Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 78 references

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

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Altermagnetic metals pair electrons at finite momentum with mixed singlet-triplet order.

desk verdict A solid, systematic T-matrix study that confirms earlier finite-momentum mixed-parity pairing predictions in altermagnets and adds useful phase diagrams, but the quantitative claims rest on a non-self-consistent ladder at strong coupling. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.12897 v2 pith:VFUCERVB submitted 2026-03-13 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.str-el

Hui Hu , Zhao Liu , Jia Wang , Xia-Ji Liu , Yoji Ohashi This is my paper
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.str-el
keywords altermagnetismfinite-momentumpairingFFLOstatesinglet-tripletmixinginstabilityThoulesscriterionnearest-neighborattractionsquarelattice
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 analyzes how superconductivity emerges in an altermagnetic metal, a magnetically ordered system with zero net magnetization but momentum-dependent spin splitting. The authors show that an attractive nearest-neighbor interaction generically drives the leading pairing instability at a nonzero center-of-mass momentum, producing a Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov (FFLO) state. Crucially, this finite-momentum pairing simultaneously involves both spin-singlet and spin-triplet channels with mixed parity, so the superconducting order parameter is intrinsically multi-component. The result holds for dxy- and dx2-y2-wave altermagnetism across a wide range of electron fillings, and the paper maps the phase diagrams and channel weights. This matters because it establishes that altermagnetism offers a robust, intrinsic route to FFLO superconductivity, without external magnetic fields and with a richer, mixed-parity order parameter than previously assumed.

What carries the argument

The central tool is the inverse vertex matrix Gamma^{-1}(Q,omega=0) in the Cooper channel, projected onto five pairing channels: s-wave, extended s-wave, two p-wave channels, and d-wave. The leading pairing instability is identified through the Thouless criterion, max_Q gamma_1(Q)=0, where gamma_1 is the largest eigenvalue of this matrix. The off-diagonal elements of the pair-propagator matrix couple channels of different parity, and diagonalization reveals the multi-component eigenvector whose components give the relative weights of singlet and triplet channels at the instability.

What would settle it

A direct numerical solution of the self-consistent gap equations (including self-energy feedback) at V=-1.5t and dxy-wave altermagnetism with lambda ~ lambda_c would reveal whether the finite-momentum mixed-parity instability persists; if lambda_c shifts substantially or the peak at nonzero Q disappears, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The leading pairing instability in an altermagnetic metal with a nearest-neighbor attractive interaction generically occurs at finite center-of-mass momentum and involves a coherent superposition of spin-singlet and spin-triplet pairing channels. This means the resulting finite-momentum FFLO superconducting phase exhibits a multi-component order parameter containing both even-parity (extended s-wave or d-wave) and odd-parity (p-wave) contributions. The authors establish this by diagonalizing the inverse two-particle vertex matrix from a non-self-consistent T-matrix ladder approximation and applying the Thouless criterion, finding that the largest eigenvalue peaks at nonzero Q for both dxy-wa

Load-bearing premise

The non-self-consistent ladder T-matrix approximation, with non-interacting Green's functions and no self-energy feedback, is assumed accurate for interaction strengths V=-1.5t that are not perturbatively small.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Altermagnetic superconductors are predicted to intrinsically host FFLO states at zero magnetic field, unlike conventional systems where orbital depairing destabilizes such states.
  • The superconducting order parameter in these systems is generically multi-component with singlet-triplet mixing, so measurements detecting both even- and odd-parity pairing components would be a direct signature.
  • At low fillings, the dominant channel evolves from extended s-wave to p-wave to d-wave as filling increases, with substantial sub-leading channels near the crossovers.
  • Parallel-spin triplet pairing, always at zero momentum, can dominate the phase diagram for strong altermagnetic coupling and high fillings, producing a distinct zero-momentum superconducting state.
  • The inclusion of the full channel matrix yields critical altermagnetic couplings up to several times larger than a single-channel d-wave approximation, so previous restricted analyses may underestimate the stability of the superconducting phase.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this instability picture survives self-consistent treatment, the mixed-parity FFLO state may exhibit spontaneous time-reversal-symmetry-breaking surface currents, analogous to s+id states but involving singlet-triplet relative phases.
  • The channel-coupling mechanism suggests that the FFLO modulation wave vector is tied to the altermagnetic symmetry, so a direction-dependent supercurrent diode effect could be a practical probe distinguishing these states from ordinary FFLO states.
  • A testable extension would be to compute the relative phase between the singlet and triplet components within a full mean-field solution; if the phase is nontrivial, the gap structure becomes nodal with Bogoliubov Fermi surfaces.
  • The ratio of p-wave to d-wave weights found here under conditions matching an earlier mean-field study suggests that the pairing-instability analysis captures the same physics as full self-consistent solutions, implying that the mixed-parity structure is robust to the approximation scheme.
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 analyzes pairing instabilities in a square-lattice altermagnet with a nearest-neighbor attractive interaction, using a non-self-consistent many-body T-matrix ladder and the Thouless criterion. The interaction is decomposed into separable even-parity (s, extended-s, d) and odd-parity (p+, p-) channels; the resulting inverse vertex matrix is diagonalized for each center-of-mass momentum Q. The authors report that for both d_xy- and d_{x^2-y^2}-wave altermagnetism the leading instability is generically at finite Q, with an order parameter that mixes singlet and triplet components. They benchmark against earlier d-wave-only and mean-field results, study same-spin triplet pairing, and examine the effect of on-site attraction U.

Significance. If the central claim is robust, the paper provides a systematic and useful extension of altermagnetism-induced FFLO studies beyond single-channel approximations, with explicit phase diagrams and channel-resolved weights. The separable channel decomposition is exact for the model, the reduction to the two-electron bound-state equation reproduces Ref. 48, and the comparisons with Refs. 31 and 45 give quantitative external checks. These are real strengths. The main risk is that the central claim is extracted from a bare-Green's-function ladder at interaction strengths that are not perturbatively small, so the quantitative phase diagram and the word 'generically' may not survive self-energy feedback.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Eqs. (16)-(21); Sec. IV parameter paragraph] The whole calculation uses non-self-consistent ladder built from non-interacting Green's functions G0, with the chemical potential fixed by the non-interacting density, at V=Vσ=-1.5t and T=0.01t. This is not a weak-coupling regime: |V| is of order t, and the pair-formation scale is not negligible compared with the bandwidth. A Hartree term alone changes μ and thus the occupation factors nF in Eq. (19); a ladder self-energy can renormalize even- and odd-parity channels unequally and could move the largest eigenvalue from Q≠0 to Q=0 or change the singlet-triplet weights Wη. Since the paper's central claim is read directly from the largest eigenvector of this bare pair propagator, the authors should either include a self-consistent Hartree or T-matrix self-energy check, or explicitly delimit the parameter regime in which the bare-G0 approximation is controlled. Without such a check, the wor
  2. [Appendix A; Figs. 5, 7, 8] The numerical procedure relies on a cubic extrapolation from finite spectral broadening η to η→0, and the text states that this 'does not completely eliminate the η-dependence.' The estimated absolute error 10^-3 t^-1 in γ1 is claimed to be small, but the critical coupling λ_c is found from a zero of γ1(Qmax), and near the zeros in Figs. 5 and 7 the slope can be small; the non-monotonic d_{x^2-y^2} curves in Fig. 7 are particularly sensitive. Please report the η dependence of λ_c and Qmax for representative parameters, or provide error bars on the phase boundaries. This is needed to support the quantitative phase diagrams.
  3. [Sec. I vs. Sec. VI, Figs. 11-12] The opening claim that 'the leading pairing instability generically occurs at finite center-of-mass momentum and simultaneously involves spin-singlet and spin-triplet channels with mixed parity' is too strong as stated. In Fig. 12, for d_{x^2-y^2} altermagnetism at ν=0.6 with V=Vσ=-1.5t, the leading instability is the same-spin triplet state at Q=0 for all λ shown. The abstract contains the necessary caveat, but Sec. I does not. The central claim should be explicitly restricted to the opposite-spin Cooper channel, or 'generically' should be defined over the parameter region where opposite-spin pairing is the leading instability.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. VI] The statement that parallel-spin pairing 'always occurs at Q=0, regardless of whether altermagnetism is present' is asserted without a proof or a systematic scan. A short symmetry argument, or a statement that this was checked over the full Brillouin zone, would strengthen the claim.
  2. [Fig. 3 and Sec. IV.B] The text says the inverse vertex matrix has five channels, but Fig. 3(a) shows only four eigenvalues; the caption does not explain whether the fifth lies outside the plotted range. Please clarify.
  3. [Sec. III.A; Eq. (19)] The normalization of the eigenvector components Mη used to define Wη=|Mη|^2 is not stated. Please specify the normalization convention.
  4. [Sec. V; Fig. 10] In the benchmark against Ref. 31, the value of Vσ used in the full-channel calculation is not stated. Since same-spin pairing competes in the same parameter regime, this should be spelled out.
  5. [Sec. VII] Typo: 'superconducnting' should be 'superconducting'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: finite-Q mixed-parity instability is a computed output, not an input; self-citations are corroborative only.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The inverse vertex matrix Γ^{-1}=V^{-1}+χ(Q,0) (Eq. 21) is built from the stated Hamiltonian (Eqs. 1-5), the separable decomposition of the interaction (Eqs. 7-9, 18), and the pair-propagator matrix χ_ηη' (Eq. 19), which is evaluated directly with bare Green's functions. No parameter is fitted to the target outputs: the finite-Q peak of γ1(Q), the critical λ_c, Qmax, and the channel weights Wη=|Mη|^2 are obtained by diagonalizing Eq. 21 and applying the Thouless criterion Eq. 15, not imposed by the model. Section V provides independent benchmarks against Refs. 31 and 45 at their parameter sets, so the calculation is not validated solely by self-citation. The citations to the authors' prior work (Refs. 4, 41, 43, 44, 47, 48) are contextual or corroborative: e.g., the two-electron limit Eq. 23 is a special-case consistency check compared with Ref. 48, and the single-band model is also attributed to external Refs. 31 and 38. No uniqueness theorem or fitting procedure from the authors' earlier papers is used to force the conclusion. The non-self-consistent ladder and the residual η-dependence admitted in Appendix A ('the cubic fitting procedure does not completely eliminate the η-dependence') are quantitative accuracy risks, not circularity, because even if the approximation were improved, the derivation chain would still not reduce the claimed instability to its inputs by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model has five hand-chosen interaction/numerical parameters, all stated in Sec. IV. No new physical entities are introduced. The main burden is the non-self-consistent approximation and the η-extrapolation.

free parameters (5)
  • V = -1.5t
    Nearest-neighbor attraction for opposite spins; hand-chosen model parameter that sets the pairing scale. All phase boundaries scale with it.
  • Vσ = -1.5t
    Nearest-neighbor attraction for identical spins; set equal to V. Controls the same-spin triplet channel.
  • U = -0.01t
    On-site attraction; chosen small so that the s-wave channel is nearly decoupled. In Appendix B it is varied up to -2.0t.
  • T = 0.01t
    Temperature used as 'effectively zero'; chosen to smooth the Fermi surfaces. Results are not exactly at T=0.
  • η = 0.02t
    Spectral broadening added to the pair propagator; the paper extrapolates to η→0 with a cubic fit. This is a numerical regularization parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Non-self-consistent T-matrix ladder approximation and Thouless criterion are valid for the pairing instability.
    Sec. III, Eqs. (16)-(21): assumes normal-state propagators and neglects self-energy and vertex corrections; questionable at V=-1.5t.
  • domain assumption Single-band square-lattice Hamiltonian with d-wave altermagnetic splitting (Eqs. 1-5) captures the essential physics.
    Neglects spin-orbit coupling, multi-band effects, and other realistic material details.
  • standard math The interaction V↑↓(k,k') decomposes exactly into the five separable channels s, es, p+, p-, d.
    Eq. (9)-(14): verified by expanding cos(kx-kx')+cos(ky-ky') on the square lattice; this is exact.
  • domain assumption The leading eigenvector of the inverse vertex matrix at Qmax determines the superconducting order-parameter composition.
    Sec. III A: assumes that the instability eigenvector maps directly to the order parameter; nonlinear effects beyond T_c are not treated.
  • ad hoc to paper Cubic extrapolation from η=0.02t to η→0 accurately captures the pair propagator for all parameters.
    Appendix A: only one representative case (Fig. 13) is shown; the fit may be less accurate near continuum edges or for large λ.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Finite-momentum superconductivity with singlet-triplet mixing in an altermagnetic metal: A pairing instability analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VFUCERVB

@misc{pith2026260312897,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Finite-momentum superconductivity with singlet-triplet mixing in an altermagnetic metal: A pairing instability analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VFUCERVB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.12897}
}
abstract

We analyze the pairing instability of an altermagnetic metal on a square lattice driven by an attractive nearest-neighbor interaction. This interaction enables multiple pairing channels, including even-parity extended $s$-wave and $d$-wave states, as well as two odd-parity $p$-wave channels. We verify that altermagnetic spin-splitting in the single-particle dispersion gives rise to finite-momentum pairing between electrons with unlike spins, in agreement with earlier predictions. Quite unexpectedly, this pairing typically emerges across multiple channels with mixed parity. Consequently, the resulting finite-momentum Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov (FFLO) superconducting phase is expected to exhibit a multi-component order parameter featuring singlet-triplet mixing. We examine several forms of altermagnetism, specifically $d_{xy}$-wave and $d_{x^{2}-y^{2}}$-wave altermagnetic couplings, and present the corresponding phase diagrams. Additionally, we study triplet pairing between electrons with identical spins and find that it always occurs at zero center-of-mass momentum. Although it is unfavorable in the regime of weak altermagnetic coupling and low electron filling, it can dominate the phase diagram when the altermagnetic coupling is sufficiently strong. The influence of on-site attractive interactions on mixed-parity pairing is also explored.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.12897 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Diagrammatic representation of the two-particle vertex function Γ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The largest eigenvalue of the inverse vertex function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) The curves represent the four eigenvalues of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The peak value of the dominant eigenvalue of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The results are identical to that presented in Fig. 3, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Phase diagram in the presence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Phase diagram with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Analysis of the pairing instability under the con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The peak value of the leading eigenvalue of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The same as in Fig. 11(b), except evaluated for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. The dependence of the largest eigenvalue of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. The maximum value of the leading eigenvalue of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. (a) Phase diagram for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_15.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    mejkal, J

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

    2022

  2. [2]

    L. Bai, W. Feng, S. Liu, L. mejkal, Y. Mokrousov, and Y. Yao, Altermagnetism: exploring new frontiers in magnetism and spintronics, Adv. Func. Mater. 34, 2409327 (2024)

    2024

  3. [3]

    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

  4. [4]

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

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    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

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    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

  2. [10]

    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

  3. [11]

    I. I. Mazin, K. Koepernik, M. D. Johannes, R. Gonzlez-Hernndez, and L. mejkal, Preduction of unconventional magnetism in doped FeSb _ 2 , Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118, e2108924118 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

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

    2023

  5. [13]

    P. A. McClarty and J. G. Rau, Landau Theory of Altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 176702 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    M. Roig, A. Kreisel, Y. Yu, B. M. Andersen, and D. F. Agterberg, Minmal models for altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. B 110, 144412 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Z. Xiao, J. Zhao, Y. Li, R. Shindou, and Z.-D. Song, Spin space groups: full classification and applications, Phys. Rev. X 14, 031037 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    X. Chen, J. Ren, Y. Zhu, Y. Yu, A. Zhang, P. Liu, J. Li, Y. Liu, C. Li, and Q. Liu, Enumeration and representation theory of spin space groups, Phys. Rev. X 14, 031038 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Jiang, Z

    Y. Jiang, Z. Song, T. Zhu, Z. Fang, H. Weng, Z.-X. Liu, J. Yang, and C. Fang, Enumeration of spin-space groups: towards a complete description of symmetries of magnetic orders, Phys. Rev. X 14, 031039 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Krempask, L

    J. Krempask, L. mejkal, S. W. D Souza, M. Hajlaoui, G. Springholz, K. Uhl r ov, F. Alarab, P. C. Constantinou, V. Strocov, D. Usanov, W. R. Pudelko, R. Gonzlez-Hernndez, A. Birk Hellenes, Z. Jansa, H. Reichlov, Z. ob n , R. D. Gonzalez Betancourt, P. Wadley, J. Sinova, D. Krie...

    2024

  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]

    Jiang, M

    B. Jiang, M. Hu, J. Bai, Z. Song, C. Mu, G. Qu, W. Li, W. Zhu, H. Pi, Z. Wei, Y. Sun, Y. Huang, X. Zheng, Y. Peng, L. He, S. Li, J. Luo, Z. Li, G. Chen, H. Li, H. Weng, and T. Qian, A metallic room-temperature d-wave altermagnet. Nat. Phys. 21, 754 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Zhang, X

    F. Zhang, X. Cheng, Z. Yin, C. Liu, L. Deng, Y. Qiao, Z. Shi, S. Zhang, J. Lin, Z. Liu, M. Ye, Y. Huang, X. Meng, C. Zhang, T. Okuda, K. Shimada, S. Cui, Y. Zhao, G.-H. Cao, S. Qiao, J. Liu, and C. Chen, Crystal-symmetry-paired spin--valley locking in a layered room-temperatur...

    2025

  14. [22]

    I. I. Mazin, Notes on altermagnetism and superconductivity, AAPPS Bull. 35, 8 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    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

  16. [24]

    J. A. Ouassou, A. Brataas, and J. Linder, dc Josephson effect in altermagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 076003 (2023)

    2023

  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]

    C. Sun, A. Brataas, and J. Linder, Andreev reflection in altermagnets, Phys. Rev. B 108, 054511 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    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

  20. [28]

    Brekke, A

    B. Brekke, A. Brataas, and A. Sudb , Two-dimensional altermagnets: superconductivity in a minimal microscopic model, Phys. Rev. B 108, 224421 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    B. Lu, K. Maeda, H. Ito, K. Yada, and Y. Tanaka, Josephson Junction Induced by Altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 226002 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    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

  23. [31]

    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

  24. [32]

    Mland, B

    A. Mland, B. Brekke, and A. Sudb , Many-body effects on superconductivity mediated by double-magnon processes in altermagnets, Phys. Rev. B 109, 134515 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    A. Bose, S. Vadnais, and A. Paramekanti, Altermagnetism and superconductivity in a multiorbital t-J model, Phys. Rev. B 110, 205120 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

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

    2024

  27. [35]

    Chakraborty and A

    D. Chakraborty and A. M. Black-Schaffer, Perfect superconducting diode effect in altermagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 026001 (2025)

    2025

  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]

    Sim and J

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

    2025

  30. [38]

    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

  31. [39]

    Fukaya, K

    Y. Fukaya, K. Maeda, K. Yada, J. Cayao, Y. Tanaka, and B. Lu, Josephson effect and odd-frequency pairing in superconducting junctions with unconventional magnets, Phys. Rev. B 111, 064502 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Sumita, M

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

    2025

  33. [41]

    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

  34. [42]

    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

  35. [43]

    Hu and X.-J

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

    2025

  36. [44]

    Z. Liu, H. Hu, and X.-J. Liu, Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov states and topological Bogoliubov Fermi surfaces in altermagnets: an analytical study, Phys. Rev. B 113, 024518 (2026)

    2026

  37. [45]

    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

  38. [46]

    P.-H. Fu, S. Mondal, J.-F. Liu, Y. Tanaka, and J. Cayao, Floquet Engineering Spin Triplet States in Unconventional Magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 066703 (2026)

    2026

  39. [47]

    Liu and H

    X.-J. Liu and H. Hu, Altermagnetism-driven FFLO superconductivity in finite-filling 2D lattices, arXiv:2601.06735

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    H. Hu, Z. Liu, J. Wang, and X.-J. Liu, Finite-momentum bound pairs of two electrons in an altermagnetic metal, arXiv:2601.12905

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    Monkman, J

    K. Monkman, J. Weng, N. Heinsdorf, A. Nocera, and M. Franz, Persistent spin currents in superconducting altermagnets, arXiv:2507.22139

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    Fulde and R

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

    1964

  43. [51]

    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

  44. [52]

    Casalbuoni and G

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

    2004

  45. [53]

    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

  46. [54]

    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

  47. [55]

    X.-J. Liu, H. Hu, and P. D. Drummond, Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov states in one-dimensional spin-polarized ultracold atomic Fermi gases, Phys. Rev. A 76, 043605 (2007)

    2007

  48. [56]

    Radzihovsky and D

    L. Radzihovsky and D. E. Sheehy, Imbalanced Feshbach-resonant Fermi gases, Rep. Prog. Phys. 73, 076501 (2010)

    2010

  49. [57]

    K. B. Gubbels and H. T. C. Stoof, Imbalanced Fermi gases at unitarity, Phys. Rep. 525, 255 (2013)

    2013

  50. [58]

    Liu and H Hu, Inhomogeneous Fulde-Ferrell superfluidity in spin-orbit-coupled atomic Fermi gases, Phys

    X.-J. Liu and H Hu, Inhomogeneous Fulde-Ferrell superfluidity in spin-orbit-coupled atomic Fermi gases, Phys. Rev. A 87, 051608(R) (2013)

    2013

  51. [59]

    Cao, S.-H

    Y. Cao, S.-H. Zou, X.-J. Liu, S. Yi, G.-L. Long, and H. Hu, Gapless Topological Fulde-Ferrell Superfluidity in Spin-Orbit Coupled Fermi Gases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 115302 (2014)

    2014

  52. [60]

    D. E. Sheehy, Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov state of two-dimensional imbalanced Fermi gases, Phys. Rev. A 92, 053631 (2015)

    2015

  53. [61]

    J. Wang, Y. Che, L. Zhang, and Q. Chen, Instability of Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov states in atomic Fermi gases in three and two dimensions, Phys. Rev. B 97, 134513 (2018)

    2018

  54. [62]

    Kawamura and Y

    T. Kawamura and Y. Ohashi, Feasibility of a Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov superfluid Fermi atomic gas, Phys. Rev. A 106, 033320 (2022)

    2022

  55. [63]

    Kawamura and Y

    T. Kawamura and Y. Ohashi, Non-equilibrium BCS-BEC crossover and unconventional FFLO superfluid in a strongly interacting driven-dissipative Fermi gas, AAPPS Bull. 34, 31 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    S. Uji, T. Terashima, M. Nishimura, Y. Takahide, T. Konoike, K. Enomoto, H. Cui, H. Kobayashi, A. Kobayashi, H. Tanaka, M. Tokumoto, E. S. Choi, T. Tokumoto, D. Graf, and J. S. Brooks, Vortex Dynamics and the Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov State in a Magnetic-Field-Induced O...

    2006

  57. [65]

    Y.-A. Liao, A. S. C. Rittner, T. Paprotta, W. Li, G. B. Partridge, R. G. Hulet, S. K. Baur, and E. J. Mueller, Nature (London) 467, 567 (2010)

    2010

  58. [66]

    D. Zhao, L. Debbeler, M. Khne, S. Fecher, N. Gross, and J. Smet, Evidence of finite-momentum pairing in a centrosymmetric bilayer, Nature Phys. 19, 1599 (2023)

    2023

  59. [67]

    Soto-Garrido and E

    R. Soto-Garrido and E. Fradkin, Pair-density-wave superconducting states and electronic liquid-crystal phases, Phys. Rev. B 89, 165126 (2014)

    2014

  60. [68]

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

    1960

  61. [69]

    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

  62. [70]

    L. N. Cooper, Bound Electron Pairs in a Degenerate Fermi Gas, Phys. Rev. 104, 1189 (1956)

    1956

  63. [71]

    J. E. Hirsch, Attractive Interaction and Pairing in Fermion Systems with Strong On-Site Repulsion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 1317 (1985)

    1985

  64. [72]

    D. J. Scalapino, E. Loh, Jr., and J. E. Hirsch, d -wave pairing near a spin-density-wave instability, Phys. Rev. B 34, 8190(R) (1986)

    1986

  65. [73]

    G. D. Mahan, Many-Particle Physics, 3rd ed. (Springer, New York, 2000)

    2000

  66. [74]

    Ohashi and H

    Y. Ohashi and H. Shiba, Pairing and Depairing Effects of Antiferromagnetic Spin Fluctuations in High-Tc Superconductivity, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 62, 2783 (1993)

    1993

  67. [75]

    A. T. Rmer, A. Kreisel, I. Eremin, M. A. Malakhov, T. A. Maier, P. J. Hirschfeld, and B. M. Andersen, Pairing symmetry of the one-band Hubbard model in the paramagnetic weak-coupling limit: A numerical RPA study, Phys. Rev. B 92, 104505 (2015)

    2015

  68. [76]

    Y.-M. Wu, Y. Wang, and R. M. Fernandes, Intra-unit-cell singlet pairing mediated by altermagnetic fluctuations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 156001 (2025)

    2025

  69. [77]

    Parthenios, P

    N. Parthenios, P. M. Bonetti, R. Gonzlez-Hernndez, W. H. Campos, L. mejkal, and L. Classen, Spin and pair density waves in two-dimensional altermagnetic metals, Phys. Rev. B 112, 214410 (2025)

    2025

  70. [78]

    Kusama and Y

    Y. Kusama and Y. Ohashi, Effect of the BCS supercurrent on the spontaneous surface flow in unconventional superconductivity with broken time-reversal-symmetry, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 68, 987 (1999)

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.