Topological superconducting candidate state determination method and device, electronic equipment and storage medium

Abstract

The application is suitable for the technical field of computational physics, and provides a topological superconducting candidate state determination method and device, electronic equipment and storage medium. The method comprises: generating a decision timestamp for a candidate sample to be determined, and locking a data snapshot associated with the candidate sample according to the decision timestamp; performing environment access verification on the candidate sample to obtain an environment access result; when the environment access result meets a preset access condition, performing a plurality of topological superconducting physical criterion calculations on the candidate sample; performing orthogonal verification on the obtained criterion result vector; when the obtained orthogonal verification result meets a preset closure condition, performing a perturbation test on the candidate sample to obtain a perturbation resistance index; and determining a state category of the candidate state according to a preset state machine logic, the orthogonal verification result and the perturbation resistance index. The application can improve the accuracy of topological superconducting candidate state determination, reduce the probability of misjudgment, and guarantee the data consistency and result reproducibility of the determination process.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This application relates to the field of computational physics, and in particular to a method, apparatus, electronic device, and storage medium for determining candidate states of topological superconductivity. Background Technology

[0002] Topological superconductors are an important research subject in condensed matter physics and quantum computing. Candidate states of topological superconductors can usually be determined by indicators such as bandgap structure, particle-hole symmetry, topological invariants, edge states, Majorana zero modes, convergence of k-momentum space grid (momentum space grid convergence criterion), finite size effects, and perturbation robustness.

[0003] Early screening methods often relied on single topological invariants or superconducting band gaps for judgment, which easily led to false positives. Subsequent multi-criteria judgment schemes incorporated multiple physical criteria, typically using a weighted approach to output results, but this still struggled to avoid judgment biases caused by overlapping measurements and conflicting conclusions between criteria. Furthermore, the lack of unified time constraints on parameter, model, and threshold versions during the judgment process meant that data updated at different stages could easily be mixed into the same judgment process, making it difficult to reliably verify the results.

[0004] Therefore, improving the accuracy of candidate state determination in topological superconductivity, reducing the probability of misjudgment, and ensuring data consistency and reproducibility of results in the determination process are problems that need to be solved. Summary of the Invention

[0005] This application provides a method, apparatus, electronic device, and storage medium for determining candidate states of topological superconductivity, which can improve the accuracy of candidate state determination, reduce the probability of misjudgment, and ensure data consistency and result reproducibility in the determination process.

[0006] In a first aspect, embodiments of this application provide a method for determining candidate states of topological superconductivity, including: A decision timestamp is generated for the candidate sample to be judged, and a data snapshot associated with the candidate sample is locked based on the decision timestamp; The candidate samples are subjected to environmental access verification to obtain environmental access results; When the environmental admission result meets the preset admission conditions, multiple topological superconducting physical criteria are calculated for the candidate sample to obtain a criterion result vector. The criterion result vector is subjected to orthogonal verification to obtain the orthogonal verification result; When the orthogonal verification result satisfies the preset closure condition, a perturbation test is performed on the candidate sample to obtain the anti-perturbation index; The state category of the candidate state is determined based on the preset state machine logic, the orthogonal verification results, and the anti-disturbance index.

[0007] Secondly, embodiments of this application provide a device for determining candidate states of topological superconductivity, comprising: A locking unit is used to generate a decision timestamp for the candidate sample to be judged, and lock the data snapshot associated with the candidate sample according to the decision timestamp; An admission verification unit is used to perform environmental admission verification on the candidate samples and obtain environmental admission results. The criterion calculation unit is used to perform multiple topological superconducting physical criterion calculations on the candidate sample when the environmental admission result meets the preset admission conditions, and obtain a criterion result vector. An orthogonal verification unit is used to perform orthogonal verification on the criterion result vector to obtain an orthogonal verification result; The perturbation testing unit is used to perform perturbation testing on the candidate sample when the orthogonal verification result meets the preset closure condition, so as to obtain the anti-perturbation index. The state determination unit is used to determine the state category of the candidate state based on the preset state machine logic, the orthogonal verification result, and the anti-disturbance index.

[0008] Thirdly, embodiments of this application provide an electronic device, including a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor. When the processor executes the computer program, it implements the topological superconducting candidate state determination method as described in the first aspect above.

[0009] Fourthly, embodiments of this application provide a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program that, when executed by a processor, implements the topological superconducting candidate state determination method as described in the first aspect above.

[0010] Fifthly, embodiments of this application provide a computer program product that, when run on an electronic device, causes the electronic device to execute the topological superconducting candidate state determination method as described in the first aspect above.

[0011] In this embodiment, by generating decision timestamps for candidate samples and locking associated data snapshots, all original computational data for a single judgment process is fixed, preventing subsequent updated data from participating in the judgment calculation during the process. This avoids judgment errors caused by temporal disorder from the data source, ensuring data consistency throughout the single judgment process. The fixed-time original data snapshots also support the subsequent complete reproduction of the entire judgment process, ensuring the reproducibility of the judgment results. Then, environmental access verification is performed on candidate samples. Before entering multi-criteria calculation, candidate samples with incomplete parameters, version mismatches, or unreliable data sources are filtered out, reducing the consumption of ineffective computational resources and avoiding the risk of misjudgment introduced by low-quality inputs in subsequent judgment stages. When the environmental access result meets the preset conditions, multiple topological superconducting physics criteria calculations are performed on the candidate samples to obtain a criterion result vector. Orthogonal verification is then performed on the criterion result vector to obtain orthogonal verification results. By identifying the correlation and conflict between criteria, the impact of repeated measurement and conclusion conflict between criteria on the orthogonal verification results is reduced. When the orthogonal validation results meet the preset closure conditions, a perturbation test is performed on the candidate samples to obtain the anti-perturbation index. The topological classification stability under perturbation conditions is used as a necessary gate for entering the final decision, intercepting unstable candidate samples under perturbation and reducing the probability of misclassification. Finally, based on the preset state machine logic, the state category of the candidate state is determined by combining the orthogonal validation results and the anti-perturbation index, so that the decision-making process is driven by a unified state transition rule, avoiding inconsistencies caused by differences in human experience. The proposed solution can effectively improve the accuracy of topological superconducting candidate state determination, reduce the probability of misclassification caused by a single criterion or improper weighting, and ensure data consistency and result reproducibility throughout the determination process through a data snapshot locking mechanism. Attached Figure Description

[0012] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of this application, the drawings used in the description of the embodiments or the prior art will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are only some embodiments of this application. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative effort.

[0013] Figure 1 This is a flowchart illustrating the implementation of the topological superconducting candidate state determination method provided in the embodiments of this application; Figure 2 This is a flowchart illustrating a specific implementation of step S101 in the topological superconducting candidate state determination method provided in this application embodiment; Figure 3 This is a flowchart illustrating a specific implementation of step S103 in the topological superconducting candidate state determination method provided in this application embodiment; Figure 4This is a flowchart illustrating a specific implementation of step S105 in the topological superconducting candidate state determination method provided in this application embodiment; Figure 5 This is a flowchart illustrating a specific implementation of step S106 in the topological superconducting candidate state determination method provided in this application embodiment; Figure 6 This is a flowchart illustrating a specific implementation of the topological superconducting candidate state determination method provided in this application. Figure 7 This is a structural block diagram of the topological superconducting candidate state determination device provided in the embodiments of this application; Figure 8 This is a schematic diagram of the electronic device provided in the embodiments of this application. Detailed Implementation

[0014] In the following description, specific details such as particular system architectures and techniques are set forth for illustrative purposes and not for limitation, in order to provide a thorough understanding of the embodiments of this application. However, those skilled in the art will understand that this application may also be implemented in other embodiments without these specific details. In other instances, detailed descriptions of well-known systems, apparatuses, circuits, and methods have been omitted so as not to obscure the description of this application with unnecessary detail.

[0015] It should be understood that, when used in this application specification and the appended claims, the term "comprising" indicates the presence of the described features, integrals, steps, operations, elements and / or components, but does not exclude the presence or addition of one or more other features, integrals, steps, operations, elements, components and / or a collection thereof.

[0016] It should also be understood that the term “and / or” as used in this application specification and the appended claims means any combination of one or more of the associated listed items and all possible combinations, and includes such combinations.

[0017] As used in this application specification and the appended claims, the term "if" may be interpreted, depending on the context, as "when," "once," "in response to determination," or "in response to detection." Similarly, the phrase "if determined" or "if detected [the described condition or event]" may be interpreted, depending on the context, as meaning "once determined," "in response to determination," "once detected [the described condition or event]," or "in response to detection [the described condition or event]."

[0018] Furthermore, in the description of this application and the appended claims, the terms "first," "second," "third," etc., are used only to distinguish descriptions and should not be construed as indicating or implying relative importance.

[0019] References to "one embodiment" or "some embodiments" as described in this specification mean that one or more embodiments of this application include a specific feature, structure, or characteristic described in connection with that embodiment. Therefore, the phrases "in one embodiment," "in some embodiments," "in other embodiments," "in still other embodiments," etc., appearing in different parts of this specification do not necessarily refer to the same embodiment, but rather mean "one or more, but not all, embodiments," unless otherwise specifically emphasized. The terms "comprising," "including," "having," and variations thereof mean "including but not limited to," unless otherwise specifically emphasized.

[0020] By way of example and not limitation, the method for determining topological superconducting candidate states provided in this application is applicable to various types of electronic devices that need to perform topological superconducting candidate state determination. These electronic devices may specifically include servers, high-performance computing clusters, workstations, desktop computers, laptops, supermobile personal computers, and cloud computing platforms, etc. This application does not impose any limitations on the specific type of electronic device.

[0021] Figure 1 The implementation flow of the topological superconducting candidate state determination method provided in this application embodiment is illustrated. This method is used to perform loop closure determination on candidate samples to be determined. The method flow includes steps S101 to S106. The specific implementation principle of each step is as follows: Step S101 generates a decision timestamp for the candidate sample to be judged, and locks the data snapshot associated with the candidate sample based on the decision timestamp.

[0022] When the topological superconducting candidate state determination process is initiated, a decision timestamp is generated for the candidate sample to be determined. This decision timestamp marks the start time of the current determination process and is a unique temporal code generated at the start time of a single topological superconducting candidate state determination process. Each independent determination process corresponds to a unique decision timestamp, and there is no duplicate coding. It is used to accurately delineate the data access time boundary of a single determination process and serves as the time benchmark for subsequent data version selection and locking. Candidate samples are condensed matter material simulation calculation samples that require closed-loop determination of topological superconducting properties. They are the processing objects of this determination process and can be obtained from material databases, first-principles calculation platforms, effective Hamiltonian models, machine learning material generation models, automated experimental platforms, or manual input.

[0023] In one possible implementation, the candidate sample includes a unique candidate sample identifier, a material descriptor, a lattice structure descriptor, a set of Hamiltonian parameters, pairing potential parameters, chemical potential parameters, spin-orbit coupling parameters, boundary conditions, momentum space grid settings, disorder perturbation settings, simulation accuracy parameters, data source identifier, model version, parameter snapshot summary, object status identifier, and audit reference field.

[0024] Using the decision timestamp as a time segmentation node, all fixed related data before the node is captured as a data snapshot. Simultaneously, all data added, modified, or updated after the node is restricted from participating in the entire judgment process, thus fixing the time point of the data source for each judgment. A data snapshot refers to the collection of parameter data, model version data, criterion version data, threshold version data, disturbance scheme data, and audit chain data generated before the decision timestamp and currently in a valid state for the candidate sample. It comprehensively includes all related original data such as material simulation parameters, physical calculation model parameters, judgment threshold parameters, and pre-audit traceability data corresponding to the candidate sample. Once the data snapshot is locked, the internal data will not automatically change.

[0025] In this embodiment, the data access boundary for a single judgment is defined from the data source, blocking interference from dynamically updated data during the judgment process, ensuring data consistency throughout the single judgment, and preventing data updated at different stages from being mixed into the same judgment process, which would lead to unreproducible results. At the same time, the original data snapshot at a fixed time point can support the subsequent complete reproduction of the entire judgment process, ensuring the reproducibility of the judgment results.

[0026] As one possible implementation of this application Figure 2 The following is a detailed implementation process of locking the data snapshot associated with candidate samples in the topological superconducting candidate state determination method provided in this application embodiment: A1: Obtain a snapshot of the data generated before the decision timestamp. The data snapshot includes a snapshot of candidate sample parameters, a snapshot of the model version, a snapshot of the criterion version, a snapshot of the threshold version, a snapshot of the perturbation scheme, and a snapshot of the audit chain.

[0027] The candidate sample parameter snapshot is a fixed set of the latest versions of all parameter data contained in the candidate sample before the decision time stamp. It may include Hamiltonian parameter sets, pairing potential parameters, chemical potential parameters, spin-orbit coupling parameters, boundary conditions, momentum space grid settings, disorder perturbation settings, and simulation accuracy parameters. The model version snapshot is a fixed record of the version identification information of the theoretical or computational model used before the decision time stamp. The criterion version snapshot is a fixed record of the version identification information of each physical criterion used before the decision time stamp. The threshold version snapshot is a fixed record of the version identification and threshold values ​​of each judgment threshold set before the decision time stamp. The audit chain snapshot is a fixed summary of the chain structure of audit records generated before the decision time stamp.

[0028] A2: In the current decision-making process, it is prohibited to call data generated or updated after the decision timestamp.

[0029] After the data snapshot is acquired, data generated or updated after the decision timestamp is prohibited from being used in the current decision-making process. For example, if the timestamp of a data item is later than the decision timestamp, the current decision-making process will not read or use that data item during execution. For example, if a threshold is modified after the decision timestamp, the current decision-making process will still use the threshold version before the modification, not the modified threshold version; if a model parameter is updated after the decision timestamp, the current decision-making process will still use the parameter version before the update.

[0030] A3: When updated data must be used, generate a new decision timestamp and start a new closed-loop decision process.

[0031] When the current decision process does require data that is generated or updated after the decision timestamp to complete the decision, the electronic device will not mix the updated data into the current decision process. Instead, it will generate a new decision timestamp, re-lock the data snapshot associated with the candidate sample based on the new decision timestamp, start a brand new decision process, and terminate or archive the original decision process, which will not be output as the final decision result.

[0032] In this embodiment, by generating a decision timestamp and locking the data snapshot formed before that timestamp, all the original data used in the current judgment process is fixed to the version formed before the decision timestamp. This prevents subsequent data updates from participating in the current judgment calculation, thus avoiding judgment errors caused by temporal disorder from the data source. The original data snapshot at a fixed time point can support the complete reproduction of the entire judgment process, ensuring the reproducibility of the judgment results.

[0033] In one possible implementation, before generating decision timestamps for candidate samples to be judged, a unified control benchmark for rule objects is constructed. This unified control benchmark includes candidate sample objects, criterion objects, threshold objects, disturbance objects, state machine objects, audit objects, version objects, reason code objects, processing suggestion objects, and feedback calibration objects. The version object is used to manage at least one of the following: model version, criterion version, threshold version, disturbance scheme version, state transition rule version, and audit rule version. The threshold object includes a threshold object identifier, threshold type, applicable criterion, applicable state, threshold value range, default threshold, threshold version, enable identifier, failure identifier, effective time, failure time, and audit reference field. The threshold object is used to provide versioned thresholds for correlation thresholds, conflict confidence thresholds, superconducting bandgap thresholds, anti-disturbance thresholds, momentum space grid convergence thresholds, environmental access thresholds, audit integrity thresholds, and comprehensive judgment thresholds.

[0034] Step S102: Perform environmental access verification on the candidate samples to obtain environmental access results.

[0035] Environmental access verification refers to the preliminary compliance check conducted before entering the multi-criteria calculation stage, which verifies the integrity of the pre-judgment operating environment and sample basic data. It is used to check whether the pre-judgment basic conditions meet the requirements of subsequent calculations. The environmental access result is a unified verification result output after the completion of the preliminary environmental access verification, including two result formats: access passed and access failed.

[0036] In one possible implementation, environmental access verification includes verifying at least one of the following: field integrity, parameter value validity, model version validity, threshold availability, data source reliability, boundary condition validity, simulation resource sufficiency, audit chain pre-requisite integrity, and parameter snapshot consistency. Specifically, field integrity checks whether all necessary fields in the candidate sample object exist and are not empty; parameter value validity verifies whether the values ​​of each physical parameter are within a reasonable range; model version validity confirms whether the version of the currently used theoretical or computational model is supported and not obsolete; threshold availability checks whether the threshold objects required for the judgment have been defined and are in effect; data source reliability verifies whether the source of the candidate sample data is reliable and traceable; boundary condition validity checks whether the boundary conditions used in the calculation conform to physical laws and computational requirements; simulation resource sufficiency confirms whether the current computational resources are sufficient to complete the subsequent criterion calculation; audit chain pre-requisite integrity verifies whether the audit record chain formed beforehand is complete and has not been tampered with; and parameter snapshot consistency verifies whether the summary value of the parameter snapshot is consistent with expectations to confirm that the data snapshot has not been accidentally modified. When the above verification passes, an environment admission pass result is output, allowing entry into the multi-criteria calculation stage. When the above verification fails, an environment admission failure result is output, subsequent topological superconducting physics criterion calculations are prohibited, and a supplementary calculation state, a verification state, or a candidate state rejection state is output according to the state machine logic, while generating the corresponding environment admission failure reason code.

[0037] Specifically, when a field is missing, parameter value exceeds the valid range, model version is mismatched, threshold is missing or unavailable, data source is unreliable, boundary conditions are illegal, simulation resources are insufficient, the audit chain is incomplete, or parameter snapshot verification fails, subsequent criterion calculations are prohibited. Based on the state machine logic, a supplementary calculation state, a review state, or a candidate state rejection state is output. At the same time, corresponding environment access failure reason codes, model version mismatch reason codes, threshold version missing reason codes, parameter snapshot inconsistency reason codes, parameter exceeding verifiable range reason codes, or audit incomplete reason codes are generated.

[0038] In this embodiment, candidate samples are pre-filtered before entering the multi-criteria calculation stage. Candidate samples with incomplete parameters, mismatched versions, or unreliable data sources are intercepted before the calculation stage, reducing the consumption of ineffective computing resources and avoiding the risk of misjudgment caused by low-quality inputs entering the subsequent judgment stage.

[0039] Step S103: When the environmental admission result meets the preset admission conditions, perform multiple topological superconducting physical criteria calculations on the candidate sample to obtain the criterion result vector.

[0040] The preset admission criteria are pre-defined environmental admission verification standards. Only when the environmental admission result matches these standards can the process proceed to the subsequent core criterion calculation. Meeting the preset admission criteria means the environmental admission verification is successful. Specifically, after successful environmental admission verification, multiple topological superconductivity physical criteria are calculated for the candidate sample. Topological superconductivity physical criteria refer to various physical indicators or judgment standards used to determine whether a candidate sample possesses topological superconductivity characteristics.

[0041] In one possible implementation, multiple topological superconductivity physical criteria may include at least two of the following: superconducting bandgap criterion, particle-hole symmetry criterion, topological invariant criterion, edge state criterion, Majorana zero-mode criterion, momentum space grid convergence criterion, finite size effect criterion, band inversion criterion, pairing potential stability criterion, and perturbation robustness criterion. Each physical criterion evaluates the physical properties of candidate samples from different dimensions. For example, the superconducting bandgap criterion is used to determine whether a candidate sample has a non-zero superconducting bandgap; the topological invariant criterion is used to calculate the topological invariants of the candidate sample to determine its topological nontriviality; the edge state criterion is used to detect whether a candidate sample has topologically protected edge states; the Majorana zero-mode criterion is used to identify whether a Majorana zero mode exists; the momentum space grid convergence criterion is used to verify whether the momentum space grid resolution has reached convergence in numerical calculations; and the finite size effect criterion is used to evaluate the impact of finite size on the calculation results, etc.

[0042] Each physical criterion calculation yields a corresponding criterion result, which is then organized into a criterion result vector. Each element in this vector corresponds to the calculation result of a physical criterion. Each criterion result may include information such as the criterion value, criterion pass identifier, confidence level, criterion version, criterion validity identifier, and criterion object identifier. Specifically, the criterion value represents the specific calculation result of the criterion; the criterion pass identifier indicates whether the criterion meets the preset pass standard; the confidence level indicates the reliability of the criterion result; the criterion version indicates the version number of the criterion; the criterion validity identifier indicates whether the criterion result is valid in the current context; and the criterion object identifier uniquely identifies the criterion object.

[0043] In this embodiment, the topological superconducting properties of candidate samples are comprehensively evaluated from multiple physical dimensions to avoid the one-sidedness and false positive risk caused by a single criterion, and to provide complete and structured original judgment data for subsequent orthogonal verification.

[0044] Step S104: Perform orthogonal verification on the criterion result vector to obtain the orthogonal verification result.

[0045] Orthogonal validation refers to the systematic testing and calibration of the correlation, redundancy, and conflict among multiple criteria results to ensure that each criterion is independent, the conclusions are consistent, and the coverage is comprehensive. The orthogonal validation result is the standardized verification result output after the orthogonal validation and calibration of the criterion result vectors; the orthogonal validation result includes two result forms: orthogonal validation passed and orthogonal validation failed.

[0046] For example, the multi-criteria result vector is represented as: ;in, The criterion result represents the criterion result of the nth topological superconductivity-related physical criterion, and the criterion result includes at least one of the following: criterion value, criterion pass identifier, confidence level, criterion version, criterion validity identifier, and criterion object identifier.

[0047] As one possible implementation of this application Figure 3 A specific implementation flow of step S103 of the topological superconducting candidate state determination method provided in this application embodiment is shown below: B1: Construct a criterion relationship matrix based on the criterion result vector. The criterion relationship matrix includes a criterion correlation matrix and a criterion conflict matrix.

[0048] The criterion correlation matrix is ​​used to represent the degree of correlation between each pair of criteria, and the criterion conflict matrix is ​​used to represent whether the conclusions of each pair of criteria contradict each other.

[0049] B2: Identify redundant and conflicting criteria based on the criterion relationship matrix.

[0050] Redundant criteria are those that are highly correlated with other criteria and involve duplicate measurements; conflicting criteria are those that have contradictory physical conclusions and both have high confidence levels. Redundant criteria are adjusted, and conflicting criteria are re-evaluated.

[0051] In one possible implementation, the criteria involved in the determination are divided into strong physics primary criteria, auxiliary verification criteria, and engineering control criteria; correlation indices are calculated between criteria of the same type and between criteria of different types; when the correlation index between any two criteria exceeds a preset correlation threshold, the corresponding criteria are marked as redundant criteria, criteria to be downgraded, criteria to be replaced, criteria to be disabled, or criteria to be recalibrated. The strong physics primary criteria include at least one of superconducting bandgap criteria, topological invariant criteria, and particle-hole symmetry criteria; the auxiliary verification criteria include at least one of edge state criteria, Majorana zero mode criteria, momentum space grid convergence criteria, and finite size effect criteria; the engineering control criteria include at least one of data snapshot consistency criteria, model version consistency criteria, threshold version consistency criteria, audit integrity criteria, and disturbance robustness gating criteria.

[0052] In one possible implementation, the correlation coefficients in the criterion correlation matrix are compared with a preset correlation threshold. When the correlation coefficients of two sets of criteria are greater than the preset correlation threshold, the two sets of criteria are determined to be redundant criteria. The deviation coefficients in the criterion conflict matrix are compared with a preset reliability threshold. When the deviation coefficients of the conclusions of two sets of criteria are greater than the preset reliability threshold, the two sets of criteria are determined to be conflicting criteria.

[0053] In one possible implementation, when the physical conclusions of two criteria are opposite and the confidence levels of both criteria are greater than or equal to the confidence threshold, a conflict flag is generated and a criterion conflict reason code is output.

[0054] B3: Perform adjustment processing on the identified redundant criteria and perform re-determination processing on the identified conflicting criteria.

[0055] In one possible implementation, the redundant criteria are subjected to at least one of the following processing: downgrading, merging, eliminating, replacing, disabling, or retaining audit markers; the conflicting criteria are subjected to at least one of the following processing: recalculation, verification, expanding the parameter scan range, switching boundary conditions, adding criteria, or rejection.

[0056] B4: Generate the orthogonal verification result based on the adjusted criterion result vector and the preset independence, consistency, and completeness conditions.

[0057] The independence condition is used to determine whether there is duplicate measurement exceeding the correlation threshold among the criteria. That is, after the redundant criteria are processed, the correlation index among the retained criteria does not exceed the preset correlation threshold. The consistency condition is used to determine whether there is physical conclusion conflict exceeding the confidence threshold among the criteria. That is, after the conflict criteria are processed, there is no high-confidence contradiction among the physical conclusions of the criteria. The completeness condition is used to determine whether the set of executed criteria covers the preset set of necessary criteria. That is, all necessary physical criteria have been executed and the results are valid.

[0058] The orthogonal validation passes when all three conditions—independence, consistency, and completeness—are met. Specifically, the independence condition is met when there are no duplicate measures exceeding a relevance threshold; the consistency condition is met when there are no physical conflicts among multiple criteria exceeding a confidence threshold; the completeness condition is met when the calculated set of criteria covers a preset set of necessary criteria; and the orthogonal validation result satisfies a preset closure condition when all three conditions are met. If any condition is not met, the orthogonal validation fails, and the orthogonal validation result does not satisfy the preset closure condition.

[0059] In this embodiment, by identifying the correlation and conflict between criteria, redundant criteria are adjusted and conflicting criteria are re-determined, thereby reducing the impact of repeated measurement and conflicting conclusions on the determination conclusion and improving the accuracy and reliability of multi-criteria comprehensive determination.

[0060] Step S105: When the orthogonal verification result meets the preset closure condition, perform a perturbation test on the candidate sample to obtain the anti-perturbation index.

[0061] When the orthogonal verification results meet the preset closure conditions (i.e., the independence, consistency, and completeness conditions are all met), a perturbation test is performed on the candidate samples. The perturbation test refers to a stability detection process that simulates the fluctuations of objective parameters under actual physical conditions of the material and applies standardized external perturbations to the simulation model of the candidate samples. The perturbation resistance index is a normalized quantitative index calculated based on the objective data from the perturbation test, used to objectively quantify the ability of the candidate sample judgment results to resist external standardized perturbations.

[0062] As one possible implementation of this application Figure 4 A specific implementation flow of step S105 of the topological superconducting candidate state determination method provided in this application embodiment is shown below: C1: Apply various preset perturbations to the candidate samples to obtain the number of topological classification transitions and the total number of perturbation tests during the perturbation test.

[0063] In one possible implementation, the preset perturbation may include at least one of the following: Anderson disorder perturbation, Zeeman noise perturbation, chemical potential drift perturbation, spin-orbit coupling strength perturbation, pairing potential fluctuation perturbation, lattice defect perturbation, boundary condition perturbation, and temperature equivalent perturbation. Specifically, Anderson disorder perturbation is used to simulate the effect of random impurities or defects in the material on electron transport; Zeeman noise perturbation is used to simulate the effect of applied magnetic field fluctuations on spin splitting; chemical potential drift perturbation is used to simulate the effect of doping concentration or gate voltage changes on the Fermi level position; spin-orbit coupling strength perturbation is used to simulate changes in the spin-orbit interaction strength; pairing potential fluctuation perturbation is used to simulate fluctuations in superconducting pairing interactions; lattice defect perturbation is used to simulate defects or distortions in the crystal structure; boundary condition perturbation is used to simulate the effect of different boundary conditions on finite-size systems; and temperature equivalent perturbation is used to simulate the equivalent effect of thermal fluctuations.

[0064] After each perturbation, the topological invariants of the candidate sample are recalculated to determine whether a topological classification transition has occurred. A topological classification transition occurs when the calculated topological invariants of a candidate sample change from non-trivial to trivial, or from trivial to non-trivial, after the perturbation is applied. For example, the candidate sample is subjected to a total of 100 pre-defined perturbations, including 15 Anderson disorder perturbations, 15 Zeeman noise perturbations, 15 chemical potential drift perturbations, 15 spin-orbit coupling strength perturbations, 15 pairing potential fluctuation perturbations, 10 lattice defect perturbations, 10 boundary condition perturbations, and 5 temperature equivalent perturbations. Whether a topological classification transition occurs after each perturbation is recorded, and the number of topological classification transitions and the total number of perturbation tests are statistically analyzed. Through diverse perturbation types and a sufficient number of tests, the topological classification stability of the candidate sample under different perturbation conditions is comprehensively evaluated.

[0065] C2: Determine the anti-disturbance index based on the ratio of the number of transitions occurring in the topology classification to the total number of disturbance tests.

[0066] In each perturbation test, it is recorded whether the topological classification result of the candidate sample under the perturbation condition undergoes a transition (i.e., a change from one topological category to another) compared to the topological classification result under the unperturbed condition. The more times the topological classification transitions occur, the more sensitive the candidate sample is to perturbations and the worse its stability. The robustness index is determined based on the ratio of the number of topological classification transitions to the total number of perturbation tests. The robustness index can be expressed as one minus the ratio of the number of transitions to the total number of tests. The value of the robustness index ranges from zero to one. The closer the robustness index is to one, the stronger the candidate sample's ability to maintain topological classification stability under perturbed environments. For example, if the total number of perturbation tests is 100 and the number of topological classification transitions is 18, then the robustness index is 0.82.

[0067] In this embodiment, the stability of topological classification under perturbation conditions is used as a necessary gating condition for entering the final decision, thereby intercepting candidate samples that are unstable under perturbation environments such as disorder, noise, or parameter drift, and thus further reducing the probability of misjudgment.

[0068] Step S106: Determine the state category of the candidate state based on the preset state machine logic, the orthogonal verification result, and the disturbance resistance index.

[0069] The predefined state machine logic is a rule-driven decision model that defines the various states that the system may be in under different conditions, as well as the transition conditions and rules between states.

[0070] The state category of a candidate state is a standardized hierarchical state that is divided according to the final judgment result of the candidate sample. It is the category to which the candidate sample is finally assigned after going through a complete judgment process.

[0071] In one possible implementation, the candidate state categories include candidate state passed, candidate state rejected, downgraded observation, technically retained, supplementary calculation, verification, or archived states. Specifically, the candidate state passed state indicates that the candidate sample has passed all the judgment conditions and is recognized as a topological superconducting candidate state; the candidate state rejected state indicates that the candidate sample has not passed the judgment and has been excluded from the candidate state set; the downgraded observation state indicates that some indicators of the candidate sample have not reached the optimal level but still have potential and need to be continuously monitored; the supplementary calculation state indicates that the current data is insufficient to complete the judgment and supplementary calculation is required; the verification state indicates that manual verification is required; and the archived state indicates that the judgment process has ended and the results have been archived.

[0072] In this embodiment, the state machine logic determines the state category to which the current candidate sample should belong based on the orthogonal verification results and the disturbance resistance index, combined with the preset state transition conditions.

[0073] As one possible implementation of this application Figure 5 A specific implementation flow of step S106 of the topological superconducting candidate state determination method provided in this application embodiment is shown below: D1: Obtain the preset state transition conditions. The state transition conditions define the correspondence between orthogonal validation results and disturbance resistance indicators and candidate state categories.

[0074] In one possible implementation, the state transition conditions include at least one of the following: candidate sample acquisition completed, data snapshot locking completed, environment access passed, multi-criteria calculation completed, criterion relationship matrix generated completed, orthogonal verification completed, orthogonal verification passed, orthogonal verification failed, perturbation test passed, perturbation test failed, audit integrity verification passed, and audit integrity verification failed.

[0075] D2: Determine the state category of the candidate state based on the orthogonal verification results, the anti-disturbance index, and the state transition conditions.

[0076] In one possible implementation, the state machine logic includes a pending state, an admission verification state, a criterion calculation state, an orthogonal verification state, a disturbance test state, a pass state, a downgrade observation state, a manual review state, a supplementary calculation state, a rejection state, and an audit anomaly state. Specifically, when candidate samples are acquired but data snapshot locking is not yet complete, the system is in a pending judgment state; after data snapshot locking is completed, it enters the admission verification state; after environmental admission is passed, it enters the criterion calculation state; after multiple criteria calculations are completed and criterion result vectors are generated, it enters the orthogonal verification state; after orthogonal verification is passed, it enters the disturbance testing state; after orthogonal verification is passed, the disturbance resistance index meets the threshold, and the audit integrity verification is passed, it enters the pass state; when the disturbance resistance index is in the observation range or the confidence of some criteria is insufficient, it enters the downgraded observation state; when there are interpretable conflicts in the criterion results or when the rule object requires manual confirmation, it enters the manual review state; when there are repairable calculation, parameter, model, disturbance, or audit problems, it enters the supplementary calculation state; when orthogonal verification fails and cannot be repaired or the disturbance resistance index is lower than the second disturbance resistance threshold, it enters the rejection state; when the audit record is incomplete, the preceding event summary verification fails, or the anti-tampering summary verification fails, it enters the audit abnormal state. Each state forms a unidirectional state flow according to the environmental access verification stage, multi-criteria calculation and orthogonal verification stage, disturbance testing stage, state determination stage, and audit archiving stage. Reverse state transitions cannot be performed without audit records.

[0077] In one possible implementation, when the momentum space grid fails to converge, multiple criteria results conflict, model version mismatch occurs, parameter snapshots are missing, criterion confidence is lower than the confidence threshold, boundary conditions are inconsistent, simulation accuracy is insufficient, the number of disturbance samples is insufficient, or audit fields are missing, the state machine logic outputs a supplementary calculation state.

[0078] In one possible implementation, when the state machine logic outputs a recalculation state, the recalculation action and reflow step are determined based on the reason code corresponding to the recalculation state. The reflow step includes at least one of the following: data snapshot locking step, environment access verification step, multi-criteria calculation step, orthogonal verification step, disturbance testing step, and audit log generation step. After the recalculation is completed, the reflow step and its subsequent steps are re-executed until the corresponding exit condition is met, or a manual review state, candidate state rejection state, or audit anomaly state is output. Each recalculation action generates a new audit log, which includes the recalculation reason code, processing suggestion, state before state transition, state after state transition, current event summary, and previous event summary.

[0079] In one possible implementation, the state category is also determined based on the comprehensive judgment result; the comprehensive judgment result is generated through weighted scoring, threshold judgment, logical judgment, voting fusion, Bayesian fusion, confidence fusion or state machine rule judgment.

[0080] In one possible implementation, different comprehensive judgment methods all output a unified format comprehensive judgment result. The comprehensive judgment result includes a comprehensive judgment identifier, judgment method, orthogonal verification result, disturbance resistance index, comprehensive score, confidence level, candidate state category, state transition condition, reason code, and processing suggestion. Specifically, the comprehensive judgment identifier uniquely identifies the current comprehensive judgment event; the judgment method records the specific method used to generate the comprehensive judgment result; the orthogonal verification result and disturbance resistance index serve as inputs for state transition; the comprehensive score is used for threshold judgment; the confidence level triggers low-confidence recalculation or verification; the candidate state category serves as the target state for state transition; the state transition condition limits the basis for state machine transition; and the reason code and processing suggestion support audit traceability and subsequent processing. The state machine logic performs state transitions based on the unified format comprehensive judgment result and does not directly depend on the specific judgment method.

[0081] The state transition conditions define the correspondence between orthogonal validation results, robustness indices, confidence conditions, and candidate state categories. When orthogonal validation passes, the robustness indices are greater than or equal to the first robustness threshold, and the confidence level is greater than or equal to the confidence level threshold, the state machine outputs a pass state. When the robustness indices are between the second and first robustness thresholds, the state machine outputs a downgraded observation state. When the robustness indices are less than the second robustness threshold, the state machine outputs a rejection state. When orthogonal validation fails but the failure reason is a compensable reason, the state machine outputs a compensable state. When audit integrity verification fails, the state machine prohibits outputting a pass state and outputs an audit exception reason code.

[0082] As one possible implementation of this application Figure 6 The following is a detailed implementation flow of the topological superconducting candidate state determination method provided in this application for tracing: E1: Generate audit log. The audit log includes fields such as candidate sample identifier, rule object version, model identifier, model version, parameter snapshot summary, decision timestamp, criterion result vector summary, criterion relation matrix summary, orthogonal verification result, anti-disturbance index, environment access result, state before state transition, state after state transition, state transition condition, reason code, processing suggestion, threshold object identifier, threshold version, task identifier, operator identifier, timestamp, previous event summary, current event summary, and tamper-proof summary (Merkelgen summary).

[0083] Among them, the candidate sample identifier is the unique identifier of the candidate sample within the candidate sample object. The rule object version is the version number of the unified control benchmark of the rule object used in the current decision process. The model identifier and model version are the identifier and version number of the theoretical model used by the candidate sample. The parameter snapshot summary is the summary value obtained by summarizing the candidate sample parameter data in the data snapshot. The decision timestamp is the timestamp generated when the current closed-loop decision process starts. The criterion result vector summary is the summary value obtained by summarizing the criterion result vector. The criterion relation matrix summary is the summary value obtained by summarizing the criterion relation matrix. The orthogonal verification result is the pass / fail identifier output by the orthogonal verification step. The disturbance resistance index is the quantitative index output by the disturbance test step, used to compare with a preset disturbance resistance threshold and as input for the state machine logic to determine the candidate state category. The environment admission result is the pass / fail identifier output by the environment admission verification step. The state before state transition and the state after state transition represent the state category of the candidate sample before and after executing the current decision process, respectively. The state transition condition is the specific condition that triggers this state transition. The reason code is a standardized code used to identify the reasons for failure at each stage of the judgment process. The handling suggestion is the operational guidance given based on the reason code. The threshold object identifier and threshold version are the identifier and version number of the threshold object used in the current judgment process. The task identifier is the unique identifier of this judgment task. The operator identifier is the identifier of the operator who initiated this judgment process. The timestamp is the time stamp used to generate this audit record. The preceding event summary refers to the chained summary value of the previous audit record. The current event summary is the summary value obtained by summarizing the content of this audit record excluding the preceding event summary and the anti-tampering summary. The anti-tampering summary refers to the summary value generated for anti-tampering verification for a cumulative preset number of audit records.

[0084] In one possible implementation, the reason codes include: a low bandgap reason code indicating that the superconducting bandgap is below a threshold; a topological instability reason code indicating that the topological classification is unstable; a symmetry failure reason code indicating that the particle-hole symmetry is not passed; a grid non-convergence reason code indicating that the momentum space grid is not converged; a low disturbance robustness reason code indicating insufficient disturbance robustness; a criterion conflict reason code indicating conflict between multiple criteria results; an orthogonal verification failure reason code indicating orthogonal verification failure; an environmental access failure reason code indicating environmental access failure; an audit incomplete reason code indicating incomplete audit fields; an audit chain break reason code indicating a broken chain of audit summaries; a parameter over-limit reason code indicating that the parameters are outside the verifiable range; a model version mismatch reason code indicating a model version mismatch; a threshold version missing reason code indicating a threshold version missing reason code; and a snapshot inconsistency reason code indicating inconsistent data snapshots.

[0085] In one possible implementation, the processing suggestions include at least one of the following: increasing the momentum space grid resolution, expanding the parameter scan range, switching boundary conditions, increasing the number of perturbation samples, increasing physical criteria, recalculating topological invariants, recalculating edge states, regenerating the criterion relation matrix, updating the threshold object version, completing data snapshots, rebuilding the audit chain, manual review, and candidate state rejection.

[0086] E2: Connect multiple audit records in a chain structure and generate a tamper-proof summary for the audit records.

[0087] The tamper-proof summary is a summary value obtained by calculating the overall summary of the content of a cumulative preset number of audit records. It can be used to verify whether the audit records have been tampered with. In one possible implementation, the tamper-proof summary is generated as follows: The cumulative preset number N audit records in the current batch are sorted according to at least one of the timestamp, task identifier, and incrementing audit sequence number; the current event summary of each sorted audit record is extracted as a leaf node of a Merkle tree; the summary values ​​of adjacent leaf nodes are concatenated and a summary calculation is performed to obtain the summary of the next higher level node; this process is repeated until a unique root node summary is obtained, and this root node summary is written as the tamper-proof summary to the last audit record of the current batch or the batch archive record. When any audit record is tampered with, deleted, or reordered, causing the recalculated root node summary to be inconsistent with the written tamper-proof summary, an audit exception reason code is output, and the output of the candidate state pass status is prohibited. For example, if the cumulative number N is set to 100, then for every 100 audit records generated, the current event summary is extracted from the 100 audit records after being sorted by timestamp to generate a Merkle tree. The Merkle root summary is then written as the tamper-proof summary into the 100th audit record. The chain reference relationship and the tamper-proof summary together provide tamper-proof protection for the audit records.

[0088] A chained structure refers to a chain of records where each audit record contains references to the previous audit record, forming a chronologically linked chain. Specifically, the preceding event summary field in each audit record stores the current event summary value of the previous audit record, while the current event summary field stores the summary value of the content of this audit record, thus forming a chained reference.

[0089] E3: When the audit record is incomplete or the preceding event summary verification fails, the candidate state pass status is prohibited from being output, and the audit exception reason code is output.

[0090] Incomplete audit logs refer to the absence of necessary fields in the audit log. Necessary fields include candidate sample identifier, decision timestamp, parameter snapshot summary, orthogonal validation result, environment access result, state before state transition, state after state transition, preceding event summary, and current event summary. Preceding event summary verification failure occurs when the preceding event summary value recorded in the audit log is compared with the summary value actually calculated based on the previous audit log, and the two are inconsistent. When an audit log is incomplete or the preceding event summary verification fails, the state machine is prohibited from outputting a candidate state pass status, and an audit incompleteness reason code or audit chain break reason code is output. For example, if the decision timestamp field in an audit log is empty, or the value of the preceding event summary field does not match the current event summary value actually calculated from the previous audit log, then the audit log is determined to be incomplete or the audit chain is broken, the output of the candidate state pass status is prohibited, and an audit anomaly reason code is output. Audit completeness is used as a necessary gating condition before a candidate state enters the pass status, ensuring that only judgments with complete audit logs and correct chain references can be recognized as candidate state pass status.

[0091] In this embodiment, the state machine logic forms a unidirectional state flow according to the environment access verification stage, the multi-criteria calculation and orthogonal verification stage, and the state determination stage. Reverse state transitions between stages without audit records are prohibited. The audit traceability mechanism records and archives key data of the entire closed-loop determination process in a chain structure to ensure that the determination process is traceable and tamper-proof. At the same time, audit integrity is incorporated into the state machine gating conditions, forming a complete closed loop from data locking to state decision-making to audit traceability.

[0092] As can be seen from the above, in this embodiment, by generating decision timestamps for candidate samples and locking associated data snapshots, all original computational data of a single judgment process is fixed, preventing subsequent updated data from participating in the current judgment calculation during the process. This avoids judgment errors caused by temporal disorder from the data source, ensuring data consistency throughout the single judgment process. The original data snapshots at fixed points in time can also support the subsequent complete reproduction of the entire judgment process, ensuring the reproducibility of the judgment results. Then, environmental access verification is performed on candidate samples. Before entering the multi-criteria calculation, candidate samples with incomplete parameters, mismatched versions, or unreliable data sources are filtered out, reducing the consumption of ineffective computational resources and avoiding the risk of misjudgment introduced by low-quality inputs entering the subsequent judgment stage. When the environmental access result meets the preset conditions, multiple topological superconducting physical criteria calculations are performed on the candidate samples to obtain the criterion result vector. Orthogonal verification is then performed on the criterion result vector to obtain the orthogonal verification result. By identifying the correlation and conflict between criteria, the impact of repeated measurement and conclusion conflict between criteria on the orthogonal verification result is reduced. When the orthogonal validation results meet the preset closure conditions, a perturbation test is performed on the candidate samples to obtain the anti-perturbation index. The topological classification stability under perturbation conditions is used as a necessary gate for entering the final decision, intercepting unstable candidate samples under perturbation and reducing the probability of misclassification. Finally, based on the preset state machine logic, the state category of the candidate state is determined by combining the orthogonal validation results and the anti-perturbation index, so that the decision-making process is driven by a unified state transition rule, avoiding inconsistencies caused by differences in human experience. The proposed solution can effectively improve the accuracy of topological superconducting candidate state determination, reduce the probability of misclassification caused by a single criterion or improper weighting, and ensure data consistency and result reproducibility throughout the determination process through a data snapshot locking mechanism.

[0093] In one possible implementation, at least one of the following is obtained as a feedback result: subsequent experimental verification results of the candidate state, simulation re-verification results, review opinions, manual review opinions, or external database update results; the threshold object, criterion object, disturbance object, or state transition rule object in the rule configuration is updated according to the feedback result; the process of obtaining the feedback result and the update process are written as new audit events into the audit log.

[0094] It should be understood that the sequence number of each step in the above embodiments does not imply the order of execution. The execution order of each process should be determined by its function and internal logic, and should not constitute any limitation on the implementation process of the embodiments of this application.

[0095] Corresponding to the topological superconducting candidate state determination method described in the above embodiments, Figure 7 A structural block diagram of the topological superconducting candidate state determination device provided in the embodiments of this application is shown. For ease of explanation, only the parts related to the embodiments of this application are shown.

[0096] Reference Figure 7 The topological superconducting candidate state determination device includes: a generation and locking unit 71, an admission verification unit 72, a criterion calculation unit 73, an orthogonal verification unit 74, a perturbation testing unit 75, and a state determination unit 76, wherein: The generation locking unit 71 is used to generate a decision timestamp for the candidate sample to be judged, and lock the data snapshot associated with the candidate sample according to the decision timestamp; The admission verification unit 72 is used to perform environmental admission verification on the candidate sample and obtain the environmental admission result. The criterion calculation unit 73 is used to perform multiple topological superconducting physical criterion calculations on the candidate sample when the environmental admission result meets the preset admission conditions, and obtain a criterion result vector. Orthogonal verification unit 74 is used to perform orthogonal verification on the criterion result vector to obtain orthogonal verification result; The disturbance test unit 75 is used to perform a disturbance test on the candidate sample when the orthogonal verification result meets the preset closure condition, so as to obtain the disturbance resistance index. The state determination unit 76 is used to determine the state category of the candidate state based on the preset state machine logic, the orthogonal verification result and the anti-disturbance index.

[0097] As one possible implementation of this application, the generation and locking unit 71 is specifically used for: Obtain a snapshot of the data generated before the decision timestamp; In the current decision-making process, it is prohibited to call data generated or updated after the decision timestamp; When updated data must be used, a new decision timestamp is generated and a new closed-loop decision process is initiated.

[0098] As one possible implementation of this application, the access verification unit 72 is specifically used for: The candidate samples are verified for at least one of the following: field integrity, parameter value validity, model version validity, threshold availability, data source credibility, boundary condition legality, simulation resource sufficiency, audit chain pre-requisite integrity, and parameter snapshot consistency. When the verification is successful, the environment access approval result will be output. When the verification fails, subsequent calculations of the topological superconducting physics criterion are prohibited, and a supplementary calculation state, a verification state, or a candidate state rejection state is output according to the state machine logic. At the same time, a corresponding environment access failure reason code is generated.

[0099] As one possible implementation of this application, the criterion calculation unit 73 is specifically used for: A criterion relationship matrix is ​​constructed based on the criterion result vector, the criterion relationship matrix including a criterion correlation matrix and a criterion conflict matrix; Redundant and conflicting criteria are identified based on the aforementioned criterion relationship matrix; Redundant criteria identified are adjusted, and conflicting criteria identified are re-evaluated. The orthogonal verification result is generated based on the adjusted criterion result vector and the preset independence, consistency, and completeness conditions. The independence condition is used to determine whether there is duplicate measurement exceeding the correlation threshold among the criteria; the consistency condition is used to determine whether there is physical conclusion conflict exceeding the confidence threshold among the criteria; and the completeness condition is used to determine whether the set of executed criteria covers the preset set of necessary criteria.

[0100] As one possible implementation of this application, the disturbance testing unit 75 is specifically used for: Multiple preset perturbations are applied to the candidate samples to obtain the number of topological classification transitions and the total number of perturbation tests during the perturbation test. The disturbance immunity index is determined by the ratio of the number of transitions occurring in the topology classification to the total number of disturbance tests.

[0101] As one possible implementation of this application, the state determination unit 76 is specifically used for: Obtain the preset state transition conditions; Based on the orthogonal verification results, the anti-disturbance index, and the state transition conditions, the state category of the candidate state is determined.

[0102] As one possible implementation of this application, the topological superconducting candidate state determination device further includes a tracing processing unit, used for: Generate audit logs; Multiple audit records are linked together in a chain structure, and a tamper-proof summary is generated for the audit records; When the audit record is incomplete or the preceding event summary verification fails, the output of the candidate state pass status is prohibited, and the audit exception reason code is output.

[0103] As can be seen from the above, in this embodiment, by generating decision timestamps for candidate samples and locking associated data snapshots, all original computational data of a single judgment process is fixed, preventing subsequent updated data from participating in the current judgment calculation during the process. This avoids judgment errors caused by temporal disorder from the data source, ensuring data consistency throughout the single judgment process. The original data snapshots at fixed points in time can also support the subsequent complete reproduction of the entire judgment process, ensuring the reproducibility of the judgment results. Then, environmental access verification is performed on candidate samples. Before entering the multi-criteria calculation, candidate samples with incomplete parameters, mismatched versions, or unreliable data sources are filtered out, reducing the consumption of ineffective computational resources and avoiding the risk of misjudgment introduced by low-quality inputs entering the subsequent judgment stage. When the environmental access result meets the preset conditions, multiple topological superconducting physical criteria calculations are performed on the candidate samples to obtain the criterion result vector. Orthogonal verification is then performed on the criterion result vector to obtain the orthogonal verification result. By identifying the correlation and conflict between criteria, the impact of repeated measurement and conclusion conflict between criteria on the orthogonal verification result is reduced. When the orthogonal validation results meet the preset closure conditions, a perturbation test is performed on the candidate samples to obtain the anti-perturbation index. The topological classification stability under perturbation conditions is used as a necessary gate for entering the final decision, intercepting unstable candidate samples under perturbation and reducing the probability of misclassification. Finally, based on the preset state machine logic, the state category of the candidate state is determined by combining the orthogonal validation results and the anti-perturbation index, so that the decision-making process is driven by a unified state transition rule, avoiding inconsistencies caused by differences in human experience. The proposed solution can effectively improve the accuracy of topological superconducting candidate state determination, reduce the probability of misclassification caused by a single criterion or improper weighting, and ensure data consistency and result reproducibility throughout the determination process through a data snapshot locking mechanism.

[0104] It should be noted that the information interaction and execution process between the above-mentioned devices / units are based on the same concept as the method embodiments of this application. For details on their specific functions and technical effects, please refer to the method embodiments section, and they will not be repeated here.

[0105] This application embodiment also provides a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, which, when executed by a processor, implements... Figures 1 to 6 The steps of any method for determining candidate states in topological superconductivity are represented.

[0106] This application also provides an electronic device, including a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor. When the processor executes the computer program, it implements... Figures 1 to 6 The steps of any method for determining candidate states in topological superconductivity are represented.

[0107] This application also provides a computer program product that, when run on an electronic device, causes the electronic device to perform the following: Figures 1 to 6 The steps of any method for determining candidate states in topological superconductivity are represented.

[0108] Figure 8 This is a schematic diagram of an electronic device provided in an embodiment of this application. Figure 8 As shown, the electronic device 8 in this embodiment includes: a processor 80, a memory 81, and a computer program 82 stored in the memory 81 and executable on the processor 80. When the processor 80 executes the computer program 82, it implements the steps in the various embodiments of the topological superconducting candidate state determination method described above, for example... Figure 1 Steps S101 to S106 are shown. Alternatively, when the processor 80 executes the computer program 82, it implements the functions of each module / unit in the above-described device embodiments, for example... Figure 7 The functions of units 71 to 76 are shown.

[0109] For example, the computer program 82 may be divided into one or more modules / units, which are stored in the memory 81 and executed by the processor 80 to complete this application. The one or more modules / units may be a series of computer-readable instruction segments capable of performing a specific function, which describe the execution process of the computer program 82 in the electronic device 8.

[0110] The electronic device 8 may include, but is not limited to, a processor 80 and a memory 81. Those skilled in the art will understand that... Figure 8 This is merely an example of electronic device 8 and does not constitute a limitation on electronic device 8. It may include more or fewer components than shown, or combine certain components, or different components. For example, electronic device 8 may also include input / output devices, network access devices, buses, etc.

[0111] The processor 80 can be a Central Processing Unit (CPU), or other general-purpose processors, digital signal processors (DSPs), application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), or other programmable logic devices, discrete gate or transistor logic devices, discrete hardware components, etc. The general-purpose processor can be a microprocessor or any conventional processor.

[0112] The memory 81 can be an internal storage unit of the electronic device 8, such as a hard disk or memory. The memory 81 can also be an external storage device of the electronic device 8, such as a plug-in hard disk, smart media card (SMC), secure digital (SD) card, flash card, etc. Furthermore, the memory 81 can include both internal and external storage units of the electronic device 8. The memory 81 is used to store the computer program and other programs and data required by the electronic device. The memory 81 can also be used to temporarily store data that has been output or will be output.

[0113] It should be noted that the information interaction and execution process between the above-mentioned devices / units are based on the same concept as the method embodiments of this application. For details on their specific functions and technical effects, please refer to the method embodiments section, and they will not be repeated here.

[0114] Those skilled in the art will clearly understand that, for the sake of convenience and brevity, the above-described division of functional units and modules is merely an example. In practical applications, the above functions can be assigned to different functional units and modules as needed, that is, the internal structure of the device can be divided into different functional units or modules to complete all or part of the functions described above. The functional units and modules in the embodiments can be integrated into one processing unit, or each unit can exist physically separately, or two or more units can be integrated into one unit. The integrated unit can be implemented in hardware or as a software functional unit. Furthermore, the specific names of the functional units and modules are only for easy differentiation and are not intended to limit the scope of protection of this application. The specific working process of the units and modules in the above system can be referred to the corresponding process in the foregoing method embodiments, and will not be repeated here.

[0115] If the integrated unit is implemented as a software functional unit and sold or used as an independent product, it can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium. Based on this understanding, all or part of the processes in the methods of the above embodiments of this application can be implemented by a computer program instructing related hardware. The computer program can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium, and when executed by a processor, it can implement the steps of the various method embodiments described above. The computer program includes computer program code, which can be in the form of source code, object code, executable files, or certain intermediate forms. The computer-readable medium can include at least: any entity or device capable of carrying computer program code to a device / electronic device, a recording medium, a computer memory, a read-only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM), an electrical carrier signal, a telecommunication signal, and a software distribution medium. Examples include USB flash drives, portable hard drives, magnetic disks, or optical disks. In some jurisdictions, according to legislation and patent practice, computer-readable media cannot be electrical carrier signals or telecommunication signals.

[0116] In the above embodiments, the descriptions of each embodiment have different focuses. For parts that are not described in detail or recorded in a certain embodiment, please refer to the relevant descriptions of other embodiments.

[0117] The above-described embodiments are only used to illustrate the technical solutions of this application, and are not intended to limit them. Although this application has been described in detail with reference to the foregoing embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that modifications can still be made to the technical solutions described in the foregoing embodiments, or equivalent substitutions can be made to some of the technical features. Such modifications or substitutions do not cause the essence of the corresponding technical solutions to deviate from the spirit and scope of the technical solutions of the embodiments of this application, and should all be included within the protection scope of this application.

Claims

1. A method for determining candidate states in topological superconductivity, characterized in that, include: A decision timestamp is generated for the candidate sample to be judged, and a data snapshot associated with the candidate sample is locked based on the decision timestamp; The candidate samples are subjected to environmental access verification to obtain environmental access results; When the environmental admission result meets the preset admission conditions, multiple topological superconducting physical criteria are calculated for the candidate sample to obtain a criterion result vector. The criterion result vector is subjected to orthogonal verification to obtain the orthogonal verification result; When the orthogonal verification result satisfies the preset closure condition, a perturbation test is performed on the candidate sample to obtain the anti-perturbation index; The state category of the candidate state is determined based on the preset state machine logic, the orthogonal verification results, and the anti-disturbance index.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The step of locking the data snapshot associated with the candidate sample based on the decision timestamp includes: Obtain a snapshot of the data generated before the decision timestamp; In the current decision-making process, it is prohibited to call data generated or updated after the decision timestamp; When updated data must be used, a new decision timestamp is generated and a new closed-loop decision process is initiated.

3. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The environmental access verification of the candidate samples to obtain the environmental access results includes: The candidate samples are verified for at least one of the following: field integrity, parameter value validity, model version validity, threshold availability, data source credibility, boundary condition legality, simulation resource sufficiency, audit chain pre-requisite integrity, and parameter snapshot consistency. When the verification is successful, the environment access approval result will be output. When the verification fails, subsequent calculations of the topological superconducting physics criterion are prohibited, and a supplementary calculation state, a verification state, or a candidate state rejection state is output according to the state machine logic. At the same time, a corresponding environment access failure reason code is generated.

4. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The orthogonal verification of the criterion result vector to obtain the orthogonal verification result includes: A criterion relationship matrix is ​​constructed based on the criterion result vector, the criterion relationship matrix including a criterion correlation matrix and a criterion conflict matrix; Redundant and conflicting criteria are identified based on the aforementioned criterion relationship matrix; Redundant criteria identified are adjusted, and conflicting criteria identified are re-evaluated. The orthogonal verification result is generated based on the adjusted criterion result vector and the preset independence, consistency, and completeness conditions. The independence condition is used to determine whether there is duplicate measurement exceeding the correlation threshold among the criteria; the consistency condition is used to determine whether there is physical conclusion conflict exceeding the confidence threshold among the criteria; and the completeness condition is used to determine whether the set of executed criteria covers the preset set of necessary criteria.

5. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The step of performing a perturbation test on the candidate samples to obtain perturbation resistance indicators includes: Multiple preset perturbations are applied to the candidate samples to obtain the number of topological classification transitions and the total number of perturbation tests during the perturbation test. The disturbance immunity index is determined by the ratio of the number of transitions occurring in the topology classification to the total number of disturbance tests.

6. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The step of determining the state category of the candidate state based on the preset state machine logic, the orthogonal verification result, and the disturbance resistance index includes: Obtain the preset state transition conditions; Based on the orthogonal verification results, the anti-disturbance index, and the state transition conditions, the state category of the candidate state is determined.

7. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The method further includes: Generate audit logs; Multiple audit records are linked together in a chain structure, and a tamper-proof summary is generated for the audit records; When the audit record is incomplete or the preceding event summary verification fails, the output of the candidate state pass status is prohibited, and the audit exception reason code is output.

8. A device for determining candidate states in topological superconductivity, characterized in that, include: A locking unit is used to generate a decision timestamp for the candidate sample to be judged, and lock the data snapshot associated with the candidate sample according to the decision timestamp; An admission verification unit is used to perform environmental admission verification on the candidate samples and obtain environmental admission results. The criterion calculation unit is used to perform multiple topological superconducting physical criterion calculations on the candidate sample when the environmental admission result meets the preset admission conditions, and obtain a criterion result vector. An orthogonal verification unit is used to perform orthogonal verification on the criterion result vector to obtain an orthogonal verification result; The perturbation testing unit is used to perform perturbation testing on the candidate sample when the orthogonal verification result meets the preset closure condition, so as to obtain the anti-perturbation index. The state determination unit is used to determine the state category of the candidate state based on the preset state machine logic, the orthogonal verification result, and the anti-disturbance index.

9. An electronic device comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, characterized in that, When the processor executes the computer program, it implements the topological superconducting candidate state determination method as described in any one of claims 1 to 7.

10. A computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, characterized in that, When the computer program is executed by the processor, it implements the method for determining topological superconducting candidate states as described in any one of claims 1 to 7.

Images