Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 53 references

For electron-hole bilayer superfluids, first-order corrections leave RPA screening essentially intact up to the density of maximum gap.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 07:49 UTC pith:LIQYRUBN

load-bearing objection Solid first-order exchange corrections to superfluid e-h bilayer screening, but the 'RPA is excellent' conclusion is built on two densities, a static limit, and an unverified reference-Hamiltonian independence. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.23743 v1 pith:LIQYRUBN submitted 2025-10-27 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.supr-con

Beyond Random Phase Approximation in electron-hole bilayer superfluidity

Filippo Pascucci , Stefania De Palo , Sara Conti , David Neilson , Andrea Perali , Gaetano Senatore This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.supr-con
keywords electron-hole bilayerexciton superfluidityscreeningrandom phase approximationpolarization functionanomalous polarizationexchange vertex correctionsBCS-BEC crossover
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.

The paper asks whether the standard Random Phase Approximation (RPA) treatment of screening is trustworthy for a two-dimensional superfluid of spatially separated electrons and holes coupled by long-range Coulomb forces. It calculates, for the first time, all first-order corrections to the normal and anomalous polarization functions of the superfluid, using a perturbation expansion around the BCS mean-field ground state rather than the normal Fermi sea. It finds that at low density the normal and anomalous contributions cancel almost completely, so screening is negligible in both RPA and corrected theory. At higher density, screening grows, and the first-order exchange corrections enlarge the normal-anomalous difference, but only at large momentum transfer. The paper concludes that RPA gives excellent screening and pairing interactions throughout the density range up to the maximum of the superfluid gap.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the RPA is not spoiled by vertex corrections in the exciton bilayer superfluid, even though the conventional phonon-based justification for neglecting vertex corrections does not apply. The paper derives the static normal and anomalous proper polarization functions including all first-order exchange terms, and shows that the first-order corrections are dominated by the electron-hole exchange channel, are of order the zero-order terms themselves, yet alter the screened electron-hole and electron-electron interactions by only about 12–15% near twice the Fermi momentum and merge with the RPA result at larger momenta. This happens because the first-order corrections

What carries the argument

The proper polarization matrix Π*(q,ω) of the two-component electron-hole system, with normal (ΠN) and anomalous (ΠA) components, inserted into the matrix Dyson-like screening equation for the 2×2 interaction matrix. The paper evaluates ΠN and ΠA in the static limit to zero order (RPA) and to first order using a modified perturbation expansion around the superfluid BCS ground state, in which self-energy insertions cancel exactly against terms in the auxiliary linear Hamiltonian, leaving only exchange diagrams.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's conclusions assume that the first-order polarization corrections are independent of the arbitrary choice of the auxiliary linear Hamiltonian Hlin that defines the unperturbed superfluid; this invariance is stated as a requirement but never tested.

What would settle it

Compute the static first-order normal and anomalous polarization functions using a different but equally legitimate auxiliary linear Hamiltonian (e.g., a different set of χk and Δk) and show that ΠN,EX or ΠA,EX changes by more than the reported modest amount; or measure the bilayer's static density-response function at r0≈2.5 aB* with a numerically exact quantum Monte Carlo method and compare with the RPA-plus-first-order result.

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

If this is right

  • RPA-level calculations of the exciton superfluid gap and critical temperature in symmetric electron-hole bilayers are quantitatively reliable for r0 down to about 2.5 effective Bohr radii, the density near the maximum gap.
  • First-order exchange corrections cannot be responsible for any breakdown of superfluidity before screening itself suppresses the gap; if anything, they further reduce the gap at higher densities.
  • At low density, the effective electron-hole pairing interaction remains essentially the bare Coulomb interaction after first-order corrections, supporting strong-coupling descriptions built on bare interactions.
  • Future beyond-RPA treatments of these bilayers can safely use RPA screening as the reference and need only worry about momentum transfers near 2kF, where corrections reach a few percent.
  • Including first-order corrections makes the normal-anomalous polarization difference larger at large momentum, which slightly weakens the interaction strength around 2kF but does not change the qualitative phase behavior.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the auxiliary-Hamiltonian independence check were performed and failed, the apparent excellence of RPA could be an artifact of the chosen Hlin; this is the paper's unverified load-bearing assumption.
  • The same first-order exchange framework could be extended to finite frequency, where the normal-anomalous cancellation is weaker, potentially making dynamical screening corrections more important for time-dependent probes such as the collective mode dispersion.
  • Comparing the RPA-plus-first-order static dielectric function with numerically exact density-response data for the symmetric bilayer at r0≈2.5 aB* would provide a model-independent test of the claim.
  • Because the corrections are largest near 2kF, pairing channels that sample high momentum transfer—such as intervalley or finite-center-of-mass pairs—may show larger deviations from RPA than the condensate studied here.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives the normal and anomalous proper polarization functions of a two-dimensional electron-hole bilayer superfluid, including all first-order exchange corrections beyond the RPA in the static limit. The derivation uses the Nozières–Schrieffer modification, starting from a BCS mean-field reference Hamiltonian H'_0 whose auxiliary fields are fixed by the Hartree-Fock and gap equations. The authors evaluate static screened electron-electron and electron-hole interactions at two densities (r0 = 10 and 2.5 a_B*) and report that first-order corrections are small, producing at most ~12–15% deviations at 2k_F at the higher density. They conclude that RPA screening is an excellent approximation for the density range up to the maximum superfluid gap.

Significance. If correct, this is the first systematic evaluation of beyond-RPA screening in exciton bilayers, a problem central to the BCS-BEC crossover and to experimental searches for exciton superfluidity. The strengths are the fully analytic diagrammatic derivation in Appendices B–C, the recovery of the normal-state limit at Δ=0, and the explicit expressions for the first-order normal and anomalous polarization terms. The paper is careful to note that Migdal's theorem does not apply here, making vertex corrections relevant. However, the central conclusion rests on only two density points and on an unverified assumption of independence from the auxiliary Hamiltonian H'_0, so the significance is currently conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, Eqs. (4)–(10)] The paper states that physical results make sense only if they are independent of the exact choice of H'_0, but this requirement is never tested. The cancellation of all first-order self-energy diagrams in Appendix C is exact only for the particular mean-field Hlin defined by Eqs. (13)–(14). If Hlin were chosen differently, e.g., with a different χ_k or Δ_k profile, the self-energy terms would not cancel identically and the first-order polarization would acquire additional contributions beyond Eqs. (46)–(50). The magnitude of the first-order corrections, and hence the central claim that RPA is excellent, could depend on this arbitrary choice. A concrete test would be to repeat the calculation with a controlled deformation of Hlin and show that the screened interactions change only by higher-order terms.
  2. [Section V, Figs. 1–4] The numerical evidence is limited to two densities, r0 = 10 a_B* and r0 = 2.5 a_B*. The conclusion that RPA is excellent 'over the range of densities up to the maximum of the superfluid gap' is an extrapolation, since no intermediate densities are shown and no monotonicity argument is provided. Moreover, the conclusion about 'effective electron-hole pairing' is inferred from the screened interactions alone; the superfluid gap with first-order corrections is not recomputed. These points are load-bearing for the scope of the central claim, not merely presentation.
  3. [Section IV and Section V] All numerical results are obtained in the static limit ω→0, with no estimate of dynamical corrections. The paper derives finite-frequency expressions for the first-order polarization functions but never evaluates them away from ω=0. Since the Coulomb interaction is long-ranged and the density range of interest includes the BEC regime, dynamical screening effects could alter the comparison with RPA. A quantitative estimate, or at least a scaling argument, is needed to support the claim that the static approximation is sufficient for the stated conclusion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Global] The title in the arXiv text contains an apparent typo: 'electron-hole bilaye r superfluidity' with an inserted space. Please correct.
  2. [Fig. 3] The captions use Π^S_1 and Π^D_1 but these are not defined in the main text; the first-order contributions are introduced as ΠN,EX_1 and ΠA,EX_1. Please define the notation consistently.
  3. [Appendix C, Eq. (C10)] The dummy variable in the contraction is inconsistently written as τ in some places and τ' in others, which is confusing; the derivation should use a single time label for equal-time contractions.
  4. [References] Refs. [1] and [2] cite books without specific page or chapter details; for a formalism this central, more precise pointers would help the reader verify the Nozières–Schrieffer construction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the first-order corrections are new computations from a self-consistent mean-field starting point, and the self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is not circular in the sense of the review criteria. The zero-order polarization functions (Eqs. 38-39) are computed from the BCS mean-field Green's functions, with the parameters chi_k and Delta_k fixed by the self-consistent Hartree-Fock and gap equations (13)-(16); they are not fitted to the paper's conclusion that RPA is excellent. The first-order exchange corrections (Eqs. 46-50) are new analytical expressions obtained from a Wick-theorem expansion around the superfluid ground state, and they are evaluated numerically; they are not renamed RPA results. The normal-state limit (Delta=0) recovers the known electron-gas result and provides an independent check. References to earlier RPA calculations by overlapping authors (e.g., Refs. [15,41,43]) are used as background and for the density range of the superfluid, but the central quantitative claim here is supported by the paper's own first-order calculation and by external QMC results (Ref. [19]). One legitimate caveat, not circularity, is that the paper states "Results will makes sense only if they are independent of the exact choice of H'_0 [1]" (Section II) but does not explicitly test this invariance; a different choice of Hlin could alter the cancellation of first-order self-energy terms. That is a robustness/correctness concern, not a reduction of the prediction to its inputs. Overall circularity is minimal.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard many-body perturbation theory with a BCS mean-field unperturbed state, the static limit, and parameter values from prior literature. No new entities are introduced. The main unverified premise is the Hlin independence.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The unperturbed state is the BCS mean-field ground state |Ψ_BCS⟩ with self-consistent χ_k and Δ_k (Eqs. 11-17).
    All Green's functions are evaluated on this state; if the mean-field state is not a good starting point, the perturbation expansion is questionable.
  • domain assumption Physical results are independent of the arbitrary choice of auxiliary linear Hamiltonian Hlin (Eqs. 4-10).
    Stated in Section II after Eq. (10) but not verified; the first-order corrections may depend on Hlin.
  • domain assumption The static limit ω→0 is taken for the polarization functions; dynamic screening is neglected.
    The screened interactions are evaluated in the static limit; the paper does not assess frequency-dependent corrections to the central claim.
  • domain assumption Only first-order corrections in the S-matrix expansion are kept; higher-order terms are assumed small.
    The paper argues first-order corrections are modest, but does not estimate second-order terms.
  • standard math The extended Wick theorem applies to the BCS ground state.
    Used in Appendices B and C to evaluate time-ordered products; standard for BCS states.
  • domain assumption Hartree terms cancel due to charge neutrality and self-energy terms cancel due to Hlin choice.
    Derived in Appendix C using Eqs. (13)-(14); relies on the neutralizing background and self-consistent gap/Hartree-Fock terms.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18190 in / 12959 out tokens · 123541 ms · 2026-08-04T07:49:44.408303+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We derive the normal and anomalous proper polarization functions and the screened Coulomb interactions in a two-dimensional superfluid electron-hole bilayer, including all first-order corrections beyond the Random Phase Approximation (RPA). This requires a modification of the perturbation method as first noted by Nozi\`eres and Schrieffer [1, 2]. We discuss the physical origin and magnitude of the first-order corrections in a superfluid system with long-range Coulomb interactions. Unlike conventional superconductivity, Migdal's theorem does not apply here, so exchange vertex corrections cannot be neglected. The screened electron-electron, hole-hole, and electron-hole interactions in the superfluid state are evaluated as functions of the carrier density. We find that at low density, the strong cancellations between the normal and anomalous components that make screening of the interactions negligible, apply not only within RPA but also with the first-order corrections included. As the density is increased, the normal-anomalous cancellation weakens and screening becomes increasingly significant. We find that the first-order corrections amplify the normal-anomalous difference but only at large momenta exchanged in the two-particle scattering, so their effect on the interactions remains modest. We conclude that the superfluid state RPA is an excellent approximation for the screening and for the effective electron-hole pairing in this superfluid system over the range of densities up to the maximum of the superfluid gap.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.23743 by Andrea Perali, David Neilson, Filippo Pascucci, Gaetano Senatore, Sara Conti, Stefania De Palo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) Normal zero-order polarization function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a) Normal zero-order polarization function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The differences (ΠN 0 −Π A 0 )(dashed lines) and Π N tot−Π A tot ≡ Π N 0 + ΠS 1 − Π A 0 − Π D 1 (solid lines) in units of Π N 0 (q). Red curves r0 = 2.5a ∗ B and blue curves r0 = 10a ∗ B. All the curves are in unit of Π N 0 (q). (a) (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.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

53 extracted references

  1. [1]

    ( 39), blue solid line)

    (b) Anomalous zero- order polarization function ΠA 0 (Eq. ( 39), blue solid line). Anoma- lous first-order polarization function ΠA 1 (red solid line) with its com- ponents as in Fig

  2. [2]

    Schrieffer, Nambu-Gorkov formalism, in Theory of Superconductivity (W

    J. Schrieffer, Nambu-Gorkov formalism, in Theory of Superconductivity (W. A. Benjamin, 1964)

    1964

  3. [3]

    All the curves are in unit of ΠN 0 (q)

    Interparticle distance r0 = 2 .5a∗ B. All the curves are in unit of ΠN 0 (q). order cancellation is less complete, and the inclusion of th e first-order corrections does significantly enhance the diff er- ence (ΠN tot − ΠA tot) at large momenta. Quantum Monte Carlo simulations [ 19] and self-consistent zero-order RP A calculations [41] show that for r0 < 2....

  4. [4]

    N. F. Mott, Metal-insulator transition, Rev. Mod. Phys. 40, 677 (1968)

    1968

  5. [5]

    Nozi` eres, Generalization of perturbation methods to superflu- ids, in Theory of Interacting Fermi Systems (CPR Press, 1998)

    P . Nozi` eres, Generalization of perturbation methods to superflu- ids, in Theory of Interacting Fermi Systems (CPR Press, 1998)

    1998

  6. [6]

    E. Y . Andrei and A. H. MacDonald, Graphene bilayers with a twist, Nature Materials 19, 1265 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    Hubbard and B

    J. Hubbard and B. H. Flowers, Elec- tron correlations in narrow energy bands, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 276, 238 (1963)

    1963

  8. [8]

    V . V . Nikolaev and M. E. Portnoi, Nanomodeling, V ol. 5509 (SPIE, 2004) pp. 187 – 193

    2004

  9. [9]

    Imada, A

    M. Imada, A. Fujimori, and Y . Tokura, Metal-insulator trans i- tions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 1039 (1998)

    1998

  10. [10]

    L. V . Keldysh and Y . V . Kopaev, Possible instability of semimetallic state toward Coulomb interaction, Sov. Phys. Solid State USSR 6, 2219 (1965)

    1965

  11. [11]

    A. M. Strydom, A review of the Kondo insulator materials class of strongly correlated electron systems: Selected systems and anomalous behavior, Front. Phys 11, 1170146 (2023)

    2023

  12. [12]

    Y . E. Lozovik and V . I. Y udson, Feasibility of super- fluidity of paired spatially separated electrons and holes, JETP Lett. (USSR) 22, 274 (1975) , (Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 22, 556-559 (1975))

    1975

  13. [13]

    this contribution is null, and the same happens with the the hole-hole term, Eq. (C3). Similarly, the self-energy terms coming from the insertion of (C4) are null thanks to Eq. (14). The normal self-energy contributions in the interaction terms of H1 cancel out with on in the ground-state Hlin. The same happens with the self-energy contributions in the an...

  14. [14]

    Y . E. Lozovik, S. L. Ogarkov, and A. A. Sokolik, Condensation of electron-hole pairs in a two-layer graphene system: Corr ela- tion effects, Phys. Rev. B 86, 045429 (2012)

    2012

  15. [15]

    V . G. Kogan and B. A. Tavger, Possibility of pair cor- relation of electrons and holes in a sandwich con- sisting of n- and p-type semiconductor films, in Physics of p-n Junctions and Semiconductor Devices (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1971) pp. 39–45

    1971

  16. [16]

    M. Y . Kharitonov and K. B. Efetov, Electron screening and excitonic condensation in double-layer graphene syste ms, Phys. Rev. B 78, 241401 (2008)

    2008

  17. [17]

    Y . E. Lozovik and V . I. Y udson, A new mechanism for super- conductivity: Pairing between spatially separated electr ons and holes, Sov. Phys. JETP 44, 389 (1976) , (Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 71, 738-753 (1976))

    1976

  18. [18]

    S. I. Shevchenko, Theory of superconductivity of systems with pairing of spatially separated electrons and holes, Soviet Journal Low Temperature Physics 2, 251 (1976)

    1976

  19. [19]

    as W (q, ω) = ( V S sc(q, ω) V D sc (q, ω) V D sc (q, ω) V S sc(q, ω) ) . (22) In particular, in the static limit ω → 0 one finds [ 41] V S sc(q) = V S q − ΠN (q)Aq 1−2(ΠN (q)V Sq + ΠA(q)V Dq ) + BqAq , (23) and V D sc (q) = V D q + ΠA(q)Aq 1−2(ΠN (q)V Sq + ΠA(q)V Dq ) + BqAq , (24) with Aq = ( V S q ) 2 − ( V D q ) 2 , Bq = ( ΠN (q) ) 2 − ( ΠA(q) ) 2 . (2...

  20. [20]

    Perali, D

    A. Perali, D. Neilson, and A. R. Hamilton, High- temperature superfluidity in double-bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 146803 (2013)

    2013

  21. [21]

    Sodemann, D

    I. Sodemann, D. A. Pesin, and A. H. MacDonald, Interaction- enhanced coherence between two-dimensional Dirac layers, 13 Phys. Rev. B 85, 195136 (2012)

    2012

  22. [22]

    Mazloom and S

    A. Mazloom and S. H. Abedinpour, Interplay of interlayer pai r- ing and many-body screening in a bilayer of dipolar fermions , Phys. Rev. B 98, 014513 (2018)

    2018

  23. [23]

    L´ opez R´ ıos, A

    P . L´ opez R´ ıos, A. Perali, R. J. Needs, and D. Neilson, Evidence from quantum Monte Carlo simulations of large-gap superflu- idity and BCS-BEC crossover in double electron-hole layers , Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 177701 (2018)

    2018

  24. [24]

    Maezono, P

    R. Maezono, P . L´ opez R´ ıos, T. Ogawa, and R. J. Needs, Excitons and biexcitons in symmetric electron-hole bilaye rs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 216407 (2013)

    2013

  25. [25]

    De Palo, F

    S. De Palo, F. Tramonto, S. Moroni, and G. Senatore, Quadriexcitons and excitonic condensate in a sym- metric electron-hole bilayer with valley degeneracy, Phys. Rev. B 107, L041409 (2023)

    2023

  26. [26]

    Conti, A

    S. Conti, A. Perali, A. R. Hamilton, M. V . Miloˇ sevi´ c, F. M. Peeters, and D. Neilson, Chester supersolid of spatially in di- rect excitons in double-layer semiconductor heterostruct ures, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 057001 (2023)

    2023

  27. [27]

    G. E. Astrakharchik, J. Boronat, I. L. Kurbakov, and Y . E. Lo- zovik, Quantum phase transition in a two-dimensional syste m of dipoles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 060405 (2007)

    2007

  28. [28]

    Neilson, L

    D. Neilson, L. ´Swierkowski, J. Szyma´ nski, and L. Liu, Col- lective modes in the two-dimensional electron liquid near t he Wigner phase transition, J. Low Temp. Phys. 89, 251 (1992)

    1992

  29. [29]

    De Palo, F

    S. De Palo, F. Rapisarda, and G. Senatore, Excitonic condensation in a symmetric electron-hole bilayer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 206401 (2002)

    2002

  30. [30]

    K. Lee, B. Fallahazad, J. Xue, D. C. Dillen, K. Kim, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, and E. Tutuc, Chemical poten- tial and quantum Hall ferromagnetism in bilayer graphene, Science 345, 58 (2014)

    2014

  31. [31]

    Zeng and A

    Y . Zeng and A. H. MacDonald, Electrically controlled two-dimensional electron-hole fluids, Phys. Rev. B 102, 085154 (2020)

    2020

  32. [32]

    Marsiglio, Eliashberg theory in the weak-coupling limit , Phys

    F. Marsiglio, Eliashberg theory in the weak-coupling limit , Phys. Rev. B 98, 024523 (2018)

    2018

  33. [33]

    W. L. McMillan, Transition temperature of strong-coupled s u- perconductors, Phys. Rev. 167, 331 (1968)

    1968

  34. [34]

    P . B. Allen and R. C. Dynes, Transition tempera- ture of strong-coupled superconductors reanalyzed, Phys. Rev. B 12, 905 (1975)

    1975

  35. [35]

    Pellegrini and A

    C. Pellegrini and A. Sanna, Ab initio methods for supercondu c- tivity, Nature Reviews Physics 6, 509 (2024)

    2024

  36. [36]

    G. A. Ummarino and A. Zaccone, Quantitative eliash- berg theory of the superconductivity of thin films, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 37, 065703 (2024)

    2024

  37. [37]

    Profeta, M

    G. Profeta, M. Calandra, and F. Mauri, Phonon-mediated superconductivity in graphene by lithium deposition, Nature Physics 8, 131 (2012)

    2012

  38. [38]

    L. N. Cooper, Bound electron pairs in a degenerate Fermi gas, Phys. Rev. 104, 1189 (1956)

    1956

  39. [39]

    Bardeen, L

    J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Theory of supe r- conductivity, Phys. Rev. 108, 1175 (1957)

    1957

  40. [40]

    G. M. Eliashberg, Interactions between elec- trons and lattice vibrations in a superconductor, Sov. Phys. - JETP (Engl. Transl.); (United States) 11:3 (1960)

    1960

  41. [41]

    A. B. Migdal, Interaction between electrons and the lattice vibrations in a normal metal, Zhur. Eksptl’. i Teoret. Fiz. Vol: 34 (1958)

    1958

  42. [42]

    Pieri, D

    P . Pieri, D. Neilson, and G. C. Strinati, Effects of density i m- balance on the BCS-BEC crossover in semiconductor electron - hole bilayers, Phys. Rev. B 75, 113301 (2007)

    2007

  43. [43]

    Giuliani and G

    G. Giuliani and G. Vignale, Quantum Theory of the Electron Liquid , Masters Series in Physics and Astronomy (Cambridge University Press, 2005)

    2005

  44. [44]

    A. L. Fetter and J. D. Walecka, Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Systems (McGraw-Hill, Boston, 1971)

    1971

  45. [45]

    Pascucci, S

    F. Pascucci, S. Conti, A. Perali, J. Tempere, and D. Neilson, Effects of intralayer correlations on electron-hole doubl e-layer superfluidity, Phys. Rev. B 109, 094512 (2024)

    2024

  46. [46]

    F. J. Dyson, The S matrix in quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. 75, 1736 (1949)

    1949

  47. [47]

    Conti, A

    S. Conti, A. Perali, F. M. Peeters, and D. Neilson, Multicomponent screening and superfluidity in gapped electron-hole double bilayer graphene with realistic band s, Phys. Rev. B 99, 144517 (2019)

    2019

  48. [48]

    G. D. Mahan, Many Particle Physics, Third Edition (Plenum, New Y ork, 2000)

    2000

  49. [49]

    Zappacosta, M

    I. Zappacosta, M. Houtput, and J. Tempere, Nonlinear electron-phonon interactions in the migdal-eliashberg th eory, Phys. Rev. B 111, 214525 (2025)

    2025

  50. [50]

    Nozi` eres,Theory of Interacting Fermi Systems (CPR Press, 1998)

    P . Nozi` eres,Theory of Interacting Fermi Systems (CPR Press, 1998)

    1998

  51. [51]

    Nilsson and F

    F. Nilsson and F. Aryasetiawan, Effects of dynamical screening on the BCS-BEC crossover in double bilayer graphene: Density functional theory for exciton bilayers, Phys. Rev. Mater. 5, L050801 (2021)

    2021

  52. [52]

    Nozi` eres,Le Probl` eme ` a N corps: propri´ et´ es g´ en´ erales des gaz de fermions (Dunod, 1963)

    P . Nozi` eres,Le Probl` eme ` a N corps: propri´ et´ es g´ en´ erales des gaz de fermions (Dunod, 1963)

    1963

  53. [53]

    N. N. Bogoliubov, On a New method in the theory of supercon- ductivity, Nuovo Cim. 7, 794 (1958)

    1958