Unconventional Multi-gap Superconductivity and Antiferromagnetic Spin Fluctuations in New Iron-arsenide LaFe2As2 in Heavily Electron-doped Regime

A. Iyo; H. Eisaki; H. Mukuda; K. Kawashima; M. Yashima; S. Ishida; T. Kouchi; Y. Yoshida

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Unconventional Multi-gap Superconductivity and Antiferromagnetic Spin Fluctuations in New Iron-arsenide LaFe2As2 in Heavily Electron-doped Regime

T0 review · 3 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 A heavily electron-doped iron arsenide with the same formal iron valence as a non-superconductor still shows weak antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations and unconventional multi-gap superconductivity, according to 75As NMR/NQR measurements.

desk verdict A solid, new NMR/NQR dataset on a heavily electron-doped iron-arsenide, but the central claim of weak antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations at x=-0.5 rests on a single upturn that the paper does not yet show to be intrinsic. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01569 v2 pith:TDUZIZ52 submitted 2019-09-04 cond-mat.supr-con

T. Kouchi , M. Yashima , H. Mukuda , S. Ishida , H. Eisaki , Y. Yoshida , K. Kawashima , A. Iyo This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.supr-con

keywords LaFe2As2ironpnictidesheavilyelectrondopingantiferromagneticspinfluctuationsmulti-gapsuperconductivityNMR/NQRrelaxation75AsnuclearresonanceFe-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

This paper reports $^{75}$As NMR/NQR measurements on the new iron-arsenide series $(\mathrm{La}_{0.5-x}\mathrm{Na}_{0.5+x})\mathrm{Fe}_2\mathrm{As}_2$ and claims that the heavily electron-doped member $x=-0.5$ ($\mathrm{LaFe}_2\mathrm{As}_2$) retains weak antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations in the normal state and enters an unconventional multi-gap superconducting state at $T_c \approx 9.4$ K. The significance is that the formal iron valence of +1.5 would place this compound at the same doping level as $\mathrm{Ba}(\mathrm{Fe}_{0.5}\mathrm{Co}_{0.5})_2\mathrm{As}_2$, a material in which neither antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations nor superconductivity is observed. The evidence is a slight upturn of the nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate $1/T_1T$ on cooling toward $T_c$, and a superconducting-state $1/T_1$ that drops without a coherence peak and follows a power law with exponent $n \approx 2.5$ decreasing to $\approx 2$. Together with the stronger spin fluctuations and $T_c \approx 27$ K at hole-doped $x=+0.3$, these observations support a close relationship between antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations and superconductivity across the whole doping range. The authors attribute the survival of both features to a residual $d_{xy}$ hole Fermi surface produced by La-5d/Fe-3d orbital mixing, so the effective doping differs from the formal valence.

What carries the argument

The central observable is the $^{75}$As nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate $1/T_1$, measured by NMR in finite field for $x=0$ and $x=+0.3$ and by NQR in zero field for $x=-0.5$. In the normal state, $1/T_1T$ is proportional to $\sum_q |A_q|^2 \chi''(q,\omega_0)/\omega_0$, so an upturn in $1/T_1T$ on cooling reports the growth of low-energy antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations near wave vector $Q=(\pi,0)/(0,\pi)$. In the superconducting state, the temperature dependence of $1/T_1$ -- the absence of a coherence peak and the power-law exponent $n$ in $1/T_1 \propto T^n$ -- is used to infer the multi-gap structure, with the slope change near $0.5\,T_c$ separating the contribution of larger and smaller gaps. The linear relation between the NQR frequency $\nu_Q$ and the doping $x$ serves as the microscopic check that the FeAs layer is continuously doped across the series.

What would settle it

A decisive test is inelastic neutron scattering on $x=-0.5$ near $Q=(\pi,0)/(0,\pi)$: if no low-energy magnetic signal appears in the normal state, the weak-antiferromagnetic-spin-fluctuation interpretation is falsified. As a control, the same NQR measurement on $\mathrm{Ba}(\mathrm{Fe}_{0.5}\mathrm{Co}_{0.5})_2\mathrm{As}_2$ under identical conditions should show no upturn; if it shows a similar upturn, the contrast on which the claim rests fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that heavily electron-doped $\mathrm{LaFe}_2\mathrm{As}_2$, which by formal valence sits at the same doping as the non-superconducting $\mathrm{Ba}(\mathrm{Fe}_{0.5}\mathrm{Co}_{0.5})_2\mathrm{As}_2$, nevertheless shows NMR/NQR signatures that the authors take as evidence for weak antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations and unconventional multi-gap superconductivity. At $x=-0.5$, $^{75}$As-NQR shows a slight enhancement of $1/T_1T$ on cooling toward $T_c\approx 9.4$ K, and below $T_c$ the rate $1/T_1$ falls without a coherence peak, following $1/T_1 \propto T^n$ with $n\approx 2.5$ changing to $\approx 2$ at lower temperatures. The linear relation between the NQR frequency $\nu_Q$ and $x$ confirms that the FeAs layer is doped continuously, and the $x=-0.5$ data lie on the same empirical trend that connects normal-state AFM spin fluctuations to steep $1/T_1$ drops below $T_c$ across many Fe-based superconductors. The authors propose that La-5d/Fe-3d hybridization leaves a residual $d_{xy}$ hole Fermi surface near the $\Gamma$ point, making the effective doping different from the formal valence and explaining why both weak AFM spin fluctuations and superconductivity survive.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the slight upturn in $1/T_1T$ at $x=-0.5$ comes from intrinsic antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations in the iron layers; if it instead comes from impurity relaxation, disorder-broadened relaxation times, or the single-exponential recovery fit used for the NQR data, the paper's central claim loses its evidence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If this interpretation is correct, the formal iron valence of +1.5 does not by itself rule out antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations and superconductivity in an iron arsenide; the actual Fermi-surface topology is the decisive factor.
$\mathrm{LaFe}_2\mathrm{As}_2$ becomes a new member of the heavily electron-doped Fe-based superconductors whose normal-state spin fluctuations and multi-gap superconducting state fit the same spin-fluctuation framework used for hole-doped and optimally doped pnictides.
The data place $x=-0.5$ and $x=+0.3$ on the same empirical trend in which stronger normal-state antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations correlate with a steeper $1/T_1$ drop below $T_c$, supporting a common pairing mechanism across Fe-based superconductors with both hole and electron Fermi surfaces.
The weakened smaller superconducting gap at both dopings suggests that pair breaking from disorder or from La-5d orbital mixing into the Fe-3d bands limits the transition temperature in this series, so reducing disorder would be a concrete route to higher $T_c$.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not test this, but a direct inelastic neutron scattering measurement near $Q=(\pi,0)/(0,\pi)$ on $x=-0.5$ would decide whether the weak normal-state upturn is intrinsic antiferromagnetic correlations or an impurity effect.
If the La-5d/Fe-3d hybridization scenario is right, substituting different block-layer cations should systematically change the residual $d_{xy}$ hole pocket and therefore $T_c$; that prediction is untested in the polycrystalline series.
Since $1/T_1$ shows no residual $T$-linear term down to 1.5 K, the multi-gap structure may involve accidental gap minima rather than true nodes, but the paper leaves that question open; low-temperature specific heat or penetration-depth data could settle it.
Repeating the zero-field NQR relaxation measurement with a full multi-exponential recovery analysis, as used for the field measurements, would test whether the single-exponential recovery fit contributes to the reported $1/T_1T$ upturn; the paper does not report this control.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know about this paper because it reports the first NMR/NQR characterization of (La0.5-xNa0.5+x)Fe2As2, a new 122 family where the heavily electron-doped end (x=-0.5, formal Fe valence +1.5) superconducts despite being formally equivalent to non-SC Ba(Fe0.5Co0.5)2As2. That is genuinely interesting, and the data are mostly solid. The parent x=0 shows stripe-type AFM order at TN=130 K with an internal field consistent with BaFe2As2, and the 75As-NQR frequency varies linearly with x, which gives microscopic evidence that the block-layer substitution controls the FeAs-layer valence continuously. The hole-doped x=+0.3 shows 1/T1T behavior resembling BaK122, and both superconducting samples show 1/T1 decreasing without a coherence peak, with slope changes that are naturally read as multi-gap unconventional SC. The paper is honest about its limits: it cites band-structure preprints for the hole-FS explanation, and it explicitly says further low-temperature work is needed to decide gap nodes.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test note lands. The claim that weak AFMSFs survive at x=-0.5 rests on a single 'slightly enhanced' 1/T1T upturn in Fig. 2. There are no error bars, no statistical significance, no raw recovery curves. The NQR recovery was fit to a single exponential m(t)=exp(-3t/T1), which on a coarse powder with possible Na/La disorder or an impurity phase can produce an apparent T1 shortening that mimics a Curie-Weiss upturn. The x=+0.3 comparison comes from NMR at 8 T while the x=-0.5 data are NQR at zero field, so field-dependent relaxation is also a possible confound. None of this proves the upturn is spurious; it just means the evidence as presented is insufficient to pin the interpretation to intrinsic AFMSFs. The power-law exponent n is also model-dependent, and the empirical relation in Fig. 4(c), while suggestive, is not a first-principles check.

My take: this is a good candidate for peer review, not a desk reject. It needs error bars, a test of the single-exponential recovery assumption (or a discussion of why a multi-exponential fit is not needed), an explicit treatment of impurity/disorder alternatives, and ideally a control NQR measurement on a compound known to lack AFMSFs. These are addressable requests. The central physics, if true, is worth publishing; the paper just needs to make the x=-0.5 evidence more robust. I would engage with it, and I would send it to a qualified referee, but I would not recommend acceptance in the current form.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports 75As-NMR/NQR measurements on the iron-arsenide series (La0.5-xNa0.5+x)Fe2As2 for three compositions: hole-doped x=+0.3, parent x=0, and heavily electron-doped x=-0.5 (LaFe2As2). The parent compound shows stripe-type antiferromagnetic order below TN=130 K. The hole-doped composition exhibits strong antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations (AFMSFs) in the normal state and, below Tc≈27 K, a 1/T1 decrease without a coherence peak with an initial power-law exponent n≈5, changing to n≈2 below about 0.5Tc. The heavily electron-doped composition, with formal Fe valence +1.5, shows a slightly enhanced 1/T1T upon cooling toward Tc≈9.4 K and, in the superconducting state, a 1/T1 decrease without a coherence peak with n≈2.5 changing to n≈2. These observations are interpreted as evidence for weak but present AFMSFs and an unconventional multi-gap superconducting state at x=-0.5, in contrast to the non-superconducting Ba(Fe0.5Co0.5)2As2. The paper also places these results on an empirical correlation between normal-state AFMSF strength and the steepness of the 1/T1 decrease below Tc, and invokes recent band calculations suggesting a residual hole Fermi surface from dxy orbital mixed with La-5d states.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper provides a notable counterexample to the expectation that an iron-pnictide with formal Fe valence +1.5, equivalent to non-superconducting Ba(Fe0.5Co0.5)2As2, cannot host AFMSFs and superconductivity. This would indicate that the real effective doping can differ from the formal valence and would support the spin-fluctuation-based mechanism over a wider doping range. The paper also offers a useful empirical correlation between normal-state AFMSFs and the low-temperature 1/T1 behavior, extending earlier work by the same group. The NMR/NQR methodology is standard, and the paper makes good use of comparisons with literature data on BaK122, Ba122(Co), and other Fe-based superconductors. However, the novel conclusion for x=-0.5 rests on a small normal-state upturn in 1/T1T whose reliability is not fully established because no error bars are shown and the recovery analysis assumes a single exponential without reported justification.

major comments (3)

[Fig. 2 and the paragraph following it] The central claim that AFMSFs are present at x=-0.5 relies on the 1/T1T upturn in the normal state, but no error bars, statistical uncertainties, or number of data points are provided for any of the 1/T1T values in Fig. 2. The authors should quantify the scatter, show representative recovery curves, and report residuals for the single-exponential fit m(t)=exp(-3t/T1) for x=-0.5 to demonstrate that the upturn is an intrinsic bulk response rather than an artifact of the fitting procedure.
[Experimental methods, first paragraph] The 1/T1 data for x=-0.5 were obtained by 75As-NQR in zero external field, whereas the data for x=+0.3 and x=0 were obtained by 75As-NMR at B0≈8 T. Since 1/T1T for antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations can be sensitive to the applied magnetic field, the direct comparison of the normal-state enhancement between x=-0.5 and x=+0.3 in Fig. 2 may be compromised. The authors should justify that the field difference does not affect the comparison, or provide a control NQR measurement on a compound with no AFMSFs (e.g., Ba(Fe0.5Co0.5)2As2) under identical conditions.
[Fig. 4 and the discussion of n] The power-law exponent n in 1/T1 ∝ T^n is a fitted parameter over limited temperature ranges, and the interpretation that a decrease of n to about 2 below 0.5Tc indicates a weakened smaller SC gap is model-dependent. Other mechanisms, such as a distribution of relaxation rates from disorder, impurity pair breaking, or a nodal or near-nodal gap, could produce effective power laws close to 2. Since the values of n for x=-0.5 and x=+0.3 are subsequently used to establish the empirical relation in Fig. 4(c), the uncertainty in n should be reported, and alternative explanations for the T dependence should be discussed.

minor comments (4)

[Title and text] The word 'Antiferr omagnetic' in the title and abstract contains an unusual spacing; it should be 'Antiferromagnetic'. Also, 'LeFeAsO' in the text should be 'LaFeAsO', and in the abstract 'Ba(Fe0.5Co0.5)Fe2As2' should be 'Ba(Fe0.5Co0.5)2As2'.
[Fig. 1(c) caption] The caption states that 75νQ varies linearly with x, but the linear fit line and its parameters are not shown. Adding a fit line with slope and intercept, or at least stating the correlation coefficient, would support the claim of continuous doping control.
[Text after Fig. 2] The statement that 1/T1T at x=-0.5 is 'slightly enhanced' is not quantified. Reporting the ratio (T1T)^-1 at Tc to that at, say, 200 K would provide a numerical measure of the enhancement and help the reader judge its significance against the scatter seen in the figure.
[Reference 10] The journal name for reference 10 is given as 'J. Am. Chem. Sci.'; the correct abbreviation for the Journal of the American Chemical Society is 'J. Am. Chem. Soc.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: central NMR/NQR observations are independent measurements compared with external benchmarks; the only self-citation (ref 30) is used as a comparative empirical trend, not as a derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims rest on raw 75As-NMR/NQR 1/T1 measurements at x=+0.3, 0, and -0.5 (Figs. 2 and 3) and on comparison with external benchmarks such as BaK122 and Ba(Fe,Co)2As2. The 1/T1T enhancement at x=-0.5 is a directly measured quantity; the multi-gap interpretation follows from the observed slope change in 1/T1(T) below Tc, not from any fitted parameter defined in terms of the conclusion. The exponent n and the ratio (T1T)^-1_Tc/(T1T)^-1_RT are data descriptors, not predictions. The empirical trend in Fig. 4(c) is cited from the authors' prior PRL (ref 30), but it is used as a comparative benchmark, and the two new data points are independent measurements that can be checked against the raw T1 data; the trend is not used to generate the values being plotted. The band-calculation support (refs 15 and 16) is external, and the paper explicitly notes the calculation 'suggested' the hole Fermi surface rather than deriving the NMR result from it. No equation defines a target quantity in terms of an input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The single-exponential NQR recovery assumption for x=-0.5 is an experimental approximation that could affect the T1 values, but it is not circular: it is not defined in terms of the AFMSF conclusion. Under the required evidence standard, no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on standard NMR/NQR relaxation theory, the standard interpretive link between 1/T1 behavior and gap structure, the assumption that x smoothly controls electron count, and the borrowed band-calculation prediction of a hole Fermi surface. No new ad hoc particles or forces are introduced; the only fitted central quantity is the SC-state power-law exponent n.

free parameters (1)

Power-law exponent n in 1/T1 proportional to T^n = n about 5 just below Tc and about 2 below about 0.5Tc for x=+0.3; n about 2.5 then about 2 for x=-0.5
Fitted to the SC-state relaxation data in Fig. 4 and used to infer the multi-gap structure and to compare with other Fe-pnictides. The values carry no stated uncertainties.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption 1/T1T is proportional to the sum over q of |A_q|^2 chi''(q, omega0)/omega0, so the measured relaxation rate directly reflects low-energy dynamical spin susceptibility.
Standard NMR formula used to interpret 1/T1T as evidence for AFM spin fluctuations; invoked at the start of the results section.
domain assumption The absence of a Hebel-Slichter coherence peak and a power-law 1/T1(T) in the SC state indicates unconventional sign-reversing multi-gap superconductivity.
Standard interpretive mapping in Fe-pnictide NMR, but it is a model-dependent inference rather than a direct measurement of gap symmetry.
domain assumption The NQR frequency 75-nu-Q varies linearly with x because x continuously controls the averaged valence of the (La,Na) blocking layer.
The paper uses the linear nu-Q(x) relation to assert that x=-0.5 is truly a heavily electron-doped compound with Fe valence +1.5, making the comparison to Ba(Fe0.5Co0.5)2As2 meaningful.
domain assumption Band calculations (refs 15,16) correctly predict a hole Fermi surface from dxy orbitals at x=-0.5 due to La-5d/Fe-3d hybridization.
The explanation for weak AFMSFs and SC at x=-0.5 is borrowed from two preprints; the experimental paper does not itself verify this band structure.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unconventional Multi-gap Superconductivity and Antiferromagnetic Spin Fluctuations in New Iron-arsenide LaFe2As2 in Heavily Electron-doped Regime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TDUZIZ52

@misc{pith2026190901569,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unconventional Multi-gap Superconductivity and Antiferromagnetic Spin Fluctuations in New Iron-arsenide LaFe2As2 in Heavily Electron-doped Regime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TDUZIZ52}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01569}
}

read the original abstract

We report 75As-NMR/NQR results on new iron-arsenide compounds (La0.5-xNa0.5+x)Fe2As2. The parent compound x=0 exhibits a stripe-type antiferromagnetic (AFM) order below T_N=130 K. The measurement of nuclear spin relaxation rate at hole-doped x=+0.3 and heavily electron-doped x=-0.5 revealed that the normal-state properties are dominated by AFM spin fluctuations (AFMSFs), which are more significant at x=+0.3 than at x=-0.5. Their superconducting (SC) phases are characterized by unconventional multi-gap SC state, where the smaller SC gaps are particularly weaken in common. The experimental results indicate the close relationship between the AFMSFs and the SC from the hole-doped state to heavily electron-doped state, which shed light on a unique SC phase emerged in the heavily electron-doped regime being formally equivalent to non-SC compound Ba(Fe0.5Co0.5)Fe2As2.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01569 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** (Color online) T dependence of 1/T1T probed by 75AsNMR/NQR for x= +0.3, 0, −0.5. The 1/T1T for x=0 shows a peak at TN=130 K. The 1/T1T for x=+0.3 increases significantly upon cooling due to the presence of strong AFMSFs in the normal state. It is noteworthy that such AFMSFs remain even at x=−0.5 in heavily electron-doped regime. 1 10 100 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10-1 1 101 10-2 10-1 1 BaK122 c c x = +0.3 (T1 T)-1/(T1 T)-1… view at source ↗

**Figure 1.** (Color online) (a) T dependence of NMR spectra for x=0, which exhibits broadening below TN=130 K. Solid curves at 30 K show 75As and 139La-NMR spectra simulated by assuming 75Bint ∼1.6 T and 75νQ at As site, and 139Bint ∼0.5 T and 139νQ at La site. (b) 75As-NMR spectra for x=−0.5, 0, and +0.3 in the paramagnetic states. (c) The value of 75νQ estimated from analyses of (b) varies linearly with x, indicating that the… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** (Color online) T dependence of 1/T1 for x=−0.5 and +0.3, which decreases steeply just below Tc without a coherence peak and shows a change of the slope in its T dependence well below Tc(also see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: (Color online) T dependence of 1/T1 for (a) x=+0.3 and (b) x=−0.5, compared with hole-doped BaK122 (Tc=38 K)20) and electron-doped Ba122(Co) (22 K),29) respectively. (c) The n in the formula of 1/T1 ∼ T n (SC state) is plotted against (T1T) −1 Tc /(T1T) −1 RT (normal …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

[1]

9 exp(− 6t/T 1). The 1 /T 1 for x=− 0.5 was measured by 75As-NQR in zero external ﬁeld, in which the 1 /T 1 was determined by ﬁtting a recovery curve to a single expo- nential function m(t) = exp( − 3t/T 1). Figure 1(a) shows 75As- ( I=3/2) and 139La- ( I=7/2) 1 J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. /s54 /s55 /s56 /s57 /s49/s48 /s49/s49 /s55 /s56 /s57 /s102 /s32/s61 /s32/s5...

work page
[2]

Q. Y. W ang, Z. Li, W. H. Zhang, Z. C. Zhang, J. S. Zhang, W. Li, H. Ding, Y. B. Ou, P. Deng, K. Chang, J. W en, C. L. Song, K. He, J. F. Jia, S. H. Ji, Y. Y. W ang, L. L. W ang, X. Chen, X. C. Ma, and Q. K. Xue, Chin. Phys. Lett. 29, 037402 (2012)

work page 2012
[3]

It indicates that the normal-state property in these hole-doped states is dominated by the strong AFMSFs with ﬁnite wave vector at around Q=(π , 0) and (0, π ) at low energies, as widely seen in optimally hole-doped Fe- pnictides.20–23) Note that the enhancement of AFMSFs originates from the interband nesting of hole and elec- tron FSs 7, 8) and their ele...

work page
[4]

Kamihara, T

Y. Kamihara, T. W atanabe, M. Hirano, and H. Hosono, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 130, 3296 (2008)

work page 2008
[5]

S. He, J. He, W. Zhang, L. Zhao, D. Liu, X. Liu, D. Mou, Y. Ou, Q. W ang, Z. Li, L. W ang, Y. Peng, Y. Liu, C. Chen, L. Yu, G. Liu, X. Dong, J. Zhang, C. Chen, Z. Xu, X. Chen, X. Ma, Q.-K. Xue, and X. J. Zhou, Nat. Mater. 12, 605 (2013)

work page 2013
[6]

L. Zhao, A. Liang, D. Yuan, Y. Hu, D. Liu, J. Huang, S. He, B. Shen, Y. Xu, X. Liu, L. Yu, G. Liu, H. Zhou, Y. Huang, X. Dong, F. Zhou, K. Liu, Z. Lu, Z. Zhao, C. Chen, Z. Xu, and X. J. Zhou, Nat. Commun. 7, 10608 (2015)

work page 2015
[7]

J. Guo, S. Jin, G. W ang, S. W ang, K. Zhu, T. Zhou, M. He, and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 82, 180520(R) (2010)

work page 2010
[8]

Iimura, S

S. Iimura, S. Matsuishi, H. Sato, T. Hanna, Y. Muraba, S. W. Kim, J. E. Kim, M. Takata, and H. Hosono, Nat. Commun. 3, 943 (2012)

work page 2012

Show all 48 references

[9]

I. I. Mazin, D. J. Singh, M. D. Johannes, and M. H. Du, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 057003 (2008)

2008
[10]

Kuroki, S

K. Kuroki, S. Onari, R. Arita, H. Usui, Y. Tanaka, H. Kontan i, and H. Aoki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 087004 (2008)

2008
[11]

J. -Q. Yang, S. Nandi, B. Saparov, P. ˇCerm´ ak, Y. Xiao, Y. Su, W. T. Jin, A. Schneidewind, Th. Br¨ uckel, R. W. McCallum, T. A. Lograsso, B. C. Sales, and D. G Mandrus, Phys. Rev. B 91, 024501 (2015)

2015
[12]

A. Iyo, K. Kawashima, S. Ishida, H. Fujiwara, Y. Gotoh, H. Eisaki, and Y. Yoshida, J. Am. Chem. Sci. 140, 369 (2018)

2018
[13]

A. Iyo, S. Ishida, H. Fujiwara, Y. Gotoh, I. Hase, Y. Yoshi da, H. Eisaki, and K. Kawashima, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 10, 1018 (2019)

2019
[14]

A. S. Sefat, D. J. Singh, R. Jin, M. A. McGuire, B. C. Sales, and D. Mandrus, Phys. Rev. B 79, 024512 (2009)

2009
[15]

C. Liu, A. D. Palczewski, R. S. Dhaka, T. Kondo, R. M. Fer- nandes, E. D. Mun, H. Hodovanets, A. N. Thaler, J. Schmalian, S. L. Bud’ko, P. C. Canﬁeld, and A. Kaminski, Phys. Rev. B 84, 020509(R) (2011)

2011
[16]

Hiraishi, S

M. Hiraishi, S. Iimura, K. M. Kojima, J. Yamaura, H. Hirak a, K. Ikeda, P. Miao, Y. Ishikawa, S. Torii, M. Miyazaki, I. Ya- 4 J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. mauchi, A. Koda, K. Ishii, M. Yoshida, J. Mizuki, R. Kadono, R. Kumai, T. Kamiyama, T. Otomo, Y. Murakami, S. Matsu- ishi, and H. Ho...

2014
[17]

Usui and K

H. Usui and K. Kuroki, arXiv:1905.05488

1905 arXiv
[18]

I. I. Mazin, M. Shimizu, N. Takemori, and H. O. Jeschke, arXiv:1905.06190

1905 arXiv
[19]

Kitagawa, N

K. Kitagawa, N. Katayama, K. Ohgushi, M. Yoshida, and M. Takigawa, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 77, 114709 (2008)

2008
[20]

Mukuda, N

H. Mukuda, N. Terasaki, H. Kinouchi, M. Yashima, Y. Kitao ka, S. Suzuki, S. Miyasaka, S. Tajima, K. Miyazawa, P. M. Shirage, H. Kito, H. Eisaki, and A. Iyo, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 77, 093704 (2008)

2008
[21]

Mukuda, N

H. Mukuda, N. Terasaki, N. Tamura, H. Kinouchi, M. Yashim a, Y. Kitaoka, K. Miyazawa, P. M. Shirage, S. Suzuki, S. Miyasaka, S. Tajima, H. Kito, H. Eisaki, and A. Iyo, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 78, 084717 (2009)

2009
[22]

Yashima, H

M. Yashima, H. Nishimura, H. Mukuda, Y. Kitaoka, K. Miyazawa, P. M. Shirage, K. Kihou, H. Kito, H. Eisaki, and A. Iyo, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 78, 103702 (2009)

2009
[23]

Fukazawa, T

H. Fukazawa, T. Yamazaki, K. Kondo, Y. Kohori, N. Takeshita, P. M. Shirage, K. Kihou, K. Miyazawa, H. Kito, H. Eisaki, and A. Iyo, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 78, 033704 (2009)

2009
[24]

Hirano, Y

M. Hirano, Y. Yamada, T. Saito, R. Nagashima, T. Konishi, T. Toriyama, Y. Ohta, H. Fukazawa, Y. Kohori, Y. Furukawa, K. Kihou, C.-H. Lee, A. Iyo, and H. Eisaki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 81, 054704 (2012)

2012
[25]

Cui, Q.-P

J. Cui, Q.-P. Ding, W. R. Meier, A. E. Bohmer, T. Kong, V. Borisov, Y. Lee, S. L. Bud’ko, R. Valent ´ ı, P. C. Canﬁeld, and Y. Furukawa, Phys. Rev. B 96, 104512 (2017)

2017
[26]

Miyake, K

T. Miyake, K. Nakamura, R. Arita, and M. Imada, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 79, 044705 (2010)

2010
[27]

Hirayama, T

M. Hirayama, T. Misawa, T. Miyake, and M. Imada, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 84, 093703 (2015)

2015
[28]

H. Ding, P. Richard, K. Nakayama, K. Sugawara, T. Arakane , Y. Sekiba, A. Takayama, S. Souma, T. Sato, T. Takahashi, Z. W ang, X. Dai, Z. Fang, G. F. Chen, J. L. Luo, and N. L. W ang, Europhys. Lett. 83, 47001 (2008)

2008
[29]

F. L. Ning, K. Ahilan, T. Imai, A. S. Sefat, M. A. McGuire, B. C. Sales, D. Mandrus, P. Cheng, B. Shen, and H. -H. W en, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 037001 (2010)

2010
[30]

Kotegawa, Y

H. Kotegawa, Y. Hara, H. Nohara, H. Tou, Y. Mizuguchi, H. Takeya, and Y. Takano, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 80, 043708 (2011)

2011
[31]

F. Ning, K. Ahilan, T. Imai, A. S. Sefat, R. Jin, M. A. McGui re, B. C. Sales, and D. Mandrus, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 78, 013711 (2009)

2009
[32]

Mukuda, S

H. Mukuda, S. Furukawa, H. Kinouchi, M. Yashima, Y. Ki- taoka, P. M. Shirage, H. Eisaki, and A. Iyo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 157001 (2012)

2012
[33]

L. Ma, J. Dai, P. S. W ang, X. R. Lu, Y. Sung, C. Zhang, G. T. Tan, P. Dai, D. Hu, S. L. Li, B. Normand, and W. Yu, Phys. Rev. B 90, 144502 (2014)

2014
[34]

L. Ma, G. F. Ji, J. Zhang, J. B. He, D. M. W ang, G. F. Chen, W. Bao, and W. Yu, Phys. Rev. B 83, 174510 (2011)

2011
[35]

J. Yang, R. Zhou, L. L. W ei, H. X. Yang, J. Q. Li, Z. X. Zhao, and G. Q. Zheng, Chin. Phys. Lett. 32, 107401 (2015)

2015
[36]

T. Oka, Z. Li, S. Kawasaki, G. F. Chen, N. L. W ang, and G. Q. Zheng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 047001 (2012)

2012
[37]

Yamamoto, H

K. Yamamoto, H. Mukuda, H. Kinouchi, M. Yashima, Y. Ki- taoka, M. Yogi, S. Sato, H. Ogino, and J. Shimoyama, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 81, 053702 (2012)

2012
[38]

R. Zhou, Z. Li, J. Yang, D. L. Sun, C. T. Lin, and G. Q. Zheng, Nat. Commun. 4, 2265 (2013)

2013
[39]

S. -H. Baek, D. V. Efremov, J. M. Ok, J. S. Kim, J. van den Brink, and B. B¨ uchner, Nat. Mater. 14, 210 (2015)

2015
[40]

In the case of FeSe ( Tc=8 K), the value of ( T1T )− 1 RT was sub- stituted by the value at 90 K, since it increases below 90 K distinctly.37)
[41]

Zhang, L

Y. Zhang, L. X. Yang, M. Xu, Z. R. Ye, F. Chen, C. He, H. C. Xu, J. Jiang, B. P. Xie, J. J. Ying, X. F. W ang, X. H. Chen, J. P. Hu, M. Matsunami, S. Kimura, and D. L. Feng, Nat. Mater. 10, 273 (2011)

2011
[42]

T. Qian, X. -P. W ang, W. -C. Jin, P. Zhang, P. Richard, G. Xu, X. Dai, Z. Fang, J. -G. Guo, X. -L. Chen, and H. Ding, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 187001 (2011)

2011
[43]

D. A. Torchetti, M. Fu, D. C. Christensen, K. J. Nelson, T. Imai, H. C. Lei, and C. Petrovic, Phys. Rev. B 83, 104508 (2011)

2011
[44]

Suzuki, H

K. Suzuki, H. Usui, S. Iimura, Y. Sato, S. Matsuishi, H. Ho sono, and K. Kuroki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 027002 (2014)

2014
[45]

Nakai, T

Y. Nakai, T. Iye, S. Kitagawa, K. Ishida, H. Ikeda, S. Kasahara, H. Shishido, T. Shibauchi, Y. Matsuda, and T. Terashima, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 107003 (2010)

2010
[46]

Dulguun, H

T. Dulguun, H. Mukuda, T. Kobayashi, F. Engetsu, H. Ki- nouchi, M. Yashima, Y. Kitaoka, S. Miyasaka, and S. Tajima, Phys. Rev. B 85, 144515 (2012)

2012
[47]

Miyamoto, H

M. Miyamoto, H. Mukuda, T. Kobayashi, M. Yashima, Y. Ki- taoka, S. Miyasaka, and S. Tajima, Phys. Rev. B 92, 125154 (2015)

2015
[48]

Kinouchi, H

H. Kinouchi, H. Mukuda, Y. Kitaoka, P. M. Shirage, H. Fu- jihisa, Y. Gotoh, H. Eisaki, and A. Iyo, Phys. Rev. B 87, 121101(R) (2013). 5

2013

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

9 exp(− 6t/T 1). The 1 /T 1 for x=− 0.5 was measured by 75As-NQR in zero external ﬁeld, in which the 1 /T 1 was determined by ﬁtting a recovery curve to a single expo- nential function m(t) = exp( − 3t/T 1). Figure 1(a) shows 75As- ( I=3/2) and 139La- ( I=7/2) 1 J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. /s54 /s55 /s56 /s57 /s49/s48 /s49/s49 /s55 /s56 /s57 /s102 /s32/s61 /s32/s5...

work page

[2] [2]

Q. Y. W ang, Z. Li, W. H. Zhang, Z. C. Zhang, J. S. Zhang, W. Li, H. Ding, Y. B. Ou, P. Deng, K. Chang, J. W en, C. L. Song, K. He, J. F. Jia, S. H. Ji, Y. Y. W ang, L. L. W ang, X. Chen, X. C. Ma, and Q. K. Xue, Chin. Phys. Lett. 29, 037402 (2012)

work page 2012

[3] [3]

It indicates that the normal-state property in these hole-doped states is dominated by the strong AFMSFs with ﬁnite wave vector at around Q=(π , 0) and (0, π ) at low energies, as widely seen in optimally hole-doped Fe- pnictides.20–23) Note that the enhancement of AFMSFs originates from the interband nesting of hole and elec- tron FSs 7, 8) and their ele...

work page

[4] [4]

Kamihara, T

Y. Kamihara, T. W atanabe, M. Hirano, and H. Hosono, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 130, 3296 (2008)

work page 2008

[5] [5]

S. He, J. He, W. Zhang, L. Zhao, D. Liu, X. Liu, D. Mou, Y. Ou, Q. W ang, Z. Li, L. W ang, Y. Peng, Y. Liu, C. Chen, L. Yu, G. Liu, X. Dong, J. Zhang, C. Chen, Z. Xu, X. Chen, X. Ma, Q.-K. Xue, and X. J. Zhou, Nat. Mater. 12, 605 (2013)

work page 2013

[6] [6]

L. Zhao, A. Liang, D. Yuan, Y. Hu, D. Liu, J. Huang, S. He, B. Shen, Y. Xu, X. Liu, L. Yu, G. Liu, H. Zhou, Y. Huang, X. Dong, F. Zhou, K. Liu, Z. Lu, Z. Zhao, C. Chen, Z. Xu, and X. J. Zhou, Nat. Commun. 7, 10608 (2015)

work page 2015

[7] [7]

J. Guo, S. Jin, G. W ang, S. W ang, K. Zhu, T. Zhou, M. He, and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 82, 180520(R) (2010)

work page 2010

[8] [8]

Iimura, S

S. Iimura, S. Matsuishi, H. Sato, T. Hanna, Y. Muraba, S. W. Kim, J. E. Kim, M. Takata, and H. Hosono, Nat. Commun. 3, 943 (2012)

work page 2012