pith. sign in

arxiv: 1906.08566 · v1 · pith:U35JQUSLnew · submitted 2019-06-20 · ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con · cond-mat.str-el

Effects of spin-orbit coupling on the neutron spin resonance in iron-based superconductors

Daniel D. Scherer , Brian M. Andersen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 19:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.str-el
keywords neutron spin resonancespin-orbit couplingiron-based superconductorsmagnetic anisotropys+-wave pairingRPA susceptibilitysuperconducting state
0
0 comments X

The pith

Spin-orbit coupling combined with s+-wave superconductivity reproduces the spin anisotropy of the neutron resonance in iron-based superconductors.

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

The paper computes the spin- and energy-resolved magnetic susceptibility for iron-based superconductors using a realistic band structure that includes spin-orbit coupling and Hubbard-Hund interactions treated at the RPA level. It focuses on the superconducting state with an s+-wave order parameter and shows that the combination of spin-orbit coupling and superconductivity accounts for the experimentally seen magnetic anisotropy of the neutron spin resonance. Key reproduced features include a possible double resonance, a preference for c-axis polarization, and stronger anisotropy once the system becomes superconducting. A reader would care because this links a microscopic electronic feature to a prominent experimental signature in the magnetic excitation spectrum below the transition temperature.

Core claim

In the superconducting state with s+-wave pairing, spin-orbit coupling included both in the pairing interaction and in the RPA calculation of the spin susceptibility produces the observed anisotropy of the neutron resonance, including the possibility of a double resonance at certain momenta, a tendency for c-axis polarized modes, and an increase in anisotropy upon entering the superconducting phase.

What carries the argument

The RPA spin susceptibility evaluated in the superconducting state on a realistic band structure that incorporates spin-orbit coupling.

If this is right

  • A double resonance peak can appear at certain momentum transfers.
  • The resonance mode tends to be polarized along the crystallographic c-axis.
  • Magnetic anisotropy is enhanced once the system enters the superconducting state.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar anisotropy effects could be tested in other unconventional superconductors that possess strong spin-orbit coupling.
  • Higher-resolution polarized neutron experiments could check for the predicted double-peak structure to distinguish this mechanism from alternatives.
  • The same framework could be applied to different pairing symmetries to determine whether spin-orbit coupling is required for anisotropy in each case.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes s+-wave pairing is the correct symmetry and that RPA suffices to describe the magnetic susceptibility.

What would settle it

Polarized neutron scattering that finds the resonance polarized in the ab-plane rather than along the c-axis, or that finds no increase in anisotropy below Tc, would contradict the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1906.08566 by Brian M. Andersen, Daniel D. Scherer.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Normal state Fermi surfaces in the 1-Fe BZ ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a)-(c) (Pseudo-)Spin singlet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a)-(c) (Pseudo-)Spin singlet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The so-called neutron spin resonance consists of a prominent enhancement of the magnetic response at a particular energy and momentum transfer upon entering the superconducting state of unconventional superconductors. In the case of iron-based superconductors, the neutron resonance has been extensively studied experimentally, and a peculiar spin-space anisotropy has been identified by polarized inelastic neutron scattering experiments. Here we perform a theoretical study of the energy- and spin-resolved magnetic susceptibility in the superconducting state with $ s_{+-} $-wave order parameter, relevant to iron-pnictide and iron-chalcogenide superconductors. Our model is based on a realistic bandstructure including spin-orbit coupling with electronic Hubbard-Hund interactions included at the RPA level. Spin-orbit coupling is taken into account both in the generation of spin-fluctuation mediated pairing, as well as the numerical computation of the spin susceptibility in the superconducting state. We find that spin-orbit coupling and superconductivity in conjunction can reproduce the salient experimentally observed features of the magnetic anisotropy of the neutron resonance. This includes the possibility of a double resonance, the tendency for a $c$-axis polarized resonance, and the existence of enhanced magnetic anisotropy upon entering the superconducting phase.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript performs a theoretical calculation of the energy- and spin-resolved magnetic susceptibility in the superconducting state of iron-based superconductors. Using a realistic band structure that includes spin-orbit coupling, an s+-wave order parameter, and Hubbard-Hund interactions treated at the RPA level, the authors compute the spin susceptibility both with and without SOC. They report that the combination of SOC and superconductivity reproduces key experimental features of the neutron spin resonance anisotropy observed in polarized inelastic neutron scattering: the possibility of a double resonance, a preference for c-axis polarization, and an enhancement of magnetic anisotropy upon entering the superconducting phase.

Significance. If the numerical results are robust, the work supplies a microscopic, band-structure-based account of the spin-space anisotropy of the resonance mode. It demonstrates that SOC must be retained consistently in both the pairing interaction and the susceptibility calculation, and it provides concrete support for the s+-wave pairing symmetry in iron pnictides and chalcogenides by showing that this symmetry plus SOC is sufficient to recover the observed polarization trends without additional ad-hoc assumptions.

minor comments (3)
  1. The abstract states that SOC is included 'both in the generation of spin-fluctuation mediated pairing, as well as the numerical computation of the spin susceptibility,' but the manuscript should explicitly state in §2 or §3 whether the same SOC strength is used in both steps or whether separate values are fitted; a short table of the SOC parameters employed would remove ambiguity.
  2. Figure captions and axis labels should indicate the precise momentum (e.g., Q = (0.5,0.5,0) or equivalent) and energy range over which the double-resonance feature is reported, so that readers can directly compare with the cited experimental data sets.
  3. A brief statement in the methods section on the k-point mesh density and the cutoff used for the RPA bubble summation would help assess convergence of the reported anisotropy ratios.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our manuscript, the recognition of its significance, and the recommendation for minor revision. No specific major comments were provided in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper describes a numerical RPA calculation of the spin susceptibility in the superconducting state, using a realistic bandstructure that includes spin-orbit coupling and an assumed s+-wave order parameter. The modeling framework (Hubbard-Hund interactions at RPA level, s+-wave pairing symmetry) is stated explicitly as an input choice rather than derived. The central result is framed as a reproduction of experimental features (double resonance, c-axis polarization, enhanced anisotropy below Tc) within this model. No equations, self-citations, or derivation steps are provided in the available text that reduce a claimed prediction to a fitted input or self-definition by construction. The calculation is presented as a demonstration inside the chosen framework, not as a parameter-free or uniqueness-forced result. This is the most common honest outcome for a model-based numerical study.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit list of fitted parameters or additional axioms beyond the stated model assumptions.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption s+-wave order parameter is relevant to iron-pnictide and iron-chalcogenide superconductors
    Explicitly invoked in the abstract as the pairing symmetry used for the model.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5734 in / 1233 out tokens · 21688 ms · 2026-05-25T19:13:20.227790+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Taillefer, Annu

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

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

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

    work page 1966

  4. [4]

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

    work page 1986

  5. [5]

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

    work page 1986

  6. [6]

    Miyake, S

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

    work page 1986

  7. [7]

    Eschrig, Adv

    M. Eschrig, Adv. Phys. 55 , 47 (2006)

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Rossat-Mignod, L

    J. Rossat-Mignod, L. P. Regnault, C. Vettier, P. Bourges, P. Burlet, J. Bossy, J. Y. Henry, and G. Lapertot, Physica C (Amsterdam) 185-189, 86 (1991)

    work page 1991

  9. [9]

    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)

    work page 2008

  10. [10]

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

    work page 2010

  11. [11]

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

    work page 2015

  12. [12]

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

    work page 2016

  13. [13]

    M. M. Korshunov and I. Eremin, Phys. Rev. B 78, 140509(R) (2008)

    work page 2008

  14. [14]

    T. A. Maier and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. B 78, 020514(R) (2008)

    work page 2008

  15. [15]

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

    work page 2011

  16. [16]

    M. M. Korshunov, V. A. Shestakov, and Yu. N. Togushova Phys. Rev. B 94, 094517 (2016)

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    M. M. Korshunov Phys. Rev. B 98, 104510 (2018)

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    Onari, H

    S. Onari, H. Kontani, and M. Sato Phys. Rev. B 81, 060504(R) (2010)

    work page 2010

  19. [19]

    Takeuchi, Y

    L. Takeuchi, Y. Yamakawa, and H. Kontani Phys. Rev. B 98, 165143 (2018)

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

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

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    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)

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    O. J. Lipscombe, Leland W. Harriger, P. G. Freeman, M. Enderle, Chenglin Zhang, Miaoying Wang, Takeshi Egami, Jiangping Hu, Tao Xiang, M. R. Norman, and Pengcheng Dai, Phys. Rev. B 82 , 064515 (2010)

    work page 2010

  23. [23]

    Babkevich, B

    P. Babkevich, B. Roessli, S. N. Gvasaliya, L.-P. Regnault, P. G. Freeman, E. Pomjakushina, K. Conder, and A. T. Boothroyd, Phys. Rev. B 83 , 180506(R) (2011)

    work page 2011

  24. [24]

    Qureshi, P

    N. Qureshi, P. Steffens, Y. Drees, A. C. Komarek, D. Lamago, Y. Sidis, L. Harnagea, H.-J. Grafe, S. Wurmehl, B. B\" u chner, and M. Braden Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 , 117001 (2012)

    work page 2012

  25. [25]

    Zhang, M

    C. Zhang, M. Liu, Y. Su, L.-P. Regnault, M. Wang, G. Tan, Th. Br\" u ckel, T. Egami, and P. Dai, Phys. Rev. B 87 , 081101 (2013)

    work page 2013

  26. [26]

    Steffens, C

    P. Steffens, C. H. Lee, N. Qureshi, K. Kihou, A. Iyo, H. Eisaki, and M. Braden, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 , 137001 (2013)

    work page 2013

  27. [27]

    H. Luo, M. Wang, C. Zhang, X. Lu, L.-P. Regnault, R. Zhang, S. Li, J. Hu, and P. Dai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 , 107006 (2013)

    work page 2013

  28. [28]

    Qureshi, C

    N. Qureshi, C. H. Lee, K. Kihou, K. Schmalzl, P. Steffens, and M. Braden, Phys. Rev. B 90 , 100502 (2014)

    work page 2014

  29. [29]

    Regnault, Yixi Su, M

    Chenglin Zhang, Yu Song, L.-P. Regnault, Yixi Su, M. Enderle, J. Kulda, Guotai Tan, Zachary C. Sims, Takeshi Egami, Qimiao Si, and Pengcheng Dai, Phys. Rev. B 90 , 140502(R) (2014)

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    Y. Song, H. R. Man, R. Zhang, X. Y. Lu, C. L. Zhang, M.Wang, G. T. Tan, L.-P. Regnault, Y. X. Su, J. Kang, R. M. Fernandes, and P. C. Dai, Phys. Rev. B 94 , 214516 (2016)

    work page 2016

  31. [31]

    Yu Song, Weiyi Wang, Chenglin Zhang, Yanhong Gu, Xingye Lu, Guotai Tan, Yixi Su, Fr\' e d\' e ric Bourdarot, A. D. Christianson, Shiliang Li, and Pengcheng Dai, Phys. Rev. B 96 , 184512 (2017)

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    Mingwei Ma, Philippe Bourges, Yvan Sidis, Yang Xu, Shiyan Li, Biaoyan Hu, Jiarui Li, Fa Wang, and Yuan Li, Phys. Rev. X 7 , 021025 (2017)

    work page 2017

  33. [33]

    Ding Hu, Wenliang Zhang, Yuan Wei, Bertrand Roessli, Markos Skoulatos, Louis Pierre Regnault, Genfu Chen, Yu Song, Huiqian Luo, Shiliang Li, and Pengcheng Dai, Phys. Rev. B 96 , 180503(R) (2017)

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    Wa er, C

    F. Wa er, C. H. Lee, K. Kihou, P. Steffens, K. Schmalzl, N. Qureshi, and M. Braden, Scientific Reports 7 , 10307 (2017)

    work page 2017

  35. [35]

    J. Guo, L. Yue, K. Iida, K. Kamazawa, L. Chen, T. Han, Y. Zhang, and Y. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 , 017001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    Wa er, A

    F. Wa er, A. Schneidewind, Y. Sidis, S. Wurmehl, S. Aswartham, B. B\" u chner, and M. Braden, Phys. Rev. B 91 , 060505(R) (2015)

    work page 2015

  37. [37]

    M. H. Christensen, J. Kang, B. M. Andersen, I. Eremin, and R. M. Fernandes, Phys. Rev. B 92 , 214509 (2015)

    work page 2015

  38. [38]

    Lester, Jiri Kulda, Xinye Lu, Huiqian Luo, Meng Wang, S

    Mengshu Liu, C. Lester, Jiri Kulda, Xinye Lu, Huiqian Luo, Meng Wang, S. M. Hayden, and Pengcheng Dai, Phys. Rev. B 85 , 214516 (2012)

    work page 2012

  39. [39]

    Chenglin Zhang, Rong Yu, Yixi Su, Yu Song, Miaoyin Wang, Guotai Tan, Takeshi Egami, J. A. Fernandez-Baca, Enrico Faulhaber, Qimiao Si, and Pengcheng Dai Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 , 207002 (2013)

    work page 2013

  40. [40]

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

    work page arXiv 1905

  41. [41]

    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)

    work page 2018

  42. [42]

    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)

    work page 2018

  43. [43]

    Yu Li, Weiyi Wang, Yu Song, Haoran Man, Xingye Lu, Fr\' e d\' e ric Bourdarot, and Pengcheng Dai, Phys. Rev. B 96 , 020404(R) (2017)

    work page 2017

  44. [44]

    Weicheng Lv, Adriana Moreo, and Elbio Dagotto, Phys. Rev. B 89 , 104510 (2014)

    work page 2014

  45. [45]

    Korshunov, Y

    M. Korshunov, Y. Togushova, I. Eremin, and P. Hirschfeld, J. Supercond. Novel Magn. 26 , 2873 (2013)

    work page 2013

  46. [46]

    D. D. Scherer and B. M. Andersen, unpublished

    work page

  47. [47]

    Ikeda, R

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

    work page 2010

  48. [48]

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

    work page 2009

  49. [49]

    Bulut and D

    N. Bulut and D. J. Scalapino Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 2898 (1991)

    work page 1991

  50. [50]

    Bulut and D

    N. Bulut and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 706 (1992)

    work page 1992

  51. [51]

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

    work page 2016

  52. [52]

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

    work page 2016

  53. [53]

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

    work page 2018