Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 58 references

Kinetic Lifshitz invariants and dynamics of nonreciprocal fluctuations in superconductors

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A disordered superconductor without inversion symmetry is shown to have nonreciprocal fluctuation dynamics: the relaxation rate and noise power of a Cooper-pair fluctuation with momentum $\mathbf{q}$ both acquire a term odd in…

desk verdict Solid, mostly self-contained Keldysh derivation of nonreciprocal TDGL with a genuinely new kinetic invariant; the main caveat is an imported prefactor and one overlapping-author input, both checkable, not fatal. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05306 v1 pith:J4PDV3SC submitted 2026-08-05 cond-mat.supr-con

Tony Liu , Joaquim Telles de Miranda , Daniel Shaffer , Alex Levchenko This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords noncentrosymmetricsuperconductorsLifshitzinvariantsKeldyshnonlinearsigmamodelRashbaspin-orbitcouplingtime-dependentGinzburg-LandautheorysuperconductingdiodeeffectmagnetochiralanisotropyDyakonov-Perelrelaxation
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 in a disordered superconductor lacking inversion symmetry, the same microscopic process that tilts the free energy also tilts the dissipation: the relaxation rate and the Langevin noise of a pair fluctuation with momentum $\mathbf{q}$ acquire a term odd in $\mathbf{q}$ and odd in the magnetic field, locked together by the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. If correct, it means a complete stochastic time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau theory for a noncentrosymmetric superconductor can be derived from a Keldysh $\sigma$ model, with friction and noise renormalizing in lockstep so that static fluctuations stay thermal while the dynamics are nonreciprocal. On the thermodynamic side, it claims that the conflicting disorder scalings of the Lifshitz invariants reported in the literature are two limits of one crossover controlled by the ratio of the Dyakonov-Perel spin-relaxation rate to temperature, with the helical wave vector saturating at a universal, disorder-independent value. The applications show why this matters: the sign of the superconducting diode effect near $T_c$ is set by the competition of the cubic invariant, the quartic vertex, and higher-gradient terms promoted to odd by the helical shift, and the fluctuation magnetochiral anisotropy above $T_c$ forms a plateau in the current-resolved resistance.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Keldysh nonlinear $\sigma$ model action with a non-Abelian SU(2) gauge field encoding Rashba spin-orbit coupling; the microscopic identity that carries the argument is the singlet-block cooperon propagator $A^{-1}_{00}(\mathbf{q},\varepsilon) = [a + ((2h - 4\kappa_0 q_y)^2 + 16\kappa_0^2 q_z^2)/(a + \Gamma_t)]^{-1}$, whose cross term $h\kappa_0 q_y$ is the source of every Lifshitz invariant. The disorder crossover is carried by the closed-form master kernel $K(x;\Gamma_t) = (4\pi T\Gamma_t)^{-1}[\psi'(1/2+x) - (\psi(1/2+x+g)-\psi(1/2+x))/g]$ with $g=\Gamma_t/4\pi T$, which interpolates between the weak-relaxation limit, where couplings scale as $1/T^2$, and the relaxation-dominated limit, where they scale as $1/(T\Gamma_t)$. In the dynamical sector the same kernel produces the kinetic invariant $\boldsymbol{\rho}$, and the equilibrium identity $L_K^{-1} = 2i\coth(\omega/2T)\,\operatorname{Im}L_R^{-1}$ fixes the noise from the friction.

What would settle it

A direct diagrammatic evaluation of the kinetic coefficient $\operatorname{Im}L_R^{-1}$ at linear order in $\alpha_R h$ that fixes the field-strength prefactor independently would settle the magnitude of $\boldsymbol{\rho}$; if the prefactor differs from $\kappa_g = D\ell/p_F$, all couplings in Eq. (44) rescale. Separately, a measurement of the current-resolved nonreciprocal resistance of a two-dimensional Rashba superconductor above $T_c$ would test the predicted plateau: the theory gives $\delta R/(Rhj)$ independent of reduced temperature in the Gaussian regime, so observing a clear $\epsilon$-dependence would falsify the mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the effective theory of a dirty Rashba superconductor contains, alongside the usual thermodynamic Lifshitz invariants, a kinetic Lifshitz invariant: an imaginary, momentum-odd term in the inverse pair propagator, $\operatorname{Im}L_R^{-1}(\mathbf{q},\omega) = (\pi\omega/8T)(1+\boldsymbol{\rho}\cdot\mathbf{q})$, with $\boldsymbol{\rho}\propto(\alpha_R p_F\tau)^2[\mathbf{h}\times\boldsymbol{\alpha}]/T^2$ in the weak-relaxation regime, and a corresponding momentum-odd contribution to the Langevin noise power. Onsager reciprocity permits this term only because it is odd in the Zeeman field, and the fluctuation-dissipation theorem forces it to appear in the noise as well, so equal-time fluctuations remain Gibbsian while relaxation and finite-frequency fluctuation spectra are nonreciprocal. The paper further claims that the thermodynamics is governed by a single kernel $K(x;\Gamma_t)$ and that the helical wave vector $q_0 = (4\alpha_R h/v_F^2)\,g(\Gamma_t/4\pi T)$ interpolates from a disorder-suppressed regime to a universal, disorder-independent plateau, resolving earlier conflicting calculations. The stochastic TDGL equation, Eq. (44) together with the noise correlator (41), is presented as the central new result of the work.

Load-bearing premise

The paper starts from a $\sigma$-model action whose spin-orbit field-strength coupling constant $\kappa_g = D\ell/p_F$ is imported from earlier work rather than re-derived here, and since every Lifshitz invariant computed below is proportional to $\kappa_g$, an error in that coefficient would rescale all nonreciprocal couplings uniformly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any phenomenological TDGL model that adds a drift-like, momentum-odd term to the relaxation without the matching momentum-odd noise violates the fluctuation-dissipation theorem and generates spurious equilibrium currents.
  • Close enough to $T_c$, almost any Rashba superconductor with $\Gamma_t \gg 4\pi T$ is in the universal regime where the helical wave vector $q_0 = 4\alpha_R h/v_F^2$ is independent of disorder, so measured magnetoelectric couplings should appear disorder-independent.
  • The diode efficiency near $T_c$ has a definite sign: in the weak-DP regime the cubic invariant alone gives one polarity, but the full competition with the quartic vertex and $q^4$-gradient terms reverses it, giving $\eta \simeq -0.136\,(\alpha_R p_F\tau)^2\,(\alpha_R h/T^2)\,\sqrt{|\bar\epsilon|}/\xi_{GL}$.
  • The fluctuation-induced magnetochiral anisotropy above $T_c$ is a nonlinear correction that diverges as $\epsilon^{-2}$, faster than the Aslamazov-Larkin conductivity, and at fixed current the relative nonreciprocal resistance forms a plateau across the Gaussian regime.
  • In two dimensions the kinetic invariant $\boldsymbol{\rho}$ and the cubic invariant $\Xi/\xi_{GL}^2$ contribute equally to the fluctuation magnetochiral anisotropy, so omitting the noise/friction nonreciprocity underestimates the effect by a factor of two.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same gauge-structure argument should produce a kinetic Lifshitz invariant in other parity-breaking superconductors, such as Dresselhaus or Ising spin-orbit coupled films, with the preferred direction set by their symmetry; the paper notes this extension but does not work it out.
  • Out of equilibrium, when the electron distribution is not thermal, the identity that collapses the Keldysh block no longer holds, so friction and noise can acquire independent nonreciprocal content; this suggests noise rectification and fluctuation ratchets in driven noncentrosymmetric films.
  • Since the kinetic invariant enters nonlinear transport, it should appear directly in the third cumulant of current noise even in equilibrium, a testable prediction beyond the paper's explicit second-order transport calculations.
  • In quasi-two-dimensional films of finite thickness, the magnetochiral results acquire a factor $1/d$ and the relative weight of the kinetic and thermodynamic contributions changes by order-one factors, so measuring the thickness dependence could isolate the kinetic invariant experimentally.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript derives a generalized stochastic time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau (TDGL) theory for a disordered two-dimensional Rashba superconductor in an in-plane Zeeman field, working from the Keldysh nonlinear sigma model. On the thermodynamic side, the authors obtain the linear Lifshitz invariant, the cubic gradient invariant, and the momentum-odd part of the quartic vertex, all proportional to n=[h×α], and show that the linear and cubic invariants and the helical wave vector q0 are governed by a single closed-form kernel K(x;Γ_t) (Eq. 28); q0 grows with disorder in the weak-Dyakonov-Perel regime and saturates at the disorder-independent value 4α_Rh/v_F^2 in the strong-DP regime, which the authors argue reconciles conflicting earlier results. The central new claim is in the Keldysh sector: the retarded pair propagator acquires a momentum-odd dissipative term, Im L^{-1}_R = (πω/8T)(1+ρ·q) with ρ∝[h×α] (Eq. 38), and the exact equilibrium fluctuation-dissipation relation (25) forces the Langevin noise (41) to inherit the same ρ·q structure; equal-time fluctuations remain Gibbsian and the equilibrium current vanishes, while relaxation and finite-frequency noise become nonreciprocal. Applications include the superconducting diode efficiency near T_c, whose sign is reversed by the interplay of the cubic invariant, the odd quartic vertex, and even higher-gradient terms promoted to odd ones by the helical shift (Eq.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper delivers its promise: a complete stochastic TDGL description of a noncentrosymmetric superconductor in which dissipation and noise are derived rather than postulated, with a nonreciprocal kinetic sector that is invisible in statics yet fixed by Onsager reciprocity and the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. The unification of previously conflicting disorder scalings through a single closed-form kernel is a genuine step forward, and the saturation of q0 in the strong-DP regime is a clean, testable statement. The paper is unusually transparent about its inputs: the field-strength prefactor κ_g is explicitly flagged as imported, the odd quartic vertex b is openly adopted from Ref. [33], matrix traces are machine-checked (Appendix A), the crossovers are evaluated in closed form, and the diode formula is checked numerically. The concrete falsifiable predictions—the diode polarity reversal of Eq. (52) and the plateau of Eq. (55)—give the work immediate experimental relevance.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (16); Secs. 4.3, 5.1, Eqs. (35), (38)] The coupling κ0 ≡ m^3α_R^3κ_g, with κ_g = Dl/p_F taken from Refs. [53,44], enters the starting action (10) without being re-derived here, and the manuscript itself notes in Sec. 3.2 that 'every Lifshitz invariant computed below is directly proportional to κ_g.' The quantitative content of the central new result therefore scales linearly with this single imported prefactor: the kinetic coefficient ρ in Eq. (38), the noise power (41), the saturation value q0 = 4α_Rh/v_F^2 of Eq. (35), the diode efficiency (52), and the MCA plateau magnitude (55) are all proportional to κ0. A positive prefactor error would not affect the signs or the crossover structure, but it would rescale exactly the numbers that the abstract advertises. The convention sensitivity is acknowledged in Sec. 3.2, yet κ_g is not fixed by the present computation, and the one quantitative cross-check (Sec. 6.1) covers Λ and Ξ in the diffusive limit and is compared with Ref. [33], which shares two authors with this paper. I recommend that the authors either derive the field-strength term from the microscopic model within their own framework, or supply an independent, sign- and magnitude-resolved check of the kinetic sector (for example a quasiclassical computation of ρ), and state explicitly how each quoted prediction transforms under κ_g → Cκ_g.
  2. [Sec. 4.4, Eq. (36); Sec. 6.1, Eq. (52)] The momentum-odd part of the quartic vertex, b, is not derived in this manuscript: Sec. 4.4 states that the complete evaluation was carried out in Ref. [33] and that its diffusive limit is adopted here, while Appendix C derives only the even gradient corrections via the Usadel equation. The diode application inherits this import in a load-bearing way: the sign reversal of η in Eq. (52) results from the numerical competition among the cubic invariant, the odd vertex b (whose coefficient is larger by the factor 8/3 than the single-mode estimate), and the b2/α4 cross terms, so an error in b or in the convention mapping to Ref. [33] would change the sign claimed in the abstract. The 'independent verification' in Sec. 6.1 is in fact a consistency check against Refs. [33] and [34], both previous papers by two of the present authors, and the text says explicitly that b and b2 are 'fixed by that comparison' rather than by an independent derivation. I ask the authors to include at least an outline of the triplet-assisted quartic-vertex computation within the present sigma-model expansion, or to obtain b from a genuinely external calculation, and to revise the phrase 'verify independently' accordingly.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. 7, compared with Table 1 and Sec. 4.4] The abstract states that the linear and cubic gradient terms and the momentum-odd quartic vertex 'are governed by a single closed-form kernel,' and Sec. 7 repeats that Λ, Ξ, and b are 'all determined by a single closed-form kernel, Eq. (28).' This is contradicted by the paper's own Table 1 and Sec. 4.4, which state that the quartic-vertex invariant b requires the full three-momentum structure of the vertex and is fixed by the diagrammatic evaluation of Ref. [33]; the leading part of b(q) is not expressible through K(x;Γ_t). The abstract and Sec. 7 should be revised so that the 'single kernel' claim is restricted to Λ, Ξ, ρ, and q0, with b attributed to the three-momentum vertex analysis; as written, the paper's self-description overstates the scope of Eq. (28).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 6.2] The word 'nonreciprcity' should be 'nonreciprocity'; there are several similar typographical slips in this section.
  2. [Eqs. (3), (28), (35), Fig. 2] The same letter g is used for the crossover function g(g) and for its dimensionless argument g = Γ_t/4πT; renaming the argument (for example x) would remove the ambiguity in expressions such as g(g≫1) = 1.
  3. [Secs. 4.5 and 5.3] The symbol ∂ is defined once as ∂ = −i∇ − 2eA (Sec. 4.5) and once as ∂ = ∇ − 2ieA (Sec. 5.3), a difference of a factor i; the physical results are consistent because Eqs. (37) and (44) use the corresponding real and imaginary parts, but a single convention should be adopted throughout.
  4. [Table 1] The weak-DP entry of the q0 row is typeset so that the factors Γ_t, 4πT, and 4α_Rh/v_F^2 run together; separating them would prevent misreading, and the caption's note that |n| = α_Rh is 'included in the quoted vectors' could be stated more clearly.
  5. [Eqs. (41)–(42)] The noise correlators are written with identical momentum and frequency arguments on both fields; the delta functions δ(q−q′)δ(ω−ω′) should be displayed explicitly, as is conventional for a noise power.
  6. [Sec. 6.1] The claim that the correspondence and the perturbative formula were verified by 'direct numerical extremization' would be easier to assess with a few details of the numerics (grid, parameters, tolerance) or a supplementary figure.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Kinetic Lifshitz invariant derivation is self-contained; the diode-sector quartic coefficient and its 'independent' check form a same-group self-citation chain, reducing the sign prediction to a consistency check.

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. 4.4 and Sec. 6.1, with Eq. (44); Appendix C]
    "the complete evaluation of all quartic diagrams, at weak spin-orbit coupling but arbitrary disorder, was carried out in Ref. [33], whose diffusive limit we adopt here and verify independently at the level of the diode observable in Sec. 6.1. ... substituting the diffusive limits of Eqs. (C4a)–(C4c) of that work into the general efficiency formula of Ref. [34] and converting conventions, Eq. (52) reproduces exactly the diffusive-limit efficiency quoted there"

    The odd-in-q quartic coefficient b is not derived in this paper; it is imported from Ref. [33], whose author list includes two of the present authors (Shaffer and Levchenko). The claimed independent verification then uses Ref. [34], also by the same authors, and the same imported b. Thus the diode-efficiency prediction is fed by the same self-citation chain that is invoked as its confirmation: the agreement is an internal consistency check, not an externally falsifiable test. Because b enters the central stochastic TDGL equation (44) and controls the sign reversal in Eq. (52), this self-citation is load-bearing for the applications, even though the kinetic coefficient rho, the noise correlator (41), and the saturation value q0 are derived from the Keldysh calculation itself.

full rationale

The central Keldysh derivation is largely self-contained: starting from the sigma-model action (10), the paper expands the cooperon sector, computes the master kernel K(x; Gamma_t) in closed form, and obtains the nonreciprocal friction rho directly from Im L_R^{-1} with no fitted parameters; the exact FDT relation (25) then forces the noise to share the same momentum-odd structure. The kappa_g prefactor in Eq. (10) is imported from Refs. [53,44], which have no author overlap with the present paper, so that is an external, convention-sensitive input rather than a circular one. The only genuinely self-referential step is the odd quartic coefficient b: it is adopted from the authors' own Ref. [33] and then 'verified' against the same group's Ref. [34], making the diode sign prediction a consistency check rather than an independent confirmation. This is load-bearing for the diode and MCA applications, but the paper's central new kinetic result remains independent content. I therefore assign a score of 4 rather than a higher score: partial self-citation load-bearing without by-construction reduction of the core derivation.

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

No parameters are fitted to data; the model inputs are tau, T, alpha_R, h, nu, and v_F. The central claim rests on the imported Keldysh action term kappa_g, the singlet-block truncation, and the borrowed quartic vertex b from Ref. [33]. These are load-bearing and should be independently verified.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Keldysh sigma model action Eq. (10) with the field-strength term coefficient kappa_g = D l / p_F is the correct starting point.
    Imported from Refs. [53,44]; the authors note in Sec. 3.2 that every Lifshitz invariant is proportional to kappa_g.
  • domain assumption Diffusive regime T tau << 1 and weak spin-orbit broadening alpha_R p_F tau << 1, with arbitrary Gamma_t/T.
    Sec. 3.1 fixes the parameter window that justifies the gradient expansion and the cooperon-block truncation.
  • domain assumption SU(2) gauge representation A_0 = h s_3, A_y = -m alpha_R s_3, A_z = m alpha_R s_2, with the temporal field strength F_0i neglected.
    Sec. 3.1 states that F_0z contributes only at higher order in omega and h and is dropped.
  • domain assumption The singlet cooperon inverse A^{-1}_{00} in Eq. (19) is truncated to O(h^2 q, alpha_R^6 q^2), dropping the c_1 triplet and precession matrix elements.
    Sec. 3.4 asserts a numerical check that precession entries contribute only at relative order D q^2 / Gamma_t, but the check is not shown.
  • ad hoc to paper The momentum-odd quartic coefficient b in Eq. (36) is exact in the diffusive limit and is taken from Ref. [33].
    Appendix C states 'we take the coefficient from the diagrammatic evaluation ... Ref. [33]'; this coefficient controls the diode sign in Eq. (52).
  • standard math Onsager reciprocity Eq. (39) and the fluctuation-dissipation relation Eq. (25) hold for the Keldysh blocks.
    Sec. 5.1-5.2 use these general principles to constrain the kinetic invariant and the noise structure.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kinetic Lifshitz invariants and dynamics of nonreciprocal fluctuations in superconductors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J4PDV3SC

@misc{pith2026260805306,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kinetic Lifshitz invariants and dynamics of nonreciprocal fluctuations in superconductors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J4PDV3SC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05306}
}
abstract

We derive the generalized time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau theory of a disordered noncentrosymmetric superconductor from the Keldysh nonlinear sigma model, using a two-dimensional electron gas with Rashba spin-orbit coupling and an in-plane Zeeman field as a minimal model. On the thermodynamic side we construct the Lifshitz invariants of the free energy, the linear and cubic gradient terms and the momentum-odd part of the quartic vertex, and trace their dependence on disorder. These couplings are governed by a single closed-form kernel controlled by the ratio of the Dyakonov-Perel spin-relaxation rate to temperature, interpolating between the weak-relaxation regime, where the invariants are suppressed, and the relaxation-dominated regime, where the helical modulation of the order parameter saturates at a universal, disorder-independent value. This crossover reconciles conflicting results for the magnetoelectric couplings of dirty Rashba superconductors. Because the theory is formulated on the Keldysh contour, it also determines the dissipative dynamics: the relaxation rate of a fluctuation with pair momentum $\mathbf{q}$, and hence, by the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, the Langevin noise power, acquires a term odd in $\mathbf{q}$ and odd in the magnetic field. The structure of this kinetic Lifshitz invariant is dictated by Onsager reciprocity: friction and noise renormalize in lockstep, so equal-time fluctuations remain Gibbsian while the dynamics are nonreciprocal. As applications we compute the superconducting diode efficiency near $T_c$, where the cubic invariant competes with the quartic vertex and with even higher-gradient terms rendered odd by the helical shift, reversing the sign of the diode coefficient, and the fluctuation-induced magnetochiral anisotropy above $T_c$, where the current-resolved nonreciprocal resistance forms a plateau across the Gaussian regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05306 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Geometry of the minimal model. The electrons move in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Disorder crossover of the helical modulation vector, Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [33]

    Hasan, D

    J. Hasan, D. Shaffer, M. Khodas, A. Levchenko, Superconducting diode efficiency from singlet-triplet mixing in disordered systems, Phys. Rev. B 111 (2025) 174514

    work page 2025

  2. [34]

    Hasan, D

    J. Hasan, D. Shaffer, M. Khodas, A. Levchenko, Supercurrent diode effect in helical superconductors, Phys. Rev. B 110 (2024) 024508

    work page 2024

  3. [1]

    L. D. Landau, On the theory of phase transitions, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 7 (1937) 19, [Phys. Z. Sowjetunion11, 26 (1937)]

    work page 1937

  4. [2]

    E. M. Lifshitz, On the theory of phase transitions of the second order I & II, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 11 (1941) 255, 269

    work page 1941

  5. [3]

    Dzyaloshinsky, A thermodynamic theory of “weak” ferromagnetism of antifer- romagnetics, J

    I. Dzyaloshinsky, A thermodynamic theory of “weak” ferromagnetism of antifer- romagnetics, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 4 (1958) 241

    work page 1958

  6. [4]

    Moriya, Anisotropic superexchange interaction and weak ferromagnetism, Phys

    T. Moriya, Anisotropic superexchange interaction and weak ferromagnetism, Phys. Rev. 120 (1960) 91

    work page 1960

  7. [5]

    vortices

    A. N. Bogdanov, D. A. Yablonskii, Thermodynamically stable “vortices” in mag- netically ordered crystals. the mixed state of magnets, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 95 (1989) 178, [Sov. Phys. JETP68, 101 (1989)]

    work page 1989

  8. [6]

    Mühlbauer, B

    S. Mühlbauer, B. Binz, F. Jonietz, C. Pfleiderer, A. Rosch, A. Neubauer, R. Georgii, P. Böni, Skyrmion lattice in a chiral magnet, Science 323 (2009) 915

    work page 2009

Show all 58 references
  1. [7]

    P. G. de Gennes, J. Prost, The Physics of Liquid Crystals, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993

    1993

  2. [8]

    Zubko, G

    P. Zubko, G. Catalan, A. K. Tagantsev, Flexoelectric effect in solids, Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 43 (2013) 387

    2013

  3. [9]

    Bauer, M

    E. Bauer, M. Sigrist (Eds.), Non-Centrosymmetric Superconductors: Introduction and Overview, Lecture Notes in Physics Vol. 847, Springer, Berlin, 2012

    2012

  4. [10]

    Smidman, M

    M. Smidman, M. B. Salamon, H. Q. Yuan, D. F. Agterberg, Superconductivity and spin-orbit coupling in non-centrosymmetric materials: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80 (2017) 036501

    2017

  5. [11]

    V. P. Mineev, K. V. Samokhin, Helical phases in superconductors, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 105 (1994) 747, [JETP78, 401 (1994)]

    1994

  6. [12]

    D. F. Agterberg, Novel magnetic field effects in unconventional superconductors, Physica C 387 (2003) 13

    2003

  7. [13]

    Barzykin, L

    V. Barzykin, L. P. Gor’kov, Inhomogeneous stripe phase revisited for surface su- perconductivity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 227002

    2002

  8. [14]

    R. P. Kaur, D. F. Agterberg, M. Sigrist, Helical vortex phase in the noncentrosym- metric CePt3Si, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 137002. 30

    2005

  9. [15]

    Dimitrova, M

    O. Dimitrova, M. V. Feigel’man, Theory of a two-dimensional superconductor with broken inversion symmetry, Phys. Rev. B 76 (2007) 014522

    2007

  10. [16]

    K. V. Samokhin, Magnetic properties of superconductors with strong spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. B 70 (2004) 104521

    2004

  11. [17]

    V. P. Mineev, K. V. Samokhin, Effects of impurities on superconductivity in non- centrosymmetric compounds, Phys. Rev. B 78 (2008) 144503

    2008

  12. [18]

    S. K. Yip, Two-dimensional superconductivity with strong spin-orbit interaction, Phys. Rev. B 65 (2002) 144508

    2002

  13. [19]

    Buzdin, Direct coupling between magnetism and superconducting current in the Josephsonφ 0 junction, Phys

    A. Buzdin, Direct coupling between magnetism and superconducting current in the Josephsonφ 0 junction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 107005

    2008

  14. [20]

    Konschelle, I

    F. Konschelle, I. V. Tokatly, F. S. Bergeret, Theory of the spin-galvanic effect and the anomalous phase shiftφ 0 in superconductors and Josephson junctions with intrinsic spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. B 92 (2015) 125443

    2015

  15. [21]

    Assouline, C

    A. Assouline, C. Feuillet-Palma, N. Bergeal, T. Zhang, A. Mottaghizadeh, A. Zim- mers, E. Lhuillier, M. Eddrie, P. Atkinson, M. Aprili, J. Lesueur, Spin-orbit induced phase-shift in Bi2Se3 Josephson junctions, Nat. Commun. 10 (2019) 126

    2019

  16. [22]

    V. M. Edelstein, Characteristics of the Cooper pairing in two-dimensional non- centrosymmetric electron systems, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 95 (1989) 2151, [Sov. Phys. JETP68, 1244 (1989)]

    1989

  17. [23]

    V. M. Edelstein, Magnetoelectric effect in polar superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 2004

    1995

  18. [24]

    L. P. Gor’kov, E. I. Rashba, Superconducting 2D system with lifted spin degener- acy: mixed singlet-triplet state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 037004

    2001

  19. [25]

    F. Ando, Y. Miyasaka, T. Li, J. Ishizuka, T. Arakawa, Y. Shiota, T. Moriyama, Y. Yanase, T. Ono, Observation of superconducting diode effect, Nature 584 (2020) 373

    2020

  20. [26]

    Baumgartner, L

    C. Baumgartner, L. Fuchs, A. Costá, S. Reinhardt, S. Gronin, G. C. Gardner, T. Lindemann, M. J. Manfra, P. E. Faria Junior, D. Kochan, J. Fabian, N. Par- adiso, C. Strunk, Supercurrent rectification and magnetochiral effects in symmet- ric Josephson junctions, Nat. Nanotechnol...

    2022

  21. [27]

    Nadeem, M

    M. Nadeem, M. S. Fuhrer, X. Wang, The superconducting diode effect, Nat. Rev. Phys. 5 (2023) 558. 31

    2023

  22. [28]

    Shaffer, A

    D. Shaffer, A. Levchenko, Theories of superconducting diode effects (2025). arXiv:2510.25864

    2025

  23. [29]

    Daido, Y

    A. Daido, Y. Ikeda, Y. Yanase, Intrinsic superconducting diode effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 037001

    2022

  24. [30]

    N. F. Q. Yuan, L. Fu, Supercurrent diode effect and finite-momentum supercon- ductors, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 119 (2022) e2119548119

    2022

  25. [31]

    J. J. He, Y. Tanaka, K. T. Law, A phenomenological theory of superconductor diodes, New J. Phys. 24 (2022) 053014

    2022

  26. [32]

    S. Ilić, F. S. Bergeret, Theory of the supercurrent diode effect in Rashba supercon- ductors with arbitrary disorder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 177001

    2022

  27. [35]

    G. L. J. A. Rikken, J. Fölling, P. Wyder, Electrical magnetochiral anisotropy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 236602

    2001

  28. [36]

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

    2005

  29. [37]

    Tokura, N

    Y. Tokura, N. Nagaosa, Nonreciprocal responses from non-centrosymmetric quan- tum materials, Nat. Commun. 9 (2018) 3740

    2018

  30. [38]

    Wakatsuki, Y

    R. Wakatsuki, Y. Saito, S. Hoshino, Y. M. Itahashi, T. Ideue, M. Ezawa, Y. Iwasa, N. Nagaosa, Nonreciprocal charge transport in noncentrosymmetric supercon- ductors, Sci. Adv. 3 (2017) e1602390

    2017

  31. [39]

    Y. M. Itahashi, T. Ideue, Y. Saito, S. Shimizu, T. Ouchi, T. Nojima, Y. Iwasa, Nonre- ciprocal transport in gate-induced polar superconductor SrTiO3, Sci. Adv. 6 (2020) eaay9120

    2020

  32. [40]

    Wakatsuki, N

    R. Wakatsuki, N. Nagaosa, Nonreciprocal current in noncentrosymmetric Rashba superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 026601

    2018

  33. [41]

    Hoshino, R

    S. Hoshino, R. Wakatsuki, K. Hamamoto, N. Nagaosa, Nonreciprocal charge trans- port in two-dimensional noncentrosymmetric superconductors, Phys. Rev. B 98 (2018) 054510

    2018

  34. [42]

    J. T. de Miranda, M. Khodas, A. Levchenko, Electrical magnetochiral anisotropy in Rashba superconductors (2026).arXiv:2606.19421. 32

    2026 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Houzet, J

    M. Houzet, J. S. Meyer, Quasiclassical theory of disordered Rashba superconduc- tors, Phys. Rev. B 92 (2015) 014509

    2015

  36. [44]

    Virtanen, F

    P. Virtanen, F. S. Bergeret, I. V. Tokatly, Nonlinearσmodel for disordered systems with intrinsic spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. B 105 (2022) 224517

    2022

  37. [45]

    S. Ilić, P. Virtanen, D. Crawford, T. T. Heikkilä, F. S. Bergeret, Superconducting diode effect in diffusive superconductors and josephson junctions with rashba spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. B 110 (2024) L140501

    2024

  38. [46]

    Nunchot, Y

    N. Nunchot, Y. Yanase, Superconducting diode effect in the weak localization regime, Phys. Rev. B 114 (2026) 024513

    2026

  39. [47]

    M. V. Feigel’man, A. I. Larkin, M. A. Skvortsov, Keldysh action for disordered superconductors, Phys. Rev. B 61 (2000) 12361

    2000

  40. [48]

    Kamenev, A

    A. Kamenev, A. Andreev, Electron-electron interactions in disordered metals: Keldysh formalism, Phys. Rev. B 60 (1999) 2218

    1999

  41. [49]

    Kamenev, Field Theory of Non-Equilibrium Systems, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011

    A. Kamenev, Field Theory of Non-Equilibrium Systems, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011

    2011

  42. [50]

    Levchenko, A

    A. Levchenko, A. Kamenev, Keldysh Ginzburg-Landau action of fluctuating su- perconductors, Phys. Rev. B 76 (2007) 094518

    2007

  43. [51]

    Y. Liao, A. Levchenko, M. S. Foster, Response theory of the ergodic many-body delocalized phase: Keldysh Finkel’stein sigma models and the 10-fold way, Annals of Physics 386 (2017) 97–157

    2017

  44. [52]

    F. S. Bergeret, I. V. Tokatly, Spin-orbit coupling as a source of long-range triplet proximity effect in superconductor-ferromagnet hybrid structures, Phys. Rev. B 89 (2014) 134517

    2014

  45. [53]

    Virtanen, F

    P. Virtanen, F. S. Bergeret, I. V. Tokatly, Magnetoelectric effects in superconduc- tors due to spin-orbit scattering: Nonlinearσ-model description, Phys. Rev. B 104 (2021) 064515

    2021

  46. [54]

    Kamenev, A

    A. Kamenev, A. Levchenko, Keldysh technique and non-linearσ-model: basic principles and applications, Advances in Physics 58 (3) (2009) 197–319

    2009

  47. [55]

    R. A. Klemm, A. Luther, M. R. Beasley, Theory of the upper critical field in layered superconductors, Phys. Rev. B 12 (1975) 877

    1975

  48. [56]

    L. G. Aslamazov, A. I. Larkin, Effect of fluctuations on the properties of a super- conductor above the critical temperature, Fiz. Tverd. Tela 10 (1968) 1104, [Sov. Phys. Solid State10, 875 (1968)]. 33

    1968

  49. [57]

    A. I. Larkin, A. A. Varlamov, Theory of Fluctuations in Superconductors, Claren- don Press, Oxford, 2005

    2005

  50. [58]

    Anthropic, Claude [large language model],https://claude.ai, version: Claude Fable 5; used June–July 2026 (2026). 34

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.