format: text

text:
# Elementary electronic excitations in one-dimensional continuum and lattice systems

## I Introduction

There has been considerable recent interest in the elementary excitation spectra of one-dimensional (1D) systems, both in continuum systems such as 1D semiconductor quantum wires (QWR) or carbon nanotubes and in lattice models such as 1D organic conductors. In some sense the 1D elementary excitation spectrum is remarkably simple  because single-particle (electron-hole like) excitations are completely suppressed in one dimension, and only 1D collective (charge density and spin density) excitations exist at long wavelengths. In practice, however, resonant inelastic light (Raman) scattering (RRS) based spectroscopic studies  of 1D semiconductor (GaAs) quantum wires find several electronic excitation modes in polarized and depolarized Raman spectra whose mode dispersions and spectral weights have been measured carefully. In the polarized geometry incident and scattered photons have the same polarization vectors indicating the absence of spin flips in the electronic excitations, while in the depolarized geometry the incident photons change the polarization after scattering due to the spin flips of electrons. From the many-body linear response theory, the polarized spectrum is proportional to the imaginary part of the charge density correlation function and the depolarized spectrum is proportional to the imaginary part of the spin density correlation function. One particularly noteworthy feature of these Raman scattering studies has been the finding that the qualitative features of 1D GaAs QWR elementary excitation spectra (in both polarized and depolarized geometries) are remarkably similar to those in 2- and 3-D GaAs systems.

The goal of this paper is to investigate theoretically the charge and spin elementary excitation spectra as well as their spectral weights in 1D electron systems, both for a continuum jellium electron gas and for an atomic lattice model. Our calculations (in particular, our spectral weight calculations) should apply directly to the experimental Raman scattering data if the resonance effects are dynamically unimportant in the interpretation of the Raman experiments. We refer to our calculations as the nonresonant Raman scattering (NRS) theory where only the conduction band electrons are taken into account as opposed to the resonant Raman scattering where both the conduction band and the valence band participate. In fact, the theory developed in this paper has been the standard theory for discussing the resonant Raman scattering spectroscopy until very recently when several publications  dealing with the full subtleties of the resonance effect have appeared in the literature. We emphasize that, quite apart from the resonant Raman scattering spectroscopy, theoretical results presented in this paper stand on its own as a comprehensive theory for the elementary excitation spectra of 1D electron systems.

In this paper, we will study the standard (nonresonant) Raman scattering spectroscopy in three theoretical models: the RPA-Fermi liquid model, the Luttinger liquid (LL) model, and the 1D Hubbard model. As emphasized above, by ”nonresonant” we mean that the theory neglects all effects of the valence band in resonant Raman scattering (which is a 2-step process, with the incident photon being absorbed by a valence band electron which thereby gets excited into an excited conduction band state with an electron from inside the conduction band Fermi surface subsequently combining with the valence band hole with the emission of the scattered photon). If the valence band can be ignored, then only conduction band density fluctuations are responsible in the linear response theory of the scattering process. The calculation is then simplified to the evaluation of the density-density correlation function (for polarized spectrum) and the spin-density correlation function (for depolarized spectrum), whose imaginary parts are proportional to the spectra measured in the experiments. This approach of identifying the measured elementary excitation spectra in the Raman scattering experiments as the charge (polarized spectra) or the spin (depolarized) density correlation function of the electron system in the conduction band has a long and fairly successful history  in the semiconductor structures. We take the same approach here, and construct our charge and spin density correlation functions (which give the spectral strengths of the elementary excitations through their imaginary parts or the corresponding dynamical structure factors) entirely from the conduction band carriers, ignoring all effects of the valence band in the resonance process.

There has been one persistent feature in the experimental Raman spectra of semiconductor systems, including 1D QWR structures, which does not seem to have an obvious explanation in terms of the non-resonant theory discussed in this paper. There is often a low energy spectral peak in the polarized spectra at an energy well below the expected collective charge density excitation (CDE) peak (and in addition to the charge density excitation peak, which always shows up at the usual energy). This additional peak occurs around the single particle excitation energy, which typically contributes little to the dynamical structure factor (i.e. the density correlation function) at the low wavevectors ($`qk_F`$) of Raman scattering experiment, and therefore should have negligible (unobservable) spectral weight. There have been many suggestions for the resolution of this puzzle (namely, why the single particle excitation weight is enhanced in the density correlation spectrum), and we will quantitatively consider several of these suggestions in this paper. Our conclusion, based on the results presented in this paper, is that this puzzle in all likelihood arises necessarily from the resonant nature of Raman scattering experiments, as has recently been argued in the literature , which is beyond the scope of this paper. Our critical quantitative consideration of the several suggested scenarios (within the non-resonant theory of using conduction band properties only) for explaining why the single particle excitation has large spectral weight shows that none of them is capable of resolving this problem quantitatively. While studying the 1D elementary excitation spectra is the primary goal of this paper, considering the single particle excitation spectral weight issue in the non-resonant Raman scattering is one of our important secondary goals.

We first present the results of the Fermi-liquid random phase approximation (RPA) calculation for this problem in Sec. II. The RPA calculation has been shown to give a good description  for the dispersion relations of the elementary excitations in comparison with the experimental results , for both intersubband and intrasubband 1D excitations . Being a standard Fermi liquid (FL) theory, however, the RPA calculation is unable to explain the relatively large spectral weight of the “single particle excitation”(SPE) in the polarized spectrum of the experiment as discussed above. We include the effects of the breakdown of momentum conservation and the nonparabolic energy dispersion in our calculation in Sec. II-D to check if they can explain the SPE feature within RPA, but neither gives qualitatively correct results for the polarized spectrum. In the Luttinger liquid model we present in Sec. III, we find zero weight at the SPE energy (as we should, since in the LL model there are no single particle like quasi-particle excitations), and all the spectral strength is at the charge boson mode, which is exactly the CDE mode in RPA. In Sec. IV, we use the 1D (lattice) Hubbard model with repulsive on-site spin-dependent interaction to study this problem. The study of 1D elementary excitations and the associated spectral weights in the Hubbard model is one of our main results in this paper. This Hubbard model study was originally motivated by the suggestion in ref.  that a possible way to interpret this SPE puzzle (the existence of a single particle peak in Raman scattering) in 1D should be different from those in higher dimensions, and the so-called SPE peak may be arising from the spin-singlet excitations (SSE) of interacting 1D systems . Therefore, we choose to study in detail the 1D Hubbard model, in which the spin-dependent interaction is expected to enhance the contribution of the spin-singlet excitation, which is proposed  as the extra SPE-like feature showing up in the experiment. Although the Hubbard model is a lattice model and consequently may not apply directly to the continuum QWR system, we argue that it is useful to understand the detailed excitation spectra in the 1D Hubbard model in the context of this problem because one can quantitatively study the interacting 1D elementary excitation spectra using the Hubbard model.

Our conclusion based on our work (as presented in Sec. II-IV) is that all of these NRS theories fail in providing an explanation for the large “SPE” spectral weight in the long wavelength region observed in the experimental polarized RRS spectrum, although there could be substantial spectral weight in the single particle excitation at $`large`$ wavevectors (short wavelengths). The spectra of depolarized nonresonant Raman scattering is also studied in these different models, and good general agreement with experiment is found in the sense that the depolarized spectra describe the spin density excitation (SDE) or the triplet spin excitation.

## II Fermi liquid model

In the standard many-body theory, which neglects all interband resonance effects and considers only the conduction band, the NRS intensity for polarized spectrum is proportional to the imaginary part of the charge density correlation function $`\chi _\rho `$:

$$\frac{d^2\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }d\omega }\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}\chi _\rho (q,\omega ),$$
(1)
where

$$\chi _\rho (q,\omega )=i_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{i\omega t}\chi _\rho (q,t),$$
(2)
and

$$\chi _\rho (q,t)=[\rho ^{}(q,t),\rho (q,0)]_0,$$
(3)
where $`\rho (q,t)n(q,t)n_0`$ is the density fluctuation operator and $`n(q,t)_{ps}c_{p+q,s}^{}(t)c_{p,s}(t)`$ is the density operator ($`c_{p,s}(t)`$ is the electron annihilation operator). For the depolarized spectrum, we just need to change $`\chi _\rho `$ to $`\chi _\sigma `$, the spin density correlation function, which is defined by

$$\chi _\sigma (q,t)=[\sigma ^{}(q,t),\sigma (q,0)]_0,$$
(4)
where $`\sigma (q,t)_{ps}sc_{p+q,s}^{}(t)c_{p,s}(t)`$ is the spin density operator.

Since $`\chi _\rho (q,\omega )`$ is equivalent  to the reducible polarizability, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\rho (q,\omega )`$, we may rewrite (Fig. 1) it as a sum of the series of irreducible polarizability, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,\rho }(q,\omega )`$, bubble diagrams:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\rho (q,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,\rho }(q,\omega )+\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,\rho }(q,\omega )V_c(q)\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,\rho }(q,\omega )+\mathrm{}`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,\rho }(q,\omega )}{1V_c(q)\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,\rho }(q,\omega )}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,\rho }(q,\omega )}{ϵ(q,\omega )}},`$ (6)
where $`ϵ(q,\omega )`$ is the dynamic dielectric function. For the spin density correlation function, $`\chi _\sigma (q,t)`$, however, the equivalent reducible response function, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\sigma (q,\omega )`$ is exactly the same as the irreducible one, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,\sigma }(q,\omega )`$, due to the spin independence of Coulomb interaction (i.e. $`V_c`$ is explicitly spin independent). We will then use RPA  to calculate $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\rho (q,\omega )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,\sigma }(q,\omega )`$ and evaluate the charge and spin density correlation function (reducible polarizability) in the following sections.

### A RPA and Hubbard approximation

In the random phase approximation, which is very successful in the high density interacting two- or three-dimensional electron systems (the corresponding Feynman diagrams are shown in Fig. 1), the irreducible polarizability is approximated by the noninteracting electron-hole bubble (and therefore $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,\rho /\sigma }(q,\omega )=\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,\rho /\sigma }^{\mathrm{RPA}}(q,\omega )`$). We can calculate its 1D analytical expression at $`T=0`$ (we choose $`\mathrm{}=1`$ throughout) to be

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,\rho /\sigma }^{\mathrm{RPA}}(q,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\nu 𝑑pG_0(p,\nu )G_0(p+q,\nu +\omega )}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑p\frac{n_0(p)n_0(pq)}{\omega +i\delta p^2/2m+(pq)^2/2m}}`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\pi q}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega +i\delta )^2(q^2/2mqv_F)^2}{(\omega +i\delta )^2(q^2/2m+qv_F)^2}}\right]`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\pi q}}\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2(q^2/2mqv_F)^2}{\omega ^2(q^2/2m+qv_F)^2}}\right|`$ (12)
$`+i\mathrm{sign}(\omega q)[\theta (|\omega |\mathrm{𝑞𝑣}_F{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2m}})`$
$`\theta (|\omega |qv_F+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2m}})],`$
where $`G_0(p,\nu )`$ is the bare electron Green’s function and $`n_0(p)=\theta (k_F|p|)`$ is the noninteracting momentum distribution function. The first term of the last equality is the real part while the second term is the imaginary part of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,\rho /\sigma }^{\mathrm{RPA}}(q,\omega )`$, from which we could determine the single particle excitation region as shown in Fig. 2(a). We should note that unlike the 2D or the 3D situation, the SPE continuum region for 1D system is very restricted in the long wavelength limit ($`qk_F`$). In higher dimensions, the SPE continuum is gapless in the low energy region at any finite wavevector smaller than $`2k_F`$, but it is gapped in the 1D system due to the phase space restriction. The strength of the SPE is a constant, independent of the frequency, $`\omega `$, as we can see from Eq. (6), so that its contribution must be very limited in the interacting situation, which is dominated by the CDE or the collective plasmon excitations. From Eq. (6) we also see how the SPE region disappears completely as the band curvature goes to zero, i.e. when the band dispersion is taken to be linear as in the LL model.

To improve the RPA calculation, which does not consider any vertex correction in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,\rho /\sigma }^{\mathrm{RPA}}(q,\omega )`$, and therefore is exact only in the long wavelength limit, Hubbard  introduced a simple local field correction to RPA by approximately summing the ladder exchange diagrams (and thus including vertex correction in a very crude manner). Instead of going through the details of his derivation, we here only show the final 1D result, which is simple  and can be applied to our calculation. The RPA dielectric function of Eq. (5) is replaced in the Hubbard approximation (HA) by

$$ϵ_H(q,\omega )=1\frac{V_c(q)\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,\rho }^{\mathrm{RPA}}(q,\omega )}{1+V_c(q)G(q)\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,\rho }^{\mathrm{RPA}}(q,\omega )},$$
(13)
where the local field(vertex) correction, $`G(q)`$, in the 1D Hubbard approximation is given by

$$G(q)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{V_c(\sqrt{q^2+k_F^2})}{V_c(q)}.$$
(14)
In the long wavelength limit, $`q0`$, $`G(q)0`$ for Coulomb interaction and the RPA result is restored in the long wavelength limit as it must. In Fig. 2 we plot the dispersion and spectrum of the 1D charge density collective excitation (usually called the 1D plasmon mode) within both the RPA and the Hubbard approximation — the plasmon mode is defined by the zero of the dielectric function and the intensity or the spectral weight is given by the imaginary part of the dielectric function (i.e. the dynamical structure factor ).

### B Charge density correlation function — polarized spectrum

Using the RPA result, Eqs. (5) and (6), we can obtain the density correlation function as well as the polarized NRS spectrum:

$`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_\rho (q,\omega )=`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,\rho }^{\mathrm{RPA}}(q,\omega )}{\left[1V_c(q)\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,\rho }^{\mathrm{RPA}}(q,\omega )\right]^2+\left[V_c(q)\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,\rho }^{\mathrm{RPA}}(\mathrm{q},\omega )\right]^2}}.`$ (16)
Note that the imaginary part of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,\rho }^{\mathrm{RPA}}`$ is zero outside the SPE region. Therefore we expect a delta function like excitation at $`1V_c(q)\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,\rho }^{\mathrm{RPA}}(q,\omega )=0`$ for the plasmon mode or the CDE dispersion. The dispersion is plotted in Fig. 2(a). At $`T=0`$ without any impurity scattering the dispersion of the plasmon mode in RPA is given by

$$\omega _{pl}(q)=\sqrt{\frac{A(q)(q^2/2m+qv_F)^2(q^2/2mqv_F)^2}{A(q)1}},$$
(17)
where $`A(q)=\mathrm{exp}[q\pi /mV_c(q)]`$. In the long wavelength limit ($`q0`$), the dispersion becomes

$$\omega _{pl}(q)=qv_{pl}=qv_F\sqrt{1+\frac{2}{\pi v_F}V_c(p)}+O(q^3),$$
(18)
due to the fact that $`V_c(q)\mathrm{ln}(1/|q|)`$ diverges in the long wavelength limit. Note that Eq. (11) is exactly the same as the dispersion obtained in the pure LL theory, which is discussed in Sec. III and is shown in Eq. (15) below. In Fig. 2(a), we find that the plasmon energy is actually larger than the SPE continuum energy for all momentum, so that there is no Landau damping in the 1D system within the RPA calculation. The 1D plasma dispersion has no gap in the long wavelength limit, but an infinite slope at $`q=0`$ due to the logarithmic divergence of the 1D Coulomb interaction.

In Fig. 2(b), we also show the typical calculated polarized RRS spectrum (proportional to Im$`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ in Eq. (9)) using a phenomenological broadening factor, $`\gamma =0.05E_F`$, which may be arising from impurity scattering. We find that the spectral weight of CDE is much larger than that of SPE (about one thousand times !). In the same figure we show the HA results as well. We find that while the vertex correction indeed increases the SPE weight somewhat relative to the CDE weight, the HA is still completely unable (by a factor of 100) to explain the experimental finding  of the SPE mode being comparable in the intensity to the CDE mode (double-peak structure) in the polarized RRS spectrum .

Moreover, if the electron energy dispersion is linear (as it is close to the Fermi point), the SPE excitation spectral weight calculated by Eq. (9) disappears. This indicates that the band curvature around $`k_F`$ plays an important role in forming the SPE peak in the experiments. For example, in the linearized LL theory the SPE will have (Sec. III) exactly zero spectral weight. In Sec. II-D below we consider the band nonparabolicity effect explicitly.

### C Spin density correlation function — depolarized spectrum

As discussed above, the depolarized spectrum of 1D electron systems in the RPA is just the imaginary part of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,\sigma }^{\mathrm{RPA}}(q,\omega )`$ in Eq. (6), which is nothing but a square function with maximum and minimum energies (for $`\omega >0`$), $`qv_F+q^2/2m`$ and $`qv_Fq^2/2m`$ respectively, the same as the SPE in the polarized spectrum. Thus, within RPA the depolarized mode dispersion is identical to the SPE energy, i.e. $`\omega =qv_F`$ with a $`q^2`$ broadening. One should note, however, that when vertex corrections such as in the Hubbard approximation are taken into account, the spectra of the spin density excitation (SDE) will not be exactly the same as the SPE due to the vertex correction induced energy shift. In Fig. 3 we show the SDE spectrum obtained by calculating the spin density correlation function in RPA and also in the Hubbard approximation. The vertex correction shifts the SDE peak to lower energy (an excitonic shift) in the HA and thus separates it from the SPE mode.

### D The breakdown of momentum conservation and nonparabolicity effects in RPA

Beyond the standard RPA calculation, we include two nongeneric effects, the breakdown of momentum-conservation (arising from impurity scattering, for example) and the nonparabolicity of electron energy dispersion, because both of these corrections are likely to transfer some large wavevector SPE weight to smaller wavevector. For the breakdown of momentum-conservation, we use a phenomenological approach  by introducing a broadening function that couples the polarized spectrum $`\chi _\rho (q,\omega )`$ at momentum $`q`$ to that at momentum $`q^{}`$:

$$\chi _\rho (q,\omega ;\mathrm{\Gamma })\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }k_F}{\pi }𝑑q^{}\frac{\chi _\rho (q^{},\omega )}{(qq^{})^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2k_F^2},$$
(19)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a (phenomenological) dimensionless factor denoting the strength of the breakdown of momentum-conservation. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$ we get back the original spectrum. In Fig. 4(a), we show the numerical calculation results of this effect by applying Eq. (12) onto the RPA result Eq. (9). At first sight, one finds that finite $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ does decrease the peak value of CDE and enhance the SPE weight. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>0.5`$, however, we find that the SPE peak merges into the very broad CDE peak, which is broadened also by the breakdown of momentum-conservation. In other words, the breakdown of momentum-conservation reduces the CDE peak strength and also broadens its width without changing either the total CDE spectral weight or the SPE weight qualitatively. Therefore, in our direct numerical calculation, we show that the breakdown of momentum-conservation (at least through phenomenological treatments, such as Eq. (12)) is not the candidate mechanism to provide an SPE spectral weight comparable to the CDE weight in RPA calculations.

We now discuss the same issue by considering the band nonparabolicity effect of the electron energy dispersion. We recalculate the RPA spectral weight including band nonparabolicity via an additional $`q^4`$ term in the electron energy dispersion

$$\frac{E(q;\lambda )}{E_F}=\left(\frac{q}{k_F}\right)^2+\lambda \left[\left(\frac{q}{k_F}\right)^4\left(\frac{q}{k_F}\right)^2\right].$$
(20)
This expression of $`E(q;\lambda )`$ keeps the Fermi energy constant ($`E(k_F;\lambda )=E_F`$) for all $`\lambda `$ and changes the electron effective mass $`m_e(\lambda )=m/(1\lambda )`$ consistently. In Fig. 4(b), we show the calculated polarized RRS spectrum for different values of $`\lambda 0.1`$. We find that the enhancement of the SPE weight is very small, while the CDE peak almost keeps the same weight. Using larger $`\lambda `$ will cause greater blue-shifts in both SPE and CDE energies due to the increase of Fermi velocity via Eq. (13), which disagrees with the experimental results (note that the standard RPA results provide very good agreement with the experimental results in the excitation energies ). Therefore, the nonparabolicity effect cannot enhance the SPE spectral weight to be comparable to the CDE weight.

## III Luttinger liquid model

The Luttinger liquid model  is thought to provide a generic low energy description for 1D electron systems, which are characterized by the LL fixed point in the renormalization group sense. The standard and exactly solvable LL model is the 1D electron gas with a linear dispersion ($`E(k)=rv_F(krk_F)`$) around Fermi points ($`\pm k_F`$) at each branch ($`r=\pm 1`$) and with short-ranged forward interaction . The Hamiltonian of this model is written as

$$H=\underset{rps}{}v_F(rpk_F):c_{rps}^{}c_{rps}:+H_4+H_2,$$
(21)
where $`:\mathrm{}:`$ is the normal order operator, $`H_4`$ is for the electrons interacting within the right ($`r=+1`$) or the left ($`r=1`$) band only and $`H_2`$ is for the electrons interacting between these two bands. Using bosonization method and a linear transformation, the Hamiltonian of Eq. (14) can be exactly diagonalized by the two boson operators: charge boson $`\rho _r(p)`$ and spin boson $`\sigma _r(p)`$. This fact makes the collective excitation spectra (CDE and SDE) in the Luttinger model very simple: both the charge (CDE) and the spin (SDE) modes are delta function like poles and there is no SPE mode or equivalently, quasi-particle spectral weight, at all. In the following, we think it is instructive, for the sake of completeness and notational clarity, to present this result not only from the bosonization method we discussed above but also from the many-body Feynman diagrammatic technique via Ward identity, which is essentially equivalent to the RPA calculation but with linear band dispersion.

### A Bosonization method

Evaluating the expectation value, we get for the charge $`(\rho )`$ and the spin $`(\sigma )`$ sectors:

$`\chi _\rho (q,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2L}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{K_\rho (q)v_\rho (q)q^2}{(\omega +i\delta )^2(\omega _q^\rho )^2}}`$ (22)
$`\chi _\sigma (q,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2L}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{K_\sigma (q)v_\sigma (q)q^2}{(\omega +i\delta )^2(\omega _q^\sigma )^2}},`$ (23)
where the excitation energy, $`\omega _q^{\rho /\sigma }=|q|v_{\rho /\sigma }(q)=|q|v_F/K_{\rho /\sigma }(q)`$, and the charge sector Luttinger exponent $`K_\rho (q)`$ is

$$K_\rho (q)=\left(1+\frac{2V_c(q)}{\pi v_F}\right)^{1/2},$$
(24)
while $`K_\sigma (q)=1`$ in the spin sector for the spin-independent Coulomb interaction.

It is clear that the above results are completely spin-charge separated, which is another important feature of the LL model. One should note that there is no spectral weight in $`\chi _\rho (q,\omega )`$ at $`\omega =qv_F`$ for any SPE mode (or, for that matter any mode). This shows that the small SPE peak (compared to CDE) in the Fermi liquid-RPA theory is totally absent in the LL theory. Thus any possible explanation within the LL theory for the anomalous low energy peak in the polarized RRS spectra must arise from some mode (e.g. a multiboson mode or an SSE mode) other than the SPE mode which is completely absent in the LL theory.

We note one other aspect (the spin-charge separation mentioned above) of the LL theory in this context which has created some minor confusion. The spin-charge separation of the LL theory has nothing whatsoever to do with the separate existence of SDE/CDE in the depolarized/polarized RRS spectra. The collective spin and charge density excitations are completely distinct excitations in the FL theory as well — they are the poles of the appropriate spin (for SDE) and charge (CDE) density correlation functions of the system which have totally different energies and selection rules (i.e. whether there is a spin-flip or not) in any reasonable theory. The reason spin-charge separation is rather complete in the LL theory is because the Luttinger liquid does not have any quasi-particles or single particle excitations — it has only collective spin and charge excitations which are poles of different correlation functions and are always separate. Indeed, higher dimensional systems, such as 2D and 3D GaAs structures, exhibit qualitatively similar RRS spectra as in the 1D system with the CDE peak (and a weak SPE-like low energy feature) showing up in the polarized spectra and the SDE peak showing up in the (spin-flip) depolarized RRS spectra. These higher dimensional systems are obviously Fermi liquids and have no LL-like intrinsic spin-charge separation while at the same time having distinct CDE and SDE collective modes.

Unlike the formulae for the single-particle Green’s function, in which the non-Fermi-liquid-like Luttinger liquid feature arises from the nonperturbative power-law behavior together with the velocity renormalization, the charge and spin density correlation functions (which are two-particle Green’s functions) have no such power-law behavior at all. The density correlation functions and the the associated charge/spin density excitation collective mode spectra are essentially identical in the LL and the FL-RPA model  except for the complete absence of any SPE spectral weight in the charge sector in the LL model. The Luttinger liquid effects appear only in the mode velocity renormalization, $`v_\rho (q)`$, and the overall mode amplitude factors $`K_\rho (q)`$ in the collective mode spectra.

### B Diagrammatic method

The diagrammatic method for the Luttinger liquid theory tells us more about the transition from the Fermi liquid to the Luttinger liquid, because it is physically more transparent than the bosonization technique, which is more of a formal mathematical tool. Early seminal work by Dzyaloshinkii and Larkin  and recent important work of Schultz  have shown that this method is equivalent to the bosonization theory, even though its theoretical structure follows a Fermi liquid type conventional many-body theory.

Eq. (5) is the starting point of the diagrammatic calculation. In order to evaluate the irreducible polarizability, we use the Ward identity connecting the Green’s function with the vertex function in the following formula

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}(p,\nu ,q,\omega )=\frac{G_{rs}^1(p,\nu )G_{rs}^1(pq,\nu \omega )}{\omega +i\delta rqv_F},$$
(25)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}(p,\nu ,q,\omega )`$ is the vertex function of two particle lines and one interaction line. The Ward identity follows directly from the particle and current conservation in each branch and spin (valid only for forward scattering) coupled with linear dispersion relation. It can be derived by summing the infinite series of vertex diagrams as shown in Fig. 5. Using this vertex expression, one can calculate the exact irreducible polarizability (consider the charge part only)

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,\rho }(q,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{rs}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{2\pi }\frac{d\nu }{2\pi }G_{rs}(p,\nu )G_{rs}(pq,\nu \omega )}`$ (27)
$`\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}(p,\nu ,q,\omega )`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{rs}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{2\pi }\frac{n_{rs}(pq)n_{rs}(p)}{\omega +i\delta rqv_F}}`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2q/\pi }{\omega +i\delta rqv_F}}.`$ (29)
Comparing Eq. (19) with Eq. (6) we find that they are identical if we only change the parabolic dispersion in Eq. (6) to the linear one as in the Luttinger model. Therefore we obtain the striking result that the irreducible polarizability of the linear band dispersion model is exactly the same as the RPA result. In other words, vertex corrections to the irreducible polarizability vanish. This result can also be verified by the topological argument given in ref. , which shows that all the electron-hole loops connecting with more than three interaction lines cancel out. Note that the above result is independent of temperature, due to the particle number conservation in the $`p`$-integral.

Using this formula of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,\rho }(q,\omega )`$, the charge density correlation function can be easily obtained via Eq. (5). It is instructive, however, to see how it works in Eq. (9). In the usual RPA calculation in 1D, the plasmon mode (given by $`1V_c(q)\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,\rho }^{\mathrm{RPA}}=0`$) is above the SPE region so that the square function ($`T=0`$) of $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,\rho }^{\mathrm{RPA}}(q,\omega )`$ still exists, unaffected by the CDE mode, while the CDE itself is a delta function like pole because $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,\rho }^{\mathrm{RPA}}(q,\omega )=0`$ at the plasmon energy. When the dispersion is linearized as in the LL model, $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,\rho }^{\mathrm{RPA}}(q,\omega )`$ itself becomes a delta function at $`\omega =qv_F`$ rather than a square function (see Eq. (19)), leading to the complete suppression and the disappearance of the SPE mode as we can see from Eq. (9) at $`\omega =qv_F`$. This makes this diagrammatic result consistent with the bosonization result, in which there is manifestly no single particle eigenstate at all in the final spectrum. Both approaches predict the complete absence of an SPE mode in the LL theory.

Finally we can conclude that the LL theory gives precisely the same collective mode spectra as the corresponding RPA theory does with the only difference being the complete non-existence of any (even weak) SPE features in the LL spectra.

## IV Hubbard model

Motivated by the long-standing SPE-feature puzzle discussed in the Introduction, it has been suggested  that we can interpret the ”SPE” peak observed in the experimental RRS spectra as the ”singlet spin excitation” . In other words, the incident photon virtually flips the electron spin and then restores its polarization after the scattering, leaving the electron spin unchanged. Unlike the triplet spin excitation, SDE, which manifests itself in the depolarized RRS spectra, the virtual spin-flip process of SSE may, in principle, contribute to the final spinless scattering matrix element of the polarized Raman scattering spectrum, so one could expect that SSE should be very close to the SPE in energy under the spin-independent Coulomb interaction. That explains why one cannot simply separate these two (SSE and SPE) whether in the experimental measurement or in the theoretical calculation. In the LL theory, there is no SPE, but SSE is, in principle, allowed and may simulate the SPE of the FL-RPA theory. To investigate the role of SSE in more details we could use the 1D Hubbard model on a lattice, which can be mapped to the exactly solvable Luttinger liquid model in the long wavelength limit. Thus the 1D Hubbard model has no generic SPE properties, and could therefore be useful in the understanding of SSE properties. We therefore study the SSE in the 1D Hubbard model, and investigate whether its spectral weight can be comparable to the CDE as observed in the experiments.

In this paper, we want to study the 1D single band Hubbard model (HM) through the Bethe-ansatz equations and the Lanczos-Gagliano method, which is shown to be in excellent agreement with the exact diagonalization result. Although HM is a lattice model of short-ranged on-site interaction, unlike the realistic 1D QWR systems which are continuum systems with long-ranged Coulomb interaction, we could still use it as a valid model in qualitatively discussing the problem of the polarized Raman scattering because all 1D interacting systems belong to the LL universality class and generic issues may be addressed in any particular 1D model. We first identify the holon excitation of the Hubbard model to be the CDE, and the triplet spinon to be the SDE in the usual RRS language, by comparing their dispersion relations in the whole spectrum. We then further obtain the finite spectral weights of SSE in the charge density spectrum and show that the weight of singlet spin density excitation is still rather low in the HM and cannot produce large spectral weights in the polarized RRS scattering spectrum as found in the experiment. Thus, our HM results shows that the ”SPE” peak in the polarized RRS experiments is unlikely to be explained by the 1D singlet spin excitation, at least within any nonresonant theory which considers the elementary excitations only in the conduction band.

### A Theory

The simple 1D single band Hubbard model,

$$H=t\underset{i,\sigma }{}(c_{i+1,\sigma }^{}c_{i,\sigma }+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.)+U\underset{i}{}n_in_i,$$
(30)
where $`c_{i,\sigma }`$ and $`n_{i,\sigma }`$ are respectively the fermion creation operator and the density operator for site $`i`$ and spin $`\sigma `$, has been extensively studied. $`t`$ and $`U`$ are hopping energy and on-site short range spin-dependent interaction following the usual notation in the literature . Note that the Hubbard model is basically a model with a spin-dependent short range (on-site) interaction, $`U`$. It has generic LL properties in the long wavelength limit and for low-lying excitation energy, i.e. no single particle behavior in the spectral function at Fermi wavevector. The explicitly spin-dependent interaction, $`U`$, in the HM, however, should make the spin singlet state more enhanced in the spectrum, and easier to study. Among the many accurate and useful methods to study the 1D HM, we use the Bethe-ansatz method  to obtain the ground state and the low-lying excitation state dispersion spectra. It is well-known that the Bethe-ansatz wavefunctions are not particularly useful in calculating correlation functions, and therefore we need an alternative method to obtain the spectral weights of the elementary excitations. We calculate the charge density and spin density correlation functions, to be compared respectively with the polarized and depolarized inelastic light scattering spectra, by using the Lanczos-Gagliano method . This method (described and discussed below) gives a simple but fast-convergent result for the correlation functions in the lattice model. By comparing the momentum-energy dispersion relations of these two different methods, (i.e. the Bethe-ansatz and the Lanczos-Gagliano method) we can identify each important spectral peak obtained by the Lanczos-Gagliano method to be a certain Bethe-ansatz elementary excitation in the Hubbard model language (holon, triplet spin or singlet spin excitations, for example) and then estimate their relative weights for comparison. Our results obtained by this technique are consistent with the quantum Monte Carlo calculations  where appropriate.

#### 1 Bethe-ansatz equations

It is well-known that the 1D Hubbard model can be solved exactly  by the Bethe-ansatz method. The eigenvalue equation of Eq. (20) is proved to be identical to solving the coupled system of equations (under periodic boundary condition)

$`e^{ik_jL}={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{M}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}k_j\lambda _\alpha +iU/4}{\mathrm{sin}k_j\lambda _\alpha iU/4}}`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\alpha \mathrm{sin}k_j+iU/4}{\lambda _\alpha \mathrm{sin}k_jiU/4}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta =1}{\overset{M}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\beta +iU/2}{\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\beta iU/2}},`$ (32)
where $`L(N)`$ is the total number of sites(electrons) and $`M`$ is the number of down-spin electrons ($`MN/2`$). The pseudo-momentum, $`\{k_j\}`$, and spin rapidities, $`\{\lambda _\alpha \}`$, are generally complex variables to be solved and related to the physical states of energy, $`E`$, and momentum, $`p`$, by

$$E=2t\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{cos}k_j,$$
(33)
and

$$p=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}k_j.$$
(34)
If the $`k_j`$’s and $`\lambda _\alpha `$’s are all real, the identity of the phases in Eqs. (21)-(23) can be obtained by taking the logarithm. Then we have the following well known results,

$$Lk_j=2\pi I_j+2\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{M}{}}\mathrm{tan}^1\left(\frac{\lambda _\alpha \mathrm{sin}k_j}{U/4}\right)$$
(35)
$`2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{tan}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\alpha \mathrm{sin}k_j}{U/4}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi J_\alpha `$ (37)
$`+2{\displaystyle \underset{\beta =1}{\overset{M}{}}}\mathrm{tan}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\beta }{U/2}}\right)`$
where the quantum numbers, $`\{I_j\}`$, are all distinct from each other and are integers if $`M`$ is even and are half-odd integers if $`M`$ is odd, and are only defined in $`|I_j|L`$. Similarly, the set $`\{J_\alpha \}`$ are all distinct and are integers if $`NM`$ is odd and half-odd integers if $`NM`$ is even. The value of $`\{J_\alpha \}`$ is restricted by $`|J_\alpha |<(NM+1)/2`$. Generally, it is not hard to use the Bethe-ansatz equations to solve large size systems. In the thermodynamic limit, $`L\mathrm{}`$, one can find the equivalent linear integral equations for the density of $`k`$’s and $`\lambda `$’s on the real axis . But we will only focus here on the finite size systems in order to compare the Bethe-ansatz results with the results of the Lanczos-Gagliano method, which is necessarily computationally restricted to small system sizes.

To solve these Bethe-ansatz equations, we first have to define the proper quantum numbers, $`\{I_j\}`$ and $`\{J_\alpha \}`$; then solve Eqs. (25)-(26) to get $`k_j`$’s and $`\lambda _\alpha `$’s, and then get the momentum, $`p`$, and the energy, $`E`$, of that state specified by those quantum numbers. Here we present the quantum number structures of the ground state and two low lying excited state, the ”$`4k_F`$” singlet states, the ”$`2k_F`$” triplet states, and the ”$`2k_F`$” singlet states as first named by Schultz . The first two have $`k`$’s and $`\lambda `$’s all real in Eqs. (25)-(26), while the last one has one pair of complex $`\lambda `$’s in Eqs. (23)-(24)

Ground state: It is easy to see that the ground state is nondegenerate only if $`N`$ is of the form $`4m+2`$ (m is an integer). In the following, we just study the nondegenerate case for simplicity. Considering the essential symmetries, one can write the ground state quantum number satisfying the above restrictions to be

$`\{I_j\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{(N1)/2,\mathrm{},(N1)/2\},`$ (38)
$`\{J_\alpha \}`$ $`=`$ $`\{(N/21)/2,\mathrm{},(N/21)/2\}.`$ (39)
$`4k_F`$” singlet state (holon excitation): The first simplest excited states are obtained by removing one of the momentum quantum numbers, $`(N1)/2+i_0`$, in $`\{I_j\}`$ and adding a ”new” one at $`(N1)/2+I_0`$ outside the ground state sequence. All other momentum quantum numbers and spin quantum numbers are kept the same as in the ground state structure. Therefore, the new sequence of $`\{I_j\}`$ is

$`\{I_j\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{(N1)/2,\mathrm{},(N1)/2+i_01,`$ (42)
$`(N1)/2+i_0+1,\mathrm{},(N1)/2,`$
$`(N1)/2+I_0\},`$
and the $`\{J_\alpha \}`$ is the same as the ground state in Eq. (28). Therefore, there are two free parameters, $`i_0`$ and $`I_0`$, for this type of excitations. In this paper, we use $`(i_0,I_0)`$ to denote this excitation state. According to Schultz , they are named ”$`4k_F`$” singlet states due to their energy minimum at $`k=4k_F`$ in their dispersion spectrum. In the literature, these states are also called ”particle-hole excitation” or ”holon” excitation . In the rest of this paper, we will call them ”holon” excitations for simplicity. (This is related to the CDE of our earlier sections.)

$`2k_F`$” triplet state (triplet spinon excitation): Next we consider the excitations of the $`J`$’s with all $`\lambda `$’s and $`k`$’s real. This is possible only if $`M<N/2`$. The simplest excitations of this type are obtained by considering $`M=N/21`$. The total spin of the system is $`S=1`$, so we expect this excitation to be related to a triplet spin excitation. The quantum numbers of these states are

$`\{I_j\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{N/2+1,\mathrm{},N/2+i_01,`$ (44)
$`N/2+i_0+1,\mathrm{},N/2,N/2+I_0\},`$
$`J_1`$ $`=`$ $`N/4+\delta _{\alpha _1,1},`$ (45)
$`J_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`J_{\alpha 1}+1+\delta _{\alpha ,\alpha _1}+\delta _{\alpha ,\alpha _2},`$ (46)
where $`\alpha =2,\mathrm{},M`$ and $`1\alpha _1<\alpha _2M+2`$. Here $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ are the free parameters in the spin quantum number, $`\{J_\alpha \}`$, and $`i_0`$ and $`I_0`$ are the two parameters in momentum quantum number, $`\{I_j\}`$. From Eqs. (23)-(26), we can see that $`i_0`$ and $`I_0`$ shift the total momentum and energy of the spectrum created by the spin excitation in $`\{J_\alpha \}`$. In the following calculation, we use ($`i_0,I_0,\alpha _1,\alpha _2`$) to denote these states in the spectrum. These excitations are called ”$`2k_F`$” triplet states because its minimum energy is at $`k=2k_F`$. In the rest of this paper, we will call them ”triplet spinon” for simplicity. (This is related to the SDE of the earlier sections.)

$`2k_F`$” singlet state (singlet spinon excitation). The third possible elementary excitations are from the complex solutions of Bethe-ansatz equations, Eqs. (21)-(22). Spin singlet states ($`M=N/2`$ and then $`S=0`$) are obtained by having one pair of the complex conjugate, $`\lambda _\pm =\lambda _R\pm \lambda _I`$ with all other $`k`$’s and $`\lambda `$’s real. The new set of Bethe-ansatz equations are obtained to be

$`Lk_j`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi I_j+2{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \alpha _1,\alpha _2}{\overset{M}{}}}\mathrm{tan}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\alpha \mathrm{sin}k_j}{U/4}}\right)`$ (47)
$`+`$ $`2\left[\mathrm{tan}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _R\mathrm{sin}k_j}{U/4\lambda _I}}\right)+\mathrm{tan}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _R\mathrm{sin}k_j}{U/4+\lambda _I}}\right)\right]`$ (52)
$`2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{tan}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\alpha \mathrm{sin}k_j}{U/4}}\right)=2\pi J_\alpha `$
$`+2{\displaystyle \underset{\beta \alpha _1,\alpha _2}{\overset{M}{}}}\mathrm{tan}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\beta }{U/2}}\right)`$
$`+2\left[\mathrm{tan}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\alpha \lambda _R}{U/2\lambda _I}}\right)+\mathrm{tan}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\alpha \lambda _R}{U/2+\lambda _I}}\right)\right],`$
where $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$ and $`\alpha =1,2,\mathrm{},M`$, but $`\alpha \alpha _1,\alpha _2`$. The two equations for the complex $`\lambda _\pm `$ are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda _R\mathrm{sin}k_j)^2+(U/4+\lambda _I)^2}{(\lambda _R\mathrm{sin}k_j)^2+(U/4\lambda _I)^2}}\right)`$ (53)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\beta \alpha _1,\alpha _2}{\overset{M}{}}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda _R\lambda _\beta )^2+(U/2+\lambda _I)^2}{(\lambda _R\lambda _\beta )^2+(U/2\lambda _I)^2}}\right)`$ (54)
$`+\mathrm{log}\left(\left|{\displaystyle \frac{4\lambda _I+U}{4\lambda _IU}}\right|\right)`$ (55)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left[\mathrm{tan}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _R\mathrm{sin}k_j}{U/4+\lambda _I}}\right)+\mathrm{tan}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _R\mathrm{sin}k_j}{U/4\lambda _I}}\right)\right]`$ (56)
$`=2\pi J`$ (57)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\beta \alpha _1,\alpha _2}{\overset{M}{}}}\left[\mathrm{tan}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _R\lambda _\beta }{U/2+\lambda _I}}\right)+\mathrm{tan}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _R\lambda _\beta }{U/2\lambda _I}}\right)\right].`$ (58)
where

$$J=\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{integer}\hfill & \{\begin{array}{cc}\text{if }|\lambda _I|>U/4\text{, and }NM\text{ is even}\hfill & \\ \text{or if }|\lambda _I|<U/4\text{, and }NM\text{ is odd}\hfill & \end{array}\hfill \\ \text{half odd integer}\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(60)
As for the quantum number, $`\{I_j\}`$ and $`\{J_\alpha \}`$, in the singlet states, we choose them to be the same as the ground state, Eqs. (27)-(28), except for the two free ”holes” at $`J_{\alpha _1}`$ and $`J_{\alpha _2}`$, whose related spin quantum numbers, $`\lambda _{\alpha _1}`$ and $`\lambda _{\alpha _2}`$ are replaced by the pair of complex conjugate, $`\lambda _\pm =\lambda _R\pm \lambda _I`$. Eqs. (33)-(34) are usually too complex to give a nontrivial solution because the usual numerical iteration method will converge to the trivial $`\lambda _I=0`$ solution. But one can simplify these equations by taking $`\lambda _I=U/4`$ and one $`k_j`$ satisfying $`\mathrm{sin}k_j=\lambda _R`$, so that Eq. (33) could be neglected, and all the terms containing $`\mathrm{tan}^1[(\lambda _R\mathrm{sin}k_j)/(U/4\lambda _I)]`$ in Eq. (34) contribute a phase $`\pm \pi `$. The phase number, $`J`$, is set to make the total phase shift (including those from $`\mathrm{tan}^1[(\lambda _R\mathrm{sin}k_j)/(U/4\lambda _I)]`$) to be zero in the calculation.

The spin singlet excitations have a dispersion similar to the triplet ones. Here we could use $`(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)`$ as the quantum number to define these states. In the finite size system with repulsive interaction, $`U`$, the singlet states have higher energy than the triplet ones, but they will become degenerate in energy as we go to the thermodynamic limit ($`L\mathrm{}`$, and $`n`$=constant). In the experiment, the spin triplet excitations (i.e. SDE) are observed in the depolarized RRS spectra where a net spin-flip occurs, while the singlet states are observed in the polarized spectra, which involve no net spin-flip.

As mentioned in the beginning of this section, the Bethe-ansatz method does not, in general, provide the spectral weights for their solutions. Therefore, the three elementary excitations above may not be equally important from the experimental point of view, i.e. they may carry very different spectral weights (and some may even be unobservable in the experimental spectra). All we know from the Bethe-ansatz solutions are the existence and the dispersion of these excitations but $`not`$ their spectral weights. We also know that these are allowed solutions of the HM just as the SPE is an allowed solution of the FL-RPA model (but not the LL model). Comparing the mode spectral weights calculated by Lanczos-Gagliano method we discuss next, we calculate the relative spectral weights of these solutions and then study their interaction dependence.

#### 2 Lanczos-Gagliano method

In this paper Lanczos-Gagliano method means the combination of two important techniques in the lattice model. The standard Lanczos method is to construct an $`L\times L`$ matrix representation for the tridiagonal Hamiltonian, like Eq. (20), and then directly diagonalize it to get the eigenvalues, $`E_n`$, and eigenfunctions, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$, which could be used to do further calculations, such as obtaining spectral weights. But since only ground state energy and wave function are needed in calculating the correlation function by using the Gagliano’s method (see below), we use a simpler but more efficient way, the modified Lanczos method, to calculate the ground state energy and wave function. This method has been analyzed and discussed in detail in references , and here we only provide a brief review for the sake of completeness.

In the modified Lanczos method, we first present $`H`$ in a $`2\times 2`$ matrix in the basis of $`\psi _0`$ and $`\psi _1`$, which are both normalized and orthogonal with each other by setting

$$\psi _1=\frac{H\psi _0H\psi _0}{(H^2H^2)^{1/2}}.$$
(61)
where $`\psi _0`$ could be an arbitrary trial wave function, and $`H^n\psi _0|H^n|\psi _0`$. After diagonalizing the $`2\times 2`$ matrix representation of $`H`$, we can get an eigenenergy, $`\epsilon _0`$, and a wave function, $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_0`$ (subscript $`0`$ means the lower energy eigenstate). This $`\epsilon _0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_0`$ are then a better approximation to $`E_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ than the initial trial state, $`H`$ and $`\psi _0`$. Using the same process by iterationally replacing $`\psi _0`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_0`$ to construct a new $`2\times 2`$ matrix representation for $`H`$, we will then get a more accurate approximation to the ground state energy and wave function simply by diagonalizing the $`2\times 2`$ matrix.

The Gagliano’s method  is to use an infinite continued fraction representation to calculate a general dynamic correlation function, $`\chi _A(q,\omega )`$, where $`A`$ could be any operator. Its advantage is that one just needs the ground state information to get the dynamical results extremely efficiently in a very simple and straightforward way. The convergence and accuracy of the calculation is very good compared with the much more time consuming exact diagonalization method . In this paper, we want to study the charge density correlation function, $`\chi _\rho (q,\omega )`$, and the spin density correlation function, $`\chi _\sigma (q,\omega )`$. Their corresponding operators, $`A`$’s, are respectively defined as

$$A(q)=\rho (q)\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{l,\sigma }{\overset{L}{}}e^{iql}\left(c_{l,\sigma }^{}c_{l,\sigma }n\right),$$
(62)
and

$$A(q)=\sigma (q)\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{l,\sigma }{\overset{L}{}}e^{iql}\sigma c_{l,\sigma }^{}c_{l,\sigma },$$
(63)
where $`n=N/L`$ is the average density. The Gagliano’s method introduces a function, $`G_A(Z)`$, in the following formula to calculate the correlation function

$`\chi _A(q,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_0|A^{}(q)|\mathrm{\Phi }_n\mathrm{\Phi }_n|A(q)|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ (65)
$`\times \delta (\omega (E_nE_0))`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\mathrm{Im}G_A(\omega +E_0+i\gamma ),`$ (66)
where $`\gamma `$ is a (small) phenomenological broadening factor, and the function, $`G_A`$ is given by

$`G_A(Z)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0|A^{}(q)(ZH)^1A(q)|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ (67)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0|A^{}(q)A(q)|\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{Za_0\frac{b_1^2}{Za_1{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{b_2^2}{Z\mathrm{}}}}}}.`$ (68)
The coefficients, $`\{a_n\}`$ and $`\{b_n\}`$ are defined by generating a set of orthogonal states with the following iteration formulae,

$`|f_0`$ $`=`$ $`A(q)|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ (69)
$`|f_{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`H|f_na_n|f_nb_n^2|f_{n1}`$ (70)
$`a_n`$ $`=`$ $`f_n|H|f_n/f_n|f_n`$ (71)
$`b_{n+1}^2`$ $`=`$ $`f_{n+1}|f_{n+1}/f_n|f_n,\mathrm{and}b_0=\mathit{0}.`$ (72)
Therefore, after we get $`E_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ from the modified Lanczos method, we can calculate $`\{a_n\}`$ and $`\{b_n\}`$ iteratively and then obtain the correlation function $`\chi _\rho (q,\omega )`$ and $`\chi _\sigma (q,\omega )`$ by using Eqs. (39)-(44). Our calculation of the expectation value is done in the zero temperature ground state of the system. The method may be easily generalized to finite temperatures , which is, however, unnecessary for our purpose of studying the 1D excitation spectra.

### B Results and discussion

We study the 1D Hubbard chain with three different densities, $`n=N/L=1/3`$ for 6 electrons in 18 sites, $`n=1/2`$ for 6 electrons in 12 sites, and $`n=5/6`$ for 10 electrons in 12 sites. (Note that the usual filling factor of the system is $`n/2`$ since our definition of density does not include spin.) The size of the Hubbard chain is dictated here entirely by computer memory restrictions in calculating the correlation function via the Lanczos-Gagliano method. We keep the electron number to be $`4m+2`$ with $`m`$ an integer in order to have a nondegenerate and zero-momentum ground state under the periodic boundary condition. Throughout our calculations, we set the broadening factor, $`\gamma `$ in Eq. (40), to be 0.01$`t`$ (where $`t`$ is the nearest-neighbor hopping amplitude in Eq. (20)) and use the modified Lanczos method to calculate the ground state energy iterationally until convergence to within less than $`0.1\%`$ in the ground state energy is reached. We also truncate the infinite continuous fraction in Eq. (41) at 25-27th order terms, which gives us good convergent results in the calculation.

In the following, we will first discuss the results related to the polarized spectrum, which involves no net spin-flip in the system, by using the two methods mentioned above at a fixed interaction strength, $`U/t=3`$. Then we consider the depolarized spectrum under the same conditions. Finally we discuss their interaction, $`U`$, dependence by varying $`U/t`$ in our calculations. In the discussion below the terms ”resonance” or ”resonance peaks” refer to the Lanczos-Gagliano calculations.

#### 1 Polarized spectrum analysis

We compare the dispersion of the charge density excitation with the dispersions of the ”$`4k_F`$” singlet states (holon) and the ”$`2k_F`$” singlet states (singlet spinon) given by the solutions of the Bethe-ansatz equations, because these two are the low lying elementary spinless ($`S=0`$) excitations of the 1D Hubbard model and as such should correspond to the polarized spectrum. We will also study their relative spectral weights. Both lower density ($`n=1/3`$) and higher density ($`n=5/6`$) results are shown together (Fig. 6-9) for further discussion.

In Fig. 6(a), we show the spectral dispersion obtained by the poles of the imaginary part of the charge density correlation function. The doping density is $`n=1/3`$ for 6 electrons in 18 sites in the 1D Hubbard chain with periodic boundary conditions. The center of each open diamond represents the position of the pole, and its area is proportional to the spectral weight of that excitation. In the same figure, the dispersions of the holon (star) and singlet spinon (open square) excitations given by the solutions of Bethe-ansatz equations are also shown for comparison. Several features could be noted from Fig. 6: (i) the excitation peaks of the charge density correlation function have a linear dispersion in the long wavelength limit ($`qk_F=\pi /6`$) and its slope gives the velocity of charge density excitation of 1D Hubbard model. (ii) The resonance peaks form a wing upto the large momentum region (i.e. low energy excitations correspond to the low momentum and high ones to high momentum), with a maximum energy $`\omega =4t`$ at $`q=\pi `$. (iii) The sizes of the diamonds, which represent their spectral weights, show that the peaks at higher energy generally have greater spectral weights than the ones at lower energies at the same momentum (i.e. spectral weights are greater for peaks at higher energies). Therefore one could see by eye a sine-like curve at the upper edge of the resonance wing with a maximum at $`\omega =4t`$, and this observation is consistent with the results from quantum Monte Carlo simulations on larger system . (iv) There are no excitation states for singlet spinons at small $`q=\pi /9`$. This implies that the singlet spinon of the 1D Hubbard model is not allowed for momentum smaller than $`2\times 2\pi /L`$, where $`2\pi /L`$ is the momentum scale of this finite size ($`L`$) system. This follows from the fact that the singlet state must be excited by a pair of complex conjugate $`\lambda _\pm `$ in Eqs. (21)-(22), which is at least a two-particle excitation, so that the minimum momentum required is $`2\times 2\pi /L`$. (v) One interesting feature is that there are clearly two energy minima at $`q=2k_F=\pi /3`$ and $`q=4k_F=2\pi /3`$ in the spectrum. Comparing these resonance peaks with the solutions given by Bethe-ansatz equations, we find that the holon excitations cover almost exactly the same region including the energy minimum at $`4k_F`$ except for the lower-lying peaks around $`2k_F`$, where the singlet spinon just matches those peaks. In other words, we could reasonably claim that the most dominant features of the resonance peaks given by the charge density correlation function arise from a combination of holon and singlet spinon excitations in the 1D Hubbard model. This result could not be trivially obtained either by solving Bethe-ansatz equations or by calculating the charge density correlation function alone, as mentioned in the introduction — one must combine the two techniques to come to this conclusion. Other spin singlet excitations given by the solutions of Bethe-ansatz equations (for example, 2 pairs of complex $`\lambda `$’s in Eqs. (21)-(22)), carry very small spectral weights because no other significant resonance peaks are found in this dispersion spectra, except for some trivial ones. In the thermodynamic limit, we expect that only the $`4k_F`$ holon and $`2k_F`$ singlet spinon will have finite spectral weights and could be interpreted as the ”charge density excitation” and ”single particle excitation” in the RRS spectra respectively when comparing with the experiments  as we mentioned in the earlier sections. We discuss this issue further later in this paper.

In Fig. 6(b), we show the imaginary part of the charge density correlation function of the same system at $`q=2\pi /9`$. It shows that singlet spinons have a relatively small, but non-negligible weight, compared with the weight of the dominant holon excitations. Their relative spectral weight ratio (singlet spinon/holon) is less than 0.1. Similar results are also obtained in the systems of 6 electrons in 12 sites, $`n=1/2`$, which are not shown in this paper.

In Fig. 7(a), we show the dispersion of the resonant poles of the charge density correlation function of 10 electrons in 12 sites ($`n=5/6`$). Here the holon excitations form a more narrow wing than in the lower density system, but the basic shape of the dominant curve is almost the same. Below this curve, the singlet spinon occupies almost the whole resonance region. Since $`4k_F=5\pi /3`$ in this high density system, we cannot see the $`4k_F`$ energy minimum in this figure (actually, the gap of this energy minimum is very large in this finite system, but will go to zero in the thermodynamic limit ). But one could still see the energy minimum of the singlet spinon at $`2k_F=5\pi /60.833\pi `$ in Fig. 7(a). There is a notable feature in these results at energies above the holon excitations: there are some additional states, having an energy gap equal to $`U(=3t)`$ and a maximum energy greater than $`4t`$ at $`q=\pi `$ in this high density situation. These states (solitons) must arise from the double occupancy of the electrons in the Hubbard model, which consequently explains their high energy status. Quantum Monte Carlo method, to the best of our knowledge, does not provide any information about these high energy double occupancy states at the same density $`n=5/6`$ in the literature . From the Bethe-ansatz equations point of view, however, these states should be obtained by taking the complex momentum, $`k_j`$, solutions in Eqs. (21)-(22) , whether in the high or the low density system. Once again, we see the importance of studying the spectral weights of the Bethe-ansatz solutions by comparing them to the correlation function results so that one could tell the most realistic and physically meaningful states. Just having the solutions, without much idea about their spectral weights, is not useful in determining the experimental and/or physical relevance of the particular excitations. Therefore, as shown in Fig. 7(b), the three most important contributions to the charge density correlator arise from singlet spinon, holon, and soliton excitations (double occupancy excitations), from lower energy to higher energy regime respectively in the 1D Hubbard chain. Their relative spectral weights show that the singlet spinon has the smallest weight, and it could be shown that there are no gapless holon and singlet spinon excitations in the half-filling ($`n=1`$) 1D Hubbard model systems, where the soliton (double occupancy excitations) and other higher energy states dominate the excitation spectrum.

#### 2 Depolarized spectrum analysis

In Fig. 8(a), we show the resonance dispersion spectrum of the spin density correlation function, $`\sigma \sigma `$, of the low density system (6 electrons in 18 sites). The triplet spinon excitation spectrum given by the solutions of Bethe-ansatz equations is also presented for comparison. Several features are found: (i) in the long wavelength limit, the resonant poles have a linear dispersion, whose slope gives the velocity of the spin density excitation. One could easily see that this velocity is always smaller than the velocity of the charge density excitations at the same density. This is consistent with result of previous work . (ii) The resonance poles form a wing upto the large momentum region ($`q\pi `$), whose maximum excitation energy is below $`4t`$. (iii) Unlike the results for the charge density correlation function in Fig. 8(a), the most dominant poles are located in the lower energy part of the resonance wing, which correspond to the triplet state without any excitations in $`\{I_j\}`$, and therefore is related to the lowest energy ones in our calculation. (iv) The resonance spectrum has an energy minimum at $`2k_F`$. Compared to the triplet solutions of Bethe-ansatz equations, the triplet spinon excitation spectrum has only three peaks matching the resonance poles of the largest spectral weight at their momentum values ($`q=\pi /9,2\pi /9,`$ and $`3\pi /9`$), and the other three match the poles of relatively much weaker states (not visible in Fig. 8(a), but distinguishable in the absorption spectrum shown in Fig. 8(b)). This result demonstrates that the spectral weights of elementary excitations could be very different even if they result from the same type of the Bethe-ansatz solution. Fig. 9 shows the dispersion relation of the spin density correlator of the large density system ($`n=5/6`$) and the corresponding triplet spinon excitations by the Bethe-ansatz solutions are also shown.

#### 3 Interaction dependence

In this section, focusing on the lower density system ($`L=18`$ and $`N=6`$) and a fixed momentum ($`k=2\pi /9`$), we study the mode dispersion and spectral weight of these excitations in a range of finite interaction ($`U/t10`$) to obtain the interaction dependence of the excitation spectra. First, we study the polarized spectrum given by the imaginary part of the charge density correlation function, $`\rho \rho `$ (shown in Fig. 10(a)). Then we compare the energy of the resonance peaks in the series of spectra with the Bethe-ansatz results (Fig. 10(b)), and discuss the interaction dependence of the mode velocity (Fig. 10(c)). Finally we discuss the interaction dependence of the spectral weight for each elementary excitation (Fig. 11).

In Fig. 10(a), there are basically three peaks in the typical structure of the polarized spectrum, and we can identify them as the singlet spinon, the second and the first holon excitation (from lower to higher energy) by explicitly comparing with the energy given by the Bethe-ansatz solution in Fig. 6(a). Using the notation introduced in Sec. IV-A1, the singlet spinon is the state (2,3), while the holon I and II states are (6,2) and (5,1) respectively. Several interesting features can be found in Fig. 10(a): (i) in the noninteracting ($`U=0`$) case, there are only two equal weight poles, which could be understood as the two single particle (electron and hole) excitations around Fermi surface, $`k=k_F`$. (ii) When finite interaction is turned on, there is an additional excitation. According to the comparison of dispersion relations, both the new peak and the higher energy peak should be interpreted as holon excitations (called holon II and holon I respectively, corresponding to different $`\{I_j\}`$’s). (iii) The singlet spinon excitation (shown in Fig. 10(a)) has a rapidly decreasing spectral weight with increasing interaction, and disappears totally as $`U/t>5.0`$. (iv) The two holon excitations shift to higher energy as $`U`$ increases, and maintain almost the same spectral weight except one more peak appears as $`U/t8.0`$ (see Fig. 10(a)). Above $`U/t=8.0`$, the appearance of the new small peak affects both the spectral weight and excitation energy of the holon II excitations (see Figs. 10(b) and 11(a)). There are basically two possible interpretations for this result. One is that this peak does not represent real excitations, but may be arising spuriously from the inaccuracy of the finite truncated series or finite iteration used in the Lanczos-Gagliano method in the large $`U`$ range (see Eq. (41) and the discussion in the last section). Another possible reason is that it may arise from the higher energy excitation states of unknown origin, which are also obtainable from the Bethe-ansatz solutions, but whose strength is visible only when the interaction strength is large enough. We will not discuss this anomalous peak any further in this paper since this falls outside the scope of our main interest.

In Fig. 10(c), we plot the excitation velocity, which is defined to be

$$v\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E(q)}{\mathrm{\Delta }q}_{q0^+},$$
(73)
as a function of interaction strength. We find that when the interaction is weak ($`U/t1`$), the two (holon and singlet spinon) excitations are almost degenerate, while their relative spectral weights change a lot (see Fig. 11(a)) as a function of $`U/t`$. When $`U/t`$ increases, the holon has greater excitation energy and hence velocity, but the velocity of the singlet spinon decreases fast. This result holds even in the thermodynamic limit.

In Fig. 10(b), we see more clearly that the energies of the three elementary excitations are only weakly dependent on the interaction for small $`U`$, but strongly dependent on $`U`$ for large $`U`$. In Fig. 11(b), we have a logarithmic scale in the spectral weight dependence with respect to the interaction in small $`U/t`$ range ($`U/t<1.0`$). By calculating the slope of these data, we find that the spectral weight of holon I, $`S_{\mathrm{holon}\mathrm{I}}`$, is almost a constant in the smaller interaction range ($`U<0.5t`$), and then weakly decreases for higher $`U`$. However, the spectral weight of holon II has a stronger power-law behavior, $`S_{\mathrm{holon}\mathrm{II}}U^{1.635}`$. Thus the two holon excitations differ a great deal in their interaction dependence of their respective spectral weights.

In Fig. 12(a) we show the calculated depolarized spectra by taking the imaginary part of spin density correlation function, $`\sigma \sigma `$ for various interaction strengths. In the noninteracting case, the spectrum is the same as the polarized one in Fig. 6(a) due to spin rotational symmetry. But with increasing interaction strength both triplet spinon peaks move to lower energy in contrast to the polarized spectra. Compared with the Bethe-ansatz results in Fig. 12(b), the lower/higher energy peak, triplet spinon I/II, is the state denoted by (6,0,1,3)/(6,1,2,3). The excitation energy of the triplet spinon we obtain by the Lanczos-Gagliano method agrees well with the Bethe-ansatz result in general except that the energy of the triplet spinon II does not seem to agree well when the interaction is larger than $`U/t=3`$. From the result in Fig. 12(a), we can see that this may be due to the appearance of another excitation peak in the Lanczos-Gagliano spectra, which is not represented in our Bethe-ansatz solutions. Based on these results we conclude that the triplet spinon excitations are likely to be the dominant contributions in the depolarized spectra. In Fig. 13, we show the interaction dependence of the spectral weights of the two triplet spinon excitations. The triplet spinon I(II) has a maximum(minimum) spectral weight at some finite interaction, $`U/t=34`$, and the interaction dependence of the spectral weight is nontrivial. This result demonstrates the importance of the intermediate interaction strength of the 1D Hubbard model.

### C Discussion

We systematically study the elementary excitations of 1D Hubbard model by combining the techniques of the exact Bethe-ansatz equations for the mode dispersion and the Lanczos-Gagliano method based spectral weight calculation of the correlation functions. Three types of elementary excitations, holon, singlet spinon, and triplet spinon excitations, are studied at zero temperature and different densities ($`n`$=5/6, 1/2 and 1/3) and different interaction strength, $`U`$. We first compare the energy-momentum dispersion relations of these excitations obtained by both methods and then study the mode spectral weights in different situations. The comparison between Bethe-ansatz solutions and resonance peaks of the Lanczos-Gagliano correlation function gives us some important results: (i) the holon and the singlet spinon excitation states show up together in the charge density correlation spectra. Holon states have higher energy with an energy minimum at $`k=4k_F`$ while the singlet spinons lie in the lower energy region with an energy minimum at $`k=2k_F`$. There are no other states of prominent spectral weights except the gapped double occupancy (soliton) states near half filling. This result connects the theoretical calculation of the 1D Hubbard model with observable physical quantities — in particular, these are the only two modes which are likely to show up in the polarized Raman scattering experiment probing the charge density excitation spectra. Another implication of this result is that one can interpret the Bethe-ansatz quantum numbers, $`\{I_j\}`$ and $`\{J_\alpha \}`$, as the ones of collective excitations. But our spectral weight analysis shows that most of the Bethe ansatz solutions for the 1D Hubbard chain do not have any observable contributions to the real physical quantities because they carry essentially no spectral weights. (ii) The excitation holon II has a power-law behavior in its spectral weight with respect to the interaction strength in the small $`U/t`$ region, while the holon I has almost interaction-independent spectral weight (here the holon I/II could be generalized to represent the $`4k_F`$-singlet excitations having holes in the edge/middle of the charge quantum number, $`\{I_j\}`$). An interesting problem for further research is to obtain an analytic formula for the exponent of the holon II excitation. This will relate to the small interaction expansion of Bethe ansatz equations and wave functions, which have not yet been explored much in the literature. When the interaction strength increases, on the other hand, the spectral weights of these two holons become equal as shown in Fig. 10(a). (iii) As for the singlet spinons, we find that their spectral weights decrease to zero very fast (exponentially) as $`U`$ increases. This could be understood from the fact that the on-site repulsive interaction, $`U`$, prevents the formation of the symmetric electron orbital wave functions, which must accompany the antisymmetric spin singlet wave function, thus suppressing the singlet spectral weight for large $`U`$. (iv) From the imaginary part of the spin density correlation functions we find that the triplet spinon is the only low energy spin excitation in the long wavelength limit. There is no other excitation of important spectral weights in this region. (v) The spectral weight study shows that among many triplet spinon excitation states, only those with some some special quantum numbers could possibly have relatively greater weights at a given momentum (see Fig. 8(a) and the text related to that) for finite interaction strength, $`U/t`$. Others have very small or trivial weights, which are not physically significant. (vi) Finally the interaction dependence of the spectral weights of the triplet spinon I and II differs very much in the intermediate interaction range, but becomes similar in magnitude in both the weakly interacting and the strongly interacting situations. This shows the subtle complications in interpreting various excitation modes in the 1D Hubbard model for intermediate interaction strength (say $`U/t3`$). Further research is needed to provide a more complete understanding of this intermediate interaction region, and our results should be considered a preliminary investigation.

## V CONCLUSION

In this paper, we calculate the 1D charge and spin density correlation functions (Eqs. (3) and (4)), which respectively correspond to the polarized and the depolarized Raman scattering spectra, in three different models: Fermi liquid-RPA model, the Luttinger liquid model, and the Hubbard model. Fermi liquid results (in RPA) show a strong CDE mode (plasmon) with a very weak SPE mode in the polarized spectra, while the Luttinger liquid results show the bosonic collective excitation (CDE or plasmon) as the only mode in the polarized spectra without any SPE. The 1D Hubbard model results show that both holon and singlet spinon excitations contribute to the polarized spectra, and we study their relative spectral weights and interaction dependence in detail. Note that the Hubbard model being a lattice model, its applicability to the RRS experiments in 1D semiconductor quantum wires (which are continuum systems) is necessarily limited and is at best qualitative.

Focusing on the polarized RRS calculations, we can compare the lattice HM results with the continuum FL-RPA and LL results in the context of experimental observations in 1D QWR systems . According to the solutions of the HM Bethe-ansatz equations, we find that the RRS spectrum is best interpreted as the combination of holon and singlet spinon excitations as well as the CDE and ”SPE” (or ”SSE”, i.e. the spin singlet excitations) in the high and low energy regions respectively. Therefore, the numerical ratio of spectral weights of the singlet spinons to the holons should be interpreted as the ratio of the SSE(SPE) spectral weight with respect to the CDE spectral weight. The experimental results show that SPE has almost the same spectral weight as the CDE, i.e. this ratio is almost unity, whereas in our calculation, this ratio is much smaller than unity in the intermediate interaction range ($`U/t>0.5`$). For weak interactions ($`U/t<0.5`$) it seems from Fig. 11 that SSE could have comparable weight to CDE. But this raises a serious problem with respect to the experimental results , which find the plasmon velocity to be at least two times greater than the Fermi velocity in the experimental long wavelength regime, while this is not true for the 1D Hubbard chain unless $`U/t>1`$ as seen from Fig. 10(c). Thus the plasmon dispersion (if we demand agreement between HM and the experimental results) indicates the appropriate interaction range in the HM to be $`U/t>1`$, where our calculated SSE/CDE spectral weight ratio is extremely small, in contrast to the experimental finding. Therefore, we can conclude that the 1D Hubbard model results can not explain the experimental data consistently for both the mode dispersion and the spectral weight, although the lattice nature of the Hubbard model makes a comparison with QWR experiments somewhat misleading. Moreover we note that in the Hubbard model, the on-site interaction, $`U`$, is short-ranged (in fact, zero range), and operates only between opposite spins at the same site. We therefore expect that the spectral weight of the singlet spinon is (perhaps strongly) overestimated in the Hubbard model compared with the Coulomb interaction (which is explicitly spin-independent) case. We believe the spectral weight of SSE (or SPE) in a continuum interacting model should be even less than that in the finite-sized Hubbard model here, just as we find in the RPA (or the HA) results in the FL theory where the mode dispersion (both for CDE and SPE) agrees well with experiments, but the spectral weight for the SPE is far too weak in the theory. Based on this logic our results seem to rule out the interpretation that the SSE shows up as the additional anomalous SPE mode in the RRS spectrum. The singlet spin excitation according to our analysis could not provide sufficiently large spectral weights in order to quantitatively explain the large spectral weight in the so-called SPE mode seen in the experimental RRS spectroscopy of 1D QWR systems. This conclusion, as emphasized before, only applies to the NRS nature of our theory — if the valence band and the resonant nature of RRS experiments is playing an important role, as likely , then the theory needs to take resonance into account.

In summary, we systematically calculate the charge density (polarized spectra) and the spin density correlation (depolarized spectra) functions of one-dimensional systems in three different models: Fermi liquid model, Luttinger liquid model, and Hubbard model. In the polarized spectra, we find that the FL model shows a strong collective charge density excitations at plasmon energy and a relatively weak single particle excitation at $`\omega =qv_F`$, while the LL model shows one bosonic (plasmon/CDE) excitation only. Comparing the plasmon excitation energy of FL model and the bosonic excitation of LL model (see Eqs. (11) and (17)) we find these two excitations are identical, and the small SPE peak in FL model arises from the finite curvature effect of electron energy dispersion at the Fermi point. In the Hubbard model, however, two excitations, holons and singlet spinons, show up together in the polarized spectra. We show that the holon excitations are actually the CDE in FL model or the bosonic excitation in LL model, while the singlet spinons in the HM arise from the spin degree of freedom and finite dispersion curvature at Fermi point. If we compare the spectral weights of the lower energy excitations (SPE of FL model/no peak in LL model/singlet spinons in Hubbard model) and the weights of the higher energy excitations (CDE in FL model/boson peak in LL model/holons in Hubbard model), we find that the higher energy excitations always have (much) larger spectral weight than the lower energy ones in all models. This shows that the equal weight two-peak structure observed in the experiments  could not be explained by the nonresonant Raman scattering mechanism, no matter how one interprets the lower energy excitations to be SPE or SSE. Recent theoretical work  on resonant Raman scattering spectroscopy indicates that the low energy SPE feature may be a purely band structure effect arising from the participation of the valence band in the resonant scattering process. This also explains why this anomalous peak shows up in all dimensions in experiments and not just in 1D. In the depolarized spectra, however, only one spin excitation (the SDE or the spin triplet excitation) is observed in these three models. The vertex correction of the FL model will in general reduce the SDE energy compared with the SPE energy, and separate the SDE from the SPE. In the intermediate interaction region, the two triplet spinons in the Hubbard model have very different spectral weight behavior, showing very interesting interaction effects which need to be studied in more details in the future.

Acknowledgment: The authors are very grateful to late Professor Heinz Schulz for helpful correspondence on the one dimensional Hubbard model. This work was supported by the US-ONR, and US-ARO.