Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University Dynamical Mean Field Theory Antoine Georges, Gabriel Kotliar, Werner Krauth, and Marcelo J. Rozenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 13 (1996) Thomas Maier, Mark Jarrell, Thomas Pruschke, and Matthias H. Hettler, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 1027 (2005) K. Held, II. A. Nekrasov, G. Keller, V. Eyert, N. Bluemer, A. K. McMahan, R. T Scalettar, T.h. Pruschke, V. I. Anisimov, and D. Vollhardt, D.; Phys. Status Solidi 243, 2599-2631 (2006) G. Kotliar, S. Y. Savrasov, K. Haule, V. S. Oudovenko, O. Parcollet, and C. A. Marianetti, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 865 (2006) Review articles http://phys.columbia.edu/~millis/MillisTLH.pdf
18
Embed
Dynamical Mean Field Theory - manep-nccr · 2017. 1. 27. · Dynamical mean field theory:--approximation to electron self energy obtained from solution of auxiliary quantum impurity
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Dynamical Mean Field Theory
Antoine Georges, Gabriel Kotliar, Werner Krauth, and Marcelo J. Rozenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 13 (1996)
Thomas Maier, Mark Jarrell, Thomas Pruschke, and Matthias H. Hettler, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 1027 (2005)
K. Held, II. A. Nekrasov, G. Keller, V. Eyert, N. Bluemer, A. K. McMahan, R. T Scalettar, T.h. Pruschke, V. I. Anisimov, and D. Vollhardt, D.; Phys. Status Solidi 243, 2599-2631 (2006)
G. Kotliar, S. Y. Savrasov, K. Haule, V. S. Oudovenko, O. Parcollet, and C. A. Marianetti, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 865 (2006)
Review articles
http://phys.columbia.edu/~millis/MillisTLH.pdf
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Dynamical Mean Field TheoryMany-body formalism: analogous to Hohenberg-Kohn
H =�
�,�
E���†��� +
�
����
I�����†��†
����� + ...
G0: Green function of noninteracting reference problem (contains atomic positions)
F[{�}] = Funiv[{�}]�Trln[G�10 ��]
=>Luttinger-Ward functional
Funiv: determined (formally) from sum ofdiagrams. Depends only on interactions I����
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
ExampleSecond order termHubbard model
12
�LW [{G}] defined as sum of allvacuum to vacuum diagrams(with symmetry factors)
���G
= �
Funiv = �LW[{G}]�Tr [�G]
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
More formalities
�Funiv
��= G
Diagrammatic definition of Funiv =>
Thus stationarity condition�F��
= 0 => G =�G�1
0 ����1
F[{�}] = Funiv[{�}]�Trln[G�10 ��]
Difficulties with this formulation:--dont know Funiv (exc. perturbatively)--cant do extremization
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
1992 BreakthroughKotliar and Georges found analogue of Kohn-Sham steps: useful approximation for F and way to carry out minimization via auxiliary problem
Key first step: infinite d limit Metzner and Vollhardt, PRL 62 324 (1987)
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Modern interpretation of Kotliar and Georges idea
Parametrize self energy in terms of small number N of functions of frequency
���(�) =�
ab
f��ab �ab
DMFT(�)
� = 1...M; a = 1...N << M
parametrization function f determines ‘flavor’ of DMFT (DFT analogue: LDA, GGA, B3LYP, ....)
Also must truncate interactionI���� “appropriately”
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Approximation to self energy + truncated interactions imply approximation to Funiv
Approximated functional Fapproxuniv is functional of finite (small) number of functions of frequency , thus is the universal functional of some 0 (space) +1 (time) dimensional quantum field theory. Derivative gives Green function of this model:
�ab(�)
�Fapproxuniv
��ba(�)= Gab
QI(�)
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Specifying the quantum impurity model
Need
--Interactions. These are the ‘appropriate truncation’ of the interactions in the original model
--a noninteracting (‘bare’) Green function G0
Then can compute the Green function and self energy
GQI =�G�10 ��
��1
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Analogy:
Density functional <=> ‘Luttinger Ward functional
Kohn-Sham equations <=> quantum impurity model
Particle density <=> electron Green function
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Quantum impurity model is in principle nothing more than a machine for generating self energies (as Kohn-Sham eigenstates are artifice for generating electron density)
Useful to view auxiliary problem as ‘quantum impurity model’ (cluster of sites coupled to noninteracting bath)
As with Kohn Sham eigenstates, it is tempting (and maybe reasonable) to ascribe physical signficance to it
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
In Hamiltonian representation
Impurity Hamiltonian
Coupling to bath+
�
p,ab
�Vp
abd†acpb + H.c
�. + Hbath[{c†pacpa}]
Important part of bath: ‘hybridization function’
�ab(z) =�
p
Vpac
�1
z� �bathp
�Vp,†
cb
HQI =�
ab
d†aE
abQIdb + Interactions
G�10 = � �Eab
QI ��ab(�)
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Thus
F� Fapproxuniv [{�ab}]�Trln[G�1
0 ��
ab
f��ab �ab]
and stationarity implies
�F��ba
= GabQI �Tr��f��
ab
�G�1
0 ��
cd
f��cd �cd
��1
= 0
�G�10
�ab = �ab +
�
�Tr��f��ab
�G�1
0 ��
cd
f��cd �cd
��1�
��1
ab
so G0 is fixed
or, using GQI =�G�10 ��ab
��1from ‘impurity solver”
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
In practice
Guess hybridization function
Solve QI model; find self energy
Use extremum condition to update hybridization function
Continue until convergence is reached.
This actually works
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Technical noteFrom your ‘impurity solver’ you need G at ‘all’ interesting frequencies. Solution ~uniformly accurate over whole relevant frequency range.
This is challenging.
Severe sign problem if ��, E
��= 0
=>reasonably high symmetry desirable so hybridization function commutes with impurity energies
For models with rotationally invariant multiplet interactions, cost grows exponentially with number of orbitals. 5 do-able with great effort more with Ising approximation (typically bad)
For simple 1 band Hubbard model, can access up to 16 orbitals at interesting temperatures.
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
advantages of method
*‘Moving part’ Trp [�a(p)Glattice(�approx)]
some sort of spatial average over electron spectral function--but still a function of frequency
*Computational task: solve quantum impurity model: not necessarily easy, but do-able
=>releases many-body physics from twin tyrannies of --focus on coherent quasiparticles/expansion about
well understood broken symmetry state--emphasis on particle density and ground state properties
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
In formal terms:
--Approximation to full M x M self energy matrix in terms of N(N+1)/2 functions determined from solution of auxiliary problem specified by self-consistency condition.
--Auxiliary problem: find (at all frequencies) Green functions of N-orbital quantum impurity model.
Question (practical): for feasible N, can you get the physics information you want?
``Exponential wall’’ remains:
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Questions (not addressed here)
•What choices of parametrization function f are admissible
•What kinds of impurity models
•What can be solved• Where is the exponential wall (how large can N be?)• what kinds of interactions can be included
•What else (besides electron self energy) can be calculated
•Quality of approximation
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Impurity model is just the Anderson model, with conduction band density of states fixed by self-consistency condition.
Regimes of Anderson model correspond to different physical behavior
Single-site (N=1) DMFT of Hubbard modelimpurity model: One non-degenerate d orbital per unit
cell
A =�
d�d���d†
�(�)G�10 (� � �
�)d�(�
�) + U
�d�n�(�)n�(�)
�
DMFT impurity model
H = ��
ij
ti�jc†i�cj� + U
�
i
ni�ni�
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Phase diagram and spectral function at n=1
X. Y. Zhang, M. J. Rozenberg, and G. KotliarPhys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1666 (1993
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
interaction driven MIT via pole splitting
-4 -2 0 2 4Energy
-15
-10
-5
0
5
Im Σ
U=0.85Uc2
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6Energy
0
0.5
1
Im G
U=0.85Uc2
P. Cornaglia dataU=0.85 Uc2
’mass’ renormalizationdiverges as approach insulator
µ renormalization0 if p-h symmetry
�(z) � �21
z � �1+
�22
z � �2
�1,2 � 0 as U � Uc2
�(z � 0) = ��21�2 + �2
2�1
�1�2� z
�21�
22 + �2
2�21
�21�2
2
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
doping driven transition:also coexistence regime;
2 pole structure
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6ω
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
ImΣ(ω)
δ=0.041152δ=0.056402δ=0.106226δ=0.13505
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0
2
4
6
8
10
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Many regimes of behavior
From A Georges College de France lecture spring 2010 16 June 2010
Key Point: theory captures incoherent dynamics at high frequency and crossover to coherent low frequency behavior
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Regimes of behaviorconfigurations of impurity |0>, | >, | >, |2>
Strong correlationsgeneric occupancy
T
All configs; equal prob.
|0>, |2> freeze outlocal momentincoherent transport
T
All configs; equal prob
|0>, |2> freeze outlocal momentgap opens
Mott insulator
resonance forms
fermi liquid transport
Strong correlationsinteger occupancy
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Orbital degeneracy: t2g orbitals
Chan, Werner, Millis, Phys. Rev. B 80, 235114 (2009)
J=U/6
Mott, magnetic and orbitally ordered phases.
Also ``spin freezing’’
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Spin freezing line: associated with larger spin. =>power law self energy
Werner, Gull, Troyer, Millis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 166405 (2008)
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
The power law self energy does not extend to lowest energies
Georges, Medici, Mravlje, Ann Rev Cond Mat Phys (2012)
--approximation to electron self energy obtained from solution of auxiliary quantum impurity problem
--can treat high temperature and incoherent phases; metal insulator transition and low scales
--limits of accuracy of approximation: subject of different set of lectures
--meshes localized and k-space physics
?how to go beyond phenomenologically defined models?
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Green function:
H0 =�
i
P 2i
2me+ Vext(ri) Bare Hamiltonian:
kinetic energy and lattice potential
G(r, r�;�) =
�{�(r),�†(r
�)}
�
�
=��1� H0 ��(r, r
�;�)
��1
DFT: static approximation to self energy
Many body theory: supplement DFT self energy with additional terms expressing ``beyond DFT’’ physics
GDFT (r, r�;�) =
��1� H0 ��DFT (r, r
�)��1
General formalism
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Express beyond DFT physics as ‘dynamical’ self energy
�(r, r�;�) = �DFT(r, r
�) + �dyn(r, r
�;�)
Cannot treat many body physics of all electronic degrees of freedom=>must select subset of states for which dynamical self energy is computed*different ways to do this
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Frontier Orbital Approach
Express G in band basis. DFT part is diagonal. Many-body (``dynamical’’) self energy is in general a matrix
GDFT (k, �) =��
� � �KSn (k)
��nm � �dyn(k, �)
��1
�nmdyn(k, �) =
�drdr
��KS
nk (r)�dyn(r, r�;�)�KS
mk (r�)
*Keep only self-energy and interaction matrix elements within frontier orbital basis.(Interaction: phenomenological U,J or screened coulomb interaction projected onto these states)
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Issues:
relevant (mainly d) bands entangled with p bands.
Practical question: how to separate bands.
Principle question: how important are the O states
Red: Ni-d
Blue : O2p�
Cubic LaNiO3Fat bands
J. Rondinelli prvt comm
``d’’ orbital corresponding to the p-d antibonding bands has large spatial extent. Is it reasonable to ascribe just an on-site interaction U
OK Andersen JPhys. Chem. Solids 56, 1573 ~1995
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Atomic Orbital Approach
alternative: define ‘atomic like’ orbital centered on sites iproject self energy onto this basis
retain only on-site (but orbitally dependent) terms in self energy and only on-site Slater-Kanamori terms in interaction
�dyn(r, r�;�)�
�
iab
|�iad (r) > �ab
dyn(�) < �ibd (r
�)|
�double�count(r, r�)�
�
iab
|�iad (r) > �ab
dc < �ibd (r
�)|
G(r, r�,�) =�� � HKS ��dc(r, r
�)��dyn(r, r�;�)
��1
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Additional step (not often taken in practice): Full charge self consistency
Recall Kohn-Sham potential VKS[{n(r)}] is a functional of density.
=>need to use density computed from interacting G
n(r) =� µ d�
�ImG(r, r,�)
to construct VKS.
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Two ways to define atomic orbital
*A’priori: simply choose a wave function you think is appropriate (e.g. free atom hartree fock d-wave function)
*Wannier function
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
�0.4
�0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
If isolated band (index n) with wave function �nk(r)
then real space wave function centered in unit cell i (pos Ri)
�i(r) =�
BZ(dk)eik·Ri�nk(r)
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Maximally localized Wannier function
If many bands in a energy window, then many ways to construct Wannier functions--parameterized by family of unitary transformations depending on k
J. Rondinelli ANL prvt comm
LaNiO3
�ai (r) =
�
BZ(dk)eik·Ri
�
n
�Uan(k)�nk(r)
�
Marzari-Vanderbilt: showed how to choose unitary transformation to make wannier functions correspond (as closely as Fourier’s theorem allows) to atomic-like functions centered on particular atoms (e.g. O 2p and Ni 3d)
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
If you have a set of bands reasonably well separated from other bands (e.g. p-d complex in many transition metal oxides)
Write G HKS and self energy as matrices in Wannier basisagain retain only terms in dynamical self energy corresponding to orbitals where correlations are important
G(�) =��1� HKS
n � �dyn(�)��1
HKSab =
�drdr
���a(r)
��2
2m+ Vlatt + �DFT(r, r
�)�
�b(r�)
HKSab is formal definition of tight-binding model corresponding to ``ab-initio’’ wave functions
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Note!
All of these procedures assume that the wave functions of band theory have some meaning in the actual correlated material
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Note!
atomic orbital approach
�dyn(r, r�;�) �
�
ij
|�iat(r) > �ij
dyn(�) < �jat(r
�)|
will in general lead to hartree shift which moves atomic (here, d) orbitals relative to the p orbitals
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
What do people do in practice*DFT+U (Anisimov 1998)
Identify atomic-like d-orbital. Keep on-site d-d self energyarising from Hartree approx to Slater interactions
Va� = U < na� > +(U� 2J)�
b �=a
< nb� > +(U� 3J)�
b �=a
< nb� >
This calculation ``knows’’ about correlations in the d-multiplet only via ordering. In non-ordered state, shift is same for all orbitals
As with most Hartree approximations, tendency to order is overestimated
Crucial physical effect: hartree shift of entire d-multiplet by amount of order (U-2.5J)*n/spin/orbital
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Hartree term: shifts d-multiplet relative to p-states.this is important to the physics!!
d-d transition: 2dN->dN-1dN+1
E
d-p transition: dNp2->dN+1p1
E
Energy �Energy U
� > U: Mott-Hubbard � < U: Charge Transfer
Lower energy controls the interesting physics
Shift of d relative to p changes the physics
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
thus the crucial question:In a beyond-DFT calculation: where is the renormalized d energy, relative to the ligands
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
thus the crucial question:In a beyond-DFT calculation: where is the renormalized d energy, relative to the ligands
This is sometimes called ``the double counting problem’’, based on the idea that DFT includes some of the intra-d interactions and one does not want to count them twice. But the real question is--how much does the d-level shift relative to band theory.
a large literature exists (see, e.g. Karolak et al, Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and related phenomena, 181 (2010) 11–15) but there is as yet no generally agreed upon prescription. Results are sensitive to choice of double counting correction.
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
p-d covalency
My point of view (not universally accepted): parametrize the renormalized d energy by d occupancy
key issue: renormalized d energy, relative to the ligands.
Question: what does ‘‘renormalized d energy’’ mean
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
�0.4
�0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Unhybridized bands: upper one is pure d. Increase hybridization, increase d-character of occupied states
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
d-occupancy:* Intuitive notion: e.g. La3+Ni3+O32- =>Ni d7 (Nd=6+1)
*Theoretically needed (if you want to put correlations on d-orbital you need to know what this orbital is and how much it is occupied)
*definition:
In terms of exact Green function G(r, r�;�)
and predefined d-wave function �d
Nd =�
a,�
�d�
�f(�)
�d3rd3r
�Im
�(�a
d(r))� G�(r, r�,�)�a
d(r�)�
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Notes
*d occupancy depends on how orbital is defined (as does the entire edifice of DFT+....)
Expect: all reasonable definitions give consistent answers (more on this later)
*should focus only on occupancy of ‘relevant’ orbitals
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Notes
*Density functional theory only gives you
n(r) =�
a,�
�d�
�f(�)
�d3r Im [ G�(r, r,�)]
Thus even exact density functional, solved exactly, is not guaranteed to give you the exact Nd
But: seems plausible that in most cases DFT is a reasonably good approximation (more on this later)
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Notes
*Nd: theoretically precisely defined;experimental measures are indirect
--Intensities in resonant absorption spectra--Sizes of moments/knight shifts--peak positions (``many-body ed-ep)
(more on this later)
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
In practice:Available double counting corrections give Nd fairly close to Nd defined from DFT band theory calculations
Example: rare earth nickelates ReNiO3
LuNiO3: insulator. 2 inequivalent Ni sites.
Ni1 Ni2GGA 8.21 8.20GGA+U 8.24 8.22
Charge fixed by electrostatic effects.Very robust
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
*DFT+DMFT (Georges04,Kotliar06,Held06)
Identify atomic-like d-orbital. Keep on-site d-d self energyarising from single-site DMFT approx using Slater-kanamori interactions
GabQI =< �ia
d (r)|G(r, r�,�)|�ibd (r
�) >
DMFT self consistency eq:
Same double counting issue as in DFT+U
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Another example: High Tc cuprates
Green dots: fully charge self-consistent DFT+DMFT calculations for U=7,10eV. Vertical lines: DFT band theory (Wein2K and GGA)
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Nickelate superlattices
Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 016404 (2008)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 016401 2009
U=0
U=6eV
Frontier orbital approach
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Atomic-like d orbitalsM. J. Han, X. Wang, C. A. Marianetti, A. J. M, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 206804 (2011).
-8 -4 0 4 ! (eV)
0
4
8
12
U(e
V)
*LaNiO3/LaXO3 (mainly X=Al)*VASP/Wannier DFT+DMFT (Non-self-consistent) *Computed ‘orbital polarization’*Several combinations of U and ed-ep
M
I
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Results 1: Define P by integrating spectral functionfor superlattice
Spectral functions
P=0.05 P=0.09
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
DO
S (
sta
tes/e
V)
(a)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
(b)Op
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
DO
S (
sta
tes/e
V)
Energy (eV)
(c)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
Energy (eV)
(d) x2-y
2
3z2-r
2
P=0.2 P=0.07
-8 -4 0 4 ! (eV)
0
4
8
12
U(e
V)
Phase Diagram
M
I
Interactions decrease P
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Results 2: How many sheets to the Fermi surface
-8 -4 0 4 ! (eV)
0
4
8
12
U(e
V)
Phase Diagram
M
I
P=0.05 P=0.09
P=0.2 P=0.07
-8 -4 0 4 ! (eV)
0
4
8
12
U(e
V)
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
!1.0 !0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0!1.0
!0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
kx!Π
k y!Π
!1.0 !0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0!1.0
!0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
kx!Π
k y!Π
!1.0 !0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0!1.0
!0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
kx!Π
k y!Π
!1.0 !0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0!1.0
!0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
kx!Π
k y!Π
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Results 2: Relation to Nd
-8 -4 0 4 ! (eV)
0
4
8
12
U(e
V)
Phase Diagram
M
I
Nd=2
Nd=1.98
Nd=1.5
Nd=1.43
P=0.05 P=0.09
P=0.2 P=0.07
-8 -4 0 4 ! (eV)
0
4
8
12
U(e
V)
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
!1.0 !0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0!1.0
!0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
kx!Π
k y!Π
!1.0 !0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0!1.0
!0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
kx!Π
k y!Π
!1.0 !0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0!1.0
!0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
kx!Π
k y!Π
!1.0 !0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0!1.0
!0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
kx!Π
k y!Π
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Key point: Ni-O covalency
La2InNiO6
Occupancy per orbitalBand theory: electron moves from O to Ni,
configuration is d8L
d8 is high spin:both orbitals occupied
According to band theory, LaNiO3 and derivatives are close to being negative charge transfer energy materials
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
d8 (high spin)=> no distortionTwo electrons in high spin state=>no energy gain from distortion
Negligible response to lattice distortion
Over wide range of many-body phase space, Nd is close enough to d8 that low-spin J-T state is disfavored
2-band Hubbard model with 1 el/Ni unitcannot represent d8L physics
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Covalency in perovskitesGenerally important
IM
Band theory or standard double counting indicates that La2CuO4 is not a Mott insulator
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Example: NiO
Fit full p-d band complex:Add ‘Slater-Kanamori’U-J interactions on d-only. Solve.
Karolak et al Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena 181 (2010) 11–15
DFT
many-bodycalc
choice of double counting (covalency) affects results (perhaps less strongly)
Copyright A. J. Millis 2013 Columbia University
Conclusion
•Wide variety of behaviors•Important role played by instability of d valence•Energetics and state of the art of realistic theory of correlated electron materials•Key (and still ill-understood) role of double counting correction•Important open question: is the ``standard model’’ (atomic d, local correlation) the most correct and useful description?