Preserving the Hermiticity of the one-body density matrix for a non-interacting Fermi gas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The one-body density matrix (ODM) for a zero temperature non-interacting Fermi gas can be approximately obtained in the semiclassical regime through different ℏ -expansion techniques. One would expect that each method of approximating the ODM should yield equivalent density matrices which are both Hermitian and idempotent to any order in ℏ . However, the Kirzhnits and Wigner–Kirkwood methods do not yield these properties, while the Grammaticos–Voros method does. Here we show explicitly, for arbitrary d-dimensions through an appropriate change into symmetric coordinates, that each method is indeed identical, Hermitian, and idempotent. This change of variables resolves the inconsistencies between the various methods, showing that the non-Hermitian and non-idempotent behavior of the Kirzhnits and Wigner–Kirkwood methods is an artifact of performing a non-symmetric truncation to the semiclassical ℏ -expansions. Our work also provides the first explicit derivation of the d-dimensional Grammaticos–Voros ODM, originally proposed by Redjati et al (2019 J. Phys. Chem. Solids 134 313–8) based on their d = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 expressions.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".