Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Pressure-induced self-doping and Fermi surface reconstruction in UAs2

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pressure in UAs2 does not add electrons to uranium; it moves them between the two spin-orbit halves of the 5f shell, and that internal self-doping tracks the superconducting dome.

desk verdict A plausible but parameter-sensitive DFT+DMFT case for pressure-induced self-doping in UAs2; worth refereeing, but the U/J dependence needs to be tested before the mechanism is solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01244 v1 pith:H5BZVZEN submitted 2026-08-02 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Zhenchao Wu , Yingying Cao , Yi-feng Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords uraniumdiarsenideheavy-fermionsuperconductorDFT+DMFT5felectronspressure-inducedself-dopingFermi-surfacereconstructionchargefluctuationsmixedvalence
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

UAs2 is a uranium diarsenide antiferromagnet that becomes superconducting under pressure, with a dome peaking near 26.8 GPa. This paper uses DFT+DMFT to argue that pressure does not change the total number of uranium 5f electrons; instead it transfers a fraction of an electron from the more localized $j=5/2$ manifold to the more itinerant $j=7/2$ manifold. That internal "self-doping" pushes the $f_{5/2}$ states from a Kondo-localized regime toward mixed valence, enhances charge fluctuations, and reconstructs the Fermi surface. The calculation finds superconductivity in exactly the pressure window where the Fermi surface is made of two disconnected, nested sheets, and its disappearance coincides with their merger into a corrugated three-dimensional cylinder. A sympathetic reader would take the paper as providing the electronic-structure mechanism behind the highest reported $T_c$ among uranium-based $5f$ superconductors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the orbital-resolved occupancy of the uranium $5f$ shell, split by spin-orbit coupling into the $j=5/2$ and $j=7/2$ manifolds. DFT+DMFT, with spin-orbit coupling, an interaction $U=8$ eV, Hund's coupling $J=0.6$ eV, and an exact double-counting scheme, lets the calculation track how electrons redistribute between these manifolds as the experimental lattice parameters are compressed. The paper also uses the shape of the Fermi surface—two disconnected nested sheets versus a merged corrugated cylinder—as the structural criterion that correlates with the superconducting dome.

What would settle it

Repeat the DFT+DMFT calculation at 26.8 and 45 GPa with $U=7$ eV and $U=9$ eV (and $J=0.4$, $0.8$ eV). If the direction or magnitude of the transfer from $j=5/2$ to $j=7/2$ does not persist, the self-doping mechanism collapses. A complementary experimental check is X-ray absorption at the uranium $M_4$/$M_5$ edges under pressure, which should show the $5f$ branching ratio shifting in the direction the calculation predicts if the story is right.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that pressure in UAs2 acts as a self-doping switch: the total U-$5f$ occupancy stays near 2.14, but electrons move from the strongly correlated $j=5/2$ orbitals to the $j=7/2$ orbitals. The paper shows this transfer weakens the Kondo-localized character of the $f_{5/2}$ states, drives the system toward a mixed-valence regime with increased weight in the $N=1$ and $N=3$ atomic configurations, and produces a low-energy kink in the spectral function. Around the superconducting dome the Fermi surface consists of two disconnected quasi-two-dimensional sheets with enhanced nesting; beyond the dome the sheets bend and merge into a corrugated three-dimensional cylinder. The auth

Load-bearing premise

The calculation fixes the local Coulomb repulsion at $U=8$ eV and Hund's coupling at $J=0.6$ eV, values taken from earlier uranium-oxide work, and never checks whether the pressure-driven transfer between the $j=5/2$ and $j=7/2$ manifolds survives a change in these parameters.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At ambient pressure the calculated flat Kondo hybridization bands near the $\Gamma$ and $M$ points match ARPES, supporting a multi-band hybridization scenario rather than a single-band picture.
  • Pressure transfers roughly 0.03–0.09 electrons per uranium from $j=5/2$ to $j=7/2$ while the total $5f$ count stays constant, so the change is internal self-doping, not external charge doping.
  • The self-doping drives the $f_{5/2}$ electrons out of the Kondo-localized regime toward mixed valence, and the enhanced $N=1$ and $N=3$ configuration weights indicate stronger charge fluctuations.
  • Superconductivity occurs only while the Fermi surface has two disconnected nested sheets; its suppression at higher pressure is tied to a Lifshitz-type merger of those sheets into a three-dimensional corrugated surface.
  • The Matsubara self-energy exponent grows from 0.54 to 0.67 with pressure, tracking the experimental crossover from non-Fermi-liquid to Fermi-liquid-like normal-state behavior.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct X-ray absorption experiment at the uranium $M_4$/$M_5$ edges as a function of pressure could test the predicted self-doping: the $f_{5/2}$/$f_{7/2}$ branching ratio should shift systematically across the 22–31 GPa window.
  • If the mechanism is generic, isovalent substitutions in the dipnictide family (e.g., replacing As with Sb or P) or epitaxial strain could mimic the pressure-induced orbital transfer and stabilize superconductivity at ambient pressure.
  • The nonmagnetic calculation leaves the ambient antiferromagnetic order out of the equation; a spin-polarized DFT+DMFT calculation could show whether the same orbital transfer and charge fluctuations survive in the magnetically ordered state and whether they strengthen as N\'eel order collapses.
  • The link drawn to hole-doped cuprates and to the second CeCu$_2$Si$_2$ dome suggests a broader pattern: charge-fluctuation-mediated pairing may be a generic route to elevated $T_c$ in $f$-electron metals when the Fermi surface is tuned into a nesting-prone geometry.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a DFT+DMFT study of the pressure evolution of the correlated electronic structure of UAs2. At ambient pressure, the calculations reproduce the flat hybridization bands near the Fermi level observed by ARPES. Under pressure, the authors find an orbital-selective charge transfer from the 5f5/2 to the 5f7/2 manifold with the total 5f occupancy nearly unchanged, which they term pressure-induced self-doping. This is accompanied by enhanced charge fluctuations, a Fermi-surface reconstruction from two nested sheets to a corrugated three-dimensional cylinder, and a gradual crossover from non-Fermi-liquid to Fermi-liquid-like self-energy behavior. The authors correlate these changes with the experimentally reported superconducting dome and propose that self-doping, charge fluctuations, and Fermi-surface nesting provide the microscopic electronic-structure basis for superconductivity in UAs2.

Significance. If the central mechanism is correct, the paper offers a concrete and falsifiable electronic-structure picture for the pressure-induced superconducting dome in UAs2, going beyond the conventional magnetic-quantum-critical scenario. The study is technically competent: it uses a standard DFT+DMFT framework with a CT-HYB impurity solver, reproduces the ambient-pressure ARPES flat bands, and makes explicit predictions about orbital-resolved occupancies and Fermi-surface topology that could be tested by high-pressure ARPES or Compton scattering. The claimed self-doping is not fitted to the superconducting dome; it is a raw output of the calculation, and the dome comparison is an after-the-fact observation, which is methodologically appropriate. The main weakness is that the central result depends on Coulomb parameters that are imported from oxide calculations without any sensitivity analysis, and on crystallographic structures at two dome pressures that are interpolated without documented internal coordinates.

major comments (3)
  1. [Method] The entire self-doping mechanism in Fig. 3(c) rests on the choice U=8 eV, J=0.6 eV, taken 'following previous calculations for uranium oxides.' The occupancy difference between 5f5/2 and 5f7/2 is a delicate balance between the on-site Coulomb repulsion and Hund's coupling, and the density-density approximation omits spin-flip and pair-hopping terms. A different U or J could shift the relative energies of the two SOC-split manifolds and reduce, eliminate, or even reverse the pressure-driven transfer. The paper provides no sensitivity check, no error bars, and no independent estimate for UAs2. This is load-bearing for the main claim, so I ask the authors to repeat the calculation with at least a few physically reasonable (U,J) values, or to provide a constrained-RPA estimate, and show that the direction and approximate magnitude of the self-doping are robust.
  2. [Method] The high-pressure DFT+DMFT calculations at 26.8 and 30.8 GPa use lattice constants 'obtained by interpolation based on the experimental volume evolution,' but the text does not state how the internal coordinates in the Pnma structure were treated. The Fermi-surface reconstruction in Fig. 4(a) and the orbital occupancies in Fig. 3(c) are sensitive to small changes in the As and U internal positions. If the internal coordinates are taken from the 45 GPa structure or linearly interpolated, the 26.8 and 30.8 GPa results may be artifacts. Please specify and, ideally, relax the internal coordinates at each pressure or at least test the sensitivity of the FS topology and occupancies to these coordinates.
  3. [Method/Ambient pressure] The authors state they 'only focus on the nonmagnetic state for simplicity,' yet the ambient-pressure spectral function is compared directly with ARPES data measured in the antiferromagnetic state (TN≈274 K). The AFM exchange splitting and the associated band folding could modify the orbital-resolved DOS and the exact shape of the flat bands. Since the nonmagnetic calculation is used as the baseline for interpreting the high-pressure results, I ask the authors to clarify whether a magnetic DFT+DMFT calculation was attempted and, if not, to discuss how the AFM state could affect the ambient orbital occupancies and the pressure trend. This is a limitation of the present comparison, even if the high-pressure SC region is expected to be paramagnetic.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Method] Typo: 'useful informations' should be 'useful information'.
  2. [Fig. 3(c)] The pressure-dependence plot shows occupancies only at 26.8, 30.8, and 45 GPa. Adding the ambient-pressure values would help quantify the baseline and make the self-doping transfer more transparent.
  3. [Fig. 2(c)] The comparison with ARPES is visually convincing but the energy range of the experimental data is not clear. Indicate the experimental energy and momentum ranges in the figure or caption.
  4. [Fig. 4(b)] The power-law fits to ImΣ(iωn) are described only by 'extracted slopes.' Please specify the frequency window used for the fits and whether the exponent is sensitive to that window.
  5. [References] Ref. [9] is cited as a uranium oxide calculation, but it is a UTe2 calculation. The provenance of U=8 eV, J=0.6 eV should be cited more precisely, ideally with a table of the parameters used in Refs. [31,32].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: DFT+DMFT outputs are raw results, not fitted to the target; self-citations are contextual.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—pressure-induced self-doping and Fermi-surface reconstruction—are derived from DFT+DMFT calculations at experimentally determined or interpolated crystal structures. The electron occupancies of the 5f5/2 and 5f7/2 manifolds are computed outputs, not parameters fitted to the superconducting dome. The correlation with the dome is an after-the-fact comparison, not a fitted curve. The interaction parameters U=8 eV and J=0.6 eV are imported from previous uranium-oxide calculations (including a self-citation, Ref. [9]), but this is a parameter transfer, not a circular reduction: the self-doping direction is not defined in terms of these parameters, and the occupancy difference is a nontrivial many-body result. The ambient-pressure agreement with ARPES provides independent validation. Self-citations (Refs. 9, 27, 35, 36, 41) are contextual or methodological, not load-bearing in a way that forces the central conclusion. No equation is defined in terms of the claim, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. Therefore, the derivation chain is self-contained and no circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper operates within standard DFT+DMFT, but the specific results rest on hand-picked interaction parameters and a nonmagnetic, structure-interpolated model. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Hubbard U on U-5f = 8 eV
    Taken from previous uranium oxide calculations (Refs. 9,31,32); no sensitivity analysis for UAs2. The self-doping and orbital occupancies depend critically on it.
  • Hund's coupling J on U-5f = 0.6 eV
    Same provenance as U; controls the splitting between the 5f5/2 and 5f7/2 manifolds and the charge-fluctuation probabilities.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The density-density approximation is sufficient for the 5f shell of UAs2
    The impurity solver uses only density-density couplings; spin-flip and pair-hopping terms are omitted (Method section).
  • domain assumption The nonmagnetic state captures the physics relevant for superconductivity
    The authors explicitly restrict to the nonmagnetic state even though UAs2 is antiferromagnetic below 274 K; they argue useful information can still be extracted.
  • ad hoc to paper U=8 eV, J=0.6 eV from uranium oxides are transferable to UAs2
    Borrowed from uranium oxide calculations; no constraint from experiment or constrained RPA for this compound.
  • domain assumption Lattice parameters at 26.8 and 30.8 GPa are obtained by interpolation based on experimental volume evolution
    Structural model for the two dome-relevant pressures is interpolated, not measured or relaxed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pressure-induced self-doping and Fermi surface reconstruction in UAs2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H5BZVZEN

@misc{pith2026260801244,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pressure-induced self-doping and Fermi surface reconstruction in UAs2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H5BZVZEN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01244}
}
read the original abstract

Superconductivity has recently been reported in the heavy-fermion compound UAs2 under pressure, with the highest Tc among uranium-based correlated 5f-electron superconductors. To elucidate its microscopic origin, we investigate its electronic structure using density functional theory combined with dynamical mean-field theory (DFT+DMFT). At ambient pressure, our calculations reproduce the characteristic Kondo-lattice electronic structure, with flat hybridization bands near the Fermi energy around the {\Gamma} and M points, in good agreement with angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES). Under pressure, we find a systematic transfer of electrons from the more localized 5f5/2 orbitals to the more itinerant 5f7/2 orbitals, while the total U-5f occupancy remains nearly unchanged. This orbital-selective charge redistribution constitutes a pressure-induced self-doping effect that drives the 5f5/2 electrons from a localized Kondo regime toward a mixed-valence regime with enhanced charge fluctuations, leading to a dramatic reconstruction of the low-energy electronic structure. Remarkably, superconductivity emerges in the pressure range where the Fermi surface consists of two disconnected sheets with enhanced nesting, but disappears when they bend and merge into a corrugated three-dimensional cylinder. Our results provide an electronic-structure basis for understanding superconductivity in UAs2 and suggest that Fermi-surface nesting and charge fluctuations may contribute to the enhanced superconducting Tc, pointing to a possible distinction from conventional heavy-fermion superconductors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01244 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematic phase diagram and crystal structures of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Electronic structure of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Correlated electronic structure of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (a) Evolution of the Fermi surfaces at 26.8, 30.8, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G. R. Stewart, Heavy-fermion systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 56, 755 (1984)

    1984

  2. [2]

    Gegenwart, Q

    P. Gegenwart, Q. Si, and F. Steglich, Quantum criticality in heavy-fermion metals, Nat. Phys. 4, 186 (2008)

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    N. D. Mathur, F. M. Grosche, S. R. Julian, I. R. Walker, D. M. Freye, R. K. W. Haselwimmer, and G. G. Lonzarich, Magnetically mediated superconductivity in heavy fermion compounds, Nature (London) 394, 39 (1998)

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    Paschen, T

    S. Paschen, T. Lühmann, S. Wirth, P. Gegenwart, O. Trovarelli, C. Geibel, F. Steglich, P. Coleman, and Q.Si, Hall-effect evolution across a heavy-fermion quantum critical point, Nature (London) 432, 881 (2004)

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    S. S. Saxena, P. Agarwal, K. Ahilan, F. M. Grosche, R. K. W. Haselwimmer, M. J. Steiner, E. Pugh, I. R. Walker, S. R. Julian, P. Monthoux, G. G. Lonzarich, A. Huxley, I. Sheikin, D. Braithwaite, and J. Flouquet, Superconductivity on the border of itinerant-electron fer- romagnetism in UGe 2, Nature (London) 406, 587 (2000)

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    Joynt and L

    R. Joynt and L. Taillefer, The superconducting phases of UPt3, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 235 (2002)

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    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, Nearly ferromagnetic spin-triplet supercon- ductivity, Science 365, 684 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    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. Vališka, H. Harima, and J. Flouquet, Unconventional supercon- ductivity in heavy fermion UTe 2, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88, 043702 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Xu, Y. Sheng, and Y.-F. Yang, Quasi-two-dimensional Fermi surfaces and unitary spin-triplet pairing in the heavy fermion superconductor UTe 2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 217002 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    C. D. O’Neill, J. L. Schmehr, and A. D. Huxley, Multi- component odd-parity superconductivity in UAu 2 at high pressure, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2210235119 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Amoretti, A

    G. Amoretti, A. Blaise, and J. Mulak, Crystal field inter- pretation of the magnetic properties of UX 2 compounds (X = P, As, Sb, Bi), J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 42, 65 (1984)

    1984

  4. [12]

    Gerward, J

    L. Gerward, J. S. Olsen, U. Benedict, S. Dabos-Seignon, and H. Luo, Crystal structures of UP 2, UAs 2, UAsS, and UAsSe in the pressure range up to 60 GPa. High Temp. High Press. 22, 523 (1990)

    1990

  5. [13]

    Q. Y. Chen, X. B. Luo, D. H. Xie, M. L. Li, X. Y. Ji, R. Zhou, Y. B. Huang, W. Zhang, W. Feng, and Y. Zhang, Orbitalselective Kondo entanglement and antiferromag- netic order in USb 2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 106402 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Giannakis, J

    I. Giannakis, J. Leshen, M. Kavai, S. Ran, C. J. Kang, S. R. Saha, Y. Zhao, Z. Xu, J. W. Lynn, L. Miao, L. A. Wray, G. Kotliar, N. P. Butch, and P. Aynajian, Orbital- selective Kondo lattice and enigmatic f electrons emerg- ing from inside the antiferromagnetic phase of a heav...

    2019

  7. [15]

    W. Feng, D. H. Xie, X. B. Luo, S. Y. Tan, Y. Liu, Q. Liu, Q. Q. Hao, X. G. Zhu, Q. Zhang, Y. Zhang, Q. Y. Chen, and X. C. Lai, Crossover behavior of the localized to itinerant transition of 5 f electrons in the antiferro- magnetic Kondo lattice USb 2, Phys. Rev. B 104, 235103 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    L. Miao, R. Basak, S. Ran, Y. S. Xu, E. Kotta, H. W. He, J. D. Denlinger, Y. D. Chuang, Y. Zhao, Z. Xu, J. W. Lynn, R. Jeffries, S. R. Saha, I. Giannakis, P. Ayna- jian, C. J. Kang, Y. L. Wang, G. Kotliar, N. P. Butch, and L. A. Wray, High temperature singlet-based mag- netism...

    2019

  9. [17]

    Siddiquee, C

    H. Siddiquee, C. Broyles, E. Kotta, S. Liu, S. Peng, T. Kong, B. Kang, Q. Zhu, Y. Lee, L. Ke, H. Weng, J. D. Denlinger, L. A. Wray, and S. Ran, Breakdown of the scaling relation of anomalous Hall effect in Kondo lattice ferromagnet USbTe, Nat. Commun. 14, 527 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    X. Ji, X. Luo, Q. Chen, W. Feng, Q. Hao, Q. Liu, Y. Zhang, Y. Liu, X. Wang, S. Tan, and X. Lai, Direct observation of coexisting Kondo hybridization and anti- ferromagnetic state in UAs 2, Phys. Rev. B 106, 125120 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    X. Ji, Q. Liu, W. Feng, Y. Zhang, Q. Chen, Y. Liu, Q. Hao, J. Wu, Z. Xue, X. Zhu, Q. Zhang, X. Luo, S. Tan, and X. Lai, Heavy fermion related behaviors and the effects from nonmagnetic atom vacancies in the 5f- electron based antiferromagnet UAs 2, Phys. Rev. B 109, 075158 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Q. Li, Z. -N. Xiang, B. -B Zhang, Y. -J. Zhang, C. Zhang, and H. -H. Wen, Unconventional superconductivity in UAs2 under pressure, Sci. Adv. 12 (15) , eaed6248(2026)

    2026

  13. [21]

    Blaha, K

    P. Blaha, K. Schwarz, G. K. H. Madsen, D. Kvasnicka, and J. Luitz, WIEN2k, an augmented plane wave + lo- 6 cal orbitals program for calculating crystal properties (Karlheinz Schwarz, Techn. Universität Wien, Austria), (2001). ISBN 3-9501031-1-2

    2001

  14. [22]

    Blaha, K

    P. Blaha, K. Schwarz, F. Tran, R. Laskowski, G. K. H. Madsen, and L. D. Marks, WIEN2k: An APW+lo pro- gram for calculating the properties of solids, J. Chem. Phys. 152, 074101 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Georges, G

    A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M. J. Rozen- berg, Dynamical mean-field theory of strongly correlated fermion systems and the limit of infinite dimensions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 13 (1996)

    1996

  16. [24]

    V. I. Anisimov, A. I. Poteryaev, M. A. Korotin, A. O. Anokhin, and G. Kotliar, First-Principles Calculations of the Electronic Structure and Spectra of Strongly Corre- lated Systems: Dynamical Mean-Field Theory, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 9, 7359 (1997)

    1997

  17. [25]

    A. I. Lichtenstein and M. I. Katsnelson, Ab initio calcu- lations of quasiparticle band structure in correlated sys- tems: LDA++ approach, Phys. Rev. B 57, 6884 (1998)

    1998

  18. [26]

    Kotliar, S

    G. Kotliar, S. Y. Savrasov, K. Haule, V. S. Oudovenko, O. Parcollet, and C. A. Marianetti, Electronic struc- ture calculations with dynamical mean-field theory, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 865 (2006)

    2006

  19. [27]

    K. Held, O. K. Andersen, M. Feldbacher, A. Yamasaki, and Y.-F. Yang, Band structure meets many-body the- ory: the LDA+DMFT method, J. Phys.: Condens. Mat- ter 20, 064202 (2008)

    2008

  20. [28]

    Haule, C.-H

    K. Haule, C.-H. Yee, and K. Kim, Dynamical mean- field theory within the full-potential methods: Electronic structure of CeIrIn 5, CeCoIn 5, and CeRhIn 5, Phys. Rev. B 81, 195107 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Generalized gradient approximation made simple, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  22. [30]

    Haule, Quantum Monte Carlo impurity solver for clus- ter dynamical mean-field theory and electronic structure calculations with adjustable cluster base, Phys

    K. Haule, Quantum Monte Carlo impurity solver for clus- ter dynamical mean-field theory and electronic structure calculations with adjustable cluster base, Phys. Rev. B 75, 155113 (2007)

    2007

  23. [31]

    J. H. Shim, K. Haule, and G. Kotliar, X-ray absorption branching ratio in actinides: LDA+DMFT approach, Europhys. Lett. 85, 17007 (2009)

    2009

  24. [32]

    Q. Yin, A. Kutepov, K. Haule, G. Kotliar, S. Y. Savrasov, and W. E. Pickett, Electronic correlation and transport properties of nuclear fuel materials, Phys. Rev. B 84, 195111 (2011)

    2011

  25. [33]

    Haule, Exact double counting in combining the dy- namical mean field theory and the density functional the- ory, Phys

    K. Haule, Exact double counting in combining the dy- namical mean field theory and the density functional the- ory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 196403 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    Jarrell and J

    M. Jarrell and J. E. Gubernatis, Bayesian inference and the analytic continuation of imaginary-time quantum Monte Carlo data, Phys. Rep. 269, 133 (1996)

    1996

  27. [35]

    Byczuk, M

    K. Byczuk, M. Kollar, K. Held, Yi-feng Yang, I. A. Nekrasov, Th. Pruschke, and D. Vollhardt, Kinks in the dispersion of strongly correlated electrons. Nature Physics 3, 168 (2007)

    2007

  28. [36]

    Hu, N.-H

    D. Hu, N.-H. Tong, and Y.-F. Yang, Energy-scale cas- cade and correspondence between Mott and Kondo lat- tice physics. Phys. Rev. Research 2, 043407 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Orenstein and A

    J. Orenstein and A. J. Millis, Advances in the physics of high-temperature superconductivity, Science 288, 468 (2000)

    2000

  30. [38]

    Keimer, S

    B. Keimer, S. A. Kivelson, M. R. Norman, S. Uchida, and J. Zaanen, From quantum matter to high-temperature superconductivity in copper oxides, Nature (London) 518, 179 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    P. A. Lee, N. Nagaosa, and X.G. Wen, Doping a Mott in- sulator: Physics of high-temperature superconductivity, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 17 (2006)

    2006

  32. [40]

    H. Q. Yuan, F. M. Grosche, M. Deppe, C. Geibel, G. Sparn, and F. Steglich, Observation of Two Distinct Su- perconducting Phases in CeCu 2Si2. Science 302, 2104- 2107 (2003)

    2003

  33. [41]

    Li, Y.-T

    Y. Li, Y.-T. Sheng, and Y.-F. Yang, Theoretical progress and material studies of heavy fermion superconductors. Act. Phys. Sin. 70, 071402 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Kawamura, FermiSurfer: Fermi-surface viewer pro- viding multiple representation schemes

    M. Kawamura, FermiSurfer: Fermi-surface viewer pro- viding multiple representation schemes. Comp. Phys. Commun 239, 197 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Damascelli, Z

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

    2003

  36. [44]

    M. R. Norman, H. Ding, M. Randeria, J.C. Campuzano, T. Yokoya, T. Takeuchi, T. Takahashi, T. Mochiku, K. Kadowaki, P. Guptasarma, and D.G. Hinks, Destruction of the Fermi surface in underdoped high- Tc superconduc- tors, Nature (London) 392, 157 (1998)

    1998

  37. [45]

    I. M. Lifshitz, Anomalies of electron characteristics of a metal in the high pressure region, Sov. Phys. JETP 11, 1130 (1960)

    1960

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.