Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 32 references

Parity Anomaly of Preformed Pairs Governs the Thermal Hall Effect above $T_c$

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-10 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read The pseudogap itself acts as a topological mass that fixes the thermal Hall signal above Tc with no free parameters.

desk verdict Clean parameter-free formula for κ_xy above Tc via the parity anomaly; the soft spot is whether a Chern number survives for phase-incoherent preformed pairs. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07807 v1 pith:QPRC7IWQ submitted 2026-07-08 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.str-elhep-th

Kumar Ghosh This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.str-elhep-th
keywords parityanomalythermalHalleffectpseudogappreformedpairsChern-SimonscupratesMATBGColeman-Hilltheorem
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

Cuprates show a large negative thermal Hall signal in the pseudogap phase where superconductivity has already vanished. Existing explanations need undetermined couplings and do not lock the temperature dependence to a measured spectroscopic gap. This paper argues that the preformed-pair gap enters the parity-odd fermion determinant of (2+1)-dimensional quantum field theory exactly as a condensate mass would. The result is an exact, parameter-free formula for the thermal Hall conductance that depends only on the Chern number of the chiral pairing channel and the measured pseudogap. The signal is therefore predicted to turn on at the pseudogap temperature T*, not at Tc, and its temperature profile is fixed by a simple tanh factor. Numerical checks on cylinders recover the anomaly correlation length to high accuracy with purely exponential finite-size corrections, and the same formula supplies a concrete target for magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene.

What carries the argument

The holonomy-resummed parity-odd kernel for a massive Dirac fermion on a cylinder, which at finite temperature with antiperiodic boundary conditions reduces exactly to the factor tanh(Δ/2T) multiplying the Chern-Simons level; combined with the Read-Green winding number that remains well-defined whenever the fermionic gap is nonzero, this supplies the anomaly formula.

What would settle it

Measure κ_xy/T and the spectroscopic gap Δ_pg(T) on the same cuprate or MATBG sample; the logarithmic derivative of κ_xy/T must track d/dT ln tanh[Δ_pg(T)/(2 k_B T)], with signal onset at T* rather than Tc; a null result in hBN-aligned MATBG devices where the pseudogap is quenched would also falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the pseudogap window Tc < T < T*, the thermal Hall conductance is exactly the one-loop parity-anomaly response κ_xy/T = (π² k_B² / 6h) C tanh[Δ_pg(T)/(2 k_B T)], where C is the Chern number of the chiral pairing channel and Δ_pg(T) is the spectroscopic preformed-pair gap. The preformed-pair gap plays the same role as a condensate mass in the parity-odd fermion determinant; Coleman-Hill non-renormalization then protects the map from gap to Chern-Simons level against higher-loop corrections.

Load-bearing premise

That a nonzero topological Chern number remains well-defined for the quasiparticle spectrum even after the superconducting condensate has vanished, so long as a preformed-pair gap is still present.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that the large negative thermal Hall signal observed in the cuprate pseudogap (and potentially MATBG) is the finite-temperature parity anomaly of preformed chiral pairs. Once the condensate vanishes, the spectroscopic gap Δ_pg(T) still enters the parity-odd fermion determinant as a mass, producing the parameter-free formula κ_xy/T = (π^{2} k_B^{2}/6h) C tanh[Δ_pg(T)/(2 k_B T)] (Eq. 2). The derivation combines an exact holonomy-resummed Chern-Simons kernel on the cylinder, the c1=0 finite-size theorem, the BCS-BEC two-gap relation, the Read-Green winding number evaluated with Δ_pg, and Coleman-Hill non-renormalization. Free-fermion Wilson-loop and DMRG calculations on p+ip cylinders with an imposed gap recover the expected exponential envelope to 0.2 %. The theory predicts onset at T* rather than Tc and a logarithmic-derivative test against ARPES/STM.

Significance. If the central identification holds, the paper supplies the first parameter-free, spectroscopically locked prediction for the cuprate thermal Hall effect above Tc and a concrete, near-saturated target for MATBG. The exact kernel, c1=0 theorem, Coleman-Hill protection, and the falsifiable log-derivative relation (Eq. 3) are genuine strengths; the free-fermion numerics cleanly confirm the imposed-mass limit. The result would constitute a direct bridge between (2+1)D parity anomaly physics and thermal transport in strongly correlated systems.

major comments (3)
  1. Sec. III.B, Eqs. (25)–(27): the claim that C remains a well-defined nonzero integer when Δ_sc=0 but Δ_pg>0 is the load-bearing step for applying Eq. (2) to real materials. The Read-Green winding is evaluated by substituting Δ_k=Δ_pg(T)(k_x+ik_y)/k_F into the map Ê. That substitution is valid for a coherent condensate (or an externally imposed BdG mass, as in Sec. V). Once the condensate vanishes, the non-condensed pairs that generate Δ_pg via the t-matrix (Eqs. 20–21) carry independent fluctuating phases; the map Ê is then not guaranteed to be a continuous single-valued section of the unit sphere, so the winding need not be an integer topological invariant of the many-body state. Coleman-Hill protects the CS level once a gapped Dirac spectrum with fixed mass sign is given, but does not create that spectrum from phase-incoherent pairs. The free-fermion Wilson-loop and DMRG checks therefor
  2. The exact holonomy-resummed kernel (Eq. 7) and the c1=0 theorem are taken as black-box inputs from the author’s contemporaneous arXiv:2607.01341 and an earlier co-authored paper. While the appendices sketch the derivation, the present manuscript is not fully self-contained on these technical pillars. For a claim of an “exact parameter-free formula,” either a complete self-contained derivation or an explicit statement that the result is conditional on those external theorems should be supplied.
  3. The application to cuprates and MATBG assumes a chiral pairing channel (p+ip or d+id) with C=+1 in the weak-pairing regime (abstract, Sec. VI, Table III). Cuprate pairing is conventionally d-wave; a chiral component is not established. Without independent evidence that C is nonzero and of the required sign, the magnitude and sign predictions remain conditional. The paper should either cite supporting evidence or clearly label the cuprate/MATBG claims as contingent on this topological input.
minor comments (4)
  1. Fig. 2(d) and the accompanying text present the analytic anomaly prediction evaluated with the verified C=1; the caption should state more explicitly that panel (d) is not an independent Kubo calculation.
  2. Table II: the asterisked entry for Δ_pg=0.20 (ξ_fit=50.2) is unreliable because L_mid/ξ≪1; a brief note in the table caption would help readers.
  3. Notation for the gravitational CS coefficient and the factor of 1/12 versus 1/6 (Appendix D) is dense; a short intermediate equation linking c_- to K_em would improve readability.
  4. A few typographical inconsistencies appear (e.g., “Leff=β=1/T” versus later use of k_B; occasional missing spaces around Δ_pg). A light copy-edit pass is warranted.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Load-bearing holonomy kernel and c1=0 theorem are taken as black-box inputs from the author's own contemporaneous arXiv:2607.01341 and 2018 paper, so the exact tanh factor is not independently re-derived here.

  1. self citation load bearing [Introduction and Sec. II.B–C (Eqs. 7–13)]
    "The exact parity-odd effective action for a chiral U(1) gauge theory on R^{3}×S^{1}, computed in Ref. [9] by Pauli-Villars regularization and Ginsparg-Wilson lattice methods, provides the one-loop exact anomalous Chern-Simons term. The holonomy-resummed parity-odd kernel of Ref. [10], together with its c_{1}=0 theorem, extends this to spatial cylinders and excludes power-law finite-size corrections."

    The temperature-dependent factor tanh[Δ/2T] and the claim of purely exponential finite-size corrections (no 1/L^n terms) are taken directly from the author's own contemporaneous arXiv:2607.01341 and 2018 Nucl. Phys. B paper. These are used as black-box inputs rather than independently established; Appendix A merely retraces the same Matsubara sum already given in those works. Without them the exact parameter-free formula does not follow.

  2. self citation load bearing [Sec. IV.C and Sec. V (Eq. 30, Table II)]
    "The c_{1}=0 theorem (Eq. (13)) implies that for a spatial cylinder of circumference L: κ_xy/T(L)=κ_xy/T(∞)[1+O(e^{-L/ξ_pg})]… We test this prediction numerically in Sec. V… the edge-current ratio method… gives ξ_fit/ξ_theory=0.998 at Δ_pg=0.80… with no power-law contamination."

    The numerical 'confirmation to 0.2% accuracy' is performed on a free BdG Hamiltonian with externally imposed Δ_pg, whose finite-size structure is already fixed by the same self-cited c1=0 theorem. The tests therefore reproduce the input kernel rather than independently verifying the anomaly origin of the pseudogap thermal Hall signal.

full rationale

The central formula (Eq. 2) is obtained by identifying the preformed-pair gap with the mass that enters a one-loop parity-odd kernel, then converting the resulting Chern-Simons level into thermal Hall conductance via standard gravitational CS relations. The kernel itself, its Poisson-resummed finite-size expansion, and the theorem that power-law corrections vanish (c1=0) are imported wholesale from the author's Refs. [9] and [10]; Appendix A only recapitulates the same contour-integral steps already published there. Coleman-Hill, Read-Green, and the BCS-BEC two-gap relation are external and non-circular. The free-fermion Wilson-loop and DMRG checks confirm the expected exponential finite-size structure of an imposed-mass BdG model, but do not close a definitional loop. The result therefore retains independent content (application of the anomaly to the pseudogap window and the logarithmic-derivative test), yet is not fully self-contained. Score 4 reflects load-bearing self-citation without reduction of the final claim to a fit or tautology.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central formula is assembled from three external pillars (parity-odd kernel, Coleman-Hill non-renormalization, BCS-BEC two-gap relation) plus the domain assumption that cuprates/MATBG support a chiral pairing channel with well-defined Chern number even without phase coherence. No numerical free parameters are fitted; C is an integer and Δ_pg is taken from spectroscopy. The only invented element is the identification of the spectroscopic pseudogap as the precise anomaly mass that enters the fermion determinant above Tc.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Coleman-Hill theorem: the Chern-Simons level in (2+1)D QED with gauge-invariant massive matter receives radiative corrections only at one loop.
    Invoked in Sec. III.C and Appendix B to protect the map from gap to Kem against pair-pair interactions.
  • domain assumption BCS-BEC two-gap relation Δ²(T) = Δ_sc²(T) + Δ_pg²(T) remains valid above Tc, so the fermionic excitation scale is exactly Δ_pg.
    Taken from the crossover framework of Chen et al. (Rev. Mod. Phys. 2024) and used in Sec. III.A to identify the anomaly mass.
  • domain assumption The Read-Green winding number of the BdG map Ê remains an integer (C = ±1 or 0) when the gap is supplied solely by non-condensed pairs.
    Stated in Sec. III.B; without it the Chern number is undefined above Tc and the formula collapses.
  • ad hoc to paper Cuprate and MATBG pairing channels are chiral (p+ip or d+id) with C = +1 in the weak-pairing regime relevant to experiment.
    Required for the overall sign and magnitude; not independently established for the materials under discussion.
invented entities (1)
  • Preformed-pair anomaly mass
    purpose: Identifies the spectroscopic pseudogap Δ_pg(T) as the precise mass that enters the parity-odd fermion determinant above Tc, allowing the thermal Hall formula to survive loss of phase coherence.
    Standard preformed-pair language is repurposed as the anomaly mass; the paper supplies no independent microscopic derivation that the non-condensed t-matrix produces a topologically nontrivial mass term.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Parity Anomaly of Preformed Pairs Governs the Thermal Hall Effect above $T_c$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QPRC7IWQ

@misc{pith2026260707807,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Parity Anomaly of Preformed Pairs Governs the Thermal Hall Effect above $T_c$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QPRC7IWQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07807}
}
abstract

A large negative thermal Hall signal has been reported across multiple cuprate families in the pseudogap phase where the superconducting order parameter has vanished, with a magnitude that no existing microscopic theory reproduces without free parameters. Competing proposals based on chiral phonons, spinons, or loop currents each require undetermined coupling constants and do not predict the temperature dependence in terms of an independently measured spectroscopic gap. We show that the parity anomaly of $(2+1)$-dimensional quantum field theory resolves this long-standing puzzle: the preformed-pair pseudogap $\Delta_{\rm pg}(T)$ enters the parity-odd fermion determinant identically to a condensate mass, yielding the exact parameter-free formula $\kappa_{xy}/T = (\pi^2 k_B^2/6h)\,C\,\tanh[\Delta_{\rm pg}(T)/(2k_BT)]$, where $C$ is the Chern number of the chiral pairing channel and $\Delta_{\rm pg}(T)$ is directly measurable by ARPES or STM. Coleman-Hill non-renormalization protects the result against higher-loop corrections, and two independent numerical tests, Wilson-loop flux threading and DMRG on $p+ip$ cylinders, confirm the anomaly correlation length to $0.2\%$ accuracy with no power-law finite-size corrections. The theory predicts thermal Hall onset at $T^*$ rather than $T_c$, provides a falsifiable logarithmic-derivative test against ARPES data, and yields a concrete quantitative target for magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07807 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Conceptual overview of the anomaly mechanism for thermal Hall transport in a chiral pseudogap phase. (a) Schematic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The preformed-pair BdG system remains in a topologically protected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. DMRG on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The occupied negative-energy BdG band is sep- arated from the positive-energy band for all ∆ pg in the scan

    Lattice BdG model and Chern number We use the square-lattice spinlessp+ipBdG Hamil- tonian HBdG(k) =d x(k)τx +d y(k)τy +d z(k)τz,(31) with dx(k) = ∆pg sink x, dy(k) = ∆pg sink y, dz(k) = 2t[2−cosk x −cosk y]−µ.(32) Throughout this direct validation we sett= 1 andµ= 1, so that neark= 0 one has dz(k)≃t(k 2 x +k 2 y)−µ,(33) which is the weak-pairing regime o...

    work page

  2. [2]

    A flux Φ through the cylinder shifts the transverse momenta ac- cording to ky,n(Φ) = 2π Ly n+ Φ 2π −π, n= 0,

    Flux-threaded cylinder response We next put the same BdG model on a cylinder, pe- riodic alongyand Bloch periodic alongx. A flux Φ through the cylinder shifts the transverse momenta ac- cording to ky,n(Φ) = 2π Ly n+ Φ 2π −π, n= 0, . . . , L y −1. (36) For each transverse subbandnwe compute the Wilson- loop phase of the occupied BdG eigenvector alongk x, φ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    IV C, we fit the RMS finite-width deviation to an exponential envelope, δRMS(Ly) = " 1 NΦ X Φ |ν(Ly,Φ)−1| 2 #1/2 ≃A e −Ly/ξcyl

    Finite-width envelope To compare with thec 1 = 0 finite-size prediction of Sec. IV C, we fit the RMS finite-width deviation to an exponential envelope, δRMS(Ly) = " 1 NΦ X Φ |ν(Ly,Φ)−1| 2 #1/2 ≃A e −Ly/ξcyl . (43) The small-circumference data contain visible subband harmonics, so the primary fit is performed in the tail re- gionL y ≥8 and then extrapolate...

    work page

  4. [4]

    First, the pseudogap BdG Hamiltonian remains in the weak-pairing Chern phase withC= 1 for all imposed ∆ pg in the scan

    Consequence for the pseudogap thermal Hall formula The direct calculation establishes the two inputs needed for the anomaly formula in the controlled quadratic limit. First, the pseudogap BdG Hamiltonian remains in the weak-pairing Chern phase withC= 1 for all imposed ∆ pg in the scan. Second, the flux-threaded cylinder response has exactly quantized cycl...

    work page

  5. [5]

    ,(47) witht= 1,µ= 1 throughout

    Model and geometry The lattice Hamiltonian on a square cylinder of dimen- sionsL x ×L y (open alongx, periodic alongy) is H=−t X ⟨ij⟩ (c† i cj + h.c.) + (4t−µ) X i ni + ∆pg X i c† i c† i+ˆx+i c † i c† i+ˆy+ h.c. ,(47) witht= 1,µ= 1 throughout. The continuum dispersion neark= 0 isξ k ≈tk 2 −µ, placing the system in the weak-pairing regime (µ >0) with Fermi...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Two properties of the DMRG data are immediate

    Chiral edge current and its finite-size scaling For a gapped chiral topological phase on a cylinder with open ends, they-directed bond current at the left and right edges,J edge = 2 Im[−t⟨c † i cj⟩] averaged overy- bonds, is a direct probe of the chiral edge mode. Two properties of the DMRG data are immediate. a. Chiral antisymmetry.The left and right edg...

    work page

  7. [7]

    The sign flip ofδε(6,4) occurs at ∆cross pg ≈0.507, givingξ cross =v F /∆cross pg = 3.95, consis- tent with √4×6≈4.9

    Energy-density crossover diagnostic The energy-density differenceδε(L y, L′ y)≡ε(L y)− ε(L′ y) between consecutive cylinder sizes changes sign whenL y crossesξ pg. The sign flip ofδε(6,4) occurs at ∆cross pg ≈0.507, givingξ cross =v F /∆cross pg = 3.95, consis- tent with √4×6≈4.9. This is a parameter-free con- firmation of the anomaly-controlled finite-si...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Table II presentsξ fit/ξtheory for both observables and both triplets

    Correlation-length recovery The ratio method extractsξfrom three consecutive system sizes: R= O(Ly + 2)−O(L y) O(Ly)−O(L y −2) =e −2/ξ, ξ fit =−2/lnR, (48) whereOis any observable with purely exponential finite- size corrections. Table II presentsξ fit/ξtheory for both observables and both triplets. The systematic convergence toward unity asL mid y /ξincr...

    work page

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Fig- ure 3(e) showsS mid versusL y for each ∆ pg: the linear behavior is excellent for ∆ pg ≥0.4

    Entanglement entropy: area law The mid-chain entanglement entropy obeys Smid(Ly) =α(∆ pg)L y −γ topo +O(e −Ly/ξ). Fig- ure 3(e) showsS mid versusL y for each ∆ pg: the linear behavior is excellent for ∆ pg ≥0.4. The entropy- increment ratiosR 2 = ∆S(10−8)/∆S(8−6) (Fig. 3(f)) T...

  2. [10]

    Onset atT ∗

    Summary of numerical evidence The DMRG data provide four independent, mutually consistent confirmations of the anomaly-protected finite- size structure: 1.Chiral edge current:J left =−J right to 10 −8, confirming aC= 1 chiral edge mode at the many- body level. 2.Edge-currentξr...

  3. [11]

    Grissonnanche, A

    G. Grissonnanche, A. Legros, S. Badoux, E. Lefran¸ cois, V. Zatko, M. Lizaire, F. Lalib´ ert´ e, A. Gourgout, J.- S. Zhou, S. Pyon, T. Takayama, H. Takagi, S. Ono, N. Doiron-Leyraud, and L. Taillefer, Nature571, 376 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Grissonnanche, S

    G. Grissonnanche, S. Th´ eriault, A. Gourgout, M.-E. Boulanger, E. Lefran¸ cois, A. Ataei, F. Lalib´ ert´ e, M. Dion, J.-S. Zhou, S. Pyon, T. Takayama, H. Takagi, N. Doiron- Leyraud, and L. Taillefer, Nat. Phys.16, 1108 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    C. M. Varma, Phys. Rev. B102, 075113 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Samajdar, S

    R. Samajdar, S. Chatterjee, S. Sachdev, and M. S. Scheurer, Phys. Rev. B99, 165126 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    J. H. Han, J.-H. Park, and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B99, 205157 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Read and D

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

    2000

  9. [17]

    Senthil, J

    T. Senthil, J. B. Marston, and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B60, 4245 (1999)

    1999

  10. [18]

    C. L. Kane and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B55, 15832 (1997)

    1997

  11. [19]

    K. J. B. Ghosh and F. R. Klinkhamer, Nucl. Phys. B 926, 335 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    K. J. B. Ghosh, From Dirac cones to semions: An exact finite-size theory of parity-anomaly transport in chiral spin liquids (2026), arXiv:2607.01341 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2026 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Q. Chen, Z. Wang, R. Boyack, S. Yang, and K. Levin, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 025002 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    F. R. Klinkhamer and G. E. Volovik, JETP Lett.80, 343 (2004)

    2004

  15. [23]

    S. Ryu, J. E. Moore, and A. W. W. Ludwig, Phys. Rev. B85, 045104 (2012), arXiv:1010.0936

    2012 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Coleman and B

    S. Coleman and B. Hill, Phys. Lett. B159, 184 (1985)

    1985

  17. [25]

    S. L. Adler and W. A. Bardeen, Phys. Rev.182, 1517 (1969)

    1969

  18. [26]

    Fukui, Y

    T. Fukui, Y. Hatsugai, and H. Suzuki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 74, 1674 (2005)

    2005

  19. [27]

    Hauschild, J

    J. Hauschild, J. Unfried, S. Anand, B. Baˇ ci´ c Semanjski, J. Bibo, B. Clemens, M. Drescher, M. Gohlke, M. John- stone, K. Kottmann, T.-H. Li, M. Raban, A. Reinmoser, F. Stauber, E. Ronca, G. Sina, N. Tuber, V. Vaˇ no, S. L. Sondhi, and F. Pollmann, SciPost Phys. Codebases41,...

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

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

    2018

  21. [29]

    M. Oh, K. P. Nuckolls, D. Wong, R. L. Lee, X. Liu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and A. Yazdani, Nature600, 240 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    G. E. Volovik,The Universe in a Helium Droplet(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003)

    2003

  23. [31]

    matter,” the probe fielda µ coupling to charge 2eor spin is the “photon,

    J. M. Luttinger, Phys. Rev.135, A1505 (1964). Appendix A: Derivation of the exact kernel We derive Eq. (7) following the method of Papers [9] and [10]. Start from the vacuum-polarization kernel on the cylinderR τ ×R x ×S 1 L: πµν odd(pr) = 1 L ∞X n=−∞ Z d2l (2π)2 tr[γµ(/l+m v)...

    1964

  24. [32]

    electric field

    The effective BdG Hamiltonian in Nambu space is Keff = X k Ψ† k (Ek ·σ⊗I) Ψ k,(C1) withE k = (Re ∆k,−Im ∆k, ξk) and quasiparticle energyE k =|E k|. The Green’s function is G−1(p) =p 0 −E p ·σ⊗I.(C2) The spin response at linear order in the external field is determined by the p...

Pith tools

Reviewed July 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.