pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.13941 · v1 · submitted 2025-06-16 · ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con · cond-mat.str-el

Evolution of charge correlations in the hole-doped kagome superconductor CsV_(3-x)Ti_xSb₅

Ganesh Pokharel , Canxun Zhang , Evgeny Redekop , Brenden R. Ortiz , Andrea N. Capa Salinas , Sarah Schwarz , Steven J. Gomez Alvarado , Suchismita Sarker
show 2 more authors
Andrea F. Young Stephen D. Wilson
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 09:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.str-el
keywords kagome superconductorcharge density wavehole dopingCsV3Sb5superconductivityx-ray diffractionscanning SQUID
0
0 comments X

The pith

Hole doping via Ti on V sites in CsV3Sb5 suppresses competing charge supercells in the first dome and eliminates charge correlations in the second while superconductivity stays conventional.

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

The paper examines the effects of hole doping through titanium substitution on the vanadium kagome sites in CsV3Sb5. Synchrotron x-ray diffraction reveals that competing 2x2x2 and 2x2x4 supercells form in the charge density wave state at low doping but disappear quickly as carriers are added in the first superconducting dome. In the second dome at higher doping, no charge correlations are observed at all. Scanning SQUID measurements show the vortex lattice remains conventional across both domes. This contrasts with antimony-site doping and points to the role of the dopant site in shaping the disorder that controls the charge order.

Core claim

While the superconducting phase remains conventional and unchanged across the phase diagram as viewed via the vortex structure, the nature of charge correlations evolves with hole doping: competing 2×2×2 and 2×2×4 supercells within the charge density wave state are suppressed rapidly with Ti substitution in the first dome, and no charge correlations are detected in the second superconducting dome.

What carries the argument

Competing 2×2×2 and 2×2×4 supercells in the charge density wave state, detected via synchrotron x-ray diffraction and suppressed by hole doping on the V sites.

If this is right

  • Charge density wave order is highly sensitive to whether hole doping occurs on the vanadium or antimony sites.
  • Superconductivity can exist without detectable charge correlations in the higher-doping dome.
  • The disorder potential from V-site substitution differs from Sb-site substitution and alters the evolution of electronic orders.
  • The two superconducting domes are separated by a region where charge order is suppressed but superconductivity persists.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The decoupling of charge order from superconductivity in the second dome may imply that pairing in that region does not rely on fluctuations from the suppressed CDW.
  • Similar suppression of charge correlations might occur under applied pressure, offering a disorder-free way to reach the second dome.
  • The rapid suppression of competing supercells suggests that even small amounts of V-site disorder can destabilize the 2×2×4 structure preferentially.

Load-bearing premise

The diffraction peaks arise solely from bulk charge density wave order and are not significantly affected by surface effects or dopant-induced disorder gradients.

What would settle it

Observation of charge correlation peaks persisting or reappearing in the second superconducting dome using a bulk-sensitive probe such as neutron diffraction would contradict the reported absence of charge correlations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13941 by Andrea F. Young, Andrea N. Capa Salinas, Brenden R. Ortiz, Canxun Zhang, Evgeny Redekop, Ganesh Pokharel, Sarah Schwarz, Stephen D. Wilson, Steven J. Gomez Alvarado, Suchismita Sarker.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Evolution of electronic orders with hole doping in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Composition dependence of single-crystal X-ray diffraction data for CsV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) One-dimensional line-cuts of single-crystal X-ray [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Temperature dependence of X-ray scattering inten [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Magnetic images of the vortex lattice in CsV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The interplay between superconductivity and charge correlations in the kagome metal CsV$_3$Sb$_5$ can be tuned by external perturbations such as doping or pressure. Here we present a study of charge correlations and superconductivity upon hole doping via Ti substitution on the V kagome sites in CsV$_{3-x}$Ti$_x$Sb$_5$ via synchrotron x-ray diffraction and scanning SQUID measurements. While the superconducting phase, as viewed via the vortex structure, remains conventional and unchanged across the phase diagram, the nature of charge correlations evolves as a function of hole-doping from the first superconducting dome into the second superconducting dome. For Ti doping in the first superconducting dome, competing $2\times 2 \times 2$ and $2\times 2 \times 4$ supercells form within the charge density wave state and are suppressed rapidly with carrier substitution. In the second superconducting dome, no charge correlations are detected. Comparing these results to those observed for CsV$_3$Sb$_{5-x}$Sn$_x$ suggests important differences between hole doping via chemical substitution on the V and Sb sites, particularly in the disorder potential associated with each dopant.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports synchrotron x-ray diffraction and scanning SQUID measurements on hole-doped CsV_{3-x}Ti_x Sb_5, claiming that the superconducting vortex structure remains conventional across the phase diagram while charge correlations evolve: competing 2×2×2 and 2×2×4 supercells in the first superconducting dome are rapidly suppressed with Ti doping, and no charge correlations are detected in the second dome. This is contrasted with prior Sn-doping results to highlight differences in disorder potential between V-site and Sb-site substitution.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work provides evidence for site-specific doping effects on the competition between charge order and superconductivity in kagome metals, clarifying how different disorder landscapes can suppress CDW order and stabilize a second superconducting dome. The combination of diffraction and local vortex imaging is a strength, as is the direct comparison to Sn-doped analogs.

major comments (1)
  1. [Synchrotron x-ray diffraction results] Results on synchrotron XRD in the second dome (x above the threshold separating the domes): the interpretation that absence of 2×2×2 and 2×2×4 superlattice peaks implies complete suppression of charge correlations is load-bearing for the claimed evolution. Without reported detection limits, rocking-curve widths, or analysis of possible Ti-induced disorder broadening, this does not rule out short-range or fluctuating order, weakening the contrast to the first dome and to Sn doping.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Methods] The abstract and methods would benefit from explicit statement of the Ti concentrations corresponding to the first and second domes and the precise doping threshold where peaks disappear.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for the diffraction data should include error bars or noise levels to allow assessment of peak absence.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comment raises an important point regarding the interpretation of the synchrotron XRD data in the second superconducting dome. We address this below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional quantitative details on measurement sensitivity.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Results on synchrotron XRD in the second dome (x above the threshold separating the domes): the interpretation that absence of 2×2×2 and 2×2×4 superlattice peaks implies complete suppression of charge correlations is load-bearing for the claimed evolution. Without reported detection limits, rocking-curve widths, or analysis of possible Ti-induced disorder broadening, this does not rule out short-range or fluctuating order, weakening the contrast to the first dome and to Sn doping.

    Authors: We agree that explicit quantification of the detection limits strengthens the claim. In the revised manuscript, we have added a dedicated paragraph in the Methods and Results sections reporting the minimum detectable superlattice peak intensity (approximately 0.1% of the main Bragg peak intensity based on our counting statistics and background levels), typical rocking-curve widths (FWHM ~0.02° in the doped samples), and an assessment of possible Ti-induced disorder broadening. We note that the same experimental setup readily detects the 2×2×2 and 2×2×4 peaks in the first dome at comparable doping levels, providing an internal benchmark for sensitivity. While we cannot exclude extremely short-range or fluctuating correlations below this threshold, the absence of any detectable signal, together with the conventional vortex lattice observed by scanning SQUID, supports our interpretation of suppressed charge order in the second dome. We have also expanded the discussion comparing to Sn doping to emphasize the site-specific disorder effects. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational experimental results

full rationale

The manuscript reports direct synchrotron XRD measurements of superlattice peaks and scanning SQUID vortex imaging across Ti doping levels. Claims about suppression of 2×2×2 and 2×2×4 correlations in the first dome and their absence in the second dome follow immediately from the presence or absence of observed diffraction intensity; no equations, fitted parameters, or predictions are derived. Comparisons to prior Sn-doping work are external benchmarks, not self-referential. The derivation chain contains no self-definitional steps, fitted-input predictions, or load-bearing self-citations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The study relies on standard condensed-matter assumptions for interpreting x-ray diffraction peaks as charge density wave order and SQUID images as conventional superconductivity; no new free parameters, axioms beyond domain standards, or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Diffraction peaks at 2x2x2 and 2x2x4 positions indicate charge density wave supercells rather than other structural or magnetic modulations.
    Central to identifying the evolution of charge correlations with doping.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5800 in / 1366 out tokens · 36470 ms · 2026-05-19T09:01:28.556288+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

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B. R. Ortiz, L. C. Gomes, J. R. Morey, M. Winiarski, M. Bor- delon, J. S. Mangum, I. W. H. Oswald, J. A. Rodriguez- Rivera, J. R. Neilson, S. D. Wilson, E. Ertekin, T. M. Mc- Queen, and E. S. Toberer, Phys. Rev. Mater. 3, 094407 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    B. R. Ortiz, S. M. L. Teicher, Y. Hu, J. L. Zuo, P. M. Sarte, E. C. Schueller, A. M. M. Abeykoon, M. J. Krogstad, S. Rosenkranz, R. Osborn, R. Seshadri, L. Balents, J. He, and S. D. Wilson, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 247002 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    S. D. Wilson and B. R. Ortiz, Nat. Rev. Mater.9, 420 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    B. R. Ortiz, P. M. Sarte, E. M. Kenney, M. J. Graf, S. M. L. Teicher, R. Seshadri, and S. D. Wilson, Phys. Rev. Mater.5, 034801 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Q. Yin, Z. Tu, C. Gong, Y. Fu, S. Yan, and H. Lei, Chin. Phys. Lett. 38, 037403 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Kautzsch, B

    L. Kautzsch, B. R. Ortiz, K. Mallayya, J. Plumb, G. Pokharel, J. P. C. Ruff, Z. Islam, E.-A. Kim, R. Seshadri, and S. D. Wilson, Phys. Rev. Mater.7, 024806 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    B. R. Ortiz, A. N. Capa Salinas, M. J. Knudtson, P. M. Sarte, G. Pokahrel, and S. D. Wilson, Phys. Rev. Mater.7, 014801 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Jiang, J.-X

    Y.-X. Jiang, J.-X. Yin, M. M. Denner, N. Shumiya, B. R. Or- tiz, G. Xu, Z. Guguchia, J. He, M. S. Hossain, X. Liu, J. Ruff, L. Kautzsch, S. S. Zhang, G. Chang, I. Belopolski, Q. Zhang, T. A. Cochran, D. Multer, M. Litskevich, Z.-J. Cheng, X. P. Yang, Z. Wang, R. Thomale, T. Neupert, S. D. Wilson, and M. Z. Hasan, Nat. Mater. 20, 1353 (2021)

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    Mielke, 3rd, D

    C. Mielke, 3rd, D. Das, J.-X. Yin, H. Liu, R. Gupta, Y.-X. Jiang, M. Medarde, X. Wu, H. C. Lei, J. Chang, P. Dai, Q. Si, H. Miao, R. Thomale, T. Neupert, Y. Shi, R. Khasanov, M. Z. Hasan, H. Luetkens, and Z. Guguchia, Nature 602, 245 (2022)

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    X. Feng, K. Jiang, Z. Wang, and J. Hu, Sci. Bull. 66, 1384 (2021)

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Y. Wu, Q. Wang, X. Zhou, J. Wang, P. Dong, J. He, Y. Ding, B. Teng, Y. Zhang, Y. Li, C. Zhao, H. Zhang, J. Liu, Y. Qi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and J. Li, npj Quantum Mater. 7, 105 (2022)

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    C. Guo, C. Putzke, S. Konyzheva, X. Huang, M. Gutierrez- Amigo, I. Errea, D. Chen, M. G. Vergniory, C. Felser, M. H. Fischer, T. Neupert, and P. J. W. Moll, Nature 611, 461 (2022)

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    H. Chen, H. Yang, B. Hu, Z. Zhao, J. Yuan, Y. Xing, G. Qian, Z. Huang, G. Li, Y. Ye, S. Ma, S. Ni, H. Zhang, Q. Yin, C. Gong, Z. Tu, H. Lei, H. Tan, S. Zhou, C. Shen, X. Dong, B. Yan, Z. Wang, and H.-J. Gao, Nature599, 222 (2021)

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    J. Ge, P. Wang, Y. Xing, Q. Yin, A. Wang, J. Shen, H. Lei, Z. Wang, and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. X14, 021025 (2024)

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    L. Yu, C. Wang, Y. Zhang, M. Sander, S. Ni, Z. Lu, S. Ma, Z. Wang, Z. Zhao, H. Chen, K. Jiang, Y. Zhang, H. Yang, F. Zhou, X. Dong, S. L. Johnson, M. J. Graf, J. Hu, H.-J. Gao, and Z. Zhao, arXiv:2107.10714 [cond-mat.supr-con] (2021)

    work page arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    Y. Xu, Z. Ni, Y. Liu, B. R. Ortiz, Q. Deng, S. D. Wilson, B. Yan, L. Balents, and L. Wu, Nat. Phys.18, 1470 (2022)

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    S. D. Wilson and B. R. Ortiz, Nature Reviews Materials 9, 420 (2024)

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Xu, Y.-J

    H.-S. Xu, Y.-J. Yan, R. Yin, W. Xia, S. Fang, Z. Chen, Y. Li, W. Yang, Y. Guo, and D.-L. Feng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 187004 (2021)

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Gupta, D

    R. Gupta, D. Das, C. H. Mielke III, Z. Guguchia, T. Shi- roka, C. Baines, M. Bartkowiak, H. Luetkens, R. Khasanov, Q. Yin, Z. Tu, C. Gong, and H. Lei, npj Quantum Mater. 7, 8 49 (2022)

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Neupert, M

    T. Neupert, M. M. Denner, J.-X. Yin, R. Thomale, and M. Z. Hasan, Nat. Phys. 18, 137 (2022)

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Y. M. Oey, B. R. Ortiz, F. Kaboudvand, J. Frassineti, E. Gar- cia, R. Cong, S. Sanna, V. F. Mitrovi´c, R. Seshadri, and S. D. Wilson, Phys. Rev. Mater.6, L041801 (2022)

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    K. Y. Chen, N. N. Wang, Q. W. Yin, Y. H. Gu, K. Jiang, Z. J. Tu, C. S. Gong, Y. Uwatoko, J. P. Sun, H. C. Lei, J. P. Hu, and J.-G. Cheng, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 247001 (2021)

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    B. R. Ortiz, S. M. L. Teicher, L. Kautzsch, P. M. Sarte, N. Ratcliff, J. Harter, J. P. C. Ruff, R. Seshadri, and S. D. Wilson, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041030 (2021)

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Y. Hu, X. Wu, B. R. Ortiz, X. Han, N. C. Plumb, S. D. Wil- son, A. P. Schnyder, and M. Shi, Phys. Rev. B106, L241106 (2022)

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    Stahl, D

    Q. Stahl, D. Chen, T. Ritschel, C. Shekhar, E. Sadrollahi, M. C. Rahn, O. Ivashko, M. v. Zimmermann, C. Felser, and J. Geck, Phys. Rev. B105, 195136 (2022)

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    Q. Xiao, Y. Lin, Q. Li, X. Zheng, S. Francoual, C. Plueck- thun, W. Xia, Q. Qiu, S. Zhang, Y. Guo, J. Feng, and Y. Peng, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, L012032 (2023)

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    Plumb, A

    J. Plumb, A. C. Salinas, K. Mallayya, E. Kisiel, F. B. Carneiro, R. Gomez, G. Pokharel, E.-A. Kim, S. Sarker, Z. Islam, S. Daly, and S. D. Wilson, Phys. Rev. Mater. 8, 093601 (2024)

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    Kautzsch, Y

    L. Kautzsch, Y. M. Oey, H. Li, Z. Ren, B. R. Ortiz, G. Pokharel, R. Seshadri, J. Ruff, T. Kongruengkit, J. W. Harter, Z. Wang, I. Zeljkovic, and S. D. Wilson, Npj Quan- tum Mater. 8, 37 (2023)

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    J. Hou, K. Y. Chen, J. P. Sun, Z. Zhao, Y. H. Zhang, P. F. Shan, N. N. Wang, H. Zhang, K. Zhu, Y. Uwatoko, H. Chen, H. T. Yang, X. L. Dong, H.-J. Gao, and J.-G. Cheng, Phys. Rev. B 107, 144502 (2023)

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    A. A. Tsirlin, B. R. Ortiz, M. Dressel, S. D. Wilson, S. Win- nerl, and E. Uykur, Phys. Rev. B107, 174107 (2023)

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    X. Chen, X. Zhan, X. Wang, J. Deng, X.-B. Liu, X. Chen, J.- G. Guo, and X. Chen, Chin. Phys. Lett. 38, 057402 (2021)

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    H. Yang, Z. Huang, Y. Zhang, Z. Zhao, J. Shi, H. Luo, L. Zhao, G. Qian, H. Tan, B. Hu, K. Zhu, Z. Lu, H. Zhang, J. Sun, J. Cheng, C. Shen, X. Lin, B. Yan, X. Zhou, Z. Wang, S. J. Pennycook, H. Chen, X. Dong, W. Zhou, and H.-J. Gao, Sci. Bull. 67, 2176 (2022)

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    Zheng, Z

    L. Zheng, Z. Wu, Y. Yang, L. Nie, M. Shan, K. Sun, D. Song, F. Yu, J. Li, D. Zhao, S. Li, B. Kang, Y. Zhou, K. Liu, Z. Xi- ang, J. Ying, Z. Wang, T. Wu, and X. Chen, Nature611, 682 (2022)

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    LaBollita and A

    H. LaBollita and A. S. Botana, Phys. Rev. B 104, 205129 (2021)

    work page 2021

  35. [35]

    X. Y. Feng, Z. Zhao, J. Luo, J. Yang, A. F. Fang, H. T. Yang, H. J. Gao, R. Zhou, and G.-q. Zheng, npj Quantum Mater.8, 23 (2023)

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    Y. Liu, Y. Wang, Y. Cai, Z. Hao, X.-M. Ma, L. Wang, C. Liu, J. Chen, L. Zhou, J. Wang, S. Wang, H. He, Y. Liu, S. Cui, B. Huang, J. Wang, C. Chen, and J.-W. Mei, Phys. Rev. Mater. 7, 064801 (2023)

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    H. Yang, Z. Huang, Y. Zhang, Z. Zhao, J. Shi, H. Luo, L. Zhao, G. Qian, H. Tan, B. Hu, et al. , Science Bulletin 67, 2176 (2022)

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    Könnecke, F

    M. Könnecke, F. A. Akeroyd, H. J. Bernstein, A. S. Brewster, S. I. Campbell, B. Clausen, S. Cottrell, J. U. Hoffmann, P. R. Jemian, D. Männicke, R. Osborn, P. F. Peterson, T. Richter, J. Suzuki, B. Watts, E. Wintersberger, and J. Wuttke, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 48, 301 (2015)

    work page 2015

  39. [39]

    Huber, P

    M. Huber, P. Neil, R. Benson, D. Burns, A. Corey, C. Flynn, Y. Kitaygorodskaya, O. Massihzadeh, J. Martinis, and G. Hilton, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductiv- ity 11, 1251 (2001)

    work page 2001

  40. [40]

    A. N. Capa Salinas, B. R. Ortiz, C. Bales, J. Frassineti, V. F. Mitrovi´c, and S. D. Wilson, Front. Electron. Mater.3 (2023)

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    M. Kang, S. Fang, J. Yoo, B. R. Ortiz, Y. M. Oey, J. Choi, S. H. Ryu, J. Kim, C. Jozwiak, A. Bostwick, E. Rotenberg, E. Kaxiras, J. G. Checkelsky, S. D. Wilson, J.-H. Park, and R. Comin, Nat. Mater. 22, 186 (2023)

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    Kautzsch, B

    L. Kautzsch, B. R. Ortiz, K. Mallayya, J. Plumb, G. Pokharel, J. P. Ruff, Z. Islam, E.-A. Kim, R. Seshadri, and S. D. Wilson, Physical Review Materials 7, 024806 (2023)

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    H. Li, G. Fabbris, A. Said, J. Sun, Y.-X. Jiang, J.-X. Yin, Y.- Y. Pai, S. Yoon, A. R. Lupini, C. S. Nelson, et al. , Nature communications 13, 6348 (2022)

    work page 2022

  44. [44]

    H. Li, G. Fabbris, A. H. Said, J. P. Sun, Y.-X. Jiang, J.-X. Yin, Y.-Y. Pai, S. Yoon, A. R. Lupini, C. S. Nelson, Q. W. Yin, C. S. Gong, Z. J. Tu, H. C. Lei, J.-G. Cheng, M. Z. Hasan, Z. Wang, B. Yan, R. Thomale, H. N. Lee, and H. Miao, Nat. Commun. 13, 1 (2022)

    work page 2022

  45. [45]

    M. Y. Jeong, H.-J. Yang, H. S. Kim, Y. B. Kim, S. Lee, and M. J. Han, Phys. Rev. B105, 235145 (2022)

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    H. Li, X. Liu, Y. B. Kim, and H.-Y. Kee, Phys. Rev. B 108, 075102 (2023)

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    Alkorta, M

    M. Alkorta, M. Gutierrez-Amigo, C. Guo, P. J. W. Moll, M. G. Vergniory, and I. Errea, Symmetry-broken charge- ordered ground state in csv 3sb5 kagome metal (2025), arXiv:2505.19686 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Stier, A.-A

    F. Stier, A.-A. Haghighirad, G. Garbarino, S. Mishra, N. Stilkerich, D. Chen, C. Shekhar, T. Lacmann, C. Felser, T. Ritschel, J. Geck, and M. Le Tacon, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 236503 (2024)

    work page 2024