Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 76 references

Doping an altermagnetic Mott insulator produces pair-density-wave superconductivity locked as Q_PDW ≈ 2 Q_Stripe, the reverse of the usual cuprate relation.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review

2026-07-30 16:31 UTC pith:3BCA3JDK

load-bearing objection Credible DMRG evidence for reversed PDW–stripe locking in an altermagnetic t–J model; the asymptotic-PDW and materials claims are softer than the raw cylinder observation. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.23654 v1 pith:3BCA3JDK submitted 2026-07-26 cond-mat.str-el

Pair-Density Wave from Doping an Altermagnetic Mott Insulator

Shuai A. Chen , Qianqian Chen , Guangyu Yu , Zheng Zhu This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords pair-density wavealtermagnetismt-J modelMott insulatorstripe orderDMRGd-wave superconductivitycheckerboard lattice
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper asks whether altermagnetism—a compensated magnetic order whose sublattices are related by crystal rotation—can drive finite-momentum superconductivity when a Mott insulator is doped. In a checkerboard t-J model where that order is built in as anisotropic ferromagnetic next-nearest-neighbor exchange, large-scale density-matrix renormalization group calculations map a phase diagram in doping and anisotropy. At stronger doping and anisotropy the system leaves a uniform d-wave superconducting regime and enters a pair-density-wave regime that coexists with charge stripes. The pair and charge wavevectors lock as Q_PDW ≈ 2 Q_Stripe along the cylinder, opposite the conventional stripe locking, and long-distance pair correlations are dominated by the finite-momentum component while short-distance pairing remains locally d-wave. The result frames altermagnetic exchange anisotropy as a concrete strong-coupling route to pair-density-wave order in doped Mott systems.

Core claim

In the doped checkerboard t-J model with altermagnetic next-nearest-neighbor exchange anisotropy, large-scale DMRG finds a transition from uniform d-wave superconductivity with charge modulation into a pair-density-wave regime coexisting with stripe order. In that regime the superconducting and charge structure factors obey the unconventional locking Q_PDW ≈ 2 Q_Stripe along the cylinder, pair correlations show a two-scale structure (short-distance local d-wave pairing plus slower-decaying finite-momentum PDW), and a symmetry-allowed Ginzburg–Landau coupling of the form (ρ*)² Δ₀* Δ_Q accounts for the observed locking.

What carries the argument

Altermagnetic exchange anisotropy in the checkerboard t-J model: bond-dependent ferromagnetic next-nearest-neighbor exchanges J± that encode the C4 sublattice relation. DMRG pair and density correlators on cylinders, fit to a two-scale form that separates uniform and finite-Q pairing, plus a Ginzburg–Landau term that couples stripe order quadratically to uniform and PDW pair fields.

Load-bearing premise

The reversed locking and PDW dominance found mainly on six-leg cylinders would survive in the true two-dimensional bulk and are not forced by quasi-one-dimensional geometry or open-boundary charge pinning.

What would settle it

Wider-cylinder or two-dimensional calculations at the same doping and anisotropy that recover conventional locking Q_Stripe = 2 Q_PDW, or that eliminate the finite-momentum pairing peak once altermagnetic anisotropy is present.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Altermagnetic Mott candidates become natural hosts in which to search for finite-momentum superconductivity by doping, strain, or pressure.
  • The quadratic stripe–uniform–PDW coupling can outcompete the conventional linear stripe–PDW coupling when altermagnetic anisotropy is strong.
  • Pair correlations in such systems should show a two-scale pattern: local d-wave pairing at short distance and slower PDW decay at long distance.
  • Ultracold-atom checkerboard realizations with tunable exchange anisotropy offer a direct test of the doping–anisotropy phase boundary.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the reversed locking is truly selected by altermagnetic magnon or exchange anisotropy, similar locking should appear in other lattices that realize T·C4-related sublattices, not only the checkerboard.
  • Spectroscopic probes of magnon splitting in candidate materials could be used as a prior filter before searching for PDW signatures upon doping.
  • The unresolved microscopic selection of the 2 Q_Stripe channel suggests a follow-up calculation of the pairing susceptibility in the anisotropic spin background.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The authors study the doped checkerboard t-J model with bond-anisotropic ferromagnetic NNN exchange encoding altermagnetic (AM) anisotropy η, using large-scale SU(2) DMRG on cylinders of width Ly=6 and 8 (Lx up to 48, bond dimensions to D=36,000). As doping δ and η increase, they report a transition from a uniform d-wave SC regime with charge modulation to a PDW regime coexisting with stripe order. The central result is a reversed wave-vector locking Q_PDW ≈ 2 Q_Stripe along the cylinder direction (e.g., Q_PDW ≈ 0.25 × 2π/a0 vs Q_Stripe ≈ 0.12 × 2π/a0 at δ=1/6, η=0.7 on 48×6), opposite to the conventional cuprate relation. Pair correlators are fit to a two-scale form (Eq. 3) with K_SC ≈ 2.3 and K_PDW ≈ 1.4, interpreted as short-range uniform d-wave pairing plus a more slowly decaying finite-Q PDW component. A GL analysis identifies a quadratic stripe coupling (ρ*_QStripe)²Δ*_0Δ_QPDW that rationalizes the 2Q_Stripe channel.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a notable contribution: it provides a strong-coupling, microscopically motivated Mott-route from altermagnetism to finite-momentum superconductivity, distinct from weak-coupling FFLO mechanisms on spin-split Fermi surfaces, and it reports a wave-vector locking relation that reverses the canonical stripe-PDW hierarchy. Methodological strengths deserve explicit credit: state-of-the-art SU(2) DMRG at very large effective bond dimension, D→∞ extrapolation, a consistency check on a wider (24×8) cylinder, quantitative 95% confidence intervals on the fit exponents (footnotes 71–72), and an honest acknowledgment that the microscopic selection of the 2Q_Stripe channel is unresolved. The phase diagram across (δ, η) and the locking compilation in Fig. 4(b) make the central claim falsifiable within the same numerical framework.

major comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2(f), Eq. (3), footnote 71] Definition of F_sc(q) (§DMRG results, below Eq. 3) and footnote 71: the superconducting structure factor is computed from the envelope-flattened object g(r) = (D_yy(r) − A_0 r^{−K_SC})/(A_Q r^{−K_PDW}), i.e., the fitted two-scale model of Eq. (3) is an input to the spectrum that is then used to 'confirm' the Q_PDW ≈ 0.25 peak. The robustness check in footnote 71 (Q varies <2% if left free) is performed on the same fit-flattened quantity, so the circularity is not broken. Since the locking Q_PDW ≈ 2 Q_Stripe is the paper's headline result, the authors should provide fit-independent evidence: e.g., the Fourier transform of the raw extrapolated D_yy(r) (or of D_yy with only a smooth, fit-independent envelope removed), sensitivity of the peak position to the fit window [r_min, r_max], and ideally a direct demonstration that the oscillation is visible in the unsubtracted correlator over the ~
  2. [§DMRG results; footnotes 71–72] The asymptotic-dominance claim ('the PDW component is expected to dominate asymptotically', p. 3) is an unconstrained extrapolation whose confidence is overstated. Footnote 71 reports K_PDW = 1.4 (+0.7/−0.8), so K_PDW > 2 lies inside the 95% interval and the load-bearing inequality K_PDW < 2 < K_SC holds only at ~96%. Moreover, with |A_0|/|A_Q| ≈ 29, the crossing distance scales as r_c ≈ 29^{1/(K_SC−K_PDW)}: for the central values r_c ≈ 42a0, but for ΔK = 0.3 (allowed by the quoted errors) r_c ∼ 10^5 a0 — physically irrelevant. The 24×8 data (footnote 72, fit over only 7 ≤ r ≤ 15, i.e., ~1.5 oscillation periods at Q_PDW ≈ 0.19) are thinner still. The asymptotic language should be tempered to a statement about the accessible length scales, or supported by a proper error-propagation/sensitivity analysis of r_c.
  3. [Fig. 2(e–f), discussion of LO modulation] The discrimination against the mundane alternative — a uniform condensate whose amplitude is modulated by the stripe, Δ(x) ∝ Δ_0(1 + c cos Q_Stripe x), which generically produces pair-correlator weight at 2Q_Stripe without any genuine PDW — rests on the sign-changing residual in Fig. 2(e) and the equal ±Q_PDW peak weights (interpreted as LO standing wave). This argument is suggestive but the residual is itself fit-subtracted. The authors should sharpen this diagnostic: do the sign changes survive variation of the fit window and of K_SC within its error bars? Is there independent evidence from the bond-orientation dependence D_xy vs D_yy, or from the relative phase between the charge and pair modulations, that distinguishes a sign-reversing pair field from amplitude modulation? Without this, the claim of a genuine PDW (as opposed to stripe-dressed uniform pairing) is not fully secured.
  4. [Fig. 4; Conclusion] Width and boundary-condition dependence: the phase diagram (Fig. 4(a)) is established almost entirely on Ly=6 cylinders with a single Ly=8 point (24×8, δ=1/8, η=0.8). Open boundaries along x pin the charge stripes, and on cylinders the stripe wavelength is known to be sensitive to width and doping; the question of whether Q_PDW is slaved to Q_Stripe via cylinder kinematics, or whether the reversed locking survives in the 2D bulk limit, is not addressed. At minimum the authors should (i) state explicitly how Q_Stripe varies with δ and Ly in their data (Fig. 4(b) partially does this) and (ii) discuss the known OBC-pinning caveat and what would constitute a 2D-robust test. As written, the materials-level conclusion ('altermagnetism as a route to finite-momentum superconductivity in doped Mott insulators') leans on quasi-1D evidence.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figs. 2(a), 3(a)] The D→∞ extrapolation is invoked repeatedly (Figs. 2–3) but the procedure is not described: which D values enter, what functional form is extrapolated (truncation error vs 1/D?), and how extrapolation uncertainty propagates into the fit intervals of footnotes 71–72. A brief methodological paragraph or supplement is needed for reproducibility.
  2. [Figs. 2(f), 3(b)] In Fig. 2(f) and Fig. 3(b) the peak heights are 'scaled to 1 for better visibility', which hides the relative weight of the Q_PDW and Q_Stripe peaks in |F_sc(q)|; since the statement 'F_sc(q) is dominated by a finite-momentum peak' is used to classify the phase, the unscaled ratio should be given somewhere.
  3. [Discussion (GL paragraph)] The GL analysis identifies both the conventional linear coupling ρ_Q Δ*_Q Δ_{−Q} and the quadratic term (ρ*_Q)²Δ*_0Δ_Q, but gives no argument for why the latter should dominate in this regime; the discussion would benefit from a sentence on the relative order of the two terms (e.g., scaling with the small stripe amplitude δn ≈ 0.1), even if the microscopic selection is left open.
  4. [§Altermagnetic spin wave] The magnon subsection (Fig. 1b–c) is a clean half-filling diagnostic but is never connected quantitatively to the doped results; either foreshadow its role (e.g., how the anisotropy scale set by J_± compares to t_1 at the doping of interest) or shorten it.
  5. [Notation; Fig. 4] Notation: n(x) is defined as a hole density 1 − ⟨n⟩/Ly but the symbol collides with the electron-number operator n_i in Eq. (1); the double-letter symbols DD(r) and CC(r) are nonstandard and should be introduced with explicit motivations for the δ-rescaling; in Fig. 4(b) the legend/axis labels appear garbled in the v1 PDF ('N = 24 6').
  6. [§Phase diagram] The claim that the reversed locking 'has not been reported in conventional t-J or related deformations' should be cross-checked against Ref. [34] (competing PDW orders in the square-lattice t-J model) and Ref. [25]/[32] on fragmented condensation, and one or two sentences of explicit comparison would strengthen the novelty statement.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Minor fit-to-spectrum loop in F_sc presentation; central locking and phase diagram are independent DMRG observables, not forced by construction.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [DMRG results on PDW; Eq. (3) and definition of F_sc(q) / Fig. 2(e,f); footnote [71]]
    "we define F_sc(q)=∑(g(r)−ḡ)e^{iqr}, where g(r)=(D_yy(r)−A_{0,yy} r^{−K_SC})/(A_{Q,yy} r^{−K_PDW}). ... In Fig. 2(f), the dominant peaks of |F_sc(q)| occur at Q_PDW≈±0.25(2π/a0). ... We fit D_yy(r)=A_{0,yy} r^{−K_SC}+A_{Q,yy} cos(Q_PDW r+ϕ) r^{−K_PDW} ... The wavevector is fixed to the peak in the Fourier spectrum of the envelope-flattened correlator"

    F_sc is the Fourier transform of data already stripped of the uniform piece and rescaled by the PDW envelope taken from the same two-scale fit that assumes a cos(Q_PDW r) term. A dominant peak at that Q_PDW is then largely guaranteed by construction, so Fig. 2(f)’s |F_sc| peak is not an independent measurement of the oscillation wavevector. The footnote’s ‘Q free varies <2%’ check is performed on the same fit-flattened object. This weakens the claim that the structure factor independently ‘reveals’ Q_PDW; it does not, however, force the locking to the separately measured Q_Stripe from n(x).

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing results are DMRG measurements: raw hole density n(x) fixes Q_Stripe (period ~8a0), pair correlators D_αβ(r) are computed directly, and the phase diagram is read from structure-factor comparison across (δ, η). The relation Q_PDW ≈ 2 Q_Stripe therefore compares two separately measured wavevectors and is not fixed by any input parameter of the Hamiltonian or by a fitted ansatz that is then re-predicted. The Ginzburg–Landau discussion is explicitly post-hoc symmetry rationalization and does not feed back into the numerics. The only mild circularity is presentational: F_sc(q) is defined from the envelope-flattened residual g(r) built with the fitted two-scale parameters of Eq. (3), so a dominant peak at the already-fitted Q_PDW is largely by construction and should not be read as fully independent confirmation. That loop does not determine the locking to Q_Stripe, the existence of algebraic pair correlations, or the phase boundary. No self-citation uniqueness theorem or renamed empirical law carries the central claim. Proportionate score is therefore 2, not a high circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work is numerical strong-coupling many-body physics. Load-bearing inputs are the standard no-double-occupancy t-J Hilbert space, the checkerboard geometry with C4-related sublattices, and the specific choice that AM anisotropy is carried by ferromagnetic NNN exchanges J± = −(t±/t1)^2 J1 with t± = t2(1±η). Free parameters are the scanned microscopic knobs (η, δ, t2/t1) and numerical cutoffs (Ly, D). No new particles or forces are postulated; PDW and stripe are order-parameter diagnoses, not invented entities.

free parameters (5)
  • altermagnetic anisotropy η = 0.6–0.8 (focus); examples 0.7, 0.8
    Hand-chosen window 0.6≤η≤0.8 controls the AM exchange anisotropy; the PDW regime is reported only inside this window.
  • NNN hopping ratio t2/t1 = 0.5
    Fixed by hand at 0.5 throughout; sets overall NNN kinetic and exchange scale via J±∝−(t±/t1)^2 J1.
  • t1/J1 ratio = t1=3, J1=1
    Fixed at t1=3J1=3; standard strong-coupling choice that affects pairing vs magnetic energy balance.
  • cylinder width Ly and bond dimension D = Ly=6,8; D≤36000
    Quasi-1D cutoff and MPS truncation; main claims rest on Ly=6 (plus one Ly=8 point) with D up to 36000 (SU(2)).
  • two-scale fit amplitudes and exponents A0, AQ, K_SC, K_PDW, ϕ = e.g. K_SC≈2.30, K_PDW≈1.4 (48×6); |A0|/|AQ|≈29
    Fitted to long-distance Dyy(r) to separate uniform vs PDW channels; asymptotic PDW dominance uses K_PDW<K_SC from these fits.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption No-double-occupancy projected t-J Hilbert space is the correct strong-coupling description of the doped AM Mott insulator.
    Standard cuprate-style assumption stated in Model Hamiltonian; neglects longer-range Coulomb and multi-orbital physics of real AM candidates.
  • domain assumption Altermagnetism is faithfully encoded by bond-anisotropic ferromagnetic NNN exchange J±=−(t±/t1)^2 J1 on the checkerboard with sublattices related by C4.
    Core modeling choice in Introduction and Model Hamiltonian, motivated by cold-atom and lattice constructions; not derived from a specific material band structure.
  • domain assumption Ground-state equal-time correlators on finite cylinders with power-law pair decay and structure-factor peaks diagnose PDW vs uniform SC order relevant to 2D.
    Standard DMRG practice in the field; used throughout DMRG results and Phase diagram sections.
  • standard math Symmetry-allowed GL couplings ρ_Q Δ*_Q Δ_{-Q} and (ρ*_Q)^2 Δ*_0 Δ_{2Q} control which wavevector locking is selected once stripe order is present.
    Invoked in Discussion; standard Landau expansion, used only as rationalization not as input to DMRG.
  • domain assumption Holstein–Primakoff spin-wave theory captures the AM magnon splitting fingerprint at half filling.
    Used in Altermagnetic spin wave section for spectroscopic motivation; not load-bearing for the doped PDW claim.

reviewed 2026-07-30 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pair-Density Wave from Doping an Altermagnetic Mott Insulator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3BCA3JDK

@misc{pith2026260723654,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pair-Density Wave from Doping an Altermagnetic Mott Insulator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3BCA3JDK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.23654}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Pair-density-wave (PDW) superconductivity is a state in which the superconducting order parameter modulates at a finite wavevector. Using large-scale density matrix renormalization group, we study the doped altermagnetic Mott insulator in the checkerboard $t$-$J$ model, where altermagnetic exchange anisotropy is encoded microscopically through anisotropic ferromagnetic next-nearest-neighbor exchange. By mapping the ground-state phase diagram as a function of doping and altermagnetic anisotropy, mainly on six-leg cylinders, we identify a transition from a uniform $d$-wave superconducting regime with charge modulation to a PDW regime coexisting with stripe order. In the PDW regime, we report an unconventional wave-vector locking $\mathbf Q_{\mathrm{PDW}}\approx 2\mathbf Q_{\mathrm{Stripe}}$ along the cylinder direction, in contrast to the conventional relation. Pair correlations reveal a two-scale structure, consisting of short-distance local $d$-wave pairing and long-distance finite-momentum PDW correlations. A symmetry-based Ginzburg--Landau analysis is presented for the observed locking. Our results identify altermagnetism as a strong-coupling, microscopically grounded route to finite-momentum superconductivity in doped Mott insulators.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23654 by Guangyu Yu, Qianqian Chen, Shuai A. Chen, Zheng Zhu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Checkerboard lattice and model parameters. Blue (or [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. DMRG results for the PDW phase on an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. DMRG results for the PDW phase on an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Ground-state phase diagram as a function of hole doping [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 19 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    P. A. Lee, Amperean pairing and the pseudogap phase of cuprate superconductors, Phys. Rev. X4, 031017 (2014)

    2014

  2. [2]

    Hamidian, S

    M. Hamidian, S. D. Edkins, S. H. Joo, A. Kostin, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, M. Lawler, E.-A. Kim, A. P. Mackenzie, K. Fu- jita,et al., Detection of a Cooper-pair density wave in Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+𝑥 , Nature532, 343 (2016)

    2016

  3. [3]

    Fradkin, S

    E. Fradkin, S. A. Kivelson, and J. M. Tranquada, Colloquium: Theory of intertwined orders in high temperature superconduc- tors, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 457 (2015)

    2015

  4. [4]

    D. F. Agterberg, J. S. Davis, S. D. Edkins, E. Fradkin, D. J. Van Harlingen, S. A. Kivelson, P. A. Lee, L. Radzihovsky, J. M. Tranquada, and Y. Wang, The physics of pair-density waves: Cuprate superconductors and beyond, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics11, 231 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    D. F. Agterberg and H. Tsunetsugu, Dislocations and vortices in pair-density-wave superconductors, Nature Physics4, 639 (2008), arXiv:0902.0805 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    E. Berg, E. Fradkin, and S. A. Kivelson, Theory of the striped su- perconductor, Phys. Rev. B79, 064515 (2009), arXiv:0810.1564 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    S. R. White and D. J. Scalapino, Density matrix renormalization group study of the striped phase in the 2Dt−Jmodel, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 1272 (1998)

    1998

  8. [8]

    Raczkowski, M

    M. Raczkowski, M. Capello, D. Poilblanc, R. Fr´esard, and A. M. Ole´s, Unidirectional d-wave superconducting domains in the two-dimensionalt−Jmodel, Phys. Rev. B76, 140505 (2007), arXiv:0708.0788 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  9. [9]

    Loder, S

    F. Loder, S. Graser, A. P. Kampf, and T. Kopp, Mean-Field Pairing Theory for the Charge-Stripe Phase of High-Temperature Cuprate Superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 187001 (2011), arXiv:1101.3402 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  10. [10]

    Corboz, T

    P. Corboz, T. M. Rice, and M. Troyer, Competing states in the t−Jmodel: Uniform𝑑-wave state versus stripe state, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 046402 (2014)

    2014

  11. [11]

    Zheng, C.-M

    B.-X. Zheng, C.-M. Chung, P. Corboz, G. Ehlers, M.-P. Qin, R. M. Noack, H. Shi, S. R. White, S. Zhang, and G. K.-L. Chan, Stripe order in the underdoped region of the two-dimensional Hubbard model, Science358, 1155 (2017), arXiv:1701.00054 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    J. F. Dodaro, H.-C. Jiang, and S. A. Kivelson, Intertwined order in a frustrated four-legt−Jcylinder, Phys. Rev. B95, 155116 (2017)

    2017

  13. [13]

    Z. Zhu, D. N. Sheng, and A. Vishwanath, Doped Mott insula- tors in the triangular-lattice Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B105, 205110 (2022), arXiv:2007.11963 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    Zhu and Q

    Z. Zhu and Q. Chen, Superconductivity in doped triangular Mott insulators: The roles of parent spin backgrounds and charge kinetic energy, Phys. Rev. B107, L220502 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

    Jiang, S

    H.-C. Jiang, S. A. Kivelson, and D.-H. Lee, Superconducting valence bond fluid in lightly doped eight-legt−Jcylinders, Phys. Rev. B108, 054505 (2023)

    2023

  16. [16]

    Q. Chen, L. Qiao, F. Zhang, and Z. Zhu, Phase diagram of the square-lattice𝑡-𝐽-𝑉model for electron-doped cuprates, Phys. Rev. B110, 045134 (2024), arXiv:2312.05893 [cond-mat.str- el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Jiang, T

    Y.-F. Jiang, T. P. Devereaux, and H.-C. Jiang, Ground-state phase diagram and superconductivity of the doped Hubbard model on six-leg square cylinders, Phys. Rev. B109, 085121 (2024)

    2024

  18. [18]

    Xu, C.-M

    H. Xu, C.-M. Chung, M. Qin, U. Schollw ¨ock, S. R. White, and S. Zhang, Coexistence of superconductivity with partially filled stripes in the Hubbard model, Science384, eadh7691 (2024), arXiv:2303.08376 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    K. Yang, Q. Chen, L. Qiao, and Z. Zhu, Mean-field study of superconductivity in thet−Jsquare lattice model with three- site hopping, Phys. Rev. B110, 054514 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    Himeda, T

    A. Himeda, T. Kato, and M. Ogata, Stripe States with Spatially Oscillating d-Wave Superconductivity in the Two-Dimensional 𝑡-𝑡′-𝐽Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 117001 (2002)

    2002

  21. [21]

    Venderley and E.-A

    J. Venderley and E.-A. Kim, Evidence of pair-density wave in spin-valley locked systems, Science Advances5, eaat4698 (2019)

    2019

  22. [22]

    X. Y. Xu, K. T. Law, and P. A. Lee, Pair Density Wave in the Doped t -J Model with Ring Exchange on a Triangular Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 167001 (2019), arXiv:1811.06538 [cond- mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    Peng, Y.-F

    C. Peng, Y.-F. Jiang, Y. Wang, and H.-C. Jiang, Gapless spin liquid and pair density wave of the Hubbard model on three-leg triangular cylinders, New Journal of Physics23, 123004 (2021)

    2021

  24. [24]

    Peng, Y.-F

    C. Peng, Y.-F. Jiang, T. P. Devereaux, and H.-C. Jiang, Pre- cursor of pair-density wave in doping Kitaev spin liquid on the honeycomb lattice, npj Quantum Materials6, 64 (2021)

    2021

  25. [25]

    Wietek, Fragmented Cooper Pair Condensation in Striped Superconductors, Phys

    A. Wietek, Fragmented Cooper Pair Condensation in Striped Superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 177001 (2022), arXiv:2202.05850 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    K. S. Huang, Z. Han, S. A. Kivelson, and H. Yao, Pair-density- wave in the strong coupling limit of the Holstein-Hubbard model, npj Quantum Materials7, 17 (2022), arXiv:2103.04984 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

    Jiang, Pair density wave in the doped three-band Hubbard model on two-leg square cylinders, Phys

    H.-C. Jiang, Pair density wave in the doped three-band Hubbard model on two-leg square cylinders, Phys. Rev. B107, 214504 (2023)

    2023

  28. [28]

    Chen and D

    F. Chen and D. N. Sheng, Singlet, triplet, and pair density wave superconductivity in the doped triangular-lattice Moir´e system, Phys. Rev. B108, L201110 (2023)

    2023

  29. [29]

    Jiang and T

    H.-C. Jiang and T. P. Devereaux, Pair density wave and super- conductivity in a kinetically frustrated doped Emery model on a square lattice, Front. Electron. Mater.3, 1323404 (2023)

    2023

  30. [30]

    L. Yang, T. P. Devereaux, and H.-C. Jiang, Recovery of a Luther- Emery phase in the three-band Hubbard ladder with longer- range hopping, Phys. Rev. B110, 014511 (2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    Jiang and H

    Y.-F. Jiang and H. Yao, Pair-density-wave superconductivity: A microscopic model on the 2D honeycomb lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 176501 (2024). 6

    2024

  32. [32]

    Baldelli, H

    N. Baldelli, H. Karlsson, B. Kloss, M. Fishman, and A. Wietek, Fragmented superconductivity in the Hubbard model as soli- tons in Ginzburg-Landau theory, npj Quantum Materials10, 22 (2025), arXiv:2307.11820 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    F. Chen, F. D. M. Haldane, and D. N. Sheng, Global phase diagram of D-wave superconductivity in the square-lattice t-J model, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences122, e2420963122 (2025), arXiv:2311.15092 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Zheng, Z.-Y

    W. Zheng, Z.-Y. Yue, J.-H. Zhang, and Z.-C. Gu, Competing pair density wave orders in the square lattice t-J model, Com- munications Physics8, 456 (2025), arXiv:2411.19218 [cond- mat.str-el]

    arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    J. Wang, W. Sun, H.-X. Wang, Z. Han, S. A. Kivelson, and H. Yao, Pair-density-wave phase of strongly interacting electrons on the triangular lattice: A variational Monte Carlo study, Phys. Rev. B112, L140505 (2025)

    2025

  36. [36]

    Hayami, Y

    S. Hayami, Y. Yanagi, and H. Kusunose, Momentum-dependent spin splitting by collinear antiferromagnetic ordering, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan88, 123702 (2019)

    2019

  37. [37]

    ˇSmejkal, R

    L. ˇSmejkal, R. Gonz ´alez-Hern´andez, T. Jungwirth, and J. Sinova, Crystal time-reversal symmetry breaking and spon- taneous Hall effect in collinear antiferromagnets, Science Ad- vances6, eaaz8809 (2020)

    2020

  38. [38]

    L.-D. Yuan, Z. Wang, J.-W. Luo, E. I. Rashba, and A. Zunger, Giant momentum-dependent spin splitting in centrosymmetric low-𝑍antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B102, 014422 (2020)

    2020

  39. [39]

    Gonz ´alez-Hern´andez, L

    R. Gonz ´alez-Hern´andez, L. ˇSmejkal, K. V´ yborn´ y, Y. Yahagi, J. Sinova, T. Jungwirth, and J. ˇZelezn´ y, Efficient electrical spin splitter based on nonrelativistic collinear antiferromagnetism, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 127701 (2021)

    2021

  40. [40]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Beyond conventional ferromagnetism and antiferromagnetism: A phase with nonrel- ativistic spin and crystal rotation symmetry, Phys. Rev. X12, 031042 (2022)

    2022

  41. [41]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Emerging research landscape of altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. X12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  42. [42]

    Z. Feng, X. Zhou, L. ˇSmejkal, L. Wu, Z. Zhu, H. Guo, R. Gonz ´alez-Hern´andez, X. Wang, H. Yan, P. Qin,et al., An anomalous Hall effect in altermagnetic ruthenium dioxide, Na- ture Electronics5, 735 (2022)

    2022

  43. [43]

    Jungwirth, J

    T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, R. M. Fernandes, Q. Liu, H. Watan- abe, S. Murakami, S. Nakatsuji, and L.ˇSmejkal, Symmetry, mi- croscopy and spectroscopy signatures of altermagnetism, Nature 649, 837 (2026)

    2026

  44. [44]

    Fedchenko, J

    O. Fedchenko, J. Min´ar, A. Akashdeep, S. W. D’Souza, D. Vasi- lyev, O. Tkach, L. Odenbreit, Q. Nguyen, D. Kutnyakhov, N. Wind, L. Wenthaus, M. Scholz, K. Rossnagel, M. Hoesch, M. Aeschlimann, B. Stadtm¨ uller, M. Kl ¨aui, G. Sch ¨onhense, T. Jungwirth, A. B. Hellenes, G. Jakob, L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and H.-J. Elmers, Observation of time-reversal symmet...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    S. Lee, S. Lee, S. Jung, J. Jung, D. Kim, Y. Lee, B. Seok, J. Kim, B. G. Park, L. ˇSmejkal, C.-J. Kang, and C. Kim, Broken Kramers degeneracy in altermagnetic MnTe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 036702 (2024)

    2024

  46. [46]

    Osumi, S

    T. Osumi, S. Souma, T. Aoyama, K. Yamauchi, A. Honma, K. Nakayama, T. Takahashi, K. Ohgushi, and T. Sato, Observa- tion of a giant band splitting in altermagnetic MnTe, Phys. Rev. B109, 115102 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    O. J. Amin, A. Dal Din, E. Golias, Y. Niu, A. Zakharov, S. C. Fromage, C. J. B. Fields, S. L. Heywood, R. B. Cousins, F. Mac- cherozzi, J. Krempask´ y, J. H. Dil, D. Kriegner, B. Kiraly, R. P. Campion, A. W. Rushforth, K. W. Edmonds, S. S. Dhesi, L. ˇSmejkal, T. Jungwirth, and P. Wadley, Nanoscale imaging and control of altermagnetism in MnTe, Nature (Lon...

    2024

  48. [48]

    Reimers, L

    S. Reimers, L. Odenbreit, L. ˇSmejkal, V. N. Strocov, P. Con- stantinou, A. B. Hellenes, R. Jaeschke-Ubiergo, W. H. Campos, V. K. Bharadwaj, A. Chakraborty, T. Denneulin, W. Shi, R. E. Dunin-Borkowski, S. Das, M. Kl¨aui, J. Sinova, and M. Jourdan, Direct observation of altermagnetic band splitting in CrSb thin films, Nature Communications15, 2116 (2024)

    2024

  49. [49]

    J. Ding, Z. Jiang, X. Chen, Z. Tao, Z. Liu, T. Li, J. Liu, J. Sun, J. Cheng, J. Liu, Y. Yang, R. Zhang, L. Deng, W. Jing, Y. Huang, Y. Shi, M. Ye, S. Qiao, Y. Wang, Y. Guo, D. Feng, and D. Shen, Large Band Splitting in g-Wave Altermagnet CrSb, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 206401 (2024), arXiv:2405.12687 [cond-mat.mtrl- sci]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    J. A. Ouassou, A. Brataas, and J. Linder, dc Josephson effect in altermagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 076003 (2023)

    2023

  51. [51]

    Papaj, Andreev reflection at the altermagnet-superconductor interface, Phys

    M. Papaj, Andreev reflection at the altermagnet-superconductor interface, Phys. Rev. B108, L060508 (2023)

    2023

  52. [52]

    Brekke, A

    B. Brekke, A. Brataas, and A. Sudbø, Two-dimensional alter- magnets: Superconductivity in a minimal microscopic model, Phys. Rev. B108, 224421 (2023)

    2023

  53. [53]

    Chakraborty and A

    D. Chakraborty and A. M. Black-Schaffer, Zero-field finite- momentum and field-induced superconductivity in altermag- nets, Phys. Rev. B110, L060508 (2024)

    2024

  54. [54]

    A. Bose, S. Vadnais, and A. Paramekanti, Altermagnetism and superconductivity in a multiorbitalt−Jmodel, Phys. Rev. B 110, 205120 (2024)

    2024

  55. [55]

    Fukaya, K

    Y. Fukaya, K. Maeda, K. Yada, J. Cayao, Y. Tanaka, and B. Lu, Josephson effect and odd-frequency pairing in superconduct- ing junctions with unconventional magnets, Phys. Rev. B111, 064502 (2025), arXiv:2411.02679 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Chakraborty and A

    D. Chakraborty and A. M. Black-Schaffer, Constraints on super- conducting pairing in altermagnets, Phys. Rev. B112, 014516 (2025)

    2025

  57. [57]

    Chakraborty and A

    D. Chakraborty and A. M. Black-Schaffer, Perfect superconduct- ing diode effect in altermagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 026001 (2025)

    2025

  58. [58]

    Parthenios, P

    N. Parthenios, P. M. Bonetti, R. Gonz ´alez-Hern´andez, W. H. Campos, L. ˇSmejkal, and L. Classen, Spin and pair density waves in two-dimensional altermagnetic metals, Phys. Rev. B 112, 214410 (2025)

    2025

  59. [59]

    Sim and J

    G. Sim and J. Knolle, Pair density waves and supercurrent diode effect in altermagnets, Phys. Rev. B112, L020502 (2025)

    2025

  60. [60]

    inverse magnetic breakdown

    X. Yan, Z. Song, J. Song, Z. Fang, H. Weng, and Q. Wu, Mag- netic symmetry breaking driven “inverse magnetic breakdown” in a d-wave altermagnet KV2Se2O, Science China Physics, Me- chanics, and Astronomy69, 257011 (2026), arXiv:2505.00074 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    arXiv 2026

  61. [61]

    A. N. Madhusuthanan and M. Karmakar, Thermal stability of pair density wave in a𝑑-wave altermagnetic superconductor (2026), arXiv:2603.25314 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    arXiv 2026

  62. [62]

    Weißenhofer and A

    M. Weißenhofer and A. Marmodoro, Atomistic spin dynamics simulations of magnonic spin seebeck and spin Nernst effects in altermagnets, Phys. Rev. B110, 094427 (2024)

    2024

  63. [63]

    Kaushal, A

    N. Kaushal, A. S. Patri, and M. Franz, Spontaneous alter- magnetism in multi-orbital correlated electron systems (2026), arXiv:2602.23522 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv 2026

  64. [64]

    Cuono, R

    G. Cuono, R. M. Sattigeri, J. Skolimowski, and C. Au- tieri, Orbital-selective altermagnetism and correlation-enhanced spin-splitting in strongly-correlated transition metal oxides, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials586, 171163 (2023), arXiv:2306.17497 [cond-mat.str-el]. 7

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  65. [65]

    I. Park, T. Birol, A. Georges, and R. M. Fernandes, Impact of strong electronic correlations on altermagnets: The case of NiS2, Phys. Rev. Mater.10, 054415 (2026)

    2026

  66. [66]

    Ouyang, P.-J

    Z. Ouyang, P.-J. Guo, R.-Q. He, and Z.-Y. Lu, Strongly cor- related altermagnet CaCrO 3 (2025), arXiv:2507.14081 [cond- mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    P. Das, V. Leeb, J. Knolle, and M. Knap, Realizing altermag- netism in Fermi-Hubbard models with ultracold atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 263402 (2024)

    2024

  68. [68]

    Tchernyshyov, R

    O. Tchernyshyov, R. Moessner, and S. L. Sondhi, Flux expul- sion and greedy bosons: Frustrated magnets at large N, EPL (Europhysics Letters)73, 278 (2006), arXiv:cond-mat/0408498 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  69. [69]

    Canals and D

    B. Canals and D. A. Garanin, Spin-liquid phase in the pyrochlore anti-ferromagnet, Canadian Journal of Physics79, 1323 (2001), arXiv:cond-mat/0102237 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  70. [70]

    P. M. C ˆonsoli and M. Vojta, SU(𝑛)altermagnetism: Lattice models, magnon modes, and flavor-split bands, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 196701 (2025)

    2025

  71. [71]

    We fit𝐷 𝑦𝑦(𝑟)=𝐴 0,𝑦𝑦𝑟−𝐾SC+𝐴 𝑄,𝑦𝑦 cos(𝑄 PDW𝑟+𝜙)𝑟 −𝐾PDW over 10≤𝑟≤31. The wavevector is fixed to the peak in the Fourier spectrum of the envelope-flattened correlator,𝑄 PDW≃ 0.25×(2𝜋/𝑎 0), corresponding to a period of approximately 4𝑎0; allowing𝑄 PDW to vary changes its fitted value by less than 2%. All quoted intervals are 95% confidence intervals. We obta...

  72. [72]

    We fit𝐷 𝑦𝑦(𝑟)=𝐴 0,𝑦𝑦𝑟−𝐾SC+𝐴 𝑄,𝑦𝑦 cos(𝑄 PDW𝑟+𝜙)𝑟 −𝐾PDW over 7≤𝑟≤15. The extracted wavevector,𝑄 PDW≃0.19× (2𝜋/𝑎 0), corresponding to a period of approximately 5.3𝑎 0, is independently confirmed by the Fourier spectrum of the envelope-flattened correlator. All quoted intervals are 95% con- fidence intervals. We obtain𝐾PDW=1.4+0.3 −0.4 and𝐾 SC=2.2+0.3 −0.1. T...

  73. [73]

    Fulde and R

    P. Fulde and R. A. Ferrell, Superconductivity in a strong spin- exchange field, Phys. Rev.135, A550 (1964)

    1964

  74. [74]

    A. I. Larkin and Y. N. Ovchinnikov, Nonuniform state of super- conductors, Sov. Phys. JETP20, 762 (1965), Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 47, 1136 (1964)

    1965

  75. [75]

    M. Hu, M. I. Iraola, P. McClarty, J. van den Brink, and M. G. Vergniory, Non-collinear altermagnetic phases in the Mott in- sulator NiS2 (2026), arXiv:2603.01329 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    arXiv 2026

  76. [76]

    I. V. Maznichenko, A. Ernst, D. Maryenko, V. K. Dugaev, E. Y. Sherman, P. Buczek, S. S. P. Parkin, and S. Ostanin, Fragile altermagnetism and orbital disorder in Mott insulator LaTiO 3, Phys. Rev. Mater.8, 064403 (2024)

    2024

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.5 on July 30, 2026.