1: \documentclass[twocolumn,aps,prb,amsmath,floatfix]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \begin{document}
4: \title{Coulomb Correlations and Orbital Polarization
5: in the Metal Insulator Transition of VO$_2$}
6: \author{A. Liebsch$^1$, H. Ishida$^2$, and G. Bihlmayer$^1$}
7: \affiliation{
8: \mbox{
9: $^1$Institut f\"ur Festk\"orperforschung,~Forschungszentrum J\"ulich,
10: ~52425 J\"ulich, Germany} \\
11: \mbox{
12: $^2$College of Humanities and Sciences, Nihon University,~Sakura-josui,
13: ~Tokyo 156, Japan} \\
14: }
15: \begin{abstract}
16: The quasi-particle spectra in the metallic rutile and insulating
17: monoclinic phases of VO$_2$ are shown to be dominated by local Coulomb
18: interactions. In the rutile phase the small orbital polarization among
19: V $3d$ $t_{2g}$ states leads to weak static but strong dynamical
20: correlations. In the monoclinic phase the large $3d$ orbital polarization
21: caused by the V--V Peierls distortion gives rise to strong static
22: correlations which are shown to be the primary cause of the insulating
23: behavior.
24: \\ \\
25: PACS numbers: 71.20.Be, 71.27.+a. 79.60.Bm
26: \end{abstract}
27: \maketitle
28:
29: \section{Introduction}
30:
31: The metal insulator transition in VO$_2$ has been intensively studied
32: for a long time. At 340 K the resistivity changes by several orders
33: of magnitude.\cite{morin} The high-temperature metallic phase has a
34: rutile structure, while the low-temperature insulating phase is
35: monoclinic ($M_1$), with a zigzag-type pairing of V atoms along the
36: $c$ axis. Both phases are non-magnetic. Although this transition
37: is widely regarded as a Mott-Hubbard transition,
38: \cite{pouget,zilbersztejn,mott,rice}
39: the role of the Peierls distortion of the crystal structure in the
40: insulating phase has been the topic of intense debate.\cite{goodenough,%
41: caruthers,wentzcovitch,eyert,huang,korotin,continenza,laad}
42: The discovery of a second insulating phase ($M_2$),
43: \cite{pouget} in which only half of the V atoms form pairs while the
44: other evenly spaced chains behave as magnetic insulators, suggested
45: that both low temperature phases should be regarded as Mott-Hubbard
46: and not as Peierls band insulators.\cite{zilbersztejn,rice}
47: Although the role of the Coulomb interaction in the metal insulator
48: transition of VO$_2$ has been studied previously,
49: \cite{huang,korotin,continenza,laad} a consistent description of
50: the rutile and monoclinic phases is not yet available.
51:
52: The aim of the present work is to elucidate the interplay of Coulomb
53: correlations and orbital polarization in the quasi-particle spectra
54: of VO$_2$. Analyzing recent photoemission data\cite{okazaki,tjeng}
55: we demonstrate that the metallic and insulating phases show evidence
56: of strong local interactions which manifest themselves in distinctly
57: different ways because of the different degree of orbital polarization
58: in the rutile and monoclinic structures. The key aspect of the metallic
59: phase is the small orbital polarization among V $3d$ $t_{2g}$ states,
60: implying weak static but strong dynamical correlations. Thus, the
61: spectra reveal band narrowing and reduced weight of the coherent peak
62: near the Fermi level, and an incoherent satellite feature associated
63: with the lower Hubbard band. The monoclinic phase, in contrast, is
64: characterized by a pronounced $t_{2g}$ orbital polarization induced
65: by the V--V Peierls distortion. The local Coulomb interaction
66: therefore leads to strong static correlations and to the opening of
67: an excitation gap. The influence of non-diagonal coupling
68: among $t_{2g}$ orbitals on the size of the gap is investigated
69: within the static limit and is found to be small.
70:
71: In the following sections we discuss results obtained within several
72: theoretical approaches, such as the dynamical mean field theory
73: (DMFT)\cite{DMFT}, the local density
74: approximation plus Hubbard $U$ (LDA+U)\cite{LDA+U} and $GW$\cite{GW}
75: methods. We argue that none is presently capable of explaining all
76: of the observed phenomena in a consistent manner. Instead, we
77: focus on the merits and failures of these approaches with the aim
78: of highlighting the different roles of Coulomb correlations and
79: orbital polarization in the metallic and insulating phases of VO$_2$.
80:
81: \section{Results and Discussion}
82:
83: \begin{figure}[t!]%1
84: \begin{center}
85: \includegraphics[width=4.5cm,height=7cm,angle=-90]{Fig1.ps}
86: \end{center}
87: \vskip-3mm
88: \caption{
89: Measured photoemission spectra for VO$_2$ films on TiO$_2$ in the V $3d$
90: band region after background subtraction. Solid curve: $T = 350$\,K
91: (metallic rutile phase); dashed curve: $T = 250$\,K (insulating monoclinic
92: phase); $E_F=0$. \cite{okazaki}
93: }\end{figure}
94:
95: Fig.~1 shows photoemission spectra for VO$_2$ films (150 \AA\ thick)
96: grown on TiO$_2$(001) at binding energies corresponding to the
97: V $3d$ bands (21.2~eV photon energy).\cite{okazaki} Emission from
98: O $2p$ states extends from $-2$\,eV to about $-8$\,eV. As a result of
99: compressive stress from the substrate \cite{muraoka}
100: the transition temperature is lowered from 340~K to 290~K. The high
101: temperature spectrum shows a Fermi edge characteristic of metallic
102: behavior which is absent in the low temperature spectrum. While this
103: trend is in agreement
104: with previous photoemission measurements,\cite{PES,shin} the data in Fig.~1
105: reveal two spectral features in the metallic phase: a peak close to $E_F$
106: and a second one near $-1$\,eV. In the insulating phase, the peak near
107: $E_F$ disappears and the feature near $-1$\,eV becomes more intense. Recent
108: VO$_2$ photoemission spectra taken at 520 eV photon energy \cite{tjeng}
109: agree with the ones shown in Fig.~1, except for a considerably greater
110: relative weight of the coherent peak near $E_F$ in the metallic phase.
111: These spectral changes are consistent with the observation that satellite
112: peaks in low photon energy spectra tend to be more pronounced as a result
113: of a surface induced enhancement of Coulomb correlations.
114: \cite{maiti,sekiyama,liebsch03}
115:
116: Before analyzing the photoemission data we discuss the
117: single particle properties of VO$_2$ obtained using density functional
118: theory. We have carried out full potential linearized augmented plane wave
119: (LAPW) calculations for the rutile and monoclinic structures using the
120: experimental lattice parameters and treating exchange correlation within
121: the generalized gradient approximation (GGA).\cite{perdew}
122: Due to the octahedral crystal field, the states near $E_F$
123: have V $3d$ $t_{2g}$ character. They are separated by a
124: small gap from the empty $e_{g}$ states, and from the O $2p$
125: states by a gap of about 1.0~eV. The occupancy of the $t_{2g}$ manifold
126: is $3d^1$. Our results qualitatively confirm previous LDA calculations.
127: \cite{wentzcovitch,eyert,huang,korotin}
128: Fig.~2(a) shows a comparison of the V total $t_{2g}$ density of states
129: for the rutile and monoclinic phases of VO$_2$. Although there are
130: differences in detail, the overall width of these distributions and
131: the shape of the occupied region are similar for both structures.
132: Evidently, the GGA/LDA does not predict the insulating nature
133: of the monoclinic phase. Moreover, on the basis of these densities
134: one would not expect correlations to play very different roles in
135: the two phases. However, if we plot the subband contributions to the
136: $t_{2g}$ density, the two structures are very different, as shown in
137: Figs.~2(b) and (c). Whereas in the rutile phase the $t_{2g}$ bands
138: have similar occupation numbers,
139: % Eyert: $(n_{x^2-y^2},n_{xz},n_{yz})=(0.46,0.34,0.20)$,
140: % $(n_{x^2-y^2},n_{xz},n_{yz})=(0.38,0.26,0.36)$,
141: in the monoclinic phase the $d_{x^2-y^2}$ band is significantly more
142: occupied than the $d_{xz,yz}$ bands.
143: % Eyert: $(n_{x^2-y^2},n_{xz},n_{yz})=(0.76,0.14,0.10)$.
144: % $(n_{x^2-y^2},n_{xz},n_{yz})=(0.68,0.17,0.15)$.
145: (We adopt the local coordinate system of Ref.~\onlinecite{goodenough}, i.e.,
146: $x$ denotes the $c$ axis, while $y$ and $z$ point along the diagonals
147: of the $a,b$ plane.) The origin of this orbital polarization is the
148: V--V dimerization along the $c$ axis.
149: The $d_{x^2-y^2}$ band splits into bonding and anti-bonding components,
150: while the $d_{xz,yz}$ bands are pushed upwards due to shortening of V-O
151: distances. Investigation of the energy bands shows that, in agreement
152: with earlier work,\cite{wentzcovitch,eyert} the top of the bonding
153: $d_{x^2-y^2}$ bands is separated by a slight negative gap from the
154: bottom of the $d_{xz,yz}$ bands. In the following subsection we show
155: that different degree of orbital polarization in the rutile and
156: monoclinic phases has a pronounced effect on the quasi-particle
157: spectra of VO$_2$.
158:
159:
160: \begin{figure}[t!]%1
161: \begin{center}
162: \includegraphics[width=4.5cm,height=7cm,angle=-90]{Fig2a.ps}
163: \includegraphics[width=4.5cm,height=7cm,angle=-90]{Fig2b.ps}
164: \includegraphics[width=4.5cm,height=7cm,angle=-90]{Fig2c.ps}
165: \end{center}
166: \vskip-4mm
167: \caption{
168: VO$_2$ $3d$ density of states calculated within LAPW method.
169: (a) Total $t_{2g}$ densities for rutile and monoclinic phases;
170: (b) and (c) $t_{2g}$ density of states components for rutile and
171: monoclinic phases; $E_F=0$.
172: }\end{figure}
173:
174: \subsection{Metallic Rutile Phase}
175:
176: Let us first discuss the rutile phase. Comparing the $t_{2g}$ density
177: of states with the photoemission spectra it is plausible to associate
178: the feature close to $E_F$ with emission from metallic V $3d$ states.
179: The peak near $-1$\,eV, however, lies in the gap between V $3d$ and O
180: $2p$ states and cannot be understood within the single particle picture.
181: To describe the spectra in the rutile phase it is clearly necessary to
182: account for dynamical Coulomb correlations. For the evaluation of the
183: quasi-particle distributions we use the Dynamical Mean Field Theory
184: combined with the multiband Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) method.
185: \cite{DMFT} Since hybridization among $t_{2g}$ states is weak the
186: local self-energy is taken as diagonal in orbital space. The $t_{2g}$
187: density of states components shown in Fig.~2(b) then serve as input
188: quantities accounting for the single particle properties of the rutile
189: structure. The local Coulomb interaction defining the quantum impurity
190: problem is characterized by intra- and inter-orbital matrix elements $U$
191: and $U'=U-2J$, where $J$ is the Hund's rule exchange integral.
192: According to constrained LDA calculations, $U\approx4.2$\,eV and
193: $J\approx0.8$\,eV.\cite{korotin,UJ} The calculations are performed
194: at $T\approx500 $~K with up to $10^6$ sweeps. The quasi-particle
195: distributions are obtained via maximum entropy reconstruction.
196: \cite{jarrell}
197:
198: Fig.~3(a) shows that, in contrast to the single particle density of
199: states, the calculated $t_{2g}$ quasi-particle spectra for the rutile
200: phase of VO$_2$ exhibit two spectral features, a coherent peak near
201: $E_F$ and a lower Hubbard band near $-1$\,eV, in agreement with
202: experiment. The peak near $E_F$ accounts for the band narrowing and
203: lifetime broadening of the metallic states whereas the Hubbard band
204: is associated with incoherent emission. Since the $t_{2g}$ subbands
205: have comparable single particle distributions their quasi-particle
206: spectra reveal similar correlation features. Moreover, because of the
207: weak orbital polarization in the rutile structure static correlations
208: are negligible. Thus, in the metallic phase the spectral weight
209: transfer between coherent and incoherent contributions to the
210: spectrum is primarily the result of dynamical correlations.
211:
212: We point out that, in view of the approximate nature of the model
213: underlying the DMFT, quantitative agreement with photoemission data
214: cannot be expected. On the theoretical side, the consideration of
215: purely on-site Coulomb interactions and the neglect of the momentum
216: variation of the self-energy permit only a qualitative analysis of
217: the spectra. In addition, there exists some uncertainty regarding
218: the precise values of the Coulomb and exchange energies. Finally, the
219: DMFT results depend on the temperature used in the QMC calculation.
220: The comparison with results obtained for slightly different values of
221: $U$, $J$ and $T$, however, gives us confidence that in the metallic
222: phase the transfer of spectral weight from the coherent peak near
223: $E_F$ to the satellite region near $-1$~eV is qualitatively reliable
224: and consistent with analogous dynamical correlation effects in other
225: $3d^1$ transition metal oxides, such as SrVO$_3$.
226: \cite{sekiyama,liebsch03,pavarini}
227: As we discuss below, the local DMFT treatment predicts the monoclinic
228: phase to be also metallic. The metal insulator
229: transition in VO$_2$ is therefore not achieved simply by lowering the
230: temperature in the rutile phase. The lattice transformation from
231: the rutile to monoclinic structure must be taken into account.
232: Therefore, the DMFT results shown in Fig.~3(a) for the rutile
233: structure at $T=500$~K can be regarded as representative of
234: correlation induced behavior in the metallic domain.
235:
236: On the experimental side, as pointed out above, it is important to
237: recall that photoemission data taken at low photon energies represent
238: a superposition of bulk and surface contributions. Since correlation
239: effects are observed to be more enhanced at surfaces,
240: \cite{maiti,sekiyama,liebsch03} the relative intensity of the
241: satellite peak near $-1$\,eV in the 21.2~eV spectra shown in Fig.~1
242: is considerably more pronounced than at high photon energies
243: \cite{tjeng} at which primarily bulk-like valence states are detected.
244:
245: Dynamical effects in the metallic phase may also be evaluated within
246: the $GW$ approach \cite{GW} which treats long range Coulomb interactions
247: in the random phase approximation (RPA) and which has proven rather
248: useful to describe excitation spectra of weakly correlated systems.
249: \cite{GWreview}
250: Because of the neglect of multiple electron-electron and hole-hole
251: scattering processes, this scheme fails when local Coulomb interactions
252: are important.\cite{gunnarsson} Presumably, therefore, for VO$_2$ the
253: GW method does not reproduce the lower Hubbard band. The satellite in
254: the rutile phase is, of course, also beyond the scope of the static
255: LDA+U approach.\cite{comment} The qualitative agreement between the
256: measured high-temperature spectra and the theoretical results shown
257: in Fig.~2(a) suggests that the DMFT captures the key spectral weight
258: rearrangement induced by dynamical correlations.
259:
260: \begin{figure}[t!]%1
261: \begin{center}
262: \includegraphics[width=4.5cm,height=7cm,angle=-90]{Fig3a.ps}
263: \includegraphics[width=4.5cm,height=7cm,angle=-90]{Fig3b.ps}
264: \includegraphics[width=4.5cm,height=7cm,angle=-90]{Fig3c.ps}
265: \end{center}
266: \vskip-4mm
267: \caption{
268: (a) VO$_2$ $t_{2g}$ quasi-particle spectra for rutile phase calculated
269: within DMFT; (b) $t_{2g}$ partial density of states for monoclinic
270: phase calculated within LDA+U; (c) monoclinic density of states
271: calculated within non-diagonal (solid curve) and diagonal (dashed curve)
272: versions of the LDA+U; see text.
273: Note the different energy scales.
274: }\end{figure}
275:
276: \subsection{Insulating Monoclinic Phase}
277:
278: Turning now to the monoclinic phase we first calculated the $t_{2g}$
279: quasi-particle spectra within the DMFT. Because of the orbital
280: polarization caused by the V--V Peierls distortion, correlation effects
281: in the $d_{x^2-y^2}$ band are now stronger so that the intensity of the
282: lower Hubbard band is enhanced compared to the rutile phase (not shown).
283: While this trend agrees with the photoemission data, the coherent peak
284: near $E_F$ persists. Thus, the single-site DMFT based on a diagonal
285: self-energy does not reproduce the insulating nature of the monoclinic
286: phase.\cite{heldVO2} This failure is in striking contrast to the results
287: obtained within the LDA+U and $GW$ methods.\cite{huang,continenza}
288:
289: Let us discuss first the LDA+U approach. In this scheme different
290: orbital occupations give rise to orbital dependent potential terms
291: which shift different $t_{2g}$ bands in opposite directions. Thus,
292: orbital polarization leads to strong {\it static} correlation
293: effects. Using the same Coulomb parameters as for the rutile
294: phase we find that the local density of states calculated via
295: the LAPW/LDA+U exhibits a gap of about 0.7~eV (see Fig.~3(b)), in
296: agreement with optical data \cite{shin} and previous LDA+U results.
297: \cite{huang} The bonding $d_{x^2-y^2}$ bands are now completely
298: filled and the $d_{xz,yz}$ and anti-bonding $d_{x^2-y^2}$ bands
299: are shifted upwards. Thus, the LDA orbital polarization in the
300: monoclinic phase is further increased as a result of static
301: correlations. In turn, this reduction of orbital degeneracy
302: enhances the trend towards insulating behavior.\cite{koch}
303:
304: We emphasize that the LDA+U does not provide a complete description
305: of correlation effects in the insulating phase. Essentially, it
306: amounts to a fully self-consistent, non-local treatment of static
307: screening within the dimerized structure. Genuine dynamical effects,
308: such as the spectral weight transfer from the coherent to the
309: incoherent peak as observed in the metallic phase are ignored.
310: Neverteless, since static correlations appear to be the origin of
311: the excitation gap in VO$_2$, it is instructive to inquire which
312: features of the LDA+U contribute to the opening of the gap.
313: Of particular interest is the role of the non-diagonal occupation
314: matrix $n_{\alpha\beta}$ which is the key input quantity in the
315: orbital dependent perturbation potential used in the LDA+U.
316: Recent work by Pavarini {\it et al.}~\cite{pavarini} on $3d^1$
317: perovskite materials exhibiting non-diagonal $t_{2g}$ orbital coupling
318: caused by octahedral distortions suggests that this mechanism tends
319: to suppress orbital fluctuations and to enhance insulating behavior.
320: Fig.~3(c) compares the VO$_2$ LDA+U density of states with results
321: of an approximate LDA+U treatment in which at each iteration only the
322: diagonal elements $n_{\alpha\alpha}$ are retained. The size of the gap
323: is seen to be only slightly reduced. In the case of VO$_2$, therefore,
324: non-diagonal coupling among $t_{2g}$ orbitals is evidently not the
325: main reason for the existence of the gap.
326:
327: To understand the gap formation obtained within the LDA+U, it is
328: useful to formally express the $t_{2g}$ self-energy matrix as
329: \,$\Sigma(\omega,k)=\Sigma^{\rm HF}(k)+\Delta\Sigma(\omega,k)$,
330: where $\Sigma^{\rm HF}(k)= H^{\rm LDA+U}(k)-H^{\rm LDA}(k)$
331: is real and accounts for spectral changes
332: associated with the LDA+U.\cite{HF-limit} $\Delta\Sigma(\omega,k)$
333: is complex and describes purely dynamical effects. The important
334: point is that the LDA+U includes the full momentum variation of
335: $\Sigma^{\rm HF}(k)$
336: within the true lattice geometry. Thus, in a site representation,
337: static screening processes generate finite inter-site elements
338: $\Sigma^{\rm HF}_{i\ne j}$ (each element is a matrix in orbital
339: space) even if the bare LDA+U perturbation potential is
340: site-diagonal. Thus, $\Sigma^{\rm HF}_{ij}(k)$ is more accurate
341: than the static limit of the single-site DMFT which neglects the
342: $k$ dependence and assumes the impurity environment to be
343: isotropic, i.e., $\Sigma^{\rm DMFT}_{ij}(\omega)\sim\delta_{ij}$.
344: The results shown in Fig.~3(b,c) suggest that the proper
345: evaluation of $\Sigma^{\rm HF}(k)$ within the Brillouin Zone of the
346: dimerized structure is the crucial ingredient to an adequate
347: description of the insulating behavior in VO$_2$. The LDA+U amounts
348: to a self-consistent treatment of $\Sigma^{\rm HF}(k)$ since the
349: solution of the Schr\"odinger equation imposes no restrictions on
350: how the wave functions adjust to the LDA+U potential.
351:
352: In order to go beyond static screening and include dynamical
353: correlations in the monoclinic phase a cluster extension of the DMFT
354: is most likely required. Such an extension is beyond the scope of
355: the present work. A cluster DMFT would include the crucial inter-site
356: elements $\Sigma^{\rm DMFT}_{i\ne j}(\omega)$ which arise naturally
357: in a cluster representation of the lattice and of the impurity
358: Green's functions $G(\omega)$ and $G_0(\omega)$, even for a purely
359: on-site Coulomb interaction. Preliminary results for VO$_2$ within a
360: cluster DMFT\cite{sascha} show that dynamical screening processes beyond
361: the static correlations included in the LDA+U cause a broadening
362: of the LDA+U density distribution and a shift of the main spectral
363: peak towards the Hubbard bands. Possibly, a multi-site extension
364: of the DMFT might also identify the true origin of the metal
365: insulator transition in VO$_2$, i.e., whether it is primarily
366: caused by the lattice reconstruction or by Coulomb correlations,
367: or whether these mechanisms mutually enhance each other.
368: All one can say at present is that, given the orbital polarization
369: induced by the lattice transition, Coulomb correlations have a
370: pronounced effect on the quasi-particle spectra.
371:
372: As noted above, the $GW$ approach applied to the monoclinic phase
373: of VO$_2$ also yields an excitation gap of the correct magnitude.
374: \cite{continenza} These calculations utilize a model self-energy
375: \cite{gygi} consisting of an approximate short-range contribution
376: given by the local exchange correlation potential, and a correction
377: due to incomplete screening of the Coulomb interaction. Essentially,
378: in this simplified $GW$ scheme the self-energy correction consists
379: of a ``scissor'' operator and additional, non-rigid shifts of energy
380: eigenvalues.\cite{gygi}
381: Presumably, the reason why this model self-energy yields a gap is
382: that $\Sigma(q,\omega)$ is non-local and non-diagonal in site space,
383: i.e., it includes the important static correlations in the dimerized
384: structure in a similar fashion as the LDA+U. The approximate nature
385: of the $GW$ method, in particular, the neglect of electron-electron
386: and hole-hole ladder type interactions, affects mainly the remaining
387: dynamical corrections caused by the strong local Coulomb energy.
388: An adequate treatment of these corrections would require going
389: beyond the RPA and should lead to a more realistic description
390: of the position and width of the Hubbard bands.
391:
392: An interesting additional feature observed by Okazaki {\it et al.}
393: \cite{okazaki} is the temperature dependence of the photoemission
394: spectra below the metal insulator transition. Essentially, towards
395: lower $T$ the excitation gap becomes more clearly defined and the
396: main peak near $-1$~eV gets slightly sharper. These changes, however,
397: are very small on the scale of the main discrepancy still existing
398: between the LDA+U or $GW$ results and the experimental data. At
399: present it is not clear whether cluster DMFT calculations in the
400: monoclinic phase as a function of temperature will be able to
401: explain the observed trend or whether an explicit treatment of
402: electron-phonon coupling is required.
403:
404: \section{Summary}
405:
406: The metal insulator transition in VO$_2$ appears to be remarkably
407: complex and its origins are not yet fully understood. In the present
408: work we focussed on the important role of two aspects, local Coulomb
409: correlations and orbital polarization, in the low and high temperature
410: photoemission spectra of VO$_2$.
411: Whereas the metallic phase exhibits weak static
412: and strong dynamical correlations, the monoclinic phase is dominated
413: by static Coulomb correlations. Accordingly, the rutile spectra reveal
414: a double-peak structure where the feature close to $E_F$ is identified
415: with metallic V $3d$ states and the peak near $-1$\,eV with the lower
416: Hubbard band. Since the $t_{2g}$ states in the metallic phase are
417: roughly equally occupied orbital polarization is negligible. The
418: fundamental difference in the monoclinic phase is the large orbital
419: polarization induced by the symmetry breaking due to V--V dimerization.
420: The preferential occupation of the $d_{x^2-y^2}$ bonding states implies
421: strong static correlations which are the main origin of the excitation
422: gap. It would be of great interest to study the additional dynamical
423: correlation effects in this phase within an extension of the single-site
424: DMFT approach.
425:
426:
427: A. L. likes to thank K. Okazaki, A. Fujimori, and L.H. Tjeng for sharing
428: their photoemission data prior to publication. He also thanks
429: F. Aryasetiawan, A. Bringer, K. Held, G. Kotliar, A. I. Lichtenstein,
430: A. Poteryaev, and D. Vollhardt for fruitful discussions.
431:
432: email: a.liebsch@fz-juelich.de; ishida@chs.nihon-u.ac.jp;
433: g.bihlmayer@fz-juelich.de
434:
435: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
436:
437: \bibitem{morin} %1
438: F. J. Morin, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 3}, 34 (1959).
439:
440: \bibitem{pouget} %
441: J. P. Pouget, % {\it et al.},
442: H. Launois, T. M. Rice, P. Dernier, A. Gossard,
443: G. Villeneuve, and P. Hagenmuller,
444: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 10}, 1801 (1977);
445: J. P. Pouget, H. Launois, J. P. D'Haenens, P. Merender, and T. M. Rice,
446: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 35}, 873 (1975).
447:
448: \bibitem{zilbersztejn} %
449: A. Zylbersztejn and N. F. Mott,
450: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 11}, 4384 (1975);
451:
452: \bibitem{mott} %
453: N. F. Mott, {\it Metal Insulator Transitions}
454: (Taylor and Francis, London, 1990).
455:
456: \bibitem{rice} %
457: T. M. Rice, H. Launois, and J. P. Pouget,
458: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73}, 3042 (1994).
459:
460: \bibitem{goodenough} %4
461: J. B. Goodenough, Phys. Rev. {\bf 117}, 1442 (1960).
462:
463: \bibitem{caruthers} %5
464: E. Caruthers and L. Kleinman,
465: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 7}, 3760 (1973).
466:
467: \bibitem{wentzcovitch} %6
468: R. M. Wentzcovitch, W. W. Schulz, and P. B. Allen,
469: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 72}, 3389 (1994);
470: {\it ibid.} {\bf 73}, 3043 (1994).
471:
472: \bibitem{eyert} %7
473: V. Eyert, Ann. Phys. {\bf 11}, 9 (2002).
474:
475: \bibitem{huang}
476: X. Huang, W. Yang, and U. Eckern,
477: cond-mat/9808137.
478:
479: \bibitem{korotin}
480: M. A. Korotin, N. A. Skorikov, and V. I. Anisimov,
481: cond-mat/0301347.
482:
483: \bibitem{continenza}
484: A. Continenza, S. Massida, and M. Posternak,
485: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 60}, 15699 (1999).
486:
487: \bibitem{laad} %
488: M. S. Laad, L. Craco and E. M\"uller-Hartmann,
489: cond-mat/0305081.
490:
491: \bibitem{okazaki}
492: K. Okazaki, H. Wadati, A. Fujimori, M. Onoda, Y. Muraoka and Z. Hiroi,
493: Phys. Rev. B. {\bf 69}, 165104 (2004).
494:
495: \bibitem{tjeng}
496: L. H. Tjeng {\it et al.},
497: to be published.
498:
499: \bibitem{DMFT}
500: For a review, see:
501: A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth and M. J. Rozenberg,
502: Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 68}, 13 (1996).
503:
504: \bibitem{LDA+U}
505: V. I. Anisimov, J. Zaanen, and O. K. Andersen,
506: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 44}, 943 (1991);
507: A. I. Liechtenstein, V. I. Anisimov, and J. Zaanen,
508: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 52}, R5467 (1995).
509:
510: \bibitem{GW}
511: L. Hedin, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 139}, 796 (1965).
512:
513: \bibitem{muraoka}
514: Y. Muraoka, Y. Ueda, and Z. Hiroi,
515: J. Phys. Chem. Solids {\bf 63}, 965 (2002).
516:
517: \bibitem{PES}
518: G. A. Sawatzky and D. Post,
519: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 20}, 1546 (1979);
520: V. M. Bermudez {\it et al.}, {\it ibid.} {\bf 45}, 9266 (1992);
521: E. Goering {\it et al.}, {\it ibid.} {\bf 55}, 4225 (1997).
522:
523: \bibitem{shin}
524: S. Shin, % {\it et al.},
525: S. Suga, M. Taniguchi, M. Fujisawa, H. Kanzaki, A. Fujimori,
526: H. Daimon, Y. Ueda, K. Kosuge, and S. Kachi,
527: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 41}, 4993 (1990).
528:
529: \bibitem{maiti}
530: K. Maiti, D. D. Sarma, M. J. Rozenberg, I. H. Inoue, H. Makino, O. Goto,
531: M. Pedio, and R. Cimino,
532: Europhys. Lett. {\bf 55}, 246 (2001).
533:
534: \bibitem{sekiyama}
535: A. Sekiyama, H. Fujiwara, S. Imada, S. Suga, H. Eisaki, S.I. Uchida,
536: K. Takegahara, H. Harima, Y. Saitoh, I. A. Nakrasov, G. Keller,
537: D. E. Kondakov, A. V. Kozhevnikov, Th. Pruschke, K. Held, D. Vollhardt,
538: and A. I. Anisimov, Phys. Rev. Lett., to be published.
539:
540: \bibitem{liebsch03}
541: A. Liebsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 96401 (2003).
542:
543: \bibitem{perdew}
544: J. P. Perdew and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 45}, 13244 (1992).
545:
546: \bibitem{UJ} %
547: W. E. Pickett, S. C. Erwin, and E. C. Ethridge,
548: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 58}, 1201 (1998).
549:
550: \bibitem{jarrell} %
551: M. Jarrell and J. E. Gubernatis,
552: Phys. Rep. {\bf 269}, 133 (1996).
553:
554: \bibitem{pavarini} %
555: E. Pavarini, S. Biermann, A. Poteryaev, A. I. Lichtenstein, A. Georges,
556: and O. K. Andersen, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 176403 (2004).
557:
558: %\bibitem{mcwhan} %
559: % D.B. McWhan, J.P. Remeika, J.P. Maita, H. Okinaka, K. Kosuge,
560: % and S. Kachi,
561: % Phys. Rev. B {\bf 7}, 326 (1973).
562:
563: \bibitem{GWreview}
564: W. G. Aulbur, L. J\"onsson and J. W. Wilkins,
565: {\it Quasiparticle Calculations in Solids},
566: Solid State Physics, eds. H. Ehrenreich and F. Spaepen
567: (Academic, San Diego, 2000), Vol. 54, p. 1.
568:
569: \bibitem{gunnarsson}
570: F. Aryasetiawan and O. Gunnarsson,
571: Rep. Progr. Phys. {\bf 61}, 237 (1997).
572:
573: \bibitem{comment}
574: As shown by Huang {\it et al.},\cite{huang} in the rutile phase
575: the LDA+U gives a gap only at unrealistically large values of $U$.
576: The gap in the insulating phase therefore requires pronounced
577: orbital polarization.
578:
579: \bibitem{heldVO2}
580: This finding agrees with: K. Held {\it et al.}, private communication.
581:
582: \bibitem{koch}
583: O. Gunnarsson {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 54}, R11026 (1996);
584: E. Koch {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 60}, 15714 (1999);
585: S. Florens {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 66}, 205102 (2002).
586: % O. Gunnarsson, E. Koch and R. M. Martin,
587: % Phys. Rev. B {\bf 54}, R11026 (1996);
588: % S. Florens, A. Georges, G. Kotliar and O. Parcollet,
589: % Phys. Rev. B {\bf 66}, 205102 (2002).
590:
591:
592: \bibitem{HF-limit}
593: I. Yang, S. Y. Savrasov, and G. Kotliar,
594: cond-mat/ 0209073.
595:
596: \bibitem{sascha}
597: A. Poteryaev and A. I. Lichtenstein, private communication.
598:
599: \bibitem{gygi}
600: F. Gygi and A. Baldereschi,
601: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 62},2160 (1989).
602:
603:
604: %\bibitem{held}
605: % G. Keller, K. Held, V. Eyert, D. Vollhardt, V.I. Anisimov,
606: % cond-mat/0402133 and references herein.
607:
608: %\bibitem{sascha}
609: % This agrees with prelimary cluster DMFT calculations:
610: % A.I. Lichtenstein, private communication.
611:
612: %\bibitem{koch}
613: % E. Koch {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 60}, 15714 (1999);
614: % S. Florens {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 66}, 205102 (2002).
615: % O. Gunnarsson, E. Koch and R. M. Martin,
616: % Phys. Rev. B {\bf 54}, R11026 (1996);
617: % S. Florens, A. Georges, G. Kotliar and O. Parcollet,
618: % Phys. Rev. B {\bf 66}, 205102 (2002).
619:
620: %\bibitem{HF-limit}
621: % I. Yang, S. Y. Savrasov, and G. Kotliar,
622: % cond-mat/ 0209073.
623:
624: %\bibitem{biroli}
625: % G. Biroli, O. Parcollet, and G. Kotliar,
626: % cond-mat/ 0307587.
627:
628: %\bibitem{CDMFT}
629: % M.H. Hettler {\it et al.},
630: % Phys. Rev. B {\bf 58}, R7475 (1998);
631: % A.I. Lichtenstein and M.I. Katsnelson,
632: % Phys. Rev. B {\bf 62}, R9283 (2000);
633: % G. Kotliar {\it et al.},
634: % Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 186401 (2001).
635:
636: %\bibitem{maxent}
637: % This result is not affected by uncertainties stemming from the maximum
638: % entropy method. It differs from the picture in \cite{laad} where all
639: % $n_i$ are about 1/3 in the metallic and insulating phases.
640:
641:
642: %\bibitem{hybertsen}
643: % See, e.g., M. Hybertsen and S.G. Louie,
644: % Comments Condens. Matter Phys. {\bf 13}, 5 (1987).
645:
646: \end{thebibliography}
647: \end{document}
648:
649:
650: