Exploring self-consistency of the equations of axion electrodynamics in Weyl semimetals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent works have provided evidence that an axial anomaly can arise in Weyl semimetals. If this is the case, then the electromagnetic response of Weyl semimetals should be governed by the equations of axion electrodynamics. These equations capture both the chiral magnetic and anomalous Hall effects in the limit of linear response, while at higher orders their solutions can provide detectable electromagnetic signatures of the anomaly. In this work, we consider three versions of axion electrodynamics that have been proposed in the Weyl semimetal literature. These versions differ in the form of the chiral magnetic term and in whether or not the axion is treated as a dynamical field. In each case, we look for solutions to these equations for simple sample geometries subject to applied external fields. We find that in the case of a linear chiral magnetic term generated by a nondynamical axion, self-consistent solutions can generally be obtained. In this case, the magnetic field inside of the Weyl semimetal can be magnified significantly, providing a testable signature for experiments. Self-consistent solutions can also be obtained for dynamical axions, but only in cases where the chiral magnetic term vanishes identically. Finally, for a nonlinear form of the chiral magnetic term frequently considered in the literature, we find that there are no self-consistent solutions aside from a few special cases.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".