4.6 Article

Ab initio study of the downfolded self-energy for correlated systems: Momentum dependence and effects of dynamical screening

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW B
卷 89, 期 23, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.89.235119

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council
  2. MEXT, Japan [22104010]
  3. Scandinavia-Japan Sasakawa Foundation
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22104010] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The electronic structure of strongly correlated systems is usually calculated by using an effective model Hamiltonian with a small number of states and an effective on-site interaction. The mode, however, neglects the frequency dependence of the interaction, which emerges as a result of dynamical screening processes not included in the model. The self-energy calculated in this kind of model within dynamical mean-field theory (DMFT) is usually assumed to contain on-site components only. To study the validity of model calculations for the simulation of realistic materials, we make a detailed comparison between the downfolded self-energy in a model Hamiltonian with static and dynamic on-site interaction and the full ab initio self-energy for Fe and SrVO3 within the GW approximation. We find that the model GW self-energy shows weaker k (momentum) dependence than the ab initio GW self-energy, which is attributed to the lack of the long-range interaction and of contributions from other electrons not included in the models. This weak k dependence is found to lead to an artificial narrowing of the quasiparticle band structure. Moreover, this band narrowing is stronger for the dynamic (frequency-dependent) interaction, due to a larger renormalization of the quasiparticle states. These findings indicate a crucial role of the k dependence of the self-energy and dynamical screening for the electronic structure of correlated systems. We also discuss the effects beyond the GW approximation for correlated systems by comparing the GW and DMFT results.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据