Critiquing Variational Theories of the Anderson-Hubbard Model: Real-Space Self-Consistent Hartree-Fock Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. A simple and commonly employed approximate technique with which one can examine spatially disordered systems when strong electronic correlations are present is based on the use of real-space unrestricted self-consistent Hartree-Fock wave functions. In such an approach the disorder is treated exactly while the correlations are treated approximately. In this report we critique the success of this approximation by making comparisons between such solutions and the exact wave functions for the Anderson-Hubbard model. Due to the sizes of the complete Hilbert spaces for these problems, the comparisons are restricted to small one-dimensional chains, up to ten sites, and a 4x4 two-dimensional cluster, and at 1/2 filling these Hilbert spaces contain about 63,500 and 166 million states, respectively. We have completed these calculations both at and away from 1/2 filling. This approximation is based on a variational approach which minimizes the Hartree-Fock energy, and we have completed comparisons of the exact and Hartree-Fock energies. However, in order to assess the success of this approximation in reproducing ground-state correlations we have completed comparisons of the local charge and spin correlations, including the calculation of the overlap of the Hartree-Fock wave functions with those of the exact solutions. We find that this approximation reproduces the local charge densities to quite a high accuracy, but that the local spin correlations, as represented by 〈Si · Sj〉, are not as well represented. In addition to these comparisons, we discuss the properties of the spin degrees of freedom in the HF approximation, and where in the disorderinteraction phase diagram such physics may be important. PACS numbers: 71.27.+a,71.23.-k,71.10.-wCritiquing HF for the Anderson-Hubbard Model 2 1.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".