Electron self-trapping at quantum and classical critical points

M. I. Auslender; M. I. Katsnelson

REVIEW

Electron self-trapping at quantum and classical critical points

M. I. Auslender, M. I. Katsnelson

Statistical Mechanics · Submitted 21 Feb 2006 · 36 references

Pith's verdict: A solid variational treatment of a new problem—single electron near a quantum critical point—whose main scaling result is conditional on an admittedly Gaussian truncation that is uncontrolled in the strong-coupling regime.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on August 28, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 2 major objections · 4 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDcond-mat/0602500 (version 1)

Pith IDBQHQDKQE, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationM. I. Auslender, M. I. Katsnelson. "Electron self-trapping at quantum and classical critical points." arXiv:cond-mat/0602500 (2006). https://pith.science/paper/BQHQDKQE

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Colleague,

The new thing here is real: nobody has systematically asked what a single conduction electron does when coupled to order-parameter fluctuations at a quantum critical point, with answers expressed in d = D - 2 + eta and z. The paper works that out with Feynman's variational path integral, gets rigorous upper bounds via the Peierls-Feynman-Bogoliubov inequality, recovers the Feynman polaron as a special case, and gives explicit energy and size scalings for weak and strong coupling. The classical critical-point part is also worth taking seriously, because the variational DOS tail is cross-checked by an independent Green's-function/Ward-identity route—that is a genuine check, not a cosmetic one.

The central caveat is exactly the one the authors name in Section 2: the Gaussian approximation, i.e. dropping all m>2 cumulants, is ad hoc. They give a small-coupling condition |g|/W << 1, but the headline strong-coupling result (Eq. 97) is applied where g^2/(W omega0) need not be small and can even exceed the Born shift. I don't see an estimate of the dropped m=3, m=4 terms at the variational optimum. Near a real QCP the fluctuations are not Gaussian; higher-order cumulants are not suppressed by a small parameter, and they could plausibly shift the energy by order unity or change the exponent. The polaron-limit check is reassuring but only for an exactly Gaussian field. So the quantum strong-coupling scaling is a prediction within a controlled framework only if that truncation can be justified, and the paper does not yet justify it there.

Other soft spots are minor. The derivation has some dense algebra, and one numerical statement (about the absence of any maximum of P_d beyond small lambda for d <= 1, at the end of Section 3.3.2) is asserted without documentation; the reader flagged that, and I agree it should be documented. The citation pattern is fine: the authors cite their own earlier classical-fluctuon work extensively, but that is the direct predecessor, and the overlap with Krivoglaz and Feynman is handled honestly. No fitting to data, no free parameters—the inputs are physical and the variational parameters are minimized.

Who is this for? People working on doped ferroelectrics, magnetic systems near QCPs, or heavy-fermion compounds, and theorists interested in fermions coupled to bosonic fields with anomalous scaling. It deserves a serious referee: the problem is new, the method is appropriate, and the main weakness is an openly acknowledged approximation whose control should be demanded rather than assumed. I would send it to review, and ask the authors to address the cumulant issue explicitly.

Net: conditional acceptance, with the quantum strong-coupling claim as the load-bearing point to fix.

Referee report

Significance

If the central claims hold, the paper provides a new and potentially testable scenario for electron self-trapping at quantum critical points, with explicit scaling predictions in terms of universal exponents and no free fitting parameters. The paper has real strengths: the variational framework inherits the Peierls-Feynman-Bogoliubov inequality for the Gaussian-truncated model, the Feynman polaron limit is correctly recovered, and the classical DOS tail is cross-checked by a diagrammatic method using the Ward identity, which gives the same exponential exponent as the variational calculation. The main significance, however, is conditional: the quantum strong-coupling result rests on the Gaussian truncation of the cumulant expansion, and the paper itself labels that truncation 'ad hoc'. Because no quantitative estimate of the neglected m ≥ 3 cumulants is supplied for the quantum case, the headline scaling of Eq. (97) is not yet tied to a controlled approximation.

Major objections (2)

[§3.3, Eq. (97)] The central strong-coupling result is obtained by neglecting all cumulants with m > 2 in Eq. (14), an approximation the authors explicitly call 'ad hoc' in Section 2. The stated small-coupling condition |g|/W ≪ 1 (Eq. 15) does not control the regime where Eq. (97) is used, and the later applicability conditions, Eq. (98) and Eq. (99), control q0 ≪ 1 and the relative size of the self-trapping versus Born terms but do not estimate the magnitude of the neglected m ≥ 3 cumulant contributions at the variational optimum. Near a genuine QCP, higher-order correlators are not automatically suppressed by a small parameter. Please provide an explicit estimate of the first neglected cumulant term, analogous to the scaling estimate made for the classical case in Section 4.1, or state clearly that Eq. (97) is a conjectured consequence of the Gaussian truncation. This is load-bearing because the z-independence and the non-integer exponent 2/(2−d) are the paper's headline predictions.
[§1 and §2] The introduction states that the method 'gives a rigorous upper limit for the ground-state energy', but this is not correct for the Gaussian-truncated calculation actually performed. The Peierls-Feynman-Bogoliubov inequality (8) provides an upper bound only when the full action Sint is retained; after dropping m > 2 terms in Eq. (14), the minimized expression is an upper bound for the Gaussian-model ground-state energy, not necessarily for the original Hamiltonian (1) when the order-parameter field is non-Gaussian. The manuscript should either prove that the dropped terms have a sign that preserves the bound, or qualify the rigorousness claim to the Gaussian-truncated model.

Minor objections (4)

[§3.2.1] The sentence 'This exponents range will be revisited in Section 3.2' appears to be a typo; the strong-coupling discussion is in Section 3.3.
[§2, Eq. (14)] The text says 'Substituting Eqs.(17), (11)-(13)' but Eq. (17) is not defined in the manuscript; presumably Eq. (16) is meant.
[§2, Eq. (5)] The cumulant expansion in Eq. (5) appears to omit the 1/β normalization that appears in Eq. (10); please check the consistency of the notation.
[§3.3.2, text after Eq. (99)] The phrase 'the correction ∝ (g²/W²)² in weak coupling regime' seems inconsistent with the weak-coupling fourth-order correction of Eq. (34), which is ∝ g⁴/W³; please clarify.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

A single conduction electron can be self-trapped into a quantum fluctuon near a quantum critical point, with binding energy and size ruled by the critical exponents d and z; the classical critical point is different — there the fluctuon…

The reading

The paper claims that near a quantum critical point, a conduction electron interacting with order-parameter fluctuations can form an autolocalized state — a quantum fluctuon — whose energy and radius are governed by the anomalous dimension $d = D - 2 + \eta$ and the dynamical critical exponent $z$. Using the path-integral variational method (the same trial action used for polarons), the authors derive upper bounds on the ground-state energy in weak- and strong-coupling regimes. In some ranges of $(d,z)$ only singular perturbation theory in the coupling $g$ exists, with the energy depending on non-integer powers of $g$; in the strong-coupling regime the leading self-trapping term is $E_0 = -(D/4)(2/d - 1) W [\Gamma(d/2+1) g^2/(W\omega_0)]^{2/(2-d)}$. At a classical critical point, the same formalism yields a saddle-point solution for the chemical potential in the exponential density-of-states tail, not a true spectrum edge. The quantum fluctuon is thus a genuine quasiparticle, whereas the classical fluctuon merely shapes the band tail.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a variational trial action that binds the electron path to a moving harmonic well, parameterized by a spring constant and a frequency, combined with a cumulant expansion of the interaction with the order-parameter field truncated — intentionally, as the authors say — at second order (the Gaussian approximation). Optimizing the two trial parameters through a variational inequality gives a rigorous upper bound on the ground-state energy. The scaling of the fluctuation spectral density, $J(K,u) = f^{2-\eta} J(fK, f^z u)$, feeds the critical physics into the problem through two numbers: the anomalous dimension $d = D - 2 + \eta$ and the dynamical exponent $z$. The combination $d+z-2$ decides whether regular perturbation theory in $g$ exists; wherever it fails, the energy emerges as a singular function of $g$.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Near a quantum critical point the order-parameter fluctuations are soft and long-ranged, so their interaction with a single conduction electron can autolocalize the carrier. The paper establishes, via the path-integral variational method with a harmonic trial action, that such a quantum fluctuon exists for a wide range of critical exponents, and calculates its energy and size as functions of $d = D - 2 + \eta$ and $z$. The key results are: (i) for $z \geq 2$ and weak coupling, a regular perturbation expansion in $g^2$ exists only when $d+z-2 > 1$; otherwise the ground-state energy is non-analytic in $g$; (ii) in the strong-coupling regime the leading self-trapping energy is $E_0 = -(D/4)(2/d - 1) W [\Gamma(d/2+1) g^2/(W\omega_0)]^{2/(2-d)}$, a singular function of the coupling when $d \neq 1$; (iii) at a classical critical point, the same variational calculation gives an optimal free energy whose Laplace transform produces an exponential density-of-states tail, where the fluctuon energy plays the role of the chemical potential in the tail rather than the band edge. The paper argues this difference is fundamental: the quantum fluctuon is a true boundary of the energy spectrum, while the classical fluctuon is a saddle-point artifact.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation treats the order-parameter fluctuations as Gaussian, dropping every cumulant of order $m>2$ in the effective action; near a real critical point the fluctuations are strongly non-Gaussian, and if higher cumulants contribute at the energy scales of interest, the predicted energy scalings and even the existence of the self-trapped state could be modified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For critical exponents with $d+z-2 \leq 1$ (when $z \geq 2$), or $z \geq 2(d+2)/3$ with $0<d<1$, the ground-state energy of the conduction electron is not analytic in the coupling $g$: only singular perturbation theory, with non-integer powers of $g$, describes it.
In the strong-coupling regime the quantum fluctuon binding energy is independent of $z$ and equals $-(D/4)(2/d - 1) W [\Gamma(d/2+1) g^2/(W\omega_0)]^{2/(2-d)}$, so measuring the energy shift of an injected carrier near a quantum critical point gives direct access to the combination $g^2/(W\omega_0)$ once $d$ is known.
The quantum fluctuon is a true edge of the electron spectrum, unlike the classical case: near a classical critical point the same calculation yields only a saddle-point chemical potential in an exponential density-of-states tail of capacity $(g/W)^{2D/(4-d)}$, and fluctuons contribute little when the carrier concentration exceeds that capacity.
All quantitative predictions are restricted to couplings $|g|/W \ll 1$ and to fluctuon radii much larger than the lattice constant, so the continuum approximation is self-consistent only when the derived size parameter $q_0 = [\Gamma(d/2+1) g^2/(W\omega_0)]^{2/(2-d)}$ is small.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural extension is to a dilute gas of quantum fluctuons: at finite but small Fermi energy the single-particle bound states will hybridize into a band, and the singular $g$-dependence found here may seed an unconventional effective interaction between carriers — a mechanism that could be tested in doped ferroelectrics near their quantum critical point.
The boundary where regular perturbation theory fails ($d+z-2 = 1$ for $z\geq2$, or $z = 2(d+2)/3$ for $0<d<1$) may mark a change in the ground-state structure rather than just a technical obstacle; a solvable large-$D$ limit or exact diagonalization of a small cluster could reveal whether the fluctuon wavefunction changes character at these boundaries.
The classical density-of-states tail (Eq. 138) predicts a specific stretched-exponential decay; a direct numerical evaluation of the DOS for a Gaussian static field with correlator $(K_{\max}/K)^{2-\eta}$ in $D=2$ and $D=3$, without the variational approximation, would test the accuracy of the exponent $2-d/2$ and the prefactor.

Original abstract

Using Feynman path integral technique estimations of the ground state energy have been found for a conduction electron interacting with order parameter fluctuations near quantum critical points. In some cases only \textit{singular} perturbation theory in the coupling constant emerges for the electron ground state energy. It is shown that an autolocalized state (quantum fluctuon) can be formed and its characteristics have been calculated depending on critical exponents for both weak and strong coupling regimes. The concept of fluctuon is considered also for the classical critical point (at finite temperatures) and the difference between quantum and classical cases has been investigated. It is shown that, whereas the quantum fluctuon energy is connected with a true boundary of the energy spectrum, for classical fluctuon it is just a saddle-point solution for the chemical potential in the exponential density of states fluctuation tail.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,347 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.54 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.06 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.10 · compares with prior results 0.16 · mentions code or data availability 0.01.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

Using Feynman path integral technique estimations of the ground state energy have been found for a conduction electron interacting with order parameter fluctuations near quantum critical points. In some cases only \textit{singular} perturbation theory in the coupling constant emerges for the electron ground state energy. It is shown that an autolocalized state (quantum fluctuon) can be formed and its characteristics have been calculated depending on critical exponents for both weak and strong coupling regimes. The concept of fluctuon is considered also for the classical critical point (at finite temperatures) and the difference between quantum and classical cases has been investigated. It is shown that, whereas the quantum fluctuon energy is connected with a true boundary of the energy spectrum, for classical fluctuon it is just a saddle-point solution for the chemical potential in the exponential density of states fluctuation tail.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	Using Feynman path integral technique estimations of the ground state energy have been found for a conduction electron interacting with order parameter fluctuations near quantum critical points.	method 0.61	0.91	0.06	asserted 1.00
s1	In some cases only \textit{singular} perturbation theory in the coupling constant emerges for the electron ground state energy.	result 0.87	0.62	0.06	asserted 0.54
s2	It is shown that an autolocalized state (quantum fluctuon) can be formed and its characteristics have been calculated depending on critical exponents for both weak and strong coupling regimes.	result 0.82	0.92	0.38	asserted 1.00
s3	The concept of fluctuon is considered also for the classical critical point (at finite temperatures) and the difference between quantum and classical cases has been investigated.	contribution 1.00	0.80	0.08	asserted 0.97
s4	It is shown that, whereas the quantum fluctuon energy is connected with a true boundary of the energy spectrum, for classical fluctuon it is just a saddle-point solution for the chemical potential in the exponential density of states fluctuation tail.	result 0.86	0.87	0.55	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.99.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** Graph of the function G3 2 (q) q0 ≃ 0.126, for which G3 2 (q0) = a1 3 2 ≃ 1.589. Checking Eq.(32) yields after cumbersome calculations |g| W ≪ 0.378 , (45) Provided that Eq.(45) holds, we obtain from Eq.(34) E0 ≃ − D 3 g 2 W

Figures reproduced from arXiv:cond-mat/0602500 by the authors.

References

Works cited (36)

[1]

J. A. Hertz, Phys. Rev. B 14 (1976) 1165. 42

View on Pith 1976
[2]

S. Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions, Cambridge Unive rsity Press, Cambridge, 1999

View on Pith 1999
[3]

S. L. Sondhi, S. M. Girvin, J. P. Carini, and D. Shahar, Rev . Mod. Phys. 69 (1997) 315

View on Pith 1997
[4]

R. B. Laughlin, G. G. Lonzarich, P. Monthoux, and D. Pines , Adv. Phys. 50 (2001) 361

View on Pith 2001
[5]

M. Vojta, Rep. Prog. Phys. 66 (2003) 2069

View on Pith 2003
[6]

D. E. Grupp and A. M. Goldman, Science 276 (1997) 392

View on Pith 1997
[7]

A. Abanov, A. V. Chubukov, and J. Schmalian, Adv. Phys. 52 (2003) 119

View on Pith 2003
[8]

S. A. Kivelson, I. P. Bindloss, E. Fradkin, V. Oganesyan, J. M. Tranquada, A. Kapitulnik, and C. Howald, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75 (2003) 1201

View on Pith 2003
[9]

M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T. W. H¨ ansch, and I. Bloch, Nature 415 (2003) 39

View on Pith 2003
[10]

S. A. Grigera, R. S. Perry, A. J. Schoﬁeld, M. Chiao, S. R. Julian, G. G. Lonzarich, S. I. Ikeda, Y. Maeno, A. J. Millis, and A. P. Macke nzie, Science 294 (2001) 329

View on Pith 2001
[11]

P. Gegenwart, J. Custers, C. Geibel, K. Neumaier, T. Tay ama, K. Tenya, O. Trovarelli, and F. Steglich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 0564 02

View on Pith 2002
[12]

J. R. Stewart, B. D. Rainford, R. S. Eccleston, and R. Cyw inski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 186403

View on Pith 2002
[13]

N. Doiron-Leyraud, I. R. Walker, L. Taillefer, M. J. Ste iner, S. R. Julian, and G. G. Lonzarich, Nature 425 (2003) 595

View on Pith 2003
[14]

P. Coleman, C. Pepin, Q. Si, and R. Ramazashvili, J. Phys .: Condens. Matter 13 (2001) R723. 43

View on Pith 2001
[15]

P. Coleman and A. J. Schonfeld, Nature 433 (2005) 229

View on Pith 2005
[16]

R. Blinc and B. ˇZek´ s, Soft Modes in Ferroelectrics and Antiferroelectrics, North- Holland, Amsterdam, 1974

View on Pith 1974
[17]

S. V. Vonsovsky and M. I. Katsnelson, Quantum Solid Stat e Physics, Springer, Berlin, 1989

View on Pith 1989
[18]

G. D. Mahan, Many-Particle Physics, Plenum Press, New Y ork, 2000

View on Pith 2000
[19]

E. L. Nagaev, Physics of Magnetic Semiconductors, Mir, Moscow, 1983; E. L. Nagaev, Phys. Rep. 346 (2001) 388

View on Pith 2001
[20]

M. A. Krivoglaz, Uspekhi Fiz. Nauk 111 (1973) 617 [Engl. Transl.: Sov. Phys. Uspekhi 16 (1973) 856]

View on Pith 1973
[21]

M. I. Auslender and M. I. Katsnelson, Teor. Matem. Fizik a 43 (1980) 261 [Engl. Transl.: Theor. Math. Phys. 43 (1980) 450]

View on Pith 1980
[22]

M. I. Auslender and M. I. Katsnelson, J. Magn. Magn. Mate r. 241 (1981) 117

View on Pith 1981
[23]

M. I. Auslender and M. I. Katsnelson, Dokl. AN SSSR 265 (1 982) 601 [Engl. Transl.: Sov. Phys.: Doklady 25 (1982) 601]

View on Pith 1982
[24]

R. P. Feynman, Phys. Rev. 97 (1955) 660

View on Pith 1955
[25]

R. P. Feynman and A. R. Hibbs, Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals, McGraw Hill, New York, 1965

View on Pith 1965
[26]

M. H. Degani, O. Hipolito, R. Lobo, and G. A. Farias, J. Ph ys. C 19 (1986) 2919

View on Pith 1986
[27]

W. B. da Costa and F. M. Peeters, J. Phys.: Condens. Matte r 8 (1996) 2173

View on Pith 1996
[28]

L. S. Schulman, Techniques and Applications of Path Int egration, Wiley, New York, 1981. 44

View on Pith 1981
[29]

H. Kleinert, Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics, Stat istics and Polymer Physics, World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 1995

View on Pith 1995
[30]

I. S. Gradstein and I. M. Ryzhik, Table of Integrals, Ser ies and Products, 6th ed., Academic Press, San Diego, 2000

View on Pith 2000
[31]

P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Halperin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 49 (19 77) 435

View on Pith
[32]

A. B. Migdal, Theory of Finite Fermi Systems and Applica tions to Atomic Nuclei, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1967

View on Pith 1967
[33]

S. Doniach and E. H. Sondheimer, Green’s Functions for S olid State Physicists, Imperial College Press, London, 1998

View on Pith 1998
[34]

B. I. Shklovskii and A. L. Efros, Electronic Properties of Doped Semiconductors, Springer, Berlin, 1984

View on Pith 1984
[35]

M. I. Auslender, N. G. Bebenin, and V. P. Kalshnikov, phy s. stat. sol. (b) 114 (1982) K147

View on Pith 1982
[36]

M. I. Katsnelson and A. V. Treﬁlov, Z. Phys. B 80 (1990) 63 . 45

View on Pith 1990

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

J. A. Hertz, Phys. Rev. B 14 (1976) 1165. 42

View on Pith 1976

[2] [2]

S. Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions, Cambridge Unive rsity Press, Cambridge, 1999

View on Pith 1999

[3] [3]

S. L. Sondhi, S. M. Girvin, J. P. Carini, and D. Shahar, Rev . Mod. Phys. 69 (1997) 315

View on Pith 1997

[4] [4]

R. B. Laughlin, G. G. Lonzarich, P. Monthoux, and D. Pines , Adv. Phys. 50 (2001) 361

View on Pith 2001

[5] [5]

M. Vojta, Rep. Prog. Phys. 66 (2003) 2069

View on Pith 2003

[6] [6]

D. E. Grupp and A. M. Goldman, Science 276 (1997) 392

View on Pith 1997

[7] [7]

A. Abanov, A. V. Chubukov, and J. Schmalian, Adv. Phys. 52 (2003) 119

View on Pith 2003

[8] [8]

S. A. Kivelson, I. P. Bindloss, E. Fradkin, V. Oganesyan, J. M. Tranquada, A. Kapitulnik, and C. Howald, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75 (2003) 1201

View on Pith 2003

[9] [9]

M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T. W. H¨ ansch, and I. Bloch, Nature 415 (2003) 39

View on Pith 2003

[10] [10]

S. A. Grigera, R. S. Perry, A. J. Schoﬁeld, M. Chiao, S. R. Julian, G. G. Lonzarich, S. I. Ikeda, Y. Maeno, A. J. Millis, and A. P. Macke nzie, Science 294 (2001) 329

View on Pith 2001

[11] [11]

P. Gegenwart, J. Custers, C. Geibel, K. Neumaier, T. Tay ama, K. Tenya, O. Trovarelli, and F. Steglich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 0564 02

View on Pith 2002

[12] [12]

J. R. Stewart, B. D. Rainford, R. S. Eccleston, and R. Cyw inski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 186403

View on Pith 2002

[13] [13]

N. Doiron-Leyraud, I. R. Walker, L. Taillefer, M. J. Ste iner, S. R. Julian, and G. G. Lonzarich, Nature 425 (2003) 595

View on Pith 2003

[14] [14]

P. Coleman, C. Pepin, Q. Si, and R. Ramazashvili, J. Phys .: Condens. Matter 13 (2001) R723. 43

View on Pith 2001

[15] [15]

P. Coleman and A. J. Schonfeld, Nature 433 (2005) 229

View on Pith 2005

[16] [16]

R. Blinc and B. ˇZek´ s, Soft Modes in Ferroelectrics and Antiferroelectrics, North- Holland, Amsterdam, 1974

View on Pith 1974

[17] [17]

S. V. Vonsovsky and M. I. Katsnelson, Quantum Solid Stat e Physics, Springer, Berlin, 1989

View on Pith 1989

[18] [18]

G. D. Mahan, Many-Particle Physics, Plenum Press, New Y ork, 2000

View on Pith 2000

[19] [19]

E. L. Nagaev, Physics of Magnetic Semiconductors, Mir, Moscow, 1983; E. L. Nagaev, Phys. Rep. 346 (2001) 388

View on Pith 2001

[20] [20]

M. A. Krivoglaz, Uspekhi Fiz. Nauk 111 (1973) 617 [Engl. Transl.: Sov. Phys. Uspekhi 16 (1973) 856]

View on Pith 1973

[21] [21]

M. I. Auslender and M. I. Katsnelson, Teor. Matem. Fizik a 43 (1980) 261 [Engl. Transl.: Theor. Math. Phys. 43 (1980) 450]

View on Pith 1980

[22] [22]

M. I. Auslender and M. I. Katsnelson, J. Magn. Magn. Mate r. 241 (1981) 117

View on Pith 1981

[23] [23]

M. I. Auslender and M. I. Katsnelson, Dokl. AN SSSR 265 (1 982) 601 [Engl. Transl.: Sov. Phys.: Doklady 25 (1982) 601]

View on Pith 1982

[24] [24]

R. P. Feynman, Phys. Rev. 97 (1955) 660

View on Pith 1955

[25] [25]

R. P. Feynman and A. R. Hibbs, Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals, McGraw Hill, New York, 1965

View on Pith 1965

[26] [26]

M. H. Degani, O. Hipolito, R. Lobo, and G. A. Farias, J. Ph ys. C 19 (1986) 2919

View on Pith 1986

[27] [27]

W. B. da Costa and F. M. Peeters, J. Phys.: Condens. Matte r 8 (1996) 2173

View on Pith 1996

[28] [28]

L. S. Schulman, Techniques and Applications of Path Int egration, Wiley, New York, 1981. 44

View on Pith 1981

[29] [29]

H. Kleinert, Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics, Stat istics and Polymer Physics, World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 1995

View on Pith 1995

[30] [30]

I. S. Gradstein and I. M. Ryzhik, Table of Integrals, Ser ies and Products, 6th ed., Academic Press, San Diego, 2000

View on Pith 2000

[31] [31]

P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Halperin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 49 (19 77) 435

View on Pith

[32] [32]

A. B. Migdal, Theory of Finite Fermi Systems and Applica tions to Atomic Nuclei, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1967

View on Pith 1967

[33] [33]

S. Doniach and E. H. Sondheimer, Green’s Functions for S olid State Physicists, Imperial College Press, London, 1998

View on Pith 1998

[34] [34]

B. I. Shklovskii and A. L. Efros, Electronic Properties of Doped Semiconductors, Springer, Berlin, 1984

View on Pith 1984

[35] [35]

M. I. Auslender, N. G. Bebenin, and V. P. Kalshnikov, phy s. stat. sol. (b) 114 (1982) K147

View on Pith 1982

[36] [36]

M. I. Katsnelson and A. V. Treﬁlov, Z. Phys. B 80 (1990) 63 . 45

View on Pith 1990