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

Theoretical and Mathematical Physics

Self-consistent theory of electron correlation in the Hubbard model

A. L. Kuzemskii

Published Aug 1, 1978• 15 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/bf01036482

Related papers

EXACT AND SELF-CONSISTENT RESULTS IN ONE-DIMENSIONAL REPULSIVE HUBBARD MODEL

ARMEN N. KOCHARIAN, Chia‐Wei Yang, Y. L. Chiang +1 more

The shortcomings and advantages of the generalized self-consistent field (GSCF) approach, which includes the electron–hole order parameter [Formula: see text] and the average spin s within the one-dimensional repulsive Hubbard model, are analyzed by comparison of the ground state properties with the corresponding Bethe ansatz results in an entire parameter space of interaction strength U/t ≥ 0, magnetic field h ≥ 0 and electron concentration 0 ≤ n ≤ 1. The GSCF spectral characteristics are derived and criteria are found for the stability of incommensurate magnetic phase with the wave number 0 < q < π. The GSCF theory displays a simple relationship for the double occupancy D(+) in terms of n, s and [Formula: see text], where D(+) underestimates electron correlations at weak and intermediate ranges and overestimates correlations at large interaction strengths. Beyond some critical U/t and n≠1 the GSCF D(+) for spatially homogeneous state vanishes, while the exact D for all n at h=0 decreases gradually as U/t increases. At n ≠ 1 the GSCF chemical potential μ(+) overestimates electron correlations everywhere and variation μ(+)versusn displays electron instability toward the phase separation in the vicinity of n=1. Exactly at n=1 the GSCF μ(+)versusU/t always underestimates electron correlation and as U/t → ∞ at h=0 we have μ(+) → 0, while the Bethe ansatz result gives μ → 2t. In the limiting cases U/t → 0 and U/t → ∞ for all h ≥ 0 and 0 ≤ n ≤ 1 the GSCF ground state energy is exact, which is necessary for formulation of converging perturbation procedure about mean field solution in the entire parameter space.

International Journal of Modern Physics B•Dec 10, 2003•6 citations

Electron correlation in an extended Hubbard model

D.K. Ghosh

Physics Letters A•Aug 1, 1970•8 citations

Electron Correlation in the Small Hubbard Model

Arisato Kawabata

Springer series in solid-state sciences•Jan 1, 1981•0 citations

Analyzing the success ofT-matrix diagrammatic theories in representing a modified Hubbard model

P. Pisarski, Robert J Gooding

We present a systematic study of various forms of renormalization that can be applied in the calculation of the self-energy of the Hubbard model within the T-matrix approximation. We compare the exact solutions of the attractive and repulsive Hubbard models, for linear chains of lengths up to eight sites, with all possible taxonomies of the T-matrix approximation. For the attractive Hubbard model, the success of a minimally self-consistent theory found earlier in the atomic limit (Verga et al 2005 Phys. Rev. B 71 155111) is not maintained for finite clusters unless one is in the very strong correlation limit. For the repulsive model, in the weak correlation limit at low electronic densities-that is, where one would expect a self-consistent T-matrix theory to be adequate-we find the fully renormalized theory to be most successful. In our studies we employ a modified Hubbard interaction that eliminates all Hartree diagrams, an idea which was proposed earlier (Zlatić et al 2000 Phys. Rev. B 63 035104).

arXiv:1010.3383•Journal of Physics Condensed Matter•May 4, 2011•3 citations

Electron correlations in the effective Hubbard model

ARMEN N. KOCHARIAN, P. S. Ovnanyan

The European Physical Journal B•Jun 1, 1991•8 citations

Two‐Particle Self‐Consistent Method for the Multi‐Orbital Hubbard Model

Karim Zantout, Steffen Backes, Roser Valentí

Abstract One of the most challenging problems in solid state systems is the microscopic analysis of electronic correlations. A paramount minimal model that encodes correlation effects is the Hubbard Hamiltonian, which—regardless of its simplicity—is exactly solvable only in a few limiting cases and approximate many‐body methods are required for its solution. In this review, an overview on the non‐perturbative two‐particle self‐consistent method (TPSC), which was originally introduced to describe the electronic properties of the single‐band Hubbard model, is presented. A detailed derivation of the multi‐orbital generalization of TPSC is introduced here and particular features of the method on exemplary interacting models in comparison to dynamical mean‐field theory results are discussed.

arXiv:2008.08098•Annalen der Physik•Jan 15, 2021•20 citations
The shortcomings and advantages of the generalized self-consistent field (GSCF) approach, which includes the electron–hole order parameter [Formula: see text] and the average spin s within the one-dimensional repulsive Hubbard model, are analyzed by comparison of the ground state properties with the corresponding Bethe ansatz results in an entire parameter space of interaction strength U/t ≥ 0, magnetic field h ≥ 0 and electron concentration 0 ≤ n ≤ 1. The GSCF spectral characteristics are derived and criteria are found for the stability of incommensurate magnetic phase with the wave number 0 < q < π. The GSCF theory displays a simple relationship for the double occupancy D(+) in terms of n, s and [Formula: see text], where D(+) underestimates electron correlations at weak and intermediate ranges and overestimates correlations at large interaction strengths. Beyond some critical U/t and n≠1 the GSCF D(+) for spatially homogeneous state vanishes, while the exact D for all n at h=0 decreases gradually as U/t increases. At n ≠ 1 the GSCF chemical potential μ(+) overestimates electron correlations everywhere and variation μ(+)versusn displays electron instability toward the phase separation in the vicinity of n=1. Exactly at n=1 the GSCF μ(+)versusU/t always underestimates electron correlation and as U/t → ∞ at h=0 we have μ(+) → 0, while the Bethe ansatz result gives μ → 2t. In the limiting cases U/t → 0 and U/t → ∞ for all h ≥ 0 and 0 ≤ n ≤ 1 the GSCF ground state energy is exact, which is necessary for formulation of converging perturbation procedure about mean field solution in the entire parameter space.
We present a systematic study of various forms of renormalization that can be applied in the calculation of the self-energy of the Hubbard model within the T-matrix approximation. We compare the exact solutions of the attractive and repulsive Hubbard models, for linear chains of lengths up to eight sites, with all possible taxonomies of the T-matrix approximation. For the attractive Hubbard model, the success of a minimally self-consistent theory found earlier in the atomic limit (Verga et al 2005 Phys. Rev. B 71 155111) is not maintained for finite clusters unless one is in the very strong correlation limit. For the repulsive model, in the weak correlation limit at low electronic densities-that is, where one would expect a self-consistent T-matrix theory to be adequate-we find the fully renormalized theory to be most successful. In our studies we employ a modified Hubbard interaction that eliminates all Hartree diagrams, an idea which was proposed earlier (Zlatić et al 2000 Phys. Rev. B 63 035104).
Abstract One of the most challenging problems in solid state systems is the microscopic analysis of electronic correlations. A paramount minimal model that encodes correlation effects is the Hubbard Hamiltonian, which—regardless of its simplicity—is exactly solvable only in a few limiting cases and approximate many‐body methods are required for its solution. In this review, an overview on the non‐perturbative two‐particle self‐consistent method (TPSC), which was originally introduced to describe the electronic properties of the single‐band Hubbard model, is presented. A detailed derivation of the multi‐orbital generalization of TPSC is introduced here and particular features of the method on exemplary interacting models in comparison to dynamical mean‐field theory results are discussed.