MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970744283 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.89.085413

Particle-hole asymmetry on Hall conductivity of a topological insulator

2014· article· en· W1970744283 on OpenAlexaff
Zhou Li, J. P. Ćarbotte

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review B · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTopological Materials and Phenomena
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAsymmetryHamiltonian (control theory)Topological insulatorLandau quantizationQuantization (signal processing)Magnetic fieldSpectral asymmetryQuantum Hall effectQuantum mechanicsDirac equationTopology (electrical circuits)Condensed matter physicsQuantum electrodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The helical Dirac states on the surface of a topological insulator are protected by topology and display significant particle-hole asymmetry. This asymmetry arises from a subdominant Schr\"odinger-type contribution to the Hamiltonian which provides a small perturbation to a dominant Dirac contribution. This changes the Landau level energies in an external magnetic field ($B$) and provides modifications to the usual relativistic optical matrix elements. Nevertheless we find that the relativistic quantization of the Hall plateaus remains even when the ratio of the Schr\"odinger (${E}_{0}$) to Dirac (${E}_{1}$) magnetic energy scale increases either through an increase in $B$, a decrease in the Schr\"odinger mass, or a decrease of the Dirac Fermi velocity. First corrections to the optical matrix elements (OMEs) in the relativistic case drop out at least to order ${({E}_{0}/{E}_{1})}^{3}$. In the opposite limit ${E}_{1}$ small, the quantization remains classical but there is a split into two series. The first corrections to the OMEs in this case cancel out at least to order ${({E}_{1}/{E}_{0})}^{4}$.

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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.803

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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