arxiv:cond-mat/ v1 [cond-mat.str-el] 15 Dec 2003

Transcription

1 Imperial Collee Preprints PREPRINT arxiv:cond-mat/ v1 [cond-mat.str-el] 15 Dec 2003 First- and Second Order Phase Transitions in the Holstein- Hubbard Model W. Koller 1, D. Meyer 1, Y. Ōno2 and A. C. Hewson 1 1 Department of Mathematics, Imperial Collee, London SW7 2BZ, UK 2 Department of Physics, Niiata University, Niiata, Ikarashi, , Japan PACS Fd Lattice fermion models (Hubbard model, etc.). PACS h Metal-insulator transitions and other electronic transitions. PACS k Polarons and electron-phonon interactions (see also Kr Phonon-electron interactions in lattices). Abstract. We investiate metal-insulator transitions in the Holstein-Hubbard model as a function of the on-site electron-electron interaction U and the electron-phonon couplin. We use several different numerical methods to calculate the phase diaram, the results of which are in excellent areement. When the electron-electron interaction U is dominant the transition is to a Mott-insulator; when the electron-phonon interaction dominates, the transition is to a localised bipolaronic state. In the former case, the transition is always found to be second order. This is in contrast to the transition to the bipolaronic state, which is clearly first order for larer values of U. We also present results for the quasiparticle weiht and the double-occupancy as function of U and. Stron correlation effects and localiation can occur in metallic systems due both to stron electron-electron interactions and stron electron-phonon couplin and also their interplay. There are many systems with stronly correlated electrons where there is also a stron couplin to the lattice and lattice modes, for example V 2 O 3 [9,10], mananites [11] or fullerides [12]. The stron electron-electron interactions can be described by the Hubbard model, where the transition to a Mott-Hubbard insulator has been extensively investiated [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. The Holstein model has been used to examine localiation to a polaronic or bipolaronic insulator due to electron-phonon interactions [6, 7, 8]. The interplay between these two types of localiation can be investiated usin the Holstein-Hubbard model which includes both types of interaction: H = ǫ( k)c c kσ kσ + U n i n i + ω 0 b i b i + (b i + b i) ( n iσ 1 ), (1) kσ i i i σ where U describes the electron-electron interaction within a band of dispersion ǫ( k) and band width W = 4, the electron-phonon couplin and ω 0 is the frequency of a local Einsteinphonon mode. In the lare-ω 0 limit, the model can be mapped onto an effective Hubbard model with U eff U 2 2 /ω 0 [13,14]. c P Sciences

2 2 Imperial Collee Preprints bipolaronic insulator 0.7 metal Mott-Hubbard insulator Fi. 1 The calculated phase diaram of the Hubbard-Holstein model at T = 0. The solid lines represent the results. They are in excellent areement with the,, and results, as indicated by the crosses, open circles, and filled circles respectively. The dashed line represents the locus of the points with U eff U 2 2 /ω 0 = 0 which becomes the phase boundary for U > 6.4. U Here we investiate the phase diaram where metal to insulator transitions driven by both electron-electron and electron-phonon interaction can occur. In eneral, no exact solution of this model is known. We use a number of approximation schemes which lead to a consistent picture of the physics of these transitions. Two of the approaches we use are based on the dynamical mean-field theory [3], where the lattice model is mapped onto an effective impurity model with a self-consistency constraint. We use two different methods to solve the effective impurity model, the exact diaonaliation method () [15] and the numerical renormaliation roup () [16,17]. In the method a restricted basis set is used to describe the bath of the impurity model, which can then be solved exactly. The calculations presented here were performed on an 8-site cluster. In the approach, the impurity model is solved by an iterative diaonaliation scheme which has the advantae that it can probe arbitrarily low enery scales. In the calculations up to 1200 states were retained with Λ = 1.8 and up to 36 phonon states. We also use the dynamical impurity approximation (DIA), introduced recently by Potthoff [18,19]. This method has the advantae of bein a variational approach for the rand potential. Its main limitation is the restricted set of trial selfeneries that one can handle in practice. We use trial selfeneries correspondin to impurity models with one (two-site DIA ) and three bath sites (four-site DIA ). In fiure 1, we plot the vs. U phase diaram as obtained by the methods described above. There is excellent areement between the results of all four methods. The critical couplin for the Mott transition U cm 5.85 on the = 0 axis corresponds to the results already known for the Hubbard model [4, 5], and c 9 on the U = 0 axis for the Holstein model [8]. The dashed line (polaronic line) is the locus of the points with U eff = 0; above (below) this line, U eff < 0 (> 0). The metal-insulator transition in the reion U eff > 0 is very similar to the Mott-Hubbard transition as found in the pure Hubbard model, where double-occupancy d = n iσ n i σ is almost completely suppressed.

3 W. Koller, D. Meyer, Y. Ōno and A. C. Hewson : Hubbard-Holstein Model U U Fi. 2 The quasiparticle weiht as a function of the electron-electron repulsion U for two values of the electron-phonon couplin: = in the left fiure and = 5 in the riht. The phase boundary is larely independent of the electron-phonon couplin until the polaronic line is reached. This is due to the fact that in this reion the chare fluctuations which couple to the phonons are stronly suppressed. On the other hand, the transition in the other reion (U eff < 0) depends stronly on both U and. The insulatin phase here is a bipolaronic one with enhanced on-site double-occupancy. To probe the physics of these transitions in more detail, we consider the variation of the quasiparticle weiht both in scans with a fixed or a fixed U. In fiure 2 we look at the cases = and = 5. The results of all four methods show the same eneral trend, althouh the two-site DIA appears to systematically overestimate the values of in eneral but ives almost correct values for the critical couplins. For = we start in a metallic state for U = 0 with a value of which is already rather less than one, due to the electron-phonon interaction [8]. Upon increasin U, initially increases until U eff = 0 and then steadily decreases to = 0 at the critical value of U = U cm. For = 5 and U = 0 we start in the insulatin phase. At a critical value U = U cb 0.9 there is a sudden onset of a metallic solution which suests that this transition miht be first order. As in the case for =, the quasiparticle weiht increases until U eff = 0 and decreases to the transition at U = U cm 6.0. In both cases, the transition at U cm appears to be continuous. The complementary scans of with fixed U and variable are shown in fiure 3. There is little chane of in the reion with U eff > 0 as the repulsive electron-electron interaction U effectively suppresses chare fluctuations which would otherwise couple to the phonons. This suppression can also be seen in the results for the double-occupancy d = n n, which are plotted in fiure 3. Once U eff is less than ero, there is a rather rapid decrease in and an apparent jump at the critical value of indicatin a first order transition. There is a correspondin sudden increase of the double-occupancy d. For larer values of U, even increases until a point very close to the transition, and the jump becomes more pronounced as can be seen for U = 5.0 (lower left fiure 3). Above the transition the value of d but the numerical values in the results fluctuate between d 1 and d 0 reflectin the fact that the round state is unstable to chare orderin. With numerical methods it is difficult to exclude the possibility that the transition is continuous but very sharp. However, with the DIA one calculates the rand potential Ω which enables one to address the order of the transition directly. In fiure 4 we plot the results for Ω as a function of the variation parameter V for = 0 and values of U close to the transitions at U cm (left plot) and U cb (riht plot). For the transition at U cm we see

4 4 Imperial Collee Preprints U=1.0 U=3.0 U= d Fi. 3 The quasiparticle weiht as a function of the electron-phonon couplin for three values of the electron-electron interaction: U = 1.0 in the upper left, U = 3.0 in the upper riht and U = 5.0 in the lower left fiure. The lower riht fiure shows the double-occupancy d = n n as a function of for all three values of U. The lines correspond to the results and the open (filled) circles to the () results. that there is a lobal minimum which shifts continuously to V = 0 as U approaches U cm. In the, V = 0 corresponds to the insulatin solution. These results are very similar to the results obtained by Potthoff for the pure Hubbard model [19]. In the riht fiure the same data is plotted for the transition at U cb. Startin with the larest value of U = 3.26 the lobal minimum is at finite V 6 correspondin to a metallic state. Decreasin U, the minimum becomes shallower but shifts only slihtly to smaller values V 4. The minimum at V = 0 becomes the lobal minimum for U < U cb = This is clear evidence for a first order transition, at least within the. In fiure 5 we plot the rand potential as a function of as calculated with the and approaches for three values of U = 1.0, 3.0 and 5.0. For the larest value of U = 5.0, the discontinuity of the radient of Ω with respect to U is clearly seen. As one reduces U, the kink becomes proressively smaller. For calculations, similar to those presented in fiure 4, a kink persists down to U = 0 and the phase transition is always first order. For the correspondin calculations, however, the situation is not quite so clear. In this small-u rane, a jump in is also difficult to identify (see fiure 3). The evidence from the calculations apart from the, indicates that the transition is probably for all practical purposes continuous for U < 3. In contrast, the transitions alon the line U cm are always continuous. All methods used in our investiation lead to a consistent picture of the metal-insulator

5 W. Koller, D. Meyer, Y. Ōno and A. C. Hewson : Hubbard-Holstein Model Ω Ω(V =0) Ω Ω(V =0) V V Fi. 4 The rand potential Ω as a function of the variational parameter V of the method at = 0. The left fiure displays a second order transition from a metal to a Mott-Hubbard insulator. The minimum shifts smoothly to ero as U increases from U = 5.6, the lowest curve, in steps of to U = 7.0 for the uppermost curve. The riht fiure shows a first order transition from a metal to a bipolaronic state. There is a jump of the position of the minimum as U decreases from U = 3.26, the lowest curve, in steps of 1 to U = 3.20 for the uppermost curve. transitions in the Holstein-Hubbard model. The phase diaram is composed of three reions, a metallic reion and two qualitatively different insulatin reions. The boundary between the metallic and the Mott-insulatin reion is described by a line of second order transitions, and is only weakly dependent on the electron-phonon couplin. Our evidence is that the transition from the metal to a bipolaron insulator state, which is characterised by an enhanced on-site double-occupancy, is of first order for larer values of U. However, the discontinuity becomes proressively smaller as U is decreased and has virtually disappeared for the rane U < Ω Ω2(V=0) U=1.0 U=3.0 U= Fi. 5 The rand potential Ω as function of for three different values of U, as calculated with the (bi open symbols) and (small dots) methods. Here, Ω 2(V = 0) denotes the value of the rand potential for V = 0 in the method.

6 6 Imperial Collee Preprints The behaviour near the boundary between the two insulatin phases is difficult to access by all of our methods except within the, where the results indicate that there is a first order transition between them. Detailed results and discussions of dynamical response functions at T = 0 for this model have been calculated and will be prepared for publication in due course. We wish to thank the EPSRC (Grant GR/S18571/01)for financial support. One of us (YŌ) was supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technoloy. We also thank M. Potthoff and M. Aichhorn for helpful discussions reardin the DIA method. REFERENCES [1] J. Hubbard, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 281, [2] M. Jarrell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69(1), [3] A. Geores, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M. J. Roenber, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68(1), [4] G. Moeller, Q. Si, G. Kotliar, M. Roenber, and D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, [5] R. Bulla, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, [6] T. Holstein, Ann. Phys. 8, [7] P. Benedetti and R. Zeyher, Phys. Rev. B 58(21), [8] D. Meyer, A. C. Hewson, and R. Bulla, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89(19), [9] P. Majumdar and H. R. Krishnamurthy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73(11), [10] M. Imada, A. Fujimori, and Y. Tokura, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, [11] A. J. Millis, P. B. Littlewood, and B. I. Shraiman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74(25), [12] O. Gunnarson, Rev. Mod. Phys. 69(2), [13] J. K. Freericks, Phys. Rev. B 48(6), [14] D. Meyer and A. C. Hewson, Acta Physica Polonica B 34, [15] M. Caffarel and W. Krauth, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72(10), [16] H. R. Krishna-murthy, J. W. Wilkins, and K. G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. B 21(3), [17] R. Bulla, A. C. Hewson, and T. Pruschke, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 10, [18] M. Potthoff, Eur. Phys. J. B 32, [19] M. Potthoff, cond-mat/