Doping evolution of charge and spin excitations in two-leg Hubbard ladders: Comparing DMRG and FLEX results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the magnetic and charge dynamical response of a Hubbard model in a two-leg ladder geometry using the density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) method and the random phase approximation within the fluctuation-exchange approximation (FLEX). Our calculations reveal that FLEX can capture the main features of the magnetic response from weak up to intermediate Hubbard repulsion for doped ladders, when compared with the numerically exact DMRG results. However, while at weak Hubbard repulsion both the spin and charge spectra can be understood in terms of weakly interacting electron-hole excitations across the Fermi surface, at intermediate coupling DMRG shows gapped spin excitations at large momentum transfer that remain gapless within the FLEX approximation. For the charge response, FLEX can only reproduce the main features of the DMRG spectra at weak coupling and high doping levels, while it shows an incoherent character away from this limit. Overall, our analysis shows that FLEX works surprisingly well for spin excitations at weak and intermediate Hubbard $U$ values even in the difficult low-dimensional geometry such as a two-leg ladder. Finally, we discuss the implications of our results for neutron scattering and resonant inelastic x-ray scattering experiments on two-leg ladder cuprate compounds.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".