Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

A stripe potential can switch single-flavor superconductivity between a nodal transverse p-wave and a fully gapped longitudinal p-wave.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 06:03 UTC pith:4KPMUHRA

load-bearing objection Clean analytic isolation of a stripe-tuned nodal p_x channel versus gapped p_y in an ideal-band single-flavor metal; the explicit boundary is real inside the toy model but glue-range sensitive for experiments. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24905 v1 pith:4KPMUHRA submitted 2026-07-27 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.str-el

Stripe-tuned superconductivity in single-flavor metals with nontrivial quantum geometry

Yi-Ting Tu , Yang-Zhi Chou , Yi Huang , Sankar Das Sarma This is my paper
classification cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.str-el
keywords stripe potentialquantum geometryBerry curvaturesingle-flavor superconductivityp-wave pairingquasi-one-dimensionallinearized gap equationrhombohedral graphene
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.

This paper asks how an external stripe potential reshapes pairing when electrons already carry nontrivial quantum geometry (Berry curvature) and only one fermion flavor is present. In the strong-stripe, weak-attraction limit the system becomes quasi-one-dimensional; projecting a contact attraction onto the lowest subband yields two competing odd-parity channels. One is a conventional fully gapped longitudinal p_y order along the stripes; the other is a rarer transverse p_x order that is nodal at k_x=0. Which wins is set by the electron density per stripe and by how Berry curvature dresses the effective interaction. The result supplies a concrete external knob—stripe strength and filling—for selecting pairing symmetry in candidate single-flavor superconductors, and it predicts clear spectroscopic and transport differences between the two states.

Core claim

In the analytically solvable strong-stripe limit, the linearized gap equation on the two-line Fermi surface admits a transverse p_x channel (eigenvalue proportional to c2[1+c3(2kF)]) and a longitudinal p_y channel (proportional to [1−c3(2kF)]). Their competition produces an explicit density–Berry-curvature boundary separating a nodal p_x phase at low stripe density from a fully gapped p_y phase at high density, establishing stripe-tuned control of pairing symmetry in a single-flavor metal with quantum geometry.

What carries the argument

Berry-curvature form-factor projection of a contact attraction onto the lowest stripe subband, producing an anisotropic effective V_q whose Gaussian and cosine factors enter the Fermi-surface linearized gap equation and fix the relative eigenvalues of the p_x and p_y channels.

Load-bearing premise

The pairing glue is taken to be a weak, static, contact attraction that can act in a strictly single-flavor electron gas only after geometric form-factor dressing.

What would settle it

Tunneling or specific-heat spectra that show a nodal line versus a full gap, or nonlinear transport along the stripes that either softens at tiny current (nodal p_x) or shows a sharp depairing threshold (gapped p_y), when stripe density or effective Berry strength is tuned across the predicted boundary.

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

If this is right

  • Stripe density and Berry curvature become external controls that select nodal versus fully gapped odd-parity pairing.
  • Transverse p_x order, normally rare in quasi-1D systems, becomes accessible when inter-stripe pairing dominates.
  • Spectroscopy and nonlinear I–V along the stripes can distinguish the two orders without requiring phase-sensitive Josephson experiments.
  • As stripe strength is weakened the sharp p_x/p_y crossover broadens into the chiral p+ip state of the isotropic parent band.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the real pairing glue is retarded or longer-range, the same stripe geometry may still split longitudinal and transverse channels, but the phase boundary will shift and should be recomputed with the measured interaction form factor.
  • Devices that already show anisotropic quarter-metal superconductivity could test the prediction by gating density while holding an external stripe potential fixed.
  • The nodal p_x state offers a platform where low-energy quasiparticles coexist with single-flavor topology, potentially altering vortex or edge physics relative to the fully gapped p_y arrays.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a 2D single-flavor metal with a parabolic band, uniform Berry curvature and ideal form factor, subject to a 1D stripe potential. In the strong-stripe/lowest-subband limit the band becomes quasi-1D with an approximately two-line Fermi surface. Projecting a pointlike attractive interaction with Berry-curvature form factors gives an anisotropic effective interaction V_q [Eqs. (9)-(11)]: nearest-stripe structure in q_x controlled by c2 and a Gaussian intra-stripe q_y dependence c3. Solving the FS-restricted linearized gap equation gives three odd-parity channels, with the leading competition between nodal transverse p_x and fully gapped longitudinal p_y [Eqs. (16)-(17)]. The claimed central result is an explicit crossing/phase boundary, Eq. (18), controlled by stripe filling k_F/g and Berry-curvature-dressed interaction, plus numerical checks beyond the analytic limit.

Significance. If the model assumptions are accepted, the result is useful and unusually transparent: it gives a mechanism by which an external stripe can select pairing symmetry in a single-flavor metal, with a concrete analytic boundary and falsifiable distinctions (nodal p_x vs fully gapped p_y; anisotropic transport/depairing; phase-sensitive tests). Strengths include a controlled Mathieu/tight-binding reduction, a Poisson-summation projection of the interaction, explicit harmonic eigenvalues, and SM numerics testing Ag², N-peak, and FS-restriction truncations rather than fitting to superconducting data. The limitation is that the quantitative boundary is explicitly built on an ideal constant-Berry-curvature band and an exactly contact bare attraction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Projected interaction, Eqs. (8)-(11), (17)-(18), Fig. 1(c)] The quantitative boundary is glue-sensitive. Equation (18) compares λ_px ∝ c2[1+c3(2k_F)] to λ_py ∝ [1−c3(2k_F)], where c2=exp[−π²/((A+B/2)g²)] is generated only by form factors acting on a momentum-independent V0. For any finite-range or retarded glue, V(q) multiplies each m term in Eq. (9) by f(q_x+mg,q_y), renormalizing the Gaussian width and hence c2 exponentially, while adding independent q_y structure that competes with c3. Since the authors themselves note after Eq. (8) that a static contact interaction does not exist in a single-component gas, please either provide a sensitivity estimate for Gaussian/Lorentzian finite-range or retarded interactions, or explicitly demote Eq. (18)/Fig. 1(c) to an ideal-pointlike estimate and state which conclusions are glue-independent.
  2. [Pairing, around Eq. (18) and Fig. 1(c)] The text alternates between 'transition' and 'sharp crossover.' Once N≠0 peaks are retained, Eq. (19) allows complex V and p_x/p_y mixing; in addition the quasi-1D open-FS geometry and nodal p_x state are potentially sensitive to fluctuation/BKT physics beyond the mean-field LGE. Because 'nodal vs fully gapped' is the main experimental discriminator, clarify precisely what Eq. (18) is: an LGE eigenvalue crossing in the N=0/first-harmonic truncation, not necessarily a thermodynamic transition. A quantitative estimate of the rounding from N=±1 terms at Ag²=0.2 would help.
  3. [SM Fig. S3 vs main-text phase diagram] The full 2D LGE in the SM shows that at larger V0 the p_y channel can overtake p_x even for parameters that are p_x in the V0→0/FS-only diagram. The main text should state explicitly that Eqs. (17)-(18) are strictly weak-coupling/FS-restricted and give a rough criterion for the V0 range over which Fig. 1(c) is expected to hold. Otherwise the abstract/main-text phrase 'weak contact attractive interaction' is too easy to read as a generic prediction rather than the load-bearing limit it is.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Notation] The symbol A is used both as the stripe-parameter in Eq. (5) and as the 2D area in Eqs. (8), (14); consider A_area or Ω for the latter.
  2. [Fig. 2] Axis labels/units and the meaning of grey vs red contours should be stated in the caption; 'countours' typo. Mark the VHS at (g/2,0) explicitly.
  3. [Eq. (S44) and text after Eq. (15)] The statement λ∼1/ln(1/T_c) is potentially confusing alongside 'larger λ means larger T_c.' Please define the dimensionless eigenvalue convention and its monotonic relation to T_c.
  4. [Fig. S1] Add a colorbar/legend for magnitude and complex phase; the 'rainbow' N≠0 peaks are central to the truncation but the phase scale is not quantitative.
  5. [Presentation/typos] Several typos/spacing issues: 'Summery'→'Summary'; 'cuarvature'; 'longitudinalp y'; 'indistinguisable'; 'porportionality'; missing period after Eq. (8). Reference [21] appears to lack volume/pages; check [43] year/arXiv consistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Forward model calculation with no circular reduction: Hamiltonian inputs yield projected Vq and LGE eigenvalues by direct algebra.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—the competition between transverse px and longitudinal py channels and the explicit boundary Eq. (18)—is obtained by a self-contained forward chain: fixed microscopic H0 (parabolic band + constant-B form factor + stripe) and contact Hint are projected onto the lowest subband (SM Eqs. S13–S32), approximated in the strong-stripe limit (Eq. 10), and fed into the FS-restricted linearized gap equation, which factorizes into sheet and longitudinal harmonics (SM Eqs. S45–S70) giving λ_px and λ_py (Eqs. 17a–b). No parameter is fitted to superconducting observables; Ag², Bg², and kF/g are free inputs that are scanned. Self-citations supply the ideal form factor and the stripe-free p+ip benchmark, which are independent prior constructions of the parent model, not the stripe-tuned result being derived. There is no self-definitional loop, no fitted-input-as-prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem imported from the authors. Modeling caveats (contact glue, ideal form factor) are assumption risks, not circularity. Score 0 is therefore appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a short list of standard many-body tools plus several domain-level modeling choices standard in the recent quantum-geometry SC literature, and one ad-hoc interaction assumption required to obtain pairing in a single-flavor gas. No free parameters are fitted to data; dimensionless ratios are scanned. No new particles or forces are invented.

free parameters (4)
  • Ag² (effective stripe strength) = illustrative values ~0.2–0.55
    Dimensionless combination fixing the Gaussian width of the lowest-subband wavefunction; chosen by hand in figures (e.g. Ag²=0.2) to illustrate the strong-stripe regime, not fitted to experiment.
  • Bg² (Berry curvature in stripe units)
    Scanned as a control parameter; sets the complex phase and the Gaussian envelope of Vq. Not fitted.
  • kF/g (dimensionless stripe filling)
    Scanned control parameter that drives the p_x–p_y crossing; not fitted to data.
  • V0 (contact attraction strength)
    Overall scale of attraction; taken weak so that Tc is small and FS-only LGE applies. Absolute value cancels in the leading-channel comparison at weak coupling.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Parent band has ideal form factor with uniform Berry curvature B>0 and parabolic dispersion E=k²/2m.
    Stated in Model section and Eqs. (1)–(2); standard ideal-band assumption in the cited quantum-geometry SC literature, not derived here.
  • domain assumption A preexisting real-space stripe potential U=−2U0 cos(gx) is imposed and only the lowest subband is retained (kF<g/2).
    Introduced in Model and Lowest subband sections; higher subbands and self-consistent stripe formation are deferred.
  • ad hoc to paper Pairing is driven by a weak static contact attractive interaction projected with the form factors (Eq. 8).
    Authors note a static contact interaction does not exist in a single-component gas and must be viewed as a proxy for geometry- or dynamics-enabled glue; load-bearing for the projected Vq.
  • standard math Linearized BCS gap equation on (or near) the Fermi surface determines the leading instability at weak coupling.
    Standard many-body tool; derived in SM from mean-field decoupling.
  • domain assumption In the Ag²≪1 limit the FS may be replaced by two straight lines ky=±kF and Vq truncated to N=0 plus first qx harmonic.
    Used to obtain closed-form λ_px, λ_py and the phase boundary (Eqs. 10–18); SM checks that qualitative conclusions survive when the truncation is relaxed.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 22998 in / 3483 out tokens · 70737 ms · 2026-07-31T06:03:56.564166+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study how the interplay between nontrivial quantum geometry and an applied stripe potential affects superconductivity in a two-dimensional single-flavor metal. Assuming a weak contact attractive interaction and focusing on the lowest subband in the presence of a strong stripe potential, we analytically derive two possible pairing states in the quasi-one-dimensional limit. In addition to the conventional longitudinal $p_y$-wave order (with the stripes along the $y$ direction), we find that an exotic transverse $p_x$-wave order can be stabilized. The competition between these two orders is controlled by the electron density of each stripe and the Berry-curvature-dressed interaction. Notably, the transverse $p_x$ wave order develops a nodal line at $k_x=0$, while the longitudinal $p_y$ order is fully gapped. We discuss the possible experimental probes distinguishing these orders. Our results establish a way of controlling the pairing symmetry through a stripe potential, predicting superconductivity with nontrivial quantum geometry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24905 by Sankar Das Sarma, Yang-Zhi Chou, Yi Huang, Yi-Ting Tu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Summery of results. (a) Setup: We consider a 2D single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The structure of the lowest subband. Gray countours [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Plots of the eigenvalues ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.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

53 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    E. Y . Andrei, D. K. Efetov, P. Jarillo-Herrero, A. H. MacDonald, K. F. Mak, T. Senthil, E. Tutuc, A. Yazdani, and A. F. Young, Nature Reviews Materials6, 201 (2021)

    2021

  2. [2]

    X. Sun, M. Suriyage, A. R. Khan, M. Gao, J. Zhao, B. Liu, M. M. Hasan, S. Rahman, R.-s. Chen, P. K. Lam, and Y . Lu, Chemical Reviews124, 1992 (2024)

    1992

  3. [3]

    E. Y . Andrei and A. H. MacDonald, Nature Materials19, 1265 (2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    Balents, C

    L. Balents, C. R. Dean, D. K. Efetov, and A. F. Young, Nature Physics16, 725 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    K. F. Mak and J. Shan, Nature Nanotechnology17, 686 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    Li, W.-X

    B. Li, W.-X. Qiu, F. Wu, and A. H. MacDonald, National Science Review13, nwaf570 (2026), https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article- pdf/13/4/nwaf570/65854831/nwaf570.pdf

    2026

  7. [7]

    Y . Cao, V . Fatemi, A. Demir, S. Fang, S. L. Tomarken, J. Y . Luo, J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, R. C. Ashoori, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Nature556, 80 (2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    Y . Cao, V . Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Nature556, 43 (2018)

    2018

  9. [9]

    Wang, E.-M

    L. Wang, E.-M. Shih, A. Ghiotto, L. Xian, D. A. Rhodes, C. Tan, M. Claassen, D. M. Kennes, Y . Bai, B. Kim, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, X. Zhu, J. Hone, A. Rubio, A. N. Pasupathy, and C. R. Dean, Nature Materials19, 861 (2020)

    2020

  10. [10]

    Y . Tang, L. Li, T. Li, Y . Xu, S. Liu, K. Barmak, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. H. MacDonald, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Nature 579, 353 (2020)

    2020

  11. [11]

    E. C. Regan, D. Wang, C. Jin, M. I. Bakti Utama, B. Gao, X. Wei, S. Zhao, W. Zhao, Z. Zhang, K. Yumigeta, M. Blei, J. D. Carlström, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. Tongay, M. Crommie, A. Zettl, and F. Wang, Nature579, 359 (2020)

    2020

  12. [12]

    J. Sun, S. A. Akbar Ghorashi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, F. Camino, J. Cano, and X. Du, Nano Letters24, 13600 (2024)

    2024

  13. [13]

    C. R. Dean, L. Wang, P. Maher, C. Forsythe, F. Ghahari, Y . Gao, J. Katoch, M. Ishigami, P. Moon, M. Koshino, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, K. L. Shepard, J. Hone, and P. Kim, Nature497, 598 (2013)

    2013

  14. [14]

    L. A. Ponomarenko, R. V . Gorbachev, G. L. Yu, D. C. Elias, R. Jalil, A. A. Patel, A. Mishchenko, A. S. Mayorov, C. R. Woods, J. R. Wallbank, M. Mucha-Kruczynski, B. A. Piot, M. Potemski, I. V . Grigorieva, K. S. Novoselov, F. Guinea, V . I. Fal’ko, and A. K. Geim, Nature497, 594 (2013)

    2013

  15. [15]

    J. Cano, S. Fang, J. H. Pixley, and J. H. Wilson, Phys. Rev. B 103, 155157 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    Y .-Z. Chou, J. Cano, and J. H. Pixley, Phys. Rev. B104, L201113 (2021)

    2021

  17. [17]

    S. A. A. Ghorashi, A. Dunbrack, A. Abouelkomsan, J. Sun, X. Du, and J. Cano, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 196201 (2023)

    2023

  18. [18]

    S. A. A. Ghorashi and J. Cano, Phys. Rev. B107, 195423 (2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    Y . Zeng, T. M. R. Wolf, C. Huang, N. Wei, S. A. A. Ghorashi, A. H. MacDonald, and J. Cano, Phys. Rev. B109, 195406 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    Z. Lu, T. Han, Y . Yao, A. P. Reddy, J. Yang, J. Seo, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Fu, and L. Ju, Nature626, 759 (2024)

    2024

  21. [21]

    T. Han, Z. Lu, Z. Hadjri, L. Shi, Z. Wu, W. Xu, Y . Yao, A. A. Cotten, O. Sharifi Sedeh, H. Weldeyesus, J. Yang, J. Seo, S. Ye, M. Zhou, H. Liu, G. Shi, Z. Hua, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. Xiong, D. M. Zumbühl, L. Fu, and L. Ju, Nature , 1 (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    Read and D

    N. Read and D. Green, Phys. Rev. B61, 10267 (2000)

    2000

  23. [23]

    Alicea, Reports on Progress in Physics75, 076501 (2012)

    J. Alicea, Reports on Progress in Physics75, 076501 (2012)

    2012

  24. [24]

    Kallin and J

    C. Kallin and J. Berlinsky, Reports on Progress in Physics79, 054502 (2016)

    2016

  25. [25]

    Geier, M

    M. Geier, M. Davydova, and L. Fu, Nature Communications 17, 232 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    Yang and Y .-H

    H. Yang and Y .-H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B112, L020506 (2025)

    2025

  27. [27]

    May-Mann, T

    J. May-Mann, T. Helbig, and T. Devakul, npj Quantum Materials11, 53 (2026)

    2026

  28. [28]

    Y .-Z. Chou, J. Zhu, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B111, 174523 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    Jahin and S.-Z

    A. Jahin and S.-Z. Lin, Phys. Rev. B113, 014504 (2026)

    2026

  30. [30]

    A. S. Patri and M. Franz, Phys. Rev. B112, 214505 (2025)

    2025

  31. [31]

    M.-R. Li, Y . H. Kwan, H. Yao, and B. A. Bernevig, Berry trashcan with short range attraction:exactp x + ipy superconductivity in rhombohedral graphene (2025), arXiv:2509.16312 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Wang, Z.-Q

    Y .-Q. Wang, Z.-Q. Gao, and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. B113, 174507 (2026)

    2026

  33. [33]

    Y .-Z. Chou, J. Zhu, J. D. Sau, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett.137, 026001 (2026)

    2026

  34. [34]

    Y . Chen, M. S. Scheurer, and C. Schrade, Phys. Rev. B112, L060505 (2025)

    2025

  35. [35]

    C. Yoon, T. Xu, Y . Barlas, and F. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 026603 (2026)

    2026

  36. [36]

    Qin and C

    Q. Qin and C. Wu, Chinese Physics Letters43, 030708 (2026)

    2026

  37. [37]

    Dong and P

    Z. Dong and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B113, 104501 (2026)

    2026

  38. [38]

    Gil and E

    A. Gil and E. Berg, Phys. Rev. B113, 075154 (2026)

    2026

  39. [39]

    Zhu and C

    J. Zhu and C. Huang, Microscopic origin of orbital 6 magnetization in chiral superconductors (2026), arXiv:2601.12387 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    J. D. Sau and S. Wang, Theory of anomalous hall effect from screened vortex charge in a phase disordered superconductor (2024), arXiv:2411.08969 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Parra-Martínez, A

    G. Parra-Martínez, A. Jimeno-Pozo, V . T. Phong, H. Sainz- Cruz, D. Kaplan, P. Emanuel, Y . Oreg, P. A. Pantaleón, J. Á. Silva-Guillén, and F. Guinea, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 136503 (2025)

    2025

  42. [42]

    Christos, P

    M. Christos, P. M. Bonetti, and M. S. Scheurer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 137, 046505 (2026)

    2026

  43. [43]

    Qin, H.-T

    P. Qin, H.-T. Wu, R. Q. Nguyen, E. Morissette, N. J. Zhang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and J. I. A. Li, Stripe order in the metallic and superconducting phases of rhombohedral hexalayer graphene (2026), arXiv:2504.05129 [cond-mat.mes- hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    Tan and T

    T. Tan and T. Devakul, Phys. Rev. X14, 041040 (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    berry trashcan

    B. A. Bernevig and Y . H. Kwan, "berry trashcan" model of interacting electrons in rhombohedral graphene (2025), arXiv:2503.09692 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    See supplemental material for derivations and extended discussions

  47. [47]

    Coleman,Introduction to Many-Body Physics(Cambridge University Press, 2015)

    P. Coleman,Introduction to Many-Body Physics(Cambridge University Press, 2015)

    2015

  48. [48]

    Sengupta, I

    K. Sengupta, I. Žuti ´c, H.-J. Kwon, V . M. Yakovenko, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B63, 144531 (2001)

    2001

  49. [49]

    Seroussi, E

    I. Seroussi, E. Berg, and Y . Oreg, Phys. Rev. B89, 104523 (2014)

    2014

  50. [50]

    Dahm and D

    T. Dahm and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. B60, 13125 (1999)

    1999

  51. [51]

    S. K. Yip and J. A. Sauls, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2264 (1992)

    1992

  52. [52]

    D. Xu, S. K. Yip, and J. A. Sauls, Phys. Rev. B51, 16233 (1995)

    1995

  53. [53]

    1 + 2 ∞X n=1 e−π2n2/(αg2) cos 2πnqx g # .(S27) Introducing c1 = s π A+ B 2 g2 , c 2 = exp

    M. Arzamasovs and B. Liu, European Journal of Physics38, 065405 (2017). 7 Stripe-tuned superconductivity in single-flavor metals with nontrivial quantum geometry SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL In this supplemental material, we provide technical details for the main results presented in the main text. DETAILED DERIV ATION OF THE SUB-BAND STRCTURE We start from the ...

    2017