A gauge-invariant formulation of interband and intraband currents in solids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiments and simulations in solid-state high harmonic generation often make use of the distinction between interband and intraband currents. These two contributions to the total current have been associated with qualitatively different processes as well as physically measurable signatures, for example, in the spectral phase of harmonic emission. However, it was recently argued [P. F\"oldi, Phys. Rev. B 96, 035112 (2017)] that these quantities can depend on the gauge employed in calculations. Since physical quantities are expected to have gauge-independent values, this raises the question of whether the decomposition of the total current into interband and intraband contributions is physically meaningful or merely a feature of a particular mathematical representation of nature. In this article, we explore this apparent ambiguity. We show that a closely related issue arises when calculating instantaneous band populations. In both the case of inter/intraband currents and the case of instantaneous band populations, we propose definitions that are gauge invariant and thus allow these quantities to be calculated consistently in any gauge.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".