Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 100 references

Revealing Hidden Unconventional Pairing through Nonreciprocal Transport

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Nonreciprocal conductance in a multiterminal superconductor maps the momentum-space angular structure of unconventional pairing components that are hidden beneath a dominant s-wave gap.

desk verdict A genuinely new symmetry-based transport probe for hidden pairing components, with a careful derivation, but the precise angular fingerprint is proven only under idealized lead symmetry and should be tempered to a robustness-backed qualitative probe. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09751 v1 pith:GZ7WL4VR submitted 2026-08-10 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hall

Wen-Bo Dai , Ming Gong , Xianxin Wu , Chui-Zhen Chen , X. C. Xie This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mes-hall
keywords nonreciprocaltransportunconventionalsuperconductivitypairingsymmetrymultiterminalconductancetime-reversalbreakingspin-triplets+idLandauer-Büttikerformalism
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 claims that a measurable transport asymmetry—the difference in conductance between adjacent terminals of a multiterminal superconductor when the source and detector are exchanged—directly encodes the momentum-space angular structure of unconventional pairing components that are usually hidden under a dominant s-wave gap. The central statement is a pair of proportionalities: for time-reversal-breaking singlet pairing with orbital harmonic l, the nonreciprocal charge conductance obeys $\Delta G_c(\varphi)\propto \mathrm{Im}[\psi_{\mathrm{un}}(\varphi+\pi/(2l))]$, and for spin-triplet pairing the nonreciprocal spin conductance obeys $\Delta G_{s_n}(\varphi)\propto d_n(\varphi+\pi/(2l))$. Because a pure s-wave component is perfectly reciprocal, it contributes no intrinsic nonreciprocal signal, so the measurement acts as a symmetry filter that removes the s-wave background. The authors verify the correspondence in minimal BCS models, in two-orbital models of iron-based superconductors with $s+id$ pairing, and in Rashba noncentrosymmetric superconductors with $s+$ helical $p$ pairing, and they propose multiterminal and multi-tip STM protocols for measuring it.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spin-resolved nonreciprocal conductance between neighboring terminals, $\Delta G_{\sigma,\sigma'}(\varphi)=G_{j+1\sigma,j\sigma'}-G_{j\sigma,j+1\sigma'}$, computed from normal and Andreev transmission coefficients in a multiterminal Landauer–Büttiker formalism. The argument runs on two symmetry links: time-reversal symmetry $T$ enforces reciprocity in the spin-flip scattering channel, and the combined spin-time symmetry $s_{n_\perp}T$ enforces reciprocity in the equal-spin channel; a pure $s$-wave superconductor preserves both, making all $\Delta G_{\sigma,\sigma'}$ vanish. An unconventional pairing potential $V_{\mathrm{un}}$ that depends only on the Fermi-surface angle $\varphi_k$ breaks one or both of these symmetries, and because the leads are assumed rotationally symmetric, the $l$-th angular harmonic of $V_{\mathrm{un}}$ enters the conductance as $V_{\mathrm{un}}^l(\varphi+\pi/(2l))$, producing the rotated proportionalities in Eqs. (8)–(10). In other words, the orbital harmonic $l$ of the hidden pairing component is transferred to a measurable $l$-fold angular pattern of the nonreciprocal conductance, with the rotation offset $\pi/(2l)$ fixed by the harmonic order.

What would settle it

Numerically simulate the same multiterminal device with faceted or otherwise non-rotationally-symmetric lead interfaces—for example, with a lead broadening matrix that is not a rotated copy of a reference lead—and compare the computed $\Delta G_c(\varphi)$ and $\Delta G_{s_n}(\varphi)$ to Eqs. (8) and (10); if the angular pattern deviates beyond small angular-resolution errors, the central correspondence is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the center of the paper is the nonreciprocal conductance $\Delta G(\varphi)$ between two adjacent terminals, defined by $\Delta G=G_{j+1,j}-G_{j,j+1}$, obtained within a Landauer–Büttiker treatment that includes both normal and Andreev transmission. The central discovery is a symmetry-enforced correspondence: unconventional pairing components selectively break either time-reversal symmetry $T$ or spin-rotation symmetry, and the resulting nonreciprocity carries the angular profile of the pairing amplitude. For time-reversal-breaking spin-singlet pairing with even orbital angular momentum $l$, rotational symmetry constrains $\Delta G_c(\varphi)\propto \mathrm{Im}[\psi_{\mathrm{un}}(\varphi+\pi/(2l))]$; for spin-triplet pairing with odd $l$, the spin-resolved channels obey $\Delta G_{\uparrow_n,\uparrow_n}(\varphi)\propto \mathrm{Re}[d_n(\varphi+\pi/(2l))]$ and $\Delta G_{\downarrow_n,\uparrow_n}(\varphi)\propto \mathrm{Im}[d_n(\varphi+\pi/(2l))]$, so the total spin conductance satisfies $\Delta G_{s_n}(\varphi)\propto d_n(\varphi+\pi/(2l))$. The paper further decomposes these signals into spin-flip and equal-spin scattering channels, showing that $T$ governs the former and the combined spin-time symmetry $s_{n_\perp}T$ governs the latter, and that a pure $s$-wave state preserves both symmetries and therefore produces no nonreciprocity. Numerical simulations on AFe$_2$Se$_2$ and on noncentrosymmetric superconductors show that the predicted angular patterns persist in the $s$-wave-dominated regime, where the unconventional gap structure is invisible in the quasiparticle spectrum.

Load-bearing premise

The exact angular correspondence assumes that the leads are rotationally symmetric, so that a lead attached at angle $\varphi$ behaves exactly like a rotated copy of a reference lead; a real device with faceted interfaces or strongly angle-dependent lead coupling can distort the angular pattern even if the qualitative symmetry-selective behavior survives.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A dominant $s$-wave component no longer masks unconventional pairing: because the $s$-wave channel is reciprocal, the measured nonreciprocal angular pattern is generated only by the symmetry-breaking component, and its orbital harmonic $l$ can be read off from the periodicity.
  • Charge nonreciprocity in a multiterminal device provides a direct probe of time-reversal-breaking singlet pairing, while spin nonreciprocity probes triplet pairing; when both are present, the two signals separate the channels.
  • For spin-triplet pairing, the equal-spin and spin-flip contributions carry $\mathrm{Re}(d_n)$ and $\mathrm{Im}(d_n)$ separately, so the measurement is phase-sensitive and can distinguish, for instance, a helical from a chiral $p$-wave state.
  • Materials in which the unconventional component is too small to alter the density of states—iron-based, kagome, moiré, and noncentrosymmetric superconductors—become accessible to pairing-symmetry identification through transport alone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same symmetry-filter logic could be turned into a materials-screening tool: scanning the angle-resolved nonreciprocal conductance over many devices would allow one to classify superconductors by the harmonic content of their pairing without prior knowledge of the gap magnitude.
  • Because the derivation only needs the pairing potential's angular harmonic, the protocol should extend to higher harmonics and to mixed-$l$ states by Fourier-transforming $\Delta G(\varphi)$, a step the paper leaves mostly implicit.
  • A controlled validation experiment could be built in a hybrid system where a normal multiterminal device is proximity-coupled to a superconductor with artificially engineered pairing, allowing the predicted $\pi/(2l)$ rotation to be tested before applying the method to unknown materials.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a symmetry-resolved transport probe for unconventional superconductivity. In a multiterminal superconductor device, the difference in charge or spin conductance obtained upon exchanging source and detector terminals (the nonreciprocal conductance) is studied as a function of the interface orientation angle φ. The authors derive, using a Landauer–Büttiker formalism and first-order perturbation in the unconventional pairing strength, that the nonreciprocal charge conductance for time-reversal-breaking singlet pairing obeys ∆G_c(φ) ∝ Im[ψ_un(φ + π/(2l))] (Eq. 8), while the nonreciprocal spin conductance for triplet pairing obeys ∆G_s_n(φ) ∝ d_n(φ + π/(2l)) (Eq. 10). The conventional s-wave background does not contribute because it preserves the relevant symmetries. The correspondence is verified numerically in minimal models and in models for AFe2Se2 and noncentrosymmetric superconductors, and experimental protocols using multiterminal devices and multi-tip STM are outlined. The central claim is that the angular dependence of the nonreciprocal conductance directly encodes the momentum-space structure of the hidden unconventional pairing component, even when that component is obscured by a dominant s-wave gap.

Significance. If the correspondence holds, the proposal provides a qualitatively new probe for identifying pairing symmetries that are masked by an s-wave background, with the crucial advantage of being sensitive to symmetry rather than gap magnitude. The paper contains a detailed derivation (SM S2), numerical confirmation in both minimal and material-specific models, a symmetry-based table linking pairing channels to transport channels, and explicit experimental protocols. It also carefully distinguishes pairing-induced nonreciprocity from edge-state and vortex contributions. The main caveats are that the exact angular mapping is derived under a restrictive rotational-symmetry assumption for the leads and under a perturbative expansion in the unconventional pairing strength, while the material-model simulations are self-consistent checks within the same Hamiltonian framework.

major comments (2)
  1. [SM S2, Eq. (S10)] The derivation of the central angular correspondence, Eqs. (8)–(10) of the main text, explicitly assumes in SM S2 that the leads are rotationally symmetric, so that the broadening matrix for a lead at normal angle φ is obtained from a reference lead by an SO(2) rotation. This assumption is violated for finite-width or faceted leads and for anisotropic Fermi surfaces, where the interface angle φ and the Fermi-surface momentum angle φ_k are not related by a rigid rotation. The robustness checks in SM §S5 vary the lead coupling γ and a random edge roughness W, but they do not relax the rotational symmetry of the lead self-energy, and for W/µ=5 the authors state that the angular correspondence becomes increasingly indistinct. Because the exact π/(2l) rotation is the quantitative fingerprint claimed in the abstract and conclusion, the manuscript should either prove stability of the mapping under non-SO(2) lead geometries and anisotropic dispersions (e.g., by showing the response is a convolution with a narrow kernel) or explicitly weaken the claim from exact angular encoding to qualitative symmetry-selective behavior.
  2. [Main text Eqs. (8)–(10); SM §S6] The formulas in Eqs. (8)–(10) are derived in SM S2 by a first-order expansion in the unconventional pairing amplitude λ. The paper nevertheless claims in SM S6 that for a topologically nontrivial s+ spinful chiral p-wave state with λ=1 (which exceeds the s-wave gap ∆_s=0.2), the angular correspondence “remains valid,” even though the perturbative expansion is not controlled in that regime. No nonperturbative derivation is provided. The authors should either supply a nonperturbative symmetry argument that yields the same angular mapping, or explicitly restrict the validity claims of Eqs. (8)–(10) to the regime where first-order perturbation theory is justified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase “dominants-wave component” should read “dominant s-wave component”.
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] In the caption, “s+id-wave (d-e) consider” appears to be a typo; the intended reference to panels (e)–(g) should be clarified.
  3. [References] References [24] and [47] are duplicate entries for Wakatsuki and Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 026601 (2018); one duplicate should be removed.
  4. [SM S2, after Eq. (S10)] The sentence “Even if this symmetry is moderately broken, it would only introduce minor errors in the angular resolution” is an assertion without supporting analysis; a quantitative estimate of the error in the angular pattern for a concrete non-SO(2) lead model would strengthen this statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the angular mapping is derived by first-order perturbation theory from the model Hamiltonian, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The central claims (Eqs. 8-10) are obtained in Supplemental Section S2 by expanding the Landauer-Büttiker conductance to first order in the unconventional pairing strength λ (Eqs. S8-S11). The proportionality to the l-th harmonic of ψ_un or d_n is the output of a transport calculation, not an input: the pairing angular function is inserted in the Hamiltonian and the conductance angular dependence is computed. The numerical simulations in Figs. 1, 3, and S1-S5 use the same Hamiltonian, so they are self-consistency checks rather than independent empirical tests, but this is not circularity because the analytic derivation stands independently and no parameter is fitted to the conductance curves. The paper cites prior work by its own authors (e.g., Refs. [71,72] for the spin-dependent Landauer formalism), but these are standard methodological references and do not carry the central claim. The stated assumption of rotationally symmetric leads in SM after Eq. S10 limits quantitative robustness (and is acknowledged by the W/µ=5 degradation in SM S5), but an assumption affecting validity is not a circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The framework uses the standard BdG order parameter and transport formalism. The central claim rests on five assumptions listed above; the most fragile is the rotational symmetry of the leads.

free parameters (3)
  • Unconventional pairing strength λ = 0.02 (Fig. 1); (0.05i, 0.1i) µ for s+id phases; (0.03, 0.3) for NCS model
    Sets the magnitude of the nonreciprocal signal but not its angular shape. Chosen by hand for illustration; no experimental fitting.
  • Lead coupling strength γ = 0.1, 1, 6 (SM Fig. S4)
    Used to show robustness; magnitude changes but angular pattern persists. Not fitted.
  • Interface roughness W = 0.2, 0.4, 1, 5 times µ (SM Fig. S5)
    Used to test robustness; for W < µ the angular mapping survives. Not fitted.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The unconventional pairing potential V_un depends only on the momentum angle φ_k, not on the magnitude of k (Eq. 2 and used throughout).
    This restricts the gap to a purely angular structure, which is standard near the Fermi surface but may not hold for all materials.
  • standard math The transport is described by the low-temperature, low-bias linear-response Landauer-Büttiker formalism for superconducting systems (SM Section S1).
    This is a standard formalism; the extension to superconductors including Andreev processes is well established.
  • domain assumption The nonreciprocal conductance is evaluated to first order in the unconventional pairing strength λ (SM Eqs. S8-S10).
    The derivation of the angular mapping uses first-order perturbation theory; higher-order terms could in principle modify the angular dependence, though the numerics suggest the correspondence persists beyond first order.
  • domain assumption The leads are rotationally symmetric, so the broadening matrices for a lead at angle φ are obtained by an SO(2) rotation of a reference lead (SM Section S2).
    This is the key assumption that converts the momentum-angle dependence of the pairing into the spatial-angle dependence of the conductance; real leads may break this symmetry.
  • domain assumption The Andreev approximation (E,|Δ|)<<μ is used for the lattice discretization of the p- and d-wave pairings (SM Section S5).
    This standard approximation connects the continuum pairing to the tight-binding model; it is valid for low-lying excitations near the Fermi surface.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revealing Hidden Unconventional Pairing through Nonreciprocal Transport." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GZ7WL4VR

@misc{pith2026260809751,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revealing Hidden Unconventional Pairing through Nonreciprocal Transport},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GZ7WL4VR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09751}
}
abstract

Identifying the pairing symmetry of Cooper pairs is a fundamental step toward understanding the microscopic mechanisms of unconventional superconductors. However, experimental identification remains a formidable challenge, particularly when unconventional pairing is obscured by a dominant $s$-wave component that masks its spectroscopic signatures. Here, we develop a symmetry-resolved framework to identify superconducting pairing symmetry through nonreciprocal conductance upon exchanging source and detector terminals in multiterminal devices. We show that nonreciprocal transport arises from symmetry-breaking components of the superconducting order parameter and exhibits a characteristic angular dependence that encodes the momentum-space structure of the pairing gap. In particular, time-reversal-breaking singlet pairing induces nonreciprocal charge transport, while spin-triplet pairing generates nonreciprocal spin responses, providing distinct transport fingerprints of the underlying order. We demonstrate this mechanism using representative models of iron-based and noncentrosymmetric superconductors and outline experimental protocols for multiterminal measurements. Our results advance the theoretical understanding of nonreciprocal transport in superconductors, and establish it as a symmetry-selective probe for identifying hidden unconventional pairing in a wide range of superconducting materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09751 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online). Nonreciprocal detection scheme. (a) Schematic of nonreciprocal transport in a superconducting system (orange) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Microscopic origin of pairing-induced nonreciprocal trans [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Pairing symmetry and nonreciprocal-transport fingerprints in candidate superconductors or material-specific nonreciprocal fingerprints [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bardeen, L

    J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev.108, 1175 (1957)

    1957

  2. [2]

    V . P. Mineev, K. Samokhin, and L. Landau,Introduction to un- conventional superconductivity(CRC Press, 1999)

    1999

  3. [3]

    A. P. Mackenzie and Y . Maeno, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 657 (2003)

    2003

  4. [4]

    C. C. Tsuei and J. R. Kirtley, Rev. Mod. Phys.72, 969 (2000)

    2000

  5. [5]

    Damascelli, Z

    A. Damascelli, Z. Hussain, and Z.-X. Shen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 473 (2003)

    2003

  6. [6]

    J. G. Bednorz and K. A. M ¨uller, Zeitschrift f¨ur Physik B Con- densed Matter64, 189 (1986)

    1986

  7. [7]

    Z.-X. Shen, D. S. Dessau, B. O. Wells, D. M. King, W. E. Spicer, A. J. Arko, D. Marshall, L. W. Lombardo, A. Kapitul- nik, P. Dickinson, S. Doniach, J. DiCarlo, T. Loeser, and C. H. Park, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 1553 (1993)

    1993

  8. [8]

    Y . Cao, V . Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxi- ras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Nature556, 43 (2018)

    2018

Show all 100 references
  1. [9]

    Liu, L.-D

    C.-C. Liu, L.-D. Zhang, W.-Q. Chen, and F. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 217001 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    M. Oh, K. P. Nuckolls, D. Wong, R. L. Lee, X. Liu, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, and A. Yazdani, Nature600, 240 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    L ¨othman, J

    T. L ¨othman, J. Schmidt, F. Parhizgar, and A. M. Black-Schaffer, Communications Physics5, 92 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Alicea, Reports on Progress in Physics75, 076501 (2012)

    J. Alicea, Reports on Progress in Physics75, 076501 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    Wilczek, Nature Physics5, 614 (2009)

    F. Wilczek, Nature Physics5, 614 (2009)

    2009

  6. [14]

    A. P. Schnyder, S. Ryu, A. Furusaki, and A. W. W. Ludwig, Phys. Rev. B78, 195125 (2008)

    2008

  7. [15]

    Fu and C

    L. Fu and C. L. Kane, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 096407 (2008)

    2008

  8. [16]

    X.-L. Qi, T. L. Hughes, and S.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B82, 184516 (2010)

    2010

  9. [17]

    Qi and S.-C

    X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 1057 (2011)

    2011

  10. [18]

    L. P. Gor’kov and E. I. Rashba, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 037004 (2001)

    2001

  11. [19]

    Bauer, G

    E. Bauer, G. Hilscher, H. Michor, C. Paul, E. W. Scheidt, A. Gribanov, Y . Seropegin, H. No ¨el, M. Sigrist, and P. Rogl, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 027003 (2004)

    2004

  12. [21]

    Kimura, K

    N. Kimura, K. Ito, K. Saitoh, Y . Umeda, H. Aoki, and T. Terashima, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 247004 (2005)

    2005

  13. [22]

    Tanaka, T

    Y . Tanaka, T. Yokoyama, A. V . Balatsky, and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. B79, 060505 (2009)

    2009

  14. [23]

    N. F. Q. Yuan, K. F. Mak, and K. T. Law, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 097001 (2014)

    2014

  15. [25]

    F. Ando, Y . Miyasaka, T. Li, J. Ishizuka, T. Arakawa, Y . Shiota, T. Moriyama, Y . Yanase, and T. Ono, Nature584, 373 (2020)

    2020

  16. [26]

    Hamill, B

    A. Hamill, B. Heischmidt, E. Sohn, D. Shaffer, K.-T. Tsai, X. Zhang, X. Xi, A. Suslov, H. Berger, L. Forr ´o, F. J. Bur- nell, J. Shan, K. F. Mak, R. M. Fernandes, K. Wang, and V . S. Pribiag, Nature Physics17, 949 (2021)

    2021

  17. [27]

    Lee, S.-C

    W.-C. Lee, S.-C. Zhang, and C. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 217002 (2009)

    2009

  18. [28]

    Zhu, Phys

    X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 236401 (2019). 9

    2019

  19. [29]

    Khodas and A

    M. Khodas and A. V . Chubukov, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 247003 (2012)

    2012

  20. [30]

    R. M. Fernandes, A. I. Coldea, H. Ding, I. R. Fisher, P. J. Hirschfeld, and G. Kotliar, Nature601, 35 (2022)

    2022

  21. [31]

    Kheirkhah, Z

    M. Kheirkhah, Z. Yan, Y . Nagai, and F. Marsiglio, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 017001 (2020)

    2020

  22. [32]

    Grinenko, R

    V . Grinenko, R. Sarkar, K. Kihou, C. H. Lee, I. Moro- zov, S. Aswartham, B. B ¨uchner, P. Chekhonin, W. Skrotzki, K. Nenkov, R. H¨uhne, K. Nielsch, S.-L. Drechsler, V . L. Vadi- mov, M. A. Silaev, P. A. V olkov, I. Eremin, H. Luetkens, and H.-H. Klauss, Nature Physics16, 789 (2020)

    2020

  23. [33]

    A. V . Mallik, G. K. Gupta, V . B. Shenoy, and H. R. Krishna- murthy, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 147002 (2020)

    2020

  24. [34]

    Zhang, J

    Y . Zhang, J. J. Lee, R. G. Moore, W. Li, M. Yi, M. Hashimoto, D. H. Lu, T. P. Devereaux, D.-H. Lee, and Z.-X. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 117001 (2016)

    2016

  25. [35]

    Q. Gao, J. M. Bok, P. Ai, J. Liu, and H. Yan, Nature Communi- cations15, 4538 (2024)

    2024

  26. [36]

    Vishik, M

    I. Vishik, M. Hashimoto, R. He, W. Lee, F. Schmitt, D. L ¨u, R. Moore, C. Zhang, W. Meevasana, T. Sasagawa, S. Uchida, K. Fujita, S. Ishida, M. Ishikado, Y . Yoshida, H. Eisaki, Z. Hus- sain, T. P. Devereaux, and Z. Shen, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences109, 183...

    2012

  27. [37]

    Razzoli, G

    E. Razzoli, G. Drachuck, A. Keren, M. Radovic, N. C. Plumb, J. Chang, Y .-B. Huang, H. Ding, J. Mesot, and M. Shi, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 047004 (2013)

    2013

  28. [38]

    T. P. Devereaux and D. Einzel, Phys. Rev. B51, 16336 (1995)

    1995

  29. [39]

    B ¨ohm, A

    T. B ¨ohm, A. F. Kemper, B. Moritz, F. Kretzschmar, B. Muschler, H.-M. Eiter, R. Hackl, T. P. Devereaux, D. J. Scalapino, and H.-H. Wen, Phys. Rev. X4, 041046 (2014)

    2014

  30. [40]

    Onsager, Phys

    L. Onsager, Phys. Rev.37, 405 (1931)

    1931

  31. [41]

    Onsager, Phys

    L. Onsager, Phys. Rev.38, 2265 (1931)

    1931

  32. [42]

    H. B. G. Casimir, Rev. Mod. Phys.17, 343 (1945)

    1945

  33. [43]

    B ¨uttiker, Phys

    M. B ¨uttiker, Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 1761 (1986)

    1986

  34. [44]

    Buttiker, IBM Journal of Research and Development32, 317 (1988)

    M. Buttiker, IBM Journal of Research and Development32, 317 (1988)

    1988

  35. [45]

    Datta,Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems(Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995)

    S. Datta,Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems(Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995)

    1995

  36. [46]

    Tokura and N

    Y . Tokura and N. Nagaosa, Nature Communications9, 3740 (2018)

    2018

  37. [47]

    Wakatsuki and N

    R. Wakatsuki and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 026601 (2018)

    2018

  38. [48]

    J.-X. Lin, P. Siriviboon, H. D. Scammell, S. Liu, D. Rhodes, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Hone, M. S. Scheurer, and J. Li, Nature Physics18, 1221 (2022)

    2022

  39. [49]

    Trahms, L

    M. Trahms, L. Melischek, J. F. Steiner, B. Mahendru, I. Tamir, N. Bogdanoff, O. Peters, G. Reecht, C. B. Winkelmann, F. von Oppen, and K. J. Franke, Nature615, 628 (2023)

    2023

  40. [50]

    K. Kang, T. Li, E. Sohn, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Nature Mate- rials18, 324 (2019)

    2019

  41. [51]

    M. D. Bachmann, A. L. Sharpe, G. Baker, A. W. Barnard, C. Putzke, T. Scaffidi, N. Nandi, P. H. McGuinness, E. Zhak- ina, M. Moravec, S. Khim, M. K ¨onig, D. Goldhaber-Gordon, D. A. Bonn, A. P. Mackenzie, and P. J. W. Moll, Nature Physics 18, 819 (2022)

    2022

  42. [52]

    Cherepanov, E

    V . Cherepanov, E. Zubkov, H. Junker, S. Korte, M. Blab, P. Co- enen, and B. V oigtl¨ander, Review of Scientific Instruments83, 033707 (2012)

    2012

  43. [53]

    L ¨upke, S

    F. L ¨upke, S. Korte, V . Cherepanov, and B. V oigtl¨ander, Review of Scientific Instruments86, 123701 (2015)

    2015

  44. [54]

    L ¨upke, M

    F. L ¨upke, M. Eschbach, T. Heider, M. Lanius, P. Sch ¨uffelgen, D. Rosenbach, N. von den Driesch, V . Cherepanov, G. Mus- sler, L. Plucinski, D. Gr ¨utzmacher, C. M. Schneider, and B. V oigtl¨ander, Nature Communications8, 15704 (2017)

    2017

  45. [55]

    Baringhaus, M

    J. Baringhaus, M. Ruan, F. Edler, A. Tejeda, M. Sicot, A. Taleb-Ibrahimi, A.-P. Li, Z. Jiang, E. H. Conrad, C. Berger, C. Tegenkamp, and W. A. de Heer, Nature506, 349 (2014)

    2014

  46. [56]

    Y . A. Gerasimenko, I. Vaskivskyi, M. Litskevich, J. Ravnik, J. V odeb, M. Diego, V . Kabanov, and D. Mihailovic, Nature Materials18, 1078 (2019)

    2019

  47. [57]

    Kolmer, P

    M. Kolmer, P. Brandimarte, J. Lis, R. Zuzak, S. Godlewski, H. Kawai, A. Garcia-Lekue, N. Lorente, T. Frederiksen, C. Joachim, D. Sanchez-Portal, and M. Szymonski, Nature Communications10, 1573 (2019)

    2019

  48. [58]

    Kretzschmar, B

    F. Kretzschmar, B. Muschler, T. B¨ohm, A. Baum, R. Hackl, H.- H. Wen, V . Tsurkan, J. Deisenhofer, and A. Loidl, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 187002 (2013)

    2013

  49. [59]

    B. R. Ortiz, S. M. L. Teicher, Y . Hu, J. L. Zuo, P. M. Sarte, E. C. Schueller, A. M. M. Abeykoon, M. J. Krogstad, S. Rosenkranz, R. Osborn, R. Seshadri, L. Balents, J. He, and S. D. Wilson, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 247002 (2020)

    2020

  50. [60]

    Mielke, D

    C. Mielke, D. Das, J.-X. Yin, H. Liu, and R. Gupta, Nature602, 245 (2022)

    2022

  51. [61]

    X. Y . Feng, Z. Zhao, J. Luo, Y . Z. Zhou, and J. Yang, Nature Communications16, 3643 (2025)

    2025

  52. [62]

    Xu and L

    C. Xu and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 087001 (2018)

    2018

  53. [63]

    M. S. Scheurer and R. Samajdar, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033062 (2020)

    2020

  54. [64]

    Balents, C

    L. Balents, C. R. Dean, D. K. Efetov, and A. F. Young, Nature Physics16, 725 (2020)

    2020

  55. [65]

    Y . Cao, J. M. Park, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and P. Jarillo- Herrero, Nature595, 526 (2021)

    2021

  56. [66]

    P. A. Frigeri, D. F. Agterberg, A. Koga, and M. Sigrist, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 097001 (2004)

    2004

  57. [67]

    Mukuda, T

    H. Mukuda, T. Fujii, T. Ohara, A. Harada, M. Yashima, Y . Ki- taoka, Y . Okuda, R. Settai, and Y . Onuki, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 107003 (2008)

    2008

  58. [68]

    H. Q. Yuan, D. F. Agterberg, N. Hayashi, P. Badica, D. Van- dervelde, K. Togano, M. Sigrist, and M. B. Salamon, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 017006 (2006)

    2006

  59. [69]

    See the Supplemental Material for the generalized Landauer formalism for superconducting systems, the derivation of non- reciprocal conductance, analyses of symmetry constraints and reciprocity, numerical verification of the spin-resolved micro- scopic mechanism, robustness ag...

  60. [70]

    Matano, M

    K. Matano, M. Kriener, K. Segawa, Y . Ando, and G.-q. Zheng, Nature Physics12, 852 (2016)

    2016

  61. [71]

    feng Sun and X

    Q. feng Sun and X. C. Xie, Journal of Physics: Condensed Mat- ter21, 344204 (2009)

    2009

  62. [72]

    Sun, Y .-X

    Q.-F. Sun, Y .-X. Li, W. Long, and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. B83, 115315 (2011)

    2011

  63. [73]

    P. A. Lee and D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett.47, 882 (1981)

    1981

  64. [74]

    Meir and N

    Y . Meir and N. S. Wingreen, Phys. Rev. Lett.68, 2512 (1992)

    1992

  65. [75]

    N. S. Wingreen, A.-P. Jauho, and Y . Meir, Phys. Rev. B48, 8487 (1993)

    1993

  66. [76]

    G. R. Stewart, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 1589 (2011)

    2011

  67. [77]

    Platt, R

    C. Platt, R. Thomale, C. Honerkamp, S.-C. Zhang, and W. Hanke, Phys. Rev. B85, 180502 (2012)

    2012

  68. [78]

    Amundsen, J

    M. Amundsen, J. Linder, J. W. A. Robinson, I. ˇZuti´c, and N. Banerjee, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 021003 (2024)

    2024

  69. [79]

    A. D. Hillier, J. Quintanilla, and R. Cywinski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 117007 (2009)

    2009

  70. [80]

    J. Zhai, T. Oh, H. Liu, C. Pan, N. Nagaosa, P. He, and J. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 236303 (2025). 10

    2025

  71. [81]

    Smidman, M

    M. Smidman, M. B. Salamon, H. Q. Yuan, and D. F. Agterberg, Reports on Progress in Physics80, 036501 (2017)

    2017

  72. [82]

    G. E. Blonder, M. Tinkham, and T. M. Klapwijk, Phys. Rev. B 25, 4515 (1982)

    1982

  73. [83]

    Falci, D

    G. Falci, D. Feinberg, and F. W. J. Hekking, Europhysics Letters 54, 255 (2001)

    2001

  74. [84]

    Burset, W

    P. Burset, W. J. Herrera, and A. L. Yeyati, Phys. Rev. B84, 115448 (2011)

    2011

  75. [85]

    O. E. Casas, S. G ´omez P ´aez, A. Levy Yeyati, P. Burset, and W. J. Herrera, Phys. Rev. B99, 144502 (2019)

    2019

  76. [86]

    O. E. Casas, L. Arrachea, W. J. Herrera, and A. L. Yeyati, Phys. Rev. B99, 161301 (2019)

    2019

  77. [87]

    Yasuda, T

    K. Yasuda, T. Morimoto, R. Yoshimi, M. Mogi, A. Tsukazaki, M. Kawamura, K. S. Takahashi, M. Kawasaki, N. Nagaosa, and Y . Tokura, Nature Nanotechnology15, 831 (2020)

    2020

  78. [88]

    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

  79. [89]

    Revealing Hidden Unconventional Pairing through Nonreciprocal Transport

    A. Gutfreund, H. Matsuki, V . Plastovets, A. Noah, L. Gorza- wski, N. Fridman, G. Yang, A. Buzdin, O. Millo, J. W. Robin- son,et al., Nature Communications14, 1630 (2023). Supplementary Materials for “Revealing Hidden Unconventional Pairing through Nonreciprocal Transport” Wen...

    2023

  80. [90]

    Instead, it affects the magnitude of the nonreciprocal conductance[5]

    Leads coupling.First, we will verify that the lead coupling has no impact on the correspondence between the angular dependence of ∆Gand the angular structure of unconventional pairing. Instead, it affects the magnitude of the nonreciprocal conductance[5]. Therefore, unconventi...

  81. [91]

    The Geometric Structure.We further investigate the impact of device geometry by considering edge roughness, which provides a source of geometric asymmetry. To model this effect, we introduce a random barrier potential at the metal–superconductor interface,U W (r)∈ h − W 2kF a ...

  82. [92]

    probe the nonreciprocal transport response characteristic of the Majorana edge state [see Fig.S6 (b)]

    Here,B= 1,µ= 1, ∆ s = 0.2, andλ= 0.02. probe the nonreciprocal transport response characteristic of the Majorana edge state [see Fig.S6 (b)]. As shown in Fig. S6(c), the Majorana edge state withN= 1 gives rise to a half-quantized nonreciprocal thermal conductance (Gq =− π2k2 B...

  83. [93]

    Meir and N

    Y. Meir and N. S. Wingreen, Phys. Rev. Lett.68, 2512 (1992)

    1992

  84. [94]

    N. S. Wingreen, A.-P. Jauho, and Y. Meir, Phys. Rev. B48, 8487 (1993)

    1993

  85. [95]

    Sun, B.-g

    Q.-f. Sun, B.-g. Wang, J. Wang, and T.-h. Lin, Phys. Rev. B61, 4754 (2000)

    2000

  86. [96]

    feng Sun and X

    Q. feng Sun and X. C. Xie, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter21, 344204 (2009)

    2009

  87. [97]

    G. E. Blonder, M. Tinkham, and T. M. Klapwijk, Phys. Rev. B25, 4515 (1982)

    1982

  88. [98]

    Read and D

    N. Read and D. Green, Phys. Rev. B61, 10267 (2000)

    2000

  89. [99]

    Sumiyoshi and S

    H. Sumiyoshi and S. Fujimoto, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.82, 023602 (2013)

    2013

  90. [100]

    Nomura and S

    K. Nomura and S. Ryu, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 026802 (2012)

    2012

  91. [101]

    Kasahara, T

    Y. Kasahara, T. Ohnishi, Y. Mizukami, O. Tanaka, S. Ma, K. Sugii, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, J. Nasu, Y. Motome, T. Shibauchi, and Y. Matsuda, Nature559, 227 (2018)

    2018

  92. [102]

    Yokoi, S

    T. Yokoi, S. Ma, Y. Kasahara, Y. Kasahara, T. Shibauchi, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, J. Nasu, Y. Motome, C. Hickey, S. Trebst, and Y. Matsuda, Science373, 568 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.