Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Non-BCS behavior of the pairing susceptibility near the onset of superconductivity in a quantum-critical metal

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that for a constant source, the zero-temperature pairing susceptibility in a quantum-critical metal stays positive and finite at the superconducting onset, and becomes a one-parameter family below it.

desk verdict A genuinely new calculation of the dynamical pairing susceptibility in the gamma-model, with the main caveat that the central result rests on a piecewise-local approximation whose numerical validation is thin away from gamma = 0.5. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03698 v1 pith:ZTSAFOAJ submitted 2024-12-04 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.str-el

Artem Abanov , Shang-Shun Zhang , Andrey Chubukov This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.str-el
keywords pairingsusceptibilityquantum-criticalmetalnon-FermiliquidsuperconductivityEliashbergtheorygammamodelmulti-criticalpointdynamicalvertex
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

At zero temperature, the paper studies how a quantum-critical metal responds to an infinitesimally small pairing field, through the dynamical pairing susceptibility $\chi_{pp}(\omega_m)=\Phi(\omega_m)/\Phi_0(\omega_m)$. It claims that the BCS rule of thumb—susceptibility positive above the transition, divergent at it, negative below—does not hold for pairing out of a non-Fermi liquid. For a frequency-independent source, $\chi_{pp}$ remains positive and finite as the pairing threshold $N=N_{cr}$ is approached from above, and only for $N

What carries the argument

The argument runs through the reduction of the non-local integral gap equation (4) to the approximate local equation (7), replacing $|\omega_m-\omega'_m|^\gamma$ by the larger of $|\omega_m|^\gamma$ and $|\omega'_m|^\gamma$. Differentiating (7) twice yields a second-order differential equation (9) whose two independent solutions are hypergeometric functions $H_b(z)$ and $H_{-b}(z)$ with $z=\omega_m^\gamma$ and $b=\frac12\sqrt{1-N_{cr}/N}$. Normalizability under the condensation-energy scalar product picks $H_b$ for $N>N_{cr}$; below $N_{cr}$, $b=i\tilde b$ and the real response is a linear combination of the two complex-conjugate functions with a free phase parameter $\eta$. The divergence at $\eta=\pi/2$ corresponds to the limiting non-normalizable solution of the linearized gap equation, whose condensation energy is logarithmically divergent and regularized only by nonlinearity.

What would settle it

Solve the original non-local integral equation (4) numerically at $T=0$ with a constant source for $\gamma$ well away from $0.5$, say $\gamma=0.8$, and examine $\chi_{pp}(\omega_m)$ as $N$ approaches $N_{cr}$ from above; if the susceptibility develops a divergence or a sign change at criticality, the non-divergence and non-uniqueness claimed here do not survive the approximation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the zero-temperature pairing susceptibility in the $\gamma$-model of a quantum-critical metal is not the BCS susceptibility. When the external source $\Phi_0$ is constant, $\chi_{pp}$ is a regular, positive function for all $N\geq N_{cr}$, including at $N=N_{cr}$; no divergence flags the pairing instability. Immediately below $N_{cr}$, the perturbative iteration series diverges and the susceptibility becomes a one-parameter family $\chi_{pp}(z,\eta)$ built from the complex-conjugate solutions $H_{i\tilde b}(z)$ and $H_{-i\tilde b}(z)$; it is negative for a range of $\eta$ near $\pi/2$ and diverges at $\eta=\pi/2$. For a frequency-dependent source, the same picture holds generically, but if the source contains the specific component $\partial H_b/\partial b|_{b=0}$, the susceptibility diverges as $1/\sqrt{N_{cr}-N}$ when $N\to N_{cr}$ from above. The paper interprets the non-unique, parameter-dependent response below $N_{cr}$ as the signature of a multi-critical onset, consistent with the previously found infinite family of topologically distinct gap solutions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing simplification is the replacement of the non-local kernel $|\omega_m-\omega'_m|^\gamma$ by the piecewise-local form that turns the integral gap equation into the differential equation (9); the paper's main conclusions are derived from this approximate equation, and the direct numerical check against the original equation is shown only for $\gamma=0.5$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A non-divergent $\chi_{pp}$ above the onset does not mean the normal state is stable; the instability instead shows up as the breakdown of the iteration series at $N<N_{cr}$.
  • Below $N_{cr}$, the pairing susceptibility is intrinsically non-unique, so a response experiment or calculation must specify which $\eta$ sector the probe couples to.
  • At $N=N_{cr}$ and constant source, $\chi_{pp}(z)$ behaves as $z^{-1/2}$ at small frequency, a power law without any critical pole.
  • For frequency-dependent sources, the divergence at criticality is controlled by the overlap of the source with the zero-mode component $\partial H_b/\partial b|_{b=0}$; generic sources remain regular.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this picture survives in the full non-local model, the pairing susceptibility in quantum-critical metals should be understood as a multi-valued response: different probes can see either a regular or a divergent susceptibility at the same critical coupling, depending on the frequency profile of the probe.
  • The mathematical structure—log-oscillatory non-normalizable solutions regularized by nonlinearity—is the same as in the superheavy-atom problem noted by the authors; one could test the analogy by looking for the same $\eta$-family of responses in other symmetry-breaking problems with singular long-range kernels.
  • The mechanism suggests a concrete experimental signature: a static pairing probe should show a smooth, non-divergent response as a quantum-critical metal is tuned through the superconducting onset, whereas a probe with a specific frequency structure should show a $1/\sqrt{N_{cr}-N}$ divergence.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the T=0 dynamical pairing susceptibility χpp(ωm) in a quantum-critical metal described by the γ-model, defined as the ratio of the fully dressed infinitesimal pairing vertex Φ(ωm) to a bare source Φ0(ωm). The main results are that, for a constant source, χpp does not diverge when the pairing interaction strength N approaches the critical value Ncr from above, and remains finite and positive at N=Ncr; below Ncr it becomes a function of a continuous free parameter η, is negative for some range of η, and diverges at η=π/2. For a special class of frequency-dependent sources, χpp diverges at N→Ncr, while for generic frequency-dependent sources it remains regular. The authors interpret this behavior as evidence of a multi-critical superconducting transition, with an infinite set of pairing states emerging simultaneously below Ncr. The derivations are based on a local approximation to the nonlocal gap equation, validated numerically only for γ=0.5. The paper is clearly written and the interpretation is physically motivated, but the central claims have not yet been tied robustly to the original nonlocal equation.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper identifies a genuinely unconventional property of pairing in quantum-critical metals: the linear response to a pairing source can remain non-singular at the pairing threshold, and below threshold the susceptibility is non-unique, reflecting a multi-critical point. This would extend prior work by Abanov and Chubukov on the γ-model and provides a concrete, falsifiable distinction between BCS and quantum-critical pairing. The main strengths are the explicit analytical construction of the solution space of the approximate integral equation, the iterative numerical checks for γ=0.5, and the physical interpretation via normalizability and the analogy with the heavy-atom Klein-Gordon problem. The results are, however, derived from a piecewise-local replacement of the kernel |ωm−ω′m|γ, and the paper's own numerical verification is limited to a single value of γ far from criticality. Because the threshold and the non-divergence at Ncr are the central claims, the validity of this approximation across the full parameter range is the principal barrier to accepting the results as statements about the original model.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II.A, Eqs. (4)-(9)] The central results are derived not from the nonlocal gap equation (4) but from the piecewise-local approximation (6), leading to Eq. (7) and the differential equation (9), with Ncr replaced by the small-γ form Ncr=4(1−γ)/γ in Eq. (8). The paper states that the solutions of (4) and (9) 'almost coincide for all γ<1', but the only numerical evidence is Fig. 4, computed at γ=0.5 and N=6.5, which is far above Ncr. For γ=0.8, the exact expression (3) gives Ncr≈1.8 while Eq. (8) gives 1.0; for γ→1 the discrepancy grows further. If the local reduction changes the location or nature of the threshold, the claim that χpp remains finite at the true Ncr, and the η-dependent family below Ncr, may be artifacts of Eq. (7). I request a systematic numerical comparison of the iterative solutions of (4) and (6)/(9) for several γ values, including γ close to 1, and for N close to Ncr on both sides of the transition, together with a demonstration that the qualitative behavior is unchanged.
  2. [§III.B, Eqs. (19)-(30) and §V] The uniqueness of χpp above Ncr rests on the claim C(b)=0 in Eq. (19). The justification is threefold: the N→∞ limit, the small-z and large-z iterative expansions, and a normalizability criterion. The asymptotics are checked only at small and large z, and the text itself concludes with 'It is then natural to assume' that H−b(z) is not generated for any z; this is not a proof for intermediate frequencies. Moreover, footnote 61 states that the norm of both H_b and H_{−b} diverges logarithmically at z→∞ unless a convergence factor is introduced, so the norm argument in Sec. V is not decisive in the δ→0 limit. Since any admixture of H_{−b} would change χpp and could introduce a divergence at Ncr, this step is load-bearing. The authors should either prove that the iterative solution converges to H_b for all z in a suitable norm for N>Ncr, or specify and justify an additional regularity condition that selects C(b)=0 and verify it against the original integral equation (4).
  3. [§III.C, Eqs. (35)-(38)] Below Ncr, the pairing susceptibility is presented as a function of a free parameter η with no physical selection rule. For a fixed constant source Φ0, different η give positive, negative, or divergent χpp. The paper interprets this as multi-criticality, but it is also possible that the non-uniqueness is an artifact of solving the linearized equation without specifying how the infinitesimal source is switched on or how the limit δ→0 in the convergence factor is taken. To make the claim falsifiable, the authors should state whether η labels different stationary states of the system, and how a particular η is selected in a concrete measurement or in the limiting procedure from finite T. Without such a criterion, the statement that 'the susceptibility becomes non-unique' is not a well-defined prediction about a response function.
  4. [§IV, Eqs. (43)-(44)] The divergence of χpp at N→Ncr for the special family of sources (39) is derived in the approximate model and in the small-b limit, where the prefactor 1/√(1−λ) appears. Given the concern in the first major comment, this divergence and the C0=0/C0≠0 criterion below Eq. (47) should be checked against the original integral equation (4). If the local approximation shifts the critical coupling or changes the structure of the zero mode, the exponent of the divergence and the condition for its appearance may not survive.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III.B, after Eq. (18)] Typographical errors: 'we immediately fund that' should read 'we immediately find that', and the fragment 'because use' appears in the sentence introducing Eq. (15); these should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 4] The caption of Fig. 4 should state explicitly which curve corresponds to the original integral equation (4) and which to the approximate equation (6); the text does not consistently describe the blue and red lines, and the axes labels should be defined.
  3. [§II.A, after Eq. (7)] The substitution z=ω_m^γ is used throughout, but the positive-frequency branch and the symmetry of Φ(ω_m) are not stated explicitly; please specify that the equations are written for ω_m>0 and indicate how the results are continued to negative frequency.
  4. [§III.C, Eqs. (37)-(38)] The notation for the imaginary part of b is inconsistent: Eq. (34) defines ˜b, but Eq. (38) uses both '¯b' and 'π2' in the printed text; the expressions should use a single notation, e.g., π^2 ilde b |tan η|, and the constant c should be defined in the same notation.
  5. [Introduction, paragraph after Eq. (1)] The phrase 'at N = Ncr − 0' is used without definition; a brief explanation of the convention (approach from above or below) would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the susceptibility results are derived from the linearized gap equation, with no parameter fitted to the target result; prior self-citations supply inputs but are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The central object chi_pp(omega_m) is defined via Eq. (5) and computed by solving the linearized integral equation (4) after the local reduction (6)/(7). No parameter of the model is fitted to the stated predictions: the hypergeometric solutions H_b, H_{-b} in Eq. (14) are obtained from the differential equation (9), and the choice C(b)=0 for N>N_cr is fixed by the iterative solution (Eqs. (21)-(29)) and by the normalizability argument in Section V, not by demanding a particular chi_pp. The non-unique form below N_cr, Eq. (36), follows from the fact that for imaginary b the two independent solutions must be combined to give a real Phi; the free parameter eta is not adjusted to data. The divergence at eta=pi/2 is an algebraic consequence of the 1/(2 cos eta) prefactor in Eq. (36), i.e., it is part of the model's mathematical content rather than a fitted prediction. The paper does import prior same-author results (the exact N_cr in Eq. (3), the infinite discrete family of solutions), but these serve as motivation and input and are not needed to obtain the susceptibility from Eq. (7); the homogeneous solution that generates the eta-dependence is derived in this paper. The piecewise-local approximation (6) and the claim that it works for all gamma<1 are only spot-checked numerically at gamma=0.5 (Fig. 4), but that is a robustness/correctness concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or fields are introduced. The continuous parameter eta is a mathematical label, not an entity. The central claim rests on the Eliashberg model, the 1/N suppression, the small-gamma kernel approximation, the normalizability selection, and the ratio definition of the susceptibility.

free parameters (1)
  • eta = continuous, 0 < eta < pi
    Arbitrary parameter labeling the family of solutions for the pairing susceptibility below Ncr; not fixed by the equations, giving the non-unique behavior.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The quantum-critical metal is described by the Eliashberg-type equations (2) with local self-energy and pairing vertex, and dynamical interaction V(Omega_m) = (g/|Omega_m|)^gamma.
    This is the starting model; the paper does not derive it from a microscopic Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption The interaction in the particle-particle channel is suppressed by a factor 1/N relative to the particle-hole channel, with N treated as a continuous parameter.
    The paper follows earlier SU(N) and Yukawa-SYK models; this is a modeling assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper The kernel |omega_m - omega'_m|^gamma in Eq. (4) can be replaced by the piecewise form used in Eq. (6), accurate for small gamma and verified numerically only for gamma=0.5.
    This approximation is essential for converting the integral equation into the differential equation (9) whose solutions are used for the central claim.
  • domain assumption Only the normalizable solution H_b(z) is physical; the solution H_-b(z) is discarded because it gives divergent condensation energy.
    This selection rule is argued in Sec. V via the Schrodinger analogy, but is not derived from first principles within this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The pairing susceptibility can be defined as the ratio Phi/Phi0 even when both functions are not normalizable; a convergence factor is invoked in footnote 61.
    The definition is central; the paper acknowledges the formal divergence of the norm.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-BCS behavior of the pairing susceptibility near the onset of superconductivity in a quantum-critical metal." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZTSAFOAJ

@misc{pith2026241203698,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-BCS behavior of the pairing susceptibility near the onset of superconductivity in a quantum-critical metal},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZTSAFOAJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03698}
}
abstract

We analyze the dynamical pairing susceptibility $\chi_{pp} (\omega_m)$ at $T=0$ in a quantum-critical metal, where superconductivity emerges out of a non-Fermi liquid ground state once the pairing interaction exceeds a certain threshold. We obtain $\chi_{pp} (\omega_m)$ as the ratio of the fully dressed dynamical pairing vertex $\Phi (\omega_m)$ and the bare $\Phi_0 (\omega_m)$ (both infinitesimally small). For superconductivity out of a Fermi liquid, the pairing susceptibility is positive above $T_c$, diverges at $T_c$, and becomes negative below it. For superconductivity out of a non-Fermi liquid, the behavior of $\chi_{pp} (\omega_m)$ is different in two aspects: (i) it diverges at the onset of pairing at $T=0$ only for a certain subclass of bare $\Phi_0 (\omega_m)$ and remains non-singular for other $\Phi_0 (\omega_m)$, and (ii) below the instability, it becomes a non-unique function of a continuous parameter $\phi$ for an arbitrary $\Phi_0 (\omega_m)$. The susceptibility is negative in some range of $\phi$ and diverges at the boundary of this range. We argue that this behavior of the susceptibility reflects a multi-critical nature of a superconducting transition in a quantum-critical metal when immediately below the instability an infinite number of superconducting states emerges simultaneously with different amplitudes of the order parameter down to an infinitesimally small one.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03698 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A schematic zero-temperature phase diagram of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Power-law behavior of the pairing vertex Φ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The iterative solution of the gap equation (4) with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. An illustration of the structure of the one-loop RG equation for the 4-fermion interaction vertex for (a) BCS pairing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P. A. Lee, Gauge field, aharonov-bohm flux, and high- Tc superconductivity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 680 (1989); B. Blok and H. Monien, Gauge theories of high- tc su- perconductors, Phys. Rev. B 47, 3454 (1993); C. Nayak and F. Wilczek, Non-fermi liquid fixed point in 2 + 1 di- mensions, Nuclear Physics B 417, 359 (1994); B. L. Alt- shuler, L. B. Ioffe, and A...

    work page 1989

  2. [2]

    Y. You, G. Y. Cho, and E. Fradkin, Nematic quantum phase transition of composite fermi liquids in half-filled landau levels and their geometric response, Phys. Rev. B 93, 205401 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    A. J. Millis, Nearly antiferromagnetic fermi liquids: An analytic eliashberg approach, Phys. Rev. B 45, 13047 (1992)

    1992

  4. [4]

    B. L. Altshuler, L. B. Ioffe, A. I. Larkin, and A. J. Millis, Spin-density-wave transition in a two-dimensional spin liquid, Phys. Rev. B 52, 4607 (1995)

    work page 1995

  5. [5]

    Sachdev, A

    S. Sachdev, A. V. Chubukov, and A. Sokol, Crossover and scaling in a nearly antiferromagnetic fermi liquid in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. B 51, 14874 (1995)

    work page 1995

  6. [6]

    Abanov, A

    A. Abanov, A. V. Chubukov, and A. M. Finkel’stein, Coherent vs . incoherent pairing in 2D systems near magnetic instability, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 54, 488 (2001)

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    Abanov, A

    A. Abanov, A. V. Chubukov, and J. Schmalian, Quantum-critical theory of the spin-fermion model and its application to cuprates: Normal state analysis, Ad- vances in Physics 52, 119 (2003); A. Abanov and A. V. Chubukov, A relation between the resonance neutron peak and arpes data in cuprates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1652 (1999); A. Abanov, A. V. Chubukov, and...

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Sachdev, M

    S. Sachdev, M. A. Metlitski, Y. Qi, and C. Xu, Fluc- tuating spin density waves in metals, Phys. Rev. B 80, 155129 (2009); E. G. Moon and S. Sachdev, Competition between spin density wave order and superconductivity in the underdoped cuprates, Phys. Rev. B 80, 035117 (2009); S. Sachdev, H. D. Scammell, M. S. Scheurer, and G. Tarnopolsky, Gauge theory for ...

    work page 2009

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Vojta and S

    M. Vojta and S. Sachdev, Charge order, superconductiv- ity, and a global phase diagram of doped antiferromag- nets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3916 (1999); C. Li, S. Sachdev, and D. G. Joshi, Superconductivity of non-fermi liquids described by sachdev-ye-kitaev models, Phys. Rev. Re...

    1999

  2. [10]

    Wang and A

    Y. Wang and A. V. Chubukov, Superconductivity at the onset of spin-density-wave order in a metal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 127001 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    K. B. Efetov, H. Meier, and C. Pepin, Pseudogap state near a quantum critical point, Nature Physics 9, 442 (2013); H. Meier, C. P´ epin, M. Einenkel, and K. B. Efetov, Cascade of phase transitions in the vicinity of a quantum critical point, Phys. Rev. B 89, 195115 (2014); K. ...

    2013

  4. [12]

    M. A. Metlitski and S. Sachdev, Quantum phase transi- tions of metals in two spatial dimensions. i. ising-nematic order, Physical Review B 82, 075127 (2010); Quantum phase transitions of metals in two spatial dimensions. ii. spin density wave order, 82, 075128 (2010); S. A. Ha...

    2010

  5. [13]

    Dalidovich and S.-S

    D. Dalidovich and S.-S. Lee, Perturbative non-fermi liq- uids from dimensional regularization, Phys. Rev. B 88, 245106 (2013); S.-S. Lee, Recent developments in non- fermi liquid theory, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 9, 227 (2018)

    2013

  6. [14]

    Bauer and S

    J. Bauer and S. Sachdev, Real-space eliashberg approach to charge order of electrons coupled to dynamic antifer- romagnetic fluctuations, Phys. Rev. B 92, 085134 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    Castellani, C

    C. Castellani, C. Di Castro, and M. Grilli, Singular quasi- particle scattering in the proximity of charge instabilities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4650 (1995); A. Perali, C. Castel- lani, C. Di Castro, and M. Grilli, d-wave superconduc- tivity near charge instabilities, Phys. Rev....

    1995

  8. [16]

    Chowdhury and S

    D. Chowdhury and S. Sachdev, Feedback of supercon- ducting fluctuations on charge order in the underdoped cuprates, Phys. Rev. B 90, 134516 (2014); Density-wave instabilities of fractionalized fermi liquids, Phys. Rev. B 12 90, 245136 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    M. H. Gerlach, Y. Schattner, E. Berg, and S. Trebst, Quantum critical properties of a metallic spin-density- wave transition, Phys. Rev. B 95, 035124 (2017); Y. Schattner, S. Lederer, S. A. Kivelson, and E. Berg, Ising nematic quantum critical point in a metal: A monte carlo s...

    2017

  10. [18]

    Shibauchi, A

    T. Shibauchi, A. Carrington, and Y. Matsuda, Quantum critical point lying beneath the superconducting dome in iron-pnictides, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 5, 113 (2014); H. v. L¨ ohneysen, A. Rosch, M. Vo- jta, and P. W¨ olfle, Fermi-liquid instabilities at magnet...

    2014

  11. [19]

    Khodas, H

    M. Khodas, H. B. Yang, J. Rameau, P. D. Johnson, A. M. Tsvelik, and T. M. Rice, Analysis of the quasi- particle spectral function in the underdoped cuprates, ArXiv:1007.4837 (2010); A. M. Tsvelik, Ladder physics in the spin fermion model, Phys. Rev. B 95, 201112 (2017); R. M. ...

    2010 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Metzner, D

    W. Metzner, D. Rohe, and S. Andergassen, Soft fermi surfaces and breakdown of fermi-liquid behavior, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 066402 (2003); L. Dell’Anna and W. Met- zner, Fermi surface fluctuations and single electron exci- tations near pomeranchuk instability in two dimensions, ...

    2003

  13. [21]

    Vilardi, C

    D. Vilardi, C. Taranto, and W. Metzner, Antiferromag- netic and d-wave pairing correlations in the strongly interacting two-dimensional hubbard model from the functional renormalization group, arXiv:1810.02290 and references therein (2018); T. Holder and W. Met- zner, Fermion ...

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Sordi, P

    G. Sordi, P. Simon, K. Haule, and A.-M. S. Tremblay, Strong coupling superconductivity, pseudogap, and mott transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 216401 (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    She and J

    J.-H. She and J. Zaanen, Bcs superconductivity in quan- tum critical metals, Phys. Rev. B 80, 184518 (2009); S.- X. Yang, H. Fotso, S.-Q. Su, D. Galanakis, E. Khatami, J.-H. She, J. Moreno, J. Zaanen, and M. Jarrell, Proxim- ity of the superconducting dome and the quantum crit...

    2009

  16. [24]

    A. V. Chubukov and P. W¨ olfle, Quasiparticle interaction function in a two-dimensional fermi liquid near an an- tiferromagnetic critical point, Phys. Rev. B 89, 045108 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    C. M. Varma, Quantum-critical fluctuations in 2d met- als: strange metals and superconductivity in antiferro- magnets and in cuprates, Reports on Progress in Physics 79, 082501 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Georges, L

    A. Georges, L. d. Medici, and J. Mravlje, Strong correla- tions from hund’s coupling, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 4, 137 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    T.-H. Lee, A. Chubukov, H. Miao, and G. Kotliar, Pair- ing mechanism in hund’s metal superconductors and the universality of the superconducting gap to critical tem- perature ratio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 187003 (2018); Y.- M. Wu, A. Abanov, and A. V. Chubukov, Pairing in quant...

    2018

  20. [28]

    Klein, A

    A. Klein, A. V. Chubukov, Y. Schattner, and E. Berg, Normal state properties of quantum critical metals at finite temperature, Phys. Rev. X 10, 031053 (2020); A. Klein, Y.-M. Wu, and A. V. Chubukov, Multiple in- tertwined pairing states and temperature-sensitive gap anisotropy...

    2020

  21. [29]

    Kumar, A

    A. Kumar, A. S. Patri, and T. Senthil, Unconventional superconductivity mediated by exciton density wave fluc- tuations (2024), arXiv:2410.09148 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024

  22. [30]

    P. A. Nosov, I. S. Burmistrov, and S. Raghu, Inter- play of superconductivity and localization near a two- dimensional ferromagnetic quantum critical point, Phys. Rev. B 107, 144508 (2023); T. C. Wu, P. A. Lee, and M. S. Foster, Enhancement of superconductivity in a dirty marg...

    2023

  23. [31]

    D. J. Scalapino, The electron-phonon interaction and strong-coupling superconductors, Superconductivity, Ed. R.D. Parks (Dekker, New York, 1969) p 449 (1969); P. Monthoux, D. Pines, and G. G. Lonzarich, Supercon- ductivity without phonons, Nature 450, 1177 (2007)

    1969

  24. [32]

    Electron-Phonon Superconductivity

    F. Marsiglio and J. P. Carbotte, Gap function and density of states in the strong-coupling limit for an electron-boson system, Phys. Rev. B 43, 5355 (1991), for more recent results see F. Marsiglio and J.P. Car- botte, “Electron-Phonon Superconductivity”, in “The Physics of Co...

    1991

  25. [33]

    Mirabi, R

    S. Mirabi, R. Boyack, and F. Marsiglio, Thermodynam- ics of eliashberg theory in the weak-coupling limit, Phys. Rev. B 102, 214505 (2020); M. Protter, R. Boyack, and F. Marsiglio, Functional-integral approach to gaus- sian fluctuations in eliashberg theory, Phys. Rev. B 104, 0...

    2020

  26. [34]

    Esterlis, B

    I. Esterlis, B. Nosarzewski, E. W. Huang, B. Moritz, T. P. Devereaux, D. J. Scalapino, and S. A. Kivelson, Break- down of the migdal-eliashberg theory: A determinant quantum monte carlo study, Phys. Rev. B 97, 140501 (2018); A. V. Chubukov, A. Abanov, I. Esterlis, and S. A. Ki...

    2018

  27. [35]

    Zhang, J

    C. Zhang, J. Sous, D. R. Reichman, M. Berciu, A. J. Millis, N. V. Prokof’ev, and B. V. Svistunov, Bipolaronic high-temperature superconductivity, Phys. Rev. X 13, 011010 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Secchi, M

    A. Secchi, M. Polini, and M. I. Katsnelson, Phonon- mediated superconductivity in strongly correlated elec- tron systems: A luttinger–ward functional approach, An- nals of Physics 417, 168100 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    E. A. Yuzbashyan, M. K.-H. Kiessling, and B. L. Alt- shuler, Superconductivity near a quantum critical point in the extreme retardation regime, Phys. Rev. B 106, 064502 (2022); E. A. Yuzbashyan and B. L. Altshuler, Migdal-eliashberg theory as a classical spin chain, Phys. Rev....

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Kiessling, B

    M. Kiessling, B. Altshuler, and E. Yuzbashyan, Bounds on tc in the eliashberg theory of superconductivity. ii: Dispersive phonons (2024), arXiv:2409.00532 [math-ph]; Bounds on tc in the eliashberg theory of superconductiv- ity. iii: Einstein phonons (2024), arXiv:2409.02121 [c...

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Zhang, Y.-M

    S.-S. Zhang, Y.-M. Wu, A. Abanov, and A. V. Chubukov, Superconductivity out of a non-fermi liquid: Free energy analysis, Phys. Rev. B 106, 144513 (2022); S.-S. Zhang, E. Berg, and A. V. Chubukov, Free energy and specific heat near a quantum critical point of a metal, Phys. Rev...

    2022

  32. [40]

    A. A. Patel and S. Sachdev, Theory of a planckian metal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 066601 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Esterlis and J

    I. Esterlis and J. Schmalian, Cooper pairing of incoherent electrons: An electron-phonon version of the sachdev-ye- kitaev model, Phys. Rev. B 100, 115132 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    Wang, Solvable strong-coupling quantum-dot model with a non-fermi-liquid pairing transition, Phys

    Y. Wang, Solvable strong-coupling quantum-dot model with a non-fermi-liquid pairing transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 017002 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Hauck, M

    D. Hauck, M. J. Klug, I. Esterlis, and J. Schmalian, Eliashberg equations for an electron-phonon version of the sachdev-ye-kitaev model: Pair breaking in non-fermi liquid superconductors, Annals of Physics 417, 168120 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Chowdhury and E

    D. Chowdhury and E. Berg, Intrinsic superconducting instabilities of a solvable model for an incoherent metal, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 013301 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Classen and A

    L. Classen and A. Chubukov, Superconductivity of inco- herent electrons in the yukawa sachdev-ye-kitaev model, Phys. Rev. B 104, 125120 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Classen and J

    L. Classen and J. J. Betouras, High-order van hove sin- gularities and their connection to flat bands, Annual Re- view of Condensed Matter Physics (2024); A. Shtyk, G. Goldstein, and C. Chamon, Electrons at the monkey saddle: A multicritical lifshitz point, Phys. Rev. B 95, 03...

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Raghu, G

    S. Raghu, G. Torroba, and H. Wang, Metallic quan- tum critical points with finite bcs couplings, Phys. Rev. B 92, 205104 (2015); A. L. Fitzpatrick, S. Kachru, J. Kaplan, and S. Raghu, Non-fermi-liquid fixed point in a wilsonian theory of quantum critical metals, Phys. Rev. B 8...

    2015

  40. [48]

    Moon and A

    E.-G. Moon and A. Chubukov, Quantum-critical pair- ing with varying exponents, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 161, 263 (2010)

    2010

  41. [49]

    Y. Wang, A. Abanov, B. L. Altshuler, E. A. Yuzbashyan, and A. V. Chubukov, Superconductivity near a quantum- critical point: The special role of the first matsubara frequency, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 157001 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    Abanov and A

    A. Abanov and A. V. Chubukov, Interplay between su- perconductivity and non-fermi liquid at a quantum crit- ical point in a metal. i. the γ model and its phase di- agram at T = 0: The case 0 < γ < 1, Phys. Rev. B 102, 024524 (2020); Y.-M. Wu, A. Abanov, Y. Wang, and A. V. Chub...

    2020

  43. [51]

    Kiessling, B

    M. Kiessling, B. Altshuler, and E. Yuzbashyan, Bounds on tc in the eliashberg theory of superconductivity. i: The γ-model (2024), arXiv:2409.00533 [math-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    D. V. Khveshchenko and W. F. Shively, Excitonic pairing between nodal fermions, Phys. Rev. B 73, 115104 (2006)

    2006

  45. [53]

    A. V. Chubukov, A. Abanov, Y. Wang, and Y.-M. Wu, The interplay between superconductivity and non-fermi liquid at a quantum-critical point in a metal, Annals of Physics 417, 168142 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    H. Wang, S. Raghu, and G. Torroba, Non-fermi-liquid su- perconductivity: Eliashberg approach versus the renor- malization group, Phys. Rev. B 95, 165137 (2017); H. Wang, Y. Wang, and G. Torroba, Superconductivity versus quantum criticality: Effects of thermal fluctua- tions, P...

    2017

  47. [55]

    C. P. Herzog, P. K. Kovtun, and D. T. Son, Holographic model of superfluidity, Phys. Rev. D 79, 066002 (2009); K. Jensen, A. Karch, D. T. Son, and E. G. Thomp- son, Holographic berezinskii-kosterlitz-thouless transi- tions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 041601 (2010); D. B. Ka- plan, ...

    2009

  48. [56]

    The magnitude of Φ n(ωm) decreases with n and be- comes infinitesimally small at n → ∞for any N < Ncr. This implies that the linearized equation for Φ( ωm) has a solution not only at N = Ncr − 0 but also for arbitrary N < Ncr, along with an infinite set of solutions of the non...

  49. [57]

    The variation of ψn(ω) can be extracted from photoemission and other measure- ments

    This gives rise to n phase slips of the phase of the com- plex gap function on the real axis: ψn(∞)−ψn(0)) = nπ, where Φ n(ω) = |Φn(ω)|eiψn(ω). The variation of ψn(ω) can be extracted from photoemission and other measure- ments

  50. [58]

    A more accurate statement is Φ ∞(z) is the limiting form of the solution of the non-linear gap equation at a van- ishingly small but still finite Φ( z). The distinction with the solution of just the linearized gap equation is an in- finitesimally small Φ ∞(z) is essential beca...

  51. [59]

    Y. B. Zeldovich and V. S. Popov, Electronic structure of superheavy atoms, Soviet Physics Uspekhi 14, 673 (1972)

    1972

  52. [60]

    Schwabl, Advanced Quantum Mechanics (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008)

    F. Schwabl, Advanced Quantum Mechanics (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008)

    2008

  53. [61]

    Aharony, G

    O. Aharony, G. Cuomo, Z. Komargodski, M. Mezei, and A. Raviv-Moshe, Phases of wilson lines: Conformality and screening (2023), arXiv:2310.00045 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    This divergence is artificial as it appears because the norm of Φ 0 diverges, i.e

    The norm of both functions formally diverges logarithmi- cally at z → ∞. This divergence is artificial as it appears because the norm of Φ 0 diverges, i.e. formally Φ 0 is out- side the space of allowed wavefunctions. To fix this one should instead consider Φ 0(z) = Φ 0e−δz , ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.