Optical conductivity of overdoped cuprates from <i>ab initio</i> out-of-plane impurity potentials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dopant impurity potentials determined by ab initio supercell density functional theory calculations are used to calculate the optical conductivity of overdoped ${\mathrm{La}}_{2\ensuremath{-}x}{\mathrm{Sr}}_{x}{\mathrm{CuO}}_{4}$ (LSCO) and ${\mathrm{Tl}}_{2}{\mathrm{Ba}}_{2}{\mathrm{CuO}}_{6+\ensuremath{\delta}}$ (Tl-2201) in the superconducting and normal states. Vertex corrections are included to account for the effect of forward scattering on two-particle properties. This approach was previously shown to provide good, semiquantitative agreement with measurements of superfluid density in LSCO. Here we compare calculations of conductivity with measurements of terahertz conductivity on LSCO using identical impurity, band, and correlation parameters and find similarly good correspondence with experiment. In the process, we delineate the impact of the different disorder mechanisms on single-particle and transport relaxation processes. In particular, we reveal the critical role of apical oxygen vacancies in transport scattering and show that transport relaxation rates in LSCO are significantly reduced when apical oxygen vacancies are annealed out. These considerations are shown to be crucial for understanding the variability of experimental results for overdoped LSCO in samples of nominally identical doping but different types. Finally, we give predictions for Tl-2201 terahertz conductivity experiments.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".