Paper detail

Coulomb Glasses: A Comparison Between Mean Field and Monte Carlo Results

Recently a local mean field theory for both eqilibrium and transport properties of the Coulomb glass was proposed [A. Amir et al., Phys. Rev. B 77, 165207 (2008); 80, 245214 (2009)]. We compare the predictions of this theory to the results of dynamic Monte Carlo simulations. In a thermal equilibrium state we compare the density of states and the occupation probabilities. We also study the transition rates between different states and find that the mean field rates underestimate a certain class of important transitions. We propose modified rates to be used in the mean field approach which take into account correlations at the minimal level in the sense that transitions are only to take place from an occupied to an empty site. We show that this modification accounts for most of the difference between the mean field and Monte Carlo rates. The linear response conductance is shown to exhibit the Efros-Shklovskii behaviour in both the mean field and Monte Carlo approaches, but the mean field method strongly underestimates the current at low temperatures. When using the modified rates better agreement is achieved.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.