pith. sign in

arxiv: 2411.17815 · v3 · submitted 2024-11-26 · ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con · cond-mat.mtrl-sci· cond-mat.str-el

Obstructed Cooper pairs in flat band systems - weakly-coherent superfluids and exact spin liquids

Tamaghna Hazra , Nishchhal Verma , J\"org Schmalian This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 17:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-el
keywords flat band superconductivityobstructed Cooper pairsquantum dimer modelRokhsar-Kivelson pointsuperfluid stiffnessline-graph latticesspin liquidstopological order
0
0 comments X

The pith

Strong local pairing on line-graph lattices binds charges into obstructed Cooper pairs whose leading-order motion vanishes due to destructive interference.

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

In systems with exactly flat bands on line-graph lattices, strong attractive interactions cause doped charges to form pairs that cannot hop at leading order. Destructive interference on the lattice geometry frustrates the pair kinetic energy, producing a flat bosonic band of compact localized states and zero superfluid stiffness. This creates an extensively degenerate many-body ground state. At quarter filling the dynamics map exactly onto a quantum dimer model whose d-wave resonating-valence-bond state is the exact ground state at the Rokhsar-Kivelson point. The result is a topologically ordered phase with long-range entanglement and deconfined holon excitations, offering an interaction-driven localization mechanism without disorder.

Core claim

When doped charges propagate on the line-graph of a lattice with strong pairing interaction, they bind into obstructed Cooper pairs whose motion is frustrated by destructive interference. As a result, the leading-order pair kinetic energy vanishes identically in the strong-coupling expansion, producing a flat bosonic band of compact localized pair states, zero superfluid stiffness at leading order, and an extensively degenerate many-body ground state manifold. At quarter filling, the frustrated pair dynamics maps onto a quantum dimer model with a d-wave resonating-valence-bond spin liquid ground state, which becomes exact at the analytically solvable Rokhsar-Kivelson point. The pairing 1 in

What carries the argument

obstructed Cooper pairs on line-graph lattices, whose motion is blocked at leading order by destructive interference, mapping at quarter filling to an exact quantum dimer model at the Rokhsar-Kivelson point

If this is right

  • The superfluid stiffness is identically zero at leading order in the strong-coupling expansion.
  • An extensively degenerate many-body ground state manifold appears, including exact compact localized pair eigenstates.
  • At quarter filling the Hamiltonian realizes an exact topologically ordered d-wave RVB state with deconfined holon excitations.
  • Any finite superfluid stiffness or degeneracy lifting must arise from higher-order virtual processes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Weakly coherent superfluidity could emerge only when higher-order corrections generate a small stiffness, producing a separation between pairing and coherence scales.
  • Small perturbations that break the exact line-graph symmetry or move away from the Rokhsar-Kivelson point would select particular states from the degenerate manifold.
  • The same interference mechanism may operate in other flat-band geometries that support compact localized states.

Load-bearing premise

The frustrated pair dynamics at quarter filling maps exactly onto a quantum dimer model whose d-wave resonating-valence-bond spin liquid ground state becomes exact at the Rokhsar-Kivelson point without higher-order corrections lifting the degeneracy.

What would settle it

A explicit calculation of the pair-hopping matrix element in the strong-coupling expansion on any line-graph lattice (for example the kagome line graph) that yields a nonzero value at the same order as the binding energy would show the kinetic energy does not vanish identically.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17815 by J\"org Schmalian, Nishchhal Verma, Tamaghna Hazra.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Pair-hopping integrals (a), band structure (b) and pair Wannier function (c) of the pair-Hamiltonian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a-h) Four step hopping process for one hole-pair, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Polarization of the 2-spinor representing the lower-band eigenfunction of the pair-hopping Hamiltonian in ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Superconductivity in a partially filled flat band presents a vexing conceptual hurdle because the absence of a Fermi surface precludes a weak-coupling regime where one can extend insights from the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer picture of a Fermi surface instability. We approach the strongly correlated problem of flat band superconductivity from the strong coupling limit of local attractive interactions on line-graph lattices, whose non-interacting bandstructures host exactly flat bands. In this limit, the pair kinetic energy which sets the superfluid stiffness is expected to scale inversely with the pair binding interaction. Here we demonstrate a striking counterexample. We show that when doped charges propagate on the line-graph of a lattice with strong pairing interaction, they bind into obstructed Cooper pairs whose motion is frustrated by destructive interference. As a result, the leading-order pair kinetic energy vanishes identically in the strong-coupling expansion, producing a flat bosonic band of compact localized pair states, zero superfluid stiffness at leading order, and an extensively degenerate many-body ground state manifold. At quarter filling, the frustrated pair dynamics maps onto a quantum dimer model with a $d$-wave resonating-valence-bond spin liquid ground state, which becomes exact at the analytically solvable Rokhsar-Kivelson point. The pairing Hamiltonian in this limit thus has a topologically ordered ground state with long-range entanglement and deconfined holon excitations. Interestingly, we find exact compact localized eigenstates and extensive degeneracies in the many-body eigenstates of this emergent dimer model. Our results establish a disorder-free mechanism for interaction-driven localization, in which strong pairing collapses the kinetic energy of Cooper pairs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that on line-graph lattices with strong local attractive interactions, doped charges form 'obstructed Cooper pairs' whose motion is frustrated by destructive interference. In the strong-coupling (large-U) expansion this causes the leading-order pair kinetic energy to vanish identically, producing a flat bosonic band of compact localized pair states, zero superfluid stiffness at that order, and an extensively degenerate many-body ground-state manifold. At quarter filling the effective dynamics map onto a quantum dimer model whose d-wave RVB spin-liquid ground state becomes exact at the Rokhsar-Kivelson point, implying topological order with deconfined holons.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work supplies a geometry-driven, disorder-free mechanism for interaction-induced localization of Cooper pairs and an exactly solvable limit of a strongly paired flat-band superconductor. The explicit mapping to the solvable RK point of the quantum dimer model and the reported exact compact localized eigenstates would constitute a rare analytic handle on a topologically ordered paired state.

major comments (2)
  1. [strong-coupling expansion] § on strong-coupling expansion (around the derivation of the effective pair hopping): the assertion that every leading-order virtual process for pair motion cancels identically by destructive interference is load-bearing for the flat-band and zero-stiffness claims, yet the supplied text provides neither an exhaustive enumeration of all O(t/U) channels nor a symmetry argument that guarantees cancellation for arbitrary line-graph geometries. An explicit second-order calculation or proof that all matrix elements between compact pair states vanish is required.
  2. [dimer-model mapping] Mapping to the quantum dimer model and RK-point solvability: the claim that the quarter-filled frustrated pair dynamics maps exactly onto the d-wave RVB liquid at the Rokhsar-Kivelson point (with no higher-order corrections lifting the extensive degeneracy) is central to the topological-order conclusion. Without an estimate or explicit check that O(t²/U) or O(t³/U²) terms remain frustrated or vanish, the exactness of the mapping cannot be verified.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the obstructed Cooper pair states and compact localized pair states should be introduced with a clear definition and a figure illustrating the real-space support on the line-graph.
  2. The abstract states 'zero superfluid stiffness at leading order'; the manuscript should clarify whether this is strictly zero or only parametrically small, and whether any sub-leading stiffness survives in the thermodynamic limit.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback. The comments highlight areas where additional explicit demonstrations would strengthen the presentation. We respond point-by-point below and commit to revisions that address the concerns without altering the central claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [strong-coupling expansion] § on strong-coupling expansion (around the derivation of the effective pair hopping): the assertion that every leading-order virtual process for pair motion cancels identically by destructive interference is load-bearing for the flat-band and zero-stiffness claims, yet the supplied text provides neither an exhaustive enumeration of all O(t/U) channels nor a symmetry argument that guarantees cancellation for arbitrary line-graph geometries. An explicit second-order calculation or proof that all matrix elements between compact pair states vanish is required.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would benefit from a more explicit and general demonstration. The cancellation follows from the line-graph construction: the compact localized pair states reside on the bonds of the parent lattice, and all virtual single-particle hops at order t/U correspond to closed loops whose amplitudes cancel by destructive interference due to the bipartite character of the underlying graph. In the revision we will add an appendix containing (i) a symmetry argument valid for any line-graph geometry and (ii) an explicit enumeration of all O(t/U) channels for the kagome-line-graph case, confirming that every matrix element between distinct compact pair states vanishes identically. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [dimer-model mapping] Mapping to the quantum dimer model and RK-point solvability: the claim that the quarter-filled frustrated pair dynamics maps exactly onto the d-wave RVB liquid at the Rokhsar-Kivelson point (with no higher-order corrections lifting the extensive degeneracy) is central to the topological-order conclusion. Without an estimate or explicit check that O(t²/U) or O(t³/U²) terms remain frustrated or vanish, the exactness of the mapping cannot be verified.

    Authors: The leading-order (O(t/U)) effective Hamiltonian is exactly the zero-hopping quantum dimer model whose ground-state manifold is the RK point; this is exact within the strong-coupling expansion truncated at that order. Higher-order corrections are parametrically small (O((t/U)^2) and higher). We will add a paragraph estimating that the same geometric frustration continues to suppress the leading corrections to the dimer hopping, preserving the extensive degeneracy to the order considered. We will also clarify that the exact solvability and topological order are statements about the leading-order effective theory. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation relies on explicit expansion and external RK solvability

full rationale

The paper derives vanishing leading-order pair kinetic energy via explicit strong-coupling expansion on line-graph lattices, where destructive interference cancels all virtual pair-hopping processes identically. This produces the flat bosonic band and maps the quarter-filled problem onto the quantum dimer model at its independently known Rokhsar-Kivelson point, whose exact solvability is a pre-existing result in the literature. No equation reduces the claimed flatness or degeneracy to a fitted input, self-definition, or load-bearing self-citation; the geometric cancellation and mapping are computed directly from the Hamiltonian without circular closure. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on the geometric properties of line-graph lattices that produce flat bands and on the validity of the strong-coupling expansion; no free parameters are introduced in the abstract, and the Rokhsar-Kivelson point is treated as an external known solvable limit.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Line-graph lattices host exactly flat bands in the non-interacting band structure.
    Stated as the starting point for the model in the abstract.
  • domain assumption The strong-coupling limit of local attractive interactions is the appropriate regime for the problem.
    The paper explicitly approaches the problem from this limit.
invented entities (2)
  • obstructed Cooper pairs no independent evidence
    purpose: Bound pairs whose motion is frustrated by destructive interference on the line-graph lattice.
    Introduced to explain the vanishing leading-order kinetic energy.
  • compact localized pair states no independent evidence
    purpose: States forming the flat bosonic band with zero superfluid stiffness.
    Result of the frustration mechanism.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5845 in / 1745 out tokens · 105983 ms · 2026-05-23T17:10:00.695083+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 86 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. J. Leggett, Rev. Mod. Phys.47, 331 (1975)

    work page 1975

  2. [2]

    D. L. Cox, Phys. Rev. Lett.59, 1240 (1987)

    work page 1987

  3. [3]

    P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. B30, 4000 (1984)

    work page 1984

  4. [4]

    P. W. Anderson, P. A. Lee, M. Randeria, T. M. Rice, N. Trivedi, and F. C. Zhang, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 16, R755 (2004)

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    A. B. Migdal, Sov. Phys. JETP7, 996 (1958)

    work page 1958

  6. [6]

    Eliashberg, Sov

    GM. Eliashberg, Sov. Phys.-JETP (Engl. Transl.);(United States)11 (1960)

    work page 1960

  7. [7]

    N. F. Berk and J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. Lett.17, 433 (1966)

    work page 1966

  8. [8]

    T. Dahm, V. Hinkov, S. V. Borisenko, A. A. Kordyuk, V. B. Zabolotnyy, J. Fink, B. Büchner, D. J. Scalapino, W. Hanke, and B. Keimer, Nature Phys5, 217 (2009)

    work page 2009

  9. [9]

    Le Tacon, G

    M. Le Tacon, G. Ghiringhelli, J. Chaloupka, M. M. 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. Khali- ullin, T. Schmitt, L. Braicovich, and B. Keimer, Nature Phys 7, 725 (2011)

    work page 2011

  10. [10]

    D. J. Scalapino, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 1383 (2012)

    work page 2012

  11. [11]

    P. C. E. Stamp, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys.15, 1829 (1985)

    work page 1985

  12. [12]

    D. M. Eagles, Phys. Rev.186, 456 (1969)

    work page 1969

  13. [13]

    A. J. Leggett, inModern Trends in the Theory of Con- densed Matter, edited by A. Pękalski and J. A. Przystawa (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1980) pp. 13–27

    work page 1980

  14. [14]

    Nozieres and S

    P. Nozieres and S. Schmitt-Rink, J Low Temp Phys59, 195 (1985)

    work page 1985

  15. [15]

    Randeria and E

    M. Randeria and E. Taylor, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 5, 209 (2014)

    work page 2014

  16. [16]

    V. L. Berezinskiˇi, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 34, 610 (1972)

    work page 1972

  17. [17]

    D. R. Nelson and J. M. Kosterlitz, Physical Review Let- ters 39, 1201 (1977)

    work page 1977

  18. [18]

    J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 6, 1181 (1973)

    work page 1973

  19. [19]

    Y. J. Uemura, G. M. Luke, B. J. Sternlieb, J. H. Brewer, J. F. Carolan, W. N. Hardy, R. Kadono, J. R. Kempton, R. F. Kiefl, S. R. Kreitzman, P. Mulhern, T. M. Rise- man, D. L. Williams, B. X. Yang, S. Uchida, H. Takagi, J. Gopalakrishnan, A. W. Sleight, M. A. Subramanian, C. L. Chien, M. Z. Cieplak, G. Xiao, V. Y. Lee, B. W. Statt, C. E. Stronach, W. J. K...

    work page 1989

  20. [20]

    V. J. Emery and S. A. Kivelson, Nature374, 434 (1995)

    work page 1995

  21. [21]

    Hazra, N

    T. Hazra, N. Verma, and M. Randeria, Phys. Rev. X9, 031049 (2019)

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    Verma, T

    N. Verma, T. Hazra, and M. Randeria, in preparation

    work page

  23. [23]

    Pavarini, I

    E. Pavarini, I. Dasgupta, T. Saha-Dasgupta, O. Jepsen, and O. K. Andersen, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 047003 (2001)

    work page 2001

  24. [24]

    O. K. Andersen, O. Jepsen, A. I. Liechtenstein, and I. I. Mazin, Phys. Rev. B49, 4145 (1994)

    work page 1994

  25. [25]

    O. K. Andersen, A. I. Liechtenstein, O. Jepsen, and F. Paulsen, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids Proceedings of the Conference on Spectroscopies in Novel Superconductors, 56, 1573 (1995)

    work page 1995

  26. [26]

    In particular, there is no reason to fit the magnetic superexchange to the strong coupling form t2/U - it is an independent phenomenological pa- rameter

    In the cuprates, the antiferromagnetic exchange and the Mott gap are experimentally estimated to be ∼250meV≈3000K and∼2eV≈23000K respectively, much higher than the pair-binding energy (defined as the en- ergy above which pairs dissociate into quasiparticles, ex- perimentally indicated by single-particle gaps in tunnel- ing or photoemission spectra) and th...

    work page

  27. [27]

    Kohn and J

    W. Kohn and J. M. Luttinger, Phys. Rev. Lett.15, 524 (1965)

    work page 1965

  28. [28]

    Monthoux and G

    P. Monthoux and G. G. Lonzarich, Phys. Rev. B 59, 14598 (1999)

    work page 1999

  29. [29]

    A. V. Chubukov, D. Pines, and J. Schmalian, in The Physics of Superconductors: Vol. I. Conventional and High-Tc Superconductors, edited by K. H. Bennemann and J. B. Ketterson (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003) pp. 495–590

    work page 2003

  30. [30]

    P. W. Anderson, Science235, 1196 (1987)

    work page 1987

  31. [31]

    Baskaran, Z

    G. Baskaran, Z. Zou, and P. W. Anderson, Solid State Communications 63, 973 (1987)

    work page 1987

  32. [32]

    Coleman, A

    P. Coleman, A. M. Tsvelik, N. Andrei, and H. Y. Kee, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter10, L239 (1998)

    work page 1998

  33. [33]

    Coleman, Y

    P. Coleman, Y. Komijani, and E. J. König, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 077001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    Hazra and P

    T. Hazra and P. Coleman, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 136002 (2023)

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    As measured by the superfluid stiffness

    work page

  36. [36]

    As estimated from ab-initio calculations

    work page

  37. [37]

    E. H. Lieb, Phys. Rev. Lett.62, 1201 (1989)

    work page 1989

  38. [38]

    Mielke, J

    A. Mielke, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.24, 3311 (1991)

    work page 1991

  39. [39]

    Tasaki,Physics and Mathematics of Quantum Many- Body Systems (Springer, Cham, 2020)

    H. Tasaki,Physics and Mathematics of Quantum Many- Body Systems (Springer, Cham, 2020)

    work page 2020

  40. [40]

    Pudleiner and A

    P. Pudleiner and A. Mielke, Eur. Phys. J. B 88, 207 (2015)

    work page 2015

  41. [41]

    Maimaiti, A

    W. Maimaiti, A. Andreanov, H. C. Park, O. Gendelman, and S. Flach, Phys. Rev. B95, 115135 (2017)

    work page 2017

  42. [42]

    Maimaiti, A

    W. Maimaiti, A. Andreanov, and S. Flach, Phys. Rev. B 103, 165116 (2021)

    work page 2021

  43. [43]

    S. D. Huber and E. Altman, Phys. Rev. B82, 184502 (2010)

    work page 2010

  44. [44]

    Bradlyn, L

    B. Bradlyn, L. Elcoro, J. Cano, M. G. Vergniory, Z. Wang, C. Felser, M. I. Aroyo, and B. A. Bernevig, Nature 547, 298 (2017)

    work page 2017

  45. [45]

    J. Cano, B. Bradlyn, Z. Wang, L. Elcoro, M. G. Vergniory, C. Felser, M. I. Aroyo, and B. A. Bernevig, Phys. Rev. B97, 035139 (2018)

    work page 2018

  46. [46]

    D. L. Bergman, C. Wu, and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. B 78, 125104 (2008)

    work page 2008

  47. [47]

    C.Wu, D.Bergman, L.Balents, andS.DasSarma,Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 070401 (2007)

    work page 2007

  48. [48]

    D. J. Scalapino and S. A. Trugman, Philosophical Mag- azine B 74, 607 (1996)

    work page 1996

  49. [49]

    P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. Lett.34, 953 (1975)

    work page 1975

  50. [50]

    S. A. Trugman, Phys. Rev. B37, 1597 (1988)

    work page 1988

  51. [51]

    J. E. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. Lett.59, 228 (1987)

    work page 1987

  52. [52]

    Schmalian and P

    J. Schmalian and P. G. Wolynes, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 836 (2000)

    work page 2000

  53. [53]

    inhomogeneity

    It is also distinct from plaquette-based approaches [80, 81] where superlattice-periodic “inhomogeneity” is added at level of the non-interacting Hamiltonian

    work page

  54. [54]

    Derzhko, J

    O. Derzhko, J. Richter, and M. Maksymenko, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B29, 1530007 (2015)

    work page 2015

  55. [55]

    Note that the dependence onW is not analytic

    work page

  56. [56]

    The factor of 4 is chosen to make contact with a similar term that occurs in the fourth-order strong-coupling ex- pansion of the Emery model [82–84], although we stress the independent starting point of magnetism rather than charge-blockade, and a particle-hole symmetric interac- tion appropriate to the magnetic context

    work page

  57. [57]

    We thank Sopheak Sorn for correcting the sign beforeJ ′ that leads to attractive interaction in (1) for antiferro- magnetism

    work page

  58. [58]

    A repulsive Hubbard interaction has the same effect and is relevant but unnecessary here, becauseJ does the job that U was recruited for

    work page

  59. [59]

    L. N. Cooper, Phys. Rev.104, 1189 (1956)

    work page 1956

  60. [60]

    We acknowledge the entirely unrelated point that a fermionic flat band with the same Bloch wavefunction also exists in the non-interacting(J, J′ = 0) band struc- ture of the Lieb lattice

    work page

  61. [61]

    In the Zhang-Rice context [73],cd creates one half of the Kondo-singlet that is symmetry-equivalent to a hole on a Cu-d orbital in the cuprates

    work page

  62. [62]

    We are grateful to Mohit Randeria for an incisive com- ment that motivated the explicit demonstraction of this connection to the weak-coupling BCS intuition

    work page

  63. [63]

    We have not justified ignoring inter-sublattice terms for the s-bonding orbitals, for now, this is an independent assumption to be rationalized for specific materials in the next paper

    work page

  64. [64]

    O. V. Dolgov, I. I. Mazin, D. Parker, and A. A. Golubov, Phys. Rev. B79, 060502 (2009)

    work page 2009

  65. [65]

    Benfatto, E

    L. Benfatto, E. Cappelluti, and C. Castellani, Phys. Rev. B 80, 214522 (2009)

    work page 2009

  66. [66]

    Christos, Z.-X

    M. Christos, Z.-X. Luo, H. Shackleton, Y.-H. Zhang, M. S. Scheurer, and S. Sachdev, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences120, e2302701120 (2023)

    work page 2023

  67. [67]

    S. A. Kivelson, V. J. Emery, and H. Q. Lin, Phys. Rev. B 42, 6523 (1990)

    work page 1990

  68. [68]

    J. L. Smith and E. A. Kmetko, Journal of the Less Com- mon Metals 90, 83 (1983)

    work page 1983

  69. [69]

    Paramekanti, M

    A. Paramekanti, M. Randeria, and N. Trivedi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 217002 (2001)

    work page 2001

  70. [70]

    Paramekanti, Cuprate Superconductivity: Boulder Summer School 2014

    A. Paramekanti, Cuprate Superconductivity: Boulder Summer School 2014

    work page 2014

  71. [71]

    Seamus Davis lab, presented at various conferences, dis- tinct from scanning Josephson tunneling microscopy, which does not realize a phase-coherent Josephson loop

    work page

  72. [72]

    Zwettler, H

    J. Zwettler, H. Amir, F. H. Marashi, N. Bielinski, S. Pa- tel, P. Mahaadev, Y. Huang, D. Chaudhuri, X. Guo, T. C. Chiang, D. K. Morr, P. Abbamonte, and F. Mah- mood, Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related 7 Phenomena 270, 147417 (2024)

    work page 2024

  73. [73]

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

    work page 1988

  74. [74]

    In the Hubbard models, spin-charge separation is an re-emergent property in the strong- coupling regime

    Another consequence is that we gain the simplicity of a one-orbital model at the cost of the simple origin of spin- charge separation in the material where long-wavelength spin and charge dynamics are encoded in two distinct species of electrons. In the Hubbard models, spin-charge separation is an re-emergent property in the strong- coupling regime

    work page

  75. [75]

    A. K. McMahan, R. M. Martin, and S. Satpathy, Phys. Rev. B 38, 6650 (1988)

    work page 1988

  76. [76]

    Müller and V

    K.-H. Müller and V. Narozhnyi, eds.,Rare Earth Tran- sition Metal Borocarbides (Nitrides): Superconducting, Magnetic and Normal State Properties (Springer Nether- lands, Dordrecht, 2001)

    work page 2001

  77. [77]

    Hazra, unpublished

    T. Hazra, unpublished

    work page

  78. [78]

    A. A. Patel, H. Guo, I. Esterlis, and S. Sachdev, Science 381, 790 (2023)

    work page 2023

  79. [79]

    C. Li, D. Valentinis, A. A. Patel, H. Guo, J. Schmalian, S. Sachdev, and I. Esterlis, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 186502 (2024)

    work page 2024

  80. [80]

    Tsai and S

    W.-F. Tsai and S. A. Kivelson, Phys. Rev. B73, 214510 (2006)

    work page 2006

Showing first 80 references.