License: CC BY 4.0
arXiv:2606.21166v1 [cond-mat.supr-con] 19 Jun 2026

Quantum-Geometry-Induced Superconductivity near a Fractional Chern Insulator

Haoyu Hu huhaoyu314@ustc.edu.cn Department of Physics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026, China    Lei Chen Department of Physics and Astronomy, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York 11794, USA
Abstract

Recent moiré experiments and numerical studies of interacting Chern bands have revealed fractional Chern insulators, charge-density-wave order, and superconductivity as proximate correlation-driven phases in topological systems. How these phases compete or intertwine, and how quantum geometry shapes their interplay, remain open questions. Here we present an analytic study of competing correlation-driven phases in a partially filled Chern band using a coupled-wire construction and bosonization. The key ingredient is the coexistence of interaction channels that favor, respectively, a fractional Chern insulator (FCI) and a closely related anti-FCI (aFCI) state. The aFCI channel is specific to lattice Chern bands and is enhanced by the quantum geometry of the underlying band structure. We show that when both FCI and aFCI scattering channels are present, their interplay generates an effective coupling that drives a superconducting instability near the FCI phase. The same mechanism can also favor a charge-density-wave phase, depending on microscopic parameters. Using a perturbative renormalization-group analysis, we obtain the phase diagram and identify a superconducting regime adjacent to the FCI phase. We further estimate the superconducting transition temperature and show that it is enhanced by quantum geometry. Our results establish quantum geometry as an organizing principle for the interplay among FCI, aFCI, and superconducting correlations.

Introduction.— Partially filled Chern bands provide a setting where topology, interaction, and band geometry are inseparable. Repulsive interactions in such bands can stabilize fractional Chern insulators (FCIs) Regnault and Bernevig (2011); Sheng et al. (2011); Parameswaran et al. (2013); Tang et al. (2011); Sun et al. (2011); Neupert et al. (2011), which are lattice analogs of fractional quantum Hall states in the lowest Landau level (LLL). However, a Chern band can develop quantum geometry that deviates from the ideal LLL limit Roy (2014); Parameswaran et al. (2012); Jackson et al. (2015); Claassen et al. (2015); Wang et al. (2021). This geometric structure can strongly affect correlation effects and distinguishes Chern-band systems from the LLL. Experimentally, fractional Chern insulators have been observed in moiré and graphene-based materials  Cai et al. (2023); Zeng et al. (2023); Park et al. (2023); Xu et al. (2023); Ji et al. (2024); Redekop et al. (2024); Park et al. (2025); Lu et al. (2024); Kang et al. (2024); Wang et al. (2025); Waters et al. (2025). In related material platforms, experimental evidence has also revealed other correlated phases, including superconductivity (SC) and charge-density-wave (CDW) order Han et al. (2025); Xu et al. (2026); Lu et al. (2025); Waters et al. (2025); Sun et al. (2026, 2026); Aronson et al. (2025). Extensive efforts have also been made to understand the correlated phases in these materials Bernevig et al. (2025); Crépel and Fu (2023); Reddy et al. (2023); Shavit and Oreg (2024); Jia et al. (2024); Herzog-Arbeitman et al. (2024); Kwan et al. (2025); Yu et al. (2025a, 2024); Guo et al. (2024); Dong et al. (2024a, b); Soejima et al. (2024); Zhou et al. (2024); Huang et al. (2024); Tan and Devakul (2024); Sheng et al. (2024); Song et al. (2024); Zeng et al. (2024); Bernevig and Kwan (2025); Li et al. (2025); Xu et al. (2025); Chen et al. (2026a); Shi et al. (2026). Recent numerical studies further suggest that SC and CDW phases can appear near FCI phases Divic et al. (2025); Wang and Zaletel (2025); Guerci et al. (2025); Chen et al. (2026b). Several field-theoretical approaches and parton constructions have also been developed to understand how superconductivity may emerge from fractionalized excitations Shi and Senthil (2025); Pichler et al. (2026); Nosov et al. (2026). Together, these theoretical and experimental developments point to the possibility of a common microscopic setting from which FCI, CDW, and SC tendencies may emerge. This possibility is especially intriguing because intrinsic superconductivity is not known to occur as a competing phase in the conventional LLL setting. One possible clue is the nontrivial quantum geometry of Chern bands. Despite this progress, a microscopic and analytical understanding of the interplay among FCI, SC, and CDW tendencies is still lacking. In this work, we provide such an analysis and show how quantum geometry can promote SC correlations near an FCI phase.

We study a partially filled Chern band in the anisotropic limit. In this limit, the two-dimensional system can be treated as an array of coupled wires and solved analytically using bosonization and the renormalization group (RG) Von Delft and Schoeller (1998); Giamarchi (2003); Cardy (1996). This coupled-wire construction (CWC) has been widely used for LLL and Chern-band systems, where it captures the essential physics of fractional quantum Hall and fractional Chern insulating phases Kane et al. (2002); Fuji and Furusaki (2019); Shavit and Oreg (2024); Teo and Kane (2014); Sagi and Oreg (2014); Meng (2020). Coupled-wire methods have also been applied to conventional correlated systems, such as Hubbard models, where they provide a useful way to study the competition and interplay among correlated phases, including superconductivity Balents and Fisher (1996); Lin et al. (1997); Shelton et al. (1996); Jaefari and Fradkin (2012); Fradkin et al. (2015). We use this framework to analytically study the interplay among FCI, CDW, and superconducting tendencies, and to identify the role of quantum geometry Provost and Vallee (1980); Marzari et al. (2012); Yu et al. (2025b); Törmä (2023).

In our model, the quantum geometry is controlled by the ratio of the two inter-wire hopping amplitudes, r=tx/txr=t_{x}^{\prime}/t_{x}, with increasing rr enhancing the quantum geometry. Additionally, a finite rr leads to an additional anti-FCI (aFCI) scattering channel, which was initially identified in Ref. Shavit and Oreg (2024). This aFCI channel is enhanced by quantum geometric effect and can destabilize the FCI phase. We demonstrate that the cooperation between the aFCI and FCI channels generates an effective Josephson coupling between wires. This coupling produces a superconducting instability near the FCI phase. The same mechanism can also stabilize charge-density-wave order, depending on microscopic parameters. Using a renormalization-group analysis, we derive the resulting phase diagram and identify superconducting and charge-density-wave regimes near the FCI. Moreover, the superconducting transition temperature is generically enhanced by quantum geometry, which amplifies the aFCI interaction. Thus, our work provides an analytical study of the interplay among correlated phases, including FCI, superconductivity, and CDW order, and highlights the nontrivial role of quantum geometry.

Model and quantum geometry.— We take a minimal Chern-band model containing two ss orbitals related by inversion symmetry. The model is described by the following non-interacting Hamiltonian (see also Appendix I SM )

H0=𝐤,αγ[μdμ(𝐤)τμμτ0]αγc𝐤,αc𝐤,γ\displaystyle H_{0}=\sum_{\mathbf{k},\alpha\gamma}\bigg[\sum_{\mu}d_{\mu}(\mathbf{k})\tau_{\mu}-\mu\tau_{0}\bigg]_{\alpha\gamma}c_{\mathbf{k},\alpha}^{{\dagger}}c_{\mathbf{k},\gamma}
dy(𝐤)=(tx+tx)sin(kxa),dz(𝐤)=tysin(kya)\displaystyle d_{y}(\mathbf{k})=(-t_{x}+t_{x}^{\prime})\sin(k_{x}a),\quad d_{z}(\mathbf{k})=t_{y}\sin(k_{y}a)
dx(𝐤)=M[1cos(kya)]+(tx+tx)cos(kxa).\displaystyle d_{x}(\mathbf{k})=M[1-\cos(k_{y}a)]+(t_{x}+t_{x}^{\prime})\cos(k_{x}a). (1)

Here τμ\tau_{\mu} are Pauli matrices in orbital space, and c𝐤,αc_{\mathbf{k},\alpha}^{\dagger} creates an electron with momentum 𝐤\mathbf{k} and orbital index α\alpha. We first consider the 1D limit with ty=M0t_{y}=M\neq 0 and tx=tx=0t_{x}=t_{x}^{\prime}=0. For each kxk_{x}, the spectrum contains two linearly dispersing modes near ky=0k_{y}=0, while the modes near ky=π/ak_{y}=\pi/a are gapped by MM. The system can therefore be viewed as an array of one-dimensional wires. On the jj-th wire, at partial filling, the system has two Fermi points at ky=±kFk_{y}=\pm k_{F}. Expanding near these Fermi points gives two low-energy modes with opposite velocities, or chiralities, denoted by ψj,1\psi_{j,1} and ψj,2\psi_{j,2} (see Fig. 1 (a)).

Refer to caption
Figure 1: (a) Two nearest-neighbor inter-wire hopping processes with amplitudes txt_{x} and txt_{x}^{\prime}. ψj,α=1,2\psi_{j,\alpha=1,2} denotes electron operators with opposite velocities on the jj-th wire. (b) Dispersion of the lowest band at ty=M=1t_{y}=M=1, tx=0.1,μ=0t_{x}=0.1,\mu=0 and r=0.5r=0.5.

We then introduce weak inter-wire hopping between modes of opposite chirality. The two hopping amplitudes are txt_{x} and txt_{x}^{\prime}, as shown in Fig. 1(a). At filling fraction ν=1\nu=1, the lowest band is fully filled, and these hopping processes stabilize a Chern insulator. The Chern number is +1+1 or 1-1, depending on whether |tx|>|tx||t_{x}|>|t_{x}^{\prime}| or |tx|<|tx||t_{x}|<|t_{x}^{\prime}|. In this work, we focus on the anisotropic limit with a C=1C=1 lowest band, where ty=M|tx|>|tx|t_{y}=M\gg|t_{x}|>|t_{x}^{\prime}|. A representative dispersion of the lowest band in this limit is shown in Fig. 1(b).

This construction also makes clear how the lattice Chern band differs from the LLL in a magnetic field along the zz direction Meng (2020); Shavit and Oreg (2024). In the LLL-like limit, only the txt_{x} process is present Meng (2020). In a Chern insulator, however, more hopping processes are allowed, and a finite txt_{x}^{\prime} can be introduced. Therefore, we can increase r=tx/txr=t_{x}^{\prime}/t_{x} to drive the system away from the LLL limit. It is worth mentioning that the limit tx=0t_{x}^{\prime}=0 was referred to as the optimal limit in Ref. Shavit and Oreg (2024). This should not be confused with the ideal limit, since the trace condition is not satisfied even at tx=0t_{x}^{\prime}=0.

Moreover, we investigate the evolution of the quantum geometry. As rr increases, the integrated quantum metric QxxQ^{xx} along the xx direction grows, signaling a more delocalized wave function in the xx direction, as shown in Fig. 2(a). Analytically, QxxQ^{xx} takes the form

Qxxαx2log(1αx1+r2|1r2|),r=txtx\displaystyle Q^{xx}\sim\frac{\alpha_{x}}{2}\log\bigg(\frac{1}{\alpha_{x}}\frac{1+r^{2}}{|1-r^{2}|}\bigg),\quad r=\frac{t_{x}^{\prime}}{t_{x}} (2)

where αx=8πtx2+tx2/ty\alpha_{x}=\sqrt{8}\pi\sqrt{t_{x}^{2}+t_{x}^{\prime 2}}/t_{y} is a small number measuring the anisotropy of the dispersion. As rr is increased from 0, the quantum geometry is enhanced and then diverges logarithmically as r1r\rightarrow 1 (txtxt_{x}^{\prime}\rightarrow t_{x}). This behavior is consistent with the gap closing at r=1r=1. Additionally, the momentum-space fluctuations of the quantum metric Qxx(𝐤)Q^{xx}(\mathbf{k}) increase with increasing rr, as shown in Fig. 2(b) and (c). Thus, this toy model provides a minimal Chern-band setting with quantum geometry tunable by rr, where stronger and more fluctuating quantum geometry is realized at larger rr.

In the rest of the manuscript, we focus on the partially filled lowest C=1C=1 band at filling fraction ν=1/3\nu=1/3. We start from the weakly coupled-wire limit, where the system is described by a sliding Luttinger liquid (SLL) Kane et al. (2002). We then analyze how the interactions destabilize this SLL toward various competing phases, including a fractional Chern insulator and superconductivity. This CWC also allows us to study the interplay among various phases analytically using bosonization (see Appendix II SM for details of the bosonization procedure). Within bosonization, the low-energy electron operator is written as ψj,αKj,αeiΦj,α\psi_{j,\alpha}\sim K_{j,\alpha}e^{-i\Phi_{j,\alpha}}. Here Kj,αK_{j,\alpha} is a Klein factor, and Φj,α\Phi_{j,\alpha} is the corresponding bosonic field. For later use, we also introduce θj=12(Φj,1+Φj,2)\theta_{j}=\frac{1}{2}(\Phi_{j,1}+\Phi_{j,2}) and ϕj=12(Φj,1Φj,2)\phi_{j}=\frac{1}{2}(\Phi_{j,1}-\Phi_{j,2}).

Refer to caption
Figure 2: (a) Integrated quantum geometry of the bottom band and the minimal indirect gap between the top and bottom bands as functions of rr. Momentum dependence of Qxx(𝐤)Q^{xx}(\mathbf{k}) at r=0.0r=0.0 (b) and r=0.5r=0.5 (c), respectively. We set ty=M=1t_{y}=M=1 and tx=0.1t_{x}=0.1.

Fractional Chern insulator.— At ν=1/3\nu=1/3, the FCI is stabilized by the following effective correlated hopping process, as illustrated schematically in Fig. 3(a),

FCI:\displaystyle\text{FCI}:\quad j[Oj(r)ψj,1(r+a)][Oj+1(r)ψj+1,2(r+a)],\displaystyle\sum_{j}[O_{j}(r)\psi_{j,1}^{\dagger}(r+a)][O_{j+1}(r)\psi_{j+1,2}(r+a)], (3)

where the particle-hole operator is defined as Oj(r)=ψj,1(r)ψj,2(r)O_{j}(r)=\psi_{j,1}^{\dagger}(r)\psi_{j,2}(r). The displacement aa denotes a small real-space separation. As initially pointed out in Ref. Shavit and Oreg (2024), there is another closely related scattering process, denoted aFCI, which takes the form (see also Fig. 3(a))

aFCI:\displaystyle\text{aFCI}:\quad j[Oj(r)ψj,2(r+δr)][Oj+1(r)ψj+1,1(r+δr)].\displaystyle\sum_{j}[O_{j}(r)\psi_{j,2}(r+\delta r)][O_{j+1}(r)\psi_{j+1,1}^{\dagger}(r+\delta r)]. (4)

Microscopically, the FCI interaction is induced by the combination of on-site inter-orbital repulsion with strength UU and inter-wire hopping characterized by txt_{x}. The aFCI interaction is generated by the analogous process with the inter-wire hopping replaced by the txt_{x}^{\prime} process. The coupling strengths obtained from perturbation theory read (see Appendix V SM for details of the derivation)

gFCIU2Qyy(kF)EH2tx,gaFCIgFCIr,\displaystyle g_{FCI}\propto\frac{U^{2}Q^{yy}(k_{F})}{E_{H}^{2}}t_{x},\quad g_{aFCI}\propto g_{FCI}r, (5)

where EHE_{H} denotes the energy of the high-energy electrons. Qyy(kF)Q^{yy}(k_{F}) is the quantum geometry along the yy direction at the Fermi point in the 1D limit. Enhanced quantum geometry along yy therefore enhances the overall coupling strength. Here, we are mostly interested in the relative strength between FCI and aFCI scattering. This relative strength controls the stability of the FCI phase and plays an important role in stabilizing the superconducting phase discussed below. As shown in Eq. 5, the relative coupling strength between FCI and aFCI is rr, which is also directly related to the quantum geometry QxxQ^{xx}. Intuitively, when the electronic wave functions become more delocalized along the xx direction, as characterized by the enhancement of QxxQ^{xx}, the additional correlated hopping process represented by the aFCI channel becomes more important.

Finally, within the bosonization framework, the interactions given in Eqs. 3 and 4 correspond to the interaction vertices gFCI/aFCIeiΘjFCI/aFCI(r)g_{FCI/aFCI}e^{i\Theta_{j}^{FCI/aFCI}(r)}, with

ΘjFCI(r)=θj(r)θj+1(r)+3(ϕj(r)+ϕj+1(r))\displaystyle\Theta_{j}^{FCI}(r)=\theta_{j}(r)-\theta_{j+1}(r)+3(\phi_{j}(r)+\phi_{j+1}(r))
ΘjaFCI(r)=θj(r)+θj+1(r)+3(ϕj(r)+ϕj+1(r)).\displaystyle\Theta_{j}^{aFCI}(r)=-\theta_{j}(r)+\theta_{j+1}(r)+3(\phi_{j}(r)+\phi_{j+1}(r)). (6)

Superconducting (and charge-density-wave) instability.— We now show that superconducting and charge-density-wave correlations are naturally generated when the FCI and aFCI scattering processes are both present. This follows from the operator product expansion (OPE) Cardy (1996),

:eiΘjFCI(Rr2)::eiΘjaFCI(R+r2):eiΘjSC(R)|r|ΔFCI+ΔaFCIΔSC\displaystyle:e^{i\Theta_{j}^{FCI}(R-\frac{r}{2})}::e^{-i\Theta_{j}^{aFCI}(R+\frac{r}{2})}:\sim\frac{e^{i\Theta_{j}^{SC}(R)}}{|r|^{\Delta^{FCI}+\Delta^{aFCI}-\Delta^{SC}}}
:eiΘjFCI(Rr2)::eiΘjaFCI(R+r2):eiΘjCDW(R)|r|ΔFCI+ΔaFCIΔCDW\displaystyle:e^{i\Theta_{j}^{FCI}(R-\frac{r}{2})}::e^{i\Theta_{j}^{aFCI}(R+\frac{r}{2})}:\sim\frac{e^{i\Theta_{j}^{CDW}(R)}}{|r|^{\Delta^{FCI}+\Delta^{aFCI}-\Delta^{CDW}}} (7)

where :::: denotes normal ordering and Δλ\Delta^{\lambda} denotes the scaling dimension of Θjλ\Theta_{j}^{\lambda} with λ{FCI,aFCI,SC,CDW}\lambda\in\{FCI,aFCI,SC,CDW\} Cardy (1996) (see Appendix VI SM for the derivation). From Quantum-Geometry-Induced Superconductivity near a Fractional Chern Insulator, we observe that the fusion between eiΘFCIe^{i\Theta^{FCI}} and e±iΘaFCIe^{\pm i\Theta^{aFCI}} naturally leads to interaction vertices that we denote as SC and CDW, with the corresponding bosonic fields defined as

ΘjSC(r)=ΘjFCI(r)ΘjaFCI(r),\displaystyle\Theta_{j}^{SC}(r)=\Theta_{j}^{FCI}(r)-\Theta_{j}^{aFCI}(r),
ΘjCDW(r)=ΘjFCI(r)+ΘjaFCI(r).\displaystyle\Theta_{j}^{CDW}(r)=\Theta_{j}^{FCI}(r)+\Theta_{j}^{aFCI}(r). (8)

To identify the physical content of ΘjSC\Theta_{j}^{SC} and ΘjCDW\Theta_{j}^{CDW}, we transform back to the electronic fields, where we find

:eiΘjSC(r):Δj(r)Δj+1(r),Δj(r)=ψj,1(r)ψj,2(r)\displaystyle:e^{i\Theta_{j}^{SC}(r)}:\sim\Delta_{j}^{\dagger}(r)\Delta_{j+1}(r),\quad\Delta_{j}(r)=\psi_{j,1}(r)\psi_{j,2}(r)
:eiΘjCDW(r):[Oj(r)]3[Oj+1(r)]3\displaystyle:e^{i\Theta_{j}^{CDW}(r)}:\sim[O_{j}(r)]^{3}[O_{j+1}(r)]^{3} (9)

Thus eiΘjSC(r)e^{i\Theta_{j}^{SC}(r)} describes a Josephson coupling between pairing fields on neighboring wires, which promotes coherent pairing correlations across the wire array and stabilizes an SC phase. By contrast, eiΘjCDW(r)e^{i\Theta_{j}^{CDW}(r)} locks particle-hole correlations between wires and stabilizes a CDW phase.

Qualitatively, the emergence of the SC channel is illustrated in Fig. 3 (b). We start by combining the eiΘjFCIe^{i\Theta^{FCI}_{j}} process with the conjugate aFCI process eiΘjaFCIe^{-i\Theta^{aFCI}_{j}}. After canceling electron and hole operators within the same wire and chirality, the remaining operator contains a pair of electron operators on wire jj and a pair of hole operators on wire j+1j+1, corresponding to a Josephson coupling between the two wires. Intuitively, the OPE shows that correlations in the FCI and aFCI channels induce correlations in the SC and CDW channels.

Refer to caption
Figure 3: (a) Scattering processes associated with FCI, aFCI, and superconducting channels. (b) Combining eiΘjFCIe^{i\Theta_{j}^{FCI}} with eiΘjaFCIe^{-i\Theta_{j}^{aFCI}} leads to a Josephson coupling ΔjΔj+1\Delta_{j}^{{\dagger}}\Delta_{j+1} between neighboring wires.

Perturbative RG.— After establishing the connections among FCI, aFCI, SC, and CDW instabilities, we perform a perturbative RG calculation to further identify their interplay. We focus on a two-wire limit, where the system consists of two wires with j=1,2j=1,2. This limit is analytically tractable and is also sufficient to capture the competition and intertwining among these channels. Within the two-wire limit, the free-boson part is described by

HSLL=\displaystyle H_{SLL}= dr2π{i{e,o}ui[Ki[rθi(r)]2+1Ki[rϕi(r)]2]\displaystyle\int\frac{dr}{2\pi}\bigg\{\sum_{i\in\{e,o\}}u_{i}\bigg[K_{i}[\partial_{r}\theta_{i}(r)]^{2}+\frac{1}{K_{i}}[\partial_{r}\phi_{i}(r)]^{2}\bigg]
+v1rθo(r)rϕe(r)+v2rθe(r)rϕo(r)}\displaystyle+v_{1}\partial_{r}\theta_{o}(r)\partial_{r}\phi_{e}(r)+v_{2}\partial_{r}\theta_{e}(r)\partial_{r}\phi_{o}(r)\bigg\} (10)

where θe/o=12(θ1±θ2)\theta_{e/o}=\frac{1}{2}(\theta_{1}\pm\theta_{2}) and ϕe/o=12(ϕ1±ϕ2)\phi_{e/o}=\frac{1}{2}(\phi_{1}\pm\phi_{2}). KiK_{i} are the corresponding Luttinger parameters, uiu_{i} is the velocity, v1v_{1} and v2v_{2} are symmetry-allowed couplings in the time-reversal-breaking system (see Appendix VI SM for the corresponding values derived from the microscopic model). We consider interactions gλeiΘjλ+h.c.g_{\lambda}e^{i\Theta_{j}^{\lambda}}+\text{h.c.} with λ{FCI,aFCI,SC,CDW}\lambda\in\{FCI,aFCI,SC,CDW\} as perturbations. Here gλg_{\lambda} is the corresponding coupling constant. To facilitate the RG calculation, we also introduce dimensionless couplings yλgλy_{\lambda}\propto g_{\lambda}. The RG flows of the coupling constants are

lyFCI=(2ΔFCI)yFCI12(yaFCIyCDW+ySCyaFCI)\displaystyle\partial_{l}y_{FCI}=(2-\Delta^{FCI})y_{FCI}-\frac{1}{2}(y_{aFCI}y_{CDW}+y_{SC}y_{aFCI})
lyaFCI=(2ΔaFCI)yaFCI12(yFCIyCDW+ySCyFCI)\displaystyle\partial_{l}y_{aFCI}=(2-\Delta^{aFCI})y_{aFCI}-\frac{1}{2}(y_{FCI}y_{CDW}+y_{SC}y_{FCI})
lySC=(2ΔSC)ySC12yFCIyaFCI\displaystyle\partial_{l}y_{SC}=(2-\Delta^{SC})y_{SC}-\frac{1}{2}y_{FCI}y_{aFCI}
lyCDW=(2ΔCDW)yCDW12yFCIyaFCI\displaystyle\partial_{l}y_{CDW}=(2-\Delta^{CDW})y_{CDW}-\frac{1}{2}y_{FCI}y_{aFCI} (11)

where ll denotes the RG step. The full RG equations and their derivation are provided in Appendix VI SM .

Equation (Quantum-Geometry-Induced Superconductivity near a Fractional Chern Insulator) shows that SC and CDW couplings are generated under RG once both FCI and aFCI scatterings are present with yFCIyaFCI0y_{FCI}y_{aFCI}\neq 0. Thus, even if the microscopic Hamiltonian has no bare ySCy_{SC} or yCDWy_{CDW}, a finite SC coupling is induced, consistent with the OPE in Quantum-Geometry-Induced Superconductivity near a Fractional Chern Insulator. The scaling dimensions ΔSC=2/Ko\Delta^{SC}=2/K_{o} and ΔCDW=18Ke\Delta^{CDW}=18K_{e} control whether the generated SC or CDW coupling becomes the leading instability.

We solve the full set of RG equations in the absence of microscopic couplings in the SC and CDW channels, while keeping finite bare couplings in the FCI and aFCI channels. The resulting phase diagram is shown in Fig. 4(a), where the ground state is determined by which dimensionless coupling yλy_{\lambda} first reaches 11 during the RG flow. A gapless region remains when none of the scattering processes becomes relevant. Both SC and CDW instabilities naturally appear near the FCI region. In addition, we also find that a relatively strong single-particle dispersion, or bandwidth, favors SC over CDW when the FCI phase is unstable.

Finally, we note that the superconducting transition temperature increases as the system develops more pronounced quantum geometry. Within the RG flow, the SC transition temperature can be estimated from TSC=T0elSCT_{SC}=T_{0}e^{-l^{*}_{SC}}. Here T0T_{0} is the ultraviolet energy scale, which is approximately the noninteracting bandwidth. lSCl^{*}_{SC} is the RG step at which the dimensionless coupling ySCy_{SC} first reaches 11, indicating that SC correlations become relevant. Enhancing quantum geometry by increasing rr enhances the yaFCIy_{aFCI} coupling. As a consequence, the SC tendency is strengthened by the FCI/aFCI product term in the RG flow (Quantum-Geometry-Induced Superconductivity near a Fractional Chern Insulator). In Fig. 4(b), we illustrate how the SC temperature scale increases as rr is increased.

Refer to caption
Figure 4: RG phase diagram and estimated SC transition temperature. (a) Leading instability obtained from the perturbative RG flow. The microscopic coupling constant before the RG procedure is taken to be Ke|l=0=Ke,0K_{e}|_{l=0}=K_{e,0}, Ko|l=0=Ko,0K_{o}|_{l=0}=K_{o,0}, yFCI|l=0=0.1y_{FCI}|_{l=0}=0.1, yaFCI|l=0=0.05y_{aFCI}|_{l=0}=0.05, and ySC|l=0=yCDW|l=0=0y_{SC}|_{l=0}=y_{CDW}|_{l=0}=0. (b) Estimated SC transition temperature TSC/T0T_{SC}/T_{0} as a function of rr, evaluated in the SC regime with Ko,0=1.5K_{o,0}=1.5 and Ke,0=0.6,0.8K_{e,0}=0.6,0.8. The increase of TSCT_{SC} tracks the strengthening of quantum geometry.

Filling ν=2/3\nu=2/3.— We finally mention that a similar mechanism can also drive an SC instability at filling ν=2/3\nu=2/3. At this filling, the bosonized fields stabilizing the FCI phase can be obtained by particle-hole conjugation Fuji and Furusaki (2019). We consider both the FCI interaction and the related aFCI interaction, characterized by the bosonic fields (see Appendix VII SM and Ref. Fuji and Furusaki (2019) for further discussion of particle-hole conjugation)

ΘjFCI¯(r)=4ϕj(r)+θj1+ϕj1θj+1+ϕj+1\displaystyle\Theta_{j}^{\overline{FCI}}(r)=4\phi_{j}(r)+\theta_{j-1}+\phi_{j-1}-\theta_{j+1}+\phi_{j+1} (12)
ΘjaFCI¯(r)=4ϕj(r)θj1+ϕj1+θj+1+ϕj+1\displaystyle\Theta_{j}^{\overline{aFCI}}(r)=4\phi_{j}(r)-\theta_{j-1}+\phi_{j-1}+\theta_{j+1}+\phi_{j+1} (13)

Combining the two scattering processes again generates SC and CDW correlations, with

ΘjSC¯/CDW¯(r)=ΘjFCI¯(r)ΘjaFCI¯(r)\displaystyle\Theta_{j}^{\overline{SC}/\overline{CDW}}(r)=\Theta_{j}^{\overline{FCI}}(r)\mp\Theta_{j}^{\overline{aFCI}}(r) (14)

whose fermionic representations are

eiΘjSC¯(r)Δj1(r)Δj+1(r)\displaystyle e^{i\Theta_{j}^{\overline{SC}}(r)}\sim\Delta_{j-1}^{\dagger}(r)\Delta_{j+1}(r)
eiΘjCDW¯(r)Oj1(r)[Oj(r)]2Oj+1(r)\displaystyle e^{i\Theta_{j}^{\overline{CDW}}(r)}\sim O_{j-1}(r)[O_{j}(r)]^{2}O_{j+1}(r) (15)

Thus, SC and CDW correlations can again be induced by the cooperation of FCI and aFCI scattering. However, the nature of the resulting phases is different from the ν=1/3\nu=1/3 case. This is because the FCI-favoring term at ν=2/3\nu=2/3 involves three wires. Consequently, the resulting Josephson coupling and CDW locking involve next-nearest-neighbor wires.

Summary and discussion.— In summary, we have provided an analytical study of competing phases in a partially filled interacting Chern band. In our model, the quantum geometry is controlled by the parameter rr, and increasing rr enhances the quantum geometry. As the quantum geometry is enhanced, a competing aFCI scattering process emerges and becomes stronger. The cooperation between the aFCI and FCI channels naturally produces correlations in the SC and CDW channels. Using a perturbative RG analysis, we derive the phase diagram of the model and find SC and CDW phases near the FCI phase. We further demonstrate that the estimated SC transition temperature is enhanced by the quantum-geometry effect. We show that SC and CDW correlations can also be induced by the cooperation of FCI and aFCI scattering at filling fraction ν=2/3\nu=2/3. Therefore, our work provides an analytical study of the interplay among FCI, SC, and CDW phases, and identifies the crucial role of quantum geometry in organizing these instabilities.

Acknowledgments —

This work was performed in part at the Aspen Center for Physics, which is supported by National Science Foundation grant PHY-2210452 and by a grant from the Simons Foundation (1161654, Troyer) The Flatiron Institute is a division of the Simons Foundation.

Acknowledgements.

References

  • Regnault and Bernevig (2011) N. Regnault and B. Andrei Bernevig, “Fractional chern insulator,” Phys. Rev. X 1, 021014 (2011).
  • Sheng et al. (2011) D. N. Sheng, Zheng-Cheng Gu, Kai Sun, and L. Sheng, “Fractional quantum hall effect in the absence of landau levels,” Nature Communications 2, 389 (2011).
  • Parameswaran et al. (2013) Siddharth A. Parameswaran, Rahul Roy, and Shivaji L. Sondhi, “Fractional quantum hall physics in topological flat bands,” Comptes Rendus Physique 14, 816–839 (2013), topological insulators / Isolants topologiques.
  • Tang et al. (2011) Evelyn Tang, Jia-Wei Mei, and Xiao-Gang Wen, “High-temperature fractional quantum hall states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 236802 (2011).
  • Sun et al. (2011) Kai Sun, Zhengcheng Gu, Hosho Katsura, and S. Das Sarma, “Nearly flatbands with nontrivial topology,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 236803 (2011).
  • Neupert et al. (2011) Titus Neupert, Luiz Santos, Claudio Chamon, and Christopher Mudry, “Fractional quantum hall states at zero magnetic field,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 236804 (2011).
  • Roy (2014) Rahul Roy, “Band geometry of fractional topological insulators,” Phys. Rev. B 90, 165139 (2014).
  • Parameswaran et al. (2012) S. A. Parameswaran, R. Roy, and S. L. Sondhi, “Fractional chern insulators and the W{W}_{\infty} algebra,” Phys. Rev. B 85, 241308(R) (2012).
  • Jackson et al. (2015) T. S. Jackson, Gunnar Möller, and Rahul Roy, “Geometric stability of topological lattice phases,” Nature Communications 6, 8629 (2015).
  • Claassen et al. (2015) Martin Claassen, Ching Hua Lee, Ronny Thomale, Xiao-Liang Qi, and Thomas P. Devereaux, “Position-momentum duality and fractional quantum hall effect in chern insulators,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 236802 (2015).
  • Wang et al. (2021) Jie Wang, Jennifer Cano, Andrew J. Millis, Zhao Liu, and Bo Yang, “Exact landau level description of geometry and interaction in a flatband,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 246403 (2021).
  • Cai et al. (2023) Jiaqi Cai, Eric Anderson, Chong Wang, Xiaowei Zhang, Xiaoyu Liu, William Holtzmann, Yinong Zhang, Fengren Fan, Takashi Taniguchi, Kenji Watanabe, Ying Ran, Ting Cao, Liang Fu, Di Xiao, Wang Yao, and Xiaodong Xu, “Signatures of fractional quantum anomalous hall states in twisted mote2,” Nature 622, 63–68 (2023).
  • Zeng et al. (2023) Yihang Zeng, Zhengchao Xia, Kaifei Kang, Jiacheng Zhu, Patrick Knüppel, Chirag Vaswani, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Kin Fai Mak, and Jie Shan, “Thermodynamic evidence of fractional chern insulator in moiré mote2,” Nature 622, 69–73 (2023).
  • Park et al. (2023) Heonjoon Park, Jiaqi Cai, Eric Anderson, Yinong Zhang, Jiayi Zhu, Xiaoyu Liu, Chong Wang, William Holtzmann, Chaowei Hu, Zhaoyu Liu, Takashi Taniguchi, Kenji Watanabe, Jiun-Haw Chu, Ting Cao, Liang Fu, Wang Yao, Cui-Zu Chang, David Cobden, Di Xiao, and Xiaodong Xu, “Observation of fractionally quantized anomalous hall effect,” Nature 622, 74–79 (2023).
  • Xu et al. (2023) Fan Xu, Zheng Sun, Tongtong Jia, Chang Liu, Cheng Xu, Chushan Li, Yu Gu, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Bingbing Tong, Jinfeng Jia, Zhiwen Shi, Shengwei Jiang, Yang Zhang, Xiaoxue Liu, and Tingxin Li, “Observation of integer and fractional quantum anomalous hall effects in twisted bilayer mote2{\mathrm{mote}}_{2},” Phys. Rev. X 13, 031037 (2023).
  • Ji et al. (2024) Zhurun Ji, Heonjoon Park, Mark E. Barber, Chaowei Hu, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Jiun-Haw Chu, Xiaodong Xu, and Zhi-Xun Shen, “Local probe of bulk and edge states in a fractional chern insulator,” Nature 635, 578–583 (2024).
  • Redekop et al. (2024) Evgeny Redekop, Canxun Zhang, Heonjoon Park, Jiaqi Cai, Eric Anderson, Owen Sheekey, Trevor Arp, Grigory Babikyan, Samuel Salters, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Martin E. Huber, Xiaodong Xu, and Andrea F. Young, “Direct magnetic imaging of fractional chern insulators in twisted mote2,” Nature 635, 584–589 (2024).
  • Park et al. (2025) Heonjoon Park, Jiaqi Cai, Eric Anderson, Xiao-Wei Zhang, Xiaoyu Liu, William Holtzmann, Weijie Li, Chong Wang, Chaowei Hu, Yuzhou Zhao, Takashi Taniguchi, Kenji Watanabe, Jihui Yang, David Cobden, Jiun-haw Chu, Nicolas Regnault, B. Andrei Bernevig, Liang Fu, Ting Cao, Di Xiao, and Xiaodong Xu, “Ferromagnetism and topology of the higher flat band in a fractional chern insulator,” Nature Physics 21, 549–555 (2025).
  • Lu et al. (2024) Zhengguang Lu, Tonghang Han, Yuxuan Yao, Aidan P. Reddy, Jixiang Yang, Junseok Seo, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Liang Fu, and Long Ju, “Fractional quantum anomalous hall effect in multilayer graphene,” Nature 626, 759–764 (2024).
  • Kang et al. (2024) Kaifei Kang, Bowen Shen, Yichen Qiu, Yihang Zeng, Zhengchao Xia, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Jie Shan, and Kin Fai Mak, “Evidence of the fractional quantum spin hall effect in moiré mote2,” Nature 628, 522–526 (2024).
  • Wang et al. (2025) Yiping Wang, Jeongheon Choe, Eric Anderson, Weijie Li, Julian Ingham, Eric A. Arsenault, Yiliu Li, Xiaodong Hu, Takashi Taniguchi, Kenji Watanabe, Xavier Roy, Dmitri Basov, Di Xiao, Raquel Queiroz, James C. Hone, Xiaodong Xu, and X.-Y. Zhu, “Hidden states and dynamics of fractional fillings in twisted mote2 bilayers,” Nature 641, 1149–1155 (2025).
  • Waters et al. (2025) Dacen Waters, Anna Okounkova, Ruiheng Su, Boran Zhou, Jiang Yao, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Xiaodong Xu, Ya-Hui Zhang, Joshua Folk, and Matthew Yankowitz, “Chern insulators at integer and fractional filling in moiré pentalayer graphene,” Phys. Rev. X 15, 011045 (2025).
  • Han et al. (2025) Tonghang Han, Zhengguang Lu, Zach Hadjri, Lihan Shi, Zhenghan Wu, Wei Xu, Yuxuan Yao, Armel A. Cotten, Omid Sharifi Sedeh, Henok Weldeyesus, Jixiang Yang, Junseok Seo, Shenyong Ye, Muyang Zhou, Haoyang Liu, Gang Shi, Zhenqi Hua, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Peng Xiong, Dominik M. Zumbühl, Liang Fu, and Long Ju, “Signatures of chiral superconductivity in rhombohedral graphene,” Nature 643, 654–661 (2025).
  • Xu et al. (2026) Fan Xu, Zheng Sun, Jiayi Li, Ce Zheng, Cheng Xu, Jingjing Gao, Tongtong Jia, Yanfei Su, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Bingbing Tong, Li Lu, Jinfeng Jia, Zhiwen Shi, Shengwei Jiang, Junhao Lin, Yuanbo Zhang, Yang Zhang, Shiming Lei, Xiaoxue Liu, and Tingxin Li, “Signatures of unconventional superconductivity near reentrant and fractional quantum anomalous hall insulators,” (2026), arXiv:2504.06972 [cond-mat.mes-hall] .
  • Lu et al. (2025) Zhengguang Lu, Tonghang Han, Yuxuan Yao, Zach Hadjri, Jixiang Yang, Junseok Seo, Lihan Shi, Shenyong Ye, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, and Long Ju, “Extended quantum anomalous hall states in graphene/hbn moiré superlattices,” Nature 637, 1090–1095 (2025).
  • Sun et al. (2026) Zheng Sun, Fan Xu, Jiayi Li, Yifan Jiang, Jingjing Gao, Cheng Xu, Tongtong Jia, Kehao Cheng, Jinyang Zhang, Wanghao Tian, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Jinfeng Jia, Shengwei Jiang, Yang Zhang, Yuanbo Zhang, Shiming Lei, Xiaoxue Liu, and Tingxin Li, “Twist-angle evolution from valley-polarized fractional topological phases to valley-degenerate superconductivity in twisted bilayer mote2,” (2026), arXiv:2603.16412 [cond-mat.mes-hall] .
  • Aronson et al. (2025) Samuel H. Aronson, Tonghang Han, Zhengguang Lu, Yuxuan Yao, Jackson P. Butler, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Long Ju, and Raymond C. Ashoori, “Displacement field-controlled fractional chern insulators and charge density waves in a graphene/hbn moiré superlattice,” Phys. Rev. X 15, 031026 (2025).
  • Bernevig et al. (2025) B. A. Bernevig, L. Fu, L. Ju, A. H. MacDonald, K. F. Mak, and J. Shan, “Fractional quantization in insulators from hall to chern,” Nature Physics 21, 1702–1713 (2025).
  • Crépel and Fu (2023) Valentin Crépel and Liang Fu, “Anomalous hall metal and fractional chern insulator in twisted transition metal dichalcogenides,” Phys. Rev. B 107, L201109 (2023).
  • Reddy et al. (2023) Aidan P. Reddy, Faisal Alsallom, Yang Zhang, Trithep Devakul, and Liang Fu, “Fractional quantum anomalous hall states in twisted bilayer mote2{\mathrm{mote}}_{2} and wse2{\mathrm{wse}}_{2},” Phys. Rev. B 108, 085117 (2023).
  • Shavit and Oreg (2024) Gal Shavit and Yuval Oreg, “Quantum geometry and stabilization of fractional chern insulators far from the ideal limit,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 156504 (2024).
  • Jia et al. (2024) Yujin Jia, Jiabin Yu, Jiaxuan Liu, Jonah Herzog-Arbeitman, Ziyue Qi, Hanqi Pi, Nicolas Regnault, Hongming Weng, B. Andrei Bernevig, and Quansheng Wu, “Moiré fractional chern insulators. i. first-principles calculations and continuum models of twisted bilayer mote2{\mathrm{mote}}_{2},” Phys. Rev. B 109, 205121 (2024).
  • Herzog-Arbeitman et al. (2024) Jonah Herzog-Arbeitman, Yuzhi Wang, Jiaxuan Liu, Pok Man Tam, Ziyue Qi, Yujin Jia, Dmitri K. Efetov, Oskar Vafek, Nicolas Regnault, Hongming Weng, Quansheng Wu, B. Andrei Bernevig, and Jiabin Yu, “Moiré fractional chern insulators. ii. first-principles calculations and continuum models of rhombohedral graphene superlattices,” Phys. Rev. B 109, 205122 (2024).
  • Kwan et al. (2025) Yves H. Kwan, Jiabin Yu, Jonah Herzog-Arbeitman, Dmitri K. Efetov, Nicolas Regnault, and B. Andrei Bernevig, “Moiré fractional chern insulators. iii. hartree-fock phase diagram, magic angle regime for chern insulator states, role of moiré potential, and goldstone gaps in rhombohedral graphene superlattices,” Phys. Rev. B 112, 075109 (2025).
  • Yu et al. (2025a) Jiabin Yu, Jonah Herzog-Arbeitman, Yves H. Kwan, Nicolas Regnault, and B. Andrei Bernevig, “Moiré fractional chern insulators. iv. fluctuation-driven collapse in multiband exact diagonalization calculations on rhombohedral graphene,” Phys. Rev. B 112, 075110 (2025a).
  • Yu et al. (2024) Jiabin Yu, Jonah Herzog-Arbeitman, Minxuan Wang, Oskar Vafek, B. Andrei Bernevig, and Nicolas Regnault, “Fractional chern insulators versus nonmagnetic states in twisted bilayer mote2{\mathrm{mote}}_{2},” Phys. Rev. B 109, 045147 (2024).
  • Guo et al. (2024) Zhongqing Guo, Xin Lu, Bo Xie, and Jianpeng Liu, “Fractional chern insulator states in multilayer graphene moiré superlattices,” Phys. Rev. B 110, 075109 (2024).
  • Dong et al. (2024a) Zhihuan Dong, Adarsh S. Patri, and T. Senthil, “Theory of quantum anomalous hall phases in pentalayer rhombohedral graphene moiré structures,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 206502 (2024a).
  • Dong et al. (2024b) Junkai Dong, Taige Wang, Tianle Wang, Tomohiro Soejima, Michael P. Zaletel, Ashvin Vishwanath, and Daniel E. Parker, “Anomalous hall crystals in rhombohedral multilayer graphene. i. interaction-driven chern bands and fractional quantum hall states at zero magnetic field,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 206503 (2024b).
  • Soejima et al. (2024) Tomohiro Soejima, Junkai Dong, Taige Wang, Tianle Wang, Michael P. Zaletel, Ashvin Vishwanath, and Daniel E. Parker, “Anomalous hall crystals in rhombohedral multilayer graphene. ii. general mechanism and a minimal model,” Phys. Rev. B 110, 205124 (2024).
  • Zhou et al. (2024) Boran Zhou, Hui Yang, and Ya-Hui Zhang, “Fractional quantum anomalous hall effect in rhombohedral multilayer graphene in the moiréless limit,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 206504 (2024).
  • Huang et al. (2024) Ke Huang, Xiao Li, Sankar Das Sarma, and Fan Zhang, “Self-consistent theory of fractional quantum anomalous hall states in rhombohedral graphene,” Phys. Rev. B 110, 115146 (2024).
  • Tan and Devakul (2024) Tixuan Tan and Trithep Devakul, “Parent berry curvature and the ideal anomalous hall crystal,” Phys. Rev. X 14, 041040 (2024).
  • Sheng et al. (2024) D. N. Sheng, Aidan P. Reddy, Ahmed Abouelkomsan, Emil J. Bergholtz, and Liang Fu, “Quantum anomalous hall crystal at fractional filling of moiré superlattices,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 066601 (2024).
  • Song et al. (2024) Xue-Yang Song, Chao-Ming Jian, Liang Fu, and Cenke Xu, “Intertwined fractional quantum anomalous hall states and charge density waves,” Phys. Rev. B 109, 115116 (2024).
  • Zeng et al. (2024) Yongxin Zeng, Daniele Guerci, Valentin Crépel, Andrew J. Millis, and Jennifer Cano, “Sublattice structure and topology in spontaneously crystallized electronic states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 236601 (2024).
  • Bernevig and Kwan (2025) B. Andrei Bernevig and Yves H. Kwan, “”berry trashcan” model of interacting electrons in rhombohedral graphene,” (2025), arXiv:2503.09692 [cond-mat.str-el] .
  • Li et al. (2025) Heqiu Li, B. Andrei Bernevig, and Nicolas Regnault, “Multiband exact diagonalization and an iteration approach to search for fractional chern insulators in rhombohedral multilayer graphene,” Phys. Rev. B 112, 075130 (2025).
  • Xu et al. (2025) Cheng Xu, Nianlong Zou, Nikolai Peshcherenko, Ammar Jahin, Tingxin Li, Shi-Zeng Lin, and Yang Zhang, “Chiral superconductivity from spin polarized chern band in twisted mote2{\mathrm{mote}}_{2},” Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 266005 (2025).
  • Chen et al. (2026a) Lei Chen, Sayed Ali Akbar Ghorashi, Jennifer Cano, and Valentin Crépel, “Quantum-geometric dipole: A topological boost to flavor ferromagnetism in flat bands,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 186602 (2026a).
  • Shi et al. (2026) Jingtian Shi, Jennifer Cano, and Nicolás Morales-Durán, “Effects of berry curvature on ideal fractional chern insulator many-body gaps,” Phys. Rev. Res. 8, L022045 (2026).
  • Divic et al. (2025) Stefan Divic, Valentin Crépel, Tomohiro Soejima, Xue-Yang Song, Andrew J. Millis, Michael P. Zaletel, and Ashvin Vishwanath, “Anyon superconductivity from topological criticality in a hofstadter–hubbard model,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 122, e2426680122 (2025), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2426680122 .
  • Wang and Zaletel (2025) Taige Wang and Michael P. Zaletel, “Chiral superconductivity near a fractional chern insulator,” (2025), arXiv:2507.07921 [cond-mat.str-el] .
  • Guerci et al. (2025) Daniele Guerci, Ahmed Abouelkomsan, and Liang Fu, “From fractionalization to chiral topological superconductivity in a flat chern band,” (2025), arXiv:2506.10938 [cond-mat.supr-con] .
  • Chen et al. (2026b) Feng Chen, Wen O. Wang, Jia-Xin Zhang, Leon Balents, and D. N. Sheng, “Topological chiral superconductivity in the triangular-lattice hofstadter-hubbard model,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 086503 (2026b).
  • Shi and Senthil (2025) Zhengyan Darius Shi and T. Senthil, “Doping a fractional quantum anomalous hall insulator,” Phys. Rev. X 15, 031069 (2025).
  • Pichler et al. (2026) Fabian Pichler, Clemens Kuhlenkamp, Michael Knap, and Ashvin Vishwanath, “Microscopic mechanism of anyon superconductivity emerging from fractional chern insulators,” Newton 2 (2026).
  • Nosov et al. (2026) Pavel A. Nosov, Zhaoyu Han, and Eslam Khalaf, “Anyon superconductivity and plateau transitions in doped fractional quantum anomalous hall insulators,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 106501 (2026).
  • Von Delft and Schoeller (1998) Jan Von Delft and Herbert Schoeller, “Bosonization for beginners—refermionization for experts,” Annalen der Physik 510, 225–305 (1998).
  • Giamarchi (2003) Thierry Giamarchi, Quantum physics in one dimension (Clarendon press, 2003).
  • Cardy (1996) John Cardy, Scaling and renormalization in statistical physics (Cambridge university press, 1996).
  • Kane et al. (2002) C. L. Kane, Ranjan Mukhopadhyay, and T. C. Lubensky, “Fractional quantum hall effect in an array of quantum wires,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 036401 (2002).
  • Fuji and Furusaki (2019) Yohei Fuji and Akira Furusaki, “Quantum hall hierarchy from coupled wires,” Phys. Rev. B 99, 035130 (2019).
  • Teo and Kane (2014) Jeffrey C. Y. Teo and C. L. Kane, “From luttinger liquid to non-abelian quantum hall states,” Phys. Rev. B 89, 085101 (2014).
  • Sagi and Oreg (2014) Eran Sagi and Yuval Oreg, “Non-abelian topological insulators from an array of quantum wires,” Phys. Rev. B 90, 201102(R) (2014).
  • Meng (2020) Tobias Meng, “Coupled-wire constructions: a luttinger liquid approach to topology,” The European Physical Journal Special Topics 229, 527–543 (2020).
  • Balents and Fisher (1996) Leon Balents and Matthew P. A. Fisher, “Weak-coupling phase diagram of the two-chain hubbard model,” Phys. Rev. B 53, 12133–12141 (1996).
  • Lin et al. (1997) Hsiu-Hau Lin, Leon Balents, and Matthew P. A. Fisher, “nn-chain hubbard model in weak coupling,” Phys. Rev. B 56, 6569–6593 (1997).
  • Shelton et al. (1996) D. G. Shelton, A. A. Nersesyan, and A. M. Tsvelik, “Antiferromagnetic spin ladders: Crossover between spin s=1/2 and s=1 chains,” Phys. Rev. B 53, 8521–8532 (1996).
  • Jaefari and Fradkin (2012) Akbar Jaefari and Eduardo Fradkin, “Pair-density-wave superconducting order in two-leg ladders,” Phys. Rev. B 85, 035104 (2012).
  • Fradkin et al. (2015) Eduardo Fradkin, Steven A. Kivelson, and John M. Tranquada, “Colloquium: Theory of intertwined orders in high temperature superconductors,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 457–482 (2015).
  • Provost and Vallee (1980) JP Provost and G Vallee, “Riemannian structure on manifolds of quantum states,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 76, 289–301 (1980).
  • Marzari et al. (2012) Nicola Marzari, Arash A. Mostofi, Jonathan R. Yates, Ivo Souza, and David Vanderbilt, “Maximally localized wannier functions: Theory and applications,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1419–1475 (2012).
  • Yu et al. (2025b) Jiabin Yu, B. Andrei Bernevig, Raquel Queiroz, Enrico Rossi, Päivi Törmä, and Bohm-Jung Yang, “Quantum geometry in quantum materials,” npj Quantum Materials 10, 101 (2025b).
  • Törmä (2023) Päivi Törmä, “Essay: Where can quantum geometry lead us?” Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 240001 (2023).
  • (76) See Supplemental Material for further details on the model, a review of the bosonization procedure, and details of the renormalization group calculations, which include Refs. Von Delft and Schoeller (1998); Kane et al. (2002); Shavit and Oreg (2024); Cardy (1996); Fuji and Furusaki (2019) .

Supplementary Materials
Haoyu Hu

I Non-interacting Hamiltonian

We consider a toy model with ss and pp orbitals located at the 1a1a position and labeled by c𝐤,s/pc_{\mathbf{k},s/p}, respectively. We take the layer group to be p1¯p\bar{1}, with translational and inversion symmetries.

It is useful to recombine the ss and pp orbitals into two ss orbitals,

c𝐤,1/2=12(c𝐤,s±c𝐤,p)\displaystyle c_{\mathbf{k},1/2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(c_{\mathbf{k},s}\pm c_{\mathbf{k},p}) (S1)

which satisfy the following symmetry property

Ic𝐤,αI1=c𝐤,3α\displaystyle Ic_{\mathbf{k},\alpha}I^{-1}=c_{-\mathbf{k},3-\alpha} (S2)

where II denotes the inversion symmetry.

We further consider the anisotropic limit, in which the system develops strong dispersion along the yy direction. This allows us to treat the system within the wire construction. The minimal symmetry-allowed non-interacting Hamiltonian can be written as

H0=𝐤,αγ[tysin(kya)τz+[M(1cos(kya))+(tx+tx)cos(kxa)]τx+(tx+tx)sin(kxa)τyμτ0]α,γc𝐤,αc𝐤,γ\displaystyle H_{0}=\sum_{\mathbf{k},\alpha\gamma}\bigg[t_{y}\sin(k_{y}a)\tau_{z}+[M(1-\cos(k_{y}a))+(t_{x}+t_{x^{\prime}})\cos(k_{x}a)]\tau_{x}+(-t_{x}+t_{x^{\prime}})\sin(k_{x}a)\tau_{y}-\mu\tau_{0}\bigg]_{\alpha,\gamma}c_{\mathbf{k},\alpha}^{\dagger}c_{\mathbf{k},\gamma} (S3)

where τx,y,z\tau_{x,y,z} are Pauli matrices in the orbital space and μ\mu is the chemical potential. We consider the parameter regime where |ty|,|M||tx|,|tx||t_{y}|,|M|\gg|t_{x}|,|t_{x^{\prime}}|. The dispersion is

E𝐤,±=±[tysin(kya)]2+[M(1cos(kya))+(tx+tx)cos(kxa)]2+[(txtx)sin(kxa)]2μ\displaystyle E_{\mathbf{k},\pm}=\pm\sqrt{[t_{y}\sin(k_{y}a)]^{2}+[M(1-\cos(k_{y}a))+(t_{x}+t_{x}^{\prime})\cos(k_{x}a)]^{2}+[(t_{x}-t_{x}^{\prime})\sin(k_{x}a)]^{2}}-\mu (S4)

In the anisotropic limit, the Chern number of the lowest band reads

{C=1|tx|>|tx|C=1|tx|<|tx|\displaystyle\begin{cases}C=1&|t_{x}|>|t_{x}^{\prime}|\\ C=-1&|t_{x}|<|t_{x}^{\prime}|\end{cases} (S5)

We also introduce the quantum geometry (Fubini–Study metric) of the lowest band, which characterizes the real-space delocalization of the wave function

Qμμ=14π2𝑑kx𝑑kyQμμ(𝐤),Qμμ(𝐤)=kμu𝐤|kμu𝐤kμu𝐤|u𝐤u𝐤|kμu𝐤\displaystyle Q^{\mu\mu}=\frac{1}{4\pi^{2}}\int dk_{x}dk_{y}Q^{\mu\mu}(\mathbf{k}),\quad Q^{\mu\mu}(\mathbf{k})=\langle\partial_{k_{\mu}}u_{\mathbf{k}}|\partial_{k_{\mu}}u_{\mathbf{k}}\rangle-\langle\partial_{k_{\mu}}u_{\mathbf{k}}|u_{\mathbf{k}}\rangle\langle u_{\mathbf{k}}|\partial_{k_{\mu}}u_{\mathbf{k}}\rangle (S6)

with |u𝐤|u_{\mathbf{k}}\rangle the corresponding Bloch wave function. The quantum geometry and the minimal gap between the two bands are controlled by tx/txt_{x}/t_{x}^{\prime}, as illustrated in Fig. S1. Several general remarks are useful.

  • The system develops strong hopping along the yy direction, leading to strong quantum geometry in the yy direction.

  • We are primarily interested in the quantum geometry along the xx direction, which characterizes how electrons on different wires overlap with each other.

  • The quantum geometry is enhanced when the gap reaches its minimum. Thus strong quantum geometry appears near the gap-closing point with |tx|=|tx||t_{x}|=|t_{x}^{\prime}|.

We also provide some analytical insight into the behavior of Qxx(𝐤)Q^{xx}(\mathbf{k}). The dominant contribution to the quantum geometry comes from ky=0k_{y}=0, where the gap reaches its minimum. Near ky=0k_{y}=0, we can approximate tysin(kya)tykyat_{y}\sin(k_{y}a)\approx t_{y}k_{y}a and M(1cos(kya))0M(1-\cos(k_{y}a))\approx 0. This leads to

Qxx(kx,ky)=a2(tx2tx2)2+mky2(tx2+tx2)2mky2txtxcos(2akx)4[mky2+tx2+tx2+2txtxcos(2akx)]2,mkytykya\displaystyle Q^{xx}(k_{x},k_{y})=a^{2}\frac{(t_{x}^{2}-t_{x}^{\prime 2})^{2}+m_{k_{y}}^{2}(t_{x}^{2}+t_{x}^{\prime 2})-2m_{k_{y}}^{2}t_{x}t_{x}^{\prime}\cos(2ak_{x})}{4\bigg[m_{k_{y}}^{2}+t_{x}^{2}+t_{x}^{\prime 2}+2t_{x}t_{x}^{\prime}\cos(2ak_{x})\bigg]^{2}},\quad m_{k_{y}}\approx t_{y}k_{y}a (S7)

Integrating over kxk_{x} and kyk_{y} gives

Qxx=\displaystyle Q^{xx}= 14π2𝑑ky𝑑kxQxx(kx,ky)14π2π/aπ/a𝑑kya2π(tx2+tx2)4tx2tx2+(mky2+tx2+tx2)2\displaystyle\frac{1}{4\pi^{2}}\int dk_{y}\int dk_{x}Q^{xx}(k_{x},k_{y})\approx\frac{1}{4\pi^{2}}\int_{\pi/a}^{-\pi/a}dk_{y}\frac{a}{2}\frac{\pi(t_{x}^{2}+t_{x}^{\prime 2})}{\sqrt{-4t_{x}^{2}t_{x}^{\prime 2}+(m_{k_{y}}^{2}+t_{x}^{2}+t_{x}^{\prime 2})^{2}}}
\displaystyle\approx 14π2π/aπ/a𝑑kya2π(tx2+tx2)(tx2tx2)2+2mky2(tx2+tx2)\displaystyle\frac{1}{4\pi^{2}}\int^{\pi/a}_{-\pi/a}dk_{y}\frac{a}{2}\frac{\pi(t_{x}^{2}+t_{x}^{\prime 2})}{\sqrt{(t_{x}^{2}-t_{x}^{\prime 2})^{2}+2m_{k_{y}}^{2}(t_{x}^{2}+t_{x}^{\prime 2})}}
\displaystyle\approx 14πtx2+tx22tyarcsinh(2πtytx2+tx2|tx2tx2|)\displaystyle\frac{1}{4\pi}\frac{\sqrt{t_{x}^{2}+t_{x}^{\prime 2}}}{\sqrt{2}t_{y}}\text{arcsinh}\bigg(\frac{\sqrt{2}\pi t_{y}\sqrt{t_{x}^{2}+t_{x}^{\prime 2}}}{|t_{x}^{2}-t_{x}^{\prime 2}|}\bigg) (S8)

To simplify the notation, we let

r=txtxαx=tx2+tx2ty122π\displaystyle r=\frac{t_{x}^{\prime}}{t_{x}}\quad\alpha_{x}=\frac{\sqrt{t_{x}^{2}+t_{x}^{\prime 2}}}{t_{y}}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}\pi} (S9)

In the anisotropic limit with small αx\alpha_{x}, we find

Qxxαx2arcsinh(1+r22αx(1r2))αx42πlog(1αx1+r21r2)\displaystyle Q^{xx}\approx\frac{\alpha_{x}}{2}\text{arcsinh}\bigg(\frac{{1+r^{2}}}{2\alpha_{x}(1-r^{2})}\bigg)\approx\frac{\alpha_{x}}{4\sqrt{2}\pi}\log(\frac{1}{\alpha_{x}}\frac{1+r^{2}}{1-r^{2}}) (S10)

showing that the quantum geometry diverges logarithmically as r1r\rightarrow 1^{-}. This is expected, since the gap closes at r=1r=1.

Throughout this manuscript, we focus on the anisotropic limit in which the lowest band forms a C=1C=1 Chern band with

|ty|,|M||tx|,|tx|\displaystyle|t_{y}|,|M|\gg|t_{x}|,|t_{x}^{\prime}|
|tx|>|tx|\displaystyle|t_{x}|>|t_{x}^{\prime}| (S11)

We then study the interacting physics of this partially filled lowest band.

Refer to caption
Figure S1: Quantum geometry (Eq. S6) and the gap between two bands as a function of tx,txt_{x},t_{x}^{\prime} with ty=M=1t_{y}=M=1.

II Coupled wire construction and bosonization

We focus on the limit

|ty|,|M||tx|,|tx|\displaystyle|t_{y}|,|M|\gg|t_{x}|,|t_{x}^{\prime}| (S12)

where the system develops strong dispersion along the yy direction and weak coupling along the xx direction. It is then useful to view the system as a series of weakly coupled one-dimensional wires and treat it using bosonization.

We use jj to label the jj-th wire, with corresponding electron operators

cj,α,ky=1Nxkxcα,(kx,ky)eikxja\displaystyle c_{j,\alpha,k_{y}}^{\dagger}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_{x}}}\sum_{k_{x}}c_{\alpha,(k_{x},k_{y})}e^{ik_{x}ja} (S13)

where NxN_{x} is the number of sites in the xx direction. The Hamiltonian of each wire in the decoupled limit (tx=tx=0t_{x}=t_{x}^{\prime}=0) reads

H0,j=ky,αγ[tysin(kya)τz+[M(1cos(kya))]τxμτ0]αγcj,α,kycj,γ,ky\displaystyle H_{0,j}=\sum_{k_{y},\alpha\gamma}\bigg[t_{y}\sin(k_{y}a)\tau_{z}+[M(1-\cos(k_{y}a))]\tau_{x}-\mu\tau_{0}\bigg]_{\alpha\gamma}c_{j,\alpha,k_{y}}^{\dagger}c_{j,\gamma,k_{y}} (S14)

The dispersions are

E𝐤,±=μ±[M(1cos(kya))]2+[tysin(kya)]2\displaystyle E_{\mathbf{k},\pm}=-\mu\pm\sqrt{[M(1-\cos(k_{y}a))]^{2}+[t_{y}\sin(k_{y}a)]^{2}} (S15)

The corresponding band-basis operator for the bottom band (γj,ky)(\gamma_{j,k_{y}}) is

γj,ky=[dz(ky)+[dx(ky)]2+[dz(ky)]2]cj,2,kydx(ky)cj,1,ky2[dx(k)]2+[dz(k)]2[[dx(k)]2+[dz(k)]2+dz(k)]\displaystyle{\gamma}_{j,k_{y}}^{\dagger}=\frac{\bigg[d_{z}(k_{y})+\sqrt{[d_{x}(k_{y})]^{2}+[d_{z}(k_{y})]^{2}}\bigg]c_{j,2,k_{y}}^{\dagger}-d_{x}(k_{y})c_{j,1,k_{y}}^{\dagger}}{\sqrt{2\sqrt{[d_{x}(k)]^{2}+[d_{z}(k)]^{2}}\bigg[\sqrt{[d_{x}(k)]^{2}+[d_{z}(k)]^{2}}+d_{z}(k)\bigg]}} (S16)

where

dz(ky)=tysin(kya),dx(ky)=M(1cos(kya))\displaystyle d_{z}(k_{y})=t_{y}\sin(k_{y}a),\quad d_{x}(k_{y})=M(1-\cos(k_{y}a)) (S17)

We consider filling factor ν\nu in the bottom band with Chern number +1+1. The corresponding Fermi momentum is

±kF=(1ν)π/a\displaystyle\pm k_{F}=\mp(1-\nu)\pi/a (S18)

We retain only the low-energy degrees of freedom near kFk_{F}, for which

H0,jpy,αv(1)α+1γj,(1)α+1kF+pyγj,(1)α+1kF+py\displaystyle H_{0,j}\approx\sum_{p_{y},\alpha}v(-1)^{\alpha+1}\gamma_{j,(-1)^{\alpha+1}k_{F}+p_{y}}^{\dagger}\gamma_{j,(-1)^{\alpha+1}k_{F}+p_{y}} (S19)

where vv is the corresponding Fermi velocity, which generally depends on kFk_{F}.

We now briefly review the procedure of bosonization (see also Ref. Von Delft and Schoeller (1998)). To perform bosonization, we expand the electron operators near the Fermi points,

dj,α,pγj,(1)α+1kF+p\displaystyle d_{j,\alpha,p}\approx\gamma_{j,(-1)^{\alpha+1}k_{F}+p} (S20)

and introduce the corresponding “left” (α=2)(\alpha=2) and “right”-moving (α=1)(\alpha=1) electrons in the conventional bosonization language

ψj,α(r)2πLpeiprdj,α,p,dj,α,p=12πLL/2L/2ψj,α(r)eipr𝑑r\displaystyle\psi_{j,\alpha}(r)\approx\sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{L}}\sum_{p}e^{ipr}d_{j,\alpha,p},\quad d_{j,\alpha,p}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi L}}\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}\psi_{j,\alpha}(r)e^{-ipr}dr (S21)

L=NyaL=N_{y}a is the length of the wire along the yy direction, with NyN_{y} the number of sites in each wire and aa the lattice spacing. Here we have taken the continuum limit and used the identity

peipr=Lδ(r),|r|<L/2\displaystyle\sum_{p}e^{ipr}=L\delta(r),\quad|r|<L/2 (S22)

The commutation relations are

{ψj,α(r),ψj,α(r)}=2πδjα,jαδ(rr)\displaystyle\{\psi_{j,\alpha}(r),\psi_{j^{\prime},\alpha^{\prime}}^{\dagger}(r^{\prime})\}=2\pi\delta_{j\alpha,j^{\prime}\alpha^{\prime}}\delta(r-r^{\prime}) (S23)

We now briefly review the bosonization procedure. We first introduce bb bosons that describe particle-hole fluctuations

bj,α,q=inqkdj,α,k+(1)α+1qdj,α,k,bj,α,q=inqkdj,α,k(1)α+1qdj,α,k\displaystyle b_{j,\alpha,q}^{\dagger}=\frac{i}{\sqrt{n_{q}}}\sum_{k}d_{j,\alpha,k+(-1)^{\alpha+1}q}^{\dagger}d_{j,\alpha,k},\quad b_{j,\alpha,q}=\frac{-i}{\sqrt{n_{q}}}\sum_{k}d_{j,\alpha,k-(-1)^{\alpha+1}q}^{\dagger}d_{j,\alpha,k} (S24)

where q=2πLnqq=\frac{2\pi}{L}{n_{q}}, with nq+n_{q}\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}. We also introduce the filling operator

Nj,α=k:dj,α,kdj,α,k\displaystyle N_{j,\alpha}=\sum_{k}:d_{j,\alpha,k}^{\dagger}d_{j,\alpha,k} (S25)

where the :::: denote normal ordering with respect to the non-interacting ground state

:dj,α,kdj,α,k:=dj,α,kdj,α,kϕ((1)α+1k)\displaystyle:d_{j,\alpha,k}^{\dagger}d_{j,\alpha,k}:=d_{j,\alpha,k}^{\dagger}d_{j,\alpha,k}-\phi((-1)^{\alpha+1}k) (S26)

Combining the bb fields and NN fields gives the boson field

Φj,α(r)=q>01nq(ei(1)α+1qrbj,α,q+ei(1)α+1qrbj,α,q)eaq/22π(1)α+1LNj,αr\displaystyle\Phi_{j,\alpha}(r)=-\sum_{q>0}\frac{1}{\sqrt{n_{q}}}\bigg(e^{i(-1)^{\alpha+1}qr}b_{j,\alpha,q}+e^{-i(-1)^{\alpha+1}qr}b^{\dagger}_{j,\alpha,q}\bigg)e^{-aq/2}-\frac{2\pi(-1)^{\alpha+1}}{L}N_{j,\alpha}r (S27)

The boson fields satisfy the commutation relation

[Φj,α(r),Φj,α(r)]δjα,jα(iπ)(1)α+1sgn(rr)\displaystyle[\Phi_{j,\alpha}(r),\Phi_{j^{\prime},\alpha^{\prime}}(r^{\prime})]\approx\delta_{j\alpha,j^{\prime}\alpha^{\prime}}(i\pi)(-1)^{\alpha+1}\text{sgn}(r-r^{\prime}) (S28)

To recover fermionic statistics in bosonization, we introduce the Klein factor, which satisfies

{Fj,α,Fj,α}=2δjα,jα,Fj,αFj,α=Fj,αFj,α=1,jαjα\displaystyle\{F_{j,\alpha}^{\dagger},F_{j^{\prime},\alpha^{\prime}}\}=2\delta_{j\alpha,j^{\prime}\alpha^{\prime}},\quad F_{j,\alpha}^{\dagger}F_{j,\alpha}=F_{j,\alpha}F_{j,\alpha}^{\dagger}=1,\quad j\alpha\neq j^{\prime}\alpha^{\prime}
{Fj,α,Fj,α}={Fj,α,Fj,α}=0\displaystyle\{F_{j,\alpha},F_{j^{\prime},\alpha^{\prime}}\}=\{F^{\dagger}_{j,\alpha},F^{\dagger}_{j^{\prime},\alpha^{\prime}}\}=0
[Fj,α,Nj,α]=δjα,jαFj,α\displaystyle[F_{j,\alpha},N_{j^{\prime},\alpha^{\prime}}]=-\delta_{j\alpha,j^{\prime}\alpha^{\prime}}F_{j,\alpha} (S29)

We now use the following bosonization identity

ψj,α(r)=Fj,α1aeiΦj,α(r)\displaystyle\psi_{j,\alpha}(r)=F_{j,\alpha}\frac{1}{\sqrt{a}}e^{-i\Phi_{j,\alpha}(r)}
12π:ψj,α(r)ψj,α(r):=(1)α+1(1)12πrΦj,α(r)\displaystyle\frac{1}{2\pi}:\psi_{j,\alpha}^{\dagger}(r)\psi_{j,\alpha}(r):=(-1)^{\alpha+1}(-1)\frac{1}{2\pi}\partial_{r}\Phi_{j,\alpha}(r) (S30)

The non-interacting Hamiltonian of each wire, Eq. S19, now reads

Hj,0=L/2L/2dr2παv2[rΦj,α(r)]2\displaystyle H_{j,0}=\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}\frac{dr}{2\pi}\sum_{\alpha}\frac{v}{2}[\partial_{r}\Phi_{j,\alpha}(r)]^{2} (S31)

III Sliding Luttinger liquid

Within the wire construction, we start from a sliding Luttinger liquid phase and analyze how different interaction terms generate instabilities toward distinct quantum phases. The sliding Luttinger liquid phase is described by a free boson theory whose action includes the non-interacting term and forward scattering. From Eq. S31, the free Hamiltonian takes the form

H0=jL/2L/2dr2παv2[rΦj,α(r)]2\displaystyle H_{0}=\sum_{j}\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}\frac{dr}{2\pi}\sum_{\alpha}\frac{v}{2}[\partial_{r}\Phi_{j,\alpha}(r)]^{2} (S32)

The generic forward scattering term can be written as

Hforward=L/2L/2dr2πVjj,α,αrΦj,α(r)rΦj,α(r)\displaystyle H_{forward}=\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}\frac{dr}{2\pi}V_{j-j^{\prime},\alpha,\alpha^{\prime}}\partial_{r}\Phi_{j,\alpha}(r)\partial_{r}\Phi_{j^{\prime},\alpha^{\prime}}(r) (S33)

The Hamiltonian of the sliding Luttinger liquid then reads

HSLL=H0+Hforward\displaystyle H_{SLL}=H_{0}+H_{forward} (S34)

It is also convenient to introduce a new set of fields,

θj(r)=12[Φj,1(r)+Φj,2(r)],ϕj(r)=12[Φj,1(r)Φj,2(r)]\displaystyle\theta_{j}(r)=\frac{1}{{2}}[\Phi_{j,1}(r)+\Phi_{j,2}(r)],\quad\phi_{j}(r)=\frac{1}{{2}}[\Phi_{j,1}(r)-\Phi_{j,2}(r)] (S35)

which obey the commutation relation, from Eq. S28,

[θj(r),ϕj(r)]=12iπsgn(rr)\displaystyle[\theta_{j}(r),\phi_{j}(r^{\prime})]=\frac{1}{2}i\pi\text{sgn}(r-r^{\prime}) (S36)

In the new basis, we find

HSLL=\displaystyle H_{SLL}= L/2L/2dr2πj,j[vδj,j(rθj(r)rθj(r)+rϕj(r)rϕj(r))+[rθj(r)rϕj(r)]V~jj[rθj(r)rϕj(r)]]\displaystyle\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}\frac{dr}{2\pi}\sum_{j,j^{\prime}}\bigg[v\delta_{j,j^{\prime}}\bigg(\partial_{r}\theta_{j}(r)\partial_{r}\theta_{j^{\prime}}(r)+\partial_{r}\phi_{j}(r)\partial_{r}\phi_{j^{\prime}}(r)\bigg)+\begin{bmatrix}\partial_{r}\theta_{j}(r)&\partial_{r}\phi_{j}(r)\end{bmatrix}\tilde{V}_{j-j^{\prime}}\begin{bmatrix}\partial_{r}\theta_{j^{\prime}}(r)\\ \partial_{r}\phi_{j^{\prime}}(r)\end{bmatrix}\bigg] (S37)

where

V~jj=[1111]Vjj[1111]\displaystyle\tilde{V}_{j-j^{\prime}}=\begin{bmatrix}1&1\\ 1&-1\end{bmatrix}\cdot V_{j-j^{\prime}}\cdot\begin{bmatrix}1&1\\ 1&-1\end{bmatrix} (S38)

Finally, the action form of the SLL phase is

SSLL=\displaystyle S_{SLL}= 2iL/2L/2dr2π𝑑τjrϕj(r)τθj(r)\displaystyle 2i\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}\frac{dr}{2\pi}d\tau\sum_{j}\partial_{r}\phi_{j}(r)\partial_{\tau}\theta_{j}(r)
+τL/2L/2dr2πj,j[vδj,j(rθj(r,τ)rθj(r,τ)+rϕj(r)rϕj(r))\displaystyle+\int_{\tau}\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}\frac{dr}{2\pi}\sum_{j,j^{\prime}}\bigg[v\delta_{j,j^{\prime}}\bigg(\partial_{r}\theta_{j}(r,\tau)\partial_{r}\theta_{j^{\prime}}(r,\tau)+\partial_{r}\phi_{j}(r)\partial_{r}\phi_{j^{\prime}}(r)\bigg)
+τL/2L/2dr2π[rθj(r)rϕj(r)]V~jj[rθj(r)rϕj(r)]]\displaystyle+\int_{\tau}\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}\frac{dr}{2\pi}\begin{bmatrix}\partial_{r}\theta_{j}(r)&\partial_{r}\phi_{j}(r)\end{bmatrix}\tilde{V}_{j-j^{\prime}}\begin{bmatrix}\partial_{r}\theta_{j^{\prime}}(r)\\ \partial_{r}\phi_{j^{\prime}}(r)\end{bmatrix}\bigg] (S39)

III.1 Interactions

We now discuss interactions. Generic interactions beyond forward scattering can be written as

m[ψj+m,1]smR[ψj+m,2]smL\displaystyle\prod_{m}[\psi_{j+m,1}]^{s_{m}^{R}}[\psi_{j+m,2}]^{s_{m}^{L}} (S40)

where smR/Ls_{m}^{R/L} are integer numbers. Additionally, we let

[ψj,α]s={n=1|s|ψj,α(r+δrn)s>0n=1|s|ψj,α(r+δrn)s<0\displaystyle[\psi_{j,\alpha}]^{s}=\begin{cases}\prod_{n=1}^{|s|}\psi_{j,\alpha}(r+\delta r_{n})&s>0\\ \prod_{n=1}^{|s|}\psi^{\dagger}_{j,\alpha}(r+\delta r_{n})&s<0\end{cases} (S41)

where a negative power indicates a creation operator. A small displacement δrn\delta r_{n} is introduced to avoid acting with two creation or annihilation operators at the same position. The charge conservation of the system imposes a constraint on the allowed interactions

msmR+smL=0\displaystyle\sum_{m}s_{m}^{R}+s_{m}^{L}=0 (S42)

while momentum conservation requires

m(smRsmL)kF2π\displaystyle\sum_{m}\bigg(s_{m}^{R}-s_{m}^{L}\bigg)k_{F}\in 2\pi\mathbb{Z} (S43)

Because of the lattice structure, momentum conservation is required only modulo 2π2\pi.

In terms of the bosonized fields, Eq. S40 can be represented by the generic interaction vertex

Vj{smR,smL}(r)=eim(smR+smL)θj+m(r)im(smRsmL)ϕj+m(r)\displaystyle V^{\{s_{m}^{R},s_{m}^{L}\}}_{j}(r)=e^{-i\sum_{m}(s_{m}^{R}+s_{m}^{L})\theta_{j+m}(r)-i\sum_{m}(s_{m}^{R}-s_{m}^{L})\phi_{j+m}(r)} (S44)

IV FCI within the wire construction

In this section, we briefly review the properties of the FCI phase within the wire construction at filling fraction ν=1/3\nu=1/3.

We focus on filling ν=1/3\nu=1/3, where an FCI instability can develop and gap out the bulk excitations of the SLL phase. We first introduce the particle-hole operator

Oj(r)=ψj,1ψj,2\displaystyle O_{j}(r)=\psi_{j,1}^{\dagger}\psi_{j,2} (S45)

The FCI phase is stabilized by the following correlated hopping interaction (see Ref. Kane et al. (2002) for detailed discussions)

HFCI=\displaystyle H_{FCI}= L/2L/2dr2πgFCIa3[ψj,1(r)[Oj(r+a)][Oj+1(r+a)]ψj+1,2(r)e2ikF(δr1+δr2)+h.c.]\displaystyle\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}\frac{dr}{2\pi}g_{FCI}a^{3}\bigg[\psi_{j,1}^{\dagger}(r)[O_{j}(r+a)][O_{j+1}(r+a)]\psi_{j+1,2}(r)e^{-2ik_{F}(\delta r_{1}+\delta r_{2})}+\text{h.c.}\bigg]
\displaystyle\approx L/2L/2dr2πgFCI[[Fj,1]2Fj,2Fj+1,1[Fj+1,2]2ei[θj(r)+3ϕj(r)θj+1(r)+3ϕj+1(r)]+h.c.]\displaystyle\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}\frac{dr}{2\pi}g_{FCI}\bigg[[F_{j,1}^{\dagger}]^{2}F_{j,2}F_{j+1,1}^{\dagger}[F_{j+1,2}]^{2}e^{i\bigg[\theta_{j}(r)+3\phi_{j}(r)-\theta_{j+1}(r)+3\phi_{j+1}(r)\bigg]}+\text{h.c.}\bigg] (S46)

where gFCIg_{FCI} is the coupling strength. Here aa denotes a small displacement, which is omitted in the bosonized theory. The oscillating factor of this coupling term is equal to 11

ei2(2kF)ai2kFa=ei6kFa=ei2π=1\displaystyle e^{i2(-2k_{F})a-i2k_{F}a}=e^{-i6k_{F}a}=e^{i2\pi}=1 (S47)

IV.1 Properties of the FCI phase

We briefly discuss the properties of the FCI phase. It is useful to introduce

Φ~j,1(r)=2Φj,1(r)Φj,2(r)=θj(r)+3ϕj(r),Φ~j,2(r)=2Φj,2(r)Φj,1(r)=θj(r)3ϕj(r)\displaystyle\tilde{\Phi}_{j,1}(r)=2\Phi_{j,1}(r)-\Phi_{j,2}(r)=\theta_{j}(r)+3\phi_{j}(r),\quad\tilde{\Phi}_{j,2}(r)=2\Phi_{j,2}(r)-\Phi_{j,1}(r)=\theta_{j}(r)-3\phi_{j}(r) (S48)

and

ϕjFCI(r)=12[Φ~j,1(r)Φ~j+1,2(r)]=12[θj(r)θj+1(r)+3ϕj(r)+3ϕj+1(r)]\displaystyle{\phi}^{FCI}_{j}(r)=\frac{1}{2}[\tilde{\Phi}_{j,1}(r)-\tilde{\Phi}_{j+1,2}(r)]=\frac{1}{2}[\theta_{j}(r)-\theta_{j+1}(r)+3\phi_{j}(r)+3\phi_{j+1}(r)]
θjFCI(r)=16[Φ~j,1(r)+Φ~j+1,2(r)]=16[θj(r)+θj+1(r)+3ϕj(r)3ϕj+1(r)]\displaystyle{\theta}^{FCI}_{j}(r)=\frac{1}{6}[\tilde{\Phi}_{j,1}(r)+\tilde{\Phi}_{j+1,2}(r)]=\frac{1}{6}[\theta_{j}(r)+\theta_{j+1}(r)+3\phi_{j}(r)-3\phi_{j+1}(r)] (S49)

which leads to

[θjFCI(r),ϕjFCI(r)]=δj,jiπ2sgn(rr)\displaystyle[{\theta}^{FCI}_{j}(r),{\phi}^{FCI}_{j^{\prime}}(r^{\prime})]=\delta_{j,j^{\prime}}\frac{i\pi}{2}\text{sgn}(r-r^{\prime}) (S50)

The inverse transformation reads

θj(r)=12[3θjFCI(r)+3θj1FCI(r)+ϕjFCI(r)ϕj1FCI(r)]\displaystyle\theta_{j}(r)=\frac{1}{2}[3{\theta}^{FCI}_{j}(r)+3{\theta}^{FCI}_{j-1}(r)+{\phi}^{FCI}_{j}(r)-{\phi}^{FCI}_{j-1}(r)]
ϕj(r)=16[3θjFCI(r)3θj1FCI(r)+ϕjFCI(r)+ϕj1FCI(r)]\displaystyle\phi_{j}(r)=\frac{1}{6}[3{\theta}^{FCI}_{j}(r)-3{\theta}^{FCI}_{j-1}(r)+{\phi}^{FCI}_{j}(r)+{\phi}^{FCI}_{j-1}(r)] (S51)

With this new set of fields, the interaction term takes a simple form

HFCI=L/2L/2dr2πgFCI{[Fj,1]2Fj,2Fj+1,1[Fj+1,2]2ei2ϕjFCI(r)+h.c.}\displaystyle H_{FCI}=\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}\frac{dr}{2\pi}g_{FCI}\bigg\{[F_{j,1}^{\dagger}]^{2}F_{j,2}F_{j+1,1}^{\dagger}[F_{j+1,2}]^{2}e^{i2{\phi}^{FCI}_{j}(r)}+\text{h.c.}\bigg\} (S52)

Taking the case of gFCI<0g_{FCI}<0, the FCI phase is characterized by

ϕjFCI(r)π\displaystyle{\phi}^{FCI}_{j}(r)\in\pi\mathbb{Z} (S53)

which gaps out the bulk states.

One property of the FCI phase is the presence of fractionalized excitations. We consider the excitation created by eiθjFCI(r)e^{i\theta^{FCI}_{j}(r)}. From the commutation relation, we find

eiθjFCI(r)ϕjFCI(r)eiθjFCI(r)=ϕjFCI(r)δj,jπ2sgn(rr)\displaystyle e^{-i{\theta}^{FCI}_{j}(r)}\phi^{FCI}_{j^{\prime}}(r^{\prime})e^{i{\theta}^{FCI}_{j}(r)}=\phi^{FCI}_{j^{\prime}}(r^{\prime})-\delta_{j,j^{\prime}}\frac{\pi}{2}\text{sgn}(r-r^{\prime}) (S54)

Therefore, we consider a FCI ground state described by

|ϕ0FCI\displaystyle|{\phi}^{FCI}_{0}\rangle (S55)

for which

ϕjFCI(r)|ϕ0FCI=ϕ0FCI|ϕ0FCI,ϕ0π\displaystyle{\phi}^{FCI}_{j}(r)|\phi^{FCI}_{0}\rangle={\phi}^{FCI}_{0}|\phi^{FCI}_{0}\rangle,\quad\phi_{0}\in\pi\mathbb{Z} (S56)

Acting with eiθFCIe^{i\theta^{FCI}} on the ground state creates a domain wall in the ϕFCI\phi^{FCI} fields

ϕjFCI(r)(eiθjFCI(r)|ϕ0FCI)=[ϕ0FCIπ2sgn(rr)](eiθ~j(r)|ϕ0FCI)\displaystyle{\phi}^{FCI}_{j}(r)\bigg(e^{i{\theta}^{FCI}_{j}(r)}|\phi_{0}^{FCI}\rangle\bigg)=\bigg[{\phi}^{FCI}_{0}-\frac{\pi}{2}\text{sgn}(r-r^{\prime})\bigg]\bigg(e^{i\tilde{\theta}_{j}(r)}|\phi^{FCI}_{0}\rangle\bigg) (S57)

Therefore, using Eq. S57, the charge carried by such a domain wall is

Q(eiθjFCI(r)|ϕ0FCI)=\displaystyle Q\bigg(e^{i{\theta}^{FCI}_{j}(r)}|\phi_{0}^{FCI}\rangle\bigg)= dr2πα,j:ψj,α(r)ψj,α(r)(eiθjFCI(r)|ϕ0FCI)\displaystyle\int\frac{dr}{2\pi}\sum_{\alpha,j}:\psi_{j,\alpha}^{\dagger}(r)\psi_{j,\alpha}(r)\bigg(e^{i{\theta}^{FCI}_{j}(r)}|\phi_{0}^{FCI}\rangle\bigg)
\displaystyle\approx r2dr2πjrϕj(r)(eiθjFCI(r)|ϕ0FCI)\displaystyle-\int_{r}\frac{2dr}{2\pi}\sum_{j^{\prime}}\partial_{r}\phi_{j^{\prime}}(r)\bigg(e^{i{\theta}^{FCI}_{j}(r)}|\phi_{0}^{FCI}\rangle\bigg)
\displaystyle\approx 13(eiθjFCI(r)|ϕ0FCI)\displaystyle\frac{1}{3}\bigg(e^{i{\theta}^{FCI}_{j}(r)}|\phi_{0}^{FCI}\rangle\bigg) (S58)

which is the expected charge 1/31/3.

IV.2 Edge mode

We also analyze the edge mode. We start from the commutation relation of the bosonic fields

[Φj1,α1(r),Φj2,α2(r)]=iπ[K0]j1α1,j2α2sgn(rr)\displaystyle[\Phi_{j_{1},\alpha_{1}}(r),\Phi_{j_{2},\alpha_{2}}(r^{\prime})]=i\pi[K_{0}]_{j_{1}\alpha_{1},j_{2}\alpha_{2}}\text{sgn}(r-r^{\prime}) (S59)

where the matrix K0K_{0} encodes the commutation relation

[K0]j1α1,j2α2=δj1α1,j2α2(1)α1+1\displaystyle[K_{0}]_{j_{1}\alpha_{1},j_{2}\alpha_{2}}=\delta_{j_{1}\alpha_{1},j_{2}\alpha_{2}}(-1)^{\alpha_{1}+1} (S60)

The FCI field is characterized by the vector ljl_{j}

2ϕjFCI(r)=j,α[lj]j,αΦj,α(r)\displaystyle 2\phi_{j}^{FCI}(r)=\sum_{j^{\prime},\alpha^{\prime}}[l_{j}]_{j^{\prime},\alpha^{\prime}}\Phi_{j^{\prime},\alpha^{\prime}}(r) (S61)

where

[lj]j,α=2δj,jδα,1δj,jδα,22δj,j+1δα,2+δj,j+1δα,1\displaystyle[l_{j}]_{j^{\prime},\alpha^{\prime}}=2\delta_{j^{\prime},j}\delta_{\alpha^{\prime},1}-\delta_{j^{\prime},j}\delta_{\alpha^{\prime},2}-2\delta_{j^{\prime},j+1}\delta_{\alpha^{\prime},2}+\delta_{j^{\prime},j+1}\delta_{\alpha^{\prime},1} (S62)

It is straightforward to show that

ljTK0lj=0\displaystyle l_{j}^{T}\cdot K_{0}\cdot l_{j^{\prime}}=0 (S63)

indicating the commuting nature of the FCI fields.

We next impose open boundary conditions for NxN_{x} wires and examine the edge mode. The condensing fields are then characterized by

LOBC={l1,,lNx1}\displaystyle L_{OBC}=\{l_{1},...,l_{N_{x}-1}\} (S64)

where the term crossing the boundary must be cut. There are additional boson modes that commute with the condensing modes. We thus seek a mode characterized by η\eta, with Φedge(r)=l,α[η]lαΦlα(r)\Phi^{edge}(r)=\sum_{l^{\prime},\alpha^{\prime}}[\eta]_{l^{\prime}\alpha^{\prime}}\Phi_{l^{\prime}\alpha^{\prime}}(r), satisfying

ηTK0lj=0,ljLOBC\displaystyle\eta^{T}\cdot K_{0}\cdot l_{j}=0,\quad\forall l_{j}\in L_{OBC} (S65)

To obtain a well-defined vertex operator describing the edge, η\eta must be an integer vector.

For the FCI case, such modes can be obtained directly

Φ1edge(r)=\displaystyle\Phi^{edge}_{1}(r)= Φj=1,1(r)2Φj=1,2(r)\displaystyle\Phi_{j=1,1}(r)-2\Phi_{j=1,2}(r)
Φ2edge(r)=\displaystyle\Phi^{edge}_{2}(r)= 2Φj=Nx1,1(r)Φj=Nx1,2(r)\displaystyle 2\Phi_{j={N_{x}-1},1}(r)-\Phi_{j={N_{x}-1},2}(r) (S66)

Their commutation relations are

[Φjedge(r),Φjedge(r)]=[Kedge]jjiπsgn(rr)\displaystyle[\Phi_{j}^{edge}(r),\Phi_{j^{\prime}}^{edge}(r^{\prime})]=[K^{edge}]_{jj^{\prime}}i\pi\text{sgn}(r-r^{\prime}) (S67)

where

[Kedge]=[33]\displaystyle[K^{edge}]=\begin{bmatrix}-3&\\ &3\end{bmatrix} (S68)

It is usually convenient to introduce the normalized fields

θ1edge(r)=13Φ1edge,θ2edge(r)=13Φ2edge\displaystyle\theta_{1}^{edge}(r)=\frac{1}{3}\Phi_{1}^{edge},\quad\theta_{2}^{edge}(r)=\frac{1}{3}\Phi_{2}^{edge} (S69)

We now examine the edge Hamiltonian. The commutation relation uniquely fixes the Berry-phase part to be

S0edge=dr2π12j=1,2(1)j3τθjedge(r,τ)rθjedge(r,τ)\displaystyle S_{0}^{edge}=\int\frac{dr}{2\pi}\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1,2}(-1)^{j}3\partial_{\tau}\theta_{j}^{edge}(r,\tau)\partial_{r}\theta_{j}^{edge}(r,\tau) (S70)

There is also a non-interacting part, which can be written generically as

Sfreeedge=dr2πjvj2[rθjedge(r,τ)]2\displaystyle S_{free}^{edge}=\int\frac{dr}{2\pi}\sum_{j}\frac{v_{j}}{2}[\partial_{r}\theta_{j}^{edge}(r,\tau)]^{2} (S71)

Together, these terms give the conventional edge theory S0edge+SfreeedgeS_{0}^{edge}+S_{free}^{edge} of the chiral boson.

IV.3 aFCI instabilities

As pointed out in Ref. Shavit and Oreg (2024), another term closely related to the FCI term can exist in lattice Chern bands. This term is absent in the conventional continuum electron-gas system (see also Eq. S43). The corresponding interaction that stabilizes the aFCI phase reads

HaFCI\displaystyle H_{aFCI}\approx L/2L/2dr2πgaFCI[[Fj,1][Fj,2]2[Fj+1,1]2[Fj+1,2]ei[θj(r)+3ϕj(r)+θj+1(r)+3ϕj+1(r)]+h.c.]\displaystyle\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}\frac{dr}{2\pi}g_{aFCI}\bigg[[F_{j,1}^{\dagger}][F_{j,2}]^{2}[F_{j+1,1}^{\dagger}]^{2}[F_{j+1,2}]e^{i\bigg[-\theta_{j}(r)+3\phi_{j}(r)+\theta_{j+1}(r)+3\phi_{j+1}(r)\bigg]}+\text{h.c.}\bigg] (S72)

V Microscopic origin of the FCI interactions and aFCI interactions

We discuss the microscopic origin of the FCI and aFCI interactions.

We start from on-site repulsions between electrons in different orbitals. In the original orbital basis, we have

HU=1Nk,k,p,j,αUcj,k+p,αcj,k,αcj,k,3αcj,k+p,3α\displaystyle H_{U}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k,k^{\prime},p,j,\alpha}Uc_{j,k+p,\alpha}^{\dagger}c_{j,k,\alpha}c_{j,k^{\prime},3-\alpha}^{\dagger}c_{j,k^{\prime}+p,3-\alpha} (S73)

where jj is the wire index, k,p,kk,p,k^{\prime} are momenta along the yy direction, and α\alpha denotes the orbital component.

We then project the electrons to the band-basis operators near the Fermi surface. The band-basis operator is defined as (see also Eq. S16)

γj,k=αuk,αcj,k,α\displaystyle\gamma_{j,k}^{\dagger}=\sum_{\alpha}u_{k,\alpha}c^{\dagger}_{j,k,\alpha} (S74)

with up,αu_{p,\alpha} the Bloch wave function (see Eq. S16).

We are particularly interested in the following channels, which are relevant for FCI phase formation

HUproj1Np1,p2,p3,α,αU~α,αp1,p2,p3γj,(1)α+1kF+p1γj,(1)α+1kF+p2γj,(1)αkF+p3cj,3(1)α+1kF+p4,αδp1+p2,p3+p4+h.c.\displaystyle H_{U}^{proj}\approx\frac{1}{N}\sum_{p_{1},p_{2},p_{3},\alpha,\alpha^{\prime}}\tilde{U}^{p_{1},p_{2},p_{3}}_{\alpha,\alpha^{\prime}}\gamma_{j,(-1)^{\alpha+1}k_{F}+p_{1}}^{\dagger}\gamma_{j,(-1)^{\alpha+1}k_{F}+p_{2}}^{\dagger}\gamma_{j,(-1)^{\alpha}k_{F}+p_{3}}c_{j,3(-1)^{\alpha+1}k_{F}+p_{4},\alpha^{\prime}}\delta_{p_{1}+p_{2},p_{3}+p_{4}}+\text{h.c.} (S75)

where p1,p2,p3,p4p_{1},p_{2},p_{3},p_{4} denote small momenta near the Fermi surface. The projected interaction takes the form

U~α,αp1,p2,p3,p4Uγu(1)α+1kF+p1,γu(1)α+1kF+p2,3γ[δγ,αu(1)αkF+p3,3γδγ,3αu(1)αkF+p3,γ]\displaystyle\tilde{U}^{p_{1},p_{2},p_{3},p_{4}}_{\alpha,\alpha^{\prime}}\approx U\sum_{\gamma}u^{*}_{(-1)^{\alpha+1}k_{F}+p_{1},\gamma}u^{*}_{(-1)^{\alpha+1}k_{F}+p_{2},3-\gamma}[\delta_{\gamma,\alpha^{\prime}}u_{(-1)^{\alpha}k_{F}+p_{3},3-\gamma}-\delta_{\gamma,3-\alpha^{\prime}}u_{(-1)^{\alpha}k_{F}+p_{3},\gamma}] (S76)

Here we have assumed that three of the electron operators are near the Fermi energy. Two creation operators have momenta near (1)α+1kF(-1)^{\alpha+1}k_{F}, while one annihilation operator has momentum near (1)αkF(-1)^{\alpha}k_{F}. This leaves the fourth electron operator with momentum 3(1)α+1kF3(-1)^{\alpha+1}k_{F}, away from the Fermi energy, and it is therefore denoted by the original operator cc.

We now transform the γ\gamma electrons into real-space electron operators. Approximately, we have

γj,(1)α+1kF+p12πL𝑑rψj,α(r)eipr\displaystyle\gamma_{j,(-1)^{\alpha+1}k_{F}+p}\approx\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi L}}\int dr\psi_{j,\alpha}(r)e^{-ipr} (S77)

This leads to

HUproj1(2πL)3/2Np1p2p3,ααr1r2r3U~ααp1,p2,p3ψj,α(r1)ψj,α(r2)ψj,3α(r3)cj,3(1)α+1kF+p4,αδp1+p2,p3+p4eip1r1+ip2r2ip3r3\displaystyle H_{U}^{proj}\approx\frac{1}{(2\pi L)^{3/2}N}\sum_{p_{1}p_{2}p_{3},\alpha\alpha^{\prime}}\int_{r_{1}r_{2}r_{3}}\tilde{U}_{\alpha\alpha^{\prime}}^{p_{1},p_{2},p_{3}}\psi_{j,\alpha}^{\dagger}(r_{1})\psi_{j,\alpha}^{\dagger}(r_{2})\psi_{j,3-\alpha}(r_{3})c_{j,3(-1)^{\alpha+1}k_{F}+p_{4},\alpha^{\prime}}\delta_{p_{1}+p_{2},p_{3}+p_{4}}e^{ip_{1}r_{1}+ip_{2}r_{2}-ip_{3}r_{3}} (S78)

We consider a gradient expansion of the real-space interaction vertex. Approximately, we expand

U~ααp1p2p3U~αα000+[p1p1U~αα000+p2p2U~αα000]\displaystyle\tilde{U}^{p_{1}p_{2}p_{3}}_{\alpha\alpha^{\prime}}\approx\tilde{U}^{000}_{\alpha\alpha^{\prime}}+[p_{1}\partial_{p_{1}}\tilde{U}^{000}_{\alpha\alpha^{\prime}}+p_{2}\partial_{p_{2}}\tilde{U}^{000}_{\alpha\alpha^{\prime}}] (S79)

where the leading-order contribution vanishes because of fermionic anticommutation. The leading nonvanishing contribution thus comes from p1p1U~αα000+p2p2U~αα000p_{1}\partial_{p_{1}}\tilde{U}^{000}_{\alpha\alpha^{\prime}}+p_{2}\partial_{p_{2}}\tilde{U}^{000}_{\alpha\alpha^{\prime}}. In real space, this behaves as

HUproj\displaystyle H_{U}^{proj}\approx L2(2πL)3/2Np,ααr[(p1U~αα000ir)ψj,α(r)ψj,α(r)+ψj,α(r)(p2U~αα000ir)ψj,α(r)]ψj,3α(r)\displaystyle\frac{L^{2}}{(2\pi L)^{3/2}N}\sum_{p,\alpha\alpha^{\prime}}\int_{r}[(\partial_{p_{1}}\tilde{U}^{000}_{\alpha\alpha^{\prime}}i\partial_{r})\psi_{j,\alpha}^{\dagger}(r)\psi_{j,\alpha}^{\dagger}(r)+\psi_{j,\alpha}^{\dagger}(r)(\partial_{p_{2}}\tilde{U}^{000}_{\alpha\alpha^{\prime}}i\partial_{r})\psi_{j,\alpha}^{\dagger}(r)]\psi_{j,3-\alpha}(r)
cj,3(1)α+1kF+p,αeipr\displaystyle c_{j,3(-1)^{\alpha+1}k_{F}+p,\alpha^{\prime}}e^{ipr}
\displaystyle\approx L2(2πL)3/2Np,ααr[(p1U~αα000ir)(p2U~αα000ir)]ψj,α(r)ψj,α(r)ψj,3α(r)cj,3(1)α+1kF+p,αeipr\displaystyle\frac{L^{2}}{(2\pi L)^{3/2}N}\sum_{p,\alpha\alpha^{\prime}}\int_{r}\bigg[(\partial_{p_{1}}\tilde{U}^{000}_{\alpha\alpha^{\prime}}i\partial_{r})-(\partial_{p_{2}}\tilde{U}^{000}_{\alpha\alpha^{\prime}}i\partial_{r})\bigg]\psi_{j,\alpha}^{\dagger}(r)\psi_{j,\alpha}^{\dagger}(r)\psi_{j,3-\alpha}(r)c_{j,3(-1)^{\alpha+1}k_{F}+p,\alpha^{\prime}}e^{ipr} (S80)

We further approximate the real-space derivative by a small displacement characterized by the UV cutoff aa, and find

HUproj\displaystyle H_{U}^{proj}\approx L2(2πL)3/2Np,ααr1a[(p1U~αα000i)(p2U~αα000i)]ψj,α(r+a)ψj,α(r)ψj,3α(r)cj,3(1)α+1kF+p,αeipr\displaystyle\frac{L^{2}}{(2\pi L)^{3/2}N}\sum_{p,\alpha\alpha^{\prime}}\int_{r}\frac{1}{a}\bigg[(\partial_{p_{1}}\tilde{U}^{000}_{\alpha\alpha^{\prime}}i)-(\partial_{p_{2}}\tilde{U}^{000}_{\alpha\alpha^{\prime}}i)\bigg]\psi_{j,\alpha}^{\dagger}(r+a)\psi_{j,\alpha}^{\dagger}(r)\psi_{j,3-\alpha}(r)c_{j,3(-1)^{\alpha+1}k_{F}+p,\alpha^{\prime}}e^{ipr} (S81)

We now explicitly evaluate (p1U~αα000i)(p2U~αα000i)(\partial_{p_{1}}\tilde{U}^{000}_{\alpha\alpha^{\prime}}i)-(\partial_{p_{2}}\tilde{U}^{000}_{\alpha\alpha^{\prime}}i), with gauge choice given in Eq. S16. We first notice that (for ν=1/3\nu=1/3)

u±kF,γ=[3M6M2+2ty(ty3M2+ty2)ty+3M2+ty26M2+2ty(ty3M2+ty2)]γ\displaystyle u_{\pm k_{F},\gamma}=\begin{bmatrix}-\frac{\sqrt{3}M}{\sqrt{6M^{2}+2t_{y}(t_{y}\mp\sqrt{3M^{2}+t_{y}^{2}})}}&\frac{\mp t_{y}+\sqrt{3M^{2}+t_{y}^{2}}}{\sqrt{6M^{2}+2t_{y}(t_{y}\mp\sqrt{3M^{2}+t_{y}^{2}})}}\end{bmatrix}_{\gamma} (S82)

In practice, to ensure that only two Fermi points cross the Fermi level at each kxk_{x} for all fillings, we generically require M12tyM\geq\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}t_{y}. Without loss of generality, we may take M1M\sim 1, where we find |ukF,1|2/|ukF,2|2=|ukF,2|2/|ukF,1|23|u_{k_{F},1}|^{2}/|u_{k_{F},2}|^{2}=|u_{-k_{F},2}|^{2}/|u_{-k_{F},1}|^{2}\approx 3. This indicates that the electron near the Fermi energy is predominantly in one orbital flavor. We thus approximately let

ukF,γδγ,1,ukF,γδγ,2\displaystyle u_{k_{F},\gamma}\approx-\delta_{\gamma,1},\quad u_{-k_{F},\gamma}\approx\delta_{\gamma,2} (S83)

As for the derivative part, we need to evaluate

Wγ(p)=pup,γup,3γup,γpup,3γ=a(1)γ+1Mty/2(M2ty2)cos(pa)(M2+ty2)\displaystyle W_{\gamma}(p)=\partial_{p}u^{*}_{p,\gamma}u^{*}_{p,3-\gamma}-u^{*}_{p,\gamma}\partial_{p}u^{*}_{p,3-\gamma}=a(-1)^{\gamma+1}\frac{Mt_{y}/2}{(M^{2}-t_{y}^{2})\cos(pa)-(M^{2}+t_{y}^{2})} (S84)

and

Wγ(±kF)a(1)γ+1Mty3M2+ty2\displaystyle W_{\gamma}(\pm k_{F})\approx a(-1)^{\gamma+1}\frac{-Mt_{y}}{3M^{2}+t_{y}^{2}} (S85)

We then conclude from Eqs. S76, S83 and S84 that

(p1U~αα000i)(p2U~αα000i)=iUW1(kF)2δα,α\displaystyle(\partial_{p_{1}}\tilde{U}^{000}_{\alpha\alpha^{\prime}}i)-(\partial_{p_{2}}\tilde{U}^{000}_{\alpha\alpha^{\prime}}i)=iUW_{1}(k_{F})2\delta_{\alpha,\alpha^{\prime}} (S86)

Written in a compact format (by combining Eqs. S81 and S86), we have

HUprojU(2π)3/2aN2iW1(kF)αprψj,α(r+a)ψj,α(r)ψj,3α(r)cj,3(1)α+1kF+p4,αeipr+h.c.\displaystyle H_{U}^{proj}\approx\frac{U}{(2\pi)^{3/2}\sqrt{a}\sqrt{N}}2iW_{1}(k_{F})\sum_{\alpha}\sum_{p}\int_{r}\psi_{j,\alpha}^{\dagger}(r+a)\psi_{j,\alpha}^{\dagger}(r)\psi_{j,3-\alpha}(r)c_{j,3(-1)^{\alpha+1}k_{F}+p_{4},\alpha}e^{ipr}+\text{h.c.} (S87)

We then combine the projected interaction (Eq. S87) with the inter-wire hopping

Hinter=p[txcj,p,1cj+1,p,2+txcj,p,1cj1,p,2+h.c.]\displaystyle H_{inter}=\sum_{p}[t_{x}c_{j,p,1}^{\dagger}c_{j+1,p,2}+t_{x^{\prime}}c_{j,p,1}^{\dagger}c_{j-1,p,2}+\text{h.c.}] (S88)

Through a cumulant expansion, the third-order contribution to the action gives

Seff\displaystyle S_{eff}\approx 12τ1,τ2,τ3HUproj(τ1)Hinterproj(τ2)HUproj(τ3)>\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\int_{\tau_{1},\tau_{2},\tau_{3}}\langle H_{U}^{proj}(\tau_{1})H_{inter}^{proj}(\tau_{2})H_{U}^{proj}(\tau_{3})\rangle_{>}
\displaystyle\approx τ1,τ2,τ31224U2|W1(kF)|2(2π)3aNα,pr,rψj,α(r+a,τ1)ψj,α(r,τ1)ψj,3α(r,τ1)ψj,α(r,τ3)ψj,3α(r,τ3)ψj,3α(r+a,τ3)\displaystyle\int_{\tau_{1},\tau_{2},\tau_{3}}\frac{1}{2}2\frac{4U^{2}|W_{1}(k_{F})|^{2}}{(2\pi)^{3}aN}\sum_{\alpha,p}\int_{r,r^{\prime}}\psi_{j,\alpha}^{\dagger}(r+a,\tau_{1})\psi_{j,\alpha}^{\dagger}(r,\tau_{1})\psi_{j,3-\alpha}(r,\tau_{1})\psi_{j^{\prime},\alpha}^{\dagger}(r^{\prime},\tau_{3})\psi_{j^{\prime},3-\alpha}(r^{\prime},\tau_{3})\psi_{j^{\prime},3-\alpha}(r^{\prime}+a,\tau_{3})
eip(rr)cj,Q+p,α(τ1)cj,Q+p,α(τ2)cj,Q+p,3α(τ2)cj,Q+p,3α(τ3)(txδj,j+1δα,1+txδj,j1δα,2)+h.c.\displaystyle e^{ip(r-r^{\prime})}\langle c_{j,Q+p,\alpha}(\tau_{1})c_{j,Q+p,\alpha}^{\dagger}(\tau_{2})\rangle\langle c_{j^{\prime},Q+p,3-\alpha}(\tau_{2})c_{j^{\prime},Q+p,3-\alpha}^{\dagger}(\tau_{3})\rangle\bigg(t_{x}\delta_{j^{\prime},j+1}\delta_{\alpha,1}+t_{x}^{\prime}\delta_{j,j^{\prime}-1}\delta_{\alpha,2}\bigg)+\text{h.c.} (S89)

where >\langle\rangle_{>} indicates integration over high-energy electrons, i.e., electrons near Q=±3kF2π/aQ=\pm 3k_{F}\in 2\pi\mathbb{Z}/a. Let EHE_{H} be the energy of electrons near QQ, away from the Fermi energy. We then find

Seff\displaystyle S_{eff}\approx τ4U2|W1(kF)|2tx(2π)2EH2τdr2πψj,1(r+a,τ)ψj,1(r,τ)ψj,2(r,τ)ψj+1,1(r,τ)ψj+1,2(r,τ)ψj+1,2(r+a,τ)+h.c.\displaystyle\int_{\tau}\frac{4U^{2}|W_{1}(k_{F})|^{2}t_{x}}{(2\pi)^{2}E_{H}^{2}}\int_{\tau}\frac{dr}{2\pi}\psi_{j,1}^{\dagger}(r+a,\tau)\psi^{\dagger}_{j,1}(r,\tau)\psi_{j,2}(r,\tau)\psi_{j+1,1}^{\dagger}(r,\tau)\psi_{j+1,2}(r,\tau)\psi_{j+1,2}(r+a,\tau)+\text{h.c.}
+τ4U2|W1(kF)|2tx(2π)2EH2τdr2πψj,1(r+a,τ)ψj,1(r,τ)ψj,2(r,τ)ψj1,2(r,τ)ψj1,1(r,τ)ψj1,1(r+a,τ)+h.c.\displaystyle+\int_{\tau}\frac{4U^{2}|W_{1}(k_{F})|^{2}t_{x}^{\prime}}{(2\pi)^{2}E_{H}^{2}}\int_{\tau}\frac{dr}{2\pi}\psi_{j,1}^{\dagger}(r+a,\tau)\psi^{\dagger}_{j,1}(r,\tau)\psi_{j,2}(r,\tau)\psi_{j-1,2}^{\dagger}(r,\tau)\psi_{j-1,1}(r,\tau)\psi_{j-1,1}(r+a,\tau)+\text{h.c.} (S90)

The factor W1(kF)W_{1}(k_{F}) is related to the quantum geometry of the effective one-dimensional system along the yy direction. From the definition in Eq. S84, we observe the equality

|W1(p)|2=Qyy(p)\displaystyle|W_{1}(p)|^{2}=Q^{yy}(p) (S91)

with Qyy(p)Q^{yy}(p) the quantum geometry of the wire at momentum pp. Therefore, the effective coupling reads

Seff\displaystyle S_{eff}\approx τ4U2Qyy(kF)tx(2π)2EH2τdr2πψj,1(r+a,τ)ψj,1(r,τ)ψj,2(r,τ)ψj+1,1(r,τ)ψj+1,2(r,τ)ψj+1,2(r+a,τ)+h.c.\displaystyle\int_{\tau}\frac{4U^{2}Q^{yy}(k_{F})t_{x}}{(2\pi)^{2}E_{H}^{2}}\int_{\tau}\frac{dr}{2\pi}\psi_{j,1}^{\dagger}(r+a,\tau)\psi^{\dagger}_{j,1}(r,\tau)\psi_{j,2}(r,\tau)\psi_{j+1,1}^{\dagger}(r,\tau)\psi_{j+1,2}(r,\tau)\psi_{j+1,2}(r+a,\tau)+\text{h.c.}
+τ4U2Qyy(kF)tx(2π)2EH2τdr2πψj,1(r+a,τ)ψj,1(r,τ)ψj,2(r,τ)ψj1,2(r,τ)ψj1,1(r,τ)ψj1,1(r+a,τ)+h.c.\displaystyle+\int_{\tau}\frac{4U^{2}Q^{yy}(k_{F})t_{x}^{\prime}}{(2\pi)^{2}E_{H}^{2}}\int_{\tau}\frac{dr}{2\pi}\psi_{j,1}^{\dagger}(r+a,\tau)\psi^{\dagger}_{j,1}(r,\tau)\psi_{j,2}(r,\tau)\psi_{j-1,2}^{\dagger}(r,\tau)\psi_{j-1,1}(r,\tau)\psi_{j-1,1}(r+a,\tau)+\text{h.c.} (S92)

In the limit closest to the LLL, we have tx=0t_{x}^{\prime}=0. This produces the conventional interactions that stabilize the FCI phase, with

HFCI=dr2πgFCIa3ψj,1(r+a)ψj,1(r)ψj,2(r)ψj+1,1(r)ψj+1,2(r)ψj+1,2(r+a)+h.c.\displaystyle H_{FCI}=\int\frac{dr}{2\pi}g_{FCI}a^{3}\psi_{j,1}^{\dagger}(r+a)\psi^{\dagger}_{j,1}(r)\psi_{j,2}(r)\psi_{j+1,1}^{\dagger}(r)\psi_{j+1,2}(r)\psi_{j+1,2}(r+a)+\text{h.c.} (S93)

where

gFCIU2Qyy(kF)txEH2\displaystyle g_{FCI}\propto\frac{U^{2}Q^{yy}(k_{F})t_{x}}{E_{H}^{2}} (S94)

In terms of the boson fields, this gives

dr2πgFCI[[Fj,1]2Fj,2Fj+1,1[Fj+1,2]2ei[θj(r)+3ϕj(r)θj+1(r)+3ϕj+1(r)]+h.c.]\displaystyle\int\frac{dr}{2\pi}g_{FCI}\bigg[[F_{j,1}^{\dagger}]^{2}F_{j,2}F_{j+1,1}^{\dagger}[F_{j+1,2}]^{2}e^{i[\theta_{j}(r)+3\phi_{j}(r)-\theta_{j+1}(r)+3\phi_{j+1}(r)]}+\text{h.c.}\bigg] (S95)

However, a finite txt_{x}^{\prime} leads to another coupling, which we call aFCI, taking the form

HaFCI=dr2πgaFCIψj,1(r+a)ψj,1(r)ψj,2(r)ψj+1,1(r)ψj+1,2(r)ψj+1,2(r+a)+h.c.\displaystyle H_{aFCI}=\int\frac{dr}{2\pi}g_{aFCI}\psi_{j,1}^{\dagger}(r+a)\psi^{\dagger}_{j,1}(r)\psi_{j,2}(r)\psi_{j+1,1}^{\dagger}(r)\psi_{j+1,2}(r)\psi_{j+1,2}(r+a)+\text{h.c.} (S96)

with

gaFCIU2Q(kF)txEH2\displaystyle g_{aFCI}\propto\frac{U^{2}Q(k_{F})t_{x}^{\prime}}{E_{H}^{2}} (S97)

We remark that the existence of gaFCIg_{aFCI} is directly related to the quantum geometry of the system. When the system develops a strong quantum geometry as |tx||t_{x}^{\prime}| approaches |tx||t_{x}|, gaFCIg_{aFCI} naturally emerges and can become comparable in strength to gFCIg_{FCI}, making both FCI and aFCI correlations relevant perturbations.

VI Perturbative renormalization group analysis

Having established that both FCI and aFCI perturbations can be relevant to the low-energy physics of a system with strong quantum geometry, we study their interplay using perturbative RG.

VI.1 Superconducting and charge-density-wave correlations induced by FCI and aFCI couplings

We first focus on the effect of FCI and aFCI scattering. From Appendices IV and S72, the relevant couplings are

L/2L/2dr2π[gFCIκFCI,jeiΘjFCI(r)+gaFCIκaFCI,jeiΘjaFCI(r)+h.c.]\displaystyle\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}\frac{dr}{2\pi}\bigg[g_{FCI}\kappa_{FCI,j}e^{i\Theta_{j}^{FCI}(r)}+g_{aFCI}\kappa_{aFCI,j}e^{i\Theta_{j}^{aFCI}(r)}+\text{h.c.}\bigg] (S98)

where the corresponding bosonic fields are

ΘjFCI(r)=θj(r)+3ϕj(r)θj+1(r)+3ϕj+1(r)\displaystyle\Theta_{j}^{FCI}(r)=\theta_{j}(r)+3\phi_{j}(r)-\theta_{j+1}(r)+3\phi_{j+1}(r)
ΘjaFCI(r)=θj(r)+3ϕj(r)+θj+1(r)+3ϕj+1(r)\displaystyle\Theta_{j}^{aFCI}(r)=-\theta_{j}(r)+3\phi_{j}(r)+\theta_{j+1}(r)+3\phi_{j+1}(r) (S99)

and the Klein factors are

κFCI,j=[Fj,1]2Fj,2Fj+1,1[Fj+1,2]2\displaystyle\kappa_{FCI,j}=[F_{j,1}^{\dagger}]^{2}F_{j,2}F_{j+1,1}^{\dagger}[F_{j+1,2}]^{2}
κaFCI,j=[Fj,1][Fj,2]2[Fj+1,1]2[Fj+1,2]\displaystyle\kappa_{aFCI,j}=[F_{j,1}^{\dagger}][F_{j,2}]^{2}[F_{j+1,1}^{\dagger}]^{2}[F_{j+1,2}] (S100)

When the system develops both FCI and aFCI correlations, correlations are naturally generated in both the superconducting and charge-density-wave channels. This can be seen from the operator product expansion

:eiΘjFCI(Rr2)::eiΘjaFCI(R+r2):1|r|ΔFCI+ΔaFCIΔCDWeiΘjCDW(R)\displaystyle:e^{i\Theta_{j}^{FCI}(R-\frac{r}{2})}::e^{i\Theta_{j}^{aFCI}(R+\frac{r}{2})}:\sim\frac{1}{|r|^{\Delta^{FCI}+\Delta^{aFCI}-\Delta^{CDW}}}e^{i\Theta_{j}^{CDW}(R)}
:eiΘjFCI(Rr2)::eiΘjaFCI(R+r2):1|r|ΔFCI+ΔaFCIΔSCeiΘjSC(R)\displaystyle:e^{i\Theta_{j}^{FCI}(R-\frac{r}{2})}::e^{-i\Theta_{j}^{aFCI}(R+\frac{r}{2})}:\sim\frac{1}{|r|^{\Delta^{FCI}+\Delta^{aFCI}-\Delta^{SC}}}e^{i\Theta_{j}^{SC}(R)} (S101)

where we have introduced

ΘjCDW(r)=ΘjFCI(r)+ΘjaFCI(r)=6ϕj(r)+6ϕj+1(r)\displaystyle\Theta_{j}^{CDW}(r)=\Theta_{j}^{FCI}(r)+\Theta_{j}^{aFCI}(r)=6\phi_{j}(r)+6\phi_{j+1}(r)
ΘjSC(r)=ΘjFCI(r)ΘjaFCI(r)=2θj(r)2θj+1(r)\displaystyle\Theta_{j}^{SC}(r)=\Theta_{j}^{FCI}(r)-\Theta_{j}^{aFCI}(r)=2\theta_{j}(r)-2\theta_{j+1}(r) (S102)

where Δα\Delta^{\alpha} is the scaling dimension of Θjα(r)\Theta_{j}^{\alpha}(r).

To identify the nature of ΘCDW\Theta^{CDW} and ΘSC\Theta^{SC}, we consider the fermionic representation of the corresponding fields

eiΘjCDWOj3Oj+13,Oj=ψj,1ψj,2\displaystyle e^{i\Theta^{CDW}_{j}}\sim O_{j}^{3}O_{j+1}^{3},\quad O_{j}=\psi_{j,1}^{\dagger}\psi_{j,2}
eiΘjSCΔjΔj+1,Δj=ψj,1ψj,2\displaystyle e^{i\Theta^{SC}_{j}}\sim\Delta_{j}^{\dagger}\Delta_{j+1},\quad\Delta_{j}^{\dagger}=\psi_{j,1}^{\dagger}\psi_{j,2}^{\dagger} (S103)

Thus eiΘjCDWe^{i\Theta^{CDW}_{j}} describes phase locking between particle-hole operators on neighboring wires and stabilizes a CDW phase. By contrast, eiΘjSCe^{i\Theta^{SC}_{j}} takes the form of a Josephson coupling and describes phase locking between pairing fields on neighboring wires, thereby stabilizing an SC phase.

We therefore establish that, when both gFCIg_{FCI} and gaFCIg_{aFCI} are present, correlations in the CDW and SC channels naturally emerge. The corresponding interaction term can be written as

L/2L/2dr2π[gSCκSC,jeiΘjSC(r)+gCDWκCDW,jeiΘjCDW(r)+h.c.]\displaystyle\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}\frac{dr}{2\pi}\bigg[g_{SC}\kappa_{SC,j}e^{i\Theta_{j}^{SC}(r)}+g_{CDW}\kappa_{CDW,j}e^{i\Theta_{j}^{CDW}(r)}+\text{h.c.}\bigg] (S104)

where the Klein factors read

κjCDW=[Fj,1Fj,2]3[Fj+1,1Fj+1,2]3\displaystyle\kappa^{CDW}_{j}=[F_{j,1}^{\dagger}F_{j,2}]^{3}[F_{j+1,1}^{\dagger}F_{j+1,2}]^{3}
κjSC=Fj,1Fj,2Fj+1,2Fj+1,1\displaystyle\kappa^{SC}_{j}=F_{j,1}^{\dagger}F_{j,2}^{\dagger}F_{j+1,2}F_{j+1,1} (S105)

The final interactions considered below are

Hint=L/2L/2dr2πλ{FCI,aFCI,CDW,SC}jgλκλ,jeiΘjλ(r)+h.c.\displaystyle H_{int}=\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}\frac{dr}{2\pi}\sum_{\lambda\in\{FCI,aFCI,CDW,SC\}}\sum_{j}g_{\lambda}\kappa_{\lambda,j}e^{i\Theta_{j}^{\lambda}(r)}+\text{h.c.} (S106)

with

ΘjFCI(r)=θj(r)+3ϕj(r)θj+1(r)+3ϕj+1(r)\displaystyle\Theta_{j}^{FCI}(r)=\theta_{j}(r)+3\phi_{j}(r)-\theta_{j+1}(r)+3\phi_{j+1}(r)
ΘjaFCI(r)=θj(r)+3ϕj(r)+θj+1(r)+3ϕj+1(r)\displaystyle\Theta_{j}^{aFCI}(r)=-\theta_{j}(r)+3\phi_{j}(r)+\theta_{j+1}(r)+3\phi_{j+1}(r)
ΘjSC(r)=ΘjFCI(r)ΘjaFCI(r)=2θj(r)2θj+1(r)\displaystyle\Theta_{j}^{SC}(r)=\Theta_{j}^{FCI}(r)-\Theta_{j}^{aFCI}(r)=2\theta_{j}(r)-2\theta_{j+1}(r)
ΘjCDW(r)=ΘjFCI(r)+ΘjaFCI(r)=6ϕj(r)+6ϕj+1(r)\displaystyle\Theta_{j}^{CDW}(r)=\Theta_{j}^{FCI}(r)+\Theta_{j}^{aFCI}(r)=6\phi_{j}(r)+6\phi_{j+1}(r) (S107)

and

κFCI,j=[Fj,1]2Fj,2Fj+1,1[Fj+1,2]2\displaystyle\kappa_{FCI,j}=[F_{j,1}^{\dagger}]^{2}F_{j,2}F_{j+1,1}^{\dagger}[F_{j+1,2}]^{2}
κaFCI,j=[Fj,1][Fj,2]2[Fj+1,1]2[Fj+1,2]\displaystyle\kappa_{aFCI,j}=[F_{j,1}^{\dagger}][F_{j,2}]^{2}[F_{j+1,1}^{\dagger}]^{2}[F_{j+1,2}]
κjSC=Fj,1Fj,2Fj+1,2Fj+1,1\displaystyle\kappa^{SC}_{j}=F_{j,1}^{\dagger}F_{j,2}^{\dagger}F_{j+1,2}F_{j+1,1}
κjCDW=[Fj,1Fj,2]3[Fj+1,1Fj+1,2]3\displaystyle\kappa^{CDW}_{j}=[F_{j,1}^{\dagger}F_{j,2}]^{3}[F_{j+1,1}^{\dagger}F_{j+1,2}]^{3} (S108)

VI.2 Perturbative RG calculations

Following Ref. Shavit and Oreg (2024), we adopt a two-wire approximation, which is sufficient to capture the interplay among the different phases. Within the two-wire model, the system is described by two wires labeled by j=1,2j=1,2. We also impose open boundary conditions, so that the FCI and aFCI phases are stabilized by two independent scattering processes. In the two-wire limit, the bosonic fields can be written in even and odd bases

θe(r)=12(θ1(r)+θ2(r)),θo(r)=12(θ1(r)θ2(r))\displaystyle\theta_{e}(r)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\theta_{1}(r)+\theta_{2}(r)),\quad\theta_{o}(r)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\theta_{1}(r)-\theta_{2}(r))
ϕe(r)=12(ϕ1(r)+ϕ2(r)),ϕo(r)=12(ϕ1(r)ϕ2(r))\displaystyle\phi_{e}(r)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\phi_{1}(r)+\phi_{2}(r)),\quad\phi_{o}(r)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\phi_{1}(r)-\phi_{2}(r)) (S109)

The SLL Hamiltonian can be written in the compact form

HSLL=\displaystyle H_{SLL}= dr2π{ue[Ke[rθe(r)]2+1Ke[rϕe(r)]2]+uo[Ko[rθo(r)]2+1Ko[rϕo(r)]2]\displaystyle\int\frac{dr}{2\pi}\bigg\{u_{e}\bigg[K_{e}[\partial_{r}\theta_{e}(r)]^{2}+\frac{1}{K_{e}}[\partial_{r}\phi_{e}(r)]^{2}\bigg]+u_{o}\bigg[K_{o}[\partial_{r}\theta_{o}(r)]^{2}+\frac{1}{K_{o}}[\partial_{r}\phi_{o}(r)]^{2}\bigg]
+v1rθo(r)rϕe(r)+v2rθe(r)rϕo(r)}\displaystyle+v_{1}\partial_{r}\theta_{o}(r)\partial_{r}\phi_{e}(r)+v_{2}\partial_{r}\theta_{e}(r)\partial_{r}\phi_{o}(r)\bigg\} (S110)

where ue,uou_{e},u_{o} are velocities and Ke,KoK_{e},K_{o} are the Luttinger parameters of the two channels. The parameters v1,v2v_{1},v_{2} are additional symmetry-allowed couplings that can be induced during the RG flow. Microscopically, we consider an on-site repulsion (u0)(u_{0}) and an inter-wire repulsion (u1)(u_{1}) between electron densities with opposite chirality. This allows us to tune Ke,KoK_{e},K_{o} and gives v1=v2=0v_{1}=v_{2}=0. The interaction can be written as

dr2π12[u0δj,j+u1δj,j+1+u1δj,j1][ρj,1(r)ρj,2(r)+ρj,2(r)ρj,1(r)]\displaystyle\int\frac{dr}{2\pi}\frac{1}{2}\bigg[u_{0}\delta_{j,j^{\prime}}+u_{1}\delta_{j^{\prime},j+1}+u_{1}\delta_{j^{\prime},j-1}\bigg]\bigg[\rho_{j,1}(r)\rho_{j^{\prime},2}(r)+\rho_{j,2}(r)\rho_{j^{\prime},1}(r)\bigg] (S111)

where ρj,α(r)=:ψj,α(r)ψj,α(r):=(1)αrΦj,α(r)\rho_{j,\alpha}(r)=:\psi_{j,\alpha}^{\dagger}(r)\psi_{j,\alpha}(r):=(-1)^{\alpha}\partial_{r}\Phi_{j,\alpha}(r) denotes the density operator. Combining Eqs. S32 and S111 in terms of the bosonic fields, we obtain

HSLL=dr2π[(vu02u1)[rθe(r)]2+(v+u0+2u1)[rϕe(r)]2+(vu0+2u1)[rθo(r)]2+(v+u02u1)[rϕo(r)]2]\displaystyle H_{SLL}=\int\frac{dr}{2\pi}\bigg[(v-u_{0}-2u_{1})[\partial_{r}\theta_{e}(r)]^{2}+(v+u_{0}+2u_{1})[\partial_{r}\phi_{e}(r)]^{2}+(v-u_{0}+2u_{1})[\partial_{r}\theta_{o}(r)]^{2}+(v+u_{0}-2u_{1})[\partial_{r}\phi_{o}(r)]^{2}\bigg] (S112)

This leads to

ue=v2(u0+2u1)2,uo=v2(u02u1)2\displaystyle u_{e}=\sqrt{v^{2}-(u_{0}+2u_{1})^{2}},\quad u_{o}=\sqrt{v^{2}-(u_{0}-2u_{1})^{2}}
Ke=vu02u1v+u0+2u1,Ko=vu0+2u1v+u02u1\displaystyle K_{e}=\sqrt{\frac{v-u_{0}-2u_{1}}{v+u_{0}+2u_{1}}},\quad K_{o}=\sqrt{\frac{v-u_{0}+2u_{1}}{v+u_{0}-2u_{1}}} (S113)

In general, for repulsive interactions with u0>0,u1>0u_{0}>0,u_{1}>0, we expect

Ke<1\displaystyle K_{e}<1 (S114)

while KoK_{o} is determined by the sign of u02u1u_{0}-2u_{1}

{Ko<1u0>2u1Ko>1u0<2u1\displaystyle\begin{cases}K_{o}<1&u_{0}>2u_{1}\\ K_{o}>1&u_{0}<2u_{1}\end{cases} (S115)

Within the two-wire model, the boson fields in Appendix VI.1 read

ΘFCI(r)=2θo(r)+32ϕe(r)\displaystyle\Theta^{FCI}(r)=\sqrt{2}\theta_{o}(r)+3\sqrt{2}\phi_{e}(r)
ΘaFCI(r)=2θo(r)+32ϕe(r)\displaystyle\Theta^{aFCI}(r)=-\sqrt{2}\theta_{o}(r)+3\sqrt{2}\phi_{e}(r)
ΘSC(r)=22θo(r)\displaystyle\Theta^{SC}(r)=2\sqrt{2}\theta_{o}(r)
ΘCDW(r)=62ϕe(r)\displaystyle\Theta^{CDW}(r)=6\sqrt{2}\phi_{e}(r) (S116)

and the Klein factors in Appendix VI.1 read

κFCI=[Fj=1,1]2Fj=1,2Fj=2,1Fj=2,22\displaystyle\kappa^{FCI}=[F_{j=1,1}^{\dagger}]^{2}F_{j=1,2}F_{j=2,1}^{\dagger}F_{j=2,2}^{2}
κaFCI=Fj=1,1Fj=1,22[Fj=2,1]2Fj=2,2\displaystyle\kappa^{aFCI}=F_{j=1,1}^{\dagger}F_{j=1,2}^{2}[F_{j=2,1}^{\dagger}]^{2}F_{j=2,2}
κSC=Fj=1,1Fj=1,2Fj=2,2Fj=2,1\displaystyle\kappa^{SC}=F_{j=1,1}^{\dagger}F_{j=1,2}^{\dagger}F_{j=2,2}F_{j=2,1}
κCDW=[Fj=1,1]3[Fj=1,2]3[Fj=2,1]3[Fj=2,2]3\displaystyle\kappa^{CDW}=[F_{j=1,1}^{\dagger}]^{3}[F_{j=1,2}]^{3}[F_{j=2,1}^{\dagger}]^{3}[F_{j=2,2}]^{3} (S117)

We note that the field operators involve only the ϕe,θo\phi_{e},\theta_{o} fields. We introduce the compact vector representation

Θλ(r)=𝒱λ[ϕe(r)θo(r)]\displaystyle\Theta^{\lambda}(r)=\mathcal{V}^{\lambda}\cdot\begin{bmatrix}\phi_{e}(r)\\ \theta_{o}(r)\end{bmatrix} (S118)

with 𝒱λ\mathcal{V}^{\lambda} a length-2 vector

𝒱FCI=\displaystyle\mathcal{V}^{FCI}= [322]\displaystyle\begin{bmatrix}3\sqrt{2}&\sqrt{2}\end{bmatrix}
𝒱aFCI=\displaystyle\mathcal{V}^{aFCI}= [322]\displaystyle\begin{bmatrix}3\sqrt{2}&-\sqrt{2}\end{bmatrix}
𝒱SC=\displaystyle\mathcal{V}^{SC}= [022]\displaystyle\begin{bmatrix}0&2\sqrt{2}\end{bmatrix}
𝒱CDW=\displaystyle\mathcal{V}^{CDW}= [620]\displaystyle\begin{bmatrix}6\sqrt{2}&0\end{bmatrix} (S119)

We now provide the detailed calculation of the vertex-operator propagators and the operator-product expansion. We start from the free-boson Green’s function, which takes the following form perturbatively in v1,v2v_{1},v_{2}

Gij(q,z)=\displaystyle G_{ij}(q,z)= [θe(q,z)ϕe(q,z)θo(q,z)ϕo(q,z)]i[θe(q,z)ϕe(q,z)θo(q,z)ϕo(q,z)]j\displaystyle\langle\begin{bmatrix}\theta_{e}(q,z)\\ \phi_{e}(q,z)\\ \theta_{o}(q,z)\\ \phi_{o}(q,z)\end{bmatrix}_{i}\begin{bmatrix}\theta_{e}(-q,-z)&\phi_{e}(-q,-z)&\theta_{o}(-q,-z)&\phi_{o}(-q,-z)\end{bmatrix}_{j}\rangle
=\displaystyle= [πue/Kez2+(ueq)2πz/qz2+(ueq)2πz/qz2+(ueq)2πueKez2+(ueq)2πuo/Koz2+(uoq)2πz/qz2+(uoq)2πz/qz2+(uoq)2πuoKoz2+(uoq)2]ij+π2[z2+(ueq)2][z2+(uoq)2]\displaystyle\begin{bmatrix}\frac{\pi u_{e}/K_{e}}{-z^{2}+(u_{e}q)^{2}}&\frac{\pi z/q}{-z^{2}+(u_{e}q)^{2}}\\ \frac{\pi z/q}{-z^{2}+(u_{e}q)^{2}}&\frac{\pi u_{e}K_{e}}{-z^{2}+(u_{e}q)^{2}}\\ &&\frac{\pi u_{o}/K_{o}}{-z^{2}+(u_{o}q)^{2}}&\frac{\pi z/q}{-z^{2}+(u_{o}q)^{2}}\\ &&\frac{\pi z/q}{-z^{2}+(u_{o}q)^{2}}&\frac{\pi u_{o}K_{o}}{-z^{2}+(u_{o}q)^{2}}\end{bmatrix}_{ij}+\frac{\pi}{2[-z^{2}+(u_{e}q)^{2}][-z^{2}+(u_{o}q)^{2}]}
[00qz(uoKov1+ueKev2)q2ueuoKoKev2z2v100q2KeueuoKov1z2v2qz(Keuev1+Kouov2)qz(uoKov1+ueKev2)q2KeueuoKov1z2v200q2ueuoKoKev2z2v1qz(Keuev1+Kouov2)00]\displaystyle\begin{bmatrix}0&0&-qz\bigg(\frac{u_{o}}{K_{o}}v_{1}+\frac{u_{e}}{K_{e}}v_{2}\bigg)&-q^{2}\frac{u_{e}u_{o}K_{o}}{K_{e}}v_{2}-z^{2}v_{1}\\ 0&0&-q^{2}\frac{K_{e}u_{e}u_{o}}{K_{o}}v_{1}-z^{2}v_{2}&-qz\bigg(K_{e}u_{e}v_{1}+K_{o}u_{o}v_{2}\bigg)\\ -qz\bigg(\frac{u_{o}}{K_{o}}v_{1}+\frac{u_{e}}{K_{e}}v_{2}\bigg)&-q^{2}\frac{K_{e}u_{e}u_{o}}{K_{o}}v_{1}-z^{2}v_{2}&0&0\\ -q^{2}\frac{u_{e}u_{o}K_{o}}{K_{e}}v_{2}-z^{2}v_{1}&-qz\bigg(K_{e}u_{e}v_{1}+K_{o}u_{o}v_{2}\bigg)&0&0\end{bmatrix}
+𝒪(v12,v22,v1v2)\displaystyle+\mathcal{O}(v_{1}^{2},v_{2}^{2},v_{1}v_{2}) (S120)

The relevant propagators in real space read

G22(r,τ)=ϕe(r,τ)ϕe(0,0)\displaystyle G_{22}(r,\tau)=\langle\phi_{e}(r,\tau)\phi_{e}(0,0)\rangle\approx 1NyaβiΩ,qG22(q,iΩ)eiΩτ+iqr\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{y}a\beta}\sum_{i\Omega,q}G_{22}(q,i\Omega)e^{-i\Omega\tau+iqr}
=\displaystyle= 1NyaqπKee|ueq||τ|+iqr2|q|Ke2log(2πLy|ueτ|2+r2)\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{y}a}\sum_{q}\frac{\pi K_{e}e^{-|u_{e}q||\tau|+iqr}}{2|q|}\approx-\frac{K_{e}}{2}\log\bigg(\frac{2\pi}{L_{y}}\sqrt{|u_{e}\tau|^{2}+r^{2}}\bigg)
G33(r,τ)=θo(r,τ)θo(0,0)\displaystyle G_{33}(r,\tau)=\langle\theta_{o}(r,\tau)\theta_{o}(0,0)\rangle\approx 1NyaβiΩ,qG33(q,iΩ)eiΩτ+iqr12Kolog(2πLy|uoτ|2+r2)\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{y}a\beta}\sum_{i\Omega,q}G_{33}(q,i\Omega)e^{-i\Omega\tau+iqr}\approx-\frac{1}{2K_{o}}\log\bigg(\frac{2\pi}{L_{y}}\sqrt{|u_{o}\tau|^{2}+r^{2}}\bigg) (S121)

For the off-diagonal term, we first note that

G23(q,z)=\displaystyle G_{23}(q,z)= π2Ko{[1z2+(ueq)21z2+(uoq)2]]1uo2ue2(Keueuov1)\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2K_{o}}\bigg\{\bigg[\frac{1}{-z^{2}+(u_{e}q)^{2}}-\frac{1}{-z^{2}+(u_{o}q)^{2}}]\bigg]\frac{1}{u_{o}^{2}-u_{e}^{2}}\bigg(-K_{e}u_{e}u_{o}v_{1}\bigg)
+[1/uo2z2+(ueq)21/ue2z2+(uoq)2]11uo21ue2(Kov2)}\displaystyle+\bigg[\frac{1/u_{o}^{2}}{-z^{2}+(u_{e}q)^{2}}-\frac{1/u_{e}^{2}}{-z^{2}+(u_{o}q)^{2}}\bigg]\frac{-1}{\frac{1}{u_{o}^{2}}-\frac{1}{u_{e}^{2}}}\bigg(-K_{o}v_{2}\bigg)\bigg\} (S122)

In real space and imaginary time, this gives

G23(r,τ)=ϕe(r,τ)θo(0,0)\displaystyle G_{23}(r,\tau)=\langle\phi_{e}(r,\tau)\theta_{o}(0,0)\rangle
\displaystyle\approx 14KoKeuov1+Kouev2ue2uo2log(2πLy|ueτ|2+r2)14KoKeuev1+Kouov2ue2+uo2log(2πLy|uoτ|2+r2)\displaystyle-\frac{1}{4K_{o}}\frac{K_{e}u_{o}v_{1}+K_{o}u_{e}v_{2}}{u_{e}^{2}-u_{o}^{2}}\log\bigg(\frac{2\pi}{L_{y}}\sqrt{|u_{e}\tau|^{2}+r^{2}}\bigg)-\frac{1}{4K_{o}}\frac{K_{e}u_{e}v_{1}+K_{o}u_{o}v_{2}}{-u_{e}^{2}+u_{o}^{2}}\log\bigg(\frac{2\pi}{L_{y}}\sqrt{|u_{o}\tau|^{2}+r^{2}}\bigg) (S123)

We are interested in the normal-ordered vertex

:eiΘλ(r,τ):=eiΘλ(r,τ)e12[Θλ(r,τ)]2\displaystyle:e^{i\Theta^{\lambda}(r,\tau)}:=e^{i\Theta^{\lambda}(r,\tau)}e^{\frac{1}{2}\langle[\Theta^{\lambda}(r,\tau)]^{2}\rangle} (S124)

where the self-contraction term has been removed. Using Appendices VI.2 and VI.2, the vertex propagators take the following scaling forms Von Delft and Schoeller (1998)

:eiΘλ(r,τ)::eiΘλ(r,τ):eΘλ(r,τ)Θλ(r,τ)[12πLy[ue|ττ|]2+|rr|2]2Δeλ[12πLy[uo|ττ|]2+|rr|2]2Δoλ\displaystyle\langle:e^{i\Theta^{\lambda}(r,\tau)}::e^{-i\Theta^{\lambda}(r^{\prime},\tau^{\prime})}:\rangle\approx e^{\langle\Theta^{\lambda}(r,\tau)\Theta^{\lambda}(r^{\prime},\tau^{\prime})\rangle}\approx\bigg[\frac{1}{\frac{2\pi}{L_{y}}\sqrt{[u_{e}|\tau-\tau^{\prime}|]^{2}+|r-r^{\prime}|^{2}}}\bigg]^{2\Delta_{e}^{\lambda}}\bigg[\frac{1}{\frac{2\pi}{L_{y}}\sqrt{[u_{o}|\tau-\tau^{\prime}|]^{2}+|r-r^{\prime}|^{2}}}\bigg]^{2\Delta_{o}^{\lambda}} (S125)

The scaling dimensions are

2Δeλ=[𝒱1λ]2Ke2+𝒱1λ𝒱2λKeuov1+Kouev22Ko(ue2uo2)\displaystyle 2\Delta_{e}^{\lambda}=[\mathcal{V}^{\lambda}_{1}]^{2}\frac{K_{e}}{2}+\mathcal{V}^{\lambda}_{1}\mathcal{V}^{\lambda}_{2}\frac{K_{e}u_{o}v_{1}+K_{o}u_{e}v_{2}}{2K_{o}(u_{e}^{2}-u_{o}^{2})}
2Δoλ=[𝒱2λ]212Ko+𝒱1λ𝒱2λKeuev1+Kouov22Ko(uo2ue2)\displaystyle 2\Delta_{o}^{\lambda}=[\mathcal{V}^{\lambda}_{2}]^{2}\frac{1}{2K_{o}}+\mathcal{V}^{\lambda}_{1}\mathcal{V}^{\lambda}_{2}\frac{K_{e}u_{e}v_{1}+K_{o}u_{o}v_{2}}{2K_{o}(u_{o}^{2}-u_{e}^{2})}
Δλ=Δeλ+Δoλ\displaystyle\Delta^{\lambda}=\Delta_{e}^{\lambda}+\Delta_{o}^{\lambda} (S126)

where we keep terms only to linear order in v1,v2v_{1},v_{2}.

We now perform a perturbative RG analysis of instabilities of the SLL phase. We consider perturbations of the form given in Eq. S106

Sint=λ{FCI,aFCI,SC,CDW}gλτdr2πκλ:eiΘλ(r,τ):+h.c.\displaystyle S_{int}=\sum_{\lambda\in\{FCI,aFCI,SC,CDW\}}g_{\lambda}\int_{\tau}\int\frac{dr}{2\pi}\kappa_{\lambda}:e^{i\Theta^{\lambda}(r,\tau)}:+\text{h.c.} (S127)

with coupling constant gλg_{\lambda} and corresponding Klein factor κλ\kappa_{\lambda}. We further introduce the dimensionless coupling yλy_{\lambda} Cardy (1996)

gλ=yλa2+Δλ(2πLy)Δλueuo\displaystyle g_{\lambda}=y_{\lambda}a^{-2+\Delta^{\lambda}}\bigg(\frac{2\pi}{L_{y}}\bigg)^{\Delta^{\lambda}}\sqrt{u_{e}u_{o}} (S128)

where aa is the UV cutoff.

At leading order, rescaling aa via aaela\rightarrow ae^{l} rescales the coupling constant,

yλyλ[2Δλ]\displaystyle y_{\lambda}\rightarrow y_{\lambda}\bigg[2-\Delta^{\lambda}\bigg] (S129)

which gives the leading-order RG equation and indicates that the perturbation channel λ\lambda becomes relevant when 2Δλ>02-\Delta^{\lambda}>0.

We next consider the second-order effect, which captures the interplay among FCI, aFCI, CDW, and SC channels. At second order, the cumulant expansion gives

Scorrection(2)=\displaystyle S_{correction}^{(2)}= 12λ,λ[SλSλ>Sλ>Sλ>]\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\lambda,\lambda^{\prime}}\bigg[\langle S_{\lambda}S_{\lambda^{\prime}}\rangle_{>}-\langle S_{\lambda}\rangle_{>}\langle S_{\lambda^{\prime}}\rangle_{>}\bigg] (S130)

where >\langle\rangle_{>} denotes integrating out short-distance fluctuations between the cutoffs aa and aelae^{l}. To evaluate Eq. S130, we use Cardy (1996)

:eisΘλ(R+r2,T+τ2)::eisΘλ(Rr2,Tτ2):=essΘλ(R+r2,T+τ2)Θλ(Rr2,Tτ2):ei[sΘλ(R+r2,T+τ2)+sΘλ(Rr2,Tτ2)]:\displaystyle:e^{is\Theta^{\lambda}(R+\frac{r}{2},T+\frac{\tau}{2})}::e^{is^{\prime}\Theta^{\lambda^{\prime}}(R-\frac{r}{2},T-\frac{\tau}{2})}:=e^{-ss^{\prime}\langle\Theta^{\lambda}(R+\frac{r}{2},T+\frac{\tau}{2})\Theta^{\lambda^{\prime}}(R-\frac{r}{2},T-\frac{\tau}{2})\rangle}:e^{i\bigg[s\Theta^{\lambda}(R+\frac{r}{2},T+\frac{\tau}{2})+s^{\prime}\Theta^{\lambda^{\prime}}(R-\frac{r}{2},T-\frac{\tau}{2})\bigg]}: (S131)

with s,s{+1,1}s,s^{\prime}\in\{+1,-1\}.

We further perform a gradient expansion and keep the leading-order contributions. For sΘλsΘλs\Theta^{\lambda}\neq-s^{\prime}\Theta^{\lambda^{\prime}}, this gives

:eisΘλ(R+r2,T+τ2)::eisΘλ(Rr2,Tτ2):essΘλ(R+r2,T+τ2)Θλ(Rr2,Tτ2):ei[sΘλ(R,T)+sΘλ(R,T)]:\displaystyle:e^{is\Theta^{\lambda}(R+\frac{r}{2},T+\frac{\tau}{2})}::e^{is^{\prime}\Theta^{\lambda^{\prime}}(R-\frac{r}{2},T-\frac{\tau}{2})}:\approx e^{-ss^{\prime}\langle\Theta^{\lambda}(R+\frac{r}{2},T+\frac{\tau}{2})\Theta^{\lambda^{\prime}}(R-\frac{r}{2},T-\frac{\tau}{2})\rangle}:e^{i\bigg[s\Theta^{\lambda}(R,T)+s^{\prime}\Theta^{\lambda^{\prime}}(R,T)\bigg]}: (S132)

Using Appendices VI.2 and VI.2, the coefficient reads

essΘλ(R+r2,T+τ2)Θλ(Rr2,Tτ2)\displaystyle e^{-ss^{\prime}\langle\Theta^{\lambda}(R+\frac{r}{2},T+\frac{\tau}{2})\Theta^{\lambda^{\prime}}(R-\frac{r}{2},T-\frac{\tau}{2}\rangle)}
\displaystyle\approx [12πLy|ueτ|2+|r|2]ss𝒱1λ𝒱1λKe2ss(𝒱1λ𝒱2λ+𝒱2λ𝒱1λ)Keuov1+Kouev24Ko(ue2uo2)\displaystyle\bigg[\frac{1}{\frac{2\pi}{L_{y}}\sqrt{|u_{e}\tau|^{2}+|r|^{2}}}\bigg]^{-ss^{\prime}\mathcal{V}^{\lambda}_{1}\mathcal{V}_{1}^{\lambda^{\prime}}\frac{K_{e}}{2}-ss^{\prime}(\mathcal{V}^{\lambda}_{1}\mathcal{V}_{2}^{\lambda^{\prime}}+\mathcal{V}^{\lambda}_{2}\mathcal{V}_{1}^{\lambda^{\prime}})\frac{K_{e}u_{o}v_{1}+K_{o}u_{e}v_{2}}{4K_{o}(u_{e}^{2}-u_{o}^{2})}}
[12πLy|uoτ|2+|r|2]ss𝒱2λ𝒱2λ12Koss(𝒱1λ𝒱2λ+𝒱2λ𝒱1λ)Keuev1+Kouov24Ko(uo2ue2)\displaystyle\bigg[\frac{1}{\frac{2\pi}{L_{y}}\sqrt{|u_{o}\tau|^{2}+|r|^{2}}}\bigg]^{-ss^{\prime}\mathcal{V}^{\lambda}_{2}\mathcal{V}_{2}^{\lambda^{\prime}}\frac{1}{2K_{o}}-ss^{\prime}(\mathcal{V}^{\lambda}_{1}\mathcal{V}_{2}^{\lambda^{\prime}}+\mathcal{V}^{\lambda}_{2}\mathcal{V}_{1}^{\lambda^{\prime}})\frac{K_{e}u_{e}v_{1}+K_{o}u_{o}v_{2}}{4K_{o}(u_{o}^{2}-u_{e}^{2})}}
\displaystyle\approx [12πLy|ueτ|2+|r|2]Δesλ+sλ+Δesλ+Δesλ[12πLy|uoτ|2+|r|2]Δosλ+sλ+Δosλ+Δosλ\displaystyle\bigg[\frac{1}{\frac{2\pi}{L_{y}}\sqrt{|u_{e}\tau|^{2}+|r|^{2}}}\bigg]^{-\Delta_{e}^{s\lambda+s^{\prime}\lambda^{\prime}}+\Delta_{e}^{s\lambda}+\Delta_{e}^{s^{\prime}\lambda^{\prime}}}\bigg[\frac{1}{\frac{2\pi}{L_{y}}\sqrt{|u_{o}\tau|^{2}+|r|^{2}}}\bigg]^{-\Delta_{o}^{s\lambda+s^{\prime}\lambda^{\prime}}+\Delta_{o}^{s\lambda}+\Delta_{o}^{s^{\prime}\lambda^{\prime}}} (S133)

where Δe/osλ+sλ\Delta_{e/o}^{s\lambda+s^{\prime}\lambda^{\prime}} denotes the scaling dimension of :eisΘλ(R,T)+sΘλ(R,T)::e^{is\Theta^{\lambda}(R,T)+s^{\prime}\Theta^{\lambda^{\prime}}(R,T)}:, and Δe/osλ\Delta_{e/o}^{s\lambda} denotes the scaling dimension of :eisΘλ(R,T)::e^{is\Theta^{\lambda}(R,T)}:. We next integrate over

a<ueuo|τ|2+|r|2<ael\displaystyle a<\sqrt{u_{e}u_{o}|\tau|^{2}+|r|^{2}}<ae^{l} (S134)

This leads to

a<ueuo|τ|2+|r|2<ael𝑑τdr2π[12πLy|ueτ|2+|r|2]Δesλ+sλ+Δesλ+Δesλ[12πLy|uoτ|2+|r|2]Δosλ+sλ+Δosλ+Δosλ\displaystyle\int_{a<\sqrt{u_{e}u_{o}|\tau|^{2}+|r|^{2}}<ae^{l}}d\tau\frac{dr}{2\pi}\bigg[\frac{1}{\frac{2\pi}{L_{y}}\sqrt{|u_{e}\tau|^{2}+|r|^{2}}}\bigg]^{-\Delta_{e}^{s\lambda+s^{\prime}\lambda^{\prime}}+\Delta_{e}^{s\lambda}+\Delta_{e}^{s^{\prime}\lambda^{\prime}}}\bigg[\frac{1}{\frac{2\pi}{L_{y}}\sqrt{|u_{o}\tau|^{2}+|r|^{2}}}\bigg]^{-\Delta_{o}^{{s\lambda+s^{\prime}\lambda^{\prime}}}+\Delta_{o}^{s\lambda}+\Delta_{o}^{s^{\prime}\lambda^{\prime}}}
\displaystyle\approx (2πLy)Δsλ+sλΔsλΔsλ1ueuoa2+Δsλ+sλΔsλΔsλl𝒜ue,uosλ,sλ\displaystyle\bigg(\frac{2\pi}{L_{y}}\bigg)^{\Delta^{{s\lambda+s^{\prime}\lambda^{\prime}}}-\Delta^{s\lambda}-\Delta^{s^{\prime}\lambda^{\prime}}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{u_{e}u_{o}}}a^{2+\Delta^{{s\lambda+s^{\prime}\lambda^{\prime}}}-\Delta^{s\lambda}-\Delta^{s^{\prime}\lambda^{\prime}}}l\mathcal{A}^{s\lambda,s^{\prime}\lambda^{\prime}}_{u_{e},u_{o}} (S135)

where

𝒜ue,uosλ,sλ=12π𝑑x[1ueuocos2(x)+sin2(x)]Δesλ+sλ+Δesλ+Δesλ[1uouecos2(x)+sin2(x)]Δosλ+sλ+Δosλ+Δosλ\displaystyle\mathcal{A}^{s\lambda,s^{\prime}\lambda^{\prime}}_{u_{e},u_{o}}=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int dx\bigg[\frac{1}{\sqrt{\frac{u_{e}}{u_{o}}\cos^{2}(x)+\sin^{2}(x)}}\bigg]^{-\Delta_{e}^{{s\lambda+s^{\prime}\lambda^{\prime}}}+\Delta_{e}^{s\lambda}+\Delta_{e}^{s^{\prime}\lambda^{\prime}}}\bigg[\frac{1}{\sqrt{\frac{u_{o}}{u_{e}}\cos^{2}(x)+\sin^{2}(x)}}\bigg]^{-\Delta_{o}^{{s\lambda+s^{\prime}\lambda^{\prime}}}+\Delta_{o}^{s\lambda}+\Delta_{o}^{s^{\prime}\lambda^{\prime}}} (S136)

In the simplified limit ue=uo=uu_{e}=u_{o}=u,

𝒜u,usλ,sλ=1\displaystyle\mathcal{A}^{s\lambda,s^{\prime}\lambda^{\prime}}_{u,u}=1 (S137)

Another useful operator product expansion arises for s=s=1,λ=λs=s^{\prime}=1,\lambda=\lambda^{\prime}. After a gradient expansion, this gives

:eiΘλ(R+r2,T+τ2)::eiΘλ(Rr2,Tτ2):eΘλ(R+r2,T+τ2)Θλ(Rr2,Tτ2):ei[Θλ(R+r2,T+τ2)Θλ(Rr2,Tτ2)]:\displaystyle:e^{i\Theta^{\lambda}(R+\frac{r}{2},T+\frac{\tau}{2})}::e^{-i\Theta^{\lambda}(R-\frac{r}{2},T-\frac{\tau}{2})}:\approx e^{\langle\Theta^{\lambda}(R+\frac{r}{2},T+\frac{\tau}{2})\Theta^{\lambda}(R-\frac{r}{2},T-\frac{\tau}{2})\rangle}:e^{i\bigg[\Theta^{\lambda}(R+\frac{r}{2},T+\frac{\tau}{2})-\Theta^{\lambda}(R-\frac{r}{2},T-\frac{\tau}{2})\bigg]}:
\displaystyle\rightarrow [12πLy[ue|τ|]2+|r|2]2Δeλ[12πLy[|uoτ|]2+|r|2]2Δoλ[r22[rΘλ(R,T)]2τ22[τΘλ(R,T)]2]\displaystyle\bigg[\frac{1}{\frac{2\pi}{L_{y}}\sqrt{[u_{e}|\tau|]^{2}+|r|^{2}}}\bigg]^{2\Delta_{e}^{\lambda}}\bigg[\frac{1}{\frac{2\pi}{L_{y}}\sqrt{[|u_{o}\tau|]^{2}+|r|^{2}}}\bigg]^{2\Delta_{o}^{\lambda}}\bigg[-\frac{r^{2}}{2}[\partial_{r}\Theta^{\lambda}(R,T)]^{2}-\frac{\tau^{2}}{2}[\partial_{\tau}\Theta^{\lambda}(R,T)]^{2}\bigg] (S138)

where we keep only the leading nonzero contributions.

Integrating over short-distance fluctuations gives

a<ueuo|τ|2+|r|2<ael𝑑τdr2π[12πLy[ue|τ|]2+|r|2]2Δeλ[12πLy[|uoτ|]2+|r|2]2Δoλr2=(2πL)2Δλa42Δλ1ueuo𝒜ue,uoλ;rl\displaystyle\int_{a<\sqrt{u_{e}u_{o}|\tau|^{2}+|r|^{2}}<ae^{l}}d\tau\frac{dr}{2\pi}\bigg[\frac{1}{\frac{2\pi}{L_{y}}\sqrt{[u_{e}|\tau|]^{2}+|r|^{2}}}\bigg]^{2\Delta_{e}^{\lambda}}\bigg[\frac{1}{\frac{2\pi}{L_{y}}\sqrt{[|u_{o}\tau|]^{2}+|r|^{2}}}\bigg]^{2\Delta_{o}^{\lambda}}r^{2}=\bigg(\frac{2\pi}{L}\bigg)^{-2\Delta^{\lambda}}a^{4-2\Delta^{\lambda}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{u_{e}u_{o}}}\mathcal{A}^{\lambda;r}_{u_{e},u_{o}}l
a<ueuo|τ|2+|r|2<ael𝑑τdr2π[12πLy[ue|τ|]2+|r|2]2Δeλ[12πLy[|uoτ|]2+|r|2]2Δoλτ2=(2πL)2Δλa42Δλ1ueuo3𝒜ue,uoλ;τl\displaystyle\int_{a<\sqrt{u_{e}u_{o}|\tau|^{2}+|r|^{2}}<ae^{l}}d\tau\frac{dr}{2\pi}\bigg[\frac{1}{\frac{2\pi}{L_{y}}\sqrt{[u_{e}|\tau|]^{2}+|r|^{2}}}\bigg]^{2\Delta_{e}^{\lambda}}\bigg[\frac{1}{\frac{2\pi}{L_{y}}\sqrt{[|u_{o}\tau|]^{2}+|r|^{2}}}\bigg]^{2\Delta_{o}^{\lambda}}\tau^{2}=\bigg(\frac{2\pi}{L}\bigg)^{-2\Delta^{\lambda}}a^{4-2\Delta^{\lambda}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{u_{e}u_{o}}^{3}}\mathcal{A}^{\lambda;\tau}_{u_{e},u_{o}}l (S139)

where

𝒜ue,uoλ;r=dx2π[1ueuocos2(x)+sin2(x)]2Δeλ[1uouecos2(x)+sin2(x)]2Δoλsin2(x)\displaystyle\mathcal{A}^{\lambda;r}_{u_{e},u_{o}}=\int\frac{dx}{2\pi}\bigg[\frac{1}{\sqrt{\frac{u_{e}}{u_{o}}\cos^{2}(x)+\sin^{2}(x)}}\bigg]^{2\Delta_{e}^{\lambda}}\bigg[\frac{1}{\sqrt{\frac{u_{o}}{u_{e}}\cos^{2}(x)+\sin^{2}(x)}}\bigg]^{2\Delta_{o}^{\lambda}}\sin^{2}(x)
𝒜ue,uoλ;τ=dx2π[1ueuocos2(x)+sin2(x)]2Δeλ[1uouecos2(x)+sin2(x)]2Δoλcos2(x)\displaystyle\mathcal{A}^{\lambda;\tau}_{u_{e},u_{o}}=\int\frac{dx}{2\pi}\bigg[\frac{1}{\sqrt{\frac{u_{e}}{u_{o}}\cos^{2}(x)+\sin^{2}(x)}}\bigg]^{2\Delta_{e}^{\lambda}}\bigg[\frac{1}{\sqrt{\frac{u_{o}}{u_{e}}\cos^{2}(x)+\sin^{2}(x)}}\bigg]^{2\Delta_{o}^{\lambda}}\cos^{2}(x) (S140)

Again, in the ue=uo=uu_{e}=u_{o}=u limit, we have

𝒜u,uλ;r=𝒜u,uλ;τ=12\displaystyle\mathcal{A}^{\lambda;r}_{u,u}=\mathcal{A}^{\lambda;\tau}_{u,u}=\frac{1}{2} (S141)

We also comment that

ΘFCI(r,τ)+ΘaFCI(r,τ)=ΘCDW(r),ΘFCI(r,τ)ΘaFCI(r,τ)=ΘSC(r)\displaystyle\Theta^{FCI}(r,\tau)+\Theta^{aFCI}(r,\tau)=\Theta^{CDW}(r),\quad\Theta^{FCI}(r,\tau)-\Theta^{aFCI}(r,\tau)=\Theta^{SC}(r)
κFCIκaFCI=κCDW,κFCI[κaFCI]=κSC\displaystyle\kappa^{FCI}\kappa^{aFCI}=\kappa^{CDW},\quad\kappa^{FCI}[\kappa^{aFCI}]^{\dagger}=\kappa^{SC} (S142)

Collecting all contributions using Eqs. S130, VI.2, VI.2, VI.2, VI.2 and VI.2, we obtain the following correction from integrating over the short-distance modes

Scorrection(2)\displaystyle S_{correction}^{(2)}
=\displaystyle= 12yFCIyaFCIu𝑑τdr2πκFCIκaFCI:(2πLy)ΔCDWa2+ΔCDW:eiΘCDW(r,τ):l+h.c.\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2}y_{FCI}y_{aFCI}\int ud\tau\int\frac{dr}{2\pi}\kappa_{FCI}\kappa_{aFCI}:\bigg(\frac{2\pi}{L_{y}}\bigg)^{\Delta^{CDW}}a^{-2+\Delta^{CDW}}:e^{i\Theta^{CDW}(r,\tau)}:l+\text{h.c.}
12yFCIyCDWu𝑑τdr2πκFCIκCDW:(2πLy)ΔaFCIa2+ΔaFCI:eiΘaFCI(r,τ):l+h.c.\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2}y_{FCI}y_{CDW}\int ud\tau\int\frac{dr}{2\pi}\kappa^{\dagger}_{FCI}\kappa_{CDW}:\bigg(\frac{2\pi}{L_{y}}\bigg)^{\Delta^{aFCI}}a^{-2+\Delta^{aFCI}}:e^{i\Theta^{aFCI}(r,\tau)}:l+\text{h.c.}
12yaFCIyCDWu𝑑τdr2πκaFCIκCDW:(2πLy)ΔFCIa2+ΔFCI:eiΘFCI(r,τ):l+h.c.\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2}y_{aFCI}y_{CDW}\int ud\tau\int\frac{dr}{2\pi}\kappa^{\dagger}_{aFCI}\kappa_{CDW}:\bigg(\frac{2\pi}{L_{y}}\bigg)^{\Delta^{FCI}}a^{-2+\Delta^{FCI}}:e^{i\Theta^{FCI}(r,\tau)}:l+\text{h.c.}
12ySCyaFCIu𝑑τdr2πκSCκaFCI:(2πLy)ΔFCIa2+ΔFCI:eiΘFCI(r,τ):l+h.c.\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2}y_{SC}y_{aFCI}\int ud\tau\int\frac{dr}{2\pi}\kappa_{SC}\kappa_{aFCI}:\bigg(\frac{2\pi}{L_{y}}\bigg)^{\Delta^{FCI}}a^{-2+\Delta^{FCI}}:e^{i\Theta^{FCI}(r,\tau)}:l+\text{h.c.}
12ySCyFCIu𝑑τdr2πκSCκFCI:(2πLy)ΔaFCIa2+ΔaFCI:eiΘaFCI(r,τ):l+h.c.\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2}y_{SC}y_{FCI}\int ud\tau\int\frac{dr}{2\pi}\kappa^{\dagger}_{SC}\kappa_{FCI}:\bigg(\frac{2\pi}{L_{y}}\bigg)^{\Delta^{aFCI}}a^{-2+\Delta^{aFCI}}:e^{i\Theta^{aFCI}(r,\tau)}:l+\text{h.c.}
12λyλ2u𝑑τdr2π14[[rΘλ(r,τ)]2+[1uτΘλ(r,τ)]2]l+h.c.\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\lambda}y_{\lambda}^{2}\int ud\tau\int\frac{dr}{2\pi}\frac{-1}{4}\bigg[[\partial_{r}\Theta^{\lambda}(r,\tau)]^{2}+[\frac{1}{u}\partial_{\tau}\Theta^{\lambda}(r,\tau)]^{2}\bigg]l+\text{h.c.} (S143)

where, to obtain a simple analytical expression, we focus on the ue=uo=uu_{e}=u_{o}=u limit and keep only the corrections to gFCI/aFCI/SC/CDWg_{FCI/aFCI/SC/CDW} and to the free-boson part.

We can now derive the RG equations explicitly. We first focus on the free-boson part. The original action with the θe,ϕo\theta_{e},\phi_{o} fields integrated out reads

Sfree,ϕeθo\displaystyle S_{free,\phi_{e}\theta_{o}}\approx τudr2π{1Ke[[rϕe(r,τ)]2+[1uτϕe(r,τ)]2]+Ko[[rθo(r,τ)]2+[1uτθo(r,τ)]2]\displaystyle\int_{\tau}\int\frac{udr}{2\pi}\bigg\{\frac{1}{K_{e}}\bigg[[\partial_{r}\phi_{e}(r,\tau)]^{2}+[\frac{1}{u}\partial_{\tau}\phi_{e}(r,\tau)]^{2}\bigg]+K_{o}\bigg[[\partial_{r}\theta_{o}(r,\tau)]^{2}+[\frac{1}{u}\partial_{\tau}\theta_{o}(r,\tau)]^{2}\bigg]
+1uv1rϕe(r,τ)rθo(r,τ)1uv2KoKeu2τϕe(r,τ)τθo(r,τ)}\displaystyle+\frac{1}{u}v_{1}\partial_{r}\phi_{e}(r,\tau)\partial_{r}\theta_{o}(r,\tau)-\frac{1}{u}v_{2}\frac{K_{o}}{K_{e}u^{2}}\partial_{\tau}\phi_{e}(r,\tau)\partial_{\tau}\theta_{o}(r,\tau)\bigg\} (S144)

The correction to the free-boson part reads, from Appendix VI.2,

Sfree,correction\displaystyle S_{free,correction}\approx l4u𝑑τdr2π(72yCDW2+18yFCI2+18yaFCI2)([rϕe(r,τ)]2+[1uτϕe(r,τ)]2)\displaystyle\frac{l}{4}\int ud\tau\int\frac{dr}{2\pi}\bigg(72y_{CDW}^{2}+18y_{FCI}^{2}+18y_{aFCI}^{2}\bigg)\bigg([\partial_{r}\phi_{e}(r,\tau)]^{2}+[\frac{1}{u}\partial_{\tau}\phi_{e}(r,\tau)]^{2}\bigg)
+l4u𝑑τdr2π(8ySC2+2yFCI2+2yaFCI2)([rθo(r,τ)]2+[1uτθo(r,τ)]2)\displaystyle+\frac{l}{4}\int ud\tau\int\frac{dr}{2\pi}\bigg(8y_{SC}^{2}+2y_{FCI}^{2}+2y_{aFCI}^{2}\bigg)\bigg([\partial_{r}\theta_{o}(r,\tau)]^{2}+[\frac{1}{u}\partial_{\tau}\theta_{o}(r,\tau)]^{2}\bigg)
+l4u𝑑τdr2π2(6yFCI26yaFCI2)([rθo(r,τ)][rϕe(r,τ)]+[1uτθo(r,τ)][1uτϕe(r,τ)])\displaystyle+\frac{l}{4}\int ud\tau\int\frac{dr}{2\pi}2\bigg(6y_{FCI}^{2}-6y_{aFCI}^{2}\bigg)\bigg([\partial_{r}\theta_{o}(r,\tau)][\partial_{r}\phi_{e}(r,\tau)]+[\frac{1}{u}\partial_{\tau}\theta_{o}(r,\tau)][\frac{1}{u}\partial_{\tau}\phi_{e}(r,\tau)]\bigg) (S145)

We can thus introduce the renormalized parameters v~1,v~2,K~e,K~o\tilde{v}_{1},\tilde{v}_{2},\tilde{K}_{e},\tilde{K}_{o}

1Ke~=1Ke+l4(72yCDW2+18yFCI2+18yaFCI2)\displaystyle\frac{1}{\tilde{K_{e}}}=\frac{1}{K_{e}}+\frac{l}{4}\bigg(72y_{CDW}^{2}+18y_{FCI}^{2}+18y_{aFCI}^{2}\bigg)
Ko~=Ko+l4(8ySC2+2yFCI2+2yaFCI2)\displaystyle\tilde{K_{o}}=K_{o}+\frac{l}{4}\bigg(8y_{SC}^{2}+2y_{FCI}^{2}+2y_{aFCI}^{2}\bigg)
v1~=v1+l2(6yFCI26yaFCI2)u\displaystyle\tilde{v_{1}}=v_{1}+\frac{l}{2}\bigg(6y_{FCI}^{2}-6y_{aFCI}^{2}\bigg)u
v2~=v2l2(6yFCI26yaFCI2)KeKou\displaystyle\tilde{v_{2}}=v_{2}-\frac{l}{2}\bigg(6y_{FCI}^{2}-6y_{aFCI}^{2}\bigg)\frac{K_{e}}{K_{o}}u (S146)

This gives the RG equations

l1Ke=14(72yCDW2+18yFCI2+18yaFCI2)\displaystyle\partial_{l}\frac{1}{K_{e}}=\frac{1}{4}\bigg(72y_{CDW}^{2}+18y_{FCI}^{2}+18y_{aFCI}^{2}\bigg)
lKo=14(8ySC2+2yFCI2+2yaFCI2)\displaystyle\partial_{l}K_{o}=\frac{1}{4}\bigg(8y_{SC}^{2}+2y_{FCI}^{2}+2y_{aFCI}^{2}\bigg)
lv1=12(6yFCI26yaFCI2)\displaystyle\partial_{l}v^{\prime}_{1}=\frac{1}{2}\bigg(6y_{FCI}^{2}-6y_{aFCI}^{2}\bigg)
lv2=12(6yFCI26yaFCI2)KeKo\displaystyle\partial_{l}v^{\prime}_{2}=-\frac{1}{2}\bigg(6y_{FCI}^{2}-6y_{aFCI}^{2}\bigg)\frac{K_{e}}{K_{o}} (S147)

where vi=vi/uv^{\prime}_{i}=v_{i}/u.

In addition, the renormalization of the coupling constants can be inferred from Eqs. S129 and VI.2

lyFCI=(2ΔFCI)yFCI12(yaFCIyCDW+ySCyaFCI)\displaystyle\partial_{l}y_{FCI}=(2-\Delta^{FCI})y_{FCI}-\frac{1}{2}(y_{aFCI}y_{CDW}+y_{SC}y_{aFCI})
lyaFCI=(2ΔaFCI)yaFCI12(yFCIyCDW+ySCyFCI)\displaystyle\partial_{l}y_{aFCI}=(2-\Delta^{aFCI})y_{aFCI}-\frac{1}{2}(y_{FCI}y_{CDW}+y_{SC}y_{FCI})
lySC=(2ΔSC)ySC12yFCIyaFCI\displaystyle\partial_{l}y_{SC}=(2-\Delta^{SC})y_{SC}-\frac{1}{2}y_{FCI}y_{aFCI}
lyCDW=(2ΔCDW)yCDW12yFCIyaFCI\displaystyle\partial_{l}y_{CDW}=(2-\Delta^{CDW})y_{CDW}-\frac{1}{2}y_{FCI}y_{aFCI} (S148)

where the scaling dimensions are given by Appendix VI.2

ΔFCI=92Ke+12Ko+34Kev1+Kov2Ko\displaystyle\Delta_{FCI}=\frac{9}{2}K_{e}+\frac{1}{2K_{o}}+\frac{3}{4}\frac{-K_{e}v_{1}^{\prime}+K_{o}v_{2}^{\prime}}{K_{o}}
ΔaFCI=92Ke+12Ko34Kev1+Kov2Ko\displaystyle\Delta_{aFCI}=\frac{9}{2}K_{e}+\frac{1}{2K_{o}}-\frac{3}{4}\frac{-K_{e}v_{1}^{\prime}+K_{o}v_{2}^{\prime}}{K_{o}}
ΔCDW=18Ke\displaystyle\Delta_{CDW}=18K_{e}
ΔSC=2Ko\displaystyle\Delta_{SC}=\frac{2}{K_{o}} (S149)

We numerically solve the RG flow in Appendices VI.2 and VI.2, with initial conditions

Ke(l=0)=Ke,0,Ko(l=0)=Ko,0,v1(l=0)=v2(l=0)=0\displaystyle K_{e}(l=0)=K_{e,0},\quad K_{o}(l=0)=K_{o,0},\quad v_{1}(l=0)=v_{2}(l=0)=0
yFCI(l=0)=yFCI,0,yaFCI(l=0)=yaFCI,0\displaystyle y_{FCI}(l=0)=y_{FCI,0},\quad y_{aFCI}(l=0)=y_{aFCI,0}
ySC(l=0)=yCDW(l=0)=0\displaystyle y_{SC}(l=0)=y_{CDW}(l=0)=0 (S150)

In practice, we assume that the initial microscopic values of yCDW,ySCy_{CDW},y_{SC} are zero, and that nonzero yCDWy_{CDW} and ySCy_{SC} are induced by fluctuations in the FCI and aFCI channels. We consider different combinations of Ke,0,Ko,0K_{e,0},K_{o,0} and take yFCI,0=0.1y_{FCI,0}=0.1 and yaFCI,0/yFCI,0=0.5y_{aFCI,0}/y_{FCI,0}=0.5. The final phase of the system is determined by which coupling constant yλy_{\lambda} first reaches 11, indicating an instability of the SLL. The corresponding energy scale is determined by the critical value lλl^{*}_{\lambda} defined by

yλ(lλ)=1.\displaystyle y_{\lambda}(l^{*}_{\lambda})=1\,. (S151)

The temperature scale of the system is then

TλT0elλ\displaystyle T_{\lambda}\approx T_{0}e^{-l^{*}_{\lambda}} (S152)

where T0T_{0} denotes the initial UV energy scale of the system, which can be understood as the electronic bandwidth in the 1D limit.

The phase diagram obtained from the RG equations is shown in Fig. S2(a), where both SC and CDW phases appear near the FCI phase. We emphasize that the couplings yCDWy_{CDW} and ySCy_{SC} naturally emerge during the RG flow, induced by the interplay between FCI and aFCI scattering processes. In addition, increasing tx/txt_{x}^{\prime}/t_{x} enhances the quantum geometry and makes the aFCI channel stronger relative to the FCI channel. This makes the SC phase more robust, as indicated by the increasing characteristic energy scale in Fig. S2(b).

Refer to caption
Figure S2: (a) Phase diagram obtained by solving the RG flow with initial conditions Ke(l=0)=Ke,0K_{e}(l=0)=K_{e,0}, Ko(l=0)=Ko,0K_{o}(l=0)=K_{o,0}, yFCI(l=0)=0.1y_{FCI}(l=0)=0.1, yaFCI(l=0)=0.05y_{aFCI}(l=0)=0.05, and ySC(l=0)=yCDW(l=0)=0y_{SC}(l=0)=y_{CDW}(l=0)=0. (b) Characteristic energy/temperature scale of the SC phase TSCT_{SC} as a function of tx/tx=yaFCI,0/yFCI,0t_{x}^{\prime}/t_{x}=y_{aFCI,0}/y_{FCI,0}. We take parameters inside the SC phase with Ko(l=0)=1.5K_{o}(l=0)=1.5. Larger tx/txt_{x}^{\prime}/t_{x} indicates stronger quantum geometry, which in turn produces a more stable SC phase. T0T_{0} denotes the UV energy scale of the system, proportional to the electronic bandwidth in the 1D limit.

VII Filling nu=2/3 and particle-hole transformation

We show that similar behavior, namely CDW and SC correlations induced by the cooperation of FCI and aFCI scattering processes, also appears at ν=2/3\nu=2/3.

We first consider the FCI phase at ν=2/3\nu=2/3, which can be obtained through a particle-hole transformation of the ν=1/3\nu=1/3 FCI phase. As mentioned in Ref. Fuji and Furusaki (2019), the particle-hole transformation within the wire construction is defined as

ψj,1(r)ψj,2(r)\displaystyle\psi_{j,1}(r)\rightarrow\psi_{j,2}^{\dagger}(r)
ψj+1,2(r)ψj,1(r)\displaystyle\psi_{j+1,2}(r)\rightarrow\psi_{j,1}^{\dagger}(r) (S153)

Under the particle-hole transformation, the boson fields transform as

θj(r)=12[θj(r)+ϕj(r)θj1(r)ϕj1(r)]\displaystyle\theta_{j}(r)=\frac{1}{2}\bigg[-\theta_{j}(r)+\phi_{j}(r)-\theta_{j-1}(r)-\phi_{j-1}(r)\bigg]
ϕj(r)=12[θj(r)+ϕj(r)+θj1(r)+ϕj1(r)]\displaystyle\phi_{j}(r)=\frac{1}{2}\bigg[-\theta_{j}(r)+\phi_{j}(r)+\theta_{j-1}(r)+\phi_{j-1}(r)\bigg] (S154)

The FCI term then transforms as

ΘjFCI(r)=θj(r)θj+1(r)+3(ϕj(r)+ϕj+1(r))ΘjFCI¯(r)=4ϕj(r)+θj1+ϕj1θj+1+ϕj+1\displaystyle\Theta_{j}^{FCI}(r)=\theta_{j}(r)-\theta_{j+1}(r)+3(\phi_{j}(r)+\phi_{j+1}(r))\rightarrow\Theta_{j}^{\overline{FCI}}(r)=4\phi_{j}(r)+\theta_{j-1}+\phi_{j-1}-\theta_{j+1}+\phi_{j+1} (S155)

As in the ν=1/3\nu=1/3 case, we can also introduce the aFCI term at ν=2/3\nu=2/3, which reads

ΘjaFCI¯(r)=4ϕj(r)θj1+ϕj1+θj+1+ϕj+1\displaystyle\Theta_{j}^{\overline{aFCI}}(r)=4\phi_{j}(r)-\theta_{j-1}+\phi_{j-1}+\theta_{j+1}+\phi_{j+1} (S156)

As at ν=1/3\nu=1/3, the interplay between the FCI¯\overline{FCI} and aFCI¯\overline{aFCI} channels also leads to SC and CDW correlations,

ΘjCDW¯(r)=ΘjFCI¯(r)+ΘjaFCI¯(r)=8ϕj(r)+2ϕj1(r)+2ϕj+1(r)\displaystyle\Theta_{j}^{\overline{CDW}}(r)=\Theta_{j}^{\overline{FCI}}(r)+\Theta_{j}^{\overline{aFCI}}(r)=8\phi_{j}(r)+2\phi_{j-1}(r)+2\phi_{j+1}(r)
ΘjSC¯(r)=ΘjFCI¯(r)ΘjaFCI¯(r)=2θj1(r)2θj+1(r)\displaystyle\Theta_{j}^{\overline{SC}}(r)=\Theta_{j}^{\overline{FCI}}(r)-\Theta_{j}^{\overline{aFCI}}(r)=2\theta_{j-1}(r)-2\theta_{j+1}(r) (S157)

This implies a similar OPE

:eiΘjFCI¯(Rr2)::eiΘjaFCI¯(R+r2):1|r|ΔFCI¯+ΔaFCI¯ΔCDW¯eiΘjCDW¯(R)\displaystyle:e^{i\Theta_{j}^{\overline{FCI}}(R-\frac{r}{2})}::e^{i\Theta_{j}^{\overline{aFCI}}(R+\frac{r}{2})}:\sim\frac{1}{|r|^{\Delta^{\overline{FCI}}+\Delta^{\overline{aFCI}}-\Delta^{\overline{CDW}}}}e^{i\Theta_{j}^{\overline{CDW}}(R)}
:eiΘjFCI¯(Rr2)::eiΘjaFCI¯(R+r2):1|r|ΔFCI¯+ΔaFCI¯ΔSC¯eiΘjSC¯(R)\displaystyle:e^{i\Theta_{j}^{\overline{FCI}}(R-\frac{r}{2})}::e^{-i\Theta_{j}^{\overline{aFCI}}(R+\frac{r}{2})}:\sim\frac{1}{|r|^{\Delta^{\overline{FCI}}+\Delta^{\overline{aFCI}}-\Delta^{\overline{SC}}}}e^{i\Theta_{j}^{\overline{SC}}(R)} (S158)

In terms of the fermionic fields,

eiΘjCDW¯(r)[ψj1,1(r)ψj1,2(r)][ψj,1(r)ψj,2(r)]2[ψj+1,1(r)ψj+1,2(r)]\displaystyle e^{i\Theta_{j}^{\overline{CDW}}(r)}\sim[\psi_{j-1,1}^{\dagger}(r)\psi_{j-1,2}(r)][\psi_{j,1}^{\dagger}(r)\psi_{j,2}(r)]^{2}[\psi_{j+1,1}^{\dagger}(r)\psi_{j+1,2}(r)]
eiΘjSC¯(r)[ψj1,1(r)ψj1,2(r)][ψj+1,1(r)ψj+1,2(r)]\displaystyle e^{i\Theta_{j}^{\overline{SC}}(r)}\sim[\psi_{j-1,1}^{\dagger}(r)\psi_{j-1,2}^{\dagger}(r)][\psi_{j+1,1}(r)\psi_{j+1,2}(r)] (S159)

Here eiΘCDW¯e^{i\Theta_{\overline{CDW}}} describes a coupling between particle-hole operators across three wires, while eiΘSC¯e^{i\Theta_{\overline{SC}}} behaves as a Josephson coupling between wires and stabilizes an SC phase. In summary, we expect similar physics at filling ν=2/3\nu=2/3, where the SC and CDW instabilities emerge from the cooperation between FCI and aFCI scattering processes.