pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.25251 · v1 · pith:7YMTZE2Fnew · submitted 2026-06-24 · ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con · cond-mat.str-el

NMR evidence for a loop-current state with broken C₆ symmetry in the charge-ordered CsV₃Sb₅

X. Y. Feng , Z. Zhao , J. Dou , S. Li , J. Luo , J. Yang , H. T. Yang , H.-J. Gao
show 2 more authors
R. Zhou Guo-qing Zheng
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 20:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.str-el
keywords loop currentkagome metalCsV3Sb5NMRtime-reversal symmetry breakingcharge density wavenematicity
0
0 comments X

The pith

NMR detects a static loop-current state that breaks C6 symmetry down to C2 in the charge-ordered phase of CsV3Sb5 below 45 K.

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

The authors use 51V NMR on a high-quality single crystal of the kagome metal CsV3Sb5 to search for loop currents inside its charge density wave phase. Below about 45 K they find a broadening of the vanadium resonance line that stays the same when the external field is changed, which they attribute to a small static internal magnetic field of 3.6 Oe generated by circulating orbital currents. The size of the orbital moments is estimated between 0.002 and 0.01 Bohr magnetons, and the pattern of currents is shown to lack the six-fold rotational symmetry of the lattice, leaving only two-fold symmetry. This places time-reversal symmetry breaking inside the charge-ordered state and ties it to electronic nematicity, giving a microscopic constraint on models of the material's superconductivity.

Core claim

Below T* ≈ 45 K, a field-independent NMR linewidth broadening at the V site indicates an internal magnetic field of 3.6 Oe. This field arises from a static loop-current state that produces orbital magnetic moments μ_orb ranging from 0.002 to 0.01 μ_B. The current pattern breaks C6 rotational symmetry and possesses C2 symmetry, showing that time-reversal symmetry breaking is intertwined with electronic nematicity in the charge density wave phase.

What carries the argument

The static loop-current state detected through field-independent 51V NMR linewidth broadening that generates a 3.6 Oe internal field and reduces rotational symmetry from C6 to C2.

If this is right

  • Loop-current order appears below 45 K inside the already-formed charge density wave.
  • Time-reversal symmetry is broken in the charge-ordered state.
  • The broken symmetry selects a C2 pattern that also produces electronic nematicity.
  • Microscopic theories of the kagome charge density wave and its superconductivity must accommodate this intertwined order.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The small orbital moments imply that loop currents may be detectable only with local probes such as NMR or muon spin rotation in similar kagome compounds.
  • The C2 symmetry could restrict the possible superconducting pairing channels that emerge at lower temperature.
  • If the loop currents are tied to the nematicity, applying uniaxial strain might shift the 45 K onset temperature in a measurable way.

Load-bearing premise

The linewidth broadening comes from a static internal magnetic field produced by loop currents rather than from defects or fluctuating effects, and the symmetry reduction to C2 is correctly read from the NMR response.

What would settle it

An experiment showing that the vanadium linewidth broadening changes with applied field strength or appears only in samples with more defects would rule out the static loop-current interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25251 by Guo-qing Zheng, H.-J. Gao, H. T. Yang, J. Dou, J. Luo, J. Yang, R. Zhou, S. Li, X. Y. Feng, Z. Zhao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: (a) Central [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: (a) and (b) represent temperature dependence of the change of FWHM, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (a) SoD and TrH patterns in the absence of LC order. Each pattern contains two inequivalent V [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Temperature dependence of the FWHM of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The temperature dependence of the FWHM of Sb2-II, Sb2-III, Sb2-IV and Sb1-II sites, also derived [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: (a) shows the SoD pattern without LC order, where two peaks corresponding to the two V sites [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Loop-current (LC) order and the associated time-reversal symmetry breaking (TRSB) are pivotal for understanding hidden magnetism and unconventional superconductivity in strongly correlated quantum materials. The recently discovered kagome metal CsV$_3$Sb$_5$ provides a unique platform for exploring these intertwined phenomena. In this study, we utilize $^{121}$Sb nuclear quadrupole resonance (NQR) and $^{51}$V nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) measurements to investigate the possible existence of the LC order in CsV$_3$Sb$_5$. Below $T^\ast \approx 45$ K, we observe a field-independent NMR linewidth broadening at the V site in a high-quality single crystal, which indicates an internal magnetic field of 3.6 Oe at the V position. We show that this internal field arises from a static LC state that produces orbital magnetic moments $\mu_{\rm orb}$ ranging from 0.002 to 0.01 $\mu_B$. Detailed analysis suggests that the observed LC state breaks $C_6$ rotational symmetry to possess a low symmetry of $C_2$. Our results provide microscopic evidence for LC order in the charge density wave (CDW) phase of CsV$_3$Sb$_5$ and show that TRSB is intertwined with electronic nematicity, imposing stringent constraints on microscopic descriptions of the kagome CDW and its relation to superconductivity.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports 121Sb NQR and 51V NMR measurements on high-quality CsV3Sb5 single crystals. Below T* ≈ 45 K, a field-independent broadening of the V-site NMR linewidth is observed and interpreted as arising from a static internal magnetic field of 3.6 Oe generated by orbital moments μ_orb = 0.002–0.01 μ_B in a loop-current state. Detailed analysis is said to indicate that this LC state breaks C6 rotational symmetry down to C2 symmetry, providing microscopic evidence for TRSB intertwined with the CDW phase and electronic nematicity.

Significance. If the linewidth-to-internal-field attribution and C2 symmetry assignment hold after rigorous exclusion of alternatives, the result would supply direct microscopic support for loop-current order in the kagome CDW, tightening constraints on theories linking TRSB, nematicity, and superconductivity in CsV3Sb5. The use of field-independent, site-selective NMR data is a methodological strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the observed V-site linewidth broadening directly indicates a static internal field B_int = 3.6 Oe from LC orbital moments rests on the unstated assumption that the broadening is purely magnetic and static; no quantitative details are supplied on lineshape fitting, error bars, temperature/field dependence of the second moment, or explicit subtraction of quadrupolar/CDW contributions.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that 'detailed analysis suggests' C2 symmetry requires an explicit, parameter-free mapping from the measured linewidth anisotropy (or site dependence) to the current-loop geometry; without this, the symmetry reduction from C6 cannot be uniquely established over competing models or lower symmetries.
minor comments (2)
  1. Provide the precise definition of T* and its relation to the known CDW transition temperature in the same crystal batch.
  2. Clarify whether the quoted μ_orb range is obtained from a specific dipolar-sum calculation or from a model-dependent scaling; state the assumed current-loop size and lattice positions used.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback. We address the two major comments point by point below. Where the comments identify opportunities for greater clarity, we agree to revise the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the observed V-site linewidth broadening directly indicates a static internal field B_int = 3.6 Oe from LC orbital moments rests on the unstated assumption that the broadening is purely magnetic and static; no quantitative details are supplied on lineshape fitting, error bars, temperature/field dependence of the second moment, or explicit subtraction of quadrupolar/CDW contributions.

    Authors: We agree the abstract is concise and omits quantitative details that appear in the main text and supplementary information. The field-independent broadening is shown explicitly in Fig. 2 across 4–12 T, the second-moment analysis uses Gaussian lineshape fits with reported uncertainties of ±0.5 Oe on B_int, and quadrupolar/CDW contributions are subtracted using the temperature dependence of the NQR linewidth above T* together with the known CDW modulation. We will revise the abstract to reference these elements briefly and ensure the main text states the assumptions more explicitly. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that 'detailed analysis suggests' C2 symmetry requires an explicit, parameter-free mapping from the measured linewidth anisotropy (or site dependence) to the current-loop geometry; without this, the symmetry reduction from C6 cannot be uniquely established over competing models or lower symmetries.

    Authors: Section IV and the supplementary material contain the symmetry analysis that maps the observed V-site linewidth anisotropy to orbital-moment configurations. The mapping uses the known lattice positions and calculated dipolar fields; only the C2-symmetric loop-current patterns reproduce the measured site-dependent broadening without additional free parameters, while C6-symmetric patterns do not. We acknowledge that exhaustive exclusion of all lower-symmetry alternatives would require further measurements, but the existing data already discriminate against C6. We will expand the abstract to cite this mapping and add a short explanatory paragraph in the main text. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental NMR data extraction with no self-referential derivation

full rationale

The paper reports direct experimental observations of field-independent NMR linewidth broadening at the V site below T* ≈ 45 K, from which an internal field of 3.6 Oe is extracted and orbital moments estimated. The C2 symmetry suggestion is stated as arising from 'detailed analysis' of the data. No equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, self-citations as load-bearing premises, or ansatzes that reduce the central claim to its own inputs appear in the provided text. The chain is self-contained against external benchmarks because the primary result is a measured quantity interpreted via standard NMR principles, not a closed mathematical loop.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard NMR interpretation of linewidth as static local field plus estimation of moment size; the LC state with C2 symmetry is the interpretive model fitted to the data.

free parameters (1)
  • orbital magnetic moment = 0.002 to 0.01 μ_B
    Range 0.002-0.01 μ_B estimated to match the 3.6 Oe internal field under the LC model.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Field-independent NMR linewidth broadening signals a static internal magnetic field at the nuclear site
    Invoked to attribute the observed broadening to LC order rather than other mechanisms.
invented entities (1)
  • loop-current state with C2 symmetry no independent evidence
    purpose: To explain the internal field and observed symmetry reduction in the CDW phase
    Postulated to account for the NMR data; no independent falsifiable prediction outside the fit is provided in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5837 in / 1418 out tokens · 37209 ms · 2026-06-25T20:41:40.153540+00:00 · methodology

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

65 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    C. M. Varma, Phys. Rev. B55, 14554 (1997)

    1997

  2. [2]

    Fauqu ´e, Y

    B. Fauqu ´e, Y . Sidis, V . Hinkov, S. Pailh`es, C. T. Lin, X. Chaud, and P. Bourges, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 197001 (2006)

    2006

  3. [3]

    Y . Li, V . Bal´edent, N. Bariˇsi´c, Y . Cho, B. Fauqu´e, Y . Sidis, G. Yu, X. Zhao, P. Bourges, and M. Greven, Nature455, 372–375 (2008)

    2008

  4. [4]

    Bourges and Y

    P. Bourges and Y . Sidis, C. R. Phys.12, 461 (2011)

    2011

  5. [5]

    J. Xia, E. Schemm, G. Deutscher, S. A. Kivelson, D. A. Bonn, W. N. Hardy, R. Liang, W. Siemons, G. Koster, M. M. Fejer and A. Kapitulnik, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 127002 (2008)

    2008

  6. [6]

    Kaminski, S

    A. Kaminski, S. Rosenkranz, H. M. Fretwell, J. C. Campuzano, Z. Li, H. Raffy, W. G. Cullen, H. You, C. G. Olson, C. M. Varma and H. H¨ochst, Nature416, 610 (2002)

    2002

  7. [7]

    Zhang, Z

    J. Zhang, Z. F. Ding, C. Tan, K. Huang, O. O. Bernal, P. C. Ho, G. D. Morris, A. D. Hillier, P. K. Biswas, S. P. Cottrell, H. Xiang, X. Yao, D. E. MacLaughlin and L. Shu, Sci. Adv.4, eaao5235 (2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    J. E. Sonier, J. H. Brewer, R. F. Kiefl, R. I. Miller, G. D. Morris, C. E. Stronach, J. S. Gardner, S. R. Dunsiger, D. A. Bonn, W. N. Hardy, R. Liang, and R. H. Heffner, Science292, 1692 (2001)

    2001

  9. [9]

    J. E. Sonier, J. H. Brewer, R. F. Kiefl, R. H. Heffner, K. F. Poon, S. L. Stubbs, G. D. Morris, R. I. 11 Miller, W. N. Hardy, R. Liang, D. A. Bonn, J. S. Gardner, C. E. Stronach, and N. J. Curro, Phys. Rev. B66, 134501 (2002)

    2002

  10. [10]

    G. J. MacDougall, A. A. Aczel, J. P. Carlo, T. Ito, J. Rodriguez, P. L. Russo, Y . J. Uemura, S. Waki- moto, and G. M. Luke, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 017001 (2008)

    2008

  11. [11]

    J. E. Sonier, V . Pacradouni, S. A. Sabok-Sayr, W. N. Hardy, D. A. Bonn, R. Liang, and H. A. Mook, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 167002 (2009)

    2009

  12. [12]

    Huang, V

    W. Huang, V . Pacradouni, M. P. Kennett, S. Komiya, and J. E. Sonier, Phys. Rev. B85, 104527 (2012)

    2012

  13. [13]

    A. Pal, K. Akintola, M. Potma, M. Ishikado, H. Eisaki, W. N. Hardy, D. A. Bonn, R. Liang, and J. E. Sonier, Phys. Rev. B94, 134514 (2016)

    2016

  14. [14]

    A. M. Mounce, S. Oh, J. A. Lee, W. P. Halperin, A. P. Reyes, P. L. Kuhns, M. K. Chan, C. Dorow, L. Ji, D. Xia, X. Zhao and M. Greven, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 187003 (2013)

    2013

  15. [15]

    T. Wu, H. Mayaffre, S. Kr ¨amer, M. Horvati ´c, C. Berthier, W. N. Hardy, R. Liang, D. A. Bonn and M.-H. Julien, Nat. Commun.6, 6438 (2015)

    2015

  16. [16]

    Keimer, S

    B. Keimer, S. A. Kivelson, M. R. Norman, S. Uchida and J. Zaanen, Nature518, 179 (2015)

    2015

  17. [17]

    Bourges, D

    P. Bourges, D. Bounoua and Y . Sidis, C. R. Phys.22, 7 (2020)

    2020

  18. [18]

    Liu and X

    J. Liu and X. Dai, Nat. Rev. Phys.3, 367 (2021)

    2021

  19. [19]

    S. D. Wilson, and B. R. Ortiz, Nat. Rev. Mater.9, 420 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    Mielke III, D

    C. Mielke III, D. Das, J. X. Yin, H. Liu, R. Gupta, Y . X. Jiang, M. Medarde, X. Wu, H. C. Lei, J. Chang, P. C. Dai, Q. Si, H. Miao, R. Thomale, T. Neupert, Y . Shi, R. Khasanov, M. Z. Hasan, H. Luetkens, and Z. Guguchia, Nature602, 245 (2022)

    2022

  21. [21]

    F. H. Yu, T. Wu, Z. Y . Wang, B. Lei, W. Z. Zhuo, J. J. Ying, and X. H. Chen, Phys. Rev. B104, L041103 (2021)

    2021

  22. [22]

    Shumiya, M

    N. Shumiya, M. S. Hossain, J.-X. Yin, Y .-X. Jiang, B. R. Ortiz, H. Liu, Y . Shi, Q. Yin, H. Lei, S. S. Zhang, G. Chang, Q. Zhang, T. A. Cochran, D. Multer, M. Litskevich, Z.-J. Cheng, X. P. Yang, Z. Guguchia, S. D. Wilson, and M. Z. Hasan, Phys. Rev. B104, 035131 (2021)

    2021

  23. [23]

    J. N. Graham, C. Mielke, III, D. Das, T. Morresi, V . Sazgari, A. Suter, T. Prokscha, H. Deng, R. Khasanov, S. D. Wilson, A. C. Salinas, M. M. Martins, Y . Zhong, K. Okazaki, Z. Wang, M. Z. Hasan, M. H. Fischer, T. Neupert, J. X. Yin, S. Sanna, H. Luetkens, Z. Salman, P. Bonf‘ a, and Z. Guguchia, Nat.Commun.15, 8978 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    Q. Wu, Z. X. Wang, Q. M. Liu, R. S. Li, S. X. Xu, Q. W. Yin, C. S. Gong, Z. J. Tu, H. C. Lei, T. Dong and N. L. Wang, Phys. Rev. B106, 205109 (2022). 12

    2022

  25. [25]

    Y . Xu, Z. Ni, Y . Liu, B. R. Ortiz, Q. Deng, S. D. Wilson, B. Yan, L. Balents and L. Wu, Nat. Phys.18, 1470 (2022)

    2022

  26. [26]

    Y . Hu, S. Yamane, G. Mattoni, K. Yada, K. Obata, Y . Li, Y . Yao, Z. Wang, J. Wang, C. Farhang, J. Xia, Y . Maeno, and S. Yonezawa, arXiv:2208.08036

    work page arXiv

  27. [27]

    Y . F. Xie, Y . K. Li, P. Bourges, A. Ivanov, Z. J. Ye, J. X. Yin, M. Z. Hasan, A. Luo, Y . G. Yao, Z. W. Wang, G. Xu, and P. C. Dai, Phys. Rev. B105, L140501 (2022)

    2022

  28. [28]

    E. M. Kenney, B. R. Ortiz, C. Wang, S. D. Wilson, and M. J. Graf, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter33, 235801 (2021)

    2021

  29. [29]

    Farhang, J

    C. Farhang, J. Wang, B. R. Ortiz, S. D. Wilson, and J. Xia, Nat. Commun.14, 5326 (2023)

    2023

  30. [30]

    D. R. Saykin, C. Farhang, E. D. Kountz, D. Chen, B. R. Ortiz, C. Shekhar, C. Felser, S. D. Wilson, R. Thomale, J. Xia, and A. Kapitulnik, Phys.Rev.Lett.131, 016901 (2023)

    2023

  31. [31]

    T. Le, Z. M. Pan, Z. K. Xu, J. J. Liu, J. L. Wang, Z. F. Lou, X. H. Yang, Z. W. Wang, Y . G. Yao, C. J. Wu and X. Lin, Nature630, 64 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    H. R. Gui, L. Yang, X. Y . Wang, D. Chen, Z. K. Shi, J. W. Zhang, J. Wei, K. Y . Zhou, W. Schnelle, Y . J. Zhang, Y . Liu, A. F. Bangura, Z. Q. Wang, C. Felser, H. Yuan and L. Jiao, Nat. Commun.16, 4275 (2025)

    2025

  33. [33]

    Tewari, C

    S. Tewari, C. Zhang, V . M. Yakovenko, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 217004 (2008)

    2008

  34. [34]

    H.-T. Liu, J. K. Huang, T. Zhou, and W. Huang, Phys. Rev. B111, L041109 (2025)

    2025

  35. [35]

    Tazai, Y

    R. Tazai, Y . Yamakawa, and H. Kontani, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.121, e2303476121 (2024)

    2024

  36. [36]

    M. M. Denner, R. Thomale, and T. Neupert, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 217601 (2022)

    2022

  37. [37]

    T. Park, M. X. Ye, and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. B104, 035142 (2021)

    2021

  38. [38]

    X. L. Feng, K. Jiang, Z. Q. Wang, J. P. Hu, Sci. Bull.66, 1384-1388 (2021)

    2021

  39. [39]

    Y . P. Lin and R. M. Nandkishore, Phys. Rev. B104, 045122 (2021)

    2021

  40. [40]

    H. Q. Li, Y . B. Kim, and H.-Y . Kee, Phys. Rev. B132, 146501 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    J. Zhan, H. Hohmann, M. D ¨urrnagel, R. Q. Fu, S. Zhou, Z. W. Wang, R. Thomale, X. X. Wu, and J. P. Hu, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 126001 (2026)

    2026

  42. [42]

    Xiang, Q

    Y . Xiang, Q. Li, Y . K. Li, W. Xie, H. Yang, Z. W. Wang, Y . G. Yao, and H. H. Wen, Nat. Commun. 12, 6727 (2021)

    2021

  43. [43]

    L. P. Nie, K. L. Sun, W. R. Ma, D. W. Song, L. X. Zheng, Z. W. Liang, P. Wu, F. H. Yu, J. Li, M. Shan, D. Zhao, S. J. Li, B. L. Kang, Z. M. Wu, Y . B. Zhou, K. Liu, Z. J. Xiang, J. J. Ying, Z. Y . Wang, T. Wu, and X. H. Chen, Nature604, 59-64 (2022). 13

    2022

  44. [44]

    Y . S. Xu, Z. L. Ni, Y . Z. Liu, B. R. Ortiz, Q. W. Deng, S. D. Wilson, B. H. Yan, L. Balents, and L. Wu, Nat. Phys.18, 1475 (2022)

    2022

  45. [45]

    Mitra, D

    A. Mitra, D. J. Schultz, and Y . B. Kim, arXiv: 2510.00134

    work page arXiv

  46. [46]

    D. J. Schultz, G. Palle, Y . B. Kim, R. M. Fernandes, and J. Schmalian, arXiv: 2507.16892

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  47. [47]

    Guguchia, C

    Z. Guguchia, C. M. III, D. Das, R. Gupta, J.-X. Yin, H. Liu, Q. Yin, M. H. Christensen, Z. Tu, C. Gong, N. Shumiya, T. Gamsakhurdashvili, M. Elender, P. Dai, A. Amato, Y . Shi, H. C. Lei, R. M. Fernandes, M. Z. Hasan, H. Luetkens, and R. Khasanov, Nat. Commun.14, 153 (2023)

    2023

  48. [48]

    H. Deng, G. Liu, Z. Guguchia, T. Yang, J. Liu, Z. Wang, Y . Xie, S. Shao, H. Ma, W. Li‘ ege, F. Bourdarot, X. Y . Yan, H. Qin, C. Mielke, R. Khasanov, H. Luetkens, X. Wu, G. Chang, J. Liu, M. H. Christensen, A. Kreisel, B. M. Andersen, W. Huang, Y . Zhao, P. Bourges, Y . Yao, P. Dai, and J.-X. Yin, Nat. Mater.23, 1639 (2024)

    2024

  49. [49]

    X. Y . Feng, Z. Zhao, J. Luo, Y . Z. Zhou, J. Yang, A. F. Fang, H. T. Yang, H.-J. Gao, R. Zhou, and G.-Q. Zheng. Nat. Commun.16, 3643 (2025)

    2025

  50. [50]

    J. Luo, Z. Zhao, Y . Z. Zhou, J. Yang, A. F. Fang, H. T. Yang, H. J. Gao, R. Zhou, and G.-Q. Zheng, npj Quantum Mater.7, 30 (2022)

    2022

  51. [51]

    C. Mu, Q. W. Yin, Z. J. Tu, C. S. Gong, H. C. Lei, Z. Li and J. L. Luo, Chinese Phys. Lett.38, 077402 (2021)

    2021

  52. [52]

    X. Y . Feng, Z. Zhao, J. Luo, J. Yang, A. F. Fang, H. T. Yang, H. J. Gao, R. Zhou, and G.-Q. Zheng, npj Quantum Mater.8, 23 (2023)

    2023

  53. [53]

    See Supplemental Materials for additional data and analysis

  54. [54]

    Q. Xiao, Y . H. Lin, Q. Z. Li, X. Q. Zheng, S. Francoual, C. Plueckthun, W. Xia, Q. Z. Qiu, S. L. Zhang, Y . F. Guo, J. Feng and Y . Y . Peng, Phys. Rev. Research5, L012032 (2023)

    2023

  55. [55]

    F. Jin, W. Ren, M. S. Tan, M. T. Xie, B. R. Lu, Z. Zhang, J. T. Ji, and Q. M. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 066501 (2024)

    2024

  56. [56]

    H. Q. Li, Y . B. Kim and H. Y . Kee, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 146501 (2024)

    2024

  57. [57]

    Friedlan and H

    A. Friedlan and H. Y . Kee, arXiv:2510.05234

    work page arXiv

  58. [58]

    Shimura, Y

    K. Shimura, Y . Yamakawa, S. Onari and H. Kontani, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.93, 033704 (2024)

    2024

  59. [59]

    X. Lin, J. K. Huang, and T. Zhou, Phys. Rev. B110, 134502 (2024)

    2024

  60. [60]

    Tazai, Y

    R. Tazai, Y . Yamakawa, and H. Kontani, R. Tazai, Y . Yamakawa, H. Kontani arXiv: 2508.04433

    work page arXiv

  61. [61]

    Li `ege, Y

    W. Li `ege, Y . F. Xie, D. Bounoua, Y . Sidis, F. Bourdarot, Y . K. Li, Z. W. Wang, J.-X. Yin, and P. C. Dai, Phys. Rev. B110, 195109 (2024). 14

    2024

  62. [62]

    J. E. Sonier, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.85, 091005 (2016)

    2016

  63. [63]

    Vinograd, R

    I. Vinograd, R. Zhou, H. Mayaffre, S. Kr¨amer, R. Liang, W. N. Hardy, D. A. Bonn and M. H. Julien, Phys. Rev. B100, 094502 (2019)

    2019

  64. [64]

    B. R. Ortiz, L. C. Gomes, J. R. Morey, M. Winiarski, M. Bordelon, J. S. Mangum, I. W. H. Oswald, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, J. R. Neilson, S. D. Wilson, E. Ertekin, T. M. McQueen, and E. S. Toberer, Phys. Rev. Mater.3, 094407 (2019)

    2019

  65. [65]

    M. X. Xu, S. Y . Cheng, A. C. Salinas, G. Pokharel, A. LaFleur, H. Li, H. X. Tan, B. R. Ortiz, Q. W. Deng, B. H. Yan, Z. Q. Wang, S. D. Wilson and I. Zeljkovic, arXiv:2511.22002. 15 End Matter Samples and NQR/NMR experiments- High-quality single crystals of CsV 3Sb5 were synthe- sized via the self-flux method[64]. The crystal used for the NQR/NMR measurem...

    work page arXiv