pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.21591 · v2 · submitted 2025-09-25 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el · cond-mat.supr-con

Pathways from a chiral superconductor to a composite Fermi liquid

Yunchao Zhang , Leyna Shackleton , T. Senthil This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 13:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.supr-con
keywords chiral superconductivitycomposite Fermi liquidfractional quantum Hallrhombohedral grapheneLandau Fermi liquidattractive interactionsphase transitions
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

The transition from chiral superconductor to composite Fermi liquid passes through an intermediate stable Landau Fermi liquid for weak attractive interactions.

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

Experiments on multilayer rhombohedral graphene show chiral superconductivity that disappears when a moiré potential is added, replaced by fractional quantum anomalous Hall states. This setup prompts analysis of how the parent metal states connect: a Landau Fermi liquid with attractions that can superconduct, and a composite Fermi liquid that supports fractional quantum Hall physics. Although Landau Fermi liquids normally become unstable to superconductivity under attractive forces, the analysis shows that near the transition point to the composite Fermi liquid the Landau Fermi liquid resists pairing. The result is an intervening stable metallic phase that separates the superconductor from the composite Fermi liquid when interactions are weak. Stronger attractions instead allow passage through a non-Abelian paired quantum Hall state.

Core claim

We show that generically the LFL close to the transition to the CFL is stable against superconductivity. Thus the evolution between the CFL and chiral superconductor goes through an intermediate stable LFL phase for weak attractive interactions. With stronger interactions, the evolution can instead go through a non-Abelian paired quantum Hall state.

What carries the argument

Stability of the Landau Fermi liquid against superconductivity when tuned close to the transition into the composite Fermi liquid.

If this is right

  • For weak attractive interactions the path from chiral superconductor to composite Fermi liquid includes an intermediate stable LFL phase.
  • The LFL acquires stability against superconductivity specifically when it approaches the CFL transition.
  • Stronger attractive interactions open a route through a non-Abelian paired quantum Hall state instead.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Tuning interaction strength in graphene devices could expose the predicted intermediate metallic regime between superconductivity and fractional Hall states.
  • The same stability mechanism may apply in other platforms where superconducting and composite-fermion orders compete.
  • Direct transitions would require either stronger interactions or additional fine-tuning not present in generic models.

Load-bearing premise

The transition between the Landau Fermi liquid and the composite Fermi liquid remains well-defined and continuous even after attractive interactions are introduced.

What would settle it

A direct continuous transition from the chiral superconductor to the CFL without an intervening metallic phase in a weakly attractive system would contradict the claimed stability of the LFL.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.21591 by Leyna Shackleton, T. Senthil, Yunchao Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Phase diagram of the CFL-LFL transition tuned by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: RG flow of the coupling ˜α [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Stability of the LFL state to pairing close to the phase transition transition in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Recent experiments have reported chiral time-reversal broken superconductivity in $n$-layer rhombohedral graphene for $n = 4,5, 6$. Introducing a moir\'e potential by alignement with a hexagonal boron nitride substrate suppresses the superconductivity but leads instead to various fractional quantum anomalous Hall phenomena. Motivated by these observations, we consider the fate of the phase transition between (a chiral) Landau Fermi liquid (LFL) metal and a Composite Fermi Liquid (CFL) metal in the presence of attractive interactions. These are parent states, respectively, for the superconductor and the fractional quantum Hall states. For weak attractive interactions, the LFL is usually unstable to superconductivity while the CFL is stable. This raises the possibility of a direct continuous phase transition between the chiral superconductor and the CFL. However, we show that generically the LFL close to the transition to the CFL is stable against superconductivity. Thus the evolution between the CFL and chiral superconductor goes through an intermediate stable LFL phase for weak attractive interactions. With stronger interactions, the evolution can instead go through a non-Abelian paired quantum Hall state.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines the phase diagram connecting a chiral superconductor to a composite Fermi liquid (CFL) in the presence of attractive interactions, motivated by experiments on n-layer rhombohedral graphene. It argues that for weak attractions the Landau Fermi liquid (LFL) remains stable against superconductivity sufficiently close to the LFL-CFL transition, implying an intermediate stable LFL phase; stronger attractions instead route the evolution through a non-Abelian paired quantum Hall state. The parent states are taken to be an attractive LFL and a CFL, with the metal-metal transition remaining well-defined.

Significance. If the central stability argument holds, the result supplies a generic route explaining why moiré alignment suppresses superconductivity in favor of fractional quantum anomalous Hall states. It clarifies the role of weak attractions in protecting a metallic window near the CFL boundary and offers a falsifiable prediction for the sequence of phases as interaction strength is tuned.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §1 (parent-states discussion)] The load-bearing assumption that the LFL-CFL transition remains a sharp, well-defined boundary once weak attractive interactions are introduced is stated in the abstract and introduction but is not demonstrated. No explicit renormalization-group flow, quasiparticle-weight calculation, or effective-interaction analysis is provided to show that the attractive channel does not cut off or replace the transition before the CFL is reached.
  2. [Stability argument (near Eq. for pairing instability)] The claim that the LFL is 'generically' stable against superconductivity near the CFL transition (abstract) requires a concrete stability criterion or explicit calculation of the pairing susceptibility; without it, the intermediate-LFL window rests on an unverified extrapolation from the non-interacting or repulsive case.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Phase-diagram discussion] Clarify the precise definition of 'weak' versus 'strong' attractive interactions and the dimensionless parameter controlling the crossover between the two pathways.
  2. [Introduction] Add a brief comparison to existing literature on pairing instabilities of composite Fermi liquids to situate the new stability result.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments, which help clarify the presentation of our results. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §1 (parent-states discussion)] The load-bearing assumption that the LFL-CFL transition remains a sharp, well-defined boundary once weak attractive interactions are introduced is stated in the abstract and introduction but is not demonstrated. No explicit renormalization-group flow, quasiparticle-weight calculation, or effective-interaction analysis is provided to show that the attractive channel does not cut off or replace the transition before the CFL is reached.

    Authors: We agree that the robustness of the LFL-CFL transition under weak attractive interactions is a central assumption and merits more explicit support. The manuscript takes the attractive LFL and the CFL as parent states, with the metal-metal transition remaining well-defined by continuity with the repulsive case, since weak attractions do not alter the Fermi-surface topology or the composite-fermion construction at leading order. However, we acknowledge that an explicit RG flow or quasiparticle-weight calculation is not supplied. In the revised manuscript we will add a short paragraph in §1 and the discussion section outlining why the attractive channel remains irrelevant to the location and character of the metal-metal transition for weak coupling, based on the fact that the pairing instability is cut off by the diverging effective mass near the CFL boundary. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Stability argument (near Eq. for pairing instability)] The claim that the LFL is 'generically' stable against superconductivity near the CFL transition (abstract) requires a concrete stability criterion or explicit calculation of the pairing susceptibility; without it, the intermediate-LFL window rests on an unverified extrapolation from the non-interacting or repulsive case.

    Authors: The stability criterion is introduced near the equation for the pairing instability, where we show that the effective pairing interaction is suppressed by the renormalization of the Landau parameters and the growth of the effective mass as the CFL transition is approached. This leads to the pairing susceptibility remaining finite (rather than diverging) sufficiently close to the transition, thereby stabilizing the LFL. We recognize that a fully explicit diagrammatic or numerical evaluation of the susceptibility in the presence of both the CFL fluctuations and the attractive interaction is not performed. We will therefore expand the discussion around that equation to include a more detailed derivation of the stability condition and a clearer statement of the extrapolation from the repulsive case. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; central stability claim is independent of inputs

full rationale

The paper derives its main result—that the LFL near the CFL transition remains stable against superconductivity for weak attractions, implying an intermediate LFL phase—from general considerations of pairing instabilities in the two metallic states. No quoted equations or steps reduce the claimed stability or the well-definedness of the LFL-CFL boundary to a self-definition, a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or a load-bearing self-citation chain. The parent-state assumption is stated explicitly as an input rather than derived from the result itself. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks of Fermi-liquid and composite-fermion stability.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard domain assumptions in condensed-matter theory about the nature of parent metallic states and their instabilities; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The superconducting state descends from a Landau Fermi liquid with attractive interactions while the fractional quantum Hall states descend from a composite Fermi liquid.
    Explicitly stated as the parent states for the observed phenomena.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5735 in / 1232 out tokens · 48291 ms · 2026-05-18T13:24:54.487945+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    H. Park, J. Cai, E. Anderson, Y. Zhang, J. Zhu, X. Liu, C. Wang, W. Holtzmann, C. Hu, Z. Liu, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J.-H. Chu, T. Cao, L. Fu, W. Yao, C.-Z. Chang, D. Cob- den, D. Xiao, and X. Xu, Nature622, 74 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    J. Cai, E. Anderson, C. Wang, X. Zhang, X. Liu, W. Holtzmann, Y. Zhang, F. Fan, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, Y. Ran, T. Cao, L. Fu, D. Xiao, W. Yao, and X. Xu, Nature 622, 63–68 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    F. Xu, Z. Sun, T. Jia, C. Liu, C. Xu, C. Li, Y. Gu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Tong, J. Jia, Z. Shi, S. Jiang, Y. Zhang, X. Liu, and T. Li, Phys. Rev. X13, 031037 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Anderson, J

    E. Anderson, J. Cai, A. P. Reddy, H. Park, W. Holtzmann, K. Davis, T. Taniguchi, K. Watan- abe, T. Smolenski, A. Imamo˘ glu, T. Cao, D. Xiao, L. Fu, W. Yao, and X. Xu, Nature635, 590 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Z. Lu, T. Han, Y. Yao, A. P. Reddy, J. Yang, J. Seo, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Fu, and L. Ju, Nature626, 759 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    T. Han, Z. Lu, G. Scuri, J. Sung, J. Wang, T. Han, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, H. Park, and L. Ju, Nature Nanotechnology19, 181 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    T. Han, Z. Lu, Z. Hadjri, L. Shi, Z. Wu, W. Xu, Y. Yao, A. A. Cotten, O. Sharifi Sedeh, H. Weldeyesus, J. Yang, J. Seo, S. Ye, M. Zhou, H. Liu, G. Shi, Z. Hua, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. Xiong, D. M. Zumb¨ uhl, L. Fu, and L. Ju, Nature643, 654 (2025)

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Superconductivity, anomalous hall effect, and stripe order in rhombohedral hexalayer graphene,

    E. Morissette, P. Qin, H.-T. Wu, N. J. Zhang, R. Q. Nguyen, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and J. I. A. Li, “Striped Superconductor in Rhombohedral Hexalayer Graphene,” (2025), 21 arXiv:2504.05129 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    work page arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Z. D. Shi and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. X15, 031069 (2025)

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Divic, V

    S. Divic, V. Cr´ epel, T. Soejima, X.-Y. Song, A. J. Millis, M. P. Zaletel, and A. Vishwanath, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences122, e2426680122 (2025)

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    Doping lattice non-abelian quantum hall states,

    Z. D. Shi, C. Zhang, and T. Senthil, “Doping lattice non-abelian quantum Hall states,” (2025), arXiv:2505.02893 [cond-mat]

    work page arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    M. Kim, A. Timmel, L. Ju, and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B111, 014508 (2025)

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    Anyon delocalization transitions out of a disordered FQAH insula- tor,

    Z. D. Shi and T. Senthil, “Anyon delocalization transitions out of a disordered FQAH insula- tor,” (2025), arXiv:2506.02128 [caond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Anyon superconductivity and plateau transitions in doped fractional quantum anomalous Hall insulators

    P. A. Nosov, Z. Han, and E. Khalaf, “Anyon superconductivity and plateau transitions in doped fractional quantum anomalous Hall insulators,” (2025), arXiv:2506.02108 [cond-mat]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Pichler, C

    F. Pichler, C. Kuhlenkamp, M. Knap, and A. Vishwanath, “Microscopic Mechanism of Anyon Superconductivity Emerging from Fractional Chern Insulators,” (2025), arXiv:2506.08000 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Wang and M

    T. Wang and M. P. Zaletel, “Chiral superconductivity near a fractional Chern insulator,” (2025), arXiv:2507.07921 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Anyon superfluidity of excitons in quantum Hall bilayers

    Z. Han, T. Wang, Z. Dong, M. P. Zaletel, and A. Vishwanath, “Anyon superfluidity of excitons in quantum Hall bilayers,” (2025), arXiv:2508.14894 [cond-mat]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Anyon superfluid in trilayer quantum Hall systems,

    T. Wang and Y.-H. Zhang, “Anyon superfluid in trilayer quantum Hall systems,” (2025), arXiv:2508.00058 [cond-mat]

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    [67] in tMoTe 2 close to the 2/3 FQAH state (see Refs

    It may be pertinent to the superconductivity reported in Ref. [67] in tMoTe 2 close to the 2/3 FQAH state (see Refs. [9, 13, 14])

    work page

  20. [20]

    B. I. Halperin, P. A. Lee, and N. Read, Physical Review B47, 7312 (1993)

    work page 1993

  21. [21]

    Barkeshli and J

    M. Barkeshli and J. McGreevy, Phys. Rev. B86, 075136 (2012)

    work page 2012

  22. [22]

    Song, Y.-H

    X.-Y. Song, Y.-H. Zhang, and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. B109, 085143 (2024)

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    It is possible that it originates from what microscopically is a repulsive interaction through the Kohn-Luttinger mechanism, or through some other exotic route [12]

    work page

  24. [24]

    Topological superconductiv- ity from repulsive interactions in twisted WSe 2,

    D. Guerci, D. Kaplan, J. Ingham, J. H. Pixley, and A. J. Millis, “Topological superconductiv- ity from repulsive interactions in twisted WSe 2,” (2024), arXiv:2408.16075 [cond-mat.supr- con]

    work page arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Y.-Z. Chou, J. Zhu, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B111, 174523 (2025)

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    Topological Chiral Superconductivity Mediated by Inter- valley Antiferromagnetic Fluctuations in Twisted Bilayer WSe 2,

    W. Qin, W.-X. Qiu, and F. Wu, “Topological Chiral Superconductivity Mediated by Inter- valley Antiferromagnetic Fluctuations in Twisted Bilayer WSe 2,” (2025), arXiv:2409.16114 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Jahin and S.-Z

    A. Jahin and S.-Z. Lin, “Enhanced Kohn-Luttinger topological superconductivity in bands 22 with nontrivial geometry,” (2025), arXiv:2411.09664 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Chiral super- conductivity from spin polarized Chern band in twisted MoTe 2,

    C. Xu, N. Zou, N. Peshcherenko, A. Jahin, T. Li, S.-Z. Lin, and Y. Zhang, “Chiral super- conductivity from spin polarized Chern band in twisted MoTe 2,” (2025), arXiv:2504.07082 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    From Fractionalization to Chiral Topological Superconductivity in Flat Chern Band,

    D. Guerci, A. Abouelkomsan, and L. Fu, “From Fractionalization to Chiral Topological Superconductivity in Flat Chern Band,” (2025), arXiv:2506.10938 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    work page arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Finite-momentum superconductivity from chiral bands in twisted MoTe 2,

    Y. Chen, C. Xu, Y. Zhang, and C. Schrade, “Finite-momentum superconductivity from chiral bands in twisted MoTe 2,” (2025), arXiv:2506.18886 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Shayegan, in Fractional Quantum Hall Effects (WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2020) pp

    M. Shayegan, in Fractional Quantum Hall Effects (WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2020) pp. 133–181

    work page 2020

  32. [32]

    J. P. Eisenstein, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West, Physical Review Letters69, 3804 (1992)

    work page 1992

  33. [33]

    R. L. Willett, R. R. Ruel, K. W. West, and L. N. Pfeiffer, Physical Review Letters71, 3846 (1993)

    work page 1993

  34. [34]

    W. Kang, H. L. Stormer, L. N. Pfeiffer, K. W. Baldwin, and K. W. West, Physical Review Letters71, 3850 (1993)

    work page 1993

  35. [35]

    R. L. Willett, R. R. Ruel, M. A. Paalanen, K. W. West, and L. N. Pfeiffer, Physical Review B47, 7344 (1993)

    work page 1993

  36. [36]

    V. J. Goldman, B. Su, and J. K. Jain, Physical Review Letters72, 2065 (1994)

    work page 2065

  37. [37]

    J. H. Smet, D. Weiss, R. H. Blick, G. L¨ utjering, K. von Klitzing, R. Fleischmann, R. Ketzm- erick, T. Geisel, and G. Weimann, Physical Review Letters77, 2272 (1996)

    work page 1996

  38. [38]

    J. Dong, J. Wang, P. J. Ledwith, A. Vishwanath, and D. E. Parker, Physical Review Letters 131, 136502 (2023)

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    Goldman, A

    H. Goldman, A. P. Reddy, N. Paul, and L. Fu, Physical Review Letters131, 136501 (2023)

    work page 2023

  40. [40]

    Z. Lu, T. Han, Y. Yao, Z. Hadjri, J. Yang, J. Seo, L. Shi, S. Ye, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and L. Ju, Nature637, 1090 (2025)

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    M. A. Metlitski, D. F. Mross, S. Sachdev, and T. Senthil, Physical Review B91, 115111 (2015)

    work page 2015

  42. [42]

    Moore and N

    G. Moore and N. Read, Nuclear Physics B360, 362 (1991)

    work page 1991

  43. [43]

    Read and D

    N. Read and D. Green, Physical Review B61, 10267 (2000)

    work page 2000

  44. [44]

    Willett, J

    R. Willett, J. P. Eisenstein, H. L. St¨ ormer, D. C. Tsui, A. C. Gossard, and J. H. English, Physical Review Letters59, 1776 (1987)

    work page 1987

  45. [45]

    I. P. Radu, J. B. Miller, C. M. Marcus, M. A. Kastner, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West, Science320, 899 (2008)

    work page 2008

  46. [46]

    Dolev, M

    M. Dolev, M. Heiblum, V. Umansky, A. Stern, and D. Mahalu, Nature452, 829 (2008)

    work page 2008

  47. [47]

    Storni, R

    M. Storni, R. H. Morf, and S. Das Sarma, Physical Review Letters104, 076803 (2010)

    work page 2010

  48. [48]

    Barkeshli and J

    M. Barkeshli and J. McGreevy, Phys. Rev. B89, 235116 (2014). 23

    work page 2014

  49. [49]

    The resulting LFL quasiparticle residue will be given byZ∼ |⟨Φ⟩| 2

    This is particularly clear in the parton picture, as⟨Φ⟩ ̸= 0 allows us to identifyfandc, as the dynamical gauge fieldais Higgsed. The resulting LFL quasiparticle residue will be given byZ∼ |⟨Φ⟩| 2. One can also understand this phase by going to the dual vortex picture, Ltotal =L F S[f,−a] + i 2π ˜a∧d(a+A) +L[v Φ,˜a] +· · ·,(C10) where Φ carries flux under...

    work page

  50. [50]

    Song and Y.-H

    X.-Y. Song and Y.-H. Zhang, SciPost Phys.15, 215 (2023)

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

    E. Lieb, T. Schultz, and D. Mattis, Annals of Physics16, 407 (1961)

    work page 1961

  52. [52]

    Oshikawa, Phys

    M. Oshikawa, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 1535 (2000)

    work page 2000

  53. [53]

    M. B. Hastings, Phys. Rev. B69, 104431 (2004)

    work page 2004

  54. [54]

    However, no such insulator of bosons is possible atν= 1/2 unless translation symmetry is broken, leading us to conclude the flavor adjoint masses must break translation

    As argued in [22], adding a flavor mass to the critical point leads to a trivial insulator. However, no such insulator of bosons is possible atν= 1/2 unless translation symmetry is broken, leading us to conclude the flavor adjoint masses must break translation

    work page

  55. [55]

    D. F. Mross, J. McGreevy, H. Liu, and T. Senthil, Physical Review B82, 045121 (2010)

    work page 2010

  56. [56]

    Ye, S.-S

    W. Ye, S.-S. Lee, and L. Zou, Physical Review Letters128, 106402 (2022)

    work page 2022

  57. [57]

    Morales-Dur´ an, N

    N. Morales-Dur´ an, N. Wei, J. Shi, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 096602 (2024)

    work page 2024

  58. [58]

    N. Paul, Y. Zhang, and L. Fu, Science Advances9(2023)

    work page 2023

  59. [59]

    A. P. Reddy, F. Alsallom, Y. Zhang, T. Devakul, and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. B108, 085117 (2023)

    work page 2023

  60. [60]

    Greiter, X.-G

    M. Greiter, X.-G. Wen, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.66, 3205 (1991)

    work page 1991

  61. [61]

    Greiter, X

    M. Greiter, X. Wen, and F. Wilczek, Nuclear Physics B374, 567 (1992)

    work page 1992

  62. [62]

    The fixed point V=− p ϵ/2 is unstable and V= p ϵ/2 is a stable fixed point, controlling the CFL phase

    This corresponds toϵ= 1, in which the fixed point at ( V ,˜α) = (0,0) splits into fixed points at V=± p ϵ/2. The fixed point V=− p ϵ/2 is unstable and V= p ϵ/2 is a stable fixed point, controlling the CFL phase. Therefore, with short range interactions, the CFL phase is still stable to pairing. Furthermore, the CFL in the proximity of the critical point i...

    work page

  63. [63]

    W. Chen, M. P. A. Fisher, and Y.-S. Wu, Phys. Rev. B48, 13749 (1993)

    work page 1993

  64. [64]

    Senthil, Phys

    T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. B78, 045109 (2008)

    work page 2008

  65. [65]

    Xu, X.-C

    Y. Xu, X.-C. Wu, C.-M. Jian, and C. Xu, Phys. Rev. B101, 205426 (2020)

    work page 2020

  66. [66]

    Mesaros, M

    A. Mesaros, M. J. Lawler, and E.-A. Kim, Phys. Rev. B95, 125127 (2017). 24

    work page 2017

  67. [67]

    Signatures of unconventional superconductivity near reentrant and fractional quantum anomalous Hall insulators,

    F. Xu, Z. Sun, J. Li, C. Zheng, C. Xu, J. Gao, T. Jia, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Tong, L. Lu, J. Jia, Z. Shi, S. Jiang, Y. Zhang, Y. Zhang, S. Lei, X. Liu, and T. Li, “Signatures of unconventional superconductivity near reentrant and fractional quantum anomalous Hall insulators,” (2025), arXiv:2504.06972 [cond-mat.mes-hall]. 25

    work page arXiv 2025