Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 92 references

Parquet-like equations for the Hedin three-leg vertex

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that the single-boson-exchange decomposition yields a closed set of parquet-like equations for the Hedin three-leg vertex, the polarization, and the self-energy, avoiding four-point vertex storage and Bethe-Salpeter…

desk verdict The closed three-leg SBE parquet scheme is a real step forward, but the AIM convergence claim only holds for the vertex sub-cycle, not the full self-consistent cycle. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02793 v2 pith:TYEZFPAB submitted 2019-09-06 cond-mat.str-el

Friedrich Krien , Angelo Valli This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords single-bosonexchangeHedinthree-legvertexparquetequationsAndersonimpuritymodelMaki-Thompsondiagramsdivergencesdynamicalapproximationself-consistentmany-bodytheory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper's goal is to make the unbiased treatment of competing electronic fluctuations computationally affordable. It shows that the single-boson-exchange (SBE) decomposition of the vertex function can be rearranged into a closed set of parquet-like equations for the Hedin three-leg vertex, the polarization, and the self-energy, so that the full calculation never stores a four-point vertex or inverts a Bethe-Salpeter equation. The scheme sums Maki-Thompson diagrams self-consistently, sweeping in the mutual screening of charge, spin, and pairing fluctuations. A sympathetic reader would care because the result is a path to vertex corrections on real lattices where the full parquet equations are currently prohibitive. Convergence to the exact solution is demonstrated on the atomic limit and the Anderson impurity model.

What carries the argument

The central object is the SBE decomposition, $f^{\alpha} = \phi^{\mathrm{firr},\alpha} + \nabla^{\mathrm{ph}} + \nabla^{\bar{\mathrm{ph}}} + \nabla^{\mathrm{pp}} - 2U^{\alpha}$, which rewrites the four-point vertex using only fully irreducible diagrams plus products of a Hedin three-leg vertex $\lambda$ and a screened interaction $w$. Inserting this decomposition into the channel relations (12a)–(12c) and eliminating the channel-irreducible vertices $\phi$ via the three-leg definitions (14) and (17) yields the parquet-like integral equations (15) and (18). These, together with the polarization updates (20)–(21), the Dyson equations (22a)–(22b) and (24), and the Hedin equation (23), form the self-consistent cycle in Fig. 5 whose core operation is the summation of Maki-Thompson diagrams.

What would settle it

Compute the spin susceptibility of the two-dimensional Hubbard model at half-filling with the SBE-DΓA input $\phi^{\mathrm{firr}}$ taken from the corresponding impurity model, and compare it with a controlled Monte Carlo simulation of the same lattice near the Néel temperature; if the generated nonlocal single-boson-exchange diagrams do not reproduce the growth of the antiferromagnetic susceptibility, the locality assumption fails. A cheaper consistency test is already reported in the paper: the approximation $\phi^{\mathrm{firr}} = 0$ converges only for small $U/T$ in the atomic limit, so mapping where it loses the exact solution delimits the method's reach.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the SBE decomposition makes the parquet problem three-legged: a fully $U$-irreducible vertex $\phi^{\mathrm{firr}}$ fixes, through the coupled integral equations (15) and (18), the Hedin vertices $\lambda^{\mathrm{ch}}$, $\lambda^{\mathrm{sp}}$, and $\lambda^{\mathrm{s}}$; these in turn fix the polarization $\pi$ and the screened interaction $w$ via Dyson equations, and the fermionic self-energy $\Sigma$ via the Hedin equation. Iterating this cycle renormalizes propagators and vertex on equal footing, reconstructing the full vertex function as a sum of single-boson-exchange diagrams. On the atomic limit and the Anderson impurity model the iteration converges to the exact Hedin vertex, and for the impurity model the exact vertex is an attractive fixed point of the flow.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation depends on feeding in an accurate fully irreducible interaction vertex; if that input is approximated as purely local on a lattice, the method assumes the nonlocal physics is entirely rebuilt by the single-boson-exchange diagrams the equations generate — a step the paper itself flags as open in Sec. V.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The two bottlenecks of the parquet formalism — storing four-point vertices and inverting Bethe-Salpeter equations — are removed; only three-leg objects are stored and iterated.
  • The computational cost per linear update scales as $(N_\nu N_k)^2(N_\omega N_q)$ instead of $(N_\nu N_k)^3 N_\omega N_q$, placing lattice calculations with a fine momentum grid within reach.
  • Because the SBE building blocks are connected to physical response functions, the scheme is free of the vertex divergences that complicate standard parquet solutions.
  • The crossing symmetry of the vertex can be enforced through a symmetry of the singlet Hedin vertex, ensuring thermodynamic consistency of the potential energy.
  • Using a local fully irreducible vertex from an auxiliary impurity model (SBE-DΓA) yields a concrete, approximation-only input for lattice Hubbard model calculations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the locality of $\phi^{\mathrm{firr}}$ holds in practice, the SBE-DΓA should reproduce the momentum-dependent vertex corrections needed for optical conductivity, a quantity that ladder approximations leave unchanged; this is a testable prediction for the two-dimensional Hubbard model.
  • The method's freedom from two-particle-self-energy divergences makes it a natural seed for functional renormalization group flows, where divergent intermediate vertices are a known obstacle.
  • Feeding $\phi^{\mathrm{firr}}$ from a small cluster rather than a single impurity into the lattice parquet equations would directly quantify how much nonlocal physics must come from the input vertex as opposed to the generated single-boson-exchange diagrams.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper derives a set of self-consistent equations for the Hedin three-leg vertex, the polarization, and the electronic self-energy, based on the single-boson-exchange (SBE) decomposition of the four-point vertex introduced in Ref. [49]. The closed cycle consists of the parquet-like vertex equations (15) and (18), the polarization relations (20) and (21), the Dyson-type updates for the screened interaction (22a), (22b), and the fermionic propagator (24), and the Hedin equation (23). The authors argue that this avoids the storage of four-point vertices and the inversion of Bethe-Salpeter equations, which are the bottlenecks of the traditional parquet formalism. They validate the scheme in the atomic limit, where a full self-consistent run from a non-interacting guess converges at U/T=2 and the exact strong-coupling vertex is reproduced at U/T=20 using an annealing initial guess, and for an Anderson impurity model, where the exact Hedin vertex is shown to be an attractive fixed point of the vertex equations when the self-energies are held fixed. The outlook discusses the SBE approximation (phi^firr=0) and an SBE-inspired DGammaA approximation with a local fully irreducible vertex.

Significance. If the advertised claims hold, the method is a numerically attractive alternative to parquet: it treats charge, spin, and particle-particle fluctuations on equal footing, preserves crossing symmetry and the consistency of the potential energy with the two-particle level (Appendices D and E), and has a computational cost scaling that is lower than that of standard parquet by one power of the momentum-frequency mesh. The algebraic derivation from the SBE decomposition is explicit and the paper provides useful exact identities and symmetry discussions. The strongest hardware-supported evidence is the full-cycle convergence of the atomic limit at weak coupling and the fixed-point stability of the exact vertex in the AIM. However, the numerical demonstration of the full self-consistent cycle is incomplete for the AIM, and several claims in the abstract and conclusions go beyond what is actually computed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV B (p. 8)] The AIM validation does not exercise the full calculation cycle claimed in the abstract. The text states that the exact self-energies Sigma and pi are provided as input "which we do not update in the cycle," and only Eqs. (15) and (18) are iterated for the Hedin vertex. This demonstrates that the exact lambda is an attractive fixed point of the vertex sub-cycle, but it leaves untested the feedback among the Dyson updates (22a), (22b), (24), the polarization updates (20), (21), and the Hedin equation (23). Since the abstract and the conclusions describe the scheme as fully self-consistent and claim convergence of "the calculation scheme starting from a fully irreducible vertex" for the AIM, the numerical support is incomplete. The authors should either implement the full cycle for the AIM (for example, starting from a warm guess) or rephrase the claims to indicate that only the Hedin-vertex sub-cycle is tested.
  2. [Sec. IV A and Sec. IV B (pp. 6-8)] Convergence from a generic initial guess is demonstrated only in the weak-coupling atomic limit. At U/T=20 in the atomic limit, the calculation is initialized by annealing from the exact solution for similar parameters, and the authors state that for U/T > 2 the non-interacting guess is "quite inconvenient" and does not converge. In the AIM, the successful runs start from a random perturbation of the exact vertex (Eq. (25)), and the text reports that the non-interacting limit is a "poor initial guess" from which the parquet does not converge to the exact result. Consequently, what is demonstrated is local stability of an exact fixed point, not convergence of the proposed scheme from a physically motivated cold start. The paper should either provide at least one successful cold-start convergence test in the non-trivial parameter regime or explicitly restrict the convergence claim to local stability.
  3. [Sec. V A (p. 9)] The SBE approximation (26), which is the only fully ab initio option with phi^firr=0 and thus the only option that completely eliminates the four-point input, is stated to converge in first tests of the atomic limit "only for small enough values of the ratio U/T (results not shown)." This unshown result undercuts the claim that this approximation is "expected to yield a reasonable description of the lattice Hubbard model in the weak-coupling regime." The authors should either include the atomic-limit convergence tests for the SBE approximation or clearly label the statement as preliminary and unverified.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV A (p. 6)] The text states that the calculations "can be converged on a single core within a few minutes," but no timing data, stopping criterion, or iteration counts are reported; please specify the convergence criterion used for Figs. 6-9.
  2. [Sec. IV B (p. 8)] The report that the parquet does not converge from the non-interacting limit for the AIM is interesting but incomplete: the authors should describe what the iteration actually does in that case, namely whether it converges to a wrong fixed point, oscillates, or diverges.
  3. [Appendix D, Eq. (D1)] The notation λ̄ and λ is used for right- and left-sided vertices, and the text says they are equal under time reversal; it would be helpful to state explicitly that all equations in the main text use this equality, to avoid confusion when Eq. (D1) is applied.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

The algebraic derivation is self-contained and not circular; the numerical demonstrations are partly self-referential because the exact φ^firr (and, for the AIM, exact Σ and π) are inputs, making them consistency checks rather than independent predictions.

  1. self definitional [Section IV A (Atomic limit), paragraph beginning 'The main advantage of considering the AL is...']
    "with the knowledge of the analytical form of the full vertex f, which can be found in Ref. [57], and of the Hedin vertex λ (see Appendix C), the SBE decomposition (8) yields the exact fully U-irreducible vertex ϕfirr of the AL. This allows us to test the parquet equations for the Hedin vertex in a controlled environment by feeding the ϕfirr of the AL as an input, and benchmark the resulting one- and two-particle correlation functions against the exact solution."

    The input φ^firr is constructed from the exact Hedin vertex λ via Eq. (8), and the parquet-like equations are then used to reconstruct λ. The numerical output is therefore not an independent prediction: the information about the target λ is already contained in the input φ^firr by construction. This makes the atomic-limit test a self-consistency/benchmark check of the equations rather than a first-principles derivation of λ, though it does not make the algebraic derivation of the closed set of equations circular.

  2. other [Section IV B (Anderson impurity model), paragraph beginning 'We also numerically demonstrate...']
    "We provide as input to the parquet the exact ϕfirr obtained from the impurity solver and Eq. (8) as well as the exact self-energies Σ and π, which we do not update in the cycle."

    The AIM test freezes the exact polarization and self-energy, so only the Hedin-vertex equations (15) and (18) are iterated, with the exact DMFT vertex plus noise as initial guess. This verifies that the exact λ is a stable fixed point of a vertex sub-cycle, not that the full self-consistent cycle of Sec. III D (including Dyson updates of g, w, Σ, π) converges. The abstract's statement that convergence of the calculation scheme starting from a fully irreducible vertex is demonstrated for the AIM is therefore stronger than what is shown, especially since the non-interacting initial guess is admitted not to converge. This is an evidence limitation rather than a logical circularity of the equations.

full rationale

The core derivation in Sec. III is exact algebra given the single-boson-exchange decomposition: Eqs. (13)-(19) eliminate the channel-irreducible four-point vertices and close on the Hedin three-leg vertex, and Eqs. (20)-(24) provide the polarization, screened interaction, self-energy, and Dyson updates. No parameter is fitted to data, and no target quantity is used to define the equations themselves. The SBE decomposition of Ref. [49] is a self-citation, but it is a parameter-free exact identity and is not the target result, so it functions as independent support. The only circularity-like features are in the numerical validation protocol: in the atomic limit, the exact φ^firr is built from the exact λ using Eq. (8), and in the AIM test the exact φ^firr, Σ, and π are supplied and frozen, with the exact vertex (plus noise) as the initial guess. These tests therefore demonstrate the internal consistency and attractive-fixed-point property of the proposed equations, not an independent prediction; the abstract's AIM convergence claim is somewhat overstated because the full cycle is not iterated. These concerns are real but do not infect the algebraic claim that the SBE decomposition leads to a closed set of parquet-like Hedin-vertex equations, so the circularity burden is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The scheme fits no parameters and postulates no new physical entities. The only hand-chosen constant is the Fierz decoupling ratio r=1/2 (Appendix B). The central input is the fully irreducible vertex from the SBE decomposition, which is taken from the authors' prior work (Ref. [49]).

free parameters (1)
  • Fierz decoupling ratio r = 1/2
    Chosen in Sec. IV and Appendix B to avoid a chemical potential shift in the Hedin equation; it is a modeling choice rather than a fit to data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The SBE decomposition of the four-point vertex (Eq. 8) is exact and unique.
    This is the foundation of the scheme, taken from Ref. [49]. If the decomposition were not exact, the closed equations would not follow.
  • domain assumption The fully irreducible vertex phi^firr is a sufficient input; all other vertices, self-energies, and polarizations are determined by the parquet-like equations.
    This is the central premise of the method, analogous to the standard parquet formalism. The paper does not derive phi^firr from first principles.
  • domain assumption The Hedin vertices satisfy the symmetry relations (D1) and (D2), which are used to enforce crossing symmetry.
    These are exact properties of the exact vertex; approximations must impose them for consistency (Appendix D).
  • ad hoc to paper The iterative update of the equations converges to a fixed point.
    Convergence is demonstrated empirically for specific models and parameters, but no general convergence proof is provided. Some parameter regimes do not converge (Sec. V.A).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Parquet-like equations for the Hedin three-leg vertex." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TYEZFPAB

@misc{pith2026190902793,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Parquet-like equations for the Hedin three-leg vertex},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TYEZFPAB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02793}
}
read the original abstract

Taking the competition and the mutual screening of various bosonic fluctuations in correlated electron systems into account requires an unbiased approach to the many-body problem. One such approach is the self-consistent solution of the parquet equations, whose numerical treatment in lattice systems is however prohibitively expensive. In a recent article it was shown that there exists an alternative to the parquet decomposition of the four-point vertex function, which classifies the vertex diagrams according to the principle of single-boson exchange (SBE) [F. Krien, A. Valli, and M. Capone, arXiv:1907.03581 (2019)]. Here we show that the SBE decomposition leads to a closed set of equations for the Hedin three-leg vertex, the polarization, and the electronic self-energy, which sums self-consistently the diagrams of the Maki-Thompson type. This circumvents the calculation of four-point vertex functions and the inversion of the Bethe-Salpeter equations, which are the two major bottlenecks of the parquet equations. The convergence of the calculation scheme starting from a fully irreducible vertex is demonstrated for the Anderson impurity model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02793 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Feynman graphs corresponding to the SBE decomposition in Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Feynman diagrams corresponding to the parquet-like equations for the Hedin vertices [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Top: Relation between the polarization and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Dyson equations for the fermionic (top) and bosonic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online) Three-leg parquet self-consistent cy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Color online) Convergence of the self-consistent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (Color online) Exact fully irreducible three-leg vertex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (Color online) Exact (symbols) and reconstructed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (Color online) Exact fully irreducible three-leg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. (Color online) Relative weight of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [49]

    Ayral and O

    T. Ayral and O. Parcollet, Phys. Rev. B 92, 115109 (2015)

    work page 2015

  2. [1]

    (D2) The first relation follows from time-reversal symme- try [49, 86]

    Symmetry of the Hedin vertices The Hedin vertices obey the symmetries, λch,sp ν−ω/2,ω = ( λch,sp −ν−ω/2,ω )∗ , (D1) λs ν+~ω/2,~ω =λs −ν+~ω/2,~ω. (D2) The first relation follows from time-reversal symme- try [49, 86]. It implies that in the particle-hole channels the Hedin vertex is symmetric around the point−ω/2 as a function of ν, cf. Figs. 7 and 9. The s...

  3. [2]

    (D3) However, when we solve the self-consistent cycle in Fig

    Crossing-symmetry The exact vertex satisfies the crossing-symmetry, which reads for the particle-hole channels [49, 60], fα νν ′ω =− 1 2 ( fch ν,ν+ω,ν ′−ν +[3−4δα,sp]fsp ν,ν+ω,ν ′−ν ) . (D3) However, when we solve the self-consistent cycle in Fig. 5, at an intermediate step the crossing-symmetry could be violated. In the evaluation of the traditional parqu...

  4. [3]

    Orenstein and A

    J. Orenstein and A. J. Millis, Science 288, 468 (2000)

    2000

  5. [4]

    Maier, M

    T. Maier, M. Jarrell, T. Pruschke, and M. H. Hettler, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 1027 (2005)

    2005

  6. [5]

    Otsuki, H

    J. Otsuki, H. Hafermann, and A. I. Lichtenstein, Phys. Rev. B 90, 235132 (2014)

    2014

  7. [6]

    Rohringer, H

    G. Rohringer, H. Hafermann, A. Toschi, A. A. Katanin, A. E. Antipov, M. I. Katsnelson, A. I. Lichtenstein, A. N. Rubtsov, and K. Held, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 025003 (2018)

    2018

  8. [7]

    Kitatani, T

    M. Kitatani, T. Sch¨ afer, H. Aoki, and K. Held, Phys. Rev. B 99, 041115 (2019)

    2019

Show all 92 references
  1. [8]

    Varma, Z

    C. Varma, Z. Nussinov, and W. van Saarloos, Physics Reports 361, 267 (2002)

    2002

  2. [9]

    A. I. Lichtenstein and M. I. Katsnelson, Phys. Rev. B 62, R9283 (2000)

    2000

  3. [10]

    Kotliar, S

    G. Kotliar, S. Y. Savrasov, G. P´ alsson, and G. Biroli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 186401 (2001)

    2001

  4. [11]

    Blankenbecler, D

    R. Blankenbecler, D. J. Scalapino, and R. L. Sugar, Phys. Rev. D 24, 2278 (1981)

    1981

  5. [12]

    E. W. Huang, R. Sheppard, B. Moritz, and T. P. Dev- ereaux, Science 366, 987 (2019)

    2019

  6. [13]

    P. T. Brown, D. Mitra, E. Guardado-Sanchez, R. Nourafkan, A. Reymbaut, C.-D. H´ ebert, S. Bergeron, A.-M. S. Tremblay, J. Kokalj, D. A. Huse, P. Schauß, and W. S. Bakr, Science 363, 379 (2019)

    2019

  7. [14]

    Vuˇ ciˇ cevi´ c, J

    J. Vuˇ ciˇ cevi´ c, J. Kokalj, R. ˇZitko, N. Wentzell, D. Tanaskovi´ c, and J. Mravlje, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 036601 (2019)

    2019

  8. [15]

    Prokof’ev and B

    N. Prokof’ev and B. Svistunov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 250201 (2007)

    2007

  9. [16]

    K. V. Houcke, E. Kozik, N. Prokofev, and B. Svistunov, Physics Procedia 6, 95 (2010)

    2010

  10. [17]

    Kozik, K

    E. Kozik, K. V. Houcke, E. Gull, L. Pollet, N. Prokof’ev, B. Svistunov, and M. Troyer, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 90, 10004 (2010)

    2010

  11. [18]

    Iskakov, A

    S. Iskakov, A. E. Antipov, and E. Gull, Phys. Rev. B 13 94, 035102 (2016)

    2016

  12. [19]

    Gukelberger, E

    J. Gukelberger, E. Kozik, and H. Hafermann, Phys. Rev. B 96, 035152 (2017)

    2017

  13. [20]

    Vilk and A.-M.S

    Y.M. Vilk and A.-M.S. Tremblay, J. Phys. I France 7, 1309 (1997)

    1997

  14. [21]

    Bergeron, V

    D. Bergeron, V. Hankevych, B. Kyung, and A.-M. S. Tremblay, Phys. Rev. B 84, 085128 (2011)

    2011

  15. [22]

    Georges, G

    A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M. J. Rozen- berg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 13 (1996)

    1996

  16. [23]

    Toschi, A

    A. Toschi, A. A. Katanin, and K. Held, Phys. Rev. B 75, 045118 (2007)

    2007

  17. [24]

    A. N. Rubtsov, M. I. Katsnelson, and A. I. Lichtenstein, Phys. Rev. B 77, 033101 (2008)

    2008

  18. [25]

    Sch¨ afer, F

    T. Sch¨ afer, F. Geles, D. Rost, G. Rohringer, E. Arrigoni, K. Held, N. Bl¨ umer, M. Aichhorn, and A. Toschi, Phys. Rev. B 91, 125109 (2015)

    2015

  19. [26]

    E. G. C. P. van Loon, H. Hafermann, and M. I. Katsnel- son, Phys. Rev. B 97, 085125 (2018)

    2018

  20. [27]

    Tanaka, Phys

    A. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. B 99, 205133 (2019)

    2019

  21. [28]

    Rohringer, A

    G. Rohringer, A. Toschi, A. Katanin, and K. Held, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 256402 (2011)

    2011

  22. [29]

    Hirschmeier, H

    D. Hirschmeier, H. Hafermann, E. Gull, A. I. Lichten- stein, and A. E. Antipov, Phys. Rev. B 92, 144409 (2015)

    2015

  23. [30]

    Sch¨ afer, A

    T. Sch¨ afer, A. A. Katanin, K. Held, and A. Toschi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 046402 (2017)

    2017

  24. [31]

    Hirschmeier, H

    D. Hirschmeier, H. Hafermann, and A. I. Lichtenstein, Phys. Rev. B 97, 115150 (2018)

    2018

  25. [32]

    Yudin, D

    D. Yudin, D. Hirschmeier, H. Hafermann, O. Eriksson, A. I. Lichtenstein, and M. I. Katsnelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 070403 (2014)

    2014

  26. [33]

    Khurana, Phys

    A. Khurana, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1990 (1990)

    1990

  27. [34]

    Krien, E

    F. Krien, E. G. C. P. van Loon, H. Hafermann, J. Otsuki, M. I. Katsnelson, and A. I. Lichtenstein, Phys. Rev. B 96, 075155 (2017)

    2017

  28. [35]

    Janiˇ s, A

    V. Janiˇ s, A. Kauch, and V. Pokorn´ y, Phys. Rev. B95, 045108 (2017)

    2017

  29. [36]

    De Dominicis and P

    C. De Dominicis and P. C. Martin, Journal of Mathemat- ical Physics 5, 14 (1964)

    1964

  30. [37]

    De Dominicis and P

    C. De Dominicis and P. C. Martin, Journal of Mathemat- ical Physics 5, 31 (1964)

    1964

  31. [38]

    F. B. Kugler and J. von Delft, New Journal of Physics 20, 123029 (2018)

    2018

  32. [39]

    S. X. Yang, H. Fotso, J. Liu, T. A. Maier, K. Tomko, E. F. D’Azevedo, R. T. Scalettar, T. Pruschke, and M. Jarrell, Phys. Rev. E 80, 046706 (2009)

    2009

  33. [40]

    K.-M. Tam, H. Fotso, S.-X. Yang, T.-W. Lee, J. Moreno, J. Ramanujam, and M. Jarrell, Phys. Rev. E 87, 013311 (2013)

    2013

  34. [41]

    G. Li, N. Wentzell, P. Pudleiner, P. Thunstr¨ om, and K. Held, Phys. Rev. B 93, 165103 (2016)

    2016

  35. [42]

    C. J. Eckhardt, G. A. H. Schober, J. Ehrlich, and C. Honerkamp, Phys. Rev. B 98, 075143 (2018)

    2018

  36. [43]

    G. Li, A. Kauch, P. Pudleiner, and K. Held, Comput. Phys. Commun 241, 146 (2019)

    2019

  37. [44]

    Valli, T

    A. Valli, T. Sch¨ afer, P. Thunstr¨ om, G. Rohringer, S. An- dergassen, G. Sangiovanni, K. Held, and A. Toschi, Phys. Rev. B 91, 115115 (2015)

    2015

  38. [45]

    The vic- tory project v1.0: an efficient parquet equations solver,

    G. Li, A. Kauch, P. Pudleiner, and K. Held, “The vic- tory project v1.0: an efficient parquet equations solver,” (2017), arXiv:1708.07457

    2017 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Pudleiner, P

    P. Pudleiner, P. Thunstr¨ om, A. Valli, A. Kauch, G. Li, and K. Held, Phys. Rev. B 99, 125111 (2019)

    2019

  40. [47]

    π-tons — generic optical excitations of corre- lated systems,

    A. Kauch, P. Pudleiner, K. Astleithner, T. Ribic, and K. Held, “π-tons — generic optical excitations of corre- lated systems,” (2019), arXiv:1902.09342

    2019 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Hedin, Phys

    L. Hedin, Phys. Rev. 139, A796 (1965)

    1965

  42. [50]

    Ayral and O

    T. Ayral and O. Parcollet, Phys. Rev. B 93, 235124 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    Krien, A

    F. Krien, A. Valli, and M. Capone, Phys. Rev. B 100, 155149 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    Maki, Progress of Theoretical Physics 39, 897 (1968)

    K. Maki, Progress of Theoretical Physics 39, 897 (1968)

    1968

  45. [53]

    R. S. Thompson, Phys. Rev. B 1, 327 (1970)

    1970

  46. [54]

    Karrasch, R

    C. Karrasch, R. Hedden, R. Peters, T. Pruschke, K. Schn- hammer, and V. Meden, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 20, 345205 (2008)

    2008

  47. [55]

    Husemann and M

    C. Husemann and M. Salmhofer, Phys. Rev. B79, 195125 (2009)

    2009

  48. [56]

    Partial bosonisation for the two- dimensional hubbard model: How well does it work?

    T. Denz, M. Mitter, J. M. Pawlowski, C. Wetterich, and M. Yamada, “Partial bosonisation for the two- dimensional hubbard model: How well does it work?” (2019), arXiv:1910.08300 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Con- sistent partial bosonization of extended hubbard model,

    E. A. Stepanov, V. Harkov, and A. I. Lichtenstein, “Con- sistent partial bosonization of extended hubbard model,” (2019), arXiv:1908.00536

    2019 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Sch¨ afer, G

    T. Sch¨ afer, G. Rohringer, O. Gunnarsson, S. Ciuchi, G. Sangiovanni, and A. Toschi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 246405 (2013)

    2013

  51. [59]

    Thunstr¨ om, O

    P. Thunstr¨ om, O. Gunnarsson, S. Ciuchi, and G. Rohringer, Phys. Rev. B 98, 235107 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    Chalupa, P

    P. Chalupa, P. Gunacker, T. Sch¨ afer, K. Held, and A. Toschi, Phys. Rev. B 97, 245136 (2018)

    2018

  53. [61]

    Chen and N

    C.-X. Chen and N. Bickers, Solid State Communications 82, 311 (1992)

    1992

  54. [62]

    Rohringer, A

    G. Rohringer, A. Valli, and A. Toschi, Phys. Rev. B 86, 125114 (2012)

    2012

  55. [63]

    In this case the hybridization function is fixed via the self-consistency condition, Gii(ν) = g(ν), where Gii is the local lattice Green’s function of the Hubbard model in DMFT approximation [20]

  56. [64]

    It is in general convenient to differentiate the transferred frequenciesω and ~ω of particle-hole and particle-particle excitations, respectively

  57. [65]

    Krien, Phys

    F. Krien, Phys. Rev. B 99, 235106 (2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

    Self-consistent many-body theory for condensed matter systems,

    N. E. Bickers, “Self-consistent many-body theory for condensed matter systems,” in Theoretical Methods for Strongly Correlated Electrons, edited by D. S´ en´ echal, A.- M. Tremblay, and C. Bourbonnais (Springer New York, New York, NY, 2004) pp. 237–296

    2004

  59. [67]

    The notion ’ U-reducible’ does not imply removal of Green’s function legs attached to the bare interaction

  60. [68]

    On the other hand, the decompositions are different because their re- ducible (irreducible) objects have no one-to-one corre- spondence in terms of Feynman diagrams

    The two decompositions are similar because the full ver- tex is split into one contribution which is fully irreducible, and three contributions which are reducible. On the other hand, the decompositions are different because their re- ducible (irreducible) objects have no one-t...

  61. [69]

    For the chosen definitions this factor shows up in equa- tion (22b) for the screened interaction ws

    A factor 1 2 arises in the singlet particle-particle chan- nel due to the indistinguishability of identical particles. For the chosen definitions this factor shows up in equa- tion (22b) for the screened interaction ws

  62. [70]

    Zamani, P

    F. Zamani, P. Ribeiro, and S. Kirchner, New Journal of Physics 18, 063024 (2016)

    2016

  63. [71]

    One may apply approximations directly to the three-leg ob- 14 jects λfirr

    Step 2 of the calculation cycle is necessary in order to update the Green’s function legs in (16) and (19). One may apply approximations directly to the three-leg ob- 14 jects λfirr. In this case, Step 2 can be omitted

  64. [72]

    ˇZitko, Phys

    R. ˇZitko, Phys. Rev. B 80, 125125 (2009)

    2009

  65. [73]

    High-frequency asymptotics of the vertex function,

    N. Wentzell, G. Li, A. Tagliavini, C. Taranto, G. Rohringer, K. Held, A. Toschi, and S. Andergassen, “High-frequency asymptotics of the vertex function,” (2016), arXiv:1610.06520

    2016 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Bauer, L

    B. Bauer, L. D. Carr, H. G. Evertz, A. Feiguin, J. Freire, S. Fuchs, L. Gamper, J. Gukelberger, E. Gull, S. Guertler, A. Hehn, R. Igarashi, S. V. Isakov, D. Koop, P. N. Ma, P. Mates, H. Matsuo, O. Parcollet, G. Pa- wowski, J. D. Picon, L. Pollet, E. Santos, V. W. Scarola, U. S...

    2011

  67. [75]

    Hafermann, K

    H. Hafermann, K. R. Patton, and P. Werner, Phys. Rev. B 85, 205106 (2012)

    2012

  68. [76]

    Gunacker, M

    P. Gunacker, M. Wallerberger, E. Gull, A. Hausoel, G. Sangiovanni, and K. Held, Phys. Rev. B 92, 155102 (2015)

    2015

  69. [77]

    Gunacker, M

    P. Gunacker, M. Wallerberger, T. Ribic, A. Hausoel, G. Sangiovanni, and K. Held, Phys. Rev. B 94, 125153 (2016)

    2016

  70. [78]

    Wallerberger, A

    M. Wallerberger, A. Hausoel, P. Gunacker, A. Kowal- ski, N. Parragh, F. Goth, K. Held, and G. Sangiovanni, Computer Physics Communications 235, 388 (2019)

    2019

  71. [79]

    Aslamasov and A

    L. Aslamasov and A. Larkin, Physics Letters A 26, 238 (1968)

    1968

  72. [80]

    The thermodynamic consistency of the potential energy in parquet approaches contrasts with the consistency of the kinetic energy in conserving theories [32, 83, 90]

  73. [81]

    Kontani and M

    H. Kontani and M. Ohno, Phys. Rev. B 74, 014406 (2006)

    2006

  74. [82]

    A. A. Katanin, A. Toschi, and K. Held, Phys. Rev. B 80, 075104 (2009)

    2009

  75. [83]

    Rohringer and A

    G. Rohringer and A. Toschi, Phys. Rev. B 94, 125144 (2016)

    2016

  76. [84]

    Dual parquet scheme for the two-dimensional hub- bard model: modelling low-energy physics of high- tc cuprates with high momentum resolution,

    G. V. Astretsov, G. Rohringer, and A. N. Rubtsov, “Dual parquet scheme for the two-dimensional hub- bard model: modelling low-energy physics of high- tc cuprates with high momentum resolution,” (2019), arXiv:1910.03525 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2019 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Conserving dynamical mean-field approaches to strongly correlated systems,

    F. Krien, “Conserving dynamical mean-field approaches to strongly correlated systems,” (2018)

    2018

  78. [86]

    Krien, E

    F. Krien, E. G. C. P. van Loon, M. I. Katsnelson, A. I. Lichtenstein, and M. Capone, Phys. Rev. B 99, 245128 (2019)

    2019

  79. [87]

    E. G. C. P. van Loon, F. Krien, H. Hafermann, A. I. Lichtenstein, and M. I. Katsnelson, Phys. Rev. B 98, 205148 (2018)

    2018

  80. [88]

    E. G. C. P. van Loon, A. I. Lichtenstein, M. I. Katsnel- son, O. Parcollet, and H. Hafermann, Phys. Rev. B 90, 235135 (2014)

    2014

  81. [89]

    Galitskii and A

    V. Galitskii and A. Migdal, Zhur. Eksptl. i Teoret. Fiz. 34 (1958), [JETP 7, 96 (1958)]

    1958

  82. [90]

    The summation ∑ ν implies a convergence factor eıν0+ , see also Ref. [32]

  83. [91]

    We need not consider the caseν≈−ω separately, since it implies that both ν andω are large and in turnλνω→ 1

  84. [92]

    Baym, Phys

    G. Baym, Phys. Rev. 127, 1391 (1962)

    1962

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.