Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The Higgs-Amplitude mode in the optical conductivity in the presence of a supercurrent: Gauge-invariant formulation with disorder

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Gauge invariance forces a superconductor's amplitude (Higgs) mode to act as a negative superfluid weight, appearing as a $-1/\omega$ downturn in the anisotropic THz conductivity of a supercurrent-carrying sample.

desk verdict A genuinely interesting two-sum-rule claim about a THz Higgs signature, but the disordered Ward-Takahashi identity it leans on is asserted, not proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18781 v2 pith:XPW644J3 submitted 2024-11-27 cond-mat.supr-con

Ke Wang , Rufus Boyack , K. Levin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con PACS 74.25.Gz74.25.Nf74.40.Kb
keywords Higgsamplitudemodegaugeinvarianceopticalconductivitysupercurrentdisorderf-sumrulessuperfluiddensityTHzspectroscopy
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 develops a fully gauge-invariant linear-response theory for the optical conductivity of a disordered superconductor carrying a uniform supercurrent, and uses it to show how the Higgs (amplitude) mode enters the data. The central claim is that gauge invariance does not certify the theory with a single Ward identity: the amplitude mode is itself a separately conserved, neutral channel, so the response splits into a charge channel and a Higgs channel, each with its own f-sum rule. The Higgs channel carries a negative superfluid-density weight, which appears as a negative $1/\omega$ downturn in the imaginary part of the anisotropic conductivity in the THz regime. The paper further shows that disorder strength controls the relative weight of the two channels, with the Higgs becoming dominant only in very dirty superconductors. A sympathetic reader would care because the result makes a concrete, checkable prediction for experiments and because it corrects the earlier picture in which only the Higgs, and not the charge channel, produced the supercurrent-induced anisotropy.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the matrix linear-response formalism of Ref. 28, in which the condensate fluctuations $\Delta_1$ and $\Delta_2$ are treated as additional perturbing fields alongside the electromagnetic potential and then eliminated, so the collective-mode contribution to the kernel is written as $K_1 = -R(S+2/g)^{-1}R_t$. The argument is carried by the Nambu-space Ward-Takahashi identity (Eq. 7) and the two identities (Eqs. 8-9) it implies, which, with particle-hole symmetry around the Fermi surface ($S_{12}=0$), let the response be split into $K_{\rm charge}$ and $K_{\rm Higgs}$, each obeying $q_\mu K^{\mu\nu}=0$. In the disordered case the same Ward identity is re-established with impurity-renormalized vertices (Eq. 19), so the two-channel structure and the two f-sum rules survive arbitrary non-magnetic disorder. The physical output is the Higgs channel's negative superfluid weight at $\omega=0$ and the resulting $1/\omega$ tail in the imaginary part of the anisotropic conductivity.

What would settle it

Measure the imaginary part of the anisotropic THz conductivity, the difference between the components parallel and perpendicular to the supercurrent, in a disordered supercurrent-carrying film down to frequencies well below $2\Delta$: the Higgs sum rule requires a negative $1/\omega$ downturn that deepens with disorder, and its absence would refute the two-channel structure. A complementary calculation is to evaluate $S_{12}$ in a strongly interacting or particle-hole-asymmetric model; if it is not small, the separate gauge invariance of the Higgs tensor fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a superconductor carrying a uniform supercurrent supports two separately conserved electromagnetic response channels, not one. When the order parameter's phase and amplitude fluctuations are both included, gauge invariance, enforced through the Nambu-space Ward-Takahashi identity (Eq. 7) and its disorder-renormalized version (Eq. 19), requires each channel, the charge channel (quasiparticles plus phase fluctuations) and the neutral Higgs channel, to satisfy its own gauge condition $q_\mu K^{\mu\nu}=0$. Each channel therefore has its own f-sum rule. The Higgs sum rule is the paper's distinctive result: it forces a negative delta-function superfluid weight at $\omega=0$, meaning the presence of the Higgs depresses the superfluid density, and this shows up at finite frequency as a negative $1/\omega$ contribution to the imaginary part of the anisotropic conductivity in the THz regime. The paper further shows that the anisotropic charge component is sizeable and can dominate in cleaner samples, that disorder strength governs the relative weight of the two channels, and that only in the very dirty limit does the Higgs dominate the anisotropy.

Load-bearing premise

The two-channel decomposition assumes particle-hole symmetry around the Fermi surface, so that the phase-amplitude mixing function $S_{12}$ vanishes and the phase and Higgs sectors become separately conserved; if $S_{12}$ is non-negligible, the two gauge-invariant tensors and their two f-sum rules do not exist.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any theory of the Higgs mode in the linear response must satisfy two Ward identities, one for the charge channel and one for the Higgs channel; checking only one can miss or misattribute the amplitude mode.
  • The imaginary part of the anisotropic conductivity acquires a negative $1/\omega$ tail in the THz regime, a direct, in-principle-observable consequence of the Higgs-related sum rule.
  • The anisotropic response cannot be treated as a clean Higgs-only signal: the charge channel carries its own supercurrent-induced anisotropy, which can dominate in cleaner samples, with the Higgs taking over only as disorder becomes strong.
  • The Higgs peak is shifted from $2\Delta$ by the excitation gap $\Delta_{\rm ex}$, which is distinct from the order parameter, so fitting the peak to $2\Delta$ alone is not reliable.
  • Stronger disorder suppresses the background charge channel while sharpening the Higgs feature, so very dirty superconductors are the most favorable setting for observing the amplitude mode.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same negative superfluid weight that produces the $1/\omega$ downturn should also appear in low-frequency superfluid-response probes such as kinetic inductance or phase-sensitive measurements, giving a non-optical route to test the two-sum-rule structure.
  • A practical consistency check for any diagrammatic or numerical code computing $\sigma(\omega)$ in a supercurrent state is to verify both Ward identities separately; by this paper's logic, a code that passes only one is missing the Higgs sector.
  • The $S_{12}=0$ assumption marks a testable boundary: in strongly interacting or strongly particle-hole-asymmetric superconductors the amplitude and phase channels would entangle, so the clean negative-$1/\omega$ signature should weaken or shift.
  • Because the charge-channel anisotropy is comparable to the Higgs contribution in moderately clean samples, some of the broad or asymmetric features seen near $2\Delta$ in THz experiments may belong to the charge channel, a distinction experiments could probe by tuning disorder.
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 develops a gauge-invariant linear-response theory for the optical conductivity of a disordered s-wave superconductor carrying a uniform supercurrent. The central claim is that gauge invariance requires two separately conserved response tensors—a charge channel (fermions plus phase fluctuations) and a Higgs (amplitude) channel—giving two distinct f-sum rules. The Higgs channel contributes a negative superfluid weight, leading to an anisotropic -1/omega contribution to Im sigma in the THz regime. The authors support this with analytical vertex-renormalization results and numerical conductivity plots for clean and dirty limits, and they compare the predicted downturn with experimental indications.

Significance. If established, the two-sum-rule structure is a useful organizing principle for collective-mode response in superconductors with a supercurrent. The paper makes a falsifiable prediction—the negative anisotropic 1/omega tail with a sign fixed by gauge invariance rather than by fitting—and it addresses a genuine gap: most prior treatments of the Higgs mode in nonlinear response do not simultaneously maintain gauge invariance and arbitrary disorder. The disorder vertex renormalization in the supplement is a substantial technical apparatus. However, the central technical assertion on which the disordered version rests, Eq. (19), is currently not proven in the manuscript, so the full significance cannot be assessed until that gap is closed.

major comments (2)
  1. [Effects of non-magnetic disorder, Eq. (19)] Eq. (19) is the load-bearing statement of the paper's disordered formulation: it is the identity used to convert Eqs. (8)-(10) into two separate conservation laws and hence two f-sum rules. The main text only says "It can be shown" and directs the reader to the supplementary material. Sections S1-S3 of the supplement renormalize the pairing and current vertices but never prove that the renormalized vertices satisfy tau3 G^{-1}(p_+) - G^{-1}(p_-) tau3 = q_mu Gamma^{J,mu} - 2i Gamma_2 Delta. This is not a formal detail: disorder and the supercurrent momentum Q enter both the self-energy and the vertices, and if additional terms (e.g., involving Q^2 or the disorder self-energy) appear, Eqs. (8)-(9) and the clean separation into charge and Higgs channels fail. The authors should provide a direct derivation of Eq. (19) in the main text or supplement, or cite a source where it is proven for the renormalized vertices.
  2. [Gauge-invariant linear response, after Eq. (4)] The separation of K_1 into K_phase and K_Higgs and the subsequent two-tensor conservation law Eq. (10) require S12 = 0. The paper justifies this by "particle-hole symmetry around the Fermi surface" but gives no quantitative estimate of the error incurred when S12 is nonzero, nor a definition of "strongly interacting" in this context. Since the same assumption is carried into the disordered calculation underlying Eq. (19) and the two f-sum rules, the authors should either prove S12 is negligible to the order of the calculation (e.g., as a function of Delta/E_F and disorder) or show that a nonzero S12 does not invalidate the stated f-sum rules.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (3)] The symbol G is used both for the fermion propagator and for the diagonal tensor G^{mu nu}; using a distinct symbol such as D^{mu nu} would remove ambiguity.
  2. [Supplement S3] The supplement refers to "Eq. 21 of the main text" when defining M and E33, but the main text contains no Eq. (21); this cross-reference should be corrected.
  3. [Experimental support] Ref. 26 is a private communication; since the paper later cites Ref. 8 for evidence of the downturn, it would be clearer to present the published evidence in place of (or alongside) the private communication.
  4. [Two f-sum rules, Eq. (14)] The sign convention for n_aniso in Eqs. (13)-(15) is stated in words but not defined algebraically; a short definition of how n_aniso enters the tensor decomposition would make the negative-weight argument easier to follow.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the two-tensor decomposition and negative superfluid weight are derived from gauge invariance, not assumed.

full rationale

The central claim—two separately gauge-invariant response tensors, K_charge and K_Higgs, with two f-sum rules—is obtained by applying a Ward-Takahashi identity to the linear-response kernel and then using the explicit forms of K_charge and K_Higgs (Eqs. 5–6, 8–10). The conservation laws q_mu K_charge^{mu nu}=0 and q_mu K_Higgs^{mu nu}=0 are consequences of Eq. (7) in the clean case and Eq. (19) in the disordered case, not restatements of the definitions. The negative superfluid weight and the associated −1/omega contribution are read off from the computed Re sigma_Higgs and checked against the Higgs f-sum rule in Fig. S1; no parameter is fitted to the predicted feature. Self-citations (Refs. 10, 36, 40) provide background or standard identities and are not the source of the two-sum-rule result. One load-bearing statement, Eq. (19), is introduced as "It can be shown that Eq. (7) generalizes to:" and no full derivation appears in the main text or supplemental material; this is a genuine completeness/correctness gap, but it is not circularity, because Eq. (19) is an independent symmetry identity rather than the target conclusion. Similarly, the S12 = 0 assumption is an explicit approximation, not a hidden restatement of the result. Overall the derivation is self-contained modulo that unproven lemma, so the circularity score is low.

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

Central claim rests on the S12=0 particle-hole symmetry and the disorder-renormalized WTI (Eq. 19). Physical parameters (τ, Q, ∆/E_F) are inputs, not fitted outputs. No ad hoc entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Impurity scattering rate τ = Not fitted; plots use ∆τ = 2, 0.2, 0.02
    Disorder strength is a physical input but the paper scans discrete values to illustrate clean and dirty limits; no experimental fitting is reported.
  • Supercurrent momentum Q = k_F Q/m = ∆/2 in figure panels
    The magnitude of the supercurrent is chosen for illustrations; the theory treats it as a tunable external parameter.
  • Band filling ratio ∆/E_F = ∆/E_F = 0.2 in Fig. S1
    Used to plot the Higgs-only conductivity; a hand-picked value within the weak-coupling regime.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Particle-hole symmetry around the Fermi surface implies S12 = 0, decoupling phase and amplitude fluctuations.
    Invoked before Eq. (5)/(6) to justify separate K_phase and K_Higgs. This separation is the basis for the two-sum-rule claim.
  • domain assumption The superconductor is described by a BCS mean-field Hamiltonian with s-wave pairing and parabolic dispersion, H(p) = p·Q + ξ(p)τz + ∆τx.
    Eq. (16) defines the model; all results are for this Hamiltonian and do not generalize obviously to arbitrary band structures or pairing symmetries.
  • domain assumption Impurities are non-magnetic, contact (delta-function) scatterers treated in the Born approximation.
    The self-energy and Bethe-Salpeter equation (Eq. 17) assume weak point-like disorder; the WTI in Eq. (19) is proven in this model.
  • domain assumption Coulomb fluctuations are neglected because the focus is on frequencies comparable to the gap ∆.
    Footnote 34: the formalism neglects long-range Coulomb effects, limiting the theory to the gap-scale THz response.
  • standard math Standard many-body techniques: Matsubara summation, contour integration, analytical continuation.
    Used throughout to evaluate correlation functions and the Higgs propagator in the supplementary material.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Higgs-Amplitude mode in the optical conductivity in the presence of a supercurrent: Gauge-invariant formulation with disorder." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XPW644J3

@misc{pith2026241118781,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Higgs-Amplitude mode in the optical conductivity in the presence of a supercurrent: Gauge-invariant formulation with disorder},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XPW644J3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18781}
}
abstract

Observing the ``Higgs" or amplitude mode in superconductors has been a central challenge in condensed matter physics. Moreover, arriving at a theoretical understanding of this mode and how it is accessible in, say, conductivity experiments presents an additional challenge as here one needs to satisfy gauge invariance in the presence of disorder. In this paper, we characterize the Higgs contribution within a fully gauge-invariant treatment of the linear optical conductivity, $\sigma(\omega)$, for a disordered superconductor carrying a uniform supercurrent. As a consequence of gauge invariance, there are two distinct charge conservation laws underlying the linear electromagnetic response with two associated sets of $f$-sum rules. An interesting finding from the Higgs-related sum rule is that the imaginary part of $\sigma(\omega)$ yields an anisotropic, \textit{negative} $1/\omega$ contribution in the THz regime. This is relevant to device applications and appears to be consistent with recent experiments. The work presented here emphasizes how difficult it is to disentangle the neutral amplitude mode contributions from those of the charged quasi-particles and we demonstrate why this is the case.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18781 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Two contributions to the conductivity when a supercurrent is present. Charge channel on the left: The dashed arrows represent the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Plot of the decomposition of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online). The effects of increasing disorder. Plots [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. Higgs-mode-induced instability and kinetic inductance in strongly dc-biased dirty-limit superconductors

    cond-mat.supr-con 2025-02 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    In strongly dc-biased dirty-limit superconductors, the Higgs mode creates a frequency window in which the uniform superflow is unstable, and can boost kinetic inductance by nearly two orders of magnitude.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    author author P. W. \ Higgs ,\ @noop journal journal Physical review letters \ volume 13 ,\ pages 508 ( year 1964 ) NoStop

    work page 1964

  2. [2]

    author author G. S. \ Guralnik , author C. R. \ Hagen , \ and\ author T. W. \ Kibble ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 13 ,\ pages 585 ( year 1964 ) NoStop

    work page 1964

  3. [3]

    Englert \ and\ author R

    author author F. Englert \ and\ author R. Brout ,\ @noop journal journal Physical review letters \ volume 13 ,\ pages 321 ( year 1964 ) NoStop

    work page 1964

  4. [4]

    author author G. S. \ Guralnik , author C. R. \ Hagen , \ and\ author T. W. B. \ Kibble ,\ @noop title Broken symmetries and Goldstone theorems ,\ Advances in Particle Physics, Vol. II, eds. R. L. Cool and R. E. Marshak\ ( publisher Wiley, New York ,\ year 1968 )\ p.\ pages 567–708 NoStop

    work page 1968

  5. [5]

    @noop journal The Higgs mode and the amplitude mode are identical only in a charged theory \ NoStop

    work page

  6. [6]

    Volovik \ and\ author M

    journal author author G. Volovik \ and\ author M. Zubkov ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Low Temperature Physics \ volume 175 ,\ pages 486 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Pekker \ and\ author C

    author author D. Pekker \ and\ author C. Varma ,\ @noop journal journal Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. \ volume 6 ,\ pages 269 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Nakamura , author Y

    author author S. Nakamura , author Y. Iida , author Y. Murotani , author R. Matsunaga , author H. Terai , \ and\ author R. Shimano ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.257001 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 122 ,\ pages 257001 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.257001

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Littlewood \ and\ author C

    author author P. Littlewood \ and\ author C. Varma ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 26 ,\ pages 4883 ( year 1982 ) NoStop

    1982

  2. [10]

    Browne \ and\ author K

    author author D. Browne \ and\ author K. Levin ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 28 ,\ pages 4029 ( year 1983 ) NoStop

    1983

  3. [11]

    Moor , author A

    author author A. Moor , author A. F. \ Volkov , \ and\ author K. B. \ Efetov ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.047001 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 118 ,\ pages 047001 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    Cea , author C

    author author T. Cea , author C. Castellani , \ and\ author L. Benfatto ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 93 ,\ pages 180507 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016

  5. [13]

    Seibold , author M

    author author G. Seibold , author M. Udina , author C. Castellani , \ and\ author L. Benfatto ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 103 ,\ pages 014512 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021

  6. [14]

    Silaev ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 99 ,\ pages 224511 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    author author M. Silaev ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 99 ,\ pages 224511 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019

  7. [15]

    Tsuji \ and\ author Y

    author author N. Tsuji \ and\ author Y. Nomura ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Research \ volume 2 ,\ pages 043029 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  8. [16]

    Murotani \ and\ author R

    author author Y. Murotani \ and\ author R. Shimano ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 99 ,\ pages 224510 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019

  9. [17]

    Kubo ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Applied \ volume 22 ,\ pages 044042 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    author author T. Kubo ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Applied \ volume 22 ,\ pages 044042 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  10. [18]

    Kita ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 64 ,\ pages 054503 ( year 2001 ) NoStop

    author author T. Kita ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 64 ,\ pages 054503 ( year 2001 ) NoStop

    2001

  11. [19]

    Gorini , author P

    author author C. Gorini , author P. Schwab , author R. Raimondi , \ and\ author A. L. \ Shelankov ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B Condensed Matter and Materials Physics \ volume 82 ,\ pages 195316 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010

  12. [20]

    Yang \ and\ author M

    author author F. Yang \ and\ author M. Wu ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 106 ,\ pages 144509 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022

  13. [21]

    Yang \ and\ author M

    author author F. Yang \ and\ author M. Wu ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 100 ,\ pages 104513 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019

  14. [22]

    Puviani , author L

    author author M. Puviani , author L. Schwarz , author X.-X. \ Zhang , author S. Kaiser , \ and\ author D. Manske ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.101.220507 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 101 ,\ pages 220507 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    Dai \ and\ author P

    author author Z. Dai \ and\ author P. A. \ Lee ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 95 ,\ pages 014506 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017

  16. [24]

    Papaj \ and\ author J

    author author M. Papaj \ and\ author J. E. \ Moore ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.106.L220504 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 106 ,\ pages L220504 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    author author P. J. D. \ Crowley \ and\ author L. Fu ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.106.214526 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 106 ,\ pages 214526 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    @noop journal Private Communication with Ryo Shimano \ NoStop

  19. [27]

    Zmuidzinas ,\ https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-020911-125022 journal journal Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics \ volume 3 ,\ pages 169 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    journal author author J. Zmuidzinas ,\ https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-020911-125022 journal journal Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics \ volume 3 ,\ pages 169 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012 doi

  20. [28]

    author author I. O. \ Kulik , author O. Entin-Wohlman , \ and\ author R. Orbach ,\ 10.1007/BF00115617 journal journal Journal of Low Temperature Physics \ volume 43 ,\ pages 591 ( year 1981 ) NoStop

    1981 doi

  21. [29]

    Maki ,\ 10.1143/PTP.29.10 journal journal Progress of Theoretical Physics \ volume 29 ,\ pages 10 ( year 1963 a ) NoStop

    author author K. Maki ,\ 10.1143/PTP.29.10 journal journal Progress of Theoretical Physics \ volume 29 ,\ pages 10 ( year 1963 a ) NoStop

    1963 doi

  22. [30]

    Maki ,\ 10.1143/PTP.29.333 journal journal Progress of Theoretical Physics \ volume 29 ,\ pages 333 ( year 1963 b ) NoStop

    author author K. Maki ,\ 10.1143/PTP.29.333 journal journal Progress of Theoretical Physics \ volume 29 ,\ pages 333 ( year 1963 b ) NoStop

    1963 doi

  23. [31]

    author author P. A. \ Nosov , author E. S. \ Andriyakhina , \ and\ author I. S. \ Burmistrov ,\ https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.11647 title Spatially-resolved dynamics of the amplitude schmid-higgs mode in disordered superconductors , \ ( year 2024 ),\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.116...

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Zha , author K

    author author Y. Zha , author K. Levin , \ and\ author D. Z. \ Liu ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.51.6602 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 51 ,\ pages 6602 ( year 1995 ) NoStop

    1995 doi

  25. [33]

    Boyack \ and\ author P

    author author R. Boyack \ and\ author P. L. e. S. \ Lopes ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.101.094509 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 101 ,\ pages 094509 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    Since we are mainly concerned with frequency comparable to , we focus on order-parameter fluctuations

    note The formalism can be easily generalized to include Coulomb fluctuations. Since we are mainly concerned with frequency comparable to , we focus on order-parameter fluctuations. Stop

  27. [35]

    Guo , author C.-C

    author author H. Guo , author C.-C. \ Chien , \ and\ author Y. He ,\ 10.1007/s10909-012-0853-7 journal journal Journal of Low Temperature Physics \ volume 172 ,\ pages 5 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    Boyack , author B

    author author R. Boyack , author B. M. \ Anderson , author C.-T. \ Wu , \ and\ author K. Levin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.94.094508 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 94 ,\ pages 094508 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    Watanabe \ and\ author H

    author author S. Watanabe \ and\ author H. Watanabe ,\ https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.18679 title A gauge-invariant formulation of optical responses in superconductors , \ ( year 2024 ),\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.18679 arXiv:2410.18679 NoStop

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    author author D. C. \ Mattis \ and\ author J. Bardeen ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review \ volume 111 ,\ pages 412 ( year 1958 ) NoStop

    1958

  31. [39]

    @noop journal See supplementary materials \ NoStop

  32. [40]

    Boyack , author C.-T

    journal author author R. Boyack , author C.-T. \ Wu , author B. M. \ Anderson , \ and\ author K. Levin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.95.214501 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 95 ,\ pages 214501 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    author author P. W. \ Anderson ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids \ volume 11 ,\ pages 26 ( year 1959 ) NoStop

    1959

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.