Physics of cuprates with the two-band Hubbard model: The validity of the one-band Hubbard model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We calculate the properties of the two-band Hubbard model using the dynamical cluster approximation. The phase diagram resembles the generic phase diagram of the cuprates, showing a strong asymmetry with respect to electron- and hole-doped regimes, in agreement with experiment. Asymmetric features are also seen in one-particle spectral functions and in the charge, spin, and $d$-wave pairing-susceptibility functions. We address the possible reduction of the two-band model to a low-energy single-band one, as it was suggested by Zhang and Rice. Comparing the two-band Hubbard model properties with the single-band Hubbard model ones, we have found similar low-energy physics provided that the next-nearest-neighbor hopping term ${t}^{\ensuremath{'}}$ has a significant value $({t}^{\ensuremath{'}}∕t\ensuremath{\approx}0.3)$. The parameter ${t}^{\ensuremath{'}}$ is the main culprit for the electron-hole asymmetry. However, a significant value of ${t}^{\ensuremath{'}}$ cannot be provided in a strict Zhang and Rice [Phys. Rev. B 37, R3759 (1988); 41, 7243 (1990)] picture where the extra holes added into the system bind to the existing Cu holes forming local singlets. We note that by considering approximate singlet states, such as plaquette states, reasonable values of ${t}^{\ensuremath{'}}$, which capture qualitatively the physics of the two-band model, can be obtained. We conclude that a single-band $t\text{\ensuremath{-}}{t}^{\ensuremath{'}}\text{\ensuremath{-}}U$ Hubbard model captures the basic physics of the cuprates concerning superconductivity, antiferromagnetism, pseudogap, and electron-hole asymmetry, but is not suitable for a quantitative analysis or to describe physical properties involving energy scales larger than about 0.5 eV.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".