![Arxiv:0807.5070V2 [Cond-Mat.Str-El] 20 Nov 2008 Ymtyo H Em Ufc Ftehnyobltie H Pat the F Strongly Lattice](http://data.docslib.org/img/92a42d7aae147e32e06e7e82b425ae0a-1.webp)
arXiv:0807.5070v2 [cond-mat.str-el] 20 Nov 2008 ymtyo h em ufc ftehnyobltie h pat the F strongly lattice. lattice, in the square honeycomb points the the at of critical of gap these surface quantum re Fermi anisotropic possible the More an the of impo of symmetry with instabilities. an Pomeranchuk relation opening played to in that has rise studied argued It and giving was [31]. 28] singularities materials it 27, infrared layered where in 26, general [32] [25, in in filling and Pome 30] VHS called [29, phenomenon the induc superconductors This at that lattice. density lattice underlying m electronic squared the the that of of instability special symmetry redistribution competing the no a interesting and is VHS very points has singular A surface Fermi ferromagnetism. gra whose –or and system graphene a in of [22] instabilities superconductivity or ferromagnetic for o ermgei rudsae.W td h oxsec rc or int coexistence exchange the the study of We calcula presence states. the field ground in mean ferromagnetic system a for the in perform easily We very V. occurs interactions Coulomb exchange and h n icse eoei h rmwr ftehigh- the of framework the b in dominated is before to physics discussed rise [1 the one give superconducting VHS the the or not around [17] should densities ferromagnetic and at a Alternatively, 16] stabilize [15, to sense possibility The group renormalization the in sn cnigtneigmcocp aebe eotd[4.I skn is interac It range short [14]. level, demons Fermi reported the been at na been states has and have of 13] VHS density microscopy vanishing [12, the tunneling nanoribbons to scanning graphene up of using with structure the graphene reportin in of paper interest doping experimental an Chemical in recently [10]. forward put been have fnntbsi lcrncapplications. electronic ex experiments[7 great in risen and nanotubes has 6] of behavior[9] 5, ferromagnetic of 4, expectations studies[3, the theoretical early in predicted h re ftehpigparameter beg hopping seve relation) behavior finally, the dispersion the and, of the appears to order of distortion due the trigonal (cusps attention the filling much density low of electron at reg object several surface the shows Fermi 2) been The (Fig. has graphene filling of half relation dispersion full The nti ae esuyteVnHv ligi rpeemdle ihasin a with modelled graphene in filling Hove Van the study we paper this In h eetsnhsso igeo e aeso rpie1 ]hsp has 2] graphite[1, of layers few or single of synthesis recent The h em ee fgahn a etndoe ieeeg range energy wide a over tuned be can graphene of level Fermi The ASnmes 51.m 51.p 75.30.Ds 75.10.Lp, 75.10.Jm, numbers: PACS i state temperature. liquid zero su at Fermi pro also and liquid the We Fermi mechanism Kohn–Luttinger noticeable, the diagram. avoiding is phase temperature warping t the ferromagne trigonal build towards In l and the unstable is instabilities symmetry. also filling two is group Hove the system point Van the the lattice interaction at the system breaking the instability expe interactions photoemission in Coulomb explored of been already have and doping h est fsae fgahn a a oesingularities Hove Van has graphene of states of density The oeacu ntblt ndpdgraphene doped in instability Pomeranchuk autdd inis nvria u´nm eMadrid, Aut´onoma de Universidad Ciencias, de Facultad Bel´en Valenzuela 1 eatmnod ´sc el aei Condensada Materia la F´ısica de de Departamento 2 E nttt eCecad aeilsd Madrid, de Materiales de Ciencia de Instituto SC atbac,E209Mdi,Spain. Madrid, E-28049 Cantoblanco, CSIC, ∼ atbac,E209Mdi,Spain. Madrid, E-28049 Cantoblanco, 2 . 7 eV Dtd coe 0 2018) 30, October (Dated: .INTRODUCTION I. h osblt ffidn neetn hsc rudteedensities these around physics interesting finding of possibility The . 1 n a´aA .Vozmediano H. Mar´ıa A. and T c uecnutr 2] hsi h hsclstaint look to situation physical the is This [21]. superconductors meiino h w n ul hs iga nthe in diagram phase a build and two the of ompetition ettost s rpeea esnbereplacement reasonable a as graphene use to pectations in uha no–ieHbadterm Hubbard on–site an as such tions ht– nrf 2]i a rudta h otlikely most the that argued was it [23] ref. In phite–. eno ymtybekn hsscnb ihrthan richer be can phases breaking symmetry of tern a a oesnuaiis(H)dvlpa energies at develop (VHS) singularities Hove Van ral oue hr bevto fVnHv singularities Hove Van of observation where notubes nagersle hteiso APS results (ARPES) photoemission resolved angle on g oso pca neet h o oigrgo near region doping low The interest. special of ions .Tedsoeyo usata edeet[]and [8] effect field substantial a of discovery The ]. rcinV digteo–ieitrcinUallows U interaction on–site the Adding V. eraction a lobe icse namr eea context general more a in discussed been also has ritdt ettesnua rnpr properties transport singular the test to ermitted im eepoetecmeiinof competition the explore We tism. rpeecnb tbeu ozero to up stable be can graphene n iet.W hwta ntepresence the in that show We riments. h ihdniyo ttsadsol resemble should and states of density high the y ,1,2]paena affiln svr unlikely. very is filling half near phase 20] 19, 8, iiga xml ftodimensional two of example an viding sadfraino h em ufc breaking surface Fermi the of deformation a es yceia oig[0 1,o ygtn 1 2]. [1, gating by or 11], [10, doping chemical by n en iclr o nraigvle fthe of values increasing For circular. being ins epeec fa nst Hubbard on–site an of presence he etn etrsaepwv superconductivity p–wave are features nesting acu ntblt 2]hsbe on nthe in found been has [24] instability ranchuk yocrwe h em ufc approaches surface Fermi the when occur ay gs ht o oiglvl where levels doping for that, ggest etytePmrnhkisaiiyhsbeen has instability Pomeranchuk the cently w htaon h ia on u othe to due point Dirac the around that own fqaiatce smsls ia electrons. Dirac massless as quasiparticles of ntblte tlweege rtemperatures. or energies low at instabilities inadso htPmrnhkinstability Pomeranchuk that show and tion kl oudroaPomeranchuk a undergo to ikely htcnb ece ychemical by reached be can that orltdsses[3.Det h special the to Due [33]. systems correlated risraei natraiet uethe cure to alternative an is surface ermi rtdi 1] h H r fparticular of are VHS The [10]. in trated tn oei h hsc ftecuprate the of physics the in role rtant l adHbadmdlwt nst U on–site with model Hubbard band gle 2 U r irrelevant are 2
FIG. 1: (Color online) The honeycomb lattice of graphene.
(U, V) space of parameters. In section II we construct the exchange V and on–site U interactions in the honeycomb lattice and describe the method of calculation and the results obtained. In the last section we discuss some points related with the physics of graphene at high doping levels. In the context of the original Kohn–Luttinger instabilities [34] that establishes that all Fermi liquids will be unstable at low enough temperatures, we suggest that graphene at intermediate fillings can provide an example of stable metallic system at zero temperature [35, 36, 37]. Finally we set the lines for future developments.
II. THE MODEL
The deformation of the Fermi surface by the electronic interactions is a classical problem in condensed matter dating back to founding work of Luttinger [38]. We model the system by a single band Hubbard model in the honeycomb lattice with an on–site interaction U and a nearest neighbor Coulomb interaction V , and perform a self–consistent calculation along the lines of refs. [26, 39]. The Hubbard hamiltonian is
+ ′ H = t ciσciσ + U ni↑ni↓ + V niσnjσ . (1) i; i ij; ′ Xσ X < Xσσ > The hopping parameter t of graphene is t 2.7eV . The next-to-nearest neighbor hopping t′ is estimated to be much smaller [40] and it will be ignored. Due to∼ the special topology of the honeycomb lattice with two atoms per unit cell the Hamiltonian is a 2 2 matrix. We will work out in some detail the different terms. The operatorsa, ˆ ˆb associated to the two triangular sublattices× A, B are 1 1 + ik.RiA + + ik.RiB + ~ ~ ~ aiAσ = e akσ , biBσ = e bkσ , RiA = RiB + δ, (2) √NA √NB Xk Xk where NA = NB = N is the number of lattice cells and δi are the three vectors connecting a point of sublattice A with its three neighbors in sublattice B (see Fig. 1). In term of these operators the free Hamiltonian reads
+ ∗ + + + H0 = t [φ(k)akσ bkσ + φ (k)bkσ akσ]+ µ (akσakσ + bkσbkσ), (3) Xkσ Xkσ where we have included a chemical potential µ. In matrix form the non–interacting Hamiltonian is µ tφ(k) H = , (4) 0 tφ∗(k) µ where ~ ~ φ(~k)= e−ik.δi , (5) i X 3
FIG. 2: (Color online) Left: Lower band of the dispersion relation of graphene. The black line marks the Fermi surface for the Van Hove filling. Right: Evolution of the Fermi surface of graphene with doping. At half filling the Fermi surface consists on the six vertices of the hexagonal Brillouin zone (black points). Only two are independent, the rest being equivalent by lattice vectors. Emptying the half filled band the Fermi surface develops circular hole pockets that undergo the trigonal distortion (in red) and become the yellow triangles at the Van Hove fillig µ = t.
The Hamiltonian (4) gives rise to the dispersion relation
√3 √3 3 ε0(k)= µ t φ(~k) 2 = µ t 1+4cos2 ak +4cos ak cos ak , (6) ± | | ± s 2 x 2 x 2 y q whose lower band is shown in the left hand side of Fig. 2.
III. COULOMB INTERACTION V AND POMERANCHUK INSTABILITY
We will begin by studying the influence of the interaction V omitting the spin of the electrons. The on-site U will be added to study the competition of the Pomeranchuk instability with ferromagnetism. The interaction V takes place between nearest neighbors belonging to opposite sublattices. It reads:
+ + ′ ∗ + + ′ HV = V [ak ak+qbk′ bk −qφ (q)+ bk bk+qak′ ak −qφ(q)]. (7) kk′q X The mean field Hamiltonian becomes ˜ + ˜∗ + + + HMF = [φ(k)ak bk + φ (k)bk ak]+ µ (ak ak + bk bk), (8) k k X X where
∗ + V ∗ φ˜(k)= tφ(k) V (q) , V (q)= φ (q), (9) k+q N − q q X X and N is the number of lattice cells. In matrix form and including the chemical potential the mean field Hamiltonian reads:
∗ + µ tφ(k) q V (q)
E(k)= µ [t2 φ(k) 2 + F (V, k)]1/2, (11) ± | | 4
FIG. 3: Pomeranchuk instability suffered by an initial Fermi surface at the Van Hove singularity (upper part) when an exchange interaction V=1t is added (lower part).
where F (V, k) is
∗ + ∗ + F (V, k) = tV φ (k)φ(q) tV φ(k)φ (q) (12) − q k+q k q − q k+q k q 2 ∗ ′ + + ′ P+V qq′ φ (q)φ(q )
We look for a self–consistent solution ofP eq. (11) imposing the Luttinger theorem i. e. that the area enclosed by the interacting Fermi line is the same as the one chosen as the initial condition. We begin with an initial (free) Fermi surface, as an input, add the interaction and let it evolve until a self–consistent solution is found with a given ”final” interacting Fermi surface. The important constraint is that the total number of particles should remain fixed. This procedure has been used in the same context in [26, 39]. The Fermi surface of graphene around the Van Hove singularity is shown in Fig. 2. To better visualize the Pomeranchuk instability we keep the image of the neighboring Brillouin zones. Fig. 3 shows the initial Fermi surface sitting at the VHS (upper part) and the spontaneous deformation obtained self–consistently from eq. (11) for a value of the exchange interaction V = t.
IV. FERROMAGNETISM AND COMPETITION OF FERROMAGNETISM AND POMERANCHUK INSTABILITIES
In order to study a possible ferromagnetic instability we will add to the free Hamiltonian an on–site Hubbard term
+ + + + HU = U [ai↑ai↑ai↓ai↓ + bi↑bi↑bi↓bi↓], (13) i X A mean field ferromagnetic state will be characterized by
+ + + aiσaiσ =
FIG. 4: (Color online) Left: Initial polarization of the Fermi surface with the spin up electrons (upper part) less populated than the spin down (lower part): n↓ − n↑ = 0.14, µ↑ = −0.9t, µ↓ = −1.1t. Center: Final state obtained for the values of the parameters U=1t and V=2t. A Pomeranchuk instability is clearly visible in both spin bands. Right: Final state with enhanced ferromagnetic polarization obtained for the values of the parameters U=2t and V=1t.
Adding the kinetic term we get the Hamiltonian
µ + U (n + σm) tφ(k) H + HU = 2 (17) 0 MF tφ∗(k) µ + U (n + σm) 2 whose dispersion relation U E = µ t φ(k) , µ = µ + (n + σm), (18) kσ σ ± | | σ 2 is solved self–consistently to get the ferromagnetic ground state. The competition of the Pomeranchuk instability found in the previous section with a possible ferromagnetic in- V U stability is studied with the same procedure using the full mean field Hamiltonian H0 + HMF + HMF and solving self-consistently the equations
2 2 E↑(k)= µ + Un↓ t φ(k) + F (V, k)↑, (19) − | | q
2 2 E↓(k)= µ + Un↑ t φ(k) + F (V, k)↓, (20) − | | q where F (V, k)σ is given in eq. (12) and nσ =1/2(n + σm).
V. SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS
The competition of the Pomeranchuk instability with ferromagnetism is exemplified in Fig. 4. The figure in the left side represents the initial free Fermi surface where the spin up (upper side) and down (lower side) electrons have different populations around the Van Hove filling. In particular in the example given, the chemical potential of the spin up (down) electrons is set slightly below (above) the VHS: n↓ n↑ =0.14, µ↑ = 0.9t, µ↓ = 1.1t. The image in the center represents the renormalized Fermi surface for the two− spin polarizations when− the exchange− interaction V is bigger than U: V = 2U = 2t. We can see that the ferromagnetism has disappeared: the final Fermi surface is the same for the two spin polarization and presents a Pomeranchuk deformation. The opposite case is shown in the figure at the right: with the same initial configuration the final state for the values of the interactions U =2V = 2t has an enhanced ferromagnetism with no signal of deformation. 6
V
3
2 PI
FM 1
FM 1 2 3 U
FIG. 5: Phase diagram showing the competition of Pomeranchuk and ferromagnetic instabilities as a function of the interactions U and V measured in units of the hopping parameter t.
The phase diagram of the dominant instability as a function of the interaction strength U and V (measured in units of the hopping parameter t) is shown in Fig. 5. In all cases the initial Fermi surface consists of a slightly polarized state around the Van Hove singularity as the one shown in the left hand side of Fig. 4. The symbols in Fig. 5 denote calculated points with the following meaning: the circles appearing for low values of U denote an unpolarized final state with Pomeranchuk deformation as the one shown in the center of Fig. 4. Crosses appearing for large values of U represent a final state where the polarization is bigger than the initial one and the Fermi surface has the original symmetry as the one in the right hand side of Fig. 4. The points denoted by correspond to values where both instabilities coexist and the final Fermi surface is deformed and spin polarized. Finally the crosses at low values of U with V=0 represent final states which are still polarized but where the spin polarizationN is smaller than the initial one. This region is denoted by FM in the figure phase diagram. PI (FM) denotes the region where the Pomeranchuk (ferromagnetic) instability dominated↓ respectively. The ferromagnetic evolution of the system for V=0 is as follows: Below a critical value of 1.5 < Uc < 2 a free slightly polarized system at fillings near (but not at) the VHS evolves towards an unpolarized one in agreement with [41, 42]. The Coulomb exchange V induces a deformation of the Fermi surface already at very small values Vc 0.4t when the free initial state is near the Van Hove singularity. Increasing U enhances the magnetic polarization∼ of the interacting system until the critical value U 1.75t is reached where the final state corresponds to a ferromagnetic system with un-deformed Fermi surface. Unlike∼ what happens in the square lattice, the critical value of U above which ferromagnetism prevails does not depend on V (vertical line in Fig. 5). In the blank region in the upper part of the figure corresponding to high values of V around the critical U we have not been able to reach a self–consistent solution. We note that at V=0, the critical U for ferromagnetism is zero at the Van Hove filling and changes very rapidly around it in a rigid band model [41, 42]. This behavior is due to the divergent density of states at the VHS that would be smeared by temperature effects or disorder in real samples. Based on the previous studies if the square lattice we are confident that the results obtained in the present work are robust and the phase diagram shown in fig. 5 will remain qualitatively when more detailed calculations are done. The realization of one or another phase in real graphene samples depends on the values that the effective Coulomb interaction parametrized by U, V has at the VHS filling. Besides the ARPES experiments [10] which do not comment on the strength of the interaction, we are not aware of other experiments at these doping levels. Conservative estimates can be obtained from the graphite intercalated compounds [43] on the basis of the similarities found in [10] between the Fermi surfaces of the two. Values of U 2.5t, V t can be very reasonable and lie in the range discussed in the present work. ∼ ∼ 7
VI. DISCUSSION AND OPEN PROBLEMS
In this work we have examined some physical issues to be expected in graphene at high doping. We have seen that at the Van Hove filling in the presence of an exchange Coulomb interaction the Fermi surface is softer and becomes very easily deformed as compared with a similar analysis of the square lattice. A natural extension of the work presented in this article is to study the competition of the instabilities studied in this work with superconductivity along the lines of ref. [44]. A complete renormalization group analysis of the competing low energy instabilities of the Van Hove filling as a function of the doping and the couplings U and V is also to be done. Due to the special geometry of the Fermi surface in the honeycomb lattice the symmetry breaking phases can present a richer variety than those of the square lattice. A fairly complete analysis of the short range interactions around the Dirac point was done in the early paper [18]. Due to the existence of two Fermi points the classification of the possible low–energy couplings is similar to the g–ology of the one dimensional models. The RG classification of the low–energy couplings in the Van Hove filling is richer since there are three independent VH points to consider and work in this direction is in progress. An analysis of the physics of the Fermi surface around the trigonal warping can lead also to very interesting results in the light of the evolution of the Fermi surface anisotropies done in [45, 46]. On the view of the analysis of this problem done in the square lattice we can expect that RG calculation will enrich the phase diagram but the two phases discussed here will stay. Ferromagnetism is a likely possibility due to the Stoner criterium although it will compete with antiferromagnetism at high values of U. A very important parameter to this problem is the next to nearest neighbor hopping t′ that suppresses the nesting of the bare Fermi surface and affects the shape of the phase transition lines [41, 42]. These references focuss on the magnetism of the Hubbard model (U) on the honeycomb lattice at finite dopings and found that non–homogeneous (spiral) phases are the most stable configurations around the Van Hove filling. It would be interesting to analyze the competition and stability of these non–homogeneous ferromagnetic configurations in the presence of a V interaction. Of particular interest is the possibility of coexistence or competition of the Pomeranchuk instability with possible superconducting instabilities [22]. A very interesting suggestion has been made in studies of the square lattice that superconductivity changes the nature of the Pomeranchuk transition going from first to second order [44]. This feature will probably be maintained in the honeycomb lattice and we are actually exploring this problem. As it is known, the Kohn–Luttinger instability in its original context [34] suggests that no Fermi liquid will be stable at sufficiently low temperatures. In the case of a 3D electron system with isotropic Fermi surface there is an enhanced scattering at momentum transfer 2kF which translates into a modulation of the effective interaction potential with oscillating behavior similar to the Friedel oscillations. This makes possible the existence of attractive channels, labelled by the angular momentum quantum number. The issue of the stability of Fermi liquids was studied rigorously in two dimensions in a set of papers [35, 36, 37] with the conclusion that a Fermi liquid could exist in two space dimensions at zero temperature provided that the Fermi surface of the system obeys some ”asymmetry” conditions. In particular the non–interacting Fermi surface had to lack inversion symmetry
ǫ( k) = ǫ(k) − 6 at all points k and be otherwise quite regular (the Van Hove singularities can not be present). The dispersion relation of graphene obeys such a condition for fillings where the trigonal warping is already noticeable and below the Van Hove filling provided that disorder and interactions do not mix the Van Hove points. This is a very common assumption in the graphene physics around the Dirac points where the inversion symmetry in k–space acts as a time reversal symmetry [47]. We find interesting to note that the –quite restrictive–conditions of refs. [35, 36, 37] can be fulfilled in a real –and very popular–system.
VII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.
We thank A. Cortijo, M. P. L´opez-Sancho and R. Rold´an for very interesting discussions. This research was supported by the Spanish MECD grant FIS2005-05478-C02-01 and by the Ferrocarbon project from the European Union under Contract 12881 (NEST).
[1] K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, M. I. Katsnelson, I. V. Grigorieva, S. V. Dubonos, and A. A. Firsov, Nature 438, 197 (2005). [2] Y. Zhang, Y.-W. Tan, H. L. Stormer, and P. Kim, Nature 438, 201 (2005). [3] G. V. Semenoff, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 2449 (1984). 8
[4] F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2015 (1988). [5] J. Gonz´alez, F. Guinea, and M. A. H. Vozmediano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3589 (1996). [6] D. V. Khveshchenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 246802 (2001). [7] Y. Kopelevich et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 156402 (2003). [8] K. S. Novoselov et al., Science 306, 666 (2004). [9] P. Esquinazi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 227201 (2003). [10] J. L. M. Chesney, A. Bostwick, T. Ohta, K. V. Emtsev, T. Seyller, K. Horn, and E. Rotenberg (2007), arXiv:0705.3264. [11] A. Bostwick, T. Ohta, T. Seyller, K. Horn, and E. Rotenberg, Nat. Phys. 3, 36 (2007). [12] M. Ezawa, Physica Status Solidi (c) 4, 489 (2007). [13] N. Nemec, K. Richter, and G. Cuniberti, New J. Phys. 10, 065014 (2008). [14] P. Kim, T. W. Odom, J.-L. Huang, and C. M. Lieber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1225 (1999). [15] J. Gonz´alez, F. Guinea, and M. A. H. Vozmediano, Nucl. Phys. B 424 [FS], 595 (1994). [16] J. Gonz´alez, F. Guinea, and M. A. H. Vozmediano, Phys. Rev. B 59, R2474 (1999). [17] N. M. R. Peres, F. Guinea, and A. H. Castro Neto, Phys. Rev. B 72, 174406 (2005). [18] J. Gonz´alez, F. Guinea, and M. A. H. Vozmediano, Phys. Rev. B 63, 134421 (2001). [19] B. Uchoa and A. H. Castro Neto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 146801 (2007). [20] C. Honerkamp, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 146404 (2008). [21] R. S. Markiewicz, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 58, 1179 (1997). [22] J. Gonz´alez (2008), arXiv:0807.3914. [23] J. Gonz´alez, F. Guinea, and M. A. H. Vozmediano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4930 (2000). [24] I. Pomeranchuk, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 35, 524 (1958), [Sov. Phys. JETP 8, 361 (1959)]. [25] C. J. Halboth and W. Metzner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5162 (2000). [26] B. Valenzuela and M. A. H. Vozmediano, Phys. Rev. B 63, 153103 (2001). [27] J. Gonz´alez, Phys. Rev. B 63, 045114 (2001). [28] A. recent approach to the subject, a complete list of references can be found in C.A. Lamas, D. Cabra, and N. Grandi (2008), arXiv:0804.4422. [29] H. Yamase and H. Kohno, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 69, 332 (2000). [30] H. Yamase and H. Kohno, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 69, 2151 (2000). [31] H. Yamase (2008), arXiv:0806.2226. [32] C. M. Varma, Phil. Mag. 85, 1657 (2003). [33] J. Nilsson and A. H. Castro Neto, Phys. Rev. B 72, 195104 (2005). [34] W. Kohn and J. M. Luttinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 15, 524 (1965). [35] J. Feldman, H. Knorrer, and E. Trubowitz, Comm. Math. Phys. 247, 1 (2004). [36] J. Feldman, H. Knorrer, and E. Trubowitz, Comm. Math. Phys. 247, 49 (2004). [37] J. Feldman, H. Knorrer, and E. Trubowitz, Comm. Math. Phys. 247, 113 (2004). [38] J. M. Luttinger, Phys. Rev. 119, 1153 (1960). [39] R. Rold´an, M. L´opez-Sancho, and F. Guinea, Phys. Rev. B 77, 115410 (2008). [40] T. Ohta, A. Bostwick, J. L. McChesney, T. Seyller, K. Horn, and E. Rotenberg, Phys. Rev. Lett 98, 206802 (2007). [41] N. M. R. Peres, M. A. N. Araujo, and D. Bozi, Phys. Rev. B 70, 195122 (2004). [42] M. A. N. Araujo and N. M. R. Peres, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 18, 1769 (2006). [43] A. L. Tchougreeff and R. Hoffmann, J. Phys. and Chem. 96, 8993 (1992). [44] H. Yamase and W. Metzner, Phys. Rev. B 75, 155117 (2007). [45] J. Gonz´alez, F. Guinea, and M. Vozmediano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3514 (1997). [46] R. Rold´an, M. L´opez-Sancho, F. Guinea, and S.-W. Tsai, Phys. Rev. B 74, 235109 (2006). [47] J. L. Ma˜nes, F. Guinea, and M. A. H. Vozmediano, Phys. Rev. B 75, 155424 (2007).