1: %
2: % Use RevTex 4.0 macros with LaTeX to print this up
3: %
4: \documentclass[showpacs]{revtex4}
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{2}
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: \title{Weak-coupling functional renormalization-group analysis of the
11: Hubbard model on the anisotropic triangular lattice}
12:
13: \author{Shan-Wen Tsai\footnote{new address: Institute for Fundamental
14: Theory and Department of Physics, University of
15: Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-8440 (tsai@phys.ufl.edu)} and J. B. Marston}
16:
17: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912-1843}
18:
19: \date{\today}
20:
21: \begin{abstract}
22: Motivated by experiments on the layered compounds $\kappa$-(BEDT-TTF)$_2$X,
23: Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$, and very recently Na$_x$CoO$_2 \cdot y$H$_2$O,
24: we present a weak-coupling functional renormalization-group analysis of the Hubbard model on the
25: anisotropic triangular lattice. As the model interpolates between the
26: nearest-neighbor square lattice and decoupled chains via the isotropic
27: triangular lattice, it permits the study of competition between antiferromagnetic and BCS Cooper
28: instabilities. We begin by reproducing known results for decoupled chains,
29: and for the square lattice with only nearest-neighbor hopping amplitude $t_1$.
30: We examine both repulsive and attractive Hubbard interactions.
31: The role of formally irrelevant contributions to the one-loop
32: renormalization-group flows is also studied, and these subleading contributions
33: are shown to be important in some instances. We then
34: observe that crossover to a BCS-dominated regime can
35: occur even at half-filling when antiferromagnetism is frustrated through the introduction of
36: a next-nearest-neighbor hopping amplitude $t_2$ along one of the two diagonal directions.
37: Stripes are not expected to occur and time-reversal breaking
38: $d_{x^2 - y^2} \pm i d_{xy}$ superconducting order does not arise spontaneously;
39: instead pure $d_{x^2 - y^2}$ order is favored. At the isotropic triangular point
40: ($t_1 = t_2$) we find the possibility of re-entrant antiferromagnetic long-range order.
41: \end{abstract}
42:
43: \pacs{74.20.Mn, 74.25.Dw, 74.70.Kn, 71.10.Fd}
44:
45: \maketitle
46:
47: \section{Introduction}
48: \label{sec:Intro}
49:
50: The behavior of strongly correlated electrons moving in reduced spatial
51: dimensions continues to yield surprising new physics. For example,
52: intriguing experiments\cite{Williams,Ishiguro,McKenzie1} on the
53: $\kappa$-(BEDT-TTF)$_2$X family of layered organic molecular crystals
54: evoke similar findings in the field of high-temperature cuprate
55: superconductivity. Like the high-T$_c$ cuprates, the layered organic materials
56: exhibit a wide variety of electronic properties. In particular,
57: the phase diagram is rather similar to that of the
58: cuprates\cite{McKenzie2} and there is some evidence for unconventional pairing
59: with nodes in the gap from NMR relaxation rate\cite{nmr1,nmr2,nmr3},
60: specific heat\cite{specificheat}, penetration
61: depth\cite{pdepth1,pdepth2,pdepth3,pdepth4,pdepth5},
62: STM spectroscopy\cite{stm}, mm-wave transmission\cite{mm1}
63: (see however Refs. \onlinecite{mm2,mm3}) and thermal conductivity\cite{thermal1,thermal2}
64: measurements. Other experiments, however, suggest
65: $s$-wave pairing\cite{swave1,swave2,swave3,swave4,swave5,swave6}.
66: Competition between
67: antiferromagnetic and superconducting instabilities, seen in the cuprates,
68: also seems to occur in the $\kappa$-(BEDT-TTF)$_2$X compounds\cite{Lefebvre}.
69: In contrast to the square CuO$_2$ lattice of the high-temperature
70: superconductors, the organic molecules pair up into dimers, and these dimers
71: form a triangular lattice.
72:
73: Two other quasi two-dimensional materials with triangular lattices have been
74: the subject of recent attention: The antiferromagnetic insulator
75: Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$ compound\cite{Radu} and the cobalt-based superconductor
76: Na$_x$CoO$_2 \cdot y$H$_2$O that may be an analog of the cuprate
77: high-temperature superconductors\cite{Takada}. Neutron scattering experiments
78: suggest the existence of deconfined spinon (spin-$1/2$) excitations in the
79: Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$ once antiferromagnetic order has been eliminated by heating
80: the sample to the relatively low temperature of approximately 0.6K, or upon
81: application of a field parallel to the plane\cite{Radu}.
82: Geometric frustration of the spin-spin interactions is likely responsible
83: for the observed spin-liquid behavior. As the cobalt atoms in the
84: Na$_x$CoO$_2 \cdot y$H$_2$O material also form a triangular
85: lattice\cite{Balsys}, and as they have further been argued to carry spin-$1/2$
86: moments\cite{Takada}, we tentatively group this system into the same
87: category as $\kappa$-(BEDT-TTF)$_2$X and Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$.
88:
89: Clearly theoretical investigations of strongly correlated electrons
90: on triangular lattices are of great interest. Initial studies
91: of strongly correlated systems often start with a minimal Hubbard model,
92: leaving extensions such as the inclusion of long-range Coulomb interactions
93: for later more detailed work. In fact
94: McKenzie has proposed\cite{McKenzie2} that a Hubbard model on the anisotropic
95: triangular lattice serves as a minimal model of the conducting layers of
96: $\kappa$-(BEDT-TTF)$_2$X. It represents a simplification of a model
97: introduced earlier by Kino and Fukuyama\cite{Kino1}. Two distinct hopping
98: matrix elements are introduced and the Hamiltonian is defined by:
99: \begin{eqnarray}
100: H = -t_1 \sum_{<{\bf ij}>} (c_{\bf i}^{\dagger \sigma} c_{{\bf j} \sigma} +
101: H.c.) - t_2 \sum_{<<{\bf ij} >>} (c_{\bf i}^{\dagger \sigma} c_{{\bf j}
102: \sigma} + H.c.) + ~U \sum_{\bf i} n_{{\bf i} \uparrow} n_{{\bf
103: i} \downarrow} - \mu \sum_{\bf i} n_{\bf i},
104: \label{eq:Hamiltonian}
105: \end{eqnarray}
106: where $<{\bf ij}>$ denotes nearest-neighbor pairs of sites on the square
107: lattice and $<<{\bf ij}>>$ denotes next-nearest-neighbor pairs along one of
108: the two diagonal directions of the square lattice as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:tri}.
109: Quantum chemistry calculations suggest that, unlike the cuprate materials,
110: in the case of the organic
111: $\kappa$-(BEDT-TTF)$_2$X compounds the Hubbard interaction $U \approx t$.
112: Thus a weak-coupling renormalization-group (RG) approach such as we adopt here
113: may be expected to be reasonably accurate for the organic materials.
114: \begin{figure}
115: \includegraphics[width=1.5in]{fig1.eps}
116: %\centerline{\epsfxsize=1.5in \epsfbox{fig1.eps}}
117: \caption{Anisotropic triangular lattice with two hopping amplitudes $t_1$
118: and $t_2$. The limit $t_2 = 0.0$ corresponds to the usual nearest-neighbor
119: square lattice and $t_1 = 0.0$ corresponds to decoupled chains.}
120: \label{fig:tri}
121: \end{figure}
122:
123: The model is also interesting in its own right as it interpolates between
124: the square lattice and decoupled chains. At half-filling, the non-interacting Fermi surface
125: is perfectly nested in these two extreme limits.
126: As nesting is imperfect in between the limiting cases, several
127: phase transitions can be expected. The square lattice, which has been the subject
128: of many studies, corresponds to the special case of zero next-nearest-neighbor
129: hopping, $t_2 = 0$. When the repulsive interaction is turned on,
130: nesting induces a spin density wave instability. In the opposite limit, $t_1 = 0$,
131: the chains are completely decoupled. These isolated chains of course have no spin order and
132: are described by the exact Bethe ansatz solution of Lieb and Wu\cite{Lieb}.
133: We pay particular attention to the intermediate region of
134: $t_1 \neq 0$ and $t_2 \neq 0$ and study it via a weak-coupling
135: renormalization-group analysis. The special isotropic triangular lattice point
136: corresponds to $t_1 = t_2$. Values for the hopping matrix elements obtained from
137: experiments and from quantum chemistry calculations for
138: the conducting layer of $\kappa$-(BEDT-TTF)$_2$X suggest $t_1 > t_2$, that is,
139: somewhere intermediate between the square and the isotropic triangular limits.
140: The lattice anisotropy can be altered by uniaxial stress applied along the
141: principal axes of the quasi-two-dimensional organic compound\cite{Choi}. Fermi
142: surfaces of non-interacting electrons for different ratios of the
143: hopping matrix elements are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:fs}.
144:
145: \begin{figure}[!ht]
146: \includegraphics[width=5in]{fig2.eps}
147: %\centerline{\epsfxsize=5in \epsfbox{fig2.eps}}
148: \caption{Fermi surface of non-interacting electrons for different ratios of
149: the two hopping amplitudes. The number at the top of each graph is the
150: anisotropy ratio $t_2/(t_1 + t_2)$ which ranges from $0$ (square lattice)
151: to $1$ (decoupled chains). The chemical potential $\mu$ is varied to
152: ensure that the system remains half-filled.}
153: \label{fig:fs}
154: \end{figure}
155:
156: In the next section we briefly introduce the RG
157: method we employ, a method first
158: implemented by Zanchi and Schulz\cite{Zanchi} for the case of the square lattice.
159: We then present results of our calculations at different values of the anisotropy:
160: decoupled chains (studied as a test case to check the reliability of the
161: calculation), square lattice, and finally the anisotropic region intermediate
162: between the square lattice and the isotropic triangular lattice.
163: We discuss the ordering tendencies and work out the implied phase
164: diagram as a function of anisotropy parameter $t_2/(t_1 + t_2)$ which ranges from
165: $0$ (square lattice) to $1$ (decoupled chains). We also make comparison to
166: results obtained via other methods in the strong-coupling limit of
167: large on-site repulsion.
168:
169: \section{Renormalization-group calculation}
170: \label{sec:rg}
171:
172: We follow the weak-coupling renormalization-group analysis
173: implemented by Zanchi and Schulz\cite{Zanchi} for interacting
174: fermions on a two-dimensional lattice. Like some previous work\cite{HKM},
175: the approach generalizes Shankar's renormalization group theory\cite{Shankar}
176: to Fermi surfaces of arbitrary shape.
177: More significantly, in principle the {\it only} approximation that is made in the
178: approach of Zanchi and Schulz is an expansion in powers of
179: the interaction strength, the on-site Coulomb interaction $U$. Subleading terms
180: generated during the RG transformations, which are dropped as irrelevant in the simplest
181: versions of the RG, are instead kept in this formulation. Specifically, the
182: formally irrelevant, non-logarithmic, terms that appear in the six-point function
183: during the process of mode elimination do in fact contribute to the RG flows.
184: Thus while the simplest weak-coupling RG analyses makes a double expansion in both
185: the interaction strength and in the relevance of the terms retained in the renormalization
186: flows, in the approach of Zanchi and Schulz there is
187: only a single expansion in the interaction strength. (In practice some additional
188: approximations are made for computational convenience, as detailed below.
189: These simplifications are not expected to alter the results significantly.)
190: As we show below, in some cases this more accurate treatment leads to
191: substantial differences in the RG flows.
192:
193: Elimination of high energy modes is carried out iteratively, in
194: infinitesimal steps, and as a result the energy cutoff $\Lambda$ around the Fermi
195: surface shrinks, see Fig. \ref{fig:rg}. The initial energy cutoff is taken to be
196: the full band width $\Lambda_0$, and it is reduced via continuous mode elimination
197: to $\Lambda = \Lambda_0 ~e^{-\ell}$ where $\ell > 0$.
198: \begin{figure}[!ht]
199: %\centerline{\epsfxsize=2.5in \epsfbox{fig3.eps}}
200: \includegraphics[width=3in]{fig3.eps}
201: \caption{Mode elimination is carried out in infinitesimal steps. The figure
202: shows the low energy modes (denoted $L$) which are inside a shell of thickness
203: $\Lambda$ around the Fermi surface, and the high energy modes ($H$),
204: which have already been integrated out and which are now outside the
205: shell. At each step the
206: on-shell modes precisely at scaling parameter $\ell$ (dashed lines) are
207: integrated out.}
208: \label{fig:rg}
209: \end{figure}
210: For each infinitesimal step $\ell \rightarrow \ell + d\ell$, the fermion degrees of
211: freedom are broken down into high and low energy modes as
212: \begin{eqnarray}
213: \Psi_{\sigma}(K) = \Theta(\Lambda-|\epsilon_{\bf k}|) ~ \Psi_{\sigma,L}(K) ~+~
214: \Theta(|\epsilon_{\bf k}|-\Lambda) ~ \Psi_{\sigma,H}(K) ~,
215: \end{eqnarray}
216: where $K \equiv (\omega, {\bf k})$ is the usual 2+1-dimensional frequency-momentum vector.
217: The effective action,
218: after dropping a constant contribution $\Omega_H$ to the free energy, has the form
219: \begin{eqnarray}
220: S_{\Lambda(\ell+d\ell)} = S_{\Lambda(\ell)} + \delta S(\ell).
221: \end{eqnarray}
222: At non-zero $\ell > 0$ the effective action
223: contains contributions at all orders in the initial interaction strength.
224: But because mode elimination is done in infinitesimal
225: steps, only terms linear in $d\ell$ contribute to $\delta S(\ell)$. These terms
226: correspond to diagrams with one internal line (either a loop or
227: a tree diagram). RG flow equations for vertices with any number of legs,
228: $\Gamma_{2n}(\ell)$, can then be found. These are functional equations since
229: the $\Gamma$'s are functions of momenta and frequencies.
230:
231: To make progress we must make an approximation.
232: We carry out the weak-coupling expansion by truncating the RG equations
233: at the one-loop level. Renormalization of the effective interaction
234: $U_\ell({\bf k_1}, {\bf k_2}, {\bf k_3}, {\bf k_4})$, corresponding
235: to the four-point function ($\Gamma_4$), then occurs at order $U^2$.
236: Contributions from the six-point functions $\Gamma_6$ must also be included
237: at this order. Higher n-point functions may be neglected as
238: these only contribute at higher-order in the interaction strength $U$.
239: It is important to notice that the RG flow equations generated this way
240: are non-local in scaling parameter $\ell$. The RG equations for couplings
241: $U_\ell({\bf k_1}, {\bf k_2}, {\bf k_3}, {\bf k_4})$ at step $\ell$ involve
242: the values of couplings at previous steps $\ell_{pp}$ and $\ell_{ph}$ [the
243: subscript denotes particle-particle (pp) and particle-hole (ph) channels]:
244: \begin{eqnarray}
245: \ell_{pp} = - \ln \left( \frac{\epsilon_{{\bf k} - {\bf q_{pp}}}}{\Lambda_0}
246: \right)\\
247: \ell_{ph} = - \ln \left( \frac{\epsilon_{{\bf k} + {\bf q_{ph}}}}{\Lambda_0}
248: \right)
249: \end{eqnarray}
250: with ${\bf q_{pp}} = {\bf k_1} + {\bf k_2}$ and ${\bf q_{ph}} = {\bf k_1} -
251: {\bf k_4}$. At step $\ell$ contributions from six-point functions are
252: obtained by contracting two of the legs at on-shell momentum
253: ${\bf k}$. Of course the six-point functions were generated
254: from four-point functions during previous steps. Momentum ${\bf k_4}$ is
255: determined uniquely by momentum conservation to be ${\bf k_4} = {\bf k_1} +
256: {\bf k_2} - {\bf k_3}$, so we drop it in the following.
257:
258: For an initial, bare, four-fermion
259: interaction $U_0$ which is independent of spin, following Zanchi and Schulz
260: it is possible\cite{Zanchi} to write all the renormalized
261: two-particle interactions in terms of
262: only one function $U_\ell({\bf k_1}, {\bf k_2}, {\bf k_3})$. Couplings
263: in the charge and spin sectors can then be obtained from this function through
264: the relations:
265: \begin{eqnarray}
266: U_c = \frac{1}{4} (2-\hat{X}) U, \hskip 1in U_{\sigma} = - \frac{\hat{X}}{4} U.
267: \end{eqnarray}
268: where $\hat{X}$ is a permutation operator defined by its action:
269: $\hat{X} U({\bf k_1}, {\bf k_2}, {\bf k_3}) \equiv
270: U({\bf k_2}, {\bf k_1}, {\bf k_3})$. The charge density (CDW)
271: and spin density (AF) couplings are then given by:
272: \begin{eqnarray}
273: V_\ell^{CDW}(\theta_1, \theta_2) &=& 4 U_{c \ell}({\bf k_1}, {\bf k_2},
274: {\bf \tilde{k}_1)}
275: \nonumber \\
276: V_\ell^{AF}(\theta_1, \theta_2) &=& 4 U_{\sigma \ell}({\bf k_1},
277: {\bf k_2}, {\bf \tilde{k}_1)}\ .
278: \end{eqnarray}
279: Here ${\bf \tilde{k}}_j$ is related to ${\bf k}_j$ by
280: ${\bf k}_j - {\bf \tilde{k}}_j = {\bf Q}$ where ${\bf Q}$ is a
281: nesting vector [${\bf Q} = (\pm \pi, \pm \pi)$ for the fully nested
282: square lattice]. Also $\theta_j$ is the angle that wavevector ${\bf k}_j$ makes with
283: the x-axis. The forward scattering amplitude is given by
284: \begin{equation}
285: F_\ell(\theta_1, \theta_2) = U_\ell({\bf k_1}, {\bf k_2}, {\bf k_1})
286: \end{equation}
287: and only involves two momenta (${\bf k_1}$ and ${\bf k_2}$) because the momentum
288: transfer during scattering is very small. Likewise the BCS interaction
289: \begin{equation}
290: V_\ell^{BCS}(\theta_1, \theta_2) = U_\ell({\bf k_1}, -{\bf k_1}, {\bf k_2})
291: \label{eq:vbcs}
292: \end{equation}
293: also is described by just two momenta as it represents the scattering of a Cooper
294: pair of electrons of opposing momenta ${\bf k_1}$ and ${\bf -k_1}$
295: into a pair of electrons of opposing momenta ${\bf k_2}$ and ${\bf -k_2}$.
296:
297: \begin{figure}[!ht]
298: %\centerline{\epsfxsize=2in \epsfbox{fig4.eps}}
299: \includegraphics[width=2in]{fig4.eps}
300: \caption{Discretization of the Fermi surface into $M = 16$ patches. Each patch
301: corresponds to an angular section of $2\pi/M$. The special case of the
302: perfectly-nested Fermi surface corresponding to the nearest-neighbor tight-binding
303: model on a square lattice and at half-filling is shown.}
304: \label{fig:discrete}
305: \end{figure}
306:
307: In order to integrate the flow equations forward in the scaling parameter
308: $\ell$ we first discretize the Fermi surface, dividing it up into patches
309: as depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:discrete}. Replacing the continuous surface
310: with discrete patches should be adequate for the imperfectly nested Fermi surfaces
311: we focus on here\cite{Doucot}. After discretization of the Fermi surface,
312: the angles $\theta_j = 2 \pi j / M$ where $j = 0, \ldots, M-1$.
313: Interactions $U_\ell(i_1,i_2,i_3)$ are thus labeled by three discrete patch
314: indices. A further approximation is implied by this
315: procedure, as the dependence of the effective interaction on the radial
316: component of momentum is neglected and the shape of the Fermi surface is
317: not renormalized. The justification is the following: though the shape of the
318: Fermi surface change at the one-loop level, the feedback of this change on the
319: one-loop RG flows for the couplings $U_\ell(i_1,i_2,i_3)$ constitutes a
320: higher-order effect. The dependence of $U$ on the radial components of the
321: three momenta is irrelevant\cite{Zanchi2,Shankar}. This is similar to the
322: one-dimensional case, where the marginal interactions are labeled according to
323: the indices $i = L, R$ (left or right moving) of the electrons that are
324: interacting. There is strong dependence on the direction of ${\bf k}$,
325: but the dependence on the absolute value $|{\bf k}|$ of the momentum is irrelevant.
326: Therefore the interactions may be parameterized simply
327: by their projection onto the two Fermi points.
328: In two dimensions the interactions are likewise parameterized by the
329: patch indices.
330:
331: In this work we only study flows at zero temperature. The integral over
332: Matsubara frequencies, which arises in the one-loop diagram,
333: can be performed analytically as the dependence of the couplings
334: on the frequency $\omega$ is irrelevant\cite{Zanchi2}. We set the initial bare
335: coupling to be $|U_0| = 1$ and, unless otherwise stated, also set $t_1 + t_2 = 1$.
336: The full band width is $\Lambda_0 = 8 t_1 + 4 t_2$.
337: We usually divide the Fermi surface into $M = 16$ patches. For the special case of
338: the isotropic triangular lattice we instead use a finer mesh of patches, $M = 24$,
339: to permit an examination of higher-wave channels.
340: Our algorithm makes no assumptions about the symmetries of the
341: Fermi surface; this means that we must follow the flow of all $M^3$
342: couplings $U(i_1,i_2,i_3)$. We do impose the requirement that the three indices
343: are such that all four particles lie on the Fermi surface.
344: The RG flow for these couplings are then described by
345: coupled non-local integral-differential equations. These equations are
346: numerically integrated forward in the scaling parameter $\ell$.
347: The increment in the scaling parameter is set to be $d\ell = 0.1$
348: for the results shown here. Calculations using smaller values of
349: $d\ell$ yield nearly the same results.
350:
351: An equivalent version of RG method for two-dimensional
352: interacting fermions has been developed by
353: Salmhofer\cite{Salmhofer1,Salmhofer2}. In this formulation, the RG flow
354: equations are {\it local} in the scaling parameter $\ell$, but
355: this gain comes at the cost of expanding the effective action in
356: {\it Wick-ordered} monomials, resulting in RG flow equations with one
357: extra integration over momentum. This formulation has been used to study the
358: two-dimensional Hubbard model on a square lattice with nearest-neighbor and
359: next-nearest-neighbor hopping amplitudes\cite{Halboth1,Halboth2,Honerkamp}.
360:
361: Given a set of RG flows, we must then interpret the various ordering tendencies.
362: One way to do this is by calculating susceptibilities towards order, as carried out
363: for instance in Refs. \onlinecite{Halboth1,Halboth2}. Another approach is
364: to bosonize the fermion degrees of freedom, and then determine the ground
365: state of the bosonized effective Hamiltonian semiclassically by replacing
366: each boson field with
367: a c-number expectation value. The latter method was adopted by Lin, Balents,
368: and Fisher in their treatment of the two-leg ladder system\cite{LBF98}. Klein
369: ordering factors must be treated carefully\cite{John} and the resulting
370: weak-coupling RG / bosonization prediction was shown to agree well with the
371: results of essentially exact DMRG calculations\cite{MFS}. We leave the
372: extension of such an analysis to the full two-dimensional problem\cite{HKM}
373: for future work, and make the observation here that in most instances
374: it suffices to simply follow, during the course of the RG flow,
375: the most rapidly diverging interaction channel. For instance,
376: the effective BCS interaction $V_\ell^{BCS}(i_1, i_2)$, as
377: defined by Eq. \ref{eq:vbcs}, is a symmetric $M \times M$ matrix in the patch indices.
378: The various BCS channels are obtained upon diagonalizing the matrix. The eigenvector $\phi$
379: with the largest attractive eigenvalue then represents the dominant BCS channel.
380: We also calculate the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of the
381: effective spin coupling $V_\ell^{AF}(i_1, i_2)$ and charge density wave coupling
382: $V_\ell^{CDW}(i_1, i_2)$ to determine the dominant AF and CDW channels.
383: In the following we plot largest eigenvalues of the interaction matrices
384: as a function of the scaling parameter, as well as the dominant eigenvectors as
385: a function of the patch index, to gain insight into the ordering tendencies.
386: As shown in the next section this way of intepreting the RG flows
387: yields the correct physics in the limiting cases of one-dimensional decoupled
388: chains as well as the completely nested square lattice.
389:
390: \section{Results}
391: \label{sec:results}
392:
393: We now turn to the results of our RG calculation. We first check the method in
394: the special limiting cases of decoupled chains and the pure square lattice. As we
395: reproduce known results in these limits, we then turn to the more general problem
396: of the anisotropic triangular lattice.
397:
398: \subsection{Decoupled chains ($t_1 = 0$)}
399: \label{subsec:chains}
400:
401: As a first check, we apply the weak-coupling analysis to the case
402: $t_1 = 0$ and $t_2 = 1$ which corresponds to completely decoupled
403: chains. At half-filling, particle-hole symmetry requires $\mu = 0$
404: and the nesting wavevector is $Q = \pi$. As quantum fluctuations always suffice
405: to prevent continuous symmetries from breaking in one spatial dimension,
406: antiferromagnetic and superconducting order are not possible. Instead the possible
407: phases are classified in terms of whether or not charge and/or spin excitations
408: are gapped. Furthermore the three types of marginal interactions are often
409: denoted (see Ref. \onlinecite{Affleck}) spin current ($\lambda_s$),
410: charge current ($\lambda_c$), and Umklapp ($\lambda_u$), where the latter two carry only
411: charge and no spin. In terms of our notation we may identify
412: \begin{eqnarray}
413: \lambda_c &=& 4 U_c(R, L, R), \nonumber \\
414: \lambda_s &=& 4 U_{\sigma}(R, L, R), \\
415: \lambda_u &=& U(R, R, L)\ . \nonumber
416: \end{eqnarray}
417:
418: As shown in Fig. \ref{fig:chains},
419: for repulsive initial interaction ($U_0 > 0$), the spin
420: couplings decrease towards zero, whereas the Umklapp and charge
421: couplings diverge in the low-energy limit. This is as expected from the
422: exact Bethe ansatz solution\cite{Lieb} since the system has gapless
423: spin excitations while the charge sector is gapped. On the other hand, for
424: attractive initial interaction ($U_0 < 0$) the spin couplings diverge while
425: Umklapp and charge couplings tend towards zero. In this case there
426: is a gap in the spin sector and gapless charge excitations.
427: The solid lines in Fig. \ref{fig:chains}
428: correspond to a direct analytical solution of the simple one-loop RG equations for the
429: one-dimensional Hubbard model at half-filling:
430: \begin{eqnarray}
431: {d\lambda_s \over d\ell} &=& - {1\over \pi} \lambda_s^2, \nonumber \\
432: {d\lambda_c \over d\ell} &=& {1\over \pi} \lambda_u^2, \nonumber \\
433: {d\lambda_u \over d\ell} &=& {1\over \pi} \lambda_c \lambda_u\ .
434: \end{eqnarray}
435: Our numerical solution of the
436: Zanchi-Schulz RG equations agrees quantitatively with the standard one-loop results.
437: An exact fit is not expected, because the the Zanchi-Schulz equations also include
438: the renormalization of the charge and spin speeds as well as
439: sub-leading non-logarithmic corrections.
440:
441: \begin{figure}[!ht]
442: %\centerline{\epsfxsize=4in \epsfbox{fig5.eps}}
443: \includegraphics[width=2.5in,clip]{fig5.eps}
444: \caption{RG flows of the spin current ($\lambda_s$), charge current
445: ($\lambda_c$) and
446: Umklapp ($\lambda_u$) interactions, in the limit of completely
447: decoupled chains ($t_1 = 0$).
448: For repulsive (attractive) bare interaction $U_0 > 0$ ($U_0 < 0$), a charge (spin)
449: gap develops and there are gapless spin (charge) excitations. Solid lines are the
450: analytical solution of the one-loop RG equations for the one-dimensional Hubbard model
451: at half-filling.}
452: \label{fig:chains}
453: \end{figure}
454:
455: \subsection{Square lattice ($t_2 = 0$)}
456: \label{subsec:square}
457:
458: Attractive interactions $U_0 < 0$ induce strong BCS instabilities in the case
459: $t_2 = 0$ of a pure square lattice, in accord with
460: expectations. The eigenvector of the dominant attractive BCS channel
461: is plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:swave} for the case of half-filling, $\mu = 0$.
462: As expected, the BCS pairing is in the $s$-wave channel when $U_0 < 0$. From the
463: outset at $\ell = 0$ the BCS sector dominates all other channels. As
464: the RG flows progress, the BCS channel diverges and thus remains the dominant
465: coupling. The same qualitative behavior persists as the system is doped away
466: from half-filling.
467: Fig. \ref{fig:mu01} depicts the RG flows in the dominant AF, BCS and CDW channels
468: both for the half-filled case $\mu = 0$ and away from half-filling ($\mu = 1$).
469: Perfect nesting at half-filling drives $V^{CDW}$ to diverge
470: as strongly as $V^{BCS}$. Away from half-filling, there is no perfect nesting
471: so both $V^{AF}$ and $V^{CDW}$ grow at a much smaller rate. In Fig.
472: \ref{fig:negu}, we compare our results to RG flows which include only
473: the leading logarithmic contributions. As the BCS coupling is not driven here by
474: the AF fluctuations, there is little coupling between the two channels. Therefore,
475: one-loop RG flows which include only the leading logarithmic contributions (diamonds)
476: do not deviate significantly from the more accurate approach of Zanchi and Schulz
477: (circles) which includes all the subleading non-logarithmic terms
478: generated at one-loop.
479:
480: \begin{figure}[!ht]
481: %\centerline{\epsfxsize=4in \epsfbox{fig6.eps}}
482: \includegraphics[width=3in]{fig6.eps}
483: \caption{Pairing symmetry of the dominant BCS channel for the case of
484: attractive initial interaction ($U_0 < 0$) on a square lattice
485: ($t_1 = 1$ and $t_2 = 0$) and at half-filling ($\mu = 0$), as revealed by
486: plotting the eigenvector of the BCS matrix with the largest attractive
487: eigenvalue. The scaling parameter $\ell = 2.5$.
488: The Fermi surface is divided in $M = 16$ patches. As the patch index goes from $n = 0$
489: to $n = 15$ around the Fermi surface, the angle $\theta$ goes from $0$ to $2 \pi$.}
490: \label{fig:swave}
491: \end{figure}
492:
493: \begin{figure}[!ht]
494: %\centerline{\epsfxsize=4in \epsfbox{fig7.eps}}
495: \includegraphics[width=3in,clip]{fig7.eps}
496: \caption{RG flows of the dominant AF, BCS and CDW couplings for the square lattice with
497: an attractive Hubbard interaction ($U_0 < 0$). Plotted are the largest eigenvalues of
498: the corresponding interaction matrices. Solid lines correspond
499: to the half-filled case ($\mu = 0.0$). Nesting occurs at half-filling and
500: $V^{CDW}$ diverges as strongly as $V^{BCS}$. Dashed lines correspond to
501: $\mu = 1.0$. In this case, nesting is destroyed causing $V^{AF}$ and
502: $V^{CDW}$ to increase at a much smaller rate.}
503: \label{fig:mu01}
504: \end{figure}
505:
506: \begin{figure}[!ht]
507: %\centerline{\epsfxsize=4in \epsfbox{fig8.eps}}
508: \includegraphics[width=3in,clip]{fig8.eps}
509: \caption{Comparison of results obtained from the approach of Zanchi and Schulz
510: (circles) with those obtained when only logarithmic contributions are
511: included (diamonds), for the case of an attractive Hubbard
512: interaction ($U_0 < 0$) and $\mu = 1$. There is no significant
513: discrepancy between the results. Flow in the dominant
514: BCS coupling is shown by the solid line; the AF coupling is indicated
515: by the dashed line.}
516: \label{fig:negu}
517: \end{figure}
518:
519: The opposite limit of a square lattice with repulsive initial interaction
520: $U_0 > 0$ has been extensively studied\cite{Zanchi,Halboth1}. At
521: half-filling, the
522: Fermi surface is perfectly nested and a strong SDW instability develops.
523: Fig. \ref{fig:dwave} shows, however, that the largest BCS channel,
524: though sub-leading in comparison to the SDW channel,
525: already exhibits $d_{x^2-y^2}$ pairing symmetry.
526:
527: \begin{figure}[!ht]
528: %\centerline{\epsfxsize=4in \epsfbox{fig9.eps}}
529: \includegraphics[width=3in]{fig9.eps}
530: \caption{Pairing symmetry of the dominant BCS channel for the case of
531: repulsive initial interaction ($U_0 > 0$) on the square lattice
532: ($t_1 = 1$ and $t_2 = 0$) at half-filling ($\mu = 0$). The different
533: curves correspond to different values of the scaling parameter
534: ($\ell = 0.5, 1$ and $3$). The
535: Fermi surface is divided in $M = 16$ patches. As the patch index increases from
536: $n = 0$ to $n = 15$ around the Fermi surface, the angle $\theta$ increases from
537: $0$ to $2 \pi$.}
538: \label{fig:dwave}
539: \end{figure}
540:
541: For the case of a repulsive Hubbard interaction, $U_0 > 0$, we find
542: in contrast to the attractive situation that the formally irrelevant
543: terms play an important role. As the initial BCS couplings are all
544: repulsive, Cooper pairing can only happen via coupling to the AF
545: channels or via the non-logarithmic corrections to scaling coming from the
546: formally
547: irrelevant terms in the six-point functions. We again compare RG flows which
548: include only the leading logarithmic corrections (diamonds)
549: against those in which all subdominant contributions at one-loop order are included
550: (circles) in Fig. \ref{fig:posu} for the case $\mu = 10^{-4}$, that is,
551: slightly away from half-filling. Though qualitatively similar, there is
552: considerable quantitative difference. At this small doping, AF tendencies dominate
553: in both cases. Upon further increasing the chemical potential, as mentioned
554: above there is a crossover into the $d_{x^2 - y^2}$ BCS regime. The
555: crossover occurs much sooner
556: when the subleading terms are included. Finally, at large doping
557: the nesting of the Fermi surface is completely eliminated, and
558: neither the AF nor the BCS channels show any strong divergences.
559:
560: \begin{figure}[!ht]
561: %\centerline{\epsfxsize=4.0in \epsfbox{fig10.eps}}
562: \includegraphics[width=3in,clip]{fig10.eps}
563: \caption{Comparison of results obtained at one-loop level for the case of a
564: repulsive Hubbard interaction and $\mu = 10^{-4}$. RG flows which
565: include the effects of formally irrelevant terms (circles) are compared with
566: RG flows for which only logarithmic contributions are retained (diamonds).
567: Flow in the dominant BCS channel is depicted as a solid line and
568: dominant AF sector is indicated by a dashed line.}
569: \label{fig:posu}
570: \end{figure}
571:
572: \subsection{Square Lattice With Next-Nearest-Neighbor Hopping ($t^\prime \neq 0$)}
573:
574: Next we turn to the square lattice with added next-nearest-neighbor hopping
575: amplitude $t^\prime$ along each of the two diagonal directions.
576: Weak-coupling RG studies of this Hubbard model
577: have been carried out previously by a number of
578: groups\cite{Halboth1,Halboth2,Honerkamp} using the formulation of
579: Refs. \onlinecite{Salmhofer1,Salmhofer2}. We have checked our calculation
580: against these published results and find good agreement.
581: The dispersion relation in this case is given by
582: \begin{eqnarray}
583: \epsilon_{\bf k} = - 2 t_1 (\cos k_x + \cos k_y) - 4 t^\prime \cos k_x \cos k_y
584: \end{eqnarray}
585: and Fig. \ref{fig:vhfs} show the Fermi surface for the case $t_1 = - 1$, $t^\prime = 0.05$,
586: and $\mu = 4 t^\prime$. The Fermi surface is centered around the $\Gamma$ point
587: $(\pm \pi, \pm \pi)$ and van Hove singularities lie at the Fermi energy\cite{Gonzalez}.
588: \begin{figure}[!ht]
589: %\centerline{\epsfxsize=1.5in \epsfbox{fig11.eps}}
590: \includegraphics[width=1.5in]{fig11.eps}
591: \caption{Fermi surface of the square lattice with nearest-neighbor hopping
592: $t_1 = - 1$ and next-nearest-neighbor hopping $t^\prime = 0.05$. The
593: chemical potential $\mu = 4 t^\prime$.}
594: \label{fig:vhfs}
595: \end{figure}
596:
597: This Fermi surface exhibits the $d_{x^2-y^2}$ superconducting instability.
598: It is interesting to go a bit further and address the question of whether or not
599: there is spontaneous time-reversal ($\hat{T}$) symmetry breaking with
600: the appearance of an additional imaginary $i d_{xy}$ component to the superconducting
601: order parameter. To answer this question we study the implications of RG flows which
602: yield comparable attraction in two channels: one term with $d_{x^2-y^2}$ symmetry and a second
603: with $d_{xy}$ symmetry. A simple calculation of energetics then suffices to show that
604: the two order parameters will phase-align as $d_{x^2-y^2} + i d_{xy}$.
605: The standard BCS equation yields a condensation energy of
606: \begin{eqnarray}
607: \Delta E = E_{SC} - E_N = 2 \sum_{{\bf k} > {\bf k_F}}
608: \left[ \epsilon_{\bf k} - \frac{2 \epsilon_{\bf k}^2 +
609: \Delta_{\bf k}^2}{2 \sqrt{\epsilon_{\bf k}^2 +
610: \Delta_{\bf k}^2}} \right]\ .
611: \label{eq:bcs}
612: \end{eqnarray}
613: For couplings $V^{BCS}$ with comparable $d_{x^2-y^2}$ and $d_{xy}$ components,
614: the ansatz to maximize the condensation energy should be chosen to be
615: $\Delta_{\bf k} = \Delta_{d_{x^2-y^2}}({\bf k}) +
616: u~ \Delta_{d_{xy}}({\bf k})$, with $u$ encoding information about the
617: relative phase of the two components. Substituting this ansatz into
618: Eq. \ref{eq:bcs}, we may then determine the phase that maximizes the condensation
619: energy $\Delta E$. Fig. \ref{fig:i} shows the dependence of the sum
620: \begin{eqnarray}
621: I(u) = \sum_{{\bf k} > {\bf k_F}} {2 \epsilon_{\bf k}^2 + \Delta_{\bf k}^2
622: \over
623: \sqrt{\epsilon_{\bf k}^2 + \Delta_{\bf k}^2}}
624: \end{eqnarray} on the real part of $u$. This term is maximized when $u$
625: is purely imaginary (Re$\{u\} = 0$), hence the $\hat{T}$-breaking
626: pairing symmetry $d_{x^2-y^2} + i d_{xy}$ is the energetically
627: favored. Physically this is reasonable, as this choice of the phase
628: guarantees that a gap forms everywhere along the Fermi surface, lowering
629: the ground-state energy.
630: \begin{figure}
631: %\centerline{\epsfxsize=3in \epsfbox{fig12.eps}}
632: \includegraphics[width=3in]{fig12.eps}
633: \caption{Dependence of the integral $I(u)$ on the real part of $u$. The maximum
634: of $I(u)$ occurs when Re$\{u\} = 0$, that is, when $u$ is purely imaginary.}
635: \label{fig:i}
636: \end{figure}
637:
638: Returning to the square lattice, we find that upon
639: integrating the RG equations for the case $t_1 = - 1$, $t^\prime = 0.05$ and
640: $\mu = 4 t^\prime$, the dominant attractive BCS channel has
641: $d_{x^2-y^2}$ symmetry as expected; see Fig. \ref{fig:vhbcs}(A). A channel
642: with $d_{xy}$ symmetry also appears but it is repulsive in sign; see Fig. \ref{fig:vhbcs}(B).
643: \begin{figure}[!ht]
644: %\centerline{\epsfxsize=3in \epsfbox{fig13a.eps}
645: % \epsfxsize=3in \epsfbox{fig13b.eps}}
646: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=3in]{fig13a.eps}
647: \includegraphics[width=3in]{fig13b.eps}}
648: \caption{Dominant BCS channels for the square lattice with $t_1 = - 1$,
649: $t^\prime = 0.05$ and $\mu = 4 t^\prime$, at scaling parameter $\ell = 5$.
650: The $d_{x^2-y^2}$ channel (A) is attractive
651: while the $d_{xy}$ channel (B) is repulsive. The absolute values of the
652: eigenvalues are plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:vhd} as functions of the scaling
653: parameter $\ell$.}
654: \label{fig:vhbcs}
655: \end{figure}
656: The strengths of each channel are plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:vhd} as a function
657: of the scaling parameter $\ell$. Since the $d_{xy}$ channel is repulsive, no $d_{xy}$
658: order will arise, and this may be taken as evidence against the formation
659: of spontaneous time-reversal symmetry breaking of the $d_{x^2-y^2} + i d_{xy}$ type.
660:
661: \begin{figure}[!ht]
662: %\centerline{\epsfxsize=4in \epsfbox{fig14.eps}}
663: \includegraphics[width=3in]{fig14.eps}
664: \caption{Flow of the eigenvalues for the $d_{x^2-y^2}$ and $d_{xy}$ channels
665: shown in Fig. \ref{fig:vhbcs}. The magnitude of the eigenvalues is plotted.}
666: \label{fig:vhd}
667: \end{figure}
668:
669: \subsection{Towards the Triangular Lattice ($t_2 \neq 0$, $t_2 < t_1$)}
670: \label{subsec:away}
671:
672: Introducing non-zero $t_2$ along just one of the two diagonals,
673: as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:tri},
674: offers a {\it different} way of breaking-up perfect
675: nesting and enhancing BCS instabilities, even at half-filling\cite{Tsai}.
676: For sufficiently large $t_2$ there is a crossover to a regime where the BCS
677: processes eventually dominate, signaling a superconducting instability.
678: Furthermore, because the Fermi surface is imperfectly nested, the growth of
679: both BCS and AF couplings weakens. Further increasing $t_2$ eventually
680: destroys nesting of the Fermi surface altogether and both types of
681: divergences are suppressed.
682: Three cases illustrating the crossover are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:afxsc_t2}.
683:
684: \begin{figure}[!ht]
685: %\centerline{\epsfxsize=4in \epsfbox{fig15.eps}}
686: \includegraphics[width=3in,clip]{fig15.eps}
687: \caption{At half-filling, spin-wave instability occurs for $t_2 = 0$, but
688: as $t_2$ increases, the BCS instability wins over. This is due to
689: imperfect nesting. As $t_2$ is increased further, the nesting is destroyed
690: and both divergences are suppressed. The hopping $t_1$ is chosen such that
691: $t_1 + t_2 = 1$.}
692: \label{fig:afxsc_t2}
693: \end{figure}
694:
695: As further increases in the diagonal hopping $t_2$ suppress the $d_{x^2-y^2}$ BCS
696: channel, this channel
697: diminishes relative to other subdominant BCS channel with different symmetries,
698: for example d$_{xy}$- or p-wave, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:repulsive}.
699: These other channels, however, are all repulsive and hence do not
700: lead to BCS instabilities by themselves.
701: \begin{figure}[!ht]
702: %\centerline{\epsfxsize=3in \epsfbox{fig16a.eps}
703: % \epsfxsize=3in \epsfbox{fig16b.eps}}
704: \centerline{
705: \includegraphics[width=3in]{fig16a.eps}
706: \includegraphics[width=3in]{fig16b.eps}}
707: \caption{Dominant BCS channels for $t_1 = 0.9$ and $t_2 = 0.1$, at
708: half-filling and at scaling parameter $\ell = 5$. These channels are both
709: repulsive (with eigenvalues of 0.19525 and 0.162 respectively).
710: The attractive $d_{x^2-y^2}$ BCS channel has a small eigenvalue of -0.268.}
711: \label{fig:repulsive}
712: \end{figure}
713:
714: We note that the Hubbard model on the anisotropic triangular lattice has
715: also been studied using the the random-phase approximation\cite{Vojta} and the
716: fluctuation-exchange (FLEX) approximation\cite{Kondo,Kino,Schmalian}. The $d$-wave
717: superconducting instability was found to be dominant for a large range of values of
718: $t_2/(t_1 + t_2)$ interpolating between the square lattice and the isotropic
719: triangular lattice.
720:
721: \subsection{Isotropic Triangular Lattice At Half-Filling}
722: \label{subsec:triangular}
723:
724: For the special case of the isotropic triangular lattice
725: ($t_1 = t_2 = 0.5$) at half-filling, the weak-coupling RG flows do not show any BCS
726: instabilities. The dominant BCS channels,
727: $d_{x^2-y^2}$, $d_{xy}$ and $p$, are all repulsive. These
728: channels are depicted in
729: Fig. \ref{fig:tri_bcs}(A), \ref{fig:tri_bcs}(B) and \ref{fig:tri_bcs}(C).
730: \begin{figure}[!ht]
731: %\centerline{\epsfxsize=3in \epsfbox{fig17a.eps}
732: % \epsfxsize=3in \epsfbox{fig17b.eps} }
733: %\centerline{\epsfxsize=3in \epsfbox{fig17c.eps}
734: % \epsfxsize=3in \epsfbox{fig17d.eps} }
735: \centerline{
736: \includegraphics[width=3in]{fig17a.eps}
737: \includegraphics[width=3in]{fig17b.eps}}
738: \centerline{
739: \includegraphics[width=3in]{fig17c.eps}
740: \includegraphics[width=3in]{fig17d.eps}}
741: \caption{BCS channels for the isotropic triangular lattice
742: $t_1 = t_2 = 0.5$, at scaling parameter $\ell = 8.4$. Channels with $d_{x^2-y^2}$ (A), $d_{xy}$ (B) and $p$
743: (C) symmetries all appear as repulsive channels (with eigenvalues 0.0378,
744: 0.035 and 0.057, respectively). The largest attractive BCS channel is shown
745: in (D), but it has a very small coefficient (-0.020) and the rapid
746: oscillations suggest that the calculation is not accurate
747: at this point. In the calculation, the Fermi surface was divided into $M = 24$ patches,
748: instead of just 16, to improve the accuracy in the higher wave channels.}
749: \label{fig:tri_bcs}
750: \end{figure}
751: Fig. \ref{fig:tri_bcs}(D) shows the first attractive channel that develops, but
752: the rapid oscillations in the effective potential, and its small size, indicate that the
753: calculation is not reliable.
754:
755: \begin{figure}[!ht]
756: %\centerline{\epsfxsize=4in \epsfbox{fig18.eps}}
757: \includegraphics[width=3in,clip]{fig18.eps}
758: \caption{Flow of dominant AF and BCS channels for the case of the
759: isotropic triangular lattice.}
760: \label{fig:afxsc_tri}
761: \end{figure}
762:
763: In Fig. \ref{fig:afxsc_tri} the dominant AF and BCS channels are compared. Neither
764: channel shows strong divergences, but the AF channel is significantly larger
765: than the BCS channel. Thus there are signs of re-entrant antiferromagnetic
766: long-range order. We speculate that there exist four different regions as
767: the isotropy parameter $t_2/(t_1+t_2)$ changes
768: form $0$ (square lattice) to $1$ (decoupled chains). These phases are shown in
769: Fig. \ref{fig:phasediag}. At $t_2 = 0$ the system exhibits long-range
770: antiferromagnetic N\'eel order (LRO) with ordering vector $\vec{Q} = (\pi, \pi)$.
771: But this long-range order is suppressed by turning on $t_2$. Instead
772: $d_{x^2-y^2}$ BCS instabilities dominate and only short-range order (SRO) occurs.
773: Both AF and BCS instabilities are
774: suppressed as $t_2$ is further increased and the nesting is completely
775: eliminated. Nevertheless, the AF coupling remains significantly larger
776: than the BCS coupling.
777: In the strong-coupling limit $U \rightarrow \infty$ the model can be mapped onto
778: a nearest-neighbor spin-1/2 Heisenberg antiferromagnet which of course is insulating.
779: On the isotropic triangular lattice this antiferromagnet
780: exhibits long-range AF order\cite{Singh,Bernu} with ordering wave vector
781: $\vec{Q} = (4\pi/3, 0)$. The question of whether or not our weak-coupling analysis
782: can describe this strong-coupling limit is tantamount to asking whether or not one
783: or more intermediate-coupling fixed points intervene between the repulsive weak-coupling
784: fixed point that is accessible in our RG analysis, and the attractive strong-coupling fixed point
785: which describes the antiferromagnetic insulator.
786: Finally as $t_2$ becomes larger than $t_1$, the chains begin to decouple. In the
787: extreme limit of independent chains there can be no long-range spin order, as the
788: Mermin-Wagner theorem tells us that continuous symmetries cannot break in 1+1 dimensions.
789: \begin{figure}[!ht]
790: %\centerline{\epsfxsize=6in \epsfbox{fig19.eps}}
791: \includegraphics[width=6in]{fig19.eps}
792: \caption{Four regions of the $U > 0$ phase diagram, LRO / SRO / LRO / SRO,
793: identified as $t_2/(t_1+t_2)$ varies
794: from $0$ (square lattice) to $1$ (decoupled chains).}
795: \label{fig:phasediag}
796: \end{figure}
797:
798: Curiously, four such regions, LRO / SRO / LRO / SRO, have also
799: been identified in the corresponding strong-coupling Heisenberg antiferromagnet
800: with two exchange couplings $J_1$ and $J_2$. The phase diagram of this model
801: has been studied via a straightforward $1/S$ expansion\cite{Merino,Trumper}, a series
802: expansion method\cite{Weihong}, and a large-$N$ Sp(N) solution\cite{Chung}. All
803: three methods find two regions of long-range order: near the limit of a
804: square lattice ($J_2 = 0$) and near the isotropic point ($J_2 = J_1$). It is
805: remarkable that our weak-coupling RG analysis shows similar behavior.
806:
807: The Hubbard model on the triangular lattice has been studied
808: at intermediate values of the interaction strength
809: within the Hartree-Fock approximation\cite{Krishnamurthy,Jayaprakash}
810: and within the slave-boson
811: method\cite{Gazza,Feiguin,Capone}. A Mott-Hubbard metal-insulator transition
812: is found to occur at a relatively large value of $U_c$ ($U_c = 5.27 t$ for
813: the Hartree-Fock calculation\cite{Krishnamurthy} and $U_c = 7.23 t$ or
814: $7.68 t$ from the slave-boson calculations\cite{Gazza,Capone}). At a smaller value
815: of $U = U_{c1}$ there is also a continuous transition from a paramagnetic
816: metallic phase to a metallic phase with incommensurate spiral order.
817: The Hartree-Fock calculation yields $U_{c1} = 3.97 t$ and
818: the slave-boson calculation gives $U_{c1} = 6.68 t$ for this transition.
819: Signs of re-entrant AF order in our weak-coupling RG calculation,
820: namely the relatively large size of the AF channels in comparison with the BCS channels,
821: are broadly consistent with this picture, as AF tendencies can be a precursor
822: to a transition to the insulating state.
823:
824: \section{Conclusion}
825: \label{sec:Conclusion}
826:
827: Hubbard models have received extensive study in the
828: context of high-$T_c$ superconductivity. We have reproduced the well-known
829: result that there is an AF instability at half-filling on the square lattice with
830: repulsive on-site Coulomb interaction and nearest-neighbor hopping. Furthermore, upon
831: doping the system away from half filling, a crossover to a BCS regime with
832: $d_{x^2-y^2}$ pairing symmetry occurs as expected. We have shown that it is important
833: to retain subleading, formally irrelevant, corrections to the RG flows when the bare interaction
834: is repulsive and the Fermi surface is nearly nested. We also studied
835: another way of triggering a BCS instability. Keeping the system
836: at half filling, but introducing the diagonal hopping $t_2$ as shown in Fig.
837: \ref{fig:tri} along one of the two diagonals, breaks up perfect nesting.
838: Corresponding magnetic frustration kills the spin density wave,
839: and Cooper pairing dominates, at least if $t_2$ is not too large.
840: This result suggests that superconductivity can occur in a model of
841: strongly correlated electrons, even at half-filling.
842: We emphasize that stripes are not expected to play a role here;
843: even moderate on-site Coulomb repulsion should inhibit charge
844: segregation at half-filling.
845:
846: The half-filled Hubbard model on the anisotropic
847: triangular lattice has been proposed as a minimal
848: description of the conducting layers of the $\kappa$-(BEDT-TTF)$_2$X
849: organic superconductors. It is important to establish the pairing symmetry of
850: the superconducting state of these materials. Our theoretical results predict
851: pairing of the $d_{x^2-y^2}$ type and in fact signs of such order have been seen
852: experimentally.
853: We did not find any evidence of spontaneous time-reversal symmetry breaking.
854: Pairing symmetry of the type $d_{x^2-y^2} \pm i d_{xy}$ would occur
855: if an attractive $d_{xy}$ channel arose in addition to the $d_{x^2-y^2}$ channel.
856: We find that attractive $d_{xy}$ channels neither occur when next-nearest-neighbor
857: hopping $t^\prime$ is included on the square lattice, nor when non-zero hopping $t_2$
858: is turned on along one of the two diagonal directions.
859:
860: Finally, we made contact with
861: previous work on Heisenberg antiferromagnets on the anisotropic triangular lattice.
862: Our weak-coupling RG calculation shows AF tendencies in two separate regimes -- tendencies
863: which seem to correspond with the two AF ordered phases found previously at large-$U$. In particular
864: the portion of the phase diagram between the isotropic point ($t_1 = t_2$) and
865: decoupled chains ($t_1 = 0$) is the relevant region for the layered Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$ antiferromagnet
866: insulator material. The competition we found between antiferromagnetic order and spin-liquid
867: behavior in our RG calculation may be consistent with the observed ease by which spin
868: order is destroyed in the compound\cite{Radu}.
869:
870: \vskip 0.2in
871: {\bf Acknowledgments}
872: We thank Chung-Hou Chung, Tony Houghton, Ross McKenzie, and Matthias Vojta
873: for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by the NSF under
874: Grant Nos. DMR-9712391 and DMR-0213818.
875:
876: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
877:
878: \bibitem{Williams}J. M. Williams {\it et al.} 1992 {\it Organic
879: superconductors
880: (including fullerenes): synthesis, structure, properties, and theory},
881: (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall)
882:
883: \bibitem{Ishiguro}T. Ishiguro and K. Yamaji 1997
884: {\it Organic Superconductors},
885: Second edition (Berlin: Springer-Verlag)
886:
887: \bibitem{McKenzie1}R. H. McKenzie 1998 {\it Comments Cond. Mat. Phys.}
888: {\bf18} 309
889:
890: \bibitem{McKenzie2}R. H. McKenzie 1997 Science {\bf 278} 820.
891:
892: \bibitem{nmr1}H. Mayaffre, P. Wzietek, D. J\'{e}rome, C. Lenoir and
893: P. Batail 1995 {\it Phys. Rev Lett.} {\bf 75} 4122
894:
895: \bibitem{nmr2}S. M. De Soto, C. P. Slichter, A. M. Kini, H. H. Wang,
896: U. Geiser and J. M. Williams 1995 {\it Phys. Rev.} B {\bf 52} 10364
897:
898: \bibitem{nmr3}K. Kanoda, K. Miyagawa, A. Kawamoto and Y. Nakazawa 1996
899: {\it Phys. Rev.} B {\bf 54} 76
900:
901: \bibitem{specificheat}Y. Nakazawa and K. Kanoda 1997 {\it Phys. Rev.} B
902: {\bf 55} R8670
903:
904: \bibitem{pdepth1}K. Kanoda, K. Akiba, K. Suzuki, T. Takahashi and G. Saito
905: 1990 {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 65} 1271
906:
907: \bibitem{pdepth2}L. P. Le, G. M. Luke, B. J. Sternlieb, W. D. Wu,
908: Y. J. Uemura, J. H. Brewer, T. M. Riseman, C. E. Stronach,
909: G. Saito, H. Yamochi, H. H. Wang, A. M. Kini, K. D. Carlson and
910: J. M. Williams 1992 {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 68} 1923
911:
912: \bibitem{pdepth3}D. Achkir, M. Poirier, C. Bourbonnais, G. Quirion,
913: C. Lenoir, P. Batail and D. J\'{e}rome 1993 {\it Phys Rev} B {\bf 47} 11595
914:
915: \bibitem{pdepth4}A. Carrington, I. J. Bonalde, R. Prozorov, R. W. Giannetta,
916: A. M. Kini, J. Schlueter, H. H. Wang, U. Geiser and J. M. Williams 1999
917: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 83} 4172
918:
919: \bibitem{pdepth5}M. Pinteri\'{c}, S. Tomi\'{c}, M. Prester, D. Drobac,
920: O. Milat, K. Maki, D. Schweitzer, I. Heinen and W. Strunz 2000
921: {\it Phys. Rev.} B {\bf 61} 7033
922:
923: \bibitem{stm}T. Arai, K. Ichimura, K. Nomura, S. Takasaki, J. Yamada,
924: S. Nakatsuji and H. Anzai 2001 {\it Phys. Rev.} B {\bf 63} 104518\\
925: T. Arai, K. Ichimura, K. Nomura, S. Takasaki, J. Yamada, S. Nakatsuji
926: and H. Anzai 2000 {\it Solid State Comm.} {\bf 116} 679
927:
928: \bibitem{mm1}J. M. Schrama, E. Rzepniewski, R. S. Edwards, J. Singleton,
929: A. Ardavan, M. Kurmoo and P. Day 1999 {\it Phys. Rev. Lett} {\bf 83} 3041\\
930: J. M. Schrama and J. Singleton 2001 {\it Phys. Rev. Lett} {\bf 86} 3453
931:
932: \bibitem{mm2}S. Hill, N. Harrison, M. Mola, J. Wosnitza 2001
933: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 86} 3451
934:
935: \bibitem{mm3}T. Shibauchi, Y. Matsuda, M. B. Gaifullin, T. Tamegai
936: 2001 {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 86} 3452
937:
938: \bibitem{thermal1}S. Belin, K. Behnia, A. Deluzet 1998
939: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} 4728
940:
941: \bibitem{thermal2}K. Izawa, H. Yamaguchi, T. Sasaki, Y. Matsuda 2002
942: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 88} 027002
943:
944: \bibitem{swave1}D. R. Harshman, R. N. Kleiman, R. C. Haddon,
945: S. V. Chichester-Hicks, M. L. Kaplan, L. W. Rupp Jr., T. Pfiz,
946: D. L. Williams and D. B. Mitzi 1990 {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 64} 1293
947:
948: \bibitem{swave2}O. Klein, K. Holczer, G. Gr\"{u}ner, J. J. Chang and F. Wudl
949: 1991 {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 66} 655
950:
951: \bibitem{swave3}M. Lang, N. Toyota, T. Sasaki and H. Sato 1992
952: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 69} 1443\\
953: M. Lang, N. Toyota, T. Sasaki, and H. Sato
954: 1992 {\it Phys. Rev.} B {\bf 46} 5822
955:
956: \bibitem{swave4}D. R. Harshman, A. T. Fiory, R. C. Haddon, M. L. Kaplan,
957: T. Pfiz, E. Koster, I. Shinkoda and D. Ll. Williams 1994
958: {\it Phys. Rev.} B {\bf 49} 12990
959:
960: \bibitem{swave5}M. Dressel, O. Klein, G. Gr\"{u}ner, K. D. Carlson,
961: H. H. Wang and J. M. Williams 1994 {\it Phys. Rev.} B {\bf 50} 13603
962:
963: \bibitem{swave6}H. Elsinger, J. Wosnitza, S. Wanka, J. Hagel,
964: D. Schweitzer and W. Strunz 2000 {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 84}, 6098 (2000)
965:
966: \bibitem{Lefebvre}S. Lefebvre, P. Wzietek, S. Brown, C. Bourbonnais,
967: D. J\'{e}rome, C. M\'{e}zi\`{e}re, M. Fourmigu\'{e} and P. Batail 2000
968: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 85} 5420
969:
970: \bibitem{Radu} R. Coldea, D. A. Tennant, A. M. Tsvelik, and Z. Tylcznski,
971: 2001 {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 86} 1335\\
972: R. Coldea, D. A. Tennant, K. Habicht, P. Smeibidl, C. Wolters, and Z. Tylcznski
973: 2002 {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 88} 137203\\
974: R. Coldea 2003 (private communication)
975:
976: \bibitem{Takada} K. Takada, H. Sakurai, E. Takayama-Muromachi, F. Izumi,
977: R. A. Dilanian, and T. Sasaki, 2003 {\it Nature} {\bf 422} 53
978:
979: \bibitem{Balsys} R. J. Balsys and R. L. Davis 1996 {\it Solid
980: State Ionics} {\bf 93} 279
981:
982: \bibitem{Kino1}H. Kino and H. Fukuyama 1996 {\it J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.}
983: {\bf 65} 2158
984:
985: \bibitem{Lieb}E. H. Lieb and F. Y. Wu 1968 {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 20}
986: 1145
987:
988: \bibitem{Choi}E. S. Choi, J. S. Brooks, S. Y. Han, L. Balicas and
989: J. S. Qualls 2001 {\it Philos. Mag.} B {\bf 81} 399
990:
991: \bibitem{Zanchi}D. Zanchi and H. J. Schulz 1998 {\it Europhys. Lett.} {\bf44}
992: 235\\ D. Zanchi and H. J. Schulz 2000 {\it Phys. Rev.} B {\bf 61} 13609
993:
994: \bibitem{HKM}See, for example,
995: A. Houghton, H.-J. Kwon, and J. B. Marston 2000 {\it Adv. Phys.} {\bf 49}
996: 141 and references therein
997:
998: \bibitem{Shankar}R. Shankar 1994 {\it Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 66} 129
999:
1000: \bibitem{Doucot} S. Dusuel, F. Vistulo de Abreu, and B. Doucot
1001: 2002 {\it Phys. Rev.} B {\bf 65} 94505
1002:
1003: \bibitem{Zanchi2}D. Zanchi and H. J. Schulz 1996 {\it Phys. Rev.} B
1004: {\bf 54} 9509
1005:
1006: \bibitem{Salmhofer1}M. Salmhofer 1998 {\it Comm. Math. Phys.} {\bf 194} 249
1007:
1008: \bibitem{Salmhofer2}M. Salmhofer 1999 {\it Renormalization: An Introduction},
1009: (Berlin: Springer-Verlag)
1010:
1011: \bibitem{Halboth1}C. J. Halboth and W. Metzner 2000 {\it Phys. Rev.} B
1012: {\bf 61} 7364
1013:
1014: \bibitem{Halboth2}C. J. Halboth and W. Metzner 2000 {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}
1015: {\bf 85} 5162
1016:
1017: \bibitem{Honerkamp}C. Honerkamp, M. Salmhofer, N. Furukawa and T. M. Rice
1018: 2001 {\it Phys. Rev.} B {\bf 63} 035109
1019:
1020: \bibitem{LBF98} H. H. Lin, L. Balents, and M. P. A. Fisher
1021: 1998 {\it Phys. Rev.} B{\bf 58}, 1794
1022:
1023: \bibitem{John} J. O. Fj{\ae}restad and J. B. Marston
1024: 2002 {\it Phys. Rev.} B {\bf 65}, 125106.
1025:
1026: \bibitem{MFS} J. B. Marston, J. Fj{\ae}restad, and A. Sudb{\o}
1027: 2002 {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 89}, 056404
1028:
1029: \bibitem{Affleck} I. Affleck 1990 in {\it Fields, Strings and
1030: Critical Phenomena}, edited by E. Brezin and J. Zinn-Justin
1031: (Amsterdam: North-Holland)
1032:
1033: \bibitem{Gonzalez}J. Gonz\'{a}lez and M. A. H. Vozmediano 2000
1034: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 84} 4930\\ J. Gonz\'{a}lez 2001 {\it Phys. Rev.} B
1035: {\bf 63} 45114
1036:
1037: \bibitem{Tsai}S.-W. Tsai and J. B. Marston 2001 {\it Can. J.
1038: Phys.} {\bf 79} 1463
1039:
1040: \bibitem{Vojta}M. Vojta and E. Dagotto 1999 {\it Phys. Rev.} B {\bf 59}
1041: R713
1042:
1043: \bibitem{Kondo}H. Kondo and T. Moriya 1998 {\it J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.}
1044: {\bf 67} 3695
1045:
1046: \bibitem{Kino}H. Kino and K. Kontani 1998 {\it J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.}
1047: {\bf 67} 3691
1048:
1049: \bibitem{Schmalian}J. Schmalian 1998 {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 81} 4232
1050:
1051: \bibitem{Singh}R. R. P. Singh and D. Huse 1992 {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}
1052: {\bf 68} 1766
1053:
1054: \bibitem{Bernu}B. Bernu, P. Lecheminant, C. Lhuillier and L. Pierre 1994
1055: {\it Phys. Rev.} B {\bf 50} 10048
1056:
1057: \bibitem{Merino}J. Merino, R. H. McKenzie, J. B. Marston and C.-H. Chung 1999
1058: {\it J. Phys.: Condens. Matter} {\bf 11} 2965
1059:
1060: \bibitem{Trumper}A. E. Trumper 1999 {\it Phys. Rev.} B {\bf 60} 2987
1061:
1062: \bibitem{Weihong}Z. Weihong, R. H. McKenzie and R. R. P. Singh 1999
1063: {\it Phys. Rev.} B {\bf 59} 14367
1064:
1065: \bibitem{Chung}C. H. Chung, J. B. Marston and R. H. McKenzie 2001
1066: {\it J. Phys.: Condens. Matter} {\bf 13} 5159
1067:
1068: \bibitem{Krishnamurthy}H. R. Krishnamurthy, C. Jayaprakash, S. Sarker and
1069: W. Wenzel 1990 {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 64} 950
1070:
1071: \bibitem{Jayaprakash}C. Jayaprakash, H. R. Krishnamurthy, S. Sarker and
1072: W. Wenzel 1991 {\it Europhys. Lett.} {\bf 15} 625
1073:
1074: \bibitem{Gazza}C. J. Gazza, A. E. Trumper and H. A. Ceccato 1994
1075: {\it J. Phys.: Condens. Matter} {\bf 6} L625
1076:
1077: \bibitem{Feiguin}A. Feiguin, C. J. Gazza, A. E. Trumper and H. A. Ceccato 1997
1078: {\it J. Phys.: Condens. Matter} {\bf 9} L27
1079:
1080: \bibitem{Capone}M. Capone, L. Capriotti, F. Becca and S. Caprara 2001
1081: {\it Phys. Rev.} B {\bf 63} 085104
1082:
1083: \end{thebibliography}
1084: \end{document}
1085:
1086: