arxiv: 2604.07511 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-08 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el · cond-mat.supr-con

d-Wave pair density wave superconductivity in a two-orbital model

Samuel Vadnais , Arun Paramekanti This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.supr-con

keywords pair density wavetwo-orbital modeld-wave superconductivityinterband pairingRPAstrong couplingGutzwiller ansatzmulti-orbital superconductivity

0 comments p. Extension

The pith

Two-orbital models on the square lattice exhibit instability to incommensurate d-wave pair density wave superconductivity driven by interband pairing.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper investigates superconductivity in two-orbital systems of spinful fermions on the square lattice, corresponding to p or d orbitals. It employs the random phase approximation to reveal parameter regimes where interorbital interactions promote incommensurate d_xy pair density wave order rather than uniform superconductivity. The analysis also examines how this modulated state competes with magnetic and charge orders as well as uniform pairing. In the strong-coupling limit, an effective model of hard-core pairs supports a period-two PDW state across broad filling ranges, along with a checkerboard charge density wave at quarter filling. These results point to the importance of orbital degrees of freedom and multiband Fermi surfaces in realizing pair density waves.

Core claim

For minimal interorbital t-J or t-V interactions in two-orbital models, a random phase approximation analysis uncovers regimes of instability towards incommensurate d_xy pair density wave superconductivity driven by interband pairing. At strong coupling, the derived effective hard-core Cooper pair Hamiltonian, treated with a bosonic Gutzwiller ansatz, yields a period-2 PDW over a wide range of fillings and a checkerboard CDW at quarter-filling. The orbital content and multiband nature of the Fermi surface play a key role in stabilizing these interband PDW states.

What carries the argument

Interband pairing interactions that stabilize incommensurate d_xy pair density wave order in two-orbital lattice models.

If this is right

PDW superconductivity emerges as the leading instability for specific fillings and interaction strengths.
This modulated order competes with uniform d_xy pairing and with magnetic and charge density wave states.
The strong-coupling effective Hamiltonian supports a period-2 PDW state across a broad range of fillings.
A checkerboard charge density wave stabilizes at quarter filling.
The results apply to correlated materials with quasi-1D bands and to atomic fermions in p-orbitals.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Orbital-selective pairing could be tuned to favor PDW order in other multi-orbital systems not studied here.
Experiments with ultracold atoms loaded into p-orbitals on optical lattices might directly realize the predicted period-2 PDW.
Varying the orbital hybridization strength may switch the ground state between PDW and uniform superconductivity.

Load-bearing premise

The random phase approximation remains reliable for identifying the leading instability when only minimal interorbital t-J or t-V interactions are present, and the bosonic Gutzwiller ansatz accurately captures the ground state of the derived hard-core pair model.

What would settle it

A calculation or measurement showing no instability to incommensurate d-PDW in the RPA for these models, or finding no period-2 PDW in the strong-coupling limit over wide fillings, would falsify the central claims.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07511 by Arun Paramekanti, Samuel Vadnais.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Fermi surfaces of two-orbital model for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Evolution of the spin and pairing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. a) Pairing heatmap of the IC PDW( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Since the magnetic phase is not the primary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. BdG excitation spectrum showing (a) symmetry en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Qualitative phase diagram as a function of magnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Motivated by exploring superconductivity in multi-orbital systems, we study two orbital models of spinful fermions representing ($p_x,p_y$) or ($d_{xz}, d_{yz})$ orbitals on the square lattice. For minimal interorbital $t$-$J$ or $t$-$V$ on-site interactions, a random phase approximation uncovers regimes of instability towards incommensurate $d_{xy}$ pair density wave ($d$-PDW) superconductivity with driven by interband pairing. We study the competition of PDW order with uniform nodal $d_{xy}$ pairing states and magnetic and charge density wave (CDW) instabilities. At strong coupling, we derive an effective hard-core Cooper pair Hamiltonian which we study using a bosonic Gutzwiller ansatz to reveal a period-$2$ PDW over a wide range of fillings as well as a checkerboard CDW at quarter-filling. Our results apply to correlated multi-orbital materials with quasi-1D bands, Hubbard models on the square-octagon lattice, and atomic fermions in $p$-orbitals. Our work highlights the role of the orbital content and multiband Fermi surfaces in stabilizing interband PDW states.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper shows interband pairing can drive incommensurate d_xy PDW in minimal two-orbital models via RPA and a strong-coupling mapping, but the approximations leave the ranking of instabilities open to question.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that interband pairing in two-orbital models with only interorbital t-J or t-V terms produces regimes of incommensurate d_xy PDW instability, and the strong-coupling limit yields a period-2 PDW over a broad range of fillings plus a checkerboard CDW at quarter filling. The work isolates how orbital content and multi-band Fermi surfaces favor this over uniform nodal d_xy pairing or other orders. That angle has not been worked out in this concrete way before for these orbital choices and lattices. The calculations are standard RPA for the susceptibility divergences and a bosonic Gutzwiller treatment of the derived hard-core pair Hamiltonian, which lets them map the competition explicitly. The connection to quasi-1D bands, square-octagon Hubbard models, and p-orbital atoms is laid out without extra assumptions. This is useful for anyone thinking about PDW mechanisms in multi-orbital systems. The soft spots are the approximations themselves. RPA with on-site interactions near the bandwidth scale omits vertex corrections and self-energy feedback that can reorder instabilities in multi-orbital quasi-1D cases, so the claim that d-PDW is leading rests on that uncontrolled step. The Gutzwiller ansatz is variational and gives a reasonable phase diagram but does not guarantee the exact ground state. No small-cluster exact checks or DMRG comparisons appear to benchmark the quantitative reach. The paper stays within its own equations and does not fit parameters post hoc. It is aimed at theorists working on unconventional superconductivity in correlated multi-orbital materials. Readers who care about concrete mechanisms for PDW will get value from the interband emphasis and the phase diagram. It deserves a serious referee because the setup is reproducible and the claims can be tested with better methods. I would send it out for review, with the main feedback likely centering on how robust the RPA ranking remains once corrections are considered.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies two-orbital models of spinful fermions on the square lattice (representing (p_x,p_y) or (d_xz,d_yz) orbitals) with minimal interorbital t-J or t-V on-site interactions. RPA calculations identify regimes of instability to incommensurate d_xy pair-density-wave (d-PDW) superconductivity driven by interband pairing, and compare this to uniform nodal d_xy SC, magnetic, and CDW channels. At strong coupling an effective hard-core Cooper-pair Hamiltonian is derived and solved via bosonic Gutzwiller ansatz, yielding a period-2 PDW over a wide filling range plus checkerboard CDW at quarter filling. The results are positioned as relevant to quasi-1D multi-orbital materials, square-octagon Hubbard models, and p-orbital atomic fermions.

Significance. If the reported instability ordering and strong-coupling ground states hold, the work usefully illustrates how orbital content and multiband Fermi surfaces can stabilize interband PDW states. The explicit mapping from the microscopic model to a hard-core pair Hamiltonian is a concrete strength that enables further study and falsifiable predictions for filling-dependent PDW periodicity.

major comments (2)

[§3] §3 (RPA susceptibility analysis): the identification of incommensurate d_xy PDW as the leading instability rests on the divergence of the RPA pairing bubble driven by interband terms, yet the manuscript provides no estimate or argument for the size of omitted vertex corrections or self-energy feedback. Because the interactions are on-site t-J/t-V (strong-coupling projections), these corrections can reorder PDW versus uniform d_xy SC and CDW channels; this directly undermines the claimed regimes of PDW instability.
[§4] §4 (strong-coupling mapping and Gutzwiller ansatz): the period-2 PDW result over wide fillings is obtained from the bosonic Gutzwiller treatment of the derived hard-core pair Hamiltonian. No benchmark against exact diagonalization on small clusters or against alternative variational states is reported, so the quantitative reliability of the filling range and the competition with checkerboard CDW at quarter filling cannot be assessed.

minor comments (2)

[Figure 3] Notation for the incommensurate wave-vector Q in the PDW susceptibility should be defined explicitly in the text and figure captions rather than only in the appendix.
[§3] The abstract states that the PDW is 'driven by interband pairing'; the corresponding sentence in §3 should cite the explicit interorbital matrix element that produces this channel.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. We address each major comment below and have incorporated revisions to clarify the limitations of our methods while maintaining the core findings of the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: §3 (RPA susceptibility analysis): the identification of incommensurate d_xy PDW as the leading instability rests on the divergence of the RPA pairing bubble driven by interband terms, yet the manuscript provides no estimate or argument for the size of omitted vertex corrections or self-energy feedback. Because the interactions are on-site t-J/t-V (strong-coupling projections), these corrections can reorder PDW versus uniform d_xy SC and CDW channels; this directly undermines the claimed regimes of PDW instability.

Authors: We agree that vertex corrections and self-energy feedback are not estimated in our RPA calculations, and this is a known limitation of the RPA approach, especially for strong-coupling interactions like t-J and t-V. In the revised manuscript, we have added a paragraph in Section 3 discussing this point, noting that while such corrections could potentially reorder the instabilities, the interband pairing mechanism identified here is robust and is corroborated by the independent strong-coupling analysis in Section 4. We argue that the PDW instability remains a viable candidate in the parameter regimes studied. revision: partial
Referee: §4 (strong-coupling mapping and Gutzwiller ansatz): the period-2 PDW result over wide fillings is obtained from the bosonic Gutzwiller treatment of the derived hard-core pair Hamiltonian. No benchmark against exact diagonalization on small clusters or against alternative variational states is reported, so the quantitative reliability of the filling range and the competition with checkerboard CDW at quarter filling cannot be assessed.

Authors: We acknowledge the absence of benchmarks against exact diagonalization or other variational methods, which limits the quantitative assessment of the results. The bosonic Gutzwiller ansatz provides a variational upper bound to the ground-state energy and is known to accurately describe the superfluid and density-wave phases in hard-core boson models on lattices. In the revision, we have expanded the discussion in Section 4 to include a more detailed justification of the method, its expected accuracy for the PDW state, and a note on the competition with CDW at quarter filling. We believe this addresses the concern while the qualitative features, such as the wide filling range for period-2 PDW, are supported by the consistency with RPA. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation chain self-contained with no circular reductions

full rationale

The paper starts from a microscopic two-orbital model with specified interorbital t-J or t-V interactions, applies RPA linear response to extract pairing susceptibilities and identify leading instabilities (including incommensurate d_xy PDW), then performs an explicit strong-coupling projection to obtain an effective hard-core Cooper-pair Hamiltonian whose ground state is analyzed via bosonic Gutzwiller ansatz. None of these steps reduce by the paper's own equations to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, a self-citation load-bearing uniqueness claim, or an ansatz smuggled in from prior work; the reported PDW regimes and period-2 order emerge directly from the response functions and the derived effective model without tautological equivalence to the inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard approximations of many-body theory rather than new postulates; interaction strengths are treated as tunable parameters but not fitted to data within the reported results.

free parameters (1)

interorbital interaction strengths (J, V)
Minimal t-J or t-V couplings are free parameters that control the strength of interorbital pairing and are scanned to locate instability regimes.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Random phase approximation captures the leading superconducting instability
Invoked to uncover PDW regimes from the two-orbital susceptibility.
domain assumption Strong-coupling projection to hard-core Cooper pairs is valid
Used to derive the effective bosonic Hamiltonian studied with Gutzwiller ansatz.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5513 in / 1464 out tokens · 52365 ms · 2026-05-10T17:00:40.971456+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

D. P. Arovas, E. Berg, S. A. Kivelson, and S. Raghu, The hubbard model, Annual Review of Condensed Mat- ter Physics13, 239 (2022)

work page 2022
[2]

Dagotto, Correlated electrons in high-temperature su- perconductors, Rev

E. Dagotto, Correlated electrons in high-temperature su- perconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys.66, 763 (1994)

work page 1994
[3]

P. A. Lee, N. Nagaosa, and X.-G. Wen, Doping a mott in- sulator: Physics of high-temperature superconductivity, Rev. Mod. Phys.78, 17 (2006)

work page 2006
[4]

P. W. Anderson, P. A. Lee, M. Randeria, T. M. Rice, N. Trivedi, and F. C. Zhang, The physics behind high- temperature superconducting cuprates: the plain vanilla version of rvb, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter16, R755 (2004)

work page 2004
[5]

D. J. Scalapino, Superconductivity and spin fluctuations (1999), cond-mat/9908287

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 1999
[6]

Abanov, A

A. Abanov, A. V. Chubukov, and A. M. Finkel’stein, Co- herent vs. incoherent pairing in 2d systems near magnetic instability, Europhysics Letters54, 488 (2001)

work page 2001
[7]

A. V. Chubukov, D. V. Efremov, and I. Eremin, Mag- netism, superconductivity, and pairing symmetry in iron- based superconductors, Phys. Rev. B78, 134512 (2008)

work page 2008
[8]

Chubukov, Pairing mechanism in fe-based supercon- ductors, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics3, 57 (2012)

A. Chubukov, Pairing mechanism in fe-based supercon- ductors, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics3, 57 (2012)

work page 2012
[9]

V. J. Emery, Theory of high-t c superconductivity in ox- ides, Phys. Rev. Lett.58, 2794 (1987)

work page 1987
[10]

V. J. Emery and G. Reiter, Mechanism for high- temperature superconductivity, Phys. Rev. B38, 4547 (1988)

work page 1988
[11]

C. M. Varma, Non-fermi-liquid states and pairing insta- bility of a general model of copper oxide metals, Phys. Rev. B55, 14554 (1997)

work page 1997
[12]

Watanabe, T

H. Watanabe, T. Shirakawa, K. Seki, H. Sakakibara, T. Kotani, H. Ikeda, and S. Yunoki, Unified description of cuprate superconductors using a four-bandd−pmodel, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 033157 (2021)

work page 2021
[13]

P. Mai, G. Balduzzi, S. Johnston, and T. A. Maier, Or- bital structure of the effective pairing interaction in the high-temperature superconducting cuprates, npj Quan- tum Materials6, 26 (2021)

work page 2021
[14]

Miyahara, R

H. Miyahara, R. Arita, and H. Ikeda, Development of a two-particle self-consistent method for multiorbital sys- tems and its application to unconventional superconduc- tors, Phys. Rev. B87, 045113 (2013)

work page 2013
[15]

Gingras, N

O. Gingras, N. Allaglo, R. Nourafkan, M. Cˆ ot´ e, and A.- M. S. Tremblay, Superconductivity in correlated multi- orbital systems with spin-orbit coupling: Coexistence of even- and odd-frequency pairing, and the case of sr2ruo4, Phys. Rev. B106, 064513 (2022)

work page 2022
[16]

A. C. Yuan, E. Berg, and S. A. Kivelson, Multiband mean-field theory of thed+igsuperconductivity scenario in sr2ruo4, Phys. Rev. B108, 014502 (2023)

work page 2023
[17]

Moon, Effects of orbital selective dynamical cor- relation on the spin susceptibility and superconduct- ing symmetries in sr 2ruo4, Phys

C.-Y. Moon, Effects of orbital selective dynamical cor- relation on the spin susceptibility and superconduct- ing symmetries in sr 2ruo4, Phys. Rev. Res.5, L022058 (2023)

work page 2023
[18]

Suzuki, L

H. Suzuki, L. Wang, J. Bertinshaw, H. U. R. Strand, S. K¨ aser, M. Krautloher, Z. Yang, N. Wentzell, O. Par- collet, F. Jerzembeck, N. Kikugawa, A. P. Mackenzie, A. Georges, P. Hansmann, H. Gretarsson, and B. Keimer, Distinct spin and orbital dynamics in Sr2RuO4, Nature Communications14, 7042 (2023)

work page 2023
[19]

Q. Si, R. Yu, and E. Abrahams, High-temperature super- conductivity in iron pnictides and chalcogenides, Nature Reviews Materials1, 16017 (2016)

work page 2016
[20]

Dai, Antiferromagnetic order and spin dynamics in iron-based superconductors, Rev

P. Dai, Antiferromagnetic order and spin dynamics in iron-based superconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 855 (2015)

work page 2015
[21]

Si and E

Q. Si and E. Abrahams, Strong correlations and magnetic frustration in the highT c iron pnictides, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 076401 (2008)

work page 2008
[22]

J. Dong, H. J. Zhang, G. Xu, Z. Li, G. Li, W. Z. Hu, D. Wu, G. F. Chen, X. Dai, J. L. Luo, Z. Fang, and N. L. Wang, Competing orders and spin-density-wave instability in La(O1xFx)FeAs, Europhysics Letters83, 27006 (2008)

work page 2008
[23]

Fawcett, Spin-density-wave antiferromagnetism in chromium, Rev

E. Fawcett, Spin-density-wave antiferromagnetism in chromium, Rev. Mod. Phys.60, 209 (1988)

work page 1988
[24]

D. Li, K. Lee, B. Y. Wang, M. Osada, S. Crossley, H. R. Lee, Y. Cui, Y. Hikita, and H. Y. Hwang, Supercon- ductivity in an infinite-layer nickelate, Nature572, 624 (2019)

work page 2019
[25]

H. Sun, M. Huo, X. Hu, J. Li, Z. Liu, Y. Han, L. Tang, Z. Mao, P. Yang, B. Wang, J. Cheng, D.-X. Yao, G.-M. Zhang, and M. Wang, Signatures of superconductivity near 80 k in a nickelate under high pressure, Nature621, 493 (2023)

work page 2023
[26]

Sakakibara, H

H. Sakakibara, H. Usui, K. Suzuki, T. Kotani, H. Aoki, and K. Kuroki, Model construction and a possibility of cupratelike pairing in a newd 9 nickelate superconductor (Nd,Sr)nio 2, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 077003 (2020)

work page 2020
[27]

Hu and C

L.-H. Hu and C. Wu, Two-band model for magnetism and superconductivity in nickelates, Phys. Rev. Res.1, 032046 (2019)

work page 2019
[28]

Adhikary, S

P. Adhikary, S. Bandyopadhyay, T. Das, I. Dasgupta, and T. Saha-Dasgupta, Orbital-selective superconductivity in a two-band model of infinite-layer nickelates, Phys. Rev. B102, 100501 (2020)

work page 2020
[29]

X. Wu, D. Di Sante, T. Schwemmer, W. Hanke, H. Y. Hwang, S. Raghu, and R. Thomale, Robustd x2−y2-wave superconductivity of infinite-layer nickelates, Phys. Rev. B101, 060504 (2020)

work page 2020
[30]

Wang, G.-M

Z. Wang, G.-M. Zhang, Y.-f. Yang, and F.-C. Zhang, Dis- tinct pairing symmetries of superconductivity in infinite- layer nickelates, Phys. Rev. B102, 220501 (2020)

work page 2020
[31]

Werner and S

P. Werner and S. Hoshino, Nickelate superconductors: Multiorbital nature and spin freezing, Phys. Rev. B101, 041104 (2020)

work page 2020
[32]

Zhang and A

Y.-H. Zhang and A. Vishwanath, Type-iit−jmodel in superconducting nickelate nd1−xsrxnio2, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023112 (2020)

work page 2020
[33]

M. H. Fischer, S. Wu, M. Lawler, A. Paramekanti, and E.-A. Kim, Nematic and spin-charge orders driven by hole-doping a charge-transfer insulator, New Journal of Physics16, 093057 (2014)

work page 2014
[34]

S.-H. Baek, D. V. Efremov, J. M. Ok, J. S. Kim, J. van den Brink, and B. B¨ uchner, Orbital-driven ne- maticity in FeSe, Nature Materials14, 210 (2015)

work page 2015
[35]

J. K. Glasbrenner, I. I. Mazin, H. O. Jeschke, P. J. Hirschfeld, R. M. Fernandes, and R. Valenti, Effect of magnetic frustration on nematicity and superconductiv- ity in iron chalcogenides, Nature Physics11, 953 (2015). 8

work page 2015
[37]

Q. Wang, Y. Shen, B. Pan, Y. Hao, M. Ma, F. Zhou, P. Steffens, K. Schmalzl, T. R. Forrest, M. Abdel-Hafiez, X. Chen, D. A. Chareev, A. N. Vasiliev, P. Bourges, Y. Sidis, H. Cao, and J. Zhao, Strong interplay between stripe spin fluctuations, nematicity and superconductiv- ity in FeSe, Nature Materials15, 159 (2016)

work page 2016
[38]

E. Berg, E. Fradkin, E.-A. Kim, S. A. Kivelson, V. Oganesyan, J. M. Tranquada, and S. C. Zhang, Dy- namical layer decoupling in a stripe-ordered high-T c su- perconductor, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 127003 (2007)

work page 2007
[39]

D. F. Agterberg, J. C. S. Davis, S. D. Edkins, E. Fradkin, D. J. Van Harlingen, S. A. Kivelson, P. A. Lee, L. Radz- ihovsky, J. M. Tranquada, and Y. Wang, The Physics of Pair-Density Waves: Cuprate Superconductors and Be- yond, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics11, 231 (2020)

work page 2020
[40]

A. I. Larkin and Y. N. Ovchinnikov, Inhomogeneous state of superconductors, Soviet Physics JETP20, 762 (1965)

work page 1965
[41]

Fulde and R

P. Fulde and R. A. Ferrell, Superconductivity in a strong spin-exchange field, Phys. Rev.135, A550 (1964)

work page 1964
[42]

E. Berg, E. Fradkin, and S. A. Kivelson, Pair-density- wave correlations in the kondo-heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 146403 (2010)

work page 2010
[43]

Nikoli´ c, A

P. Nikoli´ c, A. A. Burkov, and A. Paramekanti, Finite mo- mentum pairing instability of band insulators with mul- tiple bands, Phys. Rev. B81, 012504 (2010)

work page 2010
[44]

Jiang and T

H.-C. Jiang and T. P. Devereaux, Pair density wave and superconductivity in a kinetically frustrated doped emery model on a square lattice (2023), arXiv:2309.11786 [cond- mat.str-el]

work page arXiv 2023
[45]

Y.-M. Wu, P. A. Nosov, A. A. Patel, and S. Raghu, Pair density wave order from electron repulsion, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 026001 (2023)

work page 2023
[46]

Setty, L

C. Setty, L. Fanfarillo, and P. J. Hirschfeld, Mechanism for fluctuating pair density wave, Nature Communica- tions14, 3181 (2023)

work page 2023
[47]

N. S. Ticea, S. Raghu, and Y.-M. Wu, Pair density wave order in multiband systems (2024), arXiv:2403.00156 [cond-mat.supr-con]

work page arXiv 2024
[48]

Soto-Garrido and E

R. Soto-Garrido and E. Fradkin, Pair-density-wave su- perconducting states and electronic liquid-crystal phases, Phys. Rev. B89, 165126 (2014)

work page 2014
[49]

Wang, Y.-J

H.-X. Wang, Y.-J. Hu, W. Huang, and H. Yao, A ”negative” route to pair density wave order (2025), arXiv:2512.06100 [cond-mat.supr-con]

work page arXiv 2025
[50]

Jiang and Y

G. Jiang and Y. Barlas, Pair density waves from local band geometry, Physical Review Letters131, 10.1103/physrevlett.131.016002 (2023)

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.016002 2023
[51]

Barlas, F

Y. Barlas, F. Zhang, and E. Rossi, Quantum geometry in- duced kekul´ e superconductivity in haldane phases (2025), arXiv:2508.21791 [cond-mat.supr-con]

work page arXiv 2025
[52]

E. O. Lamponen, S. K. P¨ ontys, and P. T¨ orm¨ a, Supercon- ductivity and pair density waves from nearest-neighbor interactions in frustrated lattice geometries, Phys. Rev. B112, 144514 (2025)

work page 2025
[53]

Y.-M. Wu, R. Thomale, and S. Raghu, Sublattice inter- ference promotes pair density wave order in kagome met- als (2023), arXiv:2211.01388 [cond-mat.str-el]

work page arXiv 2023
[54]

M. Yao, Y. Wang, D. Wang, J.-X. Yin, and Q.-H. Wang, Self-consistent theory of pair density waves in kagome superconductors, Physical Review B111, 10.1103/phys- revb.111.094505 (2025)

work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2025
[55]

Oh and Y.-H

H. Oh and Y.-H. Zhang, Pair-density-wave supercon- ductivity and anderson’s theorem in bilayer nickelates (2025), arXiv:2512.15023 [cond-mat.str-el]

work page arXiv 2025
[56]

Y.-M. Wu, Z. Wu, and H. Yao, Pair-density-wave and chiral superconductivity in twisted bilayer transition metal dichalcogenides, Physical Review Letters130, 10.1103/physrevlett.130.126001 (2023)

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.130.126001 2023
[57]

Wang and K

K. Wang and K. Levin, Kekul´ e superconductiv- ity in twisted magic angle bilayer graphene (2026), arXiv:2510.06451 [cond-mat.supr-con]

work page arXiv 2026
[58]

S. A. Murshed and B. Roy, Nodal pair density waves from a quarter-metal in crystalline graphene multilayers, Physical Review B112, 10.1103/wy3f-hgr9 (2025)

work page doi:10.1103/wy3f-hgr9 2025
[59]

K¨ ohl, H

M. K¨ ohl, H. Moritz, T. St¨ oferle, K. G¨ unter, and T. Esslinger, Fermionic atoms in a three dimensional op- tical lattice: Observing fermi surfaces, dynamics, and interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 080403 (2005)

work page 2005
[60]

Jrdens, N

R. Jrdens, N. Strohmaier, K. Gnter, H. Moritz, and T. Esslinger, A mott insulator of fermionic atoms in an optical lattice, Nature455, 204207 (2008)

work page 2008
[61]

A. Bose, S. Vadnais, and A. Paramekanti, Altermag- netism and superconductivity in a multiorbital tj model, Physical Review B110, 10.1103/physrevb.110.205120 (2024)

work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.110.205120 2024
[62]

H.-Y. Liu, D. Wang, Z. Wang, and Q.-H. Wang, Genuine pair density wave order on the kagome lattice (2026), arXiv:2604.03531 [cond-mat.supr-con]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[63]

Takahashi, Half-filled Hubbard model at low temper- ature, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics10, 1289 (1977)

M. Takahashi, Half-filled Hubbard model at low temper- ature, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics10, 1289 (1977). 9 Appendix A: Weak Coupling

work page 1977
[64]

Charge/Spin Susceptibility We start by defining the generalized particle-hole bubble: χ0,αβγδ abcd (r, r′, τ) =T τ c† aα(r, τ)cbβ(r, τ)c† cγ(r′,0)c dδ(r′,0) c (A1) χ0,αβγδ abcd (Q, τ) = X k −1 N Gbc(k, τ)G da(k+Q,−τ)δ βγ δαδ (A2) χ0,αβγδ abcd (Q, iΩn) = −1 N β X k,nm X iωn [Ubn(k)U ∗ cn(k)Udm(k+Q)U ∗ am(k+Q)]G βγ n (k, iωn)Gαδ m (k+Q, iω n +iΩ n)δβγ δαδ (...

work page
[65]

Singlet Pairing Susceptibility From the sign and overall form of the interactions considered, we derive the spin singlet orbital triplet pairing susceptibility. We define the spin singlet pairing operator and the pairing susceptibility: ∆†(Q) = 1√ 2 X k (X † k↑Y † −k+Q↓ −X † k↓Y † −k+Q↑) (A7) χp(Q, iΩn) = Z β 0 eiΩnτ dτ ∆(Q, τ)∆ †(Q,0) =1 2 Z β 0 eiΩnτ dτ...

work page
[66]

RPA effective interactions The interactions we are interested in are the following: HJ =J X i ⃗SX · ⃗SY −V X i nX i nY i (A8) We decompose these interactions in the pairing, spin and charge channels. U c abcd =   0 0 0−V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 −V0 0 0   (A9) U z abcd =   0 0 0J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J0 0 0   (A10) (A11) The multiorbital RPA equation reads:...

work page