The analytical description of a doped Mott insulator

Yu-Liang Liu

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 42 references

The analytical description of a doped Mott insulator

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 In a doped Mott insulator described by the Hubbard model, the electron spectral weight is proportional to the hole doping $\delta$, and spin-charge separation emerges at large on-site repulsion.

desk verdict A serious EOM calculation undermined by an uncontrolled closure and a spectral-weight sum-rule violation; the main result is slave-boson mean-field in new clothing. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04453 v1 pith:P7CNJX7B submitted 2019-08-13 cond-mat.str-el

Yu-Liang Liu This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.str-el

keywords HubbardmodelMottinsulatorspin-chargeseparationhierarchicalGreen'sfunctionsoftcut-offapproximationholedopingspectralweightcupratesuperconductors

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

This paper derives an analytic form for the one-particle Green's function of a doped Mott insulator described by the Hubbard model at large on-site repulsion $U$. The central result is that the lower-Hubbard-band spectral weight equals $2\pi\delta$ times a delta function, so the electron's spectral weight is proportional to the hole doping concentration $\delta$ and vanishes at half filling. The excitation spectrum splits into a term proportional to $\delta$, attributed to spin fluctuations, and a term proportional to $1-\delta$, attributed to coupling between charge and spin fluctuations; the paper reads this as spin-charge separation intrinsic to the doped Mott insulator. If correct, the result explains why only doped holes contribute to low-energy transport and why the Drude weight scales with $\delta$ in cuprate normal states.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the hierarchical Green's function approach, closed by the soft cut-off approximation. The hierarchy of equations of motion for the one-particle Green's function and its related multipoint correlation functions is truncated using the identity $(\hat{n}_i)^2+(\hat{s}_i)^2=2\hat{n}_i$ and the relation $n_2+s_2=2(1-\delta)$, with $n_2=s_2=1-\delta$ at large $U$ because double occupancy is completely suppressed. Dropping all third-level correlation functions and static quantities closes the equations, yielding analytic expressions for the charge- and spin-fluctuation correlation functions $F^{(n)}_{ijq}(\omega)$ and $F^{(s)}_{ijq}(\omega)$, which then produce the one-particle Green's function in Eq. (10).

What would settle it

Numerically solve the two-dimensional Hubbard model at $U\approx 8t_0$ for several small dopings and integrate the lower-Hubbard-band spectral function; if the integrated weight does not track $\delta$ in the low-energy window above the pseudogap, the central claim fails. A photoemission measurement of an underdoped cuprate comparing spectral weight with hole concentration would test the same scaling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the Hubbard model with on-site repulsion $U$ of order the bandwidth, in the low-energy window above the pseudogap and below the hopping scale, the paper claims the one-particle Green's function takes the form $G_k(\omega)=\delta/(\omega+\mu_{\mathrm{eff}}-\varepsilon^{\mathrm{eff}}_k)$, with $\varepsilon^{\mathrm{eff}}_k=(\delta+n_2 J_U/(2U))\varepsilon^0_k$ and $J_U=4t_0^2/U$. The numerator $\delta$ means the lower-Hubbard-band spectral function is $A^L_k(\omega)=2\pi\delta\,\delta(\omega+\mu_{\mathrm{eff}}-\varepsilon^{\mathrm{eff}}_k)$, so the spectral weight of electrons is proportional to hole doping and disappears at half filling. The effective hopping is renormalized by $\delta$, the spin-fluctuation contribution to the excitation spectrum is proportional to $\delta$, and the charge-spin coupling term is proportional to $1-\delta$, taking its maximum at undoping. The paper also derives that double occupancy is proportional to $\delta(1-\delta)t_0/U$, vanishing at both $\delta=0$ and $\delta=1$.

Load-bearing premise

The entire $\delta$ factor rests on treating $(\hat{n}_i)^2$ and $(\hat{s}_i)^2$ as their expectation values $n_2=s_2=1-\delta$ and dropping all correlations involving three electron operators; if double occupancy is not fully suppressed or those correlations matter, the proportionality to $\delta$ changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At half filling $\delta=0$ the lower Hubbard band contributes no spectral weight, so the system becomes a Mott insulator while the $1-\delta$ charge-spin coupling term reaches its maximum.
In an underdoped cuprate above the pseudogap, the low-energy spectral weight and the Drude weight should scale linearly with hole doping, meaning only doped holes participate in low-energy transport.
The effective hopping is multiplied by $\delta$, so spin fluctuations strongly suppress hole itinerancy and tend to localize electrons in the underdoped regime.
The same Green's-function form holds on any lattice, including a chain or a square lattice, and next-nearest-neighbor hopping $t'$ is renormalized to $\delta t'$.
Double occupancy is proportional to $\delta(1-\delta)t_0/U$, vanishing both at $\delta=0$ and at $\delta=1$.

Reading between the lines

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

The derivation suggests a sharp experimental signature the paper does not spell out: integrated spectral weight in the lower Hubbard band, measured above the pseudogap across different cuprate families, should fall on a single straight line in $\delta$ if the theory is right.
The closure at third level implies the first corrections to the $\delta$ factor are of order $t_0/U$; measuring deviations from linear-in-$\delta$ scaling at larger doping could locate the validity boundary of the approximation.
Spin-charge separation here is driven by large $U$ rather than by one-dimensional kinematics, so the theory predicts spinon-like continua in two dimensions near momenta such as $(\pi,0)$ and $(\pi/2,\pi/2)$, which could be tested by neutron scattering.
The same closure could be extended to include pseudogap order parameters; if spin and charge separate above the pseudogap, introducing those orders into the hierarchy may modify the $1-\delta$ coupling term.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper's main claim—that the one-particle spectral weight in a doped Mott insulator is proportional to δ—is not new, and the derivation that leads to it has a load-bearing uncontrolled approximation. The final Green's function, Eq. (10), is, by the authors' own admission, essentially slave-boson mean-field theory with condensed holons. The truly new piece, a small spinon-like term, is a subleading correction that depends on the questionable soft cut-off approximation (SCA).

What the paper does well: the hierarchical equation-of-motion setup is rigorous up to the point of truncation, and the identity (n_i)^2 + (s_i)^2 = 2n_i is used creatively. The equations are laid out carefully, and the authors are honest about the relation to existing slave-boson results. If you work on EOM truncation schemes, there is something to learn here about how such hierarchies can be organized.

The soft spots are real and substantial. First, the SCA sets n2 = s2 = 1 - δ, which is equivalent to double occupancy D = 0, but later the paper derives D ∝ δ(1-δ) t0/U in Eq. (12). That is an internal contradiction at order t0/U. You cannot assume D = 0 for the closure and then compute a nonzero D from the closed equations. The approximation therefore has no consistent small-parameter control. Second, Eq. (11) presents the spectral function in the lower Hubbard band as 2πδ δ(ω + ...), vanishing at half-filling. That violates the exact atomic-limit sum rule: for U ≫ t at δ = 0, the lower Hubbard band carries weight 1/2 per spin, not zero. The δ in Eq. (10) should be interpreted as the coherent quasiparticle weight, not the full lower-Hubbard-band spectral weight. The paper does not make that distinction and consequently overstates what it has proven. There is also no benchmark against exact diagonalization or DMFT, and no error estimate for neglecting all L=3 correlators and static quantities.

Who is this for? Readers interested in analytic EOM approaches to strong correlations might find the machinery worth discussing, but the phenomenology is already known from slave-boson theory. The paper deserves a serious referee because the calculation is substantive and the EOM path is nonstandard, but as written it would require major revision to separate the coherent weight from the incoherent background and to reconcile the D = 0 closure with Eq. (12). I would not cite it in its current form.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the single-band Hubbard model in the large-U limit using a hierarchical equation-of-motion approach. It closes the hierarchy with a 'soft cut-off approximation' (SCA) in which (n_i)^2 and (s_i)^2 are replaced by their expectation values n2 and s2, with n2=s2=1-δ, and all L=3 correlation functions and static correlators are discarded. The resulting spin-averaged Green's function is claimed to be G_k(ω)=δ/(ω+μ_eff-ε^eff_k), giving a lower-Hubbard-band spectral weight proportional to hole doping δ, a δ-renormalized hopping, and a 'spinon' contribution; the paper interprets these as spin-charge separation in a doped Mott insulator and compares the results with cuprate spectroscopy and numerical calculations.

Significance. If correct, the result would provide a simple analytic account of the doping dependence of the coherent spectral weight and of spin-charge separation in the Hubbard model. The starting equations of motion (1)-(6) are rigorous, and the algebraic steps leading to Eqs. (38)-(45) are explicit and checkable. However, the paper supplies no error estimate or numerical benchmark for the truncations, and the central prediction conflicts with exact spectral sum rules; as it stands the significance is therefore limited to a possibly instructive but uncontrolled approximation.

major comments (3)

[Sec. III, Eq. (11)] The claimed lower-Hubbard-band spectral function A^L_k(ω)=2πδ δ(ω+μ_eff-ε^eff_k) violates the exact one-particle spectral sum rule. In the atomic limit U→∞ at half-filling, the removal spectral weight per spin is <n_σ>=1/2; more generally, the occupied part of A_{kσ} integrates to the momentum distribution n_{kσ}, whose average is (1-δ)/2 per spin. A delta-function spectrum of weight δ cannot represent the lower Hubbard band and in particular vanishes at δ=0, where the lower Hubbard band is known to have weight 1/2 per spin. The factor δ in Eq. (10) is at most a coherent quasiparticle weight, but the paper provides no coherent/incoherent decomposition, so the abstract's central claim that the spectral weight of the one-particle Green's function is proportional to δ is not supported.
[Sec. III and Appendix, Eqs. (7)-(8), (12), (38)-(46)] The SCA closure is not self-consistent. Since n2=<n_i>+2D and s2=<n_i>-2D, with D=<n↑n↓>, the assumption n2=s2=1-δ is equivalent to D=0. Equation (12) of the same paper predicts D∝δ(1-δ)t0/U, so the input and the output disagree at first order in t0/U. No small parameter is given for neglecting the L=3 correlation functions or the static terms P^(n) and P^(s) in Eqs. (43)-(44). The δ numerator of Eq. (10) simply reflects the exact filling factor 1-<n_i>=δ, not a dynamical prediction of the hierarchy; the approximate content of the result is therefore confined to ε^eff_k, whose coefficients are uncontrolled at the order where D contributes.
[Sec. III and Appendix C, Eqs. (9)-(10) and (45)-(46)] The derivation is explicitly restricted to |ω|≪t0 (see the text before Eq. (9) and after Eq. (10)), but the pole of Eq. (10) lies at ω=-μ_eff+ε^eff_k≈-U/2 for the value μ≈U/2 used in the Appendix. For U∼W=8t0 this is an order of magnitude outside the stated validity window, so the Green's function is evaluated in the very regime in which the low-frequency limits (45)-(46) were taken. The self-consistent location of the pole invalidates the use of those limits.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] There are several typographical errors, including 'equation s of motion' and 'correlation function s'; the manuscript would benefit from a careful proofreading pass.
[Sec. III, after Eq. (11)] The statement that 'most of spectral weight is transferred to the upper Hubbard band in the underdoping region' appears opposite to the atomic-limit expectation, where doping transfers weight from the upper to the lower Hubbard band; this should be clarified.
[Conclusion and Discussion] The claimed consistency with spectroscopy and numerical calculations is qualitative only; a quantitative comparison table or benchmark against determinant quantum Monte Carlo or cluster dynamical mean-field theory would substantially strengthen the paper.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The δ-proportional spectral weight is forced by the spin-averaged source term of Eq. (9) and the SCA truncation, rather than emerging from the solution.

self definitional [Sec. III, after Eq. (9), and Eqs. (10)–(11)]
"Thus, in the strong on-site repulsive Coulomb interaction limit, t0 ≪ U, the effective spectral weight of electrons is that, 1 − < n_i >= δ. ... G_k(ω) = δ/(ω + μ_eff − ε_eff_k) ... A^L_k(ω) = 2πδ × δ(ω + μ_eff − ε_eff_k)."

After spin averaging, Eq. (9) has the form (ω + μ_eff)G = [1 − <n_i>]δ_iq + Σ h_eff G, and 1 − <n_i> is exactly the hole doping δ by definition. The truncation then discards all L = 3 correlation functions and the P^(n), P^(s) terms, so no frequency-dependent self-energy or incoherent part remains to modify the residue. The solution (10) is therefore simply the source term δ divided by the pole denominator, and the claimed 'spectral weight proportional to δ' is the input source rewritten as the residue; it is contained in the SCA closure and the neglect of all other spectral-weight contributions rather than being an emergent prediction.

full rationale

The paper contains substantial independent algebraic structure: Eqs. (1)–(6) are an exact hierarchy, and the coefficients in ε_eff and the spinon-like part of the spectrum are nontrivial outputs of the SCA. However, the headline claim that the lower-Hubbard-band spectral weight is proportional to δ is not an emergent result of those coefficients. After spin averaging, Eq. (9) carries the exact source 1 − <n_i> = δ, and the approximation keeps only a single pole with that residue, discarding all L = 3 correlation functions and the P^(n) and P^(s) terms. Thus Eq. (10) is forced by construction. There are also separate correctness issues that are not circularity: the SCA closure n2 = s2 = 1 − δ assumes zero double occupancy while Eq. (12) derives D ∝ δ(1 − δ)t0/U, and Eq. (11) conflicts with the exact spectral sum rule in the atomic limit. The self-citation [31] is not load-bearing because the equations are rederived in this paper.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The result rests on closure assumptions rather than external benchmarks. The only exact inputs are the operator identity and the commutation relations; everything after that is truncation. The soft cut-off approximation, the neglect of L=3 correlations, and the neglect of static quantities together determine the final Green's function, so the axiom list is dominated by ad hoc truncations.

free parameters (3)

n2 = <(n_i)^2> = 1 - δ
Chosen by the soft cut-off approximation for large U; enters the source term of Eq. (9) and fixes the δ-linear spectral weight.
s2 = <(s_i)^2> = 1 - δ
Set equal to n2 under complete suppression of double occupancy; contributes to effective hopping and the spinon-like term.
chemical potential μ = U/2
Taken as U/2 in the underdoped region; the paper says this is rigorous at half filling and reasonable underdoped, but it is used throughout the solution.

assumptions (6)

standard math The operator identity (n_i)^2 + (s_i)^2 = 2 n_i holds locally and leads to n2 + s2 = 2(1 - δ).
Exact algebra for spin-1/2 occupancy on a site; used in Section II, Eqs. (7)-(8).
ad hoc to paper For large U, double occupancy is completely suppressed, so n2 = s2 = 1 - δ.
This is the soft cut-off approximation; it is load-bearing for the δ-proportional spectral weight and is not derived from the equations of motion.
ad hoc to paper All L=3 multiple-point correlation functions can be discarded.
Stated as a zeroth-order approximation in Section II; no small parameter controls the truncation.
ad hoc to paper Static spin-spin and density-density correlation functions can be neglected.
The paper says 'for simplicity, we neglect all the static quantities' after Eqs. (4)-(6); these omissions affect the closure of the hierarchy.
domain assumption The chemical potential can be approximated as μ = U/2 in the underdoped regime.
The paper states it is rigorous at half filling and reasonable underdoped, but it is used in the algebra for all δ.
domain assumption The final Green's function is reliable for low energies above the pseudogap, |ω| << t0, with pseudogap and order parameters omitted.
The paper restricts validity to energies above the pseudogap; conclusions about the low-energy behavior below the pseudogap are not covered.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The analytical description of a doped Mott insulator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P7CNJX7B

@misc{pith2026190804453,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The analytical description of a doped Mott insulator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P7CNJX7B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04453}
}

read the original abstract

With the hierarchical Green's function approach, we study a doped Mott insulator described with the Hubbard model by analytically solving the equations of motion of an one-particle Green's function and related multiple-point correlation functions, and find that the separation of the spin and charge degrees of freedom of the electrons is an intrinsic character of the doped Mott insulator. For enough of large on-site repulsive Coulomb interaction, we show that the spectral weight of the one-particle Green's function is proportional to the hole doping concentration that is mainly produced by the charge fluctuation of electrons, while the excitation spectrum of the electrons is composed of two parts: one is contributed by the spin fluctuation of the electrons which is proportional to the hole doping concentration, and another one is coming from the coupling between the charge and spin fluctuations of the electrons that takes the maximum at undoping. All of these low energy/temperature physical properties originate from the strong on-site Coulomb interaction. The present results are consistent with the spectroscopy observations of the cuprate superconductors, and the numerical calculations in normal state above pseudogap regime.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

[1]

While th ey can be seen as some ”eﬀective external ﬁelds” that appear in the equations of motion o f the correlation functions F (n) ijq (ω ) and F (s) ijq (ω ) in the Eqs.(26,27)

Obviously, under the present approximation, these high order correlation fu nctions are the functional of the one-particle Green’s function and the correlation functions F (n) ijq (ω ) and F (s) ijq (ω ) that represent the charge and spin ﬂuctuations, respectively. While th ey can be seen as some ”eﬀective external ﬁelds” that appear in the equations of m...

work page
[2]

J. G. Bednorz and K. A. M¨ uller, Z. Phys. B 64, 189 (1986)

1986
[3]

P. W. Anderson, Science 235, 1196 (1987)

1987
[4]

F. C. Zhang and T. M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B 37, 3759(1988)

work page 1988
[5]

Baskaran, Z

G. Baskaran, Z. Zou and P. W. Anderson, Solid State Commun . 63, 973 (1987); I. Aﬄeck and J. B. Marston, Phys. Rev. B 37, 3774 (1988); G. Kotliar and J. Liu, Phys. Rev. B 38, 5142 (1988)

work page 1987
[6]

Baskaran and P

G. Baskaran and P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. B 37, 580 (1988); L. Ioﬀe and A. Larkin, Phys. Rev. B 39, 8988 (1989); P. A. Lee and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. B 45, 966 (1992)

work page 1988
[7]

P. W. Anderson, P. A. Lee, M. Renderia, T. M. Rice, N.Trive di and F. C. Zhang, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 24, R755 (2004). 19

work page 2004
[8]

P. A. Lee, N. Nagaosa and X. G. Wen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 17 (2006)

work page 2006

Show all 42 references

[9]

P. W. Anderson, The Theory of Superconductivity in the High-Tc Cuprates (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1997)

1997
[10]

Hubbard, Proc

J. Hubbard, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) A 276, 238 (1963); A 281, 401 (1964)

1963
[11]

C. M. Varma, P. B. Littlewood, S. Schmitt-Rink, E. Abrah ams, and A. E. Ruckenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 1996 (1989)

1989
[12]

Fradkin, S

E. Fradkin, S. A. Kivelson and J. M. Tranquada, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 457 (2015)

2015
[13]

Keimer, S

B. Keimer, S. A. Kivelson, M. R. Norman, S. Uchida, and J. Zaanen, Nature 518, 179 (2015)

2015
[14]

Raghu, S

S. Raghu, S. A. Kivelson, and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. B81, 224505 (2010)

2010
[15]

L. Liu, H. Yao, E. Berg, S. R. White, and S. A. Kivelson, Ph ys. Rev. Lett. 108, 126406 (2012)

2012
[16]

Bethe, Z

H. Bethe, Z. Physik 71, 205 (1931)

1931
[17]

Lieb, and F

E. Lieb, and F. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 20, 1445 (1968)

1968
[18]

H. B. Thacker, Rev. Mod. Phys. 53, 253 (1981)

1981
[19]

Luther and I

A. Luther and I. Peschel, Phys. Rev. B 9, 2911 (1974); V. J. Emery, in Highly Conducting One-Dimensional Solids, edited by J. T. Devreese, (Plenum, NY, 1979); J. S´ olyom, Adv . Phys. 28, 201 (1979); F. D. M. Haldane, J. Phys. C 14, 2585 (1981)

1974
[20]

Gukelberger, L

J. Gukelberger, L. Huang, and P. Werner, Phys. Rev. B 91, 235114 (2015)

2015
[21]

E. Gull, O. Parcollet, P. Werner, and A. Millis, Phys. Re v. B 80, 245102 (2009)

2009
[22]

P. W. Anderson, Adv. Phys. 46, 3 (1997)

1997
[23]

Moukouri, and M

S. Moukouri, and M. Jarrell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 167010 (2001)

2001
[24]

Maier, M

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

2005
[25]

J. P. F. LeBlanc, A. E. Antipov, F. Becca, I. W. Bulik, et al. , Phys. Rev. X 5, 041041 (2015)

2015
[26]

Hedin, Phys

L. Hedin, Phys. Rev. 139, A796 (1965); L. Hedin and S. Lundqvist, Solid State Physics , Vol. 23 (Ehrenreich, H. and Seitz, F. and Turnbull, D. Academic Pres s, New York,1969)

1965
[27]

Romaniello, F

P. Romaniello, F. Bechstedt and L. Reining, Phys. Rev. B 85, 155131 (2012)

2012
[28]

Zwanzig, In Lectures in Theoretical Physics , Vol

R. Zwanzig, In Lectures in Theoretical Physics , Vol. 3 (Interscience, New York, 1961); H. Mori, Prog. Teor. Phys. 33, 423 (1965)

1965
[29]

Fulde, Electron Correlations in Molecules and Solids (Springer-Verlag, 1991)

P. Fulde, Electron Correlations in Molecules and Solids (Springer-Verlag, 1991)

1991
[30]

G. D. Mahan, Many Particle Physics (Plenum, New York, 1981)

1981
[31]

Mancini and A

F. Mancini and A. Avella, Advan. of Phys. 53, 537 (2004); N. M. Plakida, Physica C 531, 39 (2016). 20

2004
[32]

Y. L. Liu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 32, 1850258 (2018)

2018
[33]

T. K. Ng, Phys. Rev. B 71, 172509 (2005); K. Y. Yang, T. M. Rice, and F. C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 73, 174501 (2006)

2005
[34]

Timusk, and B

T. Timusk, and B. Statt, Rep. Prog. Phys. 62, 61 (1999)

1999
[35]

D. J. Scalapino, S. R. White, and S. C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 47, 7995 (1993)

1993
[36]

S. L. Cooper, G. A. Thoma, J. Orenstein, D. H. Rapkine, A. J. Millis, S.-W. Cheong, A. S. Cooper, and Z. Fisk, Phys. Rev. B 41, 11605 (1990)

1990
[37]

Uchida, T

S. Uchida, T. Ido, H. Takagi, T. Arima, and Y. Tokura, Phy s. Rev. B 43, 7942 (1991)

1991
[38]

W. J. Padilla, Y. S. Lee, M. Dumm, G. Blumberg, S. Ono, K. S egawa, S. Komiya, Y. Ando, and D. N. Basov, Phys. Rev. B 72, 060511(R) (2005)

2005
[39]

F. C. Zhang, C. Gros, T. M. Rice, and H. Shiba, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 1, 36 (1988)

1988
[40]

Paramekanti, M

A. Paramekanti, M. Randeria, and N. Trivedi, Phys. Rev. B 70, 054504 (2004)

2004
[41]

Dalla Piazza, M

B. Dalla Piazza, M. Mourigal, N. B. Christensen, G. J. Ni lsen, P. Tregenna-Piggott, T. G. Perring, M. Enderle, D. F. Mcmorrow, D. A. Ivanov, and H. M. Rø nnow, Nat. Phys. 11, 62 (2015)

2015
[42]

H. Shao, Y. Q. Qin, S. Capponi, S. Chesi, Z. Y. Meng, and A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. X 7, 041072 (2017). 21

2017

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

While th ey can be seen as some ”eﬀective external ﬁelds” that appear in the equations of motion o f the correlation functions F (n) ijq (ω ) and F (s) ijq (ω ) in the Eqs.(26,27)

Obviously, under the present approximation, these high order correlation fu nctions are the functional of the one-particle Green’s function and the correlation functions F (n) ijq (ω ) and F (s) ijq (ω ) that represent the charge and spin ﬂuctuations, respectively. While th ey can be seen as some ”eﬀective external ﬁelds” that appear in the equations of m...

work page

[2] [2]

J. G. Bednorz and K. A. M¨ uller, Z. Phys. B 64, 189 (1986)

1986

[3] [3]

P. W. Anderson, Science 235, 1196 (1987)

1987

[4] [4]

F. C. Zhang and T. M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B 37, 3759(1988)

work page 1988

[5] [5]

Baskaran, Z

G. Baskaran, Z. Zou and P. W. Anderson, Solid State Commun . 63, 973 (1987); I. Aﬄeck and J. B. Marston, Phys. Rev. B 37, 3774 (1988); G. Kotliar and J. Liu, Phys. Rev. B 38, 5142 (1988)

work page 1987

[6] [6]

Baskaran and P

G. Baskaran and P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. B 37, 580 (1988); L. Ioﬀe and A. Larkin, Phys. Rev. B 39, 8988 (1989); P. A. Lee and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. B 45, 966 (1992)

work page 1988

[7] [7]

P. W. Anderson, P. A. Lee, M. Renderia, T. M. Rice, N.Trive di and F. C. Zhang, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 24, R755 (2004). 19

work page 2004

[8] [8]

P. A. Lee, N. Nagaosa and X. G. Wen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 17 (2006)

work page 2006