Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Superconducting Acoustogalvanic Effect in Twisted Transition Metal Dichalcogenides

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Strain waves make Bogoliubov quantum geometry visible in a DC current, giving a pairing-symmetry fingerprint for twisted WSe2.

desk verdict A new SAW-based probe of Bogoliubov quantum geometry with a solid derivation and an honest caveat about strain coupling to the order parameter; referee it and ask for a quantitative check of that coupling. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21436 v3 pith:XIQHENT3 submitted 2025-05-27 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-el

Tsugumi Matsumoto , Ryotaro Sano , Youichi Yanase , Akito Daido This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-el
keywords superconductingacoustogalvaniceffecttwistedWSe2surfaceacousticwavespseudo-gaugefieldBogoliubovquasiparticlesquantummetricnematicsuperconductivitychiral
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 proposes a new experimental route into unconventional superconductors: the superconducting acoustogalvanic effect (SAGE), a DC current induced by two counter-propagating surface acoustic waves through their strain-generated pseudo-gauge field. The central claim is that in honeycomb superconductors such as twisted WSe2 the pseudo-gauge field enters the Bogoliubov–de Gennes Hamiltonian as a common momentum shift, so the resulting injection current is controlled by the band-resolved quantum metric of Bogoliubov quasiparticles. Because surface acoustic wave frequencies (MHz to GHz) match the tiny gap energies of low-$T_c$ twisted superconductors, SAGE can probe pairing structure where optical probes cannot. Applying the effect to candidate chiral and nematic $d$-wave states, the paper shows that the frequency and temperature dependence of the current, together with its propagation-direction nematicity $\eta$, separates a fully gapped chiral state from a nodal nematic state.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the pseudo-gauge-field injection-current formula, Eq. (6), which writes the SAGE conductivity as a resonant sum over Bogoliubov quasiparticle bands, $\sigma^{\alpha;\beta\gamma}_{\rm inj}=-\frac{e^2\pi}{2\hbar\Gamma}\int\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi)^2}\sum_{a,b}(J^{\alpha}_{aa}-J^{\alpha}_{bb})G^{\beta\gamma}_{ab}F_{ab}(\Omega)$. In the $Q\to 0$ limit the kernel $G^{\beta\gamma}_{ab}$ reduces to the band-resolved quantum metric of Bogoliubov quasiparticles, while the finite SAW momentum transfer $Q$ makes the response nonzero without inversion- or time-reversal-symmetry breaking. The numerical evaluation uses the moiré continuum model of twisted WSe2 with first-order interlayer coupling, constructing $G^{\beta\gamma}_{ab}$ from the pseudo-gauge-field current operator $\hat{V}^{\beta}$ rather than from a derivative of the superconducting order parameter.

What would settle it

A microscopic calculation of SAGE in which the pairing interaction is made strain-dependent would falsify the central identification if the resulting vertex corrections change the conductivity by an order-one factor rather than a small correction. Experimentally, measuring the longitudinal SAGE conductivity in 5.0-degree twisted WSe2 on a non-piezoelectric substrate would settle the prediction: a fully gapped chiral state should show zero response below $\hbar\Omega\simeq 2\Delta_0$ and zero nematicity $\eta$, while a nodal nematic state should show a finite low-frequency tail and $\eta\neq 0$; observing the opposite pattern in either state would refute the proposal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core discovery is that surface acoustic waves act on the superconducting state through a valley-contrasting pseudo-gauge field $\mathbf{A}_s$ that shifts the particle and hole blocks of the Bogoliubov–de Gennes Hamiltonian in the same direction, $\hat{H}_{\rm BdG}(k)\to \hat{H}_{\rm BdG}(k+\frac{e}{\hbar}\mathbf{A}_s)$. Under that coupling, the acoustogalvanic injection conductivity $\sigma^{\alpha;\beta\gamma}_{\rm inj}$ is governed by the kernel $G^{\beta\gamma}_{ab}$, which coincides with the band-resolved quantum metric of Bogoliubov quasiparticles when the momentum dependence of the order parameter is negligible. In 5.0-degree twisted WSe2, the chiral $d+id$ state is fully gapped and gives a SAGE response only above the resonance $\hbar\Omega\simeq 2\Delta_0$, whereas the nematic $d$-wave state retains a finite low-frequency response from nodal quasiparticles and, through its spontaneously broken $C_3$ symmetry, a nonzero nematicity $\eta$ between the propagation directions $\varphi=0$ and $\varphi=2\pi/3$. The combination of the gap-threshold behavior and the vanishing of $\eta$ in symmetric states is proposed as a fingerprint that distinguishes chiral from nematic pairing.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the surface-acoustic-wave strain shifts only the normal-state part of the Hamiltonian, $\hat{H}_{\rm BdG}(k)\to \hat{H}_{\rm BdG}(k+\frac{e}{\hbar}\mathbf{A}_s)$, while the superconducting order parameter $\Delta(k)$ stays insensitive to the strain; if strain also dresses $\Delta(k)$, extra vertex and Higgs-type contributions enter and the clean identification of the signal with Bogoliubov quantum geometry weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SAGE opens a measurement window into superconducting gaps of order $10^1$–$10^2\,\mu$eV, the energy scale of low-$T_c$ van der Waals superconductors that conventional optical probes cannot reach.
  • Because the response relies on a finite SAW momentum $Q$, it does not require inversion- or time-reversal-symmetry breaking, unlike the $\beta\gamma$-symmetric optical injection current.
  • In twisted WSe2, a SAGE response that turns on only above $\hbar\Omega\simeq 2\Delta_0$ with $\eta=0$ indicates a fully gapped chiral state, while a finite low-frequency tail with $\eta\neq 0$ indicates a nodal nematic state.
  • Even a parabolic-band superconductor with a constant order parameter gives $\sigma^{\alpha;\beta\gamma}_{\rm inj}\sim \xi_0^2 Q/\Gamma$, so SAGE is a generic probe rather than one reserved for topological or geometric states.
  • The estimated response, of order $10\,\mu$A/nm for $\Omega/2\pi=25$ GHz and $\lambda_{\rm SAW}\simeq160$ nm, is within the range of existing surface-acoustic-wave technology on non-piezoelectric substrates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the strain also renormalizes the order parameter, a Higgs-mode-type contribution should appear in SAGE near $2\Delta(T)$; fitting the line shape across resonance would test how much of the measured signal is genuinely quantum-geometric.
  • Because the pseudo-gauge field is valley-contrasting, SAGE should be valley-selective: reversing the SAW propagation direction or the stacking chirality should flip the sign of the rectified current, making SAGE a possible valleytronic readout of superconducting order.
  • The low-frequency $1/\Omega$ enhancement tied to band warping implies that even the normal-state acoustogalvanic background can be large; a normal-state subtraction at the same frequency and propagation direction would be a useful experimental control.
  • A microscopic pairing calculation with a strain-dependent interaction would sharpen or challenge the quantum-metric identification, since the present argument assumes $\Delta(k)$ is insensitive to the surface-acoustic-wave strain.
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 proposes the superconducting acoustogalvanic effect (SAGE) as a probe of pairing symmetry in twisted bilayer WSe2. Starting from a moiré continuum Bogoliubov–de Gennes (BdG) model, the authors couple a Rayleigh-type surface acoustic wave through a valley-contrasting pseudo-gauge field A_s and derive an injection-current formula (Eq. (6)) in which the response is governed by a matrix element G_ab^{βγ} that reduces to the band-resolved quantum metric of Bogoliubov quasiparticles in the limit where the order parameter Δ(k) is insensitive to A_s. They compute the joint density of states, the longitudinal conductivity σ_L, and a nematicity η for fully gapped chiral d-wave and nodal nematic d-wave states, and also discuss p-wave states in the Supplemental Material. The central claim is that the frequency, temperature, and propagation-direction dependence of σ_L can distinguish the chiral and nematic states, with an estimated current of order 10 μA/nm under realistic SAW parameters.

Significance. If the central identification of SAGE with Bogoliubov quantum geometry is valid, the proposal is significant: it offers a low-energy (MHz–GHz) mechanical probe that avoids the particle–hole sign cancellation of optical fields and exploits valley-contrasting strain gauge fields in van der Waals superconductors. The paper is technically careful in several respects: the End Matter derivation is explicit and reduces correctly to a single-band estimate σ ~ ξ0^2 Q/Γ; the numerical calculations use experimentally determined moiré parameters and check both d-wave and p-wave channels; and the authors examine both fixed-Q and Q(Ω) kinematics. The main weakness is that the fingerprinting claim is conditional on a strain-blind order parameter, as explicitly acknowledged in the Supplemental Material. Because the proposed experimental signatures are derived exclusively from the injection-current formula, the robustness of those signatures against strain-induced corrections to Δ(k) is the load-bearing issue for the paper's central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplemental Material, Eq. (S.28); main text Eq. (3)] The identification of Eq. (6) with the Bogoliubov quantum metric rests on the assumption that the pseudo-gauge field enters only through the normal-state part, with Δ(k) evaluated at the unshifted momentum. The Supplemental Material explicitly concedes that Δ(k) 'actually can' couple to A_s and classifies the resulting corrections into amplitude (Higgs) and form-factor contributions, but the form-factor contribution is dismissed only by a dimensional comparison of ∂_k Δ with the Fermi velocity. This is not a controlled estimate: near nodes, gap minima, or band crossings the relevant derivative of Δ can be enhanced, and vertex corrections from the pairing interaction are not computed. Since the proposed chiral/nematic discrimination relies on the low-frequency shape of σ_L and on η, an uncomputed strain-induced correction to Δ(k) could mimic or mask the signatures. Please provide a quantitative estimate of this contamination, for example by evaluating the response with Δ(k + e A_s/ℏ) or with a simple microscopic pairing kernel, or state clearly that the proposed fingerprints apply only in the strain-blind limit.
  2. [Applications to tWSe2, Figs. 4 and 5; End Matter Eq. (20)] The scattering rate Γ is introduced as a phenomenological replacement of the adiabaticity parameter and is fixed at Γ = Δ0/10 in the superconducting state, below the normal-state estimate Γ_N ≈ Δ0/2. Because σ_inj and the resonance width scale as 1/Γ, the sharpness of the 2Δ0 peak for the chiral state and the magnitude of η depend on this choice. The manuscript does not show how Figs. 4 and 5 change for Γ in the range from Δ0/2 to Δ0/20, nor does it justify a single scalar Γ in the superconducting state beyond a heuristic argument. A sensitivity analysis, or a microscopic estimate of the quasiparticle lifetime, is needed to support the claim that the frequency and temperature dependence is a robust pairing-symmetry fingerprint.
  3. [Superconducting acoustogalvanic effect, Eq. (6)] The derivation assumes that the injection contribution dominates the total SAGE; the text states that this is 'expected to be dominant in the clean-limit superconductors' but does not compare it with the other second-order contributions that follow from the expansion in End Matter Eq. (11), such as shift-current-like or Fermi-surface–type terms. Since a proposed experiment reads out the total rectified current, a statement of the relative size of the omitted contributions, or a numerical evaluation of at least the most natural competing term, is necessary to justify the exclusive use of σ_inj in Figs. 3–5.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Applications to tWSe2, Fig. 5] The gray 'Others' curve in Fig. 5 is not identified in the caption or in the text; if it represents the normal-state response, this should be stated explicitly.
  2. [Model, Eq. (3)] The notation H_BdG(k + e A_s/ℏ) in Eq. (3) could be misread as a full common shift including the off-diagonal block; the text clarifies the approximation only afterward. Add one sentence noting explicitly that Δ(k) remains at the unshifted momentum in the numerical implementation.
  3. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract and some inline passages contain spacing and typographical errors, for example 'theexperimentalidentificationofexotic...'; these should be corrected in a copyedit pass.
  4. [Superconducting acoustogalvanic effect, Eqs. (4)–(5)] The relation between the susceptibility χ in Eq. (4) and the conductivity σ in Eq. (5) is not defined; state how factors of Ω and the relation E_s = -∂_t A_s are absorbed.
  5. [Supplemental Material, Eq. (S.30)] The notation (1/m)_{αα'_k} is ambiguous; define it explicitly as the inverse mass tensor ∂^2 ϵ_k/(ℏ^2 ∂k_α ∂k_α').
  6. [Applications to tWSe2, Fig. 3] The text refers to JDOS as 'the number of available resonance transitions'; the units in Fig. 3 show that it is a joint density of states per unit area per unit energy, and the definition J_ab(ω;Q) would benefit from stating this explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: SAGE is a forward-model calculation with an openly stated strain-blind-order-parameter approximation.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a forward model, not a circular reduction. Equation (6) for the injection-current contribution to the acoustogalvanic conductivity is obtained by adapting the general nonlinear-optical injection-current formula of Ref. [11] to the case where the perturbation is the SAW pseudo-gauge field rather than the vector potential. The End Matter re-derives the response from the von Neumann equation, so the formula does not reduce to the paper's conclusions. The coupling in Eq. (3), H_BdG(k + (e/hbar)A_s), is a stated modeling assumption; the identification of G_ab^{beta gamma} with the band-resolved quantum metric of Bogoliubov quasiparticles is made under the explicitly stated approximation that the k-dependence of Delta(k) contributes negligibly, and the numerical calculations use the rigorous matrix elements rather than the approximate replacement. This is an approximation, not a circularity. The chiral and nematic fingerprints are computed by inserting externally proposed order parameters from Refs. [4-7] into the model; no parameter is fitted to the SAGE signal and then presented as a prediction. The Supplemental Material's admission that Delta(k) can in principle couple to A_s and that this would introduce vertex corrections or Higgs-type contributions is a stated limitation and a correctness risk, not a reduction of the result to its input. The use of Ref. [11] is a self-citation by two of the authors, but the cited formula is transparently re-derived in the End Matter and is not invoked as an unexamined uniqueness theorem or to forbid alternative explanations. The normal-state and chiral-state nematicity results follow from C3 symmetry and the definition of the nematic order parameter, which is symmetry reasoning rather than circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and the claimed probe logic is standard forward modeling.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation is built on the moire continuum model and on candidate pairing states from previous work; the paper's own contribution is the response formulation and the numerical signatures. The only parameter chosen ad hoc for the magnitude estimate is the scattering rate Gamma = Delta0/10. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Phenomenological scattering rate Gamma in the superconducting state = Gamma = Delta0/10 approximately 6.4 micro-eV for Delta0 approximately 64 micro-eV
    Chosen by hand in the Supplemental Material because the normal-state estimate Gamma_N is deemed too large; the SAGE magnitude scales as 1/Gamma, so this choice controls the predicted 10 micro-A/nm signal. No measurement or derivation fixes it.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Continuum model of Eq. (1) with parameters (theta, psi, w, V, Vz, mu) = (5 degrees, 128 degrees, 18 meV, 9 meV, 43.75 meV, -13 meV) from Refs. [3,39,40] describes the low-energy electronic structure of 5.0 degree twisted WSe2.
    All numerical results depend on this model and parameter set taken from prior experiment and theory; the paper does not validate them independently.
  • domain assumption Superconducting state is described by mean-field BdG with one of the proposed chiral or nematic d-wave (or p-wave) order parameters from Refs. [4-7].
    SAGE signatures are computed for these candidate states; the pairing symmetry is an input, not an output of the calculation.
  • ad hoc to paper Pseudo-gauge field enters the BdG Hamiltonian as a common shift H_BdG(k + e/hbar A_s); Delta(k) does not couple directly to A_s.
    Stated in the Supplemental Material: 'we assume that Delta(k) does not directly couple to A_s for simplicity'. The authors argue the correction is small, but this assumption is what makes the response a probe of the Bogoliubov quantum metric.
  • domain assumption tWSe2 layer perfectly follows the SAW displacement, and only the homostrain pseudo-gauge field is kept; heterostrain, vorticity, scalar potentials, and piezoelectric fields are neglected.
    The paper explicitly assumes complete mechanical coupling and states it leaves other strain effects to future work; if those contributions are comparable, the quantitative predictions change.
  • domain assumption Injection-current contribution (Eq. 6) dominates the SAGE response in the clean limit.
    The authors retain only this contribution, justified by clean-limit superconductors; shift and other contributions are not computed.
  • domain assumption BCS-type gap temperature dependence Delta(T) = Delta0 tanh(1.74 sqrt(Tc/T - 1)) with Delta0 = 1.76 k_B Tc and Tc = 0.426 K holds for tWSe2.
    Used for the temperature dependence of the response; this is a standard BCS interpolation but is not microscopically derived for this material.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Superconducting Acoustogalvanic Effect in Twisted Transition Metal Dichalcogenides." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XIQHENT3

@misc{pith2026250521436,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Superconducting Acoustogalvanic Effect in Twisted Transition Metal Dichalcogenides},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XIQHENT3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21436}
}
abstract

Two-dimensional van der Waals superconductors are attracting much attention owing to their rich phase diagrams including possible unconventional superconductivity. However, they suffer from a lack of reliable methods for identifying their nontrivial pairing symmetries and quantum geometry. In this study, we propose nonlinear responses driven by surface acoustic waves as a novel probe to access exotic Bogoliubov quasiparticles in such superconductors. Our approach is particularly suitable for addressing the superconducting gap structure as the gap energies in these systems typically lie within the frequency range of surface acoustic waves, and thus paves the way toward the experimental identification of exotic superconducting states especially in low-$T_c$ superconductors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21436 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematics of the superconducting acoustogalvanic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schematics of (a) the moiré superlattice and (b) the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Frequency and (b) temperature dependencies of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Surface acoustic wave-driven valley current generation in intervalley coherent states

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    Intervalley coherent order in rhombohedral graphene gives rise to a surface-acoustic-wave-driven valley current dominated at low frequencies by a nonreciprocal pseudo-superfluid density term with Ω⁻² divergence.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E.Kaxiras,andP.Jarillo-Herrero,Unconventionalsuper- conductivity in magic-angle graphene superlattices, Na- ture556, 43 (2018)

    2018

  2. [2]

    Y. Xia, Z. Han, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Superconductivity in twisted bilayer WSe2, Nature637, 833 (2025)

    2025

  3. [3]

    Y. Guo, J. Pack, J. Swann, L. Holtzman, M. Cothrine, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. G. Mandrus, K. Barmak, J. Hone, A. J. Millis, A. Pasupathy, and C. R. Dean, Superconductivity in 5.0°twisted bilayer WSe2, Nature 637, 839 (2025)

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Bélanger, J

    M. Bélanger, J. Fournier, and D. Sénéchal, Superconduc- tivity in the twisted bilayer transition metal dichalco- 6 genide WSe2 : A quantum cluster study, Phys. Rev. B. 106, 235135 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Y.-M.Wu, Z.Wu,andH.Yao,Pair-density-waveandchi- ral superconductivity in twisted bilayer transition metal dichalcogenides, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 126001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Schrade and L

    C. Schrade and L. Fu, Nematic, chiral, and topological superconductivity in twisted transition metal dichalco- genides, Phys. Rev. B.110, 035143 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Guerci, D

    D. Guerci, D. Kaplan, J. Ingham, J. H. Pixley, and A. J. Millis, Topological superconductivity from repulsive interactions in twisted WSe2 (2024), arXiv:2408.16075 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Tokura and N

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

    2018

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Nagaosa and Y

    N. Nagaosa and Y. Yanase, Nonreciprocal transport and optical phenomena in quantum materials, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.15, 63 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Z. Wang, L. Dong, C. Xiao, and Q. Niu, Berry curva- ture effects on quasiparticle dynamics in superconduc- tors, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 187001 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Watanabe, A

    H. Watanabe, A. Daido, and Y. Yanase, Nonrecipro- cal optical response in parity-breaking superconductors, Phys. Rev. B.105, 024308 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Watanabe, A

    H. Watanabe, A. Daido, and Y. Yanase, Nonrecipro- cal meissner response in parity-mixed superconductors, Phys. Rev. B.105, L100504 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Tanaka, H

    H. Tanaka, H. Watanabe, and Y. Yanase, Nonlinear op- tical responses in noncentrosymmetric superconductors, Phys. Rev. B107, 024513 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Tanaka, H

    H. Tanaka, H. Watanabe, and Y. Yanase, Nonlinear opti- cal response in superconductors in magnetic field: Quan- tum geometry and topological superconductivity, Phys. Rev. B.110, 014520 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Tanaka and Y

    H. Tanaka and Y. Yanase, Vertex correction for the linear and nonlinear optical responses in superconduc- tors: Multiband effect and topological superconductivity, Phys. Rev. B.112, 094503 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    Matsyshyn, G

    O. Matsyshyn, G. Vignale, and J. C. W. Song, Supercon- ducting berry curvature dipole (2024), arXiv:2410.21363 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Kaplan, K

    D. Kaplan, K. P. Lucht, P. A. Volkov, and J. H. Pix- ley, Quantum geometric photocurrents of quasiparti- cles in superconductors (2025), arXiv:2502.12265 [cond- mat.supr-con]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    V. I. Fal’ko, VI, S. V. Meshkov, and S. V. Iordanskii, Acoustoelectric drag effect in the two-dimensional elec- tron gas at strong magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B47, 9910 (1993)

    1993

  11. [19]

    Miseikis, J

    V. Miseikis, J. E. Cunningham, K. Saeed, R. O’Rorke, and A. G. Davies, Acoustically induced current flow in graphene, Appl. Phys. Lett.100, 133105 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    Bandhu, L

    L. Bandhu, L. M. Lawton, and G. R. Nash, Macroscopic acoustoelectricchargetransportingraphene,Appl.Phys. Lett.103, 133101 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    Sonowal, A

    K. Sonowal, A. V. Kalameitsev, V. M. Kovalev, and I. G. Savenko, Acoustoelectric effect in two-dimensional dirac materials exposed to rayleigh surface acoustic waves, Phys. Rev. B.102, 235405 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Y. Mou, J. Wang, H. Chen, Y. Xia, H. Li, Q. Yan, X. Jiang, Y. Wu, W. Shi, H. Jiang, X. C. Xie, and C. Zhang, Coherent detection of the oscillating acousto- electric effect in graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 096301 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    von Oppen, F

    F. von Oppen, F. Guinea, and E. Mariani, Synthetic elec- tric fields and phonon damping in carbon nanotubes and graphene, Phys. Rev. B80, 075420 (2009)

    2009

  16. [24]

    Vaezi, N

    A. Vaezi, N. Abedpour, R. Asgari, A. Cortijo, and M. A. H. Vozmediano, Topological electric current from time-dependent elastic deformations in graphene, Phys. Rev. B88, 125406 (2013)

    2013

  17. [25]

    M. A. Cazalilla, H. Ochoa, and F. Guinea, Quantum spin hall effect in two-dimensional crystals of transition-metal dichalcogenides, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 077201 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    A. V. Kalameitsev, V. M. Kovalev, and I. G. Savenko, Valley acoustoelectric effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 256801 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    P. O. Sukhachov and H. Rostami, Acoustogalvanic ef- fect in dirac and weyl semimetals, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 126602 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    E. Sela, Y. Bloch, F. von Oppen, and M. B. Shalom, Quantum hall response to time-dependent strain gradi- ents in graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 026602 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    S.-Y. Li, Y. Su, Y.-N. Ren, and L. He, Valley polarization and inversion in strained graphene via pseudo-landau lev- els, valley splitting of real landau levels, and confined states, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 106802 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    P. Zhao, C. H. Sharma, R. Liang, C. Glasenapp, L. Mourokh, V. M. Kovalev, P. Huber, M. Prada, L. Tie- mann, and R. H. Blick, Acoustically induced giant syn- thetic hall voltages in graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 256601 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Bhalla, G

    P. Bhalla, G. Vignale, and H. Rostami, Pseudogauge field driven acoustoelectric current in two-dimensional hexag- onal dirac materials, Phys. Rev. B.105, 125407 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Uchoa and Y

    B. Uchoa and Y. Barlas, Superconducting states in pseudo-landau-levels of strained graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 046604 (2013)

    2013

  25. [33]

    Massarelli, G

    G. Massarelli, G. Wachtel, J. Y. T. Wei, and A. Paramekanti, Pseudo-landau levels of bogoliubov quasiparticles in strained nodal superconductors, Phys. Rev. B96, 224516 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    E. M. Nica and M. Franz, Landau levels from neutral bogoliubov particles in two-dimensional nodal supercon- ductors under strain and doping gradients, Phys. Rev. B 97, 024520 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    M. M. Nayga, S. Rachel, and M. Vojta, Magnon landau levels and emergent supersymmetry in strained antifer- romagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 207204 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    R. Sano, Y. Ominato, and M. Matsuo, Acoustomagnonic spin hall effect in honeycomb antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 236302 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Yamazaki, T

    Y. Yamazaki, T. Funato, and A. Yamakage, Majorana spin current generation by dynamic strain, Phys. Rev. B.108, L060505 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    F. Wu, T. Lovorn, E. Tutuc, I. Martin, and A. H. MacDonald, Topological insulators in twisted transition metaldichalcogenidehomobilayers,Phys.Rev.Lett.122, 086402 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Devakul, V

    T. Devakul, V. Crépel, Y. Zhang, and L. Fu, Magic in twisted transition metal dichalcogenide bilayers, Nat. Commun.12, 6730 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Zhu, Y.-Z

    J. Zhu, Y.-Z. Chou, M. Xie, and S. Das Sarma, Super- conductivity in twisted transition metal dichalcogenide homobilayers, Phys. Rev. B.111, L060501 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    See Supplemental Material for more details

  34. [42]

    Liu, Surface acoustic wave induced phenomena in two- 7 dimensional materials, Nanoscale Horiz8, 158 (2023)

    X.Nie, X.Wu, Y.Wang, S.Ban, Z.Lei, J.Yi, Y.Liu,and Y. Liu, Surface acoustic wave induced phenomena in two- 7 dimensional materials, Nanoscale Horiz8, 158 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    Hu, C.-P

    J.-X. Hu, C.-P. Zhang, Y.-M. Xie, and K. T. Law, Non- linear hall effects in strained twisted bilayer WSe2, Com- mun. Phys.5, 1 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz, A. M. Kosevich, and L. P. Pitaevskii,Theory of elasticity: volume 7, Course of the- oretical physics (Elsevier Science, Kidlington, England, 1986)

    1986

  37. [45]

    Z. Bi, N. F. Q. Yuan, and L. Fu, Designing flat bands by strain, Phys. Rev. B100, 035448 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    Koshino and T

    M. Koshino and T. Ando, Anomalous orbital magnetism in dirac-electron systems: Role of pseudospin paramag- netism, Phys. Rev. B81, 195431 (2010)

    2010

  39. [47]

    Ominato, D

    Y. Ominato, D. Oue, and M. Matsuo, Valley transport driven by dynamic lattice distortion, Phys. Rev. B.105, 195409 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    Ahn, G.-Y

    J. Ahn, G.-Y. Guo, and N. Nagaosa, Low-frequency di- vergence and quantum geometry of the bulk photovoltaic effectintopologicalsemimetals,Phys.Rev.X.10,041041 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Watanabe and Y

    H. Watanabe and Y. Yanase, Chiral photocurrent in parity-violating magnet and enhanced response in topo- logical antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. X.11, 011001 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    See End Matter for more details

  43. [51]

    S. Fang, S. Carr, M. A. Cazalilla, and E. Kaxiras, Elec- tronicstructuretheoryofstrainedtwo-dimensionalmate- rials with hexagonal symmetry, Phys. Rev. B.98, 075106 (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    Capotondi, G

    A.A.Maznev, R.Mincigrucci, F.Bencivenga, V.Unikan- danunni, F. Capotondi, G. Chen, Z. Ding, R. A. Duncan, L. Foglia, M. G. Izzo, C. Masciovecchio, A. Martinelli, G. Monaco, E. Pedersoli, S. Bonetti, and K. A. Nel- son, Generation and detection of 50 GHz surface acous- tic wave...

    2021

  45. [53]

    Bénédic, M

    F. Bénédic, M. B. Assouar, F. Mohasseb, O. Elmazria, P. Alnot, and A. Gicquel, Surface acoustic wave devices based on nanocrystalline diamond and aluminium ni- tride, Diam. Relat. Mater.13, 347 (2004)

    2004

  46. [54]

    J. G. Rodriguez-Madrid, G. F. Iriarte, J. Pedros, O. A. Williams, D. Brink, and F. Calle, Super-high-frequency SAW resonators on AlN/diamond, IEEE Electron Device Lett.33, 495 (2012). End Matter Formulation of SAGE.— Here, we discuss the deriva- tion of the formulas of acousto...

    2012

  47. [55]

    F. Wu, T. Lovorn, E. Tutuc, I. Martin, and A. H. MacDonald, Topological insulators in twisted transition metal dichalco- genide homobilayers, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 086402 (2019)

    2019

  48. [56]

    Y. Guo, J. Pack, J. Swann, L. Holtzman, M. Cothrine, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. G. Mandrus, K. Barmak, J. Hone, A. J. Millis, A. Pasupathy, and C. R. Dean, Superconductivity in 5.0° twisted bilayer WSe2, Nature 637, 839 (2025)

    2025

  49. [57]

    Schrade and L

    C. Schrade and L. Fu, Nematic, chiral, and topological superconductivity in twisted transition metal dichalcogenides, Phys. Rev. B. 110, 035143 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    Bélanger, J

    M. Bélanger, J. Fournier, and D. Sénéchal, Superconductivity in the twisted bilayer transition metal dichalcogenide WSe2 : A quantum cluster study, Phys. Rev. B.106, 235135 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.