Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

This paper claims that the density-wave order in La4Ni3O10 is a lattice-entangled instability: a ~52 meV gap opens at the 136 K transition, a 3.88 THz phonon tracks the order parameter, and intense light melts the order nonthermally while l

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 13:45 UTC pith:5WGT4C5R

load-bearing objection First ultrafast study of La4Ni3O10 with solid phonon data, but the nonthermal melting headline rests on an unvalidated ~8 K heating estimate. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.22783 v2 pith:5WGT4C5R submitted 2025-12-28 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.supr-con

Nonthermal melting and density wave instability coupled to the lattice in La₄Ni₃O₁₀

Chen Zhang , Lixing Chen , Qi-Yi Wu , Congcong Le , Xianxin Wu , Hao Liu , Bo Chen , Ying Zhou
show 10 more authors
Zhong-Tuo Fu Chun-Hui Lv Zi-Jie Xu Hai-Long Deng Enkang Zhang Yinghao Zhu H. Y. Liu Yu-Xia Duan Jun Zhao Jian-Qiao Meng
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.supr-con
keywords La4Ni3O10trilayer nickelatedensity-wave orderultrafast optical spectroscopyelectron-phonon couplingnonthermal meltingcoherent phononsstrong-coupling gap
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper uses ultrafast optical pump-probe spectroscopy to establish what drives the density-wave (DW) order in the trilayer nickelate La4Ni3O10 and whether light can control it. The authors find a strong-coupling electronic gap of about 52 meV opens at the 136 K transition, with quasiparticle relaxation showing critical slowing down. They show specific lattice vibrations, especially a 3.88 THz A_g phonon, undergo anomalous renormalization tied to the order parameter, while other modes behave normally—evidence that the DW is stabilized together with the lattice through electron-phonon coupling. At high excitation densities the order is suppressed nonthermally (estimated sample heating is only ~8 K) yet the gap survives, yielding a temperature-fluence phase diagram that resembles pressure tuning but with the gap intact. If right, this identifies the DW as a lattice-entangled, multi-orbital instability and makes ultrafast light a tuning knob for nickelate orders.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: the density-wave order in La4Ni3O10 is a lattice-entangled instability. At TDW ≈ 136 K a strong-coupling gap of ~52 meV opens, extracted from a diverging quasiparticle recombination lifetime with Rothwarf-Taylor phonon-bottleneck analysis. Below the transition, a 3.88 THz A_g phonon deviates sharply from ordinary anharmonic decay (the power-law exponent jumps from ~2 to ~5.2), tracking the order parameter, while at higher fluence additional modes show mode-selective anomalies—ω1 hardens, ω2 and ω4 soften, and an ω6 mode appears only in the ordered state. Excitation at 130 µJ/cm² suppresses TDW to ~95 K yet leaves the gap essentially unchanged (~55 meV), and with an

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three linked measurements. The slow quasiparticle relaxation component τ2, modeled with the Rothwarf-Taylor phonon-bottleneck recombination theory, acts as the thermometer of the electronic gap: its diverging lifetime at TDW signals gap opening and yields 2ΔDW(0) ≈ 52 meV. Coherent A_g phonons—fully symmetric lattice vibrations launched by the pump—act as internal order-parameter sensors: the ~3.88 THz mode's frequency deviates from standard anharmonic decay below the transition, exposing coupling to the DW, while mode-selective anomalies in other modes isolate which lattice motions matter. Finally, fluence-dependent τ2 peaks define a critical fluence FC(T) phase b

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the melting is nonthermal depends on the estimate that the steady-state lattice heating at the highest fluence is only about 8 K; if the real heating under 130 µJ/cm² is much larger, the ~40 K suppression of TDW could be thermal, and the central 'nonthermal melting' and 'gap preservation' conclusions would be weakened.

What would settle it

Measure the actual lattice temperature during and shortly after a 130 µJ/cm² pump pulse—for example via time-resolved x-ray diffraction or a calibrated phonon-frequency thermometer. If the lattice temperature is found to rise by tens of kelvin (comparable to the observed ~40 K TDW suppression) rather than ~8 K, the nonthermal-melting claim is falsified and the suppression would be consistent with heating.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the DW is a lattice-entangled instability, the same electron-phonon interaction that stabilizes the order may contribute to the superconductivity that appears once the order is suppressed.
  • The photoexcited state—lower TDW but nearly unchanged gap—provides a controlled route toward the density-wave quantum critical point without applying pressure, allowing comparisons with the pressure-tuned phase diagram.
  • The mode-selective phonon anomalies (hardening of one mode, softening of two others, one mode appearing only below TDW) give a spectral fingerprint that can be searched for in other nickelate and cuprate systems.
  • The robust gap under excitation, contrasting with bilayer La3Ni2O7 where fluence reduces the gap, identifies La4Ni3O10 as a benchmark for testing theories of density-wave order across the Ruddlesden-Popper nickelate family.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The nonthermal conclusion hinges on the ~8 K heating estimate; a direct time-resolved diffraction measurement of the lattice temperature at 130 µJ/cm² would settle whether the melting is genuinely nonthermal or simply hot.
  • The ω6 mode that appears only below TDW could, if resolved better, be checked against the 52 meV gap scale: a frequency near the gap would favor a collective amplitude-like mode, while a frequency matching a folded zone-boundary phonon would confirm symmetry lowering.
  • Because the pump suppresses TDW but preserves the gap, the effective coupling ratio 2Δ/kBTDW grows with fluence; a two-pulse experiment could test whether this transient strong-coupling regime persists after the quasiparticles recombine.
  • The authors' claim that the ω1 eigenvector involves apical oxygen, Ni-O plane bending, and La displacements implies specific isotope shifts; an isotope-substitution experiment could test whether the measured anomalous phonon renormalization reproduces the reported TDW isotope effect.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents ultrafast optical pump-probe measurements on La4Ni3O10 single crystals across the density-wave transition at TDW ≈ 136 K. Three main claims are made: (i) quasiparticle relaxation reveals a strong-coupling gap of ~52 meV that opens at TDW; (ii) multiple Ag phonons, especially the 3.88 THz mode, show mode-selective anomalies, implying that the density wave is coupled to the lattice through electron-phonon coupling; (iii) intense optical excitation suppresses the DW nonthermally, producing a temperature-fluence phase diagram that parallels pressure tuning but preserves the gap, yielding an enhanced coupling ratio. The paper concludes that the DW is a lattice-entangled instability and that ultrafast optical excitation is a nonequilibrium tuning knob for nickelates.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a useful experimental characterization of the density-wave state in La4Ni3O10: the ~52 meV gap, the coherent phonon anomalies, and the fluence-dependent phase diagram are all falsifiable outputs that can be compared with other probes. The manuscript uses standard bi-exponential fitting, RT-model gap extraction, and phonon-frequency analysis, and the gap value is consistent with existing spectroscopic studies. The mode-selective phonon response, especially the opposite behavior of the two Ag modes, is an interesting observation that goes beyond a single order-parameter description. However, the headline 'nonthermal melting' claim rests on a single estimated heating offset (~8 K at the highest fluence), which is not sufficiently validated in the present text. The paper also lacks error bars for several quantitative results that are central to the claimed phase diagram and to the 'enhanced gap ratio' conclusion. With additional thermal modeling and error reporting, the work could become a solid contribution to the nickelate ultrafast literature.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4 (Fig. 4) and main text] The 'nonthermal melting' claim is load-bearing and rests entirely on the estimate that the steady-state temperature rise at 130 µJ/cm2 is only ~8 K, cited to SM Sec. IV. No absorbed fraction, spot size, thermal conductivity, or calibration is given in the main text or summarized. Since ~40 K suppression of TDW is the key observation, if the actual lattice heating is 30–40 K, the phase boundary in Fig. 4(b) would be largely thermal and the central distinction from ordinary heating collapses. The gap-preservation argument does not resolve this: at low stage temperature a 30 K offset still leaves the sample far below TDW, so the unchanged gap is compatible with a thermal interpretation. Please provide the full thermal model in the main text or supplement, with an explicit validation of the ~8 K estimate.
  2. [Sec. 2, Fig. 2(c)] The power-law analysis ω1(T)=ω1(0)−αT^n reports n=5.2 below TDW and n=2 above, but no uncertainties, fit ranges, or number of data points are given. The T^5.2 exponent is highly unusual, and the exponent changes to 2.5 at high fluence (Fig. 3(c)), so the claimed 'abrupt change' and its link to the DW order parameter are not yet established. Please report fit errors, residuals, and a robustness check (e.g., excluding points near TDW), and discuss whether the exponent change with fluence is intrinsic or an artifact of the nonthermal state.
  3. [Sec. 4 (Fig. 4) and Sec. II of the SM] The temperature-fluence phase diagram is a central quantitative result, but FC(T) values, the τ2(F) curves from which they are extracted, and the RT-model gap values (2Δ(0)≈52 meV and ≈55 meV) are presented without error bars. The claim of an 'enhanced coupling ratio' (4.4→6.6) relies on the difference between two RT fits at different fluences; without uncertainties and a statistical comparison, that conclusion is not supported. Please provide error bars and a quantitative comparison.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2 and Sec. 3, typos] Typographical errors: 'whcih' in Sec. 2, 'dominanlty' in the Discussion, and 'Phys. Soc. Jpn.' should be 'J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.' in reference [18].
  2. [Fig. 2(c)] The caption says 'the right axis shows the data on a log-log scale,' but the printed figure appears to show only one axis; please clarify or add the second axis. Also, the anharmonic decay model used for the solid green lines is not explicitly written; define it or add an equation in the text or SM.
  3. [Sec. 3 and Fig. 3] The transition from Fig. 2 (low fluence, two phonon modes) to Fig. 3 (high fluence, six phonon modes) is not fully explained. Clarify whether the additional modes are resolved because of the higher fluence (improved signal) or because of a different data-analysis procedure.
  4. [Discussion] The statement that the SDW is 'dominantly localized on the outer NiO2 layers' while the CDW modulates all layers is asserted without a reference in the main text; please add a citation or move to the SM with supporting data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the gap, phonon, and phase-boundary observations are measured outputs; the nonthermal-melting caveat is a heating estimate, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is measurement-driven rather than definitional. The DW gap is extracted by fitting the measured slow relaxation component τ2(T) (and amplitude A2(T)) with the Rothwarf-Taylor model (Sec. I–II of SM); the gap is not defined in terms of T_DW or in terms of the phonon anomalies. The phonon frequencies are direct FFT outputs, and modes ω3 and ω5 are explicitly used as internal controls following ordinary anharmonic decay, so the anomalous renormalizations of ω1, ω2, and ω4 are not forced by the fitting scheme. The fluence–temperature phase diagram in Fig. 4(b) is built from independently measured critical fluences (peaks in τ2 versus fluence at fixed stage temperature) combined with separately determined T_DW values from Figs. 1 and 3. Several cited references (e.g., [28], [31], [37], [46]) are from the same group, but they are used for experimental methodology and for comparison to bilayer behavior; the central 'lattice-entangled DW' conclusion rests on the present measurements, not on the correctness of those citations. The most vulnerable step is the statement that 'Even at the highest fluence, the steady-state temperature rise is estimated at only ~8 K (see Sec. IV of Supplemental Material [32])' — this estimate is load-bearing for the 'nonthermal melting' conclusion and is not described in the main text. This is a potential correctness/robustness weakness, but the text provides no indication that the 8 K estimate was derived from the observed ~40 K suppression of T_DW; without that reduction, it is not a circular step. No circularity can be exhibited from the available text, so the score is low and the main caveat is about thermal-heating uncertainty rather than circular reasoning.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities or forces. The central claims rest on standard experimental analysis models (bi-exponential fits, RT model, anharmonic decay) and on the reliability of the heating estimate. The free parameters are measured quantities, not ad hoc inputs, but their uncertainties are not fully reported.

free parameters (3)
  • 2Δ_DW(0) = ≈52 meV (low fluence), ≈55 meV (high fluence)
    Extracted from fits of τ2(T) to the Rothwarf-Taylor model. This is a measured output, not an ad hoc parameter, but it is fitted to data with no error bars reported.
  • Power-law exponent n for ω1(T) = n≈5.2 below TDW (low fluence); n≈2.5 below TDW (high fluence)
    Fitted to the temperature dependence of the 3.88 THz phonon frequency. The exponent changes with fluence, indicating sensitivity to the fit range and possibly heating.
  • Critical fluence FC(T) = ≈5.2 µJ/cm² at 130 K to >130 µJ/cm² at 90 K
    Extracted from the peak position of τ2 vs fluence at fixed temperatures; defines the phase boundary in the temperature-fluence diagram.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption The slow relaxation component τ2 is dominated by quasiparticle recombination across the DW gap and obeys the Rothwarf-Taylor phonon bottleneck model.
    Used to convert τ2(T) into a gap value (Sec. II of the Supplemental Material). If the relaxation has a different origin (e.g., trapping or two-photon effects), the gap extraction is invalid.
  • domain assumption The temperature dependence of phonon frequency above TDW follows standard anharmonic decay (Balkanski/Menendez models).
    Used to define 'normal' behavior and identify anomalous renormalization below TDW. The fit is to the high-T data, and deviations below TDW are the central phonon claim.
  • domain assumption The estimated steady-state temperature rise of ~8 K at the highest fluence is correct.
    This assumption is load-bearing for the nonthermal melting claim. The estimate is deferred to Sec. IV of the SM and is not visible in the main text or figures.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 8347 in / 6444 out tokens · 63041 ms · 2026-08-03T13:45:37.501472+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The recent discovery of high-temperature superconductivity in pressurized nickelates has renewed interest in the broken-symmetry states of their ambient-pressure parent phases, where a density-wave (DW) order emerges and competes with superconductivity, but its microscopic origin remains unresolved. Using ultrafast optical spectroscopy, we track quasiparticle relaxation dynamics across the DW transition at $T_{\rm DW} \approx$ 136 K in trilayer nickelate {\LNO} single crystals, revealing the opening of an energy gap of $\sim$52 meV. Multiple coherent phonons, including $A_g$ modes near 3.88, 5.28, and 2.09 THz, display pronounced mode-selective anomalies across the transition, indicating that the DW is strongly coupled to lattice degrees of freedom and suggesting an important role of electron-phonon coupling. At higher excitation densities, the DW is nonthermally suppressed, producing a temperature-fluence phase diagram that parallels pressure-tuned behavior. These results establish the DW in {\LNO} as a lattice-entangled instability involving multiple phonon modes, and highlight ultrafast optical excitation as a nonequilibrium tuning parameter for suppressing density-wave order in nickelates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.22783 by Bo Chen, Chen Zhang, Chun-Hui Lv, Congcong Le, Enkang Zhang, Hai-Long Deng, Hao Liu, H. Y. Liu, Jian-Qiao Meng, Jun Zhao, Lixing Chen, Qi-Yi Wu, Xianxin Wu, Yinghao Zhu, Ying Zhou, Yu-Xia Duan, Zhong-Tuo Fu, Zi-Jie Xu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a) presents the time-domain traces after subtracting the QP background, while [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Electronic Nematicity Revealed by Polarized Ultrafast Spectroscopy in Bilayer La$_3$Ni$_2$O$_7$

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0

    Bilayer nickelate La3Ni2O7 shows spontaneous two-fold electronic anisotropy (nematicity) below the spin-density-wave transition, whereas trilayer La4Ni3O10 remains isotropic.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    H. Sun, M. Huo, X. Hu, J. Li, Z. Liu, Y . Han, L. Tang, Z. Mao, P. Yang, B. Wanget al., Nature621, 493 (2023)

    2023

  2. [2]

    Y . Zhu, D. Peng, E. Zhang, B. Pan, X. Chen, L. Chen, H. Ren, F. Liu, Y . Hao, N. Liet al., Nature631, 531 (2024)

    2024

  3. [3]

    J. Hou, P. T. Yang, Z. Y . Liu, J. Y . Li, P. F. Shan, L. Ma, G. Wang, N. N. Wang, H. Z. Guo, J.-P. Sunet al., Chin. Phys. Lett.40, 117302 (2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    Zhang, D

    Y . Zhang, D. Su, Y . Huang, Z. Shan, H. Sun, M. Huo, K. Ye, J. Zhang, Z. Yang, Y . Xuet al., Nat. Phys.20, 1269 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    N. Wang, G. Wang, X. Shen, J. Hou, J. Luo, X. Ma, H. Yang, L. Shi, J. Dou, J. Fenget al., Nature634, 579 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Q. Li, Y . J. Zhang, Z. N. Xiang, Y . Zhang, X. Zhu, and H. H. Wen, Chin. Phys. Lett.41, 017401 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    Zhang, C

    M. Zhang, C. Pei, D. Peng, X. Du, W. Hu, Y . Cao, Q. Wang, J. Wu, Y . Li, H. Liuet al., Phys. Rev. X15, 021005 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    J. Li, C. Q. Chen, C. Huang, Y . Han, M. Huo, X. Huang, P. Ma, Z. Qiu, J. Chen, X. Huet al., Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron. 67, 117403 (2024)

    2024

  9. [9]

    Keimer, S

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

    2015

  10. [10]

    Pengcheng Dai, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 855 (2015)

    2015

  11. [11]

    M. Shi, Y . Li, Y . Wang, D. Peng, S. Yang, H. Li, K. Fan, K. Jiang, J. He, Q. Zenget al., Nat. Commun.16, 2887 (2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    X. Chen, J. Choi, Z. Jiang, J. Mei, K. Jiang, J. Li, S. Agrestini, M. Garcia-Fernandez, H. Sun, X. Huanget al., Nat. commun. 15, 9597 (2024)

    2024

  13. [13]

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

    2024

  14. [14]

    Khasanov, T

    R. Khasanov, T. J. Hicken, D. J. Gawryluk, V . Sazgari, I. Plokhikh, L. P. Sorel, M. Bartkowiak, S. Botzel, F. Lechermann, I. M. Ereminet al., Nat. Phys.1, 430 (2025)

    2025

  15. [15]

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

    2025

  16. [16]

    Z. Liu, H. Sun, M. Huo, X. Ma, Y . Ji, E. Yi, L. Li, H. Liu, J. Yu, Z. Zhanget al., Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron.66, 217411 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    Zhang, D

    J. Zhang, D. Phelan, A. Botana, Y .-S. Chen, H. Zheng, M. Krogstad, S. G. Wang, Y . Qiu, J. Rodriguez-Rivera, R. Osborn et al., Nat. Commun.11, 6003 (2020)

    2020

  18. [18]

    Kakoi, T

    M. Kakoi, T. Oi, Y . Ohshita, M. Yashima, K. Kuroki, T. Kato, H. Takahashi, S. Ishiwata, Y . Adachi, N. Hatadaet al., Phys. Soc. Jpn.93, 053702 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    Deswal, D

    S. Deswal, D. Kumar, D. Rout, S. Singh, and P. Kumar, arXiv:2411.13933 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Suthar, V

    A. Suthar, V . Sundaramurthy, M. Bejas, C. Le, P. Puphal, P. Sosa-Lizama, A. Schulz, J. Nuss, M. Isobe, P. A. van Akenet al., arXiv:2508.06440 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    M. Li, J. Gong, Y . Zhu, Z. Chen, J. Zhang, E. Zhang, Y . Li, R. Yin, S. Wang, J. Zhaoet al., Phys. Rev. B112, 045132 (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    X. Du, Y . Li, Y . Cao, C. Pei, M. Zhang, W. Zhao, K. Zhai, R. Xu, Z. Liu, Z. Liet al., arXiv:2405.19853 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Zhang, L

    Y . Zhang, L. F. Lin, A. Moreo, T. A. Maier, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 136001 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    S. Xu, C. Q. Chen, M. Huo, D. Hu, H. Wang, Q. Wu, R. Li, D. Wu, M. Wang, D. X. Yaoet al., Phys. Rev. B111, 075140 (2025)

    2025

  25. [25]

    S. Xu, H. Wang, M. Huo, D. Hu, Q. Wu, L. Yue, D. Wu, M. Wang, T. Dong, and N. Wang, Nat. Commun.16, 7039 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    H. Li, X. Zhou, T. Nummy, J. Zhang, V . Pardo, W. E. Pickett, J. F. Mitchell, and D. S. Dessau, Nat. Commun.8, 704 (2017)

    2017

  27. [27]

    Y . Li, Y . Cao, L. Liu, P. Peng, H. Lin, C. Pei, M. Zhang, H. Wu, X. Du, W. Zhaoet al., Sci. Bull.70, 180 (2025)

    2025

  28. [28]

    Q. Y . Wu, C. Zhang, B. Z. Li, H. Liu, J. J. Song, B. Chen, H. Y . Liu, Y . X. Duan, J. He, J. Liuet al., Phys. Rev. B111, L081110 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    Z. Wang, Q. Wu, Q. Yin, C. Gong, Z. Tu, T. Lin, Q. Liu, L. Shi, S. Zhang, D. Wuet al., Phys. Rev. B104, 165110 (2021)

    2021

  30. [30]

    Y . Z. Zhao, Q. Y . Wu, C. Zhang, B. Chen, W. Xia, J. J. Song, Y . H. Yuan, H. Liu, F. Y . Wu, X. Q. Yeet al., Phys. Rev. B108, 075115 (2023)

    2023

  31. [31]

    Zhang, Q

    C. Zhang, Q. Y . Wu, W. S. Hong, H. Liu, S. X. Zhu, J. J. Song, Y . Z. Zhao, F. Y . Wu, Z. T. Liu, S. Y . Liuet al., Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron.65, 237411 (2022)

    2022

  32. [32]

    See the Supplemental Material for additional data of La4Ni3O10, which include references [33–36]

  33. [33]

    Rothwarf and B

    A. Rothwarf and B. Taylor, Phys. Rev. Lett.19, 27 (1967)

    1967

  34. [34]

    Kabanov, J

    V . Kabanov, J. Demsar, B. Podobnik, and D. Mihailovic, Phys. Rev. B59, 1497 (1999)

    1999

  35. [35]

    Demsar, J

    J. Demsar, J. L. Sarrao, A. J. Taylor, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 18, R281-R314 (2006)

    2006

  36. [36]

    D. Rout, S. R. Mudi, M. Hoffmann, S. Spachmann, R. Klin- geler, S. Singh, Phys. Rev. B102, 195144 (2020)

    2020

  37. [37]

    Q. Y . Wu, D. Y . Hu, C. Zhang, M. W. Huo, H. Liu, B. Chen, Y . Zhou, Z. T. Fuet al., Phys. Rev. B112, 235110 (2025)

    2025

  38. [38]

    Balkanski, R

    M. Balkanski, R. Wallis, and E. Haro, Phys. Rev. B28, 1928 (1983)

    1928

  39. [39]

    Menendez and M

    J. Menendez and M. Cardona, Phys. Rev. B29, 2051 (1984)

    2051

  40. [40]

    Hasaien, Y

    J. Hasaien, Y . Wu, M. Shi, Y . Zhai, Q. Wu, Z. Liu, Y . Zhou, X. Chen, and J. Zhao, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA122, e2406464122 (2025)

    2025

  41. [41]

    Loret, N

    B. Loret, N. Auvray, Y . Gallais, M. Cazayous, A. Forget, D. Colson, M. H. Julien, I. Paul, M. Civelli, A. Sacuto, Nature Physics15, 771 (2019)

    2019

  42. [42]

    D. Oh, D. Song, Y . Kim, S. Miyasaka, S. Tajima, J. M. Bok, Y . Bang, S. R. Park, and C. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 277001 (2021)

    2021

  43. [43]

    H. Y . Huang, A. Singh, C. Y . Mou, S. Johnston, A. F. Kemper, J. van den Brinket al., Phys. Rev. X11, 041038 (2021)

    2021

  44. [44]

    X. Tang, S. Zhu, H. Liu, C. Zhang, Q. Wu, Z. Liu, J. Song, X. Guo, Y . Wang, H. Maet al., Chin. Phys. B31, 037103 (2022)

    2022

  45. [45]

    S. Duan, Y . Cheng, W. Xia, Y . Yang, C. Xu, F. Qi, C. Huang, T. Tang, Y . Guo, W. Luo,et al., Nature595, 239 (2021)

    2021

  46. [46]

    H. Liu, C. Zhang, Q. Wu, Y . Jin, Z. Zhu, J. Song, S. Cui, Z. Sun, H. Wang, B. Chenet al., Phys. Rev. B111, L121113 (2025)

    2025

  47. [47]

    Y . Meng, Y . Yang, H. Sun, S. Zhang, J. Luo, L. Chen, X. Ma, M. Wang, F. Hong, X. Wanget al., Nat. Commun.15, 10408 (2024)

    2024

  48. [48]

    Khasanov, T

    R. Khasanov, T. Hicken, I. Plokhikh, V . Sazgari, L. Kelleret al., arXiv:2503.04400 (2025)

    arXiv 2025