MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fermionic Symmetry-Protected Topological Phase in a Two-Dimensional Hubbard Model

2016· article· en· W2512513551 on OpenAlexafffund
Cheng-Chien Chen, Lukas Muechler, Roberto Car, Titus Neupert, Joseph Maciejko

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhysics of Superconductivity and Magnetism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersArgonne National LaboratoryNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsHubbard modelPhysicsFermionHexagonal latticeGround stateReflection symmetryLattice (music)Condensed matter physicsAntiferromagnetismQuantumQuantum mechanicsTopology (electrical circuits)GeometrySuperconductivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the two-dimensional (2D) Hubbard model using exact diagonalization for spin-1/2 fermions on the triangular and honeycomb lattices decorated with a single hexagon per site. In certain parameter ranges, the Hubbard model maps to a quantum compass model on those lattices. On the triangular lattice, the compass model exhibits collinear stripe antiferromagnetism, implying d-density wave charge order in the original Hubbard model. On the honeycomb lattice, the compass model has a unique, quantum disordered ground state that transforms nontrivially under lattice reflection. The ground state of the Hubbard model on the decorated honeycomb lattice is thus a 2D fermionic symmetry-protected topological phase. This state-protected by time-reversal and reflection symmetries-cannot be connected adiabatically to a free-fermion topological 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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicPhysics of Superconductivity and MagnetismFrench-language works237,207