1: %\documentstyle[prl,twocolumn,aps,epsf,floats]{revtex}
2: \documentstyle[prl,aps,epsfig,floats]{revtex}
3:
4: \begin{document}
5: \draft
6:
7: \twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname @twocolumnfalse\endcsname
8: \title{ \bf Diagrammatic Quantum Monte Carlo for Two-Body
9: Problem: Exciton}
10: \author{E.\ A.\ Burovski$^{1}$,
11: A.\ S.\ Mishchenko$^{2,1}$, N.\ V.\ Prokof'ev$^{3}$,
12: and B.\ V.\ Svistunov$^{1}$}
13: \address{
14: $^1$RRC 'Kurchatov Institute', 123182, Moscow, Russia \\
15: $^2$Correlated Electron Research Center, Tsukuba Central 4,
16: Tsukuba 305-8562, Japan \\
17: $^3$Department of Physics, University of
18: Massachusets, Amherst, Masachusets 01003}
19:
20: \maketitle
21: \begin{abstract}
22: We present a novel method for precise numerical solution of the
23: irreducible two-body problem and apply it to excitons in solids.
24: The approach is based on the Monte Carlo simulation of the two-body
25: Green function specified by Feynman's diagrammatic expansion. Our
26: method does not rely on the specific form of the electron and hole
27: dispersion laws and is valid for any attractive electron-hole
28: potential. We establish limits of validity of the Wannier (large
29: radius) and Frenkel (small radius) approximations, present
30: accurate data for the intermediate radius excitons, and give
31: evidence for the charge transfer nature of the monopolar exciton
32: in mixed valence materials.
33: \end{abstract}
34: \pacs{PACS numbers: 71.53.-y, 02.70.Ss, 05.10.Ln}
35: \vskip1pc] \narrowtext
36:
37: After it was realized that under certain conditions the electron dynamics in
38: conduction band is of two-particle nature due to Coulomb attaction to the
39: hole in the valence band left behind \cite{Fr31}, the problem of exciton
40: became a model example of an irreducible (center-of-mass motion does not
41: separate from the rest of degrees of freedom) two-body problem. The simplest
42: (still rather general) exciton Hamiltonian \cite{Egri85,Knox} consists of
43: conduction and valence band contributions, $H_{0}$, and coupling $H_{%
44: \mbox{\scriptsize e-h}}$:
45: \begin{equation}
46: H_{0}=\sum_{{\scriptsize {\bf k}}}\varepsilon _{c}({\bf k})e_{{\scriptsize
47: {\bf k}}}^{\dagger }e_{{\scriptsize {\bf k}}}+\sum_{{\bf k}}\varepsilon _{v}(%
48: {\bf k})h_{{\scriptsize {\bf k}}}h_{{\scriptsize {\bf k}}}^{\dagger },
49: \label{2}
50: \end{equation}
51: \begin{equation}
52: H_{\mbox{\scriptsize e-h}}=-N^{-1}\sum_{{\scriptsize {\bf pkk^{\prime }}}}%
53: {\cal U}({\bf p},{\bf k},{\bf k}^{\prime })e_{{\scriptsize {\bf p+k}}%
54: }^{\dagger }h_{{\scriptsize {\bf p-k}}}^{\dagger }h_{{\scriptsize {\bf %
55: p-k^{\prime }}}}e_{{\scriptsize {\bf p+k^{\prime }}}}. \label{3}
56: \end{equation}
57: Here $e_{{\bf k}}$ ($h_{{\bf k}}$) is the electron (hole) annihilation
58: operator, $\varepsilon _{c}({\bf k})$ ($\varepsilon _{v}({\bf k})$) is the
59: conduction (valence) band dispersion law, N is the number of lattice sites,
60: and ${\cal U}({\bf p},{\bf k},{\bf k}^{\prime })$ is an attractive
61: interaction potential.
62:
63: Despite numerous efforts over the years there is no rigorous technique to
64: solve for exciton properties even for the simplest model given above which
65: treats electron-electron interactions as a static renormalized Coulomb
66: potential with averaged dynamical screening. The only solvable cases are the
67: Frenkel small-radius limit \cite{Fr31} and the Wannier large-radius limit
68: \cite{Wan37} which describe molecular crystals and wide gap insulators with
69: large dielectric constant, respectively. Much more frequently encountered
70: cases of intermediate radius excitons (e.g. intermediate gap semiconductors,
71: LiF, or mixed valence systems) have to be dealt with using approximate
72: numerical approaches. There are powerful {\it ab initio} modern methods \cite
73: {Alb98,Ben98,RohLo98} for band structure and effective electron-hole
74: potential calculations, but the real bottleneck is in numerical solution of
75: the two-particle problem for a bulk material. One can either solve the
76: Bethe-Salpeter equation on a finite mesh in reciprocal/direct space \cite
77: {Alb98,Ben98,RohLo98}, or employ the random-phase approximation decoupling
78: \cite{Egri85}. However, both methods suffer from systematic errors, and the
79: Bethe-Salpeter equation on finite mesh may lead to incorrect eigenstates
80: for the Wannier case \cite{RohLo98}. Therefore, even the
81: limits of validity of the Wannier and Frenkel approximations can not be
82: established by existing methods.
83:
84: Besides, an efficient and rigorous method for the study of exciton properties,
85: given the band structure, is of high virtue for phenomenological models. As
86: an example, we refer to the protracted discussion of numerous (and often
87: contradictory) models concerning exciton properties in mixed valence
88: semiconductors \cite{CuKiMi}. In Ref.~\onlinecite{KiMi90} unusual properties
89: of SmS and SmB$_6$ were explained by invoking the excitonic instability
90: mechanism assuming charge-transfer nature of the optically forbidden
91: exciton. Although this model explains quantitatively the phonon spectra \cite
92: {KiMi91}, optical properties \cite{TraWa84,Le95}, and magnetic neutron
93: scattering data \cite{KiMi95}, its basic assumption has been criticized as
94: being groundless \cite{Kas94}.
95:
96: In this Letter we describe how ground state properties of excitons in the
97: model (\ref{2})-(\ref{3}) can be obtained numerically without systematic
98: errors for arbitrary dispersion relations $\varepsilon _{c}({\bf k})$ and $%
99: \varepsilon _{v}({\bf k})$), and attractive potential ${\cal U}({\bf p},{\bf %
100: k},{\bf k}^{\prime })$. First, we show that the problem fits into the
101: diagrammatic Monte Carlo (MC) method \cite{PS98,MPSS00,QDST01} which sums
102: positively-definite perturbation series, in our case Feynman diagrams, for
103: the two-particle Matsubara Green function, $G$. We then describe the
104: procedure of extracting various physical properties from the asymptotic
105: long-time behavior of $G$. Next, we discuss our results for a particular
106: tight-binding model and electron-hole interaction potential to see under
107: what conditions Frenkel and Wannier approximations remain accurate. Finally,
108: we present evidence that the band structure of mixed valence materials results
109: in the charge-transfer character of the optically forbidden exciton.
110:
111: The two-particle Green function with total momentum $2{\bf p}$ in imaginary
112: time representation is defined as
113: \begin{equation}
114: G_{{\scriptsize {\bf p}}}^{{\scriptsize {\bf kk}}^{\prime }}(\tau )=\langle
115: 0\mid e_{{\scriptsize {\bf p+k^{\prime }}}}(\tau )h_{{\scriptsize {\bf %
116: p-k^{\prime }}}}(\tau )h_{{\scriptsize {\bf p-k}}}^{\dagger }e_{{\scriptsize
117: {\bf p+k}}}^{\dagger }\mid 0\rangle , \label{4}
118: \end{equation}
119: where the vacuum state $\mid 0\rangle $ corresponds to empty conduction and
120: filled valence bands, and $h_{{\bf p-k}}(\tau )=e^{H\tau }h_{{\bf p-k}%
121: }e^{-H\tau }$, $\tau >0$. In the interaction representation $G$ can be
122: written as a sum of ladder-type Feynman diagrams, see Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1}:
123: pairs of horizontal solid lines represent free electron-hole pair
124: propagators, $G_{{\bf p}}^{(0)}({\bf k},\tau _{2}-\tau _{1})=\exp \left(
125: -\varepsilon ({\bf k})(\tau _{2}-\tau _{1})\right) $, where $\varepsilon (%
126: {\bf k})=\varepsilon _{c}({\bf p+k})-\varepsilon _{v}({\bf p-k})$ is the
127: energy of the pair, and dashed lines represent the interaction potential.
128: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
129: \begin{figure}[th]
130: \input fig1.tex
131: \caption{A typical diagram contributing to $G_{{\bf p}}^{{\bf kk}^{\prime }}(%
132: \protect\tau )$.}
133: \label{fig:fig1}
134: \end{figure}
135: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
136: For purely numerical reasons explained below we split the potential into two
137: terms ${\cal U}({\bf p},{\bf k},{\bf k}^{\prime })=V_{1}(2{\bf p})+V_{2}(%
138: {\bf k}-{\bf k}_{1})$, and expand in both $V_{1}$ and $V_{2}$. [This can be
139: done because \cite{Egri85} ${\cal U}({\bf p},{\bf k},{\bf k}^{\prime
140: })=V_{0}-W(2{\bf p})+U({\bf k-k^{\prime }})$ where $V_{0}$ is the on-site
141: coupling, $W(2{\bf p})$ is the dipolar term, $U({\bf k-k^{\prime }}%
142: )=\sum_{\lambda \neq 0}\exp (i{\bf qR}_{\lambda })/(R_{\lambda }\epsilon (%
143: {\bf R}_{\lambda }))$ is the monopolar term, and $\epsilon ({\bf R}_{\lambda
144: })$ is a static dielectric screening function (we set the electric charge to
145: unity). Since $U({\bf q})$ is not positive definite [in fact $\sum_{{\bf q}%
146: }U({\bf q})=0$] we add and subtract some constant ${\bar{U}}$ to ensure that
147: $V_{1}(2{\bf p})=V_{0}-W(2{\bf p})-{\bar{U}}$ and $V_{2}({\bf q})={\bar{U}}%
148: +U({\bf q})$ are both positive - this imposes the only limitation on value $%
149: V_{0}$ in our method].
150:
151: The final answer for $G$ is given by the sum of all possible diagrams.
152: Formally we can write this as a series of multi-dimensional integrals
153: \[
154: G_{{\scriptsize {\bf p}}}^{{\scriptsize {\bf kk}}^{\prime }}(\tau
155: )=\sum_{m=0}^{\infty }\sum_{\xi _{m}}\int dx_{1}\cdots dx_{m}\,F_{%
156: {\scriptsize {\bf p}}}^{{\scriptsize {\bf kk}}^{\prime }}(\tau ;\xi
157: _{m};x_{1},\ldots ,x_{m}).
158: \]
159: where $x_{1},\dots x_{m}$ are internal variables [times and momenta, $%
160: x_{i}=(\tau _{i},{\bf k}_{i})$] of the $m$-th order diagram, the summation
161: over $\xi _{m}$ accounts for different diagrams of order $m$, and the
162: ``weight'' $F$ is given by the product of electron-hole propagators and
163: interaction vertices according to standard rules. For positive $V_{1}$ and $%
164: V_{2}$ all terms in the series are positive definite and one may apply the
165: diagrammatic Monte Carlo technique developed in Refs.~%
166: \onlinecite{PS98,MPSS00}, which evaluates such series without systematic
167: errors (by Metropolis-type sampling of diagrams according to their weight
168: directly in the momentum-time continuum). Since the method itself is well
169: described in the literature we will concentrate on the problem specific
170: details only.
171:
172: The crucial for the whole scheme update is the one which changes the number
173: of interaction vertices by one. To render algorithm efficient one has to
174: propose new internal parameters as close as possible to the distribution
175: function $R(x_{m+1}) = F(\xi_{m+1} ; x_1, \ldots , x_m,x_{m+1})/ F(\xi_{m} ;
176: x_1, \ldots , x_m)$ defined by the ratio of the new and old diagram weights.
177: This is done in order to maximize the acceptance ratio $P_{{\rm acc}}$ ---
178: if proposed $x_{m+1}=(\tau_{m+1}, {\bf k}_{m+1})$ are distributed according
179: to some normalized function $W(x_{m+1})$, then $P_{{\rm acc}} \propto
180: R(x_{m+1})/W(x_{m+1}) $. Otherwise the choice of $W(x_{m+1})$ is a matter of
181: computational convenience \cite{PS98,MPSS00}.
182:
183: First, we select (with equal probabilities) which interaction vertex, $V_{1}$
184: or $V_{2}$, will be inserted, and then select at random the time interval
185: where it will be placed, $\tau _{m+1}\in (\tau _{a},\tau _{b})$, where $\tau
186: _{a,b}$ are the interval boundaries determined either by the existing
187: interaction vertices or the diagram ends. All the momenta at $\tau <\tau _{a}
188: $ and $\tau >\tau _{m+1}$ are kept untouched. In case when $V_{1}(2{\bf p})$
189: is inserted, the new momentum ${\bf k}_{m+1}$ is proposed uniformly in the
190: Brillouin zone (BZ). When $V_{2}({\bf k}_{b}-{\bf k}_{m+1})$ is inserted ($%
191: {\bf k}_{b}$ is the relative motion momentum to the left of point $(\tau _{b}
192: $) the new momentum ${\bf k}_{m+1}$ is proposed using distribution function $%
193: W({\bf k}_{m+1})=\left( \beta /2\pi \arctan \beta \right) ^{3}\prod_{\alpha
194: }\,\left( 1+\beta k_{m+1}^{(\alpha )}/\pi )^{2}\right) ^{-1}$, where $\alpha
195: =x,y,z$. The parameter $\beta $ is uniformly seeded on interval $[\beta _{%
196: {\rm min}},\beta _{{\rm max}}]$ at each step, and $\beta _{{\rm min}},\beta
197: _{{\rm max}}$ are further tuned to maximize the acceptance ratio. We note,
198: that different distribution functions used to propose new momentum ${\bf k}%
199: _{m+1}$ when dealing with $V_{1}$ and $V_{2}$ vertices was the only
200: motivation behind an artificial separation ${\cal U}=V_{1}+V_{2}$ [The
201: actual gain in efficiency was about three orders of magnitude!]. Finally,
202: the time position for the new vertex was seeded according to the
203: distribution function dictated by the diagram weights ratio $W(\tau
204: _{m+1})=\delta \epsilon \cdot e^{-\delta \epsilon \tau _{m+1}}/(e^{-\delta
205: \epsilon \tau _{a}}-e^{-\delta \epsilon \tau _{b}})$ where, $\delta \epsilon
206: =\varepsilon _{{}}({\bf k}_{m+1})-\varepsilon _{{}}({\bf k}_{b})$.
207:
208: We also employ standard Metropolis updates changing the values of internal
209: momenta and times,
210: which substantially enhances the efficiency of the
211: algorithm.
212:
213: %-----------------------------------
214: \begin{figure}[ht]
215: \epsfxsize=0.47\textwidth \epsfbox{ene_spl.eps}
216: \caption{The dependence of the exciton binding energy on the bandwidth $E_c=E_v$.
217: Statistical errors are less than $5 \cdot 10^{-3}$ in relative
218: units. The dashed line corresponds to the Wannier model. The solid line is
219: the cubic spline, the derivatives at the right and
220: left ends being fixed by the Wannier limit and perturbation
221: theory, respectively. Insert: the initial part of the plot.}
222: \label{figr1}
223: \end{figure}
224: %-----------------------------------
225: We now turn to the discussion of how exciton properties are
226: obtained from the $G (\tau \to \infty )$ limit. An eigenstate
227: $\mid \nu; {\bf p} \rangle$ with energy $E_{\nu}$ can be written
228: as
229: \begin{equation}
230: \mid \nu; {\bf p } \rangle \equiv \sum_{{\scriptsize {\bf k}}} \xi_{%
231: {\scriptsize {\bf p k}}}(\nu) e^{\dagger}_{{\scriptsize {\bf p+k}}}
232: h^{\dagger}_{{\scriptsize {\bf p-k}}} \mid 0 \rangle. \label{WF}
233: \end{equation}
234: where amplitudes $\xi_{{\bf p k}}(\nu)= \langle \nu; {\bf p} \mid
235: e^{\dagger}_{{\bf p+k}} h^{\dagger}_{{\bf p-k}} \mid 0 \rangle$
236: describe the wave function of internal motion of the exciton. In
237: terms of exciton eigenstates we have, $G_{{\bf p}}^{{\bf
238: k=k}^{\prime}} (\tau) = \sum_{\nu} \mid \xi_{{\bf p k}}(\nu)
239: \mid^2 e^{-E_{\nu} \tau}$, and if $\tau $ is much larger than
240: inverse energy difference between the ground and first excited
241: states, the Green function projects to the ground state, $G_{{\bf p}}^{{\bf %
242: k=k}^{\prime}} (\tau \to \infty ) = \mid \xi_{{\bf p k}}(\mbox{g.s.}) \mid^2
243: e^{-E_{\mbox{\scriptsize g.s.}} \tau }$. Due to normalization condition $%
244: \sum_{{\bf k}} \mid \xi_{{\bf p k}}(\nu ) \mid^2 \equiv 1$ the asymptotic
245: behavior of the sum $\tilde{G}_{{\bf p}} = \sum_{{\bf k}} G_{{\bf p}}^{{\bf %
246: k=k}^{\prime}} $ is especially simple, $\tilde{G}( \tau ) \to e^{-E_{%
247: \mbox{\scriptsize g.s.}} \tau}$. This asymptotic behavior allows simulations
248: of energy and amplitudes at fixed $\tau$ [large enough to make the
249: corresponding systematic error negligible], using the technique of Monte Carlo
250: estimators. To this end we differentiate each diagram for $\tilde{G}( \tau )$
251: \cite{rem:1} with respect to $\tau $ and arrive at the result (compare with Ref.~\cite{MPSS00})
252: \begin{equation}
253: E_{\mbox{\scriptsize g.s.}} = \tau^{-1} \left\langle \sum_{j=1}^{m+1}
254: \varepsilon^{j}({\bf k}) \Delta\tau_j \; - \; m \right\rangle_{%
255: \mbox{\scriptsize MC}} \;, \label{estene}
256: \end{equation}
257: where $\langle ... \rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize MC}}$ stands for the MC
258: statistical average, $m$ is the diagram order, $\varepsilon^{j}({\bf k})$
259: and $\Delta\tau_j$ are the electron-hole pair energy and duration of the $j$%
260: -th propagator, respectively. By definition, in the limit $\tau \to \infty$
261: we have $G_{{\bf p}}^{{\bf k=k}^{\prime}} /\tilde{G}_{{\bf p}} = \mid \xi_{%
262: {\bf p k}}(\mbox{g.s.}) \mid^2$, i.e. the distribution over quasimomentum $%
263: {\bf k}$ is related to the wave function of internal motion. The wave
264: function of the bound state can be chosen real, and the Fourier transform
265: may be used to obtain $\mid \mbox{g.s.} \rangle$ in direct space \cite{rem:0}%
266: . %-----------------------------------
267: \begin{figure}[hbt]
268: \epsfxsize=0.47\textwidth \epsfbox{zk.eps}
269: \caption{The momentum dependence of the charge density $\mid \protect\xi_{%
270: {\bf p k}}(\mbox{g.s.}) \mid^2 k^2$ for $E_c=E_v=60$ (a) and $E_c=E_v=10$
271: (b). Solid lines are the Wannier model result. Statistical errors are
272: typically of order $10^{-4}$. }
273: \label{figr3}
274: \end{figure}
275: %-----------------------------------
276:
277: In this Letter we focus on the study of exciton properties in a
278: simple cubic 3D lattice with tight binding dispersion laws for the
279: electron and hole bands
280: \begin{equation}
281: \varepsilon _{c,v}({\bf k})=\tilde{E}_{c,v}\pm (E_{c,v}/6)\sum_{\alpha
282: }(1-\cos k_{\alpha }). \label{Eeh}
283: \end{equation}
284: The choice of interaction parameters was motivated by the possibility to
285: cover all regimes (from Wannier to Frenkel limit) by varying the ratio
286: between the bandwidth and the gap only. Our simulations were done for $%
287: \tilde{E}_{v}=0$, $E_{g}\equiv \tilde{E}_{c}=1$, $W(2{\bf p}=0)=-0.168$, $%
288: V_{0}=0.778$, ${\bar{U}}=0.578$, and $\epsilon ({\bf R})=10$ \cite{Evald}.
289: The binding energy in the Frenkel limit $E_{\mbox{\scriptsize FL}}$ ($%
290: E_{c,v}\ll E_{g}$) is then less than the gap, $E_{\mbox{\scriptsize FL}%
291: }=V_{1}(2{\bf p}=0)+\sum_{{\bf q}}V_{2}({\bf q})=0.946$, thus rendering the
292: exciton stability for all values of $E_{c,v}$. In the Wannier limit of large
293: bandwidth $E_{c,v}\gg E_{g}$ the binding energy approaches $3/(2\epsilon
294: ^{2}E_{c})$ (assuming $E_{v}=E_{c}$). Of course, our parameters satisfy the
295: requirement that $V_{1}$ and $V_{2}$ are positive definite functions.
296:
297: Our results for the binding energy and wave function are shown in Figs. ~\ref
298: {figr1}, ~\ref{figr3}, and \ref{figr4}. First we notice that the method
299: works equally well in all regimes, and statistical errors are much smaller
300: than symbols sizes in all plots. An unexpected result is that extremely
301: large bandwidth $E_c/E_g >20$ is necessary for the Wannier approximation to
302: be adequate: both the binding energy $E_B$ (Fig.\ \ref{figr1}) and the wave
303: function \cite{rem:3}
304: (Fig.\ \ref{figr3} and Fig.\ \ref{figr4} (b)) demonstrate large
305: deviations for smaller $E_c/E_g$. Most surprisingly, for $1 < E_c/E_g < 10$
306: the wave function has a large (and dominating) on-site component [Fig.\ \ref
307: {figr4}(b)], but the binding energy is not even close to the Frenkel limit!
308: For $E_c/E_g=0.4$ the wave function is almost entirely localized [Fig.\ \ref
309: {figr4}(c)] but $E_{\mbox{g.s.}}$ is still 50\% away from the small-radius
310: limit. Noticing that $E_{\rm g.s.} \approx E_{\mbox{\scriptsize FL}}-(E_c+E_v)/2$ ($%
311: E_c=E_v$), which holds for localised functions when $E_c<0.4$, we deduce
312: that the deviation from Frenkel result is
313: determined by the electron and hole delocalization energy. Our
314: conclusion is then that the intermediate-range regime is very broad and
315: relevant in most practical cases.
316: %-----------------------------------
317: \begin{figure}[ht]
318: \epsfxsize=0.47\textwidth
319: \epsfbox{env.eps}
320: \caption{ The wave function of internal motion in real space: (a) Wannier
321: [$E_c=E_v=60$]; (b) intermediate [$E_c=E_v=10$]; (c) near-Frenkel
322: [$E_c=E_v=0.4 $] regimes.
323: The solid line in the panel
324: (a) is the Wannier model result while solid lines in other panels
325: are to guide an eye only. Statistical errorbars are of order
326: $10^{-4}$.
327: }
328: \label{figr4}
329: \end{figure}
330: %-----------------------------------
331: %-----------------------------------
332: \begin{figure}[ht]
333: \epsfxsize=0.47\textwidth \epsfbox{zl.eps} \caption{The wave
334: function of internal motion in real space for the optically
335: forbidden monopolar ($W(2{\bf p})=0$) exciton defined by the
336: following model parameters: $\tilde{E}_c=1.5$, $\tilde{E}_v=0$, $E_c=-0.5$, $%
337: E_v=0.05$, $\protect\epsilon=10$, $V_0=0.578$. Statistical errorbars are of
338: order $10^{-4}$. }
339: \label{figr5}
340: \end{figure}
341: %-----------------------------------
342:
343: To study the structure of optically forbidden excitons in mixed valence
344: compounds we choose typical for these semiconducting materials band spectra
345: \cite{CuKiMi}, i.e. an almost flat valence band separated by an indirect gap
346: from the wide conduction band with maximum at ${\bf k}=0$ and minimum at the
347: BZ boundary. One can see in Fig.~\ref{figr5} that this leads to the charge
348: transfer character of the optically forbidden monopolar exciton ($W(2{\bf p}%
349: )=0$) when the wave function of internal motion has
350: almost zero on-site component, maximal charge density at near neighbours,
351: and large long-ranged oscillations at neighboring sites. The difference with
352: the previously discussed $E_{v,c}/E_g=0.4$ case, see Fig.~\ref{figr4}(b),
353: is remarkable.
354:
355: Finally, we would like to note that diagrammatic MC technique not
356: only gives properties of the ground state but is also suitable for
357: the study of excited states and optical absorption \cite{rem:4}.
358: This can be done by simulating the $\tau $
359: dependence of ${\cal G}({\bf p=0}, \tau )= \sum_{{\bf kk}^{\prime}} G_{{\bf p%
360: }=0}^{{\bf kk}^{\prime}} (\tau )$, and solving numerically equation
361: \[
362: {\cal G}({\bf p=0}, \tau)= \int_0^{\infty} g(\omega) \exp(-\omega \tau) d
363: \omega
364: \]
365: to obtain the spectral function $g(\omega)$ \cite{MPSS00}.
366:
367: %[If the interband optical matrix element is assumed to be momentum
368: %independent then the absorption coefficient will be proportional
369: %to $g(\omega)$.] This Eq. is notoriously sensitive to the accuracy
370: %of the input data for the r.h.s., and systematic error free
371: %methods have an additional advantage in this respect.
372:
373: We thank A.\ Sakamoto and N.\ Nagaosa for fruitful discussions. We
374: acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation under Grant
375: DMR-0071767 and RFBR grant 01-02-16508.
376:
377: \begin{references}
378: \bibitem{Fr31} J.\ I.\ Frenkel, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 17}, 17 (1931).
379:
380: \bibitem{Egri85} I.\ Egri, Phys.\ Reports {\bf 119}, 364 (1985).
381:
382: \bibitem{Knox} R.\ Knox, Theory of excitons, (Academic press, New York
383: 1963).
384:
385: \bibitem{Wan37} J.\ H. Wannier, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 52}, 191 (1937).
386:
387: \bibitem{Alb98} S.\ Albrecht, L.\ Reining, R.\ D. Sole, and G.\ Onida,
388: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 80}, 4510 (1998).
389:
390: \bibitem{Ben98} L.\ X.\ Benedict, E.\ L.\ Shirley, and R.\ B.\ Bohn, Phys.\
391: Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 80}, 4514 (1998).
392:
393: \bibitem{RohLo98} M.\ Rohlfing and S.\ G.\ Louie, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf %
394: 81}, 2312 (1998).
395:
396: \bibitem{CuKiMi} S.\ Curnoe and K.\ A.\ Kikoin, Phys.\ Rev.\ B {\bf 61}
397: 15714 (2000);
398:
399: \bibitem{KiMi90} K.\ A.\ Kikoin and A.\ S.\ Mishchenko, J.\ Phys.: Condens.
400: Matter, {\bf 2}, 6491 (1990).
401:
402: \bibitem{KiMi91} A.\ S.\ Mishchenko and K.\ A.\ Kikoin, J.\ Phys.: Condens.
403: Matter, {\bf 3}, 5937 (1991).
404:
405: \bibitem{TraWa84} G.\ Travaglini and P.\ Wachter, Phys.\ Rev.\ B {\bf 29},
406: 893 (1984).
407:
408: \bibitem{Le95} P.\ Lemmens, A. Hoffmann, A.\ S.\ Mishchenko, M.\ Yu.
409: Talantov, and G.\ G\"{u}ntherodt, Physica B {\bf 206\&207}, 371 (1995).
410:
411: \bibitem{KiMi95} K.\ A.\ Kikoin and A.\ S.\ Mishchenko, J.\ Phys.: Condens.
412: Matter, {\bf 7}, 307 (1995);
413:
414: \bibitem{Kas94} T.\ Kasuya, Europhys.\ Lett., {\bf 26}, 277 (1994); T.\
415: Kasuya, Europhys.\ Lett., {\bf 26}, 283 (1994)
416:
417: \bibitem{PS98} N.\ V.\ Prokof'ev and B.\ V.\ Svistunov, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.
418: {\bf 81}, 2514 (1998).
419:
420: \bibitem{MPSS00} A.\ S.\ Mishchenko, N.\ V.\ Prokof'ev, A.\ Sakamoto, and
421: B.\ V.\ Svistunov, Phys.\ Rev.\ B {\bf 62}, 6317 (2000).
422:
423: \bibitem{QDST01} A.\ S.\ Mishchenko and N.\ Nagaosa, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.
424: {\bf 86}, 4624 (2001).
425:
426: \bibitem{rem:1} Working with the function $\tilde{G}$ introduces a certain
427: formal problem: the zero- and first-order (with respect to $V_2({\bf q}=0)$)
428: diagrams contain macroscopically large factor $N$. Being interested in the
429: ground-state properties only, we can safely omit them, since
430: explicit analysis shows that they are irrelevant in the $\tau \to \infty$ limit.
431:
432: \bibitem{rem:0} If the quantity $\mid \xi_{{\bf p k}}(\mbox{g.s.}) \mid^2$
433: has no nodes, the amplitudes $\xi_{{\bf p k}}(\mbox{g.s.})$ can be chosen
434: positive. Since $G^{{\bf k}{\bf k}'}_{\bf p} (\tau ) $ is given by the
435: sum of positive-definite diagrams we know that
436: $\xi_{{\bf p k}}(\mbox{g.s.})$ has no nodes.
437:
438: \bibitem{Evald} The direct coupling term was evaluated by generalized Evald
439: method, see e.g.\ M.\ H.\ Cohen and F.\ Keffer, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 99}, 1128
440: (1955).
441:
442: \bibitem{rem:3} While for Wannier regime the wave function is spherically
443: symmetric, it's symmetry for the Frenkel and intermediate case regimes bears
444: the lattice structure thus making the coordination spheres number a natural
445: unit for the representation of the wave function in direct space.
446:
447: \bibitem{rem:4} In the case when the interband optical matrix element is momentum
448: independent, the absorption coefficient is proportional
449: to $g(\omega)$.
450:
451: \end{references}
452:
453: \end{document}
454: