Charge Density Wave Order and Fluctuations above <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CDW</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math> and below Superconducting <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math> in the Kagome Metal <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi>CsV</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Sb</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phase diagram of the kagome metal family $A{\mathrm{V}}_{3}{\mathrm{Sb}}_{5}$ ($A=\mathrm{K}$, Rb, Cs) features both superconductivity and charge density wave (CDW) instabilities, which have generated tremendous recent attention. Nonetheless, significant questions remain. In particular, the temperature evolution and demise of the CDW state has not been extensively studied, and little is known about the coexistence of the CDW with superconductivity at low temperatures. We report an x-ray scattering study of ${\mathrm{CsV}}_{3}{\mathrm{Sb}}_{5}$ over a broad range of temperatures from 300 to $\ensuremath{\sim}2\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{K}$, below the onset of its superconductivity at ${T}_{c}\ensuremath{\sim}2.9\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{K}$. Order parameter measurements of the $2\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}2\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}2$ CDW structure show an unusual and extended linear temperature dependence onsetting at ${T}^{*}\ensuremath{\sim}160\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{K}$, much higher than the susceptibility anomaly associated with CDW order at ${T}_{\mathrm{CDW}}=94\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{K}$. This implies strong CDW fluctuations exist to $\ensuremath{\sim}1.7\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{T}_{\mathrm{CDW}}$. The CDW order parameter is observed to be constant from $T=16$ to 2 K, implying that the CDW and superconducting order coexist below ${T}_{c}$, and, at ambient pressure, any possible competition between the two order parameters is manifested at temperatures well below ${T}_{c}$, if at all. Anomalies in the temperature dependence in the lattice parameters coincide with ${T}_{\mathrm{CDW}}$ for $c(T)$ and with ${T}^{*}$ for $a(T)$.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.885 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".