text:
# Exact renormalization group flow equations for non-relativistic fermions: scaling towards the Fermi surface

## I Introduction

Recently several authors  have used exact functional renormalization group (RG) methods to gain a deeper understanding of strongly correlated non-relativistic fermions in reduced dimensions. The exact functional RG yields an infinite hierarchy of coupled differential equations describing the change of the correlation functions due to the elimination and the rescaling of the degrees of freedom. For classical statistical mechanics problems the exact functional RG has been developed long time ago in a pioneering work by Wegner and Houghton , who performed the usual three RG-steps  to derive their exact flow equation:

1. Integrate out fields with momenta $`𝐤`$ in a shell $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0(1dt)<|𝐤|<\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$, where $`dt`$ is infinitesimal and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ is some ultraviolet cutoff.
2. Rescale the remaining momenta by a factor $`1+dt`$ and express all quantities in terms of the rescaled momenta.
3. Rescale the remaining fields by a factor of $`1+\frac{1}{2}(1\eta )dt`$, where the anomalous dimension $`\eta `$ has to be chosen such that the RG has a fixed point .

Over the years several alternative formulations of the exact functional RG in field theory and statistical physics have been proposed . Note, however, that recent applications of the exact RG for two-dimensional fermions  take only the mode elimination step 1 into account, and do not perform the above rescaling steps 2 and 3. While such a procedure is legitimate if one is interested in solving a given many-body problem iteratively, the Wilsonian RG amounts to more than that : by combining the mode elimination with a suitable rescaling of the degrees of freedom, the Wilsonian RG generates a mapping of the original many-body problem onto a continuous family of new many-body problems, labeled by a flow parameter $`t`$. In the limit $`t\mathrm{}`$ it sometimes happens that the resulting problem simplifies and can be solved in a controlled manner. In order to obtain a non-trivial RG fixed point for $`t\mathrm{}`$ which is characterized by a non-zero anomalous dimension $`\eta `$, it is crucial that the fields are properly rescaled, as discussed in detail by Bell and Wilson . For example, by applying the exact functional RG to $`\varphi ^4`$-theory , it is easy to see that without the rescaling the RG flow does not reproduce the Wilson-Fisher fixed point below four dimensions, see Sec.IV C. We therefore believe that the RG calculations of Refs. are incomplete, and should be augmented by the usual rescaling steps 2 and 3 given above. Note that the rescaling is explicitly included in the one loop momentum-shell approach advanced by Shankar, so that one may wonder why the exact functional RG used in Refs. does not include the rescaling. We shall try to clarify this point in this work by showing how to include the rescaling of the degrees of freedom in the exact functional RG for fermionic many-body systems in arbitrary dimensions. We then point out several advantages of working with the rescaled version of the exact RG flow equations.

## II Mode elimination for the Legendre effective action

In this section we present a brief derivation of the exact flow equation describing the change in the Legendre effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\{\overline{\phi },\phi \}`$ due to the elimination of the degrees of freedom with momenta and frequencies in a suitably defined shell. Keeping in mind that the Legendre effective action is the generating functional of the one-particle irreducible correlation functions , an expansion of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\{\overline{\phi },\phi \}`$ in powers of the fields $`\overline{\phi }`$ and $`\phi `$ yields the corresponding flow equations for the irreducible $`n`$-point vertices. For classical field theories, the flow equation for the Legendre effective action has been considered some time ago by Nicoll et al., and more recently by Wetterich , and by Morris . For non-relativistic fermions the exact flow equation for the Legendre effective action has recently been derived in a very general form by Honerkamp, Salmhofer and co-authors, who also included the possibility of symmetry breaking. Our derivation given below is less general but more explicit; in particular, we shall adopt as much as possible the standard notations from the theory of critical phenomena .

### A Assumptions and initial conditions

We consider a translationally invariant non-relativistic system of interacting fermions with a Fermi surface. Throughout this work we assume that the fermions are in the normal state, so that the propagator does not have any anomalous components. By Fermi surface we mean the true Fermi surface of the interacting system, which is defined as the set of all momenta satisfying

$$ϵ_{𝐤_F}=\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤_F,i0),$$
(2.1)
where $`ϵ_𝐤`$ is the energy dispersion of the non-interacting system, $`\mu `$ is the exact chemical potential and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,i\omega _n)`$ is the exact self-energy of the interacting many-body system. Here $`𝐤`$ is the momentum and $`i\omega _n`$ is the Matsubara frequency. Given an arbitrary $`𝐤`$, we may define a corresponding momentum $`𝐤_F`$ on the Fermi surface via the decomposition

$$𝐤=𝐤_F+\widehat{𝐯}_Fp,$$
(2.2)
as shown in Fig.1. Here $`\widehat{𝐯}_F=𝐯_F/|𝐯_F|`$ is a unit vector in the direction of the local Fermi velocity

$$𝐯_F=_𝐤ϵ_𝐤|_{𝐤=𝐤_F}.$$
(2.3)
Note that $`𝐯_F`$ is defined in terms of the gradient of the bare energy dispersion at the renormalized Fermi surface. The solution of Eq.(2.1) can be parameterized as

$$𝐤_F=\widehat{𝐧}k_F(\widehat{𝐧}),$$
(2.4)
where $`\widehat{𝐧}`$ is a unit vector in the direction of $`𝐤_F`$, see Fig.1. Note that only for a spherical Fermi surface we may identify $`\widehat{𝐧}=\widehat{𝐯}_F`$, so that $`𝐤_F`$ and $`𝐯_F`$ are parallel. In this case we know that $`𝐤_F`$ is not renormalized as we turn on the interactions at constant density . The true Fermi surface is then given by $`ϵ_{𝐤_F}=\mu _0`$ (where $`\mu _0`$ is the chemical potential of the non-interacting system at the same density), so that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤_F,i0)=\mu \mu _0`$, which is independent of $`𝐤_F`$.

For the derivation of the RG flow equations it is convenient to represent the generating functionals of the fermionic correlation functions in terms of Grassmannian functional integrals . We assume that initially the Grassmann fields $`\psi _K`$ with large excitation energies $`ϵ_𝐤ϵ_{𝐤_F}`$ and large Matsubara frequencies $`\omega _n`$ have been integrated out. Here $`K=(𝐤,i\omega _n)`$ is a composite label, and for simplicity we ignore the spin degree of freedom. The high energy shell can be described by an equation of the form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_K\stackrel{>}{}\xi _0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_K`$ is a suitable homogeneous function of $`ϵ_𝐤ϵ_{𝐤_F}`$ or $`|\omega _n|`$. Possible choices are $`\mathrm{\Omega }_K=|\omega _n|`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_K=|ϵ_𝐤ϵ_{𝐤_F}|`$, or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_K=\sqrt{\omega _n^2+(ϵ_𝐤ϵ_{𝐤_F})^2}`$. Our starting point is an effective action of the form

$`S_{\xi _0}\{\overline{\psi },\psi \}`$ $`=`$ $`S_{\xi _0}^0\{\overline{\psi },\psi \}+S_{\xi _0}^{\mathrm{int}}\{\overline{\psi },\psi \},`$ (2.5)
where the free part is given by

$`S_{\xi _0}^0\{\overline{\psi },\psi \}={\displaystyle _K}\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (\xi _0\mathrm{\Omega }_K)[i\omega _n+ϵ_𝐤ϵ_{𝐤_F}]\overline{\psi }_K\psi _K.`$ (2.6)
(2.7)
Here we use the notation

$`{\displaystyle _K}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta V}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,\omega _n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐤}{(2\pi )^D}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }},`$ (2.8)
where $`\beta `$ is the inverse temperature and $`V`$ is the volume, and the right-hand side is valid for $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ and $`V\mathrm{}`$. The interaction part is

$`S_{\xi _0}^{\mathrm{int}}\{\overline{\psi },\psi \}`$ $`=`$ (2.12)
$`{\displaystyle _K}\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (\xi _0\mathrm{\Omega }_K)[\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\xi _0}(K)\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤_F,i0)]\overline{\psi }_K\psi _K`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2!)^2}}{\displaystyle _{K_1^{}}}{\displaystyle _{K_2^{}}}{\displaystyle _{K_2}}{\displaystyle _{K_1}}\delta _{K_1^{}+K_2^{},K_2+K_1}`$
$`\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\xi _0}^{(4)}(K_1^{},K_2^{};K_2,K_1)\overline{\psi }_{K_1^{}}\overline{\psi }_{K_2^{}}\psi _{K_2}\psi _{K_1}+\mathrm{},`$
where the ellipsis denotes three-body and higher order interactions, and

$`\delta _{KK^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta V\delta _{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}\delta _{\omega _n\omega _n^{}}`$ (2.13)
$``$ $`(2\pi )^{D+1}\delta (𝐤𝐤^{})\delta (\omega \omega ^{}).`$ (2.14)
All vertices are antisymmetric with respect to the permutation of any pair of the incoming particles and any pair of the outgoing particles. In particular, the four-point vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(4)}(K_1^{},K_2^{};K_2,K_1)`$ is antisymmetric with respect to the exchange $`K_1^{}K_2^{}`$ and $`K_1K_2`$. The function $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (ϵ)`$ is a smooth cutoff function, satisfying $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (ϵ)1`$ for $`ϵ>\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (ϵ)0`$ for $`ϵ<\gamma `$, so that $`lim_{\gamma 0}\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (ϵ)=\mathrm{\Theta }(ϵ)`$. The term $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\xi _0}(K)`$ in Eq.(2.12) is the contribution from the high energy fields with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_K\stackrel{>}{}\xi _0`$ to the irreducible self-energy, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤_F,i0)`$ is a counterterm which takes into account that in the free action (2.7) we have subtracted $`ϵ_{𝐤_F}=\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤_F,i0)`$ from the bare energy dispersion. As shown below, this subtraction is crucial to obtain the RG flow of the Fermi surface. In a perturbative approach, the above subtraction is necessary to obtain a well-behaved perturbation series . The counterterm $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤_F,i0)`$ can be determined from a self-consistency condition, which can be imposed order by order in perturbation theory . Within a RG approach, the counterterm can be determined a posteriori from the condition that the flow equation of the momentum- and frequency-independent part of the irreducible two-point vertex has a fixed point , see Sec.IV B for a careful discussion. The energy scale $`\xi _0`$ plays a dual role : For the calculation of the vertices of the initial action $`S_{\xi _0}\{\overline{\psi },\psi \}`$ the scale $`\xi _0`$ acts as an infrared cutoff, so that for sufficiently large $`\xi _0`$ the vertices appearing in $`S_{\xi _0}\{\overline{\psi },\psi \}`$ can be calculated perturbatively. On the other hand, for the remaining low-energy degrees of freedom $`\xi _0`$ plays the role of an ultraviolet cutoff.

### B Exact flow equation describing mode elimination

Starting from the effective action $`S_{\xi _0}\{\overline{\psi },\psi \}`$ with cutoff $`\xi _0`$, we eliminate all fields with momenta and Matsubara frequencies in the regime $`\xi \stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_K\stackrel{<}{}\xi _0`$. The free propagator for the fermionic fields in this regime has in the $`K`$-basis the diagonal elements

$$G_{\xi ,\xi _0}^0(K)=\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega }_K\xi )\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega }_K\xi _0)}{i\omega _nϵ_𝐤+ϵ_{𝐤_F}}.$$
(2.15)
Because $`𝐤_F`$ lies by construction on the true Fermi surface of the interacting system, the right-hand side of Eq.(2.15) depends implicitly on the interaction. Note, however, that $`ϵ_{𝐤_F}`$ is independent of the flow parameter $`\xi `$. Diagrammatically, the elimination of the degrees of freedom in the shell $`\xi \stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_K\stackrel{<}{}\xi _0`$ corresponds to contracting all terms generated by expanding $`e^{S_{\xi _0}^{\mathrm{int}}\{\overline{\psi },\psi \}}`$ with the propagators $`G_{\xi ,\xi _0}^0`$ given in Eq.(2.15). The connected correlation functions of the new theory can be formally represented as functional derivatives of the generating functional $`𝒢_\xi ^c\{\overline{J},J\}`$ defined by

$`e^{𝒢_\xi ^c\{\overline{J},J\}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{S_{\xi _0}^{\mathrm{int}}\{\zeta \frac{\delta }{\delta J},\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{J}}\}}e^{(\overline{J},(G_{\xi ,\xi _0}^0)J)}`$ (2.17)
$`=e^{(\overline{J},(G_{\xi ,\xi _0}^0)J)}\left[e^{(\zeta \frac{\delta }{\delta \psi },(G_{\xi ,\xi _0}^0)\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\psi }})}e^{S_{\xi _0}^{\mathrm{int}}\{\overline{\psi },\psi \}}\right]_{\psi =G_{\xi ,\xi _0}^0J}.`$
Here $`(a,Mb)=_K_K^{}a_KM_{KK^{}}b_K^{}`$, and the factor $`\zeta =1`$ arises from the antisymmetry of the Grassmann fields . $`G_{\xi ,\xi _0}^0`$ should be considered as a matrix in $`K`$-space, with matrix elements given by

$$[G_{\xi ,\xi _0}^0]_{KK^{}}=\delta _{KK^{}}G_{\xi ,\xi _0}^0(K),$$
(2.19)
where $`G_{\xi ,\xi _0}^0(K)`$ is defined in Eq.(2.15).

Differentiating both sides of Eq.(LABEL:eq:Gcdef) with respect to $`\xi `$, we obtain an exact flow equation for the generating functional of the connected correlation functions. For practical calculations the flow equation for the irreducible vertices is more convenient . To obtain the corresponding generating functional, we perform a Legendre transformation,

$$_\xi \{\overline{\phi },\phi \}=(\overline{\phi },J)+(\overline{J},\phi )𝒢_\xi ^c\{\overline{J},J\},$$
(2.20)
where the Grassmann sources $`J`$ and $`\overline{J}`$ have to be considered as functionals of the Grassmann fields $`\phi `$ and $`\overline{\phi }`$ by solving the following equations for $`\overline{J}=\overline{J}\{\overline{\phi },\phi \}`$ and $`J=J\{\overline{\phi },\phi \}`$,

$$\phi =\zeta \frac{\delta 𝒢_\xi ^c\{\overline{J},J\}}{\delta J},\overline{\phi }=\frac{\delta 𝒢_\xi ^c\{\overline{J},J\}}{\delta \overline{J}}.$$
(2.21)
The generating functional of the irreducible vertices is then given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi \{\overline{\phi },\phi \}=_\xi \{\overline{\phi },\phi \}(\overline{\phi },[G_{\xi ,\xi _0}^0]^1\phi ),$$
(2.22)
and satisfies the exact flow equation

$`_\xi \mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi `$ $`=`$ $`\zeta {\displaystyle _K}_\xi [G_{\xi ,\xi _0}^0(K)]^1`$ (2.23)
$`\times `$ $`\{\widehat{G}_{\xi ,\xi _0}\widehat{𝒰}_\xi [\widehat{1}\widehat{G}_{\xi ,\xi _0}\widehat{𝒰}_\xi ]^1\widehat{G}_{\xi ,\xi _0}`$ (2.25)
$`+\widehat{G}_{\xi ,\xi _0}^0\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\xi [1\widehat{G}_{\xi ,\xi _0}^0\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\xi ]^1\widehat{G}_{\xi ,\xi _0}^0\}_{22;KK},`$
with initial condition

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\xi _0}\{\overline{\phi },\phi \}=S_{\xi _0}^{\mathrm{int}}\{\overline{\phi },\phi \}.$$
(2.26)
Here $`\{\mathrm{}\}_{22;KK}`$ denotes the lower diagonal element of the corresponding $`2\times 2`$-matrix in $`K`$-space, and the functional $`\widehat{𝒰}_\xi `$ is given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\zeta \frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi }{\delta \overline{\phi }_K\delta \phi _K^{}}& \zeta \frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi }{\delta \overline{\phi }_K\delta \overline{\phi }_K^{}}\\ \frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi }{\delta \phi _K\delta \phi _K^{}}& \frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi }{\delta \phi _K\delta \overline{\phi }_K^{}}\end{array}\right)=[\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\xi ]_{KK^{}}+\left[\widehat{𝒰}_\xi \{\overline{\phi },\phi \}\right]_{KK^{}},$$
(2.27)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\xi `$ is defined as the field-independent part of the second functional derivative of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi `$, so that $`\widehat{𝒰}_\xi \{0,0\}=0`$. The interacting cutoff-regularized propagator is related to the non-interacting one via the Dyson equation,

$$\widehat{G}_{\xi ,\xi _0}=[\widehat{G}_{\xi ,\xi _0}^0\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\xi ]^1,[\widehat{G}_{\xi ,\xi _0}^0]_{ij}=\delta _{ij}G_{\xi ,\xi _0}^0.$$
(2.28)
### C Flow equation for sharp cutoff

For simplicity we shall from now on work with a sharp cutoff function, $`\mathrm{\Theta }(ϵ)=lim_{\gamma 0}\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (ϵ)`$. Due to translational invariance the $`K`$-dependence of all vertices is constrained by energy-momentum conservation, so that the matrix elements of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\xi `$ are

$`[\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\xi ]_{ij;KK^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}\delta _{KK^{}}[\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi (K)\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤_F,i0)],`$ (2.29)
where the term $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤_F,i0)`$ is due to the subtraction in Eq.(2.12). The exact flow equation (2.25) can then be reduced to the following form

$`_\xi \mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi `$ $`=`$ (2.32)
$`\zeta {\displaystyle _K}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }_K\xi )}{i\omega _nϵ_𝐤+\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi (K)}}\left\{\widehat{𝒰}_\xi [\widehat{1}\widehat{G}_{\xi ,\xi _0}\widehat{𝒰}_\xi ]^1\right\}_{22;KK}`$
$`\zeta \beta V{\displaystyle _K}\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }_K\xi )\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega _nϵ_𝐤+\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi (K)}{i\omega _nϵ_𝐤+ϵ_{𝐤_F}}}\right].`$
We now expand

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi \{\overline{\phi },\phi \}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{(n!)^2}}{\displaystyle _{K_1^{}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{K_n^{}}}{\displaystyle _{K_n}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{K_1}}`$ (2.34)
$`\times `$ $`\delta _{K_1^{}+\mathrm{}+K_n^{},K_n+\mathrm{}+K_1}`$ (2.35)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(2n)}(K_1^{},\mathrm{},K_n^{};K_n,\mathrm{},K_1)`$ (2.36)
$`\times `$ $`\overline{\phi }_{K_1^{}}\mathrm{}\overline{\phi }_{K_n^{}}\phi _{K_n}\mathrm{}\phi _{K_1},`$ (2.37)
and identify the terms with the same powers of the fields on both sides of Eq.(LABEL:eq:flowsharp). Note that in the normal state only the even vertices are non-zero. In this way we obtain the RG flow equations for the unrescaled irreducible $`2n`$-point vertices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(2n)}(K_1^{},\mathrm{},K_n^{};K_n,\mathrm{},K_1)`$. We now explicitly give the exact flow equations for the vertices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(0)}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(2)}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(4)}`$. For a two-loop calculation one needs the flow equation for the six-point vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(6)}`$, which is given in the Appendix.

#### 1 Free energy

The interaction correction to the free energy is obtained from the last term in Eq.(LABEL:eq:flowsharp),

$$_\xi \mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(0)}=\zeta \beta V_K\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }_K\xi )\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{i\omega _nϵ_𝐤+\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi (K)}{i\omega _nϵ_𝐤+ϵ_{𝐤_F}}\right].$$
(2.38)
#### 2 Self-energy

Comparing the terms quadratic in the fields on both sides of Eq.(LABEL:eq:flowsharp) and using the fact that by construction the two-point vertex is related to the subtracted irreducible self-energy via

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(2)}(K;K)=[\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi (K)\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤_F,i0)],$$
(2.39)
we obtain

$`_\xi \mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(2)}(K;K)`$ $`=`$ $`_\xi \mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi (K)=`$ (2.41)
$`\zeta {\displaystyle _K^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }_K^{}\xi )}{i\omega _n^{}ϵ_𝐤^{}+\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi (K^{})}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(4)}(K,K^{};K^{},K).`$
A graphical representation of this equation is shown in Fig.2.

#### 3 Four-point vertex

The flow equation for the irreducible four-point vertex is

$`_\xi \mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(4)}(K_1^{},K_2^{};K_2,K_1)`$ $`=`$ (2.48)
$`\zeta {\displaystyle _K}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }_K\xi )}{i\omega _nϵ_𝐤+\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi (K)}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(6)}(K_1^{},K_2^{},K;K,K_2,K_1)`$
$`+{\displaystyle _K}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }_K\xi )G_{\xi ,\xi _0}(K^{})}{i\omega _nϵ_𝐤+\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi (K)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{G_{\xi ,\xi _0}(K)\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }_K^{}\xi )}{i\omega _n^{}ϵ_𝐤^{}+\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi (K^{})}}\right]`$
$`\times \{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(4)}(K_1^{},K_2^{};K^{},K)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(4)}(K,K^{},K_2,K_1)\right]_{K^{}=K_1+K_2K}`$
$`+\zeta \left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(4)}(K_1^{},K^{};K,K_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(4)}(K_2^{},K;K^{},K_2)\right]_{K^{}=K+K_1K_1^{}}`$
$`+\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(4)}(K_2^{},K^{};K,K_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(4)}(K_1^{},K;K^{},K_2)\right]_{K^{}=K+K_1K_2^{}}\}.`$
This equation is shown graphically in Fig.3. The first term in the curly braces is contribution from the BCS-channel, while the last two terms are the zero-sound contributions, usually abbreviated by ZS (second term) and ZS (third term) . Note that both zero-sound terms have to be retained in order to preserve the antisymmetry of the four-point vertex . The exact flow equation for the six-point vertex is rather lengthy and is given in the Appendix.

## III Exact flow equations describing mode elimination and rescaling

So far we have derived exact flow equations for the irreducible vertices describing the elimination of the degrees of freedom. Within the one-loop approximation, it is sufficient to set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(2n)}=0`$ for $`n3`$, and to ignore interaction corrections to the propagators in internal loops. The resulting truncated flow equation for the four-point vertex in two dimensions has been analyzed numerically by Honerkamp et al.. A similar numerical analysis of an equivalent truncated flow equation has been performed by Halboth and Metzner . Both groups found that the one-loop flow of the four-point vertex eventually diverges at a finite scale, where the perturbative RG breaks down. Physically the runaway flow has been interpreted in terms of some incipient instability of the normal metallic phase. Here we would like to point out that in principle there is another interpretation of this runaway flow, namely the existence of a scale-invariant non-Fermi liquid fixed point, which is characterized by a finite anomalous dimension. Below we argue that the mode elimination RG transformations of Refs. cannot detect such a fixed point, because these equations do not take into account that the degrees of freedom should be properly rescaled to reach a fixed point with a finite anomalous dimension . Assuming the existence of such a fixed point, only the rescaled version of the exact flow equations given below would detect it, while the pure mode elimination RG used in Refs. would still exhibit a runaway flow to strong coupling.

Because the following rescaling procedure depends crucially on the existence of a Fermi surface, we now explicitly set the statistics factor $`\zeta =1`$. We also take the limits of infinite volume ($`V\mathrm{}`$) and zero temperature ($`\beta \mathrm{}`$), so that momenta and frequencies become continuous variables.

### A Scaling variables

Instead of the momentum $`𝐤`$ and the Matsubara frequency $`i\omega `$, we now label the degrees of freedom by the direction $`\widehat{𝐧}`$ of $`𝐤_F`$ (see Fig.1) and by the dimensionless variables

$`q={\displaystyle \frac{v_Fp}{\xi }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐯_F(𝐤𝐤_F)}{\xi }},ϵ={\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\xi }},`$ (3.1)
so that

$$𝐤=𝐤_F+\widehat{𝐯}_F\frac{\xi }{v_F}q=\widehat{𝐧}k_F(\widehat{𝐧})+\widehat{𝐯}_F\frac{\xi }{v_F}q.$$
(3.2)
Furthermore, instead of the flow parameter $`\xi `$, we introduce the dimensionless logarithmic flow parameter

$$t=\mathrm{ln}(\xi /\xi _0),$$
(3.3)
and define the dimensionless dispersion

$$\xi _t^{\widehat{𝐧}}(q)=\frac{ϵ_𝐤ϵ_{𝐤_F}}{\xi }=q+\frac{c_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}}{2}q^2+O(q^3),$$
(3.4)
where

$$c_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}=\frac{\xi }{mv_F^2}=\frac{\xi _0}{mv_F^2}e^t$$
(3.5)
is an irrelevant coupling which measures the leading deviation from linearity in the energy dispersion in the direction normal to the Fermi surface. In Eq.(3.4) we have expanded the energy dispersion around $`𝐤=𝐤_F`$,

$$ϵ_𝐤=ϵ_{𝐤_F}+𝐯_F(𝐤𝐤_F)+\frac{(𝐤𝐤_F)^2}{2m}+\mathrm{}.$$
(3.6)
Note that in general $`𝐯_F`$ and $`m`$ depend on $`\widehat{𝐧}`$. Using $`Q=(\widehat{𝐧},q,iϵ)`$ instead of $`K=(𝐤,i\omega )`$ as integration variables, we have for $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ and $`V\mathrm{}`$

$$_K=\nu _0\xi ^2_Q=\nu _0\xi ^2\frac{dS_{\widehat{𝐧}}}{S_D}𝑑qJ(\widehat{𝐧},q)\frac{dϵ}{2\pi },$$
(3.7)
where $`dS_{\widehat{𝐧}}`$ is a surface element and $`S_D`$ is the surface area of the unit sphere in $`D`$ dimensions, and $`J(\widehat{𝐧},q)`$ is a dimensionless Jacobian associated with the transformation $`𝐤(\widehat{𝐧},q)`$. For convenience we have pulled out a factor of $`\nu _0\xi ^2`$ in Eq.(3.7), where $`\nu _0`$ is the density of states at the Fermi surface,

$$\nu _0=\frac{d𝐤}{(2\pi )^D}\delta (ϵ_𝐤ϵ_{𝐤_F}).$$
(3.8)
With this normalization $`J(\widehat{𝐧},q)`$ is dimensionless. In particular, for a spherical Fermi surface

$$\nu _0=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_D}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{k_F^{D1}}{v_F},J(\widehat{𝐧},q)=(1+c_tq)^{D1}.$$
(3.9)
### B The scaling form of the irreducible vertices

The proper definition of the dimensionless scaling form of the irreducible vertices follows partially from dimensional analysis, and partially from aesthetic considerations (such as the requirement that numerical prefactors should be as simple as possible). Given the expansion (2.37) of the generating functional of the irreducible vertices in powers of the dimensionful fields $`\phi _K`$, we substitute

$$\phi _K=\left(\frac{Z_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}}{\xi ^3\nu _0}\right)^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{\phi }_Q,$$
(3.10)
where the wave-function renormalization factor $`Z_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}`$ is related to the irreducible self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi (𝐤,i\omega )`$ at scale $`\xi `$ as usual,

$$Z_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}=\frac{1}{1\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi (𝐤_F,i\omega )}{(i\omega )}|_{\omega =0}}.$$
(3.11)
The dimensionless fields $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_Q`$ should be considered as functions of the scaling variables $`Q`$.

#### 1 Free energy

Due to the Jacobian associated with the rescaling of fermionic fields in the functional integral, the field-independent part $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(0)}`$ of the generating functional $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi \{\overline{\phi },\phi \}`$ picks up an additive term, so that after rescaling the correction to the free energy is

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(0)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(0)}+\beta V_K\mathrm{\Theta }(\xi \mathrm{\Omega }_K)\mathrm{ln}Z_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}.$$
(3.12)
In classical statistical mechanics a contribution analogous to the second term has been discussed by Wegner and Houghton .

#### 2 Two-point vertex

We write the exact propagator in the following scaling form,

$$G_{\xi ,\xi _0}(𝐤,i\omega )=\frac{Z_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}}{\xi }\stackrel{~}{G}_t(\frac{𝐤_F}{k_F},\frac{𝐯_F(𝐤𝐤_F)}{\xi },\frac{i\omega }{\xi }),$$
(3.13)
where $`\widehat{𝐧}`$ should be considered as a function of $`𝐤`$, as given in Eqs.(2.2) and (2.4). Note that our exact RG equations describe the flow of the dimensionless scaling function

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_t(Q)\stackrel{~}{G}_t(\widehat{𝐧},q,iϵ)=\frac{\xi }{Z_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}}G_{\xi ,\xi _0}(\widehat{𝐧}k_F(\widehat{𝐧})+\widehat{𝐯}_F\frac{\xi }{v_F}q,i\xi ϵ).$$
(3.14)
Introducing the dimensionless scaling form of the (subtracted) irreducible two-point vertex,

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(2)}(Q)=\frac{Z_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}}{\xi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(2)}(K)=\frac{Z_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}}{\xi }\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi (K)\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤_F,i0)\right],$$
(3.15)
and the scaling form of the inverse propagator

$`r_t(Q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Z_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}}{\xi }}\left[i\omega ϵ_𝐤+\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi (𝐤,i\omega )\right]`$ (3.16)
$`=`$ $`Z_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}\left[iϵ\xi _t^{\widehat{𝐧}}(q)\right]+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(2)}(Q),`$ (3.17)
we obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{G}_t(Q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_Q1)\mathrm{\Theta }(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_Qe^t)}{r_t(Q)}}`$ (3.18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(e^t>\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_Q>1)}{r_t(Q)}},`$ (3.19)
where

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(x_2>x>x_1)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }x_2>x>x_1\\ 0\hfill & \text{else}\end{array},$$
(3.20)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_Q=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_K}{\xi }.$$
(3.21)
Note that for the choice $`\mathrm{\Omega }_K=|ϵ_𝐤ϵ_{𝐤_F}|`$ we obtain $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_Q=|\xi _t^{\widehat{𝐧}}(q)||q|`$ to leading order. The initial condition at $`t=0`$ implies

$`r_0(Q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Z_0^{\widehat{𝐧}}}{\xi _0}}\left[i\omega ϵ_𝐤+\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\xi _0}(K)\right]`$ (3.22)
$`=`$ $`Z_0^{\widehat{𝐧}}[iϵ\xi _0^{\widehat{𝐧}}(q)]+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_0^{(2)}(Q).`$ (3.23)
Furthermore, without interactions $`Z_t=1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(2)}(Q)=0`$, so that $`r_t(Q)=iϵ\xi _t^{\widehat{𝐧}}(q)`$.

#### 3 Higher order vertices ($`n2`$)

The dimensionless scaling form of the higher order irreducible vertices follows from our definition (3.10) of the dimensionless fields,

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(2n)}(Q_1^{},\mathrm{},Q_n^{};Q_n,\mathrm{},Q_1)=`$ (3.26)
$`\nu _0^{n1}\xi ^{n2}\left[Z_t^{\widehat{𝐧}_1^{}}\mathrm{}Z_t^{\widehat{𝐧}_n^{}}Z_t^{\widehat{𝐧}_n}\mathrm{}Z_t^{\widehat{𝐧}_1}\right]^{1/2}`$
$`\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(2n)}(K_1^{},\mathrm{},K_n^{};K_n,\mathrm{},K_1).`$
### C Flow equations for the rescaled vertices

#### 1 Free energy

Defining the interaction correction to the free energy per Fourier component,

$$f_t=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(0)}}{\beta V_K\mathrm{\Theta }(\xi \mathrm{\Omega }_K)},$$
(3.27)
and using Eqs.(2.38) and (3.12), we obtain the exact flow equation for $`f_t`$,

$$_tf_t=f_t\frac{dS_{\widehat{𝐧}}}{S_D}\eta _t^{\widehat{𝐧}}\frac{_Q\delta (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_Q1)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{r_t(Q)}{iϵ\xi _t^{\widehat{𝐧}}(q)}\right)}{_Q\mathrm{\Theta }(1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_Q)}.$$
(3.28)
Here $`\eta _t^{\widehat{𝐧}}`$ is the flowing anomalous dimension,

$$\eta _t^{\widehat{𝐧}}=_t\mathrm{ln}Z_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}=\frac{_tZ_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}}{Z_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}}.$$
(3.29)
Eq.(3.28) is the fermionic analog of the corresponding flow equation for the free energy in $`\varphi ^4`$-theory, see Eq.(4.6) of Ref..

#### 2 Two-point vertex

From Eqs.(LABEL:eq:flowGamma2) and (3.15) we find the flow equation for the dimensionless subtracted two-point vertex,

$`_t\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(2)}(Q)`$ $`=`$ $`(1\eta _t^{\widehat{𝐧}}Q_Q)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(2)}(Q)`$ (3.30)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _Q^{}}\dot{G}_t(Q^{})\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(4)}(Q,Q^{};Q^{},Q),`$ (3.31)
where we have introduced the notation

$$Q_Q=q_q+ϵ_ϵ,$$
(3.32)
$$\dot{G}_t(Q)=\frac{\delta (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_Q1)}{r_t(Q)}.$$
(3.33)
#### 3 Four-point vertex

The flow equation for the rescaled irreducible four-point vertex follows from Eqs.(2.48) and (3.26),

$`_t\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(4)}(Q_1^{},Q_2^{};Q_2,Q_1)`$ $`=`$ (3.40)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _t^{\widehat{𝐧}_i^{}}+\eta _t^{\widehat{𝐧}_i}}{2}}+Q_i^{}_{Q_i^{}}+Q_i_{Q_i}\right]\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(4)}(Q_1^{},Q_2^{};Q_2,Q_1)`$
$`{\displaystyle _Q}\dot{G}_t(Q)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(6)}(Q_1^{},Q_2^{},Q;Q,Q_2,Q_1)`$
$`{\displaystyle _Q}\left[\dot{G}_t(Q)\stackrel{~}{G}_t(Q^{})+\stackrel{~}{G}_t(Q)\dot{G}_t(Q^{})\right]`$
$`\times \{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(4)}(Q_1^{},Q_2^{};Q^{},Q)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(4)}(Q,Q^{};Q_2,Q_1)\right]_{K^{}=K_1+K_2K}`$
$`\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(4)}(Q_1^{},Q^{};Q,Q_1)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(4)}(Q_2^{},Q;Q^{},Q_2)\right]_{K^{}=K+K_1K_1^{}}`$
$`+\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(4)}(Q_2^{},Q^{};Q,Q_1)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(4)}(Q_1^{},Q;Q^{},Q_2)\right]_{K^{}=K+K_1K_2^{}}\}.`$
Here $`K`$, $`K^{}`$, $`K_i`$ and $`K_i^{}`$ should be considered as functions of the dimensionless scaling variables introduced in Sec.III A, for example $`K=(\widehat{𝐧}k_F+\widehat{𝐯}_F\frac{\xi }{v_F}q,i\xi ϵ)`$. Due to the non-linearity of this transformation, the explicit expression of $`Q^{}`$ in terms of $`Q`$ and $`Q_i=(\widehat{𝐧}_i,q_i,ϵ_i)`$ is rather complicated. For example, let us calculate $`Q^{}=(\widehat{𝐧}^{},q^{},ϵ^{})`$ in the zero-sound contribution involving $`K^{}=K+K_1K_1^{}`$. The energy component is simple, $`ϵ^{}=ϵ+ϵ_1ϵ_1^{}`$, but for $`\widehat{𝐧}^{}`$ and $`q^{}`$ we obtain

$$\widehat{𝐧}^{}=\frac{\widehat{𝐧}+\widehat{𝐧}_1\widehat{𝐧}_1^{}+c_t(\widehat{𝐧}q+\widehat{𝐧}_1q_1\widehat{𝐧}_1^{}q_1^{})}{|\widehat{𝐧}+\widehat{𝐧}_1\widehat{𝐧}_1^{}+c_t(\widehat{𝐧}q+\widehat{𝐧}_1q_1\widehat{𝐧}_1^{}q_1^{})|},$$
(3.41)
$$q^{}=\frac{1}{c_t}\left[\left|\widehat{𝐧}+\widehat{𝐧}_1\widehat{𝐧}_1^{}+c_t(\widehat{𝐧}q+\widehat{𝐧}_1q_1\widehat{𝐧}_1^{}q_1^{})\right|1\right],$$
(3.42)
where $`c_t=\xi _0e^t/(mv_F^2)`$, see Eq.(3.5). For simplicity we have assumed a spherical Fermi surface, so that $`𝐤_i=\widehat{𝐧}_ik_F(1+c_tq_i)`$. Note that the corresponding rescaled energy dispersion is

$`\xi _t^{\widehat{𝐧}^{}}(q^{})`$ $`=`$ $`q+\widehat{𝐧}(\widehat{𝐧}_1q_1\widehat{𝐧}_1^{}q_1^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{𝐧}(\widehat{𝐧}_1\widehat{𝐧}_1^{})}{c_t}}`$ (3.43)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_t}{2}}\left(\widehat{𝐧}q+\widehat{𝐧}_1q_1\widehat{𝐧}_1^{}q_1^{}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{𝐧}_1\widehat{𝐧}_1^{})^2}{2c_t}}`$ (3.44)
$`+`$ $`(\widehat{𝐧}_1\widehat{𝐧}_1^{})(\widehat{𝐧}q+\widehat{𝐧}_1q_1\widehat{𝐧}_1^{}q_1^{}).`$ (3.45)
The rescaled flow equation for the six-point vertex is given in the Appendix.

## IV Advantages of rescaled flow equations

In this section we discuss several properties of the rescaled flow equations of Sec.III, and argue that for practical calculations it may be advantageous to use the rescaled flow equations instead of the unrescaled equations discussed in Sec.II.

### A Screening and flow of the density-density correlation function within RPA

As pointed out in Refs., the unrescaled flow equations predict pathological RG flows for physical quantities which are determined by degrees of freedom in the immediate vicinity of the Fermi surface, such as uniform susceptibilities: for any finite infrared cutoff $`\xi `$ uniform susceptibilities are not renormalized at all, while at $`\xi =0`$ their RG flow exhibits a discontinuity. Although for a Fermi liquid one may use the Fermi liquid relations between the uniform susceptibilities and the quasi-particle interactions to obtain flow equations for the susceptibilities at finite cutoff $`\xi `$ , it would be better to calculate uniform susceptibilities entirely within the framework of the exact RG, without relying on the assumption that the system is a Fermi liquid.

To illustrate the above point, let us consider the screening of the effective interaction, which is closely related to the density-density correlation function. The screening problem has also been considered by Shankar (see Appendix A of Ref.) within the field theory version of the RG, and by Dupuis  within the conventional Kadanoff-Wilson RG scheme for Fermi liquids.

Consider the flow equation (2.48) for the irreducible four-point vertex. Suppose we start from a bare interaction at scale $`\xi _0`$ of the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\xi _0}^{(4)}(K_1^{},K_2^{};K_2,K_1)=f_{\xi _0}(K_1K_1^{})f_{\xi _0}(K_1K_2^{}).$$
(4.1)
Let us now calculate the flow of the effective interaction within the random-phase approximation (RPA), where the BCS-contribution is ignored and only those zero-sound terms are retained which preserve the form (4.1). Setting for simplicity $`K_1=K_1^{}`$ and $`K_2=K_2^{}`$ (this is the combination appearing in the flow equation (LABEL:eq:flowGamma2) for the self-energy) we approximate the irreducible four-point vertex at scale $`\xi <\xi _0`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(4)}(K_1,K_2;K_2,K_1)f_\xi (K_1K_2),$$
(4.2)
where we have assumed $`f_\xi (0)=0`$. In this approximation we obtain from Eq.(2.48)

$$_\xi f_\xi ^1(K_1K_2)=\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\xi (K_1K_2),$$
(4.3)
where the change of the polarization is given by

$`\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\xi (K_1K_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _K}[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }_K\xi )G_{\xi ,\xi _0}(K+K_1K_2)}{i\omega _nϵ_𝐤+\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi (K)}}`$ (4.5)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{G_{\xi ,\xi _0}(K)\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }_{K+K_1K_2}\xi )}{i\omega _{n+n_1n_2}ϵ_{𝐤+𝐤_1𝐤_2}+\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi (K+K_1K_2)}}].`$
Within the RPA we ignore the self-energy corrections to the propagators in Eq.(LABEL:eq:Pidot). Using the cutoff function $`\mathrm{\Omega }_K=|ϵ_𝐤ϵ_{𝐤_F}|`$, we obtain for $`|𝐤_1𝐤_2|k_F`$

$`\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\xi (K_1K_2)`$ $``$ $`2\delta (\xi ){\displaystyle \frac{d𝐤}{(2\pi )^D}\delta (ϵ_𝐤ϵ_{𝐤_F})}`$ (4.7)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐯_F(𝐤_1𝐤_2)}{i(\omega _{n_1}\omega _{n_2})𝐯_F(𝐤_1𝐤_2)}}.`$ (4.8)
Obviously, $`\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\xi (P)=0`$ for any $`\xi 0`$, so that the RPA interaction $`f_\xi (P)`$ is not renormalized for any finite $`\xi `$. Due to the factor $`\delta (\xi )`$ in Eq.(4.8) the RG flow of the RPA interaction $`f_\xi (P)`$ (and hence the flow of the polarization and the compressibility) is discontinuous at $`\xi =0`$. This discontinuity is smoothed out if one works at a finite temperature , but there is a way to avoid discontinuous flow equations at zero temperature: the RG flow equations generated by our rescaled version of the exact RG remain continuous even at $`T=0`$.

We now explicitly show this for the RG-flow of the rescaled density-density correlation function. Within the RPA this the rescaled four-point vertex is approximated by

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(4)}(Q_1,Q_2;Q_2,Q_1)F_t(Q_1,Q_2),$$
(4.9)
where the dimensionless function $`F_t(Q_1,Q_2)`$ satisfies the flow equation

$$[_tQ_1_{Q_1}Q_2_{Q_2}]F_t^1(Q_1,Q_2)=\dot{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}}_t(Q_1,Q_2),$$
(4.10)
which is the rescaled analog of Eq.(4.3). Here

$$\dot{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}}_t(Q_1,Q_2)=_Q\left[\dot{G}_t(Q)\stackrel{~}{G}_t(Q^{})+\stackrel{~}{G}_t(Q)\dot{G}_t(Q^{})\right]_{K^{}=K+K_1K_2},$$
(4.11)
where $`Q^{}=Q^{}(Q,Q_1,Q_2)`$ is defined as a function of $`Q=(\widehat{𝐧},q,iϵ)`$, $`Q_1=(\widehat{𝐧}_1,q_1,iϵ_1)`$ and $`Q_2=(\widehat{𝐧}_2,q_2,iϵ_2)`$ via $`K^{}=K+K_1K_2`$, as explained in Sec.III C. Ignoring again interaction corrections to the propagators and working with the momentum shell $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_Q=|ϵ_𝐤ϵ_{𝐤_F}|/\xi =|\xi _t^{\widehat{𝐧}}(q)|`$, we have

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_t(Q)=\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(e^t>|\xi _t^{\widehat{𝐧}}(q)|>1)}{iϵ\xi _t^{\widehat{𝐧}}(q)},$$
(4.12)
$$\dot{G}_t(Q)=\frac{\delta (|\xi _t^{\widehat{𝐧}}(q)|1)}{iϵ\xi _t^{\widehat{𝐧}}(q)}.$$
(4.13)
Substituting these expressions into Eq.(4.11) and performing the integrations over $`q`$ and $`ϵ`$ we obtain

$$\dot{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}}_t(Q_1,Q_2)=4\frac{dS_{\widehat{𝐧}}}{S_D}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(1+e^t>\widehat{𝐧}𝐪_{12}>2)\widehat{𝐧}𝐪_{12}}{(\widehat{𝐧}𝐪_{12})^2+(ϵ_1ϵ_2)^2},$$
(4.14)
where we have used Eq.(3.45) to simplify $`\xi _t^{\widehat{𝐧}^{}}(q^{})`$ for small $`|𝐤_1𝐤_2|`$,

$$\xi _t^{\widehat{𝐧}^{}}(q^{})q+\widehat{𝐧}𝐪_{12},𝐪_{12}=\widehat{𝐧}_1q_1\widehat{𝐧}_2q_2+\frac{\widehat{𝐧}_1\widehat{𝐧}_2}{c_t}.$$
(4.15)
The crucial point is now that, unlike Eq.(4.8), the right-hand side of Eq.(4.14) is a non-singular function of the flow-parameter $`t`$. In fact, in dimensions $`D>1`$ the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-function discontinuity of the integrand disappears after the angular integration, so that $`\dot{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}}_t(Q_1,Q_2)`$ is a continuous function of $`t`$. But even in $`D=1`$, where the angular integration should be replaced by a summation over the two discrete Fermi points, there is no discontinuity in the solution of the flow equation (4.10).

It is instructive to elaborate a little bit more on the case $`D=1`$, where we obtain from Eq.(4.14)

$$\dot{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}}_t(Q_1,Q_2)=2\delta _{\widehat{𝐧}_1,\widehat{𝐧}_2}\frac{|q_1q_2|\mathrm{\Theta }(1+e^t>|q_1q_2|>2)}{(q_1q_2)^2+(ϵ_1ϵ_2)^2}.$$
(4.16)
In deriving this expression we have assumed $`c_t|q_i|1`$, and have neglected the terms with $`\widehat{𝐧}_1=\widehat{𝐧}_2`$, which vanish exponentially for $`t\mathrm{}`$. Note that the right-hand side of Eq.(4.16) has discontinuities, but no $`\delta `$-function singularity, in contrast to Eq.(4.8). It follows that the flow of the physical density-density correlation function is continuous. To see this, let us explicitly solve Eq.(4.10). Using the method described in Ref., the solution with the correct initial condition is easily obtained,

$`F_t^1(Q_1,Q_2)`$ $`=`$ $`F_{t=0}^1(Q_1,Q_2)`$ (4.18)
$`{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑\tau \dot{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}}_{t\tau }(\widehat{𝐧}_1,e^\tau q_1,e^\tau iϵ_1;\widehat{𝐧}_2,e^\tau q_2,e^\tau iϵ_2).`$
Substituting Eq.(4.16) into Eq.(LABEL:eq:Ftsolutionscale) we finally obtain in $`D=1`$

$`F_t^1(Q_1,Q_2)`$ $`=`$ $`F_{t=0}^1(Q_1,Q_2)`$ (4.20)
$`+`$ $`\delta _{\widehat{𝐧}_1,\widehat{𝐧}_2}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_t(q_1q_2,iϵ_1iϵ_2),`$ (4.21)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_t(q,iϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|q|}{q^2+ϵ^2}}[(|q|2)\mathrm{\Theta }(1+e^t>|q|>2)`$ (4.22)
$`+`$ $`(2e^t|q|)\mathrm{\Theta }(2e^t>|q|>1+e^t)].`$ (4.23)
Note that the function $`x\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ is continuous, so that the right-hand side of Eq.(4.23) is indeed a continuous function of $`t`$. The physical density-density correlation function is then

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\xi (p,i\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _0\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_t({\displaystyle \frac{v_Fp}{\xi }},{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega }{\xi }})`$ (4.26)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}[{\displaystyle \frac{|p|(v_F|p|2\xi )\mathrm{\Theta }(\xi +\xi _0>v_F|p|>2\xi )}{(v_Fp)^2+\omega ^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{|p|(2\xi _0v_F|p|)\mathrm{\Theta }(2\xi _0>v_F|p|>\xi +\xi _0)}{(v_Fp)^2+\omega ^2}}].`$
Taking the limits $`\xi _0\mathrm{}`$ and $`\xi 0`$ we obtain the well-known result

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_0(p,i\omega )=\frac{v_F}{\pi }\frac{p^2}{(v_Fp)^2+\omega ^2}.$$
(4.27)
From the first line in Eq.(4.26) it is clear why our rescaled flow equations are more suitable for the calculation of the susceptibilities than the corresponding unrescaled flow equations: Because the dependence of the density-density correlation function on the infrared cutoff appears in the scaling function $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_t(\frac{v_Fp}{\xi },\frac{i\omega }{\xi })`$ via the ratios $`p/\xi `$ and $`\omega /\xi `$, the result for uniform susceptibilities depends on the order in which the limits $`p0`$ and $`\xi 0`$ are taken. Our rescaled RG equation directly yields the scaling function $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_t(\frac{v_Fp}{\xi },\frac{i\omega }{\xi })`$ where this problem does not arise. Let us give an alternative explanation for this difference: in the unrescaled flow equations the momenta and frequencies are held constant as the infrared cutoff is reduced. Any fixed distance from the Fermi surface is therefore magnified on the scale of the reduced infrared cutoff, so that momenta that are initially close to the Fermi surface are mapped onto new momenta which, on the reduced scale, appear further away from the Fermi surface. On the other hand, in the rescaled flow equations the momenta and frequencies are scaled down together with the infrared cutoff, so that the degrees of freedom that are initially in the vicinity of the Fermi surface are mapped onto coarse grained degrees of freedom that remain close to the Fermi surface.

### B The Fermi surface as a RG fixed point manifold

As already emphasized in Sec.II A, to obtain well-behaved scaling properties we should expand the bare energy dispersion around the true Fermi surface of the interacting many-body problem, which a priori is not known. We now show how the shape of the Fermi surface can be calculated a posteriori from the fixed point equation for the momentum- and frequency-independent part of the irreducible two-point vertex,

$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(2)}(\widehat{𝐧},0,i0).$$
(4.28)
Note that this is a relevant coupling function (labeled by the direction $`\widehat{𝐧}`$) with scaling dimension $`+1`$. There are two marginal coupling functions associated with the two-point vertex. One of them is the usual wave-function renormalization given in Eq.(3.11). In terms of our rescaled two-point vertex it can also be written as

$$Z_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}=1\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(2)}(\widehat{𝐧},q=0,iϵ)}{(iϵ)}|_{ϵ=0}.$$
(4.29)
The other marginal coupling can be taken to be the dimensionless renormalization factor of the Fermi velocity

$$\stackrel{~}{v}_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}=Z_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(2)}(\widehat{𝐧},q,i0)}{q}|_{q=0}.$$
(4.30)
The RG flow of the shape of the Fermi surface of strongly correlated electrons in reduced dimensions have recently been considered by several authors . However, the interpretation of the renormalized Fermi surface in terms of a RG fixed point manifold has only been emphasized by Shankar , who used the conventional one-loop momentum shell technique, including the rescaling step. In contrast, the authors of Ref. work with unrescaled flow equations, in which case the coupling corresponding to Eq.(4.28) does not flow to a RG fixed point, so that the interpretation of the Fermi surface as a RG fixed point manifold is obscured.

To study the shape of the Fermi surface within the exact RG, let us retain only relevant and marginal couplings in the two-point function. In this approximation

$$r_t(Q)iϵ\stackrel{~}{v}_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}q+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}.$$
(4.31)
It is convenient to define the Fermi surface momenta $`𝐤_{F,t}`$ of the system with cutoff $`\xi =\xi _0e^t`$ in analogy with Eq.(2.1),

$$ϵ_{𝐤_{F,t}}=\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi (𝐤_{F,t},i0),$$
(4.32)
so that the true renormalized Fermi surface is $`𝐤_F=lim_t\mathrm{}𝐤_{F,t}`$, see Eq.(2.1). In order to calculate $`𝐤_{F,t}`$ we use the fact that by construction $`q`$ in Eq.(4.31) is measured relative to the renormalized $`𝐤_F`$, so that we obtain from the definition (4.32), up to irrelevant terms,

$$𝐤_{F,t}=𝐤_F+\widehat{𝐯}_F\frac{\xi _0e^t\stackrel{~}{\mu }_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}}{v_F\stackrel{~}{v}_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}}.$$
(4.33)
Setting $`t=0`$ we obtain for the difference between the fully renormalized Fermi momentum $`𝐤_F`$ and the Fermi momentum $`𝐤_{F,0}`$ of the model with cutoff $`\xi _0`$,

$$𝐤_F𝐤_{F,0}=\widehat{𝐯}_F\frac{\xi _0\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0^{\widehat{𝐧}}}{v_F\stackrel{~}{v}_0^{\widehat{𝐧}}}.$$
(4.34)
It should be kept in mind that $`𝐯_F`$ is defined in terms of the gradient of the bare energy dispersion at the renormalized $`𝐤_F`$. From Eqs.(3.15) and (4.28) we find

$$\xi _0\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0^{\widehat{𝐧}}=Z_0^{\widehat{𝐧}}[\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤_F,i0)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\xi _0}(𝐤_F,i0)],$$
(4.35)
which allows us to reconstruct the counterterm $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤_F,i0)`$ as follows: Suppose that we have adjusted the initial condition $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0^{\widehat{𝐧}}`$ such that for $`t\mathrm{}`$ the relevant couplings $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}`$ approach a fixed point. Due to the relevance of $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}`$, we expect that this requires some fine tuning of the initial $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0^{\widehat{𝐧}}`$, so that on the critical manifold (i.e. the manifold in parameter space that flows into a RG fixed point) $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0^{\widehat{𝐧}}`$ becomes a function of the other relevant and marginal couplings. From Eq.(4.35) we then obtain the counterterm $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤_F,i0)`$ as a function of these couplings. Note that if we adjust the initial conditions such that $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}`$ remains finite for $`t\mathrm{}`$, then Eq.(4.33) guarantees that for $`t\mathrm{}`$ the flowing $`𝐤_{F,t}`$ indeed approaches the true Fermi surface. Thus, the problem of constructing the renormalized Fermi surface can be reduced to the problem of finding the RG fixed point of the flow equation for the relevant coupling function $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}`$.

The above discussion relies on the approximation (4.31) for the inverse propagator, which is only justified for a Fermi liquid. In principle it is also possible that the system flows to a non-Fermi liquid fixed point, characterized by some new renormalized Fermi surface. As pointed out by Anderson , in this case there might be some subtleties related to the subtraction of the counterterm $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤_F,i0)`$.

It is also worth emphasizing the following point: In order to reach a RG fixed point, it is crucial that the bare energy dispersion is expanded around the fully renormalized Fermi surface $`𝐤_F`$, defined in Eq.(2.1). If we had chosen the bare Fermi surface $`𝐤_{F,0}`$ as the reference for the expansion, then the RG flow of the relevant coupling $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}`$ would exhibit a runaway flow, i.e. $`|\stackrel{~}{\mu }_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}|\mathrm{}`$ for $`t\mathrm{}`$. To see this, suppose that we expand around the initial Fermi surface at scale $`\xi _0`$. Then the relation (4.33) between the renormalized and the bare Fermi momentum is replaced by

$$𝐤_{F,t}=𝐤_{F,0}+\widehat{𝐯}_{F,0}\frac{\xi _0e^t\stackrel{~}{\mu }_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}}{v_{F,0}\stackrel{~}{v}_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}},$$
(4.36)
where $`𝐯_{F,0}=_𝐤ϵ_𝐤|_{𝐤_{F,0}}`$. Given that $`𝐤_{F,t}`$ approaches for large $`t`$ a value that is different from the bare $`𝐤_{F,0}`$, we see from Eq.(4.36) that $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}`$ must necessarily diverge as $`e^t`$ (assuming that $`\stackrel{~}{v}_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}`$ remains finite). This runaway flow indicates that we have expanded around the wrong Fermi surface. This phenomenon is well known from the usual theory of critical phenomena, where the fixed point manifold is discrete: In this case a runaway flow indicates the existence of some new fixed point. What is new here is that the fixed point manifold is a continuum, which can therefore continuously change under RG transformations. To avoid a runaway flow, we have to expand all quantities from the beginning around the true Fermi surface, which can be determined a posteriori from the requirement that the RG flow indeed approaches a fixed point.

### C Rescaling and the possibility of non-Fermi liquid fixed points

Long time ago Bell and Wilson  pointed out that the field rescaling (see step 3 in Sec.I) is necessary in order to obtain a non-trivial RG fixed point, characterized by a non-zero anomalous dimension $`\eta `$. In fact, the RG fixed point conditions can be viewed as some sort of non-linear eigenvalue equations, which contain $`\eta `$ as an adjustable parameter . From this point of view it is not surprising  that solutions of the fixed point equations exist only for certain values of $`\eta `$, depending on the interaction, the dimensionality, and the symmetries of the system. We believe that the above statement is also true for fermionic many-body systems, so that the unrescaled flow equations used in Refs. cannot be used to detect non-Fermi liquid fixed points.

Because within a one-loop approximation the anomalous dimension vanishes, at the first sight it seems that at this level of approximation it is sufficient to work with a pure mode-elimination RG . This is not necessarily true, however, because even at the one-loop level the rescaling of momenta and frequencies (see step 2 in Sec.I) can be essential to obtain a non-trivial RG fixed point. For example, consider $`\varphi ^4`$-theory slightly below $`D=4`$ dimensions. In this case there are two relevant couplings, namely the momentum-independent part of the irreducible two-point vertex $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_t`$, and the momentum-independent part of the irreducible four-point vertex $`\stackrel{~}{g}_t`$. The one-loop RG flow equations for suitably defined  dimensionless couplings are well known

$`_t\stackrel{~}{\mu }_t`$ $`=`$ $`2\stackrel{~}{\mu }_t+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}_t}{2(1+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_t)}},`$ (4.37)
$`_t\stackrel{~}{g}_t`$ $`=`$ $`(4D)\stackrel{~}{g}_t{\displaystyle \frac{3\stackrel{~}{g}_t^2}{2(1+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_t)^2}}.`$ (4.38)
For $`0<4D1`$ these equations have a non-trivial fixed point at

$$\stackrel{~}{g}^{}\frac{2}{3}(4D),\stackrel{~}{\mu }^{}\frac{1}{6}(4D),$$
(4.39)
which arises from a balance between the competing effects due to the scaling terms (i.e. the first terms on the right-hand sides of Eqs.(4.37) and (4.38)) and the mode elimination terms (i.e. the second terms on the right-hand sides of Eqs.(4.37) and (4.38)). Obviously, a RG transformation which includes only the mode elimination would miss the Wilson-Fisher fixed point.

Finally, we point out that the rescaling of momenta and frequencies plays also an important role to accelerate the flow of the irrelevant couplings to negligibly small values. For example, the constant part of the rescaled irreducible six-point vertex $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(6)}(Q_1^{},Q_2^{},Q_3^{};Q_3,Q_2,Q_1)`$ is irrelevant with scaling dimension $`1`$. This $`1`$ appears as the first term on the right-hand side of Eq.(A.27), and causes the size of the rescaled six-point vertex to diminish exponentially as we iterate the RG (as long as this decrease is not overwhelmed by some anomalous dimension). On the other hand, the corresponding flow equation (LABEL:eq:sixpoint) for the unrescaled six-point vertex does not exhibit a similar suppression due to a negative scaling dimension, so that there is no guarantee that the unrescaled six-point vertex really becomes small as we iterate the RG transformation.

## V Summary and conclusions

In this work we have constructed exact functional RG equations for non-relativistic fermions, taking not only the mode elimination into account, but also the rescaling of momenta, frequencies, and fields. The exact flow equations given in this work are valid in arbitrary dimensions and describe the RG flow of any translationally invariant fermionic many-body system in the normal state. We emphasize that these equations are exact and describe the RG flow of the irreducible correlation functions of the many-body system for all momenta and frequencies. Of course, it is possible to extract the usual perturbative RG $`\beta `$-function describing the flow of the momentum-independent part of the four-point vertex from these flow equations. To obtain the $`\beta `$-function at the two-loop order, it is sufficient to truncate the infinite hierarchy of flow equations by setting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2n)}=0`$ for $`n4`$. In Sections II C, III C and in the Appendix we have explicitly written down all expressions necessary for performing a two-loop calculation for any $`D`$-dimensional translationally invariant normal fermionic many-body system. These equations are also valid in $`D=1`$, where two-loop calculations are usually performed using the field theory-method . Note, however, that in this case there are some subtleties which are not fully understood .

We have formulated the exact functional RG for fermionic systems in close analogy with the functional RG for field theories and statistical mechanics problems. We have tried to emphasize this analogy by adopting as much as possible the notation used in statistical mechanics . A crucial step is the introduction of dimensionless scaling variables and rescaled vertices, which describe the scaling towards the true Fermi surface of the system. Finally, in Sec.IV we have shown that the rescaled flow equations for the irreducible vertices given in Sec.III C have several advantages as compared with the unrescaled flow equations discussed in Sec.II C:

1. Flow of susceptibilities. The unrescaled exact RG equations used in Refs.  yield discontinuities in flow equations for quantities which are dominated by degrees of freedom in the immediate vicinity of the Fermi surface, such as the density-density correlation function at long wavelengths. In contrast, our formulation of the exact RG including rescaling yields flow equations which are continuous functions of the flow parameter.
2. Renormalization of the shape of the Fermi surface. The calculation of the shape of the renormalized Fermi surface can be reduced to the solution of the fixed point equation for the properly rescaled irreducible two-point vertex at vanishing external momentum and frequency. Without rescaling, the corresponding flow equation does not have a fixed point, so that the associated relevant coupling exhibits a runaway flow.
3. Non-Fermi liquid fixed points. If the system has a scale invariant non-Fermi liquid fixed point characterized by a non-zero anomalous dimension $`\eta `$, then the flow generated by RG transformations which omit the rescaling steps 2 and 3 listed in Sec.I cannot detect this fixed point. Instead, the pure mode elimination RG calculations of the type used in Refs. would generate a runaway-flow to strong coupling in this case.

We suspect that our rescaled flow equations will also turn out to be advantageous for numerical calculations, because they describe the RG flow of the relevant scaling functions. The numerical analysis of these equations is a rather tedious task , which is beyond the scope of this work.

Our flow equations also offer a new approach to study interacting fermions in $`D=1`$, where the normal metallic state is known to be a non-Fermi liquid. For these systems the RG $`\beta `$-function is often calculated within the field theory formulation of the RG advanced by Sólyom . However, till now there exists no RG calculation of the full momentum- and frequency-dependent single-particle Green function of interacting fermions in $`D=1`$. From bosonization it is known that in momentum-frequency space the single-particle Green function exhibits interesting features such as power-law singularities, which are a manifestation of anomalous scaling and spin-charge-separation . We are currently investigating whether the full spectral function of interacting fermions in $`D=1`$ can be calculated by means of an approximate solution of the rescaled functional RG equation (3.31) for the two-point vertex. We have preliminary evidence  that at weak coupling this can indeed be done, and that for the Tomonaga-Luttinger model the resulting spectral function compares quite well with the exact result obtained via bosonization.

Finally, we would like to address the question whether possible scale-invariant non-Fermi liquid fixed points in dimensions $`D>1`$ are accessible within the exact RG. Certainly, detecting such a fixed point requires at least a two-loop calculation, because at the one-loop level the wave-function renormalization $`Z_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}`$ remains unity. Considering the complexity of numerical analysis of the one-loop equations describing the RG flow without the rescaling steps , the direct numerical analysis of the two-loop RG flow equations including rescaling seems to be a rather difficult task. Such a calculation would require the numerical analysis of the flow equation for the six-point vertex given in Eq. (A.27). Note, however, that in the special case of a square Fermi surface Binz, Baeriswyl and Douçot  have recently presented an analytic study of the one-loop RG flow in the vicinity of the dominant instabilities. Let us emphasize again that $`Z_t^{\widehat{𝐧}}0`$ at a non-Fermi liquid fixed point, so that the inclusion of the flow of the wave-function renormalization is crucial to reach such a fixed point.

For Fermi surfaces with a special geometry it is possible to analyze the RG flow analytically . In particular, very recently Ferraz  performed a field-theoretic two-loop RG calculation for a two-dimensional Fermi system with a truncated Fermi surface, consisting of flat and curved pieces. He succeeded to calculate the entire single-particle spectral function. Interestingly, he found non-Fermi liquid behavior for all points on the Fermi surface, including the curved pieces. The calculations presented in Ref.  are quite encouraging and support our point of view that higher-dimensional non-Fermi liquid fixed points are accessible within a two-loop truncation of the Wilsonian RG equations presented in this work.

## Acknowledgments

We thank B. Binz, A. Ferraz, C. Honerkamp, V. Meden, M. Salmhofer, and K. Schönhammer for discussions, and N. Dupuis for pointing out some relevant references. This work was financially supported by the DFG-Schwerpunkt SSP 1053, project No.SCHO201/8-1.

## Flow equations for the irreducible six-point vertex

For a two-loop calculation we need the flow equation for the irreducible six-point vertex . The unrescaled flow equation reads (see Fig.4 and recall that for fermions $`\zeta =1`$)

$`_\xi \mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(6)}(K_1^{},K_2^{},K_3^{};K_3,K_2,K_1)`$ $`=`$ (A.12)
$`\zeta {\displaystyle _K}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }_K\xi )}{i\omega _nϵ_𝐤+\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi (K)}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(8)}(K_1^{},K_2^{},K_3^{},K;K,K_3,K_2,K_1)`$
$`+3{\displaystyle _K}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }_K\xi )G_{\xi ,\xi _0}(K^{})}{i\omega _nϵ_𝐤+\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi (K)}}`$
$`\times \{𝒜_{(1^{},2^{}),3^{}}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(4)}(K_1^{},K_2^{};K^{},K)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(6)}(K,K^{},K_3^{};K_3,K_2,K_1)\right]_{K^{}=K_1^{}+K_2^{}K}`$
$`+𝒜_{1,(3,2)}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(6)}(K_1^{},K_2^{},K_3^{};K^{},K,K_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(4)}(K,K^{};K_3,K_2)\right]_{K^{}=K_2+K_3K}\}`$
$`+9\zeta {\displaystyle _K}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }_K\xi )G_{\xi ,\xi _0}(K^{})}{i\omega _nϵ_𝐤+\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi (K)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{G_{\xi ,\xi _0}(K)\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }_K^{}\xi )}{i\omega _n^{}ϵ_𝐤^{}+\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi (K^{})}}\right]`$
$`\times 𝒜_{(1^{},2^{}),3^{}}𝒜_{(2,1),3}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(6)}(K_1^{},K_2^{},K^{};K,K_2,K_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(4)}(K_3^{},K;K^{},K_3)\right]_{K^{}=K+K_3^{}K_3}`$
$`+9{\displaystyle _K}[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }_K\xi )G_{\xi ,\xi _0}(K^{})G_{\xi ,\xi _0}(K^{\prime \prime })}{i\omega _nϵ_𝐤+\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi (K)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{G_{\xi ,\xi _0}(K)\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }_K^{}\xi )G_{\xi ,\xi _0}(K^{\prime \prime })}{i\omega _n^{}ϵ_𝐤^{}+\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi (K^{})}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{G_{\xi ,\xi _0}(K)G_{\xi ,\xi _0}(K^{})\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }_{K^{\prime \prime }}\xi )}{i\omega _{n^{\prime \prime }}ϵ_{𝐤^{\prime \prime }}+\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi (K^{\prime \prime })}}]𝒜_{(1^{},2^{}),3^{}}𝒜_{3,(2,1)}`$
$`\times \left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(4)}(K_1^{},K_2^{};K,K^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(4)}(K_3^{},K^{};K^{\prime \prime },K_3)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(4)}(K^{\prime \prime },K^{};K_2,K_1)\right]_{K^{}=K_1+K_2+K_3K_3^{}K}^{K^{\prime \prime }=K_2+K_1K}`$
$`36\zeta {\displaystyle _K}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }_K\xi )G_{\xi ,\xi _0}(K^{})G_{\xi ,\xi _0}(K^{\prime \prime })}{i\omega _nϵ_𝐤+\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi (K)}}𝒜_{1^{},2^{},3^{}}𝒜_{1,2,3}`$
$`\times \left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(4)}(K_1^{},K^{};K,K_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(4)}(K_2^{},K^{\prime \prime };K^{},K_2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{(4)}(K_3^{},K;K^{\prime \prime },K_3)\right]_{K^{}=K_2^{}+K_3^{}+KK_3K_2}^{K^{\prime \prime }=K_3^{}+KK_3}.`$
Here the anti-symmetrization operators $`𝒜_{1,2,3}`$ and $`𝒜_{1,(2,3)}`$ are defined as follows,

$`𝒜_{1,2,3}f(1,2,3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}[f(1,2,3)+f(2,3,1)+f(3,1,2)`$ (A.15)
$`f(3,2,1)f(2,1,3)f(1,3,2)],`$
$`𝒜_{1,(2,3)}f(1,2,3)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜_{(2,3),1}f(1,2,3)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[f(1,2,3)f(2,1,3)f(3,2,1)\right].`$ (A.16)
Given a function $`f(1,2,3)`$ that is already antisymmetric with respect to the pair $`(2,3)`$, the function $`𝒜_{1,(2,3)}f(1,2,3)`$ is a totally antisymmetric function. Note that the combinatorial factors in front of the terms involving the combinations $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(4)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(6)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(4)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(4)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(4)}`$ are precisely the same as in the corresponding flow equation of $`\varphi ^4`$-theory, see Eq.(4.20) of Ref..

The rescaled version of the above flow equation is (setting now $`\zeta =1`$)

$`_t\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(6)}(Q_1^{},Q_2^{},Q_3^{};Q_3,Q_2,Q_1)`$ $`=`$ (A.27)
$`\left\{1{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _t^{\widehat{𝐧}_i^{}}+\eta _t^{\widehat{𝐧}_i}}{2}}+Q_i^{}_{Q_i^{}}+Q_i_{Q_i}\right]\right\}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(6)}(Q_1^{},Q_2^{},Q_3^{};Q_3,Q_2,Q_1)`$
$`{\displaystyle _Q}\dot{G}_t(Q)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(8)}(Q_1^{},Q_2^{},Q_3^{},Q;Q,Q_3,Q_2,Q_1)`$
$`3{\displaystyle _Q}\dot{G}_t(Q)\stackrel{~}{G}_t(Q^{})\{𝒜_{(1^{},2^{}),3^{}}\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(4)}(Q_1^{},Q_2^{};Q^{},Q)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(6)}(Q,Q^{},Q_3^{};Q_3,Q_2,Q_1)\right]_{K^{}=K_1^{}+K_2^{}K}`$
$`+𝒜_{1,(3,2)}\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(6)}(Q_1^{},Q_2^{},Q_3^{};Q^{},Q,Q_1)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(4)}(Q,Q^{};Q_3,Q_2)\right]_{K^{}=K_2+K_3K}\}`$
$`+9{\displaystyle _Q}\left[\dot{G}_t(Q)\stackrel{~}{G}_t(Q^{})+\stackrel{~}{G}_t(Q)\dot{G}_t(Q^{})\right]`$
$`\times 𝒜_{(1^{},2^{}),3^{}}𝒜_{(2,1),3}\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(6)}(Q_1^{},Q_2^{},Q^{};Q,Q_2,Q_1)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(4)}(Q_3^{},Q;Q^{},Q_3)\right]_{K^{}=K+K_3^{}K_3}`$
$`+9{\displaystyle _Q}\left[\dot{G}_t(Q)\stackrel{~}{G}_t(Q^{})\stackrel{~}{G}_t(Q^{\prime \prime })+\stackrel{~}{G}_t(Q)\dot{G}_t(Q^{})\stackrel{~}{G}_t(Q^{\prime \prime })+\stackrel{~}{G}_t(Q)\stackrel{~}{G}_t(Q^{})\dot{G}_t(Q^{\prime \prime })\right]𝒜_{(1^{},2^{}),3^{}}𝒜_{3,(2,1)}`$
$`\times \left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(4)}(Q_1^{},Q_2^{};Q,Q^{})\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(4)}(Q_3^{},Q^{};Q^{\prime \prime },Q_3)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(4)}(Q^{\prime \prime },Q^{};Q_2,Q_1)\right]_{K^{}=K_1+K_2+K_3K_3^{}K}^{K^{\prime \prime }=K_2+K_1K}`$
$`36{\displaystyle _Q}\dot{G}_t(Q)\stackrel{~}{G}_t(Q^{})\stackrel{~}{G}_t(Q^{\prime \prime })𝒜_{1^{},2^{},3^{}}𝒜_{1,2,3}`$
$`\times \left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(4)}(Q_1^{},Q^{};Q,Q_1)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(4)}(Q_2^{},Q^{\prime \prime };Q^{},Q_2)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t^{(4)}(Q_3^{},Q;Q^{\prime \prime },Q_3)\right]_{K^{}=K_2^{}+K_3^{}+KK_3K_2}^{K^{\prime \prime }=K_3^{}+KK_3}.`$


format: text

text:
# Inter-layer Hall effect in double quantum wells subject to in-plane magnetic fields

## I Introduction

Semiconductor quantum wells, multi-wells and superlattices are designed to have an artificial electronic structure determined by their construction rather than by the properties of individual semiconductor materials . The band profiles of multi-wells are formed by a sequence of quantum wells separated by barriers. Electrons condense to two-dimensional (2D) electron layers localized in the wells and the tunnel-coupling of the layers leads to the formation of new electron systems, rich in optical and transport effects, that can be modified by application of the magnetic field.

Two experimental arrangements of the magnetotransport measurement in multi-well structures subjected to the in-plane magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ are possible: with the current $`\stackrel{}{ȷ}`$ flowing perpendicular to the magnetic field ($`\stackrel{}{ȷ}\stackrel{}{B}`$) or parallel with it ($`\stackrel{}{ȷ}\stackrel{}{B}`$). The Hall effect plays a role in the case $`\stackrel{}{ȷ}\stackrel{}{B}`$. In wide macroscopic samples (superlattices) the standard method of the description of the Hall effect, via the inversion of the conductivity tensor, applies. This is no longer true for the double-well structures the width of which is microscopic. This is why we present here a novel theoretical approach to the calculation of the Hall effect, based on its textbook definition: the Hall electric field is caused by the accumulation of positive and negative charges on the opposite sample edges, induced by the Lorentz force.

The difference between conductivities along and perpendicular to the magnetic field direction was investigated experimentally in several papers, . The results, obtained by solving the Boltzmann equation , have been found in a qualitative agreement with the experimental observation. However, no attention has been paid to the effect of the sample polarization due to the transfer of electrons between wells – to the Hall effect.

Let us consider the setup sketched in Fig. 1. The electrons are pushed by a Lorenz force from the left to the right well. Resulting non-equilibrium charge distribution gives rise to a potential that compensates for the Lorenz force in a similar way as the Hall voltage does in macroscopic samples. In a limiting case of very narrow wells, the double-well system can be viewed as a parallel plate capacitor: the induced potential reduces to an inter-well Hall voltage $`U_H`$, a potential difference between electron systems in individual wells.

Note that in such an experimental arrangement the electron transport is closely related to the chirality of diamagnetic currents flowing in opposite directions in the left and right wells. In the thermodynamic equilibrium, the two currents are exactly balanced giving a zero net flow of electrons through the sample. In non-equilibrium states the electron system is polarized, more electrons are in the right well and an incomplete compensation of diamagnetic currents results in a finite transport current. The aim of this paper is to show that this usually neglected correction to the in-plane electrical conductivity gives a significant contribution for realistic double well structures.

For the sake of simplicity we employ the model of a double well described in a paper . Two coupled, strictly two-dimensional electron layers confined in very narrow potential wells are considered. Short-range scatterers, randomly distributed in individual wells, are assumed to be responsible for a finite relaxation time of electrons.

We use the self-consistent linear response theory (Kubo formula) in the random phase approximation (RPA) (see e.g. ) to obtain the non-equilibrium charge distribution, the inter-layer Hall voltage and the conductivity tensor components.

## II Model Hamiltonian

In our model, the vector potential $`\stackrel{}{A}=(zB,0,0)`$ is used to describe the influence of the in-plane magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}=(0,B,0)`$ on the electron structure of a double-layer system. The corresponding Hamiltonian reads

$$\widehat{H}_0=\frac{1}{2m^{}}\left(\widehat{p}_x+|e|Bz\right)^2+\frac{1}{2m^{}}\left(\widehat{p}_y^2+\widehat{p}_z^2\right)+V(z),$$
(1)
where $`m^{}`$ denotes the electron effective mass and $`V(z)`$ is a confining potential with two deep minima at $`z=\pm d/2`$, $`V(d/2)=V(d/2)`$. The subscript $`0`$ denotes that no scattering mechanism is included. The form of (1) allows separation of variables, the $`x,y`$ dependent part of eigenstates of $`\widehat{H}_0`$ is the plain wave $`|\stackrel{}{k}`$ with the two-dimensional wave vector $`\stackrel{}{k}=(k_x,k_y)`$.***In the rest of the paper all the vectorial notation corresponds to two-dimensional vectors lying in the layer planes. The only exception are the vectors $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ introduced above. To describe electron eigenstates depending on the remaining third coordinate $`z`$ we restrict ourselves to the tight-binding approximation employing only the lowest eigenstates $`|\phi _\alpha (z)`$ of uncoupled wells . The index $`\alpha =R,L`$ distinguishes the right and left well. Thus, a complete single-layer eigenstate reads $`|\phi _\alpha ,\stackrel{}{k}=|\phi _\alpha (z)|\stackrel{}{k}`$ and

$$\widehat{P}_\alpha =\underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}|\phi _\alpha ,\stackrel{}{k}\phi _\alpha ,\stackrel{}{k}|$$
(2)
has a meaning of a projection operator to the states in the well $`\alpha `$, $`\widehat{P}_L+\widehat{P}_R=1`$. The Hamiltonian (1) is diagonal in the index $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ in our restricted basis and takes the matrix form

$$\stackrel{}{k}|\widehat{H}_0|\stackrel{}{k}^{}=\delta _{\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}E_L(\stackrel{}{k})& t\\ t& E_R(\stackrel{}{k})\end{array}\right),$$
(3)
where $`E_{L,R}(\stackrel{}{k})`$ are single-well eigenenergies,

$$E_{L,R}(\stackrel{}{k})=\frac{1}{2m^{}}\left(\mathrm{}k_x\frac{1}{2}|e|Bd\right)^2+\frac{\mathrm{}^2k_y^2}{2m^{}}.$$
(4)
The hopping integral $`t`$ is given by $`t=\phi _L|V(z)|\phi _R=\phi _R|V(z)|\phi _L`$. Note that we neglected the effect of the in-plane field on the energy spectra of individual layers and that the $`z`$ coordinate has been replaced in (4) by $`\pm d/2`$ for the right and left layer, respectively.

The diagonalization of the matrix (3) yields a pair of new eigenstates $`|\chi _i^{(x)}(z)`$. They depend only on the $`x`$ component of $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ and the index $`i`$ equals $`b`$ for the bonding state and $`a`$ for the antibonding state. The new basis $`|\chi _i^{(x)}`$ is related to the basis of single-well eigenstates $`|\phi _\alpha `$ by

$$|\chi _{b,a}^{(x)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{1\pm \mathrm{\Delta }}|\phi _L\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Delta }}|\phi _R,$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\delta /\sqrt{\delta ^2+t^2}`$ and $`\delta `$ is the abbreviation for $`\mathrm{}|e|dBk_x/2m^{}`$. Then the eigenenergies of (1) reads

$`E_{b,a}(\stackrel{}{k})`$ $`=`$ $`E_{b,a}^{(x)}(k_x)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2k_y^2}{2m^{}}},`$ (6)
$`E_{b,a}^{(x)}(k_x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2k_x^2}{2m^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2d^2B^2}{8m^{}}}\sqrt{\delta ^2+t^2}.`$ (7)
The model is characterized by two parameters, the inter-layer distance $`d`$ and the hopping integral $`t`$. It is a good approximation when the cyclotron energy and the tunnel coupling are small in comparison with the single-well quantization energies.

The Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$ of the system with short-range scatterers is obtained by adding the impurity potential $`\widehat{V}_{imp}`$ to $`\widehat{H}_0`$. As mentioned above, we assume that impurities are distributed in both the left and right wells at random. To be more specific, the scattering on an individual impurity is considered to be intra-well (diagonal in the layer index $`\alpha `$) and isotropic in $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ direction. The finite lifetime and transport relaxation time result from replacing the quantities characteristic for a given configuration of scatterers by these quantities averaged over all possible configurations.

## III Charge Redistribution

Let us first turn attention to the self-consistent procedure of establishing the non-equilibrium charge distribution and the Hall potential $`U_H`$ in the RPA, as this is the novel feature of our approach to the theoretical description of magnetotransport in microscopically narrow systems. The basic scheme of our derivation is outlined below, more details are presented in the Appendix.

The standard Kubo formula describing the linear response to a time-dependent perturbation operator $`\widehat{H}_p`$ is employed, our formalism is close to that used in . In our case, the operator $`\widehat{H}_p`$ is given as a sum of two parts: the externally applied potential represented by $`\widehat{H}_p^{(1)}`$ and the self-consistent electric field of non-equilibrium electrons described by $`\widehat{H}_p^{(2)}`$.

The external homogeneous electric field $`\stackrel{}{}=(_x,_y)`$ is included into the vector potential $`\stackrel{}{A}`$. Then the corresponding part of $`\widehat{H}_p`$ takes the form

$$\widehat{H}_p^{(1)}(t)=\frac{e}{i\omega }\widehat{\stackrel{}{v}}\stackrel{}{}e^{i\omega t},$$
(8)
where $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{v}}=(\widehat{v}_x,\widehat{v}_y)`$ is the velocity operator and $`\omega `$ denotes the frequency. This perturbation yields the static polarization of the sample and induces the stationary current in the limit $`\omega 0`$.

The second part of the perturbation Hamiltonian, denoted as $`\widehat{H}_p^{(2)}`$, describes the Hartree potential derived from the non-equilibrium electron density by solving the Poisson equation. In our model, this potential reduces to the potential difference $`U_H`$ between two 2D electron layers and the operator $`\widehat{H}_p^{(2)}`$ can be written as

$$\widehat{H}_p^{(2)}=e\frac{U_H}{d}\widehat{z},\widehat{z}=\frac{d}{2}\left(\widehat{P}_R\widehat{P}_L\right).$$
(9)
Here $`\widehat{z}`$ stands for an operator of the $`z`$ coordinate in the representation of single-layer eigenstates $`|\phi _\alpha `$ and $`U_H`$ has to be determined self-consistently.

We introduce $`\delta Q_\alpha `$, the non-equilibrium charge density per unit area of a well $`\alpha `$, as an expectation value of the operator

$$\widehat{Q}_\alpha =e\widehat{P}_\alpha =e\underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}|\phi _\alpha ,\stackrel{}{k}\phi _\alpha ,\stackrel{}{k}|,$$
(10)
evaluated using the non-equilibrium density matrix. Due to the charge conservation $`\delta Q_R`$ is equal to $`\delta Q_L`$, and we can write $`\delta Q`$ instead of $`\delta Q_R`$ ($`\delta Q`$ instead of $`\delta Q_L`$), for convenience.

In our model, the Hall potential calculated in the Hartree approximation, $`U_H`$, is related to the local non-equilibrium charge density $`\delta Q`$ by a particularly simple formula

$$\delta Q=\epsilon \frac{U_H}{d}.$$
(11)
This expression corresponds to the parallel plate capacitor in which the potential difference between plates is fully determined by their distance, the excess charge on one particular plate and the dielectric constant $`\epsilon `$ of the insulator between plates.

Since $`\widehat{H}_p`$ is a sum of $`\widehat{H}_p^{(1)}`$ and $`\widehat{H}_p^{(2)}`$, also the charge density $`\delta Q_\alpha `$ can be written as a sum of two contributions $`\delta Q_\alpha ^{(1)}`$ and $`\delta Q_\alpha ^{(2)}`$. We get the response to $`\widehat{H}_p^{(1)}`$ in the form

$`\delta `$ $`Q_\alpha ^{(1)}=i\mathrm{}e^2_x{\displaystyle 𝑑Ef_0(E)}`$ (13)
$`\times Tr\delta (E\widehat{H})[\widehat{P}_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{G}^+(E)}{dE}}\widehat{v}_x\widehat{v}_x{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{G}^{}(E)}{dE}}\widehat{P}_\alpha ],`$
in the limit $`\omega 0`$. Here $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the configuration averaging and $`f_0`$ stands for the Fermi-Dirac distribution function. As expected, the applied electric field $`_y`$ does not induce any excess charge.

The response to the operator $`\widehat{H}_p^{(2)}`$, defined by equation (9), yields

$`\delta `$ $`Q_\alpha ^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{d}}U_H{\displaystyle 𝑑Ef_0(E)}`$ (15)
$`\times Tr\delta (E\widehat{H})[\widehat{z}\widehat{G}^{}(E)\widehat{P}_\alpha +\widehat{P}_\alpha \widehat{G}^+(E)\widehat{z}].`$
The equations (13) and (15) relate the induced charge densities to the electric fields $`_x`$ and $`U_H/d`$ and their structure reminds the equation (11). Therefore, if we consider them as definitions of the generalized dielectric functions $`\epsilon ^{(1)}`$ and $`\epsilon ^{(2)}`$, we can write

$$\delta Q^{(1)}=\epsilon ^{(1)}_x,\delta Q^{(2)}=\epsilon ^{(2)}\left(\frac{U_H}{d}\right)$$
(16)
where again the layer index is omitted and we have in mind the partial densities in the right well.

Making use of $`\delta Q=\delta Q^{(1)}+\delta Q^{(2)}`$, the decomposition of the local charge density $`\delta Q`$ into two components, the self-consistent equation (11) takes the form

$$\epsilon ^{(1)}_x\epsilon ^{(2)}\frac{U_H}{d}=\epsilon \frac{U_H}{d},$$
(17)
and its solution reads

$$\frac{U_H}{d}=\frac{\epsilon ^{(1)}}{\epsilon ^{(2)}+\epsilon }_x.$$
(18)
This formula relates the self-consistent Hartree field of electrons to the $`x`$ component of the externally applied electric field $`\stackrel{}{}`$, as we have anticipated in the introduction.

## IV In-plane conductivity

With the established relations between $`U_H`$, $`\delta Q`$ and $`_x`$, the calculation of the conductivity is a straightforward procedure. The components of the tensor $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ are determined through the expectation values of the current operator

$$\widehat{\stackrel{}{ȷ}}=e\widehat{\stackrel{}{v}}+\frac{e^2\stackrel{}{}}{im^{}\omega }e^{i\omega t},$$
(19)
calculated using the non-equilibrium density matrix given by a response to the perturbation $`\widehat{H}_p`$ in the limit $`\omega 0`$.

Similarly as the generalized dielectric function $`\epsilon `$, the conductivity tensor can be written as a sum of two contributions $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{(1)}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{(2)}`$. The response to $`\widehat{H}_p^{(1)}`$ leads to the standard expressions  for the static conductivity $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{(1)}`$. We can write for its components

$`\sigma _{ss}^{(1)}=`$ $`\pi \mathrm{}e^2{\displaystyle 𝑑E\left(\frac{df_0(E)}{dE}\right)}`$ (21)
$`\times Tr\delta (E\widehat{H})\widehat{v}_s\delta (E\widehat{H})\widehat{v}_s,`$
where $`s`$ stands for $`x`$ or $`y`$.

The response to the self-consistent field described by the perturbation Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_p^{(2)}`$ gives a non-zero value only for the current flowing along the $`x`$ direction. The corresponding contribution to the conductivity reads

$`\sigma _{xx}^{(2)}=e^2{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^{(1)}}{\epsilon ^{(2)}+\epsilon }}{\displaystyle 𝑑Ef_0(E)}`$ (22)
$`\times Tr\delta (E\widehat{H})[\widehat{z}\widehat{G}^{}(E)\widehat{v}_x+\widehat{v}_x\widehat{G}^+(E)\widehat{z}].`$ (23)
Thus, while the conductivity $`\sigma _{yy}`$ is determined only by the external field $`_y`$ and $`\sigma _{yy}=\sigma _{yy}^{(1)}`$, in the case of the $`x`$ direction also the self-consistent Hall field $`U_H`$ helps to conduct the current and $`\sigma _{xx}=\sigma _{xx}^{(1)}+\sigma _{xx}^{(2)}`$.

## V Short-range scatterers in Born approximation

The primary aim of this paper is to estimate the importance of the contribution of $`\sigma _{xx}^{(2)}`$ to the conductivity $`\sigma _{xx}`$.

We have performed numerical calculation of these quantities for the realistic parameters of a bilayer system. The notably difficult problem is to model the electron scattering on impurities, as we have only limited knowledge about the nature of scatterers and their distribution in the sample. For simplicity, we assume the short-range scattering of electrons on impurities randomly distributed in both the left and right wells, as mentioned above. The concentration of impurities is assumed very low and the weak scattering on an individual impurity is treated in the Born approximation. The strength of the scattering on an individual impurity and the impurity concentrations are taken as adjustable parameters. Only the non-self-consistent version of the Born approximation is used which leads to inaccurate description close to singularities in the field dependence of $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$.

In the course of calculations, we apply the standard procedure of averaging the resolvents and their products over all possible configurations of impurities. We assume $`V_{imp}=0`$ as usual. The averaged resolvent $`\widehat{G}^\pm (E)`$ is approximated by $`\overline{G}^\pm (E)`$, which satisfies the coupled equations

$$\overline{G}^\pm (E)=\frac{1}{E\widehat{H}_0\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^\pm },$$
(24)
$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^\pm =\widehat{V}_{imp}\overline{G}^\pm (E)\widehat{V}_{imp},$$
(25)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^\pm `$ is the self-energy operator in the Born approximation, i.e. determined to the second order in the perturbation $`\widehat{V}_{imp}`$.

The products $`\widehat{G}^\pm \widehat{v}_s\widehat{G}^\pm `$, $`s=x,y`$, appear in the expressions for conductivity. We approximate this expressions by the vertex functions $`\widehat{K}_s^{\pm \pm }`$, which must be found by solving the Bethe-Salpeter equations. In the Born approximation, the equations take the form

$$\widehat{K}_s^{\pm \pm }=\overline{G}^\pm \left(\widehat{v}_s+\widehat{V}_{imp}\widehat{K}_s^{\pm \pm }\widehat{V}_{imp}\right)\overline{G}^\pm ,$$
(26)
where $`\widehat{V}_{imp}\widehat{K}_s^{\pm \pm }\widehat{V}_{imp}`$ are the vertex corrections to the velocity component $`\widehat{v}_s`$.

To proceed further, we accepted additional simplifications motivated by the very low scattering rate in high-mobility samples. Namely, the real part of the self-energy $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^\pm `$ (a correction to the eigenenergies) is neglected and only the terms of the lowest order of the scattering rate are kept in all expressions.

In this approximation, the imaginary part of the self-energy $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^\pm `$, denoted by $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, is diagonal in the spectral representation of the Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ and proportional to the densities of states, $`g_\alpha =m^{}/(\pi \mathrm{}^2)`$, of the uncoupled electron layers,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b,a}(E,k_x)`$ $`=\chi _{b,a}^{(x)}|\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(E)|\chi _{b,a}^{(x)}`$ (28)
$`=\pi \gamma _L(1\pm \mathrm{\Delta })g_L+\pi \gamma _R(1\mathrm{\Delta })g_R.`$
The parameters $`\gamma _\alpha `$ represent the intra-well scattering rate and are given by the square of matrix elements of the single-impurity potential, multiplied by the concentrations of impurities. Thus, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b,a}`$ is determined as a weighted sum of scattering inside the left and right subsystems with the weights $`1\pm \mathrm{\Delta }`$.

It is also worth to know how the resulting quantities depend on the scattering rate. While $`\sigma _{ss}^{(1)}`$ and $`\epsilon ^{(1)}`$ would diverge in samples without impurities and the leading term of their power expansion is of the order $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\sigma _{ss}^{(1)}1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\epsilon ^{(1)}1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the expressions obtained as the response to $`U_H`$ will stay finite in this limit, $`\epsilon ^{(2)}1`$. Note that in spite of it $`\sigma _{xx}^{(2)}1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as $`\sigma _{xx}^{(2)}`$ is related to $`\epsilon ^{(1)}`$ through equation (22).

The vertex corrections vanish for the velocity component $`v_y`$, i.e. the product $`\widehat{G}^\pm \widehat{v}_y\widehat{G}^\pm `$ can be approximated by $`\overline{G}^\pm \widehat{v}_y\overline{G}^\pm `$. The matrix elements of $`\widehat{v}_y`$ are symmetric in $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ space, $`\alpha |\widehat{v}_y(\stackrel{}{k})|\alpha =\alpha |\widehat{v}_y(\stackrel{}{k})|\alpha `$, their symmetry and the isotropy of the scattering by randomly distributed short-range scatterers are responsible for vanishing the vertex corrections in this case.

This is not true for $`\widehat{G}^\pm \widehat{v}_x\widehat{G}^\pm `$. Due to the breaking of the time reversal symmetry by $`\stackrel{}{B}x`$, $`\alpha |\widehat{v}_x(\stackrel{}{k})|\alpha \alpha |\widehat{v}_x(\stackrel{}{k})|\alpha `$ and the vertex corrections have to be taken into account. We must solve two coupled Bethe-Salpeter equations for the vertex functions. Unfortunately, for our very simple model they are linearly dependent. Similar complication was found also in , where the same model was used to describe the electron transport by the Boltzmann equation. The second independent equation was supplied by the charge conservation rule $`\delta Q_R=\delta Q_L`$.

## VI Results and discussion

The parameters corresponding to the sample B studied experimentally by Simmons et al.  are used in our model calculations. The distance between wells $`d`$ equals $`135`$Å and the hopping integral $`t`$ is supposed to be $`0.9`$meV. The density of electrons $`N_e=2.4\times 10^{11}`$cm-2 yields the Fermi energy $`4.29`$meV.

The applied in-plane magnetic field qualitatively changes the topology of Fermi contours . At zero field, the Fermi contours are two concentric circles. The larger circle corresponds to bonding states, the smaller one to antibonding states. The applied in-plane magnetic field shifts the centers of circles in the opposite directions in $`k`$ space and gradually changes their shapes. The Fermi contour of the bonding subband acquires the shape of a “peanut”, the Fermi line of the antibonding subband evolves into a “lens” shape. The area of the lens is reduced by the increasing in-plane field. At the critical field $`B_{c,1}=7.4`$T the lens vanishes and the transition from two-component to one-component system occurs. The peanut splits at the higher critical field $`B_{c,2}=9.3`$T into two parts, the left and right electron layers become decoupled and two disconnected ovals represent the Fermi contours of individual layers above that field. The changes in the connectivity of Fermi lines are reflected in the field dependence of the density of electronic states (DOS) as van Hove singularities at the critical fields.

As we have mentioned in the introduction, the incomplete balance of chiral diamagnetic currents flowing in the right and left wells is behind the origin of the electron transport in the $`x`$ direction. In the linear response theory we implicitly assume that applied external fields are infinitesimally weak. Therefore, also the polarization is weak and only the electrons with energies in a narrow interval around the Fermi energy contribute to the difference between the currents in the left and right wells. For this reason, Fig. 2 presents the calculated equilibrium diamagnetic current $`\delta j_{R,x}`$ flowing in the right well only for electrons on the Fermi contour. (The current of the opposite direction flows in the left well and $`\delta j_{L,x}=\delta j_{R,x}`$.) Together with the total current $`\delta j_x(\delta j_{R,x})`$ also the contributions $`\delta j_{x,b}`$ and $`\delta j_{x,a}`$ from the bonding and antibonding subbands are shown. In our simplified model $`\delta j_{x,b}`$ and $`\delta j_{x,a}`$ exactly cancels out for magnetic fields less than $`B_{c,1}`$. Above $`B_{c,1}`$ the current $`\delta j_x\delta j_{x,b}`$ decreases and changes sign before the magnetic field reaches $`B_{c,2}`$. At that field $`\delta j_x`$ diverges and for $`B>B_{c,2}`$ returns slowly back to zero value expected for the decoupled layers. The sharp minima and maxima of the total $`\delta j_x`$ reflect qualitative changes of the topology of Fermi contours, caused by the applied in-plane magnetic field, similarly as a field dependence of the DOS.

The results for the conductivity tensor components $`\sigma _{xx}`$ and $`\sigma _{yy}`$, calculated assuming zero temperature, are presented in Fig. 3. The overall similarity of curves in Fig. 3 to $`\delta j_x`$ is striking. The van Hove singularities at the critical fields $`B_{c,1}`$ and $`B_{c,2}`$ seen on $`\delta j_x`$ appear also on $`\sigma _{xx}`$ and $`\sigma _{yy}`$. Moreover, both components of the conductivity are small below $`B_{c,1}`$ where $`\delta j_x`$ vanishes, are decreasing functions for $`B`$ between $`B_{c,1}`$ and $`B_{c,2}`$, and increase above $`B_{c,2}`$ similarly as $`\delta j_x`$. But there are, of course, many differences which stem from the more detailed description of the scattering process and response to the external fields, as presented in previous paragraphs.

The dependence of the conductivity components $`\sigma _{xx}^{(1)}`$ and $`\sigma _{yy}`$ on the magnetic field coincides with that already obtained by solving the Boltzmann equation . In this case the origin of the van Hove singularities is related rather to DOS than to $`\delta j_x`$. The difference between $`\sigma _{xx}^{(1)}`$ and $`\sigma _{yy}`$ originates in the Fermi contours anisotropy and the related anisotropy of the effective mass and the relaxation time. The novel “Hall” correction $`\sigma _{xx}^{(2)}`$ to the conductivity $`\sigma _{xx}`$ does not change the field dependence qualitatively, but strengthens the difference between $`\sigma _{xx}`$ and $`\sigma _{yy}`$ substantially.

The question arises whether one can distinguish between $`\sigma _{xx}^{(1)}`$ and $`\sigma _{xx}^{(2)}`$ experimentally. The possibility can be to study the inter-layer charge redistribution by measuring the change of the capacity between the bilayer system and the gate electrode on the top of the sample. It should be proportional to the current flowing through the sample perpendicularly to the magnetic field. The excess electric charge cumulated in the right layer, induced by the applied electric field in the $`x`$-direction, is shown in Fig. 4. The maximum effect is expected when only a bonding subband is occupied and the Fermi line has a single-connected-peanut shape.

To conclude: we have shown that the charge redistribution within a double-layer system gives rise to the Hall-like contribution to the conductivity which is so strong that it cannot be omitted. The experimental verification of this Hall effect is however nontrivial. Any potential contacts destroy the double-layer structure heavily and a direct measurement of the potential difference between layers can hardly be realized. We believe that the solution is a non-invasive measurement of the charge redistribution from the capacity changes of gated structures.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work has been supported by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic under Grant No. 202/01/0754.

##

A Kubo formula evaluates the linear response of the density matrix $`\widehat{f}(t)`$ to a perturbation of the form $`\widehat{H}_p(t)=\widehat{A}F(t)`$, where $`\widehat{A}`$ is a time-independent operator and $`F(t)`$ is a function of time. The non-equilibrium matrix deviates from the Fermi-Dirac distribution function $`f_0(\widehat{H})`$ by $`\delta \widehat{f}(t)`$. The expectation value of an operator $`\widehat{B}`$, $`\delta B(t)=Tr\left(\widehat{B}\delta \widehat{f}(t)\right)`$, is related to the perturbation by

$`\delta B(t)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑t^{}e^{ϵt^{}}`$ (30)
$`\times Tr\left(f_0(\widehat{H})[e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{H}t^{}}\widehat{A}e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{H}t^{}},\widehat{B}]\right)F(t+t^{}).`$
Taking into account $`\widehat{H}_p^{(1)}`$, given by (8), we get

$`\delta B(t)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{eE_x}{\mathrm{}\omega }}e^{i\omega t}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑t^{}e^{ϵt^{}}\left[\left(e^{i\omega t^{}}1\right)+1\right]`$ (32)
$`\times Tr\left(f_0(\widehat{H})[e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{H}t^{}}\widehat{v}_xe^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{H}t^{}},\widehat{B}]\right),`$
where 1 was subtracted and added in square brackets of the first line of the expression.

The integration by parts of the second term, corresponding to the added 1 in an above sum, converts (32) to a form

$`\delta B(t)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{eE_x}{\mathrm{}\omega }}e^{i\omega t}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑t^{}e^{ϵt^{}}\left(e^{i\omega t^{}}1\right)`$ (35)
$`\times Tr\left(f_0(\widehat{H})[e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{H}t^{}}\widehat{v}_xe^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{H}t^{}},\widehat{B}]\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{eE_x}{\mathrm{}\omega }}e^{i\omega t}Tr\left(f_0(\widehat{H})[\widehat{x},\widehat{B}]\right).`$
To derive (35), we employed $`\widehat{v}_x=[\widehat{x},\widehat{H}]/i\mathrm{}`$ and the identity

$$_{\mathrm{}}^0𝑑t^{}ϵe^{ϵt^{}}Tr\left(f_0(\widehat{H})[e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{H}t^{}}\widehat{x}e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{H}t^{}},\widehat{B}]\right)=0,$$
(36)
which can be proved replacing functions of Hamiltonian standing inside the trace according to prescription

$$Z(\widehat{H})=𝑑EZ(E)\delta (E\widehat{H}),$$
(37)
where $`Z`$ denotes such a function, and performing the integration over the time variable. The result

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑E}`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑E^{}\frac{i\mathrm{}ϵ}{E^{}E+i\mathrm{}ϵ}}`$ (39)
$`\times \left[f_0(E)f_0(E^{})\right]Tr\left[\delta (E\widehat{H})\widehat{x}\delta (E^{}\widehat{H})\widehat{B}\right]`$
is an expression which goes to zero when $`ϵ0`$.

A similar approach is applied to the first part of (32), corresponding to the subtracted 1. After the time integration we introduce resolvents by $`\widehat{G}^\pm (E)=\left(E\widehat{H}\pm i\mathrm{}ϵ\right)^1`$, and, letting $`\omega 0`$ to get a static response, we obtain the Kubo formula in the form

$`\delta B(t)=`$ $`i\mathrm{}eE_x{\displaystyle 𝑑Ef_0(E)}`$ (42)
$`\times Tr\left\{\delta (E\widehat{H})[\widehat{B}{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{G}^+(E)}{dE}}\widehat{v}_x\widehat{v}_x{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{G}^{}(E)}{dE}}\widehat{B}]\right\}`$
$`+\underset{\omega 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{eE_x}{\mathrm{}\omega }}e^{i\omega t}Tr\left(f_0(\widehat{H})[\widehat{x},\widehat{B}]\right).`$
The expression (13) for $`\delta Q_\alpha `$ is derived by introducing $`\widehat{Q}_\alpha `$, defined by equation (10), into (42) instead of $`\widehat{B}`$, and taking into account that $`[\widehat{x},\widehat{Q}_\alpha ]=0`$. The conductivity formula (21) is obtained when $`\widehat{B}`$ is replaced by the current operator (19). In this case the last term of (42) gives a non-zero contribution, which exactly compensates the equilibrium gauge current.

The expressions (15) and (22) are derived in an analogous way, taking into account the perturbation Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_p^{(2)}`$ instead of $`\widehat{H}_p^{(1)}`$. In fact, the derivation is simpler in this case.