Exact Nagaoka-to-spiral transition in the doped infinite-U triangular lattice

Cristian D. Batista; Yang Zhang

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 28 references

Exact Nagaoka-to-spiral transition in the doped infinite-U triangular lattice

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper pins the exact hopping ratio at which the infinite-U triangular-lattice Nagaoka ferromagnet turns into a long-wavelength spin spiral: t2/t1 = -0.182, and shows the transition is continuous.

desk verdict A serious benchmark result: the first analytic determination of the triangular-lattice Nagaoka instability, with a clean two-body reduction, but the 'exact' label outruns the evidence because the multi-magnon suppression is perturbative and the key resolvent evaluation is left in the SM. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.20726 v1 pith:V27UXBJD submitted 2026-07-22 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.supr-con

Yang Zhang , Cristian D. Batista This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.supr-con PACS 71.10.Fd75.10.Jm

keywords infinite-UHubbardmodeltriangularlatticeNagaokaferromagnetismkineticfrustrationspinspiralhole-magnonscatteringhard-coreconstraintLifshitztransition

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 asks what happens to the Nagaoka ferromagnet—the fully spin-polarized state favored by a single hole in a strongly repulsive lattice—when next-nearest-neighbor hopping t2 frustrates the triangular lattice. The authors show that at t2/t1 = -0.182 the ferromagnet becomes unstable to a long-wavelength coplanar spiral, and they obtain this threshold exactly by reducing the many-body problem to a two-body hole–magnon scattering problem in which the hard-core constraint is treated exactly. They further establish that the transition is continuous: the spiral wavevector grows from zero as the square root of the distance from the critical hopping. Numerical checks confirm the boundary and reveal a coherent spin polaron with quasiparticle weight Z≈0.92 at the Lifshitz-shifted momentum -Q*. If correct, these results give the first quantum instability of the triangular-lattice Nagaoka ferromagnet and a quantitative magnetic baseline for pairing mechanisms at finite doping.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is an effective two-body hole–magnon scattering problem with a hard-core constraint. The spin-flip hybridization vertex is O(Q) for small spiral wavevector Q, so the Q^2 spiral stiffness is controlled entirely by the zero- and one-magnon sectors; sectors with two or more magnons enter only at higher order. The zero-magnon state is mapped onto an auxiliary relative-coordinate state |r=0>, and the hybridizing channel is spanned by two odd-parity bond states built from nearest- and next-nearest-neighbor bonds. Projecting the resolvent onto this two-dimensional subspace yields an exact 2x2 scattering equation whose self-energy Σ = (1/4) Q^2 t^T G(E_FM) t gives the quantum

What would settle it

On a lattice large enough to resolve long-wavelength spirals, compute the ground-state energy as a function of spiral wavevector Q including all two-magnon sectors with no spatial truncation: if the extracted quadratic coefficient changes from the one-magnon value 0.170, the power counting fails. Also, if flux-insertion or cold-atom experiments show the spiral wavevector jumping discontinuously at t2/t1 = -0.182, or the critical hopping differing from -0.182 by more than a few percent, the claim of an exact continuous transition is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the infinite-U Hubbard model on the triangular lattice with one hole and next-nearest-neighbor hopping t2 has a ferromagnet-to-spiral transition at t2,c/t1 = -0.182. Because a classical spiral single-hole energy can never beat the ferromagnet—the spiral dispersion is a convex combination of ferromagnetic dispersions—the instability is purely quantum, driven by virtual hole–magnon processes. The authors compute the quantum softening of the spiral stiffness exactly by projecting the two-body problem onto the odd-parity bond subspace, obtaining a 2x2 scattering equation and Π0 = 0.170; exact treatment of the hard-core hole–magnon constraint suppresses Π0 by about 24%

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that two or more magnons cannot soften the spiral at quadratic order in the wavevector—only at higher order—so the one-magnon sector alone sets the stiffness; this is a perturbative scaling argument, not a proof, and the paper's own extended-basis numerics shift the critical point by about 2% (to -0.186).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The exact critical ratio t2,c/t1 = -0.182 settles the long-open question of the single-hole Nagaoka stability boundary on the triangular lattice.
Because the transition is continuous with Q* ∝ sqrt(|t2 - t2,c|), weak frustration produces arbitrarily long-wavelength spirals with a small saturation field, making the system highly tunable.
The coherent spin polaron remains light (bandwidth ~9 t1, Z≈0.92), in contrast to heavy polarons in antiferromagnets; the slowly twisting spiral acts as a locally ferromagnetic background.
The one-magnon sector alone determines the spiral stiffness; higher-magnon processes affect only higher-order terms, so the critical point is robust to multi-magnon dressing.
The spiral wavevector and stiffness set the nesting geometry and attractive scale for magnon-mediated pairing at finite doping, providing the magnetic baseline for finite-density theories.

Reading between the lines

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

The two-body projection technique should transfer directly to other frustrated lattices (e.g., square or kagome), yielding exact Lifshitz thresholds wherever the hybridizing channel is finite-dimensional.
Cold-atom triangular-lattice simulators with tunable next-nearest-neighbor hopping can directly test the predicted boundary and the square-root growth of the spiral pitch.
At finite doping, the Lifshitz-shifted polaron pocket at -Q* and the large quasiparticle weight imply a Fermi surface strongly asymmetric with respect to the spiral wavevector, which should shape the pairing symmetry.
A rigorous multi-magnon bound could turn the paper's perturbative power-counting argument into a theorem; the 2% shift seen in the paper's unrestricted finite-radius numerics brackets the uncertainty.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth knowing about. The result is a real advance: the first analytic handle on where Nagaoka ferromagnetism dies on the triangular lattice with NNN hopping, t2,c = -0.182, and the identification of the long-wavelength spiral as the first quantum instability. The reduction to a two-body hole-magnon Lippmann-Schwinger problem with the hard-core constraint treated exactly is the right tool, and the paper is honest about the structural point that a classical spiral can never win — the instability is purely quantum.

What it does well: the Trugman-01 calculation at 100x100 puts the sign change exactly between t2 = -0.182 and -0.183, which is a strong independent check. The ED and flux-insertion data on N=27 give t2,c around -0.20, consistent with finite-size drift, and the spectral-flow argument cleanly identifies a Q -> 0 instability rather than a competing finite-Q state. The quartic-coefficient analysis, including the negative two-magnon correction, is careful and supports a continuous transition. The polaron result (Z ~ 0.92 at -Q*) is a useful byproduct.

Soft spots. Two stand out. First, the numerical evaluation of Pi0 = 0.170 is never shown. The SM derives the projected resolvent G but does not give the explicit matrix elements of G0 and W, nor the integral that produces 0.170, so the central number is asserted rather than demonstrated. For a paper whose headline is 'exact', that is a real gap. Second, the multi-magnon power counting is a scaling argument, not a bound, and the paper's own Trugman-0123 variational calculation at r=2 gives t2,c = -0.186, a 2% shift. The SM attributes this to finite dressing radius and says it vanishes as r grows, but no r>2 convergence data are presented. So the qualitative conclusion — a Lifshitz transition to a long-wavelength spiral, continuous — is very likely right, but the precise value could move by a couple percent if the multi-magnon correction is not exactly zero.

Who gets value: condensed-matter theorists working on kinetic magnetism, cold-atom simulators, and moiré materials. The number will be quoted as a benchmark, and the derivation is a model for treating hard-core constraints in polaron problems. I would send it to a serious referee; the referee should ask for the explicit Pi0 evaluation (or code) and for a Trugman-0123 convergence check with r. If those come through, the 'exact' language becomes defensible. Right now it is an excellent calculation with a slightly oversized title.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies the infinite-U single-hole Hubbard/t-J model on the triangular lattice with nearest-neighbor and next-nearest-neighbor hoppings. The authors claim that a frustrating t2<0 destabilizes the Nagaoka ferromagnet through a Lifshitz transition to a long-wavelength coplanar spiral, and they derive an analytical critical value t2,c/t1=-0.182. The derivation reduces the small-Q dynamics to an effective two-body hole-magnon problem with an exact hard-core constraint, encoded via an auxiliary r=0 state and a projected 2x2 Lippmann-Schwinger equation. This yields the self-energy in Eq. (10) and the stiffness renormalization Π0 in Eq. (11), with the reported value Π0=0.170. Independent evidence includes Trugman-01 diagonalization on a 100x100 lattice, exact diagonalization and flux insertion on a N=27 cluster, and Trugman-012/0123 variational calculations. The Supplemental Material contains a classical spiral theorem, multi-magnon power counting, transition-order analysis, and ED phase diagrams.

Significance. If fully established, the paper would provide the first analytic determination of the quantum instability boundary of the triangular-lattice Nagaoka ferromagnet, with a parameter-free prediction and a continuous Lifshitz-type transition. The strengths are the classical no-go theorem, the exact treatment of the hard-core hole-magnon constraint within the two-body sector, and the several independent numerical checks. However, the central 'exact' claim rests on two pieces that are not fully demonstrated in the submitted text: the explicit evaluation of the singular projected resolvent that produces Π0=0.170, and the claimed absence of multi-magnon renormalization of the Q^2 stiffness. Both are load-bearing for the headline number and can be addressed with additional material.

major comments (3)

[SM §SV, Eq. (S50); main text Eq. (11)] The central numerical value Π0=0.170 is asserted, but the projected resolvent G(E)=(G0(E)^-1 - W)^-1 is never explicitly evaluated. The SM defines G0 and W verbally but gives no matrix elements, integral representation, or numerical procedure. This is not a presentation detail: at E=EFM and Q→0 the two-body continuum is gapless, so G0 has a logarithmic threshold divergence in 2D, and only the dd interaction W can regularize it. Without the explicit form of W and a reproducible evaluation of Eq. (11), the value 0.170 cannot be checked. Please include the full expressions for G0(E) and W, the limit V→∞ treatment, and either an analytic evaluation or a precise numerical quadrature.
[SM §SIV.B; main text Eq. (8)] The exactness of t2,c=-0.182 relies on the assumption that n-magnon sectors contribute only at O(Q^{2n}) and therefore do not renormalize the Q^2 stiffness. The supporting power-counting argument assumes excitation denominators remain O(1), which is not guaranteed near the gapless two-body continuum. The only multi-magnon check, Trugman-0123 with r=2, gives t2,c=-0.186, a 2% deviation; the statement that 'increasing r further drives this shift toward zero' is not backed by data. Please show convergence in r (e.g., r=3,4) or provide a rigorous bound. Absent that, the headline value should be characterized as the exact one-magnon-sector result plus a small multi-magnon correction, not as exact.
[SM §SVI.B, Eq. (S59)] The continuous character of the transition rests on the sign of c4, which is obtained as the small difference of two larger numbers: c4 ≈ +0.019 - 0.011 ≈ +0.008, with a stated range +0.006 to +0.008. Because the pieces come from different lattice sizes and fitting windows, and because a negative c4 would make the transition first-order and invalidate Q* ∝ sqrt(|t2-t2,c|), the authors should provide same-lattice convergence and error estimates for c4^(0+1) and c4^(2-mag).

minor comments (4)

[SM §SVII] The phrase 'dressed one-loop t2,c=-0.182' is misleading: Eq. (11) is the exact two-body Lippmann-Schwinger result, not a one-loop perturbative expression. Please rephrase to avoid confusion with the one-loop value -0.133.
[Main text Eq. (9)] The symbol \hat Q is used in the definition of |u1> and |u2> before being defined. Please state explicitly that it is the unit vector along Q.
[Fig. 2 caption and SM §SVIII] Please state that threading flux Φ shifts the allowed crystal momenta by Φ/L, and explain the flux ranges used in panels (a) and (b), since Φ is dimensionless but the text refers to Φ=π/20 without defining the convention.
[Table S1] The ED transition values t_ED ≈ -0.20 to -0.22 deviate from the analytical -0.182 by about 10%. Please quantify the expected finite-size correction, e.g., O(1/(L^2 ln L)), and indicate how the extrapolation to the thermodynamic limit is performed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the analytic t2,c is obtained from a self-contained Lippmann–Schwinger equation and is checked by independent numerics.

full rationale

The central claim, t2,c/t1=-0.182, is derived by setting the total O(Q^2) coefficient to zero, c2 = alpha_cl(t2) - Pi0(t2) = 0, with alpha_cl = (3t1+9t2)/8 obtained from the classical spiral-energy expansion and Pi0 computed from the projected two-body resolvent, Pi0 = -1/4 t^T G(E_FM)t (Eq. 11). Pi0 is not fitted to the critical point; it is evaluated from the model parameters and G(E_FM). The Trugman-01, Trugman-0123, and exact-diagonalization results are independent computations of the same physical quantity and are not used as inputs in the analytic derivation. The multi-magnon power-counting argument (SM SIV) is a stated perturbative assumption, not a circular reduction of the target result into the input; any concern that 'exact' overstates the result because higher-magnon sectors or the projected resolvent evaluation are not fully rigorous is a correctness/evidence question, not a circularity question. The self-citations in the introduction and conclusions (e.g., Refs. [6,11,12]) provide context and pair-binding motivation but are not load-bearing for the derivation of the transition point. No step reduces by construction to its inputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

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

No free parameters are fitted; the model parameters t1,t2 are inputs. The central claim rests on standard strong-coupling assumptions plus a power-counting argument for multi-magnon suppression and on the unshown numerical evaluation of a projected Green's function.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Strong-coupling U=∞ limit maps to a single-hole t-J model with J=0 and no double occupancy.
Standard model definition; used throughout the paper.
domain assumption Power counting: each spin-flip vertex scales as O(Q), so n-magnon creation amplitudes scale as Q^n and energy corrections from n≥2 magnon sectors start at O(Q^4).
This is the load-bearing premise that allows the Q^2 stiffness to be computed from the one-magnon sector alone; it is argued in SM SIV, not proven.
standard math The two-body Lippmann-Schwinger equation closes on the two-dimensional odd-parity bond subspace spanned by |u1> and |u2> as Q→0.
Derived in SM SV from the finite range of the interaction and the structure of the hybridization vertex; relies on the vertex coupling only to odd-parity bond states.
domain assumption The thermodynamic limit of the projected vacancy resolvent G(E_FM) exists and the evaluation Π0 = 0.170 is correct.
The numerical value is asserted in the main text; the SM does not show the evaluation, so this is an unverified premise of the central claim.
domain assumption The most unstable spiral is coplanar (θ=π/2).
The zero-magnon energy is θ-independent and the hybridization is ∝ sinθ, but a rigorous proof that the global ground state is coplanar at finite Q is not given.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exact Nagaoka-to-spiral transition in the doped infinite-U triangular lattice." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V27UXBJD

@misc{pith2026260720726,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exact Nagaoka-to-spiral transition in the doped infinite-U triangular lattice},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V27UXBJD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20726}
}

abstract

We study the single-hole infinite-$U$ Hubbard model on the triangular lattice with nearest- and next-nearest-neighbor hoppings $t_1$ and $t_2$. A frustrating $t_2$ destabilizes Nagaoka ferromagnetism through a Lifshitz transition to a long-wavelength coplanar spiral at $t_{2,c}/t_1=-0.182$. We determine the critical point analytically by reducing the many-body problem to an effective two-body hole--magnon scattering problem in which the hard-core hole--magnon constraint is treated exactly. Numerical calculations confirm the spiral ground state and reveal a coherent spin polaron with quasiparticle weight $Z\simeq0.92$ at the Lifshitz-shifted momentum $\mathbf{K}=-\mathbf{Q}^*$. These results establish the first quantum instability of the triangular-lattice Nagaoka ferromagnet and provide the magnetic baseline for magnon-mediated pairing at finite doping.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20726 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (a) Polaron dispersion in the spiral phase ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[1]

J. O. Haerter and B. S. Shastry, Kinetic antiferromag- netism in the triangular lattice, Physical Review Letters 95, 087202 (2005)

2005
[2]

C. N. Sposetti, B. Bravo, A. E. Trumper, C. J. Gazza, and L. O. Manuel, Classical antiferromagnetism in ki- netically frustrated electronic models, Physical Review Letters112, 187204 (2014)

2014
[3]

Isaev, G

L. Isaev, G. Ortiz, and C. D. Batista, Superconductivity in strongly repulsive fermions: The role of kinetic-energy frustration, Physical Review Letters105, 187002 (2010)

2010
[4]

Nagaoka, Ferromagnetism in a narrow, almost half- filledsband, Physical Review147, 392 (1966)

Y. Nagaoka, Ferromagnetism in a narrow, almost half- filledsband, Physical Review147, 392 (1966)

1966
[5]

D. J. Thouless, Exchange in solid 3he and the heisenberg hamiltonian, Proceedings of the Physical Society86, 893 (1965)

1965
[6]

Zhang, W

S.-S. Zhang, W. Zhu, and C. D. Batista, Pairing from strong repulsion in triangular lattice Hubbard model, Physical Review B97, 140507 (2018)

2018
[7]

Davydova, Y

M. Davydova, Y. Zhang, and L. Fu, Itinerant spin polaron and metallic ferromagnetism in semiconductor moir´ e superlattices, Physical Review B107, 224420 (2023)

2023
[8]

Glittum, A

C. Glittum, A. ˇStrkalj, D. Prabhakaran, P. A. Goddard, C. D. Batista, and C. Castelnovo, A resonant valence bond spin liquid in the dilute limit of doped frustrated Mott insulators, Nature Physics21, 1211 (2025)

2025

Show all 28 references

[9]

Morera, A

I. Morera, A. Bohrdt, W. W. Ho, and E. Demler, Attrac- tion from kinetic frustration in ladder systems, Physical Review Research6, 023196 (2024)

2024
[10]

K. G. Nazaryan and L. Fu, Magnonic superconductivity, Science Advances10, eadp5681 (2024)

2024
[11]

H. Zhu, Y. Zhang, S.-S. Zhang, Y. Zhang, and C. D. Batista, Magnon-mediated superconductivity in the infinite-Utriangular lattice, arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.06231 (2026)

2026
[12]

Zhang, C

Y. Zhang, C. D. Batista, and Y. Zhang, Antiferromag- netism and tightly bound Cooper pairs induced by kinetic frustration, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.16464 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[13]

Ciorciaro, T

L. Ciorciaro, T. Smole´ nski, I. Morera,et al., Kinetic mag- netism in triangular moir´ e materials, Nature623, 509 (2023)

2023
[14]

Z. Tao, W. Zhao, B. Shen, T. Li, P. Kn¨ uppel, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Observation of spin polarons in a frustrated moir´ e Hubbard system, Nature Physics20, 783 (2024)

2024
[15]

M. Xu, L. H. Kendrick, A. Kale, Y. Gang, G. Ji, R. T. Scalettar, M. Lebrat, and M. Greiner, Frustration- and doping-induced magnetism in a Fermi–Hubbard simula- tor, Nature620, 971 (2023)

2023
[16]

Lebrat, M

M. Lebrat, M. Xu, L. H. Kendrick,et al., Observation of Nagaoka polarons in a Fermi–Hubbard quantum simula- tor, Nature629, 317 (2024)

2024
[17]

Prichard, B

M. Prichard, B. Spar, I. Morera, E. Demler, Z. Yan, and W. S. Bakr, Directly imaging spin polarons in a ki- netically frustrated Hubbard system, Nature629, 323 (2024)

2024
[18]

Tasaki, The Hubbard model — an introduction and selected rigorous results, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter10, 4353 (1998)

H. Tasaki, The Hubbard model — an introduction and selected rigorous results, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter10, 4353 (1998)

1998
[19]

Hanisch, G

T. Hanisch, G. S. Uhrig, and E. M¨ uller-Hartmann, Lat- tice dependence of saturated ferromagnetism in the Hub- bard model, Physical Review B56, 13960 (1997)

1997
[20]

F. T. Lisandrini, B. Bravo, A. E. Trumper, L. O. Manuel, and C. J. Gazza, Evolution of nagaoka phase with ki- netic energy frustrating hopping, Physical Review B95, 195103 (2017)

2017
[21]

Sharma, Y

P. Sharma, Y. Peng, D. N. Sheng, H. J. Changlani, and Y. Wang, Instability of Nagaoka state and quantum phase transition via kinetic frustration control, Physical Review Research8, 023070 (2026)

2026
[22]

Pereira and E

D. Pereira and E. J. Mueller, Spin-spiral instability of the Nagaoka ferromagnet in the crossover between square and triangular lattices, Physical Review B113, L161114 (2026)

2026
[23]

[1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 18, 19, 27]

See supplemental material for full derivations, proofs, and convergence data, which includes refs. [1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 18, 19, 27]
[24]

W. F. Brinkman and T. M. Rice, Single-particle excita- tions in magnetic insulators, Physical Review B2, 1324 (1970)

1970
[25]

C. L. Kane, P. A. Lee, and N. Read, Motion of a single hole in a quantum antiferromagnet, Physical Review B 39, 6880 (1989)

1989
[26]

Mart ´ ınez and P

G. Mart ´ ınez and P. Horsch, Spin polarons in thet-j model, Physical Review B44, 317 (1991)

1991
[27]

Exact Nagaoka-to-spiral transition in the doped infinite-Utriangular lattice

S. A. Trugman, Interaction of holes in a Hubbard an- tiferromagnet and high-temperature superconductivity, Physical Review B37, 1597 (1988). 6 Supplemental Material for “Exact Nagaoka-to-spiral transition in the doped infinite-Utriangular lattice” SI. MODEL AND LA TTICE CONVEN...

1988
[28]

=E FM exactly, because the finite cluster still selects the ferromagnetic state at zero flux. At the smallest nonzero flux shown, Φ =π/20, the energy is already lower than the ferromagnetic value, E(π/20)−E FM =−0.004t 1.(S64) Moreover, the spectral-flow branch evolves smoothl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

J. O. Haerter and B. S. Shastry, Kinetic antiferromag- netism in the triangular lattice, Physical Review Letters 95, 087202 (2005)

2005

[2] [2]

C. N. Sposetti, B. Bravo, A. E. Trumper, C. J. Gazza, and L. O. Manuel, Classical antiferromagnetism in ki- netically frustrated electronic models, Physical Review Letters112, 187204 (2014)

2014

[3] [3]

Isaev, G

L. Isaev, G. Ortiz, and C. D. Batista, Superconductivity in strongly repulsive fermions: The role of kinetic-energy frustration, Physical Review Letters105, 187002 (2010)

2010

[4] [4]

Nagaoka, Ferromagnetism in a narrow, almost half- filledsband, Physical Review147, 392 (1966)

Y. Nagaoka, Ferromagnetism in a narrow, almost half- filledsband, Physical Review147, 392 (1966)

1966

[5] [5]

D. J. Thouless, Exchange in solid 3he and the heisenberg hamiltonian, Proceedings of the Physical Society86, 893 (1965)

1965

[6] [6]

Zhang, W

S.-S. Zhang, W. Zhu, and C. D. Batista, Pairing from strong repulsion in triangular lattice Hubbard model, Physical Review B97, 140507 (2018)

2018

[7] [7]

Davydova, Y

M. Davydova, Y. Zhang, and L. Fu, Itinerant spin polaron and metallic ferromagnetism in semiconductor moir´ e superlattices, Physical Review B107, 224420 (2023)

2023

[8] [8]

Glittum, A

C. Glittum, A. ˇStrkalj, D. Prabhakaran, P. A. Goddard, C. D. Batista, and C. Castelnovo, A resonant valence bond spin liquid in the dilute limit of doped frustrated Mott insulators, Nature Physics21, 1211 (2025)

2025