On the relations between large-scale models of superfluid helium-4
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Superfluid helium-4 is characterized by extremely small values of kinematic viscosity, and its thermal conductivity can be huge, orders of magnitude larger than that of water or air. Additionally, quantum vortices may exist within the fluid. Therefore, its behavior cannot be explained by using the classical tools of Newtonian fluid mechanics, and, over the years, a few alternative models have been proposed. In order to highlight similarities and differences between these models, we recast them within a unifying framework, the general equation for non-equilibrium reversible-irreversible coupling (GENERIC). We begin by comparing the original two-fluid model, developed by Tisza and Landau, with the Hall–Vinen–Bekarevich–Khalatnikov model, both prescribing two types of fluid motion and two fluid densities, at flow scales appreciably larger than the typical distance between quantum vortices. We find from the geometrical structure of the models that only one fluid density plays the role of state variable, which should be taken into account when choosing an adequate expression for the free energy. We also recast within the GENERIC framework the one-fluid model of superfluid helium-4, where the inviscid component of two-fluid models is replaced by a caloric quantity, such as entropy. We find that the corresponding geometrical structures are analogous, with the roles of density and entropy swapped. In short, our work demonstrates that the studied models are compatible with each other, at least when focusing on the reversible parts of the models.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".