Examining density wave correlations in high pressure $\rm{La_3Ni_2O_7}$ through variational Monte Carlo

Haoxiang Chen; Ji Chen; Tonghuan Jiang; Yanxin Chen

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 51 references

Examining density wave correlations in high pressure $\rm{La_3Ni_2O_7}$ through variational Monte Carlo

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that in the bilayer two-orbital model of high-pressure La3Ni2O7, increasing U and J/U suppresses the (π,π,π) spin density wave while the charge density wave shifts from (π,π,π) to (π,π,0), giving two density-wave regions.

desk verdict The in-plane (pi,pi) SDW/CDW correlations look real, but the headline (pi,pi,0) CDW region is an over-reading of their own positive Cn,inter. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.07219 v2 pith:O5BR6OPU submitted 2025-09-08 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.str-el

Yanxin Chen , Haoxiang Chen , Tonghuan Jiang , Ji Chen This is my paper

classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.str-el

keywords La3Ni2O7nickelatesuperconductorvariationalMonteCarlospindensitywavechargebilayertwo-orbitalmodelelectroncorrelationsdensity-wavephasediagram

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 aims to determine what kinds of density waves the 80-K superconductor La3Ni2O7 hosts under high pressure, solving the bilayer two-orbital model with variational Monte Carlo rather than methods that capture strong correlations less directly. It claims that increasing the Coulomb repulsion U and the Hund's coupling J suppresses the (π,π,π) spin density wave, while a charge density wave persists at every interaction strength but changes its inter-layer stacking from (π,π,π) to (π,π,0). The result is a schematic phase diagram with two regions: coexistence of spin and charge density waves at small U and J/U, and a charge-density-wave-only region at large U and J/U. Orbital-resolved correlations show a division of labor: the dx2−y2 orbital drives cuprate-like in-plane (π,π) spin correlations, while the d3z2−r2 orbital mediates the strong inter-layer antiferromagnetic coupling. If the picture holds, it ties the pressure-driven loss of spin order to the onset of superconductivity and singles out a (π,π,0) charge density wave as a concrete target for scattering experiments.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a variational Monte Carlo ground state built from a generalized pairing wavefunction — Gutzwiller factor, Jastrow factor, and a Pfaﬃan part admitting singlet and triplet pairs — optimized by minimum-step stochastic reconﬁguration on an 8×8×2 cluster with 192 electrons. The arguments rest on correlation functions with a sign convention: the inter-layer correlators C_inter and C_n,inter (positive versus negative means antiferromagnetic versus ferromagnetic spin stacking, and out-of-phase (π,π,π) versus in-phase (π,π,0) charge stacking), plus the intra-layer momentum-resolved C_intra(q), whose persistent (π,π) peak fixes the in-plane wavevector.

What would settle it

Recompute the inter-layer charge correlation Cn,inter at U beyond 8 eV or on clusters larger than 8×8 and check whether it crosses below zero; if it stays positive while the (π,π) intra-layer peak persists, the (π,π,0) region collapses into a single (π,π,π)-stacked CDW with weakening inter-layer coherence. On the experiment side, resonant X-ray scattering that resolves the c-axis periodicity of the charge modulation in pressurized La3Ni2O7 would distinguish the two stackings directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: the ground state always contains a charge density wave with in-plane wavevector (π,π), but its inter-layer stacking changes — out-of-phase (π,π,π) at small U and J/U, in-phase (π,π,0) at large U and J/U. A G-type antiferromagnetic (π,π,π) spin density wave, present at small U and J/U, vanishes as interactions grow. The resulting phase diagram has two regions, SDW+CDW coexistence and CDW-only; the mechanism is antiferromagnetic exchange (~t²/U) losing to Hund's-coupling ferromagnetic tendencies while growing J/U stabilizes the CDW. Orbital-resolved correlations assign in-plane (π,π) spin physics to dx2−y2 and inter-layer antiferromagnetic coupling to d3z2−r2.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the inter-layer charge correlation's slide toward zero — while remaining positive everywhere — marks a transition to in-phase (π,π,0) stacking; if the sign never actually flips, the CDW-only region is just the (π,π,π)-stacked CDW with fading inter-layer coherence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At the interaction values estimated from GW plus extended dynamical mean-field theory (U = 3–4 eV, J ≈ 0.61 eV), the calculation places the material in the coexistence region and its density-wave correlations match the ultrafast-optical-spectroscopy signatures.
The suppression of the (π,π,π) SDW as U and J/U grow, together with the experimental correlation between SDW loss and superconductivity onset, points toward a spin-related pairing mechanism.
The dominant (π,π,0) CDW at large U and J/U predicts charge redistribution and structural distortion that scanning tunneling microscopy, X-ray diffraction, or electron microscopy could detect.
The orbital division of labor — dx2−y2 for in-plane spin physics and d3z2−r2 for inter-layer coupling — explains the material's dual cuprate/iron-based character and singles out dx2−y2 as a major contributor to superfluid density.
Because the high-pressure model gives G-type (π,π,π) spin order while the ambient-pressure order is (π/2,π/2), the spin configuration must reconfigure across the pressure-driven structural transition — a question the paper leaves open.

Reading between the lines

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

Read strictly from the computed observable, the second CDW region is an extrapolation: Cn,inter stays positive at every parameter point and merely decays toward zero, which directly signals a loss of inter-layer charge coherence, not the sign reversal that in-phase (π,π,0) stacking would require.
If the near-zero Cn,inter instead reflects decoupled layers, a testable consequence is that inter-layer charge order becomes disordered (layers order independently) rather than uniformly in-phase; site-resolved charge patterns from larger VMC runs would distinguish the two readings.
The same machinery applied to the ambient-pressure crystal structure and band structure could answer the paper's closing question: how the (π/2,π/2) SDW evolves into G-type order as pressure increases.
Adding an accessible superconducting order parameter to the ansatz — which the paper notes is still missing — would test directly whether the (π,π,0) CDW competes with or cooperates with the s± pairing favored by the inter-layer d3z2−r2 bonds.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague, here's the take. The paper applies VMC to the bilayer two-orbital model of La3Ni2O7, scanning U and J/U. The genuinely new bits are the orbital-resolved correlation decomposition and the systematic parameter sweep. The spin sector is internally consistent: positive Cinter means inter-layer AFM, the in-plane (pi,pi) peak is robust, and the suppression with U/J is plausible. Convergence plots (Fig. S2) look okay for a variational study.

The soft spot is the charge sector, and it's load-bearing. Eq. 18 defines Cn,inter with an explicit minus sign, so positive values mean the charge modulation is out-of-phase between layers (pi,pi,pi); negative values are required for in-phase (pi,pi,0). The paper reports Cn,inter positive for all parameter points, merely decreasing to near zero as U/J grow. A positive value approaching zero indicates loss of inter-layer charge coherence, not the establishment of in-phase order. The phase diagram in Fig. 4 marks a transition to (pi,pi,0) CDW at large U/J, but that is not derivable from their own observable. No error bars are given, so the near-zero points might be statistically consistent with zero or even negative, but the text explicitly says 'remains positive.' Either way, the distinguishing feature of the proposed phase diagram doesn't follow from the computed quantity.

Minor concerns: the model parameters come from prior DFT/Wannier downfolding, and U and J/U are scanned rather than fitted, so the comparison to experiment at U=3-4 eV is suggestive but not a quantitative prediction. Finite-size dependence (8x8x2) is not addressed, and the intra-layer correlation peak at (pi,pi) in a single-band-like channel is hardly surprising given the model.

Overall: the spin correlation results are a useful addition to the nickelate debate, and the VMC methodology is honestly presented. But the central CDW phase diagram claim is unsupported by the paper's own sign convention. This is a candidate for major revision, not publication as is. I'd still send it to peer review—the method and spin findings deserve referee scrutiny, and a good referee could push the authors to compute a proper inter-layer structure factor or order parameter, with error bars and size scaling.

Recommendation: engage with the work if you're working on nickelates, but don't cite the (pi,pi,0) phase as established.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports variational Monte Carlo (VMC) calculations for a bilayer two-orbital model of high-pressure La3Ni2O7, using a generalized pairing wavefunction and MinSR optimization. The authors scan intra-orbital Coulomb repulsion U from 3 to 8 eV and J/U from 0.05 to 0.2, computing intra-layer and inter-layer spin and charge correlation functions. They conclude that increasing U and J/U suppresses a (π,π,π) spin-density wave, while the charge-density wave wavevector changes from (π,π,π) to (π,π,0), yielding a two-region phase diagram in Fig. 4: SDW+CDW coexistence at small U/J and CDW-only with (π,π,0) at large U/J. The paper also reports orbital-resolved correlations, attributing intra-layer (π,π) spin correlations to the dx2−y2 orbital and inter-layer exchange to the d3z2−r2 orbital, and compares the predicted CDW with experimental and DFT work.

Significance. If the reported phase diagram were correct, the paper would provide a useful nonperturbative VMC benchmark for density-wave correlations in a strongly correlated bilayer nickelate model. The work has clear strengths: it uses a state-of-the-art VMC ansatz with MinSR optimization, provides convergence checks in the Supplementary Material, performs a systematic parameter scan, and includes an orbital-resolved analysis that goes beyond averaged correlation functions. However, the central claim of a (π,π,0) CDW at large U/J is unsupported by the computed observable. Because the distinguishing feature of the proposed phase diagram rests on a sign misinterpretation of Eq. (18), the main conclusion is not established.

major comments (3)

[Section III.B, Eq. (18), Fig. 3(a)] The sign convention of Eq. (18) contradicts the paper's phase assignment. With Cn,inter = −(1/N^2)Σ(n_iA−⟨n⟩)(n_iB−⟨n⟩), positive values correspond to anti-correlated inter-layer charge densities, i.e., out-of-phase stacking (π,π,π), while negative values would be required for in-phase stacking (π,π,0). Fig. 3(a) shows Cn,inter > 0 for all (U,J/U), only decreasing toward zero. Thus the reported data provide no evidence for a (π,π,0) CDW; the decrease indicates loss of inter-layer charge coherence, not the establishment of an in-phase configuration. This invalidates the brown CDW-only region with wavevector (π,π,0) in Fig. 4 and the corresponding statements in Section IV and the Conclusion.
[Fig. 3(a), Section IV] No statistical uncertainties are reported for Cn,inter. The values at large U and J/U are described as 'nearly zero'; without error bars, it is unclear whether they are statistically consistent with zero or even negative. A positive value approaching zero cannot, by itself, support a transition from (π,π,π) to (π,π,0). At minimum, the plotted data are consistent with a single (π,π,π) CDW whose inter-layer correlation amplitude shrinks as interactions increase.
[Section IV, comparison with experiment] The claimed agreement with experimental observations [22] is anchored to the parameter range U = 3–4 eV and J = 0.61 eV from GW+EDMFT. In Fig. 3(a), this range corresponds to U = 3–4 eV and J/U ≈ 0.15–0.2, where Cn,inter is still positive. Under the correct sign convention, this is an out-of-phase (π,π,π) charge correlation, not the (π,π,0) order invoked for the comparison. The agreement therefore depends on the same unsupported interpretation.

minor comments (4)

[Fig. 2 caption and Section III.A] The text says 'the orbital-resolved schematic spin distribution diagram shown in Fig. 2(d)', but the schematic appears to be panel (e). Please correct the cross-reference.
[Conclusion] The compound is written as 'La3N2O7' in the first sentence of the Conclusion; it should be 'La3Ni2O7'.
[Fig. 4 caption] The caption mentions yellow stars and squares, but does not explain which symbol corresponds to which density-wave type. Please add a legend or define the symbols.
[Section III.A] There is a typo: 'ploted' should be 'plotted'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the VMC phase diagram is an output of energy minimization on an independently parameterized model, not a re-statement of its inputs.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained on the circularity axis. The Hamiltonian (Eqs. 1-2) uses hopping and crystal-field parameters from independent DFT Wannier downfolding (Table I, citing Refs. [26] and [4]), and the paper explicitly scans interactions rather than fitting them to the density-wave outcome: 'To circumvent arbitrary parameter selection and investigate possible quantum phase transitions, in this study we vary values of U = 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 eV and J/U = 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2.' The VMC wavefunction (Eqs. 3-9) is optimized by energy minimization with MinSR; no variational parameter is adjusted to reproduce the reported SDW or CDW vectors. The 4x4 sublattice structure is general variational freedom, not a pre-imposed ordering vector. The correlation functions (Eqs. 14-19) are measured on the optimized state, and the phase diagram in Fig. 4 is presented as the resulting output. The experimental comparison uses U = 3-4 eV and J = 0.61 eV from independent GW+DMFT (Ref. [24]), not from the simulation's own fitted values. The only substantive concern is that the (pi,pi,0) CDW assignment rests on Cn,inter remaining positive and merely decreasing toward zero; that is a data-interpretation and statistical-significance question, not a circular reduction. No self-citation chain, imported uniqueness theorem, or fitted-parameter-as-prediction occurs. Thus the paper warrants a circularity score of 0; any critique belongs under correctness risk.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper uses a fixed model from prior DFT work, a scanned interaction grid, and a variational ansatz. It introduces no new particles or fields. The main theoretical burden is the model fidelity, the ansatz expressivity, and the interpretation of the inter-layer correlation.

free parameters (2)

U (intra-orbital Coulomb repulsion) = 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 eV (grid)
Chosen by hand to span literature estimates, not fitted to the target result.
J/U (Hund coupling ratio) = 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2 (grid)
Chosen by hand to cover the commonly used range; not fitted.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Kanamori relations JH = JP = J and U = U' + 2J
Assumed in Section II A to reduce the interaction Hamiltonian to U and J; common but not exact for nickelates.
domain assumption The tight-binding parameters from Sakakibara et al. (t's) and Luo et al. (epsilons) describe the 29 GPa high-pressure structure
The model fidelity rests on this transfer; the Wannier downfolded bands are shown in the SM but not compared to experiment.
ad hoc to paper The 4x4 sublattice-constrained VMC ansatz can represent the true ground-state ordering
All variational parameters are restricted to a 4x4 sublattice (SM Eqs. S1-S4), which excludes incommensurate or longer-period orders and may bias toward (pi,pi) commensurate states.
ad hoc to paper Interpretation of Cn,inter near zero as a transition to (pi,pi,0)
The paper never explicitly justifies this; positive Cn,inter actually corresponds to (pi,pi,pi) under Eq. (18).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Examining density wave correlations in high pressure $\rm{La_3Ni_2O_7}$ through variational Monte Carlo." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O5BR6OPU

@misc{pith2026250907219,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Examining density wave correlations in high pressure $\rmLa_3Ni_2O_7$ through variational Monte Carlo},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O5BR6OPU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07219}
}

abstract

$\rm La_3Ni_2O_7$, a nickelate compound with a reported superconducting transition temperature of $\rm 80~K$, has attracted significant attention in recent years. Density-wave phenomena arising from strong electron correlations are widely regarded as key to unraveling the superconductivity mechanism, but the ordering and stability of these density waves remain a subject of contention in existing theoretical studies. In this work, we employ the variational Monte Carlo (VMC) method to thoroughly examine the nature of density waves as functions of Coulomb repulsion and exchange interactions in bilayer two-orbital model proposed for the high pressure phase of $\rm La_3Ni_2O_7$. We analyse the spin and charge correlation functions in a wide range of parameter space, and delineate a schematic phase diagram that separates different density-wave ground states. Our results provide useful insights into the understanding of electron correlations in $\rm La_3Ni_2O_7$, and highlight the potential of VMC to elucidate its superconducting mechanism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07219 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Spin correlation analysis. (a) Values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Correlation analysis of the charge density. Here, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Schematic phase diagram illustrating the density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

[22]

X.-S. Ni, Y. Ji, L. He, T. Xie, D.-X. Yao, M. Wang, and K. Cao, npj Quantum Materials 10, 17 (2025)

work page 2025
[1]

05 0.1 0.1 5 0.2 )ߨ,ߨ 0,0) U/ eV 8 6 5 4 3 (a) (b) U/eV C n,intra A FIG. 3. Correlation analysis of the charge density. Here, U is in units of eV. (a) Values of Cn,inter for each ( U, J/U ) pair are shown. Note that Cn,inter is positive when both U and J/U are small but decreases dramatically to nearly zero as U and J/U increase. (b) Values of C A n,intra...

work page
[2]

H. Sun, M. Huo, X. Hu, J. Li, Z. Liu, Y. Han, L. Tang, Z. Mao, P. Yang, B. Wang, et al., Nature 621, 493 (2023)

work page 2023
[3]

Wang, H.-H

M. Wang, H.-H. Wen, T. Wu, D.-X. Yao, and T. Xiang, Chinese Physics Letters 41, 077402 (2024)

work page 2024
[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, National Science Review , nwaf220 (2025)

work page 2025
[5]

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

work page 2023
[6]

J. Yang, H. Sun, X. Hu, Y. Xie, T. Miao, H. Luo, H. Chen, B. Liang, W. Zhu, G. Qu, et al. , Nature Com- munications 15, 4373 (2024)

work page 2024
[7]

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

work page 2024

Show all 51 references

[8]

Liu, J.-W

Y.-B. Liu, J.-W. Mei, F. Ye, W.-Q. Chen, and F. Yang, Physical Review Letters 131, 236002 (2023)

2023
[9]

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

2023
[10]

Zhang, L.-F

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

2024
[11]

Liu, J.-W

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

2023
[12]

Lopes, D

N. Lopes, D. Reyes, M. A. Continentino, and C. Thomas, Phys. Rev. B 103, 195150 (2021)

2021
[13]

Wang, D.-Y

Q.-W. Wang, D.-Y. Liu, Y.-M. Quan, and L.-J. Zou, Physics Letters A 380, 2685 (2016)

2016
[14]

C. Dong, J. K. Liang, G. C. Che, S. S. Xie, Z. X. Zhao, Q. S. Yang, Y. M. Ni, and G. R. Liu, Phys. Rev. B 37, 5182 (1988)

1988
[15]

Tachiki and S

M. Tachiki and S. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. B 39, 293 (1989)

1989
[16]

F. Yu, D. Ma, W. Zhuo, S. Liu, X. Wen, B. Lei, J. Ying, and X. Chen, Nature communications 12, 3645 (2021)

2021
[17]

D. Zhao, Y. Zhou, M. Huo, Y. Wang, L. Nie, Y. Yang, J. Ying, M. Wang, T. Wu, and X. Chen, Science Bulletin 70, 1239 (2025)

2025
[18]

K. Chen, X. Liu, J. Jiao, M. Zou, C. Jiang, X. Li, Y. Luo, Q. Wu, N. Zhang, Y. Guo, and L. Shu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 256503 (2024)

2024
[19]

Khasanov, T

R. Khasanov, T. J. Hicken, D. J. Gawryluk, V. Saz- gari, I. Plokhikh, L. P. Sorel, M. Bartkowiak, S. B¨ otzel, F. Lechermann, I. M. Eremin, H. Luetkens, and Z. Guguchia, Nature Physics 21, 430–436 (2025)

2025
[20]

Zhang, C

B. Zhang, C. Xu, and H. Xiang, Phys. Rev. B 111, 184401 (2025)

2025
[21]

Z. Liu, H. Sun, M. Huo, X. Ma, Y. Ji, E. Yi, L. Li, H. Liu, J. Yu, Z. Zhang, et al. , Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy 66, 217411 (2023)

2023
[23]

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 15, 10408 (2024)

2024
[24]

X.-W. Yi, Y. Meng, J.-W. Li, Z.-W. Liao, W. Li, J.-Y. You, B. Gu, and G. Su, Phys. Rev. B 110, L140508 (2024)

2024
[25]

Christiansson, F

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

2023
[26]

Ouyang, J.-M

Z. Ouyang, J.-M. Wang, R.-Q. He, and Z.-Y. Lu, Phys. Rev. B 111, 125111 (2025)

2025
[28]

Misawa, S

T. Misawa, S. Morita, K. Yoshimi, M. Kawamura, Y. Mo- toyama, K. Ido, T. Ohgoe, M. Imada, and T. Kato, Computer Physics Communications 235, 447 (2019)

2019
[29]

Tahara and M

D. Tahara and M. Imada, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 77, 114701 (2008)

2008
[30]

Kato and K

D. Kato and K. Kuroki, Physical Review Research 2, 023156 (2020)

2020
[31]

Hirayama, T

M. Hirayama, T. Misawa, T. Ohgoe, Y. Yamaji, and M. Imada, Phys. Rev. B 99, 245155 (2019)

2019
[32]

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

2023 arXiv
[33]

Castellani, C

C. Castellani, C. R. Natoli, and J. Ranninger, Phys. Rev. B 18, 4945 (1978)

1978
[34]

Biborski, P

A. Biborski, P. W´ ojcik, and M. Zegrodnik, Physical Re- view B 109, 125144 (2024)

2024
[35]

T. A. Maier and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. B 84, 180513 (2011)

2011
[36]

Rende, L

R. Rende, L. L. Viteritti, L. Bardone, F. Becca, and S. Goldt, Communications Physics 7, 260 (2024)

2024
[37]

Sorella, Phys

S. Sorella, Phys. Rev. B 64, 024512 (2001)

2001
[38]

M. D. Johannes and I. I. Mazin, Phys. Rev. B 77, 165135 (2008)

2008
[39]

Nakamura, T

T. Nakamura, T. Nobutoki, Y. Kobayashi, T. Takahashi, and G. Saito, Synthetic Metals 70, 1293 (1995)

1995
[40]

LaBollita, V

H. LaBollita, V. Pardo, M. R. Norman, and A. S. Botana, Phys. Rev. Mater. 8, L111801 (2024)

2024
[41]

L.-F. Lin, Y. Zhang, G. Alvarez, A. Moreo, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 077204 (2021)

2021
[42]

J. E. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 2327 (1984)

1984
[43]

Lingannan, B

G. Lingannan, B. Joseph, P. Vajeeston, C. N. Kuo, C. S. Lue, G. Kalaiselvan, P. Rajak, and S. Arumugam, Phys. Rev. B 103, 195126 (2021)

2021
[44]

J. Shen, X. Xie, W. Li, C. Deng, Y. Ma, H. Chen, H. Fu, F.-S. Li, B. Yuan, C. Ji, R. He, J. Guan, and W. Kong, Science Advances 11, eadr9753 (2025)

2025
[45]

R. Shi, Q. Li, X. Xu, B. Han, R. Zhu, F. Liu, R. Qi, X. Zhang, J. Du, J. Chen, et al., Nature Communications 15, 3418 (2024). Supplementary Material for Electron correlation driven density wave s in high pressure La3Ni2O7 Yanxin Chen, 1 Haoxiang Chen, 1, ∗ Tonghuan Jiang, 1 an...

2024
[46]

Start from a randomly chosen initial conﬁguration x0
[47]

Propose a new conﬁguration x′ through a transition probability
[48]

However, consecut ive samples generated through this process exhibit strong correlations, which would lead to signiﬁcant statisti cal errors if used directly in measurements

Accept the new conﬁguration with probability min ( 1, |⟨x′|Ψ⟩|2 |⟨x0|Ψ⟩|2 ) This sequence constitutes one Monte Carlo step. However, consecut ive samples generated through this process exhibit strong correlations, which would lead to signiﬁcant statisti cal errors if used dire...
[49]

Sakakibara, N

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

2024
[50]

Z. Luo, X. Hu, M. Wang, W. W´ u, and D.-X. Yao, Physical review letters 131, 126001 (2023). 4 (3,0.05) (3,0.1) (3,0.15) (3,0.2) (4,0.05) (4,0.1) (4,0.15) (4,0.2) (5,0.05) (5,0.1) (5,0.15) (5,0.2) (6,0.05) (6,0.1) (6,0.15) (6,0.2) (8,0.05) (8,0.1) (8,0.15) (8,0.2) FIG. S2. The ...

2023
[51]

05 0.1 0.1 5 0.2 (b) U/ eV 8 6 5 4 3 J/U
[52]

05 0.1 0.1 5 0.2 FIG. S3. Results for C ′ intra(q) in both spin and charge correlation functions. (a) The spin correl ation function in momentum space for layer B. (b) The charge correlation function in momentum space for layer B. Both plots exhibit peaks at ( π, π), consisten...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [22]

X.-S. Ni, Y. Ji, L. He, T. Xie, D.-X. Yao, M. Wang, and K. Cao, npj Quantum Materials 10, 17 (2025)

work page 2025

[2] [1]

05 0.1 0.1 5 0.2 )ߨ,ߨ 0,0) U/ eV 8 6 5 4 3 (a) (b) U/eV C n,intra A FIG. 3. Correlation analysis of the charge density. Here, U is in units of eV. (a) Values of Cn,inter for each ( U, J/U ) pair are shown. Note that Cn,inter is positive when both U and J/U are small but decreases dramatically to nearly zero as U and J/U increase. (b) Values of C A n,intra...

work page

[3] [2]

H. Sun, M. Huo, X. Hu, J. Li, Z. Liu, Y. Han, L. Tang, Z. Mao, P. Yang, B. Wang, et al., Nature 621, 493 (2023)

work page 2023

[4] [3]

Wang, H.-H

M. Wang, H.-H. Wen, T. Wu, D.-X. Yao, and T. Xiang, Chinese Physics Letters 41, 077402 (2024)

work page 2024

[5] [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, National Science Review , nwaf220 (2025)

work page 2025

[6] [5]

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

work page 2023

[7] [6]

J. Yang, H. Sun, X. Hu, Y. Xie, T. Miao, H. Luo, H. Chen, B. Liang, W. Zhu, G. Qu, et al. , Nature Com- munications 15, 4373 (2024)

work page 2024

[8] [7]

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

work page 2024