Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Synergy between Hund-driven correlations and boson-mediated Superconductivity

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Superconductivity survives in Hund's metals much better than in ordinary correlated metals with the same quasiparticle weight and density of states.

desk verdict A credible mechanism paper for Hund's-metal superconductivity, well executed with a controlled quasiparticle comparison, but the central enhancement rests on a bare pairing vertex that needs a self-consistent check. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10901 v2 pith:V7PISAM2 submitted 2019-08-28 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.str-el

Laura Fanfarillo , Angelo Valli , Massimo Capone This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.str-el
keywords Hund'smetalsuperconductivityiron-basedsuperconductorsdynamicalmean-fieldtheoryorbital-selectivepairingspectralweightredistributionboson-mediatedstronglycorrelatedelectrons
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

The paper argues that a Hund's metal—a multiorbital bad metal whose correlations are shaped strongly by the Hund's coupling rather than solely by the local Coulomb repulsion—is not an obstacle to boson-mediated superconductivity but an asset. It studies a three-orbital model inspired by iron-based superconductors, pairing fully dressed electrons through a constant coupling $g$ while the single-particle propagators carry the full frequency-dependent self-energy from dynamical mean-field theory. The result is that the superconducting gap survives at interaction strengths where a quasiparticle approximation with the same mass renormalization and density of states predicts zero gap. The result matters because it reconciles two pictures usually opposed: strong local correlations and itinerant boson-exchange pairing. The operative mechanism is the spectral weight that Hund's correlations push into an energy window of order $J_H$ around the Fermi level, where it joins the pairing glue.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the orbital- and frequency-dependent self-energy $\Sigma_{\mu\mu}(i\omega_n)$ computed by dynamical mean-field theory and inserted into the Cooper bubble of the BCS gap equation, so that Cooper pairs are formed by fully dressed electrons. Its companion is the quasiparticle weight $Z_\mu = (1 - \partial \Im \Sigma_{\mu\mu}/\partial \omega_n)^{-1}$, which the paper uses as the benchmark for 'the same degree of correlation.' The comparison that isolates the mechanism is the full DMFT calculation versus a quasiparticle approximation that keeps only the low-frequency limit of the self-energy: the two give nearly identical gaps at small $J_H$, but in the Hund's-metal regime the finite-frequency part of the self-energy—spectral weight redistributed into an energy window of order $J_H$ around the Fermi level—feeds the particle-particle channel and boosts pairing.

What would settle it

Compute the same three-orbital model with the pairing vertex renormalized by the local Coulomb repulsion—for instance by including ladder vertex corrections in the particle-particle channel—and compare the superconducting gap at fixed quasiparticle weight; if the gap collapses to the quasiparticle value at large $J_H/U$, the spectral-weight mechanism is not the operative one.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a Hund's metal renormalizes the Cooper-pair propagator in a way a standard quasiparticle description misses, and that the missing piece actively favors pairing. Concretely, solving the BCS gap equation with DMFT-dressed Green's functions at four electrons in three orbitals, the critical interaction $U_c$ at which the gaps close grows with $J_H/U$, whereas in the quasiparticle approximation $U_c$ shrinks as $J_H$ grows. For comparable quasiparticle weights $Z_\mu$, the small-$J_H$ regime shows Mott-like bands at an energy scale of order $U$ and gaps that vanish near $U_c\sim W$, while the Hund's-metal regime concentrates spectral weight within an energy range of order $J_H$ of the Fermi level and preserves sizeable gaps up to much larger $U$. The same dynamical spectral-weight redistribution also amplifies the orbital selectivity of the gaps, $|\Delta_{xz}|/|\Delta_{xy}|$, even when the quasiparticle weights themselves are nearly isotropic; the paper reads this as explaining why earlier quasiparticle-based fits to FeSe required extreme orbital-selective $Z$'s.

Load-bearing premise

The whole claim rests on assuming that the boson-mediated pairing interaction is not weakened by the local Coulomb repulsion, so fully dressed electrons still feel the bare coupling $g$; if $U$ also renormalizes the pairing vertex, the Hund's-metal enhancement could disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The critical repulsion needed to destroy superconductivity increases with the Hund's coupling in the full dynamical calculation, so Hund's-metal materials can remain superconducting even when they are bad metals with strongly suppressed quasiparticle weights.
  • Orbital-selective superconducting gaps emerge from dynamical correlations alone, so phenomenological fits to FeSe that require extremely orbital-selective quasiparticle weights can be reinterpreted as single-parameter proxies for this finite-frequency physics.
  • The mechanism applies to any bosonic pairing channel whose coupling is not renormalized by the local Coulomb repulsion, including phonons and spin or orbital fluctuations of the fulleride type.
  • In the same Hund's-metal regime, finite-frequency correlations may also enhance particle-hole instabilities such as nematicity, a direction the paper reports as preliminary.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mechanism is generic, it suggests a materials-design rule: a moderately correlated metal with a large Hund's coupling and a boson mode in the same energy window should be a better superconductor than an otherwise similar Fermi liquid, so searches for new superconductors should consider Hund's metals even when their resistivity looks bad.
  • The transfer to iron-based superconductors is non-trivial because the pairing glue there is non-local spin or orbital fluctuations; a natural extension is a cluster or diagrammatic calculation in which the pairing vertex itself is renormalized by $U$, which would test whether the unrenormalized-vertex assumption survives beyond local fullerenes.
  • A quantitative prediction the paper does not make explicit is that the benefit should be largest when the boson frequency or pairing cutoff is comparable to or larger than $J_H$, and should disappear for very low-energy bosons—an experimentally checkable axis if a material's phonon spectrum and Hund's coupling can be tuned independently.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a three-orbital model motivated by iron-based superconductors, combining DMFT for the correlated normal state with a BCS treatment of an intraorbital attractive pairing interaction of strength g. The authors compare the full frequency-dependent DMFT solution with a quasiparticle approximation matched by the same quasiparticle weights Z_mu, and find that in the Hund's-metal regime (large J_H/U) superconductivity survives up to much larger U than in the quasiparticle picture. They attribute this to the redistribution of spectral weight into an energy window around the Fermi level of order J_H, and they also show that the orbital dependence of the gaps becomes strongly selective in this regime, which they connect to experiments in FeSe.

Significance. If the central mechanism is correct, the paper provides a concrete and testable scenario in which Hund's-metal correlations cooperate with a bosonic pairing glue, going beyond quasiparticle-based descriptions that are common in the iron-based superconductivity literature. The calculation is transparent and free of experimental fitting: the phase diagram is generated from fixed U, J_H, and g, and the DMFT-versus-QP comparison is a controlled diagnostic based on matching Z. The prediction of orbital-selective gap enhancement that is not captured by a quasiparticle approximation is falsifiable. The main limitation is that the irreducible pairing vertex is assumed bare, so the quantitative claim is conditional on that assumption.

major comments (3)
  1. [Assumptions paragraph (main text)] The central result rests on the assumption that the pairing vertex is not renormalized by U and J_H, so that fully dressed electrons still feel the bare coupling g. The manuscript explicitly acknowledges this and borrows the justification from alkali-fulleride physics (Ref. [3]), where the bosonic attraction is an inverted Hund's coupling that is local in spin/orbital space and decoupled from charge fluctuations. For the nonlocal spin/orbital-fluctuation mediators relevant to iron-based superconductors, the irreducible vertex in the pairing channel will generically acquire repulsive components of order U that can counteract the attractive g. Because the headline claim is a quantitative comparison between a Hund's metal and an ordinary correlated metal with the same Z, the U_c(J_H) enhancement in Fig. 2d could be reduced or reversed once vertex corrections are included. I therefore ask for either a vertex-consistent calculation (for example, including a repulsive U in the pairing channel or a ladder renormalization) or a controlled estimate that brackets the magnitude of the vertex correction; in the interim, the conclusion should be explicitly qualified as conditional on the bare-vertex assumption.
  2. [Abstract and Fig. 3] The abstract's central comparison is with an ordinary correlated metal having the same effective mass renormalization and the same density of states at the Fermi level. The numerical comparison, however, matches only the quasiparticle weights Z_mu between the full DMFT solution and the QP approximation. The full DMFT spectral function contains incoherent spectral weight that has no counterpart in the QP approximation, so the two cases are not guaranteed to have the same A(omega=0). If the Hund's-metal spectral-weight redistribution contributes at the Fermi level, part of the enhanced pairing susceptibility would come from a larger Fermi-level DOS rather than from finite-frequency dynamical correlations alone. The manuscript should report the local DOS at omega=0 for the cases compared in Fig. 3, or explicitly adjust the claim if the DOS differs.
  3. [Fig. 2 and 'BCS solutions' paragraph] The main text states that no cutoff is introduced in the pairing interaction, yet the gaps in Fig. 2 vanish at a finite U_c even for parameters where the normal state remains metallic with nonzero Fermi-level DOS and Im Sigma(0)=0. At T=0 with an attractive constant g, the BCS gap equation has a nonzero solution for any positive Fermi-level DOS; hence the plotted U_c must be a numerical closure threshold set by an implicit frequency/energy cutoff or by a convergence criterion. This should be stated explicitly: define the criterion used to declare Delta=0 and specify the frequency grid or cutoff entering the gap equation, so that the U_c(J_H) comparison in Fig. 2d is reproducible.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title and abstract] The title and abstract contain the typo 'boson-media ted' (should be 'boson-mediated'); please correct it.
  2. [Supplemental material reference [48]] The paper repeatedly refers to the supplemental material for the cutoff analysis and model details; if the SM is not included with the arXiv posting, readers cannot verify the robustness claim. Please ensure the SM is publicly available or summarize the key cutoff results in the main text.
  3. [Reference [25]] Reference [25] contains a malformed author list ('J. de' Medici, L.and Mravlje') that should be corrected.
  4. [Conclusions] There are a few typographical errors in the text, including 'stablize' in the final section and 'distintive' near Fig. 4; these should be corrected in the revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Hund's-metal enhancement is computed from fixed model parameters; the unrenormalized pairing vertex is an acknowledged assumption, not a fitted or circular input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is generated numerically: the DMFT gap equation is solved with fully dressed Green's functions obtained from fixed parameters U, JH, and g, with no fitting to experimental data. The comparison between full DMFT and the quasiparticle (QP) approximation uses the same Z values extracted from the model, but Z is a diagnostic characterizing the normal state, not a parameter fitted to reproduce the superconducting gaps. Hence the comparison is a controlled calculation, not a prediction forced by construction. The main caveat is the assumption that the superconducting pairing vertex is not renormalized by Coulomb repulsion, stated explicitly in the paragraph beginning 'In our calculations we further assumed that the superconducting channel is not strongly renormalized by the Coulomb repulsion.' This assumption is imported from Ref. [3], on which one of the present authors (Capone) is a coauthor, and it is load-bearing for transferring the fulleride mechanism to iron-based superconductors. However, the paper does not disguise this as a derived result; it is presented as an assumption inspired by prior work, and the authors explicitly acknowledge the difficulty of extending it to non-local spin/orbital fluctuations. If the vertex were strongly renormalized, the quantitative conclusions could change, but that is a correctness or robustness concern, not circularity. Self-citations are numerous and reflect the authors' central role in developing Hund's-metal physics, but no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation that is itself unverified and equivalent to the target claim. The finite-frequency spectral-weight mechanism is independently exhibited in the paper's own spectral-function calculations (Fig. 3) and in the difference between DMFT and QP gap solutions, so the central derivation is self-contained rather than circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model inputs are the interaction strengths U and J_H (scanned) and the pairing coupling g (hand chosen, robustness checked). The central claim rests on standard DMFT and the bare-vertex assumption. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • g (intraorbital pairing coupling) = 2 eV
    Chosen so that non-interacting gaps are about half the bandwidth W for numerical convenience. The main results are checked for g = 1, 2, 3 eV (Fig. 4), so the qualitative conclusion is robust to this choice. It is a model input, not fitted to data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption DMFT is exact in infinite dimensions and gives the relevant local self-energy for the three-orbital model
    The normal-state correlations are entirely described by a k-independent self-energy computed with DMFT. This is standard but an approximation for finite-dimensional materials.
  • domain assumption The boson-mediated pairing vertex is not renormalized by U or J_H
    Stated in the text as 'we further assumed that the superconducting channel is not strongly renormalized by the Coulomb repulsion'. Adapted from alkali-fulleride physics (Ref. [3]) and not derived for this model.
  • ad hoc to paper The pairing interaction is orbital-diagonal, spin-singlet, and energy-independent
    The authors restrict to intraorbital pair hopping with g_mu_mu = g. This is an unbiased model choice to isolate dynamical correlation effects on superconductivity.
  • domain assumption The quasiparticle approximation with Z_mu from the DMFT self-energy represents an ordinary correlated Fermi liquid
    The baseline for comparison assumes that a quasiparticle metal with the same Z_mu captures the correlation strength. Showing that this baseline misses the Hund's metal enhancement is the paper's point.
  • domain assumption The three-orbital tight-binding model with density n = 4/3 captures the essential electronic structure of iron-based superconductors
    The model is adapted from Ref. [49] and reproduces hole and electron pockets. Real material details are simplified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Synergy between Hund-driven correlations and boson-mediated Superconductivity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V7PISAM2

@misc{pith2026190810901,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Synergy between Hund-driven correlations and boson-mediated Superconductivity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V7PISAM2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10901}
}
read the original abstract

Multiorbital systems such as the iron-based superconductors provide a new avenue to attack the longstanding problem of superconductivity in strongly correlated systems. In this work we study the superconductivity driven by a generic bosonic mechanism in a multiorbital model including the full dynamical electronic correlations induced by the Hubbard U and the Hund's coupling. We show that superconductivity survives much more in a Hund's metal than in an ordinary correlated metal with the same degree of correlation. The crucial role of the redistribution of spectral weight in the Hund's metal reflects also in the enhancement of the orbital-selective character of the superconducting gaps, in agreement with experiments in iron-based superconductors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10901 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Quasiparticle weights [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (a-c) BCS solutions for the orbital gaps as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Local DOS and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: c, 4d show that the strong orbital selectivity of the superconducting gaps in the Hund’s metal is not captured by a QP approximation. In this case in fact the gaps ratio is ∼ 1 up to the gaps closure both in the low- and high- JH regimes. This result can be con￾nected …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [3]

    P. A. Lee, N. Nagaosa, and X.-G. Wen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 17 (2006), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.78.17

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.78.17 2006

  2. [1]

    Superconductivity, Ferroelectricity and Mag- netism in bad metals

    25, and g = 1 , 2, 3 eV within (a-b) the full DMFT self- energy dressed superconducting bubble calculation, (c-d) the QP approximation. Strong orbital gap differentiation is fou nd in the Hund’s metal regime for the DMFT calculation only. Inset: data collapse of the main panel as a function of U/g coupling. From the DMFT results, Fig. 4a, 4b, we find that f...

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    P. W. Anderson, Science 235, 1196 (1987)

    1987

  4. [4]

    Capone, M

    M. Capone, M. Fabrizio, C. Castellani, and E. Tosatti, Science 296, 2364 (2002), ISSN 0036-8075, URL https://science.sciencemag.org/content/296/5577/2364

    work page 2002

  5. [5]

    J. E. Han, O. Gunnarsson, and V. H. Crespi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 167006 (2003), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.167006

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.90.167006 2003

  6. [6]

    Capone, M

    M. Capone, M. Fabrizio, C. Castellani, and E. Tosatti, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 943 (2009), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.943

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.81.943 2009

  7. [7]

    Nomura, S

    Y. Nomura, S. Sakai, M. Capone, and R. Arita, Science Advances 1 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Capone, M

    M. Capone, M. Fabrizio, C. Castellani, and E. Tosatti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 047001 (2004), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.047001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.93.047001 2004

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Schir´ o, M

    M. Schir´ o, M. Capone, M. Fabrizio, and C. Castel- lani, Phys. Rev. B 77, 104522 (2008), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.77.104522

    2008 doi

  2. [10]

    de’ Medici, Weak and Strong Correlations in Fe Superconductors (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2015), ISBN 978-3-319-11254-1

    L. de’ Medici, Weak and Strong Correlations in Fe Superconductors (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2015), ISBN 978-3-319-11254-1

    2015

  3. [11]

    I. I. Mazin, D. J. Singh, M. D. Johannes, and M. H. Du, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 057003 (2008), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.057003

    2008 doi

  4. [12]

    Kuroki, S

    K. Kuroki, S. Onari, R. Arita, H. Usui, Y. Tanaka, H. Kontani, and H. Aoki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 087004 (2008), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.087004

    2008 doi

  5. [13]

    Kontani and S

    H. Kontani and S. Onari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 157001 (2010), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.157001

    2010 doi

  6. [14]

    Chubukov, Itinerant Electron Scenario (Springer In- ternational Publishing, Cham, 2015), ISBN 978-3-319- 11253-4

    A. Chubukov, Itinerant Electron Scenario (Springer In- ternational Publishing, Cham, 2015), ISBN 978-3-319- 11253-4

    2015

  7. [15]

    Z. P. Yin, K. Haule, and G. Kotliar, Nature Materials 10, 932 (2011), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat3120

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    Werner, M

    P. Werner, M. Casula, T. Miyake, F. Aryasetiawan, A. J. Millis, and S. Biermann, Nature Physics 8, 331 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    Hardy, A

    F. Hardy, A. E. B¨ ohmer, D. Aoki, P. Burger, T. Wolf, P. Schweiss, R. Heid, P. Adelmann, Y. X. Yao, G. Kotliar, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 027002 (2013), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.027002

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    de’ Medici, G

    L. de’ Medici, G. Giovannetti, and M. Capone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 177001 (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    Maletz, V

    J. Maletz, V. B. Zabolotnyy, D. V. Evtushinsky, S. Thirupathaiah, A. U. B. Wolter, L. Harnagea, A. N. Yaresko, A. N. Vasiliev, D. A. Chareev, A. E. B¨ ohmer, et al., Phys. Rev. B 89, 220506 (2014), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.89.220506

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    Yi, Z.-K

    M. Yi, Z.-K. Liu, Y. Zhang, R. Yu, J.-X. Zhu, J. Lee, F. Moore, R.G.and Schmitt, W. Li, S. Riggs, J.-H. Chu, et al., Nat. Comm 6, 7777 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    D. E. McNally, S. Zellman, Z. P. Yin, K. W. Post, H. He, K. Hao, G. Kotliar, D. Basov, C. C. Homes, and M. C. Aronson, Phys. Rev. B 92, 115142 (2015), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.92.115142

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    Backes, H

    S. Backes, H. O. Jeschke, and R. Va- lent ´ ı, Phys. Rev. B 92, 195128 (2015), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.92.195128

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    Hardy, A

    F. Hardy, A. E. B¨ ohmer, L. de’ Medici, M. Capone, G. Giovannetti, R. Eder, L. Wang, M. He, T. Wolf, P. Schweiss, et al., Phys. Rev. B 94, 205113 (2016), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.94.205113

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    Lafuerza, H

    S. Lafuerza, H. Gretarsson, F. Hardy, T. Wolf, C. Mein- gast, G. Giovannetti, M. Capone, A. S. Sefat, Y.-J. Kim, P. Glatzel, et al., Phys. Rev. B 96, 045133 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.045133

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    M. D. Watson, S. Backes, A. A. Haghighirad, M. Hoesch, T. K. Kim, A. I. Coldea, and R. Va- lent ´ ı, Phys. Rev. B 95, 081106 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.95.081106

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    Georges and J

    A. Georges and J. de’ Medici, L.and Mravlje, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 4, 137 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    Werner, E

    P. Werner, E. Gull, M. Troyer, and A. Mil- lis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 166405 (2008), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.166405

    2008 doi

  20. [28]

    Haule and G

    K. Haule and G. Kotliar, New Jour. Phys. 11, 025021 (2009), URL 6 http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/11/2/025021?fromSearchPage=true

    2009

  21. [29]

    de’ Medici, S

    L. de’ Medici, S. R. Hassan, M. Capone, and X. Dai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 126401 (2009), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.126401

    2009 doi

  22. [30]

    Ishida and A

    H. Ishida and A. Liebsch, Phys. Rev. B 81, 054513 (2010), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.81.054513

    2010 doi

  23. [31]

    Liebsch and H

    A. Liebsch and H. Ishida, Phys. Rev. B 82, 155106 (2010), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.82.155106

    2010 doi

  24. [32]

    de’ Medici, Phys

    L. de’ Medici, Phys. Rev. B 83, 205112 (2011), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.83.205112

    2011 doi

  25. [33]

    de’ Medici, J

    L. de’ Medici, J. Mravlje, and A. Georges, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 256401 (2011), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.256401

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    Yu and Q

    R. Yu and Q. Si, Phys. Rev. B 86, 085104 (2012), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.86.085104

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    Bascones, B

    E. Bascones, B. Valenzuela, and M. Calder´ on, Phys. Rev. B 86, 174508 (2012), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.86.174508

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    Lanat` a, H

    N. Lanat` a, H. Strand, G. Giovannetti, B. Hellsing, L. de’ Medici, and M. Capone, Phys. Rev. B 87, 045122 (2013), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.87.045122

    2013 doi

  29. [37]

    Fanfarillo and E

    L. Fanfarillo and E. Bascones, Phys. Rev. B 92, 075136 (2015), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.92.075136

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    Stadler, G

    K. Stadler, G. Kotliar, A. Weichsel- baum, and J. von Delft, Annals of Physics 405, 365 (2019), ISSN 0003-4916, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003491618302793

    2019

  31. [39]

    Isidori, M

    A. Isidori, M. Berovi´ c, L. Fanfarillo, L. de’ Medici, M. Fabrizio, and M. Capone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 186401 (2019), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.186401

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    Mezio and R

    A. Mezio and R. H. McKenzie, arXiv e-prints arXiv:1903.07237 (2019), 1903.07237

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Capone, Nature Materials (2018), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41563-018-0173-7

    M. Capone, Nature Materials (2018), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41563-018-0173-7

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    P. O. Sprau, A. Kostin, A. Kreisel, A. E. B¨ ohmer, V. Taufour, P. C. Canfield, S. Mukher- jee, P. J. Hirschfeld, B. M. Andersen, and J. C. S. Davis, Science 357, 75 (2017), ISSN 0036-8075, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6346/75.full.pdf, URL http://science.sciencema...

    2017

  35. [43]

    Y. S. Kushnirenko, A. V. Fedorov, E. Haubold, S. Thirupathaiah, T. Wolf, S. Aswartham, I. Mo- rozov, T. K. Kim, B. B¨ uchner, and S. V. Borisenko, Phys. Rev. B 97, 180501 (2018), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.180501

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    L. C. Rhodes, M. D. Watson, A. A. Haghighi- rad, D. V. Evtushinsky, M. Eschrig, and T. K. Kim, Phys. Rev. B 98, 180503 (2018), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.98.180503

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    Kreisel, B

    A. Kreisel, B. M. Andersen, P. O. Sprau, A. Kostin, J. C. S. Davis, and P. J. Hirschfeld, Phys. Rev. B 95, 174504 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.95.174504

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    H. Hu, R. Yu, E. M. Nica, J.-X. Zhu, and Q. Si, Phys. Rev. B 98, 220503 (2018), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.98.220503

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    Kreisel, B

    A. Kreisel, B. M. Andersen, and P. J. Hirschfeld, Phys. Rev. B 98, 214518 (2018), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.98.214518

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    Benfatto, B

    L. Benfatto, B. Valenzuela, and L. Fanfar- illo, npj Quantum Materials 3, 56 (2018), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41535-018-0129-9

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    For details about the model, DMFT and BCS analy- sis, and energy cut-off study see Supplemental material, which includes Refs. [55–60]

  42. [50]

    Daghofer, A

    M. Daghofer, A. Nicholson, A. Moreo, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. B 81, 014511 (2010)

    2010

  43. [51]

    Capone, L

    M. Capone, L. de’ Medici, and A. Georges, Phys. Rev. B 76, 245116 (2007), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.76.245116

    2007 doi

  44. [52]

    Weber, A

    C. Weber, A. Amaricci, M. Capone, and P. B. Lit- tlewood, Phys. Rev. B 86, 115136 (2012), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.86.115136

    2012 doi

  45. [53]

    D. V. Evtushinsky, V. B. Zabolotnyy, T. K. Kim, A. A. Kordyuk, A. N. Yaresko, J. Maletz, S. Aswartham, S. Wurmehl, A. V. Boris, D. L. Sun, et al., Phys. Rev. B 89, 064514 (2014), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.89.064514

    2014 doi

  46. [54]

    Nourafkan, G

    R. Nourafkan, G. Kotliar, and A.-M. S. Trem- blay, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 137001 (2016), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.137001

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    Fanfarillo, G

    L. Fanfarillo, G. Giovannetti, M. Capone, and E. Bas- cones, Phys. Rev. B 95, 144511 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    Castellani, C

    C. Castellani, C. R. Natoli, and J. Ran- ninger, Phys. Rev. B 18, 4945 (1978), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.18.4945

    1978 doi

  49. [57]

    Georges, G

    A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M. J. Rozenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 13 (1996), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.68.13

    1996 doi

  50. [58]

    Liebsch and H

    A. Liebsch and H. Ishida, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 24, 053201 (2011)

    2011

  51. [59]

    Y. Lu, M. H¨ oppner, O. Gunnarsson, and M. W. Haverkort, Phys. Rev. B 90, 085102 (2014), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.085102

    2014 doi

  52. [60]

    Nagai and H

    Y. Nagai and H. Shinaoka, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 88, 064004 (2019), https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.88.064004, URL https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.88.064004

    2019 doi

  53. [61]

    Negele and H

    J. Negele and H. Orland, Quantum many particle system (Addison-Wesley, New York, 1988)

    1988

  54. [62]

    In all the DMFT calculations we find ℑΣ µµ (0) = 0 at zero temperature

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.