Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 58 references

A single-component U(1) superconductor can hide a second correlation length, and that changes its vortex physics.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 22:14 UTC pith:AV4YYE4N

load-bearing objection A genuinely new idea—multiple correlation lengths and type-1.5 vortex clustering in a nominally single-component U(1) superconductor—backed by convincing numerics, but the analytic coherence-length derivation has a missing Hessian term that needs correction before the stated mechanism is credible. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.11263 v1 pith:AV4YYE4N submitted 2025-11-14 cond-mat.supr-con

Multiple correlation lengths and type-1.5 superconductivity in U(1) superconductors due to hidden competition between irreducible representations of nonlocal pairing

Anton Talkachov , Paul Leask , Egor Babaev This is my paper
classification cond-mat.supr-con MSC 82D55 PACS 74.20.De
keywords multiple correlation lengthstype-1.5 superconductivityvortex clusterings-wave/d-wave pairingGinzburg-Landau theoryirreducible representationsnonlocal pairingtime-reversal symmetry breaking
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that even a superconductor whose ground state breaks only U(1) symmetry and contains a single order-parameter component (pure s-wave or pure d-wave) can be effectively multicomponent in its response to perturbations. A subdominant pairing channel belonging to a different irreducible representation of nonlocal pairing does not nucleate in the ground state, but its virtual presence in the gradient-energy structure imprints an additional coherence length. When this second length exceeds the magnetic field penetration depth, the system enters the type-1.5 regime: vortices repel at short range but attract at long range, producing vortex clusters instead of a vortex lattice. The claim matters because it challenges the usual identification of one order parameter with one coherence length and enlarges the class of materials that can show type-1.5 behavior.

Core claim

The central discovery is that multiple correlation lengths do not require multiple broken symmetries or multiple bands. In a model with nearest-neighbor pairing on a square lattice, the link order parameter decomposes into extended s-wave (A1g) and d-wave (B1g) irreducible representations. Even when only one of these is condensed, the mixed gradient coupling gamma12 between the two channels makes amplitude fluctuations hybridize, so the linearized Ginzburg-Landau spectrum has two finite coherence lengths. Near a second transition into an s+id state with time-reversal symmetry breaking, one of these lengths diverges; with the penetration depth lying between the two coherence lengths, vortex i

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-component Ginzburg-Landau free energy derived from the microscopic lattice model, with order parameters Delta_s and Delta_d, anisotropic gradient terms gamma1, gamma2, a mixed gradient term gamma12, and interband couplings beta3, beta4. The carrier of the argument is the matrix Gamma(phi) describing the stiffness of amplitude fluctuations as a function of direction; its off-diagonal entries, proportional to gamma12 cos 2phi, hybridize the two channels. Through the eigenvalues of Gamma^{-1} H, one obtains two direction-dependent coherence lengths xi1, xi2 even when the subdominant amplitude is zero in the ground state, because the mixed gradient term couples fluc

Load-bearing premise

The analytic claim that two finite coherence lengths exist for a pure s-wave or d-wave ground state rests on the Hessian in Eq. (C4) being supplemented by curvature terms (alpha2 and beta3|Delta|^2 terms) for the uncondensed component; as written, the Hessian has a zero diagonal entry, which would give an infinite second coherence length.

What would settle it

A calculation of the exact linearized fluctuation spectrum of the microscopic self-consistency equation at a point where the ground state is pure s-wave or pure d-wave would settle the question: if only one finite coherence length survives when the subdominant amplitude is exactly zero, the central claim collapses. Experimentally, measuring the vortex-vortex interaction energy as a function of separation in a material with a near-degenerate second pairing channel would distinguish type-1.5 clustering from a conventional type-II lattice.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Ground states that look single-component in equilibrium can exhibit two correlation lengths; one coherence length diverges at both the U(1) transition and the transition to a time-reversal-symmetry-broken s+id state, even when the second component never condenses.
  • Within the estimated parameter region, the magnetic penetration depth can fall between the two coherence lengths, so vortices attract each other on the scale of the longer length and form clusters rather than a triangular lattice.
  • Vortex clusters have anisotropic morphology: in the s+id state they form diagonal chains for two, three and five vortices, whereas four-vortex clusters can form a diamond or a chain depending on the ground state, offering a diagnostic of the pairing symmetry.
  • Vortex clusters in the s+id state carry skyrmion charge Q=2 as bound pairs of Q=1 skyrmions, with an additional density-density attraction in the type-1.5 regime.
  • A nominally single-component U(1) superconductor cannot be type-II in proximity to a continuous transition to a different pairing state with additional broken symmetry.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the mechanism should generalize beyond s/d channels; any superconductor with a nearby instability in a different irreducible representation (for example, a d+ig state) could display a second correlation length even when only one component is condensed.
  • Editorial inference: a direct microscopic test would be to compute the exact fluctuation spectrum of the self-consistency equation (without the GL Hessian approximation) in the pure s-wave or d-wave state and check whether a finite second length survives at zero subdominant amplitude.
  • Editorial inference: scanning-tunneling measurements of the local density of states around a vortex could reveal the subdominant order parameter nucleating in the core, providing an experimental fingerprint of the hidden length scale.
  • Editorial inference: if the analytic estimate is corrected by including the omitted curvature terms, the type-1.5 region on the phase diagram may shift; the numerical vortex-clustering results stand independently of that estimate.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper considers a single-band square-lattice superconductor with nearest-neighbor pairing, whose link order parameter decomposes into extended s-wave and d-wave irreducible representations. The authors derive a Ginzburg–Landau functional from the microscopic model, compute the mean-field phase diagram (s-wave, d-wave, and s+id regions), estimate coherence lengths and magnetic penetration depth, and solve the resulting GL equations numerically. The central claim is that even when only one order-parameter component is nucleated in the ground state (pure s-wave or pure d-wave), the suppressed competing component generates a second finite correlation length, producing type-1.5 superconductivity with vortex clustering. The paper reports negative vortex binding energies for pure s-wave, pure d-wave, and s+id parameter sets, and additionally reports skyrmionic textures in the s+id case.

Significance. If the mechanism holds, this would substantially broaden the class of systems exhibiting multiple coherence lengths and type-1.5 behavior, showing that a nominally single-component U(1) superconductor can display vortex attraction and clustering. The numerical vortex-clustering results, obtained from microscopically derived GL parameters, are a concrete falsifiable prediction and are the strongest part of the paper. The microscopic derivation of the GL coefficients and the systematic phase diagram are also valuable. However, the analytic coherence-length derivation—which underpins the predicted type-1.5 region in Fig. 1—contains a gap that must be repaired before the paper's central claim is fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix C.1, Eq. (C4) and Eq. (C5)] For a pure s-wave ground state, Δd^GS = 0, so the Hessian in Eq. (C4) becomes diag(8β1|Δs^GS|^2, 0) with zero off-diagonal entries. The matrix Γ^{-1}H then has rank one, giving a zero eigenvalue and hence an infinite coherence length from Eq. (C5). This contradicts Fig. 2, which shows both ξ1 and ξ2 finite in the pure s-wave and pure d-wave regions. The finite second length must come from curvature terms in the potential of the uncondensed component—specifically, from terms such as ∂²F_p/∂|Δd|² = 2α2 + 2β3|Δs^GS|² (plus β4-dependent contributions) that are not included in Eq. (C4). The authors should include these terms in the Hessian and recompute the coherence lengths, or explicitly explain why they are negligible. As written, the analytic two-length hierarchy in Fig. 2 is not self-consistent.
  2. [Sec. II/C.1, text near Eqs. (6)-(7)] The statement that the off-diagonal terms in Γ are 'crucial' for obtaining two coherence lengths in a pure s-wave or d-wave ground state is not correct as it stands. When one order-parameter amplitude vanishes, the off-diagonal entries of H in Eq. (C4) also vanish. Off-diagonal gradient terms cannot create a second nonzero eigenvalue from a rank-one matrix Γ^{-1}H; they only rotate the single nonzero mode. Hybridization through Γ is relevant only when both amplitudes are nonzero. This explanatory claim should be rewritten once the Hessian is corrected.
  3. [Fig. 1 and Fig. 2] The estimated type-1.5 region in Fig. 1 and the displayed length-scale hierarchy in Fig. 2 rest on the approximate coherence lengths derived from Eq. (C4). Since that derivation yields an infinite coherence length for the pure states, the shaded type-1.5 region is not justified by the equations presented. The numerical vortex clustering in Figs. 3, 6–8 is independent and remains evidence, but the analytic estimate used to select the parameter points needs to be recomputed with the full Hessian of the potential including the subdominant-component mass term.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (4)] The notation γαβ_ij in Eq. (4) is not defined; clarify how it relates to the matrix Γ(φ) in Eq. (7), and specify the index conventions for the anisotropic gradient term.
  2. [Fig. 8] E1 is used in the normalized binding energy but never defined in the main text. State explicitly that it is the energy of a single isolated vortex and describe how that energy was computed in the simulation.
  3. [Sec. C.3, Eq. (C26)] The claim that the two-vortex state has skyrmion charge Q=2 'up to numerical accuracy' should be accompanied by the computed numerical value and an estimate of the discretization error.
  4. [General] The paper would benefit from a data/code availability statement, since the GL coefficients in Table I are provided but the numerical methods are not fully reproducible without additional details on grid sizes, boundary relaxation, and convergence criteria.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: GL coefficients are derived from the microscopic Hamiltonian and the vortex clustering is checked by solving the same GL model; the Hessian issue in Eq. (C4) is a non-circular self-consistency flaw.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: the GL coefficients are computed from the microscopic Hamiltonian via Eqs. (B3) and (B10) and are not fitted to the vortex-clustering result; the type-1.5 region in Fig. 1 is an estimate made from those computed coefficients; the later vortex-cluster calculations solve the full GL equations (C12)-(C19) at parameter points obtained from the same microscopic model. This is an internal consistency check of the GL model, not a loop in which the target result is inserted as an input. The many Babaev-group references are background and hybridization statements and do not carry the central derivation, so there is no load-bearing self-citation. The only flagged issue is Eq. (C4): for a pure s-wave ground state H22 = 8 beta2 |Delta_d^GS|^2 = 0 and the off-diagonal entries also vanish, so Eq. (C5) as written would give an infinite second coherence length rather than the finite length shown in Fig. 2; finite lengths would require the unshown alpha2 and beta3|Delta_s^GS|^2 curvature terms. This is a mathematical self-consistency/correctness flaw, not a circular reduction of the kind defined by the review rules, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a microscopically derived GL model with no new physical entities. The free parameters are standard model inputs (interaction strength, cutoff, lattice constants). The key approximations are mean-field BCS theory, the GL expansion near T_c, and the deliberate decoupling of amplitude and phase modes in the analytic length-scale estimates. No parameters are fit to the vortex-clustering result.

free parameters (5)
  • V (nearest-neighbor pairing strength) = 2 (in units of t_xy)
    Chosen as a model input; not fitted to reproduce the central result.
  • ω_D (energy cutoff) = 0.1 (in units of t_xy)
    Regularization scale in self-consistency equations; BCS-style small-cutoff choice.
  • a (unit cell size) = 0.4 nm
    Typical value for 122-family iron-based superconductors; used for SI conversion of length scales, not fitted.
  • L_z (interlayer distance) = 1.3 nm
    Typical value for layered superconductors; used in the 2D approximation.
  • t_xy (hopping parameter) = 0.01 eV
    Typical value for the 122-family; used to set energy scale.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Mean-field BCS treatment of the attractive nearest-neighbor Hubbard model
    The microscopic self-consistency equation (A1) and the derived GL functional assume a mean-field decoupling; fluctuations beyond mean field are neglected.
  • domain assumption BCS density-of-states approximation and form-factor averaging over the Fermi surface
    Analytic results in Appendix A use constant density of states N_F and average form factors (γ_s, Γ_d) over the Fermi surface; numerical phase diagram uses full band structure, but the GL coefficients in Table I are computed within this approximation.
  • domain assumption Small energy cutoff ω_D = 0.1
    The self-consistency and GL coefficient calculations restrict quasiparticle energies to |ξ| < ω_D, a standard BCS regularization.
  • domain assumption Ginzburg-Landau expansion is valid near the superconducting transition temperature
    The paper notes the GL expansion is expected to fail at low temperatures, yet the numerical simulations are performed at T values close to T_c (T/T_c ~ 0.8-1.0), so this is a controlled assumption for the chosen points.
  • ad hoc to paper Neglect of amplitude-phase mode mixing in the coherence length estimates
    In the main text and Appendix C, the coherence lengths are computed by decoupling amplitude and phase fluctuations; the text states this assumption breaks for vortex core analysis. It is used only to estimate the type-1.5 region, not for the numerical vortex solutions.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20525 in / 19300 out tokens · 154355 ms · 2026-08-03T22:14:05.874470+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

A fundamental characteristic of a superconducting state is the coherence length $\xi$. Multicomponent superconductors, particularly ones breaking multiple symmetries, are characterized by multiple coherence lengths. Here we show that even, nominally $single$-component superconductors under certain conditions are characterized by multiple coherence lengths. We consider nearest-neighbor pairing interactions on a square lattice that leads to $s$-wave and $d$-wave representations of link superconducting order parameter. We show that even if the subdominant order parameter is completely suppressed in the ground state, it results in multiple correlation lengths with nontrivial hierarchy, resulting in important physical consequences in inhomogeneous solutions. Under certain conditions, this leads to type-1.5 superconductivity, where magnetic field penetration length falls between two coherence lengths, leading to vortex clustering in an external magnetic field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.11263 by Anton Talkachov, Egor Babaev, Paul Leask.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The phase diagram of the microscopic Hamiltonian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Temperature dependence of estimates of coherence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Two flux quanta vortex cluster solutions in Ginzburg–Landau model for three distinct ground states: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plot of the pseudo-spin texture ϕ⃗ = 1 |∆s| 2+|∆d| 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The phase diagram of the microscopic Hamiltonian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Vortex cluster solutions for s + id ground state in Ginzburg–Landau model. Number of flux quanta: (a) 3, (b) 4, (c) 5. Model parameters correspond to green point in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Vortex cluster solutions for pure s-wave ground state in Ginzburg–Landau model. Number of flux quanta: (a) 3, (b) 4, (c) 5. Model parameters correspond to black point in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The normalized binding energy in a vortex cluster per vortex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Characteristic temperatures for pures-wave and d-waveU(1)transitions Ifs-wave andd-wave order parameterswould not feel (or influence) each other[∆ d = 0 in the first of Eqs. (A4) and ∆ s = 0 in the second equation],characteristictem- peratures for normal metal to superconductor transition are defined from independent equations V NF γs Z 2π 0 dφ 2π Z ωD 0 ...

  2. [2]

    We can assume ∆ s ̸= 0,∆ d → 0 fors+idstate tos-wave transition

    Pures-wave tos+idstate transition for all temperatures Transition fromU(1) broken symmetry state toU(1)× Z2 state is of the second order in the model at the mean- field level [18, 19, 34–37]. We can assume ∆ s ̸= 0,∆ d → 0 fors+idstate tos-wave transition. Self-consistency 7 Eq. (A4) on the transition line becomes    1 =V NF γs R ωD 0 dξ tanh √ ξ...

  3. [3]

    The charac- teristic temperature fors-wave is lower than ford-wave in the phase diagram region

    Pured-wave tos+idstate transition for (Td −T)≪T d In the subsection, we are interested in a region where d-wave just developed (∆d →0), and we are approaching s+idstate fromd-wave phase (∆ s = 0). The charac- teristic temperature fors-wave is lower than ford-wave in the phase diagram region. Superconducting gap for d-wave can be approximately written in t...

  4. [4]

    Gap amplitudes are presented in unitst xy p |α1|/β1, magnetic fieldB z in 2ℏ|α1|/(ea2γ1)

    Boundary conditions correspond to no current flowing through the boundary, and the external magnetic field is zero. Gap amplitudes are presented in unitst xy p |α1|/β1, magnetic fieldB z in 2ℏ|α1|/(ea2γ1). Model parameters are presented in Table I. culation can be performed. From Figs. 1 and 2, there is an indication that a type-1.5 regime could exist for...

    2022

  5. [5]

    Pured-wave tos+idstate transition for T≪T d, Ts Self-consistency Eq. (A4) becomes    1 =V NF γs R 2π 0 dφ 2π R ωD 0 dξ tanh √ ξ2 +∆2 d cos2 2φ 2T√ ξ2+∆2 d cos2 2φ , 1 =V NF Γd R 2π 0 dφ 2π cos2 2φ R ωD 0 dξ tanh √ ξ2 +∆2 d cos2 2φ 2T√ ξ2+∆2 d cos2 2φ . (A12) Let us work with the first equation of Eq. (A12). Add and subtract term 1√ ξ2+∆2 d cos2 2...

  6. [6]

    (A3) with a small energy cutoff [ω D = 0.1, see Fig

    Numerical calculations of a phase diagram and comparison to analytical results Let us compute superconducting phase diagram in (µ, T) coordinates using numerical solution of the Eqs. (A3) with a small energy cutoff [ω D = 0.1, see Fig. 5(a)]. A distinct feature is a sharp (vertical) tran- sition betweens+idands-wave phases, predicted in Sec. A 2. Numerica...

  7. [7]

    Here we provide rough approximations to the coherence lengths corresponding to amplitude variations and relative phase variations

    Coherence lengths calculation Exact evaluation leads to a degree 6 polynomial equa- tion (for amplitudes, phase difference, and three gauge field components) that determine all the lengths scales in the system, while all the normal modes are in general mixed [22]. Here we provide rough approximations to the coherence lengths corresponding to amplitude var...

  8. [8]

    The model consists of a two-component complex order pa- rameter ∆ α ∈Cwithα= 1,2 and a vector gauge field ⃗˜A= ( ˜A1, ˜A2)∈R 2

    Numerical calculation details After making rough estimates for length scales we can move to numerical solutions that allow to calculate length scales without these simplified estimates. The model consists of a two-component complex order pa- rameter ∆ α ∈Cwithα= 1,2 and a vector gauge field ⃗˜A= ( ˜A1, ˜A2)∈R 2. We identify ∆ s = ∆1 and ∆d = ∆2. Let the l...

  9. [9]

    That can be seen by representing superconducting gap fields in terms of a pseudospin vec- tor [46]

    Skyrmions When integer flux vortices split into spatially separated fractional vortices in each component ∆α, such that their cores (zeroes of the components ∆α = 0) are never coinci- dent, skyrmions form. That can be seen by representing superconducting gap fields in terms of a pseudospin vec- tor [46]. For such structures, one may construct a gauge inva...

  10. [10]

    6) and pures-wave (Fig

    Additional data In the appendix we provide multivortex cluster solu- tions for different flux quanta and two ground states: s+idstate (Fig. 6) and pures-wave (Fig. 7). Solu- tions ford-wave ground state are qualitatively similar to the ones in Fig. 7. This has origin from the symmetry of the model under swapping of the order parameters {∆s, α1, β1, γ1} ↔ ...

  11. [11]

    physical minimum

    V. L. Ginzburg, Nobel Lecture: On superconductivity and superfluidity (what I have and have not managed to do) as well as on the “physical minimum” at the begin- ning of the XXI century, Rev. Mod. Phys.76, 981 (2004)

    2004

  12. [12]

    Larkin and A

    A. Larkin and A. Varlamov, Theory of fluctuations in superconductors, Vol. 127 (OUP Oxford, 2005)

    2005

  13. [13]

    Landau and V

    L. Landau and V. Ginzburg, K teorii sverkhrovodimosti, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz20, 546 (1950)

    1950

  14. [14]

    A. A. Abrikosov, Magnetic properties of superconduc- 14 Figure 6. Vortex cluster solutions fors+idground state in Ginzburg–Landau model. Number of flux quanta: (a) 3, (b) 4, (c) 5. Model parameters correspond to green point in Fig. 1, it is the first column in Table I. Panels 1-4 show amplitudes |∆s|,|∆ d|, relative phase differenceθ= arg(∆ s∆∗ d), and ma...

    1957

  15. [15]

    L. P. Gor’kov, Microscopic derivation of the ginzburg- landau equations in the theory of superconductivity, Sov. Phys. JETP9, 1364 (1959)

    1959

  16. [16]

    Carlstr¨ om, J

    J. Carlstr¨ om, J. Garaud, and E. Babaev, Length scales, collective modes, and type-1.5 regimes in three-band su- perconductors, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics84, 134518 (2011)

    2011

  17. [17]

    Garaud, A

    J. Garaud, A. Corticelli, M. Silaev, and E. Babaev, Prop- erties of dirty two-band superconductors with repulsive interband interaction: Normal modes, length scales, vor- tices, and magnetic response, Phys. Rev. B98, 014520 (2018)

    2018

  18. [18]

    Moshchalkov, M

    V. Moshchalkov, M. Menghini, T. Nishio, Q. H. Chen, A. V. Silhanek, V. H. Dao, L. F. Chibotaru, N. D. Zhigadlo, and J. Karpinski, Type-1.5 Superconductivity, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 117001 (2009)

    2009

  19. [19]

    Babaev and M

    E. Babaev and M. Speight, Semi-meissner state and nei- ther type-I nor type-II superconductivity in multicom- ponent superconductors, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics72, 180502 (2005)

    2005

  20. [20]

    Carlstr¨ om, E

    J. Carlstr¨ om, E. Babaev, and M. Speight, Type-1.5 su- perconductivity in multiband systems: Effects of inter- band couplings, Phys. Rev. B83, 174509 (2011)

    2011

  21. [21]

    Silaev and E

    M. Silaev and E. Babaev, Microscopic theory of type-1.5 superconductivity in multiband systems, Phys. Rev. B 84, 094515 (2011)

    2011

  22. [22]

    Silaev and E

    M. Silaev and E. Babaev, Microscopic derivation of two- component Ginzburg-Landau model and conditions of its applicability in two-band systems, Phys. Rev. B85, 134514 (2012)

    2012

  23. [23]

    Timoshuk and E

    I. Timoshuk and E. Babaev, Microscopic solutions for vortex clustering in two-band type-1.5 superconductors, Phys. Rev. B110, 064509 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    Nishio, V

    T. Nishio, V. H. Dao, Q. Chen, L. F. Chibotaru, K. Kad- owaki, and V. V. Moshchalkov, Scanning SQUID mi- croscopy of vortex clusters in multiband superconductors, Phys. Rev. B81, 020506 (2010)

    2010

  25. [25]

    S. Ray, A. Gibbs, S. Bending, P. Curran, E. Babaev, C. Baines, A. Mackenzie, and S. Lee, Muon-spin rotation measurements of the vortex state in Sr 2RuO4: Type- 1.5 superconductivity, vortex clustering, and a crossover from a triangular to a square vortex lattice, Physical Re- view B89, 094504 (2014)

    2014

  26. [26]

    Biswas, F

    P. Biswas, F. N. Rybakov, R. Singh, S. Mukherjee, N. Parzyk, G. Balakrishnan, M. Lees, C. Dewhurst, E. Babaev, A. Hillier, et al., Coexistence of type-I and type-II superconductivity signatures in ZrB 12 probed by muon spin rotation measurements, Phys. Rev. B102, 144523 (2020)

    2020

  27. [27]

    Y. Wang, H. Yao, T. Winyard, C. Broyles, S. Gould, 15 Figure 7. Vortex cluster solutions for pures-wave ground state in Ginzburg–Landau model. Number of flux quanta: (a) 3, (b) 4, (c) 5. Model parameters correspond to black point in Fig. 1, it is the second column in Table I. Panels 1-4 show amplitudes |∆s|,|∆ d|, relative phase differenceθ= arg(∆ s∆∗ d),...

    2025

  28. [28]

    Ren, J.-H

    Y. Ren, J.-H. Xu, and C. Ting, Ginzburg-landau equa- tions for mixed s+d symmetry superconductors, Physical Review B53, 2249 (1996)

    1996

  29. [29]

    Musaelian, J

    K. Musaelian, J. Betouras, A. Chubukov, and R. Joynt, Mixed-symmetry superconductivity in two-dimensional fermi liquids, Physical Review B53, 3598 (1996). 16

    1996

  30. [30]

    H. Shimahara, Stability of mixed-symmetry supercon- ducting states with broken time-reversal symmetry against lattice distortions, Journal of the Physical So- ciety of Japan90, 064711 (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    Babaev, J

    E. Babaev, J. Carlstr¨ om, and M. Speight, Type-1.5 Su- perconducting State from an Intrinsic Proximity Effect in Two-Band Superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 067003 (2010)

    2010

  32. [32]

    Speight, T

    M. Speight, T. Winyard, A. Wormald, and E. Babaev, Magnetic field behavior ins+isands+idsuperconduc- tors: Twisting of applied and spontaneous fields, Physical Review B104, 174515 (2021)

    2021

  33. [33]

    Winyard, M

    T. Winyard, M. Silaev, and E. Babaev, Hierarchies of length-scale based typology in anisotropic U(1)s-wave multiband superconductors, Phys. Rev. B99, 064509 (2019)

    2019

  34. [34]

    Rotter, M

    M. Rotter, M. Pangerl, M. Tegel, and D. Johrendt, Superconductivity and crystal structures of Ba1−xKxFe2As2 (x=0-1), Angewandte Chemie In- ternational Edition47, 7949 (2008)

    2008

  35. [35]

    Leask, Baby skyrmion crystals, Phys

    P. Leask, Baby skyrmion crystals, Phys. Rev. D105, 025010 (2022)

    2022

  36. [36]

    Zheng, Q

    Y. Zheng, Q. Hu, H. Ji, I. Timoshuk, H. Xu, Y. Li, Y. Gao, X. Yu, R. Wu, X. Lu, et al., Direct observation of quantum vortex fractionalization in multiband super- conductors, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.18610 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Zhang, Y.-Y

    L.-F. Zhang, Y.-Y. Zhang, G.-Q. Zha, M. Miloˇ sevi´ c, and S.-P. Zhou, Skyrmionic chains and lattices ins+idsu- perconductors, Physical Review B101, 064501 (2020)

    2020

  38. [38]

    Garaud, J

    J. Garaud, J. Carlstr¨ om, and E. Babaev, Topological Solitons in Three-Band Superconductors with Broken Time Reversal Symmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 197001 (2011)

    2011

  39. [39]

    Garaud, J

    J. Garaud, J. Carlstr¨ om, E. Babaev, and M. Speight, Chi- ralCP 2 skyrmions in three-band superconductors, Phys. Rev. B87, 014507 (2013)

    2013

  40. [40]

    Bauer, D

    L. Bauer, D. He, S. Bharadwaj, S. Liu, P. V. Balachan- dran, and Z. Jacob, Type-1.5 snspd: Interacting vortex theory of two bandgap superconducting single photon de- tectors, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.01240 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Bardeen, L

    J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Theory of superconductivity, Physical review108, 1175 (1957)

    1957

  42. [42]

    Hu and H

    J. Hu and H. Ding, Local antiferromagnetic exchange and collaborative fermi surface as key ingredients of high temperature superconductors, Scientific reports2, 381 (2012)

    2012

  43. [43]

    Xiang and C

    T. Xiang and C. Wu, D-wave Superconductivity (Cam- bridge University Press, 2022)

    2022

  44. [44]

    Shapoval, On the phase transitiond→(s±id) in high-Tc superconductors, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters64, 625 (1996)

    E. Shapoval, On the phase transitiond→(s±id) in high-Tc superconductors, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters64, 625 (1996)

    1996

  45. [45]

    M. Liu, D. Xing, and Z. Wang, Mixed (s+id)-wave order parameters in the van hove scenario, Physical Review B 55, 3181 (1997)

    1997

  46. [46]

    Ghosh and S

    A. Ghosh and S. K. Adhikari, Two phase transitions in (dx2−y2 +is)-wave superconductors, Physica C: Super- conductivity322, 37 (1999)

    1999

  47. [47]

    H. S. Røising, G. Wagner, M. Roig, A. T. Rømer, and B. M. Andersen, Heat capacity double transitions in time-reversal symmetry broken superconductors, Phys- ical Review B106, 174518 (2022)

    2022

  48. [48]

    Maiti and P

    S. Maiti and P. J. Hirschfeld, Collective modes in super- conductors with competings- andd-wave interactions, Phys. Rev. B92, 094506 (2015)

    2015

  49. [49]

    Ghosh, M

    S. Ghosh, M. S. Ikeda, A. R. Chakraborty, T. Worasaran, F. Theuss, L. B. Peralta, P. Lozano, J.-W. Kim, P. Thompson, P. J. Ryan, et al., Elastocaloric evidence for a multicomponent superconductor stabilized within the nematic state in ba (fe1- x co x) 2as2, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences122, e2424833122 (2025)

    2025

  50. [50]

    Timirgazin, V

    M. Timirgazin, V. Gilmutdinov, and A. Arzhnikov, Phase diagrams of singlet superconducting states with mixed symmetry, Physica C: Superconductivity and its appli- cations557, 7 (2019)

    2019

  51. [51]

    Talkachov and E

    A. Talkachov and E. Babaev, Microscopic theory of strain-controlled split superconducting and time-reversal symmetry-breaking transitions ins+idsuperconductor, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.19137 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    A. C. Yuan, E. Berg, and S. A. Kivelson, Strain-induced time reversal breaking and half quantum vortices near a putative superconducting tetracritical point in Sr2RuO4, Physical Review B104, 054518 (2021)

    2021

  53. [53]

    Kuboki and K

    K. Kuboki and K. Yano, Microscopic derivation of ginzburg–landau equations for coexistent states of su- perconductivity and magnetism, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan81, 064711 (2012)

    2012

  54. [54]

    Feder and C

    D. Feder and C. Kallin, Microscopic derivation of the ginzburg-landau equations for a d-wave superconductor, Physical Review B55, 559 (1997)

    1997

  55. [55]

    Samoilenka and E

    A. Samoilenka and E. Babaev, Microscopic deriva- tion of superconductor-insulator boundary conditions for ginzburg-landau theory revisited: Enhanced supercon- ductivity at boundaries with and without magnetic field, Physical review b103, 224516 (2021)

    2021

  56. [56]

    Babaev, L

    E. Babaev, L. D. Faddeev, and A. J. Niemi, Hidden sym- metry and knot solitons in a charged two- condensate Bose system, Phys. Rev. B65, 100512 (2002)

    2002

  57. [57]

    Winyard, M

    T. Winyard, M. Silaev, and E. Babaev, Skyrmion forma- tion due to unconventional magnetic modes in anisotropic multiband superconductors, Phys. Rev. B99, 024501 (2019)

    2019

  58. [58]

    Carlstr¨ om, J

    J. Carlstr¨ om, J. Garaud, and E. Babaev, Semi-Meissner state and nonpairwise intervortex interactions in type-1.5 superconductors, Phys. Rev. B84, 134515 (2011)

    2011