Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 82 references

Pressure and strain effects on the $\textit{ab initio}$ $GW$ electronic structure of La$_3$Ni$_2$O$_7$

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that GW correlations, without any Hubbard U, remove the gamma hole pocket from the Fermi surface of La3Ni2O7 and pull a La-5d band down to self-dope near 14 GPa.

desk verdict Honest, carefully documented G0W0 study whose central no-gamma Fermi-surface claim at 29.5 GPa hinges on a Fermi-level method choice the paper itself shows to be ambiguous. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21651 v2 pith:23HWAPLW submitted 2025-04-30 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Jean-Baptiste de Vaulx , Quintin N. Meier , Pierre Toulemonde , Andrés Cano , Valerio Olevano This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords La3Ni2O7bilayernickelatesuperconductivityGWapproximationFermisurfacetopologygammaholepocketself-dopinghighpressureepitaxialstrain
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 claims that the contested gamma hole pocket in La3Ni2O7 disappears once electronic correlations are included through the GW approximation, without any adjustable Hubbard U. It also claims that pressure and epitaxial strain pull down a La-5d x2-y2 band from the spacer layers so that it nearly reaches the Fermi level, crossing the Ni-3dz2 bands around 14 GPa, the pressure where superconductivity begins. A sympathetic reader would care because this would resolve a long-standing disagreement between DFT calculations and ARPES and point to a previously neglected low-energy band relevant for the pairing mechanism. The result is presented for the bulk at 29.5 GPa, as a function of pressure, and for a strained thin-film structure.

What carries the argument

The central object is the one-shot GW approximation (G0W0) to the many-body self-energy, applied on top of PBE-DFT with a Godby-Needs plasmon-pole model and Wannier interpolation of 67 projected Wannier functions. The G0W0 quasiparticle energies, not Kohn-Sham eigenvalues, are treated as the physical excitation energies comparable to ARPES. The argument depends on the difference between DFT and GW Fermi surfaces: correlations lower the Ni-3dz2 band and the La-5dx2-y2 band by different amounts, changing the Fermi-surface topology. The paper also uses band-projected orbital characters and quasiparticle spectral weight Z to identify the La-5d band and measure correlation strength, with Z dropping to about 0.67 on Ni-3d states.

What would settle it

An ARPES experiment on bulk La3Ni2O7 under 29.5 GPa that resolves the Brillouin-zone corner would settle the main claim: observing a gamma hole pocket at the Fermi level would contradict the central Fermi-surface topology. A complementary check is neutron diffraction that confirms the experimental XRD oxygen positions, which would make the predicted La-5d Fermi surface an artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the one-shot G0W0 level, correlation effects shift the lower Ni-3dz2 band down by about 70 to 80 meV along the X-P direction, enough to remove the gamma hole pocket from the Fermi level. The resulting Fermi surface has only the cuprate-shaped beta sheet and the nickelate-specific alpha cylinder, both of Ni eg character and effectively 1D, in agreement with ARPES. The same calculation lowers the La-5dx2-y2 band of the spacer atoms by about 0.7 eV at the M point, leaving an indirect gap of only 30 meV between the Ni-3dz2 top of valence and the La-5dx2-y2 bottom of conduction at 29.5 GPa. Because correlations and pressure act in the same direction, this La band crosses the Ni-3dz2 bands near 14 GPa and would begin to occupy states on La atoms, an effective self-doping of the NiO2 planes. The paper concludes that the ab initio GW electronic structure already matches experiment without Hubbard U or strongly correlated physics.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Fermi level at 29.5 GPa is correctly fixed by the bisection method at T_s = $10^{-4}$ Ha; the alternative DOS-integration method puts it 87 meV lower and reintroduces the gamma hole pocket, and the indirect gap of 30 meV is below the stated 100 meV uncertainty.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is correct, the gamma hole pocket does not exist at the Fermi level in bulk La3Ni2O7 at 29.5 GPa, so pairing models that rely on that pocket need revision.
  • The La-5dx2-y2 band is a low-energy degree of freedom that effective Ni-eg models omit; it becomes occupied above about 30 GPa, self-doping the NiO2 planes.
  • At 14 GPa, where superconductivity appears, the La-5dx2-y2 band crosses the upper Ni-3dz2 band, making the spacer band part of the low-energy physics at the onset.
  • The epitaxially strained thin-film case is electronically similar to bulk at roughly 14 GPa, so in-plane strain and pressure tune the same low-energy features.
  • The interlayer dz2 gap that enters some proposed pairing scenarios is left essentially unchanged by GW in this calculation, so that scenario survives.
  • The ideal no-gamma, no-lambda Fermi surface is a narrow window; defects or small doping shifts could open either pocket in a real sample.

Reading between the lines

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

  • As an editorial inference, if the gamma pocket is truly absent, theoretical models that anchor pairing on the dz2 hole pocket may need to be re-examined; the paper itself does not make that claim.
  • The 14 GPa crossing of the La-5d band is suggestive but could be coincidence; a targeted extension would be to include this band explicitly in spin-fluctuation pairing calculations.
  • Because the Fermi topology changes radically with tiny internal atomic displacements, a neutron-diffraction determination of the oxygen positions could distinguish the predicted Fermi surface from the artifact-laden XRD structure.
  • A testable extension would be to track the predicted self-doping onset with pressure using optical or Hall measurements, since the paper identifies the La band occupation as the mechanism but does not compute transport signatures.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents one-shot G0W0 calculations of the electronic structure of La3Ni2O7 at 29.5 GPa, at ambient and other pressures, and under biaxial strain. The central claim is that GW quasiparticle corrections shift the lower Ni-3d_z2 band down by about 70–80 meV, removing the gamma hole pocket from the Fermi surface without introducing any Hubbard U, so that the Fermi surface consists only of the cuprate-like beta sheet and the nickelate-specific alpha cylinder. A second, related claim is that the La-5d_{x^2-y^2} band is pulled down by correlations and pressure, approaching or crossing the Ni-3d_z2 bands near the pressure onset of superconductivity, leading to self-doping. The authors compare their results with ARPES data and with previous DFT, hybrid-functional, DMFT, and GW studies, and provide detailed appendices on structural sensitivity, Fermi-level determination, orbital character projections, and convergence.

Significance. If the central Fermi-surface topology is robust, the paper would be an important contribution: it would show that a parameter-free one-shot G0W0 calculation already captures the experimentally observed absence of the gamma pocket, and it would identify the La-5d_{x^2-y^2} band as a low-energy player relevant for pairing models. The work has real strengths: no fitted Hubbard U or hybrid mixing parameter enters the self-energy; the authors report convergence tests for the number of bands (Appendix G); they provide a detailed and transparent comparison of Fermi-level determination methods (Appendix D); and they carefully discuss the strong sensitivity to internal atomic coordinates (Appendix B). The comparison with ARPES is a useful benchmark. However, the central no-gamma topology is not shown to be robust with respect to the method used to compute the Fermi level, and the paper itself documents that a different standard choice changes the topology qualitatively. That issue is load-bearing for the main conclusion, so the paper needs additional work before the central claim can be accepted as established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix D and Figs. 1b, 1d] The claim that at 29.5 GPa the G0W0 Fermi surface has no gamma pocket and no lambda pocket depends on the choice of the Fermi level from the bisection method at T_s = 10^-4 Ha. Appendix D shows that the DOS-integration method places E_F 87 meV lower than the T_s = 10^-2 bisection value and 48 meV lower than the adopted T_s = 10^-4 value, which reintroduces the gamma hole pocket and removes the lambda electron pocket. Because the indirect gap is only 30 meV and the paper states a 100 meV GW accuracy, the no-gamma result is not robust to this standard methodological choice. I ask the authors to quantify the occupancy-consistent E_F and its uncertainty more rigorously, to show the Fermi surfaces obtained with each E_F method with the same smearing, and to state clearly which of their conclusions depend only on E_F-insensitive features such as the robust alpha and beta sheets.
  2. [Section III A 2 and Fig. 4b] The pressure-evolution plot in Fig. 4b assigns the crossing of the La-5d_{x^2-y^2} band with the Ni-3d_z2 bands to 14 GPa, but for the 14 and 40 GPa calculations the Fermi level was not actually computed; it was estimated by a linear interpolation from calculations where E_F was available, as stated in the figure caption. Since the pressure onset of superconductivity at 14 GPa is one of the paper's notable coincidences, this estimate needs an explicit uncertainty and ideally a direct E_F calculation for those pressures, because the 30 meV indirect gap at 29.5 GPa already lies below the stated GW accuracy.
  3. [Appendix B and Section II B] The central Fermi-surface results rely on the choice of PBE-relaxed internal atomic coordinates for the 29.5 GPa structure, while Appendix B shows that using experimental XRD internal positions produces a fake La-5d cylindrical Fermi sheet at both DFT and GW levels. This is not merely a minor structural detail: the no-gamma, no-lambda topology at 29.5 GPa is defined relative to the relaxed coordinates, and the physical coordinates are not known to the required precision. The authors should state more explicitly how this structural uncertainty limits the low-energy predictions, and whether any conclusion about self-doping or the 14 GPa crossing survives across the range of plausible internal-position choices.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II A] The sentence describing a 'shift of 0.1 eV to avoid poles/divergences' is not fully specified; please state whether this shift is applied to the Green's function or to the self-energy evaluation and at which frequencies.
  2. [Fig. 1d caption] The caption says that dot width is proportional to orbital contribution, but in the printed figure many dots are difficult to distinguish; a supplementary color version or a zoomed inset around the Fermi level would improve readability.
  3. [Appendix D, Fig. 10] The Fermi-surface panels in Fig. 10 are labeled only by the method names in the header row; please add explicit labels to each panel indicating which E_F value was used, since the difference between the T_s = 10^-4 and T_s = 10^-2 bisection cases is central to the discussion.
  4. [Section III A 4] The statement that the 6x6x6 k-sampling is not precise enough to resolve possible Fermi arcs is useful, but it would be helpful to quantify the k-point spacing in energy units near the Fermi surface so readers can judge the limitation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GW electronic structure is computed from a parameter-free self-energy, and the central Fermi-surface claims are independent ab initio results compared with ARPES.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The central claim—removal of the gamma hole pocket at 29.5 GPa—is obtained from one-shot G0W0 quasiparticle energies built on PBE starting points, with no fitted Hubbard U, no hybrid mixing parameter, and no adjustable parameter defined in terms of the target Fermi-surface topology. The gamma-pocket suppression is attributed to an explicit 70–80 meV downward GW shift of the lower Ni-3d_z2 band, and the resulting Fermi surface is then compared with ARPES as an external benchmark. The second load-bearing claim, that La-5d_x2-y2 is pulled down by correlations and pressure and crosses the Ni-3d_z2 bands near 14 GPa, is a reported band-position trend from the same parameter-free calculation, not a fit to the superconducting onset. Prior GW works by others (Christiansson et al. and You et al.) are cited as independent supporting calculations, and where they disagree, the paper reports the disagreement rather than suppressing it. The author self-citations present in the text—[8], [69], [72], and the unpublished structural reference [67]—concern peripheral comparisons (infinite-layer nickelate correlation shifts, 2D/3D character, structural data) and are not load-bearing premises of the main derivation; in particular, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The Fermi-level ambiguity documented in Appendix D, where a DOS-integration method places E_F 87 meV lower and reintroduces the gamma pocket, is a genuine numerical sensitivity and a robustness caveat, but it is not circularity: the chosen bisection E_F at Ts=10^-4 Ha is not defined by the absence of the gamma pocket, the alternative is openly reported, and the uncertainty is stated as a quantitative margin rather than used to force the desired topology. Similarly, the internal-coordinate sensitivity of Appendix B is an acknowledged structural assumption, not a construction of the result from its conclusion. Because the main physical predictions are generated by a standard, parameter-free many-body method and are validated against independent experimental and computational benchmarks, no step reduces by definition or by self-citation to the paper's own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No Hubbard U, hybrid mixing parameter, or other interaction parameter is fitted to data. The central results instead rest on two choices that are assumptions rather than fitted numbers: the Fermi-level determination method and the relaxed internal atomic coordinates. Both choices are documented in appendices, and both control whether the claimed Fermi-surface topology appears. The ledger therefore lists those choices as free parameters or axioms rather than describing the theory as having invented new physical entities.

free parameters (2)
  • Fermi-level determination method = Bisection at Ts = 10^-4 Ha gives -39 meV relative to Ts = 10^-2 Ha; DOS integration gives -87 meV
    The choice of Fermi-level method determines whether the gamma hole pocket and lambda electron pocket appear. Appendix D shows qualitatively different Fermi surfaces for different methods, and the paper selects the bisection low-smearing result for the central Fig. 1b.
  • GW pole shift = 0.1 eV
    A 0.1 eV shift is applied in the Godby-Needs plasmon-pole model to avoid poles and divergences (Sec. II A). It is a numerical regularization, not fitted to data, but it is an arbitrary choice in the G0W0 implementation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption PBE exchange-correlation with norm-conserving PseudoDojo pseudopotentials (La 4f in valence) is a valid starting point for one-shot G0W0.
    Invoked in Sec. II A. One-shot G0W0 retains some dependence on the DFT starting point, and the paper acknowledges this in the introduction.
  • domain assumption DFT-PBE-relaxed internal atomic positions are more physical than the experimental XRD positions at 29.5 GPa.
    Appendix B shows that XRD atomic positions produce a fake La-5d cylindrical Fermi sheet, so all main-text results use the relaxed positions. The central Fermi-surface topology depends on this choice.
  • domain assumption The I4/mmm tetragonal symmetry can be enforced at all considered pressures, including the fictitious 0 GPa phase.
    Sec. II B states that the real 0 GPa ground state is Amam but uses I4/mmm everywhere for comparability. Appendix C argues the main conclusions survive in Amam, but the 0 GPa comparison with ARPES is not computed in the true ground state.
  • domain assumption The Fermi level from bisection at Ts = 10^-4 Ha is the correct Fermi level for the 29.5 GPa Fermi surface.
    Appendix D shows that a DOS-integration Fermi level changes the Fermi surface qualitatively, reintroducing gamma and removing lambda. The paper adopts the bisection result without a fully independent justification.
  • domain assumption One-shot G0W0 with the Godby-Needs plasmon-pole model adequately captures the relevant correlations.
    Sec. II A. No self-consistency in eigenvalues or screening is performed, and the plasmon-pole model is an approximation to the full frequency-dependent screening.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pressure and strain effects on the $\textit{ab initio}$ $GW$ electronic structure of La$_3$Ni$_2$O$_7$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/23HWAPLW

@misc{pith2026250421651,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pressure and strain effects on the $\textitab initio$ $GW$ electronic structure of La$_3$Ni$_2$O$_7$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/23HWAPLW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21651}
}
abstract

The recent discovery of superconductivity in La$_3$Ni$_2$O$_7$ at a critical temperature above 80~K points to a non-conventional pairing mechanism in nickelates as in cuprates, possibly due to electronic correlations. We have calculated from first principles the electronic structure of La$_3$Ni$_2$O$_7$ under the effect of pressure and epitaxial strain including correlations by the $GW$ approximation to the many-body self-energy. We find that the Fermi surface is composed of a characteristic cuprate-shape sheet $\beta$ plus a nickelate-specific cylinder $\alpha$, both from Ni $e_g$ orbitals, with a non-negligible drop in the quasiparticle weight and an effective 1D character. This topology results from a delicate balance between the Ni-3$d_{z^2}$ hole pocket $\gamma$, which is suppressed by correlations, and an emerging La-5$d_{x^2-y^2}$ electron pocket induced by both correlation and pressure/strain effects and whose role at low energy has been neglected so far. Unlike cuprates, the electronic structure of La$_3$Ni$_2$O$_7$ is already correctly described from ab initio and in agreement with the experiment without the need to introduce Hubbard $U$ adjustable parameters or to invoke a strongly correlated physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21651 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Fermi surfaces of La [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. QP spectral weights [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. PBE (dashed green) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. La [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. La [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Ambient pressure La [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Comparison of La [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: we show a zoom around the Fermi level of the GW bandplot calculated using a smearing temperature Ts of 10−2 Ha, as in Fig. 1d, but reporting the different Fermi energies calculated and the associated Fermi sur￾faces below. First of all, one can remark the robustness o…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. DFT PBE band character plots of La [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. PWF plotted in real space for the three selected orbital characters. We remark extra lobes which make them different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Convergence test on the number of bands included [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Detailed PWF orbital characters on top of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. La [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_16.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Iso-surface of the probability density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. Iso-surface probability density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_19.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    the dominance of thed z2 orbital distinguishes La 3Ni2O7 from the infinite- layer nickelates or the cuprates,

    Nie g Fermi surface sheets The Fermi level is dominated by bands with Ni-3d e g character. The DFT PBE Fermi surface consists of three sheets, labeledα,β, andγin previous literature [18]. Theαsheet is a large cylindrical sheet centered around Γ;βis the sheet with the characteristic shape of the cuprate Fermi surface; andγis a small hole pocket lo- cated a...

  2. [2]

    La-5d x2−y2 band lowering and self-doping Beside this important qualitative modification of the Fermi surface,GWcorrelation corrections induce an even more evident and quantitative change in the bandwidth of the 5d x2−y2 band contributed by the two La spacer atoms only (i.e., with no contribution by the La inner atom lying in between the NiO planes, see F...

  3. [3]

    Fermi arcs

    Upper-lower Ni-3d z2 energy gap A feature of the electronic structure that is consid- ered of particular interest in relation to the emergence of superconductivity in La 3Ni2O7 is the energy difference between the upper and lower Ni-3dz2 bands. In the liter- ature they are often labeled as bonding- and antibonding (as we explain in App. I, we find that th...

    work page 1965

  4. [4]

    J. Li, D. Peng, P. Ma, H. Zhang, Z. Xing, X. Huang, C. Huang, M. Huo, D. Hu, Z. Dong, X. Chen, T. Xie, H. Dong, H. Sun, Q. Zeng, H.-k. Mao, and M. Wang 10.48550/arXiv.2404.11369 (2025), arXiv:2404.11369

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.11369 2025

  5. [5]

    coordinates can strongly affect the resulting electronic structure

    and the rest from a structural relaxation performed with theAbinitcode. coordinates can strongly affect the resulting electronic structure. The latter is then further modified by the variation of the lattice parameters under pressure which is fundamental to trigger superconductivity in La3Ni2O7. In our first attempt to calculate the DFT and theGW electron...

    work page

  6. [6]

    G. Zhou, W. Lv, H. Wang, Z. Nie, Y. Chen, Y. Li, H. Huang, W. Chen, Y. Sun, Q.-K. Xue, and Z. Chen 10.48550/arXiv.2412.16622 (2024), arXiv:2412.16622

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.16622 2024

  7. [7]

    Li and S

    Z. Li and S. G. Louie, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 126401 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    H. Sun, M. Huo, X. Hu, J. Li, Z. Liu, Y. Han, L. Tang, Z. Mao, P. Yang, B. Wang, J. Cheng, D.-X. Yao, G.-M. Zhang, and M. Wang, Nature621, 493 (2023)

    2023

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    N. Wang, G. Wang, X. Shen, J. Hou, J. Luo, X. Ma, H. Yang, L. Shi, J. Dou, J. Feng, J. Yang, Y. Shi, Z. Ren, H. Ma, P. Yang, Z. Liu, Y. Liu, H. Zhang, X. Dong, Y. Wang, K. Jiang, J. Hu, S. Nagasaki, K. Kitagawa, S. Calder, J. Yan, J. Sun, B. Wang, R. Zhou, Y. Uwatoko, and J. C...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Li, Y.-J

    Q. Li, Y.-J. Zhang, Z.-N. Xiang, Y. Zhang, X. Zhu, and H.-H. Wen, Chin. Phys. Lett.41, 017401 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Di Cataldo, P

    S. Di Cataldo, P. Worm, J. M. Tomczak, L. Si, and K. Held, Nat. Commun.15, 3952 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    E. K. Ko, Y. Yu, Y. Liu, L. Bhatt, J. Li, V. Thampy, C.-T. Kuo, B. Y. Wang, Y. Lee, K. Lee, J.-S. Lee, B. H. Goodge, D. A. Muller, and H. Y. Hwang, Nature638, 935 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    S. L. E. Chow, Z. Luo, and A. Ariando 10.48550/arXiv.2410.00144 (2024), arXiv:2410.00144

    2024 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    Ouyang, M

    Z. Ouyang, M. Gao, and Z.-Y. Lu, npj Quantum Mater. 9, 80 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Q. N. Meier, J. B. de Vaulx, F. Bernardini, A. S. Botana, X. Blase, V. Olevano, and A. Cano, Phys. Rev. B109, 184505 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Nomura, M

    Y. Nomura, M. Hirayama, T. Tadano, Y. Yoshimoto, 18 K. Nakamura, and R. Arita, Phys. Rev. B100, 205138 (2019), arXiv:1909.03942

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Di Cataldo, P

    S. Di Cataldo, P. Worm, L. Si, and K. Held, (2023), arXiv:2304.03599

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Z. Luo, X. Hu, M. Wang, W. W´ u, and D.-X. Yao, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 126001 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Y. Lee, X. Wei, Y. Yu, L. Bhatt, K. Lee, B. H. Goodge, S. P. Harvey, B. Y. Wang, D. A. Muller, L. F. Kourkoutis, W.-S. Lee, S. Raghu, and H. Y. Hwang, Nature Synthesis 10.1038/s44160-024-00714-2 (2025)

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    Z. Luo, B. Lv, M. Wang, W. W´ u, and D.-X. Yao, npj Quantum Mater.9, 61 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Q.-G. Yang, D. Wang, and Q.-H. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 108, L140505 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    J.-Y. You, Z. Zhu, M. Del Ben, W. Chen, and Z. Li, npj Comput. Mater.11, 3 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Nakata, D

    M. Nakata, D. Ogura, H. Usui, and K. Kuroki, Phys. Rev. B95, 214509 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    For the thin film (bottom), using the LPafrom Koet al

  17. [25]

    Zhang, L.-F

    Y. Zhang, L.-F. Lin, A. Moreo, and E. Dagotto 10.48550/arXiv.2306.03231 (2023), arXiv:2306.03231

    2023 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    Y. Gu, C. Le, Z. Yang, X. Wu, and J. Hu 10.48550/arXiv.2306.07275 (2023), arXiv:2306.07275

    2023 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    Qu, D.-W

    X.-Z. Qu, D.-W. Qu, J. Chen, C. Wu, F. Yang, W. Li, and G. Su, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 036502 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Yang, G.-M

    Y.-f. Yang, G.-M. Zhang, and F.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 108, L201108 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Lechermann, J

    F. Lechermann, J. Gondolf, S. B¨ otzel, and I. M. Eremin 10.48550/arXiv.2306.05121 (2023), arXiv:2306.05121

    2023 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    Y. Shen, M. Qin, and G.-M. Zhang, Chin. Phys. Lett. 40, 127401 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Sakakibara, N

    H. Sakakibara, N. Kitamine, M. Ochi, and K. Kuroki, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 106002 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    C. Lu, Z. Pan, F. Yang, and C. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 146002 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Z. Liao, L. Chen, G. Duan, Y. Wang, C. Liu, R. Yu, and Q. Si, Phys. Rev. B108, 214522 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Zhang, L.-F

    Y. Zhang, L.-F. Lin, A. Moreo, T. A. Maier, and E. Dagotto, Nat. Commun.15, 2470 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Kaneko, H

    T. Kaneko, H. Sakakibara, M. Ochi, and K. Kuroki, Phys. Rev. B109, 045154 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    W. W´ u, Z. Luo, D.-X. Yao, and M. Wang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.67, 117402 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Huang, Z

    J. Huang, Z. D. Wang, and T. Zhou, Phys. Rev. B108, 174501 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Jiang, Z

    K. Jiang, Z. Wang, and F.-C. Zhang, Chin. Phys. Lett. 41, 017402 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    D.-C. Lu, M. Li, Z.-Y. Zeng, W. Hou, J. Wang, F. Yang, and Y.-Z. You 10.48550/arXiv.2308.11195 (2023), arXiv:2308.11195

    2023 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    Oh and Y.-H

    H. Oh and Y.-H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B108, 174511 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Cao and Y.-f

    Y. Cao and Y.-f. Yang, Phys. Rev. B109, L081105 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Qin and Y.-f

    Q. Qin and Y.-f. Yang, Phys. Rev. B108, L140504 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    H. Yang, H. Oh, and Y.-H. Zhang 10.48550/arXiv.2408.01493 (2024), arXiv:2408.01493

    2024 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    H. Yang, H. Oh, and Y.-H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B110, 104517 (2024), arXiv:2309.15095

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    We can expect that any tiny perturbation of the sys- tem, e.g

    as responsible for the suppression of charge order, thereby possibly favoring superconductivity. We can expect that any tiny perturbation of the sys- tem, e.g. doping, vacancies or defects, can drive the sys- tem to a qualitatively different electronic structure and Fermi surf...

  38. [46]

    D. A. Shilenko and I. V. Leonov, Phys. Rev. B108, 125105 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Y.-H. Tian, Y. Chen, J.-M. Wang, R.-Q. He, and Z.-Y. Lu, Phys. Rev. B109, 165154 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Liu, J.-W

    Y.-B. Liu, J.-W. Mei, F. Ye, W.-Q. Chen, and F. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 236002 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Nomura, M

    Y. Nomura, M. Kitatani, S. Sakai, and R. Arita 10.48550/arXiv.2502.14601 (2025), arXiv:2502.14601

    2025 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    X. Chen, P. Jiang, J. Li, Z. Zhong, and Y. Lu, Phys. Rev. B111, 014515 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    Jiang, J

    R. Jiang, J. Hou, Z. Fan, Z.-J. Lang, and W. Ku, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 126503 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Christiansson, F

    V. Christiansson, F. Petocchi, and P. Werner, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 206501 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    Zhang, L.-F

    Y. Zhang, L.-F. Lin, A. Moreo, T. A. Maier, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. B108, 165141 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    X.-W. Yi, Y. Meng, J.-W. Li, Z.-W. Liao, J.-Y. You, B. Gu, and G. Su, Phys. Rev. B110, L140508 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    J. Chen, F. Yang, and W. Li, Phys. Rev. B110, L041111 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    which did not find anyγpocket. Additionally, we ob- serve a nonnegligible drop in theGWquasiparticle spec- tral weight on the Ni-3dstates, bothe g andt 2g, so to configure a little departure from a Fermi liquid behav- ior. Finally, we have shown that not only correlations, but...

    2022

  49. [57]

    D. K. Singh, G. Goyal, and Y. Bang 10.48550/arXiv.2409.09321 (2024), arXiv:2409.09321

    2024 doi arXiv

  50. [58]

    H.-X. Xu, Y. Xie, D. Guterding, and Z. Wang 10.48550/arXiv.2501.05254v1 (2025), arXiv:2501.05254v1

    2025 doi

  51. [59]

    C. Xia, H. Liu, S. Zhou, and H. Chen, Nat. Commun. 16, 1054 (2025)

    2025

  52. [60]

    Lechermann, S

    F. Lechermann, S. B¨ otzel, and I. M. Eremin, Phys. Rev. Mat.8, 074802 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    Y. Wang, K. Jiang, Z. Wang, F.-C. Zhang, and J. Hu, Phys. Rev. B110, 205122 (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    S. Ryee, N. Witt, and T. O. Wehling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 096002 (2024)

    2024

  55. [63]

    J. Yang, H. Sun, X. Hu, Y. Xie, T. Miao, H. Luo, H. Chen, B. Liang, W. Zhu, G. Qu, C.-Q. Chen, M. Huo, Y. Huang, S. Zhang, F. Zhang, F. Yang, Z. Wang, Q. Peng, H. Mao, G. Liu, Z. Xu, T. Qian, D.-X. Yao, M. Wang, L. Zhao, and X. J. Zhou, Nat. Commun.15, 4373 (2024), arXiv:2309.01148

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    P. Li, G. Zhou, W. Lv, Y. Li, C. Yue, H. Huang, L. Xu, J. Shen, Y. Miao, W. Song, Z. Nie, Y. Chen, H. Wang, W. Chen, Y. Huang, Z.-H. Chen, T. Qian, J. Lin, J. He, Y.-J. Sun, Z. Chen, and Q.-K. Xue 10.48550/arXiv.2501.09255v1 (2025), arXiv:2501.09255v1

    2025 doi arXiv

  57. [65]

    Gao 10.48550/arXiv.2502.19840 (2025), arXiv:2502.19840

    Y. Gao 10.48550/arXiv.2502.19840 (2025), arXiv:2502.19840

    2025 doi

  58. [66]

    Hedin, Phys

    L. Hedin, Phys. Rev.139, A796 (1965)

    1965

  59. [67]

    Strinati, H

    G. Strinati, H. J. Mattausch, and W. Hanke, Phys. Rev. Lett.45, 290 (1980)

    1980

  60. [68]

    M. S. Hybertsen and S. G. Louie, Phys. Rev. Lett.55, 1418 (1985)

    1985

  61. [69]

    R. W. Godby, M. Schl¨ uter, and L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. B35, 4170 (1987)

    1987

  62. [70]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  63. [71]

    Gonze, G.-M

    X. Gonze, G.-M. Rignanese, M. Verstraete, J.-M. Beuken, Y. Pouillon, R. Caracas, F. Jollet, M. Tor- rent, G. Zerah, M. Mikami, P. Ghosez, M. Veithen, J.-Y. Raty, V. Olevano, F. Bruneval, L. Reining, R. Godby, G. Onida, D. R. Hamann, and D. C. Allan, Z. Kristall. 220, 558 (2005)

    2005

  64. [72]

    van Setten, M

    M. van Setten, M. Giantomassi, E. Bousquet, M. Ver- 19 straete, D. Hamann, X. Gonze, and G.-M. Rignanese, Comput. Phys. Commun.226, 39 (2018)

    2018

  65. [73]

    R. W. Godby and R. J. Needs, Phys. Rev. Lett.62, 1169 (1989)

    1989

  66. [74]

    Toulemondeet al., (2025), to be published

    P. Toulemondeet al., (2025), to be published

    2025

  67. [75]

    Hinuma, G

    Y. Hinuma, G. Pizzi, Y. Kumagai, F. Oba, and I. Tanaka, Comput. Mater. Sci.128, 140 (2017)

    2017

  68. [76]

    Olevano, F

    V. Olevano, F. Bernardini, X. Blase, and A. Cano, Phys. Rev. B101, 161102 (2020)

    2020

  69. [77]

    Verraes, T

    D. Verraes, T. Braeckevelt, N. Bultinck, and V. V. Speybroeck 10.48550/arXiv.2502.19501v1 (2025), arXiv:2502.19501v1

    2025 doi

  70. [78]

    Lee and W

    K.-W. Lee and W. E. Pickett, Phys. Rev. B70, 165109(R) (2004)

    2004

  71. [79]

    Bernardini, V

    F. Bernardini, V. Olevano, and A. Cano, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013219 (2020), arXiv:1910.13269

    2020 arXiv

  72. [80]

    B. Y. Wang, Y. Zhong, S. Abadi, Y. Liu, Y. Yu, X. Zhang, Y.-M. Wu, R. Wang, J. Li, Y. Tarn, E. K. Ko, V. Thampy, M. Hashimoto, D. Lu, Y. S. Lee, T. P. Devereaux, C. Jia, H. Y. Hwang, and Z.-X. Shen 10.48550/arXiv.2504.16372 (2025), arXiv:2504.16372 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    2025 doi arXiv

  73. [81]

    Souza, N

    I. Souza, N. Marzari, and D. Vanderbilt, Physical Review B65, 035109 (2001)

    2001

  74. [82]

    L¨ owdin, J

    P. L¨ owdin, J. Chem. Phys.18, 365–375 (1950)

    1950

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.