Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 66 references

Cooper pairing with the onsite exchange interaction: A possible mechanism of high-temperature superconductivity

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Hund's exchange coupling alone can bind fractional charges into Cooper pairs, producing the superconducting dome of cuprates and iron pnictides with T_c up to 141 K.

desk verdict A well-organized, honest paper with a real seed of an idea, but the central formula is asserted, not derived, and the paper's own numbers don't match its formula. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13086 v1 pith:7B6S3KCA submitted 2026-07-13 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Jacques R. Eone This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords Hund'scouplinghigh-temperaturesuperconductivityHubbardmodelsuperconductingdomeCooperpairingcupratesironpnictidesstrangemetal
topics High-Temperature Superconductivity
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 proposes that the Hund's exchange coupling J, usually thought of as a ferromagnetic stabilizer, is the missing attractive interaction that binds Cooper pairs in high-temperature superconductors. Within a single-band Hubbard model, the repulsion is reduced to U_eff = U - J and an extra negative term -J n/4 is extracted by treating the Hund's correction as a renormalization of the single-particle energy. The resulting binding energy E_b = -(1/4)J n + (1/4)U_eff n^2 = -Δ0 vanishes at integer filling and is maximized at fractional filling, giving an analytic superconducting dome. With representative literature values of U and J, the formula yields T_c ≈ 141 K for hole-doped cuprates, 44 K for electron-doped cuprates, and 61 K for iron pnictides. The paper also uses the same competition between linear J and quadratic U terms to explain strange-metal T-linear resistivity, while attributing the pseudogap and underdoped isotope effect to a competing antiferromagnetic superexchange phase.

What carries the argument

The central object is the binding-energy formula E_b = -(1/4)J_{d,p} n_{d,p} + (1/4)U^eff_{d,p} n^2_{d,p} = -Δ0, where J is the Hund's coupling, U_eff = U - J is the effective Hubbard repulsion, and n is the fractional occupation of the doped p or d orbital. The linear negative term (from J) binds fractional charges, while the quadratic positive term (from U_eff) suppresses occupancy near integer filling; the balance of the two produces the dome. The paper obtains this formula by Hartree-Fock decoupling the Hubbard repulsion and then treating the Hund's correction as a renormalization of the single-particle energy, an interpretative step that carries the entire argument.

What would settle it

Compute the exact ground-state energy of one or two electrons on a two-orbital site (or a small cluster) with Hubbard U and Hund's J at fractional filling, without assuming the renormalization; if the binding energy contains no linear -J n/4 term, the dome and T_c claims are refuted. Experimentally, measuring the doping dependence of the pairing gap in a material with independently determined U and J would test the predicted p_opt = J/(2U_eff) + p_min scaling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that an onsite Hund's exchange J can generate an effective attractive pairing channel in a single-band Hubbard model, even though U_eff = U - J remains predominantly repulsive. The paper derives the binding energy E_b = -(1/4)J n + (1/4)U_eff n^2, where n is the fractional band occupancy; the negative linear term dominates for small fractional n while the positive quadratic term wins near integer filling. This produces a superconducting dome in doping, with optimal doping p_opt = J/(2U_eff) + p_min and maximum gap Δmax = J^2/(16U_eff). The order parameter mirrors the tight-binding dispersion with d-wave symmetry for cuprates (via t_x = -t_y) and s±-wave symmetry for

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Hund's correction can be treated as a renormalization of the single-particle energy so that a linear attractive term -J n/4 appears; the paper's own Hartree-Fock decoupling produces only the positive (U-J)n^2/4 term, so if that renormalization step is invalid, Eq. (4) and the predicted T_c values collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Optimal doping is set entirely by p_opt = J/(2U_eff) + p_min, so a material with a larger J/U ratio should peak at higher doping.
  • Hole-doped and electron-doped cuprates differ only in which orbital (O 2p versus Cu 3d) carries the Hund's coupling, explaining the roughly threefold difference in their T_c values.
  • The strange-metal T-linear resistivity emerges from the same model when the linear J term dominates the quadratic U term at low doping.
  • The pseudogap and underdoped isotope effect are not precursors to Hund's pairing in this theory; they stem from a competing antiferromagnetic superexchange that shifts p_min.
  • Pressure and multilayer coupling raise T_c in this picture by increasing J and/or decreasing U, consistent with observed trends in multilayer cuprates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A controlled many-body calculation of the two-particle binding energy in a single-orbital Hubbard model with a Hund-like exchange term, without the renormalization shortcut, would directly test whether the linear -J n/4 channel survives beyond the paper's approximation.
  • If Eq. (4) holds up, the practical search for new high-T_c superconductors shifts toward maximizing J/U in a doped orbital; screening J/U across transition-metal oxides and pnictides could identify new dome materials.
  • By attributing the pseudogap and underdoped isotope effect to a competing superexchange phase, the paper implies those phenomena are separable from the pairing mechanism: a material with weak antiferromagnetic order but strong Hund's coupling would still show a dome but no pseudogap.
  • Because the formula depends only on local U and J, it could be extended to nickelates or heavy fermions, where a single-band projection is less clean but the same J/U balance may set the dome shape.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the onsite Hund's exchange coupling J, entering through an effective interaction U_eff = U - J, produces an attractive binding energy for fractional carrier concentrations, E_b = -(1/4)J n + (1/4)U_eff n^2 = -Δ0 (Eq. 4). From this expression the author derives a superconducting dome, optimal doping p_opt - p_min = J/(2U_eff), a maximum gap Δmax = J^2/(16U_eff), and transition temperatures T_c ≈ 141 K (hole-doped cuprate), 44 K (electron-doped cuprate), and 61 K (iron pnictide). The paper further claims that a tight-binding dispersion with t_x = -t_y yields d-wave pairing and t_x = t_y yields s±-wave pairing, and that the same linear-versus-quadratic competition explains strange-metal T-linear resistivity. The pseudogap and underdoped isotope effect are acknowledged as only qualitatively addressed.

Significance. If Eq. (4) were rigorously derived from the Hubbard-Hund model, the proposal would be significant: it would provide a simple, analytical pairing mechanism based on local parameters and produce falsifiable predictions for the dome and T_c across cuprate and pnictide families. The paper's use of published cRPA/atomic values for U and J is a constructive feature, and the author does not overclaim the description of the pseudogap. However, the central attractive linear term is not derived, the symmetry argument is a gauge artifact, and the numerical tables are internally inconsistent. As it stands, the quantitative agreement with experiment is not evidence for the mechanism.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV.B, Eq. (4)] The central result does not follow from the Hartree-Fock reduction. With the paramagnetic HF decoupling, the interaction energy per site is +(1/4)U_eff n^2. For U_eff = U - J, this is +(1/4)U n^2 - (1/4)J n^2; the J-dependent part is -J n^2/4, not -J n/4. The text's 'If this attractive term is treated as a renormalization of the single-particle energy' is a conditional assertion, not a derivation; no calculation is shown that converts n^2 into n. Since U_eff > J for all Table I parameters, without the linear term E_b is positive and no pairing occurs. The dome, Δ0, and all T_c values therefore rest on an unjustified insertion.
  2. [§III.A, Eq. (2)] The identification of d-wave pairing by imposing t_x = -t_y is not a derivation from the interacting Hamiltonian. On a square lattice, t_x = -t_y is gauge-equivalent to t_x = t_y (via c_i → (-1)^{i_x} c_i), so the dispersion relation contains no physical information about gap symmetry. The order-parameter symmetry must come from the self-consistent gap equation; here it is simply postulated. This affects the validity of using R = 4.28 for the d-wave case and the claim that the model derives d-wave and s±-wave pairing symmetries.
  3. [Table I] Table I is internally inconsistent with Eq. (4). Using p_opt - p_min = J/(2U_eff), the values should be O: 1.62/(2×4.68) = 0.173, Cu: 0.85/(2×4.65) = 0.091, Fe: 0.80/(2×3.31) = 0.121, not 0.13, 0.08, 0.10. The reported Δ0 values are also not reproduced by evaluating Eq. (4) at the tabulated p_opt - p_min (for O, one obtains Δ0 ≈ 33 meV, not 26 meV). The claimed quantitative agreement with experiment is therefore not verifiable from the stated equations.
  4. [§IV.C, Fig. 3] The reproduction of the empirical dome is obtained by explicitly fitting U = 8.0 eV, J = 1.76 eV, and p_min = 0.05; the text states these parameters 'are chosen to achieve quantitative agreement.' Moreover, the linear-minus-quadratic dome shape is already the assumed functional form of Eq. (4). The agreement with the Presland formula is therefore not an independent test of the mechanism. The manuscript should clearly separate fitted inputs from genuine predictions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§IV.B, Eq. (4)] The notation for the carrier concentration is inconsistent: n_{d,p}, p, and n are used interchangeably in the same derivation, which makes the step from Eq. (3) to Eq. (4) difficult to follow.
  2. [Fig. 3] The figure caption does not define T_c,max and the empirical relation is shown without its range of validity; the fitted parameters U, J, p_min should be clearly marked as such in the caption.
  3. [§V] The strange-metal argument is purely dimensional: assigning ΔE1 ∝ J n_s and ΔE2 ∝ U n_s^2 with n_s = k_B T/E_F yields T-linear and T^2 laws by construction, but no microscopic derivation of these scattering rates is given. The claim that this 'naturally captures' strange-metal behavior is overstated.
  4. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and formatting issues: 'the paring mechanism' (Sec. I), missing spaces in inline equations (e.g., '−J d,p/4'), and incomplete reference entries (e.g., Ref. [22] 'R. Tripathi et al.' without a full author list or title; Ref. [35] lacks article number).

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The superconducting dome prediction reduces to a fitted parabola: Eq. (4) inserts the linear J term by hand, and the U, J, p_min values in Fig. 3 are explicitly chosen to match the empirical dome.

  1. self definitional [Section IV.B, Eq. (4)]
    "Given that U^eff_{d,p}=U_{d,p}-J_{d,p}, the Hund's exchange coupling introduces an effective attractive contribution of -J_{d,p}/4 within the repulsive term. If this attractive term is treated as a renormalization of the single-particle energy ε ... E_b = -1/4 J_{d,p} n_{d,p} + 1/4 U^eff_{d,p} n^2_{d,p} = -Δ_0."

    The nonmagnetic Hartree-Fock Hamiltonian in the same section is stated as H = Σ ε_k c†c + 1/4 U^eff n². Expanding U^eff=U-J gives the J-dependent contribution as -1/4 J n², which is quadratic in density. Eq. (4) instead contains -1/4 J n, a linear term. The intermediate sentence ('treated as a renormalization') is not an algebraic step from the HF result; it changes the functional form of the interaction energy. Since Eq. (4) is the derivation of Δ0 and hence of the dome, the attractive pairing mechanism is an input to the calculation, not a consequence of U and J.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section IV.C, Fig. 3]
    "The superconducting dome calculated using optimized values of U=8.0 eV, J=1.76 eV, and p_min=0.05 is shown in Fig. 3. These parameters are chosen to achieve quantitative agreement with the empirical relation of Presland and coworkers [53]: T_c/T_{c,max}=1-82.6(p-0.16)^2."

    The model dome in Eq. (4) is a parabola in p with coefficients set by J, U_eff, and an offset p_min. The empirical Presland curve is also a parabola. Three free parameters are tuned to match one empirical parabola, so agreement is guaranteed by construction. The sentence 'These parameters are chosen to achieve quantitative agreement' is the paper's own admission of the fit. The abstract's claim that the model 'accurately reproduces the superconducting dome' is therefore a restatement of the fit, not an independent prediction.

1 more flagged steps
  1. renaming known result [Section III.A]
    "By imposing the condition t_x = -t_y, this expression naturally mirrors the momentum dependence of a d-wave order parameter: Δ(k)=Δ_0(cos k_x - cos k_y)=-ε(k)|_{t_x=-t_y}, with Δ_0=2t_x=-2t_y."

    The d-wave form is obtained by imposing t_x=-t_y, i.e. by putting the sign change that defines d-wave symmetry into the dispersion. This is not a derivation of d-wave pairing from the Hubbard interaction; it is the known d-wave order parameter renamed as a tight-binding dispersion with a chosen sign convention. The same construction is repeated for s± by setting t_x=t_y.

full rationale

The paper does contain genuine independent inputs: the U and J values in Table I come from external DFT/cRPA and literature sources, and the resulting Δ0 and T_c numbers are nontrivial quantities that could have disagreed with experiment. Those elements are not circular. However, the central physical claim that Hund's coupling produces a superconducting dome does reduce to the fitted parabolic ansatz. Eq. (4) is supposed to follow from the Hartree-Fock treatment, but the HF calculation gives only 1/4 U_eff n²; the crucial -1/4 J n term is inserted by an unproved 'renormalization' step. Thus the dome shape is already present in the ansatz, not computed. Fig. 3 then tunes U, J, and p_min to the empirical Presland dome and presents the agreement as support. The tight-binding derivation of d-wave/s± symmetry is likewise achieved by imposing the sign structure of the order parameter. No self-citation is load-bearing here: Refs. [42] and [54] are peripheral, and the external literature parameters leave some nontrivial content. Overall, the central 'prediction' is partially circular: the input (parabolic dome, sign-changing dispersion) is echoed as the output, while the independently cited Hubbard parameters provide independent content. Score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a mean-field Hubbard treatment whose key attractive term is inserted by hand, plus material parameters (U, J, p_min, R) selected from literature or optimized to fit the empirical dome. No new entities are introduced. Most of the predictive content is carried by the chosen parameters and by the unproved linear-J term.

free parameters (4)
  • p_min (threshold doping offset) = 0.05 for hole-doped cuprates in Fig. 3; not given for Table I
    Introduced as a rigid shift to force the dome to start at finite doping; chosen to match the empirical Presland curve and absorbs the antiferromagnetic parent phase.
  • U (Hubbard onsite repulsion) = 8.0 eV in Fig. 3; 6.30/5.50/4.11 eV in Table I
    Although taken from DFT/cRPA literature, the Fig. 3 value is described as 'optimized... to achieve quantitative agreement' with the empirical dome; this is a fit to target data.
  • J (Hund's exchange) = 1.76 eV in Fig. 3; 1.62/0.85/0.80 eV in Table I
    Used as both physical input and fitting parameter; Fig. 3 J is adjusted with U to match Presland relation; Table I J values are literature choices.
  • Ratio R = 2Δ0/(k_B T_c) = 4.28 (d-wave weak coupling), 3.68 (pnictides)
    Not derived; selected from cited empirical/weak-coupling estimates. It directly converts the fitted Δ0 into T_c, so the quoted T_c values inherit this choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Single-band Hubbard model with onsite U and J captures the doped CuO2 plane (or Fe planes) for fractional carrier density.
    Established in §II via Zhang-Rice singlets, restricted to <0.5 doping; ignores multi-orbital details and interlayer coupling.
  • domain assumption Hartree-Fock approximation with zero local magnetization (m=0) is sufficient to describe pairing in the superconducting state.
    §IV.B: 'fluctuations are neglected' and 'non-magnetic superconducting ground state' with m=0.
  • ad hoc to paper The Hund's exchange term can be treated as a renormalization of single-particle energy, producing an attractive linear energy -J n/4.
    §IV.B: 'If this attractive term is treated as a renormalization...' No derivation links the HF energy to the linear -J n term.
  • ad hoc to paper Imposing t_x = -t_y yields d-wave pairing and t_x = t_y yields s±-wave pairing.
    §III.A: the sign change is imposed rather than derived from orbital structure.
  • domain assumption BCS weak-coupling gap equation and ratio R apply to these unconventional superconductors.
    Used in §IV.B-C to convert Δ0 to T_c; the paper acknowledges strong-coupling deviations but still relies on the weak-coupling BCS framework.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cooper pairing with the onsite exchange interaction: A possible mechanism of high-temperature superconductivity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7B6S3KCA

@misc{pith2026260713086,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cooper pairing with the onsite exchange interaction: A possible mechanism of high-temperature superconductivity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7B6S3KCA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13086}
}
abstract

Among the various mechanisms proposed for unconventional superconductivity, this paper focuses on the Coulomb interaction responsible for $d$-wave and $s\pm$-wave pairing symmetries in cuprates and iron pnictides. Although the effective interaction $U_\text{eff}=U-J$ is predominantly repulsive, an attractive component arising from the Hund's coupling parameter $J$ is sufficient to bind fractional charges. Evaluating this binding energy within a single-band Hubbard model yields a superconducting pairing gap $\Delta_0$ and estimates the transition temperature $T_c$. Given the complex electronic structure and vast compositional space of these materials, the model focuses exclusively on the doped superconducting plane hosting these fractional charges. Through this approach, an analytical expression dependent on the Hubbard $U$ and Hund $J$ parameters that accurately reproduces the superconducting dome is derived. Furthermore, the model successfully addresses the characteristic electron and hole doping asymmetry observed in cuprates by accounting for Hund's coupling parameters. Finally, while the theory accurately describes strange metal behavior, it currently provides only a qualitative explanation for the pseudogap phase and the underdoped isotope effect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13086 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Density of states (DOS) of Cu and O within the CuO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Symmetry of the order parameter within the tight [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Superconducting dome for a hole-doped cuprate cal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references

  1. [20]

    M. Roig, A. T. Rømer, A. Kreisel, P. Hirschfeld, and B. M. Andersen, Physical Review B106, L100501 (2022)

    2022

  2. [1]

    Bardeen, L

    J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Physical review108, 1175 (1957)

    1957

  3. [2]

    J. G. Bednorz and K. A. M¨ uller, Zeitschrift f¨ ur physik B condensed matter64, 189 (1986)

    1986

  4. [3]

    P. W. Anderson, science235, 1196 (1987)

    1987

  5. [4]

    Alexandrov, Physica C: Superconductivity and its Ap- plications158, 337 (1989)

    A. Alexandrov, Physica C: Superconductivity and its Ap- plications158, 337 (1989)

    1989

  6. [5]

    Allender, J

    D. Allender, J. Bray, and J. Bardeen, Physical Review B 7, 1020–1029 (1973)

    1973

  7. [6]

    Berk and J

    N. Berk and J. Schrieffer, Physical Review Letters17, 433 (1966)

    1966

  8. [7]

    Moriya and K

    T. Moriya and K. Ueda, Advances in Physics49, 555 (2000)

    2000

Show all 66 references
  1. [8]

    D. J. Scalapino, Reviews of Modern Physics84, 1383 (2012)

    2012

  2. [9]

    Raghu, S

    S. Raghu, S. Kivelson, and D. Scalapino, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics81, 224505 (2010)

    2010

  3. [10]

    Steglich, J

    F. Steglich, J. Aarts, C. Bredl, W. Lieke, D. Meschede, W. Franz, and H. Sch¨ afer, Physical Review Letters43, 1892 (1979)

    1979

  4. [11]

    Kamihara, H

    Y. Kamihara, H. Hiramatsu, M. Hirano, R. Kawamura, H. Yanagi, T. Kamiya, and H. Hosono, Journal of the American Chemical Society128, 10012 (2006)

    2006

  5. [12]

    Takahashi, K

    H. Takahashi, K. Igawa, K. Arii, Y. Kamihara, M. Hi- rano, and H. Hosono, nature453, 376 (2008)

    2008

  6. [13]

    D. Li, K. Lee, B. Y. Wang, M. Osada, S. Crossley, H. R. Lee, Y. Cui, Y. Hikita, and H. Y. Hwang, Nature572, 624 (2019)

    2019

  7. [14]

    Loram, K

    J. Loram, K. Mirza, J. Wade, J. Cooper, and W. Liang, Physica C: Superconductivity235, 134 (1994)

    1994

  8. [15]

    Marsiglio, Annals of Physics417, 168102 (2020)

    F. Marsiglio, Annals of Physics417, 168102 (2020). 8

    2020

  9. [16]

    K. Chao, J. Spa lek, and A. Ole´ s, Physical Review B18, 3453 (1978)

    1978

  10. [17]

    Emery, Physical Review Letters58, 2794 (1987)

    V. Emery, Physical Review Letters58, 2794 (1987)

    1987

  11. [18]

    Zhang and T

    F. Zhang and T. Rice, Physical Review B37, 3759 (1988)

    1988

  12. [19]

    Leung and K

    P. Leung and K. Ng, International Journal of Modern Physics B17, 3367 (2003)

    2003

  13. [21]

    S. A. Kivelson, I. P. Bindloss, E. Fradkin, V. Oganesyan, J. Tranquada, A. Kapitulnik, and C. Howald, Reviews of Modern Physics75, 1201 (2003)

    2003

  14. [22]

    Tripathi et al., Physica C: Superconductivity274, 73 (1997)

    R. Tripathi et al., Physica C: Superconductivity274, 73 (1997)

    1997

  15. [23]

    Yayeh, G

    Z. Yayeh, G. Kahsay, and T. Negussie, Nano Select4, 585 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Zhong, Y

    Y. Zhong, Y. Wang, S. Han, Y.-F. Lv, W.-L. Wang, D. Zhang, H. Ding, Y.-M. Zhang, L. Wang, K. He, et al., Science Bulletin61, 1239 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Yin, Y.-Y

    K. Yin, Y.-Y. Zhang, Y. Zhou, L. Sun, M. F. Chisholm, S. T. Pantelides, and W. Zhou, 2D Materials4, 011001 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Rivero, I

    P. Rivero, I. de PR Moreira, and F. Illas, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics81, 205123 (2010)

    2010

  19. [27]

    D. J. Singh and M.-H. Du, Physical Review Letters100, 237003 (2008)

    2008

  20. [28]

    van Roekeghem, P

    A. van Roekeghem, P. Richard, H. Ding, and S. Bier- mann, Comptes Rendus Physique17, 140 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    Chesca, K

    B. Chesca, K. Ehrhardt, M. M¨ oßle, R. Straub, D. Koelle, R. Kleiner, and A. Tsukada, Physica C: Superconductiv- ity408-410, 321–323 (2004)

    2004

  22. [30]

    C. C. Tsuei and J. R. Kirtley, Physical Review Letters 85, 182–185 (2000)

    2000

  23. [31]

    Izawa, H

    K. Izawa, H. Yamaguchi, Y. Matsuda, H. Shishido, R. Settai, and Y. Onuki, Physical Review Letters87 (2001)

    2001

  24. [32]

    Takahashi,Spin Fluctuation Theory of Itinerant Elec- tron Magnetism(Springer, 2013)

    Y. Takahashi,Spin Fluctuation Theory of Itinerant Elec- tron Magnetism(Springer, 2013)

    2013

  25. [33]

    H¨ ufner and F

    S. H¨ ufner and F. M¨ uller, Physica C: Superconductivity 470, 565 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    D. S. Inosov, J. T. Park, A. Charnukha, Y. Li, A. V. Boris, B. Keimer, and V. Hinkov, Phys. Rev. B83, 214520 (2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    R. S. Gonnelli, D. Daghero, M. Tortello, G. A. Um- marino, V. A. Stepanov, J. S. Kim, and R. K. Kremer, Physical Review B79(2009)

    2009

  28. [36]

    T. Chen, S. Huang, Z. Tesanovic, R. Liu, X. Chen, and C. Chien, Physica C: Superconductivity469, 521–528 (2009)

    2009

  29. [37]

    Cococcioni and S

    M. Cococcioni and S. de Gironcoli, Physical Review B 71(2005)

    2005

  30. [38]

    S ¸a¸ sıo˘ glu, C

    E. S ¸a¸ sıo˘ glu, C. Friedrich, and S. Bl¨ ugel, Physical Review B83(2011)

    2011

  31. [39]

    E. B. Linscott, D. J. Cole, M. C. Payne, and D. D. O’Regan, Physical Review B98(2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    G. C. Moore, M. K. Horton, E. Linscott, A. M. Ganose, M. Siron, D. D. O’Regan, and K. A. Persson, Physical Review Materials8(2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    McMahan, R

    A. McMahan, R. M. Martin, and S. Satpathy, Physical Review B38, 6650 (1988)

    1988

  34. [42]

    J. R. Eone II, Computational Materials Science258, 114064 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    K¨ uhn, S

    D. K¨ uhn, S. Sinha, F. O. L. Johansson, K. Siewierska, A. Tebano, N. M ˚ artensson, A. Lindblad, D. Di Castro, and A. F¨ ohlisch, Nature Communications16(2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    J. Fink, E. D. L. Rienks, S. Thirupathaiah, J. Nayak, A. van Roekeghem, S. Biermann, T. Wolf, P. Adelmann, H. S. Jeevan, P. Gegenwart, et al., Physical Review B95 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    Schilling, M

    A. Schilling, M. Cantoni, J. D. Guo, and H. R. Ott, Na- ture363, 56–58 (1993)

    1993

  38. [46]

    G. Er, Y. Miyamoto, F. Kanamaru, and S. Kikkawa, Physica C: Superconductivity181, 206–208 (1991)

    1991

  39. [47]

    M. G. Smith, A. Manthiram, J. Zhou, J. B. Goodenough, and J. T. Markert, Nature351, 549–551 (1991)

    1991

  40. [48]

    Zhi-An, L

    R. Zhi-An, L. Wei, Y. Jie, Y. Wei, S. Xiao-Li, L. Zheng- Cai, C. Guang-Can, D. Xiao-Li, S. Li-Ling, Z. Fang, et al., Chin. Phys. Lett.25, 2215 (2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    Goyal and D

    G. Goyal and D. K. Singh, Physica B: Condensed Matter 644, 414223 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    de’ Medici, J

    L. de’ Medici, J. Mravlje, and A. Georges, Physical Re- view Letters107(2011)

    2011

  43. [51]

    Georges, L

    A. Georges, L. d. Medici, and J. Mravlje, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics4, 137–178 (2013)

    2013

  44. [52]

    Zhang, L.-F

    Y. Zhang, L.-F. Lin, A. Moreo, and E. Dagotto, Physical Review B108(2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    Presland, J

    M. Presland, J. Tallon, R. Buckley, R. Liu, and N. Flower, Physica C: Superconductivity176, 95–105 (1991)

    1991

  46. [54]

    J. Eone, M. Ottou Abe, and J. Ndjaka, Materials Chem- istry and Physics338, 130608 (2025)

    2025

  47. [55]

    S. K. Panda, H. Jiang, and S. Biermann, Physical Review B96(2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    L. A. Burnett, M. P. Clay, Y. K. Vohra, and C.-C. Chen, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter36, 425602 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    S. Zeng, C. S. Tang, X. Yin, C. Li, M. Li, Z. Huang, J. Hu, W. Liu, G. J. Omar, H. Jani, et al., Physical Review Letters125(2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    Osada, B

    M. Osada, B. Y. Wang, B. H. Goodge, K. Lee, H. Yoon, K. Sakuma, D. Li, M. Miura, L. F. Kourkoutis, and H. Y. Hwang, Nano Letters20, 5735–5740 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    Bengone, M

    O. Bengone, M. Alouani, P. Bl¨ ochl, and J. Hugel, Phys- ical Review B62, 16392 (2000)

    2000

  52. [60]

    P. W. Phillips, N. E. Hussey, and P. Abbamonte, Science 377(2022)

    2022

  53. [61]

    A. A. Patel, H. Guo, I. Esterlis, and S. Sachdev, Science 381, 790–793 (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    L. R. Niestemski and Z. Wang, Physical Review Letters 102(2009)

    2009

  55. [63]

    P. W. Anderson, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids63, 2145 (2002)

    2002

  56. [64]

    P. W. Anderson, P. A. Lee, M. Randeria, T. M. Rice, N. Trivedi, and F. C. Zhang, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter16, R755–R769 (2004)

    2004

  57. [65]

    Eremin, O

    I. Eremin, O. Kamaev, and M. V. Eremin, Physical Re- view B69(2004)

    2004

  58. [66]

    P. S. H¨ afliger, S. Gerber, R. Pramod, V. I. Schnells, B. d. Piazza, R. Chati, V. Pomjakushin, K. Conder, E. Pom- jakushina, L. Le Dreau, et al., Physical Review B89 (2014)

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.