Anderson-Hubbard Hamiltonian

Orientational disorder and packing irregularities in terms of a modified Anderson-Hubbard Hamiltonian [63,64] will lead to a distribution of the on-site Coulomb interaction as well as of the interaction of electrons on different (at least neighboring) sites as it was explicitly pointed out by Cuevas et al. [65]. Compared to the Coulomb-gap model of Efros and Sklovskii [66], they took into account three different states of charge of the mesoscopic particles, i.e. neutral, positively and negatively charged. The VRH behavior, which dominates the electrical properties at low temperatures, can conclusively be explained with this model. 

In the case of delocalized basis states tpa(r), the main matrix elements are those with 0 = 7 and f3 = 6, because the wave functions of two different states with the same spin are orthogonal in real space and their contribution is small. It is also true for the systems with localized wave functions tpa(r), when the overlap between two different states is weak. In these cases it is enough to replace the interacting part by the Anderson-Hubbard Hamiltonian, describing only density-density interaction... 

The Coulomb interaction inside a system is described by the Anderson-Hubbard Hamiltonian... 

The distance between two electrons at a given site is given as ri2. The electron wave function for one of the electrons is given as (p(ri) and the wave function for the second electron, with antiparallel spin, is Hubbard intra-atomic energy and it is not accounted for in conventional band theory, in which the independent electron approximation is invoked. Finally, it should also be noted that the Coulomb repulsion interaction had been introduced earlier in the Anderson model describing a magnetic impurity coupled to a conduction band (Anderson, 1961). In fact, it has been shown that the Hubbard Hamiltonian reduces to the Anderson model in the limit of infinite-dimensional (Hilbert) space (Izyumov, 1995). Hence, Eq. 7.3 is sometimes referred to as the Anderson-Hubbard repulsion term. 

In the calculation of electronic structures, the presence of correlations thus always represents a difficulty. Perturbation expansions can account for the two extreme cases the delocalized limit in which the effective repulsion U is low compared to the band width, and the quasi-atomic limit where the electron delocalization modifies only slightly the correlated ground state (Anderson, 1959). Some variational techniques (Hubbard, 1964 Gutzwiller, 1965) allow a treatment of systems with U of the order of jS, but they are difficult to use. New methods have recently been developed for adding a part of the Hubbard Hamiltonian to the LDA (local density approximation) ground state (Czyzyk and Sawatzky, 1994). 

We consider the following model Hamiltonian (which can be called the multilevel Anderson impurity model, the Hubbard model, or the quantum cluster model)... 

This static alloy analogy picture should be a good description as long as there is a separation of timescales. If this breaks down, dynamical fluctuations—or quantum fluctuations— which are beyond this static picture, become important. These quantum fluctuations are the main emphasis of DMFT (Georges et al., 1996), which maps the system onto an effective Anderson impurity model, describing a dynamically fluctuating impurity in a self-consistently determined effective host. So far, DMFT has been formulated for model Hamiltonians, such as the Hubbard model, and material-specific results have been achieved by constructing these model Hamiltonians from realistic band structure calculations. In... 

---