MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198652632 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.106.035105

Higher-order topological semimetals and nodal superconductors with an order-two crystalline symmetry

2022· article· en· W3198652632 on OpenAlexaff
Sophia Simon, Max Geier, Piet W. Brouwer

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. B./Physical review. B · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTopological Materials and Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersHorizon 2020European Research CouncilDanmarks Frie ForskningsfondDanmarks GrundforskningsfondDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftNational Research FoundationEuropean Commission
KeywordsSuperconductivitySymmetry (geometry)Order (exchange)SemimetalNODALPhysicsTopology (electrical circuits)Theoretical physicsCondensed matter physicsMathematicsMathematical physicsCombinatoricsBand gapGeometryBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using a systematic relation between topological gapless phases in three dimensions and topological gapped phases in two dimensions, we identify four types of higher-order topological semimetals or nodal superconductors (HOTS), hosting (i) flat zero-energy ``Fermi arcs'' at crystal hinges, (ii) flat zero-energy hinge arcs coexisting with surface Dirac cones, (iii) chiral or helical hinge modes, or (iv) flat zero-energy hinge arcs connecting nodes only at finite momentum. Bulk-boundary correspondence relates the hinge states to the bulk topology protecting the nodal point or loop. We classify all HOTS for all tenfold-way classes with an order-two crystalline (anti)symmetry, such as mirror, twofold rotation, or inversion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. B./Physical review. BSame topicTopological Materials and PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207