II Lattice Hamiltonian
For spin-1 / 2 1 2 1/2 1 / 2 fermions with σ = { ↑ , ↓ } 𝜎 ↑ ↓ \sigma=\{\uparrow,\downarrow\} italic_σ = { ↑ , ↓ } denoting
the spin projections, the Hubbard Hamiltonian is typically written as
ℋ = ∑ σ ℋ σ + ℋ ↑ ↓ , ℋ subscript 𝜎 subscript ℋ 𝜎 subscript ℋ ↑ absent ↓ \mathcal{H}=\sum_{\sigma}\mathcal{H}_{\sigma}+\mathcal{H}_{\uparrow\downarrow}, caligraphic_H = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ↑ ↓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
where ℋ σ subscript ℋ 𝜎 \mathcal{H}_{\sigma} caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT terms describe the corresponding
single-particle problem for each spin projection and
ℋ ↑ ↓ subscript ℋ ↑ absent ↓ \mathcal{H}_{\uparrow\downarrow} caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ↑ ↓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT term describes the two-body
interactions between spin-up and spin-down particles [16 , 17 ] .
Within the tight-binding approximation, and considering a generic
sublattice structure in the lattice, these terms can be written
in general as
ℋ σ subscript ℋ 𝜎 \displaystyle\mathcal{H}_{\sigma} caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
= − ∑ S i ; S ′ i ′ t S i ; S ′ i ′ σ c S i σ † c S ′ i ′ σ , absent subscript 𝑆 𝑖 superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript 𝑖 ′
superscript subscript 𝑡 𝑆 𝑖 superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript 𝑖 ′
𝜎 superscript subscript 𝑐 𝑆 𝑖 𝜎 † subscript 𝑐 superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript 𝑖 ′ 𝜎 \displaystyle=-\sum_{Si;S^{\prime}i^{\prime}}t_{Si;S^{\prime}i^{\prime}}^{%
\sigma}c_{Si\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{S^{\prime}i^{\prime}\sigma}, = - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_i ; italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_i ; italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_i italic_σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
(1)
ℋ ↑ ↓ subscript ℋ ↑ absent ↓ \displaystyle\mathcal{H}_{\uparrow\downarrow} caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ↑ ↓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
= ∑ S i ; S ′ i ′ U S i ; S ′ i ′ c S i ↑ † c S ′ i ′ ↓ † c S ′ i ′ ↓ c S i ↑ , absent subscript 𝑆 𝑖 superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript 𝑖 ′
subscript 𝑈 𝑆 𝑖 superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript 𝑖 ′
superscript subscript 𝑐 ↑ 𝑆 𝑖 absent † superscript subscript 𝑐 ↓ superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript 𝑖 ′ absent † subscript 𝑐 ↓ superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript 𝑖 ′ absent subscript 𝑐 ↑ 𝑆 𝑖 absent \displaystyle=\sum_{Si;S^{\prime}i^{\prime}}U_{Si;S^{\prime}i^{\prime}}c_{Si%
\uparrow}^{\dagger}c_{S^{\prime}i^{\prime}\downarrow}^{\dagger}c_{S^{\prime}i^%
{\prime}\downarrow}c_{Si\uparrow}, = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_i ; italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_i ; italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_i ↑ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ↓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ↓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_i ↑ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
(2)
where the hop** parameters t S i ; S ′ i ′ σ superscript subscript 𝑡 𝑆 𝑖 superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript 𝑖 ′
𝜎 t_{Si;S^{\prime}i^{\prime}}^{\sigma} italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_i ; italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT describe tunneling of
a spin-σ 𝜎 \sigma italic_σ particle from the sublattice site S ′ superscript 𝑆 ′ S^{\prime} italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in the unit cell
i ′ superscript 𝑖 ′ i^{\prime} italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to the sublattice site S 𝑆 S italic_S in the unit cell i 𝑖 i italic_i , and the interaction
parameters U S i ; S ′ i ′ subscript 𝑈 𝑆 𝑖 superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript 𝑖 ′
U_{Si;S^{\prime}i^{\prime}} italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_i ; italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT describe the density-density interactions between
a spin-↑ ↑ \uparrow ↑ particle on site S ∈ i 𝑆 𝑖 S\in i italic_S ∈ italic_i and a spin-↓ ↓ \downarrow ↓ particle
on site S ′ ∈ i ′ superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript 𝑖 ′ S^{\prime}\in i^{\prime} italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . The range of interactions is assumed to be finite here,
i.e., we are interested in studying the effects of not only the onsite but
also the nearest-neighbor, next-nearest-neighbor, etc., interactions on
the formation of two-body bound states in a generic lattice.
Any of these parameters can be attractive or repulsive.
Next we reexpress ℋ ℋ \mathcal{H} caligraphic_H in the reciprocal space through the
canonical transformation [7 ]
c S i σ † = 1 N c ∑ 𝐤 e − i 𝐤 ⋅ 𝐫 S i c S 𝐤 σ † , superscript subscript 𝑐 𝑆 𝑖 𝜎 † 1 subscript 𝑁 𝑐 subscript 𝐤 superscript 𝑒 ⋅ 𝑖 𝐤 subscript 𝐫 𝑆 𝑖 superscript subscript 𝑐 𝑆 𝐤 𝜎 † c_{Si\sigma}^{\dagger}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_{c}}}\sum_{\mathbf{k}}e^{-i\mathbf{k}%
\cdot\mathbf{r}_{Si}}c_{S\mathbf{k}\sigma}^{\dagger}, italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_i italic_σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i bold_k ⋅ bold_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S bold_k italic_σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
where N c subscript 𝑁 𝑐 N_{c} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the number of unit cells in the system,
𝐤 𝐤 \mathbf{k} bold_k is the crystal momentum (in units of ℏ → 1 → Planck-constant-over-2-pi 1 \hbar\to 1 roman_ℏ → 1 the Planck constant)
in the first Brillouin zone, and 𝐫 S i subscript 𝐫 𝑆 𝑖 \mathbf{r}_{Si} bold_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the position of
site S ∈ i 𝑆 𝑖 S\in i italic_S ∈ italic_i . This leads to a generic Bloch Hamiltonian of the form
ℋ σ = ∑ S S ′ 𝐤 h S S ′ 𝐤 σ c S 𝐤 σ † c S ′ 𝐤 σ , subscript ℋ 𝜎 subscript 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 superscript subscript ℎ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 𝜎 superscript subscript 𝑐 𝑆 𝐤 𝜎 † subscript 𝑐 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 𝜎 \mathcal{H}_{\sigma}=\sum_{SS^{\prime}\mathbf{k}}h_{SS^{\prime}\mathbf{k}}^{%
\sigma}c_{S\mathbf{k}\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{S^{\prime}\mathbf{k}\sigma}, caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S bold_k italic_σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k italic_σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
where the matrix elements h S S ′ 𝐤 subscript ℎ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 h_{SS^{\prime}\mathbf{k}} italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are defined in the
sublattice basis through the Fourier transform
h S S ′ 𝐤 σ = 1 N c ∑ i i ′ t S i ; S ′ i ′ σ e i 𝐤 ⋅ 𝐫 S i ; S ′ i ′ superscript subscript ℎ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 𝜎 1 subscript 𝑁 𝑐 subscript 𝑖 superscript 𝑖 ′ superscript subscript 𝑡 𝑆 𝑖 superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript 𝑖 ′
𝜎 superscript 𝑒 ⋅ i 𝐤 subscript 𝐫 𝑆 𝑖 superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript 𝑖 ′
h_{SS^{\prime}\mathbf{k}}^{\sigma}=\frac{1}{N_{c}}\sum_{ii^{\prime}}t_{Si;S^{%
\prime}i^{\prime}}^{\sigma}e^{\mathrm{i}\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}_{Si;S^{%
\prime}i^{\prime}}} italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_i ; italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_i bold_k ⋅ bold_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_i ; italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
with
𝐫 S i ; S ′ i ′ = 𝐫 S ′ i ′ − 𝐫 S i subscript 𝐫 𝑆 𝑖 superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript 𝑖 ′
subscript 𝐫 superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript 𝑖 ′ subscript 𝐫 𝑆 𝑖 \mathbf{r}_{Si;S^{\prime}i^{\prime}}=\mathbf{r}_{S^{\prime}i^{\prime}}-\mathbf%
{r}_{Si} bold_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_i ; italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = bold_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - bold_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
denoting the relative position. The resultant eigenvalue problem
∑ S ′ h S S ′ 𝐤 σ n S ′ 𝐤 σ = ε n 𝐤 σ n S 𝐤 σ subscript superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript subscript ℎ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 𝜎 subscript 𝑛 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 𝜎 subscript 𝜀 𝑛 𝐤 𝜎 subscript 𝑛 𝑆 𝐤 𝜎 \displaystyle\sum_{S^{\prime}}h_{SS^{\prime}\mathbf{k}}^{\sigma}n_{S^{\prime}%
\mathbf{k}\sigma}=\varepsilon_{n\mathbf{k}\sigma}n_{S\mathbf{k}\sigma} ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k italic_σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n bold_k italic_σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S bold_k italic_σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
(3)
determines the Bloch bands ε n 𝐤 σ subscript 𝜀 𝑛 𝐤 𝜎 \varepsilon_{n\mathbf{k}\sigma} italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n bold_k italic_σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
where n S 𝐤 σ subscript 𝑛 𝑆 𝐤 𝜎 n_{S\mathbf{k}\sigma} italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S bold_k italic_σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the projection of the periodic part
of the corresponding Bloch state onto sublattice S 𝑆 S italic_S . Similarly,
the interaction term takes the generic form
ℋ ↑ ↓ = 1 N c ∑ S S ′ 𝐤𝐤 ′ 𝐪 U S S ′ 𝐤 − 𝐤 ′ c S , 𝐤 + 𝐪 2 ↑ † c S ′ , − 𝐤 + 𝐪 2 , ↓ † c S ′ , − 𝐤 ′ + 𝐪 2 , ↓ c S , 𝐤 ′ + 𝐪 2 , ↑ , subscript ℋ ↑ absent ↓ 1 subscript 𝑁 𝑐 subscript 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript 𝐤𝐤 ′ 𝐪 superscript subscript 𝑈 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 superscript 𝐤 ′ superscript subscript 𝑐 ↑ 𝑆 𝐤 𝐪 2
absent † superscript subscript 𝑐 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 𝐪 2 ↓
† subscript 𝑐 superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝐪 2 ↓
subscript 𝑐 𝑆 superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝐪 2 ↑
\mathcal{H}_{\uparrow\downarrow}=\frac{1}{N_{c}}\sum_{SS^{\prime}\mathbf{k}%
\mathbf{k^{\prime}}\mathbf{q}}U_{SS^{\prime}}^{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}%
c_{S,\mathbf{k}+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2}\uparrow}^{\dagger}c_{S^{\prime},-\mathbf{%
k}+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2},\downarrow}^{\dagger}c_{S^{\prime},-\mathbf{k^{\prime}%
}+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2},\downarrow}c_{S,\mathbf{k^{\prime}}+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2%
},\uparrow}, caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ↑ ↓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_kk start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S , bold_k + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ↑ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , - bold_k + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , ↓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , ↓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S , bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , ↑ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
where the amplitudes U S S ′ 𝐤 − 𝐤 ′ superscript subscript 𝑈 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 superscript 𝐤 ′ U_{SS^{\prime}}^{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k^{\prime}}} italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of the
interactions depend on the exchanged momentum 𝐤 − 𝐤 ′ 𝐤 superscript 𝐤 ′ \mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k^{\prime}} bold_k - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
through the Fourier transform
U S S ′ 𝐤 − 𝐤 ′ = 1 N c ∑ i i ′ U S i ; S ′ i ′ e i ( 𝐤 − 𝐤 ′ ) ⋅ 𝐫 S i ; S ′ i ′ . superscript subscript 𝑈 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 superscript 𝐤 ′ 1 subscript 𝑁 𝑐 subscript 𝑖 superscript 𝑖 ′ subscript 𝑈 𝑆 𝑖 superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript 𝑖 ′
superscript 𝑒 ⋅ i 𝐤 superscript 𝐤 ′ subscript 𝐫 𝑆 𝑖 superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript 𝑖 ′
U_{SS^{\prime}}^{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}=\frac{1}{N_{c}}\sum_{ii^{%
\prime}}U_{Si;S^{\prime}i^{\prime}}e^{\mathrm{i}(\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k^{\prime}%
})\cdot\mathbf{r}_{Si;S^{\prime}i^{\prime}}}. italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_i ; italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_i ( bold_k - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ⋅ bold_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_i ; italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
Here we note that
U S S ′ 𝐤 − 𝐤 ′ = U S ′ S 𝐤 ′ − 𝐤 = ( U S S ′ 𝐤 ′ − 𝐤 ) ∗ superscript subscript 𝑈 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 superscript 𝐤 ′ superscript subscript 𝑈 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝑆 superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝐤 superscript superscript subscript 𝑈 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝐤 U_{SS^{\prime}}^{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}=U_{S^{\prime}S}^{\mathbf{k^{%
\prime}}-\mathbf{k}}=(U_{SS^{\prime}}^{\mathbf{k^{\prime}}-\mathbf{k}})^{*} italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - bold_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - bold_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
must be satisfied by definition. Furthermore, upon transformation
to the band basis through
c S 𝐤 σ † = ∑ n n S 𝐤 σ ∗ c n 𝐤 σ † , superscript subscript 𝑐 𝑆 𝐤 𝜎 † subscript 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑛 𝑆 𝐤 𝜎 superscript subscript 𝑐 𝑛 𝐤 𝜎 † c_{S\mathbf{k}\sigma}^{\dagger}=\sum_{n}n_{S\mathbf{k}\sigma}^{*}c_{n\mathbf{k%
}\sigma}^{\dagger}, italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S bold_k italic_σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S bold_k italic_σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n bold_k italic_σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
the 𝐤 𝐤 \mathbf{k} bold_k -space Hamiltonians can be written as [7 ]
ℋ σ subscript ℋ 𝜎 \displaystyle\mathcal{H}_{\sigma} caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
= ∑ n 𝐤 ε n 𝐤 σ c n 𝐤 σ † c n 𝐤 σ , absent subscript 𝑛 𝐤 subscript 𝜀 𝑛 𝐤 𝜎 superscript subscript 𝑐 𝑛 𝐤 𝜎 † subscript 𝑐 𝑛 𝐤 𝜎 \displaystyle=\sum_{n\mathbf{k}}\varepsilon_{n\mathbf{k}\sigma}c_{n\mathbf{k}%
\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{n\mathbf{k}\sigma}, = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n bold_k italic_σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n bold_k italic_σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n bold_k italic_σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
(4)
ℋ ↑ ↓ subscript ℋ ↑ absent ↓ \displaystyle\mathcal{H}_{\uparrow\downarrow} caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ↑ ↓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
= 1 N c ∑ n m n ′ m ′ 𝐤𝐤 ′ 𝐪 V n ′ m ′ 𝐤 ′ n m 𝐤 ( 𝐪 ) b n m † ( 𝐤 , 𝐪 ) b n ′ m ′ ( 𝐤 ′ , 𝐪 ) , absent 1 subscript 𝑁 𝑐 subscript 𝑛 𝑚 superscript 𝑛 ′ superscript 𝑚 ′ superscript 𝐤𝐤 ′ 𝐪
superscript subscript 𝑉 superscript 𝑛 ′ superscript 𝑚 ′ superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 𝐪 superscript subscript 𝑏 𝑛 𝑚 † 𝐤 𝐪 subscript 𝑏 superscript 𝑛 ′ superscript 𝑚 ′ superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝐪 \displaystyle=\frac{1}{N_{c}}\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}nmn^{\prime}m^{\prime}\\
\mathbf{k}\mathbf{k^{\prime}}\mathbf{q}\end{subarray}}V_{n^{\prime}m^{\prime}%
\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}^{nm\mathbf{k}}(\mathbf{q})b_{nm}^{\dagger}(\mathbf{k},%
\mathbf{q})b_{n^{\prime}m^{\prime}}(\mathbf{k^{\prime}},\mathbf{q}), = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_n italic_m italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL bold_kk start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_q end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_q ) italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_k , bold_q ) italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , bold_q ) ,
(5)
where the amplitudes V n ′ m ′ 𝐤 ′ n m 𝐤 ( 𝐪 ) superscript subscript 𝑉 superscript 𝑛 ′ superscript 𝑚 ′ superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 𝐪 V_{n^{\prime}m^{\prime}\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}^{nm\mathbf{k}}(\mathbf{q}) italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_q )
of the interactions are given in general by
V n ′ m ′ 𝐤 ′ n m 𝐤 ( 𝐪 ) = ∑ S S ′ U S S ′ 𝐤 − 𝐤 ′ n S , 𝐤 + 𝐪 2 , ↑ ∗ m S ′ , − 𝐤 + 𝐪 2 , ↓ ∗ m ′ S ′ , − 𝐤 ′ + 𝐪 2 , ↓ n ′ S , 𝐤 ′ + 𝐪 2 , ↑ , superscript subscript 𝑉 superscript 𝑛 ′ superscript 𝑚 ′ superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 𝐪 subscript 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript subscript 𝑈 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 superscript 𝐤 ′ superscript subscript 𝑛 𝑆 𝐤 𝐪 2 ↑
superscript subscript 𝑚 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 𝐪 2 ↓
subscript superscript 𝑚 ′ superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝐪 2 ↓
subscript superscript 𝑛 ′ 𝑆 superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝐪 2 ↑
V_{n^{\prime}m^{\prime}\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}^{nm\mathbf{k}}(\mathbf{q})=\sum_{%
SS^{\prime}}U_{SS^{\prime}}^{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}n_{S,\mathbf{k}+%
\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2},\uparrow}^{*}m_{S^{\prime},-\mathbf{k}+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{%
2},\downarrow}^{*}{m^{\prime}}_{S^{\prime},-\mathbf{k^{\prime}}+\frac{\mathbf{%
q}}{2},\downarrow}{n^{\prime}}_{S,\mathbf{k^{\prime}}+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2},%
\uparrow}, italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_q ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S , bold_k + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , ↑ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , - bold_k + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , ↓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , ↓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S , bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , ↑ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
and the operator
b n m † ( 𝐤 , 𝐪 ) = c n , 𝐤 + 𝐪 2 , ↑ † c m , − 𝐤 + 𝐪 2 , ↓ † superscript subscript 𝑏 𝑛 𝑚 † 𝐤 𝐪 superscript subscript 𝑐 𝑛 𝐤 𝐪 2 ↑
† superscript subscript 𝑐 𝑚 𝐤 𝐪 2 ↓
† b_{nm}^{\dagger}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q})=c_{n,\mathbf{k}+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2},%
\uparrow}^{\dagger}c_{m,-\mathbf{k}+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2},\downarrow}^{\dagger} italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_k , bold_q ) = italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , bold_k + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , ↑ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m , - bold_k + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , ↓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
creates a pair of ↑ ↑ \uparrow ↑ and ↓ ↓ \downarrow ↓ particles in the
corresponding Bloch bands with a relative momentum 𝐤 𝐤 \mathbf{k} bold_k and
a total momentum 𝐪 𝐪 \mathbf{q} bold_q .
III Two-body problem
Having in mind a multiband lattice Hamiltonian that is invariant under
discrete translations, the exact solutions for the two-body problem,
i.e., for any given center-of-mass momentum 𝐪 𝐪 \mathbf{q} bold_q ,
can in general be obtained through the variational ansatz
| Ψ ( 𝐪 ) ⟩ = ∑ n m 𝐤 σ σ ′ α n m 𝐤 σ σ ′ ( 𝐪 ) c n , 𝐤 + 𝐪 2 , σ † c m , − 𝐤 + 𝐪 2 , σ ′ † | 0 ⟩ , ket Ψ 𝐪 subscript 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 𝜎 superscript 𝜎 ′ superscript subscript 𝛼 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 𝜎 superscript 𝜎 ′ 𝐪 superscript subscript 𝑐 𝑛 𝐤 𝐪 2 𝜎
† superscript subscript 𝑐 𝑚 𝐤 𝐪 2 superscript 𝜎 ′
† ket 0 |\Psi(\mathbf{q})\rangle=\sum_{nm\mathbf{k}\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}\alpha_{nm%
\mathbf{k}}^{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}(\mathbf{q})c_{n,\mathbf{k}+\frac{\mathbf{q%
}}{2},\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{m,-\mathbf{k}+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2},\sigma^{\prime}}^%
{\dagger}|0\rangle, | roman_Ψ ( bold_q ) ⟩ = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k italic_σ italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_q ) italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , bold_k + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , italic_σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m , - bold_k + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | 0 ⟩ ,
where | 0 ⟩ ket 0 |0\rangle | 0 ⟩ represents the particle vacuum. Here the variational
parameters must satisfy
α n m 𝐤 σ σ ′ ( 𝐪 ) = − α m n , − 𝐤 σ ′ σ ( 𝐪 ) superscript subscript 𝛼 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 𝜎 superscript 𝜎 ′ 𝐪 superscript subscript 𝛼 𝑚 𝑛 𝐤
superscript 𝜎 ′ 𝜎 𝐪 \alpha_{nm\mathbf{k}}^{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}(\mathbf{q})=-\alpha_{mn,-\mathbf%
{k}}^{\sigma^{\prime}\sigma}(\mathbf{q}) italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_q ) = - italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m italic_n , - bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_q )
so that | Ψ ( 𝐪 ) ⟩ ket Ψ 𝐪 |\Psi(\mathbf{q})\rangle | roman_Ψ ( bold_q ) ⟩ is anti-symmetric under fermion
exchange. Furthermore, given the absence of a spin-orbit coupling
term in the single-particle Hamiltonian, they must satisfy
α n m 𝐤 σ σ ′ ( 𝐪 ) = ± α m n , − 𝐤 σ σ ′ ( 𝐪 ) = ∓ α n m 𝐤 σ ′ σ ( 𝐪 ) superscript subscript 𝛼 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 𝜎 superscript 𝜎 ′ 𝐪 plus-or-minus superscript subscript 𝛼 𝑚 𝑛 𝐤
𝜎 superscript 𝜎 ′ 𝐪 minus-or-plus superscript subscript 𝛼 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 superscript 𝜎 ′ 𝜎 𝐪 \alpha_{nm\mathbf{k}}^{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}(\mathbf{q})=\pm\alpha_{mn,-%
\mathbf{k}}^{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}(\mathbf{q})=\mp\alpha_{nm\mathbf{k}}^{%
\sigma^{\prime}\sigma}(\mathbf{q}) italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_q ) = ± italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m italic_n , - bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_q ) = ∓ italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_q )
for the spin-singlet and spin-triplet states, respectively. These
conditions guarantee that the singlet states are symmetric
(anti-symmetric) but the triplet states are anti-symmetric (symmetric)
under spatial (spin) exchange. For the simplicity of presentation,
here we choose [7 ]
| ψ 𝐪 ⟩ = ∑ n m 𝐤 α n m 𝐤 𝐪 c n , 𝐤 + 𝐪 2 , ↑ † c m , − 𝐤 + 𝐪 2 , ↓ † | 0 ⟩ , ket subscript 𝜓 𝐪 subscript 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 superscript subscript 𝛼 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 𝐪 superscript subscript 𝑐 𝑛 𝐤 𝐪 2 ↑
† superscript subscript 𝑐 𝑚 𝐤 𝐪 2 ↓
† ket 0 \displaystyle|\psi_{\mathbf{q}}\rangle=\sum_{nm\mathbf{k}}\alpha_{nm\mathbf{k}%
}^{\mathbf{q}}c_{n,\mathbf{k}+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2},\uparrow}^{\dagger}c_{m,-%
\mathbf{k}+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2},\downarrow}^{\dagger}|0\rangle, | italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , bold_k + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , ↑ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m , - bold_k + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , ↓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | 0 ⟩ ,
(6)
where
α n m 𝐤 𝐪 ≡ α n m 𝐤 ↑ ↓ ( 𝐪 ) superscript subscript 𝛼 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 𝐪 superscript subscript 𝛼 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 ↑ absent ↓ 𝐪 \alpha_{nm\mathbf{k}}^{\mathbf{q}}\equiv\alpha_{nm\mathbf{k}}^{\uparrow%
\downarrow}(\mathbf{q}) italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≡ italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ↑ ↓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_q )
parameters satisfy
α n m 𝐤 𝐪 = ± α m n , − 𝐤 𝐪 superscript subscript 𝛼 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 𝐪 plus-or-minus superscript subscript 𝛼 𝑚 𝑛 𝐤
𝐪 \alpha_{nm\mathbf{k}}^{\mathbf{q}}=\pm\alpha_{mn,-\mathbf{k}}^{\mathbf{q}} italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ± italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m italic_n , - bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
for the singlet and triplet states, respectively.
They are in such a way that
| ψ 𝐪 ⟩ → ∓ | ψ 𝐪 ⟩ → ket subscript 𝜓 𝐪 minus-or-plus ket subscript 𝜓 𝐪 |\psi_{\mathbf{q}}\rangle\to\mp|\psi_{\mathbf{q}}\rangle | italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ → ∓ | italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩
upon the transformation ↑ ↔ ↓ ↑ ↔ ↓
\uparrow\leftrightarrow\downarrow ↑ ↔ ↓ ,
corresponding, respectively, to an anti-symmetric and symmetric
combination, i.e.,
| ↑ ↓ ⟩ ∓ | ↓ ↑ ⟩ 2 , \frac{|\uparrow\downarrow\rangle\mp|\downarrow\uparrow\rangle}{\sqrt{2}}, divide start_ARG | ↑ ↓ ⟩ ∓ | ↓ ↑ ⟩ end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG ,
for the singlet and triplet states under spin exchange.
For any given 𝐪 𝐪 \mathbf{q} bold_q , the exact two-body energies E 𝐪 subscript 𝐸 𝐪 E_{\mathbf{q}} italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
are determined by minimizing the expectation value
⟨ ψ 𝐪 | ℋ − E 𝐪 | ψ 𝐪 ⟩ quantum-operator-product subscript 𝜓 𝐪 ℋ subscript 𝐸 𝐪 subscript 𝜓 𝐪 \langle\psi_{\mathbf{q}}|\mathcal{H}-E_{\mathbf{q}}|\psi_{\mathbf{q}}\rangle ⟨ italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | caligraphic_H - italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩
with respect to α n m 𝐤 𝐪 superscript subscript 𝛼 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 𝐪 \alpha_{nm\mathbf{k}}^{\mathbf{q}} italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [7 ] .
This leads to a set of linear equations
( ε n , 𝐤 + 𝐪 2 , ↑ \displaystyle\big{(}\varepsilon_{n,\mathbf{k}+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2},\uparrow} ( italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , bold_k + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , ↑ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
+ ε m , − 𝐤 + 𝐪 2 , ↓ − E 𝐪 ) α n m 𝐤 𝐪 \displaystyle+\varepsilon_{m,-\mathbf{k}+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2},\downarrow}-E_{%
\mathbf{q}}\big{)}\alpha_{nm\mathbf{k}}^{\mathbf{q}} + italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m , - bold_k + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , ↓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
+ 1 N c ∑ n ′ m ′ 𝐤 ′ V n ′ m ′ 𝐤 ′ n m 𝐤 ( 𝐪 ) α n ′ m ′ 𝐤 ′ 𝐪 = 0 , 1 subscript 𝑁 𝑐 subscript superscript 𝑛 ′ superscript 𝑚 ′ superscript 𝐤 ′ superscript subscript 𝑉 superscript 𝑛 ′ superscript 𝑚 ′ superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 𝐪 superscript subscript 𝛼 superscript 𝑛 ′ superscript 𝑚 ′ superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝐪 0 \displaystyle+\frac{1}{N_{c}}\sum_{n^{\prime}m^{\prime}\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}V_{%
n^{\prime}m^{\prime}\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}^{nm\mathbf{k}}(\mathbf{q})\alpha_{n^{%
\prime}m^{\prime}\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}^{\mathbf{q}}=0, + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_q ) italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0 ,
(7)
from which E 𝐪 subscript 𝐸 𝐪 E_{\mathbf{q}} italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT can be determined as the eigenvalues of an
N b 2 N c × N b 2 N c superscript subscript 𝑁 𝑏 2 subscript 𝑁 𝑐 superscript subscript 𝑁 𝑏 2 subscript 𝑁 𝑐 N_{b}^{2}N_{c}\times N_{b}^{2}N_{c} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT matrix, where N b subscript 𝑁 𝑏 N_{b} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the number of
sublattice sites in a unit cell, i.e., the total number of lattice
sites in the system is N b N c subscript 𝑁 𝑏 subscript 𝑁 𝑐 N_{b}N_{c} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . Note that
α n m 𝐤 𝐪 → ± α n m , − 𝐤 𝐪 → superscript subscript 𝛼 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 𝐪 plus-or-minus superscript subscript 𝛼 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤
𝐪 \alpha_{nm\mathbf{k}}^{\mathbf{q}}\to\pm\alpha_{nm,-\mathbf{k}}^{\mathbf{q}} italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → ± italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m , - bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
upon spin exchange when ↑ ↔ ↓ ↑ ↔ ↓
\uparrow\leftrightarrow\downarrow ↑ ↔ ↓ .
Since the solutions of Eq. (7 ) give the entire
two-body spectrum, it does not discriminate between the scattering
(i.e., continuum) and the bound states. As an alternative description,
we define a set of dressed parameters
β S S ′ 𝐤 𝐪 = ∑ n m 𝐤 ′ U S S ′ 𝐤 − 𝐤 ′ n S , 𝐤 ′ + 𝐪 2 , ↑ m S ′ , − 𝐤 ′ + 𝐪 2 , ↓ α n m 𝐤 ′ 𝐪 , superscript subscript 𝛽 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 𝐪 subscript 𝑛 𝑚 superscript 𝐤 ′ superscript subscript 𝑈 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 superscript 𝐤 ′ subscript 𝑛 𝑆 superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝐪 2 ↑
subscript 𝑚 superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝐪 2 ↓
superscript subscript 𝛼 𝑛 𝑚 superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝐪 \displaystyle\beta_{SS^{\prime}\mathbf{k}}^{\mathbf{q}}=\sum_{nm\mathbf{k^{%
\prime}}}U_{SS^{\prime}}^{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}{n}_{S,\mathbf{k^{%
\prime}}+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2},\uparrow}{m}_{S^{\prime},-\mathbf{k^{\prime}}+%
\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2},\downarrow}\alpha_{nm\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}^{\mathbf{q}}, italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S , bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , ↑ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , ↓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
(8)
which are in such a way that
β S S ′ 𝐤 𝐪 → ± β S ′ S , − 𝐤 𝐪 → superscript subscript 𝛽 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 𝐪 plus-or-minus superscript subscript 𝛽 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝑆 𝐤
𝐪 \beta_{SS^{\prime}\mathbf{k}}^{\mathbf{q}}\to\pm\beta_{S^{\prime}S,-\mathbf{k}%
}^{\mathbf{q}} italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → ± italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S , - bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
upon spin exchange when ↑ ↔ ↓ ↑ ↔ ↓
\uparrow\leftrightarrow\downarrow ↑ ↔ ↓ .
It turns out these dressed parameters are non-zero only for the
two-body bound states, i.e., they play the role of an order parameter
for pairing. See the related discussion at the end of this section.
In more general terms, one may define
β S S ′ 𝐤 σ σ ′ ( 𝐪 ) = ∑ n m 𝐤 ′ U S S ′ 𝐤 − 𝐤 ′ n S , 𝐤 ′ + 𝐪 2 , σ m S ′ , − 𝐤 ′ + 𝐪 2 , σ ′ α n m 𝐤 ′ σ σ ′ ( 𝐪 ) , superscript subscript 𝛽 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 𝜎 superscript 𝜎 ′ 𝐪 subscript 𝑛 𝑚 superscript 𝐤 ′ superscript subscript 𝑈 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 superscript 𝐤 ′ subscript 𝑛 𝑆 superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝐪 2 𝜎
subscript 𝑚 superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝐪 2 superscript 𝜎 ′
superscript subscript 𝛼 𝑛 𝑚 superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝜎 superscript 𝜎 ′ 𝐪 \beta_{SS^{\prime}\mathbf{k}}^{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}(\mathbf{q})=\sum_{nm%
\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}U_{SS^{\prime}}^{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}{n}_{S,%
\mathbf{k^{\prime}}+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2},\sigma}{m}_{S^{\prime},-\mathbf{k^{%
\prime}}+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2},\sigma^{\prime}}\alpha_{nm\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}^{%
\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}(\mathbf{q}), italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_q ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S , bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , italic_σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_q ) ,
where
β S S ′ 𝐤 𝐪 ≡ β S S ′ 𝐤 ↑ ↓ ( 𝐪 ) superscript subscript 𝛽 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 𝐪 superscript subscript 𝛽 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 ↑ absent ↓ 𝐪 \beta_{SS^{\prime}\mathbf{k}}^{\mathbf{q}}\equiv\beta_{SS^{\prime}\mathbf{k}}^%
{\uparrow\downarrow}(\mathbf{q}) italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≡ italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ↑ ↓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_q )
is our dressed parameter. Given that they must satisfy
β S S ′ 𝐤 ↓ ↑ ( 𝐪 ) = − β S ′ S , − 𝐤 ↑ ↓ ( 𝐪 ) superscript subscript 𝛽 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 ↓ absent ↑ 𝐪 superscript subscript 𝛽 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝑆 𝐤
↑ absent ↓ 𝐪 \beta_{SS^{\prime}\mathbf{k}}^{\downarrow\uparrow}(\mathbf{q})=-\beta_{S^{%
\prime}S,-\mathbf{k}}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(\mathbf{q}) italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ↓ ↑ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_q ) = - italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S , - bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ↑ ↓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_q )
under fermion exchange, we require
β S S ′ 𝐤 𝐪 = ± β S ′ S , − 𝐤 𝐪 superscript subscript 𝛽 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 𝐪 plus-or-minus superscript subscript 𝛽 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝑆 𝐤
𝐪 \beta_{SS^{\prime}\mathbf{k}}^{\mathbf{q}}=\pm\beta_{S^{\prime}S,-\mathbf{k}}^%
{\mathbf{q}} italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ± italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S , - bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
for the singlet and triplet states, respectively. Note that, in the
presence of onsite interactions only [7 ] ,
i.e., when the interaction amplitudes
U S S ′ 𝐤 − 𝐤 ′ = U S δ S S ′ superscript subscript 𝑈 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 superscript 𝐤 ′ subscript 𝑈 𝑆 subscript 𝛿 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ U_{SS^{\prime}}^{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}=U_{S}\delta_{SS^{\prime}} italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
are constants in 𝐤 𝐤 \mathbf{k} bold_k space for the intra-orbital
interactions and vanish for the inter-orbital ones, only the singlet
bound states are allowed since the order parameter
for the triplet pairs
β S S ′ 𝐤 𝐪 → β S 𝐪 = − β S 𝐪 → superscript subscript 𝛽 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 𝐪 superscript subscript 𝛽 𝑆 𝐪 superscript subscript 𝛽 𝑆 𝐪 \beta_{SS^{\prime}\mathbf{k}}^{\mathbf{q}}\to\beta_{S}^{\mathbf{q}}=-\beta_{S}%
^{\mathbf{q}} italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = - italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
must vanish by the symmetry requirement. Here δ i j subscript 𝛿 𝑖 𝑗 \delta_{ij} italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a
Kronecker delta. With these definitions, Eq. (7 )
reduces to a set of coupled integral equations
β S ¯ S ¯ ′ 𝐤 𝐪 = − 1 N c ∑ n m 𝐤 ′ S S ′ superscript subscript 𝛽 ¯ 𝑆 superscript ¯ 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 𝐪 1 subscript 𝑁 𝑐 subscript 𝑛 𝑚 superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ \displaystyle\beta_{\bar{S}\bar{S}^{\prime}\mathbf{k}}^{\mathbf{q}}=-\frac{1}{%
N_{c}}\sum_{nm\mathbf{k^{\prime}}SS^{\prime}} italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
U S ¯ S ¯ ′ 𝐤 − 𝐤 ′ m S ¯ ′ , − 𝐤 ′ + 𝐪 2 , ↓ n S ¯ , 𝐤 ′ + 𝐪 2 , ↑ ε n , 𝐤 ′ + 𝐪 2 , ↑ + ε m , − 𝐤 ′ + 𝐪 2 , ↓ − E e 𝐪 superscript subscript 𝑈 ¯ 𝑆 superscript ¯ 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 superscript 𝐤 ′ subscript 𝑚 superscript ¯ 𝑆 ′ superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝐪 2 ↓
subscript 𝑛 ¯ 𝑆 superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝐪 2 ↑
subscript 𝜀 𝑛 superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝐪 2 ↑
subscript 𝜀 𝑚 superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝐪 2 ↓
subscript 𝐸 𝑒 𝐪 \displaystyle\frac{U_{\bar{S}\bar{S}^{\prime}}^{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k^{\prime}}%
}{m}_{\bar{S}^{\prime},-\mathbf{k^{\prime}}+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2},\downarrow}{n%
}_{\bar{S},\mathbf{k^{\prime}}+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2},\uparrow}}{\varepsilon_{n,%
\mathbf{k^{\prime}}+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2},\uparrow}+\varepsilon_{m,-\mathbf{k^{%
\prime}}+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2},\downarrow}-E_{e\mathbf{q}}} divide start_ARG italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , ↓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG , bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , ↑ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , ↑ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m , - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , ↓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e bold_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG
× \displaystyle\times ×
n S , 𝐤 ′ + 𝐪 2 , ↑ ∗ m S ′ , − 𝐤 ′ + 𝐪 2 , ↓ ∗ β S S ′ 𝐤 ′ 𝐪 , superscript subscript 𝑛 𝑆 superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝐪 2 ↑
superscript subscript 𝑚 superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝐪 2 ↓
superscript subscript 𝛽 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝐪 \displaystyle n_{S,\mathbf{k^{\prime}}+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2},\uparrow}^{*}m_{S^%
{\prime},-\mathbf{k^{\prime}}+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2},\downarrow}^{*}\beta_{SS^{%
\prime}\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}^{\mathbf{q}}, italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S , bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , ↑ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , ↓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
(9)
from which the bound-state energies E e 𝐪 subscript 𝐸 𝑒 𝐪 E_{e\mathbf{q}} italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e bold_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT can be
determined through heavy numerics. Note that Eq. (9 )
reduces to a self-consistency relation when
U S S ′ 𝐤 − 𝐤 ′ superscript subscript 𝑈 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 superscript 𝐤 ′ U_{SS^{\prime}}^{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k^{\prime}}} italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is independent of momentum,
i.e., in the case of usual Hubbard model with onsite
interactions [7 ] .
In order to simplify Eq. (9 ) and make further analytical
progress, next we express U S S ′ 𝐤 − 𝐤 ′ superscript subscript 𝑈 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 superscript 𝐤 ′ U_{SS^{\prime}}^{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k^{\prime}}} italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT as a
linear combination of separable functions of 𝐤 𝐤 \mathbf{k} bold_k and
𝐤 ′ superscript 𝐤 ′ \mathbf{k^{\prime}} bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in the form
U S S ′ 𝐤 − 𝐤 ′ = ∑ ℓ C S S ′ ℓ [ Γ S S ′ ℓ ( 𝐤 ) ] ∗ Γ S S ′ ℓ ( 𝐤 ′ ) , superscript subscript 𝑈 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 superscript 𝐤 ′ subscript ℓ superscript subscript 𝐶 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ superscript delimited-[] superscript subscript Γ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ 𝐤 superscript subscript Γ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ superscript 𝐤 ′ \displaystyle U_{SS^{\prime}}^{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}=\sum_{\ell}C_{%
SS^{\prime}}^{\ell}[\Gamma_{SS^{\prime}}^{\ell}(\mathbf{k})]^{*}\Gamma_{SS^{%
\prime}}^{\ell}(\mathbf{k^{\prime}}), italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_k ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,
(10)
where the momentum-independent coefficients C S S ′ ℓ superscript subscript 𝐶 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ C_{SS^{\prime}}^{\ell} italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are
determined by the interaction parameters U S i ; S ′ i ′ subscript 𝑈 𝑆 𝑖 superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript 𝑖 ′
U_{Si;S^{\prime}i^{\prime}} italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_i ; italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
For a given S S ′ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ SS^{\prime} italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sector, it proves convenient to choose the symmetry
functions Γ S S ′ ℓ ( 𝐤 ) superscript subscript Γ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ 𝐤 \Gamma_{SS^{\prime}}^{\ell}(\mathbf{k}) roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_k ) in such a way that they satisfy
∑ 𝐤 [ Γ S S ′ ℓ ( 𝐤 ) ] ∗ Γ S S ′ ℓ ′ ( 𝐤 ) = κ S S ′ ℓ δ ℓ ℓ ′ , subscript 𝐤 superscript delimited-[] superscript subscript Γ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ 𝐤 superscript subscript Γ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript ℓ ′ 𝐤 superscript subscript 𝜅 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ subscript 𝛿 ℓ superscript ℓ ′ \sum_{\mathbf{k}}[\Gamma_{SS^{\prime}}^{\ell}(\mathbf{k})]^{*}\Gamma_{SS^{%
\prime}}^{\ell^{\prime}}(\mathbf{k})=\kappa_{SS^{\prime}}^{\ell}\delta_{\ell%
\ell^{\prime}}, ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_k ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_k ) = italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
i.e., they are linearly independent from each other.
Note that the Hermiticity requirement
ℋ ↑ ↓ = ℋ ↑ ↓ † subscript ℋ ↑ absent ↓ superscript subscript ℋ ↑ absent ↓ † \mathcal{H}_{\uparrow\downarrow}=\mathcal{H}_{\uparrow\downarrow}^{\dagger} caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ↑ ↓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ↑ ↓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
for the Hamiltonian under adjoint operation leads to
V n ′ m ′ 𝐤 ′ n m 𝐤 ( 𝐪 ) = [ V n m 𝐤 n ′ m ′ 𝐤 ′ ( 𝐪 ) ] ∗ , superscript subscript 𝑉 superscript 𝑛 ′ superscript 𝑚 ′ superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 𝐪 superscript delimited-[] superscript subscript 𝑉 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 superscript 𝑛 ′ superscript 𝑚 ′ superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝐪 V_{n^{\prime}m^{\prime}\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}^{nm\mathbf{k}}(\mathbf{q})=[V_{nm%
\mathbf{k}}^{n^{\prime}m^{\prime}\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}(\mathbf{q})]^{*}, italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_q ) = [ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_q ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
suggesting that
C S S ′ ℓ = ( C S S ′ ℓ ) ∗ superscript subscript 𝐶 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ superscript superscript subscript 𝐶 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ C_{SS^{\prime}}^{\ell}=(C_{SS^{\prime}}^{\ell})^{*} italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
is a real parameter. In addition, the invariance requirement
ℋ ↑ ↓ = ℋ ↓ ↑ subscript ℋ ↑ absent ↓ subscript ℋ ↓ absent ↑ \mathcal{H}_{\uparrow\downarrow}=\mathcal{H}_{\downarrow\uparrow} caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ↑ ↓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ↓ ↑ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
for the Hamiltonian under spin exchange leads to
V n ′ m ′ 𝐤 ′ n m 𝐤 ( 𝐪 ) = V m ′ n ′ , − 𝐤 ′ m n , − 𝐤 ( 𝐪 ) , superscript subscript 𝑉 superscript 𝑛 ′ superscript 𝑚 ′ superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 𝐪 superscript subscript 𝑉 superscript 𝑚 ′ superscript 𝑛 ′ superscript 𝐤 ′
𝑚 𝑛 𝐤
𝐪 V_{n^{\prime}m^{\prime}\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}^{nm\mathbf{k}}(\mathbf{q})=V_{m^{%
\prime}n^{\prime},-\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}^{mn,-\mathbf{k}}(\mathbf{q}), italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_q ) = italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m italic_n , - bold_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_q ) ,
suggesting that
U S S ′ 𝐤 − 𝐤 ′ = U S ′ S 𝐤 ′ − 𝐤 . superscript subscript 𝑈 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 superscript 𝐤 ′ superscript subscript 𝑈 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝑆 superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝐤 U_{SS^{\prime}}^{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}=U_{S^{\prime}S}^{\mathbf{k^{%
\prime}}-\mathbf{k}}. italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - bold_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
Given that C S S ′ ℓ = C S ′ S ℓ superscript subscript 𝐶 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ superscript subscript 𝐶 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝑆 ℓ C_{SS^{\prime}}^{\ell}=C_{S^{\prime}S}^{\ell} italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT parameters can always be
chosen symmetrically under sublattice exchange, the latter condition
allows two distinct solutions
Γ S S ′ ℓ ( 𝐤 ) = ± Γ S ′ S ℓ ( − 𝐤 ) , superscript subscript Γ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ 𝐤 plus-or-minus superscript subscript Γ superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝑆 ℓ 𝐤 \Gamma_{SS^{\prime}}^{\ell}(\mathbf{k})=\pm\Gamma_{S^{\prime}S}^{\ell}(-%
\mathbf{k}), roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_k ) = ± roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - bold_k ) ,
leading to
κ S S ′ ℓ = κ S ′ S ℓ superscript subscript 𝜅 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ superscript subscript 𝜅 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝑆 ℓ \kappa_{SS^{\prime}}^{\ell}=\kappa_{S^{\prime}S}^{\ell} italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
as well. In terms of these symmetry functions, the dressed parameters
can be reexpressed in general as
β S S ′ 𝐤 𝐪 = ∑ ℓ Λ S S ′ ℓ 𝐪 [ Γ S S ′ ℓ ( 𝐤 ) ] ∗ , superscript subscript 𝛽 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 𝐪 subscript ℓ superscript subscript Λ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ 𝐪 superscript delimited-[] superscript subscript Γ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ 𝐤 \displaystyle\beta_{SS^{\prime}\mathbf{k}}^{\mathbf{q}}=\sum_{\ell}\Lambda_{SS%
^{\prime}}^{\ell\mathbf{q}}[\Gamma_{SS^{\prime}}^{\ell}(\mathbf{k})]^{*}, italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_k ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
(11)
where the 𝐤 𝐤 \mathbf{k} bold_k -independent prefactor can be written as
Λ S S ′ ℓ 𝐪 = C S S ′ ℓ ∑ n m 𝐤 Γ S S ′ ℓ n m ( 𝐤 , 𝐪 ) α n m 𝐤 𝐪 superscript subscript Λ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ 𝐪 superscript subscript 𝐶 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ subscript 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 superscript subscript Γ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 𝐪 superscript subscript 𝛼 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 𝐪 \Lambda_{SS^{\prime}}^{\ell\mathbf{q}}=C_{SS^{\prime}}^{\ell}\sum_{nm\mathbf{k%
}}\Gamma_{SS^{\prime}}^{\ell nm}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q})\alpha_{nm\mathbf{k}}^{%
\mathbf{q}} roman_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ italic_n italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_k , bold_q ) italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
with
Γ S S ′ ℓ n m ( 𝐤 , 𝐪 ) = Γ S S ′ ℓ ( 𝐤 ) n S , 𝐤 + 𝐪 2 , ↑ m S ′ , − 𝐤 + 𝐪 2 , ↓ . superscript subscript Γ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 𝐪 superscript subscript Γ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ 𝐤 subscript 𝑛 𝑆 𝐤 𝐪 2 ↑
subscript 𝑚 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 𝐪 2 ↓
\Gamma_{SS^{\prime}}^{\ell nm}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q})=\Gamma_{SS^{\prime}}^{%
\ell}(\mathbf{k}){n}_{S,\mathbf{k}+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2},\uparrow}{m}_{S^{%
\prime},-\mathbf{k}+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2},\downarrow}. roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ italic_n italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_k , bold_q ) = roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_k ) italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S , bold_k + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , ↑ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , - bold_k + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , ↓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Thus, Eq. (11 ) suggests that the singlet and triplet states
are characterized by
Γ S S ′ ℓ ( 𝐤 ) = ± Γ S ′ S ℓ ( − 𝐤 ) , superscript subscript Γ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ 𝐤 plus-or-minus superscript subscript Γ superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝑆 ℓ 𝐤 \Gamma_{SS^{\prime}}^{\ell}(\mathbf{k})=\pm\Gamma_{S^{\prime}S}^{\ell}(-%
\mathbf{k}), roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_k ) = ± roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - bold_k ) ,
respectively, and
Λ S S ′ ℓ 𝐪 = Λ S ′ S ℓ 𝐪 superscript subscript Λ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ 𝐪 superscript subscript Λ superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝑆 ℓ 𝐪 \Lambda_{SS^{\prime}}^{\ell\mathbf{q}}=\Lambda_{S^{\prime}S}^{\ell\mathbf{q}} roman_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = roman_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
is symmetric under sublattice exchange. Furthermore, the requirement
U S S ′ 𝐤 − 𝐤 ′ = ( U S ′ S 𝐤 − 𝐤 ′ ) ∗ superscript subscript 𝑈 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 superscript 𝐤 ′ superscript superscript subscript 𝑈 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝑆 𝐤 superscript 𝐤 ′ U_{SS^{\prime}}^{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}=(U_{S^{\prime}S}^{\mathbf{k}-%
\mathbf{k^{\prime}}})^{*} italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
suggests that
Γ S S ′ ℓ ( 𝐤 ) = ± [ Γ S S ′ ℓ ( − 𝐤 ) ] ∗ superscript subscript Γ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ 𝐤 plus-or-minus superscript delimited-[] superscript subscript Γ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ 𝐤 \Gamma_{SS^{\prime}}^{\ell}(\mathbf{k})=\pm[\Gamma_{SS^{\prime}}^{\ell}(-%
\mathbf{k})]^{*} roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_k ) = ± [ roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - bold_k ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
for the singlet and triplet states, respectively.
By plugging Eq. (11 ) into Eq. (9 ), we find
a set of nonlinear equations in the form of a self-consistency relation
Λ S ¯ S ¯ ′ ℓ 𝐪 = − C S ¯ S ¯ ′ ℓ N c ∑ n m 𝐤 S S ′ ℓ ′ Γ S ¯ S ¯ ′ ℓ n m ( 𝐤 , 𝐪 ) [ Γ S S ′ ℓ ′ n m ( 𝐤 , 𝐪 ) ] ∗ ε n , 𝐤 + 𝐪 2 , ↑ + ε m , − 𝐤 + 𝐪 2 , ↓ − E e 𝐪 Λ S S ′ ℓ ′ 𝐪 , superscript subscript Λ ¯ 𝑆 superscript ¯ 𝑆 ′ ℓ 𝐪 superscript subscript 𝐶 ¯ 𝑆 superscript ¯ 𝑆 ′ ℓ subscript 𝑁 𝑐 subscript 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript ℓ ′
superscript subscript Γ ¯ 𝑆 superscript ¯ 𝑆 ′ ℓ 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 𝐪 superscript delimited-[] superscript subscript Γ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript ℓ ′ 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 𝐪 subscript 𝜀 𝑛 𝐤 𝐪 2 ↑
subscript 𝜀 𝑚 𝐤 𝐪 2 ↓
subscript 𝐸 𝑒 𝐪 superscript subscript Λ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript ℓ ′ 𝐪 \displaystyle\Lambda_{\bar{S}\bar{S}^{\prime}}^{\ell\mathbf{q}}=-\frac{C_{\bar%
{S}\bar{S}^{\prime}}^{\ell}}{N_{c}}\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}nm\mathbf{k}\\
SS^{\prime}\ell^{\prime}\end{subarray}}\frac{\Gamma_{\bar{S}\bar{S}^{\prime}}^%
{\ell nm}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q})[\Gamma_{SS^{\prime}}^{\ell^{\prime}nm}(%
\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q})]^{*}}{\varepsilon_{n,\mathbf{k}+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2},%
\uparrow}+\varepsilon_{m,-\mathbf{k}+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2},\downarrow}-E_{e%
\mathbf{q}}}\Lambda_{SS^{\prime}}^{\ell^{\prime}\mathbf{q}}, roman_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = - divide start_ARG italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_n italic_m bold_k end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ italic_n italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_k , bold_q ) [ roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_k , bold_q ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , bold_k + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , ↑ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m , - bold_k + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , ↓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e bold_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG roman_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
(12)
from which the bound-state energies E e 𝐪 subscript 𝐸 𝑒 𝐪 E_{e\mathbf{q}} italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e bold_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT can be
determined efficiently through low-cost numerics.
We note in passing that a suggestive way of expressing the interaction
amplitude V n ′ m ′ 𝐤 ′ n m 𝐤 ( 𝐪 ) superscript subscript 𝑉 superscript 𝑛 ′ superscript 𝑚 ′ superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 𝐪 V_{n^{\prime}m^{\prime}\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}^{nm\mathbf{k}}(\mathbf{q}) italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_q ) in the
band basis is
V n ′ m ′ 𝐤 ′ n m 𝐤 ( 𝐪 ) = ∑ S S ′ ℓ C S S ′ ℓ [ Γ S S ′ ℓ n m ( 𝐤 , 𝐪 ) ] ∗ Γ S S ′ ℓ n ′ m ′ ( 𝐤 ′ , 𝐪 ) . superscript subscript 𝑉 superscript 𝑛 ′ superscript 𝑚 ′ superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 𝐪 subscript 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ superscript subscript 𝐶 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ superscript delimited-[] superscript subscript Γ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 𝐪 superscript subscript Γ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ superscript 𝑛 ′ superscript 𝑚 ′ superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝐪 V_{n^{\prime}m^{\prime}\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}^{nm\mathbf{k}}(\mathbf{q})=\sum_{%
SS^{\prime}\ell}C_{SS^{\prime}}^{\ell}[\Gamma_{SS^{\prime}}^{\ell nm}(\mathbf{%
k},\mathbf{q})]^{*}\Gamma_{SS^{\prime}}^{\ell n^{\prime}m^{\prime}}(\mathbf{k^%
{\prime}},\mathbf{q}). italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_q ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ italic_n italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_k , bold_q ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , bold_q ) .
Then, Eq. (12 ) resembles the self-consistency equation
that appears in the BCS theory of superconductivity. We also note that
a suggestive way of expressing the dressed parameters is
β S S ′ 𝐤 ↑ ↓ ( 𝐪 ) = ∑ 𝐤 ′ U S S ′ 𝐤 − 𝐤 ′ ⟨ 0 | c S , 𝐤 ′ + 𝐪 2 , ↑ c S ′ , − 𝐤 ′ + 𝐪 2 , ↓ | ψ 𝐪 ⟩ = − β S ′ S , − 𝐤 ↓ ↑ ( 𝐪 ) , superscript subscript 𝛽 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 ↑ absent ↓ 𝐪 subscript superscript 𝐤 ′ superscript subscript 𝑈 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 superscript 𝐤 ′ quantum-operator-product 0 subscript 𝑐 𝑆 superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝐪 2 ↑
subscript 𝑐 superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝐪 2 ↓
subscript 𝜓 𝐪 superscript subscript 𝛽 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝑆 𝐤
↓ absent ↑ 𝐪 \beta_{SS^{\prime}\mathbf{k}}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(\mathbf{q})=\sum_{\mathbf{k%
^{\prime}}}U_{SS^{\prime}}^{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}\langle 0|c_{S,%
\mathbf{k^{\prime}}+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2},\uparrow}c_{S^{\prime},-\mathbf{k^{%
\prime}}+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2},\downarrow}|\psi_{\mathbf{q}}\rangle=-\beta_{S^{%
\prime}S,-\mathbf{k}}^{\downarrow\uparrow}(\mathbf{q}), italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ↑ ↓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_q ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ 0 | italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S , bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , ↑ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG bold_q end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , ↓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ = - italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S , - bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ↓ ↑ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_q ) ,
where | ψ 𝐪 ⟩ ket subscript 𝜓 𝐪 |\psi_{\mathbf{q}}\rangle | italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ is the two-body ansatz given
in Eq. (6 ). In comparison, considering stationary
Cooper pairs with 𝐪 = 𝟎 𝐪 0 \mathbf{q}=\mathbf{0} bold_q = bold_0 , the BCS order parameters
for the multi-sublattice Hamiltonian can be written as
Δ S S ′ 𝐤 ↑ ↓ ( 𝟎 ) = ∑ 𝐤 ′ U S S ′ 𝐤 − 𝐤 ′ ⟨ ψ BCS | c S 𝐤 ′ ↑ c S ′ , − 𝐤 ′ , ↓ | ψ BCS ⟩ = − Δ S ′ S , − 𝐤 ↓ ↑ ( 𝟎 ) , superscript subscript Δ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 ↑ absent ↓ 0 subscript superscript 𝐤 ′ superscript subscript 𝑈 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐤 superscript 𝐤 ′ quantum-operator-product subscript 𝜓 BCS subscript 𝑐 ↑ 𝑆 superscript 𝐤 ′ absent subscript 𝑐 superscript 𝑆 ′ superscript 𝐤 ′ ↓
subscript 𝜓 BCS superscript subscript Δ superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝑆 𝐤
↓ absent ↑ 0 \Delta_{SS^{\prime}\mathbf{k}}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(\mathbf{0})=\sum_{\mathbf{%
k^{\prime}}}U_{SS^{\prime}}^{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}\langle\psi_{%
\mathrm{BCS}}|c_{S\mathbf{k^{\prime}}\uparrow}c_{S^{\prime},-\mathbf{k^{\prime%
}},\downarrow}|\psi_{\mathrm{BCS}}\rangle=-\Delta_{S^{\prime}S,-\mathbf{k}}^{%
\downarrow\uparrow}(\mathbf{0}), roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ↑ ↓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_0 ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_BCS end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ↑ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ↓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_BCS end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ = - roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S , - bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ↓ ↑ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_0 ) ,
where | ψ BCS ⟩ ket subscript 𝜓 BCS |\psi_{\mathrm{BCS}}\rangle | italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_BCS end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ is the coherent BCS ground
state [18 ] . Thus, the number conserving expectation value
⟨ 0 | ⋯ | ψ 𝐪 ⟩ quantum-operator-product 0 ⋯ subscript 𝜓 𝐪 \langle 0|\cdots|\psi_{\mathbf{q}}\rangle ⟨ 0 | ⋯ | italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩
plays precisely the role of the so-called anomalous average
⟨ ψ BCS | ⋯ | ψ BCS ⟩ quantum-operator-product subscript 𝜓 BCS ⋯ subscript 𝜓 BCS \langle\psi_{\mathrm{BCS}}|\cdots|\psi_{\mathrm{BCS}}\rangle ⟨ italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_BCS end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ⋯ | italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_BCS end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩
in the BCS theory. In other words, our variational parameters
α n m 𝐤 𝐪 superscript subscript 𝛼 𝑛 𝑚 𝐤 𝐪 \alpha_{nm\mathbf{k}}^{\mathbf{q}} italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
reduce to the Leggett’s number-conserving variational BCS parameter
F 𝐤 ≡ α 𝐤 𝟎 subscript 𝐹 𝐤 superscript subscript 𝛼 𝐤 0 F_{\mathbf{k}}\equiv\alpha_{\mathbf{k}}^{\mathbf{0}} italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≡ italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
in the case of a single-band continuum system [3 ] .
IV Numerical Benchmark
To benchmark our approach with the existing
literature [19 , 20 , 21 ] ,
next we simulate the well-studied usual linear chain as a lattice with
a two-point basis, i.e., with N b = 2 subscript 𝑁 𝑏 2 N_{b}=2 italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 2 .
This model is illustrated in Fig. 1 , where the nearest-neighbor
hop** parameter is taken as t > 0 𝑡 0 t>0 italic_t > 0 uniformly across the lattice for
both spin-up and spin-down particles, i.e., the lattice sites belonging
to sublattices A 𝐴 A italic_A and B 𝐵 B italic_B are identical. Assuming periodic boundary
conditions, the Bloch Hamiltonian is governed simply by the matrix
elements
h A B 𝐤 σ = h B A 𝐤 σ = − 2 t cos ( k x d ) superscript subscript ℎ 𝐴 𝐵 𝐤 𝜎 superscript subscript ℎ 𝐵 𝐴 𝐤 𝜎 2 𝑡 subscript 𝑘 𝑥 𝑑 h_{AB\mathbf{k}}^{\sigma}=h_{BA\mathbf{k}}^{\sigma}=-2t\cos(k_{x}d) italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A italic_B bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B italic_A bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = - 2 italic_t roman_cos ( italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d )
and
h A A 𝐤 σ = h B B 𝐤 σ = 0 , superscript subscript ℎ 𝐴 𝐴 𝐤 𝜎 superscript subscript ℎ 𝐵 𝐵 𝐤 𝜎 0 h_{AA\mathbf{k}}^{\sigma}=h_{BB\mathbf{k}}^{\sigma}=0, italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A italic_A bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B italic_B bold_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0 ,
and the reduced first BZ is given by
− π 2 d ≤ k x < π 2 d , 𝜋 2 𝑑 subscript 𝑘 𝑥 𝜋 2 𝑑 -\frac{\pi}{2d}\leq k_{x}<\frac{\pi}{2d}, - divide start_ARG italic_π end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_d end_ARG ≤ italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < divide start_ARG italic_π end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_d end_ARG ,
where d 𝑑 d italic_d is the lattice spacing. Since there are precisely N c subscript 𝑁 𝑐 N_{c} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
states in the BZ, the length L 𝐿 L italic_L of the simulated lattice is in such
a way that L / d = N b N c 𝐿 𝑑 subscript 𝑁 𝑏 subscript 𝑁 𝑐 L/d=N_{b}N_{c} italic_L / italic_d = italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT gives the total number of sites.
Thus, a compact way to express the upper (s = + 𝑠 s=+ italic_s = + ) and lower (s = − 𝑠 s=- italic_s = - )
Bloch bands is
ε s 𝐤 σ = s 2 t cos ( k x d ) , subscript 𝜀 𝑠 𝐤 𝜎 𝑠 2 𝑡 subscript 𝑘 𝑥 𝑑 \varepsilon_{s\mathbf{k}\sigma}=s2t\cos(k_{x}d), italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s bold_k italic_σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_s 2 italic_t roman_cos ( italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d ) ,
where the projections
s A 𝐤 σ = 1 / 2 subscript 𝑠 𝐴 𝐤 𝜎 1 2 s_{A\mathbf{k}\sigma}=1/\sqrt{2} italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A bold_k italic_σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 / square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG
and
s B 𝐤 σ = − s / 2 subscript 𝑠 𝐵 𝐤 𝜎 𝑠 2 s_{B\mathbf{k}\sigma}=-s/\sqrt{2} italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B bold_k italic_σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - italic_s / square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG
determine the associated Bloch states.
Figure 1:
Simulation of the usual linear chain as a lattice with a two-point basis,
where S = ( A , B ) 𝑆 𝐴 𝐵 S=(A,B) italic_S = ( italic_A , italic_B ) denotes the underlying sublattices, d 𝑑 d italic_d is the
lattice spacing and t > 0 𝑡 0 t>0 italic_t > 0 is the nearest-neighbor hop** parameter.
Note that the reduced first BZ
− π 2 d ≤ k x < π 2 d 𝜋 2 𝑑 subscript 𝑘 𝑥 𝜋 2 𝑑 -\frac{\pi}{2d}\leq k_{x}<\frac{\pi}{2d} - divide start_ARG italic_π end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_d end_ARG ≤ italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < divide start_ARG italic_π end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_d end_ARG
is folded into two in comparison to that of the usual linear chain.
Similar to the existing literature, here we consider only the onsite
(U 𝑈 U italic_U ) and nearest-neighbor (V 𝑉 V italic_V ) interactions, leading to
U A A 𝐤 − 𝐤 ′ = U = U B B 𝐤 − 𝐤 ′ superscript subscript 𝑈 𝐴 𝐴 𝐤 superscript 𝐤 ′ 𝑈 superscript subscript 𝑈 𝐵 𝐵 𝐤 superscript 𝐤 ′ U_{AA}^{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}=U=U_{BB}^{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k^{\prime%
}}} italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_U = italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
contribution for the intra-sublattice interactions and
U A B 𝐤 − 𝐤 ′ = 2 V cos ( k x d − k x ′ d ) = U B A 𝐤 − 𝐤 ′ superscript subscript 𝑈 𝐴 𝐵 𝐤 superscript 𝐤 ′ 2 𝑉 subscript 𝑘 𝑥 𝑑 superscript subscript 𝑘 𝑥 ′ 𝑑 superscript subscript 𝑈 𝐵 𝐴 𝐤 superscript 𝐤 ′ U_{AB}^{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}=2V\cos(k_{x}d-k_{x}^{\prime}d)=U_{BA}^%
{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k^{\prime}}} italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 2 italic_V roman_cos ( italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d - italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d ) = italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_k - bold_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
for the inter-sublattice ones. The two-body spectrum that is shown in
gray color in Fig. 2 is obtained by plugging these
expressions into Eq. (7 ) with U = V = − 6 t 𝑈 𝑉 6 𝑡 U=V=-6t italic_U = italic_V = - 6 italic_t ,
corresponding to attractive interactions. It is important to remark
that, by construction, our approach produces exact results for any
signs or strengths of U 𝑈 U italic_U and V 𝑉 V italic_V .
In addition to a broad region of continuum states,
there are six two-body bound-state branches in the folded BZ.
To distinguish spin singlet branches from the triplet
ones, next we construct the appropriate symmetry functions and employ
them in Eq. (12 ). In accordance with the analysis given
in Sec. III ,
Γ S S ℓ ( 𝐤 ) = ± Γ S S ℓ ( − 𝐤 ) = ± [ Γ S S ℓ ( − 𝐤 ) ] ∗ superscript subscript Γ 𝑆 𝑆 ℓ 𝐤 plus-or-minus superscript subscript Γ 𝑆 𝑆 ℓ 𝐤 plus-or-minus superscript delimited-[] superscript subscript Γ 𝑆 𝑆 ℓ 𝐤 \Gamma_{SS}^{\ell}(\mathbf{k})=\pm\Gamma_{SS}^{\ell}(-\mathbf{k})=\pm[\Gamma_{%
SS}^{\ell}(-\mathbf{k})]^{*} roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_k ) = ± roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - bold_k ) = ± [ roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - bold_k ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
must be real for the intra-sublattice sectors and
Γ S ≠ S ′ ℓ ( 𝐤 ) = ± Γ S ′ ≠ S ℓ ( − 𝐤 ) = ± [ Γ S ≠ S ′ ℓ ( − 𝐤 ) ] ∗ superscript subscript Γ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ 𝐤 plus-or-minus superscript subscript Γ superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝑆 ℓ 𝐤 plus-or-minus superscript delimited-[] superscript subscript Γ 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ ℓ 𝐤 \Gamma_{S\neq S^{\prime}}^{\ell}(\mathbf{k})=\pm\Gamma_{S^{\prime}\neq S}^{%
\ell}(-\mathbf{k})=\pm[\Gamma_{S\neq S^{\prime}}^{\ell}(-\mathbf{k})]^{*} roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S ≠ italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_k ) = ± roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≠ italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - bold_k ) = ± [ roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S ≠ italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - bold_k ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
for the inter-sublattice sectors, where the upper and lower signs
correspond, respectively, to the singlet and triplet states.
Considering the singlet states, the appropriate linearly-independent
symmetry functions can be chosen as
Γ A A a ( 𝐤 ) = 1 = Γ B B a ( 𝐤 ) superscript subscript Γ 𝐴 𝐴 𝑎 𝐤 1 superscript subscript Γ 𝐵 𝐵 𝑎 𝐤 \Gamma_{AA}^{a}(\mathbf{k})=1=\Gamma_{BB}^{a}(\mathbf{k}) roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_k ) = 1 = roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_k )
with
C A A a = U = C B B a superscript subscript 𝐶 𝐴 𝐴 𝑎 𝑈 superscript subscript 𝐶 𝐵 𝐵 𝑎 C_{AA}^{a}=U=C_{BB}^{a} italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_U = italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
for the intra-sublattice sectors, and
Γ A B a ( 𝐤 ) = 2 cos ( k x d ) = Γ B A a ( − 𝐤 ) superscript subscript Γ 𝐴 𝐵 𝑎 𝐤 2 subscript 𝑘 𝑥 𝑑 superscript subscript Γ 𝐵 𝐴 𝑎 𝐤 \Gamma_{AB}^{a}(\mathbf{k})=\sqrt{2}\cos(k_{x}d)=\Gamma_{BA}^{a}(-\mathbf{k}) roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_k ) = square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG roman_cos ( italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d ) = roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - bold_k )
and
Γ A B b ( 𝐤 ) = i 2 sin ( k x d ) = Γ B A b ( − 𝐤 ) superscript subscript Γ 𝐴 𝐵 𝑏 𝐤 i 2 subscript 𝑘 𝑥 𝑑 superscript subscript Γ 𝐵 𝐴 𝑏 𝐤 \Gamma_{AB}^{b}(\mathbf{k})=\mathrm{i}\sqrt{2}\sin(k_{x}d)=\Gamma_{BA}^{b}(-%
\mathbf{k}) roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_k ) = roman_i square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG roman_sin ( italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d ) = roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - bold_k )
with
C A B a = V = C B A a superscript subscript 𝐶 𝐴 𝐵 𝑎 𝑉 superscript subscript 𝐶 𝐵 𝐴 𝑎 C_{AB}^{a}=V=C_{BA}^{a} italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_V = italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
and
C A B b = V = C B A b superscript subscript 𝐶 𝐴 𝐵 𝑏 𝑉 superscript subscript 𝐶 𝐵 𝐴 𝑏 C_{AB}^{b}=V=C_{BA}^{b} italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_V = italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
for the inter-sublattice sectors. Similarly, considering
the triplet states, the appropriate linearly-independent symmetry
functions can be chosen as
Γ A B a ( 𝐤 ) = 2 sin ( k x d ) = − Γ B A a ( − 𝐤 ) superscript subscript Γ 𝐴 𝐵 𝑎 𝐤 2 subscript 𝑘 𝑥 𝑑 superscript subscript Γ 𝐵 𝐴 𝑎 𝐤 \Gamma_{AB}^{a}(\mathbf{k})=\sqrt{2}\sin(k_{x}d)=-\Gamma_{BA}^{a}(-\mathbf{k}) roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_k ) = square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG roman_sin ( italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d ) = - roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - bold_k )
and
Γ A B b ( 𝐤 ) = i 2 cos ( k x d ) = − Γ B A b ( − 𝐤 ) superscript subscript Γ 𝐴 𝐵 𝑏 𝐤 i 2 subscript 𝑘 𝑥 𝑑 superscript subscript Γ 𝐵 𝐴 𝑏 𝐤 \Gamma_{AB}^{b}(\mathbf{k})=\mathrm{i}\sqrt{2}\cos(k_{x}d)=-\Gamma_{BA}^{b}(-%
\mathbf{k}) roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_k ) = roman_i square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG roman_cos ( italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d ) = - roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - bold_k )
with
C A B a = V = C B A a superscript subscript 𝐶 𝐴 𝐵 𝑎 𝑉 superscript subscript 𝐶 𝐵 𝐴 𝑎 C_{AB}^{a}=V=C_{BA}^{a} italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_V = italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
and
C A B b = V = C B A b superscript subscript 𝐶 𝐴 𝐵 𝑏 𝑉 superscript subscript 𝐶 𝐵 𝐴 𝑏 C_{AB}^{b}=V=C_{BA}^{b} italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_V = italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
for the inter-sublattice sectors.
Figure 2:
Two-body spectrum E q x subscript 𝐸 subscript 𝑞 𝑥 E_{q_{x}} italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for the linear chain in the reduced BZ.
Here U = V = − 6 t 𝑈 𝑉 6 𝑡 U=V=-6t italic_U = italic_V = - 6 italic_t for the onsite and nearest-neighbor interactions,
respectively. Full spectrum follows from Eq. (7 )
with N c = 101 subscript 𝑁 𝑐 101 N_{c}=101 italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 101 , and it is shown in gray. Singlet and triplet
bound-state branches follow from Eq. (12 ) where
eige 𝑒 e italic_e refers to E e 𝐪 subscript 𝐸 𝑒 𝐪 E_{e\mathbf{q}} italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e bold_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Note that the entire spectrum appears as folded into the BZ,
e.g., there appears 4 4 4 4 ( 2 ) 2 (2) ( 2 ) instead of 2 2 2 2 ( 1 ) 1 (1) ( 1 ) singlet (triplet)
branches.
Equation (12 ) is equivalent to a non-linear eigenvalue
problem for E e 𝐪 subscript 𝐸 𝑒 𝐪 E_{e\mathbf{q}} italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e bold_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . After recasting it as
𝐆 𝐪 𝚲 𝐪 = 0 , subscript 𝐆 𝐪 subscript 𝚲 𝐪 0 \mathbf{G}_{\mathbf{q}}\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{\mathbf{q}}=0, bold_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 ,
we determine its self-consistent solutions by setting the eigenvalues
of 𝐆 𝐪 subscript 𝐆 𝐪 \mathbf{G}_{\mathbf{q}} bold_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to zero one at a time. For instance,
in the presence of two sublattices, i.e., S = ( A , B ) 𝑆 𝐴 𝐵 S=(A,B) italic_S = ( italic_A , italic_B ) , and assuming
ℓ = ( a , { a , b } , a ) ℓ 𝑎 𝑎 𝑏 𝑎 \ell=(a,\{a,b\},a) roman_ℓ = ( italic_a , { italic_a , italic_b } , italic_a ) , respectively, for the S S ′ = ( A A , A B , B B ) 𝑆 superscript 𝑆 ′ 𝐴 𝐴 𝐴 𝐵 𝐵 𝐵 SS^{\prime}=(AA,AB,BB) italic_S italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( italic_A italic_A , italic_A italic_B , italic_B italic_B )
sectors as in the singlet case discussed above, the corresponding
eigenvectors can be written as
𝚲 𝐪 = ( Λ A A a 𝐪 , Λ A B a 𝐪 , Λ A B b 𝐪 , Λ B B a 𝐪 ) T , subscript 𝚲 𝐪 superscript superscript subscript Λ 𝐴 𝐴 𝑎 𝐪 superscript subscript Λ 𝐴 𝐵 𝑎 𝐪 superscript subscript Λ 𝐴 𝐵 𝑏 𝐪 superscript subscript Λ 𝐵 𝐵 𝑎 𝐪 T \boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{\mathbf{q}}=(\Lambda_{AA}^{a\mathbf{q}},\Lambda_{AB}^{a%
\mathbf{q}},\Lambda_{AB}^{b\mathbf{q}},\Lambda_{BB}^{a\mathbf{q}})^{\mathrm{T}}, bold_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( roman_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , roman_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , roman_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , roman_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
where T T \mathrm{T} roman_T is the transpose. Note that, since the matrix
elements that involve Λ B A ℓ 𝐪 superscript subscript Λ 𝐵 𝐴 ℓ 𝐪 \Lambda_{BA}^{\ell\mathbf{q}} roman_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are not
independent, they are absorbed into the self-consistency equations
via substitution by Λ A B ℓ 𝐪 superscript subscript Λ 𝐴 𝐵 ℓ 𝐪 \Lambda_{AB}^{\ell\mathbf{q}} roman_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . As a result,
for a given 𝐪 𝐪 \mathbf{q} bold_q , we choose to label the resultant
self-consistency solutions as E e 𝐪 subscript 𝐸 𝑒 𝐪 E_{e\mathbf{q}} italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e bold_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , where the label
e = { 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 } 𝑒 1 2 3 4 e=\{1,2,3,4\} italic_e = { 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 } indicates which eigenvalue of 𝐆 𝐪 subscript 𝐆 𝐪 \mathbf{G}_{\mathbf{q}} bold_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
is set to 0 0 starting with the lowest one.
Similarly, assuming ℓ = { a , b } ℓ 𝑎 𝑏 \ell=\{a,b\} roman_ℓ = { italic_a , italic_b } for the A B 𝐴 𝐵 AB italic_A italic_B sector of the
triplet case discussed above, the corresponding eigenvectors
can be written as
𝚲 𝐪 = ( Λ A B a 𝐪 , Λ A B b 𝐪 ) T , subscript 𝚲 𝐪 superscript superscript subscript Λ 𝐴 𝐵 𝑎 𝐪 superscript subscript Λ 𝐴 𝐵 𝑏 𝐪 T \boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{\mathbf{q}}=(\Lambda_{AB}^{a\mathbf{q}},\Lambda_{AB}^{b%
\mathbf{q}})^{\mathrm{T}}, bold_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( roman_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , roman_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b bold_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
leading to E e 𝐪 subscript 𝐸 𝑒 𝐪 E_{e\mathbf{q}} italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e bold_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with e = { 1 , 2 } 𝑒 1 2 e=\{1,2\} italic_e = { 1 , 2 } .
Thus, since the singlet (triplet) symmetry functions leads to a
4 × 4 4 4 4\times 4 4 × 4 (2 × 2 2 2 2\times 2 2 × 2 ) nonlinear eigenvalue problem,
Eq. (12 ) gives rise to four (two) distinct singlet
(triplet) branches. These six branches are shown in Fig. 2
with different symbols.
Our numerical benchmark shown in Fig. 2 clearly
illustrates that bound-state solutions of Eq. (7 )
can be classified with respect to their exchange symmetry through
the self-consistent solutions of Eq. (12 ).
Furthermore, it is pleasing to see that these results are in perfect
agreement with the existing literature [19 , 20 ] ,
with the caveat that the entire spectrum appears as folded into the
BZ leading to the appearance of 4 4 4 4 ( 2 ) 2 (2) ( 2 ) instead of 2 2 2 2 ( 1 ) 1 (1) ( 1 )
singlet (triplet) branches. We also verified that the known analytical
expression [19 , 21 ]
E 𝐪 triplet = V + 4 t 2 V cos 2 ( q x d / 2 ) superscript subscript 𝐸 𝐪 triplet 𝑉 4 superscript 𝑡 2 𝑉 superscript 2 subscript 𝑞 𝑥 𝑑 2 E_{\mathbf{q}}^{\mathrm{triplet}}=V+\frac{4t^{2}}{V}\cos^{2}(q_{x}d/2) italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_triplet end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_V + divide start_ARG 4 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_V end_ARG roman_cos start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d / 2 )
for the triplet branch in the usual BZ
− π d ≤ q x ≤ π d 𝜋 𝑑 subscript 𝑞 𝑥 𝜋 𝑑 -\frac{\pi}{d}\leq q_{x}\leq\frac{\pi}{d} - divide start_ARG italic_π end_ARG start_ARG italic_d end_ARG ≤ italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ divide start_ARG italic_π end_ARG start_ARG italic_d end_ARG
is in perfect agreement with our numerical results. This expression is
valid only when the energy of the triplet states are outside of the
two-body continuum, i.e., it is not valid in the V → 0 → 𝑉 0 V\to 0 italic_V → 0 limit for
which the triplet states are not allowed.