Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Magnetochiral anisotropy in strained superconducting transition metal dichalcogenides

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Superconducting fluctuations near the transition drive a large magnetochiral anisotropy in two-dimensional superconductors, with strain activating an additional nonreciprocal current channel.

desk verdict A solid extension of the Wakatsuki framework: the MT channel and strain are genuinely new, but the headline magnitude claim rests on an un-derived disorder exponent. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.05302 v2 pith:X5IM3F6W submitted 2026-06-03 cond-mat.supr-con

Joaquim Telles de Miranda , Maxim Khodas , Alex Levchenko This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords magnetochiralanisotropynonreciprocaltransportsuperconductingfluctuationsMaki-ThompsonchannelAslamazov-LarkinLifshitzinvariantsstrainedTMDIsingsuperconductivity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that pairing fluctuations—preformed Cooper pairs—above the superconducting transition produce a large magnetochiral anisotropy (MCA), a nonlinear current that changes sign with magnetic field reversal, in two-dimensional noncentrosymmetric superconductors such as MoS2. In the normal state, MCA vanishes to leading order in the minimal band model, so superconductivity changes the picture qualitatively. The authors derive the Aslamazov-Larkin (AL) and Maki-Thompson (MT) fluctuation contributions from a microscopic band model and show both are governed by cubic Lifshitz invariants of the Ginzburg-Landau free energy. In unstrained D3h symmetry, the MT channel averages to zero; strain enables it with a distinct vector structure E·(ε·E). The predicted fluctuation MCA remains sizable even in the diffusive (dirty) limit, exceeding the normal-state response by roughly four orders of magnitude.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by cubic Lifshitz invariants: symmetry-allowed gradient terms of third order in the Cooper-pair momentum q, linear in the magnetic field, that appear in the Ginzburg-Landau free energy of a superconductor with broken inversion and time-reversal symmetry. For D3h the invariant is κB_z(q_x^3 − 3q_x q_y^2); under strain a mixed term ηB_z(ε·q)q^2 appears. These invariants enter the Aslamazov-Larkin current through the time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau order-parameter dynamics and the Maki-Thompson current through quantum-interference processes, and they determine the tensor structure of the nonlinear current. The paper derives these invariants microscopically from the band m

What would settle it

Rotate a uniaxial stress direction relative to the applied current in a strained MoS2 device held just above Tc and record the second-harmonic voltage at fixed B_z. The theory predicts the Maki-Thompson contribution to change with strain direction as E(ε·E), vanishing when ε is removed. Failure to see this angular activation would rule out the strain-mediated MT channel.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is explicit formulas for the fluctuation-induced nonreciprocal current. The AL term is δj_AL = (e^3 κ B_z)/(4π D T_c) (T_c τ_GL)^2 F(E) with F(E) = (E_x^2 − E_y^2, −2E_xE_y), and the strain-activated MT term is δj_MT = (e^3 η B_z)/(π T_c D) (T_c τ_GL)^2 f(τ_GL/τ_φ) E(ε·E). Both are linear in magnetic field and quadratic in electric field, as required for MCA. The warping-induced Lifshitz invariant κB_z(q_x^3 − 3q_x q_y^2) drives the AL term; the MT term vanishes in unstrained D3h because its integrand is d-wave-like and averages to zero over the Cooper-pair momentum direction. Lowering the symmetry with strain introduces the term ηB_z(ε·q)q^2, which activates the MT channe

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that disorder renormalizes the warping-induced Lifshitz invariant only as (T_c τ)^3; the paper states this without derivation, and a stronger suppression would erase the predicted large fluctuation MCA in the diffusive limit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fluctuation-dominated MCA should be a generic feature of noncentrosymmetric two-dimensional superconductors near Tc, not specific to MoS2, with the AL and MT channels present in proportion to the symmetry-allowed Lifshitz invariants.
  • In unstrained samples with D3h symmetry, only the AL channel contributes to MCA; the MT channel is strictly zero by symmetry, so a measured MT-like angular pattern is a direct fingerprint of strain or other symmetry-lowering perturbations.
  • The two channels have different field-orientation signatures (F(E) vs E(ε·E)), so angle-dependent nonlinear transport measurements can separate them experimentally.
  • Near Tc both channels share the same temperature scaling (T_c τ_GL)^2, but strong dephasing suppresses the MT term by a factor (T_c τ_φ)^2, providing a way to tune their relative weights.
  • The estimate that fluctuation MCA exceeds normal-state MCA by about 10^4 in typical MoS2 samples means the effect should be experimentally accessible just above Tc with modest magnetic fields.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The symmetry logic implies that in other point groups, such as C3v Rashba superconductors with an in-plane field, the MT channel should contribute to MCA even without strain—but with a tensor structure different from the AL term. The paper hints at this but does not work it out.
  • A quantitative experimental test of the disorder scaling κ_dis ~ (T_c τ)^3 would be valuable: if the MCA in dirty samples dies faster than predicted, the parametric enhancement estimate—and the four-orders-of-magnitude claim—would need revision.
  • The subleading role of kinetic Lifshitz invariants implies that fluctuation noise measurements, which probe relaxation rates, should show much weaker MCA than transport measurements; this is a testable distinction between the two probes.
  • Strain engineering could be used as a switch: applying or relaxing uniaxial strain would turn on and off the MT contribution, potentially useful for devices based on nonlinear rectification.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies magnetochiral anisotropy (MCA) in two-dimensional noncentrosymmetric superconductors, using monolayer MoS2 as a concrete example. In the normal state the authors state that MCA vanishes in the minimal band model at leading order. The main body derives fluctuation-induced MCA from a Ginzburg-Landau approach with cubic Lifshitz invariants: the Aslamazov-Larkin channel yields Eq. (16) with the D3h tensor F(E), and the Maki-Thompson channel vanishes without strain but is activated by a strain-induced invariant ηB_z(ε·q)q^2, giving Eq. (22). The paper closes with a numerical estimate that superconducting fluctuations enhance MCA by about four orders of magnitude relative to the normal-state one-valley estimate, and argues that kinetic Lifshitz invariants are subleading.

Significance. If the technical claims hold, this is a useful advance: it gives explicit formulas for AL and MT contributions to MCA in a realistic TMD band model, resolves the tensor structure under D3h and strain, and explains why the MT channel requires a symmetry-lowering perturbation. The symmetry analysis and the use of the known MT expression from Ref. [37] are valuable. The main new quantitative claim—that the diffusive-limit response remains sizable after disorder suppression—rests on an unproved exponent, so the numerical part should be treated with caution. A revised version with the missing derivations would make the paper suitable.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV, paragraph beginning 'The parameter κ...' and Eq. (28)] The diffusive-limit suppression κ_dis ≃ κ(T_cτ)^3 is asserted without a derivation, a diagram, or a reference. This is load-bearing: Eq. (28) and the ensuing 'four orders of magnitude' enhancement use this exponent. For the quoted MoS2 parameters T_cτ ≈ 0.1, changing the exponent by ±2 changes the ratio δj_S/δj_N by ×0.01 or ×100, so the estimate is not robust. Please provide the impurity-ladder/vertex-correction calculation, or state the exponent as an unknown and soften the quantitative claim. As written, the abstract's statement that the response 'remains sizable' in the diffusive limit is not supported by the manuscript.
  2. [§III, Eq. (13) and text after Eq. (20)] The cubic Lifshitz invariant δα_{D3h}=κB_z(q_x^3-3q_xq_y^2) is introduced with κ∝λgμ_BΔ_SO/T_c^2, but no gradient expansion from the stated band model is shown; the abstract promises that these invariants are 'derived microscopically.' Similarly, the strain coefficient η near Eq. (20) is related only to the logarithmic derivative of the hopping, which is a dimensional estimate. These coefficients set the magnitude of the AL and MT responses, so the microscopic derivation should be included in an appendix or replaced by a precise reference to an existing derivation.
  3. [§III, Eq. (20)] The strain Lifshitz invariant is introduced as 'the simplest' cubic term, with the acknowledgment that other terms resolving trigonal anisotropy are possible. The paper does not give a group-theoretic classification of all D3h-allowed cubic invariants linear in ε and B_z, nor does it show that the omitted terms do not contribute to Eq. (19). Eq. (22) should therefore be presented either as the complete strain-induced MT response (with classification) or as one allowed strain channel (with the caveat that other terms may alter the coefficient).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (23)] The formula for f(x) is ambiguous in the typeset text; it should read f(x)=[2x(2+x) ln x + x(4-5x)+1]/[2(x-1)^4]. Please add parentheses.
  2. [Sec. III, paragraph after Eq. (9)] The statement that the normal-state MCA vanishes in the minimal band model is not demonstrated in the paper. A short valley-sum calculation or a specific equation/reference would make the comparison in Sec. IV more transparent.
  3. [Sec. IV] The clean-limit discussion is important: the paper explicitly states that fluctuation MCA in clean superconductors remains unresolved and that the present results apply only to the diffusive limit. This limitation should appear in the abstract or introduction to prevent over-generalization.
  4. [Eqs. (16) and (22)] The notation F(E) is used without boldface; since it is a two-component vector, using \mathbf{F}(\mathbf{E}) would avoid confusion with the scalar F(E).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: AL/MT MCA results are derived from independent inputs; the main weakness is an unproven disorder-scaling assertion, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. The AL current starts from the standard Schmid/Dorsey TDGL expression (Refs. [42,43]) and the D3h Lifshitz invariant δα=κB_z(q_x^3−3q_xq_y^2), whose coefficient κ is a band-structure parameter; Eq. (16) is obtained by explicit momentum integrals. The MT channel is imported from the authors' earlier Levchenko-Kamenev Keldysh work (Ref. [37]) and used to produce a new response Eq. (22); that citation is independent published work whose assumptions do not include the present target MCA, so it is real evidence rather than a circular self-citation. The strain-induced term Eq. (20) is introduced as a symmetry-allowed ansatz and is not fitted to the output. Numerical estimates use ab initio Δ_SO, measured ρ_N, and estimates of T_cτ; no parameter is fitted to MCA data, and no 'prediction' is a renamed input. The paper explicitly flags its clean-limit limitation ('the problem of fluctuation-induced MCA in clean superconductors remains unresolved'). The only serious weakness is the unproven assertion 'We find that in the diffusive limit, T_cτ≪1, the overall suppression factor scales parametrically as κ_dis≃κ(T_cτ)^3' (Sec. IV), which is load-bearing for the 'four orders of magnitude' estimate; this is an incompleteness/correctness risk, not circularity, because it is not equivalent to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central results depend on two Lifshitz coefficients (κ, η) that are asserted rather than derived, and on the diffusive-limit disorder renormalization; these are the main uncharged inputs.

free parameters (2)
  • kappa (warping Lifshitz coefficient) = not numerically fitted; stated as κ ∝ λ g μ_B Δ_SO / T_c^2
    Introduced in Eq. (13) as the coefficient of the D3h Lifshitz invariant; the paper states the scaling but does not derive the prefactor, and its disorder renormalization κ_dis ≃ κ(T_cτ)^3 is asserted. The final AL result Eq. (16) is proportional to κ.
  • eta (strain Lifshitz coefficient) = not numerically fitted; related to ∂ ln t / ∂ ln a
    Introduced in Eq. (20) as the coefficient of the strain-Lifshitz invariant η B_z (ε·q) q^2; stated to be related to hopping change under strain, but no derivation is given. The MT result Eq. (22) is proportional to η.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The minimal MoS2 band model with trigonal warping, Ising SOC, and Zeeman field adequately describes the low-energy physics.
    Used throughout Sec. III to define the model; not justified within the paper beyond citing ab initio Δ_SO.
  • domain assumption The TDGL current formula (Eq. 11) and the Maki-Thompson current formula (Eq. 17), taken from Ref. [37] and prior literature, correctly capture the leading nonlinear fluctuation response.
    The paper relies on these published results to derive δj_AL and δj_MT; no re-derivation of Eq. (17) is given.
  • ad hoc to paper The gradient expansion of the Ginzburg-Landau free energy yields the specific Lifshitz invariant δα(q) = κ B_z (q_x^3 - 3 q_x q_y^2) for D3h.
    Eq. (13) is stated with 'It can be shown' rather than derived; the coefficient κ is not computed in the manuscript.
  • ad hoc to paper In the diffusive limit the warping Lifshitz invariant is renormalized by disorder as κ_dis ≃ κ(T_cτ)^3.
    Sec. IV, disorder paragraph: asserted without derivation; this factor enters the enhancement estimate Eq. (28).
  • domain assumption Vertex corrections from the warping term are subleading in T-T_c and can be neglected.
    Sec. IV paragraph before 'It is important to discuss the role of disorder' states these terms contain extra powers of bosonic momentum and are less singular.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetochiral anisotropy in strained superconducting transition metal dichalcogenides." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X5IM3F6W

@misc{pith2026260605302,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetochiral anisotropy in strained superconducting transition metal dichalcogenides},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X5IM3F6W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.05302}
}
abstract

We present a theoretical study of nonreciprocal charge transport in two-dimensional noncentrosymmetric superconductors, taking the transition-metal dichalcogenide MoS$_2$ as a representative example. In the normal state, the magnetochiral anisotropy vanishes within the minimal band model of MoS$_2$, appearing only at subleading order in the symmetry-breaking perturbations set by trigonal warping, Ising spin-orbit coupling, and the Zeeman field. Superconductivity changes this picture qualitatively: in the vicinity of the transition, the magnetochiral anisotropy is strongly enhanced by pairing fluctuations. We evaluate the nonreciprocal current density arising from order-parameter fluctuations and quantum-interference processes -- the Aslamazov-Larkin and Maki-Thompson channels -- and show that both are governed by cubic Lifshitz invariants of the Ginzburg-Landau free energy, generically allowed once inversion and time-reversal symmetries are broken. These invariants are derived microscopically from the band model, including the effects of disorder: in the diffusive limit the warping-induced invariant is suppressed, yet the resulting response remains sizable. Strain is shown to enable additional vector components of the nonlinear current, activating the Maki-Thompson channel. Finally, invoking Onsager reciprocity, we identify kinetic Lifshitz invariants, nonreciprocal corrections to the order-parameter relaxation rate, locked to the Langevin noise by the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, and demonstrate that their contribution to the magnetochiral anisotropy is parametrically subleading near the transition.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Fluctuation-Induced Magnetoelectric Effect in Noncentrosymmetric Superconductors

    cond-mat.supr-con 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Superconducting fluctuations induce a magnetoelectric term in spin susceptibility via fluctuation-induced Cooper pairs in noncentrosymmetric superconductors, possible even for s-wave pairing.

  2. Effect of superconducting fluctuations on nonreciprocal dichroism and gyrotropy

    cond-mat.supr-con 2026-07 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

    Fluctuating Cooper pairs above Tc produce closed-form nonreciprocal dichroism and gyrotropic birefringence that diverge as 1/(T−Tc) and require particle-hole asymmetry plus a cubic Lifshitz invariant.

  3. Electrical magnetochiral anisotropy in Rashba superconductors

    cond-mat.supr-con 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Higher-order Lifshitz invariants in Rashba superconductors generate critical-current nonreciprocity in the superconducting state and magnetochiral anisotropy in the fluctuation regime near Tc via generalized TDGL theory.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [37]

    Keldysh Ginzburg- Landau action of fluctuating superconductors,

    Alex Levchenko and Alex Kamenev, “Keldysh Ginzburg- Landau action of fluctuating superconductors,” Phys. Rev. B76, 094518 (2007)

    2007

  2. [1]

    Evidence for two-dimensional Ising superconductivity in gated MoS 2,

    J. M. Lu, O. Zheliuk, I. Leermakers, N. F. Q. Yuan, U. Zeitler, K. T. Law, and J. T. Ye, “Evidence for two-dimensional Ising superconductivity in gated MoS 2,” Science350, 1353–1357 (2015)

    2015

  3. [2]

    Characterization of collec- tive ground states in single-layer NbSe 2,

    Miguel M. Ugeda, Aaron J. Bradley, Yi Zhang, Seita On- ishi, Yi Chen, Wei Ruan, Claudia Ojeda-Aristizabal, Hyejin Ryu, Mark T. Edmonds, Hsin-Zon Tsai, Alexander Riss, Sung- Kwan Mo, Dunghai Lee, Alex Zettl, Zahid Hussain, Zhi-Xun Shen, and Michael F. Crommie, “Characterization of collec- tive ground states in single-layer NbSe 2,” Nature Physics12, 92–97 (2016)

    2016

  4. [3]

    Superconductivity protected by spin–valley locking in ion-gated MoS 2,

    Yu Saito, Yasuharu Nakamura, Mohammad Saeed Bahramy, Yoshimitsu Kohama, Jianting Ye, Yuichi Kasahara, Yuji Nak- agawa, Masaru Onga, Masashi Tokunaga, Tsutomu Nojima, Youichi Yanase, and Yoshihiro Iwasa, “Superconductivity protected by spin–valley locking in ion-gated MoS 2,” Nature Physics12, 144–149 (2016)

    2016

  5. [4]

    Ising pairing in superconducting NbSe 2 atomic layers,

    Xiaoxiang Xi, Zefang Wang, Weiwei Zhao, Ju-Hyun Park, Kam Tuen Law, Helmuth Berger, L´aszl´o Forr´o, Jie Shan, and Kin Fai Mak, “Ising pairing in superconducting NbSe 2 atomic layers,” Nature Physics12, 139–143 (2016)

    2016

  6. [5]

    Gate-induced superconductivity in atomi- cally thin MoS2 crystals,

    Davide Costanzo, Sanghyun Jo, Helmuth Berger, and Al- berto F. Morpurgo, “Gate-induced superconductivity in atomi- cally thin MoS2 crystals,” Nature Nanotechnology11, 339–344 (2016)

    2016

  7. [6]

    Spectroscopy of bulk and few-layer superconducting NbSe 2 with van der waals tunnel junctions,

    T. Dvir, F. Massee, L. Attias, M. Khodas, M. Aprili, C. H. L. Quay, and H. Steinberg, “Spectroscopy of bulk and few-layer superconducting NbSe 2 with van der waals tunnel junctions,” Nature Communications9, 598 (2018)

    2018

  8. [7]

    Tuning ising superconductivity with layer and spin–orbit coupling in two-dimensional transition-metal dichalcogenides,

    Sergio C. de la Barrera, Michael R. Sinko, Devashish P. Gopalan, Nikhil Sivadas, Kyle L. Seyler, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Adam W. Tsen, Xiaodong Xu, Di Xiao, and Benjamin M. Hunt, “Tuning ising superconductivity with layer and spin–orbit coupling in two-dimensional transition-metal dichalcogenides,” Nature Communications9, 1427 (2018)

    2018

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    An un- usual continuous paramagnetic-limited superconducting phase transition in 2D NbSe2,

    Egon Sohn, Xiaoxiang Xi, Wen-Yu He, Shengwei Jiang, Zefang Wang, Kaifei Kang, Ju-Hyun Park, Helmuth Berger, L ´aszl´o Forr´o, Kam Tuen Law, Jie Shan, and Kin Fai Mak, “An un- usual continuous paramagnetic-limited superconducting phase transition in 2D NbSe2,” Nature Materials1...

    2018

  2. [9]

    Two-fold symmetric superconductivity in few-layer NbSe 2,

    Alex Hamill, Brett Heischmidt, Egon Sohn, Daniel Shaffer, Kan-Ting Tsai, Xi Zhang, Xiaoxiang Xi, Alexey Suslov, Hel- muth Berger, L´aszl´o Forr´o, Fiona J. Burnell, Jie Shan, Kin Fai Mak, Rafael M. Fernandes, Ke Wang, and Vlad S. Pribiag, “Two-fold symmetric superconductivity ...

    2021

  3. [10]

    Gate-induced su- perconductivity in a monolayer topological insulator,

    Ebrahim Sajadi, Tauno Palomaki, Zaiyao Fei, Wenjin Zhao, Philip Bement, Christian Olsen, Silvia Luescher, Xiaodong Xu, Joshua A. Folk, and David H. Cobden, “Gate-induced su- perconductivity in a monolayer topological insulator,” Science 362, 922–925 (2018)

    2018

  4. [11]

    Electrically tunable low- density superconductivity in a monolayer topological insula- tor,

    Valla Fatemi, Sanfeng Wu, Yuan Cao, Landry Bretheau, Quinn D. Gibson, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Robert J. Cava, and Pablo Jarillo-Herrero, “Electrically tunable low- density superconductivity in a monolayer topological insula- tor,” Science362, 926–929 (2018)

    2018

  5. [12]

    Superconductivity in Weyl semimetal candidate MoTe2,

    Yanpeng Qi, Pavel G. Naumov, Mazhar N. Ali, Cather- ine R. Rajamathi, Walter Schnelle, Oleg Barkalov, Michael Hanfland, Shu-Chun Wu, Chandra Shekhar, Yan Sun, Vicky S¨uß, Marcus Schmidt, Ulrich Schwarz, Eckhard Pippel, Pe- ter Werner, Reinald Hillebrand, Tobias F ¨orster, Erik...

    2016

  6. [13]

    Superconductivity emerging from a sup- pressed large magnetoresistant state in tungsten ditelluride,

    Defen Kang, Yazhou Zhou, Wei Yi, Chongli Yang, Jing Guo, Youguo Shi, Shan Zhang, Zhe Wang, Chao Zhang, Sheng Jiang, Aiguo Li, Ke Yang, Qi Wu, Guangming Zhang, Liling Sun, and Zhongxian Zhao, “Superconductivity emerging from a sup- pressed large magnetoresistant state in tungst...

    2015

  7. [14]

    Superconductivity in twisted bi- layer WSe2,

    Yiyu Xia, Zhongdong Han, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Jie Shan, and Kin Fai Mak, “Superconductivity in twisted bi- layer WSe2,” Nature637, 833–838 (2025)

    2025

  8. [15]

    Electrical mag- netochiral anisotropy,

    G. L. J. A. Rikken, J. F ¨olling, and P. Wyder, “Electrical mag- netochiral anisotropy,” Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 236602 (2001)

    2001

  9. [16]

    Magnetoelectric anisotropy in diffusive transport,

    G. L. J. A. Rikken and P. Wyder, “Magnetoelectric anisotropy in diffusive transport,” Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 016601 (2005)

    2005

  10. [17]

    Nonreciprocal charge transport in noncen- trosymmetric superconductors,

    Ryohei Wakatsuki, Yu Saito, Shintaro Hoshino, Yuki M. Ita- hashi, Toshiya Ideue, Motohiko Ezawa, Yoshihiro Iwasa, and Naoto Nagaosa, “Nonreciprocal charge transport in noncen- trosymmetric superconductors,” Science Advances3, e1602390 (2017)

    2017

  11. [18]

    The superconducting diode effect,

    Muhammad Nadeem, Michael S. Fuhrer, and Xiaolin Wang, “The superconducting diode effect,” Nature Reviews Physics5, 558–577 (2023)

    2023

  12. [19]

    Superconducting diode effects: Mechanisms, materials and applications,

    Jiajun Ma, Ruiya Zhan, and Xiao Lin, “Superconducting diode effects: Mechanisms, materials and applications,” Advanced Physics Research4, 2400180 (2025). 7

    2025

  13. [20]

    Theories of super- conducting diode effects,

    Daniel Shaffer and Alex Levchenko, “Theories of super- conducting diode effects,” (2025), arXiv:2510.25864 [cond- mat.supr-con]

    2025

  14. [21]

    Nonreciprocal re- sponses from non-centrosymmetric quantum materials,

    Yoshinori Tokura and Naoto Nagaosa, “Nonreciprocal re- sponses from non-centrosymmetric quantum materials,” Nature Communications9, 3740 (2018)

    2018

  15. [22]

    Nonreciprocal transport and optical phenomena in quantum materials,

    Naoto Nagaosa and Youichi Yanase, “Nonreciprocal transport and optical phenomena in quantum materials,” Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics15, 63–83 (2024)

    2024

  16. [23]

    Coherent pho- togalvanic effect in fluctuating superconductors,

    V . M. Kovalev, K. Sonowal, and I. G. Savenko, “Coherent pho- togalvanic effect in fluctuating superconductors,” Phys. Rev. B 103, 024513 (2021)

    2021

  17. [24]

    Photogalvanic transport in fluctuating Ising superconductors,

    A. V . Parafilo, M. V . Boev, V . M. Kovalev, and I. G. Savenko, “Photogalvanic transport in fluctuating Ising superconductors,” Phys. Rev. B106, 144502 (2022)

    2022

  18. [25]

    Photogal- vanic phenomena in superconductors supporting intrinsic diode effect,

    S. V . Mironov, A. S. Mel’nikov, and A. I. Buzdin, “Photogal- vanic phenomena in superconductors supporting intrinsic diode effect,” Phys. Rev. B109, L220503 (2024)

    2024

  19. [26]

    Photovoltaic Hall effect in two- dimensional fluctuating superconductors,

    M. V . Boev and V . M. Kovalev, “Photovoltaic Hall effect in two- dimensional fluctuating superconductors,” JETP Letters120, 494–498 (2024)

    2024

  20. [27]

    Rectification and nonlinear Hall effect by fluctuating finite-momentum Cooper pairs,

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

    2024

  21. [28]

    Enhanced nonlin- ear Hall effect by Cooper pairs near the superconducting phase transition,

    Zi-Hao Dong, Hui Yang, and Yi Zhang, “Enhanced nonlin- ear Hall effect by Cooper pairs near the superconducting phase transition,” Phys. Rev. B111, 155120 (2025)

    2025

  22. [29]

    Mech- anisms of in-plane magnetic anisotropy in superconducting NbSe2,

    Menashe Haim, Alex Levchenko, and Maxim Khodas, “Mech- anisms of in-plane magnetic anisotropy in superconducting NbSe2,” Phys. Rev. B105, 024515 (2022)

    2022

  23. [30]

    Planar Hall effect from superconducting fluctuations,

    L. Attias, K. Michaeli, and M. Khodas, “Planar Hall effect from superconducting fluctuations,” Phys. Rev. B110, 014521 (2024)

    2024

  24. [31]

    Nonreciprocal current in noncentrosymmetric rashba superconductors,

    Ryohei Wakatsuki and Naoto Nagaosa, “Nonreciprocal current in noncentrosymmetric rashba superconductors,” Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 026601 (2018)

    2018

  25. [32]

    Nonreciprocal charge transport in two- dimensional noncentrosymmetric superconductors,

    Shintaro Hoshino, Ryohei Wakatsuki, Keita Hamamoto, and Naoto Nagaosa, “Nonreciprocal charge transport in two- dimensional noncentrosymmetric superconductors,” Phys. Rev. B98, 054510 (2018)

    2018

  26. [33]

    Re- ciprocal and nonreciprocal paraconductivity in bilayer multi- phase superconductors,

    Tsugumi Matsumoto, Youichi Yanase, and Akito Daido, “Re- ciprocal and nonreciprocal paraconductivity in bilayer multi- phase superconductors,” Phys. Rev. B111, 064501 (2025)

    2025

  27. [34]

    The influence of fluctua- tion pairing of electrons on the conductivity of normal metal,

    L.G. Aslamasov and A.I. Larkin, “The influence of fluctua- tion pairing of electrons on the conductivity of normal metal,” Physics Letters A26, 238–239 (1968)

    1968

  28. [35]

    The critical fluctuation of the order parameter in type-II superconductors,

    Kazumi Maki, “The critical fluctuation of the order parameter in type-II superconductors,” Progress of Theoretical Physics39, 897–906 (1968)

    1968

  29. [36]

    Microwave, flux flow, and fluctuation resistance of dirty type-II superconductors,

    Richard S. Thompson, “Microwave, flux flow, and fluctuation resistance of dirty type-II superconductors,” Phys. Rev. B1, 327–333 (1970)

    1970

  30. [38]

    Effects of electron-elecron collisions with small energy transfers on quan- tum localisation,

    B. L. Altshuler, A. Aronov, and D. Khmelnitsky, “Effects of electron-elecron collisions with small energy transfers on quan- tum localisation,” J. Phys. C15, 7367 (1982)

    1982

  31. [39]

    B. I. Sturman and V . M. Fridkin,The Photovoltaic and Photo- refractive Effects in Noncentrosymmetric Materials, FER- ROELECTRICITY AND RELATED PHENOMENA, V ol. 8 (Routledge, 1992)

    1992

  32. [40]

    Allowed for all noncentrosymmetric crystallographic point groups except for 432 orO

  33. [41]

    A. I. Larkin and A. Varlamov,Theory of Fluctuations in Super- conductors(OUP Oxford, 2005)

    2005

  34. [42]

    Diamagnetic susceptibility at the transition to the superconducting state,

    Albert Schmid, “Diamagnetic susceptibility at the transition to the superconducting state,” Phys. Rev.180, 527–529 (1969)

    1969

  35. [43]

    Linear and nonlinear conductivity of a super- conductor nearT c,

    Alan T. Dorsey, “Linear and nonlinear conductivity of a super- conductor nearT c,” Phys. Rev. B43, 7575–7585 (1991)

    1991

  36. [44]

    The Ginzburg - Landau equation for su- perconductors of polar symmetry,

    Victor M Edelstein, “The Ginzburg - Landau equation for su- perconductors of polar symmetry,” Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter8, 339 (1996)

    1996

  37. [45]

    Nonuniform states in non- centrosymmetric superconductors: Derivation of Lifshitz in- variants from microscopic theory,

    V . P. Mineev and K. V . Samokhin, “Nonuniform states in non- centrosymmetric superconductors: Derivation of Lifshitz in- variants from microscopic theory,” Phys. Rev. B78, 144503 (2008)

    2008

  38. [46]

    Magnetoelectric effects, helical phases, and FFLO phases,

    D. F. Agterberg, “Magnetoelectric effects, helical phases, and FFLO phases,” inNon-centrosymmetric Superconductors, Lec- ture Notes in Physics, V ol. 847, edited by E. Bauer and M. Sigrist (Springer, 2012) Chap. 5, pp. 155–170

    2012

  39. [47]

    Supercurrent diode effect in helical superconduc- tors,

    Jaglul Hasan, Daniel Shaffer, Maxim Khodas, and Alex Levchenko, “Supercurrent diode effect in helical superconduc- tors,” Phys. Rev. B110, 024508 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Contin- uous quantum phase transitions,

    S. L. Sondhi, S. M. Girvin, J. P. Carini, and D. Shahar, “Contin- uous quantum phase transitions,” Rev. Mod. Phys.69, 315–333 (1997)

    1997

  41. [49]

    Consequently, the problem of fluctuation-induced MCA in clean supercon- ductors remains unresolved

    to the nonlinear regime currently exists. Consequently, the problem of fluctuation-induced MCA in clean supercon- ductors remains unresolved. Our results for the MCA apply to the diffusive limit. The parameterκof the warping term that enters Eq. (16) is strongly renormalized b...

  42. [50]

    Gauge invariance and transport properties in superconductors aboveT c,

    A. G. Aronov, S. Hikami, and A. I. Larkin, “Gauge invariance and transport properties in superconductors aboveT c,” Phys. Rev. B51, 3880–3885 (1995)

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.