MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016106673 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.89.035112

Strong coupling expansion of the extended Hubbard model with spin-orbit coupling

2014· article· en· W2016106673 on OpenAlexaff
Aaron Farrell, T. Pereg-Barnea

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review B · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTopological Materials and Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHamiltonian (control theory)PhysicsPhase diagramHubbard modelTopology (electrical circuits)Ground stateWave functionVariational Monte CarloCanonical transformationCoupling (piping)Spin–orbit interactionQuantum mechanicsSuperconductivityStatistical physicsPhase (matter)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the strong coupling limit of the extended Hubbard model in two dimensions. The model consists of hopping, on-site interaction, nearest-neighbor interaction, spin-orbit coupling, and Zeeman spin splitting. While the study of this model is motivated by a search for topological phases, and in particular, a topological superconductor, the methodology we develop may be useful for a variety of systems. We begin our treatment with a canonical transformation of the Hamiltonian to an effective model, which is appropriate when the (quartic) interaction terms are larger than the (quadratic) kinetic and spin-orbit coupling terms. We proceed by analyzing the strong coupling model variationally. Since we are mostly interested in a superconducting phase, we use a Gutzwiller projected BCS wave function as our variational state. To continue analytically, we employ the Gutzwiller approximation and compare the calculated energy with Monte Carlo calculations. Finally, we determine the topology of the ground state and map out the topology phase diagram.

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 score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations22
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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