Bands renormalization and superconductivity in the strongly correlated Hubbard model using composite operators method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We use the composite operator method (COM) to analyze the strongly correlated repulsive Hubbard model, investigating the effect of nearest-neighbor hoppings up to fourth order on a square lattice. We consider two sets of self-consistent equations, one enforcing the Pauli principle and the other imposing charge-charge, spin-spin, and pair–pair correlations using a decoupling scheme developed by Roth (1969 Phys. Rev. 184 451–9). We extract three distinct solutions from these equations: COM1 and COM2 by imposing the Pauli principle and one from Roth decoupling. An overview of the method studying the validity of particle-hole symmetry and the Luttinger theorem for each solution is presented. Additionally, we extend the initial basis to study superconductivity, concluding that it is induced by the Van Hove singularity. Finally, we include higher-order hoppings using realistic estimates for tight binding parameters and compare our results with ARPES measurements on cuprates.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".