Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 59 references

Normal state quantum geometry, non-locality and superconductivity

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Band quantum geometry is the position-fluctuation covariance of the Bloch state, the paper argues, and that non-locality simultaneously enables geometric supercurrents and screens pairing through an emergent Darwin term.

desk verdict The paper's central identity is wrong—the QGT is not the position variance of an extended Bloch state—and the Darwin-term screening built on it is unsupported, though the superfluid-weight interpretation is a nice heuristic. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16239 v2 pith:JUJ67AB3 submitted 2025-04-22 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hall

Florian Simon This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mes-hall
keywords quantumgeometrymetricBerrycurvaturesuperfluidweightflat-bandsuperconductivityDarwintermBlochfermionnon-locality
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

Bloch electrons in a periodic potential are not point particles: the paper argues that the quantum geometry of their band is literally the position-fluctuation covariance of the Bloch state, so the quantum metric measures how non-local the Bloch fermion is and the Berry curvature sets a minimal non-locality. Using that picture, the paper explains the two known contributions to the superfluid weight: the conventional part comes from center-of-mass motion of the Bloch fermions, while the geometric part comes from their zero-point motion, which is why flat bands can still carry supercurrent. It then derives an emergent Darwin term from the same non-locality, showing that the normal-state quantum metric screens the pairing potential in superconductors and renormalizes the BCS coupling constant, with the effect maximal when the non-locality length matches the interparticle separation. The result is a unified, ambivalent role for normal-state quantum geometry in superconductivity: it enables an extra supercurrent but weakens the pairing interaction that produces superconductivity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the covariance identity Eq. (7): the quantum geometric tensor (the complex tensor whose real part is the quantum metric and whose imaginary part is the Berry curvature) is written as the covariance of the displacement generators $\hat R_\mu = \hat r_\mu$ in the Bloch state $|\psi_n(k)\rangle$. The derivation routes band theory through multiparameter quantum estimation theory, viewing the Bloch Hamiltonian $H(k)=e^{-ik\cdot\hat r}He^{ik\cdot\hat r}$ as a unitary parametrization of the physical Hamiltonian, and the appendix shows the generator reduces to the bare position operator $\hat r_\mu$. That identity converts the metric into a position variance and the Berry curvature into a position-operator commutator; it is the mechanism that lets the paper attribute geometric supercurrents to zero-point motion and generate the Darwin term from a second-order expansion of a potential in position fluctuations.

What would settle it

Evaluate the right-hand side of Eq. (10) for a free-electron band, where the lattice potential is zero and the Bloch state is a plane wave: the position variance is infinite while the standard quantum metric is zero. If that evaluation is accepted, the covariance identity cannot hold as stated without a regularization that the paper does not specify, and the central equivalence would be falsified in that limit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is the identity $Q^n_{\mu\nu} = \mathrm{Cov}_{|\psi_n(k)\rangle}(\hat R_\mu,\hat R_\nu)$ with $\hat R_\mu = \hat r_\mu$, so the quantum geometric tensor -- whose real part is the quantum metric and whose imaginary part is the Berry curvature -- is exactly the covariance matrix of the position operator in the Bloch state. The diagonal quantum metric is therefore the position variance of a Bloch fermion, Eq. (10), and the Berry curvature is the commutator $i\langle \psi_n(k)|[\hat r_\mu,\hat r_\nu]|\psi_n(k)\rangle$; quantum geometry becomes a momentum-resolved quantifier of how non-local the normal-state quasiparticle is. The paper uses that non-locality to reinterpret the geometric superfluid weight as a zero-point-motion supercurrent that survives in flat bands, and to derive an emergent Darwin term $\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu\partial_\nu V(r)$ in the effective one- and two-body Hamiltonians. In the Cooper problem, the quantum metric screens the pairing potential, replacing the BCS coupling constant $\lambda=\rho(\epsilon_F)V$ by $\lambda_{\rm eff}=\rho(\epsilon_F)V_{\rm eff}$ and weakening superconductivity; for two-dimensional massive Dirac fermions the suppression is maximal when $\lambda_c k_F=\sqrt{2}$ and saturates at $V_{\rm eff}=(7/8)V$ at high doping.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a Bloch state can serve as a fixed probe state in the estimation-theory mapping, with the bare position operator as the generator, so that the quantum metric equals the position variance of that state; for an extended plane-wave-like Bloch state the variance is infinite while the metric vanishes, so the equality needs that premise to hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In a flat band the conventional superfluid weight vanishes because center-of-mass velocity is zero, but the geometric superfluid weight survives because it is carried by zero-point motion of the Bloch fermions; the geometric supercurrent is a normal-state property inherited by the superconductor.
  • The normal-state quantum metric renormalizes pairing: the averaged effective interaction becomes $\langle V^{\rm eff}_{kk'}\rangle = [1 - g^{\mu\nu}(k)(k_\mu k_\nu + \langle k'_\mu k'_\nu\rangle)] V$, so the effective BCS coupling $\lambda_{\rm eff} = \rho(\epsilon_F) V_{\rm eff}$ is smaller than the bare coupling.
  • Because the screening depends on Fermi momentum through $\lambda_c k_F$, doping a superconductor should change the critical temperature, gap, and Cooper-pair binding energy in a way conventional BCS does not predict, offering a direct experimental test.
  • Berry curvature protects a minimal amount of zero-point motion, which yields the geometric bound $D_{\rm geom,\mu\mu}+D_{\rm geom,\nu\nu} \ge \sum_k (2\Delta^2/E_n)|B^n_{\mu\nu}|$; for a flat Chern band this reduces to $D_{\rm geom} \ge 4\pi \Delta^2 |C_n|/E_n$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If Eq. (10) is taken literally, the quantum metric is a single-particle observable: momentum-resolved measurements of position fluctuations of a Bloch wave packet in an ultracold-atom or photonic simulator could map the metric directly, a route the paper does not discuss.
  • The same two-body Darwin-term machinery applies to any translation-invariant interaction potential, not just a pairing potential, so correlated phases such as charge-density waves should feel an analogous metric-driven weakening wherever the normal-state quasiparticles carry quantum geometry.
  • Extending the Cooper calculation to $d$- or $p$-wave pairing would require keeping the Laplacian of the pairing potential rather than a delta function; the paper's formalism then suggests the Darwin screening could change the relative stability of pairing channels, which is testable in lattice models.
  • Applying the covariance argument to Bogoliubov quasiparticles rather than Bloch fermions would generate geometry-dependent renormalizations inside the superconducting phase itself; that is an open extension of the paper's normal-state picture.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper claims a direct momentum-resolved identity between the quantum geometric tensor (QGT) of a Bloch band and the covariance matrix of the position operator evaluated in the Bloch state (Eq. (7)), and uses this identity to reinterpret the conventional and geometric contributions to the superfluid weight as center-of-mass and zero-point motions. It then derives an emergent Darwin term in one- and two-body problems, leading to an effective pairing potential that is screened by the normal-state quantum metric, with a concrete prediction for two-dimensional massive Dirac fermions.

Significance. If the central identity were correct, the paper would provide an attractive conceptual unification: quantum geometry as position fluctuation of Bloch fermions, with a falsifiable prediction that the quantum metric screens s-wave pairing. The paper is clearly written, and the superfluid-weight bounds in Section II are correctly rederived from standard QGT positivity. The Dirac-fermion calculations in Appendices B and D are explicit. However, the central identity is incorrect, and the screening prediction is derived from it, so the main new quantitative claim is unsupported.

major comments (2)
  1. [Table I and Section I.B] The estimation-theory correspondence is internally inconsistent. In Eq. (3), the QFIM is computed for a fixed probe state |ψ_0⟩ and a unitary U(θ) acting on it, so |ψ_0⟩ is independent of θ. In Table I, the probe state is set to the Bloch state |ψ_n(k)⟩, which itself depends on the estimated parameter k. The generator formula for the QFIM therefore does not apply with this identification. The correct application would require a fixed reference state, but the unitary U(k)=e^{-ik·r} does not generate the Bloch-state family from a k-independent state. This is not a presentation issue; it is the reason the false Eq. (A3) is used to drop the ∂_μ|ψ_n⟩ term.
  2. [Section II] The interpretation of the geometric superfluid weight as zero-point motion of Bloch fermions is presented as a consequence of Eq. (7). Because Eq. (7) is incorrect, this interpretation is not supported by the paper's derivation. The rederivation of the geometric and topological bounds (Eqs. (14)-(16)) does not require the covariance identity and is consistent with known results, but the stated physical picture for the geometric supercurrent is not established.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (22)] The paper acknowledges a factor-of-two discrepancy with the Foldy-Wouthuysen result and attributes it to the phenomenological derivation; this is acceptable, but it should be stated more clearly that the factor is not fixed within the paper's framework.
  2. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'explicit its form' should read 'exhibit its form' or 'make its form explicit'.
  3. [Eq. (39)] The replacement of the BCS coupling constant by λ_eff = ρ(ϵ_F)V_eff assumes that V_eff is momentum-independent; in the Dirac-fermion example V_eff depends on k_F, so the self-consistency equation should in principle be solved with a momentum-dependent kernel. This is a secondary point given the more serious issues above.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper’s derivations are self-contained; the central scientific risk is the validity of Eq. (7), which is a correctness issue, not a circularity issue.

full rationale

The paper does not fit parameters to data, and no prediction is a renamed fit. The relation Q_n_{\mu\nu} = Cov_{|\psi_n\rangle}(\hat r_\mu,\hat r_\nu) is derived within the manuscript (Section I.B and Appendix A) from the estimation-theory generator formula; it is not a definition assumed from prior work, nor is it imported from a self-citation. The self-citations to Ref. [16] (same author) are used as background and as a methodological starting point for the Cooper problem, but the present derivation does not rely on Ref. [16] for its central claims; the Cooper-problem treatment is standard and is also drawn from Tinkham. The emergent Darwin term in Section III is obtained by a Taylor expansion of the potential in the position fluctuation, with the second-order coefficient identified as the quantum metric through Eq. (7); this is a logical consequence of the paper’s own preceding derivation, not an assumption of the conclusion. The superfluid-weight bounds are consistency checks that reproduce known inequalities. The main weakness is mathematical: Eq. (7) may fail for extended Bloch states because the probe state in the estimation-theory analogy depends on the parameter being estimated, and the position covariance of an extended Bloch state need not equal the gauge-invariant quantum metric. This is a correctness risk, which the manuscript itself partially acknowledges through the phenomenological caveat attached to the Darwin term, but it is not a circularity in the derivation chain.

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

The paper introduces no fitted parameters or new entities. Its central axiom is the QGT-covariance identity, which is assumed rather than rigorously established. The Taylor-expansion of the potential and the symmetric cancellation of odd pairing terms are further domain assumptions.

assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The quantum geometric tensor equals the covariance of the full position operator in the Bloch state (Q_n = Cov_{|ψ_n>}(r,r)).
    Section I.B, Eqs. (7)-(10). This is the load-bearing identity; it fails for a single parabolic band where the metric vanishes but position variance does not.
  • domain assumption The generator formula of quantum estimation theory applies with the k-dependent Bloch state as a fixed probe state.
    Table I and Appendix A. The probe state |ψ_n(k)> changes with the parameter k, so the standard fixed-probe generator derivation is not applicable.
  • domain assumption The external potential is twice continuously differentiable and the second-order Taylor expansion around the average position is valid.
    Section III.A, Eq. (19). This is needed for the Darwin term; it may fail for singular potentials such as Coulomb pairing at short range.
  • domain assumption The local approximation <r>_n -> r replaces the average position by a continuous coordinate.
    Section III.A after Eq. (20). This step converts a gradient expansion around a k-dependent centroid into a local effective Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption For the Cooper problem, pairing is s-wave, between time-reversed partners, and the odd terms in the k' average vanish by symmetry.
    Section III.B.2, Eqs. (31)-(36). These restrictions are stated and used to simplify the effective interaction; they limit the result to s-wave pairing in isotropic bands.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Normal state quantum geometry, non-locality and superconductivity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JUJ67AB3

@misc{pith2026250416239,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Normal state quantum geometry, non-locality and superconductivity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JUJ67AB3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16239}
}
abstract

We investigate aspects of the relation between the quantum geometry of the normal state (NS) and the superconducting phase, through the lens of non-locality. By relating band theory to quantum estimation theory, we derive a direct momentum-dependent relation between quantum geometry and the quantum fluctuations of the position operator. We then investigate two effects of the NS quantum geometry on superconductivity. On the one hand, we present a physical interpretation of the conventional and geometric contributions to the superfluid weight in terms of two different movements of the normal state charge carriers forming the Cooper pairs. The first contribution stems from their center-of-mass motion while the second stems from their zero-point motion, thereby explaining its persistence in flat-band systems. On the other hand, we phenomenologically derive an emergent Darwin term driven by the NS quantum metric. We show its form in one and two-body problems, derive the effective pairing potential in $s$-wave superconductors, and explicit its form in the case of two-dimensional massive Dirac fermions. We thus show that the NS quantum metric screens the pairing interaction and weakens superconductivity, which could be tested experimentally by doping a superconductor. Our work reveals the ambivalent relationship between non-interacting quantum geometry and superconductivity, and possibly in other correlated phases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.16239 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Relation between the non-locality of Bloch fermions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Overall movement of the Bloch fermion, asso [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Törmä, S

    P. Törmä, S. Peotta, and B. A. Bernevig, Superconduc- tivity, superfluidity and quantum geometry in twisted multilayer systems, Nature Reviews Physics4, 528–542 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    (29) we consider the Cooper problem of Bloch fermions within the same conduction band, and related by time-reversal, following Refs

    Cooper problem Based on Eq. (29) we consider the Cooper problem of Bloch fermions within the same conduction band, and related by time-reversal, following Refs. [16, 59]. Fur- thermore, for simplicity, we considers-wave pairing. Let Ψ(ρ)be the pair wavefunction, with energyE. The pair wavefunction and the pairing potential have the following Fourier decom...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Cayssol and J

    J. Cayssol and J. N. Fuchs, Topological and geometrical aspects of band theory, Journal of Physics: Materials4, 034007 (2021)

    2021

  4. [3]

    B.Bradlyn, J.Cano, Z.Wang, M.G.Vergniory, C.Felser, R. J. Cava, and B. A. Bernevig, Beyond dirac and weyl fermions: Unconventional quasiparticles in conventional crystals, Science353, 10.1126/science.aaf5037 (2016)

    doi:10.1126/science.aaf5037 2016

  5. [4]

    Qi and S.-C

    X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, Topological insulators and superconductors, Reviews of Modern Physics83, 1057–1110 (2011)

    2011

  6. [5]

    P.Törmä,Essay: Wherecanquantumgeometryleadus?, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 240001 (2023)

    2023

  7. [6]

    Liu, X.-B

    T. Liu, X.-B. Qiang, H.-Z. Lu, and X. C. Xie, Quantum geometry in condensed matter, National Science Review 12, 10.1093/nsr/nwae334 (2024)

    doi:10.1093/nsr/nwae334 2024

  8. [7]

    J. Yu, B. A. Bernevig, R. Queiroz, E. Rossi, P. Törmä, and B.-J. Yang, Quantum geometry in quantum materi- als (2025)

    work page 2025

Show all 59 references
  1. [8]

    Roy, Band geometry of fractional topological insula- tors, Phys

    R. Roy, Band geometry of fractional topological insula- tors, Phys. Rev. B90, 165139 (2014)

    2014

  2. [9]

    Claassen, C

    M. Claassen, C. H. Lee, R. Thomale, X.-L. Qi, and T. P. Devereaux, Position-momentum duality and fractional quantum hall effect in chern insulators, Physical Review Letters114, 10.1103/physrevlett.114.236802 (2015)

    2015 doi

  3. [10]

    A.SrivastavaandA.m.c.Imamoğlu,Signaturesofbloch- band geometry on excitons: Nonhydrogenic spectra in transition-metal dichalcogenides, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 166802 (2015)

    2015

  4. [11]

    Zhou, W.-Y

    J. Zhou, W.-Y. Shan, W. Yao, and D. Xiao, Berry phase modification to the energy spectrum of excitons, Physi- cal Review Letters115, 10.1103/physrevlett.115.166803 (2015)

    2015 doi

  5. [12]

    Hichri, S

    A. Hichri, S. Jaziri, and M. O. Goerbig, Charged exci- tons in two-dimensional transition metal dichalcogenides: Semiclassical calculation of berry curvature effects, Phys. Rev. B100, 115426 (2019)

    2019

  6. [13]

    J. Cao, H. A. Fertig, and L. Brey, Quantum geo- metric exciton drift velocity, Physical Review B103, 10.1103/physrevb.103.115422 (2021)

    2021 doi

  7. [14]

    Peotta and P

    S. Peotta and P. Törmä, Superfluidity in topologi- cally nontrivial flat bands, Nature Communications6, 10.1038/ncomms9944 (2015)

    2015 doi

  8. [15]

    Rossi, Quantum metric and correlated states in two- dimensional systems, Current Opinion in Solid State and Materials Science25, 100952 (2021)

    E. Rossi, Quantum metric and correlated states in two- dimensional systems, Current Opinion in Solid State and Materials Science25, 100952 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Simon, M

    F. Simon, M. Gabay, M. O. Goerbig, and L. Pagot, Role of the berry curvature on bcs-type superconductivity in two-dimensional materials, Phys. Rev. B106, 214512 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Kitamura, A

    T. Kitamura, A. Daido, and Y. Yanase, Quantum geo- metric effect on fulde-ferrell-larkin-ovchinnikov supercon- ductivity, Phys. Rev. B106, 184507 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Iskin, Extracting quantum-geometric effects from ginzburg-landau theory in a multiband hubbard model, Physical Review B107, 10.1103/physrevb.107.224505 (2023)

    M. Iskin, Extracting quantum-geometric effects from ginzburg-landau theory in a multiband hubbard model, Physical Review B107, 10.1103/physrevb.107.224505 (2023)

    2023 doi

  12. [21]

    Kitamura, S

    T. Kitamura, S. Kanasugi, M. Chazono, and Y. Yanase, Quantum geometry induced anapole superconductivity, Phys. Rev. B107, 214513 (2023)

    2023

  13. [22]

    S. A. Chen and K. T. Law, Ginzburg-landau theory of flat-band superconductors with quantum metric, Physi- cal Review Letters132, 10.1103/physrevlett.132.026002 (2024)

    2024 doi

  14. [23]

    Kitamura, A

    T. Kitamura, A. Daido, and Y. Yanase, Spin-triplet superconductivity from quantum-geometry-induced fer- romagnetic fluctuation, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 036001 (2024)

    2024

  15. [24]

    Daido, T

    A. Daido, T. Kitamura, and Y. Yanase, Quantum geom- etry encoded to pair potentials, Physical Review B110, 10.1103/physrevb.110.094505 (2024)

    2024 doi

  16. [25]

    J. Yu, C. J. Ciccarino, R. Bianco, I. Errea, P. Narang, and B. A. Bernevig, Non-trivial quantum geometry and thestrengthofelectron–phononcoupling,NaturePhysics 10.1038/s41567-024-02486-0 (2024)

    2024 doi

  17. [26]

    Wang, Z.-Q

    Y.-Q. Wang, Z.-Q. Gao, and H. Yang, Chiral supercon- ductivity from parent chern band and its non-abelian generalization (2024)

    2024

  18. [27]

    J.-X. Hu, S. A. Chen, and K. T. Law, Anomalous co- herence length in superconductors with quantum metric, Communications Physics8, 10.1038/s42005-024-01930-0 (2025). 10

    2025 doi

  19. [28]

    Li, F.-C

    C. Li, F.-C. Zhang, and L.-H. Hu, Vortex states and co- herence lengths in flat-band superconductors (2025)

    2025

  20. [29]

    Thumin and G

    M. Thumin and G. Bouzerar, Correlation functions and characteristic lengthscales in flat band superconduc- tors, SciPost Physics18, 10.21468/scipostphys.18.1.025 (2025)

    2025 doi

  21. [30]

    Marzari and D

    N. Marzari and D. Vanderbilt, Maximally localized gen- eralized wannier functions for composite energy bands, Phys. Rev. B56, 12847 (1997)

    1997

  22. [31]

    Resta, The insulating state of matter: a geometrical theory, The European Physical Journal B79, 121–137 (2011)

    R. Resta, The insulating state of matter: a geometrical theory, The European Physical Journal B79, 121–137 (2011)

    2011

  23. [33]

    Pang and T

    S. Pang and T. A. Brun, Quantum metrology for a general hamiltonian parameter, Physical Review A90, 10.1103/physreva.90.022117 (2014)

    2014 doi

  24. [35]

    S. Ragy, M. Jarzyna, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, Compatibility in multiparameter quantum metrology, Physical Review A94, 10.1103/physreva.94.052108 (2016)

    2016 doi

  25. [36]

    J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Quantum fisher information matrix and multiparameter estima- tion,JournalofPhysicsA:MathematicalandTheoretical 53, 023001 (2019)

    2019

  26. [37]

    Carollo, B

    A. Carollo, B. Spagnolo, A. A. Dubkov, and D. Valenti, On quantumness in multi-parameter quantum estima- tion, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Ex- periment2019, 094010 (2019)

    2019

  27. [38]

    Xing and L

    H. Xing and L. Fu, Measure of the density of quan- tum states in information geometry and quantum multiparameter estimation, Physical Review A102, 10.1103/physreva.102.062613 (2020)

    2020 doi

  28. [40]

    B. Xia, J. Huang, H. Li, H. Wang, and G. Zeng, Toward incompatible quantum limits on multiparameter estima- tion, Nature Communications14, 10.1038/s41467-023- 36661-3 (2023)

    2023 doi

  29. [41]

    Lambert and E

    J. Lambert and E. S. Sørensen, From classical to quan- tum information geometry: a guide for physicists, New Journal of Physics25, 081201 (2023)

    2023

  30. [42]

    J. P. Provost and G. Vallee, Communications in Mathe- matical Physics76, 289–301 (1980)

    1980

  31. [43]

    Komissarov, T

    I. Komissarov, T. Holder, and R. Queiroz, The quan- tum geometric origin of capacitance in insulators, Na- ture Communications15, 10.1038/s41467-024-48808-x (2024)

    2024 doi

  32. [44]

    Blount, Formalisms of band theory, inSolid State Physics(Elsevier, 1962) p

    E. Blount, Formalisms of band theory, inSolid State Physics(Elsevier, 1962) p. 305–373

    1962

  33. [45]

    Zelevinsky,Quantum physics, Vol

    V. Zelevinsky,Quantum physics, Vol. 1 (Wiley-VCH Ver- lag, Weinheim, Germany, 2010) p. 551

    2010

  34. [47]

    B. S. Chandrasekhar and D. Einzel, The superconducting penetration depth from the semiclassical model, Annalen der Physik505, 535–546 (1993)

    1993

  35. [48]

    H. Tian, X. Gao, Y. Zhang, S. Che, T. Xu, P. Che- ung, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. Randeria, F. Zhang, C. N. Lau, and M. W. Bockrath, Evidence for dirac flat band superconductivity enabled by quantum geometry, Nature614, 440–444 (2023)

    2023

  36. [49]

    Kitamura, T

    T. Kitamura, T. Yamashita, J. Ishizuka, A. Daido, and Y. Yanase, Superconductivity in monolayer fese en- hanced by quantum geometry, Physical Review Research 4, 10.1103/physrevresearch.4.023232 (2022)

    2022 doi

  37. [51]

    Bailin and A

    D. Bailin and A. Love, Superconductivity for relativistic electrons, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Gen- eral15, 3001–3005 (1982)

    1982

  38. [52]

    Capelle and E

    K. Capelle and E. Gross, Relativistic theory of supercon- ductivity, Physics Letters A198, 261–266 (1995)

    1995

  39. [53]

    Strange,Relativistic Quantum Mechanics: With Ap- plications in Condensed Matter and Atomic Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1998)

    P. Strange,Relativistic Quantum Mechanics: With Ap- plications in Condensed Matter and Atomic Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1998)

    1998

  40. [54]

    Capelle, Relativistic fluctuations and anomalous dar- win terms in superconductors, Physical Review B63, 10.1103/physrevb.63.052503 (2001)

    K. Capelle, Relativistic fluctuations and anomalous dar- win terms in superconductors, Physical Review B63, 10.1103/physrevb.63.052503 (2001)

    2001 doi

  41. [55]

    Gosselin and H

    P. Gosselin and H. Mohrbach, Appearance of gauge fields and forces beyond the adiabatic approximation, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical43, 354025 (2010)

    2010

  42. [57]

    M. Iskin, Effective-mass tensor of the two-body bound states and the quantum-metric tensor of the underly- ing bloch states in multiband lattices, Physical Review A105, 10.1103/physreva.105.023312 (2022)

    2022 doi

  43. [58]

    Iskin, Cooper pairing, flat-band superconductivity, andquantumgeometryinthepyrochlore-hubbardmodel, Physical Review B109, 10.1103/physrevb.109.174508 (2024)

    M. Iskin, Cooper pairing, flat-band superconductivity, andquantumgeometryinthepyrochlore-hubbardmodel, Physical Review B109, 10.1103/physrevb.109.174508 (2024)

    2024 doi

  44. [59]

    Iskin, Pair size and quantum geometry in a multiband hubbard model, Physical Review B111, 10.1103/phys- revb.111.014502 (2025)

    M. Iskin, Pair size and quantum geometry in a multiband hubbard model, Physical Review B111, 10.1103/phys- revb.111.014502 (2025)

    2025 doi

  45. [60]

    Tinkham,Introduction to Superconductivity, 2nd ed

    M. Tinkham,Introduction to Superconductivity, 2nd ed. (Dover Publications, 2004)

    2004

  46. [61]

    L. N. Cooper, Bound electron pairs in a degenerate fermi gas, Physical Review104(1956)

    1956

  47. [62]

    Bardeen, L

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

    1957

  48. [63]

    R. R. Puri,Mathematical Methods of Quantum Optics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2001)

    2001

  49. [64]

    B. C. Hall,Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Representa- tions: An Elementary Introduction(Springer Interna- tional Publishing, 2015)

    2015

  50. [65]

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Colloquium: Topologi- cal insulators, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 3045–3067 (2010)

    2010

  51. [66]

    Graf and F

    A. Graf and F. Piéchon, Berry curvature and quantum metric inn-band systems: An eigenprojector approach, Physical Review B104, 10.1103/physrevb.104.085114 (2021). 11 Appendix A: Derivation of Eqs. (7,8) From|un(k)⟩=U(k)|ψ n(k)⟩withU(k) =e −ik·ˆr, the derivative of the cell-per...

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.