Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 58 references

Anomalous Dispersion of LO Phonons in Oxygen-Doped La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4+\delta}$

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Cu-O bond-stretching phonon anomaly in doped cuprates is a dopant-independent signature of dynamic transverse charge stripe fluctuations, not of static magnetic or charge order.

desk verdict Careful neutron scattering extends a known phonon anomaly to oxygen-doped LSCO, but the field-effect argument against static stripes leans on unpublished results. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09546 v1 pith:BZSKHMXY submitted 2019-08-26 cond-mat.supr-con

Tim Tejsner , Andrea Piovano , Ana Ţuţueanu , Astrid T. R{o}mer , Barrett O. Wells , Jean-Claude Grivel , Martin Boehm , Linda Udby This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con PACS 74.25.Kc74.72.-h78.70.Nx
keywords cupratesuperconductorsphononanomalyhalf-breathingmodechargestripesinelasticneutronscatteringoxygendopingmagneticfieldeffect
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 uses inelastic neutron scattering to measure the in-plane Cu-O bond-stretching phonon in two oxygen-doped cuprate crystals, La2CuO4+δ (Tc = 43 K) and La1.94Sr0.06CuO4.035 (Tc = 38 K). It finds the same anomalous softening halfway through the Brillouin zone, near q = (0.25, 0.25, 0), that was previously seen in optimally strontium-doped La1.85Sr0.15CuO4 and in stripe-ordered La1.48Nd0.4Sr0.12CuO4. The authors argue that because the oxygen-doped materials have annealed rather than quenched dopant disorder and different magnetic spectra, the anomaly cannot be blamed on a dopant-specific structural instability. They also show that a 10 T magnetic field, which induces stripe-like magnetic order in the co-doped sample, does not change the phonon signal. The conclusion is that the anomaly is an intrinsic, near-optimal-doping feature of cuprates and a signature of transverse charge stripe fluctuations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Cu-O bond-stretching longitudinal-optical phonon, the 'half-breathing' mode along the (q, q, 0) direction. The paper defines an 'anomaly signal' as the difference between the measured phonon dispersion and a normal cosine dispersion anchored at the zone center and zone boundary; the anomaly peaks at q = (1/4, 1/4, 0), matching the charge-stripe wavevector. The mechanism used to interpret the data is a Hubbard-model calculation of coherent transverse (meandering) stripe fluctuations, which predicts anomalous phonon dispersions of the observed shape. The 10 T field experiment acts as the control: a field known to induce static magnetic stripe order leaves the phonon unchanged, excluding static stripes and leaving dynamic charge fluctuations as the explanation.

What would settle it

Measure the phonon in LSCO6+O at 10 T while simultaneously confirming, from the low-energy magnetic signal, that stripe-like magnetic order really appears in the same crystal; if the field is confirmed to create static magnetic order and any field-induced change in the phonon appears, the paper's conclusion is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the half-breathing Cu-O bond-stretching phonon anomaly is not tied to how the cuprate is doped. Measured on an absolute scale, the anomaly signal, defined as the difference between the measured dispersion and a normal sinusoidal dispersion, is similar in La2CuO4+δ, La1.94Sr0.06CuO4.035, optimally doped La1.85Sr0.15CuO4, and stripe-ordered La1.48Nd0.4Sr0.12CuO4. Since one oxygen-doped sample shows static charge order and the other does not, and since the applied 10 T field known to induce static magnetic stripe order in LSCO6+O has no effect on the phonon, the paper concludes that the anomaly has no direct, trivial relationship to static magnetic or charge order. It interprets the anomaly as a signature of transverse charge stripe fluctuations, connecting it to the electronic-liquid-crystal and pair-density-wave picture in which x = 1/8 static order is the long-range special case of otherwise short-range fluctuating stripes.

Load-bearing premise

The case against static magnetic stripes rests on the assumption that a 10 T field actually creates a considerable volume of stripe-like magnetic order in the LSCO6+O sample, a premise the paper supports only by citing unpublished manuscripts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The anomaly appears on the same absolute scale in oxygen-doped, co-doped, strontium-doped, and stripe-ordered samples, so it does not depend on the dopant species or the specific structural disorder it creates.
  • Because static charge order is present in one oxygen-doped sample but absent in the other, while both show the anomaly, static charge stripes are not required for the softening.
  • A 10 T field known to induce stripe-like magnetic order in the co-doped sample produces no detectable change in the phonon, so static magnetic stripes are not the cause.
  • The agreement with a Hubbard-model calculation of phonons coupled to transverse stripe fluctuations implies the anomaly can serve as evidence for dynamic charge stripes in cuprates that lack static stripe order.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the anomaly amplitude could be used as a quantitative, doping-resolved measure of fluctuating charge-stripe correlations even in compounds where static stripes never appear.
  • Beyond the paper: if the link to pair-density-wave physics is right, the phonon anomaly should track the superfluid or pairing response across the phase diagram, a correlation the present data do not test.
  • Beyond the paper: high-resolution inelastic X-ray scattering near q = (1/4, 1/4, 0) should detect a soft charge-fluctuation mode at energies matching the phonon anomaly; finding it would confirm the proposed mechanism.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports inelastic neutron scattering measurements of the in-plane Cu-O bond-stretching LO phonon in two oxygen-doped cuprates, La1.94Sr0.06CuO4.035 (Tc ≈ 38 K) and La2CuO4+δ (Tc ≈ 43 K), at T = 5 K, using the IN8 triple-axis spectrometer at the ILL. The dispersion is extracted from damped-harmonic-oscillator fits with fixed instrumental resolution (Gaussian width σ = 2.3 meV), with careful handling of a spurious A-type Bragg contribution identified with the position-sensitive detector. The authors find a softening of about 3–5 meV near q = (0.25, 0.25, 0) relative to a sinusoidal normal dispersion anchored to the zone-center and zone-boundary points, quantitatively similar to the anomalies previously reported in Sr-doped LSCO15 and stripe-ordered LNSCO. They show that the softening is present in both an annealed-oxygen-doped and a co-doped sample, concluding that the anomaly is independent of the dopant species and of static magnetic/charge stripe order, based in part on the absence of a change in the phonon at 10 T. They interpret the anomaly as a signature of dynamic transverse charge stripe fluctuations.

Significance. The primary observation — that the Cu-O bond-stretching anomaly is robust and essentially identical in oxygen-doped and Sr-doped cuprates near optimal Tc — is well supported by the data and is a useful constraint on theories of this mode; the softening is directly visible in the raw dispersions without recourse to the baseline subtraction. The paper is methodologically careful: raw data are archived with ILL DOIs (refs [31,32]), the spurious-scattering subtraction is documented with simulations, and the resolution treatment is transparent. Credit is also due for attempting a falsifiable field-control experiment on this mode. The significance is moderated by the fact that the strongest interpretive claim ('transverse charge stripe fluctuations') rests on a qualitative similarity to a published calculation, while the key eliminating experiment (null field effect) depends on a field-induced stripe-order premise documented only in unpublished manuscripts (refs [30,40]) and is subject to a phase-separation confound that is acknowledged elsewhere in the paper.

major comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 4 and the field-effect paragraph] The conclusion that the phonon anomaly has 'no direct, trivial relationship to either magnetic or charge static order' rests on the null 10 T field effect shown in Fig. 4, and that experiment is informative only under the premise that a 10 T field induces a considerable volume of stripe-like magnetic order in the measured LSCO6+O crystal. As stated on p. 4, this premise is supported only by ref. [30] and the simultaneous low-energy magnetic measurements of ref. [40], both 'Manuscript in preparation (2019)' — neither of which provides accessible quantitative evidence (field-induced magnetic intensity, volume fraction, or correlation length) for this sample, and ref. [40] lists no authors at all. In addition, the paper itself describes the oxygen-doped samples as phase-separated into x ≈ 1/8 stripe-ordered and x ≈ 0.16 superconducting regions (refs [13,15]); if the phonon signal is dominated by the superconducting majority phase, a null field response is expected even if the anomaly were coupled to static stripes in the minority stripe phase. The authors should either present the field-induced-order evidence (or cite a published version of refs [30,40]) together with a quantitative estimate of the field-ordered volume, or weaken the conclusion to the abstract's level ('possibly connected to stripes'); in either case, the sensitivity of the null result — what change in the phonon at h = 4.75 would have been detectable given the spurious-scattering obscuration admitted in SM §B — should be quantified.
  2. [Fig. 3 / 'anomaly signal' definition] The anomaly signal in Fig. 3B is defined as the difference between the measured dispersion and the cosine ℏωq = α cos(2πq) + β, with α and β fitted to the zone-center and zone-boundary points of the same measured dispersion (Fig. 3A and the text immediately above the anomaly-signal definition). This is circular in a mild but real sense: systematic deviations of the measured endpoints from the true normal dispersion are absorbed into the baseline and reduce the apparent anomaly, and the fit uncertainties of α and β are not propagated into the anomaly magnitudes of Fig. 3B. The softening itself is robust — it is directly visible in the raw data of Fig. 3A without any baseline subtraction — so this is a quantification concern rather than an existential one, but the claim of 'similar anomaly signals on an absolute scale' should be supported by a sensitivity analysis (for example, anchoring the baseline directly to the DFT dispersion of Fig. S5, or omitting different endpoint points) and by propagating the baseline error into Fig. 3B.
  3. [Final paragraph (Conclusion)] The concluding identification of the anomaly with transverse (meandering) charge stripe fluctuations specifically is not supported by a discriminating comparison: the text notes that Kaneshita et al. predict anomalous dispersions for both transverse and longitudinal stripe fluctuations, yet no comparison of the two predicted dispersions against the measured one is shown, and the only evidence adduced is the qualitative similarity to Fig. 5 of ref. [25]. Likewise, the sentence 'Since it is equally well-formed in stripe-ordered and optimally doped systems, where the latter show no static magnetic order, the anomaly is surprisingly insensitive to low-energy magnetic characteristics' treats the non-observation of static stripes in LSCO15 as proof of a dynamic coupling, which is an absence-of-evidence argument. I recommend aligning the final paragraph with the abstract's wording ('correlated charge fluctuations possibly connected to stripes') unless the transverse-mode discrimination and the static-order status of the samples are supported with quantitative evidence.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Fig. S1 caption] The caption of Fig. S1 states Tc_onset ≈ 38 K for LCO+O and ≈ 43 K for LSCO6+O, which swaps the transition temperatures relative to both the main text (Tc = 43 K for LCO+O; Tc ≈ 37.5–38 K for LSCO6+O) and the in-figure annotations; please correct this.
  2. [Introduction (first paragraph)] The introduction quotes Tc = 38 K for La1.85Sr0.15CuO4 (LSCO15) while the abstract quotes Tc = 35 K for the same compound; the two values should be reconciled.
  3. [Conclusion, penultimate paragraph] There is a stray closing parenthesis in 'and temperature (LBCO, LSCO15) [8])'; it should read '[8]'.
  4. [SM Section F / Fig. S7] The admitted 'arbitrary' choice of coefficients in the linear combination 1.6*(0.6*sc+0.4*stripe) should be flagged in the main text as an illustrative consistency check rather than a quantitative test of the phase-separation fractions.
  5. [Fig. S3 and Fig. S6 captions] 'Sinosoidal' is misspelled in the captions of Figs. S3 and S6.
  6. [References] Reference [4] is cited in its arXiv preprint form although a published version appears to exist; please update the citation.
  7. [Discussion (static stripes in LSCO15)] The statement that 'any connection between the phonon anomaly and stripes is likely dynamic' because static stripe order has not been observed in LSCO15 should acknowledge the detection sensitivity for static stripes rather than treating non-observation as proof.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the phonon softening is visible in raw data, and the stripe-fluctuation interpretation rests on external theory and comparisons, not on a fitted input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper is an experimental study, not a derivation. The claimed anomaly is directly visible in the raw constant-Q scans of Fig. 2: near q=(0.25,0.25,0) the bond-stretching peak lies below a smooth interpolation between the zone-center and zone-edge energies, and the same softening is compared with externally published results for LSCO15, LNSCO, LBCO, and YBa2Cu3O6.6. The cosine curve used to define the 'anomaly signal' in Fig. 3 is a quantification baseline fitted to the endpoints of the measured dispersion; it does not generate the softening or the conclusion, so its self-referential character is not load-bearing. The interpretation in terms of transverse charge stripe fluctuations comes from an independent Hubbard-model calculation by Kaneshita et al. (ref [25]) and is presented as a qualitative match, not as a consequence derived from the measured data. The one flagged weakness is in the field-effect argument: the premise that 10 T induces a considerable volume of stripe-like magnetic order in LSCO6+O is supported by refs [30] and [40], both marked 'Manuscript in preparation (2019)' with overlapping authorship, and no quantitative field-induced magnetic Bragg intensity is shown in this paper. That is a support gap that limits how much weight the null field effect can carry, but it is an empirical premise, not an equation or fit that reduces the conclusion to its inputs. No step in the paper's chain equates the predicted quantity to the fitted input by construction, so no circularity is established.

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

The paper introduces no new entities. The main free parameters are the fitted cosine baseline that defines the anomaly and the arbitrarily chosen phase-separation coefficients. The key background assumptions are the DFT-based reference dispersion, the modeled field-induced stripe order from unpublished work, and the standard DHO analysis model.

free parameters (3)
  • Cosine normal dispersion amplitude α and offset β = Not stated numerically; fit to zone center and zone edge data
    Used to define the 'normal' dispersion and hence the anomaly signal in Fig. 3A. Fitted to the same measured data, so the anomaly magnitude is partly self-referential.
  • DHO fit parameters (Iph, ωq, γ, IBG) = Per wavevector
    Standard least-squares parameters for extracting phonon energy and linewidth; not a theory input.
  • Phase separation linear combination coefficients = 1.6*(0.6*sc + 0.4*stripe)
    Chosen arbitrarily in Fig. S7 to match anomaly amplitude; the paper acknowledges 'the numbers are chosen in an arbitrary way'.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption DFT phonon calculations on metallic, non-spin-polarized La2CuO4 provide the reference 'normal' sinusoidal dispersion for the bond-stretching mode.
    The DFT incorrectly predicts a metallic ground state for insulating La2CuO4; the authors argue it is consistent with overdoped LSCO. The cosine form is then fit to the measured endpoints. This is an unverified modeling choice that sets the anomaly baseline (SM section D, Fig. S5).
  • domain assumption A 10 T magnetic field induces a considerable volume of static stripe-like magnetic order in the LSCO6+O sample.
    Relied on for the null field-effect conclusion; supported only by unpublished manuscripts [30, 40].
  • domain assumption The DHO lineshape convolved with a fixed Gaussian resolution adequately models the phonon response and allows separation from spurious scattering.
    Standard for neutron scattering data analysis; the spurious scattering subtraction relies on this model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anomalous Dispersion of LO Phonons in Oxygen-Doped La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4+\delta}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BZSKHMXY

@misc{pith2026190809546,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anomalous Dispersion of LO Phonons in Oxygen-Doped La$_2-x$Sr$_x$CuO$_4+\delta$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BZSKHMXY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09546}
}
abstract

Inelastic neutron scattering has been used to study the in-plane Cu-O bond-stretching mode in oxygen doped La$_{1.94}$Sr$_{0.06}$CuO$_{4.035}$ ($T_c = 38\,\text{K}$) and La$_2$CuO$_{4+\delta}$ ($T_c = 43\,\text{K}$). Similar to results from optimally doped La$_{1.85}$Sr$_{0.15}$CuO$_4$ ($T_c = 35\,\text{K}$), we observe anomalous features in the dispersion of this half-breathing mode in the form of a softening halfway through the Brillouin Zone. Considering the differences in electronic structure and local environment between the oxygen- and strontium-doped compounds with similar $T_\text{c}$, we rule out a connection between the phonon anomaly and structural instabilities related to the specific dopant type. We interpret the phonon anomaly as a signature of correlated charge fluctuations possibly connected to stripes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09546 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Comparison of representative constant-Q ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [30]

    M. H. Julien, Physica B: Condensed Matter Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Low Tempera- ture Physics, 329-333, 693 (2003)

    work page 2003

  2. [40]

    D. R. Garcia and A. Lanzara, Advances in Condensed Matter Physics 2010 (2010), 10.1155/2010/807412

    work page doi:10.1155/2010/807412 2010

  3. [25]

    Kaneshita, M

    E. Kaneshita, M. Ichioka, and K. Machida, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 115501 (2002)

    work page 2002

  4. [1]

    J. M. Tranquada, B. J. Sternlieb, J. D. Axe, Y. Naka- mura, and S. Uchida, Nature 375, 561 (1995)

    1995

  5. [2]

    J. M. Tranquada, AIP Conference Proceedings 1550, 114 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [3]

    J. M. Tranquada, J. D. Axe, N. Ichikawa, Y. Nakamura, S. Uchida, and B. Nachumi, Phys. Rev. B 54, 7489 (1996)

    work page 1996

  7. [4]

    N. B. Christensen, J. Chang, J. Larsen, M. Fujita, M. Oda, M. Ido, N. Momono, E. M. Forgan, A. T. Holmes, J. Mesot, M. Huecker, and M. v Zimmermann, arXiv:1404.3192 [cond-mat] (2014), arXiv:1404.3192 [cond-mat]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  8. [5]

    Thampy, M

    V. Thampy, M. P. M. Dean, N. B. Christensen, L. Steinke, Z. Islam, M. Oda, M. Ido, N. Momono, S. B. Wilkins, and J. P. Hill, Phys. Rev. B 90, 100510 (2014)

    work page 2014

Show all 58 references
  1. [6]

    T. P. Croft, C. Lester, M. S. Senn, A. Bombardi, and S. M. Hayden, Phys. Rev. B 89, 224513 (2014)

    2014

  2. [7]

    Anissimova, D

    S. Anissimova, D. Parshall, G. D. Gu, K. Marty, M. D. Lumsden, S. Chi, J. A. Fernandez-Baca, D. L. Abernathy, D. Lamago, J. M. Tranquada, and D. Reznik, Nature Communications 5, 3467 (2014)

    2014

  3. [8]

    and optimally su- perconducting (x ≈ 0.16) phases, regardless of strontium content prior to oxygenation [15, 26]. In this Letter, we investigate the effects of oxygen disorder on the Cu-O bond-stretching phonon mode by providing evidence of phonon anomalies in oxygen- doped LCO...

  4. [9]

    S. R. Park, T. Fukuda, A. Hamann, D. Lamago, L. Pintschovius, M. Fujita, K. Yamada, and D. Reznik, Phys. Rev. B 89, 020506 (2014)

    2014

  5. [11]

    Reznik, L

    D. Reznik, L. Pintschovius, M. Ito, S. Iikubo, M. Sato, H. Goka, M. Fujita, K. Yamada, G. D. Gu, and J. M. Tranquada, Nature 440, 1170 (2006)

    2006

  6. [12]

    Chaix, G

    L. Chaix, G. Ghiringhelli, Y. Y. Peng, M. Hashimoto, B. Moritz, K. Kummer, N. B. Brookes, Y. He, S. Chen, S. Ishida, Y. Yoshida, H. Eisaki, M. Salluzzo, L. Braicovich, Z.-X. Shen, T. P. Devereaux, and W.-S. Lee, Nature Physics 13, 952 (2017)

    2017

  7. [13]

    B. O. Wells, Y. S. Lee, M. A. Kastner, R. J. Christianson, R. J. Birgeneau, K. Yamada, Y. Endoh, and G. Shirane, Science 277, 1067 (1997)

    1997

  8. [14]

    Le Tacon, A

    M. Le Tacon, A. Bosak, S. M. Souliou, G. Dellea, T. Loew, R. Heid, K.-P. Bohnen, G. Ghiringhelli, M. Krisch, and B. Keimer, Nature Physics 10, 52 (2014)

    2014

  9. [15]

    H. E. Mohottala, B. O. Wells, J. I. Budnick, W. A. Hines, C. Niedermayer, L. Udby, C. Bernhard, A. R. Mooden- baugh, and F.-C. Chou, Nature Materials 5, 377 (2006)

    2006

  10. [16]

    Blakeslee, R

    P. Blakeslee, R. J. Birgeneau, F. C. Chou, R. Christian- son, M. A. Kastner, Y. S. Lee, and B. O. Wells, Phys. Rev. B 57, 13915 (1998)

    1998

  11. [17]

    C. Rial, E. Mor´ an, M. A. Alario-Franco, U. Amador, and N. H. Andersen, Physica C: Superconductivity 254, 233 (1995)

    1995

  12. [18]

    P. G. Radaelli, D. G. Hinks, A. W. Mitchell, B. A. Hunter, J. L. Wagner, B. Dabrowski, K. G. Vandervoort, H. K. Viswanathan, and J. D. Jorgensen, Phys. Rev. B 49, 4163 (1994)

    1994

  13. [19]

    L. H. Liu, G. C. Che, J. Zhao, and Z. X. Zhao, Physica C: Superconductivity 425, 37 (2005)

    2005

  14. [20]

    C. Rial, E. Mor´ an, M. A. Alario-Franco, U. Amador, and N. H. Andersen, Physica C: Superconductivity 278, 122 (1997)

    1997

  15. [21]

    Fratini, N

    M. Fratini, N. Poccia, A. Ricci, G. Campi, M. Burgham- mer, G. Aeppli, and A. Bianconi, Nature 466, 841 (2010)

    2010

  16. [22]

    Lorenz, Z

    B. Lorenz, Z. G. Li, T. Honma, and P.-H. Hor, Phys. Rev. B 65, 144522 (2002)

    2002

  17. [23]

    P. J. Ray, N. H. Andersen, T. B. S. Jensen, H. E. Mohottala, C. Niedermayer, K. Lefmann, B. O. Wells, M. v. Zimmermann, and L. Udby, Phys. Rev. B 96, 174106 (2017)

    2017

  18. [24]

    B. O. Wells, R. J. Birgeneau, F. C. Chou, Y. Endoh, D. C. Johnston, M. A. Kastner, Y. S. Lee, G. Shirane, J. M. Tranquada, and K. Yamada, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B Condensed Matter 100, 535 (1996)

    1996

  19. [26]

    Poccia, A

    N. Poccia, A. Ricci, G. Campi, M. Fratini, A. Puri, D. D. Gioacchino, A. Marcelli, M. Reynolds, M. Burghammer, N. L. Saini, G. Aeppli, and A. Bianconi, PNAS 109, 15685 (2012)

    2012

  20. [27]

    Hirota, Physica C: Superconductivity 357-360, 61 (2001)

    K. Hirota, Physica C: Superconductivity 357-360, 61 (2001)

    2001

  21. [28]

    L. Udby, J. Larsen, N. B. Christensen, M. Boehm, C. Nie- dermayer, H. E. Mohottala, T. B. S. Jensen, R. Toft- Petersen, F. C. Chou, N. H. Andersen, K. Lefmann, and B. O. Wells, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 227001 (2013)

    2013

  22. [29]

    Y. S. Lee, F. C. Chou, A. Tewary, M. A. Kastner, S. H. Lee, and R. J. Birgeneau, Phys. Rev. B 69, 020502 (2004)

    2004

  23. [31]

    Tejsner, A

    T. Tejsner, A. Piovano, A.-E. T ¸ ut ¸ueanu, M. Boehm, and L. Udby, Institut Laue-Langevin (ILL) (2018), doi:10.5291/ILL-DATA.7-01-458

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    Holm-Dahlin, J

    S. Holm-Dahlin, J. Larsen, H. Jacobsen, A. T. Rømer, A.-E. T ¸ ut ¸ueanu, M. Ahmad, J.-C. Grivel, T. Goko, R. Scheuermann, M. v Zimmermann, M. Boehm, P. Stef- fens, K. Conder, C. Niedermayer, K. S. Pedersen, N. B. Christensen, S. B. Emery, B. O. Wells, K. Lefmann, and L. Udby,...

    2019

  25. [33]

    The extracted dispersion from the zero-field data is shown in Fig

    with a flat background, convoluted with instrument resolution: S(q,ω ) =Iph 1 πωq γ (ω −ωq)2 +γ2 +IBG, whereIph is the phonon intensity,ωq the phonon energy at wave vector q, γ the phonon linewidth and IBG the background intensity. The extracted dispersion from the zero-field da...

  26. [34]

    Tejsner, A

    T. Tejsner, A. Piovano, A.-E. T ¸ ut ¸ueanu, M. Boehm, and L. Udby, Institut Laue-Langevin (ILL) (2018), doi:10.5291/ILL-DATA.7-01-474

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    F˚ ak and B

    B. F˚ ak and B. Dorner, Physica B: Condensed Matter Proceedings of the First European Conference on Neu- tron Scattering, 234-236, 1107 (1997)

    1997

  28. [36]

    Giustino, M

    F. Giustino, M. L. Cohen, and S. G. Louie, Nature 452, 975 (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    Reznik, Physica C: Superconductivity Stripes and Electronic Liquid Crystals in Strongly Correlated Ma- terials, 481, 75 (2012)

    D. Reznik, Physica C: Superconductivity Stripes and Electronic Liquid Crystals in Strongly Correlated Ma- terials, 481, 75 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Reznik, T

    D. Reznik, T. Fukuda, D. Lamago, A. Q. R. Baron, S. Tsutsui, M. Fujita, and K. Yamada, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids SNS2007, 69, 3103 (2008)

    2008

  31. [39]

    S. R. Park, Y. Cao, Q. Wang, M. Fujita, K. Yamada, 6 S.-K. Mo, D. S. Dessau, and D. Reznik, Phys. Rev. B 88, 220503 (2013)

    2013

  32. [41]

    Zhang, R

    Z. Zhang, R. Sutarto, F. He, F. C. Chou, L. Udby, S. L. Holm, Z. H. Zhu, W. A. Hines, J. I. Budnick, and B. O. Wells, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 067602 (2018)

    2018

  33. [42]

    Manuscript in preparation (2019)

    2019

  34. [43]

    Reznik, D

    D. Reznik, D. Parshall, S. R. Park, J. W. Lynn, and T. Wolf, J Supercond Nov Magn 29, 643 (2016)

    2016

  35. [44]

    Fujita, H

    M. Fujita, H. Goka, K. Yamada, J. M. Tranquada, and L. P. Regnault, Phys. Rev. B 70, 104517 (2004)

    2004

  36. [46]

    Fradkin, S

    E. Fradkin, S. A. Kivelson, and J. M. Tranquada, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 457 (2015)

    2015

  37. [47]

    S. A. Kivelson, E. Fradkin, and V. J. Emery, Nature 393, 550 (1998). Supplemental Material for: Anomalous Dispersion of LO Phonons in Oxygen-Doped La2−xSrxCuO4+δ Tim Tejsner, 1, 2 Andrea Piovano, 1 Ana T ¸ ut ¸ueanu,1, 2 Astrid T. Rømer, 1 Barrett O. Wells, 3 Jean-Claude Grive...

    1998 arXiv

  38. [48]

    Jacobsen, S

    H. Jacobsen, S. L. Holm, M.-E. L˘ ac˘ atu¸ su, A. T. Rømer, M. Bertelsen, M. Boehm, R. Toft-Petersen, J.-C. Grivel, S. B. Emery, L. Udby, B. O. Wells, and K. Lefmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 037003 (2018)

    2018

  39. [49]

    R. J. McQueeney, Y. Petrov, T. Egami, M. Yethiraj, G. Shirane, and Y. Endoh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 628 (1999)

    1999

  40. [50]

    Reznik, L

    D. Reznik, L. Pintschovius, M. Fujita, K. Yamada, G. D. Gu, and J. M. Tranquada, J Low Temp Phys 147, 353 (2007)

    2007

  41. [51]

    Shirane, S

    G. Shirane, S. M. Shapiro, and J. M. Tranquada, Neu- tron Scattering with a Triple-Axis Spectrometer: Basic Techniques (Cambridge University Press, 2002)

    2002

  42. [52]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Phys. Rev. B 48, 13115 (1993)

    1993

  43. [53]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Computational Materials Science 6, 15 (1996)

    1996

  44. [54]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Phys. Rev. B 54, 11169 (1996)

    1996

  45. [55]

    Kresse and D

    G. Kresse and D. Joubert, Phys. Rev. B 59, 1758 (1999)

    1999

  46. [56]

    G. I. Csonka, J. P. Perdew, A. Ruzsinszky, P. H. T. Philipsen, S. Leb` egue, J. Paier, O. A. Vydrov, and J. G. ´Angy´ an, Phys. Rev. B79, 155107 (2009)

    2009

  47. [57]

    Togo and I

    A. Togo and I. Tanaka, Scripta Materialia 108, 1 (2015)

    2015

  48. [58]

    C. E. Matt, D. Sutter, A. M. Cook, Y. Sassa, M. M˚ ansson, O. Tjernberg, L. Das, M. Horio, D. De- straz, C. G. Fatuzzo, K. Hauser, M. Shi, M. Kobayashi, V. N. Strocov, T. Schmitt, P. Dudin, M. Hoesch, S. Pyon, T. Takayama, H. Takagi, O. J. Lipscombe, S. M. Hayden, T. Kurosawa,...

    2018

  49. [59]

    ˇSaroun and J

    J. ˇSaroun and J. Kulda, Physica B: Condensed Matter Proceedings of the First European Conference on Neu- tron Scattering, 234-236, 1102 (1997)

    1997

  50. [60]

    H. E. Mohottala, B. O. Wells, J. I. Budnick, W. A. Hines, C. Niedermayer, L. Udby, C. Bernhard, A. R. Mooden- baugh, and F.-C. Chou, Nature Materials 5, 377 (2006). 4 (0,0) (2 ,0) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Energy [meV] FIG. S5. Calculated phonon dispersion of La 2CuO4 in th...

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.