1: %\documentstyle[prb,aps,eqsecnum,multicol,epsf,preprint]{revtex}
2: \documentstyle[prb,aps,eqsecnum,multicol,epsfig]{revtex}
3:
4: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.1}
5: %\documentstyle[prb,aps,eqsecnum,floats,preprint]{revtex}
6: %\documentstyle[prb,aps,eqsecnum,floats]{revtex}
7: %\topmargin 0.3cm
8:
9: \newcommand{\bleq}{\ifpreprintsty
10: \else
11: \end{multicols}\vspace*{-3.5ex}{\tiny
12: \noindent\begin{tabular}[t]{c|}
13: \parbox{0.493\hsize}{~} \\ \hline \end{tabular}}
14: \fi}
15: \newcommand{\eleq}{\ifpreprintsty
16: \else
17: {\tiny\hspace*{\fill}\begin{tabular}[t]{|c}\hline
18: \parbox{0.49\hsize}{~} \\
19: \end{tabular}}\vspace*{-2.5ex}\begin{multicols}{2}
20: \fi}
21: \newcommand{\bcols}{\ifpreprintsty\else\begin{multicols}{2}\fi}
22: \newcommand{\ecols}{\ifpreprintsty\else\end{multicols}\fi}
23:
24: \begin{document}
25: \draft
26: %\twocolumn[
27: %\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname@twocolumnfalse\endcsname
28:
29: \title{Spin fluctuations and pseudogap in the two-dimensional
30: half-filled Hubbard model at weak coupling }
31: \author{N. Dupuis }
32: \address{ Laboratoire de Physique des Solides, Associ\'e au CNRS, \\
33: Universit\'e Paris-Sud, 91405 Orsay, France }
34: \date{March 27, 2002}
35: \maketitle
36:
37:
38: \begin{abstract}
39: Starting from the Hubbard model in the weak-coupling limit, we derive
40: a spin-fermion model where the collective spin excitations are
41: described by a non-linear sigma
42: model. This result is used to compute the fermion spectral function
43: $A({\bf k},\omega)$ in the low-temperature regime where the
44: antiferromagnetic (AF) coherence length is exponentially large
45: (``renormalized classical'' regime). At the Fermi level, $A({\bf
46: k}_F,\omega)$ exhibits two peaks around $\pm\Delta_0$ (with
47: $\Delta_0$ the mean-field gap), which are precursors of the
48: zero-temperature AF bands, separated by a pseudogap.
49: \end{abstract}
50:
51: \pacs{PACS Numbers: 71.10.Fd, 75.10.Lp}
52: %
53:
54: \bcols
55:
56: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
57:
58:
59: \section{Introduction}
60:
61:
62: In the last two decades, the discovery of heavy-fermion compounds,
63: high-$T_c$ superconductors and organic conductors has revived interest
64: in strongly correlated electron systems. Of particular interest are
65: metallic phases which, although conducting, are not described by
66: Landau's Fermi liquid theory because of the absence of well-defined
67: quasi-particle excitations. A well-known example is given by the
68: normal phase of high-$T_c$
69: superconductors. Instead of quasi-particles, these systems exhibit a
70: pseudogap at low energy as shown by many experiments.
71: \cite{Timusk99} Although the
72: origin of the pseudogap is still under debate, it is generally
73: believed that antiferromagnetic (AF) fluctuations play a crucial role.
74:
75: In this paper, we consider the pseudogap issue on the basis of the
76: half-filled 2D Hubbard model. We consider only the weak-coupling limit
77: $U\ll t$ ($U$ is the local Coulomb repulsion and $t$ the intersite
78: hopping amplitude). [In the strong-coupling limit at half-filling, the
79: finite temperature paramagnetic phase is a Mott-Hubbard insulator with
80: a (charge) gap of order $U$. At $T=0$, there is a transition to a N\'eel
81: antiferromagnetic state.\cite{note1}] Although the ground-state is
82: AF, long-range order is destroyed by classical
83: fluctuations at any finite temperature, in agreement with the
84: Mermin-Wagner theorem. Nevertheless, below a crossover temperature
85: $T_X$ (of the order of the mean-field transition temperature), the
86: system enters a renormalized classical regime where AF correlations
87: start to grow exponentially. Contrary to the 3D case, at the
88: zero-temperature 2D phase transition the system goes directly into the
89: (N\'eel) ordered state where the fermion spectral function $A({\bf
90: k},\omega)$ exhibits two well-defined
91: quasi-particle (QP) peaks corresponding to the Bogoliubov QP's.
92: By continuity, the two-peak structure in $A({\bf k},\omega)$ cannot
93: disappear as soon as we raise the temperature. As pointed out in
94: Ref.~\onlinecite{Vilk97}, the only possible scenario is that at finite
95: but low temperature the fermion spectral function exhibits two
96: (broadened) peaks which are precursors of the $T=0$ Bogoliubov QP's,
97: separated by a pseudogap. We therefore expect the presence of
98: a pseudogap at finite temperature, due to the strong (classical) AF
99: fluctuations.
100:
101: Clearly, traditional mean-field techniques fail to describe these
102: phenomena. For instance, the random-phase approximation (RPA) predicts a
103: finite temperature phase transition which is forbidden in 2D by the
104: Mermin-Wagner theorem. More sophisticated approaches are therefore
105: required. In the weak-coupling limit, the pseudogap formation has been
106: considered within the fluctuation
107: exchange (FLEX) approximation \cite{Bickers89} and the
108: two-particle-self-consistent (TPSC) theory \cite{Vilk97,Vilk96,Vilk97a} which
109: both satisfy the Mermin-Wagner theorem. Only the TPSC theory predicts
110: the formation of a pseudogap in the fermion spectral function $A({\bf
111: k},\omega)$ at low temperature.
112:
113: The aim of this paper is to describe an alternative approach to the
114: 2D half-filled Hubbard model in the weak-coupling limit. We first
115: derive a spin-fermion model
116: where the collective spin excitations are described by a non-linear
117: sigma model (NL$\sigma$M). The spin-wave velocity and the coupling
118: constant of the NL$\sigma$M are expressed in terms of the ground-state
119: properties of the system. Solving the NL$\sigma$M in a ``large-$\cal
120: N$'' limit, we then compute the fermion spectral function $A({\bf
121: k},\omega)$ to lowest order in the spin-fermion interaction. At
122: the Fermi level, $A({\bf k}_F,\omega)$ exhibits two peaks around
123: $\pm\Delta_0$ (with $\Delta_0$ the mean-field gap) which are
124: precursors of the zero-temperature AF bands, separated by a
125: pseudogap. We compare our results with those of the TPSC theory.
126:
127: \section{Model}
128: The two-dimensional Hubbard model is defined by the Hamiltonian
129: \begin{equation}
130: H = -t \sum_{\langle {\bf r},{\bf r}' \rangle,\sigma} (
131: c^\dagger_{{\bf r}\sigma} c_{{\bf r}'\sigma} + {\rm h.c.})
132: +U \sum_{\bf r} n_{{\bf r}\uparrow} n_{{\bf r}\downarrow} ,
133: \label{Ham}
134: \end{equation}
135: where $t$ is the intersite hopping amplitude and $U$ the on-site
136: Coulomb repulsion. $ c_{{\bf r}\sigma}$ is a fermionic operator for a
137: $\sigma$-spin particle at site ${\bf r}$
138: ($\sigma=\uparrow,\downarrow$), and $ n_{{\bf r}\sigma}=
139: c^\dagger_{{\bf r}\sigma} c_{{\bf r}\sigma}$.
140: $\langle {\bf r},{\bf r}' \rangle$ denotes nearest-neighbor sites.
141: We take the lattice spacing equal to unity and $\hbar=k_B=1$
142: throughout the paper.
143:
144: Since spin fluctuations play a crucial role in the Hubbard model at
145: half-filling, it is convenient to introduce auxiliary fields
146: describing these collective excitations. The standard approach is to
147: write the interaction part of the Hamiltonian in terms of charge and
148: spin fluctuations, i.e. $ n_{{\bf r}\uparrow} n_{{\bf
149: r}\downarrow} = [( c^\dagger_{\bf r} c_{\bf r})^2 - (
150: c^\dagger_{\bf r}\sigma_z c_{\bf r})^2]/4$, and then perform a
151: Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation by means of two (real) auxiliary
152: fields $\Delta_c$ and $\Delta_s$ [$c_{\bf r}=(c_{{\bf
153: r}\uparrow},c_{{\bf r}\downarrow})^T$]. Although this procedure
154: recovers the standard
155: mean-field (or Hartree-Fock) theory of the N\'eel state within a
156: saddle-point approximation, it leads to a loss of spin-rotation
157: invariance and does not allow to obtain the spin-wave
158: excitations. Alternatively, one could write $n_{{\bf r}\uparrow}
159: n_{{\bf r}\downarrow}$ in a spin-rotation invariant form,
160: e.g. $n_{{\bf r}\uparrow} n_{{\bf r}\downarrow}=-(c^\dagger_{\bf r}
161: \mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$} c_{\bf r})^2/6$ where
162: $\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}$ denotes the Pauli
163: matrices, and use a vector Hubbard-Stratonovich field. Such
164: decompositions, however, do not reproduce the mean-field results at
165: the saddle-point level. \cite{Schulz90}
166:
167: As noted earlier, \cite{Schulz90,Weng91} this difficulty can be
168: circumvented by writing $
169: n_{{\bf r}\uparrow} n_{{\bf r}\downarrow} = [( c^\dagger_{\bf r}
170: c_{\bf r})^2 - ( c^\dagger_{\bf r} \mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$} \cdot
171: {\bf\Omega}_{\bf r} c_{\bf r})^2]/4$ where ${\bf\Omega_r}$ is an
172: arbitrary unit vector. Spin-rotation
173: invariance is maintained by averaging the partition function over all
174: directions of ${\bf\Omega}_{\bf r}$.
175: In a path integral formalism, ${\bf\Omega}_{\bf r}$ becomes a
176: time-dependent variable. After the Hubbard-Stratonovich
177: transformation, the partition function is given by $Z=\int
178: {\cal D}[c^\dagger,c] \int {\cal D}[\Delta_c,\Delta_s,{\bf\Omega}] e^{-S}$
179: with the action
180: \begin{eqnarray}
181: S &=& S_0 + \sum_{\bf r} \int _0^\beta d\tau \Bigl \lbrace
182: \frac{1}{U}\bigl(\Delta_{c{\bf r}}^2+\Delta_{s{\bf r}}^2\bigr)
183: \nonumber \\ &&
184: - c^\dagger_{\bf r}\bigl(i\Delta_{c{\bf r}}+\Delta_{s{\bf r}}
185: \mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$} \cdot {\bf\Omega}_{\bf r} \bigr) c_{\bf r}.
186: \Bigr \rbrace .
187: \label{action1}
188: \end{eqnarray}
189: $S_0$ is the action in the absence of interaction.
190: Since charge fluctuations are not critical (even when
191: $T\to 0$), they can be treated at the saddle point (i.e. Hartree-Fock)
192: level. Their effect is to renormalize the chemical potential
193: $\mu$ from $U/2$ to $0$. Eq.~(\ref{action1}) then
194: corresponds to a spin-fermion model where the fermions interact with
195: their collective spin degrees of freedom ($\Delta_{\bf
196: r}{\bf\Omega}_{\bf r}$). [We now denote $\Delta_{s{\bf r}}$ by
197: $\Delta_{\bf r}$.] Below the crossover temperature $T_X$, i.e. when
198: $T\ll T_X$, low-energy excitations correspond to orientational spin
199: fluctuations described by the unit vector field ${\bf\Omega}_{\bf
200: r}$. We can then consider $\Delta_{\bf r}$ within a saddle point
201: approximation, i.e. $\Delta_{\bf r}= \Delta_0(-1)^{\bf r}$, where the
202: fluctuations of $\Delta_0$ are ignored. In order
203: to compute the fermion spectral function $A({\bf k},\omega)$, one should
204: first determine the effective action $S[{\bf\Omega}]$ of the unit
205: vector field ${\bf\Omega}$.
206:
207: \section{Spin fluctuations}
208: The effective action
209: $S[{\bf\Omega}]$ is obtained by expanding around the
210: N\'eel state. We first introduce a new field $\phi$ defined by
211: $\phi_{\bf r}=R^\dagger_{\bf r} c_{\bf r}$, where $R_{\bf r}$ is a
212: SU(2)/U(1) matrix which rotates the spin-quantization axis from
213: $\hat{\bf z}$ to ${\bf\Omega}_{\bf r}$ ($R_{\bf
214: r}\sigma_zR^\dagger_{\bf r}={\bf\Omega}_{\bf r} \cdot
215: \mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}$). In terms of this new field, the action becomes
216: \begin{eqnarray}
217: S &=& S_{\rm MF} + \sum_{\bf r} \int_0^\beta d\tau \phi^\dagger_{\bf
218: r} R^\dagger_{\bf r} \partial_\tau R_{\bf r} \phi_{\bf r}
219: \nonumber \\ &&
220: -t \sum_{\langle {\bf r},{\bf r}'\rangle} \int_0^\beta d\tau
221: [\phi^\dagger_{\bf r} (R^\dagger_{\bf r}R_{{\bf r}'}-1)\phi_{{\bf r}'}
222: + {\rm c.c.}] ,
223: \label{action2}
224: \end{eqnarray}
225: where $S_{\rm MF}=S_0+\sum_{\bf r}\int d\tau (\Delta_0^2/U-\Delta_0
226: (-1)^{\bf r}\phi^\dagger_{\bf r}\sigma_z\phi_{\bf r})$. Within a saddle-point
227: approximation with ${\bf\Omega}_{\bf r}=\hat {\bf z}$ ($R_{\bf r}=1$),
228: i.e. ignoring spin fluctuations, one
229: recovers the mean-field action $S_{\rm MF}$ of
230: the N\'eel state. The value of the order parameter,
231: $\Delta_0=(U/2)(-1)^{\bf r}\langle \phi^\dagger_{\bf r}\sigma_z \phi_{\bf
232: r}\rangle$, is obtained by minimizing the free energy. In the weak-coupling
233: limit, this gives $\Delta_0\sim te^{-2\pi\sqrt{t/U}}$.
234: \cite{Schrieffer89}
235:
236: Low-energy spin excitations correspond to fluctuations of the unit
237: vector field ${\bf\Omega}_{\bf r}$ around its saddle-point value. The
238: standard procedure\cite{Haldane83,Weng91,Schulz90} is then to assume
239: at least local AF order and write
240: ${\bf\Omega}_{\bf r}={\bf n}_{\bf r}(1-{\bf L}^2_{\bf
241: r})^{1/2}+(-1)^{\bf r}{\bf L}_{\bf r}$, where the (N\'eel) order parameter
242: field ${\bf n}_{\bf r}$ is slowly varying in space and time and ${\bf
243: L}_{\bf r}$ is a small canting field ($|{\bf n}_{\bf r}|=1$,
244: ${\bf L}_{\bf r}\cdot {\bf
245: n}_{\bf r}=0$ and $|{\bf L}_{\bf r}|\ll 1$). Integrating out both $\phi$ and
246: ${\bf L}$ yields the action of the NL$\sigma$M.
247: \cite{Schulz90,Borejsza01} In the strong-coupling limit $U\gg t$, one
248: recovers the action derived from the Heisenberg model.
249:
250: As we now verify explicitly, the small canting field ${\bf L}_{\bf r}$
251: gives negligible contributions to the parameters of the NL$\sigma$M
252: in the weak-coupling limit $U\ll t$. If we identify ${\bf\Omega}_{\bf
253: r}$ with the slowly varying N\'eel field, ${\bf\Omega}_{\bf
254: r}\approx {\bf n}_{\bf r}$, the effective action $S[{\bf n}]$ is
255: readily obtained.
256: Integrating out the fermions in Eq.~(\ref{action2}) and taking the
257: continuum limit in space, one obtains to
258: lowest-order in gradient (i.e. in $\partial_\tau R$ and
259: $\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}_{\bf r}R$) \cite{Dupuis00}
260: \begin{equation}
261: S[{\bf n}] = \frac{1}{2} \int d^2r d\tau \bigl[ \chi^0_\perp
262: (\partial_\tau {\bf n})^2+ \rho_s^0 (\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}_{\bf r}
263: {\bf n})^2 \bigr],
264: \label{action3}
265: \end{equation}
266: where $\chi^0_\perp$ is the uniform transverse spin susceptibility in
267: the mean-field state and $\rho_s^0=-(\langle
268: K\rangle_{\rm MF}/2+\Pi^0_\perp)/4$ the spin stiffness. Here $\langle
269: K\rangle_{\rm MF}$
270: is the mean-value of the kinetic energy and $\Pi^0_\perp$ the
271: correlation function of the transverse spin current ($j^x$ or
272: $j^y$). Eq.~(\ref{action3}) should be supplemented with a
273: short-distance cutoff (in momentum space) $\Lambda\sim \xi^{-1}_0$, since
274: short-range AF order cannot be defined at length scales smaller that
275: the coherence length $\xi_0\sim t/\Delta_0$. Using the mean-field
276: action $S_{\rm MF}$, one obtains ($N$ is the number of lattice sites)
277: \begin{eqnarray}
278: \chi^0_\perp &=& \frac{\Delta_0^2}{4N} \sum_{\bf k} \frac{1}{E^3_{\bf
279: k}} \sim \frac{1}{t} \sqrt{\frac{t}{U}} , \label{chi0} \\
280: \rho^0_s &=& \frac{t^2\Delta_0^2}{N} \sum_{\bf k} \frac{\sin
281: ^2k_x}{E^3_{\bf k}} \sim t, \label{rho0}
282: \end{eqnarray}
283: where $E_{\bf k}=(\epsilon^2_{\bf k}+\Delta_0^2)^{1/2}$ is the
284: Bogoliubov quasi-particle excitation energy in the mean-field state
285: ($\epsilon_{\bf k}=-2t(\cos k_x+\cos k_y)$ is the dispersion of the
286: free fermions). We can verify that Eqs.~(\ref{action3}-\ref{rho0}) can
287: be directly obtained from the results of
288: Refs.~\cite{Schulz90,Borejsza01} in the weak-coupling limit ($U\ll t$).
289: The value of the spin-wave velocity $c=\sqrt{\rho^0_s/\chi^0_\perp}\sim
290: t(U/t)^{1/4}$ also agrees with the weak-coupling limit of the RPA result.
291: \cite{Chubukov92} The approximation ${\bf\Omega}_{\bf r}\approx {\bf
292: n}_{\bf r}$ is
293: therefore justified when $U\ll t$. While it restricts the validity of
294: our approach to the weak-coupling limit, it makes the computation of
295: fermionic correlation functions considerably simpler, since the
296: fermions couple directly to the N\'eel field [see Eq.~(\ref{action1})].
297:
298: We solve the NL$\sigma$M within a ``large-$\cal N$'' approach
299: by extending the number of components of the unit vector
300: ${\bf n}_{\bf r}$ from 3 to $\cal N$. When $\cal N\to \infty$, the
301: action (\ref{action3}) can be solved exactly by a
302: saddle-point method. \cite{Sachdev} Fig.~1 shows the resulting
303: crossover diagram
304: as a function of the dimensionless coupling constant $\bar g=\Lambda
305: g= \Lambda c{\cal N}/\rho^0_s$ of the NL$\sigma$M. In the
306: weak-coupling limit of the Hubbard model ($U\ll t$), $\bar
307: g=c\Delta_0{\cal N}/(\rho^0_st) \propto
308: e^{-2\pi\sqrt{t/U}}$ is exponentially small. This implies that the
309: ground state has AF long-range order with very weak quantum
310: fluctuations. This magnetic order persists in the strong-coupling
311: regime ($U\gg t$) where\cite{Schulz90} $\bar g\stackrel{\textstyle
312: <}{\sim} \bar g_c=4\pi$ (see Fig.~1) in agreement with conclusions
313: based on the Heisenberg model (for a square lattice). At finite
314: temperature, magnetic
315: long-range order is suppressed as required by the Mermin-Wagner
316: theorem. The dominant fluctuations are classical since the gap $m$ in
317: the spin excitation spectrum (see below) is much smaller than the temperature
318: (this regime is known as ``renormalized classical'' in the literature
319: \cite{Chakravarty89}).
320:
321: Since we are primarily interested in the fermion spectral function $A({\bf
322: k},\omega)$ at finite temperature, we shall consider the action
323: $S[{\bf n}]$ in this regime. In the large-$\cal N$ limit, it reads
324: \begin{equation}
325: S[{\bf n}] = \frac{\cal N}{2gc} \sum_{{\bf q},\omega_\nu}
326: (\omega_\nu^2+c^2q^2+m^2) |{\bf n}({\bf q},i\omega_\nu)|^2 ,
327: \label{action4}
328: \end{equation}
329: where we have introduced the Fourier transformed field ${\bf n}({\bf
330: q},i\omega_\nu)$ ($\omega_\nu$ is a bosonic Matsubara frequency). The
331: length of the vector ${\bf n}_{\bf r}$ is no
332: longer fixed to unity. In the large-$\cal N$ solution, the constraint
333: $|{\bf n}_{\bf r}|=1$ is imposed only on average (via the Lagrange multiplier
334: $m$).\cite{Sachdev} The mass $m$ of the spin fluctuation propagator
335: ($\alpha=1\cdots \cal N$)
336: \begin{eqnarray}
337: \chi({\bf q},i\omega_\nu) &=& \langle {\bf n}_\alpha({\bf q},i\omega_\nu)
338: {\bf n}_\alpha(-{\bf q},-i\omega_\nu) \rangle \nonumber \\
339: &=& \frac{gc/{\cal N}}{\omega_\nu^2+c^2q^2+m^2}
340: \label{chi}
341: \end{eqnarray}
342: is determined by the saddle-point equation
343: \begin{equation}
344: 1=gc\frac{T}{N}\sum_{{\bf q},\omega_\nu}
345: \frac{1}{\omega_\nu^2+c^2q^2+m^2}.
346: \label{SP}
347: \end{equation}
348: In the renormalized classical regime, we can neglect quantum
349: fluctuations. This approximation is excellent in the weak-coupling
350: regime ($U\ll t$) since quantum fluctuations are weak ($\bar g\ll \bar
351: g_c$, see Fig.~1). From Eq.~(\ref{SP}), we then obtain the AF coherence
352: length $\xi=c/m\sim \Lambda^{-1} \exp(2\pi\rho^0_s/{\cal N}T)$.
353:
354: Note that we expect also a term $m^2|\omega_\nu|/\omega_{\rm sf}$ in
355: the denominator in Eq.~(\ref{chi}). This term comes from the damping
356: of spin fluctuations by gapless fermion excitations. \cite{Millis90} It is
357: missed in our approach since we expand around the zero-temperature AF
358: state which has only
359: gapped quasi-particle excitations. Fluctuations are classical when
360: $m\ll T$ and $\omega_{\rm sf}\ll T$. Both conditions are satisfied
361: in the renormalized classical regime ($T\ll T_X$) since $\omega_{\rm
362: sf}\sim \xi^{-2}\to 0$ (critical slowing down).
363: \cite{Vilk97,Vilk97a,Millis90}
364:
365: \section{Spectral function}
366:
367: Knowing the effective action $S[{\bf n}]$ of
368: the spin excitations [Eq.~(\ref{action4})], we are now in a position
369: to compute the spectral function $A({\bf k},\omega)=-\pi^{-1}{\rm
370: Im}G({\bf k},\omega)$ from the spin-fermion model
371: (\ref{action1}). Here $G({\bf k},\omega)$ denotes the retarded part of
372: the fermionic Green's function. By integrating first the fermions and
373: then the spin fluctuations, we can write the Green's function as
374: \begin{equation}
375: G({\bf r}-{\bf r}',\tau-\tau') = \frac{1}{Z} \int {\cal D}[{\bf n}]
376: e^{-S[{\bf n}]} G({\bf r},\tau;{\bf r}',\tau'|{\bf n}) .
377: \label{GF}
378: \end{equation}
379: $G({\bf r},\tau;{\bf r}',\tau'|{\bf n})$ is the Green's function
380: for a given configuration of ${\bf n}$: $G^{-1}[{\bf n}]=
381: G_0^{-1}+\Delta_0(-1)^{\bf r} \mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}\cdot{\bf n}_{\bf r}$,
382: where $G_0$ is the Green's function of the free fermions. Since
383: $S[{\bf n}]$ is Gaussian in the large-$\cal N$ limit, the averaging in
384: Eq.~(\ref{GF}) is
385: easily done. The result can be written as $G^{-1}({\bf k},i\omega_n)
386: =G_0^{-1}({\bf k},i\omega_n)-\Sigma({\bf k},i\omega_n)$ ($\omega_n$ is
387: a fermionic Matsubara frequency).
388:
389: We consider the lowest-order contribution to the self energy $\Sigma$
390: (Fig.~2):
391: \begin{eqnarray}
392: \Sigma({\bf k},i\omega_n) &=& \Delta^2_0 \frac{T}{N} \sum_{{\bf
393: q},\omega_\nu} {\cal N} \chi({\bf q},i\omega_\nu)
394: G_0({\bf k}-{\bf Q}-{\bf q},i\omega_n-i\omega_\nu) \nonumber \\
395: & \simeq & \Delta_0^2 \frac{gT}{cN} \sum_{\bf q}
396: \frac{1}{q^2+\xi^{-2}} \frac{1}{i\omega_n-\epsilon_{{\bf k}-{\bf
397: Q}-{\bf q}}} ,
398: \label{Sig1}
399: \end{eqnarray}
400: where the last line has been obtained in the classical limit
401: ($\omega_\nu=0$) and ${\bf Q}=(\pi,\pi)$. At low temperature when
402: $\xi\to\infty$, the sum over
403: ${\bf q}$ in Eq.~(\ref{Sig1}) diverges in 2D due to the contribution of
404: long wavelengths (${\bf q}\sim 0$). We can therefore expand
405: $-\epsilon_{{\bf k}-{\bf Q}-{\bf q}}=\epsilon_{{\bf k}-{\bf
406: q}}\simeq \epsilon_{\bf k}-{\bf v}_{\bf k}\cdot {\bf q}$ around ${\bf
407: q}=0$ (${\bf v}_{\bf k}$ is the velocity of the free
408: fermions). Let us first consider a particle at the Fermi
409: level. One easily finds that the imaginary part of the retarded
410: self-energy ($i\omega_n\to \omega+i0^+$) takes the form
411: \begin{equation}
412: \Sigma''({\bf k}_F,\omega=0) \approx -
413: \frac{\Delta_0^2\xi}{\rho_s^0\xi_{\rm th}} \propto -T\xi ,
414: \end{equation}
415: where $\xi_{\rm th}=|{\bf v}_{\bf k}|/T$ is the De Broglie thermal
416: wavelength. Since $\xi$ grows exponentially below $T_X$, it quickly
417: becomes larger than $\xi_{\rm th}$. As a result,
418: $\lim_{T\to 0} \xi/\xi_{\rm th}=\infty$ and $\Sigma''({\bf
419: k}_F,\omega=0)$ diverges at low temperature in contradiction with
420: the Fermi-liquid theory hypothesis. Thus, the lowest-order perturbation
421: result shows that quasi-particles are suppressed by spin fluctuations
422: when $T\ll T_X$. This phenomenon is accompanied by the formation of a
423: pseudogap. For $|\omega+\epsilon_{\bf k}|\gg |{\bf v}_{\bf k}|/\xi$, the
424: real and imaginary parts of the self-energy are given by\cite{note3}
425: \begin{equation}
426: \Sigma'({\bf k},\omega)\simeq \frac{\Delta_0^2}{\omega+\epsilon_{\bf k}} ,
427: \,\,\,\, \Sigma''({\bf k},\omega)\simeq -\frac{3\Delta_0^2T}{4\pi
428: \rho_s^0|\omega+\epsilon_{\bf k}|} .
429: \label{Sig2}
430: \end{equation}
431: Note that the condition $|\omega+\epsilon_{\bf k}|\gg |{\bf v}_{\bf
432: k}|/\xi$ is satisfied for any value of $\omega$ except in an
433: exponentially small window around $\omega=-\epsilon_{\bf k}$. From
434: Eq.~(\ref{Sig2}), we deduce the spectral function
435: \begin{equation}
436: A({\bf k},\omega) = \frac{\gamma}{\pi} \frac{|\omega+\epsilon_{\bf
437: k}|}{(\omega^2-E_{\bf k}^2)^2+\gamma^2} , \,\,\,\, \gamma \approx
438: \frac{3\Delta_0^2T}{4\pi\rho_s^0} .
439: \label{sf}
440: \end{equation}
441: $A({\bf k},\omega)$ exhibits two peaks at $\pm E_{\bf k}$ that are
442: precursors of the AF bands that exist in the $T=0$ ordered state. The
443: width of these peaks is given by $\gamma/\Delta_0\sim
444: T\Delta_0/\rho_s^0\sim Te^{-2\pi\sqrt{t/U}}$. The precursors of the AF
445: bands are separated by a pseudogap. In particular $A({\bf
446: k}_F,\omega)$ vanishes at $\omega=0$.
447:
448: When $T\to 0$ ($\gamma\to 0$),
449: \begin{equation}
450: A({\bf k},\omega) \to \frac{1}{2}
451: \Bigl(1+\frac{\epsilon_{\bf k}}{E_{\bf k}}\Bigr)\delta(\omega-E_{\bf k})
452: +\frac{1}{2}
453: \Bigl(1-\frac{\epsilon_{\bf k}}{E_{\bf k}}\Bigr)\delta(\omega+E_{\bf k}),
454: \label{sf1}
455: \end{equation}
456: which is the spectral function of the $T=0$ AF state. Thus, the simple
457: self-energy (\ref{Sig1}) predicts that the pseudogap evolves smoothly
458: into the gap of the ground-state when $T\to 0$. It should be noted that
459: neglecting quantum fluctuations is justified only at low energy
460: $|\omega|<T$. In particular, the precise location of the peaks around
461: $\pm\Delta_0$ should depend on quantum fluctuations since
462: $\Delta_0\sim T_X\gg T$.
463:
464: The spectral function $A({\bf k},\omega)$ [Eq.~(\ref{sf})] is similar
465: to the result of the TPSC theory. \cite{Vilk96,Vilk97,Vilk97a} In the latter,
466: the position of the maxima in $A({\bf k}_F,\omega)$ scales with the
467: zero-temperature gap, \cite{Dare96,note4} and the width of these two peaks is
468: proportional to $T$. \cite{Vilk96,Vilk97,Vilk97a} These two features agree
469: with our conclusions. This similarity is not surprising since in both
470: approaches a
471: paramagnon-like self-energy [Eq.~(\ref{Sig1})] with a similar spin
472: susceptibility [Eq.~(\ref{chi})] is used to obtain the spectral
473: function. The main difference comes from the spin fluctuation
474: propagator $\chi$. While $\chi$ comes from the
475: NL$\sigma$M (which is itself based on an expansion around the ordered
476: AF state), it is obtained by considering the paramagnetic phase in the
477: TPSC theory. As a result, the basic parameters entering the spectral function
478: $A({\bf k},\omega)$ [Eq.~(\ref{sf})], namely the $T=0$ order parameter
479: $\Delta_0$ and the $T=0$ spin stiffness $\rho^0_s$, do not appear in
480: the TPSC theory. Instead, $A({\bf k},\omega)$ is expressed only in terms of
481: the paramagnetic properties of the system.
482:
483: Two comments are in order here. The validity of Eq.~(\ref{Sig1}),
484: which does not include vertex correction, may be
485: questioned. \cite{note5} The
486: importance of these corrections is a long-standing problem which is
487: still under debate. Vertex corrections are expected to play a crucial
488: role when higher-order self-energy contributions are taken into
489: account. The FLEX approximation, which sums up contributions to all
490: order without vertex correction, does not predict the formation of a
491: pseudogap in $A({\bf k},\omega)$ at low temperature \cite{Bickers89}
492: (see Ref.~\onlinecite{Vilk97} for a detailed discussion of the FLEX
493: approximation).
494:
495: In the spin-fermion model defined by Eqs.~(\ref{action1}) and
496: (\ref{action3}), there are only two (transverse) spin excitation
497: modes, as expected when only orientational fluctuations are important
498: ($T\ll T_X$). Unfortunately, this property is lost in the large-$\cal
499: N$ limit of the NL$\sigma$M [Eq.~(\ref{action4})], where both
500: transverse and amplitude fluctuations are allowed. Following
501: Ref.~\onlinecite{Schmalian99}, $A({\bf k},\omega)$ can be obtained exactly
502: when $\xi\to\infty$ by summing all the self-energy diagrams. The result,
503: \begin{eqnarray}
504: A({\bf k},\omega) &=& \frac{3^{\frac{3}{2}}}{\sqrt{2\pi}\Delta_0^3}
505: (\omega^2-\epsilon_{\bf k}^2)^{1/2}(\omega+\epsilon_{\bf k})
506: \exp \Bigl( -\frac{3}{2}\frac{\omega^2-\epsilon^2_{\bf k}}{\Delta_0^2}
507: \Bigr)
508: \nonumber \\ && \times
509: \bigl[ \theta(\omega-|\epsilon_{\bf k}|) -
510: \theta(-\omega-|\epsilon_{\bf k}|) \bigr] ,
511: \end{eqnarray}
512: shows two broad incoherent features, located around
513: $\pm\sqrt{2/3}\Delta_0$ for $\epsilon_{\bf k}=0$, instead
514: of the correct $T=0$ limit given by Eq.~(\ref{sf1}). The correct
515: limit is obtained only when amplitude fluctuations are frozen in the limit
516: $\xi\to\infty$. \cite{Tchernyshyov99,Monien01} We therefore conclude that our
517: approach, which is based on the large-$\cal N$ solution of the
518: NL$\sigma$M, must break down at very low temperature. The fact that
519: the spectral function $A({\bf k},\omega)$ derived from the
520: lowest-order self-energy contribution does reproduce the correct
521: result when $T\to 0$ [Eq.~(\ref{sf})] appears somewhat accidental. A correct
522: treatment of the $T\to 0$ limit must freeze the amplitude
523: fluctuations of the N\'eel field ${\bf n}$.
524:
525: \section{Conclusion}
526:
527: We have described a new approach to the pseudogap in the half-filled
528: 2D Hubbard model at weak coupling. Within this approach, only
529: orientational spin fluctuations are considered, whereas fluctuations
530: of the amplitude of the local spin density are ignored. This
531: approximation is justified below a crossover temperature $T_X$ (of the
532: order of the mean-field AF transition temperature) where the AF
533: correlation length starts to grow exponentially (renormalized
534: classical regime). The effective action of spin fluctuations is then
535: given by a NL$\sigma$M. Solving the NL$\sigma$M within a ``large-$\cal
536: N$'' approach, we find that the ground-state of the Hubbard model on a
537: square lattice is antiferromagnetic (N\'eel order) for any value of
538: the Coulomb interaction $U$ (Fig.~1). \cite{Schulz90}
539:
540: We have obtained the fermion spectral function $A({\bf k},\omega)$ in
541: the weak-coupling limit by computing the self-energy $\Sigma({\bf
542: k},\omega)$ to lowest order in the spin-fermion interaction
543: (Fig.~2). The QP peak which characterizes the Fermi liquid state is
544: suppressed by spin fluctuation when $T\ll T_X$. Instead, $A({\bf
545: k},\omega)$ exhibits a pseudogap separating two broadened
546: peaks. These peaks are precursors of the Bogoliubov QP's that appear
547: at the $T=0$ AF transition. Our results are in very good
548: agreement with those obtained by the TPSC theory.
549: \cite{Vilk96,Vilk97,Vilk97a} An important limitation of
550: our analysis comes from the large-$\cal N$ solution of the
551: NL$\sigma$M. The latter introduces amplitude fluctuations of the
552: N\'eel field which should be frozen at low temperature. As a result,
553: when going beyond the lowest-order contribution to $\Sigma({\bf
554: k},\omega)$, we do not obtain the correct $T\to 0$ limit of the
555: fermion spectral function. In Ref.~\onlinecite{Borejsza01}, we show
556: how this difficulty can be circumvented.
557:
558: There are several directions in which this work could be further
559: developed. Since the NL$\sigma$M description is valid both at weak
560: ($U \ll t$) and strong ($U\gg t$) coupling, our analysis of the
561: fermion spectral function could be extended in the regime $U\gg t$. In
562: the Mott-Hubbard insulator, we expect the pseudogap to transform into
563: a (charge) gap of order $U$, the precursors of the $T=0$ AF bands
564: becoming the upper and lower Hubbard bands.
565:
566: It is also possible to consider variants of the square lattice Hubbard
567: model [Eq.~\ref{Ham}] where antiferromagnetism becomes frustrated. This
568: would be the case for the $t-t'$ Hubbard model ($t'$ is the hopping
569: amplitude for next-nearest neighbors) or if the lattice is triangular
570: instead of square. Doping may also induce some kind of magnetic
571: frustration. \cite{note6} This opens up the possibility to reach the quantum
572: disordered and quantum critical regimes of the NL$\sigma$M (Fig.~1)
573: and to study the corresponding fermion spectral functions.
574:
575:
576:
577: \acknowledgments
578:
579: I would like to thank A.-M. Tremblay for useful discussions and a
580: critical reading of the manuscript.
581:
582:
583: \begin{thebibliography}{0}
584:
585: \bibitem{Timusk99} T. Timusk and B. Statt, Rep. Prog. Phys. 62, 61
586: (1999); J. L. Tallon and J. W. Loram, Physica C, 349, 53 (2001).
587:
588: \bibitem{note1} Note that the pseudogap issue resurfaces in the
589: strong-coupling limit when the system is doped away from
590: half-filling. It is generally believed that the spectral function of
591: the doped holes exhibits a pseudogap governed by the energy scale $J$.
592:
593: \bibitem{Vilk97} Y.M. Vilk and A.-M.S. Tremblay, J. Phys. I (France)
594: {\bf 7}, 1309 (1997).
595:
596: \bibitem{Bickers89} N.E. Bickers and D.J. Scalapino, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)
597: {\bf 193}, 206 (1989); M. Langer, J. Schmalian, S. Grabowski and
598: K.H. Bennemann, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75}, 4508 (1995); J.J Deisz,
599: D.W. Hess and J.W. Serene, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 76}, 1312 (1996).
600:
601: \bibitem{Vilk96} Y.M. Vilk and A.-M.S. Tremblay, EuroPhys. Lett. {\bf
602: 33}, 159 (1996).
603:
604: \bibitem{Vilk97a} Y.M. Vilk, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 55}, 3870 (1997).
605:
606: %\bibitem{Kampf89} A.P. Kampf and J.R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. B {\bf
607: % 41}, 6399 (1989); Phys. Rev. B {\bf 42}, 7967 (1990).
608:
609: \bibitem{Schulz90} H.J. Schulz, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 65}, 2462
610: (1990); H.J. Schulz in {\it The Hubbard Model}, edited by D. Baeriswyl
611: ${\it et \, al.}$, (Plenum Press, New York, 1995).
612:
613: \bibitem{Weng91} Z.Y. Weng, C.S. Ting and T.K. Lee, Phys. Rev. B {\bf
614: 43}, 3790 (1991).
615:
616: \bibitem{Schrieffer89} J.R. Schrieffer, X.G. Wen, and S.C. Zhang,
617: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 39}, 11663 (1989).
618:
619: \bibitem{Haldane83} F.D.M. Haldane, Phys. Lett. {\bf 93A}, 464
620: (1983).
621:
622: \bibitem{Borejsza01} See also K. Borejsza and N. Dupuis
623: (in preparation).
624:
625: \bibitem{Dupuis00} For quasi-1D systems, this procedure is carried out
626: in detail in K. Sengupta and N. Dupuis, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 61}, 13493
627: (2000); Y. Tomio, N. Dupuis and Y. Suzumura, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 64}, 125123
628: (2001).
629:
630: \bibitem{Chubukov92} A.V. Chubukov and D.M. Frenkel, Phys. Rev. B {\bf
631: 46}, 11884 (1992).
632:
633: \bibitem{Sachdev} S. Sachdev, {\it Quantum Phase Transitions}
634: (Cambridge, 1999).
635:
636: \bibitem{Chakravarty89} S. Chakravarty, B.I. Halperin and D.R. Nelson,
637: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 39}, 2344 (1989).
638:
639: \bibitem{Millis90} A.J. Millis, H. Monien and D. Pines, Phys. Rev. B
640: {\bf 42}, 167 (1990); P. Monthoux and D. Pines, Phys. Rev. B {\bf
641: 47}, 6069 (1993).
642:
643: \bibitem{note3} An exact expression of the retarded self-energy
644: $\Sigma({\bf k},\omega)$ [Eq.~(\ref{Sig1})] can be obtained.
645: \cite{Vilk97,Vilk97a} The approximate expressions (\ref{Sig2}-\ref{sf}) are
646: nevertheless sufficient for our purpose.
647:
648: \bibitem{Dare96} A.-M. Dar\'e, Y.M. Vilk and A.-M.S. Tremblay,
649: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 53}, 14236 (1996).
650:
651: \bibitem{note4}
652: This gap differs from the mean-field gap due to the renormalization of
653: $U$ by vertex corrections. \cite{Dare96}
654:
655: \bibitem{note5} Vertex
656: corrections are included in the TPSC theory: they do not lead to any
657: qualitative change. \cite{Vilk96,Vilk97,Vilk97a}
658:
659: \bibitem{Schmalian99} J. Schmalian, D. Pines and B. Stojkovi\'c,
660: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 60}, 667 (1999).
661:
662: \bibitem{Tchernyshyov99} O. Tchernyshyov, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 59},
663: 1358 (1999).
664:
665: \bibitem{Monien01} For quasi-one-dimensional Peierls systems, the influence
666: of non-Gaussian fluctuations on the fermion spectral function has
667: been discussed by H. Monien, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 126402
668: (2001); cond-mat/0110178.
669:
670: \bibitem{note6} Doping may not be easily included in our
671: approach. When deriving the NL$\sigma$M, one should first solve the
672: Hartree-Fock theory. Away from half-filling, the Hartree-Fock
673: ground-state is not definitely known. Many suggestions can be found
674: in the literature: incommensurate spin-density wave, spiral phase,
675: stripes, etc.
676:
677:
678: \end{thebibliography}
679:
680:
681: \begin{figure}
682: \epsfxsize 8cm
683: \epsffile[40 330 340 530]{diagram.ps}
684: \caption{Crossover diagram derived from the large-$\cal N$ limit of the 2D
685: NL$\sigma$M. At $T=0$, there is long-range order when the
686: dimensionless coupling $\bar g\leq \bar g_c=4\pi$. The three
687: finite-temperature regimes correspond to ``renormalized classical''
688: (RC), ``quantum critical'' (QC) and ``quantum disordered'' (QD).
689: \cite{Chakravarty89} The ground-state of the half-filled 2D Hubbard
690: model on a square lattice is
691: ordered for any value of the Coulomb repulsion $U$. At finite
692: temperature, there are strong AF fluctuations with
693: an exponentially large coherence length (RC regime). }
694: \label{Fig1}
695: \end{figure}
696:
697: \begin{figure}
698: \epsffile[220 360 400 440]{self.ps}
699: \caption{Lowest-order contribution to the fermion self-energy $\Sigma$. The
700: dashed line represents the spin propagator $\chi$ [Eq.~(\ref{chi})]. }
701: \label{Fig2}
702: \end{figure}
703:
704: \ecols
705:
706: \end{document}
707: