The 3-Band Hubbard-Model versus the 1-Band Model for the high-Tc Cuprates: Pairing Dynamics, Superconductivity and the Ground-State Phase Diagram
W. Hanke, M. L. Kiesel, M. Aichhorn, S. Brehm, E. Arrigoni
arXiv:1007.5431 · DOI 10.1140/epjst/e2010-01294-y · 2010-07-30 · The European Physical Journal Special Topics
Active bibliographic source — not scientific approval
Bibliographic access preserves source history; it does not approve extracted materials or validate reported claims. Review warnings on each occurrence separately.
Abstract
One central challenge in high-$T_c$ superconductivity (SC) is to derive a detailed understanding for the specific role of the $Cu$-$d_{x^2-y^2}$ and $O$-$p_{x,y}$ orbital degrees of freedom. In most theoretical studies an effective one-band Hubbard (1BH) or t-J model has been used. Here, the physics is that of doping into a Mott-insulator, whereas the actual high-$T_c$ cuprates are doped charge-transfer insulators. To shed light on the related question, where the material-dependent physics enters, we compare the competing magnetic and superconducting phases in the ground state, the single- and two-particle excitations and, in particular, the pairing interaction and its dynamics in the three-band Hubbard (3BH) and 1BH-models. Using a cluster embedding scheme, i.e. the variational cluster approach (VCA), we find which frequencies are relevant for pairing in the two models as a function of interaction strength and doping: in the 3BH-models the interaction in the low- to optimal-doping regime is dominated by retarded pairing due to low-energy spin fluctuations with surprisingly little influence of inter-band (p-d charge) fluctuations. On the other hand, in the 1BH-model, in addition a part comes from "high-energy" excited states (Hubbard band), which may be identified with a non-retarded contribution. We find these differences between a charge-transfer and a Mott insulator to be renormalized away for the ground-state phase diagram of the 3BH- and 1BH-models, which are in close overall agreement, i.e. are "universal". On the other hand, we expect the differences - and thus, the material dependence to show up in the "non-universal" finite-T phase diagram ($T_c$-values).
Similar papers
Effective pairing interaction in the two-dimensional Hubbard model within a spin rotationally invariant approach
similarity 0.91V. A. Apinyan & T. K. Kopec · 2008 · arXiv:0812.1461
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Pairing, Charge, and Spin Correlations in the Three-Band Hubbard Model
similarity 0.91Z. B. Huang et al. · 2000 · arXiv:cond-mat/0009433
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Superconducting pairing of the extended multiband Hubbard model: A weak-coupling study
similarity 0.91R. Putz et al.
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Phase diagram and single-particle spectrum of CuO layers within a variational cluster approach to the 3-band Hubbard model
similarity 0.90E. Arrigoni et al. · 2009 · arXiv:0902.0535
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Superconductivity in the three-band model of cuprates: Variational wave function study and relation to the single-band case
similarity 0.90M. Zegrodnik et al.
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Pairing Correlations in a Generalized Hubbard Model for the Cuprates
similarity 0.90L. Arrachea & A. Aligia · 1999 · arXiv:cond-mat/9910012
Source status unknown — claims are unverified