Bipairing and the stripe phase in four-leg Hubbard ladders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) calculations on four-leg $t\text{\ensuremath{-}}J$ and Hubbard ladders have found a phase exhibiting ``stripes'' at intermediate doping. Such behavior can be viewed as generalized Friedel oscillations, with wavelength equal to the inverse hole density, induced by the open boundary conditions. So far, this phase has not been understood using the conventional weak-coupling bosonization approach. Based on studies of a general bosonization proof, finite size spectrum, an improved analysis of weak-coupling renormalization group equations, and the decoupled two-leg ladder limit, we here find new types of phases of four-leg ladders, which exhibit stripes. They also inevitably exhibit ``bipairing,'' meaning that there is a gap to add one or two electrons (but not four) and that both single electron and electron pair correlation functions decay exponentially, while correlation functions of charge-4 operators exhibit a power-law decay. Whether or not bipairing occurs in the stripe phase found in DMRG is an important open question.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".