Paper detail

Reply to "Comment on 'Anisotropic Scattering Caused by Apical Oxygen Vacancies in Thin Films of Overdoped High Temperature Cuprate Superconductors'"

In our recent work [Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 137001 (2002)], we proposed that the apical oxygen vacancies act as anisotropic scattering impurities. Within the Born approximation, this leads to a quasi-particle scattering rate that is maximal (zero) in the antinodal (nodal) direction. This unique angular dependence provides a straightforward mechanism for some puzzling experimental results in overdoped La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$ (LSCO) films regarding the superfluid density $ρ_s$ and optical conductivity $σ_1$. In a recent comment by H. U. Ozdemir et al. [arXiv:2206.01301], the importance of the nature of the impurity scattering is re-emphasized, but some challenges to our picture are raised: that we did not consider the change of the electrostatic potential for in-plane electrons once the apical oxygen is missing, the change of Fermi surface topology as the van Hove point is passed, self-energy corrections caused by d-wave pairing, and vertex corrections caused by forward scattering. These concerns are interesting but are either irrelevant or further enhances our conclusions. We discuss these points one by one in this reply.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

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 map preview

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.