Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Self-Consistent Coulomb Interactions from Constrained Dynamical Mean-Field Theory

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A self-consistent first-principles route to the screened Coulomb interaction U in correlated materials, tested across 3d–5d compounds.

desk verdict A plausible but under-supported route to first-principles U: the method is new and the Kondo mechanism is compelling, but the missing fixed-point demonstration and U-insensitive spectra leave the headline claim unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.12678 v2 pith:QR6CDDFI submitted 2026-01-19 cond-mat.str-el

Antik Sihi , Subhasish Mandal , Kristjan Haule This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el PACS 71.27.+a71.15.-m71.20.-b
keywords constraineddynamicalmean-fieldtheoryscreenedCoulombinteractionHubbardUDFT+DMFTvertexcorrectionscorrelatedelectronscharge-transferinsulatorspectralfunctions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper introduces constrained dynamical mean-field theory (cDMFT) to compute the on-site screened Coulomb interaction U self-consistently within the same embedded dynamical mean-field theory (eDMFT) used for the electronic structure. The key step is identifying U − αJ with the charging energy E(N+1) − 2E(N) + E(N−1) evaluated from supercell total energies, with the central site frozen and surrounding correlated sites treated as quantum impurities. Across 3d, 4d, and 5d metals and insulators, cDMFT yields U ≈ 3.8–6.3 eV for metals and U ≈ 6.7–10.2 eV for insulators—systematically larger than constrained DFT or cRPA values. Spectral functions computed with these U values match photoemission and ARPES data for nickelates, oxides, altermagnets, and iridates. If correct, the main empirical knob of DFT+DMFT becomes an internally computed quantity, replacing the commonly used U = 5 eV for metals and U = 10 eV for oxides.

What carries the argument

The central object is the charging-energy identity U − αJ = E(N+1) − 2E(N) + E(N−1), evaluated within a supercell embedded-DMFT setup. The central site's d or f electrons are frozen into core states, the hoppings to it are set to zero, and every other correlated site is treated as a quantum impurity, so screening arises from the same dynamical many-body response used in the subsequent electronic-structure calculation. The Luttinger–Ward functional provides the total energies E(N), and the coefficient α (1.172 for t2g, 1.517 for eg) separates the charging part of the Slater interaction from Hund's coupling J, fixed here to 0.8 eV.

What would settle it

Compute U for a single material (e.g., NiO) with 2×2×2, 3×3×3, and 4×4×4 supercells; if U drifts by more than ~0.3 eV, or if seeding the cDMFT total-energy calculation with U = 2 eV versus U = 12 eV for the surrounding impurities yields converged U values that differ by more than ~0.3 eV, the claimed self-consistency and quantitative accuracy fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the screened Coulomb interaction U can be computed self-consistently within the eDMFT framework itself, rather than fixed by hand or taken from a separate static method. Specifically, U − αJ is set equal to E(N+1) − 2E(N) + E(N−1), where the total energies come from charge-self-consistent eDMFT on a 2×2×2 supercell in which the central correlated site's electrons are frozen into core states and the surrounding correlated sites are solved as quantum impurities. The paper reports U ≈ 3.8–6.3 eV for metals and U ≈ 6.7–10.2 eV for insulators across 3d, 4d, and 5d compounds, systematically larger than cDFT or cRPA. It further shows that eDMFT spectral functions c

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the energy cost of adding or removing one electron on a single frozen site in a small supercell equals the bulk on-site Coulomb interaction, and that this energy difference is accurate to about 0.3 eV and independent of the interaction strength used in the surrounding impurity problems.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DFT+DMFT and its extensions become parameter-free at the level of on-site interactions: U is an output, not an input.
  • The empirically established values U ≈ 5 eV for metals and U ≈ 10 eV for oxides emerge from one framework, giving a physical rationale for their transferability.
  • High-throughput materials databases can be built with internally consistent interaction parameters, avoiding method- and material-dependent scatter.
  • A phase-dependent U (6.3 eV for metallic V2O3 vs 8.5 eV for insulating V2O3) is predicted, meaning fixed-U Hubbard models systematically miss Mott-transition physics.
  • Vertex corrections, normally neglected in cRPA, are included through the many-body total energies, changing U by roughly 1–4 eV relative to static schemes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not show the U_in → U_out iteration map or its fixed point; a numerical demonstration that the scheme converges to a unique U independent of the starting value would settle the 'self-consistent' label.
  • The supercell-size test is limited to one metal (V) and one oxide (SrIrO3); extending the 2×2×2 → 3×3×3 check to a Mott insulator would test whether the ~0.2 eV convergence holds where screening is most nonlocal.
  • If the Kondo-cloud picture of screening in NiO is right, U should be sensitive to local coordination and disorder, so transferability across surfaces, interfaces, or doped samples is an open question.
  • A natural extension is to f-electron systems (lanthanides and actinides), where 4f/5f screening may require larger supercells and an α coefficient for f-shells would need to be derived.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a constrained dynamical mean-field theory (cDMFT) scheme in which the on-site Coulomb interaction U is obtained from charging-energy differences E(N+1)+E(N-1)-2E(N) computed with charge-self-consistent eDMFT supercell calculations, one correlated site being constrained. The method is applied to a set of 3d, 4d, and 5d transition-metal compounds, yielding U values in the ranges 3.8-6.3 eV for metals and 6.7-10.2 eV for insulators. These U values are then used as inputs to standard eDMFT calculations, and the resulting spectral functions are compared with ARPES data. The central claim is that cDMFT determines U self-consistently, including vertex corrections, thereby replacing the empirical U knob of DFT+DMFT.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, this would be an important step: a first-principles, internally consistent determination of the local Coulomb interaction for DFT+DMFT, with a single framework reproducing previously empirical choices such as U≈5 eV for metals and U≈10 eV for oxides. The paper covers a broad materials set and reports energy-based U values rather than fitting to spectra, which is a strength. However, the self-consistency assertion is not backed by a demonstrated fixed-point procedure, and the spectral comparisons are weak discriminators because the authors themselves find eDMFT spectra to be only weakly U-dependent. The manuscript is therefore not yet at the level needed to support its main claim.

major comments (5)
  1. [§cDMFT Method; SI Computational Details] The paper states that U is 'computed self-consistently within eDMFT', but it never specifies the local Coulomb interaction U_imp used in the impurity problems for the non-constrained correlated sites. These impurity problems are required to obtain E(N+1), E(N), and E(N-1). The SI only says the total energies are 'estimated by the charge self-consistent eDMFT calculations'; it does not state what U_imp is, whether the calculation is iterated, or whether the output U equals the input U_imp. If U_imp is fixed to an arbitrary value, the computed U is conditional on that choice. A U_in→U_out map with convergence from several starting U values is essential to support the 'self-consistent' label.
  2. [§cDMFT Method; SI Computational Details] The total energy used in the charging-energy formula is E=F+TS at temperature T, with β=50 eV (T≈232 K) in the SI. The cDFT expression U−αJ=E(N+1)−2E(N)+E(N−1) is a ground-state total-energy difference. At finite temperature, the entropy contribution can be non-negligible, especially in correlated insulators near a Mott transition. No T→0 extrapolation or estimate of the finite-T bias is provided, so the reported U values may carry an uncontrolled temperature error.
  3. [§Sensitivity and transferability of U; SI Fig. 6] The paper admits and demonstrates that eDMFT spectral functions are only weakly sensitive to U: SI Fig. 6 shows the NiO gap nearly unchanged for U=9-12 eV. Therefore the 'excellent agreement with ARPES' reported for the cDMFT-derived U values cannot discriminate those values from neighboring U choices. The spectral comparison is thus not evidence for the accuracy of the specific U values. The authors should provide validation via observables that are actually sensitive to U, such as total-energy phase stability, optical gaps with a documented U dependence, or response functions.
  4. [Eq. (1); Table I; §cDMFT Method] The calculation actually determines U−αJ, not U alone, and J is fixed empirically to 0.8 eV for all systems. A change in J of 0.1 eV changes U by α×0.1 eV≈0.12-0.15 eV, comparable to the claimed accuracy. In addition, the coefficient α depends on the orbital subspace (1.172 for t2g, 1.517 for eg, 1.15 for total d), but the paper does not state which α is used for each material in Table I. This ambiguity should be resolved and the dependence of the final U on the assumed J should be reported.
  5. [§All calculations are performed using 2×2×2 supercells; SI Supercell size dependent U] Supercell convergence is checked only for elemental V (change 0.2 eV from 2×2×2 to 3×3×3) and for SrIrO3 (change 0.5 eV from primitive to 2×2×2). For insulators and oxides, where screening is long-ranged and the constrained-site perturbation is more significant, the 2×2×2 supercell may be insufficient. The paper should provide convergence tests for at least one insulating oxide, e.g., NiO or V2O3, to establish that the reported U values are converged with respect to supercell size.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title/Abstract] The arXiv title uses 'Constrained Dynamical Mean-Field Theory' while the full-text title uses 'Embedded Dynamical Mean-Field Theory'; these should be harmonized.
  2. [Table I] No error bars or statistical uncertainties are given for the cDMFT U values. Given that they are obtained from CTQMC total-energy differences, an estimate of the stochastic error is needed for reproducibility.
  3. [SI Computational Details] The SI states that density-density type Coulomb interaction is used for all cDMFT calculations, while the final eDMFT spectral calculations use the full rotationally invariant interaction. The paper should clarify whether this approximation affects the derived U and why it does not undermine the claim of using 'the same eDMFT formalism'.
  4. [End Matter; Abstract] The abstract claims 'excellent agreement' with ARPES, but the End Matter notes a 'slight mismatch' for higher-energy bands in the 5d compounds. The wording should be calibrated to the actual level of agreement.
  5. [References [61,62]] Refs. [61] and [62] are web tutorial URLs. If possible, they should be replaced or supplemented by archival publications or stable references.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction found; the cDMFT U derivation has an omitted fixed-point map, which is a proof gap, not a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular in the strict sense. The central relation U−αJ = E(N+1)−2E(N)+E(N−1) computes U from total-energy differences, and the eDMFT total energies are obtained from the Luttinger–Ward functional within the same framework. Because the surrounding impurity problems require a local U input, the output U is in principle a functional of that input; however, the paper states the U is 'computed self-consistently within eDMFT,' which implies a fixed-point condition U_out = U_in. The manuscript does not display the U_in→U_out map or its convergence; the relevant statement is in SI Computational Details: 'the total energies of each configurations for computing U within cDMFT are estimated by the charge self-consistent eDMFT calculations.' This is an omitted proof/completeness gap, not an exhibited circular reduction: the text never shows that the reported U equals the input U by construction, nor does it fit U to the spectra. Self-citations (e.g., [38], [39], [51], [54], [55]) are standard eDMFT/DC/previous-application references and are not load-bearing for the U formula. The external ARPES comparisons are independent benchmarks, although SI Fig. S2(b) shows eDMFT spectra are U-insensitive over 9–12 eV, which weakens the validation power of those comparisons without making the derivation circular. No step reduces by definition to its own input as written.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central object U* is a fixed point of the map U ↦ ΔE(U)+αJ in a constrained supercell; everything rests on the total-energy functional of eDMFT being accurate to a few tenths of an eV in three different charge-constrained settings, and on the constraint implementation (central d in core, hoppings zeroed) faithfully isolating the local charging energy. The paper also fixes J=0.8 eV globally and imports α from the authors' own tutorial. No new physical entities are introduced; the 'Kondo-like screening cloud' is a mechanistic reading of site-resolved PDOS data, not a postulated object.

free parameters (3)
  • Hund's coupling J = 0.8 eV (all systems)
    Fixed globally by hand; U is only extracted as U−αJ, so the reported U values inherit this choice. Table I caption: 'the Hund's coupling (J) is fixed at 0.8 eV for all the calculations.'
  • α decomposition coefficients = 1.172 (t2g), 1.517 (eg), 1.15 (total d)
    Taken from the authors' own tutorial [61]; not independently derived or justified in this paper, and the paper uses density-density interactions in cDMFT while the final eDMFT is rotationally invariant.
  • CTQMC inverse temperature β = 50 eV⁻¹
    Computational parameter for the impurity solver (SI); its influence on ΔE and hence on U is not discussed.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The eDMFT Luttinger–Ward total energy (E=F+TS) computed with CTQMC impurity solvers is accurate to ≲0.3 eV for the N+1, N, N−1 constrained supercell configurations.
    All U values are total-energy differences; errors propagate directly into U. The paper reports no convergence analysis of the total energies. SI: 'the total energies of each configurations for computing U within cDMFT are estimated by the charge self-consistent eDMFT calculations.'
  • domain assumption Freezing the central site's d electrons into core states plus zeroing hoppings to it implements the cDFT-type occupation constraint without residual charge transfer.
    If the DFT bath still transfers charge, ΔE mixes single-particle shifts into the curvature rather than isolating the Hubbard U. Main text: 'the hopping integrals between the constrained correlated orbitals and the surrounding sites are set to zero.'
  • ad hoc to paper The Slater-decomposition identity U−αJ=E(N+1)+E(N−1)−2E(N) with α=1.172 (t2g), 1.517 (eg), 1.15 (total d) remains valid inside the quasi-localized/full-Kohn–Sham mixed embedding.
    The identity is exact for the mapped Hubbard Hamiltonian; its transfer to the embedded framework is the core premise of cDMFT. SI 'Theoretical Descriptions'; α from ref [61]. The authors note they must use finite differences because 'we don't have any Janak's theorem in cDMFT.'
  • ad hoc to paper The self-consistent map U ↦ ΔE(U)+αJ has a unique, converged fixed point independent of the starting guess.
    The paper asserts self-consistency but shows no iteration data, input/output U table, or convergence criterion, so fixed-point existence and uniqueness are unstated and unverified.
  • domain assumption Exact double counting [38] removes the DC ambiguity so that the total-energy differences are unambiguous.
    SI: 'exact double counting (DC) and density-density type Coulomb interaction used for all the cDMFT calculation.' The authors report nominal DC gives 3–4% higher U, bracketing the residual ambiguity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-Consistent Coulomb Interactions from Constrained Dynamical Mean-Field Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QR6CDDFI

@misc{pith2026260112678,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-Consistent Coulomb Interactions from Constrained Dynamical Mean-Field Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QR6CDDFI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.12678}
}
read the original abstract

We develop a self-consistent first-principles framework for determining the screened Coulomb interaction strength (U) based on constrained dynamical mean-field theory (cDMFT). Unlike conventional approaches, this method incorporates essential vertex corrections within the same embedded-DMFT formalism used for the electronic structure calculation. Using the cDMFT-derived interaction strengths as input to embedded DMFT yields spectral functions in excellent agreement with photoemission experiments across a wide range of materials, spanning 3d to 5d transition-metal compounds, including correlated metals, Mott insulators, altermagnets, and unconventional superconductors. This unified many-body framework establishes a systematic first-principles route for determining interaction strengths in correlated materials and substantially enhances the predictive power of DFT+DMFT and its extensions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.12678 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic representations of (a) cDFT, (b) cRPA, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Application of cDMFT method for various 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Comparison of spectral functions obtained from (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Momentum resolved spectral functions from eDMFT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Orbital-resolved imaginary part of self-energy in Matsubara frequency ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Total density of states (TDOS) of NiO by (a) DFT+ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Crystal structure of 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Correlation-driven tunability of altermagnetism in RuO$_2$

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Dynamical correlations in RuO2 drive it close to the paramagnetic-altermagnetic boundary, rendering its magnetic state tunable by minimal strain and explaining experimental conflicts.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Kotliar and D

    G. Kotliar and D. Vollhardt, Physics Today57, 53 (2004), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1712502

    doi:10.1063/1.1712502 2004

  2. [2]

    Paschen and Q

    S. Paschen and Q. Si, Nature Reviews Physics3, 9 (2021)

    2021

  3. [3]

    Onida, L

    G. Onida, L. Reining, and A. Rubio, Rev. Mod. Phys74, 601 (2002)

    2002

  4. [4]

    Georges, G

    A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M. J. Rozenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys.68, 13 (1996)

    1996

  5. [5]

    Kotliar, S

    G. Kotliar, S. Y. Savrasov, K. Haule, V. S. Oudovenko, O. Parcollet, and C. A. Marianetti, Rev. Mod. Phys.78, 865 (2006)

    2006

  6. [6]

    Hubbard, Electron Correlations in Narrow Energy Bands (Proc

    J. Hubbard, Electron Correlations in Narrow Energy Bands (Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) A 276, 238, 1963)

    1963

  7. [7]

    V. I. Anisimov, F. Aryasetiawan, and A. I. Lichtenstein, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter9, 767 (1997)

    1997

  8. [8]

    Liechtenstein, V

    A. Liechtenstein, V. I. Anisimov, and J. Zaanen, Physical Review B52, R5467 (1995)

    1995

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Timrov, N

    I. Timrov, N. Marzari, and M. Cococcioni, Physical Re- view B98, 085127 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Cococcioni and S

    M. Cococcioni and S. De Gironcoli, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics71, 035105 (2005)

    2005

  3. [11]

    Zaanen, O

    J. Zaanen, O. Jepsen, O. Gunnarsson, A. Paxton, O. An- dersen, and A. Svane, Physica C: Superconductivity153, 1636 (1988)

    1988

  4. [12]

    V. I. Anisimov, J. Zaanen, and O. K. Andersen, Phys. Rev. B44, 943 (1991)

    1991

  5. [13]

    Kotliar and D

    G. Kotliar and D. Vollhardt, Physics Today57, 53 (2004). 6

    2004

  6. [14]

    Biermann, A

    S. Biermann, A. Poteryaev, A. I. Lichtenstein, and A. Georges, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 026404 (2005)

    2005

  7. [15]

    Kuneˇ s, A

    J. Kuneˇ s, A. V. Lukoyanov, V. I. Anisimov, R. T. Scalet- tar, and W. E. Pickett, Nature Materials7, 198 (2008)

    2008

  8. [16]

    H. Park, A. J. Millis, and C. A. Marianetti, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 156402 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    Ferber, K

    J. Ferber, K. Foyevtsova, R. Valent ´ ı, and H. O. Jeschke, Phys. Rev. B85, 094505 (2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    Mandal, P

    S. Mandal, P. Zhang, S. Ismail-Beigi, and K. Haule, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 067004 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    Mandal, R

    S. Mandal, R. E. Cohen, and K. Haule, Phys. Rev. B98, 075155 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Paul and T

    A. Paul and T. Birol, Annual Review of Materials Re- search49, 31 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    L. A. Agapito, S. Curtarolo, and M. Buongiorno Nardelli, Phys. Rev. X5, 011006 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Sun and G

    P. Sun and G. Kotliar, Phys. Rev. B66, 085120 (2002)

    2002

  15. [23]

    Biermann, F

    S. Biermann, F. Aryasetiawan, and A. Georges, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 086402 (2003)

    2003

  16. [24]

    Rietschel and L

    H. Rietschel and L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. B28, 5100 (1983)

    1983

  17. [25]

    T. Wang, X. Cai, K. Chen, B. V. Svistunov, and N. V. Prokof’ev, Phys. Rev. B107, L140507 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    X. Cai, T. Wang, S. Zhang, T. Zhang, A. Millis, B. V. Svistunov, N. V. Prokof’ev, and K. Chen, Superconduc- tivity in electron liquids: Precision many-body treatment of coulomb interaction (2026), arXiv:2512.19382 [cond- mat.supr-con]

    2026

  19. [27]

    Bacq-Labreuil, B

    B. Bacq-Labreuil, B. Lacasse, A.-M. S. Tremblay, D. S´ en´ echal, and K. Haule, Phys. Rev. X15, 021071 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    Dederichs, S

    P. Dederichs, S. Bl¨ ugel, R. Zeller, and H. Akai, Physical review letters53, 2512 (1984)

    1984

  21. [29]

    Anisimov and O

    V. Anisimov and O. Gunnarsson, Physical Review B43, 7570 (1991)

    1991

  22. [30]

    Aryasetiawan, M

    F. Aryasetiawan, M. Imada, A. Georges, G. Kotliar, S. Biermann, and A. I. Lichtenstein, Phys. Rev. B70, 195104 (2004)

    2004

  23. [31]

    I. V. Solovyev and M. Imada, Phys. Rev. B71, 045103 (2005)

    2005

  24. [32]

    Aryasetiawan, K

    F. Aryasetiawan, K. Karlsson, O. Jepsen, and U. Sch¨ onberger, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics74, 125106 (2006)

    2006

  25. [33]

    N. J. Mosey and E. A. Carter, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics76, 155123 (2007)

    2007

  26. [34]

    Tancogne-Dejean, M

    N. Tancogne-Dejean, M. J. Oliveira, and A. Rubio, Phys- ical Review B96, 245133 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    W. E. Pickett, S. C. Erwin, and E. C. Ethridge, Phys. Rev. B58, 1201 (1998)

    1998

  28. [36]

    Tancogne-Dejean and A

    N. Tancogne-Dejean and A. Rubio, Physical Review B 102, 155117 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Droghetti, I

    A. Droghetti, I. Rungger, C. Das Pemmaraju, and S. San- vito, Physical Review B93, 195208 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Haule, Phys

    K. Haule, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 196403 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    Haule, C.-H

    K. Haule, C.-H. Yee, and K. Kim, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics81, 195107 (2010)

    2010

  32. [40]

    Georges, L

    A. Georges, L. d. Medici, and J. Mravlje, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics4, 137 (2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    Haule and T

    K. Haule and T. Birol, Physical Review Letters115, 256402 (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    J. Yang, H. Sun, X. Hu, Y. Xie, T. Miao, H. Luo, H. Chen, B. Liang, W. Zhu, G. Qu, et al., Nature Com- munications15, 4373 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Osumi, S

    T. Osumi, S. Souma, T. Aoyama, K. Yamauchi, A. Honma, K. Nakayama, T. Takahashi, K. Ohgushi, and T. Sato, Phys. Rev. B109, 115102 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Thees, M.-H

    M. Thees, M.-H. Lee, R. L. Bouwmeester, P. H. Rezende-Gon¸ calves, E. David, A. Zimmers, F. For- tuna, E. Frantzeskakis, N. M. Vargas, Y. Kalcheim, P. L. F` evre, K. Horiba, H. Kumigashira, S. Biermann, J. Trastoy, M. J. Rozenberg, I. K. Schuller, and A. F. Santander-Syro, Sci...

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    Mandal, R

    S. Mandal, R. E. Cohen, and K. Haule, Physical Review B89, 220502 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    Z. Yin, K. Haule, and G. Kotliar, Nature materials10, 932 (2011)

    2011

  39. [47]

    Haule, J

    K. Haule, J. Phys. Soc. Japan87, 041005 (2018), https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.87.041005

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    Khanal and K

    G. Khanal and K. Haule, Phys. Rev. B102, 241108 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Q. Zou, A. Sihi, B. D. Oli, M. Roig, D. Agterberg, M. Weinert, L. Li, and S. Mandal, Correlation enhanced electron-phonon coupling in fese/srtio 3 at a magic angle (2025), arXiv:2506.22435 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    X. Wan, S. Mandal, Y. Guo, and K. Haule, Physical Re- view Letters135, 106501 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    Mandal, K

    S. Mandal, K. Haule, K. M. Rabe, and D. Vanderbilt, npj Computational Materials5, 115 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    J. Chen, F. Petocchi, V. Christiansson, and P. Werner, Phys. Rev. B110, 045117 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    W. R. Robinson, Acta Crystallographica Section B31, 1153 (1975)

    1975

  46. [54]

    Mandal, K

    S. Mandal, K. Haule, K. M. Rabe, and D. Vanderbilt, npj Computational Materials8, 181 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Mandal, K

    S. Mandal, K. Haule, K. M. Rabe, and D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B100, 245109 (2019)

    2019

  48. [56]

    L. Si, P. Liu, and C. Franchini, Phys. Rev. Mater.9, 015001 (2025)

    2025

  49. [57]

    Keßler, L

    P. Keßler, L. Garcia-Gassull, A. Suter, T. Prokscha, Z. Salman, D. Khalyavin, P. Manuel, F. Orlandi, I. I. Mazin, R. Valent ´ ı,et al., npj Spintronics2, 50 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    Fedchenko, J

    O. Fedchenko, J. Min´ ar, A. Akashdeep, S. W. D’Souza, D. Vasilyev, O. Tkach, L. Odenbreit, Q. Nguyen, D. Kut- nyakhov, N. Wind, et al., Science advances10, eadj4883 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Y. F. Nie, P. King, C. Kim, M. Uchida, H. Wei, B. D. Faeth, J. Ruf, J. Ruff, L. Xie, X. Pan, et al., Physical review letters114, 016401 (2015)

    2015

  52. [60]

    Georges, L

    A. Georges, L. d. Medici, and J. Mravlje, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.4, 137 (2013). [61]http://hauleweb.rutgers.edu/tutorials/ Constrained+DMFT.html(). [62]http://hauleweb.rutgers.edu/tutorials/ CoulombUexplain.html()

    2013

  53. [63]

    Haule, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan87, 041005 (2018)

    K. Haule, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan87, 041005 (2018)

    2018

  54. [64]

    Haule, C.-H

    K. Haule, C.-H. Yee, and K. Kim, Phys. Rev. B81, 195107 (2010)

    2010

  55. [65]

    Blaha, K

    P. Blaha, K. Schwarz, G. Madsen, D. Kvasnicka, and J. Luitz, An augmented plane wave plus local orbitals program for calculating crystal properties (Vienna Uni- versity of Technology, Austria, 2001, 2001)

    2001

  56. [66]

    Haule, Phys

    K. Haule, Phys. Rev. B75, 155113 (2007)

    2007

  57. [67]

    Sihi and S

    A. Sihi and S. K. Pandey, The European Physical Journal B93, 9 (2020). 7 Experiment M𝜞M𝜞M (b)(a)Theory Energy (eV) 0.0-0.2-0.4-0.6-0.8-1.0 RuO2 FIG. 3. Comparison of spectral functions obtained from (a) eDMFT in the paramagnetic phase and (b) ARPES measure- ments of 4d-metalli...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.