4.6 Article

Superfluid ground state phase diagram of the two-dimensional Hubbard model in the emergent Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer regime

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW B
卷 104, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.104.L020507

关键词

-

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/P003052/1]
  2. Simons Foundation as a part of the Simons Collaboration on the Many-Electron Problem
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11625522]
  4. Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2018YFA0306501]
  5. EPSRC [EP/P003052/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the superfluid instability in the 2D Hubbard model using a nonperturbative approach and maps out the superfluid ground-state phase diagram under various parameter ranges. The phase diagram undergoes dramatic transformations in different regions, showing rich physical phenomena under different parameter conditions.
In nonperturbative regimes, the superfluid instability in the two-dimensional (2D) Hubbard model can be described by an emergent BCS theory with small effective pairing constants. We compute the effective couplings using a controlled bold-line diagrammatic Monte Carlo approach, which stochastically sums all skeleton Feynman diagrams dressed in the one- and two-particle channels to high expansion orders, and map out the resulting superfluid ground-state phase diagram in a range of next-nearest-neighbor hopping 0 <= t' <= 0.3t, interaction strength 0 <= U <= 3t, and lattice filling 0 <= n <= 2. The phase diagram is dramatically transformed in the hole-doped region and becomes particularly rich at larger doping and t'. At t' = 0.3, the weak-coupling picture with the dominant triplet pairing sharply peaked at n approximate to 0.73 due to the Van Hove singularity is replaced by a plateau of the singlet d(x2-y2) paring, while for U greater than or similar to 3t the effective couplings are consistent with the d(x2-y2) high-temperature superconductivity in the hole-doped region near cuprates' optimal doping.

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