Reconciling the <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>π</mml:mi></mml:math> phase shift in Josephson junction experiments with even-parity superconductivity in <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:msub><mml:mi>Sr</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>RuO</mml:mi><mml:mn>4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The superconducting state of ${\mathrm{Sr}}_{2}{\mathrm{RuO}}_{4}$ was once thought to be a leading candidate for $p$-wave superconductivity. A constant Knight shift below the transition temperature provided evidence for spin-triplet pairing, and a $\ensuremath{\pi}$ phase shift observed in Josephson junction tunneling experiments suggested odd-parity pairing, both of which are described by $p$-wave states. However, with recent experiments observing a significant decrease in the Knight shift below the transition temperature, signifying a spin-singlet state, the odd-parity results are left to be reconciled. In this work, we show that an even-parity pseudospin-singlet state originating from interorbital pairing via spin-orbit coupling can explain what has been assumed to be evidence for an odd-parity state. In the presence of small mirror symmetry breaking, interorbital pairing is uniquely capable of displaying odd-parity characteristics required to explain these experimental results. Further, we discuss how these experiments may be used to differentiate the proposed pairing states of ${\mathrm{Sr}}_{2}{\mathrm{RuO}}_{4}$.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".