Raman response in the nematic phase of FeSe

Andrey V. Chubukov; Lara Benfatto; Marco Grilli; Mattia Udina

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 51 references

Raman response in the nematic phase of FeSe

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 gap-like drop in FeSe's $B_{1g}$ Raman response comes from the Fermi pockets becoming nearly mono-orbital.

desk verdict A genuinely new mechanism for the B1g Raman drop in FeSe—orbital transmutation plus charge-conservation vertex corrections—with one main caveat: it presumes the bare eigenstate orbital composition, a condition the authors themselves flag. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11361 v1 pith:BM2YEFDE submitted 2019-08-29 cond-mat.str-el

Mattia Udina , Marco Grilli , Lara Benfatto , Andrey V. Chubukov This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.str-el

keywords FeSenematicorderB1gRamanresponseorbitalreconstructionmono-orbitalpocketsvertexcorrectionschargeconservationiron-basedsuperconductors

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

Below the 85 K nematic transition, FeSe's $B_{1g}$ Raman response drops at low frequencies, a behavior usually read as a sign of a gap. The paper argues that FeSe remains a metal and no gap opens: the drop comes from the nematic order changing the orbital composition of the Fermi pockets. Deep in the nematic phase the outer hole pocket becomes almost entirely $d_{xz}$, so the $B_{1g}$ Raman form factor loses its pure $d$-wave angular dependence and develops an angle-independent ($s$-wave) piece. That $s$-wave piece is eliminated by the same vertex corrections that enforce charge conservation, leaving a strongly reduced response with the same functional form as above $T_n$. If the argument is right, Raman spectroscopy becomes a bulk probe of orbital reconstruction in FeSe.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the orbital-to-band unitary transformation of the two-orbital Hamiltonian for the hole pockets at $\Gamma$, and in particular the angular average of $\cos 2\bar\theta_k$ -- the $B_{1g}$ Raman vertex in the band basis -- decomposed as $\cos 2\bar\theta_k = \Gamma_s + \Gamma_d\cos 2\theta$. In the tetragonal phase $\Gamma_s = 0$, and impurity vertex corrections vanish because $\int d\theta\, \cos 2\theta = 0$. In the nematic phase $\Gamma_s \neq 0$, and the ladder summation of vertex corrections cancels the $s$-wave piece, leaving $\chi_{B1g}(\Omega) = N_F \Gamma_d^2\, 2i\gamma/(\Omega + 2i\gamma)$. The suppression follows because $\Gamma_d \sim 1/\lambda_F$ once the pocket is nearly mono-orbital.

What would settle it

A decisive test is to compute $\Gamma_d^2(\Omega)$ from Eqs. (6)-(7) using independently measured $\Delta_h(T)$ and band parameters, and compare the depth and temperature dependence of the measured low-frequency $B_{1g}$ drop with the predicted $\Gamma_d^2$ scaling; the mechanism fails if the drop does not follow that scaling while the damping rate stays constant.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the low-frequency suppression of $R_{B1g}(\Omega)$ below $T_n$ is not due to quasiparticle damping or to a gap but to the orbital transmutation of the pockets. In the tetragonal phase, the $B_{1g}$ Raman vertex in the band basis is proportional to $\cos 2\theta$; below $T_n$ it acquires an angle-independent component $\Gamma_s$ because the nematic order parameter $\Delta_h$ reorganizes the orbital weights $u_k^2$ and $|v_k|^2$. Writing $\cos 2\bar\theta_k = \Gamma_s + \Gamma_d\cos 2\theta$, the ladder vertex corrections cancel the $\Gamma_s$ part exactly, as charge conservation requires, and the full response becomes $R_{B1g}(\Omega) \propto \Gamma_d^2\, \Omega\gamma/[\Omega^2 + 4\gamma^2(1-U\Gamma_d^2/U_{cr})^2]$. At large $\lambda_F = \Delta_h/(b k_F^2)$, the outer hole pocket is almost pure $d_{xz}$, giving $\Gamma_s \approx -1$ and $\Gamma_d \sim 1/\lambda_F \ll 1$; hence the low-frequency intensity drops by $\Gamma_d^2$ and recovers only at $\Omega \gtrsim 2{-}3\Delta_h$, matching the measured gap-like behavior.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the orbital mix on the pockets being set entirely by the two-orbital band Hamiltonian; if strong correlations renormalize the orbital weights so the outer hole pocket never becomes nearly mono-orbital, the predicted Raman suppression would not occur.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Below $T_n$ the low-frequency $B_{1g}$ Raman intensity scales as $\Gamma_d^2(\Omega)\, \Omega\gamma/[\Omega^2 + 4\gamma^2(1-U\Gamma_d^2/U_{cr})^2]$, so it can be strongly suppressed without any change in the damping rate $\gamma$ and without opening a quasiparticle gap.
The suppression is confined to $\Omega \lesssim 2{-}3\Delta_h$; at larger frequencies the vertex returns to its tetragonal $d$-wave form and $R_{B1g}(\Omega)$ recovers its normal-metal value.
The measured drop is therefore a bulk signature of the same orbital reconstruction observed by polarized ARPES, rather than evidence for a gap in a metal.
The mechanism is generic to any nematic metal, but its strength is band-structure dependent; FeSe's unusually small Fermi energy makes $\lambda_F$ large, which is why the effect is so pronounced there.
If the orbital-selective spectral-weight scenario is realized instead, the outer pocket would not become mono-orbital, the $B_{1g}$ vertex would keep its $d$-wave form, and no suppression is expected -- in disagreement with the data.

Reading between the lines

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

A quantitative signature the paper leaves implicit: since $\Gamma_d \sim b k_F^2/\Delta_h$, the low-frequency Raman intensity should keep deepening roughly as $1/\Delta_h^2$ as $T$ falls below $T_n$, which can be checked against independently measured $\Delta_h(T)$.
A testable extension is to measure the $B_{1g}$ Raman response in another nematic iron-based compound with larger Fermi pockets; the same logic predicts a much weaker or absent low-frequency suppression because $\Gamma_d$ stays of order one.
An analogous calculation for other zero-momentum quadrupolar probes that acquire an angle-independent form-factor component under nematic order should show the same conservation-law cancellation, so the mechanism is not specific to Raman scattering.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

This is a good paper and worth a serious referee. The new physics is the claim that the gap-like drop of the B1g Raman response in nematic FeSe comes from the orbital content of the pockets changing so drastically that the B1g vertex acquires a large s-wave component, which is then killed by the same vertex corrections that enforce charge conservation. What remains is the small d-wave piece Γ_d, so R_B1g drops. That is distinct from the earlier damping-reduction explanation, and the formal derivation in the main text plus the supplementary ladder summation is coherent. I particularly appreciate that Δ_h and the band parameters come from ARPES-derived inputs, not from fitting the target Raman data; the circularity burden is genuinely low.

The weak point is real but openly admitted. The prediction only goes through if the physical orbital composition of the outer hole pocket follows the bare eigenstates of Eq. (2). If dxz and dyz carry different quasiparticle weights, the minority orbital retains spectral weight, the B1g vertex keeps its d-wave form, and the drop does not happen. The authors state this in the Summary and Discussion when they say their results are inconsistent with the orbital-selective spectral weight scenario. So the central claim is conditional on a disputed renormalization, not a consequence that follows within the model. That does not sink the paper, but it means the title-level claim is stronger than what is established. A careful referee should ask for a computation with orbital-dependent Z factors to see how robust the suppression actually is, or at least for a clear statement of what experimental fingerprint would distinguish the two scenarios beyond the Raman drop itself.

The more minor soft spots are the qualitative comparison to the measured spectra—Figure 3 shows the right shape but there is no direct overlay with data from Refs. [22,24]—and the simplifying assumptions of isotropic impurity scattering and a constant Γ_s at low frequency. Those are not damaging; the authors do include frequency-dependent vertices in the numerics.

Bottom line: this deserves peer review. It gives the FeSe Raman community a concrete, falsifiable mechanism and it frames a real dispute with the orbital-selective scenario. I would encourage the editor to send it out, and I would want the referee reports to press on the Z-factor sensitivity.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the observed rapid decrease of the low-frequency B1g Raman response in FeSe below the nematic transition at T_n ~ 85 K. The authors argue that this drop does not signal a gap, but rather a change in the orbital composition of the Fermi pockets: in the nematic phase the outer hole pocket becomes nearly mono-orbital (mostly dxz). The B1g Raman vertex, which in the tetragonal phase is purely d-wave (cos 2θ), acquires an angle-independent s-wave component in the band basis. Because the s-wave component of the Raman susceptibility is cancelled by impurity-scattering vertex corrections that enforce charge conservation, the remaining response is proportional to Γ_d^2, the squared d-wave part of the vertex, which becomes small as the pocket becomes mono-orbital. The authors support this with an analytical derivation (Eqs. (4)-(5)) and with numerical calculations using ARPES-derived band parameters, showing a gap-like suppression that recovers at higher frequencies. They also argue that the effect is inconsistent with orbital-selective spectral-weight scenarios.

Significance. If correct, the paper offers a new and falsifiable explanation for a long-standing puzzle in FeSe, connecting Raman spectroscopy to orbital reconstruction. The analytical derivation is transparent and the numerical implementation uses frequency-dependent vertices rather than a constant fit. The paper makes a concrete prediction: the suppression is controlled by Γ_d^2, and it would not occur if orbital-selective quasiparticle weights strongly renormalize the vertex. This gives a bulk spectroscopic test for orbital selectivity. The paper is clearly written and the main calculation is self-contained, with the supplementary providing the diagrammatic details.

major comments (2)

[Summary and Discussion; §The Raman response in the nematic phase (Eq. (5))] The central prediction of a suppressed B1g response relies on the orbital content of the pockets being given by the non-interacting eigenvectors of Eq. (2), with no orbital-dependent quasiparticle weight renormalization. As the paper acknowledges in the Summary and Discussion, if the orbital-selective spectral-weight scenario of Refs. [11,19,48–50] is realized, the physical intraband vertex becomes Z_xz u_k^2 − Z_yz |v_k|^2 rather than u_k^2 − |v_k|^2, and the minority yz spectral weight need not be small even when the bare eigenvector is nearly pure xz. The statement that the orbital-selective scenario would leave the Raman response unchanged 'in disagreement with the data' is qualitative; to make the central claim robust, the authors should quantify how large the Z_yz/Z_xz anisotropy must be to eliminate the predicted Γ_d^2 suppression and discuss whether the polarized ARPES data of Refs. [14,16] constrain this anisotropy. Without this, the mechanism is conditional on a disputed renormalization.
[Numerical calculations (Fig. 3) and Summary] The numerical R_B1g presented in Fig. 3 includes only the hole pockets at Γ; the electron pockets are dismissed with the remark that they can be analyzed along the same lines, but no calculation or estimate is provided. The measured B1g Raman response is the sum over all Fermi pockets, and if the electron-pocket contribution is not suppressed to the same degree, the total drop would be weaker than shown. Since the paper claims 'full agreement' with the experimental data of Refs. [22,24], the authors should either compute the electron-pocket contribution explicitly or provide a quantitative argument for its neglect (e.g., relative spectral weight or a similar mono-orbital suppression).

minor comments (4)

[Introduction and Eq. (5)] The term 'gap-like' is used throughout, but Eq. (5) shows R_B1g(Ω) → 0 as Ω → 0 already in the tetragonal phase; the nematic effect is a suppression by Γ_d^2, not the appearance of a true excitation gap. A brief clarification in the introduction would avoid confusion.
[Fig. 3] The recovery to the tetragonal value is shown as a function of Ω/Δ_h0, but no experimental data are overlaid. Given the claim of full agreement, plotting the data of Refs. [22,24] on the same axis would make the comparison quantitative.
[Supplementary, Eq. (27) and surrounding text] The symbol 'Ø' appears in place of Ω in several places; this should be corrected to avoid ambiguity.
[After Eq. (5)] The sentence 'The result can be straightforwardly extended to the case when the damping rate has both s-wave and d-wave components, γ_s and γ_d... γ = γ_s − γ_d' would benefit from a derivation, as the sign convention for γ_d is not obvious.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the suppression factor is computed from the model Hamiltonian and ARPES-derived parameters; the Raman gap-like drop is not used as input.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained and non-circular. The drop factor Γ_d^2 in Eq. (5) follows from the band-basis B1g vertex cos2θ̄_k=(h3−Δh)/h(k) in Eq. (3), which is obtained by diagonalizing the two-orbital Hamiltonian (2). The nematic splitting Δ_h and band parameters (Table I) are constrained by ARPES band dispersions, not by the Raman data; Raman data enter only in the final qualitative comparison (Fig. 3 vs Refs. [22,24]). No parameter is fitted to the target R_B1g drop. The vertex-correction cancellation of the s-wave part is re-derived in the Supplemental Material via the ladder series (Eqs. (27)-(38)) using charge conservation, so it does not rest on self-citation. The self-citations used for the mono-orbital reconstruction premise (Refs. [8,20,21]) are supported by external polarized ARPES measurements (Refs. [14,16]). The manuscript explicitly flags its main limitation in the Summary and Discussion, in the paragraph beginning "To put our results in a broader context": under the orbital-selective spectral-weight scenario of Refs. [11,19,48-50], the outer pocket would not become mono-orbital, the vertex would retain d-wave form, and the drop would not occur. This is a conditional-robustness caveat, not circularity, because the model's assumptions do not include the target result. One editorial flag: the Supplemental Material, Section III, has a placeholder citation "[?]" after the Born approximation for γ; this is a missing-reference formatting issue, not a circular step. Overall, no prediction reduces by construction to a fitted input, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model inputs are all from prior ARPES/band-structure work; the only substantive hidden assumption is the neglect of orbital-selective spectral-weight renormalization, which the paper itself identifies as a point of disagreement with other groups. No new entities are added.

free parameters (6)

Δ_h (nematic orbital splitting at Γ) = 15 meV at T≪T_n
Controls λ=Δ_h/(b k_F^2) and the mono-orbital fraction; taken from ARPES band structure.
γ (impurity scattering rate) = ≈6 meV
Sets the width of the Raman peak; chosen in the supplemental for numerical evaluation, not fitted to Raman data.
ϵ0 (band offset) = 0 meV (T≥T_n), -9 meV (T≪T_n)
Adjusts pocket size with Δ_h to match ARPES.
a = 1/(2m) (band curvature) = 263 meV
From ARPES fit of the hole pocket.
b (d-wave hopping) = 182 meV
From ARPES fit.
η (spin-orbit coupling) = 10 meV
From ARPES fit.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The low-energy hole pockets at Γ are described by the effective two-orbital Hamiltonian (2) with hopping integrals h0, h1, h3 and spin-orbit coupling η.
This model is standard for FeSe (Ref. [42]) and is not derived in the paper; the central calculation uses its eigenstates.
domain assumption The nematic order is represented as an orbital splitting Δ_h τ_3 at Γ.
Based on ARPES and previous band calculations; the paper states the microscopic origin is not important.
domain assumption The B1g Raman vertex is proportional to τ_3 in the orbital basis.
Derived in the Supplemental from Γ_B1g ∝ ∂H/∂k_x^2 - ∂H/∂k_y^2; standard for Raman scattering.
domain assumption The inner hole pocket lies below the Fermi level and its intraband contribution is negligible.
Based on ARPES; used to focus on the outer pocket.
domain assumption Impurity scattering provides the damping γ and is isotropic; vertex corrections are summed in the ladder approximation.
The cancellation of the s-wave component relies on this. If γ were from electron-electron interactions, the ladder resummation would need modification.
ad hoc to paper The orbital content is given by non-interacting eigenstates of Eq. (2), without orbital-selective quasiparticle weight renormalization Z.
The paper's argument against the orbital-selective scenario (Refs. [11,19,48-50]) is central to the mono-orbital assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Raman response in the nematic phase of FeSe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BM2YEFDE

@misc{pith2026190811361,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Raman response in the nematic phase of FeSe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BM2YEFDE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11361}
}

abstract

Raman experiments on bulk FeSe revealed that the low-frequency part of $B_{1g}$ Raman response $R_{B_{1g}}$, which probes nematic fluctuations, rapidly decreases below the nematic transition at $T_n \sim 85$K. Such behavior is usually associated with the gap opening and at a first glance is inconsistent with the fact that FeSe remains a metal below $T_n$, with sizable hole and electron pockets. We argue that the drop of $R_{B_{1g}}$ in a nematic metal comes about because the nematic order drastically changes the orbital content of the pockets and makes them nearly mono-orbital. In this situation $B_{1g}$ Raman response gets reduced by the same vertex corrections that enforce charge conservation. The reduction holds at low frequencies and gives rise to gap-like behavior of $R_{B_{1g}}$, in full agreement with the experimental data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11361 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Raman intensity in B1g channel, obtained neglecting vertex corrections. Solid/dashed lines denote the result in the tetragonal/nematic state. (a) Intraband response for an outer hole pocket. (b) Combined response from inner and outer hole pockets. Blue lines – the sum of intraband responses; orange line – interband response. The intraband response primarily comes from the outer hole pocket and actually increases … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Intraband Raman response from the outer hole [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Orbital content of the Γ pocket as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparison between the analytical result (21) (black, dashed line) and the numerical solution of Eq. (20) (red plain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Self-energy and vertex-correction contributions to the Raman response. On the bottom line we show the diagrammatic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

[1]

A. E. B¨ ohmer and A. Kreisel, Nematicity, magnetism and superconductivity in FeSe, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter 30, 023001 (2017)

work page 2017
[2]

(1), over all the relevant frequency range, despite the fact that Eq

agrees well with the analytical result, Eq. (1), over all the relevant frequency range, despite the fact that Eq. (1) has been obtained by expanding near the Fermi 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 Ω/Δh,0 RB1g [a.u.] � �� /�� Δ�/Δ�� With vertex corrections Figure 3. Intraband Raman response from the outer hole pocket, obtained by including vertex corrections with ...

work page 2017
[3]

A. I. Coldea and M. D. Watson, The key ingredients of the electronic structure of fese, Annual Review of Con- densed Matter Physics 9, 125 (2018)

work page 2018
[4]

Fernandes and C

R. Fernandes and C. A., Low-energy microscopic mod- els for iron-based superconductors: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 014503 (2017)

work page 2017
[5]

Gallais and I

Y. Gallais and I. Paul, Comptes Rendus Physique 17, 113 (2016)

2016
[6]

Suzuki, T

Y. Suzuki, T. Shimojima, T. Sonobe, A. Naka- mura, M. Sakano, H. Tsuji, J. Omachi, K. Yoshioka, M. Kuwata-Gonokami, T. Watashige, R. Kobayashi, S. Kasahara, T. Shibauchi, Y. Matsuda, Y. Yamakawa, H. Kontani, and K. Ishizaka, Phys. Rev. B 92, 205117 (2015)

work page 2015
[7]

M. D. Watson, T. K. Kim, A. A. Haghighirad, N. R. Davies, A. McCollam, A. Narayanan, S. F. Blake, Y. L. Chen, S. Ghannadzadeh, A. J. Schoﬁeld, M. Hoesch, C. Meingast, T. Wolf, and A. I. Coldea, Emergence of the nematic electronic state in fese, Phys. Rev. B 91, 155106 (2015)

work page 2015
[8]

M. D. Watson, T. K. Kim, L. C. Rhodes, M. Eschrig, M. Hoesch, A. A. Haghighirad, and A. I. Coldea, Evi- dence for unidirectional nematic bond ordering in fese, Phys. Rev. B 94, 201107 (2016)

work page 2016

Show all 51 references

[9]

Fanfarillo, J

L. Fanfarillo, J. Mansart, P. Toulemonde, H. Cercellier, P. Le F` evre, F. m. c. Bertran, B. Valenzuela, L. Benfatto, and V. Brouet, Orbital-dependent fermi surface shrinking as a ﬁngerprint of nematicity in fese, Phys. Rev. B 94, 155138 (2016)

2016
[10]

M. D. Watson, A. A. Haghighirad, L. C. Rhodes, M. Hoesch, and T. K. Kim, Electronic anisotropies re- vealed by detwinned angle-resolved photo-emission spec- troscopy measurements of fese, New Journal of Physics 19, 103021 (2017)

2017
[11]

L. C. Rhodes, M. D. Watson, A. A. Haghighirad, M. Es- chrig, and T. K. Kim, Strongly enhanced temperature dependence of the chemical potential in fese, Phys. Rev. B 95, 195111 (2017)

2017
[12]

P. O. Sprau, A. Kostin, A. Kreisel, A. E. B¨ ohmer, V. Tau- four, P. C. Canﬁeld, S. Mukherjee, P. J. Hirschfeld, B. M. Andersen, and J. C. S. Davis, Discovery of orbital- selective cooper pairing in fese, Science 357, 75 (2017)

2017
[13]

Fedorov, A

A. Fedorov, A. Yaresko, T. K. Kim, Y. Kushnirenko, E. Haubold, T. Wolf, M. Hoesch, A. Gruneis, B. Buech- ner, and S. V. Borisenko, Eﬀect of nematic ordering on electronic structure of fese, Scientiﬁc Reports 6, 36834 (2017)

2017
[14]

Y. S. Kushnirenko, A. A. Kordyuk, A. V. Fedorov, E. Haubold, T. Wolf, B. B¨ uchner, and S. V. Borisenko, Anomalous temperature evolution of the electronic struc- ture of fese, Phys. Rev. B 96, 100504 (2017)

2017
[15]

L. C. Rhodes, M. D. Watson, A. A. Haghighirad, D. V. Evtushinsky, M. Eschrig, and T. K. Kim, Scaling of the superconducting gap with orbital character in fese, Phys. Rev. B 98, 180503 (2018)

2018
[16]

Hashimoto, Y

T. Hashimoto, Y. Ota, H. Q. Yamamoto, Y. Suzuki, T. Shimojima, S. Watanabe, C. Chen, S. Kasahara, Y. Matsuda, T. Shibauchi, K. Okazaki, and S. Shin, Su- perconducting gap anisotropy sensitive to nematic do- mains in fese, Nature Communications 9, 282 (2018)

2018
[17]

Liu et al

D. Liu et al. , Orbital origin of extremely anisotropic su- perconducting gap in nematic phase of fese superconduc- tor, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031033 (2018)

2018
[18]

Yi and e

M. Yi and e. al, arXiv:1903.04557 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[19]

Huh and e

S. Huh and e. al., Lifted electron pocket and re- versed orbital occupancy imbalance in fese (2019), arXiv:1903.08360

2019 arXiv
[20]

Kreisel, B

A. Kreisel, B. M. Andersen, P. O. Sprau, A. Kostin, J. C. S. Davis, and P. J. Hirschfeld, Orbital selective pairing and gap structures of iron-based superconduc- tors, Phys. Rev. B 95, 174504 (2017)

2017
[21]

J. Kang, R. M. Fernandes, and A. Chubukov, Supercon- ductivity in fese: The role of nematic order, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 267001 (2018)

2018
[22]

Benfatto, B

L. Benfatto, B. Valenzuela, and L. Fanfarillo, Nematic pairing from orbital selective spin ﬂuctuations in fese, npj Quantum Materials 3, 56 (2018)

2018
[23]

Massat, D

P. Massat, D. Farina, I. Paul, S. Karlsson, P. Stro- bel, P. Toulemonde, M.-A. M ˜A c©asson, M. Cazayous, A. Sacuto, S. Kasahara, T. Shibauchi, Y. Matsuda, and Y. Gallais, Charge-induced nematicity in fese, Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 9177 (2016)

2016
[24]

V. K. Thorsmolle, M. Khodas, Z. P. Yin, C. Zhang, S. V. Carr, P. Dai, and G. Blumberg, Critical quadrupole ﬂuc- tuations and collective modes in iron pnictide supercon- ductors, Phys. Rev. B 93, 054515 (2016)

2016
[25]

W. L. Zhang, S. F. Wu, S. Kasahara, T. Shibauchi, Y. Matsuda, and G. Blumberg, Stripe quadrupole order in the nematic phase of fe1−xsx, arXiv:1710.09892 (2017)

2017 arXiv
[26]

A. Baum, H. N. Ruiz, N. Lazarevic, Y. Wang, T. B˜A¶hm, R. Hosseinian Ahangharnejhad, P. Adelmann, T. Wolf, Z. V. Popovic, B. Moritz, T. P. Devereaux, and R. Hackl, Frustrated spin order and stripe ﬂuctuations in fese, Communications Physics 2, 14 (2019)

2019
[28]

T. P. Devereaux and R. Hackl, Inelastic light scatter- ing from correlated electrons, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 175 (2007)

2007
[29]

M. V. Klein, Theory of raman scattering from leggett’s collective mode in a multiband superconductor: Appli- cation to mgb 2, Phys. Rev. B 82, 014507 (2010)

2010
[30]

Yamase and R

H. Yamase and R. Zeyher, Electronic raman scatter- ing from orbital nematic ﬂuctuations, Phys. Rev. B 88, 125120 (2013)

2013
[31]

Tsuchiizu, Y

M. Tsuchiizu, Y. Ohno, S. Onari, and H. Kontani, 6 Orbital nematic instability in the two-orbital hubbard model: Renormalization-group + constrained rpa analy- sis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 057003 (2013)

2013
[32]

Klein, S

A. Klein, S. Lederer, D. Chowdhury, E. Berg, and A. Chubukov, Dynamical susceptibility near a long- wavelength critical point with a nonconserved order pa- rameter, Phys. Rev. B 97, 155115 (2018)

2018
[33]

Klein, S

A. Klein, S. Lederer, D. Chowdhury, E. Berg, and A. Chubukov, Dynamical susceptibility of a near-critical nonconserved order parameter and quadrupole raman re- sponse in fe-based superconductors, Phys. Rev. B 98, 041101 (2018)

2018
[34]

Cea and L

T. Cea and L. Benfatto, Signature of the leggett mode in the A1g raman response: From mgb 2 to iron-based superconductors, Phys. Rev. B 94, 064512 (2016)

2016
[35]

Maiti, A

S. Maiti, A. V. Chubukov, and P. J. Hirschfeld, Conser- vation laws, vertex corrections, and screening in raman spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. B 96, 014503 (2017)

2017
[36]

Throughout this paper we use the notation B 1g

The relevant scattering geometry is B 1g in 1-Fe Brillouin zone and B 2g in 2-Fe Brillouin zone. Throughout this paper we use the notation B 1g
[37]

Karahasanovic, F

U. Karahasanovic, F. Kretzschmar, T. B¨ ohm, R. Hackl, I. Paul, Y. Gallais, and J. Schmalian, Manifestation of nematic degrees of freedom in the raman response func- tion of iron pnictides, Phys. Rev. B 92, 075134 (2015)

2015
[38]

(), by symmetry, there must exist a second hole band, constructed of dxz and dyz orbitals.However it has been experimentally established that the inner pocket sinks below the Fermi level already in the tetragonal phase
[39]

Hinojosa, J

A. Hinojosa, J. Cai, and A. V. Chubukov, Raman reso- nance in iron-based superconductors: The magnetic sce- nario, Phys. Rev. B 93, 075106 (2016)

2016
[40]

Such order has not been unambigiously detected in ARPES studies and we will not consider it

(), the system may also develop d-wave nematic order on the outer d xy pocket (refs). Such order has not been unambigiously detected in ARPES studies and we will not consider it
[41]

Onari, Y

S. Onari, Y. Yamakawa, and H. Kontani, Sign-reversing orbital polarization in the nematic phase of fese due to theC2 symmetry breaking in the self-energy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 227001 (2016)

2016
[42]

G. Zala, B. N. Narozhny, and I. L. Aleiner, Interac- tion corrections at intermediate temperatures: Longitu- dinal conductivity and kinetic equation, Phys. Rev. B64, 214204 (2001)

2001
[43]

Cvetkovic and O

V. Cvetkovic and O. Vafek, Space group symmetry, spin- orbit coupling, and the low-energy eﬀective hamiltonian for iron-based superconductors, Phys. Rev. B 88, 134510 (2013)

2013
[44]

Fanfarillo, L

L. Fanfarillo, L. Benfatto, and B. Valenzuela, Orbital mismatch boosting nematic instability in iron-based su- perconductors, Phys. Rev. B 97, 121109 (2018)

2018
[45]

A. V. Chubukov, M. Khodas, and R. M. Fernandes, Mag- netism, superconductivity, and spontaneous orbital order in iron-based superconductors: Which comes ﬁrst and why?, Phys. Rev. X 6, 041045 (2016)

2016
[46]

R. M. Fernandes, A. V. Chubukov, and J. Schmalian, What drives nematic order in iron-based superconduc- tors?, Nature Physics 10, 97 (2014)

2014
[47]

See supplemental material
[48]

Blumberg, private communication

G. Blumberg, private communication
[49]

H. Hu, R. Yu, E. M. Nica, J.-X. Zhu, and Q. Si, Orbital- selective superconductivity in the nematic phase of fese, Phys. Rev. B 98, 220503 (2018)

2018
[50]

Kreisel, B

A. Kreisel, B. M. Andersen, and P. J. Hirschfeld, Itiner- ant approach to magnetic neutron scattering of fese: Ef- fect of orbital selectivity, Phys. Rev. B98, 214518 (2018)

2018
[51]

T. Chen, Y. Chen, A. Kreisel, X. Lu, A. Schneidewind, Y. Qiu, J. T. Park, T. G. Perring, J. R. Stewart, H. Cao, R. Zhang, Y. Li, Y. Rong, Y. Wei, B. M. Andersen, P. J. Hirschfeld, C. Broholm, and P. Dai, Anisotropic spin ﬂuctuations in detwinned fese, Nature Materials 18, 709 (2019)

2019
[52]

BFQY9nUTa3zoEsqpp4W7MAi0nrI=

T. Devereaux and R. Hackl, Inelastic light scattering from correlated electrons, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 175 (2007). 7 Γ pocket T≥Tn (meV) T≪Tn (meV) ϵ0 0 -9 a 263 263 b 182 182 η 10 10 ∆h 0 15 Table I. Band parameters for the hole pockets at Γ in the nematic and in the tetragonal...

2007

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

A. E. B¨ ohmer and A. Kreisel, Nematicity, magnetism and superconductivity in FeSe, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter 30, 023001 (2017)

work page 2017

[2] [2]

(1), over all the relevant frequency range, despite the fact that Eq

agrees well with the analytical result, Eq. (1), over all the relevant frequency range, despite the fact that Eq. (1) has been obtained by expanding near the Fermi 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 Ω/Δh,0 RB1g [a.u.] � �� /�� Δ�/Δ�� With vertex corrections Figure 3. Intraband Raman response from the outer hole pocket, obtained by including vertex corrections with ...

work page 2017

[3] [3]

A. I. Coldea and M. D. Watson, The key ingredients of the electronic structure of fese, Annual Review of Con- densed Matter Physics 9, 125 (2018)

work page 2018

[4] [4]

Fernandes and C

R. Fernandes and C. A., Low-energy microscopic mod- els for iron-based superconductors: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 014503 (2017)

work page 2017

[5] [5]

Gallais and I

Y. Gallais and I. Paul, Comptes Rendus Physique 17, 113 (2016)

2016

[6] [6]

Suzuki, T

Y. Suzuki, T. Shimojima, T. Sonobe, A. Naka- mura, M. Sakano, H. Tsuji, J. Omachi, K. Yoshioka, M. Kuwata-Gonokami, T. Watashige, R. Kobayashi, S. Kasahara, T. Shibauchi, Y. Matsuda, Y. Yamakawa, H. Kontani, and K. Ishizaka, Phys. Rev. B 92, 205117 (2015)

work page 2015

[7] [7]

M. D. Watson, T. K. Kim, A. A. Haghighirad, N. R. Davies, A. McCollam, A. Narayanan, S. F. Blake, Y. L. Chen, S. Ghannadzadeh, A. J. Schoﬁeld, M. Hoesch, C. Meingast, T. Wolf, and A. I. Coldea, Emergence of the nematic electronic state in fese, Phys. Rev. B 91, 155106 (2015)

work page 2015

[8] [8]

M. D. Watson, T. K. Kim, L. C. Rhodes, M. Eschrig, M. Hoesch, A. A. Haghighirad, and A. I. Coldea, Evi- dence for unidirectional nematic bond ordering in fese, Phys. Rev. B 94, 201107 (2016)

work page 2016