Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 35 references

Light induced superconducting diode effect in patterned films

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

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

Pith's one-line read Structured light turns a hole-patterned superconducting film into a diode, without junctions or static bias.

desk verdict Careful TDGL numerics for a new zero-bias optical rectification effect in patterned films, but the superconducting diode claim is not actually demonstrated because no finite-bias or critical-current asymmetry is computed. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11331 v1 pith:HITYSEJW submitted 2026-08-11 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hall

Evan M. Wilson , Hou-Tong Chen , Alexander V. Balatsky This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mes-hall
keywords superconductingdiodeeffectstructuredlighttime-dependentGinzburg-LandauopticalrectificationinverseFaradaypatternedfilmsnonreciprocaltransportorbitalangularmomentum
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 shining structured light on a superconducting film perforated with asymmetric holes makes the film conduct better in one direction than the other, with no junction, magnetic field, or static bias. Using generalized time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau simulations, it finds that the optical drive is rectified into a dc voltage and a zero-bias supercurrent imbalance, with diode efficiencies of order $10^{-3}$ for continuous light and reaching about $1.28\%$ for pulsed light. The sign and size of the response are controlled by the hole geometry, by the number of holes, and by the optical mode's helicity and orbital angular momentum. If true, this gives a junction-free, light-tunable platform for superconducting nonreciprocal transport.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the generalized time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau equation for a thin superconducting film, with the optical drive entering as a time-dependent vector potential through the gauge-covariant derivative. The films are square $40\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ films perforated by smooth guitar-pick-like holes that break left-right reflection symmetry, with insulating boundary conditions on all edges. The simulation tracks the order parameter and electrochemical potential self-consistently, then extracts a cycle-averaged dc photovoltage between two probes and the normalized line-cut imbalances $\eta_{LR}$ and $\eta_{UD}$. The phase-lag observable $\chi_j = \operatorname{Im}[J_x^{(1)}J_y^{(1)*}]$ diagnoses the local elliptical current motion that converts a linear polarization into chiral supercurrent flow.

What would settle it

Make a 40 micrometer superconducting film patterned with 169 asymmetric holes, illuminate it with a linearly polarized roughly 12 THz beam, and measure the dc voltage between two contacts on opposite sides of the pattern; the paper predicts a voltage whose sign reverses when the holes are rotated 180 degrees and whose magnitude grows with hole number. If no such orientation-dependent photovoltage appears, or if the sign does not follow the hole rotation, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that patterned superconducting films with inversion-asymmetric holes exhibit a superconducting diode response when driven by structured THz light: the cycle-averaged supercurrent through opposite internal line cuts is unequal, and a dc photovoltage appears between left and right probes, both at zero applied bias. The response is not a generic heating or field effect: it grows with the number of asymmetric holes, reverses sign when the hole pattern is rotated by $180^\circ$, and reverses sign when circular helicity is flipped. For linearly polarized light, which does not itself break time-reversal symmetry, the asymmetric hole array mixes the current components into a local phase-lagged, elliptically polarized supercurrent motion, an inverse-Faraday-effect-like mechanism that breaks time-reversal symmetry dynamically. The paper presents this as a proof of principle that a light-tunable superconducting diode can be engineered from geometry and optical mode structure alone.

Load-bearing premise

The central calculation assumes that the reduced-scale optical vector potential with a 3 micrometer beam waist on a 40 micrometer film faithfully represents how a real THz field, whose wavelength is hundreds of micrometers, couples through the film's own antenna response; if that near-field profile differs, the magnitude, sign, or existence of the diode coefficients could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A superconducting diode can be created purely by patterning and illumination, without junctions, magnets, or static bias, so the effect should be visible in a single patterned film.
  • Reversing the orientation of the asymmetric holes, or flipping the circular helicity of the drive, flips the diode polarity, giving a fast nonmaterial control knob for nonreciprocal transport.
  • Increasing the number of asymmetric holes strengthens rectification, with pulsed excitation raising the zero-bias current imbalance from about $-0.24\%$ to about $1.28\%$ in the 169-hole metacrystal.
  • The third-harmonic voltage peak at $3\omega_0$ shows that higher-order nonlinear condensate dynamics, not just quadratic rectification, contribute to the response.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the prescribed optical-mode coupling carries over to realistic THz near fields, the same line-cut and photovoltage observables could serve as a direct experimental test: illuminate a $40\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ patterned film at roughly 12 THz and look for a helicity-dependent dc voltage that flips sign with hole orientation.
  • The inverse-Faraday-like mechanism suggests a broader design rule: any subwavelength asymmetric structure that converts linear polarization into local elliptical supercurrent flow may yield an optical diode, and engineering the near-field structure could push efficiency beyond the percent level.
  • Because the simulations neglect quasiparticle heating and nonequilibrium dynamics, a real device could show either larger or smaller asymmetry; measuring the photovoltage versus pulse width and repetition rate would separate coherent rectification from thermal contributions.
  • A search over hole shape, lattice spacing, and array geometry could find designs with much larger diode coefficients, since the response accumulates with hole number and saturates near a metacrystal plateau.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses generalized time-dependent Ginzburg–Landau (TDGL) simulations to study patterned superconducting films with asymmetric holes under structured optical driving. The authors compute, for various optical modes and hole-array sizes, a cycle-averaged dc photovoltage and zero-bias line-cut current imbalances η_LR and η_UD, which they call diode efficiencies. They report continuous-drive coefficients of order 10^-3 and pulsed coefficients near or above 1%, with sign reversal under helicity reversal and hole-orientation reversal, and they interpret the linearly polarized response via an inverse-Faraday-like mechanism. The central claim is that structured light generates a superconducting diode response in a junction-free geometry.

Significance. If the claim were established as a genuine superconducting diode effect, the result would be significant: a junction-free, static-field-free, all-optical route to nonreciprocal supercurrent transport would extend the SDE platform landscape and connect structured-light control to superconducting electronics. The numerical study has genuine strengths: convergence tests are reported (ξ/3 vs ξ/4), the imbalance vanishes without driving, and control calculations (hole-number scan, 180-degree hole rotation, x-polarized drive) support the internal consistency of the observed rectification. No parameter is fitted to reproduce the diode coefficients; they emerge from the TDGL dynamics. However, the computed observables are zero-bias quantities, and the paper explicitly defers finite-bias simulations to future work, so the title-level 'superconducting diode effect' overreaches what is demonstrated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Directional supercurrent asymmetry, Eq. (4), Table I] The central claim in the abstract and conclusion that patterned films under optical driving exhibit a 'superconducting diode response' with 'diode efficiencies' reaching 1% is not supported by the computed observables. The quantities η_LR and η_UD defined in Eq. (4) are zero-bias internal line-cut current imbalances, not nonreciprocal critical currents |Ic(+)|≠|Ic(−)| or direction-dependent resistances; no finite bias or current sweep is applied anywhere in the paper. The text itself notes that adding a dc bias nucleates vortices and phase slips and defers finite-voltage simulations to future work. The paper should either add finite-bias TDGL simulations demonstrating nonreciprocal transport, or consistently reframe the results as zero-bias optical rectification and photogalvanic response in a superconductor, which is the claim actually established.
  2. [Simulation Methods, Eq. (3), Appendix A] The optical drive is imposed as the reduced-scale vector potential A_opt(r,t) with beam waist w0=3 μm on a 40 μm film and drive frequency f=11.9 THz, corresponding to a free-space wavelength of roughly 25 μm, whereas the manuscript states realistic THz fields have wavelengths of hundreds of micrometers to millimeters and that future work will combine full-wave antenna simulations. Because the actual near-field profile, including the film's own antenna response invoked via Babinet's principle, is not modeled, the magnitude, sign, or existence of the predicted coefficients could change. This approximation is acknowledged, but it is load-bearing for the 'viable platform' conclusion; the authors should at least test sensitivity to the beam profile and waist, and soften the platform claim accordingly.
  3. [Appendix A, Simulation Methods] The asymmetric holes are described only as having 'a smooth, guitar-pick-like shape' without a mathematical specification or a figure defining the hole boundary. Because the shape asymmetry determines the sign and magnitude of the rectification, this omission prevents reproduction of the simulations. Please provide the parameterization of the hole shape and lattice geometry in the appendix or as supplementary material.
  4. [Appendix A, Table I] The comparisons across polarization and mode in Table I are not intensity-controlled: the text states that fixed E0 is used without 1/√2 rescaling of the circular Cartesian components, so fixed E0 does not imply equal cycle-averaged |E|^2. Consequently, the reported differences in magnitude between linear and circular drives, and between Gaussian and Laguerre-Gaussian modes, could partly reflect different drive intensities rather than the optical mode structure. Normalize the drives to equal cycle-averaged intensity or report the intensity dependence for each mode before drawing quantitative mode-dependence conclusions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction] Typo: 'helicity/SAM indexs' should read 'helicity/SAM indices'.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption states 'η=0.10 corresponds to 10%' while Table I reports cycle-averaged values in percent; please clarify the relationship between instantaneous and cycle-averaged values to avoid confusion.
  3. [Appendix A] The convergence statement that 'the diode coefficients are unchanged within numerical precision for ξ/3 and finer meshes' is reassuring but not quantified; please report the actual coefficient values at the two mesh spacings.
  4. [DC Rectification, Fig. 5(b)] The statement that the third harmonic indicates 'cubic and higher-order dynamical contributions are also significant' is reasonable, but a quantitative decomposition of the voltage response into quadratic and higher-order terms would strengthen the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the diode coefficients and photovoltage are numerical outputs of TDGL, not fitted inputs or imported self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities, eta_LR, eta_UD, and the dc photovoltage, are cycle-averaged outputs of the generalized TDGL equation (Eq. 1) driven by a prescribed optical vector potential (Eq. 3), with fixed standard parameters u=5.79 and gamma=10. No parameter is fitted to reproduce any of the reported diode coefficients or voltages; the coefficients are defined in Eq. (4) as ratios of integrated sheet currents, and their nonzero values emerge from solving the PDE. The authors also explicitly acknowledge the modeling limitations of reduced optical and sample dimensions and defer full-wave realistic THz simulations to future work, so the derivation is self-contained rather than assuming its conclusion. The self-citations (refs 26-29) are used for motivation and for the inverse-Faraday-effect-like interpretation, but the actual simulation results are not imported from those papers; they are computed here. Ref. [31] is the numerical code used, not a stored result, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The overclaim that zero-bias current imbalance constitutes a superconducting diode efficiency in the conventional finite-bias sense is a correctness or interpretation concern, not a circularity in the derivation chain. Consequently the paper merits a score of 0 for circularity.

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

The central claim rests on the TDGL equation, a prescribed optical vector potential, and several idealizations (thin homogeneous film, insulating boundaries, no self-fields, no heating). The main free-design parameter is the asymmetric hole shape, which is not explicitly parametrized and directly controls the sign and size of the diode coefficients. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • u (TDGL relaxation parameter) = 5.79
    Standard dirty-limit value from Kramer-Watts-Tobin theory; not fitted to the diode result, but sets order-parameter relaxation time.
  • gamma (inelastic scattering) = 10
    Standard generalized-TDGL parameter; not fitted to the diode result.
  • Drive amplitude E0 = 0.5 (dimensionless)
    Chosen drive strength; the dc voltage vs E0^2 shows sign change and higher-order nonlinearity, so this choice influences polarity and magnitude.
  • Beam waist w0 and film dimensions = w0=3 um on 40 um x 40 um film
    Reduced optical and sample dimensions to keep the simulation tractable; the optical vector potential is imposed, not full-wave.
  • Asymmetric hole shape = not specified
    Only described as a smooth, guitar-pick-like shape; the exact profile sets the sign and magnitude of the diode coefficients but is not parametrized.
  • Drive frequency and pulse width = 2*pi/10 (T=10, 11.9 THz); pulsed sigma_t=10
    Chosen dimensionless frequency and pulse envelope; the response is frequency-dependent in general.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The generalized time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau equation (Eq. 1) is a valid description of the driven superconducting condensate at the studied parameters.
    All results depend on this equation; no derivation from microscopic theory is given for the strong-drive regime.
  • domain assumption The vector potential is just the externally applied optical field; magnetic self-fields are neglected.
    Stated in Methods: 'Magnetic self-field screening is neglected.'
  • domain assumption Insulating boundary conditions and charge conservation (Eqs. A1-A2) determine the electrochemical potential.
    Standard gauge-covariant Neumann conditions at superconductor-vacuum interfaces.
  • domain assumption Only the coherent condensate response is modeled; heating and nonequilibrium quasiparticles are neglected.
    Stated in the Conclusion as a limitation that may modify the experimental response.
  • domain assumption The film is thin and homogeneous with uniform thickness d=0.02 um.
    Sheet-current formulation is used; real films may have thickness variations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Light induced superconducting diode effect in patterned films." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HITYSEJW

@misc{pith2026260811331,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Light induced superconducting diode effect in patterned films},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HITYSEJW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11331}
}
abstract

Structured light offers a route to control superconducting transport without permanently modifying the material or applying a static bias. Here we show that structured optical driving can generate a superconducting diode response in patterned superconducting films with asymmetric holes. Using generalized time-dependent Ginzburg Landau simulations, we find that optical driving produces rectified dc photovoltages and zero bias directional supercurrent imbalance in a junction free geometry, with continuous-drive diode efficiencies of order $10^{-3}$ and pulsed efficiencies reaching $10^{-2}$. The response is controlled by both the hole array and the optical mode. Increasing the number of asymmetric holes enhances rectification, reversing circular helicity reverses the diode polarity, and the optical spatial mode strongly modifies the magnitude and polarity of the directional response. Pulsed excitation enhances the zero bias line cut current imbalance to the percent level. For linearly polarized illumination, the asymmetric metacrystal converts the drive into local chiral supercurrent motion, inducing an inverse Faraday effect like mechanism for dynamical time reversal symmetry breaking. These results establish patterned superconducting films as a viable platform for light-tunable superconducting diode behavior.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11331 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A superconducting film patterned with an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Optically induced sheet-current texture in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Time-dependent zero-bias current imbalance and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) For Gaussian linear polarization, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Geometry dependence and harmonic content of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Optically induced sheet-current textures for different optical modes and asymmetric-hole arrays. Panels (a)–(d) show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    This behavior is described by higher-order non- linear terms of the formV dc =aE 2 0 +bE 4 0 +cE 6 0 +···

    The voltage shows a weak negative response at low intensity, followed by a sign change and rapid positive growth at larger drive. This behavior is described by higher-order non- linear terms of the formV dc =aE 2 0 +bE 4 0 +cE 6 0 +···. For circular polarization, Fig. 4(b), the response is strongly helicity dependent. Opposite helicities gener- ate voltag...

    work page

  2. [2]

    F. Ando, Y. Miyasaka, T. Li, J. Ishizuka, T. Arakawa, Y. Shiota, T. Moriyama, Y. Yanase, and T. Ono, Nature 584, 373 (2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    Daido, Y

    A. Daido, Y. Ikeda, and Y. Yanase, Physical Review Let- ters128, 037001 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    Baumgartner, L

    C. Baumgartner, L. Fuchs, A. Costa, S. Reinhardt, S. Gronin, G. C. Gardner, T. Lindemann, M. J. Manfra, P. E. Faria Junior, D. Kochan, J. Fabian, N. Paradiso, and C. Strunk, Nature Nanotechnology17, 39 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    N. F. Q. Yuan and L. Fu, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119, e2119548119 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Y.-Y. Lyu, J. Jiang, Y.-L. Wang, Z.-L. Xiao, S. Dong, Q.-H. Chen, M. V. Miloˇ sevi´ c, H. Wang, R. Divan, J. E. Pearson, P. Wu, F. M. Peeters, and W.-K. Kwok, Nature Communications12, 2703 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    D. Suri, A. Kamra, T. N. G. Meier, M. Kronseder, W. Belzig, C. H. Back, and C. Strunk, Applied Physics Letters121, 102601 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    B. Pal, A. Chakraborty, P. K. Sivakumar, M. Davydova, A. K. Gopi, A. K. Pandeya, J. A. Krieger, Y. Zhang, M. Date, S. Ju, N. Yuan, N. B. M. Schr¨ oter, L. Fu, and S. S. P. Parkin, Nature Physics18, 1228 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    C.-Z. Chen, J. J. He, M. N. Ali, G.-H. Lee, K. C. Fong, and K. T. Law, Physical Review B98, 075430 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    H. F. Legg, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, Physical Review B106, 104501 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Ciaccia, R

    C. Ciaccia, R. Haller, A. C. C. Drachmann, T. Linde- mann, M. J. Manfra, C. Schrade, and C. Sch¨ onenberger, Physical Review Research5, 033131 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    L. Zeng, D. T. Tran, C.-W. Tai, G. Svensson, and E. Ols- son, Scientific Reports6, 29679 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    H. Wang, Y. Zhu, Z. Bai, Z. Lyu, J. Yang, L. Zhao, X. J. Zhou, G. Gu, Q.-K. Xue, and D. Zhang, Nature Physics 22, 47 (2026)

    2026

  6. [14]

    V. M. Edelstein, Physical Review Letters75, 2004 (1995). 7

    1995

  7. [15]

    V. M. Edelstein, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 8, 339 (1996)

    1996

  8. [16]

    Nadeem, M

    M. Nadeem, M. S. Fuhrer, and X. Wang, Nature Reviews Physics5, 558 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Wakatsuki, Y

    R. Wakatsuki, Y. Saito, S. Hoshino, Y. M. Itahashi, T. Ideue, M. Ezawa, Y. Iwasa, and N. Nagaosa, Science Advances3, e1602390 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    S. V. Mironov, A. S. Mel’nikov, and A. I. Buzdin, Phys- ical Review B109, L220503 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    A. V. Parafilo, M. Sun, K. Sonowal, V. M. Kovalev, and I. G. Savenko, 2D Materials12, 011001 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    Nagaosa and Y

    N. Nagaosa and Y. Yanase, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics15, 63 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Matsubara, T

    M. Matsubara, T. Kobayashi, H. Watanabe, Y. Yanase, S. Iwata, and T. Kato, Nature Communications13, 6708 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Pettine, P

    J. Pettine, P. Padmanabhan, T. Shi, L. Gingras, L. McClintock, C.-C. Chang, K. W. C. Kwock, L. Yuan, Y. Huang, J. Nogan, J. K. Baldwin, P. Adel, R. Holzwarth, A. K. Azad, F. Ronning, A. J. Taylor, R. P. Prasankumar, S.-Z. Lin, and H.-T. Chen, Nature 626, 984 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    J. Wei, Y. Li, L. Wang, W. Liao, B. Dong, C. Xu, C. Zhu, K.-W. Ang, C.-W. Qiu, and C. Lee, Nature Communica- tions11, 6404 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    J. Wei, Y. Chen, Y. Li, W. Li, J. Xie, C. Lee, K. S. Novoselov, and C.-W. Qiu, Nature Photonics17, 171 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    X. Yang, Y. Mou, R. Zapata, B. Reynier, B. Gallas, and M. Mivelle, Nanophotonics12, 687 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    S. V. Mironov, A. S. Mel’nikov, I. D. Tokman, V. Vadi- mov, B. Lounis, and A. I. Buzdin, Physical Review Let- ters126, 137002 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Cardoso, E

    G. Cardoso, E. Sylju˚ asen, and A. V. Balatsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 016502 (2026)

    2026

  20. [28]

    T.-T. Yeh, H. Yerzhakov, L. Bishop-Van Horn, S. Raghu, and A. V. Balatsky, Physical Review Research7, 043111 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    T.-T. Yeh, H. Yerzhakov, L. Bishop-Van Horn, S. Raghu, and A. V. Balatsky, Physical Review Research7, 043112 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Aeppli, A

    G. Aeppli, A. V. Balatsky, S. Bonetti, G. Cardoso, S. Raghu, E. Sylju˚ asen, T.-T. Yeh, S.-Z. Lin, Y. Liu, J. Weissenrieder, and P. J. Wong, arXiv:2509.16792 [quant-ph] (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Kramer and R

    L. Kramer and R. J. Watts-Tobin, Physical Review Let- ters40, 1041 (1978)

    1978

  24. [32]

    Bishop-Van Horn, Computer Physics Communications 291, 108799 (2023)

    L. Bishop-Van Horn, Computer Physics Communications 291, 108799 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Balatsky Group, Metacrystal superconducting diode effect simulation videos,https://sites.google.com/ balatskygroup.org/web/metasde(2026), accessed Au- gust 11, 2026

    2026

  26. [34]

    J. P. van der Ziel, P. S. Pershan, and L. D. Malmstrom, Physical Review Letters15, 190 (1965)

    1965

  27. [35]

    J¨ onsson, R

    M. J¨ onsson, R. Vedin, S. Gyger, J. A. Sutton, S. Stein- hauer, V. Zwiller, M. Wallin, and J. Lidmar, Physical Review Applied17, 064046 (2022). Appendix A: Numerical implementation and observables In dimensionless units withσ= 1,J n =−∇µ−∂ tA, and the electrochemical potentia...

    2022

Pith tools

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