Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 51 references

Mixed-symmetry superconductivity and the energy gap

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a generic tight-binding superconductor, pure singlet or triplet phases give way to mixed-symmetry phases on cooling, and the mixed s+d+ip phase leaves a multi-peak tunneling fingerprint.

desk verdict A solid mean-field mapping of mixed-singlet-triplet phases below Tc in the extended Hubbard model, with a real but model-dependent DOS fingerprint; the unitarity restriction is a clear scope limit, not a hidden flaw. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04739 v2 pith:TNRDOTGB submitted 2025-02-07 cond-mat.supr-con

Pramodh Senarath Yapa , Xinyu Guo , Joseph Maciejko , Frank Marsiglio This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con PACS 74.20.Fg74.25.Jb
keywords mixed-symmetrysuperconductivitysinglet-tripletpairingextendedHubbardmodeldensityofstatesVanHovesingularityBCSmean-fieldtheoryphasediagramtime-reversalsymmetrybreaking
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

This paper argues that in a translationally invariant extended Hubbard model, superconducting phases with mixed spin-singlet and spin-triplet symmetry emerge naturally below the critical temperature, not just pure s-, p-, or d-wave phases. Using BCS mean-field theory, it maps phase diagrams in one and two dimensions and follows specific coupling points as temperature drops, finding multiple superconducting transitions in which a pure phase stable just below Tc gives way to a mixed-symmetry phase at low temperature. The central new result is that in 2D the s+d+ip phase shows a multi-peak density-of-states structure created by splitting the Van Hove and BCS coherence peaks, a feature absent in the pure phases. A sympathetic reader would care because the symmetry measured at low temperature need not be the symmetry that emerged at Tc, so a complete picture of the superconducting order requires measurements over the entire temperature range.

What carries the argument

The central object is the mean-field gap matrix of the extended Hubbard model, whose singlet and triplet parts are expanded in symmetry-allowed basis functions; in 2D, $\Delta_k^{(s)}=\Delta_0+\Delta_{s^*}s_k+\Delta_{d_{x^2-y^2}}d_k$ and $\Delta_k^{(t)}=\Delta_{p_x}\sin k_x+\Delta_{p_y}\sin k_y$. The argument is carried by the unitarity condition $\Delta_k^\dagger\Delta_k=|\Delta_k|^2\mathbf{1}$, which turns the quasiparticle energy into a quadrature sum of singlet and triplet magnitudes and forces a $\pi/2$ phase difference between them when they coexist. This is what makes a phase such as $s{+}d{+}ip$ possible while excluding $s{+}d{+}p$. The density-of-states fingerprint then follows from saddle points of the quasiparticle dispersion, with peak positions given analytically in terms of the competing order parameters.

What would settle it

Take a candidate $s{+}d{+}ip$ superconductor and measure its tunneling density of states from just below $T_c$ down to $T=0$: if the predicted split peaks (Eqs. 23-26) do not appear, or if a non-unitary phase like $s{+}d{+}p$ is stabilized instead, the central claim fails. A simpler numerical check is to relax the unitarity condition in the self-consistent equations and see whether the $s{+}d{+}p$ phase occupies any substantial region of the phase diagram.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that coexistence of singlet and triplet order parameters in the s+d+ip phase of the two-dimensional extended Hubbard model produces a characteristic multi-peak density of states. Because the unitarity condition forces the singlet and triplet components to differ in phase by pi/2, the quasiparticle energy $E_k=(\xi_k^2+|\Delta_k^{(s)}|^2+|\Delta_k^{(t)}|^2)^{1/2}$ contains both components in quadrature, and the saddle points of $E_k$ along the $k_x=0$ and $k_y=0$ lines no longer coincide. The result is that the single logarithmic Van Hove or BCS coherence peaks of the pure d-wave phase split into two, three, or four peaks, with locations set by the s-wave and d-wave amplitudes through Eqs. (23)-(26). At half filling the mixed phase is fully gapped; below half filling the peak structure is two, three, or occasionally four peaks per frequency band. The paper also establishes that several ground-state phases in both 1D and 2D are mixed s+ip or s+d+ip rather than pure, and that these mixed phases spontaneously break time-reversal symmetry.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the superconducting gap is unitary, so any coexisting singlet and triplet components must differ in phase by exactly $\pi/2$; lift that constraint and non-unitary phases such as $s{+}d{+}p$ could change both the phase diagram and the density-of-states peaks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A pure-symmetry phase identified just below $T_c$ can be a different superconducting phase at low temperature, so symmetry identification requires measurements over the full superconducting temperature range.
  • The multi-peak density-of-states structure, unique to the $s{+}d{+}ip$ phase among the phases studied, gives a spectroscopic fingerprint for mixed singlet-triplet pairing.
  • The $s{+}id$ phase is fully gapped and shows no peak splitting, so a full gap with a single coherence peak does not rule out mixed symmetry.
  • At $n_e=0.75$ the $s{+}d{+}ip$ phase occupies the largest region of parameter space, making mixed phases a robust outcome rather than a fine-tuned one.
  • In optical-lattice quantum simulators of the Hubbard model, the predicted temperature-dependent density of states could be measured directly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If non-unitary gaps were admitted, phases like $s{+}d{+}p$ (without the imaginary $i$) might appear, and the multi-peak fingerprint would need revision; this is a testable extension of the model.
  • Because mixed phases carry a $\pi/2$ phase difference, they break time-reversal symmetry, suggesting one could look for accompanying spontaneous signatures such as polar Kerr rotation or chiral edge currents.
  • The paper's peak-count analysis could be applied to quasi-2D organic superconductors where three-peak tunneling spectra have been reported, checking whether the peak positions follow Eqs. (23)-(26).
  • The formalism naturally extends to longer-range interactions, which would add order parameters in other irreducible representations of the square-lattice point group and potentially produce additional peak structures.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies the extended Hubbard model with on-site U and nearest-neighbor V in one and two dimensions, using BCS mean-field theory to solve self-consistently for superconducting order parameters of s-, p-, and d-wave symmetry. The authors map Tc and T=0 phase diagrams for several fillings, showing that mixed-symmetry phases (s+ip in 1D; s+id and s+d+ip in 2D) become stable below Tc even when a pure-symmetry phase wins at Tc. They compute the density of states as a function of temperature and identify the origins of the peaks (Van Hove and BCS coherence peaks). The central result is that the 2D s+d+ip phase shows a distinctive multi-peak DOS, which the authors propose as a spectroscopic fingerprint for mixed-symmetry superconductivity. The paper emphasizes that gap symmetry can change with temperature, so low-temperature measurements alone may misidentify the pairing mechanism.

Significance. The paper is a careful and clearly written mean-field study that extends earlier work on the extended Hubbard model. Its strengths include full self-consistent solution of the coupled gap equations, phase diagrams over a wide parameter range, and analytic expressions for the DOS peak positions (Eqs. 20, 22-27) that allow the peak structure to be traced to specific features of the band structure and gap. The identification of a multi-peak DOS unique to the s+d+ip phase, if robust, provides a concrete experimental signature for mixed-symmetry superconductivity in quasi-2D materials. However, the analysis is deliberately restricted to unitary gaps, which excludes non-unitary mixed phases such as s+d+p; the paper does not assess whether such phases would be competitive. The 'complete picture' claim in the abstract is therefore stronger than what is demonstrated. Overall, this is a useful contribution that would benefit from a more cautious presentation of its generality.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section II, Eqs. (12)-(13); Section IV.B/D] The unitarity condition (Eq. 12) forces any coexisting singlet and triplet components to have a π/2 phase difference (Eq. 13), so non-unitary mixed phases such as s+d+p are excluded from the calculation. Because the quasiparticle energy Ek and the free energy (Eq. 14) are written in the unitary form, the self-consistent search never compares non-unitary candidates against unitary ones. The phase diagrams in Fig. 10 and the claim that s+d+ip is 'the most stable mixed-symmetry phase' (Discussion, Section V) are therefore conditional on this assumption. While the paper acknowledges the restriction, it does not justify that non-unitary phases would not appear in some parameter regions, nor does it discuss how the DOS fingerprint would change for a non-unitary two-branch spectrum. This is load-bearing for the abstract's 'prevalence' and 'complete picture' claims. I recommend either (a) softening the generality claims and explicitly labelling the results as valid for unitary gaps, or (b) adding a representative calculation for a non-unitary phase (e.g., s+d+p) to show that it does not alter the phase diagram or the DOS fingerprint.
  2. [Section IV.C, Figs. 7 and 10] The phase diagrams are computed on a finite U-V grid, but the paper does not state the grid spacing, the convergence tolerance for the self-consistent equations, or the criterion used to identify the free-energy minimum when multiple stationary points coexist. Transition temperatures such as Tc1 = 0.803t/kB and Tc2 = 0.525t/kB (Fig. 8) are quoted to three significant figures without uncertainty. Because a central claim is that the s+d+ip phase occupies the largest region of parameter space at ne = 0.75, the lack of resolution information makes it difficult to assess the robustness of the phase boundaries. Please provide the numerical parameters (step sizes, tolerances, number of k-points) and estimate the resulting uncertainty in the phase boundaries.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.D and Fig. 12 caption] The U,V values for the ne = 0.50 DOS calculation are given as U/t = -0.50, V/t = -3.00 in the text, but the Fig. 12 caption states U/t = -2.50, V/t = -3.60. Please correct this inconsistency.
  2. [Section III.D and Appendix A] The Gaussian broadening ν/t = 0.03 is arbitrary and, as the authors note, causes some peaks to merge (e.g., Fig. 13(c)). A brief justification of the chosen width or a discussion of the sensitivity of the multi-peak fingerprint to ν would strengthen the analysis.
  3. [Abstract and Section I] The statement 'A complete picture of the superconducting symmetry can only be attained if measurements are made over the entire temperature range' is stronger than what the model shows; the model shows that symmetry changes can occur, but not that they are ubiquitous. Consider rewording to 'may need to be'.
  4. [Section IV.B] The claim that the extended s-wave and p-wave order parameters appear at the same temperature in the d → s+d+ip transition is surprising and could benefit from a brief explanation or a reference to a Ginzburg-Landau analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the phase diagrams and DOS are computed from the model's self-consistent BCS equations rather than fitted to the claimed outputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard mean-field BCS calculation: write the extended Hubbard model, perform a pairing-channel mean-field approximation, solve the coupled self-consistent gap equations together with the density equation, compare mean-field free energies of competing stationary solutions, and then compute the DOS from the resulting quasiparticle energies. No parameter is fitted to the DOS features; the peak locations in Eqs. (20), (22)-(27) are analytic saddle-point/minimum conditions evaluated with the self-consistently obtained order parameters. The unitarity constraint in Eq. (12) is an explicit modeling assumption, not a hidden input that forces the claimed s+d+ip prevalence; it restricts the phase space considered, and the paper states this limitation directly (Eq. 13 and the sentence excluding s+d+p). That is a scope limitation, not circularity. The self-citations to Refs. [34] and [43] provide methodological precedent and supporting statements about model behavior, but the current paper re-derives its working equations and displays the supporting numerical results; these citations are not invoked as an unexamined premise that determines the central conclusion. No equation is shown to be equivalent to the claimed output by construction, and no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction. The skeptical concern about non-unitary phases is a legitimate generality caveat, but it does not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model has no invented entities. The central calculation rests on the BCS mean-field decoupling and the unitarity constraint, both standard but not fully justified from first principles. The Gaussian broadening is a numerical parameter affecting only the DOS presentation.

free parameters (1)
  • Gaussian broadening ν/t = 0.03
    Used in Eq. (18) to approximate the Dirac delta in the DOS. It affects the width of peaks but not their positions; chosen by hand for visualization.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption BCS mean-field approximation in the pairing channel
    The paper decouples the interaction in the Cooper channel, neglecting fluctuations. This is standard for superconductivity but is an uncontrolled approximation in 1D, though the authors note Richardson-Gaudin exact results support it in some limits.
  • domain assumption Unitarity of the gap parameter
    Eq. (12) assumes Δ†Δ = |Δ|²1, leading to the π/2 phase constraint Eq. (13). This excludes non-unitary mixed phases and restricts the phase diagram. The authors argue most superconductors have unitary gaps.
  • domain assumption Spin-balanced system with n↑ = n↓ = ne/2
    The paper assumes equal spin populations, simplifying the gap structure. Spin imbalance would allow non-unitary pairing and additional order parameters.
  • domain assumption Restriction to on-site and nearest-neighbor interactions
    The model includes only U and V, limiting the order parameters to s, p, and d-wave. Longer-range interactions could generate other irreps.
  • domain assumption Choice of ms=0 pairing subspace
    Choosing the ms=0 subspace allows access to both singlet and triplet order parameters without loss of generality for spin-rotationally invariant interactions.
  • domain assumption Periodic boundary conditions and finite lattice sizes
    The results are obtained on finite lattices with periodic boundary conditions; finite-size effects are not systematically quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mixed-symmetry superconductivity and the energy gap." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TNRDOTGB

@misc{pith2026250204739,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mixed-symmetry superconductivity and the energy gap},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TNRDOTGB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04739}
}
abstract

The symmetry of the superconducting order parameter, or simply the ``gap'', provides certain constraints on the actual mechanism that gives rise to pairing and ultimately to superconductivity. In this work we show how superconducting phases with mixed singlet-triplet symmetries can arise below $T_c$ for a generic tight-binding model. We first examine the 1D case to better illustrate the prevalence of symmetry-breaking transitions below $T_c$, and then the more realistic 2D case. In both cases we illustrate the implication for spectroscopic investigations of the energy gap by calculating the density of states for different temperatures below $T_c$. We find that the structure of the density of states near $T_c$ can vary dramatically from its form near $T=0$. A complete picture of the superconducting symmetry can only be attained if measurements are made over the entire temperature range.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04739 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: 1D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Phase transitions upon cooling the 1D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Phase transitions from cooling the 1D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: 1D phase diagrams at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: 1D density of states for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: 2D phase diagrams at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Phase transitions upon cooling the 2D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: 2D phase diagrams at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: 2D density of states for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: (c). For the T = 0 mixed-symmetry phase in this subfigure, the peak is present but washed out due to the Gaussian broadening. However for the p-wave phase, the peak is not present due to the fact that the additional -2 0 2 0 0.5 1 -2 0 2 0 0.5 1 -2 0 2 0 2 4 FIG. 13: …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: 2D density of states for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: 2D density of states for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    Nayak and S

    S. Nayak and S. Kumar, Exotic superconducting states in the extended attractive Hubbard model, J. Phys. Con- dens. Matter 30, 135601 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [1]

    M. R. Norman, The challenge of unconventional super- conductivity, Science 332, 196 (2011)

    work page 2011

  3. [2]

    Fischer, M

    O. Fischer, M. Kugler, I. Maggio-Aprile, C. Berthod, and C. Renner, Scanning tunneling spectroscopy of high- temperature superconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 353 (2007)

    2007

  4. [3]

    J. A. Sobota, Y. He, and Z.-X. Shen, Angle-resolved photoemission studies of quantum materials, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025006 (2021)

    2021

  5. [4]

    D. J. Van Harlingen, Phase-sensitive tests of the sym- metry of the pairing state in the high-temperature superconductors—evidence for dx2−y2 symmetry, Rev. Mod. Phys. 67, 515 (1995)

    work page 1995

  6. [5]

    Bardeen, L

    J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Micro- scopic Theory of Superconductivity, Phys. Rev. 106, 162 (1957)

    work page 1957

  7. [6]

    L. P. Pitaevskii, On superfluidity of liquid He −3, Zhur. Eksptl’. i Teoret. Fiz. 37, (1959)

    work page 1959

  8. [7]

    K. A. Brueckner, T. Soda, P. W. Anderson, and P. Morel, Level structure of nuclear matter and liquid He 3, Phys. Rev. 118, 1442 (1960)

    work page 1960

Show all 51 references
  1. [8]

    win- ner

    motivated by Mottelson, Thouless [9], Anderson and Morel [10], Balian and Werthamer [11]). Some of the more personal aspects of these developments, particu- larly in connection with superfluidity in 3He, are nicely described in a Special Issue of the Journal of Low Tem- peratu...

    2025 arXiv

  2. [9]

    V. J. Emery and A. M. Sessler, Possible phase transition in liquid He 3, Phys. Rev. 119, 43 (1960)

    1960

  3. [10]

    D. J. Thouless, Perturbation theory in statistical me- chanics and the theory of superconductivity, Ann. Phys. 10, 553 (1960)

    1960

  4. [11]

    P. W. Anderson and P. Morel, Generalized Bardeen- Cooper-Schrieffer states and the proposed low- temperature phase of liquid He 3, Phys. Rev. 123, 1911 (1961)

    1961

  5. [12]

    Balian and N

    R. Balian and N. R. Werthamer, Superconductivity with pairs in a relative p-wave, Phys. Rev. 131, 1553 (1963)

    1963

  6. [13]

    P. W. Anderson, He-3, Pierre Morel and Me—Early Work on Anisotropic Superfluidity, J. Low Temp. Phys. 164, 119 (2011)

    2011

  7. [14]

    A. M. Sessler, Early Thoughts on the Superfluidity of Helium-3, J. Low Temp. Phys. 164, 126–139 (2011)

    2011

  8. [15]

    D. M. Lee and A. J. Leggett, Superfluid 3He—the Early Days, J. Low Temp. Phys. 164, 140–172 (2011)

    2011

  9. [16]

    On the Superfluidity of Liquid He3

    L. P. Pitaevskii, “On the Superfluidity of Liquid He3”. Author’s Recollections, J. Low Temp. Phys. 164, 173–177 (2011)

    2011

  10. [17]

    J. F. Annett, Symmetry of the order parameter for high- temperature superconductivity, Adv. Phys. 39, 83–126 (1990)

    1990

  11. [18]

    Sigrist and K

    M. Sigrist and K. Ueda, Phenomenological theory of un- 13 conventional superconductivity, Rev. Mod. Phys.63, 239 (1991)

    1991

  12. [19]

    Sigrist, Introduction to unconventional superconduc- tivity, in AIP Conference Proceedings , Vol

    M. Sigrist, Introduction to unconventional superconduc- tivity, in AIP Conference Proceedings , Vol. 789 (AIP,

  13. [20]

    Normand, H

    B. Normand, H. Kohno, and H. Fukuyama, Properties of a mixed-symmetry superconductor, Physica C: Super- conductivity 235-240, 2275 (1994)

    1994

  14. [21]

    O’Donovan and J

    C. O’Donovan and J. Carbotte, Mixed order parameter symmetry in the BCS model, Physica C: Superconduc- tivity 252, 87–99 (1995)

    1995

  15. [22]

    K. A. Musaelian, J. Betouras, A. V. Chubukov, and R. Joynt, Mixed-symmetry superconductivity in two- dimensional Fermi liquids, Phys. Rev. B 53, 3598 (1996)

    1996

  16. [23]

    Betouras, Superconductivity with Mixed-symmetry Gap Function (University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1997)

    J. Betouras, Superconductivity with Mixed-symmetry Gap Function (University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1997)

    1997

  17. [24]

    Mitra, H

    M. Mitra, H. Ghosh, and S. Behera, Effect of electron correlation on superconducting pairing symmetry, The European Physical Journal B 2, 371–380 (1998)

    1998

  18. [25]

    Angilella and R

    G. Angilella and R. Pucci, Mixed-symmetry solutions of the BCS gap equation, Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications 47, 3537 (2001), Proceedings of the Third World Congress of Nonlinear Analysts

    2001

  19. [26]

    S. Basu, Gap functions in anisotropic superconductors, Physica B: Condensed Matter 378-380, 430 (2006), Pro- ceedings of the International Conference on Strongly Cor- related Electron Systems

    2006

  20. [27]

    M. V. Medvedev, Superconducting states with a mixed symmetry of order parameters in the model of a two- dimensional Fermi liquid, The Physics of Metals and Metallography 113, 117–128 (2012)

    2012

  21. [28]

    Timirgazin, V

    M. Timirgazin, V. Gilmutdinov, and A. Arzhnikov, Phase diagrams of singlet superconducting states with mixed symmetry, Physica C: Superconductivity and its Appli- cations 557, 7 (2019)

    2019

  22. [29]

    Akbar, A

    W. Akbar, A. Biborski, L. Rademaker, and M. Zegrod- nik, Topological superconductivity with mixed singlet- triplet pairing in moir´ e transition metal dichalcogenide bilayers, Phys. Rev. B 110, 064516 (2024)

    2024

  23. [30]

    Sutradhar, J

    J. Sutradhar, J. Ruhman, and A. Klein, Singlet, triplet, and mixed all-to-all pairing states emerging from inco- herent fermions, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, L042036 (2024)

    2024

  24. [31]

    Kheirkhah, Z

    M. Kheirkhah, Z. Yan, Y. Nagai, and F. Marsiglio, First- and Second-Order Topological Superconductivity and Temperature-Driven Topological Phase Transitions in the Extended Hubbard Model with Spin-Orbit Cou- pling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 017001 (2020)

    2020

  25. [32]

    M. P. S¨ orensen, T. Schneider, and M. Frick, Microscopic Aspects of Nonlinearity in Condensed Matter, Nonlin- ear Properties of the BCS Gap Equation (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1991) pp. 315–327

    1991

  26. [33]

    Kuboki, Effect of Band Structure on the Symmetry of Superconducting States, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 70, 2698–2702 (2001)

    K. Kuboki, Effect of Band Structure on the Symmetry of Superconducting States, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 70, 2698–2702 (2001)

    2001

  27. [35]

    Hutchinson and F

    J. Hutchinson and F. Marsiglio, Mixed temperature- dependent order parameters in the extended Hubbard model, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 33, 065603 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    R. W. Richardson, A restricted class of exact eigen- states of the pairing-force Hamiltonian, Phys. Lett. 3, 277 (1963)

    1963

  29. [37]

    R. W. Richardson and N. Sherman, Exact eigenstates of the pairing-force Hamiltonian, Nucl. Phys. 52, 221 (1964)

    1964

  30. [38]

    R. W. Richardson, Pairing in the limit of a large number of particles, J. Math. Phys. 18, 1802 (1977)

    1977

  31. [39]

    Combescot, W

    M. Combescot, W. Pogosov, and O. Betbeder-Matibet, BCS ansatz for superconductivity in the light of the Bogoliubov approach and the Richardson–Gaudin exact wave function, Physica C 485, 47 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    Giaever, H

    I. Giaever, H. R. Hart, and K. Megerle, Tunneling into Superconductors at Temperatures below 1°K, Phys. Rev. 126, 941 (1962)

    1962

  33. [41]

    C. C. Tsuei and J. R. Kirtley, Pairing symmetry in cuprate superconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys. 72, 969 (2000)

    2000

  34. [42]

    Hashimoto, I

    M. Hashimoto, I. M. Vishik, R.-H. He, T. P. Dev- ereaux, and Z.-X. Shen, Energy gaps in high-transition- temperature cuprate superconductors, Nature Physics 10, 483–495 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    Ramires, Nonunitary superconductivity in complex quantum materials, J

    A. Ramires, Nonunitary superconductivity in complex quantum materials, J. Phys. Condens. Matter34, 304001 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Senarath Yapa, Unconventional Cooper Pairing and Confinement: Studies of lattice superconductivity and su- perfluid helium-3 enclosed by surfaces , Ph.D

    P. Senarath Yapa, Unconventional Cooper Pairing and Confinement: Studies of lattice superconductivity and su- perfluid helium-3 enclosed by surfaces , Ph.D. thesis, Uni- versity of Alberta (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Kallin and J

    C. Kallin and J. Berlinsky, Chiral superconductors, Rep. Prog. Phys. 79, 054502 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    Zhou and H

    C. Zhou and H. J. Schulz, Density of states and tunnel- ing spectra in two-dimensional d-wave superconductors, Phys. Rev. B 45, 7397 (1992)

    1992

  39. [47]

    Guterding, S

    D. Guterding, S. Diehl, M. Altmeyer, T. Methfessel, U. Tutsch, H. Schubert, M. Lang, J. M¨ uller, M. Huth, H. O. Jeschke, R. Valent ´ ı, M. Jourdan, and H.-J. Elmers, Evidence for eight-node mixed-symmetry superconduc- tivity in a correlated organic metal, Phys. Rev. Lett.116,...

    2016

  40. [48]

    B. J. Powell, Mixed order parameters, accidental nodes and broken time reversal symmetry in organic supercon- ductors: a group theoretical analysis, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 18, L575 (2006)

    2006

  41. [49]

    Wosnitza, Quasi-two-dimensional organic supercon- ductors, J

    J. Wosnitza, Quasi-two-dimensional organic supercon- ductors, J. Low Temp. Phys. 146, 641–667 (2007)

    2007

  42. [50]

    Tarruell and L

    L. Tarruell and L. Sanchez-Palencia, Quantum simula- tion of the Hubbard model with ultracold fermions in optical lattices, C. R. Phys. 19, 365–393 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    Takahashi, Quantum simulation of quantum many- body systems with ultracold two-electron atoms in an op- tical lattice, Proc

    Y. Takahashi, Quantum simulation of quantum many- body systems with ultracold two-electron atoms in an op- tical lattice, Proc. Jpn. Acad. Ser. B 98, 141–160 (2022). 14 Appendix A: 1D Density of States In this appendix, we show the 1D DOS for all the U -V points indicated by t...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.