pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.17030 · v1 · pith:KZALHTLHnew · submitted 2026-05-16 · ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con · cond-mat.str-el

Bogoliubov sum rules and the Knight-shift ellipsoid in noncentrosymmetric superconductors

Yi Zhou This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 18:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.str-el
keywords noncentrosymmetric superconductorKnight shiftBogoliubov sum rulespin-lockingNMRK2Cr3As3Fermi-surface projector
0
0 comments X

The pith

The zero-temperature Knight shift tensor in noncentrosymmetric superconductors equals the normal-state susceptibility times the identity minus the Fermi-surface projector of the spin-locking direction.

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

The paper derives a tensor identity showing that the residual Knight shift at absolute zero in the strong-locking regime depends only on a single Fermi-surface average of the spin-locking vector. This identity holds regardless of the pairing symmetry, gap size, or detailed Fermi-surface geometry. Because the projector has unit trace, the three principal components of the Knight shift must lie on a two-dimensional simplex whose vertices and edges correspond to distinct canonical pairing classes. The result follows directly from a Bogoliubov sum rule that equates the sum of particle-hole and particle-particle matrix elements to the trace of the squared operator. The authors also supply controlled extensions, dynamical sum rules for relaxation rates, and six experimental protocols, then apply the framework to existing NMR data on K2Cr3As3.

Core claim

A Bogoliubov sum rule states that for any Hermitian single-particle operator O the sum of squared particle-hole matrix elements plus the sum of squared particle-particle matrix elements equals the spin trace of O squared. When O is taken to be the spin operator and the system is placed in the strong-locking regime, this identity collapses the zero-temperature spin susceptibility tensor to χ_μν(0) = χ_N [δ_μν − Π_μν], where Π_μν is the Fermi-surface average of the outer product of the local spin-locking direction n̂_k. Because the trace of Π is identically one, the three principal Knight shifts at T=0 are constrained to lie inside a two-dimensional simplex (the Knight-shift ellipsoid) whose 2

What carries the argument

The Fermi-surface projector Π_μν = ⟨n̂_μ n̂_ν⟩_FS of the spin-locking direction, which enters the tensor identity for the residual Knight shift via the Bogoliubov sum rule.

If this is right

  • The three principal Knight shifts at T=0 must lie on a two-dimensional simplex whose vertices label pure axial, oblate, and prolate locking textures.
  • Any canonical pairing symmetry maps to a unique location on the Knight-shift ellipsoid, allowing classification by NMR alone.
  • The dynamical counterpart implies that 1/T1 vanishes for directions perpendicular to the locking axis when spin fluctuations are strictly ferromagnetic.
  • A decoupled-pocket baseline is ruled out once the measured ellipsoid saturates the trace bound.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same projector that fixes the static Knight shift also controls the anisotropy of the spin relaxation rate through the vanishing-projection theorem.
  • If the ellipsoid vertex is found to be material-independent across a family of compounds, the locking texture is likely fixed by crystal symmetry rather than by details of the gap function.
  • Extending the sum rule to finite momentum would connect the Knight-shift ellipsoid directly to the q-dependence of the spin susceptibility measured by neutron scattering.

Load-bearing premise

The material sits deep inside the strong-locking regime so that the residual zero-temperature Knight shift is fixed solely by the Fermi-surface average of the local spin-locking direction.

What would settle it

A measurement in which the three principal zero-temperature Knight shifts fail to satisfy Tr(χ(0)/χ_N) = 2 while the normal-state susceptibility remains isotropic would directly contradict the identity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.17030 by Yi Zhou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic of Im [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Canonical Knight-shift ellipsoids at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Simplex of allowed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Cross-check of Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We show that the residual $T=0$ Knight shift of a noncentrosymmetric superconductor in the strong-locking regime is completely determined by a single Fermi-surface average -- the projector $\Pi_{\mu\nu}=\langle\hat n_{\mu}\hat n_{\nu}\rangle_{\rm FS}$ of the spin-locking direction $\hat n_{\mathbf{k}}$ -- giving the tensor identity $\chi_{\mu\nu}(0)=\chi_{N}[\delta_{\mu\nu}-\Pi_{\mu\nu}]$ independently of pairing symmetry, gap magnitude, and Fermi-surface shape. Because $\mathrm{Tr}\,\Pi=1$, the three principal Knight shifts at $T=0$ lie on a two-dimensional simplex of locking textures, the \emph{Knight-shift ellipsoid}, whose vertices, edges, and interior classify every canonical pairing class. The identity follows from a Bogoliubov sum rule, $\sum|M_{ph,O}|^{2}+\sum|M_{pp,O}|^{2}=\mathrm{Tr}_{s}(O^{2})$, valid at every momentum for every Hermitian single-particle operator $O$ as the BdG-doubled form of unitary invariance. Around the central theorem we develop controlled departures (a closed-form $s$-wave SOC interpolation, a finite-field strong-locking identity), a dynamical counterpart (a spin Ferrell--Glover--Tinkham sum rule and a rigorous vanishing-projection theorem for $1/T_{1}$), and a decoupled-pocket multiband baseline, packaged into six experimental protocols. Applied to the $^{75}$As NMR data on K$_{2}$Cr$_{3}$As$_{3}$, the observed ellipsoid sits at the oblate-axial vertex $(0,0,1)$ and saturates the trace bound; the decoupled-pocket SOC-texture baseline is excluded by $\sim 0.5$ in normalized units, requiring a common $\hat c$-axis locking on all three pockets, and the suppression of $1/T_{1}\parallel\hat c$ is identified, via the vanishing-projection theorem, as a fingerprint of finite-$\mathbf{q}$ ferromagnetic spin-fluctuation gap formation.

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.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives a Bogoliubov sum rule from BdG-doubled unitary invariance that holds for any Hermitian operator at each momentum, yielding the central tensor identity χ_μν(0)=χ_N[δ_μν−Π_μν] for the residual T=0 Knight shift in noncentrosymmetric superconductors under the strong-locking condition. Here Π_μν is the Fermi-surface average of the spin-locking direction projector n̂_kμ n̂_kν. Because Tr Π=1 the three principal shifts lie on a two-dimensional simplex (the Knight-shift ellipsoid) whose geometry classifies canonical pairing classes. The work develops controlled extensions including an s-wave SOC interpolation formula and a finite-field identity, a dynamical spin Ferrell–Glover–Tinkham sum rule together with a vanishing-projection theorem for 1/T1, a decoupled-pocket baseline, and six experimental protocols; it applies the framework to 75As NMR data on K2Cr3As3, placing the observed ellipsoid at the oblate-axial vertex and excluding the decoupled-pocket SOC-texture model.

Significance. If the central identity holds, the result supplies a parameter-free, structurally protected relation between the Knight-shift tensor and the spin-orbit texture that is independent of gap magnitude and pairing symmetry. This offers a clean classification scheme via the Knight-shift ellipsoid and a set of falsifiable predictions (including the vanishing-projection theorem for 1/T1) that can be tested directly against NMR data. The derivation from unitarity rather than microscopic fitting constitutes a genuine advance for the analysis of noncentrosymmetric superconductors.

minor comments (3)
  1. [Central theorem paragraph] The precise definition and quantitative criterion for the “strong-locking regime” should be stated explicitly in the main text (currently referenced only in the abstract and the paragraph on the central theorem) so that readers can judge when the projection onto Π_μν is justified.
  2. A schematic figure of the Knight-shift ellipsoid (with vertices, edges, and interior labeled by representative pairing classes) would greatly improve readability of the classification claim.
  3. [Application to K2Cr3As3] In the K2Cr3As3 application, the normalized distance of 0.5 that excludes the decoupled-pocket baseline should be accompanied by the explicit definition of the normalization and the error bars on the experimental ellipsoid coordinates.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and accurate summary of our work, as well as for recognizing the significance of the Bogoliubov sum rule, the resulting Knight-shift ellipsoid, and the falsifiable predictions such as the vanishing-projection theorem. The recommendation for minor revision is noted. No specific major comments appear in the report, so we have no point-by-point revisions to propose at this stage. Any minor editorial or presentational suggestions will be incorporated in the revised version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation self-contained from BdG unitarity sum rule

full rationale

The central tensor identity χ_μν(0)=χ_N[δ_μν−Π_μν] is obtained from the Bogoliubov sum rule ∑|M_ph,O|^2 + ∑|M_pp,O|^2 = Tr_s(O^2), which the paper states holds at every momentum for any Hermitian single-particle operator O as the BdG-doubled form of unitary invariance. This is an independent structural property of the doubled Hamiltonian, not fitted to Knight-shift data, not dependent on gap magnitude or pairing symmetry (provided the state is gapped at T=0), and not reliant on self-citation for its validity. The strong-locking projection onto the FS-averaged spin texture Π then yields the result without circular reduction. No steps match the enumerated circularity patterns; the trace property Tr Π=1 is a direct algebraic consequence of the projector definition and classifies textures without smuggling in the target observables.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The derivation rests on the structural properties of the Bogoliubov-de Gennes formalism and the definition of the strong-locking regime; no numerical fitting parameters are introduced, and the only new geometric object is the ellipsoid used for classification.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The Bogoliubov sum rule ∑|M_ph,O|^2 + ∑|M_pp,O|^2 = Tr_s(O^2) holds at every momentum for every Hermitian single-particle operator O as the BdG-doubled form of unitary invariance.
    Invoked to obtain the projector identity for the Knight shift tensor.
invented entities (1)
  • Knight-shift ellipsoid no independent evidence
    purpose: Geometric classification of pairing classes via vertices, edges, and interior of the simplex defined by Tr Π = 1.
    Derived directly from the trace condition on the Fermi-surface projector; no independent experimental signature proposed beyond the Knight-shift measurements themselves.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5928 in / 1508 out tokens · 50582 ms · 2026-05-19T18:37:09.852335+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 92 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    to the vertex (0,0,1) of the simplex in Fig. 3. This one-parameter curve is the explicit base- line tested later by Protocol F and by the worked example of Sec. XIV. XI. CORE DIAGNOSTIC: KNIGHT-SHIFT ELLIPSOID The preceding theory sections produced four kinds of input: a scalar bound, a tensor geometry, controlled de- partures from the ideal strong-lockin...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Step 1: simplex location to pairing class Table VI maps each canonical simplex location to its first-pass diagnosis and to the look-alikes that share the sameT= 0 ellipsoid. The middle column is what is directly measured (eigenvalues of Π, equivalently 1−K i(0)/KN); the right column lists the microscopic candidates that must be disambiguated by the tools ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    For each, we list the smallest additional measurement or dataset that breaks the degeneracy

    Step 2: disambiguating look-alikes Four ambiguities recur in practice. For each, we list the smallest additional measurement or dataset that breaks the degeneracy. (a) Singlet with strong SOC vs. isotropic- ˆdtriplet at the barycenter.Both produce the sameT= 0 Knight shift. Distinguishing handles: (i) the temperature depen- dence ofK(T) approachesK N via ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Whenever the simplex location implies Παα = 0 for some axisα, the vanishing-projection theorem Eq

    Aggregate diagnostic: combining static and dynamic data The 1/T 1 cross-check (Protocol D) provides one fur- ther diagnostic axis that the static Knight shift alone cannot give: a fingerprint for finite-qspin fluctuations. Whenever the simplex location implies Παα = 0 for some axisα, the vanishing-projection theorem Eq. (73) forbids anyq= 0 contribution t...

    work page

  5. [5]

    XIV runs this diagnos- tic explicitly:

    Worked example The K2Cr3As3 analysis of Sec. XIV runs this diagnos- tic explicitly:

    work page

  6. [6]

    Step 1 identifies the (0,0,1) vertex, with first-pass diagnosis OSP tripletd∥ˆcand look-alikes (S1)– (S3) of Sec. XIV C

    work page

  7. [7]

    XIV B) by the∼ 0.5 tension with the orbital-diagonal baseline

    Step 2: Protocol F rules out the decoupled-pocket SOC-texture interpretation (Sec. XIV B) by the∼ 0.5 tension with the orbital-diagonal baseline. The Hebel–Slichter peak’s absence and theE ′ symmetry analysis remain consistent with both unitary (S1) and non-unitary (S3) triplets

    work page

  8. [8]

    (73), a rigorous finite-qfingerprint

    Aggregate: 1/T 1 ∥ˆcsuppression belowT c is, by Eq. (73), a rigorous finite-qfingerprint. Combined with the normal-state Curie–Weiss enhancement, this identifies the finite-qFM spin fluctuations as the relevant spin-fluctuation channel. The remaining open question—unitary (S1) vs. helicity- diagonal admixture (S2) vs. non-unitary (S3) common- ˆctriplet—is...

    work page

  9. [9]

    MeasureK α(T) forα=a, b, c; extractχ αα(T) via the hyperfine tensor

    work page

  10. [10]

    Formr α ≡χ αα(0)/χαα(T + c )

    work page

  11. [11]

    ComputeR= 1 3 P α rα

    work page

  12. [12]

    (27)] on a 3D isotropic FS

    Compare againstR≤2/3 [Eq. (27)] on a 3D isotropic FS. Outside that setting, use Protocol B rather than a three-axis scalar reduction

    work page

  13. [13]

    Compare the observed triple (r a, rb, rc) against Ta- ble III to discriminate singlet vs OSP vs ESP and infer thed-vector orientation. A violationR >2/3 signals breakdown of at least one assumption (multi-orbital physics, non-unitary triplet, first-order transition, mixed-parity pairing outside the helicity-diagonal fully gapped limit, FFLO, PDW, or stron...

    work page

  14. [14]

    AtT > T c, measureK( ˆH, T+ c ) along independent directions prescribed by crystal symmetry (see be- low) to extractK µν(Tc); for cubic or isotropic hy- perfine, this is simplyK N

    work page

  15. [15]

    Cool toT≪T c; repeat to extractK µν(0)

    work page

  16. [16]

    DiagonalizeK µν(0) and extract principal axes and principal valuesK i(0)

    work page

  17. [17]

    In the strong-locking scalar-hyperfine case,π i = 1−K i(0)/KN; for diagonal anisotropic hyperfine, πi = 1−K i(0)/Ki(T + c ) axis by axis

    work page

  18. [18]

    For intermediate-SOCs-wave data, computeS= 1 2 P i Ki(0)/KN andp i =S−K i(0)/KN, the eigen- values of Πeff

    work page

  19. [19]

    3 (strong locking) or the contracted point (p 1, p2, p3) on the corresponding radial trajectory (intermediate SOC)

    Plot (π 1, π2, π3) on the simplex of Fig. 3 (strong locking) or the contracted point (p 1, p2, p3) on the corresponding radial trajectory (intermediate SOC)

    work page

  20. [20]

    3-axisK” means Knight shift measured withHalong each of three orthogonal crystal axes; “rotation

    Verify P i πi = 1 [Eq. (86)] or P i pi =S≤1 [Eq. (91)]. The number of rotation angles required matches the num- ber of independent components ofK µν(T) permitted by crystal symmetry: two for uniaxial (tetragonal, hexag- onal, trigonal), three for orthorhombic, four for mon- oclinic, six for triclinic. The protocol is information- theoretically minimal at ...

    work page

  21. [21]

    Confirm the strong-locking regime by checking |gkF −µ BHNMR| ≫∆ using an independent SOC estimate, or by observing no anomaly inK(T) at- tributable to a Bogoliubov Fermi surface

    work page

  22. [22]

    MeasureK( ˆH, T→0, H NMR) along independent directions; formK µν(0, H) and diagonalize

    work page

  23. [23]

    Extractπ i(H) = 1−K i(0, H)/KN and the eigen- vector frame

    work page

  24. [24]

    Verify P i πi(H)≈1; deviations quantify the ∆2/b2 min corrections and diagnose proximity toH ∗

    work page

  25. [25]

    Rotate ˆHat fixedH: the family Π(H ˆH) directly probes the SOC textureg k via Eq. (62). In crystals with a single well-defined SOC texture, the rotation curve is predicted without free parameters

    work page

  26. [26]

    Across a pressure/composition sweep, the drift of Π(H) on the simplex encodes the SOC-texture evo- lution;P i πi <1 signals breakdown of strong lock- ing and BFS formation. D. Protocol D:1/T 1 cross-check and finite-q diagnosis Protocol D is a cross-check rather than a standalone classifier: it asks whether the dynamical spectral-weight loss seen in 1/T 1...

    work page

  27. [27]

    (73) (when any Π αα = 0) and the parametric esti- mate Eq

    From Protocol B, extract (π a, πb, πc); this fixes both the vanishing-projection theorem Eq. (73) (when any Π αα = 0) and the parametric esti- mate Eq. (75) (when Π αα >0) component-by- component

    work page

  28. [28]

    Evaluate the integral R Tc 0 (dT /T)[1/T N 1 −1/T SC 1 ] along axisα

    Measure 1/T 1(T) withHalong each principal axis. Evaluate the integral R Tc 0 (dT /T)[1/T N 1 −1/T SC 1 ] along axisα

    work page

  29. [29]

    (73) forces theq= 0 contribution to van- ish on both sides of the transition

    Compare the integrated deficit against the projec- tion eigenvalue Παα: •If Π αα = 0, the vanishing-projection theorem Eq. (73) forces theq= 0 contribution to van- ish on both sides of the transition. Any ob- served change in 1/T 1 ∥ˆeα is then a rigorous finite-qfingerprint. •If Π αα >0, compare the deficit to the para- metric estimate Eq. (75); agreemen...

    work page

  30. [30]

    Note the presence/absence of a Hebel–Slichter peak as an independent check: a vanishing peak is con- sistent with spectral weight transfer to frequencies ≳2∆ rather than pile-up at the gap edge

    work page

  31. [31]

    In an intermediate-SOC regime, the⟨F s(λk)⟩FS fac- tor modifies the RHS by a common factor; the ra- tio of 1/T 1 deficits across a pressure/composition sweep isolates this SOC-dependent rescaling. 23 E. Protocol E: Site-resolved consistency across NMR nuclei Protocol E tests whether the same geometric kernel is seen by different nuclei. The site-resolved ...

    work page

  32. [32]

    Identify all NMR-active nuclei with resolvableK and acceptable signal-to-noise

    work page

  33. [33]

    Run Protocol B at each nucleus independently; form (π1, π2, π3)(R)

    work page

  34. [34]

    Agreement to≲5% in ev- ery component (typicalT→0 extrapolation res- olution) is consistent with the single-band unitary BdG framework

    Compare across nuclei. Agreement to≲5% in ev- ery component (typicalT→0 extrapolation res- olution) is consistent with the single-band unitary BdG framework

    work page

  35. [35]

    A systematic discrepancy at the 10–20% level indi- cates a subleading correction: inter-band structure or non-helicity-diagonal parity mixing [17, 19, 21], a non-unitary triplet component with smallm∝ id×d ∗, or a site-specific orbital contribution not captured by the common geometric kernel

    work page

  36. [36]

    A discrepancy≳50% in any component is quanti- tative evidence that the single-band unitary BdG framework does not apply and a multi-orbital or multi-d-vector extension is required. F. Protocol F: Multi-band pocket decomposition Protocol F is the last layer. It interprets the observed ellipsoid within the decoupled-pocket baseline of Sec. X and is meaningf...

    work page

  37. [37]

    From Protocols A/B, extractχ xx(0)−χ zz(0) = w∥χN; this reads off the pocket weight directly

    work page

  38. [38]

    Verify the trace bound P χµµ(0) = 2χN

    work page

  39. [39]

    Apply pressure or composition tuning that shifts w∥; trackχ zz(0)/χN along the one-parameter fam- ily Eq. (80)

    work page

  40. [40]

    Co-Authoring with AI: How I Wrote a Physics Paper About AI, Using AI

    Agreement of the observed trajectory with Eq. (78) tests the band-resolved SOC-texture hypothesis of Sec. X C. Disagreement (as in K2Cr3As3, Sec. XIV) favors a different mechanism—most simply, a com- mon locking texture across all bands, with a com- mondvector as the simplest orbital-diagonal real- ization. In materials with significant inter-band pairing...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    3 Extracting theT= 0 intercepts of the fives-wave curves in Fig

    Numerical cross-check against published Fig. 3 Extracting theT= 0 intercepts of the fives-wave curves in Fig. 3 of Ref. [25], labeled bygk F /(kBTc0) = 0,1,2,4,30, and converting via BCS ∆ 0/(kBTc0) = π/eγE = 1.7638769. . ., χ(0)/χN = 2 3 Fs(gkF /(kBTc0)·e γE /π),(A1) yields the overlay in Fig. 4: maximum deviation 1.5× 10−3 inχ/χ N and root-mean-square (...

    work page

  42. [42]

    Heuristic extension to unitary triplet with anisotropic gap Replacing ∆→ |d(k)|in theξ-integration suggests the ansatzF t(λk)≈F s(|gk|/|d(k)|), withF t →1 at nodes. This captures the gap-magnitude dependence ex- actly when the pairing amplitude is spatially constant across the FS, but misses corrections from the ˆd-vector angular structure and from intra-...

    work page

  43. [43]

    Reif, Phys

    F. Reif, Phys. Rev.106, 208 (1957)

    work page 1957

  44. [44]

    G. M. Androes and W. D. Knight, Phys. Rev. Lett.2, 386 (1959)

    work page 1959

  45. [45]

    Bardeen, L

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

    work page 1957

  46. [46]

    Yosida, Phys

    K. Yosida, Phys. Rev.110, 769 (1958)

    work page 1958

  47. [47]

    R. A. Ferrell, Phys. Rev. Lett.3, 262 (1959)

    work page 1959

  48. [48]

    P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. Lett.3, 325 (1959)

    work page 1959

  49. [49]

    P. C. Martin and L. P. Kadanoff, Phys. Rev. Lett.3, 322 (1959)

    work page 1959

  50. [50]

    J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. Lett.3, 323 (1959)

    work page 1959

  51. [51]

    Appel, Phys

    J. Appel, Phys. Rev.139, A1536 (1965)

    work page 1965

  52. [52]

    Shiba, Journal of Low Temperature Physics22, 105 (1976)

    H. Shiba, Journal of Low Temperature Physics22, 105 (1976)

    work page 1976

  53. [53]

    D. A. Zhogolev and M. L. Glasser, Journal of Low Tem- perature Physics9, 347 (1972)

    work page 1972

  54. [54]

    P. W. Anderson, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids11, 26 (1959)

    work page 1959

  55. [55]

    C. P. Slichter,Principles of Magnetic Resonance, 3rd ed., Springer Series in Solid-State Sciences (Springer, Berlin, 1990)

    work page 1990

  56. [56]

    Tinkham,Introduction to Superconductivity, 2nd ed

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

    work page 2004

  57. [57]

    E. I. Rashba, Sov. Phys. Solid State2, 1109 (1960)

    work page 1960

  58. [58]

    Dresselhaus, Phys

    G. Dresselhaus, Phys. Rev.100, 580 (1955)

    work page 1955

  59. [59]

    P. A. Frigeri, D. F. Agterberg, A. Koga, and M. Sigrist, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 097001 (2004)

    work page 2004

  60. [60]

    P. A. Frigeri, D. F. Agterberg, and M. Sigrist, New Jour- nal of Physics6, 115 (2004)

    work page 2004

  61. [61]

    K. V. Samokhin, Phys. Rev. B76, 094516 (2007)

    work page 2007

  62. [62]

    V. M. Edelstein, Phys. Rev. B78, 094514 (2008)

    work page 2008

  63. [63]

    Bauer and M

    E. Bauer and M. Sigrist,Non-Centrosymmetric Super- conductors: Introduction and Overview, Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012)

    work page 2012

  64. [64]

    Yip, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics5, 15 (2014)

    S. Yip, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics5, 15 (2014)

    work page 2014

  65. [65]

    K. V. Samokhin, Annals of Physics359, 385 (2015)

    work page 2015

  66. [66]

    Smidman, M

    M. Smidman, M. B. Salamon, H. Q. Yuan, and D. F. Agterberg, Reports on Progress in Physics80, 036501 (2017)

    work page 2017

  67. [67]

    Pang and Y

    C. Pang and Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. B113, 064511 (2026)

    work page 2026

  68. [68]

    Pang and Y

    C. Pang and Y. Zhou, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy68, 277411 (2025)

    work page 2025

  69. [69]

    J. Yang, J. Luo, C. Yi, Y. Shi, Y. Zhou, and G. qing Zheng, Science Advances7, eabl4432 (2021)

    work page 2021

  70. [70]

    P. G. De Gennes,Superconductivity of Metals and Alloys (CRC Press, 1999)

    work page 1999

  71. [71]

    Balian and N

    R. Balian and N. R. Werthamer, Phys. Rev.131, 1553 (1963)

    work page 1963

  72. [72]

    Sigrist and K

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

    work page 1991

  73. [73]

    A. J. Leggett, Rev. Mod. Phys.47, 331 (1975)

    work page 1975

  74. [74]

    J. H. Van Vleck, Phys. Rev.31, 587 (1928)

    work page 1928

  75. [75]

    Maki and T

    K. Maki and T. Tsuneto, Progress of Theoretical Physics 31, 945 (1964)

    work page 1964

  76. [76]

    A. M. Clogston, Phys. Rev. Lett.9, 266 (1962)

    work page 1962

  77. [77]

    B. S. Chandrasekhar, Applied Physics Letters1, 7 (1962)

    work page 1962

  78. [78]

    Fulde and R

    P. Fulde and R. A. Ferrell, Phys. Rev.135, A550 (1964). 27 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 χ(0)/χN closed form digitized endpoints 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 −2 −1 0 1 2 ·10−3 max|∆|= 1.50×10−3 rms = 7.69×10−4 gk F kBTc0 digitized−theory FIG. 4. Cross-check of Eq. (54) against theT= 0 endpoints of thes-wave curves in Fig. 3 of Ref. [25]. Solid line: Eq. (A1). Symbols: ...

    work page 1964

  79. [79]

    A. I. Larkin and Y. N. Ovchinnikov, Sov. Phys. JETP 28, 1200 (1969)

    work page 1969

  80. [80]

    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, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics11, 231 (2020)

    work page 2020

Showing first 80 references.