Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 139 references

FFLO transition and quantum criticality in polarized Fermi gases

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A minimal self-consistency fix makes the 2D FFLO quantum critical point physically consistent and reveals non-Fermi-liquid exponents set by Fermi-surface nesting.

desk verdict Solid ladder-diagram paper that fixes the 2D NSCT phase-diagram pathology, delivers usable analytic NFL self-energies, and cleanly classifies 3D FFLO as mean-field via nesting geometry and vertex power-counting. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28335 v1 pith:FNHKXMWF submitted 2026-07-30 cond-mat.quant-gas

Francesco Pirolo , Leonardo Pisani , Pierbiagio Pieri This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords FFLOpolarizedFermigasquantumcriticalitynon-Fermiliquidt-matrixLuttingertheoremdynamicalexponentsFermi-surfacenesting
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

Polarized two-dimensional Fermi gases can form finite-momentum pairs (the FFLO state) when spin imbalance is large enough. The usual non-self-consistent ladder theory badly violates the Luttinger theorem and produces an unphysical phase diagram with a missing transition. This paper introduces a minimal constant self-energy shift that realigns the Fermi momenta, restores near-compliance with Luttinger, and yields a continuous, physically sensible critical polarization across all couplings. With that description in hand, the authors map the quantum critical point: quasiparticle weight vanishes, the self-energy on the Fermi surface scales as |ω|^{2/3}, and both bosonic and fermionic dynamical exponents equal 3. The same nesting geometry of majority and minority Fermi surfaces explains why three dimensions instead gives exponents 2 and places the 3D transition in the mean-field class because vertex corrections are irrelevant.

What carries the argument

Minimal self-consistent t-matrix (MSCT): a constant self-energy shift evaluated at each species’ Fermi momentum that realigns the bare-like propagators with the interacting Fermi surfaces, largely restoring Luttinger compliance while keeping the ladder diagrams analytically tractable.

What would settle it

A fully self-consistent t-matrix (or controlled quantum Monte Carlo) calculation of the 2D critical polarization versus coupling, or of the low-frequency self-energy exponent on the Fermi surface at the FFLO point; a clear deviation from the mean-field-like pc(g) or from |ω|^{2/3} would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within a minimal self-consistent t-matrix scheme, the zero-temperature normal-to-FFLO transition in two dimensions has a physically consistent critical line over the full interaction range; at criticality the fermionic self-energy on the Fermi surface scales as |ω|^{2/3} (non-Fermi liquid), the bosonic and fermionic dynamical exponents are both 3 in 2D and both 2 in 3D, and in 3D all higher vertex corrections to the Hertz–Millis action are irrelevant, so the transition belongs to the mean-field universality class.

Load-bearing premise

That a single constant (momentum- and frequency-independent) self-energy shift is enough self-consistency to trust both the phase diagram and the low-energy critical exponents.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 2D FFLO quantum critical point is a non-Fermi liquid with z = 3 and fermionic damping ∼ ω^{2/3}, analogous at RPA level to 2D Ising-nematic and charge-density-wave criticality.
  • Three-dimensional FFLO criticality is mean-field (ν = 1/2, z = 2), in the same class as three-dimensional itinerant antiferromagnets.
  • Differences between 2D and 3D critical damping trace to whether the majority and minority Fermi surfaces are tangent (parabolic nesting) or crossing (flat nesting) at the pairing momentum.
  • Quasiparticle weight vanishes as (p − pc)^{1/2} on approach to the critical polarization, and momentum distributions lose their Fermi steps at criticality.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because MSCT critical polarization essentially collapses onto mean-field, any experiment or simulation that finds a substantially lower pc in 2D would signal that frequency-dependent self-energy or three-body physics (especially near the polaron–molecule limit) matters beyond the minimal shift.
  • The geometric nesting picture suggests lattice realizations with discrete hot spots could interpolate between the continuum 2D (tangent) and 3D (crossing) exponents, offering a tunable test of the damping form.
  • If vertex irrelevance holds in 3D FFLO, thermodynamic and spectroscopic signatures near the transition should follow ordinary mean-field scaling with only weak logarithmic corrections, simplifying comparison with cold-atom and heavy-fermion data.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the T=0 normal-to-FFLO transition in a 2D polarized Fermi gas within a diagrammatic t-matrix framework. It shows that the non-self-consistent t-matrix (NSCT) produces an unphysical phase diagram due to severe Luttinger-theorem violation, then introduces a minimal self-consistent t-matrix (MSCT) scheme—a constant self-energy shift that aligns interacting and bare-like Fermi momenta—restoring approximate Luttinger compliance and a continuous, physically sensible critical polarization versus coupling. Within MSCT the authors characterize quantum criticality: Im Σ^R ∼ |ω|^{2/3} (NFL) on the Fermi surface and ∼ |ω| (marginal) off it in a specified momentum window; Z_σ ∼ (p−p_c)^{1/2}; bosonic and fermionic dynamical exponents z_b = z_f = 3 in 2D. They unify 2D/3D criticality via the nesting geometry of majority and minority Fermi surfaces (tangent/parabolic in 2D vs crossing/flat in 3D), recover the 3D Im Σ ∼ |ω|^{1/2} analytically, and show by Hertz–Millis power counting that all 2n-point vertex corrections are irrelevant in 3D, placing the 3D FFLO QPT in the mean-field class analogous to the itinerant antiferromagnet. Extensive analytic appendices support the low-energy expansions.

Significance. If the results hold within the stated approximation, the paper supplies a coherent, analytically controlled account of FFLO quantum criticality across dimensions, with explicit formulas for the critical pair propagator, fermionic self-energies on and off the FS, and vertex scaling. The geometric nesting picture cleanly explains why damping is ∼Ω/q and z=3 in 2D versus ∼Ω and z=2 in 3D, and the 3D mean-field classification is a concrete, falsifiable placement relative to other itinerant QPTs (Table I). Strengths include machine-readable analytic structure in Apps. A–G, numerical checks of Z_σ scaling, comparison to prior full SC t-matrix (3D) and one-loop RG (2D) that leave exponents unchanged, and public data for the figures. The work is a solid contribution to ultracold polarized gases and metallic quantum criticality.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV B, Fig. 2, Abstract] Sec. IV B and Fig. 2: The MSCT critical line is essentially identical to mean-field because near-exact Luttinger compliance forces μ̃_σ ≃ E_{Fσ}^0 in the Thouless condition (Eq. 29). This is disclosed, but the abstract and introduction still advertise a “physically consistent phase diagram over the whole interaction range” as a main result of the improved theory. Please state more prominently (abstract/conclusions) that absolute p_c(g) remains mean-field-level within MSCT, while the load-bearing advances are Luttinger restoration, the NFL/marginal spectra, the dynamical exponents, and the 3D vertex irrelevance—properties that are cross-checked against full SC t-matrix [60] and one-loop RG [65] and do not rely on shifting p_c away from MF.
  2. [Appendix F] App. F, Eqs. (F6)–(F8) and the inductive step to u_n: The 4-point vertex is computed carefully and shown singular at Q_i = Q_FF, Ω_i → 0, with [g_4] = 3−2z_b < 0 for z_b = 2. The leap to arbitrary n via “by induction” and the compact form u_n ∝ |Ω|/(iΩ−v_{F↑}q)^{n−1}(iΩ−v_{F↓}q)^{n−1} is plausible given the separable linearized kinematics, but a short explicit sketch for n=3 (or a clearer statement of what is being inducted) would make the claim that all 2n-point vertices are irrelevant fully self-contained. This underpins the mean-field universality conclusion for 3D.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. V A, Fig. 7] Fig. 7 caption and App. B: The pair spectral weight intensity plot is central; labeling sectors I/II and the collective-mode symbols more explicitly in the main text (not only the appendix) would help non-specialist readers.
  2. [Sec. V] Notation: Tildes denoting MSCT quantities (μ̃, Σ̃, Γ̃) are sometimes dropped “to avoid overburdening” (Sec. V). A single clarifying sentence at the start of Sec. V that all subsequent Σ, Γ_0 are MSCT would reduce ambiguity when comparing to NSCT formulas in the appendices.
  3. [Sec. VI C, Fig. 13] Fig. 13: The nesting cartoons are very useful; adding the 3D “hot circle” (rotationally complete matching manifold) explicitly in the caption would match the continuum vs lattice discussion in Sec. VI C.
  4. [Fig. 3, Sec. III] Typos/consistency: “Lifhsitz” → “Lifshitz” (Fig. 3 caption); “Implement ation” spacing in Sec. III heading; occasional “ow-ing” line breaks. Check arXiv PDF for hyphenation artifacts.
  5. [Sec. VI E, Table I] Table I is an excellent summary; a footnote clarifying that “Hertz–Millis holds” means Gaussian fixed-point stability under the vertex power counting of App. F (not that the original Hertz locality assumption is literally true) would prevent misreading.
  6. [Sec. VII] Ref. [60] and [65] are used appropriately as external checks; citing them once more when stating z_b = z_f in the conclusions would reinforce that the exponents are not MSCT artifacts.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: critical exponents and vertex irrelevance are derived from ladder/Hertz–Millis expansions; MSCT≈mean-field pc is a disclosed construction consequence, not a hidden prediction.

  1. self definitional [Sec. IV B (phase diagram / Luttinger–MF equivalence)]
    "This finding can be understood by noticing that if the MSCT approach exactly satisfied the Luttinger theorem, then its critical line would be bound to coincide with the MF critical line. ... fulfillment of the Luttinger theorem requires μσ=E0Fσ+Σ̃(k0Fσ,0) and kFσ=k0Fσ, thus implying μ̃σ=E0Fσ and the full equivalence between the two equations. ... As a consequence, the critical line is essentially unchanged with respect to the MF one."

    The MSCT constant shift is defined so that interacting and bare-like Fermi momenta coincide (Luttinger alignment). Under exact Luttinger compliance the Thouless condition then uses the same chemical potentials as mean-field, so pc(g)≡pc^MF by construction. The paper discloses this; it is not used to claim an independent non-MF phase boundary, and the NFL/exponent results do not rely on this identity.

full rationale

The paper’s central results (2D |ω|^{2/3} NFL self-energy, zb=zf=3 in 2D and zb=zf=2 in 3D, nesting geometry, and 3D 2n-vertex irrelevance) follow from explicit low-energy expansions of the MSCT/RPA ladder and Hertz–Millis power counting (Apps. C–F), not from fits to external data or uniqueness theorems imported from the authors. Self-citations ([60], [57,58], [65]) supply prior methods and cross-checks; they do not force the 2D phase diagram or the vertex scaling. The only mild self-definitional element is that the constant self-energy shift is built to align Fermi surfaces with Luttinger, which by the paper’s own algebra makes pc(g) coincide with mean-field when the theorem holds exactly—an equivalence the authors state openly (Sec. IV B) rather than market as an independent prediction. That is a limitation of the approximation, not circular derivation of the criticality claims. Score 2 reflects that single disclosed construction consequence; steps are otherwise empty of forced reductions.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The load-bearing structure is standard zero-T many-body theory for contact-interacting fermions, plus one methodological axiom (constant self-energy shift defines MSCT) and the Hertz–Millis effective-action framework for the 3D vertex analysis. No empirical free parameters are fitted; coupling and polarization are scanned physical axes. No new particles or forces are postulated.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Attractive contact interaction regularized by the 2D two-body binding energy / scattering length a_2D (Eqs. 1–2).
    Standard ultracold-atom model; UV regularization is conventional but the continuum contact limit omits finite-range and lattice effects.
  • domain assumption Particle–particle ladder (t-matrix) resummation for the pair propagator and self-energy (Fig. 1, Eqs. 3–5).
    Established BCS–BEC crossover tool; truncates crossed diagrams and full vertex structure.
  • ad hoc to paper Minimal self-consistency: replace G_0 by a mean-field-shifted propagator with constant Σ̃_σ(k_{Fσ},0) so interacting and bare-like Fermi momenta coincide (Sec. II B, Eqs. 9–14).
    Core methodological choice that restores Luttinger compliance approximately while keeping analytics; not full Luttinger–Ward self-consistency.
  • domain assumption Generalized Thouless criterion: instability when Γ_0(Q_FF, Ω=0)^{-1}=0 locates the normal-to-FFLO boundary (Eq. 15).
    Standard pairing instability condition at this diagrammatic level; identifies divergence of pair susceptibility, not free-energy comparison of ordered phases.
  • domain assumption Zero temperature taken before all Matsubara sums; continuous frequency integrals replace discrete sums (Sec. II).
    Defines the quantum critical, T=0 setting; finite-T Mermin–Wagner issues in 2D are set aside by construction.
  • domain assumption Hertz–Millis effective bosonic action in the pairing channel; scaling dimensions of u_n and g_{2n} diagnose relevance of mode–mode couplings (Sec. VI B, App. F).
    Standard QPT framework; paper itself shows the bare u_2 is singular in frequency, so HM locality assumptions fail in form but irrelevance still holds for z_b=2.
  • domain assumption Luttinger theorem (FS volume fixed by density) is required for a physically acceptable approximate theory of polarized gases.
    Used as a selection principle motivating MSCT; exact only in conserving/full self-consistent schemes, approximately enforced here.
invented entities (1)
  • Minimal self-consistent t-matrix (MSCT) scheme
    purpose: Restore approximate Luttinger compliance and a physical p_c(g) while preserving closed-form ladder analytics.
    Methodological construct (constant shift of chemical potentials / self-energy), not a new physical degree of freedom; related shifts appear in earlier balanced and polarized literature the paper cites.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FFLO transition and quantum criticality in polarized Fermi gases." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FNHKXMWF

@misc{pith2026260728335,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FFLO transition and quantum criticality in polarized Fermi gases},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FNHKXMWF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28335}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the zero-temperature transition from the polarized normal phase to the FFLO state in a two-dimensional Fermi gas by means of a diagrammatic t-matrix approach. We first show that the standard non-self-consistent theory produces an unphysical phase diagram because of a severe violation of the Luttinger theorem. Motivated by this observation, we introduce a minimal self- consistent extension that largely restores compliance with the Luttinger theorem while preserving the analytical simplicity of the original formalism. This leads to a physically consistent phase diagram over the whole interaction range. Building on this improved description, we characterize the quantum critical behavior of the FFLO transition through the quasiparticle decay rates, quasiparticle weights, momentum distributions, and the critical dynamics of both fermionic and bosonic degrees of freedom. We further compare the two- and three-dimensional systems, showing that their critical properties can be understood within a unified geometrical picture based on the nesting of the majority and minority Fermi surfaces. Finally, for the three-dimensional case, we demonstrate within the Hertz-Millis framework that vertex corrections are irrelevant, thereby placing the FFLO quantum phase transition in the mean-field universality class, in close analogy with itinerant antiferromagnets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28335 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Feynman diagrams for (a) the particle-particle prop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. 2D phase diagram showing the critical polarization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Momentum distribution function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Momentum distribution function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Dimensionless pair spectral weight function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Imaginary part of the retarded self-energy at small [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Quasi-particle weight [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. 3D momentum distribution function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. 4-point boson vertex of the Hertz-Millis functional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Geometrical configuration of majority and minor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Inverse static pair susceptibility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Gray annulus: integration region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Same as in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Imaginary part of the retarded self-energies as a function of frequency for (a) minority and (b) majority species [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

139 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [60]

    Urban and P

    M. Urban and P. Schuck, Occupation numbers in strongly polarized Fermi gases and the Luttinger the- orem, Phys. Rev. A90, 023632 (2014)

    2014

  2. [65]

    M. Pini, P. Pieri, and G. C. Strinati, Fermi gas throughout the BCS-BEC crossover: Comparative study oft-matrix approaches with various degrees of self-consistency, Phys. Rev. B99, 094502 (2019)

    2019

  3. [1]

    2D By analytically continuing the retarded self-energy at criticality [Eqs. (37) and (40)] to the positive imaginary frequency axis, we obtain the following expression for the dressed fermionic propagator ˜Gσ(kFσ +k, iω)−1 =−i γ|ω|2/3 − ky 2 2m −v Fσkx.(51) Here, we adopt the conventional low-energy formulation of Fermi liquid theory [9], where momenta ar...

  4. [2]

    3D A similar reasoning can be applied to the 3D FFLO transition by taking into account that the bosonic damp- ing term is now∼Ω, as discussed in sec. VI A. Moreover, the locus of points in momentum space (red circle) host- ing the soft modes of the pairing propagator is now secant rather than tangent to the FS of either species, generat- ing a configurati...

  5. [3]

    When the threshold frequencies are inside the continuum of Im[Γ R 0 (Q, ¯Ω), they identify the position of cusps in Im[Γ R 0 (Q, ¯Ω)

    In these regions, as in the region below ¯Ωth(Q), the continuum of the pair spectral weight function identically vanishes. When the threshold frequencies are inside the continuum of Im[Γ R 0 (Q, ¯Ω), they identify the position of cusps in Im[Γ R 0 (Q, ¯Ω). This information is used when performing numerical integrals such as in Eq. (19). Appendix C: Low-en...

  6. [4]

    parabolic approximation

    F ermionic momentum on the FS We first consider the case withkon the FS:k=k F↓ such that|k F↑| − |k|=QFF ≡ √4mε0. We start by examining the expression (C5) analytically continued to the real frequency axis (z→ ¯Ω +i0 +) ΓR 0 (k′ −k,¯ω+ ˜ξ↑ k′)−1 =− m 4π " a↑ q −e↓ |k′−k| −¯ω− ˜ξ↑ k′ +i0 + +a ↓ q −e↑ |k′−k| + ¯ω+˜ξ↑ k′ +i0 + +b v(|k′ −k| −QFF) # . (D2) 23 ...

  7. [5]

    F ermionic momentum outside the FS Focusing again on the minority species, we now consider the casek F↓ < k <2kF↑ −k ↓. In this case, a solution of the equation|k ′ −k|=Q FF for the integration variablek ′ exists when the (arbitrary) direction ofQ FF is chosen such that the angleγ k betweenQ FF andksatisfies Eq. (36). As a result,γ k ̸= 0, π. The geometry...

  8. [6]

    The previous change to curvilinear coordinates is now a simple rotation of the (k ′ x, k′ y) plane according to the transformation ( ˜ω¯ω=v(x) F↑ k′ x +v (y) F↑ k′ y ˜p¯ω v = cosγ k k′ x + sinγ k k′ y (D14) 25 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 / 10 8 10 7 10 6 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 ( , )/ (a) < = < < > 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 / 10 9 10 8 10 7 10 6 10 5 10 4 ...

Show all 139 references
  1. [7]

    Varma, Z

    C. Varma, Z. Nussinov, and W. van Saarloos, Singular or non-Fermi liquids, Phys. Rep.361, 267 (2002)

    2002

  2. [8]

    H. v. L¨ ohneysen, A. Rosch, M. Vojta, and P. W¨ olfle, Fermi-liquid instabilities at magnetic quantum phase transitions, Rev. Mod. Phys.79, 1015 (2007)

    2007

  3. [9]

    Senthil, Critical Fermi surfaces and non-Fermi liquid metals, Phys

    T. Senthil, Critical Fermi surfaces and non-Fermi liquid metals, Phys. Rev. B78, 035103 (2008)

    2008

  4. [10]

    M. A. Metlitski, D. F. Mross, S. Sachdev, and T. Senthil, Cooper pairing in non-Fermi liquids, Phys. Rev. B91, 115111 (2015)

    2015

  5. [11]

    Brando, D

    M. Brando, D. Belitz, F. M. Grosche, and T. R. Kirk- patrick, Metallic quantum ferromagnets, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 025006 (2016)

    2016

  6. [12]

    J. A. Hertz, Quantum critical phenomena, Phys. Rev. B14, 1165 (1976)

    1976

  7. [13]

    A. V. Chubukov and D. L. Maslov, Nonanalytic cor- rections to the Fermi-liquid behavior, Phys. Rev. B68, 155113 (2003)

    2003

  8. [14]

    Belitz, T

    D. Belitz, T. R. Kirkpatrick, and T. Vojta, How generic scale invariance influences quantum and classical phase transitions, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 579 (2005)

    2005

  9. [15]

    Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions, 2nd ed

    S. Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions, 2nd ed. (Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011)

    2011

  10. [16]

    Belitz, T

    D. Belitz, T. R. Kirkpatrick, and T. Vojta, Nonanalytic behavior of the spin susceptibility in clean Fermi sys- tems, Phys. Rev. B55, 9452 (1997)

    1997

  11. [17]

    A. V. Chubukov, C. P´ epin, and J. Rech, Instability of the Quantum-Critical Point of Itinerant Ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 147003 (2004)

    2004

  12. [18]

    Abanov and A

    A. Abanov and A. Chubukov, Anomalous Scaling at the Quantum Critical Point in Itinerant Antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 255702 (2004)

    2004

  13. [19]

    Bergeron, D

    D. Bergeron, D. Chowdhury, M. Punk, S. Sachdev, and A.-M. S. Tremblay, Breakdown of Fermi liquid behavior at the (π, π) = 2kF spin-density wave quantum-critical point: The case of electron-doped cuprates, Phys. Rev. B86, 155123 (2012)

    2012

  14. [20]

    E. Berg, M. A. Metlitski, and S. Sachdev, Sign- Problem–Free Quantum Monte Carlo of the Onset of Antiferromagnetism in Metals, Science338, 1606 (2012)

    2012

  15. [21]

    Holder and W

    T. Holder and W. Metzner, Non-Fermi-liquid behavior at the onset of incommensurate 2k F charge- or spin- density wave order in two dimensions, Physical Review B90, 161106 (2014)

    2014

  16. [22]

    Holder and W

    T. Holder and W. Metzner, Anomalous dynamical scal- ing from nematic and U(1) gauge field fluctuations in two-dimensional metals, Phys. Rev. B92, 041112 (2015)

    2015

  17. [23]

    B. S. Chandrasekhar, A Note on the Maximum Critical Field of High-Field Superconductors, Appl. Phys. Lett. 1, 7 (1962)

    1962

  18. [24]

    A. M. Clogston, Upper Limit for the Critical Field in Hard Superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett.9, 266 (1962)

    1962

  19. [25]

    M. W. Zwierlein, A. Schirotzek, C. H. Schunck, and W. Ketterle, Fermionic Superfluidity with Imbalanced Spin Populations and the Quantum Phase Transition to the Normal State, Science311, 492 (2006)

    2006

  20. [26]

    G. B. Partridge, W. Li, R. I. Kamar, Y.-a. Liao, and R. G. Hulet, Pairing and Phase Separation in a Polar- ized Fermi Gas, Science311, 503 (2006)

    2006

  21. [27]

    Y. Shin, M. W. Zwierlein, C. H. Schunck, A. Schirotzek, and W. Ketterle, Observation of Phase Separation in a Strongly Interacting Imbalanced Fermi Gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 030401 (2006)

    2006

  22. [28]

    Fulde and R

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

    1964

  23. [29]

    A. I. Larkin and Y. N. Ovchinnikov, Nonuniform state of superconductors, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.47, 1136 (1964), [Sov. Phys. JETP 20, 762–770 (1965)]

    1964

  24. [30]

    Casalbuoni and G

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

    2004

  25. [31]

    Matsuda and K

    Y. Matsuda and K. Shimahara, Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin- Ovchinnikov state in heavy fermion superconductors, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.76, 051005 (2007)

    2007

  26. [32]

    Combescot, Introduction to FFLO Phases and Col- lective Modes in the BEC-BCS Crossover, inUltra-Cold Fermi Gases, edited by M

    R. Combescot, Introduction to FFLO Phases and Col- lective Modes in the BEC-BCS Crossover, inUltra-Cold Fermi Gases, edited by M. Inguscio, W. Ketterle, and C. Salomon (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2007) pp. 697–714

    2007

  27. [33]

    J. J. Kinnunen, J. E. Baarsma, J.-P. Martikainen, and P. T¨ orm¨ a, The Fulde–Ferrell–Larkin–Ovchinnikov state for ultracold fermions in lattice and harmonic poten- tials: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys.81, 046401 (2018)

    2018

  28. [34]

    Calvanese Strinati, P

    G. Calvanese Strinati, P. Pieri, G. Roepke, P. Schuck, and M. Urban, The BCS–BEC crossover: From ultra- cold Fermi gases to nuclear systems, Phys. Rep.738, 1 (2018)

    2018

  29. [35]

    Bianchi, R

    A. Bianchi, R. Movshovich, C. Capan, P. G. Pagliuso, and J. L. Sarrao, Possible Fulde-Ferrell- Larkin-Ovchinnikov Superconducting State in CeCoIn5, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 187004 (2003)

    2003

  30. [36]

    Kenzelmann, T

    M. Kenzelmann, T. Str¨ assle, C. Niedermayer, M. Sigrist, B. Padmanabhan, M. Zolliker, A. D. Bianchi, R. Movshovich, E. D. Bauer, J. L. Sarrao, and J. D. Thompson, Coupled Superconducting and Magnetic Order in CeCoIn 5, Science321, 1652 (2008)

    2008

  31. [37]

    Lortz, Y

    R. Lortz, Y. Wang, A. Demuer, P. H. M. B”ottger, B. Bergk, G. Zwicknagl, Y. Nakazawa, and J. Wos- nitza, Calorimetric Evidence for a Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin- Ovchinnikov Superconducting State in the Layered Organic Superconductorκ-(BEDT-TTF) 2Cu(NCS)2, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 187002 (2007)

    2007

  32. [38]

    J. A. Wright, E. Green, P. Kuhns, A. Reyes, J. Brooks, J. Schlueter, R. Kato, H. Yamamoto, M. Kobayashi, and S. E. Brown, Zeeman-Driven Phase Transi- tion within the Superconducting State ofκ-(BEDT- TTF)2Cu(NCS)2, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 087002 (2011)

    2011

  33. [39]

    Mayaffre, S

    H. Mayaffre, S. Kr”amer, M. Horvati’c, C. Berthier, K. Miyagawa, K. Kanoda, and V. F. Mitrovi’c, Evi- dence of Andreev bound states as a hallmark of the FFLO phase inκ-(BEDT-TTF) 2Cu(NCS)2, Nat. Phys. 10, 928 (2014)

    2014

  34. [40]

    Koutroulakis, H

    G. Koutroulakis, H. K”uhne, J. A. Schlueter, J. Wos- nitza, and S. E. Brown, Microscopic Study of the Fulde- Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov State in an All-Organic Su- perconductor, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 067003 (2016)

    2016

  35. [41]

    C. W. Cho, J. H. Yang, N. F. Q. Yuan, J. Shen, T. Wolf, and R. Lortz, Thermodynamic Evidence for the Fulde- Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov State in the KFe2As2 Super- conductor, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 217002 (2017). 30

    2017

  36. [42]

    Kasahara, Y

    S. Kasahara, Y. Sato, S. Licciardello, M. ˇCulo, S. Ar- senijevi’c, T. Ottenbros, T. Tominaga, J. B”oker, I. Eremin, T. Shibauchi, J. Wosnitza, N. E. Hussey, and Y. Matsuda, Evidence for an Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin- Ovchinnikov State with Segmented Vortices in the BCS- BEC-Crossov...

    2020

  37. [43]

    Y.-A. Liao, A. S. C. Rittner, T. Paprotta, W. Li, G. B. Partridge, R. G. Hulet, S. K. Baur, and E. J. Mueller, Spin-imbalance in a one-dimensional Fermi gas, Nature 467, 567 (2010)

    2010

  38. [44]

    B. A. Olsen, M. C. Revelle, J. A. Fry, D. E. Sheehy, and R. G. Hulet, Phase Diagram of a Strongly Interacting Spin-Imbalanced Fermi Gas, Phys. Rev. A92, 063616 (2015)

    2015

  39. [45]

    M. C. Revelle, J. A. Fry, B. A. Olsen, and R. G. Hulet, 1D to 3D Crossover of a Spin-Imbalanced Fermi Gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 235301 (2016)

    2016

  40. [46]

    Sundar, J

    B. Sundar, J. A. Fry, M. C. Revelle, R. G. Hulet, and K. R. A. Hazzard, Spin-imbalanced ultracold Fermi gases in a two-dimensional array of tubes, Phys. Rev. A 102, 033311 (2020)

    2020

  41. [47]

    R. Yao, S. Chi, M. Wang, R. J. Fletcher, and M. Zwier- lein, Measuring Pair Correlations in Bose and Fermi Gases via Atom-Resolved Microscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 183402 (2025)

    2025

  42. [48]

    M. Pini, P. Pieri, and G. Calvanese Strinati, Strong Fulde-Ferrell Larkin-Ovchinnikov pairing fluctuations in polarized Fermi systems, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 043068 (2021)

    2021

  43. [49]

    Sarma, On the influence of a uniform exchange field acting on the spins of the conduction electrons in a su- perconductor, J

    G. Sarma, On the influence of a uniform exchange field acting on the spins of the conduction electrons in a su- perconductor, J. Phys. Chem. Solids24, 1029 (1963)

    1963

  44. [50]

    Magnetized

    D. E. Sheehy and L. Radzihovsky, BEC-BCS Crossover in “Magnetized” Feshbach-Resonantly Paired Superflu- ids, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 060401 (2006)

    2006

  45. [51]

    D. E. Sheehy and L. Radzihovsky, BEC–BCS Crossover, Phase Transitions and Phase Separation in Polarized Resonantly-Paired Superfluids, Ann. Phys.322, 1790 (2007)

    2007

  46. [52]

    M. M. Parish, F. M. Marchetti, A. Lamacraft, and B. D. Simons, Finite-temperature phase diagram of a polar- ized Fermi condensate, Nat. Phys.3, 124 (2007)

    2007

  47. [53]

    Chevy and C

    F. Chevy and C. Mora, Ultra-cold polarized Fermi gases, Rep. Prog. Phys.73, 112401 (2010)

    2010

  48. [54]

    Radzihovsky and D

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

    2010

  49. [55]

    C. Lobo, A. Recati, S. Giorgini, and S. Stringari, Nor- mal state of a polarized Fermi gas at unitarity, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 200403 (2006)

    2006

  50. [56]

    Pilati and S

    S. Pilati and S. Giorgini, Phase separation in a polarized fermi gas at zero temperature, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 030401 (2008)

    2008

  51. [57]

    Gukelberger, S

    J. Gukelberger, S. Lienert, E. Kozik, L. Pollet, and M. Troyer, Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov pairing as leading instability on the square lattice, Phys. Rev. B 94, 075157 (2016)

    2016

  52. [58]

    Vitali, P

    E. Vitali, P. Rosenberg, and S. Zhang, Exotic Super- fluid Phases in Spin-Polarized Fermi Gases in Optical Lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 203201 (2022)

    2022

  53. [59]

    Kashimura, R

    T. Kashimura, R. Watanabe, and Y. Ohashi, Spin sus- ceptibility and fluctuation corrections in the BCS-BEC crossover regime of an ultracold Fermi gas, Phys. Rev. A86, 043622 (2012)

    2012

  54. [61]

    Tajima, T

    H. Tajima, T. Kashimura, R. Hanai, R. Watanabe, and Y. Ohashi, Uniform spin susceptibility and spin-gap phenomenon in the BCS-BEC crossover regime of an ultracold Fermi gas, Phys. Rev. A89, 033617 (2014)

    2014

  55. [62]

    Frank, J

    B. Frank, J. Lang, and W. Zwerger, Universal phase di- agram and scaling functions of imbalanced Fermi gases, J. Exp. Theor. Phys.127, 812 (2018)

    2018

  56. [63]

    Perali, P

    A. Perali, P. Pieri, G. C. Strinati, and C. Castellani, Pseudogap and spectral function from superconduct- ing fluctuations to the bosonic limit, Phys. Rev. B66, 024510 (2002)

    2002

  57. [64]

    Pieri, L

    P. Pieri, L. Pisani, and G. C. Strinati, BCS-BEC crossover at finite temperature in the broken-symmetry phase, Phys. Rev. B70, 094508 (2004)

    2004

  58. [66]

    M. Pini, P. Pieri, and G. Calvanese Strinati, Evo- lution of an attractive polarized Fermi gas: From a Fermi liquid of polarons to a non-Fermi liquid at the Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov quantum critical point, Phys. Rev. B107, 054505 (2023)

    2023

  59. [67]

    Pantel, D

    P.-A. Pantel, D. Davesne, and M. Urban, Polarized Fermi gases at finite temperature in the BCS-BEC crossover, Phys. Rev. A90, 053629 (2014)

    2014

  60. [68]

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

    2015

  61. [69]

    K. V. Samokhin and M. S. Mar’enko, Quantum fluctua- tions in Larkin-Ovchinnikov-Fulde-Ferrell superconduc- tors, Phys. Rev. B73, 144502 (2006)

    2006

  62. [70]

    Piazza, W

    F. Piazza, W. Zwerger, and P. Strack, FFLO strange metal and quantum criticality in two dimensions: The- ory and application to organic superconductors, Phys. Rev. B93, 085112 (2016)

    2016

  63. [71]

    Pimenov, I

    D. Pimenov, I. Mandal, F. Piazza, and M. Punk, Non- Fermi liquid at the FFLO quantum critical point, Phys. Rev. B98, 024510 (2018)

    2018

  64. [72]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. M. Parish, and T. Enss, Universal Equa- tion of State and Pseudogap in the Two-Dimensional Fermi Gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 135302 (2014)

    2014

  65. [73]

    Bloom, Two-dimensional Fermi gas, Phys

    P. Bloom, Two-dimensional Fermi gas, Phys. Rev. B12, 125 (1975)

    1975

  66. [74]

    Bertaina and S

    G. Bertaina and S. Giorgini, BCS-BEC Crossover in a Two-Dimensional Fermi Gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 110403 (2011)

    2011

  67. [75]

    Q. Chen, J. Stajic, S. Tan, and K. Levin, BCS–BEC crossover: From high temperature superconductors to ultracold superfluids, Phys. Rep.412, 1 (2005)

    2005

  68. [76]

    J. M. Luttinger, Fermi Surface and Some Simple Equi- librium Properties of a System of Interacting Fermions, Phys. Rev.119, 1153 (1960)

    1960

  69. [77]

    Pieri and G

    P. Pieri and G. C. Strinati, Luttinger theorem and im- balanced Fermi systems, Eur. Phys. J. B90, 68 (2017)

    2017

  70. [78]

    Randeria, J.-M

    M. Randeria, J.-M. Duan, and L.-Y. Shieh, Bound states, Cooper pairing, and Bose condensation in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.62, 981 (1989)

    1989

  71. [79]

    Levinsen and M

    J. Levinsen and M. M. Parish, Strongly interacting two- dimensional Fermi gases, inAnnu. Rev. Cold At. Mol., 31 Vol. 3 (2015) Chap. 1, pp. 1–75

    2015

  72. [80]

    Salasnich and F

    L. Salasnich and F. Toigo, Composite bosons in the two- dimensional BCS-BEC crossover from Gaussian fluctu- ations, Phys. Rev. A91, 011604 (2015)

    2015

  73. [81]

    L. He, H. L¨ u, G. Cao, H. Hu, and X.-J. Liu, Quan- tum fluctuations in the BCS-BEC crossover of two- dimensional Fermi gases, Phys. Rev. A92, 023620 (2015)

    2015

  74. [82]

    Boettcher, L

    I. Boettcher, L. Bayha, D. Kedar, P. A. Murthy, M. Nei- dig, M. G. Ries, A. N. Wenz, G. Z¨ urn, S. Jochim, and T. Enss, Equation of State of Ultracold Fermions in the 2D BEC-BCS Crossover Region, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 045303 (2016)

    2016

  75. [83]

    Vitali, H

    E. Vitali, H. Shi, M. Qin, and S. Zhang, Visualizing the BEC-BCS crossover in a two-dimensional Fermi gas: Pairing gaps and dynamical response functions from ab initio computations, Phys. Rev. A96, 061601 (2017)

    2017

  76. [84]

    Zielinski, B

    T. Zielinski, B. Ross, and A. Gezerlis, Pairing in two- dimensional Fermi gases with a coordinate-space poten- tial, Phys. Rev. A101, 033601 (2020)

    2020

  77. [85]

    Sobirey, N

    L. Sobirey, N. Luick, M. Bohlen, H. Biss, H. Moritz, and T. Lompe, Observation of superfluidity in a strongly correlated two-dimensional Fermi gas, Science372, 844 (2021)

    2021

  78. [86]

    Van Loon and C

    S. Van Loon and C. A. R. S´ a de Melo, Effects of Quan- tum Fluctuations on the Low-Energy Collective Modes of Two-Dimensional Superfluid Fermi Gases from the BCS to the Bose Limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 113001 (2023)

    2023

  79. [87]

    Pisani, P

    L. Pisani, P. Bovini, F. Pavan, and P. Pieri, Boson- fermion pairing and condensation in two-dimensional Bose-Fermi mixtures, SciPost Phys.18, 076 (2025)

    2025

  80. [88]

    Tartari,Phase diagram of a two-component Fermi gas with density imbalance throughout the BCS-BEC crossover, Ph.D

    A. Tartari,Phase diagram of a two-component Fermi gas with density imbalance throughout the BCS-BEC crossover, Ph.D. thesis, University of Camerino (2011)

    2011

  81. [89]

    Schneider, V

    W. Schneider, V. B. Shenoy, and M. Randeria, The- ory of Radio Frequency Spectroscopy of Polarized Fermi Gases, (2009), arXiv:0903.3006 [cond-mat.other]

    2009 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Dzyaloshinskii, Some consequences of the Luttinger theorem: The Luttinger surfaces in non-Fermi liquids and Mott insulators, Phys

    I. Dzyaloshinskii, Some consequences of the Luttinger theorem: The Luttinger surfaces in non-Fermi liquids and Mott insulators, Phys. Rev. B68, 085113 (2003)

    2003

  83. [91]

    Combescot, S

    R. Combescot, S. Giraud, and X. Leyronas, Analytical theory of the dressed bound state in highly polarized Fermi gases, Europhys. Lett.88, 60007 (2010)

    2010

  84. [92]

    M. Punk, P. T. Dumitrescu, and W. Zwerger, Polaron- to-molecule transition in a strongly imbalanced Fermi gas, Phys. Rev. A80, 053605 (2009)

    2009

  85. [93]

    Fratini and P

    E. Fratini and P. Pieri, Mass imbalance effect in res- onant Bose-Fermi mixtures, Phys. Rev. A85, 063618 (2012)

    2012

  86. [94]

    M. M. Parish, Polaron-molecule transitions in a two- dimensional Fermi gas, Phys. Rev. A83, 051603(R) (2011)

    2011

  87. [95]

    Durel and M

    D. Durel and M. Urban, Application of the renormalized random-phase approximation to polarized Fermi gases, Phys. Rev. A101, 013608 (2020)

    2020

  88. [96]

    A. L. Fetter and J. D. Walecka,Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Systems(Dover Publications, Mineola, NY, 2003)

    2003

  89. [97]

    J. M. Luttinger and J. C. Ward, Ground-State Energy of a Many-Fermion System. II, Phys. Rev.118, 1417 (1960)

    1960

  90. [98]

    Takada and T

    S. Takada and T. Izuyama, Superconductivity in a Molecular Field. I, Prog. Theor. Phys.41, 635 (1969)

    1969

  91. [99]

    A. A. Abrikosov, L. P. Gorkov, and I. E. Dzyaloshinskii, Methods of Quantum Field Theory in Statistical Physics (Dover Publications, New York, 1975)

    1975

  92. [100]

    Nozi` eres,Theory of Interacting Fermi Systems(W

    P. Nozi` eres,Theory of Interacting Fermi Systems(W. A. Benjamin, New York, 1964)

    1964

  93. [101]

    Gan and E

    J. Gan and E. Wong, Non-Fermi-liquid behavior in quantum critical systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 4226 (1993)

    1993

  94. [102]

    Schmitt-Rink, C

    S. Schmitt-Rink, C. M. Varma, and A. E. Ruckenstein, Pairing in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.63, 445 (1989)

    1989

  95. [103]

    Dupuis,Field Theory of Condensed Matter and Ul- tracold Gases, Vol

    N. Dupuis,Field Theory of Condensed Matter and Ul- tracold Gases, Vol. 1 (World Scientific, Singapore, 2023)

    2023

  96. [104]

    P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Halperin, Theory of dynamic critical phenomena, Rev. Mod. Phys.49, 435 (1977)

    1977

  97. [105]

    Holder and W

    T. Holder and W. Metzner, Fermion loops and improved power-counting in two-dimensional critical metals with singular forward scattering, Phys. Rev. B92, 245128 (2015)

    2015

  98. [106]

    A. J. Millis, Effect of a nonzero temperature on quantum critical points in itinerant fermion systems, Phys. Rev. B48, 7183 (1993)

    1993

  99. [107]

    Oganesyan, S

    V. Oganesyan, S. A. Kivelson, and E. Fradkin, Quantum theory of a nematic Fermi fluid, Phys. Rev. B64, 195109 (2001)

    2001

  100. [108]

    Metzner, D

    W. Metzner, D. Rohe, and S. Andergassen, Soft Fermi Surfaces and Breakdown of Fermi-Liquid Behavior, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 066402 (2003)

    2003

  101. [109]

    Dell’Anna and W

    L. Dell’Anna and W. Metzner, Fermi surface fluctua- tions and single electron excitations near Pomeranchuk instability in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. B73, 045127 (2006)

    2006

  102. [110]

    W¨ olfle and A

    P. W¨ olfle and A. Rosch, Fermi Liquid Near a Quantum Critical Point, J. Low Temp. Phys.147, 165

  103. [111]

    P. A. Lee, Gauge field, Aharonov-Bohm flux, and high- Tc superconductivity, Phys. Rev. Lett.63, 680 (1989)

    1989

  104. [112]

    M. A. Metlitski and S. Sachdev, Quantum phase tran- sitions of metals in two spatial dimensions. I. Ising- nematic order, Phys. Rev. B82, 075127 (2010)

    2010

  105. [113]

    Belitz, T

    D. Belitz, T. R. Kirkpatrick, A. J. Millis, and T. Vojta, Nonanalytic magnetization dependence of the magnon effective mass in itinerant quantum ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B58, 14155 (1998)

    1998

  106. [114]

    J. Rech, C. P´ epin, and A. V. Chubukov, Quantum crit- ical behavior in itinerant electron systems: Eliashberg theory and instability of a ferromagnetic quantum crit- ical point, Phys. Rev. B74, 195126 (2006)

    2006

  107. [115]

    Dalidovich and S.-S

    D. Dalidovich and S.-S. Lee, Perturbative non-Fermi liq- uids from dimensional regularization, Phys. Rev. B88, 245106 (2013)

    2013

  108. [116]

    Mandal and S.-S

    I. Mandal and S.-S. Lee, Ultraviolet/infrared mixing in non-Fermi liquids, Phys. Rev. B92, 035141 (2015)

    2015

  109. [117]

    Sur and S.-S

    S. Sur and S.-S. Lee, Quasilocal strange metal, Phys. Rev. B91, 125136 (2015)

    2015

  110. [118]

    K¨ uchler, P

    R. K¨ uchler, P. Gegenwart, J. Custers, O. Stock- ert, N. Caroca-Canales, C. Geibel, J. G. Sereni, and F. Steglich, Quantum Criticality in the Cubic Heavy- Fermion System CeIn 3−xSnx, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 256403 (2006)

    2006

  111. [119]

    Fawcett, Spin-density-wave antiferromagnetism in chromium, Rev

    E. Fawcett, Spin-density-wave antiferromagnetism in chromium, Rev. Mod. Phys.60, 209 (1988)

    1988

  112. [120]

    J. A. Hertz and M. A. Klenin, Fluctuations in itinerant- electron paramagnets, Phys. Rev. B10, 1084 (1974). 32

    1974

  113. [121]

    Abanov, A

    A. Abanov, A. V. Chubukov, and J. Schmalian, Quantum-critical theory of the spin-fermion model and its application to cuprates: Normal state analysis, Adv. Phys.52, 119 (2003)

    2003

  114. [122]

    Pieri and G

    P. Pieri and G. C. Strinati, Strong-coupling limit in the evolution from BCS superconductivity to Bose-Einstein condensation, Phys. Rev. B61, 15370 (2000)

    2000

  115. [123]

    Pistolesi and G

    F. Pistolesi and G. C. Strinati, Evolution from BCS superconductivity to Bose condensation: Calculation of the zero-temperature phase coherence length, Phys. Rev. B53, 15168 (1996)

    1996

  116. [124]

    Lee, Stability of the U(1) spin liquid with a spinon Fermi surface in 2 + 1 dimensions, Phys

    S.-S. Lee, Stability of the U(1) spin liquid with a spinon Fermi surface in 2 + 1 dimensions, Phys. Rev. B78, 085129 (2008)

    2008

  117. [125]

    Polchinski, Low-energy dynamics of the spinon-gauge system, Nucl

    J. Polchinski, Low-energy dynamics of the spinon-gauge system, Nucl. Phys. B422, 617 (1994)

    1994

  118. [126]

    M. A. Metlitski and S. Sachdev, Quantum phase transi- tions of metals in two spatial dimensions. II. Spin den- sity wave order, Phys. Rev. B82, 075128 (2010)

    2010

  119. [127]

    S. A. Maier and P. Strack, Universality in antiferromag- netic strange metals, Phys. Rev. B93, 165114 (2016)

    2016

  120. [128]

    Lunts, A

    P. Lunts, A. Schlief, and S.-S. Lee, Emergence of a con- trol parameter for the antiferromagnetic quantum crit- ical metal, Phys. Rev. B95, 245109 (2017)

    2017

  121. [129]

    Schlief, P

    A. Schlief, P. Lunts, and S.-S. Lee, Exact Critical Expo- nents for the Antiferromagnetic Quantum Critical Metal in Two Dimensions, Phys. Rev. X7, 021010 (2017)

    2017

  122. [130]

    Lunts, M

    P. Lunts, M. S. Albergo, and M. Lindsey, Non-Hertz- Millis scaling of the antiferromagnetic quantum critical metal via scalable Hybrid Monte Carlo, Nat. Commun. 14, 2547 (2023)

    2023

  123. [131]

    Y. B. Bazaliy, R. Ramazashvili, Q. Si, and M. R. Nor- man, Magnetotransport near a quantum critical point in a simple metal, Phys. Rev. B69, 144423 (2004)

    2004

  124. [132]

    Mandal, Stable non-Fermi liquid fixed point at the onset of incommensurate 2kF charge density wave order, Nucl

    I. Mandal, Stable non-Fermi liquid fixed point at the onset of incommensurate 2kF charge density wave order, Nucl. Phys. B1005, 116586 (2024)

    2024

  125. [133]

    Pirolo, L

    F. Pirolo, L. Pisani, and P. Pieri, Data for ”FFLO tran- sition and quantum criticality in polarized Fermi gases” (2026), Zenodo Repository

    2026

  126. [134]

    S. L. Sondhi, S. M. Girvin, J. P. Carini, and D. Sha- har, Continuous quantum phase transitions, Rev. Mod. Phys.69, 315 (1997)

    1997

  127. [135]

    M. E. Fisher and R. J. Burford, Theory of Critical-Point Scattering and Correlations. I. The Ising Model, Phys. Rev.156, 583 (1967)

    1967

  128. [136]

    B. L. Altshuler, L. B. Ioffe, and A. J. Millis, Critical behavior of theT= 0 2k F density-wave phase transition in a two-dimensional Fermi liquid, Phys. Rev. B52, 5563 (1995)

    1995

  129. [137]

    Lee, Low-energy effective theory of Fermi surface coupled with U(1) gauge field in 2 + 1 dimensions, Phys

    S.-S. Lee, Low-energy effective theory of Fermi surface coupled with U(1) gauge field in 2 + 1 dimensions, Phys. Rev. B80, 165102 (2009)

    2009

  130. [138]

    Drechsler and W

    M. Drechsler and W. Zwerger, Crossover from BCS- superconductivity to Bose-condensation, Annalen der Physik504, 15 (1992)

    1992

  131. [139]

    D’Alberto, L

    J. D’Alberto, L. Cardarelli, D. E. Galli, G. Bertaina, and P. Pieri, Quantum Monte Carlo and perturbative study of two-dimensional Bose-Fermi mixtures, Phys. Rev. A109, 053302 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.