1: % "VERSION 3''

2: % last correction:  November 28, 2006 by PK" 

3: \tolerance = 10000

4: %

5: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,prl,amsmath,amssymb,floatfix]{revtex4}

6: %

7: % take this for final format:

8: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,prb,amsmath,amssymb,floatfix,eqsecnum]{revtex4}

9: %

10: % take this for submission in preprint style

11: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,prb,amsmath,amssymb,floatfix,eqsecnum]{revtex4}

12: %

13: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,superscriptaddress,prb,amsmath,amssymb,floatfix,eqsecnum]{revtex4}

14: %\documentclass[galley,showpacs,prl,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

15: %

16: %\usepackage{dcolumn}

17: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}

18: %

19: %\usepackage{showlabels}

20: %\usepackage{drftcite}

21: %

22: \usepackage{bm}

23: \usepackage{epsfig}

24: \usepackage{psfrag}

25: 

26: % set \bd to \bf or \bm

27: \newcommand{\bd}{\bm}

28: 

29: \begin{document}

30: 

31:  \title{Fermi surface renormalization and confinement in two coupled metallic chains}

32: 

33:  \author{Sascha Ledowski and Peter Kopietz}

34:   

35:   \affiliation{Institut f\"{u}r Theoretische Physik, Universit\"{a}t

36:     Frankfurt,  Max-von-Laue Strasse 1, 60438 Frankfurt, Germany}

37: 

38:  \date{\today}

39: \date{August 4, 2006}

40: 

41: 

42: 

43:  \begin{abstract}

44: Using  a non-perturbative functional  

45: renormalization group approach involving both fermionic and bosonic fields 

46: we calculate the interaction-induced change of the Fermi surface

47: of spinless fermions moving on two chains 

48: connected by weak interchain hopping

49: $t_{\bot}$.

50: For a model containing interband backward scattering only we show that

51: the distance $ \Delta$ between the Fermi momenta

52:  associated with the bonding  and

53: the antibonding band can

54: be strongly reduced, corresponding to a large reduction of the

55: effective interchain hopping $t_{\bot}^{\ast} \propto \Delta $.

56: A self-consistent one-loop approximation 

57: neglecting marginal vertex corrections and

58: wave-function renormalizations predicts 

59: a confinement transition

60: for sufficiently large interchain backscattering, where

61: the renormalized $t_{\bot}^{\ast}$ vanishes.

62: However,

63: a more accurate calculation taking

64: vertex corrections and wave-function renormalizations

65: into account predicts only weak confinement

66: in the sense that  $0< | t_{\bot}^{\ast} | \ll | t_{\bot} |$.

67: Our method can be applied to other strong-coupling problems 

68: where the  dominant scattering channel is known.

69: 

70: 

71: \end{abstract}

72: 

73:   \pacs{71.10.Pm, 71.27.+a,71.10.Hf}

74: 

75: 

76:  %\preprint{}

77: 

78:   %\draft

79: 

80:   \maketitle

81: 

82: \section{Introduction}

83: 

84: 

85: 

86:  

87: 

88: 

89: In strongly correlated Fermi systems

90: electron-electron interactions

91: can have  drastic effects

92: on the geometry and the topology of the Fermi surface.

93: For example, strong

94: forward scattering can give rise to a Pomeranchuk instability,

95: where  the shape of the Fermi surface spontaneously changes such that

96: it has a lower symmetry than

97: the underlying lattice \cite{Pomenanchuk58}.

98: Another example is the  

99: Lifshitz transition~\cite{Lifshitz60}, where

100: the topology of the

101: Fermi surface changes discontinuously without symmetry breaking

102: as a function of some

103: external control parameter. This   

104: gives rise to anomalies  in thermodynamic and kinetic 

105: properties of a metal.

106: Conditions on the range and the strength of the interaction leading to

107: Pomeranchuk and Lifshitz transitions have recently been derived

108: in Ref.~[\onlinecite{Quintanilla06}]. 

109: 

110: In this work we shall focus on another type of phase transition 

111: associated with the geometry of the Fermi surface, which we call

112: {\it{confinement transition}}. 

113: This quantum phase transition can

114: occur in quasi one-dimensional metals with an open Fermi surface,

115: consisting of two disconnected weakly curved sheets.  

116: Due to strong interactions, the curvature of the Fermi sheets

117: can be smoothed out and can eventually vanish in certain sectors.

118: In the extreme case, the 

119: renormalized Fermi surface

120: consists of two completely flat parallel planes.

121: The motion of the fermions in real space is then 

122: strictly one-dimensional, although

123: in the absence of interactions it is not.

124: We therefore call such a transition {\it{confinement transition}}.

125: In the confined state the low-energy properties of the system

126: resemble that of a one-dimensional Luttinger liquid.

127: Because the Fermi surface in the confined state

128: has an additional nesting symmetry, at the confinement transition  the symmetry

129: of the Fermi surface increases, 

130: in contrast to the Pomeranchuk instability, where interactions

131: lower the symmetry of the  Fermi surface.

132: An interaction-induced flattening of the Fermi surface

133: might  also play a role in

134: the Hubbard model close to half filling, where the bare Fermi surface

135: consists of four almost flat sectors.

136: Completely flat parts

137: of the Fermi surface can give rise to non-Fermi liquid 

138: behavior \cite{Luther94,Zheleznyak97,Ferraz03}.

139: Evidence of an interaction-induced flattening of the Fermi surface of the

140: Hubbard model close to half filling has been found in Ref.~[\onlinecite{Honerkamp01}].

141: 

142: 

143: Similar to the Pomeranchuk transition,

144: the  confinement transition is a strong-coupling phenomenon.

145: Hence, the usual weak coupling perturbative expansions  are not sufficient to study

146: this transition.

147: Due to a lack of controlled methods to deal with strongly interacting fermions

148: in dimensions larger than one, it is very difficult to study

149: the confinement transition.

150: To shed some light on the underlying mechanism,  we shall

151: in this work consider the simpler problem of just two metallic spinless chains

152: coupled by weak interchain hopping $t_{\bot}$.

153: The confined state corresponds to a vanishing

154: renormalized interchain hopping $ t_{\bot}^{\ast} =0$, so that

155: electrons cannot move from one chain to the other, in spite of the fact

156: that the bare interchain hopping is finite.

157: In a subsequent paper~\cite{Ledowski06}, we shall discuss the more difficult confinement 

158: problem in an infinite array of coupled chains. It turns out that the basic

159: mechanism

160: responsible for the tendency  towards confinement can

161: already be understood from the simpler two-chain problem. 

162: 

163: Because perturbation theory in the two-chain problem  

164: is plagued by the usual infrared divergencies

165: of one-dimensional Fermi systems, even in the limit of

166: weak interactions the Fermi surface cannot be calculated

167: within renormalized 

168: perturbation theory\cite{Neumayr03,Dusuel03}.

169: In dimensions $ D \geq 2$ the Fermi surface deformation has been studied

170: to all orders in perturbation theory in Ref.~[\onlinecite{Feldman96}]

171: for a general class of models.

172: Within the framework

173: of the renormalization group (RG)

174: the Fermi surface can be defined non-perturbatively from the

175: requirement that the relevant coupling constants $r_l ( {\bd{k}}_F )$ related to the

176: self-energy $ \Sigma ( {\bd{k}}_F ,  \omega =0)$ at the true Fermi surface 

177: ${\bd{k}}_F$

178: flow into a fixed point of the RG~\cite{Kopietz01,Ledowski03}.

179: In Ref.~[\onlinecite{Ledowski05}] 

180: we have calculated  the shift of the

181: Fermi surface in the two-chain system

182: within the usual weak coupling

183: expansion of the  RG $\beta$-functions.

184: We have shown that interchain backscattering gives rise to the dominant 

185: logarithmic renormalization

186: of the distance

187:  $

188:  \Delta = k^{+} - k^{-}

189:  $

190: between the Fermi momenta $k^{+}$ and $k^{-}$ 

191: associated with  the bonding and the antibonding band.

192: Denoting by $\Delta_1$ the value of $\Delta$ within the Hartree-Fock

193: approximation, the self-consistency condition for the

194: true Fermi point distance in the spinless two-chain system

195: can be cast into the form

196:  \begin{equation}

197:  \Delta = \frac{\Delta_1 }{ 1 + 2 g_0^2 \ln ( \Lambda_0 / \Delta )}

198:  \label{eq:deltaprevious}

199:  \; ,

200:  \end{equation}

201: where $\Lambda_0$ is an ultraviolet cutoff and

202: $g_0$ is the bare value of the dimensionless coupling constant describing

203: interchain backscattering, which will be defined more precisely in

204: Sec.~\ref{subsec:relevant}.

205: From Eq.~(\ref{eq:deltaprevious})

206: we see that sufficiently large interchain backscattering strongly reduces

207: the value of $\Delta$. But the renormalized $\Delta$ never vanishes, so that

208: there is no true confinement transition. One should keep in mind, however, that

209: Eq.~(\ref{eq:deltaprevious}) has been derived by expanding the RG $\beta$-functions to second order in the 

210: coupling constants, so that it is not allowed

211: to extrapolate this expression to large values of $g_0$.

212: 

213: To find out whether in the spinless two-chain system sufficiently strong

214: interchain-backscattering  

215: can give rise to a confinement transition where the renormalized effective

216: interchain hopping $t_{\bot}^{\ast} \propto k^+ - k^-$ vanishes, 

217: we use here a generalization of 

218: the collective field functional RG approach

219: with momentum transfer cutoff

220: developed in Ref.~[\onlinecite{Schuetz05}].

221: It turns out that with this approach we can 

222: analyze the regime where the dimensionless

223: interchain backscattering interaction $g_0$ is of the

224: order of unity. 

225: The crucial point is that from the weak coupling analysis \cite{Ledowski05}

226: we know that the confinement transition is 

227: driven by interchain backscattering,

228: so that it is natural to decouple  the interaction in this

229: scattering channel via a suitable bosonic Hubbard-Stratonovich field.

230: Simple truncations in the resulting mixed boson-fermion theory

231: correspond to infinite resummations

232: in an expansion of the RG $\beta$-functions

233: in powers of $g_0$.

234: 

235: 

236: 

237: 

238: \section{Effective low-energy model}

239: 

240: 

241:  

242: We consider  spinless fermions

243: confined to two chains that are coupled by weak interchain hopping $t_{\bot}$.

244: The kinetic energy of the two-chain system is diagonalized

245: by forming symmetric (bonding band) and antisymmetric (antibonding band)

246: combinations

247: of the eigenstates associated with isolated chains. 

248: Denoting by $\epsilon_k$  the energy dispersion of a 

249: single chain in the absence

250: of interchain hopping,

251: the energy dispersion of the non-interacting system

252: is $\epsilon_{ k}^{\sigma}  = \epsilon_k - \sigma t_{\bot}$,

253: where  $\sigma = + 1$ labels the bonding band and $\sigma =-1$ labels

254: the antibonding band.

255: It is useful to think of $\sigma$ as a pseudospin label \cite{Fabrizio93},

256: in which case $t_{\bot} =h $ corresponds to a uniform magnetic field $h$ 

257: in the $z$-direction. 

258: 

259: The problem of finding the low-energy

260: properties of two coupled metallic chains has been studied

261: previously by many 

262: authors \cite{Dusuel03,Ledowski05,Fabrizio93,Brazovskii85,Bourbonnais91,Kusmartsev92,Finkelstein93,Boies95,Balents96,Arrigoni98,Ledermann00,Louis01,Caron02,Bourbonnais04,Nickel06,Tsuchiizu06}.

263: However, the problem of self-consistently calculating the

264: true Fermi surface has only recently been addressed \cite{Dusuel03,Ledowski05,Louis01}.

265: At low energies all 

266: possible scattering processes in the spinless two-chain system

267: can be  divided into four different 

268: classes~\cite{Fabrizio93}: (1) forward

269: scattering processes, parameterized  in terms of 

270: three different  coupling constants $f^{++}$, $f^{--}$ and $f^{+-} = f^{-+}$, where the labels

271: indicate the band of the fermions involved in the scattering process;

272: (2) interband backward scattering, which in pseudospin language corresponds

273: to transverse spin-exchange, so that we shall call the corresponding

274: dimensionful coupling constant $J^{\bot}$ 

275: (the associated dimensionless coupling

276: $g_0$ will be introduced in Sec.~\ref{subsec:relevant});

277: (3)  pair-tunneling, which can also

278: be viewed as interband Umklapp 

279: scattering, parameterized in terms

280: of a coupling constant by $u$;

281: and finally (4)  intraband Umklapp scattering, 

282: which is expected to be important only at commensurate fillings.

283: Neglecting the latter process

284: and setting for simplicity

285: $f^{++} = f^{--}$, the low-energy interactions can

286: be expressed in terms of  four  marginal coupling constants

287: $f = \frac{1}{2}( f^{+-} + f^{++})$,

288: $J^{\parallel} =  \frac{1}{2}( f^{+-} - f^{++} )$,

289: $ J^{\bot}$, and $u$.

290: In the bonding-antibonding basis the

291: system can then be modeled by the following

292: effective Euclidean  action in pseudospin notation,

293:  \begin{eqnarray}

294:  S [ \bar{\psi} , \psi ] & = & \sum_{\sigma } \int_K

295:  ( - i \omega + \xi_{ k}^{ \sigma } )  \bar{\psi}_{ K }^{\sigma} 

296:  \psi_{ K}^{ \sigma}

297:  \nonumber

298:  \\

299:  &  & \hspace{-15mm} + \frac{1}{2} \int_{\bar{K}} 

300:  \left[ f (\bar{k} ) \bar{\rho}_{ \bar{K} } 

301:  \rho_{\bar{K}}

302:   -  J^{\parallel} (\bar{k} ) 

303:  \bar{m}_{ \bar{K}} m_{ \bar{K}} \right]

304:   \nonumber

305:  \\

306:   &   & \hspace{-15mm}  + \int_{ \bar{K}} 

307:  \left[ u ( \bar{k} )\left( 

308:  \bar{s}_{\bar{K}} \bar{s}_{-\bar{K}} +  s_{\bar{K}} s_{-\bar{K}} \right) 

309:  - 2 J^{\bot} ( \bar{k} ) \bar{s}_{ \bar{K} } s_{\bar{K}} \right]

310:  \; ,

311:  \nonumber

312:  \\

313:  & &

314:  \label{eq:action1}

315:  \end{eqnarray}

316: where $\xi_{ k}^{ \sigma} = \epsilon_k - \mu - \sigma h $, and

317: we have introduced the following composite fields,

318:  \begin{subequations}

319:  \begin{eqnarray}

320:  \rho_{\bar{K}} & = & \sum_\sigma \int_K \bar{\psi}_{ K}^{ \sigma}

321:  \psi_{ K + \bar{K}}^{ \sigma}

322:  \; ,

323:  \\

324: m_{\bar{K}} & = & \sum_\sigma   \sigma  \int_K  \bar{\psi}_{ K }^{\sigma}

325:  \psi_{ K + \bar{K} }^{ \sigma}

326:  \; ,

327:  \\

328: s_{\bar{K}} & = & \int_{{K}} \bar{\psi}_{ K }^{ -} \psi_{ K+ \bar{K} }^{+}

329:  \; .

330:  \end{eqnarray}

331:  \end{subequations}

332: We use the 

333: imaginary time formalism at zero temperature and

334: have introduced

335: collective labels $K =  ( k , i \omega )$

336: for fermionic fields and

337: $\bar{K} = ( \bar{k} , i \bar{\omega} )$ for bosonic fields, with the notation

338: $\int_K = \int \frac{dk d\omega}{(2\pi)^2}$. 

339: Note that the Fourier components of the density and the longitudinal

340: spin-density field satisfy

341:  $\rho_{-K} = \rho_K $ and  $m_{-K} = m_K$, while 

342: the spin-flip field $s_K$ 

343: is complex and do not have this symmetry.

344: The  interaction functions $f ( \bar{k} )$, 

345: $J^{\parallel} ( \bar{k} ) $, $J^{\bot} ( \bar{k} )$, and $u ( \bar{k} )$

346: should be considered 

347: as phenomenological low-energy couplings

348: which are only non-zero for

349: $ | \bar{k} | \leq \Lambda_0 \ll k_F$.

350: Hence, these couplings should not be directly compared with

351: the bare coupling constant in the Hubbard model \cite{footnotehubbard}.

352: The signs and normalizations in Eq.~(\ref{eq:action1}) are chosen such that

353: for $J^{\bot} = J^{\parallel}$ the model has

354: rotational invariance in pseudo-spin space, and

355: that for the Hubbard model all  couplings are

356: positive \cite{footnotehubbard}.

357: However, in our effective low energy model 

358: there is no reason to expect 

359: rotational invariance in pseudospin-space, so that in general

360: $J^{\parallel} ( \bar{k} ) \neq J^{\bot} ( \bar{k} )$.

361: 

362: The model defined in (\ref{eq:action1}) is still quite complicated and contains

363: many interaction processes which are not essential for the confinement transition.

364: In fact, from our previous weak 

365: coupling analysis~\cite{Ledowski05} we know that

366: the dominant renormalization of the difference between the Fermi points is due to

367: the interchain backscattering process described 

368: by the coupling $J^{\bot} ( \bar{k} )$.

369: In this work we study a minimal  model describing the confinement transition

370:  by simply neglecting the forward scattering

371: interactions $f ( \bar{k} )$ and $J^{\parallel} ( \bar{k} )$, as well as the

372: pair tunneling coupling $u ( \bar{k} )$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:action1}). 

373: However it is known~\cite{Brazovskii85,Boies95} 

374: that sufficiently strong pair tunneling  can destabilize the Luttinger liquid phase; 

375: we shall come back to this point in Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusion}.

376: In pseudospin language, our model then describes a one-dimensional

377: spin $S=1/2$

378: Fermi system subject to a uniform magnetic field in $z$-direction with an attractive

379: ferromagnetic spin exchange involving only the transverse ($xy$) spin components.

380: The latter tends to align the spins in the direction perpendicular to the

381: magnetic field.  The Fermi surface renormalization is essentially

382: determined by the competition between the $xy$-exchange interaction and the

383: external constraint imposed by the

384: uniform magnetic field, which tends to align the spins along the

385: $z$-axis.

386: The phase diagram of the model (\ref{eq:action1}) in the space of all couplings

387: has been discussed by Fabrizio \cite{Fabrizio93}.

388: The qualitative behavior of the weak coupling RG flow

389: in the space of couplings spanned by  $J^{\parallel}$,

390: $J^{\bot}$ and $u$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:flowLL}.

391: %

392: %

393:  \begin{figure}[tb]    

394:    \centering

395: % \psfrag{g}{$J^{\bot}$}

396: % \psfrag{f}{$J^{\parallel}$}

397: %  \vspace{7mm}

398: %     \includegraphics{fig1.eps}

399:       \epsfig{file=fig1.eps,width=75mm}

400: %  \vspace{4mm}

401:   \caption{%

402: (Color Online) Qualitative behavior of the weak coupling RG flow

403: of the model (\ref{eq:action1}) in the space of coupling constants $J^{\parallel}$,

404: $J^{\bot}$ and $u$. The thick black line is the line of fixed points

405: describing the stable Luttinger liquid phase.

406: }

407:     \label{fig:flowLL}

408:   \end{figure}

409: %

410: %

411: Obviously, there is a finite regime in coupling space where the 

412: spinless two-chain system is a stable Luttinger liquid, with gapless excitations.

413: In this work we shall assume that the qualitative fixed point structure 

414: suggested by the weak coupling analysis remains correct even in the strong

415: coupling regime. We can therefore choose the bare parameters such that the system

416: belongs to the basin of attraction of the Luttinger liquid fixed point manifold.

417: 

418: 

419: At low energies we may further simplify our model

420: (at least in the deconfined phase) by linearizing the energy

421: dispersion at the Fermi surface, which 

422: for our model consists of  four points $\alpha k^{  \sigma}$,

423: where the chirality index $\alpha = \pm 1$ labels the left/right 

424: Fermi point.

425: Note that the true Fermi points are defined via

426:  \begin{equation}

427:  \epsilon_{ \alpha {k}^{ \sigma} } - \mu - \sigma h  + \Sigma^{\sigma} 

428:  ( \alpha k^{ \sigma} , i0 ) =0

429:  \; ,

430:  \label{eq:FSdef}

431:  \end{equation}

432: where $\Sigma^{\sigma} (  \alpha k^{ \sigma} , i0 )$ 

433: is the exact self-energy for vanishing

434: frequency and for momenta at the true

435: Fermi surface $\alpha k^{\sigma}$ of the interacting system.

436: To linearize the energy dispersion at the true Fermi surface, we add 

437: and subtract from the

438: non-interacting  energy dispersion the counter-term

439: \begin{equation}

440: \mu^{\sigma}_0 = -  \Sigma^{\sigma} (  \alpha k^{ \sigma} , i0  ) \; ,

441:  \label{eq:counterdef}

442: \end{equation}

443:  and approximate

444:  \begin{eqnarray}

445:  \xi_{ \alpha k^{ \sigma} + k}^{ \sigma} & = & 

446: \epsilon_{ \alpha k^{ \sigma} + k } - \mu - \sigma h   

447:  \nonumber

448:  \\

449: &  & \hspace{-16mm} = 

450: \epsilon_{ \alpha k^{ \sigma} + k } - \mu - \sigma h   

451: + \Sigma^{\sigma} (  \alpha k^{ \sigma} , i0 )

452: -

453: \Sigma^{\sigma} (  \alpha k^{ \sigma} , i0  )

454:  \nonumber

455:  \\

456: & & \hspace{-16mm} \approx

457: \alpha v^{\sigma}_0 k  + \mu^{\sigma}_0

458:  \; ,

459:  \end{eqnarray}

460: where $v_0^{\sigma}$ is the bare Fermi velocity at the

461: true Fermi surface for  pseudospin $\sigma$.

462: In analogy with the

463: definition of the couplings in the 

464: Tomonaga-Luttinger model~\cite{Solyom79}, we now generalize 

465: the interaction by introducing chirality

466: indices 

467: $ J^{\bot}  \rightarrow J^{\bot}_{\alpha \alpha^{\prime}}   $.

468: We shall refer to the diagonal processes $J^{\bot}_{ \alpha \alpha }$

469: as chiral interactions (these are called $g_4$ processes in the

470: Tomonaga-Luttinger model).

471: Similarly,  off-diagonal elements $J^{\bot}_{\alpha , -{\alpha}}$

472: will be  called non-chiral processes (corresponding to the $g_2$-processes 

473: in the Tomonaga-Luttinger model).

474: Defining new fields 

475:  \begin{equation}

476:   \psi^{\sigma}_{ K \alpha} = \psi_{ \alpha k^{ \sigma} + k , i \omega}^{ \sigma}

477:  \; ,

478:  \end{equation}

479: we replace the action (\ref{eq:action1}) 

480: by the following effective low-energy action describing the

481: physics of the 

482: confinement transition in our system of two spinless metallic chains,

483:  \begin{eqnarray}

484:  S [ \bar{\psi} , \psi ] & = & \sum_{\sigma, \alpha } \int_K

485:  ( - i \omega + \alpha v^{\sigma}_0 k  + \mu^{\sigma}_0 ) 

486:  \bar{\psi}^{\sigma}_{ K \alpha} \psi^{\sigma}_{ K \alpha}

487:  \nonumber

488:  \\

489:  & - &  2 \sum_{ \alpha \alpha^{\prime}}  

490:  \int_{\bar{K}} J^{\bot}_{ \alpha \alpha^{\prime} }  

491: \bar{s}_{ \bar{K} \alpha} s_{\bar{K} \alpha^{\prime}}

492:  \; ,

493:  \label{eq:action2}

494:  \end{eqnarray}

495: where it is understood that the $\bar{k}$-integration

496: has a momentum transfer cutoff $ |\bar{k} | \leq \Lambda_0 \ll k_F$, and

497:  \begin{eqnarray}

498: s_{ \bar{K} \alpha} & = & \int_K \bar{\psi}^{-}_{ K \alpha} 

499:  \psi^{+}_{ K+ \bar{K} \alpha}

500:  \; .

501:  \end{eqnarray}

502: 

503: 

504: 

505: \section{Exact RG flow equations}

506: 

507: 

508: \subsection{Hubbard Stratonovich transformation}

509: 

510: 

511: 

512: Because the confinement transition is a strong coupling phenomenon,

513: the usual weak coupling RG approach based on the expansion

514: in powers  of $J^{\bot}_{\alpha \alpha^{\prime}}$ is not suitable. 

515: To develop a RG approach which does not rely on a weak coupling expansion,

516: we decouple the spin-flip interaction with the help

517: of a complex Hubbard-Stratonovich field $\chi_{\alpha}$.

518: For convenience we  collect all fields in a super-field,

519:  \begin{equation}

520:  \Phi = ( \psi_{\alpha}^{+} , \bar{\psi}_{\alpha}^{+},

521: \psi_{\alpha}^{-} , \bar{\psi}_{\alpha}^{-}, \chi_{\alpha} , \bar{\chi}_{\alpha} )

522:  \; .

523: \end{equation}

524: Taking into account that there are two chiralities $\alpha = \pm 1$,

525: our super-field has totally

526: 12 components (8 fermionic and 4 bosonic ones).

527: The ratio of the partition functions with and without interactions can then be written as

528:  \begin{equation}

529:  \frac{ \cal{Z}}{{\cal{Z}}_0 } = \frac{ \int{\cal{D}} [ \Phi ] e^{ - S_0 [ \Phi ] - S_1 [ \Phi ] } }{

530:  \int{\cal{D}} [ \Phi ] e^{ - S_0 [ \Phi ] }}

531:  \; ,

532:  \end{equation}

533: with the Gaussian part of the effective action given by

534:  \begin{eqnarray}

535:   S_0 [ \Phi ] & = &

536: \sum_{\sigma, \alpha } \int_K

537:  ( - i \omega + \alpha v^{\sigma}_0 k  + \mu^{\sigma}_0 ) 

538:  \bar{\psi}^{\sigma}_{ K \alpha} \psi^{\sigma}_{ K \alpha}

539:  \nonumber

540:  \\ 

541:   &+ & \frac{1}{2}  \sum_{ \alpha \alpha^{\prime} }  

542: \int_{\bar{K}} [ {\bf{J}}^{\bot} ]^{-1}_{\alpha 

543:  \alpha^{\prime}} \bar{\chi}_{\bar{K} \alpha} \chi_{\bar{K} \alpha^{\prime} }

544: \; .

545:  \label{eq:Gauss}

546:  \end{eqnarray}  

547: Here ${\bf{J}}^{\bot}$ is a  matrix

548: in chirality space with matrix elements given by

549: ${J}^{\bot}_{\alpha \alpha^{\prime}}$, and the interaction is

550: \begin{eqnarray}

551:   S_1 [ \Phi ] & = &

552: \sum_{ \alpha } \int_{\bar{K}} 

553: \bigl[

554:  \bar{s}_{\bar{K} \alpha} \chi_{\bar{K} \alpha} +

555:  s_{\bar{K} \alpha}  \bar{\chi}_{\bar{K} \alpha}  \bigr]

556:  \; .

557:  \label{eq:S1}

558:  \end{eqnarray}

559: A graphical representation of the

560: bare interaction vertices in Eq.~(\ref{eq:S1})

561: is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:vertexS1}.

562: %

563: %

564:  \begin{figure}[tb]    

565:    \centering

566: % \psfrag{t1}{$T >T_c$}

567: %  \vspace{7mm}

568: %     \includegraphics{fig1.eps}

569:       \epsfig{file=fig2.eps,width=75mm}

570: %  \vspace{4mm}

571:   \caption{%

572: Bare interaction vertices of the action $S_1 [ \Phi ]$ given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:S1}).

573: The fermionic fields $\psi^{\sigma}$ and $\bar{\psi}^{\sigma}$ are denoted by

574: solid arrows, with the spin-projection $\sigma = \pm 1$ written next to the arrows. 

575: Bosonic spin-flip fields $\chi$ and $\bar{\chi}$ are denoted by

576: wavy arrows. Incoming arrows denote $\psi^{\sigma}$ and $\chi$, while

577: outgoing arrows correspond to the conjugate fields

578: $\bar{\psi}^{\sigma}$ and $\bar{\chi}$.

579: }

580:     \label{fig:vertexS1}

581:   \end{figure}

582: %

583: %

584: The coupled RG flow equations for the one-line irreducible vertices

585: of the above mixed boson-fermion theory can be

586: obtained as a special case of the general flow equations given in

587: Ref.~[\onlinecite{Schuetz05}]. 

588: 

589: 

590: \subsection{Functional RG flow equations in momentum transfer cutoff scheme}

591: 

592: In order to calculate the true Fermi surface, we need to know

593: the exact counter-term $\mu^{\sigma}_0 

594: = - \Sigma ( \alpha k^{\sigma} , i 0  )$, which can be 

595: obtained from the flowing self-energy 

596: $\Sigma_{\Lambda}^{\sigma} ( K , \alpha )$

597: in the limit of vanishing infrared cutoff $\Lambda \rightarrow 0$.

598: The form of the flow equation 

599: for $\Sigma_{\Lambda}^{\sigma} ( K , \alpha )$

600: depends on the

601: RG method employed. Here we use the hierarchy of functional RG 

602: equations for the one-line irreducible vertices \cite{Wetterich93,Morris94}

603: of mixed boson-fermion models developed in Ref.~[\onlinecite{Schuetz05}].

604: A similar approach involving both fermionic and bosonic fields has been

605: developed in Refs.~[\onlinecite{Wetterich02,Baier04}].

606: In principle, one can also obtain the flowing self-energy

607: within the purely fermionic parameterization of the

608: hierarchy of flow equations \cite{Kopietz01,Ledowski05,Salmhofer01}.

609: However, with the usual truncations necessary

610: in  this approach it is not possible to reach the strong coupling regime. 

611: 

612: 

613: In the momentum transfer cutoff scheme \cite{Schuetz05}

614: we impose a cutoff $\Lambda$ only on the momentum $ \bar{k} $ transfered by the

615: collective bosonic field. The resulting RG flow equation 

616: for the fermionic self-energy $\Sigma_{\Lambda}^{\sigma} ( K , \alpha )$ is

617: shown graphically in Fig.~\ref{fig:flowsigma}.

618: %

619: %

620:  \begin{figure}[tb]    

621:    \centering

622: % \psfrag{a}{$\sigma$}

623: % \psfrag{b}{$- \sigma$}

624: % \psfrag{d}{$\huge{\delta_{ \sigma ,-}}$}

625: %\psfrag{u}{$\delta_{ \sigma ,+}$}

626: %  \vspace{7mm}

627:       \epsfig{file=fig3.eps,width=75mm}

628: %  \vspace{4mm}

629:   \caption{%

630: Exact flow equation for the fermionic self-energy $\Sigma^{\sigma}_{\Lambda} 

631: ( K , \alpha)$

632: in the momentum transfer

633: cutoff scheme. 

634: The thick solid arrow is the flowing fermionic Green function and

635: the thick wavy line with a slash is the flowing single scale 

636: spin-flip propagator defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:bossingle}).  

637: The  one-line irreducible vertices are represented by shaded triangles. 

638: A label $(n,m)$ inside a shaded triangle means that the vertex has

639: $n$ fermionic and $m$ bosonic external legs.

640: }

641:     \label{fig:flowsigma}

642:   \end{figure}

643: %

644: %

645: The corresponding analytic expression is

646: \begin{eqnarray}

647: \partial_{\Lambda} \Sigma^{\sigma}_{\Lambda} ( K, \alpha) &  &

648:  \nonumber

649:  \\

650:  & &  \hspace{-10mm} =

651:  \int_{ \bar{K} } \dot{F}^{ \sigma \bar{\sigma}}_{\Lambda} ( \bar{K} ,  \alpha  ) 

652:  \Gamma^{(2,2)}_{\Lambda} ( K  \sigma , -K  \sigma ; 

653:  \bar{K} , - \bar{K} , \alpha )

654: \nonumber

655:  \\

656:  &  & \hspace{-10mm} +

657:  \int_{ \bar{K} } \dot{F}^{ \sigma \bar{\sigma}}_{\Lambda} ( \bar{K} ,  \alpha  ) 

658: G^{ \bar{\sigma}}_{\Lambda} ( K + \bar{K} + \alpha \sigma \Delta,  \alpha )

659:  \nonumber

660:  \\

661:  &  &  \hspace{-5mm} \times 

662:  \Gamma^{(2,1) }_{\Lambda} ( K \sigma ; K + \bar{K}, \bar{\sigma} ; - \bar{K}, \alpha)

663:  \nonumber

664:  \\

665:  & & \hspace{-5mm} \times 

666: \Gamma^{(2,1)}_{ \Lambda} ( K + \bar{K}, \bar{\sigma} ;  K, \sigma ; \bar{K} , \alpha)

667:  \; .

668:  \label{eq:RGselfvertex}

669:  \end{eqnarray}

670: Here 

671:  $G_{\Lambda}^{\sigma} ( K , \alpha )$ is

672: the flowing fermionic single-particle Green function

673: for a given

674: pseudospin  $\sigma$ and chirality index $\alpha$.

675: We use the notation $\bar{\sigma} = - \sigma$ and measure

676: the wave-vectors $k$

677: with respect to the true Fermi momenta $\alpha k^{\sigma}$, defining

678:  \begin{equation}

679:  G_{\Lambda}^{\sigma} ( K , \alpha )

680:  = G_{\Lambda}^{\sigma} ( \alpha k^{\sigma} + k , i \omega )

681:  \; ,

682:  \end{equation}

683: and

684:  \begin{equation}

685:  G^{ \bar{\sigma}}_{\Lambda} ( K  + \alpha \sigma \Delta,  \alpha )

686:  =  G^{ \bar{\sigma}}_{\Lambda} (  \alpha k^{\bar{\sigma}} + k

687:   + \alpha \sigma \Delta,   i \omega  )

688:  \; . 

689: \end{equation}

690: The shift 

691:  $ \alpha \sigma \Delta = \alpha \sigma (k^{+} - k^- )$ in the argument

692: of  $G_{\Lambda}^{\bar{\sigma}} $ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:RGselfvertex})

693: is due to the fact that in  $G_{\Lambda}^{\bar{\sigma}} (K , \alpha )$ 

694: the wave-vector $k$ is measured with respect to a different reference point than

695: in $G_{\Lambda}^{{\sigma}} ( K , \alpha )$.

696: The function $\dot{F}^{ \sigma \bar{\sigma} }_{\Lambda} (  \bar{K} \alpha  )$

697: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:RGselfvertex}) is the

698: single scale bosonic spin-flip

699: propagator, which is defined by

700:  \begin{equation}

701:    \dot{F}^{ \sigma \bar{\sigma} }_{\Lambda} (  \bar{K} \alpha  )  = 

702:  - \delta ( | \bar{k} | - \Lambda )

703:     [ {\bf{F}}^{ \sigma \bar{\sigma}}_{\Lambda} ( \bar{K}  )]_{\alpha \alpha}

704:  \; ,

705:  \label{eq:bossingle}

706:  \end{equation}

707: where 

708: $ {\bf{F}}^{ \sigma \bar{\sigma}}_{\Lambda} ( \bar{K}  ) $ is a matrix

709: in chirality space whose inverse has the matrix elements

710:  \begin{equation}

711:   [ {\bf{F}}^{\sigma \bar{\sigma}}_{\Lambda} ( \bar{K} ) ]^{-1}_{\alpha \alpha^{\prime} }  = 

712:   [  2 {\bf{J}}^{\bot}  ]^{-1}_{\alpha \alpha^{\prime} } - 

713:  \delta_{\alpha \alpha^{\prime}} 

714:  \Pi_{ \Lambda}^{\sigma \bar{\sigma}} ( \bar{K} , \alpha  )

715:  \; ,

716:  \end{equation}

717: where $\Pi_{ \Lambda}^{\sigma \bar{\sigma}} ( \bar{K} , \alpha  )$ is the flowing spin-flip

718: susceptibility.

719: In the momentum transfer cutoff scheme, the RG flow of

720: $\Pi_{ \Lambda}^{\sigma \bar{\sigma}} ( \bar{K} , \alpha  )$

721: is driven by the one-line irreducible vertex with four external boson legs, as shown

722: in Fig.~\ref{fig:flowPi}. 

723: %

724: %

725:  \begin{figure}[tb]    

726:    \centering

727: % \psfrag{t1}{$T >T_c$}

728: %  \vspace{7mm}

729:       \epsfig{file=fig4.eps,width=70mm}

730: %  \vspace{4mm}

731:   \caption{%

732: Exact flow equation for the spin-flip susceptibility  in the momentum transfer

733: cutoff scheme.

734: }

735:     \label{fig:flowPi}

736:   \end{figure}

737: %

738: %

739: The vertices $ \Gamma^{(2,1) }_{\Lambda} 

740: ( K \sigma ; K^{\prime} \bar{\sigma} ;  \bar{K} , \alpha)$ in 

741: Eq.~(\ref{eq:RGselfvertex}) are the flowing spin-flip vertices with two fermionic and

742: one bosonic external legs.  

743: In the momentum transfer cutoff scheme these vertices 

744: satisfy the exact flow equations  shown in graphically in Fig.~\ref{fig:flowvert}, with initial 

745: condition

746:  \begin{equation}

747:  \Gamma^{(2,1)}_{ \Lambda_0 } ( K \sigma ; 

748:  K^{\prime} \bar{\sigma} ; \bar{K}, \alpha )  =  1 

749:  \; .

750:  \label{eq:Gammainitial}

751:  \end{equation}

752: %

753: %

754: \begin{figure}[tb]    

755:    \centering

756: % \psfrag{t1}{$T >T_c$}

757: %  \vspace{7mm}

758:       \epsfig{file=fig5.eps,width=60mm}

759: %  \vspace{4mm}

760:   \caption{%

761: Exact flow equation for the  spin-flip vertices 

762: in the momentum transfer

763: cutoff scheme.

764: }

765:     \label{fig:flowvert}

766:   \end{figure}

767: %

768: %

769: Finally, the vertex $\Gamma^{(2,2)}_{\Lambda}$

770: on the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:RGselfvertex}) is the one-line irreducible

771: vertex with two fermionic and two bosonic external legs.

772: We do not give the flow equation for this vertex, because

773: purely bosonic vertices with more than two external legs

774: and  mixed vertices with two fermionic and more than one bosonic external leg

775: have negative scaling dimensions and are irrelevant~\cite{Schuetz05}.

776: We expect that their effect can be implicitly taken into account by re-defining

777: the numerical values of the relevant and marginal couplings \cite{Polchinski84}.

778: % Of course, the purely fermionic vertex 

779: % with four external legs as also marginal, but in

780: % the momentum transfer cutoff scheme this vertex 

781: % does not couple to the flow of the fermionic 

782: % self-energy.

783: 

784: 

785: The initial condition for 

786: the fermionic self-energy at scale $\Lambda = \Lambda_0$ is simply

787:  \begin{equation}

788:  \Sigma^{\sigma}_{\Lambda_0} ( K , \alpha )  =  0

789:  \; .

790:  \label{eq:sigmainitial}

791:  \end{equation}

792: Similarly, the vertices with two fermion legs and more than one

793: boson leg 

794: appearing on the right-hand side of the flow equation for the

795: spin-flip vertex shown in

796: Fig.~\ref{fig:flowvert} also vanish at the initial scale.

797: However,

798: the price we pay for introducing a cutoff only in the momentum transfer  

799: are non-trivial initial conditions  for the purely bosonic vertices, 

800: which are initially given by closed fermion loops \cite{Schuetz05}.

801: In particular,

802: the loop with two external boson legs

803: is initially given by the non-interacting spin-flip susceptibility,

804:  \begin{eqnarray} 

805:  \Pi^{\sigma \bar{\sigma}}_{ \Lambda_0} ( \bar{K} , \alpha  )  & = & 

806:  - \int_K

807:  G_{\Lambda_0}^{\sigma} ( K , \alpha ) G_{\Lambda_0}^{\bar{\sigma}} 

808:  ( K + \bar{K} + \alpha \sigma \Delta, \alpha )

809: \; ,

810:  \nonumber

811:  \\

812:  & &

813:  \label{eq:Piinitial}

814:  \end{eqnarray}

815: where for  our model with linear energy dispersion,  

816:  \begin{equation} 

817: G_{\Lambda_0}^{\sigma} ( K , \alpha ) = \frac{ 1 }{ i \omega - \alpha v^{\sigma}_0 k  

818:  - \mu^{\sigma}_0 }

819:  \; .

820:  \label{eq:G0lin}

821:  \end{equation}

822: Denoting by

823: \begin{equation}

824:  \Delta_{0} = 

825: k^{+}_{0} - k^{-}_{0}

826:  \label{eq:delta0def}

827:  \end{equation}

828: the distance between the Fermi momenta $k_0^{+}$ and $k_{0}^-$ in the absence

829: of interactions, the relation between the true distance 

830:  $\Delta = k^{+} - k^{-}$

831: and $\Delta_{0}$ can be expressed in terms of the counter-terms

832: $\mu^{\sigma}_0 =

833: - \Sigma ( \alpha k^{\sigma} , i0 , \alpha )$ 

834: as follows,

835:  \begin{equation}

836:  \Delta =

837:   \Delta_{0} 

838:   + \left[  \frac{ \mu^{+}_0}{ v^+_0}

839:  - \frac{ \mu^{- }_0 }{ v^-_0} \right]

840:  \; ,

841:  \label{eq:DeltaDelta0}

842:  \end{equation}

843: see also Eq.~(\ref{eq:FSdef2}) below.

844: Using   Eqs.~(\ref{eq:G0lin})  and (\ref{eq:DeltaDelta0}) 

845: we can explicitly evaluate Eq.~(\ref{eq:Piinitial}),

846: \begin{eqnarray} 

847:  \Pi^{\sigma \bar{\sigma}}_{ \Lambda_0} ( \bar{K} , \alpha  )  & = & 

848:   \frac{  1  }{ 2 \pi v^{\sigma}_0 }

849:  \frac{  v^{\bar{\sigma}}_0 ( \sigma \Delta_{0}  + \alpha  \bar{k})  }{ 

850:  v^{\bar{\sigma}}_0 ( \sigma \Delta_{0} + \alpha \bar{k} ) 

851:  - i \bar{\omega} }

852: \; .

853:  \label{eq:Piinitial2}

854:  \end{eqnarray}

855: 

856: 

857: 

858: 

859: \subsection{Rescaled flow equations and classification of vertices}

860: 

861: To classify the various vertices according to their relevance,

862: it is useful to make them dimensionless by multiplying them

863: with a suitable power of the running cutoff $\Lambda$.

864: Following Ref.~[\onlinecite{Schuetz05}],

865: we define dimensionless fermionic labels

866: $Q = ( q , i \epsilon ) = ( k/ \Lambda , i \omega / \Omega_{\Lambda} )$, 

867: and  bosonic ones

868: $\bar{Q} = ( \bar{q} , i \bar{\epsilon} ) = ( \bar{k} / \Lambda, i \bar{\omega} / \Omega_{ \Lambda} )$. Here 

869: $\Omega_{\Lambda} = v_F \Lambda$, where

870: $v_F $ is some average Fermi velocity.

871: For simplicity we shall write the above

872: relations as $Q  = K / \Lambda$ and $\bar{Q} = \bar{K} / \Lambda$.

873: We consider all rescaled quantities  as  functions of the

874: logarithmic flow parameter $l = \ln ( \Lambda_0 / \Lambda)$.

875: 

876: In order to define the Fermi surface within the framework

877: of the RG, we subtract the counter-term

878: $\Sigma^{\sigma}  ( \alpha k^{ \sigma} , i 0 , \alpha)  

879: = - \mu^{\sigma}_0$ from the flowing self-energy

880: and then rescale~\cite{Kopietz01},

881:  \begin{eqnarray}

882:  \tilde{\Sigma}_{l}^{ \sigma} ( Q , \alpha ) 

883:   & = & \frac{ Z^{\sigma}_{ l}}{ \Omega_{\Lambda} } 

884:  \left[ \Sigma_{\Lambda}^{ \sigma} 

885:  ( K , \alpha ) -  

886: \Sigma^{\sigma}  ( \alpha k^{ \sigma}, i 0 ) \right]

887:  \nonumber

888:  \\

889:  & = &

890:   \frac{ Z^{\sigma}_{ l}}{ \Omega_{ \Lambda} } 

891:  \left[ \Sigma_{\Lambda}^{ \sigma} 

892:  ( \Lambda Q  , \alpha )  + \mu^{\sigma}_0  \right]

893:  \; .

894:  \label{eq:sigmasub}

895:  \end{eqnarray}

896: Here $Z^{\sigma}_l$ is the flowing wave-function renormalization factor,

897: which is  defined in terms of the flowing self-energy as follows,

898: \begin{equation}

899:  Z^{\sigma }_{ l} = 1 + \left. \frac{ \partial 

900: \tilde{\Sigma}_l^{\sigma} ( 0 , i \epsilon , \alpha )}{

901:  \partial ( i \epsilon ) } \right|_{  \epsilon =0}

902:  \; .

903:  \end{equation}

904: The corresponding rescaled fermionic propagator is

905:  \begin{equation}

906:  \tilde{G}_l^{\sigma} ( Q, \alpha ) = \frac{ \Omega_{\Lambda}}{Z^{ \sigma }_{ l} }

907:  G^{ \sigma}_{\Lambda} ( \Lambda Q , \alpha )

908:  \; .

909:  \label{eq:Gscale}

910:  \end{equation} 

911: The rescaled self-energy satisfies

912: the exact  RG flow equation\cite{Kopietz01,Ledowski03}

913:  \begin{equation}

914:  \partial_l \tilde{\Sigma}_{l}^{ \sigma} ( Q , \alpha )     = 

915: ( 1 - \eta^{\sigma }_{ l} - q \partial_q - \epsilon \partial_{\epsilon} )  

916:  \tilde{\Sigma}_{l}^{ \sigma} ( Q , \alpha ) 

917:  + \dot{{\Gamma}}_{ l }^{\sigma} ( Q , \alpha) 

918: \; ,

919:  \label{eq:flowsigma}

920:  \end{equation}

921: where the flowing anomalous dimension of the Fermi fields is

922:  \begin{equation}

923:  \eta_l^{\sigma} = - \partial_l \ln Z^{\sigma}_l =

924:  \left. - \frac{ \partial  \dot{{\Gamma}}^{\sigma}_{l } ( 0, i  \epsilon , \alpha)}{

925:  \partial ( i \epsilon) } \right|_{ \epsilon =0}

926:  \; ,

927:  \label{eq:etadef}

928:  \end{equation}

929: and  the  function $ \dot{{\Gamma}}_{ l }^{\sigma} ( Q , \alpha) $

930: follows from Eq.~(\ref{eq:RGselfvertex}),

931:  \begin{eqnarray}

932:  \dot{{\Gamma}}_{ l }^{\sigma} ( Q , \alpha)

933:  & = & \frac{ Z^{ \sigma }_{ l}}{\Omega_{\Lambda}}[ - \Lambda \partial_{\Lambda}

934:  \Sigma_{\Lambda}^{\sigma} ( K, \alpha ) ]

935:  \nonumber

936:  \\

937:  & = & 

938:  \int_{\bar{Q}} 

939:  \dot{\tilde{F}}^{ \sigma \bar{\sigma}}_l ( \bar{Q}  , \alpha  ) 

940:  \tilde{\Gamma}^{(2,2)}_l ( Q , \sigma ; -Q \sigma ; \bar{Q} , - \bar{Q} , \alpha )

941:  \nonumber

942:  \\

943:  &  + &\int_{\bar{Q}} 

944:  \dot{\tilde{F}}^{ \sigma \bar{\sigma}}_l ( \bar{Q}  , \alpha  ) 

945: \tilde{G}^{ \bar{\sigma}}_{l} ( Q + \bar{Q} + \alpha \sigma \tilde{\Delta}_l^{\ast},  \alpha )

946:  \nonumber

947:  \\

948:  &  &  \times 

949:  \tilde{\Gamma}^{(2,1) }_{ l} ( Q , \sigma ; Q + \bar{Q}, \bar{\sigma} ; - \bar{Q} , \alpha)

950:  \nonumber

951:  \\

952:  &  &  \times 

953:  \tilde{\Gamma}^{(2,1)}_{ l } ( Q + \bar{Q}, \bar{\sigma} ;  Q \sigma ; \bar{Q} , \alpha)

954:  \; ,

955:  \label{eq:dotgamma2}

956:  \end{eqnarray}

957: where

958:  \begin{equation}

959:  \tilde{\Delta}_l^{\ast} = \frac{ \Delta}{\Lambda} =  \frac{ \Delta}{\Lambda_0} e^l

960:  \label{eq:deltastardef} 

961: \end{equation}

962: is the rescaled true difference between the Fermi points.

963: The rescaled bosonic 

964: single scale propagator follows from Eq.~(\ref{eq:bossingle}),

965:  \begin{eqnarray}

966:  \dot{\tilde{F}}^{ \sigma \bar{\sigma}}_l ( \bar{Q} , \alpha  ) & = &

967:  - \frac{ \nu_0}{\bar{Z}_l } \Lambda \dot{F}^{\sigma \bar{\sigma}}_{\Lambda}

968:  ( \Lambda \bar{Q} , \alpha )

969:  \nonumber

970:  \\

971:  & = & \delta ( | \bar{q} | -1 )

972:     [ \tilde{{\bf{F}}}^{ \sigma \bar{\sigma}}_{l} ( \bar{Q}  )]_{\alpha \alpha}

973:  \; ,

974:  \label{eq:bossinglescale}

975:  \end{eqnarray}

976: with

977:  \begin{equation}

978:   [ \tilde{{\bf{F}}}^{\sigma \bar{\sigma}}_{l} ( \bar{Q} ) ]^{-1}_{\alpha \alpha^{\prime} }  = 

979:    \bar{Z}_l [  2 \nu_0 {\bf{J}}^{\bot}  ]^{-1}_{\alpha \alpha^{\prime} } - 

980:  \delta_{\alpha \alpha^{\prime}} 

981:  \tilde{\Pi}_{ l }^{\sigma \bar{\sigma}} ( \bar{Q} , \alpha  )

982:  \; ,

983:  \label{eq:tildeFpropdef}

984:  \end{equation}

985: and the rescaled spin-flip susceptibility

986:  \begin{equation}

987:  \tilde{\Pi}_l^{ \sigma \bar{\sigma}} ( \bar{Q}, \alpha ) =

988:  \frac{ \bar{Z}_l}{ \nu_0 } \Pi_{\Lambda}^{\sigma \bar{\sigma}} ( \Lambda \bar{Q} , \alpha )

989:  \; .

990:   \label{eq:Pisfrescale}

991:  \end{equation}

992: Here $\bar{Z}_l$ is the 

993: wave-function renormalization factor associated with the

994: bosonic spin-flip field $\chi_{\alpha}$, and the constant

995: $\nu_0$ with units of inverse velocity has been introduced  

996: to make all  rescaled vertices dimensionless.

997: The rescaled spin-flip vertex in Eq.~(\ref{eq:dotgamma2}) is

998:  \begin{eqnarray}

999:  \tilde{\Gamma}^{(2,1)}_{ l } ( Q, \sigma ;  

1000:  Q^{\prime}, \bar{\sigma}; \bar{Q} , \alpha ) & = & 

1001:  \left[ {  \bar{Z}_l   }/{ \nu_0  }

1002:  \right]^{1/2} \left[ { \Lambda Z_{l}^{+} Z_{l}^- }/{\Omega_{\Lambda} }

1003: \right]^{1/2}

1004:  \nonumber

1005:  \\

1006:  &     & \hspace{-15mm} \times

1007: {\Gamma}^{(2,1)}_{ \Lambda } ( \Lambda Q , \sigma ;  

1008:  \Lambda Q^{\prime}, \bar{\sigma} ; \Lambda \bar{Q}, \alpha )

1009:  \; ,

1010:  \label{eq:vertexrescale}

1011:  \end{eqnarray} 

1012: and the rescaled vertex with two external fermion and two boson legs is

1013:  \begin{eqnarray}

1014: \tilde{\Gamma}^{(2,2) }_l ( Q^{\prime}, \sigma ; Q , \sigma ; \bar{Q}^{\prime} ,  

1015: \bar{Q} ,  \alpha )

1016:  & = & \Lambda  Z_l^{\sigma}   ( \bar{Z}_l / \nu_0 ) 

1017:  \nonumber

1018:  \\

1019:  &    & \hspace{-38mm}  \times

1020: {\Gamma}^{(2,2) }_{ \Lambda } ( \Lambda Q^{\prime} , \sigma;  

1021:  \Lambda Q, \sigma  ; \Lambda \bar{Q}^{\prime}, \Lambda \bar{Q}, \alpha )

1022:  \; .

1023:  \label{eq:vertexrescale22}

1024:  \end{eqnarray} 

1025: For convenience we now choose

1026: $\nu_0 = \Lambda / \Omega_{\Lambda} = 1/v_F$ so that the

1027: prefactor on the right-hand side 

1028: of Eq.~(\ref{eq:vertexrescale}) reduces to 

1029: $[ \bar{Z}_l Z^{+}_l Z^-_l ]^{1/2}$.

1030: 

1031: 

1032: Let us now classify the various vertices according to their relevance.

1033: First of all, the key quantity to

1034: obtain the counter-terms $\mu^{\sigma}_0$ is

1035: the momentum- and  frequency independent part of the rescaled self-energy

1036: $ \tilde{\Sigma}_{l}^{ \sigma} ( Q , \alpha ) $ defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:sigmasub}),

1037: which we call

1038:  \begin{equation}

1039:  r^{\sigma }_{ l} =   \tilde{\Sigma}_{l}^{ \sigma} ( 0 ,  \alpha ) =

1040:  \frac{ Z^{\sigma}_{ l}}{ \Omega_\Lambda } 

1041:  \left[ \Sigma_{\Lambda}^{ \sigma} 

1042:  ( 0 , \alpha )  + \mu^{\sigma}_0  \right]

1043:  \; .

1044:  \end{equation}

1045: The couplings $r_l^{\sigma}$ satisfy the exact flow equation

1046: \begin{equation}

1047:  \partial_l r_{ l }^{ \sigma} = ( 1 - \eta_{l}^{ \sigma} )  r_{ l }^{ \sigma}

1048:  + \dot{{\Gamma}}^{\sigma}_{l } ( 0, \alpha) 

1049: \; ,

1050:  \label{eq:rlflow}

1051:  \end{equation}

1052: with initial condition 

1053:  \begin{equation}

1054: r_0^{\sigma} = \frac{\mu^{\sigma}_0 }{ \Omega_{\Lambda_0}}

1055:  =  - \frac{ \Sigma^{\sigma} ( \alpha k^{\sigma} , i0  )}{ v_F \Lambda_0 }

1056:  \; .

1057:  \label{eq:initialr0}

1058: \end{equation}

1059: There are two marginal couplings related to the self-energy. The first is  the

1060: wave-function renormalization factor $Z_l^{\sigma}$, which according to

1061: Eq.~(\ref{eq:etadef}) is related to the flowing anomalous dimension via

1062:  \begin{equation}

1063:  \partial_l Z^{\sigma}_{ l} = - \eta^{\sigma }_{ l}  Z^{\sigma }_{ l} 

1064:  \; .

1065:  \label{eq:Zflow}

1066:  \end{equation}

1067: The second is

1068: the dimensionless Fermi velocity renormalization factor

1069:  \begin{equation}

1070:  \tilde{v}_l^{\sigma} = Z_l^{\sigma} +  \left. \frac{ \partial 

1071:  \tilde{\Sigma}_l^{\sigma} ( q , i 0 , \alpha )}{

1072:  \partial  ( \alpha q) } \right|_{  q =0}

1073:  \; ,

1074:  \end{equation}

1075:  which satisfies the exact flow equation

1076:  \begin{equation}

1077:  \partial_l \tilde{v}_l^{\sigma}  =  -  \eta_l^{\sigma}  \tilde{v}_l^{\sigma} +

1078:  \left.  \frac{ \partial \dot{\Gamma}^{\sigma}_l ( q , i 0, \alpha) 

1079:  }{\partial (\alpha q) } 

1080:  \right|_{ q=0} 

1081: \label{eq:vlflow}

1082:  \; .

1083:  \end{equation}

1084: If we retain only relevant and marginal couplings, the

1085: rescaled fermionic propagator with energy dispersion linearized at the

1086: true Fermi surface is given by

1087: \begin{equation}

1088:  \tilde{G}_l^{\sigma} ( q , i \epsilon,  \alpha ) \approx \frac{1}{ 

1089:  i \epsilon - \alpha \tilde{v}_l^{\sigma} q - r_l^{\sigma}}

1090:  \; .

1091:  \label{eq:Gscalerel1}

1092:  \end{equation} 

1093: Apart from $Z_l^{\sigma}$ and $\tilde{v}_l^{\sigma}$, 

1094: the third marginal coupling of our model is

1095: the momentum- and frequency-independent part

1096: of the rescaled spin-flip vertex defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:vertexrescale}),

1097:  \begin{equation}

1098:  \gamma_l = \tilde{\Gamma}^{(2,1)}_{l} ( 0, \sigma;0, \bar{\sigma} ;0 , \alpha)

1099:  \; .

1100:  \end{equation}

1101: It satisfies a flow equation of the form

1102:  \begin{equation}

1103:  \partial_l \gamma_l = - \frac{ \bar{\eta}_l + \eta_l^+ + \eta_l^- }{2}

1104:  \gamma_l + \dot{\Gamma}^{(2,1)}_l

1105:  \; , 

1106:  \label{eq:gammabotflow}

1107:  \end{equation}

1108: where  $\bar{\eta}_l = - \partial_l \ln \bar{Z}_l$ is the flowing anomalous 

1109: dimension of the spin-flip field, and

1110: the inhomogeneity  $\dot{\Gamma}^{(2,1)}_l$ depends on the

1111: irrelevant higher interaction vertices involving more

1112: than one external boson leg shown  in Fig.~\ref{fig:flowvert}.

1113: In particular, 

1114: from the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:vertexrescale22})

1115: it is clear that the vertex $\tilde{\Gamma}_l^{(2,2) }$ 

1116: with two external fermion  and two boson legs

1117: is irrelevant with scaling dimension $-1$. 

1118: This and the higher order irrelevant vertices vanish at the initial scale $\Lambda_0$ 

1119: and we shall set them equal to zero, expecting that their effect

1120: can be implicitly taken into account

1121: via a redefinition of the numerical values of the 

1122: relevant and marginal couplings \cite{Polchinski84}.

1123: An exception is the vertex $\Gamma^{(0,4)}_{\Lambda}$ 

1124: involving four external bosonic legs, which

1125: according to Fig.~\ref{fig:flowPi} 

1126: drives  the flow of the spin-flip susceptibility

1127:  in the momentum transfer cutoff scheme.

1128: In contrast to the other irrelevant vertices, the vertex

1129: $\Gamma^{(0,4)}_{\Lambda}$ is finite at the initial 

1130: scale $\Lambda = \Lambda_0$, where it

1131: reduces to a symmetrized closed fermion loop \cite{Schuetz05}.

1132: Below we shall propose a simple approximate procedure to take

1133: the renormalization of the spin-flip susceptibility generated by this vertex

1134: into account.

1135: Finally, we note that 

1136: the vertex with four external fermionic legs is also marginal, but

1137: in the momentum transfer cutoff scheme it does not  directly couple

1138: to the flow of the fermionic self-energy.

1139: 

1140: 

1141: 

1142: \subsection{Defining the Fermi surface within the functional RG}

1143: \label{subsec:FS}

1144: 

1145: 

1146: The general method to obtain the counter-terms necessary to construct the

1147: true Fermi surface within the framework of the

1148: functional RG has been 

1149: developed in Refs.~[\onlinecite{Kopietz01,Ledowski03,Ledowski05}].

1150: Let us briefly recall the main idea.

1151: As long as the  flowing anomalous dimensions

1152: $\eta_l^{\sigma}$ of the Fermi fields remains smaller than unity  

1153: for $l \rightarrow \infty$, we may

1154: define the true Fermi surface self-consistently from the

1155: requirement that the relevant couplings $r^{ \sigma }_{ l}$ associated with the

1156: fermionic self-energy approach finite limits

1157: for $l \rightarrow \infty$.

1158: This requires fine tuning of the

1159: initial values $r^{\sigma}_0$, which defines a relation between

1160: $r^{\sigma}_0$ and the flowing couplings

1161: on the entire RG trajectory. 

1162: In higher dimensions, where the Fermi surface is a continuum, infinitely

1163: many relevant couplings $r_l ( {\bd{k}}_F )$ have to be fine tuned

1164: to define the Fermi surface. In the usual classification of critical fixed points, the

1165: Fermi surface thus corresponds to a multicritical point of infinite order.

1166: Once the proper  initial values $r_0^{\sigma}$ are known,

1167: the exact self-energy $\Sigma^{\sigma} ( \alpha k^{\sigma} , i0)$ can

1168: be constructed using Eq.~(\ref{eq:initialr0}),

1169:  \begin{equation}

1170:  \Sigma^{\sigma} ( \alpha k^{\sigma} , i 0 ) = - \mu^{\sigma}_0 = - v_F \Lambda_0 r_0^{\sigma}

1171:  \; .

1172:  \end{equation}      

1173: The requirement that $r_l^{\sigma}$ flows into a RG fixed point

1174: implies for the initial values\cite{Ledowski03},

1175:  \begin{equation}

1176:   r_{0}^{ \sigma} = - \int_{0}^{\infty} dl e^{ - ( 1 - 

1177: \bar{\eta}^{\sigma}_l ) l }

1178:  \dot{{\Gamma}}^{\sigma}_{l } (0)

1179:  \; ,

1180:  \label{eq:selfcon}

1181:  \end{equation}

1182: where

1183:  \begin{equation}

1184:  \bar{\eta}_l^{\sigma} = \frac{1}{l} \int_0^{l} d t \eta_{t}^{\sigma}

1185:  \end{equation}

1186: is the average of the flowing anomalous dimension along the RG trajectory,

1187: and we have written  $\dot{{\Gamma}}^{\sigma}_{l } (0) =

1188: \dot{{\Gamma}}^{\sigma}_{l } (0, i0 , \alpha)$ to emphasize

1189: that this quantity is actually independent of  the chirality index $\alpha$.

1190: For our effective  model with linear energy dispersion we obtain

1191: for the Fermi point distance at constant chemical potential

1192: [see also Eq.~(\ref{eq:FSdef})],

1193:  \begin{eqnarray}

1194:  \tilde{\Delta} & = & \tilde{\Delta}_0

1195:   +  

1196:  \left[ \frac{r_0^+}{\tilde{v}_0^{+}} - \frac{ r_0^-}{\tilde{v}_0^-}  \right]

1197:  \nonumber

1198:  \\

1199:  &  & \hspace{-10mm} = \tilde{\Delta}_0

1200:  - \sum_{\sigma} \frac{\sigma}{ \tilde{v}_0^{\sigma} }

1201:  \int_{0}^{\infty} dl e^{ - ( 1 - 

1202: \bar{\eta}^{\sigma}_l ) l }

1203:  \dot{{\Gamma}}^{\sigma}_{l } (0, \alpha)

1204:  \; ,

1205:  \label{eq:FSdef2}

1206:  \end{eqnarray}

1207: where we have defined

1208:  \begin{equation}

1209:  \tilde{\Delta} = \frac{ k^{+} - k^{-}}{\Lambda_0} \; , \;

1210: \tilde{\Delta}_0 = \frac{ k^{+}_0 - k^{-}_0}{\Lambda_0}

1211:  \; .

1212:  \end{equation}

1213: 

1214: 

1215: \section{Calculation of the true Fermi surface}

1216: \label{sec:Calculation}

1217: 

1218: \subsection{Truncation based on relevance} 

1219: 

1220: Because a possible confinement transition is expected to be a strong-coupling 

1221: phenomenon,

1222: the usual perturbative weak coupling RG \cite{Ledowski05} is not

1223: sufficient.

1224: We  therefore propose an alternative truncation scheme

1225: based on the truncation according

1226: to relevance in the RG sense. 

1227: In our model we have to keep track of the RG flow of the

1228: two relevant couplings $r_l^{\sigma}$, $\sigma = \pm 1$, and the

1229: marginal couplings $Z_l^{\sigma}$, $\tilde{v}_l^{\sigma}$, and $\gamma_l$.

1230: The couplings $r_l^{\sigma}$, $Z_l^{\sigma}$ and

1231: $\tilde{v}_l^{\sigma}$ associated with the fermionic Green function

1232: satisfy the flow equations

1233: given in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:rlflow}, \ref{eq:Zflow}, \ref{eq:vlflow}).

1234: The function 

1235:  $ \dot{{\Gamma}}_{ l }^{\sigma} ( Q , \alpha) $ appearing on the

1236: right-hand side of these equations

1237: is in general given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:dotgamma2});  approximating

1238: the fermionic Green function by  Eq.~(\ref{eq:Gscalerel1}) and

1239: the spin-flip vertex by its momentum- and frequency independent part

1240: $\gamma_l$, we obtain

1241:  \begin{eqnarray}

1242:  \dot{{\Gamma}}_{ l }^{\sigma} (q , i \epsilon ,   \alpha)

1243:  & = &   \int \frac{ d \bar{q}  d \bar{\epsilon} }{( 2 \pi )^2} \delta ( | \bar{q} | -1 )

1244:  \nonumber

1245:  \\ 

1246:  & & \hspace{-23mm} \times \frac{ \gamma_l^2

1247:  [ {\bf{\tilde{F}}}_l^{\sigma \bar{\sigma}} ( \bar{q}, i \bar{\epsilon} ) ]_{ \alpha \alpha }

1248:    e^{ i \bar{\epsilon} 0^+} }{ 

1249:  i (  \bar{\epsilon} + \epsilon ) - \alpha \tilde{v}_l^{\bar{\sigma}} ( 

1250:  \bar{q} +q )  - \sigma \tilde{v}^{\bar{\sigma}}_l \tilde{\Delta}^{\ast}_l 

1251:  -r^{\bar{\sigma}}_l 

1252: }

1253:  \; .

1254:  \label{eq:dotgamma3}

1255:  \end{eqnarray}

1256: Here $\tilde{\Delta}_{l}^{\ast}$

1257: is the rescaled true difference between the Fermi 

1258: points defined in  Eq.~(\ref{eq:deltastardef}), and

1259: the rescaled bosonic spin-flip propagator 

1260:  ${\bf{\tilde{F}}}_l^{\sigma \bar{\sigma}} ( \bar{Q} )$

1261: is defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:tildeFpropdef}).

1262: 

1263: To calculate the Fermi surface, we need

1264: additional flow equations for the

1265: marginal part of the spin-flip vertex $\gamma_l$ and for the

1266: flowing

1267: spin-flip susceptibility   

1268: $\tilde{\Pi}^{ \sigma \bar{\sigma}}_l  ( \bar{Q}, \alpha ) $.

1269: As far as $\gamma_l$ is concerned,

1270: we note from Fig.~\ref{fig:flowvert} that the inhomogeneity

1271: $\dot{\Gamma}^{(2,1)}_l$ 

1272: in Eq.~ (\ref{eq:gammabotflow}) which drives the flow of

1273: $\gamma_l$

1274: involves vertices with two fermionic and more than one  bosonic external legs.

1275: These vertices are

1276: irrelevant and  vanish at the initial scale $\Lambda_0$, so that it is

1277: reasonable to neglect them. We therefore set $\dot{\Gamma}^{(2,1)}_l = 0$.

1278: We shall also neglect

1279: the bosonic wave-function renormalization, setting 

1280: $\bar{Z}_l =1$. In this approximation the flow of the rescaled spin-flip vertex

1281: is driven by the fermionic wave-function renormalization,

1282:  \begin{equation}

1283: \partial_l \gamma_l  =  - \frac{\eta_l^+ + \eta_l^-}{2} \gamma_l

1284: \label{eq:gammalflow}

1285:  \; .

1286:  \end{equation}

1287: 

1288: Before discussing the spin-flip susceptibility

1289: $\tilde{\Pi}^{ \sigma \bar{\sigma}}_l  ( \bar{Q}, \alpha ) $, note that

1290: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:vlflow}) and (\ref{eq:dotgamma3}) imply for the Fermi velocity 

1291: renormalization factor

1292:  \begin{equation}

1293:  \partial_l \tilde{v}_l^{\sigma}  = - \eta_l^{\sigma} ( \tilde{v}_l^{\sigma} 

1294:  -  \tilde{v}_l^{\bar{\sigma}} )

1295:  \; ,

1296:  \end{equation}

1297: which yields for the difference

1298:  \begin{equation}

1299:  \partial_l ( \tilde{v}_l^+ - \tilde{v}_l^-) =

1300:  - ( {\eta}_l^+ + \eta_l^- )  ( \tilde{v}_l^+ - \tilde{v}_l^-)

1301:  \; .

1302:  \label{eq:vdifflow}

1303:  \end{equation}

1304: Keeping in mind that

1305: $\eta_l^{\sigma} \geq 0$,

1306: Eq.~(\ref{eq:vdifflow}) implies that 

1307: a small initial difference between the Fermi velocities

1308: decreases under renormalization.

1309: Thus, if the initial difference $v_0^+ - v_0^-$ is small

1310: and negligible, it becomes even smaller as we iterate the RG.

1311: Since the flow of the other couplings

1312: is not sensitive to a small difference in the Fermi velocities,

1313: it is consistent to approximate $v_0^{\sigma} \approx v_F$, so that

1314: from now on we shall set $\tilde{v}_l^{\sigma} = 1$.

1315: 

1316: To close our system of flow equations, we need an equation

1317: for the

1318: rescaled  spin-flip susceptibility

1319: $\tilde{\Pi}_l^{ \sigma \bar{\sigma}} ( \bar{Q} , \alpha )$, 

1320: which in turn determines the flow of the spin-flip propagator as given

1321: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Pisfrescale}).

1322: In the momentum transfer cutoff scheme, the flow 

1323: of $\tilde{\Pi}_l^{ \sigma \bar{\sigma}} ( \bar{Q} , \alpha )$ 

1324: is driven by the one-line irreducible vertex $\Gamma^{(0,4)}_{\Lambda}$

1325: with four external bosonic legs, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:flowPi}.

1326: Although this vertex is irrelevant, it is finite at the initial scale

1327: $\Lambda_0$, in contrast to the higher order vertices

1328: that drive the flow of the spin-flip vertex $\gamma_l$ shown

1329: in Fig.~\ref{fig:flowvert}.

1330: It is therefore important to take the renormalizations

1331: of $\tilde{\Pi}_l^{ \sigma \bar{\sigma}} ( \bar{Q} , \alpha )$ 

1332: due to $\Gamma^{(0,4)}_{\Lambda}$ at least approximately into account.

1333: Guided by the initial condition  (\ref{eq:Piinitial2})

1334: for the spin-flip susceptibility, we 

1335: propose the following {\it{adiabatic approximation}},

1336:  \begin{eqnarray}

1337:  \tilde{\Pi}_l^{ \sigma \bar{\sigma}} ( \bar{Q} , \alpha ) & \approx &

1338:   \frac{ \gamma_l^2 }{ 2 \pi  }

1339:  \frac{   \sigma \tilde{\Delta}_{l}  + \alpha  \bar{q}  }{ 

1340:    \sigma \tilde{\Delta}_{l} + \alpha \bar{q}  

1341:  - i \bar{\epsilon} }

1342: \; ,

1343:  \label{eq:Pisfapprox}

1344:  \end{eqnarray}

1345: where

1346:  \begin{equation}

1347:  \tilde{\Delta}_{l} =  \tilde{\Delta}_l^{\ast} - ( r_l^{+} - r_l^- )

1348:  \; .

1349:  \label{eq:tildeDeltaldef}

1350:  \end{equation}

1351: Note that

1352: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Pisfapprox}) preserves the

1353: initial form of the spin-flip susceptibility

1354: given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Piinitial2}), but with the

1355: initial gap $\tilde{\Delta}_0 = ( k_0^{+} - k_0^-)/\Lambda_0$  

1356: is replaced by the flowing gap $\tilde{\Delta}_l$ at scale $l$, 

1357: and an overall reduction of the amplitude

1358: by the vertex correction $\gamma_l^2$. 

1359: Indeed,  using Eq.~(\ref{eq:FSdef2}) we find

1360: $\tilde{\Delta}_{ l=0} = \tilde{\Delta}_0 = ( k_0^{+} - k_0^-)/\Lambda_0$,

1361: so that

1362: for $l=0$

1363: we recover from Eq.~(\ref{eq:Pisfapprox}) the rescaled version

1364: of the initial condition (\ref{eq:Piinitial2}).

1365: On the other hand,

1366: using the fact that the $r_l^{\sigma}$ are fine tuned

1367: to reach a finite limit for $l \rightarrow \infty$, we see that

1368: $\Delta_l \rightarrow \Delta^{\ast}_l = e^l (k^+ - k^- ) / \Lambda_0 = e^l \tilde{\Delta}$

1369: for $l \rightarrow \infty$.

1370: % We may therefore define the flowing Fermi point difference

1371: % $k_l^{+} - k_l^-$ via

1372: %  \begin{equation}

1373: %  \frac{ k_l^{+} - k_l^-}{\Lambda} = \tilde{\Delta}_l =

1374: %  \frac{ k^{+} - k^-}{\Lambda} -( r^+_l - r^-_l )

1375: %  \; .

1376: %  \end{equation}

1377: A justification for the adiabatic

1378: approximation

1379: (\ref{eq:Pisfapprox})  is given in the Appendix.

1380: 

1381: 

1382: To simplify the integrals, it is convenient 

1383: to slightly modify the denominator in the expression for

1384: $\dot{{\Gamma}}_{ l }^{\sigma} (q , i \epsilon ,   \alpha)$

1385: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:dotgamma3}),

1386:  \begin{equation}

1387:  \sigma \tilde{\Delta}_l^{\ast} + r_l^{\bar{\sigma}} =

1388:  \sigma \tilde{\Delta}_l +  r_l^{{\sigma}} 

1389:  \approx  \sigma \tilde{\Delta}_l 

1390:  \; .

1391:  \label{eq:rneglect}

1392:  \end{equation}

1393: We have checked numerically 

1394: from the solution of the resulting equations that

1395: this approximation is self-consistent

1396: by verifying the neglected term $r_l^{\sigma}$ is indeed small.

1397: We thus arrive at the following  approximation for the 

1398: inhomogeneity $ \dot{{\Gamma}}_{ l }^{\sigma} (q , i \epsilon ,   \alpha)$

1399: that controls the flow of the fermionic self-energy,

1400: \begin{eqnarray}

1401:  \dot{{\Gamma}}_{ l }^{\sigma} (q , i \epsilon ,   \alpha)

1402:  & = &   \int \frac{ d \bar{q}  d \bar{\epsilon} }{( 2 \pi )^2} \delta ( | \bar{q} | -1 )

1403:  \nonumber

1404:  \\ 

1405:  & & \hspace{-23mm} \times \frac{  \gamma_l^2

1406:  [ {\bf{\tilde{F}}}_l^{\sigma \bar{\sigma}} ( \bar{q}, i \bar{\epsilon} ) ]_{ \alpha \alpha }

1407:    e^{ i \bar{\epsilon} 0^+} }{ 

1408:  i (  \bar{\epsilon} + \epsilon ) - \alpha  ( 

1409:  \bar{q} +q )  - \sigma  \tilde{\Delta}_l 

1410: }

1411:  \; .

1412:  \label{eq:dotgamma4}

1413:  \end{eqnarray}

1414: To be consistent the approximation (\ref{eq:rneglect})

1415: we should also neglect the

1416: flowing anomalous dimension $\eta_l^{\sigma}$ in

1417: the flow equation (\ref{eq:rlflow}) for $r_l^{\sigma}$, because

1418: an expansion of Eq.~(\ref{eq:dotgamma3}) 

1419: in powers of  $r_l^{\sigma}$ leads to a cancellation

1420: of the term $\eta_l^{\sigma} r_l^{\sigma}$.

1421: The flow equation for $r_l^{\sigma}$ then reduces to

1422:  \begin{equation}

1423:  \partial_l r_{ l }^{\sigma}  =   r_{ l }^{\sigma} 

1424:  + \dot{{\Gamma}}_{l }^{\sigma} (0) 

1425: \; ,

1426:  \label{eq:rflow4}

1427: \end{equation}

1428: where 

1429:  \begin{eqnarray}

1430: \dot{{\Gamma}}_{l }^{\sigma} ( 0) 

1431:  & = &   \int \frac{ d \bar{q}  d \bar{\epsilon} }{( 2 \pi )^2} \delta ( | \bar{q} | -1 )

1432:  \nonumber

1433:  \\ 

1434:  &  \times & \frac{  \gamma_l^2

1435:  [ {\bf{\tilde{F}}}_l^{\sigma \bar{\sigma}} ( \bar{q}, i \bar{\epsilon} ) ]_{ \alpha \alpha }

1436:  e^{ i \bar{\epsilon} 0^+} }{ 

1437:  i   \bar{\epsilon}  - \alpha  

1438:  \bar{q}   - \sigma  \tilde{\Delta}_l  

1439: }

1440:  \; .

1441:  \label{eq:dotgamma04}

1442:  \end{eqnarray}

1443: Our general self-consistency equation (\ref{eq:FSdef2})

1444: for the true Fermi point distance 

1445: can then we written as an integral involving

1446: the flow of the couplings on the entire RG trajectory, 

1447:  \begin{eqnarray}

1448: \tilde{\Delta} & = & \tilde{\Delta}_0

1449:  -  \int_{0}^{\infty} dl e^{-l}

1450:  \sum_{\sigma} \sigma

1451:  \dot{{\Gamma}}^{\sigma}_{l } (0)

1452:  \; .

1453:  \label{eq:FSapprox1}

1454:  \end{eqnarray}

1455: Anticipating that within our approximations  $\eta_l^{\sigma}$ is

1456:  independent of $\sigma$,  we may write

1457: $\eta^{\sigma}_l = \eta_l$.  

1458: The flow equation (\ref{eq:gammalflow})

1459: for the spin-flip vertex  then reduces to

1460:  \begin{equation}

1461:  \partial_l \gamma_l = - \eta_l  \gamma_l

1462:  \; ,

1463:  \label{eq:gammabotflow2}

1464:  \end{equation}

1465: where from Eqs.~(\ref{eq:etadef}) and (\ref{eq:dotgamma4}) 

1466: we find

1467:  \begin{equation}

1468:  \eta_l  = 

1469: \int \frac{ d \bar{q}  d \bar{\epsilon} }{( 2 \pi )^2} \delta ( | \bar{q} | -1 ) \frac{  \gamma_l^2 

1470:   [ {\bf{\tilde{F}}}_l^{\sigma \bar{\sigma}} ( \bar{q}, i \bar{\epsilon} ) ]_{ \alpha \alpha }

1471:     }{ [

1472:  i   \bar{\epsilon}  - \alpha   \bar{q}   - \sigma \tilde{\Delta}_l 

1473: ]^2 }

1474:  \; .

1475:  \label{eq:etaapprox2}

1476:  \end{equation}

1477: We thus arrive at 

1478: a closed system of flow equations

1479: for the two relevant couplings $r_l^{+}$ and $r_l^{-}$ and the two marginal

1480: couplings $g_{n,l}$ and $g_{c,l}$.

1481: We emphasize that our truncation does not rely

1482: on a weak coupling expansion, which enables us to

1483: study a possible confinement transition.

1484: 

1485: To give an explicit expression for the

1486: bosonic spin-flip propagator, 

1487: we define dimensionless bare couplings

1488: (keeping in mind that we have chosen $\nu_0 = 1/v_F$),

1489:  \begin{equation}

1490:  2 \nu_0 J^{\bot}_{ \alpha \alpha} = 2 \pi g_{c,0}

1491:  \; , \;

1492:  2 \nu_0 J^{\bot}_{ \alpha, - \alpha} = 2 \pi g_{n,0}

1493:  \; ,

1494:  \end{equation}

1495: and the  flowing couplings

1496:  \begin{equation}

1497:  g_{c,l}  =   \gamma_l^2 g_{c,0}

1498:  \; , \; 

1499: g_{n,l}  =   \gamma_l^2 g_{n,0}

1500:  \label{eq:gnl}

1501:  \; ,

1502:  \end{equation}

1503: which according to Eq.(\ref{eq:gammabotflow2})  satisfy the flow equations

1504:  \begin{equation}

1505:  \partial_l g_{c,l} = - 2 \eta_l g_{c,l }

1506:  \; , \; 

1507:  \partial_l g_{n,l} = - 2 \eta_l g_{n,l }

1508:  \; .

1509:  \label{eq:gflow}

1510:  \end{equation}

1511: The rescaled spin-flip propagator can then be written as

1512:  \begin{widetext} 

1513: \begin{eqnarray}

1514:   \gamma_l^2 

1515:  [ {\bf{\tilde{F}}}_l^{\sigma \bar{\sigma}} ( \bar{q}, i \bar{\epsilon} ) ]_{ \alpha \alpha }

1516:  & = &

1517:  \frac{  \gamma_l^2   2 \pi    [ g_{c,0}  -  

1518: (g_{c,0}^2 - g_{n,0}^2) 2 \pi

1519:   \tilde{\Pi}_l^{\sigma \bar{\sigma}} ( \bar{Q} , -\alpha )]}{1 -   g_{c,0}

1520:  2 \pi [  \tilde{\Pi}_l^{\sigma \bar{\sigma}} ( \bar{Q} ,+  )

1521:  +   \tilde{\Pi}_l^{\sigma \bar{\sigma}} ( \bar{Q} , -  ) ]

1522:  +  (g_{c,0}^2 - g_{n,0}^2)   

1523:  (2 \pi )^2 \tilde{\Pi}_l^{\sigma \bar{\sigma}} ( \bar{Q} , +  )

1524:    \tilde{\Pi}_l^{\sigma \bar{\sigma}} ( \bar{Q} , -  )

1525: }

1526:  \nonumber

1527: % \\

1528: %  & = &  2 \pi

1529: % \frac{  g_{c,l} 

1530: % [ ( i \bar{\epsilon} - \sigma \tilde{\Delta}_l )^2 - \bar{q}^2 ]

1531: % + (g_{c,l}^2 - g_{n,l}^2) [  \tilde{\Delta}_l^2 - \bar{q}^2 - i \bar{\epsilon}

1532: % ( \sigma \tilde{\Delta}_l - \alpha \bar{q} )] }{

1533: % [ i \bar{\epsilon} - \omega^+_l ( \bar{q}, \sigma \tilde{\Delta}_l ) ]

1534: % [ i \bar{\epsilon} - \omega^-_l ( \bar{q} ,  \sigma \tilde{\Delta}_l ) ]

1535: %  }

1536: % \nonumber

1537:  \\ & = &

1538:  2 \pi

1539:  ( i \bar{\epsilon} - \alpha \bar{q} - \sigma \tilde{\Delta}_l )

1540:  \frac{ g_{c,l}

1541:    ( i \bar{\epsilon} + \alpha \bar{q} - \sigma \tilde{\Delta}_l )

1542:  + (g_{c,l}^2 - g_{n,l}^2) (  \alpha \bar{q} - \sigma \tilde{\Delta}_l ) 

1543:  }{

1544:  [ i \bar{\epsilon} - \omega^+_l ( \bar{q}, \sigma \tilde{\Delta}_l ) ]

1545:  [ i \bar{\epsilon} - \omega^-_l ( \bar{q} ,  \sigma \tilde{\Delta}_l ) ]

1546:   }

1547:  \; ,

1548:  \end{eqnarray}

1549: where

1550:  \begin{eqnarray}

1551:  \omega^{\pm}_l  ( \bar{q} , x ) & = & x ( 1 - g_{c,l} ) \pm

1552:  \sqrt{ x^2 g_{n,l}^2 + \bar{q}^2 [ ( 1 - g_{c,l} )^2 - g_{n,l}^2 ] }

1553:  \nonumber

1554:  \\

1555:  & = &

1556: x ( 1 - g_{c,l} ) \pm

1557:  \sqrt{ x^2  ( 1 - g_{c,l} )^2 + ( \bar{q}^2 - x^2) [ ( 1 - g_{c,l})^2 - 

1558:  g_{n,l}^2 ] }

1559:  \; .

1560:  \label{eq:omegapmdef}

1561:  \end{eqnarray}

1562: Noting that $\omega^{\pm}_l ( 0,x ) =  x ( 1 - g_{c,l} \pm g_{n,l} )$,

1563: we see that

1564: for small interaction strength 

1565: both modes $\omega^+_l$ and $\omega^-_l$ are gapped.

1566: However, the gap of the mode $\omega^{-}_l ( 0,x )$ vanishes for

1567: $ g_{c,l} + g_{n,l} =1$, signaling a possible quantum phase transition

1568: to a confined state.

1569: In the present work we do not attempt to extend the RG beyond this

1570: point, but focus

1571: on the regime  $ g_{c,l} + g_{n,l} \leq 1$ were both modes are gapped.

1572: The integrals in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:dotgamma04}) and (\ref{eq:etaapprox2})

1573: can be  carried out analytically using the residue theorem, with the result

1574:  \begin{eqnarray}

1575:  \dot{\Gamma}_l^{\sigma} ( 0 ) & = & 

1576:   2 \delta_{ \sigma ,-1} \Theta(  \tilde{\Delta}_l -1 ) g_{c,l}

1577:  + \Theta (1- \tilde{\Delta}_l) 

1578: % \nonumber

1579: % \\

1580: %& & \hspace{-13mm}

1581: %\times

1582:  \left[ g_{c,l} + \frac{ \sigma   \tilde{\Delta}_l   g_{n,l}^2}{ \sqrt{ 

1583:  (1-g_{c,l})^2 - g_{n,l}^2 (1 - \tilde{\Delta}_l^2 ) } }

1584:  \right] 

1585:  \; ,

1586:  \end{eqnarray}

1587: and

1588:  \begin{eqnarray}

1589:  \eta_l & = &

1590:  \frac{ \Theta ( 1 - \tilde{\Delta}_l )   

1591:  g_{n,l}^2}{ \sqrt{ (1-g_{c,l})^2 - g_{n,l}^2 (1 - \tilde{\Delta}_l^2 )    }

1592:  \left[ 1- g_{c,l} +  \sqrt{  (1-g_{c,l})^2 - g_{n,l}^2 (1 - \tilde{\Delta}_l^2 )   } \right]}

1593:  \; .

1594:  \label{eq:etares1}

1595:  \end{eqnarray}

1596: \end{widetext}

1597: 

1598: 

1599: 

1600: \subsection{Self-consistent one-loop approximation}

1601: \label{subsec:relevant}

1602: 

1603: The above system of coupled equations can only be solved numerically.

1604: However, if we neglect the flow of the coupling constants  on the 

1605: right-hand sides of these equations, we can obtain an approximate analytical solution, 

1606: which is useful to get a rough idea about the mechanism responsible

1607: for the confinement transition. In this subsection we therefore 

1608: set

1609:  \begin{eqnarray}

1610:   g_{ i, l} & \approx & g_{i ,0}

1611:  \; ,

1612:  \label{eq:gapprox}

1613:  \\

1614:   \tilde{\Delta}_l & \approx & \tilde{\Delta}_l^{\ast} \equiv 

1615:   \tilde{\Delta} e^l 

1616:  \; .

1617:  \label{eq:Deltaapprox}

1618:  \end{eqnarray}

1619: We expect that these approximations over-estimate

1620: the tendency towards confinement, because we

1621: know from Eq.~(\ref{eq:gflow}) that the flowing couplings $g_{c,l}$ and $g_{n,l}$

1622: are smaller than the bare ones.

1623: The second approximation (\ref{eq:Deltaapprox})

1624: is justified provided the trajectory integral 

1625: (\ref{eq:FSapprox1}) is dominated by $l \gtrsim 1$ 

1626: where $\tilde{\Delta}_l^{\ast}

1627:  \gg | r_l^{\sigma} |$. 

1628: Substituting $x  =

1629:  \tilde{\Delta} e^{l}$ on the right-hand side of

1630: Eq.~(\ref{eq:FSapprox1}) we obtain

1631:  \begin{eqnarray}

1632: \tilde{\Delta} 

1633:  & = & \tilde{\Delta}_0 - \tilde{\Delta} 

1634: \int_{\tilde{\Delta}}^{\infty} dx I ( x )

1635:  \; ,

1636:  \label{eq:FSapprox2}

1637:  \end{eqnarray}

1638: with

1639:  \begin{eqnarray}

1640:   I ( x ) & =&  -  \Theta ( x-1 )    \frac{2 g_{c,0}}{x^2}

1641:  \nonumber

1642:  \\

1643:  &  &  \hspace{-20mm} + \Theta ( 1-x ) \frac{ 2 g_{n,0}^2}{x  

1644: \sqrt{  

1645:    (1-g_{c,0})^2 - g_{n,0}^2  (1-  x^2)  }

1646:  }

1647:  \; .

1648:  \end{eqnarray}

1649: The $x$-integration is elementary and 

1650: we finally obtain

1651:  \begin{equation}

1652:  \tilde{\Delta}  = \frac{  \tilde{\Delta}_0  }{ 1 + R ( \tilde{\Delta}  ) }

1653:  \; ,

1654:  \label{eq:Rdef}

1655:  \end{equation}

1656: with

1657:   \begin{eqnarray}

1658:  R ( \tilde{\Delta}  ) & = & 

1659: \int_{ {\tilde{\Delta}} }^{\infty} dx I ( x )

1660: = - 2 g_{c,0}  

1661:  \nonumber

1662:  \\

1663:  &   & \hspace{-15mm} + \frac{ 2 g_{n,0}^2}{ \sqrt{ (1  - g_{c,0}) ^2 - g_{n,0}^2} }

1664:  \ln \left[ \frac{1 + \sqrt{ 1 + \frac{  \tilde{\Delta}^2  g_{n,0}^2}{ (1 - g_{c,0})^2 -g_{n,0}^2}}}{

1665:  \tilde{\Delta} 

1666:  \left( 1 + \sqrt{  \frac{ ( 1 - g_{c,0})^2}{ (1 - g_{c,0})^2 - g_{n,0}^2}} \right) } \right]

1667:  \; .

1668:  \nonumber

1669:  \\

1670:  & &

1671:  \label{eq:Rres1}

1672: \end{eqnarray}

1673: This expression diverges for $g_{c,0} + g_{n,0}  \rightarrow  1$, 

1674: corresponding 

1675: to a confinement transition with $\tilde{\Delta} \rightarrow 0$.

1676: Expanding 

1677: $R ( \tilde{\Delta}  )$ to second order in the couplings we obtain

1678: \begin{equation}

1679:    R ( \tilde{\Delta} )  = 

1680: - 2 g_{c,0} + 2 g_{n,0}^2 \ln (1 / \tilde{\Delta} ) + O (g_{i,0}^3 )

1681:  \; .

1682:  \label{eq:Rexpand}

1683:  \end{equation}

1684: Keeping in mind that in Ref.~[\onlinecite{Ledowski05}] 

1685: we have neglected the chiral couplings and that here we have retained only

1686: interchain backscattering, 

1687: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Rexpand}) is consistent with

1688: our previous weak-coupling result given in

1689: Eq.~(\ref{eq:deltaprevious}).

1690: From Eq.~(\ref{eq:Rexpand}) it is clear that

1691: there is a competition between the chiral part $g_{c,0}$ and the

1692: non-chiral part $g_{n,0}$ of the interaction.

1693: The chiral part $g_{c,0}$

1694: leads to a repulsion of the Fermi points, while the non-chiral part

1695: $g_{n,0}$ generates an attraction and eventually triggers the confinement

1696: transition, because

1697: for sufficiently small $\tilde{\Delta}$ the logarithm

1698: overwhelms the term linear in $g_{c,0}$.

1699: 

1700: To simplify the following analysis we shall from  now on restrict ourselves

1701: to the special case $g_{c,0} =0$. This is sufficient

1702: to study the confinement transition, which is driven by the

1703: non-chiral part of the interaction.

1704: Setting $g_0 = g_{ n , 0}$ the confinement 

1705: transition occurs within the approximations in this section

1706: at $g_0 =1$.

1707: A numerical solution of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Rdef}) and (\ref{eq:Rres1}) for the true

1708:  $\tilde{\Delta}$ as function of $g_0$ is shown

1709: in Fig.~\ref{fig:deltachiral}.

1710: %

1711: %

1712:  \begin{figure}[tb]    

1713:    \centering

1714: % \psfrag{t1}{$T >T_c$}

1715: %  \vspace{7mm}

1716: %   \includegraphics{fig5.eps}    

1717:     \epsfig{file=fig6.eps,width=75mm}

1718: %  \vspace{4mm}

1719:   \caption{%

1720: Numerical solution  of Eq.~(\ref{eq:Rdef}) for $g_{c,0} =0$ as function of

1721: $g_0 = g_{n,0}$ for different values of $\tilde{\Delta}_0 = ( k^{+}_0 - k^{-}_0 )/\Lambda_0$.

1722: }

1723:     \label{fig:deltachiral}

1724:   \end{figure}

1725: %

1726: %

1727: The confinement transition for $g_0 \rightarrow 1$ is clearly visible.

1728: In fact, the behavior of $\tilde{\Delta}$ for $g_0 \rightarrow 1$ can 

1729: be obtained analytically.

1730: In this case

1731:  $\tilde{\Delta} \ll \sqrt{ 1 - g_0^2}$, so that we may approximate

1732:  \begin{eqnarray}

1733:   R ( \tilde{\Delta}  ) & \approx &  

1734:  \frac{2}{  \sqrt{ 1 -  g_0^2 } }

1735:  \ln \left[ \frac{2  \sqrt{ 1 - g_0^2} }{  \tilde{\Delta}  }\right]

1736:  \; .

1737:  \label{eq:Rdiv}

1738:  \end{eqnarray}

1739: The self-consistency condition  (\ref{eq:Rdef}) for $\tilde{\Delta}$ 

1740: then reduces  to

1741:  \begin{equation}

1742:  \tilde{\Delta}  \approx 

1743:   \sqrt{ 1 - g_0^2}

1744:     \left[ \frac{ \tilde{\Delta}_0}{ 2 \ln 

1745:  \left( \frac{ 2 \sqrt{1 - g_0^2} }{  {\tilde{\Delta}} } \right) } \right] 

1746:  \; .

1747:  \label{eq:confinement}

1748:  \end{equation} 

1749: For  $\tilde{\Delta} \ll \sqrt{ 1 - g_0^2}$ the second factor in the square braces

1750: of Eq.~(\ref{eq:confinement}) is small compared with unity, so that

1751: it is consistent to take the limit $g_0 \rightarrow 1$ in this expression.

1752: If we identify  $\Delta$ with the order parameter of the confinement transition

1753: transition (with $\Delta \neq 0$ corresponding to the deconfined

1754: phase), then Eq.~(\ref{eq:confinement}) predicts mean-field behavior with

1755: logarithmic corrections.

1756: 

1757: 

1758: 

1759: 

1760: 

1761: 

1762: 

1763: 

1764: 

1765: Our simple one-loop approximation thus predicts

1766: that for $g_0 \rightarrow 1$

1767: there is a confinement transition where the true

1768: Fermi point distance $\Delta$ collapses, corresponding to vanishing effective

1769: interchain hoping $t_{\bot}^{\ast} =0$.

1770: In pseudo-spin language,

1771: the quantum critical point  $g_0=1$ corresponds

1772: to a vanishing magnetization in $z$-direction, in spite of the

1773: fact that there is a uniform magnetic field.

1774: For $g_0 > 1$ our one-loop approximation

1775: suggests that there is   long-range ferromagnetic order in 

1776: $xy$-direction. However, in one dimension we do not expect  true long-range order,

1777: so that fluctuations beyond the one-loop approximation should  be important.

1778: It is therefore important to go beyond this approximation, which we shall do

1779: in the following subsection.

1780: 

1781: 

1782: \subsection{Including  the renormalization of the 

1783: effective interaction}

1784: \label{subsec:including}

1785: 

1786: 

1787: We now improve the above calculation by taking the flow of the

1788: effective interaction into account.  

1789: For simplicity, we focus again on the special case without

1790: chiral interactions, so that we need to keep track only

1791: of the flowing non-chiral interaction $g_{ n , l} = g_l$.

1792: Furthermore, in the absence of chiral couplings $r_l^{\sigma} = \sigma r_l$.

1793: The self-consistency equation (\ref{eq:FSapprox1})   

1794: for the Fermi point distance then reduces to

1795:  \begin{equation}

1796:  \tilde{\Delta} = \tilde{\Delta}_0 - 

1797:  \int_0^{\infty} dl e^{-l} 

1798:  \frac{ 2 \Theta ( 1 - \tilde{\Delta}_l ) \tilde{\Delta}_l g_l^2 }{ \sqrt{ 1 - g_l^2 

1799:  ( 1 - \tilde{\Delta}_l )^2 } }

1800:  \; ,

1801:  \label{eq:DeltaDelta}

1802:  \end{equation}

1803: where

1804:  \begin{equation}

1805:  \tilde{\Delta}_l = \tilde{\Delta}_l^{\ast} - 2 r_l  =

1806: \tilde{\Delta} e^l - 2 r_l

1807:  \label{eq:tildedeltalr}

1808:  \; ,

1809:  \end{equation}

1810: and the flow of $r_l$ and $g_l$ is determined by

1811:  \begin{eqnarray}

1812:  \partial_l r_l  & = & r_l + A (  g_l,  \tilde{\Delta}_l )

1813:  \; ,

1814:  \label{eq:Arl}

1815:  \\

1816:  \partial_l g_l  & = & B ( g_l , \tilde{\Delta}_l )

1817:  \; ,

1818:  \label{eq:Brl}

1819:  \end{eqnarray} 

1820: with

1821:  \begin{equation}

1822:  A ( g_l , \tilde{\Delta}_l ) =

1823:    \frac{   \Theta (1- \tilde{\Delta}_l)    \tilde{\Delta}_l   g_{l}^2}{ \sqrt{ 

1824:  1  - g_{l}^2 (1 - \tilde{\Delta}_l^2 ) } }

1825:  \; ,

1826:  \label{eq:Adef}

1827:  \end{equation}

1828: and

1829:  \begin{eqnarray}

1830:  B ( g_l , \tilde{\Delta}_l ) & = & - 2 \eta_l g_l

1831:  \nonumber

1832:  \\

1833: & & \hspace{-25mm} 

1834: = 

1835:  \frac{ - 2 \Theta ( 1 - \tilde{\Delta}_l )   

1836:  g_{l}^3}{ \sqrt{ 1 - g_{l}^2 (1 - \tilde{\Delta}_l^2 )    }

1837:  \left[ 1 +  \sqrt{  1 - g_{l}^2 (1 - \tilde{\Delta}_l^2 )   } \right]}

1838:  \; .

1839:  \label{eq:Bdef}

1840:  \end{eqnarray}

1841: The initial value $r_0$ has to be fine tuned such that

1842: $\lim_{ l \rightarrow \infty} r_l $ remains finite. This leads to the

1843: self-consistency equation (\ref{eq:DeltaDelta}) for the true Fermi point distance.

1844: We emphasize again that 

1845: our approximation scheme is not based on a weak coupling expansion,

1846: so that the $\beta$-function given in

1847: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Bdef}) is non-perturbative in the coupling $g_l$.

1848: Instead of Eq.~(\ref{eq:Rres1}) we now obtain for the dimensionless renormalization 

1849: factor $R ( \tilde{\Delta} )$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Rdef}),

1850:  \begin{eqnarray}

1851:  R ( \tilde{\Delta}  ) & = & \frac{2}{\tilde{\Delta}} \int_0^{\infty} d l e^{ - l } 

1852:  A ( g_l , \tilde{\Delta}_l )

1853:  \nonumber

1854:  \\

1855:  &  &  \hspace{-17mm} = 2

1856:  \int_0^{\infty} d l 

1857:   ( 1  -  2 e^{-l} r_l / \tilde{\Delta} )

1858:  \frac{       \Theta ( 1 - \tilde{\Delta}_l )  g_l^2 }{

1859:  \sqrt{ 1 -   g_l^2 ( 1 - \tilde{\Delta}_l^2 )} }

1860: \; .

1861:  \label{eq:Rres2}

1862:  \end{eqnarray}

1863: Note that formally the

1864: confinement transition 

1865: manifests itself via a divergence of

1866: the function  $R (\tilde{\Delta} )$ 

1867: for $\tilde{\Delta} \rightarrow 0$.

1868: However, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Rres2},

1869: the renormalization factor remains now finite so that

1870: also the self-consistent $\tilde{\Delta}$ 

1871: is finite for $g_0 =1$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:deltatrueg0}.

1872: % 

1873: %

1874:  \begin{figure}[tb]    

1875:    \centering

1876: % \psfrag{t1}{$T >T_c$}

1877: %  \vspace{7mm}

1878: %\includegraphics{fig6.eps}

1879:      \epsfig{file=fig7.eps,width=75mm}

1880: %  \vspace{4mm}

1881:   \caption{%

1882: Numerical solution  of the renormalization factor $R ( \tilde{\Delta} )$

1883: defined in  Eq.~(\ref{eq:Rres2})

1884: as a function of the bare coupling $g_0$ for

1885: different values of $\tilde{\Delta}_0$.

1886: }

1887:     \label{fig:Rres2}

1888:   \end{figure}

1889: %

1890: %

1891:  \begin{figure}[tb]    

1892:    \centering

1893: % \psfrag{t1}{$T >T_c$}

1894: %  \vspace{7mm}

1895:       \epsfig{file=fig8.eps,width=75mm}

1896: %  \vspace{4mm}

1897:   \caption{%

1898: Numerical solution  of the true Fermi point distance $\tilde{\Delta} 

1899: = ( k^{+} - k^- )/\Lambda_0$

1900: as a function of the bare coupling $g_0$ for

1901: different values of the bare distance $\tilde{\Delta}_0 = ( k^{+}_0 - k^-_0 )/\Lambda_0 $.

1902: }

1903:     \label{fig:deltatrueg0}

1904:   \end{figure}

1905: %

1906: %

1907: We conclude that

1908: the confinement transition obtained in

1909: the previous subsection is an artefact of

1910: the approximations (\ref{eq:gapprox}) and (\ref{eq:Deltaapprox}).

1911: 

1912: Let us take a closer look at  the point $g_0 =1$ where the one-loop 

1913: approximation

1914: predicts a confinement transition.

1915: The RG flow of the couplings $g_l$ and $r_l$ as well as the flowing 

1916: anomalous dimension $\eta_l$ for this case is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:RGflow}.

1917: %

1918: %

1919:  \begin{figure}[tb]    

1920:    \centering

1921: % \psfrag{t1}{$T >T_c$}

1922: %  \vspace{7mm}

1923:       \epsfig{file=fig9.eps,width=80mm}

1924: %  \vspace{4mm}

1925:   \caption{%

1926: RG flow of the couplings $g_l$, $r_l$ and the anomalous dimension $\eta_l$ 

1927:  as a function of the logarithmic flow parameter $l$ for

1928: $\tilde{\Delta}_0 =0.1$ and  $g_0 =1$. 

1929: }

1930:     \label{fig:RGflow}

1931:   \end{figure}

1932: %

1933: %

1934: One clearly sees that the initially large flowing anomalous dimension

1935: drives the running coupling $g_l$  towards smaller values; 

1936: eventually $g_l$ approaches  a finite limit for large $l$. Furthermore, the running 

1937: coupling $r_l$

1938: approaches its asymptotic value for large $l$ non-monotonously.

1939: The true Fermi point distance $\Delta$ as a function of the

1940: bare one for $g_0 =1$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:deltatrue_g1}.

1941: %

1942: %

1943:  \begin{figure}[tb]    

1944:    \centering

1945: % \psfrag{t1}{$T >T_c$}

1946: %  \vspace{7mm}

1947:       \epsfig{file=fig10.eps,width=75mm}

1948: %  \vspace{4mm}

1949:   \caption{%

1950: Numerical solution  of the true Fermi point distance  $\tilde{\Delta}$

1951: for $g_0=1$ as a function of the bare distance $\tilde{\Delta}_0$.

1952: }

1953:     \label{fig:deltatrue_g1}

1954:   \end{figure}

1955: We see that  large interchain backscattering

1956: strongly reduces the Fermi point distance, although the Fermi surface never collapses,

1957: in agreement with  scenario suggested by the weak coupling analysis \cite{Ledowski05}.

1958: 

1959: 

1960: \section{Conclusions}

1961: \label{sec:conclusion}

1962: 

1963: In this work we have used a functional RG approach

1964: to calculate self-consistently the true distance

1965: $\Delta = k^{+} - k^{-}$ between the Fermi points

1966: of the bonding and the antibonding band in

1967: a system consisting of two chains of spinless fermions

1968: connected by weak interchain hopping $t_{\bot}$. 

1969: Using the insight from our earlier weak coupling analysis \cite{Ledowski05}

1970: that the renormalization of the Fermi surface is essentially

1971: determined by interchain backscattering, 

1972: we have treated this scattering

1973: process  non-perturbatively by representing it in terms of

1974: a collective bosonic field $\chi$.

1975: In pseudospin language, 

1976: where $t_{\bot} = h$ corresponds to a uniform magnetic

1977: field in $z$-direction and

1978: the interchain backscattering interaction

1979: corresponds to a ferromagnetic $xy$-interaction,

1980: the field $\chi$ can be viewed as  a fluctuating transverse magnetic field, 

1981: which competes with  the uniform field $h$ in $z$-direction.

1982: A self-consistent  one-loop approximation 

1983: predicts that for sufficiently strong interchain backscattering

1984: there is indeed a quantum critical point were

1985: the renormalized Fermi point distance $\Delta \propto t_{\bot}^{\ast} $ vanishes.

1986: However, a more accurate calculation taking vertex corrections

1987: and wave-function renormalizations into account 

1988: shows that the renormalized $\Delta \propto t_{\bot}^{\ast}$

1989: remains  finite.

1990: This is in agreement with the expectation that a ferromagnetic $xy$-interaction

1991: in a one-dimensional itinerant electron gas cannot

1992: give rise to long-range ferromagnetic order.

1993: Previous studies of the spinless two-chain problem \cite{Bourbonnais91,Caron02}

1994: came to the conclusion that the system exhibits a confinement transition

1995: if the anomalous dimension $\eta_0$ of the Luttinger liquid  for $t_{\bot}=0$

1996: is unity. The important difference between these earlier works and our calculations is that

1997: we have completely neglected pair tunneling. In a subsequent article~\cite{Ledowski06} 

1998: we shall show how 

1999: the inclusion of this process stabilizes again the flow of the interchain backward 

2000: scattering and enhances the tendency towards confinement.

2001: In the same article we shall

2002: also show that our approach can be

2003: generalized to study the

2004: more interesting and physically more relevant 

2005: confinement problem in an infinite array of

2006: weakly coupled  metallic chains. In this case

2007: the Fermi surface consists of two disconnected sheets, which

2008: self-consistently develop completely flat sectors 

2009: at the confinement transition. We have preliminary evidence

2010: that in this case there exists a confined phase

2011: where the renormalized interchain hopping vanishes.

2012: The essential scattering process driving this transition is

2013: the non-chiral part of the density-density interaction which transfers momentum

2014: within a given  sheet of  the Fermi surface.

2015: 

2016: 

2017: Finally we point out  that  this work

2018: describes also some technical progress: 

2019: we have been  able to 

2020: find a sensible extrapolation of the weak coupling

2021: functional RG approach to the strong coupling regime.

2022: Our truncation strategy of the formally exact hierarchy

2023: of functional RG equations relies on the classification

2024: of the vertices according to their relevance. 

2025: An obvious disadvantage of this approach is  that

2026: we cannot give reliable error estimates, which

2027: is a common feature of most truncations of the

2028: coupled functional RG flow equations for the vertex functions. 

2029: Note, however, that a similar truncation of the

2030: functional RG equations for the interacting Bose gas

2031: gave quite accurate results for the shift in the critical temperature\cite{Ledowski04}.

2032: In the present

2033: problem we know a priori  from the weak coupling analysis that

2034: the physics is dominated by

2035: a single scattering channel, the inter-chain backscattering.

2036: However, an extension of our approach  

2037: to  problems where several scattering 

2038: channels compete seems to be possible.

2039: 

2040: 

2041: 

2042: 

2043: 

2044: \section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}

2045: We thank  Florian Sch\"{u}tz for sharing his insights

2046: on the subtleties of the collective field functional

2047: RG approach with us.

2048: 

2049: 

2050: \appendix

2051: %\setcounter{section}{0}

2052: %\setcounter{equation}{0}

2053: 

2054: 

2055: %\renewcommand{\theequation}{\Roman{section}.\arabic{equation}}

2056: \renewcommand{\theequation}{A.\arabic{equation}}

2057: \renewcommand{\thesubsection}{A.\arabic{subsection}}

2058: 

2059: 

2060: \section*{Appendix: Justification of the adiabatic approximation}

2061: 

2062: We give here a  justification for the adiabatic approximation 

2063: for the rescaled spin-flip

2064: susceptibility given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Pisfapprox}).

2065: % The perhaps simplest way to arrive at this expression 

2066: % is based on the 

2067: % Dyson-Schwinger 

2068: % equation~\cite{Schuetz05,ZinnJustin02} 

2069: % for the spin-flip susceptibility, which is shown diagrammatically

2070: % in Fig.~\ref{fig:DS}.

2071: % %

2072: % %

2073: % \begin{figure}[tb]    

2074: %    \centering

2075: % % \psfrag{t1}{$T >T_c$}

2076: % %  \vspace{7mm}

2077: %       \epsfig{file=fig10.eps,width=60mm}

2078: % %  \vspace{4mm}

2079: %   \caption{%

2080: % Dyson-Schwinger equation for the spin-flip susceptibility.

2081: % }

2082: %     \label{fig:DS}

2083: %   \end{figure}

2084: % %

2085: % %

2086: % Replacing in the Dyson-Schwinger equation

2087: % the spin-flip vertex by unity,

2088: % approximating the rescaled Green functions by Eq.~(\ref{eq:Gscalerel1}),

2089: % and using the fact that within our approximations

2090: % $Z_l^{+} Z_l^{-} = \gamma_l^2$,

2091: % we arrive at Eq.~(\ref{eq:Pisfapprox}).

2092: Let us therefore use a more general two-cutoff procedure

2093: where we impose a

2094: band-width cutoff $\Lambda^F_{\tau} = \Lambda_{0}^F e^{- \tau }$

2095: on the fermionic propagator in addition to

2096: the bosonic momentum transfer cutoff $ \Lambda_l = \Lambda_0 e^{- l}$.

2097: All vertices and coupling constants then depend on both logarithmic

2098: flow parameters $l $ and $\tau$.

2099: Instead of Eq.~(\ref{eq:Gscalerel1}) 

2100: the rescaled fermionic propagator can then be approximated by

2101: \begin{equation}

2102:  \tilde{G}_{l, \tau }^{\sigma} ( q , i \epsilon , \alpha ) \approx 

2103: \frac{ \Theta ( 1 < | q| < e^{\tau} )}{ 

2104:  i \epsilon - \alpha \tilde{v}_{l,\tau}^{\sigma} q - r_{l, \tau}^{\sigma}}

2105:  \; ,

2106:  \label{eq:Gscalerel2}

2107:  \end{equation} 

2108: and the corresponding single-scale propagator is

2109: \begin{equation}

2110: \dot{ \tilde{G}}_{l, \tau }^{\sigma} ( q , i \epsilon , \alpha ) \approx 

2111: \frac{ \delta ( | q| -1 )}{ 

2112:  i \epsilon - \alpha \tilde{v}_{l, \tau}^{\sigma} q - r_{l, \tau}^{\sigma}}

2113:  \; .

2114:  \label{eq:Gsinglescalerel2}

2115:  \end{equation} 

2116: We recover the vertices of the  momentum

2117: transfer cutoff scheme by taking first the limit $ \tau \rightarrow \infty$.

2118: Of course,

2119: the result of the RG  should be independent of how we reach a 

2120: certain point in two-dimensional cutoff space 

2121: spanned by $\Lambda_l$ and $\Lambda_{\tau}^F$.

2122: Suppose we first fix $\Lambda^F_{\tau} = \Lambda^F_0$

2123: and  perform the reduction of the momentum transfer cutoff 

2124: $\Lambda_0 \rightarrow \Lambda_l$. As a second step we reduce the

2125: fermionic cutoff  

2126: $\Lambda^F \rightarrow 0$. 

2127: On the right-hand side of the flow equation for the

2128: spin-flip susceptibility there are then two additional 

2129: diagrams~\cite{Schuetz05} involving the fermionic single-scale

2130: propagator, which are

2131: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:flowsuscepfermi}.

2132: %

2133: %

2134: \begin{figure}[tb]    

2135:    \centering

2136: % \psfrag{t1}{$T >T_c$}

2137: %  \vspace{7mm}

2138:       \epsfig{file=fig11.eps,width=70mm}

2139: %  \vspace{4mm}

2140:   \caption{%

2141: Additional diagrams contributing to the flow of the spin-flip susceptibility

2142: in a cutoff scheme with a fermionic band-width cutoff. 

2143: The solid arrow  with slash is the fermionic single-scale propagator.

2144: }

2145:     \label{fig:flowsuscepfermi}

2146:   \end{figure}

2147: %

2148: %

2149: For a fixed scale $l$ the corresponding flow equation is

2150: (for simplicity we set $\alpha=1$ and omit the chirality label)

2151: \begin{eqnarray}

2152: \partial_\tau \tilde{\Pi}^{\sigma \bar{\sigma}}_{l,\tau} 

2153: ( \bar{Q}) &=& 

2154: - [  \bar{q} \partial_{\bar{q}} + \bar{\epsilon}  \partial_{\bar{\epsilon}} ]

2155: \tilde{\Pi}^{\sigma \bar{\sigma}}_{l,\tau} ( \bar{Q}) 

2156:  +  \dot{{\Pi}}^{\sigma \bar{\sigma}}_{l,\tau} (\bar{Q}) 

2157:   ,

2158: \label{FlowPi}

2159: \end{eqnarray}	

2160: with

2161: \begin{eqnarray}	

2162: 	 \dot{\Pi}^{\sigma \bar{\sigma}}_{l,\tau} (\bar{Q}) &=& 

2163:  - {\gamma}_{l,\tau}^2 \int_{Q}  \Bigl[ 

2164:  \dot{\tilde{G}}_{l, \tau}^{\sigma} ({Q}) 

2165:  {\tilde{G}}^{\bar{\sigma}}_{l,\tau} (Q+\bar{Q}+ \sigma \tilde{\Delta}^{\ast}_{\tau}) 

2166:  \nonumber

2167:  \\

2168:  & &  + {\tilde{G}}_{l,\tau}^{\sigma} 

2169:  ({Q}) \dot{\tilde{G}}^{\bar{\sigma}}_{l,\tau}

2170:  (Q+\bar{Q}+ \sigma \tilde{\Delta}_{\tau}^{\ast} ) 

2171:  \Bigr]

2172:  \; ,

2173: \label{DotPi}

2174: \end{eqnarray}

2175: where  $\tilde{\Delta}_{\tau}^{\ast} = \Delta / \Lambda_{\tau}^F$.

2176: The flow equation for the spin-flip vertex is now of the form

2177: \begin{equation}

2178: 	\partial_\tau {\gamma}_{l,\tau} = \Theta(  \lambda + l    - \tau )

2179:  C (l,\tau ) 

2180: \; ,

2181: \end{equation}

2182: where  $C ( l , \tau )$ is some function of the flow parameters

2183: and of the running coupling constants, and 

2184: $\lambda = \ln ( \Lambda_0^F / \Lambda_0 )$. 

2185: For simplicity we choose $\Lambda_0 = \Lambda_0^F$, so that $\lambda =0$.

2186: The $\Theta$-function is due to the fact that

2187: the internal loop momenta are restricted by the momentum transfer cutoff

2188: $\Lambda_0$. Obviously, $ \partial_\tau {\gamma}_{l,\tau} =0$ for $\tau >  l$,

2189: so that $\gamma_l \equiv \gamma_{ l , \tau >  l }$ is independent of $\tau$.

2190: Similarly, the

2191: flow equation for $r_{l , \tau }^{\sigma}$ is of the form

2192: \begin{equation}

2193: 	\partial_\tau {r}^\sigma_{l,\tau} 

2194: = {r}^{\sigma}_{l, \tau} + \Theta(  l - \tau )   A ( l , \tau )

2195:  \; ,  

2196: \end{equation}

2197: with some other function $A ( l , \tau )$. This

2198: implies $r_{l , \tau }^{\sigma} = e^{ \tau -  l } r^{\sigma}_{ l , \tau = l}$

2199:  for $ \tau >   l$,

2200: so that the flowing Fermi point distance

2201: $\tilde{\Delta}_{ l , \tau } $, defined analogous to 

2202: Eq.~(\ref{eq:tildeDeltaldef}) via

2203:  \begin{equation}

2204:  \tilde{\Delta}_{ l , \tau } =

2205:  \frac{ \Delta }{ \Lambda_\tau^{F} }  

2206: -  ( r^{+}_{ l , \tau   }

2207:  - r^-_{l , \tau } ) 

2208:  \; ,

2209:  \label{eq:Fermidistflow}

2210:  \end{equation}

2211: is for $ \tau >   l$ of the form

2212:  \begin{eqnarray}

2213:  \tilde{\Delta}_{ l , \tau >   l } & = &

2214:  \frac{ \Delta }{ \Lambda_\tau^{F} }  

2215: - e^{( \tau -  l) } ( r^{+}_{ l ,    l  }

2216:  - r^-_{l ,    l  } ) 

2217:  \nonumber

2218:  \\

2219:  & = & 

2220:  e^{\tau -  l } 

2221:  \left[ 

2222:  \frac{ \Delta }{ \Lambda_{  l} }  

2223: -  ( r^{+}_{ l  }

2224:  - r^-_{l   } ) \right]

2225: \nonumber

2226:  \\

2227:  & = & 

2228:  e^{\tau -  l } \tilde{\Delta}_{  l}

2229: \; ,

2230:  \end{eqnarray}

2231: where we have defined $r_l^{\sigma} = r_{ l , \tau =  l}^{\sigma}$ and

2232: $ \tilde{\Delta}_{  l} 

2233: = \Delta / \Lambda_{  l } - ( r_l^{+} - r_l^- )$, see 

2234: Eq.~(\ref{eq:tildeDeltaldef}).

2235: For $ \tau \rightarrow \infty$ 

2236: the solution of Eq.~(\ref{FlowPi}) can therefore

2237: be written as

2238: \begin{eqnarray} 

2239: \tilde{\Pi}^{\sigma \bar{\sigma}}_{l} ( \bar{Q} ) 

2240: &=& \int_0^\infty \!\!\! d\tau \: 

2241:  \dot{\Pi}^{\sigma \bar{\sigma} }_{l, \tau}( \bar{Q} 

2242: e^{\tau-   l } ; \tilde{\Delta}_{l, \tau})

2243:  \nonumber

2244:  \\

2245: &=& \int_0^{  {l}} \!\!\! d\tau \: 

2246:  \dot{\Pi}^{\sigma \bar{\sigma} }_{l, \tau}( \bar{Q} 

2247: e^{\tau-  l } ; \tilde{\Delta}_{l, \tau})

2248: \nonumber

2249:  \\

2250: & + &

2251:   \int_{ {l}}^\infty \!\!\! d\tau \;

2252:  \dot{\Pi}^{\sigma \bar{\sigma} }_{l, \tau}( \bar{Q} 

2253: e^{\tau-  l } ;   \tilde{\Delta}_{  l}  e^{\tau -  l }   )

2254: \label{SolutionPi}

2255:  \; . 

2256: \end{eqnarray}

2257: Using the fact that

2258: in the integral of the last term we may pull out a factor

2259: of $\gamma_l^2$ and

2260: approximating the fermionic Green functions

2261: by Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Gscalerel2}) and

2262: (\ref{eq:Gsinglescalerel2}) with $\tilde{v}^{\sigma}_{ l, \tau}$ and

2263: $r_{l , \tau }$ set equal to zero,

2264: we recover from the last term

2265:  the adiabatic approximation (\ref{eq:Pisfapprox}).

2266: Actually, to calculate the flow of the fermionic self energy, we 

2267: only need the bosonic Green function at $q= \pm 1$. 

2268: For $\tilde{\Delta}_l < 1$ the non-adiabatic 

2269: contribution to the polarization then vanishes,

2270:  leaving us just with the adiabatic part. For larger $\tilde{\Delta}_l$ 

2271: there is a crossover to the more general expression. However,

2272: the leading contribution to the flow of $\tilde{\Delta}_l$ itself stems from the region where the adiabatic approximation is valid.

2273: 

2274:  

2275: Finally we note that the adiabatic approximation (\ref{eq:Pisfapprox})

2276: is also consistent with the

2277: flow equation for the spin-flip susceptibility

2278: in the momentum transfer cutoff scheme

2279: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:flowPi}: taking 

2280: the derivative of the right-hand side 

2281: of Eq.~(\ref{eq:Pisfapprox}) with respect to the flow parameter

2282: and inserting for the derivative of the fermionic self-energy

2283: its flow equation (\ref{eq:RGselfvertex}), we find

2284: that the right-hand side can be written in terms of

2285: a symmetrized closed fermion loop with four bosonic legs and

2286: renormalized propagators. This corresponds to

2287: the adiabatic approximation

2288: for the vertex $\Gamma^{(0,4)}_{\Lambda}$

2289: which according to Fig.~\ref{fig:flowPi} drives

2290: the flow  of  the spin-flip susceptibility.

2291: 

2292: 

2293: %\vspace{-4mm}

2294:   \begin{thebibliography}{99}

2295:   %\vspace{-4mm}

2296:  %

2297: \bibitem{Pomenanchuk58}

2298: I. J. Pomeranchuk, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf{35}}, 524 (1958)

2299: [Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf{8}},  361 (1958)].

2300: %

2301: \bibitem{Lifshitz60}

2302: I. M. Lifshitz, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf{38}}, 1569 (1960)

2303: [Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf{11}}, 1130 (1960)].

2304: % 

2305: \bibitem{Quintanilla06}

2306: J. Quintanilla and A. J. Schofield, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{74}}, 115126 (2006).

2307: %

2308: \bibitem{Luther94}

2309: A. Luther, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{50}}, 11446 (1994).

2310: %

2311: \bibitem{Zheleznyak97}

2312: A. T. Zheleznyak,  V. M. Yakovenko, and I. E. Dzyaloshinskii,

2313: Phys. Rev. B {\bf{55}}, 3200 (1997).

2314: %

2315: \bibitem{Ferraz03}

2316: A. Ferraz, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{68}}, 075115 (2003);

2317: H. Freire, E. Correa, and A. Ferraz,  Phys. Rev. B {\bf{71}},  165113 (2005).

2318: %

2319: \bibitem{Honerkamp01}

2320: C. Honerkamp, M. Salmhofer, N. Furukawa, and T. M. Rice,

2321: Phys. Rev. B {\bf{63}}, 035109 (2001).

2322: %

2323: \bibitem{Ledowski06}

2324: S. Ledowski and P. Kopietz, unpublished.

2325: %

2326: \bibitem{Neumayr03}

2327: A. Neumayr and W. Metzner, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{67}}, 035112 (2003).

2328: %

2329: \bibitem{Dusuel03}

2330: S. Dusuel and B. Dou\c{c}ot, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{67}}, 205111 (2003).

2331: %

2332: \bibitem{Feldman96}

2333: J. Feldman, M. Salmhofer, and E. Trubowitz, J. Stat. Phys. {\bf{84}}, 1209 (1996);

2334: Commun. Pure  Appl. Math. {\bf{51}}, 1133 (1998);

2335: {\it{ibid.}} {\bf{52}}, 273 (1999).

2336: %

2337: \bibitem{Kopietz01}

2338: P. Kopietz and T. Busche, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{64}}, 155101 (2001).

2339: %

2340: \bibitem{Ledowski03}

2341: S. Ledowski and P. Kopietz,

2342: J. Phys.: Condens. Matter {\bf{15}}, 4779 (2003). 

2343: %

2344: \bibitem{Ledowski05}

2345: S. Ledowski, P. Kopietz, and A. Ferraz, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{71}}, 235106 (2005).

2346: %

2347: \bibitem{Schuetz05}

2348: F. Sch\"{u}tz, L. Bartosch, and P. Kopietz, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{72}},

2349: 035107 (2005);

2350: %

2351: %\bibitem{Schuetz06}

2352: F. Sch\"{u}tz and P. Kopietz, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. {\bf{39}}, 8205 (2006).

2353: %

2354: \bibitem{Fabrizio93}

2355: M. Fabrizio, Phys. Rev.  B {\bf{48}},  15838 (1993).

2356: %

2357: \bibitem{Brazovskii85}

2358: S. A. Brazovskii and V. M. Yakovenko, 

2359: Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf{89}}, 2318 (1985) [Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf{62}}, 1340 (1985)].

2360: %

2361: \bibitem{Bourbonnais91}

2362: C. Bourbonnais  and L. G. Caron, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B {\bf{5}}, 1033 (1991).

2363: %

2364: \bibitem{Kusmartsev92}

2365: F. Kusmartsev, A. Luther, and A. A. Nersesyan,

2366: Pis'ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf{55}}, 692 (1992)

2367: [JETP Lett. {\bf{55}}, 724 (1992)]; V. M. Yakovenko, {\it{ibid.}} {\bf{56}}, 523 (1992)

2368: [{\bf{56}}, 510 (1992)].

2369: %

2370: \bibitem{Finkelstein93}

2371: A. M. Finkelstein and A. I. Larkin, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{47}}, 10461 (1993).

2372: %

2373: \bibitem{Boies95}

2374: D. Boies, C. Bourbonnais and A.-M. S. Tremblay, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf{74}}, 968 (1995). 

2375: %

2376: \bibitem{Balents96}

2377: L. Balents and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{53}}, 12133 (1996);

2378: H.-H. Lin, L. Balents, and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{56}}, 6569 (1997).

2379: %

2380: \bibitem{Arrigoni98}

2381: E. Arrigoni, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf{80}}, 790 (1998); Phys. Rev. B {\bf{61}}, 7909 (2000).

2382: % 

2383: \bibitem{Ledermann00}

2384: U. Ledermann and K. Le Hur, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{61}}, 2497 (2000).

2385: %

2386: \bibitem{Louis01}

2387: K. Louis,  J. V. Alvarez, and C. Gros, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{64}}, 113106 (2001);

2388: K. Hamacher, C. Gros, and W. Wenzel, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf{88}}, 217203 (2002).

2389: %

2390: \bibitem{Caron02}

2391: L. G. Caron and C. Bourbonnais, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{66}}, 045101 (2002).

2392: %

2393: \bibitem{Bourbonnais04}

2394: C. Bourbonnais, B. Guay, and R. Wortis, in

2395: {\it{Theoretical Methods for Strongly Correlated Electrons}},

2396: ed. D. S\'{e}n\'{e}chal, A. M. Tremblay and  C. Bourbonnais

2397: (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2004).

2398: %

2399: \bibitem{Nickel06}

2400: J. C. Nickel, R. Duprat, C. Bourbonnais, and N. Dupuis,

2401: Phys. Rev. B {\bf{73}}, 165126 (2006).

2402: %

2403: \bibitem{Tsuchiizu06}

2404: M. Tsuchiizu, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{74}}, 155109 (2006).

2405: %

2406: \bibitem{footnotehubbard}

2407: There are several possibilities to

2408: write the Hubbard interaction  $U \bar{\psi}^+ \psi^+ \bar{\psi}^- \psi^-$

2409: in the form (\ref{eq:action1}). 

2410: One possibility is to set

2411: $J^{\bot} ( \bar{k} ) = U a /2 $ and  $f ( \bar{k} ) =  u ( \bar{k} ) =

2412: J^{\parallel} ( \bar{k} ) =0$, where $a$ is the lattice spacing.

2413: An alternative is

2414: $f ( \bar{k} ) =  J^{\parallel} ( \bar{k} ) = Ua/2$ and

2415: $J^{\bot} ( \bar{k} ) = u ( \bar{k} )  =0$. This freedom 

2416: translates into similar ambiguities in the choice of 

2417: decoupling of the Hubbard interaction in

2418: terms of bosonic collective fields. 

2419: For a discussion of this point see

2420: C. A. Mac\^{e}do and M. D. Coutinho-Filho,

2421: Phys. B {\bf{43}}, 13515 (1991), and

2422: S. De Palo, C. Castellani, C. Di Castro, and B. K. Chakraverty,

2423: Phys. Rev. B {\bf{60}}, 564 (1999).

2424: %

2425: \bibitem{Solyom79}

2426: J. Solyom, Adv. Phys. {\bf{28}}, 201 (1979).

2427: %

2428: \bibitem{Wetterich93}

2429: C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B {\bf{301}}, 90 (1993).

2430: %

2431: \bibitem{Morris94}

2432: T. R. Morris, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf{9}}, 2411 (1994).

2433: %

2434: \bibitem{Wetterich02}

2435: C. Wetterich, cond-mat/0208361v3.

2436: %

2437: \bibitem{Baier04}

2438: T. Baier, E. Bick, and C. Wetterich, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{70}}, 125111 (2004).

2439: %

2440: \bibitem{Salmhofer01}

2441: M. Salmhofer and C. Honerkamp, Prog. Theor. Physics {\bf{105}}, 1 (2001).

2442: %

2443: \bibitem{Polchinski84}

2444: J. Polchinski, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf{231}}, 269 (1984).

2445: %

2446: \bibitem{Ledowski04}

2447: S. Ledowski, N. Hasselmann, and P. Kopietz, 

2448: Phys. Rev.  A  {\bf{69}}, 061601(R) (2004);

2449: N. Hasselmann, S. Ledowski, and P. Kopietz,

2450: {\it{ibid.}} {\bf{70}}, 063621 (2004). 

2451: %

2452: %\bibitem{ZinnJustin02}

2453: %J. Zinn-Justin, {\it{Quantum Field Theory and Critical Phenomena}},

2454: %4th ed. (Clarendon, Oxford, 2002).

2455: %

2456:   \end{thebibliography}

2457: 

2458: 

2459: 

2460:  

2461: 

2462: \end{document}

2463: 

2464: 

2465: 

2466: 

2467: 

2468: 

2469: 

2470: 

2471: