MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782676785 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.99.024517

Revisiting <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>2</mml:mn><mml:mi>π</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math> phase slip suppression in topological Josephson junctions

2019· article· lv· W2782676785 on OpenAlexafffund
Rosa Rodríguez-Mota, Smitha Vishveshwara, T. Pereg-Barnea

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. B./Physical review. B · 2019
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTopological Materials and Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMAJORANAQuantum tunnellingPhysicsJosephson effectFermionCondensed matter physicsLattice (music)Pi Josephson junctionPhase (matter)Topology (electrical circuits)Quantum mechanicsSuperconductivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current state-of-the-art devices for detecting and manipulating Majorana fermions commonly consist of networks of Majorana wires and tunnel junctions. We study a key ingredient of these networks---a topological Josephson junction with charging energy---and we pinpoint crucial features for device implementation. The phase-dependent tunneling term contains both the usual $2\ensuremath{\pi}$-periodic Josephson term and a $4\ensuremath{\pi}$-periodic Majorana tunneling term representing the coupling between Majoranas on both sides of the junction. In nontopological junctions when the charging energy is small compared to the Josephson tunneling scale, the low-energy physics is described by $2\ensuremath{\pi}$ phase slips. By contrast, in a topological junction, due to the $4\ensuremath{\pi}$ periodicity of the tunneling term, it is usually expected that only $4\ensuremath{\pi}$ phase slips are possible while $2\ensuremath{\pi}$ phase slips are suppressed. However, we find that if the ratio between the strengths of the Majorana assisted tunneling and the Josephson tunneling is small, as is likely to be the case for many setups, $2\ensuremath{\pi}$ phase slips occur and may even dominate the low-energy physics. In this limit, one can view the $4\ensuremath{\pi}$ phase slips as a pair of $2\ensuremath{\pi}$ phase slips with arbitrarily large separation. We provide an effective description of the system in terms of $2\ensuremath{\pi}$ and $4\ensuremath{\pi}$ phase slips valid for all values of the tunneling ratio. Comparing the spectrum of the effective models with numerical simulations, we determine the crossover between the $4\ensuremath{\pi}$ phase slip regime to the $2\ensuremath{\pi}$ phase slip dominated regime. We also discuss the role of the charging energy as well as the implications of our results on the dissipative phase transitions expected in such a system.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.875

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2620.164

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. B./Physical review. BSame topicTopological Materials and PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207