1: \documentclass[aps,prb,twocolumn,groupedaddress,showpacs, floatfix]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx,amsmath}
3:
4: \begin{document}
5: \title{Lattice susceptibility for 2D Hubbard Model within dual fermion method}
6:
7: \author{Gang Li}
8: \author{Hunpyo Lee}
9: \author{Hartmut Monien}
10: \affiliation{Physikalisches Insititut, Universit\"at Bonn, 53115 Bonn, Germany}
11: \date{\today}
12:
13: \begin{abstract}
14: In this paper, we present details of the dual fermion (DF) method to study
15: the non-local correction to single site DMFT. The DMFT two-particle Green's
16: function is calculated using continuous time quantum monte carlo (CT-QMC)
17: method. The momentum dependence of the vertex function is analyzed and its
18: renormalization based on the Bethe-Salpeter equation is performed in
19: particle-hole channel. We found a magnetic instability in both the dual and
20: the lattice fermions. The lattice fermion susceptibility is calculated at
21: finite temperature in this method and also in another recently proposed
22: method, namely dynamical vertex approximation (D$\Gamma$A). The comparison
23: between these two methods are presented in both weak and strong coupling
24: region. Compared to the susceptibility from quantum monte carlo (QMC)
25: simulation, both of them gave satisfied results.
26: \end{abstract}
27:
28: \pacs{71.10.Fd}
29: \keywords{}
30: \maketitle
31:
32: % Main body
33: \section{Introduction\label{Introduction}}
34:
35: Strongly correlated electron systems, such as heavy fermion compounds,
36: high-temperature superconductors, have gained much attention from both
37: theoretical and experimental point of view. The competition between the
38: kinetic energy and strong Coulomb interaction of fermions generates a lot
39: of fascinating phenomena. Various theoretical approaches have been developed
40: to treat the regime of intermediate coupling. The widely used perturbative
41: methods, such as random phase approximation (RPA), fluctuation exchange
42: (FLEX)\cite{Bickers-1989,Bickers-1991}, and the two-particle self-consistent
43: (TPSC)\cite{Tremblay-1995,Tremblay-1994} method are based on the expansion in
44: the Coulomb interaction which is only valid in weak-coupling. To go beyond the
45: perturbative approximation and to gain insight of the correlation effects of
46: the fermion systems, new theoretical methods are needed. Dynamical mean field
47: theory (DMFT)\cite{Metzner-1989,Hartmann-1984,George-1996} is a big step
48: forward in the understanding Metal-Insulator transition.
49:
50: Dynamical mean field theory maps a many-body interacting system on a lattice
51: onto a single impurity embedded in a non-interacting bath. Such a mapping
52: becomes exact in the limit of infinite coordination number. All local temporal
53: fluctuations are taken into account in this theory, however spatial
54: fluctuations are treated on the mean field level. DMFT has been proven a
55: successful theory describing the basic physics of the Mott-Hubbard
56: transition. But the non-local correlation effect can't always be
57: omitted. Although, straight forward extensions of
58: DMFT\cite{Hettler-1998,Kotliar-2001,Okamoto-2003,Potthoff-2003,Maier-2005}
59: have captured the influence of short-range correlation, these methods are
60: still not capable of describing the collective behavior, e.g. spin wave
61: excitations of
62: many-body system. At the same time, most of the numerically exact impurity
63: solvers require a substantial amount of time to achieve a desired accuracy even
64: on a small cluster, which makes the investigation of larger lattice to be
65: impossible.
66:
67: Recently, some efforts have been made to take the spatial fluctuations into
68: account in different ways\cite{Toschi-2007, Rubtsov-2006, Kusunose-2006,
69: Tokar-2007, Slezak-2006}. All these methods construct the non-local
70: contribution of DMFT from the local two-particle vertex. The electron
71: self-energy is expressed as a function of the two-particle vertex and
72: the single-particle propagator. The cluster extention of DMFT considers
73: the correlation within the small cluster. Compared to these, the
74: diagrammatic re-summation technique involved in these new methods makes them
75: only approximately include the non-local corrections. While, long range
76: correlations are also considered in these methods and the computational burden
77: is not serious.
78:
79: In this paper we will apply the method of Rubtsov\cite{Rubtsov-2006} to
80: consider the vertex renormalization of the DF through the Bethe-Salpeter
81: equation. Lattice susceptibility is calculated from the renormalized DF
82: vertex.
83:
84: The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. \ref{Details} we summarize the
85: basic idea of the DF method and give details of the calculation. The
86: DMFT two-particle Green's function and the corresponding vertex calculation
87: are implemented in CT-QMC in Sec. \ref{Vertex}. The frequency dependent vertex
88: is modified through the Bethe-Salpeter Equation to obtain the momentum
89: dependence in Sec. \ref{Mom-Vex}. In Sec. \ref{application} we present the
90: calculation of the lattice susceptibility and compare it with QMC results and
91: also the works from Toschi\cite{Toschi-2007}. The conclusions are summarized
92: in Sec. \ref{conclusion}, where we also present possible application.
93:
94: %% second section
95: \section{The DF method\label{Details}}
96:
97: We study the general one-band Hubbard model at two dimensions
98: \begin{equation}
99: H=\sum_{k,\sigma}\epsilon_{k,\sigma}c_{k\sigma}^{\dagger}
100: c_{k\sigma}^{\phantom\dagger}+U\sum_{i}n_{i\uparrow}n_{i\downarrow}
101: \end{equation}
102: $c_{k\sigma}^{\dagger}(c_{k\sigma})$ creates (annihilates) an electron with
103: spin-$\sigma$ and momentum $k$. The dispersion relation is
104: $\epsilon_{k}=-2t\sum_{i=1}^{N}\cos k_{i}$, where $N$ is the number of lattice
105: sites. The basic idea of the DF method\cite{Rubtsov-2006} is to
106: transform the hopping between different sites into coupling to an auxiliary
107: field $f(f^{\dagger})$. By doing so, each lattice site can be viewed as an
108: isolated impurity. The interacting lattice problem is reduced to solving a
109: multi-impurity problem which couples to the auxiliary field. This can be done
110: using the standard DMFT calculation. After integrating out the lattice
111: fermions $c(c^{\dagger})$ one can obtain an effective theory of the auxiliary
112: field where DMFT serves as an starting point of the expansion over the
113: coupling between each impurity site with the auxiliary field.
114:
115: To explicitly demonstrate the above idea we start from the action of DMFT
116: which can be written as
117: \begin{equation}\label{original_fermion}
118: S[c^{+},c]=\sum_{i}S_{imp}^{i}-\sum_{\nu,k,\sigma}(\Delta_{\nu}
119: -\epsilon_{k\nu})c_{\nu k\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{\nu k\sigma}^{\phantom\dagger}
120: \end{equation}
121: where $\Delta_{\nu}$ is the hybridization function of the impurity problem
122: defined by $S_{imp}^{i}$ which is the action of an isolated impurity at site
123: $i$ with the local Green's function $g_{\nu}$. Using the Gaussian identity, we
124: decouple the lattice sites into many impurities which couple only to the field
125: $f$
126: \begin{eqnarray}\label{auxiliary_field}
127: S[c^{\dagger},c;f^{\dagger},f]&=&\sum_{i}S_{imp}^{i}+\sum_{k,\nu,\sigma}
128: [g_{\nu}^{-1}(c_{k\nu\sigma}^{\dagger}f_{k\nu\sigma}^{\phantom\dagger}+h.c.)
129: \nonumber\\
130: &&\hspace{1cm}+g_{\nu}^{-2}(\Delta_{\nu}-\epsilon_{k})^{-1}
131: f_{k\nu\sigma}^{\dagger}f_{k\nu\sigma}^{\phantom\dagger}]
132: \end{eqnarray}
133: The equivalence of Eqs. (\ref{original_fermion}) and (\ref{auxiliary_field})
134: form an exact relation between the Green's funtion of the lattice electrons and
135: the DF.
136: \begin{equation}\label{relation}
137: G_{\nu,k}=g_{\nu}^{-2}(\Delta_{\nu}-\epsilon_{k})^{-2}
138: G_{\nu,k}^{d}+(\Delta_{\nu}-\epsilon_{k})^{-1}
139: \end{equation}
140: This relation is easily derived by considering the derivative over
141: $\epsilon_{k}$ in the two actions. Eq. (\ref{relation}) allows now to solve
142: the many-body ``lattice'' problem based on DMFT which is different from the
143: straight forward cluster extension. The problem is now to solve the Green's
144: function of the DF $G^{d}_{\nu,k}$. It is determined by integrating
145: Eq. (\ref{auxiliary_field}) over $c^{\dagger}$ and $c$ yielding a Taylor
146: expansion series in powers of $f^{\dagger}$ and $f$. The Grassmann integral
147: ensures that $\bar{f}$ and $f$ appear only in pairs associated with the
148: lattice fermion n-particle vertex obtained from the single-site DMFT
149: calculation. In this paper we restrict our considerations to the two-particle
150: vertex $\gamma^{(4)}$.
151:
152: \begin{figure}[b]
153: \includegraphics[width=200pt]{Self-Energy}%
154: \caption{The first two self-energy diagrams. They are composed of the local
155: vertices function and DF propagator. \label{Self-Energy}}
156: \end{figure}
157:
158: Expanding the Luttinger-Ward functional in $\gamma^{4}$, the first two
159: contributions to the self energy function are the diagrams shown in
160: Fig. \ref{Self-Energy}. Diagram (a) vanishes for the bare DF since this
161: diagram exactly corresponds to the DMFT self consistency. Therefore the first
162: non-local contribution is given by diagram (b). The self-energy for these two
163: diagrams are
164: \begin{subequations}
165: \begin{align}
166: \Sigma^{(1)}_{\sigma}(k_{1}) &= -\frac{T}{N}\sum_{\sigma^{\prime},
167: k_{2}}G_{\sigma^{\prime}}^{d}
168: (k_{2})\gamma^{(4)}_{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}
169: (\nu,\nu^{\prime};\nu^{\prime},\nu) \label{self-energy1} \\
170: \Sigma^{(2)}_{\sigma}(k_{1}) &= -\frac{T^{2}}{2N^{2}}\sum_{2,3,4}
171: G^{d}_{\sigma_{2}}(k_{2})G^{d}_{\sigma_{3}}(k_{3})
172: G^{d}_{\sigma_{4}}(k_{4})\nonumber\\
173: & \gamma^{(4)}_{\sigma_{1234}}(\nu_{1},\nu_{2};\nu_{3},\nu_{4})
174: \gamma^{(4)}_{\sigma_{4321}}(\nu_{4},\nu_{3};\nu_{2},\nu_{1})\nonumber\\
175: & \delta_{k_{1}+k_{2}, k_{3}+k_{4}}\delta_{\sigma_{1}+\sigma_{2},
176: \sigma_{3}+\sigma_{4}} \label{self-energy2}
177: \end{align}
178: \end{subequations}
179: Here space-time notation is used, $k=(\vec{k},\nu)$,
180: $q=(\vec{q},\omega)$. Fermionic Matsubara frequency is
181: $\nu_{n}=(2n+1)\pi/\beta$, bosonic frequency is $\omega_{m} = 2m\pi/\beta$
182: where $\beta$ is the inverse temperature. Together with the bare DF
183: Green's function
184: $G^{d}_{0}(k)=-g_{\nu}^{2}/[(\Delta_{\nu}-\epsilon_{k})^{-1}+g_{\nu}]$, the
185: new Green's function can be derived from the Dyson equation
186: \begin{equation}\label{Dyson}
187: [G^{d}(k)]^{-1}=[G_{0}^{d}(k)]^{-1}-\Sigma^{d}(k)
188: \end{equation}
189:
190: The algorithm of the whole calculation is:
191: \begin{enumerate}
192: \item Set initial value of $\Delta_{\nu}$ for the first DMFT loop.
193: \item Determine the single-site DMFT Green's function $g_{\nu}$ from
194: the hybridization function $\Delta_{\nu}$. The self-consistency condition
195: ensures that the first diagram of the DF self-energy is very small.
196: \item Go through the DMFT loop once again to calculate the two-particle
197: Green's function and corresponding $\gamma$-function. The method for
198: determining the $\gamma$-function is implemented for both strong and
199: weak-coupling CT-QMC in the next section of this paper.
200: \item Start an inner loop calculation to determine the DF Green's
201: function and in the end the lattice Green's function.
202: \begin{enumerate}
203: \item From Eqs. (\ref{self-energy1}), (\ref{self-energy2}) and the Dyson
204: equation (\ref{Dyson}) to calculate the self-energy of the DF.
205: \item Repeatly use Eq. (\ref{self-energy1}), (\ref{self-energy2}) and
206: Eq. (\ref{Dyson}) until the convergence of the DF Green's function
207: is achived.
208: \item The lattice Green's function is then given by Eq. (\ref{relation})
209: from that of the DF.
210: \end{enumerate}
211: \item Fourier transform the momentum lattice Green's function into real space.
212: And from the on-site component $G_{ii}$ to determine a new hybridization
213: function $\Delta_{\nu}$ which is given by Eq. (\ref{Old-New}).
214: \item Go back to the Step 3. and iteratively perform the outer loop until the
215: hybridization $\Delta_{\nu}$ doesn't change any more.
216: \end{enumerate}
217:
218: Although diagram (a) is exactly zero for the bare DF Green's
219: function, it gives non-zero contribution from the second loop where the DF
220: Green's function is updated from Eq. (\ref{Dyson}). As a result, the
221: hybridization function should also be updated before the next DMFT loop is
222: performed . This is simply done by setting the local full DF Green's
223: function to zero, together with the condition that the old hybrization
224: function forces the bare local DF Green's function to be zero
225: ($\sum_{k}G^{0,d}_{\nu,k}=0$), we obtain a set of equations
226: \begin{subequations}
227: \begin{align}
228: & \frac{1}{N}\sum_{k}[G_{\nu,k} - (\Delta^{New}_{\nu}-\epsilon_{k})^{-1}]
229: g_{\nu}^{2}(\Delta^{New}_{\nu}-\epsilon_{k})^{2} = 0 \\
230: & \frac{1}{N}\sum_{k}[G^{0}_{\nu,k} -
231: (\Delta^{Old}_{\nu}-\epsilon_{k})^{-1}]
232: g_{\nu}^{2}(\Delta^{Old}_{\nu}-\epsilon_{k})^{2} = 0
233: \end{align}
234: \end{subequations}
235: which yields
236: \begin{equation}
237: \Delta_{\nu}^{New}-\Delta_{\nu}^{Old}\approx\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k}(G_{\nu,k}-
238: G^{0}_{\nu,k})(\Delta^{Old}_{\nu}-\epsilon_{k})^{2}
239: \end{equation}
240: This equation finally gives us the relation between the new and old
241: hybridization function.
242: \begin{equation}\label{Old-New}
243: \Delta_{\nu}^{New}=\Delta_{\nu}^{Old}+g_{\nu}^{2}G_{loc}^{d}
244: \end{equation}
245:
246: In the whole calculation, the DF perturbation calculation converges
247: quickly. The most time consuming part of this method is the DMFT calculation
248: of the two particle Green's function. There are some useful symmetries to
249: accelerate the calculation. As already pointed out\cite{Abrikosov:QFT,
250: Nozieres:1964}, it is convenient to take the symmetric form of the
251: interaction term. The two particle Green's function is then a fully
252: antisymmetric function. Such fully antisymmetric form is very useful to speed
253: up the calculation of the two particle Green's function. One does not need to
254: calculate all the frequency points within the cutoff in Mastsubara space, a
255: few special points are calculated and the values for the other points are
256: given by that of those special points through antisymmetric property. In the
257: DF self energy calculation, we always have the convolution type of momentum
258: summation which is very easy to be calculated by fast fourier transform (FFT).
259:
260: \section{CT-QMC and two-particle vertex}\label{Vertex}
261:
262: From the above analysis, the key idea of the DF method is to
263: construct the nonlocal contribution from the auxiliary field and the DMFT
264: two-particle Green's function. Therefore it is quite important to accurately
265: determine the two-particle vertex. Here we adapt the newly developed CT-QMC
266: method\cite{Rubtsov-2005, Werner-2006(1), Werner-2006(2)} to calculate the two
267: particle Green's function $\chi$.
268:
269: First we briefly outline the CT-QMC technique. For more details, we refer the
270: readers to\cite{Rubtsov-2005, Werner-2006(1), Werner-2006(2)}. Here we discuss
271: the two-particle Green's function and some numerical implemetations in more
272: detailed. Two variants of the CT-QMC methods have been proposed based on the
273: diagrammatic expansion. Unlike the Hirsch-Fye method, these methods don't have
274: a Trotter error and can approach the low temperature region easily. In the
275: weak-coupling method\cite{Rubtsov-2005} the non-interacting part of the
276: partition function is kept and expanded the interaction term into Taylor
277: series. Wick's theorem ensures that the corresponding expansion can be written
278: into a determinant at each order
279: \begin{equation}
280: {\cal Z}=\sum_{k}\frac{(-U)^{k}}{k!}\int d\tau_{1}\cdots d\tau_{k}e^{-S_{0}}
281: \det[D_{\uparrow}D_{\downarrow}]
282: \end{equation}
283: with
284: \begin{equation}
285: D_{\uparrow}D_{\downarrow}=
286: \left(
287: \begin{array}{cc}
288: \cdots & G_{\uparrow}(\tau_{1}-\tau_{k}) \cr
289: \cdots & \cdots
290: \end{array}
291: \right)
292: \left(
293: \begin{array}{cc}
294: \cdots & \cdots \cr
295: G_{\downarrow}(\tau_{k}-\tau_{1}) & \cdots
296: \end{array}
297: \right)
298: \end{equation}
299: where $S_{0}$ is the non-interacting action and $G^{0}$ is the Weiss field,
300: and the one-particle Green's function is measused as
301: \begin{equation}
302: G(\nu)=G^{0}(\nu)-\frac{1}{\beta}G^{0}(\nu)\sum_{i,j}M_{i,j}
303: e^{i\nu(\tau_{i}-\tau_{j})}G^{0}(\nu)
304: \end{equation}
305:
306: In the strong coupling method the effective action is expanded in the
307: hybridization function by integrating over the non-interacting bath degrees of
308: freedom. Such an expansion also yields a determinant.
309: \begin{eqnarray}
310: &&{\cal Z}=TrT_{\tau}e^{-S_{loc}}\prod_{\sigma}
311: \sum_{k_{\sigma}}\frac{1}{k_{\sigma}!}\int d\tau_{1}^{s}\cdots
312: d\tau_{k_{\sigma}}^{s}\int d\tau_{1}^{e}\cdots d\tau_{k_{\sigma}}^{e}
313: \nonumber\\
314: &&\Psi_{\sigma}(\tau^{e})\left(
315: \begin{array}{ccc}
316: \Delta(\tau_{1}^{e}-\tau_{1}^{s}) & \cdots & \Delta(\tau_{1}^{e}
317: -\tau_{k_{\sigma}}^{s})\\
318: \cdots & \ddots & \cdots \\
319: \Delta(\tau_{k_{\sigma}}^{e}-\tau_{1}^{s}) & \cdots &
320: \Delta(\tau_{k_{\sigma}}^{e}-\tau_{k_{\sigma}}^{s})
321: \end{array}\right)
322: \Psi_{\sigma}^{\dagger}(\tau^{s})
323: \end{eqnarray}
324: Here $\Psi(\tau) = (c_{1}(\tau), c_{2}(\tau),\cdots,
325: c_{k_{\sigma}(\tau)})$. The action is evaluated by a Monte Carlo random walk
326: in the space of expansion order $k$. Therefore the corresponding hybridization
327: matrix changes in every Monte Carlo step. One particle Green's function is
328: measured from the expansion of hybridization function as
329: $G(\tau_{j}^{e}-\tau_{i}^{s})=M_{i,j}$. $M$ is the inverse matrix of the
330: hybridization function. Apparently one needs to calculate this inverse matrix
331: in every update step which is time consuming, fortunately it can be obtained by
332: the fast-update algorithm\cite{Rubtsov-2005}.
333:
334: At the same time such a relation allows direct measurement of the Matsubara
335: Green's function
336: \begin{equation}
337: G(i\nu_{n})=\frac{1}{\beta}\sum_{i,j}e^{-i\nu_{n}\tau_{i}^{s}}M_{i,j}
338: e^{i\nu_{n}\tau_{j}^{e}}
339: \end{equation}
340:
341: Compared with the imaginary time measurement, it seems additional
342: computational time is needed for the sum over every matrix elements
343: $M_{i,j}$. K. Haule proposed to implement such measurement in every fast update
344: procedure which makes sure that only linear amount of time is
345: needed\cite{Haule-2007}.
346:
347: In our calculation the Green's function is measured in the weak-coupling
348: CT-QMC at each accepted update which greatly reduces the computational
349: time. The weak-coupling CT-QMC normally yields a higher perturbation order $k$
350: than the strong-coupling CT-QMC. It seems that the performance of the
351: strong-coupling CT-QMC is better\cite{Emanuel-2007}. Concerning the
352: convergence speed, the weak-coupling CT-QMC is almost same as the
353: strong-coupling one under the above implementation together with a proper
354: choice of $\alpha$, since in strong-coupling CT-QMC more Monte Carlo steps are
355: needed usually in order to smooth the noise of Green's function at imaginary
356: time around $\beta/2$ or at large Matsubara frequency points. Furthermore, the
357: weak-coupling CT-QMC is much easier implemented for large cluster DMFT
358: calculation, in which case the strong-coupling method needs to handle a big
359: eigenspace. In this paper we mainly use weak-coupling CT-QMC as impurity
360: solver, while all the results can be obtained in the strong-coupling CT-QMC
361: which was used as an accuracy check.
362:
363: Similarly, we adapt K. Haule's implementation to calculate the two-particle
364: Green's function in frequency space. In the weak coupling CT-QMC, the
365: non-interacting action has Gaussian form which ensures the applicability of
366: Wick's theorem for measuring the two particle Green's function
367: \begin{eqnarray}\label{2PG}
368: \chi_{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}(\nu_{1},\nu_{2},\nu_{3},\nu_{4})&=&
369: T[\overline{G_{\sigma}(\nu_{1},\nu_{2})G_{\sigma^{\prime}}
370: (\nu_{3},\nu_{4})}\nonumber\\
371: &-&\delta_{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}\overline{
372: G_{\sigma}(\nu_{1},\nu_{4})G_{\sigma}(\nu_{3},\nu_{2})}]
373: \end{eqnarray}
374: The over-line indicates the Monte Carlo average. In each Monte Carlo
375: measurement, $G(\nu,\nu^{\prime})$ depends on two different argument $\nu$
376: and $\nu^{\prime}$, only in the average level,
377: $\overline{G(\nu,\nu^{\prime})}=G(\nu)\delta_{\nu,\nu^{\prime}}$ is a function
378: of single frequency. In each fast-update procedure, the new and old
379: $G(\nu,\nu^{\prime})$ have a closed relation which ensures that one can
380: determine the updated Green's function $G^{New}(\nu,\nu^{\prime})$ from the
381: old one $G^{Old}(\nu,\nu^{\prime})$. For example, adding pair of kinks and
382: supposing before updating the perturbation order is $k$, then it is $k+1$
383: for the new M-matrix. The new inserted pair is at $k+1$ row and $k+1$
384: column.
385: \begin{eqnarray}\label{strong-update}
386: &&G^{New}(\nu,\nu^{\prime})-G^{old}(\nu,\nu^{\prime})\nonumber\\
387: &=&\frac{M^{New}_{k+1,k+1}}{\beta}G^{0}(\nu)\left\{XL\cdot XR-XR\cdot
388: e^{-i\nu\tau_{k+1}^{s}}\right.\nonumber\\
389: &&\left.\hspace{0.5cm}-XL\cdot e^{i\nu^{\prime}\tau_{k+1}^{e}}
390: +e^{-i\nu\tau_{k+1}^{s}+i\nu^{\prime}\tau_{k+1}^{e}}\right\}
391: G^{0}(\nu^{\prime})
392: \end{eqnarray}
393: Here, $XL=\sum_{i=1}^{k}e^{-i\nu\tau_{i}^{s}}L_{i}$,
394: $XR=\sum_{j=1}^{k}e^{i\nu^{\prime}\tau_{j}^{e}}R_{j}$ and $L_{i}, R_{j}$ have
395: the same definition as in Ref\cite{Rubtsov-2005}. In every step, one only needs
396: to calculates the Green's function when the update is accepted and only a few
397: calculations are needed. A similar procedure for removing pairs, shiftting
398: end-point operation can be used. Such method is also applicable in the segment
399: picture of strong-coupling CT-QMC. In the weak-coupling CT-QMC, such an
400: implementation greatly improves the calculating speed in low temperature and
401: strong interaction regime\footnote{In fact, the improvement is more obvious
402: for larger M-matrices. The strong coupling CT-QMC and the weak coupling
403: CT-QMC require approximately the same amount of CPU time although in the
404: weak coupling case the average perturbation order is higher than in the
405: strong coupling case}. Once one obtains the two frequency dependent
406: Green's function in every monte carlo step, the two-particle Green's function
407: can be determined easily from Eq. (\ref{2PG}). The two-particle vertex is then
408: given from the following equation:
409: \begin{equation}
410: \gamma^{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}_{\omega}(\nu,\nu^{\prime})=
411: \frac{\beta^{2}[\chi^{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}_{\omega}(\nu,\nu^{\prime})
412: -\chi^{0}_{\omega}(\nu,\nu^{\prime})]}
413: {g_{\sigma}(\nu)g_{\sigma}
414: (\nu+\omega)g_{\sigma^{\prime}}(\nu^{\prime}+\omega)
415: g_{\sigma^{\prime}}(\nu^{\prime})}
416: \end{equation}
417: where
418: \begin{equation}
419: \chi^{0}_{\omega}(\nu,\nu^{\prime})=T[\delta_{\omega,0}g_{\sigma}(\nu)
420: g_{\sigma^{\prime}}(\nu^{\prime})-\delta_{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}
421: \delta_{\nu,\nu^{\prime}}g_{\sigma}(\nu)g_{\sigma}(\nu+\omega)]
422: \end{equation}
423: is the bare susceptibility. For the multi-particle Green's function, it still
424: can be constructed from the two frequency dependent Green's function
425: $G(\nu,\nu^{\prime})$, but more terms appear from Wicks theorem. Simply, when
426: set $\nu=\nu^{\prime}$ one can calculate the one-particle Green's funtion
427: easily.
428:
429: \section{Momentum dependece of Vertex}\label{Mom-Vex}
430:
431: As mentioned earlier diagram (a) in Fig. \ref{Self-Energy} only gives the
432: local contribution. The first non-local correction in the DF method
433: is from diagram (b). Momentum dependences comes into this theory through the
434: bubble-like diagram between the two vertices which yields the momentum
435: dependence of the DF vertex. The natural way to renormalize vertex is
436: through the Bethe-Salpeter equation. Since the DMFT vertex is only a function
437: of Matsubara frequency, the integral over internal momentum $k$ and
438: $k^{\prime}$ ensures that the full vertex only depends on the center of mass
439: momentum $Q$. The Bethe-Salpeter equation in the particle-hole
440: channel\cite{Abrikosov:QFT, Nozieres:1964} are shown in
441: Fig. \ref{BSE-channel}.
442:
443: From the construction of the DF method, we know the interaction of the
444: DF is coming from the two particle vertex of lattice fermion which is
445: obtained through DMFT calculation. In the Bethe-Salpeter equation, it plays
446: the role of the building-block. The corresponding Bethe-Salpeter equation for
447: these two channels are
448: \begin{subequations}\label{BSE}
449: \begin{align}
450: & \Gamma^{ph0,\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}_{Q}(\nu,\nu^{\prime}) =
451: \gamma^{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}_{\omega}(\nu,\nu^{\prime})- \nonumber\\
452: &\frac{T}{N}\sum_{k^{\prime\prime}\sigma^{\prime\prime}}
453: \gamma^{\sigma\sigma^{\prime\prime}}_{\omega}(\nu,\nu^{\prime\prime})
454: G^{d}(k^{\prime\prime})G^{d}(k^{\prime\prime}+Q)
455: \Gamma^{ph0,\sigma^{\prime\prime}\sigma^{\prime}}_{Q}
456: (\nu^{\prime\prime},\nu^{\prime}) \\
457: & \Gamma^{ph1,\sigma\bar{\sigma}}_{Q}(\nu,\nu^{\prime}) =
458: \gamma^{\sigma\bar{\sigma}}_{\omega}(\nu,\nu^{\prime})- \nonumber\\
459: &\frac{T}{N}\sum_{k^{\prime\prime}}
460: \gamma^{\sigma\bar{\sigma}}_{\omega}(\nu,\nu^{\prime\prime})
461: G^{d}(k^{\prime\prime})G^{d}(k^{\prime\prime}+Q)
462: \Gamma^{ph1,\sigma\bar{\sigma}}_{Q}(\nu^{\prime\prime},\nu^{\prime})
463: \end{align}
464: \end{subequations}
465: Here, the short hand notation of spin configuration is
466: used. $\gamma^{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}$ represents
467: $\gamma^{\sigma\sigma\sigma^{\prime}\sigma^{\prime}}$, while
468: $\gamma^{\sigma\bar{\sigma}\bar{\sigma}\sigma}$ is denoted by
469: $\gamma^{\sigma\bar{\sigma}}$ where
470: $\bar{\sigma}=-\sigma$. $\Gamma^{ph0(ph1)}$ are the full vertices in the
471: $S_{z}=0$ and $S_{z}=\pm1$ channel, respectively. $G^{d}$ is the full DF
472: Green's function obtained from section \ref{Details} which is kept unchanged
473: in the calculation of the Bethe-Salpeter Equation. Different from the work of
474: S. Brener\cite{Brener-2007}, we solve the above equations directly in momentum
475: space with the advantage that in this way we can calculate the susceptibility
476: for any specific center of mass momentum $Q$ and it's convenient to use FFT for
477: investigating larger lattice.
478:
479: \begin{figure}[t]
480: \begin{center}
481: \includegraphics[width=230pt]{BSE-channel}
482: \caption{$S_{z}=0$ (ph0) and $S_{z}=\pm1$ (ph1) particle-hole channels of
483: the DF vertex, between vertices there are two full DF
484: Green's function. The $S_{z}=\pm1$ component is the triplet channel,
485: while that for $S_{z}=0$ can be either singlet or triplet.}
486: \label{BSE-channel}
487: \end{center}
488: \end{figure}
489:
490: In Eq. (\ref{BSE}) one has to sum over the internal spin indices in the
491: $S_{z}=0$ channel which is not present in $S_{z}=\pm1$ channel. One can
492: decouple the $S_{z}=0$ channel into the charge and spin channels
493: $\gamma_{c(s)}=\gamma^{\sigma\sigma}\pm\gamma^{\sigma\bar{\sigma}}$ which can
494: be solved seperately, and it turns out that the spin channel vertex function
495: is exactly same as the that in $S_{z}=\pm1$ channel, see e.g.
496: P. Nozieres\cite{Nozieres:1964}. Such relation is true for the DMFT vertex,
497: and was also verified for the momentum dependent vertex in the DF
498: method\cite{Brener-2007}. In our calculation, we have solved the $S_{z}=0$
499: channel by decoupling it to the charge and spin channel, while the $ph1$
500: channel is not used.
501:
502: Once the converged momentum dependent DF vertex is obtained, one can
503: determine the corresponding DF susceptibility in the standard way by
504: attaching four Green's functions to the DF vertex.
505: \begin{subequations}
506: \begin{align}
507: & \chi^{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}_{d}(Q) = \chi^{0}_{d}(Q)+\nonumber\\
508: & \frac{T^{2}}{N^{2}}
509: \sum_{k,k^{\prime}}G^{d}_{\sigma}(k)G^{d}_{\sigma}(k+Q)
510: \Gamma^{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}(Q)
511: G^{d}_{\sigma^{\prime}}(k^{\prime})G^{d}_{\sigma^{\prime}}(k^{\prime}+Q) \\
512: & \chi^{\sigma\bar{\sigma}}_{d}(Q) = \chi^{0}_{d}(Q)+\nonumber\\
513: & \frac{T^{2}}{N^{2}}
514: \sum_{k,k^{\prime}}G^{d}_{\sigma}(k)G^{d}_{\bar{\sigma}}(k+Q)
515: \Gamma^{\sigma\bar{\sigma}}(Q)G^{d}_{\sigma}(k^{\prime})
516: G^{d}_{\bar{\sigma}}(k^{\prime}+Q)
517: \end{align}
518: \end{subequations}
519: The momentum sum over $\vec{k}$ and $\vec{k}^{\prime}$ can be performed
520: independently by FFT becasue the DF vertx $\Gamma^{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}(Q)$
521: only depends on the center of mass momentum $Q$.
522:
523: Now the z-component DF spin susceptibility $\langle S^{z}\cdot
524: S^{z}\rangle=\frac{1}{2}(\chi^{\uparrow\uparrow}_{d}
525: -\chi^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{d})$ can be determined from the spin channel
526: component calculated above. In Fig. \ref{momentum-distribution},
527: $\tilde{\chi}^{zz}=\chi^{zz}-\chi_{0}^{zz}$ is shown for $U/t=4$ at
528: temperatures $\beta t = 4.0$ (left panel) and $\beta t=1.0$ (right
529: panel). With the lowing down of temperature the DF susceptibility grows up,
530: especially at wave vector $(\pi, \pi)$. The momentum $\vec{k}_{x}$ and
531: $\vec{k}_{y}$ run from $0$ to $2\pi$.
532: \begin{figure}[t]
533: \begin{center}
534: \includegraphics[width=230pt]{Sz}
535: \caption{The nontrivial part of the DF spin susceptibilities as a function
536: of momentum in 2D Hubbard Model at $U/t=4.0$, $\beta t = 1.0$ (right
537: panel) and $\beta t = 4.0$ (left panel). Here 32 $\times$ 32 momentum
538: points are used in the first Brillouin zone.}
539: \label{momentum-distribution}
540: \end{center}
541: \end{figure}
542: The susceptibility is strongly peaked at the wave vector $(\pi,\pi)$ at the low
543: temperature case and the peak value becomes higher and higher. The magnetic
544: instability of the DF system is indicated by the enhancement of the
545: DF susceptiblity. The effect of momentum dependence of vertex is clearly
546: visible in this diagram. The bare vertex which is only a function of frequency
547: becomes momentum dependent through the Bethe-Salpeter equation. Later on we
548: will see that such momentum dependent vertex plays a very important role in the
549: calculation of the lattice fermion susceptibility.
550:
551: \section{Lattice susceptibility}\label{application}
552:
553: The strong antiferromagnetic fluctuation in 2D system is indicated by
554: the enhancement of the DF susceptibility at the wave vector
555: $(\pi,\pi)$ shown in Fig \ref{momentum-distribution}. This is the consequence
556: of the deep relation between the the Green's function of the lattice and the
557: DF, see Eq. (\ref{relation}). In order to observe the magnetic
558: instability of the lattice fermion directly, we have calculated the
559: lattice susceptibility based on the DF method. By differentiating
560: the partition function in Eqns. (\ref{original_fermion},
561: \ref{auxiliary_field}) twice over the kinetic energy, we obtain an exact
562: relation between the susceptibility of DF and lattice fermions. After some
563: simplifications\cite{Brener-2007}, it is given by
564: \begin{eqnarray}
565: && \chi_{f}(Q) = \chi^{0}_{f}(Q) + \nonumber\\
566: && \frac{T^{2}}{N^{2}}\sum_{k,k^{\prime}}G^{\prime}(k)G^{\prime}(k+Q)
567: \Gamma^{d}_{Q}(\nu,\nu^{\prime})G^{\prime}(k^{\prime})G^{\prime}
568: (k^{\prime}+Q)
569: \end{eqnarray}
570: Here $G^{\prime}$ cannt be interpreted as a particle propagator, it is
571: defined as:
572: \begin{equation}
573: G^{\prime}(k) = \frac{G^{d}(k)}{g_{\nu}[\Delta_{\nu}-\epsilon(k)]}
574: \end{equation}
575: Again, the sum is performed over internal momentum and frequency $k,
576: k^{\prime}$ which is performed by FFT and rough summing over a few Matsubara
577: points. Again as in Eq. (\ref{relation}), this equation established a
578: connection between the lattice susceptibility and the DF
579: susceptibility. From this point of view, it is easy to understand that the
580: instability of DFs generates the instability of the lattice
581: fermions.
582:
583: One can also find relations for the higher order Green's function of the
584: DF and the lattice fermions in the same way. This emphasizes the similar
585: nature of the DF and lattice fermions except that DF possess only
586: non-local information, since the DMFT self-consistency ensures that the local
587: DF Green's function is exactly zero.
588:
589: The lattice magnetic susceptibility is calculated using the following
590: definition
591: \begin{eqnarray}
592: \chi_{m}(q) &=& \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i}e^{iq \cdot
593: r_{i}}\int_{0}^{\beta}d\tau e^{-i\omega_{m}\tau}\chi_{f}(i,
594: \tau)\nonumber\\
595: &=& 2(\chi_{f}^{\uparrow\uparrow}-\chi_{f}^{\uparrow\downarrow})
596: \end{eqnarray}
597: where $\chi_{f}(i,
598: \tau)=\langle
599: [n_{i,\uparrow}(\tau)-n_{i,\downarrow}(\tau)]\times[n_{0,\uparrow}(0) -
600: n_{0,\downarrow}(0)]\rangle$. $\chi_{f}$ represents the lattice susceptibility
601: in order to distinguish with that of the DF.
602:
603: \begin{figure}[t]
604: \begin{center}
605: \includegraphics[width=240pt]{chi_0}
606: \caption{The uniform spin suscetibility of the DF using the bare
607: vertex (only frequency dependent) and the full vertex(vertex from the
608: Bethe-Salpeter quqation) for half filled 2D Hubbard model at $U/t = 4.0$
609: and various temperatures. These results reproduce the similiar solution
610: in comparison with the calculation of finite size of
611: QMC.}\label{uniform_susceptibility}
612: \end{center}
613: \end{figure}
614:
615: We have used two different ways to calculate the lattice susceptibility. First
616: we have solved the above equation using the bare vertex
617: $\Gamma(\nu,\nu^{\prime}; \omega)$ which is obtained from the DMFT
618: calculation. In contrast, the second calculation was performed using the full
619: DF vertex. In both of these calculations, the full one particle DF Green's
620: function was used. The momentum dependent of the DF vertex is
621: obtained through the calculation of the Bethe-Salpeter equation. The lattice
622: susceptibility is expected to be improved if we use the momentum
623: dependence DF vertex. In this way, we can understand the effect of momentum
624: dependence in the DF vertex.
625:
626: In Fig. \ref{uniform_susceptibility} we plotted the results for the uniform
627: susceptibility $\chi_{m=0}(0,0)$ by using both the bare and full DF
628: vertex. The lattice QMC result\cite{Moreo-1993} is shown for comparison. The
629: calculation is done for $U/t = 4.0$ and several values of temperature. The
630: momentum sum is approximated over 32 $\times$ 32 points here. Both of these
631: calculations reproduce the well known Curie-Weiss law behavior. Surprisingly
632: enough, the results for the bare vertex fit the QMC results better than that
633: for the momentum dependent vertex. We believe that this is the finite size
634: effect of QMC\cite{Moreo-1993}. A. Moreo showed that $\chi$ becomes smaller
635: when increasing the cluster size $N$. The 4 $\times$ 4 cluster calculation
636: result at the same temperature located above of that from 8 $\times$ 8 cluster
637: calculation. Therefore the results obtained from the full vertex is expected
638: to be more reliable.
639:
640: \begin{figure}[t]
641: \begin{center}
642: \includegraphics[width=240pt]{chi_pi}
643: \caption{Uniform spin susceptibility at the wave vector $(\pi, \pi)$. The
644: QMC results are obtained from Ref.\cite{Bickers-1991(2)}.}
645: \label{chi_pi}
646: \end{center}
647: \end{figure}
648:
649: The importance of the momentum dependence of the DF vertex is more clearly
650: observed in the calculation of $\chi_{m}(\pi, \pi)$, see
651: Fig. \ref{chi_pi}. Again, in this diagram QMC results\cite{Bickers-1991(2)}
652: are shown for comparison. The same parameters are used as in
653: Fig. \ref{uniform_susceptibility}. The result from the DF with bare vertex
654: does not produce the same results compared with QMC solution. Evenmore
655: interesting, with decreasing temperature the deviation becomes larger. On the
656: other hand, the momentum dependent vertex in the DF method gives a
657: satisfactory answer. This shows the importance of the momentum
658: dependence in the DF vertex function. Fig.~\ref{chi_q} shows the evolution of
659: $\chi$ against $q$ for fixed transfer frequency $\omega_{m}=0$. The path in
660: momentum space is shown in the inset. From this diagram we can see that
661: $\chi(q,0)$ reaches its maximum value at wave vector $(\pi,\pi)$.
662:
663: The comparison between the DF and QMC results shows the good
664: performance of DF method. The DF calculation started from a
665: single site DMFT calculation and by introducing an auxiliary field, the
666: non-local information is introduced and nicely reproduces the QMC results. Our
667: calculation could be done within four hours for each value of the
668: temperature on average. In this sense, this method is cheap and reliable
669: compared with the more computationally intensive lattice QMC calculation.
670:
671: \begin{figure}[t]
672: \begin{center}
673: \includegraphics[width=240pt]{chi_q}
674: \caption{$\chi(q,0)$ vs $q$ at $\beta t= 2.0$, $U/t = 4.0$ for various $q$
675: which is along the trajectory shown in the inset.} \label{chi_q}
676: \end{center}
677: \end{figure}
678:
679: Similar as the DF method, Dynamical Vertex Approximation
680: (D$\Gamma$A)\cite{Toschi-2007} is also based on the two particle local
681: vertex. It deals with the lattice fermion directly, without introducing any
682: auxiliary field. The perturbative nature of this method ensures its validity
683: at weak-coupling regime. Unlike in the DF method, D$\Gamma$A takes the
684: irreducible two particle local vertex as building blocks.
685: \begin{subequations}\label{DGA-BSE}
686: \begin{align}
687: & \gamma_{c(s)}^{-1}(\nu,\nu^{\prime};\omega) =
688: \gamma^{-1}_{c(s),ir}(\nu,\nu^{\prime};\omega) -
689: \chi_{0}(\nu;\omega)\delta_{\nu,\nu^{\prime}} \\
690: & \Gamma_{c(s)}^{-1}(\nu,\nu^{\prime};Q) =
691: \gamma^{-1}_{c(s),ir}(\nu,\nu^{\prime};\omega) -
692: \chi_{0}(\nu;Q)\delta_{\nu,\nu^{\prime}}
693: \end{align}
694: \end{subequations}
695: with the spin and charge vertex defined as
696: $\gamma_{c(s)}=\gamma^{\uparrow\uparrow}\pm\gamma^{\uparrow\downarrow}$. The
697: bare susceptibility is defined as
698: \begin{subequations}
699: \begin{align}
700: & \chi_{0}(\nu;\omega) = -TG_{loc}(\nu)G_{loc}(\nu+\omega) \\
701: & \chi_{0}(\nu,Q) = -\frac{T}{N}\sum_{\vec{k}}
702: G^{0}(\vec{k},\nu)G^{0}(\vec{k}+\vec{q},\nu+\omega)
703: \end{align}
704: \end{subequations}
705: And the self-energy is calculated through the standard Schwinger-Dyson
706: equation
707: \begin{equation}\label{DGA-Selfenergy}
708: \Sigma(k) = -U\frac{T^{2}}{N^{2}}\sum_{k^{\prime},Q}
709: \Gamma_{f}(k,k^{\prime};Q)G^{0}(k^{\prime})G^{0}(k^{\prime}+Q)G^{0}(k+Q)
710: \end{equation}
711: Here, the full vertex $\Gamma_{f}(k,k^{\prime};Q)$ is obtained by summing all
712: the channel dependent vertices and subtracting the double counted diagrams.
713: \begin{eqnarray}\label{DGA-FullVertex}
714: \Gamma_{f}(k,k^{\prime};Q)&=&\frac{1}{2}\bigg\{
715: [3\Gamma_{c}(\nu,\nu^{\prime};Q)-\Gamma_{s}(\nu,\nu^{\prime};Q)]\nonumber\\
716: &&-[\Gamma_{c}(\nu,\nu^{\prime};\omega)-
717: \Gamma_{s}(\nu,\nu^{\prime};\omega)]\bigg\}
718: \end{eqnarray}
719: The one particle propagator is given by the DMFT lattice Green's function
720: where the self energy is purely local $G^{0}(k)=
721: 1/[i\nu-\epsilon(k)-\Sigma(\nu)]$, the local Green's function is $G_{loc}(\nu)
722: = 1/[i\nu-\Delta(\nu)-\Sigma(\nu)]$. Then the Dyson equation gives the lattice
723: Green's function from the self-energy function $G^{-1} = G^{-1}_{0}-\Sigma$.
724:
725: \begin{figure}[t]
726: \begin{center}
727: \includegraphics[width=240pt]{chi_0_DGA}
728: \caption{Comparison with the D$\Gamma$A susceptibilities $\chi(0,0)$ which
729: obtained from both the DMFT lattice Green's function (D$\Gamma$A
730: $(G^{0}$)) and the full Green's function (D$\Gamma$A $(G$)), see context
731: for more details.}
732: \label{DGA_0}
733: \end{center}
734: \end{figure}
735:
736: Before presenting the comparison, we take a deeper look at the analysis of
737: Eq. (\ref{DGA-BSE}),
738: \begin{eqnarray}
739: \Gamma_{c(s)}^{-1}(\nu,\nu^{\prime};Q) &=&
740: \gamma^{-1}_{c(s)}(\nu,\nu^{\prime};\omega) - \nonumber \\
741: &&[\chi_{0}(\nu;Q)-\chi_{0}(\nu,\omega)]\delta_{\nu,\nu^{\prime}}
742: \end{eqnarray}
743: The second term in the brackets on RHS removes the local term from the
744: bare susceptibility. The whole term in the brackets then represents only the
745: non-local bare susceptibility. In order to compare with the DF
746: method, we take the inverse form of Eq. (\ref{BSE})
747: \begin{eqnarray}
748: \Gamma_{d,c{s}}^{-1}(\nu,\nu^{\prime};Q) &=&
749: \gamma_{c(s)}^{-1}(\nu,\nu^{\prime}, \omega) - \nonumber\\
750: && \frac{T}{N}\sum_{\vec{k}}G^{d}(k)G^{d}(k+q)
751: \end{eqnarray}
752: The above two equations are same except for the last term. Since the local
753: DF Green's function $G^{d}_{loc}$ is zero, the bare DF
754: susceptibility is purely non-local which coincides with the analysis of
755: D$\Gamma$A Bethe-Salpeter equation. Therefore, it is not surprising that
756: these two methods generate similar results. It is not easy to perform a term
757: to term comparison between the DF method and D$\Gamma$A although the
758: bare susceptibilities have no local term in both of these method. The
759: one particle Green's functions have different meaning in these two methods.
760:
761: \begin{figure}[t]
762: \begin{center}
763: \includegraphics[width=240pt]{chi_pi_DGA}
764: \caption{D$\Gamma$A susceptibilities $\chi(\pi,\pi)$ at $U/t=4.0$. The
765: susceptibility are determined from both of the DMFT and full lattice
766: Green's function together with the vertex obtained from
767: Eq. (\ref{DGA-FullVertex})}.
768: \label{DGA_pi}
769: \end{center}
770: \end{figure}
771:
772: The lattice susceptibility within the D$\Gamma$A method is obtained by
773: attaching four Green's functions on the vertex obtained in
774: Eq. (\ref{DGA-FullVertex}). There are two possible choices of the lattice
775: Green's function, one is the DMFT lattice Green's function $G^{0}$, the other
776: one is the Green's function $G$ constructed by the non-local self-energy from
777: the Dyson equation. In Fig. \ref{DGA_0} and \ref{DGA_pi}, we presented
778: the D$\Gamma$A lattice susceptibility calculated from both the DMFT lattice
779: Green's function labeled as D$\Gamma$A($G^{0}$) and the full Green's function
780: labeled as D$\Gamma$A($G$). The DF result from the calculation with
781: the full DF vertex is re-plotted for comparison. In Fig. \ref{DGA_0}, the
782: D$\Gamma$A susceptibility calculated from the DMFT Green's function
783: (D$\Gamma$A($G^{0}$)) is basically the same as the DF susceptibility
784: only with some small deviation. The results for $T/t > 1.0$ which are not shown
785: here which nicely repeat the DF and QMC results, the deviation
786: between the D$\Gamma$A and the DF method becomes smaller with the
787: increasing of temperature. The D$\Gamma$A susceptibility is calculated from
788: the full Green's function (D$\Gamma$A($G$)) shows a different behavior at low
789: temperature regime which reached its maximum value at $T/t\approx0.36$. As we
790: know, the Hubbard Model at half filling with strong coupling maps to the
791: Heisenberg model, $\chi$ reasches a maximum at $T\approx J$ where
792: $J$ is the effective spin coupling constant given as $4t^{2}/U$. The
793: calculation uses the parameter $U/t=4.0$ which is in the intermediate coupling
794: regime. Therefore we further calculated the lattice susceptibility at
795: $U/t=10.0$ which are shown in Fig. \ref{chi_0_U10}.
796:
797: \begin{figure}[t]
798: \begin{center}
799: \includegraphics[width=220pt]{chi_0_U10}
800: \caption{The comparison of the DF resulsts and that of QMC for
801: the uniform susceptibility at $U/t=10$. 4$\times$4 QMC
802: results\cite{Moreo-1993} also shows the errorbars.}
803: \label{chi_0_U10}
804: \end{center}
805: \end{figure}
806:
807: When the temperature is greater than 0.4, the DF method and
808: D$\Gamma$A (D$\Gamma$A($G^{0}$)) generate the similar results to the QMC
809: calculation. Reducing the temperature further, the QMC susceptibility
810: greatly drops and shows a peak around 0.4 which coincides with the
811: behavior of the Heisenberg model. The DF femion and D$\Gamma$A susceptibility
812: continuously grows up with the decreasing of temperature. Although the
813: D$\Gamma$A with the full Green's function (D$\Gamma$A($G$)) shows a peak, it
814: locates at $T/t=0.6667$ which is larger than the peak position of the QMC. And
815: D$\Gamma$A($G$) generated a large deviation from that of QMC. In
816: this diagram, we only show the results of the DF approach for
817: $T/t>0.3$ and the D$\Gamma$A results for $T/t>0.4$. The Bethe-salpeter
818: equation of the D$\Gamma$A have a eigenvalue approaching one when further
819: lowering the temperature, which makes the access of lower temperature region
820: impossible.
821:
822: \begin{figure}[b]
823: \begin{center}
824: \includegraphics[width=220pt]{eigenvalue_T}
825: \caption{The evolution of maximum eigenvalue in spin channel against
826: temperature for DF method and D$\Gamma$A.}
827: \label{eigenvalue-T}
828: \end{center}
829: \end{figure}
830:
831: Fig. \ref{DGA_pi} shows the results of D$\Gamma$A susceptibilities at wave
832: vector $(\pi, \pi)$. In contrast to the comparison for $\chi(0,0)$ results, the
833: D$\Gamma$A susceptibility calculated from the full Green's function D$\Gamma$A
834: ($G$) yields better results than that from the calculation with the DMFT
835: Green's function D$\Gamma$A ($G^{0}$). D$\Gamma$A ($G$) results are almost on
836: top of the DF results, the results with DMFT Green's function D$\Gamma$A
837: ($G^{0}$) is large than the DF results. The deviation becomes
838: larger at lower temperature. Summarizing, the D$\Gamma$A calculation
839: using the full Green's function generated the same result as the DF
840: method for $\chi(\pi,\pi)$ while failed to produce $\chi(0,0)$ correctly. In
841: contrast, the calculation with the DMFT Green's function in D$\Gamma$A nicely
842: produced the results calculated with the DF method for $\chi(0,0)$
843: while generated larger devivation for $\chi(\pi,\pi)$ at lower temperature
844: regime compared to that from the DF method. Together with
845: Fig. \ref{uniform_susceptibility} and \ref{chi_pi}, we can see that the DF
846: fermion calculation with the full DF vertex generated basically the same
847: results for both $\chi(0,0)$ and $\chi(\pi,\pi)$ compared to the results of
848: QMC.
849:
850: \begin{figure}[t]
851: \begin{center}
852: \includegraphics[width=230pt]{chi_0_Away}
853: \caption{Uniform magentic susceptibility is plotted as a function of
854: dopping at $\beta t=2.5$ and $U/t =4.0, 10.0$.}\label{away-half}
855: \end{center}
856: \end{figure}
857:
858: In both the DF method and the D$\Gamma$A, the operation of inverting
859: large matrices is required for solving the Bethe-Salpeter
860: equation. Fig. \ref{eigenvalue-T} shows the leading eigenvalue of
861: Eqns. (\ref{BSE}) and (\ref{DGA-BSE}). As expected, the leading eigenvalue
862: approaches one with decreasing temperature which directly indicates the
863: magnetic instability of 2D system. The eigenvalues corresponding to the DF
864: fermion method always lies below of that from D$\Gamma$A indicating the
865: better convergence of the DF method. When the leading eigenvalues are closed to
866: one, the matrix inversion in Eqns. (\ref{BSE}) and (\ref{DGA-BSE}) are ill
867: defined, which prevents the investigation at very low temperature.
868:
869: Concerning the performance of the DF method, we also calculated the
870: uniform susceptibility at away half-filling. In the strong-coupling limit,
871: the Hubbard model is equivalent to the Heisenberg model with coupling constant
872: $J=4t^{2}/U$. The consequence of doping is to effectively decrease the
873: coupling $J$, which yields the increasing behavior of $\chi$ with doping. The
874: finite size QMC calulation\cite{Moreo-1993, Chen-1993} observed a
875: slightly increasing $\chi$ with very small doping at strong interaction
876: or in the low temperature region. Here, we did a similar calculation at $\beta
877: t=2.5$ and $U/t=4, 10$. Since the DF method and the D$\Gamma$A do not
878: suffer from the finite size problem. We would expect to observe results similar
879: to those of QMC\cite{Moreo-1993,Chen-1993}. In D$\Gamma$A the
880: suseceptibility is calculated from the DMFT Green's function $G^{0}$ and the
881: vertex obtained from Eq. (\ref{DGA-FullVertex}). As shown in
882: Fig. \ref{away-half} at $U/t=4.0$, the susceptibility $\chi$ slightly
883: increases in the weak dopping region where $\delta$ is around $0.05$, DF
884: fermion results clearly showed such behavior, D$\Gamma$A also gave a signal of
885: it. Further doping the system, both the D$\Gamma$A and the DF method
886: reproduce the decrease with doping as already seen in the QMC. With the
887: increasing of interaction, we would expect to see the enhancement of this
888: effect, however our calculation indicates that such increasing-decreasing
889: behaviro dissappear. Both the D$\Gamma$A and the DF method give the
890: same decreasing curve which contradict to QMC result\cite{Moreo-1993}. The
891: results will most likely be further improved by including the higher order
892: vertex or calculating the cluster DMFT plus DF/D$\Gamma$A\cite{Hafermann-2007}.
893:
894: \section{Conclusion}\label{conclusion}
895:
896: In this paper, we extended both the DF method and D$\Gamma$A to
897: calculate the lattice susceptibility. Both of these methods gave equally good
898: results compared with QMC calculation at $U/t=4.0$. Although they are supposed
899: to be weak-coupling methods, at $U/t=10.0$ these two methods generated right
900: results at high temperature region. While both of them failed to reproduce
901: the Heisenberg physics at low temperature. The investigation of the lattice
902: susceptibility suffers from hard determined matrix inversion problem at low
903: temperature regime. The DF methods always generates smaller eigenvalues
904: compared to D$\Gamma$A indicating the better convergence. The implementation
905: of DF method in momentum space greatly improves the calculational
906: speed and makes it easier to deal with larger size lattice.
907:
908: \begin{acknowledgments}
909: We would like to thank the condensed matter group of
910: A. Lichtenstein at Hamburg University for their hospitality
911: in particular for the discussions and open exchange
912: of data with H. Hafermann. Gang Li and Hunpyo Lee would like
913: to thank Philipp Werner for his help in implementing the
914: strong-coupling CT-QMC code.
915: \end{acknowledgments}
916:
917: \bibliography{chi}
918:
919: \end{document}
920:
921: