Comparative Electronic Structures of the Chiral Helimagnets Cr<sub>1/3</sub>NbS<sub>2</sub> and Cr<sub>1/3</sub>TaS<sub>2</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Magnetic materials with noncollinear spin textures are promising for spintronic applications. To realize practical devices, control over the length and energy scales of such spin textures is imperative. The chiral helimagnets Cr 1/3 NbS 2 and Cr 1/3 TaS 2 exhibit analogous magnetic-phase diagrams with different real-space periodicities and field dependence, positioning them as model systems for studying the relative strengths of the microscopic mechanisms giving rise to exotic spin textures. Although the electronic structure of the Nb analogue has been experimentally investigated, the Ta analogue has received far less attention. Here, we present a comprehensive suite of electronic structure studies on both Cr 1/3 NbS 2 and Cr 1/3 TaS 2 using angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy and density functional theory. We show that bands in Cr 1/3 TaS 2 are more dispersive than their counterparts in Cr 1/3 NbS 2, resulting in markedly different Fermi wavevectors. The fact that their qualitative magnetic phase diagrams are nevertheless identical shows that hybridization between the intercalant and host lattice mediates the magnetic exchange interactions in both of these materials. We ultimately find that ferromagnetic coupling is stronger in Cr 1/3 TaS 2, but larger spin–orbit coupling (and a stronger Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya interaction) from the heavier host lattice ultimately gives rise to shorter spin textures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".