Low-lying Photoexcited States of a One-Dimensional Ionic Extended Hubbard Model

Full text:
PDF (1615 kB)

Kota Yokoi¹, Nobuya Maeshima²^,³^,, and Ken-ichi Hino³^,²

+ Affiliations

¹Doctoral Program in Materials Science, Graduate School of Pure and Applied Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8573, Japan²Center for Computational Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8577, Japan³Division of Materials Science, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8573, Japan

Received June 10, 2017; Accepted August 7, 2017; Published September 22, 2017

We investigate the properties of low-lying photoexcited states of a one-dimensional (1D) ionic extended Hubbard model at half-filling. Numerical analysis by using the full and Lanczos diagonalization methods shows that, in the ionic phase, there exist low-lying photoexcited states below the charge transfer gap. As a result of comparison with numerical data for the 1D antiferromagnetic (AF) Heisenberg model, it was found that, for a small alternating potential Δ, these low-lying photoexcited states are spin excitations, which is consistent with a previous analytical study [Katsura et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 177402 (2009)]. As Δ increases, the spectral intensity of the 1D ionic extended Hubbard model rapidly deviates from that of the 1D AF Heisenberg model and it is clarified that this deviation is due to the neutral-ionic domain wall, an elementary excitation near the neutral-ionic transition point.

https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.86.104708

References

1 D. N. Basov, R. D. Averitt, D. van der Marel, M. Dressel, and K. Haule, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 471 (2011). 10.1103/RevModPhys.83.471 Crossref, Google Scholar
2 S. Uchida, T. Ido, H. Takagi, T. Arima, Y. Tokura, and S. Tajima, Phys. Rev. B 43, 7942 (1991). 10.1103/PhysRevB.43.7942 Crossref, Google Scholar
3 L. Baldassarre, A. Perucchi, D. Nicoletti, A. Toschi, G. Sangiovanni, K. Held, M. Capone, M. Ortolani, L. Malavasi, M. Marsi, P. Metcalf, P. Postorino, and S. Lupi, Phys. Rev. B 77, 113107 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevB.77.113107 Crossref, Google Scholar
4 D. Faltermeier, J. Barz, M. Dumm, M. Dressel, N. Drichko, B. Petrov, V. Semkin, R. Vlasova, C. Mézière, and P. Batail, Phys. Rev. B 76, 165113 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevB.76.165113 Crossref, Google Scholar
5 G. Yu, C. H. Lee, A. J. Heeger, N. Herron, and E. M. McCarron, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 2581 (1991). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.2581 Crossref, Google Scholar
6 M. Fiebig, K. Miyano, Y. Tomioka, and Y. Tokura, Science 280, 1925 (1998). 10.1126/science.280.5371.1925 Crossref, Google Scholar
7 S. Iwai, M. Ono, A. Maeda, H. Matsuzaki, H. Kishida, H. Okamoto, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 057401 (2003). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.057401 Crossref, Google Scholar
8 P. Maldague, Phys. Rev. B 16, 2437 (1977). 10.1103/PhysRevB.16.2437 Crossref, Google Scholar
9 R. M. Fye, M. J. Martins, D. J. Scalapino, J. Wagner, and W. Hanke, Phys. Rev. B 44, 6909 (1991). 10.1103/PhysRevB.44.6909 Crossref, Google Scholar
10 E. Dagotto, A. Moreo, F. Ortolani, D. Poilblanc, and J. Riera, Phys. Rev. B 45, 10741 (1992). 10.1103/PhysRevB.45.10741 Crossref, Google Scholar
11 H. Nakano and M. Imada, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 68, 1458 (1999). 10.1143/JPSJ.68.1458 Link, Google Scholar
12 T. Tohyama, Y. Inoue, K. Tsutsui, and S. Maekawa, Phys. Rev. B 72, 045113 (2005). 10.1103/PhysRevB.72.045113 Crossref, Google Scholar
13 L. Tan and J. Callaway, Phys. Rev. B 46, 5499 (1992). 10.1103/PhysRevB.46.5499 Crossref, Google Scholar
14 W. Stephan and K. Penc, Phys. Rev. B 54, R17269 (1996). 10.1103/PhysRevB.54.R17269 Crossref, Google Scholar
15 Y. Mizuno, K. Tsutsui, T. Tohyama, and S. Maekawa, Phys. Rev. B 62, R4769(R) (2000). 10.1103/PhysRevB.62.R4769 Crossref, Google Scholar
16 H. Suzuura, H. Yasuhara, A. Furusaki, N. Nagaosa, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 2579 (1996). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.2579 Crossref, Google Scholar
17 S. Sota and T. Tohyama, Phys. Rev. B 82, 195130 (2010). 10.1103/PhysRevB.82.195130 Crossref, Google Scholar
18 Y. Huh, M. Punk, and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. B 87, 235108 (2013). 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.235108 Crossref, Google Scholar
19 T.-K. Ng and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 156402 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.156402 Crossref, Google Scholar
20 L. N. Bulaevskii, C. D. Batista, M. V. Mostovoy, and D. I. Khomskii, Phys. Rev. B 78, 024402 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevB.78.024402 Crossref, Google Scholar
21 H. Katsura, M. Sato, T. Furuta, and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 177402 (2009). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.177402 Crossref, Google Scholar
22 N. Nagaosa and J. Takimoto, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 55, 2735 (1986). 10.1143/JPSJ.55.2735 Link, Google Scholar
23 N. Nagaosa and J. Takimoto, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 55, 2745 (1986). 10.1143/JPSJ.55.2745 Link, Google Scholar
24 S. Ishihara, T. Egami, and M. Tachiki, Phys. Rev. B 49, 8944 (1994). 10.1103/PhysRevB.49.8944 Crossref, Google Scholar
25 G. Ortiz, P. Ordejón, R. M. Martin, and G. Chiappe, Phys. Rev. B 54, 13515 (1996). 10.1103/PhysRevB.54.13515 Crossref, Google Scholar
26 R. Resta and S. Sorella, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 370 (1999). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.370 Crossref, Google Scholar
27 P. Huai, H. Zheng, and K. Nasu, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 69, 1788 (2000). 10.1143/JPSJ.69.1788 Link, Google Scholar
28 N. Miyashita, M. Kuwabara, and K. Yonemitsu, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 72, 2282 (2003). 10.1143/JPSJ.72.2282 Link, Google Scholar
29 J. B. Torrance, J. E. Vazquez, J. J. Mayerle, and V. Y. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 46, 253 (1981). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.46.253 Crossref, Google Scholar
30 N. Maeshima and K. Yonemitsu, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 74, 2671 (2005). 10.1143/JPSJ.74.2671 Link, Google Scholar
31 M. Fabrizio, A. O. Gogolin, and A. A. Nersesyan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2014 (1999). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.2014 Crossref, Google Scholar
32 M. E. Torio, A. A. Aligia, and H. A. Ceccatto, Phys. Rev. B 64, 121105 (2001). 10.1103/PhysRevB.64.121105 Crossref, Google Scholar
33 S. R. Manmana, V. Meden, R. M. Noack, and K. Schönhammer, Phys. Rev. B 70, 155115 (2004). 10.1103/PhysRevB.70.155115 Crossref, Google Scholar
34 H. Otsuka and M. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. B 71, 155105 (2005). 10.1103/PhysRevB.71.155105 Crossref, Google Scholar
35 Ö. Legeza, K. Buchta, and J. Sólyom, Phys. Rev. B 73, 165124 (2006). 10.1103/PhysRevB.73.165124 Crossref, Google Scholar
36 A. P. Kampf, M. Sekania, G. I. Japaridze, and P. Brune, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 15, 5895 (2003). 10.1088/0953-8984/15/34/319 Crossref, Google Scholar
(37) The Heisenberg model (4) with only the nearest-neighbor interactions includes the second-order perturbation terms but not include the higher-order terms expressed by spin operators, such as the next-nearest neighbor interaction.22) By contrast, the 〈1|J′|0〉1 of the Hubbard model naturally includes these higher-order terms. Hence, 〈1|J′|0〉1 is not exactly coincident with the contribution of the model (4). Google Scholar
38 K. Iwano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 226404 (2006). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.226404 Crossref, Google Scholar
39 Z. G. Soos and A. Painelli, Phys. Rev. B 75, 155119 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevB.75.155119 Crossref, Google Scholar
40 K. Iwano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 106405 (2009). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.106405 Crossref, Google Scholar
41 M. Tsuchiizu, H. Yoshioka, and H. Seo, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 85, 104705 (2016). 10.7566/JPSJ.85.104705 Link, Google Scholar
42 H. Okamoto, T. Mitani, Y. Tokura, S. Koshihara, T. Komatsu, Y. Iwasa, T. Koda, and G. Saito, Phys. Rev. B 43, 8224 (1991). 10.1103/PhysRevB.43.8224 Crossref, Google Scholar
43 Y. Okimoto, S. Horiuchi, E. Saitoh, R. Kumai, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 187401 (2001). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.187401 Crossref, Google Scholar
44 S. Iwai, S. Tanaka, K. Fujinuma, H. Kishida, H. Okamoto, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 057402 (2002). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.057402 Crossref, Google Scholar
45 H. Okamoto, Y. Ishige, S. Tanaka, H. Kishida, S. Iwai, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. B 70, 165202 (2004). 10.1103/PhysRevB.70.165202 Crossref, Google Scholar
46 T. Morimoto, T. Miyamoto, H. Yamakawa, T. Terashige, T. Ono, N. Kida, and H. Okamoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 107602 (2017). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.107602 Crossref, Google Scholar
47 F. Gebhard, K. Born, M. Scheidler, P. Thomas, and S. W. Koch, Philos. Mag. B 75, 47 (1997). 10.1080/13642819708205702 Crossref, Google Scholar
(48) The projected state Pno1D|0〉 contains one separated holon–doubon pair. However, separated holon–doublon pairs hardly exist because of the strong attractive interaction of V/t = 4, and pno1D is negligible. Google Scholar

« Previous Article | Next Article »

252 total downloads

Low-lying Photoexcited States of a One-Dimensional Ionic Extended Hubbard Model

References

Article Tools