Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 24 references

Pressure on YPtBi weakens band inversion, damps oscillations, and lowers the upper critical field while leaving Tc nearly fixed.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 22:51 UTC pith:TJ3RKTF7

load-bearing objection Solid new pressure-SdH data on low-n YPtBi; the band-inversion reading of rising TD is plausible but under-constrained, not fatal. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2603.11464 v2 pith:TJ3RKTF7 submitted 2026-03-12 cond-mat.supr-con

Quantum Oscillations and Superconductivity in YPtBi Under Pressure

Jared Z. Dans , Prathum Saraf , Lillian Jirousek , Carsyn L. Mueller , Chandra Shekhar , Claudia Felser , Johnpierre Paglione This is my paper
classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords YPtBihalf-Heuslerquantum oscillationsShubnikov-de Haasband inversionpressuresuperconductivityDingle temperature
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

YPtBi is a low-carrier-density topological semimetal whose inverted bands support j=3/2 quasiparticles and unconventional superconductivity. This work applies hydrostatic pressure up to 2.08 GPa and tracks both normal-state transport and superconductivity through resistivity and Shubnikov–de Haas oscillations. Pressure drives the low-temperature resistivity toward a more insulating form, strongly suppresses oscillation amplitude via a large rise in Dingle temperature (scattering rate), and reduces the upper critical field, while the oscillation frequency and effective mass stay essentially constant and zero-field Tc is unchanged. The authors interpret these linked changes as a continuous weakening of the spin-orbit-driven band inversion, which would tune the topological character of the Fermi surface. The result positions pressure as a practical knob for exploring topology and pairing in the broader half-Heusler family.

Core claim

High-pressure magnetotransport and quantum-oscillation measurements on high-quality YPtBi show that pressure up to 2.08 GPa leaves the ~24 T Fermi-surface frequency and ~0.07 me effective mass nearly unchanged, yet produces a more insulating low-T resistivity, a large increase in Dingle temperature from 25 K to 42 K, and a drop of Hc2(0) from 2.24 T to 1.39 T with essentially fixed Tc. These linked changes are taken as evidence that pressure weakens the band inversion that underpins the material’s topological semimetal character.

What carries the argument

Pressure-dependent Shubnikov–de Haas oscillations analyzed with the Lifshitz–Kosevich formula: temperature damping yields the effective mass while field damping yields the Dingle temperature (scattering rate). The contrast between fixed frequency/mass and strongly rising Dingle temperature is the central observational lever used to argue for band-inversion tuning.

Load-bearing premise

The large rise in scattering rate is assumed to come from pressure-weakened band inversion relaxing topological restrictions on scattering, rather than residual strain, contact geometry, or impurity changes that the authors argue are unlikely.

What would settle it

A controlled hydrostatic-pressure study that maps quantum-oscillation amplitude and Dingle temperature against an independent spectroscopic or calculated measure of band-inversion strength; if scattering rises while inversion remains constant, the topological-tuning claim fails.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports piston-cylinder high-pressure magnetotransport and Shubnikov–de Haas measurements on high-quality, low-carrier-density YPtBi single crystals up to 2.08 GPa. Resistivity becomes more insulating at low T (empirical power-law exponent falling from ~2.2 to ~1.5), SdH frequency remains ~24 T and effective mass nearly constant (~0.07 me), while oscillation amplitude is strongly suppressed by a rise in Dingle temperature from 25±4 K to 42±3 K. Superconducting Tc is essentially unchanged (~0.95 K) but the transition broadens and Hc2(0) falls from 2.24 T to 1.39 T. The authors interpret the increased scattering (with fixed Fermi-surface size and mass) as evidence that pressure weakens the Γ6–Γ8 band inversion, thereby relaxing topological phase-space restrictions and potentially tuning the topological character of YPtBi and related half-Heuslers.

Significance. If the pressure-induced rise in scattering is indeed linked to a weakening of band inversion, the work supplies a concrete experimental handle for tuning topology in the RTBi half-Heusler family and clarifies why earlier metallic samples showed different pressure responses. The data themselves are of high quality: frequencies, LK mass fits and Dingle plots are reported with uncertainties, extrinsic damping channels (geometry, large rotation, gross non-hydrostaticity) are addressed experimentally, and the contrast with prior higher-density samples is useful. Even without a definitive microscopic proof of topological tuning, the systematic pressure study of both normal-state quantum oscillations and superconductivity in the low-density limit is a solid contribution to the field.

major comments (2)
  1. §III (paragraphs discussing QO damping and band inversion) and Abstract/Conclusion: The central interpretive claim—that the large TD increase (25 K → 42 K) with fixed frequency and m* signals pressure-weakened Γ6–Γ8 inversion relaxing topological phase-space restrictions—is under-constrained by the presented data. After ruling out geometry, large sample rotation and gross non-hydrostaticity, the manuscript invokes Feng et al. compression calculations but supplies no material-specific band-structure calculation or spectroscopic probe at the experimental pressures (~2 GPa). The same observables (higher residual resistivity, broader SC transition, lower Hc2, damped SdH) remain equally consistent with modest residual micro-strain or pressure-enhanced impurity scattering that damps oscillations without altering bulk FS volume. The language should be softened to “consistent with” or “suggestiv
  2. §III, coherence-length discussion after Fig. 4: The observed ~40 % suppression of Hc2(0) is stated to be inconsistent with the small change in m* extracted from LK fits (would require m* ≈ 0.12 me rather than the measured 0.07 me). This quantitative mismatch is left unresolved and weakens the claim that the pressure response of superconductivity is simply orbital pair-breaking. Either a more complete analysis (including possible surface-superconductivity contribution under in-plane field, or pressure dependence of the pairing interaction) or an explicit acknowledgment that the microscopic origin remains open is needed.
minor comments (4)
  1. §III, final paragraph of QO discussion: Citations “StaskoPressureMedia, KlotzPressureMedia” are incomplete and appear as broken text; full bibliographic entries are required.
  2. Fig. 1(a) inset and Eq. (1): The empirical power-law form is useful for characterization but the extracted exponents are given without fit uncertainties or discussion of the temperature window; a brief note on robustness would help.
  3. Throughout: Occasional formatting inconsistencies (e.g., “j= 3/2”, missing spaces around equals signs, “H c2” vs “Hc2”) should be cleaned for production.
  4. Fig. 4 caption and text: Clarify whether the in-plane field is parallel or perpendicular to the current for each data set; the present wording is slightly ambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: LK extractions of frequency, m*, and TD are independent data fits; band-inversion interpretation cites external calculations and is not forced by construction.

full rationale

This is a standard experimental magnetotransport paper. Resistivity, SdH frequencies (~24 T, nearly pressure-independent), effective masses (0.075 me to 0.070 me via AT fits to Eq. 2), and Dingle temperatures (25 K to 42 K via Dingle plots of Eq. 4) are obtained directly from measured R(H,T,P) using the Lifshitz-Kosevich formulas; none of these quantities is defined in terms of the topological conclusion or fitted to force it. Carrier densities and coherence lengths follow from the measured frequencies and Hc2 by standard relations. The interpretive step that rising TD signals pressure-weakened Γ6–Γ8 inversion (citing Feng et al. 2010 compression calculations) is an inference after extrinsic factors are argued against from the same data set; it is not a self-definitional loop, a fitted-input-as-prediction, or a uniqueness claim imported from the authors. Prior group papers supply ambient-pressure context (j=3/2 character, surface conduction) but are not load-bearing for the pressure-induced changes themselves. No ansatz is smuggled, no known result is merely renamed, and the derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs by construction. Score 0 is therefore appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The load-bearing experimental claims rest on standard quantum-oscillation theory, hydrostatic pressure practice, and prior ambient characterization of YPtBi. The interpretive claim that pressure weakens band inversion additionally imports Feng et al. compression calculations and the assumption that Dingle damping tracks topological phase-space changes rather than disorder. Free parameters are ordinary fit quantities (mass, TD, power-law n, midpoint Tc, linear Hc2 extrapolations), not ad-hoc theory knobs. No new particles or forces are invented.

free parameters (5)
  • Dingle temperature TD = 25±4 K (0 GPa); 42±3 K (2.08 GPa)
    Extracted from linear Dingle plots of ln(ΔR/AT√H) vs 1/H; central quantitative evidence for pressure-enhanced scattering (25±4 K → 42±3 K).
  • effective mass m* = 0.075±0.01 me (0 GPa); 0.070±0.01 me (2.08 GPa)
    Fitted from temperature damping of FFT amplitudes via LK AT factor; used to argue mass is nearly pressure-independent.
  • power-law exponent n in ρ(T)=1/σ0+aT^n = decreases from ~2.2 to ~1.5 with P
    Empirical fit below 100 K used only to characterize more insulating trend; not derived from a microscopic model.
  • Hc2(0) linear extrapolation = 2.24 T (0 GPa); 1.39 T (2.08 GPa)
    Hc2(T) taken linear in the measured range and extrapolated to T=0 to obtain coherence lengths and the reported suppression.
  • Tc midpoint definition = ≈0.95 K at both pressures
    Tc defined as R=R_n/2; partial transition at 2.08 GPa extrapolated to half normal-state resistivity.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Lifshitz–Kosevich formulas for thermal (AT) and Dingle (AD) damping of SdH amplitude correctly describe the observed oscillations.
    Used throughout §III to extract m* and TD from T- and H-dependence of ΔR.
  • domain assumption Compressing the half-Heusler unit cell weakens (and can eliminate) Γ6–Γ8 band inversion, as calculated by Feng et al.
    Invoked in discussion to link rising TD and insulating trend to topological tuning.
  • domain assumption Daphne 7575 remains sufficiently hydrostatic up to ~2 GPa that observed QO damping is not dominated by pressure gradients.
    Supported by unbroadened Pb manometer transition and literature on the medium; incomplete citation strings in text.
  • domain assumption Ambient YPtBi hosts j=3/2 quasiparticles near EF from inverted bands, as established by prior QO angle dependence and band theory.
    Background for interpreting pairing and topology; cited from Kim et al. and band-structure papers.
  • standard math Standard semiclassical SdH frequency–area relation and orbital Hc2–coherence-length relation apply.
    Used for n from F≈24 T and ξ from Hc2.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 12683 in / 3646 out tokens · 37329 ms · 2026-07-14T22:51:45.238614+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The topological semimetal YPtBi has attracted considerable attention, owing to its novel superconducting and normal state properties. A strong band inversion from spin-orbit coupling allows the existence of $j=3/2$ quasiparticles near the Fermi level, which form Cooper pairs with angular momentum potentially higher than single or triplet states. In this report, we present high-pressure magnetotransport and Shubnikov-de Haas effect measurements on high-quality YPtBi up to $P = 2.08$ GPa. As a function of pressure, we observe a trend toward more insulating resistivity at low temperatures concomitant with a suppression of quantum oscillation amplitude. Together with a decrease of the upper critical field and significant increase in the Dingle temperature, the pressure-induced changes point to a weakening of the band inversion and potential tuning of the topological nature of YPtBi, suggesting pressure as a useful tool for understanding the nature of topology in other related half-Heusler compounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.11464 by Carsyn L. Mueller, Chandra Shekhar, Claudia Felser, Jared Z. Dans, Johnpierre Paglione, Lillian Jirousek, Prathum Saraf.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Evolution of transport behavior in YPtBi under pressure. (a) Resistivity as a function of temperature at selected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Pressure-dependent Shubnikov-de Haas quantum oscillations. (a) Oscillations ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Pressure-dependent effective mass and scattering time in YPtBi. (a) Temperature-dependent QO amplitudes at 0 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Superconductivity in YPtBi under pressure. (a) The superconducting transition at 0 (top) and 2.08 GPa (bottom). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

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

24 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    T. Graf, C. Felser, and S. S. Parkin, Progress in Solid State Chemistry39, 1 (2011)

    2011

  2. [2]

    Nakajima, R

    Y. Nakajima, R. Hu, K. Kirshenbaum, A. Hughes, P. Syers, X. Wang, K. Wang, R. Wang, S. R. Saha, D. Pratt, J. W. Lynn, and J. Paglione, Science Advances 1, e1500242 (2015)

    2015

  3. [3]

    N. P. Butch, P. Syers, K. Kirshenbaum, A. P. Hope, and J. Paglione, Physical Review B84, 220504 (2011)

    2011

  4. [4]

    H. Kim, K. Wang, Y. Nakajima, R. Hu, S. Ziemak, P. Syers, L. Wang, H. Hodovanets, J. D. Denlinger, P. M. R. Brydon, D. F. Agterberg, M. A. Tanatar, R. Prozorov, and J. Paglione, Science Advances4, eaao4513 (2018)

    2018

  5. [5]

    H. Kim, J. Lee, H. Hodovanets, K. Wang, J. D. Sau, and J. Paglione, Physical Review Research4, 033169 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    Meinert, Physical Review Letters116, 137001 (2016)

    M. Meinert, Physical Review Letters116, 137001 (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    H. Kim, M. A. Tanatar, H. Hodovanets, K. Wang, J. Paglione, and R. Prozorov, Physical Review B104, 014510 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    H. Kim, T. Metz, H. Hodovanets, D. Kraft, K. Wang, Y. S. Eo, and J. Paglione, Symmetry-breaking normal state response and surface superconductivity in topo- logical semimetal YPtBi (2024), arXiv:2402.18735 [cond- mat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    W. Feng, D. Xiao, Y. Zhang, and Y. Yao, Physical Re- view B82, 235121 (2010)

    2010

  10. [10]

    H. Lin, L. A. Wray, Y. Xia, S. Xu, S. Jia, R. J. Cava, A. Bansil, and M. Z. Hasan, Nature Materials9, 546 (2010)

    2010

  11. [11]

    Chadov, X

    S. Chadov, X. Qi, J. K¨ ubler, G. H. Fecher, C. Felser, and S. C. Zhang, Nature Materials9, 541 (2010)

    2010

  12. [12]

    P. M. R. Brydon, L. Wang, M. Weinert, and D. F. Agter- berg, Physical Review Letters116, 177001 (2016)

    2016

  13. [13]

    J. W. F. Venderbos, L. Savary, J. Ruhman, P. A. Lee, and L. Fu, Physical Review X8, 011029 (2018)

    2018

  14. [14]

    Savary, J

    L. Savary, J. Ruhman, J. W. F. Venderbos, L. Fu, and P. A. Lee, Physical Review B96, 214514 (2017)

    2017

  15. [15]

    Ishihara, T

    K. Ishihara, T. Takenaka, Y. Miao, Y. Mizukami, K. Hashimoto, M. Yamashita, M. Konczykowski, R. Ma- suki, M. Hirayama, T. Nomoto, R. Arita, O. Pavlosiuk, P. Wi´ sniewski, D. Kaczorowski, and T. Shibauchi, Phys- ical Review X11, 041048 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    E. R. Pfeiffer and J. F. Schooley, Journal of Low Tem- perature Physics2, 333 (1970)

    1970

  17. [17]

    A. M. Nikitin, Y. Pan, Y. K. Huang, T. Naka, and A. De Visser, Physical Review B94, 144516 (2016). 6

    2016

  18. [18]

    T. V. Bay, T. Naka, Y. K. Huang, and A. De Visser, Physical Review B86, 064515 (2012)

    2012

  19. [19]

    L. Wang, R. Hu, Y. Anand, S. R. Saha, J. R. Jeffries, and J. Paglione, Materials17, 3476 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    Shoenberg,Magnetic Oscillations in Metals, Cam- bridge Monographs on Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984)

    D. Shoenberg,Magnetic Oscillations in Metals, Cam- bridge Monographs on Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984)

    1984

  21. [21]

    Fauqu´ e, N

    B. Fauqu´ e, N. P. Butch, P. Syers, J. Paglione, S. Wied- mann, A. Collaudin, B. Grena, U. Zeitler, and K. Behnia, Physical Review B87, 035133 (2013)

    2013

  22. [22]

    Xiang, B

    Z. Xiang, B. Lawson, T. Asaba, C. Tinsman, L. Chen, C. Shang, X. H. Chen, and L. Li, Physical Review X7, 031054 (2017)

    2017

  23. [23]

    J. S. Higgins, M. K. Chan, T. Sarkar, R. D. McDonald, R. L. Greene, and N. P. Butch, New Journal of Physics 20, 043019 (2018)

    2018

  24. [24]

    L. S. Xie, L. M. Schoop, S. A. Medvedev, C. Felser, and R. Cava, Solid State Sciences30, 6 (2014)

    2014