Momentum-Selective Electron and Spin Dynamics under Ultrafast Photoexcitation

Alexander I. Lichtenstein; Evgeny A. Stepanov; Gusein Bedirkhanov; Nagamalleswararao Dasari

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Momentum-Selective Electron and Spin Dynamics under Ultrafast Photoexcitation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 predicts that in a photoexcited correlated metal, nodal quasiparticles heat to higher effective temperatures than antinodal ones, while antiferromagnetic fluctuations heat far above the electrons with a nearly frozen correlation…

desk verdict The paper makes credible, testable predictions for momentum-selective ultrafast dynamics, but the quantitative effective-temperature claims are under-specified and need to be pinned down before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08104 v1 pith:FJAKZFIT submitted 2026-08-08 cond-mat.str-el

Gusein Bedirkhanov , Nagamalleswararao Dasari , Alexander I. Lichtenstein , Evgeny A. Stepanov This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.str-el

keywords ultrafastdynamicsHubbardmodelmomentum-selectiveresponsenodal-antinodalanisotropyspinfluctuationslocalmagneticmomentstime-resolvedspectroscopyreal-timeD-GW

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

The paper argues that the momentum-dependent electronic structure of a correlated metal controls how it responds to an ultrafast pump pulse. In the half-filled Hubbard model on a square lattice, it predicts that nodal quasiparticles — the coherent parts of the Fermi surface — absorb energy more efficiently than antinodal, pseudogapped parts, so a transient temperature gap opens across the Fermi surface. It further claims that antiferromagnetic fluctuations at the zone corner are driven far above the electronic temperature while their correlation length stays frozen, making the magnetic response look like a quench rather than thermal heating. The same real-time calculation identifies the nonthermal transfer of spectral weight into the antinodal pseudogap and a slow component of the local spin susceptibility that can be read as a dynamical signature of local-moment formation and its photoinduced melting. If correct, these results place the nodal–antinodal anisotropy seen in time-resolved photoemission and Raman, and the nonthermal magnons seen in time-resolved RIXS, on a common microscopic footing.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a real-time extension of the dual-GW (D-GW) approach, a nonequilibrium many-body method that solves a local impurity problem nonperturbatively on the L-shaped Kadanoff–Baym contour and then dresses the propagators with a GW-like nonlocal self-energy built from renormalized charge and spin fluctuations. This gives momentum- and frequency-resolved single-particle spectra and two-particle susceptibilities directly in real time. Wigner-transformed spectral functions define effective temperatures and distribution functions for electrons and for magnetic excitations, and the two-component structure of the local spin susceptibility — a fast hopping-dominated piece and a slow superexchange-dominated piece, confirmed by an exact Hubbard-dimer analysis — carries the proposed dynamical criterion for local-moment formation.

What would settle it

Recalculate the same pump-pulse protocol with an impurity solver that is systematically improvable, or measure time-resolved RIXS on a square-lattice antiferromagnet, and check whether the zone-corner magnon peak position shifts with the electronic temperature during the pulse; if it shifts immediately rather than remaining frozen, the claimed quench-like magnetic response fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Resonant photoexcitation of the half-filled Hubbard model on a square lattice does not merely heat the system as a whole. In the metallic and pseudogap regimes, the nodal (coherent) parts of the Fermi surface heat faster than the antinodal (pseudogapped) parts, so the quasiparticle effective temperature at the node exceeds that at the antinode until the antinodal pseudogap collapses. At the same time, the antiferromagnetic mode at $M=(\pi,\pi)$ reaches an effective temperature well above the electronic one while its spectral peak, and therefore the magnetic correlation length, stays almost unchanged during the pulse; long-wavelength modes at the zone center remain tied to the electrons. After the pulse, magnetic spectral weight cascades from high momenta down to long-wavelength modes. The paper also claims that a slow, interaction-dependent peak in the real-time local spin susceptibility, whose timescale is set by the superexchange energy, provides an experimentally accessible dynamical signature of local-moment formation and its melting under photoexcitation.

Load-bearing premise

The entire momentum-resolved picture rests on the non-crossing approximation used inside the real-time impurity solver; if that approximation distorts two-particle spin fluctuations in the pseudogap regime, the reported temperature gap, frozen correlation length, and moment-melting signature could be numerical artifacts rather than physics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Time-resolved photoemission and Raman measurements should see a genuine nodal–antinodal quasiparticle temperature gap whenever the antinodal pseudogap is present, not an experimental artifact.
Transient antinodal in-gap states seen in cuprate pump–probe photoemission can be interpreted as correlation-driven spectral-weight transfer from the Hubbard bands, not simple gap filling.
Two-temperature and three-temperature models of ultrafast magnetism would need a momentum-selective magnetic channel, because the zone-corner antiferromagnetic mode can sit far above the electronic temperature while its correlation length is frozen.
The slow component of the real-time local spin susceptibility gives a pump–probe-accessible signature of local-moment formation and melting, extending previous equilibrium or imaginary-time criteria to nonequilibrium experiments.

Reading between the lines

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

If the zone-corner magnon stays frozen while heating, then the relaxation bottleneck in gapless antiferromagnets is the electron–magnon coupling at the zone corner, so pump shaping could transiently populate or deplete long-wavelength magnetic modes; the paper does not pursue this control scenario.
The local-moment criterion should be testable in multi-orbital Hund metals, where the same slow susceptibility component should separate itinerant and local-moment spin dynamics; the authors do not make this extension.
Because the method's two-particle sector rests on the non-crossing approximation, a small-cluster exact-diagonalization check of the frozen magnon peak position would be a natural next step; the paper itself notes that quantitative agreement would require three-point vertex corrections.
The mapping of a nonthermal trajectory onto the equilibrium $U$–$T$ phase diagram implies that simple effective-temperature analyses of pump–probe data can overestimate heating, since the transient crossover boundaries sit above the equilibrium ones.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know before reading further. The paper is not another equilibrium-phase-diagram study; it is a real-time D-GW simulation of a photoexcited half-filled 2D Hubbard model that makes concrete predictions: nodal quasiparticles heat faster than antinodal ones, the M-point antiferromagnetic mode reaches an effective temperature far above the electronic one while its peak position stays frozen, magnetic spectral weight cascades to long wavelengths, and the slow tail of the local spin susceptibility tracks local-moment melting. The predictions are new for this method and, importantly, nothing is fitted to the experimental observations they are meant to explain, so the circularity burden is genuinely low. The dimer analysis in the appendix is a nice analytical anchor for the susceptibility-peak interpretation.

Where the paper is soft: the effective-temperature machinery is under-specified. Eq. (15) is fit to a window described only as 'surrounding the quasiparticle peak at ω=0'; for the bosonic modes the window is not given at all, and the data are omitted at early and late times. Given that the paper itself shows the AFM distribution is strongly nonthermal (frozen peak, moving width), a single slope over an unspecified range can return an almost arbitrary T_eff. The N-AN difference is less sensitive, but a pseudogapped AN spectrum could bias the same extraction. This does not sink the qualitative story, which is supported by the spectral-weight redistribution and the peak-position/width comparison, but the headline numbers should either be replaced by a nonthermal metric or backed by explicit frequency intervals and a window-robustness check.

Second, the two-particle spin response is computed with the NCA impurity solver, and the authors explicitly state that quantitative accuracy would require three-point vertex corrections. That is an honest caveat, but it applies precisely to the quantities the central claim depends on. A cross-check of the M-point results at one or two parameters with a better solver, or at least a demonstration that NCA artifacts do not drive the frozen-peak behavior, would raise confidence.

Minor: Fig. 4 swaps the U labels between caption and text, and Fig. 3 uses A-m notation for temperatures. No code or data is released, which is frustrating for a computational paper.

Who this is for: theorists in nonequilibrium DMFT and experimentalists doing tr-ARPES/Raman/RIXS on cuprates. The predictions are specific enough to test. The paper deserves serious peer review — it is not a desk reject — but the referees should ask for the fit-window specification, robustness checks, and a careful rewrite of the cuprate mapping.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a real-time D-GW study of the photoexcited half-filled single-band Hubbard model on the square lattice, with the impurity problem solved by NCA. It claims three main results: (i) a transient nodal–antinodal anisotropy in effective electronic temperature, with nodal quasiparticles heating faster than antinodal ones; (ii) a strongly nonthermal magnetic response in which the M=(π,π) antiferromagnetic mode heats far above the electronic temperature while its peak position (correlation length) stays nearly frozen, followed by a momentum-space magnon cascade; and (iii) a dynamical criterion for local-moment formation based on a slow, interaction-dependent peak in the real-time local spin susceptibility, whose photoinduced melting is tracked. The paper compares these predictions qualitatively with tr-ARPES, ultrafast Raman, and time-resolved RIXS experiments on cuprates.

Significance. If substantiated, the paper would provide a unified microscopic framework for momentum-selective ultrafast dynamics in correlated electron systems, a topic of active experimental interest. The strength of the work is that it goes beyond DMFT by including nonlocal spin fluctuations in real time, and it produces several specific, falsifiable predictions: the N-AN temperature anisotropy, the frozen AFM peak position with hot magnon distribution, and the slow-χ_loc signature of local moments. The paper ships no code, but the method and equilibrium phase diagram are taken from the authors' prior published work, and the numerical setup is described in sufficient detail to be reproduced. The main significance rests on the reliability of the NCA-based two-particle spectra and on the effective-temperature extraction, both of which need scrutiny before the quantitative claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)

[Sec. II.B, Eq. (15), Fig. 3(g-i)] The central quantitative claims that N quasiparticles are hotter than AN excitations and that the AFM mode reaches T_eff far above the electronic temperature depend on linear fits to the distribution functions F(t,ω) via Eq. (15), but the fit windows are not specified. For electrons the text states a window 'surrounding the quasiparticle peak at ω=0,' yet for the bosonic modes at Γ and M no window is given, and the data are explicitly omitted at early and late times because the spin susceptibility decays slowly. Since the M-point distribution is shown to be strongly nonthermal in Fig. 5(c) (peak position frozen while the width follows the electronic temperature), F^m_M(ω) need not be linear, and a single slope extracted over an unspecified window can yield an arbitrary T_eff. The same ambiguity applies to the AN spectrum, where the pseudogap depletes spectral weight near ω=0. The authors should specify the exact frequency intervals used for every T_eff extraction, show representative fits and their goodness, and demonstrate that the N-vs-AN and AFM-vs-electron differences are robust to the window choice. Without this, the headline numbers in Fig. 3(g-i) are not uniquely defined.
[Sec. III.D, Sec. II.C] The load-bearing two-particle observables—the momentum-resolved spin susceptibility, the magnon spectra A^m_q(t,ω), and the local spin susceptibility χ^m_loc(t,τ)—are computed with the non-crossing approximation (NCA) as the impurity solver within D-GW. NCA is an approximate real-time solver whose accuracy for two-particle response functions is not established, and the authors themselves state in Sec. III.D that quantitative agreement with equilibrium D-TRILEX would require three-point vertex corrections and a more accurate impurity solution. Because the frozen AFM correlation length, the excessive AFM effective temperature, and the slow component of χ^m_loc are all inferred from NCA-based two-particle spectra, the possibility that these features are numerical artifacts needs to be addressed. I request at least one equilibrium benchmark of χ^m(q,ω) or χ^m_loc(τ) against a more reliable solver (e.g., OCA/IPT, or exact diagonalization on a small cluster) at the relevant U and T, or, alternatively, a clear downgrading of the quantitative T_eff comparisons to qualitative statements in the abstract and conclusions.
[Sec. III.D, Fig. 2(a)] The proposed dynamical criterion for local-moment formation is defined only qualitatively. The green LMM crossover line in Fig. 2(a) is said to be determined from the criterion introduced in Sec. III.D, but that section describes the slow peak only as 'well-separated' and does not specify a quantitative threshold or algorithm (e.g., a minimum peak position in τ, a minimum weight ratio between the slow and fast components, or a curvature condition). The extraction of the LMM melting point in the nonequilibrium trajectory (green square in Fig. 2a) is therefore not reproducible. A precise operational definition of the criterion is needed, including how the peak position and separation are measured on the logarithmic τ axis and how the crossover is assigned when the slow peak shifts and merges with the fast peak during the pump.
[Sec. I, Sec. III.B] The paper presents the results as a 'microscopic explanation' for momentum-dependent phenomena observed in cuprates, but the calculations are for the half-filled single-band Hubbard model, while the cited tr-ARPES and Raman experiments (Refs. [21,22,44]) are on optimally doped cuprates with a hole-doped Fermi surface. The half-filled model possesses particle-hole symmetry and its pseudogap is driven purely by commensurate AFM fluctuations; the doped cuprate pseudogap involves a different Fermi-surface topology and additional mechanisms. The paper should state this mapping limitation explicitly and separate the model-independent mechanism (AFM fluctuation-driven momentum-selective heating) from the direct material comparison. As written, the abstract and conclusion claim more experimental relevance than the model can support.

minor comments (5)

[Fig. 4 caption] The caption labels the left column as 'U=1.15' and the right column as 'U=0.85' in one place and 'weakly correlated metal (U=1.15)' in the same caption, which is contradictory; the weakly correlated case is U=0.85 and the correlated metallic regime is U=1.15. Please correct the caption and ensure panel labels match the text.
[Eq. (15)] Equation (15) contains a typographical error: an extra closing parenthesis appears after 'µ_eff(¯t)'.
[Sec. II.B, Fig. 4 caption] The notation T^loc_eff(¯t) appears in the Fig. 4 caption and in Sec. III.B but is not defined in Sec. II.B, where only T_eff(¯t) is introduced. Please clarify whether the reference spectrum is evaluated at the local (momentum-averaged) effective temperature and define this quantity explicitly.
[Fig. 3(g-i)] The legend labels for the magnon effective temperatures, 'A(m)_Γ' and 'A(m)_M', are confusing because A is used both for spectral functions and for these curves; using T^Γ_eff(¯t) and T^M_eff(¯t) would be clearer.
[Sec. III.C] The text says 'we extract effective temperature of spin excitations'; this should be 'effective temperatures of spin excitations'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the headline results come from the D-GW simulation itself, and self-citations are used as tools rather than as the source of the predicted effects.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are extracted from real-time D-GW simulations of the photoexcited Hubbard model, not fitted to the experimental observations they explain. The nodal-antinodal effective-temperature comparison, the AFM-mode overheating with frozen peak position, and the momentum-space magnon cascade are all diagnostics computed from the same simulation data via Eqs. (12)-(15); no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The LMM criterion is introduced in Sec. III D and then used to draw the LMM crossover line in Fig. 2(a), but this is an explicitly defined diagnostic rather than a circular derivation, and it is given independent analytic support by the exact-diagonalization dimer analysis in Appendix A, where the slow peak is identified with the singlet-triplet superexchange scale J_ex^{-1}. The paper does contain several self-citations involving overlapping authors (Refs. [31,37,40,43]), and the equilibrium phase diagram is adopted from Ref. [40]; however, these are used as methodological tools and reference points, not as the justification for the new predictions. The known approximation caveat (NCA impurity solver, need for three-point vertex corrections) and the underspecified fit windows for extracting bosonic effective temperatures are legitimate correctness and reproducibility concerns, but they do not amount to a circular reduction of the results to the inputs. Accordingly, the circularity burden is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claims rest on the D-GW/NCA method (domain assumption), the half-filled Hubbard model as a cuprate proxy, and an effective-temperature fitting window that is not precisely specified. No new particles or forces are introduced. The three free parameters listed are hand-chosen simulation and analysis choices that affect the reported temperatures and the LMM crossover line, rather than parameters fitted to the experimental data being 'explained'.

free parameters (3)

effective temperature fit window = unspecified; described as 'surrounding the quasiparticle peak at ω=0'
The Teff values for N, AN, and magnons, and hence the claimed temperature anisotropy, depend on the chosen frequency window for the linear fit of F(t,ω); the window bounds are not stated.
LMM slow-peak separation criterion = not quantified
The identification of the slow component of χ^m_loc as a LMM signature relies on a visual 'well-separated' peak; no quantitative threshold (e.g., peak separation, relative amplitude, or lifetime) is defined, so the LMM crossover line in Fig. 2(a) is determined by an implicit choice.
Pump parameters (E0, ωp, σ, t0) = E0=0.095-0.125, ωp=U, σ=20, t0=120
Chosen by hand to be representative of tr-ARPES pulses; the paper states results are qualitatively unchanged for moderate variations, but no systematic scan is shown.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The half-filled single-band Hubbard model on a square lattice captures the essential physics of optimally doped cuprates
Used throughout to compare with tr-ARPES and Raman experiments on cuprates (Sec. I, III.B); cuprates are doped and multi-orbital, so this is a strong simplification.
domain assumption D-GW with the NCA impurity solver yields accurate nonequilibrium momentum-resolved spectra and two-particle susceptibilities
The method is relied on for all results; NCA is known to be approximate for two-particle observables, and the authors state three-point vertex corrections are needed for quantitative agreement (Sec. III.D).
domain assumption The nonequilibrium distribution function is approximately linear in frequency within the quasiparticle window, allowing an effective temperature to be defined
Used to extract Teff for electrons and magnons (Eq. 15, Sec. II.B); if the distribution is strongly nonthermal, the linear fit is not a valid temperature.
domain assumption The dimer analysis in Appendix A identifies the slow peak in χ^m_loc with local-moment dynamics via the superexchange scale
Used to interpret the lattice susceptibility (Sec. III.D); the dimer is a two-site proxy and the analogy is plausible but not a derivation for the lattice case.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Momentum-Selective Electron and Spin Dynamics under Ultrafast Photoexcitation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FJAKZFIT

@misc{pith2026260808104,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Momentum-Selective Electron and Spin Dynamics under Ultrafast Photoexcitation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FJAKZFIT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08104}
}

read the original abstract

Recent advances in time-resolved spectroscopies have enabled direct access to the momentum-selective nonequilibrium dynamics of correlated quantum materials, revealing a strongly momentum-dependent response of electrons and collective excitations. Interpreting these observations requires a real-time theoretical framework that consistently captures the interplay between strong local electronic correlations and nonlocal collective fluctuations, a capability that remains beyond state-of-the-art nonequilibrium approaches. Using a recently developed real-time many-body framework, we resolve the momentum-selective ultrafast dynamics of a photoexcited correlated electron system. We predict a transient nodal-antinodal anisotropy in electronic heating, providing a microscopic explanation for the momentum-dependent response debated in time-resolved photoemission and Raman experiments, and identify the nonthermal spectral-weight transfer responsible for the transient antinodal in-gap states observed in ultrafast photoemission. We further uncover a momentum-selective magnetic response, in which antiferromagnetic fluctuations undergo a strongly nonthermal, quench-like excitation far above the electronic temperature while preserving their correlation length, before relaxing through a momentum-space magnon cascade toward lower-momentum modes. Finally, by tracking the real-time local spin susceptibility, we identify a dynamical, experimentally accessible signature of local-moment formation and its photoinduced melting. Our results establish a unified microscopic picture of ultrafast electronic and magnetic dynamics, providing a framework for interpreting momentum-resolved pump-probe experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08104 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Equilibrium properties of the two-dimensional Hubbard model. (a) Equilibrium phase diagram in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Momentum-resolved spectral functions and effective temperatures during the pump excitation, one column per in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Nonthermal contribution to the transient spec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Nonthermal heating and redistribution of the AFM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Time evolution of the local spin susceptibility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Dimer model with onsite interaction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

[1]

Fausti, R

D. Fausti, R. I. Tobey, N. Dean, S. Kaiser, A. Dienst, M. C. Hoffmann, S. Pyon, T. Takayama, H. Takagi, and A. Cavalleri, Light-Induced Superconductivity in a Stripe-Ordered Cuprate, Science331, 189 (2011)

2011
[2]

Stojchevska, I

L. Stojchevska, I. Vaskivskyi, T. Mertelj, P. Kusar, D. Svetin, S. Brazovskii, and D. Mihailovic, Ultrafast Switching to a Stable Hidden Quantum State in an Elec- tronic Crystal, Science344, 177 (2014)

2014
[3]

Afanasiev, A

D. Afanasiev, A. Gatilova, D. J. Groenendijk, B. A. Ivanov, M. Gibert, S. Gariglio, J. Mentink, J. Li, N. Dasari, M. Eckstein, T. Rasing, A. D. Caviglia, and A. V. Kimel, Ultrafast Spin Dynamics in Photodoped Spin-Orbit Mott Insulator Sr 2IrO4, Phys. Rev. X9, 021020 (2019)

work page 2019
[4]

S. Iwai, M. Ono, A. Maeda, H. Matsuzaki, H. Kishida, H. Okamoto, and Y. Tokura, Ultrafast Optical Switching to a Metallic State by Photoinduced Mott Transition in a Halogen-Bridged Nickel-Chain Compound, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 057401 (2003)

work page 2003
[5]

Oka and S

T. Oka and S. Kitamura, Floquet Engineering of Quan- tum Materials, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.10, 387 (2019)

2019
[6]

de la Torre, D

A. de la Torre, D. M. Kennes, M. Claassen, S. Gerber, J. W. McIver, and M. A. Sentef, Colloquium: Nonther- mal pathways to ultrafast control in quantum materials, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 041002 (2021)

2021
[7]

D. N. Basov, R. D. Averitt, and D. Hsieh, Towards prop- erties on demand in quantum materials, Nat. Mater.16, 1077 (2017)

2017
[8]

Zonno, F

M. Zonno, F. Boschini, and A. Damascelli, Time-resolved ARPES on cuprates: Tracking the low-energy electrody- namics in the time domain, J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom.251, 147091 (2021)

work page 2021

Show all 62 references

[9]

J. A. Sobota, Y. He, and Z.-X. Shen, Angle-resolved photoemission studies of quantum materials, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025006 (2021)

2021
[10]

M. P. M. Dean, Y. Cao, X. Liu, S. Wall, D. Zhu, R. Mankowsky, V. Thampy, X. M. Chen, J. G. Vale, D. Casa, J. Kim, A. H. Said, P. Juhas, R. Alonso-Mori, J. M. Glownia, A. Robert, J. Robinson, M. Sikorski, S. Song, M. Kozina, H. Lemke, L. Patthey, S. Owada, T. Katayama, M. Yabas...

2016
[11]

Y. Cao, D. G. Mazzone, D. Meyers, J. P. Hill, X. Liu, S. Wall, and M. P. M. Dean, Ultrafast dynamics of spin and orbital correlations in quantum materials: an energy- and momentum-resolved perspective, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A377, 20170480 (2019)

2019
[12]

D. G. Mazzone, D. Meyers, Y. Cao, J. G. Vale, C. D. Dashwood, Y. Shi, A. J. A. James, N. J. Robinson, J. Lin, V. Thampy, Y. Tanaka, A. S. Johnson, H. Miao, R. Wang, T. A. Assefa, J. Kim, D. Casa, R. Mankowsky, D. Zhu, R. Alonso-Mori, S. Song, H. Yavas, T. Katayama, M. Yabashi,...

2021
[13]

D. Jost, J. Li, J. Hales, J. Sobota, G. Merzoni, L. Mar- tinelli, S. Ding, K.-J. Xu, J. Schlappa, A. Scherz, R. Car- ley, B. E. Van Kuiken, T. C. Asmara, L. P. Hoang, L. Mercadier, S. Parchenko, M. Teichmann, P. S. Kirch- mann, G. Ghiringhelli, B. Moritz, Z.-X. Shen, T. P. Dev...

2026 doi
[14]

Katsumi, Y

K. Katsumi, Y. Gallais, and R. Shimano, Distinct tera- hertz nonlinear and Raman responses in cuprate super- conductors Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+x, npj Quantum Mater.10, 91 (2025)

2025
[15]

Gatuingt, A

L. Gatuingt, A. Alekhin, N. Nilforoushan, S. Houver, A. Sacuto, G. Gu, and Y. Gallais, Ultrafast Raman probe of the photoinduced superconducting to normal state transition in the cuprate Bi 2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ, Phys. Rev. B113, 014509 (2026). 14

2026
[16]

Gallais, Tracking photo-induced superconducting to normal state transition in the cuprate Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8, inAdvances in Ultrafast Condensed Phase Physics V, Vol

Y. Gallais, Tracking photo-induced superconducting to normal state transition in the cuprate Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8, inAdvances in Ultrafast Condensed Phase Physics V, Vol. PC14077, edited by S. Haacke and M. Ossiander, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE,
[17]

M. R. Norman, H. Ding, M. Randeria, J. C. Campuzano, T. Yokoya, T. Takeuchi, T. Takahashi, T. Mochiku, K. Kadowaki, P. Guptasarma, and D. G. Hinks, Destruc- tion of the Fermi surface in underdoped high-T c super- conductors, Nature392, 157 (1998)

1998
[18]

Damascelli, Z

A. Damascelli, Z. Hussain, and Z.-X. Shen, Angle- resolved photoemission studies of the cuprate supercon- ductors, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 473 (2003)

2003
[19]

Kanigel, M

A. Kanigel, M. R. Norman, M. Randeria, U. Chatterjee, S. Souma, A. Kaminski, H. M. Fretwell, S. Rosenkranz, M. Shi, T. Sato, T. Takahashi, Z. Z. Li, H. Raffy, K. Kad- owaki, D. Hinks, L. Ozyuzer, and J. C. Campuzano, Evo- lution of the pseudogap from Fermi arcs to the nodal li...

2006
[20]

Hashimoto, I

M. Hashimoto, I. M. Vishik, R.-H. He, T. P. Dev- ereaux, and Z.-X. Shen, Energy gaps in high-transition- temperature cuprate superconductors, Nat. Phys.10, 483 (2014)

2014
[21]

Cilento, G

F. Cilento, G. Manzoni, A. Sterzi, S. Peli, A. Ronchi, A. Crepaldi, F. Boschini, C. Cacho, R. Chapman, E. Springate, H. Eisaki, M. Greven, M. Berciu, A. F. Kemper, A. Damascelli, M. Capone, C. Giannetti, and F. Parmigiani, Dynamics of correlation-frozen antinodal quasiparticle...

2018
[22]

Cilento, S

F. Cilento, S. Dal Conte, G. Coslovich, S. Peli, N. Nem- brini, S. Mor, F. Banfi, G. Ferrini, H. Eisaki, M. K. Chan, C. J. Dorow, M. J. Veit, M. Greven, D. van der Marel, R. Comin, A. Damascelli, L. Rettig, U. Boven- siepen, M. Capone, C. Giannetti, and F. Parmigiani, Photo-en...

2014
[23]

Mitrano and Y

M. Mitrano and Y. Wang, Probing light-driven quantum materials with ultrafast resonant inelastic X-ray scatter- ing, Commun. Phys.3, 184 (2020)

2020
[24]

J. C. Slater, Magnetic Effects and the Hartree-Fock Equation, Phys. Rev.82, 538 (1951)

1951
[25]

Rohringer and A

G. Rohringer and A. Toschi, Impact of nonlocal corre- lations over different energy scales: A dynamical vertex approximation study, Phys. Rev. B94, 125144 (2016)

2016
[26]

P. W. Anderson, New Approach to the Theory of Su- perexchange Interactions, Phys. Rev.115, 2 (1959)

1959
[27]

K. A. Chao, J. Spa lek, and A. M. Ole´ s, Degenerate Per- turbation Theory and Its Application to the Hubbard Model, Phys. Lett. A64, 163 (1977)

1977
[28]

K. A. Chao, J. Spa lek, and A. M. Ole´ s, Kinetic Exchange Interaction in a Narrow S-Band, J. Phys. C10, L271 (1977)

1977
[29]

A. H. MacDonald, S. M. Girvin, and D. Yoshioka, t U expansion for the Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B37, 9753 (1988)

1988
[30]

Spa lek,t–JModel Then and Now: A Personal Per- spective from the Pioneering Times, Acta Phys

J. Spa lek,t–JModel Then and Now: A Personal Per- spective from the Pioneering Times, Acta Phys. Pol. A 111, 409 (2007)

2007
[31]

Chatzieleftheriou, S

M. Chatzieleftheriou, S. Biermann, and E. A. Stepanov, Local and Nonlocal Electronic Correlations at the Metal- Insulator Transition in the Two-Dimensional Hubbard Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 236504 (2024)

2024
[32]

Gunnarsson, G

O. Gunnarsson, G. Rohringer, T. Sch¨ afer, G. Sangio- vanni, and A. Toschi, Breakdown of traditional many- body theories for correlated electrons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 056402 (2017)

2017
[33]

E. A. Stepanov, L. Peters, I. S. Krivenko, A. I. Licht- enstein, M. I. Katsnelson, and A. N. Rubtsov, Quantum spin fluctuations and evolution of electronic structure in cuprates, npj Quantum Mater.3, 54 (2018)

2018
[34]

Watzenb¨ ock, M

C. Watzenb¨ ock, M. Edelmann, D. Springer, G. Sangio- vanni, and A. Toschi, Characteristic Timescales of the Local Moment Dynamics in Hund’s Metals, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 086402 (2020)

2020
[35]

T. B. Mazitov and A. A. Katanin, Local magnetic mo- ment formation and Kondo screening in the half-filled single-band Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B105, L081111 (2022)

2022
[36]

Chalupa, T

P. Chalupa, T. Sch¨ afer, M. Reitner, D. Springer, S. An- dergassen, and A. Toschi, Fingerprints of the Local Mo- ment Formation and its Kondo Screening in the Gener- alized Susceptibilities of Many-Electron Problems, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 056403 (2021)

2021
[37]

E. A. Stepanov, S. Brener, V. Harkov, M. I. Katsnel- son, and A. I. Lichtenstein, Spin dynamics of itinerant electrons: Local magnetic moment formation and Berry phase, Phys. Rev. B105, 155151 (2022)

2022
[38]

Gaspard and J

L. Gaspard and J. M. Tomczak, Timescale of Local Mo- ment Screening across and above the Mott Transition, SciPost Phys.12, 184 (2022), arXiv:2112.02881

2022 arXiv
[39]

T. B. Mazitov and A. A. Katanin, Local magnetic mo- ment formation and Kondo screening in the presence of Hund exchange: Two-band Hubbard model analysis, Phys. Rev. B110, 075160 (2024)

2024
[40]

Dasari, H

N. Dasari, H. U. R. Strand, M. Eckstein, A. I. Licht- enstein, and E. A. Stepanov, Electron-magnon dynamics triggered by an ultrashort laser pulse: A real-time dual GWstudy, Phys. Rev. B111, 235129 (2025)

2025
[41]

Schmidt and H

P. Schmidt and H. Monien, Nonequilibrium dynamical mean-field theory of a strongly correlated system (2002), arXiv:cond-mat/0202046 [cond-mat.str-el]

2002 arXiv
[42]

H. Aoki, N. Tsuji, M. Eckstein, M. Kollar, T. Oka, and P. Werner, Nonequilibrium dynamical mean-field theory and its applications, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 779 (2014)

2014
[43]

Dasari, H

N. Dasari, H. U. R. Strand, M. Eckstein, A. I. Lichten- stein, and E. A. Stepanov, Nonlocal Correlation Effects in dc and Optical Conductivity of the Hubbard Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 106905 (2026)

2026
[44]

Parham, H

S. Parham, H. Li, T. J. Nummy, J. A. Waugh, X. Q. Zhou, J. Griffith, J. Schneeloch, R. D. Zhong, G. D. Gu, and D. S. Dessau, Ultrafast Gap Dynamics and Elec- tronic Interactions in a Photoexcited Cuprate Supercon- ductor, Phys. Rev. X7, 041013 (2017)

2017
[45]

Gatuingt and Y

L. Gatuingt and Y. Gallais, Private communication
[46]

Sayad, R

M. Sayad, R. Rausch, and M. Potthoff, Relaxation of a Classical Spin Coupled to a Strongly Correlated Electron System, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 127201 (2016)

2016
[47]

Peierls, On the Theory of the Diamagnetism of Con- duction Electrons, Z

R. Peierls, On the Theory of the Diamagnetism of Con- duction Electrons, Z. Phys.80, 763 (1933)

1933
[48]

E. A. Stepanov, V. Harkov, and A. I. Lichtenstein, Con- sistent partial bosonization of the extended Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B100, 205115 (2019)

2019
[49]

Harkov, M

V. Harkov, M. Vandelli, S. Brener, A. I. Lichtenstein, and E. A. Stepanov, Impact of partially bosonized collective fluctuations on electronic degrees of freedom, Phys. Rev. B103, 245123 (2021). 15

2021
[50]

Vandelli, J

M. Vandelli, J. Kaufmann, M. El-Nabulsi, V. Harkov, A. Lichtenstein, and E. Stepanov, Multi-band D- TRILEX approach to materials with strong electronic correlations, SciPost Phys.13, 036 (2022)

2022
[51]

E. A. Stepanov,Diagrammatics in the Dual Space, or There and Back Again, Habilitation thesis, ´Ecole Poly- technique (2025)

2025
[52]

Eckstein and P

M. Eckstein and P. Werner, Nonequilibrium dynamical mean-field calculations based on the noncrossing approx- imation and its generalizations, Phys. Rev. B82, 115115 (2010)

2010
[53]

Dasari and M

N. Dasari and M. Eckstein, Photoexcited states in corre- lated band insulators, Phys. Rev. B98, 035113 (2018)

2018
[54]

Murakami, D

Y. Murakami, D. Goleˇ z, M. Eckstein, and P. Werner, Photoinduced nonequilibrium states in Mott insulators, Rev. Mod. Phys.97, 035001 (2025)

2025
[55]

Sch¨ uler, D

M. Sch¨ uler, D. Goleˇ z, Y. Murakami, N. Bittner, A. Her- rmann, H. U. R. Strand, P. Werner, and M. Eckstein, NESSi: The Non-Equilibrium Systems Simulation pack- age, Comput. Phys. Commun.257, 107484 (2020)

2020
[56]

P. B. Allen, Theory of thermal relaxation of electrons in metals, Phys. Rev. Lett.59, 1460 (1987)

1987
[57]

Pankratova, I

M. Pankratova, I. P. Miranda, D. Thonig, M. Pereiro, E. Sj¨ oqvist, A. Delin, O. Eriksson, and A. Bergman, Heat-conserving three-temperature model for ultrafast demagnetization in nickel, Phys. Rev. B106, 174407 (2022)

2022
[58]

Miyake, K

T. Miyake, K. Nakamura, R. Arita, and M. Imada, Com- parison of Ab initio Low-Energy Models for LaFePO, LaFeAsO, BaFe2As2, LiFeAs, FeSe, and FeTe: Electron Correlation and Covalency, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.79, 044705 (2010)

2010
[59]

Krivenko, M

I. Krivenko, M. Danilov, and P. Kubiczek, realevol: Real time evolution solver based on TRIQS,https://github. com/krivenko/triqs-realevol(2026), version 0.11.2

2026
[60]

Parcollet, M

O. Parcollet, M. Ferrero, T. Ayral, H. Hafermann, I. Krivenko, L. Messio, and P. Seth, TRIQS: A toolbox for research on interacting quantum systems, Comput. Phys. Commun.196, 398 (2015)

2015
[61]

Avella, F

A. Avella, F. Mancini, and T. Saikawa, The 2-site Hub- bard andt-Jmodels, Eur. Phys. J. B36, 445 (2003)

2003
[62]

D. J. Carrascal, J. Ferrer, J. C. Smith, and K. Burke, The Hubbard dimer: a density functional case study of a many-body problem, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter27, 393001 (2015). 16 Appendix A: Hubbard dimer analysis of the spin susceptibility peaks To identify the microscopic orig...

2015

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Fausti, R

D. Fausti, R. I. Tobey, N. Dean, S. Kaiser, A. Dienst, M. C. Hoffmann, S. Pyon, T. Takayama, H. Takagi, and A. Cavalleri, Light-Induced Superconductivity in a Stripe-Ordered Cuprate, Science331, 189 (2011)

2011

[2] [2]

Stojchevska, I

L. Stojchevska, I. Vaskivskyi, T. Mertelj, P. Kusar, D. Svetin, S. Brazovskii, and D. Mihailovic, Ultrafast Switching to a Stable Hidden Quantum State in an Elec- tronic Crystal, Science344, 177 (2014)

2014

[3] [3]

Afanasiev, A

D. Afanasiev, A. Gatilova, D. J. Groenendijk, B. A. Ivanov, M. Gibert, S. Gariglio, J. Mentink, J. Li, N. Dasari, M. Eckstein, T. Rasing, A. D. Caviglia, and A. V. Kimel, Ultrafast Spin Dynamics in Photodoped Spin-Orbit Mott Insulator Sr 2IrO4, Phys. Rev. X9, 021020 (2019)

work page 2019

[4] [4]

S. Iwai, M. Ono, A. Maeda, H. Matsuzaki, H. Kishida, H. Okamoto, and Y. Tokura, Ultrafast Optical Switching to a Metallic State by Photoinduced Mott Transition in a Halogen-Bridged Nickel-Chain Compound, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 057401 (2003)

work page 2003

[5] [5]

Oka and S

T. Oka and S. Kitamura, Floquet Engineering of Quan- tum Materials, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.10, 387 (2019)

2019

[6] [6]

de la Torre, D

A. de la Torre, D. M. Kennes, M. Claassen, S. Gerber, J. W. McIver, and M. A. Sentef, Colloquium: Nonther- mal pathways to ultrafast control in quantum materials, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 041002 (2021)

2021

[7] [7]

D. N. Basov, R. D. Averitt, and D. Hsieh, Towards prop- erties on demand in quantum materials, Nat. Mater.16, 1077 (2017)

2017

[8] [8]

Zonno, F

M. Zonno, F. Boschini, and A. Damascelli, Time-resolved ARPES on cuprates: Tracking the low-energy electrody- namics in the time domain, J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom.251, 147091 (2021)

work page 2021