Towards an understanding of hole superconductivity

From the very beginning K. Alex M\"uller emphasized that the materials he and George Bednorz discovered in 1986 were $hole$ superconductors. Here I would like to share with him and others what I believe to be $the$ key reason for why high $T_c$ cuprates as well as all other superconductors are hole superconductors, which I only came to understand a few months ago. This paper is dedicated to Alex M\"uller on the occasion of his 90th birthday.Comment: Dedicated to Alex M\"uller on the Occasion of his 90th Birthday. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1703.0977

Comparison of the Efficacy of Caudal, Interlaminar, and Transforaminal Epidural Injections in Managing Lumbar Disc Herniation: Is One Method Superior to the Other?

Background: Epidural injections are performed utilizing 3 approaches in the lumbar spine: caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal. The literature on the efficacy of epidural injections has been sporadic. There are few high-quality randomized trials performed under fluoroscopy in managing disc herniation that have a long-term follow-up and appropriate outcome parameters. There is also a lack of literature comparing the efficacy of these 3 approaches. Methods: This manuscript analyzes data from 3 randomized controlled trials that assessed a total of 360 patients with lumbar disc herniation. There were 120 patients per trial either receiving local anesthetic alone (60 patients) or local anesthetic with steroids (60 patients). Results: Analysis showed similar efficacy for caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal approaches in managing chronic pain and disability from disc herniation. The analysis of caudal epidural injections showed the potential superiority of steroids compared with local anesthetic alone a 2-year follow-up, based on the average relief per procedure. In the interlaminar group, results were somewhat superior for pain relief in the steroid group at 6 months and functional status at 12 months. Interlaminar epidurals provided improvement in a significantly higher proportion of patients. The proportion of patients nonresponsive to initial injections was also lower in the group for local anesthetic with steroid in the interlaminar trial. Conclusions: The results of this assessment show significant improvement in patients suffering from chronic lumbar disc herniation with 3 lumbar epidural approaches with local anesthetic alone, or using steroids with long-term follow-up of up to 2 years, in a contemporary interventional pain management setting

Exact ground states for the four-electron problem in a two-dimensional finite Hubbard square system

We present exact explicit analytical results describing the exact ground state of four electrons in a two dimensional square Hubbard cluster containing 16 sites taken with periodic boundary conditions. The presented procedure, which works for arbitrary even particle number and lattice sites, is based on explicitly given symmetry adapted base vectors constructed in r-space. The Hamiltonian acting on these states generates a closed system of 85 linear equations providing by its minimum eigenvalue the exact ground state of the system. The presented results, described with the aim to generate further creative developments, not only show how the ground state can be exactly obtained and what kind of contributions enter in its construction, but emphasize further characteristics of the spectrum. On this line i) possible explications are found regarding why weak coupling expansions often provide a good approximation for the Hubbard model at intermediate couplings, or ii) explicitly given low lying energy states of the kinetic energy, avoiding double occupancy, suggest new roots for pairing mechanism attracting decrease in the kinetic energy, as emphasized by kinetic energy driven superconductivity theories.Comment: 37 pages, 18 figure

Bounds and Inequalities Relating h-Index, g-Index, e-Index and Generalized Impact Factor

Finding relationships among different indices such as h-index, g-index, e-index, and generalized impact factor is a challenging task. In this paper, we describe some bounds and inequalities relating h-index, g-index, e-index, and generalized impact factor. We derive the bounds and inequalities relating these indexing parameters from their basic definitions and without assuming any continuous model to be followed by any of them.Comment: 17 pages, 6 figures, 5 table

A Review of Ten Years of the Symposium on Search-Based Software Engineering

The year 2018 marked the tenth anniversary of the Symposium on Search Based Software Engineering (SSBSE). In order to better understand the characteristics and evolution of papers published in SSBSE, this work reports results from a mapping study targeting the ten proceedings of SSBSE. Our goal is to identify and to analyze authorship collaborations, the impact and relevance of SSBSE in terms of citations, the software engineering areas commonly studied as well as the new problems recently solved, the computational intelligence techniques preferred by authors and the rigour of experiments conducted in the papers. Besides this analysis, we list some recommendations to new authors who envisage to publish their work in SSBSE. Despite of existing mapping studies on SBSE, our contribution in this work is to provide information to researchers and practitioners willing to enter the SBSE field, being a source of information to strengthen the symposium, guide new studies, and motivate new collaboration among research groups

The e-Index, Complementing the h-Index for Excess Citations

BACKGROUND: The h-index has already been used by major citation databases to evaluate the academic performance of individual scientists. Although effective and simple, the h-index suffers from some drawbacks that limit its use in accurately and fairly comparing the scientific output of different researchers. These drawbacks include information loss and low resolution: the former refers to the fact that in addition to h(2) citations for papers in the h-core, excess citations are completely ignored, whereas the latter means that it is common for a group of researchers to have an identical h-index. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: To solve these problems, I here propose the e-index, where e(2) represents the ignored excess citations, in addition to the h(2) citations for h-core papers. Citation information can be completely depicted by using the h-index together with the e-index, which are independent of each other. Some other h-type indices, such as a and R, are h-dependent, have information redundancy with h, and therefore, when used together with h, mask the real differences in excess citations of different researchers. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Although simple, the e-index is a necessary h-index complement, especially for evaluating highly cited scientists or for precisely comparing the scientific output of a group of scientists having an identical h-index

Measuring co-authorship and networking-adjusted scientific impact

Appraisal of the scientific impact of researchers, teams and institutions with productivity and citation metrics has major repercussions. Funding and promotion of individuals and survival of teams and institutions depend on publications and citations. In this competitive environment, the number of authors per paper is increasing and apparently some co-authors don't satisfy authorship criteria. Listing of individual contributions is still sporadic and also open to manipulation. Metrics are needed to measure the networking intensity for a single scientist or group of scientists accounting for patterns of co-authorship. Here, I define I1 for a single scientist as the number of authors who appear in at least I1 papers of the specific scientist. For a group of scientists or institution, In is defined as the number of authors who appear in at least In papers that bear the affiliation of the group or institution. I1 depends on the number of papers authored Np. The power exponent R of the relationship between I1 and Np categorizes scientists as solitary (R>2.5), nuclear (R=2.25-2.5), networked (R=2-2.25), extensively networked (R=1.75-2) or collaborators (R<1.75). R may be used to adjust for co-authorship networking the citation impact of a scientist. In similarly provides a simple measure of the effective networking size to adjust the citation impact of groups or institutions. Empirical data are provided for single scientists and institutions for the proposed metrics. Cautious adoption of adjustments for co-authorship and networking in scientific appraisals may offer incentives for more accountable co-authorship behaviour in published articles.Comment: 25 pages, 5 figure

Assessing the impact of biomedical research in academic institutions of disparate sizes

Abstract Background The evaluation of academic research performance is nowadays a priority issue. Bibliometric indicators such as the number of publications, total citation counts and h-index are an indispensable tool in this task but their inherent association with the size of the research output may result in rewarding high production when evaluating institutions of disparate sizes. The aim of this study is to propose an indicator that may facilitate the comparison of institutions of disparate sizes. Methods The Modified Impact Index (MII) was defined as the ratio of the observed h-index (h) of an institution over the h-index anticipated for that institution on average, given the number of publications (N) it produces i.e. (α and β denote the intercept and the slope, respectively, of the line describing the dependence of the h-index on the number of publications in log10 scale). MII values higher than 1 indicate that an institution performs better than the average, in terms of its h-index. Data on scientific papers published during 2002–2006 and within 36 medical fields for 219 Academic Medical Institutions from 16 European countries were used to estimate α and β and to calculate the MII of their total and field-specific production. Results From our biomedical research data, the slope β governing the dependence of h-index on the number of publications in biomedical research was found to be similar to that estimated in other disciplines (≈0.4). The MII was positively associated with the average number of citations/publication (r = 0.653, p Conclusion The MII should complement the use of h-index when comparing the research output of institutions of disparate sizes. It has a conceptual interpretation and, with the data provided here, can be computed for the total research output as well as for field-specific publication sets of institutions in biomedicine.</p