Electrical conductivity and nuclear magnetic resonance relaxation rate of Eliashberg superconductors in the weak-coupling limit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Electrical conductivity is an important transport response in superconductors, enabling clear signatures of dynamical interactions to be observed. Of primary interest in this paper is to study characteristics of the electron-phonon interaction in weak-coupling Eliashberg theory (Eth), and to note the distinctions with Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) theory. Recent analysis of weak-coupling Eth has shown that while there are modifications from the BCS results, certain dimensionless ratios are in agreement. Here we show that the conductivities in BCS theory and Eth fundamentally differ, with the latter having an imaginary gap component that damps a divergence. We focus on the dirty limit, and for both BCS theory and Eth we derive expressions for the low-frequency limit of the real conductivity. For Eth specifically, there are two limits to consider, depending on the relative size of the frequency and the imaginary part of the gap. In the case of identically zero frequency, we derive an analytical expression for the nuclear magnetic resonance relaxation rate. Our analysis of the conductivity complements the previous study of the Meissner response and provides a thorough understanding of weak-coupling Eth.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".