Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Symmetry-required Orbital Selectivity in Monolayer FeSe

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In monolayer FeSe, crystal symmetry forces orbital-selective renormalization without any site-local Mott transition.

desk verdict The symmetry selection rule at the M point is clean, new, and likely right; the ARPES comparison is a fitted illustration rather than a test, because the interband xz,yz vertex is never computed. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06180 v2 pith:BQG7K3JC submitted 2025-09-07 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.supr-con

Mercè Roig , Qiang Zou , Basu Dev Oli , Tatsuya Shishidou , Yue Yu , Huimin Zhang , Daniel F. Agterberg , Lian Li
show 1 more author
Michael Weinert
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.supr-con
keywords orbital-selectivecorrelationsmonolayerFeSecheckerboardantiferromagneticfluctuationssymmetry-requiredorbitalselectivityiron-basedsuperconductorsARPESirreduciblerepresentationseffectivek.pmodel
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 tries to establish that the orbital-selective physics in monolayer FeSe—where electrons in $x^2-y^2$ orbitals are much more strongly renormalized than those in $\{xz,yz\}$ orbitals—is required by the crystal's symmetry and band structure, not by a site-local Mott transition. At the $M$ point of the Brillouin zone, the $x^2-y^2$ Bloch states can be localized on individual Fe sites, so they couple strongly to checkerboard antiferromagnetic fluctuations, while the $\{xz,yz\}$ states cannot be site-localized and couple only weakly through an inter-band channel. A one-loop self-energy calculation shows these fluctuations renormalize the $x^2-y^2$ band, push it up through the $\{xz,yz\}$ bands, and produce the gapped dispersion observed in angle-resolved photoemission, with Fermi momenta held fixed by Luttinger's theorem. If correct, this replaces a strong-correlation explanation with a symmetry-required band-theory mechanism that extends to other crystal space groups.

What carries the argument

The central object is the little-group representation content of the electron pockets at the $M$ point of space group 129, in particular which orbitals can form site-local Bloch states. The $x^2-y^2$ orbitals transform as the $M_1$ representation with a basis localized on individual Fe sites, while the $\{xz,yz\}$ orbitals form the $M_3$ and $M_4$ representations that cannot be site-localized without mixing. Checkerboard antiferromagnetic order transforms as $B_{2u}$, and the direct-product rules put this representation inside $M_1\otimes M_1$ (intra-band coupling for $x^2-y^2$) but only inside $M_3\otimes M_4$ (inter-band coupling for $\{xz,yz\}$). That selection rule, combined with a one-loop magnon self-energy in the effective $k\cdot p$ model, produces the orbital-selective renormalization and the observed gapped dispersion.

What would settle it

A self-consistent DFT calculation with checkerboard antiferromagnetic order at a small local moment (say $0.05\,\mu_B$) should already show a splitting of the $x^2-y^2$ bands at $M$ while the $\{xz,yz\}$ bands remain degenerate; if both orbital sets split comparably, or neither does, the symmetry-required mechanism would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the orbital-selective renormalization in monolayer FeSe originates from the symmetry of the Bloch wavefunctions at the $M$ point, not from a Mott transition. In the non-magnetic state, the $x^2-y^2$ orbitals on the two Fe sites form the $M_1$ irreducible representation, whose basis states can be chosen as site-localized $|x^2-y^2,A\rangle$ and $|x^2-y^2,B\rangle$; checkerboard antiferromagnetic order (symmetry $B_{2u}$) appears in $M_1\otimes M_1$, so it couples within the $M_1$ pair and splits the $x^2-y^2$ bands. The $\{xz,yz\}$ orbitals instead form the $M_3$ and $M_4$ representations, and the same $B_{2u}$ order appears only in $M_3\otimes M_4$, so their coupling is purely inter-band and ineffective at low momenta. Including only the $x^2-y^2$ coupling to antiferromagnetic magnons at one-loop order renormalizes the effective mass and the $\alpha$ term of the $k\cdot p$ Hamiltonian by a common factor $Z^{-1}=N(0)g^2/\omega_0$ (estimated near 2 to 3.6), and applying Luttinger's theorem to reset $\mu_{x^2-y^2}$ pushes the band upward into a gapped crossing with $\{xz,yz\}$, matching the ARPES spectra. The authors conclude the mechanism is symmetry-required and generalizes to other space groups with four-fold and six-fold screw axes.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison to ARPES assumes that the renormalization of $\mu_{x^2-y^2}$ is not offset by a renormalization of $\mu_{\{xz,yz\}}$; if both chemical potentials shift together, the $x^2-y^2$ band would not rise relative to $\{xz,yz\}$ and the predicted gap at $M$ would not appear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The apparent gap at the $M$ point in monolayer FeSe ARPES is a direct consequence of $x^2-y^2$ bands being pushed up through $\{xz,yz\}$ bands by checkerboard antiferromagnetic-fluctuation renormalization, with $k_F$ values locked by Luttinger's theorem.
  • Sulfur substitution weakens the checkerboard antiferromagnetic fluctuations, which explains the observed decrease in effective mass and the downward shift of band positions at $M$ with increasing S concentration.
  • Orbital-selective physics in FeSe does not require an orbital-selective Mott transition; the band structure alone enforces the hierarchy that $x^2-y^2$ electrons are more strongly correlated than $\{xz,yz\}$ electrons.
  • The extra $x^2-y^2$ spectral weight brought to the chemical potential amplifies the pairing interaction from the magnetic fluctuations, explaining why this pairing becomes more energetic than the usual $s_\pm$ gap.
  • The same symmetry argument predicts analogous orbital-selective coupling to magnetic or nematic order in other tetragonal and hexagonal space groups, such as the rutile structure at its $M$ or $A$ point and hexagonal close-packed at $H$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If correct, the mechanism predicts that any perturbation changing the little-group classification at $M$, such as strain that lowers the crystal symmetry, should weaken or destroy the orbital-selective renormalization; this is testable in uniaxial-strain experiments on monolayer FeSe.
  • The predicted renormalization factor $Z^{-1}=N(0)g^2/\omega_0$ makes a quantitative prediction for how the effective-mass enhancement should track the magnon frequency and coupling constant as doping or strain tunes the system.
  • The same symmetry lens could be used as a design rule: materials whose Fermi-surface hot spots have site-localizable orbitals in the relevant irreducible representation should exhibit orbital-selective correlations, while those without should not.
  • The one-loop, single-frequency-magnon model is the minimal carrier of the effect; a momentum-dependent magnon spectrum and vertex corrections would be needed to see whether the estimated $Z^{-1}\approx2$–$3.6$ window survives and whether it fully accounts for the experimental mass enhancement.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a band-theory origin for orbital-selective correlations in monolayer FeSe. Using DFT of the Néel-ordered state, it observes that checkerboard Néel fluctuations couple strongly to x^2-y^2 orbitals and only weakly to {xz,yz} orbitals at the M point. A symmetry analysis for space group P4/nmm shows that x^2-y^2 forms the M1 irreducible representation and can be chosen site-localized on a single Fe, so a B2u Néel order parameter couples to it at first order, while the {xz,yz} orbitals form the M3 and M4 representations and can couple to B2u only through an inter-M3-M4 vertex. The authors then build a k.p model with an electron-magnon self-energy only on x^2-y^2, fit it to ARPES data for FeSe1-xSx, and argue that the resulting mass renormalization and upward shift of x^2-y^2 produce the observed gapped dispersion. They also state that the mechanism generalizes to a set of tetragonal and hexagonal space groups.

Significance. The symmetry-selection-rule part is clean, parameter-free, and independently supported by the static DFT Néel calculations; it gives a concrete, falsifiable distinction between site-localized x^2-y^2 states and non-site-localized {xz,yz} states. If the mechanism survives quantitative scrutiny, it is a significant alternative to site-local Mott-based orbital selectivity in FeSe. The paper's experimental support is the weakest element: the parameters entering the self-energy comparison are partly fitted, and the conclusion depends on an explicitly acknowledged assumption about the renormalization of the {xz,yz} chemical potential. The group-theoretic core is nevertheless novel and worth publishing after the numerical support is hardened.

major comments (3)
  1. [Band renormalization from Néel order, Eq. (3)] The effective theory in Eq. (3) couples the Néel fluctuations only to the x2-y2 bands, but the symmetry analysis in the previous section permits a B2u vertex between the M3 and M4 representations of the {xz,yz} orbitals (the product M3⊗M4 contains B2u). The authors explicitly assume that the resulting renormalization of μ_{xz,yz} is absent, and they acknowledge that a shift of μ_{xz,yz} could offset the upward shift of μ_{x2-y2}. This assumption is load-bearing for the Fig. 4 ARPES comparison: the gapped dispersion is produced by the relative band shift, and an interband M3-M4 self-energy of order g'^2/ΔE with ΔE≈1 eV and g' comparable to g=0.93 eV is not obviously negligible. The manuscript should estimate this contribution, or explicitly downgrade the ARPES comparison to an illustrative consistency check.
  2. [Band renormalization from Néel order, text following Eq. (4)] The quantitative agreement with ARPES is partly a fit. The density of states N(0)=0.21 states/eV per Fe is chosen to reproduce the experimental bands, and the model calculation uses Z^{-1}=2, whereas the parameter estimate from g, N(0), and ω0 gives Z^{-1}≈3.6. Because the chosen Z^{-1} is the value needed to produce the experimental gap, the agreement in Fig. 4 does not independently confirm the mechanism. The authors should either fix all parameters from independent inputs or present the agreement as consistency rather than as validation.
  3. [Fig. 4, left panels] The DFT-based self-energy check does not resolve the previous concern, because it applies a real orbital-dependent self-energy to x2-y2 only. This imposes by construction the same assumption that μ_{xz,yz} is not renormalized by Néel fluctuations. A self-consistent calculation that includes the symmetry-allowed M3-M4 Néel vertex is needed to test whether the relative band shift and the gap survive.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption should define the color scale and specify which extracted dispersion corresponds to which orbital character; the green and dashed black curves are difficult to associate with the panels.
  2. [Eq. (3)] The Pauli matrices τ and σ are not defined in the text; clarify that τ acts in the two-dimensional orbital IR space and σ in spin space.
  3. [Orbital selective coupling in other space groups] The generalization to space groups 136 and 194 is only a sketch; if it is intended as a concrete claim, provide the IR decompositions, and if it is a forward-looking remark, label it explicitly.
  4. [Band renormalization from Néel order] The use of the bulk FeSe magnon frequency ω0=0.05 eV for monolayer FeSe should be flagged as an assumption at the point where it is introduced, even though the authors later note that the monolayer magnon has not been measured.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Symmetry-based orbital selectivity is independent and parameter-free, but the ARPES agreement is partly a fit: N(0) is matched to the same ARPES bands and Z^-1=2 is chosen to reproduce the observed gap.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 'Band renormalization from Néel order', after Eq. (4), Fig. 4 right panels]
    "To get an estimate for Z−1, we choose N(0) = 0.21 states/eV per Fe, which reproduces the bands and the Fermi surface for FeSe in Fig. 2 ... We find that choosing Z−1 = 2 renormalizes m∗x2−y2 and α∗x2−y2 that yields agreement with our ARPES data."

    The quantitative 'agreement' with ARPES is produced by construction: N(0) is chosen to reproduce the very Fig. 2 ARPES bands that the model later claims to match, and the renormalization factor actually used in the final k.p calculation, Z^-1=2, is selected to reproduce the observed gap. The independently estimated value Z^-1≈3.6 is not used in the model. Thus the gapped dispersion shown as support for the mechanism is a fitted output, not a numerical prediction of the renormalization from the spin-fermion coupling alone.

  2. other [Section 'Band renormalization from Néel order', left panels of Fig. 4 and surrounding text]
    "we introduce an orbital-dependent real self-energy for the x2−y2 orbitals and perform self-consistent DFT calculations ... As the strength of the orbital-selective interaction increases, the x2−y2 orbitals rise until a gap is formed."

    This DFT-based check is an input-output consistency test, not independent confirmation: the calculation imposes the orbital-selective self-energy on x2−y2 only, which is exactly the selectivity under investigation, and then observes that x2−y2 rises and a gap forms. The nontrivial part is the Luttinger-theorem behavior, but the orbital selectivity itself is put in by hand, so the exercise cannot independently establish the mechanism. The paper frames it as verification of the Luttinger mechanism, which is legitimate, but it is not an independent test of the orbital-selective coupling.

full rationale

The central claim—that Néel fluctuations couple strongly to x2−y2 orbitals but only weakly (or inter-band only) to {xz,yz} at the M point—rests on two independent, self-contained inputs: frozen-Néel DFT calculations showing a large x2−y2 splitting with no {xz,yz} splitting, and point-group selection rules from the Bilbao tables (M1⊗M1 contains B2u, while M3⊗M3 and M4⊗M4 do not; M3⊗M4 contains B2u). Neither input is defined in terms of the ARPES data or the model parameters, so the symmetry-required selectivity is not circular. The self-citations in the paper (Refs. [19,24,45]) are not load-bearing: the k.p Hamiltonian form is standard symmetry analysis also supported by external references, and the Heisenberg parameters are computational results. The circularity is confined to the ARPES comparison: N(0) is fitted to the same Fig. 2 bands, Z^-1=2 is chosen to reproduce the observed gap rather than using the independent 3.6 estimate, and the Fig. 4 DFT test imposes an orbital-selective self-energy by hand. The paper itself concedes the additional load-bearing assumption: 'the renormalization of µ_x2−y2 can be offset by a renormalization of µ_{xz,yz}, and we have assumed that there is no such renormalization.' That is a stated correctness limitation rather than a circular step, but it further weakens the ARPES comparison as independent evidence. Overall, the central mechanism has genuine independent content; only the quantitative ARPES agreement is partially fitted, so the circularity score is 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The mechanism's symmetry selection rule is parameter-free, but the quantitative renormalization and the ARPES comparison require a set of fitted or assumed parameters: g, N(0), omega_0, Z^-1, k.p band parameters, and the assumption of no mu_{xz,yz} renormalization. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (12)
  • electron-magnon coupling g = 0.93 eV
    Extracted from DFT; enters the Z^-1 estimate.
  • density of states N(0) = 0.21 states/eV per Fe
    Chosen to reproduce ARPES bands and Fermi surface; used in the Z^-1 estimate.
  • magnon frequency omega_0 = 0.05 eV
    Taken from bulk FeSe neutron scattering [43]; monolayer value not measured.
  • self-energy renormalization Z^-1 = 2
    Chosen to match ARPES data; parameter estimate gave about 3.6.
  • k.p mass m_{x2-y2} = 0.15625 (eV-Å^2)^-1
    Fitted to NM DFT bands.
  • k.p mass m_{xz,yz} = 1.125 (eV-Å^2)^-1
    Fitted to NM DFT bands.
  • k.p parameter alpha_{x2-y2} = 4.8 eV-Å^2
    Fitted to NM DFT bands.
  • k.p parameter alpha_{xz,yz} = -1.44 eV-Å^2
    Fitted to NM DFT bands.
  • chemical potential mu_{x2-y2} = 0.35 eV
    Fitted to NM DFT bands.
  • chemical potential mu_{xz,yz} = 0.24 eV
    Fitted to NM DFT bands.
  • inter-IR coupling v = 1.12 eV-Å
    Fitted to NM DFT bands.
  • orbital-dependent self-energy strength in DFT check = 0.35 eV
    Imposed on x2-y2 orbitals in self-consistent DFT to demonstrate gap formation.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math IR labels M1-M4 for space group 129 at the M point from the Bilbao Crystallographic Server are correct.
    Used to compute selection rules; if the ordering of {xz,yz} bands near the Fermi level were different, the orbital-selectivity claim would need revision.
  • domain assumption In monolayer FeSe only electron pockets exist, so only Q=(0,0) Néel fluctuations can couple the electron pockets.
    Momentum conservation; no hole pockets for Q=(π,π) scattering. Standard for monolayer FeSe.
  • domain assumption Static Néel ordered DFT is a valid proxy for dynamic Néel fluctuations.
    The paper adopts an Eliashberg-type picture citing Refs [26-32]; single-particle spectra in the paramagnetic state arise from local band structures in fluctuating order.
  • domain assumption One-loop self-energy is a good approximation for the electron-magnon coupling.
    Cites cuprate and pnictide studies [39-42].
  • ad hoc to paper The magnon mode can be approximated by a single frequency omega_0.
    Explicitly stated: "we carry out a simplified approach, allowing only for a magnon mode at a single frequency".
  • ad hoc to paper mu_{xz,yz} is not renormalized by Néel fluctuations.
    Authors note this assumption explicitly: renormalization of mu_{x2-y2} can be offset by a renormalization of mu_{xz,yz}.
  • domain assumption Spin-orbit coupling can be neglected.
    All symmetry analysis is done in the SOC-neglected case; Fe 3d SOC is not quantified.
  • standard math Luttinger's theorem fixes the renormalized mu_{x2-y2}.
    Used to set the band position at M after mass renormalization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Symmetry-required Orbital Selectivity in Monolayer FeSe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BQG7K3JC

@misc{pith2026250906180,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Symmetry-required Orbital Selectivity in Monolayer FeSe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BQG7K3JC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06180}
}
abstract

Orbital-selective correlations have been observed to play an important role in Fe-based superconductors. Here, in contrast to previous site-local Mott transition-based origins, we present a band-theory-based mechanism for orbital-selective physics in monolayer FeSe, for which only electron pockets appear. Underlying our mechanism is the observation in density functional theory (DFT) calculations that around the M point in the Brillouin zone, antiferromagnetic fluctuations are strongly coupled to electrons in $x^2-y^2$ orbitals but weakly coupled to those in $\{xz,yz\}$ orbitals. Symmetry-arguments reveal that this orbital selective coupling originates from the different intertwined orbital and Fe-site sublattice Bloch wavefunctions for these two sets of orbitals at the M point, specifically, the $x^2-y^2$ orbitals can be Fe-site localized. The strong coupling of electrons in $x^2-y^2$ orbitals to the magnetic fluctuations enables orbital-selective electronic renormalizations that can account for important features of our angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) measurements. Our symmetry-required mechanism for orbital selective physics can be generalized to a range of crystal space groups with four-fold and six-fold screw axes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06180 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Second derivatives of the ARPES intensity around [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematics of the (2 Fe unit cell) crystal struc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Sketch of the degenerate basis functions for the M [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Orbital-projected and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P.O.Sprau, A.Kostin, A.Kreisel, A.E.Böhmer, 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, Science357, 75 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    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. B95, 174504 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    C. Liu, A. Kreisel, S. Zhong, Y. Li, B. M. Ander- sen, P. Hirschfeld, and J. Wang, Orbital-Selective High- Temperature Cooper Pairing Developed in the Two- Dimensional Limit, Nano Lett.22, 3245 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Kostin, P

    A. Kostin, P. O. Sprau, A. Kreisel, Y. X. Chong, A. E. Böhmer, P. C. Canfield, P. J. Hirschfeld, B. M. Andersen, and J. C. S. Davis, Imaging orbital-selective quasiparti- cles in the Hund’s metal state of FeSe, Nat. Mater.17, 869 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Yi, Z.-K

    M. Yi, Z.-K. Liu, Y. Zhang, R. Yu, J.-X. Zhu, J. J. Lee, R. G. Moore, F. T. Schmitt, W. Li, S. C. Riggs, J.-H. Chu, B. Lv, J. Hu, M. Hashimoto, S.-K. Mo, Z. Hussain, Z. Q. Mao, C. W. Chu, I. R. Fisher, Q. Si, Z.-X. Shen, and D. H. Lu, Observation of universal strong orbital- dependent correlation effects in iron chalcogenides, Nat. Commun.6, 7777 (2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    De’ Medici, G

    L. De’ Medici, G. Giovannetti, and M. Capone, Selective Mott Physics as a Key to Iron Superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 177001 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Huang, R

    J. Huang, R. Yu, Z. Xu, J.-X. Zhu, J. S. Oh, Q. Jiang, M. Wang, H. Wu, T. Chen, J. D. Denlinger, S.-K. Mo, M. Hashimoto, M. Michiardi, T. M. Pedersen, S. Gorovikov, S. Zhdanovich, A. Damascelli, G. Gu, P. Dai, J.-H. Chu, D. Lu, Q. Si, R. J. Birgeneau, and M. Yi, Correlation-driven electronic reconstruction in FeTe1-xSex, Commun. Phys.5, 1 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    R. Yu, H. Hu, E. M. Nica, J.-X. Zhu, and Q. Si, Or- bital selectivity in electron correlations and supercon- ducting pairing of iron-based superconductors, Frontiers in Physics9, 578347 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    M. L. Kiesel and R. Thomale, Sublattice interference in the kagome hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B86, 121105 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    M. L. Kiesel, C. Platt, and R. Thomale, Unconventional fermi surface instabilities in the kagome hubbard model, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 126405 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    Mielke, D

    C. Mielke, D. Das, J.-X. Yin, H. Liu, R. Gupta, Y.- X. Jiang, M. Medarde, X. Wu, H. C. Lei, J. Chang, P. Dai, Q. Si, H. Miao, R. Thomale, T. Neupert, Y. Shi, R. Khasanov, M. Z. Hasan, H. Luetkens, and Z. Guguchia, Time-reversal symmetry-breaking charge order in a kagome superc...

    2022

  4. [12]

    Q.-Y. Wang, Z. Li, W.-H. Zhang, Z.-C. Zhang, J.-S. Zhang, W. Li, H. Ding, Y.-B. Ou, P. Deng, K. Chang, J. Wen, C.-L. Song, K. He, J.-F. Jia, S.-H. Ji, Y.-Y. Wang, L.-L. Wang, X. Chen, X.-C. Ma, and Q.-K. Xue, Interface-Induced High-Temperature Superconductivity in Single Unit-...

    2012

  5. [13]

    S. He, J. He, W. Zhang, L. Zhao, D. Liu, X. Liu, D. Mou, Y.-B. Ou, Q.-Y. Wang, Z. Li, L. Wang, Y. Peng, Y. Liu, C. Chen, L. Yu, G. Liu, X. Dong, J. Zhang, C. Chen, Z.Xu, X.Chen, X.Ma, Q.Xue,andX.J.Zhou,Phasedi- agram and electronic indication of high-temperature su- perconduct...

    2013

  6. [14]

    Zhang, Y.-H

    Z. Zhang, Y.-H. Wang, Q. Song, C. Liu, R. Peng, K. A. Moler, D. Feng, and Y. Wang, Onset of the Meissner ef- fect at 65K in FeSe thin film grown on Nb-doped SrTiO3 substrate, Science Bulletin60, 1301 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    Ge, Z.-L

    J.-F. Ge, Z.-L. Liu, C. Liu, C.-L. Gao, D. Qian, Q.-K. Xue, Y. Liu, and J.-F. Jia, Superconductivity above 100 Kinsingle-layerFeSefilmsondopedSrTiO 3,Nat.Mater. 14, 285 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    Z. Wang, C. Liu, Y. Liu, and J. Wang, High-temperature superconductivity in one-unit-cell FeSe films, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter29, 153001 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Huang and J

    D. Huang and J. E. Hoffman, Monolayer FeSe on SrTiO3, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.8, 311 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Z.-X. Li, F. Wang, H. Yao, and D.-H. Lee, What makes the Tc of monolayer FeSe on SrTiO3 so high: A sign- problem-free quantum Monte Carlo study, Science Bul- letin61, 925 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    D. F. Agterberg, T. Shishidou, J. O’Halloran, P. M. R. Brydon, and M. Weinert, Resilient Nodelessd-Wave Su- perconductivityinMonolayerFeSe,Phys.Rev.Lett.119, 267001 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    P. J. Hirschfeld, M. M. Korshunov, and I. I. Mazin, Gap symmetry and structure of Fe-based superconductors, Rep. Prog. Phys.74, 124508 (2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    Chubukov, Pairing Mechanism in Fe-Based Supercon- ductors, Annu

    A. Chubukov, Pairing Mechanism in Fe-Based Supercon- ductors, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.3, 57 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    Kreisel, P

    A. Kreisel, P. J. Hirschfeld, and B. M. Andersen, On the Remarkable Superconductivity of FeSe and Its Close Cousins, Symmetry12, 1402 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    H. Zhai, F. Wang, and D.-H. Lee, Antiferromagneti- cally driven electronic correlations in iron pnictides and cuprates, Phys. Rev. B80, 064517 (2009)

    2009

  16. [24]

    Phys.1, 8 (2018)

    T.Shishidou, D.F.Agterberg,andM.Weinert,Magnetic fluctuations in single-layer FeSe, Commun. Phys.1, 8 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Nakayama, T

    T. Nakayama, T. Shishidou, and D. F. Agterberg, Nodal topology ind-wave superconducting monolayer FeSe, Phys. Rev. B98, 214503 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Würtenberg, W

    J. Würtenberg, W. Kuch, S. Langsdorf, E. Dietz, and U. Gerhardt, Modification of photoelectron spectra by lattice and spin disorder, Physica Scripta41, 634 (1990)

    1990

  19. [27]

    Kirschner, M

    J. Kirschner, M. Glöbl, V. Dose, and H. Scheidt, Wave- vector-dependent temperature behavior of empty bands in ferromagnetic iron, Phys. Rev. Lett.53, 612 (1984)

    1984

  20. [28]

    Kakizaki, J

    A. Kakizaki, J. Fujii, K. Shimada, A. Kamata, K. Ono, K.-H. Park, T. Kinoshita, T. Ishii, and H. Fukutani, Fluctuating local magnetic moments in ferromagnetic Ni observed by the spin-resolved resonant photoemission, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 2781 (1994). 7

    1994

  21. [29]

    P. Aebi, T. J. Kreutz, J. Osterwalder, R. Fasel, P. Schwaller, and L. Schlapbach, k-space mapping of ma- jority and minority bands on the Fermi surface of nickel below and above the Curie temperature, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 1150 (1996)

    1996

  22. [30]

    Pickel, A

    M. Pickel, A. B. Schmidt, M. Weinelt, and M. Donath, Magnetic exchange splitting in Fe above the Curie tem- perature, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 237204 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    Z. Ren, J. Huang, H. Tan, A. Biswas, A. Pulkkinen, Y. Zhang, Y. Xie, Z. Yue, L. Chen, F. Xie, K. Allen, H. Wu, Q. Ren, A. Rajapitamahuni, A. K. Kundu, E.Vescovo, J.Kono, E.Morosan, P.Dai, J.-X.Zhu, Q.Si, J.Minár, B.Yan,andM.Yi,Persistentflatbandsplitting and strong selective b...

    2024

  24. [32]

    Zhang, J

    Y. Zhang, J. J. Lee, R. G. Moore, W. Li, M. Yi, M.Hashimoto, D.H.Lu, T.P.Devereaux, D.-H.Lee,and Z.-X. Shen, Superconducting Gap Anisotropy in Mono- layer FeSe Thin Film, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 117001 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    F. Wang, S. A. Kivelson, and D.-H. Lee, Nematicity and quantum paramagnetism in FeSe, Nat. Phys.11, 959 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    Ivantchev, G

    M.I.Aroyo, J.M.Perez-Mato, C.Capillas, E.Kroumova, S. Ivantchev, G. Madariaga, A. Kirov, and H. Won- dratschek, Bilbao crystallographic server: I. databases and crystallographic computing programs, Zeitschrift für Kristallographie - Crystalline Materials221, 15 (2006)

    2006

  27. [35]

    M. I. Aroyo, A. Kirov, C. Capillas, J. M. Perez-Mato, and H. Wondratschek, Bilbao Crystallographic Server. II. Representations of crystallographic point groups and space groups, Acta Crystallographica Section A62, 115 (2006)

    2006

  28. [36]

    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. B88, 134510 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    H. G. Suh, Y. Yu, T. Shishidou, M. Weinert, P. M. R. Brydon, and D. F. Agterberg, Superconductivity of anomalous pseudospin in nonsymmorphic materials, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 033204 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Abanov, A

    Ar. Abanov, A. V. Chubukov, and J. Schmalian, Quantum-critical theory of the spin-fermion model and its application to cuprates: Normal state analysis, Adv. Phys. (2003)

    2003

  31. [39]

    Eschrig and M

    M. Eschrig and M. R. Norman, Neutron Resonance: Modeling Photoemission and Tunneling Data in the Su- perconducting State ofBi 2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 3261 (2000)

    2000

  32. [40]

    Y. M. Vilk and A.-M. S. Tremblay, Non-Perturbative Many-Body Approach to the Hubbard Model and Single- Particle Pseudogap, J. Phys. I7, 1309 (1997)

    1997

  33. [41]

    Ortenzi, E

    L. Ortenzi, E. Cappelluti, L. Benfatto, and L. Pietronero, Fermi-surface shrinking and interband coupling in iron- based pnictides, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 046404 (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    Bhattacharyya, K

    S. Bhattacharyya, K. Björnson, K. Zantout, D. Stef- fensen, L. Fanfarillo, A. Kreisel, R. Valentí, B. M. An- dersen, and P. J. Hirschfeld, Nonlocal correlations in iron pnictides and chalcogenides, Phys. Rev. B102, 035109 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    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, Magnetic ground state of FeSe, Nat. Com- mun.7, 12182 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    Chang, S

    M.-H. Chang, S. Backes, D. Lu, N. Gauthier, M. Hashimoto, G.-Y. Chen, H.-H. Wen, S.-K. Mo, Z.- X. Shen, R. Valentí, and H. Pfau, Observation of two cascading screening processes in an iron-based supercon- ductor, Commun. Mater.6, 1 (2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

    Q. Zou, A. Sihi, B. D. Oli, M. Roig, D. Agterberg, M. Weinert, L. Li, and S. Mandal, Correlation En- hanced Electron-Phonon Coupling in FeSe/SrTiO3 at a Magic Angle, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2506.22435 (2025), 2506.22435

    2025 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    Z. Ge, C. Yan, H. Zhang, D. Agterberg, M. Weinert, and L. Li, Evidence for d-Wave Superconductivity in Single Layer FeSe/SrTiO3 Probed by Quasiparticle Scattering Off Step Edges, Nano Lett.19, 2497 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    Q. Zou, B. D. Oli, H. Zhang, J. Benigno, X. Li, and L.Li,DecipheringAlloyCompositioninSuperconducting Single-Layer FeSe1–xSx on SrTiO3(001) Substrates by Machine Learning of STM/S Data, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces15, 22644 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.