Electronic excitations in <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>γ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>−</mml:mtext><mml:msub><mml:mi>Li</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>IrO</mml:mi><mml:mn>3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate the electronic properties of the three-dimensional stripyhoneycomb $\ensuremath{\gamma}\text{\ensuremath{-}}{\mathrm{Li}}_{2}{\mathrm{IrO}}_{3}$ via relativistic density functional theory calculations as well as exact diagonalization of finite clusters and explore the details of the optical conductivity. Our analysis of this quantity reveals the microscopic origin of the experimentally observed (i) optical transitions and (ii) anisotropic behavior along the various polarization directions. In particular, we find that the optical excitations are overall dominated by transitions between ${j}_{\text{eff}}=1/2$ and 3/2 states and the weight of transitions between ${j}_{\text{eff}}=1/2$ states at low frequencies can be correlated to deviations from a pure Kitaev description. We furthermore reanalyze within this approach the electronic excitations in the known two-dimensional honeycomb systems $\ensuremath{\alpha}\text{\ensuremath{-}}{\mathrm{Li}}_{2}{\mathrm{IrO}}_{3}$ and ${\mathrm{Na}}_{2}{\mathrm{IrO}}_{3}$ and discuss the results in comparison to $\ensuremath{\gamma}\text{\ensuremath{-}}{\mathrm{Li}}_{2}{\mathrm{IrO}}_{3}$.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.297 | 0.011 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".