1: \documentclass[12pt,twoside]{article}

2: 

3: \usepackage{amssymb}

4: \usepackage{amsmath}

5: \usepackage{wrapfig}

6: \usepackage{graphicx}

7: \usepackage[eqsecnum]{cmp2e}

8: \usepackage{citesort}

9: 

10: \newcommand{\Tr}{\operatorname{Tr}}

11: 

12: \hyphenation{Post-Script}

13: 

14: \title[GF Formalism for Highly Correlated Systems]%

15: {Green's Function Formalism for \protect\\

16: Highly Correlated Systems}

17: 

18: \author{F. Mancini and A. Avella}

19: \address{Dipartimento di Fisica ``E.R. Caianiello'' - Unit\`{a}

20: CNISM di Salerno \\

21: Universit\`{a} degli Studi di Salerno, I-84081 Baronissi (SA),

22: Italy}

23: 

24: \begin{document}

25: 

26: \maketitle

27: 

28: \begin{abstract}

29: We present the Composite Operator Method (COM) as a modern approach

30: to the study of strongly correlated electronic systems, based on the

31: equation of motion and Green's function method. COM uses propagators

32: of composite operators as building blocks at the basis of

33: approximate calculations and algebra constrains to fix the

34: representation of Green's functions in order to maintain the

35: algebraic and symmetry properties.

36: %

37: \keywords Strongly Correlated Systems, Green's Function Formalism,

38: Equations of Motion Approach, Composite Operator Method

39: %

40: \pacs 71.10.-w; 71.27.+a; 71.10.Fd

41: \end{abstract}

42: 

43: \section{Introduction}

44: 

45: The Green's function method is a very convenient formalism in

46: condensed matter physics, and many progresses have been achieved in

47: the last fifty years. When applied to interacting systems, such an

48: approach is usually based on the hypothesis that the interaction

49: among the particles is weak and can be treated in the framework of

50: some perturbation schemes. In this line of thinking a consolidated

51: scheme has been constructed, mostly based on diagrammatic

52: expansions, Wick's theorem, Dyson equation, and so on. However, in

53: the last few decades new materials with unconventional properties

54: have been discovered. It is believed that the origin of such

55: anomalous behaviors is generally due to strong electronic

56: correlations in narrow conduction bands \cite{Anderson_87}. In this

57: line of thinking many analytical methods have been developed for the

58: study of strongly correlated electron systems \cite{Fulde_95}. The

59: main difficulties are connected with the absence of any obvious

60: small parameter in the strong coupling regime and with the

61: simultaneous presence of itinerant and atomic aspects. The concept

62: that breaks down is the existence of the electrons as particles with

63: some well-defined and intrinsic properties. The presence of

64: interaction modifies the properties of the particles: what are

65: observed are new particles with new peculiar properties entirely

66: determined by the dynamics and by the boundary conditions. These new

67: objects appear as the final result of the modifications imposed by

68: the interactions on the original particles and contain, by the very

69: beginning, the effects of correlations. The choice of new

70: fundamental particles, whose properties have to be self-consistently

71: determined by dynamics, symmetries and boundary conditions, becomes

72: relevant.

73: 

74: As a simple example, let us consider an atomic system described by

75: the Hamiltonian

76: \begin{equation}\label{1.1}

77: H=-\mu \sum_\sigma   \varphi _\sigma ^\dag \varphi _\sigma +V\varphi

78: _\uparrow ^\dag \varphi _\downarrow ^\dag \varphi _\downarrow

79: \varphi _\uparrow

80: \end{equation}

81: $\varphi _\sigma$ denotes an Heisenberg electronic field with spin

82: $\sigma =\uparrow,\,\downarrow$, satisfying canonical

83: anticommutation relations; $\mu $ is the chemical potential and $V$

84: is the strength of the interaction. This model is exactly solvable

85: in terms of the operators

86: \begin{equation}\label{1.2}

87: \xi _\sigma =\varphi _\sigma \varphi _{-\sigma }\varphi _{-\sigma

88: }^\dag \quad \quad \quad \eta _\sigma =\varphi _\sigma \varphi

89: _{-\sigma }^\dag \varphi _{-\sigma }

90: \end{equation}

91: which are eigenoperators of the Hamiltonian

92: \begin{equation}\label{1.3}

93: \mathrm{i} {\partial \over {\partial t}}\xi =[\xi ,H]=-\mu \xi \quad

94: \quad \quad \mathrm{i}{\partial  \over {\partial t}}\eta =[\eta

95: ,H]=-(\mu -V)\eta

96: \end{equation}

97: 

98: Due to the presence of the interaction, the original electrons

99: $\varphi _\sigma$ are no more observables and new stable elementary

100: excitations, described by the field operators $\xi $ and $\eta $,

101: appear. Due to the $V$-interaction, two sharp features develop in

102: the band structure: the energy level $E=-\mu$ of the bare electron

103: splits in the two levels $E_1=-\mu $ and $E_2=V-\mu $. The bare

104: electron reveals itself to be precisely the wrong place to start. A

105: perturbative solution will never give the band splitting.

106: 

107: On the basis of this evidence one can be induced to move the

108: attention from the original fields to the new fields generated by

109: the interaction. The operators describing these excitations, once

110: they have been found, can be written in terms of the original ones

111: and are known as composite operators.

112: 

113: The convenience of developing a formulation to treat composite

114: excitations as fundamental objects has been noticed for the

115: many-body problem of condensed matter physics since long time.

116: Recent years have seen remarkable developments in many-body theory

117: in the form of an assortment of techniques that may be termed

118: composite particle methods. The beginnings of these types of

119: techniques may be traced back to the work of Bogolubov

120: \cite{Bogoliubov_47} and later to that of Dancoff \cite{Dancoff_50}.

121: The work of Zwanzig \cite{Zwanzig_61}, Mori \cite{Mori_65} and

122: Umezawa \cite{Umezawa_93} has to be mentioned. Closely related to

123: this work is that of Hubbard

124: \cite{Hubbard_63,Hubbard_64,Hubbard_64a}, Rowe \cite{Rowe_68}, Roth

125: \cite{Roth_69} and Tserkovnikov

126: \cite{Tserkovnikov_81,Tserkovnikov_81a}. The slave boson method

127: \cite{Barnes_76,Coleman_84,Kotliar_86}, the spectral density

128: approach \cite{Kalashnikov_69,Nolting_72} and the composite operator

129: method (COM)

130: \cite{Ishihara_94,Mancini_94,Mancini_95,Mancini_95a,Mancini_95b,Avella_98,Mancini_00,Mancini_04}

131: are also along similar lines. This large class of theories is

132: founded on the conviction that an analysis in terms of elementary

133: fields might be inadequate for a system dominated by strong

134: interactions.

135: 

136: All these approaches are very promising because all the different

137: approximation schemes are constructed on the basis of interacting

138: particles: some amount of the interaction is already present in the

139: chosen basis and permits to overcome the problem of finding an

140: appropriate expansion parameter. However, one price must be paid. In

141: general, the composite fields are neither Fermi nor Bose operators,

142: since they do not satisfy canonical (anti)commutation relations, and

143: their properties, because of the inherent definition, must be

144: self-consistently determined. They can only be recognized as

145: fermionic or bosonic operators according to the number, odd or even,

146: of the constituting original electronic fields. New techniques of

147: calculus have to be developed in order to treat with composite

148: fields. In developing perturbation calculations, where the building

149: blocks are now the propagators of composite fields, the consolidated

150: scheme (diagrammatic expansions, Wick's theorem, \ldots) gives rise

151: to very complicated approaches \cite{Izyumov_90} whose application

152: is far from being easy. The formulation of the Green's function

153: method must be revisited and new frameworks of calculations have to

154: be formulated.

155: 

156: \section{Green's Function and Equation of Motion Formalism}

157: 

158: Let us consider a system of $N_e$ interacting Wannier-electrons

159: residing on a Bravais lattice of $N$ sites, spanned by the vectors

160: $R_\mathbf{i}=\mathbf{i}$. We ignore the presence of magnetic

161: impurities and restrict the analysis to single-band electron models.

162: The generalization of the formalism to more complex systems is

163: straightforward [see for example

164: \cite{Matsumoto_94,Mancini_00e,Villani_00,Avella_02,Bak_02}]. The

165: system is enclosed in a finite but macroscopically large volume V

166: and is supposed to be in a thermodynamical equilibrium state at a

167: finite temperature T. In a second quantization scheme this system is

168: described by a certain Hamiltonian

169: \begin{equation}\label{2.1}

170: H=H[\varphi (i)]

171: \end{equation}

172: describing, in complete generality, the free propagation of the

173: electrons and all the interactions among them and with external

174: fields. $\varphi (i)$ denotes an Heisenberg electronic field [

175: $i=(\mathbf{i},t)$] satisfying canonical anticommutation relations

176: derived from the Pauli principle

177: \begin{equation}\label{2.2}

178: \{ \varphi _\sigma (\mathbf{i},t),\varphi _{\sigma }^\dag

179: (\mathbf{j},t)\} =\delta _{\mathbf{ij}}\delta _{\sigma \sigma }\quad

180: \quad \quad \{ \varphi _\sigma (\mathbf{i},t),\varphi _{\sigma

181: }(\mathbf{j},t)\} =0

182: \end{equation}

183: 

184: Any physical property of the system can be connected to the

185: expectation value of a specific operator. The expectation value of

186: an arbitrary operator $A=A[\varphi(i)]$ can be computed, for the

187: grand canonical ensemble, by means of

188: \begin{equation}\label{2.3}

189: \langle A \rangle = {{Tr[e^{-\beta (H-\mu \hat N)}A]} \over

190: {Tr[e^{-\beta (H-\mu \hat N)}]}}

191: \end{equation}

192: where the trace implies a sum over a complete set of states in the

193: Hilbert space. $\hat N=\sum_{i,\sigma }  \varphi _\sigma ^\dag

194: (i)\varphi _\sigma (i)$ is the total number operator, $\beta

195: =(k_BT)^{-1}$ is the inverse temperature, $\mu $ is the chemical

196: potential which is fixed in order to give the chosen average number

197: of particles $N_e= \langle \hat N \rangle$.

198: 

199: To evaluate the expectation value $\langle A\rangle $, it is

200: possible to use the equation of motion

201: \begin{equation}\label{2.4}

202: \mathrm{i}{\partial  \over {\partial t}}\varphi (i)=[\varphi (i),H]

203: \end{equation}

204: in order to derive one or more equations for this quantity or,

205: better, for the corresponding Green's functions, as explained below.

206: However, the equation of motion (\ref{2.4}) generates higher-order

207: operators and more and more complex equations are needed. The

208: traditional approximation schemes, often based on perturbative

209: calculations, use as building blocks the noninteracting propagators.

210: The mean-field formulation, which corresponds to a linearization of

211: the equation of motion (\ref{2.4}), also belongs to this category.

212: 

213: On the hypothesis that the original fields are not a good basis, we

214: choose a set of composite fields $\{ \psi (i)\}$ in terms of which a

215: perturbation scheme will be constructed. Firstly, we choose the set

216: $\psi (i)$ according to the physical properties we want to study.

217: Roughly, the properties of electronic systems can be classified in

218: two large classes: single particle properties, described in terms of

219: fermionic propagators, and response functions, described in terms of

220: bosonic propagators. These two sectors, fermionic and bosonic, are

221: not independent but interplay each other, and a fully

222: self-consistent solution usually requires that both sectors are

223: simultaneously solved. Once the sector, fermionic or bosonic, has

224: been fixed, we have several criteria for the choice of the new

225: basis. In constructing the composite fields no recipe can be given

226: without thinking to its drawbacks, but many recipes can assure a

227: correct and controlled description of relevant aspects of the

228: dynamics. One can choose: the higher order fields emerging from the

229: equations of motion (i.e., the conservation of some spectral moments

230: is assured), the eigenoperators of some relevant interacting terms

231: (i.e., the relevant interactions are treated exactly), the

232: eigenoperators of the problem reduced to a small cluster, \ldots

233: 

234: Let $\psi (i)$ be a $n$-component field

235: \begin{equation}\label{2.5}

236: \psi (i)= \left( \begin{array}{c}

237: \psi _1(i) \\

238: \vdots     \\

239: \psi _n(i)

240: \end{array} \right)

241: \end{equation}

242: We do not specify the nature, fermionic or bosonic, of the set $\{

243: \psi (i)\}$. In the case of fermionic operators it is intended that

244: we use the spinorial representation

245: \begin{equation}\label{2.6}

246: \psi _m(i)=\left(\begin{array}{c}

247: \psi _{\uparrow m}(i) \\

248: \psi _{\downarrow m}(i)

249: \end{array} \right)

250: \quad \quad \quad \psi _m^\dag (i)=\left(\psi _{\uparrow m}^\dag

251: (i),\,\psi _{\downarrow m}^\dag (i)\right)

252: \end{equation}

253: 

254: The dynamics of these operators is governed by the given Hamiltonian

255: $H=H[\varphi (i)]$ and can be written as

256: \begin{equation}\label{2.7}

257: \mathrm{i}{\partial  \over {\partial t}}\psi (i)=[\psi (i),H]=J(i)

258: \end{equation}

259: 

260: It is always possible to decompose the source $J(i)$ under the form

261: \begin{equation}\label{2.8}

262: J(i)=\varepsilon (-i\nabla )\psi (i)+\delta J(i)

263: \end{equation}

264: where the linear term represents the projection of the source on the

265: basis $\{ \psi \}$ and is calculated by means of the equation

266: \begin{equation}\label{2.9}

267: \langle [\delta J(\mathbf{i},t),\psi ^\dag (\mathbf{j},t)]_\eta

268: \rangle =0

269: \end{equation}

270: Here $\eta =\pm 1$; usually, it is convenient to take $\eta =1$

271: ($\eta =-1$ ) for a  fermionic (bosonic) set $\psi (i)$ (i.e., for a

272: composite field constituted of an odd (even) number of original

273: fields) in order to exploit the canonical anticommutation relations

274: of $\{ \psi (i)\}$; but, in principle, both choices are possible.

275: Accordingly, we define

276: \begin{equation}\label{2.10}

277: \left[ A , B \right]_\eta = \left \{

278: \begin{array}{l}

279: \left\{ A , B \right\} =AB+BA \quad for \quad \eta =1 \\

280: \left[ A , B \right] = AB-BA \quad for \quad \eta =-1

281: \end{array} \right.

282: \end{equation}

283: $\langle \cdots \rangle $ denotes the quantum statistical average

284: over the grand canonical ensemble, according to Eq.~(\ref{2.3}).

285: Hereafter, unless otherwise specified, time and space translational

286: invariance will be considered. The action of the derivative operator

287: $\varepsilon (-\mathrm{i}\nabla )$ on $\psi (i)$ is defined in

288: momentum space

289: \begin{equation}\label{2.11}

290: \varepsilon (-\mathrm{i}\nabla )\psi (i)=\varepsilon

291: (-\mathrm{i}\nabla ){1 \over {\sqrt N}}\sum_\mathbf{k}

292:  e^{\mathrm{i} \mathbf{k} \cdot \mathbf{R_i}}\psi (\mathbf{k},t)={1

293: \over {\sqrt N}}\sum_\mathbf{k}  e^{\mathrm{i}\mathbf{k}\cdot

294: \mathbf{R_i}}\varepsilon (\mathbf{k})\psi (\mathbf{k},t)

295: \end{equation}

296: where $\mathbf{k}$ runs over the first Brillouin zone. The

297: constraint (\ref{2.9}) gives

298: \begin{equation}\label{2.12}

299: m(\mathbf{k})=\varepsilon (\mathbf{k})I(\mathbf{k})

300: \end{equation}

301: after defining the normalization matrix

302: \begin{equation}\label{2.13}

303: I(\mathbf{i},\mathbf{j})=\langle [\psi (\mathbf{i},t),\psi ^\dag

304: (\mathbf{j},t)]_\eta \rangle ={1 \over N}\sum_\mathbf{k}

305: e^{\mathrm{i}\mathbf{k}\cdot

306: (\mathbf{R_i}-\mathbf{R_j})}I(\mathbf{k})

307: \end{equation}

308: and the m-matrix

309: \begin{equation}\label{2.14}

310: m(\mathbf{i},\mathbf{j})=\langle [J(\mathbf{i},t),\psi ^\dag

311: (\mathbf{j},t)]_\eta \rangle ={1 \over N}\sum_\mathbf{k}

312: e^{\mathrm{i}\mathbf{k}\cdot

313: (\mathbf{R_i}-\mathbf{R_j})}m(\mathbf{k})

314: \end{equation}

315: 

316: Since the components of $\psi (i)$ contain composite operators, the

317: normalization matrix $I(\mathbf{k})$ is not the identity matrix and

318: defines the spectral content of the excitations In fact, the use of

319: composite operators has the advantage of describing crossover

320: phenomena as the phenomena in which the weight of some operator is

321: shifted to another one.

322: 

323: It is worth noting that the normalization matrix $I(\mathbf{k})$ and

324: the $m(\mathbf{k})$ matrix are the lowest order generalized spectral

325: moments  $M^{(p)}(\mathbf{k})$ which are defined as

326: \begin{equation}\label{2.15}

327: M^{(p)}(\mathbf{k})=F.T.\left\langle {\left[ {\left(

328: {\mathrm{i}\partial /\partial t} \right)^p\psi (\mathbf{i},t),\psi

329: ^\dag (\mathbf{j},t)} \right]_\eta } \right\rangle

330: \end{equation}

331: where $F.T.$ stands for the Fourier transform. The generalized

332: spectral moments $M^{(p)}(k)$ have the Hermiticity property

333: \begin{equation}\label{2.16}

334: M_{ab}^{(p)}(\mathbf{k})=\left( {M_{ba}^{(p)}(\mathbf{k})} \right)*

335: \end{equation}

336: since at the equilibrium $M^{(p)}(\mathbf{k})$ is time-independent.

337: 

338: Coming back to our original problem, the evaluation of the

339: expectation value $\langle A\rangle $, it is possible to use the

340: equation of motion $\mathrm{i}{\partial  \over {\partial t}}\psi

341: (i)=[\psi (i),H]$ in order to derive equations for $\langle A\rangle

342: $. However, the correlation functions satisfy homogeneous equations.

343: A convenient generalization of the concept of correlation functions

344: is furnished by the Green's functions (GF) which have some

345: advantages in the construction and solution of the equations

346: determining them. In particular, the two-time Green's functions

347: contain most of the relevant information on the properties of the

348: system: expectation values of the observables, excitation spectrum,

349: response to external perturbation, and so on. Different types of GF

350: can be defined; for statistical systems it is better to consider the

351: real time thermodynamic Green's functions where the averaging

352: process of the Heisenberg operators is performed over the grand

353: canonical ensemble.

354: 

355: By considering the two-time thermodynamic Green's functions

356: \cite{Bogoliubov_59,Zubarev_60,Zubarev_74}, let us define the causal

357: function

358: \begin{equation}\label{2.17a}

359: G^C(i,j)=\langle C[\psi (i)\psi ^\dag (j)]\rangle =\theta

360: (t_i-t_j)\langle \psi (i)\psi ^\dag (j)\rangle -\eta \theta

361: (t_j-t_i)\langle \psi ^\dag (j)\psi (i)\rangle

362: \end{equation}

363: the retarded and advanced functions

364: \begin{equation}\label{2.17b}

365: G^{R,A}(i,j)=\langle R,A[\psi (i)\psi ^\dag (j)]\rangle =\pm \theta

366: [\pm (t_i-t_j)]\langle [\psi (i),\psi ^\dag (j)]_\eta

367: \rangle

368: \end{equation}

369: 

370: By means of the Heisenberg equation (\ref{2.7}) and using the

371: decomposition (\ref{2.8}), the Green's function $G^Q(i,j)=\langle Q[

372: \psi (i) \psi ^\dag (j)]\rangle$, where $Q=C,\,R,\,A$, satisfies the

373: equation

374: \begin{equation}\label{2.18}

375: \Lambda (\partial _i)G^Q(i,j)\Lambda ^\dag

376: (\mathord{\buildrel{\lower3pt\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\leftarrow$}}\over

377: \partial } _j)=\Lambda (\partial _i)G_0^Q(i,j)\Lambda ^\dag

378: (\mathord{\buildrel{\lower3pt\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\leftarrow$}}\over

379: \partial } _j)+\langle Q[\delta J(i)\delta J^\dag (j)]\rangle

380: \end{equation}

381: where the derivative operator $\Lambda (\partial _i)$ is defined as

382: \begin{equation}\label{2.19}

383: \Lambda (\partial _i)=\mathrm{i}{\partial  \over {\partial

384: t_i}}-\varepsilon (-\mathrm{i}\nabla _i)

385: \end{equation}

386: and the propagator $G_0^Q(i,j)$ is defined by the equation

387: \begin{equation}\label{2.20}

388: \Lambda (\partial _i)G_0^Q(i,j)=i\delta

389: (t_i-t_j)I(\mathbf{i},\mathbf{j})

390: \end{equation}

391: 

392: By introducing the Fourier transform

393: \begin{equation}\label{2.21}

394: G^Q(i,j)={1 \over N}\sum_\mathbf{k}{\mathrm{i} \over {(2\pi

395: )}}\int_{-\infty }^{+\infty }  d\omega \kern 1pt

396: e^{\mathrm{i}\mathbf{k}\cdot

397: (\mathbf{R_i}-\mathbf{R_j})-\mathrm{i}\omega

398: (t_i-t_j)}G^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )

399: \end{equation}

400: equation (\ref{2.18}) in momentum space is written as

401: \begin{equation}\label{2.22}

402: G^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )=G_0^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega

403: )+G_0^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )\Sigma^{Q*}(\mathbf{k},\omega

404: )G_0^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )

405: \end{equation}

406: where the self-energy $\Sigma ^{Q*}(\mathbf{k},\omega )$ has the

407: expression

408: \begin{equation}\label{2.23}

409: \Sigma ^{Q*}(\mathbf{k},\omega

410: )=I^{-1}(\mathbf{k})B^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )I^{-1}(\mathbf{k})

411: \end{equation}

412: with

413: \begin{equation}\label{2.24}

414: B^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )=F.T.\langle Q[\delta J(i)\delta J^\dag

415: (j)]\rangle

416: \end{equation}

417: 

418: Next, we introduce the irreducible self-energy $\Sigma

419: ^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )$ by means of the definition

420: \begin{equation}\label{2.25}

421: \Sigma ^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )G^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega

422: )=I(\mathbf{k})\Sigma ^{Q*}(\mathbf{k},\omega

423: )G_0^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )

424: \end{equation}

425: Equation (\ref{2.22}) takes the form

426: \begin{equation}\label{2.26}

427: G^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )=G_0^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega

428: )+G_0^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )I^{-1}(\mathbf{k})\Sigma

429: ^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )G^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )

430: \end{equation}

431: and can be formally solved as

432: \begin{equation}\label{2.27}

433: G^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )={1 \over {\omega -\varepsilon

434: (\mathbf{k})-\Sigma ^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )}}I(\mathbf{k})

435: \end{equation}

436: 

437: The formal definition (\ref{2.23}) of self-energy must be

438: manipulated to avoid any flowing on tautology. By noting that

439: $G^{Q-1}(\mathbf{k},\omega )=I^{-1}(\mathbf{k})[\omega -\varepsilon

440: (\mathbf{k})-\Sigma ^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )]$ we can express $\Sigma

441: ^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )$ as

442: \begin{equation}\label{2.28}

443: \Sigma ^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )=B_{irr}^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega

444: )I^{-1}(\mathbf{k})

445: \end{equation}

446: where $B_{irr}^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )$ indicates the irreducible part

447: of the propagator $B^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )$, given by

448: \begin{equation}\label{2.29}

449: B_{irr}^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )={1 \over {B^{Q-1}(\mathbf{k},\omega

450: )+I^{-1}(\mathbf{k})G_0^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )I^{-1}(\mathbf{k})}}

451: \end{equation}

452: 

453: We have constructed a generalized perturbative approach designed for

454: formulations using composite fields. Equation (\ref{2.26}) is a

455: Dyson-like equation and may represents the starting point for a

456: perturbative calculation in terms of the propagator

457: $G_0^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )$. Contrarily to the usual perturbation

458: schemes, the calculation of the "free propagator"

459: $G_0^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )$ is not an easy task and large part of

460: this article will be dedicated to this problem. Then, the attention

461: will be given to the calculation of the self-energy $\Sigma

462: ^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )$, and some approximate methods will be

463: presented. It should be noted that the computation of the two

464: quantities $G_0^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )$ and $\Sigma

465: ^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )$ are intimately related. The total weight of

466: the self-energy corrections is bounded by the weight of the residual

467: source operator $\delta J(i)$. According to this, it can be made

468: smaller and smaller by increasing the components of the basis $\psi

469: (i)$ [e.g. by including higher-order composite operators appearing

470: in $\delta J(i)$]. The result of such a procedure will be the

471: inclusion in the energy matrix of part of the self-energy as an

472: expansion in terms of coupling constants multiplied by the weights

473: of the newly includes basis operators. In general, the enlargement

474: of the basis leads to a new self-energy with a smaller total weight.

475: However, it is necessary pointing out that this process can be quite

476: cumbersome and the inclusion of fully momentum and frequency

477: dependent self-energy corrections can be necessary to effectively

478: take into account low-energy and virtual processes. According to

479: this, one can chose a reasonable number of components for the basic

480: set and then use another approximation method to evaluate the

481: residual dynamical corrections.

482: 

483: \section{GF properties, spectral representation, zero-frequency

484: functions}

485: 

486: \subsection{Equations of motion}

487: 

488: In the previous Section we have constructed a generalized

489: perturbative approach based on a Dyson equation designed for

490: formulations using composite fields. Two quantities appear in the

491: Dyson equation (\ref{2.26}): the "free propagator"

492: $G_0^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )$ and the self-energy $\Sigma

493: ^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )$. By postponing to next Sections the problem

494: of computing the self-energy, in this Section we concentrate on the

495: calculation of the Green's functions $G_0^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )$

496: which constitute the building blocks of the perturbation scheme we

497: are trying to formulate. For the sake of simplicity we will drop the

498: sub index $0$ in the definition of $G_0^Q(k,\omega )$.

499: 

500: One fundamental aspect in a Green's function formulation is the

501: choice of the representation. The knowledge of the Hamiltonian and

502: of the operatorial algebra is not sufficient to completely specify

503: the GF. The GF refer to a specific representation (i.e., to a

504: specific choice of the Hilbert space) and this information must be

505: supplied as a boundary condition to the equations of motion that

506: alone are not sufficient to completely determine the GF. As well

507: known, the same system can exist in different phases according to

508: the external conditions; the existence of infinite inequivalent

509: representations \cite{Umezawa_65,Umezawa_66,Leplae_74} where the

510: equations of motions can be realized, allows us to pick up, among

511: the many possible choices, the right Hilbert space appropriate to

512: the physical situation under study. The use of composite operators

513: leads to an enlargement of the Hilbert space by the inclusion of

514: some unphysical states. As a consequence of this, it is difficult to

515: satisfy a priori all the sum rules and, in general, the symmetry

516: properties enjoined by the system under study. In addition, since

517: the representation where the operators are realized has to be

518: dynamically determined, the method clearly requires a process of

519: self-consistency.

520: 

521: From this discussion it is clear that fixing the representation is

522: not an easy task and requires special attention. In the literature

523: the properties of the GF are usually determined by starting from the

524: knowledge of the representation. Owing to the difficulties above

525: discussed we cannot proceed in this way. Therefore, we will derive

526: the general properties of the GF on the basis of the two elements we

527: have: the dynamics, fixed by the choice of the Hamiltonian

528: (\ref{2.1}), and the algebra, fixed by the choice of the basic set

529: (\ref{2.5}). The problem of fixing the representation will be

530: considered in the next Sections.

531: 

532: Let $\psi (i)$ be a n-component field satisfying linear equations of

533: motion

534: \begin{equation}\label{3.1}

535: \mathrm{i}{\partial  \over {\partial t}}\psi

536: _m(\mathbf{i},t)=\sum_\mathbf{j} \sum_{l=1}^n \varepsilon

537: _{ml}(\mathbf{i},\mathbf{j})\psi _l(\mathbf{j},t)

538: \end{equation}

539: with the energy matrix $\varepsilon (\mathbf{i},\mathbf{j})$ defined

540: by (\ref{2.12})-(\ref{2.14}). If the fields $\psi (i)$ are

541: eigenoperators of the total Hamiltonian, the equations of motion

542: (\ref{3.1}) are exact. There are many non-trivial realistic systems

543: for which it is possible to obtain a complete set of eigenoperators

544: of the Hamiltonian (for instance see

545: \cite{Mancini_05,Mancini_05b,Mancini_05a,Avella_05}). If the fields

546: $\psi (i)$ are not eigenoperators of $H$, the equations are

547: approximated; they correspond to neglecting the residual source

548: operator $\delta J(i)$ in the full equation of motion [see

549: (\ref{2.7}) and (\ref{2.8})] and all the formalism is developed with

550: the intention of using the propagators of these fields as a basis to

551: set up a perturbative scheme of calculations on the ground of the

552: Dyson equation (\ref{2.26}) derived in the previous Section.

553: 

554: By means of the field equation (\ref{3.1}) the Fourier transforms of

555: the various Green's functions defined by (\ref{2.16}), (\ref{2.17a})

556: and (\ref{2.17b}) satisfy the following equation

557: \begin{equation}\label{3.2}

558: [\omega -\varepsilon (\mathbf{k})]G^{Q(\eta )}(\mathbf{k},\omega

559: )=I^{(\eta )}(\mathbf{k})

560: \end{equation}

561: where the dependence on the parameter $\eta $ has been explicitly

562: introduced. As mentioned in Section 2, the set $\psi(i)$ can be

563: fermionic or bosonic and the parameter $\eta$ generally takes the

564: value $\eta =1$ ($\eta =-1$) for a  fermionic (bosonic) set $\psi

565: (i)$. The three Green's functions $G^C$, $G^R$ and $G^A$ satisfy the

566: same equation of motion which alone is not sufficient and must be

567: supplemented by other equations. Indeed, the GF are determined by

568: solving a first order differential equation of motion, thereby the

569: GF are given only within an arbitrary constant of integration. The

570: retarded and advanced GF can be completely determined because the

571: factor $\theta [\pm (t_i-t_j)]$ provides the boundary condition:

572: $G^{R,A}(i,j)=0\quad for\;t_i=t_j\mp \delta $. The determination of

573: the causal GF is not so immediate. The most general solution of

574: equation (3.2) is

575: \begin{equation}\label{3.3}

576: G^{Q(\eta )}(\mathbf{k},\omega )=\sum_{l=1}^n  \left\{ {P\left(

577: {{{\sigma ^{(l,\eta )}(k)} \over {\omega -\omega _l(\mathbf{k})}}}

578: \right)-\mathrm{i}\pi \delta [\omega -\omega

579: _l(\mathbf{k})]g^{(l,\eta )Q}(\mathbf{k})} \right\}

580: \end{equation}

581: where $\omega _l(\mathbf{k})$ are the eigenvalues of the

582: $\varepsilon (\mathbf{k})$, $\sigma ^{(l)}(\mathbf{k})$ are defined

583: by

584: \begin{equation}\label{3.4}

585: \sigma _{ab}^{(l)}(\mathbf{k})=\sum_{c=1}^n  \Omega

586: _{al}(\mathbf{k})\Omega

587: _{lc}^{-1}(\mathbf{k})I_{cb}(\mathbf{k})\quad \quad \quad

588: a,b=1,\ldots,n

589: \end{equation}

590: $\Omega (\mathbf{k})$ is the $n\times n$ matrix, whose columns are

591: the eigenvectors of $\varepsilon (\mathbf{k})$. We note that while

592: the spectral density matrix $\sigma ^{(l)}(\mathbf{k})$ is

593: completely determined by the energy $\varepsilon (\mathbf{k})$ and

594: normalization $I^{(\eta )}(\mathbf{k})$ matrices, the matrix

595: $g^{(l,\eta )Q}(\mathbf{k})$ is not fixed by the equations of motion

596: and must be determined by means of the boundary conditions. $P$

597: represents the principal value.

598: 

599: By recalling the retarded and advanced nature of $G^{R,A(\eta

600: )}(i,j)$ it is immediate to see that

601: \begin{equation}\label{3.5}

602: g^{(l,\eta )R}(\mathbf{k})=-g^{(l,\eta )A}(\mathbf{k})=\sigma

603: ^{(l,\eta )}(\mathbf{k})

604: \end{equation}

605: Then, the retarded and advanced functions are completely determined

606: in terms of the matrices $\varepsilon (\mathbf{k})$ and $I^{(\eta

607: )}(\mathbf{k})$. As well known, as functions of $\omega$ the

608: $G^{R,A(\eta )}(\mathbf{k},\omega )$ are analytic in the upper and

609: lower half-planes, respectively.

610: 

611: The determination of $g^{(l,\eta )C}(k)$ requires more work. From

612: the definitions (\ref{2.16}), (\ref{2.17a}) and  (\ref{2.17b}) we

613: can derive the following exact relations

614: \begin{equation}\label{3.6a}

615: G^{R(\eta )}(i,j)+G^{A(\eta )}(i,j)=2G^{C(\eta )}(i,j)-\langle [\psi

616: (i),\psi ^\dag (j)]_{-\eta }\rangle

617: \end{equation}

618: \begin{equation}\label{3.6b}

619: G^{R(\eta )}(i,j)-G^{A(\eta )}(i,j)=\langle [\psi (i),\psi ^\dag

620: (j)]_\eta \rangle

621: \end{equation}

622: where there appear the two correlation functions

623: \begin{equation}\label{3.7}

624: C_{\psi \psi ^\dag }(i,j)=\langle \psi (i)\psi ^\dag (j)\rangle

625: \quad \quad \quad C_{\psi ^\dag \psi }(i,j)=\langle \psi ^\dag

626: (j)\psi (i)\rangle

627: \end{equation}

628: The definition of $C_{\psi ^\dag \psi }(i,j)$ must be interpreted at

629: level of matrix elements: \\ \noindent $C_{\psi ^\dag \psi

630: ;ba}(i,j)=\langle \psi _b^\dag (j)\psi _a(i)\rangle $; no scalar

631: product is intended, neither in the spin space. These functions are

632: defined for all real times and the equations of motion they obey

633: contain no inhomogeneous terms involving a delta function. Indeed,

634: by means of the equations of motion (\ref{3.1}) the Fourier

635: transform of these correlation functions satisfy the homogeneous

636: equations

637: \begin{equation}\label{3.8}

638: [\omega -\varepsilon (\mathbf{k})]C_{\psi \psi ^\dag

639: }(\mathbf{k},\omega )=0\quad \quad \quad [\omega -\varepsilon

640: (\mathbf{k})]C_{\psi ^\dag \psi }(\mathbf{k},\omega )=0

641: \end{equation}

642: These equations tell us that the Fourier transforms of the

643: correlation functions are zero unless the frequency $\omega $ is

644: equal to one of  the energy levels $\omega _l(\mathbf{k})$ of the

645: system. The solutions of (\ref{3.8}) have the general form

646: \begin{equation}\label{3.9a}

647: C_{\psi \psi ^\dag }(\mathbf{k},\omega )=\sum_{l=1}^n  \delta

648: [\omega -\omega _l(\mathbf{k})]c_{_{\psi \psi ^\dag

649: }}^{(l)}(\mathbf{k})

650: \end{equation}

651: \begin{equation}\label{3.9b}

652: C_{\psi ^\dag \psi }(\mathbf{k},\omega )=\sum_{l=1}^n  \delta

653: [\omega -\omega _l(\mathbf{k})]c_{_{\psi ^\dag \psi

654: }}^{(l)}(\mathbf{k})

655: \end{equation}

656: with the momentum-dependent Fourier components $c_{_{\psi \psi ^\dag

657: }}^{(l)}(\mathbf{k})$ and $c_{_{\psi ^\dag \psi

658: }}^{(l)}(\mathbf{k})$ to be determined.

659: 

660: We now recall the Kubo-Martin-Schwinger (KMS) relation

661: \begin{equation}\label{3.10}

662: \langle A(t)B(t)\rangle =\langle B(t)A(t+i\beta )\rangle

663: \end{equation}

664: where $A(t)$ and $B(t)$ are Heisenberg operators at time $t$. This

665: relation implies that the Fourier transforms $C_{\psi \psi ^\dag

666: }(\mathbf{k},\omega )$ and $C_{\psi ^\dag \psi }(\mathbf{k},\omega

667: )$ are related

668: \begin{equation}\label{3.11}

669: C_{\psi ^\dag \psi }(\mathbf{k},\omega )=e^{-\beta \omega }C_{\psi

670: \psi ^\dag }(\mathbf{k},\omega )

671: \end{equation}

672: and the $\eta-$commutator $\langle [\psi (i),\psi ^\dag (j)]_\eta

673: \rangle $ can be expressed in terms of the correlation function as

674: \begin{equation}\label{3.12}

675: \langle [\psi (i),\psi ^\dag (j)]_\eta \rangle ={1 \over

676: N}\sum_\mathbf{k} {1 \over {2\pi }}\int  \kern 1pt d\omega

677: \,e^{\mathrm{i}\mathbf{k}\cdot

678: (\mathbf{i}-\mathbf{j})-\mathrm{i}\omega (t_i-t_j)}[1+\eta e^{-\beta

679: \omega }]C_{\psi \psi ^\dag }(\mathbf{k},\omega )

680: \end{equation}

681: 

682: By putting (\ref{3.12}) into (\ref{3.6a}) and (\ref{3.6b})  and by

683: taking into account Eqs.~(\ref{3.3}), (\ref{3.5}) and (\ref{3.9a})

684: we obtain

685: \begin{equation}\label{3.13a}

686: \sum_{l=1}^n  \delta [\omega -\omega _l(\mathbf{k})]\left\{

687: {g^{(l,\eta )C}(\mathbf{k})-{1 \over {2\pi }}[1-\eta e^{-\beta

688: \omega }]c_{_{\psi \psi ^\dag }}^{(l)}(\mathbf{k})} \right\}=0

689: \end{equation}

690: \begin{equation}\label{3.13b}

691: \sum_{l=1}^n  \delta [\omega -\omega _l(\mathbf{k})]\left\{ {\sigma

692: ^{(l,\eta )}(\mathbf{k})-{1 \over {2\pi }}[1+\eta e^{-\beta \omega

693: }]c_{_{\psi \psi ^\dag }}^{(l)}(\mathbf{k})} \right\}=0

694: \end{equation}

695: 

696: The solution of Eqs.~(\ref{3.13a}) and (\ref{3.13b}) is remarkably

697: different according to the value of the parameter $\eta $ and we

698: shall treat separately the two cases.

699: 

700: \subsection{Fermionic fields}

701: 

702: For the case of fermionic fields it is convenient to choose $\eta

703: =1$. Then, the solution of Eqs.~(\ref{3.13a}) and (\ref{3.13b}) is

704: \begin{align}\label{3.14}

705: &c^{(l)}(\mathbf{k})=\pi \left[ {1+\tanh \left( {{{\beta \omega

706: _l(\mathbf{k})} \over 2}} \right)} \right]\sigma

707: ^{(l,+1)}(\mathbf{k})\\

708: &g^{(l,+1)C}(\mathbf{k})=\tanh \left( {{{\beta \omega

709: _l(\mathbf{k})} \over 2}} \right)\sigma ^{(l,+1)}(\mathbf{k})

710: \end{align}

711: 

712: By putting (\ref{3.5}) and (\ref{3.14}) into (\ref{3.3}),

713: (\ref{3.9a}) and (\ref{3.9b}) we get the following general

714: expressions for the Green's functions and correlation functions

715: \begin{equation}\label{3.15a}

716: G^{R,A(+1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )=\sum_{l=1}^n  {{\sigma

717: ^{(l,+1)}(\mathbf{k})} \over {\omega -\omega _l(\mathbf{k})\pm

718: \mathrm{i}\delta }}

719: \end{equation}

720: \begin{equation}\label{3.15b}

721: G^{C(+1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )=\sum_{l=1}^n  \sigma

722: ^{(l,+1)}(\mathbf{k})\left[ {{{1-f_\mathrm{F}[\omega

723: _l(\mathbf{k})]} \over {\omega -\omega

724: _l(\mathbf{k})+\mathrm{i}\delta }}+{{f_\mathrm{F}[\omega

725: _l(\mathbf{k})]} \over {\omega -\omega

726: _l(\mathbf{k})-\mathrm{i}\delta }}} \right]

727: \end{equation}

728: \begin{equation}\label{3.15c}

729: C_{\psi \psi ^\dag }(\mathbf{k},\omega )=\pi \sum_{l=1}^n  \delta

730: [\omega -\omega _l(\mathbf{k})]\left[ {1+\tanh \left( {{{\beta

731: \omega _l(\mathbf{k})} \over 2}} \right)} \right]\sigma

732: ^{(l,+1)}(\mathbf{k})

733: \end{equation}

734: \begin{equation}\label{3.15d}

735: C_{\psi ^\dag \psi }(\mathbf{k},\omega )=\pi \sum_{l=1}^n  \delta

736: [\omega -\omega _l(\mathbf{k})]\left[ {1-\tanh \left( {{{\beta

737: \omega _l(\mathbf{k})} \over 2}} \right)} \right]\sigma

738: ^{(l,+1)}(\mathbf{k})

739: \end{equation}

740: where $f_\mathrm{F}(\omega )$ is the Fermi distribution function:

741: $f_\mathrm{F}(\omega )={1 \over {e^{\beta \omega }+1}}$.

742: 

743: By recalling that all the fermionic energies are shifted by the

744: chemical potential, the locus in the $k$-space, defined by $\omega

745: _l(k)=0$, will define the Fermi surface. By looking at (3.15b) we

746: can see that the imaginary part of the causal GF vanishes on the

747: Fermi surface. In the fermionic case the right procedure of

748: calculation is to start from the retarded (advanced) GF, and then to

749: compute the other Green's functions and correlation functions by

750: means of the relations

751: \begin{equation}\label{3.17a}

752: \Re [G^{C(+1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )]=\Re

753: [G^{R,A(+1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )]

754: \end{equation}

755: \begin{equation}\label{3.17b}

756: \Im [G^{C(+1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )]=\pm \tanh \left( {{{\beta \omega

757: } \over 2}} \right)\Im [G^{R,A(+1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )]

758: \end{equation}

759: \begin{equation}\label{3.17c}

760: C_{\psi \psi ^\dag }(\mathbf{k},\omega )=\mp \left[ {1+\tanh \left(

761: {{{\beta \omega } \over 2}} \right)} \right]\Im

762: [G^{R,A(+1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )]

763: \end{equation}

764: 

765: We note the dispersion relations

766: \begin{align}\label{3.18}

767: &\Re [G^{R,A(+1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )]=\mp {1 \over \pi

768: }P\int_{-\infty }^{+\infty }  d\omega \;{1 \over {\omega -\omega

769: }}\Im [G^{R,A(+1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )]\\

770: &\Re [G^{C(+1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )]=-{1 \over \pi }P\int_{-\infty

771: }^{+\infty }  d\omega \;{1 \over {\omega -\omega }}\coth \left(

772: {{{\beta \omega } \over 2}} \right)\Im [G^{C(+1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega

773: )]

774: \end{align}

775: By introducing the spectral function

776: \begin{equation}\label{3.19}

777: \rho ^{(+1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )=\sum_{l=1}^n  \delta [\omega

778: -\omega _l(\mathbf{k})]\sigma ^{(l,+1)}(\mathbf{k})=\mp {1 \over \pi

779: }\Im [G^{R,A(+1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )]

780: \end{equation}

781: we can establish the spectral representation

782: \begin{equation}\label{3.20a}

783: G^{R,A(+1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )=\int_{-\infty }^{+\infty }  d\omega'

784: \;{{\rho ^{(+1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega' )} \over {\omega -\omega' \pm

785: \mathrm{i}\delta}}

786: \end{equation}

787: \begin{equation}\label{3.21b}

788: G^{C(+1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )=\int_{-\infty }^{+\infty }  d\omega'

789: \;\rho ^{(+1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega' )\left[ {{{1-f_\mathrm{F}(\omega'

790: )} \over {\omega -\omega' +\mathrm{i}\delta

791: }}+{{f_\mathrm{F}(\omega' )} \over {\omega -\omega'

792: -\mathrm{i}\delta }}} \right]

793: \end{equation}

794: 

795: \subsection{Bosonic fields}

796: 

797: For the case of bosonic fields it is convenient to choose $\eta

798: =-1$. For any given momentum $\mathbf{k}$ we can always write

799: \begin{equation}\label{3.22}

800: \omega _l(\mathbf{k})=\left\{

801: \begin{array}{l}

802: =0 \quad \text{for} \;l \in A(\mathbf{k})\subseteq N=\{ 1,\ldots,n\}\\

803: \ne 0 \quad \text{for} \; l \in B(\mathbf{k})=N-A(\mathbf{k})

804: \end{array}

805: \right.

806: \end{equation}

807: 

808: Obviously, $A(\mathbf{k})$ can also be the empty set (i.e.,

809: $A(\mathbf{k})=\emptyset $ and $B(\mathbf{k})=N$). For $l\in

810: B(\mathbf{k})$ the solution of (\ref{3.13a}) and (\ref{3.13b}) is

811: \begin{align}\label{3.23}

812: &c_{\psi \psi ^\dag}^{(l)}(\mathbf{k})=\pi \left[ {1+\coth \left(

813: {{{\beta \omega _l(\mathbf{k})} \over 2}} \right)} \right]\sigma

814: ^{(l,-1)}(\mathbf{k})\quad \quad \forall l\in

815: B(\mathbf{k})\\

816: &g^{(l,-1)C}(\mathbf{k})=\coth \left( {{{\beta \omega

817: _l(\mathbf{k})} \over 2}} \right)\sigma ^{(l,-1)}(\mathbf{k})\quad

818: \quad \quad \quad \forall l\in B(\mathbf{k})

819: \end{align}

820: For $l\in A(\mathbf{k})$ the Fourier coefficients $c_{_{\psi \psi

821: ^\dag }}^{(l)}(\mathbf{k})$ and  $g^{(l,-1)C}(\mathbf{k})$ cannot be

822: determined from Eqs.~(\ref{3.13b}). It is convenient to introduce

823: the function $\Gamma (\mathbf{k})$

824: \begin{equation}\label{3.24}

825: \Gamma (\mathbf{k})={1 \over {2\pi }}\sum_{l\in A(\mathbf{k})}

826: c_{_{\psi \psi ^\dag }}^{(l)}(\mathbf{k})={1 \over 2}\sum_{l\in

827: A(\mathbf{k})} g^{(l,-1)C}(\mathbf{k})

828: \end{equation}

829: By considering that from (\ref{3.13b}) and (\ref{3.9a})

830: \begin{equation}\label{3.25}

831: \mathop {\lim }_{\omega \to 0}[1-e^{-\beta \omega }]C_{\psi \psi

832: ^\dag }(\mathbf{k},\omega )=2\pi \delta (\omega )\sum_{l\in

833: A(\mathbf{k})} \sigma ^{(l,-1)}(\mathbf{k})

834: \end{equation}

835: we must distinguish two situations:

836: \begin{enumerate}

837:  \item If  $\sum_{l\in A(\mathbf{k})} \sigma ^{(l,-1)}(\mathbf{k})=0$, then

838: \begin{equation}\label{3.26a}

839: \sum_{l=1}^n  \delta [\omega -\omega _l(\mathbf{k})]c_{_{\psi \psi

840: ^\dag }}^{(l)}(\mathbf{k})=2\pi \delta (\omega )\Gamma

841: (\mathbf{k})+2\pi \sum_{l\in B(\mathbf{k})} \delta [\omega -\omega

842: _l(\mathbf{k})]{{e^{\beta \omega _l(\mathbf{k})}} \over {e^{\beta

843: \omega _l(\mathbf{k})}-1}}\sigma ^{(l,-1)}(\mathbf{k})

844: \end{equation}

845: \begin{equation}\label{3.26b}

846: \sum_{l=1}^n  \delta [\omega -\omega _l(\mathbf{k})]c_{_{\psi ^\dag

847: \psi }}^{(l)}(\mathbf{k})=2\pi \delta (\omega )\Gamma

848: (\mathbf{k})+2\pi \sum_{l\in B(\mathbf{k})} \delta [\omega -\omega

849: _l(\mathbf{k})]{1 \over {e^{\beta \omega _l(\mathbf{k})}-1}}\sigma

850: ^{(l,-1)}(\mathbf{k})

851: \end{equation}

852: and

853: \begin{equation}\label{3.27}

854: C_{\psi \psi ^\dag }(\mathbf{k},0)=C_{\psi ^\dag \psi

855: }(\mathbf{k},0)

856: \end{equation}

857:  \item If $\sum_{l\in A(\mathbf{k})} \sigma ^{(l,-1)}(\mathbf{k})\ne 0$ but finite,

858: then in order to satisfy (\ref{3.25}) $C_{\psi \psi ^\dag

859: }(\mathbf{k},\omega )$ must have a  singularity of the type ${1

860: \over \omega }$ in the limit $\omega \to 0$. In fact

861: \begin{equation}\label{3.28}

862: (1-e^{-\beta \omega }){1 \over {\beta \omega }}=(\beta \omega -{1

863: \over 2}\beta ^2\omega ^2+\ldots){1 \over {\beta \omega }}=1-{1

864: \over 2}\beta \omega +\ldots

865: \end{equation}

866: Then

867: \begin{equation}\label{3.29a}

868: \sum_{l=1}^n  \delta [\omega -\omega _l(\mathbf{k})]c_{_{\psi \psi

869: ^\dag }}^{(l)}(\mathbf{k})=2\pi \delta (\omega )\Gamma

870: (\mathbf{k})+2\pi \sum_{l=1}^n \delta [\omega -\omega

871: _l(\mathbf{k})]{{e^{\beta \omega _l(\mathbf{k})}} \over {e^{\beta

872: \omega _l(\mathbf{k})}-1}}\sigma ^{(l,-1)}(\mathbf{k})

873: \end{equation}

874: \begin{equation}\label{3.29b}

875: \sum_{l=1}^n  \delta [\omega -\omega _l(\mathbf{k})]c_{_{\psi ^\dag

876: \psi }}^{(l)}(\mathbf{k})=2\pi \delta (\omega )\Gamma

877: (\mathbf{k})+2\pi \sum_{l=1}^n \delta [\omega -\omega

878: _l(\mathbf{k})]{1 \over {e^{\beta \omega _l(\mathbf{k})}-1}}\sigma

879: ^{(l,-1)}(\mathbf{k})

880: \end{equation}

881: and

882: \begin{equation}\label{3.30}

883: C_{\psi \psi ^\dag }(\mathbf{k},0)-C_{\psi ^\dag \psi

884: }(\mathbf{k},0)=\sum_{l\in A(\mathbf{k})} \sigma

885: ^{(l,-1)}(\mathbf{k})

886: \end{equation}

887: \end{enumerate}

888: 

889: It is clear from (\ref{3.29a}) and (\ref{3.29b}) that the situation

890: where $\sum_{l\in A(\mathbf{k})} \sigma ^{(l,-1)}(\mathbf{k})\ne 0$

891: leads to a situation in which for $l\in A(\mathbf{k})$ the Fourier

892: coefficients $c_{_{\psi \psi ^\dag }}^{(l)}(\mathbf{k})$ and

893: $c_{_{\psi ^\dag \psi }}^{(l)}(\mathbf{k})$ diverge as $[\beta

894: \omega _l(\mathbf{k})]^{-1}$. Since the correlation function in

895: direct space must be finite, at finite temperature this is

896: admissible only in the thermodynamic limit and if the dispersion

897: relation $\omega _l(\mathbf{k})$ is such that the divergence in

898: momentum space is integrable and the corresponding correlation

899: function in real space remains finite. For finite systems and for

900: infinite systems where the divergence is not integrable we must have

901: $\sum_{l\in A(\mathbf{k})}\sigma ^{(l,-1)}(\mathbf{k})=0$. The

902: calculation of the spectral density matrices $\sigma

903: ^{(l,-1)}(\mathbf{k})$ it not a simple dynamical problem, but

904: requires the self-consistent calculation of some expectation values,

905: where the boundary condition and the choice of the representation

906: play a crucial role. A finite value of $\sum_{l\in A(\mathbf{k})}

907: \sigma ^{(l,-1)}(\mathbf{k})$ is generally related to the presence

908: of long-range order and the previous statement is nothing but the

909: Mermin-Wagner theorem \cite{Mermin_66}.

910: 

911: Summarizing, by using (\ref{3.5}) and by putting (\ref{3.26a}) and

912: (\ref{3.26b}) into (\ref{3.13a}), for finite systems and $T\ne 0$,

913: we get the following general expressions for the GF and correlations

914: function

915: \begin{equation}\label{3.31a}

916: G^{R,A(-1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )=\sum_{l=1}^n {{\sigma

917: ^{(l,-1)}(\mathbf{k})} \over {\omega -\omega _l(\mathbf{k})\pm

918: \mathrm{i}\delta }}

919: \end{equation}

920: \begin{align}\label{3.31b}

921: &G^{C(-1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )=\Gamma (\mathbf{k})\left[ {{1 \over

922: {\omega +\mathrm{i}\delta }}-{1 \over {\omega -\mathrm{i}\delta }}}

923: \right]\nonumber\\

924: &+\sum_{l\in B(\mathbf{k})} \sigma ^{(l,-1)}(\mathbf{k})\left[

925: {{{1+f_\mathrm{B}(\omega )} \over {\omega -\omega

926: _l(\mathbf{k})+\mathrm{i}\delta }}-{{f_\mathrm{B}(\omega )} \over

927: {\omega -\omega _l(\mathbf{k})-\mathrm{i}\delta }}} \right]

928: \end{align}

929: \begin{equation}\label{3.31c}

930: C_{\psi \psi ^\dag }(\mathbf{k},\omega )=2\pi \Gamma

931: (\mathbf{k})\delta (\omega )+\pi \sum_{l\in B(\mathbf{k})}  \delta

932: [\omega -\omega _l(\mathbf{k})]\left[ {1+\coth \left( {{{\beta

933: \omega _l(\mathbf{k})} \over 2}} \right)} \right]\sigma

934: ^{(l,-1)}(\mathbf{k})

935: \end{equation}

936: \begin{equation}\label{3.31d}

937: C_{\psi ^\dag \psi }(\mathbf{k},\omega )=2\pi \Gamma

938: (\mathbf{k})\delta (\omega )-\pi \sum_{l\in B(\mathbf{k})}  \delta

939: [\omega -\omega _l(\mathbf{k})]\left[ {1-\coth \left( {{{\beta

940: \omega _l(\mathbf{k})} \over 2}} \right)} \right]\sigma

941: ^{(l,-1)}(\mathbf{k})

942: \end{equation}

943: with the condition that $\sum_{l\in A(\mathbf{k})}  \sigma

944: ^{(l,-1)}(\mathbf{k})=0$. $f_\mathrm{B}(\omega )$ is the Bose

945: distribution function: $f_\mathrm{B}(\omega )={1 \over {e^{\beta

946: \omega }-1}}$. It is possible to have $\sigma

947: ^{(l,-1)}(\mathbf{k})\ne 0\quad for\quad l\in A(\mathbf{k})$ only

948: for infinite systems and if the divergence is integrable.

949: 

950: The previous formulas show that when zero-energy modes are present a

951: zero-frequency singularity appears in the correlation function

952: $C_{\psi \psi ^\dag }(\mathbf{k},\omega )$ and in the imaginary part

953: of the causal function $G^{C(-1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )$. Such

954: singularity does not contribute to the retarded and advanced GF.

955: Then, in the bosonic case the right procedure of calculation is to

956: start from the causal GF, and compute the other GF by means of the

957: relations

958: \begin{equation}\label{3.34a}

959: \Re [G^{R,A(-1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )]=\Re

960: [G^{C(-1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )]

961: \end{equation}

962: \begin{equation}\label{3.34b}

963: \Im [G^{R,A(-1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )]=\pm \tanh \left( {{{\beta

964: \omega } \over 2}} \right)\Im [G^{C(-1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )]

965: \end{equation}

966: \begin{equation}\label{3.34c}

967: C_{\psi \psi ^\dag }(\mathbf{k},\omega )=-\left[ {1+\tanh \left(

968: {{{\beta \omega } \over 2}} \right)} \right]\Im

969: [G^{C(-1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )]

970: \end{equation}

971: 

972: We note the dispersion relations

973: \begin{align}\label{3.35}

974: &\Re [G^{R,A(-1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )]=\mp {1 \over \pi

975: }P\int_{-\infty }^{+\infty }  d\omega \;{1 \over {\omega -\omega

976: }}\Im [G^{R,A(-1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )]\\

977: &\Re [G^{C(-1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )]=-{1 \over \pi }P\int_{-\infty

978: }^{+\infty }  d\omega \;{1 \over {\omega -\omega }}\tanh \left(

979: {{{\beta \omega } \over 2}} \right)\Im [G^{C(-1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega

980: )]

981: \end{align}

982: 

983: Also in the bosonic case we can introduce a spectral function

984: \begin{equation}\label{3.36}

985: \rho ^{(-1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )=\sum_{l=1}^n  \delta [\omega

986: -\omega _l(\mathbf{k})]\sigma ^{(l,-1)}(\mathbf{k})=\mp {1 \over \pi

987: }\Im [G^{R,A(-1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )]

988: \end{equation}

989: 

990: However, the zero-frequency function $\Gamma (\mathbf{k})$ does not

991: contribute to $\rho ^{(-1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )$ and a spectral

992: representation can be established only for the retarded (advanced)

993: GF

994: \begin{equation}\label{3.37}

995: G^{R,A(-1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )=\int_{-\infty }^{+\infty }  d\omega'

996: \;{{\rho ^{(-1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega' )} \over {\omega -\omega' \pm

997: \mathrm{i}\delta }}

998: \end{equation}

999: 

1000: For the bosonic causal GF a spectral representation exists only when

1001: $\Gamma (\mathbf{k})=0$:

1002: \begin{equation}\label{3.38}

1003: G^{C(-1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )=\int_{-\infty }^{+\infty } d\omega'

1004: \;\rho ^{(-1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega' )\left[ {{{1+f_\mathrm{B}(\omega'

1005: )} \over {\omega -\omega' +\mathrm{i}\delta

1006: }}-{{f_\mathrm{B}(\omega' )} \over {\omega -\omega'

1007: -\mathrm{i}\delta }}} \right]

1008: \end{equation}

1009: 

1010: \subsection{Sum rules and some useful relations}

1011: 

1012: Coming back to a generic value of $\Gamma (\mathbf{k})$, we note

1013: that from the definition (\ref{3.4}) the following sum rule can be

1014: derived

1015: \begin{equation}\label{3.39}

1016: \int_{-\infty }^{+\infty }  d\omega \kern 1pt \rho ^{(\eta

1017: )}(\mathbf{k},\omega )=\sum_{l=1}^n  \sigma ^{(l,\eta

1018: )}(\mathbf{k})=I^{(\eta )}(\mathbf{k})

1019: \end{equation}

1020: 

1021: This is a particular case of a general sum rule. From the results

1022: (\ref{3.15c}), (\ref{3.15d}), (\ref{3.31c}) and (\ref{3.31d}) we

1023: obtain

1024: \begin{equation}\label{3.40}

1025: \langle [\psi (i),\psi ^\dag (j)]_\eta \rangle =\sum_{l=1}^n  {1

1026: \over N}\sum_\mathbf{k}  \,e^{\mathrm{i}\mathbf{k}\cdot

1027: (\mathbf{i}-\mathbf{j})-\mathrm{i}\omega

1028: _l(\mathbf{k})(t_i-t_j)}\sigma ^{(l,\eta )}(\mathbf{k})

1029: \end{equation}

1030: Recalling the expression (\ref{2.15}) of the generalized spectral

1031: moment $M^{(p,\eta )}(\mathbf{k})$ we immediately have

1032: \begin{equation}\label{3.41}

1033: \int_{-\infty }^{+\infty }  d\omega \kern 1pt \omega ^p\rho ^{(\eta

1034: )}(\mathbf{k},\omega )=\sum_{l=1}^n  \,\omega _l(\mathbf{k})^p\sigma

1035: ^{(l,\eta )}(\mathbf{k})=M^{(p,\eta )}(\mathbf{k})

1036: \end{equation}

1037: 

1038: Some interesting results can be obtained by noting that the

1039: correlation function $C_{\psi \psi ^\dag }(i,j)=\langle \psi (i)\psi

1040: ^\dag (j)\rangle $ and the energy matrix $\varepsilon

1041: (\mathbf{i},\mathbf{j})$ do not depend on $\eta $. As mentioned

1042: above, once we have chosen a basic set $\{ \psi (i)\} $, fermionic

1043: or bosonic, it is a only a question of convenience to choose$\eta

1044: =1$ or $\eta =-1$. Let us consider the case of a bosonic set $\{

1045: \psi (i)\} $ and let us suppose to perform two series of

1046: calculations: one with $\eta =-1$ and another with $\eta =1$. Then,

1047: it is immediate to obtain the following relations:

1048: \begin{enumerate}

1049:  \item by equating (\ref{3.15c}) and (\ref{3.31c}) we obtain

1050: \begin{equation}\label{3.42a}

1051: \Gamma (\mathbf{k})={1 \over 2}\sum_{l\in A(\mathbf{k})}  \sigma

1052: ^{(l,+1)}(\mathbf{k})

1053: \end{equation}

1054: \begin{equation}\label{3.42b}

1055: \sigma ^{(l,-1)}(\mathbf{k})=\tanh \left( {{{\beta \omega

1056: _l(\mathbf{k})} \over 2}} \right)\sigma ^{(l,+1)}(\mathbf{k})\quad

1057: \quad \forall \;l\in B(\mathbf{k})

1058: \end{equation}

1059:  \item by equating (\ref{3.17c}) and (\ref{3.34c}) we obtain

1060: \begin{equation}\label{3.43}

1061: \Im [G^{C(-1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )]=\pm \Im

1062: [G^{R,A(+1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )]

1063: \end{equation}

1064:  \item from the sum rule (\ref{3.39}) and by means of (\ref{3.42b}) and

1065: (\ref{3.4}) we obtain

1066: \begin{equation}\label{3.44}

1067: I_{ab}^{(-1)}(\mathbf{k})=\sum_{l=1}^n  \tanh \left( {{{\beta \omega

1068: _l(\mathbf{k})} \over 2}} \right)\sum_{c=1}^n  \Omega

1069: _{al}(\mathbf{k})\Omega

1070: _{lc}^{-1}(\mathbf{k})I_{cb}^{(+1)}(\mathbf{k})

1071: \end{equation}

1072: \end{enumerate}

1073: 

1074: We see that the general structure of the GF is remarkably different

1075: according to the statistics. For fermionic composite fields (i.e.,

1076: when it is natural to choose $\eta =1$) all the Green's functions

1077: and correlation functions are completely determined. The

1078: zero-frequency function $\Gamma (\mathbf{k})$, defined on the Fermi

1079: surface $\omega _l(\mathbf{k})=\mu$, contributes to the spectral

1080: function $\rho ^{(+1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )$ (see \ref{3.19}), it is

1081: directly related to the spectral density functions $\sigma

1082: ^{(l,+1)}(\mathbf{k})$ by means of equation (\ref{3.42a}), and its

1083: calculation does not require more information. Also, it does not

1084: contribute to the imaginary part of the causal GF. For bosonic

1085: composite fields (i.e., when it is natural to choose $\eta=-1$) the

1086: retarded and advanced GF are completely determined, but the causal

1087: GF and the correlation function depend on the zero-frequency

1088: function $\Gamma (\mathbf{k})$, defined on the surface  $\omega

1089: _l(\mathbf{k})=0$. It is now clear that the causal and retarded

1090: (advanced) GF contain different information and that the right

1091: procedure of calculation is controlled by the statistics. In

1092: particular, in the case of bosonic fields (i.e., for $\eta =-1$) one

1093: must start from the causal function and then use (3.34) to compute

1094: the other GF. On the contrary, for fermionic fields (i.e., for $\eta

1095: =1$) the right procedure for computing the correlation function

1096: requires first the calculation of the retarded (advanced) function

1097: and then the use (\ref{3.17a}), (\ref{3.17b}) and (\ref{3.17c}) to

1098: compute the other GF. Moreover, it is worth noting that $\Gamma

1099: (\mathbf{k})$ is undetermined within the bosonic sector (i.e., $\eta

1100: =-1$). It is true that $\Gamma (\mathbf{k})$ could be computed by

1101: considering an anticommutating algebra: remaining in the bosonic

1102: sector we make the choice $\eta =1$ and $\Gamma (\mathbf{k})$ can be

1103: calculated by (\ref{3.42a}) or equivalently by means of the

1104: following relation $\Gamma (\mathbf{k})={1 \over 2}\mathop {\lim

1105: }_{\omega \to 0}\omega G^{C(+1)}(\mathbf{k},\omega )$ which can be

1106: easily obtained from (\ref{3.31b}). However, the calculation of the

1107: $\sigma ^{(l,+1)}(\mathbf{k})$ requires the calculation of the

1108: normalization matrix $I^{(+1)}(\mathbf{k})$ that, for bosonic

1109: fields, generates unknown momentum dependent correlation functions

1110: whose determination can be very cumbersome as requires, at least in

1111: principle, the self-consistent solution of the integral equations

1112: connecting them to the corresponding Green's functions. In practice,

1113: also for simple, but anyway composite, bosonic fields the $\Gamma

1114: (\mathbf{k})$ remains undetermined and other methods should be used.

1115: Similar methods, like the use of the relaxation function

1116: \cite{Kubo_57}, would lead to the same problem.

1117: 

1118: Actually, all issues related to $\Gamma (\mathbf{k})$ have a natural

1119: playground in dealing with the ergodicity of the dynamics under

1120: investigation. More detail on this topic can be found in a

1121: manuscript in this same issue \cite{Avella_06}.

1122: 

1123: The formulation given in this Section needs some modifications in

1124: the case of zero temperature. In particular, Eqs.~(\ref{3.13a}) and

1125: (\ref{3.13b}) are not applicable and we must proceed in a different

1126: way. After a straightforward derivation \cite{Mancini_00}, it is

1127: immediate to see that the limit $T\to 0$ of the expressions

1128: (\ref{3.15c}), (\ref{3.15d}), (\ref{3.31c}) and (\ref{3.31d}) gives

1129: the right result.

1130: 

1131: \section{A self-consistent scheme}

1132: 

1133: As stressed in Section 1, in the study of highly interacting

1134: systems, where traditional perturbative calculations in terms of the

1135: noninteracting fields fail, a way to reconcile the powerful

1136: perturbation theory with the presence of complex and/or strong

1137: interactions is to describe the system in terms of a new set of

1138: fields, composite operators, generated by the interactions

1139: themselves. These field operators undoubtedly constitute a better

1140: starting point: they appear as the final result of the modifications

1141: imposed by the interactions on the original particles and contain,

1142: by the very beginning, the effects of the correlations.   Once a

1143: choice of composite fields has been made, the relative Green's

1144: function formalism can be set up, as illustrated in Section 2, where

1145: a generalized Dyson equation has been derived. On this basis one can

1146: construct a non-standard perturbation formalism where the basic

1147: ingredients are the propagators of a subset of the fundamental

1148: basis, satisfying linear equations of motion [cfr.~(\ref{3.1})]. By

1149: means of the equations of motion and by using the boundary

1150: conditions related to the definitions of the various Green's

1151: functions we have been able to derive explicit expressions for these

1152: latter [cfr.~(\ref{3.15c}), (\ref{3.15d}), (\ref{3.31c}) and

1153: (\ref{3.31d})]. However, these expressions can only determine the

1154: functional dependence; the knowledge of the GF is not fully achieved

1155: yet. The reason is that the algebra of the field is not canonical.

1156: As a consequence, the inhomogeneous terms $I^{(\eta )}(\mathbf{k})$

1157: in the equations of motion (\ref{3.2}) and the energy matrix

1158: $\varepsilon (\mathbf{k})$ contain some unknown static correlation

1159: functions, correlators, that have to be self-consistently

1160: calculated. Three serious problems arise with the study of the

1161: Green's functions: (a) the calculation of some parameters expressed

1162: as correlation functions of field operators not belonging the chosen

1163: basis; (b) the appearance of some zero-frequency constants (ZFC) and

1164: their determination; (c) the problem of fixing the representation

1165: where the Green's functions are formulated.

1166: 

1167: In the Composite Operator Method \cite{Mancini_00,Mancini_04} (COM)

1168: the three problems (a), (b) and (c) are not considered separately

1169: but they are all connected in one self-consistent scheme. The main

1170: idea is that fixing the values of the unknown parameters and of the

1171: ZFC implies to put some constraints on the representation where the

1172: GF are realized. As the determination of this representation is not

1173: arbitrary, it is clear that there is no freedom in fixing these

1174: quantities. They must assume values compatible with the dynamics and

1175: with the right representation. Which is the right representation?

1176: 

1177: From the algebra it is possible to derive several relations among

1178: the operators. We will call algebra constraints (AC) all possible

1179: relations among the operators dictated by the algebra. This set of

1180: relations valid at microscopic level must be satisfied also at

1181: macroscopic level, when expectations values are considered. Also, we

1182: note that, in general, the Hamiltonian has some symmetry properties

1183: (i.e. rotational invariance in coordinate and spin space, phase

1184: invariance, gauge invariance,\ldots). These symmetries generate a

1185: set of relations among the matrix elements: the Ward-Takahashi

1186: identities \cite{Ward_50,Takahashi_57} (WT).

1187: 

1188: Now, certainly the right representation must be the one where the

1189: relations among the operators and the conservation laws are

1190: maintained when expectation values are taken; in other words, all

1191: the AC and WT are preserved. By imposing these conditions we obtain

1192: a set of self-consistent equations that will fix the unknown

1193: correlators, the ZFC and the right representation at the same time.

1194: Several equations can be written down, according to the different

1195: symmetries we want to preserve. A large class of self-consistent

1196: equations is given by the following equation

1197: \begin{equation}\label{4.1}

1198: \langle \psi (i)\psi ^\dag (i)\rangle ={1 \over N}\sum_\mathbf{k} {1

1199: \over {2\pi }}\int_{-\infty }^{+\infty }  d\omega \,C_{\psi \psi

1200: ^\dag }(\mathbf{k},\omega )

1201: \end{equation}

1202: where the l.h.s. is fixed by the AC, the WT and the boundary

1203: conditions compatible with the phase under investigation and in the

1204: r.h.s. the correlation function $C_{\psi \psi ^\dag

1205: }(\mathbf{k},\omega )$ is computed by means of the equation of

1206: motion, as illustrated in Section 3. Equations (\ref{4.1}) generate

1207: a set of self-consistent equations which determine the unknown

1208: parameters (i.e., ZFC and unknown correlators) and, consequently,

1209: the proper representation \cite{Mancini_00,Mancini_04}, avoiding the

1210: problem of uncontrolled and uncontrollable decoupling.

1211: 

1212: \section{Approximation schemes}

1213: 

1214: 

1215: The generalized Dyson equation (\ref{2.26}) is an exact equation and

1216: permits, in principle, once the normalization matrix

1217: $I(\mathbf{i},\mathbf{j})$ [cfr. Eq. (2.13)], the m-matrix

1218: $m(\mathbf{i},\mathbf{j})$ [cfr. Eq. (2.14)] and the propagator

1219: $B(i,j)$ [cfr. Eq. (2.24)] are known, in the framework of the

1220: self-consistent scheme outlined in Sections 3 and 4, the calculation

1221: of the various Green's functions. However, for most of the physical

1222: systems of interest the calculation of the propagator $B(i,j)$ is a

1223: very difficult task and some approximations are needed. Various

1224: approximate schemes have been proposed. We will summarize some of

1225: them.

1226: 

1227: \subsection{The n-pole approximation}

1228: 

1229: The simplest approximation is based on completely neglecting the

1230: dynamical part $\Sigma (\mathbf{k},\omega )$ [cfr. (2.28)] of the

1231: self-energy. This approximation is largely used in the literature

1232: \cite{Hubbard_63,Hubbard_64,Hubbard_64a,Becker_90,Mori_65,Mori_65a,Fedro_92,Fulde_95,Plakida_89,Mehlig_95,Rowe_68,Roth_69,Beenen_95,Kalashnikov_73,Nolting_72,%

1233: Geipel_88,Nolting_89,Lonke_71,Tserkovnikov_81,Tserkovnikov_81a,Ishihara_94,Mancini_94,Mancini_95,Mancini_95a,Mancini_95b,Avella_98,Shimahara_91,Kruger_94,%

1234: Kondo_72,Yamaji_73} and is called pole-approximation. In this

1235: approximation we only need the knowledge of the normalization matrix

1236: and the $m$-matrix. The constraint (\ref{2.9}) produces a physics of

1237: the solution totally extraneous to the complementary physical space,

1238: orthogonal to that spanned by the multiplet $\psi(i)$. This

1239: approximation, or assumption to a larger extent, consists in

1240: retaining that one can neglect finite life-time effects (i.e., the

1241: dynamical part of the self-energy) paying attention to the choice of

1242: a proper extended operatorial basis, with respect to which the

1243: self-energy corrections have a small total weight. Indeed, the total

1244: weight of the corrections is bounded by the thermal average

1245: (\ref{2.24}) involving the residual source $\delta J (i)$. It is

1246: worth noting \cite{Mancini_98b} that the $n$-pole structure of the

1247: various GF corresponds to a Dyson-like equation

1248: \begin{equation}\label{5.1}

1249: G_{ab}^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )={{I_{ab}(\mathbf{k})} \over {\omega

1250: -\Sigma _{ab}^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )}}

1251: \end{equation}

1252: where the self-energy components $\Sigma _{ab}^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega

1253: )$ have a $(n-1)$-pole structure.

1254: 

1255: \subsection{Self-consistent Born approximation}

1256: 

1257: In order to improve the approximation one needs to take into account

1258: self-energy corrections by developing some methods to calculate the

1259: effects of $\Sigma (\mathbf{k},\omega )$. In the self-consistent

1260: Born approximation (SCBA), or non-crossing approximation, the

1261: many-particle Green's functions, appearing in the expression of

1262: $\Sigma (\mathbf{k},\omega )$ [see (\ref{2.28})], are calculated by

1263: assuming that the fermionic and bosonic modes propagate

1264: independently.

1265: 

1266: By recalling the results given in Section 2, the knowledge of the

1267: self-energy requires the calculation of the higher-order propagator

1268: $B^Q(i,j)=\langle Q[\delta J(i)\delta J^\dag (j)]\rangle $. In order

1269: to illustrate the approximation, let us consider the case where the

1270: basic set $\{ \psi (i)\} $ is of a fermionic type. Then, typically

1271: we have to calculate GF of the form $H^R(i,j)=\langle

1272: R[B(i)F(i)F^\dag (j)B^\dag (j)]\rangle $ where $F(i)$ and $B(i)$ are

1273: fermionic and bosonic field operators, respectively. By means of the

1274: spectral representation (\ref{3.20a}) we can write

1275: \begin{equation}\label{5.3}

1276: H^R(\mathbf{k},\omega )=-{1 \over \pi }\int_{-\infty }^{+\infty }

1277: d\omega' {1 \over {\omega -\omega +\mathrm{i}\varepsilon }}\coth

1278: {{\beta \omega' } \over 2}\Im [H^c(\mathbf{k},\omega' )]

1279: \end{equation}

1280: where $H^C(i,j)=\langle T[B(i)F(i)F^\dag (j)B^\dag (j)]\rangle $ is

1281: the causal function. In the SCBA we approximate $H^C(i,j) \approx

1282: f^C(i,j)b^C(i,j)$ where

1283: \begin{equation}\label{5.5}

1284: f^C(i,j)=\langle T[F(i)F^\dag (j)]\rangle \quad \quad \quad

1285: b^C(i,j)=\langle T[B(i)B^\dag (j)]\rangle

1286: \end{equation}

1287: 

1288: This approximation has been used in many works (for instance see

1289: \cite{Plakida_99,Plakida_01,Avella_03c,Krivenko_04}. By assuming

1290: that the system is ergodic we can use the spectral representations

1291: (\ref{3.21b}) and (\ref{3.38}) to obtain

1292: \begin{align}\label{5.6}

1293: &f^C(\mathbf{k},\omega )=-{1 \over \pi }\int_{-\infty }^{+\infty }

1294: d\omega' [{{1-f_\mathrm{F}(\beta \omega' )} \over {\omega -\omega'

1295: +\mathrm{i}\delta }}+{{f_\mathrm{F}(\beta \omega' )} \over {\omega

1296: -\omega' -\mathrm{i}\delta }}]\Im [f^R(\mathbf{k},\omega )]\\

1297: &b^C(\mathbf{k},\omega )=-{1 \over \pi }\int_{-\infty }^{+\infty }

1298: d\omega' [{{1+f_\mathrm{B}(\beta \omega' )} \over {\omega -\omega

1299: +\mathrm{i}\delta }}-{{f_\mathrm{B}(\beta \omega' )} \over {\omega

1300: -\omega' -\mathrm{i}\delta }}]\Im [b^R(\mathbf{k},\omega )]

1301: \end{align}

1302: 

1303: Use of (\ref{5.3})-(\ref{5.6}) leads to

1304: \begin{align}\label{5.7}

1305: &H^R(\mathbf{k},\omega )={1 \over \pi }\int_{-\infty }^{+\infty }

1306: d\omega' {1 \over {\omega -\omega' +\mathrm{i}\delta }}{{a^d} \over

1307: {(2\pi )^{d+1}}}\int_{\Omega _B}  d^dp d\Omega \Im

1308: [f^R(\mathbf{p},\Omega

1309: )]\nonumber\\

1310: &\Im [b^R(\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{p},\omega' -\Omega )][\tanh {{\beta

1311: \Omega } \over 2}+\coth {{\beta (\omega' -\Omega )} \over 2}]

1312: \end{align}

1313: where $d$ is the dimensionality of the system, $a$ is the lattice

1314: constant and $\Omega_\mathrm{B}$ is the volume of the Brillouin

1315: zone.

1316: 

1317: It should be noted that the SCBA can also be applied to the

1318: correlation function. We start from the expression

1319: \begin{equation}\label{5.8}

1320: H^R(\mathbf{k},\omega )={1 \over {2\pi }}\int_{-\infty }^{+\infty }

1321: d\omega' {{1+e^{-\beta \omega' }} \over {\omega -\omega'

1322: +\mathrm{i}\varepsilon }}H(\mathbf{k},\omega' )

1323: \end{equation}

1324: where $H(i,j)=\langle B(i)F(i)F^\dag (j)B^\dag (j)\rangle $ is the

1325: correlation function. In the SCBA we approximate

1326: \begin{equation}\label{5.9}

1327: H(i,j)=\langle B(i)F(i)F^\dag (j)B^\dag (j)\rangle \approx \langle

1328: F(i)F^\dag (j)\rangle \langle B(i)B^\dag (j)\rangle

1329: \end{equation}

1330: Then, by proceeding in the similar way we arrive to the same

1331: expression (\ref{5.7}).

1332: 

1333: \subsection{Two-site resolvent approach}

1334: 

1335: In this subsection we will consider an approximation scheme

1336: \cite{Matsumoto_96,Matsumoto_97}, where the dynamical part $\Sigma

1337: (\mathbf{k},\omega )$ [cfr.~(\ref{2.28})] of the self-energy is

1338: estimated by a two-site approximation in combined use with the

1339: resolvent method \cite{Kuramoto_83}. In this approximation the

1340: higher order propagator (\ref{2.24}) is written as

1341: \begin{equation}\label{5.10}

1342: B^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )=F.T.\langle Q[\delta J(i)\delta J^\dag

1343: (j)]\rangle \approx B_0^Q(\omega )+\alpha (\mathbf{k})B_1^Q(\omega )

1344: \end{equation}

1345: where $B_0^Q(\omega )$ is related to level transitions on equal site

1346: \begin{equation}\label{5.11}

1347: B_0^Q(\omega )={1 \over {2d}}F.T.\langle R[\delta

1348: J(\mathbf{i},t_i)\delta J^\dag (\mathbf{i},t_j)]\rangle

1349: \end{equation}

1350: while $B_1^Q(\omega )$ is related to transitions across two sites

1351: \begin{equation}\label{5.12}

1352: B_1^Q(\omega )={1 \over {2d}}F.T.\langle R[\delta

1353: J(\mathbf{i},t_i)\delta J^{\dag\alpha} (\mathbf{i},t_j)]\rangle

1354: \end{equation}

1355: 

1356: The Green's function (\ref{2.27}) takes the form

1357: \begin{equation}\label{5.13}

1358: G^Q(\mathbf{k},\omega )={1 \over {\omega -\varepsilon

1359: (\mathbf{k})+t^2V(\omega )\alpha (\mathbf{k})}}I(\mathbf{k})

1360: \end{equation}

1361: where $V(\omega )$ has to be calculated from the definition

1362: (\ref{2.28}) by making use of approximation (\ref{5.10}). We give

1363: now a brief sketch of the calculation.

1364: 

1365: $B_0^Q(\omega )$ and $B_1^Q(\omega )$ are computed by expressing

1366: $\delta J(i)$ in terms of transitions among the two-site levels

1367: \begin{equation}\label{5.14}

1368: \delta J=\sum_{nm}  a_{nm}\Phi _n^\dag \Phi _m

1369: \end{equation}

1370: where $\{ \Phi _m\} $ is the complete set of operators for two-site

1371: levels. By means of the non crossing approximation

1372: \cite{Kuramoto_83,Grewe_83}, the propagator $\langle Q[\Phi _n^\dag

1373: (t_i)\Phi _m(t_i)\Phi _{n}^\dag (t_j)\Phi _m(t_j)]\rangle $ is

1374: expressed in terms of the resolvent $R_{nm}(t_i-t_j)=\langle Q[\Phi

1375: _n(t_i)\Phi _m^\dag (t_j)]\rangle _R$ where  the subscript $R$

1376: indicates the reservoir system, i.e., the part $H_R$ of the

1377: Hamiltonian other than that concerned with two sites. The

1378: calculation of the resolvent brings to a modification of the

1379: original two-site levels by the surroundings. In this scheme effects

1380: of time delay in the local correlations are treated trough the

1381: time-dependent modifications of the two-site level transitions,

1382: which are included as time-dependent local effects in the electron

1383: self-energy.

1384: 

1385: \section{Conclusions}

1386: 

1387: In this article we have illustrated an approach to the study of

1388: highly correlated electronic systems, based on the equation of

1389: motion and Green's function method.  Such an approach is based on

1390: two main ideas: (i) propagators of composite operators as building

1391: blocks at the basis of approximate calculations; (ii) use of algebra

1392: constrains to fix the representation of the GF in order to maintain

1393: the algebraic and symmetry properties. This formalism has been

1394: applied to the study of several models of highly interacting

1395: systems, and we refer the interested readers to

1396: Ref.~\cite{Mancini_04} for an exhaustive bibliography.

1397: 

1398: %\bibliographystyle{prsty}

1399: %\bibliography{biblio}

1400: 

1401: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

1402: 

1403: \bibitem{Anderson_87}

1404: P.~W. Anderson, Science {\bf 235},  1196  (1987).

1405: 

1406: \bibitem{Fulde_95}

1407: P. Fulde, {\em Electron {C}orrelations in {M}olecules and {S}olids},

1408: 3rd  ed.

1409:   (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995).

1410: 

1411: \bibitem{Bogoliubov_47}

1412: N.~N. Bogoliubov, J.~Phys.~USSR {\bf 11},  23  (1947).

1413: 

1414: \bibitem{Dancoff_50}

1415: S.~M. Dancoff, Phys.~Rev. {\bf 78},  382  (1950).

1416: 

1417: \bibitem{Zwanzig_61}

1418: R. Zwanzig,  in {\em Lectures in {T}heoretical {P}hysics}, edited by

1419: W.

1420:   Britton, B. Downs, and J. Downs (Interscience, New York, 1961), Vol.~3, p.\

1421:   106.

1422: 

1423: \bibitem{Mori_65}

1424: H. Mori, Prog.~Theor.~Phys. {\bf 33},  423  (1965).

1425: 

1426: \bibitem{Umezawa_93}

1427: H. Umezawa, {\em Advanced {F}ield {T}heory: {M}icro, {M}acro and

1428: {T}hermal

1429:   {P}hysics} (AIP, New York, 1993), and references therein.

1430: 

1431: \bibitem{Hubbard_63}

1432: J. Hubbard, Proc.~Roy.~Soc.~A {\bf 276},  238  (1963).

1433: 

1434: \bibitem{Hubbard_64}

1435: J. Hubbard, Proc.~Roy.~Soc.~A {\bf 277},  237  (1964).

1436: 

1437: \bibitem{Hubbard_64a}

1438: J. Hubbard, Proc.~Roy.~Soc.~A {\bf 281},  401  (1964).

1439: 

1440: \bibitem{Rowe_68}

1441: D.~J. Rowe, Rev.~Mod.~Phys. {\bf 40},  153  (1968).

1442: 

1443: \bibitem{Roth_69}

1444: L.~M. Roth, Phys.~Rev. {\bf 184},  451  (1969).

1445: 

1446: \bibitem{Tserkovnikov_81}

1447: Y.~A. Tserkovnikov, Teor.~Mat.~Fiz. {\bf 49},  219  (1981).

1448: 

1449: \bibitem{Tserkovnikov_81a}

1450: Y.~A. Tserkovnikov, Teor.~Mat.~Fiz. {\bf 50},  261  (1981).

1451: 

1452: \bibitem{Barnes_76}

1453: S.~E. Barnes, J.~Phys.~F {\bf 6},  1375  (1976).

1454: 

1455: \bibitem{Coleman_84}

1456: P. Coleman, Phys.~Rev.~B {\bf 29},  3035  (1984).

1457: 

1458: \bibitem{Kotliar_86}

1459: G. Kotliar and A.~E. Ruckenstein, Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 57},  1362

1460: (1986).

1461: 

1462: \bibitem{Kalashnikov_69}

1463: O.~K. Kalashnikov and E.~S. Fradkin, Sov.~Phys.~JETP {\bf 28},  317

1464: (1969).

1465: 

1466: \bibitem{Nolting_72}

1467: W. Nolting, Z.~Phys. {\bf 255},  25  (1972).

1468: 

1469: \bibitem{Ishihara_94}

1470: S. Ishihara, H. Matsumoto, S. Odashima, M. Tachiki, and F. Mancini,

1471:   Phys.~Rev.~B {\bf 49},  1350  (1994).

1472: 

1473: \bibitem{Mancini_94}

1474: F. Mancini, S. Marra, A.~M. Allega, and H. Matsumoto, Physica~C {\bf

1475: 235},

1476:   2253  (1994).

1477: 

1478: \bibitem{Mancini_95}

1479: F. Mancini, S. Marra, and H. Matsumoto, Physica~C {\bf 244},  49

1480: (1995).

1481: 

1482: \bibitem{Mancini_95a}

1483: F. Mancini, S. Marra, and H. Matsumoto, Physica~C {\bf 250},  184

1484: (1995).

1485: 

1486: \bibitem{Mancini_95b}

1487: F. Mancini, S. Marra, and H. Matsumoto, Physica~C {\bf 252},  361

1488: (1995).

1489: 

1490: \bibitem{Avella_98}

1491: A. Avella, F. Mancini, D. Villani, L. Siurakshina, and V.~Y.

1492: Yushankhai,

1493:   Int.~J.~Mod.~Phys.~B {\bf 12},  81  (1998).

1494: 

1495: \bibitem{Mancini_00}

1496: F. Mancini and A. Avella, Eur.~Phys.~J.~B {\bf 36},  37  (2003).

1497: 

1498: \bibitem{Mancini_04}

1499: F. Mancini and A. Avella, Adv.~Phys. {\bf 53},  537  (2004).

1500: 

1501: \bibitem{Izyumov_90}

1502: Y.~A. Izyumov and B.~M. Letfulov, J.~Phys.:~Condens.~Matter {\bf 2},

1503: 8905

1504:   (1990).

1505: 

1506: \bibitem{Matsumoto_94}

1507: H. Matsumoto, A. Allega, S. Odashima, and F. Mancini, Physica~C {\bf

1508: 235},

1509:   2227  (1994).

1510: 

1511: \bibitem{Mancini_00e}

1512: F. Mancini, N.~B. Perkins, and N.~M. Plakida, Phys.~Lett.~A {\bf

1513: 284},  286

1514:   (2001).

1515: 

1516: \bibitem{Villani_00}

1517: D. Villani, E. Lange, A. Avella, and G. Kotliar, Phys.~Rev.~Lett.

1518: {\bf 85},

1519:   804  (2000).

1520: 

1521: \bibitem{Avella_02}

1522: A. Avella, R. Hayn, and F. Mancini, Eur.~Phys.~J.~B {\bf 37},  465

1523: (2004).

1524: 

1525: \bibitem{Bak_02}

1526: M. Bak and F. Mancini, Physica~B {\bf 312},  732  (2002).

1527: 

1528: \bibitem{Bogoliubov_59}

1529: N.~N. Bogoliubov and S.~V. Tyablikov, Dokl.~Akad.~Nauk.~USSR {\bf

1530: 126},  53

1531:   (1959).

1532: 

1533: \bibitem{Zubarev_60}

1534: D.~N. Zubarev, Sov.~Phys.~Uspekhi {\bf 3},  320  (1960).

1535: 

1536: \bibitem{Zubarev_74}

1537: D.~N. Zubarev, {\em Non {E}quilibrium {S}tatistical

1538: {T}hermodynamics}

1539:   (Consultants Bureau, New York, 1974).

1540: 

1541: \bibitem{Umezawa_65}

1542: H. Umezawa, Acta~Phys.~Hung. {\bf 19},  9  (1965).

1543: 

1544: \bibitem{Umezawa_66}

1545: H. Umezawa, Suppl.~of~Progr.~Theor.~Phys. {\bf 37-38},  585  (1966).

1546: 

1547: \bibitem{Leplae_74}

1548: L. Leplae, F. Mancini, and H. Umezawa, Phys.~Rep. {\bf 10},  151

1549: (1974).

1550: 

1551: \bibitem{Mancini_05}

1552: F. Mancini, Europhys.~Lett. {\bf 70},  485  (2005).

1553: 

1554: \bibitem{Mancini_05b}

1555: F. Mancini, Eur.~Phys.~J.~B {\bf 45},  497  (2005).

1556: 

1557: \bibitem{Mancini_05a}

1558: F. Mancini, Eur.~Phys.~J.~B {\bf 47},  527  (2005).

1559: 

1560: \bibitem{Avella_05}

1561: A. Avella and F. Mancini, Eur.~Phys.~J.~B {\bf 50},  527  (2006).

1562: 

1563: \bibitem{Mermin_66}

1564: N.~D. Mermin and H. Wagner, Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 17},  1133

1565: (1966).

1566: 

1567: \bibitem{Kubo_57}

1568: R. Kubo, J.~Phys.~Soc.~Jpn. {\bf 12},  570  (1957).

1569: 

1570: \bibitem{Avella_06}

1571: A. Avella, F. Mancini, and E. Plekhanoff, Condens.~Matter~Phys. {\bf

1572: 9},  ???

1573:   (2006).

1574: 

1575: \bibitem{Ward_50}

1576: J.~C. Ward, Phys.~Rev. {\bf 78},  182  (1950).

1577: 

1578: \bibitem{Takahashi_57}

1579: Y. Takahashi, Nuovo Cimento {\bf 6},  370  (1957).

1580: 

1581: \bibitem{Becker_90}

1582: K.~W. Becker, W. Brenig, and P. Fulde, Z.~Phys.~B {\bf 81},  165

1583: (1990).

1584: 

1585: \bibitem{Mori_65a}

1586: H. Mori, Prog.~Theor.~Phys. {\bf 34},  399  (1965).

1587: 

1588: \bibitem{Fedro_92}

1589: A.~J. Fedro, Y. Zhou, T.~C. Leung, B.~N. Harmon, and S.~K. Sinha,

1590: Phys.~Rev.~B

1591:   {\bf 46},  14785  (1992).

1592: 

1593: \bibitem{Plakida_89}

1594: N.~M. Plakida, V.~Y. Yushankhai, and I.~V. Stasyuk, Physica~C {\bf

1595: 162-164},

1596:   787  (1989).

1597: 

1598: \bibitem{Mehlig_95}

1599: B. Mehlig, H. Eskes, R. Hayn, and M.~B.~J. Meinders, Phys.~Rev.~B

1600: {\bf 52},

1601:   2463  (1995).

1602: 

1603: \bibitem{Beenen_95}

1604: J. Beenen and D.~M. Edwards, Phys.~Rev.~B {\bf 52},  13636  (1995).

1605: 

1606: \bibitem{Kalashnikov_73}

1607: O.~K. Kalashnikov and E.~S. Fradkin, Phys.~Stat.~Sol.~(b) {\bf 59},

1608: 9  (1973).

1609: 

1610: \bibitem{Geipel_88}

1611: G. Geipel and W. Nolting, Phys.~Rev.~B {\bf 38},  2608  (1988).

1612: 

1613: \bibitem{Nolting_89}

1614: W. Nolting and W. Borgiel, Phys.~Rev.~B {\bf 39},  6962  (1989).

1615: 

1616: \bibitem{Lonke_71}

1617: A. Lonke, J.~Math.~Phys. {\bf 12},  2422  (1971).

1618: 

1619: \bibitem{Shimahara_91}

1620: H. Shimahara and S. Takada, J.~Phys.~Soc.~Jpn. {\bf 60},  2394

1621: (1991).

1622: 

1623: \bibitem{Kruger_94}

1624: P. Kr{\"u}ger and P. Schuck, Europhys.~Lett. {\bf 27},  395  (1994).

1625: 

1626: \bibitem{Kondo_72}

1627: J. Kondo and K. Yamaji, Prog.~Theor.~Phys. {\bf 47},  807  (1972).

1628: 

1629: \bibitem{Yamaji_73}

1630: K. Yamaji and J. Kondo, Phys.~Lett.~A {\bf 45},  317  (1973).

1631: 

1632: \bibitem{Mancini_98b}

1633: F. Mancini, Phys.~Lett.~A {\bf 249},  231  (1998).

1634: 

1635: \bibitem{Plakida_99}

1636: N. Plakida and V. Oudovenko, Phys.~Rev.~B {\bf 59},  11949  (1999).

1637: 

1638: \bibitem{Plakida_01}

1639: N.~M. Plakida, L. Anton, S. Adam, and G. Adam, JETP {\bf 97},  331

1640: (2003).

1641: 

1642: \bibitem{Avella_03c}

1643: A. Avella, S. Krivenko, F. Mancini, and N.~M. Plakida,

1644: J.~Magn.~Magn.~Mat. {\bf

1645:   272},  456  (2004).

1646: 

1647: \bibitem{Krivenko_04}

1648: S. Krivenko, A. Avella, F. Mancini, and N. Plakida, Physica~B {\bf

1649: 359-361},

1650:   666  (2005).

1651: 

1652: \bibitem{Matsumoto_96}

1653: H. Matsumoto, T. Saikawa, and F. Mancini, Phys.~Rev.~B {\bf 54},

1654: 14445

1655:   (1996).

1656: 

1657: \bibitem{Matsumoto_97}

1658: H. Matsumoto and F. Mancini, Phys.~Rev.~B {\bf 55},  2095  (1997).

1659: 

1660: \bibitem{Kuramoto_83}

1661: Y. Kuramoto, Z.~Phys.~B {\bf 53},  37  (1983).

1662: 

1663: \bibitem{Grewe_83}

1664: N. Grewe, Z.~Phys.~B {\bf 53},  271  (1983).

1665: 

1666: \end{thebibliography}

1667: 

1668: 

1669: \label{last@page}

1670: \end{document}

1671: