MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ground-State Degeneracy of Topological Phases on Open Surfaces

2015· article· en· W1986754885 on OpenAlexafffund
Ling-Yan Hung, Yidun Wan

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum and electron transport phenomena
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersIndustry CanadaOntario Ministry of Economic Development and InnovationJohn Templeton Foundation
KeywordsAnyonTopological quantum computerTopological degeneracyPhysicsTopological orderTopological quantum numberTopology (electrical circuits)Symmetry protected topological orderDegeneracy (biology)Topological entropy in physicsGround statePhase (matter)Boundary (topology)Abelian groupQuantum Hall effectQuantum mechanicsTheoretical physicsQuantumMathematicsPure mathematicsMagnetic fieldCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We relate the ground state degeneracy of a non-Abelian topological phase on a surface with boundaries to the anyon condensates that break the topological phase into a trivial phase. Specifically, we propose that gapped boundary conditions of the surface are in one-to-one correspondence with the sets of condensates, each being able to completely break the phase, and we substantiate this by examples. The ground state degeneracy resulting from a particular boundary condition coincides with the number of confined topological sectors due to the corresponding condensation. These lead to a generalization of the Laughlin-Tao-Wu charge-pumping argument for Abelian fractional quantum Hall states to encompass non-Abelian topological phases, in the sense that an anyon loop of a confined anyon winding a nontrivial cycle can pump a condensed anyon from one boundary to another. Such generalized pumping may find applications in quantum control of anyons, eventually realizing topological quantum computation.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations73
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicQuantum and electron transport phenomenaFrench-language works237,207