MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086540608 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.64.075116

Pairing fluctuations and pseudogaps in the attractive Hubbard model

2001· article· en· W2086540608 on OpenAlexaff
Bumsoo Kyung, S. Allen, A.–M. S. Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. B, Condensed matter · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhysics of Superconductivity and Magnetism
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPseudogapPhysicsCondensed matter physicsPairingHubbard modelQuantum Monte CarloMonte Carlo methodDensity of statesSuperconductivityQuantum mechanicsCuprate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The two-dimensional attractive Hubbard model is studied in the weak-to-intermediate-coupling regime by employing a nonperturbative approach. It is shown that this approach is in quantitative agreement with Monte Carlo calculations for both single-particle and two-particle quantities. Both the density of states and the single-particle spectral weight show a pseudogap at the Fermi energy below some characteristic temperature ${T}^{*},$ also in good agreement with quantum Monte Carlo calculations. The pseudogap is caused by critical pairing fluctuations in the low-temperature renormalized classical regime $(\ensuremath{\Elzxh}\ensuremath{\omega}<{k}_{B}T)$ of the two-dimensional system. With increasing temperature the spectral weight fills in the pseudogap instead of closing it, and the pseudogap appears earlier in the density of states than in the spectral function. Small temperature changes around ${T}^{*}$ can modify the spectral weight over frequency scales much larger than temperature. Several qualitative results for the s-wave case should remain true for d-wave superconductors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. B, Condensed matterSame topicPhysics of Superconductivity and MagnetismFrench-language works237,207