SciPost Submission Page
Single-particle spectra and magnetic susceptibility in the Emery model: a dynamical mean-field perspective
by Yi-Ting Tseng, Mário O. Malcolms, Henri Menke, Marcel Klett, Thomas Schäfer, Philipp Hansmann
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Philipp Hansmann · Thomas Schäfer |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.09023v3 (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | 2025-03-03 13:45 |
| Submitted by: | Hansmann, Philipp |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approaches: | Theoretical, Computational |
Abstract
We investigate dynamical mean-field calculations of the three-band Emery model at the one- and two-particle level for material-realistic parameters of high-$T_c$ superconductors. Our study shows that even within dynamical mean-field theory, which accounts solely for temporal fluctuations, the intrinsic multi-orbital nature of the Emery model introduces effective non-local correlations. These correlations lead to a non-Curie-like temperature dependence of the magnetic susceptibility, consistent with nuclear magnetic resonance experiments in the pseudogap regime. By analyzing the temperature dependence of the uniform static spin susceptibility obtained by single-site and cluster dynamical mean-field theory, we find indications of emerging oxygen-copper singlet fluctuations, explicitly captured by the model. Despite correctly describing the hallmark of the pseudogap at the two-particle level, such as the drop in the Knight shift of nuclear magnetic resonance, dynamical mean-field theory fails to capture the spectral properties of the pseudogap.
Author indications on fulfilling journal expectations
- Provide a novel and synergetic link between different research areas.
- Open a new pathway in an existing or a new research direction, with clear potential for multi-pronged follow-up work
- Detail a groundbreaking theoretical/experimental/computational discovery
- Present a breakthrough on a previously-identified and long-standing research stumbling block
Author comments upon resubmission
We sincerely thank the Referees for their thorough reviews and their overall positive feedback. We appreciate the time and effort taken to provide constructive comments, which have helped us to improve the manuscript significantly. We now submitted our detailed responses to each referee and hereby a revised version of the manuscript with the requested changes to be further considered for publication in SciPost Physics. The most important addition to our manuscript are new CDMFT results for the uniform magnetic susceptibility which support our previous claims.
We hope that our replies and the additional calculations are appreciated and that our revised manuscript fulfils now the criteria for publication in SciPost Physics.
Best regards,
Yi-Ting Tseng, Mario O. Malcoms, Henri Menke, Marcel Klett, Thomas Schäfer, and Philipp Hansmann
List of changes
- Following Referee 2, we performed CDMFT calculations for the uniform susceptibility in order to strengthen our conclusions. These new data are now shown in the results section.
- We have emphasised that the non-Curie behaviour of the susceptibility does not require the opening of a pseudogap in the spectral function.
- We have added remarks about the choice of the interaction parameters and the neglect of Upp and Upd.
- We have added a more comprehensive explanation of the Clogston-Jaccarion plot.
- Following Referee 1 we changed the title to be more specific about the presented results.
- We added a comment and a plot in the appendix about the relation of the Emery model to the periodic Anderson model and the different doping trends of the uniform to the impurity susceptibility.
- We added insets in Fig.2 to show the behaviour of the self-energy also on a wider scale.
- We added comments about the definition of the color coding in Fig.1.
- We provide additional references for the notion of the Zhang-Rice singlet.
- We extended the comments about the limitations of DMFT and extended a bit the description of the analytical continuation of the self-energy.
- We state now more clearly what “Fermi-Liquid behaviour” means in the context of the self-energy.
- We softened the statement about the difference between minimal models debated for cuprate- and nickelate- superconductors.
- Further we have made several small edits and corrections of typos that were indicated/found by the referees and ourselves.
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Report
The authors have addressed my previous concerns and issues comprehensively and the resubmitted manuscript has improved significantly. Especially the addition of further CDMFT data now puts the study on a firmer basis. Hence, I can now fully recommend publication in SciPost Physics.
Recommendation
Publish (meets expectations and criteria for this Journal)
Report
In response to the Referees, the authors decided to include also 2x1 cluster DMFT calculations that are consistent with the DMFT calculations for the uniform susceptibility at least for higher doping levels. As I already wrote in the first report, I find the DMFT results interesting and deserving publication in SciPost. The 2x1 calculations do not in the end bring much, because it is anyway not clear what happens when longer range correlations are fully taken into account. As I understand, this is planned for a future study.
The authors addressed satisfactorily all my minor points. What I still miss is a deeper discussion on what is captured by which susceptibility in DMFT. The authors do show the DMFT impurity susceptibility in the appendix now and indicate in the main text why the uniform susceptibility captures the correct behavior even within DMFT (similarly to the case of the periodic Anderson model, results for which the authors cite). I would have wished however for a more extensive discussion. I leave it to the authors as optional though. In my opinion, the revised paper fulfills the criteria to be published in SciPost.
Remark: In the caption of Fig. 2 should be UHB for upper Hubbard band instead of LHU.
Recommendation
Publish (easily meets expectations and criteria for this Journal; among top 50%)