MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Interacting One-Dimensional Fermionic Symmetry-Protected Topological Phases

2012· article· en· W1853870371 on OpenAlexaff
Evelyn Tang, Xiao-Gang Wen

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTopological Materials and Phenomena
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersDivision of Materials ResearchNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsHomogeneous spaceFermionSymmetry (geometry)Topology (electrical circuits)Symmetry protected topological orderCohomologySpin (aerodynamics)Symmetry groupTheoretical physicsTopological orderQuantum mechanicsGeometryCombinatoricsQuantum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In free fermion systems with given symmetry and dimension, the possible topological phases are labeled by elements of only three types of Abelian groups, 0, Z2, or Z. For example, noninteracting one-dimensional fermionic superconducting phases with S(z) spin rotation and time-reversal symmetries are classified by Z. We show that with weak interactions, this classification reduces to Z4. Using group cohomology, one can additionally show that there are only four distinct phases for such one-dimensional superconductors even with strong interactions. Comparing their projective representations, we find that all these four symmetry-protected topological phases can be realized with free fermions. Further, we show that one-dimensional fermionic superconducting phases with Z(n) discrete S(z) spin rotation and time-reversal symmetries are classified by Z4 when n is even and Z2 when n is odd; again, all these strongly interacting topological phases can be realized by noninteracting fermions. Our approach can be applied to systems with other symmetries to see which one-dimensional topological phases can be realized with free fermions.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0040.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.282 · 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.

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

Citations62
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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