pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.02717 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-04 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el

Recognition: 2 theorem links

Benchmarking the Dual Fermion approach on the Falicov-Kimball model

Akshat Mishra, Erik G. C. P. van Loon, Hugo U. R. Strand

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 18:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el
keywords dual fermionfalcov-kimball modeldynamical mean-field theorybenchmarkingnonlocal correlationsorbital densitysusceptibilitystrongly correlated electrons
0
0 comments X

The pith

Ladder Dual Fermion matches exact Monte Carlo results for the Falicov-Kimball model more closely than dynamical mean-field theory across most observables.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper benchmarks the ladder version of the Dual Fermion method against dynamical mean-field theory on the Falicov-Kimball model, using the model's exact classical Monte Carlo solution as reference. It establishes that Dual Fermion captures additional nonlocal effects and therefore improves agreement with the exact results for thermodynamic quantities, the electronic spectrum, and susceptibilities at combined frequency and momentum. A reader would care because the Falicov-Kimball model is a standard test case for strongly correlated systems with two inequivalent orbitals, and the benchmark directly tests whether diagrammatic extensions can be trusted for real materials. The work also records a clear exception: Dual Fermion is less accurate than dynamical mean-field theory for the orbital density as a function of chemical potential in the doped regime.

Core claim

The authors demonstrate that ladder Dual Fermion calculations agree better with the exact Monte Carlo solution of the Falicov-Kimball model than dynamical mean-field theory does for thermodynamics, electronic structure, and momentum-frequency susceptibilities. They simultaneously show that the same Dual Fermion implementation deviates more from the exact density-chemical-potential relation in the doped case. The central claim is therefore that Dual Fermion outperforms its parent mean-field method on this model while still requiring further validation on quantities tied to orbital filling.

What carries the argument

The ladder Dual Fermion approximation, which augments the local dynamical mean-field solution by summing selected nonlocal diagrams in dual fermion variables to restore momentum dependence.

If this is right

  • Diagrammatic extensions can be used with greater for models where nonlocal correlations dominate the thermodynamics and response functions.
  • Benchmarking against solvable limits remains necessary before applying the method to materials with multiple orbital species.
  • The observed discrepancy in orbital density versus chemical potential indicates that filling-controlled quantities may still require separate checks even when other observables improve.
  • Combined frequency-momentum data become reliable enough to extract concrete predictions for instabilities once the method is validated.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar benchmarks on the Hubbard model at intermediate doping could test whether the density-chemical-potential limitation is specific to the Falicov-Kimball interaction or general.
  • The result motivates development of self-consistent or higher-order diagram resummations inside Dual Fermion that restore accurate particle-number relations.
  • If the density deviation persists across implementations, practitioners may prefer to fix the chemical potential externally rather than rely on the computed filling.

Load-bearing premise

That the particular ladder diagrams and numerical implementation chosen here are representative of how Dual Fermion will behave on other models containing inequivalent orbitals.

What would settle it

Exact Monte Carlo data for the same Falicov-Kimball parameters showing that Dual Fermion errors exceed dynamical mean-field theory errors in the majority of susceptibility or spectral functions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.02717 by Akshat Mishra, Erik G. C. P. van Loon, Hugo U. R. Strand.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Benchmarking the electron densities view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) The Green’s function at the lowest Matsubara view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The momentum-normalized deviation in self-energy, view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) The view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The inverse view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The Green’s function, Im view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The momentum-dependent self-energy, Re Σ( view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Benchmarking the electron densities view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. The Green’s function at the lowest Matsubara fre view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. The view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. The view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Strong electronic correlations generally require non-perturbative treatment. Local correlations are captured by dynamical mean-field theory while nonlocal correlations can be treated with diagrammatic extensions such as the Dual Fermion approach. Dual Fermion is built on physically motivated, but in principle uncontrolled approximations, so careful benchmarking is needed to understand the strengths and limitations of the method. In this work, we benchmark ladder Dual Fermion and dynamical mean-field theory for the Falicov-Kimball model with the exact classical Monte Carlo solution. We focus on the thermodynamics, electronic structure and susceptibility, especially at the combined frequency and momentum structure, and find that Dual Fermion clearly outperforms dynamical mean-field theory. Somewhat surprisingly, Dual Fermion is not as accurate for the relation between orbital density versus chemical potential in the doped system. These results demonstrate the need for rigorous benchmarking of diagrammatic extensions of dynamical mean-field theory for models with inequivalent orbitals, which is essential for modelling materials.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper benchmarks the ladder Dual Fermion approach against dynamical mean-field theory using the exact classical Monte Carlo solution as reference for the Falicov-Kimball model. It evaluates performance on thermodynamics, electronic structure, and susceptibilities (especially combined frequency-momentum structure) and reports that Dual Fermion outperforms DMFT in most quantities while being less accurate for the orbital density versus chemical potential relation in the doped regime. The authors conclude by stressing the importance of such benchmarks for models with inequivalent orbitals.

Significance. If the results hold, this work is significant because it supplies a direct, quantitative validation of a diagrammatic extension of DMFT against an independent exact solver on a model containing both itinerant and localized orbitals. The explicit identification of both the general improvement and the specific limitation in the doped case supplies useful guidance for applying the method to realistic materials. The use of an exact Monte Carlo reference is a clear strength that avoids circularity in the comparison.

minor comments (3)
  1. The abstract states the main findings clearly but does not mention the specific interaction strength or temperature range employed in the benchmark; adding one sentence with these parameters would improve immediate context for readers.
  2. Figure captions for the susceptibility plots (combined frequency-momentum structure) could be expanded to explicitly state the momentum path and frequency range shown, aiding interpretation of the reported improvement over DMFT.
  3. A short sentence in the discussion section noting that the observed limitation is specific to the ladder approximation and the Falicov-Kimball model (rather than claiming generality) would further align the text with the scoped nature of the study.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of the manuscript and the positive recommendation to accept. The referee's summary accurately reflects the scope and conclusions of our benchmarking study on the ladder Dual Fermion approach for the Falicov-Kimball model.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: No specific major comments were provided; the referee recommends acceptance based on the quantitative validation against exact Monte Carlo results and the identification of both improvements and limitations of the method.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's recognition of the value of such benchmarks for diagrammatic extensions of DMFT, particularly for models with inequivalent orbitals. No revisions are required in response to this report. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: benchmarking against independent exact Monte Carlo

full rationale

The paper's core contribution is a direct numerical comparison of ladder Dual Fermion and DMFT approximations to the exact classical Monte Carlo solution on the Falicov-Kimball model. All reported performance differences in thermodynamics, spectra, and susceptibilities are obtained by running independent solvers on the same Hamiltonian and comparing outputs to the exact reference; no parameter is fitted to the target observables and then re-used as a 'prediction,' and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation to force the result. The single noted discrepancy (orbital density vs. chemical potential in the doped regime) is explicitly flagged by the authors rather than derived from the method itself. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained and externally falsifiable.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on the standard assumption that classical Monte Carlo solves the Falicov-Kimball model exactly and that the ladder Dual Fermion diagrams capture the leading nonlocal corrections. No new entities are postulated.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Classical Monte Carlo provides the exact solution for the Falicov-Kimball model at finite temperature.
    Invoked when using Monte Carlo as the reference benchmark.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5478 in / 1191 out tokens · 45329 ms · 2026-05-08T18:18:54.622792+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dagotto, Correlated electrons in high-temperature superconductors, Reviews of Modern Physics66, 763 (1994)

    E. Dagotto, Correlated electrons in high-temperature superconductors, Reviews of Modern Physics66, 763 (1994)

    1994

  2. [2]

    N. F. Mott, Metal-insulator transition, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics40, 677 (1968)

    1968

  3. [3]

    Hansmann, T

    P. Hansmann, T. Ayral, L. Vaugier, P. Werner, and S. Biermann, Long-range coulomb interactions in sur- face systems: A first-principles description within self- consistently combinedGWand dynamical mean-field theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 166401 (2013)

    2013

  4. [4]

    Xu, C.-M

    H. Xu, C.-M. Chung, M. Qin, U. Schollw¨ ock, S. R. White, and S. Zhang, Coexistence of superconductivity with par- tially filled stripes in the Hubbard model, Science384, eadh7691 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    Basov, R

    D. Basov, R. Averitt, and D. Hsieh, Towards properties on demand in quantum materials, Nature materials16, 1077 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    Esslinger, Fermi-Hubbard physics with atoms in an optical lattice, Annu

    T. Esslinger, Fermi-Hubbard physics with atoms in an optical lattice, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.1, 129 (2010)

    2010

  7. [7]

    M. Qin, T. Sch¨ afer, S. Andergassen, P. Corboz, and E. Gull, The Hubbard model: A computational perspec- tive, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics13, 275 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    D. P. Arovas, E. Berg, S. A. Kivelson, and S. Raghu, The Hubbard model, Annual review of condensed matter physics13, 239 (2022)

    2022

  9. [9]

    Georges, G

    A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M. J. Rozen- berg, Dynamical mean-field theory of strongly correlated fermion systems and the limit of infinite dimensions, Rev. Mod. Phys.68, 13 (1996)

    1996

  10. [10]

    Metzner and D

    W. Metzner and D. Vollhardt, Correlated lattice fermions ind=∞dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.62, 324 (1989)

    1989

  11. [11]

    P. C. Hohenberg, Existence of long-range order in one and two dimensions, Phys. Rev.158, 383 (1967)

    1967

  12. [12]

    N. D. Mermin and H. Wagner, Absence of ferromag- netism or antiferromagnetism in one- or two-dimensional isotropic Heisenberg models, Phys. Rev. Lett.17, 1133 (1966)

    1966

  13. [13]

    Maier, M

    T. Maier, M. Jarrell, T. Pruschke, and M. H. Hettler, Quantum cluster theories, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 1027 (2005)

    2005

  14. [14]

    M. H. Hettler, A. N. Tahvildar-Zadeh, M. Jarrell, T. Pr- uschke, and H. R. Krishnamurthy, Nonlocal dynami- cal correlations of strongly interacting electron systems, Phys. Rev. B58, R7475 (1998)

    1998

  15. [15]

    M. H. Hettler, M. Mukherjee, M. Jarrell, and H. R. Kr- ishnamurthy, Dynamical cluster approximation: Nonlo- cal dynamics of correlated electron systems, Phys. Rev. B61, 12739 (2000)

    2000

  16. [16]

    Kotliar, S

    G. Kotliar, S. Y. Savrasov, G. P´ alsson, and G. Biroli, Cellular dynamical mean field approach to strongly cor- related systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 186401 (2001)

    2001

  17. [17]

    Schiller and K

    A. Schiller and K. Ingersent, Systematic 1/dcorrections to the infinite-dimensional limit of correlated lattice elec- tron models, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 113 (1995)

    1995

  18. [18]

    Biroli, O

    G. Biroli, O. Parcollet, and G. Kotliar, Cluster dynamical mean-field theories: Causality and classical limit, Phys. Rev. B69, 205108 (2004)

    2004

  19. [19]

    Vuˇ ciˇ cevi´ c, N

    J. Vuˇ ciˇ cevi´ c, N. Wentzell, M. Ferrero, and O. Parcollet, Practical consequences of the luttinger-ward functional multivaluedness for cluster dmft methods, Phys. Rev. B 97, 125141 (2018)

    2018

  20. [20]

    A. N. Rubtsov, M. I. Katsnelson, and A. I. Lichtenstein, Dual fermion approach to nonlocal correlations in the Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B77, 033101 (2008)

    2008

  21. [21]

    Rubtsov, M

    A. Rubtsov, M. Katsnelson, and A. Lichtenstein, Dual boson approach to collective excitations in correlated 14 fermionic systems, Annals of Physics327, 1320 (2012)

    2012

  22. [22]

    Toschi, A

    A. Toschi, A. A. Katanin, and K. Held, Dynamical ver- tex approximation: A step beyond dynamical mean-field theory, Phys. Rev. B75, 045118 (2007)

    2007

  23. [23]

    A. M. Sengupta and A. Georges, Non-fermi-liquid behav- ior near aT= 0 spin-glass transition, Phys. Rev. B52, 10295 (1995)

    1995

  24. [24]

    Si and J

    Q. Si and J. L. Smith, Kosterlitz-Thouless transition and short range spatial correlations in an extended Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 3391 (1996)

    1996

  25. [25]

    Sun and G

    P. Sun and G. Kotliar, Extended dynamical mean-field theory and GW method, Phys. Rev. B66, 085120 (2002)

    2002

  26. [26]

    Metzner, M

    W. Metzner, M. Salmhofer, C. Honerkamp, V. Meden, and K. Sch¨ onhammer, Functional renormalization group approach to correlated fermion systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 299 (2012)

    2012

  27. [27]

    Taranto, S

    C. Taranto, S. Andergassen, J. Bauer, K. Held, A. Katanin, W. Metzner, G. Rohringer, and A. Toschi, From infinite to two dimensions through the functional renormalization group, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 196402 (2014)

    2014

  28. [28]

    Ayral and O

    T. Ayral and O. Parcollet, Mott physics and spin fluc- tuations: A unified framework, Phys. Rev. B92, 115109 (2015)

    2015

  29. [29]

    Ayral and O

    T. Ayral and O. Parcollet, Mott physics and spin fluctu- ations: A functional viewpoint, Phys. Rev. B93, 235124 (2016)

    2016

  30. [30]

    Ayral, J

    T. Ayral, J. Vuˇ ciˇ cevi´ c, and O. Parcollet, Fierz conver- gence criterion: A controlled approach to strongly inter- acting systems with small embedded clusters, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 166401 (2017)

    2017

  31. [31]

    Ayral and O

    T. Ayral and O. Parcollet, Mott physics and collective modes: An atomic approximation of the four-particle ir- reducible functional, Phys. Rev. B94, 075159 (2016)

    2016

  32. [32]

    E. A. Stepanov, V. Harkov, and A. I. Lichtenstein, Con- sistent partial bosonization of the extended hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B100, 205115 (2019)

    2019

  33. [33]

    Krien, A

    F. Krien, A. Valli, and M. Capone, Single-boson exchange decomposition of the vertex function, Phys. Rev. B100, 155149 (2019)

    2019

  34. [34]

    Sch¨ afer, F

    T. Sch¨ afer, F. Geles, D. Rost, G. Rohringer, E. Arrigoni, K. Held, N. Bl¨ umer, M. Aichhorn, and A. Toschi, Fate of the false Mott-Hubbard transition in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. B91, 125109 (2015)

    2015

  35. [35]

    J. P. F. LeBlanc, A. E. Antipov, F. Becca, I. W. Bulik, G. K.-L. Chan, C.-M. Chung, Y. Deng, M. Ferrero, T. M. Henderson, C. A. Jim´ enez-Hoyos, E. Kozik, X.-W. Liu, A. J. Millis, N. V. Prokof’ev, M. Qin, G. E. Scuseria, H. Shi, B. V. Svistunov, L. F. Tocchio, I. S. Tupitsyn, S. R. White, S. Zhang, B.-X. Zheng, Z. Zhu, and E. Gull (Simons Collaboration on...

    2015

  36. [36]

    Sch¨ afer, N

    T. Sch¨ afer, N. Wentzell, F.ˇSimkovic, Y.-Y. He, C. Hille, M. Klett, C. J. Eckhardt, B. Arzhang, V. Harkov, F.-M. Le R´ egent, A. Kirsch, Y. Wang, A. J. Kim, E. Kozik, E. A. Stepanov, A. Kauch, S. Andergassen, P. Hansmann, D. Rohe, Y. M. Vilk, J. P. F. LeBlanc, S. Zhang, A.-M. S. Tremblay, M. Ferrero, O. Parcollet, and A. Georges, Tracking the footprints...

    2021

  37. [37]

    L. M. Falicov and J. C. Kimball, Simple model for semiconductor-metal transitions: Smb 6 and transition- metal oxides, Phys. Rev. Lett.22, 997 (1969)

    1969

  38. [38]

    J. K. Freericks and V. Zlati´ c, Exact dynamical mean-field theory of the Falicov-Kimball model, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 1333 (2003)

    2003

  39. [39]

    M. M. Ma´ ska, R. Lema´ nski, J. K. Freericks, and C. J. Williams, Pattern formation in mixtures of ultracold atoms in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 060404 (2008)

    2008

  40. [40]

    A. E. Antipov, Y. Javanmard, P. Ribeiro, and S. Kirch- ner, Interaction-tuned Anderson versus Mott localiza- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 146601 (2016)

    2016

  41. [41]

    A. E. Antipov, E. Gull, and S. Kirchner, Critical expo- nents of strongly correlated fermion systems from dia- grammatic multiscale methods, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 226401 (2014)

    2014

  42. [42]

    Hafermann, G

    H. Hafermann, G. Li, A. N. Rubtsov, M. I. Katsnelson, A. I. Lichtenstein, and H. Monien, Efficient perturbation theory for quantum lattice models, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 206401 (2009)

    2009

  43. [43]

    Iskakov, A

    S. Iskakov, A. E. Antipov, and E. Gull, Diagrammatic monte carlo for dual fermions, Phys. Rev. B94, 035102 (2016)

    2016

  44. [44]

    Astleithner, A

    K. Astleithner, A. Kauch, T. Ribic, and K. Held, Par- quet dual fermion approach for the falicov-kimball model, Phys. Rev. B101, 165101 (2020)

    2020

  45. [45]

    Hubbard, Electron correlations in narrow energy bands, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    J. Hubbard, Electron correlations in narrow energy bands, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences276, 238 (1963)

    1963

  46. [46]

    M. C. Gutzwiller, Effect of correlation on the ferromag- netism of transition metals, Phys. Rev. Lett.10, 159 (1963)

    1963

  47. [47]

    Kanamori, Electron correlation and ferromagnetism of transition metals, Progress of Theoretical Physics30, 275 (1963)

    J. Kanamori, Electron correlation and ferromagnetism of transition metals, Progress of Theoretical Physics30, 275 (1963)

    1963

  48. [48]

    E. G. C. P. van Loon, H. Hafermann, and M. I. Kat- snelson, Precursors of the insulating state in the square- lattice Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B97, 085125 (2018)

    2018

  49. [49]

    M. E. Newman and G. T. Barkema, Monte Carlo methods in statistical physics (Claren- don Press, 1999)

    1999

  50. [50]

    H. U. R. Strand, Two-particle response function tool-box (TPRF) for TRIQS,https://github.com/TRIQS/tprf (2019)

    2019

  51. [51]

    Brandt and C

    U. Brandt and C. Mielsch, Thermodynamics and cor- relation functions of the falicov-kimball model in large dimensions, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B Condensed Matter 75, 365 (1989)

    1989

  52. [52]

    Ribic, G

    T. Ribic, G. Rohringer, and K. Held, Nonlocal correla- tions and spectral properties of the falicov-kimball model, Phys. Rev. B93, 195105 (2016)

    2016

  53. [53]

    Brener, H

    S. Brener, H. Hafermann, A. N. Rubtsov, M. I. Katsnel- son, and A. I. Lichtenstein, Dual fermion approach to susceptibility of correlated lattice fermions, Phys. Rev. B77, 195105 (2008)

    2008

  54. [54]

    A. E. Antipov, aeantipov/fk df (2015)

    2015

  55. [55]

    Tscheppe, M

    P. Tscheppe, M. Klett, H. Menke, S. Andergassen, N. En- derlein, P. Hansmann, and T. Sch¨ afer, Coherent cellular dynamical mean-field theory: a real-space quantum em- bedding approach to disorder in strongly correlated elec- tron systems (2025), arXiv:2503.10364 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    E. Gull, M. Ferrero, O. Parcollet, A. Georges, and A. J. Millis, Momentum-space anisotropy and pseudogaps: A 15 comparative cluster dynamical mean-field analysis of the doping-driven metal-insulator transition in the two- dimensional Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B82, 155101 (2010)

    2010

  57. [57]

    W. Wu, M. S. Scheurer, S. Chatterjee, S. Sachdev, A. Georges, and M. Ferrero, Pseudogap and Fermi- surface topology in the two-dimensional Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. X8, 021048 (2018)

    2018

  58. [58]

    ˇSimkovic IV, R

    F. ˇSimkovic IV, R. Rossi, A. Georges, and M. Ferrero, Origin and fate of the pseudogap in the doped hubbard model, Science385, eade9194 (2024)

    2024

  59. [59]

    Chatzieleftheriou, A

    M. Chatzieleftheriou, A. N. Rudenko, Y. Sidis, S. Bier- mann, and E. A. Stepanov, Nature of momentum- and orbital-dependent magnetic fluctuations in sr2ruo4, Phys. Rev. B112, 195118 (2025)

    2025

  60. [60]

    E. A. Stepanov, Fingerprints of a charge ice state in the doped mott insulator Nb 3Cl8, Phys. Rev. B112, 045131 (2025)

    2025

  61. [61]

    Chatzieleftheriou, S

    M. Chatzieleftheriou, S. Biermann, and E. A. Stepanov, Local and nonlocal electronic correlations at the metal- insulator transition in the two-dimensional Hubbard Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 236504 (2024)

    2024

  62. [62]

    Parcollet, M

    O. Parcollet, M. Ferrero, T. Ayral, H. Hafermann, I. Krivenko, L. Messio, and P. Seth, Triqs: A toolbox for research on interacting quantum systems, Computer Physics Communications196, 398 (2015)

    2015

  63. [63]

    J. Kaye, K. Chen, and O. Parcollet, Discrete Lehmann representation of imaginary time Green’s functions, Phys. Rev. B105, 235115 (2022)

    2022

  64. [64]

    J. Kaye, K. Chen, and H. U. Strand, libdlr: Efficient imaginary time calculations using the discrete Lehmann representation, Computer Physics Communications280, 108458 (2022)

    2022

  65. [65]

    J. Kaye, H. U. R. Strand, and N. Wentzell, cppdlr: Imag- inary time calculations using the discrete Lehmann rep- resentation, Journal of Open Source Software9, 6297 (2024). Appendix A: Finite Matsubara frequency dependence We compare the Matsubara frequency dependence of thecc-susceptibility at the M-point as this is the point most affected by the checker...

    2024

  66. [66]

    To compress the Green’s functions, we use the imaginary-frequency Discrete Lehmann representation (DLR) [63–65] to evaluate Eq

    and the Two Particle Response Function toolbox (TPRF) [50]. To compress the Green’s functions, we use the imaginary-frequency Discrete Lehmann representation (DLR) [63–65] to evaluate Eq. (12) on a restricted, well-chosen set of Matsubara frequencies from which the entire Matsubara Green’s function can be reconstructed. For the calculation ofG (2), bubble...