Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 67 references

Spin density wave and superconductivity in the bilayer $t$-$J$ model of $\rm{La}_{3}Ni_{2}O_{7}$ under renormalized mean-field theory

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For the bilayer single-orbital t-J model of La3Ni2O7, RMFT predicts two states where superconductivity and magnetism coexist: intra-layer d-wave pairing with antiferromagnetism, and intra-layer s-wave plus inter-layer pairing with a…

desk verdict A clean RMFT study with a genuinely new coexistence phase diagram, but the headline stripe+uniform-s-wave state is computed under an ansatz that forces the pairing uniform, so read it as a scenario, not a settled prediction. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17453 v2 pith:CKA33762 submitted 2024-12-23 cond-mat.supr-con

Yang Tian , Yan Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords bilayernickelaterenormalizedmean-fieldtheoryspindensitywavesuperconductivitydoublestripet-JmodelpairingsymmetryLa3Ni2O7
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to show that the bilayer nickelate superconductor La3Ni2O7 can be understood through a single-orbital bilayer t-J model solved by renormalized mean-field theory. Its central claim is that magnetism and superconductivity do not have to exclude each other: the model contains two distinct coexistence ground states. In one, intra-layer d-wave pairing coexists with antiferromagnetic order; in the other, intra-layer s-wave pairing together with inter-layer pairing coexists with a double spin stripe of wave vector $Q=(\pi/2,\pi/2)$. The authors show that increasing hole doping suppresses the magnetic order, while increasing the inter-layer hopping $t_\perp$ and the inter-layer exchange $J_\perp$ drives the transition from the d-wave/antiferromagnetic state to the s-wave/stripe state. The stripe state matches the spin density wave seen in experiments, so the paper offers a theoretical route to interpret the coexistence of spin order and superconductivity in the pressurized nickelate.

What carries the argument

The machinery is renormalized mean-field theory (RMFT) applied to a bilayer single-orbital $t$-$J$ Hamiltonian with intra-layer nearest-neighbor and third-nearest-neighbor exchanges $J_1$ and $J_2$, and inter-layer hopping $t_\perp$ and exchange $J_\perp$. The no-double-occupancy constraint is treated through Gutzwiller renormalization factors built from four variational order parameters on each bond and site: hole density $\delta_{li}$, local spin moment $m_{li}$, pair field $\Delta^\nu_{lij\sigma}$, and bond order (kinetic) $\chi^\nu_{lij\sigma}$. The energy is minimized self-consistently on an $8\times8$ bilayer. A complementary momentum-space analysis at half filling adopts the ansatz $E_k = C\sqrt{\cos^2 k_x + \cos^2 k_y + \cos^2 k_z}$, which yields the constraints $\Delta_d^2 - \Delta_s^2 = \chi_1^2$, $\chi_1 \Delta_1 = \chi_z \Delta_s$, and $2\chi_x\chi_z + (\Delta_z \Delta_x^* + \Delta_x \Delta_z^*) = 0$. The last relation is what forces the inter-layer pairing and the intra-layer $s$-wave pairing to have opposite signs, and it ties the pairing symmetry directly to the kinetic and magnetic bond fields.

What would settle it

A phase-sensitive determination of the superconducting order parameter in pressurized La3Ni2O7 that resolves the relative sign of the inter-layer pairing and the intra-layer $s$-wave component would settle the central claim: if the two components share the same sign, or if the gap remains purely $d$-wave under pressure, the predicted $s$-wave/stripe coexistence state is wrong. Alternatively, an exact numerical study of the full two-orbital bilayer model that finds no double spin stripe coexisting with $s$-wave pairing in the relevant doping range would falsify the single-orbital reduction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that, within the renormalized mean-field treatment of the bilayer single-orbital $t$-$J$ model, the ground state has two competing but distinct magnetic-superconducting coexistence phases. The first is uniform intra-layer $d$-wave pairing coexisting with conventional antiferromagnetism. The second is intra-layer $s$-wave pairing plus inter-layer pairing coexisting with a double spin stripe of period $4a_0$ and wave vector $Q=(\pi/2,\pi/2)$. The transition between the two phases is controlled by $t_\perp$ and $J_\perp$: larger inter-layer coupling strengthens the inter-layer pairing, suppresses the intra-layer $d$-wave component, and converts the magnetic order from antiferromagnetic to the double spin stripe. The paper also derives analytic relations among the mean fields, in particular $\Delta_z \Delta_s < 0$, which forces the inter-layer pairing and the intra-layer $s$-wave pairing to carry opposite signs. These results are presented as qualitative predictions for the pressurized nickelate, where the double spin stripe has been observed at ambient and high pressure.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that a single $3d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbital describes the low-energy physics of La3Ni2O7, which requires the $3d_{z^2}$ electrons to remain nearly localized and the Hund's coupling to transfer the inter-layer magnetic coupling onto the $d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbital; if the $d_{z^2}$ orbital contributes itinerant carriers at the Fermi level, the predicted pairing symmetry and magnetic order may not apply to the real material.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is correct, the double spin stripe observed in La3Ni2O7 is not merely a normal-state order: it can persist into the superconducting state, coexisting with intra-layer s-wave pairing and inter-layer pairing.
  • Increasing inter-layer hopping and exchange, as pressure does, should shift the system from the d-wave/antiferromagnetic phase toward the s-wave/stripe phase, and eventually make inter-layer pairing the dominant superconducting channel.
  • Hole doping above about 0.2-0.3 suppresses both magnetic orders, so the coexistence states are a low-doping feature; this is consistent with the Ni-$d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbital being electron-doped beyond half filling in the pressurized compound.
  • Because the intra-layer s-wave pairing and the inter-layer pairing have opposite signs, the coexisting superconducting state has a nontrivial sign structure that can be probed by phase-sensitive experiments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The analytic relation $\Delta_d^2 - \Delta_s^2 = \chi_1^2$ suggests that the relative magnitudes of the d-wave and s-wave components are tied to the kinetic bond order; a doping or pressure sweep that changes $\chi_1$ should therefore change the pairing symmetry continuously, which could be tested by tunneling or ARPES measurements.
  • If the single-orbital reduction fails because the $d_{z^2}$ orbital becomes itinerant, the qualitative coexistence picture may still survive in a two-orbital model, but the specific sign relation between inter-layer and intra-layer pairing, and even the stripe period, could change; the paper itself flags this limitation.
  • A natural extension would be to include charge order alongside the magnetic stripe, since the paper argues that the absence of CDW in its model stems from the single-orbital approximation; a two-orbital version might predict intertwined spin-charge stripes in the same parameter regime.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a renormalized mean-field theory (RMFT) study of a bilayer single-orbital t-J model intended to describe pressurized La3Ni2O7. The model includes intra-layer nearest-neighbor and third-nearest-neighbor exchange couplings as well as inter-layer hopping and exchange, with Gutzwiller factors encoding the no-double-occupancy constraint. Self-consistent solutions on an 8x8 lattice are reported for a range of hole dopings and inter-layer parameters. The central claims are that there are two magnetic-superconducting coexistence states: intra-layer d-wave pairing with antiferromagnetic order, and intra-layer s-wave pairing plus inter-layer pairing with a double spin stripe at wave vector Q=(pi/2, pi/2). The paper also reports that hole doping suppresses magnetism and that increasing t_perp and J_perp drives a transition from the d-wave/AFM state to the s-wave/stripe state. An analytic k-space analysis in Sec. III.C is used to derive relations among mean fields, including opposite signs for inter-layer pairing and intra-layer s-wave pairing. The paper explicitly acknowledges the single-orbital reduction and the possible role of dz2 orbitals in the Conclusion.

Significance. If the coexistence scenario survives scrutiny, the paper would provide a concrete theoretical framework for interpreting the double spin stripe order observed in La3Ni2O7 and its interplay with superconductivity under pressure. The strengths of the paper are its use of a standard RMFT framework, transparent self-consistent numerical procedures, and parameter scans that give a qualitative phase diagram; the authors also state limitations clearly. However, the central claims are weakened by several load-bearing issues: the magnetic stripe order parameters are extremely small relative to the convergence tolerance, the variational space restricts bond-order and pairing modulations, and the analytic pairing-symmetry argument relies on an ad hoc dispersion ansatz. These issues make the significance conditional on additional numerical and analytic work.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, paragraph before Fig. 1] The statement that "the transition term mean-field χν lijσ is assumed to be uniform, while specific fluctuations are included in the other mean-fields" imposes translational invariance on the kinetic/bond-order sector before minimization. Since charge and pairing modulations are coupled to bond-order modulations through the self-consistent equations, the claim in Sec. III.A that "Both charge and pairing are uniform" in the stripe state (Fig. 2b) is a consequence of the imposed ansatz rather than an emergent result. The coexistence of uniform intra-layer s-wave pairing, inter-layer pairing, and the double spin stripe is therefore not established for the unbiased RMFT ground state. Please repeat the calculation with χ, Δ, and δ allowed to carry the stripe modulation, or demonstrate explicitly that such modulations vanish when included.
  2. [Sec. III.B and Fig. 3] The magnetic order parameters reported for the stripe state are extremely small: mDS is less than 10^-5 in Fig. 3(a) and around 10^-4 in Fig. 3(b), while the stated convergence criterion is that the change in the mean-field order parameters between consecutive iterations is smaller than 10^-3 (Sec. III, opening paragraph). Order parameters two to four orders of magnitude below the convergence threshold are numerically not resolved, so the coexistence regions and the doping dependence of mDS in Figs. 3 and 4 are not reliably established. Please provide a convergence study, use a stricter criterion or a larger lattice, and report error estimates for these small magnetic order parameters.
  3. [Sec. III.C, Eq. (19)] The analytic pairing-symmetry analysis is based on the assumed quasiparticle dispersion Ek = C sqrt(cos^2 kx + cos^2 ky + cos^2 kz). The justification given is that hoppings and interactions are along the x, y, and z directions, but this does not uniquely select that functional form, and the ansatz is not derived from the self-consistent RMFT equations. Because Eqs. (20)-(22), including the sign relation between Δz and Δs, follow from this assumed form, the analytic argument is not a derivation from the model. Please derive the dispersion from the actual mean-field Hamiltonian or test the ansatz against the self-consistent eigenvalues obtained in the numerical solution.
  4. [Introduction and Conclusion] The reduction to a single dx2-y2 orbital, with dz2 electrons treated as quasi-localized moments, is a central modeling assumption. The paper acknowledges in the Conclusion that dz2 may cross the Fermi level in the superconducting state and that momentum-dependent inter-layer hopping is absent. Because the applicability of the predicted pairing symmetry and magnetic order to La3Ni2O7 depends on this reduction, and because several first-principles/DMFT works cited in the Introduction place dz2 near the Fermi level, the robustness of the predictions should be tested, for example by comparing with a two-orbital RMFT or by explicitly estimating the effect of dz2-dx2-y2 hybridization. Without such a test, the material-specific claims remain uncertain.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. III.A] "double spin tripe" should read "double spin stripe."
  2. [Fig. 3 and Fig. 6] Several axis labels and legend entries contain corrupted or unrendered symbols, e.g., "|∆/s9524 |" in Fig. 3; please ensure all mathematical symbols are printed correctly.
  3. [Sec. III.C] The analytic analysis sets J2=0 and J⊥=J1, while the RMFT scans use J1=0.3, J2=0.2, and J⊥ up to 0.5; please state explicitly that this section addresses a simplified parameter point and justify that the simplification does not alter the qualitative conclusions.
  4. [Eq. (4)] The definition of gs,z lij appears to have a missing parenthesis or a misaligned Xij term; please rewrite the equation so that the numerator and denominator are unambiguous.
  5. [Sec. III, first paragraph] The text says "four superconducting pairing configurations," while Fig. 1 shows three intra-layer pairing symmetries (d-wave, s+id-wave, s-wave) plus inter-layer pairing; please clarify whether the four configurations refer to distinct global pairing states or to symmetry combinations.
  6. [Conclusion] The statement that "The variation in the amplitude of superconductivity with changes in inter-layer parameters aligns with experimental findings" is vague; please specify which experimental observations are meant and in what sense the variation aligns.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the phase diagram is obtained by self-consistent RMFT with independently set parameters, and the analytic ansatz is openly labeled and cross-checked; only a minor method self-citation prevents a clean zero.

full rationale

The central coexistence results are not equivalent to their inputs. The parameters J1=0.3 and J2=0.2 are fixed from DFT/DMFT estimates (J=4t^2/U, with t~0.483 eV and U~5 eV), and the order parameters are obtained by iteratively solving the self-consistent mean-field Hamiltonian Eq. (7) on an 8x8 lattice; nothing is fitted to the target coexistence states. The analytic pairing analysis in Sec. III.C rests on an explicit ansatz: 'Following the method with [53, 62, 64], we use an ansatz for Ek Ek = C sqrt(cos^2 kx + cos^2 ky + cos^2 kz).' Because the paper labels this as an ansatz, states a physical rationale, and then checks the resulting constraints against the numerical RMFT solution (Fig. 5 and Fig. 6), the ansatz is not smuggled in as a conclusion. Similarly, the numerical restriction that 'the transition term mean-field chi^nu_lij_sigma is assumed to be uniform, while specific fluctuations are included in the other mean-fields' is openly stated; it limits the search space for bond-order modulations but does not by itself force the reported uniform charge and pairing, which retain variational freedom in the self-consistent loop. The only self-citation of note is Ref. [64] (Hou, Lee, Lou, Chen) in the method/ansatz references; it is methodological and not load-bearing, since the RMFT formalism is standard and is also supported by non-self references [53,57,58,62]. The paper's own Conclusion candidly lists missing dz2 physics and the absence of CDW as limitations, which further indicates the conclusions are not being asserted by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the single-orbital reduction and on the RMFT approximation, both of which are assumptions from prior work. The model parameters (J1, J2, t_perp, J_perp, delta) are chosen from DFT/DMFT estimates or scanned, so they are not fitted to the coexistence result. No new entities are invented.

free parameters (4)
  • J1 (intra-layer nearest-neighbor exchange) = 0.3 (in units of t=1)
    Chosen from J=4t^2/U with U~5 eV and t=0.483 eV from DFT; an approximate input, not fitted to the coexistence result.
  • J2 (third-nearest-neighbor intra-layer exchange) = 0.2
    Set comparable to J1 based on spin-wave and DFT estimates in cited works [11,14,15]; affects the magnetic stripe but is not independently measured.
  • t_perp (inter-layer hopping) and J_perp (inter-layer exchange) scan range = 0 to 0.5
    Scanned as control parameters to map the phase diagram; no experimental value is used to fix them, so the transition location is not a prediction.
  • hole doping delta = 0.1 to 0.35
    Range chosen because previous RMFT gave n=0.665 for the dx2-y2 orbital in the pristine compound [61]; the paper focuses on the electron-doped regime.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The two-orbital (dx2-y2 and dz2) physics reduces to a single-orbital model by integrating out dz2 degrees of freedom; dz2 electrons are treated as quasi-localized moments.
    Invoked in the Introduction and Conclusion; if dz2 is itinerant, the model may miss key pairing channels.
  • domain assumption Gutzwiller renormalization approximates the no-double-occupancy constraint.
    Standard RMFT; the factors in Eq. (4) are from prior works [57-59].
  • ad hoc to paper Momentum-space ansatz for the quasiparticle dispersion Ek = C sqrt(cos^2 kx + cos^2 ky + cos^2 kz) at half filling.
    Eq. (19), used to derive the pairing symmetry relations; not derived from the mean-field Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption The mean-field bond variable chi is assumed uniform while pairing and magnetic fluctuations are retained.
    Stated before Sec III numerical results; restricts the accessible magnetic orders.
  • domain assumption Parameter set J1=0.3, J2=0.2, t=1, and the doping range are representative of La3Ni2O7.
    Based on DFT/DMFT estimates in refs [12,13,21,30,37,60,61].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin density wave and superconductivity in the bilayer $t$-$J$ model of $\rm{La}_{3}Ni_{2}O_{7}$ under renormalized mean-field theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CKA33762

@misc{pith2026241217453,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin density wave and superconductivity in the bilayer $t$-$J$ model of $\rmLa_3Ni_2O_7$ under renormalized mean-field theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CKA33762}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17453}
}
abstract

Motivated by the recently discovered bilayer nickelate superconductor, the pressurized $\rm{La}_{3}Ni_{2}O_{7}$, we present a renormalized mean-field theory of a bilayer single-band $t$-$J$ model, highlighting the interplay between magnetism and superconductivity. We analyze the pairing symmetry and magnetic properties of the system, predicting two distinct states in which magnetism and superconductivity coexist. As hole doping increases, the magnetic order is rapidly suppressed. The inter-layer hopping $t_{\perp}$ and coupling $J_{\perp}$ promote a transition from intra-layer $d$-wave pairing to $s$-wave pairing, which is accompanied by a shift from antiferromagnetic (AFM) order to a double spin stripe configuration. The latter has been extensively observed in ambient and high-pressure experiments. Our study offers theoretical insights into the coexistence of spin density waves and superconductivity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17453 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The superconducting pairing configuration is shown, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Superconducting pairing and magnetic order param [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Superconducting order parameter as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The mean field ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Superconducting order parameter and mag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hualei, M

    S. Hualei, M. Huo, X. Hu, J. Li, Z. Liu, Y. Han, L. Tang, Z. Mao, P. Yang, B. Wang, J. Cheng, D.-X. Yao, G.-M. Zhang, and M. Wang, Nature 621, 493 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Zhang, D

    Y. Zhang, D. Su, Y. Huang, Z. Shan, H. Sun, M. Huo, K. Ye, J. Zhang, Z. Yang, Y. Xu, Y. Su, R. Li, M. Smid- man, M. Wang, L. Jiao, and H. Yuan, Nature Physics 20, 1269 (2024)

    2024

  3. [3]

    Puphal, P

    P. Puphal, P. Reiss, N. Enderlein, Y.-M. Wu, G. Khal- iullin, V. Sundaramurthy, T. Priessnitz, M. Knauft, A. Suthar, L. Richter, M. Isobe, P. A. van Aken, H. Tak- agi, B. Keimer, Y. E. Suyolcu, B. Wehinger, P. Hans- mann, and M. Hepting, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 146002 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    G. Wang, N. N. Wang, X. L. Shen, J. Hou, L. Ma, L. F. Shi, Z. A. Ren, Y. D. Gu, H. M. Ma, P. T. Yang, Z. Y. Liu, H. Z. Guo, J. P. Sun, G. M. Zhang, S. Calder, J.-Q. Yan, B. S. Wang, Y. Uwatoko, and J.-G. Cheng, Phys. Rev. X 14, 011040 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Y. Zhu, D. Peng, E. Zhang, B. Pan, X. Chen, L. Chen, H. Ren, F. Liu, Y. Hao, N. Li, Z. Xing, F. Lan, J. Han, J. Wang, D. Jia, H. Wo, Y. Gu, Y. Gu, L. Ji, W. Wang, H. Gou, Y. Shen, T. Ying, X. Chen, W. Yang, H. Cao, C. Zheng, Q. Zeng, J. gang Guo, and J. Zhao, Nature 631, 531 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Kakoi, T

    M. Kakoi, T. Oi, Y. Ohshita, M. Yashima, K. Kuroki, T. Kato, H. Takahashi, S. Ishiwata, Y. Adachi, N. Hatada, T. Uda, and H. Mukuda, Journal of the Phys- ical Society of Japan 93, 053702 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Sakakibara, M

    H. Sakakibara, M. Ochi, H. Nagata, Y. Ueki, H. Saku- rai, R. Matsumoto, K. Terashima, K. Hirose, H. Ohta, M. Kato, Y. Takano, and K. Kuroki, Phys. Rev. B 109, 144511 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    Li, Y.-J

    Q. Li, Y.-J. Zhang, Z.-N. Xiang, Y. Zhang, X. Zhu, and H.-H. Wen, Chinese Physics Letters 41, 017401 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Zhang, C

    M. Zhang, C. Pei, X. Du, W. Hu, Y. Cao, Q. Wang, J. Wu, Y. Li, H. Liu, C. Wen, Y. Zhao, C. Li, W. Cao, S. Zhu, Q. Zhang, N. Yu, P. Cheng, L. Zhang, Z. Li, J. Zhao, Y. Chen, H. Guo, C. Wu, F. Yang, S. Yan, L. Yang, and Y. Qi, Superconductivity in trilayer nicke- late La4Ni3O10 ...

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    D.-K. Seo, W. Liang, M.-H. Whangbo, Z. Zhang, and M. Greenblatt, Inorganic Chemistry 35, 6396 (1996), pMID: 11666785

    1996

  3. [11]

    X.-S. Ni, Y. Ji, L. He, T. Xie, D.-X. Yao, M. Wang, and K. Cao, npj Quantum Mater. 10, 17 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    Z. Luo, X. Hu, M. Wang, W. W´ u, and D.-X. Yao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 126001 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Christiansson, F

    V. Christiansson, F. Petocchi, and P. Werner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 206501 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    X. Chen, J. Choi, Z. Jiang, J. Mei, K. Jiang, J. Li, S. Agrestini, M. Garcia-Fernandez, X. Huang, H. Sun, D. Shen, M. Wang, J. Hu, Y. Lu, K.-J. Zhou, and D. Feng, Nature Communications 15, 9597 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    T. Xie, M. Huo, X. Ni, F. Shen, X. Huang, H. Sun, H. C. Walker, D. Adroja, D. Yu, B. Shen, L. He, K. Cao, and M. Wang, Science Bulletin 69, 3221 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    D. Zhao, Y. Zhou, M. Huo, Y. Wang, L. Nie, Y. Yang, J. Ying, M. Wang, T. Wu, and X. Chen, Science Bulletin 70, 1239 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    N. K. Gupta, R. Gong, Y. Wu, M. Kang, C. T. Parzyck, B. Z. Gregory, N. Costa, R. Sutarto, S. Sarker, A. Singer, D. G. Schlom, K. M. Shen, and D. G. Hawthorn, Anisotropic spin stripe domains in bilayer La 3Ni2O7 (2024), arXiv:2409.03210 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    K. Chen, X. Liu, J. Jiao, M. Zou, C. Jiang, X. Li, Y. Luo, Q. Wu, N. Zhang, Y. Guo, and L. Shu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 256503 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Y. Meng, Y. Yang, H. Sun, S. Zhang, J. Luo, M. Wang, F. Hong, X. Wang, and X. Yu, Nature Communications 15, 10408 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Khasanov, T

    R. Khasanov, T. J. Hicken, D. J. Gawryluk, L. P. Sorel, S. B¨ otzel, F. Lechermann, I. M. Eremin, H. Luetkens, and Z. Guguchia, Nature Physics 21, 430 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Zhang, L.-F

    Y. Zhang, L.-F. Lin, A. Moreo, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. B 108, L180510 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    X. Chen, P. Jiang, J. Li, Z. Zhong, and Y. Lu, Crit- ical charge and spin instabilities in superconducting La3Ni2O7 (2023), arXiv:2307.07154 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Lechermann, J

    F. Lechermann, J. Gondolf, S. B¨ otzel, and I. M. Eremin, Phys. Rev. B 108, L201121 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Y. Gu, C. Le, Z. Yang, X. Wu, and J. Hu, Effective model and pairing tendency in bilayer ni-based superconductor La3Ni2O7 (2023), arXiv:2306.07275 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Q.-G. Yang, D. Wang, and Q.-H. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 108, L140505 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Liu, J.-W

    Y.-B. Liu, J.-W. Mei, F. Ye, W.-Q. Chen, and F. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 236002 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Yang, G.-M

    Y.-f. Yang, G.-M. Zhang, and F.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 108, L201108 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Sakakibara, N

    H. Sakakibara, N. Kitamine, M. Ochi, and K. Kuroki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 106002 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Y. Shen, M. Qin, and G.-M. Zhang, Chinese Physics Let- ters 40, 127401 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Qu, D.-W

    X.-Z. Qu, D.-W. Qu, J. Chen, C. Wu, F. Yang, W. Li, and G. Su, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 036502 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Cao and Y.-f

    Y. Cao and Y.-f. Yang, Phys. Rev. B 109, L081105 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Y.-H. Tian, Y. Chen, J.-M. Wang, R.-Q. He, and Z.-Y. Lu, Phys. Rev. B 109, 165154 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    D.-C. Lu, M. Li, Z.-Y. Zeng, W. Hou, J. Wang, F. Yang, and Y.-Z. You, Superconductivity from doping symmet- ric mass generation insulators: Application to La 3Ni2O7 under pressure (2023), arXiv:2308.11195 [cond-mat.str- el]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Huang, Z

    J. Huang, Z. D. Wang, and T. Zhou, Phys. Rev. B 108, 174501 (2023). 10

    2023

  27. [35]

    Jiang, J

    R. Jiang, J. Hou, Z. Fan, Z.-J. Lang, and W. Ku, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 126503 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Z. Liao, L. Chen, G. Duan, Y. Wang, C. Liu, R. Yu, and Q. Si, Phys. Rev. B 108, 214522 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    C. Lu, Z. Pan, F. Yang, and C. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 146002 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Oh and Y.-H

    H. Oh and Y.-H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 108, 174511 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Qin and Y.-f

    Q. Qin and Y.-f. Yang, Phys. Rev. B 108, L140504 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    D. A. Shilenko and I. V. Leonov, Phys. Rev. B 108, 125105 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    X.-W. Yi, Y. Meng, J.-W. Li, Z.-W. Liao, W. Li, J.- Y. You, B. Gu, and G. Su, Phys. Rev. B 110, L140508 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Kaneko, H

    T. Kaneko, H. Sakakibara, M. Ochi, and K. Kuroki, Phys. Rev. B 109, 045154 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    C. Qin, K. Foyevtsova, L. Si, G. A. Sawatzky, and M. Jiang, Intertwined charge and spin density wave state of La 3Ni2O7 (2024), arXiv:2410.15649 [cond-mat.supr- con]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Zhang, Y.-J

    H.-Y. Zhang, Y.-J. Bai, F.-J. Kong, X.-Q. Wu, Y.-H. Xing, and N. Xu, Doping evolution of the normal state magnetic excitations in pressurized La 3Ni2O7 (2024), arXiv:2408.03763 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Zhang, L.-F

    Y. Zhang, L.-F. Lin, A. Moreo, T. A. Maier, and E. Dagotto, Nature Communications 15, 10.1038/s41467-024-46622-z (2024)

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    LaBollita, V

    H. LaBollita, V. Pardo, M. R. Norman, and A. S. Botana, Assessing the formation of spin and charge stripes in La3Ni2O7 from first-principles (2024), arXiv:2407.14409 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Zhang, C

    B. Zhang, C. Xu, and H. Xiang, Emergent spin- charge-orbital order in superconductor La3Ni2O7 (2024), arXiv:2407.18473 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    L.-F. Lin, Y. Zhang, N. Kaushal, G. Alvarez, T. A. Maier, A. Moreo, and E. Dagotto, Magnetic phase diagram of a two-orbital model for bilayer nickelates varying doping (2024), arXiv:2408.05689 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    L.-F. Lin, Y. Zhang, N. Kaushal, G. Alvarez, T. A. Maier, A. Moreo, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. B 110, 195135 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Fan, J.-F

    Z. Fan, J.-F. Zhang, B. Zhan, D. Lv, X.-Y. Jiang, B. Nor- mand, and T. Xiang, Phys. Rev. B 110, 024514 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    Schl¨ omer, U

    H. Schl¨ omer, U. Schollw¨ ock, F. Grusdt, and A. Bohrdt, Superconductivity in the pressurized nickelate La3Ni2O7 in the vicinity of a bec-bcs crossover (2024), arXiv:2311.03349 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Zhang, H.-K

    J.-X. Zhang, H.-K. Zhang, Y.-Z. You, and Z.-Y. Weng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 126501 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    F. C. Zhang and T. M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B 37, 3759 (1988)

    1988

  46. [54]

    Zhang, C

    F. Zhang, C. Gros, T. Rice, and H. Shiba, Superconduc- tor Science and Technology 1 (2003)

    2003

  47. [55]

    Ogata and A

    M. Ogata and A. Himeda, Journal of The Physical Soci- ety of Japan - J PHYS SOC JPN 72, 374 (2003)

    2003

  48. [56]

    Himeda and M

    A. Himeda and M. Ogata, Phys. Rev. B 60, R9935 (1999)

    1999

  49. [57]

    K.-Y. Yang, W. Q. Chen, T. M. Rice, M. Sigrist, and F.-C. Zhang, New Journal of Physics 11, 055053 (2009)

    2009

  50. [58]

    Chou and T.-K

    C.-P. Chou and T.-K. Lee, Phys. Rev. B 85, 104511 (2012)

    2012

  51. [59]

    Tu and T.-K

    W.-L. Tu and T.-K. Lee, Scientific Reports 6, 18675 (2016)

    2016

  52. [60]

    J. Yang, H. Sun, X. Hu, Y. Xie, T. Miao, H. Luo, H. Chen, B. Liang, W. Zhu, G. Qu, C.-Q. Chen, M. Huo, Y. Huang, S. Zhang, F. Zhang, F. Yang, Z. Wang, Q. Peng, H. Mao, G. Liu, Z. Xu, T. Qian, D.-X. Yao, M. Wang, L. Zhao, and X. J. Zhou, Nature Communica- tions 15, 4373 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    Z. Luo, B. Lv, M. Wang, W. W´ u, and D.-X. Yao, npj Quantum Materials 9, 61 (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    Sigrist, T

    M. Sigrist, T. M. Rice, and F. C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 49, 12058 (1994)

    1994

  55. [63]

    Hou, T.-K

    J. Hou, T.-K. Lee, Y. Guo, J. Lou, and Y. Chen, New Journal of Physics 21, 113047 (2019)

    2019

  56. [64]

    Hou, T.-K

    J. Hou, T.-K. Lee, J. Lou, and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 99, 094510 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    Dagotto, J

    E. Dagotto, J. Riera, and D. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. B 45, 5744 (1992)

    1992

  58. [66]

    Wang, H.-H

    M. Wang, H.-H. Wen, T. Wu, D.-X. Yao, and T. Xiang, Chin. Phys. Lett. 41 (2024)

    2024

  59. [67]

    W. W´ u, Z. Luo, D.-X. Yao, and M. Wang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 67, 117402 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.