1: \documentclass[prb,twocolumn,aps,showpacs,eqsecnum,amsmath]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx,bm,times,amsmath,amssymb}
3: \usepackage{mathrsfs}
4: \begin{document}
5:
6: \title{Two-loop renormalization-group theory for
7: the quasi-one-dimensional Hubbard model at half filling}
8:
9: \author{M.\ Tsuchiizu}
10:
11: \affiliation{
12: Department of Physics, Nagoya University, Nagoya 464-8602, Japan
13: }
14:
15: \date{\today}
16:
17:
18: \begin{abstract}
19: We derive two-loop renormalization-group equations
20: for the half-filled one-dimensional Hubbard chains
21: coupled by the interchain hopping.
22: Our renormalization-group scheme for the quasi-one-dimensional
23: electron system is a natural extension of that for the
24: purely one-dimensional systems in the sense that
25: transverse-momentum dependences are introduced in the
26: $g$-ological coupling constants and
27: we regard the transverse momentum as a patch index.
28: We develop symmetry arguments for
29: the particle-hole symmetric half-filled Hubbard model
30: and obtain constraints on the $g$-ological coupling constants
31: by which resultant renormalization equations are given in
32: a compact form.
33: By solving the renormalization-group equations numerically,
34: we estimate the magnitude of excitation gaps
35: and clarify that the charge gap
36: is suppressed due to the interchain hopping
37: but is always finite even for the relevant interchain hopping.
38: To show the validity of the present analysis, we also apply this
39: to the two-leg ladder system.
40: By utilizing the field-theoretical bosonization and fermionization method,
41: we derive low-energy effective theory
42: and analyze the magnitude of all the excitation gaps in detail.
43: It is shown that the low-energy excitations in the two-leg Hubbard ladder
44: have SO(3)$\times$SO(3)$\times$U(1) symmetry
45: when the interchain hopping exceeds the magnitude of the charge gap.
46: \end{abstract}
47:
48:
49: \pacs{71.10.Fd, 71.10.Hf, 71.10.Pm}
50:
51: \maketitle
52:
53:
54:
55: \section{Introduction}
56:
57: Renormalization-group (RG) method is one of the
58: most powerful and promising tools to tackle
59: low-dimensional electron and spin systems.
60: \cite{Bourbonnais2003}
61: It has a long history of research
62: especially on one dimensional (1D) systems, since
63: the RG theory is superior to take into account
64: low-dimensional competing fluctuation effects, i.e.,
65: it can sum up systematically
66: the logarithmic-singular particle-particle and particle-hole
67: channels which appear in all order of perturbation theory.
68: \cite{Emery,Solyom,Bourbonnais1991}
69: It has been clarified that the RG method describes
70: various 1D ground states:
71: the Tomonaga-Luttinger (TL) liquid state,
72: the charge-gapped Mott insulating state at half
73: filling, and also the spin-gapped Luther-Emery state.
74: \cite{Bourbonnais2003,Giamarchi_book}
75: Not only for the most divergent terms,
76: the next-to-leading logarithmic singular terms
77: have also been studied based on the
78: two-loop formulation of the RG theory,
79: \cite{Solyom,Bourbonnais1991}
80: where singular self-energy corrections in addition to the
81: vertex corrections are taken into account.
82: Recently the RG theory
83: is generalized to apply to two-dimensional electron
84: systems. \cite{Shankar}
85: The main difficulty in the RG formulation for two-dimensional systems
86: resides in the fact that
87: the momentum dependence of the coupling constants
88: is essential but
89: the number of independent coupling constants is large and
90: it becomes hard to analyze the RG equations even for the one-loop level.
91: Several attempts have been made
92: by focusing only on dominant
93: scattering processes on the Fermi surface \cite{Furukawa}
94: and by discretizing the Fermi surface
95: into finite number of pieces, i.e., so-called patches.
96: \cite{Zanchi1998}
97: For electron systems in arbitrary dimension,
98: a nonperturbative RG theory has also been formulated
99: \cite{Salmhofer1998}
100: and has been applied to two dimensional electron systems
101: by considering leading two particle interactions, i.e.,
102: within the one-loop level. \cite{Halboth2000,Honerkamp2001}
103: Quite recently the effect of the two-loop self-energy corrections
104: have been examined,
105: \cite{Zanchi2001,Honerkamp2003,Katanin2004,Metzner} while
106: the two-loop vertex corrections are considered only for
107: the system with flat Fermi surface.
108: \cite{Kishine1999,Freire}
109:
110:
111:
112: In quasi-one-dimensional (Q1D) electron systems,
113: the important issue to be clarified is the dimensional
114: crossover from one to higher dimensions which would
115: occur by changing parameters or temperature.
116: \cite{Bourbonnais2003,Giamarchi_book,Bourbonnais_review}
117: In real Q1D compounds,
118: the TL-liquid behavior is expected at high temperature,
119: however, the effect of warping of the Fermi surface
120: due to the small but finite interchain hopping is enhanced
121: at low temperature where the Fermi-liquid behavior can be expected
122: if the system is metallic,
123: and finally the system has an instability to symmetry-broken states.
124: The RG approach is also powerful and succeeds
125: in the description of these physical pictures.
126: \cite{Bourbonnais2003,Giamarchi_book,Bourbonnais1991,Kishine1998}
127: In the early RG analysis, the effect of the one-particle interchain hopping
128: is treated perturbatively,
129: however, it is found to be relevant
130: even in the noninteracting case and
131: the perturbative treatment is invalid at low temperature.
132: In order to clarify the dimensional crossover phenomena
133: properly, one has to formulate the RG with the nonperturbative
134: treatment of the interchain hopping, i.e., based on
135: the warped Fermi surface.
136: In this sense, the formulation is analogous to that in
137: the two-dimensional RG scheme since
138: one has to discretize the Fermi surface.
139: In the Q1D case, the RG has been formulated
140: by considering finite number of chains $N_\perp$
141: ($N_\perp$-chain RG scheme)
142: \cite{Lin1997,Duprat2001,Doucot2003,%
143: Bourbonnais2004,Fuseya2005,Dupuis2005,Fuseya2006}
144: where the transverse momentum
145: is regarded as a patch index.
146: Based on this scheme, the Q1D systems have been analyzed intensively
147: within the one-loop level \cite{Lin1997,Duprat2001,%
148: Bourbonnais2004,Fuseya2005,Dupuis2005,Fuseya2006}
149: and the self-energy corrections
150: have also been investigated. \cite{Doucot2003}
151: At commensurate band filling,
152: the dimensional crossover problem becomes nontrivial
153: since the
154: electronic correlation has the strongest effect and leads to
155: the Mott insulating state
156: if the system is half filled.
157: The effect of the umklapp scattering between electrons, which
158: is a trigger for the 1D Mott insulator,
159: has been investigated by the one-loop RG,
160: \cite{Bourbonnais2004}
161: however, in order to clarify the electronic states
162: in the Mott insulator one has to
163: examine the properties of the one-particle Green's function,
164: i.e., the self-energy corrections,
165: whose singular contributions only appear beyond the one-loop level.
166: The effects of the two-loop self-energy corrections
167: have also been examined in the Q1D systems
168: without considering two-loop vertex corrections,
169: \cite{Doucot2003} however,
170: a systematic two-loop RG
171: including both the two-loop vertex and self-energy corrections
172: is not formulated yet.
173: Recently this issue has also been addressed
174: by a numerical method
175: expanding the dynamical mean-field approach
176: (chain-DMFT) \cite{Giamarchi2001,Giamarchi2002,Giamarchi2004,Berthod}
177: and by a field-theoretical method with
178: the RPA treatment of the interchain hopping.
179: \cite{Essler2002}
180:
181: From a technical point of view, it is generally hard
182: to gain physical insights of results of scaling flows in the Q1D RG,
183: since the number of independent coupling constants becomes large
184: as $N_\perp$ increases.
185: As a minimal system of the coupled chains,
186: one can consider a two-leg ladder system ($N_\perp=2$).
187: The two-leg ladder system itself has nontrivial and interesting
188: features \cite{Dagotto} and has been examined intensively
189: by using the RG method
190: \cite{Fabrizio1993,Nersesyan1993,Khveshchenko1994,Schulz1996,%
191: Balents1996,Lin1998,Tsuchiizu1999,Tsuchiizu2002,Fradkin2003,Tsuchiizu2005}
192: and also by the high-accuracy numerical
193: technique called the density-matrix-renormalization-group
194: (DMRG) method, \cite{Noack,Weihong}
195: where it has been confirmed that
196: both the charge and spin modes have excitation gaps
197: for the half-filled Hubbard ladder.
198: In this analysis, one can easily see that
199: a naive one-loop RG analysis of the excitation gaps
200: is not satisfactory since the RG method
201: breaks down at a energy scale
202: corresponding to the largest excitation gap in a system.
203: In order to analyze the lower-energy properties,
204: one has to derive an effective theory by
205: tracing out the gapped modes
206: based on the field-theoretical bosonization/fermionization treatment.
207: As for the two-leg Hubbard ladder,
208: Lin, Balents and Fisher\cite{Lin1998}
209: obtained the SO(8) Gross-Neveu model as
210: an effective theory in the low-energy limit
211: and examined the excitation spectrum.
212: The extended two-leg Hubbard model including additional interactions
213: is also examined \cite{Tsuchiizu2002,Fradkin2003,Tsuchiizu2005} and
214: quantum phase transitions between competing ground states have been
215: clarified in this context of the one-loop RG.
216: Despite that the analysis of the two-leg ladder systems
217: based on the one-loop RG succeeds in describing the ground state
218: properties,
219: it is not easy to extend the analysis
220: to the case with large number of chains,
221: since the field-theoretical approach is
222: restricted to the small number of chains.
223: In order to overcome this problem, we formulate, in the present paper,
224: the two-loop RG theory for the Q1D electron systems.
225: Even in the two-loop level, the perturbative approach
226: also breaks down at energy scales of the excitation gaps,
227: however, the respective excitation gaps can be estimated
228: by analyzing the scaling behavior
229: of the couplings for respective modes,
230: without following the tracing-out procedure.
231: We confirm that the present scheme works
232: even if the respective modes are not independent
233: by revisiting the two-leg ladder systems.
234:
235: This paper is organized as follows.
236: In Sec.\ \ref{sec:model}, we introduce
237: the finite $N_\perp$-chain half-filled Hubbard model
238: coupled by the one-particle interchain hopping,
239: and derive the corresponding $g$-ology model
240: by linearizing the energy dispersion where
241: the effect of the interchain hopping is treated nonperturbatively.
242: By developing symmetry arguments for
243: the particle-hole symmetric half-filled Hubbard model,
244: we obtain constraints on the $g$-ological coupling constants.
245: In Sec.\ \ref{sec:formulation},
246: we formulate the RG based on the Kadanoff-Wilson approach up to
247: the two-loop level, where vertex corrections are taken into account
248: based on the third-order perturbation theory, in addition to
249: the second-order calculation for the self-energy corrections.
250: Reflecting the symmetries that the particle-hole symmetric Hubbard model has,
251: the resultant RG equations can be
252: written in a compact form where
253: the physical picture can easily be captured.
254: By solving the RG equations numerically,
255: we estimate the magnitude of the charge and spin gaps.
256: In Sec.\ \ref{sec:ladder},
257: in order to indicate the validity of the present method,
258: we consider a most simple but nontrivial
259: case $N_\perp=2$, which corresponds
260: to the two-leg ladder, and analyze the
261: excitation properties in detail
262: by combining the field-theoretical bosonization and
263: fermionization method.
264: Finally, the results are summarized in Sec.\ \ref{sec:summary}.
265: Technical details are given in the Appendices A and B.
266: In the Appendix C, we give a related issue which supports strongly
267: the validity of the present estimation of excitation gaps.
268:
269:
270: \section{Model and symmetry arguments}\label{sec:model}
271:
272: We consider the bipartite Q1D Hubbard model at half filling
273: with $t_\parallel \gg t_\perp$, where
274: the transfer integral along chains is $t_\parallel$
275: and that between chains is $t_\perp$.
276: Our Hamiltonian is given by
277: %====================================================================
278: \begin{eqnarray}
279: H &=&
280: -t_\parallel \sum_{j,l,s}
281: \left(c_{j,l,s}^\dagger c_{j+1,l,s}+\mathrm{H.c.} \right)
282: \nonumber \\ && {}
283: -t_\perp \sum_{j,l,s}
284: \left(c_{j,l,s}^\dagger c_{j,l+1,s}+\mathrm{H.c.} \right)
285: \nonumber \\ && {}
286: + U \sum_{j,l} n_{j,l,\uparrow} n_{j,l,\downarrow} ,
287: \label{eq:model}
288: \end{eqnarray}
289: %====================================================================
290: where $c_{j,l,s}$ is the annihilation operator of electron
291: on the $j$th site in the $l$th chain with spin $s$, and
292: $n_{j,l,s}=c_{j,l,s}^\dagger c_{j,l,s}^{}-\frac{1}{2}$.
293: The system size along chains ($N_\parallel$)
294: is considered to be sufficiently large
295: and the sum of the site index, which runs $j=1,\cdots,N_\parallel$,
296: is to be understood as an integral
297: in the thermodynamic limit.
298: The chain index runs $l=1,\cdots,N_\perp$ and
299: we consider the system with finite number of chains $N_\perp$ where
300: the periodic boundary condition is imposed
301: $c_{j,N_\perp+1,s}=c_{j,1,s}$.
302:
303: \subsection{$g$-ology notation}
304:
305:
306: %====================================================================
307: \begin{figure}[b]
308: \includegraphics[width=4cm]{fig1.eps}
309: \caption{
310: (Color online)
311: Fermi points (closed circles)
312: in the present half-filled Q1D Hubbard model with
313: the periodic boundary condition in the
314: transverse direction.
315: The case for $N_\perp=8$ is shown.
316: }
317: \label{fig:fs}
318: \end{figure}
319: %======================================================================
320:
321: The kinetic term of the Hamiltonian is given by
322: %====================================================================
323: \begin{eqnarray}
324: H_0
325: &=&
326: \sum_{\bm k,s}
327: \varepsilon(\bm k) \,
328: c_s^\dagger (\bm k) \, c_s^{}(\bm k) ,
329: \\
330: \varepsilon(\bm k) &=& -2t_\parallel \cos k_\parallel
331: -2t_\perp \cos k_\perp ,
332: \end{eqnarray}
333: %====================================================================
334: where $\bm k = (k_\parallel,k_\perp)$ and
335: the lattice constant is set to unity.
336: Since the system is particle-hole symmetric,
337: we can assume $t_\parallel > 0$ and $t_\perp \ge 0$
338: without losing generality.
339: Since the number of chains $N_\perp$ is finite,
340: the transverse momentum is given by
341: %====================================================================
342: \begin{eqnarray}
343: k_\perp =\frac{2\pi}{N_\perp}n, \quad
344: n=-\left[\frac{N_\perp}{2}\right], ... , \left[\frac{N_\perp}{2}\right],
345: \label{eq:kperp}
346: \end{eqnarray}
347: %====================================================================
348: where $[x]$ is the Gauss symbol
349: denoting maximum integer which does not exceed $x$.
350: By assuming $t_\perp \ll t_\parallel$,
351: we linearize the dispersion where the situation can be
352: simplified as follows.
353: Up to the lowest order in $t_\perp$
354: the kinetic term with the linearized dispersion is given by
355: %====================================================================
356: \begin{eqnarray}
357: H_0
358: &=&
359: \sum_{\bm k,p,s}
360: \varepsilon_p(\bm k) \,
361: c_{p,s}^\dagger (\bm k) \, c_{p,s}^{}(\bm k) ,
362: \label{eq:kinetic}
363: \\
364: \varepsilon_p (\bm k)
365: &=& v(pk_\parallel -k_F)
366: -2t_\perp \cos k_\perp,
367: \label{eq:lineardisp}
368: \end{eqnarray}
369: %====================================================================
370: where $v=2t_\parallel$ and $k_F=\pi/2$.
371: We introduce the bandwidth cutoff $\Lambda$.
372: In this approximation, the warped open Fermi surface (Fig.\ \ref{fig:fs})
373: is specified as a function
374: of $k_\perp$:
375: %====================================================================
376: \begin{equation}
377: k_F(k_\perp) =
378: k_F +2 \frac{t_\perp}{v} \cos k_\perp ,
379: \label{eq:kf}
380: \end{equation}
381: %====================================================================
382: and the energy dispersion (\ref{eq:lineardisp}) can be reexpressed
383: as $\varepsilon_p (\bm k) = v[pk_\parallel -k_F(k_\perp)]$.
384: Thus we regard the transverse momentum $k_\perp$
385: as a \textit{patch index} in the present RG formulation.
386: The greatest merit of the present formulation lies in the fact that
387: the transverse momentum $k_\perp$ is a conserved quantity, i.e.,
388: the patch index is a good quantum number and
389: the ambiguity of selecting patch index disappears.
390:
391:
392: %====================================================================
393: \begin{figure*}[t]
394: \includegraphics[width=15cm]{fig2.eps}
395: \caption{
396: $g$-ology notation. The solid (dashed) line
397: denotes a right-moving (left-moving) electron.
398: $\bm k_i = (k_{\parallel i}, k_{\perp i})$,
399: $\bm Q=(\pi+q_\parallel,q_\perp)$, and
400: $\bm G =(2\pi, 0)$.
401: }
402: \label{fig:gology}
403: \end{figure*}
404: %======================================================================
405:
406: Following the conventional $g$-ology approach, \cite{Solyom}
407: we classify the interaction part of the
408: Hamiltonian $H_{\mathrm{I}}=U\sum_{j,l} n_{j,l,\uparrow} n_{j,l,\downarrow}$
409: into the forward, backward, and umklapp scattering processes,
410: by focusing on the longitudinal momentum $k_\parallel$.
411: We introduce the coupling constants
412: $g_{1\perp}$, $g_{2\perp}$,
413: $g_\parallel$, $g_{3\perp}$, and $g_{3\parallel}$,
414: which represent
415: the backward scattering with the opposite spins ($g_{1\perp}$),
416: the forward scattering with the opposite spins ($g_{2\perp}$),
417: the forward scattering with the same spins ($g_\parallel$),
418: the umklapp scattering with the opposite spins ($g_{3\perp}$),
419: and the umklapp scattering with the same spins ($g_{3\parallel}$).
420: In terms of the Hubbard interaction $U$,
421: the magnitudes of the couplings are
422: given by $g_{1\perp}=g_{2\perp}=g_{3\perp}=U$ and
423: $g_\parallel=g_{3\parallel}=0$.
424: The $g_\parallel$ and $g_{3\parallel}$ processes are absent
425: in the original Hubbard
426: interactions, however, can become finite under the RG scaling procedure.
427: Furthermore, the coupling constants are
428: differently renormalized depending on the external transverse momenta
429: of the vertex
430: and have the explicit transverse-momentum (i.e., patch-index) dependence.
431: To take into account these effects, we formally introduce
432: the transverse momentum dependence of the coupling constants
433: in the initial $g$-ology Hamiltonian.
434: In the most general form,
435: the interaction part of the Hamiltonian is given by
436: \begin{widetext}
437: %====================================================================
438: \begin{eqnarray}
439: H_\mathrm{I} &=&
440: +\frac{1}{V}\sum_{\bm k_1,\bm k_2, \bm q,s}
441: g_{1\perp(q_\perp,k_{\perp 1},k_{\perp 2})} \,\,
442: c_{+,s}^\dagger(\bm k_1) \,
443: c_{-,s}^{} (\bm k_1- \bm Q) \,\,
444: c_{-,\bar s}^\dagger (\bm k_2-\bm Q) \,
445: c_{+,\bar s}^{}(\bm k_2)
446: \nonumber \\ &&{}
447: +\frac{1}{V}\sum_{\bm k_1,\bm k_2, \bm q ,s}
448: g_{2\perp (q_\perp,k_{\perp 1},k_{\perp 2})} \,\,
449: c_{+,s}^\dagger (\bm k_1) \,
450: c_{+,s}^{}(\bm k_2) \,\,
451: c_{-,\bar s}^\dagger (\bm k_2- \bm Q) \,
452: c_{-,\bar s}^{}(\bm k_1-\bm Q)
453: \nonumber \\ &&{}
454: +\frac{1}{V}\sum_{\bm k_1,\bm k_2, \bm q,s}
455: g_{\parallel (q_\perp,k_{\perp 1},k_{\perp 2})}\,\,
456: c_{+,s}^\dagger (\bm k_1) \,
457: c_{+,s}^{}(\bm k_2) \,\,
458: c_{-,s}^\dagger (\bm k_2- \bm Q) \,
459: c_{-,s}^{}(\bm k_1-\bm Q)
460: \nonumber \\ &&{}
461: +\frac{1}{2V}\sum_{\bm k_1,\bm k_2, \bm q,s}
462: g_{3\perp (q_\perp,k_{\perp 1},k_{\perp 2})}
463: \Bigl[
464: c_{+,s}^\dagger (\bm k_1) \,
465: c_{-,s}^{} (\bm k_1- \bm Q) \,\,
466: c_{+,\bar s}^\dagger (\bm k_2) \,
467: c_{-,\bar s}^{}(\bm k_2+\bm Q - \bm G)
468: +\mathrm{H.c.}\Bigr]
469: \nonumber \\ &&{}
470: +\frac{1}{2V}\sum_{\bm k_1,\bm k_2, \bm q, s}
471: g_{3\parallel (q_\perp,k_{\perp 1},k_{\perp 2})} \,
472: \Bigl[
473: c_{+,s}^\dagger (\bm k_1) \,
474: c_{-,s}^{} (\bm k_1- \bm Q) \,\,
475: c_{+,s}^\dagger (\bm k_2) \,
476: c_{-,s}^{}(\bm k_2+ \bm Q - \bm G)
477: +\mathrm{H.c.}\Bigr],
478: \label{eq:g-ology}
479: \end{eqnarray}
480: %====================================================================
481: \end{widetext}
482: where $\bar s=\uparrow$$(\downarrow)$ for $s=\downarrow$$(\uparrow)$,
483: and $\bm Q=(\pi+q_\parallel,q_\perp)$,
484: $\bm G =(2\pi, 0)$, and $V=N_\parallel N_\perp$.
485: The momenta $k_{\parallel 1}$ and
486: $k_{\parallel 2}$ are assumed to take values near $k_F(k_\perp)$.
487: In the transverse direction, on the other hand,
488: the momenta $k_{\perp i}$ and $q_\perp$
489: can take the values in $-\pi<k_{\perp i},q_\perp \le \pi$,
490: and the momentum $(k_{\perp i} \pm q_\perp)$ is assumed to
491: reduce the first Brillouin zone,
492: then all the possible scattering processes are taken into account,
493: including the transverse umklapp scattering.
494: The respective scattering processes are shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:gology}.
495: We will neglect the forward scattering with the same branch,
496: so-called $g_4$ term, since
497: this process does not show the logarithmic-singular behavior in
498: perturbation and is known to
499: yield only quantitative changes in velocities for the 1D case.
500: In terms of the Hubbard interaction $U$,
501: the magnitudes of the couplings are
502: given by
503: $g_{1\perp(q_\perp,k_{\perp 1},k_{\perp 2})}
504: =g_{2\perp(q_\perp,k_{\perp 1},k_{\perp 2})}
505: =g_{3\perp(q_\perp,k_{\perp 1},k_{\perp 2})}=U$ and
506: $g_{\parallel(q_\perp,k_{\perp 1},k_{\perp 2})}
507: =g_{3\parallel(q_\perp,k_{\perp 1},k_{\perp 2})}=0$.
508: To simplify the notation,
509: we will suppress the $\perp$ index of the transverse momentum
510: in the following.
511: All the coupling constants are assumed to be real.
512: In order to make $H_\mathrm{I}$ hermitian,
513: the coupling constants must satisfy
514: %====================================================================
515: \begin{eqnarray}
516: g_{1\perp(q,k_1,k_2)} &=& g_{1\perp(q,k_2,k_1)}, \nonumber \\
517: g_{2\perp(q,k_1,k_2)} &=& g_{2\perp(q,k_2,k_1)}, \nonumber \\
518: g_{\parallel(q,k_1,k_2)} &=& g_{\parallel(q,k_2,k_1)},
519: \label{eq:hermite} \\
520: g_{3\perp(q,k_1,k_2)} &=& g_{3\perp(-q,k_2,k_1)},\nonumber \\
521: g_{3\parallel(q,k_1,k_2)} &=& g_{3\parallel(-q,k_2,k_1)}.\nonumber
522: \end{eqnarray}
523: %====================================================================
524: As in the 1D case, the physical picture becomes transparent by introducing
525: a new set of the couplings:
526: %====================================================================
527: \begin{eqnarray}
528: g_{\rho(q,k_1,k_2)}
529: &\equiv&
530: g_{2\perp(q,k_1,k_2)}+g_{\parallel(q,k_1,k_2)},
531: \nonumber\\
532: g_{\sigma(q,k_1,k_2)}
533: &\equiv&
534: g_{2\perp(q,k_1,k_2)}-g_{\parallel(q,k_1,k_2)},
535: \nonumber\\
536: g_{c(q,k_1,k_2)}
537: &\equiv&
538: g_{3\perp(q,k_1,\pi-k_2)},
539: \label{eq:notation}\\
540: g_{s(q,k_1,k_2)}
541: &\equiv&
542: g_{1\perp(q,k_1,k_2)},
543: \nonumber\\
544: g_{cs(q,k_1,k_2)}
545: &\equiv&
546: g_{3\parallel(q,k_1,\pi-k_2)},
547: \nonumber
548: \end{eqnarray}
549: %====================================================================
550: where $g_\rho$ and $g_c$ ($g_\sigma$ and $g_s$) are
551: the coupling constants representing the charge (spin) degrees of
552: freedom.
553: This picture can easily be captured by noting
554: that, if we neglect the momentum dependence of the coupling constants,
555: the $g_{1\perp}$, $g_{2\perp}$, $g_\parallel$, and $g_{3\perp}$ terms
556: of the Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:g-ology})
557: are written in symmetric forms as\cite{Gogolin}
558: %====================================================================
559: \begin{eqnarray}
560: \hspace*{-1.cm}&& {}
561: -\frac{g_\sigma}{V}\sum_{p,\bm q}
562: J^z_{p}(\bm q)
563: J^z_{-p}(-\bm q)
564: -\frac{g_s}{V}\sum_{p,\bm q}
565: J^+_{p}(\bm q) J^-_{-p}(-\bm q)
566: \nonumber \\
567: \hspace*{-.5cm}&&{}
568: +\frac{g_\rho}{V}\sum_{p,\bm q}
569: J'^z_p(\bm q)
570: J'^z_{-p}(-\bm q)
571: +\frac{g_c}{V}\sum_{p,\bm q}
572: J'^+_p(\bm q) J'^-_{-p}(-\bm q),
573: \qquad
574: \end{eqnarray}
575: %====================================================================
576: where the respective chiral density operators are given by
577: %====================================================================
578: \begin{subequations}
579: \begin{eqnarray}
580: J^z_p(\bm q) &=&\frac{1}{2}
581: \sum_{\bm k,s}
582: \Bigl[ c_{p,\uparrow}^\dagger(\bm k) \, c_{p,\uparrow}^{} (\bm k+\bm q)
583: \nonumber \\ && {} \qquad
584: - c_{p,\downarrow}^\dagger(\bm k) \, c_{p,\downarrow}^{} (\bm k+\bm q)
585: \Bigr],
586: \\
587: J'^z_p(\bm q) &=&\frac{1}{2}
588: \sum_{\bm k,s}
589: : c_{p,s}^\dagger(\bm k) \, c_{p,s}^{} (\bm k+\bm q) :,
590: \\
591: J^-_p(\bm q) &=&
592: \sum_{\bm k}
593: c_{p,\downarrow}^\dagger(\bm k) \, c_{p,\uparrow}^{} (\bm k+\bm q),
594: \\
595: J'^-_p(\bm q) &=&
596: \sum_{\bm k}
597: c_{p,\uparrow} (\bm k) \,
598: c_{p,\downarrow} \biglb((\pi,\pi)-\bm k + \bm q\bigrb), \quad
599: \end{eqnarray}
600: \end{subequations}
601: %====================================================================
602: and $J^+_p(\bm q)= [J^-_p(-\bm q)]^\dagger$,
603: $J'^+_p(\bm q)= [J'^-_p(-\bm q)]^\dagger$.
604: In the 1D half-filled Hubbard model ($g_\rho=g_c$ and $g_\sigma=g_s$),
605: it is known that
606: the charge part, in addition to the spin one, also becomes SU(2) symmetric.
607: \cite{Gogolin}
608: Even in the Q1D case, the model has an additional SU(2) symmetry, which
609: is shown explicitly in Sec.\ \ref{sec:psedospinSU(2)}.
610: The $G_{cs}$ coupling represents the spin-charge coupling term in the 1D
611: case as seen from the bosonization technique.
612: \cite{Tsuchiizu_Furusaki}
613: In the notation of Eq.\ (\ref{eq:notation}),
614: the conditions of the hermitian (\ref{eq:hermite})
615: can be expressed as
616: $g_{\nu(q,k_1,k_2)}=g_{\nu(q,k_2,k_1)}$,
617: for $\nu=\rho,\sigma,s$ and
618: $g_{\nu(q,k_1,k_2)}=g_{\nu(-q,\pi-k_2,\pi-k_1)}$
619: for $\nu=c,cs$.
620: The number of independent coupling constants $g_i$
621: in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:g-ology}) is $5N_\perp^2(N_\perp+1)/2$.
622:
623:
624:
625:
626: \subsection{Symmetry arguments}
627:
628: The Hubbard model (\ref{eq:model}) is known to have high
629: symmetries, however,
630: the $g$-ology Hamiltonian
631: (\ref{eq:g-ology}) is generalized one including
632: low symmetry.
633: Reflecting symmetries that the Hubbard model has,
634: there appear several constraints on the $g$-ological couplings
635: and the resultant RG equations can be simplified.
636: In this subsection, we clarify relations for the coupling
637: constants protected by the symmetries.
638:
639: \subsubsection{Spin-rotational SU(2)}
640:
641:
642: The Hubbard model (\ref{eq:model})
643: is invariant under spin-rotation, while the $g$-ology Hamiltonian
644: (\ref{eq:g-ology}) includes the
645: spin-anisotropic case.
646: The spin-rotational symmetry can be argued in terms of
647: the generators of the spin rotation which are nothing but the spin operator:
648: %====================================================================
649: \begin{eqnarray}
650: \bm S =\frac{1}{2}
651: \sum_{\bm k,s_1,s_2} c_{s_1}^\dagger(\bm k) \, \bm \sigma_{s_1,s_2}
652: c_{s_2}^{} (\bm k).
653: \label{eq:spinoperator}
654: \end{eqnarray}
655: %====================================================================
656: The arbitrary global spin rotation
657: by these generators can be represented by the SU(2) matrix:
658: %====================================================================
659: \begin{eqnarray}
660: \left(
661: \begin{array}{c}
662: c_{j,l,\uparrow} \\ c_{j,l,\downarrow}
663: \end{array}
664: \right)
665: \to
666: \left(
667: \begin{array}{cc}
668: a_\sigma & b_\sigma \\
669: - b_\sigma^* & a_\sigma^*
670: \end{array}
671: \right)
672: \left(
673: \begin{array}{c}
674: c_{j,l,\uparrow} \\ c_{j,l,\downarrow}
675: \end{array}
676: \right),
677: \label{eq:spinSU(2)}
678: \end{eqnarray}
679: %====================================================================
680: where $a_\sigma$ and $b_\sigma$ are complex numbers satisfying
681: $|a_\sigma|^2+|b_\sigma|^2=1$.
682: Obviously the Hubbard Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:model}) is invariant
683: under the transformation (\ref{eq:spinSU(2)}).
684: By requiring the $g$-ology Hamiltonian
685: (\ref{eq:g-ology}) to be invariant under this rotation,
686: we obtain the constraints on the coupling constants.
687: In the notation (\ref{eq:notation}), the constraint relations
688: are given by
689: %====================================================================
690: \begin{subequations}
691: \begin{eqnarray}
692: &&
693: g_{s(q,k_1,k_2)}
694: =
695: g_{\sigma(q,k_1,k_2)},
696: \label{eq:spinSU(2)gs_gsigma}
697: \\
698: &&
699: g_{c(q,k_1,k_2)}-
700: g_{c(\pi-q+k_1+k_2,k_1,k_2)}
701: \nonumber \\
702: && \qquad
703: =
704: g_{cs(q,k_1,k_2)}-
705: g_{cs(\pi-q+k_1+k_2,k_1,k_2)}.
706: \label{eq:spinSU(2)gs_gcs}
707: \qquad\qquad
708: \end{eqnarray}%
709: \label{eq:spinSU(2)_gology}%
710: \end{subequations}
711: %====================================================================
712: Since the property of the spin-rotational invariance
713: is hold under the RG procedure,
714: these relations can be considered as
715: constraints on the renormalized coupling constants.
716:
717:
718: \subsubsection{Particle-hole symmetry}
719:
720: The present bipartite half-filled system is invariant under
721: the particle-hole transformation
722: $c_{s}(\bm k)\leftrightarrow c_{s}^\dagger
723: \biglb((\pi,\pi)-\bm k\bigrb)$,
724: where $c_s(\bm k)$ is the Fourier transform of $c_{j,l,s}$.
725: In the linearized dispersion (\ref{eq:lineardisp}),
726: this particle-hole transformation corresponds to
727: %====================================================================
728: \begin{eqnarray}
729: c_{p,s}(\bm k)\leftrightarrow c_{p,s}^\dagger
730: \biglb((p\pi,\pi)-\bm k\bigrb).
731: \end{eqnarray}
732: %====================================================================
733: In order to make this particle-hole symmetry meaningful,
734: the number of chains $N_\perp$ must be even, otherwise the
735: $k_\perp$ [Eq.\ (\ref{eq:kperp})] cannot become symmetric
736: in this transformation.
737: By imposing the condition that the $g$-ology Hamiltonian
738: (\ref{eq:g-ology}) is invariant under this rotation,
739: we obtain the constraints,
740: in the notation (\ref{eq:notation}),
741: %====================================================================
742: \begin{eqnarray}
743: g_{\nu(q,k_1,k_2)}
744: &=& g_{\nu(-q,\pi-k_1,\pi-k_2)}
745: ,
746: \label{eq:ph}
747: \end{eqnarray}
748: %====================================================================
749: where $\nu=\rho,\sigma,c,s,cs$.
750: We note that, by combining the relation
751: $g_{c/cs(q,k_1,k_2)}=g_{c/cs(-q,\pi-k_2,\pi-k_1)}$
752: [obtained from Eq.\ (\ref{eq:hermite})],
753: we find $g_{c/cs(q,k_1,k_2)}=g_{c/cs(q,k_2,k_1)}$.
754:
755:
756:
757:
758:
759: \subsubsection{Pseudospin SU(2)}\label{sec:psedospinSU(2)}
760:
761: In addition to the particle-hole symmetry,
762: the system has an additional symmetry,
763: if the interaction is on-site one only.\cite{Yang}
764: The generators of this SU(2) are given by\cite{Yang}
765: %====================================================================
766: \begin{subequations}
767: \begin{eqnarray}
768: &&
769: Q^x
770: \equiv \frac{\eta^\dagger + \eta}{2},
771: \quad
772: Q^y
773: \equiv \frac{\eta^\dagger-\eta}{2i},
774: \\
775: &&
776: Q^z
777: \equiv
778: \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\bm k,s}
779: :c_{s}^\dagger (\bm k) \, c_{s}^{} (\bm k) : ,
780: \end{eqnarray}%
781: \label{eq:chargeoperator}%
782: \end{subequations}
783: %===============================================================
784: where the so-called $\eta$-pairing operator is given by
785: %====================================================================
786: \begin{eqnarray}
787: \eta
788: \equiv
789: \sum_{\bm k}
790: c_{\uparrow} (\bm k) \, c_{\downarrow} \biglb((\pi,\pi)-\bm k\bigrb).
791: \end{eqnarray}
792: %===============================================================
793: The arbitrary rotation by these generators can be
794: represented by the SU(2) matrix:
795: %====================================================================
796: \begin{eqnarray}
797: \left(
798: \begin{array}{c}
799: c_{j,l,\uparrow} \\
800: c_{j,l,\downarrow}^\dagger
801: \end{array}
802: \right)
803: \to
804: \left(
805: \begin{array}{cc}
806: a_\rho & z_{j,l} b_\rho \\
807: - z_{j,l} b_\rho^* & a_\rho^*
808: \end{array}
809: \right)
810: \left(
811: \begin{array}{c}
812: c_{j,l,\uparrow} \\
813: c_{j,l,\downarrow}^\dagger
814: \end{array}
815: \right),
816: \label{eq:chargeSU(2)}
817: \end{eqnarray}
818: %====================================================================
819: where $a_\rho$ and $b_\rho$ are complex numbers satisfying
820: $|a_\rho|^2+|b_\rho|^2=1$, and $z_{j,l}=(-1)^{j+l}$.
821: This transformation commutes with Eq.\ (\ref{eq:spinSU(2)}).
822: One easily finds that
823: this symmetry breaks down if the Hubbard model is extended, e.g.,
824: by including an additional intersite interaction.
825: In the Fourier space with the linearized dispersion,
826: the transformation (\ref{eq:chargeSU(2)}) corresponds to
827: %====================================================================
828: \begin{subequations}
829: \begin{eqnarray}
830: c_{p,\uparrow}(\bm k)
831: &\to&
832: a_\rho c_{p,\uparrow} (\bm k)
833: + b_\rho c_{p,\downarrow}^\dagger \biglb( (p\pi,\pi)-\bm k \bigrb),
834: \\
835: c_{p,\downarrow}^\dagger (\bm k)
836: &\to&
837: a_\rho^* c_{p,\downarrow}^\dagger (\bm k)
838: -b_\rho^* c_{p,\uparrow} \biglb((p\pi,\pi)-\bm k \bigrb). \quad
839: \end{eqnarray}%
840: \end{subequations}
841: %====================================================================
842: The kinetic term (\ref{eq:kinetic}) is invariant
843: under this transformation.
844: By imposing the condition that the $g$-ology Hamiltonian
845: (\ref{eq:g-ology}) is invariant under this transformation,
846: we obtain
847: %====================================================================
848: \begin{subequations}
849: \begin{eqnarray}
850: &&
851: g_{c(q,k_1,k_2)}+g_{c(\pi-q+k_1+k_2,k_1,k_2)}
852: \nonumber \\
853: &&{}\qquad =
854: + g_{\rho(q,k_1,k_2)}+g_{\rho(\pi-q+k_1+k_2,k_1,k_2)},
855: \label{eq:chargeSU(2)gc_grho}
856: \\
857: &&
858: g_{c(q,k_1,k_2)}-g_{c(\pi-q+k_1+k_2,k_1,k_2)}
859: \nonumber \\
860: &&{}\qquad =
861: -g_{\sigma(q,k_1,k_2)}+g_{\sigma(\pi-q+k_1+k_2,k_1,k_2)}, \qquad\qquad
862: \\
863: &&
864: g_{s(q,k_1,k_2)}-g_{s(\pi-q+k_1+k_2,k_1,k_2)}
865: \nonumber \\
866: &&{}\qquad =
867: -g_{cs(q,k_1,k_2)}+g_{cs(\pi-q+k_1+k_2,k_1,k_2)}. \qquad\qquad
868: \label{eq:chargeSU(2)gs_gcs}
869: \end{eqnarray}%
870: \label{eq:chargeSU(2)_gology}%
871: \end{subequations}
872: %====================================================================
873: The first relation is a natural extension to the known relation
874: for the purely 1D case.\cite{Gogolin}
875: The last two relations, which do not appear in the 1D limit,
876: imply
877: that the couplings $g_c$ and $g_\sigma$ ($g_s$ and $g_{cs}$) are
878: not independent and related to each other.
879:
880: The relations (\ref{eq:chargeSU(2)_gology}) can also be derived
881: from the spin SU(2) relations (\ref{eq:spinSU(2)_gology})
882: by using the charge-spin duality relation,
883: as explicitly shown in the Appendix \ref{sec:appendix_duality}.
884:
885:
886: \subsection{Two-loop RG theory for the 1D Hubbard model}
887:
888:
889: We briefly recall the known results
890: of the two-loop RG theory for the purely 1D case,
891: by focusing on the half-filled 1D Hubbard model:
892: %====================================================================
893: \begin{equation}
894: H_{\mathrm{1D}} =
895: -t \sum_{j,s}
896: \left(c_{j,s}^\dagger c^{}_{j+1,s}+\mathrm{H.c.} \right)
897: + U \sum_{j,l} n_{j,\uparrow} n_{j,\downarrow},
898: \end{equation}
899: %====================================================================
900: where $c_{j,s}$ is the annihilation operator of electron
901: on the $j$th site with spin $s$, and
902: $n_{j,s}=c_{j,s}^\dagger c_{j,s}^{}-\frac{1}{2}$.
903: The linearized dispersion is
904: $\varepsilon (k) = -2t\cos k
905: \to v(\pm k_\parallel -k_F) $
906: where the Fermi velocity and the Fermi momentum are
907: $v=2t$ and $k_F=\pi/2$.
908: The $g$-ological scattering matrices are the same as Fig.\
909: \ref{fig:gology} and we introduce
910: $g_{\rho} \equiv (g_{2\perp}+g_{\parallel})$,
911: $g_{\sigma} \equiv (g_{2\perp}-g_{\parallel})$,
912: $g_{c} \equiv g_{3\perp}$,
913: $g_{s} \equiv g_{1\perp}$, and
914: $g_{cs} \equiv g_{3\parallel}$, as before.
915: The two-loop RG equations for the respective couplings are given by
916: \cite{Solyom}
917: %====================================================================
918: \begin{subequations}
919: \begin{eqnarray}
920: \frac{d}{dl}
921: G_{\rho}
922: &=&
923: + 2G_c^2 - 2 G_{\rho} G_{c}^2 ,
924: \\
925: \frac{d}{dl}
926: G_{c}
927: &=&
928: +2 G_{\rho} G_{c} - G_{\rho}^2 G_{c} - G_{c}^3 ,
929: \\
930: \frac{d}{dl} G_{\sigma}
931: &=&
932: - 2G_{s}^2- 2 G_{\sigma} G_s^2 ,
933: \\
934: \frac{d}{dl} G_{s}
935: &=&
936: - 2G_{\sigma} G_s - G_{\sigma}^2 G_s - G_{s}^3 ,
937: \end{eqnarray}%
938: \label{eq:RG1dbare}%
939: \end{subequations}
940: %====================================================================
941: where $l$ is the scaling parameter and the initial values are
942: given by
943: $G_i(0)=g_i/(2\pi v)$.
944: We have neglected the $G_{cs}$ coupling,
945: since this has an irrelevant canonical dimension.
946: \cite{Tsuchiizu_Furusaki}
947:
948: These RG equations can be simplified reflecting the symmetries
949: of the system.
950: The spin-rotational SU(2) symmetry ensures
951: $G_\sigma(l)=G_s(l)$, which is obtained from
952: Eq.\ (\ref{eq:spinSU(2)gs_gsigma})
953: by neglecting the transverse momentum dependences.
954: This relation holds even under the scaling procedure.
955: The particle-hole symmetric Hubbard model
956: has another pseudospin SU(2) symmetry
957: and then the total Hamiltonian is characterized by
958: the SU(2)$\times$SU(2) symmetry.\cite{Gogolin}
959: This pseudospin SU(2) symmetry ensures $G_\rho(l)=G_c(l)$,
960: which can be obtained
961: from Eq.\ (\ref{eq:chargeSU(2)gc_grho}), and
962: thus this can be considered as the
963: ``charge'' SU(2) symmetry.
964: In this SU(2)$\times$ SU(2) symmetric case,
965: the RG equations (\ref{eq:RG1dbare}) can be simplified as
966: %====================================================================
967: \begin{subequations}
968: \begin{eqnarray}
969: \frac{d}{dl}
970: G_{\rho}
971: &=&
972: + 2G_\rho^2 - 2 G_{\rho}^3,
973: \label{eq:RG1d_rho}
974: \\
975: \frac{d}{dl} G_{\sigma}
976: &=&
977: - 2G_{\sigma}^2- 2 G_{\sigma}^3,
978: \end{eqnarray}%
979: \label{eq:RG1d}%
980: \end{subequations}
981: %====================================================================
982: where the initial values are given by
983: $G_\rho(0)=G_\sigma(0)=U/(2\pi v)$.
984: For repulsive interaction $U>0$,
985: one finds from Eq.\ (\ref{eq:RG1d}) that
986: the $G_\sigma(l)$ coupling decreases under scaling
987: and is marginally irrelevant,
988: while $G_\rho(l)$ is marginally relevant.
989: The relevance/irrelevance of the couplings reflects the
990: low-energy properties having finite/zero excitation
991: gap in the corresponding modes.
992: This behavior correctly reflects the properties of the 1D Mott insulator,
993: where only the charge degrees of freedom is frozen due to
994: the finite Mott gap and the spin has gapless excitations.
995: By integrating out Eq.\ (\ref{eq:RG1d_rho}) analytically from
996: $l=0$ to $l=l_\rho \equiv\ln(\Lambda/\Delta_\rho)$,
997: one can obtain the characteristic energy scale $\Delta_\rho$ as
998: %====================================================================
999: \begin{eqnarray}
1000: \Delta_\rho = C_\rho \Lambda \sqrt{G_\rho} \exp(-1/2G_\rho),
1001: \label{eq:1DMottgap}
1002: \end{eqnarray}%
1003: %====================================================================
1004: where $C_\rho$ is an integration constant depending on
1005: $G_\rho(l_\rho)$.
1006: This formula reproduces the exactly known Mott gap in one dimension
1007: in the weak $U$ region, since
1008: the $U$ dependence of $\Delta_\rho$ is given by
1009: $\Delta_\rho \propto \sqrt{t_\parallel U} \exp(-2\pi t_\parallel/U)$.
1010: \cite{Ovchinikov}
1011:
1012:
1013: \section{Formulation of renormalization group}\label{sec:formulation}
1014:
1015: In this section, we derive the RG equations for the Q1D half-filled
1016: Hubbard model in the two-loop level
1017: based on the Kadanoff-Wilson cutoff scaling scheme.
1018: \cite{Bourbonnais2003}
1019: In the one-loop level, the formulation for the Q1D case is found in
1020: Refs.\ \onlinecite{Duprat2001,Bourbonnais2004,Fuseya2005,Dupuis2005,%
1021: Fuseya2006,Doucot2003}.
1022: In this scheme,
1023: we take partial integration of the partition function over the fermion
1024: degrees of freedom in the outer energy shell and
1025: scale the bandwidth cutoff $\Lambda$ as
1026: $\Lambda_l= \Lambda e^{-l}$ where $l$ is the scaling parameter.
1027: We perform the logarithmic approximation, i.e., we keep the diagrams
1028: which become logarithmic singular in the 1D limit and thus
1029: the resultant Q1D RG equations are natural extensions to those for
1030: purely 1D case.
1031: In order to simplify the notations,
1032: we introduce the dimensionless couplings
1033: $G_{\nu(q,k_1,k_2)}\equiv g_{\nu(q,k_1,k_2)}/2\pi v$,
1034: where $\nu=\rho,\sigma,c,s,cs$.
1035:
1036:
1037: \subsection{Peierls and Cooper bubbles in the one-loop level}
1038:
1039:
1040: %====================================================================
1041: \begin{figure}[t]
1042: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig3.eps}
1043: \caption{
1044: The second-order diagrams contributing to the vertex corrections.
1045: The open square is the vertex for forward and backward scatterings, i.e.,
1046: $g_{1\perp}$, $g_{2\perp}$, and $g_{\parallel}$, and
1047: the shaded square is the one for umklapp scattering $g_{3\perp}$ and
1048: $g_{3\parallel}$.
1049: The solid (dashed) line refers to a right-moving (left-moving) electron,
1050: $p=+(-)$.
1051: The slashed line represents that the electron has energies
1052: in the shell $\Lambda_{l+dl}<|\varepsilon_p(\bm k)|< \Lambda_l$,
1053: while the crossed line represents the electron having high energies
1054: determined by the momentum conservation.
1055: The diagrams where the crossed line and slashed line are interchanged
1056: are also taken into account.
1057: }
1058: \label{fig:vertex1}
1059: \end{figure}
1060: %======================================================================
1061:
1062: First we focus on the one-loop contributions due to the
1063: second-order vertex corrections.
1064: Possible Peierls and Cooper bubble contributions,
1065: due to the normal and umklapp scattering,
1066: are shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:vertex1}.
1067: We integrate out the electron degrees of freedom which have
1068: energy in the shell $\Lambda_{l+dl}<|\varepsilon_p(\bm k)|< \Lambda_l$.
1069: The respective Peierls and Cooper bubbles have
1070: the \textit{transverse}-momentum (i.e., patch-index) dependence
1071: of the external variables,
1072: as discussed in the literature.
1073: \cite{Duprat2001,Bourbonnais2004,Fuseya2005,Dupuis2005}
1074: This effect is crucial to induce the transverse-momentum dependence of the
1075: coupling constants.
1076: There remain ambiguities in the selection of the
1077: \textit{longitudinal} momenta for the external variable,
1078: since, in general, all the momenta of vertex cannot be set on the
1079: Fermi surface if the Fermi surface is warped. \cite{Doucot2003}
1080: In this paper, we set three of four external momenta being on the
1081: Fermi surface and the longitudinal momentum conservation
1082: for each vertex (even for the internal momenta) is also considered.
1083: The choice of the external longitudinal momenta,
1084: in addition to the transverse momenta,
1085: affects on the internal
1086: momenta and also on the RG equations.
1087: To keep the symmetries discussed in the preceding section,
1088: we also take into account the different choice of
1089: three of four longitudinal momenta on the Fermi surface.
1090: The explicit form of the Peierls bubble is given by
1091: $-(T/V)\sum_{\bm k}^{\mathrm{o.s.}} \sum_n
1092: \mathcal{G}_{0+}(\bm k,i\omega_n)
1093: \mathcal{G}_{0-}(\bm k-\bm q, i\omega_n) $
1094: where
1095: $\mathcal{G}_{0p}(\bm k,i\omega_n)
1096: =[i\omega_n - \varepsilon_p(\bm k)]^{-1}$
1097: is the Green's function
1098: for the noninteracting case.
1099: By taking summation of the Matsubara frequency and
1100: by performing the outer-shell integral over constant energy,
1101: this Peierls bubble contribution is given by
1102: $(2\pi v N_\perp)^{-1} \sum_{k} I_{(q,k,k_1,k_2)} dl$, where
1103: the cutoff function $I_{(q,k,k_1,k_2)}$ is given in the $T\to 0$
1104: limit by
1105: %====================================================================
1106: \begin{eqnarray}
1107: I_{(q,k,k_1,k_2)}
1108: =
1109: \frac{\Lambda}{2}\sum_{p=\pm} \sum_{i=1,2}
1110: \frac{\Theta\biglb(\Lambda+pA_{q,k,k_i}(l)\bigrb)}
1111: {2\Lambda+pA_{q,k,k_i}(l)} .
1112: \label{eq:I}
1113: \end{eqnarray}
1114: %====================================================================
1115: The quantity $A_{q,k,k'}(l)$
1116: being the functions of $t_\perp(l)$ is given by
1117: %====================================================================
1118: \begin{eqnarray}
1119: A_{q,k,k'}(l)&\equiv&
1120: 2t_\perp(l) [\cos k +\cos (k-q)]
1121: \nonumber \\ && {}
1122: -2t_\perp(l) [\cos k' +\cos (k'-q)].
1123: \label{eq:A}
1124: \end{eqnarray}
1125: %====================================================================
1126: The second term in the rhs of $A_{q,k,k'}(l)$ appears due to
1127: the longitudinal momentum conservation.
1128: In the conventional approach, this term has been
1129: neglected, \cite{Duprat2001,Bourbonnais2004,Fuseya2005,Dupuis2005}
1130: however is crucial to
1131: reproduce the known RG equations in the two-leg ladder system
1132: (Sec.\ \ref{sec:ladder}).
1133: We note $I_{(q,k,k_1,k_2)}=1$ in the 1D limit ($t_\perp\to 0$).
1134: The Cooper bubble contribution is also calculated in
1135: a similar way and can be expressed,
1136: after some algebra, as $-I_{(\pi-q+k_1+k_2,k',k_1,k_2)}$
1137: where we have used the particle-hole symmetry.
1138:
1139:
1140:
1141: %====================================================================
1142: \begin{figure}[t]
1143: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig4.eps}
1144: \caption{
1145: The logarithmic-singular
1146: second-order diagrams for the Green's function, contributing
1147: the self energy.
1148: The notations are the same as in Fig.\ \ref{fig:vertex1}.
1149: Other types of second-order diagrams
1150: are not logarithmic singular even in the 1D limit and can be neglected.
1151: }
1152: \label{fig:selfenergy}
1153: \end{figure}
1154: %======================================================================
1155:
1156:
1157:
1158: \subsection{Two-loop self-energy corrections}
1159:
1160: To go beyond the one-loop RG theory, we have to take into
1161: account two-loop self-energy corrections based on the
1162: second-order perturbation.
1163: The Fermi surface deformation
1164: can be taken into account by considering these corrections
1165: and has been discussed intensively
1166: by Dusuel and Dou\c{c}ot, \cite{Doucot2003}
1167: based on the zero-temperature formalism.
1168: Here we perform the finite-temperature formalism
1169: and take the $T\to 0$ limit at the final stage of the calculation.
1170: The second-order self-energy diagrams are shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:selfenergy}.
1171: In the second-order perturbation,
1172: there are two types of corrections to the
1173: single-particle Green's function $\mathcal{G}$:
1174: One is the corrections to the wave-function renormalization factor
1175: while the other
1176: contributes to the renormalization of the velocity and the
1177: interchain hopping.
1178: In the present RG scheme, the renormalization factor can have
1179: a transverse momentum dependence.
1180: So we assume that the Green's function takes a form
1181: %====================================================================
1182: \begin{eqnarray}
1183: \mathcal{G}_{p}(\bm k,i\omega_n)
1184: =
1185: \frac{z_{k_\perp}^p}{i\omega_n - v(p k_\parallel-k_F)
1186: + 2 t_{\perp}^{\mathrm{eff}} \cos k_\perp}
1187: .
1188: \label{eq:Green_general}
1189: \end{eqnarray}
1190: %====================================================================
1191: where $z^R_{k_\perp}=z^L_{-k_\perp} (\equiv z_{k_{\perp}})$.
1192: The explicit calculation of outer shell integration of the
1193: diagrams in Fig.\ \ref{fig:selfenergy} yields
1194: \begin{widetext}
1195: %====================================================================
1196: \begin{eqnarray}
1197: \mathcal{G}_{R}^{-1}(\bm k,i\omega_n)
1198: &=&
1199: \mathcal{G}_{0R}^{-1}(\bm k,i\omega_n)
1200: -
1201: \frac{dl}{2N_\perp^2} \sum_{q , k'} G_{\Sigma(q,k,k')}^2
1202: \left[
1203: J_{0(q,k,k')}
1204: -
1205: J_{1(q,k,k')} \mathcal{G}_{0R}^{-1}(\bm k,i\omega_n)
1206: \right],
1207: \label{eq:selfenergy}
1208: \end{eqnarray}
1209: %====================================================================
1210: for the right-moving electrons.
1211: The second-order coupling constants contributing the
1212: self-energy corrections are put into a form:
1213: %====================================================================
1214: \begin{eqnarray}
1215: G_{\Sigma(q,k,k')}^2
1216: &\equiv &
1217: G_{1\perp(q,k,k')}^2
1218: + G_{2\perp(q,k,k')}^2
1219: + G_{\parallel(q,k,k')}^2
1220: + \frac{1}{2} G_{3\perp(q,k,\pi-k')}^2
1221: + \frac{1}{2} G_{3\perp(\pi-q+k+k',k,\pi-k')}^2
1222: \nonumber \\ && {}
1223: + \frac{1}{2} G_{3\parallel(q,k,\pi-k')}^2
1224: - G_{3\parallel(q,k,\pi-k')}G_{3\parallel(\pi-q+k+k',k,\pi-k')}
1225: + \frac{1}{2} G_{3\parallel(\pi-q+k+k',k,\pi-k')}^2
1226: .
1227: \label{eq:self-energy}
1228: \end{eqnarray}
1229: %====================================================================
1230: \end{widetext}
1231: We note that the umklapp scattering with the same spins $G_{3\parallel}$
1232: also has finite contributions which are absent in the 1D limit.
1233: The quantities $J_{0(q,k,k')}$ and $J_{1(q,k,k')}$
1234: denote the cutoff functions due to the warped Fermi surface,
1235: which are also determined by the quantity
1236: $A_{q,k,k'}(l)$ [Eq.\ (\ref{eq:A})].
1237: These cutoff functions $J_0$ and $J_1$ take different forms
1238: depending on the relation between $A_{q,k,k'}(l)$ and $\Lambda$:
1239: For $|A_{q,k,k'}(l)|<\Lambda$, these are given by
1240: %====================================================================
1241: \begin{subequations}
1242: \begin{eqnarray}
1243: J_{0(q,k,k')}
1244: &=&
1245: 2\Lambda
1246: \ln\left[
1247: \frac{4\Lambda+A_{q,k,k'}(l)}
1248: {4\Lambda-A_{q,k,k'}(l)}
1249: \right],
1250: \label{eq:J0}
1251: \\
1252: J_{1(q,k,k')}
1253: &=&
1254: \frac{16\Lambda^2}{16\Lambda^2-A^2_{q,k,k'}(l)}.
1255: \end{eqnarray}
1256: \end{subequations}
1257: %====================================================================
1258: For $|A_{q,k,k'}(l)|>\Lambda$,
1259: %====================================================================
1260: \begin{subequations}
1261: \begin{eqnarray}
1262: J_{0(q,k,k')}
1263: &=&
1264: 2\Lambda
1265: \ln\left[
1266: \frac{4\Lambda+|A_{q,k,k'}(l)|}{2\Lambda+|A_{q,k,k'}(l)|}
1267: \right] \, \mathrm{sgn} \biglb(A_{q,k,k'}(l) \bigrb),
1268: \nonumber \\
1269: \\
1270: J_{1(q,k,k')}
1271: &=&
1272: \frac{2\Lambda}{4\Lambda+|A_{q,k,k'}(l)|}
1273: + \frac{2\Lambda}{2\Lambda+|A_{q,k,k'}(l)|}.
1274: \end{eqnarray}
1275: \end{subequations}
1276: %====================================================================
1277: There remain subtleties in the integral region of outer shell,
1278: \cite{Bourbonnais2003} here we adopt the simplest shell integral
1279: following Ref.\ \onlinecite{Bourbonnais1991}.
1280: The scaling deviation terms \cite{Bourbonnais2003,Bourbonnais1991}
1281: have been neglected.
1282:
1283: The self-energy corrections proportional to
1284: $\mathcal{G}^{-1}_{0R}(\bm k , i\omega_n)$
1285: in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:selfenergy}) contribute to
1286: the wave-function renormalization factor $z_{k_\perp}^p$.
1287: The explicit RG equation of the wave-function renormalization factor
1288: is given by
1289: %====================================================================
1290: \begin{eqnarray}
1291: \frac{d}{dl} \ln z_{k}
1292: &=&
1293: - \frac{1}{2N_\perp^2} \sum_{q , k'}
1294: G_{\Sigma(q,k,k')}^{2} \,
1295: J_{1(q,k,k')}
1296: .
1297: \end{eqnarray}
1298: %====================================================================
1299: The self-energy corrections
1300: proportional to $J_0$ in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:selfenergy})
1301: contribute to the renormalization of the velocity and the
1302: Fermi surface deformation.
1303: To simplify discussions
1304: in the present analysis, we neglect the velocity renormalization,
1305: since this effect would only yield quantitative changes.
1306: The Fermi surface deformation can be extracted from these
1307: second-order corrections.
1308: Since the Fermi surface is given by Eq.\ (\ref{eq:kf}),
1309: the Fermi surface deformation thus corresponds to
1310: the renormalization of the interchain hopping.
1311: By noting that the self-energy contributions to
1312: the interchain hopping should have
1313: transverse momentum dependence $\cos k$,
1314: the RG equation of the renormalization for the interchain hopping
1315: is given by
1316: %====================================================================
1317: \begin{eqnarray}
1318: \frac{d}{dl}
1319: t_\perp(l) &=&
1320: t_\perp(l)
1321: \nonumber \\ &&{} \hspace*{-1cm}
1322: -
1323: \frac{1}{4N_\perp^3} \sum_{q ,k, k'}
1324: G_{\Sigma(q,k,k')}^2
1325: \, J_{0(q,k,k')} \cos k.
1326: \label{eq:RG_tperp}
1327: \end{eqnarray}
1328: %====================================================================
1329: The renormalization to higher-order interchain
1330: hopping has been neglected.
1331:
1332:
1333:
1334:
1335: \subsection{Two-loop RG equations}
1336:
1337:
1338:
1339: %====================================================================
1340: \begin{figure}[t]
1341: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig5.eps}
1342: \caption{
1343: The third-order diagrams contributing to the vertex corrections,
1344: which have an order $O(G^3 dl)$ in the 1D limit.
1345: The notations are the same as in Fig.\ \ref{fig:vertex1}.
1346: Other types of third-order diagrams have an order $O(G^3 dl^2)$
1347: and can be neglected.
1348: }
1349: \label{fig:vertex2}
1350: \end{figure}
1351: %======================================================================
1352:
1353:
1354: In order to complete the two-loop RG theory, one has to take into
1355: account the next-to-leading logarithmic contributions to the
1356: vertex part.
1357: The two-loop vertex corrections can be calculated in a similar way
1358: to that for the self-energy correction.
1359: The third-order diagrams with the next-to-leading logarithmic contributions
1360: are shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:vertex2} and yield the renormalization
1361: of the vertex as
1362: $G_{i(q,k_1,k_2)} \to z_{i(q,k_1,k_2)} \, G_{i(q,k_1,k_2)}$,
1363: where $i=1$$\perp$, $2$$\perp$, $\parallel$, $3$$\perp$, and $3$$\parallel$.
1364: Other types of diagrams are of the order $O(G^3 dl^2)$ which are already
1365: taken into account in the one-loop level.
1366: As is well-known in the 1D case, the RG is formulated
1367: by deriving the scaling equations for
1368: the ``renormalized'' coupling constants
1369: $G_{i}(l) \equiv G_{i} z_{i}(l) z^2(l)$
1370: \cite{Bourbonnais2003,Solyom,Bourbonnais1991}
1371: where $z(l)$ is the wave-function renormalization factor.
1372: In the present Q1D RG,
1373: by keeping in mind that the vertex has a transverse-momentum dependence,
1374: the renormalized coupling constants are
1375: defined as
1376: %====================================================================
1377: \begin{eqnarray}
1378: G_{i(q,k_1,k_2)}(l)
1379: &\equiv&
1380: G_{i(q,k_1,k_2)} \,
1381: z_{i(q,k_1,k_2)}(l)
1382: \nonumber \\ && {} \times
1383: \sqrt{
1384: z_{k_1}^R(l) \, z_{k_2}^R(l) \,
1385: z_{k_1-q}^L(l) \, z_{k_2-q}^L(l) \,
1386: },
1387: \nonumber \\
1388: \end{eqnarray}
1389: %====================================================================
1390: for the normal scatterings $(i=1\!\perp,2\!\perp,\parallel)$, and
1391: %====================================================================
1392: \begin{eqnarray}
1393: G_{i(q,k_1,k_2)}(l)
1394: &\equiv&
1395: G_{i(q,k_1,k_2)} \,
1396: z_{i(q,k_1,k_2)}(l)
1397: \nonumber \\ && {} \times
1398: \sqrt{
1399: z_{k_1}^R(l) \, z_{k_2}^R(l) \,
1400: z_{k_1-q}^L(l) \, z_{k_2+q}^L(l) \,
1401: },
1402: \nonumber \\
1403: \end{eqnarray}
1404: %====================================================================
1405: for the umklapp scatterings $(i=3\!\perp,3\!\parallel)$.
1406: The wave-function renormalization factor $z_{k_\perp}^p$ comes from the
1407: rescaling of the electron field operator.
1408: Even in the two-loop vertex corrections, the cutoff function
1409: due to the warping of the Fermi surface appears, which is given by
1410: %====================================================================
1411: \begin{eqnarray}
1412: J_{2(q+k'';k_1,k_2;k',k'')}
1413: &=&
1414: \frac{1}{2}J_{1(q+k''-k_1,k',k'')}
1415: \nonumber \\ && {}
1416: +\frac{1}{2}J_{1(q+k''-k_2,k',k'')}.
1417: \end{eqnarray}
1418: %====================================================================
1419: The cutoff function $I$, $J_{0}$, $J_{1}$, and $J_{2}$
1420: are not universal and would take different
1421: forms depending on the RG formulation.
1422: The function $I$ [Eq.\ (\ref{eq:I})]
1423: is not continuous as a function of $A_{q,k,k_i}(l)$ which
1424: would be due to the sharp cutoff of the bandwidth.
1425: This unphysical discontinuity of $I$ affects the
1426: results of the numerical integration of the RG equations.
1427: In order to avoid this unphysical effect,
1428: we replace $I$ by a smooth function which
1429: reproduce the limiting behavior of Eq.\ (\ref{eq:I})
1430: for small and large $A_{q,k,k_i}(l)$.
1431:
1432: From the straightforward calculation of the diagrams in Fig.\
1433: \ref{fig:vertex2}, we obtain the two-loop
1434: RG equations for $G_{1\perp(q,k_1,k_2)}$,
1435: $G_{2\perp(q,k_1,k_2)}$,
1436: $G_{\parallel(q,k_1,k_2)}$,
1437: $G_{3\perp(q,k_1,k_2)}$, and
1438: $G_{3\parallel(q,k_1,k_2)}$.
1439: We note that, if we set $N_\perp=2$
1440: and if we neglect the umklapp scattering
1441: $G_{3\perp(q,k_1,k_2)}$ and
1442: $G_{3\parallel(q,k_1,k_2)}$, our RG equations
1443: reproduce the two-loop RG equations
1444: obtained by Fabrizio \cite{Fabrizio1993}
1445: in the two-leg ladder system at away from half filling.
1446: By using Eq.\ (\ref{eq:notation}), we rewrite
1447: the RG equation in terms of
1448: $G_\rho$, $G_\sigma$, $G_c$, $G_s$, and $G_{cs}$.
1449: For the system with the spin-rotational SU(2) symmetry,
1450: the coupling constants satisfy the relations given by
1451: Eq.\ (\ref{eq:spinSU(2)_gology}).
1452: The full RG equations in this case is given in the Appendix
1453: \ref{sec:appendix_RG}.
1454: For the particle-hole symmetric Hubbard model,
1455: the coupling constants also satisfy the relations
1456: (\ref{eq:ph}) and (\ref{eq:chargeSU(2)_gology}).
1457: %
1458: By using all these relations,
1459: the RG equations with the SU(2) $\times$ SU(2) symmetry
1460: are extremely simplified.
1461: The complete two-loop RG equations for the coupling constants
1462: $G_{\rho(q,k_1,k_2)}$ and $G_{\sigma(q,k_1,k_2)}$ are given by
1463: \begin{widetext}
1464: %====================================================================
1465: \begin{eqnarray}
1466: \frac{d}{dl}
1467: G_{\nu(q,k_1,k_2)}
1468: &=&
1469: \frac{1}{2N_\perp} \sum_{k'}
1470: \left[
1471: \alpha_{\nu(q;k_1,k_2;k')} I_{(q,k',k_1,k_2)}
1472: - \beta_{\nu(q;k_1,k_2;k')} I_{(\pi-q+k_1+k_2 ,k',k_1,k_2)}
1473: \right]
1474: \nonumber \\ && {} %---------
1475: - \frac{1}{4N_\perp^2} \, G_{\nu(q,k_1,k_2)}
1476: \sum_{q' ,k'}
1477: \Bigl[
1478: G_{\Sigma (q',k_1,k')}^2 \, J_{1(q',k_1,k')}
1479: + G_{\Sigma (q',k_2,k')}^2 \, J_{1(q',k_2,k')}
1480: \Bigr]
1481: \nonumber \\ && {}
1482: - \frac{1}{4N_\perp^2} \, G_{\nu(q,k_1,k_2)}
1483: \sum_{q' ,k'}
1484: \Bigl[
1485: G_{\Sigma (q',-k_1+q,k')}^2 \, J_{1(q',-k_1+q,k')}
1486: + G_{\Sigma (q',-k_2+q,k')}^2 \, J_{1(q',-k_2+q,k')}
1487: \Bigr]
1488: \nonumber \\ && {} %---------
1489: + \frac{1}{4N_\perp^2} \sum_{q',k'}
1490: \Bigl\{
1491: \bigl[
1492: G_{\nu(q+q',k_1,k_2)}
1493: - \Theta_\nu G_{\nu(\pi-q-q'+k_1+k_2,k_1,k_2)}
1494: \bigr]
1495: \gamma_{\nu(q-k_1+k',q-k_2+k';k',k';q')}
1496: \nonumber \\ && {} \qquad\qquad
1497: - \frac{1}{2}
1498: G_{\nu(\pi-q-q'+k_1+k_2,k_1,k_2)}
1499: \delta_{\nu(q-k_1+k',q-k_2+k';k',k';q')}
1500: \Bigr\}
1501: J_{2(q+k';k_1,k_2;k',k'-q')}
1502: \nonumber \\ && {}
1503: + \frac{1}{4N_\perp^2} \sum_{q',k'}
1504: \Bigl\{
1505: \bigl[
1506: G_{\nu(q-q',k_1-q',k_2-q')}
1507: - \Theta_\nu G_{\nu(\pi-q-q'+k_1+k_2,k_1-q',k_2-q')}
1508: \bigr]
1509: \gamma_{\nu(k_1-k',k_2-k';k_1,k_2;q')}
1510: \nonumber \\ && {} \qquad\qquad
1511: - \frac{1}{2}
1512: G_{\nu(\pi-q-q'+k_1+k_2,k_1-q',k_2-q')}
1513: \delta_{\nu(k_1-k',k_2-k';k_1,k_2;q')}
1514: \Bigr\}
1515: J_{2(k';k_1,k_2;k',k'-q')}
1516: ,
1517: \label{eq:RG_G}
1518: \end{eqnarray}
1519: %====================================================================
1520: where $\nu=\rho,\sigma$ and the sign function $\Theta_\nu$ is
1521: $\Theta_\rho=+1$ and $\Theta_\sigma=-1$.
1522: The index of the scaling parameter $l$ in the coupling constants
1523: $G_{\nu(q,k_1,k_2)}$ is suppressed.
1524: The coupling constants for the self-energy corrections,
1525: Eq.\ (\ref{eq:self-energy}),
1526: can be rewritten in terms of $G_\rho$ and $G_\sigma$, as
1527: %====================================================================
1528: \begin{equation}
1529: G_{\Sigma(q,k,k')}^2
1530: =
1531: G_{\rho(q,k,k')}^2
1532: +\frac{1}{2} G_{\rho(q,k,k')} G_{\rho(\pi-q+k+k',k,k')}
1533: + 3 G_{\sigma(q,k,k')}^2
1534: - \frac{3}{2} G_{\sigma(q,k,k')} G_{\sigma(\pi-q+k+k',k,k')}.
1535: \label{eq:Gself}
1536: \end{equation}
1537: %====================================================================
1538: The quantities $\alpha_\nu$, $\beta_\nu$, $\gamma_\nu$, and
1539: $\delta_\mu$ ($\nu=\rho,\sigma$)
1540: are defined as follows.
1541: The quantities $\alpha_\nu$ represent the one-loop
1542: Peierls bubble contributions given by
1543: %====================================================================
1544: \begin{eqnarray*}
1545: \alpha_{\rho (q;k_1,k_2;k')}
1546: &\equiv&
1547: 2G_{\rho(q,k_1,k')} \, G_{\rho(q,k',k_2)}
1548: + G_{\rho(q,k_1,k')} \, G_{\rho(\pi-q+k_2+k',k',k_2)}
1549: + G_{\rho(\pi-q+k_1+k',k_1,k')} \, G_{\rho(q,k',k_2)}
1550: \nonumber \\ && {}
1551: + 6G_{\sigma(q,k_1,k')} \, G_{\sigma(q,k',k_2)}
1552: -3G_{\sigma(q,k_1,k')} \, G_{\sigma(\pi-q+k_2+k',k',k_2)}
1553: -3G_{\sigma(\pi-q+k_1+k',k_1,k')} \, G_{\sigma(q,k',k_2)}
1554: \nonumber \\ && {}
1555: + G_{\rho(\pi-q+k_1+k',k_1,k')} \,
1556: G_{\rho(\pi-q+k_2+k',k',k_2)}
1557: + 3 G_{\sigma(\pi-q+k_1+k',k_1,k')} \,
1558: G_{\sigma(\pi-q+k_2+k',k',k_2)},
1559: \\
1560: \alpha_{\sigma (q;k_1,k_2;k')}
1561: &\equiv&
1562: 2G_{\rho(q,k_1,k')} \, G_{\sigma(q,k',k_2)}
1563: +2G_{\sigma(q,k_1,k')} \, G_{\rho(q,k',k_2)}
1564: -4G_{\sigma(q,k_1,k')} \, G_{\sigma(q,k',k_2)}
1565: \nonumber \\ && {}
1566: - G_{\rho(q,k_1,k')} \, G_{\sigma(\pi-q+k_2+k',k',k_2)}
1567: - G_{\sigma(\pi-q+k_1+k',k_1,k')} \, G_{\rho(q,k',k_2)}
1568: + 2G_{\sigma(q,k_1,k')} \, G_{\sigma(\pi-q+k_2+k',k',k_2)}
1569: \nonumber \\ && {}
1570: + G_{\rho(\pi-q+k_1+k',k_1,k')} \, G_{\sigma(q,k',k_2)}
1571: + G_{\sigma(q,k_1,k')} \, G_{\rho(\pi-q+k_2+k',k',k_2)}
1572: + 2 G_{\sigma(\pi-q+k_1+k',k_1,k')} \, G_{\sigma(q,k',k_2)}
1573: \nonumber \\ && {}
1574: - G_{\rho(\pi-q+k_1+k',k_1,k')} \, G_{\sigma(\pi-q+k_2+k',k',k_2)}
1575: - G_{\sigma(\pi-q+k_1+k',k_1,k')} \, G_{\rho(\pi-q+k_2+k',k',k_2)}
1576: \nonumber \\ && {}
1577: - 2 G_{\sigma(\pi-q+k_1+k',k_1,k')} \, G_{\sigma(\pi-q+k_2+k',k',k_2)}.
1578: \end{eqnarray*}
1579: %====================================================================
1580: The quantities $\beta_\nu$ represent the one-loop
1581: Cooper bubble contributions:
1582: %====================================================================
1583: \begin{eqnarray*}
1584: \beta_{\rho(q;k_1,k_2;k')}
1585: &\equiv&
1586: G_{\rho(q-k_2+k',k_1,k')} G_{\rho(q-k_1+k', k',k_2)}
1587: + 3 G_{\sigma(q-k_2+k',k_1,k')} G_{\sigma(q-k_1+k', k',k_2)} ,
1588: \\
1589: \beta_{\sigma(q;k_1,k_2;k')}
1590: &\equiv&
1591: G_{\rho(q-k_2+k',k_1,k')} G_{\sigma(q-k_1+k', k',k_2)}
1592: + G_{\sigma(q-k_2+k',k_1,k')} G_{\rho(q-k_1+k',k',k_2)}
1593: \nonumber \\ && {}
1594: +2G_{\sigma(q-k_2+k',k_1,k')} G_{\sigma(q-k_1+k', k',k_2)}.
1595: \end{eqnarray*}
1596: %====================================================================
1597: Finally the quantities $\gamma_\nu$ and $\delta_\nu$
1598: represent the two-loop vertex contributions:
1599: %====================================================================
1600: \begin{eqnarray*}
1601: \gamma_{\rho (q_1,q_2;k_1,k_2;q')}
1602: &\equiv&
1603: G_{\rho (q_1,k_1,k_1-q')} \, G_{\rho (q_2,k_2,k_2-q')}
1604: + 3G_{\sigma(q_1,k_1,k_1-q')} \, G_{\sigma(q_2,k_2,k_2-q')} ,
1605: \\
1606: \gamma_{\sigma(q_1,q_2;k_1,k_2;q')}
1607: &\equiv&
1608: G_{\rho (q_1,k_1,k_1-q')} \, G_{\rho (q_2,k_2,k_2-q')}
1609: - G_{\sigma(q_1,k_1,k_1-q')} \, G_{\sigma(q_2,k_2,k_2-q')} ,
1610: \\
1611: \delta_{\rho (q_1,q_2;k_1,k_2;q')}
1612: &\equiv&
1613: G_{\rho (q_1,k_1,k_1-q')} \, G_{\rho (\pi-q_2-q'+2k_2,k_2,k_2-q')}
1614: + G_{\rho (\pi-q_1-q'+2k_1,k_1,k_1-q')} \, G_{\rho (q_2,k_2,k_2-q')}
1615: \nonumber \\ && {}
1616: -3 G_{\sigma(q_1,k_1,k_1-q')} \, G_{\sigma(\pi-q_2-q'+2k_2,k_2,k_2-q')}
1617: -3 G_{\sigma(\pi-q_1-q'+2k_1,k_1,k_1-q')} \, G_{\sigma(q_2,k_2,k_2-q')} ,
1618: \\
1619: \delta_{\sigma(q_1,q_2;k_1,k_2;q')}
1620: &\equiv&
1621: - G_{\rho (q_1,k_1,k_1-q')} \, G_{\rho (\pi-q_2-q'+2k_2,k_2,k_2-q')}
1622: - G_{\rho (\pi-q_1-q'+2k_1,k_1,k_1-q')} \, G_{\rho (q_2,k_2,k_2-q')}
1623: \nonumber \\ && {}
1624: - G_{\sigma(q_1,k_1,k_1-q')} \, G_{\sigma(\pi-q_2-q'+2k_2,k_2,k_2-q')}
1625: - G_{\sigma(\pi-q_1-q'+2k_1,k_1,k_1-q')} \, G_{\sigma(q_2,k_2,k_2-q')} .
1626: \end{eqnarray*}
1627: %====================================================================
1628: \end{widetext}
1629: We have only kept the marginal scattering processes.
1630: In the purely 1D case, it is known that the $G_{cs}$ term has
1631: irrelevant canonical dimension. \cite{Tsuchiizu_Furusaki}
1632: In the present case, some of the $G_{cs(q,k_1,k_2)}$ couplings
1633: have a marginal canonical dimension, however,
1634: the RG equation for the $G_{cs(q,k_1,k_2)}$
1635: does not appear explicitly since
1636: the correction due to this term always appears
1637: in a form $(G_{cs(q,k_1,k_2)}-G_{cs(\pi-q+k_1+k_2,k_1,k_2)})$,
1638: which shows the same $l$-dependence of
1639: $(-G_{\sigma(q,k_1,k_2)}+G_{\sigma(\pi-q+k_1+k_2,k_1,k_2)})$,
1640: as seen from
1641: Eqs.\ (\ref{eq:spinSU(2)gs_gsigma}) and (\ref{eq:chargeSU(2)gs_gcs}).
1642: For $N_\perp=8$, e.g.,
1643: the number of independent coupling constants reduces to 300
1644: instead of 1440 for without assuming the symmetries.
1645: If the transverse momentum dependences of the coupling constants
1646: are neglected, the 1D RG equations [Eq.\ (\ref{eq:RG1d})]
1647: are reproduced.
1648:
1649:
1650:
1651: From the numerical integration of the RG equations,
1652: we can estimate characteristic energy scales.
1653: Here we focus on the renormalized interchain hopping and
1654: the charge/spin excitation gaps.
1655: The effective renormalized interchain hopping is given by
1656: %====================================================================
1657: \begin{eqnarray}
1658: t_\perp^{\mathrm{eff}}
1659: \equiv
1660: \Lambda \exp (-l_{\perp}),
1661: \end{eqnarray}
1662: %====================================================================
1663: where the quantity $l_\perp$ is determined from
1664: $t_\perp(l_\perp)=\Lambda$.
1665: In the noninteracting limit, the interchain hopping scales
1666: as $t_\perp(l)=t_\perp e^{l}$, then $l_\perp= \ln(\Lambda/t_\perp)$
1667: and the effective interchain hopping trivially reduces to
1668: the bare interchain hopping $t_\perp^{\mathrm{eff}}=t_\perp$.
1669: This quantity characterizes the dimensional-crossover energy scale,
1670: below which the system cannot be regarded
1671: as a one-dimensional system any more.
1672: In addition, the Fermi surface deformation can be determined by
1673: this quantity.
1674: By noting the relation (\ref{eq:kf}), the deformed Fermi surface is given by
1675: %====================================================================
1676: \begin{equation}
1677: k_F^{\mathrm{eff}}(k_\perp) =
1678: k_F +2 \frac{t_\perp^{\mathrm{eff}}}{v} \cos k_\perp.
1679: \end{equation}
1680: %====================================================================
1681: It is known that the Fermi-surface
1682: deformation comes only from the renormalization in the high-energy
1683: regime, since the
1684: coupling constants which appear in
1685: the rhs of Eq.\ (\ref{eq:RG_tperp}) are the irrelevant couplings.
1686: \cite{Doucot2003}
1687:
1688:
1689: In the present RG scheme,
1690: the information of the charge gap $\Delta_\rho$ and the spin
1691: gap $\Delta_\sigma$
1692: can be extracted
1693: by focusing on the combination of the coupling constants:
1694: %====================================================================
1695: \begin{eqnarray}
1696: G_{\nu +}
1697: &\equiv&
1698: \frac{1}{N_\perp^2} \sum_{k,k'}
1699: G_{\nu(k-k',k,k)} ,
1700: \label{eq:gnu+}
1701: \end{eqnarray}
1702: %====================================================================
1703: where $\nu=\rho, \sigma$.
1704: This interpretation can be justified by noting that
1705: the uniform charge/spin susceptibility
1706: is determined by these quantities
1707: \cite{Fuseya2006}
1708: and by the field-theoretical approach
1709: for the two-leg ladder ($N_\perp=2$) case
1710: as will be shown in Sec.\ \ref{sec:ladder}.
1711: A typical scaling flow is shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:flow8},
1712: where we have set $N_\perp=8$.
1713: As a reference, the scaling flow for the 1D case is also shown.
1714: The charge coupling $G_{\rho+}$ shows similar behavior
1715: to that in the 1D case, while the spin coupling $G_{\sigma+}$
1716: becomes relevant and have a finite fixed point value $G_{\sigma-}^*=-1$.
1717: We note that
1718: the magnitude of several coupling constants becomes large and exceed the
1719: unity under the scaling procedure
1720: for $l>l_\perp$.
1721: By focusing on this scaling behavior of $G_{\nu+}(l)$, we can estimate
1722: the magnitude of the excitation gaps by
1723: %====================================================================
1724: \begin{eqnarray}
1725: \Delta_\nu
1726: \equiv
1727: \Lambda \exp (-l_{\nu})
1728: \label{eq:gapestimation}
1729: \end{eqnarray}
1730: %====================================================================
1731: where the quantity $l_\nu$ is determined from
1732: $|G_{\nu+}(l_\nu)|= c$ where $c$ is a numerical constant.
1733: In the present numerical calculations,
1734: we will set $c=0.7$ and $\Lambda=2v k_F$.
1735: As seen in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:1DMottgap}),
1736: these ambiguity simply affects on
1737: the numerical factor and our choice
1738: reproduce well the exact results of the $\Delta_\rho$
1739: in the 1D case.\cite{Ovchinikov}
1740: The interchain-hopping dependence of $\Delta_\rho$, $\Delta_\sigma$,
1741: and $t_\perp^{\mathrm{eff}}$ is shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:Gap8}.
1742: The charge gap
1743: is suppressed due to the interchain hopping
1744: but is always finite even when the interchain hopping
1745: exceeds the magnitude of the charge gap.
1746: In the present bipartite Q1D half-filled Hubbard model,
1747: we find that the charge gap is always finite for $U>0$.
1748: This is contrast to the
1749: results obtained from the chain-DMFT
1750: \cite{Giamarchi2001,Giamarchi2002,Giamarchi2004,Berthod}
1751: where the metal-insulator (Mott) transition has been
1752: suggested for finite interchain hopping at $T=0$.
1753: This difference would arise from the difference in the treatment
1754: of the Fermi-surface nesting of the system.
1755: In the present model,
1756: the Fermi surface is always nested perfectly even for the
1757: finite interchain hopping where the nesting vector is $(\pi,\pi)$.
1758: In our approach, we fully take into account this effect,
1759: however in the chain-DMFT,
1760: the warping of the Fermi surface is not taken into account.
1761: We expect that
1762: the Fermi-surface nesting would play crucial roles in
1763: the Q1D Mott transition, since
1764: the 1D Mott insulator itself is realized
1765: even in the small $U$ region
1766: due to the commensurability effect,
1767: which would be sensitive to the Fermi-surface nesting.
1768: By means of the present Q1D RG scheme,
1769: the effect of the nesting deviation will be reported elsewhere.
1770: \cite{Tsuchiizu_unpublished}
1771:
1772:
1773: %====================================================================
1774: \begin{figure}[t]
1775: \includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{fig6.eps}
1776: \caption{
1777: (Color online)
1778: The scaling flows of the coupling constants $G_{\rho+}(l)$ and
1779: $G_{\sigma+}(l)$ and the interchain hopping $t_\perp(l)/\Lambda$
1780: for $N_\perp=8$
1781: with fixed $U/t_\parallel = 2$ and $t_\perp/t_\parallel=0.05$.
1782: The case for $t_\perp=0$ is shown by the dotted lines.
1783: }
1784: \label{fig:flow8}
1785: \end{figure}
1786: %======================================================================
1787:
1788: %====================================================================
1789: \begin{figure}[t]
1790: \includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{fig7.eps}
1791: \caption{
1792: (Color online)
1793: The charge gap $\Delta_\rho$, the spin gap $\Delta_\sigma$,
1794: and the characteristic energy scale $t_\perp^{\mathrm{eff}}$,
1795: as a function of $t_\perp/t_\parallel$ for $N_\perp=8$ and
1796: $U/t_\parallel = 2$.
1797: The dashed line represents the magnitude of the bare interchain hopping.
1798: }
1799: \label{fig:Gap8}
1800: \end{figure}
1801: %======================================================================
1802:
1803:
1804:
1805:
1806:
1807: \section{Two-leg ladder model}\label{sec:ladder}
1808:
1809:
1810: To indicate the validity of the two-loop RG equations obtained in the
1811: preceding section, we apply it to the two-leg Hubbard ladder model
1812: with a bipartite lattice.
1813: This model has been investigated by the RG method combined with
1814: the analytical field-theoretical method
1815: \cite{Nersesyan1993,Khveshchenko1994,Schulz1996,Balents1996,Lin1998}
1816: and by the numerical DMRG method,
1817: \cite{Noack,Weihong}
1818: and it has been clarified that
1819: the spin-gapped insulating state called the $D$-Mott phase
1820: is realized.
1821: Lin, Balents and Fisher obtained the highly symmetric SO(8) Gross-Neveu model
1822: as an effective theory in the low-energy limit
1823: by using the fixed-point behavior of the one-loop RG analysis.
1824: \cite{Lin1998}
1825: They further discussed finite-energy spectrum based on this effective
1826: theory, however, it is not clear that this high symmetry still
1827: holds at finite-energy scale.
1828: Actually, the RG method allows us to study the characteristic energy scales
1829: in addition to the fixed point behavior,
1830: however, the naive one-loop RG is not sufficient
1831: to estimate the excitation gaps, since the RG method breaks
1832: down at the scale corresponding to the largest gap, as mentioned before.
1833: A promising method is to derive an effective theory by
1834: tracing out the gapped modes
1835: based on the field-theoretical treatment.
1836: However, in the present two-loop RG,
1837: the excitation gaps in the respective modes
1838: can be estimated without following the tracing-out procedure.
1839: This is not so trivial if
1840: the respective modes are not independent.
1841: In this section,
1842: in order to check the validity of the present method,
1843: we consider the two-leg ladder system, which is a minimal model
1844: of the spin-charge coupled systems,
1845: and confirm that this two-loop RG theory reproduces
1846: results obtained by the DMRG method
1847: and further analyze the excitation properties in detail
1848: by combining the field-theoretical bosonization and
1849: fermionization method.
1850:
1851:
1852: The model can be obtained from Eq.\ (\ref{eq:model})
1853: by simply setting $N_\perp=2$.
1854: The possible values of the transverse momentum are $k_\perp=0$ and $\pi$.
1855: From the symmetry requirements
1856: [Eqs.\ (\ref{eq:spinSU(2)_gology}), (\ref{eq:ph}), and
1857: (\ref{eq:chargeSU(2)_gology})],
1858: the number of independent coupling constants reduces to 8
1859: instead of 30 for without assuming the symmetries.
1860: To respect these symmetries and to make the physical picture
1861: transparent,
1862: we derive the effective low-energy theory by
1863: applying the bosonization and refermionization.
1864: \cite{Tsuchiizu2002,Tsuchiizu2005,Shelton}
1865:
1866: First we apply the conventional Abelian bosonization to the Hamiltonian.
1867: The field operators of the right and left-moving electrons
1868: are written as
1869: %============================================================
1870: \begin{equation}
1871: \psi_{p,s,\zeta}(x) =
1872: \frac{\eta_{s,\zeta}}{\sqrt{2\pi a} }
1873: \exp \left( ipk_{F,\zeta} x
1874: + i p\, \varphi _{p,s,\zeta} \right),
1875: \label{eq:field}
1876: \end{equation}
1877: %===========================================================
1878: where $p=+$/$-$ represents the right/left moving electron,
1879: $s$ represents the spin, $\zeta$ represents the band
1880: index: $\zeta=+(-)$ for $k_\perp=0(\pi)$,
1881: and $k_{F,\pm}=(\pi/2 \pm 2 t_\perp/v)$ [see Eq.\ (\ref{eq:kf})].
1882: The technical details can be found in Refs.\
1883: \onlinecite{Tsuchiizu2002} and \onlinecite{Tsuchiizu2005}.
1884: The chiral bosons obey the commutation relations
1885: $[\varphi_{p,s,\zeta}(x),\varphi_{p,s',\zeta'}(x')]
1886: = ip\pi \, \mathrm{sgn}(x-x') \,
1887: \delta_{s,s'}\,\delta_{\zeta,\zeta'}$
1888: and
1889: $[\varphi_{+,s,\zeta},\varphi_{-,s',\zeta'}]
1890: = i\pi \,\delta_{s,s'}\,\delta_{\zeta,\zeta'}$.
1891: The Klein factors $\eta_{s,\zeta}$, which satisfy
1892: $\{\eta_{s,\zeta},\eta_{s',\zeta'}\}
1893: =2\delta_{s,s'}\delta_{\zeta,\zeta'}$,
1894: are introduced in order to retain the correct anticommutation
1895: relation of the field operators between the different spin and
1896: band index.
1897: To express the electron fields in terms of the bosonic fields
1898: representing physical modes, we define a new
1899: set of chiral bosonic fields
1900: $\phi_{\rho +}^p$, $\phi_{\rho -}^p$, $\phi_{\sigma +}^p$, and
1901: $\phi_{\sigma -}^p$, by
1902: %============================================================
1903: \begin{equation}
1904: \varphi_{p,s,\zeta}
1905: \equiv
1906: \phi_{\rho +}^p
1907: + \zeta \phi_{\rho -}^p
1908: + s \phi_{\sigma +}^p
1909: + s \zeta \phi_{\sigma -}^p
1910: ,
1911: \end{equation}
1912: %===========================================================
1913: where $s=\uparrow$$/$$\downarrow=+/-$.
1914: The commutation relations for these bosonic fields are
1915: $[\phi_{\nu r}^p(x), \phi_{\nu' r'}^p(x')]
1916: = ip \, (\pi/4) \,
1917: \mathrm{sgn}(x-x') \, \delta_{\nu,\nu'} \delta_{r, r'}$
1918: and
1919: $[\phi_{\nu r}^+(x), \phi_{\nu' r'}^-(x')]
1920: =i \, (\pi/4) \, \delta_{\nu,\nu'} \delta_{r, r'}$.
1921: From Eq.\ (\ref{eq:field}) the density operator is given by
1922: %==========================================================
1923: \begin{equation}
1924: :\! \psi_{p,s,\zeta}^\dagger\, \psi_{p,s,\zeta}^{} \! :
1925: \, = \,
1926: \frac{1}{2\pi} \, \frac{d}{dx} \varphi_{p,s,\zeta}(x)
1927: .
1928: \label{eq:density}
1929: \end{equation}
1930: %================================================================
1931: The convention of the Klein factors
1932: is the same as Ref.\ \onlinecite{Tsuchiizu2002}.
1933: From this relation, one finds that
1934: the boson fields $\phi_{\rho\pm}$
1935: can be interpreted to denote the ``charge'' degrees of freedom,
1936: while $\phi_{\sigma\pm}$ to denote the ``spin'' degrees of freedom.
1937:
1938: To appreciate two SU(2) symmetries in the effective theory,
1939: we next fermionize the $\phi_{\sigma+}$, $\phi_{\sigma-}$,
1940: and $\phi_{\rho+}$ bosonic fields by introducing
1941: the Majorana fermions
1942: $\xi^n_p$ ($n=1,\cdots,6$ and $p=R/L=+/-$):
1943: %===============================================================
1944: \begin{subequations}
1945: \begin{eqnarray}
1946: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left(\xi_{p}^2+i\xi_{p}^1\right)
1947: &\equiv& \frac{\kappa_{\sigma+}}{\sqrt{2\pi a}}
1948: \, \exp\left( ip \,2\phi_{\sigma+}^p \right),
1949: \\
1950: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left(\xi_{p}^4+i\xi_{p}^3\right)
1951: &\equiv& \frac{\kappa_{\sigma-}}{\sqrt{2\pi a}}
1952: \, \exp\left(ip \,2\phi_{\sigma-}^p\right),
1953: \\
1954: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left(\xi_{p}^6+i\xi_{p}^5\right)
1955: &\equiv& \frac{\kappa_{\rho+}}{\sqrt{2\pi a}}
1956: \, \exp\left( ip \,2\phi_{\rho+}^p\right),
1957: \end{eqnarray}
1958: \end{subequations}
1959: %===============================================================
1960: where $\kappa_{\nu \pm}$ is the Klein factor,
1961: satisfying $\{\kappa_{\nu r} , \kappa_{\nu' r'}\}=
1962: \delta_{\nu,\nu'}\delta_{r,r'}$ and
1963: $\kappa^2_{\nu r}=1$.
1964: These Majorana fields satisfy the anticommutation relations:
1965: $ \{\xi_p^n(x),\xi_{p'}^{n'}(x')\}
1966: =\delta(x-x') \, \delta_{p,p'} \, \delta_{n,n'} $.
1967: The Hamiltonian can be refermionized
1968: in terms of the Majorana fermions.
1969: Our new finding is that
1970: the two sets of three Majorana fields form triplets,
1971: due to the constraint of two SU(2) symmetries.
1972: So we define
1973: %===============================================================
1974: \begin{eqnarray}
1975: \bm\xi_p \equiv (\xi_p^1,\xi_p^2,\xi_p^3),\quad
1976: \bm\zeta_p \equiv (\xi_p^4,\xi_p^5,\xi_p^6).
1977: \end{eqnarray}
1978: %===============================================================
1979: The $g$-ology Hamiltonian
1980: $\int dx \, \mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{ladder}}
1981: = (H_0+H_{\mathrm{I}})|_{N_\perp=2}$
1982: [Eqs.\ (\ref{eq:kinetic}) and (\ref{eq:g-ology}) with $N_\perp=2$]
1983: can be reexpressed in a highly symmetric form as
1984: %===============================================================
1985: \begin{widetext}
1986: \begin{eqnarray}
1987: \mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{ladder}}
1988: &=&
1989: -i\frac{v}{2}
1990: \left(
1991: \bm\xi_{R} \cdot \partial_x \bm\xi_{R}
1992: - \bm\xi_{L} \cdot \partial_x \bm\xi_{L}
1993: \right)
1994: -i\frac{v}{2}
1995: \left(
1996: \bm\zeta_{R} \cdot \partial_x \bm\zeta_{R}
1997: - \bm\zeta_{L} \cdot \partial_x \bm\zeta_{L}
1998: \right)
1999: +
2000: \frac{v}{\pi}
2001: \left[
2002: \left(\partial_x \phi_{\rho-}^R \right)^2
2003: +\left(\partial_x \phi_{\rho-}^L \right)^2
2004: \right]
2005: \nonumber \\ && {}
2006: - \frac{g_{\sigma +}}{2}
2007: \left( \bm\xi_{R} \cdot \bm\xi_{L} \right)^2
2008: + \frac{g_{\rho +}}{2}
2009: \left( \bm\zeta_{R} \cdot \bm\zeta_{L} \right)^2
2010: +
2011: \frac{g_{\rho-}}{\pi^2}
2012: \left(\partial_x \phi_{\rho-}^R \right)
2013: \left(\partial_x \phi_{\rho-}^L \right)
2014: \nonumber \\ && {}
2015: - g_{\sigma-}
2016: \left( \bm\xi_{R} \cdot \bm\xi_{L} \right)
2017: \left( \bm\zeta_{R} \cdot \bm\zeta_{L} \right)
2018: - \frac{ig_{\sigma(\pi,0,\pi)}}{2\pi a}
2019: \left( \bm\xi_{R} \cdot \bm\xi_{L} \right)
2020: \cos 2 \theta_{\rho-}
2021: - \frac{ig_{\rho(\pi,0,\pi)}}{2\pi a}
2022: \left( \bm\zeta_{R} \cdot \bm\zeta_{L} \right)
2023: \cos 2 \theta_{\rho-}
2024: \nonumber \\ &&{}
2025: + \frac{ig_{\sigma(0,0,\pi)}}{2\pi a}
2026: \left( \bm\xi_{R} \cdot \bm\xi_{L} \right) \,
2027: \cos(2\phi_{\rho-}+8t_\perp x/v)
2028: - \frac{ig_{\rho(0,0,\pi)} }{2\pi a}
2029: \left( \bm\zeta_{R} \cdot \bm\zeta_{L} \right) \,
2030: \cos(2\phi_{\rho-}+8t_\perp x/v)
2031: ,
2032: \label{eq:Hladder}
2033: \end{eqnarray}
2034: \end{widetext}
2035: %===============================================================
2036: where
2037: $g_{\rho\pm } =
2038: \frac{1}{2}( g_{\rho(0,0,0)} \pm g_{\rho(\pi,0,0)})$ and
2039: $g_{\sigma\pm} =
2040: \frac{1}{2}( g_{\sigma(0,0,0)} \pm g_{\sigma(\pi,0,0)} )$.
2041: We note that the coupling constants $g_{\rho+}$ and $g_{\sigma+}$ are
2042: the same as defined in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:gnu+}).
2043: From Eq.\ (\ref{eq:Hladder}), one easily finds that
2044: the 6 Majorana fermions are not independent
2045: and are grouped into
2046: two triplets $\bm\xi$ and $\bm\zeta$.
2047: In the derivation of the above effective theory,
2048: we do not use any fixed point values of the coupling constants
2049: but simply have used symmetry constraints.
2050: This means that the structure of the theory maintains
2051: at finite energy scale.
2052: The physical meanings of the respective triplets becomes clear by
2053: noting the following relations.
2054: The total spin operator $\bm S$ [Eq.\ (\ref{eq:spinoperator})]
2055: can be expressed in terms of the Majorana fermions
2056: in a local form as
2057: $\bm S = \int dx \, \bm J(x)$ with
2058: %====================================================================
2059: \begin{eqnarray}
2060: J^x(x)
2061: &=&
2062: -i
2063: \, \left( \xi^2_R \xi^3_R + \xi^2_L \xi^3_L \right),
2064: \nonumber
2065: \\
2066: J^y(x)
2067: &=&
2068: -i
2069: \, \left( \xi^3_R \xi^1_R + \xi^3_L \xi^1_L \right),
2070: \label{eq:spincurrent}
2071: \\
2072: J^z(x)
2073: &=&
2074: -i
2075: \, \left( \xi^1_R \xi^2_R + \xi^1_L \xi^2_L \right).
2076: \nonumber
2077: \end{eqnarray}
2078: %===============================================================
2079: Similarly
2080: the total ``charge'' operator $\bm Q$ [Eq.\ (\ref{eq:chargeoperator})]
2081: can be expressed as $\bm Q = \int dx \, \bm J'(x)$ with
2082: %====================================================================
2083: \begin{eqnarray}
2084: J'^x(x)
2085: &=&
2086: -i
2087: \, \left( \xi^6_R \xi^4_R + \xi^6_L \xi^4_L \right),
2088: \nonumber \\
2089: J'^y(x)
2090: &=&
2091: -i
2092: \, \left( \xi^4_R \xi^5_R + \xi^4_L \xi^5_L \right),
2093: \label{eq:chargecurrent}
2094: \\
2095: J'^z(x)
2096: &=&
2097: -i
2098: \, \left( \xi^5_R \xi^6_R + \xi^5_L \xi^6_L \right),
2099: \nonumber
2100: \end{eqnarray}
2101: %===============================================================
2102: up to the Klein factor.
2103: Thus we find that the system has the ``charge-triplet'' excitations
2104: described by the $\bm\zeta_p=(\xi_p^4,\xi_p^5,\xi_p^6)$
2105: Majorana fermions.
2106: The derivation of these relations is quite similar to that
2107: for the spin chains. \cite{Shelton}
2108: These current operators satisfy the SU(2) Kac-Moody algebra at level
2109: $k=2$. \cite{Gogolin}
2110:
2111:
2112: For the relevant interchain hopping, we also find
2113: high symmetry in the $\rho-$ mode.
2114: In this case, the terms $g_{\rho(0,0,\pi)}$ and $g_{\sigma(0,0,\pi)}$
2115: in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:Hladder})
2116: can be neglected due to the presence of $8t_\perp x/v$ in the
2117: cosine potential
2118: and then
2119: the effective theory becomes
2120: SO(3)$\times$SO(3)$\times$U(1) symmetric,
2121: where the SO(3)$\times$SO(3) is due to the formation of
2122: two Majorana triplets and
2123: the U(1) is due to the absence of the potential
2124: for the bosonic field $\phi_{\rho-}$.
2125: This picture is only valid for large interchain hopping,
2126: since the U(1) symmetry is retained dynamically
2127: while the SO(3)$\times$SO(3) has a microscopic origin.
2128:
2129:
2130: The $U$ and $t_\perp$ dependences of
2131: the charge and spin gaps and of the crossover
2132: energy scale $t_\perp^{\mathrm{eff}}$ are shown
2133: in Fig.\ \ref{fig:Gap_ladder}.
2134: The $U/t_\parallel$ dependence of the spin gap reproduce qualitatively
2135: the DMRG numerical results, \cite{Noack}
2136: while our RG approach would overestimate the magnitude of the spin gap.
2137: As easily seen from Fig.\ \ref{fig:Gap_ladder},
2138: the energy scales of the charge and spin excitation gaps
2139: are different in the whole region of $U/t_\parallel$, which
2140: is contrast to the analysis based on the one-loop fixed-point
2141: behavior. \cite{Lin1998}
2142:
2143: Next we examine the fixed-point behavior of the present analysis.
2144: The fixed point values are
2145: %====================================================================
2146: \begin{eqnarray*}
2147: &&
2148: g_{\rho(\pi,0,0)}
2149: =
2150: g_{\rho(\pi,0,\pi)}
2151: =
2152: - g_{\sigma(0,0,0)}
2153: =
2154: g_{\sigma(\pi,0,\pi)}
2155: = + g^*
2156: ,
2157: \\ &&
2158: g_{\rho(0,0,0)}
2159: =
2160: g_{\rho(0,0,\pi)}
2161: =
2162: g_{\sigma(0,0,\pi)}
2163: =
2164: g_{\sigma(\pi,0,0)}
2165: = 0,
2166: \end{eqnarray*}
2167: %====================================================================
2168: where we find $g^*/(2\pi v) = 2$ in the present case.
2169: This implies that
2170: the symmetry is dynamically extended
2171: \textit{in the low-energy limit}.
2172: The effective theory in the low-energy limit has been analyzed
2173: in the one-loop RG scheme and
2174: is known to be described as
2175: the SO(8) Gross-Neveu model. \cite{Lin1998}
2176: This effective theory can easily be reproduced
2177: from Eq.\ (\ref{eq:Hladder}).
2178: To this end,
2179: we fermionize the $\phi_{\rho-}^p$ boson fields by introducing
2180: another set of Majorana fermions:
2181: %===============================================================
2182: \begin{subequations}
2183: \begin{eqnarray}
2184: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left(\xi_{R}^8+i\xi_{R}^7\right)
2185: &\equiv& + \frac{\kappa_{\rho-}}{\sqrt{2\pi a}}
2186: \, \exp\left( i \, 2\phi_{\rho-}^R\right),
2187: \\
2188: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left(\xi_{L}^8+i\xi_{L}^7\right)
2189: &\equiv& - \frac{\kappa_{\rho-}}{\sqrt{2\pi a}}
2190: \, \exp\left( i \, 2\phi_{\rho-}^L\right),
2191: \end{eqnarray}
2192: \end{subequations}
2193: %===============================================================
2194: where $\kappa_{\rho -}$ is the Klein factor.
2195: These Majorana fields satisfy the same anticommutation relations as before.
2196: By using the Majorana fields $\xi^n$ for $n=1,\cdots,8$ and
2197: by inserting the fixed-point values into Eq.\ (\ref{eq:Hladder}),
2198: the fixed point Hamiltonian can be expressed as
2199: %===============================================================
2200: \begin{eqnarray}
2201: \mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{ladder}}^{\mathrm{eff}}
2202: &=&
2203: -i\frac{v}{2}
2204: \sum_{n=1}^{8}
2205: \left(
2206: \xi_{R}^n \partial_x \xi_{R}^n
2207: - \xi_{L}^n \partial_x \xi_{L}^n
2208: \right)
2209: \nonumber \\ && {}
2210: + \frac{g^*}{4}
2211: \left(
2212: \sum_{n=1}^{8}
2213: \xi_{R}^n \, \xi_{L}^n
2214: \right)^2.
2215: \end{eqnarray}
2216: %===============================================================
2217: which is called the SO(8) Gross-Neveu model. \cite{Lin1998}
2218: Here we note that this symmetry enlargement occurs
2219: \textit{in the low-energy limit}, where
2220: all the excitations can be regarded to have
2221: the same magnitude of the excitation gap.
2222: In the finite energy scale, however, this symmetry does not hold
2223: and has SO(3)$\times$SO(3)$\times$U(1) as seen in Eq.\
2224: (\ref{eq:Hladder}) for relevant interchain hopping.
2225:
2226: %====================================================================
2227: \begin{figure}[t]
2228: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{fig8a.eps}
2229:
2230: \vspace*{.5cm}
2231:
2232: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{fig8b.eps}
2233: \caption{
2234: (Color online)
2235: The excitation gaps, $\Delta_\rho$ (the charge gap),
2236: $\Delta_\sigma$ (the spin gap),
2237: $\Delta_7$, $\Delta_8$ (the gaps in the Majorana fermion $\xi^7$ and
2238: $\xi^8$, see text), and the
2239: characteristic energy scale $t_\perp^{\mathrm{eff}}$ for $N_\perp =2$.
2240: (a) The $U/t_\parallel$ dependence with fixed
2241: $t_\perp/t_\parallel=0.1$ and
2242: (b) the $t_\perp/t_\parallel$ dependence with fixed
2243: $U/t_\parallel=2$.
2244: The dashed line represents the magnitude of the bare interchain hopping.
2245: }
2246: \label{fig:Gap_ladder}
2247: \end{figure}
2248: %======================================================================
2249:
2250: Finally we examine the magnitude of the excitation
2251: gaps for the remaining modes, $\xi^7$ and $\xi^8$,
2252: and we show how the low-energy effective theory
2253: in the small interchain hopping
2254: $t_\perp \ll \Delta_\rho$ can be described
2255: and how the trivial limit of $t_\perp \to 0$
2256: can be reproduced in this Majorana-fermion description.
2257: The form of the Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:Hladder}) is valid even in the
2258: small $t_\perp$ region, however, the physical picture
2259: in the $t_\perp \to 0$ limit is not so trivial.
2260: In terms of the Majorana fermions $\xi^n$ ($n=1,\cdots,8$),
2261: the Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:Hladder}) in the $t_\perp \to 0$ limit
2262: can be rewritten as
2263: $\mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{eff}}|_{t_\perp \to 0}=\mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{eff}}^c
2264: +\mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{eff}}^s$ with
2265: %===============================================================
2266: \begin{subequations}
2267: \begin{eqnarray}
2268: \mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{eff}}^c
2269: &=&
2270: -i\frac{v}{2} \sum_{n=4,5,6,7}
2271: \left(
2272: \xi_R^n \partial_x \xi_{R}^n
2273: - \xi_L^n \partial_x \xi_{L}^n
2274: \right)
2275: \nonumber \\ && {}
2276: + \frac{g_{\rho}}{2}
2277: \left(
2278: \xi_{R}^4 \xi_{L}^4 + \xi_{R}^5 \xi_{L}^5
2279: +\xi_{R}^6 \xi_{L}^6 + \xi_{R}^7 \xi_{L}^7
2280: \right)^2 ,
2281: \\
2282: \mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{eff}}^s
2283: &=&
2284: -i\frac{v}{2} \sum_{n=1,2,3,8}
2285: \left(
2286: \xi_R^n \partial_x \xi_{R}^n
2287: - \xi_L^n \partial_x \xi_{L}^n
2288: \right)
2289: \nonumber \\ && {}
2290: - \frac{g_{\sigma}}{2}
2291: \left(
2292: \xi_{R}^1 \xi_{L}^1 + \xi_{R}^2 \xi_{L}^2
2293: +\xi_{R}^3 \xi_{L}^3 - \xi_{R}^8 \xi_{L}^8
2294: \right)^2 , \qquad
2295: \end{eqnarray}
2296: \end{subequations}
2297: %===============================================================
2298: where $g_\rho$ becomes relevant and $g_\sigma$ becomes irrelevant.
2299: Here we adopt the notation $CnSm$ which denotes
2300: $n$ massless \textit{boson} modes in the charge sector and
2301: $m$ massless \textit{boson} modes in the spin sector. \cite{Lin1997}
2302: If one assigns that the bosonic phase variables $\phi_{\rho \pm}^p$
2303: and $\phi_{\sigma \pm}^p$ describe the ``charge'' and
2304: ``spin'' modes respectively,
2305: the $t_\perp \to 0$ limit may be interpreted as
2306: $C\frac{1}{2}S\frac{3}{2}$, where
2307: the gapless ``spin'' mode is described by the
2308: $\bm \xi=(\xi^1,\xi^2,\xi^3)$ fermion
2309: (the central charge is $c=\frac{3}{2}$) and
2310: the gapless ``charge'' mode is by the $\xi^8$ fermion
2311: (the central charge is $c=\frac{1}{2}$).
2312: The total central charge is consistent with that for two isolated
2313: Mott insulating chains $c=2$, however, this picture is not
2314: correct obviously.
2315: The correct understanding in the $t_\perp \to 0$ limit is that
2316: the low-energy state is described by $C0S2$ where the Majorana fermions
2317: $\xi^7$ and $\xi^8$ should be regarded to describe the charge and spin
2318: degrees of freedom respectively.
2319: From this interpretation, we can expect that
2320: the magnitude of the gap in the Majorana fermions $\xi^7$ and $\xi^8$
2321: shows nontrivial behavior as a function of $t_\perp$,
2322: since one ($\xi^7$) is gapped and
2323: the other ($\xi^8$) is gapless in the $t_\perp\to 0$,
2324: while these form the multiplet
2325: and are transformed into the U(1) bosonic field $\theta_{\rho-}$
2326: in the large interchain hopping.
2327: In order to estimate the $t_\perp$ dependence of the
2328: gap in the Majorana fermions $\xi^7$ and $\xi^8$ of Eq.\ (\ref{eq:Hladder})
2329: from the numerical integration of the RG equations,
2330: we consider the following combination of the coupling
2331: %===============================================================
2332: \begin{subequations}
2333: \begin{eqnarray}
2334: g_7
2335: &=&
2336: \frac{1}{2}
2337: [g_{\rho(\pi,0,\pi)}+g_{\rho(0,0,\pi)}J(8t_\perp a/v)
2338: \nonumber \\ && {}
2339: + g_{\sigma(\pi,0,\pi)}-g_{\sigma(0,0,\pi)} J(8t_\perp a/v)],
2340: \\
2341: g_8
2342: &=&
2343: \frac{1}{2}
2344: [g_{\rho(\pi,0,\pi)}-g_{\rho(0,0,\pi)}J(8t_\perp a/v)
2345: \nonumber \\ && {}
2346: + g_{\sigma(\pi,0,\pi)}+g_{\sigma(0,0,\pi)}J(8t_\perp a/v)],
2347: \end{eqnarray}
2348: \end{subequations}
2349: %===============================================================
2350: where $J(8t_\perp a/v)$ is a cutoff function
2351: satisfying $J(x)\approx 1$ for $x\ll 1$ and $J(x)\approx 0$ for $x\gg
2352: 1$.
2353: For relevant interchain hopping, we have
2354: $g_7 = g_8 = \frac{1}{2} (g_{\sigma(\pi,0,\pi)} +g_{\rho(\pi,0,\pi)})$,
2355: which would reflect the low-energy property of the $\theta_{\rho-}$
2356: boson mode, and for $t_\perp\to 0$ we have
2357: $g_7 \to g_\rho$ and $g_8 \to g_\sigma$ reproducing the
2358: single-chain limit.
2359: The excitation gaps for these Majorana fermion
2360: are also shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:Gap_ladder}, where
2361: we have estimated by $\Delta_{n}=\Lambda e^{-l_n}$ with
2362: $G_n(l_n)=0.7$ ($n=7,8$).
2363: The ground state of the present two-leg ladder system is
2364: known to be the $D$-Mott phase for arbitrary $t_\perp>0$, however,
2365: as seen from Fig.\ \ref{fig:Gap_ladder}(a),
2366: the crossover from the 1D-like Mott insulating state
2367: (having large charge gap and small spin gap)
2368: to the insulator of the ladder, which has
2369: SO(3)$\times$SO(3)$\times$U(1) symmetry, takes place
2370: at $t_\perp \approx \Delta_\rho|_{t_\perp=0}$
2371: where and the excitation properties
2372: for the Majorana fermion $\xi^7$ and $\xi^8$
2373: undergo considerable changes.
2374: By increasing $U/t_\parallel$ [Fig.\ \ref{fig:Gap_ladder}(b)],
2375: the effective interchain hopping $t_\perp^{\mathrm{eff}}$
2376: is suppressed extremely and
2377: the multiplet of the $\xi^7$ and $\xi^8$ splits into
2378: two isolated Majorana modes where the low energy excitations are
2379: described by the Majorana triplet $\bm{\xi}=(\xi^1,\xi^2,\xi^3)$
2380: as a lowest-energy mode
2381: and by the Majorana singlet $\xi^8$
2382: as a second-lowest-energy mode.
2383: This picture reproduces the low-energy properties of
2384: the Heisenberg spin ladder systems. \cite{Shelton}
2385:
2386: The present estimations of the excitation gaps
2387: are also justified by noting that
2388: it reproduces the known quantum critical behavior obtained
2389: in the extended Hubbard model including the
2390: intersite Coulomb repulsion.
2391: The detailed estimation of the extended Hubbard model is given
2392: in the Appendix \ref{sec:appendix_ladder}.
2393:
2394:
2395:
2396: \section{Conclusions}\label{sec:summary}
2397:
2398: In the present paper, we have derived the two-loop RG equations
2399: for the half-filled bipartite Q1D Hubbard model with the
2400: nonperturbative treatment of the interchain hopping,
2401: based on the conventional Kadanoff-Wilson approach.
2402: By considering finite number of 1D chains
2403: we have treated the transverse momentum $k_\perp$
2404: as the patch index and have
2405: obtained the RG equations which can be
2406: extremely simplified reflecting the symmetry requirements
2407: of the Hubbard model.
2408: By solving these RG equations numerically,
2409: we have estimated the magnitude of the charge and spin gaps
2410: and clarified that the charge gap
2411: is suppressed due to the interchain hopping
2412: but is always finite even when the interchain hopping
2413: exceeds the magnitude of the charge gap.
2414: In order to justify the present approach,
2415: we have analyzed the RG scaling flows in
2416: the two-leg Hubbard case ($N_\perp=2$) in detail based on
2417: the field-theoretical Majorana-fermion description
2418: and have clarified that the
2419: low-energy excitations have SO(3)$\times$SO(3)$\times$U(1) symmetry
2420: for large interchain hopping.
2421:
2422:
2423:
2424: \acknowledgments
2425:
2426: The author thanks C.\ Bourbonnais, Y.\ Suzumura, and Y.\ Fuseya
2427: for valuable discussions at early stage of the present work.
2428: The author also thanks T.\ Giamarchi, A.\ Furusaki, D.K.\ Campbell
2429: for useful discussions and comments.
2430: The numerical calculations were carried out in part
2431: on Altix3700 BX2 at YITP in Kyoto University.
2432:
2433: \appendix
2434:
2435: \section{Charge-spin duality relation}\label{sec:appendix_duality}
2436:
2437: In this section,
2438: we derive the pseudospin SU(2) relations (\ref{eq:chargeSU(2)_gology})
2439: from the spin SU(2) relations (\ref{eq:spinSU(2)_gology})
2440: by using the ``charge-spin duality'' transformation.
2441: It is well known that the Hubbard Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:model})
2442: is transformed to itself with
2443: $U\to -U$, under
2444: the particle-hole transformation for the
2445: spin down only, \cite{Shiba,Nagaoka} i.e.,
2446: %====================================================================
2447: \begin{eqnarray}
2448: c_{j,l,\uparrow} \leftrightarrow c_{j,l,\uparrow}, \quad
2449: c_{j,l,\downarrow} \leftrightarrow
2450: (-1)^{j+l} c_{j,l,\downarrow}^\dagger.
2451: \label{eq:a1}
2452: \end{eqnarray}
2453: %====================================================================
2454: Since the density operators are transformed as
2455: $(n_{j,l,\uparrow}+n_{j,l,\downarrow}) \leftrightarrow
2456: (n_{j,l,\uparrow}-n_{j,l,\downarrow})$
2457: under this transformation,
2458: the charge and spin density operators are interchanged.
2459: In the Fourier space with the linearized dispersion,
2460: Eq.\ (\ref{eq:a1}) is rewritten as
2461: %====================================================================
2462: \begin{equation}
2463: c_{p,\uparrow}(\bm k) \leftrightarrow c_{p,\uparrow} (\bm k) , \quad
2464: c_{p,\downarrow}(\bm k) \leftrightarrow
2465: c_{p,\downarrow}^\dagger ((p\pi,\pi)-\bm k).
2466: \end{equation}
2467: %====================================================================
2468: By applying this transformation to the
2469: $g$-ology Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:g-ology}),
2470: we find that the transformed Hamiltonian is given
2471: in the same form of Eq.\ (\ref{eq:g-ology}), but
2472: the coupling constants are exchanged as
2473: %====================================================================
2474: \begin{subequations}
2475: \begin{eqnarray}
2476: g_{1\perp(q,k_1,k_2)}
2477: &\leftrightarrow& - g_{3\perp(q,k_1,\pi-k_2)} , \\
2478: g_{2\perp(q,k_1,k_2)}
2479: &\leftrightarrow& -g_{2\perp(\pi-q+k_1+k_2,k_1,k_2)} ,
2480: \end{eqnarray}%
2481: \label{eq:duality_in_g}%
2482: \end{subequations}
2483: %====================================================================
2484: while $g_{\parallel(q,k_1,k_2)}$ and $g_{3\parallel(q,k_1,k_2)}$
2485: are unchanged.
2486: In the spin part there are constraints (\ref{eq:spinSU(2)_gology})
2487: due to the spin-rotational SU(2) symmetry.
2488: By applying the duality relation (\ref{eq:duality_in_g})
2489: to Eq.\ (\ref{eq:spinSU(2)_gology}),
2490: we can derive the pseudospin SU(2)
2491: constraints (\ref{eq:chargeSU(2)_gology}).
2492:
2493: \section{Full RG equations for the spin-rotational invariant case}
2494: \label{sec:appendix_RG}
2495:
2496:
2497: In this section, the full two-loop RG equations are given in the
2498: case for the spin-rotational SU(2) symmetric case
2499: [Eq.\ (\ref{eq:spinSU(2)})],
2500: without assuming the pseudospin SU(2) symmetry [Eq.\ (\ref{eq:chargeSU(2)})].
2501: These RG equations are valid for the extended Hubbard model
2502: including additional spin-rotational symmetric interactions,
2503: e.g., intersite Coulomb repulsions.
2504:
2505: The RG equation for the interchain hopping is given by
2506: %====================================================================
2507: \begin{eqnarray}
2508: \frac{d}{dl}
2509: t_{\perp} &=&
2510: t_{\perp}
2511: -\frac{1}{4N_\perp^3} \sum_{q ,k, k'}
2512: G_{\Sigma \mathrm{n}(q,k,k')}^2 \, J_{0(q,k,k')} \cos k
2513: \nonumber \\ && {}
2514: -\frac{1}{4N_\perp^3} \sum_{q ,k, k'}
2515: G_{\Sigma \mathrm{u}(q,k,k')}^2 \, J'_{0(q,k,k')} \cos k,
2516: \label{eq:RG_tperp_app}
2517: \end{eqnarray}
2518: %====================================================================
2519: where the second-order coupling constants contributing the
2520: self-energy corrections are put into forms:
2521: %====================================================================
2522: \begin{subequations}
2523: \begin{eqnarray}
2524: G_{\Sigma \mathrm{n}(q,k,k')}^2
2525: &\equiv&
2526: \frac{1}{2}
2527: \Bigl[
2528: G_{\rho(q,k,k')}^2
2529: + 3\, G_{\sigma(q,k,k')}^2
2530: \Bigr],
2531: \\
2532: G_{\Sigma \mathrm{u}(q,k,k')}^2
2533: &\equiv&
2534: \frac{1}{2}
2535: \Bigl[
2536: 2 \, G_{c(q,k,k')}^2
2537: + 2 \, G_{c(\pi-q+k+k',k,k')}^2
2538: \nonumber \\ && {}
2539: - 2 \, G_{c(q,k,k')}G_{c(\pi-q+k+k',k,k')}
2540: \Bigr].
2541: \end{eqnarray}
2542: \end{subequations}
2543: %====================================================================
2544: The cutoff function $J_{0(q,k,k')}$ is given by Eq.\ (\ref{eq:J0}).
2545: In general, the cutoff function for the umklapp scattering contributions
2546: $J'_{0(q,k,k')}$ takes a different form from that for the normal scattering
2547: ones $J_{0(q,k,k')}$, however,
2548: if the system has the particle-hole symmetry, these become identical
2549: $J_{0(q,k,k')}=J'_{0(q,k,k')}$.
2550:
2551: The RG equations for the coupling constants
2552: without the assumption of the spin-rotational SU(2) symmetry are
2553: given in symbolic form as
2554: \begin{widetext}
2555: %====================================================================
2556: \begin{subequations}
2557: \begin{eqnarray}
2558: \frac{d}{dl}
2559: G_{\rho(q,k_1,k_2)}
2560: &=&
2561: \left[
2562: \frac{1}{2N_\perp} \sum_{k'}
2563: \Xi_{\rho1(q,k_1,k_2,k')}
2564: + \frac{1}{8N_\perp^2} \sum_{q',k'}
2565: \Xi_{\rho2(q,k_1,k_2,q',k')}
2566: + (k_1 \leftrightarrow k_2)
2567: \right]
2568: \nonumber \\ && {}
2569: - \frac{1}{4N_\perp^2} \, G_{\rho(q,k_1,k_2)}
2570: \sum_{q' ,k'} \Xi_{3(q,k_1,k_2,q',k')},
2571: \label{eq:RG_Grho}
2572: \\
2573: \frac{d}{dl} G_{\sigma(q, k_1,k_2)}
2574: &=&
2575: \left[
2576: \frac{1}{2N_\perp} \sum_{k'}
2577: \Xi_{\sigma1(q,k_1,k_2,k')}
2578: + \frac{1}{8N_\perp^2} \sum_{q',k'}
2579: \Xi_{\sigma2(q,k_1,k_2,q',k')}
2580: + (k_1 \leftrightarrow k_2)
2581: \right]
2582: \nonumber \\ && {}
2583: - \frac{1}{4N_\perp^2} \, G_{\sigma(q,k_1,k_2)}
2584: \sum_{q' ,k'} \Xi_{3(q,k_1,k_2,q',k')}
2585: ,
2586: \label{eq:RG_Gsigma}
2587: \\
2588: \frac{d}{dl}
2589: G_{c(q,k_1,k_2)}
2590: &=&
2591: \left[
2592: \frac{1}{2N_\perp} \sum_{k'}
2593: \Xi_{c1(q,k_1,k_2,k')}
2594: + \frac{1}{8N_\perp^2} \sum_{q',k'}
2595: \Xi_{c2(q,k_1,k_2,q',k')}
2596: +\Bigr((q,k_1,k_2)\to (-q,\pi-k_2,\pi-k_1)\Bigr)
2597: \right]
2598: \nonumber \\ && {}
2599: - \frac{1}{4N_\perp^2} \, G_{c(q,k_1,k_2)}
2600: \sum_{q' ,k'} \Xi_{c3(q,k_1,k_2,q',k')},
2601: \label{eq:RG_Gc}
2602: \end{eqnarray}
2603: \end{subequations}
2604: %====================================================================
2605: where $\Xi_{\nu 1}$ and $\Xi_{\nu 2}$
2606: represent the one-loop Peierls/Cooper bubble contributions
2607: and the two-loop (third-order) vertex contributions, respectively,
2608: and $\Xi_{3}$ and $\Xi_{c3}$ represent
2609: the two-loop (second-order) self-energy contributions.
2610: The respective terms are given explicitly in the following.
2611: The one-loop Peierls and Cooper bubble contributions
2612: are given by
2613: %====================================================================
2614: \begin{subequations}
2615: \begin{eqnarray}
2616: \Xi_{\rho1(q,k_1,k_2,k')}
2617: &=&
2618: \frac{1}{2}
2619: \bigl[
2620: G_{\rho(q,k_1,k')} \, G_{\rho(q,k',k_2)}
2621: +3G_{\sigma(q,k_1,k')} \, G_{\sigma(q,k',k_2)}
2622: \bigr]
2623: I_{(q,k',k_1,k_2)}
2624: \nonumber \\ && {}
2625: - \frac{1}{2}
2626: \bigl[
2627: G_{\rho(q-k_2+k',k_1,k')} \,
2628: G_{\rho(q-k_1+k', k',k_2)} \,
2629: + 3 G_{\sigma(q-k_2+k',k_1,k')} \,
2630: G_{\sigma(q-k_1+k', k',k_2)}
2631: \bigr]
2632: I_{C(q-k_1-k_2 ,k',k_1,k_2)}
2633: \nonumber \\ && {}
2634: +
2635: 2 \bigl[
2636: G_{c(q,k_1,k')} \, G_{c(q,k_2,k')}
2637: + G_{c(\pi-q+k_1+k',k_1,k')} \, G_{c(\pi+q-k_2-k',\pi-k',\pi-k_2)}
2638: \nonumber \\ && {} \qquad
2639: - G_{c(q,k_1,k')} \, G_{c(\pi+q-k_2-k',\pi-k',\pi-k_2)}
2640: \bigr]
2641: I'_{(-q,\pi-k',\pi-k_1,\pi-k_2)} ,
2642: \\ %--------
2643: \Xi_{\sigma1(q, k_1,k_2,k')}
2644: &=&
2645: \bigl[
2646: G_{\rho(q,k_1,k')} \, G_{\sigma(q,k',k_2)}
2647: - G_{\sigma(q,k_1,k')} \, G_{\sigma(q,k',k_2)}
2648: \bigr]
2649: I_{(q,k',k_1,k_2)}
2650: \nonumber \\ && {}
2651: -
2652: \bigl[
2653: G_{\rho(q-k_2+k',k_1,k')}
2654: +G_{\sigma(q-k_2+k',k_1,k')}
2655: \bigr] G_{\sigma(q-k_1+k', k',k_2)}
2656: I_{C(q-k_1-k_2 ,k',k_1,k_2)}
2657: \nonumber \\ && {}
2658: - 2 \bigl[
2659: G_{c(q,k_1,k')} \, G_{c(q,k_2,k')}
2660: - G_{c(q,k_1,k')} \, G_{c(\pi+q-k_2-k',\pi-k',\pi-k_2)}
2661: \bigr]
2662: I'_{(-q,\pi-k',\pi-k_1,\pi-k_2)} ,
2663: \\ %--------
2664: \Xi_{c1(q,k_1,k_2,k')}
2665: &=&
2666: \bigl[
2667: G_{\rho(q,k_1,k')} G_{c(q,k',k_2)}
2668: - 3 G_{\sigma(q,k_1,k')} \, G_{c(q,k',k_2)} \,
2669: + 2G_{\sigma(q,k_1,k')} \,
2670: G_{c(\pi-q+k'+k_2,k',k_2)} \,
2671: \bigr]
2672: I''_{(q,k',k_1,k_2)}
2673: \nonumber \\ &&{}
2674: +
2675: \bigl[
2676: G_{\rho(\pi-q+k_1+k_2,k_1,k')} \, G_{c(q-k_1+k',k',k_2)}
2677: + G_{\sigma(\pi-q+k_1+k_2,k_1,k')} \, G_{c(q-k_1+k',k',k_2)}
2678: \bigr]
2679: I''_{(\pi-q+k_1+k_2,k',k_1,k_2)} .
2680: \nonumber \\
2681: \end{eqnarray}
2682: \end{subequations}
2683: %====================================================================
2684: Due to the particle-hole symmetry
2685: of the present model on the bipartite lattice,
2686: the respective cutoff
2687: functions satisfy $I'_{(q,k',k_1,k_2)}=I''_{(q,k',k_1,k_2)}
2688: =I_{(q,k',k_1,k_2)}$,
2689: $I_{(-q,\pi-k',\pi-k_1,\pi-k_2)} = I_{(q,k',k_1,k_2)}$, and
2690: $I_{C(q-k_1-k_2,k',k_1,k_2)} = I_{(\pi-q+k_1+k_2,k',k_1,k_2)}$,
2691: where $I_{(q,k',k_1,k_2)}$ is given in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:I}).
2692: The two-loop vertex contributions are given by
2693: %====================================================================
2694: \begin{subequations}
2695: \begin{eqnarray}
2696: \Xi_{\rho2(q,k_1,k_2,q',k')}
2697: &=&
2698: G_{\rho(q+q',k_1,k_2)}
2699: \bigl[
2700: G_{\rho(q-k_1+k',k',k'-q')} \,
2701: G_{\rho(q-k_2+k',k',k'-q')}
2702: \nonumber \\ && {} \qquad
2703: + 3 G_{\sigma(q-k_1+k',k',k'-q')} \,
2704: G_{\sigma(q-k_2+k',k',k'-q')}
2705: \bigr]
2706: J_{2(q+k';k_1,k_2;k',k'-q')}
2707: \nonumber \\ && {}
2708: - 2 G_{\rho(\pi-q-q'+k_1+k_2,k_1,k_2)}
2709: \bigl[
2710: G_{c(q-k_1+k',k',k'-q')} \, G_{c(q-k_2+k',k',k'-q')}
2711: \nonumber \\ && {} \qquad
2712: + G_{c(\pi-q-q'+k_1+k',k',k'-q')} \,
2713: G_{c(\pi-q-q'+k_2+k',k',k'-q')}
2714: \nonumber \\ && {} \qquad
2715: - G_{c(q-k_1+k',k',k'-q')} \,
2716: G_{c(\pi-q-q'+k_2+k',k',k'-q')}
2717: \bigr]
2718: J'_{2(q+k';k_1,k_2;k',k'-q')}
2719: \nonumber \\ && {}
2720: + G_{\rho(q-q',k_1-q',k_2-q')}
2721: \bigl[
2722: G_{\rho(k_1-k',k_1,k_1-q')} \,
2723: G_{\rho(k_2-k',k_2,k_2-q')}
2724: \nonumber \\ && {} \qquad
2725: + 3 G_{\sigma(k_1-k',k_1,k_1-q')} \,
2726: G_{\sigma(k_2-k',k_2,k_2-q')}
2727: \bigr]
2728: J_{2(-k';-k_1,-k_2;\pi-k',\pi-k'+q')}
2729: \nonumber \\ && {}
2730: - 2 G_{\rho(\pi+q+q'-k_1-k_2,\pi-k_1+q',\pi-k_2+q')}
2731: \bigl[
2732: G_{c(k_1-k',k_1,k_1-q')} \,
2733: G_{c(k_2-k',k_2,k_2-q')}
2734: \nonumber \\ && {} \qquad
2735: + G_{c(\pi-q'+k_1+k',k_1,k_1-q')} \,
2736: G_{c(\pi-q'+k_2+k',k_2,k_2-q')}
2737: \nonumber \\ && {} \qquad
2738: - G_{c(k_1-k',k_1,k_1-q')} \,
2739: G_{c(\pi-q'+k_2+k',k_2,k_2-q')}
2740: \bigr]
2741: J'_{2(-k';-k_1,-k_2;\pi-k',\pi-k'+q')}
2742: ,
2743: \\
2744: \Xi_{\sigma2(q,k_1,k_2,q',k')}
2745: &=&
2746: G_{\sigma(q+q',k_1,k_2)}
2747: \bigl[
2748: G_{\rho(q-k_1+k',k',k'-q')} \,
2749: G_{\rho(q-k_2+k',k',k'-q')}
2750: \nonumber \\ && {} \qquad
2751: - G_{\sigma(q-k_1+k',k',k'-q')} \,
2752: G_{\sigma(q-k_2+k',k',k'-q')}
2753: \bigr]
2754: J_{2(q+k';k_1,k_2;k',k'-q')}
2755: \nonumber \\ && {}
2756: + 2
2757: G_{\sigma(\pi-q-q'+k_1+k_2,k_1,k_2)} \,
2758: G_{c(q-k_1+k',k',k'-q')} \,
2759: G_{c(\pi-q-q'+k_2+k',k',k'-q')} \,
2760: J'_{2(q+k';k_1,k_2;k',k'-q')}
2761: \nonumber \\ && {}
2762: + G_{\sigma(q-q',k_1-q',k_2-q')}
2763: \bigl[
2764: G_{\rho(k_1-k',k_1,k_1-q')} \,
2765: G_{\rho(k_2-k',k_2,k_2-q')}
2766: \nonumber \\ && {}\qquad
2767: - G_{\sigma(k_1-k',k_1,k_1-q')} \,
2768: G_{\sigma(k_2-k',k_2,k_2-q')}
2769: \bigr]
2770: J_{2(-k';-k_1,-k_2;\pi-k',\pi-k'+q')}
2771: \nonumber \\ && {}
2772: + 2
2773: G_{\sigma(\pi+q+q'-k_1-k_2,\pi-k_2+q',\pi-k_1+q')} \,
2774: G_{c(k_1-k',k_1,k_1-q')} \,
2775: G_{c(\pi-q'+k_2+k',k_2,k_2-q')} \,
2776: \nonumber \\ && {} \qquad \times
2777: J'_{2(-k';-k_1,-k_2;\pi-k',\pi-k'+q')}
2778: ,
2779: \\
2780: \Xi_{c2(q,k_1,k_2,q',k')}
2781: &=&
2782: \bigl[
2783: 2G_{c(\pi-q-q'+k_1+k_2,k_1,k_2)}\,
2784: G_{\sigma(q-k_1+k',k',k'-q')} \,
2785: G_{\sigma(\pi-q-q'+k_2+k',k',k'-q')}
2786: \nonumber \\ && {} \qquad
2787: - G_{c(q+q',k_1,k_2)}\,
2788: G_{\rho(q-k_1+k',k',k'-q')} \,
2789: G_{\rho(\pi-q-q'+k_2+k',k',k'-q')}
2790: \nonumber \\ && {} \qquad
2791: + G_{c(q+q',k_1,k_2)}\,
2792: G_{\sigma(q-k_1+k',k',k'-q')} \,
2793: G_{\sigma(\pi-q-q'+k_2+k',k',k'-q')}
2794: \bigr]
2795: J''_{2(q+k';k_1,k_2;k',k'-q')}
2796: \nonumber \\ && {}
2797: +
2798: \bigl[
2799: 2 G_{c(\pi-q-q'+k_1+k_2,k_1-q',k_2-q')}\,
2800: G_{\sigma(k_1-k',k_1,k_1-q')} \,
2801: G_{\sigma(\pi+q'-k_2-k',\pi-k_2,\pi-k_2+q')} \,
2802: \nonumber \\ && {} \qquad
2803: - G_{c(q-q',k_1-q',k_2-q')}\,
2804: G_{\rho(k_1-k',k_1,k_1-q')} \,
2805: G_{\rho(\pi+q'-k_2-k',\pi-k_2,\pi-k_2+q')}
2806: \nonumber \\ && {} \qquad
2807: + G_{c(q-q',k_1-q',k_2-q')}\,
2808: G_{\sigma(k_1-k',k_1,k_1-q')} \,
2809: G_{\sigma(\pi+q'-k_2-k',\pi-k_2,\pi-k_2+q')}
2810: \bigr]
2811: \nonumber \\ && {} \qquad\times
2812: J''_{2(-k';-k_1,-k_2;\pi-k',\pi-k'+q')}
2813: ,
2814: \end{eqnarray}
2815: \end{subequations}
2816: %====================================================================
2817: and the two-loop self-energy contributions are given by
2818: %====================================================================
2819: \begin{subequations}
2820: \begin{eqnarray}
2821: \Xi_{3(q,k_1,k_2,q',k')}
2822: &=&
2823: G_{\Sigma \mathrm{n}(q',k_1,k')}^2 \, J_{1(q',k_1,k')}
2824: + G_{\Sigma \mathrm{u}(q',k_1,k')}^2 \, J'_{1(q',k_1,k')}
2825: \nonumber \\ && {}
2826: + G_{\Sigma \mathrm{n}(q',k_2,k')}^2 \, J_{1(q',k_2,k')}
2827: + G_{\Sigma \mathrm{u}(q',k_2,k')}^2 \, J'_{1(q',k_2,k')}
2828: \nonumber \\ && {}
2829: + G_{\Sigma \mathrm{n}(q',-k_1+q,k')}^2 \, J_{1(q',-k_1+q,k')}
2830: + G_{\Sigma \mathrm{u}(q',-k_1+q,k')}^2 \, J'_{1(q',-k_1+q,k')}
2831: \nonumber \\ && {}
2832: + G_{\Sigma \mathrm{n}(q',-k_2+q,k')}^2 \, J_{1(q',-k_2+q,k')}
2833: + G_{\Sigma \mathrm{u}(q',-k_2+q,k')}^2 \, J'_{1(q',-k_2+q,k')},
2834: \\
2835: \Xi_{c3(q,k_1,k_2,q',k')}
2836: &=&
2837: G_{\Sigma \mathrm{n}(q',k_1,k')}^2 \, J_{1(q',k_1,k')}
2838: + G_{\Sigma \mathrm{u}(q',k_1,k')}^2 \, J'_{1(q',k_1,k')}
2839: \nonumber \\ && {}
2840: + G_{\Sigma \mathrm{n}(q',\pi-k_2,k')}^2 \, J_{1(q',\pi-k_2,k')}
2841: + G_{\Sigma \mathrm{u}(q',\pi-k_2,k')}^2 \, J'_{1(q',\pi-k_2,k')}
2842: \nonumber \\ && {}
2843: + G_{\Sigma \mathrm{n}(q',-k_1+q,k')}^2 \, J_{1(q',-k_1+q,k')}
2844: + G_{\Sigma \mathrm{u}(q',-k_1+q,k')}^2 \, J'_{1(q',-k_1+q,k')}
2845: \nonumber \\ && {}
2846: + G_{\Sigma \mathrm{n}(q',\pi+k_2-q,k')}^2 \, J_{1(q',\pi+k_2-q,k')}
2847: + G_{\Sigma \mathrm{u}(q',\pi+k_2-q,k')}^2 \, J'_{1(q',\pi+k_2-q,k')}.
2848: \end{eqnarray}
2849: \end{subequations}
2850: %====================================================================
2851: \end{widetext}
2852: The cutoff functions $J_1$ and $J_1'$
2853: ($J_2$, $J_2'$, and $J_2''$) depend on the lattice geometry of the
2854: model and take different forms in general.
2855: However, in the present bipartite model, the respective cutoff
2856: functions satisfy
2857: $J'_{1(q,k,k')}=J_{1(q,k,k')}$,
2858: $J'_{2(q;k_1,k_2;k',k'')}=J''_{2(q;k_1,k_2;k',k'')}
2859: =J_{2(q;k_1,k_2;k',k'')}$.
2860: We also obtain
2861: $J_{1(-q,\pi-k_1,\pi-k_2)}=J_{1(q,k_1,k_2)}$ and
2862: $J_{2(-k';-k_1,-k_2;\pi-k',\pi-k'+q')} = J_{2(k';k_1,k_2;k',k'-q')}$
2863: for the particle-hole symmetric case.
2864:
2865:
2866: If the interaction is on-site one only,
2867: the system has the pseudospin SU(2) symmetry, where
2868: Eq.\ (\ref{eq:chargeSU(2)_gology}) is satisfied.
2869: By using Eq.\ (\ref{eq:chargeSU(2)_gology}), the coupling constant
2870: $G_{\Sigma(q,k,k')}^2=G_{\Sigma \mathrm{n}(q,k,k')}^2
2871: +G_{\Sigma \mathrm{u}(q,k,k')}^2$
2872: can be rewritten in terms of $G_\rho$ and $G_\sigma$
2873: and reproduces Eq.\ (\ref{eq:Gself}).
2874: Then the RG equation for the interchain
2875: hopping [Eq.\ (\ref{eq:RG_tperp_app})] leads Eq.\ (\ref{eq:RG_tperp})
2876: and those for the coupling constants
2877: [Eqs.\ (\ref{eq:RG_Grho}) and (\ref{eq:RG_Gsigma})]
2878: lead Eq.\ (\ref{eq:RG_G}).
2879: The explicit RG equations for the umklapp scattering [Eq.\ (\ref{eq:RG_Gc})]
2880: can be suppressed due to the pseudospin SU(2) symmetry
2881: [Eq.\ (\ref{eq:chargeSU(2)_gology})].
2882:
2883:
2884:
2885: \section{Extended Two-Leg Ladder Model:
2886: Check of quantum critical behavior}
2887: \label{sec:appendix_ladder}
2888:
2889:
2890:
2891: In Sec.\ \ref{sec:formulation}, we have estimated the magnitudes of
2892: charge and spin excitation gaps by using Eq.\ (\ref{eq:gapestimation}).
2893: If the charge and spin modes of the system are decoupled,
2894: such as in the single chain case,
2895: this method trivially works since the coupling constants
2896: representing respective modes are decoupled.
2897: However in the present $N_\perp$-chain system where
2898: the charge and spin degrees of freedom coupled with each other,
2899: one may consider that the present analysis does not work
2900: since the RG approach may break down at a energy scale
2901: corresponding to the largest excitation gap.
2902: In order to justify the present estimation of
2903: excitation gaps, we have considered
2904: the two-leg ladder model ($N_\perp=2$) which is a minimal
2905: model with the spin and charge modes coupled.
2906: As already mentioned in Sec.\ \ref{sec:ladder},
2907: the $U$ dependence of the spin gap [Fig.\ \ref{fig:Gap_ladder} (b)]
2908: shows similar behavior to the DMRG results \cite{Noack}.
2909: In this section, we reconsider the two-leg ladder systems and
2910: we show another evidence which supports strongly
2911: the validity of the present estimation of excitation gaps.
2912:
2913: We consider a toy model including an additional interaction $V'$
2914: which denotes the next-nearest-neighbor Coulomb repulsion.
2915: The spin mode in this model is known to exhibit
2916: quantum critical behavior within
2917: a nontrivial universality class.
2918: The purpose of the present section is to
2919: check whether the present method
2920: reproduces correct behavior of the quantum critical point (QCP).
2921: The Hamiltonian of this toy model is given by
2922: %====================================================================
2923: \begin{eqnarray}
2924: H' &=&
2925: -t_\parallel \sum_{j,l,s}
2926: \left(
2927: c_{j,1,s}^\dagger c_{j+1,1,s}
2928: + c_{j,2,s}^\dagger c_{j+1,2,s}
2929: +\mathrm{H.c.}
2930: \right)
2931: \nonumber \\ && {}
2932: -2t_\perp \sum_{j,s}
2933: \left(c_{j,1,s}^\dagger c_{j,2,s}+\mathrm{H.c.} \right)
2934: \nonumber \\ && {}
2935: + U \sum_{j}
2936: \left(
2937: n_{j,1,\uparrow} n_{j,1,\downarrow}
2938: + n_{j,2,\uparrow} n_{j,2,\downarrow}
2939: \right)
2940: \nonumber \\ && {}
2941: +
2942: V' \sum_j
2943: \left(
2944: n_{j,1} n_{j+1,2} + n_{j,2} n_{j+1,1}
2945: \right).
2946: \end{eqnarray}
2947: %====================================================================
2948: The notations are the same as in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:model}).
2949: This extended two-leg ladder model is examined by
2950: the field-theoretical method \cite{Tsuchiizu2002}.
2951: For small $V'$, the rung-singlet (or $D$-Mott) state is realized where
2952: the ground state is unique.
2953: By increasing $V'$, this rung-singlet state changes into
2954: a spin-Peierls (or PDW) state
2955: (see Fig.\ 9 of Ref.\ \onlinecite{Tsuchiizu2002})
2956: where the ground state has two-fold degeneracy
2957: and breaks translational invariance along the chain direction.
2958: From the field-theoretical approach,
2959: the quantum critical behavior is confirmed on the transition
2960: point between the rung-singlet state and the spin-Peierls state.
2961: On this QCP, the spin gap collapses
2962: and the effective theory for low-energy states is known to be
2963: described by the $c=3/2$ conformal field theory where $c$ is the
2964: central charge.
2965:
2966: This extended Hubbard model can also be analyzed in the present
2967: framework of the two-loop RG, where the only differences
2968: from the analysis in Sec.\ \ref{sec:formulation} are that
2969: (i) the $g$-ology coupling constants in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:g-ology})
2970: have explicit momentum dependence and (ii)
2971: the pseudospin SU(2) [Eq.\ (\ref{eq:chargeSU(2)_gology})]
2972: is not retained due to the presence of the additional interaction.
2973: The RG equations in this generalized case are given in the Appendix
2974: \ref{sec:appendix_RG}.
2975: The estimated charge and spin gaps as a function of $V'/t_\parallel$
2976: is shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:Gap_ladderV}.
2977: We find that the present approach reproduces the
2978: critical behavior since the spin gap becomes small around the QCP and
2979: collapses just on the QCP.
2980: The critical value of $V'$ is
2981: consistent with Fig.\ 9 in Ref.\ \onlinecite{Tsuchiizu2002}.
2982: The RG scaling flows on the QCP show that
2983: the coupling $G_{\rho+}$ reaches of the order unity
2984: for $l>l_{\rho+}$, however, the coupling $|G_{\sigma+}|$ remains
2985: small and becomes irrelevant $G_{\sigma+}(\infty)=0$.
2986: Such scaling behavior is the same as expected
2987: from the field-theoretical approach, \cite{Tsuchiizu2002}
2988: and thus the present results
2989: can be justified even for spin-charge coupled systems.
2990:
2991:
2992: %====================================================================
2993: \begin{figure}[t]
2994: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{fig9.eps}
2995: \caption{
2996: (Color online)
2997: The $V'/t_\parallel$ dependences of
2998: the charge gap $\Delta_\rho$ and the spin gap $\Delta_\sigma$,
2999: for the extended two-leg ladder model ($N_\perp=2$) with
3000: $U/t_\parallel=1$ and $t_\perp/t_\parallel=0.5$.
3001: }
3002: \label{fig:Gap_ladderV}
3003: \end{figure}
3004: %======================================================================
3005:
3006:
3007: From the technical point of view, we discuss the reason why the
3008: present analysis works even for spin-charge coupled systems.
3009: If one of the coupling constants reaches of the order unity
3010: in the scaling flow,
3011: the RG method breaks down where it can be understood that
3012: the corresponding mode has an excitation gap.
3013: In order to analyze the lower-energy properties further,
3014: the gapped mode should be traced out and
3015: one should derive the effective low-energy theory
3016: for remaining modes.
3017: Then one can apply the RG method to it again.
3018: In this context, the quantum critical behavior
3019: was confirmed in Refs.\ \onlinecite{Tsuchiizu2002} and
3020: \onlinecite{Fradkin2003}.
3021: As for the two-leg ladder systems, we find that
3022: this tracing-out procedure almost corresponds to the replacement of
3023: the relevant coupling constants to unity.
3024: On the other hand,
3025: in the scaling flow of the present two-loop RG, the coupling constants
3026: remain finite even for the relevant ones (see Fig.\ \ref{fig:flow8}).
3027: Thus one can consider that such trancing-out procedure of the gapped mode is
3028: performed automatically in the present two-loop RG approach.
3029: The minor differences between these two approaches
3030: do not affect the numerical results.
3031: Thus we find that the present approach to estimate the different energy
3032: gaps works even for spin-charge coupled systems.
3033:
3034: Finally we note that
3035: the procedure of the derivation of the effective theory
3036: is not straightforward and restricted to the $N_\perp=2$ case only.
3037: In the present estimation based on the two-loop RG,
3038: there is no need to derive such low-energy effective theory
3039: explicitly and thus
3040: this fact is the reason why it is easy to extend the analysis
3041: to the large number of chains systems.
3042:
3043:
3044:
3045:
3046:
3047:
3048: \begin{thebibliography}{}
3049:
3050: %--------------------------
3051: \bibitem{Bourbonnais2003}
3052: C.\ Bourbonnais, B.\ Guay, and R.\ Wortis,
3053: in \textit{Theoretical Methods for Strongly Correlated Electrons}
3054: edited by D.\ S\'en\'echal, A.M.\ Tremblay, and C.\ Bourbonnais
3055: (Springer, New York, 2003), p.\ 77.
3056: %--------------------------
3057: %--------------------------
3058: \bibitem{Emery}
3059: V.J.\ Emery, in
3060: \textit{Highly Conducting One-Dimensional Solids},
3061: edited by J.\ Devreese, R.\ Evrard, and V.\ van Doren
3062: (Plenum, New York, 1979), p.\ 247.
3063: %--------------------------
3064: %--------------------------
3065: \bibitem{Solyom}
3066: J.\ S\'olyom,
3067: Adv.\ Phys.\ \textbf{28}, 201 (1979).
3068: %--------------------------
3069: %--------------------------
3070: \bibitem{Bourbonnais1991}
3071: C.\ Bourbonnais and L.G.\ Caron,
3072: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ B \textbf{5}, 1033 (1991).
3073: %--------------------------
3074: %--------------------------
3075: \bibitem{Giamarchi_book}
3076: T. Giamarchi,
3077: \textit{Quantum Physics in One Dimension}
3078: (Oxford University Press, 2004).
3079: %--------------------------
3080: %--------------------------
3081: \bibitem{Shankar}
3082: R.\ Shankar,
3083: Rev. Mod. Phys. \textbf{66}, 129 (1994).
3084: %--------------------------
3085: %--------------------------
3086: \bibitem{Furukawa}
3087: N.\ Furukawa, T.M.\ Rice, and M.\ Salmhofer,
3088: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. \textbf{81}, 3195 (1998), and references therein.
3089: %--------------------------
3090: %--------------------------
3091: \bibitem{Zanchi1998}
3092: D.\ Zanchi and H.J.\ Schulz,
3093: Europhys.\ Lett.\ \textbf{44}, 235 (1998);
3094: Phys.\ Rev.\ B \textbf{61}, 13609 (2000).
3095: %--------------------------
3096: %--------------------------
3097: \bibitem{Salmhofer1998}
3098: M.\ Salmhofer,
3099: Commun.\ Math.\ Phys.\ \textbf{194}, 249 (1998).
3100: %--------------------------
3101: %--------------------------
3102: \bibitem{Halboth2000}
3103: C.J.\ Halboth and W.\ Metzner,
3104: Phys.\ Rev.\ B \textbf{61}, 7364 (2000).
3105: %--------------------------
3106: %--------------------------
3107: \bibitem{Honerkamp2001}
3108: C.\ Honerkamp, M.\ Salmhofer, N.\ Furukawa, and T.M.\ Rice,
3109: Phys.\ Rev.\ B \textbf{63}, 035109 (2001);
3110: M.\ Salmhofer and C.\ Honerkamp,
3111: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ \textbf{105}, 1 (2001);
3112: C.\ Honerkamp and M.\ Salmhofer,
3113: Phys.\ Rev.\ B \textbf{64}, 184516 (2001).
3114: %--------------------------
3115: %--------------------------
3116: \bibitem{Zanchi2001}
3117: D.\ Zanchi,
3118: Europhys.\ Lett.\ \textbf{55}, 376 (2001).
3119: %--------------------------
3120: %--------------------------
3121: \bibitem{Honerkamp2003}
3122: C.\ Honerkamp and M.\ Salmhofer,
3123: Phys.\ Rev.\ B \textbf{67}, 174504 (2003).
3124: %--------------------------
3125: %--------------------------
3126: \bibitem{Katanin2004}
3127: A.A.\ Katanin and A.P.\ Kampf,
3128: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{93}, 106406 (2004).
3129: %--------------------------
3130: \bibitem{Metzner}
3131: D.\ Rohe and W.\ Metzner,
3132: Phys.\ Rev.\ B \textbf{71}, 115116 (2005);
3133: W.\ Metzner, J.\ Reiss, and D.\ Rohe,
3134: Phys.\ Stat.\ Sol.\ B \textbf{243}, 46 (2006).
3135: %--------------------------
3136: %--------------------------
3137: \bibitem{Kishine1999}
3138: J.\ Kishine and K.\ Yonemitsu,
3139: Phys.\ Rev.\ B \textbf{59}, 14823 (1999).
3140: %--------------------------
3141: %--------------------------
3142: \bibitem{Freire}
3143: H.\ Freire, E.\ Correa, and A.\ Ferraz,
3144: Phys.\ Rev.\ B \textbf{71}, 165113 (2005).
3145: %--------------------------
3146: %------------------------
3147: \bibitem{Bourbonnais_review}
3148: For a review,
3149: C.\ Bourbonnais and D.\ J\'erome,
3150: in \textit{Advances in Synthetic Metals, Twenty Years of Progress in Science
3151: and Technology}, edited by P.\ Bernier, S.\ Lefrant, and
3152: G.\ Bidan (Elsevier, New York, 1999), p. 206.
3153: %--------------------------
3154: %--------------------------
3155: \bibitem{Kishine1998}
3156: J.\ Kishine and K.\ Yonemitsu,
3157: J.\ Phys.\ Soc.\ Jpn.\ \textbf{67}, 2590 (1998);
3158: \textbf{68}, 2790 (1999).
3159: %--------------------------
3160: %--------------------------
3161: \bibitem{Lin1997}
3162: H.H.\ Lin, L.\ Balents, and M.P.A.\ Fisher,
3163: Phys.\ Rev.\ B \textbf{56}, 6569 (1997).
3164: %--------------------------
3165: %--------------------------
3166: \bibitem{Duprat2001}
3167: R.\ Duprat and C.\ Bourbonnais,
3168: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ B \textbf{21}, 219 (2001).
3169: %--------------------------
3170: %--------------------------
3171: \bibitem{Bourbonnais2004}
3172: C.\ Bourbonnais and R.\ Duprat,
3173: J.\ Phys.\ IV France \textbf{114}, 3 (2004).
3174: %--------------------------
3175: \bibitem{Fuseya2005}
3176: Y.\ Fuseya and Y.\ Suzumura,
3177: J.\ Phys.\ Soc.\ Jpn.\ \textbf{74}, 1263 (2005).
3178: %--------------------------
3179: \bibitem{Dupuis2005}
3180: N.\ Dupuis, C.\ Bourbonnais, and J.C.\ Nickel,
3181: cond-mat/0510544;
3182: J.C.\ Nickel, R.\ Duprat, C.\ Bourbonnais, and N.\ Dupuis,
3183: Phys.\ Rev.\ B \textbf{73}, 165126 (2006).
3184: %------------------------
3185: \bibitem{Fuseya2006}
3186: Y.\ Fuseya, M. Tsuchiizu, Y.\ Suzumura, and C.\ Bourbonnais,
3187: preprint.
3188: %--------------------------
3189: %--------------------------
3190: \bibitem{Doucot2003}
3191: S.\ Dusuel and B.\ Dou\c{c}ot,
3192: Phys.\ Rev.\ B \textbf{67}, 205111 (2003).
3193: %--------------------------
3194: %--------------------------
3195: \bibitem{Giamarchi2001}
3196: S.\ Biermann, A.\ Georges,\ A.\ Lichtenstein, and T.\ Giamarchi,
3197: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{87}, 276405 (2001).
3198: %--------------------------
3199: %--------------------------
3200: \bibitem{Giamarchi2002}
3201: S.\ Biermann, A.\ Georges, T.\ Giamarchi, and A.\ Lichtenstein,
3202: in \textit{Strongly Correlated Fermions and Bosons
3203: in Low-Dimensional Disordered Systems},
3204: edited by I.V.\ Lerner, B.L.\ Althsuler, V.I.\ Fal'ko,
3205: and T.\ Giamarchi
3206: (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, 2002), p.\ 81.
3207: %--------------------------
3208: %--------------------------
3209: \bibitem{Giamarchi2004}
3210: T.\ Giamarchi, S.\ Biermann, A.\ Georges, and A.\ Lichtenstein,
3211: J.\ Phys.\ IV France \textbf{114}, 23 (2004).
3212: %--------------------------
3213: %--------------------------
3214: \bibitem{Berthod}
3215: C.\ Berthod, T.\ Giamarchi, S.\ Biermann, and A.\ Georges,
3216: cond-mat/0602304.
3217: %--------------------------
3218: %--------------------------
3219: \bibitem{Essler2002}
3220: F.H.L.\ Essler and A.M.\ Tsvelik,
3221: Phys.\ Rev.\ B \textbf{65}, 115117 (2002).
3222: %--------------------------
3223: %--------------------------
3224: \bibitem{Dagotto}
3225: For a review,
3226: E.\ Dagotto and T.M.\ Rice,
3227: Science \textbf{271}, 618 (1996),
3228: and references therein.
3229: %--------------------------
3230: %--------------------------
3231: \bibitem{Fabrizio1993}
3232: M.\ Fabrizio,
3233: Phys.\ Rev.\ B \textbf{48}, 15838 (1993).
3234: %--------------------------
3235: %--------------------------
3236: \bibitem{Nersesyan1993}
3237: A.A.\ Nersesyan, A.\ Luther, and F.V. Kusmartsev,
3238: Phys.\ Lett.\ A \textbf{176}, 363 (1993).
3239: %--------------------------
3240: %--------------------------
3241: \bibitem{Khveshchenko1994}
3242: D.V.\ Khveshchenko and T.M.\ Rice,
3243: Phys.\ Rev.\ B \textbf{50}, 252 (1994).
3244: %--------------------------
3245: %--------------------------
3246: \bibitem{Schulz1996}
3247: H.J.\ Schulz,
3248: Phys.\ Rev.\ B \textbf{53}, R2959 (1996); in
3249: \textit{Correlated Fermions and Transport in Mesoscopic Systems},
3250: edited by T.\ Martin, G.\ Montambaux, and T.\ Tr\^an Thanh V\^an
3251: (Editions Fronti\`eres, Gif-sur-Yvette, France, 1996), p.\ 81.
3252: %--------------------------
3253: %--------------------------
3254: \bibitem{Balents1996}
3255: L.\ Balents and M.P.A.\ Fisher,
3256: Phys.\ Rev.\ B \textbf{53}, 12133 (1996).
3257: %--------------------------
3258: %--------------------------
3259: \bibitem{Lin1998}
3260: H.H.\ Lin, L.\ Balents, and M.P.A.\ Fisher,
3261: Phys.\ Rev.\ B \textbf{58}, 1794 (1998).
3262: %--------------------------
3263: %--------------------------
3264: \bibitem{Tsuchiizu1999}
3265: M.\ Tsuchiizu and Y.\ Suzumura,
3266: Phys.\ Rev.\ B \textbf{59}, 12326 (1999).
3267: %--------------------------
3268: %--------------------------
3269: \bibitem{Tsuchiizu2002}
3270: M.\ Tsuchiizu and A.\ Furusaki,
3271: Phys.\ Rev.\ B \textbf{66}, 245106 (2002).
3272: %--------------------------
3273: %--------------------------
3274: \bibitem{Fradkin2003}
3275: C.\ Wu, W.V.\ Liu, and E.\ Fradkin,
3276: Phys.\ Rev.\ B \textbf{68}, 115104 (2003).
3277: %--------------------------
3278: %--------------------------
3279: \bibitem{Tsuchiizu2005}
3280: M.\ Tsuchiizu and Y.\ Suzumura,
3281: Phys.\ Rev.\ B \textbf{72}, 075121 (2005).
3282: %--------------------------
3283: %--------------------------
3284: \bibitem{Noack}
3285: R.M.\ Noack, S.R.\ White, and D.J.\ Scalapino,
3286: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{73}, 882 (1994);
3287: Physica C \textbf{270}, 281 (1996).
3288: %--------------------------
3289: %--------------------------
3290: \bibitem{Weihong}
3291: Z.\ Weihong, J.\ Oitmaa, C.J.\ Hamer, and R.J.\ Bursill,
3292: J.\ Phys.: Condens.\ Matter \textbf{13}, 433 (2001).
3293: %--------------------------
3294: %--------------------------
3295: \bibitem{Gogolin}
3296: A.O.\ Gogolin, A.A.\ Nersesyan and A.M.\ Tsvelik,
3297: \textit{Bosonization and Strongly Correlated Systems}
3298: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998).
3299: %--------------------------
3300: %--------------------------
3301: \bibitem{Tsuchiizu_Furusaki}
3302: M.\ Tsuchiizu and A.\ Furusaki,
3303: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{88}, 056402 (2002);
3304: Phys.\ Rev.\ B \textbf{69}, 035103 (2004).
3305: %--------------------------
3306: %--------------------------
3307: \bibitem{Yang}
3308: C.N.\ Yang,
3309: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{63}, 2144 (1989);
3310: C.N.\ Yang and S.C.\ Zhang,
3311: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ \textbf{4}, 759 (1990);
3312: M.\ Pernici,
3313: Europhys.\ Lett.\ \textbf{12}, 75 (1990);
3314: S.C.\ Zhang,
3315: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{65}, 120 (1990);
3316: H.J.\ Schulz, in
3317: \textit{The Hubbard Model}, edited by D.\ Baeriswyl \textit{et al.}
3318: (Plenum, New York, 1995), p.\ 89.
3319: %--------------------------
3320: %--------------------------
3321: \bibitem{Ovchinikov}
3322: A.A.\ Ovchinikov,
3323: Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP \textbf{30}, 1160 (1970).
3324: %--------------------------
3325: %--------------------------
3326: \bibitem{Tsuchiizu_unpublished}
3327: M.\ Tsuchiizu, Y.\ Suzumura, and C.\ Bourbonnais,
3328: unpublished.
3329: %--------------------------
3330: %--------------------------
3331: \bibitem{Shelton}
3332: D.G.\ Shelton, A.A.\ Nersesyan, and A.M.\ Tsvelik,
3333: Phys.\ Rev.\ B \textbf{53}, 8521 (1996);
3334: A.A.\ Nersesyan and A.M.\ Tsvelik,
3335: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. \textbf{78}, 3939 (1997);
3336: A.M.\ Tsvelik,
3337: Phys.\ Rev.\ B \textbf{42}, 10499 (1990).
3338: %--------------------------
3339: %--------------------------
3340: \bibitem{Shiba}
3341: H.\ Shiba,
3342: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ \textbf{48}, 2171 (1972);
3343: %--------------------------
3344: %--------------------------
3345: \bibitem{Nagaoka}
3346: Y.\ Nagaoka,
3347: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ \textbf{52}, 1716 (1974).
3348: %--------------------------
3349:
3350:
3351: \end{thebibliography}
3352:
3353:
3354: \end{document}
3355: