Paper detail

Direct theoretical evidence for weaker correlations in electron-doped and Hg-based hole-doped cuprates

Many important questions for high-$T_c$ cuprates are closely related to the insulating nature of parent compounds. While there has been intensive discussion on this issue, all arguments rely strongly on, or are closely related to, the correlation strength of the materials. Clear understanding has been seriously hampered by the absence of a direct measure of this interaction, traditionally denoted by $U$. Here, we report a first-principles estimation of $U$ for several different types of cuprates. The $U$ values clearly increase as a function of the inverse bond distance between apical oxygen and copper. Our results show that the electron-doped cuprates are less correlated than their hole-doped counterparts, which supports the Slater picture rather than the Mott picture. Further, the $U$ values significantly vary even among the hole-doped families. The correlation strengths of the Hg-cuprates are noticeably weaker than that of La$_2$CuO$_4$. Our results suggest that the strong correlation enough to induce Mott gap may not be a prerequisite for the high-$T_c$ superconductivity.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access6 authors2 topics

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.