Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

In the γ-model of quantum-critical superconductivity, the transition temperature is bounded from above by a closed-form zeta-series expression, τ_c^γ ≤ Σ_{n=0}^∞ 4^{-n} ζ(γ+2n+1), claimed valid for every γ>0.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 14:30 UTC pith:T4CTQHJZ

load-bearing objection A genuinely new and much tighter upper bound on τc for the γ-model; the derivation is mostly sound, but the advertised 'any γ>0' rigor is ahead of the proof. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2512.20009 v2 pith:T4CTQHJZ submitted 2025-12-23 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.str-el

Superconductivity Near a Quantum Critical Point: Bounds on the Transition Temperature in the γ-Model

Ahmed Elezaby , Artem Abanov This is my paper
classification cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.str-el
keywords quantum critical superconductivityγ-modelEliashberg theorytransition temperature boundsGershgorin circle theoremHessian eigenvalue analysisMatsubara frequenciesnon-Fermi liquid
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper works with the γ-model, a minimal Eliashberg-style description of a metal at a quantum critical point in which the pairing interaction scales as 1/|Ω|^γ with no frequency cutoff. It asks how high the superconducting transition temperature can be as a function of the single parameter γ. The authors establish a closed-form upper bound: the dimensionless T_c^γ is no larger than Σ_{n=0}^∞ 4^{-n} ζ(γ+2n+1), claimed for all γ>0. They also reproduce lower bounds by checking when small truncations of the Hessian cease to be positive definite. A sympathetic reader cares because the calculation is parameter-free and because a sharp two-sided sandwich on T_c is one of the few rigorous statements available for strongly retarded pairing.

Core claim

The central claim is that the normal-state Hessian of the spin-chain free energy becomes positive definite at temperatures above a computable value, so no eigenvalue can cross zero and no superconducting instability can set in. That value is τ_up^γ = 1/2 Σ_{n=1}^∞ n^{-γ} 2n/((n+1/2)(n-1/2)) = Σ_{n=0}^∞ 4^{-n} ζ(γ+2n+1). The paper states the inequality τ_c^γ ≤ τ_up^γ holds for every γ>0 and shows numerically that this bound is far tighter than previous upper estimates, converging rapidly toward the values obtained by solving the gap equations.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the linearized Hessian H of the spin-chain free energy functional, whose negative eigenvalue signals the pairing instability. Since H is unbounded, the paper maps it by a positive diagonal congruence to X̃ = I − τ^{-γ}B with B compact, so Weyl's essential-spectrum theorem confines sign-changing eigenvalues to the discrete spectrum and justifies finite truncation. Lower bounds come from Cauchy eigenvalue interlacing applied to nested principal submatrices; the upper bound comes from the Gershgorin circle theorem, which encloses all eigenvalues in disks centered at the diagonal entries, applied to a diagonal similarity transform of H. The similarity parameter is optimize

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that for 0<γ≤1 the boundary condition lim_{m→∞} θ_m = 0 can be imposed without proof, and that for p=1/2 the zeroth Gershgorin disk remains the lowest in the infinite-N limit; if either fails, τ_up^γ may sit below the true τ_c instead of above it.

What would settle it

Take a fixed γ in (0,1], form the N×N truncated Hessian at τ exactly equal to (Σ_{n=0}^∞ 4^{-n} ζ(γ+2n+1))^{1/γ}, and compute the smallest eigenvalue for increasingly large N. If for any N that eigenvalue is negative, or if the Gershgorin disk of some non-zeroth row dips below the claimed bound, then Eq. (44) is not a true upper bound; the claim is supported if the smallest eigenvalue stays non-negative and approaches zero from above as N grows.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • For any γ>0, the dimensionless transition temperature is sandwiched between the finite-truncation lower bounds and the closed-form upper bound, so T_c can be located without solving the full nonlinear Eliashberg equations.
  • Because the γ-model has only one energy scale g, this yields a universal function f(γ) such that k_B T_c = g f(γ), with the allowed interval for f(γ) now narrow enough to be practically predictive.
  • The upper bound remains finite and convergent even for 0<γ≤1, a regime where the bare Matsubara sums in the gap equation diverge and where previous closed-form estimates were loose or unavailable.
  • The determinant-zero conditions for the 1×1 through 4×4 truncations independently reproduce earlier variational lower bounds, giving a more elementary route to the same result.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • One implication the authors leave implicit: if the convergence seen in their plots persists, the high-frequency tail of the pairing interaction contributes only a small correction to T_c, so a few low Matsubara modes effectively set the ordering temperature; this could be tested by comparing T_c from truncated frequency grids of different sizes.
  • The same diagonal-similarity Gershgorin construction is likely portable to related Eliashberg problems with dispersive or Einstein phonons, where the corresponding upper bounds are looser; a numerical check would be to apply the p=1/2 trick to those kernels and compare with large-truncation eigenvalues.
  • Because the paper imposes the boundary condition lim_{m→∞} θ_m = 0 for 0<γ≤1 without proof, the 'any γ>0' claim should be read as conditional until a direct proof appears or until a large-truncation numerical counterexample at tiny γ is ruled out.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives analytical lower and upper bounds on the dimensionless transition temperature τ_c in the γ-model of quantum-critical superconductivity, building on the spin-chain representation of Migdal–Eliashberg theory. Lower bounds are obtained by applying Cauchy's interlacing theorem to finite truncations of the infinite Hessian H; the first four bounds are computed and agree with the lower bounds of Kiessling et al. [3]. The main new result is the closed-form upper bound τ_up^γ = Σ_{n=0}^∞ 4^{-n} ζ(γ+2n+1), obtained via a similarity transformation O = diag(1/(n+p)) with p=1/2 and Gershgorin circles, and claimed valid for all γ>0 and significantly tighter than existing bounds. The paper also discusses the justification of finite truncation through compact operators and Weyl's theorem.

Significance. If the proof can be completed, the upper bound is a substantial improvement over the existing bound in [3] and converges rapidly to numerical solutions. The lower-bound derivation via interlacing is clean and pedagogically appealing. The closed-form expression is explicit, parameter-free, and falsifiable by comparison with numerics. The compact-operator framework is inherited from [3] but is applied in a simpler and more direct way. The paper contains no fitted parameters; the p=1/2 choice is motivated analytically, though the claim of optimality is not fully demonstrated.

major comments (2)
  1. [II.C, Abstract, Eq. (44)] The paper advertises rigorous bounds for any γ>0, but Section II.C explicitly states that for 0<γ≤1 the boundary condition lim_{m→∞} θ_m=0 is imposed without proof, and that the N→∞ upper-bound calculation in this regime is an assumption supported only by numerical agreement. Since Eq. (44) and the central claim 'any γ>0' rely on this, the upper bound is not rigorously established for γ≤1. The authors must either prove the boundary condition and the discrete-spectrum assertion for γ≤1, or clearly restrict the rigorous claim to γ>1 and label the γ≤1 result as a conjecture.
  2. [V, Eq. (41)–(44)] The Gershgorin argument is applied to finite N×N matrices h^{(N)}, and then the limit N→∞ is taken in the row sums. The paper merely states that the proof holds for N→∞ under two conditions, but does not supply the required spectral approximation: one must show that if every finite section H^{(N)} has only nonnegative eigenvalues at τ = τ_up, then the infinite Hessian H has no negative eigenvalue. This can be supplied using the compact-perturbation framework of Section III (finite-section convergence of eigenvalues of compact operators), but as written this is a gap that affects the status of Eq. (44) even for γ>1.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] Typos: 'Messiner' should be 'Meissner'; 'digonal' should be 'diagonal'; 'sectio,n' should be 'section'; spelling of Gershgorin/Gerschgorin is inconsistent.
  2. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption states 'somewhere 1/2 < p < 1/3', which is an impossible inequality; presumably '1/6 < p < 1/3' is intended.
  3. [VI, Conclusion] The conclusion claims 'Through an analytical optimization, we found the optimal value p=1/2.' The body and Appendix A only prove that p=1/2 makes the zeroth Gershgorin disc the lowest; they do not prove minimality of the resulting upper bound over p. This overstatement should be corrected.
  4. [IV.C] The closed forms for τ_{c,3} and τ_{c,4} are not given explicitly, only displayed in figures. If the paper advertises closed-form lower bounds, these expressions should be provided or the claim should be softened.
  5. [Eq. (33)–(35)] The notation '1/2γ' in the definition of a is ambiguous; it should be written as 1/2^γ. Similarly, b should be 1/3^γ.
  6. [V.A, Eq. (38)] The upper bound is written as τ^γ < 2ζ(γ); since the Gershgorin argument allows equality, the bound should be τ^γ ≤ 2ζ(γ) (or the strict inequality justified).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Eq. (44) is a closed-form Gershgorin bound, not a fitted prediction; admitted 0<γ≤1 assumptions are rigor gaps, not circular reductions.

full rationale

Walked the claimed derivation chain. τ_c is defined as the temperature where the lowest eigenvalue of the Hessian H crosses zero (Sec. II.D). The lower bounds (Sec. IV) come from the interlacing theorem applied to principal submatrices of H, yielding Eqs. (32), (35), and (36); they are not fitted and coincide with [3] only after an independent determinant calculation. The upper bound (Sec. V) is obtained by the similarity transformation h=O^{-1}HO with O=diag(1/(n+p)), applying Gershgorin's theorem, and proving in Appendix A that for p=1/2 the zeroth disc is the lowest for every γ>0. Eq. (44) then follows by setting the zeroth disc to zero. No step defines the target quantity in terms of the bound, and no parameter is fitted to the numerical benchmark: p=1/2 is justified by the Appendix, not by comparison with [31]. The compactness of B_i and the spin-chain mapping are imported from [1,2,3]; those papers share no authors with the present paper, and they are used to justify truncation, not to produce Eq. (44). The numerical data [31] share author Abanov, but those data are external solutions of the Eliashberg equations used only as a benchmark; Eq. (44) is not regressed to them. The paper explicitly flags two limitations: Sec. II.C imposes lim_{m→∞} θ_m=0 for 0<γ≤1 without proof and calls the N→∞ calculation 'our central assumption' for that regime, 'supported by the close agreement between our results and numerical data from prior studies'; and Sec. V extends Gershgorin to N→∞ under conditions it does not fully prove. These are genuine rigor gaps in the advertised 'any γ>0' claim, but they are not circular reductions: no input is defined in terms of the output, and no fitted value is renamed as a prediction. The only occurrence of the word 'circular' in the paper is its own rejection of the old truncation-size condition (Section I). Hence the score is 2, reflecting the minor shared-author numerical support for the unproved 0<γ≤1 branch, with no actual circular step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The γ-model interaction, the spin-chain mapping, and the compact-operator spectral structure are all imported from prior work [1,2,3] without re-derivation. The only tunable number introduced here is the similarity parameter p, claimed optimal at 1/2, and the proof of that claim is only sketched. For 0<γ≤1 the authors explicitly impose a boundary condition (θ→0) rather than derive it. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • p = 1/2
    Free parameter in the similarity transform O=diag(...). The paper optimizes it analytically, claiming p=1/2 is optimal in the sense that the zeroth disc becomes the lowest; the proof is only sketched in Appendix A.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The spin-chain mapping of Migdal-Eliashberg theory (Hamiltonian H_s, Eq. 8) is valid for the γ-model.
    The whole Hessian derives from this mapping established in [1,2], assumed without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption The Hessian's negative eigenvalue onset correctly identifies the superconducting transition temperature T_c.
    Used in Sec. III-IV; standard linear stability, but the free-energy functional is the spin-chain representation of Eliashberg theory, not a microscopic free energy.
  • ad hoc to paper For 0<γ≤1, the boundary condition lim_{m→∞} θ_m=0 is imposed and the upper-bound calculation with N→∞ remains valid.
    Explicitly flagged in Sec. II.C as a non-rigorous assumption for γ≤1, justified only by agreement with numerics.
  • domain assumption The operator B is compact and Weyl's theorem implies the instability is in the discrete spectrum.
    Taken from [3]; the paper cites it as the key insight and uses it to justify truncation for all γ>0.
  • ad hoc to paper Gershgorin's circle theorem applies to the unbounded infinite matrix in the N→∞ limit, and the lowest Gershgorin disc bounds the smallest eigenvalue.
    The N→∞ limit is discussed only heuristically in Sec. V; the appendix gives the proof that the zeroth disc is lowest for p=1/2, but the transition from finite N to infinite N is not fully rigorous.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16056 in / 13338 out tokens · 119729 ms · 2026-08-03T14:30:13.048920+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Superconductivity Near a Quantum Critical Point: Bounds on the Transition Temperature in the $\gamma$-Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T4CTQHJZ

@misc{pith2026251220009,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Superconductivity Near a Quantum Critical Point: Bounds on the Transition Temperature in the $\gamma$-Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T4CTQHJZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.20009}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Near a quantum critical point (QCP) in a metal, strong Fermion-Fermion interactions mediated by soft collective bosons give rise to two competing phenomena: non-Fermi liquid behavior and superconductivity that deviates from conventional BCS and Migdal-Eliashberg theories. We consider the problem of obtaining closed-form analytical lower and upper bounds on transition temperatures for such systems. We focus mainly on a class of models known as the gamma-model, a variation of the Eliashberg theory of superconductivity where the effective interaction potential scales as V(Omega) proportional to 1/|Omega|^gamma. Building on a recent reformulation of Migdal-Eliashberg theory expressed as a classical infinite spin chain with nonlocal interactions [1,2], and employing a linear algebra analysis of the Hessian matrix obtained from the free energy functional, we derive rigorous, closed-form expressions for upper and lower bounds on the superconducting transition temperature for any gamma > 0. The main result of the paper is to establish an analytical upper bound on the transition temperature in closed form. Our upper bound is significantly tighter than those currently available in the literature and demonstrates rapid convergence toward results from prior numerical studies. Also, by applying the singularity condition directly to the unbounded Hessian matrix, our independently performed calculations confirm the lower bounds previously established in the literature [3].

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.20009 by Ahmed Elezaby, Artem Abanov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Our results for the first four lower bounds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Comparison of the first four lowest bounds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of our results (blue line) for the upper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The upper bound [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Pairing near the boundary of a box-shaped trap in the BEC-BCS crossover

    cond-mat.quant-gas 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    In a semi-infinite superfluid, the local pairing amplitude rises from zero at a hard wall with 2k_F Friedel oscillations in the BCS regime that are progressively washed out toward the BEC regime.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    E. A. Yuzbashyan and B. L. Altshuler, Migdal-Eliashberg theory as a classical spin chain, Physical Review B106, 10.1103/physrevb.106.014512 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.106.014512 2022

  2. [2]

    E. A. Yuzbashyan, M. K.-H. Kiessling, and B. L. Alt- shuler, Superconductivity near a quantum critical point in the extreme retardation regime, Physical Review B 106, 10.1103/physrevb.106.064502 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.106.064502 2022

  3. [3]

    M. K.-H. Kiessling, B. L. Altshuler, and E. A. Yuzbashyan, Bounds onT c in the Eliashberg theory of superconductivity. I: Theγ-model, Journal of Statistical Physics192, 10.1007/s10955-025-03446-5 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1007/s10955-025-03446-5 2025

  4. [4]

    H. K. Onnes, Further experiments with liquid helium. C. on the change of electric resistance of pure metals at very low temperatures etc. IV. the resistance of pure mercury at helium temperatures, KNA W Proceedings13, 1274 (1911)

    1911

  5. [5]

    H. K. Onnes, The liquefaction of helium, Communica- tions from the Physical Laboratory at Leiden (1908), also published in Proceedings of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 11, 168-185 (1909)

    1908

  6. [6]

    Meissner and R

    W. Meissner and R. Ochsenfeld, Ein neuer Effekt bei Ein- tritt der Supraleitf¨ ahigkeit, Naturwissenschaften21, 787 (1933)

    1933

  7. [7]

    Bardeen, L

    J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Theory of superconductivity, Phys. Rev.108, 1175 (1957)

    1957

  8. [8]

    L. N. Cooper, Bound Electron Pairs in a Degenerate Fermi Gas, Phys. Rev.104, 1189 (1956)

    1956

  9. [9]

    C. A. Reynolds, B. Serin, W. H. Wright, and L. B. Nesbitt, Superconductivity of isotopes of mercury, Phys. Rev.78, 487 (1950)

    1950

  10. [10]

    Maxwell, Isotope effect in the superconductivity of mercury, Phys

    E. Maxwell, Isotope effect in the superconductivity of mercury, Phys. Rev.78, 477 (1950)

    1950

  11. [11]

    A. B. Migdal, Interaction between electrons and lattice vibrations in a normal metal, Soviet Physics JETP7, 996 (1958)

    1958

  12. [12]

    Eliashberg, Interactions between electrons and lat- tice viberations in a superconductor, SOVIET PHYSICS JETP11(1960)

    G. Eliashberg, Interactions between electrons and lat- tice viberations in a superconductor, SOVIET PHYSICS JETP11(1960)

    1960

  13. [13]

    Eliashberg, Temperature green’s function for elec- trons in a superconductor, SOVIET PHYSICS JETP12 (1961)

    G. Eliashberg, Temperature green’s function for elec- trons in a superconductor, SOVIET PHYSICS JETP12 (1961)

    1961

  14. [14]

    J. G. Bednorz and K. A. M¨ uller, Possible highTc super- conductivity in the Ba–La–Cu–O system, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B Condensed Matter64, 189 (1986)

    1986

  15. [15]

    Schilling, M

    A. Schilling, M. Cantoni, J. D. Guo, and H. R. Ott, Su- perconductivity above 130 k in the Hg–Ba–Ca–Cu–O sys- tem, Nature363, 56 (1993)

    1993

  16. [16]

    D. J. Scalapino, The case ford x2−y2 pairing in the cuprate superconductors, Physics Reports250, 329 (1995)

    1995

  17. [17]

    Kamihara, T

    Y. Kamihara, T. Watanabe, M. Hirano, and H. Hosono, Iron-based layered superconductor la[o 1−xfx]feas (x= 0.05–0.12) witht c = 26 k, Journal of the American Chemical Society130, 3296 (2008)

    2008

  18. [18]

    G. R. Stewart, Heavy-fermion systems, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics56, 755 (1984)

    1984

  19. [19]

    J. A. Hertz, Quantum critical phenomena, Physical Re- view B14, 1165 (1976)

    1976

  20. [20]

    Monthoux, A

    P. Monthoux, A. V. Balatsky, and D. Pines, Toward a theory of high-temperature superconductivity in the an- tiferromagnetically correlated cuprates, Physical Review B46, 14803 (1992)

    1992

  21. [21]

    D. J. Scalapino, A common thread: The pairing inter- action for unconventional superconductors, Reviews of Modern Physics84, 1383 (2012)

    2012

  22. [22]

    A. V. Chubukov, Pairing in ’gamma-models’ for quantum-critical metals, Annalen der Physik532, 2000219 (2020)

    2020

  23. [23]

    Abanov, A

    A. Abanov, A. V. Chubukov, and J. Schmalian, Quantum-critical theory of the spin-fermion model and its application to cuprates: Normal state analysis, Ad- vances in Physics52, 119 (2003)

    2003

  24. [24]

    Moon and A

    E.-G. Moon and A. Chubukov, Quantum-critical pair- ing with varying exponents, Journal of Low Temperature Physics161, 263 (2010)

    2010

  25. [25]

    Abanov and A

    A. Abanov and A. V. Chubukov, Interplay between su- perconductivity and non-Fermi liquid at a quantum criti- cal point in a metal. I. theγmodel and its phase diagram atT= 0: The case 0< γ <1, Physical Review B102, 024524 (2020)

    2020

  26. [26]

    Y.-M. Wu, A. Abanov, Y. Wang, and A. V. Chubukov, Interplay between superconductivity and non-Fermi liq- uid at a quantum critical point in a metal. II. theγmodel at a finiteTfor 0< γ <1, Physical Review B102, 024525 (2020)

    2020

  27. [27]

    Y.-M. Wu, A. Abanov, and A. V. Chubukov, Interplay between superconductivity and non-Fermi liquid behav- ior at a quantum critical point in a metal. III. theγmodel and its phase diagram acrossγ= 1, Physical Review B 102, 094516 (2020)

    2020

  28. [28]

    Wu, S.-S

    Y.-M. Wu, S.-S. Zhang, A. Abanov, and A. V. Chubukov, Interplay between superconductivity and non-Fermi liq- uid at a quantum critical point in a metal. IV. theγ model and its phase diagram at 1< γ <2, Physical Review B103, 024522 (2021)

    2021

  29. [29]

    Wu, S.-S

    Y.-M. Wu, S.-S. Zhang, A. Abanov, and A. V. Chubukov, Interplay between superconductivity and non-Fermi liq- uid behavior at a quantum-critical point in a metal. V. theγmodel and its phase diagram: The caseγ= 2, Phys- ical Review B103, 184508 (2021)

    2021

  30. [30]

    Zhang, Y.-M

    S.-S. Zhang, Y.-M. Wu, A. Abanov, and A. V. Chubukov, Interplay between superconductivity and non-Fermi liq- uid at a quantum critical point in a metal. VI. theγ model and its phase diagram at 2< γ <3, Physical Review B104, 144509 (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    Y.-M. Wu, A. Abanov, Y. Wang, and A. V. Chubukov, Special role of the first Matsubara frequency for super- conductivity near a quantum critical point: Nonlinear gap equation belowT c and spectral properties in real frequencies, Physical Review B99, 144512 (2019)

    2019

  32. [32]

    M. K.-H. Kiessling, B. L. Altshuler, and E. A. Yuzbashyan, Bounds onT c in the Eliashberg theory of superconductivity. II: Dispersive phonons, arXiv preprint (2024), arXiv:2409.00532

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    M. K.-H. Kiessling, B. L. Altshuler, and E. A. Yuzbashyan, Bounds onT c in the Eliashberg theory of superconductivity. III: Einstein phonons, arXiv preprint (2024), arXiv:2409.02121

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Y. Wang, A. Abanov, B. L. Altshuler, E. A. Yuzbashyan, and A. V. Chubukov, Superconductivity near a quantum- critical point: The special role of the first Matsubara frequency, Physical Review Letters117, 157001 (2016). 13

    2016

  35. [35]

    A. V. Chubukov, A. Abanov, I. Esterlis, and S. A. Kivel- son, Eliashberg theory of phonon-mediated superconduc- tivity—when it is valid and how it breaks down, Annals of Physics417, 168190 (2020)

    2020

  36. [36]

    Kato,Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators, 2nd ed., Classics in Mathematics, Vol

    T. Kato,Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators, 2nd ed., Classics in Mathematics, Vol. 132 (Springer, Berlin, 1995)

    1995

  37. [37]

    I. J. Maddox,Elements of Functional Analysis(Cam- bridge University Press, New York, 1970)

    1970

  38. [38]

    Reed and B

    M. Reed and B. Simon,Methods of Modern Mathemati- cal Physics I: Functional Analysis(Academic Press, New York, 1980)

    1980

  39. [39]

    Courant and D

    R. Courant and D. Hilbert,Methods of Mathemati- cal Physics, Vol. I(Interscience Publishers, New York, 1953)

    1953

  40. [40]

    B¨ ottcher and B

    A. B¨ ottcher and B. Silbermann,Introduction to Large Truncated Toeplitz Matrices(Springer, New York, 1999)

    1999

  41. [41]

    Weyl, ¨Uber gew¨ ohnliche Differentialgleichungen mit Singularit¨ aten und die zugeh¨ origen Entwicklungen willk¨ urlicher Funktionen, Mathematische Annalen68, 220 (1909)

    H. Weyl, ¨Uber gew¨ ohnliche Differentialgleichungen mit Singularit¨ aten und die zugeh¨ origen Entwicklungen willk¨ urlicher Funktionen, Mathematische Annalen68, 220 (1909)

    1909

  42. [42]

    R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson,Matrix Analysis, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

    2012

  43. [43]

    Gerschgorin, ¨Uber die Abgrenzung der Eigenwerte einer Matrix, Bulletin de l’Acad´ emie des Sciences de l’URSS

    S. Gerschgorin, ¨Uber die Abgrenzung der Eigenwerte einer Matrix, Bulletin de l’Acad´ emie des Sciences de l’URSS. Classe des sciences math´ ematiques et naturelles 6, 749 (1931)

    1931

  44. [44]

    R. S. Varga,Gershgorin and His Circles, Springer Se- ries in Computational Mathematics, Vol. 36 (Springer- Verlag, 2004)

    2004