Cited by 96Physics of Superconductivity and MagnetismElectronic and Structural Properties of OxidesAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Ab initio effective Hamiltonians for cuprate superconductors

Open access

Abstract

Ab initio low-energy effective Hamiltonians of two typical high-temperature copper-oxide superconductors, whose mother compounds are ${\mathrm{La}}_{2}{\mathrm{CuO}}_{4}$ and ${\mathrm{HgBa}}_{2}{\mathrm{CuO}}_{4}$, are derived by utilizing the multiscale ab initio scheme for correlated electrons (MACE). The effective Hamiltonians obtained in the present study serve as platforms of future studies to accurately solve the low-energy effective Hamiltonians beyond the density functional theory. It allows further study on the superconducting mechanism from first principles and a quantitative basis without adjustable parameters not only for the available cuprates but also for future design of higher ${T}_{\mathrm{c}}$ in general. More concretely, we derive effective Hamiltonians for three variations: (1) a one-band Hamiltonian for the antibonding orbital generated from strongly hybridized Cu $3{d}_{{x}^{2}\ensuremath{-}{y}^{2}}$ and O $2{p}_{\ensuremath{\sigma}}$ orbitals, (2) a two-band Hamiltonian constructed from the antibonding orbital and Cu $3{d}_{3{z}^{2}\ensuremath{-}{r}^{2}}$ orbital hybridized mainly with the apex oxygen ${p}_{z}$ orbital, and (3) a three-band Hamiltonian consisting mainly of Cu $3{d}_{{x}^{2}\ensuremath{-}{y}^{2}}$ orbitals and two O $2{p}_{\ensuremath{\sigma}}$ orbitals. Differences between the Hamiltonians for ${\mathrm{La}}_{2}{\mathrm{CuO}}_{4}$ and ${\mathrm{HgBa}}_{2}{\mathrm{CuO}}_{4}$, which have relatively low and high critical temperatures ${T}_{\mathrm{c}}$, respectively, at optimally doped compounds, are elucidated. The main differences are summarized as follows: (i) the oxygen $2{p}_{\ensuremath{\sigma}}$ orbitals are farther ($\ensuremath{\sim}3.7$ eV) below from the Cu ${d}_{{x}^{2}\ensuremath{-}{y}^{2}}$ orbital in the case of the La compound than the Hg compound ($\ensuremath{\sim}2.4$ eV) in the three-band Hamiltonian. This causes a substantial difference in the character of the ${d}_{{x}^{2}\ensuremath{-}{y}^{2}}\ensuremath{-}2{p}_{\ensuremath{\sigma}}$ antibonding band at the Fermi level and makes the effective onsite Coulomb interaction $U$ larger for the La compound than the Hg compound for the two- and one-band Hamiltonians. (ii) The ratio of the second-neighbor to the nearest transfer ${t}^{\ensuremath{'}}/t$ is also substantially different (0.26 for the Hg and 0.15 for the La compound) in the one-band Hamiltonian. Heavier entanglement of the two bands in the two-band Hamiltonian implies that the two-band rather than the one-band Hamiltonian is more appropriate for the La compound. The relevance of the three-band description is also discussed especially for the Hg compound.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevb.98.134501

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The values t' = -0.2 for hole-doping and t' = +0.2 for electron-doping are appropriate for cuprates based on band structure calculations.

    “Weuse t ′ = -0 . 2 for hole-doping and t ′ = +0 . 2 for electrondoping, appropriate values for based on cuprates based on band structure calculations ( 35, 36 ).”

    From Coexistence of superconductivity with partially filled stripes in the Hubbard model (2024) · cites this paper as [36]

    Table I (p. 18–19) reports negative t and positive t′ for two cuprates, giving t′/t ratios of approximately −0.26 and −0.15—consistent with using −0.2 as an approximate model value. The table does not assign that value specifically to hole doping, and the cited passages do not support +0.2 for electron doping. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. 10.1007/BF01303701 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1016/0921-4534(94)02461-8 · DOI
  3. 10.1126/science.262.5130.97 · DOI
  4. 10.1103/PhysRevB.50.4260 · DOI
  5. 10.1038/nature14964 · DOI
  6. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.58.1028 · DOI
  7. 10.1016/0375-9601(87)90806-1 · DOI
  8. 10.1103/RevModPhys.61.749 · DOI
  9. 10.1126/science.235.4793.1196 · DOI
  10. 10.1103/PhysRevB.39.9028 · DOI
  11. 10.1143/JPSJ.79.112001 · DOI
  12. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.177007 · DOI
  13. 10.1038/ncomms6738 · DOI
  14. 10.1143/JPSJ.79.044705 · DOI
  15. 10.1103/PhysRevB.70.195104 · DOI
  16. 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.195144 · DOI
  17. 10.7566/JPSJ.84.093703 · DOI
  18. 10.1103/PhysRevB.96.075102 · DOI
  19. 10.1103/PhysRevB.56.12847 · DOI
  20. 10.1103/PhysRevB.65.035109 · DOI
  21. 10.1103/PhysRevB.12.3060 · DOI
  22. 10.1103/PhysRevB.35.8814 · DOI
  23. 10.1103/PhysRevB.80.155134 · DOI
  24. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.176402 · DOI
  25. 10.1038/362226a0 · DOI
  26. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.58.1024 · DOI
  27. M. Methfessel, 2000, in Lecture Notes in Physics
  28. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.45.566 · DOI
  29. 10.1103/PhysRevB.74.245125 · DOI
  30. 10.1038/srep12050 · DOI
  31. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.047003 · DOI
  32. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.057003 · DOI
  33. 10.1103/PhysRevB.37.3759 · DOI
  34. 10.1016/0038-1098(87)90407-8 · DOI
  35. 10.1126/sciadv.1600664 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hirayama, M., Yamaji, Y., Misawa, T., & Imada, M.
Affiliations
  • Tokyo Institute of Technology (JP)
  • The University of Tokyo (JP)
  • The Institute for Solid State Physics, The University of Tokyo (JP)
Venue
Physical Review B
Published
2018-10-02
Volume
98
Issue
13
ISSN
  • 2469-9950 (ISSN-L)
  • 2469-9969
OpenAlex
W2749851039
Cited by
96
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3
FWCI
5.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical review. B./Physical review. B (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (22104010, 16H06345, 16K17746, hp150173, hp150211, hp160201, hp170263)
  • University of Tokyo
  • RIKEN
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Condensed Matter Physics › Physics of Superconductivity and Magnetism
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Electronic and Structural Properties of Oxides
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Advanced Chemical Physics Studies
Keywords
cuprate superconductors, effective Hamiltonian, La2CuO4, HgBa2CuO4, orbital hybridization, critical temperature, superconducting mechanism

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review