Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 64 references

Composite quantum geometry of superconductors

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Under three general conditions, the quantum geometry of a superconductor separates exactly into a normal-state part and a pairing part that comes purely from the Cooper-pair order parameter.

desk verdict Solid extension of BdG quantum-geometry separation to triplet and nonunitary pairing; the stress-test's gauge-dependent trace charge doesn't hold up. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02434 v1 pith:WEA2J7GD submitted 2026-08-03 cond-mat.supr-con

Florian Simon , Thomas Bernat , Annica M. Black-Schaffer This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords Bogoliubov-deGennesquantumgeometrymetricBerrycurvaturesuperconductingfitnessorbital-uniformpairingspin-tripletsuperconductornonunitarygeometrictensor
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 proves that if a superconductor is 'fit' (its normal-state and pairing matrices satisfy F=0), has orbital-uniform pairing, and its normal state has no spin-flip terms, then the quantum geometric tensor (QGT) of the superconducting state is exactly the sum of the QGT of the normal-state electrons and a new 'pairing' QGT that arises purely from the order parameter. This separation holds for every spin-singlet and spin-triplet pairing, including nonunitary triplet states, and the paper provides explicit analytic formulas for the pairing quantum metric and Berry curvature in all those cases. A sympathetic reader should care because the result shows that superconducting pairing alone can generate nontrivial topology and a finite quantum metric, even in flat-band or topologically trivial superconductors, so the geometric properties of a superconductor are not merely inherited from its normal state. The paper also derives the QGT of a general two-orbital spin-singlet superconductor without those simplifying conditions, showing that normal-state and pairing contributions generically intertwine once fitness or orbital uniformity is relaxed.

What carries the argument

The central object is the BdG quantum geometric tensor (QGT), whose real and imaginary parts are the quantum metric and Berry curvature. The load-bearing mechanism is the product-state factorization of the BdG eigenstates: |Ψ⟩ = |χ⟩ ⊗ |u_n⟩, where |u_n⟩ is a normal-state eigenstate and |χ⟩ carries the superconducting coherence factors (spin-singlet case) or a Nambu-spin vector (spin-triplet case). The QGT of a tensor product decomposes as the sum of the QGTs of its factors, so the BdG QGT separates into a normal-state part and a pairing part. The paper then evaluates the pairing QGT using the unnormalized-state formula (A14), yielding the explicit metric and Berry-curvature expressions in te

What would settle it

Take a concrete model satisfying the three conditions—for instance, a two-band spin-degenerate normal state with a fit, orbital-uniform spin-singlet order parameter having a momentum-dependent phase (such as chiral d+id on a square lattice)—and compute the full BdG QGT numerically. If the upper-band QGT does not exactly equal the normal-state QGT plus the pairing QGT of Eqs. (12) and (14) at every momentum point, the claimed exact separation is refuted; the same calculation with a small spin-flip term added to the normal state should produce a nonzero deviation, testing the necessity of that c

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the Bogoliubov–de Gennes (BdG) eigenstate factorizes as a tensor product of a normal-state eigenstate and a coherence-factor (or Nambu-spin) state whenever the superconductor is fit, has orbital-uniform pairing, and its normal state is spin-diagonal with no spin-flip terms. Because the QGT of a product state is the sum of the QGTs of its factors, the BdG QGT then separates exactly as Q^Ψ = Q^u + Q^p (Eqs. 10 and 20). The paper gives explicit formulas for the pairing QGT: for spin-singlet pairing (Eqs. 11, 12, 14), for unitary spin-triplet pairing (Eqs. 21–23), and for nonunitary spin-triplet pairing (Eqs. 24–27). These formulas show that a finite pairing Berry c

Load-bearing premise

The decomposition depends on each BdG eigenstate having a product form (a normal-state electron part times a separate pairing/coherence part), which in turn requires the normal-state Hamiltonian to be free of spin-flip terms and, for spin-singlet pairing, time-reversal symmetric (or, for spin-triplet pairing, fully spin-degenerate); if the normal-state spin structure is more complex, the exact separation fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Even a topologically trivial, flat-band superconductor can develop a finite quantum metric and Berry curvature purely from its order parameter, with no normal-state quantum geometry.
  • In spin-singlet superconductors, a finite pairing Berry curvature exists only when the order parameter breaks time-reversal symmetry via a momentum-dependent phase; the pairing quantum metric is nonzero whenever the band is dispersive or the gap amplitude/phase varies in momentum.
  • In spin-triplet superconductors, a momentum-dependent d-vector texture alone generates a pairing Berry curvature, so pairing-driven topology is far more common than in the singlet case; nonunitary pairing adds an extra Abelian geometric contribution tied to the spin-polarization vector q.
  • The explicit formulas (Eqs. 12, 14, 22, 23, 26, 27) supply design rules: one can engineer superconductors or superconducting hybrids with desired topology and quantum metric by controlling the momentum-space dependence of the order parameter, independently of the normal state.
  • When fitness or orbital uniformity is relaxed, the normal-state and pairing contributions intertwine, generating additional quantum-metric terms (proportional to the fitness vector f), though a finite fitness generically suppresses the Berry curvature.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the total QGT is a sum of a known normal-state part and a pairing part, subtracting the measured normal-state geometry could isolate the pairing geometry from experiment, offering a practical diagnostic of unconventional pairing symmetry that the paper does not develop.
  • The non-separable terms in the unfit/non-uniform case involve the fitness vector f, suggesting a link between SC fitness and the appearance of intertwined quantum geometry that may correlate with odd-frequency pairing, which the paper notes only arises at finite fitness.
  • In nonunitary triplet pairing, the spin-polarization axis q behaves like an emergent two-level system whose own QGT enters the pairing geometry; this suggests spin-resolved probes might be able to map the momentum-space texture of q directly.
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. The manuscript studies the quantum geometric tensor (QGT) of Bogoliubov–de Gennes (BdG) quasiparticle bands. It claims that, under three conditions — superconducting fitness F=0, orbital-uniform pairing, and no normal-state spin-flip terms — the BdG eigenstate factors into a normal-state eigenstate and a coherence-factor state, so that the BdG QGT separates exactly into a normal-state QGT plus a "pairing QGT" (Eqs. 10 and 20). Explicit formulas are derived for spin-singlet pairing (Eqs. 11, 12, 14), unitary spin-triplet pairing (Eqs. 21–23), and nonunitary spin-triplet pairing (Eqs. 24, 26, 27). The paper also derives a non-separable BdG QGT for a two-orbital time-reversal-symmetric spin-singlet superconductor without fitness and orbital uniformity (Sec. V), showing that normal-state and pairing contributions generally intertwine. The central physical message is that superconducting pairing alone can generate finite quantum metric and Berry curvature, even in topologically trivial or flat-band superconductors.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a useful and systematic framework: a clean decomposition of BdG quantum geometry into normal-state and pairing parts, with parameter-free analytical formulas that extend previous single-orbital, time-reversal-symmetric spin-singlet results. The explicit expressions give concrete design rules and experimental diagnostics, and the non-separable two-orbital example usefully delineates when the simple separable picture fails. Strengths include the explicit product-state derivation, the parameter-free structure of the formulas, and the independent reduction to Ref. [23] in the single-orbital spin-singlet limit. The main caveat is the gauge dependence of the non-Abelian objects used for unitary triplet pairing, which must be resolved before the full central claim, as stated in the abstract, can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [§IV.A, Eqs. (21)–(23)] The non-Abelian QGT used for the degenerate spin subspace of unitary triplet pairing is gauge-dependent. Under a k-dependent unitary rotation U(k) within the degenerate subspace, the matrix Q in Eq. (5) transforms as Q' = U† Q U. The trace is invariant, but the individual entries, the σ components, and the matrix-valued "quantum metric" and "Berry curvature" in Eqs. (22)–(23) are not. The choice |φ_{ησ}> as σ_z eigenstates is one arbitrary gauge. Consequently, the interpretation that the σ terms constitute a physical non-Abelian sector "dependent on the spin projection" is not gauge-invariant, and the last term of Eq. (22) and the non-Abelian terms of Eq. (23) are at least partly gauge artifacts. The paper should either restrict all unitary-triplet statements to gauge-invariant quantities (e.g., the projector metric Tr[P ∂_μ P ∂_ν P] and the trace of the non-Abelian Berry curvature), or
  2. [§IV.B, final paragraph] The statement that the unitary limit can be recovered by taking the non-Abelian QGT of nonunitary eigenstates and only then sending q→0 is asserted without derivation. Since the q→0 limit is singular (the unitary eigenbasis is degenerate and the present gauge choice is arbitrary), this claim is not obvious. Please provide the explicit calculation or a reference; otherwise remove or soften the statement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] Several central derivations are relegated to the Supplemental Material (e.g., Eq. 11, 14, 21–27). If the SM is not included with the arXiv submission, the main text is not fully self-contained. Please ensure the SM is available or include the key steps in an Appendix.
  2. [Eq. (17)] The notation |χ_{nησ}> = (u_{nησ}, v_{nησ})^T |φ_{nησ}> is confusing because u and v are 2×2 matrices rather than scalar coefficients. Please clarify that |χ> is a four-component object obtained by acting with these matrix-valued amplitudes on |φ>.
  3. [Introduction and Sec. IV] The abstract lists "three general conditions," but for spin-triplet pairing the fitness condition itself requires both time-reversal symmetry and spin degeneracy of the normal state in addition to the absence of spin-flip terms. The introduction should state these extra requirements explicitly so that the reader understands how restrictive the conditions are.
  4. [Sec. V] The text says the two-orbital example gives "confidence in the necessity" of fitness and orbital uniformity. This is appropriately cautious, but the phrase "necessity" should not be overread: a single model cannot prove necessity. Consider replacing "necessity" with "non-generality of separability" or similar in the conclusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the separation theorem is a direct product-state computation, not a fit or a self-citation loop.

full rationale

The claimed result, Eqs. (10) and (20), is derived from the explicitly constructed product eigenstates Eq. (8) and Eq. (17) plus the standard QGT product rule proved in Appendix A1. The 'pairing QGT' is defined as the QGT of the coherence-factor factor in that product; this is a naming of the additive term, not a fitted input or a separate output that the derivation assumes. The subsequent analytical formulas (Eqs. (12), (14), (22), (23), (26), (27)) are obtained by direct differentiation of those coherence-factor states and contain nontrivial dependence on the order parameter. No parameter is fitted to data, and no 'prediction' is statistically forced by prior inputs. Self-citations (Refs. [31], [53]) are contextual background and are not load-bearing. The singlet metric reproduces the independent result of Ref. [23], serving as an external consistency check. The normal-state restrictions (spin diagonal, fitness, orbital uniformity) are stated explicitly as assumptions, not hidden. The only explicit freedom is the unitary triplet gauge choice in Sec. IV A, where the paper states: "We here arbitrarily choose u_{n+σ}=v_{n−σ} ∝ σ0 in Eq. (18). In addition, we arbitrarily choose |φ_{nησ}⟩=(σ+1, σ−1)^⊺/2 to be an eigenvector of σ_z." This is an acknowledged gauge convention; gauge-dependence of the non-Abelian QGT is a potential correctness issue, not circularity. Verdict: no significant circularity.

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

The central separation theorem rests on stated physical conditions (fitness, orbital uniformity, no spin-flip, TRS, spin degeneracy) rather than on fitted parameters; no free parameters appear. The 'pairing quantum geometry' is a new ledger entry defined within the paper.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Normal-state Hamiltonian is diagonal in spin (no spin-flip terms)
    Used throughout (Sec. II); needed for the block decomposition and product eigenstates.
  • domain assumption Superconducting fitness F(k) = 0
    One of the three sufficient conditions for the separation (Sec. III, Eq. 3).
  • domain assumption Orbital-uniform pairing: ψ(k) = ψ(k)1 and d(k) = d(k)1
    Second sufficient condition; excludes interorbital pairing (Sec. II).
  • domain assumption Time-reversal symmetry of the normal state (h↑ = h↓(-k)^*)
    Needed for spin-singlet fitness and for the two-block decomposition (Sec. III, after Eq. 6).
  • domain assumption For spin-triplet: spin-degenerate normal state h↑ = h↓ = h
    Required for orbital-uniform triplet pairing to be fit (Sec. IV, Eq. 16).
  • domain assumption Fixed spin parity of the order parameter (pure singlet or pure triplet)
    The paper excludes mixed-parity pairing, leaving it for future work (Sec. II).
invented entities (1)
  • pairing quantum geometry (pairing QGT Q^p)
    purpose: The part of the BdG quantum geometry attributed solely to the superconducting order-parameter coherence factors.
    It is defined inside the paper as the QGT of the coherence-factor eigenstate; no external falsifiable handle is provided beyond the paper's own formulas.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Composite quantum geometry of superconductors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WEA2J7GD

@misc{pith2026260802434,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Composite quantum geometry of superconductors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WEA2J7GD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02434}
}
read the original abstract

The interplay of superconductivity and the quantum geometry of the normal state has recently been the subject of an array of studies, especially regarding the superfluid weight. In this work, we turn our attention to the quantum geometry of the superconducting state itself, set by the Bogoliubov-de Gennes (BdG) Hamiltonian, which dictates the geometric and topological properties of superconductivity. We show that under three general conditions, namely superconducting fitness, orbital uniformity of the superconducting pairing, and absence of normal-state spin-flip terms, the BdG quantum geometry exactly separates into a sum of the normal-state quantum geometry and an additional pairing quantum geometry, thereby displaying a simple composite structure. We show that this separation holds for all spin-singlet and -triplet pairings, including nonunitary spin-triplet pairing. We further provide explicit analytical formulas for the pairing quantum geometry for all these cases. These results establish how superconducting pairing alone easily drives both topology and a finite quantum metric, thus being present even in topological trivial or flat band superconductors, with no normal state quantum geometry. To complement these results, we also derive the BdG quantum geometry of a general two-orbital spin-singlet superconductor with non-uniform pairing and finite superconducting fitness. Here, our explicit analytical results establish a non-separable composite BdG quantum geometry, with the normal state and pairing contributions generally intertwining, thereby producing even more possibilities for finite quantum geometry. Our results provide design rules for creating superconductors and superconducting hybrid structures with nontrivial topology and finite quantum metric and will additionally help in the experimental diagnosis of unconventional superconductivity.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [23]

    Porlles and W

    D. Porlles and W. Chen, Quantum geometry of singlet superconductors, Phys. Rev. B108, 094508 (2023)

    2023

  2. [1]

    (21), we obtain the non-Abelian pairing quantum metric gpη µν = 1 4E4 (d2∂µϵ∂νϵ+ϵ 2∂µd∂νd−ϵd∂ (µϵ∂ν)d) + 1 4E2 (d2∂µφ∂νφ+d 2∂µ ˆd·∂ ν ˆd−∂ (µφd×∂ ν)d·σ)

    Pairing quantum metric Symmetrizing the QGT tensor in Eq. (21), we obtain the non-Abelian pairing quantum metric gpη µν = 1 4E4 (d2∂µϵ∂νϵ+ϵ 2∂µd∂νd−ϵd∂ (µϵ∂ν)d) + 1 4E2 (d2∂µφ∂νφ+d 2∂µ ˆd·∂ ν ˆd−∂ (µφd×∂ ν)d·σ). (22) The terms proportional to the identity can be interpreted as the Abelian sector, while theσterms constitute the non-Abeliansector, indicatin...

  3. [2]

    (21) yields the non-Abelian Berry curvature Bpη µν = ηd 2E3 ϵ∂[µd−d∂ [µϵ ∂ν]φ+ η 2E3 ∂[µϵd×∂ ν]d·σ − ηϵ 2E3 ∂µd×∂ νd·σ− η 2E3(E+ϵ) (d·∂ µd×∂ νd)d·σ

    Pairing Berry curvature Instead, antisymmetrizing the QGT in Eq. (21) yields the non-Abelian Berry curvature Bpη µν = ηd 2E3 ϵ∂[µd−d∂ [µϵ ∂ν]φ+ η 2E3 ∂[µϵd×∂ ν]d·σ − ηϵ 2E3 ∂µd×∂ νd·σ− η 2E3(E+ϵ) (d·∂ µd×∂ νd)d·σ. (23) The Berry curvature is generated by the momentum space texture of the order parameter. The first term belongs to the Abelian sector and is...

  4. [3]

    J. Yu, B. A. Bernevig, R. Queiroz, E. Rossi, P. Törmä, and B.-J. Yang, Quantum geometry in quantum mate- rials, npj Quantum Materials10, 10.1038/s41535-025- 00801-3 (2025)

    doi:10.1038/s41535-025- 2025

  5. [4]

    Pairing quantum metric The quantum metric is found as the real part of the QGT in Eq. (24) as 7 gp+σ µν = |d|2 +σq 4E4σ ∂µϵ∂νϵ− (Eσ +ϵ) 2 +E 2 σ 16E4σ(Eσ +ϵ) 2 ∂µ |d|2 +σq ∂ν |d|2 +σq − ϵ 8E4σ ∂(µϵ∂ν)(|d|2 +σq) + N 2 σ 2 ∂(µd·∂ ν)d∗ +iσ∂ (µd×∂ ν)d∗ · ˆq+ ˆq×∂ (µ ˆq·π ν) −2N 2 σ (αµ +π µ · ˆq)(αν +π ν · ˆq) + 1 4 ∂µ ˆq·∂ ν ˆq,(26) whereα µ = Im(d·∂ µd∗). T...

  6. [5]

    Pairing Berry curvature The imaginary part of the QGT in Eq. (24) yields the Berry curvature Bp+σ µν = 1 2E3σ ∂[µϵ+ 2Eσ +ϵ 2(Eσ +ϵ) 2 ∂[µ |d|2 +σq αν] +σπ ν] · ˆq +N 2 σ i∂[µd·∂ ν]d∗ −σ∂ [µd×∂ ν]d∗ · ˆq+σπ [µ ·∂ ν] ˆq − σ 2 ˆq·∂ µ ˆq×∂ ν ˆq.(27) As in the unitary case, the Berry curvature is generated by the momentum-space texture of the complex order par...

    2022

  7. [6]

    Cayssol and J

    J. Cayssol and J. N. Fuchs, Topological and geometrical aspects of band theory, J. Phys. Mater.4, 034007 (2021)

    2021

  8. [7]

    Liu, X.-B

    T. Liu, X.-B. Qiang, H.-Z. Lu, and X. C. Xie, Quan- tum geometry in condensed matter, Natl. Sci. Rev.12, nwae334 (2025)

    2025

Show all 64 references
  1. [8]

    Ando, Topological insulator materials, J

    Y. Ando, Topological insulator materials, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.82, 102001 (2013)

    2013

  2. [9]

    J. P. Provost and G. Vallee, Riemannian structure on manifolds of quantum states, Commun. Math. Phys.76, 289 (1980)

    1980

  3. [10]

    M. V. Berry, inGeometric Phases in Physics(World Sci- entific, 1989)

    1989

  4. [11]

    S. H. Simon,The Oxford Solid State Basics(Oxford Uni- versity Press, London, England, 2013)

    2013

  5. [12]

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Colloquium: Topological insulators, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 3045 (2010)

    2010

  6. [13]

    A. Gao, N. Nagaosa, N. Ni, and S.-Y. Xu, Quantum ge- ometry phenomena in condensed matter systems (2025), arXiv:2508.00469

    2025 arXiv

  7. [14]

    D. Xiao, Y. Yao, Z. Fang, and Q. Niu, Berry-phase effect in anomalous thermoelectric transport, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 026603 (2006)

    2006

  8. [15]

    Oka and H

    T. Oka and H. Aoki, Photovoltaic hall effect in graphene, Phys. Rev. B79, 081406(R) (2009)

    2009

  9. [16]

    Xiao, M.-C

    D. Xiao, M.-C. Chang, and Q. Niu, Berry phase effects on electronic properties, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1959 (2010)

    1959

  10. [17]

    Jiang, T

    Y. Jiang, T. Holder, and B. Yan, Revealing quantum ge- ometry in nonlinear quantum materials, Rep. Prog. Phys. 88, 076502 (2025)

    2025

  11. [18]

    Tinkham,Introduction to Superconductivity, 2nd ed., Dover Books on Physics (Dover Publications, Mineola, NY, 2004)

    M. Tinkham,Introduction to Superconductivity, 2nd ed., Dover Books on Physics (Dover Publications, Mineola, NY, 2004)

    2004

  12. [19]

    Komissarov, T

    I. Komissarov, T. Holder, and R. Queiroz, The quantum geometric origin of capacitance in insulators, Nat. Com- mun.15, 4621 (2024)

    2024

  13. [20]

    J. Yu, C. J. Ciccarino, R. Bianco, I. Errea, P. Narang, and B. A. Bernevig, Non-trivial quantum geometry and the strength of electron–phonon coupling, Nat. Phys.20, 1262 (2024)

    2024

  14. [21]

    G. Sala, E. Longo, M. T. Mercaldo, S. Gariglio, M. Cuoco, R. Mantovan, C. Ortix, and A. D. Caviglia, Probing the quantum metric of 3d topological insulators, Nat. Mater. (2026)

    2026

  15. [22]

    N. N. Bogoljubov, V. V. Tolmachov, and D. V. Širkov, A new method in the theory of superconductivity, Fortschr. Phys.6, 605 (1958)

    1958

  16. [24]

    Sato and Y

    M. Sato and Y. Ando, Topological superconductors: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys.80, 076501 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Unpaired majorana fermions in quantum wires, Phys.-Uspekhi44, 131 (2001)

    2001

  18. [26]

    Alicea, New directions in the pursuit of majorana fermions in solid state systems, Rep

    J. Alicea, New directions in the pursuit of majorana fermions in solid state systems, Rep. Prog. Phys.75, 076501 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    Mandal, N

    M. Mandal, N. C. Drucker, P. Siriviboon, T. Nguyen, A. Boonkird, T. N. Lamichhane, R. Okabe, A. Chotrat- tanapituk, and M. Li, Topological superconductors from a materials perspective, Chem. Mater.35, 6184 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Iskin, Extracting quantum-geometric effects from ginzburg-landau theory in a multiband hubbard model, Phys

    M. Iskin, Extracting quantum-geometric effects from ginzburg-landau theory in a multiband hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B107, 224505 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    M. A. Keskiner and M. Işkın, Superconductivity beyond band geometry: emergence of pair quantum geometry (2026), arXiv:2606.06017

    2026 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Peotta and P

    S. Peotta and P. Törmä, Superfluidity in topologically nontrivial flat bands, Nat. Commun.6, 8944 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Iskin, Quantum-metric contribution to the pair mass in spin-orbit-coupled fermi superfluids, Phys

    M. Iskin, Quantum-metric contribution to the pair mass in spin-orbit-coupled fermi superfluids, Phys. Rev. A97, 033625 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Kitamura, T

    T. Kitamura, T. Yamashita, J. Ishizuka, A. Daido, and Y.Yanase,Superconductivityinmonolayerfeseenhanced by quantum geometry, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 023232 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Tanaka, H

    H. Tanaka, H. Watanabe, and Y. Yanase, Nonlinear op- tical responses in noncentrosymmetric superconductors, Phys. Rev. B107, 024513 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Daido, T

    A. Daido, T. Kitamura, and Y. Yanase, Quantum geome- try encoded to pair potentials, Phys. Rev. B110, 094505 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    J.-X. Hu, S. A. Chen, and K. T. Law, Anomalous co- herence length in superconductors with quantum metric, Communications Physics8(2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Simon, Normal-state quantum geometry, nonlocality, and superconductivity, Phys

    F. Simon, Normal-state quantum geometry, nonlocality, and superconductivity, Phys. Rev. B112, 104504 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Kitamura, A

    T. Kitamura, A. Daido, and Y. Yanase, Quantum ge- ometry in correlated electron phases: From flatband to dispersive band, Appl. Phys. Lett.128, 130501 (2026)

    2026

  30. [38]

    Goll,Unconventional superconductors, Springer Tracts in Modern Physics (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2005)

    G. Goll,Unconventional superconductors, Springer Tracts in Modern Physics (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2005)

    2005

  31. [39]

    A. P. Schnyder, S. Ryu, A. Furusaki, and A. W. W. Lud- wig, Classification of topological insulators and super- conductors in three spatial dimensions, Phys. Rev. B78, 12 195125 (2008)

    2008

  32. [40]

    Kitaev, V

    A. Kitaev, V. Lebedev, and M. Feigel’man, Periodic table for topological insulators and superconductors, inAIP Conference Proceedings(AIP, 2009) pp. 22–30

    2009

  33. [41]

    S. Ryu, A. P. Schnyder, A. Furusaki, and A. W. W. Lud- wig, Topological insulators and superconductors: tenfold way and dimensional hierarchy, New J. Phys.12, 065010 (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    C.-K. Chiu, J. C. Y. Teo, A. P. Schnyder, and S. Ryu, Classification of topological quantum matter with sym- metries, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 035005 (2016)

    2016

  35. [43]

    Importantly, fit superconductors maximize the critical temperature [43, 45] and are therefore expected to be common amongst real SCs

    and influences a range of properties, including odd- frequency pairing only appearing at finite fitness [44]. Importantly, fit superconductors maximize the critical temperature [43, 45] and are therefore expected to be common amongst real SCs. The second condition is or- bital...

  36. [44]

    G. R. Stewart, Unconventional superconductivity, Adv. Phys.66, 75 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    A. P. Mackenzie, T. Scaffidi, C. W. Hicks, and Y. Maeno, Even odder after twenty-three years: the superconduct- ing order parameter puzzle of Sr2RuO4, npj Quantum Materials2, 40 (2017)

    2017

  38. [46]

    Aoki, J.-P

    D. Aoki, J.-P. Brison, J. Flouquet, K. Ishida, G. Knebel, Y. Tokunaga, and Y. Yanase, Unconventional supercon- ductivity in UTe2, J. Phys. Condens. Matter34, 243002 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Banerjee, S

    S. Banerjee, S. Mandal, P. P. Orth, and M. S. Scheurer, Probing pairing symmetries through quasiparticle inter- ference in chiral bloch bands (2026), arXiv:2606.04097

    2026 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Ramires, D

    A. Ramires, D. F. Agterberg, and M. Sigrist, TailoringTc by symmetry principles: The concept of superconducting fitness, Phys. Rev. B98, 024501 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    Triola, J

    C. Triola, J. Cayao, and A. M. Black-Schaffer, The role of odd-frequency pairing in multiband superconductors, Ann. Phys. (Berl.)532, 1900298 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    Ramires and M

    A. Ramires and M. Sigrist, Identifying detrimental ef- fects for multiorbital superconductivity: Application to sr2ruo4, Phys. Rev. B94, 104501 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    Tovmasyan, S

    M. Tovmasyan, S. Peotta, P. Törmä, and S. D. Huber, Effective theory and emergent SU(2)symmetry in the flat bands of attractive hubbard models, Phys. Rev. B 94, 245149 (2016)

    2016

  44. [52]

    P.Törmä,Essay: Wherecanquantumgeometryleadus?, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 240001 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    Y.-Q. Ma, S. Chen, H. Fan, and W.-M. Liu, Abelian and non-Abelian quantum geometric tensor, Phys. Rev. B81, 245129 (2010)

    2010

  46. [54]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for derivations of the eigenstates and quan- tum geometric tensor in the fit and orbital uniform spin- singlet and spin-triplet cases, and in the time-reversal symmetric two orbital unfit and non-uniform spin-sin...

  47. [55]

    S. K. Ghosh, M. Smidman, T. Shang, J. F. Annett, A. D. Hillier, J. Quintanilla, and H. Yuan, Recent progress on superconductors with time-reversal symmetry breaking, J. Phys. Condens. Matter33, 033001 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    Marzari and D

    N. Marzari and D. Vanderbilt, Maximally localized gen- eralized wannier functions for composite energy bands, Phys. Rev. B56, 12847 (1997)

    1997

  49. [57]

    Resta, The insulating state of matter: a geometrical theory, Eur

    R. Resta, The insulating state of matter: a geometrical theory, Eur. Phys. J. B79, 121 (2011)

    2011

  50. [58]

    Marsal and A

    Q. Marsal and A. M. Black-Schaffer, Enhanced quantum metric due to vacancies in graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 026002 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    P. W. Anderson, Random-phase approximation in the theoryofsuperconductivity,Phys.Rev.112,1900(1958)

    1900

  52. [60]

    Graf and F

    A. Graf and F. Piéchon, Berry curvature and quantum metric inn-band systems: An eigenprojector approach, Phys. Rev. B104, 085114 (2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    Sigrist and K

    M. Sigrist and K. Ueda, Phenomenological theory of un- conventional superconductivity, Rev. Mod. Phys.63, 239 (1991). Appendix A: Shortcuts to computing quantum geometry In this Appendix, we derive the QGT for specific classes of quantum states, which we use throughout the pap...

    1991

  54. [62]

    This result is used Sections III and IV

    QGT of product quantum states We show that the QGT of a tensor product of quantum states is separable. This result is used Sections III and IV. Consider the product state of|ϕ⟩and|ψ⟩, |Ψ⟩=|ϕ⟩ ⊗ |ψ⟩,(A5) where we omit the tensor product symbol in the follow- ing. Its derivative...

  55. [63]

    QGT of unnormalized quantum states Let us consider an unnormalized quantum state| ˜ψ⟩. The resulting QGT depends only on the derivative of | ˜ψ⟩and not on those of the normalization factor, which greatly simplifies the calculations of the pairing quantum geometries in Sections...

  56. [64]

    For the application to Eq

    QGT of concatenated quantum states We derive the expression used in Section V for the QGTofaquantumstate|Ψ⟩definedastheconcatenation of two unnormalized quantum states|ψ1⟩and|ψ 2⟩. For the application to Eq. (34), it is sufficient to consider the two to have equal normsn2 =⟨ψ ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.