Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Pressure-induced concurrent amorphization and superconductivity in topological material NbNiTe5

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read NbNiTe5 becomes amorphous and superconducting under the same compression, with the superconducting transition temperature rising as structural disorder increases.

desk verdict A new data point in the short list of materials that superconduct under the same pressure that amorphizes them, with the superconducting evidence still thinner than the structural evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02342 v1 pith:OD7FNWTT submitted 2026-08-03 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Lingxiao Zhao , Yi Zhao , Bangshuai Zhu , Qi Wang , Cuiying Pei , Juefei Wu , Jin-Ke Bao , Wen-He Jiao
show 1 more author
Yanpeng Qi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords NbNiTe5pressure-inducedamorphizationsuperconductivitystructuraldisordertopologicalmaterialtransitionmetalchalcogenidehigh-pressuretransportRamanspectroscopy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports that compressing the topological material NbNiTe5 past about 10 GPa triggers two changes at once: the crystal begins to lose long-range order and become amorphous, and it starts to show signs of superconductivity. As pressure rises to 45.7 GPa, the onset superconducting temperature climbs from 0.6 K to 1.4 K, so the more disordered the structure becomes, the higher Tc goes. The authors interpret this as disorder-driven superconductivity: amorphization preserves short-range chain motifs while redistributing low-energy vibrational modes, which plausibly strengthens the electron pairing. The finding matters because simultaneous pressure-induced amorphization and superconductivity is rarely seen, and it offers a controlled setting to test how structural disorder can enhance rather than destroy superconductivity. The evidence for superconductivity is a partial resistance drop that is suppressed by magnetic field, with no zero-resistance or thermodynamic signature reported.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the quasi-1D crystal structure of NbNiTe5, built from Nb-Te distorted square antiprisms and Ni chains. Under pressure, this framework undergoes a gradual amorphization in which long-range periodicity is lost while short-range motifs survive. The key observable carrying the argument is the redistribution of Raman spectral weight toward low frequencies as disorder increases, which the paper links to softened and damped vibrations and, through recent theoretical proposals, to a stronger electron-phonon coupling that raises Tc.

What would settle it

Measure AC susceptibility or heat capacity of NbNiTe5 in a diamond-anvil cell at about 45 GPa down to 0.3 K: a diamagnetic shielding signal or a specific-heat jump at the same 1.4 K where the resistance drops would confirm bulk superconductivity; the absence of either would indicate the resistance drop is not a bulk superconducting transition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that pressure-induced amorphization and superconductivity in NbNiTe5 begin at the same pressure, around 10 GPa, and that the superconducting transition temperature then rises monotonically with increasing structural disorder, from 0.6 K at 9.5 GPa to 1.4 K at 45.7 GPa. The paper supports this with three converging observations: X-ray diffraction shows a broad hump replacing crystalline peaks after 10 GPa, Raman spectra retain localized modes but develop new peaks and an enhanced low-frequency response, and four-probe resistance shows a magnetic-field-suppressed drop at low temperature. The authors propose that the gradual amorphization, which preserves short-range Nb-Te

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the low-temperature resistance drop—defined by the 90% onset criterion and suppressed by a magnetic field—genuinely marks bulk superconductivity in NbNiTe5, since no zero-resistance state, susceptibility, or specific-heat anomaly is reported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • NbNiTe5 becomes a controlled laboratory for tuning the degree of structural disorder continuously between roughly 10 and 20 GPa while watching the superconducting onset in the same run.
  • The rise of Tc from 0.6 K at 9.5 GPa to 1.4 K at 45.7 GPa demonstrates that, in this material, increasing disorder accompanies rather than suppresses superconductivity.
  • The low-frequency Raman enhancement gives an experimentally accessible quantity that can be matched against models of phonon softening and electron-phonon coupling in disordered systems.
  • The paper predicts that comparable quasi-1D tellurides such as TaNiTe5 and TaPdTe5 are promising candidates for the same concurrent amorphization and superconductivity.
  • The upper critical field values (0.62 T at 31 GPa and 0.76 T at 45.7 GPa) provide a first estimate of pairing strength for future tests.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If bulk thermodynamic probes later confirm the transition, the case becomes a direct example of disorder-controlled superconductivity in a topological semimetal; the transport-only evidence leaves filamentary or surface superconductivity as a live alternative explanation.
  • A quantitative prediction follows from the paper's interpretation: Tc should track the integrated low-frequency Raman spectral weight as pressure varies, so simultaneous transport and Raman measurements at low temperature could test the proposed mechanism.
  • The same gradual-amorphization window might be found by quick high-pressure resistance and diffraction screening of other chain-structure tellurides, expanding the known family of disorder-enhanced superconductors.
  • The paper's emphasis on preserved short-range motifs suggests a design heuristic: materials whose chain frameworks can lose long-range order without destroying local coordination are the most likely candidates for concurrent amorphization and superconductivity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a combined high-pressure transport, synchrotron X-ray diffraction, Raman spectroscopy, and DFT study of the topological material NbNiTe5. The authors identify a low-pressure structural anomaly near 4.5 GPa, followed by the onset of amorphization around 10 GPa. Concurrently, a resistance drop appears at ~0.6 K and rises to ~1.4 K by 45.7 GPa, and the drop is suppressed by an external magnetic field. These observations are interpreted as pressure-induced superconductivity emerging together with amorphization, with the degree of structural disorder modulating the superconducting transition temperature. The paper also discusses the possible role of disorder-driven reconstruction of the low-energy vibrational spectrum.

Significance. If the superconductivity is bulk, NbNiTe5 would be a rare case in which pressure-induced amorphization and superconductivity begin at the same pressure, with a tunable disorder–Tc relationship in a transition-metal chalcogenide. The structural evidence is solid: XRD shows a progressive loss of long-range order (broad hump after 20 GPa) and Raman spectra show reproducible mode reconstruction and low-frequency spectral-weight transfer. The transport data are consistent with superconductivity, but the key weakness is that the superconducting state is established only by a partial resistance drop with a 90%-onset criterion and no thermodynamic or magnetic confirmation. Given that the central narrative rests on this evidence, the claim is not yet fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results and Discussions, Fig. 2d–f, Tc definition] The superconducting claim rests solely on a partial resistance drop, with Tc defined at 90% of the normal-state resistance; no zero-resistance plateau, magnetic susceptibility, or specific-heat anomaly is reported. The field suppression at 31.0 and 45.7 GPa is consistent with superconductivity, but under the non-hydrostatic c-BN/epoxy pressure medium, filamentary or impurity superconducting paths (e.g., Te, Nb, Ni compounds) could produce similar partial drops. This is load-bearing for the 'concurrent amorphization and superconductivity' narrative. Please provide zero-resistance data to the base temperature, a shielding/susceptibility measurement, or a specific-heat anomaly; alternatively, a systematic study ruling out filamentary/impurity origin (e.g., multiple contact configurations, current dependence, several samples, post-run EDX/structural check).
  2. [Results and Discussions, 'Concurrent amorphization...' paragraph and Fig. 4] The claim that superconductivity is 'modulated by the degree of disorder' is inferred from the temporal correlation between amorphization and the Tc increase. Pressure alone can enhance Tc, and the data do not separate the two variables. The Tc change is small (0.6–1.4 K), and the structural-disorder parameter evolves gradually over a wide pressure range. To support the disorder-modulation claim, the authors should plot a quantitative measure of disorder (e.g., XRD hump intensity or low-frequency Raman weight) against Tc and discuss whether the observed pressure dependence of Tc is consistent with known disorder-driven mechanisms rather than with generic pressure effects (e.g., increased electron–phonon coupling).
  3. [Results and Discussions, Fig. 2f and generalized GL fit] The upper critical field Hc2(T) is extracted using the 90%-onset criterion. Onset-based Hc2 can substantially overestimate the bulk upper critical field, particularly in disordered or filamentary systems. The GL formula is also not typeset correctly in the text. Please provide the explicit equation and define the criterion used for each Hc2 data point; if possible, compare with the 50%-drop or zero-resistance criterion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Methods and Results, equations (BM and GL)] The Birch–Murnaghan equation and the generalized GL formula are garbled in the text (special characters/braces misplaced). Please typeset them properly.
  2. [Figure 2d–f] Please label each curve in Fig. 2d with its pressure value. The text refers to data at 9.5, 31.0, and 45.7 GPa, but the figure should be self-explanatory.
  3. [Abstract and Introduction] There are minor typos and spacing issues, e.g., 'N bNiTe5' in the abstract and 'TMC or halogenides' (should be 'halides') in the Introduction.
  4. [Results and Discussions, second-order transition (Fig. 3b–c)] The term 'second-order transition' at ~4.5 GPa is inferred from lattice parameter anomalies and bulk-modulus change. This is suggestive, but a second-order transition normally requires thermodynamic evidence (e.g., specific heat). Please soften the terminology or add supporting evidence.
  5. [Methods, pressure transmitting medium] The c-BN/epoxy medium in transport experiments is non-hydrostatic. Please acknowledge that this can affect the apparent amorphization pressure and contribute to broadening of the superconducting transition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central finding is an experimentally observed correlation, and self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an observed correlation: NbNiTe5 amorphizes under pressure (XRD broad hump, Raman mode reconstruction) and shows a resistance drop near the same pressure (9.5-10 GPa) that is suppressed by magnetic field. These are independent operational observations, not quantities derived from one another. Tc is defined by a 90% resistance-drop criterion, and the GL fit is a conventional parameterization of the measured Hc2(T) data; no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The DFT calculations use lattice parameters from XRD but only to interpret the normal-state resistance trend, not to generate the superconductivity claim. Self-citations (Refs [12], [16], [24], [26], [27]) appear in the motivation and comparison, but the conclusion about NbNiTe5 rests on the present transport/XRD/Raman measurements. The paper itself explicitly limits the disorder-Tc mechanism: 'A quantitative determination of this connection, however, requires future high-pressure calculations and direct spectroscopic characterization of phonon linewidths and EPC.' Concerns about the partial-resistance-drop evidence are experimental validity issues, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim (concurrent superconductivity and amorphization) is an experimental observation and does not depend on a small set of fitted parameters. The listed free parameters come from supporting analyses (B0 and Hc2 fits) rather than from any derivation of Tc. The axioms are standard domain interpretations used to read the measurements.

free parameters (4)
  • Bulk modulus B0 (0-4.5 GPa) = 58 GPa
    Fit of V(P) to second-order Birch-Murnaghan over the low-pressure segment; the split at 4.5 GPa is chosen by eye from lattice-parameter anomalies.
  • Bulk modulus B0 (4.5-14 GPa) = 113.9 GPa
    Fit of V(P) to second-order Birch-Murnaghan over the high-pressure segment; the abrupt change supports the claimed second-order transition but is sensitive to the chosen split pressure.
  • Upper critical field Hc2(0) at 31.0 GPa = 0.62 T
    Extrapolation using the generalized GL formula from Hc2(T) data.
  • Upper critical field Hc2(0) at 45.7 GPa = 0.76 T
    Extrapolation using the generalized GL formula from Hc2(T) data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The resistance drop at low temperature is a superconducting transition, confirmed by magnetic-field suppression at 31.0 and 45.7 GPa.
    The paper does not report zero resistance, AC susceptibility, or specific-heat anomaly; field suppression is the sole confirmation, which is standard but less definitive for bulk superconductivity.
  • domain assumption XRD peak broadening and the diffuse hump at 2θ ≈ 13° indicate pressure-induced amorphization.
    Standard interpretation of loss of long-range order; however, the high-pressure XRD run does not mention a pressure-transmitting medium, so non-hydrostatic strain could broaden peaks.
  • domain assumption The PBE-GGA DFT framework adequately describes the electronic structure of NbNiTe5 under pressure.
    Used to compute DOS at 1.6 and 4.5 GPa to explain the resistance non-monotonicity; no experimental validation beyond ambient-pressure band topology.
  • domain assumption The generalized Ginzburg-Landau formula is applicable to the superconducting state of this disordered material.
    Used to extrapolate Hc2(0); applicability to amorphous or strongly disordered superconductors is assumed without independent justification.
  • domain assumption Ruby pressure readings are representative of sample pressure despite the use of a solid c-BN/epoxy pressure medium in transport runs.
    The PTM is solid, so pressure gradients and non-hydrostatic conditions are possible; the paper does not quantify inhomogeneity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pressure-induced concurrent amorphization and superconductivity in topological material NbNiTe5." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OD7FNWTT

@misc{pith2026260802342,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pressure-induced concurrent amorphization and superconductivity in topological material NbNiTe5},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OD7FNWTT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02342}
}
read the original abstract

We have systematically studied the structural and electronic properties of a topological material NbNiTe5 under high pressure. The evolution of the normal state resistance shows a non-monotonic trend from 0.7 GPa to 5.1 GPa, in accordance with the second-order transition along the inter-layer direction observed in X-ray diffraction and Raman spectra. At around 10 GPa, the sample starts amorphization, which is concurrent with the emergence of superconductivity. Upon further compression, the structural disorder enhances and the superconducting transition becomes clearer, suggesting that the superconductivity is modulated by the degree of disorder in NbNiTe5 under high pressure. Within 45.7 GPa, the superconducting transition temperature (Tc) slowly rises from 0.6 K at 9.5 GPa to 1.4 K at 45.7 GPa. Our findings extend the family of transition metal chalcogenide superconductors and shed new light on understanding superconductivity in disordered systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02342 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. The evolution of resistance and superconductivity of NbNiTe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Buckel and R

    W. Buckel and R. Hilsch, Zeitschrift für Physik 138, 109 (1954)

    1954

  2. [2]

    Buckel and R

    W. Buckel and R. Hilsch, Zeitschrift für Physik 146, 27 (1956)

    1956

  3. [3]

    Zhao et al., Nature Physics 15, 904 (2019)

    K. Zhao et al., Nature Physics 15, 904 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    Bergmann, Physics Reports 27, 159 (1976)

    G. Bergmann, Physics Reports 27, 159 (1976)

    1976

  5. [5]

    A. E. Curzon and A. J. Mascall, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 2, 382 (1969)

    1969

  6. [6]

    Buzea and K

    C. Buzea and K. Robbie, Superconductor Science and Technology 18, R1 (2005)

    2005

  7. [7]

    Wang, Y.-Z

    J.-J. Wang, Y.-Z. Xu, R. Mazzarello, M. Wuttig, and W. Zhang, Materials 10, 862 (2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    Zhang et al., Physical Review Letters 127, 127002 (2021)

    K. Zhang et al., Physical Review Letters 127, 127002 (2021)

    2021

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Prakash, A

    O. Prakash, A. Kumar, A. Thamizhavel, and S. Ramakrishnan, Science 355, 52 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    M. Tian, J. Wang, N. Kumar, T. Han, Y. Kobayashi, Y. Liu, T. E. Mallouk, and M. H. W. Chan, Nano Letters 6, 2773 (2006)

    2006

  3. [11]

    J. S. Shier and D. M. Ginsberg, Physical Review 147, 384 (1966)

    1966

  4. [12]

    Zhao et al., Advanced Materials 36, 2401118 (2024)

    Y. Zhao et al., Advanced Materials 36, 2401118 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Greenberg et al., Physical Review B 95, 064514 (2017)

    E. Greenberg et al., Physical Review B 95, 064514 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Hen et al., Physical Review B 97, 024513 (2018)

    B. Hen et al., Physical Review B 97, 024513 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Zhou et al., Physical Review B 108, 184504 (2023)

    W. Zhou et al., Physical Review B 108, 184504 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    L. Zhao, C. Pei, J. Wu, Y. Zhao, Q. Wang, B. Zhu, C. Li, W. Cao, and Y. Qi, Physical Review B 108, 214518 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    P. N. Gavryushkin, K. D. Litasov, S. S. Dobrosmislov, and Z. I. Popov, physica status solidi (b) 254, 1600857 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    W. J. Nellis, J. A. Moriarty, A. C. Mitchell, M. Ross, R. G. Dandrea, N. W. Ashcroft, N. C. Holmes, and G. R. Gathers, Physical Review Letters 60, 1414 (1988)

    1988

  11. [19]

    Machon, F

    D. Machon, F. Meersman, M. C. Wilding, M. Wilson, and P. F. McMillan, Progress in Materials Science 61, 216 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    S. K. Deb, M. Wilding, M. Somayazulu, and P. F. McMillan, Nature 414, 528 (2001)

    2001

  13. [21]

    C.-Z. Chen, J. Song, H. Jiang, Q.-f. Sun, Z. Wang, and X. C. Xie, Physical Review Letters 115, 246603 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Chi et al., Materials Today Physics 49, 101602 (2024)

    Z. Chi et al., Materials Today Physics 49, 101602 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Shahar and Z

    D. Shahar and Z. Ovadyahu, Physical Review B 46, 10917 (1992)

    1992

  16. [24]

    Zhao et al., Crystals 12, 1833 (2022)

    Y. Zhao et al., Crystals 12, 1833 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Mu et al., Physical Review Materials 5, 084201 (2021)

    Q.-G. Mu et al., Physical Review Materials 5, 084201 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Pei et al., Materials Today Physics 21, 100509 (2021)

    C. Pei et al., Materials Today Physics 21, 100509 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Jiao et al., Physical Review B 107, 195124 (2023)

    W.-H. Jiao et al., Physical Review B 107, 195124 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Zhou et al., Physical Review B 106, 104512 (2022)

    Y. Zhou et al., Physical Review B 106, 104512 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Qian et al., Physical Review B 109, 054517 (2024)

    N. Qian et al., Physical Review B 109, 054517 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Zhang et al., Physical Review B 111, L140502 (2025)

    C. Zhang et al., Physical Review B 111, L140502 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    H. K. Mao, J. Xu, and P. M. Bell, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 91, 4673 (1986)

    1986

  24. [32]

    B. H. Toby and R. B. Von Dreele, Journal of Applied Crystallography 46, 544 (2013)

    2013

  25. [33]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller, Physical Review B 54, 11169 (1996)

    1996

  26. [34]

    H. J. Monkhorst and J. D. Pack, Physical Review B 13, 5188 (1976)

    1976

  27. [35]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Physical Review Letters 77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  28. [36]

    Yu et al., Journal of the American Chemical Society 146, 3890 (2024)

    H. Yu et al., Journal of the American Chemical Society 146, 3890 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Xi et al., Chinese Physics Letters 36, 057402 (2019)

    Z. Xi et al., Chinese Physics Letters 36, 057402 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Shuker and R

    R. Shuker and R. W. Gammon, Physical Review Letters 25, 222 (1970)

    1970

  31. [39]

    Baggioli, C

    M. Baggioli, C. Setty, and A. Zaccone, Physical Review B 101, 214502 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Setty, M

    C. Setty, M. Baggioli, and A. Zaccone, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 36, 173002 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Jiang, E

    C. Jiang, E. Beneduce, M. Baggioli, C. Setty, and A. Zaccone, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 35, 164003 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Setty, M

    C. Setty, M. Baggioli, and A. Zaccone, Physical Review B 103, 094519 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.