Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 61 references

Composite 4-electron superconductivity predicted in Fermi liquids

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 · glm-5.2

2026-07-08 05:54 UTC pith:HJJK3ZYE

load-bearing objection Composite susceptibility thresholds for multi-fermion orders are derived exactly within the Gaussian theory, but the strong-coupling regime where they dominate is not shown to be self-consistently controlled. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.06430 v1 pith:HJJK3ZYE submitted 2026-07-07 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.supr-con

Instabilities of Fermi Liquids with Arbitrary Forward Scattering: Exact Approach

Dmitry Miserev , Joel Hutchinson , Herbert Schoeller , Jelena Klinovaja , Daniel Loss This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.supr-con
keywords Fermi liquidmultidimensional bosonizationcomposite superconductivitydensity waveforward scatteringdimensional reductionLuttinger liquidpair susceptibility
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 proves that a D-dimensional Fermi liquid with N fermion flavors and finite-range forward-scattering interactions can develop instabilities toward exotic composite orders that outrank conventional pairing or density waves at strong enough coupling. The central mechanism is dimensional reduction: any D-dimensional two-point correlation function maps onto an effective 1D correlator that can be evaluated exactly within a Gaussian (bosonizable) theory. This exact evaluation is shown to be equivalent to an all-loop resummation of the one-loop renormalization group for forward-scattering interactions. Applying this machinery to composite susceptibilities — objects built from 2N fermion operators rather than the usual 2 — the authors derive explicit thresholds on the dimensionless coupling gamma at which 2N-electron pair susceptibility overtakes the standard 2-electron Cooper susceptibility (for attractive interactions) and 2NkF density-wave susceptibility overtakes the standard 2kF density wave (for repulsive interactions). For the physically relevant case of spin-degenerate electrons (N=2), the paper predicts 4-electron superconductivity when the attractive coupling exceeds (D+1)/2 and 4kF composite density waves when the repulsive coupling exceeds (3D+1)/4.

Core claim

The dimensional reduction map reduces arbitrary D-dimensional two-point correlation functions — including composite susceptibilities built from arbitrarily many fermion operators — to exactly solvable 1D Gaussian correlators. For finite-range forward-scattering interactions characterized by a single dimensionless coupling gamma, the resulting susceptibilities carry power-law temperature scaling governed by integer charge and current quantum numbers (Q_A, J_A) of the vertex operator. The key exponent is (Q_A^2 - J_A^2) * gamma / 4, which determines whether a given susceptibility is enhanced or suppressed. For composite 2N-electron pairing (attractive, gamma < 0), the most relevant channel has

What carries the argument

Dimensional reduction: maps D-dimensional Feynman diagrams with dressed RPA forward-scattering interaction onto 1D diagrams of identical structure, solvable by standard bosonization. The dressed 1D interaction V(iω,q) is obtained by integrating the D-dimensional RPA interaction U_D(iω,p) over transverse momenta via a Bessel-function kernel I_D(q/p). For finite-range interactions, everything collapses to a single coupling constant gamma = integral of U_D over space, divided by πv_F. The 1D bosonization then yields exact closed-form correlators parameterized by integer charge (Q_A) and current (J_A) quantum numbers of the vertex operator A.

Load-bearing premise

The entire framework is an expansion in 1/(kF*Rs), where Rs is the interaction range, but the thresholds for composite order dominance require large coupling |gamma|, and the paper does not demonstrate that the strong-coupling regime stays self-consistently within the validity window where forward scattering dominates and curvature effects remain negligible.

What would settle it

If curvature effects (dangerously irrelevant operators) become important at the strong coupling values required for composite order dominance, the Gaussian theory may break down before composite orders actually dominate.

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

If this is right

  • For spin-degenerate (N=2) electrons in 3D, the threshold for 4e superconductivity is |gamma| > 2, and for 4kF density waves is gamma > 5/2 — these are concrete, testable coupling thresholds.
  • The exact equivalence between multidimensional bosonization and all-loop RG means that one-loop RG results for forward-scattering susceptibilities are non-perturbatively exact, not merely leading-order.
  • Composite orders like 4e superconductivity emerge here from a microscopic forward-scattering mechanism rather than phenomenological Ginzburg-Landau theory, providing a derivation of vestigial-order phenomenology from first principles.
  • The framework generalizes straightforwardly to non-spherical Fermi surfaces with position-dependent Fermi velocity, extending applicability to realistic materials.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The dominance thresholds for composite orders require large |gamma|, but the forward-scattering expansion parameter is 1/(kF*Rs). If achieving large |gamma| requires kF*Rs to be not much larger than 1, the theory may be pushed outside its own validity window before composite orders actually dominate — a self-consistency tension the paper acknowledges via the infrared cutoff Λ_IR but does not fully
  • If composite 4e superconductivity is realized in a material, the critical temperature would scale with a different power of the coupling than conventional BCS, potentially producing a distinct doping dependence that could be distinguishable experimentally.
  • The competition between 2e and 4e pairing channels suggests a possible crossover regime near the threshold |gamma| = (D+1)/2 where both susceptibilities are comparable — this could manifest as intertwined order or phase coexistence rather than a clean transition between distinct phases.

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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript applies the dimensional reduction / multidimensional bosonization framework to a D-dimensional, N-flavor electron gas with spherical Fermi surface and arbitrary forward-scattering density-density interaction. The authors derive two-point correlation functions—including single-particle Green function, pair, charge/spin, and composite susceptibilities—within a regularized 1D Gaussian (bosonizable) theory. The regularization involves subtracting double-pole contributions (Eq. 73) and the zero Matsubara frequency (Eq. 78), justified by unitarity and finite-temperature analyticity. The key physical results are: (i) the single-particle spectral function retains Fermi-liquid form; (ii) pair and density-wave susceptibilities acquire power-law enhancement equivalent to one-loop RG (shown to hold to all loops within this framework); and (iii) composite susceptibilities (2Ne pairing, 2NkF density waves) can become the most relevant instability channel at sufficiently strong coupling, with explicit thresholds given in Eqs. (108) and (117).

Significance. The derivation is detailed and internally consistent, and the equivalence between the bosonization result and the all-loop resummation of one-loop RG for forward scattering is a meaningful technical contribution. The composite susceptibility results—predicting, e.g., 4e superconductivity for N=2 at |γ| > (D+1)/2 and 4kF density waves at γ > (3D+1)/4—are novel and falsifiable, with explicit coupling thresholds. The connection to vestigial order theories of high-Tc superconductivity provides broader context. The framework is parameter-free in the sense that the thresholds depend only on D, N, and the dimensionless coupling γ, with no fitted parameters. These are genuine strengths. However, the central new claims depend on the validity of the Gaussian theory at the strong coupling values where composite orders dominate, and this issue is acknowledged but not fully resolved.

major comments (2)
  1. Sec. VI, near Eq. (80): The composite susceptibility thresholds in Eqs. (108) and (117) require |γ| ~ O(D+1) or larger. The entire framework is an expansion in 1/(kF·Rs), and the paper acknowledges that curvature effects—treated as dangerously irrelevant—could generate running of γ at higher order. The paper states this running is a 'higher order effect in 1/(kF·Rs)' but does not estimate its magnitude at the strong coupling values required for composite order dominance. If the curvature-induced correction to γ scales as γ²/(kF·Rs), it remains controllable for kF·Rs >> 1 even at |γ| ~ (D+1)/2. But if the scaling is different (e.g., involving powers of γ that are not quadratic), the thresholds could shift. The paper should provide at least an order-of-magnitude estimate of the curvature-induced correction to γ at the threshold values, or alternatively state more precisely the parametric条件
  2. Sec. VIII, Eqs. (104)–(108): The dominance condition |γ| > 2γ(N) [Eq. 108] is derived by comparing the non-analytic enhancement to the non-interacting background at the infrared cutoff TIR ~ ΛIR. However, Eq. (80) gives ΛIR ~ Λ/(kF·Rs), and the validity window requires Λ >> T >> ΛIR. At the threshold |γ| = 2γ(N) = (NA-1)(D+1)/N, the non-analytic part is only parametrically comparable to the background. The paper should clarify whether the crossover from conventional to composite order dominance is sharp or gradual, and whether there is a meaningful temperature window where the composite susceptibility is clearly dominant while the theory remains trustworthy.
minor comments (6)
  1. Eq. (66): The definition of γ involves UD(iωn=0, r), but the integration measure dξ' is not explicitly written out in full. Clarifying the integration domain and variables would help readers reproduce the result.
  2. Sec. V, Eq. (69): The statement that the spectral function is 'fully localized at the mass shell' and hence must be a delta function is physically motivated but the logic could be stated more carefully. The role of the subtraction in Eq. (71) in restoring unitarity should be contrasted more explicitly with the curvature-induced broadening discussed below Eq. (80).
  3. Eq. (80): The estimate ΛIR ~ 1/(mRs²) is given without derivation beyond a brief comment about quadratic dispersion. A more explicit derivation or reference would strengthen this load-bearing estimate.
  4. Sec. VIII.A, below Eq. (106): The statement that γ(NA) is 'an increasing function of NA at NA ≥ 2' is correct but could be verified more easily if the explicit expression γ(NA) = (NA-1)(D+1)/NA² were evaluated for the first few values of NA to guide the reader.
  5. The paper would benefit from a summary table of the key thresholds (relevance, dominance) for the N=2, D=2,3 cases, which are the most physically relevant, to make the predictions more accessible.
  6. Refs. [32], [42], [43] appear to have 2026 dates. If these are genuinely published, the full citation details should be verified; if preprints, the arXiv identifiers should be included.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. Both major comments concern the regime of validity of the Gaussian (multidimensional bosonization) framework at the strong coupling values where composite orders dominate. We agree that the manuscript should address these issues more explicitly and provide order-of-magnitude estimates and clarifications regarding (i) curvature-induced corrections to the coupling constant γ at threshold values and (ii) the sharpness of the crossover from conventional to composite order dominance and the existence of a trustworthy temperature window. We will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Sec. VI, near Eq. (80): The composite susceptibility thresholds require |γ| ~ O(D+1) or larger. The framework is an expansion in 1/(kF·Rs), and curvature effects could generate running of γ. The paper should provide an order-of-magnitude estimate of the curvature-induced correction to γ at the threshold values, or state more precisely the parametric conditions.

    Authors: The referee raises a valid concern. We will add an explicit order-of-magnitude estimate to Sec. VI. The key point is as follows. The curvature-induced correction to the dressed interaction V(iω_n, q) arises from the quadratic term in the electron dispersion, ε(q) = q_∥ v_F + q²/(2m), which generates the infrared cutoff Λ_IR ~ 1/(m R_s²) ~ Λ/(k_F R_s) [Eq. (80)]. The resulting correction to the dimensionless coupling γ is controlled by the ratio Λ_IR/Λ ~ 1/(k_F R_s) ≪ 1. At the threshold values |γ| ~ (D+1)/2 (for N=2), the curvature-induced running of γ over the energy window [Λ_IR, Λ] scales as δγ ~ γ² × (Λ_IR/Λ) ~ γ²/(k_F R_s). For |γ| ~ O(D+1) ~ O(1) and k_F R_s ≫ 1, this correction is parametrically small: δγ/|γ| ~ |γ|/(k_F R_s) ≪ 1. The scaling is indeed quadratic in γ (not involving higher powers), because the leading curvature correction enters at second order in the interaction through the self-energy correction to the polarization operator. We will state this estimate explicitly in the revised manuscript and clarify that the parametric condition for the thresholds to be trustworthy is |γ|/(k_F R_s) ≪ 1, which is satisfied in the regime k_F R_s ≫ 1 for O(1) couplings. We will also note that if |γ| were to grow to O(k_F R_s), the curvature corrections would become uncontrollable, but this is far outside the regime we consider. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Sec. VIII, Eqs. (104)–(108): The dominance condition |γ| > 2γ(N) is derived by comparing the non-analytic enhancement to the non-interacting background at T_IR ~ Λ_IR. At the threshold, the non-analytic part is only parametrically comparable to the background. The paper should clarify whether the crossover is sharp or gradual, and whether there is a meaningful temperature window where the composite susceptibility is clearly dominant while the theory remains trustworthy.

    Authors: This is a fair point and we will clarify it in the revised manuscript. The crossover from conventional to composite order dominance is gradual, not sharp. At the threshold |γ| = 2γ(N), the non-analytic enhancement of the composite susceptibility is parametrically comparable to the non-interacting background χ_{P,2N}(T_Λ). For |γ| strictly greater than 2γ(N), the non-analytic part exceeds the background by a factor that grows as (Λ/T)^{|γ| - 2γ(N)} evaluated at T ~ T_IR ~ Λ_IR. The meaningful temperature window where the composite susceptibility is clearly dominant while the theory remains trustworthy is: Λ_IR ≪ T ≪ Λ, with the additional requirement that |γ| - 2γ(N) is not too small, so that the enhancement factor (Λ/T)^{|γ|-2γ(N)} is parametrically large at T ~ Λ_IR. Specifically, at T ~ Λ_IR, the enhancement ratio scales as (k_F R_s)^{|γ| - 2γ(N)}, which is parametrically large when |γ| > 2γ(N) and k_F R_s ≫ 1. Thus, even slightly above the threshold, there is a parametrically wide window. We will add a paragraph in Sec. VIII making these points explicit, including the statement that the crossover is gradual and that the parametric separation between Λ_IR and Λ (controlled by k_F R_s ≫ 1) ensures a meaningful dominance window above threshold. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the derivation is self-contained, with self-citations used as independent mathematical input, not as fitted parameters renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central results — the composite susceptibility thresholds in Eqs. (107-108) and (117) — are derived from the regularized bosonization formula Eq. (79), which itself follows from the Gaussian action Eqs. (18-20) and the dimensional reduction map Eq. (A28). The coupling constant γ is defined as a physical integral over the RPA interaction in Eq. (66), not fitted to the target susceptibilities. The thresholds emerge from comparing the T-scaling exponents of different susceptibilities (e.g., Eq. (104) vs. Eq. (85)), which is a genuine algebraic comparison, not a tautology. The paper does cite prior work by the same authors [Refs. 7, 21, 22] for the dimensional reduction framework and the one-loop RG equivalence. However, these citations serve as mathematical infrastructure (the map itself, the loop-cancellation theorem), not as load-bearing premises that assume the conclusion. The paper explicitly re-derives the key results within its own framework: Eq. (79) is obtained from first principles via the regularized bosonization in Sec. VI, and the authors note it 'is derived using the multidimensional bosonization, meaning that it corresponds to the full RG treatment: one-loop RG results presented in Refs. [21, 22] hold in all loops.' The composite susceptibility results in Sec. VIII are stated as original ('To the best of our knowledge, results of this section are original'). The self-citations are to independently derived mathematical results with stated assumptions, not to fitted parameters or ansätze that smuggle in the conclusion. The validity concern about strong-coupling vs. the 1/(kF*Rs) expansion is a correctness/consistency issue, not a circularity issue — the paper does not assume its conclusion; it derives thresholds within a controlled regime and acknowledges the regime's limitations. This is a standard theoretical physics derivation pattern with no circular structure. Score 2 reflects the presence of self-citations that provide mathematical infrastructure, but these are not load-bearing in the circular sense — they are independently verifiable mathematical results, not fitted inputs renamed as predictions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are postulated. The framework operates entirely within standard many-body physics.

free parameters (3)
  • γ (dimensionless coupling) = not fitted; defined as integral of static RPA interaction
    Defined in Eq. (66) as γ = (1/πv_F) ∫ dξ' U_D(ξ'). This is a physical parameter determined by the microscopic interaction, not a fitted constant.
  • Rs (screening/RPA interaction range) = phenomenological
    Stated at the end of Sec. II as a phenomenological parameter of the theory, since analytic corrections to the polarization operator are neglected.
  • Λ (UV cutoff) = Λ = v_F/R_s
    Defined in Eq. (76) as the ultraviolet cutoff, determined by the interaction range.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Forward-scattering approximation: the interaction transfers momentum p << k_F and frequency ω << E_F, controlled by small parameter (k_F R_s)^{-1} << 1.
    Invoked throughout the paper starting from Sec. I. This is the foundational approximation underlying the dimensional reduction and the Haldane patch construction.
  • domain assumption RPA approximation for the dressed forward-scattering interaction: the polarization operator is represented by the particle-hole bubble.
    Justified by the 1D fermion loop cancellation theorem (Sec. II, Appendix A). This is standard in multidimensional bosonization but is an approximation that neglects non-bubble fermion loops.
  • domain assumption Spherical Fermi surface with constant Fermi velocity v_F for all N fermion species.
    Stated in Sec. I. The authors note a generalization to non-spherical Fermi surfaces exists but do not pursue it.
  • ad hoc to paper Spectral curvature effects are dangerously irrelevant and can be omitted within the bosonization procedure.
    Discussed in Sec. V and Sec. VI. The authors acknowledge these effects determine the true spectral function near the mass shell and set the infrared cutoff Λ_IR, but argue they can be neglected for the susceptibility calculations. This is the key assumption whose validity at strong coupling is uncertain.
  • ad hoc to paper The zero Matsubara frequency contribution must be subtracted from the interaction kernel at finite T.
    Introduced in Eq. (78) of Sec. VI. Justified by the argument that correlations are analytic at distances |x| >> R_T and cannot carry non-analyticities, but this is a regularization choice not derived from first principles.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 35672 in / 4194 out tokens · 265013 ms · 2026-07-08T05:54:24.186056+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this work, we consider $N$-fold degenerate $D$-dimensional electron gas with spherical Fermi surface and arbitrary forward-scattering density-density interaction transferring small momentum compared to the Fermi momentum $k_{\mathrm{F}}$. The dimensional reduction that is mathematically equivalent to the Haldane patch construction and similar multidimensional bosonization techniques, provides a natural map of two-point $D$-dimensional correlation functions (fermion Green function, susceptibilities etc.) onto effective one-dimensional (1D) correlators with the same diagrammatic structure, which can be evaluated exactly within a 1D bosonizable (Gaussian) theory. We then apply this formalism to evaluate the fermion Green function, pair and charge/flavor susceptibilities, as well as the composite correlation functions for the case of a finite-range interaction, where the interaction range $R_{\mathrm{s}} \gg 1/k_{\mathrm{F}}$ is large compared to the Fermi wavelength. First, we find that the single-particle spectral function remains Fermi-liquid-like which is fully consistent with the previous research. In contrast to the single-particle sector, the many-body channels are efficiently dressed by finite-range interactions, and this dressing is fully equivalent to the one-loop renormalization group (RG), which is also in line with previous multidimensional bosonization results. Within the forward-scattering model, stable long-range order is not possible, and relevant susceptibilities demonstrate singular power-law scaling with temperature $T$ at $T \to 0$. The rest of the abstract is in the PDF.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06430 by Daniel Loss, Dmitry Miserev, Herbert Schoeller, Jelena Klinovaja, Joel Hutchinson.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. A fermion line with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.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

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    This decoupling is a manifestation of the spin-charge separation

    im- mediately shows that the flavor/spin modes do not couple to the density-density interaction V0(iω n,q ). This decoupling is a manifestation of the spin-charge separation. Spin-charge separation results in the decoupling of the 1D action into the sum over the charge and flavor/spin sectors, S[Φ] = Sc [Φ c] + N − 1∑ s=1 Ss [Φ s], (33) Sc [Φ c] = 1 2 Φ T c...

    work page

  2. [2]

    for the fermion fields, lead- ing to an expression of the form of Eq. ( 29). Pulling the non- interacting correlation function χ (0) A A(ξ − ξ′) out of this ex- pression yields the following result, χ AA(ξ − ξ′) = χ (0) A A(ξ − ξ′)FAA(ξ − ξ′), (46) FAA(ξ − ξ′) = exp ( 1 2 ∫ dξ1dξ2J T c (ξ1)δMc(ξ1 − ξ2)Jc(ξ2) ) , (47) δMc(ξ) = Mc(ξ) − M0(ξ), (48) whereM0(ξ)...

    work page

  3. [3]

    ( 56) free of infinities

    leaving Eq. ( 56) free of infinities. V . FERMION GREEN FUNCTION In case of the fermion Green function, the operator A(ξ) is simply given byψ να (ξ), so JA =ν, QA = 1 yieldingjT A, c = (ν, 1). Substituting this into Eq. ( 56) and using Eq. ( B5) for the non-interacting Green function, we find, gνα (ξ) = − T exp [Lν (ξ)] 2vF sin (πTz ν ), (62) where Lν (ξ) i...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Natural phys ical resolution of this infrared catastrophe comes from the effe cts of spectral curvature [e.g

    and leads to the mass-shell infrared catastrophe. Natural phys ical resolution of this infrared catastrophe comes from the effe cts of spectral curvature [e.g. see Ref. [ 25]] that we omitted dur- ing the bosonization procedure. These spectral curvature e f- fects are qualitatively important for correct resolution o f the fermion spectral function very cl...

    work page

  5. [5]

    In parti cular, if Eq

    can only be produced by interaction-induced tail of spectral function. In parti cular, if Eq. ( 64) provides an answer where the spectral function at T = 0 is still concentrated on the mass shell ω ν (q) = νqv F, then such Debye-Waller factor can be fully subtracted. As we will see below, this is what happens in case of a simplest model for a finite-range ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    is omitted, other subleading corrections are sup- pressed by R2 s/ |zν |2 ≪ 1 and therefore, they can be omitted in the infrared limit. Now, we are ready to analyze the spectr al functionρνα (t,x ), ρνα (t,x ) = gνα (it − 0+,x ) − gνα (it + 0+,x ) 2π , (67) where we used analytic continuation of the Matsubara Green function viaτ → it± 0+,t is the real tim...

    work page

  7. [7]

    (68) Expanding the exponential term in Taylor series and taking the Fourier transform, we find gνα (iω,q ), gνα (iω,q ) ≈ 1 iω − νqv F exp ( γ 2 iω iω − νqv F )

    at T → 0, gνα (τ,x ) ≈ 1 2π (iνx − vFτ) exp [γ 2 iνx iνx − vFτ ] . (68) Expanding the exponential term in Taylor series and taking the Fourier transform, we find gνα (iω,q ), gνα (iω,q ) ≈ 1 iω − νqv F exp ( γ 2 iω iω − νqv F ) . (69) The retarded Green function corresponds to the analytic con - tinuationiω → ω +i0+, meaning that its imaginary part is zero...

    work page

  8. [8]

    (73) We point out that the first term in Eq

    via subtracting out the non-unitary double-pole contribution and keeping the rest, jT A, cM ′ int(iω n,q )jA, c = J 2 A − Q 2 A 2 V (iω n,q ) ω 2n + (qvF)2 + ∑ ν =± 1 (JA +νQA)2 4 V (iω n,q ) − V (νqv F,q ) (iω n − νqv F)2 . (73) We point out that the first term in Eq. ( 73) does not require regularization as it is represented by the product of two sim - p...

    work page

  9. [9]

    [ 21, 22]

    is equivalent to the one-loop RG treat- ment of the finite-range interaction which has been done in Refs. [ 21, 22]. We point out that such one-loop RG im- plies that there is no running of corresponding coupling con - stant [see Ref. [ 21]] which also agrees with conclusions of Ref. [11], where no running of the coupling constant was pre- dicted in the fu...

    work page

  10. [10]

    This is similar to the double- pole issue we discussed before

    containing dangerous ∝ 1/q 2 singularity at q → 0. This is similar to the double- pole issue we discussed before. Close relation between mul- tidimensional bosonization and RG suggests that the lowest energy scale this procedure can be trusted is T , meaning that the zero Matsubara frequency should be subtracted. This can also be argued alternatively. The...

    work page

  11. [11]

    Therefore, Eq

    safely removes dangerous sector near the mass shell of characteristic width Λ IR. Therefore, Eq. ( 79) implies the following constraint on T , Λ ≫ T ≫ Λ IR, Λ = vF Rs , Λ IR ∼ 1 mR2s ∼ Λ kFRs , (80) where m stands for the effective mass. Here, we estimated Λ IR as the scale attributed to the finite spectral curvature: the electron dispersion ε(q) = q∥vF + ...

    work page

  12. [12]

    (81) wherez = τ − ix/v F

    directly, χ (1D) P, − νν (ξ) = Λ − γ 4π 2v2 F ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ πT sin (πTz ) ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ 2+γ exp [γ|x| 2RT ] . (81) wherez = τ − ix/v F. Substituting Eq. ( 81) into Eq. ( 2), we find the Cooper pair susceptibility, χ P (τ,r ) |p∼ 0 = Λ 2 exp ( γr 2RT ) 2π 2v2 F (λ Fr)D− 1 ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ πT Λ sin (πTz ) ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ 2+γ , (82) wherez =τ − ir/v F. It is clear from Eq. ( 82) that att...

    work page

  13. [13]

    fast” cosine term with ∼ 4kFr ar- gument and “slow

    coincides with the one-loop RG result derived in Refs. [ 21, 22] where AP(γ) ≈ 1 was used. We point out that χ P(T ) is finite at any finite T . In other words, there is no long-range order if the interaction is of the forward-scattering type due to quasi-1D physics of many - body correlations. In Ref. [ 22], we demonstrated that the long-range superconduct...

    work page

  14. [14]

    von Delft and H

    J. von Delft and H. Schoeller, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 7, 225 (1998)

    work page 1998

  15. [15]

    Giamarchi, Quantum physics in one dimension (Oxford Uni- 20 versity Press, 2003)

    T. Giamarchi, Quantum physics in one dimension (Oxford Uni- 20 versity Press, 2003)

    work page 2003

  16. [16]

    L. D. Landau, Sov. Phys. JETP 3, 920 (1957)

    work page 1957

  17. [17]

    L. D. Landau, Sov. Phys. JETP 35, 70 (1959)

    work page 1959

  18. [18]

    A. A. Abrikosov and I. M. Khalatnikov, Rep. Prog. Phys. 22, 329 (1959)

    work page 1959

  19. [19]

    G. F. Giuliani and J. J. Quinn, Phys. Rev. B 26, 4421 (1982)

    work page 1982

  20. [20]

    Miserev, J

    D. Miserev, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. B 108, 235116 (2023)

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Luttinger’s theorem and bosonization of th e Fermi surface (2005), arXiv:cond-mat/0505529

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  22. [22]

    Metzner, C

    W. Metzner, C. Castellani, and C. Di Castro, Adv. Phys. 47, 317 (1998)

    work page 1998

  23. [23]

    I. E. Dzyaloshinski ˇi and A. I. Larkin, Sov. Phys. JETP 38, 202 (1974)

    work page 1974

  24. [24]

    Shankar, Rev

    R. Shankar, Rev. Mod. Phys. 66, 129 (1994)

    work page 1994

  25. [25]

    L. V . Delacr´ etaz, Y .-H. Du, U. Mehta, and D. T. Son, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033131 (2022)

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    Bosonization of Interacting Fermions in Arbitrary Dimensions

    P . Kopietz, Bosonization of interacting fermions in arbitrary di- mensions (2006), arXiv:cond-mat/0605402

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  27. [27]

    Houghton, H.-J

    A. Houghton, H.-J. Kwon, and J. B. Marston, Adv. Phys. 49, 141 (2000)

    work page 2000

  28. [28]

    Bares and X

    P .-A. Bares and X. G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 48, 8636 (1993)

    work page 1993

  29. [29]

    Houghton, H.-J

    A. Houghton, H.-J. Kwon, J. B. Marston, and R. Shankar, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 6, 4909 (1994)

    work page 1994

  30. [30]

    H.-J. Kwon, A. Houghton, and J. B. Marston, Phys. Rev. B 52, 8002 (1995)

    work page 1995

  31. [31]

    A. H. Castro Neto and E. Fradkin, Phys. Rev. B 49, 10877 (1994)

    work page 1994

  32. [32]

    Fr¨ ohlich, R

    J. Fr¨ ohlich, R. G¨ otschmann, and P . A. Marchetti, Commun. Math. Phys. 173, 417 (1995)

    work page 1995

  33. [33]

    K. B. Efetov, C. P´ epin, and H. Meier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 186403 (2009)

    work page 2009

  34. [34]

    Miserev, H

    D. Miserev, H. Schoeller, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. B 110, 125128 (2024)

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Miserev, J

    D. Miserev, J. Hutchinson, H. Schoeller, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 186502 (2025)

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    D. V . Khveshchenko and P . C. E. Stamp, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 2118 (1993)

    work page 1993

  37. [37]

    B. L. Altshuler, L. B. Ioffe, and A. J. Millis, Phys. Rev. B 50, 14048 (1994)

    work page 1994

  38. [38]

    A. V . Chubukov and D. V . Khveshchenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 226403 (2006)

    work page 2006

  39. [39]

    D. F. Agterberg, J. S. Davis, S. D. Edkins, E. Frad- kin, D. J. V an Harlingen, S. A. Kivelson, P . A. Lee, L. Radzihovsky, J. M. Tranquada, and Y . Wang, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 11, 231 (2020)

    work page 2020

  40. [40]

    E. Berg, E. Fradkin, and S. A. Kivelson, Nat. Phys. 5, 830 (2009)

    work page 2009

  41. [41]

    E. Berg, E. Fradkin, S. A. Kivelson, and J. M. Tranquada, New J. Phys. 11, 115004 (2009)

    work page 2009

  42. [42]

    D. F. Agterberg and J. Garaud,Phys. Rev. B 91, 104512 (2015)

    work page 2015

  43. [43]

    Y . Wang, S. D. Edkins, M. H. Hamidian, J. C. S. Davis, E. Frad- kin, and S. A. Kivelson, Phys. Rev. B 97, 174510 (2018)

    work page 2018

  44. [44]

    R. M. Fernandes and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 047001 (2021)

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    Samoilenka and E

    A. Samoilenka and E. Babaev, Phys. Rev. Res. 8, 013139 (2026)

    work page 2026

  46. [46]

    Neumayr and W

    A. Neumayr and W. Metzner, Phys. Rev. B 58, 15449 (1998)

    work page 1998

  47. [47]

    Laksono, J

    E. Laksono, J. N. Leaw, A. Reaves, M. Singh, X. Wang, S. Adam, and X. Gu, Solid State Commun. 282, 38 (2018)

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    Miserev, D

    D. Miserev, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, Phys. Rev. B 106, 134417 (2022)

    work page 2022

  49. [49]

    Huang, Y

    K.-F. Huang, Y . Ronen, R. M´ elin, D. Feinberg, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and P . Kim, Nat. Commun. 13, 3032 (2022)

    work page 2022

  50. [50]

    J. Ge, P . Wang, Y . Xing, Q. Yin, A. Wang, J. Shen, H. Lei, Z. Wang, and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. X 14, 021025 (2024)

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    Almoalem, I

    A. Almoalem, I. Feldman, I. Mangel, M. Shlafman, Y . E. Yaish, M. H. Fischer, M. Moshe, J. Ruhman, and A. Kanigel, Nat. Commun. 15, 4623 (2024)

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    C. M. V arma and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 108, 214516 (2023)

    work page 2023

  53. [53]

    Zhang, Z

    L.-F. Zhang, Z. Wang, and X. Hu, Commun. Phys. 7, 210 (2024)

    work page 2024

  54. [54]

    M. O. Soldini, M. H. Fischer, and T. Neupert, Phys. Rev. B 109, 214509 (2024)

    work page 2024

  55. [55]

    Demonstration of a fermion Quadrupling Condensate via Quantum Monte Carlo Simulation

    A. Golic, E. Babaev, and J. Carlstr¨ om, Demonstration of a fermion quadrupling condensate via quantum Monte Carlo sim- ulation (2026), arXiv:2605.00137 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  56. [56]

    S.-H. Shi, Z. Wu, J. Hu, and Z.-X. Li, High-temperature charge- 4e superconductivity in SU(4) interacting fermions (2026), arXiv:2604.15056 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  57. [57]

    Pustilnik, M

    M. Pustilnik, M. Khodas, A. Kamenev, and L. I. Glazman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 196405 (2006)

    work page 2006

  58. [58]

    K. A. Matveev, A. Furusaki, and L. I. Glazman, Phys. Rev. B 76, 155440 (2007)

    work page 2007

  59. [59]

    T. L. Schmidt, A. Imambekov, and L. I. Glazman, Phys. Rev. B 82, 245104 (2010)

    work page 2010

  60. [60]

    Franz, Z

    M. Franz, Z. Teˇ sanovi´ c, and O. V afek, Phys. Rev. B 66, 054535 (2002)

    work page 2002

  61. [61]

    Franz and Z

    M. Franz and Z. Teˇ sanovi´ c,Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 257003 (2001)

    work page 2001