Decoding the conductance of disordered nanostructures: a quantum inverse problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obtaining conductance spectra for a concentration of disordered impurities distributed over a nanoscale device with sensing capabilities is a well-defined problem. However, to do this inversely, i.e., extracting information about the scatters from the conductance spectrum alone, is not an easy task. In the presence of impurities, even advanced techniques of inversion can become particularly challenging. This article extends the applicability of a methodology we proposed capable of extracting composition information about a nanoscale sensing device using the conductance spectrum. The inversion tool decodes the conductance spectrum to yield the concentration and nature of the disorders responsible for conductance fluctuations in the spectra. We present the method for simple one-dimensional systems like an electron gas with randomly distributed delta functions and a linear chain of atoms. We prove the generality and robustness of the method using materials with complex electronic structures like hexagonal boron nitride, graphene nanoribbons, and carbon nanotubes. We also go on to probe distribution of disorders on the sublattice structure of the materials using the proposed inversion tool.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".