Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 77 references

Effects of spin-orbit coupling on spin-fluctuation induced pairing in iron-based superconductors

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Spin-orbit coupling does not alter the leading $s_{\pm}$ state in the generic iron-pnictide band, but in strongly hole-doped systems it promotes a helical pseudospin-triplet solution that can become the leading instability near the…

desk verdict A systematic and honest RPA reference calculation; the central s± robustness claim is solid, while the hole-doped triplet window is softer than the abstract suggests and deserves more numerical transparency. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01313 v1 pith:XWDMLN4R submitted 2019-09-03 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.str-el

Daniel D. Scherer , Brian M. Andersen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.str-el PACS 74.20.-z71.70.Ej74.70.Xa74.25.Ha
keywords iron-basedsuperconductorsspin-orbitcouplingspin-fluctuationpairinglinearizedgapequationrandom-phaseapproximationpseudospinsingletandtriplets±helical
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether spin-orbit coupling (SOC), which is sizable in iron-based superconductors, can change which superconducting-pairing instability the spin-fluctuation mechanism produces. Using a ten-band Hubbard-Hund model with realistic DFT-derived hoppings and an RPA pairing vertex, the authors solve the Fermi-surface-projected linearized gap equation and compare the leading gap solutions with and without SOC. For the generic LaFeAsO-derived band they find that even 100 meV SOC leaves the leading $s_{\pm}$ pseudospin-singlet state intact and does not create SOC-specific gap oscillations. The interesting changes appear at extreme doping: strong hole doping gives a leading d-wave singlet with a helical pseudospin-triplet solution promoted by SOC that can win in a narrow window near the spin-density-wave instability, while strong electron doping makes SOC swap the leading solution from d-wave to s-wave. These results matter because gap symmetry is what phase-sensitive experiments can test, and they isolate which SOC-related effects actually shape the pairing state.

What carries the argument

The Fermi-surface projected linearized gap equation (LGE) in the intraband approximation, whose eigenvalues $\lambda$ rank the pairing instabilities, with the static spin-fluctuation pairing vertex obtained in the random-phase approximation from a ten-band Hubbard-Hund model. The load-bearing object is the pseudospin degree of freedom: a Kramers-index basis constructed so that, at vanishing SOC, pseudospin reduces to physical spin, while at finite SOC the problem stays block-diagonal in pseudospin singlet-triplet space and the SOC-induced entanglement is carried by the orbital-to-band matrix elements. The pseudospin triplet-$x$ and triplet-$y$ sectors become coupled, lifting the degeneracy of helical solutions, and the paper shows that this coupling, rather than the SOC-induced anisotropy of the spin susceptibility, is what reorganizes the pairing kernel when SOC is present.

What would settle it

Re-solve the linearized gap equation for the same ten-band models without the Fermi-surface projection and with the full Matsubara-frequency-dependent pairing vertex, including interband pairing; if the s-wave and d-wave eigenvalues in the strongly electron-doped case, or the singlet and helical-triplet eigenvalues near the spin-density-wave instability in the strongly hole-doped case, switch order, the paper's SOC-driven switching claims would be overturned. A cleaner experimental check is a phase-sensitive measurement of the gap on heavily electron-doped FeSe films with SOC tuned by strain or gating.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working with a ten-orbital model in the 2-Fe Brillouin zone, the authors find that the SOC-induced magnetic anisotropy of the paramagnons is not what controls the pairing kernel; instead the orbital-to-band matrix elements, which entangle spin, orbital, and momentum, determine the structure of the kernel. In this setting the leading instability of the undoped and lightly doped generic band remains the $s_{\pm}$ (pseudo-)spin singlet for SOC up to $\lambda_{\mathrm{SOC}} = 100\,\mathrm{meV}$, with no SOC-characteristic oscillations in the gap along the Fermi surfaces. In the strongly hole-doped case, where only three $\Gamma$-centered hole pockets remain, the leading solution is a d-wave pseudospin singlet, but SOC lifts the degeneracy among triplet solutions and promotes a helical pseudospin-triplet solution that becomes the largest eigenvalue in a narrow parameter window near the spin-density-wave instability. In the strongly electron-doped case with only $M$-centered electron pockets, SOC changes the leading solution from d-wave pseudospin singlet to s-wave pseudospin singlet. For the FeSe band the same weak-coupling framework reproduces the known failure of RPA—the spin susceptibility peaks near $(\pi,\pi)$ rather than $(\pi,0)/(0,\pi)$—and SOC merely shifts the accidental nodes of the $s_{\pm}$ solution without generating new gap features.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a static, Fermi-surface-projected RPA pairing kernel with only intraband pairing correctly orders the superconducting instabilities even in the presence of strong spin-orbit coupling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the generic LaFeAsO-type band, experimental observations of strong gap anisotropy along the Fermi surface should not be attributed to SOC within spin-fluctuation theory; the mechanism must lie elsewhere, such as orbital-selective effects or nematicity.
  • In strongly hole-doped compounds with only $\Gamma$-centered hole pockets (KFe$_2$As$_2$-like topology), SOC can push a helical pseudospin-triplet state to the top of the eigenvalue hierarchy near a spin-density-wave instability, making phase-sensitive and spin-resolved experiments the decisive test.
  • In strongly electron-doped systems (monolayer or intercalated FeSe), including SOC favors $s_{\pm}$ over d-wave pairing, so the d-wave solution found at vanishing SOC is a consequence of neglecting SOC.
  • The relative insensitivity of the generic-band gap to SOC means that SOC-induced changes in the pairing kernel are controlled by Fermi-surface and orbital-matrix-element effects rather than by paramagnon spin anisotropy alone.
  • For FeSe, the weak-coupling RPA susceptibility mismatch with experiment persists after adding SOC, so the SOC-induced node shifts in the FeSe gap are not a quantitative material prediction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: because the paper traces the SOC effect to orbital-to-band matrix elements, a model with stronger interorbital hybridization might show SOC-induced gap changes even at modest $\lambda_{\mathrm{SOC}}$; this could be tested by varying the $d_{xz}/d_{yz}$--$d_{xy}$ hybridization in the same calculation.
  • Beyond the paper: the narrow triplet-leading window near the spin-density-wave instability suggests that the competition between singlet d-wave and helical triplet should be strongest where pressure or doping tunes the system closest to magnetism, so tuning experiments on hole-doped pnictides could be used to search for the triplet state.
  • Beyond the paper: the electron-doped d-to-s swap may partly be a Fermi-surface-topology effect, because SOC opens small hole pockets, rather than a pure spin-fluctuation-polarization effect; a calculation that switches SOC on while keeping the Fermi surface fixed would separate the two contributions.
  • Beyond the paper: the FeSe caveat implies that conclusions from weak-coupling RPA for FeSe should be viewed as a baseline; a similar analysis in a nematic or strong-coupling setting could decide whether SOC affects the measured gap in the opposite direction.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies how spin-orbit coupling modifies spin-fluctuation mediated pairing in iron-based superconductors. The authors use a ten-band Hubbard-Hund model with DFT-derived hopping parameters for LaFeAsO and FeSe, include an onsite SOC term, and solve the Fermi-surface-projected linearized gap equation (LGE) with an RPA pairing kernel in which SOC enters both the bandstructure and the two-particle vertex. For the generic LaFeAsO-derived band they find that SOC up to 100 meV leaves the s+− pseudospin-singlet solution as the leading instability and does not generate SOC-specific gap oscillations; in the strongly hole-doped case the leading solution is d-wave pseudospin singlet, but an SOC-promoted helical pseudospin-triplet solution can become leading in a narrow parameter window near the SDW instability; in the strongly electron-doped case SOC swaps the leading d-wave singlet for an s-wave singlet. A FeSe band is analyzed separately, with the acknowledged caveat that the RPA susceptibility peaks at (π,π) rather than at the experimental (π,0)/(0,π) wavevectors. The supplementary material provides a detailed derivation of the BdG setup, the pseudospin gauge, and the RPA pairing vertex.

Significance. If the reported eigenvalue orderings are robust, this is a useful systematic study of a question that has received comparatively little attention in multiband iron-based superconductors: the role of SOC in selecting not only the superconducting symmetry class but also the momentum-space gap structure. The paper's strengths include the realistic ten-band modeling, an explicit and carefully documented pseudospin construction, extensive parameter sweeps over U and λSOC, and an honest discussion of the limitations of the Fermi-surface-projected RPA approach. The predicted narrow helical-triplet window in the hole-doped system and the SOC-driven d/s switching in the electron-doped system are concrete, falsifiable statements that could guide more complete numerical work or experiments. However, the central quantitative claims are weakened by the authors' own admission that the LGE eigenvalues are not quantitatively reliable, which is exactly the observable on which the doping-regime ordering conclusions rest. With additional eigenvalue-level evidence or appropriately weakened conclusions, the paper would be a valuable contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV A 2 and Sec. S2] The two flagship doping-regime results — that the helical pseudospin-triplet solution can become the leading instability near the SDW boundary in the strongly hole-doped system and that SOC swaps the leading d-wave and s+− pseudospin-singlet solutions under strong electron doping — are both eigenvalue-ordering statements derived from the Fermi-surface-projected LGE, Eq. (3). In Sec. IV A 2 the authors state that "our analysis is quantitatively not reliable with respect to the LGE eigenvalues λ," and Sec. S2 explains that after the Fermi-surface projection and the redefinition of λ, "we strictly speaking lose quantitative control over the precise criterion that determines the onset of a Cooper instability." No eigenvalues are tabulated for either ranking change; the only quantitative datum given is that the subleading triplet starts out with λ smaller than the leading value by a factor of two. Because near-degenerate eigenvalues are exactly where the neglected finite-energy, interband, and omitted corner-pocket contributions (all acknowledged in Sec. IV A 2) can reorder the hierarchy, the central claims are not yet secured. I request a quantitative presentation of λ for the leading singlet and triplet solutions as a function of λSOC and U in both doping regimes, and preferably a check of the ordering against the non-projected or interband-extended LGE; if this is not feasible, the conclusions should be correspondingly weakened.
  2. [Sec. IV B and Sec. S6] The FeSe analysis is based on a model whose static RPA susceptibility is explicitly acknowledged to peak at (π,π) rather than at the experimental (π,0)/(0,π), so the magnetic-fluctuation input that drives the pairing kernel is not the one realized in FeSe. Since the main conclusion drawn from this calculation — that SOC does not induce qualitatively new gap features despite the tiny pockets — is produced by a kernel built from the wrong magnetic spectrum, it is not empirically supported by the calculation as presented. The authors are transparent about this limitation, but the conclusion still overreaches: a weak-coupling baseline with a quantitatively incorrect susceptibility can at most motivate future work. I suggest either removing the FeSe-specific conclusions from the abstract and summary, or supplementing the calculation with a pairing kernel built from a corrected or experimentally constrained susceptibility (or explicitly labeling the FeSe section as a purely illustrative methodological exercise with no FeSe-specific claims).
  3. [Sec. IV A 2] The claim that the helical triplet "may even become the leading instability" is further weakened by the authors' own observations that the triplet solution "becomes leading by accident" in a narrow parameter window and that it "is possible, however, that the pseudospin triplet solution can be stabilized by further decrease of temperature or finite-energy and inter-band contributions" that are neglected in the Fermi-surface-projected LGE. Because this statement appears as a central result in the abstract, it needs either stronger numerical evidence — for example, a demonstration that the accidental window persists under a controlled extension of the approximation — or a clear downgrade to a qualitative tendency. As written, the abstract's wording overstates what the calculation establishes.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] There is a typo in the abstract: "thes+−" should read "the s+−".
  2. [Fig. 11 and Fig. 16 captions] The captions of Figs. 11 and 16 give chemical potentials as "µ0 = −150 eV" and "µ0 = 20 eV", respectively, whereas the running text correctly uses meV; please make the units consistent.
  3. [Fig. 21 caption] The caption of Fig. 21 refers to panels (a)-(c) and (d)-(f), but the figure and the text use only four panels (a)-(d); update the caption to match the actual panel layout.
  4. [Secs. IV A 1 and IV A 3] There are small typos in the text: "LGE eingevalueλ" in Sec. IV A 1 should be "LGE eigenvalue λ", and in Sec. IV A 3 the sentence "dominated by intra- dxz and intra dxz components" should presumably read "intra-dxz and intra-dyz components".
  5. [References] Reference 46 lists the journal as "Phys. Phys. Lett."; this should be "Phys. Rev. Lett.".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: pairing symmetries emerge from the LGE with swept parameters; self-citations supply inputs and method, not the target results.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are obtained by solving the Fermi-surface projected linearized gap equation (Eq. (3) and Eq. (S24)) with an RPA pairing kernel built from the Hubbard-Hund interaction and the listed hopping parameters. The leading pairing symmetries, including the s+− singlet, d-wave singlet, and the SOC-promoted helical triplet, are read off as the largest LGE eigenvalues rather than imposed by construction. The parameters U, λSOC, and μ0 are swept over ranges, and the gap symmetries are not fitted to any target experimental result. The LaFeAsO bandstructure comes from the independent Ref. 60; the FeSe bandstructure is taken from the authors' earlier Ref. 39, but this is an input model choice, not the output pairing symmetry, and it is benchmarked against DFT-based Fermi surface renormalization. The RPA formalism and pseudospin construction are cited from the authors' prior work and standard references, but these supply the method rather than the conclusions. The statements in Sec. IV A 2 and Sec. S2 that the LGE eigenvalues are not quantitatively reliable, and that finite-energy or interband contributions could stabilize the triplet state, are explicit hedging about the approximation's quantitative accuracy. They are correctness/reliability caveats, not evidence that the results reduce to their inputs. No equation is equated to another by definition, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Thus no circular step is present; the score of 2 reflects the presence of minor self-citations that are not load-bearing for the central derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model is built from standard DFT-derived hopping parameters, a Hubbard-Hund interaction, and a free SOC parameter. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The free parameters are swept to map out the phase competition, not fitted to the target gap symmetries.

free parameters (5)
  • λSOC (spin-orbit coupling strength) = swept 0 to 100 meV; representative results at 75 meV
    Free parameter controlling SOC; range chosen to cover physically relevant values for FeSCs. Not fitted to the target gap symmetries.
  • U (intraorbital Hubbard interaction) = 0.50, 0.70, 0.80, 1.30 eV (swept)
    Interaction strength varied to place the system near the SDW instability; J fixed at U/4. Not fitted to pairing results.
  • Chemical potential μ0 = 0, -45, -150, 20, 25 meV (doping regimes)
    Chosen by hand to realize undoped, hole-doped, and electron-doped Fermi surface topologies.
  • Temperature T = 0.01 eV (fixed)
    Fixed Matsubara temperature for the LGE; the absolute eigenvalue criterion is absorbed into a prefactor anyway.
  • J/U ratio = 1/4 (fixed)
    Hund's coupling set to one quarter of U, a common choice for FeSCs; not varied.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption RPA approximation for the pairing vertex: the 2PI vertex is obtained by summing particle-hole bubble chains with the bare Hubbard-Hund vertex (Sec. S4).
    Assumes weak coupling and neglects vertex corrections beyond RPA; standard for spin-fluctuation pairing studies.
  • domain assumption Fermi surface projection with intraband pairing only (Sec. S2).
    Assumes low-energy pairing is dominated by intraband processes near the Fermi level; the authors note this loses quantitative control over the instability criterion.
  • domain assumption Static (zero-frequency) approximation for the pairing vertex D(0,q) (Sec. S4).
    Neglects frequency dependence of spin fluctuations; common approximation in RPA pairing studies.
  • domain assumption Spin-fluctuation mechanism is the pairing glue (Sec. III).
    The whole study assumes magnetic fluctuations mediate the Cooper pairing, motivated by prior work on FeSCs.
  • domain assumption FeSe bandstructure from mean-field treatment of non-local nearest-neighbor repulsion (Ref. 39).
    The hopping renormalizations used for FeSe come from the authors' earlier work; this model is treated as realistic for FeSe despite known limitations.
  • domain assumption J = U/4 and U' = U - 2J relation (Sec. S4).
    Interaction parameters chosen according to the standard rotational-invariant Hubbard-Hund form with a fixed J/U ratio.
  • standard math Kramers degeneracy due to time-reversal and inversion symmetry (Sec. S3).
    The pseudospin construction relies on this degeneracy, which holds for the inversion-symmetric FeSC models considered.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effects of spin-orbit coupling on spin-fluctuation induced pairing in iron-based superconductors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XWDMLN4R

@misc{pith2026190901313,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effects of spin-orbit coupling on spin-fluctuation induced pairing in iron-based superconductors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XWDMLN4R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01313}
}
abstract

We perform a theoretical study of the leading pairing instabilities and the associated superconducting gap functions within the spin-fluctuation mediated pairing scenario in the presence of spin-orbit coupling (SOC). Focussing on iron-based superconductors (FeSCs), our model Hamiltonian consists of a realistic density functional theory (DFT)-derived ten-band hopping term, spin-orbit coupling, and electron-electron interactions included via the multi-orbital Hubbard-Hund Hamiltonian. We perform an extensive parameter sweep and investigate different doping regimes including cases with only hole- or only electron Fermi pockets. In addition, we explore two different bandstructures: a rather generic band derived for LaFeAsO but known to represent standard DFT-obtained bands for iron-based superconductors, and a band specifically tailored for FeSe which exhibits a notably different Fermi surface compared to the generic case. It is found that for the generic FeSCs band, even rather large SOC has negligible effect on the resulting gap structure; the $s_{+-}$ (pseudo-)spin singlet pairing remains strongly favored and SOC does not lead to any SOC-characteristic gap oscillations along the various Fermi surfaces. By contrast in the strongly hole-doped case featuring only hole-pockets around the $\Gamma$-point, the leading solution is $d$-wave pseudo-spin singlet, but with a notable SOC-driven tendency towards helical pseudo-spin triplet pairing, which may even become the leading instability. In the heavily electron doped situation, featuring only electron pockets centered around the $M$-point, the leading superconducting instabilities are pseudo-spin singlets with SOC favoring the $s$-wave case as compared to $d$-wave pairing, which is the favored gap symmetry for vanishing SOC.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01313 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Normal state Fermi surfaces of the generic FeSC band in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Visualization of the pairing kernel entering the LGE. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5. Reduced kernel corresponding to the leading LGE eigen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Visualization of the pairing kernel entering the LGE. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Leading and first two subleading LGE solutions for (a)-(c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Reduced kernel corresponding to the leading LGE eigen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Normal state Fermi surfaces of the heavily hole-doped [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Leading and first two subleading LGE solutions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Visualization of the pairing kernel entering the LGE. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Visualization of the pairing kernel entering the LGE. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. (a),(b) Leading, degenerate gap solutions in pseudospin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Normal state Fermi surfaces of the electron doped generic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Visualization of the pairing kernel entering the LGE. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_17.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. Leading and first two subleading LGE solutions of the heav [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. Normal state Fermi surfaces of the FeSe model in the 1-Fe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21. Leading and first subleading LGE solutions of the FeSe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_21.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D. J. Scalapino, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84 , 1383 (2012)

    2012

  2. [2]

    Taillefer, Annu

    L. Taillefer, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 1 , 51 (2010)

    2010

  3. [3]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Nature 556 , 43 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Kohn and J

    W. Kohn and J. H. Luttinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 15 , 524 (1965)

    work page 1965

  5. [5]

    N. F. Berk and J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 17 , 433 (1966)

    1966

  6. [6]

    D. J. Scalapino, E. Loh Jr., and J. E. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. B 34 , 8190 (1986)

    1986

  7. [7]

    M. T. Beal-Monod, C. Bourbonnais, and V. J. Emery, Phys. Rev. B 34 , 7716 (1986)

    1986

  8. [8]

    Miyake, S

    K. Miyake, S. Schmitt-Rink, and C.M. Varma, Phys. Rev. B 34 , 6554 (1986)

    1986

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Maiti and A

    S. Maiti and A. V. Chubukov, AIP Conf. Proceedings 1550 , 3 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    P. J. Hirschfeld, M. M. Korshunov, and I. I. Mazin, Rep. Prog. Phys. 74 , 124508 (2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    A. V. Chubukov, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 3 , 57 (2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    P. J. Hirschfeld, D. Altenfeld, I. Eremin, and I. I. Mazin, Phys. Rev. B 92 , 184513 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    J. H. J. Martiny, A. Kreisel, P. J. Hirschfeld, and B. M. Andersen, Phys. Rev. B 95 , 184507 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    P. O. Sprau, A. Kostin, A. Kreisel, A. E. B\" o hmer, P. C. Taufour, V. Canfield, S. Mukherjee, P. J. Hirschfeld, B. M. Andersen, and J. Davis, Science 357 , 75 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Z. Du, D. Altenfeld, Q. Gu, H. Yang, I. Eremin, P. J. Hirschfeld, I. I. Mazin, H. Lin, X. Zhu, and H. H. Wen, Nat. Phys. 14 , 134 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Hirschfeld, C

    P. Hirschfeld, C. R. Phys. 17 , 197 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    S. V. Borisenko, V. B. Zabolotnyy, D. V. Evtushinsky, T. K. Kim, I. V. Morozov, A. N. Yaresko, A. A. Kordyuk, G. Behr, A. Vasiliev, R. Follath, and B. B\" u chner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 , 067002 (2010)

    2010

  10. [18]

    S. V. Borisenko, V. B. Zabolotnyy, A. A. Kordyuk, D. V. Evtushinsky, T. K. Kim, I. V. Morozov, R. Follath, and B. B\" u chner, Symmetry 4 , 251 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    Umezawa, Y

    K. Umezawa, Y. Li, H. Miao, K. Nakayama, Z.-H. Liu, P. Richard, T. Sato, J. B. He, D.-M. Wang, G. F. Chen, H. Ding, T. Takahashi, and S.-C. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 , 037002 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    M. P. Allan, A. W. Rost, A. P. Mackenzie, Y. Xie, J. C. Davis, K. Kihou, C. H. Lee, A. Iyo, H. Eisaki, and T.-M. Chuang, Science 336 , 563 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    D. V. Evtushinsky, V. B. Zabolotnyy, T. K. Kim, A. A. Kordyuk, A. N. Yaresko, J. Maletz, S. Aswartham, S.Wurmehl, A. V. Boris, D. L. Sun, C. T. Lin, B. Shen, H. H. Wen, A.Varykhalov, R. Follath, B. Buchner, and S. V. Borisenko, Phys. Rev. B 89 , 064514 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Terashima, M

    T. Terashima, M. Kimata, N. Kurita, H. Satsukawa, A. Harada, K. Hazama, M. Imai, A. Sato, K. Kihou, C.-H. Lee, H. Kito, H. Eisaki, A. Iyo, T. Saito, H. Fukazawa, Y. Kohori, H. Harima, and S. Uji, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 79 , 053702 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    J. K. Dong, S. Y. Zhou, T. Y. Guan, H. Zhang, Y. F. Dai, X. Qiu, X. F.Wang, Y. He, X. H. Chen, and S. Y. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 , 087005 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    J.-Ph. Reid, M. A. Tanatar, A. Juneau-Fecteau, R. T. Gordon, S. R. de Cotret, N. Doiron- Leyraud, T. Saito, H. Fukazawa, Y. Kohori, K. Kihou, C. H. Lee, A. Iyo, H. Eisaki, R. Prozorov, and L. Taillefer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 , 087001 (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    Okazaki, Y

    K. Okazaki, Y. Ota, Y. Kotani, W. Malaeb, Y. Ishida, T. Shimojima, T. Kiss, S. Watanabe, C.-T. Chen, K. Kihou, C. H. Lee, A. Iyo, H. Eisaki, T. Saito, H. Fukazawa, Y. Kohori, K. Hashimoto, T. Shibauchi, Y. Matsuda, H. Ikeda, H. Miyahara, R. Arita, A. Chainani, and S. Shin, Sci...

    2012

  18. [26]

    B\" o hm, A

    T. B\" o hm, A. F. Kemper, B. Moritz, F. Kretzschmar, B. Muschler, H.-M. Eiter, R. Hackl, T. P. Devereaux, D. J. Scalapino, and H.-H. Wen, Phys. Rev. X 4 , 041046 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    Hardy, R

    F. Hardy, R. Eder, M. Jackson, D. Aoki, C. Paulsen, T. Wolf, P. Burger, A. B\" o hmer, P. Schweiss, P. Adelmann, R. A. FisheR, and C. Meingast, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 83 , 014711 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    A. I. Coldea and M. D. Watson, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 9 , 125 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    A. E. B\" o hmer and A. Kreisel, J. of Phys.: Cond. Mat. 30 , 023001 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Kostin, P

    A. Kostin, P. O. Sprau, A. Kreisel, Y. X. Chong, A. E. B\" o hmer, P. C. Canfield, P. J. Hirschfeld, B. M. Andersen, J. C. S\' e amus Davis, Nature Materials 17 , 869 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Onari, Y

    S. Onari, Y. Yamakawa, and H. Kontani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 , 227001 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Kreisel, B

    A. Kreisel, B. M. Andersen, P. O. Sprau, A. Kostin, J. C. S\' e amus Davis, and P. J. Hirschfeld Phys. Rev. B 95 , 174504 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    J.-H. She, M. J. Lawler, and E.-A. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 , 237002 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    J. Kang, R. M. Fernandes, and A. Chubukov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 , 267001 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Benfatto, B

    L. Benfatto, B. Valenzuela, and L. Fanfarillo, npj Quantum Mater. 3 , 56 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    L. C. Rhodes, M. D. Watson, A. A. Haghighirad, D. V. Evtushinsky, M. Eschrig, and T. K. Kim, Phys. Rev. B 98 , 180503 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Kreisel, B

    A. Kreisel, B. M. Andersen, and P. J. Hirschfeld, Phys. Rev. B 98 , 214518 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Jiang, J

    K. Jiang, J. Hu, H. Ding, and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 93 , 115138 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    D. D. Scherer, A. C. Jacko, C. Friedrich, E. S a s o g lu, S. Bl\" u gel, R. Valent\' i , B. M. Andersen, Phys. Rev. B 95 , 094504 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    S. V. Borisenko, D. V. Evtushinsky, Z.-H. Liu, I. Morozov, R. Kappenberger, S. Wurmehl, B. B\" u chner, A. N. Yaresko, T. K. Kim, M. Hoesch, T. Wolf, and N. D. Zhigadlo, Nat. Phys. 12 , 311 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    R. Day, G. Levy, M. Michiardi, B. Zwartsenberg, M. Zonno, F. Ji, E. Razzoli, F. Boschini, S. Chi, R. Liang, P. Das, I. Vobornik, J. Fujii, W. Hardy, D. Bonn, I. Elfimov, and A. Damascelli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 , 076404 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Saito, Y

    T. Saito, Y. Yamakawa, S. Onari, and H. Kontani, Phys. Rev. B 92 , 134522 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    L. Liu, K. Okazaki, T. Yoshida, H. Suzuki, M. Horio, L. C. C. Ambolode, II, J. Xu, S. Ideta, M. Hashimoto, D. H. Lu, Z.-X. Shen, Y. Ota, S. Shin, M. Nakajima, S. Ishida, K. Kihou, C. H. Lee, A. Iyo, H. Eisaki, T. Mikami, T. Kakeshita, Y. Yamakawa, H. Kontani, S. Uchida, and A....

    2017

  36. [44]

    Khodas and A

    M. Khodas and A. V. Chubukov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 , 247003 (2012)

    2012

  37. [45]

    Cvetkovic and O

    V. Cvetkovic and O. Vafek, Phys. Rev. B 88 , 134510 (2013)

    2013

  38. [46]

    Vafek and A

    O. Vafek and A. V. Chubukov, Phys. Phys. Lett. 118 , 087003 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    P. M. Eugenio and O. Vafek, Phys. Rev. B 98 , 014503 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    B\" o ker, P

    J. B\" o ker, P. A. Volkov, P. J. Hirschfeld, and I. Eremin, ArXiv:1903.05935

    1903 arXiv

  41. [49]

    D. D. Scherer and B. M. Andersen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 , 037205 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    A. D. Christianson, E. A. Goremychkin, R. Osborn, S. Rosenkranz, M. D. Lumsden, C. D. Malliakas, I. S. Todorov, H. Claus, D. Y. Chung, M. G. Kanatzidis, R. I. Bewley, and T. Guidi, Nature (London) 456 , 930 (2008)

    2008

  43. [51]

    M. D. Lumsden and A. D. Christianson, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 22 , 203203 (2010)

    2010

  44. [52]

    Pengcheng Dai, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87 , 855 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    D. S. Inosov, Comptes Rendus Physique 17, 60 (2016)

    2016

  46. [54]

    D. D. Scherer and B. M. Andersen, arXiv:1906.08566

    1906 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Peng Zhang, Koichiro Yaji, Takahiro Hashimoto, Yuichi Ota, Takeshi Kondo, Kozo Okazaki, Zhijun Wang, Jinsheng Wen, G. D. Gu, Hong Ding, Shik Shin, Science 360 , 182 (2018)

    2018

  48. [57]

    Schneeloch, R.D

    Dongfei Wang, Lingyuan Kong, Peng Fan, Hui Chen, Yujie Sun, Shixuan Du, J. Schneeloch, R.D. Zhong, G.D. Gu, Liang Fu, Hong Ding, Hongjun Gao, Science 362 , 333 (2018)

    2018

  49. [58]

    Kun Jiang, Xi Dai, and Ziqiang Wang, Phys. Rev. X 9 , 011033 (2019)

    2019

  50. [59]

    Yin, Zheng Wu, J-H

    J.-X. Yin, Zheng Wu, J-H. Wang, Z-Y. Ye, Jing Gong, X-Y. Hou, Lei Shan, Ang Li, X-J. Liang, X-X. Wu, Jian Li, C-S. Ting, Z-Q. Wang, J-P. Hu, P-H. Hor, H. Ding, S. H. Pan, Nat. Physics 11 , 543 (2015)

    2015

  51. [60]

    Ikeda, R

    H. Ikeda, R. Arita, and J. Kune s , Phys. Rev. B 81 , 054502 (2010)

    2010

  52. [61]

    T. A. Maier, S. Graser, D. J. Scalapino, and P. Hirschfeld, Phys. Rev. B 79, 134520 (2009)

    2009

  53. [62]

    M. D. Watson, S. Backes, A. A. Haghighirad, M. Hoesch, T. K. Kim, A. I. Coldea, and R. Valent\' i , Phys. Rev. B 95 , 081106 (2017)

    2017

  54. [63]

    D. V. Evtushinsky, M. Aichhorn, Y. Sassa, Z.-H. Liu, J. Maletz, T. Wolf, A. N. Yaresko, S. Biermann, S. V. Borisenko, and B. B\" u chner, arXiv:1612.02313

    arXiv

  55. [64]

    u lich, J\

    L. de' Medici, Hund's metal explained, in The Physics of Correlated Insulators, Metals, and Superconductors, Modeling and Simulation Vol. 7, edited by E. Pavarini, E. Koch, R. Scalettar, and R. Martin (Verlag des Forschungszentrum J\" u lich, J\" u lich, 2017)

    2017

  56. [65]

    Kreisel, S

    A. Kreisel, S. Mukherjee, P. J. Hirschfeld, and B. M. Andersen, Phys. Rev. B 92 , 224515 (2015)

    2015

  57. [66]

    M. C. Rahn, R. A. Ewings, S. J. Sedlmaier, S. J. Clarke, and A. T. Boothroyd, Phys. Rev. B 91 , 180501 (2015)

    2015

  58. [67]

    Q. Wang, Y. Shen, B. Pan, Y. Hao, M. Ma, F. Zhou, P. Steffens, K. Schmalzl, T. R. Forrest, M. Abdel-Hafiez, X. Chen, D. A. Chareev, A. N. Vasiliev, P. Bourges, Y. Sidis, H. Cao, and J. Zhao, Nat. Mater. 15 , 159 (2016)

    2016

  59. [68]

    Q. Wang, Y. Shen, B. Pan, X. Zhang, K. Ikeuchi, K. Iida, A. D. Christianson, H. C. Walker, D. T. Adroja, M. Abdel-Hafiez, X. Chen, D. A. Chareev, A. N. Vasiliev, and J. Zhao, Nat. Commun. 7 , 12182 (2016)

    2016

  60. [69]

    T. Chen, Y. Chen, A. Kreisel, X. Lu, A. Schneidewind, Y. Qiu, J. 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, Nat. Mater. 18 , 709 (2019)

    2019

  61. [70]

    M. Yi, Y. Zhang, H. Pfau, T. Chen, Zi. Ye, M. Hashimoto, R. Yu, Q. Si, D.-H. Lee, P. Dai, Z. -X. Shen, D. Lu, R. J. Birgeneau, arXiv:1903.04557

    1903 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Sigrist and K

    M. Sigrist and K. Ueda, Rev. Mod. Phys. 63 , 239 (1991)

    1991

  63. [72]

    Ueda and T

    K. Ueda and T. M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B 31 , 7114 (1985)

    1985

  64. [73]

    Nourafkan and A.-M

    R. Nourafkan and A.-M. S. Tremblay Phys. Rev. B 96 , 125140 (2017)

    2017

  65. [74]

    A. T. R mer, D. D. Scherer, I. M. Eremin, P. J. Hirschfeld, B. M. Andersen, arXiv:1905.04782

    1905 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Li-Da Zhang, Wen Huang, Fan Yang, and Hong Yao Phys. Rev. B 97 , 060510(R) (2018)

    2018

  67. [76]

    Nomoto, K

    T. Nomoto, K. Hattori, and H. Ikeda Phys. Rev. B 94 , 174513 (2016)

    2016

  68. [77]

    D. D. Scherer, I. Eremin, and B. M. Andersen Phys. Rev. B 94, 180405(R) (2016)

    2016

  69. [78]

    D. D. Scherer and B. M. Andersen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 037205 (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

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