Thermodynamics of Eliashberg theory in the weak-coupling limit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The weak-coupling limits of the gap and critical temperature computed within Eliashberg theory surprisingly deviate from the BCS theory predictions by a factor of $1/\sqrt{e}$. Interestingly, however, the ratio of these two quantities agrees for both theories. Motivated by this result, here we investigate the weak-coupling thermodynamics of Eliashberg theory, with a central focus on the free energy, specific heat, and the critical magnetic field. In particular, we numerically calculate the difference between the superconducting and normal-state specific heats, and we find that this quantity differs from its BCS counterpart by a factor of $1/\sqrt{e}$, for all temperatures below ${T}_{c}$. We find that the dimensionless ratio of the specific-heat discontinuity to the normal-state specific heat reduces to the BCS prediction given by $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Delta}}{C}_{V}({T}_{c})/{C}_{V,n}({T}_{c})\ensuremath{\approx}1.43$. This gives further evidence to the expectation that all dimensionless ratios tend to their ``universal values'' in the weak-coupling limit.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".