Detection of a pair density wave state in UTe2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Spin-triplet topological superconductors should exhibit many unprecedented electronic properties, including fractionalized electronic states relevant to quantum information processing. Although UTe 2 may embody such bulk topological superconductivity 1–11 , its superconductive order parameter Δ( k ) remains unknown 12 . Many diverse forms for Δ( k ) are physically possible 12 in such heavy fermion materials 13 . Moreover, intertwined 14,15 density waves of spin (SDW), charge (CDW) and pair (PDW) may interpose, with the latter exhibiting spatially modulating 14,15 superconductive order parameter Δ( r ), electron-pair density 16–19 and pairing energy gap 17,20–23 . Hence, the newly discovered CDW state 24 in UTe 2 motivates the prospect that a PDW state may exist in this material 24,25 . To search for it, we visualize the pairing energy gap with μeV-scale energy resolution using superconductive scanning tunnelling microscopy (STM) tips 26–31 . We detect three PDWs, each with peak-to-peak gap modulations of around 10 μeV and at incommensurate wavevectors P i =1,2,3 that are indistinguishable from the wavevectors Q i =1,2,3 of the prevenient 24 CDW. Concurrent visualization of the UTe 2 superconductive PDWs and the non-superconductive CDWs shows that every P i : Q i pair exhibits a relative spatial phase δϕ ≈ π. From these observations, and given UTe 2 as a spin-triplet superconductor 12 , this PDW state should be a spin-triplet PDW 24,25 . Although such states do exist 32 in superfluid 3 He, for superconductors, they are unprecedented.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".