回复《关于“利用高分辨角分辨光电子能谱研究t-PtBi2中费米弧的拓扑结构”的评论》

中文摘要 AI 辅助

在近期的工作[1]中，我们证明了t-PtBi2中的费米弧确实是费米面的不连续片段。我们展示了表面态能带在Weyl点之间穿越EF，并在所有其他动量处具有有限带隙，直到其与体态能带合并。我们在低至3K的光谱中未发现超导能隙的证据。在最近的评论中，Sergey Borisenko重新分析了随我们论文发布的存储库中的数据，并得出结论：在我们的数据中，存在具有i波对称性的超导能隙，且温度高达19K。我们认为，这一论断源于对费米弧位置的不正确识别，以及对带隙与超导能隙的混淆。这一错误因评论作者分析了用于绘制费米面的插值图像中的数据而加剧，这些数据不适合用于提取毫电子伏特尺度的能隙。此前在电子邮件交流中已向评论作者告知了这一事实。我们坚持认为，关于3K以上不存在超导能隙的结论是有效的，并且与对相同样品进行的近期STM测量结果一致，该测量发现表面超导的Tc=3K，低于我们ARPES论文数据测量时的温度。

英文摘要

In a recent work [1] we demonstrated that the Fermi arcs in t-PtBi2 are indeed disconnected segments of the Fermi surface. We showed that the surface state band crosses EF between Weyl points and is has finite band gap at all other momenta until it merges with bulk bands. We did not find evidence of a superconducting gap in the spectra down to 3K. In recent Comment, Sergey Borisenko reanalyzed data from repository posted with our paper and concluded that a superconducting gap with i-wave symmetry is present in our data up to temperatures of 19K. We argue that this claim arises from incorrect identification of the location of Fermi arc and confusion between band gap and superconducting gap. This error was compounded by the fact that Author of the Comment analyzed data from interpolated images used for mapping the Fermi surface that are not suitable for extraction of energy gap on meV scale. This fact was previously communicated to the Author of the Comment during e-mail exchange. We maintain that our conclusion of absence of a superconducting gap above 3 K are valid and consistent with recent STM measurements performed on the same samples, which found surface superconductivity with Tc = 3K, below the temperature at which the data for our ARPES paper was measured.

发表机构

• Iowa State University（爱荷华州立大学）
• Ames Laboratory, US DOE（美国能源部艾姆斯实验室）

机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。

补充信息

备注

5 pages, 2 figures. Reply to arXiv:2609.22776