Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 83 references

Non-Fermi liquid transport and strong mass enhancement near the nematic quantum critical point in FeSe$_x$Te$_{1-x}$ thin films

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that in FeSexTe1−x thin films, nematic fluctuations — not magnetic ones — drive non-Fermi-liquid transport, and that the same fluctuations swell the effective mass enough to switch the superconducting upper-critical-field…

desk verdict A systematic MBE thin-film transport study with a credible but not airtight case that nematic fluctuations drive the NFL transport near x=0.45; worth refereeing with requested uncertainty and QCP-probe additions. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18787 v2 pith:62VPUWAP submitted 2024-12-25 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.supr-con

Yuki Sato , Soma Nagahama , Ilya Belopolski , Ryutaro Yoshimi , Minoru Kawamura , Atsushi Tsukazaki , Akiyoshi Yamada , Masashi Tokunaga
show 5 more authors
Naoya Kanazawa Kei S. Takahashi Yoshichika Onuki Masashi Kawasaki Yoshinori Tokura
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.supr-con
keywords non-FermiliquidtransportnematicquantumcriticalpointFeSexTe1-xthinfilmsSeebeckcoefficientthermoelectricityupperfieldMakiparametermolecularbeamepitaxy
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

The paper sets out to establish that nematic fluctuations, not magnetism, produce non-Fermi-liquid transport in FeSexTe1−x thin films, and that those same fluctuations strongly renormalize the quasiparticle mass. It reports two hallmark signatures: resistivity that is linear in temperature and a thermoelectric coefficient S/T that grows logarithmically as temperature drops, both appearing across a wide composition window. The logarithmic prefactor peaks sharply at x = 0.45, exactly where bulk crystals place the nematic quantum critical point, and the Maki parameter exceeds unity over the same composition range, signalling a switch from orbital- to Pauli-limited upper critical fields. If the paper is right, a clean, magnetism-free platform exists for studying quantum criticality, with nematic fluctuations shaping both the normal-state transport and the superconducting pair-breaking in an iron-based superconductor.

What carries the argument

The central object is the nematic quantum critical point at x = 0.45, probed through two experimental observables: the logarithmic prefactor AS of S/T ≈ AS ln T, which measures the strength of critical scattering, and the Maki parameter α = √2 Hc2^orb / Hc2^P, which measures the relative weight of orbital versus Pauli pair-breaking and, through α ≈ (2m*/m0)(Δ/EF), reports the effective mass. The argument is carried by the composition-space coincidence of the |AS| peak, the T-linear resistivity window, and the α > 1 region, all anchored to the bulk value of the nematic QCP.

What would settle it

Measure the elastoresistance (or another nematic-susceptibility proxy) on identical MBE-grown FeSexTe1−x films from x = 0.06 to 0.72; if the divergent nematic response peaks at a composition other than x = 0.45, or if the peaks in |AS| and the α > 1 region persist away from where Tnem extrapolates to zero, the attribution of the NFL transport to the nematic QCP is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central claim is that the normal state of MBE-grown FeSexTe1−x thin films is governed by the nematic quantum critical point. The authors find T-linear resistivity and a logarithmic divergence of S/T for 0.06 ≤ x ≤ 0.45, with the magnitude |AS| of the logarithmic term peaking at x = 0.45. In the same composition range, the Maki parameter α rises above unity, indicating that the upper critical field is Pauli-limited rather than orbital-limited. They interpret this coincidence as evidence that nematic fluctuations drive the NFL transport and inflate the effective mass, since α ≈ (2m*/m0)(Δ/EF) grows with mass renormalization. The authors conclude that nematic quantum criticality has a strong impact on both the normal-state transport and the superconducting properties of FeSexTe1−x.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the nematic quantum critical point sits at x = 0.45 in the MBE-grown films, a value inherited from bulk single-crystal resistivity measurements without direct measurement of nematic order or nematic susceptibility in the films themselves.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The nematic QCP in FeSexTe1−x is isolated enough to act as a clean case study: the paper cites NMR data showing no significant antiferromagnetic fluctuations near x = 0.42, allowing nematic fluctuations alone to be tested as the driver of NFL transport.
  • The results place FeSexTe1−x among the few materials, such as cuprates, heavy fermions, and twisted bilayer graphene, in which NFL behavior survives over an extended composition range, suggesting extended quantum criticality rather than a sharp critical point.
  • The observed common onset temperature T*S ≈ T*ρ indicates that a single energy scale governs the appearance of NFL behavior in both resistivity and thermoelectricity.
  • The Pauli-limited Hc2 with α > 1 for out-of-plane fields is rare outside heavy-fermion systems, and the low-temperature upturns in Hc2 for Te-rich films motivate searches for exotic high-field superconducting states such as FFLO, although the paper notes the dirty limit makes that speculative.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the mass enhancement is truly driven by nematic fluctuations, the electronic specific heat coefficient γ = C/T should peak near x = 0.45 in these same films; a low-temperature specific heat measurement on MBE films would directly test the α-based mass claim.
  • Beyond the paper: substrate strain and finite film thickness could shift or broaden the effective quantum critical point; comparing films on STO and CdTe substrates, which the paper shows have the same Tc dome but different lattice constants, would reveal whether the x = 0.45 coincidence is robust or strain-tuned.
  • Beyond the paper: the unusually wide NFL window from x = 0.06 to 0.45 might be a finite-thickness or disorder-broadened remnant of a sharper critical point rather than true extended quantum criticality; high-field experiments that access the normal state below Tc would distinguish a genuine zero-temperature extended critical regime from a crossover region.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a systematic transport study of MBE-grown FeSe_xTe_{1-x} thin films with x from 0 to 0.72. It identifies non-Fermi liquid (NFL) behavior—T-linear resistivity and logarithmic divergence of S/T—over 0.06 ≤ x ≤ 0.45, with the logarithmic slope |AS| peaking at x = 0.45, which the authors equate with the nematic quantum critical point using bulk single-crystal data. Upper critical field measurements fitted with the WHH formula yield a Maki parameter α exceeding unity in the same composition range, which is interpreted as a crossover from orbital- to Pauli-limited pair breaking and as evidence for strong mass enhancement.

Significance. If the identification of x=0.45 as the nematic QCP in the films is correct, the paper provides one of the cleanest demonstrations that nematic fluctuations alone can produce NFL transport and a large Maki parameter, with no competing magnetic order. The strength of the manuscript is the comprehensive experimental dataset: transport and thermoelectric measurements across a wide composition range, high-field Hc2 data up to 60 T, and the use of an MBE platform that avoids the phase separation issue of bulk crystals. The internal consistency of the raw data is good, and the WHH fitting procedure is described in detail in the supplement. The main weakness is that the central attribution to nematic quantum criticality depends on an unmeasured bulk-derived phase boundary and on fits whose uncertainties and fitting ranges are not reported.

major comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 4(b), Fig. 1(a), Supplement I] The central claim that |AS| peaks at the nematic QCP x=0.45 relies on a phase boundary adopted from bulk single-crystal resistivity data (ref [64]) and on endpoint anomalies in the films (Fig. S2 for FeSe and FeTe only). No direct measurement of the nematic transition or nematic susceptibility in the intermediate-composition films is presented. Since the films are 40 nm thick, grown on STO or CdTe, Te-annealed, and capped with FeTe2, substrate strain, finite thickness, and annealing could plausibly shift or broaden the QCP by several percent in x. If the film QCP lies at x≈0.40 or x≈0.50, the coincidence between the |AS| peak and the assumed QCP would be weakened, and the attribution of the NFL transport to nematic fluctuations would lose its primary support. The authors should either provide direct film evidence for the nematic QCP (e.g., elastoresistance, anisotropic magnetoresistance, or x-ray measurements across x) or explicitly justify why the bulk boundary applies to the films.
  2. [Eq. (1), Fig. 4(a)] The exponent n is computed from Eq. (1) using a residual resistivity ρ0 that is itself determined by fitting ρ=ρ0+AT^n over a low-temperature window that is not specified. The low-temperature classification into FL (n≈2) and NFL (n≈1) therefore depends on a three-parameter fit with no stated temperature range and no reported uncertainties. The color plot in Fig. 4(a) is a central piece of evidence for the claimed wide NFL range, yet the manuscript does not state how many compositions enter the plot, how the color map is interpolated, or how the result changes when the fitting window is varied. Please report the fitting windows for each composition, the resulting uncertainties in n and ρ0, and a robustness check with respect to the chosen T_max.
  3. [Figs. 2(b)-(g) and Fig. 4(b)] The logarithmic slopes AS are obtained from linear fits of S/T versus ln T over a typical range of 10-50 K, but the exact fitting ranges and the uncertainties of AS are not reported. The statement that |AS| peaks sharply at x=0.45 is a comparison of fitted slopes; without error bars, it is not possible to assess whether the peak is significant relative to the scatter or to the choice of the fitting interval. The authors should provide the fit ranges, the fit results overlaid on the data, and at least standard errors for AS.
  4. [Supplement VI (WHH fittings), Fig. 4(b)] The Maki parameter α is determined from WHH fits with λSO fixed at 1.0. While the supplement explains the two-step fitting procedure and justifies λSO=1.0 with one representative fit (Fig. S4), the sensitivity of α to this choice and the statistical uncertainties of the fitted α values are not reported. Because the claim that α>1 in the same x range as the NFL transport is used to support the mass-enhancement interpretation, the authors should report the range of α obtained when λSO is varied over a reasonable interval, and provide confidence intervals for α from the fits.
  5. [Eq. (2)] The relation α≈(2m*/m0)(Δ/EF) in Eq. (2) is used to connect the large fitted α to a strong mass enhancement. This formula requires independent values of the superconducting gap Δ and the Fermi energy EF for each composition; the manuscript does not provide these quantities or discuss their x-dependence. As written, the argument is a qualitative plausibility statement rather than a quantitative derivation. The authors should either supply the relevant parameters (e.g., from ARPES, specific heat, or tunneling) or soften the conclusion to state that the large α is 'consistent with' a mass enhancement rather than 'indicative of' one.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1(d) paragraph] The phrase 'This behavior is characteristics of Fermi liquid transport' should read 'characteristic of'; also, 'formation of FL statea' contains a stray letter 'a' at the end of the sentence.
  2. [Fig. S5 caption] In the caption of Fig. S5, panel (b) says 'Same plot as (b) but plotted against the reduced parameters h and t'; this should refer to panel (a).
  3. [Eq. (1)] The notation n = ∂ ln(ρ(T)−ρ0)/∂ ln T is unusual for a logarithmic derivative; consider writing d ln(ρ−ρ0)/d ln T or defining it explicitly in the text to avoid confusion with a partial derivative.
  4. [References] The reference list appears to contain two overlapping numbering sequences: the main-text citations run from [52] upward, while the printed reference list starts at [1]. Please ensure a single consistent numbering scheme in the published version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circular step; the central NFL and Hc2 results are direct measurements, with only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation to the authors' MBE growth paper.

full rationale

The paper's derivations do not reduce by its own equations to fitted inputs. The T-linear resistivity and S/T ∝ ln T behavior are direct fits to measured transport data, and the Maki parameter α is obtained from fitting Hc2 data with the standard WHH formula; no predicted quantity is statistically forced by a prior fit. The identification of x = 0.45 as the nematic QCP is imported from independent bulk-crystal data (ref 64) and is externally falsifiable against the film data, rather than being defined by the present measurements; any concern that strain or thickness shifts the film QCP is a validity risk, not circularity. Eq. (2) relating α to m*/m0 is used only as a qualitative interpretation of the fitted α, not as a derivation of a new predicted quantity from itself. The only self-citation is ref 75 (the authors' own PRM 2024 paper) for the MBE growth method and Tc markers; this supports sample fabrication but is not load-bearing for the central NFL or mass-enhancement claims. Thus the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, with at most one minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

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

The central claim relies on the assumed phase diagram position of the nematic QCP (x=0.45) and on the validity of the WHH and BCS models to convert upper critical field measurements into a mass enhancement. These are reasonable but are not directly evidenced within this paper.

free parameters (5)
  • A_S (logarithmic slope of S/T) = varies with x, peaks at x=0.45
    Obtained from linear fits of S/T versus ln T over roughly 10-50 K; the peak at x=0.45 is the central evidence for nematic-fluctuation-driven NFL transport, but no error bars are reported.
  • n (resistivity power-law exponent) = n ≈ 1 for 0.06 ≤ x ≤ 0.45; n ≈ 2 for x = 0, 0.49, 0.72
    Derived from ρ = ρ0 + A T^n after fitting ρ0; the choice of fitting window is not precisely specified, and the classification into FL versus NFL depends on this exponent.
  • ρ0 (residual resistivity) = not listed numerically
    Fitted simultaneously with A and n in the empirical resistivity model; enters the definition of n and the color plot in Fig. 4(a), so its uncertainty propagates into the NFL classification.
  • α (Maki parameter) = varies from near 0 at x=0.72 to well above 1 for x ≤ 0.45
    Extracted from WHH fits to Hc2(T) with λSO fixed at 1.0; used to infer mass enhancement via the BCS relation α ≈ 2(m*/m0)(Δ/E_F).
  • λSO (spin-orbit scattering parameter) = 1.0 (fixed)
    Not fitted but fixed at 1.0 for all compositions; the Supplemental Material shows the fit quality and the extracted α depend on this choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The nematic QCP is located at x = 0.45 in the MBE-grown thin films, as in bulk single crystals.
    The phase diagram in Fig. 1(a) uses Tnem from bulk crystals (ref 64); no direct measurement of nematic order or susceptibility is reported for the films.
  • domain assumption Spin fluctuations are negligible near the nematic QCP at x ≈ 0.42.
    Based on NMR in bulk FST (ref 69), used to argue that the nematic QCP is isolated from the antiferromagnetic QCP.
  • standard math The WHH formula in the dirty limit with a finite spin-orbit scattering rate describes Hc2(T) for these films.
    Used for all Hc2 fits; deviations at low T for x=0.06 and 0.13 (possible FFLO) show the model is not exact.
  • domain assumption The BCS relation α ≈ 2(m*/m0)(Δ/E_F) connects the Maki parameter to the effective mass.
    Used to translate large α into 'strong mass enhancement'; Δ and EF are not independently measured in this work.
  • domain assumption Te-annealing removes excess interstitial iron, making the films similar to optimized bulk crystals.
    Inferred from the similarity of ρ-T curves to those of annealed bulk crystals; excess Fe would add extrinsic scattering and alter Hc2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-Fermi liquid transport and strong mass enhancement near the nematic quantum critical point in FeSe$_x$Te$_{1-x}$ thin films." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/62VPUWAP

@misc{pith2026241218787,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-Fermi liquid transport and strong mass enhancement near the nematic quantum critical point in FeSe$_x$Te$_1-x$ thin films},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/62VPUWAP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18787}
}
abstract

Unconventional superconductivity is often accompanied by non-Fermi liquid (NFL) behavior, which emerges near a quantum critical point (QCP) - a point where an electronic ordered phase is terminated at absolute zero under non-thermal parameters. While nematic orders, characterized by broken rotational symmetry, are sometimes found in unconventional superconductors, the role of nematic fluctuations in driving NFL transport behavior remains unclear. Here, we investigated electrical and thermoelectric transport properties in FeSe$_x$Te$_{1-x}$ thin films and observed hallmark NFL behavior: temperature-linear resistivity and logarithmic divergence of thermoelectricity at low temperatures. Notably, the thermoelectricity peaks sharply at the nematic QCP ($x$ = 0.45), highlighting the dominant role of nematic fluctuations in the NFL transport. Furthermore, we found that the pair-breaking mechanisms in the superconducting phase crosses over from orbital- to Pauli-limited effects, indicating the mass enhancement near the nematic critical regime. These findings reveal the profound impact of nematic fluctuations on both normal-state transport and superconducting properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18787 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [64]

    Mukasa, K

    K. Mukasa, K. Matsuura, M. Qiu, M. Saito, Y. Sugimura, K. Ishida, M. Otani, Y. Onishi, Y. Mizukami, K. Hashimoto, et al., Nature Communications 12, 381 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [5]

    Y. Sato, S. Kasahara, H. Murayama, Y. Kasahara, E.-G. Moon, T. Nishizaki, T. Loew, J. Porras, B. Keimer, T. Shibauchi, et al ., Nature Physics 13, 1074 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [7]

    L. Nie, K. Sun, W. Ma, D. Song, L. Zheng, Z. Liang, P. Wu, F. Yu, J. Li, M. Shan, et al ., Nature 604, 59 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [9]

    B. J. Ramshaw, S. E. Sebastian, R. D. McDonald, J. Day, B. S. Tan, Z. Zhu, J. B. Betts, R. Liang, D. A. Bonn, W. N. Hardy, et al ., Science 348, 317 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [12]

    M. Yi, Y. Zhang, Z.-X. Shen, and D. Lu, npj Quantum Materials 2, 57 (2017). 10

    work page 2017

  6. [13]

    Mukasa, K

    K. Mukasa, K. Matsuura, M. Qiu, M. Saito, Y. Sugimura, K. Ishida, M. Otani, Y. Onishi, Y. Mizukami, K. Hashimoto, et al ., Nature Communications 12, 381 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [14]

    Ishida, Y

    K. Ishida, Y. Onishi, M. Tsujii, K. Mukasa, M. Qiu, M. Saito, Y. Sugimura, K. Matsuura, Y. Mizukami, K. Hashimoto, et al ., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, e2110501119 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [15]

    Jiang, Y

    Q. Jiang, Y. Shi, M. H. Christensen, J. J. Sanchez, B. Huang, Z. Lin, Z. Liu, P. Malinowski, X. Xu, R. M. Fernandes, et al ., Communications Physics 6, 39 (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 83 references
  1. [16]

    W. Bao, Y. Qiu, Q. Huang, M. Green, P. Zajdel, M. Fitzsimmons, M. Zhernenkov, S. Chang, M. Fang, B. Qian, et al ., Physical Review Letters 102, 247001 (2009)

    2009

  2. [17]

    Otsuka, S

    T. Otsuka, S. Hagisawa, Y. Koshika, S. Adachi, T. Usui, N. Sasaki, S. Sasaki, S. Yamaguchi, Y. Nakanishi, M. Yoshizawa, et al ., Physical Review B 99, 184505 (2019)

    2019

  3. [18]

    Arˇ ccon, P

    D. Arˇ ccon, P. Jegliˇ c, A. Zorko, A. Potoˇ cnik, A. Ganin, Y. Takabayashi, M. Rosseinsky, and K. Prassides, Physical Review B 82, 140508 (2010)

    2010

  4. [21]

    A. I. Coldea, S. F. Blake, S. Kasahara, A. A. Haghighirad, M. D. Watson, W. Knafo, E. S. Choi, A. McCollam, P. Reiss, T. Yamashita, et al ., npj Quantum Materials 4, 2 (2019)

    2019

  5. [22]

    Mukasa, K

    K. Mukasa, K. Ishida, S. Imajo, M. Qiu, M. Saito, K. Matsuura, Y. Sugimura, S. Liu, Y. Uezono, T. Otsuka, et al ., Physical Review X 13, 011032 (2023)

    2023

  6. [25]

    Legros, S

    A. Legros, S. Benhabib, W. Tabis, F. Lalibert´ e, M. Dion, M. Lizaire, B. Vignolle, D. Vig- nolles, H. Raffy, Z. Li, et al ., Nature Physics 15, 142 (2019)

    2019

  7. [28]

    Pallecchi, F

    I. Pallecchi, F. Caglieris, and M. Putti, Superconductor Science and Technology 29, 073002 (2016). 11

    2016

  8. [32]

    Arsenijevi´ c, H

    S. Arsenijevi´ c, H. Hodovanets, R. Ga´ al, L. Forr´ o, S. Bud’Ko, and P. Canfield, Physical Review B 87, 224508 (2013)

    2013

  9. [33]

    Kim, M.-S

    Y. Kim, M.-S. Kim, D. Kim, M. Kim, M. Kim, C.-M. Cheng, J. Choi, S. Jung, D. Lu, J. H. Kim, et al ., Nature communications 14, 4145 (2023)

    2023

  10. [43]

    P. Wan, O. Zheliuk, N. F. Yuan, X. Peng, L. Zhang, M. Liang, U. Zeitler, S. Wiedmann, N. E. Hussey, T. T. Palstra, et al ., Nature 619, 46 (2023)

    2023

  11. [44]

    Kasahara, T

    S. Kasahara, T. Watashige, T. Hanaguri, Y. Kohsaka, T. Yamashita, Y. Shimoyama, Y. Mizukami, R. Endo, H. Ikeda, K. Aoyama, et al ., Proceedings of the National Academy of 12 Sciences 111, 16309 (2014)

    2014

  12. [45]

    Kasahara, Y

    S. Kasahara, Y. Sato, S. Licciardello, M. ˇCulo, S. Arsenijevi´ c, T. Ottenbros, T. Tominaga, J. B¨ oker, I. Eremin, T. Shibauchi,et al ., Physical Review Letters 124, 107001 (2020)

    2020

  13. [49]

    H. Zhao, J. Zhang, M. Lyu, S. Bachus, Y. Tokiwa, P. Gegenwart, S. Zhang, J. Cheng, Y.-f. Yang, G. Chen, et al ., Nature Physics 15, 1261 (2019)

    2019

  14. [51]

    Momma and F

    K. Momma and F. Izumi, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 44, 1272 (2011)

    2011

  15. [52]

    H. v. L¨ ohneysen, A. Rosch, M. Vojta, and P. W¨ olfle, Rev. Mod. Phys.79, 1015 (2007)

    2007

  16. [53]

    Shibauchi, A

    T. Shibauchi, A. Carrington, and Y. Matsuda, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 5, 113 (2014)

    2014

  17. [54]

    Paschen and Q

    S. Paschen and Q. Si, Nature Reviews Physics 3, 9 (2021)

    2021

  18. [55]

    P. W. Phillips, N. E. Hussey, and P. Abbamonte, Science 377, eabh4273 (2022)

    2022

  19. [56]

    Y. Sato, S. Kasahara, H. Murayama, Y. Kasahara, E.-G. Moon, T. Nishizaki, T. Loew, J. Porras, B. Keimer, T. Shibauchi, et al., Nature Physics 13, 1074 (2017)

    2017

  20. [57]

    R. M. Fernandes, A. I. Coldea, H. Ding, I. R. Fisher, P. Hirschfeld, and G. Kotliar, Nature 601, 35 (2022)

    2022

  21. [58]

    L. Nie, K. Sun, W. Ma, D. Song, L. Zheng, Z. Liang, P. Wu, F. Yu, J. Li, M. Shan, et al., Nature 604, 59 (2022)

    2022

  22. [59]

    Y. Cao, D. Rodan-Legrain, J. M. Park, N. F. Yuan, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, R. M. Fernandes, L. Fu, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, science 372, 264 (2021)

    2021

  23. [60]

    B. J. Ramshaw, S. E. Sebastian, R. D. McDonald, J. Day, B. S. Tan, Z. Zhu, J. B. Betts, R. Liang, D. A. Bonn, W. N. Hardy, et al., Science 348, 317 (2015)

    2015

  24. [61]

    Shibauchi, T

    T. Shibauchi, T. Hanaguri, and Y. Matsuda, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 89, 102002 (2020)

    2020

  25. [62]

    Z. Yin, K. Haule, and G. Kotliar, Nature materials 10, 932 (2011)

    2011

  26. [63]

    M. Yi, Y. Zhang, Z.-X. Shen, and D. Lu, npj Quantum Materials 2, 57 (2017). 13

    2017

  27. [65]

    Ishida, Y

    K. Ishida, Y. Onishi, M. Tsujii, K. Mukasa, M. Qiu, M. Saito, Y. Sugimura, K. Matsuura, Y. Mizukami, K. Hashimoto, et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, e2110501119 (2022)

    2022

  28. [66]

    Jiang, Y

    Q. Jiang, Y. Shi, M. H. Christensen, J. J. Sanchez, B. Huang, Z. Lin, Z. Liu, P. Malinowski, X. Xu, R. M. Fernandes, et al., Communications Physics 6, 39 (2023)

    2023

  29. [67]

    W. Bao, Y. Qiu, Q. Huang, M. Green, P. Zajdel, M. Fitzsimmons, M. Zhernenkov, S. Chang, M. Fang, B. Qian, et al., Physical Review Letters 102, 247001 (2009)

    2009

  30. [68]

    Otsuka, S

    T. Otsuka, S. Hagisawa, Y. Koshika, S. Adachi, T. Usui, N. Sasaki, S. Sasaki, S. Yamaguchi, Y. Nakanishi, M. Yoshizawa, et al., Physical Review B 99, 184505 (2019)

    2019

  31. [69]

    Arˇ con, P

    D. Arˇ con, P. Jegliˇ c, A. Zorko, A. Potoˇ cnik, A. Ganin, Y. Takabayashi, M. Rosseinsky, and K. Prassides, Physical Review B 82, 140508 (2010)

    2010

  32. [70]

    Licciardello, J

    S. Licciardello, J. Buhot, J. Lu, J. Ayres, S. Kasahara, Y. Matsuda, T. Shibauchi, and N. Hussey, Nature 567, 213 (2019)

    2019

  33. [71]

    Lederer, Y

    S. Lederer, Y. Schattner, E. Berg, and S. A. Kivelson, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, 4905 (2017)

    2017

  34. [72]

    A. I. Coldea, S. F. Blake, S. Kasahara, A. A. Haghighirad, M. D. Watson, W. Knafo, E. S. Choi, A. McCollam, P. Reiss, T. Yamashita, et al., npj Quantum Materials 4, 2 (2019)

    2019

  35. [73]

    Mukasa, K

    K. Mukasa, K. Ishida, S. Imajo, M. Qiu, M. Saito, K. Matsuura, Y. Sugimura, S. Liu, Y. Uezono, T. Otsuka, et al., Physical Review X 13, 011032 (2023)

    2023

  36. [74]

    Y. Sun, T. Yamada, S. Pyon, and T. Tamegai, Scientific reports 6, 32290 (2016)

    2016

  37. [75]

    Y. Sato, S. Nagahama, I. Belopolski, R. Yoshimi, M. Kawamura, A. Tsukazaki, N. Kanazawa, K. S. Takahashi, M. Kawasaki, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. Mater. 8, L041801 (2024)

    2024

  38. [76]

    Legros, S

    A. Legros, S. Benhabib, W. Tabis, F. Lalibert´ e, M. Dion, M. Lizaire, B. Vignolle, D. Vig- nolles, H. Raffy, Z. Li, et al., Nature Physics 15, 142 (2019)

    2019

  39. [77]

    See Supplemental Material for details of sample fabrication, transport and thermoelectricity measurements, and discussion about Kondo effect, MIR limit, and WHH fittings

  40. [78]

    Paul and G

    I. Paul and G. Kotliar, Phys. Rev. B 64, 184414 (2001)

    2001

  41. [79]

    Pallecchi, F

    I. Pallecchi, F. Caglieris, and M. Putti, Superconductor Science and Technology 29, 073002 (2016). 14

    2016

  42. [80]

    J. Xu, M. Qin, Z. Lin, X. Zhang, R. Zhang, L. Xu, L. Zhang, Q. Shi, J. Yuan, B. Zhu, et al., Phys. Rev. B 107, 094514 (2023)

    2023

  43. [81]

    R. Daou, O. Cyr-Choiniere, F. Lalibert´ e, D. LeBoeuf, N. Doiron-Leyraud, J.-Q. Yan, J.-S. Zhou, J. Goodenough, and L. Taillefer, Physical Review B 79, 180505 (2009)

    2009

  44. [82]

    P. R. Mandal, T. Sarkar, and R. L. Greene, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 5991 (2019)

    2019

  45. [83]

    Arsenijevi´ c, H

    S. Arsenijevi´ c, H. Hodovanets, R. Ga´ al, L. Forr´ o, S. Bud’Ko, and P. Canfield, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 87, 224508 (2013)

    2013

  46. [84]

    Kim, M.-S

    Y. Kim, M.-S. Kim, D. Kim, M. Kim, M. Kim, C.-M. Cheng, J. Choi, S. Jung, D. Lu, J. H. Kim, et al., Nature communications 14, 4145 (2023)

    2023

  47. [85]

    N. R. Werthamer, E. Helfand, and P. C. Hohenberg, Phys. Rev. 147, 295 (1966)

    1966

  48. [86]

    Matsuda and H

    Y. Matsuda and H. Shimahara, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 76, 051005 (2007)

    2007

  49. [87]

    M. Fang, J. Yang, F. F. Balakirev, Y. Kohama, J. Singleton, B. Qian, Z. Q. Mao, H. Wang, and H. Q. Yuan, Phys. Rev. B 81, 020509 (2010)

    2010

  50. [88]

    S. Khim, J. W. Kim, E. S. Choi, Y. Bang, M. Nohara, H. Takagi, and K. H. Kim, Physical Review B 81, 184511 (2010)

    2010

  51. [89]

    J. Her, Y. Kohama, Y. Matsuda, K. Kindo, W. Yang, D. Chareev, E. Mitrofanova, O. Volkova, A. Vasiliev, and J.-Y. Lin, Superconductor Science and Technology 28, 045013 (2015)

    2015

  52. [90]

    Nakamura, T

    D. Nakamura, T. Adachi, K. Omori, Y. Koike, and S. Takeyama, Scientific Reports 9, 16949 (2019)

    2019

  53. [91]

    B. Y. Wang, D. Li, B. H. Goodge, K. Lee, M. Osada, S. P. Harvey, L. F. Kourkoutis, M. R. Beasley, and H. Y. Hwang, Nature Physics 17, 473 (2021)

    2021

  54. [92]

    C. C. Agosta, N. A. Fortune, S. T. Hannahs, S. Gu, L. Liang, J.-H. Park, and J. A. Schleuter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 267001 (2017)

    2017

  55. [93]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Nature 556, 43 (2018)

    2018

  56. [94]

    P. Wan, O. Zheliuk, N. F. Yuan, X. Peng, L. Zhang, M. Liang, U. Zeitler, S. Wiedmann, N. E. Hussey, T. T. Palstra, et al., Nature 619, 46 (2023)

    2023

  57. [95]

    Kasahara, T

    S. Kasahara, T. Watashige, T. Hanaguri, Y. Kohsaka, T. Yamashita, Y. Shimoyama, Y. Mizukami, R. Endo, H. Ikeda, K. Aoyama, et al., Proceedings of the National Academy 15 of Sciences 111, 16309 (2014)

    2014

  58. [96]

    Kasahara, Y

    S. Kasahara, Y. Sato, S. Licciardello, M. ˇCulo, S. Arsenijevi´ c, T. Ottenbros, T. Tominaga, J. B¨ oker, I. Eremin, T. Shibauchi, et al., Physical Review Letters124, 107001 (2020)

    2020

  59. [97]

    K. Jin, N. Butch, K. Kirshenbaum, J. Paglione, and R. Greene, Nature 476, 73 (2011)

    2011

  60. [98]

    Tomita, K

    T. Tomita, K. Kuga, Y. Uwatoko, P. Coleman, and S. Nakatsuji, Science 349, 506 (2015)

    2015

  61. [99]

    Y. Cao, D. Chowdhury, D. Rodan-Legrain, O. Rubies-Bigorda, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, T. Senthil, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Physical Review Letters 124, 076801 (2020)

    2020

  62. [100]

    H. Zhao, J. Zhang, M. Lyu, S. Bachus, Y. Tokiwa, P. Gegenwart, S. Zhang, J. Cheng, Y.-f. Yang, G. Chen, et al., Nature Physics 15, 1261 (2019)

    2019

  63. [101]

    Wakamatsu, Y

    K. Wakamatsu, Y. Suzuki, T. Fujii, K. Miyagawa, H. Taniguchi, and K. Kanoda, Nature Communications 14, 3679 (2023)

    2023

  64. [102]

    Momma and F

    K. Momma and F. Izumi, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 44, 1272 (2011). 16 T (K) 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 ρ (mΩcm) 20151050 T (K) x = 0 0.06 0.31 0.45 0.49 0.72 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 ρ (mΩcm) 3002001000 T (K) ρ (mΩcm) ρ (mΩcm) x = 0 0.45 0.49 0.06 0.72 0.31  ∝T 2  ∝T Tnem [13...

    2011

  65. [103]

    The inset shows the crystal structure of FST in the tetragonal phase [102]

    and TN [68], adopted from resistivity measurements on bulk single crystals. The inset shows the crystal structure of FST in the tetragonal phase [102]. (b) ρ-T curves for FST thin films with various x ranging from 0 to 0.72. Arrows indicate T ∗ ρ , where ρ reaches its maximum....

    arXiv

  66. [104]

    Y. Sato, S. Nagahama, I. Belopolski, R. Yoshimi, M. Kawamura, A. Tsukazaki, N. Kanazawa, K. S. Takahashi, M. Kawasaki, and Y. Tokura, Molecular beam epitaxy of superconducting FeSexTe1−x thin films interfaced with magnetic topological insulators, Phys. Rev. Mater. 8, L041801 (2024)

    2024

  67. [105]

    Mukasa, K

    K. Mukasa, K. Matsuura, M. Qiu, M. Saito, Y. Sugimura, K. Ishida, M. Otani, Y. Onishi, Y. Mizukami, K. Hashimoto, et al. , High-pressure phase diagrams of FeSe 1−xTex: correlation between suppressed nematicity and enhanced superconductivity, Nature Communications 12, 381 (2021)

    2021

  68. [106]

    Y. Sun, T. Yamada, S. Pyon, and T. Tamegai, Influence of interstitial Fe to the phase diagram of Fe1+yTe1−xSex single crystals, Scientific reports 6, 32290 (2016)

    2016

  69. [107]

    Mitamura, R

    H. Mitamura, R. Watanuki, E. Kampert, T. F¨ orster, A. Matsuo, T. Onimaru, N. Onozaki, Y. Amou, K. Wakiya, K. T. Matsumoto, I. Yamamoto, K. Suzuki, S. Zherlitsyn, J. Wosnitza, 5 M. Tokunaga, K. Kindo, and T. Sakakibara, Improved accuracy in high-frequency AC trans- port measur...

    2020

  70. [108]

    M. Yi, Y. Zhang, Z.-X. Shen, and D. Lu, Role of the orbital degree of freedom in iron-based superconductors, npj Quantum Materials 2, 57 (2017)

    2017

  71. [109]

    Kim, M.-S

    Y. Kim, M.-S. Kim, D. Kim, M. Kim, M. Kim, C.-M. Cheng, J. Choi, S. Jung, D. Lu, J. H. Kim, et al. , Kondo interaction in FeTe and its potential role in the magnetic order, Nature communications 14, 4145 (2023)

    2023

  72. [110]

    Otsuka, S

    T. Otsuka, S. Hagisawa, Y. Koshika, S. Adachi, T. Usui, N. Sasaki, S. Sasaki, S. Yam- aguchi, Y. Nakanishi, M. Yoshizawa, et al. , Incoherent-coherent crossover and the pseudogap in Te-annealed superconducting Fe1+yTe1−xSex revealed by magnetotransport measurements, Physical R...

    2019

  73. [111]

    P. W. Phillips, N. E. Hussey, and P. Abbamonte, Stranger than metals, Science 377, eabh4273 (2022)

    2022

  74. [112]

    Paul and G

    I. Paul and G. Kotliar, Thermoelectric behavior near the magnetic quantum critical point, Phys. Rev. B 64, 184414 (2001)

    2001

  75. [113]

    N. R. Werthamer, E. Helfand, and P. C. Hohenberg, Temperature and Purity Dependence of the Superconducting Critical Field, Hc2. III. Electron Spin and Spin-Orbit Effects, Phys. Rev. 147, 295 (1966). 6 x FeSexTe1-x MBE (This work) CdTe SrTiO3 Bulk CVT Flux FIG. S 1. Systematic ...

    1966

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.