Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 69 references

Kondo destruction quantum critical point: fixed point annihilation and thermodynamic stability

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the Kondo destruction quantum critical point has zero residual entropy because it annihilates with the Kondo fixed point.

desk verdict Exact results at ε=2 and a clean instability proof, but the zero-entropy conclusion is asserted, not derived. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09627 v1 pith:KFC6DRW6 submitted 2025-09-11 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.stat-mech

Yiming Wang , Lei Chen , Haoyu Hu , Ang Cai , Jianhui Dai , C. J. Bolech , Qimiao Si This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.stat-mech MSC 82B2782B2881T17 PACS 75.20.Hr71.10.-w72.15.Qm
keywords KondodestructionquantumcriticalpointfixedannihilationBose-Fermimodelresidualentropyheavyfermionstrangemetalrenormalizationgrouplocalization-delocalization
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 establish that the Kondo destruction quantum critical point (QCP)—the state describing strange metal criticality in heavy fermion systems—is thermodynamically stable because it carries no residual entropy at zero temperature. The argument connects the QCP to fixed point annihilation: in the Bose-Fermi Kondo model, the critical fixed point and the Kondo fixed point approach each other as the bosonic bath exponent ϵ increases, colliding at ϵ=1 and disappearing. The authors prove this in exactly solvable limits (ϵ=2) and via analytic transformations showing that an arbitrarily small bosonic coupling destroys Kondo screening for 1<ϵ≤2. A sympathetic reader would care because it turns the Kondo destruction QCP from a mysterious finite-entropy state into a concrete, stable RG fixed point, with consequences for the physics of strange metals.

What carries the argument

The Bose-Fermi Kondo model (a spin-1/2 local moment coupled to a fermionic bath and a bosonic bath with spectrum |ω|^{1−ϵ}) is the central object. The mechanism is fixed point annihilation: at ϵ=1 the critical fixed point C′ and the Kondo fixed point K collide and annihilate, transferring the Kondo fixed point's zero residual entropy to the QCP. Analytic tools: exact solution at ϵ=2 via Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation (yielding Curie response with reduced constant), the Toulouse-point mapping to a non-interacting resonant level model (defining the crossover scale T*=g²/(2πΓ)), and Firsov-Lang plus Schrieffer-Wolff transformations showing Kondo couplings vanish for 1<ϵ≤2.

What would settle it

A numerical NRG calculation of the zero-temperature impurity entropy at the critical coupling of the SU(2)-symmetric Bose-Fermi Kondo model for ϵ just below 1: if the residual entropy at the QCP is nonzero (e.g., ln 2 or a fractional value), the fixed-point-annihilation argument is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Kondo destruction quantum critical point is a manifestation of fixed point annihilation. In the renormalization-group flow of the Bose-Fermi Kondo model, the Kondo destruction QCP (critical fixed point C′) and the Kondo fixed point K move toward each other as ϵ increases; at ϵ=1 they collide and both disappear, leaving only the local-moment fixed point. Since the Kondo fixed point has zero residual entropy, the annihilating critical fixed point at ϵ=1− inherits zero residual entropy, establishing the thermodynamic stability of the QCP. This picture is anchored by exact results at ϵ=2: the SU(2) Bose-Kondo model exhibits Curie behavior with a reduced Curie consta

Load-bearing premise

The result hangs on assuming that the exactly solved Ising/Toulouse variant of the Bose-Fermi Kondo model captures the spin-isotropic SU(2) model relevant to Kondo destruction; if longitudinal fluctuations do not dominate in the relevant regime, the fixed-point annihilation picture may not transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Kondo destruction QCP has zero residual entropy at T=0, so the quantum critical fluid in heavy fermion strange metals is thermodynamically stable.
  • For 1<ϵ≤2, an arbitrarily small spin-boson coupling suppresses Kondo screening, making the Kondo fixed point unstable and driving the system to a local-moment fixed point.
  • The local-moment fixed point at ϵ=2 has Curie response with reduced SU(2) Curie constant 1/12 (vs 1/4 for Ising), showing that longitudinal fluctuations are dominant.
  • The fixed-point-annihilation topology provides an RG explanation for why the Kondo destruction QCP is a genuine stable quantum critical point rather than a transition with residual entropy.
  • The result strengthens the view that strange metallicity arises from proximity to a correlation-driven localization-delocalization transition.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: if annihilation is the correct mechanism, the entropy at the QCP should vanish continuously as T→0 with a specific power law; this can be tested in NRG simulations of the SU(2) BFKM for ϵ just below 1.
  • Editorial extension: the same fixed-point-annihilation logic may apply to other dissipative quantum impurity models; searching for zero-entropy QCPs in those systems could reveal a broad class of stable critical states.
  • Editorial extension: on the Kondo side of the transition, the Kondo temperature T* should vanish with a non-perturbative exponent controlled by the annihilation, which might be observable in heavy-fermion compounds tuned through the QCP.
  • Editorial extension: the paper's argument implies that the specific heat coefficient γ=S/T remains well-behaved at the QCP; measuring thermodynamic signatures in strange metals could indirectly corroborate the zero residual entropy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the Bose-Fermi Kondo model (BFKM) in the sub-ohmic regime and claims that the Kondo destruction quantum critical point (QCP) is associated with fixed-point annihilation between the critical fixed point C′ and the Kondo fixed point K at ε=1. On this basis it concludes that the zero-temperature residual entropy vanishes at the Kondo destruction QCP, establishing the thermodynamic stability of the quantum critical fluid. The supporting material includes an exact solution of the SU(2) Bose-Kondo model at ε=2, an exact solution of the Toulouse/Ising BFKM at ε=2, CT-QMC checks of the former, and a Firsov-Lang/Schrieffer-Wolff argument showing that for 1<ε≤2 an infinitesimal bosonic coupling suppresses the Kondo effect.

Significance. If the main claim were established, it would be an important result: it would connect the Kondo destruction QCP, a candidate description of heavy-fermion strange metallicity, to the general phenomenon of fixed-point annihilation, and would imply that the critical state has no residual entropy and is thermodynamically stable. The exact ε=2 solutions are valuable in their own right, and the CT-QMC verification (Fig. 2) strengthens them. The instability argument for the Kondo fixed point in 1<ε≤2 (SM D) is also a concrete and useful contribution. However, the headline conclusion about residual entropy is not derived from a thermodynamic calculation; it is inferred from an assumed fixed-point topology. The divergent partition-function prefactor and the Ising/Toulouse-to-SU(2) transfer are additional load-bearing gaps. The paper is therefore not acceptable in its present form, but the underlying program is plausible and could become publishable if these gaps are closed.

major comments (5)
  1. [Fixed point annihilation and stability of Kondo destruction QCP] The central topological assertion—"the critical and Kondo fixed points, C′ and K, annihilate with each other. This annihilation happens exactly at ε=1"—is not derived. SM D establishes that for 1<ε≤2 the Kondo fixed point is unstable, but an unstable fixed point can exist without colliding with C′. No RG eigenvalue analysis or flow calculation near ε=1 is provided that would show C′ and K actually merge. The exact ε=2 solutions and the CT-QMC data for the local-moment fixed point L′ do not constrain this merger. Since the annihilation is the basis for the entropy conclusion, this is a load-bearing gap.
  2. [Fixed point annihilation and stability of Kondo destruction QCP] The sentence "Given that it is zero at the Kondo fixed point, the zero temperature residual entropy likewise vanishes at the Kondo destruction QCP" assumes continuity of the impurity residual entropy through the fixed-point collision. The paper does not compute S_imp(T→0) at C′ or at ε=1^−, nor does it provide a g-theorem-type argument that would force the entropies of the two fixed points to coincide at the collision. The exact solutions in SM A and SM C compute spin susceptibilities, not entropy. Thus the paper's main thermodynamic claim is an extrapolation from fixed-point topology, not a result derived from the model's thermodynamics.
  3. [SM Eqs. (S2), (S5) and footnote [52]] The partition functions used in the exact solutions contain a prefactor exp(g²β²/16). At h=0, ln Z_loc = ln 2 + g²β²/16. If this term is retained, the zero-temperature impurity entropy diverges to −∞; if it is to be discarded, the regularization must be specified explicitly. Footnote [52] says the prefactor "does not affect the determination of the spin responses," but the paper's central claim is about residual entropy, not spin responses. As written, the thermodynamic quantity at the center of the paper is not well-defined.
  4. [The Bose-Fermi Kondo model at ε≤2 and SM C] The exact BFKM solution that drives the fixed-point argument is obtained at the Toulouse point with Ising bosonic coupling, while the fixed-point diagram in Fig. 1 and the central claim concern the SU(2)-symmetric BFKM. The statement "our result applies to the spin-isotropic BFKM" is not derived. The SU(2) Bose-only result at ε=2 has a Curie constant 1/12, whereas the Ising/Toulouse solution gives 1/4 in the low-temperature Curie regime; this shows that transverse components are not negligible at ε=2. The asserted longitudinal dominance for 1<ε≤2 needs a controlled argument before the annihilation picture and the zero-entropy conclusion can be transferred to the physical SU(2) model.
  5. [Discussion: thermodynamic stability] The paper equates the absence of residual entropy with "thermodynamic stability." Even if the residual entropy were shown to vanish, stability of a thermodynamic state also requires, for example, that the free energy be a local minimum relative to nearby states or that no alternative state has lower free energy. The manuscript does not define or check such a condition. This is a further conceptual gap in the central claim, though it is secondary to the missing entropy calculation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] Typo: "desttruction" should be "destruction."
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] Typo: "anlytical" should be "analytical." Also, the relative-error insets are difficult to read; please specify the error definition and the plotted quantity.
  3. [Eq. (2)] The notation ε=1− should be defined explicitly (presumably 1 minus an infinitesimal). The same notation is used later without explanation.
  4. [Fig. 4] The axes of the phase diagram are not labeled in the caption. Please add labels and indicate the location of the crossover T^*.
  5. [Footnote [52]] The footnote ends with an empty "()"; remove it and, more importantly, move the discussion of the divergent prefactor into the main text since it affects the paper's central thermodynamic claim.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Zero-entropy QCP claim is inherited from self-cited fixed-point annihilation picture rather than derived from an entropy calculation.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 'Fixed point annihilation and stability' (main text, after Fig. 4)]
    "From the above, we can see the following evolution of the fixed point structure. As ϵ goes from <1 to >1, the critical and Kondo fixed points, C′ and K, annihilate with each other. This annihilation happens exactly at ϵ=1, as illustrated in Fig. 1. ... Given that it is zero at the Kondo fixed point, the zero temperature residual entropy likewise vanishes at the Kondo destruction QCP."

    The 'above' only establishes that the Kondo fixed point is unstable for 1<ε≤2 (SM D) and that a local-moment fixed point exists for ε<1 (Ref [46], same group). It does not compute the RG flow collision. The annihilation picture, and its BFKM realization with C′ and K merging at ε=1, is taken from Ref [33] (Hu & Si, same authors). The zero residual entropy conclusion is then a direct corollary of that self-cited picture: it is not calculated from any partition function or entropy expression. Thus the paper's central thermodynamic claim reduces to a premise whose only cited support is the authors' own prior work.

full rationale

The paper contains substantial independent work: the ε=2 SU(2) Bose-Kondo partition function and dynamical susceptibility are derived analytically and validated by CT-QMC, and the Firsov-Lang/Schrieffer-Wolff analysis gives a parameter-regime argument for Kondo suppression. These parts are not circular. However, the central conclusion—vanishing residual entropy and thermodynamic stability of the Kondo destruction QCP—is not derived from these calculations. It is inferred from the fixed point annihilation of C′ and K at ε=1, which is presented as following from 'above' but in fact is the content of the authors' earlier paper Ref [33]. The quoted sentence 'Given that it is zero at the Kondo fixed point...' makes the entropy conclusion a corollary of that self-cited picture, not an independent result. Two additional issues, noted by the paper itself and by the logic, reinforce this: footnote [52] admits the exact partition functions carry a divergent e^{g^2β^2/16} prefactor and regularizes it only for spin responses, not for the free energy/entropy that the stability claim concerns; and the transfer from the Ising/Toulouse solvable point to the SU(2) BFKM is asserted ('our result applies to the spin-isotropic BFKM') rather than derived. These are correctness risks rather than circularity, but they underscore that the entropy conclusion is not backed by a first-principles entropy computation. Overall score 6: partial circularity, because the key prediction is inherited from a self-citation chain even though the paper also contains independent technical results.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the BFKM model, the EDMFT self-consistency value, the Toulouse mapping, the FL/SW transformations, and two ad hoc assumptions about the transfer to SU(2) and the regularization of a divergent prefactor. No free parameters are fitted to data; the model parameters are external inputs.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The BFKM with bosonic spectrum J(ω) ∝ |ω|^{1-ε} describes the EDMFT self-consistent Kondo destruction QCP with ε at the self-consistent value of Eq. (2).
    Used throughout; from Refs. [8,28-30] with overlapping authorship; the value of ε in Eq. (2) is incomplete in the text.
  • standard math The Toulouse point mapping to a non-interacting spinless resonant level model is valid for computing thermodynamic quantities and linear susceptibilities.
    Noted in footnote 59; mapping is standard for Kondo problems.
  • domain assumption Firsov-Lang and Schrieffer-Wolff transformations capture the fate of the Kondo fixed point for 1<ε≤2.
    Used in SM Sec. D; relies on perturbative transformation, not a non-perturbative proof.
  • ad hoc to paper The Ising/Toulouse result applies to the SU(2) symmetric BFKM.
    Stated in the main text; no derivation, argued via longitudinal dominance.
  • ad hoc to paper The divergent prefactor e^{g²β²/16} in the ε=2 partition function can be cancelled by an unspecified regularization without affecting thermodynamic quantities such as entropy.
    Footnote 52; the effect on free energy is not addressed.
  • ad hoc to paper Fixed point annihilation implies continuous behavior of the residual entropy across the collision.
    Central inference; not derived in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kondo destruction quantum critical point: fixed point annihilation and thermodynamic stability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KFC6DRW6

@misc{pith2026250909627,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kondo destruction quantum critical point: fixed point annihilation and thermodynamic stability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KFC6DRW6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09627}
}
read the original abstract

A wide range of strongly correlated electron systems exhibit strange metallicity, and they are increasingly recognized as in proximity to correlation-driven localization-delocalization transitions. A prototype setting arises in heavy fermion metals, where the proximity to the electron localization is manifested as Kondo destruction. Here we show that the Kondo destruction quantum critical point is linked to the phenomenon of fixed point annihilation. This connection reveals the absence of residual entropy density at the quantum critical point and, thus, its thermodynamic stability. Broader implications of our results are discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09627 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic RG flow of the SU(2) symmetric Bose [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The dynamical local spin susceptibility of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. The phase diagram of the present BFKM. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [52]

    Note the overall pre-factore g2β2/16 in the partition func- tions, Eqs. (S2,S5). Its origin lies in the renormalization ofZ b byg. Some regularization procedure can be intro- duced to cancel this pre-factor. This, however, does not affect the determination of the spin responses. ()

  2. [1]

    Keimer and J

    B. Keimer and J. E. Moore, Nature Physics13, 1045 (2017)

    2017

  3. [2]

    Paschen and Q

    S. Paschen and Q. Si, Nature Reviews Physics3, 9 (2021)

    2021

  4. [3]

    P. W. Phillips, N. E. Hussey, and P. Abbamonte, Science 377, eabh4273 (2022)

    2022

  5. [4]

    H. Hu, L. Chen, and Q. Si, Nature Physics20, 1863 (2024)

    2024

  6. [5]

    P. A. Lee, N. Nagaosa, and X.-G. Wen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 17 (2006)

    2006

  7. [6]

    Kirchner, S

    S. Kirchner, S. Paschen, Q. Chen, S. Wirth, D. Feng, J. D. Thompson, and Q. Si, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 011002 (2020)

    2020

  8. [7]

    J. G. Checkelsky, B. A. Bernevig, P. Coleman, Q. Si, and S. Paschen, Nature Reviews Materials9, 509 (2024)

    2024

Show all 69 references
  1. [8]

    Q. Si, S. Rabello, K. Ingersent, and J. L. Smith, Nature 413, 804 (2001)

    2001

  2. [9]

    Coleman, C

    P. Coleman, C. P´ epin, Q. Si, and R. Ramazashvili, Jour- nal of Physics: Condensed Matter13, R723 (2001)

    2001

  3. [10]

    Senthil, M

    T. Senthil, M. Vojta, and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. B69, 035111 (2004)

    2004

  4. [11]

    Gegenwart, Q

    P. Gegenwart, Q. Si, and F. Steglich, Nature Physics4, 186 (2008)

    2008

  5. [12]

    M. C. Aronson, R. Osborn, R. A. Robinson, J. W. Lynn, R. Chau, C. L. Seaman, and M. B. Maple, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 725 (1995)

    1995

  6. [13]

    Schr¨ oder, G

    A. Schr¨ oder, G. Aeppli, R. Coldea, M. Adams, O. Stock- ert, H. v. L¨ ohneysen, E. Bucher, R. Ramazashvili, and P. Coleman, Nature407, 351 (2000)

    2000

  7. [14]

    Mazza, S

    F. Mazza, S. Biswas, X. Yan, A. Prokofiev, P. Stef- fens, Q. Si, F. F. Assaad, and S. Paschen, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2403.12779 (2024), arXiv:2403.12779 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Prochaska, X

    L. Prochaska, X. Li, D. C. MacFarland, A. M. Andrews, M. Bonta, E. F. Bianco, S. Yazdi, W. Schrenk, H. Detz, A. Limbeck, Q. Si, E. Ringe, G. Strasser, J. Kono, and S. Paschen, Science367, 285 (2020)

    2020

  9. [16]

    Paschen, T

    S. Paschen, T. L¨ uhmann, S. Wirth, P. Gegenwart, O. Trovarelli, C. Geibel, F. Steglich, P. Coleman, and Q. Si, Nature432, 881 (2004)

    2004

  10. [17]

    Gegenwart, T

    P. Gegenwart, T. Westerkamp, C. Krellner, Y. Tokiwa, S. Paschen, C. Geibel, F. Steglich, E. Abrahams, and Q. Si, Science315, 969 (2007)

    2007

  11. [18]

    Friedemann, N

    S. Friedemann, N. Oeschler, S. Wirth, C. Krellner, C. Geibel, F. Steglich, S. Paschen, S. Kirchner, and Q. Si, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences107, 14547 (2010)

    2010

  12. [19]

    Custers, K.-A

    J. Custers, K.-A. Lorenzer, M. M¨ uller, A. Prokofiev, A. Sidorenko, H. Winkler, A. M. Strydom, Y. Shimura, T. Sakakibara, R. Yu, Q. Si, and S. Paschen, Nature Ma- terials11, 189 (2012)

    2012

  13. [20]

    Martelli, A

    V. Martelli, A. Cai, E. M. Nica, M. Taupin, A. Prokofiev, C.-C. Liu, H.-H. Lai, R. Yu, K. Ingersent, R. K¨ uchler, A. M. Strydom, D. Geiger, J. Haenel, J. Larrea, Q. Si, and S. Paschen, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116, 17701 (2019)

    2019

  14. [21]

    Shishido, R

    H. Shishido, R. Settai, H. Harima, and Y. ¯Onuki, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan74, 1103 (2005)

    2005

  15. [22]

    H. Pfau, S. Hartmann, U. Stockert, P. Sun, S. Laus- berg, M. Brando, S. Friedemann, C. Krellner, C. Geibel, S. Wirth, S. Kirchner, E. Abrahams, Q. Si, and F. Steglich, Nature484, 493 (2012)

    2012

  16. [23]

    L. Chen, D. T. Lowder, E. Bakali, A. M. An- drews, W. Schrenk, M. Waas, R. Svagera, G. Eguchi, L. Prochaska, Y. Wang, C. Setty, S. Sur, Q. Si, S. Paschen, and D. Natelson, Science382, 907 (2023)

    2023

  17. [24]

    A. C. Hewson,The Kondo Problem to Heavy Fermions, Cambridge Studies in Magnetism (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993)

    1993

  18. [25]

    Q. Si, S. Rabello, K. Ingersent, and J. L. Smith, Phys. Rev. B68, 115103 (2003)

    2003

  19. [26]

    Si and J

    Q. Si and J. L. Smith, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 3391 (1996)

    1996

  20. [27]

    Chitra and G

    R. Chitra and G. Kotliar, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 3678 (2000)

    2000

  21. [28]

    D. R. Grempel and Q. Si, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 026401 (2003)

    2003

  22. [29]

    M. T. Glossop and K. Ingersent, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 227203 (2007)

    2007

  23. [30]

    J.-X. Zhu, S. Kirchner, R. Bulla, and Q. Si, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 227204 (2007)

    2007

  24. [31]

    D. B. Kaplan, J.-W. Lee, D. T. Son, and M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. D80, 125005 (2009)

    2009

  25. [32]

    Nahum, Phys

    A. Nahum, Phys. Rev. B102, 201116 (2020). 6

    2020

  26. [33]

    Hu and Q

    H. Hu and Q. Si, Kondo destruction and fixed- point annihilation in a bose-fermi kondo model (2022), arXiv:2207.08744 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Cuomo, Z

    G. Cuomo, Z. Komargodski, M. Mezei, and A. Raviv- Moshe, Journal of High Energy Physics2022, 112 (2022)

    2022

  28. [35]

    Nahum, Phys

    A. Nahum, Phys. Rev. B106, L081109 (2022)

    2022

  29. [36]

    J. L. Smith and Q. Si, Europhysics Letters45, 228 (1999)

    1999

  30. [37]

    A. M. Sengupta, Phys. Rev. B61, 4041 (2000)

    2000

  31. [38]

    A. J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A. T. Dorsey, M. P. A. Fisher, A. Garg, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys.59, 1 (1987)

    1987

  32. [39]

    A. J. Bray and M. A. Moore, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics13, L655 (1980)

    1980

  33. [40]

    Sachdev and J

    S. Sachdev and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 3339 (1993)

    1993

  34. [41]

    Zhu and Q

    L. Zhu and Q. Si, Phys. Rev. B66, 024426 (2002)

    2002

  35. [42]

    Zar´ and and E

    G. Zar´ and and E. Demler, Phys. Rev. B66, 024427 (2002)

    2002

  36. [43]

    M. T. Glossop and K. Ingersent, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 067202 (2005)

    2005

  37. [44]

    M. T. Glossop and K. Ingersent, Phys. Rev. B75, 104410 (2007)

    2007

  38. [45]

    J. H. Pixley, S. Kirchner, K. Ingersent, and Q. Si, Phys. Rev. B88, 245111 (2013)

    2013

  39. [46]

    Cai and Q

    A. Cai and Q. Si, Phys. Rev. B100, 014439 (2019)

    2019

  40. [47]

    P. Cha, N. Wentzell, O. Parcollet, A. Georges, and E.-A. Kim, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 18341 (2020)

    2020

  41. [48]

    D. G. Joshi, C. Li, G. Tarnopolsky, A. Georges, and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. X10, 021033 (2020)

    2020

  42. [49]

    P. T. Dumitrescu, N. Wentzell, A. Georges, and O. Par- collet, Phys. Rev. B105, L180404 (2022)

    2022

  43. [50]

    Le Hur, Phys

    K. Le Hur, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 196804 (2004)

    2004

  44. [51]

    Kirchner, L

    S. Kirchner, L. Zhu, Q. Si, and D. Natelson, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences102, 18824 (2005)

    2005

  45. [53]

    Otsuki and Y

    J. Otsuki and Y. Kuramoto, Phys. Rev. B88, 024427 (2013)

    2013

  46. [54]

    Werner and A

    P. Werner and A. J. Millis, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 146404 (2007)

    2007

  47. [55]

    Kir´ can and M

    M. Kir´ can and M. Vojta, Phys. Rev. B69, 174421 (2004)

    2004

  48. [56]

    R. B. Griffiths, Journal of Mathematical Physics8, 478 (1967)

    1967

  49. [57]

    Giamarchi,Quantum physics in one dimension, Vol

    T. Giamarchi,Quantum physics in one dimension, Vol. 121 (Clarendon press, 2003)

    2003

  50. [58]

    A. O. Gogolin, A. A. Nersesyan, and A. M. Tsvelik, Bosonization and strongly correlated systems(Cambridge university press, 2004)

    2004

  51. [59]

    This standard Toulouse mapping is accurate for the determination of thermodynamic quantities and linear susceptibilities (as in this work), but a different reg- ularization is needed to calculate quantities such as non-equilibrium transport and non-linear susceptibili- ties [6...

  52. [60]

    In other words, the Kondo fixed point is unstable, and this is illustrated in Fig

    (SM Sec.D), it is seen that, for 1< ϵ≤2, an in- finitesimal bosonic couplinggsuppresses the Kondo ef- fect. In other words, the Kondo fixed point is unstable, and this is illustrated in Fig. 1(b). Our earlier analysis at ϵ= 2 is consistent with this general result. The finding...

  53. [61]

    J. H. Pixley, S. Kirchner, M. T. Glossop, and Q. Si, Jour- nal of Physics: Conference Series273, 012050 (2011)

    2011

  54. [62]

    G. S. Tucker, J. S. White, J. Romh´ anyi, D. Szaller, I. K´ ezsm´ arki, B. Roessli, U. Stuhr, A. Magrez, F. Groitl, P. Babkevich, P. Huang, I. ˇZivkovi´ c, and H. M. Rønnow, Phys. Rev. B93, 054401 (2016)

    2016

  55. [63]

    Ljepoja, C

    A. Ljepoja, C. J. Bolech, and N. Shah, Phys. Rev. B110, 045110 (2024). 7 SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIALS CONTENTS References 5 Supplemental Materials 7 A. Analytical study for SU(2) Bose-Kondo model 7 B. Continuous-time quantum Monte Carlo study of SU(2) Bose-Kondo model 8 C. Analyti...

    2024

  56. [64]

    Firsov–Lang (FL) transformation 9

  57. [65]

    Schrieffer–Wolff (SW) transformation 10

  58. [66]

    ANAL YTICAL STUDY FOR SU(2) BOSE-KONDO MODEL In this section, we present the analytical results for the SU(2) Bose-Kondo model atϵ= 2

    The case of singular bosonic bath 10 A. ANAL YTICAL STUDY FOR SU(2) BOSE-KONDO MODEL In this section, we present the analytical results for the SU(2) Bose-Kondo model atϵ= 2. Without Kondo coupling, ˜H(⃗λ) =hS z +g ⃗λ· ⃗S.(S1) Using the parameterization ⃗λ= (λsinφcosθ, λsinφsi...

  59. [67]

    Firsov–Lang (FL) transformation To remove theS zΦz term we choose SFL =gS z X q 1 ωq Φz† q −Φ z q ,(S13) and define ˜H=e SFL He −SFL . The localized-electron operators are dressed as ˜dσ =e SFL dσe−SFL =d σ exp ( σg 2 X q 1 ωq (Φz† q −Φ z q) ) , σ=±1,(S14) and the z-component ...

  60. [68]

    eH⊥ =e SSW H⊥e−SSW =H ⊥ + 1√ 2 P k eFk[d† ↑ck↓nd↓ −c † k↑d↓(1− nd↑)]Φ−e 3 2 g2 P q 1 ωq (Φz† q −Φz q ) +h.c+O(V 2/ eU 2)

    Schrieffer–W olff (SW) transformation For the regime of sufficiently largeU, we perform a SW transformation with generator SSW = X k,σ Vk 1−n d,−σ ˜ϵd −ε k + nd,σ ˜ϵd + ˜U−ε k ˜d† σckσ −c † kσ ˜dσ .(S21) Projecting out empty and doubly occupied local-electron states yields the...

  61. [69]

    The subsequent SW projection leads to a Bose–Fermi Kondo model in which the spin-flip operators eS± acquire exponentials of bosonic displacements

    The case of singular bosonic bath The FL transformation renormalizes ˜Uand ˜ϵd and dresses the local-electron operators with bosonic displacement factors. The subsequent SW projection leads to a Bose–Fermi Kondo model in which the spin-flip operators eS± acquire exponentials o...

Pith tools

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