K, which is confusing since this film has no superconducting transition. Please clarify the convention.
  2. [§2] The text states the THG persists up to 100 K and also up to 10Tc; for Tc=5.9 K these are inconsistent (10Tc≈59 K). Please reconcile.
  3. [SM §IV] The refractive index used for the Fabry-Pérot correction is only cited as "Ref. [64]"; provide the numerical value used in the estimate.
  4. [Fig. 3(b)] The axis label appears garbled ("THG/s32/s124/s967(3)|"); please fix the encoding.
  5. [Reference [42]] If a published version of the arXiv paper exists, cite it instead of the preprint.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's THG observations and LO conductivity characterization are independent; no claimed prediction reduces to a fitted quantity or to a self-citation.

full rationale

This is an experimental paper whose central claims are measurements: the presence of normal-state THG in the strongly disordered NbN sample, its insensitivity to magnetic field, its absence in cleaner/non-superconducting controls, and the multi-peak structure below Tc. The only fitted parameters in the paper are the Larkin-Ovchinnikov conductivity parameters (2Δ=0.31 THz, η=0.54, and η=0.11 for the kFl~5.5 sample). These are fitted to optical conductivity data and used to characterize mesoscopic gap inhomogeneity; they are not used to compute or predict the THG spectra. The interpretation of the multi-peak THG structure as interference between normal-state and superconducting channels is explicitly qualitative: the authors state that 'Systematic measurements on strongly disordered samples (1<kFl<4) and complementary theoretical studies are essential to establish quantitative relationships between interference features and mesoscopic superconducting inhomogeneity.' The self-citations (e.g., Ref. [44] for the experimental setup and prior THG measurements including same-group cuprate studies) are used as apparatus description or published empirical context, not as load-bearing justification for the central physics. The paper also contains explicit uncertainty acknowledgments, such as the disappearance temperature depending on driving field strength and signal-to-noise ratio, and notes that band anharmonicity 'remains experimentally unverified.' The reviewer-identified concern about matched pump intensity in the non-superconducting control is a sensitivity/control issue, not a circularity. Therefore no circular step is present and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on four NbN samples, two fitted LO parameters, and an interpretive island/interference picture. No new physical entities are introduced. The main non-material assumptions are sample characterization via a published Tc-kFl relation, artifact-free measurement, field suppression of fluctuations, and the interference origin of the multi-peak structure.

free parameters (3)
  • LO superconducting gap 2Δ (kFl~2.5 NbN) = 0.31 THz
    Fitted to σ1(ω) using the Larkin-Ovchinnikov/generalized Mattis-Bardeen model; used to support the spatial-gap-inhomogeneity interpretation, not to predict THG.
  • LO depairing strength η (kFl~2.5 NbN) = 0.54
    Fitted to σ1(ω) to quantify mesoscopic inhomogeneity; central to the 'superconducting islands' picture invoked for the multi-peak THG interpretation.
  • LO depairing strength η (kFl~5.5 NbN) = 0.11
    Fitted to σ1(ω) for the cleaner sample; used as a contrast showing reduced spatial variations.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption kFl values for NbN are inferred from Tc using the relation in Ref. [40] rather than measured directly by Hall effect.
    SM §II: 'we calculated kFl according to the relation between Tc and kFl reported in Ref. [40].' All disorder-level assignments depend on this published calibration.
  • domain assumption The normal-state THG signal is intrinsic to the film and not a bolometric/heating artifact.
    The signal follows E^3 and persists to 300 K at 126 kV/cm, but no direct test of lattice-heating-induced nonlinearity is reported. This is load-bearing for the non-superconducting origin claim.
  • ad hoc to paper Superconducting fluctuations would be suppressed by 9 T and therefore field-insensitive THG cannot be fluctuation-driven.
    Main text: 'If superconducting fluctuations were responsible... such high fields would reduce local pairing amplitudes.' This assumes local island upper critical fields are not large enough to keep fluctuations field-independent.
  • ad hoc to paper The multi-peak THG spectrum is caused by quantum path interference between normal-state and Higgs channels in superconducting islands.
    No calculation is provided; the authors state 'complementary theoretical studies are essential.' This is an interpretive assumption rather than a derived result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anomalous terahertz nonlinearity in disordered s-wave superconductor close to the superconductor-insulator transition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CHYMK5FT

@misc{pith2026251017674,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anomalous terahertz nonlinearity in disordered s-wave superconductor close to the superconductor-insulator transition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CHYMK5FT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.17674}
}
abstract

Detection of the Higgs mode in superconductors using nonlinear terahertz spectroscopy is a key area of interest in condensed matter physics. We investigate the influence of disorder on the nonlinear terahertz response and the Higgs mode in NbN thin films with varying Ioffe-Regel parameters ($k_Fl$). In strongly disordered films near the superconductor-insulator transition (SIT), we observe an anomalous third-harmonic generation (THG) signal above $T_c$, which is absent in both cleaner superconducting and non-superconducting counterparts. The persistence of this normal-state THG signal in a high magnetic field excludes superconducting fluctuations as its origin. Below $T_c$, the THG intensity increases sharply, indicating a dominant contribution from the driven Higgs mode. The THG spectrum of the strongly disordered sample exhibits a broadened, multi-peak structure, which we attribute to quantum path interference between distinct channels involving unpaired electrons and Cooper pairs within emergent superconducting islands. Our findings not only demonstrate how disorder tunes the nonlinear terahertz response but also uncover a strong coupling between electrons responsible for normal-state THG and the superconducting Higgs mode below $T_c$ in strongly disordered samples.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.17674 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. THG response in NbN films with varying disorder levels. (a–d) Time-domain transmitted THz pulses for disordered NbN with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. THG signal of disordered Au films driven by 0.5 THz. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Optical conductivity in the superconducting state. The nor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

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

    1963

  2. [2]

    Shimano and N

    R. Shimano and N. Tsuji, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 11, 103 (2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    Matsunaga, Y

    R. Matsunaga, Y . I. Hamada, K. Makise, Y . Uzawa, H. Terai, Z. Wang, and R. Shimano, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 057002 (2013)

    2013

  4. [4]

    Matsunaga, N

    R. Matsunaga, N. Tsuji, H. Fujita, A. Sugioka, K. Makise, Y . Uzawa, H. Terai, Z. Wang, H. Aoki, and R. Shimano, Sci- ence345, 1145 (2014)

    2014

  5. [5]

    Murotani and R

    Y . Murotani and R. Shimano, Phys. Rev. B99, 224510 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    Chu, M.-J

    H. Chu, M.-J. Kim, K. Katsumi, S. Kovalev, R. D. Daw- son, L. Schwarz, N. Yoshikawa, G. Kim, D. Putzky, Z. Z. Li, H. Raffy, S. Germanskiy, J.-C. Deinert, N. Awari, I. Ilyakov, B. Green, M. Chen, M. Bawatna, G. Cristiani, G. Logvenov, Y . Gallais, A. V . Boris, B. Keimer, A. P. Schnyder, D. Manske, M. Gensch, Z. Wang, R. Shimano, and S. Kaiser, Nat Commun ...

    2020

  7. [7]

    H. Chu, S. Kovalev, Z. X. Wang, L. Schwarz, T. Dong, L. Feng, R. Haenel, M.-J. Kim, P. Shabestari, L. P. Hoang, K. Honasoge, R. D. Dawson, D. Putzky, G. Kim, M. Puviani, M. Chen, N. Awari, A. N. Ponomaryov, I. Ilyakov, M. Bluschke, F. Boschini, M. Zonno, S. Zhdanovich, M. Na, G. Chris- tiani, G. Logvenov, D. J. Jones, A. Damascelli, M. Minola, B. Keimer, ...

    2023

  8. [8]

    L. Feng, J. Cao, T. Priessnitz, Y . Dai, T. de Oliveira, J. Yuan, R. Oka, M.-J. Kim, M. Chen, A. N. Ponomaryov, I. Ilyakov, H. Zhang, Y . Lv, V . Mazzotti, G. Kim, G. Chris- tiani, G. Logvenov, D. Wu, Y . Huang, J.-C. Deinert, S. Kovalev, S. Kaiser, T. Dong, N. Wang, and H. Chu, Phys. Rev. B108, L100504 (2023)

    2023

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Kovalev, T

    S. Kovalev, T. Dong, L.-Y . Shi, C. Reinhoffer, T.-Q. Xu, H.- Z. Wang, Y . Wang, Z.-Z. Gan, S. Germanskiy, J.-C. Deinert, I. Ilyakov, P. H. M. V . Loosdrecht, D. Wu, N.-L. Wang, J. Dem- sar, and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. B104, L140505 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Wang, J.-R

    Z.-X. Wang, J.-R. Xue, H.-K. Shi, X.-Q. Jia, T. Lin, L.-Y . Shi, T. Dong, F. Wang, and N.-L. Wang, Phys. Rev. B105, L100508 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Matsunaga, N

    R. Matsunaga, N. Tsuji, K. Makise, H. Terai, H. Aoki, and R. Shimano, Phys. Rev. B96, 020505 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Reinhoffer, P

    C. Reinhoffer, P. Pilch, A. Reinold, P. Derendorf, S. Kovalev, J.-C. Deinert, I. Ilyakov, A. Ponomaryov, M. Chen, T.-Q. Xu, Y . Wang, Z.-Z. Gan, D.-S. Wu, J.-L. Luo, S. Germanskiy, E. A. Mashkovich, P. H. M. van Loosdrecht, I. M. Eremin, and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. B106, 214514 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Katsumi, N

    K. Katsumi, N. Tsuji, Y . I. Hamada, R. Matsunaga, J. Schnee- loch, R. D. Zhong, G. D. Gu, H. Aoki, Y . Gallais, and R. Shi- mano, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 117001 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    Vaswani, J

    C. Vaswani, J. H. Kang, M. Mootz, L. Luo, X. Yang, C. Sun- dahl, D. Cheng, C. Huang, R. H. J. Kim, Z. Liu, Y . G. Collantes, E. E. Hellstrom, I. E. Perakis, C. B. Eom, and J. Wang, Nature Communications12, 258 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    J. Yuan, L. Shi, L. Yue, B. Li, Z. Wang, S. Xu, T. Xu, Y . Wang, 6 Z. Gan, F. Chen, Z. Lin, X. Wang, K. Jin, X. Wang, J. Luo, S. Zhang, Q. Wu, Q. Liu, T. Hu, R. Li, X. Zhou, D. Wu, T. Dong, and N. Wang, Science Advances10, eadg9211 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Huang, M

    C. Huang, M. Mootz, L. Luo, D. Cheng, A. Khatri, J.-M. Park, R. H. J. Kim, Y . Qiang, V . L. Quito, Y . Yao, P. P. Orth, I. E. Perakis, and J. Wang, Science Advances11, eads8740

  9. [17]

    P. W. Anderson, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids11, 26 (1959)

    1959

  10. [18]

    T. Cea, C. Castellani, and L. Benfatto, Phys. Rev. B93, 180507 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    Tsuji, Y

    N. Tsuji, Y . Murakami, and H. Aoki, Phys. Rev. B94, 224519 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    Silaev, Phys

    M. Silaev, Phys. Rev. B99, 224511 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Tsuji and Y

    N. Tsuji and Y . Nomura, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043029 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Haenel, P

    R. Haenel, P. Froese, D. Manske, and L. Schwarz, Phys. Rev. B 104, 134504 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Yang and M

    F. Yang and M. W. Wu, Phys. Rev. B106, 144509 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett.65, 923 (1990)

    1990

  17. [25]

    Yazdani and A

    A. Yazdani and A. Kapitulnik, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 3037 (1995)

    1995

  18. [26]

    Sac ´ep´e, M

    B. Sac ´ep´e, M. Feigel’man, and T. M. Klapwijk, Nature Physics 16, 734 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Z. Wang, Y . Liu, C. Ji, and J. Wang, Reports on Progress in Physics87, 014502 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    V . M. Galitski and A. I. Larkin, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 087001 (2001)

    2001

  21. [29]

    Ghosal, M

    A. Ghosal, M. Randeria, and N. Trivedi, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 3940 (1998)

    1998

  22. [30]

    Sac ´ep´e, T

    B. Sac ´ep´e, T. Dubouchet, C. Chapelier, M. Sanquer, M. Ovadia, D. Shahar, M. Feigel’man, and L. Ioffe, Nature Phys7, 239 (2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    Ma and P

    M. Ma and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B32, 5658 (1985)

    1985

  24. [32]

    Sac ´ep´e, C

    B. Sac ´ep´e, C. Chapelier, T. I. Baturina, V . M. Vinokur, M. R. Baklanov, and M. Sanquer, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 157006 (2008)

    2008

  25. [33]

    Y . Dubi, Y . Meir, and Y . Avishai, Nature449, 876 (2007)

    2007

  26. [34]

    T. Cea, D. Bucheli, G. Seibold, L. Benfatto, J. Lorenzana, and C. Castellani, Phys. Rev. B89, 174506 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    Podolsky, A

    D. Podolsky, A. Auerbach, and D. P. Arovas, Phys. Rev. B84, 174522 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

    Gazit, D

    S. Gazit, D. Podolsky, A. Auerbach, and D. P. Arovas, Phys. Rev. B88, 235108 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    Gazit, D

    S. Gazit, D. Podolsky, and A. Auerbach, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 140401 (2013)

    2013

  30. [38]

    Sherman, U

    D. Sherman, U. S. Pracht, B. Gorshunov, S. Poran, J. Jesudasan, M. Chand, P. Raychaudhuri, M. Swanson, N. Trivedi, A. Auer- bach, M. Scheffler, A. Frydman, and M. Dressel, Nature Phys 11, 188 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    Cheng, L

    B. Cheng, L. Wu, N. J. Laurita, H. Singh, M. Chand, P. Ray- chaudhuri, and N. P. Armitage, Phys. Rev. B93, 180511 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Chand, G

    M. Chand, G. Saraswat, A. Kamlapure, M. Mondal, S. Kumar, J. Jesudasan, V . Bagwe, L. Benfatto, V . Tripathi, and P. Ray- chaudhuri, Phys. Rev. B85, 014508 (2012)

    2012

  33. [41]

    Kamlapure, T

    A. Kamlapure, T. Das, S. C. Ganguli, J. B. Parmar, S. Bhat- tacharyya, and P. Raychaudhuri, Sci Rep3, 2979 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Chaudhuri, D

    D. Chaudhuri, D. Barbalas, R. R. III, F. Mahmood, J. Liang, J. Jesudasan, P. Raychaudhuri, and N. P. Armitage 10.48550/arXiv.2204.04203 (2022), arxiv:2204.04203 [cond- mat.supr-con]

    2022 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    Tsuji and H

    N. Tsuji and H. Aoki, Phys. Rev. B92, 064508 (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    X. B. Wang, H. Wang, J. Y . Yuan, X. Y . Zeng, L. Cheng, J. Qi, J. L. Luo, T. Dong, and N. L. Wang, Review of Scientific In- struments95, 103007 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    T. N. K. Phan, Y . W. Wang, T. Shimizu, K. Kato, V . C. Agulto, G. Isoyama, S. Fujioka, and M. Nakajima, Opt. Lett., OL49, 5039 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    P. A. Wolffand G. A. Pearson, Phys. Rev. Lett.17, 1015 (1966)

    1966

  39. [47]

    Kovalev, R

    S. Kovalev, R. M. A. Dantas, S. Germanskiy, J.-C. Deinert, B. Green, I. Ilyakov, N. Awari, M. Chen, M. Bawatna, J. Ling, F. Xiu, P. H. M. van Loosdrecht, P. Sur ´owka, T. Oka, and Z. Wang, Nat Commun11, 2451 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    H. Aoki, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys.17, 1885 (1984)

    1984

  41. [49]

    D. J. Singh and D. Kasinathan, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 016404 (2006)

    2006

  42. [50]

    Reinhoffer, S

    C. Reinhoffer, S. Esser, S. Esser, E. A. Mashkovich, S. Ger- manskiy, P. Gegenwart, F. Anders, P. H. M. van Loosdrecht, and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 196501 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    Kryhin, S

    S. Kryhin, S. Sachdev, and P. A. V olkov, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 016503 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    S. Y . Yuen and P. A. Wolff, Applied Physics Letters40, 457 (1982)

    1982

  45. [53]

    Chaudhuri, D

    D. Chaudhuri, D. Barbalas, F. Mahmood, J. Liang, R. R. III, A. Legros, X. He, H. Raffy, I. Bozovic, and N. P. Armitage 10.48550/arXiv.2503.15646 (2025), arXiv:2503.15646 [cond- mat.supr-con]

    2025 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

    A. I. Lomakin, E. M. Baeva, A. D. Triznova, N. A. Titova, P. I. Zolotov, A. V . Semenov, D. E. Sunegin, A. V . Lubenchenko, A. I. Kolbatova, and G. N. Goltsman, Phys. Rev. B107, 054205 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    D. C. Mattis and J. Bardeen, Phys. Rev.111, 412 (1958)

    1958

  48. [56]

    S. B. Nam, Phys. Rev.156, 470 (1967)

    1967

  49. [57]

    M. V . Feigel’man and M. A. Skvortsov, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 147002 (2012)

    2012

  50. [58]

    E. F. C. Driessen, P. C. J. J. Coumou, R. R. Tromp, P. J. de Visser, and T. M. Klapwijk, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 107003 (2012)

    2012

  51. [59]

    S. P. Chockalingam, M. Chand, J. Jesudasan, V . Tripathi, and P. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Rev. B77, 214503 (2008)

    2008

  52. [60]

    Chand, A

    M. Chand, A. Mishra, Y . M. Xiong, A. Kamlapure, S. P. Chock- alingam, J. Jesudasan, V . Bagwe, M. Mondal, P. W. Adams, V . Tripathi, and P. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Rev. B80, 134514 (2009)

    2009

  53. [61]

    L. Kang, B. B. Jin, X. Y . Liu, X. Q. Jia, J. Chen, Z. M. Ji, W. W. Xu, P. H. Wu, S. B. Mi, A. Pimenov, Y . J. Wu, and B. G. Wang, Journal of Applied Physics109, 033908 (2011)

    2011

  54. [62]

    A. F. Ioffe and A. R. Regel, Prog. Semicond.4, 237 (1960)

    1960

  55. [63]

    Fulay and J.-K

    P. Fulay and J.-K. Lee,Electronic, Magnetic, and Optical Ma- terials, Second Edition(CRC Press, 2016)

    2016

  56. [64]

    M. Beck, M. Klammer, S. Lang, P. Leiderer, V . V . Kabanov, G. N. Gol’tsman, and J. Demsar, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 177007 (2011). 7 Supplemental material for ”Anomalous terahertz nonlinearity in disordered s-wave superconductor close to the superconductor-insulator transition” I...

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.