Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Finite-momentum coupling of Higgs and Bardasis--Schrieffer modes in superconductors with competing pairing channels

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a clean superconductor with competing s- and d-wave pairing channels, the Higgs and Bardasis–Schrieffer modes never hybridize at finite momentum, because the amplitude mode is pinned to the pair-breaking edge and disperses faster than…

desk verdict Solid derivation of a new Higgs-BS coupling, but the clean-limit no-crossing is oversold: it rests on weak-coupling edge pinning that fails in the BCS-BEC crossover. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12461 v1 pith:HKTZUCEA submitted 2026-08-12 cond-mat.supr-con

Samuel Awelewa , Yafis Barlas , Maxim Dzero This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords HiggsmodeBardasis–Schriefferfinite-momentumresponseparticle-holeasymmetrypair-breakingedgecompetingpairingchannelscollectivemodesinsuperconductorsamplitude-phasecoupling
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

In a superconductor with a dominant s-wave and a subdominant d-wave pairing channel, two sharp sub-gap excitations exist: the amplitude (Higgs) oscillation of the main condensate and the Bardasis–Schrieffer (BS) bound state of the subdominant channel. This paper asks whether they can mix at finite momentum, and shows that mixing is doubly forbidden — by point-group symmetry at zero momentum and by particle–hole symmetry at all momenta — so a direct coupling appears only at order $\Delta/\varepsilon_F$, with the closed form $\Pi^\times_{sd}\propto(\Delta/\varepsilon_F)(v_F q)^2\,\Omega\cos 2\phi_q$. The central surprise is kinematic: in the clean limit the Higgs is not a sub-gap pole but a resonance pinned to the pair-breaking edge, which disperses with unit coefficient in $(v_F q)^2$, while the BS mode disperses more slowly, so the two branches move apart rather than cross. The coupling therefore produces no avoided crossing and no splitting; instead it transfers a small, $q^2\cos 2\phi_q$ amplitude character onto the BS mode. The authors identify moderate disorder as the regime where the obstruction lifts and the coupling would set a real hybridized splitting.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the coupled five-component fluctuation matrix $\hat{M}(q,\Omega)$ in Eq. (29) — amplitude and phase components of both pairing channels plus the Coulomb potential — built from Nambu–Keldysh quasiclassical propagators extended by the leading $1/\varepsilon_F$ particle–hole-asymmetric corrections. The two load-bearing entries are: (i) the direct cross-sector bubble $\Pi^\times_{sd}$, computed in closed form as $(\Delta/\varepsilon_F)(v_F q)^2\,\Omega\cos 2\phi_q$ times a universal frequency profile, which is the only amplitude–phase coupling at this order; and (ii) the kinematic identity $\Omega_{\text{edge}}^2=(2\Delta)^2+(v_F q)^2$ for the pair-breaking threshold, whose unit coefficient forces every sub-gap bound branch to separate from the Higgs. The off-diagonal spectral weight $A_{14}$, extracted from $\hat{M}^{-1}$, carries the induced amplitude character of the BS mode and vanishes identically when the particle–hole-asymmetric coupling is removed.

What would settle it

A momentum-resolved measurement on a clean superconductor with a subdominant d-wave channel — for example M-EELS on a clean film of Ba0.6K0.4Fe2As2 — that finds a sub-gap amplitude-mode peak below $2\Delta$ at any finite $q$, or that observes the separation between the BS line and the pair-breaking edge decreasing as $q$ grows, would falsify the clean-limit no-crossing claim; observing the two branches approach and exchange character in a moderately disordered sample would confirm the disorder-lifted hybridization scenario.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a selection rule plus a kinematic no-go. It computes the full finite-momentum pair-susceptibility matrix for a 2D s+d superconductor with Coulomb interaction, including leading particle–hole asymmetric corrections of order $\Delta/\varepsilon_F$, and obtains in closed form the direct Higgs–BS coupling $\Pi^\times_{sd}(q,\Omega)\propto(\Delta/\varepsilon_F)(v_F q)^2\,\Omega\cos 2\phi_q$ times a universal frequency profile. This coupling is the only channel connecting the two sharp sub-gap excitations; it vanishes at $q=0$ and along the d-wave nodal direction $\phi_q=\pi/4$, and it is odd in frequency, as an amplitude–phase coupling must be. Yet the authors show that whether it produces a resonance is decided by kinematics, not magnitude: in the clean limit the Higgs amplitude weight $A_{11}$ is identically zero below the pair-breaking edge, the edge disperses as $\Omega_{\text{edge}}^2=(2\Delta)^2+(v_F q)^2$, and any bound state below the edge disperses with coefficient $\alpha<1$, so the separation $\Omega_{\text{edge}}^2-\Omega_{\text{BS}}^2$ grows with $q$. Consequently there is no degeneracy, no avoided crossing, and no splitting; the observable consequence is the induced amplitude character $A_{14}\propto(\Delta/\varepsilon_F)(v_F q)^2\cos 2\phi_q$ carried by the BS pole, which appears against a strictly zero background. The obstruction is clean-limit-specific: with moderate disorder the amplitude resonance detaches from the edge and its dispersion softens through zero, which can make the crossing condition have a solution and turn the same coupling into a measurable avoided-crossing splitting.

Load-bearing premise

The no-crossing conclusion rests on the clean-limit, weak-coupling BCS property that the s-wave amplitude mode has strictly zero spectral weight below the pair-breaking edge and stays pinned to it, so its dispersion inherits the unit coefficient in $(v_F q)^2$; if the clean superconductor is in a strong-coupling or BCS–BEC crossover regime, the amplitude mode can leave the edge and the kinematic argument fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In a clean s-wave superconductor with a subdominant d-wave channel, the BS mode will never resonate with the Higgs mode at finite momentum: the separation of the branches grows monotonically with $q$.
  • The BS mode carries a small amplitude-channel admixture that grows as $(v_F q)^2\cos 2\phi_q$ and vanishes along the nodal direction, giving a clean angular null test.
  • At zero temperature in the clean limit the BS line is a sharp sub-gap pole at every momentum, with width set only by the instrument, so any $q$-dependent intrinsic broadening signals physics beyond the clean model.
  • The same kinematic argument applies to any sub-gap collective mode of a competing channel, including Leggett modes and mixed-symmetry BS modes, so finite momentum cannot be used to tune such a mode into resonance with the Higgs.
  • In the moderate-disorder regime ($\tau\Delta\approx 1$), where the amplitude dispersion softens through zero, the crossing condition has a solution and the computed coupling sets the avoided-crossing splitting; for Ba-122-like parameters the splitting is estimated in the meV range.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the cleanest experimental test of the no-crossing claim is a momentum-resolved measurement that tracks both branch positions as functions of $q$; observing a decreasing separation, or any sub-gap amplitude peak, would immediately contradict the clean-limit picture.
  • Beyond the paper: because the selection rule is controlled by particle–hole symmetry rather than by material details, the result suggests that any experimental search for Higgs–BS hybridization should either engineer moderate disorder or break particle–hole symmetry by an external drive or supercurrent, since clean kinematics alone cannot produce the crossing.
  • Beyond the paper: the induced amplitude weight $A_{14}$ growing as $\cos 2\phi_q$ implies that a 45-degree rotation of the sample at fixed instrument settings converts the signal into its own null measurement, which is a more robust discriminator than calibrating absolute intensities.
  • Beyond the paper: the paper's clean-limit statement that $A_{11}$ vanishes below $2\Delta$ implies that near-field terahertz experiments at small $q$ should see no sub-gap amplitude response at all; the only sub-gap line should be the BS mode with its induced amplitude admixture.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies collective excitations of a two-dimensional s-wave superconductor with a subdominant d-wave pairing channel, using a Nambu–Keldysh quasiclassical framework extended by leading 1/ε_F corrections and a self-consistently screened Coulomb interaction. It constructs the full 5×5 fluctuation susceptibility matrix, derives a closed-form direct Higgs–BS coupling Π×_sd ∝ (Δ/ε_F)(v_F q)^2 Ω cos 2φ_q, and argues that in the clean limit this coupling does not produce an avoided crossing because the Higgs is a threshold resonance pinned to the pair-breaking edge (Ω_edge^2 = (2Δ)^2 + (v_F q)^2) while the BS mode disperses more slowly, so the two branches separate rather than converge (Eq. (2)). The paper further predicts that the off-diagonal spectral weight A14 transfers amplitude character to the BS mode with a q^2 cos 2φ_q angular dependence, and that moderate disorder can detach the amplitude resonance from the edge, potentially allowing a crossing with a splitting set by the computed coupling.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper answers a basic question—whether finite momentum can hybridize the Higgs and Bardasis–Schrieffer modes—and provides a concrete, falsifiable experimental signature (A14 ∝ q^2 cos 2φ_q, vanishing at q = 0 and along the nodal direction) that is accessible to momentum-resolved EELS. The calculation is carefully executed: the susceptibility matrix is derived explicitly in Appendices A and B, and the authors report strong internal checks, including q = 0 block diagonalization to about 10^-10, strictly zero A11 below 2Δ, and reproduction of the edge dispersion to 2×10^-4. The prediction that the BS line remains resolution-limited as it disperses, and the quantitative M-EELS estimates for Ba-122, are testable. The main caveat is the regime of validity of the clean-limit no-crossing claim, which is discussed below.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV and Sec. V, Eqs. (1)–(2)] The no-crossing argument rests on the premise that A11(q,Ω) is identically zero below 2Δ and that the Higgs resonance is pinned to the dispersing edge Ω_edge^2 = (2Δ)^2 + (v_F q)^2. This is a weak-coupling BCS/quasiclassical property, not a kinematic necessity: in the BCS–BEC crossover regime (see Ref. [28], which the manuscript cites but does not exploit), the amplitude mode can move below the pair-breaking edge, so the unit coefficient in Eq. (1) no longer controls the amplitude dispersion and the inequality α_SH > α_BS underlying Eq. (2) can fail. The statement in Sec. V that the absence of an avoided crossing 'does not rest on the magnitude of Π×_sd, nor on the parameters of any particular material' and 'applies verbatim to any sub-gap collective mode' is therefore too broad. Because the paper itself discusses FeSe with Δ/ε_F ∼ 0.1–0.5 (Sec. V), the strong-coupling regime is not a remote edge case. The no-go should be explicitly restricted to the weak-coupling clean limit, or an analysis showing the persistence of edge pinning in the crossover should be provided.
  2. [Sec. V, Eq. (2)] The kinematic argument also requires that every sub-gap collective mode disperses with α < 1. The manuscript asserts this ('any collective state bound below that continuum necessarily disperses more slowly') but provides no proof; the numerical fit of α_BS ≃ 0.5 is specific to the d-wave BS mode in the single-band model. A bound state with α > 1 would still lie below the edge at q = 0, but its separation from the edge would shrink with momentum, so the branches could approach degeneracy or the bound state could merge into the continuum, invalidating the claim that 'the two branches therefore separate rather than converge'. The authors should either prove the inequality from the Eilenberger/BCS equations or explicitly limit the no-crossing conclusion to the parameter range for which α_BS < 1 has been established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A, Sec. 3a] There is a typo: 'Schimd-Higgs' should be 'Schmid-Higgs'.
  2. [Sec. V, Eq. (28)] The closed form for Π×_sd is derived as the leading small-momentum result, retaining only the leading order in v_F q/ε_F. The M-EELS estimates in Sec. V use this expression up to v_F q/Δ = 2.15, where v_F q/ε_F = 2.15 Δ/ε_F is not parametrically small for the quoted Δ/ε_F ∼ 0.5 materials. Please state the expected accuracy of the q^2 law in this range.
  3. [Sec. V and Fig. 2] The disorder scenario is explicitly marked as illustrative, which is appropriate; for clarity, the abstract's phrase 'can result in an avoided crossing at intermediate scattering' should be understood as a qualitative expectation based on Ref. [29] rather than a result of the present calculation, and the main text already says this.
  4. [Data Availability] The data availability statement says scripts are available 'upon reasonable request'; given the reproducibility emphasis of the field, consider depositing the numerical scripts in a public repository.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Higgs–BS coupling and the no-crossing obstruction are derived from the model Hamiltonian and computed spectral functions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived, not assumed. The closed-form coupling Π×_sd ∝ (Δ/ε_F)(v_Fq)^2 Ω cos 2φ_q follows from evaluating the cross-bubble Eqs. (26)–(27) and expanding in q and Δ/ε_F in Appendix B (Eqs. (28), (B4)–(B6)); its q^2 onset, cos 2φ_q angular law, Δ/ε_F scaling, and odd-frequency structure are computed from the model Hamiltonian, not fitted. The no-crossing result Eq. (2) is a kinematic deduction from two computed branches: A11(q,Ω) is found to vanish below 2Δ and its maximum tracks Ω_edge^2=(2Δ)^2+(v_Fq)^2 (Sec. IV and Fig. 5, with an independent machine-precision check using zeros of Re det M), while the BS pole disperses with α_BS≈1/2<1. The BS zero-momentum calibration to the Ba-122 Raman mode fixes only Ω_BS(0); the growing separation (1−α)(v_Fq)^2 is not an input. Self-citations [33], [45]–[48] serve as method benchmarks or references for the Eilenberger formalism; the key cross-bubble is computed in this paper, and the cited equivalence of quasiclassical and diagrammatic routes is standard and not the source of the new result. The possible failure of edge pinning in the BCS–BEC crossover regime (cited Ref. [28]) is a scope/correctness concern about the clean-limit generality of Eq. (1), not a circularity of the derivation. No step reduces to its own input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation introduces no invented entities and only calibrated numerical inputs (BS coupling offset and spectral broadening). Its load-bearing assumptions are the single-band isotropic weak-coupling BCS model, which pins the Higgs to the pair-breaking edge and keeps the BS mode sharp, and the external dirty-limit result of Ref. [29] for the illustrative disorder scenario.

free parameters (3)
  • subdominant coupling offset delta_lambda_sd = 1/lambda_d - 1/lambda_s = 1.20 and 5.46 (two calibrations)
    Chosen to set the q=0 BS energy to Delta or to 0.82 times 2Delta for Ba-122; enters the numerical dispersion but not the selection rule or the kinematic argument.
  • spectral broadening gamma = 4e-5 Delta
    Numerical regulator used in retarded and advanced propagators; verified not to shift the extracted mode positions.
  • temperature T = 4e-4 Delta
    Used to approximate the T=0 limit numerically.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The single-band, two-dimensional, separable s+d pairing model with constant density of states (Eqs. (5)-(6))
    All quantitative results are computed in this model; real Fe-based superconductors have multiple bands and three-dimensional character, which may alter the continuum edge and dispersion.
  • domain assumption Weak-coupling BCS limit in which the s-wave amplitude (Higgs) mode has no sub-gap pole and is pinned to the pair-breaking edge (Eq. (1), Fig. 5)
    This is the load-bearing premise of the kinematic obstruction. In strong-coupling or BCS-BEC crossover the amplitude mode can detach from the edge.
  • domain assumption For an isotropic s-wave condensate, the two-quasiparticle continuum is bounded below by 2Delta for every momentum
    Used to conclude the BS mode has zero intrinsic width and to fix the edge dispersion; requires an isotropic gap and a single-band parabolic dispersion.
  • domain assumption Particle-hole asymmetry enters only through v(xi) = v_F sqrt(1 + xi/epsilon_F) with constant DOS (Section III C)
    This is the only source of O(Delta/epsilon_F) effects included; any other band-structure or multi-band asymmetry is neglected.
  • standard math Standard quasiclassical Eilenberger equation, normalization, and Keldysh structure (Eqs. (9)-(14))
    Established formalism cited to Refs. [36-44]; accepted as background.
  • domain assumption The dirty-limit result of Ref. [29] that disorder detaches the Schmid-Higgs resonance and reverses its dispersion (used for the illustrative Fig. 2 and Eq. (4))
    The predicted avoided crossing in the dirty limit rests on this external result, which the present paper does not re-derive.
  • domain assumption The BS mode remains a sharp sub-gap pole because the d-wave form factor enters only as a vertex weight (Section IV)
    Relies on the isotropy of the s-wave gap; any gap anisotropy would open decay phase space.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Finite-momentum coupling of Higgs and Bardasis--Schrieffer modes in superconductors with competing pairing channels." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HKTZUCEA

@misc{pith2026260812461,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Finite-momentum coupling of Higgs and Bardasis--Schrieffer modes in superconductors with competing pairing channels},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HKTZUCEA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12461}
}
abstract

In superconductors with competing pairing channels, two well defined excitations exist below the pair-breaking edge: the Higgs mode of the condensed $s$-wave channel and the Bardasis--Schrieffer (BS) exciton of the subdominant $d$-wave channel. Their mixing is doubly forbidden --- by point-group symmetry at zero momentum and because the two reside in the amplitude and phase sectors of the order parameter respectively, by particle--hole symmetry at every momentum. Working in a Nambu--Keldysh quasiclassical framework extended to leading $1/\varepsilon_F$ corrections and including the self-consistently screened Coulomb potential, we show that finite momentum combined with particle--hole asymmetry generates a direct coupling which we obtain in closed form. Whether this coupling produces an avoided crossing is decided, however, not by its magnitude but by kinematics. In the clean limit the Higgs is not a sub-gap pole but a resonance pinned to the pair-breaking edge, which disperses with coefficient unity in $(v_Fq)^2$, while the bound BS mode disperses more slowly: the two branches therefore separate rather than converge and never become degenerate. The obstruction is specific to the clean limit: exact dirty-limit results show that disorder detaches the amplitude resonance from the edge and reverses its dispersion, which can result in an avoided crossing with the BS mode at intermediate scattering. In that regime, the coupling computed here would set the splitting between the hybridized branches. We discuss the experimental implications of these results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12461 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    Maiti, T

    S. Maiti, T. A. Maier, T. B¨ ohm, R. Hackl, and P. J. Hirschfeld, Probing the pairing interaction and multi- ple Bardasis-Schrieffer modes using Raman spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 257001 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [1]

    is a fermionic Matsubara frequency andz= Ω l = 2πTlis the bosonic Matsubara frequency. Calculation of the trace followed by the summation over the Matsubara frequencies yields Π× ab(q,iΩl) = Ωl 2 Z d2k (2π)2 γa(θk)γb(θk) × "(ξ+ E+ − ξ− E− )[nF (E+)−n F (E−)] (iΩl)2−(E +−E−)2 − (ξ+ E+ + ξ− E− )[1−n F (E+)−n F (E−)] (iΩl)2−(E + +E−)2 # . (27) In this expres...

    work page

  3. [2]

    In what follows, we will omit R(A) superscripts for brevity

    Correction to the retarded and advanced components We write: δˆg(nϵ;rt) =δˆg(nϵ;kω)e2i(kr−ωt),(A2) so thatq= 2kandν= 2ω. In what follows, we will omit R(A) superscripts for brevity. Equation for the function δˆgR(A)(nϵ;kω) reads [ϵˆτ3 + ˆ∆,δˆg] +ω{ˆτ3,δˆg}−2vF (nk)δˆg =− h δ ˆ∆L n◦,ˆg i (A3) andδ ˆ∆L n =iˆτ2δ∆L n. Given (A1) the commutator on the right ha...

    work page

  4. [3]

    (A9) The solution for ˆgK 2 is different from ˆgR(A) 2 because it satisfies the different normalization condition: ˆgR ϵ+δˆgK + ˆgK ϵ+δˆgA +δˆgKˆgA ϵ− +δˆgRˆgK ϵ− = 0

    Correction to the Keldysh component Equation for theδˆgK is of course the same as (A3): [ϵˆτ3 + ˆ∆n,δˆgK] +ω ˆτ3,δˆgK −2vF (nk)δˆgK =− h δ ˆ∆L n◦,ˆgK i . (A9) The solution for ˆgK 2 is different from ˆgR(A) 2 because it satisfies the different normalization condition: ˆgR ϵ+δˆgK + ˆgK ϵ+δˆgA +δˆgKˆgA ϵ− +δˆgRˆgK ϵ− = 0. (A10) We look for the solution of E...

    work page

  5. [4]

    Single pairing channelIn this section, we will de- rive the expression for the susceptibility of the amplitude Schmid-Higgs (SH) mode for the cleansord-wave super- conductor

    Longitudinal (Schmid-Higgs) pairing susceptibility a. Single pairing channelIn this section, we will de- rive the expression for the susceptibility of the amplitude Schmid-Higgs (SH) mode for the cleansord-wave super- conductor. The expression for the SH susceptibility can be derived from the self-consistency equation δ∆L(k,ω) = λ 2 2πZ 0 dθn 2π γ(θn) ∞Z ...

    work page

  6. [5]

    Transverse pair susceptibility The expression for the transverse susceptibility is ob- tained in full analogy with the calculation which led to (A18), withδˆgK computed by solving (22).χ −1 AB(q,Ω) is defined as χ−1 AB(q,Ω) =− 1 λ + 2πZ 0 γ2(θn)dθn 2π ωDZ −ωD dϵ    ηR ϵ+Ω/2 +ηA ϵ−Ω/2 AK(ϵ+,ϵ−)(tϵ+Ω/2−tϵ−Ω/2) ηR ϵ+Ω/2 +ηA ϵ−Ω/2 2 −v 2 F (nq)2 + ηR ϵ+Ω...

    work page

  7. [6]

    The lower limit of the in- tegral overξ k in the first term in (B1) can be extended to−∞and yields zero. The remaining energy integral projects out the particle-hole asymmetry:K 2 isoddinξ, so with a constant density of states the symmetric partR dξK 2 = 0, while theξ/ε F carried byu 2 survives. It obtains νF εF ∞Z −εF ξdξK 2(ξ) =νF ∆2 εF Z ∞ −∞ ξ2dξ E3[(...

    work page

  8. [7]

    A. F. Volkov and S. M. Kogan, Collisionless relaxation of the energy gap in superconductors, Sov. Phys. JETP 38, 1018 (1974), [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.65, 2038 (1973)]

    work page 1974

Show all 62 references
  1. [8]

    P. B. Littlewood and C. M. Varma, Gauge-invariant the- ory of the dynamical interaction of charge density waves and superconductivity, Phys. Rev. Lett.47, 811 (1981)

    1981

  2. [9]

    P. B. Littlewood and C. M. Varma, Amplitude collective modes in superconductors and their coupling to charge- density waves, Phys. Rev. B26, 4883 (1982)

    1982

  3. [10]

    Pekker and C

    D. Pekker and C. M. Varma, Amplitude/Higgs modes in condensed matter physics, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.6, 269 (2015)

    2015

  4. [11]

    Shimano and N

    R. Shimano and N. Tsuji, Higgs mode in superconduc- tors, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.11, 103 (2020)

    2020

  5. [12]

    Matsunaga, Y

    R. Matsunaga, Y. I. Hamada, K. Makise, Y. Uzawa, H. Terai, Z. Wang, and R. Shimano, Higgs amplitude mode in the BCS superconductors Nb1-xTixN induced by terahertz pulse excitation, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 057002 (2013)

    2013

  6. [13]

    Matsunaga, N

    R. Matsunaga, N. Tsuji, K. Makise, H. Terai, H. Aoki, and R. Shimano, Polarization-resolved terahertz third- harmonic generation in a single-crystal superconductor NbN: Dominance of the Higgs mode beyond the BCS approximation, Phys. Rev. B96, 020505(R) (2017)

    2017

  7. [14]

    Katsumi, N

    K. Katsumi, N. Tsuji, Y. I. Hamada, R. Matsunaga, J. Schneeloch, R. D. Zhong, G. D. Gu, H. Aoki, Y. Gal- lais, and R. Shimano, Higgs mode in thed-wave supercon- ductor Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+x driven by an intense terahertz pulse, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 117001 (2018)

    2018

  8. [15]

    Sooryakumar and M

    R. Sooryakumar and M. V. Klein, Raman scattering by superconducting-gap excitations and their coupling to charge-density waves, Phys. Rev. Lett.45, 660 (1980)

    1980

  9. [16]

    M´ easson, Y

    M.-A. M´ easson, Y. Gallais, M. Cazayous, B. Clair, P. Rodi` ere, L. Cario, and A. Sacuto, Amplitude Higgs mode in the 2H-NbSe2 superconductor, Phys. Rev. B89, 060503 (2014)

    2014

  10. [17]

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

    1958

  11. [18]

    P. W. Anderson, Higgs, Anderson and all that, Nature Physics11, 93 (2015)

    2015

  12. [19]

    R. V. Carlson and A. M. Goldman, Superconducting order-parameter fluctuations belowT c, Phys. Rev. Lett. 31, 880 (1973)

    1973

  13. [20]

    S. N. Artemenko and A. F. Volkov, Collective excitations with a sound spectrum in superconductors, Sov. Phys. JETP42, 896 (1975)

    1975

  14. [21]

    S. N. Artemenko and A. F. Volkov, Electric fields and collective oscillations in superconductors, Sov. Phys. Usp. 22, 295 (1979)

    1979

  15. [22]

    Schmid and G

    A. Schmid and G. Sch¨ on, Collective oscillations in a dirty superconductor, Phys. Rev. Lett.34, 941 (1975)

    1975

  16. [23]

    Schmid and G

    A. Schmid and G. Sch¨ on, Linearized kinetic equations and relaxation processes of a superconductor nearT c,, J. Low Temp. Phys.20, 207 (1975)

    1975

  17. [24]

    I. O. Kulik, O. Entin-Wohlman, and R. Orbach, Pair susceptibility and mode propagation in superconductors: A microscopic approach, Journal of Low Temperature Physics43, 591 (1981)

    1981

  18. [25]

    Bardasis and J

    A. Bardasis and J. R. Schrieffer, Excitons and plasmons in superconductors, Phys. Rev.121, 1050 (1961)

    1961

  19. [26]

    Kretzschmar, B

    F. Kretzschmar, B. Muschler, T. B¨ ohm, A. Baum, R. Hackl, H.-H. Wen, V. Tsurkan, J. Deisenhofer, and A. Loidl, Raman-scattering detection of nearly de- generates-wave andd-wave pairing channels in iron- based Ba 0.6K0.4Fe2As2 and Rb 0.8Fe1.6Se2 superconduc- tors, Phys. Rev. L...

    2013

  20. [27]

    B¨ ohm, A

    T. B¨ ohm, A. F. Kemper, B. Moritz, F. Kretzschmar, B. Muschler, H.-M. Eiter, R. Hackl, T. P. Devereaux, D. J. Scalapino, and H.-H. Wen, Balancing act: Evi- dence for a strong subdominantd-wave pairing channel in Ba0.6K0.4Fe2As2, Phys. Rev. X4, 041046 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    Matsumoto, S

    H. Matsumoto, S. Neri, T. Kobayashi, A. Maeda, D. Manske, and R. Shimano, A new collective mode in an iron-based superconductor with electronic nematicity, arXiv:2507.14466 (2025). 16

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Maiti and P

    S. Maiti and P. J. Hirschfeld, Collective modes in super- conductors with competings- andd-wave interactions, Phys. Rev. B92, 094506 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    M. A. M¨ uller, P. A. Volkov, I. Paul, and I. M. Eremin, Collective modes in pumped unconventional supercon- ductors with competing ground states, Phys. Rev. B100, 140501(R) (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    M. A. M¨ uller, P. A. Volkov, I. Paul, and I. M. Eremin, Interplay between nematicity and Bardasis-Schrieffer modes in the short-time dynamics of unconventional su- perconductors, Phys. Rev. B103, 024519 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    S. Neri, W. Metzner, and D. Manske, Collective mode spectroscopy in time-reversal symmetry breaking super- conductors, arXiv:2503.08901 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Phan and A

    D. Phan and A. V. Chubukov, Following the Higgs mode across the BCS-BEC crossover in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. B107, 134519 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    P. A. Nosov, E. S. Andriyakhina, and I. S. Burmistrov, Spatially resolved dynamics of the amplitude Schmid- Higgs mode in disordered superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 056001 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Z. Sun, M. M. Fogler, D. N. Basov, and A. J. Millis, Collective modes and terahertz near-field response of su- perconductors, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023413 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Sun and A

    Z. Sun and A. J. Millis, Bardasis-schrieffer polaritons in excitonic insulators, Phys. Rev. B102, 041110(R) (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Niederhoff, R

    G. Niederhoff, R. Kataoka, K. Takasan, and N. Tsuji, Current-enabled optical conductivity of collective modes in unconventional superconductors, Phys. Rev. B112, 144507 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    K. R. Islam, S. Awelewa, A. V. Chubukov, and M. Dzero, Spatially resolved collective modes ind-wave supercon- ductors, Phys. Rev. B113, 144514 (2026)

    2026

  32. [40]

    P. J. Hirschfeld, M. M. Korshunov, and I. I. Mazin, Gap symmetry and structure of Fe-based superconductors, Rep. Prog. Phys.74, 124508 (2011)

    2011

  33. [41]

    A. A. Abrikosov, L. P. Gorkov, and I. E. Dzyaloshinski, Methods of Quantum Field Theory in Statistical Physics (Dover Publications, 1963)

    1963

  34. [42]

    Eilenberger, Transformation of Gorkov’s equation for type II superconductors into transport-like equations, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Hadrons and nuclei214, 195 (1968)

    G. Eilenberger, Transformation of Gorkov’s equation for type II superconductors into transport-like equations, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Hadrons and nuclei214, 195 (1968)

    1968

  35. [43]

    A. I. Larkin and Y. N. Ovchinnikov, Quasiclassical method in the theory of superconductivity, Sov. Phys. - JETP28, 1200 (1969)

    1969

  36. [44]

    A. I. Larkin and Y. N. Ovchinnikov, Nonlinear effects during the motion of vortices in superconductors, Sov. Phys. - JETP46, 155 (1977)

    1977

  37. [45]

    Schmid, The approach to equilibrium in a pure su- perconductor the relaxation of the Cooper pair density, Physik der kondensierten Materie8, 129 (1968)

    A. Schmid, The approach to equilibrium in a pure su- perconductor the relaxation of the Cooper pair density, Physik der kondensierten Materie8, 129 (1968)

    1968

  38. [46]

    J. W. Serene and D. Rainer, The quasiclassical approach to superfluid 3He, Phys. Rep.101, 221 (1983)

    1983

  39. [47]

    Belzig, F

    W. Belzig, F. K. Wilhelm, C. Bruder, G. Sch¨ on, and A. D. Zaikin, Quasiclassical Green’s function approach to mesoscopic superconductivity, Superlattices and Mi- crostructures25, 1251 (1999)

    1999

  40. [48]

    N. B. Kopnin,Theory of Nonequilibrium Superconductiv- ity, International Series of Monographs on Physics, Vol. 110 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001)

    2001

  41. [49]

    Kamenev and A

    A. Kamenev and A. Levchenko, Keldysh technique and non-linearσ-model: basic principles and ap- plications, Advances in Physics58, 197 (2009), https://doi.org/10.1080/00018730902850504

    2009 doi

  42. [50]

    Kamenev,Field Theory of Non-Equilibrium Systems (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    A. Kamenev,Field Theory of Non-Equilibrium Systems (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  43. [51]

    Li and M

    Y. Li and M. Dzero, Amplitude Higgs mode in super- conductors with magnetic impurities, Phys. Rev. B109, 054520 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Dzero and A

    M. Dzero and A. Kamenev, Schmid-Higgs mode in the presence of pair-breaking interactions, Phys. Rev. B111, 174502 (2025)

    2025

  45. [53]

    Steineman, S

    A. Steineman, S. Awelewa, and M. Dzero, Quasiclassical theory of nonlinear response in d-wave superconductors, arXiv:2606.26909 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Dzero and V

    M. Dzero and V. Kozii, Light induced magnetization in d-wave superconductors, arXiv:2603.18134 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  47. [55]

    A. J. Leggett, Number-phase fluctuations in two-band superconductors, Prog. Theor. Phys.36, 901 (1966)

    1966

  48. [56]

    Blumberg, A

    G. Blumberg, A. Mialitsin, B. S. Dennis, M. V. Klein, N. D. Zhigadlo, and J. Karpinski, Observation of Leggett’s collective mode in a multiband MgB 2 super- conductor, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 227002 (2007)

    2007

  49. [57]

    Richard, T

    P. Richard, T. Sato, K. Nakayama, T. Takahashi, and H. Ding, Fe-based superconductors: an ARPES perspec- tive, Rep. Prog. Phys.74, 124512 (2011)

    2011

  50. [58]

    S. Vig, A. Kogar, M. Mitrano, A. A. Husain, V. Mishra, M. S. Rak, L. Venema, P. D. Johnson, G. D. Gu, E. Frad- kin, M. R. Norman, and P. Abbamonte, Measurement of the dynamic charge response of materials using low- energy, momentum-resolved electron energy-loss spec- troscopy ...

    2017

  51. [59]

    A. A. Husain, M. Mitrano, M. S. Rak, S. Rubeck, B. Uchoa, K. March, C. Dwyer, J. Schneeloch, R. Zhong, G. D. Gu, and P. Abbamonte, Crossover of charge fluc- tuations across the strange metal phase diagram, Phys. Rev. X9, 041062 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    Kasahara, T

    S. Kasahara, T. Watashige, T. Hanaguri, Y. Kohsaka, T. Yamashita, Y. Shimoyama, Y. Mizukami, R. Endo, H. Ikeda, K. Aoyama, T. Terashima, S. Uji, T. Wolf, H. von L¨ ohneysen, T. Shibauchi, and Y. Matsuda, Field-induced superconducting phase of FeSe in the BCS-BEC cross-over, Pr...

    2014 doi

  53. [61]

    T. L. Cocker, V. Jelic, R. Hillenbrand, and R. Hu- ber, Nanoscale terahertz scanning probe microscopy, Nat. Photon.15, 558 (2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    Silaev, Nonlinear electromagnetic response and Higgs- mode excitation in BCS superconductors with impurities, Phys

    M. Silaev, Nonlinear electromagnetic response and Higgs- mode excitation in BCS superconductors with impurities, Phys. Rev. B99, 224511 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.