Pairing susceptibility of the two-dimensional Hubbard model in the thermodynamic limit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compute the diagrammatic expansion of the particle-particle susceptibility via algorithmic Matsubara integration and compute the correlated pairing susceptibility in the thermodynamic limit of the two-dimensional Hubbard model. We study the static susceptibility and its dependence on the pair momentum $\mathbf{q}$ for a range of temperature, interaction strength, and chemical potential. We show that ${d}_{{x}^{2}\ensuremath{-}{y}^{2}}$-wave pairing is expected in the model in the $U/t\ensuremath{\rightarrow}{0}^{+}$ limit from direct perturbation theory. From this, we identify key second- and third-order diagrams that support pairing processes and note that the diagrams responsible are not a part of charge or spin susceptibility expansions. We find two key components for pairing at momenta (0,0) and $(\ensuremath{\pi},\ensuremath{\pi})$ that can be well fit as separate bosonic modes. We extract amplitudes and correlation length scales where we find a predominantly local $(\ensuremath{\pi},\ensuremath{\pi})$ pairing and nonlocal $\mathbf{q}=(0,0)$ pairs and present the relative weights of these modes for variation in temperature, doping, and interaction strength.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".