Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 79 references

The density-wave magnetism of the bilayer nickelate La3Ni2O7 arises from the same orbital-selective correlations that make its normal state a bad metal, with a spin model combining RKKY and superexchange producing order near Q=(π/2,π/2) and

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

2026-08-01 23:48 UTC pith:4WOHHX2H

load-bearing objection New synthesis for nickelate magnetism — local moments plus RKKY — but the quantitative wavevector depends on an unquantified q-independent j_xz. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15228 v1 pith:4WOHHX2H submitted 2026-07-16 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-el

Magnetic Order in bilayer Ruddlesden-Popper Nickelates

Yiming Wang , Guijing Duan , Zhiguang Liao , Kuan-Sen Lin , Rong Yu , Qimiao Si This is my paper
classification cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-el
keywords bilayer nickelateLa3Ni2O7orbital selectivityRKKY interactionsuperexchangespin wavesdensity-wave orderunconventional superconductivity
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.

The paper argues that the magnetic order observed in La3Ni2O7 below about 150 K is neither a weak-coupling Fermi-surface nesting effect nor purely localized superexchange, but a consequence of orbital-selective correlations: the d_z2 electrons are largely incoherent and form effective local moments, while the d_x2-y2 electrons remain coherent and mediate RKKY interactions between those moments. Together with short-range superexchange, these couplings stabilize an antiferromagnetic state with ordering wavevector close to (π/2,π/2), matching neutron and resonant X-ray scattering experiments. The calculated spin-wave spectrum contains a low-energy acoustic branch that softens at the ordering vector and a higher-energy optical branch, with a total bandwidth of about 80 meV, consistent with RIXS measurements. If correct, the magnetism and the bad-metal normal state share one origin, and the same exchange interactions that produce the order are candidates for mediating the high-temperature superconductivity.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, in the orbital-selective bad-metal regime the low-energy spin degrees of freedom are effective local moments residing mostly on the d_z2 orbitals, with incoherent spectral weight 1−Z_z. Coherent d_x2−y2 quasiparticles with weight Z_x couple to these moments through an interorbital exchange j_xz, and integrating them out produces an RKKY interaction J^r = −j_xz² Re χ, while the incoherent sector contributes superexchange J^s. The resulting J⊥-J1-J3 bilayer square-lattice model has a third-nearest-neighbor RKKY coupling J3 that dominates J1 for U up to about 6 eV and peaks near U = 4 eV, which drives the ordering wavevector toward (π/2,π/2). Spin-wave calculations at

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective spin Hamiltonian H_spin = Σ (J^s + J^r) S_i·S_j, where J^s is the superexchange among incoherent d_z2-derived local moments (≈4(1−Z_z)² t²/U) and J^r is the RKKY interaction J^r(q) = −j_xz²(q) Re χ(q) mediated by coherent d_x2−y2 quasiparticles. The key quantity is the momentum-dependent static susceptibility χ(q) of the renormalized d_x2−y2 band, whose odd-channel peak near (0.6π,0.6π) and growing J3/J1 ratio with U select the ordering wavevector. The paper frames this as a conceptually new route: local moments plus RKKY and superexchange in an orbital-selective bad metal, rather than either pure itinerant nesting or pure localized-moment superexchange.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes a clean split: all mobile carriers live in the x²−y² orbital and all local moments in the z² orbital, and that the coupling between them does not depend on momentum; the predicted ordering wavevector depends on both assumptions.

What would settle it

Measure the ordering wavevector and full spin-wave dispersion as a function of pressure or doping: the model predicts Q shifts continuously with the J3/J1 ratio set by orbital-selective weights, whereas Fermi-surface nesting scenarios would pin Q to the nesting vector. Alternatively, compute or measure the momentum dependence of the interorbital coupling j_xz(q); if it varies strongly across the Brillouin zone, the RKKY Fourier transform and the predicted dominance of J3 would change.

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

If this is right

  • The density-wave order and the bad-metal normal state have a common origin in orbital-selective correlations, so a single framework can describe both the transport and the magnetism.
  • The calculated spin-wave spectrum, with an acoustic branch softening near (π/2,π/2) and an ~80 meV overall bandwidth, can be directly compared with inelastic neutron and RIXS measurements to test the model.
  • The extracted exchange couplings (J⊥ = 75 meV, J1 = 1.9 meV, J3 = 4.6 meV, J′1 = 1.38 meV at U = 4 eV) provide input for superconductivity calculations, since the same short-range exchanges can mediate pairing.
  • Tuning pressure or doping moves the system across the itinerant-localized crossover, weakening long-range magnetic order and allowing the same electrons to develop superconducting pairing.
  • Symmetry dictates an associated charge order, though the paper leaves a systematic study of that charge order for future work.
  • If the framework is correct, the low-energy magnetic fluctuations near Q are the most promising route toward the high-temperature superconductivity in this system.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: If the coupling j_xz(q) turns out to have significant momentum dependence, the RKKY couplings J1 and J3 would be modified and the ordering wavevector could shift; computing this q-dependence from microscopic models would provide a sharp test of the framework.
  • Editorial inference: The same mechanism may apply to other multiorbital bad metals near an orbital-selective Mott transition, predicting a similar coexistence of local-moment magnetism and itinerant carriers in related Ruddlesden-Popper nickelates.
  • Editorial inference: The model predicts a specific pressure and doping dependence of the ordering wavevector and spin-wave bandwidth, which could distinguish it from weak-coupling nesting scenarios in future experiments.
  • Editorial inference: The softening of the acoustic spin-wave mode near Q suggests that any superconductivity mediated by these fluctuations would have a pairing symmetry tied to momentum transfers near (π/2,π/2); a direct calculation of the pairing gap from this spin model would make the connection testable.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a theory of the density-wave magnetism in bilayer nickelate La3Ni2O7, rooted in the orbital-selective correlations of the normal state. The authors decompose the low-energy electronic problem into an incoherent dz2-derived local-moment sector and a coherent dx2-y2 quasiparticle sector, and derive an effective spin Hamiltonian with superexchange (dominant interlayer J⊥) and RKKY (dominant intralayer J1, J3) couplings. Using slave-spin renormalized bands to compute the dx2-y2 susceptibility, they find that the RKKY couplings yield J3/J1 > 1 over a broad range of U, and variational/Luttinger-Tisza analysis gives an antiferromagnetic ground state with in-plane ordering wavevector near Q=(π/2,π/2). Linear spin-wave theory around this state produces a two-branch spectrum with an acoustic mode softening at Q and an overall bandwidth of roughly 80 meV, which they compare to RIXS and neutron scattering data. The central claim is that the magnetism is a direct consequence of the same orbital-selective bad-metal correlations that define the normal state.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a conceptually valuable contribution: it connects the normal-state orbital-selective correlations to the magnetic order in a way that goes beyond both weak-coupling nesting and purely localized superexchange pictures, and it offers a framework that could be extended to the pairing mechanism. The paper has notable strengths: the calculation chain is complete and explicitly stated; the model parameters are listed; and no experimental magnetic input is used to set parameters, with comparison to experiments done post hoc in the correct direction. The qualitative targets — a wavevector near (π/2,π/2) and an ~80 meV spin excitation scale — are robust to at least the overall scale of the interorbital coupling j_xz. The main risk is that the ordering wavevector, which is the load-bearing part of the claim, depends on several unquantified approximations in the RKKY derivation, most importantly the q-independence of j_xz(q) and the exclusive orbital-to-sector assignment. These need to be tested quantitatively before the claim can be considered established.

major comments (3)
  1. [SM Eq. (S11) and text after Eq. (S14)] The central wavevector claim rests on the ratio J3/J1, which is obtained from J^r_ll'(R) = -Σ_q e^{iq·R} [j_xz_ll'(q)]^2 Re χ_ll'(q). The paper sets |j_xz_ll'(q)| ≈ j_xz = 1 eV, 'neglecting its slow q dependence, given that it is dominant by the Hund's rule coupling.' However, H_xz in Eq. (S9) explicitly contains inter-site hybridization in addition to the onsite Hund's coupling; the inter-site contribution is not q-independent and its magnitude is never given. A constant j_xz cancels in the ratio J3/J1, but any q-dependence does not cancel and can reweight the susceptibility maximum, directly shifting the frustration ratio that fixes Q. The authors themselves note that χ(q)'s peak is 'somewhat sensitive to the details in the tight-binding parameterization.' I ask for a concrete sensitivity test: introduce a plausible q-dependent j_xz(q), e.g., j_xz(q)=j0(1+δ cos q_x)(1+δ cos q_y) with δ
  2. [Main text, 'Models and Conventions'; SM Eq. (S2)-(S3)] The framework assumes that 'the coherent part is attributed solely to the dx2-y2 orbital with quasiparticle weight Z_x, and the incoherent part to the dz2 orbital with weight 1−Z_z.' This exclusive assignment is not quantified: the paper never reports the actual values of Z_x and Z_z at U=4 eV from the slave-spin calculation. If Z_z is not very small, the coherent dz2 quasiparticles also contribute to the susceptibility and to the RKKY channel, altering both J1 and J3. Conversely, if dx2-y2 has substantial incoherent weight, those electrons also form local moments and contribute to the superexchange channel. Both effects can change J3/J1 and hence Q. The assertion that 'the results will qualitatively apply over a wider parameter regime' is not demonstrated. Please report Z_x(U), Z_z(U) and test the stability of the resulting spin model under a mild relaxation of the exclusive sector assi
  3. [Main text, 'Magnetic order and excitations' and Fig. 3] The physical results are quoted at U=4.0 eV, where J3/J1 is near its maximum (Fig. 2(b)). The paper does not establish that U≈4 eV is the appropriate value for La3Ni2O7, nor does it show that the qualitative conclusions are stable for the physically relevant U. The ordering wavevector varies with U (Fig. 3): at U=0 it is q≈0.56π, and only at larger U does it approach (π/2,π/2). If U=4 eV is chosen because it maximizes J3/J1 and gives the best agreement with experiment, the comparison is weakened. Please connect the U window to independent constraints from the slave-spin description of spectroscopic data (e.g., quasiparticle weights or optical conductivity from Ref. [49]), and show that the wavevector and bandwidth remain within experimental uncertainty for a range of U around the physical value.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] Refs. [55] and [73] are the same publication (X. Chen et al., Nat. Commun. 15, 9597 (2024)). They should be consolidated. Also, Ref. [74] is cited as 'unpublished' and is used to support a statement in the Discussion; please update or remove, as unpublished references cannot be checked.
  2. [Introduction] There are typographical errors: 'supercondcutors' should be 'superconductors'; 'in the bilayer nickelates' appears in the Introduction while 'nickelate' is used elsewhere. Please proofread.
  3. [Main text, 'Magnetic order and excitations'] The spin model is called a 'J⊥-J1-J3 model' but the calculation also includes J1' (interlayer RKKY) with value 1.38 meV. This is fine, but the name of the model is slightly misleading; state explicitly that J1' is included.
  4. [SM, after Eq. (S14)] The text says J3/J1 'increases significantly with growing U' and 'reaching its largest values near U∼4 eV.' From Fig. S1, the ratio appears to peak and then decrease; please rephrase to indicate a non-monotonic dependence.
  5. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption says 'Intensity-weighted spin-wave spectrum along (π/4, π/2)–(3π/4, π/2)' but the main text describes the path as '(π/4, π/4)–(3π/4, 3π/4)' in the two-Ni Brillouin zone. Please ensure the momentum notation is consistent and define which zone is used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular reduction: magnetic order and spin waves are computed from normal-state-derived inputs; minor self-citation chain for the input model but no target quantity is fitted.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) construct a bilayer two-orbital Hubbard model with tight-binding parameters and slave-spin quasiparticle weights taken from the authors' prior normal-state work (Ref. 49), constrained by ARPES/optics rather than by magnetism; (ii) split into coherent d_x2-y2 and incoherent d_z2 sectors; (iii) compute the d_x2-y2 susceptibility and obtain RKKY couplings via SM Eq. (S11); (iv) add superexchange and minimize the classical spin model; (v) compute spin waves. No experimental magnetic datum is used to set any parameter; the magnetic data enter only as post-hoc comparison. The output wavevector is inherited from the peak of the input susceptibility, but that is a legitimate derivation, not a fit. The main caveats are: the q-independence of j_xz ('neglecting its slow q dependence') is an unquantified approximation that controls the J3/J1 ratio and hence Q; the RKKY construction is cited to an unpublished same-author work (Ref. 69); and the claim that results 'qualitatively apply over a wider parameter regime' is not demonstrated. These are robustness/missing-support issues, not circular reductions. Therefore no circular step is identified, and the score is 2 for the self-citation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 8 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central calculation rests on two hand-set numbers (j_xz=1 eV, U=4 eV), on the authors' own slave-spin/tight-binding pipeline (Refs 13,49,50), on the superexchange formula of Ref 68, and on the RKKY construction of unpublished Ref 69. No new microscopic entities are introduced beyond the effective local moments themselves. The experimental magnetic data enter only as post-hoc comparison, not as fitting input.

free parameters (2)
  • Interorbital exchange coupling j_xz = 1 eV
    Set by hand: 'taking |j^xz_ll′(q)| ≈ j_xz = 1 eV (neglecting its slow q dependence)'. Fixes the overall scale of all RKKY couplings J₁, J₃, J′₁; no sensitivity analysis; not derived from the Hund's coupling J_H.
  • Interaction strength U = 4 eV
    Presented as the physical point; coincides with the peak of J₃/J₁ (Figs 2b, S1) where the predicted wavevector (0.508π) is closest to the experimental (π/2,π/2). A selection that maximizes agreement, though 4 eV is also the plausible nickelate correlation scale.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Slave-spin mean-field theory yields reliable orbital-selective quasiparticle weights and the global phase diagram (bad metal near OSMP).
    The quasiparticle weights Z_α(U), the renormalized tight-binding Hamiltonian (SM Eq S2), and the global phase diagram (Fig 1a) are taken from the authors' own Ref 49, which uses the slave-spin mean-field method of Refs 66-67; mean-field approximation, with no independent check of the Z values given here.
  • ad hoc to paper Exclusive orbital-to-sector assignment: coherent part = d_x²-y² only, incoherent part = d_z² only (Z_x ≫ Z_z).
    Main text: 'we adopt a first approximation in which the coherent part is attributed solely to the d_x²-y² orbital... and the incoherent part to the d_z² orbital'; validity of the neglect of cross terms is asserted, not demonstrated.
  • domain assumption Incoherent d_z² spectral weight forms Heisenberg-like local moments.
    The mapping of gapped/incoherent spectral weight onto local moments is the standard orbital-selective-Mott construction; it is inferred from spectroscopic incoherence (Refs 47,48), not measured directly as localized moments.
  • domain assumption Superexchange form J^s ~ 4(1−Z_z)²t²/U for the local-moment sector.
    Adopted from Ref 68 (same research group) with the 'adiabatic continuation' justification; the interlayer value J⊥S=75 meV follows from t⊥≈0.6 eV and the slave-spin Z_z. Not re-derived in this paper.
  • standard math RKKY interaction J^r = −j²_xz Re χ from second-order perturbation in the interorbital coupling.
    Standard RKKY perturbation theory (SM Eq S11); however, the specific two-orbital interorbital-exchange formulation is attributed to unpublished Ref 69 by the same authors.
  • ad hoc to paper The J⊥-J₁-J₃ bilayer spin model suffices for the ground state and spin waves.
    Other couplings (J₂, J₄, further interlayer RKKY) are dropped; J₂ is defined (SM Eq S14) but never reported, and short-ranged dominance is asserted without showing the numbers.
  • standard math Classical treatment of spins for the ordering wavevector.
    Luttinger-Tisza plus variational optimization treat S as classical; quantum corrections to the ordered moment are discussed only qualitatively.
  • domain assumption Experimental identification of the density-wave order as magnetic with in-plane Q≈(π/2,π/2).
    The comparison targets — magnetic order below ~150 K with in-plane Q≈(π/2,π/2) (Refs 52-59) — are taken as established; the theoretical calculation is used to reproduce the order, not to identify it.
invented entities (1)
  • Effective d_z² local moments no independent evidence
    purpose: Provides a localized spin sector that supports superexchange and RKKY, and carries the magnetic order and spin waves.
    The moments are a modeling construct: real-space, well-defined Heisenberg spins on d_z² sites, inferred from orbital-selective incoherent spectral weight (ARPES/optics, Refs 47,48) rather than observed as localized moments. No new physical entity (particle/force/dimension) is introduced, but the local-moment reality is an assumption, not a measurement.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12297 in / 26218 out tokens · 198436 ms · 2026-08-01T23:48:33.130133+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The recent discovery of high-temperature superconductivity in the bilayer nickelate La$_3$Ni$_2$O$_7$ has led to extensive interest in the correlation physics of its normal state. Given that the superconducitivity develops near a density wave order in the phase diagram, it is important to elucidate the nature of this order. Based on the accumulated experimental evidence for a bad metal state in proximity to an orbital-selective Mott phase, here we describe magnetic correlations of the system in a conceptually new way -- in terms of effective local moments experiencing a combination of RKKY and superexchange interactions. This gives rise to a magnetic order with a wavevector that is close to $\mathbf{Q}=(\pi/2,\pi/2)$ and, at the same time, yields a clear understanding of the associated spin dynamics. Our results are consistent with the rapidly emerging experiments about the magnetic correlations in the density wave order of the bilayer nickelate. Implications for unconventional superconductivity in this and related multiorbital systems are discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15228 by Guijing Duan, Kuan-Sen Lin, Qimiao Si, Rong Yu, Yiming Wang, Zhiguang Liao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: (a) Sketched ground-state phase diagram as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: (a) Static spin susceptibility for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Intensity-weighted spin-wave spectrum along [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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    2023

  2. [2]

    E. K. Ko, Y. Yu, Y. Liu, L. Bhatt, J. Li, V. Thampy, C.-T. Kuo, B. Y. Wang, Y. Lee, K. Lee, J.-S. Lee, B. H. Goodge, D. A. Muller, and H. Y. Hwang, Nature638, 935 (2025)

    2025

  3. [3]

    2(b), the ratioJ r 3/J r 1 remains greater than unity over a broad range ofUand increases significantly with growingU, reaching its largest values nearU∼4 eV

    As shown in Fig. 2(b), the ratioJ r 3/J r 1 remains greater than unity over a broad range ofUand increases significantly with growingU, reaching its largest values nearU∼4 eV. At the same time, the in-plane superex- change interaction will be short-ranged. Thus, we expect the leading exchange interactions to come from the short- range part. Magnetic order...

  4. [4]

    G. Zhou, W. Lv, H. Wang, Z. Nie, Y. Chen, Y. Li, H. Huang, W.-Q. Chen, Y.-J. Sun, Q.-K. Xue, and Z. Chen, Nature640, 641 (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    Y. Liu, E. K. Ko, Y. Tarn, L. Bhatt, B. H. Goodge, D. A. Muller, S. Raghu, Y. Yu, and H. Y. Hwang, Nature Materials24, 1221 (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    Zhang, D

    Y. Zhang, D. Su, Y. Huang, Z. Shan, H. Sun, M. Huo, K. Ye, J. Zhang, Z. Yang, Y. Xu, Y. Su, R. Li, M. Smid- man, M. Wang, L. Jiao, and H. Yuan, Nat. Phys20, 1269–1273 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    N. Wang, G. Wang, X. Shen, J. Hou, J. Luo, X. Ma, H. Yang, L. Shi, J. Dou, J. Feng, J. Yang, Y. Shi, Z. Ren, H. Ma, P. Yang, Z. Liu, Y. Liu, H. Zhang, X. Dong, Y. Wang, K. Jiang, J. Hu, S. Nagasaki, K. Kitagawa, S. Calder, J. Yan, J. Sun, B. Wang, R. Zhou, Y. Uwatoko, and J. Cheng, Nature634, 579 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    B. Hao, M. Wang, W. Sun, Y. Yang, Z. Mao, S. Yan, H. Sun, H. Zhang, L. Han, Z. Gu,et al., Nature Materials 24, 1756 (2025)

    2025

  9. [9]

    G. Zhou, W. Lv, H. Wang, Z. Nie, Y. Chen, Y. Li, H. Huang, W.-Q. Chen, Y.-J. Sun, Q.-K. Xue, and Z. Chen, Nature640, 641–646 (2025)

    2025

  10. [10]

    Y. Liu, E. K. Ko, Y. Tarn, L. Bhatt, J. Li, V. Thampy, B. H. Goodge, D. A. Muller, S. Raghu, Y. Yu, and H. Y. Hwang, Nature Materials24, 1221–1227 (2025)

    2025

  11. [11]

    G. Zhou, H. Wang, H. Huang, Y. Chen, F. Peng, W. Lv, Z. Nie, W. Wang, J.-F. Jia, Q.-K. Xue, and Z. Chen, Na- tional Science Review13, 10.1093/nsr/nwag151 (2026)

    work page doi:10.1093/nsr/nwag151 2026

  12. [12]

    S. Fan, M. Ou, M. Scholten, Q. Li, Z. Shang, Y. Wang, J. Xu, H. Yang, I. M. Eremin, and H.-H. Wen, Science Advances12, 10.1126/sciadv.aeg2429 (2026)

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.aeg2429 2026

  13. [13]

    Plokhikh, T

    I. Plokhikh, T. J. Hicken, L. Keller, V. Pomjakushin, S. H. Moody, P. Foury-Leylekian, J. J. Krieger, H. Luetkens, Z. Guguchia, R. Khasanov, and D. J. Gawryluk, Unraveling spin density wave order in lay- ered nickelates La 3Ni2O7 and La 2PrNi2O7 via neutron diffraction (2025)

    2025

  14. [14]

    Z. Liao, L. Chen, G. Duan, Y. Wang, C. Liu, R. Yu, and Q. Si, Phys. Rev. B108, 214522 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

    Qu, D.-W

    X.-Z. Qu, D.-W. Qu, J. Chen, C. Wu, F. Yang, W. Li, and G. Su, Phys. Rev. Lett132, 036502 (2024)

    2024

  16. [16]

    Savrasov, Phys- ical Review B109, 104508 (2024)

    Griffin Heier, Kyungwha Park, Sergey Y. Savrasov, Phys- ical Review B109, 104508 (2024)

    2024

  17. [17]

    J. Zhan, Y. Gu, X. Wu, and J. Hu, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 136002 (2025)

    2025

  18. [18]

    Y.-H. Tian, Y. Chen, J.-M. Wang, R.-Q. He, and Z.-Y. Lu, Phys. Rev. B109, 165154 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    Chang, S

    W.-X. Chang, S. Guo, Y.-Z. You, and Z.-X. Li, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09970 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Qin and Y.-f

    Q. Qin and Y.-f. Yang, Phys. Rev. B108, L140504 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    Z. Luo, B. Lv, M. Wang, W. W´ u, and D.-X. Yao, npj 6 Quantum Mater.9, 61 (2024)

    2024

  22. [22]

    Jiang, Z

    K. Jiang, Z. Wang, and F.-C. Zhang, Chin. Phys. Lett. 41, 017402 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    Huang, Z

    J. Huang, Z. Wang, and T. Zhou, Phys. Rev. B108, 174501 (2023)

    2023

  24. [24]

    Yang, G.-M

    Y.-f. Yang, G.-M. Zhang, and F.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 108, L201108 (2023)

    2023

  25. [25]

    C. Lu, Z. Pan, F. Yang, and C. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett132, 146002 (2024)

    2024

  26. [26]

    Xue and F

    J.-R. Xue and F. Wang, Chin. Phys. Lett.41, 057403 (2024)

    2024

  27. [27]

    J. Chen, F. Yang, and W. Li, Phys. Rev. B110, L041111 (2024)

    2024

  28. [28]

    Kaneko, H

    T. Kaneko, H. Sakakibara, M. Ochi, and K. Kuroki, Phys. Rev. B109, 045154 (2024)

    2024

  29. [29]

    Kakoi, T

    M. Kakoi, T. Kaneko, H. Sakakibara, M. Ochi, and K. Kuroki, Phys. Rev. B109, L201124 (2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    Sakakibara, N

    H. Sakakibara, N. Kitamine, M. Ochi, and K. Kuroki, Phys. Rev. Lett132, 106002 (2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    Q.-G. Yang, D. Wang, and Q.-H. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 108, L140505 (2023)

    2023

  32. [32]

    Jiang, J

    R. Jiang, J. Hou, Z. Fan, Z.-J. Lang, and W. Ku, Phys. Rev. Lett132, 126503 (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    H. Liu, C. Xia, S. Zhou, and H. Chen, Nature Commu- nications16, 1054 (2025)

    2025

  34. [34]

    Qu, D.-W

    X.-Z. Qu, D.-W. Qu, X.-W. Yi, W. Li, and G. Su, Phys. Rev. B112, L161101 (2025)

    2025

  35. [35]

    H. Yang, H. Oh, and Y.-H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B110, 104517 (2024)

    2024

  36. [36]

    Zhang, H.-K

    J.-X. Zhang, H.-K. Zhang, Y.-Z. You, and Z.-Y. Weng, Phys. Rev. Lett133, 126501 (2024)

    2024

  37. [37]

    D.-C. Lu, M. Li, Z.-Y. Zeng, W. Hou, J. Wang, F. Yang, and Y.-Z. You, arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.11195 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    Fan, J.-F

    Z. Fan, J.-F. Zhang, B. Zhan, D. Lv, X.-Y. Jiang, B. Nor- mand, and T. Xiang, Phys. Rev. B110, 024514 (2024)

    2024

  39. [39]

    Zheng and W

    Y.-Y. Zheng and W. W´ u, Phys. Rev. B111, 035108 (2025)

    2025

  40. [40]

    Schl¨ omer, U

    H. Schl¨ omer, U. Schollw¨ ock, F. Grusdt, and A. Bohrdt, Commun. Phys.7, 366 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    B¨ otzel, F

    S. B¨ otzel, F. Lechermann, J. Gondolf, and I. M. Eremin, Phys. Rev. B109, L180502 (2024)

    2024

  42. [42]

    B¨ otzel, F

    S. B¨ otzel, F. Lechermann, T. Shibauchi, and I. M. Eremin, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.01935 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Oh and Y.-H

    H. Oh and Y.-H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B108, 174511 (2023)

    2023

  44. [44]

    Zhang, L.-F

    Y. Zhang, L.-F. Lin, A. Moreo, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. B108, L180510 (2023)

    2023

  45. [45]

    Zhang, L.-F

    Y. Zhang, L.-F. Lin, A. Moreo, T. A. Maier, and E. Dagotto, Nat. Commun.15, 2470 (2024)

    2024

  46. [46]

    J. Mei, T. Xie, and K. Jiang, Itinerant nature of spin-density-wave order in ruddlesden-popper nickelates (2026)

    2026

  47. [47]

    G. Duan, Y. Wang, Z. Liao, C. Liu, and R. Yu, Commu- nications in Theoretical Physics78, 065702 (2026)

    2026

  48. [48]

    Z. Liu, M. Huo, J. Li, Q. Li, Y. Liu, Y. Dai, X. Zhou, J. Hao, Y. Lu, M. Wang,et al., Nat. Commun15, 7570 (2024)

    2024

  49. [49]

    J. Yang, H. Sun, X. Hu, Y. Xie, T. Miao, H. Luo, H. Chen, B. Liang, W. Zhu, G. Qu,et al., Nat. Com- mun15, 4373 (2024)

    2024

  50. [50]

    Z. Liao, Y. Wang, L. Chen, G. Duan, R. Yu, and Q. Si, Phys. Rev. B114, 045112 (2026)

    2026

  51. [51]

    G. Duan, Z. Liao, L. Chen, Y. Wang, R. Yu, and Q. Si, Orbital-selective correlation effects and superconducting pairing symmetry in a multiorbitalt-jmodel for bilayer nickelates (2025), arXiv:2502.09195

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Z. Luo, X. Hu, M. Wang, W. W´ u, and D.-X. Yao, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 126001 (2023)

    2023

  53. [53]

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

    2024

  54. [54]

    D. Zhao, Y. Zhou, M. Huo, Y. Wang, L. Nie, Y. Yang, J. Ying, M. Wang, T. Wu, and X. Chen, Science Bulletin 70, 1239 (2025), arXiv:2402.03952 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    J. Luo, J. Feng, G. Wang, N. N. Wang, J. Dou, A. F. Fang, J. Yang, J. G. Cheng, G.-q. Zheng, and R. Zhou, Chinese Physics Letters42, 067402 (2025), arXiv:2501.11248 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    X. Chen, J. Choi, Z. Jiang, J. Mei, K. Jiang, J. Li, S. Agrestini, M. Garcia-Fernandez, X. Huang, H. Sun, D. Shen, M. Wang, J. Hu, Y. Lu, K.-J. Zhou, and D. Feng, Nature Communications15, 9597 (2024), arXiv:2401.12657 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    N. K. Gupta, R. Gong, Y. Wu, M. Kang, C. T. Parzyck, B. Z. Gregory, N. Costa, R. Sutarto, S. Sarker, A. Singer, D. G. Schlom, K. M. Shen, and D. G. Hawthorn, Nature Communications16, 6560 (2025)

    2025

  58. [58]

    Plokhikh, T

    I. Plokhikh, T. J. Hicken, L. Keller, V. Pomjakushin, S. H. Moody, P. Foury-Leylekian, J. J. Krieger, H. Luetkens, Z. Guguchia, R. Khasanov, and D. J. Gawryluk, (2025), arXiv:2503.05287 [cond-mat.supr- con]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Zhong, B

    H. Zhong, B. Hao, A. Chen, X. Huang, C. Li, W. Zhang, C. Liu, K. Kummer, N. Brookes, Y. Nie, T. Schmitt, and X. Lu, Chinese Physics Letters43, 060717 (2026)

    2026

  60. [60]

    L. Chen, E. Zhang, Y. Hao, Y. Zhu, B. Cui, D. L. Abernathy, T. J. Williams, Y. Ikeda, H. Zhang, F. Liu, W. Wang, Q. Wang, and J. Zhao, (2026), arXiv:2605.03448 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  61. [61]

    Y.-B. Liu, H. Sun, M. Zhang, Q. Liu, W.-Q. Chen, and F. Yang, Phys. Rev. B112, 014510 (2025)

    2025

  62. [62]

    J. Zhan, X. Wu, and J. Hu, Magnetic configurations and excitations in high-t c multilayer nickelates (2026)

    2026

  63. [63]

    L. B. Braz, S. B¨ otzel, F. Lechermann, I. Plokhikh, R. Khasanov, L. G. G. V. D. da Silva, and I. M. Eremin, Density waves in low-pressure bilayer nickelates (2026)

    2026

  64. [64]

    X.-S. Ni, Y. Ji, L. He, T. Xie, D.-X. Yao, M. Wang, and K. Cao, npj Quantum Materials10, 10.1038/s41535-025- 00740-z (2025)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41535-025- 2025

  65. [65]

    H.-X. Wang, H. Oh, T. Helbig, B. Y. Wang, J. Li, Y. Yu, H. Y. Hwang, H.-C. Jiang, Y.-M. Wu, and S. Raghu, Ori- gin of spin stripes in bilayer nickelate La 3Ni2O7 (2026), arXiv:2509.25344 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  66. [66]

    Castellani, C

    C. Castellani, C. R. Natoli, and J. Ranninger, Physical Review B18, 4945–4966 (1978)

    1978

  67. [67]

    Yu and S

    R. Yu and S. Qimiao, Phys. Rev. B86, 085104 (2012)

    2012

  68. [68]

    Yu and Q

    R. Yu and Q. Si, Phys. Rev. B96, 125110 (2017)

    2017

  69. [69]

    W. Ding, R. Yu, Q. Si, and E. Abrahams, Phys. Rev. B 100, 235113 (2019)

    2019

  70. [70]

    Y. Wang, G. Duan, R. Yu, and Q. Si, unpublished (2026)

    2026

  71. [71]

    See Supplemental Information [http://link...] for details about the orbital-selective band renormalization of the bilayer two-orbital Hubbard model and formulism and results of the susceptibility and the RKKY interaction

  72. [72]

    J. M. Luttinger and L. Tisza, Physical Review120, 1580 (1960)

    1960

  73. [73]

    Dahlbom, H

    D. Dahlbom, H. Zhang, C. Miles, S. Quinn, A. Niraula, B. Thipe, M. Wilson, S. Matin, H. Mankad, S. Hahn, 7 et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.13095 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    X. Chen, J. Choi, Z. Jiang, J. Mei, K. Jiang, J. Li, S. Agrestini, M. Garcia-Fernandez, H. Sun, X. Huang, et al., Nat. Commun15, 9597 (2024)

    2024

  75. [75]

    Wuet al.(2026), unpublished

    Y. Wuet al.(2026), unpublished

    2026

  76. [76]

    Suthar, V

    A. Suthar, V. Sundaramurthy, M. Bejas, C. Le, P. Puphal, P. Sosa-Lizama, A. Schulz, J. Nuss, M. Isobe, P. A. van Aken, Y. E. Suyolcu, M. Minola, A. P. Schny- der, X. Wu, B. Keimer, G. Khaliullin, A. Greco, and M. Hepting, Multiorbital character of the density wave instability in la 4ni3o10 (2025), arXiv:2508.06440 [cond- mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    D.-H. Gim, C. H. Park, and K. H. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 136505 (2025)

    2025

  78. [78]

    M. R. Norman, Phys. Rev. B112, 075149 (2025)

    2025

  79. [79]

    Magnetic Order in bilayer Ruddlesden-Popper Nickelates

    J. Zhang, D. Phelan, A. S. Botana, Y.-S. Chen, H. Zheng, M. Krogstad, S. G. Wang, Y. Qiu, J. A. Rodriguez- Rivera, R. Osborn, S. Rosenkranz, M. R. Norman, and J. F. Mitchell, Nat. Commun.11, 6003 (2020). 1 Supplemental Material for “Magnetic Order in bilayer Ruddlesden-Popper Nickelates” ORBIT AL-SELECTIVE RENORMALIZA TION OF THE COHERENT ELECTRONIC STRUC...

    2020