MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stable Flatbands, Topology, and Superconductivity of Magic Honeycomb Networks

2020· article· en· W3014358849 on OpenAlexafffund
Jongjun M. Lee, Chenhua Geng, Jae Whan Park, Masaki Oshikawa, Sung-Sik Lee, Han Woong Yeom, Gil Young Cho

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTopological Materials and Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPerimeter Institute
FundersKavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa BarbaraJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueMinistry of Science and ICT, South KoreaNational Research Foundation of KoreaIndustry CanadaOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and ScienceInnovation, Science and Economic Development CanadaAspen Center for PhysicsMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyNational Research FoundationNational Science FoundationMinistry of Colleges and UniversitiesGovernment of CanadaInstitute for Basic Science
KeywordsSuperstructureHoneycombSuperconductivityTopology (electrical circuits)Condensed matter physicsHoneycomb structureCharge (physics)PhysicsMaterials scienceQuantum mechanicsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a new principle to realize flatbands which are robust in real materials, based on a network superstructure of one-dimensional segments. This mechanism is naturally realized in the nearly commensurate charge-density wave of 1T-TaS_{2} with the honeycomb network of conducting domain walls, and the resulting flatband can naturally explain the enhanced superconductivity. We also show that corner states, which are a hallmark of the higher-order topological insulators, appear in the network superstructure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations35
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicTopological Materials and PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207