Network structure and dynamics of effective models of nonequilibrium quantum transport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Across all scales of the physical world, dynamical systems can be usefully represented as abstract networks that encode the systems' units and interunit interactions. Understanding how physical rules shape the topological structure of those networks can clarify a system's function and enhance our ability to design, guide, or control its behavior. In the emerging area of quantum network science, a key challenge lies in distinguishing between the topological properties that reflect a system's underlying physics and those that reflect the assumptions of the employed conceptual model. To elucidate and address this challenge, we study networks that represent nonequilibrium quantum-electronic transport through quantum antidot devices---an example of an open, mesoscopic quantum system. The network representations correspond to two different models of internal antidot states: a single-particle, noninteracting model and an effective model for collective excitations including Coulomb interactions. In these networks, nodes represent accessible energy states and edges represent allowed transitions. We find that both models reflect spin conservation rules in the network topology through bipartiteness and the presence of only even-length cycles. The models diverge, however, in the minimum length of cycle basis elements, in a manner that depends on whether electrons are considered to be distinguishable. Furthermore, the two models reflect spin-conserving relaxation effects differently, as evident in both the degree distribution and the cycle-basis length distribution. Collectively, these observations serve to elucidate the relationship between network structure and physical constraints in quantum-mechanical models. More generally, our approach underscores the utility of network science in understanding the dynamics of quantum systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".