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

The GW Approximation and Vertex Corrections F erdi Aryasetiawan 1 Introduction

Vladimir I. Anisimov

Published May 30, 2000• 0 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1201/9781482296877-8

Related papers

Local and non-local vertex corrections in GW for extended and localized systems

Martin Stankovski, Andrew J. Morris, Benjamin Robinson +6 more

Bulletin of the American Physical Society•Mar 8, 2007•0 citations

Introduction to Green functions, the GW approximation, and the Bethe-Salpeter equation

Stefan Kurth

•Jan 1, 2015•0 citations

Dynamical Vertex Approximation : An Introduction(Interaction and Nanostructural Effects in Low-Dimensional Systems)

Karsten Held, A. A. Katanin, A. Toschi

Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement•Feb 5, 2009•0 citations

Beyond the \textit{GW} approximation: a second-order screened exchange correction

Patrick Rinke, Fabio Caruso, Xinguo Ren +2 more

Bulletin of the American Physical Society•Mar 21, 2013•1 citation

The self-energy beyond GW: Local and nonlocal vertex corrections

Pina Romaniello, Steve Guyot, Lucia Reining

It is commonly accepted that the GW approximation for the electron self-energy is successful for the description of the band structure of weakly to moderately correlated systems, whereas it will fail for strongly correlated materials. In the present work, we discuss two important aspects of this approximation: first, the "self-screening error," which is due to an incorrect treatment of induced exchange, and second, the atomic limit, in which, instead, correlation is directly responsible for the observed problem. Using the example of the removal of a particle from a box, we show that the self-screening error stems from the use of test charge-test charge screening and that it can be corrected by a two-point vertex contribution to the self-energy derived from time-dependent density functional theory (TDDFT). We explain why the addition of a particle, instead, requires the use of a different approximate vertex. This illustrates why the general vertex function, valid both for valence and conduction states, must be a three-point function. Moreover, we show that also the bad performance of GW in the atomic limit is due to the neglect of the vertex in the self-energy; in that case, the TDDFT-derived vertex correction is not sufficient in order to remove the error even qualitatively. We discuss the effects of the self-screening error as well as the atomic limit using GW for the exactly solvable two-site Hubbard model.

The Journal of Chemical Physics•Oct 20, 2009•131 citations

Full self-consistency versus quasiparticle self-consistency in diagrammatic approaches: exactly solvable two-site Hubbard model

A L Kutepov

Self-consistent solutions of Hedin's equations (HE) for the two-site Hubbard model (HM) have been studied. They have been found for three-point vertices of increasing complexity (Γ = 1 (GW approximation), Γ1 from the first-order perturbation theory, and the exact vertex Γ(E)). Comparison is made between the cases when an additional quasiparticle (QP) approximation for Green's functions is applied during the self-consistent iterative solving of HE and when QP approximation is not applied. The results obtained with the exact vertex are directly related to the present open question-which approximation is more advantageous for future implementations, GW + DMFT or QPGW + DMFT. It is shown that in a regime of strong correlations only the originally proposed GW + DMFT scheme is able to provide reliable results. Vertex corrections based on perturbation theory (PT) systematically improve the GW results when full self-consistency is applied. The application of QP self-consistency combined with PT vertex corrections shows similar problems to the case when the exact vertex is applied combined with QP sc. An analysis of Ward Identity violation is performed for all studied in this work's approximations and its relation to the general accuracy of the schemes used is provided.

arXiv:1503.06200•Journal of Physics Condensed Matter•Jul 22, 2015•5 citations
It is commonly accepted that the GW approximation for the electron self-energy is successful for the description of the band structure of weakly to moderately correlated systems, whereas it will fail for strongly correlated materials. In the present work, we discuss two important aspects of this approximation: first, the "self-screening error," which is due to an incorrect treatment of induced exchange, and second, the atomic limit, in which, instead, correlation is directly responsible for the observed problem. Using the example of the removal of a particle from a box, we show that the self-screening error stems from the use of test charge-test charge screening and that it can be corrected by a two-point vertex contribution to the self-energy derived from time-dependent density functional theory (TDDFT). We explain why the addition of a particle, instead, requires the use of a different approximate vertex. This illustrates why the general vertex function, valid both for valence and conduction states, must be a three-point function. Moreover, we show that also the bad performance of GW in the atomic limit is due to the neglect of the vertex in the self-energy; in that case, the TDDFT-derived vertex correction is not sufficient in order to remove the error even qualitatively. We discuss the effects of the self-screening error as well as the atomic limit using GW for the exactly solvable two-site Hubbard model.
Self-consistent solutions of Hedin's equations (HE) for the two-site Hubbard model (HM) have been studied. They have been found for three-point vertices of increasing complexity (Γ = 1 (GW approximation), Γ1 from the first-order perturbation theory, and the exact vertex Γ(E)). Comparison is made between the cases when an additional quasiparticle (QP) approximation for Green's functions is applied during the self-consistent iterative solving of HE and when QP approximation is not applied. The results obtained with the exact vertex are directly related to the present open question-which approximation is more advantageous for future implementations, GW + DMFT or QPGW + DMFT. It is shown that in a regime of strong correlations only the originally proposed GW + DMFT scheme is able to provide reliable results. Vertex corrections based on perturbation theory (PT) systematically improve the GW results when full self-consistency is applied. The application of QP self-consistency combined with PT vertex corrections shows similar problems to the case when the exact vertex is applied combined with QP sc. An analysis of Ward Identity violation is performed for all studied in this work's approximations and its relation to the general accuracy of the schemes used is provided.