Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Ladder equation for the three-particle vertex and its approximate solution

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives exact ladder equations for the three-particle vertex and tests the natural first approximation, finding that for the Anderson impurity model it is only qualitatively correct at weak coupling and misses quantitatively by…

desk verdict The exact ten-channel ladder equations are a genuine formal contribution, and the paper's honest numerical failure is a useful data point; the main soft spot is the untested 1/9 averaging conjecture that underpins the quantitative comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01848 v1 pith:P4ZMOD36 submitted 2024-11-27 cond-mat.other nucl-th

Patrick Kappl , Tin Ribic , Anna Kauch , Karsten Held This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.othernucl-th
keywords three-particlevertexBethe-SalpeterladderAndersonimpuritymodelnonlinearresponsefunctioncrossingsymmetryparquetdecompositionirreduciblediagrammaticmany-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 generalizes the two-particle Bethe-Salpeter equations to ten three-particle ladders and derives exact equations that would give the full three-particle vertex if the three-particle vertex irreducible in one of ten channels were known. Since that irreducible input is not available in practice, the paper approximates it by the sum of three two-particle irreducible vertices, each connecting two of the three fermionic lines, and repairs the resulting loss of crossing symmetry by averaging the ladder over the nine particle-particle-hole channels. The approximation is tested on the Anderson impurity model with a bath fixed by dynamical mean-field theory, where the exact three-particle vertex can be obtained by exact diagonalization. The comparison shows that the approximate ladder is only qualitatively correct for weak interaction, misses the exact vertex contribution to the second-order response by factors of two to ten, and produces wrong signs for some spin components at stronger coupling. The exact ladder framework itself is the paper's main positive result; the tested approximation is a first step that the authors themselves find insufficient.

What carries the argument

The central object is the three-particle Bethe-Salpeter-like ladder, written as $\Gamma_{1\mathrm{PI},r} = \Gamma_{(1,\vec{2},3)\mathrm{PI},r} + \Gamma_{(1,\vec{2},3)\mathrm{PI},r} \cdot \Gamma_{1\mathrm{PI},r}$, with the dot connecting three Green's function lines, and the companion equation $F_3 = \Gamma_{1\mathrm{PI},r} + (F_2 G F_2)_r$ that adds the single one-particle-reducible diagram of the pph channel. The arrow in $\Gamma_{(1,\vec{2},3)\mathrm{PI},r}$ marks a vertex that is one- and three-particle irreducible in channel $r$ and two-particle irreducible on the right, a distinction needed because three-particle diagrams can be cut in non-unique ways. In the approximation, this irreducible input is replaced by $M = M_{12} + M_{23} + M_{13}$, where each $M_{ij}$ connects two of the three lines through a two-particle irreducible vertex ($\Gamma_{\mathrm{ph}}$ or $\Gamma_{\mathrm{pp}}$ with the required $1/2$ factor), and the ladder is summed in closed form as a geometric series. Since the resulting ladder has only two of the six crossing symmetries of the full vertex, the final approximate vertex averages $L$ and the one-particle-reducible term over all nine pph channels with weight $1/9$.

What would settle it

Compute the fourth-order (two-vertex) ladder contributions in two different pph channels, for example channels 41 and 25, and check whether any diagram appears in both; the paper's Section VC conjecture says high-order ladder terms are exclusive to one channel, so finding overlap would show that the $1/9$ averaging suppresses high orders by an uncontrolled factor. A second check is to repeat the exact-diagonalization-versus-ladder comparison at $U=0.5$ with a different exact solver, such as continuous-time quantum Monte Carlo, and see whether the factor-of-two-to-ten discrepancy persists; if it disappears, the claim that the approximation is only qualitatively correct at weak coupling would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the full three-particle vertex $F_3$ obeys an exact ladder structure: $\Gamma_{1\mathrm{PI},r} = \Gamma_{(1,\vec{2},3)\mathrm{PI},r} + \Gamma_{(1,\vec{2},3)\mathrm{PI},r} \cdot \Gamma_{1\mathrm{PI},r}$ with $F_3 = \Gamma_{1\mathrm{PI},r} + (F_2 G F_2)_r$, where $r$ labels one of ten channels and $(F_2 G F_2)_r$ is the unique one-particle-reducible diagram of that pph channel. If the vertex $\Gamma_{(1,\vec{2},3)\mathrm{PI},r}$ that is 1PI and 3PI in channel $r$ and 2PI on the right were known, iterating the first equation and adding the second term would produce the exact full three-particle vertex. The paper then implements the simplest available replacement — $\Gamma_{(1,\vec{2},3)\mathrm{PI},r}$ approximated by $M_{12} + M_{23} + M_{13}$, built from irreducible two-particle vertices — and evaluates the resulting geometric ladder for the Anderson impurity model. For the vertex contribution to the second-order spin response $\chi_{\mathrm{vertex}}^{(2)}$, the ladder is only qualitatively correct for weak coupling and quantitatively off by factors of two to ten, with sign errors in some spin components at $U = 2$ and above.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the unknown irreducible three-particle vertex can be replaced by the sum of three two-particle irreducible vertices, $M_{12} + M_{23} + M_{13}$, and that averaging the resulting ladder over the nine pph channels with a $1/9$ factor restores the missing crossing symmetries without suppressing higher-order contributions in an uncontrolled way; the paper itself flags the second part as a conjecture in Section VC.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the irreducible three-particle vertex in any one of the ten channels were supplied exactly, Eqs. (32) and (33) would yield the exact full three-particle vertex, including the one-particle-reducible diagrams that are absent from ppp-type ladders.
  • The $1/9$ channel average makes the approximate vertex correct through second order in the two-particle vertex, but it cannot control the higher-order errors that cause the documented quantitative failures.
  • For the tested Anderson impurity model at $\beta = 10$, the ladder is qualitatively reliable only up to $U \approx 1$ for the $\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow$ spin component and $U \approx 3$ for $\uparrow\uparrow\downarrow$, with quantitative errors of factors of two to ten.
  • At stronger coupling the approximate vertex contribution can have the wrong sign, so extracting nonlinear response coefficients from this two-particle-vertex-only ladder would not be reliable.
  • The ppp channel requires no separate numerical treatment because its ladder diagrams are particle-hole-symmetry related to pph ladders.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step, not taken in the paper, is to feed a numerically estimated local three-particle irreducible vertex into the exact ladder equations instead of the two-particle-vertex sum; the paper's exact equations would then become a systematic route to three-particle vertices rather than a single uncontrolled approximation.
  • The sign change between $U=1$ and $U=2$ in the $\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow$ component suggests that the $1/9$ averaging changes the topology of the result, not just its magnitude; tracking individual channel contributions at intermediate $U$ could show whether one channel dominates and whether the averaging hides a simpler structure.
  • The paper's conjecture that high-order ladder terms are exclusive to one channel is directly testable with the same code: comparing fourth-order contributions in channels 41 and 25 would reveal whether the $1/9$ factor suppresses them by an uncontrolled amount.
  • For physical second-order responses such as $\chi_{nnn}$, $\chi_{nzz}$, and $\chi_{xyz}$, which are linear combinations of the raw spin components, the factor-of-two-to-ten errors could partially cancel or accumulate; the paper deliberately avoids this masking, but practical calculations will need to test the combined quantities directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives a set of three-particle ladder equations, generalizing the two-particle Bethe-Salpeter equations to ten three-particle channels. The central formal statement is that, if the three-particle vertex irreducible in one of the ten channels, Γ(1,⃗2,3)PI,r, is known, then Eqs. (32) and (33) yield the exact three-particle vertex, provided the one-particle-reducible diagram (F2GF2)r is added in the pph channels. Since Γ(1,⃗2,3)PI,r is not available, the authors approximate it by the sum of two-particle irreducible vertices M12+M23+M13, build the resulting ladder, and restore crossing symmetries approximately by averaging over all nine pph channels with a factor 1/9, Eq. (53). The approximation is then used to compute the vertex contribution to the second-order spin response function of an Anderson impurity model at DMFT self-consistency, and the results are compared with exact diagonalization for U = 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4. The authors conclude that the approximation is only qualitatively correct for weak U and quantitatively off by factors of two to ten, with wrong signs for some components at larger U.

Significance. If the formal ladder equations are correct, they constitute a useful framework for organizing three-particle diagrammatics, and the careful treatment of one-, two-, and three-particle reducibility, including the one-particle-reducible diagram and the double-counting issues, is a genuine contribution. The paper also ships an open-source implementation and does not fit any target quantity: the input two-particle vertices are obtained independently from parquet/QMC and the comparison is against an ED solution of the same impurity model. The honest negative conclusion about the M12+M23+M13 approximation is valuable. However, the numerical benchmark—which is the main evidence for that negative conclusion—is conditional on an uncontrolled 1/9 channel average and on the use of a six-site ED reference without demonstrated convergence for three-particle quantities. The formal part is strong; the quantitative part needs substantial additional support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VC and Eq. (53)] The average over the nine pph channels with prefactor 1/9 is justified in the manuscript only for second-order diagrams. For all higher orders, the argument relies on the conjecture, stated in Section VC, that ladder terms of sufficiently high order are exclusive to a single channel. This conjecture is not tested anywhere in the manuscript. Since every data point in Figs. 21 and 22 is obtained through this averaging, the observed factor-of-two-to-ten discrepancies and the sign changes at U = 2 and U = 3 cannot be unambiguously attributed to the M12+M23+M13 replacement; they could partly be artifacts of the symmetrization procedure. I recommend a concrete check: for a fixed low-order set of ladder diagrams, explicitly enumerate the pph channels in which each topology appears and verify the 1/9 counting, or compare the averaged result with an alternative symmetrization that respects all six crossing symmetries at higher orders.
  2. [Section VA and Figs. 21–22] The reference solution is an exact-diagonalization calculation with six bath sites obtained by pole fitting, while the ladder is evaluated using two-particle vertices from parquet and continuous-time QMC calculations for the continuous-bath AIM under DMFT self-consistency. The manuscript does not demonstrate that the six-site bath is converged for three-particle quantities such as χ(2)_vertex. If the six-site bath is not converged, part of the discrepancy between the ladder and the ED reference could come from the reference itself. At minimum, the authors should provide a convergence check (e.g., comparing ED one- and two-particle vertices to the parquet/QMC input for the same parameters, or increasing the number of bath sites), and error bars in Figs. 21 and 22.
  3. [Section VB and Fig. 20] The eigenvalue analysis in Fig. 20 shows that the largest eigenvalue of M is close to unity at U = 3 and exceeds unity at U = 4, so the geometric series defining the ladder does not converge in the ordinary sense for these interaction strengths. The manuscript nevertheless uses the closed-form expression for the geometric series. For a non-convergent series, this closed form is an analytic continuation whose connection to the original ladder diagrams is not established. Consequently, the U = 4 entries in Table IV and Fig. 22 may reflect the continuation procedure rather than the quality of the ladder approximation. This should be stated explicitly, or the U = 4 data should be excluded or reinterpreted.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase "even than only qualitatively" should be "even then only qualitatively".
  2. [Section IVA] The sentence "we express the three-particle vertex as a a geometric ladder series" contains a duplicated article "a".
  3. [Section IVC, after Eq. (55)] The sentence "the imaginary part of χvertex,↑↑↑ and χvertex,↑↑↓ must vanish" should use the plural "imaginary parts".
  4. [Figs. 21 and 22] The ED and ladder panels use different color scales, which makes the factor-of-two-to-ten discrepancy difficult to judge by eye; using a common color scale or explicitly plotting the ratio would improve comparability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ladder equations are exact by construction but are not used to claim predictive power, and the approximate solution is benchmarked against an independent exact-diagonalization result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Equations (32) and (33) are identities that define the irreducible three-particle vertex; the paper explicitly states that this building block is unknown and then replaces it with M12+M23+M13 as an approximation. The numerical comparison in Figs. 21 and 22 compares the resulting ladder to an exact-diagonalization solution of the same impurity model, so no target quantity is fitted and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The 1/9 channel average in Eq. (53) is a stated conjecture about high-order diagram channel exclusivity; being uncontrolled is a correctness and robustness concern, not circularity. Citations to Ref. [18] by overlapping authors supply frequency notations and the decomposition of the nonlinear response; these are definitions and bookkeeping, not load-bearing evidence for the ladder equations or for the numerical discrepancy. The paper's own conclusion that the approximation is only qualitatively correct for weak U is a benchmarked negative result, not a result forced by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numbers are fitted to the target chi_(2)_vertex; the input two-particle vertices are computed by parquet and CT-QMC methods, and the ED reference is independent. The load-bearing assumptions are structural: quartic interaction, particle-number conservation, the two-particle-vertex ansatz for the 3PI vertex, and the 1/9 channel average. The latter two are explicitly flagged by the authors as uncontrolled at stronger coupling.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Wick's theorem and the standard imaginary-time Feynman diagram expansion apply.
    Used throughout Sections II and III to define G2, G3, and the vertex decompositions in Eqs. (9), (21), (24), and (25).
  • domain assumption The only interaction is a local two-particle (quartic) interaction.
    Section II A Hamiltonian Eq. (1) and Section IV: all three-particle diagrams are built from two-particle vertices; no three-body bare interaction is present.
  • domain assumption Particle number is conserved, so a three-particle vertex cannot be one-particle reducible in the ppp channel.
    Section IV A and Supplemental Material SI; used to count nine pph 1PR channels and to exclude the ppp one.
  • ad hoc to paper The unknown three-particle irreducible vertex can be approximated by the sum M12 + M23 + M13 of two-particle irreducible vertices.
    Section IV B, Eqs. (40) and (48)-(50); this is the central uncontrolled approximation that limits the numerical benchmark.
  • ad hoc to paper Averaging ladders over the nine pph channels with prefactor 1/9 restores crossing symmetries without systematically corrupting higher orders.
    Eq. (53) and Section V C; relies on the stated conjecture that high-order diagrams are exclusive to one channel.
  • domain assumption ED with six bath sites obtained by pole fitting represents the exact AIM solution for the comparison.
    Section V A; the 'exact' solution is exact only within the truncated six-site representation, not for the continuum DMFT bath.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ladder equation for the three-particle vertex and its approximate solution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P4ZMOD36

@misc{pith2026241201848,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ladder equation for the three-particle vertex and its approximate solution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P4ZMOD36}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01848}
}
read the original abstract

We generalize the three two-particle Bethe-Salpeter equations to ten three-particle ladders. These equations are exact and yield the exact three-particle vertex, if we knew the three-particle vertex irreducible in one of the ten channels. However, as we do not have this three-particle irreducible vertex at hand, we approximate this building block for the ladder by the sum of two-particle irreducible vertices each connecting two fermionic lines. The comparison to the exact solution shows that this approximation is only good for rather weak interactions and even than only qualitatively - at least for the non-linear response function analyzed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01848 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The same two-particle Green’s function in the three frequency notations form Table [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Decomposition of the two-particle Green’s function into two disconnected terms and a connected term, introducing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Diagrammatic representation of the three-particle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Diagrammatic representation of four of the ten [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Diagrammatic representation of the decomposition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The only diagram one-particle reducible (1PR) in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Definition of Ri and Li. Again, the upper vertices are upside down because of how we defined them in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Diagrammatic representation of M and P for ppp ladders (top) and pph ladders (bottom). The pp vertex is mirrored because the frequencies of the incoming and outgoing lines are opposite to the definition in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Visual proof that a diagram with a two-particle interaction cannot be symmetric along a diagonal. The first diagram [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Frequency and spin notation for the three-particle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The pph ladder in the 25 channel, obtained from the one in the 41 channel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_16.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Diagrammatic representation of Eqs. (48) to (50), the definitions of the three components of M imaginary part of χvertex, ↑↑↑ and χvertex, ↑↑↓ must vanish. This can easily be shown when remembering that com￾plex conjugation inverts the order of spins and fermionic fre…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Diagrammatic representation of Eq. (61). The complex conjugation mirrors the positions of the vertices and frequencies along the vertical axis. The frequencies are also negated. The corresponding Feynman diagrams are found in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Largest absolute eigenvalues of M’s plotted over U. The fact that for all spin components, the qualitatively good-looking results are consistently too small is no sur￾prise. After all, we average over all nine pph channels instead of summing. Of course, as we have sho…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Comparison of spin component ↑↑↑ and ↑↑↓ of χ (2) ω1ω2 vertex between ED and the approximate ladder for different values of the interaction U (here and in the following figures inverse temperature is β = 10). The labels mi are the indices of the bosonic frequencies ωi…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Comparison of the real and imaginary parts of spin component [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Comparison of the contributions of the approximate ladder [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_23.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    physical

    χ(2) vertex: exact diagonalization vs approximate ladder Next, we compare the ladder approximation to the ED for three-particle vertex contributions to the second-order response functions. Similarly as in [18]: First one-, two-, and three-particle correlators are computed with the ED code [42]. Then the disconnected parts are subtracted to obtain the full...

    work page

  2. [2]

    A. A. Abrikosov, L. P. Gorkov, and I. E. Dzyaloshinski, Methods of Quantum Field Theory in Statistical Physics (Dover, New York, 1975)

    1975

  3. [3]

    Metzner and D

    W. Metzner and D. Vollhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.62, 324 (1989)

    1989

  4. [4]

    Georges and G

    A. Georges and G. Kotliar, Phys. Rev. B45, 6479 (1992). 9 More precisely, we would also need the two-particle vertex for the 1PR diagrams

    work page 1992

  5. [5]

    Georges, G

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

    1996

  6. [6]

    Pavarini, E

    E. Pavarini, E. Koch, D. Vollhardt, and A. Lichtenstein, DMFT at 25: Infinite Dimensions, Reihe Modeling and Simulation 4, Vol. 4 (Forschungszentrum Jülich Zentral- bibliothek, Verlag (Jülich), Jülich, 2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Toschi, A

    A. Toschi, A. A. Katanin, and K. Held, Phys Rev. B75, 045118 (2007)

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    A. N. Rubtsov, M. I. Katsnelson, and A. I. Lichtenstein, Phys. Rev. B77, 033101 (2008). 20

    work page 2008

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    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

  2. [10]

    Ribic, G

    T. Ribic, G. Rohringer, and K. Held, Phys. Rev. B95, 155130 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Ribic, P

    T. Ribic, P. Gunacker, S. Iskakov, M. Wallerberger, G. Rohringer, A. N. Rubtsov, E. Gull, and K. Held, Phys. Rev. B96, 235127 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Hafermann, G

    H. Hafermann, G. Li, A. N. Rubtsov, M. I. Katsnelson, A. I. Lichtenstein, and H. Monien, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 206401 (2009)

    2009

  5. [13]

    Metzner, M

    W. Metzner, M. Salmhofer, C. Honerkamp, V. Meden, and K. Schönhammer, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 299 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    Jorio, R

    A. Jorio, R. Saito, G. Dresselhaus, and M. S. Dresselhaus, Quantum description of raman scattering, inRaman Spec- troscopy in Graphene Related Systems(Wiley-Blackwell,

  7. [15]

    Rostami, M

    H. Rostami, M. I. Katsnelson, and M. Polini, Phys. Rev. B 95, 035416 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Kubo, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan12, 570 (1957)

    R. Kubo, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan12, 570 (1957)

    1957

  9. [17]

    Michishita and R

    Y. Michishita and R. Peters, Phys. Rev. B103, 195133 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Rostami, M

    H. Rostami, M. I. Katsnelson, G. Vignale, and M. Polini, Annals of Physics431, 168523 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    G. Riva, T. Audinet, M. Vladaj, P. Romaniello, and J. A. Berger, SciPost Phys.12, 093 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Kappl, F

    P. Kappl, F. Krien, C. Watzenböck, and K. Held, Phys. Rev. B107, 205108 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    M. A. Lampert, Phys. Rev. Lett.1, 450 (1958)

    1958

  14. [22]

    G. Riva, P. Romaniello, and J. A. Berger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 216401 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    L. D. Faddeev, Sov. Phys. JETP12, 1014 (1961)

    1961

  16. [24]

    Combescot, O

    M. Combescot, O. Betbeder-Matibet, and F. Dubin, Eur. Phys. J. B42, 63 (2004)

    2004

  17. [25]

    Barbieri and W

    C. Barbieri and W. H. Dickhoff, Phys. Rev. C63, 034313 (2001)

    2001

  18. [26]

    Sanchis-Alepuz, R

    H. Sanchis-Alepuz, R. Williams, and R. Alkofer, Phys. Rev. D87, 096015 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    Kondo, Progress of Theoretical Physics32, 37 (1964)

    J. Kondo, Progress of Theoretical Physics32, 37 (1964)

    1964

  20. [28]

    Anderson, Phys

    P. Anderson, Phys. Rev.124, 41 (1961)

    1961

  21. [29]

    Hewson,The Kondo Problem to Heavy Fermions(Cam- bridge University Press, 1993)

    A. Hewson,The Kondo Problem to Heavy Fermions(Cam- bridge University Press, 1993)

    1993

  22. [30]

    J. R. Schrieffer and P. A. Wolff, Phys. Rev.149, 491 (1966)

    1966

  23. [31]

    N. E. Bickers and D. J. Scalapino, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) 193, 206 (1989)

    1989

  24. [32]

    Coleman,Introduction to Many-Body Physics(Cam- bridge University Press, 2015)

    P. Coleman,Introduction to Many-Body Physics(Cam- bridge University Press, 2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    N. E. Bickers, Self-consistent many-body theory for condensed matter systems, inTheoretical Methods for Strongly Correlated Electrons, edited by D. Sénéchal, A.- M. Tremblay, and C. Bourbonnais (Springer New York, New York, NY, 2004) pp. 237–296

    2004

  26. [34]

    Rohringer, A

    G. Rohringer, A. Valli, and A. Toschi, Phys. Rev. B86, 125114 (2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

    The Supplemental Material contains a more detailed dis- cussion of three-particle irreducibilities

  28. [36]

    E. E. Salpeter and H. A. Bethe, Phys. Rev.84, 1232 (1951)

    1951

  29. [37]

    Wallerberger, A

    M. Wallerberger, A. Hausoel, P. Gunacker, A. Kowal- ski, N. Parragh, F. Goth, K. Held, and G. Sangiovanni, Computer Physics Communications235, 388 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Rohringer,New routes towards a theoretical treatment of nonlocal electronic correlations, Ph.D

    G. Rohringer,New routes towards a theoretical treatment of nonlocal electronic correlations, Ph.D. thesis, Vienna University of Technology (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    Kaufmann, P

    J. Kaufmann, P. Gunacker, A. Kowalski, G. Sangiovanni, and K. Held, Phys. Rev. B100, 075119 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Gunacker, M

    P. Gunacker, M. Wallerberger, E. Gull, A. Hausoel, G. Sangiovanni, and K. Held, Phys. Rev. B92, 155102 (2015)

    2015

  33. [41]

    Krien, A

    F. Krien, A. Kauch, and K. Held, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 013149 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Krien and A

    F. Krien and A. Kauch, Eur. Phys. J. B95, 69 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Shinaoka and Y

    H. Shinaoka and Y. Nagai, Phys. Rev. B103, 045120 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Wallerberger and K

    M. Wallerberger and K. Held, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 033238 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    shared cut

    S.-S. B. Lee, F. B. Kugler, and J. von Delft, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041007 (2021). 1 Supplemental Material: Ladder equation for the three-particle vertex and its approximate solution Patrick Kappl, Tin Ribic, Anna Kauch, Karsten Held Institute of Solid State Physics, TU Wien, 1040 ...

    2021

  38. [46]

    F. B. Kugler, S.-S. B. Lee, and J. von Delft, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041006 (2021)

    2021

  39. [2011]

    Chap. 5, pp. 103–119

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.