\section{Transverse magnetic susceptibility with supercells}

Here we provide the details of the derivation of the transverse susceptibility in real-space on a superconducting ground state. The bare transverse susceptibility is
\begin{eqnarray}
	\chi^{+-}_{0}(\mbf{r}_{i},\mbf{r}_{j},\tau) = \left\langle T_{\tau} S^{+}(\mbf{r}_i,\tau)S^{-}(\mbf{r}_j,0)  \right\rangle_0\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $S^{+}(\mbf{r}_i,\tau)$ [$S^{-}(\mbf{r}_i,\tau)$] is the spin creation [annihilation] operator at position $\mbf{r}_i$ at (imaginary) time $\tau$,
\begin{eqnarray}
	S^{+}(\mbf{r}_i,\tau)=c^{\dagger}_{\mbf{r}_i \uparrow}(\tau)c_{\mbf{r}_i \downarrow}(\tau)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Applying the Bogoliubov-de Gennes (BdG) transformation 
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:BdG}
	c_{i\sigma} &=& \sum_{n\mathbf{k}}\big(
	u_{n\mathbf{k}\sigma}(i)\gamma_{n\mathbf{k}\sigma}+
	v_{n\mathbf{k}\sigma}^{\ast}(i)\gamma_{n\mathbf{k}\bar{\sigma}} \big)e^{-i \mathbf{k} \cdot
	\mathbf{R}_{i}}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where the momentum $\mathbf{k}$ is contained in the reduced Brillouin zone of the superlattice, and using the fact that
\begin{eqnarray}
	\chi^{+-}_{0}(\mbf{r}_i,\mbf{r}_j,\omega)=\frac{1}{\beta}\int_{0}^{\beta}\mathrm{d}\tau e^{i\omega_n \tau}\chi^{+-}_{0}(\mbf{r}_i,\mbf{r}_j,\tau)
\end{eqnarray}
results in the expression
\begin{eqnarray}
	\chi^{+-}_{0}(\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{r}_{j},\omega)=\sum_{\mathbf{k} \mathbf{k}'}f^{0}_{\mathbf{k} \mathbf{k}'}(i, j)e^{-i(\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{k}')\cdot(\mathbf{R}_{i}-\mathbf{R}_{j})}\,, \label{eq:f0}
\end{eqnarray}
where $f^{0}_{\mathbf{k} \mathbf{k}'}(i,j)$ is the following real space matrix (after analytical continuation, $\omega_n \rightarrow \omega + i\eta$)
\begin{eqnarray}
	f^{0}_{\mathbf{k} \mathbf{k}'}(i,j) &\!=\!& \frac{-1}{N_s^2}\sum_{nm}\big[ v_{n\mathbf{k}\downarrow}(j)u^{\ast}_{n\mathbf{k}\uparrow}(i)v^{\ast}_{m\mathbf{k}'\downarrow}(i)u_{m\mathbf{k}'\uparrow}(j) - u_{n\mathbf{k}\uparrow}(j)u^{\ast}_{n\mathbf{k}\uparrow}(i)v^{\ast}_{m\mathbf{k}'\downarrow}(i)v_{m\mathbf{k}'\downarrow}(j) \big]\frac{n_{\text{F}}(E_{n\mathbf{k}\uparrow})+n_{\text{F}}(E_{m\mathbf{k}'\uparrow})-1}{\omega - E_{n\mathbf{k}\uparrow} -E_{m\mathbf{k}'\uparrow} + i\eta}
\end{eqnarray}
with $N_s=N_{sx}N_{sy}$ is the number of supercells, and $i$ and $j$ denote sites within one supercell and $\eta$ is an artificial broadening. The real-space Dyson equation yields
\begin{eqnarray}
	\chi_{\text{RPA}}^{+-}(\mbf{r}_i,\mbf{r}_j,\omega) = \chi^{+-}_{0}(\mbf{r}_i,\mbf{r}_j,\omega) + \sum_{\mbf{r}_a}\chi^{+-}_{0}(\mbf{r}_i,\mbf{r}_a,\omega)U\chi_{\text{RPA}}^{+-}(\mbf{r}_a,\mbf{r}_j,\omega)\,,
\end{eqnarray}
and since the dependence of the supercell vector $\mbf{R}$ should be the same for the bare and RPA expressions, this expression can be used to derive an expression for $f^{\text{RPA}}$:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:f_rpa}
	\sum_{\mbf{k}} f^{\text{RPA}}_{\mathbf{k} \, \mathbf{k} + \mathbf{p}} = \Big[\mathds{1} - UN_{s}\sum_{\mathbf{k}'} f^{0}_{\mathbf{k}' \, \mathbf{k}' + \mathbf{p}} \Big]^{-1} \sum_{\mbf{k}} f^{0}_{\mathbf{k} \, \mathbf{k} + \mathbf{p}}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
note that this is really just the standard RPA expression in momentum space, but the ``susceptibilities'' now have matrix structure. Application of Eq.~\eqref{eq:f0} for the RPA case results in
\begin{eqnarray}
	\chi^{+-}_{\text{RPA}}(\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{r}_{j},\omega)=\sum_{\mathbf{k} \mathbf{k}'}f^{\text{RPA}}_{\mathbf{k} \, \mathbf{k}'}(i, j)e^{-i(\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{k}')\cdot(\mathbf{R}_{i}-\mathbf{R}_{j})}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
To make contact with the cross section as measured by neutrons we take advantage of the fact that neutrons are not a local probe and in the Fourier transform to momentum space we average over sites, as indicated in Eq. (5) in the main text.


\section{Selfconsistent determination of $U$}

When solving for self-consistent striped solutions, an assumption about the periodicity of the stripes has to be made. Hence, for a set of input parameters, the periodicity of the ground state might differ from the input periodicity, implying that the solution given from solving the self-consistent equations is not necessarily the ground state of the system.

In the present case we are interested in stripes with a certain periodicity ($8 \times 2$) and varying magnetization and since we are interested in the dynamics of the spin-waves, ensuring that they remain gapless is critical. The regular iterative selfconsistent approach typically results in saddle points in the free energy due to the enforced periodicity, and we therefore adopt an approach focused on enforcing gapless Goldstone modes. In practice this means that we choose a modulation of the electron densities corresponding to an $8 \times 2$--periodic state and adjust $U$ such that the smallest eigenvalue of
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:goldstone_criterion}
	\mathds{1}-UN_{s}\text{Re}\left[ \sum_{\mbf{k}}f^{0}_{\mbf{k}\,\mbf{k+q}}(\mbf{i},\mbf{j},U) \right]\,,
\end{eqnarray}
the real part of the denominator of the RPA susceptibility, is zero. The gapless excitations should appear at $\mbf{q}=(\pi \pm \tfrac{\pi}{4},\pi)$ as the underlying state exhibits $8 \times 2$--periodicity, and $\mu$ is adjusted to ensure that this is the case. Here we included $U$ as a dependent in $f^0$ to remind the reader that $f^0$ also changes as a function of $U$, as is seen from the mean-field Hamiltonian.

This procedure allows us to vary the size of the magnetic moments and the type of superconducting order independently, while remaining in the same parameter regime and simultaneously satisfying Goldstone's theorem. In practice this is carried out by choosing a certain density modulation, i.e. the values of $\langle n_{i\sigma} \rangle$, and solving Eq.~(\ref{eq:goldstone_criterion}) for either no SC order, dSC or PDW order. The chosen density modulations are based on selfconsistent solutions for a given $U$ and superconducting is imposed on top, without accounting for feedback effects. The values obtained for $U$ and $\mu$ by finding the zero eigenvalues of Eq.~(\ref{eq:goldstone_criterion}) will therefore depend slightly on which type of superconducting order (if any) was assumed. Below the exact densities for the three cases (a) $M \sim 0.05$ (Tab.~\ref{tab:case_a}), (b) $M \sim 0.10$ (Tab.~\ref{tab:case_b}) and (c) $M \sim 0.4$ (Tab.~\ref{tab:case_c}) are provided, along with the various values of $U$ and $\mu$ following from this procedure. Note that for cases (a) and (b) a slightly different value of $t'=-0.22$ was used in order for Eq.~\ref{eq:goldstone_criterion} to yield a zero eigenvalue.

\subsection*{Case (a)}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
	0.4070 & 0.4372 & 0.4680 & 0.3948 & 0.4680 & 0.4372 & 0.4070 & 0.4808 \\
\hline
	0.4680 & 0.4372 & 0.4070 & 0.4808 & 0.4070 & 0.4372 & 0.4680 & 0.3948 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
\vspace{5mm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
	0.4680 & 0.4372 & 0.4070 & 0.4808 & 0.4070 & 0.4372 & 0.4680 & 0.3948 \\
\hline
	0.4070 & 0.4372 & 0.4680 & 0.3948 & 0.4680 & 0.4372 & 0.4070 & 0.4808 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
\vspace{5mm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
 & non-SC & dSC & PDW \\
\hline
$U$ & 1.9467 & 2.2303 & 1.9074 \\
\hline
$\mu$ & $-0.1$ & 0.131 & $-0.1$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:case_a} (top) $\langle n_{i\uparrow} \rangle$, (middle) $\langle n_{i\downarrow} \rangle$ for the $8 \times 2$ sites in the supercell, and (bottom) parameters resulting in a zero eigenvalue solution of Eq.~\ref{eq:goldstone_criterion} for the various choices of superconducting orders.}
\end{table}
\clearpage
\subsection*{Case (b)}

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
	0.3650 & 0.4300 & 0.5100 & 0.3250 & 0.5100 & 0.4300 & 0.3650 & 0.5650 \\
\hline
	0.5100 & 0.4300 & 0.3650 & 0.5650 & 0.3650 & 0.4300 & 0.5100 & 0.3250 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
\vspace{5mm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
	0.5100 & 0.4300 & 0.3650 & 0.5650 & 0.3650 & 0.4300 & 0.5100 & 0.3250 \\
\hline	
	0.3650 & 0.4300 & 0.5100 & 0.3250 & 0.5100 & 0.4300 & 0.3650 & 0.5650 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
\vspace{5mm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
 & non-SC & dSC & PDW \\
\hline
$U$ & 2.1519 & 2.3564 & 2.1 \\
\hline
$\mu$ & 0.02 & 0.15 & 0.02 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:case_b} (top) $\langle n_{i\uparrow} \rangle$, (middle) $\langle n_{i\downarrow} \rangle$ for the $8 \times 2$ sites in the supercell, and (bottom) parameters resulting in a zero eigenvalue solution of Eq.~\ref{eq:goldstone_criterion} for the various choices of superconducting orders.}
\end{table}

\subsection*{Case (c)}

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
	0.2200 & 0.4400 & 0.6600 & 0.1800 & 0.6600 & 0.4400 & 0.2200 & 0.7200 \\
\hline
	0.6600 & 0.4400 & 0.2200 & 0.7200 & 0.2200 & 0.4400 & 0.6600 & 0.1800 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
\vspace{5mm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
	0.6600 & 0.4400 & 0.2200 & 0.7200 & 0.2200 & 0.4400 & 0.6600 & 0.1800 \\
\hline	
	0.2200 & 0.4400 & 0.6600 & 0.1800 & 0.6600 & 0.4400 & 0.2200 & 0.7200 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
\vspace{5mm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
 & non-SC & dSC & PDW \\
\hline
$U$ & 3.16 & 3.3097 & 3.2235 \\
\hline
$\mu$ & 0.25 & 0.25 & 0.25 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:case_c} (top) $\langle n_{i\uparrow} \rangle$, (middle) $\langle n_{i\downarrow} \rangle$ for the $8 \times 2$ sites in the supercell, and (bottom) parameters resulting in a zero eigenvalue solution of Eq.~\ref{eq:goldstone_criterion} for the various choices of superconducting orders.}
\end{table}

\end{widetext}

\end{document}%

\section{Transverse magnetic susceptibility with supercells}

Here we provide the details of the derivation of the transverse susceptibility in real-space on a superconducting ground state. The bare transverse susceptibility is
\begin{eqnarray}
	\chi^{+-}_{0}(\mbf{r}_{i},\mbf{r}_{j},\tau) = \left\langle T_{\tau} S^{+}(\mbf{r}_i,\tau)S^{-}(\mbf{r}_j,0)  \right\rangle_0\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $S^{+}(\mbf{r}_i,\tau)$ [$S^{-}(\mbf{r}_i,\tau)$] is the spin creation [annihilation] operator at position $\mbf{r}_i$ at (imaginary) time $\tau$,
\begin{eqnarray}
	S^{+}(\mbf{r}_i,\tau)=c^{\dagger}_{\mbf{r}_i \uparrow}(\tau)c_{\mbf{r}_i \downarrow}(\tau)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Applying the Bogoliubov-de Gennes (BdG) transformation 
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:BdG}
	c_{i\sigma} &=& \sum_{n\mathbf{k}}\big(
	u_{n\mathbf{k}\sigma}(i)\gamma_{n\mathbf{k}\sigma}+
	v_{n\mathbf{k}\sigma}^{\ast}(i)\gamma_{n\mathbf{k}\bar{\sigma}} \big)e^{-i \mathbf{k} \cdot
	\mathbf{R}_{i}}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where the momentum $\mathbf{k}$ is contained in the reduced Brillouin zone of the superlattice, and using the fact that
\begin{eqnarray}
	\chi^{+-}_{0}(\mbf{r}_i,\mbf{r}_j,\omega)=\frac{1}{\beta}\int_{0}^{\beta}\mathrm{d}\tau e^{i\omega_n \tau}\chi^{+-}_{0}(\mbf{r}_i,\mbf{r}_j,\tau)
\end{eqnarray}
results in the expression
\begin{eqnarray}
	\chi^{+-}_{0}(\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{r}_{j},\omega)=\sum_{\mathbf{k} \mathbf{k}'}f^{0}_{\mathbf{k} \mathbf{k}'}(i, j)e^{-i(\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{k}')\cdot(\mathbf{R}_{i}-\mathbf{R}_{j})}\,, \label{eq:f0}
\end{eqnarray}
where $f^{0}_{\mathbf{k} \mathbf{k}'}(i,j)$ is the following real space matrix (after analytical continuation, $\omega_n \rightarrow \omega + i\eta$)
\begin{eqnarray}
	f^{0}_{\mathbf{k} \mathbf{k}'}(i,j) &\!=\!& \frac{-1}{N_s^2}\sum_{nm}\big[ v_{n\mathbf{k}\downarrow}(j)u^{\ast}_{n\mathbf{k}\uparrow}(i)v^{\ast}_{m\mathbf{k}'\downarrow}(i)u_{m\mathbf{k}'\uparrow}(j) - u_{n\mathbf{k}\uparrow}(j)u^{\ast}_{n\mathbf{k}\uparrow}(i)v^{\ast}_{m\mathbf{k}'\downarrow}(i)v_{m\mathbf{k}'\downarrow}(j) \big]\frac{n_{\text{F}}(E_{n\mathbf{k}\uparrow})+n_{\text{F}}(E_{m\mathbf{k}'\uparrow})-1}{\omega - E_{n\mathbf{k}\uparrow} -E_{m\mathbf{k}'\uparrow} + i\eta}
\end{eqnarray}
with $N_s=N_{sx}N_{sy}$ is the number of supercells, and $i$ and $j$ denote sites within one supercell and $\eta$ is an artificial broadening. The real-space Dyson equation yields
\begin{eqnarray}
	\chi_{\text{RPA}}^{+-}(\mbf{r}_i,\mbf{r}_j,\omega) = \chi^{+-}_{0}(\mbf{r}_i,\mbf{r}_j,\omega) + \sum_{\mbf{r}_a}\chi^{+-}_{0}(\mbf{r}_i,\mbf{r}_a,\omega)U\chi_{\text{RPA}}^{+-}(\mbf{r}_a,\mbf{r}_j,\omega)\,,
\end{eqnarray}
and since the dependence of the supercell vector $\mbf{R}$ should be the same for the bare and RPA expressions, this expression can be used to derive an expression for $f^{\text{RPA}}$:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:f_rpa}
	\sum_{\mbf{k}} f^{\text{RPA}}_{\mathbf{k} \, \mathbf{k} + \mathbf{p}} = \Big[\mathds{1} - UN_{s}\sum_{\mathbf{k}'} f^{0}_{\mathbf{k}' \, \mathbf{k}' + \mathbf{p}} \Big]^{-1} \sum_{\mbf{k}} f^{0}_{\mathbf{k} \, \mathbf{k} + \mathbf{p}}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
note that this is really just the standard RPA expression in momentum space, but the ``susceptibilities'' now have matrix structure. Application of Eq.~\eqref{eq:f0} for the RPA case results in
\begin{eqnarray}
	\chi^{+-}_{\text{RPA}}(\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{r}_{j},\omega)=\sum_{\mathbf{k} \mathbf{k}'}f^{\text{RPA}}_{\mathbf{k} \, \mathbf{k}'}(i, j)e^{-i(\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{k}')\cdot(\mathbf{R}_{i}-\mathbf{R}_{j})}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
To make contact with the cross section as measured by neutrons we take advantage of the fact that neutrons are not a local probe and in the Fourier transform to momentum space we average over sites, as indicated in Eq. (5) in the main text.


\section{Selfconsistent determination of $U$}

When solving for self-consistent striped solutions, an assumption about the periodicity of the stripes has to be made. Hence, for a set of input parameters, the periodicity of the ground state might differ from the input periodicity, implying that the solution given from solving the self-consistent equations is not necessarily the ground state of the system.

In the present case we are interested in stripes with a certain periodicity ($8 \times 2$) and varying magnetization and since we are interested in the dynamics of the spin-waves, ensuring that they remain gapless is critical. The regular iterative selfconsistent approach typically results in saddle points in the free energy due to the enforced periodicity, and we therefore adopt an approach focused on enforcing gapless Goldstone modes. In practice this means that we choose a modulation of the electron densities corresponding to an $8 \times 2$--periodic state and adjust $U$ such that the smallest eigenvalue of
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:goldstone_criterion}
	\mathds{1}-UN_{s}\text{Re}\left[ \sum_{\mbf{k}}f^{0}_{\mbf{k}\,\mbf{k+q}}(\mbf{i},\mbf{j},U) \right]\,,
\end{eqnarray}
the real part of the denominator of the RPA susceptibility, is zero. The gapless excitations should appear at $\mbf{q}=(\pi \pm \tfrac{\pi}{4},\pi)$ as the underlying state exhibits $8 \times 2$--periodicity, and $\mu$ is adjusted to ensure that this is the case. Here we included $U$ as a dependent in $f^0$ to remind the reader that $f^0$ also changes as a function of $U$, as is seen from the mean-field Hamiltonian.

This procedure allows us to vary the size of the magnetic moments and the type of superconducting order independently, while remaining in the same parameter regime and simultaneously satisfying Goldstone's theorem. In practice this is carried out by choosing a certain density modulation, i.e. the values of $\langle n_{i\sigma} \rangle$, and solving Eq.~(\ref{eq:goldstone_criterion}) for either no SC order, dSC or PDW order. The chosen density modulations are based on selfconsistent solutions for a given $U$ and superconducting is imposed on top, without accounting for feedback effects. The values obtained for $U$ and $\mu$ by finding the zero eigenvalues of Eq.~(\ref{eq:goldstone_criterion}) will therefore depend slightly on which type of superconducting order (if any) was assumed. Below the exact densities for the three cases (a) $M \sim 0.05$ (Tab.~\ref{tab:case_a}), (b) $M \sim 0.10$ (Tab.~\ref{tab:case_b}) and (c) $M \sim 0.4$ (Tab.~\ref{tab:case_c}) are provided, along with the various values of $U$ and $\mu$ following from this procedure. Note that for cases (a) and (b) a slightly different value of $t'=-0.22$ was used in order for Eq.~\ref{eq:goldstone_criterion} to yield a zero eigenvalue.

\subsection*{Case (a)}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
	0.4070 & 0.4372 & 0.4680 & 0.3948 & 0.4680 & 0.4372 & 0.4070 & 0.4808 \\
\hline
	0.4680 & 0.4372 & 0.4070 & 0.4808 & 0.4070 & 0.4372 & 0.4680 & 0.3948 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
\vspace{5mm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
	0.4680 & 0.4372 & 0.4070 & 0.4808 & 0.4070 & 0.4372 & 0.4680 & 0.3948 \\
\hline
	0.4070 & 0.4372 & 0.4680 & 0.3948 & 0.4680 & 0.4372 & 0.4070 & 0.4808 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
\vspace{5mm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
 & non-SC & dSC & PDW \\
\hline
$U$ & 1.9467 & 2.2303 & 1.9074 \\
\hline
$\mu$ & $-0.1$ & 0.131 & $-0.1$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:case_a} (top) $\langle n_{i\uparrow} \rangle$, (middle) $\langle n_{i\downarrow} \rangle$ for the $8 \times 2$ sites in the supercell, and (bottom) parameters resulting in a zero eigenvalue solution of Eq.~\ref{eq:goldstone_criterion} for the various choices of superconducting orders.}
\end{table}
\clearpage
\subsection*{Case (b)}

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
	0.3650 & 0.4300 & 0.5100 & 0.3250 & 0.5100 & 0.4300 & 0.3650 & 0.5650 \\
\hline
	0.5100 & 0.4300 & 0.3650 & 0.5650 & 0.3650 & 0.4300 & 0.5100 & 0.3250 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
\vspace{5mm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
	0.5100 & 0.4300 & 0.3650 & 0.5650 & 0.3650 & 0.4300 & 0.5100 & 0.3250 \\
\hline	
	0.3650 & 0.4300 & 0.5100 & 0.3250 & 0.5100 & 0.4300 & 0.3650 & 0.5650 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
\vspace{5mm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
 & non-SC & dSC & PDW \\
\hline
$U$ & 2.1519 & 2.3564 & 2.1 \\
\hline
$\mu$ & 0.02 & 0.15 & 0.02 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:case_b} (top) $\langle n_{i\uparrow} \rangle$, (middle) $\langle n_{i\downarrow} \rangle$ for the $8 \times 2$ sites in the supercell, and (bottom) parameters resulting in a zero eigenvalue solution of Eq.~\ref{eq:goldstone_criterion} for the various choices of superconducting orders.}
\end{table}

\subsection*{Case (c)}

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
	0.2200 & 0.4400 & 0.6600 & 0.1800 & 0.6600 & 0.4400 & 0.2200 & 0.7200 \\
\hline
	0.6600 & 0.4400 & 0.2200 & 0.7200 & 0.2200 & 0.4400 & 0.6600 & 0.1800 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
\vspace{5mm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
	0.6600 & 0.4400 & 0.2200 & 0.7200 & 0.2200 & 0.4400 & 0.6600 & 0.1800 \\
\hline	
	0.2200 & 0.4400 & 0.6600 & 0.1800 & 0.6600 & 0.4400 & 0.2200 & 0.7200 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
\vspace{5mm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
 & non-SC & dSC & PDW \\
\hline
$U$ & 3.16 & 3.3097 & 3.2235 \\
\hline
$\mu$ & 0.25 & 0.25 & 0.25 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:case_c} (top) $\langle n_{i\uparrow} \rangle$, (middle) $\langle n_{i\downarrow} \rangle$ for the $8 \times 2$ sites in the supercell, and (bottom) parameters resulting in a zero eigenvalue solution of Eq.~\ref{eq:goldstone_criterion} for the various choices of superconducting orders.}
\end{table}

\end{widetext}

\end{document}%
