Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

The paper argues that the large effective nearest-neighbor attraction (V≈−t) recently inferred from RIXS data on cuprate ladders is not uniquely required: a bare t–J ladder with intrinsic rung pairing reproduces the same dynamical spin stru

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Bare t-J models reproduce the experimentally observed ladder DSF without an explicit attraction, and phonon downfolding yields attraction while three-band downfolding mostly does not.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection Shows bare t-J ladders reproduce the RIXS data that motivated attractive Hubbard terms, with a useful qualitative phonon-vs-three-band contrast; the quantitative reconstructed parameters are the weak link. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.06947 v1 pith:V3HTTMGY submitted 2025-09-08 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.supr-con

Towards effective models for low-dimensional cuprates: From ground state Hamiltonian reconstruction to spectral functions

Hannah Lange , Tizian Blatz , Ulrich Schollw\"ock , Sebastian Paeckel , Annabelle Bohrdt This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.supr-con PACS 71.10.Fd74.72.-h
keywords cuprate ladderst-J modelFermi-Hubbard modeldynamical spin structure factorRIXSground-state Hamiltonian reconstructionelectron-phonon couplingthree-band Emery model
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 argues that the large effective nearest-neighbor attraction (V≈−t) recently invoked to explain RIXS spectra of cuprate ladders is not forced by the data. A t–J ladder with no attraction at all has strongly bound rung pairs, and its dynamical spin structure factor matches the experiment just as well as the Fermi-Hubbard model with V=−t does. The authors then reconstruct effective single-band Hamiltonians from two microscopic parents: an electron–phonon Hubbard-Holstein model produces a genuine but modest attraction, while a three-band Emery downfolding produces essentially none, instead yielding a strong density-assisted hopping term. If the paper is right, the minimal-model question for cuprates is underdetermined by current magnetic-spectrum data, and the origin of pairing (phononic versus purely magnetic) cannot be settled by these RIXS features alone.

Core claim

We show that both the Fermi-Hubbard model with nearest-neighbor attraction (FH+V) and the t–J model, with or without attraction, are suitable effective single-band descriptions of cuprate ladders: the bare t–J ladder's intrinsic rung-pairing gives a binding energy (E_B/t≈0.17) close to that of FH+V (≈0.23), and both produce the experimentally observed suppression of spin-flip excitations. Reconstructing effective couplings from ground states shows that phonons can induce attraction—V/t≈−0.64 in the Fermi-Hubbard model and −0.44 in the t–J model after infinite-size extrapolation—whereas reconstruction from the three-band model yields essentially no density-density attraction (V/t≈0.07 in FH,

What carries the argument

Ground-state Hamiltonian reconstruction: given the ground state of a parent model (Hubbard-Holstein or three-band Emery), one builds a correlation matrix M_ij = ½⟨{L_i, L_j}⟩ − ⟨L_i⟩⟨L_j⟩ over a chosen basis of effective operators; the eigenvector with smallest eigenvalue gives the best effective single-band Hamiltonian, and the eigenvalue measures the reconstruction error. The load-bearing physical mechanism is the intrinsic rung-pairing of the t–J ladder, which binds holes on opposite legs even at V=0 and suppresses spin-flip weight in the dynamical spin structure factor. For the three-band parent, Wannier downfolding centered on copper sites provides the single-particle basis before the r

Load-bearing premise

The couplings reconstructed at one doping (16.7% holes) and at finite chain lengths are assumed to transfer unchanged to other dopings and to the infinite chain, even though the fitted attraction changes by roughly a factor of two across the accessible system sizes.

What would settle it

Take the ladder DSF at δ=6% using the thermodynamic-limit t–J parameters (J/t≈0.5, no V) on a long ladder and compare the spin-flip weight below the two-triplon continuum to the RIXS data of [8]; because the fitted V drifts with system size, a size-converged bare t–J calculation either reproduces the suppression (supporting the paper) or does not (falsifying it).

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • RIXS spin-flip suppression in ladders is not decisive evidence for a phonon-induced V≈−t; the bare t–J ladder already produces comparable suppression.
  • Phonon-induced attraction is real but smaller than previously quoted: extrapolated |V|≈0.64t in the Fermi-Hubbard model and 0.44t in the t–J model, not the fitted 1.25t.
  • Three-band-derived single-band models should carry a sizeable density-assisted hopping term (t_n/t≈0.65) rather than a density-density attraction.
  • In two-dimensional cylinders, FH+V and bare t–J both remove the stripe signal seen in the bare Fermi-Hubbard model, with comparable binding energies.
  • The effective single-band description is not unique: distinct parent models yield different additional terms yet similar spin spectra.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The quantitative results inherit a transferability assumption: parameters fitted from 16.7%-doped finite chains are used at 29% doping and extrapolated to infinite length, while the raw reconstructed V drifts from about −1.08t (L=12) to −0.64t (L=36), so the agreement at 29% is a weaker test than it appears.
  • A more discriminating observable would be charge dynamics—for example, two-hole binding energy as a function of doping, or the intensity of the holon-folding branch in ARPES—where FH+V and bare t–J are expected to differ more than in the spin channel.
  • The underdetermination result generalizes: any downfolding that matches only a low-energy spin observable will leave the pairing mechanism (phononic versus magnetic) ambiguous; tests should target observables that couple to pair size or density-assisted hopping.
  • One could test the three-band parent with larger U/Δ or with finite t_pp to see whether attraction emerges there as well; if it never does, the ladder RIXS fit would preferentially favor phonon-coupled or intrinsic-pairing models.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the ambiguity in choosing an effective single-band model for cuprates by comparing Fermi-Hubbard (FH) and t-J descriptions, with and without additional attractive density-density terms. The authors argue that recent RIXS evidence for a large nearest-neighbor attraction (V ≈ -t) in cuprate ladders is not unique: a bare t-J ladder, with its intrinsic rung pairing, reproduces the experimentally observed suppression of spin-flip excitations. They then use ground-state Hamiltonian reconstruction to downfold from two parent models—an extended Hubbard-Holstein model with electron-phonon coupling and a three-band Emery model—into single-band FH and t-J models. They report that phonons generate an effective nearest-neighbor attraction, while the three-band reconstruction yields essentially no attractive V (and a repulsive V in the FH case). The reconstructed models are validated by computing the dynamical spin structure factor (DSF) at 29% hole doping, where the t-J model with V/t=-0.44 gives a gap at k=π close to that of an FH model with V=-t. A brief two-dimensional extension compares hole and spin correlations on a cylinder for two holes. The central claim is that both extended single-band descriptions can capture the relevant spectral features, and that the microscopic origin of attraction depends on the parent model.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper makes an important contribution to the long-standing problem of choosing an effective single-band Hamiltonian for cuprates. The demonstration that the bare t-J ladder reproduces the RIXS spin-flip suppression weakens the uniqueness of the recently proposed large attractive V in ladder materials, and the systematic ground-state reconstruction from two different parent models provides a useful framework for identifying which additional terms are physically required. A notable strength is that the reconstructed models are tested against a dynamical observable, the DSF, that was not used in the reconstruction fit; this is an independent benchmark rather than a mere circular validation. The comparison with a Lang-Firsov transformation in the Supplemental Material also grounds the reconstruction in an analytically controlled limit for weak coupling. However, the quantitative support for the central claims is weakened by finite-size and doping-transferability issues discussed below; with those addressed, the qualitative sign difference between phonon-induced and three-band-induced V would still constitute a valuable result.

major comments (3)
  1. [SM A1a; Tables II/III; Fig. 3] The reconstructed single-band parameters are obtained from parent ground states at a fixed doping of 16.7% (2, 4, and 6 holes on L=12, 24, and 36 sites) and then used without further testing to compute DSFs at δ=29% in Fig. 3. The SM statement that 'the reconstructed parameters do not strongly depend on L' is contradicted by the tables: for the extended t-J reconstruction from Hubbard-Holstein, V/t = -1.08 (L=12), -0.78 (L=24), -0.64 (L=36), extrapolated to -0.44; for extended FH, V/t = -1.01, -0.85, -0.75, extrapolated to -0.64. This is a 30–40% drift over the available system sizes. No test of doping transferability is provided, so the close agreement between the t-J(V/t=-0.44) curve and the FH(V/t=-1.0) curve in Fig. 3b could be coincidental at the 29% doping where the comparison with RIXS is made. The authors should compute the DSF at the reconstruction doping, repeat the reconstruct
  2. [SM A1; Tables II–V] All reconstructed parameters are quoted as L→∞ extrapolations, but the extrapolation scheme, the fit function, and the uncertainty of the extrapolated values are not reported. The 'error' column in Tables II–V is the reconstruction variance ε of Eq. (A2), not a statistical error on the parameter estimate. Given the strong L-dependence of V documented in the tables, the extrapolated values such as V/t=-0.44 and V/t=-0.64 cannot be regarded as precise. The authors should describe the extrapolation procedure explicitly and report error bars on the extrapolated parameters, or at least display the raw finite-size values in the main text so the reader can judge the reliability of the extrapolation.
  3. [Ladder compounds; Fig. 1 and Appendix D] The central ladder comparison uses fixed model parameters: FH+V with U/t=8+V, t⊥/t=0.84, t_diag/t=-0.3, and bare t-J with J∥/t=0.5, J⊥/t=0.35, Jdiag=t_diag=0. The conclusion that the bare t-J model reproduces the RIXS suppression of spin-flip weight rests on this single parameter choice. Because the t-J model lives in a different Hilbert space (no charge fluctuations), the mapping between U and J is not unique, and a robustness scan over J∥, J⊥, and t3 would be needed to establish that the agreement is not accidental. The authors themselves note in Appendix D that for the doped FH ladder other parameter combinations may yield a smaller required attraction, underscoring the sensitivity of the effective pairing interpretation to Hamiltonian details.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table I caption] Typos in the caption: 'since tit is one order' should read 'since it is one order'; 'here , since' has a misplaced comma; 'For all parameters are extrapolated' is ungrammatical. The caption should also define what 'extended' means in the table columns.
  2. [Fig. 1a text] The text has a duplicated phrase: 'see see Fig. 1a(right)'. Also, the exact parameters used for the t-J DSF in Fig. 1a (e.g., whether t_diag=0 as in the binding-energy comparison or t_diag=-0.3 as for the FH+V model) are not specified in the main text; please state them explicitly.
  3. [Tables II–V] The column labeled 'error' should be renamed or described as the variance ε/t² from Eq. (A2), not a 'fitting error' or 'uncertainty'. The current labeling is misleading.
  4. [Two-dimensional systems; Fig. 4] The 2D extension is limited to two holes on a 12×6 cylinder. A brief comment on the possible finite-size effects and on the sensitivity of the stripe signal to cylinder width would help the reader calibrate the 2D conclusions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the DSF validation is an independent dynamical test at a different doping, not a refit of the reconstructed parameters.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs. The ladder comparison (Fig. 1) computes DSFs for bare FH, FH+V, bare t-J, and t-J+V and compares them directly to RIXS; the bare t-J result is not fitted to the RIXS data. The ground-state reconstruction (SM A) minimizes the variance of an effective Hamiltonian on a parent ground state; the resulting parameters are fits to ground-state correlations, but the subsequent DSF at δ=29% (Fig. 3) is a dynamical observable at a different doping that was not used in the reconstruction, so the validation is non-circular. The HH→V result is consistent with the Lang-Firsov transformation (SM B), but the paper presents this as a cross-check rather than a new derivation, and the three-band reconstruction yields a contrasting near-zero V, showing the outcome is not forced by the method. The only self-citation (Ref. [37]) is a technical doublon-correction scheme in the 2D section, not load-bearing. The manuscript does contain external-validity weaknesses: the SM statement that 'the reconstructed parameters do not strongly depend on L' is difficult to reconcile with the 30–40% drift in V/t in Tables II–III, and Appendix D concedes that other t_diag values might reduce the required attraction. These are correctness/robustness concerns about the doping-transfer and parameter-choice extrapolations, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a set of fitted or literature-assumed couplings: the FH+V ladder parameters from Ref [8], the t-J ladder parameters chosen by hand, the parent-model parameters for Hubbard-Holstein (from Ref [27]) and three-band (from Ref [6]), and the reconstructed couplings in Tables I-VI. The reconstruction itself is a variance-minimization fit to the parent ground state, so the couplings are fitted values, not ab initio predictions; the paper's independent content lies in using these fitted Hamiltonians to compute DSFs and correlations not used in the fit.

free parameters (9)
  • FH+V ladder parameters = V/t=-1.25, U/t=8+V=6.75, t_diag/t=-0.3, t_perp/t=0.84
    Taken from Ref [8], where they were fitted to match RIXS on Sr14Cu24O41; used for the ladder DSF comparison that motivates the paper.
  • t-J ladder parameters = J_parallel/t=0.5, J_perp/t=0.35, J_diag=0, t_diag=0
    Chosen as the standard t-J counterpart to the FH model; used in the central claim that bare t-J reproduces the RIXS DSF.
  • Reconstructed FH from Hubbard-Holstein (L to infinity) = U/t=8.05, V/t=-0.64, V'/t=-0.34
    Obtained by ground-state variance minimization; used to predict DSF and claim phonon-induced attraction.
  • Reconstructed t-J from Hubbard-Holstein (L to infinity) = J/t=0.52, t3/t=0.05, V/t=-0.44
    Same reconstruction; used to show t-J needs smaller attraction than FH.
  • Reconstructed FH from three-band (L to infinity) = U/t=11.41, t_n/t=0.65, V/t=0.07
    Wannier downfolding plus reconstruction; used to claim 3-band yields no attraction but strong density-assisted hopping.
  • Reconstructed t-J from three-band (L to infinity) = J/t=0.66, t3/t=0.08, V/t=-0.02
    Used to support the three-band conclusion of negligible attraction.
  • Reconstructed t-J from FH+V ladder = J_parallel/t=0.36-0.38, t3/t=0.08, J_perp/t=0.17-0.20, V/t=-0.98 to -1.07, t_diag/t=-0.13 to -0.15
    Reconstruction from the FH+V ladder ground state; confirms t-J+V DSF matches FH+V.
  • Hubbard-Holstein parent parameters = omega0/t=0.2, g0/t=0.3, g1/t=0.15
    Taken from Ref [27]; determine the reconstructed effective attraction V.
  • Three-band Emery parent parameters = tpp/tpd=0.5, Ud/tpd=6.0, Up/tpd=3.0, Delta_pd/tpd=3.5
    Taken from Ref [6]; determine the reconstructed V and t_n.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Single-band Hubbard and t-J models with nearest-neighbor density interactions span the relevant effective-model space
    The paper restricts its search for effective Hamiltonians to these operator families (Eqs. (1)-(3), (6)); any physics outside this space cannot be captured.
  • standard math The Qi-Ranard ground-state reconstruction yields a unique effective Hamiltonian when the lowest eigenvalue of the correlation matrix is zero and the second is positive
    Invoked in SM A1; the paper notes lambda2>0 in practice, so exact recovery is not possible and lambda1 measures reconstruction error.
  • domain assumption Wannier downfolding following Jiang et al. [6] gives a valid single-band representation of the three-band model
    Used in SM A2 to construct the single-particle basis and read off Hamiltonian terms.
  • domain assumption The parent model parameters are appropriate for the cuprate compounds studied
    Taken from Refs [27] and [6]; the resulting reconstructions and DSF predictions depend directly on these choices.
  • domain assumption Reconstructed couplings are transferable from 16.7% doping to 29% doping
    Parameters fitted at delta=16.7% (2-6 holes on L=12-36) are used for DSF at delta=29% in Fig. 3; the paper does not test doping dependence.
  • domain assumption Zero-temperature DSF is comparable to 260 K RIXS data
    Fig. 1 compares T=0 DMRG DSF to RIXS at 260 K without thermal effects; this is standard but unstated.
  • domain assumption t-J ladder parameters J_parallel/t=0.5, J_perp/t=0.35 represent the natural t-J description of the copper-oxide ladder
    Chosen from the literature on cuprate ladders; the central ladder claim depends on this choice.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards effective models for low-dimensional cuprates: From ground state Hamiltonian reconstruction to spectral functions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V3HTTMGY

@misc{pith2026250906947,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards effective models for low-dimensional cuprates: From ground state Hamiltonian reconstruction to spectral functions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V3HTTMGY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06947}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Understanding which minimal effective model captures the essential physics of cuprates is a key step towards unraveling the mechanism behind high-$T_c$ superconductivity. Recent measurements of the dynamical spin structure factor (DSF) in cuprate ladder compounds have indicated the presence of a large effective attraction in the single-band Hubbard model, possibly mediated by phonons. Here, we demonstrate that similar DSF features can also be captured by $t$-$J$ descriptions with or even without any attractive term. Motivated by this observation, we systematically investigate the strength and origin of different contributions to the single-band Hamiltonians by downfolding either from the three-band Emery model or the electron-phonon coupled Hubbard-Holstein model. For one-dimensional systems, we find that the extended versions of both single-band descriptions can reproduce the experimentally observed DSF signatures. Finally, we extend our analysis to two dimensions by comparing two-hole correlation functions for the different single-band models. Our results provide new insights into the long-standing question of which single-band Hamiltonian can capture the essential physics of cuprates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06947 by Annabelle Bohrdt, Hannah Lange, Sebastian Paeckel, Tizian Blatz, Ulrich Schollw\"ock.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The effective model for cuprate ladders. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Ground state reconstruction schemes: We start [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Dynamical spin structure factor (DSF) for 1D com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Connected charge (top) and staggered spin (bot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Averaged (left) and locally resolved (right) observables for the Hubbard-Holstein model (HH) and the reconstructed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of reconstructed parameters from our reconstruction scheme (markers) and the Lang-Firsov transforma [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Theoretical dynamical spin structure factor for ladders of length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Theoretical dynamical spin structure factor for ladders of length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Single-particle spectra for the Fermi-Hubbard model (left) and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Realizing multi-orbital Emery models with ultracold atoms

    cond-mat.quant-gas 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    An optical superlattice architecture is proposed to implement the three-band Emery model with ultracold fermions, allowing simulation of cuprate-like band structure, interactions, and thermodynamics.

  2. Hubbard vs. Emery model: spectra, transport and relevance for cuprates

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Hubbard and Emery models produce similar physics for cuprates but differ quantitatively in spectra, transport, and doping-dependent features, with good experimental agreement when using stronger coupling in the Hubbard model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    J. G. Bednorz and K. A. Müller, Zeitschrift für Physik B Condensed Matter64, 189 (1986)

    work page 1986

  2. [2]

    V. J. Emery, Phys. Rev. Lett.58, 2794 (1987). 6

    work page 1987

  3. [3]

    Weber, K

    C. Weber, K. Haule, and G. Kotliar, Phys. Rev. B82, 125107 (2010)

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Weber, C

    C. Weber, C. Yee, K. Haule, and G. Kotliar, Europhysics Letters100, 37001 (2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Georges, G

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

    1996

  6. [6]

    Jiang, D

    S. Jiang, D. J. Scalapino, and S. R. White, Phys. Rev. B108, L161111 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    Xu, C.-M

    H. Xu, C.-M. Chung, M. Qin, U. Schollwöck, S. R. White, and S. Zhang, Science384, eadh7691 (2024), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adh7691

    doi:10.1126/science.adh7691 2024

  8. [8]

    Padma, J

    H. Padma, J. Thomas, S. F. TenHuisen, W. He, Z. Guan, J. Li, B. Lee, Y. Wang, S. H. Lee, Z. Mao, H. Jang, V. Bisogni, J. Pelliciari, M. P. Dean, S. Johnston, and M. Mitrano, Physical Review X15(2025), 10.1103/phys- revx.15.021049

    doi:10.1103/phys- 2025

  9. [9]

    Cooper-pair localization in the magnetic dynamics of a cuprate ladder,

    A. Scheie, P. Laurell, J. Thomas, V. Sharma, A. I. Kolesnikov, G. E. Granroth, Q. Zhang, B. Lake, M. M. Jr., R. I. Bewley, R. S. Eccleston, J. Akimitsu, E. Dagotto, C. D. Batista, G. Alvarez, S. Johnston, and D. A. Tennant, “Cooper-pair localization in the magnetic dynamics of a cuprate ladder,” (2025), arXiv:2501.10296 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    J. Li, D. Jost, T. Tang, R. Wang, Y. Zhong, Z. Chen, M. Garcia-Fernandez, J. Pelliciari, V. Bisogni, B. Moritz, K. Zhou, Y. Wang, T. P. Devereaux, W.-S. Lee, and Z.- X. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 146501 (2025)

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    F. C. Zhang and T. M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B37, 3759 (1988)

    work page 1988

  12. [12]

    C. Ye, P. Cai, R. Yu, X. Zhou, W. Ruan, Q. Liu, C. Jin, and Y. Wang, Nature Communications4, 1365 (2013)

    work page 2013

  13. [13]

    Visualizing the zhang-rice singlet,molecularorbitalsandpairformationincuprate,

    S. Ye, J. Zhao, Z. Yao, S. Chen, Z. Dong, X. Li, L. Shi, Q. Liu, C. Jin, and Y. Wang, “Visualizing the zhang-rice singlet,molecularorbitalsandpairformationincuprate,” (2023), arXiv:2309.09260 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    L. H. Tjeng, B. Sinkovic, N. B. Brookes, J. B. Goedkoop, R. Hesper, E. Pellegrin, F. M. F. de Groot, S. Altieri, S. L. Hulbert, E. Shekel, and G. A. Sawatzky, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 1126 (1997)

    work page 1997

  15. [15]

    Harada, K

    Y. Harada, K. Okada, R. Eguchi, A. Kotani, H. Tak- agi, T. Takeuchi, and S. Shin, Phys. Rev. B66, 165104 (2002)

    work page 2002

  16. [16]

    S. Li, A. Nocera, U. Kumar, and S. Johnston, Commu- nications Physics4, 217 (2021)

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    Schüttler and A

    H.-B. Schüttler and A. J. Fedro, Phys. Rev. B45, 7588 (1992)

    work page 1992

  18. [18]

    J. H. Jefferson, H. Eskes, and L. F. Feiner, Phys. Rev. B45, 7959 (1992)

    work page 1992

  19. [19]

    V. I. Belinicher and A. L. Chernyshev, Phys. Rev. B47, 390 (1993)

    work page 1993

  20. [20]

    V. I. Belinicher, A. L. Chernyshev, and L. V. Popovich, Phys. Rev. B50, 13768 (1994)

    work page 1994

  21. [21]

    L. F. Feiner, J. H. Jefferson, and R. Raimondi, Phys. Rev. B53, 8751 (1996)

    work page 1996

  22. [22]

    A. E. Feiguin, C. Helman, and A. A. Aligia, Phys. Rev. B108, 075125 (2023)

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Tohyama, H

    T. Tohyama, H. Maeda, K. Tsutsui, S. Sota, and S. Yunoki, Phys. Rev. B110, 125106 (2024)

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    T. Tang, D. Jost, B. Moritz, and T. P. Devereaux, Phys. Rev. B110, 165118 (2024)

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Z. Shen, J. Liu, H.-X. Wang, and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. Res.6, L032068 (2024)

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Z. Chen, Y. Wang, S. N. Rebec, T. Jia, M. Hashimoto, D. Lu, B. Moritz, R. G. Moore, T. P. Dev- ereaux, and Z.-X. Shen, Science373, 1235 (2021), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.abf5174

    doi:10.1126/science.abf5174 2021

  27. [27]

    Y. Wang, Z. Chen, T. Shi, B. Moritz, Z.-X. Shen, and T. P. Devereaux, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 197003 (2021)

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    Barnes, E

    T. Barnes, E. Dagotto, J. Riera, and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. B47, 3196 (1993)

    work page 1993

  29. [29]

    Z. Zhou, W. Ye, H.-G. Luo, J. Zhao, and J. Chang, Phys. Rev. B108, 195136 (2023)

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Tsunetsugu, M

    H. Tsunetsugu, M. Troyer, and T. M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B49, 16078 (1994)

    work page 1994

  31. [31]

    S. R. White and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. B55, 6504 (1997)

    work page 1997

  32. [32]

    Supplementary material,

    “Supplementary material,”

  33. [33]

    B. K. Chakraverty, J. Ranninger, and D. Feinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 433 (1998)

    work page 1998

  34. [34]

    Qi and D

    X.-L. Qi and D. Ranard, Quantum3, 159 (2019)

    2019

  35. [35]

    des Cloizeaux and J

    J. des Cloizeaux and J. J. Pearson, Phys. Rev.128, 2131 (1962)

    1962

  36. [36]

    T. Tang, B. Moritz, C. Peng, Z.-X. Shen, and T. P. Devereaux, Nature Communications14, 3129 (2023)

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    Blatz, U

    T. Blatz, U. Schollwöck, F. Grusdt, and A. Bohrdt, arxiv (2024), arXiv:2409.18131 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    R. C. Sawaya and S. R. White, Phys. Rev. B105, 045145 (2022)

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    TheSyTentoolkit,

    C. Hubig, F. Lachenmaier, N.-O. Linden, T. Reinhard, L. Stenzel, A. Swoboda, M. Grundner, S. Mardazad, and S. Paeckel, “TheSyTentoolkit,”

    work page

  40. [40]

    Hubig,Symmetry-Protected Tensor Networks, Ph.D

    C. Hubig,Symmetry-Protected Tensor Networks, Ph.D. thesis, LMU München (2017)

    work page 2017

  41. [41]

    Köhler, J

    T. Köhler, J. Stolpp, and S. Paeckel, SciPost Phys.10, 058 (2021)

    work page 2021

  42. [42]

    Singh, R

    S. Singh, R. N. C. Pfeifer, and G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. B 83, 115125 (2011)

    2011

  43. [43]

    3, 035 (2017)

    S.Paeckel, T.Köhler, andS.R.Manmana,SciPostPhys. 3, 035 (2017)

    work page 2017

  44. [44]

    Paeckel, T

    S. Paeckel, T. Köhler, A. Swoboda, S. R. Manmana, U. Schollwöck, and C. Hubig, Annals of Physics411, 167998 (2019)

    2019

  45. [45]

    Barthel, U

    T. Barthel, U. Schollwöck, and S. R. White, Phys. Rev. B79, 245101 (2009). 7 Supplemental Material Appendix A: Reconstruction Schemes for Effective Hamiltonians In this section, we describe the reconstruction procedures used to derive effective Hamiltonians from the Hub- bard–Holstein chains, three-band Hubbard models and the Fermi-Hubbard ladder consider...

    work page 2009

  46. [46]

    Reconstruction scheme To reconstruct effective single-band Fermi–Hubbard andt–JHamiltonians, we follow the ground-state reconstruc- tion approach outlined in Ref

    Reconstruction from the Hubbard–Holstein Model a. Reconstruction scheme To reconstruct effective single-band Fermi–Hubbard andt–JHamiltonians, we follow the ground-state reconstruc- tion approach outlined in Ref. [34]. This method involves reconstructing the effective Hamiltonian using measurements performed on the ground statev. Here, we closely follow t...

    work page

  47. [47]

    Reconstruction scheme In order to reconstruct a single-band model from the three-band Fermi-Hubbard model, we use the reconstruction schemes from Refs

    Reconstruction from the three-band model a. Reconstruction scheme In order to reconstruct a single-band model from the three-band Fermi-Hubbard model, we use the reconstruction schemes from Refs. [6, 38]. Here, we closely follow Ref. [6]. We start from the three-band model with two oxygenpx andp y sites and one copperdsite. The goal is to define Wannier f...

    work page

  48. [48]

    a NN hopping defined by tαβ X i Ai,αAi+1,β ˆc† i,σˆci+1,σ,(A9)

    work page

  49. [49]

    on-site repulsion defined by Uα X i A4 i,α ˆn† i,↑ ˆni↓,(A10) 10

    work page

  50. [50]

    a NN density assisted tunneling Uα X i Ai,αAi+1,αAi+1,αAi+1,αˆc† i,σˆci+1,σ ˆni+1,¯σ,(A11)

    work page

  51. [51]

    These terms are not considered in Ref

    a NN density interaction Uα X i Ai,αAi,αAi+1,αAi+1,α ˆni,σ ˆni+1,¯σ,(A12) and the terms with the same amplitude, corresponding to correlated hopping processesˆc† i,σˆci+1,σˆc† i,¯σˆci+1,¯σand ˆc† i,σˆci+1,σˆc† i+1,¯σˆci,¯σ. These terms are not considered in Ref. [6], but partly in Ref. [38]. In analogy to Ref. [38], in most cases we would like to obtain a...

    work page

  52. [52]

    using the Wannier downfolding in Sec

    We downfold from the three-band model to the single-band Fermi Hubbard model including terms 2a 1.-4. using the Wannier downfolding in Sec. A2. The respective parameters are labelled Jiang et al. [6] in the table

    work page

  53. [53]

    V /tor terms of same order

    As explained in the previous section, we would like to obtain an effective Hubbard model with a density interaction termVfrom the Hamiltonian including terms 1.-4.. However, none of 1.-4. gives rise to a full Vterm. Since 4. contains density interactions for opposite spins as well as correlated hopping terms that potentially give rise to pairing, we apply...

    work page

  54. [54]

    A1 to the extended Fermi-Hubbard ladder from Ref

    Reconstruction from the Fermi-Hubbard ladder To derive an effectivet-Jladder model from the extended Fermi-Hubbard ladder, we apply the reconstruction scheme from Sec. A1 to the extended Fermi-Hubbard ladder from Ref. [8], H=−t X i,l,σ ˆc† i,l,σ ˆci+1,l,σ +h.c. −t ⊥ X i,σ ˆc† i,1,σˆci,2,σ +h.c. −t diag X i,σ ˆc† i,1,σˆci+1,2,σ + ˆc† i,2,σˆci+1,1,σ +h.c. +...

    work page

  55. [55]

    In this regime, the reconstruction and Lang- Firsov effective model parameters agree well

    Note that we assumeteff = 1for the Lang-Firsov transformation results, which is only approximately valid for smallg0 ω , g1 ω ≪1. In this regime, the reconstruction and Lang- Firsov effective model parameters agree well. since[S, ˆbi] =λ 0[ˆni(ˆb† i − ˆbi), ˆbi] +λ 1[ˆni(ˆb† i±1 − ˆbi±1), ˆbi] =λ 0 ˆni[(ˆb† i − ˆbi), ˆbi] + ˆniλ1[(ˆb† i±1 − ˆbi±1), ˆbi] =...

    work page 2048

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.