MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1673747332 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.92.045117

Nematic quantum criticality in three-dimensional Fermi system with quadratic band touching

2015· article· en· W1673747332 on OpenAlexafffund
Lukas Janssen, Igor F. Herbut

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review B · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTopological Materials and Phenomena
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsCriticalityFermi Gamma-ray Space TelescopeQuantumCondensed matter physicsPhysicsQuadratic equationQuantum oscillationsFermi liquid theoryQuantum mechanicsMathematicsFermi surfaceGeometrySuperconductivityNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We construct and discuss the field theory for tensorial nematic order parameter coupled to gapless four-component fermions at the quadratic band touching point in three (spatial) dimensions. Within a properly formulated epsilon-expansion this theory is found to have a quantum critical point, which describes the (presumably continuous) transition from the semimetal into a (nematic) Mott insulator. The latter phase breaks the rotational, but not the time-reversal, symmetry and may be relevant to materials such as gray tin or mercury telluride at low temperatures. The critical point represents a simple quantum analog of the familiar classical isotropic-to-nematic transition in liquid crystals. The properties and the consequences of this quantum critical point are discussed. Its existence supports the scenario of the ``fixed-point collision,'' according to which three-dimensional Fermi systems with quadratic band touching and long-range Coulomb interactions are unstable towards the gapped nematic ground state at low temperatures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations86
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review BSame topicTopological Materials and PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207