1:
2: \documentstyle[aps,epsfig]{revtex}
3:
4: \begin{document}
5: \title{Metal-insulator transition in the Hubbard model: a simple description
6: including the Kondo effect}
7: \author{V. Yu. Irkhin$^{*}$ and A. V. Zarubin}
8: \address{Institute of Metal Physics, S.Kovalevskay str. 18, 620219 Ekaterinburg,\\
9: Russia}
10: \maketitle
11:
12: \begin{abstract}
13: The electron spectrum structure in the half-filled Hubbard model is
14: considered in terms of the one-particle Green's functions within
15: many-electron representation. A simple analytical generalization of the
16: single-site Hubbard-III approximation is obtained, which takes into account
17: the Fermi excitations (Kondo terms). The problem of the metal-insulator
18: transition is investigated. The occurrence of a three-peak density-of-states
19: structure including the ``Kondo'' peak at the Fermi level is discussed. A
20: comparison with large-$d$ calculations is performed.
21: \end{abstract}
22:
23: \pacs{71.30.+h, 71.10.Fd, 71.27.+a}
24:
25: \section{Introduction}
26:
27: \label{sec:intro}
28:
29: The problem of strong correlations in many-electron systems is one of the
30: most important in the solid state theory. The simplest model to describe
31: correlation effects is the Hubbard model \cite{Hubbard-I:1963} which
32: includes the on-site Coulomb interaction. One of most interesting phenomena
33: is the correlation-driven metal-insulator transition (MIT), which takes
34: place in a number of transition metal compounds. A simple description of MIT
35: was given by Hubbard \cite{Hubbard-III:1964} who started from the
36: atomic-level picture and proposed a simple interpolation self-consistent
37: scheme.
38:
39: Since the Hubbard works of 60's, a great progress has been achieved in
40: understanding electronic structure of highly-correlated systems. Last time,
41: the role of the Kondo effect has been discussed within the large-$d$
42: approach ($d$ is space dimensionality) which reduces the original periodic
43: Hubbard model to an effective Anderson impurity model \cite
44: {larged,larged1,Rozenberg:1994}. Such an approach (dynamical mean-field
45: theory, DMFT) turned out to be rather successful. The corresponding density
46: of states (DOS) has three-peak rather than two-peak structure: an additional
47: ``Kondo'' quasiparticle resonance at the Fermi level occurs owing to
48: scattering by the local moment. The spectrum structure in large-$d$
49: approaches is confirmed by the quantum Monte-Carlo (QMC) calculations (see,
50: e.g., \cite{Schlipf:1999}) and some spectroscopic experimental results.
51: Unfortunately, there exist some difficulties in numerical calculations
52: within QMC and large-$d$ approaches, so that one needs often to introduce
53: rather high temperatures to resolve these problems. The three-peak structure
54: is not reproduced by most preceding analytical approaches, in particular, by
55: the single-site Hubbard-III approximation \cite{Hubbard-III:1964}, the
56: reason being in that they do not take into account contributions of
57: Fermi-like excitations in a proper way. Thus these approaches do not
58: describe the Brinkman-Rice effective-mass enhancement which is important
59: from the experimental point of view. Recently, an attempt has been made to
60: improve the Hubbard-III approximation by calculating corrections owing to
61: correlation effects \cite{Luo:2000}; however, the results remained
62: qualitatively unchanged.
63:
64: A detailed analysis of Hubbard-III-like approximations was performed in
65: Refs.\ \cite{Anokhin:1991,Anokhin:1991a} within the large-$z$ expansion, $z$
66: being the nearest-neighbor number. In the zero order this approach reduces
67: to the simplest Hubbard-I approximation \cite{Hubbard-I:1963}. General
68: expressions for $1/z$-corrections in the limit $U\rightarrow \infty $ were
69: obtained in Ref.\ \cite{Anokhin:1991}. The problem of MIT within this
70: approach was treated in Ref.\ \cite{Anokhin:1991a}. Unfortunately, only a
71: classical approximation (the large-$S$ limit of the $s$-$d$ model which
72: generalizes the Hubbard model) was considered, and the terms with the
73: one-particle occupation numbers, which just describe the Kondo effect in
74: narrow bands \cite{Irkhin:1999}, were neglected.
75:
76: In the present paper we present a treatment that is based on the method of
77: equations of motion for the many-electron Hubbard operators \cite
78: {Hubbard-IV:1965,Irkhin:1994} and is a much more simple than the large-$d$
79: approach. In Sec.\ \ref{sec:ds}, the decoupling scheme with account of the
80: Fermi excitations is developed. In Sec.\ \ref{sec:rd}, we present the
81: results of numerical calculations and carry out a comparison with previous
82: works.
83:
84: \section{The decoupling scheme}
85:
86: \label{sec:ds}
87:
88: We start from the Hubbard model with the electron concentration $n=1$ (the
89: half-filled case). The corresponding Hamiltonian reads
90: \begin{equation}
91: {\cal H}=\sum_{{\bf k}\sigma }t_{{\bf k}}c_{{\bf k}\sigma }^{\dag } c_{{\bf k%
92: }\sigma }+U\sum_in_{i\uparrow }n_{i\downarrow }, \label{eq:HHM}
93: \end{equation}
94: where $n_{i\sigma }=c_{i\sigma }^{\dag }c_{i\sigma }$, $c_{i\sigma }^{\dag }$
95: and $c_{{\bf k}\sigma }^{\dag }$ are the one-electron operators in the
96: Wannier and quasimomentum representation. We pass to the Hubbard $X$%
97: -operators
98: \begin{equation}
99: X_i^{\alpha \beta }=|i\alpha \rangle \langle i\beta |,\quad X_i^{\alpha
100: \beta }X_i^{\gamma \varepsilon }=\delta _{\beta \gamma }X_i^{\alpha
101: \varepsilon },\quad \sum_\alpha X_i^{\alpha \alpha }=1, \label{eq:comm}
102: \end{equation}
103: so that
104: \begin{equation}
105: c_{i\sigma }^{\dag }=\sum_{\alpha ,\beta }\langle i\alpha |c_{i\sigma
106: }^{\dagger }|i\beta \rangle X_i^{\alpha \beta }=X_i^{\sigma 0}+\sigma
107: X_i^{2-\sigma }. \label{eq:c2X}
108: \end{equation}
109: Then the interaction Hamiltonian takes a diagonal form and we obtain
110: \begin{equation}
111: {\cal H}=\sum_{{\bf k}\sigma }t_{{\bf k}}(X_{-{\bf k}}^{\sigma 0} +\sigma
112: X_{-{\bf k}}^{2-\sigma }) (X_{{\bf k}}^{0\sigma }+\sigma X_{{\bf k}%
113: }^{-\sigma 2})+U\sum_iX_i^{22}. \label{eq:HHM:X}
114: \end{equation}
115: Using (\ref{eq:c2X}) we have for the one-electron anticommutator retarded
116: Green's function
117: \begin{equation}
118: G_{{\bf k}\sigma }(E)=\langle \!\langle c_{{\bf k}\sigma }|c_{{\bf k}\sigma
119: }^{\dagger }\rangle \!\rangle _E=\langle \!\langle X_{{\bf k}}^{0\sigma }|c_{%
120: {\bf k}\sigma }^{\dagger }\rangle \!\rangle _E+\sigma \langle \!\langle X_{%
121: {\bf k}}^{-\sigma 2}|c_{{\bf k}\sigma }^{\dagger }\rangle \!\rangle _E.
122: \label{eq:GF:0}
123: \end{equation}
124: The energy $E$ is supposed to be referred to the chemical potential which
125: equals $U/2$ in our case. We write down the system of equation of motion
126: \[
127: E\langle \!\langle A|B\rangle \!\rangle _E=\langle \{A,B\}\rangle +\langle
128: \!\langle [A,{\cal H}]|B\rangle \!\rangle _E
129: \]
130: for the pair of the Green's functions in the right-hand side of (\ref
131: {eq:GF:0}). Using (\ref{eq:comm}) we obtain in the non-magnetic case
132: \begin{eqnarray}
133: (E+U/2)\langle \!\langle X_{{\bf k}}^{0\sigma }|c_{{\bf k}\sigma }^{\dagger
134: }\rangle \!\rangle _E &=&\frac 12(1+t_{{\bf k}}\langle \!\langle c_{{\bf k}%
135: \sigma }|c_{{\bf k}\sigma }^{\dagger }\rangle \!\rangle _E) \nonumber \\
136: &&+\sum_{{\bf q}}t_{{\bf q}}\langle \!\langle (\delta (X_{{\bf k-q}%
137: }^{00})+\delta (X_{{\bf k}-{\bf q}}^{\sigma \sigma }))c_{{\bf q}\sigma }|c_{%
138: {\bf k}\sigma }^{\dagger }\rangle \!\rangle _E \nonumber \\
139: &&+\sum_{{\bf q}}t_{{\bf q}}\langle \!\langle X_{{\bf k}-{\bf q}}^{-\sigma
140: \sigma }c_{{\bf q}-\sigma }+\sigma c_{{\bf q}-\sigma }^{\dagger }X_{{\bf k+q}%
141: }^{02}|c_{{\bf k}\sigma }^{\dagger }\rangle \!\rangle _E, \label{eq:EM:1} \\
142: \sigma (E-U/2)\langle \!\langle X_{{\bf k}}^{-\sigma 2}|c_{{\bf k}\sigma
143: }^{\dagger }\rangle \!\rangle _E &=&\frac 12(1+t_{{\bf k}}\langle \!\langle
144: c_{{\bf k}\sigma }|c_{{\bf k}\sigma }^{\dagger }\rangle \!\rangle _E)
145: \nonumber \\
146: &&+\sum_{{\bf q}}t_{{\bf q}}\langle \!\langle (\delta (X_{{\bf k-q}%
147: }^{-\sigma -\sigma })+\delta (X_{{\bf k-q}}^{22}))c_{{\bf q}\sigma }|c_{{\bf %
148: k}\sigma }^{\dagger }\rangle \!\rangle _E \nonumber \\
149: &&-\sum_{{\bf q}}t_{{\bf q}}\langle \!\langle X_{{\bf k-q}}^{-\sigma \sigma
150: }c_{{\bf q}-\sigma }+\sigma c_{{\bf q}-\sigma }^{\dagger }X_{{\bf k+q}%
151: }^{02}|c_{{\bf k}\sigma }^{\dagger }\rangle \!\rangle _E, \label{eq:EM:2}
152: \end{eqnarray}
153: where $\delta A=A-\langle A\rangle $ is the fluctuation of the operator.
154: Solving the system (\ref{eq:EM:1}), (\ref{eq:EM:2}) we derive
155: \begin{equation}
156: G_{{\bf k}\sigma }(E)=G_{{\bf k}}^0(E)\left( 1-\frac UE\Gamma _{{\bf k}%
157: \sigma }(E)\right) , \label{eq:GF:1}
158: \end{equation}
159: \begin{equation}
160: \Gamma _{{\bf k}\sigma }(E)=\sum_{{\bf q}}t_{{\bf q}}\langle \!\langle
161: \delta (X_{{\bf k-q}}^{00}+X_{{\bf k}-{\bf q}}^{\sigma \sigma })c_{{\bf q}%
162: \sigma }+X_{{\bf k}-{\bf q}}^{-\sigma \sigma }c_{{\bf q}-\sigma }+\sigma c_{%
163: {\bf q}-\sigma }^{\dagger }X_{{\bf k+q}}^{02}|c_{{\bf k}\sigma }^{\dagger
164: }\rangle \!\rangle _E. \label{eq:GF:1a}
165: \end{equation}
166: Here
167: \begin{equation}
168: G_{{\bf k}}^0(E)=\frac 1{F_0(E)-t_{{\bf k}}},\quad F_0(E)=E-\frac{U^2}{4E}
169: \label{eq:GF:HI}
170: \end{equation}
171: is the Green's function of the Hubbard-I approximation (which plays the role
172: of a mean-filed approximation for our problem), $F_0(E)$ being the
173: corresponding inverse locator. The Hubbard-I spectrum contains two
174: correlation subbands defined by the poles of (\ref{eq:GF:HI})
175: \[
176: E_{{\bf k}1,2}=\frac 12(t_{{\bf k}}\pm \varepsilon _{{\bf k}}),\quad
177: \varepsilon _{{\bf k}}=\sqrt{U^2+t_{{\bf k}}^2}.
178: \]
179: The Green's function $\Gamma _{{\bf k}\sigma }(E)$ describes fluctuation
180: corrections. The corresponding collective excitations are described by spin
181: and charge operators.
182: \begin{eqnarray*}
183: S_{{\bf q}}^\sigma &=&X_{{\bf q}}^{\sigma -\sigma },\quad S_{{\bf q}}^z=%
184: \frac 12(X_{{\bf q}}^{++}-X_{{\bf q}}^{--}), \\
185: \rho _{{\bf q}}^{+} &=&X_{{\bf q}}^{20},\quad \rho _{{\bf q}}^z=\frac 12(X_{%
186: {\bf q}}^{22}-X_{{\bf q}}^{00}).
187: \end{eqnarray*}
188:
189: Further we write down the system of equations for the fluctuation Green's
190: functions and perform the decouplings which correspond to the first order in
191: the formal parameter $1/z$ (strictly speaking, this expansion is justified
192: in the case of long-range electron hopping). For the half-filled band, we
193: have to take into account particle and hole excitations in an equal way.
194: However, decouplings can violate the particle-hole symmetry. To preserve
195: this symmetry, we make an identical transformation by taking in (\ref
196: {eq:GF:1a}) the Green's functions with symmetrized operator products, e.g.,
197: \[
198: \langle \!\langle X_{{\bf k}-{\bf q}}^{-\sigma \sigma }c_{{\bf q}-\sigma
199: }|c_{{\bf k}\sigma }^{\dagger }\rangle \!\rangle _E\rightarrow \frac 12%
200: \langle \!\langle \{X_{{\bf k}-{\bf q}}^{-\sigma \sigma },c_{{\bf q}-\sigma
201: }\}|c_{{\bf k}\sigma }^{\dagger }\rangle \!\rangle _E=\frac 12\langle
202: \!\langle X_{{\bf k}-{\bf q}}^{-\sigma \sigma }c_{{\bf q}-\sigma }+c_{{\bf q}%
203: -\sigma }X_{{\bf k}-{\bf q}}^{-\sigma \sigma }|c_{{\bf k}\sigma }^{\dagger
204: }\rangle \!\rangle _E.
205: \]
206: We also use in the equations of motion the Hamiltonian in the symmetrized
207: form,
208: \[
209: t_{{\bf k}}c_{{\bf k}\sigma }^{\dag }c_{{\bf k}\sigma }\rightarrow \frac 12%
210: t_{{\bf k}}(c_{{\bf k}\sigma }^{\dag }c_{{\bf k}\sigma }-c_{{\bf k}\sigma
211: }c_{{\bf k}\sigma }^{\dag }).
212: \]
213: Then we obtain for the transverse spin fluctuation contribution
214: \begin{eqnarray*}
215: (E^2-U^2/4-Et_{{\bf q}})\langle \!\langle \frac 12\{X_{{\bf k}-{\bf q}%
216: }^{-\sigma \sigma },c_{{\bf q}-\sigma }\}|c_{{\bf k}\sigma }^{\dagger
217: }\rangle \!\rangle _E &=&(E+U/2)(t_{{\bf q}}-t_{{\bf k}})(f_{{\bf q}}-\frac 1%
218: 2)G_{{\bf k}\sigma }(E)-U(t_{{\bf k}}\langle X_{{\bf k}-{\bf q}}^{-\sigma
219: \sigma }X_{{\bf -k+q}}^{\sigma -\sigma }\rangle \\
220: &&+(t_{{\bf q}}-t_{{\bf k}})\langle \frac 12[X_{-{\bf q}}^{-\sigma 0},X_{%
221: {\bf q}}^{0-\sigma }]-\sigma X_{-{\bf q}}^{2\sigma }X_{{\bf q}}^{0-\sigma
222: }\rangle G_{{\bf k}\sigma }(E) \\
223: &&-(E+U/2)(f_{{\bf q}}-\frac 12)+U\langle \frac 12[X_{-{\bf q}}^{-\sigma
224: 0},X_{{\bf q}}^{0-\sigma }] \\
225: &&-\sigma X_{-{\bf q}}^{2\sigma }X_{{\bf q}}^{0-\sigma }-X_{{\bf k}-{\bf q}%
226: }^{-\sigma \sigma }X_{-{\bf k+q}}^{\sigma -\sigma }\rangle .
227: \end{eqnarray*}
228: Note that, as well as the standard Kondo terms, the ``many-electron'' terms
229: come from the spin-flip processes, but not from longitudinal spin
230: fluctuations. For the ``transverse'' charge contribution we have
231: \begin{eqnarray*}
232: \sigma (E^2-U^2/4-Et_{{\bf q}})\langle \!\langle \frac 12\{c_{{\bf q}-\sigma
233: }^{\dagger }X_{{\bf k+q}}^{02}\}|c_{{\bf k}\sigma }^{\dagger }\rangle
234: \!\rangle _E &=&(E+U/2)(t_{{\bf q}}+t_{{\bf k}})(f_{{\bf q}}-\frac 12)G_{%
235: {\bf k}\sigma }(E) \\
236: &&+U(t_{{\bf k}}\langle X_{{\bf -k}-{\bf q}}^{20}X_{{\bf k+q}}^{02}\rangle
237: +(t_{{\bf q}}+t_{{\bf k}})\langle \sigma X_{-{\bf q}}^{2\sigma }X_{{\bf q}%
238: }^{0-\sigma } \\
239: &&+\frac 12[X_{-{\bf q}}^{2\sigma },X_{{\bf q}}^{\sigma 2}]\rangle )G_{{\bf k%
240: }\sigma }(E) \\
241: &&+(E+U/2)(f_{{\bf q}}-\frac 12)-U\langle \frac 12[X_{-{\bf q}}^{2\sigma
242: },X_{{\bf q}}^{\sigma 2}] \\
243: &&-\sigma X_{-{\bf q}}^{2\sigma }X_{{\bf q}}^{0-\sigma }-X_{-{\bf k-q}%
244: }^{20}X_{{\bf k+q}}^{02}\rangle .
245: \end{eqnarray*}
246: A symmetry of spin and charge degrees of freedom occurs for a symmetric
247: conduction band.
248:
249: Further we neglect ${\bf q}$-dependence of spin and charge correlations
250: functions and replace them by single-site averages, so that
251: \begin{eqnarray}
252: \langle S_{-{\bf q}}^\sigma S_{{\bf q}}^{-\sigma }\rangle &=&2\langle S_{%
253: {\bf -q}}^zS_{{\bf q}}^z\rangle =\langle X^{\sigma \sigma }\rangle ,
254: \nonumber \\
255: \langle \rho _{-{\bf q}}^\sigma \rho _{{\bf q}}^{-\sigma }\rangle
256: &=&2\langle \rho _{-{\bf q}}^z\rho _{{\bf q}}^z\rangle =\langle
257: X^{22}\rangle =\langle X^{00}\rangle . \label{ons}
258: \end{eqnarray}
259: Such an approximation is made (although as a rule implicitly) in practically
260: all works on the MIT problem. This corresponds to neglecting dynamics of
261: low-energy Bose excitations and may be justified not only in
262: high-temperature limit, but also within the $1/z$-expansion. For the
263: local-spin subsystem, this approximation is in spirit of the mean-field
264: theory. Main part of charge dynamics (the Hubbard splitting $U$) is also
265: already taken into account in the zero-order (Hubbard-I) approximation. A
266: consistent consideration of dynamics can be made in higher orders in $1/z$.
267: This may lead to a change in details of the MIT picture. However, this
268: problem is rather difficult.
269:
270: Taking into account (\ref{ons}) we can use the sum rule in (\ref{eq:comm})
271: to obtain
272: \begin{eqnarray}
273: G_{{\bf k}}(E)=\frac{a(E)}{b(E)-a(E)t_{{\bf k}}}=\frac 1{F(E)-t_{{\bf k}}}%
274: ,\quad F(E)=\frac{b(E)}{a(E)}, \label{eq:GF:2}
275: \end{eqnarray}
276: \begin{mathletters}
277: \label{eq:GF:2ab}
278: \begin{eqnarray}
279: a(E) &=&1+\frac 34\frac{U^2}{E^2}\sum_{{\bf q}}t_{{\bf q}}\frac 1{F_0(E)-t_{%
280: {\bf q}}}+\frac{2U}E\sum_{{\bf q}}t_{{\bf q}}\frac{f_{{\bf q}}}{F_0(E)-t_{%
281: {\bf q}}}, \label{eq:GF:2a} \\
282: b(E) &=&F_0(E)+\frac{2U}E\sum_{{\bf q}}t_{{\bf q}}^2\frac{f_{{\bf q}}}{%
283: F_0(E)-t_{{\bf q}}}. \label{eq:GF:2b}
284: \end{eqnarray}
285: We have substituted here the one-particle correlation functions in the
286: Hubbard-I approximation,
287: \end{mathletters}
288: \begin{eqnarray}
289: \langle c_{{\bf q}\sigma }^{\dagger }X_{{\bf q}}^{0\sigma }\rangle &=&\frac 1%
290: {2\varepsilon _{{\bf q}}}[(E_{{\bf q}1}-U)f(E_{{\bf q}1})-(E_{{\bf q}%
291: 2}-U)f(E_{{\bf q}2})], \nonumber \\
292: \langle c_{{\bf q}\sigma }^{\dagger }X_{{\bf q}}^{-\sigma 2}\rangle &=&\frac{%
293: -\sigma }{2\varepsilon _{{\bf q}}}[E_{{\bf q}1}f(E_{{\bf q}1})-E_{{\bf q}%
294: 2}f(E_{{\bf q}2})], \nonumber
295: \end{eqnarray}
296: \[
297: f_{{\bf q}}\equiv \langle c_{{\bf q}\sigma }^{\dagger }c_{{\bf q}\sigma
298: }\rangle =\frac 1{\varepsilon _{{\bf q}}}[(E_{{\bf q}1}-U/2)f(E_{{\bf q}%
299: 1})-(E_{{\bf q}2}-U/2)f(E_{{\bf q}2})].
300: \]
301: Due to the symmetry of the bare band, we have
302: \[
303: \sum_{{\bf q}}f(E_{{\bf q,}2})\Phi (t_{{\bf q}})=\sum_{{\bf q}}[1-f(E_{{\bf q%
304: }1})]\Phi (-t_{{\bf q}}).
305: \]
306: As a result of our way of decoupling, we have in the sums $f(E_{{\bf q}%
307: 1})\rightarrow f(E_{{\bf q}1})-1/2$, and the DOS of the interacting system
308: remains symmetric.
309:
310: To obtain the self-consistent (SC) approximation we have to replace in (\ref
311: {eq:GF:HI}) the Hubbard-I Green's functions by the exact ones,
312: \[
313: G_{{\bf q}}^0(E)=\frac 1{F_0(E)-t_{{\bf q}}}\rightarrow G_{{\bf q}}(E)=\frac
314: 1{F(E)-t_{{\bf q}}},
315: \]
316: and the Fermi functions $f_{{\bf q}}$ by the exact occupation numbers $n_{%
317: {\bf q}}$, according to the spectral representation,
318: \[
319: n_{{\bf q}}=-\frac 1\pi \int dEf(E){\rm Im}G_{{\bf q}}(E).
320: \]
321: Then we have the SC equation for the one-electron Green's function in the
322: form (\ref{eq:GF:2}) with
323: \begin{mathletters}
324: \label{eq:GF:2ab:s-c}
325: \begin{eqnarray}
326: a(E) &=&1+\frac 34\frac{U^2}{E^2}\sum_{{\bf q}}t_{{\bf q}}G_{{\bf q}}(E)+%
327: \frac{2U}E\sum_{{\bf q}}t_{{\bf q}}G_{{\bf q}}(E)n_{{\bf q}},
328: \label{eq:GF:2a:s-c} \\
329: b(E) &=&F_0(E)+\frac{2U}E\sum_{{\bf q}}t_{{\bf q}}^2G_{{\bf q}}(E)n_{{\bf q}%
330: }. \label{eq:GF:2b:s-c}
331: \end{eqnarray}
332:
333: Unlike the simplest self-consistency scheme considered in Ref.\ \cite
334: {Anokhin:1991} [see eq.~(32) of that paper], the approximation (\ref
335: {eq:GF:2ab:s-c}), as well as the standard Hubbard-III approximation, does
336: not result in a violation of analytical properties.
337:
338: \section{Results and discussion}
339:
340: \label{sec:rd}
341:
342: To investigate the MIT problem, we calculate the single-particle density of
343: states
344: \end{mathletters}
345: \[
346: N(E)=-\frac 1\pi {\rm Im}\sum_{{\bf k}}G_{{\bf k}}(E).
347: \]
348: The results for the approximations (\ref{eq:GF:2ab}) and (\ref{eq:GF:2ab:s-c}%
349: ) are shown in Figs.\ \ref{fig:1}--\ref{fig:4}, and the critical values for
350: MIT are given in Table\ \ref{tab:1}. The numerical calculation were
351: performed for the square and two cubic lattices with a symmetric bare DOS.
352: We also treat the Bethe lattice, i.e. the model semielliptic bare conduction
353: band with
354: \[
355: N(E)=\frac 4{\pi W}\sqrt{1-\left( \frac{2E}W\right) ^2},
356: \]
357: ($W$ is the bare bandwidth), the rectangular DOS, and the Gaussian DOS
358: \[
359: N(E)=\frac 4{\sqrt{2\pi }W}\exp \left( -2\left( \frac{2E}W\right) ^2\right)
360: \]
361: which corresponds to the hypercubic lattice in the large-$d$ limit. The
362: Gaussian DOS does not have band edges, so that the parameter $W$ is
363: determined from the second DOS moment,
364: \[
365: W=4\sqrt{\mu _2},\quad \mu _2=\int E^2N(E)dE.
366: \]
367: Then the quantity $\mu _2$ has equal expressions in terms of $W$ for the
368: Gaussian and semielliptic bare DOS's.
369:
370: It is important that the quantity $F(E)$, unlike $F_0(E)$, does not diverge
371: at $E\rightarrow 0$, i.e. in the centre of the band. This fact is just due
372: to many-electron corrections. Therefore the non-self-consistent (NSC)
373: formulas (\ref{eq:GF:2ab}) yield a metal-insulator transition at $U\neq 0$,
374: unlike NSC local approximations. However, the corresponding critical value $%
375: U_{{\rm c}}^{{\rm NSC}}$ is rather small. The ``false'' singularities at the
376: edges of the Hubbard-I bands occur at large $U$ in our NSC approximation
377: (see the discussion in Ref.\ \cite{Anokhin:1991}).
378:
379: The critical value for MIT $U_{{\rm c}}$ in the standard Hubbard-III
380: approximation \cite{Hubbard-III:1964} for an arbitrary bare DOS is given by
381: \cite{Anokhin:1991a}
382: \begin{equation}
383: U_{{\rm c}}^{{\rm H}}=2\sqrt{3\mu _2}. \label{eq:Uc:HIII}
384: \end{equation}
385: The critical value in the SC approximation (\ref{eq:GF:2ab:s-c}) is changed
386: somewhat in comparison with the Hubbard-III result (see Table\ \ref{tab:1}).
387: Unlike Ref.\ \cite{Luo:2000}, where the critical value was decreased by
388: fluctuations, $U_{{\rm c}}/W=0.67$ for the Bethe lattice, our approach
389: yields an opposite tendency, in agreement with the results of the QMC
390: calculations at finite temperatures, $U_{{\rm c}}/W\simeq 1$ (see Table\ \ref
391: {tab:2}). Within the ``linearized'' DMFT \cite{Bulla:2000a}, an analytical
392: expression $U_{{\rm c}}$ can be obtained, which exceeds the Hubbard-III
393: value,
394: \begin{equation}
395: U_{{\rm c}}^{{\rm L}}=\sqrt{3}U_{{\rm c}}^{{\rm H}}=6\sqrt{\mu _2}.
396: \label{eq:Uc:LDMFT}
397: \end{equation}
398: As follows from comparison with Table \ref{tab:2}, this approximation seems
399: to overestimate somewhat $U_{{\rm c}}.$
400:
401: The account of the Fermi excitations results in a modification of the DOS
402: form (cf. Ref.\ \cite{Anokhin:1991a}). In comparison with the Hubbard-III
403: approximation, a pronounced pseudogap exists near MIT at $U<U_{{\rm c}}$.
404: The same feature can be seen from the results of Ref.\ \cite{Luo:2000}. At
405: small $U$, a three-peak structure can be seen in Figs.\ \ref{fig:1}--\ref
406: {fig:4}, which becomes smeared with approaching MIT (the central peak
407: becomes wide, and a pseudogap occurs). The three-peak structure is more
408: pronounced in the NSC approximation. The details of our MIT scenario differ
409: from the DMFT picture where the central quasiparticle peak is expected to
410: shrink gradually at $U\rightarrow U_c-0$. Probably, this discrepance is
411: connected with the overestimation of the role of the damping in our
412: approach. The correct treatment of the damping is a difficult problem. To
413: avoid this problem, most large-$d$ calculations are performed at finite
414: temperatures. It should be noted that various DMFT versions give somewhat
415: different MIT pictures. In some calculations, a pseudogap develops in the
416: metallic phase near MIT (see, e.g., Refs.\cite{Jarrell:1992,Prushke:1993}),
417: as well as in our picture. The occurrence in some works of a very high and
418: narrow peak with lowering temperature, even not too close to $U_c,$ is
419: probaly an unphysical drawback. In a number of large-$d$ calculations (see
420: Refs.\cite{larged,Zhang:1993,larged1,Bulla:1999}) the height of the peak
421: does not change when approaching MIT.
422:
423: In the case of square lattice, the situation is more complicated owing to
424: the Van Hove singularity at the band centre. The underestimation of $U_{{\rm %
425: c}}$ in the Hubbard-III approximation is confirmed by the calculations of
426: Ref.\cite{Mancini} where $U_{{\rm c}}\simeq 1.5W.$ More weak Van Hove
427: singularities are present for cubic lattices. One can see from Table 1 that
428: the difference between our calculations and Hubbard-III results becomes
429: rather strong for these lattices .
430:
431: To conclude, we have demonstrated that a simple decoupling scheme enables
432: one to reproduce the non-trivial spectrum structure in the half-filled
433: Hubbard model. Our approach yields a qualitative agreement with the results
434: of large-$d$ approaches and QMC calculations. At the same time, this can be
435: easily applied for arbitrary two- and three-dimensional lattices. In
436: principle, the many-electron Hubbard operator method enables one to consider
437: in a regular way the problem of electron structure of systems with the
438: Hubbard splitting. Various types of slave boson and fermion representations
439: combined with diagram techniques can be used to this end.
440:
441: Since our approach starts from Hubbard's subbands and includes large
442: incoherent contributions, this does not reproduce properly the Fermi-liquid
443: (FL) description of quasiparticle states. An account of low-energy spin and
444: charge dynamics would be useful to describe the electron spectrum picture in
445: more detail. A possibility of the transition from FL to non-FL behavior
446: which can take place near MIT should be also taken into account.
447:
448: The work is supported in part by the Grant of RFFI No. 00-15-96544 (Support
449: of Scientific Schools).
450:
451: \begin{table}[tbp]
452: \caption{Critical values of metal-insulator transition for different bare
453: DOS forms in the Hubbard-III approximation, $U_{{\rm c}}^{{\rm H}}$,
454: ``linearized'' DMFT, $U_{{\rm c}}^{{\rm L}}$, and NSC and SC approximations (%
455: \ref{eq:GF:2ab}) and (\ref{eq:GF:2ab:s-c}), $U_{{\rm c}}^{{\rm NSC}}$ and $%
456: U_{{\rm c}}^{{\rm SC}}$.}
457: \label{tab:1}
458: \begin{tabular}{lcccc}
459: DOS & $U_{{\rm c}}^{{\rm H}}/W$ & $U_{{\rm c}}^{{\rm L}}/W$ & $U_{{\rm c}}^{%
460: {\rm NSC}}/W$ & $U_{{\rm c}}^{{\rm SC}}/W$ \\
461: \tableline rectangular & $1$ & $1.73$ & $0.99$ & $1.22$ \\
462: semielliptic & $\sqrt{3}/2=0.866$ & $1.5$ & $0.87$ & $1.06$ \\
463: Gaussian & $\sqrt{3}/2=0.866$ & $1.5$ & $0.87$ & $1.06$ \\
464: square & $0.866$ & $1.5$ & $0.87$ & $1.06$ \\
465: simple cubic & $0.707$ & $1.22$ & $0.76$ & $0.99$ \\
466: bcc & $0.612$ & $1.06$ & $0.67$ & $0.92$%
467: \end{tabular}
468: \end{table}
469:
470: \begin{table}[tbp]
471: \caption{Critical values for the metal-insulator transition for the Bethe
472: lattice, $U_{{\rm c}}^{{\rm B}}$, and in the large-$d$ case, $U_{{\rm c}}^{%
473: {\rm G}}$, from different works.}
474: \label{tab:2}
475: \begin{tabular}{llll}
476: $U_{{\rm c}}^{{\rm B}}/W$ & $U_{{\rm c}}^{{\rm G}}/W$ & Refs. & Method \\
477: \tableline & $1.20$ & \cite{Jarrell:1992} & QMC \\
478: & $1.24$ & \cite{Prushke:1993} & QMC \\
479: $1.685$ & & \cite{Zhang:1993} & PT\tablenote{Perturbation Theory.}, QMC \\
480: $1.262$ & $1.273$ & \cite{Georges:1993} & MFT, IPT\tablenote{Iterated
481: Perturbation Theory.} \\
482: & $1.273$ & \cite{Caffarel:1994} & QMC \\
483: $1.64$ & & \cite{Rozenberg:1994} & MFT, QMC \\
484: $1.45$ & & \cite{Moeller:1995} & PSCA\tablenote{Projective SC
485: Approximation.} \\
486: $1.2$ & & \cite{Schlipf:1999} & QMC \\
487: $1.47$ & $1.45$ & \cite{Bulla:1999} & DMFT \\
488: $0.67$ & & \cite{Luo:2000} & improved Hubbard III \\
489: $1.47$ & & \cite{Bulla:2000} & NRG\tablenote{Numerical Renormalization
490: Group.}
491: \end{tabular}
492: \end{table}
493:
494: \begin{figure}[tbp]
495: \epsfig{file=fig1a.eps,width=8cm} \epsfig{file=fig1b.eps,width=8cm}
496: \caption{Density of states for the semielliptic DOS (a)
497: approximation (\ref {eq:GF:2ab}) (b) SC approximation
498: (\ref{eq:GF:2ab:s-c}).}
499: \label{fig:1}
500: \end{figure}
501:
502: \begin{figure}[tbp]
503: \epsfig{file=fig2a.eps,width=8cm} \epsfig{file=fig2b.eps,width=8cm}
504: \caption{Density of states for the Gussian DOS (a) approximation
505: (\ref {eq:GF:2ab}) (b) SC approximation (\ref{eq:GF:2ab:s-c}).}
506: \label{fig:2}
507: \end{figure}
508:
509: \begin{figure}[tbp]
510: \epsfig{file=fig3a.eps,width=8cm} \epsfig{file=fig3b.eps,width=8cm}
511: \caption{Density of states for the simple cubic lattice (a) approximation (%
512: \ref{eq:GF:2ab}) (b) SC approximation (\ref{eq:GF:2ab:s-c}).}
513: \label{fig:3}
514: \end{figure}
515:
516: \begin{figure}[tbp]
517: \epsfig{file=fig4a.eps,width=8cm} \epsfig{file=fig4b.eps,width=8cm}
518: \caption{Density of states for the square lattice (a)
519: approximation (\ref {eq:GF:2ab}) (b) SC approximation
520: (\ref{eq:GF:2ab:s-c}).}
521: \label{fig:4}
522: \end{figure}
523:
524: \begin{references}
525: \bibitem[*]{E} Electronic address: Valentin.Irkhin@imp.uran.ru
526:
527: \bibitem{Hubbard-I:1963} J. Hubbard, Proc. Roy. Soc.~A {\bf 276}, 238
528: (1963).
529:
530: \bibitem{Hubbard-III:1964} J. Hubbard, Proc. Roy. Soc.~A {\bf 281}, 401
531: (1964).
532:
533: \bibitem{larged} A. Georges and G. Kotliar, Phys. Rev.~B {\bf 45}, 6479
534: (1992); X. Y. Zhang and C. M. Zhang, Phys. Rev.~B {\bf 49}, 7929 (1994); F.
535: J. Ohkawa, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 61}, 1615 (1992).
536:
537: \bibitem{larged1} A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M. J. Rozenberg,
538: Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 68}, 13 (1996).
539:
540: \bibitem{Rozenberg:1994} M. J. Rozenberg, X. Y. Zhang, and G. Kotliar,
541: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 69}, 1236 (1992); M. J. Rozenberg, G. Kotliar, and X.
542: Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev.~B {\bf 49}, 10181 (1994).
543:
544: \bibitem{Schlipf:1999} J.~Schlipf, M.~Jarrell, P.G.J.~van Dongen,
545: N.~Bl\"umer, S.~Kehrein, Th.~Pruschke, and D.~Vollhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.
546: {\bf 82}, 4890 (1999).
547:
548: \bibitem{Luo:2000} H.-G. Luo and S.-J. Wang, Phys. Rev.~B {\bf 61}, 5158
549: (2000).
550:
551: \bibitem{Anokhin:1991} A. O. Anokhin and V. Yu. Irkhin, phys. stat.
552: sol.~(b) {\bf 165}, 129 (1991).
553:
554: \bibitem{Anokhin:1991a} A. O. Anokhin, V. Yu. Irkhin, and M. I. Katsnelson,
555: J. Phys.: Cond. Mat. {\bf 3}, 1475 (1991).
556:
557: \bibitem{Irkhin:1999} V. Yu. Irkhin and A. V. Zarubin, Eur. Phys. J.~B {\bf %
558: 16}, 463 (2000).
559:
560: \bibitem{Hubbard-IV:1965} J. Hubbard, Proc. Roy. Soc.~A {\bf 285}, 542
561: (1965).
562:
563: \bibitem{Irkhin:1994} V. Yu. Irkhin and Yu. P. Irkhin, phys. stat. sol.~(b)
564: {\bf 183}, 9 (1994); cond-mat/9812072.
565:
566: \bibitem{Bulla:2000a} R. Bulla and M. Potthoff, Eur. Phys. J.~B {\bf 8},
567: 565 (2000).
568:
569: \bibitem{Jarrell:1992} M. Jarrell and Th. Pruschke, Z. Phys.~B {\bf 90},
570: 187 (1993).
571:
572: \bibitem{Prushke:1993} Th. Pruschke, D. L. Cox, and M. Jarrell, Phys.
573: Rev.~B {\bf 47}, 3553 (1993).
574:
575: \bibitem{Zhang:1993} X. Y. Zhang, M. J. Rozenberg, and G. Kotliar, Phys.
576: Rev. Lett. {\bf 70}, 1666 (1993).
577:
578: \bibitem{Georges:1993} A. Georges and W. Krauth, Phys. Rev.~B {\bf 48},
579: 7167 (1993).
580:
581: \bibitem{Caffarel:1994} M. Caffarel and W. Krauth, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 72}%
582: , 1545 (1994).
583:
584: \bibitem{Moeller:1995} G.~Moeller, Q.~Si, G.~Kotliar, M.~Rozenberg, and
585: D.S.~Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 74}, 2082 (1995).
586:
587: \bibitem{Bulla:1999} R. Bulla, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 136 (1999).
588:
589: \bibitem{Bulla:2000} R. Bulla, Adv. Solid State Phys. {\bf 40}, 169 (2000).
590:
591: \bibitem{Mancini} F.~Mancini, Europhys. Lett. {\bf 50}, 229 (2000).
592: \end{references}
593:
594: \end{document}
595: