Preformed Cooper Pairs in a Triclinic Iron Pnictide Superconductor

Hai-Hu Wen; Honglin Zhou; Huan Yang; Huiqian Luo; Jiangping Hu; Kaiyue Zeng; Long Ma; Shiliang Li; Uwe Stuhr; Wenshan Hong

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 123 references

Preformed Cooper Pairs in a Triclinic Iron Pnictide Superconductor

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a layered iron pnictide, Cooper pairs begin forming at 45 K while superconductivity only locks in near 30 K, a separation of pairing from phase coherence that resembles the cuprate pseudogap regime.

desk verdict New claim of a precursor spin resonance above Tc in an iron pnictide, backed by a multi-probe dataset but undercut by unquantified INS background subtraction; deserves peer review but not acceptance as-is. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08687 v1 pith:OOTGNKZT submitted 2025-01-15 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-el

Zezhong Li , Wenshan Hong , Honglin Zhou , Xiaoyan Ma , Uwe Stuhr , Kaiyue Zeng , Long Ma , Ying Xiang

show 5 more authors

Huan Yang Hai-Hu Wen Jiangping Hu Shiliang Li Huiqian Luo

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-el PACS 74.70.Xa74.25.nj78.70.Nx74.72.Kf

keywords preformedCooperpairsspinresonancemodephasefluctuationsquasi-2DsuperconductivityironpnictideNernsteffectnuclearmagneticBerezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thoulesstransition

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 argues that in the triclinic iron pnictide superconductor CaLa-10-3-8, with composition $(\text{Ca}_{0.85}\text{La}_{0.15})_{10}(\text{Pt}_3\text{As}_8)(\text{Fe}_2\text{As}_2)_5$, Cooper pairs begin to form near $T^*\approx 45$ K, well above the superconducting transition at $T_c\approx 30$ K, and only become phase coherent at $T_c$. The authors study a quasi-two-dimensional material whose zero-resistance transition follows the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless picture, so phase fluctuations are strong enough to matter. They find that the neutron spin resonance at 13 meV, a collective magnetic excitation usually tied to Cooper pairing, does not disappear at $T_c$; its intensity, width, and magnetic-field response all track $T^*$ instead. Nernst and nuclear-magnetic-resonance measurements independently show signatures of fluctuating pairs and a reduced density of states below $T^*$. If the claim is right, pairing and phase coherence separate in this iron pnictide, making it a close cousin of the cuprate pseudogap problem.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the neutron spin resonance mode (SRM), a sharp enhancement of the dynamic magnetic susceptibility $\chi''(Q,\omega)$ near the antiferromagnetic wave vector that in iron pnictides is regarded as the magnetic fingerprint of the paired state. Here it appears at $E_R=13$ meV and the argument follows its temperature and field dependence: a straight-line high-temperature damping background leaves residual intensity above $T_c$, the full width at half maximum of the magnetic signal develops a kink at $T^*\approx 45$ K, and a 10 T in-plane field suppresses the intensity only below that same temperature. Supporting probes are the nonlinear current-voltage characteristics that locate a Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless transition at $T_{\rm BKT}\approx 28.5$ K, the Nernst signal whose nonlinear field dependence persists to $T^*$, and the $^{75}$As spin-lattice relaxation rate $1/T_1T$ whose downturn below $T^*$ signals a partial gap in the density of states. Together these measurements anchor the identification of $T^*$ as the onset of phase-incoherent pairing.

What would settle it

Measure the 13 meV response in an isostructural non-superconducting 10-3-8 compound, or one with $T_c$ suppressed by controlled disorder, using identical background subtraction: if the same residual hump, the same peak-width kink at 45 K, and the same field suppression persist, the precursor is not specific to Cooper pairing. Alternatively, a high-statistics time-of-flight measurement showing that the residual intensity does not peak at the antiferromagnetic wave vector would also falsify the pairing-related precursor claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a temperature scale $T^*\approx 45$ K in CaLa-10-3-8 at which incoherent superconducting correlations set in, while long-range superconducting coherence only appears at $T_c\approx 30$ K. Inelastic neutron scattering shows a spin resonance at $E_R=13$ meV with a 5 meV spin gap in the superconducting state; above $T_c$ the intensity does not drop to the normal-state baseline but continues decreasing smoothly, with a kink in the peak width exactly at $T^*$. An in-plane 10 T field suppresses this residual intensity all the way up to $T^*$, matching the field response expected for pair-breaking rather than ordinary spin fluctuations. Below $T^*$ the Nernst coefficient becomes nonlinear and field-dependent, and the NMR relaxation rate $1/T_1T$ turns downward, indicating a loss of density of states at the Fermi level. The authors conclude that the 13 meV resonance has a precursor above $T_c$ and that this precursor is intimately connected to preformed Cooper pairs generated by phase fluctuations.

Load-bearing premise

The fragile step is treating the excess 13 meV neutron intensity above a straight-line high-temperature background as an intrinsic magnetic precursor tied to pairing; if that residual is ordinary normal-state spin fluctuation intensity or a background-subtraction artifact, the central evidence for a precursor resonance collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If preformed pairs exist from 45 K down to $T_c$, then $T_c$ in this compound is set by phase coherence, specifically vortex unbinding, rather than by the pairing energy scale itself.
The 13 meV spin resonance should be understood as a response of the paired but phase-incoherent state, not only of the superconducting condensate, so its intensity above $T_c$ is expected and carries information about $T^*$.
The coincidence of anomalies at $T^*$ across neutron, Nernst, and NMR measurements makes $T^*$ a robust, probe-independent temperature scale in this material.
The same combination of measurements applied to other quasi-two-dimensional iron-based superconductors should reveal whether a precursor resonance and a Nernst signal always appear together.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: one testable extension is to map $T^*$ as a function of La or Pt doping and of interlayer spacing; if $T^*$ tracks anisotropy or superfluid density rather than $T_c$, the phase-fluctuation scenario is strengthened.
Beyond the paper: a direct time-of-flight neutron measurement of the full spin-excitation spectrum could decide whether the precursor mode has the same dispersion and wave-vector structure as the superconducting-state resonance, since the present data are too limited to settle the dispersion.
Beyond the paper: the paper leaves open whether the same pre-pairing signature would appear in specific heat or in a Josephson plasma response, two probes that could independently confirm a phase-incoherent paired region.
Beyond the paper: if the residual 13 meV intensity is truly tied to pairing, it should be suppressed by controlled non-magnetic substitution in the FeAs layers that breaks pairs, a test the authors do not perform.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: this is a data-rich study of a quasi-2D iron pnictide, and the new measurement is the claim of a precursor of the 13 meV spin resonance surviving above Tc up to T* ~ 45 K, with an in-plane field suppression. If true, it's the first such case in a pnictide and would extend the preformed-pair picture beyond FeSe. The paper does a lot well: the crystals are well characterized, the BKT analysis is clean, and the resonance below Tc is convincingly identified with spectral-weight transfer and a gap.

The soft spot is exactly the one the stress-test flags. The 'extra' intensity at 13 meV above Tc is obtained by subtracting a straight-line extrapolation of the high-T background. No error bars are given for the intensity points, let alone for the residual. In iron pnictides the normal-state chi''(Q,omega) is not guaranteed to be linear in T, so a convex shape could mimic a precursor. The FWHM kink at 45 K and the d-chi''/dT anomaly are small effects and could come from the fitting or numerics. I would want to see the raw residuals, a bootstrap or Monte-Carlo error, and at least one alternative background (e.g., a power law or a fit that includes a broad normal-state mode) before I'd call the precursor established.

The other probes are individually weaker than the abstract implies. The 1/T1T drop below 45 K is consistent with a DOS reduction, but q-dependent spin fluctuations are ignored and there is no Knight shift. The Nernst signal above Tc overlaps with normal-state multiband contributions, which the authors concede. The field-suppression data are the most robust piece after the resonance itself, since they don't rely on the high-T background, but they do assume field-insensitive backgrounds.

None of this makes the paper unserious. The measurements are extensive, the authors acknowledge the crossover ambiguity in 1/T1T, and the citation pattern looks appropriate. I just think the central claim is an interpretation held together by several suggestive but individually non-quantitative probes. It deserves peer review—editors should send it out—but referees should demand a quantitative treatment of the INS background and error bars. If the precursor survives that, this becomes an important paper; if not, the rest of the data still has value for the 10-3-8 family.

My vote: send to review, with a strong request for revised statistics and a more falsifiable analysis.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a multi-probe investigation of the triclinic iron pnictide superconductor (Ca0.85La0.15)10(Pt3As8)(Fe2As2)5 with Tc ≈ 30 K, and claims that Cooper pairs preform above Tc below a crossover temperature T* ≈ 45 K. The evidence includes BKT-type nonlinear I-V characteristics, a 13 meV neutron spin resonance whose intensity decreases continuously through Tc with an anomaly at T*, a field suppression of the 13 meV intensity that persists up to T*, a Nernst signal extending to T*, and a reduction of 1/T1T below T* attributed to a loss of electronic density of states. The paper interprets these observations as phase-fluctuation-driven preformed pairs, analogous to the cuprate pseudogap scenario, and argues that the precursor of the spin resonance is the magnetic signature of incoherent pairing.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would provide the first evidence in an iron pnictide that pairing and phase coherence are separated, extending the preformed-pair picture beyond cuprates and FeSe-based systems. The manuscript has notable strengths: high-quality co-aligned crystals, a clean observation of a spin resonance and spin gap in the superconducting state, a BKT analysis indicating quasi-2D superconductivity, and a multi-probe consistency of the T* ≈ 45 K crossover. The field-dependent neutron data above Tc are unusual and, if robust, would be of considerable interest. However, the central claim is an interpretation that rests on an unquantified subtraction of a high-temperature background in the neutron data, and several supporting probes have alternative normal-state explanations that are not quantitatively excluded. The paper is therefore suggestive rather than definitive at the current level of analysis.

major comments (4)

[Sec. III B, Fig. 6(a)] The identification of a precursor of the spin resonance above Tc rests on the residual intensity at E = 13 meV after subtracting a straight-line extrapolation of the high-temperature damping background. No error bars, fit ranges, or residuals are reported, and in iron pnictides the normal-state χ″(Q, ω) is generally not linear in temperature over this range. The text itself hedges with 'the extra magnetic excitation at ER may be the precursor of SRM.' Because the abstract and summary invoke this precursor as a key observation, the subtraction must be shown to be robust against alternative normal-state forms (e.g., a convex or saturating background), with uncertainties propagated into the claimed excess.
[Sec. III B, Figs. 6(c) and 6(d)] The FWHM kink at T* ≈ 45 K is presented as a 'clear' anomaly, but no quantitative criterion is given for locating the kink, and the FWHM values come from Gaussian fits to constant-energy scans that also include a spurious peak near Q = (0.8, 0, 2). The reported kink should be supported by fitting details, goodness-of-fit measures, and an estimate of the uncertainty in the kink position, especially because the same T* is then used to calibrate the interpretation of the other probes.
[Sec. III D, Fig. 8(d)] The reduction of 1/T1T below T* is interpreted as a loss of density of states, but 1/T1T in iron pnictides is strongly affected by antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations, and the non-monotonic temperature dependence could reflect the development of spin correlations rather than a pairing gap. The authors themselves note in Sec. IV that 'it is kind of tricky to define the initial dropdown point of 1/T1T above Tc due to the crossover-like feature.' This is a load-bearing issue for the NMR-based DOS claim, and the manuscript should provide a quantitative decomposition (e.g., separating a Korringa contribution from a q-dependent spin-fluctuation contribution) or explicitly retreat from the DOS-loss interpretation.
[Sec. IV and Sec. III C] The inference that the field suppression of the 13 meV intensity above Tc is evidence for pairing fluctuations depends on the conditional statement 'if we believe that the spin fluctuation indeed acts as the pairing glue in FeSCs.' This conditionality undercuts the central claim as stated. In addition, the Nernst signal above Tc is argued to arise from phase fluctuations because Gaussian fluctuations 'cannot account' for it, but no comparison with a normal-state multiband baseline or a quantitative fluctuation model is given; the nonzero linear Sxy/B persisting to 300 K is attributed to multiband effects without a criterion separating that contribution from the proposed vortex signal. These alternatives need to be addressed for the T* onset to be credible.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. III A] The name 'Halprin-Nelson' in the text should be 'Halperin-Nelson'; the reference [110] is correct but the in-text spelling is not.
[Sec. III C] The text refers to 'Fig. 6(d)' when describing the temperature dependence of the Nernst coefficient; the relevant panel is Fig. 7(d).
[Sec. II] The sentence 'The statistic on superconducting transition is about Tc = 30 ± 3 K' is awkwardly phrased; 'statistic' should likely be 'statistical spread' or 'distribution.'
[Fig. 4(a) caption] The caption says 'The open shape in (c) shows the background' but the open symbols appear to be in panel (a) or (c); please clarify which panel contains the background data.
[Abstract] The phrase 'unambiguously reveal a spin resonance peak' is stronger than the conditional discussion in Sec. IV; consider aligning the abstract with the stated caveats.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: T* is an empirical crossover and the preformed-pair claim rests on new multi-probe data, not on a derived or self-cited equivalence.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—preformed Cooper pairs above Tc with T* ≈ 45 K—is an interpretation of raw experimental crossovers, not a derived quantity. T* is read off as kinks in INS FWHM and dχ''/dT, the Nernst onset, and the 1/T1T downturn; no equation fits T* from the pre-pairing model, so the claim is not equivalent to its inputs. The residual 13 meV intensity is defined by subtracting a linear high-temperature damping background (Sec. III B, Fig. 6(a)); while this subtraction is a parameter-dependent data-analysis choice and a legitimate correctness risk, the 'precursor' label is an interpretation rather than a quantity forced by the fit, so it is not circularity. Many prior works by the same group are cited for sample growth, quasi-2D anisotropy, and resonance phenomenology in related FeSe and 10-3-8 compounds, but the load-bearing evidence here is new INS, Nernst, and NMR data on CaLa-10-3-8. The paper itself flags its limitations, including the crossover-like 1/T1T feature and limited dispersion data, and the pairing-glue assumption is explicitly conditional ('if we believe that the spin fluctuation indeed acts as the pairing glue in FeSCs'), which further distances the interpretation from a circular derivation. No step in the derivation chain reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. Its central interpretation rests on several domain assumptions about BKT physics, Nernst response, NMR relaxation, and the pairing-glue role of spin fluctuations. The most paper-specific assumption is the identification of residual neutron intensity above a fitted background as a precursor of the spin resonance.

free parameters (4)

High-temperature linear damping background at E = 13 meV and E = 10 meV
The claim of a precursor resonance above Tc depends on defining an 'extra' intensity above this fitted background; different background choices would change the residual and the apparent T*.
Gaussian peak parameters for Q-scans
FWHM and integrated intensity, used to identify the T* kink, come from Gaussian fits to the data; no uncertainties are reported.
Nernst onset criterion = T* = 45 K
T* is read off as the temperature where Sxy/B becomes field-dependent and nonlinear; this is a chosen threshold, not a parameter from a model fit.
Halperin-Nelson parameters R0 and b
Used to extract TBKT = 28.7 K from the resistance; this supports the quasi-2D nature but is not directly part of the pre-pairing claim.

assumptions (5)

standard math Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless theory describes the superconducting transition in this material.
Used to interpret the I-V exponent alpha and the Halperin-Nelson resistance form in Section III A.
domain assumption A nonlinear Nernst signal above Tc is caused by motion of unbound vortex-antivortex pairs and therefore by phase fluctuations.
Invoked in Section III C to attribute the Nernst signal to superconducting phase fluctuations rather than normal-state effects.
domain assumption 1/T1T from NMR reflects the density of states at the Fermi level when q-dependent spin fluctuations are ignored.
Stated explicitly in Section III D: 'If we ignore the q-dependent spin fluctuations'. This assumption is questionable in FeSCs where antiferromagnetic fluctuations are strong.
domain assumption The spin fluctuation is the pairing glue, so a precursor of the spin resonance above Tc can track incoherent pairing.
The paper conditions its own interpretation: 'if we believe that the spin fluctuation indeed acts as the pairing glue in FeSCs'.
ad hoc to paper The residual magnetic intensity above the fitted high-temperature damping background at E = 13 meV is a precursor of the spin resonance, not ordinary normal-state spin fluctuation intensity.
This is the key interpretive leap in Section III B, where the extra excitation is assigned to pairing-related precursor behavior.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Preformed Cooper Pairs in a Triclinic Iron Pnictide Superconductor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OOTGNKZT

@misc{pith2026250108687,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Preformed Cooper Pairs in a Triclinic Iron Pnictide Superconductor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OOTGNKZT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08687}
}

abstract

Electron pairing along with phase coherence generates superconductivity below the critical temperature ($T_c$). In underdoped high-$T_c$ cuprates, these two quantum phenomena may occur at separate temperatures, which was lately confirmed in the quasi-two-dimensional (quasi-2D) iron chalcogenide superconductors. Here, we report a systematic investigation on the pre-pairing behavior in a triclinic iron pnictide superconductor (Ca$_{0.85}$La$_{0.15}$)$_{10}$(Pt$_3$As$_8$)(Fe$_2$As$_2$)$_5$ with $T_c \approx $ 30 K, where the superconductivity is quasi-2D manifested by the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless behaviors. Inelastic neutron scattering experiments unambiguously reveal a spin resonance peak around $E_R =$ 13 meV in the superconducting state, but its intensity continuously decreases when warming up across $T_c$, accompanied with an anomaly around $T^{*}\approx$ 45 K in spin correlations, and a suppression by an in-plane magnetic field persisting to the same temperature. Below $T^{*}$, a significant Nernst signal and a reduction of density of states at the Fermi level are also observed. These results suggest that the precursor of spin resonance is highly related to the preformed Cooper pairs driven by phase fluctuations, much like the pseudogap case in cuprates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08687 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: (Color online) Resistance and magnetization charac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: (Color online) BKT transition analysis on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: (Color online) Low-energy spin excitations of CaLa-10-3-8 measured by INS. (a) Raw data of energy scans for spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6: (Color online) Analysis on the temperature and mag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7: (Color online) Nernst measurement results on CaLa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8: (Color online) NMR measurement results on CaLa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

123 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

[1]

J. R. Schrieffer, Theory of Superconductivity, Perseus Books, 1999

1999
[2]

V. J. Emery and S. A. Kivelson, Nature 374 , 434 (1995)

1995
[3]

J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 6 , 1181 (1973)

1973
[4]

J. M. Kosterlitz, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 7 , 1046 (1974)

1974
[5]

Minnhagen, O

P. Minnhagen, O. Westman, A. Jonsson, and P. Olsson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 , 3672 (1995)

1995
[6]

Medvedyeva, B

K. Medvedyeva, B. J. Kim, and P. Minnhagen, Phys. Rev. B 62 , 14531 (2000), arXiv:cond-mat/0009291

arXiv 2000
[7]

Sharma, M

M. Sharma, M. Singh, R. K. Rakshit, S. P. Singh, M. Fretto, N. De Leo, A. Perali, and N. Pinto, Nanomaterials 12 , 4109 (2022)

2022
[8]

Spathis, H

P. Spathis, H. Aubin, A. Pourret, and K. Behnia, EPL 83 , 57005 (2008), arXiv:0712.2655

arXiv 2008

Show all 123 references

[9]

Lascialfari, A

A. Lascialfari, A. Rigamonti, E. Bernardi, M. Corti, A. Gauzzi, and J. C. Villegier, Phys. Rev. B 80 , 104505 (2009)

2009
[10]

Mondal, A

M. Mondal, A. Kamlapure, M. Chand, G. Saraswat, S. Kumar, J. Jesudasan, L. Benfatto, V. Tripathi, and P. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 , 047001 (2011), arXiv:1006.4143

2011 arXiv
[11]

Y. J. Uemura, G. M. Luke, B. J. Sternlieb, J. H. Brewer, J. F. Carolan, W. N. Hardy, R. Kadono, J. R. Kempton, R. F. Kiefl, S. R. Kreitzman, P. Mulhern, T. M. Riseman, D. L. Williams, B. X. Yang, S. Uchida, H. Takagi, J. Gopalakrishnan, A. W. Sleight, M. A. Subramanian, C. L. ...

1989
[12]

Corson, R

J. Corson, R. Mallozzi, J. Orenstein, J. N. Eckstein, and I. Bozovic, Nature 398 , 221 (1999), arXiv:cond-mat/9810280

1999 arXiv
[13]

A. T. Bollinger, G. Dubuis, J. Yoon, D. Pavuna, J. Misewich, and I. Bo z ovi \'c , Nature 472 , 458 (2011)

2011
[14]

Z. Xu, N. Ong, Y. Wang, T. Kakeshita, and S. Uchida, Nature 406 , 486 (2000)

2000
[15]

Y. Wang, Z. A. Xu, T. Kakeshita, S. Uchida, S. Ono, Y. Ando, and N. P. Ong, Phys. Rev. B 64 , 224519 (2001), arXiv:cond-mat/0108242

2001 arXiv
[16]

Y. Wang, N. P. Ong, Z. A. Xu, T. Kakeshita, S. Uchida, D. A. Bonn, R. Liang, and W. N. Hardy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 , 257003 (2002), arXiv:cond-mat/0205299

2002 arXiv
[17]

Y. Wang, S. Ono, Y. Onose, G. Gu, Y. Ando, Y. Tokura, S. Uchida, and N. P. Ong, Science 299 , 86 (2003)

2003
[18]

Y. Wang, L. Li, and N. P. Ong, Phys. Rev. B 73 , 024510 (2006), arXiv:cond-mat/0510470

2006 arXiv
[19]

Ussishkin, S

I. Ussishkin, S. L. Sondhi, and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 , 287001 (2002), arXiv:cond-mat/0204484

2002 arXiv
[20]

Kokanovi c \' c , J

I. Kokanovi c \' c , J. R. Cooper, and M. Matusiak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 , 187002 (2009)

2009
[21]

Chang, N

J. Chang, N. Doiron-Leyraud, O. Cyr-Choiniere, G. Grissonnanche, F. Lalibert \'e , E. Hassinger, J.-P. Reid, R. Daou, S. Pyon, T. Takayama, Nat. Phys. 8 , 751 (2012), arXiv:1208.4389

2012 arXiv
[22]

F. F. Tafti, F. Lalibert\'e, M. Dion, J. Gaudet, P. Fournier, and L. Taillefer, Phys. Rev. B 90 , 024519 (2014), arXiv:1405.6248

2014 arXiv
[23]

Cyr-Choini`ere, R

O. Cyr-Choini`ere, R. Daou, F. Lalibert\' e , C. Collignon, S. Badoux, D. LeBoeuf, J. Chang, B. J. Ramshaw, D. A. Bonn, W. N. Hardy, R. Liang, J.-Q. Yan, J.-G. Cheng, J.-S. Zhou, J. B. Goodenough, S. Pyon, T. Takayama, H. Takagi, N. Doiron-Leyraud, and L. Taillefer, Phys. Rev....

2018 arXiv
[24]

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, and X. J. Zhou, Nat. Mater. 12 , 605 (2013), arXiv:1207.6823

2013 arXiv
[25]

S. Tan, Y. Zhang, M. Xia, Z. Ye, F. Chen, X. Xie, R. Peng, D. Xu, Q. Fan, H. Xu, J. Jiang, T. Zhang, X. Lai, T. Xiang, J. Hu, B. Xie, and D. Feng, Nat. Mater. 12 , 634 (2013), arXiv:1301.2748

2013 arXiv
[26]

Zhang, Y

W. Zhang, Y. Sun, J. Zhang, F. Li, M. Guo, Y. Zhao, H. Zhang, J. Peng, Y. Xing, H. Wang, T. Fujita, A. Hirata, Z. Li, H. Ding, C. Tang, M. Wang, Q. Wang, K. He, S. Ji, X. Chen, J. Wang, Z. Xia, L. Li, Y. Wang, J. Wang, L. Wang, M. Chen, Q. -K. Xue, X. Ma, Chin. Phys. Lett. 31 ...

2014 arXiv
[27]

Y. Xu, H. Rong, Q. Wang, D. Wu, Y. Hu, Y. Cai, Q. Gao, H. Yan, C. Li, C. Yin, H. Chen, J. Huang, Z. Zhu, Y. Huang, G. Liu, Z. Xu, L. Zhao, and X. J. Zhou, Nat. Commun. 12 , 2840 (2021), arXiv:2010.15362

2021 arXiv
[28]

B. D. Faeth, S.-L. Yang, J. K. Kawasaki, J. N. Nelson, P. Mishra, C. T. Parzyck, C. Li, D. G. Schlom, and K. M. Shen, Phys. Rev. X 11 , 021054 (2021), arXiv:2010.11984

2021 arXiv
[29]

B. L. Kang, M. Z. Shi, S. J. Li, H. H. Wang, Q. Zhang, D. Zhao, J. Li, D. W. Song, L. X. Zheng, L. P. Nie, T. Wu, and X. H. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 , 097003 (2020), arXiv:1912.03508

2020 arXiv
[30]

B. L. Kang, M. Z. Shi, D. Zhao, S. J. Li, J. Li, L. X. Zheng, D. W. Song, L. P. Nie, T. Wu, and X. H. Chen, Chin. Phys. Lett. 39 , 127401 (2022)

2022
[31]

D. Li, Y. Liu, Z. Lu, P. Li, Y. Zhang, S. Ma, J. Liu, J. Lu, H. Zhang, G. Liu, F.Zhou, X. Dong, and Z. Zhao, Chin. Phys. Lett. 39 , 127402 (2022), arXiv:2212.02022

2022 arXiv
[32]

Y.-M. Xu, P. Richard, K. Nakayama, T. Kawahara, Y. Sekiba, T. Qian, M. Neupane, S. Souma, T. Sato, T. Takahashi, H.-Q. Luo, H.-H. Wen, G.-F. Chen, N.-L. Wang, Z. Wang, Z. Fang, X. Dai, and H. Ding, Nat. Commun. 2 , 392 (2011), arXiv:0905.4467

2011 arXiv
[33]

Baek, H.-J

S.-H. Baek, H.-J. Grafe, L. Harnagea, S. Singh, S. Wurmehl, and B. B\" u chner, Phys. Rev. B 84 , 094510 (2011), arXiv:1103.0146

2011 arXiv
[34]

Lin, K,-J, Wang, C.-C

K.-H. Lin, K,-J, Wang, C.-C. Chang, Y.-C. Wen, D.-H. Tsai, Y.-R. Wu, Y.-T. Hsieh, M.-J. Wang, B. Lv, P. C.-W. Chu, and M.-K. Wu, Phys. Rev. B 90 , 174502 (2014)

2014
[35]

S. J. Moon, Y. S. Lee, A. A. Schafgans, A. V. Chubukov, S. Kasahara, T. Shibauchi, T. Terashima, Y. Matsuda, M. A. Tanatar, R. Prozorov, A. Thaler, P. C. Canfield, S. L. Bud'ko, A. S. Sefat, D. Mandrus, K. Segawa, Y. Ando, and D. N. Basov, Phys. Rev. B 90 , 014503 (2014), arXi...

2014 arXiv
[36]

Shimojima, T

T. Shimojima, T. Sonobe, W. Malaeb, K. Shinada, A. Chainani, S. Shin, T. Yoshida, S. Ideta, A. Fujimori, H. Kumigashira, K. Ono, Y. Nakashima, H. Anzai, M. Arita, A. Ino, H. Namatame, M. Taniguchi, M. Nakajima, S. Uchida, Y. Tomioka, T. Ito, K. Kihou, C. H. Lee, A. Iyo, H. Eis...

2014 arXiv
[37]

Yang, J.Xing, Z

H. Yang, J.Xing, Z. Du, X.Yang, H. Lin, D. Fang, X. Zhu, and H. -H Wen, Phys. Rev. B 93 , 224516 (2016), arXiv:1604.07159

2016 arXiv
[38]

Zhang, Q.-Y

C. Zhang, Q.-Y. Wu, W.-S. Hong, H. Liu, S.-X. Zhu, J.-J. Song, Y.-Z. Zhao, F.-Y. Wu, Z.-T. Liu, S.-Y. Liu, Y.-H. Yuan, H. Huang, J. He, S. Li, H.-Y. Liu, Y.-X. Duan, H.-Q. Luo, and J.-Q. Meng, Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron. 65 , 237411 (2022), arXiv:2109.06460

2022 arXiv
[39]

S. Shao, F. Zhang, Z. Zhang, T. Wang, Y. Wu, Y. Tu, J. Hou, X. Hou, N. Hao, G. Mu and L. Shan, Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron. 66 , 287412 (2023)

2023
[40]

M. Li, Z. Wang, D. Zhao, Y. Liu, C. Jiang, T. Wu, Q. Tao, G. -H. Cao, and Z. -A. Xu, Phys. Rev. B 105 , 104512 (2022)

2022
[41]

D. J. Scalapino, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84 , 1383 (2012), arXiv:1207.4093

2012 arXiv
[42]

Eschrig, Adv

M. Eschrig, Adv. Phys. 55 , 47 (2006), arXiv:cond-mat/0510286

2006 arXiv
[43]

J. M. Tranquada, G. Xu, and I. A. Zaliznyak, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 350 , 148 (2014), arXiv:1301.5888

2014 arXiv
[44]

White, J

B. White, J. Thompson, and M. Maple, Physica C 514 , 246 (2015)

2015
[45]

Paglione and R

J. Paglione and R. L. Greene, Nat. Phys. 6 , 645 (2010), arXiv:1006.4618

2010 arXiv
[46]

P. Dai, J. Hu, and E. Dagotto, Nat. Phys. 8 , 709 (2012), arXiv:1209.0381

2012 arXiv
[47]

Dai, Rev

P. Dai, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87 , 855 (2015), arXiv:1503.02340

2015 arXiv
[48]

X. Chen, P. Dai, D. Feng, T. Xiang, and F. C. Zhang, Nat. Sci. Rev. 1 , 371 (2014), arXiv:1403.2612

2014 arXiv
[49]

Q. Si, R. Yu, and E. Abrahams, Nat. Rev. Mater. 1 , 1 (2016), arXiv:1604.03566

2016 arXiv
[50]

Gong and H

D. Gong and H. Luo, Acta Phys. Sin. 67 , 207407 (2018)

2018
[51]

R. X. Liu, W. T. Zhang and X. Y. Lu, Sci. Sin.-Phys. Mech. Astron. 53 , 127409 (2023)

2023
[52]

Gu and H.-H

Q. Gu and H.-H. Wen, The Innovation 3 , 100202 (2022), arXiv:2109.07654

2022 arXiv
[53]

Z. Liu, H. Sun, M. Huo, X. Ma, Y. Ji, E. Yi, L. Li, H. Liu, J. Yu, Z. Zhang, Z. Chen, F. Liang, H. Dong, H. Guo, D. Zhong, B. Shen, Sh. Li, and Meng Wang, Sci. Sin.-Phys. Mech. Astron. 66 , 217411 (2023), arXiv:2205.00950

2023 arXiv
[54]

W. Wu, Z. Luo, D.-X. Yao, M. Wang, Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron. 67 . 117402 (2024)

2024
[55]

M. Wang, H. -H. Wen, T. Wu, D.-X. Yao, T. Xiang, Chin. Phys. Lett. 41 , 077402 (2024), arXiv:2406.04837

2024 arXiv
[56]

Q. Qin, J. Wang, and Y. -f. Yang, The Innovation Materials 2 , 100102 (2024)

2024
[57]

Rossat-Mignod, L

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

1991
[58]

Sidis, S

Y. Sidis, S. Pailhes, V. Hinkov, B. Fauque, C. Ulrich, L. Capogna, A. Ivanov, L.-P. Regnault, B. Keimer, and P. Bourges, C. R. Phys. 8 , 745 (2007)

2007
[59]

G. Yu, Y. Li, E. M. Motoyama, and M. Greven, Nat. Phys. 5 , 873 (2009), arXiv:0903.2291

2009 arXiv
[60]

P. Dai, H. A. Mook, S. M. Hayden, G. Aeppli, T. G. Perring, R. D. Hunt, and F. Do g g an, Science 284 , 1344 (1999), arXiv:cond-mat/0001249

1999 arXiv
[61]

P. Dai, H. A. Mook, R. D. Hunt, and F. Do g g an, Phys. Rev. B 63 , 054525 (2001), arXiv:cond-mat/0011019

2001 arXiv
[62]

Hinkov, P

V. Hinkov, P. Bourges, S. Pailhes, Y. Sidis, A. Ivanov, C. Frost, T. Perring, C. Lin, D. Chen, and B. Keimer, Nat. Phys. 3 , 780 (2007), arXiv:0806.4134

2007 arXiv
[63]

M. Chan, C. Dorow, L. Mangin-Thro, Y. Tang, Y. Ge, M. Veit, G. Yu, X. Zhao, Nat. Commun. 7 , 10819 (2016), arXiv:1402.4517

2016 arXiv
[64]

M. K. Chan, Y. Tang, C. J. Dorow, J. Jeong, L. Mangin-Thro, M. J. Veit, Y. Ge, D. L. Abernathy, Y. Sidis, P. Bourges, and M. Greven, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 , 277002 (2016), arXiv:1610.01097

2016 arXiv
[65]

Hashimoto, I

M. Hashimoto, I. M. Vishik, R.-Hua He, T. P. Devereaux, and Z. -X. Shen, Nat. Phys. 10 , 483 (2014), arXiv:1503.00391

2014 arXiv
[66]

P. Dai, H. A. Mook, G. Aeppli, S. M. Hayden, and F. Do g g an, Nature 406 , 965 (2000), arXiv:cond-mat/0006433

2000 arXiv
[67]

Christianson, E

A. Christianson, E. Goremychkin, R. Osborn, S. Rosenkranz, M. Lumsden, C. Malliakas, I. Todorov, H. Claus, D. Chung, M. Kanatzidis, I. S. Todorov, H. Claus, D. Y. Chung, M. G. Kanatzidis, R. I. Bewley, and T. Guidi, Nature 456 , 930 (2008), arXiv:0807.3932

2008 arXiv
[68]

Y. Qiu, W. Bao, Y. Zhao, C. Broholm, V. Stanev, Z. Tesanovic, Y. C. Gasparovic, S. Chang, J. Hu, B. Qian, M. Fang, and Z. Mao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 , 067008 (2009), arXiv:0905.3559

2009 arXiv
[69]

T. J. Liu, J. Hu, B. Qian, D. Fobes, Z. Q. Mao, W. Bao, M. Reehuis, S. A. J. Kimber, K. Prokes, S. Matas, D. N. Argyriou, A. Hiess, A. Rotaru, H. Pham, L. Spinu, Y. Qiu, V. Thampy, A. T. Savici, J. A. Rodriguez, and C. Broholm, Nat. Mater. 9 , 716 (2010), arXiv:1003.5647

2010 arXiv
[70]

Inosov, J

D. Inosov, J. Park, P. Bourges, D. Sun, Y. Sidis, A. Schneidewind, K. Hradil, D. Haug, C. Lin, B. Keimer, V. Hinkov, Nat. Phys. 6 , 178 (2010), arXiv:0907.3632

2010 arXiv
[71]

J. T. Park, D. S. Inosov, A. Yaresko, S. Graser, D. L. Sun, P. Bourges, Y. Sidis, Y. Li, J.-H. Kim, D. Haug, A. Ivanov, K. Hradil, A. Schneidewind, P. Link, E. Faulhaber, I. Glavatskyy, C. T. Lin, B. Keimer, and V. Hinkov, Phys. Rev. B 82 , 134503 (2010), arXiv:1007.3722

2010 arXiv
[72]

M. Wang, H. Luo, J. Zhao, C. Zhang, M. Wang, K. Marty, S. Chi, J. W. Lynn, A. Schneidewind, S. Li, and P. Dai, Phys. Rev. B 81 , 174524 (2010), arXiv:1002.3133

2010 arXiv
[73]

Zhang, M

C. Zhang, M. Wang, H. Luo, M. Wang, M. Liu, J. Zhao, D. L. Abernathy, T. A. Maier, K. Marty, M. Lumsden, S. Chi, S. Chang, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, J. W. Lynn, T. Xiang, J. Hu, and P. Dai, Sci. Rep. 1 , 115 (2011), arXiv:1012.4065

2011 arXiv
[74]

H. Luo, Z. Yamani, Y. Chen, X. Lu, M. Wang, S. Li, T. A. Maier, S. Danilkin, D. T. Adroja, and Pengcheng Dai, Phys. Rev. B 86 , 024508 (2012), arXiv:1206.0653

2012 arXiv
[75]

Zhang, H

C. Zhang, H. Li, Y. Song, Y. Su, G. Tan, T. Netherton, C. Redding, S. V. Carr, O. Sobolev, A. Schneidewind, E. Faulhaber, L. W. Harriger, S. Li, X. Lu, D. Yao, T. Das, A. V. Balatsky, Th. Br\" u ckel, J. W. Lynn, and P. Dai, Phys. Rev. B 88 , 064504 (2013), arXiv:1308.2453

2013 arXiv
[76]

C. H. Lee, P. Steffens, N. Qureshi, M. Nakajima, K. Kihou, A. Iyo, H. Eisaki, and M. Braden, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 , 167002 (2013), arXiv:1309.4197

2013 arXiv
[77]

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), arXiv:1308.3858

2013 arXiv
[78]

J. Zhao, C. R. Rotundu, K. Marty, M. Matsuda, Y. Zhao, C. Setty, E. Bourret-Courchesne, J. Hu, and R. J. Birgeneau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 , 147003 (2013)

2013
[79]

Q. Wang, Y. Shen, B. Pan, Y. Hao, M. Ma, F. Zhou, P. Steffens, K. Schmalzl, T. R. Forrest, M. Abdel-Hafiez, X. Chen, D. A. Chareev, A. N. Vasiliev, P. Bourges, Y. Sidis, H. Cao, and J. Zhao, Nat. Mater. 15 , 159 (2016), arXiv:1502.07544

2016 arXiv
[80]

D. Hu, Z. Yin, W. Zhang, R. A. Ewings, K. Ikeuchi, M. Nakamura, B. Roessli, Y. Wei, L. Zhao, G. Chen, S. Li, H. Luo, K. Haule, G. Kotliar, and P. Dai, Phys. Rev. B 94 , 094504 (2016), arXiv:1609.01021

2016 arXiv
[81]

M. Ma, L. Wang, P. Bourges, Y. Sidis, S. Danilkin, and Y. Li, Phys. Rev. B 95 , 100504(R) (2017), arXiv:1611.02602

2017 arXiv
[82]

T. Xie, D. Gong, H. Ghosh, A. Ghosh, M. Soda, T. Masuda, S. Itoh, F. Bourdarot, L.-P. Regnault, S. Danilkin, S. Li, and H. Luo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 , 137001 (2018), arXiv:1803.00779

2018 arXiv
[83]

W. Hong, L. Song, B. Liu, Z. Li, Z. Zeng, Y. Li, D. Wu, Q. Sui, T. Xie, S. Danilkin, H. Ghosh, A. Ghosh, J. Hu, L. Zhao, X. Zhou, X. Qiu, S. Li, and H. Luo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 , 117002 (2020), arXiv:2005.06146

2020 arXiv
[84]

Z. -Z. Li, W. -S. Hong, T. Xie, C. Liu, H. -Q. Luo, Acta Phys. Sin. 74 , 017401 (2025)

2025
[85]

T. Xie, Y. Wei, D. Gong, T. Fennell, U. Stuhr, R. Kajimoto, K. Ikeuchi, S. Li, J. Hu, and H. Luo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 , 267003 (2018), arXiv:1802.01901

2018 arXiv
[86]

Zhang, W

R. Zhang, W. Wang, T. A. Maier, M. Wang, M. B. Stone, S. Chi, B. Winn, and P. Dai, Phys. Rev. B 98 , 060502(R) (2018), arXiv:1808.06108

2018 arXiv
[87]

T. Xie, C. Liu, T. Fennell, U. Stuhr, S. Li, and H. Luo, Chin. Phys. B 30 , 127402 (2021)

2021
[88]

C. Liu, P. Bourges, Y. Sidis, T. Xie, G. He, F. Bourdarot, S. Danilkin, H. Ghosh, S. Ghosh, X. Ma, S. Li, Y. Li, and H. Luo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 , 137003 (2022), arXiv:2202.11933

2022 arXiv
[89]

M. Ma, P. Bourges, Y. Sidis, A. Ivanov, G. Chen, Z. Ren, and Y. Li, Phys. Rev. B 107 , 184516 (2023), arXiv:2303.09787

2023 arXiv
[90]

W. Hong, H. Zhou, Z. Li, Y. Li, U. Stuhr, A. Pokhriyal, H. Ghosh, Z Tao, X.Lu, J. Hu, S. Li, and H. Luo, Phys. Rev. B 107 , 224514 (2023)

2023
[91]

Z. J. Xiang, X. G. Luo, J. J. Ying, X. F.Wang, Y. J. Yan, A. F. Wang, P. Cheng, G. J. Ye, and X. H. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 85 , 224527 (2012), arXiv:1203.1486

2012 arXiv
[92]

Neupane, C

M. Neupane, C. Liu, S.-Y. Xu, Y.-J. Wang, N. Ni, J. M. Allred, L. A.Wray, N. Alidoust, H. Lin, R. S.Markiewicz, A. Bansil, R. J. Cava, and M. Z. Hasan, Phys. Rev. B 85 , 094510 (2012), arXiv:1110.4687

2012 arXiv
[93]

J. Kim, F. Ronning, N. Haberkorn, L. Civale, E. Nazaretski, N. Ni, R. J. Cava, J. D. Thompson, and R. Movshovich, Phys. Rev. B 85 , 180504 (2012), arXiv:1205.5011

2012 arXiv
[94]

K. Cho, M. A. Tanatar, H. Kim, W. E. Straszheim, N. Ni, R. J. Cava, and R. Prozorov, Phys. Rev. B 85 , 020504 (2012), arXiv:1111.1003

2012 arXiv
[95]

Y. -I. Seo, W. -J. Choi, D. Ahmad, S. -i. Kimura, and Y. S. Kwon, Sci. Rep. 8 , 8648 (2018)

2018
[96]

Q.-Y. Wu, C. Zhang, Z.-Z. Li, W.-S. Hong, H. Liu, J.-J. Song, Y.-Z. Zhao, Y.-H. Yuan, B. Chen, X.-Q. Ye, S. Li, J. He, H. Y. Liu, Y. -X. Duan, H. -Q. Luo, and J.-Q. Meng, Phys. Rev. B 108 , 205136 (2023), arXiv:2305.18763

2023 arXiv
[97]

R. Yang, Y. Dai, J. Yu, Q. Sui, Y. Cai, Z. Ren, J. Hwang, H. Xiao, X. Zhou, X. Qiu, and C. C. Homes, Phys. Rev. B 99 , 144520 (2019), arXiv:1808.05682

2019 arXiv
[98]

Y. -I. Seo, W. -J. Choi, S. -I. Kimura, Y. Bang, and Y. S. Kwon, Phys. Rev. B 95 , 094510 (2017), arXiv:1611.10062

2017 arXiv
[99]

W. -J. Choi, Y. -I. Seo, S. -I. Kimura, and Y. S. Kwon, Results in Physics 27 , 104468 (2021)

2021
[100]

M. A. Surmach, F. Br\" u ckner, S. Kamusella, R. Sarkar, P. Y. Portnichenko, J. T. Park, G. Ghambashidze, H. Luetkens, P. K. Biswas, W. J. Choi, Y. I. Seo, Y. S. Kwon, H.-H. Klauss, and D. S. Inosov, Phys. Rev. B 91 , 104515 (2015), arXiv:1411.7858

2015 arXiv
[101]

M. Sato, T. Kawamata, Y. Kobayashi, Y. Yasui, T. Iida, K. Suzuki, M. Itoh, T. Moyoshi, K. Motoya, R. Kajimoto, M. Nakamura, Y. Inamura, and M. Arai, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 80 , 093709 (2011)

2011
[102]

Ikeuchi, M

K. Ikeuchi, M. Sato, R. Kajimoto, Y. Kobayashi, K. Suzuki, M. Itoh, P. Bourges, A. D. Christianson, H. Nakamura, and M. Machida, JPS Conf. Proc. 3 , 015043 (2014), arXiv:1310.7424

2014 arXiv
[103]

Ikeuchi, Y

K. Ikeuchi, Y. Kobayashi, K. Suzuki, M. Itoh, R. Kajimoto, P. Bourges, A. D. Christianson, H. Nakamura, M. Machida, and M. Sato, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 27 , 465701 (2015)

2015
[104]

N. Ni, J. M. Allred, B. C. Chan, and R. J. Cava, PNAS 108 , E1019 (2011), arXiv:1106.2111

2011 arXiv
[105]

N. Ni, W. E. Straszheim, D. J. Williams, M. A. Tanatar, R. Prozorov, E. D. Bauer, F. Ronning, J. D. Thompson, and R. J. Cava, Phys. Rev. B 87 , 060507 (2013), arXiv:1212.4104

2013 arXiv
[106]

Stuhr, B

U. Stuhr, B. Roessli, S. Gvasaliya, H. Rønnow, U. Filges, D. Graf, A. Bollhalder, D. Hohl, R. B\" u rge, M. Schild, L. Holitzner, K. C., P. Keller, and T. M¨uhlebach, Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A 853 , 16 (2017)

2017
[107]

T. Wang, C. Zhang, L. Xu, J. Wang, S. Jiang, Z. Zhu, Z. Wang, J. Chu, J. Feng, L. Wang, W. Li, T. Hu, X. Liu, and G. Mu, Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron. 63 , 227412 (2020), arXiv:1910.04374

2020 arXiv
[108]

T. Zhou, G. Koutroulakis, J. Lodico, N. Ni, J. D. Thompson, R. J. Cava, and S. E. Brown, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 25 , 122201 (2013), arXiv:1212.3901

2013 arXiv
[109]

Reyren, S

N. Reyren, S. Thiel, A. D. Caviglia, L. F. Kourkoutis, G. Hammerl, C. Richter, C. W. Schneider, T. Kopp, A.- S. Ruetschi, D. Jaccard, M. Gabay, D. A. Muller, J.-M. Triscone, and J. Mannhart, Science 317 , 1196 (2007)

2007
[110]

Halperin and D

B. Halperin and D. R. Nelson, J. Low Temp. Phys. 36 , 599 (1979)

1979
[111]

Bourges, Y

P. Bourges, Y. Sidis, H. F. Fong, L. P. Regnault, J. Bossy, A. Ivanov, and B. Keimer, Science 288 , 1234 (2000), arXiv:cond-mat/0006086

2000 arXiv
[112]

J. M. Tranquada, C. H. Lee, K. Yamada, Y. S. Lee, L. P. Regnault, and H. M. Rønnow, Phys. Rev. B 69 , 174507 (2004), arXiv:cond-mat/0310231

2004 arXiv
[113]

S. D. Wilson, S. Li, J. Zhao, G. Mu, H.-H. Wen, J. W. Lynn, P. G. Freeman, L.-P. Regnault, K. Habicht, and P. Dai, PNAS 104 , 15259 (2007), arXiv:0708.2326

2007 arXiv
[114]

S. Li, X. Lu, M. Wang, H. Luo, M. Wang, C. Zhang, E. Faulhaber, L.-P. Regnault, D. Singh, and P. Dai, Phys. Rev. B 84 , 024518 (2011), arXiv:1105.4923

2011 arXiv
[115]

Zhao, L.-P

J. Zhao, L.-P. Regnault, C. Zhang, M. Wang, Z. Li, F. Zhou, Z. Zhao, C. Fang, J. Hu, and P. Dai, Phys. Rev. B 81 , 180505 (2010), arXiv:0908.0954

2010 arXiv
[116]

Y. Song, G. Tan, C. Zhang, R. Toft-Petersen, R. Yu, and P. Dai, Phys. Rev. B 98 , 064507 (2018), arXiv:1807.09669

2018 arXiv
[117]

Behnia and H

K. Behnia and H. Aubin, Rep. Prog. Phys. 79 , 046502 (2016), arXiv:1601.06647

2016 arXiv
[118]

Sundar, P

S. Sundar, P. V. Lopes, S. Salem‑Sugui Jr., Z. Li, W. Hong, H. Luo, S. Li, and L. Ghivelder, Sci. Rep. 13 , 16273 (2023), arXiv:2310.09557

2023 arXiv
[119]

Timusk and B

T. Timusk and B. Statt, Rep. Prog. Phys. 62 , 61 (1999), arXiv:cond-mat/9905219

1999 arXiv
[120]

M. R. Norman, D. Pines, and C. Kallin, Adv. Phys. 54 , 715 (2005), arXiv:cond-mat/0507031

2005 arXiv
[121]

C. H. Lee, K. Yamada, H. Hiraka, C. R. Venkateswara Rao, and Y. Endoh, Phys. Rev. B 67 , 134521 (2003), arXiv:cond-mat/0209225

2003 arXiv
[122]

H. F. Fong, P. Bourges, Y. Sidis, L. P. Regnault, J. Bossy, A. Ivanov, D. L. Milius, I. A. Aksay, and B. Keimer, Phys. Rev. B 61 , 14773 (2000), arXiv:cond-mat/9910041

2000 arXiv
[123]

Mu hoff, A

J. Mu hoff, A. Kiani, and E. Pavarini, Phys. Rev. B 103 , 075136 (2021)

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

J. R. Schrieffer, Theory of Superconductivity, Perseus Books, 1999

1999

[2] [2]

V. J. Emery and S. A. Kivelson, Nature 374 , 434 (1995)

1995

[3] [3]

J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 6 , 1181 (1973)

1973

[4] [4]

J. M. Kosterlitz, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 7 , 1046 (1974)

1974

[5] [5]

Minnhagen, O

P. Minnhagen, O. Westman, A. Jonsson, and P. Olsson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 , 3672 (1995)

1995

[6] [6]

Medvedyeva, B

K. Medvedyeva, B. J. Kim, and P. Minnhagen, Phys. Rev. B 62 , 14531 (2000), arXiv:cond-mat/0009291

arXiv 2000

[7] [7]

Sharma, M

M. Sharma, M. Singh, R. K. Rakshit, S. P. Singh, M. Fretto, N. De Leo, A. Perali, and N. Pinto, Nanomaterials 12 , 4109 (2022)

2022

[8] [8]

Spathis, H

P. Spathis, H. Aubin, A. Pourret, and K. Behnia, EPL 83 , 57005 (2008), arXiv:0712.2655

arXiv 2008