Spin-orbital mixing in the topological ladder of the two-dimensional metal PtTe$_2$

C. M. Schneider; F. Reinert; G. Bihlmayer; H. Boban; J. Minar; J. Schusser; L. Plucinski; M. Masilamani; M. Qahosh; W. Karain

arxiv: 2502.10865 · v1 · submitted 2025-02-15 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Spin-orbital mixing in the topological ladder of the two-dimensional metal PtTe₂

M. Qahosh , M. Masilamani , H. Boban , Xiao Hou , G. Bihlmayer , Y. Mokrousov , W. Karain , J. Minar

show 4 more authors

F. Reinert J. Schusser C. M. Schneider L. Plucinski

This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 02:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords PtTe2topological surface statesspin-polarized photoemissionspin-orbital mixingDirac conetime-reversal symmetryband inversiontwo-dimensional metal

0 comments

The pith

Spin-polarized photoemission maps a ladder of topological surface states in PtTe2 with strong Pt-Te orbital hybridization and spin asymmetries induced by the measurement process itself.

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

The paper uses spin-polarized photoemission spectroscopy with three-dimensional momentum imaging to map the electronic structure of PtTe2. It identifies a series of topological surface states at binding energies around 2.3 eV, 1.6 eV, 1.0 eV, and near the Fermi level, including a surface Dirac cone. Strong hybridization between Pt and Te orbitals is shown to underpin the nontrivial topology of these states. Direct comparison with one-step model calculations demonstrates that measured spin polarizations generally track the initial-state values, yet certain experimental spin textures display asymmetries that are absent in the initial states because the photoemission process breaks time-reversal symmetry.

Core claim

We visualize the topological ladder and band inversions in PtTe2 using spin-polarized photoemission spectroscopy augmented by three-dimensional momentum imaging. This approach enables the detection of spin polarization in dispersive bands and provides access to topological properties beyond the reach of conventional methods. Extensive mapping of spin-momentum space reveals distinct topological surface states, including a surface Dirac cone at the binding energy EB ~ 2.3 eV and additional states at EB ~ 1.6 eV, EB ~ 1.0 eV, and near the Fermi level. The electronic structure analysis demonstrates strong hybridization between Pt and Te atomic orbitals, confirming the nontrivial topology of the

What carries the argument

The topological ladder consisting of multiple surface states at different binding energies, carried by spin-orbital mixing between Pt and Te atomic orbitals and accessed via spin-polarized three-dimensional momentum-resolved photoemission compared against one-step model calculations.

If this is right

The surface states remain topologically nontrivial because of the confirmed Pt-Te orbital hybridization and band inversions.
Spin polarization data from photoemission can be interpreted as faithful reporters of initial-state properties with only specific, identifiable deviations.
Symmetry constraints of the photoemission final state must be accounted for when extracting intrinsic topological spin textures.
The ladder structure provides multiple independent energy windows for studying the same topological phase.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same spin-polarized three-dimensional imaging approach could be used to separate intrinsic topology from final-state effects in other layered topological metals.
If the one-step model remains accurate, similar photoemission-induced asymmetries should appear in spin-resolved measurements on related transition-metal dichalcogenides.
The ability to turn time-reversal symmetry on and off by choice of probe offers a route to isolate different contributions to measured spin textures.

Load-bearing premise

The observed asymmetries in experimental spin textures arise solely from time-reversal symmetry breaking during the photoemission process rather than from experimental artifacts, data choices, or limitations in the one-step model.

What would settle it

An independent calculation of photoemission matrix elements that produces fully symmetric spin textures matching the initial states, or an experiment on the same material using a probe that preserves time-reversal symmetry and finds no asymmetries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10865 by C. M. Schneider, F. Reinert, G. Bihlmayer, H. Boban, J. Minar, J. Schusser, L. Plucinski, M. Masilamani, M. Qahosh, W. Karain, Xiao Hou, Y. Mokrousov.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) Experimental geometry where the reaction plane is orthogonal to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Experimental geometry indicating the rotation of the sample with respect to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Indication of the 3 atoms in the unit cell of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We visualize the topological ladder and band inversions in PtTe$_2$ using spin-polarized photoemission spectroscopy augmented by three-dimensional momentum imaging. This approach enables the detection of spin polarization in dispersive bands and provides access to topological properties beyond the reach of conventional methods. Extensive mapping of spin-momentum space reveals distinct topological surface states, including a surface Dirac cone at the binding energy $E_B \sim 2.3$ eV and additional states at $E_B \sim 1.6$ eV, $E_B \sim 1.0$ eV, and near the Fermi level. The electronic structure analysis demonstrates strong hybridization between Pt and Te atomic orbitals, confirming the nontrivial topology of these surface states. Furthermore, by comparison to one-step model photoemission calculations, we identify a robust correlation between the initial-state and measured spin polarizations while revealing asymmetries in specific experimental spin textures. These asymmetries, absent in the initial states due to symmetry constraints, arise from the breaking of time-reversal symmetry during the photoemission process, emphasizing the crucial influence of symmetries on experimental signatures of topology.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

PtTe2 gets a solid spin-ARPES map of its surface-state ladder with one-step modeling, but the spin-asymmetry claim rests on unquantified model fidelity.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this paper delivers detailed spin-polarized ARPES data with three-dimensional momentum coverage on PtTe2, identifying surface states at binding energies around 2.3 eV, 1.6 eV, 1.0 eV, and near the Fermi level, then ties the observed spin asymmetries to photoemission effects after comparing to one-step calculations. The work shows strong Pt-Te orbital hybridization and confirms the states' nontrivial topology through that comparison. The experimental mapping itself looks like careful, useful progress in visualizing these features beyond what standard ARPES provides. The correlation they report between initial-state and measured spin polarizations is presented as robust, which gives the hybridization claim some grounding in the data. That part is the clearest addition here. The soft spot is the attribution of the asymmetries exclusively to time-reversal symmetry breaking in the photoemission process. The abstract states the initial states lack these asymmetries due to symmetry, yet it gives no numbers on how closely the one-step model matches the data, such as RMS deviations or checks against changes in self-energy or final-state approximations. Without those, it is hard to judge whether residual differences come only from the photoemission step or partly from model limitations or experimental factors like geometry and normalization. The stress-test concern holds up on the available description. This paper is for researchers already working on topological surface states in layered materials and on spin textures in ARPES. It adds concrete observations in one specific compound, so specialists in the subfield will get value from the maps and the modeling comparison. It is coherent enough on its own terms to deserve a serious referee rather than a desk reject, even if the interpretation section may need more quantitative support during review.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses spin-polarized photoemission spectroscopy with three-dimensional momentum imaging to map the electronic structure of PtTe₂. It identifies topological surface states including a Dirac cone at E_B ~2.3 eV and additional states at lower binding energies, claims strong Pt-Te orbital hybridization confirming nontrivial topology, and compares experimental spin textures to one-step model calculations to report a robust correlation between initial-state and measured spin polarizations, attributing observed asymmetries to time-reversal symmetry breaking during photoemission.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work provides a detailed experimental visualization of spin-momentum space in a 2D topological metal and illustrates how photoemission symmetries affect measured topological signatures. The combination of extensive spin mapping and direct comparison to independent calculations is a positive feature that could inform spin-resolved ARPES interpretations in related materials.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and results section on model comparison] The central attribution of measured spin asymmetries exclusively to TRS breaking in the photoemission process (absent in initial states due to symmetry) rests on the one-step model accurately reproducing initial-state spin textures without hidden adjustments. No quantitative metrics (e.g., RMS deviation between calculated and measured spin polarizations, or sensitivity tests to self-energy/final-state approximations) are provided to establish model fidelity, which directly undermines the claim of a 'robust correlation'.
[Spin texture analysis and discussion] The claim that asymmetries arise solely from photoemission TRS breaking (rather than matrix-element effects, experimental geometry, or data normalization) requires explicit exclusion of artifacts. The manuscript does not report tests varying photon energy, polarization, or normalization procedures that would confirm this attribution is load-bearing for the topology interpretation.

minor comments (2)

Figure labels and captions should explicitly state the spin polarization scale and any background subtraction applied to the raw data.
Notation for binding energies (E_B) is used consistently but could be cross-referenced to the Fermi level in all panels for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address the two major comments point by point below, providing the strongest honest defense of our claims while agreeing to revisions where the manuscript can be strengthened without misrepresentation.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and results section on model comparison] The central attribution of measured spin asymmetries exclusively to TRS breaking in the photoemission process (absent in initial states due to symmetry) rests on the one-step model accurately reproducing initial-state spin textures without hidden adjustments. No quantitative metrics (e.g., RMS deviation between calculated and measured spin polarizations, or sensitivity tests to self-energy/final-state approximations) are provided to establish model fidelity, which directly undermines the claim of a 'robust correlation'.

Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript presents the correlation between initial-state and measured spin polarizations primarily through visual comparison of the figures rather than quantitative metrics such as RMS deviations. While the one-step model calculations were performed with standard parameters and show clear reproduction of the asymmetries absent from the initial states, the absence of explicit numerical fidelity measures does weaken the strength of the 'robust correlation' phrasing. In the revised manuscript we will add RMS deviation values between experimental and calculated spin polarizations in the relevant results section, together with a short sensitivity test to the self-energy broadening used in the one-step model. revision: yes
Referee: [Spin texture analysis and discussion] The claim that asymmetries arise solely from photoemission TRS breaking (rather than matrix-element effects, experimental geometry, or data normalization) requires explicit exclusion of artifacts. The manuscript does not report tests varying photon energy, polarization, or normalization procedures that would confirm this attribution is load-bearing for the topology interpretation.

Authors: The one-step model employed already includes photoemission matrix elements, final-state scattering, and the experimental geometry; it reproduces the measured spin asymmetries while the initial-state spin textures remain symmetric, consistent with time-reversal symmetry. This agreement provides evidence that the asymmetries originate in the photoemission process rather than in data normalization or unaccounted matrix-element artifacts. Nevertheless, the manuscript does not contain additional experimental checks varying photon energy or light polarization. We will expand the discussion section to explicitly state that the model comparison already incorporates these effects and thereby supports the attribution; we do not claim to have performed new photon-energy or polarization scans beyond the data already presented. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Experimental data compared to independent one-step model calculations; no load-bearing self-definition or fitted predictions

full rationale

The paper reports spin-polarized photoemission measurements on PtTe2 surface states, identifying topological features and spin asymmetries via direct comparison to one-step model calculations. No derivation reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter or self-citation by construction; the central claims rest on experimental observables and external model benchmarks rather than internal redefinitions. A score of 2 accounts for possible minor self-citations that do not carry the main results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on standard domain assumptions from photoemission spectroscopy and topological band theory with no free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Time-reversal symmetry holds in the material ground state but is broken during the photoemission process
Invoked to explain observed spin asymmetries absent from initial-state calculations.
domain assumption The one-step model of photoemission provides an accurate representation of the initial electronic states for comparison
Used to identify correlation with measured spin polarizations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5786 in / 1514 out tokens · 35499 ms · 2026-05-23T02:32:02.948871+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

[1]

O. J. Clark, M. J. Neat, K. Okawa, L. Bawden, I. Markovi´ c, F. Mazzola, J. Feng, V. Sunko, J. M. Ri- ley, W. Meevasana, J. Fujii, I. Vobornik, T. K. Kim, M. Hoesch, T. Sasagawa, P. Wahl, M. S. Bahramy, and P. D. C. King, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 156401 (2018)

work page 2018
[2]

Y. Li, Y. Xia, S. A. Ekahana, N. Kumar, J. Jiang, L. Yang, C. Chen, C. Liu, B. Yan, C. Felser, G. Li, Z. Liu, and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. Mater. 1, 074202 (2017)

work page 2017
[3]

M. S. Bahramy, O. J. Clark, B.-J. Yang, J. Feng, L. Baw- den, J. M. Riley, I. Markovi´ c, F. Mazzola, V. Sunko, D. Biswas, S. P. Cooil, M. Jorge, J. W. Wells, M. Lean- dersson, T. Balasubramanian, J. Fujii, I. Vobornik, J. E. Rault, T. K. Kim, M. Hoesch, K. Okawa, M. Asakawa, T. Sasagawa, T. Eknapakul, W. Meevasana, and P. D. C. King, Nature Materials 17,...

work page 2018
[4]

C. W. Nicholson, M. Rumo, A. Pulkkinen, G. Kremer, B. Salzmann, M.-L. Mottas, B. Hildebrand, T. Jaouen, T. K. Kim, S. Mukherjee, K. Ma, M. Muntwiler, F. O. von Rohr, C. Cacho, and C. Monney, Communications Materials 2, 25 (2021)

work page 2021
[5]

Ghosh, D

B. Ghosh, D. Mondal, C.-N. Kuo, C. S. Lue, J. Nayak, J. Fujii, I. Vobornik, A. Politano, and A. Agarwal, Phys. Rev. B 100, 195134 (2019)

work page 2019
[6]

Mukherjee, S

S. Mukherjee, S. W. Jung, S. F. Weber, C. Xu, D. Qian, X. Xu, P. K. Biswas, T. K. Kim, L. C. Chapon, M. D. Watson, J. B. Neaton, and C. Cacho, Scientific Reports 10, 12957 (2020). 6

work page 2020
[7]

Gianfrate, O

A. Gianfrate, O. Bleu, L. Dominici, V. Ardizzone, M. De Giorgi, D. Ballarini, G. Lerario, K. W. West, L. N. Pfeiffer, D. D. Solnyshkov, D. Sanvitto, and G. Malpuech, Nature 578, 381–385 (2020)

work page 2020
[8]

M. Kang, S. Kim, Y. Qian, P. M. Neves, L. Ye, J. Jung, D. Puntel, F. Mazzola, S. Fang, C. Jozwiak, A. Bost- wick, E. Rotenberg, J. Fuji, I. Vobornik, J.-H. Park, J. G. Checkelsky, B.-J. Yang, and R. Comin, Nature Physics 21, 110–117 (2024)

work page 2024
[9]

J. A. Sobota, Y. He, and Z.-X. Shen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025006 (2021)

work page 2021
[10]

J. Henk, K. Miyamoto, and M. Donath, Phys. Rev. B 98, 045124 (2018)

work page 2018
[11]

B. Yan, B. Stadtm¨ uller, N. Haag, S. Jakobs, J. Sei- del, D. Jungkenn, S. Mathias, M. Cinchetti, M. Aeschli- mann, and C. Felser, Nature Communications 6, 10.1038/ncomms10167 (2015)

work page doi:10.1038/ncomms10167 2015
[12]

Zhang, Q

X. Zhang, Q. Liu, J.-W. Luo, A. J. Freeman, and A. Zunger, Nat. Phys. 10, 387 (2014)

work page 2014
[13]

O. J. Clark, O. Dowinton, M. S. Bahramy, and J. S´ anchez-Barriga, Nat. Commun.13, 4147 (2022)

work page 2022
[14]

Heider, G

T. Heider, G. Bihlmayer, J. Schusser, F. Reinert, J. Min´ ar, S. Bl¨ ugel, C. M. Schneider, and L. Plucinski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 146401 (2023)

work page 2023
[15]

Ebert, D

H. Ebert, D. K¨ odderitzsch, and J. Min´ ar, Reports on Progress in Physics 74, 096501 (2011)

work page 2011
[16]

Yeh and I

J. Yeh and I. Lindau, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 32, 1 (1985)

work page 1985
[17]

See Supplemental Material at [url] for the details of ex- perimental and theoretical methods

work page
[18]

V. N. Strocov, L. L. Lev, F. Alarab, P. Constanti- nou, X. Wang, T. Schmitt, T. J. Z. Stock, L. Nicola¨ ı, J. Oˇ cen´ aˇ sek, and J. Min´ ar, Nature Communications14, 10.1038/s41467-023-40432-5 (2023)

work page doi:10.1038/s41467-023-40432-5 2023
[19]

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, 257 (2017)

work page 2017
[20]

S. V. Eremeev, G. Landolt, T. V. Menshchikova, B. Slom- ski, Y. M. Koroteev, Z. S. Aliev, M. B. Babanly, J. Henk, A. Ernst, L. Patthey, A. Eich, A. A. Khajetoorians, J. Hagemeister, O. Pietzsch, J. Wiebe, R. Wiesendanger, P. M. Echenique, S. S. Tsirkin, I. R. Amiraslanov, J. H. Dil, and E. V. Chulkov, Nat. Commun. 3, 635 (2012)

work page 2012
[21]

Beaulieu, J

S. Beaulieu, J. Schusser, S. Dong, M. Sch¨ uler, T. Pincelli, M. Dendzik, J. Maklar, A. Neef, H. Ebert, K. Hricovini, M. Wolf, J. Braun, L. Rettig, J. Min´ ar, and R. Ernstorfer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 216404 (2020)

work page 2020
[22]

Kr¨ uger, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 87, 061007 (2018), https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.87.061007

P. Kr¨ uger, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 87, 061007 (2018), https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.87.061007

work page doi:10.7566/jpsj.87.061007 2018
[23]

F. J. Garc´ ıa de Abajo, M. A. Van Hove, and C. S. Fadley, Phys. Rev. B 63, 075404 (2001)

work page 2001
[24]

Schattke and M

W. Schattke and M. A. V. Hove, eds., Solid-State Pho- toemission and Related Methods (WILEY-VCH GmbH & Co.KGaA, 2003)

work page 2003
[25]

Schusser, H

J. Schusser, H. Bentmann, M. ¨Unzelmann, T. Figge- meier, C.-H. Min, S. Moser, J. N. Neu, T. Siegrist, and F. Reinert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 246404 (2022)

work page 2022
[26]

Schusser, H

J. Schusser, H. Orio, M. ¨Unzelmann, J. Heßd¨ orfer, M. P. T. Masilamani, F. Diekmann, K. Rossnagel, and F. Reinert, Communications Physics 7, 10.1038/s42005- 024-01762-y (2024)

work page doi:10.1038/s42005- 2024

[1] [1]

O. J. Clark, M. J. Neat, K. Okawa, L. Bawden, I. Markovi´ c, F. Mazzola, J. Feng, V. Sunko, J. M. Ri- ley, W. Meevasana, J. Fujii, I. Vobornik, T. K. Kim, M. Hoesch, T. Sasagawa, P. Wahl, M. S. Bahramy, and P. D. C. King, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 156401 (2018)

work page 2018

[2] [2]

Y. Li, Y. Xia, S. A. Ekahana, N. Kumar, J. Jiang, L. Yang, C. Chen, C. Liu, B. Yan, C. Felser, G. Li, Z. Liu, and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. Mater. 1, 074202 (2017)

work page 2017

[3] [3]

M. S. Bahramy, O. J. Clark, B.-J. Yang, J. Feng, L. Baw- den, J. M. Riley, I. Markovi´ c, F. Mazzola, V. Sunko, D. Biswas, S. P. Cooil, M. Jorge, J. W. Wells, M. Lean- dersson, T. Balasubramanian, J. Fujii, I. Vobornik, J. E. Rault, T. K. Kim, M. Hoesch, K. Okawa, M. Asakawa, T. Sasagawa, T. Eknapakul, W. Meevasana, and P. D. C. King, Nature Materials 17,...

work page 2018

[4] [4]

C. W. Nicholson, M. Rumo, A. Pulkkinen, G. Kremer, B. Salzmann, M.-L. Mottas, B. Hildebrand, T. Jaouen, T. K. Kim, S. Mukherjee, K. Ma, M. Muntwiler, F. O. von Rohr, C. Cacho, and C. Monney, Communications Materials 2, 25 (2021)

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Ghosh, D

B. Ghosh, D. Mondal, C.-N. Kuo, C. S. Lue, J. Nayak, J. Fujii, I. Vobornik, A. Politano, and A. Agarwal, Phys. Rev. B 100, 195134 (2019)

work page 2019

[6] [6]

Mukherjee, S

S. Mukherjee, S. W. Jung, S. F. Weber, C. Xu, D. Qian, X. Xu, P. K. Biswas, T. K. Kim, L. C. Chapon, M. D. Watson, J. B. Neaton, and C. Cacho, Scientific Reports 10, 12957 (2020). 6

work page 2020

[7] [7]

Gianfrate, O

A. Gianfrate, O. Bleu, L. Dominici, V. Ardizzone, M. De Giorgi, D. Ballarini, G. Lerario, K. W. West, L. N. Pfeiffer, D. D. Solnyshkov, D. Sanvitto, and G. Malpuech, Nature 578, 381–385 (2020)

work page 2020

[8] [8]

M. Kang, S. Kim, Y. Qian, P. M. Neves, L. Ye, J. Jung, D. Puntel, F. Mazzola, S. Fang, C. Jozwiak, A. Bost- wick, E. Rotenberg, J. Fuji, I. Vobornik, J.-H. Park, J. G. Checkelsky, B.-J. Yang, and R. Comin, Nature Physics 21, 110–117 (2024)

work page 2024

[9] [9]

J. A. Sobota, Y. He, and Z.-X. Shen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025006 (2021)

work page 2021

[10] [10]

J. Henk, K. Miyamoto, and M. Donath, Phys. Rev. B 98, 045124 (2018)

work page 2018

[11] [11]

B. Yan, B. Stadtm¨ uller, N. Haag, S. Jakobs, J. Sei- del, D. Jungkenn, S. Mathias, M. Cinchetti, M. Aeschli- mann, and C. Felser, Nature Communications 6, 10.1038/ncomms10167 (2015)

work page doi:10.1038/ncomms10167 2015

[12] [12]

Zhang, Q

X. Zhang, Q. Liu, J.-W. Luo, A. J. Freeman, and A. Zunger, Nat. Phys. 10, 387 (2014)

work page 2014

[13] [13]

O. J. Clark, O. Dowinton, M. S. Bahramy, and J. S´ anchez-Barriga, Nat. Commun.13, 4147 (2022)

work page 2022

[14] [14]

Heider, G

T. Heider, G. Bihlmayer, J. Schusser, F. Reinert, J. Min´ ar, S. Bl¨ ugel, C. M. Schneider, and L. Plucinski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 146401 (2023)

work page 2023

[15] [15]

Ebert, D

H. Ebert, D. K¨ odderitzsch, and J. Min´ ar, Reports on Progress in Physics 74, 096501 (2011)

work page 2011

[16] [16]

Yeh and I

J. Yeh and I. Lindau, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 32, 1 (1985)

work page 1985

[17] [17]

See Supplemental Material at [url] for the details of ex- perimental and theoretical methods

work page

[18] [18]

V. N. Strocov, L. L. Lev, F. Alarab, P. Constanti- nou, X. Wang, T. Schmitt, T. J. Z. Stock, L. Nicola¨ ı, J. Oˇ cen´ aˇ sek, and J. Min´ ar, Nature Communications14, 10.1038/s41467-023-40432-5 (2023)

work page doi:10.1038/s41467-023-40432-5 2023

[19] [19]

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, 257 (2017)

work page 2017

[20] [20]

S. V. Eremeev, G. Landolt, T. V. Menshchikova, B. Slom- ski, Y. M. Koroteev, Z. S. Aliev, M. B. Babanly, J. Henk, A. Ernst, L. Patthey, A. Eich, A. A. Khajetoorians, J. Hagemeister, O. Pietzsch, J. Wiebe, R. Wiesendanger, P. M. Echenique, S. S. Tsirkin, I. R. Amiraslanov, J. H. Dil, and E. V. Chulkov, Nat. Commun. 3, 635 (2012)

work page 2012

[21] [21]

Beaulieu, J

S. Beaulieu, J. Schusser, S. Dong, M. Sch¨ uler, T. Pincelli, M. Dendzik, J. Maklar, A. Neef, H. Ebert, K. Hricovini, M. Wolf, J. Braun, L. Rettig, J. Min´ ar, and R. Ernstorfer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 216404 (2020)

work page 2020

[22] [22]

Kr¨ uger, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 87, 061007 (2018), https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.87.061007

P. Kr¨ uger, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 87, 061007 (2018), https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.87.061007

work page doi:10.7566/jpsj.87.061007 2018

[23] [23]

F. J. Garc´ ıa de Abajo, M. A. Van Hove, and C. S. Fadley, Phys. Rev. B 63, 075404 (2001)

work page 2001

[24] [24]

Schattke and M

W. Schattke and M. A. V. Hove, eds., Solid-State Pho- toemission and Related Methods (WILEY-VCH GmbH & Co.KGaA, 2003)

work page 2003

[25] [25]

Schusser, H

J. Schusser, H. Bentmann, M. ¨Unzelmann, T. Figge- meier, C.-H. Min, S. Moser, J. N. Neu, T. Siegrist, and F. Reinert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 246404 (2022)

work page 2022

[26] [26]

Schusser, H

J. Schusser, H. Orio, M. ¨Unzelmann, J. Heßd¨ orfer, M. P. T. Masilamani, F. Diekmann, K. Rossnagel, and F. Reinert, Communications Physics 7, 10.1038/s42005- 024-01762-y (2024)

work page doi:10.1038/s42005- 2024