• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,047 questions , 2,200 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,709 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
816 active unimported users
More ...

  Limitations in using FLEX as a DMFT solver

+ 10 like - 0 dislike

When using the fluctuating exchange approximation (FLEX) as a dynamical mean field theory (DMFT) solver, Kotliar, et al. (p. 898) suggest that it is only reliable for when the interaction strength, $U$, is less than half the bandwidth. How would one verify this? Also, is there a general technique for establishing this type of limit?

To clarify, DMFT is an approximation to the Anderson impurity model, and FLEX is a perturbative expansion in the interaction strength about the band, low interaction strength limit.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
asked Sep 14, 2011 in Theoretical Physics by rcollyer (240 points) [ no revision ]

1 Answer

+ 11 like - 0 dislike

The criterion you mention is roughly the threshold for the formation of the Coulomb gap in the Hubbard model or the local moment in the Anderson model. It is a common break-down region for many approaches starting from one of the limits (insulator/local moments versus conductor/mixed valence).

For perturbation theory in $U$, see the PRB 36, 675 (1986) by Horvatić et al. and references to and form that paper. A more comprehensive discussion can be found in the monograph by Hewson. As far as I remember, perturbation in $U$ on the level of self-energy does not give the expected exponential dependence on $U$ for the Kondo temperature.

Unfortunately, I don't know specifics of FLEX method to help you in more detail.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Sep 15, 2011 by Slaviks (610 points) [ no revision ]
What level of detail would you require? Mostly, I'm looking for what is needed to improve/clarify the question.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
The comment was more about the limitations of my knowledge rather gaps in your question. I know only the general principles of DMFT, never implemented it myself, and, in particular, do not know what FLEX is. Just sharing an idea coming from my non-DMFT experience with strongly correlated models.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
FLEX is the expansion about the interaction strength, i.e. the conductor/mixed valence end of the spectrum. Do you have any references that illustrate the break-down region?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
I've edited the answer to add a reference. You can see form the graphs that they choose moderate U's. For more details, see their references and the monograph by [Hewson](http://books.google.com/books?id=fPzgHneNFDAC&lpg=PR11&ots=xTPleU6qep&dq=Hewson%20heavy%20fermion&lr&pg=PR11#v=onepage&q=Hewson%20heavy%20fermion&f=false). As far as I remember, perturbation in $U$ on the level of self-energy does not give the exponential dependence on $U$ for the Kondo temperature

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Thanks. I'll probably get to it tomorrow.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights