Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 60 references

Evolution of the nematic susceptibility in LaFe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$AsO

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 In LaFe1-xCoxAsO, the nematic temperature crosses zero at optimal doping and the susceptibility amplitude peaks twice, indicating a nematic quantum critical point under the superconducting dome.

desk verdict A genuinely useful doping-series elastoresistivity dataset with an interesting double-peak/sign-change story, but the nQCP claim rests on free-background fits and unpublished phase-diagram pins and needs a closer look before it becomes load-bearing. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00484 v2 pith:4ECSQUZ2 submitted 2019-08-01 cond-mat.supr-con

Xiaochen Hong , Federico Caglieris , Rhea Kappenberger , Sabine Wurmehl , Saicharan Aswartham , Francesco Scaravaggi , Piotr Lepucki , Anja U. B. Wolter
show 3 more authors
Hans-Joachim Grafe Bernd Büchner Christian Hess
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords nematicsusceptibilityelastoresistivityiron-basedsuperconductorsLaFe1-xCoxAsOquantumcriticalpointCurie-Weissbehaviordouble-peakfeatureunconventionalsuperconductivity
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 in the iron-based superconductor LaFe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$AsO, electronic nematic fluctuations—rotational-symmetry-breaking charge fluctuations—follow Curie-Weiss behavior throughout the tetragonal phase and that their characteristic temperature $T_{\mathrm{nem}}$ is driven to zero exactly where superconductivity is strongest. If true, nematic fluctuations, rather than magnetic fluctuations, could be the pairing force at optimal doping, because static magnetic order disappears before superconductivity appears. The paper also finds a second enhancement of the nematic susceptibility near the endpoint of antiferromagnetic order, suggesting two separate sources of nematicity: magnetic-fluctuation-driven behavior at low doping and a nearly pure nematic quantum critical point under the superconducting dome. A reader should care because this material separates the structural and magnetic transition lines, making it a direct test bed for the relationship between nematicity and superconductivity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the elastoresistivity response $\tilde{n} = -(\delta\eta/\delta\varepsilon_x)$ at zero applied strain, measured by gluing a thin oriented crystal to a piezoelectric actuator and detecting the fractional resistivity change under controlled strain. This quantity probes the electronic nematic susceptibility; fitting it to a Curie-Weiss form with an offset $\tilde{n}_0$ yields the mean-field nematic temperature $T_{\mathrm{nem}}$ and the Curie constant $C$, which measures how strongly the susceptibility diverges. The doping and temperature dependence of these two fitted parameters carries the entire argument: the sign change of $T_{\mathrm{nem}}$ locates the proposed quantum critical point, and the doping profile of $C$ reveals the double-peak structure.

What would settle it

Measure the doping and temperature dependence of the magnetic fluctuation intensity (via inelastic neutron scattering or 75As NMR spin-lattice relaxation) on the same LaFe1-xCoxAsO crystals used for elastoresistivity. The double-peak scenario requires that the $x \approx 0.04$ susceptibility peak coincides with the magnetic endpoint and that magnetic fluctuations are suppressed at $x \approx 0.06$; a sample where the $x \approx 0.06$ peak survives without suppression of magnetic fluctuations, or where $T_{\mathrm{nem}}$ does not cross zero at the optimal doping, would falsify the nQCP claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: elastoresistivity measurements on eleven LaFe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$AsO crystals show that the strain-induced resistivity anisotropy, a gauge of the electronic nematic susceptibility $\tilde{n}$, diverges as $\tilde{n} = \tilde{n}_0 + C/(T - T_{\mathrm{nem}})$ for every doping level studied. The fitted nematic temperature $T_{\mathrm{nem}}$ falls linearly with cobalt content and crosses zero around $x \approx 0.06$, the doping where $T_c$ is maximal; the authors read this as evidence for a nematic quantum critical point beneath the superconducting dome. Separately, the Curie constant $C$—the amplitude of the divergence—shows a double-peak doping profile: one peak near $x \approx 0.04$ at the disappearance of antiferromagnetic order, and a second enhancement at optimal doping. The authors attribute the underdoped peak to coupling between nematic and critical magnetic fluctuations, and the optimal-doping peak to a primary nematic instability; the comparable sizes of the two peaks indicate similar strengths of the elasto-electronic and elasto-magnetic couplings.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the phase diagram used to identify where the peaks sit—the structural, magnetic, and superconducting transition lines taken from references [47–49], two of them unpublished—is correct for the exact crystals measured.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the sign change of $T_{\mathrm{nem}}$ at $x \approx 0.06$ is real, a nematic quantum critical point sits directly beneath the superconducting dome, making nematic fluctuations a plausible pairing mediator in this compound.
  • Because static antiferromagnetic order is fully suppressed before superconductivity appears, magnetic fluctuations near the magnetic critical point cannot by themselves explain the optimal-doping enhancement; nematicity must contribute independently.
  • The underdoped susceptibility peak near $x \approx 0.04$ implies that nematic fluctuations can be amplified by proximity to magnetic order even in a material where the structural and magnetic transitions are well separated.
  • The similarity between the nematic susceptibility profile and the superconducting dome suggests that $T_c$ should track the nematic susceptibility under tuning, a direct test of the proposed connection.
  • The authors expect a similar double-peak nematic susceptibility profile in the NaFeAs family, where separate magnetic and nematic quantum critical points have been reported.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the proposed nematic quantum critical point is genuine, non-Fermi-liquid transport (for example a resistivity that varies linearly in temperature) should be observable in a fan around $x \approx 0.06$; the paper does not report such a test.
  • The comparable Curie constants at the two peaks imply comparable magnetic and nematic coupling strengths; measuring the magnetic susceptibility independently and comparing its doping profile would show whether the underdoped peak tracks magnetism while the optimal-doping peak does not.
  • A uniaxial-pressure experiment that tunes $T_{\mathrm{nem}}$ through zero while tracking $T_c$ would directly test whether superconductivity is enhanced exactly at the nematic critical point, separating the nQCP scenario from a mere coincidence of doping levels.
  • The double-peak interpretation would be strengthened if the same crystals used for elastoresistivity had their own structural, magnetic, and superconducting transitions measured directly, rather than relying on a separately determined phase diagram.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports elastoresistivity measurements on LaFe1−xCoxAsO single crystals with cobalt content x from 0 to 0.075. For each doping level the nematic susceptibility ñ(T) in the tetragonal phase is fit to a Curie-Weiss form ñ = ñ0 + C/(T − Tnem). The authors find that Tnem decreases linearly with Co doping and changes sign near x ≈ 0.06, and that the Curie constant C and the magnitude of ñ show two enhancements, one near x ≈ 0.04 and one near optimal doping. They interpret the sign change and the enhancement at x ≈ 0.06 as evidence for a nematic quantum critical point beneath the superconducting dome, and attribute the x ≈ 0.04 peak to coupling to critical magnetic fluctuations.

Significance. If the central claims hold, LaFe1−xCoxAsO would be a particularly clean example of an iron-based superconductor in which magnetic and nematic quantum criticalities are separated in doping, strengthening the case that nematic fluctuations can promote superconductivity independently of magnetism. The paper's strengths are its systematic coverage of eleven doping levels with a standard elastoresistivity technique, the explicit use of nominal versus actual cobalt concentration, the comparison with Ba(Fe1−xCox)2As2 and FeSe1−xSx, and the falsifiable prediction of a similar double-peak profile in NaFeAs. However, the principal quantitative conclusions rest on three-parameter fits with an unconstrained background term and on unpublished phase-diagram references, so the empirical support is not yet fully documented.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (1) and the paragraph beginning "We analyze the ñ(T) data"] The background term n0 is a free parameter in the Curie-Weiss fit, but the manuscript does not report n0 values or describe any independent constraint on it. Because the Curie-Weiss term is a slowly varying function over the measured temperature window, the parameters n0, C, and Tnem are strongly covariant, and the extrapolated Tnem is sensitive to the chosen n0. The reported 20 K variation of the fit window does not probe this covariance. This issue is load-bearing for the central sign-change claim at x ≈ 0.06. Please provide the fitted n0 values, state how n0 was fixed, and demonstrate that the extracted Tnem(x) and C(x) are stable under physically reasonable n0 variations.
  2. [Fig. 4 and the paragraph starting "The information extracted from Fig. 3"] The phase-diagram placement of the underdoped peak relies on the TS, TN, and Tc lines taken from Refs [47,49], both of which are unpublished. The statement that Tnem ≈ 35 K at x ≈ 0.04 'roughly matches' TN is therefore not verifiable from the manuscript. If the actual TN(x) for the measured crystals differs from those unpublished lines, the assignment of the low-doping peak to magnetic-fluctuation-enhanced nematicity would need revision. Please either replace these with published phase-diagram data or include the supporting transition-line data for the measured crystals.
  3. [Supplemental Material [55]] The manuscript repeatedly refers to the Supplemental Material for the fit-window selection, the uncertainty estimate, and the ruling out of a nematic quantum critical point at x ≈ 0.04, but no supplemental file is included with the arXiv submission. Without this material, the central numerical claims (the Tnem sign change and the double-peak structure of C) cannot be independently assessed. Please provide the supplemental or incorporate the necessary information into the main text.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Experimental setup] "Sliver paint" should be "silver paint" in the description of the electrical contacts.
  2. [Introduction] The phrase "the report of newly recognized electronic orders beside magnetism in unconventional superconductors is infectious" is unclear; consider rewording to something like "has inspired renewed interest."
  3. [Theoretical discussion paragraph] "All paring channels" should be "all pairing channels."
  4. [Fig. 3 caption] The sentence "The temperatures between which Curie-Weiss fitting was performed were determined by minimizing the systematic deviation of the Curie constant" is vague; please define the quantity being minimized.
  5. [Fig. 4 caption] The color plot of the magnitude of ñ is not described in sufficient detail; please specify the plotted quantity, the color scale, and how the background contribution is treated in that plot.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: T_nem and C are fit directly from measured elastoresistivity; same-group phase-diagram references enter only as interpretive context.

full rationale

The central quantities are obtained directly from the measured elastoresistivity via the Curie-Weiss form n = n0 + C/(T - T_nem) in Eq. (1). The sign change of T_nem and the double-peak evolution of C are results of those fits, not quantities imposed by the phase diagram or by any model that already assumes the conclusion. The phase diagram from Refs. [47-49] is used to place the susceptibility features relative to the structural, magnetic, and superconducting transition lines, but the fitted values of T_nem and C do not reduce to that diagram by construction. The reliance on unpublished same-group phase-diagram references is a reproducibility and evidentiary weakness, but it is not circularity because the measured elastoresistivity analysis is self-contained and would stand even if those transition lines were revised. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The unstated treatment of the background term n0 is a fitting-robustness concern rather than a circularity, since it concerns the quality of the extrapolation, not the reuse of the output as an input. Overall, the derivation chain is not circular in any of the enumerated senses.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's conclusions rest on standard elastoresistivity methodology, on the Curie-Weiss form for the susceptibility, and on external phase-diagram inputs, two of which are unpublished works by the same group. No new microscopic particles or forces are introduced; the 'nematic quantum critical point' is an interpretation of fitted parameters rather than a directly observed entity.

free parameters (4)
  • T_nem (per doping level) = from about 130 K at x=0 to negative values above x≈0.06
    Fitted pole of the Curie-Weiss form for each of 12 samples; its sign change at x≈0.06 is the basis of the nQCP claim.
  • C (Curie constant, per doping level) = peak values near x≈0.04 and x≈0.06 (arbitrary units)
    Fitted amplitude of the divergent part of the nematic susceptibility; its doping dependence produces the double-peak feature.
  • n0 (intrinsic piezoresistivity, per doping level) = not numerically tabulated in the text
    Fitted background term assumed temperature-independent; correlated with T_nem and C in the fit.
  • Curie-Weiss fitting window (per sample) = varies by sample; adjusted by 20 K for uncertainty
    The window is chosen to minimize systematic deviation of C, following Ref [26]; the 20 K variation sets the error bars on T_nem and C but does not cover all systematic errors.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The slope of elastoresistivity eta(epsilon) in the small-strain limit measures the electronic nematic susceptibility.
    Standard result from Refs [24-27]; the central quantity of the paper depends on this identification.
  • domain assumption Nematic susceptibility follows the Curie-Weiss form in the tetragonal phase.
    Used for all fits (Eq. 1); the extracted T_nem and C are meaningful only if this form is correct.
  • domain assumption Strain is fully and identically transmitted from the piezo actuator to the sample through the epoxy bond across all samples.
    Needed for quantitative comparison of susceptibility amplitudes across doping; variations in gluing would shift C.
  • domain assumption Nominal cobalt concentration equals actual concentration in the measured crystals.
    Authors state EDX on crystals from same batches agrees with nominal, but not on the exact crystals measured.
  • ad hoc to paper The phase diagram lines (TS, TN, Tc) from Refs [47-49] apply to the measured crystals.
    Used to assign the underdoped susceptibility peak to the antiferromagnetic endpoint; Refs [47,49] are unpublished same-group works.
  • ad hoc to paper A sign change and amplitude maximum of the Curie-Weiss T_nem indicate a nematic quantum critical point.
    This inference supports the central nQCP claim; it is an interpretation, not a direct measurement of quantum criticality.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evolution of the nematic susceptibility in LaFe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$AsO." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4ECSQUZ2

@misc{pith2026190800484,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evolution of the nematic susceptibility in LaFe$_1-x$Co$_x$AsO},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4ECSQUZ2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00484}
}
abstract

The identification of electronic nematicity across series of iron-based superconductors raises the question of its relationship with superconductivity and other ordered states. Here, we report a systematic elastoresistivity study on LaFe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$AsO single crystals, which have well separated structural and magnetic transition lines. All crystals show Curie-Weiss-like nematic susceptibility in the tetragonal phase. The extracted nematic temperature is monotonically suppressed upon cobalt doping, and changes sign around the optimal doping level, indicating a possible nematic quantum critical point beneath the superconducting dome. The amplitude of nematic susceptibility shows a peculiar double-peak feature. This could be explained by a combined effect of different contributions to the nematic susceptibility, which are amplified at separated doping levels of LaFe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$AsO.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00484 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (Color online). Schematic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (Color online). Elastoresistance measurements of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (Color online). Divergent nematic susceptibility in LaFe [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: (Color online). Phase diagram and nematic suscep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Pfleiderer, Superconducting phases of f-electron com- pounds, Rev

    C. Pfleiderer, Superconducting phases of f-electron com- pounds, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1551 (2009)

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    Keimer, S

    B. Keimer, S. A. Kivelson, M. R. Norman, S. Uchida, and J. Zaanen, From quantum matter to high-temperature su- perconductivity in copper oxides, Nature 518, 179 (2015)

    2015

  3. [3]

    G. R. Stewart, Superconductivity in iron compounds , Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1589 (2011)

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    P. C. Dai, Antiferromagnetic order and spin dynamics in iron-based superconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 855 (2015)

    2015

  5. [5]

    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. 52, 119 (2003)

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    Monthoux, D

    P. Monthoux, D. Pines, and G. G. Lonzarich, Supercon- ductivity without phonons , Nature 450, 1177 (2007)

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    H. v. L¨ ohneysen, A. Rosch, M. Vojta, and P. W¨ olfle, Fermi-liquid instabilities at magnetic quantum phase transitions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 1015 (2007)

    2007

  8. [8]

    Taillefer, Scattering and pairing in cuprate supercon- ductors, Annu

    L. Taillefer, Scattering and pairing in cuprate supercon- ductors, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 1, 51 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    D. J. Scalapino, A common thread: The pairing inter- action for unconventional superconductors , Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1383 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    Sachdev, M

    S. Sachdev, M. A. Metlitski, and M. Punk, Antiferro- magnetism in metals: from the cuprate superconductors to the heavy fermion materials , J. Phys.: Condens. Mat- ter 24, 294205 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Fradkin, S

    E. Fradkin, S. A. Kivelson, M. J. Lawler, J. P. Eisenstein, and A. P. Mackenzie, Nematic Fermi fluids in condensed matter physics , Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 1, 151 (2010)

    2010

  4. [12]

    S. A. Kivelson, E. Fradkin, and V. J. Emery, Electronic liquid-crystal phases of a doped Mott insulator , Nature 393, 550 (1998)

    1998

  5. [13]

    M. P. Lilly, K. B. Cooper, J. P. Eisenstein, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West, Anisotropic states of two-dimensional electron systems in high Landau levels: effect of an in- plane magnetic field , Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 824 (1999)

    1999

  6. [14]

    T. A. Maier and D. J. Scalapino, Pairing interaction near a nematic quantum critical point of a three-band CuO2 model, Phys. Rev. B 90, 174510 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Lederer, Y

    S. Lederer, Y. Schattner, E. Berg, and S. A. Kivelson, Enhancement of superconductivity near a nematic quan- tum critical point, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 097001 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    M. A. Metlitski, D. F. Mross, S. Sachdev, and T. Senthil, Cooper pairing in non-Fermi liquids , Phys. Rev. B 91, 115111 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    Labat and I

    D. Labat and I. Paul, Pairing instability near a lattice- influenced nematic quantum critical point , Phys. Rev. B 96, 195146 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    D. L. Maslov and A. V. Chubukov, Fermi liquid near Pomeranchuk quantum criticality , Phys. Rev. B 81, 045110 (2010)

    2010

  11. [19]

    Eckberg, D

    C. Eckberg, D. J. Campbell, T. Metz, J. Collini, H. Hodovanets, T. Drye, P. Zavalij, M. H. Christensen, R. M. Fernandes, S. Lee, P. Abbamonte, J. W. Lynn , and J. Paglione, Sixfold enhancement of superconductivity in a tunable electronic nematic system , Nat. Phys. 16, 346 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    I. R. Fisher, L. Degiorgi, and Z. X. Shen, In-plane elec- tronic anisotropy of underdoped ’122’ Fe-arsenide super- conductors revealed by measurements of detwinned single crystals, Rep. Prog. Phys. 74, 124506 (2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    A. Cano, M. Civelli, I. Eremin, and I. Paul, Interplay of magnetic and structural transitions in iron-based pnictide superconductors, Phys. Rev. B 82, 020408(R) (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    R. M. Fernandes and J. Schmalian, Manifestations of ne- matic degrees of freedom in the magnetic, elastic, and su- perconducting properties of the iron pnictides, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 25, 084005 (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

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

    2014

  16. [24]

    Chu, H.-H

    J.-H. Chu, H.-H. Kuo, J. G. Analytis, and I. R. Fisher, Divergent nematic susceptibility in an iron arsenide su- perconductor, Science 337, 710 (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    M. C. Shapiro, A. T. Hristov, J. C. Palmstrom, J.-H. Chu, and I. R. Fisher, Measurement of the B 1g and B 2g components of the elastoresistivity tensor for tetragonal materials via transverse resistivity configurations , Rev. Sci. Instrum. 87, 063902 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Kuo, J.-H

    H.-H. Kuo, J.-H. Chu, J. C. Palmstrom, S. A. Kivelson, and I. R. Fisher, Ubiquitous signatures of nematic quan- tum criticality in optimally doped Fe-based superconduc- 6 tors, Science 352, 958 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Hosoi, K

    S. Hosoi, K. Matsuura, K. Ishida, H. Wang, Y. Mizukami, T. Watashige, S. Kasahara, Y. Matsuda, and T. Shibauchi, Nematic quantum critical point without magnetism in FeSe1−xSx superconductors, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 8139 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    Y. H. Gu, Z. Y. Liu, T. Xie, W. L. Zhang, D. L. Gong, D. Hu, X. Y. Ma, C. H. Li, L. X. Zhao, L. F. Lin, Z. Xu, G. T. Tan, G. F. Chen, Z. Y. Meng, Y. F. Yang, H. Q. Luo, and S. L. Li, Unified phase diagram for iron-based superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 157001 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    C. Fang, H. Yao, W.-F. Tsai, J. P. Hu, and S. A. Kivelson, Theory of electron nematic order inLaFeAsO, Phys. Rev. B 77, 224509 (2008)

    2008

  22. [30]

    A. V. Chubukov, R. M. Fernandes, and J. Schmalian, Origin of nematic order in FeSe, Phys. Rev. B 91, 201105(R) (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Kretzschmar, T

    F. Kretzschmar, T. B¨ ohm, U. Karahasanovi´ c, B. Muschler, A. Baum, D. Jost, J. Schmalian, S. Caprara, M. Grilli, C. Di Castro, J. G. Analytis, J.-H. Chu, I. R. Fisher, and R. Hackl, Critical spin fluctuations and the origin of nematic order in Ba(Fe1−xCox)2As2, Nat. Phys. 12,...

    2016

  24. [32]

    X. Y. Lu, J. T. Park, R. Zhang, H. Q. Luo, A. H. Nevidomskyy, Q. M. Si, and P. C. Dai, Nematic spin correlations in the tetragonal state of uniaxial-strained BaFe2−xNixAs2, Science 345, 657 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    R. M. Fernandes, A. E. B¨ ohmer, C. Meingast, and J. Schmalian, Scaling between magnetic and lattice fluctua- tions in iron pnictide superconductors , Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 137001 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    S. L. Li, Y. Chen, S. Chang, J. W. Lynn, L. J. Li, Y. K Luo, G. H. Cao, Z. A. Xu, and P. C. Dai, Spin gap and magnetic resonance in superconducting BaFe1.9Ni0.1As2, Phys. Rev. B 79, 174527 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    D. S. Inosov, J. T. Park, P. Bourges, D. L. Sun, Y. Sidis, A. Schneidewind, K. Hradil, D. Haug, C. T. Lin, B. Keimer, and V. Hinkov, Normal-state spin dynam- ics and temperature-dependent spin-resonance energy in optimally doped BaFe1.85Co0.15As2, Nat. Phys. 6, 178 (2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    Kr¨ uger, S

    F. Kr¨ uger, S. Kumar, J. Zaanen, and J. van den Brink, Spin-orbital frustrations and anomalous metallic state in iron-pnictide superconductors, Phys. Rev. B 79, 054504 (2009)

    2009

  29. [37]

    W. C. Lv, J. S. Wu, and P. Phillips, Orbital order- ing induces structural phase transition and the resistiv- ity anomaly in iron pnictides , Phys. Rev. B 80, 224506 (2009)

    2009

  30. [38]

    C.-C. Lee, W. G. Yin, and W. Ku, Ferro-orbital order and strong magnetic anisotropy in the parent compounds of iron-pnictide superconductors , Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 267001 (2009)

    2009

  31. [39]

    C.-C. Chen, J. Maciejko, A. P. Sorini, B. Moritz, R. R. P. Singh, and T. P. Devereaux, Orbital order and spon- taneous orthorhombicity in iron pnictides , Phys. Rev. B 82, 100504(R) (2010)

    2010

  32. [40]

    Kontani and S

    H. Kontani and S. Onari, Orbital-fluctuation-mediated superconductivity in iron pnictides: analysis of the five- orbital Hubbard-Holstein model , Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 157001 (2010)

    2010

  33. [41]

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

    2015

  34. [42]

    A. E. B¨ ohmer, T. Arai, F. Hardy, T. Hattori, T. Iye, T. Wolf, H. v. L¨ ohneysen, K. Ishida, and C. Meingast, Origin of the tetragonal-to-orthorhombic phase transition in FeSe: a combined thermodynamic and NMR study of nematicity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 027001 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    Q. S. Wang, Y. Shen, B. Y. Pan, Y. Q. Hao, M. W. Ma, F. Zhou, P. Steffens, K. Schmalzl, T. R. Forrest, M. Abdel-Hafiez, X. J. Chen, D. A. Chareev, A. N. Vasiliev, P. Bourges, Y. Sidis, H. B. Cao, and J. Zhao, Strong interplay between stripe spin fluctuations, nematicity and super...

    2016

  36. [44]

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

    2016

  37. [45]

    T. Chen, Y. Z. Chen, A. Kreisel, X. Y. Lu, A. Schnei- dewind, Y. M. Qiu, J. T. Park, T. G. Perring, J R. Stewart, H. B. Cao, R. Zhang, Y. Li, Y. Rong, Y. Wei, B. M. Andersen, P. J. Hirschfeld, C. Broholm, and P. C. Dai, Anisotropic spin fluctuations in detwinned FeSe, Nat. Mate...

    2019

  38. [46]

    Kappenberger, S

    R. Kappenberger, S. Aswartham, F. Scaravaggi, C. G. F. Blum, M. I. Sturza, A. U. B. Wolter, S. Wurmehl, and B. B¨ uchner,Solid state single crystal growth of three- dimensional faceted LaFeAsO crystals, J. Cryst. Growth 483, 9 (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    Lepucki, H.-J

    P. Lepucki, H.-J. Grafe et al., NMR and NQR measure- ments of LaFe1−xCoxAsO, unpublished

  40. [48]

    L. Wang, S. Sauerland, F. Scaravaggi, R. Kappen- berger, S. Aswartham, S. Wurmehl, A. U. B. Wolter, B. B¨ uchner, and R. Klingeler,Nematicity and structure in LaFe1−xCoxAsO, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 482, 50 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Scaravaggi, A

    F. Scaravaggi, A. U. B. Wolteretal. , Revisiting the phase diagram of LaFe1−xCoxAsO single crystals by thermody- namic methods, unpublished

  42. [50]

    J.-H. Chu, J. G. Analytis, K. D. Greve, P. L. McMa- hon, Z. Islam, Y. Yamamoto, and I. R. Fisher, In-plane resistivity anisotropy in an underdoped iron arsenide su- perconductor, Science 329, 824 (2010)

    2010

  43. [51]

    M. A. Tanatar, E. C. Blomberg, A. Kreyssig, M. G. Kim, N. Ni, A. Thaler, S. L. Bud ′ko, P. C. Canfield, A. I. Goldman, I. I. Mazin, and R. Prozorov, Uniaxial-strain mechanical detwinning of CaFe2As2 and BaFe2As2 crys- tals: optical and transport study, Phys. Rev. B81, 184508 (2010)

    2010

  44. [52]

    Kuo and I

    H.-H. Kuo and I. R. Fisher, Effect of disorder on the resistivity anisotropy near the electronic nematic phase transition in pure and electron-doped BaFe2As2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 227001 (2014)

    2014

  45. [53]

    Lang, H.-J

    G. Lang, H.-J. Grafe, D. Paar, F. Hammerath, K. Man- they, G. Behr, J. Werner, and B. B¨ uchner, Nanoscale electronic order in iron pnictides , Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 097001 (2010)

    2010

  46. [54]

    G. Lang, L. Veyrat, U. Gr¨ afe, F. Hammerath, D. Paar, G. Behr, S. Wurmehl, and H.-J. Grafe, Spatial competition of the ground states in 1111 iron pnictides , Phys. Rev. B 94, 014514 (2016)

    2016

  47. [55]

    see Supplemental Materials

  48. [56]

    Wuttke, C

    C. Wuttke, C. Hess et al., Nernst and elastoresistivity measurements of BaFe2−xRhxAs2, unpublished

  49. [57]

    Licciardello, J

    S. Licciardello, J. Buhot, J. Lu, J. Ayres, S. Kasahara, Y. Matsuda, T. Shibauchi, and N. E. Hussey, Electrical re- sistivity across a nematic quantum critical point , Nature 7 567, 213 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    Matsuura, Y

    K. Matsuura, Y. Mizukami, Y. Arai, Y. Sugimura, N. Maejima, A. Machida, T. Watanuki, T. Fukuda, T. Yajima, Z. Hiroi, K. Y. Yip, Y. C. Chan, Q. Niu, S. Hosoi, K. Ishida, K. Mukasa, S. Kasahara, J.-G. Cheng, S. K. Goh, Y. Matsuda, Y. Uwatoko, and T. Shibauchi, Maximizing Tc by t...

    2017

  51. [59]

    C. G. Wang, Z. Li, J. Yang, L. Y. Xing, G. Y. Dai, X. C. Wang, C. Q. Jin, R. Zhou, and G.-Q. Zheng, Electron mass enhancement near a nematic quantum critical point in NaFe1−xCoxAs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 167004 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    W. Y. Wang, Y. Song, C. D. Cao, K.-F. Tseng, T. Keller, Y. Li, L. W. Harriger, W. Tian, S. X. Chi, R. Yu, A. H. Nevidomskyy, and P. C. Dai, Local orthorhombic lat- tice distortions in the paramagnetic tetragonal phase of superconducting NaFe1−xNixAs, Nat. Commun. 9, 3128 (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

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