Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 60 references

Dominant Excitonic Superconductivity in a Three-component Hubbard Chain

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Doping a one-dimensional, three-component repulsive Hubbard chain produces dominant pairing correlations between flavors 1 and 3, with exponent K_SC below 2 over a broad doping range, mediated by particle-hole fluctuations of the third flav

desk verdict Interesting model, plausible mechanism, but 'dominant SC' is overclaimed without comparing K_SC to K_c. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.08784 v1 pith:WFYMUX74 submitted 2025-12-09 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.str-el

Sheng Chen , Qiao Yang , Wéi Wú , Fadi Sun This is my paper
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.str-el
keywords three-componentHubbardmodelexcitonicsuperconductivityLuttingerexponentdensitymatrixrenormalizationgroupchargewavebosonizationrepulsivefermionsquasi-long-rangeorder
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 studies a one-dimensional Hubbard chain with three fermion flavors, where two repulsions are strong and equal (U_12=U_23=U) while the third is weaker (U_13=U'

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the asymmetry between repulsions combined with the static polarization χ_0(q) of the non-pairing flavor-2 fermions. After integrating out flavor 2, the effective interaction between flavors 1 and 3 becomes U' + U^2 χ_0(q), and the sign of this screened interaction sets whether pairing dominates. The paper's quantitative criterion is the Luttinger exponent K_SC, the power-law decay rate of the pairing correlation Φ(r)∼r^{-K_SC}; K_SC<2 signals dominant quasi-long-range superconducting fluctuations. A bosonized formula for K_SC in terms of the interaction-matrix eigenvalues is derived and gives K_SC≈1.75 for U=4, U'=0, ν=1/4, consistent with the DMRG fits.

What would settle it

Compute Φ(r) and K_SC on longer chains (L=120 and 240) at the same fillings and couplings, with the same bond-dimension control, and check whether the fitted exponent converges and stays below 2; if K_SC drifts upward or the power-law fit breaks down once CDW beating grows, the dominant-pairing conclusion fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that breaking the SU(3) symmetry of a repulsive three-component Hubbard chain—making U_13=U' weaker than U_12=U_23=U—turns an all-repulsive model into one with effective pairing. Upon doping, the s-wave pair correlation Φ(r)=⟨Δ†(x0)Δ(x0+r)⟩ with Δ†=c†_1 c†_3 decays as r^{-K_SC} with K_SC<2, the Luther-Emery criterion for dominant superconducting fluctuations, over a wide range of fillings and interaction strengths. At half-filling, a flavor-dependent density wave wins and pairing decays exponentially. Integrating out flavor-2 fermions gives an effective interaction between flavors 1 and 3 of the form U' + U^2 χ_0(q); when this combination becomes attractive, the system s

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that the long-distance pair correlation is governed by a single power-law exponent K_SC extracted from fits on L=60 open chains, and that the criterion K_SC<2 alone identifies the dominant fluctuation even where density-wave oscillations with comparable decay rates are present.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Unlike the two-component repulsive Hubbard model with nearest-neighbor hopping alone, this three-flavor model gives K_SC<2 over wide doping and interaction ranges, so pairing fluctuations dominate.
  • Pairing is local (s-wave) between flavors 1 and 3 while flavor 2 remains comparatively itinerant, making the system a Luther-Emery liquid with coexisting charge-density-wave and superconducting fluctuations.
  • Near half-filling and at fillings where n mod 0.2 = 0, K_SC rises toward 2, meaning density-wave competition periodically weakens the superconducting correlations.
  • The weak-coupling and bosonization analyses independently predict dominant pairing and yield an explicit K_SC formula that matches the numerical values, so the claim is not purely numerical.
  • If the mechanism is generic, it should extend beyond one dimension and could be tested in ultracold-atom SU(N) Hubbard systems with tunable interaction asymmetries.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because K_SC oscillates with doping, the induced attraction between flavors 1 and 3 likely depends sharply on momentum near 2k_F of flavor 2; measuring the static susceptibility of flavor 2 at fixed doping would directly expose the mediation channel.
  • The inequality K_SC < K_G1 + K_G3, used as evidence for preformed pairs, suggests checking pair formation via two-particle spectral functions or binding-energy probes rather than ground-state correlations alone.
  • A natural extension the paper does not explore is adding a small asymmetry between U_12 and U_23 or next-nearest-neighbor hopping; either could tune the competing CDW and either sharpen or destroy the dominant pairing, providing a sharp test of the mechanism.
  • Repeating the exponent extraction on periodic chains, which removes boundary Friedel oscillations, would clarify whether the open-chain K_SC fits are contaminated by the superimposed CDW modulations.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies a one-dimensional three-component Hubbard chain with asymmetric repulsions U12=U23=U and U13=U'<U. Using DMRG on L=60 open chains (TeNPy, bond dimension 3000), it reports algebraic on-site pairing correlations for flavor-1/flavor-3 pairs with exponent K_SC<2 over a wide doping range at U'=0, and interprets this as dominant superconducting fluctuations. It also investigates half-filling density-wave order, maps the strong-coupling limit to an XXZ chain, and presents a weak-coupling Gaussian-integral derivation and a bosonization estimate for K_SC(U,U',ν), proposing an excitonic pairing mechanism mediated by flavor-2 particle-hole fluctuations.

Significance. The proposed mechanism—repulsive interspecies scattering in a multi-component Hubbard chain generating dominant superconducting fluctuations—is a timely and falsifiable claim. The analytical bosonization formula (B15) is explicit and parameter-free given (U,U',ν), and the strong-coupling XXZ mapping reproduces the half-filling DMRG density modulation quantitatively. If the dominance claim survives direct comparison of SC and CDW exponents with controlled convergence data, this would be a useful contribution to the literature on unconventional pairing from repulsion and to cold-atom realizations. At present, however, the central 'dominant SC' statement is not supported by the data as presented.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III.C / Fig. 2 / Abstract] The paper uses K_SC<2 as evidence for 'dominant' superconducting fluctuations. In the Luther-Emery/Luttinger-liquid framework invoked in Sec. III.C, density correlations decay as r^{-K_c} and pairing correlations as r^{-K_SC}, with K_c K_SC ≈ 1 for a single gapless charge mode. Dominant SC therefore requires K_SC < K_c, not merely K_SC < 2. The manuscript never reports K_c together with K_SC for the Fig. 2 doping sweep. Worse, Sec. III.C states K_c K_SC ≃ 1.3 at U=4; combined with the bosonization estimate K_SC≈1.75 (Appendix B) this implies K_c≈0.74, for which the CDW correlation decays more slowly than SC. The 'predominate' claim in the abstract and conclusion is thus not established by the present evidence.
  2. [Sec. III.A / Figs. 1, 2, 6, 9] No convergence or uncertainty information is provided for the central DMRG exponents. The text asserts that L=60 is 'sufficient' without a system-size scaling table, and all exponents are extracted from fits over r∈[0,L/2] with no error bars. Because Φ(r) carries superimposed CDW oscillations in several parameter regimes, the power-law exponent extraction is delicate. Please provide K_SC versus L for representative fillings at U=4, U'=0, a bond-dimension convergence check, and fit uncertainties (e.g., from varying the fit window).
  3. [Sec. III.A / Fig. 1 discussion] The sentence following Eq. (2) states: 'if the pairing susceptibility at finite temperature T can be assumed as χ_sc ∼ T^{-(2-K_sc)}, K_sc ≤ 2 leads to a non-diverging χ_sc as T→0.' For K_sc<2, T^{-(2-K_sc)} diverges as T→0; for K_sc=2 it is constant; only for K_sc>2 does χ_sc vanish. The sentence appears to have the inequality reversed. Since the K_SC<2 criterion is central to the paper's interpretation, this sign error must be corrected and the discussion clarified.
  4. [Appendix A / Eqs. (A9)-(A18)] The weak-coupling Gaussian integration is an expansion in G0 U n; at U=4t with t=1, U is not small, so the claim that this controlled expansion explains pairing at the parameters studied is not justified. The resulting effective interaction should be presented as a qualitative/heuristic indicator, or the DMRG results should be compared with the analytic prediction in a genuinely weak-coupling regime (U≪t) to validate the mechanism. As written, the phrase 'controlled expansion for U~4t' is not supported.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III.B] The text says 'half-filling case at N_e=3L/2 (n=0.5)'; since n=N_e/L, the correct value is n=1.5. Please fix this typo.
  2. [Sec. III.C] 'Upon doing' should read 'Upon doping', and 'over-doing regime' in the Fig. 5 discussion should read 'overdoped regime'.
  3. [Eq. (A18)] The condition 'When U' < k U2 (k>0)' is illegible. Please clarify the intended inequality and define k.
  4. [Reference [47]] Reference [47] is an unpublished course document. For the particle-hole symmetry statement, please cite a peer-reviewed source or state the argument explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: analytic bosonization and DMRG are independent; the 'dominant SC' claim has a support gap but no circular reduction.

full rationale

The load-bearing results do not reduce to their inputs. The weak-coupling effective interaction (Appendix A, Eq. A12) is derived by explicit Gaussian integration over the flavor-2 field, with the static polarization chi0(q) computed from the noninteracting spectrum (Eqs. A13-A16); the induced attraction is a derived quantity, not a fitted or assumed parameter. The bosonized Luttinger exponent K_SC (Eq. B15) is a parameter-free function of U, U', and filling nu, and the quoted value K_SC ~ 1.75 for U=4, U'=0, nu=1/4 is a prediction not informed by the DMRG fits. The DMRG K_SC is extracted independently from the pairing correlation Phi(r) defined in Eq. (2), while the analytic K_SC follows from the scaling dimension of the pair operator in the bosonized theory; the two channels are therefore independent checks rather than the same quantity re-labelled. The 'excitonic' mediation language is an interpretation of the derived U^2 chi0 interaction, not a separate load-bearing assumption. The paper contains no self-citation chain that forces the central conclusion. The main weakness is that 'dominant' superconducting fluctuations are inferred from K_SC<2 alone, whereas the paper's own Sec. III C reports K_c*K_SC ~ 1.0-1.3 and therefore dominance would require an explicit K_c versus K_SC comparison. That is a correctness/evidence gap, not a circular reduction, and under the hard rules it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on DMRG (assumed converged at L=60, χ=3000), on the Luther-Emery criterion K_SC<2, and on a weak-coupling effective theory that is applied well outside its controlled regime (U=4t). No new particles or interactions are invented beyond the model's U, U', and the standard three fermion flavors.

free parameters (3)
  • U = 4.0 (also 2.0 in places)
    Choice of the strong repulsion strength; varied by hand. Central to the claim because the effective attraction is proportional to U^2.
  • U' = 0.0 in most DMRG runs; U'=1.0, 2.0, 3.0 in Fig. 1
    The weak 1-3 repulsion; the claim is that U'<U/2 is needed for dominant SC. U'=0 is the cleanest limit but not a fitted value.
  • n (filling) = n=0.85 for phase I, n=1.30/1.35/1.40 for phase II
    Doping level is a control parameter, not a fit. But K_SC oscillation with n is only mapped at discrete n mod 0.2, so the phase boundaries are not precisely determined.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption DMRG with χ=3000 and truncation 1e-6 on L=60 open chains gives converged ground-state correlations for the parameter regimes.
    Invoked implicitly throughout Sec. III; no convergence data vs χ or L is shown. The half-filling CDW has only a statement that it does not flatten with bond dimension, not a systematic check.
  • domain assumption The Luttinger-liquid/Luther-Emery framework applies: Φ(r)∝r^{-K_SC}, and K_SC<2 signals dominant superconducting fluctuations.
    Used to define 'superconducting pair fluctuations.' Standard in 1D, but the criterion K_SC<2 is only valid if the exponent that controls Φ(r) is the same one that controls the static susceptibility; paper does not compute the susceptibility.
  • ad hoc to paper The weak-coupling Gaussian integration (Appendix A) is a controlled expansion for U~4t.
    The effective interaction is derived in the weak-coupling limit (U<<t), but the DMRG parameters U=4t, U'=0 are far outside that limit. The authors call it a 'weak coupling effective theory,' but they use it to explain the strong-coupling DMRG results.
  • domain assumption Equal Fermi velocities for all three flavors in the bosonization (Appendix B).
    Explicitly stated at the start of Appendix B1. For the fillings used (equal populations), this holds only if each flavor has the same density, but the bosonization also neglects the 2k_F cosine terms in the diagonalization.
invented entities (1)
  • Pseudo-spin half-filling mapping (§III.B): |↑>=c†_1 c†_3|vac>, |↓>=c†_2|vac>
    purpose: Reduces the strong-coupling half-filled model to an XXZ chain, producing a specific sublattice density prediction.
    A mathematical mapping, not a new physical entity. The XXZ prediction is compared to DMRG and matches well (0.163 vs 0.167).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dominant Excitonic Superconductivity in a Three-component Hubbard Chain." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WFYMUX74

@misc{pith2026251208784,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dominant Excitonic Superconductivity in a Three-component Hubbard Chain},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WFYMUX74}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.08784}
}
read the original abstract

Understanding superconductivity emerging from repulsive fermions remains a major challenge in condensed matter physics. In this paper, we investigate the pairing tendencies in a one-dimensional, three component repulsive Hubbard model, using the density matrix renormalization group method. At half-filling, the system exhibits density wave ground state due to strong Hubbard repulsions. Upon doping, we find that Cooper pairs can emerge, whose fluctuations predominate the long-range physics in the system across a wide parameter range. The effective attractions between Cooper pairs are mediated by the particle-hole fluctuations in the third non-pairing component, resembling an excitonic mechanism of superconductivity. The coexistence of multiple density waves and superconductivity at different fermion fillings is explored. We also present an analytical study of the pairing mechanism in both weak and strong coupling limits. Our results provide a new perspective for understanding and exploring unconventional superconductivities in strongly correlated fermionic systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.08784 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Pair correlation function Φ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Aggregated and spin-flavor resolved charge den [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: Correlation functions at half-filling, plotted on a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Charge density distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Pairing correlation Φ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: , respectively. Fig.9 depicts the pairing correlation functions Φ(r) in the SC+CDWII phase for a few different n. As one can see, Φ(r) exhibit strong irregular oscillations while power￾law decay is still overall obeyed in this regime. When particle number n approaches …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Single-particle correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_10.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Pairing correlation Φ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Below, we assume equal Fermi velocities for all three flavors

    Bosonization of the Three-Flavor F ermion Model Considering the fillingν σ for each flavor, the Fermi wavevector is given bykF σ=πν σ, and the single-particle dispersionϵ k =−2tcoskleads to a Fermi velocityv F = 2tsink F σ. Below, we assume equal Fermi velocities for all three flavors. The kinetic term is given by H0,kin = X σ vF,σ 2π Z L 0 dx (∂xϕσ)2 + (...

  2. [2]

    The slow part comes from RL/LR

    Bosonizing∆(x) =c 1(x)c3(x)andK SC Define ∆(x) =c 1(x)c3(x). The slow part comes from RL/LR. For RL: ∆RL =ψ R,1ψL,3 ∝e −i(ϕ1−θ1)e+i(ϕ3+θ3) =e i(ℓ·Φ+ℓ′·Θ), (B12) withℓ= (−1,0,1),ℓ ′ = (1,0,1). Project onto eigenmodes: ˜ℓσ =e σ ·ℓ, ˜ℓ′ σ =e σ ·ℓ ′,giving ˜ℓ1 =√ 2, ˜ℓ′ 1 = 0; ˜ℓ2 = 0, ˜ℓ′ 2 = 2/ q 2 +α 2 +; ˜ℓ3 = 0, ˜ℓ′ 3 = 2/ q 2 +α 2 −.Scaling dimension fo...

  3. [3]

    D. P. Arovas, E. Berg, S. A. Kivelson, and S. Raghu, An- nual review of condensed matter physics13, 239 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    Tasaki, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter10, 4353 (1998)

    H. Tasaki, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter10, 4353 (1998)

    1998

  5. [5]

    Keimer, S

    B. Keimer, S. A. Kivelson, M. R. Norman, S. Uchida, and J. Zaanen, Nature518, 179 (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    Maier, M

    T. Maier, M. Jarrell, T. Pruschke, and J. Keller, Physical Review Letters85, 1524 (2000)

    2000

  7. [7]

    Qin, C.-M

    M. Qin, C.-M. Chung, H. Shi, E. Vitali, C. Hubig, U. Schollw¨ ock, S. R. White, S. Zhang, and S. C. on the Many-Electron Problem), Physical Review X10, 031016 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    T. A. Maier, M. Jarrell, T. Schulthess, P. Kent, and J. White, Physical review letters95, 237001 (2005)

    2005

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Liu, D.-X

    J. Liu, D.-X. Yao, and W. Wu, Chinese Physics Letters 42, 080711 (2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    W. Wu, M. S. Scheurer, S. Chatterjee, S. Sachdev, A. Georges, and M. Ferrero, Physical Review X8, 021048 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    W. Wu, M. S. Scheurer, M. Ferrero, and A. Georges, Physical Review Research2, 033067 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    W. W´ u, X. Wang, and A.-M. Tremblay, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119, e2115819119 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Cheng, S.-C

    K. Cheng, S.-C. Fang, and Z.-B. Huang, Physical Review B109, 014519 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Toschi, P

    A. Toschi, P. Barone, M. Capone, and C. Castellani, New Journal of Physics7, 7 (2005)

    2005

  7. [15]

    R. Clay, A. Sandvik, and D. Campbell, Synthetic metals 103, 2060 (1999)

  8. [16]

    Tam, S.-W

    K.-M. Tam, S.-W. Tsai, and D. K. Campbell, Physical Review B89, 014513 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    X. Dong, L. Del Re, A. Toschi, and E. Gull, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119, e2205048119 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    M. Roig, A. T. Rømer, P. Hirschfeld, and B. M. Ander- sen, Physical Review B106, 214530 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Raghu, S

    S. Raghu, S. Kivelson, and D. Scalapino, Physical Review B81, 224505 (2010)

    2010

  12. [20]

    H. Lin, E. Gagliano, and D. Campbell, Physica C: Su- perconductivity282, 1875 (1997)

    1997

  13. [21]

    H. Lin, D. Campbell, and R. Clay, Chinese Journal of Physics38, 1 (2000)

    2000

  14. [22]

    Jiang, T

    Y.-F. Jiang, T. P. Devereaux, and H.-C. Jiang, Physical Review B109, 085121 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Jiang, D

    S. Jiang, D. J. Scalapino, and S. R. White, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118, e2109978118 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Jiang, J

    Y.-F. Jiang, J. Zaanen, T. P. Devereaux, and H.-C. Jiang, Physical Review Research2, 033073 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Jiang and T

    H.-C. Jiang and T. P. Devereaux, Science365, 1424 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    X. Lu, F. Chen, W. Zhu, D. N. Sheng, and S.-S. Gong, Physical Review Letters132, 066002 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    S. Gong, W. Zhu, and D. Sheng, Physical Review Letters 127, 097003 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Inaba, S.-y

    K. Inaba, S.-y. Miyatake, and S.-i. Suga, Physical Review A82, 051602 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    C. Feng, E. Ibarra-Garc ´ ıa-Padilla, K. R. Hazzard, R. Scalettar, S. Zhang, and E. Vitali, Physical Review Research5, 043267 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Hermele, V

    M. Hermele, V. Gurarie, and A. M. Rey, Physical Review Letters103, 135301 (2009)

    2009

  23. [31]

    Yanatori and A

    H. Yanatori and A. Koga, Physical Review B94, 041110 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Sotnikov and W

    A. Sotnikov and W. Hofstetter, Physical Review A89, 10 063601 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    Hafez-Torbati and W

    M. Hafez-Torbati and W. Hofstetter, Physical Review B 100, 035133 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    B¨ ohler, F

    A. B¨ ohler, F. Grusdt, and A. Bohrdt, (2025), arXiv:2506.01915 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Schl¨ omer, F

    H. Schl¨ omer, F. Grusdt, U. Schollw¨ ock, K. R. Hazzard, and A. Bohrdt, Physical Review B110, 125134 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    F. F. Assaad, Physical Review B71, 075103 (2005)

    2005

  29. [37]

    Little, Physical Review134, A1416 (1964)

    W. Little, Physical Review134, A1416 (1964)

    1964

  30. [38]

    Davis, H

    D. Davis, H. Gutfreund, and W. Little, Physical Review B13, 4766 (1976)

    1976

  31. [39]

    Cr´ epel and L

    V. Cr´ epel and L. Fu, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119, e2117735119 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Singh, H

    A. Singh, H. Huang, J. Xie, J. Okamoto, C. Chen, T. Watanabe, A. Fujimori, M. Imada, and D. Huang, Nature communications13, 7906 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    S. R. White, Physical Review Letters69, 2863 (1992)

    1992

  34. [42]

    Schollw¨ ock, Reviews of Modern Physics77, 259 (2005)

    U. Schollw¨ ock, Reviews of Modern Physics77, 259 (2005)

    2005

  35. [43]

    Evenbly and G

    G. Evenbly and G. Vidal, Journal of Statistical Physics 145, 891 (2011)

    2011

  36. [44]

    Hauschild, J

    J. Hauschild, J. Unfried, S. Anand, B. Andrews, M. Bintz, U. Borla, S. Divic, M. Drescher, J. Geiger, M. Hefel, K. H´ emery, W. Kadow, J. Kemp, N. Kirchner, V. S. Liu, G. M¨ oller, D. Parker, M. Rader, A. Romen, S. Scalet, L. Schoonderwoerd, M. Schulz, T. Soejima, P. Thoma, Y....

    2024

  37. [45]

    N. D. Mermin and H. Wagner, Physical Review Letters 17, 1133 (1966)

    1966

  38. [46]

    Samokhin, Physical Review B95, 064504 (2017)

    K. Samokhin, Physical Review B95, 064504 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    C. Peng, D. Sheng, and H.-C. Jiang, Physical Review B 111, 085108 (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    Arrigoni, E

    E. Arrigoni, E. Fradkin, and S. A. Kivelson, Physical Review B69, 214519 (2004)

    2004

  41. [49]

    Grabovsky, The limits of the hubbard model, Technical report, UCSB (2019), available at https://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~davidgrabovsky/ files-research/Hubbard.pdf

    D. Grabovsky, The limits of the hubbard model, Technical report, UCSB (2019), available at https://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~davidgrabovsky/ files-research/Hubbard.pdf

    2019

  42. [50]

    E. H. Lieb and F.-Y. Wu, Physical Review Letters20, 1445 (1968)

    1968

  43. [51]

    S. R. White, I. Affleck, and D. J. Scalapino, Physical Review B65, 165122 (2002)

    2002

  44. [52]

    Lu, D.-W

    X. Lu, D.-W. Qu, Y. Qi, W. Li, and S.-S. Gong, Physical Review B107, 125114 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    Zhong, W

    P. Zhong, W. Pan, H. Lin, X. Wang, and S. Hu, Physical Review Letters135, 106502 (2025)

    2025

  46. [54]

    Jiang, Z.-Y

    H.-C. Jiang, Z.-Y. Weng, and S. A. Kivelson, Physical Review B98, 140505 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    Chen and H

    Y. Chen and H. Lin, Physica C: Superconductivity282, 1871 (1997)

    1997

  48. [56]

    Capponi, P

    S. Capponi, P. Lecheminant, and K. Totsuka, Annals of Physics367, 50 (2016)

    2016

  49. [57]

    Honerkamp and W

    C. Honerkamp and W. Hofstetter, Physical Review Let- ters92, 170403 (2004)

    2004

  50. [58]

    W. R. Milner, S. Lannig, M. Mamaev, L. Yan, A. Chu, B. Lewis, M. N. Frankel, R. B. Hutson, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, Science388, 503 (2025)

    2025

  51. [59]

    Ibarra-Garc ´ ıa-Padilla and S

    E. Ibarra-Garc ´ ıa-Padilla and S. Choudhury, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter37, 083003 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    Assaraf, P

    R. Assaraf, P. Azaria, M. Caffarel, and P. Lecheminant, Physical Review B60, 2299 (1999)

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.