Towards a quantitative description of tunneling conductance of superconductors: Application to LiFeAs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the discovery of iron-based superconductors, a number of theories have been put forward to explain the qualitative origin of pairing, but there have been few attempts to make quantitative, material-specific comparisons to experimental results. The spin-fluctuation theory of electronic pairing, based on first-principles electronic structure calculations, makes predictions for the superconducting gap. Within the same framework, the surface wave functions may also be calculated, allowing, e.g., for detailed comparisons between theoretical results and measured scanning tunneling topographs and spectra. Here we present such a comparison between theory and experiment on the Fe-based superconductor LiFeAs. Results for the homogeneous surface as well as impurity states are presented as a benchmark test of the theory. For the homogeneous system, we argue that the maxima of topographic image intensity may be located at positions above either the As or Li atoms, depending on tip height and the setpoint current of the measurement. We further report the experimental observation of transitions between As- and Li-registered lattices as functions of both tip height and setpoint bias, in agreement with this prediction. Next, we give a detailed comparison between the simulated scanning tunneling microscopy images of transition-metal defects with experiment. Finally, we discuss possible extensions of the current framework to obtain a theory with true predictive power for scanning tunneling microscopy in Fe-based systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".