Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Quench of chiral superconductivity by quantum phase fluctuations in twisted cuprate bilayers

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quantum phase fluctuations quench the chiral d+id' phase in twisted cuprate bilayers, restricting it to a narrow ultra-low-temperature window.

desk verdict Phase fluctuations plausibly quench chiral d+id' in twisted cuprates, but the core derivation is in a companion paper and the approximation's limits are not fully explored. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.00630 v3 pith:EXYT45BC submitted 2026-07-01 cond-mat.supr-con

Yin Shi , Mengxian Zhao , Fei Yang , Miao Liu , Sheng Meng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con PACS 74.20.-z74.50.+r74.72.-h
keywords twistedcupratebilayerchirald+id'superconductivityquantumphasefluctuationstime-reversalsymmetrybreakingJosephsonlockingself-consistentharmonicapproximationdiagramtopologicalsuperconductor
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 time-reversal-symmetry-breaking chiral d+id' superconductivity in twisted cuprate bilayers is destroyed by quantum phase fluctuations, rather than being a robust high-temperature phase as mean-field theory predicts. The authors derive a phase-fluctuation-corrected free energy and find that the chiral phase survives only within a few degrees of a 45° twist and below about one percent of a monolayer's superconducting transition temperature. Superconductivity itself remains robust to nearly the monolayer critical temperature, so chiral order and superconducting coherence are separated. If correct, this reconciles the controversial and non-reproducible experimental signatures with theory.

What carries the argument

The central object is the relative phase φ between the two layers' d-wave order parameters; a nonzero φ (equivalently, positive minimal gap 2Δ_min) is the chiral d+id' state. The machinery is the self-consistent harmonic approximation (SCHA): phase fluctuations η_0−η_1 are treated as Gaussian with a variational effective mass D_J, integrated out, and fed into a fluctuation-corrected free energy F(Δ_d, φ, D_J) that is then minimized. Because first-order Josephson coupling cancels near 45° twist, the free-energy landscape is nearly flat there, and fluctuations between degenerate ±φ_0 states restore φ=0, suppressing chiral order and weakening relative-phase locking.

What would settle it

One decisive check is to cool a junction twisted to θ=45° to temperatures below about 1% of its monolayer T_c and look for zero-field time-reversal-breaking signatures (e.g., Josephson diode polarity or fractional Shapiro steps): the paper predicts reproducible signals only in that window, and none at higher temperatures or more than about 2° away. A complementary calculation would be an unbiased Monte Carlo simulation of the same phase-only effective action; if d+id' order persisted to a significant fraction of T_c there, the quench would be an artifact of the self-consistent harmonic approxi

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Mean-field theory predicts a chiral d+id' state—a nonzero relative phase φ between the layers' order parameters—over a wide angle range and up to T_c. Integrating out quantum fluctuations of φ self-consistently quenches it: at realistic tunneling (t≈10 meV) the chiral phase survives only for |θ−45°|≤2° and T below about 0.8% of monolayer T_c (≈1.6% at exactly 45°), while d-wave superconductivity persists near T_c. The transition becomes first order, and the Josephson plasma frequency locking φ is strongly suppressed near 45°. The paper offers this coherence-versus-chirality separation as the reason TRSB signatures are so inconsistent.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the self-consistent harmonic approximation being accurate for phase fluctuations in the nearly flat energy landscape near 45° twist; the authors themselves note that the predicted first-order chiral transition might be an artifact of SCHA and that only the largest branch of the relative-phase mass D_J was tracked, so if that approximation fails, the surviving chiral window could change in size or order.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a cuprate with T_c≈84 K, the chiral phase would appear only below roughly 1.4 K; for T_c≈30 K, below roughly 0.5 K—far below most current experiments.
  • Superconductivity and chiral order separate: d-wave coherence persists to near T_c while TRSB dies near 1% T_c, so null TRSB results at a few kelvin do not indicate the absence of superconductivity.
  • Near 45° twist, Josephson phase locking is strongly weakened except at ultra-low temperatures, so Josephson critical currents and Shapiro-step signatures are expected to be small or absent in the d-wave regime.
  • The chiral transition is first order; tuning twist angle or temperature across the boundary should produce a discontinuous gap change and possible coexistence of d and d+id' regions.
  • The mechanism is generic: in low-dimensional layered superconductors, any TRSB order requiring long-range coherent relative phase between pairing channels is suppressed by phase fluctuations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: a continuously tunable twist-angle device searching for TRSB specifically inside the predicted 2° window below T≈0.01T_c would be a clean test; reproducible TRSB outside that window would contradict the phase-fluctuation scenario.
  • Editorial inference: the same relative-phase stiffness argument may apply to other multicomponent TRSB orders, such as chiral superconductors and commensurate charge-density waves, where the TRSB temperature is set by phase stiffness rather than the pairing gap.
  • Editorial inference: the exact width and first-order nature of the surviving window are the least certain outputs of the calculation; an unbiased Monte Carlo treatment of the phase-only model, or a measurement of the gap discontinuity, would settle whether the true window is wider or narrower than 2°.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's numbers imply that high-temperature chiral superconductivity cannot be achieved just by raising the pairing scale; raising the relative-phase stiffness would also be necessary.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a twisted bilayer of d-wave superconductors near 45° twist, where mean-field theory predicts a chiral d+id' state. The authors incorporate quantum phase fluctuations via a self-consistent harmonic approximation (SCHA), integrating out long-wavelength relative-phase fluctuations. Their central numerical result is that phase fluctuations almost completely destroy the chiral state: at realistic interlayer tunneling t≈10 meV, the d+id' phase survives only for twist angles |θ−45°|≲2° and temperatures below roughly 0.8–1.6% of the monolayer T_c, whereas mean-field theory gives a chiral phase up to T_c. They also find that Josephson phase locking is strongly weakened near 45°. The paper argues this explains why experimental TRSB signatures are not universally reproducible. The full free-energy derivation is deferred to a companion article, and the authors explicitly warn that the first-order chiral transition may be a SCHA artifact and that the calculation is restricted to t≲20 meV.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, it provides a natural explanation for the elusiveness of chiral superconductivity in twisted cuprate bilayers and establishes quantum phase fluctuations as a key constraint on TRSB phases in layered superconductors. The prediction of an ultra-narrow angular and temperature window is falsifiable and does not rely on fitting to TRSB data; parameters are taken from prior literature, and the paper explicitly identifies its own limitations. However, the numerical centerpiece depends entirely on a variance-optimized harmonic approximation whose accuracy is unverified precisely in the flat, strongly fluctuating regime near 45°, and the free-energy expression is not derived in the present text. The significance is therefore conditional: the paper is potentially important, but the quantitative window (the paper's main claim) is not yet established with the required rigor.

major comments (4)
  1. [Model and method / full text after Eq. (1)] The central free energy F(Δ_d, φ, D_J) is not derived anywhere in this manuscript; the authors state that the 'full derivation of the free energy, together with the analytic expressions for the superfluid stiffness, collective mode spectra, and other physical quantities, is presented in a separate companion article [34].' Since every numerical result in Figs. 2–4 is obtained by minimizing this F, the reader cannot check the central approximation or the role of D_J. The paper should include at least the main steps of the derivation, the form of the Josephson harmonic expansion, and the self-consistency equations in an appendix; otherwise the central claim is unverifiable from the present text.
  2. [Phase diagrams, Figs. 2 and 3] The quoted survival temperature of the chiral phase is inconsistent within the paper. In the left panel of Fig. 2, for t=10 meV, the d+id' phase is stated to exist only below T/T_c^1L ≈0.8%, whereas the left panel of Fig. 3 (which includes t=10 meV at θ=45°) is described as confining d+id' to T/T_c^1L ≲1.6%, and the Discussion repeats 'about 1.6% of the parent cuprate T_c.' These two numbers describe overlapping parameter space (θ=45°, t=10 meV) and differ by a factor of two. The authors need to resolve this ambiguity and specify which value is correct for which parameter set.
  3. [Phase diagrams, Fig. 2 and text after it] The paper's own caveat that the first-order chiral transition 'might be an artifact of SCHA' is load-bearing rather than peripheral. The first-order character and the discontinuity in 2Δ_min determine the width of the coexistence regime and the sharpness of the boundary; if the SCHA overestimates fluctuation-induced renormalization in the nearly flat potential near 45°, the surviving chiral window could be larger or the transition continuous. Moreover, the ad hoc choice to 'track only the largest D_J branch' could remove a legitimate competing solution. Without a benchmark of the SCHA against an independent method (e.g., exact diagonalization of the phase-only model or path-integral Monte Carlo) in the flat regime near 45°, the central quantitative claim is not established.
  4. [Phase diagrams, Fig. 3 and text] The fluctuation-corrected phase diagram is only shown for t≤20 meV, with the explicit statement that calculations for t>20 meV 'would invalidate the Josephson harmonic expansion.' This is a serious scope limitation because the mean-field phase diagram in the right panel shows the d+id' phase extending to t≈60 meV, and the paper's broader conclusion 'phase fluctuations nearly eliminate the chiral phase' is asserted for the whole parameter regime. Since the experimentally relevant t is about 10 meV, the qualitative conclusion for realistic systems is not affected, but the generality of the claim and the behavior at larger t are unproven. The authors should clearly state that the conclusion is limited to t≲20 meV and, if possible, discuss whether the harmonic expansion can be extended or benchmarked.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'vincinity' in the caption text for Fig. 4, 'constrast' in the paragraph after Fig. 4, and 'in constrast' should be 'in contrast'. Please proofread.
  2. [Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 captions] The left and right panels use very different y-axis scales, which is necessary, but the captions should explicitly state that the left panels are zoomed to the low-temperature regime. The color scale ranges are also different; adding a note that the white line in the right panel of Fig. 2 denotes the normal–superconducting boundary would help.
  3. [Model and method, Eq. (1)] The Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) omits a spin index in the intralayer interaction term; it is clear from context that the pairing interaction acts on opposite spins, but this should be stated explicitly for reproducibility.
  4. [References] The companion article [34] is cited without an arXiv identifier or journal reference. If it is available as a preprint, the authors should provide the arXiv number so that readers can independently check the derivation.
  5. [Discussion and conclusion] The estimated real-world temperatures (T≲1.4 K for Bi-2212, T≲0.5 K for Bi-2201) are based on the 1.6% figure, which conflicts with the 0.8% value in Fig. 2. The authors should recalculate these estimates once the inconsistency is resolved.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No self-definitional or fitted-input circularity; the narrow d+id' window is a computed minimization result, though it relies on a same-author companion derivation and a conceded SCHA sensitivity.

full rationale

The central numerical result—the confinement of the chiral d+id' phase to |θ−45°|≲2° and temperatures below roughly 0.8–1.6% of T_c^1L—comes from minimizing the fluctuation-corrected free energy F(Δ_d, φ, D_J) with respect to Δ_d, φ, and D_J. The input parameters (m, ε_b, ε_c, d, a, μ, g/a^2=480 meV, t≈10 meV) are taken from prior literature and experimental estimates, not fitted to TRSB data; no experimental time-reversal-symmetry-breaking observable is used to tune constants, so the predicted window is a falsifiable output rather than a fitted quantity. I found no equation or construction in the text that reduces the output to an input by definition. The paper does defer the full analytic derivation of F to a same-author companion article [34], and it self-cites earlier work on phase fluctuations; this makes the manuscript not fully self-contained and is a modest load-bearing self-citation for technical details, but it is not equivalent to importing the target result. The manuscript itself flags that the first-order character of the chiral transition 'might be an artifact of SCHA' and that only the largest D_J branch was deliberately tracked; these are reliability caveats about the approximation, not evidence that the prediction is built into the input. The internal inconsistency between the 0.8% bound quoted near Fig. 2 and the 1.6% bound quoted near Fig. 3/discussion is a consistency problem, not a circularity. Overall, no specific circular step can be quoted and exhibited, so the score reflects only the modest self-citation/deferral weight rather than any definitional or fitted-input circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are invented. The central claim rests on standard condensed-matter modeling assumptions (d-wave pairing, local tunneling, SCHA phase fluctuations) and on material parameters taken from prior literature. The most fragile inputs are the validity of SCHA and the restriction to t≤20 meV.

free parameters (4)
  • interlayer tunneling amplitude t = 10 meV
    Inferred from experimental data [21]; the phase diagram is sensitive to t, with the chiral phase absent for t≲5 meV and 16≲t≲20 meV and not calculated for t>20 meV.
  • pairing strength g/a^2 = 480 meV
    Chosen to produce a mean-field monolayer gap Δ_d=40 meV, setting the pairing scale for the phase diagrams.
  • material parameter set (m, ε_b, ε_c, d, a, μ) = m=5m_e, ε_b=4.5, ε_c=60 meV, d=12.8 Å, a=5.4 Å, μ=196 meV
    Representative cuprate values taken from prior work [7]; not fitted to the target result but load-bearing for the quantitative window.
  • relative-phase mode mass D_J = variational minimum
    Serves as a variational parameter in the fluctuation-corrected free energy; the paper tracks only the largest D_J branch, which affects the claimed first-order transition.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Each layer is a d-wave superconductor with gap Δ_d e^{iφ_l} w_k cos(2α_k+θ_l), and the intralayer pairing interaction has the same angular structure.
    Defines the microscopic model and the meaning of φ as the interlayer phase whose nonzero value identifies the chiral d+id' state.
  • domain assumption Interlayer tunneling is local and form-factor-free: t_l(r)=t_l δ(r) with t_0=0, t_1=t.
    A simplification adopted to isolate phase fluctuations; neglecting the orbital form factor could change the quantitative Josephson coupling.
  • domain assumption Self-consistent harmonic approximation (SCHA) adequately describes quantum phase fluctuations.
    The core approximation from [30-33]; the authors admit the first-order transition may be an artifact of SCHA, so this premise is load-bearing and not fully validated.
  • domain assumption Only long-wavelength phase fluctuations need to be integrated out.
    Invoked to obtain the free energy; short-wavelength fluctuations are neglected and could be relevant in the nearly flat energy landscape near 45°.
  • ad hoc to paper The Josephson harmonic expansion used to incorporate phase fluctuations is valid only for t≲20 meV.
    The authors explicitly avoid t>20 meV on this basis, limiting the phase diagram in the tunneling-amplitude plane.
  • ad hoc to paper Only the largest D_J branch is tracked when minimizing the free energy.
    A computational choice that avoids spurious branch switching but may bias the first-order transition; the authors do not show the other branches.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quench of chiral superconductivity by quantum phase fluctuations in twisted cuprate bilayers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EXYT45BC

@misc{pith2026260700630,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quench of chiral superconductivity by quantum phase fluctuations in twisted cuprate bilayers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EXYT45BC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.00630}
}
abstract

Following theoretical proposals of chiral $d+id'$ superconductivity in twisted cuprate bilayers, experimental signatures of time-reversal symmetry breaking (TRSB) remain highly controversial. Here we demonstrate that quantum phase fluctuations fundamentally reshape the phase diagram of this proposed chiral state. Unlike regular superconducting orders, the chiral $d+id'$ state requires long-range coherence of an interlayer phase degree of freedom and is therefore intrinsically vulnerable to phase fluctuations. Incorporating these fluctuations nearly eliminates the chiral phase over most parts of the phase diagram, restricting it to a narrow twist-angle window and ultra-low temperatures. Phase fluctuations also strongly weaken Josephson phase locking near a twist angle of $45^\circ$. More broadly, our work establishes quantum phase fluctuations as a fundamental constraint on the emergence of TRSB phases in low-dimensional layered quantum materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.00630 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic of a twisted bilayer superconductor, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Phase diagrams in the twist-angle–temperature plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Josephson gap with (left column) and without (right [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Review history (3 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references

  1. [34]

    Y. Shi, M. Zhao, F. Yang, M. Liu, and S. Meng, Col- lective phase modes in twistedd-wave superconducting bilayers (2026), companion paper

    2026

  2. [1]

    Kallin and J

    C. Kallin and J. Berlinsky, Chiral superconductors, Re- ports on Progress in Physics79, 054502 (2016)

    2016

  3. [2]

    Read and D

    N. Read and D. Green, Paired states of fermions in two dimensions with breaking of parity and time-reversal symmetries and the fractional quantum hall effect, Phys. Rev. B61, 10267 (2000)

    2000

  4. [3]

    F. Yang, T. Yu, and M. W. Wu, Anomalous hall effect in semiconductor quantum wells in proximity to chiralp- wave superconductors, Phys. Rev. B97, 205301 (2018)

    2018

  5. [4]

    Ishida, H

    K. Ishida, H. Mukuda, Y. Kitaoka, K. Asayama, Z. Q. Mao, Y. Mori, and Y. Maeno, Spin-triplet superconduc- tivity in sr2ruo4 identified by 17o knight shift, Nature 396, 658 (1998)

    1998

  6. [5]

    Sauls, The order parameter for the superconducting phases of upt3, Advances in Physics43, 113 (1994), https://doi.org/10.1080/00018739400101475

    J. Sauls, The order parameter for the superconducting phases of upt3, Advances in Physics43, 113 (1994), https://doi.org/10.1080/00018739400101475

    doi:10.1080/00018739400101475 1994

  7. [6]

    Z. Yang, S. Qin, Q. Zhang, C. Fang, and J. Hu, π/2-josephson junction as a topological superconductor, Phys. Rev. B98, 104515 (2018)

    2018

  8. [7]

    O. Can, T. Tummuru, R. P. Day, I. Elfimov, A. Damas- celli, and M. Franz, High-temperature topological super- conductivity in twisted double-layer copper oxides, Na- ture Physics17, 519 (2021)

    2021

Show all 35 references
  1. [8]

    Haenel, T

    R. Haenel, T. Tummuru, and M. Franz, Incoherent tunneling and topological superconductivity in twisted cuprate bilayers, Phys. Rev. B106, 104505 (2022)

    2022

  2. [9]

    P. A. Volkov, S. Y. F. Zhao, N. Poccia, X. Cui, P. Kim, and J. H. Pixley, Josephson effects in twisted nodal su- perconductors, Phys. Rev. B111, 014514 (2025)

    2025

  3. [10]

    J. H. Pixley and P. A. Volkov, Twisted nodal supercon- ductors, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 17, 183 (2026)

    2026

  4. [11]

    Y. Zhu, M. Liao, Q. Zhang, H.-Y. Xie, F. Meng, Y. Liu, Z. Bai, S. Ji, J. Zhang, K. Jiang, R. Zhong, J. Schnee- loch, G. Gu, L. Gu, X. Ma, D. Zhang, and Q.-K. Xue, Presence ofs-wave pairing in josephson junctions made of twisted ultrathin bi2sr2cacu2o8+x flakes, Phys. Rev. X 11...

    2021

  5. [12]

    S. Y. F. Zhao, X. Cui, P. A. Volkov, H. Yoo, S. Lee, J. A. Gardener, A. J. Akey, R. Engelke, Y. Ronen, R. Zhong, G. Gu, S. Plugge, T. Tummuru, M. Kim, M. Franz, J. H. Pixley, N. Poccia, and P. Kim, Time-reversal symmetry breaking superconductivity between twisted cuprate super...

    2023 doi

  6. [13]

    Martini, Y

    M. Martini, Y. Lee, T. Confalone, S. Shokri, C. N. Saggau, D. Wolf, G. Gu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. Montemurro, V. M. Vinokur, K. Nielsch, and N. Poc- cia, Twisted cuprate van der waals heterostructures with controlled josephson coupling, Materials Today67, 106 (2023)

    2023

  7. [14]

    H. Wang, Y. Zhu, Z. Bai, Z. Wang, S. Hu, H.-Y. Xie, X. Hu, J. Cui, M. Huang, J. Chen, Y. Ding, L. Zhao, X. Li, Q. Zhang, L. Gu, X. J. Zhou, J. Zhu, D. Zhang, and Q.-K. Xue, Prominent josephson tunneling between twisted single copper oxide planes of bi2sr2-xlaxcuo6+y, Nature Co...

    2023

  8. [15]

    Y. Zhu, H. Wang, Z. Wang, S. Hu, G. Gu, J. Zhu, D. Zhang, and Q.-K. Xue, Persistent josephson tunneling between bi2sr2cacu2o8+x flakes twisted by 45◦ across the superconducting dome, Phys. Rev. B108, 174508 (2023)

    2023

  9. [16]

    Y. Zhu, H. Wang, D. Zhang, and Q.-K. Xue, Ma- nipulating fractional shapiro steps in twisted cuprate josephson junctions, National Science Review13, nwaf569 (2026), https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article- pdf/13/4/nwaf569/65883422/nwaf569.pdf

    2026

  10. [17]

    Confalone, F

    T. Confalone, F. Lo Sardo, Y. Lee, S. Shokri, G. Serpico, A. Coppo, L. Chirolli, V. M. Vinokur, V. Brosco, U. Vool, D. Montemurro, F. Tafuri, K. Nielsch, G. Haider, and N. Poccia, Cuprate twistronics for quantum hardware, Advanced Quantum Technologies8, 2500203 (2025), https:/...

    2025 doi

  11. [18]

    Confalone, F

    T. Confalone, F. Lo Sardo, D. Montemurro, D. Mas- sarotti, V. M. Vinokur, G. Gu, F. Tafuri, K. Nielsch, G. Haider, and N. Poccia, Preserving the josephson coupling of twisted cuprate junctions via tailored sil- icon nitride circuits boards, Small21, e06520 (2025), https://onli...

    2025 doi

  12. [19]

    Song, Y.-H

    X.-Y. Song, Y.-H. Zhang, and A. Vishwanath, Doping a moir´ e mott insulator: At−jmodel study of twisted cuprates, Phys. Rev. B105, L201102 (2022)

    2022

  13. [20]

    Panda, A

    S. Panda, A. Kreisel, L. Fanfarillo, and P. J. Hirschfeld, Gap structure and phase diagram of twisted bilayer cuprates from a microscopic perspective, Phys. Rev. B 113, 224523 (2026)

    2026

  14. [21]

    Tummuru, S

    T. Tummuru, S. Plugge, and M. Franz, Josephson effects in twisted cuprate bilayers, Phys. Rev. B105, 064501 (2022)

    2022

  15. [22]

    A. C. Yuan, Y. Vituri, E. Berg, B. Spivak, and S. A. Kivelson, Inhomogeneity-induced time-reversal symme- try breaking in cuprate twist junctions, Phys. Rev. B 108, L100505 (2023)

    2023

  16. [23]

    Lu and D

    X. Lu and D. S´ en´ echal, Doping phase diagram of a hub- bard model for twisted bilayer cuprates, Phys. Rev. B 105, 245127 (2022)

    2022

  17. [24]

    V. J. Emery and S. A. Kivelson, Importance of phase fluc- tuations in superconductors with small superfluid den- sity, Nature374, 434 (1995)

    1995

  18. [25]

    Han, Z.-J

    Z. Han, Z.-J. Song, J.-X. Zhang, and Z.-Y. Weng, Intrin- sic phase fluctuations and superfluid density in doped mott insulators, Phys. Rev. B112, 245155 (2025)

    2025

  19. [26]

    F. Yang, G. D. Zhao, Y. Shi, and L. Q. Chen, Micro- scopic phase-transition framework for gate-tunable su- perconductivity in monolayer wte 2, Phys. Rev. B113, L100501 (2026)

    2026

  20. [27]

    F. Yang, Y. Shi, and L.-Q. Chen, Preformed cooper pairing and the uncondensed normal-state component in 6 phase-fluctuating monolayer cuprate superconductivity, Phys. Rev. B113, 104523 (2026)

    2026

  21. [28]

    Yang and M

    F. Yang and M. W. Wu, Theory of coupled dual dy- namics of macroscopic phase coherence and microscopic electronic fluids: Effect of dephasing on cuprate super- conductivity, Phys. Rev. B104, 214510 (2021)

    2021

  22. [29]

    Shi, Quantum fluctuation induced first-order breaking of time-reversal symmetry in unconventional supercon- ductors, Phys

    Y. Shi, Quantum fluctuation induced first-order breaking of time-reversal symmetry in unconventional supercon- ductors, Phys. Rev. B113, 134524 (2026)

    2026

  23. [30]

    Feynman,Statistical Mechanics: A Set Of Lectures, Frontiers in Physics (CRC Press, 2018)

    R. Feynman,Statistical Mechanics: A Set Of Lectures, Frontiers in Physics (CRC Press, 2018)

    2018

  24. [31]

    R. S. Fishman and D. Stroud, Role of long-range coulomb interactions in granular superconductors, Phys. Rev. B 38, 290 (1988)

    1988

  25. [32]

    Benfatto, S

    L. Benfatto, S. Caprara, C. Castellani, A. Paramekanti, and M. Randeria, Phase fluctuations, dissipation, and su- perfluid stiffness in d-wave superconductors, Phys. Rev. B63, 174513 (2001)

    2001

  26. [33]

    F. Yang, C. Y. Dong, J. A. Robinson, and L. Q. Chen, Superconducting decoherence and thermal quenching of the josephson diode effect in low-dimensional josephson systems (2026), arXiv:2602.16242 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    2026

  27. [35]

    Tang and P

    J. Tang and P. A. Volkov, Dynamical signatures and con- trol of time-reversal symmetry breaking in twisted nodal superconductors, Phys. Rev. B113, 014513 (2026)

    2026

Pith tools

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