Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 58 references

Supercurrent effect in a charge density wave intertwined superconductor

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An in-plane magnetic field breaks the threefold symmetry of charge-density-wave modulations in superconducting NbSe2 by Doppler-shifting quasiparticle excitations.

desk verdict New field-direction-selective CDW anisotropy in NbSe2 is likely real, but the supercurrent-Doppler mechanism is not quantitatively established and the title overclaims. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21507 v1 pith:WHUQXTLL submitted 2026-07-23 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci

Zhen Zhu , Wei Cheng , Dang Liu , Pengyu Hu , Yi Yang , Qiaoyan Yu , Shasha Xue , Ruijun Xi
show 10 more authors
Xingsen Chen Jice Sun Dandan Guan Yaoyi Li Shiyong Wang Canhua Liu Zhuan Xu Xin Liu Hao Zheng Jinfeng Jia
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords superconductivitychargedensitywaveDopplershiftMeissnereffectscanningtunnelingmicroscopyNbSe2symmetrybreakingBogoliubovquasiparticles
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

An in-plane magnetic field breaks the threefold (C3v) symmetry of the charge-density-wave (CDW) modulations in superconducting 2H-NbSe2, lowering it to mirror-only (Cs) symmetry. The authors show that the Meissner screening current from the field Doppler-shifts the Bogoliubov quasiparticle dispersion, and only quasiparticle states with particular momenta remain at sub-gap energies. In spectroscopic dI/dV maps this appears as a selective enhancement of the CDW Fourier peaks aligned with the field: P(d1) > P(d2) = P(d3) for fields along Γ-M, with the reversed ordering for Γ-K. Rotating the field direction reorients the enhanced peaks, demonstrating on-demand control of the CDW pattern in momentum space. Tight-binding simulations incorporating a triple-Q CDW potential, s-wave pairing, and the Peierls phase reproduce the observed anisotropy and place the effect inside the superconducting gap.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Doppler-shifted Bogoliubov dispersion produced by the Meissner screening current (via Peierls substitution, p → p + eA), together with a first-order perturbation formula for how CDW peak intensities depend on energy denominators ΔE(k ± d_i) between states coupled by the CDW wavevectors.

What would settle it

Measure the CDW-peak anisotropy in a thin NbSe2 flake in a true Meissner state (no vortices, B < Hc1) and compare the Γ-M versus Γ-K enhancement patterns with the model prediction; if the field-direction selection rule is not reproduced, the Doppler-shift mechanism is not the cause.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the diamagnetic Meissner current generated by an in-plane magnetic field acts as a momentum-space handle on a superconductor intertwined with charge order. The Doppler shift e v_k · A adds to the Bogoliubov dispersion, selectively depopulating quasiparticle branches on one side of the constant-energy contour for energies between the Doppler-shift energy and the gap. Because the CDW peak intensity in the local-density-of-states Fourier transform is controlled by energy denominators ΔE(k ± d_i) between states connected by the CDW wavevectors, the reconstructed contours enhance some CDW peaks and suppress others. The authors observe exactly this: a C3v-to-Cs transition

Load-bearing premise

The paper's explanation assumes that the in-plane field generates a clean Meissner screening current with a well-defined London vector potential that uniformly Doppler-shifts the quasiparticle dispersion at the experimental fields; the authors concede in the Discussion that the fields exceed Hc1, vortices are present, and the surface current distribution may differ from the simple Meissner picture, while the numerical simulation is run at 0.8Bc (~3 T) rather than at 100–400 m

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Rotating the in-plane field direction reorients the enhanced CDW peaks, so the emergent CDW anisotropy can be tuned on demand.
  • The field-driven symmetry breaking is confined to sub-gap energies (roughly 0.2–0.6 meV at 100–400 mT); above the coherence peaks the CDW retains C3v symmetry, and normal-state topography is unaffected.
  • The same Doppler-shift mechanism should apply to any superconductor with coexisting charge order whose CDW wavevectors connect states on the constant-energy contour.
  • The CDW-peak anisotropy provides a direct momentum-space visualization of the Doppler-shift-modified contour, offering a new probe of supercurrent flow.
  • Because the CDW peak intensity formula is generic, the field-direction selection rules (P(d2)=P(d3) locked by a mirror plane) follow from symmetry alone and should be robust to the microscopic details.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Doppler-shift attribution is correct, the same mechanism should imprint directional anisotropy on other intertwined orders in superconductors, such as pair-density waves or spin-density waves, when an in-plane field is applied.
  • The effect could be leveraged as an imaging probe of the local Meissner screening current: the pattern of enhanced CDW peaks should map the local supercurrent direction and magnitude at the surface, complementing vortex imaging.
  • A sharper test would be to repeat the measurement in a vortex-free slab below Hc1; if the anisotropy pattern changes or disappears, the simple Doppler picture would need revision in favor of vortex-modified currents.
  • The symmetry-locking argument implies that any perturbation that lowers C3v to Cs yields P(d2)=P(d3), so the observed peak equality is not by itself evidence for the Doppler mechanism, but the field-direction reversal (Γ-M vs Γ-K) is.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a field-driven C3v-to-Cs symmetry breaking of the 3x3 CDW modulation in superconducting 2H-NbSe2, observed via STM/STS under in-plane magnetic fields of 100–400 mT. At zero field, the six CDW FFT peaks have equal intensity; under a field along Γ-M, the two CDW peaks centered along the field direction are enhanced while the other four are suppressed, yielding P(d1) > P(d2) = P(d3). The authors attribute this to a Meissner-current-induced Doppler shift of the Bogoliubov quasiparticle dispersion, which selectively modifies the CDW scattering at the precursor CDW wavevectors. A real-space tight-binding model with CDW and s-wave pairing, combined with a symmetry analysis, reproduces the observed anisotropy pattern and shows that the remaining symmetry is Cs. The paper concludes that supercurrents can tailor intertwined CDW order through momentum-space engineering.

Significance. The observation of magnetic-field-direction-dependent CDW peak weighting in a canonical intertwined superconductor is novel and potentially significant. The symmetry argument that an in-plane field reduces C3v to Cs, locking P(d2)=P(d3) while leaving P(d1) unconstrained, is elegant, parameter-free, and clearly presented. The experimental data are of good quality, and the paper includes data and code availability statements. If the Doppler-shift mechanism is quantitatively confirmed, this work would demonstrate a new handle for controlling charge order in superconductors. However, the quantitative link between experiment and model is not currently established: the simulations are run at a much larger field than the experiments, and the experimental field regime is above Hc1, where the assumed Meissner screening current profile is not guaranteed to hold. Thus the significance of the central claim is conditional on resolving these issues.

major comments (3)
  1. [Discussion; Methods Eq. (6)] The central mechanism assumes that the in-plane field produces a well-defined Meissner screening current described by the vector potential A = (B λ_L sinh(z/λ_L)/cosh(d/2λ_L),0,0) (Methods Eq. (6)). The experiments, however, are performed at 100–400 mT, which the Discussion admits exceeds Hc1 and where vortices are present. The Discussion even concedes: "the current distribution near the surface may therefore differ from that in a simple Meissner-screening picture." This concession directly undermines the applicability of Eq. (6) as the input for the model. To support the claim, the authors must either demonstrate that the actual surface current at these fields is the Meissner screening current (e.g., by local magnetic-field or current-density measurements) or modify the model to incorporate a vortex-state current profile. Without this, the agreement between Fig. 4 and experiment cannot
  2. [Supplementary Figs. 16–17; Fig. 2h] The simulations are run at B = 0.8Bc, which the paper states is about 3 T, while the key experimental data are taken at 100–400 mT. The coherence-peak shift at 100 mT (Fig. 2h) is ~0.12 meV, about an order of magnitude smaller than the superconducting gap Δ ≈ 1.28 meV used in the model. The simulation at 0.8Bc has a Doppler shift comparable to Δ, so the constant-energy contour at E = 0.5Δ is depleted on one side (Figs. 4c,d). At the experimental field, the Doppler energy is only ~0.1Δ, and the asymmetry of the constant-energy contour is correspondingly weak. No scaling argument is provided to show that the same qualitative pattern (P(d1)>P(d2)=P(d3)) persists at this smaller Doppler shift. The authors should either perform simulations at the experimental field strengths (increasing numerical accuracy as needed) or provide an analytical estimate of the field dependence of the intensity as
  3. [Eq. (1); Methods Eq. (12)] The expression for the CDW peak intensity P(d_i) is derived from first-order perturbation theory in the CDW potential, and the symmetry analysis in Supplementary Note 2 correctly shows that a mirror symmetry enforces P(d2)=P(d3). However, the actual magnitude and sign of the asymmetry, i.e., whether P(d1) is enhanced or suppressed relative to P(d2), depend on microscopic details encoded in the band structure and on the field strength. The model uses several free parameters (t1, t2, λ, Δsc, ΔCDW, μ, CDW phases, and the field B), and the CDW phases in Eq. (4) are chosen to reproduce the observed 3x3 pattern. Thus the agreement between Figs. 4e–h and experiment is partly a fit, not a parameter-free prediction. To strengthen the central claim, the authors should present the model's asymmetry ratio P(d1)/P(d2) as a function of field and compare it with the measured ratio extracted from the FF
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract and introduction state unambiguously that the Meissner current is the cause, but the Discussion later concedes that vortices are present and the current distribution may differ. It would be more accurate to frame the Doppler-shift scenario as a plausible mechanism that needs verification, or to soften the wording throughout to match the caveat.
  2. [Fig. 1e] The coherence-peak shift at 100 mT is presented qualitatively. The authors could include the extracted Doppler shift as a function of field (shown in Supplementary Fig. 6e) in the main text to help the reader judge the magnitude of the effect.
  3. [Methods Eq. (4)] The CDW phases (φ1=-2π/3, φ2=2π/3, φ3=0) are chosen to reproduce the observed 3x3 pattern. This should be explicitly acknowledged as an input rather than a prediction, as the reader might otherwise overestimate the model's predictive power.
  4. [Fig. 4g,h] The line-cut directions for the FFTs in Figs. 4g,h are described as "dashed-arrow directions," but it is not clear from the figure which dashed arrows in the insets are being referenced. A clearer labeling would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the field-induced CDW peak asymmetry is a computed model outcome, not an input or a self-citation-derived conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an experimental STM observation (C3v-to-Cs symmetry breaking of CDW peak intensities under in-plane field) supported by a tight-binding BdG model and a first-order perturbation expression for CDW peak intensities. The model inputs—hopping parameters estimated from first-principles calculations, a triple-Q CDW potential whose phases are chosen to reproduce the zero-field 3x3 CDW pattern, an s-wave pairing gap, and a vector potential from the London equation—do not encode the field-orientation-dependent peak-intensity ordering. Equation (12)/Methods Eq. (1) gives P(d_i) as a sum over the field-modified constant-energy contours, and the residual mirror symmetry under the field enforces P(d2)=P(d3); whether P(d1) is larger or smaller is a computed consequence of the band structure, not a fitted target. The simulation at 0.8Bc and the experimental fields above Hc1 raise external-validity concerns, and the paper itself concedes in the Discussion that the surface current distribution 'may therefore differ from that in a simple Meissner-screening picture,' but this is an assumption mismatch, not a reduction of the prediction to its inputs. Self-citations to earlier supercurrent work (refs. 2, 9, 23, 25) are present but not load-bearing: the Doppler-shift framework is standard and independently supported by the measured field evolution of the superconducting gap. No step in the derivation chain equates the predicted anisotropy with a fitted parameter or with a prior result by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mechanism is built from a single-band tight-binding + BdG model whose parameters (t1, t2, λ) are borrowed from first-principles fits in ref 30 and whose CDW phases and simulation field are adjusted ad hoc. There are no invented entities. The symmetry-breaking argument itself (Doppler shift breaks C3v to Cs) is nearly parameter-free, which supports the mechanism qualitatively; the quantitative link to the 100-400 mT data is not established.

free parameters (8)
  • t1 (NN hopping) = ≈ 0.14 eV
    Nearest-neighbor d_z2 hopping in the tight-binding model; estimated from first-principles band structure (ref 30), not fitted to the CDW anisotropy.
  • t2 (NNN hopping) = ≈ 0.11 eV
    Next-nearest-neighbor hopping; from first-principles estimate (ref 30).
  • λ (Ising SOC) = ≈ 0.03 eV
    Ising-type spin-orbit coupling strength; from first-principles estimate (ref 30).
  • Δsc (s-wave gap) = not stated in text
    Superconducting pairing potential in the BdG Hamiltonian; implied to match the measured NbSe2 gap (~1.4 meV).
  • ΔCDW / A0 (CDW potential amplitude) = not stated
    Amplitude of the triple-Q CDW potential; required for the model but its value is not given.
  • CDW phases φ1, φ2, φ3 = -2π/3, 2π/3, 0
    Chosen to reproduce the experimentally observed 3x3 CDW real-space pattern (Methods Eq. (4)).
  • Simulation field B = 0.8 Bc (Bc = field closing Δ)
    Simulations run at 0.8 Bc, not at the experimental 100-400 mT; an ad hoc choice that makes the Doppler effect visible (Supp Figs. 16-17).
  • μ (chemical potential) = not stated
    Chemical potential in the tight-binding model; implicit in the filling and never quantified.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math First-order perturbation theory for CDW coupling between Bloch states |k> and |k±d_i>
    Invoked in Methods Symmetry analysis and Eq. (10); assumes the perturbation hierarchy a0,k >> a_l,k.
  • standard math Fourier components of a real physical observable satisfy P(d) = P(−d) (complex-conjugate symmetry)
    Used in the main text and Supplementary Note 1 to restrict discussion to {d1,d2,d3}.
  • domain assumption Low-energy electronic structure of NbSe2 is represented by a single d_z2 orbital on a triangular lattice, focusing on Γ; valley/K physics neglected
    Methods: 'we consider only the d_z2 orbital on a triangular lattice'; the paper states CDW phenomena 'are not strongly influenced by valley physics'.
  • domain assumption Superconductivity is described by a single s-wave on-site pairing potential Δsc in a BdG Hamiltonian; two-band/anisotropic-gap effects are absent
    Methods Eq. (5); the paper notes a kink near 1 mV 'possibly arising from two-band pairing or an anisotropic gap structure' (Fig. 2a) but does not include it in the model.
  • domain assumption The in-plane field generates a London-gauge vector potential A = (B λ_L sinh(z/λ_L)/cosh(d/2λ_L), 0, 0) and a uniform diamagnetic current (Peierls phase φ_ij)
    Methods Eq. (6) and Supp Fig. 13; the key input for the Doppler shift E_D = e v_k · A. The Discussion admits this profile may break down because B > Hc1.
  • ad hoc to paper CDW potential phases are fixed at φ1=-2π/3, φ2=2π/3, φ3=0 to match the observed 3x3 pattern
    Methods Eq. (4); no independent derivation of the phase choices.
  • ad hoc to paper Simulation performed at B = 0.8 Bc rather than the experimental field, without a scaling argument linking the two
    Supp Figs. 16-17 captions; the experimental data are at 100-400 mT while the model effect is shown near the critical field.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Supercurrent effect in a charge density wave intertwined superconductor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WHUQXTLL

@misc{pith2026260721507,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Supercurrent effect in a charge density wave intertwined superconductor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WHUQXTLL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21507}
}
read the original abstract

The energy-momentum (E-k) dispersion of quasiparticles constitutes a fundamental concept in condensed matter systems. The ability to modify the E-k dispersion, exemplified by supercurrent-induced Doppler shifts of Bogoliubov quasiparticle spectra in superconductors, enables manipulation of various emergent quantum properties. However, investigations into the supercurrent effect on superconductors intertwined with charge orders remain scarce. Here, we report that the Meissner current, generated by the diamagnetic response to an applied in-plane magnetic field, can tailor Bogoliubov quasiparticle excitations at the precursor charge density wave (CDW) vectors. Our scanning tunneling spectroscopic imaging reveals a field-driven symmetry breaking of CDW modulations, specifically a C3v-to-Cs transition, in superconducting NbSe2. Model calculations suggest that the observed anisotropy originates from a selective Doppler-shift-induced E-k dispersion reconstruction. Furthermore, altering the field direction enables on-demand tuning of anisotropic CDW modulations and visualization of their momentum-space distribution. These results highlight a novel mechanism for controlling emergent electronic phases through momentum-space engineering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21507 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Supercurrent effect of CDW modulations on Bogoliubov quasiparticles. a, dI/dV spectra taken under zero magnetic field (V = 3 mV, I = 500 pA). b-g, 3D representation of FFTed conductance maps (V = 3 mV, I = 500 pA) taken at indicated energies under zero field. Six CDW peaks (red circles) emerge above 0.5 mV with equal intensity. Bragg peaks are marked by white triangles. h, dI/dV spectra (pink) measured under a 100 m… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Manipulation of the CDW modulations on Bogoliubov quasiparti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Numerical simulations of supercurrent effect on CDW mediated patterns [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Tunneling density of states for a superconductor carrying a current

    Fulde, P. Tunneling density of states for a superconductor carrying a current. Phys. Rev. 137, A783–A787 (1965)

    1965

  2. [2]

    Zhu, Z. et al. Discovery of segmented Fermi surface induced by Cooper pair momentum. Science 374, 1381–1385 (2021)

    2021

  3. [3]

    Pal, B. et al. Josephson diode effect from Cooper pair momentum in a topological semimetal. Nat. Phys. 18, 1228–1233 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    & Yanase, Y

    Takasan, K., Sumita, S. & Yanase, Y. Supercurrent‑induced topological phase transitions. Phys. Rev. B 106, 014508 (2022)

    2022

  5. [5]

    G., Buccheri, F

    Medina Cuy, F. G., Buccheri, F. & Dolcini, F. Lifshitz transitions and Weyl semimetals from a topological superconductor with supercurrent flow. Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033060 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    & von Oppen, F

    Romito, A., Alicea, J., Refael, G. & von Oppen, F. Manipulating Majorana fermions using supercurrents. Phys. Rev. B 85, 020502(R) (2012)

    2012

  7. [7]

    & Ojanen, T

    Röntynen, J. & Ojanen, T. Tuning topological superconductivity in helical Shiba chains by supercurrent. Phys. Rev. B 90, 180503(R) (2014)

    2014

  8. [8]

    Papaj, M. & Fu, L. Creating Majorana modes from segmented Fermi surface. Nat. Commun. 12, 577 (2021)

    2021

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    E., Zhang, F.-C

    Pan, X.-H., Chen, L., Liu, D. E., Zhang, F.-C. & Liu, X. Majorana zero modes induced by the Meissner effect at small magnetic field. Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 036602 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Crowley, P. J. D. & Fu, L. Supercurrent‑induced resonant optical response. Phys. Rev. B 106, 214526 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    & Moore, J

    Papaj, M. & Moore, J. E. Current‑enabled optical conductivity of superconductors. Phys. Rev. B 106, L220504 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Moler, K. A. et al. Specific heat of YBa2Cu3O7-δ. Phys. Rev. B 55, 3954–3965 (1997)

    1997

  5. [13]

    The dynamics of charge‑density waves

    Grüner, G. The dynamics of charge‑density waves. Rev. Mod. Phys. 60, 1129–1181 (1988)

    1988

  6. [14]

    Balseiro, C. A. & Falicov, L. M. Superconductivity and charge‑density waves. Phys. Rev. B 20, 4457–4464 (1979)

    1979

  7. [15]

    Morosan, E. et al. Superconductivity in CuxTiSe2. Nat. Phys. 2, 544–550 (2006)

    2006

  8. [16]

    Chang, J. et al. Direct observation of competition between superconductivity and charge density wave order in YBa2Cu3O6.67. Nat. Phys. 8, 871–876 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    Ghiringhelli, G. et al. Long‑range incommensurate charge fluctuations in (Y ,Nd)Ba2Cu3O6+x. Science 337, 821–825 (2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    Wang, N. N. et al. Competition between charge-density-wave and superconductivity in the kagome metal RbV3Sb5. Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 043018 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Aishwarya, A. et al. Magnetic-field-sensitive charge density waves in the superconductor UTe2. Nature 618, 928–933 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Ugeda, M. M. et al. Characterization of collective ground states in single‑layer NbSe2. Nat. Phys. 12, 92–97 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Cho, K. et al. Using controlled disorder to probe the interplay between charge order and superconductivity in NbSe2. Nat. Commun. 9, 2796 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    & Feng, J

    Zheng, F. & Feng, J. Electron‑phonon coupling and the coexistence of superconductivity and charge-density wave in monolayer NbSe2. Phys. Rev. B 99, 161119(R) (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    X., Sharma, R

    Liu, X., Chong, Y. X., Sharma, R. & Davis, J. C. S. Discovery of a Cooper‑pair density wave state in a transition‑metal dichalcogenide. Science 372, 1447–1452 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Cao, L. et al. Directly visualizing nematic superconductivity driven by the pair density wave in NbSe2. Nat. Commun. 15, 7234 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    X., Sharma, R

    Liu, X., Chong, Y. X., Sharma, R. & Davis, J. C. S. Atomic‑scale visualization of electronic fluid flow. Nat. Mater. 20, 1480–1484 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    & Weber, H

    Zehetmayer, M. & Weber, H. W. Experimental evidence for a two-band superconducting state of NbSe2 single crystals. Phys. Rev. B 82, 014524 (2010)

    2010

  19. [27]

    Alshemi, A. et al. Two characteristic contributions to the superconducting state of 2H-NbSe2. Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 116001 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    Kiss, T. et al. Charge‑order‑maximized momentum‑dependent superconductivity. Nat. Phys. 3, 720–725 (2007)

    2007

  21. [29]

    & Vieira, S

    Guillamon, I., Suderow, H., Guinea, F. & Vieira, S. Intrinsic atomic -scale modulations of the superconducting gap of 2H -NbSe2. Phys. Rev. B 77, 134505 (2008)

    2008

  22. [30]

    & Guo, J

    Zhou, K., Deng, J., Guo, L. & Guo, J. Tunable superconductivity in 2H -NbSe2 via in situ Li intercalation. Chin. Phys. Lett. 37, 097402 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    & Fehske, H

    Weiße, A., Wellein, G., Alvermann, A. & Fehske, H. The kernel polynomial method. Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 275–306 (2006)

    2006

  24. [32]

    W., Wimmer, M., Akhmerov, A

    Groth, C. W., Wimmer, M., Akhmerov, A. R. & Waintal, X. Kwant: a software package for quantum transport. New J. Phys. 16, 063065 (2014). Acknowledgments We thank V . Madhavan and H. Ma for helpful discussion. H.Z. discloses support for the research of this work from the Nation...

    2014

  25. [33]

    State Key Laboratory of Micro-nano Engineering Science, Tsung-Dao Lee lnstitute & School of Physics and Astronomy, Key Laboratory of Artificial Structures and Quantum Control (Ministry of Education), Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China

  26. [34]

    School of Physics and Wuhan National High Magnetic Field Center, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China

  27. [35]

    Department of Physics, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

  28. [36]

    Hefei National Laboratory, Hefei 230088, China

  29. [37]

    Shanghai Research Center for Quantum Sciences, 99 Xiupu Road, Shanghai 201315, China

  30. [38]

    Department of Physics, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, China

  31. [39]

    *Corresponding authors: haozheng1@sjtu.edu.cn ;phyliuxin@sjtu.edu.cn ; jfjia@sjtu.edu.cn Table of Contents Supplementary Notes:

    Quantum Science Center of Guangdong -Hong Kong -Macao Greater Bay Area (Guangdong), Shenzhen, China †These authors contributed equally to this work. *Corresponding authors: haozheng1@sjtu.edu.cn ;phyliuxin@sjtu.edu.cn ; jfjia@sjtu.edu.cn Table of Contents Supplementary Notes:

  32. [40]

    CDW’s modulation on LDOS of Bogoliubov quasiparticles in NbSe2

  33. [41]

    Supercurrent effect on the CDW’s modulation on LDOS in superconducting NbSe2 Supplementary Figures:

  34. [42]

    Schematic illustration of the original Brillouin zone and the folded Brillouin zone

  35. [43]

    Lattice structure, band structure, and Fermi surface used in the numerical simulations

  36. [44]

    Electronic band structure and Fermi surface after including the CDW

  37. [45]

    BdG band structure and corresponding constant-energy contour at zero magnetic field

  38. [46]

    Band structure, DOS, real -space LDOS, and the Fourier transform in the absence of magnetic field

  39. [47]

    Regions for m easurements of field -dependent dI/dV spectra and the relationsh ip between Doppler shifts and the in-plane magnetic fields

  40. [48]

    Real-space dI/dV maps under zero magnetic field

  41. [49]

    FFTs of real-space dI/dV maps under zero magnetic field

  42. [50]

    Real-space dI/dV maps under a 100 mT magnetic field applied along Γ-M direction

  43. [51]

    FFTs of real -space d I/dV maps under a 100 mT magnetic field applied along Γ -M direction

  44. [52]

    Data acquisition area for Figure 2

  45. [53]

    Field-independent CDW modulations in topographic images

  46. [54]

    The distribution of the vecto r potential after applying a magnetic field along the Γ-M direction

  47. [55]

    BdG band structure and corresponding constant -energy contour with magnetic field along Γ-M

  48. [56]

    BdG band structure and corresponding constant -energy contour with magnetic field along Γ-K

  49. [57]

    Band structure, DOS, real-space LDOS, and the Fourier transform with magnetic field along Γ-M

  50. [58]

    Supplementary Notes: When a 3×3 CDW potential is introduced, the Brillouin zone becomes smaller than the original one

    Band structure, DOS, real-space LDOS, and the Fourier transform with magnetic field along Γ-K. Supplementary Notes: When a 3×3 CDW potential is introduced, the Brillouin zone becomes smaller than the original one. The original and folded Brillouin zones are shown in Supplement...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.