pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.23022 · v1 · pith:W2CKE4ZAnew · submitted 2026-06-22 · ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con · cond-mat.str-el

Structural symmetry effects on the competition of density waves and superconductivity in bilayer nickelates

Steffen B\"otzel , Aiman Al-Eryani , Jun Zhan , Xianxin Wu , Frank Lechermann , Michael M. Scherer , Ilya M. Eremin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 06:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.str-el
keywords bilayer nickelatessuperconductivityspin-density-wavefunctional renormalization grouporthorhombicitystructural symmetryHund's coupling
0
0 comments X

The pith

Suppression of orthorhombicity frustrates spin-density-wave order and promotes superconductivity in bilayer nickelates.

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

The paper examines how spin-density-wave order competes with superconductivity in La3Ni2O7 using functional renormalization group on models of its crystal structures. Calculations reveal nearly identical instabilities for ambient and high-pressure phases, showing that changes in the electronic structure alone do not explain the pressure-induced superconductivity. Instead, the reduction of orthorhombicity as the system nears the tetragonal structure makes symmetry-related spin-density-wave fluctuations nearly degenerate. This degeneracy frustrates long-range magnetic order while strengthening pairing interactions. The work positions lattice symmetry as a central control knob for the ordered states.

Core claim

As Hund's coupling increases, the leading instability shifts from superconductivity to an SDW with ordering vector Q1 ≈ (π/2, π/2). Ambient- and high-pressure structures display nearly identical non-interacting susceptibilities and fRG instabilities, so the emergence of superconductivity under pressure stems from the suppression of orthorhombicity. Near the tetragonal limit, degenerate SDW fluctuations frustrate magnetic order and enhance pairing.

What carries the argument

Functional renormalization group flow on multiorbital weak-coupling Hamiltonians for orthorhombic and tetragonal bilayer structures, tracking the evolution of pairing and SDW instabilities with Hund's coupling.

If this is right

  • SDW order with Q ≈ (π/2, π/2) becomes leading at larger Hund's coupling.
  • Pressure-induced superconductivity arises primarily from symmetry change rather than band-structure modification.
  • Degenerate SDW fluctuations near tetragonal symmetry enhance superconducting pairing.
  • Reducing orthorhombicity via uniaxial strain may stabilize superconductivity at ambient pressure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar symmetry effects could apply to other layered nickelates or related materials where structural distortions compete with superconductivity.
  • Strain engineering experiments at ambient pressure could test whether reducing orthorhombicity induces bulk superconductivity.
  • Strong-coupling corrections might alter the quantitative boundaries but are unlikely to change the qualitative role of symmetry degeneracy.

Load-bearing premise

The functional renormalization group method applied to the multiorbital weak-coupling models correctly identifies the dominant instabilities and their dependence on structural and interaction parameters.

What would settle it

If experiments applying uniaxial strain to reduce orthorhombicity at ambient pressure fail to induce superconductivity, or if the calculated instabilities differ markedly between structures when including omitted interaction channels, the central claim would be challenged.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.23022 by Aiman Al-Eryani, Frank Lechermann, Ilya M. Eremin, Jun Zhan, Michael M. Scherer, Steffen B\"otzel, Xianxin Wu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Band structure, Fermi surface, and non-interacting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Leading instabilities within fRG for high- and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Leading fRG instabilities for ambient pressure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Flow of the maximal components of the particle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Leading instabilities within fRG for ambient pressure phase. Scan of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Magnetic susceptibilities in the high-pressure phase at the critical flow parameters in the high and low [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Band structure, Fermi surface and non-interacting susceptibility of La [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the interplay between spin-density-wave (SDW) order and superconductivity in the bilayer nickelate La$_3$Ni$_2$O$_7$ using the functional renormalization group~(fRG) applied to multiorbital weak-coupling models of both the ambient- and high-pressure crystal structures. As Hund's coupling increases, the leading instability evolves from superconductivity to an SDW state with ordering vector $\mathbf{Q}_1 \approx (\pi/2,\pi/2)$ (equivalently $\mathbf{Q}_Y \approx (0,\pi)$ in the orthorhombic $Amam$ unit cell), in agreement with experimental observations. Surprisingly, the ambient- and high-pressure structures exhibit nearly identical non-interacting susceptibilities and leading fRG instabilities, indicating that the emergence of superconductivity under pressure cannot be explained solely by changes in the low-energy electronic structure. Instead, our results identify the suppression of orthorhombicity as a key ingredient for superconductivity. As the system approaches the tetragonal limit, symmetry-related SDW fluctuations become nearly degenerate, frustrating long-range magnetic order while enhancing pairing interactions. These findings highlight lattice symmetry as a central tuning parameter of the competing ordered states in bilayer nickelates and suggest that reducing orthorhombicity through uniaxial strain could stabilize bulk superconductivity already at ambient pressure.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies the functional renormalization group (fRG) to multiorbital weak-coupling models of La3Ni2O7 for both the ambient-pressure orthorhombic (Amam) and high-pressure structures. It reports that increasing Hund's coupling shifts the leading instability from superconductivity to an SDW state with ordering vector Q1 ≈ (π/2, π/2) (equivalently QY ≈ (0, π)), in agreement with experiment. The ambient- and high-pressure structures are found to exhibit nearly identical non-interacting susceptibilities and leading fRG instabilities, leading to the conclusion that suppression of orthorhombicity (rather than electronic-structure changes) is the key driver for pressure-induced superconductivity, as it renders symmetry-related SDW fluctuations nearly degenerate and frustrates long-range magnetic order while enhancing pairing.

Significance. If the fRG results hold, the work identifies lattice symmetry as a central tuning parameter for the SDW-SC competition in bilayer nickelates, distinct from band-structure effects under pressure. This suggests that uniaxial strain could stabilize bulk superconductivity at ambient pressure and provides a concrete, testable mechanism based on fluctuation degeneracy. The multiorbital fRG treatment of structural effects is a methodological strength that yields falsifiable predictions for strain experiments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results section on non-interacting susceptibilities] The central claim that the two crystal structures have nearly identical non-interacting susceptibilities and fRG instabilities (and thus that orthorhombicity suppression, not electronic structure, drives SC) requires explicit quantitative comparison. The manuscript does not report the relative difference in χ(q) at Q1/QY or other wave vectors between the ambient and high-pressure models (e.g., in the results section on susceptibilities), making it impossible to judge whether small differences could shift the leading instability.
  2. [Discussion and conclusions] The conclusion that SDW-channel degeneracy in the tetragonal limit frustrates magnetism and enhances pairing rests on the fRG flows correctly capturing the evolution with Hund's coupling and structural parameters. The manuscript provides no discussion of the validity of the weak-coupling truncation for La3Ni2O7 (where strong local correlations are expected) or comparison to strong-coupling methods such as DMFT; if omitted channels or strong-coupling corrections lift the Q1/QY degeneracy, the frustration argument would not hold.
  3. [Methods section] Technical details of the fRG implementation (cutoff procedure, momentum patching scheme, and multiorbital interaction vertex parametrization) are not specified at a level that allows assessment of whether the reported near-degeneracy of SDW channels is robust. These choices are load-bearing for the instability evolution shown as a function of Hund's coupling.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states conclusions from fRG calculations but supplies no quantitative susceptibilities, critical scales, or error estimates; the full manuscript should include these in a dedicated results subsection or table.
  2. [Model section] The relation between the tetragonal Q1 vector and the orthorhombic QY vector should be defined with an explicit coordinate transformation in the model section for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments, which have helped clarify several points. We respond to each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results section on non-interacting susceptibilities] The central claim that the two crystal structures have nearly identical non-interacting susceptibilities and fRG instabilities (and thus that orthorhombicity suppression, not electronic structure, drives SC) requires explicit quantitative comparison. The manuscript does not report the relative difference in χ(q) at Q1/QY or other wave vectors between the ambient and high-pressure models (e.g., in the results section on susceptibilities), making it impossible to judge whether small differences could shift the leading instability.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit quantitative comparison is required to substantiate the claim. In the revised manuscript we will add a table (or supplementary figure) reporting the relative differences (in percent) of the non-interacting susceptibilities χ(q) at Q1/QY and at other representative wave vectors between the ambient-pressure and high-pressure models. This will allow readers to assess whether any small differences could affect the leading instability. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Discussion and conclusions] The conclusion that SDW-channel degeneracy in the tetragonal limit frustrates magnetism and enhances pairing rests on the fRG flows correctly capturing the evolution with Hund's coupling and structural parameters. The manuscript provides no discussion of the validity of the weak-coupling truncation for La3Ni2O7 (where strong local correlations are expected) or comparison to strong-coupling methods such as DMFT; if omitted channels or strong-coupling corrections lift the Q1/QY degeneracy, the frustration argument would not hold.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript lacks an explicit discussion of the weak-coupling approximation's validity. We will add a paragraph in the discussion section noting that La3Ni2O7 is expected to host strong local correlations and that strong-coupling corrections could in principle modify the reported degeneracy. A direct comparison with DMFT lies outside the scope of the present weak-coupling fRG study. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Methods section] Technical details of the fRG implementation (cutoff procedure, momentum patching scheme, and multiorbital interaction vertex parametrization) are not specified at a level that allows assessment of whether the reported near-degeneracy of SDW channels is robust. These choices are load-bearing for the instability evolution shown as a function of Hund's coupling.

    Authors: We will expand the methods section to specify the cutoff procedure, the momentum patching scheme, and the parametrization of the multiorbital interaction vertex. These additions will enable readers to evaluate the robustness of the near-degeneracy of the SDW channels. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; claims are direct outputs of fRG computations on fixed models

full rationale

The paper derives its central claim—that ambient- and high-pressure structures yield nearly identical non-interacting susceptibilities and leading fRG instabilities, so orthorhombicity suppression (not electronic structure) drives superconductivity—from explicit functional renormalization group flows on multiorbital weak-coupling models. This comparison is a computational result, not a self-definitional reduction, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation. No equations or steps reduce by construction to inputs; the derivation remains independent of the target conclusion and is self-contained against the stated model assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the applicability of weak-coupling fRG to capture the leading instabilities and on the assumption that structural symmetry enters only through the single-particle band structure and interaction vertices in the models.

free parameters (1)
  • Hund's coupling
    Increased until the leading instability switches from superconductivity to SDW; its specific value is not reported in the abstract.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Multiorbital weak-coupling models suffice to describe the low-energy physics of La3Ni2O7
    Basis for constructing the fRG flow in both crystal structures.
  • domain assumption fRG reliably ranks the leading instabilities (SC vs SDW) in these models
    Method chosen to obtain the reported evolution with Hund's coupling and symmetry.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5796 in / 1564 out tokens · 40235 ms · 2026-06-26T06:34:21.403547+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Density waves in low-pressure bilayer nickelates

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Unrestricted Hartree-Fock calculations show the second density-wave transition in La3Ni2O7 originates from double-stripe spin order becoming unstable toward a commensurate charge-density wave, yielding intertwined spi...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    H. Sun, M. Huo, X. Hu, J. Li, Z. Liu, Y. Han, L. Tang, Z. Mao, P. Yang, B. Wang, J. Cheng, D.-X. Yao, G.-M. Zhang, and M. Wang, Nature621, 493–498 (2023)

    2023

  2. [2]

    Hou, P.-T

    J. Hou, P.-T. Yang, Z.-Y. Liu, J.-Y. Li, P.-F. Shan, L. Ma, G. Wang, N.-N. Wang, H.-Z. Guo, J.-P. Sun, Y. Uwatoko, M. Wang, G.-M. Zhang, B.-S. Wang, and J.-G. Cheng, Chinese Physics Letters40, 117302 (2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    Zhang, D

    Y. Zhang, D. Su, Y. Huang, Z. Shan, H. Sun, M. Huo, K. Ye, J. Zhang, Z. Yang, Y. Xu, Y. Su, R. Li, M. Smid- man, M. Wang, L. Jiao, and H. Yuan, Nature Physics 20, 1269–1273 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    Y. Zhou, J. Guo, S. Cai, H. Sun, C. Li, J. Zhao, P. Wang, J. Han, X. Chen, Y. Chen, Q. Wu, Y. Ding, T. Xiang, H.- k. Mao, and L. Sun, Matter and Radiation at Extremes 10, 10.1063/5.0247684 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0247684 2025

  5. [5]

    Zhang, C

    M. Zhang, C. Pei, Q. Wang, Y. Zhao, C. Li, W. Cao, S. Zhu, J. Wu, and Y. Qi, Journal of Materials Science & Technology185, 147 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    L. Wang, Y. Li, S.-Y. Xie, F. Liu, H. Sun, C. Huang, Y. Gao, T. Nakagawa, B. Fu, B. Dong,et al., Journal of the American Chemical Society146, 7506 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    G. Wang, N. N. Wang, X. L. Shen, J. Hou, L. Ma, L. F. Shi, Z. A. Ren, Y. D. Gu, H. M. Ma, P. T. Yang, Z. Y. Liu, H. Z. Guo, J. P. Sun, G. M. Zhang, S. Calder, J.-Q. Yan, B. S. Wang, Y. Uwatoko, and J.-G. Cheng, Phys. Rev. X14, 011040 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    Z. Dong, M. Huo, J. Li, J. Li, P. Li, H. Sun, L. Gu, Y. Lu, M. Wang, Y. Wang, and Z. Chen, Nature630, 847–852 (2024)

    2024

  9. [9]

    N. Wang, G. Wang, X. Shen, J. Hou, J. Luo, X. Ma, H. Yang, L. Shi, J. Dou, J. Feng, J. Yang, Y. Shi, Z. Ren, H. Ma, P. Yang, Z. Liu, Y. Liu, H. Zhang, X. Dong, and J.-G. Cheng, Nature634, 579 (2024)

    2024

  10. [10]

    F. Li, Z. Xing, D. Peng, J. Dou, N. Guo, L. Ma, Y. Zhang, L. Wang, J. Luo, J. Yang,et al., Nature649, 871 (2026)

    2026

  11. [11]

    Z. Qiu, J. Chen, D. V. Semenok, Q. Zhong, D. Zhou, J. Li, P. Ma, X. Huang, M. Huo, T. Xie,et al., arXiv:2510.12359 (2025). 7

    arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    E. K. Ko, Y. Yu, Y. Liu, L. Bhatt, J. Li, V. Thampy, C.-T. Kuo, B. Y. Wang, Y. Lee, K. Lee, J.-S. Lee, B. H. Goodge, D. A. Muller, and H. Y. Hwang, Nature638, 935–940 (2024)

    2024

  13. [13]

    G. Zhou, W. Lv, H. Wang, Z. Nie, Y. Chen, Y. Li, H. Huang, W.-Q. Chen, Y.-J. Sun, Q.-K. Xue, and Z. Chen, Nature640, 641–646 (2025)

    2025

  14. [14]

    Bhatt, A

    L. Bhatt, A. Y. Jiang, E. K. Ko, N. Schnitzer, G. A. Pan, D. F. Segedin, Y. Liu, Y. Yu, Y.-F. Zhao, E. A. Morales, et al., arXiv:2501.08204 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Y. Liu, E. K. Ko, Y. Tarn, L. Bhatt, J. Li, V. Thampy, B. H. Goodge, D. A. Muller, S. Raghu, Y. Yu,et al., Nature Materials24, 1221 (2025)

    2025

  16. [16]

    Wang, H.-H

    M. Wang, H.-H. Wen, T. Wu, D.-X. Yao, and T. Xiang, Chinese Physics Letters41, 077402 (2024)

    2024

  17. [17]

    Zhang, L.-F

    Y. Zhang, L.-F. Lin, T. A. Maier, and E. Dagotto, arXiv:2604.18385 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    Z. Pan, C. Lu, F. Yang, and C. Wu, arXiv:2604.20613 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    H. Oh, H. Yang, and Y.-H. Zhang, New Journal of Physics28, 021201 (2026)

    2026

  20. [20]

    Wang and Y.-f

    J. Wang and Y.-f. Yang, arXiv:2606.15298 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Z.-Y. Cao, D. Peng, S. Choi, F. Lan, L. Yu, E. Zhang, Z. Xing, Y. Liu, F. Zhang, T. Luo,et al., arXiv:2509.12606 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    C. Liu, M. Huo, H. Yang, Q. Li, Y. Zhang, Z. Xiang, M. Wang, and H.-H. Wen, Science China Physics, Me- chanics & Astronomy68, 247412 (2025)

    2025

  23. [23]

    J. Guo, Y. Chen, Y. Wang, H. Sun, D. Hu, M. Wang, X. Huang, and T. Cui, Nature Communications16, 10838 (2025)

    2025

  24. [24]

    J. Shen, G. Zhou, Y. Miao, P. Li, Z. Ou, Y. Chen, Z. Wang, R. Luan, H. Sun, Z. Feng,et al., Science , eadw8329 (2026)

    2026

  25. [25]

    P. Li, G. Zhou, W. Lv, Y. Li, C. Yue, H. Huang, L. Xu, J. Shen, Y. Miao, W. Song, Z. Nie, Y. Chen, H. Wang, W. Chen, Y. Huang, Z.-H. Chen, T. Qian, J. Lin, J. He, Y.-J. Sun, Z. Chen, and Q.-K. Xue, National Science Re- view12, nwaf205 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    B. Y. Wang, Y. Zhong, S. Abadi, Y. Liu, Y. Yu, X. Zhang, Y.-M. Wu, R. Wang, J. Li, Y. Tarn,et al., arXiv:2504.16372 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Y. Li, L. Xu, W. Lv, Z. Nie, Z. Wang, Y. Miao, J. Shen, G. Zhou, W. Song, H. Wang,et al., arXiv:2604.08430 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    S. Fan, M. Ou, M. Scholten, Q. Li, Z. Shang, Y. Wang, J. Xu, H. Yang, I. M. Eremin, and H.-H. Wen, Science Advances12, 10.1126/sciadv.aeg2429 (2026)

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.aeg2429 2026

  29. [29]

    Liang, T

    Z. Liang, T. Wei, W. Ren, H. Ji, Z. Xie, Y. Liu, Z. Wang, and J. Wang, arXiv:2605.15703 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    X. Wang, Y. Chen, C. Ding, L. Xu, J.-J. Miao, G. Zhou, Z. Chen, Y.-J. Sun, J.-F. Jia, and Q.-K. Xue, arXiv:2605.14806 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    X. Chen, J. Choi, Z. Jiang, J. Mei, K. Jiang, J. Li, S. Agrestini, M. Garcia-Fernandez, H. Sun, X. Huang, et al., Nature communications15, 9597 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    L. Chen, E. Zhang, Y. Hao, Y. Zhu, B. Cui, D. L. Aber- nathy, T. J. Williams, Y. Ikeda, H. Zhang, F. Liu,et al., arXiv:2605.03448 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    Khasanov, T

    R. Khasanov, T. J. Hicken, D. J. Gawryluk, V. Saz- gari, I. Plokhikh, L. P. Sorel, M. Bartkowiak, S. B¨ otzel, F. Lechermann, I. M. Eremin,et al., Nature Physics21, 430 (2025)

    2025

  34. [34]

    K. Fan, M. Shi, Z. Wang, H. Li, M. Du, and X. Chen, Sci- ence China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy69, 247011 (2026)

    2026

  35. [35]

    Zhang, J

    H. Zhang, J. Zhang, M. Huo, J. Chen, D. Hu, D.-X. Yao, H. Sun, K. Cao, and M. Wang, arXiv:2511.15265 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    M. Shi, D. Peng, Y. Li, S. Yang, Z. Xing, Y. Wang, K. Fan, H. Li, R. Wu, B. Ge,et al., Nature Communica- tions16, 9141 (2025)

    2025

  37. [37]

    Liu, J.-W

    Y.-B. Liu, J.-W. Mei, F. Ye, W.-Q. Chen, and F. Yang, Physical Review Letters131, 236002 (2023)

    2023

  38. [38]

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

    2023

  39. [39]

    Jiang, Y.-H

    K.-Y. Jiang, Y.-H. Cao, Q.-G. Yang, H.-Y. Lu, and Q.-H. Wang, Physical Review Letters134, 076001 (2025)

    2025

  40. [40]

    S. Ryee, N. Witt, G. Sangiovanni, and T. O. Wehling, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 236003 (2025)

    2025

  41. [41]

    C. Le, J. Zhan, X. Wu, and J. Hu, arXiv:2501.14665 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Ushio, S

    K. Ushio, S. Kamiyama, Y. Hoshi, R. Mizuno, M. Ochi, K. Kuroki, and H. Sakakibara, arXiv:2506.20497 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Z. Nie, Y. Li, W. Lv, L. Xu, Z. Jiang, P. Fu, G. Zhou, W. Song, Y. Chen, H. Wang,et al., Nature , 1 (2026)

    2026

  44. [44]

    J. Yang, H. Sun, X. Hu, Y. Xie, T. Miao, H. Luo, H. Chen, B. Liang, W. Zhu, G. Qu,et al., Nature Com- munications15, 4373 (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    C. C. Au-Yeung, X. Chen, S. Smit, M. Bluschke, V. Zim- mermann, M. Michiardi, P. Moen, J. Kraan, C. Pang, C. Suen,et al., arXiv:2502.20450 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Y. Li, X. Du, Y. Cao, C. Pei, M. Zhang, W. Zhao, K. Zhai, R. Xu, Z. Liu, Z. Li,et al., Chinese Physics Letters41, 087402 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    Marzari, A

    N. Marzari, A. A. Mostofi, J. R. Yates, I. Souza, and D. Vanderbilt, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 1419 (2012)

    2012

  48. [48]

    Lechermann, J

    F. Lechermann, J. Gondolf, S. B¨ otzel, and I. M. Eremin, Phys. Rev. B108, L201121 (2023)

    2023

  49. [49]

    Graser, T

    S. Graser, T. Maier, P. Hirschfeld, and D. Scalapino, New Journal of Physics11, 025016 (2009)

    2009

  50. [50]

    Salmhofer and C

    M. Salmhofer and C. Honerkamp, Progress of Theoretical Physics105, 1 (2001), https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- pdf/105/1/1/5164880/105-1-1.pdf

    2001

  51. [51]

    Metzner, M

    W. Metzner, M. Salmhofer, C. Honerkamp, V. Meden, and K. Sch¨ onhammer, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 299 (2012)

    2012

  52. [52]

    Platt, W

    C. Platt, W. Hanke, and R. Thomale, Advances in Physics62, 453–562 (2013)

    2013

  53. [53]

    Dupuis, L

    N. Dupuis, L. Canet, A. Eichhorn, W. Metzner, J. M. Pawlowski, M. Tissier, and N. Wschebor, Phys. Rept. 910, 1 (2021), arXiv:2006.04853 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    Lichtenstein, D

    J. Lichtenstein, D. S´ anchez de la Pe˜ na, D. Rohe, E. Di Napoli, C. Honerkamp, and S. Maier, Computer Physics Communications213, 100–110 (2017)

    2017

  55. [55]

    J. B. Profe and D. M. Kennes, The European Physical Journal B95, 10.1140/epjb/s10051-022-00316-x (2022)

    work page doi:10.1140/epjb/s10051-022-00316-x 2022

  56. [56]

    Beyer, J

    J. Beyer, J. B. Profe, and L. Klebl, The European Physical Journal B95, 10.1140/epjb/s10051-022-00323-y (2022)

    work page doi:10.1140/epjb/s10051-022-00323-y 2022

  57. [57]

    J. B. Profe, D. M. Kennes, and L. Klebl, SciPost Physics Codebases 10.21468/scipostphyscodeb.26 (2024)

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphyscodeb.26 2024

  58. [58]

    J. B. Profe, D. M. Kennes, and L. Klebl, SciPost Phys. Codebases , 26 (2024)

    2024

  59. [59]

    Husemann and M

    C. Husemann and M. Salmhofer, Phys. Rev. B79, 195125 (2009)

    2009

  60. [60]

    B¨ otzel, F

    S. B¨ otzel, F. Lechermann, J. Gondolf, and I. M. Eremin, Phys. Rev. B109, L180502 (2024). 8

    2024

  61. [61]

    Zhang, L.-F

    Y. Zhang, L.-F. Lin, A. Moreo, T. A. Maier, and E. Dagotto, Nature Communications15, 2470 (2024)

    2024

  62. [62]

    J. Zhan, C. Le, X. Wu, and J. Hu, npj Quantum Mate- rials (2026)

    2026

  63. [63]

    In perfect 2D, Goldstone fluctuations destabilize the or- dered phase completely at finite temperature, as per the statement of the Hohenberg-Mermin-Wagner theorem

  64. [64]

    S. G. Louie, K.-M. Ho, and M. L. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B 19, 1774 (1979)

    1979

  65. [65]

    Elsasser, N

    C. Elsasser, N. Takeuchi, K. M. Ho, C. T. Chan, P. Braun, and M. Fahnle, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter2, 4371 (1990)

    1990

  66. [66]

    Lechermann, F

    F. Lechermann, F. Welsch, C. Els¨ asser, C. Ederer, M. F¨ ahnle, J. M. Sanchez, and B. Meyer, Phys. Rev. B65, 132104 (2002)

    2002

  67. [67]

    Meyer, C

    B. Meyer, C. Els¨ asser, F. Lechermann, and M. F¨ ahnle, FORTRAN 90 Program for Mixed-Basis-Pseudopotential Calculations for Crystals, Max-Planck-Institut f¨ ur Met- allforschung, Stuttgart (1998). 9 APPENDIX Computational details and details on the superconducting instability The DFT computations are performed within the local-density approximation using...

    1998