Paper detail

Reaffirming the $d_{x^2-y^2}$ superconducting gap using the auto-correlation angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy of Bi$_{1.5}$Pb$_{0.55}$Sr$_{1.6}$La$_{0.4}$CuO$_{6+δ}$

Knowledge of the gap function is important to understand the pairing mechanism for high-temperature ($T_\mathrm{c}$) superconductivity. However, Fourier transform scanning tunneling spectroscopy (FT STS) and angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) in the cuprates have reported contradictory gap functions, with FT-STS results deviating strongly from a canonical $d_{x^2-y^2}$ form. By applying an "octet model" analysis to autocorrelation ARPES, we reveal that a contradiction occurs because the octet model does not consider the effects of matrix elements and the pseudogap. This reaffirms the canonical $d_{x^2-y^2}$ superconducting gap around the node, which can be directly determined from ARPES. Further, our study suggests that the FT-STS reported fluctuating superconductivity around the node at far above $T_\mathrm{c}$ is not necessary to explain the existence of the quasiparticle interference

preprint2011arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.