Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 50 references

Breathing-Driven Metal-Insulator Transition in Correlated Kagome Systems

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The breathing distortion of a kagome lattice lowers the critical on-site repulsion needed to drive the Hubbard model from a paramagnetic metal into a Mott insulator, from U_c≈6.4 at t_ex=1 to U_c≈5.0 at t_ex=0.5.

desk verdict Qualitatively sensible DQMC study of the breathing kagome Hubbard model, but the strong-breathing endpoint of the phase diagram is not quantitatively established because the paper omits system size, error methodology, and finite-size checks. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07529 v1 pith:FQERD4RD submitted 2025-06-09 cond-mat.str-el

Qingzhuo Duan , Zixuan Jia , Zenghui Fan , Runyu Ma , Jingyao Meng , Bing Huang , Tianxing Ma This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords Hubbardmodelkagomelatticebreathingmetal-insulatortransitiondeterminantquantumMonteCarloMottinsulatorantiferromagneticcorrelationssignproblem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the 'breathing' distortion of a kagome lattice—alternating strong and weak hoppings within and between unit cells—acts together with electron repulsion to push the system into a Mott insulating state at a lower interaction strength than a uniform kagome lattice would need. Using determinant quantum Monte Carlo on the half-filled breathing kagome Hubbard model, the authors find the critical interaction strength U_c drops monotonically from about 6.4 (in units of the intra-cell hopping) for the undistorted lattice to about 5.0 when the inter-cell hopping is halved. They locate the transition consistently through the temperature dependence of the dc conductivity and the Fermi-level density of states, and they map the magnetic side of the phase diagram, finding antiferromagnetic correlations that strengthen as breathing and interaction increase. If correct, the result gives a concrete tuning strategy—lattice distortion rather than doping or pressure—for switching kagome materials between metallic and insulating behavior.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are: the breathing kagome Hubbard Hamiltonian, with intra-cell hopping t_in=1 and inter-cell hopping t_ex∈[0.5,1] parametrizing the distortion; the DQMC average sign ⟨sign⟩ as a control for numerical reliability; the dc conductivity σ_dc(T)=β²/π Λ_xx(q=0,τ=β/2) obtained from the current-current correlation function; the Fermi-level density of states N(0)≈β G(r=0,τ=β/2); and the spin-spin correlation functions and uniform susceptibility used to establish antiferromagnetic correlations. The metal-insulator criterion is the low-temperature sign of ∂σ_dc/∂T (and ∂N(0)/∂T): negative signalling a metal (diverging conductivity as T→0) and positive signalling localization. Applied consistently across t_ex values, this criterion is what yields the monotone U_c(t_ex) boundary in the phase diagram.

What would settle it

Run the same DQMC calculation at t_ex=0.5 and U=5 on a breathing kagome lattice of explicitly reported size L=12 and L=15, with 10 times the sweeps, and report average sign and binning; if the low-temperature σ_dc(T) and N(0) no longer turn upward at U≈5, or if the inferred U_c shifts by more than the stated error bars, the claimed monotonic decrease would be falsified as a sign-problem artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the authors' terms, the central discovery is that the breathing effect reduces the critical interaction strength required for the metal-insulator transition in the correlated kagome system. At half filling, the Hubbard model on a breathing kagome lattice with intra-cell hopping t_in=1 and inter-cell hopping t_ex between 0.5 and 1 passes from a paramagnetic metal to an antiferromagnetically correlated Mott insulator as U grows, and the critical U_c determined by the sign change of dσ_dc/dT at low temperature—and separately by the density of states N(0)—decreases monotonically with t_ex, from U_c=6.40±0.10 at t_ex=1.0 to about U_c≈5 at t_ex=0.5. The two independent transport probes give boundaries in excellent agreement, and spin-spin correlations show short-range antiferromagnetic order that is enhanced by both larger U and stronger breathing, with only weak longer-range ferromagnetic tendencies at large U and small t_ex.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that DQMC data remain trustworthy when the average sign drops below 0.5 (extended runs are said to compensate) and that the simulated lattice is large enough for the finite-temperature conductivity criterion to locate the zero-temperature transition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The breathing ratio t_ex/t_in is a practical tuning knob: chemical substitution or strain that changes the breathing strength should shift the Mott boundary, offering an 'off' switch for kagome-based devices.
  • At t_ex=0.5, U_c drops to about 5.0, so moderate interactions that leave the uniform lattice metallic will already drive a Mott insulator in the breathing lattice.
  • Because antiferromagnetic correlations are robust and enhanced by breathing while long-range ferromagnetic correlations stay weak, the breathing kagome Mott insulator should display short-range antiferromagnetic order consistent with known kagome materials such as the Nb3Cl8 family.
  • The agreement between the conductivity and density-of-states criteria across all t_ex values supports the use of the finite-temperature σ_dc and N(0) derivatives as a practical diagnostic for the zero-temperature transition in DQMC studies of frustrated lattices.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The observed monotone decrease of U_c with decreasing t_ex is plausibly a bandwidth effect: breathing distortion narrows the effective kinetic energy scale, so U_c/W (with W the bandwidth) may stay roughly constant even though U_c falls; the paper does not compute W explicitly, so this is an editorial inference.
  • The strongest-breathing boundary (t_ex=0.5) is exactly where the sign problem is worst, so that point is the least certain; a follow-up with explicit lattice-size scaling and sign-aware estimators could either confirm U_c≈5 or revise it.
  • Extending the trend to t_ex<0.5 would predict even lower U_c, possibly pushing the transition into a regime accessible in cold-atom or moiré realizations of kagome lattices, but the sign problem will only become more severe there.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses determinant quantum Monte Carlo (DQMC) to study the half-filled Hubbard model on a breathing kagome lattice, with intra-cell hopping tin=1 and inter-cell hopping tex varied from 0.5 to 1.0. The authors compute the average sign, kinetic energy, dc conductivity σ_dc(T), density of states at the Fermi level N(0), spin-spin correlations, and uniform susceptibility. From the temperature dependence of σ_dc(T) and N(0), they extract a critical interaction U_c for each tex and report that U_c decreases monotonically from about 6.4 at tex=1.0 to about 5.0 at tex=0.5 (Fig. 1(b)). They combine this with the magnetic response to identify a paramagnetic-metal to antiferromagnetically-correlated Mott-insulator transition, and they benchmark the tex=1.0 result against a previous DQMC study (Ref. [32]).

Significance. If quantitatively established, the central claim that breathing reduces the interaction strength needed for the Mott transition would be a useful and experimentally relevant result for breathing kagome materials such as Nb3Cl8 and Nb3TeCl7. The paper has two genuine strengths: the tex=1.0 benchmark reproduces the published U_c = 6.40 ± 0.10, and the U_c extracted from σ_dc(T) and from N(0) are mutually consistent, which is a meaningful internal check. However, the quantitative phase diagram rests on methodological details that are not reported, and the strongest-breathing endpoint is computed in the regime where the DQMC sign problem is most severe. The significance of the paper therefore depends on whether those gaps can be closed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III and Eq. (8)] The linear system size L is defined in Eq. (8) but is never stated anywhere in the manuscript, and no finite-size scaling is shown. All U_c determinations in Fig. 1(b) are made from the finite-temperature derivative criterion on what appears to be a single cluster. On a finite lattice, a low-temperature upturn in σ_dc(T) or N(0) can arise from a finite-size pseudo-gap or from degraded sampling accuracy, independent of a true Mott transition. Please report L and the full β range for every tex, and provide at least one finite-size check (for example, L and L/2 for tex=1.0 and tex=0.5) to establish that the identified U_c is not a finite-size artifact.
  2. [Section III, first paragraph] The statement that runs with ⟨sign⟩ < 0.5 are compensated by longer simulations addresses statistical variance, not the systematic bias that appears when the fermion determinant ratio is sampled with very small average sign. In the decisive regime tex=0.5, U=4.5-5.5, Figs. 2(b)-(c) show signs near or below 0.5 at the lowest temperatures used in Figs. 4(f) and 5(f). Please quantify the average sign at the specific data points used to define each U_c, and either restrict the analysis to sign values safely above 0.5 or provide a controlled test (for example, comparison with an alternative algorithm or a constrained-phase benchmark) showing that the derivative criterion is unbiased in this regime.
  3. [Section III, U_c determinations] The quoted uncertainties, e.g. U_c = 6.40 ± 0.10 for tex=1.0, are not supported by any described error estimation procedure. The manuscript never states how statistical errors were computed (binning, jackknife, bootstrap) nor how the derivative criterion was converted into an uncertainty interval for U_c. Because Fig. 1(b) is the central quantitative result and the error bars are used to claim a monotonic decrease, this information must be provided.
  4. [Section II and Eq. (1)] The chemical potential μ is introduced in the Hamiltonian but its value or tuning procedure for half-filling is never specified. The kagome lattice is not bipartite and lacks particle-hole symmetry, so n=1 is not automatic and μ affects the Fermi level, σ_dc(T), and N(0). Please state how μ was set for each tex and U, and verify that the average density is maintained at n=1 throughout the parameter range studied.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II, paragraph after Eq. (1)] The phrase "the system equivalents to a normal kagome lattice" should read "the system is equivalent to a normal kagome lattice."
  2. [Figures 2-7 and Fig. 1(b)] The axis labels containing "/s115" (and the labels "U_c/s115" and "U_cN" in Fig. 1(b)) appear garbled or corrupted; please ensure the correct axis labels with units of tin are used in the final version.
  3. [Section III, Figs. 4-5] The caption states that error bars are omitted when smaller than symbol sizes, but in several curves no error bars are visible at all; please clarify whether this means the errors are smaller than the symbols or whether error bars were omitted for clarity.
  4. [Section II, Eq. (5)] The kinetic energy is defined with an explicit minus sign in Eq. (5), but the plotted quantity in Fig. 3 is labeled simply K; please state explicitly that the plotted values are the negative of the hopping expectation value, or redefine Eq. (5) to match the plotted quantity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the U_c values are read from raw DQMC observables using a stated derivative-sign criterion, with an external benchmark at tex=1.0.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. The critical interaction strength U_c is extracted from two independently computed observables, the dc conductivity sigma_dc(T) from the current-current correlation function (Eq. 3) and the density of states N(0) from the imaginary-time Green's function (Eq. 6), using the same low-temperature derivative-sign criterion. No parameter is fitted to the data being predicted, and no observable is defined in terms of the reported phase boundary. The tex=1.0 result (U_c = 6.40 +/- 0.10) is explicitly benchmarked against the independent DQMC study of Ref. [32], providing an external check. The agreement between the sigma_dc and N(0) boundaries is an internal consistency check, not a circular reduction, because the two quantities are different response functions with the same physical transition criterion. Self-citations in the paper are limited to methodological references for DQMC, conductivity formulas, and extended-run procedures; none of these citations supplies the central physical claim that the breathing effect lowers U_c. Concerns about the sign problem at tex=0.5 and the absence of reported system sizes are validity and support gaps, not circularity, and therefore do not affect the circularity score.

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

The central claim rests on standard DQMC machinery and two finite-temperature proxies (sigma_dc and N(0)) for the zero-temperature metal-insulator transition. No free parameter is fitted to produce the phase boundary; the boundary is read from the temperature dependence of these proxies. The main added assumptions are the sign-problem reliability threshold and the finite-T criterion, both of which are practical rather than derived.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math DQMC with discrete Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation and Metropolis sampling gives exact finite-temperature averages up to Trotter error at Delta tau = 0.1.
    Invoked in Section II; standard method, but Trotter error and finite-size effects are not quantified.
  • domain assumption The dc conductivity is obtained from the imaginary-time current-current correlation via Eq. (3), following Trivedi et al.
    Section II, Eq. (3); an established approximation whose accuracy for this lattice and temperature range is assumed.
  • domain assumption The density of states at the Fermi level is proportional to beta times the Green's function at tau = beta/2.
    Section II, Eq. (6); standard finite-temperature estimator.
  • ad hoc to paper Average sign above 0.5 is sufficient for reliable data, and sign below 0.5 can be compensated by longer runs.
    Section III; a practical reliability threshold, but no validation is provided.
  • domain assumption A positive low-temperature derivative of sigma_dc or N(0) identifies the Mott insulating phase.
    Section III; finite-T criterion used to extract U_c, without finite-size scaling to T = 0.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Breathing-Driven Metal-Insulator Transition in Correlated Kagome Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FQERD4RD

@misc{pith2026250607529,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Breathing-Driven Metal-Insulator Transition in Correlated Kagome Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FQERD4RD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07529}
}
abstract

Inspired by the recent discovery of breathing kagome materials \(\rm Nb_3Cl_8\) and \(\rm Nb_3TeCl_7\), we have explored the influence of the breathing effect on the Hubbard model of the kagome lattice. Utilizing the determinant quantum Monte Carlo method, we first investigated the average sign problem in the breathing kagome lattice, which is significantly affected by both the breathing strength and the interaction strength. Secondly, we calculated the electronic kinetic energy, the direct current conductivity, and the electronic density of states at the Fermi level to determine the critical interaction strength for the metal-insulator transition. Our results indicate that the breathing effect, in conjunction with the interaction strength, drives the kagome system from a metal to an insulator. Finally, we evaluated the magnetic properties and constructed a phase diagram incorporating both transport and magnetic properties. The phase diagram reveals that as the interaction strength increases, the system transitions from a paramagnetic metal to a Mott insulator. Our research provides a theoretical guidance for utilizing the breathing effect to control the band gaps, conductivity, and magnetic properties of kagome materials with electronic interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07529 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) The lattice diagram of the breathing kagome [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a)-(c) The average sign [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) The kinetic energy per site [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a)-(f) The dc conductivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a)-(d) The spin-spin correlations on the nearest [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a)-(d) The temperature dependence of the uniform [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [33]

    S. Ding, S. Li, and Y. Wang, Commun. Phys.8, 48 (2025)

    work page 2025

  2. [32]

    A. R. Medeiros-Silva, N. C. Costa, and T. Paiva, Phys. Rev. B107, 035134 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [1]

    Z. Liu, N. Zhao, Q. Yin, C. Gong, Z. Tu, M. Li, W. Song, Z. Liu, D. Shen, Y. Huang,et al., Phys. Rev. X11, 041010 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [2]

    S. Cho, H. Ma, W. Xia, Y. Yang, Z. Liu, Z. Huang, Z. Jiang, X. Lu, J. Liu, Z. Liu,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 236401 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [3]

    S. Yi, Z. Liao, Q. Wang, H. Ma, J. Liu, X. Teng, B. Gao, P. Dai, Y. Dai, J. Zhao,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 086902 (2025). 7

    work page 2025

  6. [4]

    H. Chen, H. Yang, B. Hu, Z. Zhao, J. Yuan, Y. Xing, G. Qian, Z. Huang, G. Li, Y. Ye,et al., Nature599, 222 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [5]

    Balents, Nature464, 199 (2010)

    L. Balents, Nature464, 199 (2010)

    2010

  8. [6]

    T.-H. Han, J. S. Helton, S. Chu, D. G. Nocera, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, C. Broholm, and Y. S. Lee, Nature 492, 406 (2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 50 references
  1. [7]

    M. Fu, T. Imai, T.-H. Han, and Y. S. Lee, Science350, 655 (2015)

    2015

  2. [8]

    K. Y. Chen, N. N. Wang, Q. W. Yin, Y. H. Gu, K. Jiang, Z. J. Tu, C. S. Gong, Y. Uwatoko, J. P. Sun, H. C. Lei, J. P. Hu, J.-G. Cheng,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 247001 (2021)

    2021

  3. [9]

    Y. Hu, C. Le, Y. Zhang, Z. Zhao, J. Liu, J. Ma, N. C. Plumb, M. Radovic, H. Chen, A. P. Schnyder,et al., Nat. Phys.19, 1827 (2023)

    2023

  4. [10]

    T. Le, Z. Pan, Z. Xu, J. Liu, J. Wang, Z. Lou, X. Yang, Z. Wang, Y. Yao, C. Wu,et al., Nature630, 64 (2024)

    2024

  5. [11]

    Acharya, B

    G. Acharya, B. Neupane, C.-H. Hsu, X. P. Yang, D. Graf, E. S. Choi, K. Pandey, M. R. U. Nabi, S. K. Chhetri, R. Basnet,et al., Adv. Mater.36, 2407655 (2024)

    2024

  6. [12]

    X. Teng, L. Chen, F. Ye, E. Rosenberg, Z. Liu, J.-X. Yin, Y.-X. Jiang, J. S. Oh, M. Z. Hasan, K. J. Neubauer, et al., Nature609, 490 (2022)

    2022

  7. [13]

    Z. Sun, H. Zhou, C. Wang, S. Kumar, D. Geng, S. Yue, X. Han, Y. Haraguchi, K. Shimada, P. Cheng,et al., Nano Lett.22, 4596 (2022)

    2022

  8. [14]

    Zhang, Z

    H. Zhang, Z. Shi, Z. Jiang, M. Yang, J. Zhang, Z. Meng, T. Hu, F. Liu, L. Cheng, Y. Xie,et al., Adv. Mater.35, 2301790 (2023)

    2023

  9. [15]

    J. S. Lee, A. Richardella, D. R. Hickey, K. A. Mkhoyan, and N. Samarth, Phys. Rev. B92, 155312 (2015)

    2015

  10. [16]

    J. L. Musfeldt, D. G. Mandrus, and Z. Liu, npj 2D Mater. Appl.7, 28 (2023)

    2023

  11. [17]

    J. S. Helton, K. Matan, M. P. Shores, E. A. Nytko, B. M. Bartlett, Y. Yoshida, Y. Takano, A. Suslov, Y. Qiu, J.-H. Chung,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 107204 (2007)

    2007

  12. [18]

    N. J. Ghimire, R. L. Dally, L. Poudel, D. C. Jones, D. Michel, N. T. Magar, M. Bleuel, M. A. McGuire, J. S. Jiang, J. F. Mitchell,et al., Sci. Adv.6, eabe2680 (2020)

    2020

  13. [19]

    Q. Wang, K. J. Neubauer, C. Duan, Q. Yin, S. Fujitsu, H. Hosono, F. Ye, R. Zhang, S. Chi, K. Krycka,et al., Phys. Rev. B103, 014416 (2021)

    2021

  14. [20]

    L. Chen, Y. Zhou, H. Zhang, X. Ji, K. Liao, Y. Ji, Y. Li, Z. Guo, X. Shen, R. Yu,et al., Commun. Mater.5, 73 (2024)

    2024

  15. [21]

    J.-X. Yin, B. Lian, and M. Z. Hasan, Nature612, 647 (2022)

    2022

  16. [22]

    L. Ye, M. Kang, J. Liu, F. von Cube, C. R. Wicker, T. Suzuki, C. Jozwiak, A. Bostwick, E. Rotenberg, D. C. Bell,et al., Nature555, 638 (2018)

    2018

  17. [23]

    X. Wu, T. Schwemmer, T. M¨ uller, A. Consiglio, G. San- giovanni, D. Di Sante, Y. Iqbal, W. Hanke, A. P. Schny- der, M. M. Denner,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 177001 (2021)

    2021

  18. [24]

    H. Tan, Y. Liu, Z. Wang, and B. Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 046401 (2021)

    2021

  19. [25]

    Y. Wang, H. Wu, G. T. McCandless, J. Y. Chan, and M. N. Ali, Nature Rev. Phys.5, 635 (2023)

    2023

  20. [26]

    Higa and K

    R. Higa and K. Asano, Phys. Rev. B93, 245123 (2016)

    2016

  21. [27]

    K. Seki, T. Shirakawa, and S. Yunoki, Phys. Rev. B98, 205114 (2018)

    2018

  22. [28]

    Ohashi, N

    T. Ohashi, N. Kawakami, and H. Tsunetsugu, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 066401 (2006)

    2006

  23. [29]

    Klett, N

    M. Klett, N. Wentzell, T. Sch¨ afer, F. Simkovic, O. Parcol- let, S. Andergassen, and P. Hansmann, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033476 (2020)

    2020

  24. [30]

    Kuratani, A

    S. Kuratani, A. Koga, and N. Kawakami, J. Phys. Cond. Matter19, 145252 (2007)

    2007

  25. [31]

    He, S.-L

    L.-W. He, S.-L. Yu, and J.-X. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 096501 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    L. O. Lima, A. R. Medeiros-Silva, R. R. dos Santos, T. Paiva, and N. C. Costa, Phys. Rev. B108, 235163 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    T. Ma, L. Zhang, C.-C. Chang, H.-H. Hung, and R. T. Scalettar, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 116601 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Li, R.-L

    J. Li, R.-L. Chu, J. K. Jain, and S.-Q. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 136806 (2009)

    2009

  29. [37]

    J. Meng, R. Mondaini, T. Ma, and H.-Q. Lin, Phys. Rev. B104, 045138 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    M. Kang, S. Fang, J.-K. Kim, B. R. Ortiz, S. H. Ryu, J. Kim, J. Yoo, G. Sangiovanni, D. Di Sante, B.-G. Park, et al., Nat. Phys.18, 301 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Blankenbecler, D

    R. Blankenbecler, D. J. Scalapino, and R. L. Sugar, Phys. Rev. D24, 2278 (1981)

    1981

  32. [40]

    S. R. White, D. J. Scalapino, R. L. Sugar, E. Y. Loh, J. E. Gubernatis, and R. T. Scalettar, Phys. Rev. B40, 506 (1989)

    1989

  33. [41]

    Trivedi, R

    N. Trivedi, R. T. Scalettar, and M. Randeria, Phys. Rev. B54, R3756 (1996)

    1996

  34. [42]

    L. Tian, Y. Li, Y. Liang, and T. Ma, Phys. Rev. B105, 045132 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    K. Guo, Y. Liang, and T. Ma, Phys. Rev. B109, 045107 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    J. Wang, L. Zhang, R. Ma, Q. Chen, Y. Liang, and T. Ma, Phys. Rev. B101, 245161 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Trivedi and M

    N. Trivedi and M. Randeria, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 312 (1995)

    1995

  38. [46]

    V. I. Iglovikov, F. H´ ebert, B. Gr´ emaud, G. G. Batrouni, and R. T. Scalettar, Phys. Rev. B90, 094506 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    Y. Pan, R. Ma, and T. Ma, Phys. Rev. B107, 245126 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    E. Y. Loh, J. E. Gubernatis, R. T. Scalettar, S. R. White, D. J. Scalapino, and R. L. Sugar, Phys. Rev. B41, 9301 (1990)

    1990

  41. [49]

    Troyer and U.-J

    M. Troyer and U.-J. Wiese, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 170201 (2005)

    2005

  42. [50]

    G. Yang, S. Xu, W. Zhang, T. Ma, and C. Wu, Phys. Rev. B94, 075106 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.