Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Emergent Orbital Dynamics in Strongly Spin-Orbit Coupled Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Intersite electron hopping can restore short-range orbital polarization in strongly spin-orbit-coupled t2g systems, even without Jahn-Teller coupling.

desk verdict A careful mean-field susceptibility calculation whose likely-true core result — hopping restores short-range orthogonal orbital correlations in SOC t2g systems — is undercut by an unspecified JT-derived exchange term the paper never controls for. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16746 v2 pith:K4QFQC6Z submitted 2025-05-22 cond-mat.str-el

A. S. Miñarro , G. Herranz This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords spin-orbitcouplingorbitalpolarizationt2gelectronsJahn-TellereffectMatsubaraGreen'sfunctionsintersitehoppingcorrelations4dand5dtransition-metaloxides
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

This paper argues that in the three low-lying d orbitals (the t2g manifold) of transition-metal oxides, ordinary electron hopping between sites can locally bring back orbital polarization that strong spin-orbit coupling otherwise wipes out. The effect needs no lattice distortion: the polarization is still there when the Jahn-Teller coupling is reduced to zero, and it appears only in response to a local perturbation. The response is short-ranged and cooperative: nearest-neighbor orbitals prefer to point orthogonally to the perturbed orbital, while correlations beyond the first neighbors die away. If the claim holds, a spin-orbit-entangled ground state that is globally unpolarized can still hide a latent orbital instability, and spectroscopic data on 4d and 5d compounds should account for these hybridization-driven fluctuations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the orbital charge moment $T_i^{\eta}(n)$, a projection of the t2g occupation onto Eg-symmetric combinations of Gell-Mann matrices $\lambda_3$ and $\lambda_8$, rotated to the three Cartesian bond directions. Its correlations are computed in momentum space as a mean-field bubble, $\langle \delta T_q^{\eta} \delta T_{-q}^{\zeta}\rangle \approx \frac{1}{N}\sum_k \mathrm{Tr}[\hat{\lambda}^{\eta}(m)\hat{G}_k(0)\hat{\lambda}^{\zeta}(n)\hat{G}_{k-q}(\beta)]$, i.e., two dressed single-particle Green's functions with all vertex corrections dropped. The dressed Green's functions come from a self-consistent Dyson equation that includes Hartree-Fock, second-order Born, electron-phonon, and orbital-exchange self-energies, exploiting the two-block algebraic structure of the propagators to keep the solver tractable. The sign of the computed real-space nearest-neighbor correlator is what carries the argument: negative values mean the neighboring orbital moment sits orthogonal to the perturbed one, and its distance dependence shows the response is confined to nearest neighbors.

What would settle it

Run an unbiased many-body calculation on a small t2g cluster (four to eight sites) with the paper's parameters, keeping vertex corrections via exact diagonalization or determinant quantum Monte Carlo, and inspect the nearest-neighbor correlation $\langle \delta T_i \delta T_j\rangle$. The central claim stands if a negative nearest-neighbor correlation appears; it fails if the correlation is positive or zero.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that intersite hybridization, not orbital-lattice coupling, is sufficient to create short-range orbital polarization in a strongly spin-orbit-coupled t2g system. Solving the lattice model with a self-consistent Matsubara Green's function approach, the authors find that a local orbital perturbation induces nonzero orbital-orbital and spin-orbital correlations whose real-space signature is a negative peak at nearest-neighbor distance, indicating orthogonal alignment of the neighboring orbital moments. The correlations remain when spin-orbit coupling is strong enough to quench static Jahn-Teller distortions in the atomic limit, and they survive even as the Jahn-Teller coupling $g$ goes to zero, which the authors take as evidence for a latent orbital instability of purely electronic origin. Their energy-scale estimate, $\Delta_{\mathrm{orbital}} \sim (Zt)^2/(U_{\mathrm{eff}}+\Delta_{\mathrm{SOC}})$, places the effect in the few-to-tens of meV range, below current RIXS resolution but potentially visible through indirect low-energy spectral signatures.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that two-particle orbital correlations are just products of two dressed single-particle Green's functions, discarding all vertex corrections; if those corrections are large in the strongly correlated regime, the predicted short-range orthogonal polarization could change, weaken, or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A globally symmetric spin-orbit-entangled ground state with no static orbital order can still respond to local perturbations with orbital polarization on nearest-neighbor bonds.
  • The orbital response is cooperative: nearest-neighbor orbitals align orthogonally to the perturbed orbital, producing staggered short-range patterns rather than uniform ferroelectric-like order.
  • At realistic 4d and 5d hopping amplitudes ($t=0.2$-$1.2$ eV) the effect grows with hopping, while at very weak hopping ($t=0.05$ eV) it vanishes, confirming hybridization as the driver.
  • Imaginary-time correlators suggest that larger hopping opens a gap in orbital and spin-orbital fluctuations, while smaller hopping keeps them gapless or weakly gapped; analytic continuation would settle the distinction.
  • Hybridization-driven orbital dynamics may contribute to low-energy spectral features and polarization-dependent RIXS channels, even though direct detection is challenging.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same bubble-correlator machinery could serve as a diagnostic for orbital instabilities in related multiorbital settings, such as systems with trigonal or orthorhombic crystal fields or t2g-eg mixing, where the authors themselves anticipate novel collective instabilities.
  • Editorial inference: because the predicted energy scale is only a few to tens of meV, very-low-temperature thermodynamic or transport measurements may reveal signs of short-range orbital fluctuations even where RIXS cannot resolve them directly.
  • Editorial inference: the claim implies a sharp crossover in hopping amplitude, with nearest-neighbor orthogonal correlations vanishing below roughly $t=0.05$ eV, a prediction that could be mapped in optical-lattice emulations of t2g bands with synthetic spin-orbit coupling.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies t2g models with spin-orbit coupling, Kanamori Coulomb interactions, Jahn-Teller electron-phonon coupling, and an orbital-exchange term, within a Matsubara Green's function framework. The authors solve the lattice Dyson equation self-consistently with Hartree-Fock plus second-order Born self-energies and a Migdal electron-phonon self-energy, then compute orbital, spin-orbital, and spin-spin correlation functions. The central claim is that for fillings N=1..5, a local orbital perturbation induces short-range orbital polarization with an orthogonal nearest-neighbor response, driven by intersite hybridization rather than by Jahn-Teller coupling, and that this effect persists in the limit g→0. The paper also discusses imaginary-time dynamics and estimates the energy scale relevant to RIXS.

Significance. If correct, the result identifies a latent orbital instability in strongly spin-orbit-coupled t2g systems: a local probe could reveal short-range orbital correlations even when static Jahn-Teller order is quenched. This would be an interesting conceptual addition to the orbital-fluctuation literature and a useful caveat for interpreting RIXS spectra. The paper is transparent about its approximations: the vertex correction is explicitly set to zero, the self-energy channels are enumerated, and all material parameters are taken from the literature rather than fitted. The detailed appendices (DIIS, IR basis, self-energy derivations) support reproducibility. The main limitations are that the central correlation function is not benchmarked against any numerically exact method and that the role of the orbital-exchange term Hoex is not controlled; these limit the strength of the causal claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II and Appendix D.6] The lattice Hamiltonian in Section II contains Hoex, described as 'orbital exchange arising from Jahn-Teller interactions mediated by the lattice,' and the self-consistent Dyson equation (Eq. (A1)) includes the corresponding self-energy Σ^oex. Appendix D.6 defines the coupling J' but no numerical value is given anywhere, and no figure or parameter list sets J' = 0. Since Hoex is itself a nonlocal orbital interaction derived from JT physics, it can generate short-range orbital correlations by itself. The central claim that the effect is 'hybridization-driven' and survives 'in the limit g → 0' is therefore not established; the authors need to report the value of J' used and show calculations with both g = 0 and J' = 0 (or with Hoex removed). The 'data not shown' sentence for g = 0.01 eV cannot exclude this confound because Hoex is still included in those runs.
  2. [Appendix E, Eqs. (E2)-(E3), and Eq. (3)] The quantitative evidence for the short-range orbital correlations is the mean-field factorization of the two-particle Green's function with the vertex correction Υ set to zero (Eq. (E3)), which yields the bubble expression in Eq. (3)/Eq. (E13). In the strongly correlated regime considered (U = 2.5 eV, J = 0.4 eV, t up to 1.2 eV), vertex corrections are potentially large, and the paper provides no benchmark against a numerically exact method (e.g., exact diagonalization on a small cluster, DCA, or CDMFT). A concrete test would be to compute the same nearest-neighbor correlator on a small cluster with the same parameters and J' = 0; without such a test, the persistence and sign of the correlations are not fully established.
  3. [Section III, Fig. 3, and Appendix E, Eqs. (E15)-(E17)] The interpretation of the negative nearest-neighbor correlations as a cooperative 'orthogonal' response should be separated from a mathematical property of the operator definitions. For m ≠ n, the rotation matrices in Eq. (E15) give cos(2(m−n)π/3) = −1/2, so the sign of the m ≠ n correlators in Eq. (E17) is fixed by construction before the self-consistent calculation is performed. The physical content is the magnitude, momentum dependence, and decay length of the correlation; the paper should verify that the orthogonal sign is not simply inherited from the choice of rotated basis, and should state this distinction explicitly in the discussion of Fig. 3c.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II] In the displayed HJT term, the phonon factor (b_iη + b_iη†) appears twice, which appears to be a typo; only one factor should be present in the t⊗E coupling.
  2. [Figure 6 caption] The caption states that panel (a) varies ξ = 0.3 and 0.5 eV but then lists ξ = 0.1 eV among the parameters used; this inconsistency should be resolved.
  3. [Section IV and Fig. 5] The conclusion that t = 0.2 eV corresponds to 'gapless or weakly gapped dynamics' is inferred only from the shape of C(τ) without analytic continuation; the claim should be softened or supplemented with a quantitative gap estimate, as the authors themselves acknowledge.
  4. [Appendix D.4] Equation (D25) labels the off-diagonal Hartree-Fock component as sHF_d; given the context, this is presumably a typo for sHF_od.
  5. [Appendix E] The notation η, ζ, m, n and θ/ϕ would benefit from a summarizing table that connects the mode labels, the spatial directions, and the Gell-Mann matrices, since the current text is difficult to follow.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central correlator is a genuine mean-field bubble whose hopping dependence is computed, not fitted; remaining concerns are approximations or confounds, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

The paper's main claim is that intersite hopping restores short-range orbital correlations in a spin-orbit-entangled ground state. The central object, Eq. (3), is the mean-field factorization of the two-particle Green's function into a product of two dressed single-particle Green's functions, with the vertex correction explicitly set to zero in Appendix E, Eq. (E3). This is an approximation, not a circular step: the q-dependence and the real-space nearest-neighbor structure are computed from the self-consistent k-dependent Green's functions, and the t-dependence is exhibited numerically in Figs. 3 and 4. No parameter is fitted to the claimed output; the electron-electron, spin-orbit, and Jahn-Teller parameters are literature values. The authors' own prior work, Refs. [16] and [17], appears only in the introductory context and in no load-bearing derivation. The 'orthogonal response' sign is indeed tied to the operator algebra of the λ-matrices in Eq. (E17), where cross-orientation correlators carry cos(2(m-n)π/3); however, this is a mathematical identity of the chosen Eg orbital-moment basis, not a fitted input or a hidden reuse of the target result, and the nonzero nearest-neighbor magnitude still depends on the computed Green's functions. Separate non-circular weaknesses exist: the model retains the orbital-exchange self-energy Σ^oex with a coupling J' that is never specified, so the claim that the effect is purely 'hybridization-driven' and survives g→0 is not fully isolated from a JT-derived exchange channel; the g=0.01 eV correlation result is only reported as 'data not shown'; and the Υ=0 mean-field factorization is not benchmarked against numerically exact methods. These are correctness and evidence gaps, not circularity, and they do not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a mean-field bubble calculation of orbital correlations. The parameters (U, J, xi, g, t) are chosen as representative values from the literature rather than fitted to experiment. The key approximation is the neglect of vertex corrections (Upsilon=0), which is load-bearing because the orbital susceptibility is a two-particle quantity.

free parameters (7)
  • U (intra-orbital Coulomb) = 2.5 eV
    Representative value for 4d/5d t2g systems from Refs. [29,30]; chosen, not fitted to data.
  • J (Hund coupling) = 0.4 eV (4d), 0.2 eV (5d)
    Representative Hund's exchange values from literature; chosen by hand.
  • xi (spin-orbit coupling) = 0.1 to 0.5 eV
    Range spanning 4d and 5d compounds; chosen by hand.
  • g (Jahn-Teller coupling) = 0.1 eV (4d), 0.01 eV (5d)
    Chosen to represent stronger and weaker electron-lattice coupling.
  • t (hopping amplitude) = 0.2 eV and 1.2 eV; 0.05 eV for weak-hopping limit
    Chosen within typical range for 4d/5d compounds; the key control parameter for the central claim.
  • B (lattice stiffness in single-site model) = 0.1 eV
    Chosen equal to g for the single-site energy surfaces.
  • Temperature T = 10 K
    Fixed low temperature for all lattice calculations.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Two-particle correlations are approximated by products of single-particle Green's functions (Upsilon = 0)
    Appendix E, Eq. E3. This neglects vertex corrections, which can be significant in strongly correlated systems and directly affect the orbital susceptibility that underlies the central claim.
  • domain assumption The lattice is cubic with isotropic, orbital-independent nearest-neighbor hopping t
    Section II Hlatt. Real t2g systems have strongly orbital- and bond-dependent hopping, which may alter the effect.
  • domain assumption Coulomb interactions are local (Kanamori) and treated in Hartree-Fock plus second Born approximation
    Appendix D. This neglects nonlocal correlations and higher-order diagrams.
  • standard math Migdal approximation for electron-phonon coupling
    Appendix D. Standard for weak-to-intermediate electron-phonon coupling.
  • domain assumption The ground state is computed without explicit symmetry breaking, averaging over JT orientations, so that the mean orbital moment vanishes by construction
    Section III. This is a modeling choice that excludes static orbital order, framing the result as a response property.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emergent Orbital Dynamics in Strongly Spin-Orbit Coupled Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K4QFQC6Z

@misc{pith2026250516746,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emergent Orbital Dynamics in Strongly Spin-Orbit Coupled Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K4QFQC6Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16746}
}
read the original abstract

The interplay between spin and orbital degrees of freedom gives rise to a variety of emergent phases in correlated 4d and 5d transition-metal systems. Strong spin-orbit coupling (SOC) significantly alters Jahn-Teller (JT) physics, often suppressing static distortions or promoting dynamic fluctuations, thereby reducing or even quenching orbital polarization. While intersite hybridization is a fundamental aspect of crystalline solids, its role in shaping the dynamics of spin-orbit-entangled states has received comparatively little attention. Here, we show that electronic hopping can locally restore orbital polarization when the ground state is perturbed, even in the absence of static orbital order. Using a Matsubara lattice formalism, we analyze how local orbital perturbations propagate through correlated, spin-orbit-entangled systems. When intersite hopping is included, such perturbations induce short-range orbital polarization with a characteristic orthogonal response at nearest-neighbor sites. Although the energy scale of these hybridization-driven orbital reconstructions likely makes their detection challenging, they may still influence low-energy spectral features and interact with other excitations. These results underscore the importance of including orbital dynamics in the interpretation of spectroscopic data and provide a framework for understanding dynamical responses in spin-orbit-entangled materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16746 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of how finite hopping amplitude may reinstate local orbital polarization in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Single-site model: competition between spin-orbit coupling and Jahn-Teller distortions. Energy contours for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Spin-orbital correlations in the lattice model as a function of electron filling. (a) Momentum-space orbital-orbital [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Momentum-resolved spin–spin correlations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Imaginary-time orbital–orbital and spin–orbital correlators for fillings [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Energetic stabilization of orbital–lattice interactions. (a) Momentum-averaged JT energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Workflow of the Dyson solver used in this study. The calculation begins by setting model parameters (temperature, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Convergence of the Matsubara Green functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Multipolar ferroelectricity in the Mott regime

    cond-mat.str-el 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Quadrupolar order alone can induce electric polarization in Mott insulators, unifying it with the inverse Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya mechanism.

  2. Geometric curvature driven by many-body collective fluctuations

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Many-body collective fluctuations generate a dynamical Berry curvature that is invisible to optics but isolable in antisymmetric RIXS channels of P-T-symmetric systems.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    (D2) This algebraic structure of ˆV allows us to derive compact expressions for key operations, such as finding the inverse 13 and the exponential of ˆM

    Increasing computational efficiency through matrix decomposition into diagonal and off-diagonal components To solve the self-consistent equations, we analyze ma- trices of the form ˆM = aˆI + b ˆV, (D1) where a and b are scalars, ˆI is the identity matrix, and ˆV is a matrix with the property ˆV 2 = 2ˆI + ˆV. (D2) This algebraic structure of ˆV allows us ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    We start the discussion of this point by neglecting electron-electron and electron-phonon interaction and fo- cusing on the kinetic terms and spin-orbit coupling

    Kinetic terms and spin-orbit coupling As aforementioned, separating the electronic propaga- tors and self-energies into diagonal and off-diagonal com- ponents is advantageous to improve computational effi- ciency. We start the discussion of this point by neglecting electron-electron and electron-phonon interaction and fo- cusing on the kinetic terms and s...

    work page

  3. [3]

    For all other η indices, the coupling constants are set to zero, i.e., gη = 0

    Propagators and self-energies for Jahn-T eller phonons and vibronic interactions It is convenient to rewrite the Jahn-Teller coupling us- ing Gell-Mann matrices, ˆλη, as follows: HJT = X i,η,α,β,σ,σ ′ gηλη αβc† iασciβσ ′ biη + b† iη (D15) where ˆλ3 and ˆλ8 are Gell-Mann matrices related with Eg Jahn-Teller distortion modes ˆλ3 =   1 0 0 0 −1 0 0 0 0  ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    These calculations assume the locality of Coulomb interactions, neglecting Coulombic correlations between electrons at different sites

    Propagators and self-energies for electron-electron interactions: Hartree-F ock contributions We approximate electron-electron interactions using first-order diagrams, representing the mean-field poten- 15 tial within the Hartree-Fock approximation, and second- order diagrams treated within the second Born ap- proximation. These calculations assume the lo...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Propagators and self-energies for electron-electron interactions: second order Born approximation In the second Born approximation there are two kind of topologically non-equivalent diagrams Σ(2a) µσ,νσ ′(τ ) = − X Gλσ,κσ′(τ )⟨µχ||λα⟩Gασ1,βσ2 (τ )Gξσ2,χσ1 (β − τ )⟨βκ||ξν ⟩, (D26a) Σ(2b) µσ,νσ ′(τ ) = X Gασ1,κσ′(τ )⟨µχ||λα⟩Gλσ,βσ2 (τ )Gξσ2,χσ1 (β − τ )⟨βκ|...

    work page

  6. [6]

    (D28) This interaction must respect the symmetry opera- tions of the Oh group

    Propagators and self-energies for electron-electron interactions: orbital exchange The orbital exchange term is Hoex = X J ηη ′ ij c† iασλη αβciβσ c† jµσ ′λη′ µνcjνσ ′. (D28) This interaction must respect the symmetry opera- tions of the Oh group. First, note that time-reversal symmetry enforces J ηη ′ ij = J η′η ij . From this, we can deduce that the cou...

    work page

  7. [7]

    J. G. Rau, E. K.-H. Lee, and H.-Y. Kee, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 7, 195 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Takayama, J

    T. Takayama, J. Chaloupka, A. Smerald, G. Khaliullin, and H. Takagi, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 90, 062001 (2021)

    2021

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Trebst and C

    S. Trebst and C. Hickey, Physics Reports 950, 1 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Brzezicki, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 32, 023001 (2019)

    W. Brzezicki, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 32, 023001 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    D. I. Khomskii and S. V. Streltsov, Chemical Reviews 121, 2992 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Rousochatzakis, N

    I. Rousochatzakis, N. B. Perkins, Q. Luo, and H.-Y. Kee, Reports on Progress in Physics 87, 026502 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Gotfryd, E

    D. Gotfryd, E. M. P¨ arschke, J. Chaloupka, A. M. Ole´ s, and K. Wohlfeld, Physical Review Research 2, 013353 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Iwahara, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 93, 121003 (2024)

    N. Iwahara, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 93, 121003 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Witczak-Krempa, G

    W. Witczak-Krempa, G. Chen, Y. B. Kim, and L. Ba- lents, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 5, 57 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    Takagi, T

    H. Takagi, T. Takayama, G. Jackeli, G. Khaliullin, and S. E. Nagler, Nature Reviews Physics 1, 264 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Schaffer, E

    R. Schaffer, E. K.-H. Lee, B.-J. Yang, and Y. B. Kim, Reports on Progress in Physics 79, 094504 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    Khaliullin, D

    G. Khaliullin, D. Churchill, P. P. Stavropoulos, and H.-Y. Kee, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 033163 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Georges, L

    A. Georges, L. d. Medici, and J. Mravlje, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 4, 137 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    Celiberti, D

    L. Celiberti, D. Fiore Mosca, G. Allodi, L. V. Pourovskii, A. Tassetti, P. C. Forino, R. Cong, E. Garcia, P. M. Tran, R. De Renzi, et al. , Nature Communications 15, 2429 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    ˇZivkovi´ c, J.-R

    I. ˇZivkovi´ c, J.-R. Soh, O. Malanyuk, R. Yadav, F. Pisani, A. M. Tehrani, D. Tolj, J. Pasztorova, D. Hirai, Y. Wei, et al. , Nature Communications 15, 8587 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    A. S. Mi˜ narro and G. Herranz, Physical Review B 106, 165108 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    A. S. Mi˜ narro, M. Villa, B. Casals, S. Plana-Ruiz, F. S´ anchez, J. G´ azquez, and G. Herranz, Nature com- munications 15, 8694 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    G. D. Mahan, Many-Particle Physics , 3rd ed., Physics of Solids and Liquids (Springer, New York, 2000)

    2000

  17. [25]

    H. Aoki, N. Tsuji, M. Eckstein, M. Kollar, T. Oka, and P. Werner, Reviews of Modern Physics 86, 779 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    A. A. Abrikosov, L. P. Gorkov, and I. E. Dzyaloshinski, Methods of Quantum Field Theory in Statistical Physics (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1963)

    1963

  19. [27]

    A. L. Fetter and J. D. Walecka, Theory of Many-Particle Systems (Dover Publications, New York, 1971)

    1971

  20. [28]

    Eckstein and P

    M. Eckstein and P. Werner, Physical Review B 103, 115136 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Hariki, M

    A. Hariki, M. Winder, T. Uozumi, and J. Kuneˇ s, Physical Review B 101, 115130 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Murakami, D

    Y. Murakami, D. Goleˇ z, M. Eckstein, and P. Werner, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05201 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    K. I. Kugel and D. Khomski ˘ ı, Soviet Physics Uspekhi25, 231 (1982)

    1982

  24. [32]

    S. V. Streltsov and D. I. Khomskii, Phys. Rev. X 10, 031043 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Bersuker, The Jahn-Teller effect and vibronic interac- tions in modern chemistry (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    I. Bersuker, The Jahn-Teller effect and vibronic interac- tions in modern chemistry (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    Bersuker and V

    I. Bersuker and V. Polinger, Advances in Quantum Chemistry 15, 85 (1982)

    1982

  27. [35]

    Q. Li, G. Cao, S. Okamoto, J. Yi, W. Lin, B. C. Sales, J. Yan, R. Arita, J. Kuneˇ s, A. V. Kozhevnikov, et al. , Scientific reports 3, 3073 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    Ma and M

    C.-G. Ma and M. Brik, Journal of luminescence 145, 402 (2014)

    2014

  29. [37]

    I. B. Bersuker and V. Z. Polinger, Vibronic interactions in molecules and crystals , Vol. 49 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Khomskii, Transition metal compounds (Cambridge 21 University Press, 2014)

    D. Khomskii, Transition metal compounds (Cambridge 21 University Press, 2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    Iwahara and W

    N. Iwahara and W. Furukawa, Physical Review B 108, 075136 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Iwahara, J.-R

    N. Iwahara, J.-R. Soh, D. Hirai, I. ˇZivkovi´ c, Y. Wei, W. Zhang, C. Galdino, T. Yu, K. Ishii, F. Pisani, et al. , arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08095 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    F. I. Frontini, G. H. Johnstone, N. Iwahara, P. Bhat- tacharyya, N. A. Bogdanov, L. Hozoi, M. H. Upton, D. M. Casa, D. Hirai, and Y.-J. Kim, Physical Review Letters 133, 036501 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Agrestini, F

    S. Agrestini, F. Borgatti, P. Florio, J. Frassineti, D. Fiore Mosca, Q. Faure, B. Detlefs, C. J. Sahle, S. Fran- coual, J. Choi, et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 066501 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Khaliullin, D

    G. Khaliullin, D. Churchill, P. P. Stavropoulos, and H.-Y. Kee, Physical Review Research 3, 033163 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Warzanowski, M

    P. Warzanowski, M. Magnaterra, G. Schlicht, Q. Faure, C. J. Sahle, P. Becker, L. Bohat` y, M. M. Sala, G. Monaco, M. Hermanns, et al., Physical Review B 109, 155149 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Voleti, D

    S. Voleti, D. D. Maharaj, B. D. Gaulin, G. Luke, and A. Paramekanti, Physical Review B 101, 155118 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    S. Lee, B. H. Kim, M.-J. Seong, and K.-Y. Choi, Physical Review B 105, 184433 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Y. Kaga, P. Werner, and S. Hoshino, Physical Review B 105, 214516 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    S. V. Streltsov, G. Cao, and D. I. Khomskii, Physical Review B 96, 014434 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Hafez-Torbati and G

    M. Hafez-Torbati and G. S. Uhrig, Scientific Reports 14, 17168 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    A. M. Ole´ s, physica status solidi (b)236, 281 (2003)

    2003

  43. [51]

    L. F. Feiner and A. M. Ole´ s, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 71, 144422 (2005)

    2005

  44. [52]

    McArdle, T

    S. McArdle, T. Jones, S. Endo, Y. Li, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, npj Quantum Information 5, 75 (2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    Chang, S

    W.-X. Chang, S. Yin, S.-X. Zhang, and Z.-X. Li, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.06547 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Shankar, Principles of Quantum Mechanics , 2nd ed

    R. Shankar, Principles of Quantum Mechanics , 2nd ed. (Springer, 2017) Chap. 15

    2017

  47. [55]

    Goulko, A

    O. Goulko, A. S. Mishchenko, L. Pollet, N. Prokof’ev, and B. Svistunov, Physical Review B 95, 014102 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    V. M. Galitskii and A. B. Migdal, Sov. Phys. JETP 7, 18 (1958)

    1958

  49. [57]

    Onida, L

    G. Onida, L. Reining, and A. Rubio, Reviews of modern physics 74, 601 (2002)

    2002

  50. [58]

    Sch¨ uler, D

    M. Sch¨ uler, D. Goleˇ z, Y. Murakami, N. Bittner, A. Her- rmann, H. U. Strand, P. Werner, and M. Eckstein, Com- puter Physics Communications 257, 107484 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    Varignon, M

    J. Varignon, M. Bibes, and A. Zunger, Nature communi- cations 10, 1658 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    S. V. Streltsov, F. V. Temnikov, K. I. Kugel, and D. I. Khomskii, Phys. Rev. B 105, 205142 (2022)

    2022

  53. [61]

    G. L. Stamokostas and G. A. Fiete, Physical Review B 97, 085150 (2018)

    2018

  54. [62]

    Ament, M

    L. Ament, M. van Veenendaal, T. Devereaux, J. Hill, and J. van den Brink, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 705 (2011)

    2011

  55. [63]

    Nag et al

    A. Nag et al. , Nature Communications 11, 1 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    M. Kim, H. Park, and M. J. Han, Phys. Rev. B 105, 195105 (2022)

    2022

  57. [65]

    Wang and T

    K. Wang and T. P. Devereaux, Phys. Rev. Research 5, 013186 (2023)

    2023

  58. [66]

    Khaliullin, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supple- ment 160, 155 (2005)

    G. Khaliullin, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supple- ment 160, 155 (2005)

    2005

  59. [67]

    Moretti Sala et al., New Journal of Physics13, 043026 (2011)

    M. Moretti Sala et al., New Journal of Physics13, 043026 (2011)

    2011

  60. [68]

    Pokhilko, C.-N

    P. Pokhilko, C.-N. Yeh, and D. Zgid, The Journal of Chemical Physics 156 (2022)

    2022

  61. [69]

    K. N. Kudin, G. E. Scuseria, and E. Cances, The Journal of chemical physics 116, 8255 (2002)

    2002

  62. [70]

    Shinaoka, J

    H. Shinaoka, J. Otsuki, M. Ohzeki, and K. Yoshimi, Physical Review B 96, 035147 (2017)

    2017

  63. [71]

    J. Li, M. Wallerberger, N. Chikano, C.-N. Yeh, E. Gull, and H. Shinaoka, Physical Review B 101, 035144 (2020)

    2020

  64. [72]

    Wallerberger, S

    M. Wallerberger, S. Badr, S. Hoshino, S. Huber, F. Kak- izawa, T. Koretsune, Y. Nagai, K. Nogaki, T. Nomoto, H. Mori, et al. , SoftwareX 21, 101266 (2023)

    2023

  65. [73]

    Migdal, Sov

    A. Migdal, Sov. Phys. JETP 7, 996 (1958)

    1958

  66. [74]

    Giustino, Reviews of Modern Physics 89, 015003 (2017)

    F. Giustino, Reviews of Modern Physics 89, 015003 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.