\section{\bf Introduction}

Soon after the discovery of superconductivity in copper-oxide systems,
a new oxide-superconductor, $Sr_{2}RuO_{4}$, was discovered
\cite{Trexp1}. Having the same layered perovskite structure as
$La_{2}CuO_{4}$ the layered ruthenate shows a rather unconventional
superconducting phase \cite{Trexp2,Trexp3,Trexp4}. Shortly after the discovery
of $Sr_{2}RuO_{4}$ it was suggested that a triplet superconducting
phase is realized in this compound \cite{RS,Baskaran,Machida}. Since then
convincing experimental evidence has been collected that $Sr_{2}RuO_{4}$ is
most likely a $p$-wave superconductor (for a recent review see
\cite{Sigrist}). An important feature of related ruthenate compounds is close
proximity to magnetic instability ($SrRuO_{3}$ and  $Sr_{2}RuYO_{6}$ are
ferro- and antiferromagnetic, respectively), indicating strong correlations
in the $Ru$ ions. The NMR studies clearly show tendency towards
ferromagnetism in $Sr_{2}RuO_{4}$ \cite{Trexp4pr}. Moreover,
very recent experiments indicate the easy-plane anisotropy of ferromagnetic
spin fluctuations in this compound \cite{Trexp5}. The presence of
ferromagnetism in $SrRuO_{3}$ and the analogy with $^{3}He$ made Sigrist and
Rice predict the triplet nature of superconductivity in $Sr_{2}RuO_{4}$
\cite{RS}. Close proximity of the ferromagnetic and triplet superconducting
instabilities in $Sr_{2}RuO_{4}$ increase the interest in models providing a
mechanism for Cooper pairing via ferromagnetic spin fluctuations
\cite{RS,MS,Sigrist}.

Another group of unconventional superconductors showing close proximity of
magnetic  and superconducting ordering belongs to the $(TMTSF)_{2}X$ family
of quasi-one-dimensional conductors (the Bechgaard salts)\cite{Jerome1}. At
ambient pressure, most of these compounds show a spin-density wave ($SDW$)
ordering in the ground state. Under moderate pressure, the $SDW$ instability
is suppressed and replaced by a superconducting transition at a critical
temperature of the order of 1 K \cite{Jerome2}. The most interesting
exceptions to this scheme are: 1) $(TMTSF)_{2}ClO_{4}$ which is
supperconducting at ambient pressure and 2) $(TMTSF)_{2}PF_{6}$ which shows a
spin-Peierls ($SP$) phase in the ground state at atmospheric pressure. In this
latter case, increasing pressure leads first to a transition from the $SP$
phase into a $SDW$ phase, and finally to the suppression of the $SDW$
ground state in favor of superconductivity
\cite{Jerome2}. Triplet superconducting ordering in Bechgaard salts was
suggested soon after the discovery of $TMTSF$ systems \cite{AbrikosGorkov} to
explain the strong suppression of $T_{c}$ by nonmagnetic impurities
\cite{Trexp6}. Although the symmetry of the supercunducting phase in
Bechgaard salts still remains the subject of some controversy, growing
experimental evidence has been collected in the last few years, indicating
that
the Bechgaard salts $(TMTSF)_{2}ClO_{4}$ and $(TMTSF)_{2}PF_{6}$ under
pressure are triplet superconductors ($TS$) \cite{Trexp8}.

In this paper we put forward a rather simple extension of the Hubbard model by
incorporating direct anisotropic exchange (of either sign) between electrons
on nearest-neighbor sites. In 1D the Hamiltonian reads:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{tJmodel}
{\cal H}& = & -t\sum_{n,\alpha}(c^{\dagger}_{n,\alpha}
c^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{n+1,\alpha}
+c^{\dagger}_{n+1,\alpha}c^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{n,\alpha})\nonumber\\
& +&
U \sum_{n}c^{\dagger}_{n,\uparrow}c^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{n,\uparrow}
c^{\dagger}_{n,\downarrow}c^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{n,\downarrow}\nonumber\\
&+&\sum_{n}\{ \frac{1}{2}J_{\perp}(S^{+}_{n}S^{-}_{n+1} + h.c.)+
J_{\parallel}S^{z}_{n}S^{z}_{n+1}\}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $c^{\dagger}_{n,\alpha}$ ($c^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{n,\alpha}$) is the
creation (annihilation) operator for an electron at site $n$ with spin
${\alpha}$, $\vec {\bf S}(n)= \frac{1}{2}c^{\dagger}_{n,\alpha}\vec
\sigma^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{\alpha\beta}c^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{n,\beta}$
where $\sigma^{{\it i}}$ (${\it i}=x,y,z$) are the Pauli matrices.

The model (\ref{tJmodel}) was intensively studied in the context of
High-$T_{c}$ superconductivity for strong on-site repulsion and for
isotropic antiferromagnetic exchange \cite{DRS,RTT,Fabrizio,PSW}.
Below we study the weak-coupling phase diagram of the model (\ref{tJmodel})
focusing on effects of exchange anisotropy, in particular in the case
of ferromagnetic exchange.  We will show that the one-dimensional version of
this (\ref{tJmodel}) model has a ground state phase diagram characterized by
the close proximity of {\em triplet superconducting}, {\em spin density wave},
{\em ferromagnetic} and {\em Peierls dimerized} phases.

That the $TS$ phase can be realized in 1D correlated electron systems is well
known from standard ``{\em g-ology}'' studies \cite{Solyom}.
The extended ($U$-$V$) Hubbard model with nearest-neighbor attraction ($V<0$)
has been intensively studied to explain the competition between $SDW$ and
superconducting instabilities in $TMTSF$ compounds \cite{Fukuyama}. However,
due to spin rotational invariance, in the extended Hubbard model the $TS$
phase is realized only in the Luttinger liquid phase for
$|U|<-2V$ \cite{Solyom,Emery,Voit}, where both charge and
spin excitations are gapless. Singlet superconducting ($SS$) and $TS$
correlations show identical power-low decay at large distances and the $TS$
instability dominates only due to weak logarithmic corrections \cite{Voit}.
On the other hand, in the spin gapped phase $U<2V$, the dynamical
generation of a spin gap leads to the {\em complete suppression} of the $TS$
and $SDW$ instabilities.

In this paper we study the weak-coupling ground state phase diagram of the
model (\ref{tJmodel}) at half-filling. As we will show below, in the case of
{\em ferromagnetic easy-plane anisotropy}
($J_{\perp} < J_{\parallel} < 0$), the $TS$ and $SDW$ are the only
instabilities in the system. In some sense, the {\em ferromagnetic}
$t-J$ model (\ref{tJmodel}) shows infrared behavior which is dual to that of
the attractive $U-V$ Hubbard model. This duality is most easily seen by
comparing the attractive Hubbard model ($U < 0, J_{\parallel}= J_{\perp} = 0$)
and the {\em ferromagnetic} itinerant $XY$ model
($J_{\perp} < 0, U = J_{\parallel} = 0$). In both models the spin excitation
spectrum is gapped and the charge excitation spectrum is gapless. In the
attractive Hubbard model the dynamical generation of the spin gap is associated
with the suppresion of $SDW$ and $TS$ fluctuations. In the ground state only
the charge density wave ($CDW$) and $SS$ correlations survive. At half-filling,
due to $SU(2)$-symmetry of the charge channel, the ground state is
characterized by the coexistence of $CDW$ and $SS$ instabilities. Away from
half-filling the singlet superconducting instability dominates \cite{FK}. In
the (weak-coupling limit of the) ferromagnetic itinerant $XY$ model, however,
due to the $U(1)$-spin symmetry, the dynamical generation of a spin gap leads
to {\em complete suppression} of the $SS$ and $CDW$ fluctuations. At
half-filling, due to the $SU(2)$-symmetry of the charge channel, the $TS$ and
$SDW$ instabilities coexist (see Fig. 1). Doping of the system, as in the case
of the Hubbard model, splits the degeneracy, in this case in favor of the
$TS$ ordering.

The Ising part of the ferromagnetic exchange tends to reduce the $TS$ ordering.
The line $J_{\parallel} = J_{\perp} = J < 0$, corresponding to {\em isotropic
ferromagnetic exchange} marks the transition into a regime with gapless spin
excitations. At half-filling, in the case of isotropic exchange the model
(\ref{tJmodel}) is characterized by the high $SU(2) \otimes SU(2)$ symmetry.
Due to this symmetry the ground state of the ferromagnetic itinerant $XXX$
model is a Luttinger liquid ($LL$) phase, characterized by an identical
power-law decay of all correlations at large distances. In the case of
{\em ferromagnetic easy-axis} anisotropy ($J_{\parallel} < J_{\perp} < 0$)
a $LL$ phase with weakly dominating easy-plane magnetic instabilities is
realized. In the case of antiferromagnetic exchange, the line
$J_{\perp}= -\frac{1}{2}J_{\parallel}$ marks the transition into a regime
where a charge gap opens. Therefore in the case of {\em antiferromagnetic
easy-axis} anisotropy ($J_{\parallel} > 2|J_{\perp}|$) both the charge and
the spin channels are massive and long range $SDW^{z}$ (N\'eel) ordering
takes place.

\begin{figure}
\mbox{\epsfxsize 8.0cm\epsffile{TRSCfig1new.eps}}
\vskip0.5cm
\caption[]{
The weak-coupling phase diagram of the model (\ref{tJmodel}) in the case of a
half-filled band and at $U=0$. $\Delta_{c(s)}$ denotes the charge (spin) gap.
Thick lines seperate different phases:  1. $Dimer$ (LRO) - long range
ordered dimerized (Peierls) phase. 2. $SDW^{z}$ (LRO) - the long range ordered
antiferromagnetic (N\'eel) phase. 3. $SDW^{x,y}$ - insulating state with
dominating easy-plane antiferromagnetic correlations. 4. $SDW^{x,y}$  (LL)
- Luttinger liquid phase with dominating easy-plane antiferromagnetic
correlations. 5. $TS+SDW^{z}$ - phase with gapless charge and gapped spin
excitation spectrum characterized by the coexistence of the triplet
superconducting and antiferromagnetic instabilities.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}

Very rich is the phase diagram of the model (\ref{tJmodel}) in the case of
{\em antiferromagnetic} exchange. The line
$J_{\perp} =\frac{1}{2}J_{\parallel} > 0$ is the transition line from the
LRO $SDW^{z}$ phase into a LRO dimerized
(Peierls) phase.  The long range ordered dimerized phase is realized in
particular in the ground state of the antiferromagnetic itinerant $XXX$ model
($J_{\parallel} = J_{\perp} > 0$). The line $J_{\perp} =\sqrt{2\pi t
J_{\parallel}}$ marks the transition into an insulating phase with
gapless spin excitation spectrum and dominating in-plane ($XY$) magnetic
correlations.

We have to stress the weak-coupling nature of the presented phase diagram.
Higher order corrections will modify the shape of borderlines between phases.
However, far more important are strong coupling effect. In the case of
strong exchange interaction, there are additional phase transitions due to the
finite band width. Usually such effects can not be traced within the
continuum-limit (infinite band) approach used in this paper and will require
numerical studies. Below we focus only on the $TS$ part of the phase diagram
and present a qualitative analysis of the transition from the $TS$ phase
into a magnetic insulating phase.

Let us first consider the itinerant $XY$ model ($J_{\parallel}=U=0$). In the
weak-coupling limit $|J_{\perp}| \ll t$, the charge excitation spectrum is
gapless and the spin excitation spectrum is massive. However, in the limit of
strong ferromagnetic exchange $|J_{\perp}| \gg t$, the model is equivalent to
the $XY$ spin chain. Therefore, with increasing coupling one has to expect a
transition from the regime with massive spin and massless charge excitation
spectrum into a insulating magnetic phase with gapless spin excitations.
Our finite system studies show (see Fig. 2) that this transition takes place at
$J^{c}_{\perp} \sim -4t$ and is of level crossing type \cite{Note}. After
the transition the ground state energy of the itinerant model becomes very
close to the ground state of the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ $XY$ chain. In the case of
antiferromagnetic exchange
there is no transition with increasing $J_{\perp}>0$ and the system
continuously approaches its limiting behavior at
$J_{\perp}/t \rightarrow \infty$.
\begin{figure}
\mbox{\epsfxsize 8.0cm\epsffile{gsenew.eps}}
\vskip0.5cm
\caption[]{The ground state energy of the half-filled itinerant $XY$-Hubbard
chain (6 sites) vs. exchange for $U=0$ (diamonds ), $U=4$ (stars ) and $U=8$
(triangles). The dashed line correspond to the ground state energy of the
spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ $XY$ model.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}

The numerical data presented in Fig. 2 clearly indicate the
renormalization of the critical value of the transverse exchange
$J^{c}_{\perp}$ by the on-site Hubbard interaction. In the limit of strong
Hubbard repulsion $J^{c}_{\perp}$ is reduced to values of the order
$t^{2}/U$. Detailed numerical studies of the strong-coupling phase diagram of
the model (\ref{tJmodel}) is in progress and will be published elsewhere.

Figure 3 shows phase diagram of the itinerant-$XY$-Hubbard model.

Below we will focus on the ferromagnetic part of the phase diagram. We will
see that for moderate values of the Hubbard repulsion the
$TS$ and the $SDW$ phases survive. In the case of weak exchange one obtains
that a charge gap opens at $U >-J_{\perp}$ and a transition into a
long range ordered $SDW^{z}$ phase takes place. Therefore, at $U > 0$ with
increasing exchange one has to expect two different transitions:
for $U<|J_{\perp}|<t$ the transition discussed above will take place, but
for $U \gg t, |J_{\perp}|$ a ``spin-flop'' transition from the
LRO $SDW^{z}$ phase into the $XY$ phase has to occur.

\begin{figure}
\mbox{\epsfxsize 8.0cm\epsffile{TRSCfig3.eps}}
\vskip0.5cm
\caption[]{
The weak-coupling phase diagram of the model (\ref{tJmodel})
at $J_{\parallel}=0$. Solid lines indicate borders between the weak-coupling
limit phases. The dashed line marks (qualitatively) the transition
into the $XY$ magnetic phase.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}

The paper is orginized as follows: in the next section the weak-coupling
continuum-limit version of the model (\ref{tJmodel}) is constructed and the
renormalization-group analysis is performed. In the Sect. III, the
weak-coupling phase diagram is discussed. Finally, Sect. IV is devoted to a
discussion and to concluding remarks.

\section{\bf Continuum-limit theory and bosonization.}

In this section we construct the continuum-limit version of the model
Eq.~(\ref{tJmodel}) at half-filling. While this procedure has a long history
and is reviewed in many places \cite{GNT}, for clarity we briefly sketch the
most important points.

The field theory treatment of 1D systems of correlated electrons is based on
the weak-coupling approach $|U|, |J_{\perp}|, |J_{\parallel}| \ll t$. Assuming
that the low energy physics is controlled by states near the Fermi points
$ \pm k_{F}$ ($k_{F} =\pi/2a_{0}$, where $a_{0}$ is the lattice spacing) we
linearize the spectrum around these points and obtain two species (for each
spin projection $\alpha$) of fermions, $R_{\alpha}(n)$ and $L_{\alpha}(n)$,
which describe excitations with dispersion relations $E = \pm v_{F}p$. Here,
$v_{F}=2 ta_{0}$ is the Fermi velocity and the momentum $p$ is measured from
the two Fermi points. More explicitly, one decomposes the momentum expansion
for the initial lattice operators into two parts centered around $\pm k_{F}$
to obtain the mapping:
\begin{equation}\label{linearization}
c_{n,\alpha} \rightarrow  {\it i}^{n}R_{\alpha}(n) +
(-{\it i})^{n}L_{\alpha}(n),
\end{equation}
where the fields $R_{\alpha}(n)$ and $L_{\alpha}(n)$ describe
right-moving and left-moving particles, respectively, and are assumed to be
smooth on the scale of the lattice spacing. This allows us to introduce the
continuum fields $R_\alpha(x)$ and $L_\alpha(x)$ by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{continuumfields}
R_{\alpha}(n) & \rightarrow & \sqrt{a_{0}}R_{\alpha}(x=na_{0}),\nonumber\\
L_{\alpha}(n) & \rightarrow & \sqrt{a_{0}}L_{\alpha}(x=na_{0}).
\end{eqnarray}

In terms of the continuum fields the free Hamiltonian reads:
\begin{equation}\label{freelinearized}
{\cal H}_{0}  =  E_{0} - iv_{F}\sum_\alpha \int  dx
[:R^{\dagger}_{\alpha}\partial_{x} R_{\alpha}: -
:L^{\dagger}_{\alpha}\partial_{x}L_{\alpha}:]
\end{equation}
which is recognized as the Hamiltonian of a free massless Dirac field and the
symbols :...: denote normal ordering with respect to the ground state of the
free system.

The advantage of the linearization of the spectrum is twofold: the initial
lattice problem is reformulated in terms of smooth continuum fields and --
using the bosonization procedure -- is mapped to the theory of two
independent (in the weak-coupling limit) quantum sine-Gordon (SG) models
describing charge and spin degrees of freedom, respectively.

In terms of the continuum fields the initial lattice operators have the form:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{mapping2}
&\hat\rho_{n,\alpha}-\frac{1}{2}=a_{0}\{(J_{R,\alpha} + J_{L,\alpha})&
\nonumber\\
&+(-1)^{n}(R^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(x)L_{\alpha}(x) +
L^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(x)R_{\alpha}(x))\},&
\end{eqnarray}
here $J_{R,\alpha} \equiv :R^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(x)R_{\alpha}(x):$ and
$J_{L,\alpha} \equiv :L^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(x)L_{\alpha}(x):$,
\begin{equation}
\vec {\bf S}(n) = a_{0}\cdot\{ \vec {{\bf M}}(x) +
(-1)^{n}\vec{{\bf L}}(x)\}.
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\vec {\bf M}(x) = R^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(x)
\frac{\vec {\sigma}_{\alpha\beta}}{2}R_{\beta}(x) +
L^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(x)\frac{\vec {\sigma}_{\alpha\beta}}{2}L_{\beta}(x)
\end{equation}
determines the smooth part of the spin density in the continuum limit, and
\begin{equation}
\vec {\bf L}(x) = R^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(x)\frac{\vec {\sigma}_{\alpha\beta}}{2}
L_{\beta}(x) + L^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(x)\frac{\vec {\sigma}_{\alpha\beta}}{2}
R_{\beta}(x)
\end{equation}
is the staggered part of the local spin density.

The second step is to use the standard bosonization expressions for fermionic
bilinears \cite{GNT}:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{bos1}
-i\sum_{\alpha} [:R^{\dagger}_{\alpha}\partial_{x} R_{\alpha}:&-&
:L^{\dagger}_{\alpha}\partial_{x}L_{\alpha}:] \rightarrow \nonumber\\
{1\over 2}\{(\partial_{x}\theta_{c})^2+(\partial_{x}\phi_{c})^2\}
& + &{1\over 2}\{(\partial_{x}\theta_{s})^2+(\partial_{x}\phi_{s})^2\},
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{R,\alpha}+J_{L,\alpha}&\rightarrow&
{1 \over {\sqrt{2\pi}}}[(\partial_{x}\phi_{c}) + \alpha
(\partial_{x}\phi_{s})],\label{bos2}\\
J_{R,\alpha}-J_{L,\alpha}& \rightarrow & {1 \over {\sqrt{2\pi}}}
[(\partial_{x}\theta_{s}) + \alpha (\partial_{x}\theta_{s})]\label{bos3}\\
R^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(x)R_{-\alpha}(x)&\rightarrow &
{1 \over 2 \pi a_{0}}\exp(- {\it i}\alpha\sqrt{2\pi}(\phi_{s}-\theta_{s}))
\label{bos4}\\
L^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(x)L_{-\alpha}(x)&\rightarrow &
{1 \over 2 \pi a_{0}} \exp(+ {\it i} \alpha \sqrt{2\pi}(\phi_{s} +
\theta_{s}))\label{bos5}\\
R^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(x)L_{\alpha}(x)&\rightarrow &
{-i \over 2 \pi a_{0}}\exp(+{\it i} \sqrt{2\pi}
(\phi_{c} + \alpha \phi_{s})),\label{bos6}\\
R^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(x)L_{-\alpha}(x)&\rightarrow &
{1 \over 2 \pi a_{0}}\exp(- {\it i} \sqrt{2\pi}
(\phi_{c} - \alpha \theta_{s})).\label{bos7}
\end{eqnarray}
Here scalar fields $\phi_{c,s}(x)$ describe the charge and the spin degrees of
freedom and fields $\theta_{c,s}(x)$ are their dual counterparts:
$\partial_{x}\theta_{c,s}= \Pi_{c,s}$ where $\Pi_{c,s}$ is the momentum
conjugated to the field $\phi_{c,s}$.

Using bosonization formulas (\ref{bos1})-(\ref{bos7}), after rescaling of the
fields and lengths, the continuum-limit version of the Hamiltonian
(\ref{tJmodel}) acquires the following form
\begin{equation}\label{bosHamiltonian}
{\cal H}= {\cal H}_{c}+{\cal H}_{s}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
&{\cal H}_{c}=v_{c}\int dx\Big\{{1\over 2}[(\partial_{x}\varphi_{c})^2
+(\partial_x \vartheta_{c})^2]&\nonumber\\
&+ \frac{m_{c}}{a_0^2}\cos(\sqrt{8\pi K_{c}}\varphi_{c})
\Big\},&\label{SGc}\\
&{\cal H}_{s}=v_{s}\int dx\Big\{{1\over 2}[(\partial_{x}\vartheta_{s})^2
+(\partial_x\varphi_{s})^2]\nonumber\\
&+ \frac{m_{s}}{a_0^2}\cos(\sqrt{8\pi K_{s}}\varphi_{s})\Big\}.&\label{SGs}
\end{eqnarray}

Here we have defined
\begin{eqnarray}
& K_{c} \simeq 1+{1\over 2}g_{c},\qquad
m_{c}=-\frac{1}{2\pi}g_{u},&\label{Kc}\\
& K_{s}\simeq 1+{1\over 2}g_{s},\qquad
m_{s}=\frac{1}{2 \pi }g_{\perp},&\label{Ks}
\end{eqnarray}
$v_{c(s)}=v_{F}K^{-1}_{c(s)}$ and  small dimensionless coupling constants
given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
g_{c} =  g_{u}&= &- {1 \over 2 \pi t}(U+J_{\perp}+\frac{1}{2}J_{\parallel}),
\label{gcgu}\\
g_{s} &= & {1 \over 2\pi t}(U + J_{\perp}-\frac{3}{2}J_{\parallel} ),
\label{gperp}\\
g_{\perp}  & =  &{1 \over 2\pi t}(U - J_{\perp}+\frac{1}{2}J_{\parallel} ).
\label{gs}
\end{eqnarray}

The relation between $K_{c}$ ($K_{s}$), $m_{c}$ ($m_{s}$), and $g_{c}$
($g_{s}$), $g_{u}$ ($g_{\perp}$) is universal in the
weak coupling limit. In obtaining (\ref{bosHamiltonian}), several terms
corresponding to scattering processes in the vicinity of a Fermi point, which
lead to a renormalization of the Fermi velocities in second order in $g$, as
well as strongly irrelevant terms $\sim \cos(\sqrt{8\pi K_{c}}\varphi_{c})
\cos(\sqrt{8\pi K_{s}}\varphi_{s})$ describing um\-klapp processes with
parallel spins, were omitted.

The mapping of the initial lattice Hamiltonian Eq.~(\ref{tJmodel}) into
the continuum theory of two decoupled quantum SG models
Eqs.~(\ref{SGc})-(\ref{SGs}) performed above allows the study the ground state
phase diagram of the system based on the infrared properties of the SG
Hamiltonians. The corresponding behavior of the SG model is described by
pairs of renormalization group equations for the effective coupling constants
$\Gamma_{i}$ \cite{Wieg}
\begin{eqnarray}
d\Gamma_{u}/dL &=& - \Gamma_{c} \Gamma_{u} , \qquad
d\Gamma_{c}/dL = - \Gamma^{2}_{u},\label{RGsg.a}\\
d\Gamma_{\perp}/dL & = &- \Gamma_{s} \Gamma_{\perp},\qquad
d\Gamma_{s}/dL  = - \Gamma^{2}_{\perp},\label{RGsg.b}
\end{eqnarray}
where $L=log{\left(a/a_{0}\right)}$ and $\Gamma_{i}(0) = g_{i} $. Each pair
of equations
(\ref{RGsg.a}) and (\ref{RGsg.b}) describes a Kosterlitz--Thouless
transition \cite{KT} in the charge and spin channels. The flow diagram is
given in Fig. 1. The flow lines lie on the hyperbola
\begin{equation}\label{flowlines}
\Gamma_{c (s)}^{2} - \Gamma_{u (\perp)}^{2} = \mu_{c (s)} =
g_{c (s)}^{2} - g_{u (\perp)}^{2},
\end{equation}
and -- depending on the relation between the bare coupling constants
$g_{c(s)}$ and $g_{u(\perp)}$ -- exhibit two different regimes:

\begin{figure}
\mbox{\epsfxsize 8.0cm\epsffile{TRSCsgsd.eps}}
\vskip0.5cm
\caption[]{The renormalization-group flow diagram; the arrows denote the
direction of flow with increasing length scale.}
\label{TRSCsgsd.eps}
\end{figure}

For $g_{c}\geq |g_{u}|$ ($g_{s}\geq |g_{\perp}|$) we are in the weak coupling
regime; the effective mass $M_{c (s)}$ scales to $0$. The
low energy (large distance) behavior of the gapless charge (spin) degrees of
freedom is described by a free scalar field
\begin{equation}\label{KG}
{\cal H}_{c (s)} ={1 \over 2} v_{c (s)} \int dx
\{(\partial_{x} \theta_{c (s)})^{2} +
(\partial_{x} \varphi_{c (s)})^{2}\}
\end{equation}
where $\partial_{x}\theta_{c (s)}=P_{c (s)}$.

The corresponding correlations show a power law decay
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle e^{i\sqrt{2\pi K}\varphi(x)} e^{-i \sqrt{2\pi K} \varphi (x')}
\rangle \sim \left| x - x' \right|^{- K},\label{freecorrelations1}\\
\langle e^{i \sqrt{2\pi/K}\theta(x)} e^{-i\sqrt{2\pi/K}
\theta(x')}\rangle
 \sim \left| x - x' \right| ^{-1 / K},\label{freecorrelations2}
\end{eqnarray}
and the only parameter controlling the infrared behavior in the gapless
regime is the fixed-point value of the effective coupling constants
$K_{c(s)}$.

For $g_{c}<|g_{u}|$ ($g_{s}<|g_{\perp}|$) the system scales to the strong
coupling regime; depending on the sign of the bare mass $m_{c(s)}$ the
effective mass $M_{c(s)}$ scales to $\pm\infty$, which signals the crossover to
the strong coupling regime and indicates the dynamical generation of a
commensurability gap in the charge (spin) excitation spectrum. The fields
$\varphi_{c}$ ($\varphi_{s}$) get ordered with the vacuum expectation values
\cite{ME}
\begin{equation}\label{orderfields}
\langle\varphi_{c(s)}\rangle =\left\{ \begin{array}{l@{\quad}}
\sqrt{\pi/8K_{s}}
\hskip0.5cm(m_{c(s)}>0) \\
0 \hskip1.7cm (m_{c(s)}<0)\end{array}\right. \, .
\end{equation}

Using the initial values of the coupling constants, given in
(\ref{gcgu})-(\ref{gs}), we see that flow trajectories in the charge sector
(due to the $SU(2)$-charge symmetry) are along the separatrix $g_{c}= g_{u}$.
Therefore, at
\begin{equation}\label{CSsc}
U+J_{\perp}+\frac{1}{2}J_{\parallel}>0.
\end{equation}
there is a gap in the charge excitation spectrum ($\Delta_{c} \neq 0$) and the
charge field $\varphi_{c}$ is ordered  with the vacuum expectation value
\begin{equation}\label{PHIcs}
\langle  \varphi_{c} \rangle  = 0,
\end{equation}
while at $U+J_{\perp}+\frac{1}{2}J_{\parallel}<0$ the charge sector is gapless
and the fixed-point value of the parameter $K^{\ast}_{c}$ is $1$.

The $U(1)$ symmetry of the spin channel ensures more alternatives. Depending
on the relation between the bare coupling constants there are {\bf
two different strong-coupling sectors in the spin channel}. For
\begin{equation}\label{SS1sc}
U < \frac{1}{2}J_{\parallel} < J_{\perp}-U
\end{equation}
the spin channel is massive ($\Delta_{s} \neq 0$) and the field $\varphi_{s}$
gets ordered with the vacuum expectation value
\begin{equation}\label{PHI1ss}
\langle  \varphi_{s} \rangle  = 0,
\end{equation}
while for
\begin{equation}\label{Ss1cc}
J_{\perp}< {\em min}\{U+\frac{1}{2}J_{\parallel}; J_{\parallel}\}
\end{equation}
the spin channel is massive ($\Delta_{s} \neq 0$), with the vacuum
expectation value
\begin{equation}\label{PHI2ss}
\langle  \varphi_{s} \rangle  = \sqrt{\pi/8K_{s}}.
\end{equation}

In all other cases the excitation spectrum in the corresponding channel is
gapless. The low-energy behavior of the system is controlled by the fixed-point
value of the Luttinger-liquid parameter
$K^{\ast}_{s}=1+\frac{1}{2}g^{\ast}_{s}$.

However, in the particular case of strong antiferromagnetic easy-plane
anisotropy ($J_{\perp} \gg |J_{\parallel}|$), the clarification of details of
the phase diagram requires a closer inspection. Let us first consider the
$XY$ limit of the model: $U=J_{\parallel}=0$. As we see, the initial values
of the coupling constants $g_{s}$ and $g_{\perp}$, given in
(\ref{gperp})-(\ref{gs}), lie exactly on the separatrix $g_{s}=-g_{\perp}$ and
scale to the $SU(2)$-symmetric fixed-point value $g_{s}=g_{\perp}=0$. However,
due to the low $U(1)$-symmetry of the model, there is no symmetry reason which
would guarantee that the bare couplings lie {\em exactly} on the separatrix.
As we will show below, the higher order (finite band) effects push the scaling
trajectories from the separatrix. For details of the method we refer the reader
to the paper \cite{AM} where a similar effect in the pair-hopping model was
considered.

Since in first order the couplings lie on the separatrix, we must work
to ${\Large O}(J^{2})$. We find, that in the $SU(2)$-symmetric case
($J_{\perp}=J_{\parallel}=J$) $g_{s}-|g_{\perp}|=0$ up to
${\Large O}\left(J^{2}\right)$, but
for $J_{\perp} \neq J_{\parallel}$ there is an
${\Large O}\left((J_{\perp}-J_{\parallel})^{2}\right)$ correction to this
quantity. This correction occurs due to the nonlocal character of the
interaction and to deviations from the linear dispersion relations for
electrons on the lattice.

In particular, upon integrating out all modes with momenta outside the
small region around each Fermi point $|p-p_{F}| < \Lambda \equiv 2/a$, where
$\Lambda $ is small compared to $p_{F}$, we obtain the effective
theory described by equations (\ref{SGc})-(\ref{SGs}), with the following
coupling constants:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Gc}
g_{c} & = & g_{u} = -\frac{1}{2 \pi t}(J_{\perp}+
\frac{1}{2}J_{\parallel})  + \frac{1}{(2\pi t)^{2}}
\left(J_{\perp}J_{\parallel}-{1 \over 4}J_{\parallel}^{2}\right)
\nonumber\\
&-& \frac{1}{(2\pi t)^{2}}\left(J_{\perp} +
\frac{1}{2}J_{\parallel}\right)^{2}log{\left(a/a_{0}\right)} ,\\
g_{\perp} &=& \frac{1}{2\pi t}\left(\frac{1}{2}J_{\parallel} - J_{\perp}\right)
-\frac{1}{(2\pi t)^{2}}\left(J_{\perp}^{2}-2J_{\perp}J_{\parallel}+
\frac{1}{4}J_{\parallel}^{2}\right)\nonumber\\
&-& \frac{1}{(2\pi t)^{2}}\left(J_{\perp} - \frac{3}{2}J_{\parallel}\right)
\left(\frac{1}{2}J_{\parallel}- J_{\perp}\right)log{\left(a/a_{0}\right)}
\label{Gperp2order}\\
g_{s} &=& \frac{1}{2\pi t}\left(J_{\perp}-\frac{3}{2}J_{\parallel}\right)
+ \frac{1}{(2\pi t)^{2}}\left(2J_{\perp}^{2}-J_{\perp}J_{\parallel}-
\frac{1}{2}J_{\parallel}^{2}\right)\nonumber\\
&-&\frac{1}{(2\pi t)^{2}}\left(J_{\perp}-\frac{1}{2}J_{\parallel}\right)^{2}
log{\left(a/a_{0}\right)}
.\label{Gs2order}
\end{eqnarray}

Thus we see, while the bare couplings $g_{c}$ and $g_{u}$ always lie on the
$SU(2)$ separatrix, $g_{s}$ equals $|g_{\perp}|$ only in the $SU(2)$-symmetric
case $J_{\perp}=J_{\parallel}=J$:
\begin{equation}\label{SSSU2}
g_{s} = g_{\perp} = - \frac{J}{4\pi t}
-\frac{J^{2}}{4(2\pi t)^{2}}\left[log{\left(a/a_{0}\right)}
- 3\right].
\end{equation}
In the case of the $XY$ model the corresponding parameters are:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{XYgperp}
g_{\perp} & = & - \frac{1}{2\pi t}J_{\perp}+ \frac{1}{(2\pi t)^{2}}
J_{\perp}^{2}\left[log{\left(a/a_{0}\right)}-1\right]\\
g_{s} & = & \frac{1}{2\pi t}J_{\perp} -
\frac{1}{(2\pi t)^{2}} J_{\perp}^{2}\left[log{\left(a/a_{0}\right)}
-2\right].\label{XYgs}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus we see that the values of the coupling constants $g_{\perp}$ and
$g_{s}$ move off the separatrix into the region of the flow diagram that flows
to non-zero $g_{s}$. This movement occurs because now
\begin{equation}
\mu = g_{s}^{2}-g_{\perp}^{2}=\left(J_{\perp}/2\pi t\right)^{3} +
{\Large O}\left(J_{\perp}/t\right)^{4}>0. \label{mu}
\end{equation}
To actually find the
end-point value of the parameter $\Gamma_{s}$, we need the second order
renormalization group equations for the effective coupling constants.
These equations read \cite{AmitGrinstein}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{RGsg2ord.a}
d\Gamma_{\perp}/dL & = &- \Gamma_{s} \Gamma_{\perp}-\frac{1}{2}
\Gamma^{3}_{\perp}, \nonumber \\
d\Gamma_{s}/dL& = & - \Gamma^{2}_{\perp}-
\frac{1}{2}\Gamma^{2}_{\perp}\Gamma_{s}.\label{RGsg2ord.b}
\end{eqnarray}

Combing equations (\ref{RGsg2ord.a})-(\ref{mu}) one obtains
\begin{equation}\label{RGmu1}
d\mu/dL = -\Gamma_{\perp}^{2}\mu.
\end{equation}
Substituting the first-order solution for $\Gamma_{\perp}$ and solving
(\ref{RGmu1}) we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{RGmu2}
\mu(\infty) \equiv (g^{\ast}_{s})^{2} = \left(\frac{J_{\perp}}{2\pi t}\right)^{3}\exp(-J_{\perp}/2\pi t).
\end{equation}
At small $J_{\perp}>0$ the $XY$ model scales to a point on the fixed-point
line $\Gamma_{\perp}=0$ which approaches the $SU(2)$ end-point at
$J_{\perp} \rightarrow 0$ and moves along the critical line with increasing
parameter $J_{\perp}$.

Using (\ref{Gs2order}) and (\ref{Gperp2order}) and applying a similar
analysis in the case $J_{\parallel} \neq 0$, one easily obtains that a
gapless regime in the spin channel exists for
\begin{equation}\label{RGmu2jparalel}
J_{\perp} \leq \sqrt{2\pi t J_{\parallel}}.
\end{equation}

\section{The weak-coupling phase diagram}

Let us now consider the weak-coupling ground state phase diagram of the model
Eq. (\ref{tJmodel}).

\subsection{Order parameters}

To clarify the symmetry properties of the ground states of the system in
different sectors of the phase diagram we use the following set of order
parameters describing the
short wave--length fluctuations of the {\em site--located} charge density,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{CDWop}
\Delta_{\small CDW} & = &  (-1)^{n} \sum_{\alpha}
c^{\dagger}_{n,\alpha}c_{n,\alpha} \nonumber\\
& \sim &  \sin(\sqrt{2\pi K_{c}}\varphi_{c})
\cos( \sqrt{2\pi K_{s}}\varphi_{s}) \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
the {\em site-located} spin density,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta_{\small SDW^{z}} & = & (-1)^{n} \sum_{\alpha}\alpha
c^{\dagger}_{n,\alpha}c_{n,\alpha}\nonumber\\
& \sim &
\cos(\sqrt{2\pi K_{c}}\varphi_{c}) \sin( \sqrt{2\pi K_{s}}\varphi_{s})
\label{SDWZop}  \\
\Delta_{\small SDW^{x}} & = & (-1)^{n} \sum_{\alpha}c^{\dagger}_{n,\alpha}
c_{n,-\alpha}\nonumber\\
& \sim &
\cos(\sqrt{2\pi K_{c}}\varphi_{c})\cos(\sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{K_{s}}}\theta_{s}),
\label{SDWXop}\\
\Delta_{\small SDW^{y}} & = & i(-1)^{n} \sum_{\alpha}\alpha
c^{\dagger}_{n,\alpha}c_{n,-\alpha}\nonumber\\
& \sim &
\cos(\sqrt{2\pi K_{c}}\varphi_{c}  )\sin(\sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{K_{s}}}\theta_{s}),
\label{SDWYop}
\end{eqnarray}
and the short wave--length fluctuations of the {\em bond--located}
charge density,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta_{\small dimer} & = &(-1)^{n} \sum_{\alpha}
(c^{\dagger}_{n, \alpha}c_{n+1,\alpha} + H.c.) \nonumber\\
& \sim &
\cos(\sqrt{2\pi K_{c}}\varphi_{c}) \cos( \sqrt{2\pi K_{s}}\varphi_{s}).
\label{DIMERop}
\end{eqnarray}
In addition we use two superconducting order parameters corresponding to
singlet ($\Delta_{SS}$) and triplet ($\Delta_{TS}$) superconductivity:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta_{SS}(x) &= & R^{\dagger}_{\uparrow}(x)L^{\dagger}_{\downarrow}(x)
- R^{\dagger}_{\downarrow}(x)L^{\dagger}_{\uparrow}(x) \nonumber\\
& \sim & \exp(i \sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{K_{c}}}\theta_{c})
\cos(\sqrt{2 \pi K_{s}}\varphi_{s}),\label{SSop}\\
\Delta_{TS}(x) & = & R^{\dagger}_{\uparrow}(x)L^{\dagger}_{\downarrow}(x)  +
R^{\dagger}_{\downarrow}(x)L^{\dagger}_{\uparrow}(x) \nonumber\\
& \sim &   \exp(i  \sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{K_{c}}}\theta_{c})
\sin(\sqrt{2 \pi K_{s}}\varphi_{s}).\label{TSop}
\end{eqnarray}

\subsection{Phases}

With the results of the previous section for the excitation spectrum
and the behavior of the corresponding fields
Eqs.~(\ref{freecorrelations1})--(\ref{orderfields}) we now analyze the ground
state phase diagram of the model (\ref{tJmodel}) (see Fig. 5 and Fig. 6).

Let us first consider the sector of the phase diagram  corresponding to
$U+J_{\perp}+\frac{1}{2}J_{\parallel}>0$, characterized by a
{\bf gap in the charge excitation spectrum}. In this case we obtain the
following regimes of behavior:

\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf A.} \qquad   $\Delta_{c} \neq 0$,  $\Delta_{s} \neq 0$,
$\langle\varphi_{c}\rangle = \langle \varphi_{s} \rangle =0$;
\end{itemize}

This regime corresponds to the appearance of a long-range ordered
{\em dimerized (Peierls)} phase
\begin{equation}\label{correlDimer}
\langle \Delta_{\small dimer}(x) \Delta_{\small dimer}(x')\rangle \sim
{\it constant}
\end{equation}
in the ground state of the model. This phase is realized in the case of {\em
dominating antiferromagnetic exchange}, in particular for isotropic exchange
$J_{\parallel}=J_{\perp}=J>2U$.

\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf B.} $\Delta_{c} \neq 0$,  $\Delta_{s} \neq 0$,
$\langle\varphi_{c}\rangle = 0$,
$\langle \varphi_{s} \rangle = \sqrt{\pi/8K_{s}}$;
\end{itemize}

This regime corresponds to the appearance of a long-range ordered
{\em antiferromagnetic (Neel)} phase
\begin{equation}\label{correlSDWz}
\langle\Delta_{\small SDW^{z}}(x)\Delta_{\small SDW^{z}}(x')\rangle \sim
{\it constant}
\end{equation}
in the ground state. In this regime the Hubbard model is extended by
incorporating an easy-axis spin exchange interaction.

\begin{figure}
\mbox{\epsfxsize 8.0cm\epsffile{TRSCfig5.eps}}
\vskip0.5cm
\caption[]{The weak-coupling phase diagram  of the model (\ref{tJmodel}) at
$U > 0$}
\label{TRSCfig5}
\end{figure}

\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf C.} \qquad $\Delta_{c} \neq 0$,
$\langle\varphi_{c}\rangle = 0$, $\Delta_{s} = 0$;
\end{itemize}

The charge excitation spectrum is gapped. Ordering of the field
$\varphi_{c}$ with vacuum expectation value $\langle \varphi_{c} \rangle =0$
leads to a suppression of the $CDW$ and {\em superconducting} correlations. The
$SDW$ and {\em Peierls} correlations show a power-low decay at large distances.
The low-energy properties of the gapless spin degrees of freedom are controlled
by the fixed-point value of the Luttinger liquid parameter $K^{\ast}_{s}$.

In the $SU(2)$-spin symmetric case
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf C1.} \qquad $J_{\parallel}=J_{\perp}=J,\qquad
-\frac{2}{3}U < J < 2U$;
\end{itemize}

$K^{\ast}_{s}=1$ and the {\em Peierls}
and $SDW^{{\it i}}$ $({\it i}= x,y,z)$ correlations show
{\em identical power-law decay} at large distances:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{correlDIMER}
\langle \Delta_{\small dimer}(x) \Delta_{\small dimer}(x')\rangle
&\simeq & \langle\Delta_{\small SDW}(x)\Delta_{\small SDW}(x')\rangle
 \nonumber\\
& \sim & \left| x - x' \right|^{-1}.
\end{eqnarray}

In the general case of $U(1)$-spin symmetry,
$K^{\ast}_{s}>1$ and the
{\em ``in-plane''} $SDW^{x,y}$ correlations dominate in the ground state,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{correlSDWxy}
 \langle\Delta_{\small SDW^{x}}(x)\Delta_{\small SDW^{x}}(x')\rangle
&\simeq & \langle\Delta_{\small SDW^{y}}(x)\Delta_{\small SDW^{y}}(x')\rangle
 \nonumber\\
& \sim & \left| x - x' \right|^{-1/K^{\ast}_{s}},
\end{eqnarray}
while the {\em Peierls} and $SDW^{z}$ correlations decay faster,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{correldimernLRO}
\langle \Delta_{\small dimer}(x) \Delta_{\small dimer}(x')\rangle
&\simeq & \langle\Delta_{\small SDW}(x)\Delta_{\small SDW}(x')\rangle
 \nonumber\\
& \sim & \left| x - x' \right|^{-K^{\ast}_{s}}.
\end{eqnarray}
This case corresponds to an extension of the Hubbard model by
incorporating an easy-plane spin exchange interaction.

Let us now consider the sector $U+J_{\perp}+\frac{1}{2}J_{\parallel}<0$
in which the charge excitation spectrum is gapless.

The following different regimes are realized in this sector:

\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf D.}\qquad $\Delta_{c} = 0 $, $\Delta_{s} \neq 0$,
$\langle\varphi_{s}\rangle = 0$;
\end{itemize}

This phase is realized in the case of {\em dominating attractive Hubbard
interaction}, in particular for isotropic exchange
$J_{\parallel} = J_{\perp} = J$ at $2U<J<-\frac{2}{3}U$.

There is a gap in the spin excitation spectrum. The spin field is ordered,
$\langle \varphi_{s} \rangle =0$. Ordering of the field
$\langle\varphi_{s}\rangle$ leads to a {\em suppression} of the $SDW$ and $TS$
fluctuations. The low-energy properties of the
gapless charge degrees of freedom are controlled by the fixed-point value of
the Luttinger liquid parameter $K^{\ast}_{c}$.

In the case of a half-filled band which we are considering here the charge
degrees of freedom are governed by
the $SU(2)$-charge symmetry. The fixed-point value of the parameter $K_{c}$
(due to the $SU(2)$-charge symmetry) is $K^{\ast}_{c}=1$. The {\em CDW},
{\em SS}, and {\em Peierls} correlations show identical power-law decay at
large distances,
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \Delta_{\small CDW}(x)\Delta_{\small CDW}(x')\rangle &=&
\langle \Delta_{\small SS}(x)\Delta_{\small SS}(x')\rangle =\nonumber\\
\langle \Delta_{\small dimer}(x) \Delta_{\small dimer}(x')\rangle &\sim&
\left| x - x' \right|^{-1}.
\label{correlSU2}
\end{eqnarray}

\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf E.} \qquad   $\Delta_{c} = 0$,  $\Delta_{s} = 0$;
\end{itemize}

In this case the Luttinger liquid ($LL$) phase is realized.

The charge and the spin channel are gapless. the low-energy behavior of the
system is controlled by the Luttinger liquid parameters $K^{\ast}_{c}$ and
$K^{\ast}_{s}$.

In the case of $SU(2)$-invariant spin exchange
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf E1.} \qquad $J_{\parallel}=J_{\perp}=J <
{\em min}\{-\frac{2}{3}U, 2U \}$
\end{itemize}

$K^{\ast}_{c}=K^{\ast}_{s}=1$ and all correlations show
$\left| x - x' \right|^{-2}$ decay at large distances.

In the case of a $U(1)$-symmetric spin channel, the LL phase is realized for
easy-axis ferromagnetic anisotropy. In this case $K^{\ast}_{c}=1$,
$K^{\ast}_{s}>1$ and in the weak-coupling limit the in-plane antiferromagnetic
correlations dominate
\begin{equation}\label{correlTS+SS2}
\langle \Delta_{\small SDW^{x,y}}(x)\Delta_{\small SDW^{x,y}}(x')\rangle \sim
\left| x - x' \right|^{-1-1/K_{s}}.
\end{equation}

\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf F.} \qquad $\Delta_{c} = 0$, $\Delta_{s} \neq 0$
$\langle\varphi_{s}\rangle = \sqrt{\pi/8K_{s}} $;
\end{itemize}

This sector of the phase diagram is dual to the sector
{\bf D}. As common in the half-filled band case, the gapless charge
excitation spectrum opens a possibility for the realization of a
{\em superconducting} instability in the system. Moreover, due to the
$U(1)$-symmetry of the system, ordering of the $\varphi_{s}$ with vacuum
expectation value $\langle \varphi_{s} \rangle =\sqrt{\pi/8K_{s}} $ leads to a
suppression of the $CDW$ and $SS$ correlations. In this case the $SDW$
and $TS$ fluctuations show identical power-low decay at large distances,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{correlTS-SDW}
\langle \Delta_{\small SDW}(x)\Delta_{\small SDW}(x')\rangle  &=&
\langle \Delta_{\small TS}(x)\Delta_{\small TS}(x')\rangle \nonumber\\
& \sim & \left| x - x' \right|^{-1},
\end{eqnarray}
and are the {\em dominating instabilities} in the system. This phase is
realized only for anisotropic spin exchange in the case of strong
{\em ferromagnetic easy-plane} anisotropy.
\begin{figure}
\mbox{\epsfxsize 8.0cm\epsffile{TRSCfig6.eps}}
\vskip0.5cm
\caption[]{
The weak-coupling phase diagram of the model (\ref{tJmodel})  at $U < 0$}
\label{TRSCfig6}
\end{figure}

\section{Discussion and summary}

In this paper we have studied the one-dimensional $t-J$ model of
correlated electrons in the case of a half-filled band. This model describes a
system of itinerant electrons with spin-exchange interaction between
electrons on nearest-neighbor sites. We have demonstrated that in
the case of easy-plane anisotropic ferromagnetic exchange the
{\em triplet superconducting} and $SDW$ instabilities are the dominating
instabilities in the system. These instabilities remain dominating
instabilities in the ground state also for moderate values of the on-site
Hubbard interaction. We stress that, in 1D this phase can be realized only
in the case of $U(1)$-spin symmetry. This result is in agreement with recent
experimental results showing strong easy-plane anisotropy of
ferromagnetic spin fluctuations in the triplet superconductor $Sr_{2}RuO_{4}$
\cite{Trexp5}. We want to stress, that although in this paper we presented
results considering the half-filled band case only, it is obvious that doping
will split the degeneracy between the $TS$ and $SDW$ phases and will favor the
superconducting instability in the system.

We also demonstrated a strong enhancement of tendencies towards Peierls
ordering in the electron system caused by an isotropic (or weakly anisotropic)
antiferromagnetic exchange. We have shown that the half-filled $t-J$
model shows a long-range dimerized (Peierls) ordering in the ground state
in the case of antiferromagnetic exchange.

We also demonstrated the importance of the finite-band effects in this model
and presented a qualitative description of the transition from the
band-dominated $TS$+$SDW$ phase into the insulating spin-1/2 magnetic $XY$
phase. Detailed numerical studies of the phase diagram for strong exchange
coupling and for arbitrary filling are in progress and will be published
elsewhere.
\vskip1.0cm
\centerline{{\bf ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}}
\vskip0.5cm

GJ aknowledges helpful discussions with D. Baeriswyl, C. Dziurzik, A.P. Kampf,
A.A. Nersesyan and A. Schadschneider. This work was supported by the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft in the framework of the research program of the
Sonderforschungsbereich 341. GJ acnowledges INTAS support under the Grant
GEORGIA-INTAS No. 97-1340.


\section{Introduction}
The success of atomic Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) has opened
a major research area \cite{bec,mit-1,bec-2} in weakly interacting
quantum gases \cite{edwards}. Experimental breakthroughs have been
achieved thanks to several remarkable advances in atomic, molecular,
and optical physics. In particular, the
laser cooling and trapping of neutral particles \cite{ct,nobel},
and the ingenious application of the evaporative cooling
technique \cite{doyle,druten,walraven}.

Evaporative cooling was first developed for magnetically confined
atomic H \cite{doyle}, and is based on a simple principle seen in
everyday life \cite{druten,walraven}. In a quasi equilibrium system
the particles most likely to evaporate are the most energetic. In
doing so, the particle leaves behind a system with a lower average
energy per particle, i.e., a cooled system. Less appreciated
perhaps, is that forced evaporative cooling is the key to reaching
quantum degeneracy in alkali metal systems. A sufficient condition
for successful evaporative cooling is the threshold ``run-away''
requirement, when an increased collision rate is achieved despite
the loss of atoms. This technique was adapted to alkali atomic
systems in the first generation of BEC experiments \cite{alkali}.
It has since been demonstrated to work over a wide range of
temperatures and densities, and has been applied to all successful
BEC experiments this far \cite{edwards}.

With such a powerful technique one may ask why it has not yet been
used
 to create degenerate atomic Fermi gases ?
A careful examination of current magnetic trapping set-ups helps to
clarify the fundamental problem. Alkali metal atoms
have two degenerate manifolds of hyperfine ground states
$f=I\pm 1/2$, due to the coupling between the nuclear $\vec I$ and
electronic spin $\vec s$ $(s = 1/2)$.
A typical magnetic trap arrangement confines
 the low field seeking Zeeman state
with maximum spin polarization $m_f=f$ (at the moment we assume a
single $m_f$ value is trapped, mixtures of two different $m_f$ values will
be discussed later). Eigenstates of $\vec F ^2$, where
$\vec F=\vec f+\vec f$ is the total hyperfine spin of two colliding atoms,
 have definite spin exchange symmetry
given by $(-1)^{2f-F}= +1$. Thus only the
partial waves for which the relative orbital angular momentum $l$
is odd contribute to the antisymmetrized scattering amplitude.
From
low energy atomic collision theory, we know that the partial wave
phase shifts are $\delta_l(k) \propto k^{2l+1}$ for a short ranged
potential, typical of alkali metal atoms in their ground state.
Therefore only the s-wave ($l=0$) has a non-zero contribution in
the low energy $(k\to 0$) limit, characterized by a scattering
length $a_{\rm sc}=-\lim_{k\to 0}\delta_0(k)/k$. One then obtains
the elastic cross section $\sigma_B=8\pi a_{\rm sc}^2$ for bosons,
while for fermions $\sigma_F \rightarrow 0$, in the limit $k \rightarrow 0$.
 Without the thermal equilibration produced by
elastic collisions, evaporative cooling can not be directly applied
to a single fermionic species.
This is the same fundamental reason that BCS states
for trapped fermionic gases are not easily accessible
\cite{Stoof,Kagan}. Obviously, if two or more spin components are
simultaneously trapped, spin-statistics does not prohibit s-wave
collisions between the spins at low energy, so that sympathetic cooling
is in principle possible.

In this paper we discuss an efficient mechanism for the evaporative
cooling of trapped fermions. The mechanism employs an external
electric field to polarize atoms, enabling cooling at low energy.
We also discuss the sympathetic cooling of fermionic mixtures. The
paper is organized as follows. In section II we begin with a
discussion of the major results for collisions between atoms in an
external electric field \cite{mm}. We then outline our proposal for
the evaporation kinetics of fermions, closely following the
approach developed in \cite{luiten,kris} for bosons. We present our
numerical studies and estimate the time scales for fermionic
species $^6$Li and $^{40}$K. In section III we discuss sympathetic
cooling of fermionic spin mixtures, along the lines of the Jila
experiment \cite{jin}. Finally, in section IV we present our
conclusions.

\section{ Collision kinetics of atoms in an electric field}
As shown in detail in ref. \cite{mm}, polarized atoms in
an external electric field interact through the
dipole interaction
\begin{equation}
V_E(R)=-\frac{C_E}{R^3} P_2(\cos\theta),
\label{a2}
\end{equation}
in addition to the usual interatomic potentials. Here,
$C_E=2E^2\alpha_1^A(0)\alpha_1^{B}(0)$ is the
electric field induced dipole interaction coefficient and $\alpha_1^{A,B}(0)$
are the static atomic dipole polarizabilities of the two atoms
denoted by $A$ and $B$, respectively. The angle between the directions
of the electric field ( of amplitude $E$ )
and the internuclear axis is denoted by $\theta$, and $P_2$ is the
 Legendre polynomial of order 2. The presence of this anisotropic interaction
term completely changes the low energy collision physics.
In particular {\it all} partial waves now contribute
to the low energy scattering cross sections since one
can prove analytically that $\delta_l(k)\sim k$ for all $l$ \cite{mm}.
The unsymmetrized low energy scattering amplitude is
\begin{equation}
F({\vec k},{\hat R})={4\pi}\sum_{lm,l'm'}
t_{lm}^{l'm'}(k)Y_{l'm'}^*({\hat k})Y_{lm}({\hat R}),
\label{ca}
\end{equation}
where $t_{lm}^{l'm'}$ are the reduced T-matrix elements, the multi-channel
analogues of the scattering length. Here the incident relative
momentum of the two colliding atoms is denoted by $\vec k = k \hat k$,
and $\vec k'= k \hat R  $ is
the relative momentum after the collision.

For a gas of atoms in an electic field we can now derive the collision
integral for the
quantum Boltzman equation (QBE). The QBE is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(\frac {\partial} {\partial t} + \frac {\vec p}{m} \cdot
\nabla_{\vec r}-\nabla_{\vec r} U(\vec r) \cdot \nabla_{\vec p}\right)
\, f(\vec r,\vec p,t) = {\cal I}(\vec r,\vec p,t),
\label{pkinetic}
\end{eqnarray}
where $f(\vec r,\vec p,t)$ is the phase space distribution function, and
 $U(\vec r)$ the external trapping potential. Using Eq. (\ref{ca})
we arrive at the following collision integral
\begin{eqnarray}\label{kernal}
{\cal I}(\vec r,\vec p_4,t) &=&
\frac{2}{m (2\pi\hbar)^3} \int d \vec p_3 d\hat q\,'
\left|F_{B/F}
\left({1\over 2}(\vec p_3-\vec p_4),{1\over 2}(\vec p_1 - \vec p_2)\right)\right|^2
\left|\frac {\vec p_3-\vec p_4}{2}\right|\nonumber \\
&&\Big [ f(\vec r,\vec p_1) f(\vec r,\vec p_2)
[1+\eta f(\vec r,\vec p_3)][1+\eta f(\vec r,\vec p_4)]-
[1+\eta f(\vec r,\vec p_1)] [1+\eta f(\vec r,\vec p_2)]
f(\vec r,\vec p_3)f(\vec r,\vec p_4)\Big],
\end{eqnarray}
where $F_{\phi}$ is the symmetrized, unsymmetrized, or the anti-symmetrized
scattering amplitude for bosonic ($\eta=1$), classical ($\eta=0$), or
fermionic atoms ($\eta=-1$), respectively.
We have used the following notation. Two atoms with
incoming momentum $\vec p_3$ and $\vec p_4$ collide and
produce an outgoing pair with momentum $\vec p_1$ and $\vec p_2$.
 The scattering amplitude from
an initial relative momentum
$\vec q=(\vec p_3-\vec p_4)/2$ to a final
momentum $\vec q\,'=(\vec p_1-\vec p_2)/2$
is given by $F(\vec q,\vec q\,')$.
For elastic collisions one has $q=q\,'$ in addition to the conservation
of the total momentum $\vec P=\vec p_3+\vec p_4=\vec p_1+\vec p_2$
[assuming the collision to be localized in space at a fixed $U(\vec r)$]
and energy $\epsilon_3+\epsilon_4=\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2$.
The differential cross section
for scattering into the (relative) solid angle $d\hat q\,' $ is given by
$d \sigma = |F(\vec q, \vec q\,')|^2 d \hat q\,'$,
and $|F(\vec q, \vec q\,')|^2 = |F(\hat q,\hat q\,')|^2$ for the
low energy collisions under consideration. The approximation of
localized collisions within a small spatial region compared with the
variations of $U(\vec r)$ allows us to neglect the $\vec P$
dependence of $F$.

Assuming an ergodic distribution for the system, we introduce the
energy dependent single particle distribution function
$n(\epsilon,t)$ and obtain the kinetic equation in ergodic
approximation \cite{luiten},
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho(\epsilon_4){\partial\over \partial t} n(\epsilon_4,t)
&\approx & \frac {m\sigma_{\phi}}{\pi^2 \hbar^3}
\int d \epsilon_{1}\,d \epsilon_{2}\,d \epsilon_{3}\,
\delta(\epsilon_{1}+\epsilon_{2}-\epsilon_{3}-\epsilon_{4})
\rho(\min [\epsilon_{1},\epsilon_{2},\epsilon_{3},\epsilon_{4}])\nonumber\\
&&\Big [n(\epsilon_1)n(\epsilon_2)
[1+\eta n(\epsilon_3)][1+\eta n(\epsilon_4)]-
[1+\eta n(\epsilon_1)][1+\eta n(\epsilon_2)]
n(\epsilon_3)n(\epsilon_4)\Big],
\label{ekinetic}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\rho(\epsilon)$ is the density of states.
Our result is formally similar to the standard result
for isotropic s-wave collisions in the absence of an electric field
\cite{luiten,kris}, when the s-wave collision cross section is replaced by the
effective scattering cross sections $\sigma_{\phi}$. In reaching the
form of Eq. (\ref{ekinetic}),
the collision integral has been approximated by assuming that the fast
varying part in the $\cos\theta_{\vec q}$ and $\cos\theta_{\vec q\,'}$
integration comes from
the delta functions $\delta[\epsilon-p_i^2/2m-U(r)]$
rather than the scattering amplitude $F_{\phi}$,
thus we have extracted the scattering cross section
factor out of the integrand, and replaced it by its average
\begin{eqnarray}
\int\! d\hat q\,'d \hat q{1\over 4\pi}|F(\hat q,\hat q')|^2&=&
2\times 4\pi\sum_{lm,l'm'}^{l,l' {\rm even/odd}}|t_{lm}^{l'm'}|^2
\equiv \sigma_{\eta},
\end{eqnarray}
where the additional factor of $2$ occurs in the Bose/Fermi case
due to the symmetrization/anti-symmetrization.
A specific discussion of p-wave scattering is
presented later.

For highly confined atoms inside magnetic traps, corrections due to
discrete level structure need to be included. When a long range
type of potential (\ref{a2}) is involved, one can not in general
approximate the atom-atom interaction potential by a contact
$\delta(\vec r -\vec r')$ form as is usually adopted in the s-wave
collision models. Special care is needed to find the scattering
matrix element for atoms in different trap states. The quantum
kinetic equation now takes the form (for bosons and fermions)
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{dn_{{\vec i}}}{dt}&=&
\sum_{{\vec j,\vec k,\vec l}}
\delta_{\epsilon_{{\vec i}} +\epsilon_{{\vec j}}, \epsilon_{{\vec k}}
+\epsilon_{{\vec l}}}\gamma_{\vec i,\vec j;\vec k,\vec l}
\nonumber\\
&&\left( n_{{\vec k}} n_{{\vec l}} (1\pm n_{{\vec i}})
(1\pm n_{{\vec j}})-
n_{{\vec i}} n_{{\vec j}} (1\pm n_{{\vec l}})
(1\pm n_{{\vec k}})\right),
\label{qkinetic}
\end{eqnarray}
where $n_{{\vec i}}=n(\epsilon_{\vec i})$ is the population in
level $\epsilon_{\vec i}=\hbar (i_x\omega_x+i_y\omega_y+i_z\omega_z)$
with $\omega_x$, $\omega_y$, and $\omega_z$ the trap frequencies in
the $x,\;y,\;$ and $z$ directions.

For s-wave collisions, when the contact potential is valid,
the collisional matrix element is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma_{\vec i,\vec j;\vec k,\vec l}\propto
\left|\int \Phi_{\vec i}^*(\vec r) \Phi_{\vec j}^*(\vec r)
\Phi_{\vec k}(\vec r) \Phi_{\vec l}(\vec r) d \vec r\right|^2,
\label{gs}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Phi_{\vec i}(\vec r)$ denotes the wave function for trap state
$\vec i = (i_x,i_y,i_z)$.
For the anisotropic collisions discussed here we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma_{\vec i,\vec j;\vec k,\vec l}={2\pi\over\hbar}
{1\over \hbar\omega} \left|4\pi
\sum_{lm,l'm'}t_{lm}^{l'm'}\int d \vec p\, I_{\vec i,\vec j}^{l'm'*}(\vec p)
I_{\vec k,\vec l}^{lm}(\vec p)\right|^2,
\label{ggs}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
I_{\vec i,\vec j}^{l'm'}(\vec p)=\int d \vec q\,'
\Phi_{\vec i}({\vec p/2}+\vec q\,')
\Phi_{\vec j}({\vec p/2}-\vec q\,')
Y_{l'm'}^{*}(\hat q\,'),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Phi_{\vec i}(\vec p)$ is the wavefunction in momentum space.

Clearly, apart from final state quantum
statistical factors, the collision kernel
on the rhs of Eqs. (\ref{ekinetic}) and (\ref{qkinetic})
takes the same form as that for classical atoms with s-wave collisions.
For fermions, the effective cross section $\sigma_{-}$ provides
an opportunity for investigation of the ergodic
kinetics as has been done previously for bosons \cite{murray,zoller}.
Therefore the net effect of the electric field is to polarize
atoms, modify their collisional properties and thereby induce
a non-zero elastic cross section at low energy.
 The electric field dependence of the
effective cross sections $\sigma=\sigma_{\pm}$ allows one to control
the time scale of evaporation by adjusting the
strength of the electric field $E$.
In addition, since the microscopic collision processes for
polarized atoms are anisotropic, kinetic motions in different
spatial directions are mixed. The validity of
the ergodic approximation is thus reinforced.

\subsection{Results}
In this subsection we report our numerical studies of
fermionic evaporative cooling in an electric field.
 We focus primarily on the qualitative differences between fermions
and bosons in this paper, and the fundamental issues
relating to fermionic evaporation. We will approximate
the scattering matrix element $\gamma_{\vec i,\vec j;\vec k,\vec l}$
by the equivalent s-wave contribution, retaining only the leading
$t^{00}_{00}$ contribution in (\ref{ggs}).
We believe that this approximation should not produce any qualitative
differences from the full model in the results presented.

In the early stages of evaporative cooling, when the effect of
phase space blocking term $[1-f(\vec r,\vec p)]$
or $(1-n_\epsilon)$ is unimportant, the kinetic term reduces
precisely to that of a classical gas with an
effective cross section $\sigma_{-}$. The evaporative
kinetics of such a case have been extensively studied
\cite{druten,walraven,luiten,kris,murray,zoller}. The classical
run-away conditions can be achieved provided loss mechanisms
are controlled. For $^6$Li, $^{40}$K, and $^{82,84,86}$Rb, we have performed
detailed multichannel collision calculations for atoms in an electric field.
 For fields of the order of a few (MV/cm) we find that one can readily
induce an effective scattering cross section as large as for
their bosonic counterparts $^7$Li, $^{39}$K, $^{41}$K,
 $^{85}$Rb, and $^{87}$Rb.
Our results are displayed in Figs. \ref{fig1}, \ref{fig2}, and
\ref{fig3}. The case of $^6$Li is particularly interesting, since
the triplet scattering cross section reaches the field-free value
of bosonic $^7$Li ($8\pi a_{T}^2$) with $a_{T}=-27.6$\,(a.u.) at a
value of $E\sim3$ (MV/cm) \cite{bec-2}. For $^{40}$K, it reaches
the field free bosonic isotope value of $a_{T}\sim 80$ (a.u.) for
$^{39}$K and $a_{T}\sim 300$ (a.u.) \cite{cote} for $^{41}$K at
values of $E\sim 2 $ (MV/cm) and $E\sim 1 $ (MV/cm), respectively.
For $^{82,84,86}$Rb, it reaches the field free bosonic isotope
value of $a_{T}\sim 369$ (a.u.) for $^{85}$Rb and $a_{T}\sim 106$
(a.u.) for $^{87}$Rb \cite{chris} at values of $E\sim 0.8 $ (MV/cm)
and $E\sim 1.5 $ (MV/cm), respectively.

The promising scenario discussed above can not be simply
extrapolated to the regime of quantum degeneracy. The effect of
phase space blocking significantly reduces the collision rates at
quantum degeneracy. Time scales for evaporation are greatly
prolonged for fermions, while for bosons the final state
stimulation factor $(1+n_\epsilon)$ further enhances the classical
run-away evaporation. Of course this type of slowing is not unique
to our scheme of fermionic evaporation, it is a generic feature of
fermionic quantum statistics. As such, it is also present for other
fermionic cooling schemes such as sympathetic cooling with bosons.
One should realize that in this regime of phase space density the
energy scale involved is already extremely low, and the crucial
challenge is in keeping the inelastic collision and loss rates
down.

In numerical studies with Eq. (\ref{qkinetic}) for a variety for
parameters, we have found that down to the limit of a trapped gas
temperature of the order of the Fermi energy $\mu_F$ (typically
$\sim 0.5\mu_F$), the evaporation proceeds as if the atoms were
classical or bosonic, i.e., the final state blocking effect is
unimportant. In Figs. \ref{fig4} and \ref{fig5} we display
comparisons of evaporative cooling for bosons, fermions, and
classical atoms (with the same collision cross section $\sigma$)
contained in an isotropic harmonic trap with trap frequency
$\hbar\omega$. The system contains $N=10^5$ atoms initially, which
are assumed to obey the Maxwell Boltzmann distributions with an
initial temperature $T=164.92\,(\hbar\omega)=2T_F$, i.e., twice the
initial Fermi temperature. The evaporation is effected by ramping
down the trapping potential with a cut $\epsilon_{\rm cut}(t)
=\epsilon_0 e^{-\gamma_{\rm cut} t}$. The time scale of the
evaporation is $\tau=t/\tau_0$ with $1/ \tau_0\equiv (m\sigma /
\pi^2\hbar^3) (\hbar\omega)^2$. The evaporation rate
is $\gamma_{\rm cut}=\gamma_{\rm coll}(0)/30$, with $\gamma_{\rm
coll}(0)$ the initial collision rate. The time dependent collision
rate is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma_{\rm coll}(t)&=&\frac{1}{N(t)}
\sum_{\epsilon_{\vec i},\epsilon_{\vec j},\epsilon_{\vec k},\epsilon_{\vec l}}
\delta_{\epsilon_{\vec i}+\epsilon_{\vec j},\epsilon_{\vec k}+\epsilon_{\vec l}}
\gamma (\epsilon_{\vec i},\epsilon_{\vec j},\epsilon_{\vec k},\epsilon_{\vec l})
\nonumber\\
&&\Big([n_{\epsilon_{\vec k}}(t)n_{\epsilon_{\vec l}}(t)
[1+\eta n_{\epsilon_{\vec j}}(t)]
[1+\eta n_{\epsilon_{\vec i}}(t)]\nonumber\\
&&-n_{\epsilon_{\vec i}}(t) n_{\epsilon_{\vec j}}(t)
[1+\eta n_{\epsilon_{\vec k}}(t)][1+\eta n_{\epsilon_{\vec l}}(t)]\Big).
\end{eqnarray}
In Fig. \ref{fig6} the temperature $T(t)$ is determined by fitting
a Maxwell, Bose, or Fermi distribution function with a temperature
$T(t)$ and fugacity ${\sf z}$ to the total number of remaining
atoms $N(t)=\sum_{\epsilon}\rho(\epsilon)n_\epsilon[{\sf z}(t),T(t)]$
and the average energy
$\bar\epsilon=\sum_{\epsilon}\rho(\epsilon)\epsilon\,
n_\epsilon[{\sf z}(t),T(t)]$. In the trap, the Fermi temperature
$T_F$ and the critical temperature for Bose-Einstein condensation
$T_C$ are given by $k_B T_F = \hbar \omega (6 N)^{1/3}$
and $k_B T_C= \hbar \omega (N/1.202)^{1/3}$.

\section{Sympathetic cooling of hyperfine fermionic mixtures}
In a recent experiment the JILA group has succeeded in implementing
rf evaporation on a trapped fermionic cloud containing two spin
states \cite{jin}. The effect of the low energy p-wave suppression
was clearly demonstrated in their measurements of the collision
rates. Our general analysis of anisotropic collisions in this paper
can be adapted to an analysis of this experiment, in particular, by
specializing to the case of s-wave collisions between the two
trapped spin states, and p-wave collisions for each of the two spin
states. We first discuss the appropriate collision integrals again
assuming that trap confinement is not important during the
collisions, i.e., when the ground state size of the trap is much
larger than the effective range of the interatomic potential; this
is true for almost all magnetic traps currently employed in
laboratories. The scattering cross section
\begin{eqnarray}\label{inv}
&&|F_{B/F}(\vec q, \vec q')|^2 d\hat q'\nonumber\\
&&=\left(\frac{d\sigma(\vec q, \vec q')}{d \hat q'}\right)_{\rm lab}
d \hat q'_{\rm lab}
=\frac{d\sigma(\vec q, \vec q')}{d \hat q'}d \hat q'
\end{eqnarray}
is invariant in different reference frames, and this enables us to
 write
the differential scattering cross section for p-wave
scattering as
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d\sigma_p}{d \hat q'}=
\alpha q^4 \cos^2\theta_{\hat q}\cos^2 \theta_{\hat q'},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\theta,\theta'$ specify the directions of the relative
momentum before and after the scattering. The constant $\alpha$ is
obtained from the experimental data \cite{jin} in terms of an
equivalent s-wave scattering cross-section
$\sigma_p(T_0)=\sigma_s$ at a temperature $T_0$, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha \overline {q^4} (4\pi)=\sigma_s,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\overline {q^4}$ is the average of $q^4$ taken with respect
to a Boltzmann distribution. This yields
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha={\sigma_s\over 15\pi} {1\over (mk_BT_0)^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
We can then substitute Eq. (\ref{inv})
into (\ref{kernal}), and integrate over the
phase space $d\vec rd\vec p_4$ again using
the assumption of ergodicity
\begin{eqnarray}
f(\vec r,\vec p)=\int d\epsilon\,
n(\epsilon)\,\delta[\epsilon-p^2/2m-U(r)],
\end{eqnarray}
to obtain the ergodic Boltzmann equation for p-wave
part of the scattering
\begin{eqnarray}\label{pwave}
\rho(\epsilon_4){\partial\over \partial t} n(\epsilon_4,t)
&= & \frac {m\sigma_{s}}{\pi^2 \hbar^3}\frac{1}{45(k_BT_0)^2}
\int d \epsilon_{1}\,d \epsilon_{2}\,d \epsilon_{3}\,
\delta(\epsilon_{1}+\epsilon_{2}-\epsilon_{3}-\epsilon_{4})
\nonumber\\
&&\rho(\epsilon_<)\frac{3 \epsilon_>-\epsilon_<}
{(\epsilon_>-\epsilon_<)^3}
(\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2)^2(\epsilon_3-\epsilon_4)^2
\nonumber\\
&&\Big[n(\epsilon_1)n(\epsilon_2) [1+\eta n(\epsilon_3)][1+\eta
n(\epsilon_4)]- [1+\eta n(\epsilon_1)][1+\eta n(\epsilon_2)]
n(\epsilon_3)n(\epsilon_4)\Big],
\end{eqnarray}
where $\epsilon_>$ ($\epsilon_<$) is the largest
(smallest) of the four energies $\epsilon_i$.
We see that the collisions become ineffective as soon
as the energy scales become less than $k_BT_0$.
To obtain a classical collision rate we substitute
the Maxwell Boltzmann distribution
\begin{eqnarray}
n(\epsilon)={\sf z}^{-1}e^{-\epsilon/k_BT},
\end{eqnarray}
into equation [\ref{pwave}], set $\eta=0$, and replace the sums
by integrals and integrate the first term on the r.h.s. over
$\epsilon_4$. This yields the p-wave collision rate as
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma_{p}&=& N(t)
\frac {m\sigma_{s}}{\pi^2 \hbar^3}(\hbar\omega)^2
{I_p\overline T \over 45\overline T_0^2 } ,
\end{eqnarray}
with the scaled temperatures $\overline T=k_BT/\hbar\omega$ and
$I_p=5$ is the value of the fourfold integral
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ip}
I_p&=&\int dx_{1}\,dx_{2}\,dx_{3}\,dx_{4}
\delta(x_{1}+x_{2}-x_{3}-x_{4})e^{-x1}e^{-x2}
\nonumber\\
&&\rho(x_<)\frac{3 x_>-x_<} {(x_>-x_<)^3} (x_1-x_2)^2(x_3-x_4)^2.
\end{eqnarray}
 In comparison the
total collision rate for s-wave scattering yields
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma_{s}&=& N(t)
\frac {m\sigma_{s}}{\pi^2 \hbar^3} (\hbar\omega)^2
 {I_s\over \overline T},
\end{eqnarray}
with $I_s=0.5$ is the value of the integral similar to (\ref{ip})
but only with $\rho(x_<)$ in the second line. In the above all
results were given for a spherically symmetric trap with trap
frequency $\omega$. The case of anisotropic traps can be obtained
by substitute $\omega$ with $(\omega_x\omega_y\omega_z)^{1/3}$.

On the other hand, the proposed p-wave collision (inside the
electric field) would not experience such a slow down.
Inside a dc-electric field, the p-wave scattering has the
same non-momentum ($k$) dependence as for the s-wave.
We will now detail the treatment for a single term
$F_F(\vec q,\vec q')=4\pi\,t_{10}^{10}Y_{10}^*(\hat q)Y_{10}(\hat q')$
in the homogeneous case. Using approaches similar to
that lead to Eq. (\ref{pwave}), we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ptwave}
\rho(\epsilon_4){\partial\over \partial t} n(\epsilon_4,t)
&= &\frac {96m}{h^3}{\pi\over (\hbar\omega)^3} |t_{10}^{10}|^2
\int d \epsilon_{1}\,d \epsilon_{2}\,d \epsilon_{3}\,
\delta(\epsilon_{1}+\epsilon_{2}-\epsilon_{3}-\epsilon_{4})
\nonumber\\
&&{(\sqrt{\epsilon_>}-\sqrt{\epsilon_<})^2}
{(\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2)^2(\epsilon_3-\epsilon_4)^2\over
(\epsilon_>-\epsilon_<)^3}
\int_1^{b}dq {(1+b^2-q^2-b^2/q^2)^{3/2} \over 1+b^2-q^2}
\nonumber\\
&&\Big[n(\epsilon_1)n(\epsilon_2) [1+\eta n(\epsilon_3)][1+\eta
n(\epsilon_4)]- [1+\eta n(\epsilon_1)][1+\eta n(\epsilon_2)]
n(\epsilon_3)n(\epsilon_4)\Big],
\end{eqnarray}
where
$b=(\sqrt{\epsilon_>}+\sqrt{\epsilon_>})
/(\sqrt{\epsilon_>}-\sqrt{\epsilon_>})$.
Although we have not been above to complete the inside integral
analytically, we can immediate see that the energy dependence
for the collision rate is such that a run away evaporation
is possible in the classical limit, i.e.
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma_p^{\cal E}\sim N(t)
{m |t_{10}^{10}|^2 \over \pi^2\hbar^3}
(\hbar\omega)^2\,{1\over \overline T}.
\end{eqnarray}

We have simulated the evaporation process for the recent experiment
at JILA \cite{jin}. We assume that two hyperfine states were in the
same magnetic trap, and include two types of collisions: the s-wave
collision between the two states and the p-wave collision within
each hyperfine state as discussed above. Inelastic processes are
ignored. We start with $10^7 $ particles in each state at an
initial temperature which is 135 times the initial Fermi
temperature. Then we evaporatively cool the mixture by cutting off
the hot atoms (from both states) with a cut rate which is $1/20$
times the initial collision rate. The atoms rethermalize via p-wave
and s-wave scattering. The p-wave collision rate decreases as the
temperature of the gas decreases whereas the s-wave collision rate
increases due to run-away evaporative cooling down to a temperature
when Fermi-statistics become important and the final state blocking
term $1-n(\epsilon)$ causes the collision rate to decrease. At the
end of the cooling process the temperature is more than 9 times
smaller than the final Fermi temperature and there are less than
$1.3\times 10^6$ particles left in each state. This corresponds to
an increase of phase-space density of more than $10^{12}$. The
final average peak density in the trap is then $\overline
n=4.0\times 10^{12}/$cm$^3$

In Fig. \ref{fig8} we show our results for the numerically computed
collision rates. We note that the p-wave collision rate essentially
dies out at the temperature measured by the JILA experiment
\cite{jin}.
 The sum of the two
scattering rates initially decreases due to the suppressed p-wave
collisions, the total rates eventually increases as the runaway
evaporation sets in for the s-wave scattering. We started the
evaporation at an initial temperature of $\overline T_i=5.23\times
10^5$ and have used the parameters of
$\sigma_s=\sigma_p=10^{-11}$cm$^2$ at $\overline T_0=\overline
T_i/4$ from the JILA results \cite{jin}. Assuming an average trap
frequency of $\omega\approx (2\pi)\,80$ (Hz) this corresponds to an
initial temperature of $T_i=200$ ($\mu$K). The simulation was
started with 500 energy bins and each bin covers an energy interval
of $800\,\hbar\omega$. After the cut-energy is ramped down to 40
energy bins, the energy interval is decreased by a factor 10, a
redistribution of all particle numbers to 500 finer energy bins is
required. This procedure is repeated twice before one finally gets
down to the required low temperature. The accuracy and convergence
were checked by simulations with larger number of energy bins. In
Fig. \ref{fig9} we show the temperature of the evaporated mixture
as well as the corresponding Fermi temperature [computed in terms
of $N(t)$ and $T(t)$]. We note that with appropriate initial
conditions the gas will cross the Fermi degeneracy, at a time
$t_{\rm deg}=3.3\times 10^{-3}\omega^2$ for the parameters used in the
simulation , e.g. 827 (s) for $\omega/2\pi=80$ Hz. We have not
included inelastic loss processes such as three body collisions,
however as long as the inelastic loss rate G is such that
$G\overline n^2<t_{\rm deg}^{-1}$, the cooling process will
successfully reach the degenerate regime.

\section{Conclusion}
In conclusion, we have proposed the possibility of evaporative
cooling of trapped fermionic atoms in an external electric field.
We have derived effective quantum kinetic equations for fermionic
atoms with anisotropic dipole-dipole interactions, and presented
numerical simulations for fermionic evaporative cooling. We have
also discussed sympathetic cooling of fermionic mixtures, related
to a recent experiment \cite{jin}, when two hyperfine states of
$^{40}$K are magnetically trapped. Cooling is principally due to
the predominant s-wave collisions between the two states. We have
observed intrastate p-wave suppression consistent with the
experimental results. In the region where degeneracy becomes
important we have contrasted the qualitative differences in the
evaporative cooling dynamics of bosons and fermions.

This work is supported by the ONR grant 14-97-1-0633 and by the NSF
grants No. PHY-9722410 and 9803180. We want to thank Drs. R. Hulet
and C. Greene for providing the triplet potentials for Li and Rb
respectively. We thank A. Alford for help with the construction of
the triplet potential for K. L.Y. would like to thank many enlightening
discussions with participants of the ITP BEC workshop.


\section{Introduction}

Berry \cite{Berry,SW} showed that the cyclic adiabatic change of Hamiltonian
induces, in the phase of wave function, a change which separates into the
obvious dynamical part and an additional geometric part.
Aharonov and Anandan \cite{AA} generalized Berry's result to
nonadiabatic cases, by giving up the assumption of adiabaticity.
The price we have to pay in making this generalization is that quantum
states after the evolution of Hamiltonian's cycle are not necessarily
equivalent to the original states up to phase, so that Berry's phase could
in general not be defined. A specific example of this failure in (quasi)cyclic
evolution of quantum states is given in a driven harmonic oscillator
system where the particular solution diverges as time goes
to infinity \cite{Moore}.

The (driven) harmonic oscillator system of time-dependent mass and/or
frequency has known to be a system whose quantum states
can be given in terms of the solutions of classical equation of motion
\cite{Lewis,Song1,KL,Ji}.
The time-dependent $\tau$-periodic (driven) harmonic oscillator system
is considered in Refs.\cite{Moore,Ji} based on the
Floquet theory; If the solutions of classical equation of motion are
stable (finite all over the time), it has been shown
{\it with other assumptions} that \cite{Ji}, there might exist positive integer
$N$ such that wave functions are quasiperiodic under the $N\tau$-evolutions.
In those cases, the Berry's phases were given in terms of auxiliary functions related to
the solutions of classical equation of motion.

The driven harmonic oscillator is described by the Hamiltonian:
\begin{equation}
H^F(x,p,t)= {p^2 \over 2 M(t)} +{1\over 2} M(t)w^2(t)x^2-xF(t),
\end{equation}
with positive mass $M(t)$, real frequency $w(t)$ and external force $F(t)$.
For these parameters, we require a periodicity so that
\begin{equation}
H^F(x,p,t+\tau)=H^F(x,p,t).
\end{equation}
The classical equation of motion of the system is given as
\begin{equation}
{d \over {dt}} (M \dot{\bar{x}}) + M(t) w^2(t) \bar{x}=F(t).
\end{equation}
General solution of Eq.(3) is described by two linearly independent homogeneous
solutions $\{u(t),v(t)\}$ and a particular solution $x_p(t)$.
For convenience, we define $\rho(t)$ and time-constant $\Omega$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho(t)&=&\sqrt{u^2(t) +v^2 (t)},\\
\Omega&=&M(u \dot{v} -v\dot{u}).
\end{eqnarray}
It is known that \cite{Song1,Song2} the wave functions satisfying the
corresponding Schr\"{o}dinger equation are given as
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi_n^F &=&\cr
    && {1\over \sqrt{2^n n!}}({\Omega \over \pi\hbar})^{1\over 4}
     {1\over \sqrt{\rho(t)}}[{u(t)-iv(t) \over \rho(t)}]^{n+{1\over 2}}\cr
  &&\times   \exp[{i\over \hbar}(M\dot{x}_px+\delta(t))]
\cr&&
       \times \exp[{(x-x_p)^2\over 2\hbar}(-{\Omega \over \rho^2(t)}
               +i M(t){\dot{\rho}(t) \over \rho(t)})]
\cr&&
       \times    H_n(\sqrt{\Omega \over \hbar} {x -x_p \over \rho(t)}),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\delta(t)$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\delta(t)=\int_{0}^t[{M(z)w^2(z)\over 2} x_p^2(z)
                -{M(z) \over 2}\dot{x}_p^2(z) ] dz.
\end{equation}
Different choice of $\{u,v\}$ gives different set of wave function, while
a set with two linearly independent $\{u,v\}$ is complete in the sense that
\begin{eqnarray}
K(x_b,t_b;x_a,t_a)&=&\sum_n \psi_n^F(x_b,t_b){\psi_n^F}^*(x_a,t_a)\cr
&\rightarrow& \delta(x_b-x_a)
~~~{\rm as}~t_b\downarrow t_a.
\end{eqnarray}
From the wave functions in Eq.(6), one can easily find that, the wave functions
become (quasi)periodic when the $\rho(t)$ and $x_p(t)$ are periodic with a
common period.

In this paper, we will show that, if there exist $u(t),v(t)$ which are
stable, for the oscillator without driving force
there is a representation of (quasi)periodic wave functions
under $\tau$-evolution or $2\tau$-evolution depending on the model.
If one of the homogeneous solution diverges as the time goes to infinity,
it will be shown that, Berry's phase can not be defined in any representation
and the uncertainty of position diverges in the limit.
For the oscillator with driving force, it will be shown that, if
there exist two homogeneous stable solutions and ${p \over N}\tau$-periodic
particular solution with two positive integers $p$ and $N$
of no common divisor except 1, the wave functions are (quasi)periodic under
$N\tau$-  or $2N\tau$-evolution so that Berry's phase can be defined.
For the cases where Berry's phase can be defined, the phase will be given
in terms of solutions of the classical equation of motion.

In the next section, the harmonic oscillators without driving force
will be considered. In section III, the driven harmonic oscillators will
be considered. In section IV, it will be shown that if one of
homogeneous solutions diverges, Berry's phase can not be defined
in any of the representations. A summary will be given in the last section.

\section{The Hill's equation and quasiperiodic quantum states}
In this section we will consider the harmonic oscillator without
driving force. The wave functions $\psi_n(x,t)$ of the case are given
from $\psi_n^F(x,t)$ in Eq.(6) by letting $x_p=\delta=0$.
\subsection{The Hill's equation}
We start with the case of unit mass. For this case, the classical equation
of motion of Eq.(3) reduces to the Hill's equation:
\begin{equation}
\ddot{\bar{x}} +  w_0^2(t) \bar{x} =0,
\end{equation}
which has long been studied in mathematics \cite{Magnus}.
The subscript 0 will be used to denote that the quantity
is defined for the system of unit mass, and thus the two linearly independent
solutions of Eq.(9) will be denoted as $\{u_0,v_0\}$.
In considering Eq.(9) as an equation of motion of a classical system,
one may naively expect that the force varying periodically with
time acts on the (unit) mass in such a manner that the force tends to move the
mass back into a position of equilibrium ($\bar{x}=0$) in proportional to
dislocation of the mass, so that the mass is confined to a neighborhood of
$\bar{x}=0$. Through the analyses of Hill's equation, however, it turns out
that this expectation needs {\it not} to be always the case.
In fact, an increase of the restoring force may cause the mass to oscillate
with wider and wider amplitude, as can be seen from the Liapounoff's theorem
\cite{Lia,Magnus}.

A detail information on whether the Hill's equation has an unstable
solution can be obtained from the Floquet's theorem \cite{Magnus}.
If a constant $\alpha$ which is called {\em characteristic exponent}
is not one of the $m\pi/\tau$
$(m=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\cdots)$, the theorem states that two linearly
independent solutions of Hill's equation are written as
\begin{equation}
\bar{x}_1(t)= e^{i\alpha t} p_1(t),~~~~\bar{x}_2(t)= e^{-i\alpha t} p_2(t)
\end{equation}
where $p_1(t)$, $p_2(t)$ are periodic functions with period $\tau$.
In the case that $\alpha$ is one of the $m\pi/\tau$, the theorem states,
both of the two linearly independent solutions of Hill's equation are
stable if and only if both of them can be written as periodic functions
of period $\tau$ or $2\tau$ depending on $w^2_0(t)$.

If the two linearly independent solutions are written as in
Eq.(10) and both of them are not $\tau$-periodic nor $2\tau$-periodic,
they are stable if $\alpha$ is real \cite{Magnus}. In this stable case,
by combining linearly $\bar{x}_1(t)$ and $\bar{x}_2^*(t)$ with complex
coefficients and taking real, imaginary part of the new solution
as another set of solutions, one can always find two linearly
independent real solutions $u_0(t),v_0(t)$ of Hill's equation as
\begin{equation}
u_0(t)=Ap(t)\cos(\alpha t + \tilde{\theta} (t)),~
v_0(t)=Bp(t)\sin(\alpha t + \tilde{\theta} (t)),
\end{equation}
with $\tau$-periodic real functions
$p(t),\tilde{\theta}(t)$ and nonzero constants
$A,B,\Omega_0~ (\equiv ABp^2(\alpha+\dot{\tilde{\theta}}))$.

\subsection{Quasiperiodic quantum states}
It is known that \cite{Magnus,Song2}, if
\begin{equation}
w_0^2(t)=w^2 -{1\over \sqrt{M}}{d^2\sqrt{M}\over dt^2},
\end{equation}
$\{u(t),v(t)\}$ is given from $\{u_0(t),v_0(t)\}$ as
\begin{equation}
u(t)={u_0(t) \over \sqrt{M}},~v(t)={v_0(t) \over \sqrt{M}}.
\end{equation}

If $\alpha$ is one of the $m\pi/\tau$ $(m=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\cdots)$ and the
two linearly independent solutions are stable, then  $\{u,v\}$ are $\tau$-
or $2\tau$-periodic. In order to find the overall phase change, we need to
consider the complex $z$-plane of $z=u+iv$. In the plane, the trajectory
of $z(t)$ makes a closed curve $C$, since $z(t+\tau')=z(t)$ where $\tau'$
is $\tau$ or $2\tau$ depending on the periodicity of $\{u,v\}$. Making use
of residue theorem, the number that the curve winds the origin can be shown to
be equal to ${1\over 2\pi i}\oint_C {dz \over z}$. From this considerations
one can find that
\begin{equation}
\psi_n(x,t+\tau')
=e^{-i(n+{1\over 2})\int_0^{\tau'}{\Omega \over M\rho^2}dt}\psi_n(x,t).
\end{equation}
Therefore the overall phase change can be written as
\begin{equation}
\chi_n=-(n+{1\over 2})\int_0^{\tau'}{\Omega \over M\rho^2}dt.
\end{equation}

If $\alpha$ is not one of the $m\pi/\tau$ $(m=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\cdots)$
and is real, by taking $A=B$, one can find the
quasiperiodic wave functions under $\tau$-evolution.
If $A=B$, the wave functions do not depend on the magnitude of $A$ (or $B$).
In the representation of $A=B$, the overall phase change under the $\tau$-evolution
is written as
\begin{equation}
\chi_n= -(n+{1\over 2})\alpha \tau
~~(=-(n+{1\over 2})\int_0^{\tau}{\Omega \over M\rho^2}dt).
\end{equation}

\subsection{Berry's phase}
The dynamical phase change $\delta_n$ during $\tau'$-evolution is given as
\begin{eqnarray}
&\delta_n(\tau')&\cr
&=&-{1\over \hbar}\int_0^{\tau'}\int_{-\infty}^\infty
      \psi_n^*(x,t) H(x,t) \psi_n(x,t) dx dt \cr
&=&-(n+{1\over 2})\int_0^{\tau'}
         [  {\Omega \over 2M(t)\rho^2(t)}
                           (1+{M^2(t) \over \Omega^2}\rho^2(t)\dot{\rho}^2 )\cr
&&~~~~~~~~    +{\rho^2(t)  \over 2\Omega}M(t)w^2(t)] dt.
\end{eqnarray}

The Berry's phase $\gamma_n$ is given from the overall phase change by
subtracting the dynamical change;
\begin{equation}
\gamma_n=\chi_n - \delta_n.
\end{equation}

If  $\alpha$ is one of $m\pi/\tau$ $(m=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\cdots)$ and both of the
linearly independent classical solutions are stable, the wave functions are
$\tau$- or $2\tau$-periodic. In this case, the Berry's phase is given as
\begin{equation}
\gamma_n={1 \over 2} (n+{1\over 2})\int_0^{\tau'}
      ({M \dot{\rho}^2 \over \Omega} - {\Omega\over M \rho^2}
         +{Mw^2 \over \Omega}\rho^2) dt,
\end{equation}
where $\tau'$ can be  $\tau$ or $2\tau$ depending on the model.

If  $\alpha$ is not one of $m\pi/\tau$ $(m=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\cdots)$ and is real,
the Berry's phase in the representation of $A=B$ is written  as
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma_n &=&-{1\over 2}(n+{1\over 2})\alpha\tau   \cr
&&~~~~+{1\over 2}(n+{1\over 2})\int_0^\tau [{w^2(t)p^2(t) \over \tilde{\Omega}}
            +{M(t) \over \tilde{\Omega}} \dot{q}^2]dt,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\Omega}={\Omega_0 \over A^2}~~{\rm and}~~q(t)={p(t)\over \sqrt{M(t)}}.
\end{equation}

For the $n=0$ cases, these results exactly agree with that of Ref.\cite{GC}.

A point that should be mentioned is that every phase is
defined up to additive constant $2\pi$.

\section{Driven harmonic oscillator}

In this section, we will consider the driven harmonic oscillator.
Due to the lack of understanding on the periodicity of particular
solution, our attention will be limited in the cases in which one can
construct a particular solution periodic with period $r\tau$, where
$r$ is written as $p/N$ with two positive integers $p$ and $N$
of no common divisor except 1. We will also restrict our attentions on the
cases of the two linearly independent stable homogeneous solutions.

For a $\tau'$-evolution, the dynamical phase is written as
\begin{eqnarray}
&\delta_n^F(\tau')& = -{1\over \hbar}\int_0^{\tau'} <n|H^F| n> dt \cr
 &=& -{1 \over 2} (n+{1\over 2})\int_0^{\tau'}
      ({M \dot{\rho}^2 \over \Omega} + {\Omega\over M \rho^2}
         +{Mw^2 \over \Omega}\rho^2) dt \cr
&&  -{1\over \hbar}\int_0^{\tau'}
     ({3 \over 2} M\dot{x}_p^2 - {1 \over 2} Mw^2x_p^2) dt.
\end{eqnarray}

In the case that two linearly independent homogeneous solutions are
periodic under $\tau$- or $2\tau$-evolution by defining $\tau'$ as
$N\tau$ or $2N\tau$ depending on the periodicity of the
classical solutions, one can find the relation
\begin{equation}
\psi_n^F(t+\tau')= e^{-i(n+{1\over 2})\int_0^{\tau'}{\Omega \over M\rho^2}dt
         +i{\delta(\tau')\over \hbar}}\psi_n^F(t),
\end{equation}
which gives the overall phase change:
\begin{equation}
\chi_n^F=-(n+{1\over 2})\int_0^{\tau'}{\Omega \over M\rho^2}dt
          +{\delta(\tau')\over\hbar}.
\end{equation}
Berry's phase is thus given as
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma_n^F(\tau') &=& {1 \over 2} (n+{1\over 2})\int_0^{\tau'}
      ({M \dot{\rho}^2 \over \Omega} - {\Omega\over M \rho^2}
         +{Mw^2 \over \Omega}\rho^2)dt \cr
  && + {1\over \hbar}\int_0^{\tau'} M\dot{x}_p^2 dt.
\end{eqnarray}

In the case that two linearly independent homogeneous stable solutions
are not periodic under $\tau$- or $2\tau$-evolution, by letting $A=B$
we can find quasiperiodic wave functions under the $N\tau$-evolution with
the overall phase change:
\begin{equation}
\chi_n^F= -(n+{1\over 2}) \alpha N\tau
        +{1\over \hbar}\delta(N\tau).
\end{equation}
In this representation, Berry's phase is given as
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma_n^F &=&
      -(n+{1\over 2}) \alpha N\tau \cr
&&   +{1 \over 2}(n+{1\over 2})N
      \int_0^{\tau}[{w^2 \over \tilde{\Omega}}p^2
                      +{M\dot{q}^2 \over\tilde{\Omega}}]dt   \cr
&&   +{1\over \hbar}\int_0^{N\tau} M\dot{x}_p^2 dt
\end{eqnarray}
The last terms in the right hand side of Eqs.(25,27) are order of
$1/\hbar$; If they are zero, then $\gamma^F=N\gamma_n$.

\section{ Unstable classical solutions }
If the wave function is quasiperiodic, then $<n|x|n>$ and
$<n|(\Delta x)^2|n>$  $(\equiv <n|x^2|n> - <n|x|n>^2)$ must be periodic.
For the driven case, if the $x_p$ diverges,
because of the fact that $<n|x|n>=x_p$, the wave functions can not be
quasiperiodic.

For the driven or undriven case, $(\Delta x)^2$ is given as
\begin{equation}
(\Delta x)^2 = (n + {1\over 2}) {\hbar \rho^2 \over \Omega}.
\end{equation}
If a homogeneous solution is unstable, then any set of two linearly
independent homogeneous solution should have an unstable solution.
If one of the homogeneous solutions is unstable, Eqs.(4,28) show
that $<n|(\Delta x)^2|n>$ can not be periodic and thus the wave functions
can not be quasiperiodic.

For the quasiperiodic wave functions, $<n|(\Delta p)^2|n>$
which is given as
\begin{equation}
<n|(\Delta p)^2|n>= (n + {1\over 2})\hbar
     [{\Omega\over \rho^2} + {M^2\dot{\rho}^2 \over \Omega}]
\end{equation}
should also be periodic. In the case that imaginary part of $\alpha$
is not zero, one can easily show that  $<n|(\Delta p)^2|n>$ diverges
in the limit $t\rightarrow \pm \infty$. In the case of unstable solution
with $\alpha$ being one of the $m\pi/\tau$ $(m=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\cdots)$,
$<n|(\Delta p)^2|n>$ remains finite in the limit, but does not converges
to 0 in general.

\section{Conclusions}

We have considered the (driven) harmonic oscillator system.
For the $\tau$-periodic oscillator of two linearly
independent homogeneous stable solutions without driving force,
one can always construct a set of wave functions which are quasiperiodic
under $\tau$- or  $2\tau$-evolution.
The set of wave functions is complete.

If one of the homogeneous solution is unstable or particular
solution of the driven system diverges, for the oscillator system with or
without driving force, we prove that wave functions can {\it not} be
quasiperiodic.

For the driven case, we illustrate the possibility of existence of
quasiperiodic wave functions under $N\tau$- or $2N\tau$-evolution which
mainly depends on the behavior of the particular solution.
If the Berry's phase can be defined for a wave function of driven harmonic
oscillator system, it must either be integral multiple of Berry's phase for
the corresponding wave function without driving force or contain a term
of $O(1/\hbar)$.

Recently Berry's phase of simple harmonic oscillator is studied in
\cite{PS} where it has been shown that the model can provide explicit
examples for various cases considered here.

\acknowledgments
It is the author's pleasure to acknowledge helpful discussions with Prof.
J.H. Park on mathematical aspects of the subject. This work is supported
in part by Non-Directed Research Fund, Sunchon National University.