Magic angle of <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <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:mrow> </mml:math> : Optimizing correlation-driven superconductivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding of unconventional superconductivity is crucial for engineering materials with specific order parameters or elevated superconducting transition temperatures. However, for many materials, the pairing mechanism and symmetry of the order parameter remain unclear: reliable and efficient methods of predicting the order parameter and its response to tuning parameters are lacking. Here, we investigate the response of superconductivity in <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <a:mrow> <a:msub> <a:mi>Sr</a:mi> <a:mn>2</a:mn> </a:msub> <a:msub> <a:mi>RuO</a:mi> <a:mn>4</a:mn> </a:msub> </a:mrow> </a:math> to structural distortions via the random phase approximation (RPA) and functional renormalization group (FRG), starting from realistic models of the electronic structure. Our results suggest that RPA misses the interplay of competing fluctuation channels. FRG reproduces key experimental findings. We predict a magic octahedral rotation angle, maximizing the superconducting <b:math xmlns:b="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <b:msub> <b:mi>T</b:mi> <b:mi>c</b:mi> </b:msub> </b:math> and a dominant <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <c:msub> <c:mi>d</c:mi> <c:mrow> <c:msup> <c:mi>x</c:mi> <c:mn>2</c:mn> </c:msup> <c:mo>−</c:mo> <c:msup> <c:mi>y</c:mi> <c:mn>2</c:mn> </c:msup> </c:mrow> </c:msub> </c:math> pairing symmetry. To enable experimental verification, we provide calculations of the phase-referenced Bogoliubov Quasiparticle Interference imaging. Our work demonstrates a designer approach to tuning unconventional superconductivity with relevance and applicability for a wide range of quantum materials. Published by the American Physical Society 2024
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.183 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".