MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040571363 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.86.115108

Resonating valence bond states in the PEPS formalism

2012· article· en· W2040571363 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Norbert Schuch, Didier Poilblanc, J. I. Cirac, David Pérez-Garcı́a

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review B · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced NMR Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftInstitute for Quantum Information and Matter, California Institute of TechnologyAgence Nationale de la RechercheCalifornia Institute of TechnologyAlexander von Humboldt-StiftungGordon and Betty Moore FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFormalism (music)Valence bond theoryValence (chemistry)Generalized valence bondModern valence bond theoryPhysicsQuantum mechanicsAtomic orbitalElectron

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study resonating valence bond (RVB) states in the projected entangled pair states (PEPS) formalism. Based on symmetries in the PEPS description, we establish relations between the toric code state, the orthogonal dimer state, and the $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ singlet RVB state on the kagome lattice: We prove the equivalence of toric code and dimer state, and devise an interpolation between the dimer state and the RVB state. This interpolation corresponds to a continuous path in Hamiltonian space, proving that the RVB state is the fourfold degenerate ground state of a local Hamiltonian on the (finite) kagome lattice. We investigate this interpolation using numerical PEPS methods, studying the decay of correlation functions, the change of overlap, and the entanglement spectrum, none of which exhibits signs of a phase transition.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations154
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review BSame topicAdvanced NMR Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207