text:
# The optical conductivity of half-filled Hubbard ladders

## Abstract

We investigate the optical conductivity of half-filled N-leg Hubbard ladders far into the “deconfinement” limit (i.e., weak Hubbard interaction and relatively strong interchain hopping). The N-leg Hubbard ladder is equivalent to an N-band model with velocities obeying $`v_1=v_N<v_2=v_{N1}<\mathrm{}`$. When N is not too large $`(N=3,4\mathrm{})`$, the band pairs $`(i,N+1i)`$ successively flow to the D-Mott state leading to a cascade of charge and spin gaps \[U. Ledermann, K. Le Hur, and T. M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B 62, 16383 (2000)\], and to the progressive closing of the two-dimensional (2D) Fermi surface (FS). The optical conductivity at finite temperatures can then exhibit coexistence between a prominent Drude peak and a high-frequency preformed pair continuum, split by sharp excitonic peaks arising due to an approximate SO(8) symmetry. For very large (but finite) N, all neighboring bands interact on the 2D FS, leading to a low-temperature 2D Mott crossover accompanied by a Spin Density Wave (SDW) instability (similar to the 2D case). In this limit the optical conductivity exhibits a unique charge gap -excitations above the gap being bound hole-pairs- and that the exciton features vanish. These results could help to explain the optical conductivity of 2D systems at and close to half-filling, an example of which is the pseudogap phase of high-$`T_c`$ cuprates.

I. INTRODUCTION

Understanding the nature of the interplay between strong interactions (generally emerging at the stoichiometric electron density due to the possibility of umklapp scattering) and dimensionality is an important open matter relevant to a large class of materials including the cuprate superconductors and quasi one-dimensional (1D) organic conductors. The latter can be viewed as possible realizations of coupled one-dimensional Hubbard chains at half-filling where electrons can hop from chain to chain (although the quarter-filled chains are weakly dimerized allowing half-filled umklapps, there is increasing evidence that quarter-filled umklapp scattering dominates the physics)Claude1 . In particular, the Fabre salt family (TMTTF)2X (X = ClO4, Br and PF6) displays insulating behavior at ambient pressure up to quite high temperatures. This reflects the presence of strong umklapp scattering (interaction, $`U`$) along the chains due to the commensurate filling resulting in a 1D Mott transition; essentially one has virtually uncoupled insulating chains (confinement)Thierry ; Karyn1 ; Tsvelik .

By contrast, substitution of Se for S to create the Bechgaard salt (TMTSF)2PF6, increases the hopping between chains (t) or alternately decreases the dimerization sufficiently to delocalize particles in the transverse direction (inducing deconfinement). The system thus exhibits a crossover to a regime of metallic planes (as t scales to strong coupling faster than $`U`$). Experimentally this dimensional crossover takes place around $`100K`$ in (TMTSF)2PF6; This is manifested by a change from $`T`$ (single-chain Luttinger liquid) to $`T^2`$ (Fermi liquid) behavior of the dc transport along the chain axisjerome . However, such compounds are located quite close to the confinement transition such that the optical conductivity of (TMTSF)2PF6 exhibits many features in common with the single-chain Mott insulatorVescoli  (TMTTF)2PF6. Indeed, only $`1\%`$ of the spectral weightVescoli  contributes to the dc (Fermi liquid) transport. Some theoretical attempts to reproduce this result (which bears a superficial resemblance to our half-filled chains for small N (see Fig. 1)), have been performed recently using Dynamical Mean Field Theory (DMFT)Thierry2  and RPATsvelik2 .

Here, we are additionally motivated to tackle the physics of 2D Cu-O planes of cuprate materials at and close to half-filling where Mott physics (“Mottness”phillips ) is also ubiquitousMaurice ; We systematically investigate the behavior of the optical conductivity for half-filled N-leg Hubbard ladders (=coupled chains) far into the “deconfinement” regime (the bare transverse hopping amplitude is almost equal to the longitudinal hopping amplitude). For weak on-site repulsion, we can make use of our previous band approach for half-filled N-leg Hubbard laddersKaryn2 . This allows us to properly take into account the renormalization of the different coupling channels (umklapp, Cooper,…) and also to provide a rigorous study of the ground state. The N-leg Hubbard ladder is equivalent to an N-band model where at half-filling the Fermi velocities obey $`v_1=v_N<v_2=v_{N1}<\mathrm{}`$.

For small N $`(N=3,4\mathrm{})`$, this model results in a cascade of energy scalesKaryn2 , where band pairs $`(i,N+1i)`$ successively flow to the D-Mott state which possesses an enlarged SO(8) symmetry; This is reminiscent of the two-leg ladder behaviorLin . This leads to a complex behavior of the optical conductivity: a Drude peak and a high-frequency particle-hole continuum coexist, with sharp exciton peaks appearing below the continuum reflecting the underlying SO(8) symmetry.

By increasing considerably the number of chains, “four-band” couplings (Fig. 2) become relevant on the 2D Fermi surface. At sufficiently low temperatures, a 2D insulating transition with strongly enhanced SDW correlations arisesUrs . The low-energy physics already converges to that of the purely 2D Hubbard modelZanchi ; Maurice . We rigorously establish that charge excitations above the Mott gap consist of bound hole-pairs (preformed pairs) and that the excitonic peaks cannot survive in this limit. This could be relevant to an understanding of optical conductivity measurements on the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates at and close to half-fillingoptical ; Indeed, umklapp scattering should not be ignored in the underdoped regime of the cuprates–features seen above $`2eV`$ and the transfer of spectral weight as a function of doping or temperature (T) reflect this importance.

II. THE MODEL

Our starting point is the N-leg Hubbard ladder model,

$`H_{Kin}`$ $`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{x,i,s}{}}d_{is}^{}(x+a)d_{is}(x)+\mathrm{h}.c.`$ (1)
$`t_{}{\displaystyle \underset{x,i,s}{}}d_{i+1s}^{}(x)d_{is}(x)+\mathrm{h}.c.;`$
$`t`$ and $`t_{}`$ denote the hopping matrix elements along and perpendicular to the chains, $`a`$ is a lattice step, and $`d_{is}(x)`$ annihilates an electron with spin $`s`$ on chain $`i`$ at the rung $`x`$. The interaction term reads

$$H_{\mathrm{Int}}=U\underset{i,x}{}d_i^{}(x)d_i(x)d_i^{}(x)d_i(x),$$
(2)
where $`U`$ is the on-site Hubbard repulsion. Again, here we are investigating the perfect “deconfinement” regime which implies that the perpendicular hopping $`t_{}`$ is sufficiently large to deconfine all the electrons in the transverse direction. More precisely, below, we consider the weak-interaction limit $`0<U(t,t_{})`$ where tractable (and rigorous) calculations are indeed possibleKaryn2 . It is convenient to use the band picture where the kinetic part simply takes a diagonal form:

$$H_{Kin}=\underset{i=1\mathrm{}N,s}{}𝑑kϵ_i(k)\mathrm{\Psi }_{is}^{}(k)\mathrm{\Psi }_{is}(k);$$
(3)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{is}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{is}`$ are the creation and annihilation operators for the band $`i`$ and

$$ϵ_i(k)=2t\mathrm{cos}(ka)2t_{}\mathrm{cos}(k_ia).$$
(4)
The transverse (Fermi) momenta here simply obey $`k_i=\pm \pi i/(a(N+1))`$ and at half-filling the longitudinal momenta are exactly determined by $`ϵ_i(k_{Fi})=0`$. The resulting Fermi velocities $`v_i=\frac{2ta}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{sin}(k_{Fi}a)`$ then take the form

$$v_i=v_{\overline{ı}}=\frac{2a}{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{t^2\left\{t_{}\mathrm{cos}[\pi i/(N+1)]\right\}^2},$$
(5)
where $`\overline{ı}=N+1i`$. The transformation from chain to band (with open boundary conditions) readsLin2 :

$$d_{is}=\underset{m}{}\sqrt{\frac{2}{N+1}}\mathrm{sin}\text{(}\frac{\pi mi}{N+1}\text{)}\mathrm{\Psi }_{ms}.$$
(6)
For more details on the method at half-filling, see Ref. Karyn2, .

Two different limits arise. When $`N`$ is not too large, careful investigation of the coupled Renormalization Group equations (RGEs) of the interacting N-band problem yields a hierarchy of energy scales, $`T_ite^{\alpha v_i\mathrm{}/(aU)}`$ ($`\alpha `$ is a constant parameter of the order of 1), $`T_1>T_2>\mathrm{}>T_r`$ –for N even $`r=N/2`$ and for N odd $`r=(N+1)/2`$, where band pairs $`(i,\overline{ı})`$ decouple from all other bands and freeze out. This decoupling, due to band pair umklapp terms satisfying $`(k_{Fi}+k_{F\overline{ı}})=\pi /a`$, opens both a charge and spin gap. The effective single-particle gaps are approximately given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j=T_j`$. More precisely, the couplings of the band pairs $`(i,\overline{ı})`$ scale towards the two-leg ladder fixed point with SO(8) symmetryLin . To compute the optical conductivity in this limit, it will be crucial to exploit this enlarged symmetry. When $`N`$ becomes large (but finite), our method is still rigorous provided the energy difference between two neighboring bands is much larger than the largest relevant energy gap in the problem, i.e., $`te^{t/U}`$. This imposes the conditionLin2  $`U<t/\mathrm{ln}N,t_{}/\mathrm{ln}N`$. Here, coupling between neighboring bands leads to a 2D-like SDW instability (crossover) –opening a Mott gap– at the temperatureUrs :

$$T_{sdw}te^{\frac{N}{U_{i=1}^{N/2}\frac{a\mathrm{}}{v_i}}}.$$
(7)
Since we are considering relatively large bare values of $`t_{}`$ (i.e., perfect nesting on the 2D FS), the resulting charge gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{sdw}`$ is homogeneous on the 2D Fermi surface. When substantially decreasing $`t_{}`$ (approaching the confinement transition), we expect that the physics would have a larger dependence on the transverse momentaClaude2 ; Tsvelik2  $`k_i`$. Finally, ground-state charge properties still resemble those of the small-N (two-band) limit.

III. SMALL N: MAPPING TO SO(8)

For small N, the low-energy Hamiltonian is then the sum of $`N/2`$ \[(N-1)/2 for N odd\] two-leg ladder Hamiltonians $`H_{i,\overline{ı}}`$ corresponding to the band pairs $`(i,\overline{ı})`$ plus the Hamiltonian of a single chain for N odd $`H_s`$Karyn2 .

Let us consider the case $`N=3`$ for simplicity. Here, the relevant couplings of bands 1 and 3 flow towards the universal ratios of the two-leg ladder, and therefore the low-energy Hamiltonian $`H_{1,3}`$ can be rewritten in terms of an SO(8) Gross-Neveu model (as shown previously by Lin, Balents, and Fisher for the two-band modelLin )

$$H_{1,3}=𝑑x\left\{iv_1\underset{a=1}{\overset{4}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_a^{}\tau ^z_x\mathrm{\Psi }_ag\text{(}\underset{a=1}{\overset{4}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_a^{}\tau ^y\mathrm{\Psi }_a\text{)}^2\right\}.$$
(8)
We have implicitly introduced operators $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{R/La}`$ for right and left moving fermions and the Pauli matrices $`\tau ^i`$ act on right and left sectors. Even though the four Dirac fermions above are related to the charge and spin degrees of the two bands, they cannot be simply identifed as the original (real) fermions on each band; for a complete map, see Ref. Lin, . The low-energy physics emerging from bands 1 and 3 depends on a single coupling $`g`$ (whose bare value is of the order of $`U`$). It is straightforward to show that the interacting part of $`H_{1,3}`$ both opens a charge and spin gap equal to $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_1=4g<\mathrm{\Psi }_a^{}\tau ^y\mathrm{\Psi }_a>2T_1`$. The ground state corresponds to the “D-Mott state”: a Mott insulator having short-range pairing correlations with approxi-

-mate d-wave symmetryLin . Additionally, fluctuations of the gap around its vacuum value can generate attractive interactions between the fermions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a`$ leading to the formation of excitons, whose mass satisfies $`M_1=\sqrt{3}\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ (i.e. is smaller than the charge gap of the (localized) preformed-pair continuumLin ). Unlike the single-chainVenky , here excitons already appear for purely on-site repulsion.

Band 2 is described by a single chain at half-filling $`(\mu =0)`$, which is embodied by gapless spinons (spin-1/2 excitations) and the following charge Hamiltonian:

$`H_s^\rho ={\displaystyle }dx\{{\displaystyle \frac{u_\rho }{2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{K_\rho }}(_x\mathrm{\Phi }_\rho )^2+K_\rho (_x\mathrm{\Theta }_\rho )^2].`$
$`.{\displaystyle \frac{g_\rho }{(\pi a)^2}}\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{8\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }_\rho )\mu _x\mathrm{\Phi }_\rho \};`$ (9)
$`_x\mathrm{\Phi }_\rho `$ describes charge density fluctuations and $`_x\mathrm{\Theta }_\rho `$ current excitations. $`g_\rho `$ is of the order of $`U`$ and $`u_\rho `$ is almost equal to $`v_2`$. It is immediate to check that $`H_2`$ induces a charge gap $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_22T_2<2T_1`$. Let us now compute the optical conductivity of the three-leg ladder.

Using formula (6), the electrical current can be written in the chain basis as:

$`J(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2i\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle \underset{is}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\delta t_i}}\text{(}d_{is}^{}(x+a)d_{is}(x)d_{is}^{}(x)d_{is}(x+a)\text{)}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2i\sqrt{\pi }}}\text{(}{\displaystyle \frac{v_{D1}}{a}}(\mathrm{\Psi }_{2s}^{}(x+a)\mathrm{\Psi }_{2s}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_{2s}^{}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_{2s}(x+a))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{v_{D1}+v_{D2}}{2a}}(\mathrm{\Psi }_{1s}^{}(x+a)\mathrm{\Psi }_{1s}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_{1s}^{}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_{1s}(x+a)`$
$`+\mathrm{\Psi }_{3s}^{}(x+a)\mathrm{\Psi }_{3s}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_{3s}^{}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_{3s}(x+a))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{v_{D1}v_{D2}}{2a}}(\mathrm{\Psi }_{1s}^{}(x+a)\mathrm{\Psi }_{3s}(x)+\mathrm{\Psi }_{3s}^{}(x+a)\mathrm{\Psi }_{1s}(x)`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{1s}^{}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_{3s}(x+a)\mathrm{\Psi }_{3s}^{}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_{1s}(x+a))\text{)},`$
where we have summed up over the contribution coming from each spin $`s`$ and each leg $`i=1,2,3`$ of the ladder. Symmetry of the ladder dictates that the drift velocity ($`v_{D1}`$) in chains 1 and 3 be equal, although not necessarily the same as in chain 2 ($`v_{D2}`$), and the time interval for a hop of one lattice spacing, $`a`$, has been taken as $`\delta t_i`$ = $`\frac{a}{v_{Di}}`$. Note that were these velocities equal, the coefficients of the first two terms in the band basis would be identical while the third would disappear leaving a straight sum over bands. Indeed, the last term is found to contain an oscillatory contribution in $`x`$, which, when inserted into Eq. 12 vanishes. In linear response, the optical conductivity (at $`k=0`$) takes the standard form

$$\mathrm{}e\sigma (\omega )=\mathrm{}m\text{(}\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega )}{\omega }\text{)},$$
(11)
the current-current correlator being

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega )=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}𝑑x𝑑\tau e^{i\omega _n\tau }T_\tau J(x,\tau )J(0,0)_{\omega _ni\omega +\delta }.$$
(12)
In the three-leg ladder, we find the following current

$`J`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi }}e\text{(}v_{D1}_x\mathrm{\Theta }_\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{v_{D1}+v_{D2}}{2}}\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}(k_{F1}a)_x\mathrm{\Theta }_{\rho +}\text{)}`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`J_{1band}+J_{2band},`$
where one can re-express the 2-band contribution in terms of Majorana fields (real chiral fermions $`\psi _{R/La}=\eta _{R/L2a1}+i\eta _{R/L2a}`$) as

$`J_{2band}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(v_{D1}+v_{D2})e}{\sqrt{2\pi }a}}\mathrm{sin}(k_{F1}a)\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}\tau ^z\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ (14)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{(v_{D1}+v_{D2})ie\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{\pi }a}}\mathrm{sin}(k_{F1}a)(\eta _{R1}\eta _{R2}\eta _{L1}\eta _{L2}).`$
Using Eq. 12, the contribution of these terms to the conductivity is,

$`\mathrm{}e\sigma _{2band}(\omega )`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e^2(v_{D1}+v_{D2})^2\mathrm{sin}^2(k_{F1}a)}{\pi a^2\mathrm{}\omega }}\mathrm{}m\text{{}{\displaystyle 𝑑x}`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau e^{i\omega \tau }\underset{P=R,L}{}<T_\tau \eta _{P1}\eta _{P2}(x,\tau )\eta _{P1}\eta _{P2}(0,0)>\text{}}}.`$
As pointed out in Ref. 12, since the two-band model is equivalent to the SO(8) Gross-Neveu model whose excitation spectrum is known, below the D-Mott gap mass $`M_1`$ bound-states of charge $`\pm 2e`$ fundamental fermions can form. The latter factor of Eq. 15 bears resemblance to the ($`\stackrel{}{k}=0`$) Green’s function of a localized particle of mass $`M_1`$, so that

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑\tau e^{i0x}e^{i\omega _n\tau }<T_\tau \eta _1\eta _2(x,\tau )(\eta _1\eta _2(0,0))>}`$ (16)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑\tau e^{i0x}e^{i\omega _n\tau }Ae^{\frac{|x|}{\xi }}e^{\frac{M_1\tau }{\mathrm{}}}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A(\xi \xi e^{\frac{L}{\xi }})}{i\omega _n\frac{M_1}{\mathrm{}}}},`$
where we have introduced a normalization constant, A, the length of the system, L, which we can take to be infinite relative to the correlation length, $`\xi `$ as we have power law correlations in this system. This means that for $`\omega <2\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, the 2-band contribution to the optical conductivity at T=0 should be

$$\mathrm{}e\sigma _{2band}(\omega )=\frac{2e^2(v_{D1}+v_{D2})^2A\xi \mathrm{sin}^2(k_{F1}a)}{a^2\mathrm{}\omega }\delta (\omega M_1).$$
(17)
As in principle there is only one velocity scale in the (massive) SO(8) Gross-Neveu model, $`v_1`$, one might expect to find ($`v_{D1}+v_{D2})v_1`$. However, one might expect the opening of this gap to strongly renormalize $`v_1`$.

An interesting situation emerges when the Fermi surface is partially truncated, i.e., when $`T_2TT_1`$: Band 2 is still metallic whereas bands 1 and 3 already form a D-Mott insulating state. In fact, the umklapp term $`\frac{g_\rho }{(\pi a)^2}\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{8\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }_\rho )`$ is still small, because its renormalization has been (completely) cutoff by thermal effects. Band 2 then behaves as a single-chain Luttinger liquid which produces a prominent Drude peak of height $`2e^2v_{D1}/\mathrm{}2e^2u_\rho K_\rho /\mathrm{}`$ at $`\omega =0`$; from this we see that $`v_{D1}=v_2`$, the Fermi energy of the second band. Moreover, following Ref. Lin, , the current operator $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}\tau ^z\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ clearly excites the mass $`\sqrt{3}\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ excitons, as well as higher energy continuum scattering states (preformed pairs) with energy above $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$. For clarity’s sake, results have been summarized in Fig. 1. At very high-frequency, we approximately recover the behaviorGiam  of a single-chain at half-filling, i.e., $`\sigma (\omega )\omega ^1`$ (see Appendix A).

IV. SMALL N: THE EFFECTS OF TEMPERATURE

As mentioned previously, one certainly would expect a non-trivial role to be played by the temperature of the system.

While at strictly T=0, one would expect to see a $`\delta `$-function peak arising from the bound-state excitonic contribution to the optical conductivity, this peak should be thermally broadened. At $`T=0`$, a mean field treatment would predict the spectral weight in the high-energy continuum to have a square-root singularity reflecting the van Hove singularity at the bottom of a bandLin ; At $`T0`$, the scattering time between the fermions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ becomes finite and one would expect $`\sigma (\omega =2\mathrm{\Delta }_1,T)e^{\mathrm{\Delta }_1/T}`$ (finite). On the other hand, since the SO(8) Gross-Neveu model is integrable, the optical conductivity for this state can be found exactly in principle, as it consists of the bound-state, 2 particle scattering, and higher particle scattering contributions. Konik and Ludwigkonlud  have calculated the (zero temperature) optical conductivity of the bound-state and the 2-particle scattering contribution of this model to be (k=0),

$`\mathrm{}e\sigma _{2band}(\omega )=A^2\text{(}\delta (\omega \sqrt{3}m){\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/6)}{9m^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(2/3)}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{3}}}`$
$`\mathrm{exp}\left[2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{G_c(x)\mathrm{sinh}^2(x/3)}{\mathrm{sinh}(x)}}\right]`$
$`+\theta (\omega 4m^2){\displaystyle \frac{12m^2}{(\omega ^23m^2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\omega ^24m^2}}{\omega }}\mathrm{exp}\text{[}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{G_c(x)(1\mathrm{cosh}(x)\mathrm{cos}(\frac{x\mathrm{cosh}^1\left[\frac{\omega 2m^2}{2m^2}\right]}{\pi }))}{\mathrm{sinh}(x)}}\text{]}\text{)},`$ (18)
where A is an overall constant, m=$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ is the mass of an elementary SO(8) Gross-Neveu particle, and $`G_c=2\frac{\mathrm{cosh}(x/6)\mathrm{sinh}(x/6)e^{2x/3}}{\mathrm{cosh}(x/2)}`$. In particular, it is useful to notice that the square-root singularity predicted by mean field theory does not survive in the exact calculation. Integration of their result, (assuming higher order scattering processes do not dominate) shows that an astounding 69% of the spectral weight of the two-leg ladder (at zero temperature) is expected to lie within the bound-state. As noted, their results are exact up to the onset of the three-particle continuum, provided one stays at $`\omega <\omega _c`$, where $`\omega _c`$ is the temperature at which the RG couplings reach their approximate SO(8) coupling ratios. Above this frequency, presumably the chains will begin to behave more and more as individual chains, such that one might expect a crossover from the $`\frac{1}{\omega ^3}`$ high frequency behavior found by Konig and Ludwigkonlud  to an approximate $`\frac{1}{\omega }`$ as found by GiamarchiGiam . The effects of such a crossover have been considered in Appendix A.

In the hopes of making a more simple comparison to experimental curves, we here make the simplest assumptions consistent with a low temperature broadening of the bound-state Gross-Neveu peaks following the treatment by Lin et alLin2 . There, it was argued that for temperatures T$`<<`$m, one could essentially solve the classical Boltzmann equation to obtain a particle density due to thermal excitations of $`n\sqrt{mT}e^{\frac{m}{T}}`$. It was further argued that this approximation was self-consistent as the mean free path resulting $`l\frac{1}{n}`$ would be much greater than the de Broglie wavelength $`\lambda \frac{1}{\sqrt{mT}}`$, meaning that although the scattering processes themselves were quantum-mechanical, one could think of the particles essentially classically in between these time periods, leading to a time between collisions $`\tau \frac{2\pi e^{\frac{m}{T}}}{T}`$. Furthermore, they argued that the shape of temperature-broadened bound-state peak should be proportional to this single-particle scattering time, additionally satisfying a scaling ansatz, $`\sigma _{peak}\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }((\omega \sqrt{3}m)\tau )`$ for $`(\omega \sqrt{3}m)<<m`$.

For our (N-leg) truncated ladders then, the simplest ansatz might be to assume that each $`\delta `$-function peak is broadened by the lifetime of the particles associated with each successive gap on the Fermi surface; that is, to make the blanket assumption $`\tau _i\frac{2\pi e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}{T}}}{T}`$ and represent the temperature broadened exciton peaks as $`\sigma _{peak}\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{\tau _i}{1+((\omega \sqrt{3}\mathrm{\Delta }_i)\tau _i)^2}`$. In the case of interest, when the temperature is above one of the gaps, one would expect the spectral weight to be distributed about zero, but the breadth of the peak might still be governed by the ratio of the energy scales of the gap relative to the temperature. In such a way, we would expect to simply shift the peak to zero, but effectively keep the same form as the excitonic peak broadenings. To create Fig. 2, we have taken this ansatz in combination with the exact results of Konig and Ludwigkonlud , and the assumption that as the ladder separates into effective 2- and 1-band ladder contributions, the spectral weight in each should be conserved. Additionally, we have input experimental parameters in such a way as might be relevant for a discussion of (TMTSF)2PF6, although this leads to an unreasonably high value of $`\frac{U}{t}0.36`$ for the validity of the SO(8) as noted in Appendix A. We note that these results, even if one was well within the validity of the SO(8) symmetry, certainly underestimate the spectral weight in the continuum, as 3- and higher- particle processes have been neglected, in addition to the (unphysical) implicit assumption that there has not been a transfer of spectral weight between the bound-state and continuum as a function of temperature.

None-the-less, the result is a semi-quantitative picture of what one might expect to find in the optical conductivity of the ideal Hubbard ladder system at intermediate temperatures at half-filling (ie. if one could make measurements at frequencies sufficiently small frequencies and temperatures). The percentage of spectral weight in the Drude-peak would be expected to be diminished slightly as one would expect a small Mott contribution close to the relevant energy gap (here 1 meV), but the total spectral weight of this feature when one has only one gap above the temperature scale would be expected to be of the order $`\frac{1}{N}`$, with a progressive narrowing of the width of this feature as the temperature decreased (as seen for example in (TMTSF)2PF6 by Vescoli et alVescoli . For the small number of legs where this truncation should occur, one should not be able to achieve such a small percentage of the total weight (1%)Vescoli  as seen experimentallyVescoli .

V. LARGE N: ANTIFERROMAGNETIC 4-BAND HOLE PAIRS

Let us now increase considerably the number of chains (we consider the solvable case where the energy difference between band pairs $`1/N`$ is larger than the relevant gaps). As long as “4-band” interactions between bands $`(i,k,\overline{ı},\overline{k})`$ $`(k_{Fi}k_{Fk},k_{F\overline{ı}}k_{F\overline{k}})`$ –which stand for 2D-like antiferromagnetic interactions (Fig. 3)– remain small, our system is a bunch of (almost) decoupled bands and is still 1D-like. However, at low-energy, the system clearly behaves as in 2D (See Ref. Urs, )! Indeed, two-band and single-band interactions will be dominantly

renormalized by the “four-band” interactions: Certain couplings of the band pairs $`(i,\overline{ı})`$ still grow and tend to approach fixed ratios, however these differ from the small N ratios. Furthermore, for bands $`k`$ and $`i`$ which are close together on the FS, as $`ki`$, the four-band couplings become the same as the corresponding two-band couplings. The one-loop RGEs and theoretical details are given explicitly in Ref. Urs, . To summarize, all the band pairs now strongly interact on the 2D FS, and this leads to a unique single-particle (Mott) gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which can be calculated with the asymptotic ratios. Using Eq. (7) for $`t_{}t`$, we find

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T_{sdw}=te^{\alpha t/(U\mathrm{ln}N)}.$$
(19)
The logarithmic corrections come from the fact that $`v_1ta/N`$, a precursor of van Hove singularities in 2D. Let us repeat that here $`\mathrm{ln}N<t/U`$ for the (strict) validity of our calculations. In this limit, it is yet possible to derive the ground-state properties using bosonizationUrs .

The pinning of the antisymmetric spin mode between bands $`i`$ and $`\overline{ı}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\sigma i\overline{ı}}0`$, produces spinon confinement leaving as physical particles spin-1 magnons. In the symmetric spin sector, only the differences $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\sigma i\overline{ı}+}\mathrm{\Theta }_{\sigma k\overline{k}+}`$ are fixed, such that the total magnon mode(s), given by $`\mathrm{\Theta }_S=\sqrt{2/N}_{i=1}^{N/2}\mathrm{\Theta }_{\sigma i\overline{ı}+}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_S=\sqrt{2/N}_{i=1}^{N/2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\sigma i\overline{ı}+}`$, remain gapless. The spin system behaves increasingly as a 2D SDW in agreement with the strong $`U`$ limitHeinz2 , and 2D AFM interactions explicitly break the SO(8) symmetry of individual band pairs as it becomes more favorable to pin the mode $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\sigma i\overline{ı}+}\mathrm{\Theta }_{\sigma k\overline{k}+}`$ rather than $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\sigma i\overline{ı}+}`$Urs . Finally, 2D AFM interactions do not much affect the ground-state charge properties of band pairs, i.e., as in the small-N limit $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\rho i\overline{ı}+}0`$ (symmetric charge mode) and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\rho i\overline{ı}}0`$ (antisymmetric superfluid mode).

Let us now discuss the optical conductivity in this large-N limit. First, one can easily show that exciton peaks (that were a blatant signature of the underlying SO(8) symmetry for small-N) cannot persist. Integrating out the spin sector -which now produces antiferromagnetism and then totally decouples from the gapped charge sector at low energy- the symmetric charge mode $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\rho i\overline{ı}+}`$ is simply described by a Sine-Gordon modelUrs  with $`\beta \sqrt{4\pi }`$. The spectrum now contains only solitons and anti-solitons (bound hole- (electron) pairs) with dispersion $`ϵ(p)=\sqrt{p^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}`$. At $`\omega 0`$ and $`T\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the density of excited carriers evolves like $`ne^{\mathrm{\Delta }/T}`$, which implies that the Drude peak has an exponentially vanishing weight, reflecting the simultaneous opening of a Mott gap on the whole 2D FS. Finally, at high-frequency, we still find $`\sigma (\omega )\omega ^1`$ (we have almost decoupled bands).

VI. CONCLUSIONS

In closing, we are able to provide a microscopic (low energy) theory for half-filled N-leg Hubbard ladders –even when N is very large– taking into account both the ubiquity of Mott physics and the emergence of prominent antiferromagnetism. At small N, we have demonstrated that it is at least possible within the Hubbard model at half-filling for a system to exhibit metallic behavior over a finite temperature range while maintaining a large Mott contribution, a situation not unlike that seen in (TMTSF)2PF6–although the T2 resistivity encountered in that case has not been recovered here, the relative spectral weight of the Drude feature would be $`𝒪(\frac{1}{N})`$ rather than 1%, and the relevant energy scales for this system are well outside the range of validity of our method. At high frequencies one should be able to employ a memory function approach to extract a detailed frequency dependence of the optical conductivity even in regions of moderate coupling. For large N (and $`U<t/\mathrm{ln}N,t_{}/\mathrm{ln}N`$), the Mott gap opens simultaneously on the 2D FS and, as a precursor of superconductivity, charge excitations resemble hard-core bosons (preformed pairs), whereas spin excitations are gapless magnons (bosons). The optical conductivity is mostly sensitive to the Mott gap opening on the 2D FS (and not to the long-range magnetism) and excitons cannot persist! This seems to be in agreement with results on half-filled cupratesoptical . When doping, we stress the occurrence of a spin gap and the progressive growth of d-wave phase coherence on the 2D FS. In order to properly discuss the pseudogap phase of cuprates, we must include the effect of a next nearest neighbor hoppingJohn  $`t^{}`$. It is conceivable that such a term might provide a mechanism for the creation of the “mid-gap” states of the doped cupratesarima ; optical  (which bear a qualitative resemblance to the two-leg ladder contribution as outlined in Fig. 2), if the effective value of U were to vary substantially around the Fermi surface.

We acknowledge discussions with C. Bourbonnais, R. Duprat, T. Giamarchi, S. Kancharla, A.-M. Tremblay, A. Tsvelik, and financial support by FQRNT and NSERC.

APPENDIX A: GENERIC FEATURES FROM ONE TO THREE CHAINS

A serious problem for this theory is the weakness of U required for the theory to flow to the strong coupling SO(8) fixed point. In particular, this imposes that our gap sizes and hence all of our temperature scales are outrageously low, as the price to pay for the rigor of our treatment. In particular, to actually reach SO(8) within the validity of the 1 loop RG, the half-filled two-leg ladder requires $`\frac{U}{t}2\times 10^6`$, yielding a gap $`te^{500000}`$, which for all intents and purposes experimentally might as well be zero. This can be seen from Fig.4, an explicit plot of the ratios of the couplings for the two-leg ladder as a function of the normalized number of steps. For a definition of the couplings of the two and three leg ladder, the reader is referred to Ref.11 and Ref.22. One sees that the curves described by the 1-loop RG equations are universal, although the region of validity decreases as U increases. In the inset, this is seen as a function of the maximal coupling, with ratios expected to reach 1 and 0 if the SO(8) fixed point is reached.

Even in the absence of SO(8) symmetry, one clearly can say something about the evolution of the couplings (until the higher order contributions in U become relevant), which means that in principle one could calculate the $`\omega `$-dependence of the optical conductivity at high frequencies for the two and three leg ladders using a memory function approachmem  akin to Giamarchi’s work on the single chain.Giam  In this spirit, here we provide a heuristic sketch of such a derivation for the 3-leg ladder, and what one would expect to be the region of its applicability of this perturbative approach. At very high frequencies, one would expect the optical conductivity to break into two components roughly as,

$$\sigma (\omega )=i\frac{2e^2u_\rho K_\rho }{\mathrm{}(\omega +M_{1band}(\omega ))}+i\frac{4e^2u_{\rho +}K_{\rho +}}{\mathrm{}(\omega +M_{2band}(\omega ))},$$
(20)
where the memory functions, $`M_{1band}(\omega )`$ and $`M_{2band}(\omega )`$ can be computed perturbatively in linear response theory as outlined in Ref. 19 and 24 respectively. In particular one finds thatGiam  in the limit $`\omega T`$,

$$M_{1band}=\kappa g_\rho ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(12K_\rho )\mathrm{sin}(2\pi K_\rho )e^{i\pi (2K_\rho 1)}\omega ^{4K_\rho 3},$$
(21)
where $`\kappa \frac{K_\rho }{\pi ^3a^2}\left(\frac{\pi a}{u_\rho }\right)^{4K_\rho 2}`$, and

$`M_{2band}`$ $`=`$ $`G_\chi {\displaystyle \underset{\chi =1}{\overset{4}{}}}\text{(}(g_\chi )^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(1(K_\chi ))\mathrm{sin}(\pi (K_\chi ))\times `$ (22)
$`e^{i\pi (K_\chi 1)}\omega ^{2(K_\chi )3}\text{)},`$
where $`G_\chi \frac{K_{\rho +}\mathrm{sin}^2(k_{F_1}a)}{4^3\pi ^3a^2}\left(\frac{\pi a}{u_{\rho +}}\right)^{2K_\chi 2}`$

$$g_\chi =\{\begin{array}{cc}2u_{1331}^\sigma \hfill & \chi \text{ = 1}\hfill \\ u_{1331}^\sigma +4u_{1331}^\rho \hfill & \chi \text{ = 2}\hfill \\ u_{1331}^\sigma 4u_{1331}^\rho \hfill & \chi \text{ = 3}\hfill \\ 16u_{1133}^\rho \hfill & \chi \text{ = 4,}\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$K_\chi =\{\begin{array}{cc}K_{\sigma +}+K_{\rho +}\hfill & \chi \text{ = 1}\hfill \\ K_\sigma +K_{\rho +}\hfill & \chi \text{ = 2}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{K_\sigma }+K_{\rho +}\hfill & \chi \text{ = 3}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{K_\rho }+K_{\rho +}\hfill & \chi \text{ = 4.}\hfill \end{array}$$

For the three-leg ladder, the Luttinger coefficients can be written as, K$`{}_{\rho }{}^{}=\sqrt{\frac{\pi v_2c_{22}^\rho }{\pi v_2+c_{22}^\rho }}`$, K$`{}_{\rho +}{}^{}=\sqrt{\frac{\pi v_1c_{11}^\rho f_{13}^\rho }{\pi v_1+c_{11}^\rho +f_{13}^\rho }}`$, K$`{}_{\rho }{}^{}=\sqrt{\frac{\pi v_1c_{11}^\rho +f_{13}^\rho }{\pi v_1+c_{11}^\rho f_{13}^\rho }}`$, K$`{}_{\sigma +}{}^{}=\sqrt{\frac{\pi v_1+\frac{c_{11}^\sigma }{4}+\frac{f_{13}^\sigma }{4}}{\pi v_1\frac{c_{11}^\sigma }{4}\frac{f_{13}^\sigma }{4}}}`$, and K$`{}_{\sigma }{}^{}=\sqrt{\frac{\pi v_1+\frac{c_{11}^\sigma }{4}\frac{f_{13}^\sigma }{4}}{\pi v_1\frac{c_{11}^\sigma }{4}+\frac{f_{13}^\sigma }{4}}}`$. In the high frequency limit, all couplings, with the exception of u$`{}_{1331}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\sigma }`$ which vanishes so that one recovers the form of Ref. 24, are of order Ua/$`\mathrm{}`$ (if one is interested in the exact values, the reader is referred to Table I of Ref. 22), such that the Luttinger coefficients all closely approach 1. Eq. 22 is then the sum of three identical terms. In particular, one finds that Im\[M($`\omega `$)\] $``$ $`U^2\omega ^{2K_{\rho +}1}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(K_{\rho +})\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi K_{\rho +})`$. In the opposite limit, the strong coupling SO(8) fixed point corresponds to 0 $`<`$ g $``$ c$`{}_{13}{}^{\sigma }`$ 4 f$`{}_{13}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\rho }`$ $``$ 4 c$`{}_{13}{}^{\rho }`$ 4 u$`{}_{1331}{}^{\rho }`$ 8 u$`{}_{1133}{}^{\rho }`$ u$`{}_{1331}{}^{\sigma }`$ -c$`{}_{11}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\sigma }`$, so that one sees that while Kρ remains close to 1, spin and charge gaps drive Kρ+,$`\frac{1}{K_\rho }`$, Kσ± towards 0. If this limit were strictly attainable, then $`g_3=0`$, and Eq. 22 again would become the sum of three identical terms, with a naïve $`\omega ^3`$ dependence to Im\[M($`\omega `$)\], although it is essential to note both that: the coefficient of such a term would also be highly frequency dependent, and for the small frequencies required for the validity of our theory, M($`\omega `$) would outgrow the perturbative regime required for the memory function’s linear response to be valid (despite the smallness of G) a little before this point.

Unlike at the strong coupling point, in the high frequency limit, 3-band umklapp processes are also relevant, and contribute additional terms to both Eq. 21 and Eq. 22. Letting $`g_\rho \frac{g_\nu }{8}`$,2K$`{}_{\rho }{}^{}`$ Kν, K$`{}_{\chi }{}^{}`$ Kν and $`g_{\rho +}\frac{g_\nu }{2}`$ with,

$$g_\nu =\{\begin{array}{cc}2u_{1223}^\sigma \hfill & \nu \text{ = 1}\hfill \\ u_{1223}^\sigma +4u_{1223}^\rho \hfill & \nu \text{ = 2}\hfill \\ u_{1223}^\sigma 4u_{1223}^\rho \hfill & \nu \text{ = 3}\hfill \\ 8u_{2213}^\rho \hfill & \nu \text{ = 4,}\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$K_\nu =\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{4}(K_{\sigma +}+K_{\rho +}+\frac{1}{K_\rho }+\frac{1}{K_\sigma }+2K_\rho +2K_\sigma )\hfill & \nu \text{ = 1}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{4}(K_\sigma +K_{\rho +}+\frac{1}{K_\rho }+\frac{1}{K_{\sigma +}}+2K_\rho +\frac{2}{K_\sigma })\hfill & \nu \text{ = 2}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{4}(K_{\sigma +}+K_{\rho +}+\frac{1}{K_\rho }+\frac{1}{K_\sigma }+2K_\rho +2K_\sigma )\hfill & \nu \text{ = 3}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{4}(K_\sigma +K_{\rho +}+\frac{1}{K_{\rho +}}+\frac{1}{K_\sigma }+2K_\rho +\frac{2}{K_\rho })\hfill & \nu \text{ = 4.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Here, K$`{}_{\sigma }{}^{}=\sqrt{\frac{\pi v_2+\frac{c_{22}^\sigma }{4}}{\pi v_2\frac{c_{22}^\sigma }{4}}}`$.

The real part of the optical conductivity arises as,

$`\mathrm{}e\sigma _{2band}(\omega )=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4e^2u_\rho K_\rho \mathrm{}m(M_{2band}(\omega ))}{\mathrm{}((\omega +\mathrm{}e(M_{2band}(\omega )))^2+(\mathrm{}m(M_{2band}(\omega )))^2)}},`$ (23)
the condition $`0.2\omega ^1|M_{2band}(\omega )|`$ approximates the region where this formula can be applied. On a 3-leg ladder the region about which our linearization is valid is $`\frac{1}{8}`$ of the band-width (4t). This gives a high energy cut-off on the frequencies we can describe for the 3-leg ladder: $`\omega <\frac{t}{2}`$ so that one can describe a large range of frequencies (see Fig. 5). This constraint becomes more severe for N large–for N=16 one is restricted to $`\omega <0.08t`$–but is expected to still admit a region where the memory function returns $`\sigma (\omega )\frac{1}{\omega }`$.


format: text

text:
# Exact expression for decoherence factor in the time-dependent generalized Cini model †footnote ††footnote † This project is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under the project No. 90101024.

## Abstract

The present letter finds the complete set of exact solutions of the time-dependent generalized Cini model by making use of the Lewis-Riesenfeld invariant theory and the invariant-related unitary transformation formulation and, based on this, the general explicit expression for the decoherence factor is therefore obtained. This study provides us with a useful method to consider the geometric phase and topological properties in the time-dependent quantum decoherence process.

OCIS: 270.5570, 270.0270, 270.1670

Keywords: decoherence factor, Cini model, invariant theory

Quantum decoherence problem is one of the most important and interesting topics in quantum mechanics, quantum optics and quantum information. Solvable models in quantum mechanics enable one to investigate quantum measurement problems rather conveniently. A good number of authors have studied some useful models such as Hepp-Coleman model  and Cini model. The exact solvability of these models often provides physicists with a clear understanding of the physical phenomena involved and yield rich physical insights. In this work, the first important step is to obtain the exact solutions of the Schrödinger equation and the time-evolution operator that can be applied to the calculation of the decoherence factor and study of the wavefunction collapse, etc.. Although the exact solutions and the decoherence of these models have been extensively investigated by many authors in the literature, the coefficients and parameters in these Hamiltonians are merely time-independent ( or partially time-dependent ), to the best of our knowledge. In the present letter, we obtain the explicit time-evolution operator and the decoherence factor of the totally time-dependent generalized Cini model, where all the parameters depend on time. Since the time-dependent quantum model possesses more rich properties, e. g., geometric phase and topological feature, it is of essential significance to consider the time-dependent case of quantum models.

Time-dependent system is governed by the time-dependent Schrödinger equation. The invariant theory suggested by Lewis and Riesenfeld in 1969 can solve the time-dependent Schrödinger equation. In 1991, Gao et al. proposed a generalized invariant theory, by introducing basic invariants, which enable one to find the complete set of commuting invariants for some time-dependent multi-dimensional systems. Since the time-dependent case and geometric phase factor has never been considered in the time-dependent decoherence process, we will analyze the generalized Cini model in what follows and then calculate the time-dependent decoherence factor by making use of these invariant theories.

The original Cini model for the correlation between the states of the measured system and the measuring instrument-detector is built for a two-level system interacting with the detector. Liu and Sun generalized this Cini model to an $`M`$-level system. The Hamiltonian of this generalized model is written

$$H=H_S+H_D+H_I,$$
(1)
where $`H_S`$ is the model Hamiltonian of the measured system S with $`M`$ levels and $`H_D`$ is the free Hamiltonian of the two-boson-state detector D. They are generally of the forms

$$H_S=\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}E_k|\mathrm{\Phi }_k\mathrm{\Phi }_k|,H_D=\omega _1a_1^{}a_1+\omega _2a_2^{}a_2$$
(2)
with the creation and annihilation operators $`a_i^{}`$ , $`a_i`$ satisfying the following commuting relations

$$[a_i,a_j^{}]=\delta _{ij},[a_i,a_j]=[a_i^{},a_j^{}]=0.$$
(3)
The interaction Hamiltonian $`H_I`$ is given by

$$H_I=\underset{n}{}|\mathrm{\Phi }_n\mathrm{\Phi }_n|(g_na_1^{}a_2+g_n^{}a_2^{}a_1).$$
(4)
In this letter, all the coefficients such as $`E_k,\omega _1,\omega _2`$ and $`g_n`$ and $`g_n^{}`$ in the Hamiltonian are time-dependent, and the Schrödinger equation of the time-dependent generalized Cini model may be written

$$H(t)|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)_s=i\frac{}{t}|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)_s.$$
(5)
It can be seen from the form of the Hamiltonian that both $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_k\mathrm{\Phi }_k|`$ and $`N=\frac{a_1^{}a_1+a_2^{}a_2}{2}`$ commute with $`H,`$ namely, $`[|\mathrm{\Phi }_k\mathrm{\Phi }_k|,H]=[N,H]=0.`$ Hence, a generalized quasialgebra which enables one to obtain the complete set of exact solutions of the Schrödinger equation can be found by working in a sub-Hilbert-space corresponding to the particular eigenvalues of both $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_k\mathrm{\Phi }_k|`$ and $`N.`$ In order to use the Lewis-Riesenfeld invariant theory, we take $`J_+=a_1^{}a_2,J_{}=a_2^{}a_1,J_3=\frac{a_1^{}a_1a_2^{}a_2}{2}`$, which satisfy the commuting relations $`[J_3,J_\pm ]=\pm J_\pm ,[J_+,J_{}]=2J_3.`$ In this sub-Hilbert-space the Hamiltonian can therefore be rewritten

$$H_{n,k}(t)=E_k+g_kJ_++g_k^{}J_{}+(\omega _1\omega _2)J_3+n(\omega _1+\omega _2)$$
(6)
with $`n`$ being the eigenvalue of $`N`$ and satisfying

$$N|n_1,n_2=n|n_1,n_2,n=\frac{1}{2}(n_1+n_2).$$
(7)
Thus in the sub-Hilbert-space we write the Schrödinger equation in the form

$$H_{n,k}(t)|\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,k}(t)_s=i\frac{}{t}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,k}(t)_s,$$
(8)
and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)_s`$ can be obtained from

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)_s=\underset{n}{}\underset{k}{}c_{n,k}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,k}(t)_s|\mathrm{\Phi }_k,$$
(9)
where $`c_{n,k}`$ is time-independent and determined by the initial conditions.

For the sake of using the invariant theory conveniently, we rewrite the Hamiltonian $`H_{n,k}(t)`$ as follows

$$H_{n,k}(t)=c_k(t)\{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta _k(t)\mathrm{exp}[i\phi _k(t)]J_++\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta _k(t)\mathrm{exp}[i\phi _k(t)]J_{}+\mathrm{cos}\theta _k(t)J_3\}+f_{n,k}(t),$$
(10)
where

$$c_k(t)\mathrm{cos}\theta _k(t)=\omega _1\omega _2,f_{n,k}(t)=E_k+n(\omega _1+\omega _2),\frac{1}{2}c_k(t)\mathrm{sin}\theta _k(t)\mathrm{exp}[i\phi _k(t)]=g_k.$$
(11)
In accordance with the invariant theory, an invariant that satisfies the following invariant equation

$$\frac{I_k(t)}{t}+\frac{1}{i}[I_k(t),H_{n,k}(t)]=0$$
(12)
should be constructed. It follows from (12) that the invariant $`I_k(t)`$ is the linear combination of $`J_\pm `$ and $`J_3`$ and may be written as

$$I_k(t)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}\lambda _k(t)\mathrm{exp}[i\gamma _k(t)]J_++\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}\lambda _k(t)\mathrm{exp}[i\gamma _k(t)]J_{}+\mathrm{cos}\lambda _k(t)J_3.$$
(13)
Using the invariant equation (12), two auxiliary equations by which $`\lambda _k(t)`$ and $`\gamma _k(t)`$ will be determined can be derived

$$\dot{\lambda }_k(t)=c_k\mathrm{sin}\theta _k\mathrm{sin}(\phi _k\gamma _k),\dot{\gamma }_k(t)=c_k[\mathrm{cos}\theta _k\mathrm{sin}\theta _k\mathrm{cot}\lambda _k\mathrm{cos}(\phi _k\gamma _k)].$$
(14)
In order to obtain the exact solution of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation (8), we introduce an invariant-related unitary transformation operator $`V_k(t)`$

$$V_k(t)=\mathrm{exp}[\beta _k(t)J_+\beta _k^{}(t)J_{}],$$
(15)
where the time-dependent parameter

$$\beta _k(t)=\frac{\lambda _k(t)}{2}\mathrm{exp}[i\gamma _k(t)],\beta _k^{}(t)=\frac{\lambda _k(t)}{2}\mathrm{exp}[i\gamma _k(t)].$$
(16)
$`V_k(t)`$ can be readily shown to transform the time-dependent invariant $`I_k(t)`$ into $`I_{kV}`$ that is time-independent:

$$I_{kV}V_k^{}(t)I_k(t)V_k(t)=J_3.$$
(17)
The eigenstate of the $`I_{kV}=J_3`$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $`m`$ is denoted by $`|j,m,`$ where

$$|j,m=\underset{n_1n_2}{}n_1,n_2|j,m|n_1,n_2,m=\frac{1}{2}(n_1n_2).$$
(18)
By making use of $`V_k(t)`$ in expression (15) and the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula

$$V^{}(t)\frac{}{t}V(t)=\frac{}{t}L+\frac{1}{2!}[\frac{}{t}L,L]+\frac{1}{3!}[[\frac{}{t}L,L],L]+\frac{1}{4!}[[[\frac{}{t}L,L],L],L]+\mathrm{},$$
(19)
where $`V(t)=\mathrm{exp}[L(t)]`$, one can obtain $`H_{n,kV}(t)`$ from $`H_{n,k}(t)`$

$`H_{n,kV}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`V_k^{}(t)H_{n,k}(t)V_k(t)V_k^{}(t)i{\displaystyle \frac{V_k(t)}{t}}`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`\{[\mathrm{cos}\lambda _k\mathrm{cos}\theta _k+\mathrm{sin}\lambda _k\mathrm{sin}\theta _k\mathrm{cos}(\gamma _k\phi _k)]+\dot{\gamma }_k(1\mathrm{cos}\lambda _k)\}J_3+f_{n,k}.`$ ()
From the two expressions (17) and (() Exact expression for decoherence factor in the time-dependent generalized Cini model  This project is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under the project No. $`90101024`$.), one can see that $`H_{n,kV}(t)`$ differs from $`I_{kV}`$ only by a time-dependent $`c`$-number factor and $`f_{n,k}`$. Use is made of the invariant-related unitary transformation formulation and the general solution of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation (8) is therefore obtained

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,k}(t)_s=_mC_m(n,k)\mathrm{exp}[i\varphi _m(n,k,t)]V_k(t)|j,m$$
(21)
with the coefficients $`C_m=j,m,t=0|\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,k}(0)_s.`$ The phase $`\varphi _m(n,k,t)=\varphi _m^{(d)}(n,k,t)+\varphi _m^{(g)}(k,t)`$ includes the dynamical phase

$`\varphi _m^{(d)}(n,k,t)`$ $`=`$ $`_0^tj,m\left|V_k^{}(t^{^{}})H_{n,k}(t^{^{}})V_k(t^{^{}})\right|j,mdt^{^{}}`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`m_0^t\{\mathrm{cos}\lambda _k(t^{^{}})\mathrm{cos}\theta _k(t^{^{}})+`$ ()
$`+\mathrm{sin}\lambda _k(t^{^{}})\mathrm{sin}\theta _k(t^{^{}})\mathrm{cos}[\gamma _k(t^{^{}})\phi _k(t^{^{}})]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}f_{n,k}(t^{^{}})\}\mathrm{d}t^{^{}}`$
and the geometric phase

$$\varphi _m^{(g)}(k,t)=_0^tm\left|V_k^{}(t^{^{}})i\frac{V_k(t^{^{}})}{t^{^{}}}\right|mdt^{^{}}=m_0^t\dot{\gamma }_k(t^{^{}})[1\mathrm{cos}\lambda _k(t^{^{}})]dt^{^{}}.$$
(24)
It follows from (24) that if the parameter $`\dot{\gamma }_k`$ is taken to be time-independent, then the geometric phase in one cycle ($`T=\frac{2\pi }{\dot{\gamma }_k}`$) is $`\varphi _m^{(g)}(k,T)=m[2\pi (1\mathrm{cos}a)]`$ where $`2\pi (1\mathrm{cos}m)`$ is an expression for the solid angle over the parameter space of the invariant. It is of interest that $`m[2\pi (1\mathrm{cos}a)]`$ is equal to the magnetic flux produced by a magnetic monopole ( and the gravitomagnetic monopole ) of strength $`\frac{\lambda }{4\pi m}`$ existing at the origin of the parameter space. This, therefore, implies that geometric phase differs from dynamical phase and it involves the global and topological properties of the time evolution of a quantum system.

Since we have exact solutions of the time-dependent Cini model, we can consider the decoherence factor that is given

$$F_{k,l}(t)=j,m\left|V_k^{}(t)V_l(t)\right|j,m.$$
(25)
Further calculation yields

$$F_{k,l}(t)=\mathrm{exp}[m(\beta _l\beta _k^{}\beta _k\beta _l^{})]j,m\left|\mathrm{exp}[(\beta _l\beta _k)J_+(\beta _l^{}\beta _k^{})J_{}]\right|j,m,$$
(26)
which is the general expression for the decoherence factor of the time-dependent Cini model. Although the expression (26) is somewhat complicated, it is just the general explicit expression that does not contain the chronological product. To show that the decoherence factor (26) can reduce to the familiar results in the time-independent or partially time-dependent Cini model, we consider a special and simple case where the Hamiltonian is

$$H_{n,k}=c_kJ_2+f_{n,k}$$
(27)
with $`J_2=\frac{1}{2i}(J_+J_{}).`$ It follows from (27) that, in this case, $`\phi _k=\frac{\pi }{2},\omega _1=\omega _2,\mathrm{sin}\theta _k=1.`$ One can therefore arrive at

$$\gamma _k=0,\dot{\lambda }_k=c_k,\beta _k=\beta _k^{}=\frac{\lambda _k}{2}.$$
(28)
In the similar fashion, we have

$$\gamma _l=0,\dot{\lambda }_l=c_l,\beta _l=\beta _l^{}=\frac{\lambda _l}{2}.$$
(29)
It is verified with the help of (26) that

$$F_{k,l}(t)=j,m\left|\mathrm{exp}[i_0^t(c_kc_l)dt^{^{}}J_2]\right|j,m.$$
(30)
If the state of the measuring instrument-detector at the initial $`t=0`$ is $`|j,j`$, then the decoherence factor is

$`F_{k,l}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`j,j\left|\mathrm{exp}[i{\displaystyle _0^t}(c_kc_l)dt^{^{}}J_2]\right|j,j`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`[\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle _0^t}{\displaystyle \frac{c_kc_l}{2}}dt^{^{}})]^{2j}.`$ ()
Note that the expression (() Exact expression for decoherence factor in the time-dependent generalized Cini model  This project is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under the project No. $`90101024`$.) is a well-known result and in complete agreement with the one obtained by Sun et al.. When $`j\mathrm{}`$ and $`_0^t\frac{c_kc_l}{2}dt^{^{}}n\pi (n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}),F_{k,l}(t)0`$, which means the wavefunction collapse occurs under the classical limit.

To conclude this letter, we briefly discuss the concepts of the exact solution and the explicit solution. The expression (21) is a particular exact solution corresponding to the particular eigenvalue $`m`$ of the invariant and thus the general solutions of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation are easily obtained by using the linear combinations of all these particular solutions. Generally speaking, in Quantum Mechanics, solution with chronological-product operator ( time-order operator ) $`P`$ is often called the formal solution. In the present letter, however, the solution of the Schrödinger equation governing a time-dependent system is sometimes called the explicit solution, for reasons that the solution does not involve time-order operator. But, on the other hand, by using Lewis-Riesenfeld invariant theory, there always exist time-dependent parameters, for instance, $`\lambda _k(t)`$ and $`\gamma _k(t)`$ in this letter, which are determined by the auxiliary equations (14). According to the traditional practice, when employed in experimental analysis and compared with experimental results, these nonlinear auxiliary equations should be solved often by means of numerical calculation. From above viewpoints, the concept of explicit solution is understood in a relative sense, namely, it can be considered explicit solution when compared with the time-evolution operator $`U(t)=P\mathrm{exp}[\frac{1}{i}_0^tH(t^{^{}})dt^{^{}}]`$ involving time-order operator, $`P`$; whereas, it cannot be considered completely explicit solution for it is expressed in terms of some time-dependent parameters which should be obtained via the auxiliary equations. Hence, conservatively speaking, we regard the solution of the time-dependent system presented in the letter as exact solution rather than explicit solution.

The present letter obtains exact solutions and decoherence factor of the time-dependent Cini model by working in the sub-Hilbert space corresponding to the eigenvalue of two invariants, which commute with the Hamiltonian, and by using the invariant-related unitary transformation method. The invariant-related unitary transformation formulation is an effective method for treating time-dependent problems. This formulation replaces eigenstates of the time-dependent invariants with those of the time-independent invariants through the unitary transformation. It uses the invariant-related unitary transformation and obtains the explicit expression for the time-evolution operator, instead of the formal solution associated with the chronological product. In view of what has been discussed above, it can be seen that the invariant theory is appropriate to treat the time-dependent quantum decoherence. Apparently, this method is easy to generalize to the time-dependent Hepp-Coleman model. Since the geometric phase factor appears in the time-dependent systems, it is interesting to consider the geometric phase in the time-dependent quantum decoherence.

Acknowledgements The authors thank Gao Xiao-Chun for his beneficial invariant-related unitary transformation formulation.