Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 95 references

Bond particle theory for the pseudogap phase of underdoped cuprates

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A dimer-averaged bond-particle treatment of the t-J model yields Fermi pockets of area $x/2$ centered near $(\pi/2,\pi/2)$, plus a gapped triplet spin mode.

desk verdict A genuinely new averaging method for bond-particle theory, but the headline x/2 Fermi surface is an input and the fitted ζ controls the spin gap at the 0.1% level. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03450 v1 pith:EH6NORNJ submitted 2019-08-09 cond-mat.str-el

R. Eder This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords t-JmodelpseudogapbondparticletheorydimercoveringcupratesuperconductorsFermipocketsspingapmean-field
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to explain the pseudogap phase of underdoped cuprates as a Fermi liquid made of the doped holes themselves, not of renormalized electrons. Starting from an exact rewriting of the lightly doped t-J model in terms of bond particles attached to a dimer covering of the square lattice, it averages over all dimer coverings to restore translational symmetry. In a mean-field treatment, the averaged model produces holelike spin-1/2 Fermi pockets centered near $(\pi/2,\pi/2)$ whose total area is $x/2$ for hole concentration $x$, together with a gapped spin-wave-like triplet band with minimum at $(\pi,\pi)$. If right, this connects the small Fermi arcs and transport signatures of underdoped cuprates to a low-density gas of spin-1/2 fermions and triplet excitations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the bond-particle representation of the t-J model: each dimer of an arbitrary covering has singlet and triplet states encoded as bosons and odd-electron states as fermions, with the constraint of one particle per dimer. The argument treats the singlet as an inert vacuum, replaces the singlet operators by unity, and then averages the inter-dimer Hamiltonian over dimer coverings, which in the approximate form multiplies all inter-dimer couplings by a single factor $\zeta\approx 1/12$, treated as an adjustable parameter near $0.11$. Mean-field factorization then decouples a triplet boson problem, governed by $2\times2$ matrices $\epsilon_k$ and $\Delta_k$, from a four-band fermion problem; self-consistency fixes the anomalous averages $\eta$, $\theta$, and $\chi$. This machinery produces the two central outputs: the gapped triplet dispersion and the hole-pocket Fermi surface.

What would settle it

Measure the low-temperature Fermi-surface volume of a clean underdoped cuprate by quantum oscillations in a field high enough to suppress charge order; a hole-like pocket area that is not $x/2$ would falsify the central claim, as would a numerical evaluation of the exact dimer-covering average showing that a single scalar cannot reproduce its effective couplings.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the lightly doped paramagnetic Mott insulator - the pseudogap state - can be described by a translationally invariant mean-field theory whose elementary excitations are triplet bond bosons and spin-1/2 bond fermions representing the doped holes. Because the bond-particle Hamiltonian is exact for any dimer covering, observable quantities should not depend on the covering; the paper approximates the covering average by a single factor multiplying inter-dimer couplings and solves the resulting boson and fermion problems self-consistently. The solution gives a hole pocket centered near $(\pi/2,\pi/2)$ with total area $x/2$, a gapped triplet band with minimum at $(\pi,\pi)$, and a k-dependent spectral weight that is weaker on the side of the pocket facing $(\pi,\pi)$, matching the qualitative shape of ARPES Fermi arcs. The paper explicitly notes that in this mean-field approximation the pocket sits too close to $(\pi,\pi)$, the quasiparticle band is too wide, and the spectral-weight drop is too smooth, but argues that hole-triplet coupling beyond mean field may correct these deficiencies.

Load-bearing premise

Every result depends on the assumption that averaging over all ways of pairing the lattice into dimers can be replaced by one number that shrinks all couplings between pairs, and that number is guessed from crude counting and then tuned rather than computed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The pseudogap state below $T^*$ is a Fermi liquid whose carriers are the doped holes themselves, carrying spin $1/2$, with a Fermi surface whose total enclosed area is $x/2$ rather than $(1\pm x)/2$.
  • ARPES should see the visible side of the hole pocket as a temperature-independent arc whose length grows with $x$, while the side facing $(\pi,\pi)$ carries too little spectral weight to be observed.
  • A gapped triplet mode exists around $(\pi,\pi)$; the doping at which its gap closes marks the onset of antiferromagnetic order, and the upper branch of the mode resembles the hourglass excitation seen in neutron scattering.
  • Transport and optical quantities that scale with carrier density $n_c=x$, such as the $T^2$ resistivity coefficient $A\propto x$, the Drude weight, and a hole-like Hall response, follow naturally from the low-density spin-1/2 fermion picture.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A beyond-mean-field treatment coupling the holes to triplet bosons could plausibly sharpen the dark side of the pocket and narrow the quasiparticle band, potentially resolving the paper's own noted mismatches with ARPES; the paper gestures at this but does not carry it out.
  • A more faithful evaluation of the dimer-covering average, for instance by sampling coverings on finite clusters, would test whether one scalar $\zeta$ can capture the physics or whether effective couplings develop momentum-dependent structure that changes the pocket topology.
  • If the theory is right, the doping dependence of the spin gap offers a quantitative target: the energy of the $(\pi,\pi)$ magnetic mode should soften roughly linearly with $x$ and close near the experimental crossover concentration.
  • The same bond-particle construction could be applied to other doped Mott insulators, where it would predict a carrier-density crossover from small hole pockets to a large Fermi surface.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a bond-particle theory of the lightly doped t-J model as a candidate description of the underdoped cuprate pseudogap phase. Starting from an arbitrary dimer covering of the square lattice, the author derives an exact representation of the t-J Hamiltonian in terms of singlet/triplet bosons and hole-like fermions. To restore translational invariance, the bond-particle Hamiltonian is averaged over all dimer coverings, with the entire averaging effect represented by a single dimensionless factor zeta. The averaged Hamiltonian is then treated in a self-consistent Hartree-Fock-type mean-field approximation. For representative parameters (J=0.4, t'=-0.2, t''=0.1, x=0.1, zeta=0.11) the author finds hole-like quasiparticle pockets centered near (pi/2,pi/2) with total Fermi-surface area x/2 and a gapped triplet boson mode with minimum at (pi,pi), which is interpreted as the magnetic resonance mode of the pseudogap phase. The results are compared qualitatively with ARPES, transport, Hall-effect, optical, and neutron-scattering measurements on underdoped cuprates.

Significance. The paper's starting point is exact, the bond-particle representation is carefully derived, and the self-consistent numerical solution is a concrete, falsifiable calculation. The author is also transparent about the uncontrolled steps, including the crude estimate of zeta, the neglect of hard-core constraints, and the presence of zero-weight artifact bands. If the dimer-covering average could be controlled, the resulting picture - spin-1/2 hole fermions with small Fermi pockets and a gapped triplet mode, without static order - would be an important contribution to the pseudogap problem. As it stands, however, the central quantitative claims are conditional on an unverified collapse of the covering average to a single fitted scalar and on a fermion-counting condition that fixes the Fermi-surface area by construction. The qualitative pocket topology and the existence of a gapped collective triplet mode are nontrivial outputs, but the advertised x/2 area and the precise doping dependence of the spin gap are not robustly derived.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II.D / Eq. (10) / Fig. 6] The dimer-covering average is the central approximation, yet it is reduced to a single scalar zeta, first estimated by crude counting as zeta ~ 1/12 and then treated as an adjustable parameter set to zeta = 0.11 'because the values which give reasonable results always are around zeta=0.1'. This is not a harmless rescaling: Fig. 6 (bottom) shows that the doping at which Delta_S(pi,pi) vanishes, interpreted as the onset of antiferromagnetic order, changes substantially when zeta is varied from 0.1090 to 0.1100, i.e., in the fourth decimal place. Since the abstract's claim of a gapped triplet band at a given x depends on this choice, and since the crude counting estimate does not determine zeta to anywhere near this precision, the central quantitative result is not robust. The authors should either compute the covering average in a controlled way (e.g., by explicit summation over small clusters or a systematic expansion) or demonstrate stability of the qualitative conclusions over a wide range of zeta.
  2. [Section II.D / Eq. (11)] The advertised Fermi-surface area x/2 is an input, not an output. In the original dimer representation, Eq. (11) fixes the number of fermions relative to the hole concentration, with the sum running over the N/2 dimers. After the averaging step, the number of bond sites is increased to 2N, but Eq. (11) is retained with the same normalization, so the total fermion number in the averaged system is N x. For a spin-1/2 Fermi liquid, this implies via Luttinger's theorem a Fermi-surface volume fraction of exactly x/2; the mean-field solution is therefore constrained to produce this area. The shape and location of the pockets in Figs. 10 and 11 remain nontrivial results, but the area quoted in the abstract is imposed by construction. This should be stated explicitly, and the text should not present the x/2 area as a derived prediction.
  3. [Section II.D / Eq. (9) / Fig. 4] The neglect of the hard-core constraint (9) and of the infinitely strong repulsion between bond particles that 'cross' and share a site (Fig. 4) is justified solely by the smallness of the densities shown in Fig. 8. The densities are small, but the constraints are singular and act at short distances, and the spin gap is extremely sensitive to the bosonic parameters (Fig. 6). A low-density argument does not by itself control the effect of an infinite contact repulsion on the self-consistent parameters theta, eta, and chi, nor on the effective value of zeta. The authors should quantify the leading correction, for example by a Gutzwiller-type projection or by comparing with the treatment of the Kondo-lattice bond-particle constraint cited in the text.
  4. [Section IV / Figs. 9, 10, 12] The averaged mean-field spectrum contains dispersionless bands whose coherent spectral weight is exactly zero, which the author identifies as artifacts of the enlarged bond basis. This demonstrates that the averaged Hilbert space contains unphysical sectors that are not removed by the mean-field calculation. Because the self-consistent parameters are computed in the full averaged Hilbert space, these spurious sectors can in principle contaminate the physical bands even if the latter carry all the spectral weight. The paper should explain why the zero-weight bands do not affect the physical subspace, or implement the projection explicitly; otherwise the reliability of the pocket dispersion and the triplet mode is not established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The title contains a typo: 'c uprates' should be 'cuprates'.
  2. [Section I] The introduction contains several typos and stylistic issues, including 'paricularly', 'dependendence', 'oberservation', and inconsistent capitalization of 'fermi' versus 'Fermi'; a careful proofread is needed.
  3. [Section II.D] The statement that 'the values which give reasonable results always are around zeta=0.1' is not a well-defined criterion; please specify how zeta is chosen and what 'reasonable' means quantitatively.
  4. [Eq. (11)] After the averaging, Eq. (11) is ambiguous: the sum over m should specify whether it runs over the N/2 original dimers or over the 2N bonds of the averaged lattice.
  5. [References] Reference [41] is incomplete, as it lacks the article title and journal information.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Fermi-surface volume is imposed by the retained hole-number formula, and the gapped triplet mode is locked in by fitting ζ to 0.11; the two headline predictions are substantially constructed rather than derived.

  1. self definitional [Section II.D, Eq. (11)]
    "Upon averaging we increase the number of bonds which can be occupied by a particle from N/2 to 2 N. However, we retain the expression (11) which guarantees a fermi surface with a volume propertional to the number of doped holes."

    The averaged mean-field Hamiltonian is a free-fermion problem with the chemical potential fixed by Eq. (11), which defines x as the total fermion density. In a two-dimensional spin-degenerate Fermi liquid the enclosed Fermi-surface area is fixed by the particle density alone, so the abstract's 'total area of x/2' is a direct consequence of this normalization choice, not a dynamical output of the t-J Hamiltonian. The sentence 'guarantees a fermi surface with a volume proportional to the number of doped holes' concedes that the headline volume is put in by construction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section II.D and Section IV, Fig. 6 bottom]
    "Later on, it will be seen that e.g. the spin gap depends sensitively on the value of ζ and we will consider it as an adjustable parameter but the values which give 'reasonable' results always are around ζ = 0.1. ... Since the precise value of x where antiferromagnetic order sets in is unknown we fix ζ = 0.11 from now on."

    The crude estimate ζ=1/12≈0.083 is abandoned in favor of ζ=0.11, selected because it gives 'reasonable' results. Fig. 6 bottom shows the spin gap (the abstract's 'gapped spin-wave-like band') closing at a doping that shifts substantially when ζ changes at the fourth decimal (0.1090, 0.1095, 0.1100). The existence and size of the headline triplet gap at a given x is therefore an artifact of the fitted value, not a robust prediction of the dimer-averaging procedure.

full rationale

The central derivation is not fully circular: the bond-particle representation is exact for a fixed dimer covering, and the pocket shape and triplet dispersion are genuine outputs of the subsequent mean-field calculation. However, two headline results reduce to inputs. First, the Fermi-surface area x/2 is not derived dynamically; retaining Eq. (11) after the averaging step fixes the fermion density to x, and in a spin-degenerate two-dimensional Fermi liquid the enclosed area is then x/2 by construction. The paper itself says this retention 'guarantees' the volume. Second, the gapped spin-wave-like triplet band is obtained only after promoting ζ from the estimated 1/12 to the fitted 0.11, with the spin gap depending sensitively on the fourth decimal of ζ. This is a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The self-citations (refs. 11-13, 36, 37, 44, 45, 59) are used as motivation and comparison, not as load-bearing justifications in the derivation chain, so they do not add circularity. Because the Fermi-volume claim is imposed by normalization and the spin-gap claim is secured by parameter fitting, the paper earns a partial circularity score of 7 rather than a clean non-finding.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on a chain of uncontrolled approximations: the dimer-averaging factor zeta is estimated by crude counting and then adjusted; the singlet-soup replacement, the neglect of empty dimers and direct exchange, and the relaxation of hard-core constraints are justified only by smallness of the hole concentration and particle density, which is not parametrically controlled. No new physical entities beyond the model's electrons and spins are introduced; bond particles are bookkeeping devices. These axioms are the price the reader pays for the translationally invariant mean-field Hamiltonian.

free parameters (3)
  • zeta (dimer-covering renormalization factor) = 0.11 (crude initial estimate 1/12 ~ 0.083)
    Introduced in Eq. (10) to account for averaging over dimer coverings; treated as adjustable because the spin gap and the antiferromagnetic onset doping depend sensitively on it; fixed to 0.11 in Section IV.
  • t' (next-nearest-neighbor hopping) = -0.2
    Chosen in Section IV along with t'' to turn the unphysical ring Fermi surface around (pi,pi) (obtained for t'=t''=0) into a hole pocket centered near (0.59pi,0.59pi).
  • t'' (third-nearest-neighbor hopping) = 0.1
    Chosen together with t' to produce a hole pocket; values are typical band parameters but their selection is justified by the desired outcome.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The t-J model is the relevant microscopic model for the CuO2 planes at low doping
    The entire derivation starts from the t-J Hamiltonian, Eq. (1), and the paper's relevance claim relies on this model capturing cuprate physics.
  • standard math The bond-particle representation restricted to the 9 dimer states is exact (completeness of the dimer basis)
    Section II.B: the 9 states form a complete basis of the dimer Fock space; replacement |a><b| -> a-dagger b preserves matrix elements within the one-particle-per-dimer subspace.
  • ad hoc to paper Singlet operators can be replaced by unity (the 'singlet soup')
    Section II.D: the singlet is reinterpreted as vacuum; this assumes the lightly doped Mott insulator has an inert singlet background, an approximation not controlled by a small parameter for the triplets.
  • ad hoc to paper Empty-dimer bosons and direct exchange between holes contribute only at order x^2 and are dropped
    Section II.C: 'the density of empty dimers and the contribution of direct exchange between holes should be proportional to x^2'.
  • ad hoc to paper The hard-core constraint (one bond particle per dimer, Eq. 9) can be neglected because the particle density is low
    Section II.D: cites Galitskii and Beliaev for low-density Bose/Fermi systems; the density in Fig. 8 reaches about 0.15 per bond, so the validity is questionable.
  • ad hoc to paper The repulsion between 'crossing' bond particles that share a site in the averaged Hamiltonian can be neglected
    Section II.D, Fig. 4: unphysical configurations are excluded by an infinite repulsion, which is dropped in the low-density limit.
  • domain assumption The ground state is spin-rotation invariant, so expectation values of t_m and t-dagger_m x t_n vanish
    Section III.A: used to drop third-order triplet terms and vector-product terms in the Hartree-Fock decoupling.
  • ad hoc to paper The crude combinatorial estimate zeta=1/12 approximates the true average over dimer coverings
    Section II.D: the estimate assumes equal numbers of adjacent-bond orientations; later zeta is treated as adjustable, so this is an uncontrolled approximation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bond particle theory for the pseudogap phase of underdoped cuprates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EH6NORNJ

@misc{pith2026190803450,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bond particle theory for the pseudogap phase of underdoped cuprates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EH6NORNJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03450}
}
read the original abstract

We present a theory for the lightly doped t-J model which is of possible relevance for the normal state of underdoped cuprates. Starting from an arbitrary dimer covering of the plane an exact representation of the t-J Hamiltonian in terms of bond bosons and fermions can be derived. Since all dimer coverings must give identical results for observable quantities we construct an approximate but translationally invariant Hamiltonian by averaging the bond particle Hamiltonian over all possible dimer coverings. Treating the resulting Hamiltonian in mean-field approximation we find fermi pockets centered near (pi/2,pi/2) with a total area of x/2 (with x the hole concentration) and a gapped spin-wave-like band of triplet excitations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03450 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Hopping terms of different range (dashed lines) con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Two ‘crossing’ bond particles - such configurations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5. The factors of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the dispersion ων,q for the the triplet bosons. There is a dispersive band with minimum at (π, π) and a second band with practically no dispersion. The coherent spectral weight |Fν (q)| 2 in the spin corre￾lation function (24) vanishes for this band. Most likely …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Variation of mean-field parameters with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Density of bosons and density of bosons and fermions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Fermi surface for the parameter values in Fig. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Keimer, S

    B. Keimer, S. A. Kivelson, M. R. Norman, S. Uchida, J. Zaanen Nature 518 , 179 (2015)

    2015

  2. [2]

    A. G. Loeser, Z.-X. Shen, D. S. Dessau, D. S. Marshall, C. H. Park, P. Fournier, and A. Kapitulnik, Science 273 , 325 (1996)

    1996

  3. [3]

    H. Ding, T. Yokoya, J. C. Campuzano, T. Takahashi, M. Randeria, M. R. Norman, T. Mochiku, K. Kadowaki, and J. Giapintzakis, Nature 382 , 51 (1996)

    1996

  4. [4]

    Damascelli, Z

    A. Damascelli, Z. Hussain, and Z.-X. Shen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75 , 473 (2003)

    2003

  5. [5]

    B. O. Wells, Z.-X. Shen, A. Matsuura, D. M. King, M. A. Kastner, M. Greven, and R. J. Birgeneau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 , 964 (1995)

    1995

  6. [6]

    Ronning, C

    F. Ronning, C. Kim, D. L. Feng, D. S. Marshall, A. G. Loeser, L. L. Miller, J. N. Eckstein, L. Bozovic, and Z.-X. Shen, Science 282 , 2067 (1998)

    1998

  7. [7]

    Kondo, A

    T. Kondo, A. D. Palczewski, Y. Hamaya, T. Takeuchi, J. S. Wen, Z. J. Xu, G. Gu, and A. Kaminski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 , 157003 (2013)

    2013

  8. [8]

    H.-B. Yang, J. D. Rameau, Z.-H. Pan, G. D. Gu, P. D. Johnson, H. Claus, D. G. Hinks, and T. E. Kidd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 , 047003 (2011)

    2011

Show all 95 references
  1. [9]

    Tanaka, W

    K. Tanaka, W. S. Lee, D. H. Lu, A. Fujimori, T. Fujii, Risdiana, I. Terasaki, D. J. Scalapino, T. P. Devereaux, Z. Hussain, Z.-X. Shen, Science 314 , 1910 (2006)

    2006

  2. [10]

    Hashimoto, R.-H

    M. Hashimoto, R.-H. He, K. Tanaka, J.-P. Testaud, W. Meevasana, R. G. Moore, D. Lu, H. Yao, Y. Yoshida, H. Eisaki, T. P. Devereaux, Z. Hussain, and Z.-X. Shen, Nature Phys. 6 , 414 (2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    Eskes and R

    H. Eskes and R. Eder, Phys. Rev. B. 54 , R14226 (1996)

    1996

  4. [12]

    Eder und K

    R. Eder und K. W. Becker, Phys. Rev. B 44 , 6982 (1991)

    1991

  5. [13]

    O. P. Sushkov, G. A. Sawatzky, R. Eder and H. Eskes, Phys. Rev. B. 56 , 11769 (1997)

    1997

  6. [14]

    J. M. Tranquada, B. J. Sternlieb, J. D. Axe, Y. Nakamura,S. Uchida, Nature 375, 561 (1995)

    1995

  7. [15]

    Howald, H

    C. Howald, H. Eisaki, N. Kaneko, M. Greven, and A. Kapitulnik, Phys. Rev. B 67 , 014533 (2003)

    2003

  8. [16]

    Ghiringhelli, M

    G. Ghiringhelli, M. Le Tacon, M. Minola, S. Blanco-Canosa, C. Mazzoli, N. B. Brookes, G. M. De Luca, A. Frano, D. G. Hawthorn, F. He, T. Loew, M. Moretti Sala, D. C. Peets, M. Salluzzo, E. Schierle, R. Sutarto, G. A. Sawatzky, E. Weschke, B. Keimer2, and L. Braicovich, Science...

    2012

  9. [17]

    S. I. Mirzaei, D. Stricker, J. N. Hancock, C. Berthod, A. Georges, E. van Heumen, M. K. Chan, X. Zhao, Y. Li, M. Greven, N. Barisic, and D. van der Marel, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110 , 5774 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    Y. Ando, Y. Kurita, S. Komiya, S. Ono, and K. Segawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 , 197001 (2004)

    2004

  11. [19]

    Barisic, M

    N. Barisic, M. K. Chan, Y. Li, G. Yu, X. Zhao, M. Dressel, A. Smontara, and M. Greven, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110 , 12235 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    Grissonnanche, F

    G. Grissonnanche, F. Laliberte, S. Dufour-Beausejour, M. Matusiak, S. Badoux, F. F. Tafti, B. Michon, A. Riopel, O. Cyr-Choiniere, J. C. Baglo, B. J. Ramshaw, R. Liang, D. A. Bonn, W. N. Hardy, S. Kramer, D. LeBoeuf, D. Graf, N. Doiron-Leyraud, and L. Taillefer, Phys. Rev. B 9...

    2016

  13. [21]

    M. K. Chan, M. J. Veit, C. J. Dorow, Y. Ge, Y. Li, W. Tabis, Y. Tang, X. Zhao, N. Barisic, and M. Greven, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 , 177005 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    J. W. Loram, K. A. Mirza, J. M. Wade, J. R. Cooper, N. Athanassopoulou, and W. Y. Liang, Advances in Superconductivity VII, K. Yamafuji and T. Morishita, (Eds.) Springer (1995)

    1995

  15. [23]

    Badoux, W

    S. Badoux, W. Tabis, F. Laliberte, G. Grissonnanche, B. Vignolle, D. Vignolles, J. Beard, D. A. Bonn, W. N. Hardy, R. Liang, N. Doiron-Leyraud, L. Taillefer, and C. Proust, Nature 531 , 210 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Collignon, S

    C. Collignon, S. Badoux, S. A. A. Afshar, B. Michon, F. Laliberte, O. Cyr-Choiniere, J.-S. Zhou, S. Licciardello, S. Wiedmann, N. Doiron-Leyraud, and L. Taillefer, Phys. Rev. B 95 , 224517 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    N. P. Ong, Z. Z. Wang, J. Clayhold, J. M. Tarascon, L. H. Greene, and W. R. McKinnon Phys. Rev. B 35 , 8807 (1987)

    1987

  18. [26]

    Takagi, T

    H. Takagi, T. Ido, S. Ishibashi, M. Uota, S. Uchida, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. B 40 , 2254 (1989)

    1989

  19. [27]

    W. J. Padilla, Y. S. Lee, M. Dumm, G. Blumberg, S. Ono, K. Segawa, S. Komiya, Y. Ando, and D. N. Basov Phys. Rev. B 72 , 060511(R) (2005)

    2005

  20. [28]

    Tallon and J

    J. Tallon and J. Loram, Physica C 349 , 53 (2001)

    2001

  21. [29]

    Doiron-Leyraud, C

    N. Doiron-Leyraud, C. Proust, D. LeBoeuf, J. Levallois, J.-B. Bonnemaison, R. Liang, D. A. Bonn, W. N. Hardy, and L. Taillefer, Nature 447 , 565 (2007)

    2007

  22. [30]

    S. E. Sebastian, N. Harrison, M. M. Altarawneh, C. H. Mielke, R. Liang, D. A. Bonn, and G. G. Lonzarich, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107 , 6175 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    M. K. Chan, N. Harrison, R. D. McDonald, B. J. Ramshaw, K. A. Modic, N. Barisic, and M. Greven, Nature Communications 7 , 12244 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Proust, B

    C. Proust, B. Vignolle, J. Levallois, S. Adachi, N. E. Hussey, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113 , 13654 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    LeBoeuf, N

    D. LeBoeuf, N. Doiron-Leyraud, J. Levallois, R. Daou, J.-B. Bonnemaison, N. E. Hussey, L. Balicas, B. J. Ramshaw, R. Liang, D. A. Bonn, W. N. Hardy, S. Adachi, C. Proust, and L. Taillefer, Nature 450 , 533 (2007)

    2007

  26. [34]

    Ramshaw, B

    B.J. Ramshaw, B. Vignolle, J. Day, R. Liang, W. Hardy, C. Proust, and D.A. Bonn, Nature Phys. 7 234 (2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    Comin, A

    R. Comin, A. Frano, M. M. Yee, Y. Yoshida, H. Eisaki, E. Schierle, E. Weschke, R. Sutarto, F. He, A. Soumyanarayanan, Yang He, M. Le Tacon, I. S. Elfimov, J. E. Hoffman, G. A. Sawatzky, B. Keimer, and A. Damascelli, Science, 343 , 390 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    Eder and Y

    R. Eder and Y. Ohta, Phys. Rev. B 51 , 6041 (1995)

    1995

  29. [37]

    Nishimoto, Y

    S. Nishimoto, Y. Ohta, and R. Eder, Phs. Rev. B 57 , R5590 (1998)

    1998

  30. [38]

    D. L. Feng, N. P. Armitage, D. H. Lu, A. Damascelli, J. P. Hu, P. Bogdanov, A. Lanzara, F. Ronning, K. M. Shen, H. Eisaki, C. Kim, J.-i. Shimoyama, K. Kishio, and Z.-X. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 , 5550 (2001)

    2001

  31. [39]

    Chuang, A

    Y.-D. Chuang, A. D. Gromko, A. Fedorov, Y. Aiura, K. Oka, Yoichi Ando, H. Eisaki, S. I. Uchida, and D. S. Dessau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 , 117002 (2001)

    2001

  32. [40]

    Plate, J

    M. Plate, J. D. F. Mottershead, I. S. Elfimov, D. C. Peets, Ruixing Liang, D. A. Bonn, W. N. Hardy, S. Chiuzbaian, M. Falub, M. Shi, L. Patthey, and A. Damascelli Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 , 077001 (2005)

    2005

  33. [41]

    N. E. Hussey, M. Abdel-Jawad, A. Carrington, A. P. Mackenzie, and L. Balicas,

  34. [42]

    Vignolle, A

    B. Vignolle, A. Carrington, R. A. Cooper, M. M. J. French, A. P. Mackenzie, C. Jaudet, D. Vignolles, C. Proust and N. E. Hussey, Nature 455 , 952 (2008)

    2008

  35. [43]

    Nakamae, K

    S. Nakamae, K. Behnia, N. Mangkorntong, M. Nohara, H. Takagi, S. J. C. Yates, and N. E. Hussey, Phys. Rev. B 68 , 100502(R) (2003)

    2003

  36. [44]

    Eder and Y

    R. Eder and Y. Ohta, Phys. Rev. B 51 , 11683 (1995)

    1995

  37. [45]

    R. Eder, Y. Ohta, and S. Maekawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 , 5124 (1995)

    1995

  38. [46]

    Sachdev and R

    S. Sachdev and R. N. Bhatt, Phys. Rev. B 41 , 9323 (1990)

    1990

  39. [47]

    Chakravarty, C

    S. Chakravarty, C. Nayak, and S. Tewari, Phys. Rev. B 68 , 100504(R) (2003)

    2003

  40. [48]

    Chakravarty and H.-Y

    S. Chakravarty and H.-Y. Kee, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 8835 (2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    Qi and S

    Y. Qi and S. Sachdev Phys. Rev. B 81 , 115129 (2010)

    2010

  42. [50]

    Eun Gook Moon and Subir Sachdev Phys. Rev. B 83 , 224508 (2011)

    2011

  43. [51]

    Punk and S

    M. Punk and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. B 85 , 195123 (2012)

    2012

  44. [52]

    M. Holt, J. Oitmaa, W. Chen, and O. P. Sushkov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 , 037001 (2012)

    2012

  45. [53]

    M. Holt, J. Oitmaa, W. Chen, and O. P. Sushkov Phys. Rev. B 87 , 075109 (2013)

    2013

  46. [54]

    Senechal and A.-M

    D. Senechal and A.-M. S. Tremblay, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 , 126401 (2004)

    2004

  47. [55]

    Kyung, S

    B. Kyung, S. S. Kancharla, D. Senechal, A.-M. S. Tremblay, M. Civelli, and G. Kotliar, Phys. Rev. B 73 , 165114 (2006)

    2006

  48. [56]

    T. M. Rice, K.-Y. Yang, and F. C. Zhang, Rep. Prog. Phys. 75 016502 (2012)

    2012

  49. [57]

    Li, C.-Q

    J.-X. Li, C.-Q. Wu, and D.-H. Lee, Phys. Rev. B 74, 184515 (2006)

    2006

  50. [58]

    Hubbard, Proc

    J. Hubbard, Proc. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. A 277, 237 (1964)

    1964

  51. [59]

    R. Eder, P. Wrobel, and Y. Ohta, Phys. Rev. B 82 , 155109 (2010)

    2010

  52. [60]

    M. Punk, A. Allais, and S. Sachdev, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112 , 9552 (2015)

    2015

  53. [61]

    Huber, J

    S. Huber, J. Feldmeier, and M. Punk, Phys. Rev. B 97 , 075144 (2018)

    2018

  54. [62]

    Feldmeier, S

    J. Feldmeier, S. Huber, and M. Punk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 , 187001 (2018)

    2018

  55. [63]

    Gopalan, T

    S. Gopalan, T. M. Rice, and M. Sigrist, Phys. Rev. B 49 , 8901 (1994)

    1994

  56. [64]

    O. P. Sushkov, Phys. Rev. B 60 , 3289 (1999)

    1999

  57. [65]

    Jurecka and W

    C. Jurecka and W. Brenig, Phys. Rev. B 63 , 094409 (2001)

    2001

  58. [66]

    Vojta and K

    M. Vojta and K. W. Becker, Phys. Rev. B 60 , 15201 (1999)

    1999

  59. [67]

    Ray and M

    S. Ray and M. Vojta, Phys. Rev. B 98 , 115102 (2018)

    2018

  60. [68]

    O. P. Sushkov, Phys. Rev. B 63 , 174429 (2001)

    2001

  61. [69]

    Park and S

    K. Park and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. B 64 , 184510 (2001)

    2001

  62. [70]

    Siahatgar, B

    M. Siahatgar, B. Schmidt, G. Zwicknagl, and P. Thalmeier, New J. Phys. 14 , 103005 (2014)

    2014

  63. [71]

    K. A. Chao, J. Spalek, A. M. Oles, J. Phys. C10, L 271 (1977)

    1977

  64. [72]

    F. C. Zhang, T. M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B 37 , 3759 (1988)

    1988

  65. [73]

    V. M. Galitskii, Sov. Phys. JETP. 7 , 104 (1958)

    1958

  66. [74]

    S. T. Beliaev, Sov. Phys. JETP. 7 , 299 (1958)

    1958

  67. [75]

    V. N. Kotov, O. Sushkov, ZhengWeihong, and J. Oitmaa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 , 5790 (1998)

    1998

  68. [76]

    P. V. Shevchenko, A. W. Sandvik, and O. P. Sushkov Phys. Rev. B 61 , 3475 (2000)

    2000

  69. [77]

    D. D. Johnson, Phys. Rev. B. 38 , 12807, (1988)

    1988

  70. [78]

    Fujita, H

    M. Fujita, H. Hiraka, M. Matsuda, M. Matsuura, J. M. Tranquada, S. Wakimoto, G. Xu, and K. Yamada, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 81 , 011007 (2012)

    2012

  71. [79]

    M. K. Chan, C. J. Dorow, L. Mangin-Thro, Y. Tang, Y. Ge, M. J. Veit, G. Yu, X. Zhao, A. D. Christianson, J. T. Park, Y. Sidis, P. Steffens, D. L. Abernathy, P. Bourges, and M. Greven, Nature Communications 7 , 10819 (2016)

    2016

  72. [80]

    Le Tacon, G

    M. Le Tacon, G. Ghiringhelli, J. Chaloupka, M. Moretti Sala, V. Hinkov, M. W. Haverkort, M. Minola, M. Bakr, K. J. Zhou, S. Blanco-Canosa, C. Monney, Y. T. Song, G. L. Sun, C. T. Lin, G. M. De Luca, M. Salluzzo, G. Khaliullin, T. Schmitt, L. Braicovich, and B. Keimer, Nature P...

    2011

  73. [81]

    L. N. Bulaevskii, E. L. Nagaev, and D. L. Khomskii, Sov. Phys. JETP. 27 , 836 (1968)

    1968

  74. [82]

    S. A. Trugman, Phys. Rev. 37, 1597 (1988); ibid Phys. Rev. B 41 , 892 (1990)

    1988

  75. [83]

    Eder and K

    R. Eder and K. W. Becker, Z. Phys. B 78 , 219 (1990)

    1990

  76. [84]

    Martinez and P

    G. Martinez and P. Horsch, Phys. Rev. B 44 , 317 (1991)

    1991

  77. [85]

    Chen and O

    W. Chen and O. P. Sushkov Phys. Rev. B 88 , 184501 (2013)

    2013

  78. [86]

    R. Eder, K. Grube, and P. Wr\'obel, Phys. Rev. B 93 , 165111 (2016)

    2016

  79. [87]

    Eder and P

    R. Eder and P. Wr\'obel, Phys. Rev. B 98 , 245125 (2018)

    2018

  80. [88]

    Eder, Phys

    R. Eder, Phys. Rev. B 99 , 085134 (2019)

    2019

  81. [89]

    P. A. Lee, N. Nagaosa, and X.-G. Wen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78 , 17 (2006)

    2006

  82. [90]

    Chen and O

    W. Chen and O. P. Sushkov Phys. Rev. B 88 , 184501 (2013). mv symm.eps fig1.eps mv bonds_new.eps fig2.eps mv cross.eps fig3.eps mv t1.eps fig4.eps mv spindisplot.eps fig5.eps mv par_vs_doping.eps fig6.eps mv den_vs_x.eps fig7.eps mv holedisplot.eps fig8.eps mv spex.eps fig9.ep...

    2013

  83. [91]

    A. J. H. Borne, J. P. Carbotte, and E. J. Nicol, Phys. Rev. B 82, 024521 (2010)

    2010

  84. [92]

    R. M. Konik, T. M. Rice, and A. M. Tsvelik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 , 086407 (2006)

    2006

  85. [93]

    C. M. Varma, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 26 , 505701 (2014)

    2014

  86. [94]

    K. Y. Yang, T. M. Rice, and F. C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 73 , 174501 (2006)

    2006

  87. [95]

    Chakravarty and H.-Y

    S. Chakravarty and H.-Y. Kee, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 8835 (2008). Hot spots and pseudogaps for hole- and electron-doped high-temperature superconductors. D. Senechal and & A.-M. S. Tremblay, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 ,126401 (2004). Ferrero, M. et al. Pseudogap opening and ...

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.