|
Download cases/case11/task.md from Tauben/PhysClosureBench: direct link, hf CLI and curl.
- Browser
- Download file 6.62 kB
-
https://huggingface.co/datasets/Tauben/PhysClosureBench/resolve/main/cases/case11/task.md
- Command line
-
hf download hf://datasets/Tauben/PhysClosureBench/cases/case11/task.md
-
curl -L -o task.md https://huggingface.co/datasets/Tauben/PhysClosureBench/resolve/main/cases/case11/task.md
6.62 kB
| # Channel-resolved high-harmonic generation in driven two-band solids | |
| ## Background | |
| High-harmonic generation (HHG) in solids can contain interband and intraband | |
| responses produced by resonant and nonresonant electronic dynamics. In the | |
| strong-field regime these contributions need not be independently observable, | |
| because amplitudes from many excitation pathways contribute coherently to the | |
| physical signal. | |
| Consider an initially filled valence band and empty conduction band in a | |
| one-dimensional, inversion-symmetric two-band solid. Work in atomic units, | |
| neglect electron-hole interactions, and choose the Bloch-state gauge in which | |
| the transition dipole is real. For an initial crystal momentum $K$, define | |
| $K_t=K+A(t)$ and $F(t)=-\partial_t A(t)$. The exact density matrix satisfies | |
| $$ | |
| i\partial_t\rho(K,t)=[H(K_t,t),\rho(K,t)], | |
| \qquad | |
| H(K_t,t)=\frac{1}{2} | |
| \begin{pmatrix} | |
| \varepsilon(K_t) & \Omega(K_t,t)\\ | |
| \Omega(K_t,t) & -\varepsilon(K_t) | |
| \end{pmatrix}, | |
| $$ | |
| where $\Omega(K_t,t)=2F(t)d(K_t)$. Use | |
| $$ | |
| \varepsilon(K)=E_g+\sum_n\Delta_n[1-\cos(nKa)], | |
| \qquad | |
| d(K)=d_0\frac{\varepsilon(0)}{\varepsilon(K)}, | |
| $$ | |
| and the finite pulse | |
| $$ | |
| F(t)=F_0\exp[-(t/\tau_0)^2]\sin(\omega_0t), | |
| \qquad T_0=\frac{2\pi}{\omega_0}. | |
| $$ | |
| ## Research problem | |
| Determine whether a strong-field adiabatic-following description can give a | |
| quantitatively and physically adequate account of HHG in the systems below, | |
| and use the calculation to establish what can be inferred about the roles of | |
| real and virtual electronic transitions as the material and driving field are | |
| changed. Your conclusion must be supported by computed physical signals from | |
| the stated cases and must distinguish claims established by the model from | |
| claims that remain unresolved within its scope. | |
| The derivation, numerical strategy, evidential representation, comparisons, | |
| and order of argument are for you to design. Do not assume the validity of the | |
| approximation or a channel mechanism in advance. | |
| ## Physical cases | |
| | Case | Band and dipole parameters | Driving field | | |
| |---|---|---| | |
| | Model semiconductor | $E_g=0.129$, $\Delta_1=0.17$, $d_0=3.64$, $a=5.3$ | $F_0=0.002$, $\omega_0=0.015$, $\tau_0=6T_0$ | | |
| | Model dielectric, long pulse | $E_g=0.32$, $(\Delta_1,\Delta_2,\Delta_3,\Delta_4)=(0.06,-0.0035,-0.001,-0.0007)$, $d_0=6.5$, $a=9.45$ | $F_0=0.012$, $\omega_0=0.06$, $\tau_0=6T_0$ | | |
| | Model dielectric, field family | Same dielectric band and dipole parameters | $F_0=0.005$ and $0.012$, $\omega_0=0.06$, $\tau_0=3T_0$ | | |
| ## Physical and method boundary | |
| The investigation is confined to direct propagation of the density-matrix | |
| equation and a strong-field adiabatic-following (SFAF) treatment obtained in | |
| the instantaneous adiabatic basis through second order in the corresponding | |
| Dyson expansion. The task-specific derivation of computable amplitudes and | |
| currents remains part of the work. | |
| For the channel identity, let | |
| $\lambda(K_t,t)=[\varepsilon^2(K_t)+|\Omega(K_t,t)|^2]^{1/2}$ and write the | |
| SFAF transition amplitude as | |
| $$ | |
| u(K,t)=\exp\!\left[-i\int_{-\infty}^{t} | |
| \lambda(K_\tau,\tau)\,d\tau\right]v(K,t). | |
| $$ | |
| The real/nonreal distinction is defined by filtering the complex amplitude | |
| $v$, not a population or an HHG power spectrum. With tildes denoting a time | |
| Fourier transform, use | |
| $$ | |
| v_i(K,t)=\mathcal F^{-1}\!\left[G_i(\omega)\widetilde v(K,\omega)\right], | |
| \qquad i\in\{r,nr\}, | |
| $$ | |
| where | |
| $$ | |
| G_r(\omega)= | |
| \begin{cases} | |
| 1, & |\omega|\leq\omega_0/2,\\ | |
| 0, & |\omega|>\omega_0/2, | |
| \end{cases} | |
| \qquad | |
| G_{nr}(\omega)=1-G_r(\omega). | |
| $$ | |
| Any resolved currents must follow consistently from these amplitudes. The | |
| physical HHG spectrum is formed from the coherently assembled total current, | |
| not by adding independently squared component spectra. A frozen-valence-band | |
| limit may be used as an optional control, but it is not required. | |
| Time and crystal-momentum grids, propagation algorithms, finite-record | |
| treatment, spectral windows, zero padding, spectral reduction, tolerances, | |
| diagnostics, and display conventions are student choices. State the choices | |
| needed to reconstruct your work and provide evidence sufficiently reliable for | |
| the claims made. No particular grid, range, refinement sequence, validation | |
| procedure, diagnostic, or figure organization is prescribed. Declare any | |
| normalization or display scaling and preserve the relative information used in | |
| the argument. Absolute spectral normalization is not a grading target. | |
| Do not add dephasing, many-body reservoirs, propagation through a macroscopic | |
| sample, or additional bands to the required calculation. Such extensions may | |
| be discussed only as clearly separated exploratory work. | |
| ## Submission | |
| Submit one self-contained scientific report and an auditable offline | |
| calculation package. Include the task-specific derivation, code, numerical data | |
| underlying material claims, a provenance note listing every offline source or software document actually consulted and the method basis for items supplied from general knowledge, and concise run and | |
| environment information. No fixed file tree, filename scheme, panel count, or | |
| complete exploratory history is required. | |
| The available CPU allocation, candidate active deadline, node, network, | |
| memory and scratch limits are specified in the accompanying | |
| `resource_limits.json`. Complete the derivation, implementation, | |
| calculation, validation, interpretation and final-file preparation within these | |
| resource limits. No separate aggregate CPU-hour limit applies. | |
| ## Reference and integrity policy | |
| This examination is conducted without network access or live literature | |
| retrieval. You may rely on your existing general scientific knowledge and, if any are | |
| explicitly supplied with the examination, on those offline materials or | |
| software documentation. Record every such source actually consulted. For formulas, | |
| methods, constants, or conventions used from general knowledge rather than a | |
| consulted source, state enough of the method basis, definition, value, units, | |
| and convention to make the calculation auditable; do not invent a citation. | |
| You are not required to identify or prove a publication date or to retrieve | |
| literature during the examination. | |
| The hidden target article and its identifying metadata, figures or captions, | |
| supplementary material, author code or data, target-specific reproduction | |
| code, solution or scoring material, online solutions, and worked | |
| reproductions of this case must not be used. All submitted scientific figures | |
| and numerical data must be generated by your own implementation of the stated | |
| problem. | |
| See [submission requirements](../../submission_requirements.md) for the common submission entry points. | |