Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Quasiparticle GW for Superconductors: Toward a Unified Treatment of Electron-Phonon and Electron-Plasmon Couplings

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new superconducting extension of quasiparticle GW theory removes spurious plasmon-mediated pairing and matches static Eliashberg theory where it is trusted.

desk verdict The s-qpGW extension is real and worth refereeing, but the headline benchmarks don't test the dynamic-screening claim: the Nb match is almost the static limit and the graphene null is expected. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.21700 v2 pith:JUWXS4DR submitted 2026-05-20 cond-mat.supr-con

Catalin D. Spataru , Christopher Renskers , Elena R. Margine This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords superconductingquasiparticleGWEliashbergtheoryplasmon-mediatedpairingdynamicalCoulombscreeningvertexcorrectionsdopedmonolayergraphenebulkniobiumtwo-dimensionalsuperconductivity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper aims to provide a first-principles framework that treats phonon- and plasmon-mediated pairing on an equal footing, without the pathologies of fully self-consistent GW superconductivity. Its central move is the s-qpGW method: extend the quasiparticle approximation from normal-state electronic structure into the superconducting (Nambu) phase, replacing the frequency-dependent Coulomb pairing self-energy with its real part at the superconducting quasiparticle energy. In practice this suppresses the high-energy attractive part of the dynamically screened Coulomb interaction that makes plain s-GW spuriously predict superconductivity in doped monolayer graphene and overestimate T_c in bulk niobium. The paper shows s-qpGW reproduces the static Eliashberg result for bulk Nb (T_c ≈ 14 K vs 13.5 K) and correctly predicts no superconductivity in doped monolayer graphene, while in a model 2D system with enhanced density of states it captures dynamical screening effects that static theory misses.

What carries the argument

The key object is Eq. (26): the projection of the dynamical Coulomb anomalous self-energy onto the superconducting quasiparticle energy, φ̃_C = ℜφ_C(E_QP). This is the Nambu-space extension of the quasiparticle self-consistent GW approximation from normal-state band theory. It makes the Coulomb channel frequency-independent, sets the Coulomb contribution to the mass renormalization Z to zero, and retains only the low-energy part of the dynamically screened interaction, thereby removing the spurious plasmon-mediated pairing while keeping the reduction of static Coulomb repulsion caused by dynamical screening.

What would settle it

A concrete check: for a 3D jellium model, compute the exact vertex-corrected Eliashberg solution (e.g., with an explicit vertex diagram) and compare its T_c to the s-qpGW and static results. If the exact vertex-corrected T_c remains large (order 10^2–10^3 K) instead of collapsing to the static value, then the quasiparticle projection is not reproducing the true vertex effect, and the agreement in Nb would be coincidental. Alternatively, an experiment observing superconductivity in clean monolayer graphene at low temperature would directly falsify the predicted absence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that the quasiparticle projection applied to the Coulomb (electronic) channel of the superconducting self-energy cures the missing-vertex problem of self-consistent GW superconductivity. In the s-qpGW scheme, the Coulomb pairing self-energy φ_C(ω) is replaced by its real part at the quasiparticle energy E_QP, ℜφ_C(E_QP), which for states near the Fermi level is repulsive (negative) because it samples the screened Coulomb interaction below the coupling plasmon energy. This removes the spurious attraction at high frequencies that drove pairing in s-GW and yields results consistent with experiment for both a conventional bulk metal and a 2D system with acoustic plasmons.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that replacing the full frequency-dependent Coulomb pairing self-energy by its real part at the quasiparticle energy, with unity quasiparticle renormalization and ignoring the incoherent spectral weight, correctly captures the effect of the neglected vertex corrections.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • s-qpGW gives a parameter-free ab initio method for superconductors where dynamical Coulomb screening matters, including few-layer graphene and other 2D materials.
  • It reconciles why standard static Eliashberg theory works well for bulk metals: when the plasmon energy far exceeds the phonon energy, the quasiparticle projection makes the Coulomb channel coincide with the static limit.
  • It predicts that in 2D systems with acoustic plasmons, static Eliashberg underestimates the superconducting gap because it overestimates the Coulomb repulsion, and this effect grows with the density of states.
  • It provides a principled calibration route for the semi-empirical Coulomb pseudopotential μ* in two dimensions; the model study suggests μ* ≈ 0.31 reproduces s-qpGW where a 3D-calibrated 0.1–0.2 range fails.
  • It clarifies the breakdown of Migdal's theorem for the electronic channel: when the characteristic plasmon energy is comparable to the Fermi energy, vertex corrections are essential, and the quasiparticle projection is a practical replacement.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • We infer that the same quasiparticle projection could be applied to other self-consistent beyond-GW schemes or to spin-fluctuation channels, since the pathology—missing vertex corrections in a self-consistent boson-exchange theory—is generic.
  • A testable extension is to apply s-qpGW to rhombohedral trilayer graphene at experimental dopings; if the static phonon-only calculation overestimates T_c by about a factor of four, dynamical screening might correct the magnitude, and s-qpGW is poised to test that.
  • The paper derives but does not benchmark the flavor that retains the Coulomb-induced mass renormalization Z_C (flavor i); we infer that flavor ii (dropping Z_C) may be justified in these systems, but strong dynamical renormalization could require flavor i.
  • The agreement for Nb rests on a screening model calibrated by an effective mass m* = 1.8 m_e; we infer that without such calibration, or for materials where the effective mass differs, the static-limit coincidence could shift, so testing other conventional metals would sharpen the claim.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the superconducting quasiparticle self-consistent GW (s-qpGW) method, which extends the normal-state QSGW idea to the superconducting state by replacing the frequency-dependent Coulomb anomalous self-energy φ_C(ω) with its real part evaluated at the superconducting quasiparticle energy (Eq. 26). The method is applied to three systems: doped monolayer graphene, bulk Nb, and an artificial graphene-like model with a 20-fold enhanced DOS. For graphene, s-qpGW finds no superconducting solution down to 0.5 K, in contrast to the fully self-consistent s-GW which spuriously gives a finite gap. For bulk Nb, s-qpGW yields Tc ≈ 14 K, close to the static Eliashberg result of 13.5 K. In the artificial DOS-enhanced model, s-qpGW predicts a larger superconducting gap than the static Eliashberg treatment, which the authors attribute to dynamical Coulomb screening reducing the electrostatic repulsion. The paper claims that s-qpGW is a parameter-free, ab initio framework that unifies phonon- and plasmon-mediated pairing while avoiding the missing-vertex pathology of s-GW.

Significance. If correct, this method would address a recognized problem: Migdal-Eliashberg theory with a dynamically screened Coulomb interaction overestimates plasmon-mediated pairing when the plasmon energy is comparable to electronic energies, because vertex corrections are neglected. The paper provides a coherent formal derivation (Appendix B), a clean falsifiable null result for monolayer graphene, and a proof-of-principle model where dynamical screening changes the superconducting gap. However, the validation is weaker than the claims. The Nb benchmark is essentially a static-limit reduction because φ_C(ω) is flat over the phonon window; the graphene null result is also reproduced by standard static Eliashberg; and the only case where s-qpGW differs from static theory is an artificial model with a hand-set DOS enhancement. The central approximation — the QP projection in Eq. (26) — is an ad hoc choice that is not benchmarked against vertex-corrected calculations or against its alternative flavor. These limitations must be addressed before the method can be regarded as established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B, Eqs. (B-15)–(B-16) and Eq. (26)] The s-qpGW method is defined by an ad hoc projection. Appendix B shows that two flavors exist: flavor i retains the ℜZ_C term in Eq. (B-15), while flavor ii drops it (Eq. B-16) to obtain Eq. (26). The paper explicitly states that flavor i was not used. Because the Nb and graphene benchmarks do not distinguish s-qpGW from the static limit, the validity of flavor ii is untested. The central claim — that the QP projection remedies the missing-vertex pathology of s-GW — requires at least a flavor-i calculation for the ×20 DOS model and ideally for Nb, or a physical argument why the ℜZ_C term is negligible. Without this, the method is not uniquely defined.
  2. [Sec. III.B, Fig. 5 and footnote [39]] The Nb agreement is largely by construction. The paper itself states that for Nb ℜφ_C(ω) ≈ φ_C(0) over the phonon window, so s-qpGW reduces to the static Eliashberg limit; the 0.5 K difference in Tc is the residual finite-plasmon correction. Thus the Nb result is a consistency check, not an independent validation of dynamical screening. Moreover, the Lindhard screening model is calibrated by choosing m* = 1.8 m_e, which is a free parameter. This contradicts the abstract's 'parameter-free' claim. Please clearly label the Nb Coulomb channel as model-based and provide a sensitivity analysis with respect to m*.
  3. [Sec. III.A and III.C] Neither physical benchmark discriminates s-qpGW from static Eliashberg. For doped monolayer graphene, the static solution already has no superconducting gap down to 0.5 K (Sec. III.A), so the null result does not test dynamical screening. For Nb, s-qpGW is at the static limit. The only case where s-qpGW and static theory differ is the artificial ×20 DOS model, which was constructed to be superconducting at the static level and uses a uniform DOS enhancement that is not derived from any physical system. To support the claim that s-qpGW captures dynamical Coulomb screening, the paper should provide a benchmark — a real material or an exactly solvable model with known vertex-corrected results — where static and dynamical treatments genuinely differ and the correct answer is known.
  4. [Appendix B, near Eq. (B-18)] The derivation sets Z_QP ≈ 1, but the text notes that the deviation of Z_QP from unity arises solely from electron-phonon coupling. In a strong-coupling superconductor such as Nb (λ > 1), Z_QP can be significantly smaller than unity. Setting Z_QP = 1 changes the weight of the coherent delta-function peak in the spectral function and therefore changes the magnitude of the projected φ_C and the resulting Tc. This approximation is not quantified. The authors should either retain the QP weight in the projection or provide an estimate of the error incurred by neglecting it, especially for Nb.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. II.D and Appendix B] The self-consistent cycle for s-qpGW is not described step-by-step. For reproducibility, specify how W_C, φ_ph, Z_ph, and E_QP are updated each iteration and how Eq. (26) is enforced (e.g., convergence criteria, analytic continuation procedure).
  2. [Fig. 4 caption and Sec. III.B] The terms 'static Eliashberg' and 's-GW static' are used interchangeably in the text and figures; define them once and use consistently.
  3. [Sec. III.B, Fig. 5] The horizontal axis label and units are missing in the description of Fig. 5; please add a clear axis label to the figure.
  4. [Eq. (C-2)] The sentence 'Eq. (C-2) then follows' appears before the equation is displayed; renumber or restructure for clarity.
  5. [Abstract and conclusion] The abstract and conclusion state 'parameter-free' and 'ab initio', but the Nb Coulomb channel uses a calibrated Lindhard model and the model system uses a hand-set DOS enhancement. Qualify these claims in the abstract and summary to avoid overstatement.
  6. [References] Reference [20] is an arXiv preprint; if it has been published, update the citation. Some references are preprints from 2024–2025; verify status.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the s-qpGW derivation is self-contained, and the benchmarks are either independent or explicitly acknowledged limit/calibration checks.

full rationale

After walking the derivation from Eq. (6) through Appendix B, I find no step in which a claimed prediction is identical to an input by construction. The s-qpGW result (Eq. 26) is obtained by an explicit QP projection of the frequency-dependent anomalous self-energy, with the Z_C dependence handled (flavor ii) and spelled out in Eqs. (B-15)-(B-18); the projection is an approximation, not an output of the calculation. The graphene no-superconductivity result requires the full self-consistent solution and is also obtained independently by static Eliashberg; the paper explicitly notes both methods agree, so it does not present graphene as a test of dynamical screening. The Nb Tc=14 K agreement is transparently presented as a static-limit check: 'In bulk Nb... ℜφ_C,r(ω)≈φ_C(0). In this case one can further approximate φ̃_C≈φ_C(0)', with the offset from the static value explicitly traced to finite plasmon energy. This is a consistency check, not a fitted prediction. The artificial ×20 DOS model is explicitly labeled as chosen to make the static level superconducting ('we chose the large (×20) DOS(E_F) enhancement precisely to ensure superconductivity at the static level') and is used only as an illustrative discriminator. The µ*=0.31 value is a post-hoc calibration of the semi-empirical method to s-qpGW, not a parameter fitted to reproduce the central s-qpGW prediction. The unbenchmarked flavor i ('We have not used this s-qpGW flavor in this work') and the hand-set m*=1.8m_e for Nb's Lindhard screening are limitations on robustness and on the 'parameter-free' wording, but neither is a reduction of a prediction to a fitted input. Self-citations (EPW implementation, previous graphene phonon and Nb Eliashberg results) are methodological or comparative, not load-bearing. Hence score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. The free parameters are all in the screening/benchmark models: a calibrated Nb effective mass, a hand-chosen ×20 DOS enhancement for the model system, and a fitted µ*_2D comparison value. The main ad hoc element is the QP projection itself, which is a heuristic remedy for missing vertex corrections and is not independently validated.

free parameters (3)
  • Nb Lindhard effective mass m* = 1.8 m_e
    Calibrates the jellium-like Lindhard screening model for Nb and sets E_F = 5.32 eV; enters W_C and hence φ_C and Tc. Not fitted to Tc, but it is a hand-set parameter in a non-first-principles screening model.
  • DOS enhancement factor for model graphene = 20
    Multiplicative factor applied to Bloch-state sums in Coulomb and phonon terms for the model system; the authors state it was chosen precisely to ensure superconductivity at the static level (Sec. III C).
  • µ*_2D = 0.31
    Chosen in Fig. 7 so the semi-empirical µ* method quantitatively matches s-qpGW. This is a comparison parameter, not a method parameter, but it is fitted to the s-qpGW result.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Migdal's approximation and neglect of vertex corrections in Eq. (6) are valid for the phonon channel; for the Coulomb channel they fail when ω_pl ~ E_F.
    Invoked to explain the spurious pairing in s-GW and to motivate s-qpGW (Sec. III A).
  • domain assumption The RPA screened Coulomb interaction W_C = ε^{-1}v, with dielectric functions from the Hwang–Das Sarma analytical model for graphene and a Lindhard/plasmon-pole model for Nb, adequately captures dynamical screening including acoustic plasmons.
    Used throughout Sec. III and Appendix C; the graphene dielectric function is analytical, not a converged first-principles response.
  • ad hoc to paper The QP approximation — replacing the frequency-dependent Coulomb anomalous self-energy by ℜφ_C(E_QP) with Z_QP≈1 and incoherent spectral weight neglected — remedies the missing vertex corrections in the superconducting channel.
    Central heuristic of s-qpGW, stated in Eq. (26) and Appendix B; no independent proof or benchmark against vertex-corrected theory is provided.
  • domain assumption Band-diagonal approximation (no band mixing) and neglect of the normal self-energy shift χ are valid.
    Used to derive the pairing and renormalization equations in Sec. II.
  • ad hoc to paper The s-qpGW flavor that neglects ℜZ_C (Eq. B-16 / flavor ii) is the appropriate one.
    Appendix B explicitly notes the flavor keeping Z_C exists but was not used in this work, so the choice is not benchmarked.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quasiparticle GW for Superconductors: Toward a Unified Treatment of Electron-Phonon and Electron-Plasmon Couplings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JUWXS4DR

@misc{pith2026260521700,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quasiparticle GW for Superconductors: Toward a Unified Treatment of Electron-Phonon and Electron-Plasmon Couplings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JUWXS4DR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.21700}
}
read the original abstract

Superconducting two-dimensional materials, and in particular few-layer graphene, offer an exciting platform for low-power electronics, yet the origin of their unconventional superconductivity remains an open question. Prevailing theories, primarily rooted in the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) framework that assumes electron-phonon interactions are the main mechanism of superconductivity, struggle to account quantitatively for the observed phenomena. Recent studies point to a plasmonic pairing mechanism in graphene systems; however, disentangling the relative contributions of phonon- and plasmon-mediated pairing remains challenging due to the lack of a satisfactory first-principles framework capable of accurately capturing dynamical screening effects in the electronic channel. Here, we present a new theoretical framework that extends the quasiparticle self-consistent GW method to the superconducting phase by coupling it with the Eliashberg treatment of both phonon- and plasmon-mediated interactions. Our approach, termed superconducting quasiparticle GW (s-qpGW), is on par with the state-of-the-art Eliashberg theory of superconductivity when applied to bulk metals, and correctly predicts the absence of superconductivity in doped monolayer graphene. To differentiate s-qpGW from conventional Eliashberg approaches, we study a simple model system, graphene with an artificially enhanced density of states, and demonstrate that s-qpGW captures dynamical Coulomb screening effects in ways that standard BCS theory cannot.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.21700 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Calculated isotropic Eliashberg spectral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. a) Superconducting properties of doped [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Superconducting properties of bulk Nb cal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Anomalous (pairing) self-energy and spec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Anomalous (pairing) self-energy and spec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Calculated superconducting gap ∆ of doped [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Self-consistent GW theory for superconductivity in SrTiO3 models

    cond-mat.supr-con 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Full self-consistent GW calculations of polar SrTiO3 models show the dilute pairing-onset temperature survives at a finite scale only when the full momentum/frequency kernel is kept, while truncation or Fermi-surface ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, and P. Jarillo- Herrero, Unconventional superconductivity in magic-angle graphene superlattices, Nature 556, 43 (2018)

    2018

  2. [2]

    H. Zhou, T. Xie, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, and A. F. Young, Superconductivity in rhom- bohedral trilayer graphene, Nature598, 434 (2021)

    2021

  3. [3]

    Y. Xia, Z. Han, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Superconductivity in 16 twisted bilayer WSe2, Nature637, 833 (2025)

    2025

  4. [4]

    Y. Guo, J. Pack, J. Swann, L. Holtzman, M. Cothrine, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. G. Mandrus, K. Barmak, J. Hone, A. J. Mil- lis, A. Pasupathy, and C. R. Dean, Supercon- ductivity in 5.0°twisted bilayer WSe 2, Nature 637, 839 (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    Barrier, L

    J. Barrier, L. Peng, S. Xu, V. I. Fal’ko, K. Watanabe, T. Tanigushi, A. K. Geim, S. Adam, and A. I. Berdyugin, Coulomb screening of superconductivity in magic- angle twisted bilayer graphene (2024), arXiv:2412.01577

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Parra-Mart ´ ınez, A

    G. Parra-Mart ´ ınez, A. Jimeno-Pozo, V. o. T. Phong, H. Sainz-Cruz, D. Kaplan, P. Emanuel, Y. Oreg, P. A. Pantale´ on, J. A. Silva- Guill´ en, and F. Guinea, Band Renormalization, Quarter Metals, and Chiral Superconductivity in Rhombohedral Tetralayer Graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 136503 (2025)

    2025

  7. [7]

    Bardeen, L

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

    1957

  8. [8]

    Y.-Z. Chou, F. Wu, J. D. Sau, and S. Das Sarma, Acoustic-phonon-mediated su- perconductivity in moir´ eless graphene multi- layers, Phys. Rev. B106, 024507 (2022)

    2022

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Vi˜ nas Bostr¨ om, A

    E. Vi˜ nas Bostr¨ om, A. Fischer, J. B. Profe, J. Zhang, D. M. Kennes, and A. Ru- bio, Phonon-mediated unconventional super- conductivity in rhombohedral stacked multi- layer graphene, npj Computational Materials 10, 163 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    C. D. Spataru and F. L´ eonard, Ab initio calcu- lations of low-energy quasiparticle lifetimes in bilayer graphene, Applied Physics Letters123, 113101 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Takada, Plasmon mechanism of supercon- ductivity in two- and three-dimensional elec- tron systems, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan45, 786 (1978)

    Y. Takada, Plasmon mechanism of supercon- ductivity in two- and three-dimensional elec- tron systems, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan45, 786 (1978)

    1978

  4. [12]

    Akashi and R

    R. Akashi and R. Arita, Development of Density-Functional Theory for a Plasmon- Assisted Superconducting State: Application to Lithium Under High Pressures, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 057006 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    Akashi and R

    R. Akashi and R. Arita, Density Functional Theory for Plasmon-Assisted Superconductiv- ity, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 83, 061016 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    Sanna, C

    A. Sanna, C. Pellegrini, and E. K. U. Gross, Combining Eliashberg Theory with Density Functional Theory for the Accurate Predic- tion of Superconducting Transition Tempera- tures and Gap Functions, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 057001 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Davydov, A

    A. Davydov, A. Sanna, C. Pellegrini, J. K. De- whurst, S. Sharma, and E. K. U. Gross, Ab initio theory of plasmonic superconductivity within the Eliashberg and density-functional formalisms, Phys. Rev. B102, 214508 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Akashi, Revisiting homogeneous electron gas in pursuit of properly normed ab initio Eliashberg theory, Phys

    R. Akashi, Revisiting homogeneous electron gas in pursuit of properly normed ab initio Eliashberg theory, Phys. Rev. B105, 104510 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    in’t Veld, M

    Y. in’t Veld, M. I. Katsnelson, A. J. Millis, and M. R¨ osner, Screening induced crossover between phonon- and plasmon-mediated pair- ing in layered superconductors, 2D Materials 10, 045031 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Eliashberg, Interactions between electrons and lattice vibrations in a superconductor, Sov

    G. Eliashberg, Interactions between electrons and lattice vibrations in a superconductor, Sov. Phys. JETP11, 696 (1960)

    1960

  11. [19]

    G. M. Eliashberg, Temperature Green’s func- tion for electrons in a superconductor, Sov. Phys. JETP12, 1000 (1961)

    1961

  12. [20]

    Das Sarma, J

    S. Das Sarma, J. D. Sau, Y.-T. Tu, and S. Wang, Conventional and practical metal- lic superconductivity arising from repulsive coulomb coupling (2025), arXiv:2511.00625

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Gor’Kov, On the energy spectrum of super- conductors, Sov

    L. Gor’Kov, On the energy spectrum of super- conductors, Sov. Phys. JETP7, 158 (1958)

    1958

  14. [22]

    Nambu, Quasi-particles and gauge invari- ance in the theory of superconductivity, Phys

    Y. Nambu, Quasi-particles and gauge invari- ance in the theory of superconductivity, Phys. Rev.117, 648 (1960)

    1960

  15. [23]

    the diagonal approximation (neglecting band mixing), and treating everything as 2×2 matrices. For each (n,k) the static Coulomb self-energy is defined as a symmetrized convo- lution with the Nambu spectral function, ˆ˜ΣC nk = 1 2 Z dωℜ ˆΣC nk(ω) ˆAnk(ω) + 1 2 Z dω ˆAnk(ω)ℜ ˆΣC...

  16. [24]

    E. R. Margine and F. Giustino, Anisotropic Migdal-Eliashberg theory using Wannier func- tions, Phys. Rev. B87, 024505 (2013)

    2013

  17. [25]

    C. D. Spataru and F. L´ eonard, Nanoscale func- tionalized superconducting transport channels as photon detectors, Phys. Rev. B103, 134512 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Hedin and S

    L. Hedin and S. Lundqvist, Effects of Electron- Electron and Electron-Phonon Interactions on the One-Electron States of Solids (Academic Press, 1970) pp. 1–181

    1970

  19. [27]

    Giustino, Electron-phonon interactions from first principles, Rev

    F. Giustino, Electron-phonon interactions from first principles, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015003 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

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

    1958

  21. [29]

    Hedin, New Method for Calculating the One-Particle Green’s Function with Applica- tion to the Electron-Gas Problem, Phys

    L. Hedin, New Method for Calculating the One-Particle Green’s Function with Applica- tion to the Electron-Gas Problem, Phys. Rev. 139, A796 (1965). 17

    1965

  22. [30]

    M. S. Hybertsen and S. G. Louie, Electron correlation in semiconductors and insulators: Band gaps and quasiparticle energies, Phys. Rev. B34, 5390 (1986)

    1986

  23. [31]

    L. X. Benedict, C. D. Spataru, and S. G. Louie, Quasiparticle properties of a simple metal at high electron temperatures, Phys. Rev. B66, 085116 (2002)

    2002

  24. [32]

    Morel and P

    P. Morel and P. W. Anderson, Calculation of the superconducting state parameters with re- tarded electron-phonon interaction, Phys. Rev. 125, 1263 (1962)

    1962

  25. [33]

    P. B. Allen and B. Mitrovi´ c, Theory of Super- conductingT c (Academic Press, 1983) pp. 1– 92

    1983

  26. [34]

    Pellegrini and A

    C. Pellegrini and A. Sanna, Ab initio methods for superconductivity, Nat. Rev. Phys.6, 509 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    S. V. Faleev, M. van Schilfgaarde, and T. Kotani, All-Electron Self-ConsistentGW Approximation: Application to Si, MnO, and NiO, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 126406 (2004)

    2004

  28. [36]

    van Schilfgaarde, T

    M. van Schilfgaarde, T. Kotani, and S. Faleev, Quasiparticle Self-ConsistentGWTheory, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 226402 (2006)

    2006

  29. [37]

    H. J. Vidberg and J. W. Serene, Solving the Eliashberg Equations by Means of N-Point Pad´ e Approximants, J. of Low Temp. Phys.29, 179 (1977)

    1977

  30. [38]

    E. H. Hwang and S. Das Sarma, Dielectric function, screening, and plasmons in two- dimensional graphene, Phys. Rev. B75, 205418 (2007)

    2007

  31. [39]

    J. Ye, M. F. Craciun, M. Koshino, S. Russo, S. Inoue, H. Yuan, H. Shimotani, A. F. Mor- purgo, and Y. Iwasa, Accessing the transport properties of graphene and its multilayers at high carrier density, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.108, 13002 (2011)

    2011

  32. [40]

    Our jellium-like Lindhard screening model for Nb was calibrated by choosing an electron ef- fective massm ∗ = 1.8m e; the model accounts for the five valence electrons of Nb and yields a Fermi energyE F = 5.32 eV

  33. [41]

    Ponc´ e, E

    S. Ponc´ e, E. Margine, C. Verdi, and F. Giustino, EPW: Electron–phonon coupling, transport and superconducting properties us- ing maximally localized Wannier functions, Comput. Phys. Commun.209, 116 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    H. Lee, S. Ponc´ e, K. Bushick, S. Hajinazar, J. Lafuente-Bartolome, J. Leveillee, C. Lian, J.-M. Lihm, F. Macheda, H. Mori, H. Paudyal, W. H. Sio, S. Tiwari, M. Zacharias, X. Zhang, N. Bonini, E. Kioupakis, E. R. Margine, and F. Giustino, Electron–phonon physics from first pr...

    2023

  35. [43]

    E. R. Margine and F. Giustino, Two-gap su- perconductivity in heavilyn-doped graphene: Ab initio migdal-eliashberg theory, Phys. Rev. B90, 014518 (2014)

    2014

  36. [44]

    H. Mori, T. Nomoto, R. Arita, and E. R. Margine, Efficient anisotropic Migdal- Eliashberg calculations with an intermediate representation basis and Wannier interpola- tion, Phys. Rev. B110, 064505 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Lewandowski, D

    C. Lewandowski, D. Chowdhury, and J. Ruh- man, Pairing in magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene: Role of phonon and plasmon umk- lapp, Phys. Rev. B103, 235401 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    M. Long, A. Jimeno-Pozo, H. Sainz-Cruz, P. A. Pantale´ on, and F. Guinea, Evolution of su- perconductivity in twisted graphene multilay- ers, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.121, e2405259121 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    G. D. Mahan,Many-Particle Physics, 3rd ed. (Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 2000)

    2000

  40. [48]

    Simonato, M

    M. Simonato, M. I. Katsnelson, and M. R¨ osner, Revised Tolmachev-Morel-Anderson pseu- dopotential for layered conventional supercon- ductors with nonlocal Coulomb interaction, Phys. Rev. B108, 064513 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Shishkin and G

    M. Shishkin and G. Kresse, Self-consistentGW calculations for semiconductors and insulators, Phys. Rev. B75, 235102 (2007)

    2007

  42. [50]

    B.-C. Shih, Y. Xue, P. Zhang, M. L. Cohen, and S. G. Louie, Quasiparticle Band Gap of ZnO: High Accuracy from the Conventional G0W0 Approach, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 146401 (2010)

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.