The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Absence of Superconductivity in the Pure Two-Dimensional Hubbard Model
Open accessAbstract
We study the superconducting pairing correlations in the ground state of the doped Hubbard model-in its original form without hopping beyond nearest neighbor or other perturbing parameters-in two dimensions at intermediate to strong coupling and near optimal doping.The nature of such correlations has been a central question ever since the discovery of cuprate high-temperature superconductors.Despite unprecedented effort and tremendous progress in understanding the properties of this fundamental model, a definitive answer to whether the ground state is superconducting in the parameter regime most relevant to cuprates has proved exceedingly difficult to establish.In this work, we employ two complementary, state-of-the-art, many-body computational methods-constrained-path (CP) auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo (AFQMC) and density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) methods-deploying the most recent algorithmic advances in each.Systematic and detailed comparisons between the two methods are performed.The DMRG is extremely reliable on small width cylinders, where we use it to validate the AFQMC.The AFQMC is then used to study wide systems as well as fully periodic systems, to establish that we have reached the thermodynamic limit.The ground state is found to be nonsuperconducting in the moderate to strong coupling regime in the vicinity of optimal hole doping.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
Superconductivity is absent in the pure Hubbard model (no next-nearest-neighbor hopping).
“Previously, we used this combination was used, by extrapolating to the two-dimensional thermodynamic limit, to find that superconductivity is absent in the pure (i.e., with no next nearest-neighbor hopping) Hubbard model ( 11 ).”
From Coexistence of superconductivity with partially filled stripes in the Hubbard model (2024) · cites this paper as [11]
The Approach section describes a pure Hubbard model with nearest-neighbor hopping only, and the Summary says this model was found not to exhibit superconductivity. But the Introduction explicitly limits that conclusion to the physically relevant parameter regime and says the paper does not rule out superconductivity anywhere in the pure model. The claim omits that qualification. (LLM, conf=0.89)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPrevious calculations show that states with IPS are favored, which was taken as an indication of local pairing of electrons in the stripe state.
“Previous calculations ( 11, 52 ) show that states with IPS are favored, which was taken as an indication of the existence of local pairing of electrons in the stripe state.”
From Coexistence of superconductivity with partially filled stripes in the Hubbard model (2024) · cites this paper as [11]
Section C, “Competition between pairing and stripes,” describes even hole numbers in partially filled stripes as evidence of local pairing; Appendix C likewise says short-range pairing exists in the stripes. Our copy does not identify IPS states or report that they are energetically favored, so that part of the attributed claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe ground states of the models are exceptionally sensitive to small changes in the model terms and parameters, with competing or cooperating charge, spin, and superconducting orders.
“the ground states of the models have been shown to be exceptionally sensitive to small changes in the model terms and parameters, with competing ( 11 ) or cooperating ( 12 ) charge, spin ( 13 ), and superconducting (SC) orders ( 14-18 ).”
From Coexistence of superconductivity with partially filled stripes in the Hubbard model (2024) · cites this paper as [11]
For t'=0, the stripes were filled, and superconductivity was absent.
“in contrast, for t ′ = 0 the stripes were filled, and superconductivity was absent ( 11 ).”
From Coexistence of superconductivity with partially filled stripes in the Hubbard model (2024) · cites this paper as [11]
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
Possible highT c superconductivity in the Ba?La?Cu?O system
Bednorz, J. G., & M�ller, K. A. (1986) · Zeitschrift f�r Physik B Condensed Matter · doi:10.1007/bf01303701 · Cited by 14,319
Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups
White, S. R. (1992) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.69.2863 · Cited by 7,702
Self-citationSuperconductivity in the doped Hubbard model and its interplay with next-nearest hopping t ′
Jiang, H.-C., & Devereaux, T. P. (2019) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aal5304 · Cited by 228
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 90
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.66.763 · DOI
- 10.1098/rspa.1963.0204 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.235.4793.1196 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.37.3759 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.31.4403 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.94.085140 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.94.085103 · DOI
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.84.1383 · DOI
- 10.1038/31177 · DOI
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.87.457 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.97.075112 · DOI
- 10.1143/JPSJ.57.2482 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.38.931 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.49.12318 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.62.R9283 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.117002 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.237001 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.156404 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.74.054513 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.74.235117 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.74.165122 · DOI
- 10.1143/JPSJ.76.113708 · DOI
- 10.1143/JPSJ.75.114706 · DOI
- 10.1143/JPSJ.73.545 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.76.180504 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.74.085104 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.85.081110 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.86.241106 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.216405 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.116402 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.90.115137 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.93.035126 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.98.205132 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.4486 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.59.1706 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.1294 · DOI
- 10.1016/0921-4534(89)90316-X · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.40.7391 · DOI
- 10.1143/JPSJ.59.1047 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.39.9749 · DOI
- 10.1051/jphys:0198900500180283300 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.1272 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.60.R753 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.117001 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.136403 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.71.075108 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.76.140505 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.78.134530 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.116402 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.84.041108 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.046402 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.96.085103 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.95.125125 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.100.195141 · DOI
- 10.1016/0022-3697(95)00269-3 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.175301 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.aat4134 · DOI
- 10.1038/nature22362 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41586-019-1463-1 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.aam7127 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1088/1367-2630/15/9/093005 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.78.174529 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.83.104506 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0022-3697(02)00072-0 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.55.7464 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.94.235119 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.46.11163 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.48.1097 · DOI
- 10.1209/epl/i2001-00557-x · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.81.224505 · DOI
- 10.1209/0295-5075/110/57001 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.127004 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.41.9301 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.78.165101 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.95.045144 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevA.100.023621 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.48.10345 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.aop.2010.09.012 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-020911-125018 · DOI · Paper page
- C. Hubig, 2017, Symmetry-Protected Tensor Networks
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.91.155115 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.97.045125 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.79.220504 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.39.839 · DOI
- 10.1023/A:1022559920049 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevX.5.041041 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.95.155116 · DOI
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.92.195139 · DOI
- 10.1038/375561a0 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.jpcs.2017.12.026 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Coexistence of superconductivity with partially filled stripes in the Hubbard model
Xu, H., Chung, C.-M., Qin, M., Schollwöck, U., White, S. R., & Zhang, S. (2024) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adh7691 · Cited by 144
“…general appearance of stripe orders on the larger systems with nonintegral numbers of pairs indicatesthat pairs fluctuate between stripes, promoting long-distance phase coherence and thus superconductivity; by contrast, for t 0 ¼ 0, the stripes were filled and superconductivity was absent ( 11 ).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationXu, H., Shi, H., Vitali, E., Qin, M., & Zhang, S. (2022) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.4.013239 · Cited by 74
Self-citationJiang, S., Scalapino, D. J., & White, S. R. (2023) · Physical Review B · doi:10.1103/physrevb.108.l161111 · Cited by 35
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Qin, M., Chung, C.-M., Shi, H., Vitali, E., Hubig, C., Schollwöck, U., White, S. R., Zhang, S., & Simons Collaboration on the Many-Electron Problem
- Affiliations
- William & Mary (US)
- Munich Center for Quantum Science and Technology (DE)
- Flatiron Institute (US)
- Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics (DE)
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Physical Review X
- Publisher
- American Physical Society (APS)
- Published
- 2020-07-21
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 3
- ISSN
- 2160-3308 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3044148120
- Cited by
- 298
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 28 · 2025: 66 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 59 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 13
- FWCI
- 38.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Physical Review X (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (publishedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Simons Foundation
- National Science Foundation (DMR-1812558, ACI-1053575)
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
- College of William and Mary
- H2020 European Research Council (742102)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Condensed Matter Physics › Physics of Superconductivity and Magnetism
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum many-body systems
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Condensed Matter Physics › Theoretical and Computational Physics
- Keywords
- two-dimensional Hubbard model, superconductivity, cuprate superconductors, ground state, strong coupling, density matrix renormalization group, thermodynamic limit
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