Weak Coupling: Mean-Field Theory and the Slater Insulator
Starting from the non-interacting limit, a mean-field decoupling of the Hubbard interaction with staggered magnetization gives an antiferromagnetic two-band insulator. Solving the self-consistent gap equation reveals a Slater gap that opens exponentially at weak coupling and crosses over to the Mott gap Δ → U/2 at strong coupling.
Methods Mean-field theory
A standard first approximation treats one term of the Hubbard model as a
perturbation around the solvable limit of the other. Here we begin from the
non-interacting limit
The constant
Mean-field decoupling
Assuming small fluctuations of the local occupation, introduce deviation operators
so that, dropping the term quadratic in the (small) deviations,
Discarding the constant
Staggered magnetization and zone folding
At half-filling (
where
with
At
become, in the
so the new Brillouin zone
The last term cancels the
In momentum space the factor
The third term scatters electrons from
Diagonalizing the mean-field Hamiltonian
Use the Heisenberg equations of motion,
which give (after a shift
In matrix form, with
Equivalently, splitting the full-BZ Hamiltonian into the reduced zone
Diagonalize with a unitary
and
with
Unitarity of the Bogoliubov transformation (full check)
Requiring
This holds provided
The diagonalized Hamiltonian is then a two-band insulator,
with an energy gap
Self-consistency: the gap equation
We assumed AFM order with amplitude
and inverting
Using
Splitting the full-BZ sum into two over
At half-filling only the lower band (
so that, with
Going to polar coordinates, changing variables
Weak vs. strong coupling: Slater meets Mott
In the weak-coupling limit (
so the gap integral is dominated by
Solving for the gap,
(the prefactor is cutoff-dependent, hence non-universal). As
In the opposite strong-coupling limit (
and since
Prerequisites
Related in this subject
- Cuprates and the Mott ProblemWhy high-temperature superconductivity forced condensed-matter physics to take strong electron correlation seriously — and why the story begins with an insulator that band theory says should be a metal.
- The Hubbard ModelThe minimal model of reference for the cuprates — one hopping amplitude and one on-site repulsion — together with its particle–hole symmetry, Green's functions, and the two limits (atomic and non-interacting) that already reveal the Mott insulator.
- Strong Coupling: Perturbation Theory and SuperexchangeIn the opposite limit U ≫ t, treating hopping as a perturbation and projecting out doubly occupied sites with a Schrieffer–Wolff transformation maps the half-filled Hubbard model onto the antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model, with superexchange J = 4t²/U.
- Dynamical Mean-Field Theory and the IPT SolverDMFT maps the Hubbard model onto a self-consistent Anderson impurity problem — exact in infinite dimensions — retaining the full frequency dependence of the self-energy that the perturbative limits miss. With Landau Fermi-liquid theory for interpretation and the Iterated Perturbation Theory solver for the impurity, it tracks the metal across to the Mott insulator in one framework.
- The Mott Transition in DMFT: Phase Diagram and V₂O₃Running the DMFT+IPT loop on the Bethe lattice traces the interaction-driven Mott transition — the three-peak spectral structure, the Fermi-liquid self-energy, the coexistence region with critical interactions U_c1 ≈ 2.54 and U_c2 ≈ 3.27, and a (U,T) phase diagram whose first-order line and critical endpoint reproduce the paramagnetic metal–insulator transition of V₂O₃.