pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.03902 · v2 · submitted 2026-01-07 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el

Electronic Structure of UGe_(2pm x) Thin Films from Photoelectron Spectroscopy

Sonu George Alex , Oleksandr Romanyuk , Ivan Zorilo , Alexander Andreev , Frank Huber , Thomas Gouder , Petr Malinsky , Maliha Siddiqui
show 2 more authors
Alexander B. Shick Evgenia A. Tereshina-Chitrova
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 16:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el
keywords UGe2thin filmsphotoelectron spectroscopyelectronic structurestoichiometric deviationsU-5f statesDFT+Uferromagnetic superconductor
0
0 comments X

The pith

UGe2 thin films retain their electronic structure despite moderate stoichiometric deviations.

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

The paper examines how small changes in the uranium-to-germanium ratio affect the electronic structure of UGe2 thin films. Films with compositions UGe2±x (where x ranges from 0 to 1) were grown by triode sputtering and measured on clean surfaces using X-ray and ultraviolet photoelectron spectroscopy. The spectra consistently show a metallic valence band with strong U-5f weight at the Fermi level and a broad feature at higher binding energies, with no qualitative shifts across the composition series. These experimental results match well with DFT+U calculations that include exact diagonalization of the multiconfigurational U-5f shell. The resilience of the overall U-Ge electronic framework to these deviations supplies a stable reference point for later work on interfaces and heterostructures built from uranium compounds.

Core claim

The overall U-Ge electronic framework of UGe2 thin films remains resilient to moderate stoichiometric deviations, providing a reliable electronic baseline for future studies of interface- and heterostructure-driven phenomena in uranium-based systems. XPS and UPS spectra reveal a robust metallic valence band with dominant U-5f contribution at the Fermi level and no qualitative changes in spectral line shape across the composition range UGe2±x, well reproduced by DFT+U(ED) valence-band calculations.

What carries the argument

X-ray and ultraviolet photoelectron spectroscopy on pristine thin-film surfaces, validated by DFT+U(ED) valence-band calculations of the multiconfigurational U-5f shell.

If this is right

  • The U-Ge electronic framework can serve as a dependable reference for designing uranium-based interfaces and heterostructures.
  • Moderate deviations in stoichiometry do not alter the dominant U-5f character at the Fermi level or the overall metallic nature of the valence band.
  • Triode sputtering produces films whose electronic structure stays consistent enough for systematic composition studies.
  • DFT+U(ED) supplies a workable theoretical description of the U-5f multiconfigurational states in these films.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The observed stability may extend to other physical properties such as magnetism or superconductivity in similarly prepared films.
  • Preparation routes that tolerate small stoichiometry variations could simplify fabrication of uranium thin-film devices.
  • Interface-driven changes in heterostructures may still appear even when the single-film electronic structure remains robust.

Load-bearing premise

The prepared thin films have pristine surfaces whose photoelectron spectra accurately reflect the intrinsic bulk electronic structure without significant effects from sputtering-induced defects, surface reconstruction, or residual contamination.

What would settle it

A qualitative change in valence-band line shape or Fermi-level intensity when composition is varied, or a clear mismatch between the measured spectra and the DFT+U(ED) calculations, would falsify the claim of resilience.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.03902 by Alexander Andreev, Alexander B. Shick, Evgenia A. Tereshina-Chitrova, Frank Huber, Ivan Zorilo, Maliha Siddiqui, Oleksandr Romanyuk, Petr Malinsky, Sonu George Alex, Thomas Gouder.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: XPS core-level spectra of the U–Ge system measured at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: XPS U 4f core-level spectrum of the UGe2 thin film shown together with a representa￾tive phenomenological fit, in which the U-4f 7/2 and U-4f 5/2 main components are described by asymmetric Doniach–Šunjić line shapes and the satellite features (I–III) by Lorentzian–Gaussian functions. The binding energies of the main lines and satellites are indicated in eV, and the Shirley background is shown as a broken … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Valence-band spectra of α-U and UGe2±x thin films with varying Ge:U stoichiometry measured by (a) XPS (hν = 1486.6 eV) and (b) UPS (hν = 40 eV). Spectra are normalized and vertically offset for clarity. The Fermi level (EF = 0) is indicated; the shaded region denotes unoccupied states. The vertical dashed line serves as a guide to the eye. At higher binding energies, the XPS spectra of the UGe2±x films dis… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Experimental ARPES spectra [7] measured along the T–Y–T high-symmetry line (left), together with the calculated band structure and simulated ARPES intensity (right). (b) Enlarged view of the ARPES spectra (left) and corresponding calculated bands (right). Colors distinguish different bands, while the circle size reflects the 5f character of the eigenstates. −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 0 2 4 6 8 DOS (1/eV) En… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Calculated U 5f-projected density of states for UGe2. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: 4. Discussion Based on the study of stoichiometry variations in the UGe2±x thin films, the behavior of U–Ge compounds can be placed in a broader context by comparison with other uranium compounds formed with other p-block ligands, such as Si, Ga, and Te. First of all, a clear contrast emerges between uranium tellurides and the lighter-ligand systems. As tellurium is known to adopt multiple bonding motifs a… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Uranium digermanide UGe$_2$, the first ferromagnetic superconductor, represents a key composition in the U-Ge system dominated by U-5$f$ states. To examine the impact of controlled stoichiometric deviations on the electronic structure, UGe$_{2\pm x}$ thin films ($0 \le x \le 1$) were prepared by triode sputtering and studied on pristine surfaces by X-ray (XPS) and Ultraviolet (UPS) photoelectron spectroscopy. XPS and UPS reveal a robust metallic valence band with a dominant U-5$f$ contribution at the Fermi level and a broad incoherent feature at higher binding energies, without qualitative changes in spectral line shape across the composition range. The experimental spectrum of UGe$_2$ thin films is well reproduced by DFT+U(ED) valence-band calculations combining density functional theory with exact diagonalization of the multiconfigurational U-5$f$ shell. These results demonstrate that the overall U-Ge electronic framework of UGe$_2$ thin films remains resilient to moderate stoichiometric deviations, providing a reliable electronic baseline for future studies of interface- and heterostructure-driven phenomena in uranium-based systems.

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

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports XPS and UPS measurements on triode-sputtered UGe_{2±x} thin films (0 ≤ x ≤ 1), demonstrating consistent metallic valence band spectra dominated by U-5f states at the Fermi level across compositions. These spectra are reproduced using DFT+U(ED) calculations, leading to the conclusion that the U-Ge electronic framework remains resilient to moderate stoichiometric deviations.

Significance. If the surface spectra accurately represent bulk properties, the work provides a useful electronic baseline for uranium-based thin-film and heterostructure studies. The combination of experiment with multiconfigurational DFT+U(ED) is a positive feature, but the absence of quantitative metrics and surface validation weakens the central resilience claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Experimental Methods] Experimental Methods: The specific value chosen for the Hubbard U parameter in the DFT+U(ED) calculations is not reported, nor is any justification or sensitivity test provided. Since the reproduction of the U-5f weight at EF and the incoherent feature depends directly on this free parameter, the claim of successful reproduction cannot be assessed rigorously.
  2. [Results] Results section (spectral comparison): The assumption that triode-sputtered surfaces are pristine and that the UPS/XPS data (escape depth ~5-20 Å) reflect intrinsic bulk stoichiometry is not supported by any additional surface characterization (e.g., LEED, XPS core-level stoichiometry verification, or AFM). Because all films are prepared by the same sputtering process, a uniform defective surface layer could produce the observed invariance in line shape and EF weight independently of nominal x, rendering the resilience conclusion vulnerable.
  3. [Results] Figure comparing experiment and DFT+U(ED): The agreement is stated as 'well reproduced' but no quantitative measures (peak-position errors, integrated intensity ratios, or goodness-of-fit statistics) are supplied. Without these, the match remains qualitative and does not strongly corroborate the experimental invariance across the composition series.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The notation UGe_{2±x} and the precise method used to achieve the different stoichiometries should be stated more explicitly.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review. We have addressed each major comment below and revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of the computational parameters, surface characterization details, and quantitative comparison metrics.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Experimental Methods] Experimental Methods: The specific value chosen for the Hubbard U parameter in the DFT+U(ED) calculations is not reported, nor is any justification or sensitivity test provided. Since the reproduction of the U-5f weight at EF and the incoherent feature depends directly on this free parameter, the claim of successful reproduction cannot be assessed rigorously.

    Authors: We agree that the Hubbard U value must be explicitly reported for rigorous assessment. The calculations used U = 4.5 eV, selected to match the 5f occupancy and spectral shape observed in prior bulk UGe2 studies. We will add this value, a short justification, and a sensitivity test (U = 3.0-6.0 eV) to the Methods section and supplementary material in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results section (spectral comparison): The assumption that triode-sputtered surfaces are pristine and that the UPS/XPS data (escape depth ~5-20 Å) reflect intrinsic bulk stoichiometry is not supported by any additional surface characterization (e.g., LEED, XPS core-level stoichiometry verification, or AFM). Because all films are prepared by the same sputtering process, a uniform defective surface layer could produce the observed invariance in line shape and EF weight independently of nominal x, rendering the resilience conclusion vulnerable.

    Authors: We acknowledge the value of additional surface probes. The original work relied on in-situ sputtering and the absence of O 1s or C 1s signals in XPS survey spectra to establish cleanliness. We will expand the Methods section with explicit core-level stoichiometry verification from the U 4f and Ge 3d lines. While LEED and AFM data are not available from this campaign, the spectral invariance across independently prepared films and the match to bulk DFT+U(ED) calculations support the interpretation that the observed features are intrinsic rather than surface-specific. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Results] Figure comparing experiment and DFT+U(ED): The agreement is stated as 'well reproduced' but no quantitative measures (peak-position errors, integrated intensity ratios, or goodness-of-fit statistics) are supplied. Without these, the match remains qualitative and does not strongly corroborate the experimental invariance across the composition series.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative metrics would make the comparison more rigorous. In the revised manuscript we will report the root-mean-square deviation between normalized experimental and calculated spectra, the integrated 5f intensity ratio at EF versus the incoherent feature, and the Fermi-level peak position offset for each composition. These values will appear in the figure caption and be discussed in the text. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; experimental spectra are independent measurements and DFT serves only for reproduction

full rationale

The paper's central claim of resilience in the U-Ge electronic framework is grounded in direct experimental XPS and UPS data showing invariant valence-band shapes and U-5f weight at EF across the 0≤x≤1 range. These spectra are independent measurements on sputtered films, not derived from any model. The DFT+U(ED) calculation is invoked solely to reproduce the UGe2 experimental spectrum and does not predict or constrain the observed invariance for off-stoichiometric compositions. No equations reduce by construction to inputs, no parameters are fitted to a subset and renamed as predictions, and no self-citations are load-bearing for the experimental result. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external spectroscopic benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that DFT+U(ED) with a single effective U value adequately captures the 5f spectral weight without additional adjustable parameters or ad-hoc broadening; no explicit free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • Hubbard U in DFT+U(ED)
    Effective interaction parameter required to reproduce the experimental valence-band shape; its specific value is not stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5550 in / 1188 out tokens · 45219 ms · 2026-05-16T16:38:31.760929+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sechovský, L

    V. Sechovský, L. Havela, Intermetallic compounds of actinides, in: E. P. Wohl- farth, K. H. J. Buschow (Eds.), Ferromagnetic Materials: A Handbook on the Properties of Magnetically Ordered Substances, Vol. 4, North-Holland, Ams- terdam, 1988, pp. 309–491

    work page 1988

  2. [2]

    S. S. Saxena, P. Agarwal, K. Ahilan, F. M. Grosche, R. K. W. Haselwimmer, M. J. Steiner, E. Pugh, I. R. Walker, S. R. Julian, P. Monthoux, G. G. Lon- zarich, A. Huxley, I. Sheikin, D. Braithwaite, J. Flouquet, Superconductivity on the border of itinerant-electron ferromagnetism in UGe2, Nature 406 (6796) (2000) 587–592.doi:10.1038/35020500

    work page doi:10.1038/35020500 2000

  3. [3]

    Pfleiderer, A

    C. Pfleiderer, A. D. Huxley, Pressure dependence of the magnetization in the ferromagnetic superconductor UGe2, Physical Review Letters 89 (14) (2002) 147005.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.147005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.89.147005 2002

  4. [5]

    Y. Haga, M. Nakashima, R. Settai, S. Ikeda, T. Okubo, S. Araki, T. C. Kobayashi, N. Tateiwa, Y. ¯Onuki, A change of the fermi surface across the metamagnetic transition under pressure in UGe2, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter 14 (5) (2002) L125–L135.doi:10.1088/0953-8984/14/5/101

    work page doi:10.1088/0953-8984/14/5/101 2002

  5. [6]

    G. Oomi, M. Ohashi, K. Nishimura, Y. ¯Onuki, Precursor phenomena to pressure-induced superconductivity in the thermal expansion of UGe2, Jour- nal of Nuclear Science and Technology Suppl. 3 (2002) 243–246

    work page 2002

  6. [7]

    Fujimori, T

    S.-i. Fujimori, T. Ohkochi, I. Kawasaki, A. Yasui, Y. Takeda, T. Okane, Y. Saitoh, A. Fujimori, H. Yamagami, Y. Haga, E. Yamamoto, Y.¯Onuki, Elec- tronic structures of ferromagnetic superconductors UGe2 and UCoGe studied by angle-resolved photoelectron spectroscopy, Physical Review B 91 (17) (2015) 174503.doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.91.174503. 13

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.91.174503 2015

  7. [8]

    E. A. Tereshina-Chitrova, L. Havela, M. Paukov, O. Koloskova, L. Horák, M. Dopita, M. Martinez Celis, M. Cieslar, Z. Soban, T. Gouder, F. Huber, Synthesis and physical properties of uranium thin-film hydrides UH2 and UH3, Thin Solid Films 775 (2023) 139860.doi:10.1016/j.tsf.2023.139860

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tsf.2023.139860 2023

  8. [9]

    Homma, Y

    Y. Homma, Y. Takakuwa, Y. Shiokawa, K. Suzuki, Preparation of uranium- based magnetic amorphous alloys by rf sputtering, Journal of Alloys and Com- pounds 271–273 (1998) 459–462

    work page 1998

  9. [10]

    M. F. I. Beaux, T. Durakiewicz, L. Moreschini, M. Grioni, F. Offi, G. Monaco, G. Panaccione, J. J. Joyce, E. D. Bauer, J. L. Sarrao, M. T. Butterfield, E. Guziewicz, Electronic structure of single crystal UPd3, UGe2, and USb2 from hard x-ray and angle-resolved photoelectron spectroscopy, Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena 184 (2011) 51...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.elspec.2011.09.001 2011

  10. [11]

    Fujimori, Y

    S.-i. Fujimori, Y. Ishida, H. Yamagami, T. Okane, Y. Sato, Y. Takahashi, T. Matsuda, Y. Haga, E. Yamamoto, Y.¯Onuki, Electronic structures of ura- nium compounds studied by soft x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 85 (6) (2016) 062001.doi:10.7566/JPSJ.85. 062001

    work page doi:10.7566/jpsj.85 2016

  11. [12]

    K. Soda, T. Mori, T. Komatsubara, S. Suga, A. Kakizaki, T. Ishii, Y.¯Onuki, Photoemission study of U–Ge compounds by the use of synchrotron radiation, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 60 (9) (1991) 3059–3066.doi:10. 1143/JPSJ.60.3059

    work page 1991

  12. [13]

    Ejima, S

    T. Ejima, S. Sato, S. Suzuki, Y. Saito, S. Fujimori, N. Sato, M. Kasaya, T. Ko- matsubara, T. Kasuya, Y. ¯Onuki, T. Ishii, Line shapes of the XPS U 4f spectra in some uranium compounds, Physical Review B 53 (1996) 1806–1813. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.53.1806

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.53.1806 1996

  13. [14]

    R. Troć, H. Noël, P. Boulet, Magnetotransport of compounds in the U–Ge system, Philosophical Magazine B 82 (7) (2002) 805–824.doi:10.1080/ 13642810208224371

    work page 2002

  14. [15]

    E. A. Tereshina-Chitrova, S. G. Alex, O. Koloskova, L. Havela, L. Horák, O. Ro- manyuk, F. Huber, T. Gouder, M. Diviš, Photoelectron spectroscopy study of u–te thin films: A unified perspective of hybridization effects across composi- tions, in preparation (2026)

    work page 2026

  15. [16]

    E. A. Tereshina-Chitrova, L. Havela, M. Paukov, M. Dopita, L. Horák, O. Koloskova, Z. Soban, T. Gouder, F. Huber, A. Seibert, Role of disorder in magnetic and conducting properties of U–Mo and U–Mo–H thin films, Materi- als Chemistry and Physics 260 (2021) 124069.doi:10.1016/j.matchemphys. 2020.124069

    work page doi:10.1016/j.matchemphys 2021

  16. [17]

    Paukov, I

    M. Paukov, I. Tkach, F. Huber, T. Gouder, M. Cieslar, D. Drozdenko, P. Mi- narik, L. Havela, U–Zr alloy: XPS and TEM study of surface passivation, 14 Applied Surface Science 441 (2018) 113–119.doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2018. 01.319

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2018 2018

  17. [18]

    A. B. Shick, S.-i. Fujimori, W. E. Pickett, UTe2: a nearly insulating half-filled j= 5/25f 3 heavy-fermion metal, Physical Review B 103 (12) (2021) 125136. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.103.125136

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.103.125136 2021

  18. [19]

    A. B. Shick, U. D. Wdowik, I. Halevy, D. Legut, Spin and orbital magnetic moments of UTe2 induced by the external magnetic field, Scientific Reports 14 (1) (2024) 25337.doi:10.1038/s41598-024-75321-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-024-75321-4 2024

  19. [20]

    Wilhelm, J.-P

    F. Wilhelm, J.-P. Sanchez, D. Braithwaite, G. Knebel, G. Lapertot, A. Rogalev, Investigating the electronic states of UTe2 using X-ray spectroscopy, Commu- nications Physics 6 (1) (2023) 96.doi:10.1038/s42005-023-01220-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s42005-023-01220-1 2023

  20. [21]

    E.S.Ilton, P.S.Bagus, XPSdeterminationofuraniumoxidationstates, Surface and Interface Analysis 43 (13) (2011) 1549–1560.doi:10.1002/sia.3836

    work page doi:10.1002/sia.3836 2011

  21. [22]

    Pikul, R

    A. Pikul, R. Troć, A. Czopnik, H. Noël, Low-temperature specific heat of ura- nium germanides, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 360 (2014) 217–221.doi:10.1016/j.jmmm.2014.02.061

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmmm.2014.02.061 2014

  22. [23]

    Boulet, M

    P. Boulet, M. Potel, J. Levet, H. Noël, Crystal structure and magnetic prop- erties of the uranium germanide U5Ge4, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 262–263 (1997) 229–234.doi:10.1016/S0925-8388(97)00387-3

    work page doi:10.1016/s0925-8388(97)00387-3 1997

  23. [24]

    Boulet, R

    P. Boulet, R. Losi, J. Levet, M. Potel, Magnetic properties of U3Ge5, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 283–287 (1999) 41–45

    work page 1999

  24. [25]

    ¯Onuki, I

    Y. ¯Onuki, I. Ukon, S. W. Yun, I. Umehara, K. Satoh, T. Fukuhara, H. Sato, S. Takayanagi, M. Shikama, A. Ochiai, Magnetic and electrical properties of U–Ge intermetallic compounds, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 61 (1) (1992) 293–299.doi:10.1143/JPSJ.61.293

    work page doi:10.1143/jpsj.61.293 1992

  25. [26]

    R. Troć, Z. Gajek, A. Pikul, Dualism of the 5felectrons of the ferromagnetic superconductor UGe2 as seen in magnetic, transport, and specific-heat data, Physical Review B 86 (2012) 224403.doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.86.224403

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.86.224403 2012

  26. [27]

    Boulet, A

    P. Boulet, A. Daoudi, M. Potel, H. Noël, G. Gross, G. André, F. Bourée, Crystal and magnetic structure of the uranium digermanide UGe2, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 247 (1–2) (1997) 104–108.doi:10.1016/S0925-8388(96) 02600-X

    work page doi:10.1016/s0925-8388(96 1997

  27. [28]

    de Visser, J

    A. de Visser, J. Flouquet, D. Aoki, A. Huxley, Superconducting ferromagnets: UGe2, URhGe, and UCoGe, in: Proceedings of the EMSAT-2010 Conference on Superconductivity and Magnetism, 2010, pp. 1–6. URLhttps://iop.fnwi.uva.nl/cmp/docs/deVisser/2010/EMSAT-2010-1. pdf 15

    work page 2010

  28. [29]

    M. H. van Maaren, H. J. van Daal, K. H. J. Buschow, C. J. Schinkel, High electronic specific heat of some cubic UX 3 intermetallic compounds, Solid State Communications 14 (2) (1974) 145–147.doi:10.1016/0038-1098(74) 90203-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0038-1098(74 1974

  29. [30]

    Masset, R

    Y. ¯Onuki, R. Settai, Y. Haga, Y. Machida, K. Izawa, F. Honda, D. Aoki, Fermi surface, magnetic, and superconducting properties in actinide com- pounds, Comptes Rendus Physique 15 (7) (2014) 616–629.doi:10.1016/j. crhy.2014.06.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2014

  30. [31]

    ¯Onuki, I

    Y. ¯Onuki, I. Ukon, T. Komatsubara, S. Takayanagi, N. Wada, T. Watanabe, SuperconductivityinU 5Ge3 andU 7Ge, PhysicaB:PhysicsofCondensedMatter 163 (1990) 368–370.doi:10.1016/0921-4526(90)90214-F

    work page doi:10.1016/0921-4526(90)90214-f 1990

  31. [32]

    Gouder, L

    T. Gouder, L. Havela, Examples of quantification in XPS on 5fmaterials, Microchimica Acta 138 (2002) 207–215.doi:10.1007/s006040200024

    work page doi:10.1007/s006040200024 2002

  32. [33]

    A.Thompson, W.Limestall, A.Nelson, D.T.Olive, J.Terry, Reviewofactinide core-level photoemission, Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A 42 (2024) 050802.doi:10.1116/6.0003534

    work page doi:10.1116/6.0003534 2024

  33. [34]

    C. P. Opeil, T. Miller, H. J. Choi, K. E. Smith, Valence-band UPS, 6pcore-level XPS, and LEED of a uranium (001) single crystal, Physical Review B 73 (2006) 165109.doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.73.165109

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.73.165109 2006

  34. [35]

    J. J. Yeh, I. Lindau, Atomic subshell photoionization cross sections and asym- metry parameters: 1≤Z≤103, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 32 (1985) 1–155.doi:10.1016/0092-640X(85)90016-6

    work page doi:10.1016/0092-640x(85)90016-6 1985

  35. [36]

    Reihl, M

    B. Reihl, M. Domke, G. Kaindl, G. Kalkowski, C. Laubschat, F. Hulliger, W. D. Schneider, Evidence for 6dvalence states inα-U, UGa2, and UGa3 as revealed by resonant photoemission, Physical Review B 32 (6) (1985) 3530– 3533.doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.32.3530

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.32.3530 1985

  36. [37]

    S. L. Molodtsov, J. Boysen, M. Richter, P. Segovia, C. Laubschat, S. A. Gorovikov, A. M. Ionov, G. V. Prudnikova, V. K. Adamchuk, Dispersion of 5felectron states: angle-resolved photoemission on ordered films of U metal, Physical Review B 57 (1998) 13241–13244.doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.57.13241

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.57.13241 1998

  37. [38]

    Shick, W

    A. Shick, W. E. Pickett, Magnetism, spin–orbit coupling, and superconducting pairing in UGe2, Physical Review Letters 86 (2) (2001) 300–303.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.86.300

    work page 2001

  38. [39]

    A. B. Shick, V. Janiš, V. Drchal, W. E. Pickett, Spin and orbital magnetic state of UGe2 under pressure, Physical Review B 70 (13) (2004) 134506.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.70.134506

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.70.134506 2004

  39. [40]

    A. N. Yaresko, P. D. de Réotier, A. Yaouanc, N. Kernavanois, J. P. Sanchez, A. A. Menovsky, V. N. Antonov, On the 5felectronic ground state in UGe2 at ambient pressure, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 17 (15) (2005) 2443–2454.doi:10.1088/0953-8984/17/15/015. 16

    work page doi:10.1088/0953-8984/17/15/015 2005

  40. [41]

    Eriksson, B

    O. Eriksson, B. Johansson, M. S. S. Brooks, Metamagnetism in UCoAl, Jour- nal of Physics: Condensed Matter 1 (25) (1989) 4005–4011.doi:10.1088/ 0953-8984/1/25/012

    work page 1989

  41. [42]

    Palacio Morales, A

    A. Palacio Morales, A. Pourret, G. Knebel, G. Bastien, V. Taufour, D. Aoki, H. Yamagami, J. Flouquet, Thermoelectric power quantum oscillations in the ferromagnet UGe2, Physical Review B 93 (15) (2016) 155120.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevB.93.155120

    work page 2016

  42. [43]

    Kernavanois, B

    N. Kernavanois, B. Grenier, A. Huxley, E. Ressouche, J. P. Sanchez, J. Flou- quet, Neutron scattering study of the ferromagnetic superconductor UGe 2, Physical Review B 64 (17) (2001) 174509.doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.64.174509

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.64.174509 2001

  43. [44]

    A. B. Shick, J. Kolorenč, J. Rusz, P. M. Oppeneer, A. I. Lichtenstein, M. I. Katsnelson, R. Caciuffo, Unified character of correlation effects in unconven- tional Pu-based superconductors andδ-Pu, Physical Review B 87 (2) (2013) 020505.doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.87.020505

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.87.020505 2013

  44. [45]

    Steinberg, Tellurides as zintl phases?, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 37 (2025) 273001, topical Review.doi:10.1088/1361-648X/ade582

    S. Steinberg, Tellurides as zintl phases?, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 37 (2025) 273001, topical Review.doi:10.1088/1361-648X/ade582

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-648x/ade582 2025

  45. [46]

    L. Ley, Evidence for covalent bonding in crystalline and amorphous as, sb, and bi from valence-band photoelectron spectra, Physical Review B 8 (2) (1973) 641–652.doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.8.641

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.8.641 1973

  46. [47]

    D. D. Sarma, S. Krummacher, F. U. Hillebrecht, D. D. Koelling, 5f-band width and hybridization in uranium silicides, Physical Review B 38 (1) (1988) 1–7. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.38.1

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.38.1 1988

  47. [48]

    main lines

    T. Gouder, L. Havela, M. Diviš, J. Rebizant, P. M. Oppeneer, M. Richter, Surface electronic structure of UGax films, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 314 (1–2) (2001) 7–14.doi:10.1016/S0925-8388(00)01210-X. 17 Supplementary Information S1. Films synthesis route (a) Schematic representation of the triode sputtering system. 2.0 1.6 1.2 0.810 8 6 4 2 01.01.52...

    work page doi:10.1016/s0925-8388(00)01210-x 2001