Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Finite-momentum bound pairs of two electrons in an altermagnetic metal

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Altermagnetic spin splitting grounds electron pairs at finite momentum, offering a two-body route to FFLO superconductivity.

desk verdict Solid two-body calculation with an over-broad generality claim; the finite-momentum bound state is real for the cases shown, but the 'regardless of interaction' statement is not proven and the many-body leap is explicitly left to future work. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.12905 v2 pith:KQXMJWDY submitted 2026-01-19 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.str-el

Hui Hu , Zhao Liu , Jia Wang , Xia-Ji Liu This is my paper
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.str-el
keywords altermagnetismtwo-electronboundpairfinite-momentumpairingFFLOsuperconductivitysinglet-tripletmixingsquarelatticeextendedHubbardmodeld-wavespinsplitting
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

The paper solves the two-electron problem on a square lattice with d-wave altermagnetism and shows that, when the altermagnetic coupling is strong, the lowest bound pair of two electrons sits at nonzero center-of-mass momentum. This happens for both on-site and nearest-neighbor attractions because altermagnetism reshapes the two-electron continuum, shifting its minimum away from zero momentum, and the bound pair tracks that minimum. The authors interpret this finite-momentum bound pair as the two-electron seed of the altermagnetism-driven Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov (FFLO) superconducting state. They further find that with nearest-neighbor attraction the finite-momentum pairs mix spin-singlet and spin-triplet components, suggesting that finite-momentum superconductivity in altermagnets could naturally host coexisting singlet and triplet pairing.

What carries the argument

The key object is the two-electron dispersion E2p(k,Q) = -4t(cos(Qx/2)cos kx + cos(Qy/2)cos ky) + 2λ(cos(Qx/2)sin(Qy/2)sin kx cos ky + sin(Qx/2)cos(Qy/2)cos kx sin ky). The λ-dependent term is odd in k, which both shifts the continuum minimum to finite Q and couples even and odd partial-wave form factors. The bound states are obtained from the secular determinant det[L_ηη′(E) − δ_ηη′/V_η] = 0, where L_ηη′ sums the separable interaction channels (s, extended s, p±, d) against the two-electron Green's function. This determinant yields all two-electron energies below the continuum threshold.

What would settle it

Perform the many-body pairing-instability calculation proposed by the authors: evaluate the Thouless criterion within the ladder (T-matrix) approximation for the same U–V Hamiltonian on the square lattice at finite electron density. If the first instability occurs at zero center-of-mass momentum (Q=0), or if no finite-momentum superconducting instability appears for the couplings where the two-body ground state is at finite Q, then the two-body mechanism does not extend to the many-body FFLO state, and the central claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the ground state of two-electron bound pairs can occur at nonzero center-of-mass momentum regardless of the form of the interaction. In the presence of dxy-wave altermagnetism, the two-electron dispersion (Eq. 33) acquires a term odd in the relative momentum k, proportional to the altermagnetic coupling λ. For sufficiently large λ, the lower edge of the two-particle continuum develops a global minimum at finite Q, and the bound-pair energy follows that minimum, producing a finite-momentum ground state. When the attraction is nearest-neighbor, the bound states are no longer purely spin-singlet or spin-triplet; they become coherent superpositions, e.g., extended s-wav

Load-bearing premise

The paper's central claim that finite-momentum bound pairs herald FFLO superconductivity rests on the assumption that a two-electron ground state below the two-particle continuum is a reliable proxy for the many-electron pairing instability; a two-body bound pair does not by itself guarantee a finite-momentum superconducting ground state at finite density, and the authors explicitly defer the many-body calculation to future work.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For dxy-wave altermagnetism with strong coupling, the two-electron ground-state pair has finite momentum along the x or y axis, matching the FFLO pairing momentum found in many-body mean-field studies of the same model.
  • The binding energy of the finite-momentum pair decreases as the altermagnetic coupling grows, while at the Γ and M points binding is unchanged because altermagnetism cancels exactly there; this implies a non-monotonic dependence of pairing strength on altermagnetic coupling.
  • With nearest-neighbor attraction, the four partial-wave bound states hybridize into bonding/anti-bonding combinations with mixed spin-singlet and spin-triplet character, meaning an FFLO order parameter in altermagnets would likely carry both components.
  • For dx2−y2-wave altermagnetism, a critical coupling λ=4t makes the continuum edge flat, and for stronger coupling finite-momentum bound pairs appear at the M point (Q=(π,π)), extending the finite-momentum mechanism to a different lattice symmetry.
  • The mixed singlet-triplet pairing implies that the superconducting state, if realized, would break both inversion (through triplet admixture) and translational symmetry (through finite momentum), potentially enabling unusual transport and magnetic responses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: At finite electron density, the Pauli principle suppresses pairing at small relative momenta, so the singlet-triplet mixture may shift from an extended-s + p+ combination at low filling to a d + p− combination at higher filling—an experimentally testable crossover in the momentum structure of the order parameter.
  • Editorial inference: The same two-body continuum-reshaping logic should apply to other momentum-dependent spin-splitting forms (e.g., Rashba), but the location and sign of the finite-momentum minimum will depend on the specific k-dependence; this gives a screening rule for candidate materials by measuring the two-particle threshold via momentum-resolved spectroscopy.
  • Editorial inference: Because binding energy decreases with λ and bound states vanish at large λ, an altermagnetic superconductor should show a dome-shaped Tc versus altermagnetic strength; this is a concrete prediction that thin-film or heterostructure experiments could check.
  • Editorial inference: The exact two-body solution provides a clean benchmark for many-body numerical methods; comparing its finite-momentum bound pair against a ladder T-matrix calculation of the pairing instability at finite density would directly test whether the two-body physics survives in the thermodynamic limit.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper solves the two-electron problem on a square lattice with d-wave altermagnetic spin-splitting and short-range attractive interactions (on-site U and nearest-neighbor V). Using a separable interaction form, the authors reduce the two-body Schrödinger equation (Eq. 23) to a 5×5 secular determinant (Eq. 30) and solve for bound states below the two-particle continuum. They report that for sufficiently strong dxy-altermagnetic coupling, the bound-pair ground state occurs at nonzero center-of-mass momentum Q, tracking the minimum of the two-electron continuum (Figs. 1–3). For strong nearest-neighbor attraction, the bound states acquire mixed spin-singlet/spin-triplet character, as seen in the partial-wave weights (Fig. 4) and the momentum-space wave functions (Fig. 5). The authors interpret this as a two-body signature of altermagnetism-induced FFLO superconductivity and of possible singlet-triplet mixed pairing. Results for dx2−y2 altermagnetism are summarized in Appendix B.

Significance. If the main claim is properly circumscribed, this is a valuable exact two-body calculation. The model is clearly defined, the secular-equation method is standard, and the numerical solution is checked against finite-lattice diagonalization up to L=100 with exponentially weak finite-size effects. The paper also correctly identifies the key mechanism: the altermagnetic spin-splitting reshapes the two-electron continuum and thereby moves the bound-state minimum to finite Q. The singlet-triplet mixing induced by the odd part of the dispersion is an interesting and potentially important observation. However, the advertised universal statement that the finite-momentum ground state occurs 'regardless of the form of the interaction' goes beyond the evidence presented, and the inference from a two-body bound state to many-body FFLO superconductivity is recognized by the authors themselves as requiring future work. The paper is therefore a solid technical contribution whose conclusions need to be tempered or more strongly supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. V] The statement that 'the ground state of the bound pairs can occur at nonzero center-of-mass momentum regardless of the form of the interaction' is not supported by the results shown. The bound-state energy E(Q) is defined implicitly by det[L(E,Q)−δ/V]=0 (Eq. 30). For E(Q) to have its minimum at the same Q at which the continuum threshold E0(Q) is stationary, one needs dE/dQ=−(∂L/∂Q)/(∂L/∂E)=0 there. This is not automatic: ∂L/∂Q contains an integral over f^* f (∂E2p/∂Q)/(E−E2p)^2, which need not vanish at the continuum minimum, and the binding energy Δ(Q)=E0(Q)−E(Q) can depend on Q through the density of states. The paper shows only a handful of parameter sets: U=−5t with λ=2t,3t,4t and V=−8t with λ=0,3t (Figs. 1–3), and Fig. 2(b) is a 1D cut rather than a full 2D scan. The universal claim in the abstract and conclusion therefore needs either a proof, a broader parameter scan (including d
  2. [Sec. V; Sec. I] The leap from a two-body bound state with finite Q to a many-electron FFLO superconducting state is not established. A two-body bound state below the two-particle continuum does not by itself guarantee that the many-body ground state at finite density has finite-momentum pairing; the Fermi surface, screening, and self-consistency can shift or suppress the pairing instability. The paper acknowledges this in Sec. V ('could be pursued in future work'), but the Introduction and Abstract still frame the result as a 'two-body mechanism underpinning' FFLO superconductivity. I recommend adding an explicit, prominent caveat that the many-body pairing instability must be checked separately, for example via the Thouless criterion under the ladder approximation, and avoid overstating the causal implication.
  3. [Sec. IV.A, Fig. 2(b)] The claim that for λ=4t the bound-pair ground state 'shares exactly the same finite center-of-mass momentum' as the continuum minimum is based on a 1D cut along Γ-X-M-Γ. Since the continuum minimum for dxy altermagnetism may occur at off-axis momenta, a full 2D scan is needed to confirm that the global minimum of E(Q) coincides with the global minimum of E0(Q), not merely along the plotted path.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title page] Typo: 'altermag netic' should read 'altermagnetic'.
  2. [Sec. IV.C] Typo: 'the presence of of Fermi surface' should be 'the presence of a Fermi surface'.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption and text are inconsistent: panel (a) is the energy splitting, but the caption also refers to 'the ground-state pair (a)'. The bound-state panels are apparently (b)–(e); please renumber the references.
  4. [Appendix B] Typo: 'eletron' should be 'electron'; also check 'resepctively'.
  5. [General] Several internal figure references appear as corrupted path strings (e.g., '/s45/s48/s46/s56') in the manuscript text. These should be replaced by proper cross-references.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; finite-momentum bound state is a direct solution of the stated altermagnetic U-V model, not a fit, defined quantity, or self-citation-dependent result.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is self-contained: Eq. (23) is the two-electron Schrödinger equation; after inserting the separable interaction (24), the secular equation (30) determines the bound-state energies below the continuum threshold (31). The finite-momentum ground state is obtained by solving this equation for fixed model inputs (U, V, λ); there is no fitted parameter that is later renamed as a prediction. The bound-state energy tracks the input continuum lower edge (Eq. (33)) by explicit numerical solution (Figs. 1-3), not by construction or by definition. The FFLO interpretation is explicitly an analogy ('two-electron analog of many-electron FFLO pairing'), and the paper itself flags the many-body gap: 'A comprehensive investigation of the pairing instability in many-electron systems could be pursued in future work' (Sec. V). The self-citations (refs. 9, 11) are background context for altermagnetic FFLO and are not used to justify a mathematical step, ansatz, or uniqueness theorem; no reduction of the result to prior author work occurs. The unqualified conclusion 'regardless of the form of the interaction' (Sec. V) is broader than the few parameter sets computed, but that is an extrapolation/correctness concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are invoked. The model parameters are standard and the method is established. The central result is a direct consequence of the chosen dispersion and interactions.

free parameters (2)
  • altermagnetic coupling λ = λ = 2t, 3t, 4t, 5t (chosen per figure)
    The altermagnetic coupling strength is a model parameter scanned across values; the central finite-momentum effect only appears for λ above a threshold (λ > 2t for dxy), so the quantitative strength is an input.
  • interaction strengths U, V = U = -5t for on-site case; U = 2t, V = -8t for nearest-neighbor case
    These are model parameters chosen to produce the bound states; the results are shown at these values only.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption d-wave altermagnetism is represented by a one-band spin-split dispersion J_k = λ sin(kx)sin(ky) or λ(cos kx - cos ky)/2
    This is a standard minimal model for altermagnetism used in prior literature; the result depends on this form.
  • standard math The two-body ansatz at fixed Q and the separable channel decomposition of the U-V interaction
    Standard approach for two-body lattice problems (Kornilovitch).
  • domain assumption The system is two-dimensional square lattice with nearest-neighbor hopping
    The result may depend on the lattice geometry and dispersion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Finite-momentum bound pairs of two electrons in an altermagnetic metal." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KQXMJWDY

@misc{pith2026260112905,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Finite-momentum bound pairs of two electrons in an altermagnetic metal},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KQXMJWDY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.12905}
}
read the original abstract

We solve the two-electron problem on a square lattice with d-wave altermagnetism, considering both on-site and nearest-neighbor attractive interactions. The altermagnetic spin-splitting in the single-particle dispersion naturally gives rise to a ground state of two-electron bound pairs with nonzero center-of-mass momentum. The emergence of finite-momentum bound states suggests that altermagnetic spin splitting may favor pairing at nonzero center-of-mass momentum, which could be relevant for proposed Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov (FFLO) superconductivity in altermagnetic systems. Additionally, when the nearest-neighbor attraction is strong, the resulting finite-momentum bound pairs exhibit a mixture of both spin-singlet and spin-triplet characteristics, suggesting the possibility of unconventional superconductors, where spin-singlet and spin-triplet pairings coexist.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.12905 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The energy of the bound pairs as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The energy of the bound pairs as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (a) The energy of the bound pairs at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: In the absence of altermagnetism (see the upper panel), each momentum-space wave-function exhibits a well-defined symmetry: extended s-wave, p-wave or d￾wave symmetry, with increasing bound-state energy. By contrast, introducing the altermagnetic coupling λ = 3t substa…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The energy-level diagrams of two interacting fermio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The energy of the bound pairs as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Finite-momentum superconductivity with singlet-triplet mixing in an altermagnetic metal: A pairing instability analysis

    cond-mat.supr-con 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In an altermagnetic square-lattice metal, the leading pairing instability is a finite-momentum FFLO state with a multi-component singlet-triplet order parameter.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    H. Q. Lin, Dilute gas of electron pairs in the t - J model, Phys. Rev. B 44, 4674 (1991)

    1991

  2. [2]

    A. G. Petukhov, J. Galn, and J. A. Vergs, Bound states of two electrons described by the t - J model, Phys. Rev. B 46, 6212 (1992)

    1992

  3. [3]

    X.-J. Liu, H. Hu, and P. D. Drummond, Virial Expansion for a Strongly Correlated Fermi Gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 160401 (2009)

    2009

  4. [4]

    X.-J. Liu, H. Hu, and P. D. Drummond, Three attractively interacting fermions in a harmonic trap: Exact solution, ferromagnetism, and high-temperature thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. A 82, 023619 (2010)

    2010

  5. [5]

    X.-J. Liu, H. Hu, and P. D. Drummond, Exact few-body results for strongly correlated quantum gases in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. B 82, 054524 (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

    H. Hu, P. D. Drummond, and X.-J. Liu, Universal thermodynamics of strongly interacting Fermi gases, Nature Phys. 3, 469 (2007)

    2007

  7. [7]

    mejkal, J

    L. mejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Emerging Research Landscape of Altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. X 12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    Jungwirth, R

    T. Jungwirth, R. M. Fernandes, E. Fradkin, A. H. MacDonald, J. Sinova, and L. mejkal, Altermagnetism: an unconventional spin-ordered phase of matter, Newton 1, 100162 (2025)

    2025

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Z. Liu, H. Hu, and X.-J. Liu, Altermagnetism and superconductivity: A short historical review, arXiv:2510.09170 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Zhang, L.-H

    S.-B. Zhang, L.-H. Hu, and T. Neupert, Finite-momentum Cooper pairing in proximitized altermagnets, Nat. Commun. 15, 1801 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    H. Hu, Z. Liu, and X.-J. Liu, Unconventional superconductivity of an altermagnetic metal: Polarized BCS and inhomogeneous FFLO states, Phys. Rev. B 112, 184501 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    Y. Noda, K. Ohno, and S. Nakamura, Momentum-dependent band spin splitting in semiconducting MnO _ 2 : a density functional calculation, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 18, 13294 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    M. Naka, S. Hayami, H. Kusunose, Y. Yanagi, Y. Motome, and H. Seo, Spin current generation in organic antiferromagnets, Nat. Commun. 10, 4305 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Hayami, Y

    S. Hayami, Y. Yanagi, and H. Kusunose, Momentum-Dependent Spin Splitting by Collinear Antiferromagnetic Ordering, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88, 123702 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    K.-H. Ahn, A. Hariki, K.-W. Lee, and J. Kune, Antiferromagnetism in RuO _ 2 as d -wave Pomeranchuk instability, Phys. Rev. B 99, 184432 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Hayami, Y

    S. Hayami, Y. Yanagi, and H. Kusunose, Bottom-up design of spin-split and reshaped electronic band structures in antiferromagnets without spin-orbit coupling: Procedure on the basis of augmented multipoles, Phys. Rev. B 102, 144441 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    mejkal, R

    L. mejkal, R. Gonzlez-Hernndez, T. Jungwirth, and J. Sinova, Crystal time-reversal symmetry breaking and spontaneous Hall effect in collinear antiferromagnets, Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz8809 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    I. I. Mazin, Altermagnetism in MnTe: Origin, predicted manifestations, and routes to detwinning, Phys. Rev. B 107, L100418 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    O. J. Amin, A. Dal Din, E. Golias, Y. Niu, A. Zakharov, S. C. Fromage, C. J. B. Fields, S. L. Heywood, R. B. Cousins, F. Maccherozzi, J. Krempask, J. H. Dil, D. Kriegner, B. Kiraly, R. P. Campion, A. W. Rushforth, K. W. Edmonds, S. S. Dhesi, L. mejkal, T. Jungwirth, and P. Wad...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Fulde and R

    P. Fulde and R. A. Ferrell, Superconductivity in a Strong Spin-Exchange Field, Phys. Rev. 135, A550 (1964)

    1964

  13. [21]

    A. I. Larkin and Yu. N. Ovchinnikov, Nonuniform state of superconductors, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 47, 1136 (1964) [ Sov. Phys. JETP 20, 762 (1965) ]

    1964

  14. [22]

    Casalbuoni and G

    R. Casalbuoni and G. Nardulli, Inhomogeneous superconductivity in condensed matter and QCD, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 263 (2004)

    2004

  15. [23]

    Hu and X.-J

    H. Hu and X.-J. Liu, Mean-field phase diagrams of imbalanced Fermi gases near a Feshbach resonance, Phys. Rev. A 73, 051603(R) (2006)

    2006

  16. [24]

    Hu, X.-J

    H. Hu, X.-J. Liu, and P. D. Drummond, Phase Diagram of a Strongly Interacting Polarized Fermi Gas in One Dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 070403 (2007)

    2007

  17. [25]

    Sumita, M

    S. Sumita, M. Naka, and H. Seo, Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov state induced by antiferromagnetic order in -type organic conductors, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043171 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Chakraborty and A

    D. Chakraborty and A. M. Black-Schaffer, Zero-field finite-momentum and field-induced superconductivity in altermagnets, Phys. Rev. B 110, L060508 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Fukaya, B

    Y. Fukaya, B. Lu, K. Yada, Y. Tanaka, and J. Cayao, Superconducting phenomena in systems with unconventional magnets, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 37, 313003 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    S. Hong, M. J. Park, and K.-M. Kim, Unconventional p -wave and finite-momentum superconductivity induced by altermagnetism through the formation of Bogoliubov Fermi surface, Phys. Rev. B 111, 054501 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    I. V. Iorsh, Electron pairing by dispersive phonons in altermagnets: Reentrant superconductivity and continuous transition to finite momentum superconducting state, Phys. Rev. B 111, L220503 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Sim and J

    G. Sim and J. Knolle, Pair Density Waves and Supercurrent Diode Effect in Altermagnets, Phys. Rev. B 112, L020502 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Sumita, M

    S. Sumita, M. Naka, and H. Seo, Phase-modulated superconductivity via altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. B 112, 144510 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    Hu and X.-J

    H. Hu and X.-J. Liu, Quantum Lifshitz points in an altermagnetic superconductor, AAPPS Bull. 35, 35 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    Z. Liu, H. Hu, and X.-J. Liu, Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov states and topological Bogoliubov Fermi surfaces in altermagnets: an analytical study, arXiv:2508.07813

  26. [34]

    Jasiewicz, P

    K. Jasiewicz, P. Wjcik, M. Nowak, and M. Zegrodnik, Interplay between altermagnetism and superconductivity in two dimensions: intertwined symmetries and singlet-triplet mixing, arXiv:2511.05190

  27. [35]

    V. S. de Carvalho and H. Freire, Unconventional superconductivity in altermagnets with spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. B 110, L220503 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Mukasa and Y

    K. Mukasa and Y. Masaki, Finite-momentum Superconductivity in Two-dimensional Altermagnets with a Rashba-type Spin--Orbit Coupling, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 94, 064705 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Kornilovitch, Enhanced stability of bound pairs at nonzero lattice momenta, Phys

    P. Kornilovitch, Enhanced stability of bound pairs at nonzero lattice momenta, Phys. Rev. B 69, 235110 (2004)

    2004

  30. [38]

    Kornilovitch, Ferromagnetism and Borromean Binding in Three-Fermion Clusters, Phys

    P. Kornilovitch, Ferromagnetism and Borromean Binding in Three-Fermion Clusters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 077202 (2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    Kornilovitch, Two-particle bound states on a lattice, Ann

    P. Kornilovitch, Two-particle bound states on a lattice, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) 460, 169574 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Zhu, Z.-Y

    D. Zhu, Z.-Y. Zhuang, Z. Wu, and Z. Yan, Topological superconductivity in two-dimensional altermagnetic metals, Phys. Rev. B 108, 184505 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    C. N. Yang, pairing and off-diagonal long-range order in a Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 2144 (1989)

    1989

  34. [42]

    D. J. Thouless, Perturbation theory in statistical mechanics and the theory of superconductivity, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) 10, 553 (1960)

    1960

  35. [43]

    Liu and H

    X.-J. Liu and H. Hu, BCS-BEC crossover in an asymmetric two-component Fermi gas, Europhys. Lett. 75, 364 (2006)

    2006

Pith tools

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