Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Pseudogap in electron-doped cuprates: thermal precursor to magnetism

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the pseudogap in electron-doped cuprates is a thermal precursor to antiferromagnetism: in the weak pseudogap regime, a one-loop self-energy from thermal magnetic fluctuations reproduces the ARPES EDC and MDC spectra…

desk verdict A clean EDC/MDC dichotomy from one-loop thermal fluctuations, but the weak-coupling regime is handpicked and the SC cancellation is argued rather than shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.11727 v2 pith:4PA6GKRS submitted 2025-05-16 cond-mat.str-el

Emmanouil K. Kokkinis , Andrey V. Chubukov This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords pseudogapelectron-dopedcupratesthermalmagneticfluctuationsARPESspectralfunctiongossamerFermisurfacehotspotd-wavesuperconductivityspin-fermionmodel
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 the pseudogap in electron-doped cuprates is not a signature of a hidden ordered state or a reconstructed Fermi surface, but a thermal precursor to antiferromagnetism: the same thermal magnetic fluctuations that destroy long-range $(\pi,\pi)$ order at $T_N$ transfer spectral weight away from zero frequency when the system is just above $T_N$. Using a perturbative one-loop self-energy built from the static antiferromagnetic propagator and a bare fermion propagator, the authors show that energy distribution curves (EDC, intensity at fixed momentum versus frequency) acquire peaks at finite frequency at all momenta, while momentum distribution curves (MDC, intensity at fixed frequency versus momentum) still peak at the free-fermion Fermi surface at zero frequency, forming what the experiment called a gossamer Fermi surface. Applied to the electron-doped cuprate NCCO at $x=0.15$, the calculation reproduces the EDC and MDC peak positions, the minimum of low-energy spectral weight at the hot spot, and the doping evolution of a low-energy EDC peak. The paper further shows that thermal fluctuations almost cancel out of the superconducting gap equation, so the $d$-wave gap keeps its maximum at the hot spot, resolving the apparent paradox in the experimental data. If correct, the pseudogap in these materials is explained without invoking Fermi-surface reconstruction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the one-loop thermal self-energy $\Sigma_{\mathrm{th}}(\mathbf{k},\omega)$, the convolution of the static antiferromagnetic susceptibility $\chi(\mathbf{q}+\mathbf{Q})\propto 1/(q^2+\xi^{-2})$ with a bare fermion propagator, evaluated with the bare Green's function rather than a self-consistent one; the authors stress that this perturbative choice is required because for thermal fluctuations self-energy and vertex corrections must be dropped on equal footing. From this self-energy they derive a closed-form spectral function whose EDC curvature changes sign at $\lambda_{\mathrm{th},c}=1/(1+\pi/(2\sqrt{2}))\approx 0.47$, while the corresponding MDC curvature does not. For superconductivity, the key identity is the rewrite of the pairing vertex as $\Phi(\mathbf{k},\omega_m)=\Delta(\mathbf{k},\omega_m)(\omega_m+\Sigma_{\mathrm{th}}(\mathbf{k},\omega_m))/\omega_m$, which isolates the thermal $\Omega_m=0$ piece of the gap equation; because the ratio $\Delta(\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q}\xi^{-1})/\Delta(\mathbf{k})$ is nearly unity over the relevant momentum range, the thermal correction $J\sim 1/(k_h\xi)^2$ is small. This machinery converts thermal magnetic fluctuations into both the pseudogap phenomenology and the preservation of the hot-spot maximum of the $d$-wave gap.

What would settle it

Measure the hot-spot EDC with resolution sufficient to resolve $\omega=0$: in the weak regime the theory requires a local minimum at $\omega=0$ (two peaks at finite $\pm\omega$), whereas a reconstructed state or a self-consistent one-loop calculation gives a single peak at $\omega=0$; likewise, an MDC peak at $\omega=0$ displaced from the free-fermion $\mathbf{k}_F$ on the same cuts would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in the weak pseudogap regime, where the pseudogap scale $\Delta_{\mathrm{PG}}$ is smaller than $v_F\xi^{-1}(T)$, the fermionic spectral function obtained from the one-loop thermal self-energy already contains all the qualitative features seen in ARPES on electron-doped cuprates. At a hot spot (the Fermi momentum $\mathbf{k}_h$ for which $\mathbf{k}_h+\mathbf{Q}$ is also on the Fermi surface), the EDC $A_{\mathbf{k}_h}(\omega)$ has two peaks at finite $\omega=\pm\Delta_{\mathrm{PG}}$ once the thermal coupling $\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}$ exceeds $\lambda_{\mathrm{th},c}\approx 0.47$; at every momentum along the measured cuts, EDC peaks sit at finite frequency, whereas the MDC at $\omega=0$ peaks at the free-fermion Fermi momentum $\mathbf{k}_F$, reproducing the gossamer Fermi surface (a Fermi surface with reduced but finite spectral weight). The same self-energy, inserted into the linearized gap equation, yields a thermal correction factor $J\sim 1/(k_h\xi)^2$ that is small, so thermal fluctuations do not reshape the momentum dependence of the pairing gap, which retains its maximum at the hot spot. The paper asserts that this matches the experimental EDC and MDC spectra, the minimum of integrated spectral weight at the hot spot, and the doping evolution of the low-energy peak, all without Fermi-surface reconstruction.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation rests on the assumption that NCCO at $x=0.15$ is in the weak pseudogap regime, with pseudogap energy smaller than $v_F\xi^{-1}(T)$, so the one-loop self-energy with bare fermions is valid and vertex corrections can be neglected; this regime assignment is inferred from the very data the paper seeks to explain.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the scenario is correct, the pseudogap in NCCO at $x=0.15$ and nearby dopings is not evidence for a hidden order or a reconstructed Fermi surface; the spectral-weight depletion is a finite-temperature effect of incipient antiferromagnetism.
  • The same one-loop calculation predicts that the EDC pseudogap peak position evolves non-monotonically along a momentum cut, and that in some cuts a secondary low-energy peak appears from the product of the spectral function with the Fermi function, both matching the ARPES data.
  • Thermal fluctuations act like non-magnetic impurities in the pairing vertex: they suppress normal-state spectral weight but almost cancel in the gap equation, so the $d$-wave gap magnitude along the Fermi surface is governed by quantum fluctuations and is largest at the hot spot.
  • The theory gives a concrete doping dependence: as doping increases and the correlation length $\xi$ shrinks, the system crosses from the weak pseudogap regime to a conventional metal, with the low-energy EDC peak moving toward zero frequency.
  • Because no Fermi-surface reconstruction is involved, the magnetic Brillouin zone boundary is not a locus of gap opening; the apparent folded dispersion near the zone boundary in cut 6 is reproduced as a remnant of the two-band structure of the ordered state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the thermal-precursor picture is right, the same perturbative machinery should apply to other electron-doped cuprates near their antiferromagnetic endpoint; a direct test would be to measure EDC and MDC in another compound and check that the extracted $\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}$ falls between the threshold and unity whenever pseudogap behavior appears.
  • Beyond the paper: the near-cancellation of thermal fluctuations in the gap equation implies that the pseudogap itself does not suppress superconductivity through thermal pair breaking; if so, the doping at which the pseudogap opens and the doping at which superconductivity appears need not be controlled by the same fluctuations, a distinction that could be probed by tuning the magnetic correlation
  • Beyond the paper: the sharpest experimental consequence is that in the weak regime the MDC peak at $\omega=0$ should sit exactly at the free-fermion Fermi momentum on every cut; high-resolution ARPES that resolved both the EDC pseudogap and an MDC peak displaced onto a reconstructed pocket edge would rule the scenario out.
  • Beyond the paper: a natural extension is to replace the static thermal susceptibility by the full dynamical susceptibility and check whether finite-frequency corrections shift the EDC peak positions or the near-cancellation factor $J$; the present calculation keeps the susceptibility static.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper argues that the pseudogap in electron-doped cuprates at x=0.15 is a thermal precursor to antiferromagnetism, with no Fermi-surface reconstruction. Building on earlier work by Ye et al., the authors consider the weak-pseudogap regime and compute the one-loop thermal self-energy from static antiferromagnetic fluctuations using the bare fermion Green's function, explicitly going beyond the Eliashberg approximation. From the resulting spectral function they derive a threshold thermal coupling lambda_th,c ≈ 0.47 for pseudogap formation in EDCs, and they show that MDCs at zero frequency peak at the free-fermion Fermi surface, producing a 'gossamer' Fermi surface. They compare EDC and MDC spectra along six momentum cuts with the ARPES data of Xu et al., including integrated spectral weight and the doping evolution of a low-energy peak. Finally, they analyze the linearized gap equation and argue that thermal fluctuations nearly cancel in the pairing vertex, so that the d-wave gap retains its maximum at the hot spot despite the maximal normal-state spectral-weight depletion there.

Significance. The central qualitative claim—that the EDC/MDC dichotomy observed by Xu et al. can arise from thermal magnetic fluctuations without Fermi-surface reconstruction—is attractive and nontrivial. The analytic derivation of the spectral function (Eqs. (1)-(3)) is clean, and the explicit threshold lambda_th,c is a genuine model prediction rather than a fit. The contrast with the self-consistent one-loop approximation in Appendix A, where no pseudogap appears, clearly demonstrates the importance of using the bare Green's function. The theory also makes falsifiable predictions, such as the doping dependence of the low-energy EDC peak in Appendix B and the absence of a second peak in cuts 1-3 in Appendix C. If the near-cancellation of thermal fluctuations in the gap equation holds quantitatively, the paper offers a natural resolution of the 'hot-spot paradox'. The significance is limited by the fact that the quantitative comparison with ARPES depends on parameters (lambda_th, xi) that are not independently derived, and by the lack of a controlled small parameter at lambda_th=0.85.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, Eqs. (1)-(3)] The one-loop perturbative self-energy with the bare Green's function is used at lambda_th=0.85, but the expansion parameter is lambda_th itself, and two-loop self-energy and vertex corrections are of order lambda_th^2 ≈ 0.72, comparable to the retained one-loop term. The threshold lambda_th,c ≈ 0.47 already involves the O(lambda^2) term in the denominator of Eq. (3), so the truncation is not systematically controlled. Please provide a quantitative estimate of the omitted two-loop and vertex contributions at lambda_th=0.85, or demonstrate that the qualitative results are unchanged for a smaller lambda_th, e.g., 0.6, where the expansion is better controlled.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (7)-(8)] The near-cancellation of thermal fluctuations in the gap equation is established only by a scaling estimate for k = k_h (J ~ 1/(k_h xi)^2) and by a continuity argument for other momenta. No numerical evaluation of J_k or J*_k is provided, and the estimate relies on assumptions (i) and (ii) that are not derived in this paper. Because the claim that the d-wave gap maximum remains at the hot spot is a central result, please evaluate J_k along the entire Fermi surface, or at least for representative momenta away from k_h, to confirm the smallness.
  3. [Sec. II and Figs. 3-5] The parameters lambda_th=0.85 and xi=10a are chosen 'for definiteness' rather than derived from independent measurements of T, xi(T), and the spin-fermion coupling constant. The comparison with ARPES is therefore partly circular, and its sensitivity is visible in Fig. 3(d), where increasing lambda_th to 0.95 restores EDC peaks in cut 4 that are absent at 0.85. Please provide a robustness study over the allowed lambda_th window and, if possible, derive lambda_th from the measured xi(T) and T, or explicitly state which conclusions are parameter-independent.
  4. [Sec. II] The assignment of NCCO at x=0.15 to the weak-pseudogap regime is inferred from the very data the theory aims to explain, and the scale separation is marginal: with xi=10a and the stated v_F, the criterion Delta_PG < v_F xi^{-1} is satisfied only by a factor of order one, not by a clear separation of scales. Please justify that the bare-Green's-function one-loop approximation is valid at this point in parameter space, for example by comparing with the numerical results of the cited earlier works for comparable parameters, or by quantifying the size of the neglected terms.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (3) and surrounding text] The expression for lambda_th,c is missing a closing parenthesis: it should read lambda_th,c = 1/(1 + pi/(2 sqrt(2))) ≈ 0.47.
  2. [Eq. (4)] The prefactor in Eq. (4) is garbled; '3¯g vFξ1T' appears to be an unreadable rendering of 3 gbar T/(v_F xi^{-1}) or similar. Please fix the typesetting.
  3. [Throughout] There are typographical slips such as 'e,g.,' instead of 'e.g.,' (pages 2 and 13) and 'linear odder in ω' instead of 'linear order in ω' (Appendix C).
  4. [Appendix B, Fig. 7 caption] The text refers to Fig. 7a as the theoretical EDC spectrum, but the caption lists (a) as simply 'EDC spectrum of cut 6'; please clarify the correspondence between the panels and the theory/experiment labels.
  5. [Abstract and Fig. 3(d)] The abstract states that EDC peaks occur 'at all momenta', while Fig. 3(d) shows that for lambda_th=0.85 the negative-energy EDC peak is absent for a range of momenta in cut 4. Please qualify the abstract or clarify that the positive-energy peak is meant.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; central EDC/MDC dichotomy is derived in-paper, though some parameter choices and a self-citation carry weight.

full rationale

The main derivation is self-contained: Eq. (1) defines the one-loop thermal self-energy, Eq. (2) is its exact spectral function, and Eq. (3) is an analytic expansion that yields the threshold lambda_th,c approximately 0.47. The EDC pseudogap at lambda > lambda_c and the MDC peak at k_F are properties of this expansion, not quantities fitted to Xu et al. The paper's use of x = 0.15 merely sets a parameter regime; 'for definiteness lambda_th = 0.85 > lambda_th,c' is a free choice inside the regime, and the accompanying xi = 10a is experimentally motivated, so absolute peak positions are parameterized, but the qualitative EDC/MDC dichotomy is not. The appeal to Ye et al. [33] for the weak/strong pseudogap classification is a self-citation (Chubukov is a co-author), yet the relevant formula is restated and the contrast with the self-consistent one-loop approximation is re-derived in Appendix A rather than merely imported. The superconductivity section borrows the hot-spot-maximum result from [53], which is prior published work, and the near-cancellation estimate is a separate argument, though the paper explicitly flags an unproven step: 'by continuity we fully expect that J_k remains small for all momenta.' The doping-evolution comparison in Appendix B is parameterized by chosen xi(x) values rather than predicted from first principles, but it is ancillary. No equation reduces to its input by construction, and the core EDC/MDC comparison has content beyond the fitted parameters. Score 2 reflects the self-citation and parameterization caveats without finding actual circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the spin-fermion model with static Ornstein-Zernike magnetic fluctuations, the weak pseudogap regime assumption, the neglect of quantum self-energy in the normal state, and scaling estimates for the pairing vertex. The main free parameters are the thermal coupling lambda_th and the correlation length xi(x), both chosen to match the ARPES data being explained.

free parameters (3)
  • lambda_th (thermal coupling) = 0.85
    Dimensionless spin-fluctuation coupling introduced in Eq. (1); set by hand 'for definiteness' above the pseudogap threshold to reproduce the experimentally observed EDC pseudogap scale and peak positions in NCCO.
  • xi(x) (magnetic correlation length) = 10a (x=0.15), 5a (x=0.17), 2a (x=0.19)
    Chosen in Appendix B to model the doping evolution of magnetic correlations; directly controls the size of the pseudogap in the doping comparison with Ref. [52].
  • t, t', mu (tight-binding parameters) = t=0.39 eV, t'=-0.09 eV, mu=-0.08 eV
    Taken from prior experimental work; not fitted here but they set the Fermi surface geometry that is compared with ARPES.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The effective spin-fermion model with static Ornstein-Zernike magnetic susceptibility chi(q+Q) proportional to 1/(q^2 + xi^{-2}) describes the thermal antiferromagnetic fluctuations.
    Invoked in Eq. (1) and Sec. II; standard for itinerant magnets but not derived from a microscopic Hubbard model.
  • domain assumption NCCO at x=0.15 lies in the weak pseudogap regime with Delta_PG < v_F xi^{-1}, so the perturbative one-loop self-energy with the bare Green's function is valid.
    Stated in Sec. II based on the data in Ref. [48]; the entire derivation of Eq. (2) and the EDC/MDC dichotomy depends on this regime assignment.
  • domain assumption For thermal fluctuations, self-energy and vertex correction insertions must be treated on equal footing; in the weak regime both are neglected, whereas in the strong regime both are needed.
    Used to justify using bare rather than full fermion propagator; the paper argues this is required because the self-consistent one-loop (Eliashberg) approximation fails to produce a pseudogap (Appendix A).
  • domain assumption The quantum self-energy Sigma_qm(omega) can be neglected in the normal-state spectral function (it only broadens EDC tails) and can be treated within Eliashberg theory in the gap equation.
    Neglected in Eq. (2); discussed in Sec. III and footnotes [60,61]. If Sigma_qm qualitatively changed the line shape, the EDC comparison would not follow.
  • ad hoc to paper Typical momenta in the gap equation are small enough that the ratio Delta(k+q xi^{-1},omega_m)/Delta(k,omega_m) is approximately 1, and the gap varies on scale k_h.
    Assumed in Sec. IV to estimate that J ~ 1/(k_h xi)^2 is small; this is a scaling estimate, not a computed result, and it underpins the near-cancellation claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pseudogap in electron-doped cuprates: thermal precursor to magnetism." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4PA6GKRS

@misc{pith2026250511727,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pseudogap in electron-doped cuprates: thermal precursor to magnetism},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4PA6GKRS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.11727}
}
read the original abstract

We study pseudogap behavior in a metal near an antiferromagnetic instability and apply the results to electron-doped cuprates. We associate pseudogap behavior with thermal magnetic fluctuations and compute the fermionic self-energy along the Fermi surface beyond Eliashberg approximation. We analyze the spectral function as a function of frequency (energy distribution curves, EDC) and momentum (momentum distribution curves, MDC). We show that the EDC display pseudogap behavior with peaks at a finite frequency at all momenta. On the other hand, MDC peaks disperse within the pseudogap, ending at a gossamer Fermi surface. We analyze magnetically-mediated superconductivity and show that thermal fluctuations almost cancel out in the gap equation, even when the self-energy is obtained beyond the Eliashberg approximation. We favorably compare our results with recent ARPES study [K-J Xu et al, Nat. Phys. 19, 1834-1840 (2023)].

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.11727 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Free fermion dispersion of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (a) The spectral function at the hot spot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (a)-(f) Frequency-Momentum Spectra for cuts 1-6. The black dots correspond to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (a)-(d) Experimental and theoretical MDC Spectra at zero frequency corresponding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (a)-(f) Experimental and theoretical EDC Spectra at Fermi momentum in cuts 1-6. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Numerical evaluation of the quantity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: (a) EDC spectrum of cut 6 at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: (a)-(c) Symmetrized EDC spectral intensities at Fermi momentum (corresponding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: (a) The spectral function for cut 5 at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Heatmap of the EDC spectra at Fermi momentum as a function of the Fermi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Yamaji effect in models of underdoped cuprates

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    FL* theory (p/8 pockets) reproduces the observed Yamaji ADMR in HgBa2CuO4+δ, while even the best-case SDW theory (Q=(π,π,0), p/4 pockets) predicts an extra, unobserved Yamaji peak at φ=45°.

  2. Pseudogap, Fermi liquid, Van Hove singularity and maxima of the compressibility and of the Knight shift as a function of doping in the two-dimensional Hubbard model

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    TPSC+ calculations show that the doping at which the antinodal spin-density-wave precursor crosses zero energy coincides with the maximum of the compressibility and of the Knight shift in the 2D Hubbard model.

  3. Lectures on insulating and conducting quantum spin liquids

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    The notes argue that the FL* state — small pockets plus a quantized spin-liquid anomaly — resolves the ADMR pocket and v_F >> v_Delta problems that defeated holon-metal and plain fermionic-parton theories of the cuprates.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Keimer, S

    B. Keimer, S. A. Kivelson, M. R. Norman, S. Uchida, and J. Zaanen, From quantum matter to high-temperature superconductivity in copper oxides, Nature 518, 179 (2015)

    2015

  2. [2]

    Proust and L

    C. Proust and L. Taillefer, The remarkable underlying ground states of cuprate superconduc- tors, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 10, 409 (2019); L. Taillefer, Scattering and pairing in cuprate superconductors, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 1, 51 (2010)

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    M. R. Norman, D. Pines, and C. Kallin, The pseudogap: friend or foe of high Tc ?, Advances in Physics 54, 715 (2005)

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    D. J. Scalapino, A common thread: The pairing interaction for unconventional superconduc- tors, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1383 (2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Damascelli, Z

    A. Damascelli, Z. Hussain, and Z.-X. Shen, Angle-resolved photoemission studies of the cuprate superconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 473 (2003)

    2003

  6. [6]

    I. M. Vishik, W. S. Lee, R.-H. He, M. Hashimoto, Z. Hussain, T. P. Devereaux, and Z.-X. Shen, ARPES studies of cuprate fermiology: superconductivity, pseudogap and quasiparticle dynamics, New Journal of Physics 12, 105008 (2010)

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    J. C. Campuzano, M. R. Norman, and M. Randeria, Photoemission in the high Tc super- conductors, in Physics of Superconductors , Vol. II, edited by K. H. Bennemann and J. B. Ketterson (Springer, Berlin, 2004) pp. 167–273. 14

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    A. A. Kordyuk and S. V. Borisenko, ARPES on high-temperature superconductors: Simplicity vs. complexity (review article), Low Temperature Physics 32, 298 (2006)

    work page 2006

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    N. P. Armitage, P. Fournier, and R. L. Greene, Progress and perspectives on electron-doped cuprates, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 2421 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    R. L. Greene, P. R. Mandal, N. R. Poniatowski, and T. Sarkar, The strange metal state of the electron-doped cuprates, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 11, 213 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    J. Meng, G. Liu, W. Zhang, L. Zhao, H. Liu, X. Jia, D. Mu, S. Liu, X. Dong, J. Zhang, W. Lu, G. Wang, Y. Zhou, Y. Zhu, X. Wang, Z. Xu, C. Chen, and X. J. Zhou, Coexistence of fermi arcs and fermi pockets in a high- Tc copper oxide superconductor, Nature 462, 335 (2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    Fradkin, S

    E. Fradkin, S. A. Kivelson, and J. M. Tranquada, Colloquium: Theory of intertwined orders in high temperature superconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 457 (2015); M. A. Metlitski and S. Sachdev, Quantum phase transitions of metals in two spatial dimensions. ii. spin density wave o...

    2015

  5. [13]

    C. M. Varma, Pseudogap in cuprates in the loop-current ordered state, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 26, 505701 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    P. A. Lee, Amperean pairing and the pseudogap phase of cuprate superconductors, Phys. Rev. X 4, 031017 (2014); D. F. Agterberg, J. S. Davis, S. D. Edkins, E. Fradkin, D. J. Van Harlin- gen, S. A. Kivelson, P. A. Lee, L. Radzihovsky, J. M. Tranquada, and Y. Wang, The physics of...

    2014

  7. [15]

    K.-Y. Yang, T. M. Rice, and F.-C. Zhang, Phenomenological theory of the pseudogap state, Phys. Rev. B 73, 174501 (2006)

    2006

  8. [16]

    P. W. Phillips, L. Yeo, and E. W. Huang, Exact theory for superconductivity in a doped mott insulator, Nature Physics 16, 1175 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Skolimowski and M

    J. Skolimowski and M. Fabrizio, Luttinger’s theorem in the presence of Luttinger surfaces, Phys. Rev. B 106, 045109 (2022); M. Fabrizio, Spin-liquid insulators can be Landau’s fermi 15 liquids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 156702 (2023)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Christos, Z.-X

    M. Christos, Z.-X. Luo, H. Shackleton, Y.-H. Zhang, M. S. Scheurer, and S. Sachdev, A model of d-wave superconductivity, antiferromagnetism, and charge order on the square lattice, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, e2302701120 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    E. A. Stepanov, M. Chatzieleftheriou, N. Wagner, and G. Sangiovanni, Interconnected renor- malization of hubbard bands and green’s function zeros in mott insulators induced by strong magnetic fluctuations, Phys. Rev. B 110, L161106 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Christos and S

    M. Christos and S. Sachdev, Emergence of nodal bogoliubov quasiparticles across the tran- sition from the pseudogap metal to the d-wave superconductor, npj Quantum Materials 9, 4 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    M. R. Norman, M. Randeria, H. Ding, and J. C. Campuzano, Phenomenology of the low- energy spectral function in high-Tc superconductors, Phys. Rev. B 57, R11093 (1998)

    1998

  14. [22]

    Franz and A

    M. Franz and A. J. Millis, Phase fluctuations and spectral properties of underdoped cuprates, Phys. Rev. B 58, 14572 (1998)

    1998

  15. [23]

    Berg and E

    E. Berg and E. Altman, Evolution of the fermi surface of d-wave superconductors in the presence of thermal phase fluctuations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 247001 (2007)

    2007

  16. [24]

    Dai and P

    Z. Dai and P. A. Lee, Superconductinglike response in a driven gapped bosonic system, Phys. Rev. B 104, 054512 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Wu, S.-S

    Y.-M. Wu, S.-S. Zhang, A. Abanov, and A. V. Chubukov, Interplay between superconductivity and non-fermi liquid behavior at a quantum-critical point in a metal. V. The γ model and its phase diagram: The case γ = 2, Phys. Rev. B 103, 184508 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Y. M. Vilk and A. M. S. Tremblay, Destruction of fermi-liquid quasiparticles in two dimensions by critical fluctuations, Europhysics Letters 33, 159 (1996); Y.M. Vilk and A.-M.S. Tremblay, Non-perturbative many-body approach to the hubbard model and single-particle pseudogap, ...

    1996

  19. [27]

    Schmalian, D

    J. Schmalian, D. Pines, and B. Stojkovi´ c, Microscopic theory of weak pseudogap behavior in the underdoped cuprate superconductors: General theory and quasiparticle properties, Phys. Rev. B 60, 667 (1999)

    1999

  20. [28]

    M. V. Sadovskii, Pseudogap in high-temperature superconductors, Phys. Usp. 44, 515 (2001). 16

    2001

  21. [29]

    C. P. Moca, I. Tifrea, and M. Crisan, An analytical approach for the pseudogap in the spin fluctuations model, Journal of Superconductivity 13, 411 (2000)

    2000

  22. [30]

    T. A. Sedrakyan and A. V. Chubukov, Pseudogap in underdoped cuprates and spin-density- wave fluctuations, Phys. Rev. B 81, 174536 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    Gunnarsson, T

    O. Gunnarsson, T. Sch¨ afer, J. P. F. LeBlanc, E. Gull, J. Merino, G. Sangiovanni, G. Rohringer, and A. Toschi, Fluctuation diagnostics of the electron self-energy: Origin of the pseudogap physics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 236402 (2015); J. P. F. LeBlanc, A. E. Antipov, F. Becca,...

    2015

  24. [32]

    Krien, P

    F. Krien, P. Worm, P. Chalupa-Gantner, A. Toschi, and K. Held, Explaining the pseudo- gap through damping and antidamping on the fermi surface by imaginary spin scattering, Communications Physics 5, 336 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Grossman and E

    O. Grossman and E. Berg, Weakly damped bosons and precursor gap in the vicinity of an antiferromagnetic metallic transition, Phys. Rev. B 108, 075165 (2023); M. Ye, Z. Wang, R. M. Fernandes, and A. V. Chubukov, Location and thermal evolution of the pseudogap due to spin fluctu...

    2023

  26. [34]

    ˇSimkovic, R

    F. ˇSimkovic, R. Rossi, A. Georges, and M. Ferrero, Origin and fate of the pseudogap in the doped hubbard model, Science 385, eade9194 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Z. Dai, T. Senthil, and P. A. Lee, Modeling the pseudogap metallic state in cuprates: Quantum disordered pair density wave, Phys. Rev. B 101, 064502 (2020). 17

    2020

  28. [36]

    Sachdev, The foot, the fan, and the cuprate phase diagram: Fermi-volume-changing quan- tum phase transitions, Physica C: Superconductivity and its Applications633, 1354707 (2025)

    S. Sachdev, The foot, the fan, and the cuprate phase diagram: Fermi-volume-changing quan- tum phase transitions, Physica C: Superconductivity and its Applications633, 1354707 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Abanov, A

    A. Abanov, A. V. Chubukov, and J. Schmalian, Fingerprints of spin mediated pairing in cuprates, Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena 117-118, 129 (2001)

    2001

  30. [38]

    A. V. Chubukov, M. R. Norman, A. J. Millis, and E. Abrahams, Gapless pairing and the fermi arc in the cuprates, Phys. Rev. B 76, 180501 (2007)

    2007

  31. [39]

    J. M. Tranquada, Cuprate superconductors as viewed through a striped lens, Advances in Physics 69, 437 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Wietek, Y.-Y

    A. Wietek, Y.-Y. He, S. R. White, A. Georges, and E. M. Stoudenmire, Stripes, antiferromag- netism, and the pseudogap in the doped hubbard model at finite temperature, Phys. Rev. X 11, 031007 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    T. P. Devereaux, T. Cuk, Z.-X. Shen, and N. Nagaosa, Anisotropic electron-phonon interaction in the cuprates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 117004 (2004)

    2004

  34. [42]

    E. M. Motoyama, G. Yu, I. M. Vishik, O. P. Vajk, P. K. Mang, and M. Greven, Spin corre- lations in the electron-doped high-transition-temperature superconductor Nd 2−xCexCuO4±δ, Nature 445, 186 (2007)

    2007

  35. [43]

    Matsuda, Y

    M. Matsuda, Y. Endoh, K. Yamada, H. Kojima, I. Tanaka, R. J. Birgeneau, M. A. Kastner, and G. Shirane, Magnetic order, spin correlations, and superconductivity in single-crystal Nd1.85Ce0.15CuO4+δ, Phys. Rev. B 45, 12548 (1992)

    1992

  36. [44]

    Weber, K

    C. Weber, K. Haule, and G. Kotliar, Strength of correlations in electron- and hole-doped cuprates, Nature Physics 6, 574 (2010)

    2010

  37. [45]

    Kyung, V

    B. Kyung, V. Hankevych, A.-M. Dar´ e, and A.-M. S. Tremblay, Pseudogap and spin fluctuations in the normal state of the electron-doped cuprates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 147004 (2004)

    2004

  38. [46]

    N. P. Armitage, D. H. Lu, C. Kim, A. Damascelli, K. M. Shen, F. Ronning, D. L. Feng, P. Bogdanov, Z.-X. Shen, Y. Onose, Y. Taguchi, Y. Tokura, P. K. Mang, N. Kaneko, and M. Greven, Anomalous electronic structure and pseudogap effects in Nd1.85Ce0.15CuO4, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 1...

    2001

  39. [47]

    N. P. Armitage, D. H. Lu, D. L. Feng, C. Kim, A. Damascelli, K. M. Shen, F. Ron- ning, Z.-X. Shen, Y. Onose, Y. Taguchi, and Y. Tokura, Superconducting gap anisotropy in Nd1.85Ce0.15CuO4: Results from photoemission, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1126 (2001). 18

    2001

  40. [48]

    Both theory and experiment show that the spectral weight reaches a minimum at the hot spot

    as the momentum-resolved integral of the spectral intensity over the energy window [−30, 0] meV, along the underlying Fermi surface. Both theory and experiment show that the spectral weight reaches a minimum at the hot spot. The theoretical curve reproduces the experimental tr...

    2024

  41. [49]

    K.-J. Xu, Q. Guo, M. Hashimoto, Z.-X. Li, S.-D. Chen, J. He, Y. He, C. Li, M. H. Berntsen, C. R. Rotundu, Y. S. Lee, T. P. Devereaux, A. Rydh, D.-H. Lu, D.-H. Lee, O. Tjernberg, and Z.-X. Shen, Bogoliubov quasiparticle on the gossamer fermi surface in electron-doped cuprates, ...

    2023

  42. [50]

    Matsui, K

    H. Matsui, K. Terashima, T. Sato, T. Takahashi, M. Fujita, and K. Yamada, Direct obser- vation of a nonmonotonic dx2−y2-wave superconducting gap in the electron-doped high- Tc superconductor Pr0.89LaCe0.11CuO4, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 017003 (2005)

    2005

  43. [51]

    T. Sato, T. Kamiyama, T. Takahashi, K. Kurahashi, and K. Yamada, Observation of dx2−y2- like superconducting gap in an electron-doped high-temperature superconductor, Science 291, 1517 (2001)

    2001

  44. [52]

    Horio, K

    M. Horio, K. Koshiishi, S. Nakata, K. Hagiwara, Y. Ota, K. Okazaki, S. Shin, S. Ideta, K. Tanaka, A. Takahashi, T. Ohgi, T. Adachi, Y. Koike, and A. Fujimori, d-wave su- perconducting gap observed in protect-annealed electron-doped cuprate superconductors Pr1.3−xLa0.7CexCuO4, ...

    2019

  45. [53]

    K.-J. Xu, J. He, S.-D. Chen, Y. He, S. N. Abadi, C. R. Rotundu, Y. S. Lee, D.-H. Lu, Q. Guo, O. Tjernberg, T. P. Devereaux, D.-H. Lee, M. Hashimoto, and Z.-X. Shen, Anomalous normal- state gap in an electron-doped cuprate, Science 385, 796 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Abanov, A

    A. Abanov, A. V. Chubukov, and M. R. Norman, Gap anisotropy and universal pairing scale in a spin-fluctuation model of cuprate superconductors, Phys. Rev. B 78, 220507 (2008)

    2008

  47. [55]

    Then, even when ξ(T ) reduces to a few interatomic spaces and vFξ−1 becomes of order t, λth∼ ¯gT/ (vFξ−1)2∼ (U/t)2(T/J ) remains large, of order U/J

    In the strong coupling regime at small x, TN∼ J, hence T > TN is also of order J. Then, even when ξ(T ) reduces to a few interatomic spaces and vFξ−1 becomes of order t, λth∼ ¯gT/ (vFξ−1)2∼ (U/t)2(T/J ) remains large, of order U/J

  48. [56]

    Fujimoto, Pseudogap phenomena in the BCS pairing model, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 71, 1230 (2002); Y

    S. Fujimoto, Pseudogap phenomena in the BCS pairing model, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 71, 1230 (2002); Y. Yanase, Pseudogap and superconducting fluctuation in high- Tc cuprates: Theory beyond 1-loop approximation, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 73, 1000 (2004)

    2002

  49. [57]

    Y. M. Vilk, Shadow features and shadow bands in the paramagnetic state of cuprate super- conductors, Phys. Rev. B 55, 3870 (1997)

    1997

  50. [58]

    [71]) At small frequencies,ω+Σqm(ω)≈ω(1+λqm)

    For a more accurate treatment, one should keep the quantum self-energy Σqm(ω) along withω (see, e.g., Ref. [71]) At small frequencies,ω+Σqm(ω)≈ω(1+λqm). This effectively renormalizes λth intoλeff th =λth(1 +λqm). This does not change the behavior of the spectral function, but ...

  51. [59]

    Rohe and W

    D. Rohe and W. Metzner, Pseudogap at hot spots in the two-dimensional hubbard model at weak coupling, Phys. Rev. B 71, 115116 (2005)

    2005

  52. [60]

    Roy, Le mod` ele de Hubbard bidimensionnel ` a faible couplage: thermodynamique et ph´ enom` enes critiques, Ph.d

    S. Roy, Le mod` ele de Hubbard bidimensionnel ` a faible couplage: thermodynamique et ph´ enom` enes critiques, Ph.d. thesis, Universit´ e de Sherbrooke (2007), unpublished

    2007

  53. [61]

    We recall that for MDC spectrum, taken at a fixed ω, Σqm(ω) does not modify the Lorentzian lineshape, but for EDC spectrum, the full frequency dependence of Σ qm(ω) is essential, and it leads to a deviation of AkF (ω) from a Lorentzian lineshape and produces high-energy tails

  54. [62]

    The quantum self-energy can be computed within Eliashberg theory as dynamical antifer- romagnetic spin fluctuations are Landau overdamped and for this reason are slow modes compared to fermions

  55. [63]

    S. R. Hassan, B. Davoudi, B. Kyung, and A.-M. S. Tremblay, Conditions for magnetically induced singlet d-wave superconductivity on the square lattice, Phys. Rev. B 77, 094501 (2008)

    2008

  56. [64]

    Wang and A

    Y. Wang and A. V. Chubukov, Superconductivity at the onset of spin-density-wave order in a metal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 127001 (2013)

    2013

  57. [65]

    A. J. Millis, S. Sachdev, and C. M. Varma, Inelastic scattering and pair breaking in anisotropic and isotropic superconductors, Phys. Rev. B 37, 4975 (1988)

    1988

  58. [66]

    Y. Wang, A. Abanov, B. L. Altshuler, E. A. Yuzbashyan, and A. V. Chubukov, Superconduc- tivity near a quantum-critical point: The special role of the first matsubara frequency, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 157001 (2016)

    2016

  59. [67]

    Y.-M. Wu, A. Abanov, Y. Wang, and A. V. Chubukov, Special role of the first matsubara frequency for superconductivity near a quantum critical point: Nonlinear gap equation below Tc and spectral properties in real frequencies, Phys. Rev. B 99, 144512 (2019); Interplay between s...

    2019

  60. [68]

    Hauck, M

    D. Hauck, M. J. Klug, I. Esterlis, and J. Schmalian, Eliashberg equations for an elec- tron–phonon version of the Sachdev–Ye–Kitaev model: Pair breaking in non-fermi liquid superconductors, Annals of Physics 417, 168120 (2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    Wang, Solvable strong-coupling quantum-dot model with a non-fermi-liquid pairing tran- sition, Phys

    Y. Wang, Solvable strong-coupling quantum-dot model with a non-fermi-liquid pairing tran- sition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 017002 (2020). 20

    2020

  62. [70]

    Anderson, Theory of dirty superconductors, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 11, 26 (1959)

    P. Anderson, Theory of dirty superconductors, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 11, 26 (1959)

    1959

  63. [71]

    At the next state one introduces the gap function ∆( k,ωm) via Φ∗(k,ωm) = ∆(k,ωm)(1 + Σqm(ωm)/ωm)

  64. [72]

    Abanov, A

    A. Abanov, A. V. Chubukov, and J. Schmalian, Quantum-critical theory of the spin-fermion model and its application to cuprates: Normal state analysis, Advances in Physics 52, 119 (2003). 21 Appendix A: Review of Self-Consistent One-Loop Theory In this section we evaluate the s...

    2003

  65. [73]

    [52], Xu et al presented the results for the doping evolution of the doping evo- lution of the lower-energy EDC peak in cut 6 at a fixed temperature

    Doping evolution of the low-energy peak In Ref. [52], Xu et al presented the results for the doping evolution of the doping evo- lution of the lower-energy EDC peak in cut 6 at a fixed temperature. In our theory, the doping-dependent parameters are the chemical potential and t...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.