Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Interlayer Pairing in Bilayer Nickelates

T0 review · 3 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 paper's central claim is that a realistic bilayer two-orbital Hubbard-Hund model of La3Ni2O7 has a leading s± superconducting instability near ~100 K, arising from interlayer pairing in the d3z2−r2 orbital and driven by interlayer…

desk verdict A solid non-perturbative DCA study backing the s± interlayer pairing picture in bilayer nickelates; the main caveat is the dropped spin-flip/pair-hopping Hund terms, worth checking but not disqualifying. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07741 v1 pith:AOHSD5RD submitted 2025-06-09 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.supr-con

Thomas A. Maier , Peter Doak , Ling-Fang Lin , Yang Zhang , Adriana Moreo , Elbio Dagotto This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.supr-con
keywords bilayernickelatesLa3Ni2O7s±superconductivityHubbard-HundmodeldynamicalclusterapproximationquantumMonteCarlointerlayerpairingspinfluctuations
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 settle what pairs electrons in pressurized La3Ni2O7, the 80 K bilayer nickelate superconductor, by simulating a realistic two-orbital Hubbard-Hund model without perturbative shortcuts. Using non-perturbative dynamical cluster approximation quantum Monte Carlo, the authors find the leading superconducting instability in the s± channel near 100 K, close to the measured transition temperature. They trace this instability to interlayer pairing between d3z2−r2 orbitals on neighboring top and bottom layer sites, driven by interlayer spin fluctuations in that orbital. If correct, the result confirms that the material's superconductivity is captured by a simple single-orbital bilayer Hubbard model, a picture that suggests further Tc enhancement through electronic structure tuning.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the dynamical cluster approximation (DCA) with continuous-time auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo, applied to clusters of 2, 8, and 16 sites embedded in a self-consistent dynamic mean field. The pair-field susceptibility for each symmetry channel is computed from the two-particle Green's function, and the leading eigenvalues and eigenvectors of its interaction-enhanced part reveal the real-space, orbital, and layer structure of the pairing. The pairing interaction strength is compared against the integrated spin-fluctuation spectral weight, decomposed by near-neighbor direction and orbital, to link the growing s± susceptibility to interlayer d3z2−r2 spin fluctuations.

What would settle it

Run the same DCA quantum Monte Carlo simulation with the full Hund's coupling, including spin-flip and pair-hopping terms, at U = 3 eV, U′ = 2 eV, J = 0.5 eV and the 25 GPa hoppings; if the leading pair-field susceptibility channel moves away from s± or the pairing interaction no longer tracks interlayer d3z2−r2 spin fluctuations, the central claim fails. A more accessible check is a larger DCA cluster that resolves dxy while including the omitted Hund terms, looking for the dxy eigenvalue to overtake s±.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the normal state of the realistic bilayer two-orbital model of La3Ni2O7 becomes unstable to an s± superconducting state at a temperature near 0.01 eV (~100 K). The pair correlations that grow with decreasing temperature are dominated by local interlayer singlet pairs in the d3z2−r2 orbital, with the largest hopping parameter in the model being the interlayer d3z2−r2 hopping. The same analysis shows the dxy pair-field correlations, although larger than dx2−y2 in the bare susceptibility, are not enhanced by interactions and therefore do not diverge. The magnetic response develops peaks at q=(π,0,π), i.e., in-plane striped antiferromagnetic and interlayer antiferromagnetic correlations, and the temperature growth of the interlayer spin-fluctuation spectral weight in the d3z2−r2 orbital tracks the growth of the pairing interaction. This is taken as evidence that interlayer d3z2−r2 spin fluctuations drive the leading pairing channel, providing non-perturbative support for the single-orbital bilayer Hubbard model picture.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that omitting the spin-flip and pair-hopping parts of the Hund's coupling does not change which pairing channel is leading; the cited support is a three-orbital study in a different parameter regime.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The leading instability of the model is s±, meaning bilayer nickelate pairing is sign-changing between bonding and antibonding Fermi surface sheets, which is a testable experimental signature (e.g., phase-sensitive probes).
  • The dx2−y2 channel is subleading and the dxy channel is not significantly enhanced by interactions, so future theory can focus on the s± interlayer mechanism.
  • The single-orbital bilayer Hubbard model for d3z2−r2 is an excellent low-energy description, justifying simplified calculations for material design.
  • Since previous DCA results for the single-orbital model found enhanced Tc, tuning electronic structure toward self-doping of the d3z2−r2 orbital could raise Tc in La3Ni2O7.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The neglect of spin-flip and pair-hopping terms in the Hund's coupling is the main caveat; if those terms shift the balance between s± and d-wave channels, the conclusion could change (the paper cites a three-orbital study suggesting mild effect).
  • A direct cross-check of the paper's picture would be to run the same DCA calculation on the single-orbital bilayer Hubbard model at the La3Ni2O7 parameters and compare the s± susceptibility quantitatively with the two-orbital result.
  • If interlayer spin fluctuations indeed drive pairing, experimental measurements of the magnetic response at q=(π,0,π) should show a sharp enhancement on cooling toward Tc.
  • The Nc=8 cluster's lower susceptibility relative to Nc=2 suggests cluster-geometry effects, which could be probed with other cluster shapes.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents dynamical cluster approximation (DCA) quantum Monte Carlo results for a bilayer two-orbital Hubbard model with parameters appropriate to pressurized La3Ni2O7. The authors compute the pair-field susceptibility for s±, d_{x^2-y^2}, and d_{xy} pairing channels, the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the two-particle vertex, the magnetic susceptibility, and the pairing interaction strength. They find a leading s± instability, with the dominant pairing structure consisting of interlayer pairs in the d_{3z^2-r^2} orbital, and argue that the pairing is driven by interlayer spin fluctuations in that orbital on the basis of the temperature dependence of the pairing interaction and the integrated spin-fluctuation spectral weight. The results are interpreted as non-perturbative support for the single-orbital bilayer Hubbard model description of the superconducting behavior.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely and contested question in the bilayer nickelate field: whether the leading superconducting instability is s± or d-wave, and what the pairing mechanism is. The use of a non-perturbative method (DCA QMC) on a two-orbital model with realistic hoppings and interactions is a methodological strength, and the authors provide a transparent description of the cluster-size dependence. If the results are robust, they would constitute important evidence for the s± channel and for the relevance of the d_{3z^2-r^2} orbital. The main weaknesses are the approximate treatment of the Hund's coupling and the reliance on the smallest cluster for the quantitative transition temperature estimate.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods, Eq. (8) and following text] The central claim that the realistic model has an s± instability driven by interlayer spin fluctuations in the d_{3z^2-r^2} orbital depends on the neglect of the spin-flip and pair-hopping parts of the Hund's coupling, as stated after Eq. (8). With only density-density interactions, the model is not SU(2)-invariant, so the transverse spin susceptibility χ(q) computed in Eq. (3) is not the same as the longitudinal susceptibility that enters the pairing interaction. The only support cited for the approximation is Ref. [34], which is a three-orbital model different from the present bilayer two-orbital system. The authors should provide evidence that the omitted terms do not change the leading channel or the orbital content of the pair, for example by performing a calculation with the full rotationally invariant Hund coupling on a smaller cluster, or by explicitly discussing the limitations of the density-density approximation for the pairing mechanism. As it stands, the relevance of the results to the real compound is conditional on this unverified point.
  2. [Results, pair-field susceptibility (Fig. 2)] The estimate of an instability 'near T ∼ 0.01 eV' is derived from the divergence of P_{s±} for the Nc=2 cluster. For the larger clusters, the data do not show a divergence down to the lowest accessible temperatures, and the Nc=8 results are significantly below the Nc=2 results. While the authors argue that Nc=8 may overestimate phase fluctuations, the quantitative claim of T_c ≈ 100 K for the thermodynamic model is not directly supported by the data. A finite-size scaling analysis, or at least a more detailed discussion of the cluster-size dependence, would be needed to justify this claim.
  3. [Results, pairing interaction (Fig. 5) and Discussion] The identification of the pairing glue as interlayer spin fluctuations is based on the correlation between the pairing interaction Vα(T) and the integrated spin-fluctuation spectral weight I_z(T). This correlation is suggestive but does not constitute a demonstration. A more direct test, such as computing the longitudinal spin susceptibility (relevant for the density-density interaction) or varying the interlayer hopping to see the effect on both Vα and I_z, would strengthen the claim. The current statement that 'we believe that this demonstrates' is somewhat stronger than the evidence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract describes the model as a 'realistic bilayer two-orbital Hubbard-Hund model,' but the interaction in Eq. (8) omits the spin-flip and pair-hopping terms; this should be clarified in the abstract as well.
  2. [Affiliations and Methods] There are several typographical errors, including 'US A' in the affiliations, 'Tennesse e', and 'acurately' in the Methods; these should be corrected.
  3. [Fig. 2] In the legend of Fig. 2, the labels 'dx2 y2' and 'xy' should be typeset as d_{x^2-y^2} and d_{xy} for consistency with the text.
  4. [Results, pair-field susceptibility] The sentence explaining why Nc=8 may underestimate the susceptibility (with Ref. [31]) is brief; a short explanation of the phase-fluctuation argument would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the leading s± instability and its interlayer d3z2-r2 pairing structure are computed non-perturbatively from a DFT-derived bilayer two-orbital model with fixed parameters, not fitted to the target superconducting state.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The model Hamiltonian (Methods, Eqs. 7-8) and hopping parameters (Fig. 1 caption) come from the authors' prior DFT-based study [6] and from optical experiments [19]; the interaction strengths U=3 eV, U'=2 eV, J=0.5 eV are taken from optical properties [19] and prior calculations [7], not fitted to the computed pairing instability. The pair-field susceptibility (Eq. 1) is evaluated for three fixed symmetry form factors (Table I: s±, dx2-y2, dxy), and the leading channel (s±) emerges from the calculation (Fig. 2) rather than being imposed; the Nc=16 cluster can resolve all tested symmetries, and the leading eigenvector of the interaction-enhanced vertex (Supplemental Eq. 6) is computed, not assumed, showing dominant interlayer d3z2-r2 character (Fig. 3b). Self-citations to [6] (model, parameters, and earlier RPA), [30] (single-orbital bilayer DCA), and [34] (three-orbital Hund-term comparison) are independent published numerical or DFT results, not unverified premises imported to force the conclusion. The only notable assumption is the neglect of the spin-flip and pair-hopping parts of Hund's coupling, flagged in Methods after Eq. 8 as justified by [34]; this is a correctness risk for the channel competition rather than a circular step, because the density-density model is solved exactly by DCA QMC and the s± result is an output. No equation reduces by construction to an input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on material-specific inputs taken from prior DFT and optical studies, on the chosen interaction parameters, and on methodological assumptions about DCA cluster convergence, channel sufficiency, and the neglect of spin-flip/pair-hopping Hund terms. No new particles, forces, or ad hoc entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Hubbard interactions U, U', J = U=3 eV, U'=2 eV, J=0.5 eV
    Chosen from optical measurements and prior calculations, not fitted to the superconducting transition temperature, but the leading pairing channel depends on them.
  • Tight-binding hoppings and crystal field = txx=-0.515 eV, tzz=-0.110 eV, txz=0.243 eV, tzz_perp=0.666 eV, eps_x=0.506 eV
    Taken from the DFT-based model in Ref [6] at 25 GPa pressure; these material-specific inputs set the Fermi surface topology that underlies the s± form factor.
  • Total electron filling = n=1.5
    Fixed by stoichiometry via chemical potential adjustment; the filling controls the Fermi surface and the pairing susceptibilities.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption DCA cluster approximation with Nc=2, 8, and 16 captures the relevant superconducting fluctuations of the thermodynamic limit.
    Cluster-size dependence in Fig. 2 is used to argue convergence, but the T~100 K divergence estimate is carried mainly by the Nc=2 cluster, and lower temperatures are inaccessible for larger clusters due to the sign problem.
  • domain assumption Singlet even-frequency intra-orbital pairing channels (s±, dx2-y2, dxy) are sufficient to describe the leading instability.
    The form factors in Table I restrict the pair-field susceptibility to intra-orbital pairs; inter-orbital pairing is not included in P_alpha, though the eigenvector analysis suggests it is subleading for the s± state.
  • domain assumption Omitting the spin-flip and pair-hopping parts of the Hund's coupling has only mild effects on pairing.
    Methods states these terms are neglected to avoid sign-problem difficulties and cites Ref [34] for mild effects in a three-orbital model; transfer to this two-orbital bilayer model is assumed.
  • standard math The DCA/Bethe-Salpeter two-particle formalism correctly gives the pair-field susceptibility and its interaction-enhanced part.
    The paper relies on the established DCA formalism and Bethe-Salpeter decomposition of the two-particle Green's function as described in Refs [29, 35] and the Supplemental Material.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interlayer Pairing in Bilayer Nickelates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AOHSD5RD

@misc{pith2026250607741,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interlayer Pairing in Bilayer Nickelates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AOHSD5RD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07741}
}
abstract

The discovery of $T_c\sim 80$~K superconductivity in pressurized La$_3$Ni$_2$O$_7$ has launched a new platform to study high-temperature superconductivity. Using non-perturbative dynamic cluster approximation quantum Monte Carlo calculations, we characterize the magnetic and superconducting pairing behavior of a realistic bilayer two-orbital Hubbard-Hund model of this system that describes the relevant Ni $e_g$ states with physically relevant interaction strengths. We find a leading $s^\pm$ superconducting instability in this model and show that this state primarily arises from interlayer pairing in the $d_{3z^2-r^2}$ orbital that is driven by strong interlayer spin-fluctuations in that orbital. These results provide non-perturbative evidence supporting the picture that a simple single-orbital bilayer Hubbard model for the Ni $d_{3z^2-r^2}$ orbital provides an excellent low-energy effective description of the superconducting behavior of La$_3$Ni$_2$O$_7$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07741 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Illustration of the bilayer two-orbital [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The pair-field susceptibility versus temperature for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The eigenvalues [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. In-plane ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The strength of the pairing interaction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Compressive Strain Turns $s^{\pm}$ into $d$-Wave Pairing in One-unit-cell La$_3$Ni$_2$O$_7$ Thin Film Via Substrate-Induced Hole Doping

    cond-mat.supr-con 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Hole doping drives the pairing in strained 1-unit-cell La3Ni2O7 films from weak/nonexistent to a d_x2-y2 (then d_xy) wave, through intra-layer spin fluctuations within the γ pocket.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [34]

    Troyer and U

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

    work page 2005

  2. [1]

    4 as T decreases

    spin correlations shown in Fig. 4 as T decreases. In contrast, the intra-layer spectral weight Ix remains small and even decreases at the lowest temperatures indicating that intra-layer spin fluctuations do not play an important role. The dashed line for the ℓ1, ℓ2 = d3z2−r2 contribution in panel (b) shows that Iz primarily arises from spin fluctuations in ...

    work page

  3. [2]

    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, Nature 621, 493 (2023)

    2023

  4. [3]

    Hou, P.-T

    J. Hou, P.-T. Yang, Z.-Y. Liu, J.-Y. Li, P.-F. Shan, L. Ma, G. Wang, N.-N. Wang, H.-Z. Guo, J.-P. Sun, Y. Uwatoko, M. Wang, G.-M. Zhang, B.-S. Wang, and J.-G. Cheng, Chin. Phys. Lett. 40, 10.1088/0256- 307X/40/11/117302 (2023)

    doi:10.1088/0256- 2023

  5. [4]

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

    2023

  6. [5]

    Liu, J.-W

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

    2023

  7. [6]

    Lechermann, J

    F. Lechermann, J. Gondolf, S. B¨ otzel, and I. M. Eremin, Phys. Rev. B 108, L201121 (2023)

    2023

  8. [7]

    Zhang, L.-F

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

    work page 2024

Show all 41 references
  1. [8]

    Sakakibara, N

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

    2024

  2. [9]

    Y. Gu, C. Le, Z. Yang, X. Wu, and J. Hu, Phys. Rev. B 111, 174506 (2025)

    2025

  3. [10]

    Xi, S.-L

    W. Xi, S.-L. Yu, and J.-X. Li, Phys. Rev. B 111, 104505 (2025)

    2025

  4. [11]

    Yang, G.-M

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

    2023

  5. [12]

    B¨ otzel, F

    S. B¨ otzel, F. Lechermann, J. Gondolf, and I. M. Eremin, Phys. Rev. B 109, L180502 (2024)

    2024

  6. [13]

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

    2025

  7. [14]

    Heier, K

    G. Heier, K. Park, and S. Y. Savrasov, Phys. Rev. B 109, 104508 (2024)

    2024

  8. [15]

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

    2023

  9. [16]

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

    2024

  10. [17]

    Z. Liao, L. Chen, G. Duan, Y. Wang, C. Liu, R. Yu, and Q. Si, Phys. Rev. B 108, 214522 (2023)

    2023

  11. [18]

    Jiang, Z

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

    2024

  12. [19]

    Z. Liu, M. Huo, J. Li, Q. Li, Y. Liu, Y. Dai, X. Zhou, J. Hao, Y. Lu, M. Wang, and H.-H. Wen, Nat. Comm. 15, 7570 (2024)

    2024

  13. [20]

    Geisler, L

    B. Geisler, L. Fanfarillo, J. J. Hamlin, G. R. Stewart, R. G. Hennig, and P. J. Hirschfeld, npj Quantum Materials 9, 89 (2024)

    2024

  14. [21]

    Yue, J.-J

    C. Yue, J.-J. Miao, H. Huang, Y. Hua, P. Li, Y. Li, G. Zhou, W. Lv, Q. Yang, H. Sun, Y.-J. Sun, J. Lin, Q.-K. Xue, Z. Chen, and W.-Q. Chen, Correlated electronic structures and unconventional superconductivity in bilayer nickelate heterostructures (2025), arXiv:2501.06875 [con...

    2025 arXiv

  15. [22]

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

    2023

  16. [23]

    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

  17. [24]

    Schl¨ omer, U

    H. Schl¨ omer, U. Schollw¨ ock, F. Grusdt, and A. Bohrdt, Comm. Phys. 7, 366 (2024)

    2024

  18. [25]

    Kaneko, H

    T. Kaneko, H. Sakakibara, M. Ochi, and K. Kuroki, Phys. Rev. B 109, 045154 (2024)

    2024

  19. [26]

    Kakoi, T

    M. Kakoi, T. Kaneko, H. Sakakibara, M. Ochi, and K. Kuroki, Phys. Rev. B 109, L201124 (2024)

    2024

  20. [27]

    Qin and Y.-f

    Q. Qin and Y.-f. Yang, Phys. Rev. B 108, L140504 (2023)

    2023

  21. [28]

    Zheng and W

    Y.-Y. Zheng and W. W´ u, Phys. Rev. B 111, 035108 (2025)

    2025

  22. [29]

    Y.-H. Tian, Y. Chen, J.-M. Wang, R.-Q. He, and Z.-Y. Lu, Phys. Rev. B 109, 165154 (2024)

    2024

  23. [30]

    Maier, M

    T. Maier, M. Jarrell, T. Pruschke, and M. Hettler, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 1027 (2005) . 7

    2005

  24. [31]

    T. A. Maier and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. B 84, 3 (2011)

    2011

  25. [32]

    T. A. Maier, M. Jarrell, T. C. Schulthess, P. R. C. Kent, and J. B. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 237001 (2005)

    2005

  26. [33]

    Zhang, L.-F

    Y. Zhang, L.-F. Lin, A. Moreo, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. B 108, L180510 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    G. Liu, N. Kaushal, S. Li, C. B. Bishop, Y. Wang, S. Johnston, G. Alvarez, A. Moreo, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. E 93, 063313 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    M. H. Hettler, A. N. Tahvildar-Zadeh, M. Jarrell, T. Pruschke, and H. R. Krishnamurthy, Phys. Rev. B 58, R7475 (1998)

    1998

  29. [37]

    E. Gull, A. J. Millis, A. I. Lichtenstein, M. Troyer, and P. Werner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 349 (2011)

    2011

  30. [38]

    E. Gull, P. Staar, S. Fuchs, P. Nukala, M. Summers, T. Pruschke, T. Schulthess, and T. Maier, Phys. Rev. B 83, 75122 (2011)

    2011

  31. [39]

    U. R. H¨ ahner, G. Alvarez, T. A. Maier, R. Solc` a, P. Staar, M. S. Summers, and T. C. Schulthess, Comp. Phys. Comm. 246, 106709 (2020) . Supplemental Information: Interlayer Pairing in Bilayer Nickelat es Thomas A. Maier, 1 Peter Doak, 1 Ling-Fang Lin, 2 Yang Zhang, 2 Adrian...

    2020

  32. [40]

    Jarrell, T

    M. Jarrell, T. Maier, C. Huscroft, and S. Moukouri, Physical Review B 64, 195130 (2001) , publisher: American Physical Society

    2001

  33. [41]

    Maier, M

    T. Maier, M. Jarrell, T. Pruschke, and M. Hettler, Reviews of Modern Physics 77, 1027 (2005)

    2005

Pith tools

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