Strong-coupling corrections to hard domain walls in superfluid <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:mmultiscripts><mml:mi>He</mml:mi><mml:mprescripts/><mml:none/><mml:mn>3</mml:mn></mml:mmultiscripts><mml:mtext>−</mml:mtext><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Domain walls in superfluid $^{3}\mathrm{He}\text{\ensuremath{-}}B$ have gained renewed interest in light of experimental progress on confining helium in nanofabricated geometries. Here, we study the effect of strong-coupling corrections on domain wall width and interfacial tension by determining self-consistent solutions to spatially-dependent Ginzburg-Landau equations. We find that the formation of domain walls is generally energetically favored in strong coupling over weak coupling. Calculations were performed over a wide range of temperatures and pressures, showing decreasing interface energy with increasing temperature and pressure. This has implications for the observability of such domain walls in $^{3}\mathrm{He}\text{\ensuremath{-}}B$, which are of both fundamental interest and form the basis for spatially-modulated pair-density wave states, when stabilized by strong confinement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.081 | 0.009 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".