pith. sign in

arxiv: 2410.19652 · v1 · submitted 2024-10-25 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci · cond-mat.mes-hall

Scattering makes a difference in circular dichroic angle-resolved photoemission

Honey Boban , Mohammed Qahosh , Xiao Hou , Tomasz Sobol , Edyta Beyer , Magdalena Szczepanik , Daniel Baranowski , Simone Mearini
show 11 more authors
Vitaliy Feyer Yuriy Mokrousov Keda Jin Tobias Wichmann Jose Martinez-Castro Markus Ternes F. Stefan Tautz Felix L\"upke Claus M. Schneider J\"urgen Henk Lukasz Plucinski
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 18:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords circular dichroismARPESorbital charactermultiple scatteringgrapheneWSe2photoemission spectroscopyquantum materials
0
0 comments X

The pith

Multiple scattering and interference alter circular dichroism signals in ARPES, complicating direct readout of orbital characters.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper benchmarks circular-dichroic ARPES on graphene and WSe2 to test whether it can reliably extract orbital angular momentum from valence bands. It decomposes the measured maps into three contributions: angular atomic photoionization profiles, interatomic interference, and multiple scattering. The analysis identifies that scattering adds substantial complexity, so orbital properties cannot always be read directly from the data. Regimes are discussed where initial-state features might still be isolated, and the approach is extended to GdMn6Sn6 and PtTe2 to explore spin-polarization sensitivity.

Core claim

By separating the effects of angular atomic photoionization profiles, interatomic interference, and multiple scattering in circular-dichroic ARPES intensity maps of graphene, WSe2, GdMn6Sn6, and PtTe2, the work shows that scattering contributions produce rich complexity that shapes the observed dichroism beyond the initial-state orbital angular momentum alone.

What carries the argument

Decomposition of circular-dichroic ARPES into angular atomic photoionization profiles, interatomic interference, and multiple scattering contributions.

If this is right

  • Interpretation of existing circular-dichroic ARPES data on 2D materials requires accounting for scattering to avoid misassigning orbital characters.
  • Specific energy and angle regimes exist where initial-state orbital information can still be extracted despite scattering.
  • Circular-dichroic ARPES retains potential sensitivity to spin polarization of initial bands once scattering is modeled.
  • The decomposition approach applies across additional materials such as GdMn6Sn6 and PtTe2.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Future ARPES experiments could select photon energies that reduce multiple-scattering contributions to improve orbital readout.
  • Theoretical simulations of CD-ARPES must routinely include scattering terms for quantitative comparison with experiment.
  • Device design relying on orbital-selective transport in quantum materials will need adjusted expectations for what CD-ARPES directly reveals.

Load-bearing premise

The separate contributions from angular atomic photoionization profiles, interatomic interference, and multiple scattering can be identified and used to define regimes where initial-state orbital properties can be disentangled from the measured ARPES maps.

What would settle it

Experimental CD-ARPES maps from graphene or WSe2 that match calculations omitting multiple scattering but diverge sharply once multiple scattering is included.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2410.19652 by Claus M. Schneider, Daniel Baranowski, Edyta Beyer, Felix L\"upke, F. Stefan Tautz, Honey Boban, Jose Martinez-Castro, J\"urgen Henk, Keda Jin, Lukasz Plucinski, Magdalena Szczepanik, Markus Ternes, Mohammed Qahosh, Simone Mearini, Tobias Wichmann, Tomasz Sobol, Vitaliy Feyer, Xiao Hou, Yuriy Mokrousov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Experimental CD-ARPES from a monolayer of graphene on hBN (a–e) and for WSe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a)-(e) CDAD from a C 2p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a)-(d) Photoelectron diffraction patterns at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Theoretical photoemission calculated within the one [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Photoelectron diffraction from W 5d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a)-(b) are probing a momentum section between the second and third BZ, as shown in (d). Since the K and K′ points are swapped at subsequent terraces [40, 42], any swapping of the CD sign between K and K′ in maps in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a)-(d) Experimental geometry and CD-ARPES energy-momentum maps from GdMn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Recent years have witnessed a steady progress towards blending 2D quantum materials into technology, with future applications often rooted in the electronic structure. Since crossings and inversions of electronic bands with different orbital characters determine intrinsic quantum transport properties, knowledge of the orbital character is essential. Here, we benchmark angle-resolved photoelectron emission spectroscopy (ARPES) as a tool to experimentally derive orbital characters. For this purpose we study the valence electronic structure of two technologically relevant quantum materials, graphene and WSe$_2$, and focus on circular dichroism that is believed to provide sensitivity to the orbital angular momentum. We analyze the contributions related to angular atomic photoionization profiles, interatomic interference, and multiple scattering. Regimes in which initial-state properties could be disentangled from the ARPES maps are critically discussed and the potential of using circular-dichroic ARPES as a tool to investigate the spin polarization of initial bands is explored. For the purpose of generalization, results from two additional materials, GdMn$_6$Sn$_6$ and PtTe$_2$ are presented in addition. This research demonstrates rich complexity of the underlying physics of circular-dichroic ARPES, providing new insights that will shape the interpretation of both past and future circular-dichroic ARPES studies.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes circular-dichroic ARPES in graphene, WSe₂, GdMn₆Sn₆, and PtTe₂. It decomposes the measured intensity into angular atomic photoionization profiles, interatomic interference, and multiple scattering contributions, identifies regimes in which initial-state orbital (and potentially spin) properties can be disentangled from the ARPES maps, and concludes that the underlying physics exhibits rich complexity that will affect interpretation of past and future CD-ARPES studies.

Significance. If the decomposition is shown to be unique and the disentangling regimes are robust under realistic experimental conditions, the work would supply concrete guidance on when CD-ARPES can be used to extract orbital character in 2D materials, thereby shaping experimental practice in the field.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sections presenting the decomposition for graphene and WSe₂] The central claim that regimes exist in which initial-state orbital properties can be disentangled rests on the ability to isolate the three contributions (atomic photoionization, interatomic interference, multiple scattering). The manuscript performs this decomposition inside a chosen theoretical framework, but does not demonstrate that the terms remain linearly independent or uniquely separable when realistic experimental broadening, finite k-resolution, and matrix-element coupling are included; this separation is load-bearing for the disentangling-regime conclusion.
  2. [Discussion of disentangling regimes] No quantitative metric (e.g., condition number of the decomposition matrix, residual after subtracting each term, or cross-validation against an independent calculation) is supplied to establish that the identified regimes are stable rather than artifacts of the chosen partitioning; without such evidence the claim that initial-state properties can be cleanly extracted remains unverified.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Generalization section] The abstract states that results from GdMn₆Sn₆ and PtTe₂ are presented 'for the purpose of generalization,' yet the main text does not quantify how the disentangling criteria transfer across these materials; a short comparative table would improve clarity.
  2. [Methods / theoretical framework] Notation for the circular-dichroism asymmetry and the individual scattering channels is introduced without an explicit equation linking them to the measured intensity; adding this relation early in the methods would aid readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive major comments. These have prompted us to strengthen the presentation of the decomposition and to add quantitative support for the robustness of the identified regimes. We address each point below and indicate the revisions that will be incorporated.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Sections presenting the decomposition for graphene and WSe₂] The central claim that regimes exist in which initial-state orbital properties can be disentangled rests on the ability to isolate the three contributions (atomic photoionization, interatomic interference, multiple scattering). The manuscript performs this decomposition inside a chosen theoretical framework, but does not demonstrate that the terms remain linearly independent or uniquely separable when realistic experimental broadening, finite k-resolution, and matrix-element coupling are included; this separation is load-bearing for the disentangling-regime conclusion.

    Authors: We agree that demonstrating separability under realistic experimental conditions is essential. The decomposition is obtained within the one-step photoemission model by selectively enabling individual scattering channels in the SPR-KKR implementation. To address the referee’s concern, we have performed additional calculations that incorporate Gaussian energy broadening, angular resolution smearing, and finite k-resolution. These show that the regimes in which a single contribution dominates remain identifiable, although the precise momentum-space boundaries shift modestly. We will add a dedicated subsection presenting these tests, including a brief discussion of residual matrix-element coupling between channels, in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Discussion of disentangling regimes] No quantitative metric (e.g., condition number of the decomposition matrix, residual after subtracting each term, or cross-validation against an independent calculation) is supplied to establish that the identified regimes are stable rather than artifacts of the chosen partitioning; without such evidence the claim that initial-state properties can be cleanly extracted remains unverified.

    Authors: We concur that quantitative metrics would strengthen the claim. In the revision we will report the ratio of the dominant term to the sum of the remaining contributions across the Brillouin zone for the highlighted regimes, together with maps of the residual intensity after subtracting each individual contribution. These metrics will be used to delineate the regions where extraction of initial-state orbital character is expected to be reliable. A full condition-number analysis of an inverse-problem formulation lies outside the present scope and would require a different methodological framework; we therefore regard this as a natural direction for follow-up work rather than a requirement for the current study. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; analysis decomposes ARPES signals using standard external frameworks without self-referential reduction

full rationale

The paper benchmarks circular-dichroic ARPES by analyzing contributions from angular atomic photoionization profiles, interatomic interference, and multiple scattering in graphene, WSe2, and other materials. No equations, fitted parameters, or predictions are described that reduce by construction to the paper's own inputs or self-citations. The decomposition is presented as a critical discussion within established theoretical models, with regimes for disentangling initial-state properties discussed without evidence of self-definition, uniqueness theorems imported from the authors, or ansatzes smuggled via prior work. The central claim of rich complexity shaping interpretations rests on external benchmarks and is self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no information on free parameters, axioms, or invented entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5846 in / 915 out tokens · 45050 ms · 2026-05-23T18:51:56.739533+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    used the acceleration form of the dipole matrix ele- ment. Furthermore, one may consider that the photoemis- sion process creates a localized Coulomb hole within the electron gas [60, 61], and that the final state is repre- sented by a partial wave expansion of the free (scatter- ing) states of this potential. However, such effects can often be neglected,...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The intensity profile depends on the ra- dial integrals and phase shifts between thel − 1 and l + 1 scattering states, both depending on the kinetic energy [63]

    or decomposition of light polarization vector along the z-axis [49], with both l ± 1 channels being allowed and interfering. The intensity profile depends on the ra- dial integrals and phase shifts between thel − 1 and l + 1 scattering states, both depending on the kinetic energy [63]. The intensity profiles in Fig. 2 (a)-(b) depend on the light chirality...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Details on convergence of the EDAC calculations are provided in Supplementary Information

    for WSe2, however changing these values by a few eV does not change the calculated CD-ARPES maps consid- erably. Details on convergence of the EDAC calculations are provided in Supplementary Information. One-step model calculations of graphene shown in Fig. 4 were performed using theomni code with a setup used previously [24]. Our photoemission calculatio...

    work page

  4. [4]

    D. Go, D. Jo, H.-W. Lee, M. Kläui, and Y. Mokrousov, Europeanphysics Letters 135, 10.1209/0295- 5075/ac2653 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1209/0295- 2021

  5. [5]

    D. G. Ovalle, A. Pezo, and A. Manchon, Orbital kerr effect and terahertz detection via the nonlinear hall effect (2023), arXiv:2311.11889 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    work page arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Y. K. Kato, R. C. Myers, A. C. Gossard, and D. D. Awschalom, Science 306, 1910 (2004), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1105514

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1105514 1910

  7. [7]

    J.-H. Park, C. H. Kim, J.-W. Rhim, and J. H. Han, Phys. Rev. B85, 195401 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    S. R. Park, J. Han, C. Kim, Y. Y. Koh, C. Kim, H. Lee, H. J. Choi, J. H. Han, K. D. Lee, N. J. Hur, M. Arita, K. Shimada, H. Namatame, and M. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 046805 (2012)

    work page 2012

  9. [9]

    Y. H. Wang, D. Hsieh, D. Pilon, L. Fu, D. R. Gardner, Y. S. Lee, and N. Gedik, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 207602 (2011)

    work page 2011

  10. [10]

    Jiang, F

    J. Jiang, F. Tang, X. C. Pan, H. M. Liu, X. H. Niu, Y. X. Wang, D. F. Xu, H. F. Yang, B. P. Xie, F. Q. Song, P. Dudin, T. K. Kim, M. Hoesch, P. K. Das, I. Vobornik, X. G. Wan, and D. L. Feng, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 166601 11 (2015)

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    Schüler, U

    M. Schüler, U. D. Giovannini, H. Hübener, A. Rubio, M. A. Sentef, and P. Werner, Science Advances 6, eaay2730 (2020), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.aay2730

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.aay2730 2020

  12. [12]

    Cho, J.-H

    S. Cho, J.-H. Park, J. Hong, J. Jung, B. S. Kim, G. Han, W. Kyung, Y. Kim, S.-K. Mo, J. D. Denlinger, J. H. Shim, J. H. Han, C. Kim, and S. R. Park, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 186401 (2018)

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    Cho, J.-H

    S. Cho, J.-H. Park, S. Huh, J. Hong, W. Kyung, B.-G. Park, J. D. Denlinger, J. H. Shim, C. Kim, and S. R. Park, Scientific Reports11, 10.1038/s41598-020-79672-6 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-020-79672-6 2021

  14. [14]

    Ohtsubo, T

    Y. Ohtsubo, T. Nakaya, T. Nakamura, P. Le Fèvre, F. Bertran, F. Iga, and S.-I. Kimura, Nat. Commun.13, 5600 (2022)

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Mazzola, W

    F. Mazzola, W. Brzezicki, M. T. Mercaldo, A. Guarino, C. Bigi, J. A. Miwa, D. De Fazio, A. Crepaldi, J. Fu- jii, G. Rossi, P. Orgiani, S. K. Chaluvadi, S. P. Chalil, G. Panaccione, A. Jana, V. Polewczyk, I. Vobornik, C. Kim, F. Miletto-Granozio, R. Fittipaldi, C. Or- tix, M. Cuoco, and A. Vecchione, Nature626, 752–758 (2024)

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Fedchenko, J

    O. Fedchenko, J. Minár, A. Akashdeep, S. W. D’Souza, D. Vasilyev, O. Tkach, L. Odenbreit, Q. Nguyen, D. Kutnyakhov, N. Wind, L. Wenthaus, M. Scholz, K. Rossnagel, M. Hoesch, M. Aeschlimann, B. Stadt- müller, M. Kläui, G. Schönhense, T. Jungwirth, A. B. Hellenes, G. Jakob, L. Šmejkal, J. Sinova, and H.-J. Elmers, Science Advances 10, eadj4883 (2024), https...

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.adj4883 2024

  17. [17]

    Erhardt, C

    J. Erhardt, C. Schmitt, P. Eck, M. Schmitt, P. Keßler, K. Lee, T. Kim, C. Cacho, I. Cojocariu, D. Baranowski, V. Feyer, L. Veyrat, G. Sangiovanni, R. Claessen, and S. Moser, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 196401 (2024)

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Hayashi, D

    H. Hayashi, D. Go, Y. Mokrousov, and K. Ando, Obser- vation of orbital pumping (2023), arXiv:2304.05266

    work page arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    D. Go, D. Jo, C. Kim, and H.-W. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 086602 (2018)

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

    J. Sohn, J. M. Lee, and H.-W. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 246301 (2024)

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Berritta, R

    M. Berritta, R. Mondal, K. Carva, and P. M. Oppeneer, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 137203 (2016)

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    Busch, F

    O. Busch, F. Ziolkowski, I. Mertig, and J. Henk, Phys. Rev. B108, 104408 (2023)

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    T. S. Seifert, D. Go, H. Hayashi, R. Rouzegar, F.Freimuth, K.Ando, Y.Mokrousov,andT.Kampfrath, Nature Nanotechnology18, 1132 (2023)

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Nukui, S

    K. Nukui, S. Iihama, K. Ishibashi, S. Yamashita, A. Sakuma, P. Scheid, G. Malinowski, M. Hehn, S. Man- gin, and S. Mizukami, Light-induced torque in ferromag- netic metals via orbital angular momentum generated by photon-helicity (2024), arXiv:2405.07405

    work page arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    R. L. Dubs, S. N. Dixit, and V. McKoy, Phys. Rev. B32, 8389 (1985)

    work page 1985

  26. [26]

    F. J. García de Abajo, M. A. Van Hove, and C. S. Fadley, Phys. Rev. B63, 075404 (2001)

    work page 2001

  27. [27]

    Gierz, J

    I. Gierz, J. Henk, H. Höchst, C. R. Ast, and K. Kern, Phys. Rev. B83, 121408 (2011)

    work page 2011

  28. [28]

    Krasovskii, Nanomaterials12, 4040 (2022)

    E. Krasovskii, Nanomaterials12, 4040 (2022)

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    Krüger and F

    P. Krüger and F. Matsui, Journal of Electron Spec- troscopy and Related Phenomena258, 147219 (2022)

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    Beaulieu, J

    S. Beaulieu, J. Schusser, S. Dong, M. Schüler, T. Pincelli, M. Dendzik, J. Maklar, A. Neef, H. Ebert, K. Hricovini, M.Wolf, J.Braun, L.Rettig, J.Minár,andR.Ernstorfer, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 216404 (2020)

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    Schusser, H

    J. Schusser, H. Orio, M. Ünzelmann, J. Heßdörfer, M.Masilamani, F.Diekmann, K.Rossnagel,andF.Rein- ert, Towards robust dichroism in angle-resolved photoe- mission (2024)

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Daimon, T

    H. Daimon, T. Nakatani, S. Imada, S. Suga, Y. Kagoshima, and T. Miyahara, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics32, L1480 (1993)

    work page 1993

  33. [33]

    Schattke and M

    Section 2.7 in W. Schattke and M. A. Van Hove, eds., Solid-state photoemission and related methods (Wiley- VCH Verlag, Weinheim, Germany, 2003)

    work page 2003

  34. [34]

    Krüger, F

    P. Krüger, F. Da Pieve, and J. Osterwalder, Phys. Rev. B 83, 115437 (2011)

    work page 2011

  35. [35]

    Reich, J

    S. Reich, J. Maultzsch, C. Thomsen, and P. Ordejón, Phys. Rev. B66, 035412 (2002)

    work page 2002

  36. [36]

    C. S. Kern, A. Haags, L. Egger, X. Yang, H. Kirschner, S. Wolff, T. Seyller, A. Gottwald, M. Richter, U. De Gio- vannini, A. Rubio, M. G. Ramsey, F. m. c. C. Bocquet, S. Soubatch, F. S. Tautz, P. Puschnig, and S. Moser, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 033075 (2023)

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    Y. Liu, G. Bian, T. Miller, and T.-C. Chiang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 166803 (2011)

    work page 2011

  38. [38]

    Matsui, H

    F. Matsui, H. Nishikawa, H. Daimon, M. Muntwiler, M. Takizawa, H. Namba, and T. Greber, Phys. Rev. B 97, 045430 (2018)

    work page 2018

  39. [39]

    Sébilleau, R

    D. Sébilleau, R. Gunnella, Z.-Y. Wu, S. D. Matteo, and C. R. Natoli, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter18, R175 (2006)

    work page 2006

  40. [40]

    Matsushita, F

    T. Matsushita, F. Matsui, H. Daimon, and K. Hayashi, Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenom- ena 178-179, 195 (2010), trends in X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy of solids (theory, techniques and applica- tions)

    work page 2010

  41. [41]

    Salvat, A

    F. Salvat, A. Jablonski, and C. J. Powell, Computer Physics Communications261, 107704 (2021)

    work page 2021

  42. [42]

    K. Jost, F. Kaussen, and J. Kessler, Journal of Physics E: Scientific Instruments14, 735 (1981)

    work page 1981

  43. [43]

    Riley, F

    J. Riley, F. Mazzola, M. Dendzik, M. Michiardi, T. Takayama, L. Bawden, C. Granerød, M. Leandersson, T. Balasubramanian, M. Hoesch, T. K. Kim, H. Takagi, W. Meevasana, P. Hofmann, M. S. Bahramy, J. W. Wells, and P. D. C. King, Nature Phys10, 835–839 (2014)

    work page 2014

  44. [44]

    Sagehashi, G

    R. Sagehashi, G. Park, and P. Krüger, Phys. Rev. B107, 075407 (2023)

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    Gehlmann, I

    M. Gehlmann, I. Aguilera, G. Bihlmayer, E. Młyńczak, M. Eschbach, S. Döring, P. Gospodarič, S. Cramm, B. Kardynał, L. Plucinski, S. Blügel, and C. M. Schnei- der, Scientific Reports6, 10.1038/srep26197 (2016)

    work page doi:10.1038/srep26197 2016

  46. [46]

    Gregory and M

    D. Gregory and M. Fink, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables14, 39 (1974)

    work page 1974

  47. [47]

    Kessler, Polarized Electrons (Springer Berlin Heidel- berg, 1985)

    J. Kessler, Polarized Electrons (Springer Berlin Heidel- berg, 1985)

    work page 1985

  48. [48]

    Z. Liu, N. Zhao, M. Li, Q. Yin, Q. Wang, Z. Liu, D. Shen, Y. Huang, H. Lei, K. Liu, and S. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 104, 115122 (2021)

    work page 2021

  49. [49]

    Masilamani, J

    M. Masilamani, J. Schusser, M. Qahosh, L. Plucinski, and F. Reinert, AIP Conference Proceedings 3054, 070004 (2024), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0187969/18572678/070004_1_5.0187969.pdf

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0187969/18572678/070004_1_5.0187969.pdf 2024

  50. [50]

    M.Yan, H.Huang, K.Zhang, E.Wang, W.Yao, K.Deng, G. Wan, H. Zhang, M. Arita, H. Yang, Z. Sun, H. Yao, Y. Wu, S. Fan, W. Duan, and S. Zhou, Nature Commu- nications 8, 10.1038/s41467-017-00280-6 (2017). 12

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-017-00280-6 2017

  51. [51]

    P. D. King, M. S. Bahramy, O. J. Clark, B.-J. Yang, J. Feng, L. Bawden, J. M. Riley, I. Markovic, F. Maz- zola, V. Sunko, D. Biswas, S. P. Cooil, M. Jorge, J. W. Wells, M. Leandersson, T. Balasubramanian, J. Fu- jii, I. Vobornik, J. Rault, T. K. Kim, M. Hoesch, K. Okawa, M. Asakawa, T. Sasagawa, T. Eknapakul, and W. Meevasana, Ubiquitous formation of bulk...

    work page 2017

  52. [52]

    Moser, Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena 214, 29 (2017)

    S. Moser, Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena 214, 29 (2017)

    work page 2017

  53. [53]

    Sánchez-Barriga, A

    J. Sánchez-Barriga, A. Varykhalov, J. Braun, S.-Y. Xu, N. Alidoust, O. Kornilov, J. Minár, K. Hummer, G. Springholz, G. Bauer, R. Schumann, L. V. Yashina, H. Ebert, M. Z. Hasan, and O. Rader, Phys. Rev. X4, 011046 (2014)

    work page 2014

  54. [54]

    Heider, G

    T. Heider, G. Bihlmayer, J. Schusser, F. Reinert, J. Minár, S. Blügel, C. M. Schneider, and L. Plucinski, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 146401 (2023)

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    Shockley, Phys

    W. Shockley, Phys. Rev.56, 317 (1939)

    work page 1939

  56. [56]

    J. Henk, W. Schattke, H. Cartensen, R. Manzke, and M. Skibowski, Phys. Rev. B47, 2251 (1993)

    work page 1993

  57. [57]

    J. Henk, A. M. N. Niklasson, and B. Johansson, Phys. Rev. B59, 13986 (1999)

    work page 1999

  58. [58]

    Huhne, C

    T. Huhne, C. Zecha, H. Ebert, P. H. Dederichs, and R. Zeller, Phys. Rev. B58, 10236 (1998)

    work page 1998

  59. [59]

    Takahashi and N

    R. Takahashi and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. B91, 245133 (2015)

    work page 2015

  60. [60]

    Krüger, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan87, 061007 (2018), https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.87.061007

    P. Krüger, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan87, 061007 (2018), https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.87.061007

    work page doi:10.7566/jpsj.87.061007 2018

  61. [61]

    Liebsch, Phys

    A. Liebsch, Phys. Rev. B13, 544 (1976)

    work page 1976

  62. [62]

    Blaha, K

    P. Blaha, K. Schwarz, F. Tran, R. Laskowski, G. K. H. Madsen, and L. D. Marks, The Journal of Chemical Physics 152, 074101 (2020), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.5143061/16727313/074101_1_online.pdf

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5143061/16727313/074101_1_online.pdf 2020

  63. [63]

    W. D. Grobman, Phys. Rev. B17, 4573 (1978)

    work page 1978

  64. [64]

    Moser, Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena 262, 147278 (2023)

    S. Moser, Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena 262, 147278 (2023)

    work page 2023

  65. [65]

    R. L. Dubs, S. N. Dixit, and V. McKoy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 1249 (1985)

    work page 1985

  66. [66]

    Goldberg, C

    S. Goldberg, C. Fadley, and S. Kono, Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena21, 285 (1981)

    work page 1981

  67. [67]

    Clementi and C

    E. Clementi and C. Roetti, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables14, 177 (1974)

    work page 1974

  68. [68]

    Szczepanik-Ciba, T

    M. Szczepanik-Ciba, T. Sobol, and J. Szade, Nuclear In- struments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 492, 49 (2021)

    work page 2021