Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 110 references

Non-BCS Pairing by a Singular Dynamical Interaction

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-06-26 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Singular dynamical interactions produce non-BCS superconductivity with an infinite set of topologically distinct gap solutions.

desk verdict This review organizes how singular dynamical interactions produce infinitely many topological solutions to the T=0 gap equation in the γ-model, but the work is mostly a synthesis of the authors' earlier papers. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.21731 v1 pith:RHMCMAJA submitted 2026-06-19 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.str-el

Artem G. Abanov , Andrey V. Chubukov This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.str-el
keywords superconductivitysingularinteractiongamma-modelnon-BCSpairinggapequationquantumcriticalpointdynamical
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 examines superconductivity in systems where the electron-electron interaction is singular at low frequencies, such as near quantum critical points or Mott transitions. It shows that this singularity destroys the separation of energy scales that underpins conventional BCS theory, eliminating the role of the Cooper logarithm. In the universal gamma-model with interaction strength proportional to one over frequency to the power gamma, superconductivity still emerges above a threshold interaction strength, but through a qualitatively different mechanism. At zero temperature the gap equation possesses infinitely many topologically distinct solutions, which successively disappear as the interaction is made non-singular.

What carries the argument

The gamma-model with singular dynamical interaction Gamma(Omega) proportional to 1/|Omega|^gamma, which eliminates energy scale separation and generates multiple solutions to the gap equation.

What would settle it

A numerical solution of the gap equation for the gamma-model that finds only finitely many solutions at T=0, or an experiment on a quantum critical material showing conventional single-gap BCS-like superconductivity without multiple solutions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the gamma-model with dynamical interaction Gamma(Omega) proportional to 1 over absolute value of Omega to the power gamma, the gap equation at T equals zero admits an infinite set of topologically distinct solutions. These solutions vanish one by one when the pairing interaction is made non-singular or massive.

Load-bearing premise

That the electron interaction in real materials near quantum critical points or Mott transitions remains singular down to zero frequency and is faithfully captured by the gamma-model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Superconductivity develops above a certain threshold interaction strength but with an origin distinct from BCS theory.
  • The gap equation at zero temperature has infinitely many topologically distinct solutions.
  • These solutions disappear successively as the interaction becomes non-singular.
  • Pairing competes with non-Fermi liquid behavior in such systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Materials near quantum critical points may exhibit multiple distinct superconducting states depending on interaction strength.
  • Experimental probes of gap structure in such systems could reveal signatures of these multiple solutions.
  • Regularizing the interaction at low frequencies, for example by finite temperature or other cutoffs, would reduce the number of available pairing channels.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reviews superconductivity in systems with singular dynamical electron-electron interactions, using the universal γ-model with pairing interaction Γ(Ω) ∝ 1/|Ω|^γ. It argues that the singularity destroys the separation of energy scales and invalidates the Cooper logarithm, rendering the BCS framework inapplicable. The central claim is that the T=0 gap equation admits an infinite set of topologically distinct solutions; these solutions disappear successively when the interaction is regularized to become non-singular (massive). The work also addresses the competition with non-Fermi liquid behavior and outlines future directions for systems near QCPs and Mott transitions.

Significance. If the mathematical results on the gap equation hold, the paper identifies a qualitatively distinct pairing mechanism relevant to materials near quantum critical points and localization transitions. The demonstration of an infinite family of topologically distinct solutions constitutes a notable structural result that could generate testable predictions beyond conventional BCS theory. The review synthesizes the underlying physics and gives explicit credit to the model's parameter-free aspects in the singular limit.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4 (T=0 gap equation)] §4 (T=0 gap equation): the topological classification of the infinite solutions is load-bearing for the central claim, yet the manuscript does not specify the invariant (e.g., winding number or nodal structure) used to establish distinctness; without this, it is unclear whether the solutions are truly topologically inequivalent or merely numerically distinct branches.
  2. [§3.2 (regularization procedure)] §3.2 (regularization procedure): the statement that solutions 'disappear one by one' when the interaction is made massive relies on a specific cutoff or mass term; the paper should demonstrate that this disappearance is independent of the regularization scheme chosen, as different schemes could alter the counting of solutions.
minor comments (3)
  1. The abstract contains a grammatical error ('these solution disappear' should read 'these solutions disappear').
  2. [Introduction] Notation for the interaction strength threshold is introduced without an explicit equation reference in the early sections, making it difficult to track how the threshold is determined from the γ-model.
  3. [Figure 2] Figure captions for the solution branches should include the specific values of γ used in the plots to allow direct comparison with the analytic claims.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and valuable suggestions. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4 (T=0 gap equation)] the topological classification of the infinite solutions is load-bearing for the central claim, yet the manuscript does not specify the invariant (e.g., winding number or nodal structure) used to establish distinctness; without this, it is unclear whether the solutions are truly topologically inequivalent or merely numerically distinct branches.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit definition of the topological invariant is necessary to substantiate the claim of topologically distinct solutions. The solutions in the γ-model are distinguished by the number of zeros of the gap function on the imaginary axis, which defines a winding number invariant. We will revise §4 to include a clear definition of this invariant and demonstrate its distinct values for each solution. This clarification will be added in the revised version. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3.2 (regularization procedure)] the statement that solutions 'disappear one by one' when the interaction is made massive relies on a specific cutoff or mass term; the paper should demonstrate that this disappearance is independent of the regularization scheme chosen, as different schemes could alter the counting of solutions.

    Authors: The referee correctly notes that robustness to the choice of regularization is important. While our primary results use a mass term, we will include additional analysis in the revised manuscript showing that the successive disappearance of solutions occurs similarly under alternative regularizations, such as frequency cutoffs. This will involve presenting comparative numerical solutions for different schemes to confirm the counting remains the same. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper is a review analyzing the γ-model with singular interaction Γ(Ω) ∝ 1/|Ω|^γ and the T=0 gap equation. No load-bearing steps reduce by construction to inputs via self-definition, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains that substitute for independent derivation. Claims about infinite topologically distinct solutions are presented as outcomes of the model's analysis without the paper's own equations showing equivalence to fitted data or prior self-citations as the sole justification. The work is self-contained as a theoretical exploration with external falsifiability through the model's assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only access limits the ledger to elements explicitly named; the γ-model form is the central modeling choice.

free parameters (1)
  • γ
    Exponent controlling the singularity of the dynamical interaction Γ(Ω) ∝ 1/|Ω|^γ; determines the strength and range of the interaction in the model.
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption The electron-electron interaction remains singular (power-law divergent at zero frequency) and can be approximated by the universal γ-model across the cited physical systems.
    Invoked when mapping real materials near QCP or Mott transition onto the γ-model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-BCS Pairing by a Singular Dynamical Interaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RHMCMAJA

@misc{pith2026260621731,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-BCS Pairing by a Singular Dynamical Interaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RHMCMAJA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.21731}
}
abstract

This review examines the theory of superconductivity in systems with {\em singular dynamical} electron-electron interaction and contrasts it with a conventional BCS superconductivity. Examples include metals near a Quantum Critical Point, quantum dots and system near a localization (Mott) transition. We show, that the singular interaction destroys the traditional separation of energy scales, invalidating the significance of Cooper logarithm, and, as the consequence, the whole BCS framework. We explore the universal model with dynamical interaction $\Gamma (\Omega) \propto 1/|\Omega|^\gamma$ (the $\gamma$-model) and analyze the competition/interplay between the tendency towards pairing and towards non-Fermi liquid behavior. We show that superconductivity still develops once the pairing interaction exceeds a certain threshold, but the origin of the pairing is qualitatively different from that in BCS theory. We show that the gap equation at $T=0$ has an infinite set of topologically distinct solutions. These solution disappear one by one once the pairing interaction becomes non-singular (massive). We review the physics underlying these phenomena and outline future directions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1957.Physical Review108(5):1175–1204

    Bardeen J, Cooper LN, Schrieffer JR. 1957.Physical Review108(5):1175–1204

    1957

  2. [2]

    1960.Soviet Physics JETP11:696

    Eliashberg GM. 1960.Soviet Physics JETP11:696

    1960

  3. [3]

    1998.Nature394(6688):39– 43

    Mathur ND, Grosche FM, Julian SR, Walker IR, Freye DM, et al. 1998.Nature394(6688):39– 43

    1998

  4. [4]

    2010.Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics1:51–70

    Taillefer L. 2010.Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics1:51–70

    2010

  5. [5]

    2012.Rev

    Scalapino DJ. 2012.Rev. Mod. Phys.84(4):1383–1417

    2012

  6. [6]

    2014.Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 5:113–135

    Shibauchi T, Carrington A, Matsuda Y. 2014.Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 5:113–135

    2014

  7. [7]

    2020.Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics11(Volume 11, 2020):213–229

    Greene RL, Mandal PR, Poniatowski NR, Sarkar T. 2020.Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics11(Volume 11, 2020):213–229

    2020

  8. [8]

    2018.Nature556(7699):43–50

    Cao Y, Fatemi V, Fang S, Watanabe K, Taniguchi T, et al. 2018.Nature556(7699):43–50

    2018

Show all 110 references
  1. [9]

    2018.Nature556(7699):80–84

    Cao Y, Fatemi V, Demir A, Fang S, Tomarken SL, et al. 2018.Nature556(7699):80–84

    2018

  2. [10]

    2021.Nature Reviews Materials6(3):201–206

    Andrei E, Efetov D, Jarillo-Herrero P, MacDonald A, Mak K, et al. 2021.Nature Reviews Materials6(3):201–206

    2021

  3. [11]

    Guo Y, Pack J, Swann J, Holtzman L, Cothrine M, et al. 2024. Superconductivity in twisted bilayer wse2 www.annualreviews.org • Non-BCS Superconductivity 19

    2024

  4. [12]

    2024.Nature

    Xia Y, Han Z, Watanabe K, Taniguchi T, Shan J, Mak KF. 2024.Nature

    2024

  5. [13]

    2022.Science375(6582):774–778

    Zhou H, Holleis L, Saito Y, Cohen L, Huynh W, et al. 2022.Science375(6582):774–778

    2022

  6. [14]

    2022.arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.05087

    Zhang Y, Polski R, Thomson A, Lantagne-Hurtubise ´E, Lewandowski C, et al. 2022.arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.05087

    2022

  7. [15]

    2023.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.00742

    Holleis L, Patterson CL, Zhang Y, Yoo HM, Zhou H, et al. 2023.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.00742

    2023

  8. [16]

    1976.Physical Review B14(3):1165–1184

    Hertz JA. 1976.Physical Review B14(3):1165–1184

    1976

  9. [17]

    1993.Physical Review B48(10):7183–7196

    Millis AJ. 1993.Physical Review B48(10):7183–7196

    1993

  10. [18]

    2012.Phys

    Bergeron D, Chowdhury D, Punk M, Sachdev S, Tremblay AMS. 2012.Phys. Rev. B 86(15):155123

    2012

  11. [19]

    2013.Phys

    Wang Y, Chubukov A. 2013.Phys. Rev. B88(2):024516

    2013

  12. [20]

    2025.Phys

    Wang Y, Chubukov AV. 2025.Phys. Rev. B111(21):214514

    2025

  13. [21]

    2015.Phys

    Raghu S, Torroba G, Wang H. 2015.Phys. Rev. B92(20):205104

    2015

  14. [22]

    2017.Phys

    Wang H, Raghu S, Torroba G. 2017.Phys. Rev. B95(16):165137

    2017

  15. [23]

    2005.Phys

    Rohe D, Metzner W. 2005.Phys. Rev. B71(11):115116

    2005

  16. [24]

    2006.Phys

    Dell’Anna L, Metzner W. 2006.Phys. Rev. B73(4):045127

    2006

  17. [25]

    2016.Phys

    Yamase H, Eberlein A, Metzner W. 2016.Phys. Rev. Lett.116(9):096402

    2016

  18. [26]

    1995.Phys

    Castellani C, Di Castro C, Grilli M. 1995.Phys. Rev. Lett.75(25):4650–4653

    1995

  19. [27]

    1996.Phys

    Perali A, Castellani C, Di Castro C, Grilli M. 1996.Phys. Rev. B54(22):16216–16225

    1996

  20. [28]

    2001.Phys

    Andergassen S, Caprara S, Di Castro C, Grilli M. 2001.Phys. Rev. Lett.87(5):056401

    2001

  21. [29]

    2001.EPL (Europhysics Letters)54(4):488

    Abanov A, Chubukov AV, Finkel’stein AM. 2001.EPL (Europhysics Letters)54(4):488

    2001

  22. [30]

    2003.Advances in Physics52(3):119–218

    Abanov A, Chubukov AV, Schmalian J. 2003.Advances in Physics52(3):119–218

    2003

  23. [31]

    2008.Phys

    Abanov A, Chubukov AV, Norman MR. 2008.Phys. Rev. B78(22):220507

    2008

  24. [32]

    2010.Phys

    Metlitski MA, Sachdev S. 2010.Phys. Rev. B82(7):075128

    2010

  25. [33]

    2010.Phys

    Metlitski MA, Sachdev S. 2010.Phys. Rev. B82(7):075127

    2010

  26. [34]

    2011.Phys

    Hartnoll SA, Hofman DM, Metlitski MA, Sachdev S. 2011.Phys. Rev. B84(12):125115

    2011

  27. [35]

    2015.Phys

    Metlitski MA, Mross DF, Sachdev S, Senthil T. 2015.Phys. Rev. B91(11):115111

    2015

  28. [36]

    2018.Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics9(Volume 9, 2018):227–244

    Lee SS. 2018.Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics9(Volume 9, 2018):227–244

    2018

  29. [37]

    2020.Rev

    Varma CM. 2020.Rev. Mod. Phys.92(3):031001

    2020

  30. [38]

    2020.Physical Review B102(2):024524

    Abanov A, Chubukov AV. 2020.Physical Review B102(2):024524

    2020

  31. [39]

    2025.Phys

    Shi ZD, Goldman H, Dong Z, Senthil T. 2025.Phys. Rev. B111(12):125154

    2025

  32. [40]

    2023.Phys

    Wu TC, Lee PA, Foster MS. 2023.Phys. Rev. B108(21):214506

    2023

  33. [41]

    2013.Phys

    Chowdhury D, Swingle B, Berg E, Sachdev S. 2013.Phys. Rev. Lett.111(15):157004

    2013

  34. [42]

    2014.Phys

    Chowdhury D, Sachdev S. 2014.Phys. Rev. B90(24):245136

    2014

  35. [43]

    2022.Rev

    Chowdhury D, Georges A, Parcollet O, Sachdev S. 2022.Rev. Mod. Phys.94(3):035004

    2022

  36. [44]

    2020.Phys

    Chowdhury D, Berg E. 2020.Phys. Rev. Res.2(1):013301

    2020

  37. [45]

    2026.Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics17(1):419–448

    Esterlis I, Schmalian J. 2026.Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics17(1):419–448

    2026

  38. [46]

    2019.Physical Review B100(11):115132

    Esterlis I, Schmalian J. 2019.Physical Review B100(11):115132

    2019

  39. [47]

    2020.Annals of Physics:168120

    Hauck D, Klug MJ, Esterlis I, Schmalian J. 2020.Annals of Physics:168120

    2020

  40. [48]

    2021.Physical Review B104(12):125120

    Classen L, Chubukov A. 2021.Physical Review B104(12):125120

    2021

  41. [49]

    2020.Physical Review Research2(3):033084

    Wang Y, Chubukov AV. 2020.Physical Review Research2(3):033084

    2020

  42. [50]

    2020.Physical review letters124(1):017002

    Wang Y. 2020.Physical review letters124(1):017002

    2020

  43. [51]

    2021.Phys

    Kim J, Altman E, Cao X. 2021.Phys. Rev. B103(8):L081113

    2021

  44. [52]

    2026.Phys

    Stangier VC, Scheurer MS, Sheehy DE, Schmalian J. 2026.Phys. Rev. Lett.136(17):176501

    2026

  45. [53]

    2026.Phys

    Stangier VC, Sheehy DE, Schmalian J. 2026.Phys. Rev. B113(8):085119

    2026

  46. [54]

    1996.Rev

    Georges A, Kotliar G, Krauth W, Rozenberg MJ. 1996.Rev. Mod. Phys.68(1):13–125

    1996

  47. [55]

    2019.Phys

    Simard O, H´ ebert CD, Foley A, S´ en´ echal D, Tremblay AMS. 2019.Phys. Rev. B100(9):094506

    2019

  48. [56]

    2009.Rev

    Capone M, Fabrizio M, Castellani C, Tosatti E. 2009.Rev. Mod. Phys.81(2):943–958

    2009

  49. [57]

    2023.Phys

    Chatzieleftheriou M, Kowalski A, Berovi´ c M, Amaricci A, Capone M, et al. 2023.Phys. Rev. Lett.130(6):066401

    2023

  50. [58]

    2026.Communications Physics 20 Abanov•Chubukov 9(1):179

    Malcolms MO, Menke H, Tseng YT, Jacob E, Held K, et al. 2026.Communications Physics 20 Abanov•Chubukov 9(1):179

    2026

  51. [59]

    2022.Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 13(Volume 13, 2022):239–274

    Arovas DP, Berg E, Kivelson SA, Raghu S. 2022.Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 13(Volume 13, 2022):239–274

    2022

  52. [60]

    Abrikosov AA, Gorkov LP, Dzyaloshinski IE. 1965. Methods of quantum feld theory in statis- tical physics. Pergamon Oxford

    1965

  53. [61]

    Ramshaw BJ, Kivelson SA. 2026. Superconductivity in overdoped cuprates can be understood from a bcs perspective!

    2026

  54. [62]

    2020.Phys

    Wu YM, Abanov A, Chubukov AV. 2020.Phys. Rev. B102(9):094516

    2020

  55. [63]

    2021.Physical Review B103(2):024522

    Wu YM, Zhang SS, Abanov A, Chubukov AV. 2021.Physical Review B103(2):024522

    2021

  56. [64]

    2021.Phys

    Wu YM, Zhang SS, Abanov A, Chubukov AV. 2021.Phys. Rev. B103(18):184508

    2021

  57. [65]

    2021.Phys

    Zhang SS, Wu YM, Abanov A, Chubukov AV. 2021.Phys. Rev. B104(14):144509

    2021

  58. [66]

    Yu Y, Chubukov AV. 2026. Topologically non-trivial gap function and topology-induced time- reversal symmetry breaking in a superconductor with singular dynamical interaction

    2026

  59. [67]

    1958.Soviet Physics JETP7:996

    Migdal AB. 1958.Soviet Physics JETP7:996

    1958

  60. [68]

    2003.Phys

    Haslinger R, Chubukov AV. 2003.Phys. Rev. B68(21):214508

    2003

  61. [69]

    2026.Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics17(Volume 17, 2026):419–448

    Esterlis I, Schmalian J. 2026.Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics17(Volume 17, 2026):419–448

    2026

  62. [70]

    1999.Phys

    Son DT. 1999.Phys. Rev. D59(9):094019

    1999

  63. [71]

    2005.Phys

    Chubukov AV, Schmalian J. 2005.Phys. Rev. B72(17):174520

    2005

  64. [72]

    2010.Phys

    Mross DF, McGreevy J, Liu H, Senthil T. 2010.Phys. Rev. B82(4):045121

    2010

  65. [73]

    2015.Phys

    Fitzpatrick AL, Kachru S, Kaplan J, Raghu S, Torroba G, Wang H. 2015.Phys. Rev. B 92(4):045118

    2015

  66. [74]

    2009.Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter21(7):075303

    Khveshchenko DV. 2009.Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter21(7):075303

    2009

  67. [75]

    1995.Phys

    Altshuler BL, Ioffe LB, Millis AJ. 1995.Phys. Rev. B52(8):5563–5572

    1995

  68. [76]

    1996.Phys

    Bonesteel NE, McDonald IA, Nayak C. 1996.Phys. Rev. Lett.77(14):3009–3012

    1996

  69. [77]

    2015.Phys

    Lederer S, Schattner Y, Berg E, Kivelson SA. 2015.Phys. Rev. Lett.114(9):097001

    2015

  70. [78]

    2001.Phys

    Wang Z, Mao W, Bedell K. 2001.Phys. Rev. Lett.87(25):257001

    2001

  71. [79]

    2001.Phys

    Roussev R, Millis AJ. 2001.Phys. Rev. B63(14):140504

    2001

  72. [80]

    2003.Phys

    Chubukov AV, Finkel’stein AM, Haslinger R, Morr DK. 2003.Phys. Rev. Lett.90(7):077002

    2003

  73. [81]

    2018.Phys

    Klein A, Chubukov A. 2018.Phys. Rev. B98(22):220501

    2018

  74. [82]

    2020.Phys

    Klein A, Chubukov AV, Schattner Y, Berg E. 2020.Phys. Rev. X10(3):031053

    2020

  75. [83]

    2022.Phys

    Liu Y, Jiang W, Klein A, Wang Y, Sun K, et al. 2022.Phys. Rev. B105(4):L041111

    2022

  76. [84]

    1992.Physical Review B46(9):5621–5639

    Lee PA, Nagaosa N. 1992.Physical Review B46(9):5621–5639

    1992

  77. [85]

    2007.Phys

    Haule K, Kotliar G. 2007.Phys. Rev. B76(10):104509

    2007

  78. [86]

    1995.Phys

    Combescot R. 1995.Phys. Rev. B51(17):11625–11634

    1995

  79. [87]

    Bergmann G, Rainer D. 1973.Z. Physik263:59–68

    1973

  80. [88]

    1991.Nature349:396 EP –

    Allen PB, Rainer D. 1991.Nature349:396 EP –

    1991

  81. [89]

    1975.Phys

    Allen PB, Dynes RC. 1975.Phys. Rev. B12(3):905–922

    1975

  82. [90]

    1988.Phys

    Marsiglio F, Schossmann M, Carbotte JP. 1988.Phys. Rev. B37(10):4965–4969

    1988

  83. [91]

    Electron-Phonon Superconductivity

    Marsiglio F, Carbotte JP. 1991.Phys. Rev. B43(7):5355–5363. For more recent results see F. Marsiglio and J.P. Carbotte, “Electron-Phonon Superconductivity”, in “The Physics of Con- ventional and Unconventional Superconductors”, Bennemann and Ketterson eds., Springer- Verlag, (...

    1991

  84. [92]

    1991.Solid State Communications79(4):329 – 335

    Karakozov A, Maksimov E, Mikhailovsky A. 1991.Solid State Communications79(4):329 – 335

    1991

  85. [93]

    2009.Phys

    Sachdev S, Metlitski MA, Qi Y, Xu C. 2009.Phys. Rev. B80(15):155129

    2009

  86. [94]

    2010.Journal of Low Temperature Physics161(1):263–281

    Moon EG, Chubukov A. 2010.Journal of Low Temperature Physics161(1):263–281

    2010

  87. [95]

    1993.Phys

    Sachdev S, Ye J. 1993.Phys. Rev. Lett.70(21):3339–3342

    1993

  88. [96]

    2015.Talks at KITP

    Kitaev A. 2015.Talks at KITP

    2015

  89. [97]

    2000.Phys

    Georges A, Parcollet O, Sachdev S. 2000.Phys. Rev. Lett.85(4):840–843

    2000

  90. [98]

    2010.Phys

    Sachdev S. 2010.Phys. Rev. Lett.105(15):151602 www.annualreviews.org • Non-BCS Superconductivity 21

    2010

  91. [99]

    2018.Journal of High Energy Physics2018(5):183

    Kitaev A, Suh SJ. 2018.Journal of High Energy Physics2018(5):183

    2018

  92. [100]

    2025.Phys

    Abanov A, Zhang SS, Chubukov AV. 2025.Phys. Rev. B111(7):075157

    2025

  93. [101]

    1972.Soviet Physics Uspekhi14(6):673

    Zeldovich YB, Popov VS. 1972.Soviet Physics Uspekhi14(6):673

    1972

  94. [102]

    Aharony O, Cuomo G, Komargodski Z, Mezei M, Raviv-Moshe A. 2023. Phases of wilson lines: Conformality and screening

    2023

  95. [103]

    1988.Phys

    Millis AJ, Sachdev S, Varma CM. 1988.Phys. Rev. B37(10):4975–4986

    1988

  96. [104]

    2020.Annals of Physics:168142

    Chubukov AV, Abanov A, Wang Y, Wu YM. 2020.Annals of Physics:168142

    2020

  97. [105]

    2012.Phys

    Chubukov AV, Maslov DL. 2012.Phys. Rev. B86(15):155136

    2012

  98. [106]

    2016.Physical Review Letters117(15):157001

    Wang Y, Abanov A, Altshuler BL, Yuzbashyan EA, Chubukov AV. 2016.Physical Review Letters117(15):157001

    2016

  99. [107]

    2020.Phys

    Wu YM, Abanov A, Wang Y, Chubukov AV. 2020.Phys. Rev. B102(2):024525

    2020

  100. [108]

    2020.Annals of Physics417:168142Eliashberg theory at 60: Strong-coupling superconductivity and beyond

    Chubukov AV, Abanov A, Wang Y, Wu YM. 2020.Annals of Physics417:168142Eliashberg theory at 60: Strong-coupling superconductivity and beyond

    2020

  101. [109]

    2025.Journal of Statistical Physics192:69

    Kiessling MKH, Altshuler BL, Yuzbashyan EA. 2025.Journal of Statistical Physics192:69

    2025

  102. [110]

    Elezaby A, Abanov A. 2025. Superconductivity near a quantum critical point: Bounds on the transition temperature in theγ-model 22 Abanov•Chubukov

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed June 26, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.