Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 74 references

LA-CaRe-CNN: Cascading Refinement CNN for Left Atrial Scar Segmentation

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the nickelate superconductor La3Ni2O7 hosts two distinct s±-wave pairing states in one model, one driven by Hund's coupling and one by orbital hybridization, and that their smooth crossover reconciles seemingly contra

desk verdict A CDMFT study of La3Ni2O7 models two superconducting regimes with a smooth Tc crossover; the 'two distinct origins' claim is plausible but inferred from parameter scans, not a direct pairing-channel decomposition. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.04553 v1 pith:5TKX2RLI submitted 2025-08-06 eess.IV cs.CVcs.LG

Franz Thaler , Darko Stern , Gernot Plank , Martin Urschler This is my paper
classification eess.IVcs.CVcs.LG PACS 74.20.-z74.70.-b
keywords La3Ni2O7bilayernickelatesuperconductivitys±-wavepairingHund'scouplingorbitalhybridizationcellulardynamicalmean-fieldtheorygammabandhigh-pressure
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 claims that the bilayer nickelate La3Ni2O7 does not have a single pairing mechanism. Using cellular dynamical mean-field theory on a bilayer two-orbital Kanamori-Hubbard model, it finds two intertwined $s_\pm$-wave superconducting states: one driven by Hund's coupling $J_H$ when the $d_{z^2}$ orbital is under-doped, and one driven by $d_{z^2}$–$d_{x^2-y^2}$ hybridization $V$ once hole doping pushes the $\gamma$-band of the $d_{z^2}$ orbital to the Fermi level. The two states have comparable maximum transition temperatures and cross over smoothly with $d_{z^2}$ doping, so the overall $T_c$ looks almost flat even though the underlying mechanism changes. If correct, this unifies experiments that find superconductivity in films with and without a $\gamma$-band Fermi pocket.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the anomalous inter-layer self-energy $\operatorname{Re}\Sigma^{\mathrm{ano}}_{z_1,z_2}(i\omega_n)$ (and the analogous $d_{x^2-y^2}$ component) computed in Nambu notation; the temperature at which a finite value appears defines $T_c$. The method is the bilayer two-orbital Kanamori-Hubbard model with inter-layer hopping $t_\perp$ and orbital hybridization $V$, solved by 1×4-orbital cellular dynamical mean-field theory; the auxiliary quantity is the renormalized $\gamma$-band dispersion $\epsilon^*_z(k)=Z\epsilon^*(k)$, whose distance from the Fermi level determines which pairing channel dominates.

What would settle it

Measure the renormalized gamma-band spectral weight at the Fermi level across the Sr-doping series in La3−xSrxNi2O7 films while tracking Tc. The paper predicts a crossover: as the gamma band reaches the Fermi level, the dominant pairing switches from Hund-sensitive to hybridization-sensitive; if Tc stays high while the gamma band remains far below the Fermi level at all dopings, the two-channel explanation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the 2D bilayer two-orbital model, using 1×4-orbital CDMFT with an anomalous self-energy in Nambu notation, the paper identifies SC I and SC II. SC I exists near $\delta_z = 0$ (electron-doped or slightly hole-doped $d_{z^2}$), has $T_c$ that grows sharply with $J_H$, and survives even when $V\to 0$. SC II emerges for $\delta_z \gtrsim 0$, has $T_c$ controlled by $V$ with a critical $V_c\approx 0.35t$, and depends only weakly on $J_H$. At intermediate doping both contribute, producing a smooth $T_c(\delta_z)$ curve (maximum $\approx 0.02t$) and a strong particle-hole asymmetry: the $V$-driven state exists broadly on the hole-doped side but vanishes on the electron-doped side. The paper tie

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 2D two-orbital model with the chosen parameters captures La3Ni2O7 and that spin- and charge-density-wave orders can be neglected; if competing orders or three-dimensional couplings matter, the two-pairing picture may collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, superconductivity in La3Ni2O7 does not require a single universal ingredient: the gamma band at the Fermi level is essential only for the hybridization-driven channel, not for the Hund-driven one.
  • Doping holes into the $d_{z^2}$ orbital is the switching knob: it suppresses the Hund-driven state and activates the hybridization-driven one at nearly the same rate, which is why $T_c$ stays roughly flat across the doping range.
  • The hybridization $V$ has a critical value around $0.35t$ for the hole-doped state; below it that channel disappears even at optimal hole doping.
  • In the parameter regimes examined, $s_\pm$-wave pairing wins over $d$-wave pairing, narrowing the space of candidate pairing symmetries for the material.
  • The strongly renormalized gamma band (mass renormalization factor up to about 9) is not an obstacle to pairing; SC II survives very strong correlations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same two-channel crossover logic might apply to other bilayer nickelates, where strain, substrate, or chemical pressure tunes band positions; the relevant experimental handle would be the $d_{z^2}$ band energy rather than total doping alone.
  • A discriminating experiment that the authors do not propose: on a single film series, measure the renormalized gamma-band spectral weight near the Fermi level together with $T_c$; the Hund-driven state should respond to perturbations that alter spin correlations, whereas the hybridization-driven state should track gamma-band weight.
  • A quantitative prediction left implicit is that transferring holes between orbitals at fixed total electron count should move $T_c$ along the computed $T_c(\delta_z)$ curve more strongly than changing the overall carrier count; this could be tested by comparing Sr-doped films under different c-axis strain.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. Despite the LA-CaRe-CNN label in the supplied review metadata, the manuscript under review is a condensed-matter theory paper (arXiv:2508.04554v2) on La3Ni2O7. It studies the bilayer two-orbital Kanamori-Hubbard model using 1x4-orbital CDMFT with CTQMC and HFQMC impurity solvers. The central claim is that two distinct s±-wave superconducting states exist in this model: SC I, dominant when the dz2 orbital is at or below half filling, is controlled by Hund coupling JH and is insensitive to dx2-y2-dz2 hybridization V; SC II, dominant when dz2 is hole-doped and the γ bonding band approaches the Fermi level, is controlled by V and only weakly dependent on JH. The manuscript reports a smooth Tc versus dz2-doping relation and argues from parameter-selective calculations that the two states coexist and trade dominance at intermediate doping, and that the resulting phase diagram resembles the weak Tc variation in Sr-doped La3Ni2O7 films. It also addresses robustness with respect to nx, t_perp, U, and cluster size, and benchmarks against HFQMC and DQMC.

Significance. The proposed unification is scientifically significant: if correct, it reconciles the two most debated pairing scenarios in La3Ni2O7 and connects them to the conflicting observations of the γ pocket in films. The computational study is technically substantial and carefully cross-checked: CDMFT+CTQMC results are benchmarked against HFQMC and DQMC (Fig. S2), the s± channel is distinguished from d-wave in a 2x2x4-orbital cluster (Fig. 6d), and the main Tc trends are tested against parameter variations. The paper also makes a falsifiable experimental prediction that γ-band spectral weight at the Fermi level and the strength of Hund's coupling control which of the two pairing regimes is realized. The central conceptual weakness is that the two-state interpretation is inferred from the same parameter-dependence measurements used to define it; no direct pairing-vertex decomposition is provided. This does not invalidate the data but makes the headline claim stronger than the evidence.

major comments (2)
  1. [Two superconductivities; Figs. 3 and 4] The evidence for two distinct SC states rests on different Tc responses to JH and V at δz=0 and δz=0.08. As the authors state near Fig. 2, the inter-layer x and z anomalous self-energies turn on simultaneously once V is finite. A single s± state whose orbital composition evolves continuously with δz could therefore produce the same qualitative Tc(JH,V) behavior. The labels 'SC I' and 'SC II' as distinct pairing states with distinct physical origins need support from a direct pairing-channel decomposition, e.g., the leading eigenvalues/eigenvectors of the particle-particle vertex as functions of JH and V at fixed δz, or a projection of the anomalous self-energy onto the two proposed channels. In its present form the classification partly restates the parameter dependence used to construct it.
  2. [Two superconductivities; Fig. 4e,f] The claimed coexistence at intermediate δz is not computed in the full parameter set. The curves in Fig. 4e isolate SC I by lowering V to 0.2t, while Fig. 4f isolates SC II by lowering JH to 0.15U. These runs show that the two idealized mechanisms can separately account for comparable Tc values, but they do not demonstrate that both are simultaneously present as distinct superconducting instabilities in the model with V=0.5t and JH=0.2U. A smooth Tc(δz) curve with a crossover in the orbital composition of a single order parameter would look the same. The authors should either perform a calculation that separates two pairing eigenvalues/eigenmodes in the full model, or moderate the 'coexistence' wording to 'crossover' behavior.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Supplementary Eq. (S01)] Both J and JH are used in the Hamiltonian and in the text without an explicit identification. Please state that J=JH and define the full Kanamori interaction parameters consistently.
  2. [Methodology, Sec. A] The term '1×4-orbital effective cluster' is confusing because the cluster contains four orbitals but only one unit cell. Suggest 'one-unit-cell, four-orbital cluster' or equivalent for clarity.
  3. [Fig. 5b caption] The notation A~(κ,ω0) is called an approximate spectral function, but ω0 is not defined. Please specify that ω0 is the lowest Matsubara frequency and state the relation to the real-frequency spectral function more precisely.
  4. [Fig. 4e,f caption] The caption references Triangles, Diamonds, and Dots, but the symbols are not described in the caption or legend. In grayscale these curves are difficult to distinguish; please add a legend or explicit symbol descriptions.
  5. [Discussion] The exclusion of SDW/CDW orders is mentioned in the Fig. 1 caption but should be stated as a limitation in the Discussion, since competing orders can in principle affect the phase diagram. This does not affect the main numerical trends but is relevant for material claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the phase diagram and parameter dependencies are direct CDMFT outputs; the two-SC classification is an interpretation, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central results are obtained by solving the bilayer two-orbital Kanamori-Hubbard model with CDMFT and reading Tc from the onset of the anomalous self-energy (Figs. 2-4). The Tc(J_H, V, δ_z) curves are computed, not fitted, so the J_H-sensitive SC I and V-sensitive SC II behaviors are raw outputs of the calculation. The subsequent identification of two pairing states is an interpretive decomposition of those outputs; it is underdetermined (no direct pairing-vertex eigenmode analysis is provided) and the SDW/CDW exclusion is an acknowledged limitation (Fig. 1 caption), but neither amounts to a derivation that reduces to its input by construction. Self-citations (Refs. [22], [29], [33]) supply the model Hamiltonian and parameter values or prior numerical benchmarks; they are not used as the justification for the two-SC claim, which rests on the new CDMFT data in Figs. 3-5. The comparison with experiments (e.g., Ref. [57]) is qualitative and does not involve fitting. Hence no load-bearing circular step is present.

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

The free parameters are model inputs from prior literature, varied to demonstrate robustness. The central claim that two pairing regimes exist is an addition to the model input, but the interpretation of the smooth Tc curve as a crossover between two mechanisms relies on the stated assumptions about the model and the exclusion of competing orders. No new particles or mediators are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • U (intra-orbital Hubbard interaction)
    Set to 7t based on prior DFT/LDA estimates; varied in robustness checks (Fig. 6c, Fig. S7).
  • JH (Hund's coupling) = 0.1-0.3U, base 0.2U
    Varied to probe SC I versus SC II; central to the SC I classification.
  • V (dx2-y2-dz2 hybridization) = 0.5t base, varied down to 0
    Central tuning parameter for SC II; a critical V_c ~0.35t is inferred.
  • t_perp (inter-layer dz2 hopping) = -0.8t base, varied to -0.6t
    Controls the gamma band position; varied to support the SC II mechanism.
  • orbital fillings nx, nz = nx=0.6, nz=1-delta_z
    Chosen to model La3Ni2O7 doping; delta_z is the hole-doping variable scanned in the phase diagram.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The bilayer two-orbital Kanamori-Hubbard Hamiltonian (Eq. S01) with hoppings tx=1, tz=0.25t, tx'=-0.15t, tz'=0.05t, t_perp=-0.8t, V=0.5t captures the essential physics of La3Ni2O7.
    Model taken from prior DFT/strong-coupling literature (Refs. 22, 29); not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption CDMFT with a 1x4 orbital cluster and local self-energy captures the superconducting correlations relevant for the phase diagram.
    Used for all main results; cluster size limits spatial correlations to one unit cell.
  • ad hoc to paper Spin-density-wave and charge-density-wave orders do not qualitatively affect the superconducting phase diagram.
    Explicitly excluded in the Fig. 1 caption and main text; these orders could compete with SC in the real material.
  • domain assumption The relation between dz2 hole doping delta_z and Sr content x in La3-xSrxNi2O7 films is monotonic, allowing direct comparison of Tc versus delta_z to Tc versus x.
    Used in the Discussion to align the phase diagram with experiment (Ref. 57); not microscopically derived.
  • standard math Standard CDMFT/CTQMC methodology gives accurate impurity solver results.
    The method is established in prior literature; benchmarks against HFQMC and DQMC are shown in Sec. B of the supplementary.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LA-CaRe-CNN: Cascading Refinement CNN for Left Atrial Scar Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5TKX2RLI

@misc{pith2026250804553,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LA-CaRe-CNN: Cascading Refinement CNN for Left Atrial Scar Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5TKX2RLI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.04553}
}
read the original abstract

Atrial fibrillation (AF) represents the most prevalent type of cardiac arrhythmia for which treatment may require patients to undergo ablation therapy. In this surgery cardiac tissues are locally scarred on purpose to prevent electrical signals from causing arrhythmia. Patient-specific cardiac digital twin models show great potential for personalized ablation therapy, however, they demand accurate semantic segmentation of healthy and scarred tissue typically obtained from late gadolinium enhanced (LGE) magnetic resonance (MR) scans. In this work we propose the Left Atrial Cascading Refinement CNN (LA-CaRe-CNN), which aims to accurately segment the left atrium as well as left atrial scar tissue from LGE MR scans. LA-CaRe-CNN is a 2-stage CNN cascade that is trained end-to-end in 3D, where Stage 1 generates a prediction for the left atrium, which is then refined in Stage 2 in conjunction with the original image information to obtain a prediction for the left atrial scar tissue. To account for domain shift towards domains unknown during training, we employ strong intensity and spatial augmentation to increase the diversity of the training dataset. Our proposed method based on a 5-fold ensemble achieves great segmentation results, namely, 89.21% DSC and 1.6969 mm ASSD for the left atrium, as well as 64.59% DSC and 91.80% G-DSC for the more challenging left atrial scar tissue. Thus, segmentations obtained through LA-CaRe-CNN show great potential for the generation of patient-specific cardiac digital twin models and downstream tasks like personalized targeted ablation therapy to treat AF.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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���, 493 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    J. G. Bednorz and K. A. M¨ uller, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B Condensed Matter��, 189 (1986)

    work page 1986

  3. [3]

    Stewart, Reviews of Modern Physics��, 1589 (2011)

    G. Stewart, Reviews of Modern Physics��, 1589 (2011)

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    T. A. Maier and D. Scalapino, Physical Review B��, 180513 (2011)

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Keimer, S

    B. Keimer, S. A. Kivelson, M. R. Norman, S. Uchida, and J. Zaanen, Nature���, 179 (2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    D. Li, K. Lee, B. Y. Wang, M. Osada, S. Crossley, H. R. Lee, Y. Cui, Y. Hikita, and H. Y. Hwang, Nature���, 624 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Jiang, M

    M. Jiang, M. Berciu, and G. A. Sawatzky, Physical Re- view Letters���, 207004 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Y. Gu, S. Zhu, X. Wang, J. Hu, and H. Chen, Commu- nications Physics�, 84 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    J. Karp, A. S. Botana, M. R. Norman, H. Park, M. Zingl, and A. Millis, Physical Review X��, 021061 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    H. Lu, M. Rossi, A. Nag, M. Osada, D. Li, K. Lee, B. Wang, M. Garcia-Fernandez, S. Agrestini, Z. Shen, et al., Science���, 213 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    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

  4. [12]

    Zhang, D

    Y. Zhang, D. Su, Y. Huang, Z. Shan, H. Sun, M. Huo, K. Ye, J. Zhang, Z. Yang, Y. Xu, Y. Su, R. Li, M. Smid- man, M. Wang, L. Jiao, and H. Yuan, Nature Physics ��, 1269 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Li, Y.-J

    Q. Li, Y.-J. Zhang, Z.-N. Xiang, Y. Zhang, X. Zhu, and H.-H. Wen, Chinese Physics Letters��, 017401 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Y. Zhu, D. Peng, E. Zhang, B. Pan, X. Chen, L. Chen, H. Ren, F. Liu, Y. Hao, N. Li,et al., Nature���, 531 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    X. Chen, J. Choi, Z. Jiang, J. Mei, K. Jiang, J. Li, S. Agrestini, M. Garcia-Fernandez, H. Sun, X. Huang, D. Shen, M. Wang, J. Hu, Y. Lu, K. J. Zhou, and D. Feng, Nature Communications��, 9597 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Y. Meng, Y. Yang, H. Sun, S. Zhang, J. Luo, L. Chen, X. Ma, M. Wang, F. Hong, X. Wang,et al., Nature Com- munications��, 10408 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    K. Chen, X. Liu, J. Jiao, M. Zou, C. Jiang, X. Li, Y. Luo, Q. Wu, N. Zhang, Y. Guo, and L. Shu, Physical Review Letters���, 256503 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    D. Zhao, Y. Zhou, M. Huo, Y. Wang, L. Nie, Y. Yang, J. Ying, M. Wang, T. Wu, and X. Chen, Science Bulletin ��, 1239 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    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, National Science Review , nwaf220 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    F. Li, Y. Hao, N. Guo, J. Zhang, Q. Zheng, G. Liu, and J. Zhang, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.13511 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    H. Wang, H. Huang, G. Zhou, W. Lv, C. Yue, L. Xu, X. Wu, Z. Nie, Y. Chen, Y.-J. Sun, W. Chen, H. Yuan, Z. Chen, and Q.-K. Xue, Elec- tronic structures across the superconductor-insulator transition at la 2.85pr0.15ni2o7/srlaalo4 interfaces (2025), arXiv:2502.18068 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Z. Luo, X. Hu, M. Wang, W. Wu, and D. X. Yao, Physical Review Letters���, 126001 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Christiansson, F

    V. Christiansson, F. Petocchi, and P. Werner, Physical Review Letters���, 206501 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Q.-G. Yang, D. Wang, and Q.-H. Wang, Physical Review B���, L140505 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Yang, G.-M

    Y.-f. Yang, G.-M. Zhang, and F.-C. Zhang, Physical Re- view B���, 10.1103/PhysRevB.108.L201108 (2023)

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Y. B. Liu, J. W. Mei, F. Ye, W. Q. Chen, and F. Yang, Physical Review Letters���, 236002 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    C. Lu, Z. Pan, F. Yang, and C. Wu, Physical Review Letters���, 146002 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

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

    2024

  21. [29]

    Zheng and W

    Y.-Y. Zheng and W. W´ u, Physical Review B���, 035108 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Sakakibara, N

    H. Sakakibara, N. Kitamine, M. Ochi, and K. Kuroki, Physical Review Letters���, 106002 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Oh and Y.-H

    H. Oh and Y.-H. Zhang, Physical Review B���, 174511 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Lechermann, J

    F. Lechermann, J. Gondolf, S. B¨ otzel, and I. M. Eremin, Physical Review B���, L201121 (2023). 10

    2023

  25. [33]

    W. W´ u, Z. Luo, D.-X. Yao, and M. Wang, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy��, 117402 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Jiang, J

    R. Jiang, J. Hou, Z. Fan, Z.-J. Lang, and W. Ku, Physical Review Letters���, 126503 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Zhang, L

    Y. Zhang, L. F. Lin, A. Moreo, T. A. Maier, and E. Dagotto, Nature Communications��, 2470 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Geisler, J

    B. Geisler, J. J. Hamlin, G. R. Stewart, R. G. Hennig, and P. Hirschfeld, arXiv:2411.14600 [cond-mat.supr-con] (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    S. Ryee, N. Witt, and T. O. Wehling, Physical Review Letters���, 096002 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Jiang, Z

    K. Jiang, Z. Wang, and F.-C. Zhang, Chinese Physics Letters��, 017402 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Fan, J.-F

    Z. Fan, J.-F. Zhang, B. Zhan, D. Lv, X.-Y. Jiang, B. Nor- mand, and T. Xiang, Physical Review B���, 024514 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Y. Gu, C. Le, Z. Yang, X. Wu, and J. Hu, Physical Re- view B���, 174506 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    Y. Chen, K. Zhang, M. Xu, Y. Zhao, H. Xiao, and L. Qiao, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy ��, 247411 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    Ouyang, J.-M

    Z. Ouyang, J.-M. Wang, J.-X. Wang, R.-Q. He, L. Huang, and Z.-Y. Lu, Physical Review B���, 115114 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    X. Z. Qu, D. W. Qu, J. Chen, C. Wu, F. Yang, W. Li, and G. Su, Physical Review Letters���, 036502 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Z. Liao, L. Chen, G. Duan, Y. Wang, C. Liu, R. Yu, and Q. Si, Physical Review B���, 214522 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Wang and Y.-f

    J. Wang and Y.-f. Yang, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.19301 (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    S. Ryee, N. Witt, G. Sangiovanni, and T. O. Wehling, Optimal superconductivity near a lifshitz transition in strained (la,pr) 3ni2o7 (2025), arXiv:2506.21480 [cond- mat.supr-con]

    2025

  39. [47]

    S. Fan, M. Ou, M. Scholten, Q. Li, Z. Shang, Y. Wang, J. Xu, H. Yang, I. M. Eremin, and H.-H. Wen, arXiv:2506.01788 [cond-mat.supr-con] 10.48550/arXiv.2506.01788 (2025)

    2025 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    J. Shen, G. Zhou, Y. Miao, P. Li, Z. Ou, Y. Chen, Z. Wang, R. Luan, H. Sun, Z. Feng, X. Yong, Y. Li, L. Xu, W. Lv, Z. Nie, H. Wang, H. Huang, Y.-J. Sun, Q.- K. Xue, J. He, and Z. Chen, Nodeless superconducting gap and electron-boson coupling in (La,Pr,Sm) 3Ni2O7 (2025), arXiv:...

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Y. Shen, M. Qin, and G.-M. Zhang, Chinese Physics Let- ters��, 127401 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Wang, H.-H

    M. Wang, H.-H. Wen, T. Wu, D.-X. Yao, and T. Xiang, Chinese Physics Letters��, 077402 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    E. Berg, D. Orgad, and S. A. Kivelson, Physical Review B��, 094509 (2008)

    2008

  44. [52]

    Z.-Y. Shao, C. Lu, M. Liu, Y.-B. Liu, Z. Pan, C. Wu, and F. Yang, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.20287 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  45. [53]

    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, Nature���, 935 (2025)

    2025

  46. [54]

    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, arXiv:2504.16372 [cond-mat.supr-con] (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  47. [55]

    G. Zhou, W. Lv, H. Wang, Z. Nie, Y. Chen, Y. Li, H. Huang, W. Q. Chen, Y. J. Sun, Q. K. Xue, and Z. Chen, Nature���, 641 (2025)

    2025

  48. [56]

    P. Li, G. Zhou, W. Lv, Y. Li, C. Yue, H. Huang, L. Xu, J. Shen, Y. Miao, W. Song,et al., National Science Re- view , nwaf205 (2025)

    2025

  49. [57]

    B. Hao, M. Wang, W. Sun, Y. Yang, Z. Mao, S. Yan, H. Sun, H. Zhang, L. Han, Z. Gu, J. Zhou, D. Ji, and Y. Nie, arXiv:2505.12603 [cond-mat.supr-con] (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Q. Li, J. Sun, S. Boetzel, M. Ou, Z.-N. Xiang, F. Lecher- mann, B. Wang, Y. Wang, Y.-J. Zhang, J. Cheng,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.10399 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Georges, Reviews of Modern Physics��(1996)

    A. Georges, Reviews of Modern Physics��(1996)

    1996

  52. [60]

    Kotliar, S

    G. Kotliar, S. Y. Savrasov, G. P´ alsson, and G. Biroli, Physical Review Letters��, 10.1103/phys- revlett.87.186401 (2001)

    2001 doi

  53. [61]

    Jinbin, Y

    L. Jinbin, Y. Dao-Xin, and W. W´ ei, Chinese Physics Let- ters��, 080711 (2025)

    2025

  54. [62]

    de’ Medici, J

    L. de’ Medici, J. Mravlje, and A. Georges, Phys. Rev. Lett.���, 256401 (2011)

    2011

  55. [63]

    W. Wu, M. S. Scheurer, S. Chatterjee, S. Sachdev, A. Georges, and M. Ferrero, Physical Review X�, 021048 (2018)

    2018

  56. [64]

    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, Nature Communica- tions��, 4373 (2024)

    2024

  57. [65]

    J. E. Hirsch and R. M. Fye, Physical review letters��, 2521 (1986)

    1986

  58. [66]

    H. Shi, Z. Huo, G. Li, H. Ma, T. Cui, D.-X. Yao, and D. Duan, Chinese Physics Letters (2025)

    2025

  59. [67]

    X. Hu, W. Qiu, C.-Q. Chen, Z. Luo, and D.-X. Yao, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.17223 (2025)

    2025

  60. [68]

    L. Shi, Y. Luo, W. Wu, and Y. Zhang, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13197 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Yue, J.-J

    C. Yue, J.-J. Miao, H. Huang, Y. Hua, P. Li, Y. Li, G. Zhou, W. Lv, Q. Yang, F. Yang,et al., National Sci- ence Review , nwaf253 (2025)

    2025

  62. [70]

    Z. Dong, M. Huo, J. Li, J. Li, P. Li, H. Sun, L. Gu, Y. Lu, M. Wang, Y. Wang,et al., Nature���, 847 (2024)

    2024

  63. [71]

    P. Seth, I. Krivenko, M. Ferrero, and O. Parcollet, Com- puter Physics Communications���, 274 (2016)

    2016

  64. [72]

    Parcollet, M

    O. Parcollet, M. Ferrero, T. Ayral, H. Hafermann, I. Krivenko, L. Messio, and P. Seth, Computer Physics Communications���, 398 (2015), arXiv:1504.01952

    2015 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Wakimoto, K

    S. Wakimoto, K. Yamada, J. M. Tranquada, C. D. Frost, R. J. Birgeneau, and H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.��, 247003 (2007)

    2007

  66. [74]

    X. Dong, L. D. Re, A. Toschi, and E. Gull, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences���, e2205048119 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.