1: % "VERSION 6: last correction: August 29, 2007 by PK"
2: %
3: \tolerance = 10000
4: % final prl-format (4 pages, for preprint server):
5: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,prl,amsmath,amssymb,floatfix]{revtex4}
6: %
7: % preprint format (for submission)
8: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,prl,amsmath,amssymb,floatfix]{revtex4}
9: %
10: % one-sided prl format:
11: %\documentclass[galley,showpacs,prl,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
12: %
13: % take this for final PRB format
14: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,prb,amsmath,amssymb,floatfix,eqsecnum]{revtex4}
15: %
16: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,superscriptaddress,prb,amsmath,amssymb,floatfix,eqsecnum]{revtex4}
17: %
18: %\usepackage{dcolumn}
19: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}
20: %
21: %\usepackage{showlabels}
22: %\usepackage{drftcite}
23: %
24: \usepackage{bm}
25: \usepackage{epsfig}
26: \usepackage{psfrag}
27:
28: % set \bd to \bf or \bm
29: \newcommand{\bd}{\bm}
30: \newcommand{\qq}{\frac{q^2}{2m}}
31: \newcommand{\on}{\tilde\omega_{n}}
32: \newcommand{\xq}{\frac{q'q}{2m}}
33:
34: \begin{document}
35:
36: \title{Confined coherence in quasi-one-dimensional metals}
37:
38:
39: \author{Sascha Ledowski and Peter Kopietz}
40:
41: \affiliation{Institut f\"{u}r Theoretische Physik, Universit\"{a}t
42: Frankfurt, Max-von-Laue Strasse 1, 60438 Frankfurt, Germany}
43:
44: %\date{\today}
45: \date{March 28, 2007}
46:
47:
48:
49:
50: \begin{abstract}
51:
52: We present a functional renormalization group calculation
53: of the effect of strong interactions on the
54: shape of the Fermi surface of weakly coupled metallic chains.
55: In the regime where the bare interchain hopping is small,
56: we show that scattering processes involving large momentum
57: transfers perpendicular to the chains
58: can completely destroy the warping of the true Fermi surface,
59: leading to a confined state where
60: the renormalized interchain hopping vanishes and a
61: coherent motion perpendicular to the chains is impossible.
62: %In the confined state the system
63: %is a non-Fermi liquid with large anomalous dimension.
64: % anomalous dimension of the Fermi fields
65: % is larger than
66: % unity, so that the momentum distribution is analytic.
67: %We also comment on the
68: %truncation scenario advanced by Rice and co-authors, according to which
69: %only certain sectors of the FS survive in the presence
70: %of strong interactions.
71:
72:
73:
74:
75: \end{abstract}
76:
77: \pacs{71.10.Pm, 71.27.+a,71.10.Hf}
78:
79: \maketitle
80:
81:
82: {\it{Introduction.}}
83: Electron-electron interactions can strongly modify the
84: Fermi surface (FS) of a metal. A well known example is the
85: Pomeranchuk transition, where
86: the symmetry of the FS is spontaneously broken due
87: to strong interactions in the zero-sound channel~\cite{Pomeranchuk58}.
88: However, there are other quantum phase transitions
89: associated with the geometry or the topology
90: of the FS without symmetry breaking, such as the
91: Lifshitz transition \cite{Lifshitz60,Quintanilla06}
92: or the truncation transition \cite{Furukawa98,Ferraz03}, where certain sectors of the FS
93: are washed out by interactions, while others remain intact.
94: % The latter scenario has been studied
95: % in Refs.~[\onlinecite{Furukawa98,Ferraz03}]
96: % in order to understand the
97: % non-Fermi liquid state of the slightly doped cuprates.
98: Another example is the interaction-induced confinement transition,
99: which has been proposed by Clarke, Strong, and Anderson more than
100: ten years ago~\cite{Clarke94}: they considered
101: metallic chains with small interchain hopping $t_{\bot , 0}$.
102: For weak interactions, the FS
103: consists then of two disconnected weakly curved sheets as shown
104: Fig.~\ref{fig:FS}.
105: %
106: %
107: %Recently quantum phase transitions involving the
108: % geometry or the topology of the FS~\cite{Quintanilla06}. Other examples are the
109: % Pomeranchuk transition\cite{Pomeranchuk58} (where the symmetry of the FS is
110: % spontaneously broken), the
111: % Lifshitz transition \cite{Lifshitz60} (which is associated with a change
112: % of the topology of the FS without symmetry breaking), or the
113: % truncation transition~\cite{Furukawa98,Ferraz03}
114: % (where certain sectors of the FS are destroyed by interactions).
115: %
116: %
117: \begin{figure}[tb]
118: % \begin{center}
119: \centering
120: % \psfrag{t}{$\theta$}
121: \epsfig{file=fig1.eps,width=55mm}
122: % \end{center}
123: \vspace{-4mm}
124: \caption{%
125: (Color online)
126: FS of a two-dimensional array of weakly coupled metallic chains.
127: The dashed lines mark the boundary of the first
128: Brillouin zone in the direction perpendicular to the chains.
129: }
130: \label{fig:FS}
131: \end{figure}
132: %
133: %
134: The amplitude of the warping of the FS
135: is proportional to the renormalized interchain hopping $t_{\bot}$.
136: Clarke {\it{et al.}} \cite{Clarke94} suggested that, at least for
137: sufficiently strong interactions and small $t_{\bot,0}$,
138: the renormalized $t_{\bot}$ vanishes.
139: The true FS is then completely flat, so that a coherent motion
140: of the electrons in the direction perpendicular to the chains
141: is not possible (confined coherence).
142:
143: In the past decade the confinement problem in weakly coupled metallic chains
144: has been studied by many
145: authors \cite{Clarke94,Wen90,Kopietz94,Boies95,Arrigoni98},
146: but the results have not converged due to a lack of controlled methods.
147: A simple one-loop calculation \cite{Wen90,Boies95} suggests that
148: the renormalized interchain hopping vanishes if the anomalous dimension
149: $\eta$ of the Luttinger liquid state without interchain hopping is
150: larger than unity. However, this argument does not take the renormalization of $\eta$
151: by interchain hopping into account.
152: Indeed, more refined calculations by Arrigoni \cite{Arrigoni98}
153: suggest that higher order corrections are important and possibly lead to a finite
154: $t_{\bot}$ even for $\eta > 1$.
155: In this Letter we shall re-examine this problem using a novel
156: functional renormalization group (RG) approach involving
157: both fermionic and bosonic fields~\cite{Schuetz05,Ledowski07}.
158: Our main result is that
159: the regime of confined coherence proposed in Ref.~\cite{Clarke94} indeed exists, so that
160: strong interactions can give rise to a non-Fermi liquid
161: normal state in quasi-one-dimensional metals.
162:
163:
164:
165: {\it{Model.}}
166: We start from an effective low energy model
167: for spinless fermions with linearized energy dispersion and
168: density-density interactions. The Euclidean action is
169: \begin{eqnarray}
170: S [ \bar{\psi} , \psi ] & = & \sum_{\alpha } \int_K \bigl[ - i \omega + \alpha v_F \delta k_{\parallel} + \mu_0 ( k_{\bot} ) \bigr]
171: \bar{\psi}_{ K \alpha } {\psi}_{ K \alpha }
172: \nonumber
173: \\
174: & + & \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\alpha \alpha^{\prime}} \int_{\bar{K}}
175: f_{ \alpha \alpha^{\prime} }
176: \bar{\rho}_{ \bar{K} \alpha} \rho_{ \bar{K} \alpha^{\prime}}
177: \; ,
178: \label{eq:Sdef}
179: \end{eqnarray}
180: where
181: $ \mu_0 ( k_{\bot} ) = - \Sigma ( {\bd{k}}_F , i 0 )$
182: is a counter-term involving the exact
183: self-energy at the true FS ${\bd{k}} = {\bd{k}}_F$ and
184: zero frequency,
185: and $\delta k_{\parallel} = k_{\parallel} - \alpha k_F ( k_{\bot} )$.
186: Here $k_{\parallel}$ is the component of the two-dimensional
187: lattice momentum $\bd{k}$ parallel to the chain direction,
188: and
189: $k_{\bot}$ is the corresponding perpendicular component.
190: The FS $\bd{k}_F$
191: can then be parameterized as
192: $ k_{\parallel} = \alpha k_F ( k_{\bot})$, where
193: $\alpha = \pm 1$ labels the two disconnected sheets of the FS,
194: see Fig.~\ref{fig:FS}.
195: We neglect the $k_{\bot}$-dependence of the Fermi velocity $v_F$.
196: The chiral fields $ \psi_{ K \alpha}$ are defined in terms of
197: the usual Fermi fields $\psi_{ k_{\parallel} , k_{\bot} , i \omega }$
198: via
199: $ \psi_{ K \alpha} = \psi_{ \alpha k_{ F} ( k_{\bot} ) + \delta k_{\parallel} ,
200: k_{\bot} , i \omega }$, and the
201: chiral densities $\rho_{ \bar{K} \alpha}$
202: are $
203: \rho_{ \bar{K} \alpha} = \int_K
204: \bar{\psi}_{K \alpha} \psi_{ K + \bar{K} \alpha}
205: $.
206: We use collective labels
207: $K = ( \delta k_{\parallel} , k_{\bot} , i \omega )$ for fermionic
208: and $\bar{K} = ( \bar{k}_{\parallel} , \bar{k}_{\bot} , i \bar{\omega} )$ for
209: bosonic fields,
210: where $\omega$ and $\bar{\omega}$ are Matsubara frequencies.
211: The integration symbols are
212: $
213: \int_K = \int_{k_{\bot}}
214: \int_{ - \Lambda_\parallel}^{\Lambda_\parallel}
215: \frac{d \delta k_{\parallel}}{2 \pi} \int \frac{d \omega}{2 \pi}
216: $
217: and
218: $
219: \int_{\bar{K}} = \int_{\bar{k}_{\bot}}
220: \int_{ - \bar{\Lambda}_\parallel}^{\bar{\Lambda}_\parallel}
221: \frac{d \bar{k}_{\parallel}}{2 \pi} \int \frac{d \bar{\omega}}{2 \pi }
222: $ where for later convenience we have introduced the notation
223: $
224: \int_{ k_{\bot} } = \int_{ - \Lambda_{\bot} }^{ \Lambda_{\bot}}
225: \frac{ d k_{\bot}}{ 2 \Lambda_\bot }$ and
226: $
227: \int_{ \bar{k}_{\bot} } = \int_{ - \bar{\Lambda}_{\bot}}^{ \bar{\Lambda}_{\bot} }
228: \frac{ d \bar{k}_{\bot}}{ 2 \bar{\Lambda}_{\bot} }
229: $.
230: Here $\Lambda_{\parallel}$ is a bandwidth cutoff,
231: $\Lambda_{\bot} = \pi / a_{\bot}$ is the width of the Brillouin zone
232: in transverse direction, and
233: $\bar{\Lambda}_{\bot}$ and $\bar{\Lambda}_\parallel$
234: restrict the momentum transfered by the interaction
235: in the directions parallel and perpendicular to the chains.
236: We assume that $ \bar{\Lambda}_{\parallel} \ll {\rm min} \{ k_F ( k_{\bot} )\}$,
237: so that the interaction
238: $f_{ \alpha \alpha^{\prime} }$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Sdef})
239: does not transfer momentum between the two disconnected sheets of the FS.
240: However, the transverse
241: momentum transfer cutoff $\bar{\Lambda}_{\bot}$ can be of the order of the
242: transverse width $\Lambda_{\bot} = \pi / a_{\bot}$
243: of the Brillouin zone, so that
244: transverse Umklapp scattering is possible.
245: For simplicity we set $\bar{\Lambda}_{\bot} = \Lambda_{\bot}$ and call
246: $ \bar{\Lambda}_{\parallel} = \Lambda_0 $.
247:
248:
249:
250: {\it{Self-consistent perturbation theory.}}
251: To begin with, let us calculate the FS within second order
252: self-consistent perturbation theory. Using the procedure
253: outlined in Ref.~[\onlinecite{Neumayr03}], we obtain
254: the following integral equation for the
255: difference $\delta {k}_F ( k_{\bot} ) = k_{F} ( k_{\bot} ) -
256: k_{F,0 } ( k_\bot )$ between the true Fermi momentum $k_F ( k_{\bot} )$
257: and the corresponding $k_{F,0} ( k_{\bot} )$ without interactions at the same density,
258: \begin{eqnarray}
259: \frac{\delta {k}_F ( k_{\bot} )}{ \Lambda_0 } & = &
260: \left[ - {g}_4 + \frac{ {g}_4^2 + {g}_2^2}{2} \right]
261: \int_{ \bar{k}_{\bot} } \tilde{\Delta} ( k_{\bot} , \bar{k}_{\bot} )
262: \nonumber
263: \\
264: & & \hspace{-10mm} - {g}_2^2
265: \int_{ \bar{k}_{\bot} } \int_{ k_{\bot}^{\prime} }
266: J ( \tilde{\Delta} ( k_{\bot} , \bar{k}_{\bot} );
267: \tilde{\Delta} ( k_{\bot}^{\prime} , \bar{k}_{\bot} ) )
268: \; ,
269: \label{eq:IE}
270: \end{eqnarray}
271: where
272: $ \tilde{\Delta} ( k_{\bot} , \bar{k}_{\bot} ) =
273: [ k_F ( k_{\bot} ) - k_F ( k_{\bot} + \bar{k}_{\bot} )]/ {\Lambda}_{0}$, and
274: \begin{equation}
275: J ( \tilde{\Delta} ; \tilde{\Delta}^{\prime} ) =
276: \frac{ \tilde{\Delta} + \tilde{\Delta}^{\prime}}{4} \ln \left[
277: \frac{ 4 - ( \tilde{\Delta} - \tilde{\Delta}^{\prime} )^2 }{
278: ( \tilde{\Delta} + \tilde{\Delta}^{\prime} )^2} \right]
279: \; .
280: \label{eq:Ydef}
281: \end{equation}
282: The dimensionless couplings $g_2$ and $g_4$ are defined via
283: $2 \pi g_4 = \nu_0 f_{++} = \nu_0 f_{--}$ and
284: $2 \pi g_2 = \nu_0 f_{+-} = \nu_0 f_{-+}$, where
285: the factor $\nu_0 = \Lambda_{\bot} ( \pi v_F )^{-1} = ( a_{\bot} v_F )^{-1}$ is introduced
286: for convenience.
287: We have solved Eq.~(\ref{eq:IE}) numerically, but for small $t_{\bot}$
288: we can also obtain an approximate analytic solution
289: using the fact that in this case
290: the dominant renormalization of the FS is due to
291: the logarithmic term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Ydef}).
292: Suppose that the bare FS is of the form
293: $
294: k_{F,0} ( k_{\bot} ) = \bar{k}_F + t_0 \cos ( k_{\bot} a_{\bot} )
295: $
296: where $t_0 = 2 t_{\bot,0} / v_F \ll \Lambda_0$
297: and the average $\bar{k}_F$ is fixed by the total density.
298: The renormalized FS is then given by
299: $
300: k_F ( k_{\bot} ) = \bar{k}_F + t \cos ( k_{\bot} a_{\bot} ) + \ldots
301: $, where $t$ is proportional to the renormalized nearest neighbor
302: interchain hopping,
303: and the ellipsis denotes higher harmonics corresponding to longer range hoppings.
304: From the numerical solution of the integral equation
305: (\ref{eq:IE}) we find that for $g_2 , g_4 \ll 1$ the higher harmonics
306: are indeed small. Then Eq.~(\ref{eq:IE}) can be reduced
307: to a transcendental equation for $t$, which to
308: leading logarithmic order in $t/ \Lambda_0$
309: can be written as
310: $t / t_0 = [1 + R ( t ) ]^{-1}$,
311: with
312: \begin{equation}
313: R ( t ) \approx \frac{g_4}{2} - \frac{{g}_4^2}{4}
314: % \nonumber
315: % \\
316: % & & \hspace{-10mm}
317: + \frac{{g}_2^2}{2}
318: \ln ( {\Lambda}_0 / | t| )
319: \; .
320: \label{eq:Rdef}
321: \end{equation}
322: A similar relation has been obtained
323: previously \cite{Fabrizio93,Ledowski07} for the
324: difference between the Fermi momenta associated with the bonding and the
325: anti-bonding band in two coupled spinless chains.
326: Note that to first order in the bare interaction
327: $ R ( t ) \propto {g}_4$, so that a repulsive interaction ${g}_4 >0$
328: reduces
329: the warping of the FS, while for ${g}_4 < 0$ the warping
330: of the FS is enhanced. However, for $t_{\bot} \rightarrow 0$ the
331: logarithmic term proportional to ${g}_2^2$ always dominates and
332: predicts an interaction-induced reduction of the FS warping,
333: irrespective of the sign of the interaction.
334:
335:
336: {\it{Functional RG approach.}}
337: % Because, the confinement transition is a strong-coupling phenomenon
338: % the usual weak coupling truncation of the formally exact hierarchy
339: % of flow equations for the irreducible vertices~\cite{Kopietz01} is not sufficient.
340: % However, sensible strong-coupling extrapolations can be obtained
341: % by decoupling certain interaction channels by means of
342: % Hubbard-Stratonovich fields and considering then the FRG flow of the
343: % fixed Fermi-Bose theory~\cite{Schuetz05}.
344: % In Ref.~\cite{Ledowski07}
345: % we have successfully used this strategy to
346: % to calculate the renormalized FS of two metallic chains
347: % in the regime where the relevant dimensionless coupling
348: % constant is of the order of unity.
349: We now generalize the RG approach developed in Ref.~[\onlinecite{Ledowski07}]
350: in the context of a simplified two-chain model
351: to the more interesting two-dimensional case considered here.
352: The method has been described in detail previously~\cite{Ledowski07},
353: so that we will be rather brief here.
354: In the momentum transfer cutoff scheme~\cite{Schuetz05}
355: we decouple the density-density interaction by means of a
356: bosonic Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation
357: and then use the maximal momentum carried by the boson field
358: as flow parameter $\Lambda$ of the RG.
359: Our initial cutoff is thus
360: $\Lambda = \Lambda_0 = \bar{\Lambda}_{\parallel}$.
361: Eliminating boson fields with momenta in the range
362: $\Lambda < | \bar{k}_{\parallel} | < \Lambda_0$
363: we obtain a new effective action, whose vertices
364: are determined by
365: a formally exact hierarchy of functional RG flow equations.
366: To calculate the true FS, we need the flow equation
367: for the relevant part $r_l ( k_{\bot} )$
368: of the irreducible fermionic self-energy $\Sigma_{\Lambda} ( K , \alpha )$,
369: which is defined via
370: $r_l ( k_{\bot} ) = Z_l ( k_{\bot} ) [
371: \Sigma_{\Lambda} ( {\bd{k}}_F , i0, \alpha )
372: + \mu_0 ( k_{\bot} ) ]/ v_F \Lambda $.
373: Here $l = \ln ( \Lambda_0 / \Lambda )$ and
374: $Z_l ( k_{\bot})$ is the flowing wave-function
375: renormalization. The functional RG flow equation for
376: $r_l ( k_{\bot} )$ is of the form
377: \begin{equation}
378: \partial_l r_l ( k_{\bot} ) = [ 1 - \eta_l ( k_{\bot} ) ] r_l ( k_{\bot} )
379: + \dot{\Gamma}_l ( k_{\bot} )
380: \; ,
381: \label{eq:flowr}
382: \end{equation}
383: where $\eta_l ( k_{\bot} ) = - \partial_l \ln Z_l ( k_{\bot} )$
384: is the flowing anomalous dimension.
385: An approximate expression
386: for the inhomogeneity $\dot{\Gamma}_l ( k_{\bot} )$
387: is given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:dotGamma}) below.
388: As long as $\eta_{\infty} ( k_{\bot} ) < 1$, the FS is well defined.
389: The shift $\delta k_F ( k_{\bot} )$ of the FS due to interactions can then be
390: obtained from the requirement that the initial value $r_0 ( k_{\bot} )$
391: should be fine tuned so that the relevant coupling
392: $r_{l} ( k_{\bot} )$ flows into a fixed point \cite{Kopietz01}.
393: This leads to the following exact integral equation for
394: the FS,
395: \begin{equation}
396: \frac{ \delta k_F ( k_{\bot} ) }{\Lambda_0}
397: = r_0 ( k_{\bot} ) =
398: - \int_0^{\infty} d l e^{ -l + \int_0^l d t \eta_t ( k_{\bot} ) }
399: \dot{\Gamma}_l ( k_{\bot} )
400: \; .
401: \label{eq:r0flow}
402: \end{equation}
403: Using the same truncation strategy as
404: in Ref.~[\onlinecite{Ledowski07}],
405: we approximate
406: \begin{eqnarray}
407: \dot{\Gamma}_l ( k_{\bot} )
408: & = &
409: - \int_{ \bar{k}_{\bot}} \int \frac{ d \bar{q} d \bar{\epsilon}}{(2 \pi )^2 }
410: % \nonumber
411: % \\
412: % & & \hspace{-25mm} \times
413: \frac{ \delta ( | \bar{q} | -1 ) [ {\bf{F}}_l ( \bar{q} , i \bar{\epsilon} ,
414: \bar{k}_{\bot}) ]_{\alpha \alpha} e^{ i \bar{\epsilon} 0}
415: }{ i \bar{\epsilon}
416: - \alpha \bar{q} - \tilde{\Delta}_l ( k_{\bot} , \bar{k}_{\bot}) }
417: \nonumber
418: \\
419: & & \times
420: \gamma_l ( k_{\bot} , \bar{k}_{\bot} )
421: \gamma_l ( k_{\bot} + \bar{k}_{\bot}, - \bar{k}_{\bot} )
422: \; ,
423: \label{eq:dotGamma}
424: \end{eqnarray}
425: where
426: $
427: \tilde{\Delta}_l ( k_{\bot} , \bar{k}_{\bot}) =
428: \tilde{k}_{F,l} ( k_{\bot} ) - \tilde{k}_{F,l} ( k_{\bot} + \bar{k}_{\bot} )$
429: with $\tilde{k}_{F,l} ( k_{\bot} ) = k_F ( k_{\bot} ) / \Lambda - r_l ( k_{\bot} )$.
430: The inverse of the $2 \times 2$-matrix
431: ${\bf{F}}_l ( \bar{q} , i \bar{\epsilon} , \bar{k}_{\bot} )$
432: is defined via
433: %(we write $\bar{Q} = ( \bar{q} , i \bar{\epsilon} )$),
434: \begin{equation}
435: [ {\bf{F}}_l ( \bar{q} , i \bar{\epsilon},
436: \bar{k}_{\bot} )]^{-1}_{\alpha \alpha^{\prime} }
437: = [ \nu_0 {\bf{f}} ]^{-1}_{ \alpha \alpha^{\prime}} +
438: \delta_{ \alpha \alpha^{\prime}} \tilde{\Pi}_l ( \bar{q} , i \bar{\epsilon},
439: \bar{k}_{\bot} , \alpha)
440: \; ,
441: \end{equation}
442: where $\bf{f}$ is a matrix in chirality space with
443: elements
444: $[ {\bf{f}} ]_{\alpha \alpha^{\prime} } = f_{\alpha \alpha^{\prime} }$, and
445: $\tilde{\Pi}_l ( \bar{q} , i
446: \bar{\epsilon} , \bar{k}_{\bot} , \alpha)$ is the rescaled polarization associated with
447: fermions of chirality $\alpha$, for which we use the
448: adiabatic approximation~\cite{Ledowski07}
449: \begin{eqnarray}
450: \tilde{\Pi}_l ( \bar{q} , i \bar{\epsilon}, \bar{k}_{\bot}, \alpha ) & = & \frac{1}{2 \pi }
451: \int_{ k_{\bot}}
452: \frac{ \tilde{\Delta}_l ( k_{\bot} , \bar{k}_{\bot} ) + \alpha \bar{q} }{ \tilde{\Delta}_l ( k_{\bot} ,
453: \bar{k}_{\bot} ) + \alpha \bar{q} - i \bar{\epsilon} }
454: \nonumber
455: \\\
456: & \times & \gamma_l (
457: k_{\bot} , \bar{k}_{\bot} ) \gamma_l (
458: k_{\bot} + \bar{k}_{\bot} , - \bar{k}_{\bot} )
459: \; .
460: \label{eq:poladiabat}
461: \end{eqnarray}
462: The anomalous dimension is in this approximation
463: \begin{eqnarray}
464: \eta_l ( k_{\bot} ) & = &
465: - \int_{ \bar{k}_{\bot}} \int \frac{ d \bar{q} d \bar{\epsilon}}{(2 \pi )^2 }
466: \frac{ \delta ( | \bar{q} | -1 ) [ {\bf{F}}_l ( \bar{q} , i \bar{\epsilon} ,
467: \bar{k}_{\bot}) ]_{\alpha \alpha} }{ [ i \bar{\epsilon}
468: - \alpha \bar{q} - \tilde{\Delta}_l ( k_{\bot} , \bar{k}_{\bot})]^2 }
469: \nonumber
470: \\
471: & & \times
472: \gamma_l ( k_{\bot} , \bar{k}_{\bot} )
473: \gamma_l ( k_{\bot} + \bar{k}_{\bot}, - \bar{k}_{\bot} )
474: \; .
475: \label{eq:etaflow}
476: \end{eqnarray}
477: Finally, the dimensionless vertex
478: $\gamma_l ( k_{\bot} , \bar{k}_{\bot} )$
479: with one bosonic and two fermionic external legs
480: (where $k_{\bot}$ labels the incoming fermion and
481: $\bar{k}_{\bot}$ labels the boson) satisfies
482: the flow equation
483: \begin{eqnarray}
484: \partial_l \gamma_l ( k_{\bot} , \bar{k}_{\bot} )
485: & = & - \frac{1}{2} [ \eta_l ( k_{\bot} ) + \eta_l ( k_{\bot} + \bar{k}_{\bot}) ]
486: \gamma_l ( k_{\bot} , \bar{k}_{\bot} )
487: \nonumber
488: \\
489: & & \hspace{-25mm} -
490: \int_{ \bar{k}_{\bot}^{\prime} } \int \frac{ d \bar{q} d \bar{\epsilon}}{(2 \pi )^2 }
491: \delta ( | \bar{q} | -1 ) [ {\bf{F}}_l ( \bar{q} , i \bar{\epsilon} ,
492: \bar{k}_{\bot}^{\prime} ) ]_{\alpha \alpha}
493: \nonumber
494: \\
495: & & \hspace{-23mm} \times
496: \frac{ \gamma_l ( k_{\bot} + \bar{k}_{\bot }^{\prime} , \bar{k}_{\bot} )
497: \gamma_l ( k_{\bot} , \bar{k}_{\bot}^{\prime} ) \gamma_l ( k_{\bot} + \bar{k}_{\bot } + \bar{k}_{\bot}^{\prime} , - \bar{k}_{\bot}^{\prime} ) }{
498: [ i \bar{\epsilon}
499: - \alpha \bar{q} - \tilde{\Delta}_l ( k_{\bot} , \bar{k}_{\bot}^{\prime} )]
500: [ i \bar{\epsilon}
501: - \alpha \bar{q} - \tilde{\Delta}_l ( k_{\bot} + \bar{k}_{\bot} , \bar{k}_{\bot}^{\prime} )]
502: }
503: \; ,
504: \nonumber
505: \\
506: & &
507: \label{eq:gammaflow}
508: \end{eqnarray}
509: with initial condition $\gamma_{l=0}( k_{\bot} , \bar{k}_{\bot} ) =1$.
510: A graphical representation of Eq.~(\ref{eq:gammaflow}) is
511: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:threevertex}.
512: %
513: %
514: \begin{figure}[tb]
515: % \begin{center}
516: \centering
517: % \psfrag{t}{$\theta$}
518: \epsfig{file=fig2.eps,width=55mm}
519: % \end{center}
520: \vspace{-4mm}
521: \caption{%
522: Diagrammatic representation of the flow equation (\ref{eq:gammaflow})
523: for the three-legged vertex with one bosonic (wavy line) and
524: two fermionic (solid lines with arrows) external legs.
525: The thick wavy line with a slash denotes the bosonic single scale propagator.
526: Additional contributions involving irrelevant higher order vertices
527: are omitted, see Refs.~[\onlinecite{Schuetz05,Ledowski07}].
528: }
529: \label{fig:threevertex}
530: \end{figure}
531: %
532: %
533:
534: {\it{Results.}}
535: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:flowr})-(\ref{eq:gammaflow}) form a closed system of flow
536: equations for the rescaled self-energy at the FS
537: $r_l ( k_{\bot})$, the flowing
538: anomalous dimension $\eta_l ( k_{\bot} )$, and the three-legged vertex
539: $\gamma_l ( k_{\bot} , \bar{k}_{\bot} )$.
540: Of course, these equations can only be solved numerically, but the
541: qualitative behavior of the solutions
542: can also be extracted analytically.
543: To begin with, let us establish the
544: relation with the perturbative Eq.~(\ref{eq:IE}).
545: We set $g_4=0$ from now on, because
546: the dominant renormalization of the FS is due to the
547: $g_2$-process.
548: In the simplest approximation, we set
549: $\gamma_l ( k_{\bot} , \bar{k}_{\bot} ) \approx 1$,
550: $\eta_l ( k_{\bot} ) \approx 0$
551: and replace the flowing FS
552: $\tilde{k}_{F,l} ( k_{\bot} ) = k_F ( k_{\bot}) / \Lambda -
553: r_l ( k_{\bot} )$ by $k_F ( k_{\bot} ) / \Lambda $.
554: Then we obtain from Eqs.~(\ref{eq:r0flow}) and (\ref{eq:dotGamma})
555: to leading logarithmic order
556: \begin{equation}
557: \frac{\delta k_F ( k_{\bot} )}{\Lambda_0}
558: = [ ( 1 - g_2^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}} -1 ]
559: %\frac{ 1 - \sqrt{ 1 - g_2^2}}{\sqrt{ 1 - g_2^2}}
560: \int_{\bar{k}_{\bot}}
561: \tilde{\Delta} ( k_{\bot} , \bar{k}_{\bot} )
562: \ln | \tilde{\Delta} ( k_{\bot} , \bar{k}_{\bot} ) |
563: \; .
564: \end{equation}
565: Expanding in harmonics we obtain as before
566: $t / t_0 = [ 1 + R ( t )]^{-1}$, but now with
567: \begin{eqnarray}
568: R ( t ) & \approx &
569: [ ( 1 - g_2^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}} -1 ]
570: %\frac{ 1 - \sqrt{ 1 - g_2^2}}{ \sqrt{ 1 - g_2^2}}
571: \ln ( {\Lambda_0 }/{ | t| } )
572: \; ,
573: \label{eq:R2}
574: \end{eqnarray}
575: which reduces to Eq.~(\ref{eq:Rdef}) to leading order in $g_2$.
576: Obviously, $R ( t ) \rightarrow \infty$ for $g_2 \rightarrow 1$,
577: indicating a confinement transition at strong coupling, where the renormalized
578: interchain hopping $t$ vanishes.
579: However, from our previous work
580: on two coupled chains \cite{Ledowski07}
581: we know that vertex corrections and
582: wave-function renormalizations
583: can possibly change this scenario.
584:
585: To investigate this, let us first consider the
586: RG flow of the vertex $\gamma_l ( k_{\bot} , \bar{k}_{\bot} )$ numerically.
587: Representative results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:flowvertex}.
588: % %
589: % \begin{minipage}{27.0mm}
590: % % \epsfig{file=3.2.eps,width=28mm}
591: % \epsfig{file=Ev0.4T3.2.eps,width=27.0mm}
592: % \end{minipage}
593: % \begin{minipage}{24.4mm}
594: % % \epsfig{file=6.4.eps,width=28mm}
595: % \epsfig{file=Ev0.4T6.8.eps,width=24.4mm}
596: % \end{minipage}
597: % \begin{minipage}{24.4mm}
598: % % \epsfig{file=20.eps,width=28mm}
599: % \epsfig{file=Ev0.4T20.eps,width=24.4mm}
600: % \end{minipage}
601: % % \end{center}
602: % \hspace{1mm}
603: % \begin{minipage}{4.5mm}
604: % % \epsfig{file=20.eps,width=28mm}
605: % \epsfig{file=Legend.eps,width=4.5mm}
606: % \end{minipage}
607: %
608: \begin{figure}[tb]
609: \vspace{5mm}
610: % \begin{center}
611: \centering
612: \epsfig{file=fig3.eps,width=8.4cm}
613: %\epsfig{file=fig3.eps,width=8.4cm}
614: % \begin{minipage}{27.0mm}
615: % \epsfig{file=fig3a.eps,width=27.0mm}
616: % % \epsfig{file=Ev0.4T3.2.eps,width=27.7mm}
617: % \end{minipage}
618: % \begin{minipage}{24.4mm}
619: % \epsfig{file=fig3b.eps,width=24.4mm}
620: % % \epsfig{file=Ev0.4T6.8.eps,width=24.4mm}
621: % \end{minipage}
622: % \begin{minipage}{24.4mm}
623: % \epsfig{file=fig3c.eps,width=24.4mm}
624: % % \epsfig{file=Ev0.4T20.eps,width=24.4mm}
625: % \end{minipage}
626: % % \end{center}
627: % \hspace{1mm}
628: % \begin{minipage}{4.5mm}
629: % \epsfig{file=fig3d.eps,width=4.5mm}
630: % % \epsfig{file=Legend.eps,width=3.5mm}
631: % \end{minipage}
632:
633:
634: \caption{%
635: (Color online) Typical evolution of the vertex $\gamma_l ( k_{\bot} , \bar{k}_{\bot} )$
636: for different values of the flow parameter $l$.
637: To evaluate the flow we have expanded in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:dotGamma}) and (\ref{eq:gammaflow}) up to $g_2^2$.
638: We have assumed a
639: harmonic bare FS with amplitude $t_0 / \Lambda_0 = 10^{-3}$
640: and bare coupling $g_2 =0.4$
641: From left to right
642: $l= \frac{1}{2}l_c, l_c,3l_c$ and $\gamma_{\min}= 0.999989,0.981,0.85$,
643: where the crossover scale $l_c$ (see text) can be approximated by
644: $l_c \approx - \ln (2 t_0 / \Lambda_0 )$ for small $g_2$.
645: }
646: \label{fig:flowvertex}
647: \end{figure}
648: %
649: %
650: Obviously,
651: the dependence of $\gamma_l ( k_{\bot} , \bar{k}_{\bot} )$
652: on the fermionic momentum
653: $k_{\bot}$, which develops at intermediate scales $l$, is smoothed out again at
654: the scale $l_c$ where the
655: reduced cutoff $\Lambda_c = \Lambda_0 e^{-l_c} $ becomes comparable
656: with the warping of the renormalized FS.
657: Defining the flowing dimensionless
658: nearest neighbor interchain hopping $\tilde{t}_l$ via
659: $\tilde{k}_{F,l} = \bar{k}_F / \Lambda + \tilde{t}_l
660: \cos ( k_{\bot} a_{\bot} ) + \ldots$,
661: the crossover scale $l_c$ can be defined
662: self-consistently via
663: $2 \tilde{t}_{l=l_c} = 1$.
664: %The corresponding RG flow of the
665: %rescaled first harmonic $\tilde{t}_l$ of the
666: %FS, defined via
667: %$\tilde{k}_{F,l} = \bar{k}_F / \Lambda + \tilde{t}_l
668: % \cos ( k_{\bot} a_{\bot} ) + \ldots$,
669: %is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:flowA}.
670: %
671: %
672: % \begin{figure}[tb]
673: % % \begin{center}
674: % \centering
675: % % \psfrag{t}{$\theta$}
676: % \epsfig{file=FlowAmplitude0.001.eps,width=50mm}
677: % % \end{center}
678: % \vspace{-4mm}
679: % \caption{%
680: % (Color online) RG flow of the dimensionless interchain hopping
681: % $\tilde{t}_l$
682: % for the same parameters as in Fig.~\ref{fig:flowvertex}.
683: % }
684: % \label{fig:flowA}
685: % \end{figure}
686: % %
687: %
688: %Clearly, the FS flow is dominated by the regime
689: %$0 < l < l_c$.
690: Because of the weak dependence
691: of $\gamma_l ( k_{\bot} , \bar{k}_{\bot} )$
692: on the fermionic momentum ${k}_{\bot}$, we may approximate
693: $\gamma_l ( k_{\bot} , \bar{k}_{\bot} ) \approx
694: \gamma_l ( 0 , \bar{k}_{\bot} ) \equiv \gamma_l (\bar{k}_{\bot} ) $.
695: Moreover, using the fact that close to the confinement transition $|\tilde{t}_l| \ll 1$,
696: we obtain from
697: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:flowr})-(\ref{eq:gammaflow})
698: to leading order in $\tilde{t}_l$
699: the following RG flow equation for the effective interaction
700: $g_l ( \bar{k}_{\bot} ) = g_2 \gamma_l^2 ( \bar{k}_{\bot} )$,
701: \begin{equation}
702: \partial_l g_l ( \bar{k}_{\bot} ) = -
703: \frac{ 4 \sin^2 ( \bar{k}_{\bot} a_{\bot}/2 )
704: g_l ( \bar{k}_{\bot} ) u_l^2 \tilde{t}_l^2 }{
705: \sqrt{ 1 - u_l^2} [ 1 + \sqrt{ 1 - u_l^2} ]^3}
706: \; ,
707: \label{eq:uflowfinal}
708: \end{equation}
709: with $u_l = g_l ( \pi / a_{\bot} )$.
710: Note that the flow of $g_l ( \bar{k}_{\bot} )$ is driven by the
711: component $ g_l ( \pi / a_{\bot} )$ of the interaction involving
712: momentum transfer $\bar{k}_{\bot} = \pi / a_{\bot}$;
713: in a simplified two-chain model
714: this corresponds to the pair-tunneling process~\cite{Fabrizio93}.
715: The flow of the rescaled interchain hopping
716: $\tilde{t}_l$ is determined by
717: $\partial_l \tilde{t}_l = ( 1 - \bar{\eta}_l ) \tilde{t}_l + O ( \tilde{t}_l^2 )$,
718: % \begin{equation}
719: % \partial_l \tilde{t}_l =
720: % %= ( 1 - \eta^A_l ) \tilde{A}_l + O ( \tilde{A}_l^2 )
721: % \left[ 1- 2
722: % \int_{ \bar{k}_{\bot}}
723: % \sin^2 ( \bar{k}_{\bot} a_{\bot} /2 )
724: % \frac{ 1 - \sqrt{ 1 - g_l^2 ( \bar{k}_{\bot} ) }}{
725: % \sqrt{ 1 - g_l^2 ( \bar{k}_{\bot} ) } } \right]
726: % \tilde{t}_l
727: % \; ,
728: % \label{eq:Aflow2}
729: % \end{equation}
730: where $\bar{\eta}_l$ is
731: the weighted FS average
732: $\bar{\eta}_l =
733: 2
734: \int_{ {k}_{\bot}}
735: \sin^2 ( {k}_{\bot} a_{\bot} /2 )
736: \eta_l( {k}_{\bot} )$
737: of the flowing anomalous dimension, which for small
738: $\tilde{t}_l$ can be approximated by
739: $ \eta_l( k_{\bot} ) =
740: [ 1 - g_l^2 ( k_{\bot} ) ]^{- \frac{1}{2}} -1$.
741: % \; .
742: % \label{eq:etadef}
743: % \end{equation}
744: %\begin{equation}
745: % \bar{\eta}_l =
746: % 2
747: % \int_{ \bar{k}_{\bot}}
748: % \sin^2 ( \bar{k}_{\bot} a_{\bot} /2 )
749: % \eta_l( \bar{k}_{\bot} ) \; , \;
750: % \eta_l( \bar{k}_{\bot} ) =
751: % \frac{ 1 - \sqrt{ 1 - g_l^2 ( \bar{k}_{\bot} ) }}{
752: % \sqrt{ 1 - g_l^2 ( \bar{k}_{\bot} ) } }
753: % \; ,
754: % \label{eq:etat}
755: % \end{equation}
756: From the numerical solution of these equations we find that,
757: for a given $t_{\bot , 0} \ll v_F \Lambda_0$, there exists a critical value of the
758: bare interaction $g_{2}$ where the renormalized $\tilde{t} = \tilde{t}_{\infty}$
759: vanishes, corresponding to a confinement
760: transition to a state with vanishing interchain hopping $t_{\bot}$ and flat FS.
761: In Fig.~\ref{fig:flowAu} we show the ratio $t_{\bot} / t_{\bot ,0}$
762: together with the renormalized interaction $u = g_{\infty} ( \pi / a_{\bot} )$
763: as a function of
764: the bare interaction for small $\tilde{t}_0 = 2 t_{\bot ,0} / (v_F \Lambda_0)$.
765: %
766: %
767: \begin{figure}[tb]
768: % \begin{center}
769: \centering
770: % \psfrag{t}{$\theta$}
771: \epsfig{file=fig4.eps,width=45mm}
772: % \epsfig{file=Numerics1.eps,width=45mm}
773: % \end{center}
774: \vspace{-4mm}
775: \caption{%
776: (Color online)
777: Renormalized nearest neighbor interchain hopping
778: %$\tilde{t} = \tilde{t}_{\infty}$
779: $t_{\bot}$ and renormalized
780: interaction $u = g_{\infty} ( \pi / a_{\bot} )$
781: as a function of the bare
782: interaction $g_2$ for $\tilde{t}_0 = 2 t_{\bot,0} / (v_F \Lambda_0 ) = 0.1$
783: as obtained from the numerical solution
784: of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:dotGamma}) and (\ref{eq:gammaflow}).
785: For the perturbative curves we have expanded in these equations up
786: to order $g_2^2$.}
787: \label{fig:flowAu}
788: \end{figure}
789: %
790: %
791: A projection of the RG flow in the $\tilde{t}$-$u$ plane
792: %numerical solutions of the full equations
793: %(\ref{eq:flowr})-(\ref{eq:gammaflow})
794: is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:flowdiagram}.
795: %
796: %
797: \begin{figure}[tb]
798: % \begin{center}
799: \centering
800: % \psfrag{t}{$\theta$}
801: \epsfig{file=fig5.eps,width=45mm}
802: % \epsfig{file=FlowV6.eps,width=55mm}
803: % \end{center}
804: \vspace{-4mm}
805: \caption{%
806: (Color online)
807: Projection of the RG flow in the $\tilde{t}$-$u$ plane.
808: The trajectories are obtained from the numerical solution of Eq.(\ref{eq:uflowfinal}) and
809: $\tilde{t}_l = ( 1 - \bar{\eta}_l ) \tilde{t}_l$, where $\bar{\eta}_l$ is the
810: weighted FS average of the flowing anomalous dimension
811: $\eta_l ( k_{\bot} )$ defined in the text.
812: %Eq.~(\ref{eq:etadef}).
813: }
814: \label{fig:flowdiagram}
815: \end{figure}
816: %
817: %
818: At the confinement transition the system is certainly not a
819: Fermi liquid, because the anomalous dimension
820: $\eta_l ( k_{\bot} )$ is larger than unity and a
821: sharp FS cannot be defined~\cite{Kopietz01}.
822: The physical properties of the model in the confined phase
823: remain to be explored.
824:
825:
826:
827:
828: {\it{Summary and conclusions.}}
829: We have
830: shown that sufficiently strong interactions
831: involving momentum transfers parallel to the chains can lead to a
832: confinement transition in highly anisotropic
833: quasi-one-dimensional metals.
834: At the confinement transition the curvature
835: of the two disconnected sheets of the FS vanishes, so that
836: a coherent motion of the electrons perpendicular to the chains
837: is not possible and the electronic motion is one-dimensional.
838: Our calculation thus supports the existence of a confined state
839: in quasi-one-dimensional metals, as originally suggested by
840: Clarke, Strong, and Anderson \cite{Clarke94}.
841: In the confined state the system is a non-Fermi liquid with large anomalous dimension.
842: From the numerical solution of our functional RG equations we found no
843: evidence for a truncation transition~\cite{Furukawa98,Ferraz03}, where
844: only certain sectors of the FS are washed out by interactions.
845:
846:
847: Because in this work we have considered only spinless fermions
848: and interactions
849: which do not transfer momentum between the two disconnected sheets of the FS,
850: our model (\ref{eq:Sdef}) is too simple to
851: describe the competition between confinement and the
852: tendency to develop some kind of
853: long-range order, such as charge-density or spin-density waves.
854: In principle, spin fluctuations can be
855: taken into account with the help of another Hubbard-Stratonovich field,
856: but the analysis of the resulting RG equations for the coupled
857: boson-fermion model requires a substantial extension of our
858: calculation.
859:
860:
861:
862:
863:
864: %while
865: %other sectors remain well defined with finite curvature.
866: %
867: % At this point we cannot exclude the possibility
868: % that in a certain parameter regime
869: % a more thorough numerical analysis of
870: % our non-perturbative FRG
871: % equations (\ref{eq:flowr})-(\ref{eq:gammaflow})
872: % would predict a truncated FS, where only certain
873: % parts of the FS remain well-defined \cite{Furukawa98,Ferraz03}.
874: %Our method can also be used to calculate the renormalization
875: %of an almost square shaped FS, which has been observed
876: %in the underdoped cuprates~\cite{Abrecht03}.
877:
878: We thank A. Ferraz and F. H. L. Essler for useful discussions.
879:
880: \vspace{-7mm}
881:
882: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
883: %
884: \bibitem{Pomeranchuk58}
885: I. J. Pomeranchuk, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf{35}}, 524 (1958)
886: [Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf{8}}, 361 (1958)].
887: %
888: \bibitem{Lifshitz60}
889: I. M. Lifshitz, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf{38}}, 1569 (1960)
890: [Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf{11}}, 1130 (1960)].
891: %
892: \bibitem{Quintanilla06}
893: J. Quintanilla and A. J. Schofield, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{74}}, 115126 (2006).
894: %
895: \bibitem{Furukawa98}
896: N. Furukawa, T. M. Rice, and M. Salmhofer, Phys. Rev. Lett.
897: {\bf{81}}, 3195 (1998);
898: C. Honerkamp, M. Salmhofer, N. Furukawa, and T. M. Rice,
899: Phys. Rev. B {\bf{63}}, 035109 (2001).
900: %
901: \bibitem{Ferraz03}
902: A. Ferraz, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{68}}, 075115 (2003); H. Freire, E. Correa, and
903: A. Ferraz, {\it{ibid.}} {\bf{71}}, 165113 (2005).
904: %
905: \bibitem{Clarke94}
906: D. G. Clarke, S. P. Strong, and P. W. Anderson,
907: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf{72}}, 3218 (1994);
908: {\it{ibid.}} {\bf{74}}, 4499 (1995); D. G. Clarke and S. P.
909: Strong, Adv. Phys. {\bf{46}}, 454 (1997).
910: %
911: \bibitem{Wen90}
912: X. G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{42}}, 6623 (1990).
913: %
914: \bibitem{Kopietz94}
915: P. Kopietz, V. Meden, and K. Sch\"{o}nhammer, Phys. Rev. Lett.
916: {\bf{74}}, 2997 (1995); Phys. Rev. B {\bf{56}}, 7232 (1997).
917: %
918: \bibitem{Boies95}
919: D. Boies, C. Bourbonnais and A.-M. S. Tremblay, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf{74}}, 968 (1995).
920: %
921: \bibitem{Arrigoni98}
922: E. Arrigoni, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf{80}}, 790 (1998);
923: {\it{ibid.}} {\bf{83}}, 128 (1999);
924: Phys. Rev. B {\bf{61}}, 7909 (2000).
925: %
926: \bibitem{Schuetz05}
927: F. Sch\"{u}tz, L. Bartosch, and P. Kopietz,
928: Phys. Rev. B {\bf{72}}, 035107 (2005).
929: %
930: \bibitem{Ledowski07}
931: S. Ledowski and P. Kopietz, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{75}}, 045134 (2007).
932: %
933: \bibitem{Neumayr03}
934: A. Neumayr and W. Metzner, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{67}}, 035112 (2003).
935: %
936: % \bibitem{Pomenanchuk58}
937: % I. J. Pomeranchuk, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf{35}}, 524 (1958)
938: % [Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf{8}}, 361 (1958)].
939: %
940: %
941: % \bibitem{Furukawa98}
942: % N. Furukawa, T. M. Rice, and M. Salmhofer, Phys. Rev. Lett.
943: % {\bf{81}}, 3195 (1998);
944: % C. Honerkamp, M. Salmhofer, N. Furukawa, and T. M. Rice,
945: % Phys. Rev. B {\bf{63}}, 035109 (2001).
946: % %
947: %\bibitem{Dusuel03}
948: %S. Dusuel and B. Dou\c{c}ot, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{67}}, 205111 (2003).
949: %
950: \bibitem{Fabrizio93}
951: M. Fabrizio, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{48}}, 15838 (1993);
952: S. Ledowski, P. Kopietz, and A. Ferraz, {\it{ibid.}} {\bf{71}}, 235106 (2005).
953: %
954: \bibitem{Kopietz01}
955: P. Kopietz and T. Busche, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{64}}, 155101 (2001);
956: %
957: %\bibitem{Ledowski03}
958: S. Ledowski and P. Kopietz, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter {\bf{15}}, 4779 (2003).
959: %
960: %
961: %\bibitem{Nozieres64}
962: %P. Nozi\`{e}res, {\it{Theory of Interacting Fermi Systems}}, (Benjamin, New York, 1964).
963: %.
964: %
965: %\bibitem{Kopietz01}
966: %P. Kopietz and T. Busche, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{64}}, 155101 (2001);
967: %M. Salmhofer and C. Honerkamp, Prog. Theor. Physics {\bf{105}}, 1 (2001).
968: %
969: %\bibitem{Abrecht03}
970: % M. Abrecht, D. Ariosa, D. Cloetta,
971: %S. Mitrovic, M. Onellion, X. X. Xi, G. Margaritondo, and D. Pavuna,
972: %Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf{91}}, 057002 (2003).
973: %
974: %\bibitem{Roldan06}
975: %R. Rold\'{a}n, M. P. L\'{o}pez-Sancho, F. Guinea, and
976: %S.-W. Tsai, cond-mat/0612368.
977: %
978:
979: \end{thebibliography}
980:
981:
982: \end{document}