arxiv: v2 [cond-mat.str-el] 21 Feb 2018

Transcription

1 Journal of the Physical Society of Japan FULL PAPERS Orbital Order in Two-Orbital Hubbard Model Kojiro Honkawa 1 and Seiichiro Onari 1, 1 Department of Physics, Okayama University, Okayama 7-853, Japan Research Institute for Interdisciplinary Science, Okayama University, Okayama 7-853, arxiv: v [cond-mat.str-el] 1 Feb 18 Japan In strongly correlated multiorbital systems, various ordered phases appear. In particular, the orbital order in iron-based superconductors attracts much attention since it is considered to be the origin of the nematic state. To clarify the essential conditions for realizing orbital orders, we study the simple two-orbital (d xz, d yz ) Hubbard model. We find that the orbital order, which corresponds to the nematic order, appears due to the vertex corrections even in the two-orbital model. Thus, the d xy orbital is not essential to realize the nematic orbital order. The obtained orbital order is determined by the orbital dependence and the topology of Fermi surfaces. We also find that another type of orbital order, which is rotated 45, appears in a heavily hole-doped case. 1. Introduction In the phase diagram of iron-based superconductors, the electronic nematic state with C symmetry appears universally under the structural phase transition temperature T S, and the superconducting state emerges next to the nematic state. 1, ) The origin of the nematic state has stimulated much attention since the mechanism of superconductivity would be strongly related to the mechanism of the nematic state. To explain the nematic order and fluctuations, both the spin-nematic scenario 3, 4) and the orbital-order scenario 5 11) have been proposed. In the former scenario, the origin of the nematic state is the spin-nematic order. The spin-fluctuation-induced spin-nematic order appears slightly above the magnetic transition temperature when the magnetic frustration is strong. However, the nematic state in FeSe with small spin fluctuations cannot be explained by the spin-nematic scenario. In the latter scenario, the origin is the ferro-orbital order (n xz n yz ), which is caused by the vertex correction (VC) of the Coulomb interaction. 5, 6) By applying the self-consistent VC (SC-VC) method to onari@okayama-u.ac.jp 1/11

2 the realistic five Fe d orbital model based on first-principles calculation, the nematic state in 6, 1) both LaFeAsO and FeSe has been naturally reproduced. Recently, the remarkable k dependence of the orbital polarization, which cannot be explained using the mean-field theory, has been observed in FeSe. 13) The k dependence of the orbital polarization is also reproduced in the orbital-order scenario. 14) In addition, the s-wave state without sign reversal (s ++ -wave state) mediated by the orbital fluctuations has also been proposed in iron-based superconductors. 5 8, 15, 16) The SC-VC theory had also succeeded in explaining other multiorbital systems such as the nematic CDW in cuprates, 17, 18) the nematic state in Sr 3 Ru O 7, 19), 1) and the spin-triplet superconductivity in Sr RuO 4. In our previous work based on the SC-VC theory in realistic five-orbital models of ironbased superconductors, we have found that the nematic orbital order n xz n yz is caused by the VC including d xz, d yz, and d xy orbitals. 6, 1) In the five-orbital models, Fermi surfaces (FSs) are composed of d xz, d yz and d xy orbitals. Thus, these orbitals are expected to be important in realizing the nematic orbital order. However, the necessary conditions for the orbital order are yet unclear. In order to clarify the essence of the orbital order, we study the simple two-orbital (d xz, d yz ) model systematically by the SC-VC method. We found that the VC for the orbital susceptibility is also enhanced in the simple twoorbital model, and that the nematic orbital order appears similarly to the case of the realistic five-orbital models. Thus, the d xy orbital is not essential to realize the nematic orbital order. We also found that another type of orbital order, which corresponds to the 45 -rotated orbital order, appears when the holes are heavily doped. The obtained orbital order is determined by the orbital dependence and the topology of the FSs.. Formulation We study a simple two-orbital (d xz, d yz ) Hubbard model in a square lattice. The Hamiltonian is given as H= k l,m=1,σ=, ξ lm k c k,l,σ c k,m,σ+h int, (1) where l, m=1, represents the orbital; 1=d xz and =d yz. In the tight-binding model, we employ the dispersion relation ) ξ 11 k = t 1 cos(k x ) t cos(k y ) 4t 3 cos(k x ) cos(k y ), ξ k = t cos(k x ) t 1 cos(k y ) 4t 3 cos(k x ) cos(k y ), andξ 1 k =ξ 1 k = 4t 4 sin(k x ) sin(k y ). We control the band filling n systematically, where n=1 corresponds to the half-filling. H int is the multiorbital Coulomb interaction including the intra (inter) orbital interaction U(U ) and the exchange interaction J. Hereafter, we use the relation U= U + J from rotational /11

3 invariance. The irreducible susceptibility in the orbital representation without the VC is given asχ ll,mm (q)= T N k G lm (k+q)g m l (k), where G is the Green s function, and q and k are denoted as q=(q,ω n = nπt) and k=(k,ǫ n = (n+1)πt), respectively. We take N= k meshes and 56 Matsubara frequencies. Using the, the matrix of the spin (orbital) susceptibility is given as ˆχ s(c) (q)= ˆχ (q) [ 1 ˆΓ s(c) ˆχ (q) ] 1, () where ˆΓ s(c) denotes the bare Coulomb interaction for spin (charge) channel given by U( U), l 1 = l = l 3 = l 4 Γ s(c) l 1 l,l 3 l 4 = U (U J), l 1 = l 3 l = l 4. (3) J( U + J), l 1 = l l 3 = l 4 J( J), l 1 = l 4 l = l 3 By introducing the VC ˆX c for the orbital channel, the matrix of the orbital susceptibility is given by ˆχ c (q)= [ ˆχ (q)+ ˆX c (q) ][ 1 ˆΓ c{ ˆχ (q)+ ˆX c (q) }] 1. (4) In this study, we neglect the VC ˆX s for the spin channel for simplicity since ˆX s is smaller than ˆX c, as reported previously. 5) The spin Stoner factorα s is given by the maximum eigenvalue of ˆΓ s ˆχ (q, ), while the charge Stoner factorα c is given by the maximum eigenvalue of ˆΓ c[ ˆχ (q, )+ ˆX c (q, ) ]. The ordered state is realized whenα s = 1 orα c = 1. The is recovered by putting ˆX c =. It is clear that ˆχ c (q) is enhanced over the value in the when ˆX c (q) is large. In the SC-VC method, ˆχ c,s and ˆX c are obtained self-consistently. The VC is given by the Maki-Thompson (MT) and Aslamazov-Larkin (AL) terms, which are the first- and second-order terms, respectively, with respect to ˆχ s(c). The MT term for the orbital susceptibility X MT,c ll,mm (q) is given by T ) X MT,c ll,mm (q)= ( G la (k+q)g cl (k)g bm (k + q)g m N d(k ) k,k a,b,c,d [ 1 Vc ab,cd (k k )+ 3 V s ab,cd (k k ) 1 Γc ab,cd 3 ] Γs ab,cd, (5) where ˆV s,c (q) ˆΓ s,c + ˆΓ s,c ˆχ s,c (q)ˆγ s,c. The AL term for the orbital susceptibility X AL,c ll,mm (q) is given by X AL,c ll,mm (q)= T [ 3 Λ ll N,ab,e f (q; q ) V s ab,cd (q+q )V s e f,gh ( q ) q a h 3/11

4 + 1 ] Vc ab,cd (q+q )V c e f,gh ( q ) Λ mm,cd,gh (q; q ), (6) where the three-point vertex ˆΛ(q; q ) is given as Λ ll,ab,e f (q; q )= T G la (k+q)g f l (k)g be (k q ), (7) N k andλ mm,cd,gh (q; q ) Λ ch,mg,dm (q; q )+Λ gd,mc,hm (q; q q ). When we calculate the total VC, we subtract the double-counting U -terms in Eqs. (5) and (6). 3) By calculating the above equations self-consistently, we find that the MT and U -terms are much smaller than the AL terms. Here, we introduce the diagonal charge quadrupole susceptibilities as χγ Q (q) = O l,l γ χc ll,mm (q)om,m γ, (8) mm ll where O l,m γ l Ô γ m is the matrix element of theγ-type quadrupole operator. In the present two-orbital system, O 1,1 x y = O, x y = 1, O 1, xy = O,1 xy = 1, and O 1,1 3z r = O, 3z r = 1/, while other matrix elements are zero. The nematic state with n xz n yz is explained by the divergent ofχ Q x y (q=, ). 5, 6) In the two-orbital system without the d xy orbital,χ Q 3z r is identical to the charge susceptibility. Thus, the enhancement ofχ Q 3z r driven by the d xy orbital in the five-orbital model 6) is not realized in the two-orbital system. Hereafter, we fix the temperature T =.5 and J/U =.5. Although J/U =.5 is smaller than the value obtained by the first-principles calculation, 4) we note that the obtained orbital fluctuations without the self-energy for a small J/U.5 are similar to those including the self-energy for a large J/U.14 in the five-orbital system. 6) The VC for the orbital fluctuations is underestimated in the system without the self-energy since U is underestimated. 3. Results and Discussion We employ the two-orbital tight-binding model of iron-based superconductors with t 1 = 1, t = 1.39, and t 3 = t 4 =.85, which is similar to the model given in Ref.. First, we calculate the susceptibilities near the ordered state by the SC-VC method. Figure 1 shows U as a function of n, whereα s =.97 orα c =.97 is satisfied for each n. In the blue region,α s =.97 is satisfied and spin fluctuations are dominant. In the red (green) region, α c =.97 is satisfied and x y -type (xy-type) charge quadrupole fluctuations are dominant. In this model, the 3z r -type charge quadrupole susceptibility, which is identical to the charge susceptibility, is much smaller than other susceptibilities. In Fig. 1, the small U indicates that the corresponding ordered state is easily realized. Although we cannot access 4/11

5 1 8 Q xy s s Q x -y U n Fig. 1. (Color online) U as a function of band filling n, whereα s(c) =.97 is satisfied for each n. In the blue region, the spin fluctuations are dominant. In the red (green) region, the x y -type (xy-type) charge quadrupole fluctuations are dominant. α s(c) >.98 in order to maintain the calculation accuracy, we confirmed that the dominant fluctuations are basically independent ofα s(c) for.98 α s(c).95. Only the boundary of the regions slightly depends onα s(c). For n=1., the x y -type charge quadrupole fluctuation with the peak at q=(, ) is dominant over the spin fluctuations and the xy-type charge quadrupole fluctuations. This result is consistent with the phase diagram of iron-based superconductors, where the nematic x y -type charge quadrupole (orbital) order appears at higher temperatures than at which the spin order appears. In Fig. (a), we show FSs composed of orbital 1 (green line) and orbital (red line) for n=1.. The FSs around k=(, ) and k= are the hole FSs, while the FSs around k=(π, ) and k=(,π) are the electron FSs. These FSs are consistent with the FSs of iron-based superconductors except for the FS around k=, which is composed of d xy orbital in iron-based superconductors. Figures (b) (d) show the q dependences ofχ s (q, ), χ Q (q, ), andχ Q x y xy(q, ), respectively.χ s (q, ) has a peak at q = (π, ), (,π) due to the 5/11

6 (a) (c) 3 1 (,) π ky Q x -y xz yz π kx SC-VC n =1. (b) (,) (d) (,) q x (π,) s Q xy q x q x (π,) SC-VC (π,) Fig.. (Color online) (a)fs composed of orbital 1 (green line) and orbital (red line), (b)χ s (q, ) in the, (c)χ Q (q, ) in the SC-VC method (solid red line) and the (black dotted line), and (d)χ Q x y xy(q, ) in the SC-VC method (solid green line) and the (black dotted line) for n = 1.. strong intraorbital nesting between the hole FSs and the electron FSs. For n=1.,χ Q x y with peak at q=(, ) is dominant overχ s andχ Q xy, which is consistent with the nematic order (fluctuation) in low-doped iron-based superconductors.χ Q x y (, ) is enhanced by the AL terms X AL,c 11,11 (, ), XAL,c, (, ) in Eq. (6). XAL,c 11,11(,) (, ) is mainly enlarged by the intraorbital spin fluctuation terms V s 11,11(,) [Q 1(Q ), ]V s 11,11(,) [ Q 1( Q ), ], where Q 1 = (,π) and Q = (π, ) are the nesting vectors for orbitals 1 and, respectively. The enhancement ofχ Q xy(q, ) around Q 3 = is caused by the AL terms X AL,c 1,1 (Q 3, ), X AL,c 1,1 (Q 3, ). X AL,c 1,1(1,1) (Q 3, ) is mainly enlarged by the terms V s 11,11(,) [Q 1(Q ), ]V s 1,1(1,1) [Q (Q 1 ), ] and V c 11,11(,) (, )Vc 1,1(1,1) (Q 3, ) in Eq. (6). Figure 3 shows the results for n=1..χ s has a peak around q=(π,π/5), (π/5,π) due to the intraorbital nesting between the hole FSs and the electron FSs. This incommensurate spin fluctuation originates from the large difference in diameter between the hole FSs and the electron-fss. In this filling,χ s is dominant overχ Q x y andχ Q xy. The enhancement ofχ Q x y 6/11

7 (a) (c) π ky Q x -y xz yz π kx SC-VC n =1. (b) (,) (d) s Q xy q x (π,) SC-VC 1 1 (,) (,) q x (π,) q x (π,) Fig. 3. (Color online) (a)fs composed of orbital 1 (green line) and orbital (red line), (b)χ s (q, ) in the, (c)χ Q (q, ) in the SC-VC method (solid red line) and the (black dotted line), and (d)χ Q x y xy(q, ) in the SC-VC method (solid green line) and the (black dotted line) for n = 1.. andχ Q xy by the VC is small. In Fig. 4, we show the results for n=.7, where the electron FSs disappear.χ s has a small peak around Q 4 = (π/,π/) due to the weak nesting between two hole FSs. In this filling,χ Q xy is dominant overχ s andχ Q x y. The enhancement ofχ Q x y around Q 3 = in the SC-VC method is explained by the AL terms X AL,c 11,11(,) (Q 3, ). X AL,c 11,11(,) (Q 3, ) is mainly enlarged by the term V s 11,11(,) (Q 4, )V s 11,11(,) (Q 4, ). Here, we discuss the reason why the ferro-orbital fluctuationχ Q xy with the peak at q=(, ) is dominant for n=.7. We introduce the d XZ orbital denoted by the 45 -rotated d xz orbital and the d YZ orbital denoted by the 45 -rotated d yz orbital. Figure 5 shows the FSs composed of the d XZ and d YZ orbitals for n=.7. We see that the nesting vector q (π/,π/) is caused by the intraorbital nesting as shown by the blue two-way arrow in Fig. 5. From the analogy of the case for n = 1., the intraorbital nesting induces the ferro-orbital fluctuation χ Q X Y defined in the 45 rotated basis. Thus, the ferro-orbital fluctuationχ Q xy, which is identi- 7/11

8 (a) π ky yz xz n =.7 (b) 1 s (c) 1 Q x -y π kx SC-VC (,) q x (π,) (d) 1 xy Q SC-VC 8 4 (,) (,) q x (π,) q x (π,) Fig. 4. (Color online) (a)fss composed of orbital 1 (green line) and orbital (red line), (b)χ s (q, ) in the, (c)χ Q (q, ) in the SC-VC method (solid red line) and the (black dotted line), and (d)χ Q x y xy(q, ) in the SC-VC method (solid green line) and the (black dotted line) for n=.7. cal to the ferro-orbital fluctuationχ Q, is dominant for n=.7. The orbital dependence of X Y FSs is important for determining the dominant orbital fluctuation. From these results, we confirmed that dominant fluctuations strongly depend on the topology and the shape of FSs. We also confirmed that dominant fluctuations are valid for the small change in the band parameters. Only the boundary, where dominant fluctuation changes, depends on the band parameters. 4. Summary We studied the orbital fluctuations near the orbital ordered state using the SC-VC method in the two-orbital (d xz, d yz ) Hubbard model. We clarified that the nematic order in the nondoped iron-based superconductors is explained by the two-orbital model around half filling n = 1.. Thus, the d xy orbital is not essential to realize the nematic order. Moreover, the 45 -rotated nematic order appears in the heavily hole-doped case. We confirmed that the 8/11

9 π XZ ky YZ π kx Fig. 5. (Color online) FSs composed of d XZ orbital (green line) and d YZ orbital (red line) for n=.7. The blue two-way arrow denotes the nesting vector between the two hole FSs. dominant orbital fluctuation is determined by the orbital dependence and the topology of the Fermi surfaces. Acknowledgment We are grateful to H. Kontani for valuable discussions. This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP17K5543. Part of numerical calculations was performed on the Yukawa Institute Computer Facility. 9/11

10 References 1) S. Nandi, M. G. Kim, A. Kreyssig, R. M. Fernandes, D. K. Pratt, A. Thaler, N. Ni, S. L. Bud ko, P. C. Canfield, J. Schmalian, R. J. McQueeney, and A. I. Goldman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 14, 576 (11). ) H. Luetkens, H.-H. Klauss, M. Kraken, F. J. Litterst, T. Dellmann, R. Klingeler, C. Hess, R. Khasanov, A. Amato, C. Baines, M. Kosmala, O. J. Schumann, M. Braden, J. Hamann- Borrero, N. Leps, A. Kondrat, G. Behr, J. Werner, and B. Büchner, Nat. Mater. 8, 35 (9). 3) R. M. Fernandes, L. H. VanBebber, S. Bhattacharya, P. Chandra, V. Keppens, D. Mandrus, M. A. McGuire, B. C. Sales, A. S. Sefat, and J. Schmalian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 15, 1573 (1). 4) R. M. Fernandes, E. Abrahams, and J. Schmalian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 17 (11). 5) S. Onari and H. Kontani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 1371 (1). 6) S. Onari, Y. Yamakawa, and H. Kontani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 11, 1871 (14). 7) H. Kontani and S. Onari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 14, 1571 (1). 8) H. Kontani, T. Saito, and S. Onari, Phys. Rev. B 84, 458 (11). 9) F. Krüger, S. Kumar, J. Zaanen, and J. van den Brink, Phys. Rev. B 79, 5454 (9). 1) W. Lv, J. Wu, and P. Phillips, Phys. Rev. B 8, 456 (9). 11) C.-C. Lee, W.-G. Yin, and W. Ku, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 671 (9). 1) Y. Yamakawa, S. Onari, and H. Kontani, Phys. Rev. X 6, 13 (16). 13) Y. Suzuki, T. Shimojima, T. Sonobe, A. Nakamura, M. Sakano, H. Tsuji, J. Omachi, K. Yoshioka, M. Kuwata-Gonokami, T. Watashige, R. Kobayashi, S. Kasahara, T. Shibauchi, Y. Matsuda, Y. Yamakawa, H. Kontani, and K. Ishizaka, Phys. Rev. B 9, 5117 (15). 14) S. Onari, Y. Yamakawa, and H. Kontani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 71 (16). 15) T. Saito, S. Onari, and H. Kontani, Phys. Rev. B 8, (1). 16) T. Saito, S. Onari, and H. Kontani, Phys. Rev. B 83, 1451(R) (11). 17) Y. Yamakawa and H. Kontani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 571 (15). 18) M. Tsuchiizu, Y. Yamakawa, and H. Kontani, Phys. Rev. B 93, (16). 19) M. Tsuchiizu, Y. Ohno, S. Onari, and H. Kontani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 573 (13). 1/11

11 ) Y. Ohno, M. Tsuchiizu, S. Onari, and H. Kontani, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 8, 1377 (13). 1) M. Tsuchiizu, Y. Yamakawa, S. Onari, Y. Ohno, and H. Kontani, Phys. Rev. B 91, (15). ) S. Raghu, X.-L. Qi, C.-X. Liu, D. J. Scalapino, and S.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 77, 53(R) (8). 3) S. Onari and H. Kontani, in Iron-Based Superconductivity, ed. P.D. Johnson, G. Xu, and W.-G. Yin, (Springer Verlag Berlin and Heidelberg GmbH & Co. K, 15) p ) T. Miyake, K. Nakamura, R. Arita, and M. Imada, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 79, 4475 (1). 11/11