MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Gapped Domain Walls, Gapped Boundaries, and Topological Degeneracy

2015· article· en· W2047906660 on OpenAlexafffund
Tian Lan, Juven Wang, Xiao-Gang Wen

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTopological Materials and Phenomena
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersDivision of Materials ResearchInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueIndustry CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Science FoundationGovernment of CanadaJohn Templeton Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsTopological degeneracyDegeneracy (biology)Domain (mathematical analysis)Domain wall (magnetism)Boundary (topology)Topology (electrical circuits)Abelian groupGapless playbackTheoretical physicsOrder (exchange)Topological orderTopological defectSymmetry protected topological orderQuantum mechanicsPure mathematicsMathematicsCondensed matter physicsQuantumCombinatoricsBioinformaticsMagnetic field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gapped domain walls, as topological line defects between (2+1)D topologically ordered states, are examined. We provide simple criteria to determine the existence of gapped domain walls, which apply to both Abelian and non-Abelian topological orders. Our criteria also determine which (2+1)D topological orders must have gapless edge modes, namely, which (1+1)D global gravitational anomalies ensure gaplessness. Furthermore, we introduce a new mathematical object, the tunneling matrix W, whose entries are the fusion-space dimensions W(ia), to label different types of gapped domain walls. By studying many examples, we find evidence that the tunneling matrices are powerful quantities to classify different types of gapped domain walls. Since a gapped boundary is a gapped domain wall between a bulk topological order and the vacuum, regarded as the trivial topological order, our theory of gapped domain walls inclusively contains the theory of gapped boundaries. In addition, we derive a topological ground state degeneracy formula, applied to arbitrary orientable spatial 2-manifolds with gapped domain walls, including closed 2-manifolds and open 2-manifolds with gapped boundaries.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations155
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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