MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3167263744 · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ac1040

How to define quantum mean-field solvable Hamiltonians using Lie algebras

2021· preprint· en· W3167263744 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueQuantum Science and Technology · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMolecular Junctions and Nanostructures
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGoogle
KeywordsHamiltonian (control theory)MathematicsEigenvalues and eigenvectorsMean field theoryOperator (biology)Algebraic numberLie groupQuadratic equationQuantumMathematical physicsQuantum field theoryPure mathematicsQuantum mechanicsPhysicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Necessary and sufficient conditions for quantum Hamiltonians to be exactly solvable within mean-field (MF) theories have not been formulated so far. To resolve this problem, first, we define what MF theory is, independently of a Hamiltonian realization in a particular set of operators. Second, using a Lie-algebraic framework we formulate a criterion for a Hamiltonian to be MF solvable. The criterion is applicable for both distinguishable and indistinguishable particle cases. For the electronic Hamiltonians, our approach reveals the existence of MF solvable Hamiltonians of higher fermionic operator powers than quadratic. Some of the MF solvable Hamiltonians require different sets of quasi-particle rotations for different eigenstates, which reflects a more complicated structure of such Hamiltonians.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.217 · 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