Comparison of<i>s</i>- and<i>d</i>-wave gap symmetry in nonequilibrium superconductivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent application of ultrafast pump/probe optical techniques to superconductors has renewed interest in nonequilibrium superconductivity and the predictions that would be available for novel superconductors, such as the high-${T}_{c}$ cuprates. We have reexamined two of the classical models which have been used in the past to interpret nonequilibrium experiments with some success: the ${\mathrm{\ensuremath{\mu}}}^{\mathrm{*}}$ model of Owen and Scalapino and the ${T}^{*}$ model of Parker. Predictions depend on pairing symmetry. For instance, the gap suppression due to the excess quasiparticle density n in the ${\mathrm{\ensuremath{\mu}}}^{\mathrm{*}}$ model, varies as ${n}^{3/2}$ in d wave as opposed to n for s wave. Finally, we consider these models in the context of $S\ensuremath{-}I\ensuremath{-}N$ tunneling and optical excitation experiments. While we confirm that recent pump/probe experiments in YBCO, as presently interpreted, are in conflict with d-wave pairing, we refute the further claim that they agree with s wave.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".