Deconfined Metal-Insulator Transitions in Quantum Hall Bilayers

Liujun Zou1 and Debanjan Chowdhury2 1Perimeter Institute for Theoretical , Waterloo, Ontario N2L 2Y5, Canada 2Department of Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA

We propose that quantum Hall bilayers in the presence of a periodic potential at the scale of the magnetic length can host examples of a Deconfined Metal-Insulator Transition (DMIT), where a Fermi liquid (FL) metal with a generic electronic evolves into a gapped insulator (or, an insulator with Goldstone modes) through a continuous quantum . The transition can be accessed by tuning a single parameter, and its universal critical properties can be understood using a controlled framework. At the transition, the two layers are effectively decoupled, where each layer undergoes a continuous transition from a FL to a generalized composite Fermi liquid (gCFL). The thermodynamic and transport properties of the gCFL are similar to the usual CFL, while its spectral properties are qualitatively different. The FL-gCFL quantum critical point hosts a sharply defined Fermi surface without long-lived electronic . Immediately across the transition, the two layers of gCFL are unstable to forming an insulating phase. We discuss the topological properties of the insulator and various observable signatures associated with the DMIT.

Introduction. Understanding quantum criticality in important to note that none of these transitions can metallic systems remains one of the outstanding chal- be described by the conventional framework of cou- lenges in the study of quantum matter, largely due to pling an order-parameter field to an electronic FS. Re- the abundance of gapless excitations near the electronic cently, we have argued that the DMIT can be used as Fermi surface (FS). Describing an interaction-driven a building block to describe such experimentally rel- continuous metal-insulator transition is especially chal- evant continuous transitions between distinct metallic lenging, and a mechanism for an abrupt change of a phases, simply by including additional spectator elec- generic electronic FS (at a fixed electron density) across trons in the low-energy description that do not alter a transition to an insulator in the absence of disorder any fundamental aspects of the criticality itself [5]. is necessarily novel. Critical theories for continuous A general mechanism for DMIT based on “emergent metal-insulator transitions, involving the disappear- color superconductivity” [11] was proposed in Ref. [5]. ance of an entire electronic FS, have been formulated In this work, inspired by the recent experimental ad- when the insulator is a with a FS vances in realizing quantum Hall (QH) physics in the of neutral excitations (e.g., “spinons”) coupled to emer- presence of a periodic potential at the scale of the mag- gent gauge fields [1,2]. Pressure-tuned experiments on netic length (e.g., in moir´eheterostructures) [12–15], certain spin liquid candidates [3] have reported indi- we theoretically study a concrete setting for DMIT. rect evidence for such a transition [4]. One of the most Setup and framework. Consider a QH bilayer sepa- challenging and unsolved problems in the field is to rated by a distance, d, with a periodic potential in each describe a continuous metal-insulator transition where layer (Fig.1); we will refer to this setup as a “Chern the insulator has no remnant FS of any excitations, bilayer”. To be concrete, we fix a unit flux quantum which we dub a “Deconfined Metal-Insulator Transi- threading through each unit cell (UC) of the periodic tion” (DMIT), or a Deconfined Mott Transition in the potential. We will consider spinful electrons in each terminology of Ref. [5]. Such a transition necessarily layer, such that spin-up electrons in the Sz-basis have falls outside the purview of the conventional Landau- a fixed density ν↑ = 2 + ν with ν = C/(C + 1) per Ginzburg-Wilson paradigm, even though the phases on UC per layer (C ∈ integer; C 6= 0, −1), while spin- either side of the transition can be conventional. Find- down electrons have a fixed density ν↓ = 1 per UC per ing concrete theoretical examples of a DMIT in a solv- layer. We will focus on C > 0, but the phenomenol- able limit is therefore of paramount importance. ogy will be similar when C < 0. We further assume arXiv:2004.14391v2 [cond-mat.str-el] 22 Sep 2020 There are indirect signatures of continuous transi- that the electron number in each layer is conserved1, tions between distinct metallic phases in numerous sys- the total Sz-spin is conserved, and the system is sym- tems. For instance, in certain rare-earth element based metric with respect to exchanging the two layers and (“heavy-fermion”) compounds there is evidence for en- with respect to an inversion within each layer. We are tire Fermi surface sheets disappearing [6,7], accom- interested in the situation where the electrons interact panied by a diverging effective mass near the putative critical point [8]. Perhaps the most notable example of a similar transition arises in the cuprate supercon- 1 This assumption on particle number conservation in each layer ductors [9], where a Fermi liquid (FL) metal evolves can be relaxed, as long as the total particle number is con- into an unconventional “pseudogap” metal [10]. It is served. 2 via a repulsive two-body long-range density-density in- [18] on transitions between distinct fractional Chern teraction V (r) ∼ 1/r1+, with r denoting the (three- insulators, we can describe a continuous transition be- dimensional) separation. The case with  = 0 corre- tween a FL and a to-be-introduced “generalized” CFL sponds to Coulomb repulsion. We focus on 0 <  < 1 (gCFL) in our setup (Fig.1b); the universal critical for most of our discussion, and comment on the cases properties can be understood in a controlled manner of  = 0 and  > 1 at the end. We stress that the when C  1. For the bilayer (Fig.1a) coupled via the condition 0 <  < 1 is introduced purely for technical long-range repulsion, we show that the corresponding convenience, and it should not be viewed as a funda- gCFL phase is unstable to an insulator without FS of mental limitation of our proposal. any excitations [19–22]. Moreover, when C  1, we An equivalent description of this system is to view will show that the couplings between the two layers each layer as being made of spin-up electrons with fixed are renormalization-group (RG) irrelevant at the FL- density ν0 = 1 + ν and spinless Cooper pairs with fixed gCFL transition. Therefore, our Chern bilayer hosts an density νB = 1. Below we will adopt this view since it example of a DMIT (Fig.1c), where each layer under- is more convenient for our purpose. So each layer has goes a FL-gCFL transition (the latter being unstable “valence” (spin-up) electrons at a density of 1 per UC, to an insulator). Furthermore, the critical point hosts a and “conduction” (spin-up) electrons at a density of ν. non-Fermi liquid (nFL) with a sharply defined critical In fact, we will consider a scenario where the actions FS [23]. associated with the transitions mostly take place in the More specifically, denote the annihilation operator conduction electrons, while the valence electrons and of spin-up electrons and spinless Cooper pairs on the Cooper pairs are gapped spectators that are coupled `-th layer by c` and B`, respectively. We express c` in a special way to enable the transitions to be direct. in terms of partons as c` = b`f`, where b` and f` are Our proposal will thus serve as a proof-of-concept setup bosonic and fermionic partons, respectively, that sat- 0 for realizing DMIT in an electronic model. isfy a constraint on their densities [24], nb` = nf` = ν . The low-energy theory for this parton construction of the spin-up electrons can be written in terms of the partons coupled to an emergent dynamical U(1) gauge gCFL FL field, a`. We let b` carry the global conserved U(1) m charge associated with the `-th layer and f` carry the B Single layer spin (see TableI), such that the schematic Lagrangian (b) for the `-th layer takes the form: L = L + L + L + ··· , (1) d ` [b`,A`−a`] [f`,a`+As] [c`,B`] INS FL m where A` and As are the probe gauge fields correspond- Bilayer ing to the conserved charge on the `-th layer and total (a) (c) Sz-spin, respectively. The interlayer couplings will be discussed later. In the remainder of this paper we will take L` to yield no net flux for a` and to describe a

FS of f` at the mean-field level; we tune L[b`,A`−a`] to FIG. 1. (a) Schematic illustration of our proposed bilayer drive the transition. quantum Hall setup in an external B field and a periodic potential. The layers are separated by a distance d. Phase b f c B ψ diagram as a function of m for (b) the single layer (or ` ` ` ` ` equivalently, two fully decoupled layers), and, (c) the bi- A` 1 0 1 2 0 layer. The FL-insulator (INS) transition is an example of As 0 1 1 0 0 a DMIT. a` −1 1 0 0 0

To understand the DMIT in this setup, consider a α` 0 0 0 0 1 single layer first. An earlier work [16] studied the pos- sibility of a continuous transition between a FL and TABLE I. Charge assignment of the matter fields on the a composite Fermi liquid (CFL) of spinless electrons `-th layer under the different gauge fields. [17]. However, it is our understanding that the re- sulting transition can only be accessed by tuning two One may wonder whether it requires fine-tuning parameters (instead of one) in order to avoid an in- to fix the flux of a` at the transition. We will see termediate phase. Interestingly, we will see that an that in our setup the coupling between valence spin- analogous transition can be realized simply by tuning up electrons and Cooper pairs, chosen as L[c`,B`] = 2 one parameter for the spinful electrons discussed above. − 2π A`d(A` − a`), can fix the flux of a` without any Building on this idea and the recent results of Ref. fine-tuning. So below we will assume that a` has no 3 net flux and focus on the conduction spin-up electrons. What are the different phases that the theory given Later we will elaborate on the role of the gapped spec- by (1) and (2) can describe by varying m? When m > tator valence electrons and Cooper pairs. 0, for any C, integrating ψ`i out removes the CS term Before describing our results for the Chern bilayer of α` and the resulting state is a SF of b`, as is evident in detail, we outline some key features associated with from the Dasgupta-Halperin duality [27]. In terms of the phases and transitions of interest (see Fig.2). By the original c`, this is just a FL phase when f` forms a 3 tuning a single parameter (denoted m in Eq. (2)), the FS. On the other hand, when m < 0, integrating ψ`i bosonic partons can be driven from a superfluid (SF) to out leads to a QH state. In terms of electrons, the SF corresponds C + 1 1 L = α dα + (a − A ) dα to a FL, and the SF condensate fraction determines [b`,A`−a`] ` ` ` ` ` 4π 2π (3) the -residue, Z (i.e., the overlap between 1 + (a − A ) d(a − A ) + (C + 1)CS , the electronic quasiparticle and the microscopic elec- 4π ` ` ` ` g tron), which vanishes continuously upon approaching which is a QH state of b`. When f` forms a FS, the the DMIT. The boson gap, ∆b, opens up continuously resulting state of the original c` is a gCFL [22]. In- on the QH side, where the latter corresponds to a gCFL deed, upon further integrating out the gapped α`, the in terms of electrons. One of the highlights of the effective theory reduces to present work is to identify a mechanism whereby, in ν the bilayer setting, the interlayer pairing of f is dan- L` =L[f ,a +A ] + (a` − A`)d(a` − A`) + L[c ,B ].(4) ` ` ` s 4π ` ` gerously irrelevant, leading to a continuous opening of When C = 1 and ignoring L , this is precisely the the fermionic gap, ∆ . Remarkably, all three quanti- [c`,B`] f effective theory of the familiar CFL at ν = 1/2, which ties vanish at the critical point, which hosts a sharply hosts a nFL of f [17]. When C ∈ integers (6= 0, ±1), defined FS without any long-lived quasiparticles. ` the qualitative picture for the universal physics associ- ated with (f`, a`) largely remains the same, in that the thermodynamic and transport properties of the gCFL are similar to the usual CFL, while the spectral prop- erties are qualitatively different [22]. Next we turn to the critical point in Eq. (2), and ignore its coupling to the (f`, a`)-sector (and the spectator-sector). An important observation is that, for any C, the magnetic translation symmetry forbids various potentially relevant perturbations at this tran- FIG. 2. A schematic diagram for the behavior of the quasi- sition, such that the transition can be accessed by tun- particle residue, Z, the boson gap, ∆b, and the pairing gap ing a single parameter, m [18]. When C  1, this for the fermions, ∆f , in the vicinity of the DMIT. The tun- theory can be studied in a controlled manner, and it ing parameter, m, appears in (2). flows in the IR to a conformal field theory (CFT) [28]. As shown in Fig.2 (but for the single-layer problem), Single-layer physics. Consider a transition between 2 Z ∼ |hb`i| and ∆b vanish continuously as we approach a SF and a QH state for b`, with the critical theory the transition from the superfluid and QH side, respec- given by [18, 22, 25] tively; ∆f = 0 in the present single-layer setup. Note that the long-range interaction V (r) is not in- (A` − α` − a`)d(A` − α` − a`) L = + CSg cluded above, which takes the form (in the Coulomb [b`,A`−a`] 4π C+1 (2) gauge with ∇ · α` = 0), (C − 1)α dα (C − 1)CS X / ` ` g Z + ψ`i(iDα` + m)ψ`i + + , 1+ 8π 2 k α`t(−k, −ω)α`t(k, ω), (5) i=1 ω,k where ada ≡ µνλaµ∂ν aλ, CSg is a gravitational Chern- / Simons (CS) term [26], and Dα` is the covariant deriva- Eq. (2) attaches one flux quantum to each boson b` and con- tive with respect to a new emergent gauge field, α`. In † verts it into a fermion, ψ`, which thereby sees a net flux of this theory, b is the monopole of α` and the density 1 ` 1 − ν = C+1 per UC. The phase transition corresponds to fluctuations of b` correspond to the flux of α`; the tran- one where the Chern number of ψ` changes from −1 to C, sition is then driven by tuning the mass, m, of (C + 1) which is captured [18] by the last three terms in Eq. (2). An 2 alternative derivation for Eq. (2) appears in [22]. flavors of emergent Dirac fermions, ψ`i. 3 When discussing the various phases, we have assumed that the valence part of f` has no Chern number. It is straight- forward to generalize the discussion to the case where it has a Chern number. Notice that the universal critical physics at 2 In terms of the flux-attachment picture, the first term in the transitions does not depend on this Chern number. 4 with α`t the transverse spatial component of α` [17]. DMIT in bilayer. When the two identical layers with When  > 0, this interaction is irrelevant compared to separately conserved densities are coupled through the the CS term of α`, so it can be ignored at the critical long-range repulsion, we obtain two effectively decou- point. In passing, we note that a Maxwell term for α` pled FL for m > 0. What is the fate of the system is invariably generated due to local interactions, which when m < 0? is less (equally or more) relevant than (5) if  < 1 A useful starting point is to consider the limit where ( > 1). So this long-range interaction is important if the two layers are completely decoupled so that each  < 1, while if  > 1, we can ignore it and consider only of them can be captured within the above discussion, local interactions as far as universal critical physics is and then study the effect of interlayer couplings as we concerned. tune through the individual single-layer FL-gCFL tran- Now we need to combine the b`-sector and the sition. This scenario can be physically realized when d (f`, a`)-sector, which are coupled via operators of the is large. form Ob` O(f`,a`), where Ob` and O(f`,a`) are gauge in- We begin by introducing a± ≡ (a1 ± a2)/2, where variant operators from the two sectors, respectively. the layer-exchange symmetry forbids a direct coupling Naively, as long as the scaling dimensions of these op- between a+ and a−. As argued in Refs. [5, 19–21, 30], erators are large enough, such couplings are RG ir- a+ tends to suppress pairing of the FS while a− favors relevant and the two sectors are effectively decoupled. interlayer pairing, such that their competition deter- Indeed, as pointed out in Ref. [2], when the scaling mines the stability of the FS. When b` is gapped, (4) dimensions of all gauge invariant operators in the b`- indicates that the density fluctuation of f` is related to sector are larger than 3/2, the criticality of b` is un- the flux of a`, so the long-range repulsion becomes an affected by the presence of the (f`, a`)-sector. When interaction between flux of a±. Notice that a+ couples C  1, this condition is satisfied for the CFT cor- to the total density of f1 and f2, while a− couples to responding to (2)[28]. However, the presence of the the density difference between f1 and f2. So the flux critical b`-sector has a significant influence on the dy- of a+ experiences the long-range potential, while the namics of the (f`, a`)-sector. In particular, integrating interaction between the flux of a− is effectively short- out b` at the critical point generates the following ef- ranged. As a result, the coupling between a− and the fective action for a`: fermions is more relevant and the FS is unstable to in- Z terlayer pairing [22]. This implies that two layers of p 2 2 2 δSa` = σb ω + k |a`t(k, ω)| , (6) gCFL are unstable to forming an insulating phase and ω,k we discuss its topological character shortly. Since the with σb a universal constant determined by the CFT boson gap, ∆b, serves as the effective UV cutoff of the corresponding to (2), a`t the transverse spatial com- low-energy physics associated with the interlayer pair- ponent of a`, and the boson velocity is set to unity. ing, the resulting pairing gap, ∆f , should be smaller As a result of Landau-damping due to coupling to the than ∆b (see Fig.2). FS of f`, the effective action for a`t has an additional At the critical point, we should instead use the ef- R |ω| 2 fective action in (6) to describe the gauge fields and contribution, ω,k k |a`t(k, ω)| , leading to a dynami- cal exponent za = 2. As a result, at the critical point, determine the stability of the FS. Rewriting the f are endowed with a marginal FL-like self-energy ` Z |a (k, ω)|2 |a (k, ω)|2  and the electrons have a well-defined critical FS with- X p 2 2 +t −t δSa` = ω + k + , 2g+ 2g− out long-lived quasiparticles. ` ω,k Finally, we examine the important and subtle issue (7) of the flux of a` and the role of the spectator valence electrons and Cooper pairs. If there is no nontrivial with a±t the transverse spatial component of a±, we can identify the gauge couplings g+ = g− = 1/(4σb). coupling L[c`,B`] in (1), nothing fixes this flux at the transition. So without fine-tuning, a net flux of a` can When za = 2, the FS is perturbatively stable if g+ > 4 be generated and the critical point is expected to be g− [5]. Therefore, interlayer pairing is (dangerously) unstable to forming certain QH state. However, unlike irrelevant at this transition. earlier approaches [16], this aspect can be circumvented Can other interlayer couplings alter the critical prop- erties? First, just as in the case of the monolayer, by incorporating a nontrivial L[c`,B`]. Specifically, de- note the valence part of b` by b`v, and attach a vortex the interlayer long-range interaction is irrelevant at the of B` to b`,v, and a vortex of b`,v to B`. This coupling critical point if  > 0. In addition, there are local inter- 2 actions that all turn out to be irrelevant [22, 30]. For induces an interaction L[c`,B`] = − 2π A`d(A` − a`) at low energies [29], which means the flux of a` now car- ries charge under A`. Because the charge under A` is fixed, now the flux of a` is also fixed (without fine- tuning) [22]. 4 Kohn-Luttinger type effects [31, 32] are ignored. 5 example, there can be a coupling of the form O O0 , A convenient way to proceed is to separate the b1 b2 0 where O and O are gauge invariant operators in the charges under a+ + As and a− by performing a par- b1- and b2-sector, respectively. Clearly this coupling ton decomposition of f` ≡ φd`, where φ is a boson 0 2 is irrelevant if the scaling dimensions of O and O are such that φ is the interlayer pairing amplitude, d` is a larger than 3/2. In fact, a sufficient condition for the fermion, such that φ and d` are coupled to an emergent layer decoupling is that all gauge invariant operators Z2 gauge field. Here φ carries charge 1 under a+ + As of the b`-sector have a scaling dimension larger than but no charge under a−, and d1 and d2 carry charge 1 5 3/2 [22], a condition satisfied when C  1 [28]. and −1 under a−, respectively, but are neutral under We have thus reached the remarkable conclusion that a+ + As. In the interlayer-paired state of f`, φ is con- the above bilayer setup can exhibit a DMIT, where densed and d` develops interlayer pairing in the same the critical point hosts two effectively decoupled, sharp channel as f`. The condensate of φ can be captured 1 critical FS. by π (a+ + As)dβ, where β is a new emergent gauge Topological properties of the insulating phase. The field and its elementary charge binds the π-flux of the effective theory for the insulating phase in the bi- Z2 gauge field. This binding is why the coefficient of P layer setting is given by ` L` in (1), with L[b`,A`−a`] (a+ + As)dβ is 1/π, not 1/(2π)[34]. given by (3), L[f,a+As] the effective Lagrangian for the The d`-sector depends on n, and it is most conve- interlayer-paired state of the fermions, and L[c`,B`] = nient to start with the case n = ±1. It is known that 2 when the state with n = ±1 is coupled to a dynamical − 2π A`d(A`−a`). Our goal is to characterize this phase via the K-matrix formalism [24]. Z2 gauge field, the resulting state is U(1)±4, captured 4 Since α` in (3) is coupled to a fermion, to apply by ∓ 4π γdγ, where odd charge of the new emergent the standard K-matrix formalism, we introduce C + 1 gauge field γ is identified with the π-flux of the Z2 i gauge fields, β` (i = 1, 2, ··· ,C + 1) for the `-th layer, gauge field [33]. This identification further constrains which are coupled to bosons. In terms of these new that qβ = qγ (mod 2), where q(·) represents the possible charge that an excitation carries under the correspond- gauge fields, L[b`,A`−a`] is equivalent to: ing gauge field. Since d` is coupled to a−, we need to C+1 C+1 1 X i i α` X i determine how γ is coupled to a−. The layer exchange L[b`,A`−a`] = − β` dβ` − dβ` 1 4π 2π symmetry requires that they are coupled via π a−dγ i=1 i=1 (8) [20]. Therefore, when n = ±1, 1 1 + (a − A ) dα + (a − A ) d(a − A ). 2π ` ` ` 4π ` ` ` ` 1 4 1 L[f,a+As] = (a+ + As)dβ ∓ γdγ + a−dγ(10) i π 4π π Note that integrating out β`’s above reproduces (3). with a constraint q = q (mod 2). To apply the We now integrate out α` and obtain a constraint β γ standard K-matrix formalism, we can solve this con- C+1 ˜ X i straint by introducing β ≡ β + γ andγ ˜ ≡ β − γ. β` = a` − A`. (9) The charges of β˜ andγ ˜ can independently take any i=1 integer. Denote the electric and spin Hall conductiv- ity by σc and σs , respectively. Plugging (3), (10) Next we turn to L[f,a+As]. The channel in which xy xy interlayer pairing occurs depends on non-universal de- 2 P and L[c`,B`] = − 2π A`d(A` − a`) into ` L` yields c s tails [19–22]. Suppose it occurs in the channel with σxy = 2ν − 8 and σxy = 2ν. index n in Kitaev’s 8-fold way [33]. 6 The topologi- To fully unearth the topological property, we write cal nature of the paired state depends on n, which can down the final K-matrix theory for n = ±1 in terms of 1 2 C+1 1 2 C+1 ˜ T be described with the introduction of low-energy emer- a˜ ≡ (β1 , β1 , ··· , β1 , β2 , β2 , ··· , β2 , β, γ˜) : gent gauge fields in addition to a [33]. Naturally, it is K t t t important to understand how these new gauge fields L = IJ a˜ da˜ + 1I A da˜ + 2I A da˜ + sI A d(11)a˜ 4π I J 2π 1 I 2π 2 I 2π s I couple to a± and As. with   K1 0 K2 5 K =  0 K1 K3  Although we mainly focus on the case where the particle den- T T sity in each layer is separately conserved, our conclusions re- K2 K3 K4 garding the interlayer pairing instability of f and the DMIT t = (2, 2, ··· , 2, 0, 0, ··· , 0, 1, 0)T (12) are robust even in the presence of a weak interlayer electron 1 T tunneling, which leads to a single conserved U(1) density, and t2 = (0, 0, ··· , 0, 2, 2, ··· , 2, 0, 1) is irrelevant at the DMIT [22]. 6 T Since our interlayer pairing is between two species of fermions, ts = (0, 0, ··· , 0, 1, 1) only the Abelian 8-fold way of classification is relevant here among the full 16-fold way classification of Kitaev, so we use Here K1 is a (C + 1) × (C + 1) matrix whose diagonal a convention that our n is half of Kitaev’s index in Ref. [33]. elements vanish while all other entries are 1, K2 (K3) is 6 a (C + 1) × 2 matrix whose entries in the first (second) toral Fellowship at Perimeter Institute. Research at column are all 1 while all other entries vanish, and Perimeter Institute is supported in part by the Gov- ernment of Canada through the Department of Innova-  ∓1 ±1  K = . (13) tion, Science and Economic Development Canada and 4 ±1 ∓1 by the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of

The first C +1 entries of t1 (t2) is 2 (0). In general, the Colleges and Universities. DC is supported by faculty above theory describes a , but when startup funds at Cornell University. C = 1 and n = −1, the resulting state has a Gold- stone mode due to the spontaneous breaking of a U(1) z symmetry generated by 5(Q1 −Q2)−S , with Q1,2 the electric charge of the two layers, respectively [22]. [1] T. Senthil, Matthias Vojta, and Subir Sachdev, “Weak To obtain the K-matrix for states with other n 6= ±1 magnetism and non-fermi liquids near heavy-fermion systematically, the simplest approach may be to apply critical points,” Physical Review B 69 (2004). the trick in Ref. [26] to build up the theory from that [2] T. Senthil, “Theory of a continuous Mott transition with n = ±1 [22]. in two dimensions,” Phys. Rev. B 78, 045109 (2008), Observable signatures. The DMIT can be viewed arXiv:0804.1555 [cond-mat.str-el]. as two dynamically decoupled FL-gCFL transitions [3] Kazushi Kanoda and Reizo Kato, “Mott physics in (where the gCFL-bilayer is unstable to an insulator). organic conductors with triangular lattices,” Annual Review of 2, 167–188 Therefore, some of the universal physical properties at (2011), https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys- both transitions are similar [16, 18], which include: (i) 062910-140521. a critical FS, (ii) a singular specific heat (∼ T ln T ) [4] Tetsuya Furukawa, Kazuya Miyagawa, Hiromi at the transition, (iii) a jump of the electric resistiv- Taniguchi, Reizo Kato, and Kazushi Kanoda, “Quan- ity (∼ h/e2), (vi) an emergent SU(C + 1) symmetry tum criticality of mott transition in organicmaterials,” where a set of power-law-decaying charge-density-wave Nature Physics 11, 221–224 (2015). order parameters transform in its adjoint representa- [5] Liujun Zou and Debanjan Chowdhury, “Deconfined metallic quantum criticality: A U(2) gauge-theoretic tion. One main difference between the monolayer and approach,” Physical Review Research 2, 023344 bilayer systems appears in the insulating side of b`, (2020), arXiv:2002.02972 [cond-mat.str-el]. where the bilayer shows interlayer pairing of f` below [6] G. R. Stewart, “Non-fermi-liquid behavior in d- and f- certain temperature scale [19–21]. electron metals,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 797–855 (2001). Outlook. In this work, we have primarily focused on [7] A. Schr¨oder, G. Aeppli, R. Coldea, M. Adams, the case of a repulsive two-body interaction, V (r) ∼ O. Stockert, H.v. L¨ohneysen, E. Bucher, R. Ramaza- 1/r1+, with 0 <  < 1, at the DMIT. For the case shvili, and P. Coleman, “Onset of in heavy-fermion metals,” Nature 407, 351–355 (2000). of usual Coulomb repulsion ( = 0), the interaction is [8] Hiroaki Shishido, Rikio Settai, Hisatomo Harima, and marginal at the tree-level with respect to the bosonic Yoshichika nuki, “A drastic change of the fermi sur- superfluid-QH transition. We leave a detailed study on face at a critical pressure in cerhin5: dhva study under the effect of Coulomb interaction on such transitions pressure,” Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 74, for the future [35]. The case with  > 1 may be real- 1103–1106 (2005). ized with cold atoms [36, 37], and the physics in this [9] B. Keimer, S. A. Kivelson, M. R. Norman, S. Uchida, case reduces to that in Ref. [5]. The crossovers at finite and J. Zaanen, “From quantum matter to high- temperature superconductivity in copper oxides,” Na- temperature out of the regimes considered here are ex- ture 518, 179–186 (2015). pected to be rich and we leave a detailed study of this [10] S. Badoux, W. Tabis, F. Lalibert´e,G. Grissonnanche, phenomenology for future work, along with a study of B. Vignolle, D. Vignolles, J. B´eard,D. A. Bonn, W. N. the effects of different types of disorder on these tran- Hardy, R. Liang, N. Doiron-Leyraud, Louis Taillefer, sitions. The transport properties in the quantum crit- and Cyril Proust, “Change of carrier density at the ical regime associated with the DMIT will likely shed pseudogap critical point of a cuprate superconductor,” interesting light on the non-Fermi liquid. It would be Nature 531, 210–214 (2016). [11] Mark G. Alford, Andreas Schmitt, Krishna Rajagopal, interesting to find concrete models for these DMIT and and Thomas Sch¨afer, “Color superconductivity in study them numerically. A smoking-gun signature for dense quark matter,” Reviews of Modern Physics 80, the DMIT in the density-density response would be a 1455–1515 (2008), arXiv:0709.4635 [hep-ph]. sharp “2KF ” response arising from the critical Fermi [12] B. Hunt, J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, A. F. Young, surface, in addition to the set of isolated peaks from M. Yankowitz, B. J. LeRoy, K. Watanabe, the charge-density wave due to the emergent SU(C +1) T. Taniguchi, P. Moon, M. Koshino, P. Jarillo- symmetry at the critical point. Herrero, and R. C. Ashoori, “Massive dirac fermions and hofstadter butterfly in a van der waals het- Acknowledgement. We thank Zhen Bi, Inti Sode- erostructure,” Science 340, 1427–1430 (2013). mann and especially Chong Wang for useful discus- [13] L. A. Ponomarenko, R. V. Gorbachev, G. L. Yu, D. C. sions. LZ is supported by the John Bardeen Postdoc- 7

Elias, R. Jalil, A. A. Patel, A. Mishchenko, A. S. Effect for Bosons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 046801 Mayorov, C. R. Woods, J. R. Wallbank, M. Mucha- (2013), arXiv:1206.1604 [cond-mat.str-el]. Kruczynski, B. A. Piot, M. Potemski, I. V. Grigorieva, [30] Liujun Zou and T. Senthil, “Dimensional decoupling at K. S. Novoselov, F. Guinea, V. I. Fal’ko, and A. K. continuous quantum critical Mott transitions,” Phys. Geim, “Cloning of dirac fermions in super- Rev. B 94, 115113 (2016), arXiv:1603.09359 [cond- lattices,” Nature 497, 594–597 (2013). mat.str-el]. [14] C. R. Dean, L. Wang, P. Maher, C. Forsythe, F. Gha- [31] W. Kohn and J. M. Luttinger, “New mechanism for su- hari, Y. Gao, J. Katoch, M. Ishigami, P. Moon, perconductivity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 15, 524–526 (1965). M. Koshino, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, K. L. Shep- [32] R. Shankar, “Renormalization-group approach to in- ard, J. Hone, and P. Kim, “Hofstadter’s butterfly and teracting fermions,” Reviews of Modern Physics 66, the fractal quantum hall effect in moir´esuperlattices,” 129–192 (1994), arXiv:cond-mat/9307009 [cond-mat]. Nature 497, 598–602 (2013). [33] , “ in an exactly solved model [15] Eric M. Spanton, Alexander A. Zibrov, Haoxin Zhou, and beyond,” Annals of Physics 321, 2–111 (2006), Takashi Taniguchi, Kenji Watanabe, Michael P. Zale- arXiv:cond-mat/0506438 [cond-mat.mes-hall]. tel, and Andrea F. Young, “Observation of fractional [34] T. Senthil and Matthew P. A. Fisher, “Z2 chern insulators in a van der waals heterostructure,” of electron fractionalization in strongly correlated sys- Science 360, 62–66 (2018). tems,” Phys. Rev. B 62, 7850–7881 (2000), arXiv:cond- [16] Maissam Barkeshli and John McGreevy, “Continu- mat/9910224 [cond-mat.str-el]. ous transitions between composite Fermi liquid and [35] Jinwu Ye and Subir Sachdev, “Coulomb Interactions Landau Fermi liquid: A route to fractionalized at Quantum Hall Critical Points of Systems in a Peri- Mott insulators,” Phys. Rev. B 86, 075136 (2012), odic Potential,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5409–5412 (1998), arXiv:1206.6530 [cond-mat.str-el]. arXiv:cond-mat/9712161 [cond-mat.mes-hall]. [17] B. I. Halperin, Patrick A. Lee, and Nicholas Read, [36] Nigel R. Cooper and Jean Dalibard, “Reaching “Theory of the half-filled landau level,” Phys. Rev. B Fractional Quantum Hall States with Optical Flux 47, 7312–7343 (1993). Lattices,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 185301 (2013), [18] Jong Yeon Lee, Chong Wang, Michael P. Zaletel, arXiv:1212.3552 [cond-mat.quant-gas]. Ashvin Vishwanath, and Yin-Chen He, “Emergent [37] N. Y. Yao, A. V. Gorshkov, C. R. Laumann, A. M. Multi-Flavor QED3 at the Plateau Transition be- L¨auchli, J. Ye, and M. D. Lukin, “Realizing Frac- tween Fractional Chern Insulators: Applications to tional Chern Insulators in Dipolar Spin Systems,” Graphene Heterostructures,” Physical Review X 8, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 185302 (2013), arXiv:1212.4839 031015 (2018), arXiv:1802.09538 [cond-mat.str-el]. [cond-mat.str-el]. [19] N. E. Bonesteel, I. A. McDonald, and C. Nayak, [38] Vadim Borokhov, Anton Kapustin, and Xinkai Wu, “Gauge Fields and Pairing in Double-Layer Compos- “Topological Disorder Operators in Three-Dimensional ite Fermion Metals,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3009–3012 Conformal Field Theory,” Journal of High Energy (1996), arXiv:cond-mat/9601112 [cond-mat]. Physics 2002, 049 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0206054 [hep- [20] Inti Sodemann, Itamar Kimchi, Chong Wang, and th]. T. Senthil, “Composite fermion duality for half-filled [39] Rahul Nandkishore, Max A. Metlitski, and T. Senthil, multicomponent Landau levels,” Phys. Rev. B 95, “Orthogonal metals: The simplest non-Fermi liquids,” 085135 (2017), arXiv:1609.08616 [cond-mat.str-el]. Phys. Rev. B 86, 045128 (2012), arXiv:1201.5998 [21] Hiroki Isobe and Liang Fu, “Interlayer Pairing Symme- [cond-mat.str-el]. try of Composite Fermions in Quantum Hall Bilayers,” [40] Song He, P. M. Platzman, and B. I. Halperin, “Tunnel- Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 166401 (2017), arXiv:1609.09063 ing into a two-dimensional electron system in a strong [cond-mat.str-el]. magnetic field,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 777–780 (1993). [22] (2020), see supplementary material for additional de- [41] Yong Baek Kim and Xiao-Gang Wen, “Instantons and tails. the spectral function of electrons in the half-filled [23] T. Senthil, “Critical Fermi surfaces and non-Fermi Landau level,” Phys. Rev. B 50, 8078–8081 (1994), liquid metals,” Phys. Rev. B 78, 035103 (2008), arXiv:cond-mat/9401032 [cond-mat]. arXiv:0803.4009 [cond-mat.str-el]. [42] L. B. Ioffe and A. I. Larkin, “Gapless fermions and [24] Xiao-Gang Wen, Quantum field theory of many-body gauge fields in dielectrics,” Phys. Rev. B 39, 8988– systems (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004). 8999 (1989). [25] Maissam Barkeshli and John McGreevy, “Continuous [43] Ya-Hui Zhang and T. Senthil, “Quantum Hall spin transition between fractional quantum hall and super- liquids and their possible realization in moir´e sys- fluid states,” Phys. Rev. B 89, 235116 (2014). tems,” arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2003.13702 (2020),

[26] Liujun Zou and Yin-Chen He, “Field-induced qcd3- arXiv:2003.13702 [cond-mat.str-el]. chern-simons quantum criticalities in kitaev materi- [44] Chetan Nayak and Frank Wilczek, “Non-Fermi liquid als,” Phys. Rev. Research 2, 013072 (2020). fixed point in 2 + 1 dimensions,” Nuclear Physics B [27] C. Dasgupta and B. I. Halperin, “Phase transition in 417, 359–373 (1994), arXiv:cond-mat/9312086 [cond- a lattice model of superconductivity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. mat]. 47, 1556–1560 (1981). [45] Sung-Sik Lee, “Stability of the U(1) spin liquid with a [28] Wei Chen, Matthew P. A. Fisher, and Yong-Shi Wu, spinon Fermi surface in 2+1 dimensions,” Phys. Rev. B “Mott transition in an gas,” Phys. Rev. B 48, 78, 085129 (2008), arXiv:0804.3800 [cond-mat.str-el]. 13749–13761 (1993), arXiv:cond-mat/9301037 [cond- [46] Sung-Sik Lee, “Low-energy effective theory of Fermi mat]. surface coupled with U(1) gauge field in 2+1 [29] T. Senthil and Michael Levin, “Integer Quantum Hall dimensions,” Phys. Rev. B 80, 165102 (2009), 8

arXiv:0905.4532 [cond-mat.str-el]. [47] Max A. Metlitski and Subir Sachdev, “Quantum phase transitions of metals in two spatial dimensions. I. Ising-nematic order,” Phys. Rev. B 82, 075127 (2010), arXiv:1001.1153 [cond-mat.str-el]. [48] David F. Mross, John McGreevy, Hong Liu, and T. Senthil, “Controlled expansion for certain non- Fermi-liquid metals,” Phys. Rev. B 82, 045121 (2010), arXiv:1003.0894 [cond-mat.str-el]. [49] Max A. Metlitski, David F. Mross, Subir Sachdev, and T. Senthil, “Cooper pairing in non-fermi liquids,” Phys. Rev. B 91, 115111 (2015). 9

Supplementary Material for “Deconfined Metal-Insulator Transitions in Quantum Hall Bilayers”

This Supplementary Material contains additional details on: I. the critical theory of the transition between the quantum Hall (QH) state and superfluid of the bosons, II. some of the low-energy properties of the generalized composite Fermi liquid (gCFL) phase, III. additional details on the spectator valence electrons and Cooper pairs, IV. a discussion of the interlayer pairing instability of two layers of gCFL, V. an analysis of the effects of various interlayer couplings at the metal-insulator transition, and, VI. details of deriving the topological properties of the insulating phases.

Bosonic quantum Hall - superfluid transition

In the main text we have provided a flux-attachment based picture for the single-layer QH - superfluid transition of the “conduction” bosonic partons derived from the spin-up electrons. In this section we provide an alternative interpretation of the same critical theory, and we only focus on the conduction bosons with density ν = C/(C +1) per UC per layer. In order to describe the QH state of b` and the associated transition into a superfluid of b`, we introduce two more fermionic partons χ` and ψ`, such that b` = χ`ψ`, supplemented with a constraint nχ` = nψ` = nb` = ν. This parton construction introduces an SU(2) gauge redundancy, but we will explicitly break it down to U(1) [24]. This means that at low energies the b`-sector can be described by χ` and ψ` coupled to another emergent dynamical U(1) gauge field, α`. The charge assignment for the different partons under all of the gauge fields is summarized in TableII.

b` f` c` χ` ψ`

A` 1 0 1 1 0

As 0 1 1 0 0

a` −1 1 0 −1 0

α` 0 0 0 −1 1

TABLE II. Charge assignment of the partons under the different gauge fields.

The theory for the b`-sector can then be written as

L[b`,A`−a`] = L[χ`,−α`−a`+A`] + L[ψ`,α`]. (14)

Notice in discussing this bosonic sector, A` − a` is treated as a static gauge field. Consider now a mean field state where a` has no average flux and α` has an average of 1/(C + 1) (≡ 1 − ν) flux quanta per UC. Using the charge assignment in TableII, this means that, modulo the unit flux quantum per UC experienced by b` from the external gauge field, f` and b` experience no flux, χ` experiences a total flux of C/(C + 1) (≡ ν) flux quanta per UC, and ψ` experiences 1/(C + 1) of flux quanta per UC. Then with particle density nc` = nb` = nχ` = nψ` = C/(C + 1), we can put χ` into a mean field state with Chern number 1, and tune the parameters of the system so that ψ` undergoes a transition from a state with Chern number −1 to a state with Chern number C [18, 25]. The critical theory of this transition can be described by 1 L = (A − α − a )d(A − α − a ) + CS [b`,A`−a`] 4π ` ` ` ` ` ` g C+1 (15) C − 1 (C − 1)CSg X + α dα + + ψ (iD/ + m)ψ , 8π ` ` 2 `,i α` `,i i=1 where the C + 1 flavors of Dirac fermions ψ`,i are the low-energy modes of ψ`. This is precisely the critical theory † in the main text. Notice b` is identified as the monopole of α` in this theory, since the 2π-flux of α` carries charge −1 under A` − a`. Also, this theory has an emergent SU(C + 1) flavor symmetry, under which the Dirac fermions transform in the fundamental representation. Because of the Chern-Simons term of α`, the monopole of α` that is neutral under α` has no zero mode filled, which implies that b` is a singlet under the emergent SU(C + 1) symmetry [38]. 10

In the above effective Lagrangian, the first two terms represent χ` that is in a state with Chern number 1, and the last three terms represent the state of ψ`. If m > 0, integrating out ψ`,i converts the last three terms into 1 L = − α dα − CS , (16) `2 4π ` ` g which indeed describes a state of ψ` that has Chern number −1. Combining it with the first two terms, we obtain 1 1 L = (A − a ) d(A − a ) − (A − a ) dα . (17) [b`,A`−a`] 4π ` ` ` ` 2π ` ` `

Notice the absence of a CS term for α, so this is a superfluid state of b` [27]. As b` transforms trivially under all global symmetries, this superfluid does not further spontaneously break other global symmetries. If m < 0, integrating out ψ` converts the last three terms of (15) into C L = α dα + C · CS , (18) `2 4π ` ` g which describes a state of ψ` that has Chern number C. Combining it with the first two terms in (15), we obtain (b) the effective theory of the QH state of b` with a Hall conductivity σxy = ν = C/(C + 1): C + 1 1 1 L = α dα + (a − A ) dα + (a − A ) d(a − A ) + (C + 1)CS . (19) [b`,A`−a`] 4π ` ` 2π ` ` ` 4π ` ` ` ` g

Low-energy properties of the gCFL with C 6= 1

In this section, we discuss details of the gCFL state with C 6= 1. We will argue that this state can be viewed as a QH-version of an orthogonal metal (OM) [39], as qualitatively it has similar thermodynamic and transport properties as the usual spinless CFL [17], but the spectral property is markedly different. In particular, in the usual CFL, the single electron has a soft gap [40, 41]. However, in the gCFL the single electron has a hard gap, while only multi-electron bound states have soft gaps. So the analogy between the usual CFL and the gCFL is analogous to the analogy between the usual Fermi liquid and an OM. First, we remark that the construction of the gCFL involves the procedure of “flux removal” in the conduction sector, which removes the flux from the conduction electron c` to the boson b`, so that f` can form a Fermi surface and b` can form a QH state. Flux removal is the real essence of construction of CFL [17], while the usually-stated “flux attachment” is just a particular way to implement flux removal. To understand the thermodynamic and transport properties of the gCFL, one can apply the Ioffe-Larkin-type analysis [42], with the QH physics and the spectator sector taken into account. Specifically, recall that the effective theory reads 1 L = L + L − A d(A − a ) (20) ` [b`,A`−a`] [f`,a`+As] π ` ` `

For simplicity, we will set As = 0 here. Integrating out b` and f` results in the following effecitve Lagrangian

1 T 1 T Leff = [A`(k) − a`(k)] Πb(k)[A`(−k) − a`(−k)] + a`(k) Πf (k)a`(−k) 2 2 (21) 1 + A (k)T Π (k)a (−k) + a (k)T Π (k)A (−k) − A (k)T Π (k)A (−k) 2 ` s ` ` s ` ` s ` where k = (ω, q) compactly denotes the frequency and wavevector, Πb and Πf represent the polarization tensors of b` and f`, respectively, and Πs is the contribution from the spectator sector. We will take the Coulomb gauge, i.e., ∇ · A = ∇ · a = 0, so the gauge fields are 2-component vectors, e.g., a` = (a`0, a`t), with a`0 and a`t the temporal q2 q1 and transverse spatial component of a`, respectively, such that a`1(k) = q a`t(k) and a`2(k) = − q a`t(k). In this gauge,  q  0 − π Πs(k) = q (22) π 0

Deep in the QH state of b`,Πb takes the form

(b) σxy q ! 0 − 2π Πb(k) = (b) (23) σxy q 2π 0 11

(b) where σxy = ν is the Hall conductivity of the conduction bosons. And since f` has a Fermi surface, Πf takes the form  (f)  σxy q κf − 2π Πf (k) =  (f)  (24) σxy q |ω| 2 2π k0 q + χdq (f) where κf , k0 and χd are non-universal quantities. More precisely, κf is the compressibility of f`, σxy is the Hall conductivity of f`, the k0|ω|/q term corresponds to Landau damping (for ω  vf q), and the χd is the diamagnetic suspectibility. Further integrating out the emergent gauge field a` yields the response theory to the physical electromagnetic gauge field A`: 1 L = A (k)T Π (k)A (−k) (25) response 2 ` c ` with −1 Πc = Πb − 2Πs − (Πb − Πs)(Πb + Πf ) (Πb − Πs) (26)

In the case of no nontrivial coupling in the spectator sector, i.e., when Πs can be ignored, as b` forms a QH state and f` forms a Fermi surface for all C, the thermodynamic and transport properties obtained from this Ioffe- Larkin-type analysis should be qualitatively the same for all C, and the case with C = 1 precisely corresponds to the standard CFL [17]. This expectation still largely holds even when Πs is taken into account. As an example, let us demonstrate that the gCFL is compressible. The electronic compressibility of c` is (00) κc = Πc (ω = 0, q → 0) . Substituting (22), (23) and (24) into (26) yields (b) 2 κf (σxy − 2) κc = (27) 2 (b) (f) 2 4π κf χd + (σxy + σxy ) (b) Thus, κc 6= 0 and the system is compressible as long as b` is in a QH state (with σxy 6= 2) and f` forms a gapless (b) 2 Fermi surface (with κf 6= 0). Notice the factor (σxy − 2) in the numerator above is due to Πs; if Πs = 0, this b 2 factor becomes simply (σxy) . One notable distinction between the gCFL and the usual CFL is in their spectral properties. To understand it systematically, consider its low-energy effective theory after integrating out the bosonic sector: ν L = L + (a − A )d(a − A ) + L (28) ` [f`,a`+As] 4π ` ` ` ` [c`,B`] To examine the electronic spectral property, we note that an electron c` is a bound state of gapped b` and gapless f`. Naively one expects that the single electron is always gapped because b` is gapped. However, because (b`) b` is in a QH state with σxy = ν, we may also be able to make an electron by binding f` with certain monopoles of a`. This is indeed the case when C = 1, where we can make up an electron by binding 2 anti-monopoles of a` and one f` quantum (with or without the presence of the spectator sector captured by L[c`,B`]). As a result, a single electron has a soft gap [40, 41]. Applying the same reasoning to a gCFL with C 6= 1, one may attempt to identify a single electron with a bound state of f` and 1/ν = (C + 1)/C anti-monopoles of a`. But there can only be an integral number of monopoles of a`, so a 1/ν anti-monopole does not exist if C 6= 1. Therefore, a single electron has a hard gap when C 6= 1. However, one can make a local multi-electron bound state by binding C f`’s with 7 C +1 anti-monopoles of a`, which then has a soft gap. More generally, only N composites of such multi-electron bound states have soft gaps in a gCFL with C 6= 1, where N is an integer, 8 and all other excitations have hard gaps. This is similar to a ZC OM, which has qualitatively the same thermodynamic and transport properties as a usual Fermi liquid. However, the single electron in a ZC OM is gapped, and only NC-electron bound states are gapless, with N an integer [39]. We note so far our gCFL is defined at filling factors specified in the main text, but actually it can also be properly constructed at filling ν = p/q in a similar way, with p and q more generic mutually co-prime integers. Such a gCFL still has similar thermodynamic and transport properties as the usual CFL, but only multi-electron bound states have soft gaps, and excitations with other charges have a hard gap. Indeed, such a state with p being an even integer and q = 1 was recently constructed in Ref. [43].

7 Interestingly, this bound state has electric charge C − 2 and 8 z Collective modes arising from Fermi surface deformation be- S -spin C, so it can be viewed as a bound state of C − 1 long to the case with N = 0. spin-up electrons and 1 spin-down hole. 12

Spectator sector and the internal gauge flux

In the main text we mentioned that the valence spin-up electrons and Cooper pairs are gapped spectators to the transition, but they play an important role in that their coupling can fix the internal gauge flux of a` without fine-tuning. In this section we provide more details of the spectator sector and the internal gauge flux. We will focus on the single-layer case and it is straightforward to generalize the discussion to the bilayer case. Let us first consider the case where the spectators are gapped but there is no nontrivial coupling between them. At the critical point, from the equations of motion of a` and α` we get δb + δb δb + δb C − 1 a α + δn = 0, − a α + δn + δb = 0 (29) 2π f 2π ψ 4π α with δba the deviation from the value of ba at the putative critical point, where ba is the flux of a`. Similarly for δbα, δnf and δnψ. By varying the Lagrangian with respect to A` and As, we can obtain the electric charge and total spin on the `-th layer. Since these are fixed, we get two more conditions: δb + δb − a α = 0, δn = 0 (30) 2π f These are all the conditions we have, and it is easy to see that with these conditions it is impossible to ensure that all of δba, δbα, δnf and δnψ vanish. In particular, although nf is fixed, ba, bα and nψ can still change without violating the above conditions. Once ba 6= 0, the critical point is expected to be unstable to form a QH state, rendering the single-layer FL-gCFL indirect. More generally, without nontrivial coupling in the spectator sector, the current setup is essentially the same as the spinless setup in Ref. [16]. Then we need to fix 3 quantities: the densities of the two partons as well as the internal flux density. However, there are only 2 conditions: gauge neutral condition (29) and fixed electric charge condition (30). So in this case it is impossible to fix the 3 quantities simultaneously, and the transition requires tuning two parameters. This type of fine-tuning is expected to be a general feature of transitions associated with multiple species of gapless partons coupled to a U(1) gauge field, unless the system has enough symmetries to fix all these quantities. In passing, it is worth mentioning why the internal gauge flux is fixed in the gCFL phase even without the spectator sector, which is necessary for the spinless version of this phase to be stable. The reason is that in the gCFL phase the bosonic partons are gapped, so their density cannot be changed under weak perturbations. Then there are only 2 quantities to fix, the density of the fermionic parton and the internal gauge flux density, and it is possible to fix them just by the two conditions above. Similarly, the transition within the bosonic sector also only involves one gapless parton and one dynamical U(1) gauge field, α`, (recall that A` − a` is regarded as a static gauge field when discussing the transition within the bosonic sector), and these can be fixed by the gauge neutral condition and fixed electric charge condition. 2 Now let us see how a coupling L[c`,B`] = − 2π A`d(A` − a`) helps us fix all the 3 quantities. Intuitively, in this case, the flux of a` now carries charge under A`, so it is fixed since the charge under A` is fixed. More formally, we see that the gauge neutral condition resulted from the equations of motion of a` and α` are still given by (29), but the fixed charge condition becomes δb + δb δb − a α + a = 0, δn = 0 (31) 2π π f

Now these equations ensure that δba = δbα = δnf = δnψ = 0. That is, all these quantities are fixed to their presumed values at the critical point, and this is a necessary condition for the transition to be accessible by tuning a single parameter. 2 Finally, we elaborate on how the interaction L[c`,B`] = − 2π A`d(A` − a`) can emerge. For this purpose, let us momentarily assume that the conduction electrons and the valance electrons are actually two decoupled systems, and we denote their annihilation operators by c`c and c`v, and the U(1) gauge fields they coupled to by A`c and A`v, respectively. Then we perform the parton construction c`c = b`cf`c and c`v = b`vf`v, which implies emergent gauge fields a`c and a`v for conduction and vallance partons, respectively. Then the low-energy effective theory takes the form L = L + L + L + L + L + ··· (32) ` [b`c,A`c−a`c] [f`c,a`c+As] [b`v ,A`v −a`v ] [f`v ,a`v +As] [B`,A˜] where ··· represents the coupling between the various sectors, and at this point we denote the gauge field coupled to B` by A˜. Now we can attach a vortex of B` to b`v, and attach a vortex of b`v to B`. According to Ref. [29], 13 this induces an interaction that takes the following form at low energies: 1 L = − Ad˜ (A − a ) (33) [b`v ,B`] 2π `v `v

Finally, we switch on weak hybridization between b`v and b`c, between f`v and f`c, and between B` and the bound state of the physical spin-up and spin-down electrons. As long as this hybridization strength is weaker than the gap of spectator sectors, c`v and B`, its main effect is to identify a`c = a`v = a`, A`c = A`v = A` and A˜ = 2A˜`. In particular, the interaction (33) simply becomes 2 L = − A d(A − a ) (34) [c`,B`] 2π ` ` ` Notice in terms of the electronic degrees of freedom, this hybridization, albeit weak, requires reasonably strong interactions.

Interlayer pairing instability

Here we generalize the results of Refs. [5, 19–21] to show that two layers of gCFL are unstable towards interlayer pairing between f1 and f2 in the presence of a repulsive long-range interaction potential of the form 1+ V (r) = V0/r , if 0 6  < 1. Similar to Ref. [20], we can write the long-range interaction as

X V0 LLR = (∇ × a`1t)[ri] 1+ (∇ × a`2t)[rj] 2 2 2 `1`2 [(1 − δ`1`2 )d + (ri − rj) ] (35)

=(∇ × a+t)[ri]f+(ri − rj, d)(∇ × a+t)[rj] + (∇ × a−t)[ri]f−(ri − rj, d)(∇ × a−t)[rj] with " # 1 1 rd 4V0 f+(r, d) = 2V0 + −→ r1+ (d2 + r2)(1+)/2 r1+ (36) " # 2 1 1 rd d f−(r, d) = 2V0 − −→ V0(1 + ) . r1+ (d2 + r2)(1+)/2 r3+

As in the main text, a`t represents the transverse spatial component of a`. Transforming to momentum space, in the large-distance limit this interaction contributes “kinetic” terms to a±: Z Z 1+ Z Z 3+ |k| 2 |k| 2 SLR[a+t] = |a+t(k, ω)| ,SLR[a−t] = |a−t(k, ω)| , (37) ω k 2g+ ω k 2g− 2 where g+ ∼ 1/V0 and g− ∼ 1/(V0d (1 + )). Notice that local interactions will automatically generate kinetic terms for a± of the form Z Z 2 k 2 Slocal[a±t] = 0 |a±t(k, ω)| . (38) ω k 2g±

At low energies Slocal[a−t] dominates over SLR[a−t] for all  > 0. On the other hand, when 0 6  < 1, at low energies SLR[a+t] dominates over Slocal[a+t], while the former is equally or less relevant than the latter when  > 1. Therefore, for the case of primary interest to us, where 0 6  < 1, we will only keep SLR[a+t] and Slocal[a−t] in the low-energy regime:

Z Z  1++ 1+−  |k| 2 k 2 S[a+t, a−t] = |a+t(k, ω)| + |a−t(k, ω)| . (39) ω k 2g+ 2g− with + =  and − = 1. Notice we have dropped all primes in the effective gauge couplings and simply write them as g±. The effect between the coupling of the gauge fields and fermions can be captured by the following theory [5, 44–49]:

S = Sf + S[a+t, a−t], (40) 14

R 2 where Sf is given by Sf = d xdτLf , with

X †  2 X h † † i Lf = f`p ∂τ + vF −ip∂x − ∂y f`p − vF λp (a+ + a−)f1pf1p + (a+ − a−)f2pf2p , (41) p=±,`=1,2 p=±

where f`p is the low-energy mode of the fermions in the `th layer, near antipodal patches on the Fermi surface labeled by p (= ±). For the above theory, a+ tends to suppress pairing while a− tends to promote interlayer pairing [5, 19–21, 30]. From the above action we can see that when  < 1, the coupling between a− and the fermions is more RG relevant than the coupling between a+ and the fermions, so we expect a− will win over a+ in the competition, and the Fermi surface becomes unstable to interlayer pairing. g±vF To see this more formally, define dimensionless gauge couplingsg ˜± ≡ 4π2Λ± as in Ref. [5], where Λ is a cutoff scale of this effective theory. Denote the dimensionless interlayer 4-fermion interaction by Ve. We will study the RG flow of these couplings in an expansion in terms of small + and −, with the assumption that the physics at + =  and − = 1 is qualitatively the same as that for small ±. Generalizing the results in Ref. [5], we get the beta functions of these couplings:9   β(˜g ) = + − (˜g +g ˜ ) g˜ + 2 + − +   β(˜g ) = − − (˜g +g ˜ ) g˜ (42) − 2 + − − 2 β(Ve) =g ˜+ − g˜− − Ve

The first two equations have a single attractive fixed point at (˜g+, g˜−) = (0, 1/2) when 0 6  < 1. Notice that g˜+ → 0 under RG agrees with our previous expectation that this coupling is irrelevant. Substituting this result into the last equation, we see that Ve flows to −∞, which signals an interlayer pairing.10 Notice that the precise channel in which pairing occurs depends on non-universal details [20, 21, 49].

RG irrelevance of interlayer couplings at the metal-insulator quantum critical point

In this section, we provide additional details underlying the effects of a variety of interlayer couplings at the metal-insulator transition in the QH bilayer by applying the method in Ref. [30]: enumerating all possible interlayer couplings and analyzing their effects at the critical point. We will see that a sufficient condition for the layer decoupling is that all gauge invariant operators in the b`-sector have a scaling dimension larger than 3/2, which is satisfied when C  1 [28]. Below we enumerate and analyze some of the most relevant interlayer couplings.

 †  1. Ob1 · f2 f2 + (1 ↔ 2), where the first (second) term is a coupling between a gauge invariant operator in the b1 (b2)-sector and a fermion bilinear in the f2 (f1)-sector. For our purpose, it is sufficient to focus on the first term. Let us integrate out f2 and examine the effect of this term on the b1-sector. Due to the first R 2 term, integrating out f2 generates an effective action of the form ω,k |Ob1 (k, ω)| in the critical regime of

b1 with ω ∼ k. Clearly this effective action is irrelevant when the scaling dimension of Ob1 is larger than 3/2, which is satisfied when C  1.

Next we integrate out b1 and examine the effect of this term on the (f2, a2)-sector. This generates an effective action of the form,

Z 3 Z 2 2 ∆Ob − 2 † 2 2∆Ob −3 † 2 |ω + k | 1 |f2 f2(k, ω)| ∼ |ky| 1 |f2 f2(k, ω)| , (43) ω,k ω,k

9 We note that the corresponding beta functions in Ref. [20] did beta function is of the formg ˜± · Ve , resulting from vertex cor- not include some of these terms. rection and the flow of Fermi velocity [5, 49]. For small  , 10 ± We note that the next-leading-order correction to the third such corrections cannot change the results that the Fermi sur- faces are unstable to interlayer pairing. 15

z za/2 where ∆ is the scaling dimension of O , and we have used the scaling relation ω ∼ k a ∼ kx , with Ob1 b1 y kx the momentum parallel to the Fermi velocity and ky the momentum perpendicular to the Fermi velocity [45–48]. The gauge fields contribute [45–48]

Z 1 † 2 ∼ |f f2(k, ω)| (44) za−1 2 ω,k |ky|

So, compared to this gauge-field contribution, the interlayer coupling is irrelevant if ∆ > 2 − za = 1, Ob1 2 where we have used za = 2. This is again satisfied when C  1.

2.( Ob1 · ∇ × a2) + (1 ↔ 2). Since the gauge field is Landau damped, this coupling is irrelevant to the bosonic sector [2]. On the other hand, integrating out b1 generates an effective action for a2 of the form 2∆O −1 2 k |a2(k, ω)| , where ∆O is the scaling dimension of O. This term is RG irrelevant compared to the gauge field effective action due to the critical boson when ∆O > 1, which is satisfied when C  1. So this coupling is also irrelevant.

3.( ∇ × a1)(∇ × a2). Because of the presence of the gauge field effective action due to the critical boson, this coupling is irrelevant.

† 4.( f1 f1 · ∇ × a2) + (1 ↔ 2). This coupling has one more derivative compered to the minimal coupling between a1 and f1, which has a finite density. So this coupling is irrelevant. 5. Interlayer electron tunneling, which contributes the following low-energy effective action: Z  †  δStunneling = − dωdk⊥dθλ(θ) c1(k⊥, ω, θ)c2(k⊥, ω, θ) + h.c. (45)

where k⊥ is the distance away from the Fermi surface in the momentum space, θ parameterizes the position on the Fermi surface, λ is a θ-dependent interlayer electron tunneling strength, and c1,2(k⊥, ω, θ) represents 0 the low-energy electron operators near the Fermi surface. Consider the scaling transformation k⊥ → k⊥ = 0 0 sk⊥, ω → ω = sω and θ → θ = θ. Note that the leading singular contribution to the electron spectral function at the critical point is given by [2]:

η Λω ! ω ω ln ω Ac(k⊥, ω, θ) = · F (46) Λω vk ln ω ⊥

1 η with the universal function F (x) = 1 − x θ(x − 1), where η is the anomalous dimension of b` in the transition described by (15), Λω and v are non-universal constants. This spectral function implies that 0 0 0 0 η −1 0 0 under the above scaling transformation, c`(k⊥, ω, θ) → c`(k⊥, ω , θ ) = s 2 c`(k, ω, θ) and λ(θ) → λ (θ ) = s−ηλ(θ). Because η > 0, interlayer electron tunneling is also irrelevant at the transition.11

K-matrix of interlayer paired state in a channel with n 6= ±1

In this section we derive the K-matrix for interlayer paired states in a channel with n 6= 1, and all we need is to modify the effective theory for the d` fermions. In these channels, it is not immediately obvious how a− should couple with other gauge fields, because the arguments in Ref. [20], involving the layer exchange symmetry and the zero modes in the vortex cores of these paired states, do not directly apply here. So the simplest and systematic way to proceed may be to apply the trick in Ref. [26] to build up the theory for a state with n 6= ±1 from the states with n = ±1. The key observation behind this approach is that switching on the hybridization between fermions in a stack of states with n = ±1 can produce a state with any n [33].

11 When b` is gapped, the electron c` is even more incoherent, terlayer electron tunneling is relevant. Therefore, interlayer and interlayer electron tunneling will still be irrelevant. When electron tunneling is a dangerously irrelevant perturbation. b` is condensed, each layer is in a Fermi liquid phase, so in- 16

For example, for the n = 0 state, we can view it as a n = 1 state together with a n = −1 state, where the fermions d` in the n = 1 state can hybridize with those in the n = −1 state. Before considering the hybridization between these d` fermions, 4 1 4 1 L = − γ dγ + a dγ + γ dγ + a dγ (47) [d`,a−] 4π 1 1 π − 1 4π 2 2 π − 2 where the first two terms represent the n = 1 state, and the last two terms represent the n = −1 state. Notice this theory actually has two dynamical Z2 gauge field, where the charge-1 excitation of γ1 is identified with the π-flux of one Z2 gauge field, and the charge-1 excitation of γ2 is identified with the π-flux of the other Z2 gauge field. The hybridization between the fermions in the n = 1 and n = −1 states confines these two types of π-flux together, which can be formally implemented by imposing the constraint qγ1 = qγ2 (mod 2). As a sanity check, 0 0 let us introduce γ1 = γ1 + γ2 and γ2 = γ1 − γ2, whose charges can independently take any integer. In terms 0 0 1 0 0 of γ1 and γ2, the above theory with a− switched off is − π γ1dγ2, which, as expected, is precisely the standard K-matrix description of an n = 0 superconductor coupled to a dynamical Z2 gauge field. Combining φ and d`, we get the effective theory of f`: 1 4 1 L = (a + A )dβ − (γ dγ − γ dγ ) + a d(γ + γ ) (48) [f,a+As] π + s 4π 1 1 2 2 π − 1 2 ˜ with a constraint qβ = qγ1 = qγ2 (mod 2). To eliminate this constraint, we can introduce β,γ ˜1 andγ ˜2 as  β˜   1 −1 1   β   γ˜1  =  1 1 −1  ·  γ1  . (49) γ˜2 −1 1 1 γ2 ˜ The charges of β,γ ˜1 andγ ˜2 can independently take all integers. i As in the main text, introducing gauge fields β` to rewrite the effective theory of b` described by (19), and 2 combining the result with (48) and L[c`,B`] = − 2π A`d(A` − a`), we get the effective theory of c`: K t t t L = IJ a˜ da˜ + 1I A da˜ + 2I A da˜ + sI A da˜ (50) 4π I J 2π 1 I 2π 2 I 2π s I 1 2 C+1 1 2 C+1 ˜ T T T wherea ˜I = (β1 , β1 , ··· , β1 , β2 , β2 , ··· , β2 , β, γ˜1, γ˜2) , t1 = (0, 0, ··· , 0, 1, 1, 1) , t2 = (0, 0, ··· , 0, −1) , and   K1 0 K2 K =  0 K1 K3  T T K2 K3 K4 T (51) t1 = (−2, −2, ··· , −2, 0, 0, ··· , 0, 1, 1, 1) T t2 = (0, 0, ··· , 0, −2, −2, ··· , −2, 0, 0, −1)

ts = (0, 0, ··· , 0, 1, 1, 0) with K1 a (C + 1) × (C + 1) matrix whose diagonal entries all vanish and other entries are all 1, K2 a (C + 1) × 3 matrix whose all entries are 1, K3 a (C + 1) × 3 matrix whose first two columns vanish and all entries in the third column are −1, and  1 0 1  K4 =  0 −1 −1  . (52) 1 −1 0

0 The K-matrix may be simplified by introducing a new set of gauge field such thata ˜I = WIJ aJ , where W ∈ 0 0 T 0 T SL(2, Z). In terms of a , the new K-matrix is K = W KW , and the new t1,2 vector is t1,2,s = W t1,2,s [24]. For example, when C = 1, take  1 0 1 0 0 0 0   0 1 1 0 0 0 0     0 0 1 0 0 0 0    W =  −1 −1 −3 1 1 0 0  (53)    −1 −1 −3 0 1 0 0     1 1 1 −1 0 1 −1  0 0 1 1 0 0 1 17

0 T We get a simplified K = W KW = diag(σx, −4, −1, 1, −1, 1) where σx is the standard Pauli matrix. That is, the resulting state has a U(1)4 topological order. In passing, we note that for the case with C = 1 and n = −1, take  1 0 0 −1 1 0   0 1 0 −1 1 0     0 0 1 1 −1 0  W =   (54)  0 0 0 1 0 0     0 0 0 1 −1 0  0 0 −1 −1 0 1 we can convert the K-matrix in the main text into  0 1 0 0 0 0   1 0 0 0 0 0    0 T  0 0 −1 0 0 0  K = W KW =   (55)  0 0 0 0 0 0     0 0 0 0 −1 0  0 0 0 0 0 1

0 T 0 T 0 T together with t1 = (−2, −2, 0, 5, −5, 0) , t2 = (0, 0, −3, −5, 2, 1) , and ts = (0, 0, −1, −1, 0, 1) , which represents z a state that spontaneously breaks a U(1) symmetry generated by 5(Q1 − Q2) − S , where Q1,2 is the electric charge of the two layers, respectively. This approach can be similarly applied to obtain the K-matrix description of states for any n, and one only has to change L[d`,a−] appropriately. For instance, if n = n0 > 0 (n = n0 < 0), one can start with |n0| of n = 1 (n = −1) states and switch on the hybridization among fermions in different n = 1 (n = −1) components [33].

[1] T. Senthil, Matthias Vojta, and Subir Sachdev, “Weak magnetism and non-fermi liquids near heavy-fermion critical points,” Physical Review B 69 (2004). [2] T. Senthil, “Theory of a continuous Mott transition in two dimensions,” Phys. Rev. B 78, 045109 (2008), arXiv:0804.1555 [cond-mat.str-el]. [3] Kazushi Kanoda and Reizo Kato, “Mott physics in organic conductors with triangular lattices,” Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 2, 167–188 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-062910-140521. [4] Tetsuya Furukawa, Kazuya Miyagawa, Hiromi Taniguchi, Reizo Kato, and Kazushi Kanoda, “Quantum criticality of mott transition in organicmaterials,” Nature Physics 11, 221–224 (2015). [5] Liujun Zou and Debanjan Chowdhury, “Deconfined metallic quantum criticality: A U(2) gauge-theoretic approach,” Physical Review Research 2, 023344 (2020), arXiv:2002.02972 [cond-mat.str-el]. [6] G. R. Stewart, “Non-fermi-liquid behavior in d- and f-electron metals,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 797–855 (2001). [7] A. Schr¨oder,G. Aeppli, R. Coldea, M. Adams, O. Stockert, H.v. L¨ohneysen,E. Bucher, R. Ramazashvili, and P. Coleman, “Onset of antiferromagnetism in heavy-fermion metals,” Nature 407, 351–355 (2000). [8] Hiroaki Shishido, Rikio Settai, Hisatomo Harima, and Yoshichika nuki, “A drastic change of the fermi surface at a critical pressure in cerhin5: dhva study under pressure,” Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 74, 1103–1106 (2005). [9] 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, 179–186 (2015). [10] S. Badoux, W. Tabis, F. Lalibert´e,G. Grissonnanche, B. Vignolle, D. Vignolles, J. B´eard, D. A. Bonn, W. N. Hardy, R. Liang, N. Doiron-Leyraud, Louis Taillefer, and Cyril Proust, “Change of carrier density at the pseudogap critical point of a cuprate superconductor,” Nature 531, 210–214 (2016). [11] Mark G. Alford, Andreas Schmitt, Krishna Rajagopal, and Thomas Sch¨afer,“Color superconductivity in dense quark matter,” Reviews of Modern Physics 80, 1455–1515 (2008), arXiv:0709.4635 [hep-ph]. [12] B. Hunt, J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, A. F. Young, M. Yankowitz, B. J. LeRoy, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. Moon, M. Koshino, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and R. C. Ashoori, “Massive dirac fermions and hofstadter butterfly in a van der waals heterostructure,” Science 340, 1427–1430 (2013). [13] L. A. Ponomarenko, R. V. Gorbachev, G. L. Yu, D. C. Elias, R. Jalil, A. A. Patel, A. Mishchenko, A. S. Mayorov, C. R. Woods, J. R. Wallbank, M. Mucha-Kruczynski, B. A. Piot, M. Potemski, I. V. Grigorieva, K. S. Novoselov, F. Guinea, V. I. Fal’ko, and A. K. Geim, “Cloning of dirac fermions in graphene superlattices,” Nature 497, 594–597 (2013). [14] C. R. Dean, L. Wang, P. Maher, C. Forsythe, F. Ghahari, Y. Gao, J. Katoch, M. Ishigami, P. Moon, M. Koshino, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, K. L. Shepard, J. Hone, and P. Kim, “Hofstadter’s butterfly and the fractal quantum hall effect in moir´esuperlattices,” Nature 497, 598–602 (2013). 18

[15] Eric M. Spanton, Alexander A. Zibrov, Haoxin Zhou, Takashi Taniguchi, Kenji Watanabe, Michael P. Zaletel, and Andrea F. Young, “Observation of fractional chern insulators in a van der waals heterostructure,” Science 360, 62–66 (2018). [16] Maissam Barkeshli and John McGreevy, “Continuous transitions between composite Fermi liquid and Landau Fermi liquid: A route to fractionalized Mott insulators,” Phys. Rev. B 86, 075136 (2012), arXiv:1206.6530 [cond-mat.str-el]. [17] B. I. Halperin, Patrick A. Lee, and Nicholas Read, “Theory of the half-filled landau level,” Phys. Rev. B 47, 7312–7343 (1993). [18] Jong Yeon Lee, Chong Wang, Michael P. Zaletel, Ashvin Vishwanath, and Yin-Chen He, “Emergent Multi-Flavor QED3 at the Plateau Transition between Fractional Chern Insulators: Applications to Graphene Heterostructures,” Physical Review X 8, 031015 (2018), arXiv:1802.09538 [cond-mat.str-el]. [19] N. E. Bonesteel, I. A. McDonald, and C. Nayak, “Gauge Fields and Pairing in Double-Layer Composite Fermion Metals,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3009–3012 (1996), arXiv:cond-mat/9601112 [cond-mat]. [20] Inti Sodemann, Itamar Kimchi, Chong Wang, and T. Senthil, “Composite fermion duality for half-filled multicompo- nent Landau levels,” Phys. Rev. B 95, 085135 (2017), arXiv:1609.08616 [cond-mat.str-el]. [21] Hiroki Isobe and Liang Fu, “Interlayer Pairing Symmetry of Composite Fermions in Quantum Hall Bilayers,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 166401 (2017), arXiv:1609.09063 [cond-mat.str-el]. [22] (2020), see supplementary material for additional details. [23] T. Senthil, “Critical Fermi surfaces and non-Fermi liquid metals,” Phys. Rev. B 78, 035103 (2008), arXiv:0803.4009 [cond-mat.str-el]. [24] Xiao-Gang Wen, Quantum field theory of many-body systems (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004). [25] Maissam Barkeshli and John McGreevy, “Continuous transition between fractional quantum hall and superfluid states,” Phys. Rev. B 89, 235116 (2014).

[26] Liujun Zou and Yin-Chen He, “Field-induced qcd3-chern-simons quantum criticalities in kitaev materials,” Phys. Rev. Research 2, 013072 (2020). [27] C. Dasgupta and B. I. Halperin, “Phase transition in a lattice model of superconductivity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 1556–1560 (1981). [28] Wei Chen, Matthew P. A. Fisher, and Yong-Shi Wu, “Mott transition in an anyon gas,” Phys. Rev. B 48, 13749–13761 (1993), arXiv:cond-mat/9301037 [cond-mat]. [29] T. Senthil and Michael Levin, “Integer Quantum Hall Effect for Bosons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 046801 (2013), arXiv:1206.1604 [cond-mat.str-el]. [30] Liujun Zou and T. Senthil, “Dimensional decoupling at continuous quantum critical Mott transitions,” Phys. Rev. B 94, 115113 (2016), arXiv:1603.09359 [cond-mat.str-el]. [31] W. Kohn and J. M. Luttinger, “New mechanism for superconductivity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 15, 524–526 (1965). [32] R. Shankar, “Renormalization-group approach to interacting fermions,” Reviews of Modern Physics 66, 129–192 (1994), arXiv:cond-mat/9307009 [cond-mat]. [33] Alexei Kitaev, “Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond,” Annals of Physics 321, 2–111 (2006), arXiv:cond- mat/0506438 [cond-mat.mes-hall]. [34] T. Senthil and Matthew P. A. Fisher, “Z2 gauge theory of electron fractionalization in strongly correlated systems,” Phys. Rev. B 62, 7850–7881 (2000), arXiv:cond-mat/9910224 [cond-mat.str-el]. [35] Jinwu Ye and Subir Sachdev, “Coulomb Interactions at Quantum Hall Critical Points of Systems in a Periodic Potential,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5409–5412 (1998), arXiv:cond-mat/9712161 [cond-mat.mes-hall]. [36] Nigel R. Cooper and Jean Dalibard, “Reaching Fractional Quantum Hall States with Optical Flux Lattices,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 185301 (2013), arXiv:1212.3552 [cond-mat.quant-gas]. [37] N. Y. Yao, A. V. Gorshkov, C. R. Laumann, A. M. L¨auchli, J. Ye, and M. D. Lukin, “Realizing Fractional Chern Insulators in Dipolar Spin Systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 185302 (2013), arXiv:1212.4839 [cond-mat.str-el]. [38] Vadim Borokhov, Anton Kapustin, and Xinkai Wu, “Topological Disorder Operators in Three-Dimensional Conformal Field Theory,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2002, 049 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0206054 [hep-th]. [39] Rahul Nandkishore, Max A. Metlitski, and T. Senthil, “Orthogonal metals: The simplest non-Fermi liquids,” Phys. Rev. B 86, 045128 (2012), arXiv:1201.5998 [cond-mat.str-el]. [40] Song He, P. M. Platzman, and B. I. Halperin, “Tunneling into a two-dimensional electron system in a strong magnetic field,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 777–780 (1993). [41] Yong Baek Kim and Xiao-Gang Wen, “Instantons and the spectral function of electrons in the half-filled Landau level,” Phys. Rev. B 50, 8078–8081 (1994), arXiv:cond-mat/9401032 [cond-mat]. [42] L. B. Ioffe and A. I. Larkin, “Gapless fermions and gauge fields in dielectrics,” Phys. Rev. B 39, 8988–8999 (1989). [43] Ya-Hui Zhang and T. Senthil, “Quantum Hall spin liquids and their possible realization in moir´esystems,” arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2003.13702 (2020), arXiv:2003.13702 [cond-mat.str-el]. [44] Chetan Nayak and Frank Wilczek, “Non-Fermi liquid fixed point in 2 + 1 dimensions,” Nuclear Physics B 417, 359–373 (1994), arXiv:cond-mat/9312086 [cond-mat]. [45] Sung-Sik Lee, “Stability of the U(1) spin liquid with a spinon Fermi surface in 2+1 dimensions,” Phys. Rev. B 78, 085129 (2008), arXiv:0804.3800 [cond-mat.str-el]. [46] Sung-Sik Lee, “Low-energy effective theory of Fermi surface coupled with U(1) gauge field in 2+1 dimensions,” Phys. Rev. B 80, 165102 (2009), arXiv:0905.4532 [cond-mat.str-el]. [47] Max A. Metlitski and Subir Sachdev, “Quantum phase transitions of metals in two spatial dimensions. I. Ising-nematic order,” Phys. Rev. B 82, 075127 (2010), arXiv:1001.1153 [cond-mat.str-el]. 19

[48] David F. Mross, John McGreevy, Hong Liu, and T. Senthil, “Controlled expansion for certain non-Fermi-liquid metals,” Phys. Rev. B 82, 045121 (2010), arXiv:1003.0894 [cond-mat.str-el]. [49] Max A. Metlitski, David F. Mross, Subir Sachdev, and T. Senthil, “Cooper pairing in non-fermi liquids,” Phys. Rev. B 91, 115111 (2015).