Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 73 references

Lifshitz transition and triplet $p$-wave pairing from the induced ferromagnetic plaquette via spin differentiated nonlocal interaction

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A spin-differentiated nearest-neighbor interaction that favors parallel spins creates short-ranged ferromagnetic plaquettes; these reconstruct the Fermi surface into quasi-one-dimensional bands and make equal-spin triplet p-wave pairing…

desk verdict Careful fourth-order diagrammatics, but the headline Lifshitz transition and triplet p-wave rest on an uncontrolled truncation and a partially built-in interaction. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04915 v1 pith:OQT3ARMG submitted 2025-01-09 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.supr-con

Rayan Farid , Daria Gazizova , B. D. E. McNiven , J. P. F. LeBlanc This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.supr-con MSC 82B2082D5581V70 PACS 71.10.Fd74.20.Mn75.30.Fv
keywords Hubbardmodelextendedspin-dependentinteractionLifshitztransitionferromagneticplaquettetripletp-wavepairingspinsusceptibilitydiagrammaticperturbationtheory
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

The paper aims to show that a nearest-neighbor interaction which treats parallel and antiparallel spins differently can, by itself, create short-ranged ferromagnetic plaquettes in the square-lattice Hubbard model. These plaquettes frustrate electron hopping and progressively flatten the single-particle band, eventually reconstructing the Fermi surface into quasi-one-dimensional bands at moderate interaction strength, a Lifshitz transition. Inside the same plaquettes, the interaction supplies an effective attraction between equal spins, making equal-spin triplet p-wave pairing the leading superconducting channel in the weak-coupling limit. A sympathetic reader would care because it offers a route to Fermi-surface reconstruction and spin-triplet superconductivity that is driven by interactions alone, without geometric frustration or broken translational symmetry.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is the spin-differentiated nearest-neighbor interaction, written in momentum space as $W_{uu}(q) = V_{uu}[2\cos q_x + 2\cos q_y]$ and $W_{ud}(q) = U[1 + (V_{ud}/U)(2\cos q_x + 2\cos q_y)]$. The computational engine is fourth-order direct diagrammatic perturbation theory evaluated by Algorithmic Matsubara Integration, which performs Matsubara sums symbolically and leaves internal momenta continuous, so results are in the thermodynamic limit. The physical mechanism is the $2\times2$ ferromagnetic plaquette: Pauli exclusion blocks hopping between aligned spins, and the alternating (PAFM) or stripe (PS) arrangement of plaquettes yields effective dispersions $\bar{\epsilon} = -2[\cos(k_x)+\cos(k_y)]/D$ and $\bar{\epsilon} = \pm 2\cos(k)/D$, respectively. The quasi-1D band observed at $U/t \ge 3.75$ is exactly the PS dispersion with $D = 2$, and the effective attraction between equal spins inside the plaquette channels the pairing response into equal-spin triplet p-wave.

What would settle it

Evaluate the zero-frequency spectral function at $U/t = 4.0$, $V_{uu} = -0.2U$, $V_{ud} = 0.2U$, and $\beta t = 5$ with a numerically exact many-body method in the thermodynamic limit or on large lattices; if the additional poles along the $X$--$M$ line and the quasi-1D band structure do not appear, the predicted Lifshitz transition is an artifact of the fourth-order expansion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that with $V_{uu} < V_{ud}$, specifically $V_{uu} = -0.2U$ and $V_{ud} = 0.2U$ at $\beta t = 5$, the static spin susceptibility develops a strongly enhanced $\mathbf{q} = (0,0)$ ferromagnetic mode along with collinear $\mathbf{q} = (\pi,0)$ and staggered $\mathbf{q} = (\pi,\pi)$ modes, whose real-space form is a two-by-two ferromagnetic plaquette that decays into stripe and checkerboard patterns. The self-energy renormalization flattens the zero-frequency dispersion; at $U/t = 3.75$ additional poles form along the $X$--$M$ line, and the Fermi surface becomes two quasi-one-dimensional bands whose fitted weights $A \approx 1.0$, $B = 0$ match the effective dispersion of plaquette-stripe order with plaquette size $D = 2$. The uniform pairing susceptibility computed to fourth order shows that equal-spin $S_z = \pm 1$ $p_x + ip_y$ p-wave pairing is attractive already in the $U \to 0^+$ limit and remains leading until singlet $d$-wave pairing turns attractive near $U/t = 3.5$. The paper concludes that finite-range magnetic fluctuations, acting through kinetic frustration, can restructure both single-particle and pairing properties while translational symmetry remains intact.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that fourth-order truncated perturbation theory is quantitatively reliable at $\beta t = 5$ up to $U/t = 4.75$; the paper asserts that higher-order corrections are minimal but supplies no convergence test, so the additional poles that define the Lifshitz transition could be truncation artifacts if higher-order diagrams shift the zero-frequency self-energy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $V_{uu} = -0.2U$ the Lifshitz transition occurs at $U/t = 3.75$; strengthening the ferromagnetic bias to $V_{uu} = -0.4U$ lowers the threshold to $U/t = 2.70$, so the transition is tunable by the interaction ratio.
  • Above the transition the hopping along one axis is effectively frozen, with fitted weights $A \approx 1.0$ and $B = 0$, exactly the $D = 2$ plaquette-stripe dispersion, so the quasi-1D bands are a quantitative signature of the plaquette fluctuation.
  • Equal-spin triplet p-wave pairing is attractive in the weak-coupling limit and competes with singlet $d$-wave at intermediate coupling, with $d$-wave becoming the leading channel near $U/t = 3.5$.
  • Reversing the spin polarization ($V_{uu} > V_{ud}$) removes the Lifshitz transition and instead enhances $(\pi,\pi)$ magnetic fluctuations and $d$-wave pairing, so the sign of $V_{uu} - V_{ud}$ controls which physics emerges.
  • All results are obtained at finite temperature in the thermodynamic limit without spontaneously broken translational symmetry, consistent with the Mermin-Wagner theorem.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that the same plaquette-frustration mechanism should survive at finite doping, but the Fermi-surface nesting will change, shifting both the Lifshitz threshold and the momentum structure of the quasi-1D bands; a doping scan would map this out.
  • Extending the ferromagnetic bias to next-nearest neighbors or beyond should grow the plaquettes; by the paper's own $D$-scaling, larger plaquettes flatten the bands further and may turn the equal-spin pairing into higher angular-momentum channels such as $f$-wave.
  • A direct testable extension is the dynamical spin susceptibility: the $\mathbf{q} = (0,0)$ and $\mathbf{q} = (\pi,0)$ modes should appear at distinct energies, giving an experimental fingerprint for the plaquette fluctuations in spectroscopic probes.
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 studies a two-dimensional single-band extended Hubbard model with nearest-neighbor interactions that are spin-differentiated: the equal-spin coupling Vuu and the opposite-spin coupling Vud are treated as independent parameters. Using Algorithmic Matsubara Integration, the authors compute the self-energy, static spin susceptibility, and pairing susceptibilities to fourth order in U and Vuu at βt=5 in the thermodynamic limit. For Vuu=-0.2U and Vud=0.2U they identify competing q=(0,0), q=(π,0), and q=(π,π) spin fluctuations, interpret the real-space susceptibility as 2×2 ferromagnetic plaquettes arranged in plaquette-antiferromagnetic or plaquette-stripe patterns, and argue that kinetic frustration produces a bandwidth reduction and a Lifshitz transition at U≈3.75t. They also report equal-spin triplet p-wave pairing as the leading pairing symmetry in the weak-coupling limit. The paper's central assertion is that finite-range magnetic fluctuations can reconstruct the Fermi surface and stabilize triplet pairing without breaking translational symmetry.

Significance. If quantitatively reliable, the paper would provide a new route to Fermi-surface reconstruction and equal-spin triplet pairing from spin-dependent nonlocal interactions, and it would demonstrate the usefulness of AMI for high-order diagrammatic computations in the thermodynamic limit. The symbolic disentangling of powers of U and Vuu, the full momentum resolution, and the parameter-space scan leading to the phase boundary in Fig. 6 are valuable technical contributions, and the phase boundary is a concrete falsifiable prediction for non-perturbative methods. However, the central claims are not yet established: the fourth-order truncation is uncontrolled at the parameter values used, the Lifshitz criterion is qualitative, the pairing susceptibility omits self-energy diagrams, and the equal-spin triplet pairing is to a large extent a direct consequence of the attractive Vuu input. The paper is therefore a promising but incomplete contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.C and IV, Figs. 4-6] The Lifshitz transition and the quasi-1D band structure are read off from the fourth-order renormalized dispersion ε_k + ReΣ(k,0) at βt=5. At half-filling the noninteracting density of states is enhanced by the van Hove singularity, and at U/t=3.75-4.75 the expansion has no small parameter. The Discussion states that 'the fourth-order expansion has minimal higher-order corrections,' but no fifth-order estimate, resummation, or non-perturbative comparison is provided. Because the additional poles along X-M that define the transition are sign changes of a fourth-order quantity, the phase boundary in Fig. 6 and the quasi-1D bands in Fig. 4 may be truncation artifacts. The authors should add a convergence test or restrict the central claim to parameter regions where the perturbation series is controlled.
  2. [Section III.C, Fig. 6] The phase boundary is defined by 'the formation of at least two additional poles next to k_an along the X→M line' in ε_k+ReΣ(k,0). This criterion is not quantitative, and no error bars are shown for the stochastic momentum integrations or for the regularization parameter γ used in analytic continuation. A different choice of γ or pole-counting rule could shift the boundary substantially. The paper should specify a reproducible algorithmic criterion for the zero-frequency spectral function (for example, a topological index or a threshold on spectral weight) and report error estimates for the boundary.
  3. [Section III.D, Eq. (11) and Fig. 9] The claim that equal-spin triplet p-wave pairing 'emerges' from the induced ferromagnetic plaquette is undermined by the model construction. The Hamiltonian in Eq. (3) contains an attractive nearest-neighbor equal-spin interaction Vuu<0, and the momentum-space coupling Wuu(q)=Vuu[2cos(qx)+2cos(qy)] in Eq. (4) projects directly onto the odd-parity p-wave channel at tree level. The attractive Sz=±1 p-wave response in the U→0+ limit shown in Fig. 9(a) is therefore a direct consequence of the bare Vuu, not of plaquette fluctuations. To support the emergence claim, the authors should separate the bare-Vuu contribution from the fluctuation-mediated part, or compare with a model in which the equal-spin attraction is generated dynamically rather than put in by hand.
  4. [Section III.D, text after Eq. (11)] The pairing susceptibility is computed from vertex diagrams only, without self-energy insertions or quasiparticle-weight corrections. Given that the same paper finds strong momentum-dependent ReΣ and ImΣ at the parameters of interest, the vertex-only pairing response may not reliably determine the leading symmetry, especially near the Lifshitz transition where spectral weight is strongly redistributed. The authors should include the full set of fourth-order diagrams or provide a quantitative justification for omitting self-energy corrections.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The name 'Lifshitz' is repeatedly misspelled as 'Lifshiftz' (for example, in Figs. 4-6 and Section III.C).
  2. [Eq. (6)] The displayed series writes the second interaction power as V^i_uu, but the text describes coefficients a[i,j] in powers of U^i and V^j_uu; the notation should be made consistent.
  3. [Section III.A, text near Fig. 1(b)] The sentence 'This behavior is consistent with is expected in FM and AFM-like interactions' is ungrammatical and should be rewritten.
  4. [Section III.C, Fig. 7 caption] The caption contains 'upper brach' and should read 'upper branch', and the fitting procedure for extracting A and B should be stated explicitly in the main text.
  5. [Section III.B, Eqs. (8)-(9)] The symbols \bar{\epsilon} for the plaquette-model dispersion and \tilde{\epsilon} for the renormalized dispersion are visually similar; using distinct notation would improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the weak-coupling equal-spin p-wave 'emergence' is a direct projection of the input Vuu<0 attraction; the Lifshitz transition and d-wave competition are independent, non-circular results.

  1. self definitional [Abstract; Sec. III D 'Leading Pairing symmetry', Eqs. (3) and (11), Fig. 9(a)]
    "the triplet equal-spin px + ipy pairing (Sz = ±1) emerges as a natural candidate for the leading pairing symmetry due to short ranged FM plaquettes and the attractive interaction between NN equal spins (i.e., Vuu < 0). ... We observe that the triplet Sz = 1 p-wave pairing is attractive in the U → 0+ limit, while other symmetries remain repulsive."

    The input Hamiltonian Eq. (3) contains Vuu < 0 as an attractive density-density interaction between equal spins on nearest-neighbor sites. The px+ipy form factor sin(kx)+i sin(ky) is precisely the odd-parity real-space pairing of equal spins on nearest-neighbor sites. In the U -> 0+ limit, the first-order vertex correction to the pairing susceptibility P_{↑↑} in that channel is the projection of -Vuu onto this form factor, so the sign of the p-wave response is fixed by the input sign of Vuu. The paper's conclusion that triplet p-wave pairing 'emerges' in the weak-coupling limit is therefore a restatement of the input channel rather than an independent prediction. The fourth-order competition with d-wave and the Lifshitz transition are separate, non-circular results.

full rationale

Except for one step, the derivation chain is self-contained. The static spin susceptibility, self-energy, and pairing susceptibilities are computed from bare fourth-order diagrammatic expansions with AMI, and the Lifshitz transition is read off the computed ReΣ(k,0) via pole formation; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction there. The PAFM/PS model in Sec. III B is an interpretation of the computed χs, not an input. The circular step is the claim that equal-spin triplet p-wave pairing 'emerges' in the U→0+ limit: Eq. (3) already contains an attractive Vuu between NN equal spins, and the px+ipy form factor is the odd-parity Cooper-channel projection of that same equal-spin NN attraction; the positive slope of P↑↑ in U is fixed by -Vuu at first order. Thus that part of the headline claim reduces to the input by construction. The intermediate-U competition with d-wave and the quasi-1D Lifshitz transition are nontrivial fourth-order results and are not circular. The self-citations (Refs. [43],[60]) are motivational or benchmark support, not load-bearing for the diagrammatic results. The absence of a convergence test for the fourth-order truncation is a correctness risk, not a circularity, and does not affect this score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a small number of hand-chosen parameters in addition to the model's physical parameters: the ratio V_ud/U=0.2, the analytical continuation regulator gamma, and the pole-counting criterion for the Lifshitz transition. The main unproven axiom is the reliability of the fourth-order truncation at moderate to strong coupling. No new particles or fields are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • V_ud/U ratio = 0.2
    Fixed by hand in Sec II.A; all phase diagrams are computed at this ratio, and the discussion acknowledges results may change with it.
  • Analytical continuation regulator gamma = 0.2 t
    Used for real-frequency spectral functions (Sec II.B and Fig 7); controls peak sharpness and the pole locations used to define the Lifshitz transition.
  • Lifshitz transition criterion = at least two additional poles
    The phase boundary in Fig 6 is defined by counting additional poles of the renormalized dispersion along X-M; this is a hand-chosen threshold, not an observable invariant.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Fourth-order diagrammatic expansion is quantitatively reliable for U/t up to ~5 at beta t = 5.
    Invoked throughout Sec III; the Discussion asserts minimal higher-order corrections without proof.
  • domain assumption The system is at half-filling with only nearest-neighbor hopping t and no next-nearest-neighbor hopping.
    Stated in the Introduction and Model; all results are for this filling and band structure.
  • standard math Mermin-Wagner theorem forbids long-range magnetic order at finite temperature in 2D, so the computed magnetic structures are interpreted as fluctuations.
    Cited in Sec I; used to justify the fluctuation interpretation of the static susceptibility.
  • domain assumption Spin-differentiated interactions of the form Vuu < Vud are physically relevant (e.g., arise from renormalized U, Ref [43]).
    Motivates the model in Sec I and IV; no experimental realization is cited.
  • standard math The AMI diagrammatic evaluation and the momentum-space continuous integration are exact for the truncated set of diagrams.
    The method is published [44-46,55], and the internal momentum integrations are performed stochastically without discretization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lifshitz transition and triplet $p$-wave pairing from the induced ferromagnetic plaquette via spin differentiated nonlocal interaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OQT3ARMG

@misc{pith2026250104915,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lifshitz transition and triplet $p$-wave pairing from the induced ferromagnetic plaquette via spin differentiated nonlocal interaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OQT3ARMG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04915}
}
abstract

We study the two-dimensional extended Hubbard model on a square lattice and incorporate spin-differentiated nearest neighbor (NN) interactions where the equal-spin ($V_{uu}$) and unequal-spin ($V_{ud}$) terms are independently tuned parameters. We compute single-particle excitations as well as static spin and pairing susceptibilities perturbatively up to the fourth order within the thermodynamic limit and at a finite fixed temperature. By explicitly encoding a ferromagnetic-like NN interaction ($V_{uu} < V_{ud}$), we induce a competition among the uniform $q = (0,0)$, collinear $q = (\pi,0)$, and staggered $q = (\pi,\pi)$ spin excitations. This results in the formation of short-ranged $2\times 2$ ferromagnetic plaquettes arranged in staggered or striped patterns. Kinetic frustration in hopping, both within and between these plaquettes, manifests in single-particle properties, resulting in a reduction of bandwidth and ultimately triggering a Lifshitz transition to quasi-one-dimensional bands. Furthermore, an attractive effective interaction within the localized ferromagnetic plaquette results in the emergence of equal-spin triplet $p$-wave pairing. We demonstrate that sufficiently strong magnetic fluctuations, even at finite length scales, can significantly influence single-particle and pairing properties without breaking translational symmetry. Our approach provides a novel pathway to realize a variety of rich magnetic phases and Fermi surface reconstruction driven by interactions in the absence of explicit geometric frustration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04915 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: a) Static [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (a-c) False color plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Schematics showing (a) plaquette [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (a) Renormalized dispersion at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Phase boundary determined by the formation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: (a-e) Evolution of spectral function near bottom of the band from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Weight of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: (a) Uniform pairing susceptibility ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Starting with U = 2 .5t, the FS retains the nested feature of the non-interacting FS marked by the dashed white line

    perturbatively with fixed ratio of Vuu/U = −0.2 and Vud/U = 0 .2 on an L = 16 × 16 external momentum grid while the remaining internal momenta summations are continuous. Starting with U = 2 .5t, the FS retains the nested feature of the non-interacting FS marked by the dashed white line. However, some redistribution of states can be seen near thekan = (π, ...

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Comin and A

    R. Comin and A. Damascelli, Resonant x-ray scattering studies of charge order in cuprates, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 7, 369 (2016)

    2016

  3. [3]

    J. M. Tranquada, Cuprate superconductors as viewed through a striped lens, Advances in Physics 69, 437 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1080/00018732.2021.1935698

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    C. Cruz, Q. Huang, J. Lynn, J. Li, W. Ratcliff, J. Zarestky, H. Mook, G. Chen, J. Luo, N. Wang, and P. Dai, Magnetic order close to superconductivity in the iron-based layered lao1-xfxfeas systems, Nature 453, 899 (2008)

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    G. R. Stewart, Superconductivity in iron compounds, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1589 (2011)

    2011

  6. [6]

    E. Neto, P. Aynajian, A. Frano, R. Comin, E. Schierle, E. Weschke, A. Gyenis, J. Wen, J. Schneeloch, Z. xu, S. Ono, G. Gu, M. Le Tacon, and A. Yazdani, Ubiquitous interplay between charge ordering and high-temperature superconductivity in cuprates, Science (New York, N.Y.) 343 (2013)

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    E. H. da Silva Neto, M. Minola, B. Yu, W. Tabis, M. Bluschke, D. Unruh, H. Suzuki, Y. Li, G. Yu, D. Betto, K. Kummer, F. Yakhou, N. B. Brookes, M. Le Tacon, M. Greven, B. Keimer, and A. Dam- ascelli, Coupling between dynamic magnetic and charge-order correlations in the cuprate superconductor nd2−xcexcuo4, Phys. Rev. B 98, 161114 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Guguchia, D

    Z. Guguchia, D. Das, G. Simutis, T. Adachi, J. K¨ uspert, N. Kitajima, M. Elender, V. Grinenko, O. Ivashko, M. Zimmermann, M. M¨ uller, C. Mielke III, F. Hotz, C. Mudry, C. Baines, M. Bartkowiak, T. Shiroka, Y. Koike, A. Amato, and H. Luetkens, Designing the stripe-ordered cuprate phase diagram through uniaxial- stress, Proceedings of the National Academy...

    work page 2023

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    Keimer, S

    B. Keimer, S. Kivelson, M. Norman, S. Uchida, and J. Za- anen, From quantum matter to high-temperature super- conductivity in copper oxides, Nature 518, 179 (2015)

    2015

  2. [10]

    Jiang and S

    H.-C. Jiang and S. Kivelson, Stripe order enhanced su- perconductivity in the hubbard model, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, e2109406119 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    S. Li, C. de la Cruz, Q. Huang, Y. Chen, J. W. Lynn, J. Hu, Y.-L. Huang, F.-C. Hsu, K.-W. Yeh, M.-K. Wu, and P. Dai, First-order magnetic and structural phase transitions in fe 1+ysexte1−x, Phys. Rev. B 79, 054503 (2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    Machida, K

    T. Machida, K. Kogure, T. Kato, H. Nakamura, H. Takeya, T. Mochiku, S. Ooi, Y. Mizuguchi, Y. Takano, K. Hirata, and H. Sakata, Unidirectional electronic struc- ture in the parent state of iron-chalcogenide superconduc- tor fe1+δte, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 81, ...

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    H.-Y. Cao, S. Chen, H. Xiang, and X.-G. Gong, Antifer- romagnetic ground state with pair-checkerboard order in fese, Phys. Rev. B 91, 020504 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    A. E. Taylor, S. J. Sedlmaier, S. J. Cassidy, E. A. Gore- mychkin, R. A. Ewings, T. G. Perring, S. J. Clarke, and A. T. Boothroyd, Spin fluctuations away from ( π, 0) in the superconducting phase of molecular-intercalated fese, Phys. Rev. B 87, 220508 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    D. W. Tam, H.-H. Lai, J. Hu, X. Lu, H. C. Walker, D. L. Abernathy, J. L. Niedziela, T. Weber, M. Enderle, Y. Su, Z. Q. Mao, Q. Si, and P. Dai, Plaquette instability com- peting with bicollinear ground state in detwinned fete, Phys. Rev. B 100, 054405 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Glasbrenner, I

    J. Glasbrenner, I. Mazin, H. Jeschke, P. Hirschfeld, and R. Valent ´ ı, Effect of magnetic frustration on nematic- ity and superconductivity in fe chalcogenides, Nature Physics 1501 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    Ducatman, N

    S. Ducatman, N. B. Perkins, and A. Chubukov, Mag- netism in parent iron chalcogenides: Quantum fluctua- tions select plaquette order, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 157206 (2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    Chubukov, M

    A. Chubukov, M. Khodas, and R. Fernandes, Magnetism, superconductivity, and spontaneous orbital order in iron- based superconductors: Which comes first and why?, Physical Review X 6 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    R. M. Fernandes and A. V. Chubukov, Low-energy micro- scopic models for iron-based superconductors: a review, Reports on Progress in Physics 80, 014503 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    D. J. Scalapino, A common thread: The pairing inter- action for unconventional superconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1383 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    Hubbard and B

    J. Hubbard and B. H. Flowers, Electron correlations in narrow energy bands, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 276, 238 (1963)

    1963

  14. [22]

    D. P. Arovas, E. Berg, S. A. Kivelson, and S. Raghu, The hubbard model, Annual Review of Condensed Mat- ter Physics 13, 239 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    M. Qin, T. Sch¨ afer, S. Andergassen, P. Corboz, and E. Gull, The hubbard model: A computational perspec- tive, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 13, 275 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    J. P. F. LeBlanc, A. E. Antipov, F. Becca, I. W. Bulik, G. K.-L. Chan, C.-M. Chung, Y. Deng, M. Ferrero, T. M. Henderson, C. A. Jim´ enez-Hoyos, E. Kozik, X.-W. Liu, A. J. Millis, N. V. Prokof’ev, M. Qin, G. E. Scuseria, H. Shi, B. V. Svistunov, L. F. Tocchio, I. S. Tupitsyn, ...

    2015

  17. [25]

    J. E. Hirsch and S. Tang, Antiferromagnetism in the two- dimensional hubbard model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 591 (1989)

    1989

  18. [26]

    Zheng, C.-M

    B.-X. Zheng, C.-M. Chung, P. Corboz, G. Ehlers, M.-P. Qin, R. M. Noack, H. Shi, S. R. White, S. Zhang, and G. K.-L. Chan, Stripe order in the underdoped region of the two-dimensional hubbard model, Science 358, 1155 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Huang, C

    E. Huang, C. Mendl, H.-C. Jiang, B. Moritz, and T. Dev- ereaux, Stripe order from the perspective of the hubbard model, npj Quantum Materials 3 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    P. Mai, N. Nichols, S. Karakuzu, F. Bao, A. Del Maestro, T. Maier, and S. Johnston, Robust charge-density-wave correlations in the electron-doped single-band hubbard model, Nature Communications 14 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Nagaoka, Ferromagnetism in a narrow, almost half- filled s band, Phys

    Y. Nagaoka, Ferromagnetism in a narrow, almost half- filled s band, Phys. Rev. 147, 392 (1966)

    1966

  22. [30]

    Tasaki, Extension of nagaoka’s theorem on the large-u hubbard model, Phys

    H. Tasaki, Extension of nagaoka’s theorem on the large-u hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B 40, 9192 (1989)

    1989

  23. [31]

    Ivantsov, A

    I. Ivantsov, A. Ferraz, and E. Kochetov, Breakdown of the nagaoka phase at finite doping, Phys. Rev. B 95, 155115 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Hanisch and E

    T. Hanisch and E. M¨ uller-Hartmann, Ferromagnetism in the hubbard model: instability of the nagaoka state on the square lattice, Annalen der Physik 505, 381 (1993)

    1993

  25. [33]

    Kollar, R

    M. Kollar, R. Strack, and D. Vollhardt, Ferromagnetism in correlated electron systems: Generalization of na- gaoka’s theorem, Phys. Rev. B 53, 9225 (1996)

    1996

  26. [34]

    Mielke, Ferromagnetism in the hubbard model on line graphs and further considerations, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 24, 3311 (1991)

    A. Mielke, Ferromagnetism in the hubbard model on line graphs and further considerations, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 24, 3311 (1991)

    1991

  27. [35]

    Samajdar and R

    R. Samajdar and R. N. Bhatt, Polaronic mechanism of nagaoka ferromagnetism in hubbard models, Phys. Rev. B 109, 235128 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Samajdar and R

    R. Samajdar and R. N. Bhatt, Nagaoka ferromagnetism in doped hubbard models in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. A 110, L021303 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Lin, J.-H

    Z. Lin, J.-H. Choi, Q. Zhang, W. Qin, S. Yi, P. Wang, L. Li, Y. Wang, H. Zhang, Z. Sun, L. Wei, S. Zhang, T. Guo, Q. Lu, J.-H. Cho, C. Zeng, and Z. Zhang, Flatbands and emergent ferromagnetic ordering in fe3sn2 kagome lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 096401 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Samanta, H

    S. Samanta, H. Park, C. Lee, S. Jeon, H. Cui, Y. Yao, J. Hwang, K. Choi, and H.-S. Kim, Emergence of flat bands and ferromagnetic fluctuations via orbital-selective electron correlations in mn-based kagome metal, Nature Communications 15, 5376 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    J. Hu, B. Xu, W. Liu, N.-N. Hao, and Y. Wang, Unified minimum effective model of magnetic properties of iron- based superconductors, Phys. Rev. B 85, 144403 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    Ruan, X.-C

    Z. Ruan, X.-C. Jiang, Z.-Y. Song, and Y.-Z. Zhang, Un- covering double-stripe and plaquette antiferromagnetic states in the one-band hubbard model on a frustrated square lattice, New Journal of Physics 23, 053028 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    J. Paki, H. Terletska, S. Iskakov, and E. Gull, Charge order and antiferromagnetism in the extended hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B 99, 245146 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    C. Peng, Y. Wang, J. Wen, Y. S. Lee, T. P. Dev- ereaux, and H.-C. Jiang, Enhanced superconductivity by near-neighbor attraction in the doped extended hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B 107, L201102 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    Terletska, S

    H. Terletska, S. Iskakov, T. Maier, and E. Gull, Dynami- cal cluster approximation study of electron localization in the extended hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B 104, 085129 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Gazizova and J

    D. Gazizova and J. P. F. LeBlanc, Emergent nearest- neighbor attraction in the fully renormalized interactions of the single-band repulsive hubbard model at weak cou- pling, Phys. Rev. B 108, 165149 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Taheridehkordi, S

    A. Taheridehkordi, S. H. Curnoe, and J. P. F. LeBlanc, Algorithmic matsubara integration for hubbard-like mod- els, Phys. Rev. B 99, 035120 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    Taheridehkordi, S

    A. Taheridehkordi, S. H. Curnoe, and J. P. F. LeBlanc, Algorithmic approach to diagrammatic expansions for real-frequency evaluation of susceptibility functions, 12 Phys. Rev. B 102, 045115 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Farid and J

    R. Farid and J. P. F. LeBlanc, Pairing susceptibility in the weakly interacting multilayer hubbard model evalu- ated by direct perturbative expansion, Phys. Rev. B110, 144511 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    N. D. Mermin and H. Wagner, Absence of ferromag- netism or antiferromagnetism in one- or two-dimensional isotropic heisenberg models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 1133 (1966)

    1966

  41. [49]

    Eschrig, Spin-polarized supercurrents for spintron- ics: a review of current progress, Reports on Progress in Physics 78, 104501 (2015)

    M. Eschrig, Spin-polarized supercurrents for spintron- ics: a review of current progress, Reports on Progress in Physics 78, 104501 (2015)

    2015

  42. [50]

    D. Aoki, K. Ishida, and J. Flouquet, Review of u-based ferromagnetic superconductors: Compari- son between uge2, urhge, and ucoge, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 88, 022001 (2019), https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.88.022001

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    Aoki, J.-P

    D. Aoki, J.-P. Brison, J. Flouquet, K. Ishida, G. Knebel, Y. Tokunaga, and Y. Yanase, Unconventional supercon- ductivity in ute2, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 34, 243002 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    Rosuel, C

    A. Rosuel, C. Marcenat, G. Knebel, T. Klein, A. Pourret, N. Marquardt, Q. Niu, S. Rousseau, A. Demuer, G. Sey- farth, G. Lapertot, D. Aoki, D. Braithwaite, J. Flouquet, and J. P. Brison, Field-induced tuning of the pairing state in a superconductor, Phys. Rev. X 13, 011022 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    T. S. Khaire, M. A. Khasawneh, W. P. Pratt, and N. O. Birge, Observation of spin-triplet superconductiv- ity in co-based josephson junctions, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 137002 (2010)

    2010

  46. [54]

    Diesch, P

    S. Diesch, P. Machon, M. Wolz, C. S¨ urgers, D. Beck- mann, W. Belzig, and E. Scheer, Creation of equal-spin triplet superconductivity at the al/eus interface, Nature Communications 9 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    Pal and C

    S. Pal and C. Benjamin, Exciting odd-frequency equal- spin triplet correlations at metal-superconductor inter- faces, Phys. Rev. B 104, 054519 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    Elazab, B

    H. Elazab, B. McNiven, and J. LeBlanc, Libami: Imple- mentation of algorithmic matsubara integration, Com- puter Physics Communications 280, 108469 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    M. D. Burke, M. Grandadam, and J. P. F. LeBlanc, Renormalized perturbation theory for fast evaluation of feynman diagrams on the real frequency axis, Phys. Rev. B 107, 115151 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    G¨ otze, S

    O. G¨ otze, S. E. Kr¨ uger, F. Fleck, J. Schulenburg, and J. Richter, Ground-state phase diagram of the spin- 1 2 square-lattice J1-J2 model with plaquette structure, Phys. Rev. B 85, 224424 (2012)

    2012

  51. [59]

    A. A. Katanin and A. P. Kampf, Quasiparticle anisotropy and pseudogap formation from the weak-coupling renor- malization group point of view, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 106406 (2004)

    2004

  52. [60]

    Sigrist and K

    M. Sigrist and K. Ueda, Phenomenological theory of un- conventional superconductivity, Rev. Mod. Phys.63, 239 (1991)

    1991

  53. [61]

    Farid, M

    R. Farid, M. Grandadam, and J. P. F. LeBlanc, Pair- ing susceptibility of the two-dimensional hubbard model in the thermodynamic limit, Phys. Rev. B 107, 195138 (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    H. Tasaki, From nagaoka’s ferromagnetism to flat-band ferromagnetism and beyond: An in- troduction to ferromagnetism in the hubbard model, Progress of Theoretical Physics 99, 489 (1998), https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- pdf/99/4/489/5209512/99-4-489.pdf

    1998

  55. [63]

    J. P. Hague, L. Petit, and C. MacCormick, Analytic ex- pressions for hubbard models with arbitrary structures in programmable optical lattices, Phys. Rev. A 104, 053321 (2021)

    2021

  56. [64]

    L. Su, A. Douglas, M. Szurek, R. Groth, S. Ozturk, A. Krahn, A. H´ ebert, G. Phelps, S. Ebadi, S. Dicker- son, F. Ferlaino, O. Markovi´ c, and M. Greiner, Dipolar quantum solids emerging in a hubbard quantum simula- tor, Nature 622, 724 (2023)

    2023

  57. [65]

    Bourgund, T

    D. Bourgund, T. Chalopin, P. Bojovi´ c, H. Schl¨ omer, S. Wang, T. Franz, S. Hirthe, A. Bohrdt, F. Grusdt, I. Bloch, and T. Hilker, Formation of individual stripes in a mixed-dimensional cold-atom fermi–hubbard system, Nature 637, 57 (2025)

    2025

  58. [66]

    Mazurenko, C

    A. Mazurenko, C. Chiu, G. Ji, M. Parsons, M. Kan´ asz- Nagy, R. Schmidt, F. Grusdt, E. Demler, D. Greif, and M. Greiner, A cold-atom fermi-hubbard antiferromagnet, Nature 545, 462 (2017)

    2017

  59. [67]

    M. Xu, L. Kendrick, A. Kale, Y. Gang, G. Ji, R. Scalet- tar, M. Lebrat, and M. Greiner, Frustration- and doping- induced magnetism in a fermi–hubbard simulator, Nature 620, 1 (2023)

    2023

  60. [68]

    Z. Chen, Y. Wang, S. Rebec, M. Hashimoto, D. Lu, B. Moritz, R. Moore, T. Devereaux, and Z.-X. Shen, Anomalously strong near-neighbor attraction in doped 1d cuprate chains, Science 373, 1235 (2021)

    2021

  61. [69]

    Qu, B.-B

    D.-W. Qu, B.-B. Chen, H.-C. Jiang, Y. Wang, and W. Li, Spin-triplet pairing induced by near-neighbor attraction in the extended hubbard model for cuprate chain, Com- munications Physics 5 (2022)

    2022

  62. [70]

    Sch¨ afer, N

    T. Sch¨ afer, N. Wentzell, F.ˇSimkovic, Y.-Y. He, C. Hille, M. Klett, C. J. Eckhardt, B. Arzhang, V. Harkov, F. m. c.-M. Le R´ egent, A. Kirsch, Y. Wang, A. J. Kim, E. Kozik, E. A. Stepanov, A. Kauch, S. Andergassen, P. Hansmann, D. Rohe, Y. M. Vilk, J. P. F. LeBlanc, S. Zhang...

    2021

  63. [71]

    B. D. E. McNiven, H. Terletska, G. T. Andrews, and J. P. F. LeBlanc, One- and two-particle properties of the weakly interacting two-dimensional hubbard model in proximity to the van hove singularity, Phys. Rev. B 106, 035145 (2022)

    2022

  64. [72]

    Dong and E

    X. Dong and E. Gull, Short-range charge fluctuations in the two-dimensional hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B 101, 195115 (2020)

    2020

  65. [73]

    Maier and D

    T. Maier and D. Scalapino, Pairfield fluctuations of a 2d hubbard model, npj Quantum Materials 4 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.