1: \documentstyle[prl,aps,epsf]{revtex}
2: \begin{document}
3: \draft
4: \twocolumn[
5: \hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname@twocolumnfalse\endcsname
6: \preprint{}
7: \title{
8: Quasiparticle States at a $d$-Wave Vortex Core in High-$T_c$
9: Superconductors: Induction of Local Spin Density Wave Order
10: }
11: \author{Jian-Xin Zhu and C. S. Ting}
12: \address{Texas Center for Superconductivity and Department of Physics,
13: University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204
14: }
15: %\date{\today}
16: \maketitle
17: \begin{abstract}
18: {
19:
20: The local density of states (LDOS) at one of the vortex lattice
21: cores in a high Tc superconductor is studied by using a self-consistent
22: mean field theory including interactions for both antiferromagnetism (AF)
23: and $d$-wave superconductivity (DSC). The parameters are chosen in such a
24: way that in an optimally doped sample the AF order is completely
25: suppressed while DSC prevails. In the mixed state, we show that the local
26: AF-like SDW order appears near the vortex core and acts as an
27: effective local magnetic field on the quasiparticles. As a result, the
28: LDOS at the core exhibits a double-peak structure near the Fermi level
29: that is in good agreement with the STM observations on YBCO and BSCCO. The
30: presence of local AF order near the votex core is also consistent with
31: the recent neutron scattering experiment on LSCO.
32:
33: }
34: \end{abstract}
35: \pacs{PACS numbers: 74.25Jb, 74.50.+r, 74.60.Ec, 74.20.-z}
36: ]
37:
38: \narrowtext
39:
40: The quasiparticle states at the vortex core in the mixed state
41: of a superconductor have been one of the major interest in condensed
42: matter physics. For an $s$-wave superconductor, the energy gap opened
43: at the Fermi surface is a constant and it was predicted long time ago
44: by Caroli et al.~\cite{Caro64}
45: that there should exist the low-lying bound quasiparticle states
46: inside an $s$-wave vortex core. This prediction was later confirmed by
47: detailed numerical computations~\cite{Gygi90,Shore89,Zhu95}
48: and by STM experiments on NbSe$_2$~\cite{Hess89}
49: although
50: a direct observation of the
51: discrete levels is yet to be performed. However,
52: for a $d$-wave pairing
53: state as recently established in high-$T_c$ cuprates,
54: the situation becomes more complex, mostly due to the fact that the energy
55: gap is closed at the nodal direction on the essentially cylindrical
56: Fermi surface. In an earlier study by Wang and MacDonald based on a lattice
57: model~\cite{Wang95}, it
58: was shown that the local density of states (LDOS) at the $d$-wave vortex core
59: exhibits a single broad peak at zero energy. Recent low temperature
60: STM experiments on YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7-\delta}$ (YBCO)~\cite{Maggio95}(a)
61: and
62: Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+\delta}$ (BSCCO)~\cite{Pan00} both observed a
63: double-peak structure around zero bias
64: in the local differential tunneling conductance at the vortex core center,
65: which identifies the widely split core states at energies $\pm 5.5$ meV
66: and $\pm 7$ meV, respectively. The discrepancy between the theory and the
67: experiment stimulated further theoretical
68: studies~\cite{Himeda97,Morita97,Franz98,Taki99,Yasui99}
69: on the quasiparticles in the vortex core of high-$T_c$ cuprates.
70: Franz and Te\v{s}onovi\'{c}~\cite{Franz98} proposed an explanation of the
71: observed
72: double-peak structure in terms of a mixed $d_{x^2+y^2}+id_{xy}$ pairing
73: state. Such a pairing state was previously suggested~\cite{Laugh98} to be
74: realized through the field-induced second phase transition
75: as motivated by the observation of a plateau in thermal
76: conductivity~\cite{Krish97}. The origin of this plateau is still
77: hotly debated~\cite{Aubin99}. By pointing out that the parameter
78: values are unrealistically chosen in Ref.~\cite{Franz98}
79: that the $d_{x^2+y^2}+id_{xy}$ state even
80: already exists in zero magnetic field, Yasui and Kita~\cite{Yasui99}
81: applied the ``Landau-level expansion method'' to study the quasiparticles
82: in $d$-wave vortex lattice based on the continuum model. They found that the
83: double-peak structure may be considered as inherent to systems with
84: short coherence length. Since the splitting sensitively depends on
85: the field strength, the validity of this scenario
86: still needs to be clarified theoretically and experimentally.
87: On the other hand, the
88: superconducting vortex with antiferromagnetic (AF) core
89: was also predicted based on either the SO(5) theory~\cite{Arovas97} or
90: the standard $t$-$J$ model with spin-charge separation~\cite{Lee00},
91: which leads to a featureless LDOS and is
92: in disagreement with the STM data
93: on the optimally doped YBCO~\cite{Maggio95}(a) and BSCCO~\cite{Pan00}.
94: Partly motivated by the observation of magnetic vortex cores in recent
95: neutron scattering experiment by Lake {\em et al.}~\cite{Lake01} on optimally
96: doped
97: La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$, we present in this Letter an alternative
98: mechanism for the double-peak structure in the LDOS around zero energy.
99: We show that due to electron correlations, the AF-like spin density wave
100: (SDW)
101: order can develop locally around the vortex core and vanish in the
102: superconducting regions. The lift of the spin degeneracy leads to
103: the splitting of the zero energy peak.
104: The induced SDW order around the vortex core manifests the
105: repulsive electron interaction responsible for the strong spin
106: fluctuations in the underdoped region of high-$T_c$ cuprates.
107: In fact, the coexistence of superconducting (SC)
108: and SDW orders has been theoretically
109: studied~\cite{Bale98,Sach99,Han00,Mart00},
110: which shows a rich phase diagram with a classic AF order at half filling,
111: striped phase at underdoping, a $d$-wave SC at optimal doping.
112:
113:
114: We start with a generalized Hubbard model
115: defined on two dimensional (2D) lattice.
116: By assuming that the on-site repulsion is solely responsible for the
117: antiferromagnetism while the nearest neighbor attraction causes
118: the $d$-wave superconductivity, we can construct an effective mean-field
119: (MF) model~\cite{Mart00}
120: % It has been shown that all essential physics for
121: %the competition
122: %between the antiferromagnetism and $d$-wave superconductivity can be
123: %exposed even at the mean field level~\cite{Mart00}.
124: to study the vortex physics in the
125: mixed state:
126: \begin{eqnarray}
127: H&=&-t\sum_{{\bf ij},\sigma} c_{{\bf i}\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{{\bf j}\sigma}
128: e^{i \varphi_{\bf ij}}
129: +\sum_{{\bf i},\sigma} (m_{{\bf i},\bar{\sigma}}-\mu)
130: c_{{\bf i}\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{{\bf i}\sigma} \nonumber \\
131: &&+\sum_{\bf ij} (\Delta_{\bf ij} c_{{\bf i}\uparrow}^{\dagger}
132: c_{{\bf j}\downarrow}^{\dagger}
133: +\Delta_{\bf ij}^{*} c_{{\bf j}\downarrow} c_{{\bf i}\uparrow} ) \;.
134: \label{EQ:MFA}
135: \end{eqnarray}
136: Here $c_{{\bf i}\sigma}$ annihilates an electron of
137: spin $\sigma$ at site ${\bf i}$.
138: The summation is over the nearest neighbor sites.
139: $\mu$ is the chemical potential.
140: $m_{{\bf i},\sigma}=U \langle c_{{\bf i}\sigma}^{\dagger}
141: c_{{\bf i}\sigma}\rangle$ is
142: the spin-dependent Hartree-Fock potential at site ${\bf i}$, where $U$ is
143: the strength of on-site
144: repulsion.
145: $\Delta_{\bf ij}=\frac{V}{2}\langle c_{{\bf i}\uparrow}
146: c_{{\bf j}\downarrow} -c_{{\bf i}\downarrow}c_{{\bf j}\uparrow}\rangle$
147: is the spin-singlet $d$-wave pair potential, where $V$ is the strength of
148: nearest neighbor effective electron-electron attraction.
149: As a phenomenological model, we do not intend to address the microscopic
150: mechanism for this attraction.
151: In the mixed state, the magnetic field effect was included through the
152: Peierls phase factor $\varphi_{\bf ij}=\frac{2\pi}{\Phi_{0}}
153: \int_{{\bf r}_{\bf j}}^{{\bf r}_{\bf i}} {\bf A}({\bf r})\cdot d{\bf r}$,
154: where $\Phi_0=hc/2e$ is the superconducting flux quantum.
155: By assuming the superconductor under consideration is in the extreme type-II
156: limit where the Ginzburg-Landau parameter $\kappa=\lambda/\xi$ goes to
157: infinity so that the screening effect from the supercurrent is negligible.
158: Therefore, the vector potential ${\bf A}$ can be approximated by the
159: solution $\nabla \times {\bf A}=H \hat{\bf z}$ where $H$ is the magnetic
160: field externally applied along the $c$ axis. The enclosed flux density
161: within each plaquette is given by $\sum_{\Box} \varphi_{\bf ij}
162: =\frac{2\pi Ha^{2}}{\Phi_0}$. A similar mean-field Hamiltonian can
163: also be arrived at within a $t$-$U$-$J$ model proposed
164: recently~\cite{Daul00}.
165:
166: We diagonalize the Hamiltonian Eq.~(\ref{EQ:MFA}) by solving the
167: BdG equation:
168: \begin{equation}
169: \sum_{\bf j} \left(
170: \begin{array}{cc}
171: {\cal H}_{{\bf ij},\sigma} & \Delta_{\bf ij} \\
172: \Delta_{\bf ij}^{*} & -{\cal H}_{{\bf ij},\bar{\sigma}}^{*}
173: \end{array}
174: \right) \left(
175: \begin{array}{c}
176: u_{{\bf j}\sigma}^{n} \\ v_{{\bf j}\bar{\sigma}}^{n}
177: \end{array}
178: \right)
179: =E_{n}
180: \left(
181: \begin{array}{c}
182: u_{{\bf i}\sigma}^{n} \\ v_{{\bf i}\bar{\sigma}}^{n}
183: \end{array}
184: \right) \;,
185: \label{EQ:BdG}
186: \end{equation}
187: where $(u_{{\bf i}\sigma}^{n},v_{{\bf i}\bar{\sigma}}^{n})$
188: is the quasiparticle wavefunction
189: corresponding to the eigenvalue $E_n$, the single particle Hamiltonian
190: ${\cal H}_{{\bf ij},\sigma}=-t e^{i\varphi_{\bf ij}} \delta_{
191: {\bf i}+\boldmath{\mbox{$\delta$}},{\bf j}} +
192: (m_{{\bf i},\bar{\sigma}}-\mu)\delta_{\bf ij}$. Notice that the quasiparticle
193: energy is measured with respect to the Fermi energy.
194: The self-consistent conditions read:
195: \begin{equation}
196: m_{{\bf i}\sigma}=U\sum_{n} \vert u_{{\bf i}\sigma}^{n}\vert^{2} f(E_n)\;,
197: \end{equation}
198: and
199: \begin{equation}
200: \Delta_{\bf ij}=\frac{V}{4}\sum_{n}
201: (u_{{\bf i}\uparrow}^{n}v_{{\bf j}\downarrow}^{n*}
202: +v_{{\bf i}\downarrow}^{n*}u_{{\bf j}\uparrow}^{n}
203: )
204: \tanh \left( \frac{E_{n}}{2k_{B}T}\right)\;,
205: \end{equation}
206: where the Fermi distribution function $f(E)=1/(e^{E/k_{B}T}+1)$.
207: Here the summation is also over those eigenstates with negative eigenvalues
208: thanks to the symmetry property of the BdG equation:
209: If $(u_{{\bf i}\uparrow}^{n},u_{{\bf i}\downarrow}^{n},
210: v_{{\bf i}\uparrow}^{n},
211: v_{{\bf i}\downarrow}^{n})^{Transpose}$ is the eigenfunction of the
212: $4\times 4$
213: equation in the spin space with energy $E_n$, then
214: $({v_{{\bf i}\uparrow}^{n}}^{*},-{v_{{\bf i}\downarrow}^{n}}^{*},
215: {u_{{\bf i}\uparrow}^{n}}^{*},
216: -{u_{{\bf i}\downarrow}^{n}}^{*})^{Transpose}$ up to a global phase
217: factor
218: is the eigenfunction with energy $-E_n$.
219:
220: Hereafter we measure the length in units of the
221: lattice constant $a$ and the energy in units of the hopping integral $t$.
222: Within the Landau gauge the vector potential can be written as
223: ${\bf A}=(-H y,0,0)$ where $y$ is the $y$-component of the position
224: vector {\bf r}.
225: We introduce the magnetic translation operator
226: ${\cal T}_{mn}{\bf r}={\bf r}+{\bf R}$
227: where the translation vector ${\bf R}=m N_x \hat{\bf e}_{x} +n N_y
228: \hat{\bf e}_{y}$ with $N_{x}$ and $N_{y}$ the linear dimension of the unit
229: cell of the vortex lattice.
230: To ensure different ${\cal T}_{mn}$ to be commutable with each other,
231: we have to take the strength of magnetic field so that the flux enclosed
232: by each unit cell has a single-particle flux quantum, i.e, $2\Phi_0$.
233: Therefore, the translation property of the superconducting order parameter
234: is $\Delta ({\cal T}_{mn}{\bf r})=e^{i\chi({\bf r},{\bf R})} \Delta({\bf
235: r})$ where the phase accumulated by the order parameter upon the
236: translation is
237: $\chi({\bf r},{\bf R})=\frac{2\pi}{\Phi_0}{\bf A}({\bf R}) \cdot {\bf r}
238: -4mn\pi$. From this property, we can obtain the magnetic Bloch theorem for
239: the wavefunction of the BdG equations:
240: \begin{equation}
241: \left(
242: \begin{array}{c}
243: u_{{\bf k},\sigma}({\cal T}_{mn}\tilde{\bf r}) \\
244: v_{{\bf k},\sigma}({\cal T}_{mn}\tilde{\bf r})
245: \end{array}
246: \right)
247: = e^{i{\bf k}\cdot {\bf R}}
248: \left(
249: \begin{array}{c}
250: e^{i\chi({\bf r},{\bf R})/2} u_{{\bf k},\sigma}(\tilde{\bf r}) \\
251: e^{-i\chi({\bf r},{\bf R})/2}v_{{\bf k},\sigma}(\tilde{\bf r})
252: \end{array}
253: \right) \;.
254: \end{equation}
255: Here $\tilde{\bf r}$ is the position vector defined within a given unit
256: cell and ${\bf k}=\frac{2\pi l_x}{M_x N_x}\hat{\bf e}_{x} +
257: \frac{2\pi l_y}{M_y N_y}\hat{\bf e}_{y}$ with
258: $m_{x,y}=0,1,\dots,M_{x,y}-1$
259: are the wavevectors defined in the first Brillouin zone of the vortex
260: lattice and $M_x N_x$ and $M_y N_y$ are the linear dimension of the whole
261: system. The vortex carrying the flux quantum $hc/2e$ is the generic
262: feature of
263: the pairing theory for superconductivity. Therefore, it is not surprising
264: that in the slave boson approach to the $t$-$J$ model, the vortex always
265: carries $hc/2e$ flux quantum if the magnetic
266: field is assumed~\cite{Lee00}
267: to act on electrons only through the spinon degrees of freedom.
268:
269: As a model calculation, we take the following parameter values: The
270: pairing interaction is $V=1.0$, and the filling factor, which is
271: defined as $n_f=\sum_{{\bf i},\sigma} \langle
272: c_{{\bf i}\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{{\bf i}\sigma}\rangle /N_x N_y$ with the
273: summation over one unit cell, is fixed to be $0.84$ so that
274: the chemical potential needs to be adjusted each time
275: the on-site repulsion $U$ is varied. For our interest in the low energy
276: quasiparticle states, we only consider the zero temperature limit.
277: We have typically considered the
278: unit cell of size $N_x\times N_y= 42\times 21$,
279: and the number of the unit cells
280: $M_x \times M_y=21\times 42$. This choice will give us a square vortex
281: lattice. We use exact diagonalization method to
282: solve the BdG equation~(\ref{EQ:BdG}) self-consistently: To allow the
283: inhomogeneity of all physical quantities, randomly distributed
284: $\Delta_{\bf ij}$ and $m_{{\bf i},\sigma}$ are taken as initial
285: parameters; the newly obtained $\Delta_{\bf ij}$ and $m_{{\bf i},\sigma}$
286: are then substituted back into the equation. The above procedure is
287: repeated until the convergence with required accuacy is achieved.
288: In the absence of magnetic field, we have reproduced the results
289: reported in previous work~\cite{Mart00} including an AF SDW
290: order, a stripe phase, and a $d$-wave SC phase
291: when the system is doped away from the undoped to the optimally doped
292: region. In the present work, we are mainly concerned with
293: the electronic structure around the vortex core in the optimally doped
294: region. In this region, the SDW order is strongly suppressed and the
295: $d$-wave SC order is homogeneous in real space.
296: However, when a magnetic field is applied to drive the system into the
297: mixed state so that the $d$-wave order parameter is suppressed around the
298: vortex core, we find that as the on-site repulsion is increased to about
299: $1.5$, the SDW order is nucleated around the vortex core. Typical results
300: on the nature of the vortex core is displayed in Fig.~\ref{FIG:VORTEX}
301: with the on-site repulsion $U=2$. As shown in Fig.~\ref{FIG:VORTEX}(a),
302: each unit cell accommodates two superconducting vortices each carring a
303: flux quantum $hc/2e$. The $d$-wave SC order parameter vanishes at the
304: vortex core center and starts to increase at the scale of
305: the coherence length $\xi_0$ to its bulk value
306: which is about 0.1 for the chosen parameter values.
307: Fig.~\ref{FIG:VORTEX}(b) displays the spatial distribution of the
308: staggered magnetization of the local SDW order as defined by
309: $M_{s}=(-1)^{\bf i}S_{z}^{\bf i}$ with
310: $S_{z}^{\bf i}=n_{{\bf i},\uparrow}-n_{{\bf i},\downarrow}$.
311: Clearly, the maxima strength
312: of $M_{s}$ appears at the vortex core center and decays also with a scale
313: of $\xi_0$ to zero into the superconducting region.
314: More interestingly, the SDW order parameters has opposite
315: polarity around two nearest neighbor vortices along the $x$
316: direction. We have compared the free energy between this
317: configuration with that obtained by switching the orientation of the SDW
318: order around one of the two nearest neighbor vortices, and found that the
319: free energy for both configurations is very close but it is always lower
320: in the former case.
321: Therefore, the induction of the SDW order around the
322: vortices reduces the four-fold rotational symmetry of the whole system to
323: the two-fold, and the period of the translational symmetry of the vortex
324: lattice along the $x$ is doubled. This result is
325: understandable when we notice
326: the zero-field result~\cite{Mart00}:
327: The homogeneous superconducting order in the
328: optimally doped region derives from the melting of the strongly
329: overlapped quasi-one dimensional (Q1D) superconducting stripes (i.e,
330: soliton-like AF anti-phase domain boundaries, at which
331: the AF SDW order changes sign). The development of the Q1D
332: stripes breaks at the beginning the four-fold rotational
333: symmetry of
334: the
335: system. Therefore, it seems that the development of the local SDW order
336: around the vortices in the optimally doped region can be regarded as
337: a duality of the development of the local SC order around the AF stripe
338: in the underdoped region. On the other hand,
339: the appearance of the SDW order around the vortex strongly affects the
340: electron density $n_{\bf i}=\sum_{\sigma} n_{{\bf i},\sigma}$. As shown in
341: Fig.~\ref{FIG:VORTEX}(c), at the vortex core center, where the SDW
342: amplitude
343: reaches the maximum, the electron density is strongly enhanced and is
344: very close to unity, which is characteristic of the bulk AF-like SDW
345: order at the half filling. Therefore, the hole charge density is depleted
346: in the vortex core center. The depletion of the hole charges
347: near the vortex core center is compensated by the corresponding
348: enhancement
349: along $\pi/4$ and $3\pi/4$ directions with respect to the underlying
350: crystal lattice, which correspond to the nodal directions on
351: the Fermi
352: surface.
353: This kind of charge
354: inhomogeneity is closely related to the development of the local SDW order
355: around the vortex core due to the large on-site repulsion.
356: Finally, with the chosen parameter values, we also find that
357: when the on-site repulsion $U$ is increased to $3.5$, the SC vortex
358: state is collapsed and the SDW order becomes dominant. Our numerical
359: analysis seems to be consistent with the recent argument~\cite{Demler01}
360: of the magnetic field driven quantum phase transition from the SC state
361: into a state with microscopic coexistence of SC and SDW orders to
362: understand the recent neutron scattering experiments~\cite{Lake01}.
363: Notice that the quantum fluctuation of the SDW order parameter, which
364: plays an important role in addressing correctly the spin excitations, has
365: been neglected in the present model because our interest is in the
366: quasiparticle states.
367:
368: We now turn our attention to the quasiparticle state at the vortex
369: core center. The local density of states is defined by
370: \begin{equation}
371: \rho_{\bf i}(E)=-\frac{1}{M_x M_y} \sum_{{\bf k},n,\alpha}
372: \vert u_{{\bf k},{\bf i},\sigma} \vert^{2} f^{\prime}(E^{n}_{\bf k}-E)
373: \;,
374: \end{equation}
375: where $f^{\prime}(E)$ is the derivative of the Fermi distribution
376: function. $\rho_{\bf i}(E)$ is
377: proportional to the local differential tunneling conductance which could
378: be
379: measured by STM
380: experiments~\cite{Tinkham75}.
381: In Fig.~\ref{FIG:LDOS} we plot the LDOS as a function
382: of energy at the vortex core center for different values of
383: on-site repulsion.
384: For comparison, we have also displayed the LDOS at the
385: midpoint between two nearest-neighbor vortices along the $x$ direction,
386: which resembles that for the bulk system.
387: The asymmetry line shape in $\rho_{\bf i}(E)$ with respect
388: to zero energy reflects
389: the lack of particle-hole symmetry as the chemical potential $\mu$
390: deviates from zero for $n_f$ being less than the half filling ($n_f=1$).
391: As can be seen from Fig.~\ref{FIG:LDOS}(a), when $U=0$ for which no local
392: SDW order is induced,
393: the LDOS at the core center shows a single resonant peak around
394: the Fermi energy, which is similar to that reported by other
395: authors~\cite{Wang95}.
396: When $U$ is sufficiently large that the local SDW order develops around
397: the vortex core, the LDOS peak at zero energy is split into a double-peak
398: structure
399: (see Fig.~\ref{FIG:LDOS}(b)). The splitting comes from the fact: When
400: the SDW order is localized around the vortex center,
401: the spin-dependent potential, which can be rewritten as
402: $m_{{\bf i},\uparrow(\downarrow)}=U(n_{\bf i}\pm S_{z}^{\bf i})/2$,
403: plays the role of a local magnetic field interacting with the electrons
404: via the Zeeman coupling. When $U$ is increased, $S_{z}^{\bf i}$ at
405: the vortex core center is enhanced,
406: and the combination of them enlarges the Zeeman
407: interaction. As a consequence, the LDOS peak at zero energy is further
408: split (see Fig.~\ref{FIG:LDOS}(c)). This splitting of the LDOS at the
409: vortex core center is in good agreement with the STM experiments on the
410: optimally doped YBCO and BSCCO. The induction of the local AF order at the
411: vortex core is consistent with recent neutron scattering experiment on
412: LSCO~\cite{Lake01}.
413:
414:
415: {\bf Acknowledgments}: We wish to thank A.V. Balatsky, E. Demler, B.
416: Friedman, T. Kita, T.K. Lee, A.H. MacDonald, S. Sachdev, D.N. Sheng,
417: W.P. Su, M. Takigawa, K.K. Voo, and Z.Y. Weng for useful discussions.
418: This work was
419: supported by the Texas Center for Superconductivity at the University of
420: Houston through the State of
421: Texas, and the Robert A. Welch Foundation, and the ARP-0036520241-1999.
422:
423: \begin{references}
424: \bibitem{Caro64} C. Caroli, P. G. de Gennes, and J. Matricon, Phys. Lett.
425: {\bf 9}, 307 (1964).
426:
427: \bibitem{Gygi90} F. Gygi and M. Schluter, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 65}, 1820
428: (1990); Phys. Rev. B {\bf 41}, 822 (1990); {\bf 43}, 7609 (1991).
429:
430: \bibitem{Shore89} J. D. Shore {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 62},
431: 3089 (1989).
432:
433: \bibitem{Zhu95} Yu-Dong Zhu, F.C. Zhang, and M. Sigrist, Phys. Rev. B {\bf
434: 51}, 1105 (1995).
435:
436: \bibitem{Hess89} H. F. Hess {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 62}, 214
437: (1989).
438:
439: \bibitem{Wang95} Y. Wang and A.H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 52},
440: R3876 (1995).
441:
442: \bibitem{Maggio95} (a) I. Maggio-Aprile {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett.
443: {\bf 75}, 2754 (1995); (b) Ch. Renner {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev.
444: Lett. {\bf 80}, 3606 (1998).
445:
446: \bibitem{Pan00} S. H. Pan {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 1536
447: (2000).
448:
449: \bibitem{Himeda97} A. Himeda {\em et al.}, J.
450: Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 66}, 3367 (1997).
451:
452: \bibitem{Morita97} Y. Morita, M. Kohmoto, and K. Maki,
453: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 4841 (1997); {\bf 79}, 4514 (1997);
454: M. Franz and M. Ichioka, {\em ibid.} {\bf 79}, 4513 (1997).
455:
456: \bibitem{Franz98} M. Franz and Z. Te\v{s}anovi\'{c}, Phys. Rev. Lett.
457: {\bf 80}, 4763 (1998).
458:
459: \bibitem{Taki99} M. Takigawa, M. Ichioka, and K. Machida, Phys. Rev. Lett.
460: {\bf 83}, 3057 (1999).
461:
462: \bibitem{Yasui99} K. Yasui and T. Kita, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83},
463: 4168 (1999).
464:
465: \bibitem{Laugh98} R. B. Laughlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 5188 (1998).
466:
467: \bibitem{Krish97} K. Krishana {\em et al.}, Science {\bf 277}, 83 (1997).
468:
469: \bibitem{Aubin99} H. Aubin {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 624
470: (1999).
471:
472: \bibitem{Arovas97} D. P. Arovas {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79},
473: 2871 (1997).
474:
475: \bibitem{Lee00} Jung Hoon Han and D.-H. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85},
476: 1100 (2000).
477:
478: \bibitem{Lake01} B. Lake {\em et al.}, Science {\bf 291}, 1759 (2001);
479: cond-mat/0104026.
480:
481: \bibitem{Bale98} L. Balents, M. P. A. Fisher, and C. Nayak, Int. J. Mod.
482: Phys. B {\bf 12}, 1033 (1998).
483:
484: \bibitem{Sach99} S. Sachdev, C. Buragohain, and M. Vojta, Science {\bf
485: 286}, 2479 (1999).
486:
487: \bibitem{Han00} J. H. Han, Q.-H. Wang, and D.-H. Lee, cond-mat/0006046.
488:
489: \bibitem{Mart00} I. Martin {\em et al.}, cond-mat/0009067.
490:
491: \bibitem{Daul00} S. Daul, D. J. Scalapino, and S. R. White, Phys. Rev.
492: Lett. {\bf 84}, 4188 (2000).
493:
494: \bibitem{Demler01} E. Demler, S. Sachdev, and Y. Zhang, cond-mat/0103192.
495:
496: \bibitem{Tinkham75} M. Tinkham, {\em Introduction to
497: Superconductivity} (McGraw Hill, New York, 1975).
498:
499:
500: \end{references}
501:
502:
503: \begin{figure}
504: \caption[*]{The amplitude distribution of the $d$-wave SC order parameter
505: $\vert \Delta_{d}\vert$ (a), the staggered magnetization
506: $M_{s}$ (b), and the electron density $n_{\bf i}$ (c) in
507: one magnetic unit cell obtained at the zero temperature. The size of the
508: cell is $42\times 21$. The strength of the on-site repulsion $U=2$. The
509: other parameter values: The $d$-wave pairing interaction $V=1$; the filling
510: factor $n_f=0.84$.
511: }
512: \label{FIG:VORTEX}
513: \end{figure}
514:
515: \begin{figure}
516: \caption[*]{
517: The zero-temperature LDOS at the
518: vortex core center (red-solid line) with various strength of on-site
519: repulsion $U=0$ (a), $U=2$ (b), and $U=3$ (c). Also displayed is the
520: zero-temperature LDOS at the midpoint (green-dot-dashed line)
521: between two nearest neighbor
522: vortices along the $x$ direction. The other parameter values are the same
523: as Fig.~\ref{FIG:VORTEX}.
524: }
525: \label{FIG:LDOS}
526: \end{figure}
527:
528:
529:
530: \end{document}
531:
532:
533:
534:
535:
536:
537:
538:
539:
540:
541:
542:
543:
544:
545:
546:
547:
548:
549:
550:
551:
552:
553:
554:
555: