MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753502842 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.96.195150

Anyons are not energy eigenspaces of quantum double Hamiltonians

2017· article· en· W2753502842 on OpenAlexafffund
Anna Kómár, Olivier Landon-Cardinal

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. B./Physical review. B · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum many-body systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInstitute for Quantum Information and Matter, California Institute of TechnologyGordon and Betty Moore FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsTopological quantum computerToric codeHilbert spaceHamiltonian (control theory)PhysicsLattice (music)QuantumTheoretical physicsQuantum mechanicsTopology (electrical circuits)MathematicsQuantum computerCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kitaev's quantum double models, including the toric code, are canonical examples of quantum topological models on a two-dimensional spin lattice. Their Hamiltonian defines the ground space by imposing an energy penalty to any nontrivial flux or charge, but does not distinguish among those. We generalize this construction by introducing a family of Hamiltonians made of commuting four-body projectors that provide an intricate splitting of the Hilbert space by discriminating among nontrivial charges and fluxes. Our construction highlights that anyons are not in one-to-one correspondence with energy eigenspaces, a feature already present in Kitaev's construction. This discrepancy is due to the presence of local degrees of freedom in addition to topological ones on a lattice.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

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 studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.379
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. B./Physical review. BSame topicQuantum many-body systemsFrench-language works237,207