MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070948099 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.89.245310

Gate control of Berry phase in III-V semiconductor quantum dots

2014· article· en· W2070948099 on OpenAlexafffund
Sanjay Prabhakar, Roderick Melnik, L. L. Bonilla

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review B · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum and electron transport phenomena
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBerry connection and curvatureGeometric phaseQuantum dotPhysicsCondensed matter physicsAdiabatic processQuantum mechanicsWave functionQuantumBerryPhase (matter)Spin–orbit interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyze the Berry phase in III-V semiconductor quantum dots (QDs). We show that the Berry phase is highly sensitive to electric fields arising from the interplay between the Rashba and Dresselhaus spin-orbit (SO) couplings. We report that the accumulated Berry phase can be induced from other available quantum states that differ only by one quantum number of the corresponding spin state. The sign change in the $g$-factor due to the penetration of Bloch wave functions into the barrier materials can be reflected in the Berry phase. We provide characteristics of the Berry phase for three different length scales (spin-orbit length, hybrid orbital length, and orbital radius). We solve the time-dependent Schr$\stackrel{\ifmmode \ddot{}\else \"{}\fi{}}{\mathrm{o}}$dinger equation by utilizing the Feynman disentangling technique, and we investigate the evolution of spin dynamics during the adiabatic transport of QDs in the two-dimensional plane. Our results can pave the way to building a topological quantum computer in which the Berry phase can be engineered and be manipulated with the application of the spin-orbit couplings through gate-controlled electric fields.

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 score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.598

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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