Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 73 references

Metallic Gross-Neveu criticality and superconductivity on the $\mathrm{SO}(3)$ SLAC fermion

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a bilayer SO(3)-symmetric SLAC fermion model hosts two successive transitions: a continuous Gross-Neveu-SO(3) quantum critical point with N=6 that gaps only a subset of Dirac cones, followed by a first-order…

desk verdict A solid QMC study of a new N=6 SO(3) Dirac model with a clean continuous transition and an intriguing but unproven SC phase; the SC claim needs a thermodynamic-limit extrapolation before it can be accepted. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07990 v1 pith:FSOAVIST submitted 2026-08-08 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.stat-mech

Feng-Yu Zhang , Yin-Kai Yu , Zi-Xiang Li , Shuai Yin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords Gross-Neveu-SO(3)universalityclassDiracsemimetalSLACfermionquantumMonteCarloSO(3)symmetrybreakinginter-layersuperconductivityfirst-ordertransitioncriticalexponents
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 introduces a bilayer model of SLAC fermions with SO(3)-symmetric interactions and uses quantum Monte Carlo to map its ground-state phase diagram. It claims that as inter-layer coupling increases, the six-cone Dirac semimetal first undergoes a continuous transition into an SO(3)-broken semimetal in which only two thirds of the Dirac cones become gapped, with two cones remaining gapless. This transition is identified as a realization of the Gross-Neveu-SO(3) universality class with N=6, with exponents nu=0.81(5), eta_b=0.44(2), and eta_f=0.051(2). At stronger coupling, the SO(3) order drops abruptly while an inter-layer, intra-flavor, SO(3)-symmetric superconducting structure factor rises, evidence for a direct first-order transition rather than a deconfined critical point. The work matters because it extends metallic Gross-Neveu criticality beyond the standard Gross-Neveu-Yukawa paradigm and provides a microscopic platform for SO(3)-symmetric superconductivity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the bilayer SLAC fermion Hamiltonian of Eq. (1), whose layer-resolved hopping takes conjugate amplitudes t_R and t_R^* so the two layers carry opposite chiralities. The model is sign-problem-free under the antiunitary symmetry T=i tau_y K, which pairs the two layers and guarantees nonnegative fermion weights in the auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo. The order parameter for SO(3) breaking is the staggered structure factor S(0) built from the flavor generators K^$\alpha$, and the transition is located through the dimensionless correlation ratio R_SO(3)=1-S($\Delta$ q)/S(0), whose finite-size scaling collapse yields J_c1 and nu. The anomalous dimensions eta_b and eta_f follow from power-law scaling of the squared order parameter m_SO(3)^2 and the fermion correlation G_f at criticality. The superconducting channel is probed by the inter-layer pairing structure factor $m_SC^{2}$ of Eq. (8), and its simultaneous jump with the drop in m_SO(3)^2 is used to diagnose the first-order transition.

What would settle it

Compute $m_SC^{2}$ of Eq. (8) on a sequence of larger linear sizes L at fixed J above J_c2 and check whether it saturates to a nonzero value or decays with L; if it decays, the strong-coupling phase is not a true SO(3)-symmetric superconductor. Additionally, scan J back and forth across J_c2 to look for hysteresis or a latent-heat peak, which would confirm the claimed first-order transition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an SO(3)-symmetric bilayer of SLAC fermions with N=6 irreducible Dirac cones exhibits a continuous Dirac-semimetal-to-SO(3)-broken transition governed by the Gross-Neveu-SO(3) universality class, and that at larger coupling the system enters an SO(3)-symmetric superconducting state through a fluctuation-induced first-order transition. Unlike conventional Gross-Neveu transitions where all Dirac cones gap out, here the SO(3) order gaps only two of the three flavor copies, leaving one flavor (two cones) gapless, a scenario the paper calls metallic Gross-Neveu criticality. The paper extracts the critical point J_c1=0.803(4) and critical exponents from finite-size scaling of the correlation ratio, the SO(3) order parameter, and the fermion correlation function. It further shows that at J_c2 the SO(3) and U(1) order parameters drop sharply while the intra-flavor inter-layer pairing structure factor $m_SC^{2}$ onsets abruptly, ruling out a deconfined quantum critical point and supporting a first-order boundary. The superconducting order preserves SO(3) symmetry and is consistent with an unrestricted Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov analysis identifying same-flavor inter-layer pairing as the dominant channel.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the abrupt onset of the inter-layer pairing structure factor $m_SC^{2}$ at J > J_c2 reflects a true thermodynamic superconducting order; the paper does not show $m_SC^{2}$ surviving the thermodynamic limit, so the strong-coupling phase could instead be a finite-size pairing enhancement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the continuous transition is in the Gross-Neveu-SO(3) universality class with N=6, then metallic Gross-Neveu criticality is not restricted to N=12 and can occur when the ordered phase leaves a fraction of Dirac cones gapless.
  • The extracted exponents, especially the anomalous dimensions eta_b=0.44(2) and eta_f=0.051(2), provide a direct numerical benchmark for future analytical or conformal-bootstrap studies of the SO(3) Gross-Neveu fixed point.
  • The abrupt simultaneous drop in m_SO(3)^2 and rise in m_SC^2 at J_c2 implies a direct first-order transition from the SO(3)-broken semimetal to the SO(3)-symmetric superconductor, with no intervening deconfined critical point as seen in the N=12 model.
  • The superconducting state is channel-selective: intra-flavor inter-layer pairing dominates, while two competing inter-flavor channels show no comparable onset, so the strong-coupling phase is not a generic pairing enhancement.
  • The comparison with Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov results shows that quantum fluctuations of the SO(3) order parameter preempt a mean-field coexistence region, so the first-order character is a quantum-fluctuation-driven effect rather than a mean-field feature.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension would be to test whether the N=6 Gross-Neveu-SO(3) fixed point and the N=12 one flow to the same large-N analytical limit or whether finite-N corrections are unusually large, given the substantial discrepancy with RG predictions for anomalous dimensions.
  • The paper's case for a true superconducting phase would be strengthened by an independent thermodynamic-limit scaling analysis of m_SC^2 at fixed J > J_c2; without it, the strong-coupling signal could in principle be a finite-size pairing enhancement rather than a genuine ordered state.
  • One could check the robustness of the first-order transition by varying the trial-state construction or boundary conditions, since the flavor-balanced closed-shell trial state explicitly preserves SO(3) but may affect finite-size estimates near the transition.
  • If the SO(3)-symmetric superconducting state is realized in cold-atom or synthetic-layer platforms, it would constitute a rare example of pairing that does not break the full spin-rotation symmetry, which may host distinct topological or thermodynamic signatures.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a bilayer SLAC fermion model with SO(3) flavor symmetry using sign-problem-free projector determinant quantum Monte Carlo. It claims a continuous quantum phase transition from a Dirac semimetal to an SO(3)-broken Dirac semimetal, assigned to the Gross-Neveu-SO(3) universality class with N=6 irreducible Dirac cones, with extracted critical exponents ν=0.81(5), η_b=0.44(2), η_f=0.051(2). At stronger coupling, the model is claimed to enter an inter-layer SO(3)-symmetric superconducting phase via a first-order transition. The paper includes an unrestricted Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov mean-field analysis to identify the pairing channel.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper would provide the first numerical realization of Gross-Neveu-SO(3) criticality for N=6 and a new microscopic model for SO(3)-symmetric superconductivity, extending the earlier N=12 study. The QMC method is sign-problem-free and the model construction is physically motivated. The paper is transparent about the deviations of anomalous dimensions from RG predictions and about the mean-field/QMC discrepancy at the second transition. However, the strength of the superconductivity claim is limited by the absence of a thermodynamic-limit analysis of the pairing structure factor.

major comments (3)
  1. [SC phase in the strong-coupling region, Fig. 4(a)] The identification of the strong-coupling phase as a superconductor rests on the finite-size structure factor m^2_SC, defined in Eq. (8), shown only for L=9 and L=13. In d=2, a disordered phase gives m^2_SC ~ O(L^{-2}), while ODLRO gives m^2_SC → const > 0. Without a thermodynamic-limit extrapolation of m^2_SC at fixed J > J_c2, the abrupt onset could be a finite-size pairing enhancement rather than true SC order. Please provide m^2_SC as a function of L for several J > J_c2 and an extrapolation, or otherwise demonstrate that the order parameter survives in the thermodynamic limit.
  2. [SC phase in the strong-coupling region, Fig. 4(a)] The first-order character of the transition at J_c2 is inferred from the sharp drop in m^2_SO(3) and the simultaneous onset of m^2_SC. For a first-order quantum phase transition, one expects a discontinuity that sharpens with system size, typically evidenced by a double-peaked histogram, a Binder cumulant that develops a minimum, or a clear L-dependence of the transition width. The present finite-size data (L up to 15 for SO(3) and L up to 13 for SC) do not rule out a very sharp continuous transition. Please provide additional diagnostics (e.g., energy histograms or L-dependence of the jumps) to support the claim of a first-order transition.
  3. [SO(3)-broken phase and GN-SO(3) universality class, after Eq. (5) and comparison with Ref. [60]] The assignment of the transition to the GN-SO(3) universality class relies on matching the correlation-length exponent ν and the anomalous dimensions η_b and η_f to RG predictions. While ν=0.81(5) is consistent with the 1/N expansion, the quoted η_b=0.44(2) and η_f=0.051(2) are both stated to deviate substantially from the RG results. To make the universality-class assignment convincing, please provide a quantitative table comparing all extracted exponents with the RG predictions, and discuss whether the deviations could be a consequence of limited system sizes or subleading corrections. In particular, consider fitting with correction-to-scaling terms before asserting a precise match.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title] The title 'Metallic Gross-Neveu criticality and superconductivity on theSO(3)SLAC fermion' is missing spaces; please correct the typo.
  2. [Eq. (3)] Δq is introduced as 'the minimum lattice momentum'; please specify the actual momentum components used in the simulation.
  3. [Fig. 2 and fitting procedure] The fitting procedure for R_SO(3) selects the fifth-order polynomial based on the smallest root-mean-square residual; since higher-order polynomials always reduce residuals, please report the goodness of fit (e.g., chi-square per degree of freedom) or the spread of J_c1 and ν across different n_max.
  4. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract says the exponents are 'precisely extracted,' but the text notes substantial deviations from RG predictions; please consider a more cautious wording.
  5. [Supplemental Material, Eq. (S12)] The operator ordering for m^2_SC1 is not immediately transparent; a brief explanation of the ordering would improve readability.
  6. [Supplemental Material, Mean-field analysis] The HFB calculation uses L=71 with a (π,π) twist, while QMC uses periodic boundary conditions up to L=17; please state whether boundary conditions could affect the comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: critical exponents are extracted from QMC observables and compared with independent RG predictions; HFB is used only to select a pairing channel, and SC order is measured directly by QMC.

full rationale

No circular step was found. The primary transition is characterized by QMC measurements of the correlation ratio R_SO(3) (Eq. 3), whose finite-size crossing and scaling collapse determine J_c1 and nu; the exponents eta_b and eta_f are then obtained from power-law fits of m_SO(3)^2 and G_f at J_c1. These extracted values are compared with external RG results from Ref. [60], but the RG numbers are not used as inputs to the fits. The N=6 cone count is a property of the model construction, not a fitted output. The superconductivity analysis uses an unrestricted HFB calculation only to identify the dominant pairing channel; the QMC observable m_SC^2 (Eq. 8) is then measured independently from Wick contractions of the QMC Green functions, and competing pairing channels are explicitly checked and shown not to develop the same onset. The first-order character of the J_c2 transition is inferred directly from the simultaneous discontinuity of m_SO(3)^2 and m_SC^2 in Fig. 4(a). The sign-problem-free property is supported by an explicit antiunitary symmetry argument in the text and by external references; no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation. The finite-size fragility of m_SC^2 noted by the skeptic is a thermodynamic-limit robustness concern, not a circularity, because the observable is not constructed from the fitted parameters or HFB eigenvalues.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger captures the standard QMC and FSS fitting outputs as free parameters (J_c1, nu, eta_b, eta_f) and the model and algorithmic assumptions behind the sign-problem-free simulations. The main extra burden is the unverified thermodynamic-limit behavior of the SC order parameter, which is not established by the finite-size data shown.

free parameters (5)
  • J_c1 = 0.803(4)
    Critical coupling fitted from size-independent crossing of R_SO(3) and polynomial FSS fits; this is the reported critical point.
  • nu = 0.81(5)
    Correlation-length exponent fitted from the FSS collapse of R_SO(3); a result, not an ad hoc constant.
  • eta_b = 0.44(2)
    Order-parameter anomalous dimension extracted from power-law fit of m^2_SO(3) at J_c1.
  • eta_f = 0.051(2)
    Fermion anomalous dimension extracted from power-law fit of G_f at J_c1.
  • Polynomial fit order n_max = 5
    Chosen as the order giving the smallest root-mean-square residual among 1 to 5; this model choice is post hoc and not included in the reported errors.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption SLAC hopping in 2D produces exactly one Dirac cone per flavor per layer with no additional low-energy modes.
    The paper counts N=6 irreducible Dirac cones at Gamma and uses this dispersion for the QMC; SLAC fermions are designed to avoid doubling, but the absence of extra low-energy modes in the interacting model is assumed. Cited to Refs. [36,39].
  • domain assumption The antiunitary transformation T=i tau_y K guarantees a nonnegative fermion weight in the projector DQMC.
    Used to assert sign-problem-free simulations; the weight is written as |det M_1|^2 in Eq. (S8). The argument is standard but is a premise for the unbiasedness of the QMC results.
  • domain assumption The flavor-balanced closed-shell trial state |Psi_T> has nonzero overlap with the ground state at all interaction strengths.
    The trial state fills the lowest L^2+1 eigenstates in each flavor; if overlap vanished or developed a flavor bias, the projector results would be biased. Described in the Supplemental Material Numerical Methods.
  • domain assumption The finite-size scaling form R_SO(3)(g,L)=f(g L^(1/nu)) with a single correlation length exponent applies at the metallic critical point, where gapless fermions remain.
    Used to extract J_c1 and nu via data collapse. A metallic QCP could in principle have multiple length scales; the collapse is presented as evidence but the single-exponent ansatz is assumed.
  • domain assumption The discrete Hubbard-Stratonovich decomposition with Delta_tau=0.05 is sufficiently converged for the measured observables.
    The authors state they checked time-step dependence but do not show the data; convergence is assumed in the reported exponents.
  • ad hoc to paper The strong-coupling m^2_SC order parameter measured on L=9..15 extrapolates to a nonzero value in the thermodynamic limit.
    The SC phase claim requires long-range pairing order, but no L to infinity extrapolation of m^2_SC is presented; this is an assumption made to interpret the finite-size onset as a true phase.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Metallic Gross-Neveu criticality and superconductivity on the $\mathrm{SO}(3)$ SLAC fermion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FSOAVIST

@misc{pith2026260807990,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Metallic Gross-Neveu criticality and superconductivity on the $\mathrmSO(3)$ SLAC fermion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FSOAVIST}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07990}
}
abstract

The realization of Dirac criticality beyond the conventional Gross-Neveu-Yukawa (GNY) paradigm has become a major frontier in condensed matter physics. In this work, we introduce an $\mathrm{SO}(3)$-symmetric bilayer SLAC fermion model with tunable inter-layer interactions that exhibits a rich quantum phase diagram. As the interaction strength increases, the system undergoes two distinct phase transitions. The primary transition is a continuous boundary separating a Dirac semimetal (DSM) from an $\mathrm{SO}(3)$-broken ordered phase. Crucially, this transition evades the standard GNY universality class because the emergent order only gaps out a subset of the itinerant fermions. Using large-scale quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) simulations, we establish that this transition belongs to the Gross-Neveu-$\mathrm{SO}(3)$ universality class with $N=6$ irreducible Dirac cones and precisely extract the corresponding critical exponents. At stronger couplings, a second transition drives the system into an inter-layer $\mathrm{SO}(3)$-symmetric superconducting (SC) state. We provide strong numerical evidence that this transition is a quantum-fluctuation-driven first-order transition. Our study provides new insights into the exploration of Dirac criticality beyond the standard GNY universality class, and also offers a novel platform to realize superconductivity featuring $\mathrm{SO}(3)$ symmetry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07990 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic ground-state phase diagram as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Log-log plot of the real-space fermion correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. The order parameters as functions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions, 2nd ed

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

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    D. J. Gross and A. Neveu, Phys. Rev. D10, 3235 (1974)

    1974

  3. [3]

    A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. R. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 109 (2009)

    2009

  4. [4]

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 3045 (2010)

    2010

  5. [5]

    Qi and S.-C

    X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 1057 (2011)

    2011

  6. [6]

    Sorella and E

    S. Sorella and E. Tosatti, Europhysics Letters19, 699 (1992)

    work page 1992

  7. [7]

    I. F. Herbut, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 146401 (2006)

    2006

  8. [8]

    I. F. Herbut, V. Juriˇ ci´ c, and O. Vafek, Phys. Rev. B80, 075432 (2009)

    2009

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    F. F. Assaad and I. F. Herbut, Phys. Rev. X3, 031010 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    Otsuka, S

    Y. Otsuka, S. Yunoki, and S. Sorella, Phys. Rev. X6, 011029 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    L. N. Mihaila, N. Zerf, B. Ihrig, I. F. Herbut, and M. M. Scherer, Phys. Rev. B96, 165133 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    N. Zerf, L. N. Mihaila, P. Marquard, I. F. Herbut, and M. M. Scherer, Phys. Rev. D96, 096010 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Grover, D

    T. Grover, D. N. Sheng, and A. Vishwanath, Science 344, 280 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    U. F. P. Seifert, X.-Y. Dong, S. Chulliparambil, M. Vojta, H.-H. Tu, and L. Janssen, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 257202 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Ray and L

    S. Ray and L. Janssen, Phys. Rev. B104, 045101 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Corboz, P

    P. Corboz, P. Czarnik, G. Kapteijns, and L. Tagliacozzo, Phys. Rev. X8, 031031 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Rader and A

    M. Rader and A. M. L¨ auchli, Phys. Rev. X8, 031030 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Y. D. Liao, X. Y. Xu, Z. Y. Meng, and Y. Qi, Phys. Rev. B106, 075111 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    L. Wang, P. Corboz, and M. Troyer, New Journal of Physics16, 103008 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    Li, Y.-F

    Z.-X. Li, Y.-F. Jiang, and H. Yao, New Journal of Physics17, 085003 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    Y. Liu, Z. Wang, T. Sato, W. Guo, and F. F. Assaad, Phys. Rev. B104, 035107 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Z. H. Liu, M. Vojta, F. F. Assaad, and L. Janssen, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 087201 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Janssen and I

    L. Janssen and I. F. Herbut, Phys. Rev. B89, 205403 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    Knorr, Phys

    B. Knorr, Phys. Rev. B94, 245102 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    J. A. Gracey, T. Luthe, and Y. Schr¨ oder, Phys. Rev. D 94, 125028 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    B. Roy, V. Juriˇ ci´ c, and I. F. Herbut, Journal of High Energy Physics2016, 018 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Gehring, H

    F. Gehring, H. Gies, and L. Janssen, Phys. Rev. D92, 085046 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Ladovrechis, S

    K. Ladovrechis, S. Ray, T. Meng, and L. Janssen, Phys. Rev. B107, 035151 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Ihrig, L

    B. Ihrig, L. N. Mihaila, and M. M. Scherer, Phys. Rev. B98, 125109 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Boyack, H

    R. Boyack, H. Yerzhakov, and J. Maciejko, The Euro- pean Physical Journal Special Topics230, 979 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Roy and S

    B. Roy and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B94, 115137 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    S. Han, G. Y. Cho, and E.-G. Moon, Phys. Rev. B98, 085149 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    Poland, S

    D. Poland, S. Rychkov, and A. Vichi, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 015002 (2019). 6

    2019

  26. [34]

    T. C. Lang and A. M. L¨ auchli, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 137602 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    Z. H. Liu, W. Jiang, B.-B. Chen, J. Rong, M. Cheng, K. Sun, Z. Y. Meng, and F. F. Assaad, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 266501 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Z.-X. Li, A. Vaezi, C. B. Mendl, and H. Yao, Sci. Adv. 4, eaau1463 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Gazit, M

    S. Gazit, M. Randeria, and A. Vishwanath, Nature Physics13, 484 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    Z. Zhou, D. Wang, Z. Y. Meng, Y. Wang, and C. Wu, Phys. Rev. B93, 245157 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    S. M. Tabatabaei, A.-R. Negari, J. Maciejko, and A. Vaezi, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 225701 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Otsuka, K

    Y. Otsuka, K. Seki, S. Sorella, and S. Yunoki, Phys. Rev. B98, 035126 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    X. Y. Xu and T. Grover, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 217002 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Resolving quantum criticality in the honeycomb hubbard model,

    F.-H. Wang, F. Sun, C. He, and X. Y. Xu, “Resolving quantum criticality in the honeycomb hubbard model,” (2026), arXiv:2602.03656 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2026

  35. [43]

    Y. Liu, W. Wang, K. Sun, and Z. Y. Meng, Phys. Rev. B101, 064308 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Chandrasekharan and A

    S. Chandrasekharan and A. Li, Phys. Rev. D88, 021701 (2013)

    2013

  37. [45]

    X. Zhu, Y. Huang, H. Guo, and S. Feng, Phys. Rev. B 106, 075109 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    Wang and Z

    T.-T. Wang and Z. Y. Meng, Phys. Rev. B108, L121112 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    H. Xu, X. Li, Z. Zhou, X. Wang, L. Wang, C. Wu, and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 023180 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    X.-J. Yu, Z. Pan, L. Xu, and Z.-X. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 116503 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    Yu, S.-H

    X.-J. Yu, S.-H. Shi, L. Xu, and Z.-X. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 036704 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    C. Chen, X. Y. Xu, Z. Y. Meng, and M. Hohenadler, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 077601 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    Zhang, W.-T

    Y.-X. Zhang, W.-T. Chiu, N. C. Costa, G. G. Batrouni, and R. T. Scalettar, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 077602 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    I. F. Herbut, Modern Physics Letters B38, 2430006 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Wu and S.-C

    C. Wu and S.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B71, 155115 (2005)

    2005

  46. [54]

    Li, Y.-F

    Z.-X. Li, Y.-F. Jiang, and H. Yao, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 267002 (2016)

    2016

  47. [55]

    Li, Y.-F

    Z.-X. Li, Y.-F. Jiang, and H. Yao, Phys. Rev. B91, 241117 (2015)

    2015

  48. [56]

    Z. C. Wei, C. Wu, Y. Li, S. Zhang, and T. Xiang, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 250601 (2016)

    2016

  49. [57]

    Wang, Y.-H

    L. Wang, Y.-H. Liu, M. Iazzi, M. Troyer, and G. Harcos, Physical review letters115, 250601 (2015)

    2015

  50. [58]

    Quantum monte carlo methods on lat- tices: The determinantal approach,

    F. F. Assaad, “Quantum monte carlo methods on lat- tices: The determinantal approach,” inQuantum Sim- ulations of Complex Many-Body Systems: From Theory to Algorithms, Lecture Notes, NIC Series, Vol. 10, edited by J. Grotendorst, D. Marx, and A. Muramatsu (John von Neumann Ins...

    2002

  51. [59]

    Parisen Toldin, M

    F. Parisen Toldin, M. Hohenadler, F. F. Assaad, and I. F. Herbut, Phys. Rev. B91, 165108 (2015)

    2015

  52. [60]

    S. Ray, B. Ihrig, D. Kruti, J. A. Gracey, M. M. Scherer, and L. Janssen, Phys. Rev. B103, 155160 (2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    Calabrese, A

    P. Calabrese, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Phys. Rev. B 67, 054505 (2003)

    2003

  54. [62]

    Aharony, J

    A. Aharony, J. Stat. Phys.110, 659 (2003)

    2003

  55. [63]

    Janssen, I

    L. Janssen, I. F. Herbut, and M. M. Scherer, Phys. Rev. B97, 041117 (2018)

    2018

  56. [64]

    B. Roy, P. Goswami, and V. Juriˇ ci´ c, Phys. Rev. B97, 205117 (2018)

    2018

  57. [65]

    Y.-K. Yu, Z. Zeng, Y.-R. Shu, Z.-X. Li, and S. Yin, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 086502 (2026)

    2026

  58. [66]

    Yu, Z.-X

    Y.-K. Yu, Z.-X. Li, S. Yin, and Z.-X. Li, Sci. Adv.12, eadz4856 (2026)

    2026

  59. [67]

    Zeng, Y.-K

    Z. Zeng, Y.-K. Yu, Z.-X. Li, and S. Yin, Phys. Rev. B 112, L060301 (2025)

    2025

  60. [68]

    Zeng, Y.-K

    Z. Zeng, Y.-K. Yu, Z.-X. Li, Z.-X. Li, and S. Yin, Nat. Commun.16, 6181 (2025)

    2025

  61. [69]

    Sorella, S

    S. Sorella, S. Baroni, R. Car, and M. Parrinello, Euro- physics Letters8, 663 (1989)

    1989

  62. [70]

    Demler, W

    E. Demler, W. Hanke, and S.-C. Zhang, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 909 (2004)

    2004

  63. [71]

    I. F. Herbut and M. M. Scherer, Phys. Rev. B106, 115136 (2022)

    2022

  64. [72]

    Uetrecht, I

    M. Uetrecht, I. F. Herbut, M. M. Scherer, E. Stamou, and T. Steudtner, Phys. Rev. B112, 085126 (2025)

    2025

  65. [73]

    H. Liu, E. Huffman, S. Chandrasekharan, and R. K. Kaul, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 117202 (2022). Supplemental Material for Metallic Gross-Neveu criticality and superconductivity on theSO(3)SLAC fermion Numerical Methods We use projector determinant quantum Monte Carlo to evaluate g...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.