Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Insulator-metal transition and topological superconductivity in UTe2 from a first-principles calculation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper predicts that electron correlations turn UTe2 into a time-reversal-invariant topological superconductor for every odd-parity pairing symmetry allowed by its crystal structure.

desk verdict A timely, honest prediction paper mapping UTe2's odd-parity pairing onto topological invariants, but the metallic Fermi surfaces it depends on only exist for a Coulomb U the paper cannot pin down. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04004 v3 pith:DLCBATVT submitted 2019-08-12 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.str-el

Jun Ishizuka , Shuntaro Sumita , Akito Daido , Youichi Yanase This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.str-el
keywords UTe2topologicalsuperconductorodd-paritypairingGGA+UMajoranasurfacestatesFermiinsulator-metaltransitiongapnodes
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

The paper argues that once electron correlations are included through a GGA+U correction, the uranium superconductor UTe2 is a metal with large Fermi surfaces rather than the insulator predicted by plain density-functional theory, and that this metallic state makes the superconductivity topologically nontrivial for every odd-parity pairing symmetry allowed by its Immm crystal structure. This matters because UTe2 is one of the strongest known candidate spin-triplet superconductors, and intrinsic time-reversal-invariant topological superconductors with Majorana surface states are rare. The paper translates the topology into concrete gap structures and measurable signatures, including a thermal-conductivity anisotropy that can distinguish the four pairing channels.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the Fermi-surface formula for the winding number, $\omega = \tfrac{1}{2}\sum_{\mathbf{K}_i} n(\mathbf{K}_i) \pmod 2$, together with analogous formulas for the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ invariants $\nu_1$, $\nu_2$, and $\nu_3$ on the $k_x=0$, $k_y=0$, and $k_z=0$ time-reversal-invariant planes, evaluated in the folded Brillouin zone because the doubled unit cell is compatible with the (100), (010), and (001) surfaces. The occupation numbers come from GGA+U band structures, so the chain runs from the correlation-strength parameter U to Fermi-surface topology to superconducting topology. Gap structures are then classified by the effective Altland-Zirnbauer symmetry class on high-symmetry mirror planes and rotational axes.

What would settle it

Measure the Fermi surface of UTe2 by quantum oscillations or ARPES: if the observed sheets match the small Fermi surfaces of the plain DFT calculation, or if the material is insulating at low temperatures, the predicted winding numbers and Majorana surface states do not follow. A complementary check is low-temperature thermal conductivity: for regions (i) and (ii), B2u pairing requires $\kappa_b > \kappa_{a,c}$ and B3u requires $\kappa_a > \kappa_{b,c}$, so observing different anisotropies would rule out the predicted gap-node structure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a Coulomb interaction strength U above about 1.0 eV drives an insulator-metal transition in UTe2, producing Fermi surfaces whose occupation numbers at the eight time-reversal-invariant momenta make the three-dimensional winding number and all three two-dimensional Z2 invariants nontrivial for the moderate-U Fermi surfaces labeled (i) and (ii). Consequently, for each of the four odd-parity irreducible representations Au, B1u, B2u, and B3u, the gapped superconducting bulk is topologically nontrivial, and Majorana surface states appear on the (100), (010), and (001) surfaces. The gap structure depends on pairing symmetry: Au is fully gapped, B1u has point nodes on the kz axis, B2u on the ky axes, and B3u on the kx axes for regions (i) and (ii), while in region (iii) only Au remains topological with an even winding number and B1u becomes fully gapped.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that a corrected density-functional calculation with an adjustable Coulomb repulsion U above about 1 eV captures the real low-temperature electronic state of the uranium 5f electrons, and the paper itself states that the GGA+U method cannot determine U.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, UTe2 is an intrinsic time-reversal-invariant class DIII topological superconductor, and clean (100), (010), and (001) surfaces should show zero-energy Majorana states detectable by tunneling spectroscopy or ARPES.
  • The predicted pairing-symmetry dependence of gap nodes gives distinct thermal-conductivity anisotropies: B1u gives $\kappa_c > \kappa_{a,b}$, B2u gives $\kappa_b > \kappa_{a,c}$, and B3u gives $\kappa_a > \kappa_{b,c}$ for regions (i) and (ii), so a single bulk measurement can select the pairing channel.
  • Under a magnetic field along the b axis, the theory predicts two superconducting phases, a line-nodal Bu state at low field and a point-nodal Au state at high field, offering an explanation for the re-entrant superconductivity and a testable field dependence of specific heat and Knight shift.
  • The nesting of the calculated Fermi surfaces implies that UTe2 sits near multiple magnetic instabilities, which is consistent with the absence of magnetic order despite strong ferromagnetic fluctuations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If confirmed, UTe2 would become a material platform for exploring non-Abelian Majorana quasiparticles in a three-dimensional superconductor; the paper itself does not discuss quantum-computation applications.
  • The results suggest a practical rule of thumb for actinide heavy-fermion compounds where plain DFT gives a small gap: a GGA+U Fermi surface at intermediate U may be enough for a topological classification. A direct dynamical-mean-field calculation would test whether the U-dependence of these Fermi surfaces survives a more rigorous treatment of correlations.
  • Because the topology holds for all four odd-parity pairings at moderate U, the paper implies that the topological superconductivity is controlled by the Fermi-surface geometry rather than by any one pairing mechanism. A testable extension is to feed experimentally measured Fermi surfaces, from quantum oscillations or ARPES, into the same winding-number and Z2 formulas without assuming a specific U
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports GGA+U electronic structure calculations for the heavy-fermion superconductor UTe2. It finds an insulator-metal transition driven by the Coulomb U parameter, with metallic Fermi surfaces appearing for U > 1.0 eV, and classifies the resulting Fermi-surface topologies into three regions (i)-(iii). Assuming odd-parity pairing and time-reversal symmetry, the authors use Fermi-surface formulas to compute the 3D winding number and three 2D Z2 invariants in the folded Brillouin zone, concluding that for regions (i) and (ii) all four odd-parity pairing symmetries of the Immm space group give topological superconductivity with Majorana surface states on (100), (010), and (001). They also present a symmetry-based classification of gap nodes using effective Altland-Zirnbauer classes and propose experimental tests, including thermal-conductivity anisotropy, to determine the pairing symmetry. A schematic field-temperature phase diagram under magnetic fields along the b axis is also proposed.

Significance. If the metallic Fermi surfaces obtained at U > 1 eV describe the actual low-temperature state of UTe2, the paper provides a concrete and falsifiable prediction of an intrinsic time-reversal-invariant (class DIII) topological superconductor with Majorana surface states, a rare and sought-after situation. The use of well-established Fermi-surface formulas for topological invariants and the systematic EAZ classification of gap nodes are rigorous tools that give the paper a clear logical structure. The predictions for gap structures and surface states are testable by STM, ARPES, and thermal transport. However, the central result is conditional on the choice of the Coulomb parameter U, whose physical value is not determined in the paper, and the competing DFT+U calculation at lower U gives an insulating state. The strength of the conclusion therefore depends on an unestablished premise.

major comments (3)
  1. The entire topological prediction rests on the insulator-metal transition at U = 1.0 eV, yet the paper explicitly states (p.2) that "we cannot determine the value of U in the framework of the GGA+U method." The competing DFT+U calculation at U = J = 0.51 eV cited as Ref. [42] yields an insulating state, and the bare DFT result is also insulating. Since Table II's invariants (1,1,1,1) for regions (i) and (ii) require the metallic Fermi surfaces, and region (iii) is trivial for most pairings, the claim that UTe2 is a topological superconductor for all odd-parity pairings is not established for the physical material unless an independent constraint on U is provided. The authors should either derive such a constraint (e.g., from specific heat, quantum oscillations, or ARPES) or explicitly frame the result as a conditional prediction over the unknown U window and identify experimental measurements that would discriminate between the regions.
  2. The occupation numbers n(Ki) in Table II, which determine the parity of the topological invariants, are read off from Fermi surfaces that are tiny near the transition (region (i), U = 1.0 eV). The paper provides no convergence tests with respect to the k-mesh, no comparison of the two double-counting schemes beyond a statement in the Supplemental Material that results were crosschecked, and no deposited input files or raw Fermi-surface data. Since the parity of n(Ki) can change if a small pocket is missed or spuriously created by numerical noise, the authors should demonstrate stability of the Table II entries against numerical parameters (e.g., k-mesh density, RMTKmax, and double-counting prescription) and, ideally, provide the calculated occupancies at all TRIM for each U value.
  3. The gap-node classification in Table S2 is derived under the assumption that the high-symmetry planes and axes intersect the normal-state Fermi surfaces (stated in the Supplemental Material). The paper does not explicitly verify this condition for the Fermi surfaces in Figs. 2(b)-(d). For instance, a point node on the kz axis (Λ) for the B1u state only affects the excitation spectrum if the Fermi surface actually crosses that axis. If the small electron and hole pockets in regions (i) and (ii) do not intersect the relevant symmetry lines, the predicted point nodes would be absent, and the associated surface Majorana states would not appear as claimed. The authors should check the intersection of each symmetry line and plane with the calculated Fermi surfaces and update Table III accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. The abstract states "topological superconductivity at an intermediate U for all the odd-parity pairing symmetry," but the main text limits this claim to regions (i) and (ii); for region (iii) only the Au state may be topological with an even winding number. This wording should be made more precise to avoid overstatement.
  2. The explanation of the folded Brillouin zone and the correspondence in Table I is terse. A short derivation or a sketch showing how the doubled unit cell is compatible with the (100), (010), (001) surfaces would help readers trust the use of the folded BZ for the FS formulas.
  3. The caption says "The values n(Ki)-180 are shown below," but the meaning of the constant 180 and why it is subtracted are not explained in the text. Please clarify.
  4. The phase diagram in Fig. 3 is schematic and based on symmetry considerations plus qualitative energy arguments. The paper should state explicitly that the proposed two-phase structure is a conjecture, not a result of a microscopic calculation.
  5. The paragraph on magnetism suggests nesting-induced finite-q fluctuations coexisting with ferromagnetic fluctuations. This is an interesting speculation, but it is not developed quantitatively; please indicate whether this is a suggestion or a derived result.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: topological invariants are computed from GGA+U Fermi surfaces with external Fermi-surface formulas; the adjustable U is a stated uncertainty, not a fitted input that forces the conclusion.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained on the points where the paper makes formal claims. The topological invariants in Table II are computed from occupation numbers n(Ki) obtained from the GGA+U band structures via external Fermi-surface formulas (Eq. (1) and the corresponding Z2 formulas, citing Refs. [11-13]); these formulas do not encode the UTe2 result, and the n(Ki) values are not fitted to superconducting observables. The insulator-metal transition is a parametric property of GGA+U as a function of the adjustable U; the paper explicitly states 'we cannot determine the value of U in the framework of the GGA+U method' and therefore does not present U as a fitted prediction. The gap-node classification uses the authors' earlier EAZ-classification framework (Refs. [18-21], [36,37] and Supplemental Refs. [S7-S17]); this is a parameter-free mathematical classification whose stated assumptions do not include the UTe2 Fermi surfaces, so invoking it is legitimate evidence rather than circular self-support. The remaining uncertainties—e.g., the physically relevant U and the competing insulating DFT+U result at U=J=0.51 eV—are parameter-identification and reproducibility limitations, not reductions of the conclusion to its inputs. No equation in the paper is shown to equal its own premise by construction, and the sweep even yields a trivial outcome (region (iii), omega=0), confirming that the nontrivial invariants are not forced by the method itself.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result is conditional on an undetermined correlation parameter U and on assuming odd-parity, time-reversal-invariant pairing. The topological formulas and gap classifications are standard external inputs; no new entities are invented.

free parameters (2)
  • Coulomb U in GGA+U = U > 1.0 eV for metallic states; representative U = 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 eV
    Swept until the DFT gap closes; the paper states U cannot be determined within the GGA+U method. All metallic Fermi-surface topologies and the resulting topological invariants depend on this choice.
  • Hund coupling J = 0 eV (fixed by hand)
    Set to zero in all GGA+U runs. A competing DFT+U study with U=J=0.51 eV obtains an insulating state, so this choice matters for the insulator-metal transition.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The zero-field superconducting state of UTe2 has odd-parity pairing and preserves time-reversal symmetry.
    Explicitly assumed in the 'Topological superconductivity' section; class DIII Fermi-surface formulas and the EAZ classification require this. A nonunitary TRS-breaking state is beyond scope.
  • standard math The parity of the 3D winding number and the 2D Z2 invariants is determined by occupation numbers at time-reversal invariant momenta (Sato, Fu and Berg).
    Used as Eq. (1) and later in Table II; external results, but they require a bulk gapped superconductor and topologically trivial normal state.
  • standard math Folding to the doubled unit cell is the correct way to evaluate surface invariants for the (100), (010), and (001) surfaces.
    Introduced in 'Topological superconductivity' with Table I; needed because translation symmetry on those surfaces is compatible with the doubled unit cell.
  • domain assumption GGA+U with around-mean-field double counting and J=0 is a faithful low-energy approximation for UTe2 correlations.
    The paper admits U cannot be determined; a competing DFT+U study with U=J=0.51 eV obtains an insulating state, so results depend on this modeling choice.
  • standard math The effective Altland-Zirnbauer classification of gap nodes on mirror planes and rotational axes is correct.
    Used to produce Tables III and S2; the relevant references are partly by the present authors but are published classifications.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Insulator-metal transition and topological superconductivity in UTe2 from a first-principles calculation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DLCBATVT

@misc{pith2026190804004,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Insulator-metal transition and topological superconductivity in UTe2 from a first-principles calculation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DLCBATVT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04004}
}
abstract

We theoretically study superconductivity in UTe$_2$, which is a recently-discovered strong candidate for an odd-parity spin-triplet superconductor. Theoretical studies for this compound faced difficulty because first-principles calculations predict an insulating electronic state, incompatible with superconducting instability. To overcome this problem, we take into account electron correlation effects by a GGA$+U$ method and show the insulator-metal transition by Coulomb interaction. Using Fermi surfaces obtained as a function of $U$, we clarify topological properties of possible superconducting states. Fermi surface formulas for the three-dimensional winding number and three two-dimensional $\mathbb{Z}_2$ numbers indicate topological superconductivity at an intermediate $U$ for all the odd-parity pairing symmetry in the $Immm$ space group. Symmetry and topology of superconducting gap node are analyzed and the gap structure of UTe$_2$ is predicted. Topologically protected low-energy excitations are highlighted, and experiments by bulk and surface probes are proposed to link Fermi surfaces and pairing symmetry. Based on the results, we also discuss multiple superconducting phases under magnetic fields, which were implied by recent experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04004 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Coulomb interaction dependence of (a) the band gap at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) First BZ and symmetry points. (b)-(d) FSs of UTe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Schematic phase diagram in the magnetic field ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [42]

    A. B. Shick and W. E. Pickett, Phys. Rev. B100, 134502 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    S. Ran, C. Eckberg, Q.-P. Ding, Y . Furukawa, T. Metz, S. R. Saha, I.-L. Liu, M. Zic, H. Kim, J. Paglione, and N. P. Butch, Science 365, 684 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [2]

    Aoki and J

    D. Aoki and J. Flouquet, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 83, 061011 (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [3]

    D. Aoki, K. Ishida, and J. Flouquet, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88, 022001 (2019)

    2019

  5. [4]

    Sundar, S

    S. Sundar, S. Gheidi, K. Akintola, A. M. C ˆot´e, S. R. Dunsiger, S. Ran, N. P. Butch, S. R. Saha, J. Paglione, and J. E. Sonier, Phys. Rev. B 100, 140502 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [5]

    D. Aoki, A. Nakamura, F. Honda, D. Li, Y . Homma, Y . Shimizu, Y . J. Sato, G. Knebel, J.-P. Brison, A. Pourret, D. Braithwaite, G. Lapertot, Q. Niu, M. Vali ˇska, H. Harima, and J. Flouquet, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88, 043702 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [6]

    Tokunaga, H

    Y . Tokunaga, H. Sakai, S. Kambe, T. Hattori, N. Higa, G. Nakamine, S. Kitagawa, K. Ishida, A. Nakamura, Y . Shimizu, Y . Homma, D. Li, F. Honda, and D. Aoki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88, 073701 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [7]

    Ran, I.-L

    S. Ran, I.-L. Liu, Y . S. Eo, D. J. Campbell, P. M. Neves, W. T. Fuhrman, S. R. Saha, C. Eckberg, H. Kim, D. Graf, F. Bal- akirev, J. Singleton, J. Paglione, and N. P. Butch, Nature Physics (2019), 10.1038/s41567-019-0670-x

    doi:10.1038/s41567-019-0670-x 2019

Show all 54 references
  1. [8]

    Knebel, W

    G. Knebel, W. Knafo, A. Pourret, Q. Niu, M. Valiˇska, D. Braith- waite, G. Lapertot, M. Nardone, A. Zitouni, S. Mishra, I. Sheikin, G. Seyfarth, J.-P. Brison, D. Aoki, and J. Flouquet, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88, 063707 (2019)

    2019

  2. [9]

    Knafo, M

    W. Knafo, M. Valiˇska, D. Braithwaite, G. Lapertot, G. Knebel, A. Pourret, J.-P. Brison, J. Flouquet, and D. Aoki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88, 063705 (2019)

    2019

  3. [10]

    Miyake, Y

    A. Miyake, Y . Shimizu, Y . J. Sato, D. Li, A. Nakamura, Y . Homma, F. Honda, J. Flouquet, M. Tokunaga, and D. Aoki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88, 063706 (2019)

    2019

  4. [11]

    Sato, Phys

    M. Sato, Phys. Rev. B 79, 214526 (2009)

    2009

  5. [12]

    Sato, Phys

    M. Sato, Phys. Rev. B 81, 220504(R) (2010)

    2010

  6. [13]

    Fu and E

    L. Fu and E. Berg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 097001 (2010)

    2010

  7. [14]

    Qi and S.-C

    X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1057 (2011)

    2011

  8. [15]

    Sato and S

    M. Sato and S. Fujimoto, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 85, 072001 (2016)

    2016

  9. [16]

    Sato and Y

    M. Sato and Y . Ando, Rep. Prog. Phys.80, 076501 (2017)

    2017

  10. [17]

    Sigrist and K

    M. Sigrist and K. Ueda, Rev. Mod. Phys. 63, 239 (1991)

    1991

  11. [18]

    Kobayashi, K

    S. Kobayashi, K. Shiozaki, Y . Tanaka, and M. Sato, Phys. Rev. B 90, 024516 (2014)

    2014

  12. [19]

    Kobayashi, Y

    S. Kobayashi, Y . Yanase, and M. Sato, Phys. Rev. B94, 134512 (2016)

    2016

  13. [20]

    Kobayashi, S

    S. Kobayashi, S. Sumita, Y . Yanase, and M. Sato, Phys. Rev. B 97, 180504(R) (2018)

    2018

  14. [21]

    Sumita, T

    S. Sumita, T. Nomoto, K. Shiozaki, and Y . Yanase, Phys. Rev. B 99, 134513 (2019)

    2019

  15. [22]

    Fujimori, I

    S.-i. Fujimori, I. Kawasaki, Y . Takeda, H. Yamagami, A. Naka- mura, Y . Homma, and D. Aoki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88, 103701 (2019)

    2019

  16. [23]

    Fermi- Surface Instabilities in the Heavy-Fermion Superconductor UTe2,

    Q. Niu, G. Knebel, D. Braithwaite, D. Aoki, G. Lapertot, G. Seyfarth, J.-P. Brison, J. Flouquet, and A. Pourret, “Fermi- Surface Instabilities in the Heavy-Fermion Superconductor UTe2,” arXiv:1907.11118

    1907 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Blaha, K

    P. Blaha, K. Schwarz, G. K. H. Madsen, D. Kvasnicka, J. Luitz, R. Laskowski, F. Tran, and L. D. Marks, WIEN2k, An Aug- mented Plane Wave + Local Orbitals Program for Calculat- ing Crystal Properties (Karlheinz Schwarz, Techn. Universit¨at Wien, Austria, 2018)

    2018

  18. [25]

    V . I. Anisimov, J. Zaanen, and O. K. Andersen, Phys. Rev. B 44, 943 (1991)

    1991

  19. [26]

    See Supplemental Material for details, which includes Refs. [44–53]

  20. [27]

    Yoshida, A

    T. Yoshida, A. Daido, N. Kawakami, and Y . Yanase, Phys. Rev. B 99, 235105 (2019)

    2019

  21. [28]

    G. E. V olovik and L. P. Gor’kov, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 39, 550 (1984)

    1984

  22. [29]

    G. E. V olovik and L. P. Gor’kov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.88, 1412 (1985)

    1985

  23. [30]

    P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. B 30, 4000 (1984)

    1984

  24. [31]

    V . G. Yarzhemsky and E. N. Murav’ev, J. Phys.: Condens. Mat- ter 4, 3525 (1992)

    1992

  25. [32]

    M. R. Norman, Phys. Rev. B 52, 15093 (1995)

    1995

  26. [33]

    Micklitz and M

    T. Micklitz and M. R. Norman, Phys. Rev. B 80, 100506(R) (2009)

    2009

  27. [34]

    Nomoto and H

    T. Nomoto and H. Ikeda, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 86, 023703 (2017)

    2017

  28. [35]

    Micklitz and M

    T. Micklitz and M. R. Norman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 207001 (2017)

    2017

  29. [36]

    Sumita, T

    S. Sumita, T. Nomoto, and Y . Yanase, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 027001 (2017)

    2017

  30. [37]

    Sumita and Y

    S. Sumita and Y . Yanase, Phys. Rev. B97, 134512 (2018)

    2018

  31. [38]

    Joynt and L

    R. Joynt and L. Taillefer, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 235 (2002)

    2002

  32. [39]

    Nakamine, S

    G. Nakamine, S. Kitagawa, K. Ishida, Y . Tokunaga, H. Sakai, S. Kambe, A. Nakamura, Y . Shimizu, Y . Homma, D. Li, F. Honda, and D. Aoki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88, 113703 (2019)

    2019

  33. [40]

    Yanase, T

    Y . Yanase, T. Jujo, T. Nomura, H. Ikeda, T. Hotta, and K. Ya- mada, Phys. Rep. 387, 1 (2003)

    2003

  34. [41]

    Quasi-two-dimensional Fermi surfaces and unitary spin-triplet pairing in the heavy fermion superconductor UTe2,

    Y . Xu, Y . Sheng, and Y . feng Yang, “Quasi-two-dimensional Fermi surfaces and unitary spin-triplet pairing in the heavy fermion superconductor UTe2,” arXiv:1908.07396

    1908 arXiv

  35. [43]

    J-Physics

    in which point nodes along thea axis are concluded. This implies theB3u state at zero magnetic field consistent with our proposal in Fig. 3. We appreciate helpful discussions with H. Ikeda, K. Izawa, K. Ishida, S. Fujimori, D. Aoki, and H. Harima. This work was supported by a G...

  36. [44]

    Point Node Gap Structure of Spin-Triplet Superconductor UTe2,

    T. Metz, S. Bae, S. Ran, I.-L. Liu, Y . S. Eo, W. T. Fuhrman, D. F. Agterberg, S. Anlage, N. Butch, and J. P. Paglione, “Point Node Gap Structure of Spin-Triplet Superconductor UTe2,” arXiv:1908.01069

    1908 arXiv

  37. [45]

    A. J. K. Haneveld and F. Jellinek, J. Less Common Metals 21, 45 (1970)

    1970

  38. [46]

    M. T. Czy ˙zyk and G. A. Sawatzky, Phys. Rev. B 49, 14211 6 (1994)

    1994

  39. [47]

    V . I. Anisimov, I. V . Solovyev, M. A. Korotin, M. T. Czy˙zyk, and G. A. Sawatzky, Phys. Rev. B48, 16929 (1993)

    1993

  40. [48]

    A. I. Liechtenstein, V . I. Anisimov, and J. Zaanen, Phys. Rev. B 52, R5467 (1995)

    1995

  41. [49]

    E. P. Wigner, Group Theory and Its Application to the Quan- tum Mechanics of Atomic Spectra (Academic Press, New York, 1959)

    1959

  42. [50]

    Herring, Phys

    C. Herring, Phys. Rev. 52, 361 (1937)

    1937

  43. [51]

    T. Inui, Y . Tanabe, and Y . Onodera,Group Theory and Its Ap- plications in Physics , Springer Series in Solid-State Sciences, V ol. 78 (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1990)

    1990

  44. [52]

    C. J. Bradley and A. P. Cracknell, The Mathematical Theory of Symmetry in Solids (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1972)

    1972

  45. [54]

    Altland and M

    A. Altland and M. R. Zirnbauer, Phys. Rev. B 55, 1142 (1997). 7 Supplemental Materials: Insulator-Metal Transition and Topological Superconductivity in UTe2 from a First-Principles Calculation S1. DETAILS OF BAND CALCULA TION We perform the DFT band structure calculation in th...

    1997

  46. [55]

    Atiyah-hirzebruch spectral sequence in band topology: General formalism and topological invariants for 230 space groups,

    (S4) From Eqs. (S2)-(S4), we obtain the set of (W T α,W C α,W Γ α ), which indicates the effective Altland-Zirnbauer (EAZ) symmetry class of the Bogoliubov-de Gennes Hamiltonian on the high-symmetry point [S22, S23]. The EAZ class gives us classification of gap structures, assu...

    1970 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.