Bibliographic record
Abstract
A feature of the “modern theory” is that electric polarization is not well-defined in a metallic ground state. A different approach invokes the general existence of a complete set of exponentially localized Wannier functions, with respect to which general definitions of microscopic electronic polarization and magnetization fields, and free charge and current densities are always admitted. These definitions assume no particular initial electronic state of the crystal, and the set of microscopic fields satisfy the usual relations of classical electrodynamics. Notably, when applied to a trivial insulator initially occupying its T=0 <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>T</mml:mi> <mml:mo>=</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> ground state, the expressions for the unperturbed polarization and orbital magnetization, and for the orbital magnetoelectric polarizability tensor obtained from these different approaches can agree. However, the “modern theory of magnetization” has been extended via thermodynamic arguments to include metals and Chern insulators. We here compare with that generalization and find disagreement; the manner in which the expressions differ elucidates the distinct philosophies of these approaches. Our approach leads to the usual electrical conductivity tensor in the long-wavelength limit; in the absence of any scattering mechanisms, the dc divergence of that tensor is due to the free current density and the finite-frequency generalization of the anomalous Hall contribution arises from a combination of bound and free current densities. As well, in the limit that the electronic ground state is that of a trivial insulator, our expressions reduce to those expected for the unperturbed polarization and magnetization, and the electric susceptibility.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".