Paper detail

On the dangers of partial diagrammatic summations: Benchmarks for the two-dimensional Hubbard model in the weak-coupling regime

We study the two-dimensional Hubbard model in the weak-coupling regime and compare the self-energy obtained from various approximate diagrammatic schemes to the result of diagrammatic Monte Carlo simulations, which sum up all weak-coupling diagrams up to a given order. While dynamical mean-field theory provides a good approximation for the local part of the self-energy, including its frequency dependence, the partial summation of bubble and/or ladder diagrams typically yields worse results than second order perturbation theory. Even widely used self-consistent schemes such as GW or the fluctuation-exchange approximation (FLEX) are found to be unreliable. Combining the dynamical mean-field self-energy with the nonlocal component of GW in GW+DMFT yields improved results for the local self-energy and nonlocal self-energies of the correct order of magnitude, but here, too, a more reliable scheme is obtained by restricting the nonlocal contribution to the second order diagram. FLEX+DMFT is found to give accurate results in the low-density regime, but even worse results than FLEX near half-filling.

preprint2015arXivOpen 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.