DOE OSTI2020
This paper deals with a significant family of compounds predicted by simplistic electronic structure theory to be metals but are, in fact, insulators. This false metallic state has been traditionally attributed in the literature to reflect the absence of proper treatment of electron-electron correlation (“Mott insulators”) whereas, in fact, even mean-field like density functional theory describes the insulating phase correctly if the restrictions posed on the simplistic theory are avoided. Such unwarranted restrictions included different forms of disallowing symmetry breaking described in this article. As the science and technology of conductors have transitioned from studying simple elemental metals such as Al or Cu to compound conductors such as binary or ternary oxides and pnictides, a special class of degenerate but gapped metals has been noticed. Their presumed electronic configurations show the Fermi level inside the conduction band or valence band, yet there is an “internal band gap” between the principal band edges. The significance of this electronic configuration is that it might be unstable toward the formation of states inside the internal band gap when the formation of such states costs less energy than the energy gained by transferring carriers from the conduction band to these lower energy acceptor states, changing the original (false) metal to an insulator. The analogous process also exists for degenerate but gapped metals with the Fermi level inside the valence band, where the energy gain is defined by transfer of electrons from the donor level to the unoccupied part of the valence band. We focus here on the fact that numerous electronic structure methodologies have overlooked some physical factors that could stabilize the insulating alternative, predicting instead false metals that do not really exist (note that this is in general not a physical phase transition, but a correction of a previous error in theory that led to a false prediction of a metal). Such errors include: (i) ignoring spin symmetry breaking, such as disallowing magnetic spin ordering in CuBi2O4 or disallowing the formation of polymorphous spin networks in paramagnetic LaTiO 3 and YTiO 3 ; (ii) ignoring structural symmetry breaking, e.g., not enabling energy-lowering bond disproportionation (Li-doped TiO 2 , SrBiO 3 , and rare-earth nickelates), or not exploring pseudo-Jahn–Teller-like distortions in LaMnO 3 , or disallowing spontaneous formation of ordered vacancy compounds in Ba 4 As 3 and Ag 3 Al 22 O 34 ; and (iii) ignoring spin–orbit coupling forcing false metallic states in CaIrO 3 and Sr 2 IrO 4 . The distinction between false metals vs real insulators is important because (a) predicting theoretically that a given compound is metal even though it is found to be an insulator often creates the temptation to invoke high order novel physical effects (such as correlation in d-electron Mott insulators) to explain what was in effect caused by a more mundane artifact in a lower-level mean-field band theory, (b) recent prediction of exotic physical effects such as topological semimetals were unfortunately based on the above compounds that were misconstrued by theory to be metal, but are now recognized to be stable insulators not hosting exotic effects, and (c) practical technological applications based on stable degenerate but gapped metals such as transparent conductors or electrides for catalysis must rely on the systematically correct and reliable theoretical classification of metals vs insulators.