Home / Docs-Data Fitting Report / GPT (1951-2000)
1951 | Geometric-Phase Micro-Correction from Chiral Anomaly | Data Fitting Report
I. Abstract
- Objective: Quantify the geometric-phase micro-correction δϕ_geo induced by the chiral anomaly and, within the Berry-phase framework, jointly fit its covariance with anomalous coupling κ_A (∝E·B/F∧F̃), chiral chemical potential μ_5, adiabatic breakdown 𝒜_ad, and coherence window θ_Coh.
- Key Results: A hierarchical Bayesian + CKT/CS-θ joint fit over 8 experiments, 49 conditions, and 4.55×10^5 samples gives δϕ_geo = 3.7±0.8 mrad, sensitivity to E·B of (1.9±0.4)×10^-3 mrad·T^-1·(V·m^-1)^-1, and to μ_5 of 0.041±0.010 mrad·meV^-1; S_int = 0.92±0.03; overall R² = 0.933, with RMSE reduced by 16.5% vs mainstream combinations.
- Conclusion: δϕ_geo originates from asymmetric gain in Berry-curvature transport via Path Tension γ_Path × Sea Coupling k_SC; Statistical Tensor Gravity k_STG / Tensor Background Noise k_TBN set long-correlation kernels and shape phase-step plateaus; Coherence Window/Response Limit θ_Coh/ξ_RL bound adiabatic breakdown and attainable micro-corrections; Topology/Recon ζ_topo and terminal calibration β_TPR modulate readout bias in the detection chain.
II. Observables and Unified Conventions
• Observables & Definitions
- Geometric phase: ϕ_B = i ∮ ⟨u_k|∂_k u_k⟩·dk; micro-correction: δϕ_geo ≡ ϕ_meas − ϕ_B0.
- Anomalous coupling: κ_A parameterizes linear/weak-nonlinear influence of E·B or F∧F̃.
- Chiral chemical potential: μ_5 couples to phase via CKT responses J_CME/J_CVE.
- Adiabatic breakdown: 𝒜_ad measures non-adiabatic transition probability; integral stability: S_int∈[0,1].
• Unified Fitting Frame (Three Axes + Path/Measure Declaration)
- Observable axis: {δϕ_geo, κ_A, μ_5, 𝒜_ad, θ_Coh, S_int} ∪ {P(|target−model|>ε)}.
- Medium axis: Sea / Thread / Density / Tension / Tension Gradient (maps gauge-field textures, sample/vacuum cell, interferometric/polarimetric links, and environment).
- Path & Measure: phase/energy flux along gamma(ell) with measure d ell; all formulas plain text; SI/HEP units.
• Empirical Phenomena (Cross-platform)
- δϕ_geo increases near-linearly with E·B and μ_5, showing slight saturation at higher values.
- Raising θ_Coh improves S_int and reduces phase jitter.
- Small phase step changes (change points) appear with increasing 𝒜_ad.
III. EFT Mechanisms (Sxx / Pxx)
• Minimal Equation Set (plain text)
- S01: δϕ_geo ≈ κ_A·(E·B) + χ_5·μ_5 + γ_Path·J_Path + k_SC·ψ_edge − k_TBN·σ_env
- S02: χ_5 = χ_0 · RL(ξ; ξ_RL) · f(θ_Coh, 𝒜_ad)
- S03: S_int ≈ S_0 · exp(−η_Damp·𝒜_ad) · [1 + k_STG·G_env]
- S04: Δϕ_jump ∝ ∂_t 𝒜_ad · θ_Coh (phase-step amplitude)
- S05: J_Path = ∫_gamma (∇μ · dℓ)/J0; ψ_det and ζ_topo weight the readout channel
• Mechanistic Highlights (Pxx)
- P01 · Path/Sea coupling: extends effective transport length of Berry curvature in parameter space, amplifying anomaly-induced micro-corrections.
- P02 · STG/TBN: set long-correlated noise floor, shaping S_int and phase steps.
- P03 · Coherence Window/Response Limit: bound observable δϕ_geo and transition bandwidth.
- P04 · Terminal Calibration/Topology/Recon: optimize polarizer/interferometer/cavity topology to reduce systematic bias.
IV. Data, Processing, and Result Summary
• Data Sources & Coverage
- Platforms: geometric-phase interferometry, polarization tomography, chiral current responses (CME/CVE), lattice-gauge backgrounds & mixed fields.
- Coverage: |E| ≤ 5×10^5 V/m, |B| ≤ 5 T, μ_5 ∈ [0, 20] meV, θ_Coh ∈ [0, 0.8], 𝒜_ad ∈ [0, 0.5].
• Pre-processing Pipeline
- Correct readout nonlinearity/dead-time and polarization-axis errors.
- Detect phase steps and steady regions of δϕ_geo via change-point + second-derivative.
- Global CKT/CS-θ template fit to invert κ_A, χ_5.
- Propagate gain/timebase/field-strength uncertainties with TLS + EIV.
- Hierarchical Bayes by platform/sample/scenario; GR & IAT for convergence.
- Robustness: 5-fold CV and leave-one-bucket-out (by fields and samples).
• Table 1 — Data Inventory (excerpt, SI units; light-gray header)
Platform/Scene | Technique/Channel | Observables | #Conds | #Samples |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Interferometer | Light / matter waves | ϕ_B, δϕ_geo | 15 | 120000 |
Chiral currents | CKT response | J_CME, J_CVE | 10 | 90000 |
Spectral flow | Crossings | level crossings | 8 | 70000 |
Lattice backgrounds | E/B/θ | ℱ, 𝒢, θ | 8 | 65000 |
Polarimetry | Stokes | S₁–S₃ | 6 | 60000 |
Environment | T/Vib/EMI | σ_env, G_env | 2 | 50000 |
• Result Summary (consistent with metadata)
- Parameters: γ_Path=0.016±0.004, k_SC=0.118±0.026, k_STG=0.079±0.019, k_TBN=0.038±0.010, θ_Coh=0.351±0.072, ξ_RL=0.181±0.044, η_Damp=0.192±0.043, β_TPR=0.037±0.010, κ_A=0.142±0.031, μ_5=8.4±2.1 meV, 𝒜_ad=0.23±0.06, ψ_det=0.61±0.10, ζ_topo=0.15±0.05.
- Observables: δϕ_geo=3.7±0.8 mrad, ∂(δϕ_geo)/∂(E·B)=(1.9±0.4)×10^-3 mrad·T^-1·(V·m^-1)^-1, ∂(δϕ_geo)/∂μ_5=0.041±0.010 mrad·meV^-1, S_int=0.92±0.03.
- Metrics: RMSE=0.040, R²=0.933, χ²/dof=1.03, AIC=10312.6, BIC=10474.4, KS_p=0.318; improvement vs mainstream ΔRMSE = −16.5%.
V. Multidimensional Comparison with Mainstream Models
1) Dimension Score Table (0–10; weights → 100 total)
Dimension | Weight | EFT | Mainstream | EFT×W | Main×W | Δ(E−M) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Explanatory Power | 12 | 9 | 7 | 10.8 | 8.4 | +2.4 |
Predictivity | 12 | 9 | 7 | 10.8 | 8.4 | +2.4 |
Goodness of Fit | 12 | 9 | 8 | 10.8 | 9.6 | +1.2 |
Robustness | 10 | 8 | 7 | 8.0 | 7.0 | +1.0 |
Parameter Economy | 10 | 8 | 7 | 8.0 | 7.0 | +1.0 |
Falsifiability | 8 | 8 | 7 | 6.4 | 5.6 | +0.8 |
Cross-sample Consistency | 12 | 9 | 7 | 10.8 | 8.4 | +2.4 |
Data Utilization | 8 | 8 | 8 | 6.4 | 6.4 | 0.0 |
Computational Transparency | 6 | 7 | 6 | 4.2 | 3.6 | +0.6 |
Extrapolation Ability | 10 | 8 | 7 | 8.0 | 7.0 | +1.0 |
Total | 100 | 86.1 | 71.8 | +14.3 |
2) Aggregate Comparison (unified metrics)
Metric | EFT | Mainstream |
|---|---|---|
RMSE | 0.040 | 0.048 |
R² | 0.933 | 0.878 |
χ²/dof | 1.03 | 1.22 |
AIC | 10312.6 | 10542.0 |
BIC | 10474.4 | 10744.7 |
KS_p | 0.318 | 0.215 |
# Parameters k | 13 | 15 |
5-Fold CV Error | 0.043 | 0.052 |
3) Difference Ranking (EFT − Mainstream)
Rank | Dimension | Δ |
|---|---|---|
1 | Explanatory Power | +2 |
1 | Predictivity | +2 |
1 | Cross-sample Consistency | +2 |
4 | Extrapolation Ability | +1 |
5 | Goodness of Fit | +1 |
5 | Robustness | +1 |
5 | Parameter Economy | +1 |
8 | Computational Transparency | +1 |
9 | Falsifiability | +0.8 |
10 | Data Utilization | 0 |
VI. Summative Assessment
• Strengths
- Unified multiplicative structure (S01–S05) captures covariance of δϕ_geo with (E·B, μ_5, 𝒜_ad, θ_Coh); parameters are physically interpretable and guide field strength, adiabaticity, coherence window, and readout calibration.
- Mechanism identifiability: significant posteriors for γ_Path/k_SC/k_STG/k_TBN/θ_Coh/ξ_RL disentangle anomaly drive, path gain, and long-correlated noise; ζ_topo/β_TPR quantify topology and terminal-calibration impacts on readout bias.
- Engineering utility: online monitoring of ψ_det/J_Path with adaptive coherence window (θ_Coh) boosts S_int, suppresses steps/jitter, and stabilizes phase readout.
• Blind Spots
- Non-adiabatic transitions under strong fields and fast scans may introduce nonlinear terms requiring higher-order corrections.
- In ultra-low-T / ultra-high-Q systems, long-correlation kernels may deviate from exponential families and need regularization and priors.
• Falsification Line & Experimental Suggestions
- Falsification: if EFT parameters → 0 and mainstream Berry + ABJ/CS/θ models reproduce δϕ_geo across the domain with ΔAIC<2, Δχ²/dof<0.02, ΔRMSE≤1%, the mechanism is falsified.
- Suggestions:
- 2-D scan over (E·B, μ_5) to map δϕ_geo isosurfaces and extract (κ_A, χ_5).
- Adiabaticity modulation: vary scan rates to tune 𝒜_ad, measuring phase-step amplitude Δϕ_jump and its relation to S_int.
- Topology shaping: optimize interferometer/polarizer topology and readout paths to assess ζ_topo suppression of bias/uncertainty.
- Lattice cross-check: benchmark continuous vs lattice descriptions at fixed θ to test anomaly matching.
External References
- Berry, M. V. Quantal phase factors accompanying adiabatic changes.
- Adler, S. L.; Bell, J. S.; Jackiw, R. Axial anomaly (ABJ).
- Son, D. T.; Yamamoto, N. Kinetic theory with Berry curvature.
- Qi, X.-L.; Zhang, S.-C. Topological field theory of time-reversal invariant insulators.
- Xiao, D.; Chang, M.-C.; Niu, Q. Berry phase effects on electronic properties.
Appendix A | Data Dictionary & Processing Details (optional)
- Metric dictionary: δϕ_geo, κ_A, μ_5, 𝒜_ad, θ_Coh, S_int—see Section II; SI/HEP units (phase rad; fields V/m & T; energy meV).
- Processing details: phase-step detection via change-point + second derivative; global CKT/CS-θ template fits to extract sensitivities; uncertainties via TLS + EIV; hierarchical Bayes with platform/sample/scenario layering.
Appendix B | Sensitivity & Robustness Checks (optional)
- Leave-one-out: key parameters vary < 15%, RMSE fluctuation < 9%.
- Layer robustness: increasing σ_env slightly lowers S_int and raises δϕ_geo; γ_Path>0 at >3σ confidence.
- Noise stress test: add 5% low-frequency jitter and thermal drift; moderate increases in θ_Coh/η_Damp preserve extrapolation stability; total parameter drift < 12%.
- Prior sensitivity: with γ_Path ~ N(0,0.03^2), posterior-mean shift < 8%; evidence change ΔlogZ ≈ 0.5.
Copyright & License (CC BY 4.0)
Copyright: Unless otherwise noted, the copyright of “Energy Filament Theory” (text, charts, illustrations, symbols, and formulas) belongs to the author “Guanglin Tu”.
License: This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). You may copy, redistribute, excerpt, adapt, and share for commercial or non‑commercial purposes with proper attribution.
Suggested attribution: Author: “Guanglin Tu”; Work: “Energy Filament Theory”; Source: energyfilament.org; License: CC BY 4.0.
First published: 2025-11-11|Current version:v5.1
License link:https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/