Superconducting Fluctuation Driven Quantum Transport in Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+\delta}$ Thin Films

Aryaman Das; Chandni Usha; Dhavala Suri; Jagadish Rajendran; Naresh Shyaga; Pankaj Bhardwaj; Saisab Bhowmik; Sohini Guin; Subhransu Kumar Negi

REVIEW

Superconducting Fluctuation Driven Quantum Transport in Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+\delta}$ Thin Films

Sohini Guin, Naresh Shyaga, Jagadish Rajendran, Aryaman Das, Subhransu Kumar Negi, Saisab Bhowmik, Pankaj Bhardwaj, Chandni Usha

show 1 more author

Dhavala Suri

Superconductivity · Submitted 6 Nov 2026 · 56 references

Pith's verdict: A useful, partly convincing experimental package: the BKT evidence is real and the mS-scale magnetoconductance rules out single-channel WAL, but the SF-versus-WAL regime boundary is a modeling choice, not a measured discriminator.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on November 9, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 4 major objections · 5 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID2611.09510 (version 1)

Pith IDUILXGERK, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationAryaman Das, Chandni Usha, Dhavala Suri, Jagadish Rajendran, Naresh Shyaga, Pankaj Bhardwaj, Saisab Bhowmik, Sohini Guin, Subhransu Kumar Negi. "Superconducting Fluctuation Driven Quantum Transport in Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+\delta}$ Thin Films." arXiv:2611.09510 (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UILXGERK

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

This is a worthwhile paper, and the stress-test is fair. What is genuinely new is the package: sputtered BSCCO films analyzed across one study with HLN-type WAL, AL+MT superconducting fluctuations, BKT analysis of both R(T) and I-V, and Hall sign reversal. That combination is not in the cited literature, and the multi-sample reproducibility is a real asset. The best-supported result is the BKT signature for B18: the I-V exponent crossing alpha=3 at 66.06 K agrees independently with the Halperin-Nelson fit at 66.85 K, and a similar story appears for B06C. Also, the mS-scale low-field magnetoconductance near Tc really is too large to be single-channel weak antilocalization, which is bounded by a few e^2/h. The authors are right that something collective is dominating close to the transition.

The soft spot is the regime map, not the BKT core. The upper boundary of the WAL window is fixed by declaring HLN fits below 80 K a failure because alpha' exceeds unity and is called unphysical. But the paper's own ref. 46 says alpha'>1 is the expected multichannel signature in layered films, and sentence b71 concedes that SF and WAL produce qualitatively similar low-field cusps. So the same data below 80 K could be read as multichannel WAL coexisting with fluctuations. The mS magnitude excludes single-channel WAL, but it does not by itself prove AL+MT dominance. There is no quantitative model comparison—HLN, SF, and the combined form of Eq. (8) are not fitted in the same windows with residuals, parameter uncertainties, or information criteria. The only residual plot is one 82 K HLN fit.

Separately, the paper is sloppy in places that matter. For B08D the HN fit gives TBKT=39.9 K, Table S3 says 33 K, and Tc0=74 K sits above the SF-fit Tc=66.5 K. The main text puts the HLN window at 82-90 K while the SI for B18 places WAL around 100-110 K and SF from 80-100 K. The abstract is cut off mid-sentence. The control sample is semiconducting, unmatched, and measured only at 2 K, so it cannot support the claim that WAL appears only in conjunction with superconductivity in the 80-90 K range.

My overall read: the central conclusion is plausible and may well be true, but the evidence as presented does not exclude the coexistence picture the authors themselves acknowledge. The fix is concrete—cross-fit models, report uncertainties, fix the internal numbers, and get a matched non-superconducting film at the relevant temperatures. I would send this to peer review and expect heavy revision, and I would use it as a reading-group case study in how fit plausibility becomes a regime assignment.

Referee report

Significance

If substantiated, the paper would provide transport-based evidence for SF dominance in BSCCO thin films with a sharp WAL→SF crossover, complementing the spectroscopic SF studies (refs. 25–26) and constraining theoretical treatments of cuprate magnetotransport. The BKT evidence for sample B18 is a genuine strength: the I–V exponent crossing at 66.06 K and the independent Halperin–Nelson fit at 66.85 K agree within 0.8 K, and the observation is reproducible across three superconducting samples. The mS-scale magnitude of the cusp near Tc also rules out a single-channel WAL explanation, whose HLN correction is bounded by e²/h. However, the central discrimination between SF and WAL is not quantitatively established, and the internal temperature values are inconsistent across the main text, the Supporting Information, and Table S3. The claim as stated outruns the evidence as presented, but the gap is closable within a revision.

Major objections (4)

[Section 2, Fig. 2(e–h), Eq. (9)] The boundary of the WAL window is set by the assertion that the HLN prefactor α′ becomes 'unphysically large' below 80 K, but the paper's own ref. 46 reports α′ > 1 as the expected signature of multichannel conduction in layered films, and sentence b71 concedes that SF and WAL give qualitatively similar low-field cusps. The mS magnitude rules out a single-channel WAL cusp, but it does not rule out multichannel WAL coexisting with SF, a picture the authors themselves invoke at 80 K. Because pure HLN (Eq. 9), pure SF (Eqs. 10–17), and the combined model (Eq. 8) are not fitted in the same windows with residuals, parameter uncertainties, or information criteria — the only residual shown (Fig. S6) is for a single 82 K HLN fit — the regime map in Fig. 2(h) does not independently establish that SF dominates WAL. A genuine model comparison, including the combined form of Eq. (8), is needed to support claim b7.
[Eqs. (6) and (10)–(17)] The SF-regime assignment uses Tc as a free parameter in the magnetoconductance fit (Eqs. 10–17), and the same quantity is obtained by fitting the same SF model to R(T) via Eq. (6), which itself carries roughly six free parameters (R0, A, A_AL, A_MT, A_DOS, τ, τφ) in addition to Tc. Quoting the SF-derived Tc (66.5 K for B08D, 76.19 K for B18) as independent support for the SF magnetoconductance fits is therefore circular. Please fix Tc from a determination that does not use the SF model (for example the onset or midpoint of the resistive transition) and report the sensitivity of the SF fits and of the regime boundary to the chosen Tc.
[Abstract sentence b5 and SI Sec. 5 (Fig. S5)] The claim that the WAL feature 'emerges only in conjunction with superconducting fluctuations' rests on a single control sample (B59g) that is semiconducting, grown under different conditions (830 °C anneal for 3 h, 120 nm thick, versus 850–880 °C for 1 h for the superconducting films), and that in fact exhibits a low-field cusp in R(B) at 2 K, attributed by the authors to weak localization. A semiconducting, differently processed film cannot isolate superconductivity as the relevant variable, and the presence of a cusp in the control sits uneasily with the abstract's 'no WAL-like features.' Either add a matched metallic non-superconducting film or state explicitly why the WL cusp in B59g is unrelated to the cusp studied in the superconducting samples.
[Table S3 versus main text and Fig. S3] Reported transition temperatures are inconsistent for the same samples. For B08D, Table S3 lists Tc0 = 74 K and TBKT = 33 K, whereas the main text and Fig. S3 use Tc = 66.5 K and TBKT = 39.9 K; Table S3 lists B18 Tc0 = 79 K versus Tc = 76.19 K from Eq. (6). Additionally, the statement in Fig. 2(a) that B08D shows zero resistance below Tc ≈ 66.5 K is hard to reconcile with TBKT = 39.9 K, since free-vortex dissipation would persist until phase coherence is established near TBKT. Please reconcile these values and state the zero-resistance temperature explicitly.

Minor objections (5)

[Abstract] The abstract ends mid-sentence ('...establish that magnetotransport in BSCCO thin film.'); the sentence must be completed.
[Throughout] There are numerous artifacts and typos, including 'SSuperconducting fluctuations' at the start of the abstract in the full text, 'thislacunae', 'VdWnature', the broken equation display for l_phi in the text preceding Eq. (18), and duplicated references (refs. 6 and 7 are the same Wang et al. paper). Please clean these up.
[Fig. S2 versus Fig. 2(h)] For sample B18 the SI places the SF magnetoconductance window at 80–100 K and WAL at 100–110 K, whereas for B08D the main text places SF at 68–78 K and WAL at 80–90 K. The two assignments are plausibly consistent in reduced temperature given the different Tc values, but the paper should state this comparison explicitly so the reader can verify the regime map is sample-independent.
[Section 3 (Conclusion)] The conclusion states that quantum interference plays 'at most a subordinate, non-universal role confined to a narrow precursor regime', but the text itself acknowledges coexistence windows (sentences b112–b113) and simultaneous SF+WAL contributions at 80 K. The conclusion should be rephrased to match the actual evidence and to await the model comparison requested above.
[Section 3 (Hall effect)] The Hall sign reversal is discussed only qualitatively. Since normal-state carrier sign changes and vortex-fluctuation Hall effects are both possible origins (refs. 51–53), a quantitative statement about the magnitude of the anomalous contribution, or at least a comparison with the vortex-driven Hall effect of ref. 52, would strengthen this part of the argument.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

Superconducting fluctuations and vortex dynamics, not single-electron quantum interference, govern magnetotransport near the superconducting transition in BSCCO thin films.

The reading

The paper reports magnetotransport measurements on thin films of the high-temperature superconductor Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+\delta}$ (BSCCO) and argues that, as the films approach their superconducting transition, transport is governed by collective pairing physics — thermally fluctuating Cooper pairs and vortex–antivortex binding — rather than by single-particle quantum interference. In one sample the low-field magnetoconductance cusp in the 82–90 K window fits the Hikami–Larkin–Nagaoka weak-antilocalization form with prefactor $\alpha' < 1$, while in the 68–78 K window the same-shaped cusp grows to millisiemens scale and fits the Aslamazov–Larkin plus Maki–Thompson superconducting-fluctuation model. Because the two mechanisms give qualitatively similar cusps, the paper's case rests on fit quality, physically plausible extracted parameters, and corroborating evidence: power-law $I$–$V$ curves with the Berezinskii–Kosterlitz–Thouless exponent $\alpha = 3$, a Halperin–Nelson resistive fit, a Hall sign reversal near $T_c$, and the absence of the cusp in non-superconducting control films. The paper's conclusion is a regime map in which quantum interference is confined to a narrow precursor window and the approach to superconductivity is fluctuation-dominated.

What carries the argument

Three named forms carry the argument. The Hikami–Larkin–Nagaoka (HLN) formula (Eq. 9), a $\ln$-plus-digamma field dependence set by the phase coherence length $\ell_\phi$, fixes the high-temperature window in which the MC cusp is fitted with $\alpha' < 1$, which the paper reads as weak antilocalization. The fluctuation magnetoconductance is built from the Aslamazov–Larkin (AL) and Maki–Thompson (MT) terms (Eqs. 10, 14, 17), whose strength grows as $T \to T_c$ and whose field suppression produces the millisiemens-scale cusp below about 80 K, with the density-of-states term (Eq. 5) included in the resistance fit. The BKT machinery ties the transition to two-dimensional vortex physics: the universal power law $V \propto I^{\alpha}$ with the $\alpha = 3$ criterion, and the Halperin–Nelson resistive form $R = A\exp(-b/\sqrt{T/T_{\mathrm{BKT}}-1})$. Because the paper concedes that SF and WAL produce qualitatively similar cusps, the discriminator that assigns each temperature window is fit quality combined with parameter plausibility: $\alpha'$ below unity, $\tau_\phi$ in the $10^{-11}$–$10^{-10}$ s range, and the diffusion constant fixed by cuprate upper critical fields in the 50–150 T range.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that magnetoconductance (MC) across the superconducting transition in sputtered BSCCO thin films is dominated by superconducting fluctuations (SF) and, closer to the transition, by vortex dynamics, with weak antilocalization (WAL) playing at most a subordinate role in a narrow temperature window. The evidence is a series of low-field MC cusps whose interpretation changes with temperature: in the 82–90 K window (sample B08D) the cusp is well described by the Hikami–Larkin–Nagaoka (HLN) form with prefactor $\alpha'$ below unity (0.85 at 82 K, 0.15 at 90 K); in the 68–78 K window the cusp reaches millisiemens magnitude and is fit by the Aslamazov–Larkin plus Maki–Thompson model with a dephasing time $\tau_\phi$ of $4\times10^{-11}$ to $4\times10^{-10}$ s and a diffusion constant constrained by cuprate upper critical fields of 50–150 T; and near 80 K neither model alone works, which the paper reads as a coexistence crossover. The same ordering — a WAL-like window above an SF window — is reported for a second film in the Supporting Information, with the windows shifted. Quasi-two-dimensional, pairing-dominated physics is established independently through the Berezinskii–Kosterlitz–Thouless (BKT) analysis: the extracted $I$–$V$ exponent $\alpha = 3$ crosses at 66.06 K and the Halperin–Nelson fit yields $T_{\mathrm{BKT}} = 66.85$ K for sample B18, with the small difference attributed to different vortex-excitation pathways in the two measurement protocols. The Hall resistance reverses sign near the transition, and a non-superconducting control film shows no WAL-like cusp, which the authors take as evidence that the feature arises only in conjunction with superconducting correlations.

Load-bearing premise

The regime map stands on the judgment that an HLN prefactor above unity below 80 K is unphysical contamination by superconducting fluctuations, even though the paper itself acknowledges (citing its own earlier work) that such prefactors may equally indicate multiple coherent transport channels in layered films, and because the two candidate mechanisms give nearly identical cusps, assigning each temperature window to a mechanism is a modeling preference rather than an independently discriminating measurement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Cuprate magnetotransport near $T_c$ should be modeled with superconducting-fluctuation and vortex-dynamics terms as the leading contribution, with HLN-type quantum interference treated as a correction confined to a narrow precursor window.
Because SF and WAL produce nearly identical low-field cusps, an HLN fit alone is not evidence for weak antilocalization in superconducting films; the extracted prefactor $\alpha'$, the cusp magnitude, and the temperature window must all be checked.
The BKT analysis (power-law $I$–$V$ with $\alpha = 3$ at 66.06 K and a Halperin–Nelson fit at 66.85 K on sample B18) makes the film a quasi-two-dimensional superconductor, so narrow-wire and junction devices patterned from these films should exhibit vortex-unbinding rather than single-particle dephasing physics.
Hall sign reversal near the transition indicates that transverse transport reorganizes when pairing sets in, so Hall-effect analyses of cuprates should include fluctuation and vortex contributions rather than assuming single-band carrier response.
Non-superconducting films show no WAL-like cusp, implying the WAL-like feature in the superconducting films is tied to the proximity of superconductivity, not to intrinsic spin-orbit physics alone.

Reading between the lines

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

A reading the paper leaves open: given its own cited result that $\alpha' > 1$ is physically expected in multichannel layered films, the same data could equally mean weak antilocalization persists below 80 K in multichannel form and coexists with superconducting fluctuations rather than being replaced by them; a thickness or layer-count series on identical films would separate these readings.
The regime boundaries are sample-dependent in the paper's own data, with the WAL-like window near 82–90 K in one film and 100–110 K in another, suggesting the quantitative edges of the map track growth conditions and doping even if the qualitative ordering — WAL above SF above vortex dynamics — is stable; a doping series across the superconducting dome would test whether the WAL window shrinks as
The same cusp ambiguity recurs in other layered superconductors and in superconductor–topological-insulator hybrids, so the paper's combination of model fits, control samples, and BKT corroboration offers a transferable template, though a metallic (rather than semiconducting) non-superconducting control would isolate the spin-orbit contribution more cleanly.
If the fluctuation assignment is right, the temperature-dependent magnetoconductance near $T_c$ becomes a quantitative probe of the pairing-fluctuation spectrum (dephasing time, pair-breaking parameter) in cuprates, complementing spectroscopic fluctuation studies and potentially tracking how the fluctuation-dominated window narrows with doping.

Original abstract

Superconducting fluctuations (SF), arising from Cooper-pair-driven interactions and electron-electron interactions within the transition regime, can dominate the magnetoconductance (MC) of superconducting thin films near their transition temperature. In some systems, this fluctuation-dominated regime is preceded by a narrow window in which quantum interference effects are manifested as weak antilocalization (WAL) or weak localization (WL). Here, we report magnetotransport measurements on thin films of the high-temperature superconductor Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+\delta}$ (BSCCO) that establish SF as the dominant mechanism governing MC across the transition regime. In the narrow temperature window well above $T_c$ where SF does not exist, a cusp in MC can be attributed to WAL-like signature well described by the Hikami--Larkin--Nagaoka (HLN) framework. Closer to the transition ($T_{BKT}$), we observe signatures consistent with Berezinskii--Kosterlitz--Thouless (BKT) correlations, underscoring that the dominant physics is set by collective, pairing-driven behavior rather than single-particle quantum interference. Measurements on non-superconducting control samples show no WAL-like features, indicating that the WAL over narrow temperature window, emerges only in conjunction with superconducting fluctuations. Hall measurements further reveal a concomitant sign reversal of the dominant carrier response, pointing to a substantial reorganization of transverse transport coincident with the onset of superconductivity. Together, these observations establish that magnetotransport in BSCCO thin film.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-11-09: 1 request, 6,636 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.12 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.95 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.05 · compares with prior results 0.53 · mentions code or data availability 0.01.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

Superconducting fluctuations (SF), arising from Cooper-pair-driven interactions and electron-electron interactions within the transition regime, can dominate the magnetoconductance (MC) of superconducting thin films near their transition temperature. In some systems, this fluctuation-dominated regime is preceded by a narrow window in which quantum interference effects are manifested as weak antilocalization (WAL) or weak localization (WL). Here, we report magnetotransport measurements on thin films of the high-temperature superconductor Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+\delta}$ (BSCCO) that establish SF as the dominant mechanism governing MC across the transition regime. In the narrow temperature window well above $T_c$ where SF does not exist, a cusp in MC can be attributed to WAL-like signature well described by the Hikami--Larkin--Nagaoka (HLN) framework. Closer to the transition ($T_{BKT}$), we observe signatures consistent with Berezinskii--Kosterlitz--Thouless (BKT) correlations, underscoring that the dominant physics is set by collective, pairing-driven behavior rather than single-particle quantum interference. Measurements on non-superconducting control samples show no WAL-like features, indicating that the WAL over narrow temperature window, emerges only in conjunction with superconducting fluctuations. Hall measurements further reveal a concomitant sign reversal of the dominant carrier response, pointing to a substantial reorganization of transverse transport coincident with the onset of superconductivity. Together, these observations establish that magnetotransport in BSCCO thin film.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	Superconducting fluctuations (SF), arising from Cooper-pair-driven interactions and electron-electron interactions within the transition regime, can dominate the magnetoconductance (MC) of superconducting thin films near their transition temperature.	background 1.00	0.06	0.07	hedged possibility 0.64
s1	In some systems, this fluctuation-dominated regime is preceded by a narrow window in which quantum interference effects are manifested as weak antilocalization (WAL) or weak localization (WL).	background 1.00	0.05	0.03	hedged possibility 0.69
s2	Here, we report magnetotransport measurements on thin films of the high-temperature superconductor Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+\delta}$ (BSCCO) that establish SF as the dominant mechanism governing MC across the transition regime.	contribution 0.80	0.96	0.86	asserted 1.00
s3	In the narrow temperature window well above $T_c$ where SF does not exist, a cusp in MC can be attributed to WAL-like signature well described by the Hikami--Larkin--Nagaoka (HLN) framework.	result 0.95	0.85	0.06	asserted 0.84
s4	Closer to the transition ($T_{BKT}$), we observe signatures consistent with Berezinskii--Kosterlitz--Thouless (BKT) correlations, underscoring that the dominant physics is set by collective, pairing-driven behavior rather than single-particle quantum interference.	interpretation 0.60	0.93	0.23	hedged possibility 0.76
s5	Measurements on non-superconducting control samples show no WAL-like features, indicating that the WAL over narrow temperature window, emerges only in conjunction with superconducting fluctuations.	result 0.89	0.91	0.05	asserted 0.60
s6	Hall measurements further reveal a concomitant sign reversal of the dominant carrier response, pointing to a substantial reorganization of transverse transport coincident with the onset of superconductivity.	result 0.96	0.93	0.05	asserted 0.78
s7	Together, these observations establish that magnetotransport in BSCCO thin film.	interpretation 0.89	0.36	0.14	asserted 0.58

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 1.00 · evidence from observation or experiment 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

References

Works cited (56)

[1]

G. Bergmann. “Quantum Corrections to the Resistance in Two- Dimensional Disordered Superconductors above𝑇𝑐: Al, Sn, and AmorphousBi 0.9Tl0.1 Films.”Phys.Rev.B29,no.11(1984):6114– 6128

View on Pith 1984
[2]

M.Giannouri,E.Rocofyllou,C.Papastaikoudis,andW.Schilling. “WeakLocalization,Aslamazov-Larkin,andMaki-ThompsonSu- perconductingFluctuationEffectsinDisorderedFilmsAbove𝑇 𝑐.” PhysicalReviewB56,no.10(1997):6148–6156

View on Pith 1997
[3]

B. L. Altshuler, and A. G. Aronov. 1985. “Electron–Electron InteractioninDisorderedConductors.”InElectron–ElectronInter- actionsinDisorderedSystems,editedbyA.L.EfrosandM.Pollak, 1–153. Elsevier

View on Pith 1985
[4]

P. A. Lee, and T. V. Ramakrishnan. “Disordered electronic sys- tems.”Rev.Mod.Phys.57,no.2(1985):287–337

View on Pith 1985
[5]

Sachin Yadav, Bikash Gajar, R P Aloysius, and Sangeeta Sahoo. “Interplaybetweensuperconductingfluctuationsandweaklocal- izationindisorderedTiNthinfilms.”Nanoscale16,no.43(2024): 20319–20330

View on Pith 2024
[6]

J.Wang,W.Powers,Z.Zhang,M.Smith,B.J.McIntosh,S.K.Bac, L. Riney, M. Zhukovskyi, T. Orlova, L. P. Rokhinson, Y. T. Hsu, X.Liu,andB.A.Assaf.“ObservationofCoexistingWeakLocaliza- tion and Superconducting Fluctuations in Strained Sn1−𝑥In𝑥Te ThinFilms.”NanoLett.22,no.2(2022):792–800

View on Pith 2022
[7]

Jiashu Wang, William Powers, Zhan Zhang, Michael Smith, Bradlee J McIntosh, Seul Ki Bac, Logan Riney, Maksym Zhukovskyi, Tatyana Orlova, Leonid P Rokhinson, Yi-Ting Hsu, Xinyu Liu, and Badih A Assaf. “Observation of coexisting weak localization and superconducting fluctuations in strained Sn1- xInxTethinfilms.”NanoLett.22,no.2(2022):792–800

View on Pith 2022
[8]

S. Hikami, A. I. Larkin, and Y. Nagaoka. “Spin-orbit interaction and magnetoresistance in the two dimensional random system.” Prog.Theor.Phys.63,no.2(1980):707–710

View on Pith 1980
[9]

Z. Li, D. Guo, K. Huang, G. Ma, X. Liu, Y. Wu, J. Yuan, Z. Tao, B. Wang, X. Wang, Z. Zou, N. Yu, G. Yu, J. Xue, Z. Liu, W. Ji, J. Li, and Y. Guo. “Robust weak antilocalization effect up to ∼120KinthevanderWaalscrystalFe 5−𝑥GeTe2 withnear-room- temperature ferromagnetism.”J. Phys. Chem. Lett.14, no. 23 (2023):5456–5465

View on Pith 2023
[10]

Y. A. Salawu, J. H. Yun, J.-S. Rhyee, M. Sasaki, and H.-J. Kim. “Weak antilocalization, spin–orbit interaction, and phase coher- ence length of a Dirac semimetal Bi0.97Sb0.03.”Sci. Rep.12, no. 1 (2022):2845. 7of20

View on Pith 2022
[11]

Y. Kumar, R. Sultana, and V. P. S. Awana. “Comprehensive analysis for the high field magneto-conductivity of Bi2Te3 single crystal.”PhysicaB:Condens.Matter609(2021):412759

View on Pith 2021
[12]

J. Ayres, M. Berben, M. Čulo, Y.-T. Hsu, E. van Heumen, Y. Huang, J. Zaanen, T. Kondo, T. Takeuchi, J. R. Cooper, C. Putzke, S. Friedemann, A. Carrington, and N. E. Hussey. “In- coherenttransportacrossthestrange-metalregimeofoverdoped cuprates.”Nature595,no.7869(2021):661–666

View on Pith 2021
[13]

D. Pelc, P. Popčević, M. Požek, M. Greven, and N. Barišić. “Un- usual behavior of cuprates explained by heterogeneous charge localization.”Sci.Adv.5,no.1(2019):eaau4538

View on Pith 2019
[14]

Z.-A. Ren, J. Yang, W. Lu, W. Yi, G.-C. Che, X. Dong, L. Sun, and Z. Zhao. “Superconductivity at 52 K in iron-based F-doped layered quaternary compound Pr(O1−𝑥F𝑥)FeAs.”Mater. Res. In- nov.12,no.3(2008):105–106

View on Pith 2008
[15]

Y.A.Izyumov,andE.Z.Kurmaev. “FeAssystems:anewclassof high-temperaturesuperconductors.”Phys.-Usp.51,no.12(2008): 1261

View on Pith 2008
[16]

I.K.Drozdov,I.Pletikosić,C.-K.Kim,K.Fujita,G.D.Gu,J.C.S. Davis,P.D.Johnson,I.Božović,andT.Valla. “PhaseDiagramof Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+𝛿 Revisited.”Nat.Commun.9,no.1(2018):5210

View on Pith 2018
[17]

Zhi-Xun Shen, D. S. Dessau, and B. O. Wells. 1991. “Electronic Structure and the Superconducting Gap of Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+𝛿.” InHigh-Temperature Superconductivity: Physical Properties, Mi- croscopic Theory, and Mechanisms, edited by J. Ashkenazi, S. E. Barnes, F. Zuo, G. C. Vezzoli, and B. M. Klein, 113–118. Boston: Springer

View on Pith 1991
[18]

P.Zareapour,A.Hayat,S.Y.F.Zhao,M.Kreshchuk,A.Jain,D.C. Kwok,N.Lee,S.-W.Cheong,Z.Xu,A.Yang,G.D.Gu,S.Jia,R.J. Cava, and K. S. Burch. “Proximity-induced high-temperature su- perconductivity in the topological insulators Bi2Se3 and Bi2Te3.” Nat.Commun.3,no.1(2012):1056

View on Pith 2012
[19]

S. Y. Wang, Y. Yu, J. Hao, K. Liang, B. Xiang, J. Zhu, J. Y. S. Lin, Y. Pan, G. Gu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Y. Qi, Y. Zhang, and Y. H. Wang. “Oscillating Paramagnetic Meissner Effect and Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless Transition in Underdoped Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+𝛿.”Natl.Sci.Rev.11,no.5(2023)

View on Pith 2023
[20]

J. Kötzler, and M. Kaufmann. “Two-dimensional fluctuations close to the zero-field transition of Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8.”Phys. Rev. B56,no.21(1997):13734–13737

View on Pith 1997
[21]

Q. Y. Ying, and H. S. Kwok. “Kosterlitz-Thouless transition andconductivityfluctuationsinY-Ba-Cu-Othinfilms.”Phys.Rev. B42,no.4(1990):2242–2247

View on Pith 1990
[22]

M. Mondal, S. Kumar, M. Chand, A. Kamlapure, G. Saraswat, G.Seibold,L.Benfatto,andP.Raychaudhuri. “Roleofthevortex- core energy on the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless transition in thinfilmsofNbN.”Phys.Rev.Lett.107,no.21(2011):217003

View on Pith 2011
[23]

J.Yong,T.R.Lemberger,L.Benfatto,K.Ilin,andM.Siegel. “Ro- bustness of the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless transition in ul- trathin NbN films near the superconductor-insulator transition.” Phys.Rev.B87,no.18(2013):184505

View on Pith 2013
[24]

A. Weitzel, L. Pfaffinger, I. Maccari, K. Kronfeldner, T. Hu- ber, L. Fuchs, J. Mallord, S. Linzen, E. Il’ichev, N. Paradiso, and C.Strunk.“SharpnessoftheBerezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thoulesstran- sitionindisorderedNbNfilms.”Phys.Rev.Lett.131,no.18(2023): 186002

View on Pith 2023
[25]

Yu He, Su-Di Chen, Zi-Xiang Li, Dan Zhao, Dongjoon Song, Yoshiyuki Yoshida, Hiroshi Eisaki, Tao Wu, Xian-Hui Chen, Dong-Hui Lu, Christoph Meingast, Thomas P. Devereaux, Robert J. Birgeneau, Makoto Hashimoto, Dung-Hai Lee, and Zhi-Xun Shen. “Superconducting Fluctuations in Overdoped Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+𝛿.”Phys.Rev.X11(2021):031068

View on Pith 2021
[26]

Su-DiChen,MakotoHashimoto,YuHe,DongjoonSong,Ke-Jun Xu,Jun-FengHe,ThomasPDevereaux,HiroshiEisaki,Dong-Hui Lu, Jan Zaanen, and Zhi-Xun Shen. “Incoherent strange metal sharply bounded by a critical doping in Bi2212.”Science366, no. 6469(2019):1099–1102

View on Pith 2019
[27]

L.G.Aslamasov,andA.I.Larkin. “Theinfluenceoffluctuation pairing of electrons on the conductivity of normal metal.”Phys. Lett.A26,no.6(1968):238–239

View on Pith 1968
[28]

M.H.Redi. “Two-DimensionalFluctuation-InducedConductiv- ity above the Critical Temperatures.”Physical Review B16, no. 5 (1977):2027–2033

View on Pith 1977
[29]

A. I. Larkin. “Effect of Fluctuations on the Properties of a Two- DimensionalSuperconductor.”JETPLetters31,no.4(1980):219– 222

View on Pith 1980
[30]

R. S. Thompson. “Microwave, flux flow, and fluctuation resis- tanceofdirtytype-IIsuperconductors.”Phys.Rev.B1,no.1(1970): 327–333

View on Pith 1970
[31]

K. Maki. “The Critical Fluctuation of the Order Parameter in a Superconductor.I.”ProgressofTheoreticalPhysics40,no.2(1968): 193–200

View on Pith 1968
[32]

V.V.Dorin,R.A.Klemm,A.A.Varlamov,A.I.Buzdin,andD.V. Livanov. “Fluctuation Conductivity of Layered Superconductors in a Perpendicular Magnetic Field.”Physical Review B48, no. 17 (1993):12951–12965

View on Pith 1993
[33]

L. B. Ioffe, A. I. Larkin, A. A. Varlamov, and L. Yu. “Effect ofSuperconductingFluctuationsontheTransverseResistanceof High-𝑇𝑐 Superconductors.”Physical Review B47, no. 14 (1993): 8936–8941

View on Pith 1993
[34]

M Truccato, A Agostino, G Rinaudo, S Cagliero, and M Panetta. “PossibledominanceoftheMaki–Thompsonprocessinthefluctu- ationconductivityofBi-2212superconductingwhiskers.”Journal ofPhysics:CondensedMatter18,no.35(2006):8295

View on Pith 2006
[35]

B. L. Altshuler, M. E. Gershenson, and I. L. Aleiner. “Phase relaxationofelectronsindisorderedconductors.”PhysicaE:Low- dimensionalSystemsandNanostructures3,no.1(1998):58–68

View on Pith 1998
[36]

M. A. Skvortsov, A. I. Larkin, and M. V. Feigel’man. “Dephas- inginDisorderedMetalswithSuperconductiveGrains.”Phys.Rev. Lett.92(2004):247002

View on Pith 2004
[37]

A. Larkin, and A. Varlamov. 2005.Theory of Fluctuations in Superconductors. OxfordUniversityPress

View on Pith 2005
[38]

Kazumi Maki, and R. S. Thompson. “Fluctuation conductivity ofhigh-𝑇 𝑐 superconductors.”Phys.Rev.B39(1989):2767–2770

View on Pith 1989
[39]

B. I. Halperin, and D. R. Nelson. “Resistive transition in super- conductingfilms.”J.LowTemp.Phys.36,no.5(1979):599–616

View on Pith 1979
[40]

J.M.Kosterlitz,andD.J.Thouless. “Ordering,metastabilityand phase transitions in two-dimensional systems.”J. Phys.6, no. 7 (1973):1181

View on Pith 1973
[41]

G.Venditti,J.Biscaras,S.Hurand,N.Bergeal,J.Lesueur,A.Do- gra, R. C. Budhani, Mintu Mondal, John Jesudasan, Pratap Raychaudhuri, S. Caprara, and L. Benfatto. “Nonlinear𝐼–𝑉 characteristicsoftwo-dimensionalsuperconductors:Berezinskii- Kosterlitz-Thouless physics versus inhomogeneity.”Phys. Rev. B100,no.6(2019):064506

View on Pith 2019
[42]

A. E. Koshelev, R. Chapai, D. Y. Chung, J. F. Mitchell, and U. Welp. “Origin of anomalous magnetotransport in kagome su- perconductors𝐴V 3Sb5 (𝐴= K,Rb,Cs).”Phys. Rev. B110 (2024): 024512

View on Pith 2024
[43]

S. Hikami, A. I. Larkin, and Y. Nagaoka. “Spin-Orbit Inter- action and Magnetoresistance in the Two-Dimensional Random System.”ProgressofTheoreticalPhysics63,no.2(1980):707–710

View on Pith 1980
[44]

I.L.Aleiner,B.L.Altshuler,andM.E.Gershenson. “Interaction Effects and Phase Relaxation in Disordered Systems.”Waves in RandomMedia9,no.2(1999):201–239

View on Pith 1999
[45]

G. Brunthaler, A. Prinz, G. Bauer, and V. M. Pudalov. “Exclu- sion of Quantum Coherence as the Origin of the 2D Metallic StateinHigh-MobilitySiliconInversionLayers.”PhysicalReview Letters87,no.9(2001):096802

View on Pith 2001
[46]

N. Shyaga, R. Sarkar, L. Nanda, R. Chakraborty, S. K. Negi, A. Baral, J. Rajendran, S. Narasimhan, and D. Suri. “Multi- channel conduction in electron transport dynamics of three di- mensionaltopologicalinsulators.”J.Phys.:Condens.Matter37,no. 27(2025):275701

View on Pith 2025
[47]

D. T. Harris, N. Campbell, R. Uecker, M. Brützam, D. G. Schlom, A. Levchenko, M. S. Rzchowski, and C.-B. Eom. 8of20 , “Superconductivity-Localization Interplay and Fluctuation Mag- netoresistanceinEpitaxialBaPb 1−𝑥Bi𝑥O3.”PhysicalReviewMate- rials2,no.4(2018):041801

View on Pith 2018
[48]

Yayu Wang, S. Ono, Y. Onose, G. Gu, Yoichi Ando, Y. Tokura, S. Uchida, and N. P. Ong. “Dependence of Upper Critical Field and Pairing Strength on Doping in Cuprates.”Science299, no. 5603(2003):86–89

View on Pith 2003
[49]

V.N.Zavaritsky,M.Springford,andA.S.Alexandrov. “Negative magnetoresistance and upper critical field of Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8.” PhysicaB294–295(2001):363–366

View on Pith 2001
[50]

N.W.Ashcroft,andN.D.Mermin.1976.SolidStatePhysics.Holt, RinehartandWinston

View on Pith 1976
[51]

E. Sterpetti, J. Biscaras, A. Erb, and A. Shukla. “Compre- hensive phase diagram of two-dimensional space charge doped Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+𝑥.”Nat.Commun.8,no.1(2017):1–8

View on Pith 2017
[52]

S. Y. F. Zhao, N. Poccia, M. G. Panetta, C. Yu, J. W. Johnson, H. Yoo, R. Zhong, G. D. Gu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. V. Postolova, V. M. Vinokur, and P. Kim. “Sign-reversing Hall effect in atomically thin high-temperature Bi2.1Sr1.9CaCu2O8+𝛿 superconductors.”Phys.Rev.Lett.122,no.24(2019):247001

View on Pith 2019
[53]

D.Pelc,M.J.Veit,C.J.Dorow,Y.Ge,N.Barišić,andM.Greven. “Resistivityphasediagramofcupratesrevisited.”Phys.Rev.B102, no.7(2020):075114

View on Pith 2020
[54]

J. Ingla-Aynés, Y. Hou, S. Wang, E.-D. Chu, O. A. Mukhanov, P.Wei,andJ.S.Moodera. “Efficientsuperconductingdiodesand rectifiers for quantum circuitry.”Nat. Electron.8, no. 5 (2025): 411–416

View on Pith 2025
[55]

M. Castellani, O. Medeiros, A. Buzzi, R. A. Foster, M. Colan- gelo, and K. K. Berggren. “A superconducting full-wave bridge rectifier.”Nat.Electron.8,no.5(2025):417–425

View on Pith 2025
[56]

S. Ghosh, V. Patil, A. Basu, Kuldeep, A. Dutta, D. A. Jangade, R. Kulkarni, A. Thamizhavel, J. F. Steiner, F. von Oppen, and M. M. Deshmukh. “High-temperature Josephson diode.”Nat. Mater.23,no.5(2024):612–618. 9of20 Supplementary Text for “Superconducting Fluctuation Driven Quantum Transport in 𝐁𝐢𝟐𝐒𝐫𝟐𝐂𝐚𝐂𝐮𝟐𝐎𝟖+𝛅 Thin Films” Sohini Guin 1, Naresh Shyaga 1, J...

View on Pith 2024

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

G. Bergmann. “Quantum Corrections to the Resistance in Two- Dimensional Disordered Superconductors above𝑇𝑐: Al, Sn, and AmorphousBi 0.9Tl0.1 Films.”Phys.Rev.B29,no.11(1984):6114– 6128

View on Pith 1984

[2] [2]

M.Giannouri,E.Rocofyllou,C.Papastaikoudis,andW.Schilling. “WeakLocalization,Aslamazov-Larkin,andMaki-ThompsonSu- perconductingFluctuationEffectsinDisorderedFilmsAbove𝑇 𝑐.” PhysicalReviewB56,no.10(1997):6148–6156

View on Pith 1997

[3] [3]

B. L. Altshuler, and A. G. Aronov. 1985. “Electron–Electron InteractioninDisorderedConductors.”InElectron–ElectronInter- actionsinDisorderedSystems,editedbyA.L.EfrosandM.Pollak, 1–153. Elsevier

View on Pith 1985

[4] [4]

P. A. Lee, and T. V. Ramakrishnan. “Disordered electronic sys- tems.”Rev.Mod.Phys.57,no.2(1985):287–337

View on Pith 1985

[5] [5]

Sachin Yadav, Bikash Gajar, R P Aloysius, and Sangeeta Sahoo. “Interplaybetweensuperconductingfluctuationsandweaklocal- izationindisorderedTiNthinfilms.”Nanoscale16,no.43(2024): 20319–20330

View on Pith 2024

[6] [6]

J.Wang,W.Powers,Z.Zhang,M.Smith,B.J.McIntosh,S.K.Bac, L. Riney, M. Zhukovskyi, T. Orlova, L. P. Rokhinson, Y. T. Hsu, X.Liu,andB.A.Assaf.“ObservationofCoexistingWeakLocaliza- tion and Superconducting Fluctuations in Strained Sn1−𝑥In𝑥Te ThinFilms.”NanoLett.22,no.2(2022):792–800

View on Pith 2022

[7] [7]

Jiashu Wang, William Powers, Zhan Zhang, Michael Smith, Bradlee J McIntosh, Seul Ki Bac, Logan Riney, Maksym Zhukovskyi, Tatyana Orlova, Leonid P Rokhinson, Yi-Ting Hsu, Xinyu Liu, and Badih A Assaf. “Observation of coexisting weak localization and superconducting fluctuations in strained Sn1- xInxTethinfilms.”NanoLett.22,no.2(2022):792–800

View on Pith 2022

[8] [8]

S. Hikami, A. I. Larkin, and Y. Nagaoka. “Spin-orbit interaction and magnetoresistance in the two dimensional random system.” Prog.Theor.Phys.63,no.2(1980):707–710

View on Pith 1980

[9] [9]

Z. Li, D. Guo, K. Huang, G. Ma, X. Liu, Y. Wu, J. Yuan, Z. Tao, B. Wang, X. Wang, Z. Zou, N. Yu, G. Yu, J. Xue, Z. Liu, W. Ji, J. Li, and Y. Guo. “Robust weak antilocalization effect up to ∼120KinthevanderWaalscrystalFe 5−𝑥GeTe2 withnear-room- temperature ferromagnetism.”J. Phys. Chem. Lett.14, no. 23 (2023):5456–5465

View on Pith 2023

[10] [10]

Y. A. Salawu, J. H. Yun, J.-S. Rhyee, M. Sasaki, and H.-J. Kim. “Weak antilocalization, spin–orbit interaction, and phase coher- ence length of a Dirac semimetal Bi0.97Sb0.03.”Sci. Rep.12, no. 1 (2022):2845. 7of20

View on Pith 2022

[11] [11]

Y. Kumar, R. Sultana, and V. P. S. Awana. “Comprehensive analysis for the high field magneto-conductivity of Bi2Te3 single crystal.”PhysicaB:Condens.Matter609(2021):412759

View on Pith 2021

[12] [12]

J. Ayres, M. Berben, M. Čulo, Y.-T. Hsu, E. van Heumen, Y. Huang, J. Zaanen, T. Kondo, T. Takeuchi, J. R. Cooper, C. Putzke, S. Friedemann, A. Carrington, and N. E. Hussey. “In- coherenttransportacrossthestrange-metalregimeofoverdoped cuprates.”Nature595,no.7869(2021):661–666

View on Pith 2021

[13] [13]

D. Pelc, P. Popčević, M. Požek, M. Greven, and N. Barišić. “Un- usual behavior of cuprates explained by heterogeneous charge localization.”Sci.Adv.5,no.1(2019):eaau4538

View on Pith 2019

[14] [14]

Z.-A. Ren, J. Yang, W. Lu, W. Yi, G.-C. Che, X. Dong, L. Sun, and Z. Zhao. “Superconductivity at 52 K in iron-based F-doped layered quaternary compound Pr(O1−𝑥F𝑥)FeAs.”Mater. Res. In- nov.12,no.3(2008):105–106

View on Pith 2008

[15] [15]

Y.A.Izyumov,andE.Z.Kurmaev. “FeAssystems:anewclassof high-temperaturesuperconductors.”Phys.-Usp.51,no.12(2008): 1261

View on Pith 2008

[16] [16]

I.K.Drozdov,I.Pletikosić,C.-K.Kim,K.Fujita,G.D.Gu,J.C.S. Davis,P.D.Johnson,I.Božović,andT.Valla. “PhaseDiagramof Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+𝛿 Revisited.”Nat.Commun.9,no.1(2018):5210

View on Pith 2018

[17] [17]

Zhi-Xun Shen, D. S. Dessau, and B. O. Wells. 1991. “Electronic Structure and the Superconducting Gap of Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+𝛿.” InHigh-Temperature Superconductivity: Physical Properties, Mi- croscopic Theory, and Mechanisms, edited by J. Ashkenazi, S. E. Barnes, F. Zuo, G. C. Vezzoli, and B. M. Klein, 113–118. Boston: Springer

View on Pith 1991

[18] [18]

P.Zareapour,A.Hayat,S.Y.F.Zhao,M.Kreshchuk,A.Jain,D.C. Kwok,N.Lee,S.-W.Cheong,Z.Xu,A.Yang,G.D.Gu,S.Jia,R.J. Cava, and K. S. Burch. “Proximity-induced high-temperature su- perconductivity in the topological insulators Bi2Se3 and Bi2Te3.” Nat.Commun.3,no.1(2012):1056

View on Pith 2012

[19] [19]

S. Y. Wang, Y. Yu, J. Hao, K. Liang, B. Xiang, J. Zhu, J. Y. S. Lin, Y. Pan, G. Gu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Y. Qi, Y. Zhang, and Y. H. Wang. “Oscillating Paramagnetic Meissner Effect and Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless Transition in Underdoped Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+𝛿.”Natl.Sci.Rev.11,no.5(2023)

View on Pith 2023

[20] [20]

J. Kötzler, and M. Kaufmann. “Two-dimensional fluctuations close to the zero-field transition of Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8.”Phys. Rev. B56,no.21(1997):13734–13737

View on Pith 1997

[21] [21]

Q. Y. Ying, and H. S. Kwok. “Kosterlitz-Thouless transition andconductivityfluctuationsinY-Ba-Cu-Othinfilms.”Phys.Rev. B42,no.4(1990):2242–2247

View on Pith 1990

[22] [22]

M. Mondal, S. Kumar, M. Chand, A. Kamlapure, G. Saraswat, G.Seibold,L.Benfatto,andP.Raychaudhuri. “Roleofthevortex- core energy on the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless transition in thinfilmsofNbN.”Phys.Rev.Lett.107,no.21(2011):217003

View on Pith 2011

[23] [23]

J.Yong,T.R.Lemberger,L.Benfatto,K.Ilin,andM.Siegel. “Ro- bustness of the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless transition in ul- trathin NbN films near the superconductor-insulator transition.” Phys.Rev.B87,no.18(2013):184505

View on Pith 2013

[24] [24]

A. Weitzel, L. Pfaffinger, I. Maccari, K. Kronfeldner, T. Hu- ber, L. Fuchs, J. Mallord, S. Linzen, E. Il’ichev, N. Paradiso, and C.Strunk.“SharpnessoftheBerezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thoulesstran- sitionindisorderedNbNfilms.”Phys.Rev.Lett.131,no.18(2023): 186002

View on Pith 2023

[25] [25]

Yu He, Su-Di Chen, Zi-Xiang Li, Dan Zhao, Dongjoon Song, Yoshiyuki Yoshida, Hiroshi Eisaki, Tao Wu, Xian-Hui Chen, Dong-Hui Lu, Christoph Meingast, Thomas P. Devereaux, Robert J. Birgeneau, Makoto Hashimoto, Dung-Hai Lee, and Zhi-Xun Shen. “Superconducting Fluctuations in Overdoped Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+𝛿.”Phys.Rev.X11(2021):031068

View on Pith 2021

[26] [26]

Su-DiChen,MakotoHashimoto,YuHe,DongjoonSong,Ke-Jun Xu,Jun-FengHe,ThomasPDevereaux,HiroshiEisaki,Dong-Hui Lu, Jan Zaanen, and Zhi-Xun Shen. “Incoherent strange metal sharply bounded by a critical doping in Bi2212.”Science366, no. 6469(2019):1099–1102

View on Pith 2019

[27] [27]

L.G.Aslamasov,andA.I.Larkin. “Theinfluenceoffluctuation pairing of electrons on the conductivity of normal metal.”Phys. Lett.A26,no.6(1968):238–239

View on Pith 1968

[28] [28]

M.H.Redi. “Two-DimensionalFluctuation-InducedConductiv- ity above the Critical Temperatures.”Physical Review B16, no. 5 (1977):2027–2033

View on Pith 1977

[29] [29]

A. I. Larkin. “Effect of Fluctuations on the Properties of a Two- DimensionalSuperconductor.”JETPLetters31,no.4(1980):219– 222

View on Pith 1980

[30] [30]

R. S. Thompson. “Microwave, flux flow, and fluctuation resis- tanceofdirtytype-IIsuperconductors.”Phys.Rev.B1,no.1(1970): 327–333

View on Pith 1970

[31] [31]

K. Maki. “The Critical Fluctuation of the Order Parameter in a Superconductor.I.”ProgressofTheoreticalPhysics40,no.2(1968): 193–200

View on Pith 1968

[32] [32]

V.V.Dorin,R.A.Klemm,A.A.Varlamov,A.I.Buzdin,andD.V. Livanov. “Fluctuation Conductivity of Layered Superconductors in a Perpendicular Magnetic Field.”Physical Review B48, no. 17 (1993):12951–12965

View on Pith 1993

[33] [33]

L. B. Ioffe, A. I. Larkin, A. A. Varlamov, and L. Yu. “Effect ofSuperconductingFluctuationsontheTransverseResistanceof High-𝑇𝑐 Superconductors.”Physical Review B47, no. 14 (1993): 8936–8941

View on Pith 1993

[34] [34]

M Truccato, A Agostino, G Rinaudo, S Cagliero, and M Panetta. “PossibledominanceoftheMaki–Thompsonprocessinthefluctu- ationconductivityofBi-2212superconductingwhiskers.”Journal ofPhysics:CondensedMatter18,no.35(2006):8295

View on Pith 2006

[35] [35]

B. L. Altshuler, M. E. Gershenson, and I. L. Aleiner. “Phase relaxationofelectronsindisorderedconductors.”PhysicaE:Low- dimensionalSystemsandNanostructures3,no.1(1998):58–68

View on Pith 1998

[36] [36]

M. A. Skvortsov, A. I. Larkin, and M. V. Feigel’man. “Dephas- inginDisorderedMetalswithSuperconductiveGrains.”Phys.Rev. Lett.92(2004):247002

View on Pith 2004

[37] [37]

A. Larkin, and A. Varlamov. 2005.Theory of Fluctuations in Superconductors. OxfordUniversityPress

View on Pith 2005

[38] [38]

Kazumi Maki, and R. S. Thompson. “Fluctuation conductivity ofhigh-𝑇 𝑐 superconductors.”Phys.Rev.B39(1989):2767–2770

View on Pith 1989

[39] [39]

B. I. Halperin, and D. R. Nelson. “Resistive transition in super- conductingfilms.”J.LowTemp.Phys.36,no.5(1979):599–616

View on Pith 1979

[40] [40]

J.M.Kosterlitz,andD.J.Thouless. “Ordering,metastabilityand phase transitions in two-dimensional systems.”J. Phys.6, no. 7 (1973):1181

View on Pith 1973

[41] [41]

G.Venditti,J.Biscaras,S.Hurand,N.Bergeal,J.Lesueur,A.Do- gra, R. C. Budhani, Mintu Mondal, John Jesudasan, Pratap Raychaudhuri, S. Caprara, and L. Benfatto. “Nonlinear𝐼–𝑉 characteristicsoftwo-dimensionalsuperconductors:Berezinskii- Kosterlitz-Thouless physics versus inhomogeneity.”Phys. Rev. B100,no.6(2019):064506

View on Pith 2019

[42] [42]

A. E. Koshelev, R. Chapai, D. Y. Chung, J. F. Mitchell, and U. Welp. “Origin of anomalous magnetotransport in kagome su- perconductors𝐴V 3Sb5 (𝐴= K,Rb,Cs).”Phys. Rev. B110 (2024): 024512

View on Pith 2024

[43] [43]

S. Hikami, A. I. Larkin, and Y. Nagaoka. “Spin-Orbit Inter- action and Magnetoresistance in the Two-Dimensional Random System.”ProgressofTheoreticalPhysics63,no.2(1980):707–710

View on Pith 1980

[44] [44]

I.L.Aleiner,B.L.Altshuler,andM.E.Gershenson. “Interaction Effects and Phase Relaxation in Disordered Systems.”Waves in RandomMedia9,no.2(1999):201–239

View on Pith 1999

[45] [45]

G. Brunthaler, A. Prinz, G. Bauer, and V. M. Pudalov. “Exclu- sion of Quantum Coherence as the Origin of the 2D Metallic StateinHigh-MobilitySiliconInversionLayers.”PhysicalReview Letters87,no.9(2001):096802

View on Pith 2001

[46] [46]

N. Shyaga, R. Sarkar, L. Nanda, R. Chakraborty, S. K. Negi, A. Baral, J. Rajendran, S. Narasimhan, and D. Suri. “Multi- channel conduction in electron transport dynamics of three di- mensionaltopologicalinsulators.”J.Phys.:Condens.Matter37,no. 27(2025):275701

View on Pith 2025

[47] [47]

D. T. Harris, N. Campbell, R. Uecker, M. Brützam, D. G. Schlom, A. Levchenko, M. S. Rzchowski, and C.-B. Eom. 8of20 , “Superconductivity-Localization Interplay and Fluctuation Mag- netoresistanceinEpitaxialBaPb 1−𝑥Bi𝑥O3.”PhysicalReviewMate- rials2,no.4(2018):041801

View on Pith 2018

[48] [48]

Yayu Wang, S. Ono, Y. Onose, G. Gu, Yoichi Ando, Y. Tokura, S. Uchida, and N. P. Ong. “Dependence of Upper Critical Field and Pairing Strength on Doping in Cuprates.”Science299, no. 5603(2003):86–89

View on Pith 2003

[49] [49]

V.N.Zavaritsky,M.Springford,andA.S.Alexandrov. “Negative magnetoresistance and upper critical field of Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8.” PhysicaB294–295(2001):363–366

View on Pith 2001

[50] [50]

N.W.Ashcroft,andN.D.Mermin.1976.SolidStatePhysics.Holt, RinehartandWinston

View on Pith 1976

[51] [51]

E. Sterpetti, J. Biscaras, A. Erb, and A. Shukla. “Compre- hensive phase diagram of two-dimensional space charge doped Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+𝑥.”Nat.Commun.8,no.1(2017):1–8

View on Pith 2017

[52] [52]

S. Y. F. Zhao, N. Poccia, M. G. Panetta, C. Yu, J. W. Johnson, H. Yoo, R. Zhong, G. D. Gu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. V. Postolova, V. M. Vinokur, and P. Kim. “Sign-reversing Hall effect in atomically thin high-temperature Bi2.1Sr1.9CaCu2O8+𝛿 superconductors.”Phys.Rev.Lett.122,no.24(2019):247001

View on Pith 2019

[53] [53]

D.Pelc,M.J.Veit,C.J.Dorow,Y.Ge,N.Barišić,andM.Greven. “Resistivityphasediagramofcupratesrevisited.”Phys.Rev.B102, no.7(2020):075114

View on Pith 2020

[54] [54]

J. Ingla-Aynés, Y. Hou, S. Wang, E.-D. Chu, O. A. Mukhanov, P.Wei,andJ.S.Moodera. “Efficientsuperconductingdiodesand rectifiers for quantum circuitry.”Nat. Electron.8, no. 5 (2025): 411–416

View on Pith 2025

[55] [55]

M. Castellani, O. Medeiros, A. Buzzi, R. A. Foster, M. Colan- gelo, and K. K. Berggren. “A superconducting full-wave bridge rectifier.”Nat.Electron.8,no.5(2025):417–425

View on Pith 2025

[56] [56]

S. Ghosh, V. Patil, A. Basu, Kuldeep, A. Dutta, D. A. Jangade, R. Kulkarni, A. Thamizhavel, J. F. Steiner, F. von Oppen, and M. M. Deshmukh. “High-temperature Josephson diode.”Nat. Mater.23,no.5(2024):612–618. 9of20 Supplementary Text for “Superconducting Fluctuation Driven Quantum Transport in 𝐁𝐢𝟐𝐒𝐫𝟐𝐂𝐚𝐂𝐮𝟐𝐎𝟖+𝛅 Thin Films” Sohini Guin 1, Naresh Shyaga 1, J...

View on Pith 2024