MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073688783 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.88.014415

Topological floating phase in a spatially anisotropic frustrated Ising model

2013· article· en· W2073688783 on OpenAlexaff
Ansgar Kalz, Gennady Y. Chitov

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review B · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTheoretical and Computational Physics
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsing modelPhase diagramPhysicsCondensed matter physicsPhase transitionAnisotropyMonte Carlo methodFerromagnetismLattice (music)Phase (matter)ObservableStatistical physicsTopology (electrical circuits)Quantum mechanicsMathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present results for the ordering process of a two-dimensional Ising model with anisotropic frustrating next-nearest-neighbor interactions. We concentrate on a specific wide temperature and parameter region to confirm the existence of two particular phases of the model. The first phase is an incommensurate algebraically ordered (floating) phase emerging at the transition from the paramagnetic high-temperature phase. Then the model undergoes a transition to an antiferromagnetically ordered second phase with diagonal ferromagnetic stripes [ordering wave vector $\mathbf{q}=(\ensuremath{\pi}/2,\ensuremath{\pi}/2)$]. We analyze the unconventional features appearing in several observables, e.g., energy, structure factors, and correlation functions, by means of extensive Monte Carlo simulations and examine carefully the influence of the lattice sizes. For the analytical study of the intermediate phase the Villain-Bak theory is adapted for the present model. Combining both the numerical and analytical work we present the quantitative phase diagram of the model, and, in particular, argue in favor of an intermediate topological floating phase.

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 score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review BSame topicTheoretical and Computational PhysicsFrench-language works237,207