Abstract
The combination of electronic correlations and Fermi surfaces with multiple nesting vectors can lead to the appearance of complex multiQ magnetic ground states, hosting unusual states such as chiral density waves and quantum Hall insulators. Distinguishing singleQ and multiQ magnetic phases is however a notoriously difficult experimental problem. Here we propose theoretically that the local density of states (LDOS) near a magnetic impurity, whose orientation may be controlled by an external magnetic field, can be used to map out the detailed magnetic configuration of an itinerant system and distinguish unambiguously between singleQ and multiQ phases. We demonstrate this concept by computing and contrasting the LDOS near a magnetic impurity embedded in three different magnetic ground states relevant to ironbased superconductors—one singleQ and two doubleQ phases. Our results open a promising avenue to investigate the complex magnetic configurations in itinerant systems via standard scanning tunnelling spectroscopy, without requiring spinresolved capability.
Introduction
Despite its predominance in localized spin systems^{1,2}, magnetic frustration is also found in several itinerant systems. While in most cases, magnetic frustration can arise due to the geometry of the lattice or competing exchange interactions, in purely itinerant systems it can be manifested, as a degeneracy among different nestingdriven magnetic instabilities with symmetryrelated ordering vectors Q (ref. 3). Depending on the symmetry of the lattice and on the topology of the Fermi surface, different sets of Q vectors are possible^{4}. In a square lattice, a compensated metal with small holelike and electronlike Fermi pockets, as shown in Fig. 1a, has magnetic instabilities at the two nesting vectors Q_{1}=(π, 0) and Q_{2}=(0, π), which are related by a 90° rotation. The resulting doubleQ phases have been shown to also display charge and vectorchirality orders^{5}. Such a toy model has been widely employed to study the magnetic properties of ironbased superconductors^{6,7} and, more recently, of topological Kondo insulators^{8}. In the triangular and honeycomb lattices with a hexagonal Fermi surface, as shown in Fig. 1b, three nesting vectors related by 60° rotations are present, Q_{1}=, Q_{2}= and Q_{3}=. Interestingly, the possible tripleQ states display semimetallic and quantum Hall insulator behaviours. Such a model has been employed to study doped cobaltates and graphene doped to the van Hove singularity point of its band structure^{9,10,11,12}. Magnetic instabilities of single versus tripleQ phases of hexagonal Fermi surface were also studied recently in the context of topological insulators forming magnetic skyrmionic groundstate configurations^{13}. In all cases, the presence of repulsive electronic interactions is essential to stabilize the magnetic instabilities over other density wave or superconducting instabilities.
In spite of the interesting properties of multiQ phases, unambiguously establishing their existence in a material is a notoriously difficult experimental problem. For instance, neutron scattering, which is the prime tool to probe magnetic configurations, is sensitive not only to the intensity of the order parameters, but also to their corresponding volume fraction. As such, the neutron scattering signatures of a multiQ phase can be nearly indistinguishable from the signatures of multiple domains of different singleQ phases. This general issue has been previously highlighted in the literature in the context of a variety of different materials^{14,15,16,17}. In some cases, the fact that singleQ or multiQ states break additional discrete symmetries of the lattice may facilitate their experimental distinction. However, in many cases, this distortion may be too small to be resolved experimentally. Several other bulk probes, such as angleresolved photoemission spectroscopy, suffer from similar issues.
This analysis begs the question of whether local probes may be more appropriate to distinguish singleQ versus multiQ phases. Indeed, Mössbauer experiments have been recently employed to distinguish singleQ versus doubleQ phases in ironbased superconductors^{18}. Several theoretical calculations^{16,19,20,21,22,23,24} and experimental studies^{18,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34} have revealed that these materials support not only a singleQ magnetic stripe (MS) phase, with ordering vectors Q_{1}=(π, 0) or Q_{2}=(0, π), but also two possible types of doubleQ phases: a collinear doubleQ phase with nonuniform Femagnetization, called chargespin density wave (CSDW), and a coplanar doubleQ phase called spinvortex crystal (SVC)^{5}. In the former, the staggered magnetization vectors corresponding to the two Q vectors are parallel to each other, whereas in the latter they are perpendicular.
In this paper, we propose theoretically that the magnetic field dependence of the local density of states (LDOS) obtained, for example, by performing scanning tunnelling spectroscopy (STS) measurements near a magnetic impurity, allows one to distinguish singleQ from multiQ phases. In a nutshell, the local changes of the spin density amplitude induced around the impurity moment are determined by the specific magnetic ground state of the host. They cause distinct LDOS signatures, since the square of the local spin amplitude couples to the local charge density. We explain in detail this general framework and propose experimental realization for how to manipulate magnetic impurity moments interacting with the surrounding conduction electrons to pinpoint the nature of the magnetic ground state of itinerant systems. We illustrate the proposed setup in Fig. 2 and focus for concreteness on different proposed magnetic ground states relevant for ironbased superconductors. In the proposed STS experiment shown in Fig. 2, a small fraction of magnetic impurities, such as Mn substitutes for Fe ions in a material that displays one of the possible magnetic configurations discussed above. On the one hand, the orientation of the itinerant ordered magnetic moments of the host system is fixed by the residual spin–orbit and magnetoelastic couplings. On the other hand, the coupling of the magnetic impurity to the host electronic system is determined by the Kondolike interaction between the impurity and the conduction electrons J_{K} (refs 35, 36), which in the case of Mn in BaFe_{2}As_{2} was found to be small by recent electron spin resonance studies^{37}. This property, allied to the insensitivity of the itinerant magnetism to external magnetic fields^{38,39}, implies that magnetic fields are able to ‘unlock’ the magnetic moment of the impurity from the magnetic order in the lattice, thus allowing for a change of its orientation with respect to the rigid magnetic structure of the host system. In the simplest model, in which the impurity moment orients itself parallel to the applied field, we calculate the impuritymodified LDOS structures as a function of external field direction for all three distinct magnetic ground states. We find qualitative differences in the obtained LDOS spectra and demonstrate that STS offers a promising route to unambiguously distinguish singleQ from multiQ magnetic phases.
Results
Singlemoment in an itinerant magnet
We employ a Hamiltonian relevant to iron pnictides, which consists of a fiveorbital tightbinding term^{40}
Interactions are included through the multiorbital onsite Hubbard model
where μ, ν are orbital indices, i denotes lattice sites and σ is the spin. The interaction includes intraorbital (interorbital) repulsion U (U′), the Hund’s coupling J and the pairhopping term J′. Following previous studies^{23}, we assume spin and orbital rotation invariance, implying U′=U−2J and J′=J, and fix J=U/4. As shown previously in ref. 23, the Hamiltonian supports all three magnetic ground states depending on interaction parameters and electron filling. The resulting reconstructed Fermi surfaces in the magnetic phases are remarkably similar, and do not constitute a good probe of the preferred ordered phase (Supplementary Note 1; Supplementary Fig. 1).
The magnetic impurity moment is included by the following term in the Hamiltonian
The first term corresponds to the Kondolike exchange coupling between the impurity moment , located at site i*, and the spin of the itinerant electrons, which we denote hereafter by . The second term corresponds to the Zeeman coupling between the impurity moment and the external magnetic field H. In principle, one would also need to include the Zeeman coupling between the itinerant moments and H. However, as shown experimentally, for example, in refs 38, 39, the itinerant magnetization is insensitive to magnetic fields of the order of 10 T, and therefore this term can be safely neglected. The main question is whether the external field H is capable of rotating the impurity moment, which is also coupled to the itinerant electrons via J_{K}. To answer this question, we rely on electron spin resonance experiments that measured J_{K} for Mndoped iron pnictides^{37}. The reported estimated value J_{K}≈1 meV is very small, suggesting that magnetic fields of the order of 10 T (achievable in STS setups) can unlock the impurity moment from the itinerant magnetic configuration. Importantly, the fact that the Mn impurities act as local magnetic moments and do not add charge carriers into the system is supported by the nuclear magnetic resonance data in refs 27, 36.
Therefore, we proceed by fixing the direction of to be parallel to H, and introduce the polar angle θ between the magnetization of the itinerant electrons in the impurityfree system and the impurity moment at that site, cosθ∝·, as illustrated in Fig. 3a. We use a magnetic impurity moment with J_{K}S=0.1 eV, a value that is not of qualitative importance, since our goal is to focus on the symmetry changes of the LDOS as the impurity moment rotates, that is, as a function of the orientation θ. The optimal magnetic impurity is one that couples strongly to the itinerant electrons leading to a large enough LDOS contrast to be measured, but couples sufficiently weakly that it still ‘unlocks’ and rotates with the external magnetic field. Thus, we solve equations (1, 2, 3) and calculate the LDOS N(i, ω, θ) at each lattice site according to
Here are the matrix elements of the unitary transformation from orbital μ to eigenstate n. Below, for concreteness, we focus on the zero energy case ω=0, and write simply N(i, θ)≡N(i, ω=0, θ), but this particular value of ω is not important for our conclusions. We refer the reader to Supplementary Note 2 for conventional and spinpolarized spectral studies of nonmagnetic disorder.
Impuritymodified LDOS
The CSDW state. We start by discussing the results in the CSDW state. As illustrated in Fig. 3a,b, in this collinear nonuniform doubleQ magnetic phase the even sites of the square lattice are nonmagnetic, whereas the odd sites display a Neellike magnetic configuration with spins parallel to the z direction. As a result, there are four inequivalent sites to place an impurity, two magnetic (≠0) and two nonmagnetic (=0). Let us start discussing the modified magnetization around the impurity, which will be useful to understand the resulting spectral signatures. The black arrows display the magnetization of the conduction electrons of the impurityfree system , and the thick coloured arrow indicates the impurity moment . The induced spin density on the nearest neighbour (nn) sites is illustrated by the four arrows of the same colour. The sum of the induced and impurityfree magnetizations yields the new total magnetization in the presence of the impurity, M_{i}=+. In our calculation, the induced spin density actually involves a larger number of sites surrounding the impurity moment, but for the symmetry arguments used below, it is sufficient to focus on the nn sites.
We sketch in Fig. 3e, the change in magnetic moment (projected along the axis) at the four nn sites induced by an impurity oriented along θ=3π/4, . Clearly, the magnetization amplitude increases equally at all four nn sites, that is, , where and denote the two types of nn sites. If the same impurity moment is placed at a nonmagnetic site, however, as illustrated in Fig. 3b, the total projected moments on r_{1} and r_{2} become unequal. In particular, while the projected moment is reduced at the two sites along the x axis, it is enhanced at the sites along the y axis. This antagonistic change is sketched in Fig. 3f. Consequently, the initial tetragonal symmetry of the magnetization is locally broken by the impurity, with . For a general angle θ between the impurity moment and the itinerant magnetization, this symmetry breaking is given by the following expression,
To make the argument more transparent, we assumed a parallel orientation of with respect to the impurity moment, which is strictly correct for an arbitrary θ only in the paramagnetic case, but it remains a reasonable approximation in our case. The full selfconsistent result beyond this assumption is presented in Fig. 4.
To understand the distinct changes of the surrounding magnetization, we note that impurities at the magnetic sites of the CSDW phase (Fig. 3a) are subject to two constrains. First, the impurityfree SDW has nodes at the nn sites , and second, the symmetry of this site requires the induced moments to be the same, . Hence, and tetragonal symmetry is preserved for any orientation of the impurity moment. By contrast, for impurity moments at nonmagnetic sites, the difference between the total nn amplitudes has contributions from both terms in equation (5). Therefore, the symmetrybreaking expression is generally nonzero, and exhibits a cosinelike directional dependence.
Having established the basic effect of an impurity moment on the surrounding itinerant magnetic structure, we now study its consequences on the local spectral features. The total LDOS measures the spectral composition of the charge density, which is coupled by symmetry to the magnetization density squared. Therefore, any change in the amplitude of the spin density will have an impact on the LDOS. We use this simple argument for the sake of simplicity, and stress that strictly speaking it is only valid in the paramagnetic phase, since a classical magnetic impurity directly generates also a charge modulation in the SDW phase (that is, the charge modulations are not just slaved to the induced additional spin polarization in the SDW phase). For instance, a C_{4} (C_{2}) symmetric inhomogeneous magnetic structure will generally present C_{4} (C_{2}) symmetric LDOS signatures (here C_{4} and C_{2} denote tetragonal and orthorhombic symmetries). Figure 3i shows the Fouriertransformed LDOS of the case displayed in Fig. 3a, N(q, 3π/4). Clearly, the C_{4} symmetry of the pristine CSDW state is preserved around the impurity, in agreement with the magnetic moment structure sketched in Fig. 3e and the result given by equation (5). The spectral symmetry is in fact tetragonal for all possible orientations of the impurity in the CSDW phase, as long as the impurity moment is placed at a magnetic site. If the same impurity moment is placed at a nonmagnetic site, however, as illustrated in Fig. 3b, N(q, 3π/4) becomes C_{2} symmetric as seen in Fig. 3j. This is simply a consequence of the C_{2} symmetric spin structure induced by the impurity discussed earlier and sketched in Fig. 3f.
To quantify the evolution of the spectral symmetry of the LDOS as the impurity rotates, and compare it with equation (5), we introduce the anisotropy parameter
which measures the breaking of the C_{4} symmetry for a given θ. Here, R denotes a π/2 rotation operation. Figure 4b shows the evolution of as a function of θ from the calculated LDOS at all four inequivalent sites in the CSDW state, specified in Fig. 4a. As seen, tetragonal symmetry is indeed preserved for all θ at the magnetic sites (2 and 4), but broken in a cosinelike manner at the nonmagnetic sites (1 and 3), in agreement with the above discussion.
The MS state. The singleQ MS phase corresponds to the case, in which only one of the two possible Q vectors is selected. The corresponding magnetic configuration, shown in Fig. 3c, breaks the C_{4} symmetry down to C_{2}, in contrast to the doubleQ magnetic configurations, which preserve tetragonal symmetry. We now consider the effects of an impurity moment with θ=3π/4 orientation with respect to the SDW magnetization. The inequivalent change in the spin projection along the z axis of the four nn sites is illustrated in Fig. 3g, which accounts for the symmetry breaking in the corresponding N(q, 3π/4) shown in Fig. 3k. The evolution of (θ) for the two inequivalent sites in this state can be seen in Fig. 4d. Clearly, both sites (specified in Fig. 4c) give rise to distinct angular evolutions that break C_{2} symmetry. This is in contrast to what was found in the CSDW state, where half of the sites exhibit a C_{2} symmetric cosinelike evolution of (θ), and the other half preserve C_{4} symmetry for all impurity orientations, (θ)=0.
The SVC state. Finally, we discuss the case of a magnetic impurity in the coplanar SVC phase. In this doubleQ magnetic state, the even sites of the square lattice display a Neellike order that is perpendicular to the Neellike order displayed by the odd sites. As a result, there are four inequivalent sites. One of them is shown in Fig. 3d, with the calculated LDOS displayed in Fig. 3l. Again, the C_{2} symmetric spectral features can be connected to the different moment amplitudes at the nn sites, as illustrated in Fig. 3h for projections along the y axis. The angular evolution of (θ) in the four inequivalent sites (in the xy plane for this state) is shown in Fig. 4f,h. Contrary to what was found in the CSDW phase, all inequivalent sites show a (θ) spectral angular dependence with broken C_{2} symmetry. Moreover, the angular dependences appear identical, but shifted by nπ/2 for all four inequivalent sites (n=1, 2, 3), which is a consequence of the uniform moment amplitude =M^{0} in the SVC state.
Discussion
The results presented in the previous section open different routes to distinguish between singleQ and multiQ magnetic ground states via STS experiments. The most direct way would be to extract the LDOS anisotropy parameter as function of the angle θ between the applied magnetic field and the magnetization. Note that a recent STS experiment on the iron pnictide NaFeAs extracted precisely this anisotropy parameter (for zero magnetic field)^{41}. As shown in Fig. 4, the function (θ) behaves qualitatively different for each of the three magnetic ground states.
First, in the CSDW state, experiments would only observe a single anisotropy parameter curve (θ), which displays a cosinelike C_{2} symmetric shape (Fig. 4b). This curve corresponds to a magnetic impurity placed in a nonmagnetic site, since impurities located at magnetic sites exhibit fully C_{4}symmetric LDOS.
Second, in the MS state, experiments would observe two anisotropy parameter curves (θ) (Fig. 4d). These two curves, related to the two inequivalent site positions in the magnetic ground state, are simply related by a θ=π shift. In addition, tetragonal symmetry is broken for all impurity orientations, that is, (θ)≠0 for all θ values.
Third, in the SVC state, experiments would observe four anisotropy parameter curves (θ) (Fig. 4f,h). They also correspond to the four inequivalent site positions of the SVC state, and are related to each other by successive shifts of θ=π/2.
The proposed experiment advocated in this paper relies on the fact that an impurity moment can be controlled by an external applied field which, however, does not significantly affect the itinerant magnetic order. In addition, it would be desirable if this impurity did not introduce additional charge carriers in the system. In the case of the iron pnictides, Mn impurities are natural candidates, since they form local moments weakly coupled to the itinerant system^{27,36,37}, which is itself robust against moderate magnetic fields^{38}. It will be interesting to extend our calculations to multiQ magnetic phases in triangular lattices, where exotic tripleQ phases can appear. Our work provides a promising avenue for future tunnelling spectroscopy to directly distinguish between nearly degenerate but symmetrydistinct magnetic ground states of itinerant magnetic systems.
Methods
Computational details
A mean field decoupling in the spin and charge channels leads to the following total Hamiltonian
where creates an electron at site i with spin σ in orbital state μ. and are given by
with . The terms and include outofplane and inplane components of a magnetic impurity at site i^{*}, respectively. A nonmagnetic scatterer can be also introduced at the same site by the term. In the main text, this last term was set to zero, but for a brief nonmagnetic impurity study the reader is refered to Supplementary Note 2. We diagonalize equation (7) on 30 × 30 lattices by a unitary transformation , and the following unrestricted fields are obtained selfconsistently.
for all sites i, spin σ and orbital combinations μ, ν. Here E_{n} denote the eigenvalues and f is the Fermi function. The magnetization density (μ_{B}=1, g=2) and charge density are obtained from the selfconsistent fields in equation (10). For further computational details, see Supplementary Note 1. All relevant data are available from the authors.
Additional information
How to cite this article: Gastiasoro, M. N. et al. Scanning tunnelling spectroscopy as a probe of multiQ magnetic states of itinerant magnets. Nat. Commun. 8, 14317 doi: 10.1038/ncomms14317 (2017).
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
 1.
Starykh, O. A. Unusual ordered phases of highly frustrated magnets: a review. Rep. Prog. Phys. 78, 052502 (2015).
 2.
Balents, L. Spin liquids in frustrated magnets. Nature 464, 199–208 (2010).
 3.
Hayami, S. & Motome, Y. MultipleQ instability by (d2)dimensional connections of Fermi surfaces. Phys. Rev. B 90, 060402R (2014).
 4.
Venderbos, J. W. F. MultiQ hexagonal spin density waves and dynamically generated spinorbit coupling: timereversal invariant analog of the chiral spin density wave. Phys. Rev. B 93, 115108 (2016).
 5.
Fernandes, R. M., Kivelson, S. A. & Berg, E. Vestigial chiral and charge orders from bidirectional spindensity waves: application to the ironbased superconductors. Phys. Rev. B 93, 014511 (2016).
 6.
Eremin, I. & Chubukov, A. V. Magnetic degeneracy and hidden metallicity of the spindensitywave state in ferropnictides. Phys. Rev. B 81, 024511 (2010).
 7.
Fernandes, R. M., Chubukov, A. V. & Schmalian, J. What drives nematic order in ironbased superconductors? Nature Phys. 10, 97–104 (2014).
 8.
Roy, B., Hofmann, J., Stanev, V., Sau, J. D. & Galitski, V. Excitonic and nematic instabilities on the surface of topological Kondo insulators. Phys. Rev. B 92, 245431 (2015).
 9.
Martin, I. & Batista, C. D. Itinerant electrondriven chiral magnetic ordering and spontaneous quantum hall effect in triangular lattice models. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 156402 (2008).
 10.
Kiesel, M., Platt, C., Hanke, W., Abanin, D. A. & Thomale, R. Competing manybody instabilities and unconventional superconductivity in graphene. Phys. Rev. B 86, 020507 (2012).
 11.
Wang, W.S. et al. Functional renormalization group and variational Monte Carlo studies of the electronic instabilities in graphene near (1)/(4) doping. Phys. Rev. B 85, 035414 (2012).
 12.
Nandkishore, R., Chern, G.W. & Chubukov, A. V. Itinerant halfmetal spindensitywave state on the hexagonal lattice. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 227204 (2012).
 13.
Mendler, D., Kotetes, P. & Schön, G. Magnetic order on a topological insulator surface with warping and proximityinduced superconductivity. Phys. Rev. B 91, 155405 (2015).
 14.
Barbara, B., Rossignol, M. F., Boucherle, J. X. & Vettier, C. Multipleq structure or coexistence of different magnetic phases in CeAl_{2}? Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 938 (1980).
 15.
Jensen, J. & Bak, P. Spin waves in tripleq structures. Application to USb. Phys. Rev. B 23, 6180 (R) (1981).
 16.
Jensen, J. & Rotter, M. Magnetic doubleq ordering of tetragonal GdNi_{2}B_{2}C: a way to explain the magnetoelastic paradox. Phys. Rev. B 77, 134408 (2008).
 17.
Fishman, R. S. & Liu, S. H. Magnetoelastic effects and spin excitations in γ −Mn alloys. Phys. Rev. B 59, 8681 (1999).
 18.
Allred, J. M. et al. DoubleQ spindensity wave in iron arsenide superconductors. Nature Phys. 12, 493–498 (2016).
 19.
Lorenzana, J., Seibold, G., Ortiz, C. & Grilli, M. Competing Orders in FeAs Layers. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 186402 (2008).
 20.
Giovannetti, G. et al. Proximity of iron pnictide superconductors to a quantum tricritical point. Nature Commun. 2, 398 (2011).
 21.
Gastiasoro, M. N. & Andersen, B. M. Enhancement of Magnetic Stripe Order in IronPnictide Superconductors from the Interaction between Conduction Electrons and Magnetic Impurities. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 067002 (2014).
 22.
Kang, J., Wang, X., Chubukov, A. V. & Fernandes, R. M. Interplay between tetragonal magnetic order, stripe magnetism, and superconductivity in ironbased materials. Phys. Rev. B 91, 121104R (2015).
 23.
Gastiasoro, M. N. & Andersen, B. M. Competing magnetic doubleQ phases and superconductivityinduced reentrance of C_{2} magnetic stripe order in iron pnictides. Phys. Rev. B 92, 140506R (2015).
 24.
Christensen, M. H., Kang, J., Andersen, B. M., Eremin, I. & Fernandes, R. Spin reorientation driven by the interplay between spinorbit coupling and Hund’s rule coupling in iron pnictides. Phys. Rev. B 92, 214509 (2015).
 25.
Kim, M. G. et al. Antiferromagnetic ordering in the absence of structural distortion in Ba(Fe_{1−x}Mn_{x})_{2}As_{2}. Phys. Rev. B 82, 220503R (2010).
 26.
Avci, S. et al. Magnetically driven suppression of nematic order in an ironbased superconductor. Nat. Commun. 5, 3845 (2014).
 27.
Inosov, D. S. et al. Possible realization of an antiferromagnetic Griffiths phase in Ba(Fe_{1−x}Mn_{x})_{2}As_{2}. Phys. Rev. B 87, 224425 (2013).
 28.
Hassinger, E. et al. Pressureinduced Fermisurface reconstruction in the ironarsenide superconductor Ba_{1−x}K_{x}Fe_{2}As_{2}: evidence of a phase transition inside the antiferromagnetic phase. Phys. Rev. B 86, 140502R (2012).
 29.
Waßer, F. et al. Spin reorientation in Ba_{0.65}Na_{0.35}Fe_{2}As_{2} studied by singlecrystal neutron diffraction. Phys. Rev. B 91, 060505R (2015).
 30.
Böhmer, A. E. et al. Superconductivityinduced reentrance of the orthorhombic distortion in Ba_{1−x}K_{x}Fe_{2}As_{2}. Nat. Commun. 6, 7911 (2015).
 31.
Mallett, B. P. P. et al. Infrared study of the spin reorientation transition and its reversal in the superconducting state in underdoped Ba_{1−x}K_{x}Fe_{2}As_{2}. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 027003 (2015).
 32.
Allred, J. M. et al. Tetragonal magnetic phase in Ba_{1−x}K_{x}Fe_{2}As_{2} from xray and neutron diffraction. Phys. Rev. B 92, 094515 (2015).
 33.
Mallett, B. P. P., Pashkevic, Y. G., Gusev, A., Wolf, T. h. & Bernhard, C. Muon spin rotation study of the magnetic structure in the tetragonal antiferromagnetic state of weakly underdoped Ba_{1−x}K_{x}Fe_{2}As_{2}. Europhys. Lett. 111, 57001 (2015).
 34.
Hassinger, E. et al. Expansion of the tetragonal magnetic phase with pressure in the iron arsenide superconductor Ba_{1−x}K_{x}Fe_{2}As_{2}. Phys. Rev. B 93, 144401 (2016).
 35.
Texier, Y. et al. Mn local moments prevent superconductivity in iron pnictides Ba(Fe_{1−x}Mn_{x})_{2}As_{2}. Europhys. Lett. 99, 17002 (2012).
 36.
LeBoeuf, D. et al. NMR study of electronic correlations in Mndoped Ba(Fe_{1−x}Co_{x})_{2}As_{2} and BaFe_{2}(As_{1−x}P_{x})_{2}. Phys. Rev. B 89, 035114 (2014).
 37.
Rosa, P. F. S. et al. Possible unconventional superconductivity in substituted BaFe_{2}As_{2} revealed by magnetic pairbreaking studies. Sci. Rep. 4, 6252 (2014).
 38.
Wang, M. et al. Magnetic field effect on static antiferromagnetic order and spin excitations in the underdoped iron arsenide superconductor BaFe_{1.92}Ni_{0.08}As_{2}. Phys. Rev. B 83, 094516 (2011).
 39.
Enayat, M. et al. Realspace imaging of the atomicscale magnetic structure of Fe_{1+y}Te. Science 345, 653–656 (2014).
 40.
Ikeda, H., Arita, R. & Kuneš, J. Phase diagram and gap anisotropy in ironpnictide superconductors. Phys. Rev. B 81, 054502 (2010).
 41.
Rosenthal, E. P. et al. Visualization of electron nematicity and unidirectional antiferroic fluctuations at high temperatures in NaFeAs. Nat. Phys. 10, 225–232 (2014).
Acknowledgements
M.N.G. and B.M.A. acknowledge support from Lundbeckfond fellowship (grant A9318). R.M.F is supported by the Office of Basic Energy Sciences, U.S. Department of Energy, under award DESC0012336. I.E. was supported by the joint DFGANR Project (ER 463/81). I.E. also acknowledges the support from the project of the state assignment of KFU in the sphere of scientific activities.
Author information
Affiliations
Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 5, DK2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
 Maria N. Gastiasoro
 & Brian M. Andersen
Institut für Theoretische Physik III, RuhrUniversität Bochum, 44801 Bochum, Germany
 Ilya Eremin
Institute of Physics, Kazan Federal University, 420008 Kazan, Russian Federation
 Ilya Eremin
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, USA
 Rafael M. Fernandes
Authors
Search for Maria N. Gastiasoro in:
Search for Ilya Eremin in:
Search for Rafael M. Fernandes in:
Search for Brian M. Andersen in:
Contributions
All authors participated in the overall construction of the project, the discussion of the results, and in the writing of the paper. M.N.G. performed all analytical and numerical calculations. The whole project was supervised by B.M.A. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Corresponding authors
Correspondence to Ilya Eremin or Brian M. Andersen.
Supplementary information
PDF files
 1.
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Figures 12, Supplementary Notes 12 and Supplementary References
 2.
Peer Review File
Rights and permissions
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
About this article
Further reading

Dopinginduced redistribution of magnetic spectral weight in the substituted hexaborides Ce1−xLaxB6 and Ce1−xNdxB6
Physical Review B (2018)

Unravelling Incommensurate Magnetism and Its Emergence in IronBased Superconductors
Physical Review X (2018)

Role of multiorbital effects in the magnetic phase diagram of iron pnictides
Physical Review B (2017)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.