Non-Convergent Perturbation Theory and Misleading Inferences about Parameter Relationships: the Case of Superexchange
D. Psiachos

TL;DR
This paper critically examines the limitations of perturbation theory in modeling superexchange interactions, revealing that common series expansions can be misleading and do not reliably reflect the true parameter relationships in transition-metal compounds.
Contribution
It demonstrates that no single limiting expansion accurately describes superexchange due to multiple interfering energy scales, challenging traditional perturbative approaches.
Findings
The superexchange $J$ cannot be formally defined in the idealized M-H limit.
Multiple different expansions can produce the same $t^4$ expression, leading to ambiguity.
Fitting experimental data with simple series expansions can result in incorrect parameter inferences.
Abstract
We discuss the well-known three-center cation-anion-cation model for superexchange in insulating transition-metal compounds using limiting expansions for the Anderson-Hubbard model. We find that due to the three interfering energy scales in the model, a limiting expression for the superexchange for the idealized Mott-Hubbard (M-H) case cannot be formally defined. We further show that no single expansion variable can describe any type of limiting behaviour for superexchange. The well-known expression for M-H insulators, obtained from path-dependent series expansions, is not unique to these systems as it can also be obtained with many other different expansions, in which either the energy difference or the -electron correlation can actually be small. At times, and particularly for milder relationships between the parameters, $t\lesssim…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
