Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Microscopic Emergence of Ancilla Lattice Physics in the Emery Model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-30 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read The three-band Emery model near n=2 maps microscopically onto an ancilla lattice that hosts ordinary and fractionalized Fermi liquids.

desk verdict Useful explicit SW map of Emery at n=2+x onto an ancilla-like Hamiltonian; the “controlled/rigorous” language oversells a standard but only marginally convergent expansion. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26869 v1 pith:NS5DFTLU submitted 2026-07-29 cond-mat.str-el

Miko{l}aj Walicki , Johannes Knolle , Krzysztof Wohlfeld This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords EmerymodelancillalatticeLiebSchrieffer-WolfftransformationfractionalizedFermiliquidcharge-transferregimecuprates
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 shows that the three-band Emery model on the Lieb lattice—the standard microscopic model of cuprate copper-oxide planes—can be turned, by a controlled sequence of Schrieffer–Wolff transformations, into a low-energy theory with the same three-layer structure as the ancilla lattice model. Slightly above two holes per unit cell in the positive charge-transfer regime, the copper and one oxygen-derived orbital lock into two spin layers while the remaining oxygen band supplies the itinerant carriers. For realistic cuprate-like parameters the effective theory sits in the ordinary Fermi-liquid regime of the ancilla phase diagram. Reaching the fractionalized Fermi liquid instead requires nonstandard hoppings plus extra interactions that keep the bottom spin layer in a quantum spin liquid. The result gives a microscopic home for ancilla physics in multiorbital materials and points to Lieb-lattice cold-atom experiments as a way to realize it.

What carries the argument

A hierarchy of Schrieffer–Wolff transformations that successively eliminate double occupancy on the d orbitals, then on the α/β orbitals, then charge-transfer excitations across Δ, producing the effective hoppings, exchange couplings, and three-site terms of the ancilla Hamiltonian.

What would settle it

A cold-atom Lieb-lattice experiment, or an independent cluster calculation of the Emery model at n=2+x with the quoted parameters, that fails to produce a Fermi surface whose volume matches the one-electron-per-site shift of the ordinary FL phase, or that finds the bottom-layer exchange too weak to form the interlayer singlets assumed for that phase.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A sequence of Schrieffer–Wolff transformations rigorously maps the three-band Emery model on the Lieb lattice near n=2+x onto an effective ancilla Hamiltonian whose itinerant β layer and two spin layers (α and d) match the ancilla construction. For cuprate-like parameters the system realizes the conventional Fermi liquid at a filling shifted by one electron per site; the fractionalized Fermi liquid appears only for nonstandard parameters together with additional interactions that stabilize a quantum spin liquid in the bottom ancilla layer.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation treats the Schrieffer–Wolff series as controlled under a stated energy hierarchy even though the absolute-convergence bound is not satisfied for the parameters used.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ancilla FL physics is the default low-energy outcome of the Emery model near n=2 for cuprate-like parameters.
  • FL* in this setting requires deliberately nonstandard hoppings plus frustrating interactions in the copper-like layer.
  • Lieb-lattice ultracold-atom simulators become a direct experimental testbed for ancilla phases.
  • The ancilla framework acquires a concrete microscopic foundation in multiorbital charge-transfer materials.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same orbital-separation logic may extend to other multiorbital charge-transfer compounds beyond the cuprate family.
  • Higher-order virtual processes that generate ring exchange or next-nearest-neighbor J2 are the practical microscopic knobs for stabilizing the bottom-layer spin liquid needed for FL*.
  • Because the Schrieffer–Wolff convergence is only marginal, small-cluster exact diagonalization of the parent Emery model at n=2+x is the cleanest independent check of the derived couplings.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives a low-energy effective Hamiltonian for the three-band Emery model on the Lieb lattice near n=2+x filling in the positive charge-transfer regime. Via a change to the {d,α,β} basis and a sequence of Schrieffer–Wolff transformations (plus a separately added fourth-order J_dd), the authors obtain H_anc = H_eff + H_dd whose three-layer structure—itinerant β holes, an α spin layer, and a d spin layer—matches the ancilla construction of Sachdev and coworkers. For slightly retuned cuprate-like parameters (Table I), the derived couplings place the system in the conventional FL regime of the ancilla phase diagram. Access to FL* is argued to require nonstandard microscopic parameters (e.g. t_pp ≫ t_pd) together with additional frustrating interactions that stabilize a quantum spin liquid in the bottom layer, interactions not generated at the orders retained here. The work is positioned as a microscopic foundation for ancilla physics in multiorbital systems and as motivation for Lieb-lattice cold-atom simulations.

Significance. If the mapping is reliable, the paper supplies a concrete multiorbital route to ancilla-layer physics that does not rely on an abstract Hilbert-space doubling of the single-band Hubbard model. The forward derivation from the Emery Hamiltonian, with couplings expressed in t_pd, t_pp, Δ, U, U_pp and lattice form factors (SM Eqs. S20–S26), is a genuine microscopic contribution and is not circular with respect to the ancilla phase diagram. The structural match in Fig. 1(b), the explicit parameter table, and the clear separation between what is derived (FL side) and what is only conditioned (FL*) are useful. The cold-atom outlook is a falsifiable experimental hook. These strengths make the work of interest to the cuprate and quantum-simulation communities even if the controlled character of the expansion must be qualified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; SM after Eq. (S16); Fig. 2(b); Table I] Abstract and Introduction claim a “controlled” / “rigorous” Schrieffer–Wolff mapping, yet the Supplemental Material (paragraph after Eq. S16) explicitly states that the absolute-convergence criterion Δ/16 > ||V|| is not obeyed (authors quote Δ/||V|| ∼ 5–10) and that “the results should be treated carefully.” All exchange and three-site coefficients that define the ancilla layers (J_dα, J_αα, J_αβ, the τ’s, and the added fourth-order J_dd) are generated at precisely the orders whose validity is thereby undermined. The hierarchy of Fig. 2(b) and the slight retuning in Table I do not restore the missing factor of ∼2–3. Either the abstract/intro language must be substantially softened, or a quantitative assessment of truncation error (e.g. comparison of successive orders, or a small-cluster benchmark against the parent Emery model) must be supplied so that the central “microscopic foundation
  2. [Main text, FL* paragraph; Conclusions] The FL* discussion (main text, paragraph beginning “Realizing the fractionalized Fermi-liquid…”) conditions the exotic phase on additional frustrating interactions (J2, ring exchange) in the d layer that “can in principle arise from higher-order virtual processes” but are “beyond the scope of the present work.” Because these terms are not generated at the orders kept in H_anc, the claim that the analysis “identifies the precise microscopic conditions required to access FL*” overreaches what is actually derived. The manuscript should either (i) compute the leading frustrating couplings at the next order and show they can dominate J_dd, or (ii) rephrase FL* as a plausible but presently unproven extension that requires physics outside the controlled (or semi-controlled) expansion.
  3. [Eqs. (5)–(6); SM Eqs. (S17)–(S19), (S26); Table I] J_dd is obtained from a separate fourth-order expansion in U (SM Eqs. S17–S19, S26) and is then added by hand to the second-order H_eff. At the same time other fourth-order processes are discarded. Given that Table I already shows J_dd ≪ J_dα (0.002 vs 1 in units of J_dα), the selective retention needs a clearer justification: either demonstrate that the retained J_dd is the dominant fourth-order spin–spin term between d sites, or drop it consistently and state that interlayer singlets are driven solely by the second-order J_dα. As written, the bookkeeping of orders is uneven and weakens the claim that the effective model is systematically derived.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I] Table I caption states parameters are “cuprate-like… with slight modifications to satisfy the hierarchy.” The unmodified McMahan et al. values and the size of each shift should be listed (or given in the SM) so the reader can judge how far the working point sits from standard cuprate estimates.
  2. [SM Table S1; main text after Eq. (3)] Only the local ψ_0000 U_pp piece of the oxygen Hubbard interaction is retained in the SW steps, while SM Table S1 shows that ζ_00¯0¯0 is comparable (0.17 vs 0.21). The text notes it “can be added… without affecting the perturbative expansions,” but it is never included in H_eff or in the numerical estimates of Table I. Either add it or quantify that it does not change the FL vs FL* placement.
  3. [Eq. (4)] Notation: constrained operators ˜β, ˜n appear in Eq. (4) without a one-line definition in the main text (they are explained only briefly). A short clarifying sentence would help non-specialists.
  4. [Fig. 1(b)] Fig. 1(b) is conceptually clear but the “vertical guideline” separating common vs extra terms is easy to miss in grayscale; a more explicit legend or dashed box would improve readability.
  5. [Title page] The arXiv identifier in the manuscript header is 2607.26869 and the date is July 30, 2026; ensure consistency with the final submission metadata.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Emery→ancilla mapping is a forward Schrieffer–Wolff derivation with couplings fixed by microscopic parameters, not by construction from the target phase diagram.

full rationale

The load-bearing claim is a sequence of Schrieffer–Wolff projections of the three-band Emery Hamiltonian (positive charge-transfer, n=2+x) onto H_anc = H_eff + H_dd. Couplings J_dα, J_αα, J_αβ, τ’s and J_dd are expressed algebraically in t_pd, t_pp, Δ, U, U_pp and lattice form factors μ, ν, χ, ψ (SM Eqs. S20–S26); they are not fitted to reproduce Sachdev’s ancilla phase diagram. Placement in the FL regime follows by evaluating those expressions on a cuprate-like parameter set (Table I) and comparing the resulting layer structure to an external reference model. FL* is explicitly stated to require extra frustrating interactions outside the derived Hamiltonian. Citations to the ancilla framework are to independent prior work (Zhang–Sachdev and collaborators), not self-justifying uniqueness theorems or ansatzes that force the present mapping. The SM’s admission that the absolute-convergence bound Δ/16 > ||V|| is violated is a controlledness/correctness caveat, not a circular reduction of output to input. Derivation chain is therefore self-contained and non-circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mapping rests on standard many-body tools (SW, Hubbard/Emery Hamiltonian, Lieb-lattice symmetry orbitals) plus domain choices of filling, positive charge-transfer hierarchy, and truncation order. Cuprate-like numbers are taken from McMahan et al. with slight hand adjustment to enforce the hierarchy. No new particles or forces are postulated; the ancilla layers are identified with physical d and α orbitals. The load-bearing extra assumption for FL* is undervived frustrating exchange in the bottom layer.

free parameters (2)
  • Emery hoppings and interactions (t_pd, t_pp, Δ, U, U_pp) = t_pd=1.3 eV, t_pp=0.3 eV, Δ=3.51 eV, U=9 eV, U_pp=5 eV (Table I)
    Numerical set in Table I is taken from cuprate Wannier estimates and slightly modified by hand so that the energy hierarchy of Fig. 2(b) holds (e.g. U_αα ≈ 0.21 U_pp > 4ν(0)t_pp).
  • Retained local U_αα = ψ_0000 U_pp only = ψ_0000 ≈ 0.2109
    Full oxygen Hubbard interaction in the {α,β} basis generates many nonlocal ψ,ζ terms (Table S1); only the dominant on-site piece is kept in the SW, which is a modeling truncation that affects all exchange scales.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Schrieffer–Wolff block-diagonalization to second order (plus selected fourth-order J_dd) yields a faithful low-energy Hamiltonian when hoppings are ‘sufficiently small’ relative to charge gaps.
    Invoked throughout ‘Schrieffer-Wolff transformation and effective model’ and SM derivation; authors cite Bravyi et al. but note their Δ/||V|| does not meet the strict bound.
  • domain assumption Hole filling n>2 half-fills both d and α lower Hubbard sectors so that only β carriers remain itinerant.
    Stated as condition 1 for the expansion; defines the n=2+x regime distinct from usual cuprate n≈1 physics.
  • domain assumption Positive charge-transfer hierarchy U_αα ≳ Δ and related inequalities separate energy sectors as in Fig. 2(b).
    Required for ordered successive projections in U, U_αα, then Δ; motivates the slight parameter retuning relative to raw cuprate estimates.
  • ad hoc to paper FL* requires a quantum spin liquid in the bottom (d) ancilla layer, stabilized by extra frustrating interactions (e.g. J2 or ring exchange) not generated at the orders kept here.
    Stated in the FL* discussion and Conclusions; these couplings are not systematically derived from the Emery model in this work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Microscopic Emergence of Ancilla Lattice Physics in the Emery Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NS5DFTLU

@misc{pith2026260726869,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Microscopic Emergence of Ancilla Lattice Physics in the Emery Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NS5DFTLU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26869}
}
abstract

We derive a controlled low-energy effective theory for the three-band Emery model on the Lieb lattice near (n=2) filling. Starting from the positive charge-transfer regime, a sequence of Schrieffer--Wolff transformations rigorously establishes a direct microscopic mapping onto an ancillary lattice structure. For realistic cuprate-like parameters, this framework naturally reproduces the conventional Fermi-liquid (FL) phase at a filling shifted by one electron per site. Our analysis identifies the precise microscopic conditions required to access the exotic fractionalized Fermi-liquid (FL$^*$) phase. We show that realizing FL$^*$ requires nonstandard cuprate parameter regimes together with additional interactions that stabilize a quantum spin liquid in the background ancilla layer. These results establish a microscopic foundation for ancilla physics in multiorbital materials and clarify the conditions for realizing FL$^*$. We discuss the possibility to replicate ancilla model physics in Lieb lattice cold atom simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26869 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Lieb lattice representation of the CuO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Decomposition of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    This requires the hole filling per unit celln >2

    The hole filling has to be sufficiently high to half-fill both thedand theαorbitals and occupy some of theβorbitals in order to have itinerant holes. This requires the hole filling per unit celln >2

  2. [2]

    All of the hopping terms should be ‘sufficiently’ small for the Schrieffer-Wolff transformation to be well-defined (see [19])

  3. [3]

    The states must be well separated in energy, as il- lustrated in Fig. 2(b). While this hierarchy is mo- tivated by the conventional parameter values for cuprates [22], it imposes constraints on the Hamil- tonian parameters, requiringU αα =ψ 0000Upp ≈ Emery model (1) in [∆] in [eV] tpd 0.37 1.3 tpp 0.09 0.3 ∆1.00 3.51 U2.59 9 Upp 1.42 5 Effective model (6)...

  4. [4]

    (4a) describes the energy of holes in the oxy- gen orbitals (which is a constant value, because the bands do not exchange electrons) and hopping be- tween theβorbitals

    Eq. (4a) describes the energy of holes in the oxy- gen orbitals (which is a constant value, because the bands do not exchange electrons) and hopping be- tween theβorbitals. The hoppings within theα band and betweendandαvanish because the low energy sector with respect to∆β has as few holes in theβorbitals as possible — this means that eachd andαorbital is...

  5. [5]

    (4b) is the intra- and inter-band exchange in- teractions

    Eq. (4b) is the intra- and inter-band exchange in- teractions

  6. [6]

    (4c) describes the three-site processes

    Eq. (4c) describes the three-site processes. The only changes introduced by the expansion in∆ β are an extra contribution to theβ−α−βprocess with spin flip onα, and an additional transition without spin flip with the same spin on all three orbitals

  7. [7]

    (4d) describes a process in which a hole on the αorbital can lower its energy by virtually hopping into a nearby emptyβorbital

    Eq. (4d) describes a process in which a hole on the αorbital can lower its energy by virtually hopping into a nearby emptyβorbital

  8. [8]

    (5) describes the spin exchange inter- actions in thedlayer

    Finally, Eq. (5) describes the spin exchange inter- actions in thedlayer. Comparison with the ancilla model.—Already a quick look at Fig. 1(b) shows that the structure of the resulting effective Hamiltonian is remarkably similar to the ancilla layer Hamiltonian introduced by Sachdevet al.as an effective description of the Hubbard model [5]. Let us now exa...

    2024

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Zhang and S

    Y.-H. Zhang and S. Sachdev, From the pseudogap metal to the Fermi liquid using ancilla qubits, Physical Review Research2, 023172 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Mascot, A

    E. Mascot, A. Nikolaenko, M. Tikhanovskaya, Y.-H. Zhang, D. K. Morr, and S. Sachdev, Electronic spec- tra with paramagnon fractionalization in the single-band Hubbard model, Physical Review B105, 075146 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Müller, R

    T. Müller, R. Thomale, S. Sachdev, and Y. Iqbal, Pola- ronic correlations from optimized ancilla wave functions for the Fermi–Hubbard model, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences122, e2504261122 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    J. G. Bednorz and K. A. Müller, Possible highTc super- conductivity in the Ba-La-Cu-O system, Zeitschrift für Physik B Condensed Matter64, 189 (1986)

    1986

  5. [13]

    P. M. Bonetti, M. Christos, A. Nikolaenko, A. A. Pa- tel, and S. Sachdev, Fractionalized Fermi liquids and the 6 cuprate phase diagram, Reports on Progress in Physics 89, 044501 (2026)

    2026

  6. [14]

    Christos and S

    M. Christos and S. Sachdev, Emergence of nodal Bogoli- ubov quasiparticles across the transition from the pseu- dogap metal to the d-wave superconductor, npj Quantum Materials9, 4 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Keimer, S

    B. Keimer, S. A. Kivelson, M. R. Norman, S. Uchida, and J. Zaanen, From quantum matter to high-temperature superconductivity in copper oxides, Nature518, 179 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    C.-C. Chen, M. Sentef, Y. F. Kung, C. J. Jia, R. Thomale, B. Moritz, A. P. Kampf, and T. P. De- vereaux, Doping evolution of the oxygenk-edge x-ray absorption spectra of cuprate superconductors using a three-orbital hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B87, 165144 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    Ebrahimnejad, G

    H. Ebrahimnejad, G. A. Sawatzky, and M. Berciu, The dynamics of a doped hole in a cuprate is not controlled by spin fluctuations, Nature Physics10, 951 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    Martinelli, K

    L. Martinelli, K. Wohlfeld, J. Pelliciari, R. Arpaia, N. B. Brookes, D. Di Castro, M. G. Fernandez, M. Kang, Y. Krockenberger, K. Kummer, D. E. McNally, E. Paris, T. Schmitt, H. Yamamoto, A. Walters, K.-J. Zhou, L. Braicovich, R. Comin, M. M. Sala, T. P. Devereaux, M. Daghofer...

    2024

  11. [19]

    Vučičević and R

    J. Vučičević and R. Žitko, Hubbard vs. emery model: spectra, transport and relevance for cuprates (2026), arXiv:2604.08085 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2026 arXiv

  12. [20]

    V. J. Emery, Theory of high-Tc superconductivity in ox- ides, Physical Review Letters58, 2794 (1987)

    1987

  13. [21]

    Weber, T

    C. Weber, T. Giamarchi, and C. M. Varma, Phase dia- gram of a three-orbital model for high-Tc cuprate super- conductors, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 117001 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Zaanen, G

    J. Zaanen, G. A. Sawatzky, and J. W. Allen, Band gaps and electronic structure of transition-metal compounds, Physical Review Letters55, 418 (1985)

    1985

  15. [23]

    J. H. Jefferson, H. Eskes, and L. F. Feiner, Deriva- tion of a single-band model for CuO 2 planes by a cell-perturbation method, Physical Review B45, 7959 (1992)

    1992

  16. [24]

    B. S. Shastry,T-Jmodel and nuclear magnetic relax- ation in high- T c materials, Physical Review Letters63, 1288 (1989)

    1989

  17. [25]

    F. C. Zhang and T. M. Rice, Effective Hamiltonian for the superconducting Cu oxides, Physical Review B37, 3759 (1988)

    1988

  18. [26]

    L. F. Feiner, J. H. Jefferson, and R. Raimondi, Effective single-band models for the high- T c cuprates. I. Coulomb interactions, Physical Review B53, 8751 (1996)

    1996

  19. [27]

    See Supplemental Material below for details

  20. [28]

    J. R. Schrieffer and P. A. Wolff, Relation between the An- derson and Kondo Hamiltonians, Physical Review149, 491 (1966)

    1966

  21. [29]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. DiVincenzo, and D. Loss, Schrieffer-Wolff transformation for quantum many-body systems, Annals of Physics326, 2793 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    A. K. McMahan, J. F. Annett, and R. M. Martin, Cuprate parameters from numerical Wannier functions, Physical Review B42, 6268 (1990)

    1990

  23. [31]

    B. Lau, M. Berciu, and G. A. Sawatzky, High-Spin Po- laron in Lightly DopedCuO 2 Planes, Physical Review Letters106, 036401 (2011)

    2011

  24. [32]

    Alloul, P

    H. Alloul, P. Mendels, G. Collin, and P. Monod,Y 89 NMR Study of the Pauli Susceptibility of theCuO 2 Planes inYBa 2Cu3O6+x, Physical Review Letters61, 746 (1988)

    1988

  25. [33]

    H. Ding, T. Yokoya, J. C. Campuzano, T. Takahashi, M. Randeria, M. R. Norman, T. Mochiku, K. Kadowaki, and J. Giapintzakis, Spectroscopic evidence for a pseu- dogap in the normal state of underdoped high-Tc super- conductors, Nature382, 51 (1996)

    1996

  26. [34]

    E. H. Lieb, Two theorems on the Hubbard model, Phys- ical Review Letters62, 1201 (1989)

    1989

  27. [35]

    J. D. Gouveia and R. G. Dias, Magnetic phase diagram of the Hubbard model in the Lieb lattice, Journal of Mag- netism and Magnetic Materials382, 312 (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    W.-F. Tsai, C. Fang, H. Yao, and J. Hu, Interaction- driventopologicalandnematicphasesontheLieblattice, New Journal of Physics17, 055016 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    J. C. Everts, Topological phases and fermionic superflu- idity on the Lieb lattice, MSc thesis (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Kumar, T

    P. Kumar, T. I. Vanhala, and P. Törmä, Temperature and doping induced instabilities of the repulsive Hubbard model on the Lieb lattice, Physical Review B96, 245127 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Lebrat, A

    M. Lebrat, A. Kale, L. H. Kendrick, M. Xu, Y. Gang, A. Nikolaenko, P. M. Bonetti, S. Sachdev, and M. Greiner, Ferrimagnetism of ultracold fermions in a multiband hubbard system, Science392, 612 (2026), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adq2411

    2026 doi

  32. [40]

    Kaushal and M

    N. Kaushal and M. Franz, Altermagnetism in Modified Lieb Lattice Hubbard Model, Physical Review Letters 135, 156502 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    P.-H.Chang, K.D.Belashchenko,andI.I.Mazin,Inverse Lieb materials: Altermagnetism and more, npj Quantum Materials 10.1038/s41535-026-00880-w (2026)

    2026 doi

  34. [42]

    Y. Li, V. Leeb, K. Wohlfeld, R. Valentí, and J. Knolle, Exploringd-wave magnetism in cuprates from oxygen moments, Phys. Rev. B112, 125139 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    S. H. Ursin, M. Kläui, and K. M. D. Hals, Tunable Phonon-Driven Magnon Spin Currents in Altermagnets (2026), arXiv:2605.19659 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2026 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Howczak, Periodic anderson model in the kondo- lattice limit: Normal properties and real-space pairing, PhD thesis (2012)

    O. Howczak, Periodic anderson model in the kondo- lattice limit: Normal properties and real-space pairing, PhD thesis (2012)

    2012

  37. [45]

    Kądzielawa-Major and J

    E. Kądzielawa-Major and J. Spałek, Anderson-Kondo Lattice Hamiltonian from the Anderson-Lattice Model: A Modified Schrieffer-Wolff Transformation and the Ef- fective Exchange Interactions, Acta Physica Polonica A 126, A (2014). S1 Supplemental Material for ‘Realizing the Ancil...

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed July 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.