Figure 1

(a)–(d) False color plot of the distribution of spectral weight integrated over $\pm 40\mathrm{meV}$ around $E_F$ for $1T\mathrm{\text{−}}{\mathrm{Cu}}_x{\mathrm{TiSe}}_2$ with $x=0$, 0.025, 0.055, and 0.065, respectively. Data were threefold symmetrized. (e)–(i) Photoemission spectra sampled equally along the $k_{\parallel }=0\to a^{*}/2$ cut shown in panel $\mathbf{a}$ for various Cu dopings. The spectra were stacked for clarity. (j) Photoemission spectrum of ${\mathrm{TiTe}}_2$ at ${\mathbf{L}}^{\prime }$ taken at 20 K with 21.2 eV photon from Ref. 25, where the three dashed curves are the simulated spectra when the chemical potential is shifted down by 15, 25, and 110 meV, respectively, (lifetime variation with doping is neglected). (k) Comparison of the shifted ${\mathrm{TiTe}}_2$ spectra with the ${\mathbf{L}}^{\prime }$ spectra for three dopings. All data were taken at $T=20\mathrm{K}$.Reuse & Permissions

Figure 2

Photoemission intensity map for (a)–(b) $1T\mathrm{\text{−}}{\mathrm{TiSe}}_2$ and (c)–(d) $1T\mathrm{\text{−}}{\mathrm{Cu}}_{0.065}{\mathrm{TiSe}}_2$ at 20 and 250 K were compared near $\Gamma$ and $\mathbf{L}$. The dash-dotted line is the dispersion obtained from the MDC analysis. Arrows illustrate the band folding. Se1 and Se2 labels are assigned to the two Se $4p$ bands.Reuse & Permissions

Figure 3

Temperature dependence of the spectrum at $\Gamma$ for (a) $1T\mathrm{\text{−}}{\mathrm{TiSe}}_2$, and (b) $1T\mathrm{\text{−}}{\mathrm{Cu}}_{0.065}{\mathrm{TiSe}}_2$. (c) compares the spectral leading edges at $\Gamma$ for these two dopings at 250 K.Reuse & Permissions

Figure 4

Temperature dependence of the spectrum at $\mathbf{L}$ for (a) $x=0$, (b) $x=0.015$, (c) $x=0.055$ and (d) $x=0.065$. The spectra were stacked for clarity. The dashed lines are fit to help resolve the folded two Se $4p$ bands. (e) summarizes the temperature dependence of Se1 and Se2 positions in panels (a)–(d). Error bars of $\pm 5\mathrm{meV}$ is neglected for a clearer view.Reuse & Permissions