Nodal versus nodeless superconductivity in isoelectronic LiFeP and LiFeAs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nodal superconductivity is observed in LiFeP while its counterpart LiFeAs with similar topology and orbital content of the Fermi surfaces is a nodeless superconductor. We explain this difference by solving, in the two-Fe Brillouin zone, the frequency-dependent Eliashberg equations with the spin-fluctuation-mediated pairing interaction. Because of Fermi surface topology details, in LiFeAs all the $\mathrm{Fe}\text{\ensuremath{-}}{t}_{2g}$ orbitals favor a common pairing symmetry. By contrast, in LiFeP the ${d}_{xy}$ orbital favors a pairing symmetry different from ${d}_{xz/yz}$ and their competition determines the pairing symmetry and the strength of the superconducting instability: ${d}_{xy}$ orbital strongly overcomes the others and imposes the symmetry of the superconducting order parameter. The leading pairing channel is a ${d}_{xy}$-type state with nodes on both hole and electron Fermi surfaces. As a consequence, the ${d}_{xz/yz}$ electrons weakly pair, leading to a reduced transition temperature in LiFeP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".