Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1509.08919 · The European Physical Journal B

Thermodynamics of the Hubbard model on stacked honeycomb and square lattices

Jakub Imriška, Emanuel Gull, Matthias Troyer

Published Jul 28, 2016• 2 citations
arXivHTMLPDF
DOI
10.1140/epjb/e2016-70146-y

Related papers

Thermodynamics of the Hubbard model on stacked honeycomb and square lattices

Jakub Imriška, Emanuel Gull, Matthias Troyer

ISSN:1434-6028

•Aug 1, 2016•1 citation

A variational cluster study of possible phase separation in square and honeycomb Hubbard lattices

Kun Fang, Gayanath Fernando, Alexander V. Balatsky +1 more

Bulletin of the American Physical Society•Mar 5, 2014•0 citations

Possible phase separation in square and honeycomb Hubbard model: A variational cluster study

Kun Fang, Gayanath Fernando, Alexander V. Balatsky +1 more

Physics Letters A•Jul 4, 2015•4 citations

Phase separation instabilities and magnetism in two dimensional square and honeycomb Hubbard model

ARMEN N. KOCHARIAN, Kun Fang, Gayanath Fernando +1 more

Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials•Oct 9, 2014•3 citations

THE 2D HUBBARD MODEL ON THE HONEYCOMB LATTICE

Alessandro Giuliani

International Congress on Mathematical Physics (ICMP)•Mar 1, 2010•7 citations

Dirac electrons in the square-lattice Hubbard model with a d -wave pairing field: The chiral Heisenberg universality class revisited

Yuichi Otsuka, Kazuhiro Seki, Sandro Sorella +1 more

We numerically investigate the quantum criticality of the chiral Heisenberg universality class with the total number of fermion components $N=8$ in terms of the Gross-Neveu theory. Auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo simulations are performed for the square lattice Hubbard model in the presence of a $d$-wave pairing field, inducing Dirac cones in the single-particle spectrum. This property makes the model particularly interesting because it turns out to belong to the same universality class of the Hubbard model on the honeycomb lattice, which is the canonical model for graphene, despite the unit cells being apparently different (e.g., they contain one and two sites, respectively). We indeed show that the two phase transitions, expected to occur on the square and on the honeycomb lattices, have the same quantum criticality. We also argue that details of the models, i.e., the way of counting $N$ and the anisotropy of the Dirac cones, do not change the critical exponents. The present estimates of the exponents for the $N=8$ chiral Heisenberg universality class are $\ensuremath{\nu}=1.05(5)$, ${\ensuremath{\eta}}_{\ensuremath{\phi}}=0.75(4)$, and ${\ensuremath{\eta}}_{\ensuremath{\psi}}=0.23(4)$, which are compared with the previous numerical estimations.

arXiv:2009.04685•Physical review. B./Physical review. B•Dec 1, 2020•35 citations
We numerically investigate the quantum criticality of the chiral Heisenberg universality class with the total number of fermion components N=8N=8N=8 in terms of the Gross-Neveu theory. Auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo simulations are performed for the square lattice Hubbard model in the presence of a ddd-wave pairing field, inducing Dirac cones in the single-particle spectrum. This property makes the model particularly interesting because it turns out to belong to the same universality class of the Hubbard model on the honeycomb lattice, which is the canonical model for graphene, despite the unit cells being apparently different (e.g., they contain one and two sites, respectively). We indeed show that the two phase transitions, expected to occur on the square and on the honeycomb lattices, have the same quantum criticality. We also argue that details of the models, i.e., the way of counting NNN and the anisotropy of the Dirac cones, do not change the critical exponents. The present estimates of the exponents for the N=8N=8N=8 chiral Heisenberg universality class are $\ensuremath{\nu}=1.05(5)$, ${\ensuremath{\eta}}_{\ensuremath{\phi}}=0.75(4)$, and ${\ensuremath{\eta}}_{\ensuremath{\psi}}=0.23(4)$, which are compared with the previous numerical estimations.