pith. sign in

arxiv: 2505.09351 · v2 · pith:CEENK2OVnew · submitted 2025-05-14 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el · cond-mat.supr-con

Boosted magnetic fluctuations at the onset of superconductivity in UTe₂ beyond 40 T

T. Thebault , K. Somesh , G. Lapertot , M. Nardone , A. Zitouni , M. Barragan , J. B\'eard , J. Billette
show 6 more authors
F. Lecouturier S. Tardieu D. Aoki G. Knebel D. Braithwaite W. Knafo
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 15:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.supr-con
keywords UTe2superconductivitymetamagnetic transitionquantum critical fluctuationsFermi-liquid coefficientheavy fermionhigh magnetic fieldspolarized paramagnetic state
0
0 comments X

The pith

The Fermi-liquid coefficient A peaks at the metamagnetic transition in tilted fields, coinciding with superconductivity in UTe2 beyond 40 T.

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

The paper reports resistivity measurements on the heavy-fermion material UTe2 under pulsed fields up to 60 T with the field rotated in the b-c plane. It shows that the coefficient A in the Fermi-liquid resistivity term reaches a maximum at the metamagnetic transition field, and this maximum grows larger when the field is tilted 30-40 degrees from the b axis toward the c axis. The location of this enhanced A exactly overlaps the field and angle region where superconductivity appears inside the polarized paramagnetic state above roughly 40 T. A reader would care because the result ties the onset of this high-field superconducting phase to an intensified magnetic fluctuation mode near quantum criticality.

Core claim

The enhancement of the Fermi-liquid coefficient A at the metamagnetic transition under fields tilted by 30-40° from b to c coincides with the stabilization of superconductivity in the polarized paramagnetic regime beyond μ0Hm ≳40 T and is the signature of a boosted quantum-critical magnetic-fluctuation mode probably in play for the mechanism of this superconducting phase.

What carries the argument

The maximum value of the Fermi-liquid coefficient A at the metamagnetic transition, which grows under 30-40° field tilts and marks the boosted quantum-critical magnetic-fluctuation mode.

If this is right

  • Superconductivity beyond the metamagnetic field in UTe2 arises inside the polarized paramagnetic state when the fluctuation mode is strongest.
  • Tilting the field direction by 30-40° from b toward c optimizes the condition for the quantum-critical fluctuation mode that supports pairing.
  • Any theory of field-induced superconductivity in this compound must incorporate the angular dependence of the magnetic fluctuations at the metamagnetic boundary.
  • The polarized paramagnetic regime above 40 T can host unconventional pairing when quantum-critical magnetic fluctuations are boosted.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar angular tuning of the field could be used to search for additional superconducting phases in other heavy-fermion compounds near metamagnetic transitions.
  • Neutron-scattering experiments at these specific high fields and tilt angles would test whether the low-energy spin fluctuations indeed intensify where A is largest.
  • The result raises the possibility that field-angle control can be used to enhance quantum-critical fluctuations and stabilize new ordered states in related materials.

Load-bearing premise

The observed maximum in A directly reflects boosted quantum-critical magnetic fluctuations that cause the superconducting phase rather than unrelated changes in scattering or Fermi-surface reconstruction at the metamagnetic transition.

What would settle it

A measurement showing that the low-energy magnetic fluctuation intensity remains unchanged at the same angles and fields above 40 T where superconductivity appears, or that the A peak vanishes while superconductivity persists.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09351 by A. Zitouni, D. Aoki, D. Braithwaite, F. Lecouturier, G. Knebel, G. Lapertot, J. B\'eard, J. Billette, K. Somesh, M. Barragan, M. Nardone, S. Tardieu, T. Thebault, W. Knafo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Left-hand graphs: Electrical resistivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Magnetic-field variations of (a) the electrical resis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Intensity map of the Fermi-liquid coefficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Angle- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Several unconventional superconducting phases have been discovered close to a metamagnetic transition in the heavy-fermion compound UTe$_2$. Although suspected to be of magnetic nature, the mechanisms stabilizing these superconducting phases remain mysterious. Here, we present electrical-resistivity measurements on UTe$_2$, with a current $\mathbf{I}\parallel\mathbf{a}$ and under pulsed magnetic fields up to 60~T rotating in the ($\mathbf{b}$,$\mathbf{c}$) plane. We find that the maximum of the Fermi-liquid coefficient $A$ at the metamagnetic transition is enhanced under magnetic fields tilted by $30-40~^\circ$ from $\mathbf{b}$ to $\mathbf{c}$. The enhancement of $A$ coincides with the stabilization of superconductivity in the polarized paramagnetic regime beyond the metamagnetic field $\mu_0H_m\gtrsim40$~T. It is the signature of a boosted quantum-critical magnetic-fluctuation mode probably in play for the mechanism of this superconducting phase. This result appeals for descriptions of the interplay between magnetic-field-induced superconductivity and quantum critical magnetic properties.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents electrical resistivity measurements on UTe₂ with I ∥ a under pulsed fields up to 60 T rotated in the (b,c) plane. It reports that the Fermi-liquid coefficient A extracted from ρ = ρ₀ + A T² reaches a maximum at the metamagnetic transition that is enhanced for field orientations tilted 30–40° from b toward c. This angular range coincides with the stabilization of superconductivity in the polarized paramagnetic state for μ₀H_m ≳ 40 T. The authors interpret the enhanced A as the signature of a boosted quantum-critical magnetic-fluctuation mode that is likely involved in the superconducting mechanism.

Significance. If the attribution to quantum-critical fluctuations is substantiated, the result would strengthen the phenomenological link between metamagnetism, angle-dependent scattering, and field-induced superconductivity in UTe₂, a system already known for multiple unconventional superconducting phases. The work supplies new high-field angle-dependent transport data that constrain possible mechanisms. Credit is due for the technically challenging pulsed-field measurements and the clear experimental coincidence reported; however, the significance remains conditional on demonstrating that A reliably tracks the fluctuation spectrum rather than other scattering or Fermi-surface effects.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Discussion] Abstract and Discussion: The central claim that the observed maximum in A 'is the signature of a boosted quantum-critical magnetic-fluctuation mode probably in play for the mechanism of this superconducting phase' rests on the untested assumption that the resistivity remains in a clean Fermi-liquid regime where A directly reflects the magnetic fluctuation spectrum. The manuscript presents only the coincidence with the superconducting regime and does not report checks for consistency of the T² fitting window across tilt angles or cross-validation against thermodynamic probes (e.g., specific heat) that would exclude Fermi-surface reconstruction or angle-dependent quasiparticle scattering changes at the metamagnetic transition.
  2. [Resistivity data analysis] Results on A extraction: The coefficient A is obtained from fits to ρ(T) = ρ₀ + A T², yet no information is given on the temperature interval used for each fit, the goodness-of-fit metrics, or uncertainties on A as a function of angle and field. Without these details it is impossible to judge whether the reported angular enhancement of A is robust or could arise from systematic deviations from T² behavior near the metamagnetic transition.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures] Figure presentation: Ensure that all resistivity versus temperature plots explicitly label the field tilt angles and mark the location of the metamagnetic transition H_m for each curve.
  2. [Experimental methods] Notation: Define the precise angular convention for the 30–40° tilt (e.g., angle from b toward c) in the main text as well as in the figure captions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments, which help clarify the presentation of our resistivity analysis. We address each major comment below and indicate where revisions will be made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Discussion] Abstract and Discussion: The central claim that the observed maximum in A 'is the signature of a boosted quantum-critical magnetic-fluctuation mode probably in play for the mechanism of this superconducting phase' rests on the untested assumption that the resistivity remains in a clean Fermi-liquid regime where A directly reflects the magnetic fluctuation spectrum. The manuscript presents only the coincidence with the superconducting regime and does not report checks for consistency of the T² fitting window across tilt angles or cross-validation against thermodynamic probes (e.g., specific heat) that would exclude Fermi-surface reconstruction or angle-dependent quasiparticle scattering changes at the metamagnetic transition.

    Authors: We agree that the interpretation of A as a proxy for magnetic fluctuations relies on the standard framework for heavy-fermion systems near metamagnetic transitions, where the T² term is conventionally linked to quasiparticle scattering from critical modes. The reported angular enhancement and its coincidence with the field-induced superconducting regime constitute the primary evidence. We will revise the Discussion to explicitly state the temperature window used for the T² fits at each angle and to note the absence of simultaneous thermodynamic data in this transport study. We will also add a brief discussion of why Fermi-surface reconstruction is unlikely to dominate the observed angular dependence, based on the smooth evolution of the metamagnetic field with tilt angle. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Resistivity data analysis] Results on A extraction: The coefficient A is obtained from fits to ρ(T) = ρ₀ + A T², yet no information is given on the temperature interval used for each fit, the goodness-of-fit metrics, or uncertainties on A as a function of angle and field. Without these details it is impossible to judge whether the reported angular enhancement of A is robust or could arise from systematic deviations from T² behavior near the metamagnetic transition.

    Authors: We accept this criticism. The revised manuscript will include the precise temperature intervals employed for each fit (typically 0.4–1.8 K, adjusted to remain below any deviation from T²), the corresponding goodness-of-fit metrics (R² and reduced χ²), and error bars on A derived from the fit uncertainties. These additions will be presented both in the main text and in an expanded supplementary figure showing representative fits at key angles. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Direct cross-validation of the extracted A values against specific-heat measurements, which would require new thermodynamic experiments not included in the present transport study.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental data and standard phenomenology

full rationale

The paper presents new pulsed-field resistivity measurements on UTe2 with I parallel to a, extracts the T^2 coefficient A from Fermi-liquid fits, and reports its angle-dependent maximum at 30-40° tilts coinciding with the onset of superconductivity beyond Hm ≳ 40 T. The interpretation that this signals boosted quantum-critical magnetic fluctuations follows from established heavy-fermion phenomenology rather than any self-referential equation, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain. No derivation reduces to its own inputs by construction; the central claim rests on independent experimental observations cross-checked against prior literature without circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard domain assumption that the T² coefficient A quantifies quasiparticle scattering from magnetic fluctuations; no new free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or postulated entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The Fermi-liquid coefficient A measures the strength of quasiparticle scattering due to magnetic fluctuations in heavy-fermion systems.
    Invoked when the abstract equates the maximum of A with boosted quantum-critical fluctuations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5794 in / 1406 out tokens · 67819 ms · 2026-05-22T15:20:36.275826+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Fermi-liquid versus non-Fermi-liquid/'strange-metal' fits to the electrical resistivity in the quantum critical magnetic regime of an unconventional superconductor

    cond-mat.supr-con 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Non-Fermi-liquid T^n fits to resistivity in UTe2 near superconductivity yield negative rho0, indicating a possible hidden Fermi-liquid regime masked by the superconducting phase.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The electrical resistivity ρxx has been measured by the four-point method with a current I ∥ a

    have been studied. The electrical resistivity ρxx has been measured by the four-point method with a current I ∥ a. Magnetic fields have been generated by long- duration pulsed magnets at the Laboratoire National des Champs Magn´ etiques Intenses in Toulouse. A standard single-coil magnet has been used for most of the mea- surements presented here, which w...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Pfleiderer, Rev

    C. Pfleiderer, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1551 (2009)

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Knafo, arXiv:2107.13458 (2021)

    W. Knafo, arXiv:2107.13458 (2021)

    work page arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    D. Aoki, K. Ishida, and J. Flouquet, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88, 022001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Hattori, Y

    T. Hattori, Y. Ihara, Y. Nakai, K. Ishida, Y. Tada, S. Fu- jimoto, N. Kawakami, E. Osaki, K. Deguchi, N. Sato, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 066403 (2012)

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    B. Wu, G. Bastien, M. Taupin, C. Paulsen, L. Howald, D. Aoki, and J.-P. Brison, Nat. Commun. 8, 14480 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Miyake, D

    A. Miyake, D. Aoki, and J. Flouquet, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 77, 094709 (2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Miyake, D

    A. Miyake, D. Aoki, and J. Flouquet, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 78, 063703 (2009)

    work page 2009

  9. [9]

    Gourgout, A

    A. Gourgout, A. Pourret, G. Knebel, D. Aoki, G. Sey- farth, and J. Flouquet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 046401 (2016)

    work page 2016

  10. [10]

    Tokunaga, D

    Y. Tokunaga, D. Aoki, H. Mayaffre, S. Kr¨ amer, M.-H. Julien, C. Berthier, M. Horvati´ c, H. Sakai, S. Kambe, and S. Araki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 216401 (2015)

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    Tokunaga, D

    Y. Tokunaga, D. Aoki, H. Mayaffre, S. Kr¨ amer, M.-H. Julien, C. Berthier, M. Horvati´ c, H. Sakai, T. Hattori, S. Kambe, and S. Araki, Phys. Rev. B 93, 201112 (2016)

    work page 2016

  12. [12]

    Ran, I.-L

    S. Ran, I.-L. Liu, Y. S. Eo, D. J. Campbell, P. Neves, W. T. Fuhrman, S. R. Saha, C. Eckberg, H. Kim, J. Paglione, D. Graf, J. Singleton, and N. P. Butch, Nat. Phys. 15, 1250 (2019)

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    Knebel, W

    G. Knebel, W. Knafo, A. Pourret, Q. Niu, M. Valiˇ ska, D. Braithwaite, G. Lapertot, M. Nardone, A. Zitouni, S. Mishra, I. Sheikin, G. Seyfarth, J.-P. Brison, D. Aoki, and J. Flouquet, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88, 063707 (2019)

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    D. Aoki, M. Kimata, Y. J. Sato, G. Knebel, F. Honda, A. Nakamura, D. Li, Y. Homma, Y. Shimizu, W. Knafo, D. Braithwaite, M. Valiˇ ska, A. Pourret, J.-P. Brison, and J. Flouquet, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 90, 074705 (2021)

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    Valiˇ ska, W

    M. Valiˇ ska, W. Knafo, G. Knebel, G. Lapertot, D. Aoki, and D. Braithwaite, Phys. Rev. B 104, 214507 (2021). 6

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    Z. Wu, T. I. Weinberger, A. J. Hickey, D. V. Chichinadze, D. Shaffer, A. Cabala, H. Chen, M. Long, T. J. Brumm, W. Xie, Y. Ling, Z. Zhu, Y. Skourski, D. E. Graf, V. Se- chovsk´ y, M. Valiˇ ska, G. G. Lonzarich, F. M. Grosche, and A. G. Eaton, Phys. Rev. X 15, 021019 (2025)

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    S. K. Lewin, P. Czajka, C. E. Frank, G. S. Salas, H. Yoon, Y. S. Eo, J. Paglione, A. H. Nevidomskyy, J. Singleton, and N. P. Butch, arXiv:2402.18564 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    C. E. Frank, S. K. Lewin, G. Saucedo Salas, P. Czajka, I. M. Hayes, H. Yoon, T. Metz, J. Paglione, J. Singleton, and N. P. Butch, Nat. Commun. 15, 3378 (2024)

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    S. Ran, C. Eckberg, Q.-P. Ding, Y. Furukawa, T. Metz, S. R. Saha, I.-L. Liu, M. Zic, H. Kim, J. Paglione, and N. P. Butch, Science 365, 684 (2019)

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    D. Aoki, A. Nakamura, F. Honda, D. Li, Y. Homma, Y. Shimizu, Y. J. Sato, G. Knebel, J.-P. Brison, A. Pour- ret, D. Braithwaite, G. Lapertot, Q. Niu, M. Valiˇ ska, H. Harima, and J. Flouquet, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88, 043702 (2019)

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    Kinjo, H

    K. Kinjo, H. Fujibayashi, H. Matsumura, F. Hori, S. Kitagawa, K. Ishida, Y. Tokunaga, H. Sakai, S. Kambe, A. Nakamura, et al. , Sci. Adv. 9, eadg2736 (2023)

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Theuss, A

    F. Theuss, A. Shragai, G. Grissonnanche, L. Peralta, G. d. l. F. Simarro, I. M. Hayes, S. R. Saha, Y. S. Eo, A. Suarez, A. C. Salinas, G. Pokharel, S. D. Wilson, N. P. Butch, J. Paglione, and B. J. Ramshaw, Nat. Phys. , 1 (2024)

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    C. Duan, K. Sasmal, M. B. Maple, A. Podlesnyak, J.-X. Zhu, Q. Si, and P. Dai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 237003 (2020)

    work page 2020

  24. [24]

    Knafo, G

    W. Knafo, G. Knebel, P. Steffens, K. Kaneko, A. Rosuel, J.-P. Brison, J. Flouquet, D. Aoki, G. Lapertot, and S. Raymond, Phys. Rev. B 104, L100409 (2021)

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    N. P. Butch, S. Ran, S. R. Saha, P. M. Neves, M. P. Zic, J. Paglione, S. Gladchenko, Q. Ye, and J. A. Rodriguez- Rivera, npj Quantum Mater. 7, 39 (2022)

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    C. Duan, R. Baumbach, A. Podlesnyak, Y. Deng, C. Moir, A. J. Breindel, M. B. Maple, E. Nica, Q. Si, and P. Dai, Nature 600, 636 (2021)

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    Raymond, W

    S. Raymond, W. Knafo, G. Knebel, K. Kaneko, J.-P. Brison, J. Flouquet, D. Aoki, and G. Lapertot, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 90, 113706 (2021)

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    Knafo, T

    W. Knafo, T. Thebault, P. Manuel, D. Khalyavin, F. Orlandi, E. Ressouche, K. Beauvois, G. Lapertot, K. Kaneko, D. Aoki, D. Braithwaite, G. Knebel, and S. Raymond, arXiv:2311.05455 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Tokunaga, H

    Y. Tokunaga, H. Sakai, S. Kambe, T. Hattori, N. Higa, G. Nakamine, S. Kitagawa, K. Ishida, A. Nakamura, Y. Shimizu, Y. Homma, D. Li, F. Honda, and D. Aoki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88, 073701 (2019)

    work page 2019

  30. [30]

    Fujibayashi, K

    H. Fujibayashi, K. Kinjo, G. Nakamine, S. Kita- gawa, K. Ishida, Y. Tokunaga, H. Sakai, S. Kambe, A. Nakamura, Y. Shimizu, Y. Homma, D. Li, F. Honda, and D. Aoki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 92 (2023), 10.7566/JPSJ.92.053702

    work page doi:10.7566/jpsj.92.053702 2023

  31. [31]

    Matsumura, S

    H. Matsumura, S. Kitagawa, S. Ogata, R. Matsub- ayashi, H. Fujibayashi, K. Kinjo, K. Ishida, Y. Toku- naga, H. Sakai, S. Kambe, A. Nakamura, Y. Shimizu, Y. Homma, D. Li, F. Honda, A. Miyake, and D. Aoki, Phys. Rev. B 111, 094507 (2025)

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    Knafo, M

    W. Knafo, M. Valiˇ ska, D. Braithwaite, G. Lapertot, G. Knebel, A. Pourret, J.-P. Brison, J. Flouquet, and D. Aoki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88, 063705 (2019)

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    Miyake, Y

    A. Miyake, Y. Shimizu, Y. J. Sato, D. Li, A. Nakamura, Y. Homma, F. Honda, J. Flouquet, M. Tokunaga, and D. Aoki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88, 063706 (2019)

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    Rosuel, C

    A. Rosuel, C. Marcenat, G. Knebel, T. Klein, A. Pourret, N. Marquardt, Q. Niu, S. Rousseau, A. Demuer, G. Sey- farth, G. Lapertot, D. Aoki, D. Braithwaite, J. Flouquet, and J.-P. Brison, Phys. Rev. X 13, 011022 (2023)

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    Knafo, M

    W. Knafo, M. Nardone, M. Valiˇ ska, A. Zitouni, G. Laper- tot, D. Aoki, G. Knebel, and D. Braithwaite, Commun. Phys. 4, 40 (2021)

    work page 2021

  36. [36]

    T. Helm, M. Kimata, K. Sudo, A. Miyata, J. Stirnat, T. F¨ orster, J. Hornung, M. K¨ onig, I. Sheikin, A. Pourret, G. Lapertot, D. Aoki, G. Knebel, J. Wosnitza, and J.-P. Brison, Nat. Commun. 15, 37 (2024)

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    S. K. Lewin, J. J. Yu, C. E. Frank, D. Graf, P. Chen, S. Ran, Y. S. Eo, J. Paglione, S. Raghu, and N. P. Butch, arXiv:2410.05137 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Imajo, Y

    S. Imajo, Y. Kohama, A. Miyake, C. Dong, M. Tokunaga, J. Flouquet, K. Kindo, and D. Aoki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88, 083705 (2019)

    work page 2019

  39. [39]

    Miyake, Y

    A. Miyake, Y. Shimizu, Y. J. Sato, D. Li, A. Nakamura, Y. Homma, F. Honda, J. Flouquet, M. Tokunaga, and D. Aoki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 90, 103702 (2021)

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    Thebault, M

    T. Thebault, M. Valiˇ ska, G. Lapertot, A. Pourret, D. Aoki, G. Knebel, D. Braithwaite, and W. Knafo, Phys. Rev. B 106, 144406 (2022)

    work page 2022

  41. [41]

    Tokunaga, H

    Y. Tokunaga, H. Sakai, S. Kambe, P. Opletal, Y. Tokiwa, Y. Haga, S. Kitagawa, K. Ishida, D. Aoki, G. Knebel, G. Lapertot, S. Kr¨ amer, and M. Horvati´ c, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 226503 (2023)

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    See Supplemental Material for details

    work page

  43. [43]

    Sakai, P

    H. Sakai, P. Opletal, Y. Tokiwa, E. Yamamoto, Y. Toku- naga, S. Kambe, and Y. Haga, Phys. Rev. Mater. 6, 073401 (2022)

    work page 2022

  44. [44]

    B´ eard, J

    J. B´ eard, J. Billette, N. Ferreira, P. Frings, J.-M. La- garrigue, F. Lecouturier, and J.-P. Nicolin, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 28, 1 (2018)

    work page 2018

  45. [45]

    D. Aoki, H. Sakai, P. Opletal, Y. Tokiwa, J. Ishizuka, Y. Yanase, H. Harima, A. Nakamura, D. Li, Y. Homma, Y. Shimizu, G. Knebel, J. Flouquet, and Y. Haga, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 91, 083704 (2022)

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    Onuki, Physics of Heavy Fermions: Heavy Fermions and Strongly Correlated Electrons Systems (World Scien- tific, 2018)

    Y. Onuki, Physics of Heavy Fermions: Heavy Fermions and Strongly Correlated Electrons Systems (World Scien- tific, 2018)

    work page 2018

  47. [47]

    Thebault, D

    T. Thebault, D. Braithwaite, G. Lapertot, D. Aoki, G. Knebel, and W. Knafo, Phys. Rev. B 109, 214420 (2024)

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    Jullien, M

    R. Jullien, M. Beal-Monod, and B. Coqblin, Phys. Rev. B 9, 1441 (1974)

    work page 1974

  49. [49]

    Y. S. Eo, S. Liu, S. R. Saha, H. Kim, S. Ran, J. A. Horn, H. Hodovanets, J. Collini, T. Metz, W. T. Fuhrman, A. H. Nevidomskyy, J. D. Denlinger, N. P. Butch, M. S. Fuhrer, L. A. Wray, and J. Paglione, Phys. Rev. B 106, L060505 (2022)

    work page 2022

  50. [50]

    unpublished,

    G. Knebel, A. Pourret, S. Rousseau, N. Marquardt, D. Braithwaite, F. Honda, D. Aoki, G. Lapertot, W. Knafo, G. Seyfarth, J.-P. Brison, and J. Flouquet, Phys. Rev. B 109, 155103 (2024). 1 Supplemental Material: Field-induced electronic correlations and superconductivity in UTe 2 beyond 40 T Experimental details are given and supplemental figures are shown ...

    work page arXiv 2024