Analyzing the success of<i>T</i>-matrix diagrammatic theories in representing a modified Hubbard model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".