1: %\documentstyle[preprint,eqsecnum,aps,prl]{revtex}
2: %\documentstyle[preprint,aps,prl]{revtex}
3: \documentstyle[aps,multicol,epsfig]{revtex}
4: %\documentstyle[eqsecnum,aps,multicol]{revtex}
5: %\documentstyle[eqsecnum,aps]{revtex}
6: \def\btt#1{{\tt$\backslash$#1}}
7: \def\BibTeX{\rm B{\sc ib}\TeX}
8: \begin{document}
9: \draft
10: \preprint{}
11: \title{Reexamination of $d$-wave superconductivity in the
12: two-dimensional Hubbard model
13: }
14: \author{Takao Morinari}
15: \address{Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University
16: Kyoto 606-8502, Japan
17: }
18: \date{\today}
19: \maketitle
20: \begin{abstract}
21: We reexamine the possibility of $d$-wave superconductivity in the
22: hole-doped two-dimensional Hubbard model.
23: In terms of the gauge field description of the spin fluctuations,
24: we show that $d$-wave superconductivity is unstable in the
25: perturbative region with respect to the on-site Coulomb repulsion,
26: $U$. Whereas in the region where d-wave superconductivity is possible,
27: there is a strong constraint on the gap of superconductivity.
28: Analysis of the localized spin moments suggests that there is another
29: $d$-wave ($d_{x^2-y^2}$-wave) pairing due to the short-range
30: antiferromagnetic correlation.
31: \end{abstract}
32: \pacs{74.25.Dw, 74.20.Rp}
33: %{\tt$\backslash$\string pacs\{\}} should always be input, even if
34: %empty.}
35:
36: \begin{multicols}{2}
37:
38: \narrowtext
39:
40: %{\it Introduction-}
41: Over the past few decades a considerable number of studies have been
42: made on the Hubbard model.
43: In spite of its simplicity, we can expect a variety of phenomena:
44: antiferromagnetism, ferromagnetism, and unconventional
45: superconductivity.
46: Among others, the possibility of $d$-wave superconductivity has been
47: considerably investigated since the discovery of the high $T_c$
48: cuprates.\cite{SCALAPINO}
49:
50: The theory of $d$-wave superconductivity in the Hubbard model is based
51: on the antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations.\cite{SCALAPINO}
52: The mechanism is analogous to the p-wave pairing
53: mechanism due to the ferromagnetic spin fluctuations in the $^3$He
54: system.\cite{He3}
55: In principle, the theory relys on the perturbative expansion with
56: respect to $U$, the on-site Coulomb repulsion.
57:
58: However, the theory has some disadvantages.
59: First of all, it is hard to describe the half-filled case in which
60: local spin moments are produced at each site and the interaction
61: between the spin moments is proportional to the inverse of $U$.
62: Apparently, this dependence of the interaction on $U$ cannot be
63: reproduced by the perturbative expansion in $U$.
64: In addition, realistic values of $U$ are much larger than the
65: carrier hopping amplitude, $t$.
66: Therefore, we must pay particular attention in applying the
67: perturbative expansion in $U$, especially when we deal with the effect
68: of the localized spin moments.
69:
70: In this paper, we re-examine the possibility of $d$-wave
71: superconductivity in the hole-doped two-dimensional Hubbard model
72: without relying on the perturbative expansion with respect to $U$.
73: Starting from the path-integral form of the partition function, we
74: introduce the Stratonovich-Hubbard field for the value of the
75: localized spin moments.
76: Analysis of it suggests that superconductivity based on the
77: antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations is unstable in the perturbative
78: region.
79: While in the region where $d$-wave superconductivity is possible,
80: we show that there is a strong
81: constraint on the value of the superconducting gap.
82: Instead of the $d$-wave Cooper pairing, there is another
83: $d$-wave ($d_{x^2-y^2}$-wave) pairing due to the antiferromagnetic
84: short-range correlation.
85: This $d_{x^2-y^2}$-wave pairing state is similar to the spinon
86: pairing in the RVB theory.\cite{ANDERSON_ETAL,KOTLIAR_LIU}
87: However, the crucial difference here is that we do not need the $U(1)$
88: gauge symmetry breaking that is essential for the slave-particle gauge
89: theory.\cite{NAYAK}
90:
91: {\it Formulation-}
92: The partition function of the Hubbard model is written as
93: ${\cal Z}=\int {\cal D}\overline{c} {\cal D} c \exp (-S)$, where
94: \begin{eqnarray}
95: S&=&\int_0^{\beta} d\tau \left[
96: \sum_j \overline{c}_j \left( \partial_{\tau} - \mu \right) c_j
97: -t\sum_{\langle i,j \rangle} \left( \overline{c}_i c_j +
98: \overline{c}_j c_i
99: \right)
100: \right. \nonumber \\ & & \left.
101: + U \sum_j n_{j\uparrow} n_{j\downarrow} \right].
102: \end{eqnarray}
103: Here $\tau$ dependence of all fields is implicit and
104: the summation $\sum_{\langle i,j \rangle}$ is taken over the
105: nearest neighbor sites.
106: Carrier fields are represented in spinor representation:
107: $c_i = ^T \left( \begin{array}{cc}
108: c_{i\uparrow} & c_{i\downarrow} \end{array} \right)$
109: and
110: $\overline{c}_i = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
111: \overline{c}_{i\uparrow} & \overline{c}_{i\downarrow}\end{array}
112: \right)$.
113: The on-site Coulomb interaction term can be rewritten as,
114: $U\sum_j n_{j\uparrow} n_{j\downarrow} = (U/4) \sum_j
115: \left[ (n_{j\uparrow} + n_{j\downarrow} )^2
116: - \left( \overline{c}_j
117: {\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \sigma}$}} c_j \right)^2
118: + 2 ( n_{j\uparrow} + n_{j\downarrow} )\right]$,
119: where the components of the vector
120: ${\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \sigma}$}} = (\sigma_x,\sigma_y,\sigma_z)$
121: are the Pauli spin matrices.
122: Introducing Stratonovich-Hubbard fields for the charge and spin
123: degrees of freedom,\cite{SCHULZ} we obtain $Z=\int {\cal D}\overline{c}
124: {\cal D} c {\cal D} {\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \Omega}$}} {\cal D}\phi_{c}
125: {\cal D}\phi \exp (-S)$, where the action is given by
126: \begin{eqnarray}
127: S&=&
128: \int_0^{\beta} d\tau \left[
129: \sum_j \overline{c}_j \left( \partial_{\tau} -\mu \right) c_j
130: -t \sum_{\langle i,j \rangle} \left( \overline{c}_i c_j +
131: \overline{c}_j c_i \right)
132: \right. \nonumber \\ & & \left.
133: + \frac{U}{4} \sum_j \phi_j^2
134: - \frac{U}{2} \sum_j \phi_j
135: {\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \Omega}$}}_j \cdot
136: \overline{c}_j {\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \sigma}$}} c_j
137: \right. \nonumber \\ & & \left.
138: + \frac{U}{4} \sum_j \phi_{cj}^2
139: - \frac{iU}{2} \sum_j \phi_{cj} \overline{c}_j c_j \right],
140: \end{eqnarray}
141: up to constant.
142: Here the vector ${\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \Omega}$}}_j$ is a unit
143: vector, $\phi_j$ represents the value of the localized
144: spin moments, and $\sigma_0$ is the unit matrix in spin space .
145: The scalar $\phi_{cj}$ is associated with the charge fluctuations.
146: Note that $\phi_j = 1$ at half-filling. If we consider hole doping,
147: then $\phi_j$ takes $\phi_j \leq 1$.
148: For these amplitudes, we do not consider the possibility of
149: inhomogeneous configurations of them because such configurations may
150: compete with superconductivity.
151: In order to focus on the possibility of superconductivity, we
152: take the uniform values, that is,
153: $\phi_j = \phi = {\rm const.}$ and
154: $i\phi_{cj}= - \langle \overline{c}_j \sigma_0 c_j \rangle = -
155: (1-\delta)$, with $\delta$ the doped hole concentration.
156: %The Gaussian fluctuations around these values are negligible
157: %as long as $\beta U \gg 1$.
158: As a result, we may write the action in the following form
159: \begin{eqnarray}
160: S&=&\int_0^{\beta} d\tau \left[
161: \sum_j \overline{c}_j \left( \partial_{\tau} -\tilde{\mu} \right) c_j
162: -t \sum_{\langle i,j \rangle} \left( \overline{c}_i c_j +
163: \overline{c}_j c_i \right)
164: \right. \nonumber \\ & & \left.
165: - \frac{\phi U}{2} \sum_j
166: {\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \Omega}$}}_j \cdot
167: \overline{c}_j {\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \sigma}$}} c_j
168: \right]
169: + \frac{\phi^2 U}{4} \beta N,
170: \label{eq_S}
171: \end{eqnarray}
172: where $\tilde{\mu}=\mu-U(1-\delta)/2$ and $N$ is the number of the
173: lattice sites.
174: Note that the last term in the square brackets has the form of
175: Hund coupling between the localized spin moments and the carriers' spins.
176:
177: {\it Gauge field description of the spin fluctuations-}
178: Now we rotate the spin of the fermion at $j$-site so that it is in the
179: direction of ${\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \Omega}$}}_j$.
180: Such rotation can be done by performing the following SU(2)
181: transformation:
182: \begin{equation}
183: \left\{
184: \begin{array}{c}
185: c_j = U_j f_j, \\
186: \overline{c}_j = \overline{f}_j \overline{U}_j,
187: \end{array}
188: \right.
189: \label{eq_SU2}
190: \end{equation}
191: where,
192: %\begin{equation}
193: $U_j = \left(
194: \begin{array}{cc}
195: z_{j\uparrow} & -\overline{z}_{j\downarrow} \\
196: z_{j\downarrow} & \overline{z}_{j\uparrow}
197: \end{array}
198: \right)$
199: and
200: $~\overline{U}_j = \left(
201: \begin{array}{cc}
202: \overline{z}_{j\uparrow} & \overline{z}_{j\downarrow} \\
203: -z_{j\downarrow} & z_{j\uparrow}
204: \end{array}
205: \right).
206: $
207: %\end{equation}
208: Here complex variables $\overline{z}_{j\sigma}$ and $z_{j\sigma}$ are
209: defined as
210: ${\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \Omega}$}}_j =
211: \overline{z}_j
212: {\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \sigma}$}} z_j$.\cite{SCHULZ}
213: Thus, we obtain
214: \begin{eqnarray}
215: S&=& \int d\tau \left[ \sum_j \overline{f}_j \left( \partial_{\tau} -
216: \tilde{\mu} + \overline{U}_j \partial_{\tau} U_j \right) f_j
217: \right. \nonumber \\ & & \left.
218: -t \sum_{\langle i,j \rangle} \left(
219: \overline{f}_i \overline{U}_i U_j f_j +
220: \overline{f}_j \overline{U}_j U_i f_i \right)
221: \right. \nonumber \\ & & \left.
222: - \frac{\phi U}{2} \sum_j
223: \overline{f}_j \sigma_z f_j \right] + \frac{\phi^2 U}{4} \beta N.
224: \label{eq_Sf}
225: \end{eqnarray}
226: The effective action of the boson fields $\overline{z}_j$ and $z_j$ is
227: obtained by integrating out fermion fields $\overline{f}_j$ and $f_j$:
228: \begin{eqnarray}
229: S_{\rm eff} &=& - {\rm Tr} \ln \left[
230: \left( \partial_{\tau} - \tilde{\mu} - \frac{\phi U}{2} \sigma_z
231: \right)
232: \delta_{ij}
233: \right. \nonumber \\ & & \left.
234: - t_{ij} \overline{U}_i U_j + \overline{U}_i \partial_{\tau} U_i
235: \delta_{ij}
236: \right] + \frac{\phi^2 U}{4} \beta N,
237: \label{eq_Sz}
238: \end{eqnarray}
239: where $t_{ij}=t$ for the nearest neighbor sites and $t_{ij}=0$
240: otherwise.
241: If we expand Eq.~(\ref{eq_Sz}) with respect to $\phi U$, then the
242: second order term yields the RKKY interaction between the localized
243: spin moments.\cite{LACOUR-GAYET_CYROT}
244: On the other hand, the second order of the expansion of
245: Eq.~(\ref{eq_Sz}) with respect to $t_{ij}$ yields the
246: antiferromagnetic Heisenberg
247: Hamiltonian.\cite{SCHULZ,LACOUR-GAYET_CYROT}
248:
249: Before going into the analysis of the action (\ref{eq_Sf}), we
250: discuss how the formulation is related to the antiferromagnetic spin
251: fluctuation theory that is based on the perturbative expansion in
252: $U$\cite{SCALAPINO}.
253: Formally, we can reproduce the effective interaction of the
254: antiferromagnetic spin fluctuation theory as follows.
255: Expanding the action (\ref{eq_Sz}) in powers of $U$, the quadratic
256: term yields the boson propagator.
257: The effective interaction due to the exchange of the bosons
258: corresponds to the interaction derived from the antiferromagnetic
259: spin-fluctuation theory \cite{SCALAPINO} up to the paramagnon
260: contributions that leads to $p$-wave pairing.\cite{He3}
261: Apparently, we can trust this interaction only in the perturbative
262: region with respect to $U$.
263: In addition, the interaction exists only when $\phi \neq 0$, or
264: coupling to the bosons is lost.
265: Nevertheless we will show later that $\phi=0$ in the perturbative
266: region in $U$.
267: %Nevertheless we will show later that $\phi \neq 0$ is restricted to
268: %the non-perturbative region in $U$.
269:
270: For the analysis of the system,
271: we rely on neither the $\phi U$-expansion nor the $t$-expansion
272: because both of them are reliable only in part of the parameter range
273: of $U/t$ and $\delta$.
274: Alternatively, we study the system by taking the continuum limit.
275: Taking such limit is justified when the fluctuations are
276: long-ranged. Since the antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations may be
277: long-ranged near half-filling, we may take the continuum limit.
278: In the continuum limit, the action (\ref{eq_Sf}) is reduced to
279: \begin{eqnarray}
280: S &=& \int d \tau \int d^2 {\bf r}
281: \overline{\psi} ({\bf r},\tau)
282: \left[
283: \left( \partial_{\tau} - \tilde{\mu} \right) \sigma_0
284: +i {\cal A}_{\tau} - \frac{\phi U}{2}\sigma_z
285: \right. \nonumber \\ & & \left.
286: - \frac{1}{2m}
287: \left( -i \sigma_0 \nabla +
288: {\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf {\cal A}}$}} \right)^2
289: \right]
290: \psi ({\bf r},\tau)
291: + S_{\cal A},
292: \label{eq_Sa}
293: \end{eqnarray}
294: where the SU(2) gauge field ${\cal A}_{\mu}$ is defined as
295: ${\cal A}_{\mu} = \sum_{a=x,y,z} {\cal A}^a_{\mu} \sigma_a =
296: -i \overline{U} \partial_{\mu} U$ and
297: $S_{\cal A}$ is derived from Eq.~(\ref{eq_Sz}) in principle.
298:
299: The system governed by the action (\ref{eq_Sa}) is the fermion system
300: with the interaction due to the exchange of the SU(2) gauge field
301: ${\cal A}_{\mu}$.
302: Here the gauge field ${\cal A}_{\mu}$ is associated with the spin
303: fluctuations.
304: The $z$-component ${\cal A}^z_{\mu} = -i (\overline{z}_{\uparrow}
305: \partial_{\mu} z_{\uparrow}
306: + \overline{z}_{\downarrow} \partial_{\mu} z_{\downarrow} )$
307: describes the ferromagnetic spin
308: fluctuations.
309: Whereas the $x$-component ${\cal A}^x_{\mu} =
310: -i (z_{\uparrow} \partial_{\mu} z_{\downarrow} - z_{\downarrow}
311: \partial_{\mu} z_{\uparrow} )$ describes the antiferromagnetic spin
312: fluctuations.
313: The latter relationship is implied from the analysis of the $CP^1$
314: representation of the antiferromagnetic Heisenberg
315: model.\cite{READ_SACHDEV}
316:
317: In order to consider the antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations,
318: we focus on the gauge field ${\cal A}_{\mu}^x$.
319: In terms of the fields $\tilde{\psi}_{\pm} = (\psi_{\uparrow} \pm
320: \psi_{\downarrow})/\sqrt{2}$ that diagonalize the gauge charge,
321: the action is rewritten as
322: \begin{eqnarray}
323: S &=& \int d \tau \int d^2 {\bf r} \left\{
324: \sum_{s=\pm} \overline{\tilde{\psi}}_s ({\bf r},\tau)
325: \left[
326: \partial_{\tau} - \tilde{\mu}
327: +i s {\cal A}^x_{\tau}
328: \right. \right. \nonumber \\ & & \left. \left.
329: - \frac{1}{2m} \left( -i \nabla +
330: s {\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf {\cal A}}$}}^x \right)^2
331: \right] \tilde{\psi}_s ({\bf r},\tau) \right. \nonumber \\
332: & & \left. - \frac{\phi U}{2}
333: \left[
334: \overline{\tilde{\psi}}_+ ({\bf r},\tau)
335: \tilde{\psi}_- ({\bf r},\tau)
336: +
337: \overline{\tilde{\psi}}_- ({\bf r},\tau)
338: \tilde{\psi}_+ ({\bf r},\tau)
339: \right] \right\}
340: + S_{{\cal A}^x}.
341: \label{eq_Sa2}
342: \end{eqnarray}
343: The action (\ref{eq_Sa2}) has the form of fermions coupled with
344: the U(1) gauge field.
345:
346: {\it Analysis of the gap equation-}
347: Now we study the possibility of spin singlet superconductivity based
348: on the action (\ref{eq_Sa2}).
349: In the following we assume that there exists an attractive interaction
350: induced by the exchange of the gauge field.
351: In the presence of an attractive interaction, the mean field
352: Hamiltonian for the spin singlet pairing state may have the following
353: form
354: \begin{eqnarray}
355: H_{\rm MF}&=& \frac12
356: \sum_{\bf k}
357: \left(
358: \begin{array}{cccc}
359: \tilde{c}_{{\bf k},+}^{\dagger} &
360: \tilde{c}_{{\bf k},-}^{\dagger} &
361: \tilde{c}_{-{\bf k},+} &
362: \tilde{c}_{-{\bf k},-}
363: \end{array}
364: \right)
365: \nonumber \\ & & \times
366: \left(
367: \begin{array}{cccc}
368: \xi_k & -\phi U/2 & 0 & \Delta_{\bf k} \\
369: -\phi U/2 & \xi_k & - \Delta_{\bf k} & 0 \\
370: 0 & - \Delta_{\bf k}^* & -\xi_k & \phi U/2 \\
371: \Delta_{\bf k}^* & 0 & \phi U/2 & - \xi_k
372: \end{array}
373: \right)
374: \left(
375: \begin{array}{c}
376: \tilde{c}_{{\bf k},+} \\
377: \tilde{c}_{{\bf k},-} \\
378: \tilde{c}_{-{\bf k},+}^{\dagger} \\
379: \tilde{c}_{-{\bf k},-}^{\dagger}
380: \end{array}
381: \right).
382: \end{eqnarray}
383: The gap $\Delta_{\bf k}$ is evaluated from the gap equation:
384: %\begin{eqnarray}
385: $\Delta_{\bf k}
386: %&=&
387: =
388: -\frac{1}{4\Omega} \sum_{\bf k}
389: V_{{\bf k}{\bf k}'} \frac{\Delta_{{\bf k}'}}{E_{{\bf k}'}}
390: \left[ \tanh \frac{\beta (E_{{\bf k}'}+\phi U/2)}{2}
391: %\right. \nonumber \\ & & \left.
392: + \tanh \frac{\beta (E_{{\bf k}'}-\phi U/2)}{2}
393: \right]$,
394: %\end{eqnarray}
395: where $E_{\bf k}=\sqrt{\xi_k^2+|\Delta_{\bf k}|^2}$.
396: In principle, the interaction $V_{{\bf k}{\bf k}'}$ is derived from
397: Eqs.~(\ref{eq_Sz}) and (\ref{eq_Sa})
398: by eliminating the gauge field ${\cal A}_{\mu}^x$.
399: However, we do not need its explicit form.
400:
401: At zero temperature, the gap equation is reduced to
402: \begin{equation}
403: \Delta_{\bf k} = -\frac{1}{2\Omega} \sum_{{\bf k}',E_{{\bf k}'}>\phi
404: U/2}
405: V_{{\bf k}{\bf k}'} \frac{\Delta_{{\bf k}'}}{E_{{\bf k}'}},
406: \label{eq_gap}
407: \end{equation}
408: Note that in Eq.~(\ref{eq_gap}) the summation in ${\bf k}'$-space is
409: taken over under the constraint $E_{{\bf k}'} > \phi U/2$.
410: The presence of the constraint on spin singlet pairing states is
411: understood as follows.
412: One can see that the second term in the braces in Eq.~(\ref{eq_Sa2})
413: is similar to that of the Zeeman energy term produced by applying an
414: in-plane magnetic field to the system.
415: In fact, such Zeeman energy term is proportional to the applied
416: magnetic field times $\sum_j (c_{j\uparrow}^{\dagger} c_{j\downarrow}
417: + c_{j\downarrow}^{\dagger} c_{j\uparrow})$. (Here the direction of
418: the in-plane magnetic field is chosen along the $x$-axis.)
419: Apparently, in the limit of the large in-plane magnetic field, spin
420: singlet pairing sates are unstable. Similarly, in the large $\phi U$
421: limit, spin singlet states are not stable.
422: Therefore, if spin singlet superconductivity is stable, then the
423: superconducting gap $\Delta$ should satisfy,
424: \begin{equation}
425: \Delta > \phi U/2 \equiv \Delta_c.
426: \label{eq_cond}
427: \end{equation}
428: In order to find the doped hole concentration dependence of the
429: constraint, we need to evaluate $\phi$.
430: For the calculation,
431: we assume the staggered form for
432: ${\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \Omega}$}}_j$ as
433: ${\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \Omega}$}}_j = (-1)^j {\hat e}_z$,
434: because we are concerned with the antiferromagnetic spin
435: fluctuations.\cite{SPIRAL}
436: Note that non-zero value of $\phi$ does not imply the presence of the
437: antiferromagnetic long-range order but it just implys the presence of
438: the antiferromagnetic correlation because there is the phase
439: fluctuations, or the effect of the gauge field ${\cal A}^x_{\mu}$,
440: as well as the quantum fluctuations.
441:
442: Now we estimate the value of $\phi$ by solving the saddle point
443: equations derived from the action obtained from Eq.~(\ref{eq_S}) after
444: integrating out $\overline{c}_j$ and $c_j$.
445: The variation with respect to $\phi$ yields
446: \begin{equation}
447: \frac{U}{4\pi^2 t} \int^1_{\sqrt{\nu^2-\alpha^2}}
448: d\gamma \frac{K(\sqrt{1-\gamma^2})}{\sqrt{\gamma^2+\alpha^2}} =1,
449: \label{eq_al}
450: \end{equation}
451: where $\alpha=\phi U/(8t)$, $\nu=\tilde{\mu}/(4t)$, and
452: $K(\xi)=\int_0^{\pi/2} d\theta (1/\sqrt{1-\xi^2 \sin^2 \theta})$
453: is the complete elliptic integral of the first kind.
454: Meanwhile the variation with respect to $\mu$ yields
455: \begin{equation}
456: \frac{4}{\pi^2} \int^1_{\sqrt{\nu^2-\alpha^2}} d\gamma
457: K(\sqrt{1-\gamma^2}) = 1 - \delta.
458: \label{eq_del}
459: \end{equation}
460: In deriving these equations, we have used $\nu <0$ and $|\nu|>\alpha$,
461: which holds for the hole doped case.
462:
463: From Eqs.~(\ref{eq_al}) and (\ref{eq_del}) we find $U/t$ and $\delta$
464: dependence of $\phi$ and $\Delta_c$.
465: The boundary between $\phi \neq 0$ and $\phi=0$ is shown in
466: Fig.~\ref{fig_af} by the solid curve.
467: In the $\phi = 0$ regime, there is no attractive interaction due to
468: the absence of the antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations as mentioned
469: above.
470: Note that the $\phi = 0$ regime lies in the smaller value of $U/t$.
471: Apparently, this region contains the parameter range of $U/t$ and
472: $\delta$ where perturbation in $U$ is justified.
473: Therefore, for the states with $\phi = 0$, perturbation theory is
474: justified.
475: Although we cannot say whether perturbation theory is reliable in the
476: $\phi \neq 0$ regime, states with $\phi \neq 0$ are qualitatively
477: different from those with $\phi = 0$ because the former is unstable
478: in the $U/t \rightarrow 0$ limit.
479: (In the language of renormalization group theory,
480: they should belong to different fixed points.)
481: Turning to the conditions of d-wave superconductivity, the boundaries
482: of $\Delta_c/t=0.20$ and $\Delta_c/t=0.04$ in Fig.~\ref{fig_af}
483: suggests that the occurrence of $d$-wave superconductivity is
484: restricted to extremely small parameter region or we need much
485: stronger attractive interaction than the RKKY type interaction.
486:
487: {\it Another $d$-wave pairing-}
488: So far we discuss the possibility of $d$-wave superconductivity in
489: the carrier system.
490: Now we discuss that there is another $d$-wave ($d_{x^2-y^2}$-wave)
491: pairing associated with the localized spin moments.
492:
493: In the $\phi \neq 0$ regime, we may take
494: the form of the antiferromagnetic Heisenberg Hamiltonian
495: for the action of the localized spin moments.
496: In the Hamiltonian formulation, it is written as
497: $H_{\rm spin} = \frac{J\phi^2}{4} \sum_{\langle i,j \rangle}
498: {\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \Omega}$}}_i \cdot
499: {\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \Omega}$}}_j$, with
500: $J=4t^2/U$.\cite{SCHULZ,LACOUR-GAYET_CYROT}
501: Note that the exchange interaction between the localized spins is
502: reduced by factor $\phi^2$. Since $\phi$ is monotonically
503: decreasing function of the doped carrier concentration $\delta$,
504: this reduction suggests the relation to the Heisenberg antiferromagnet
505: like behavior of spin susceptibility observed in the doped high $T_c$
506: cuprates. \cite{JOHNSTON}
507:
508: Now we discuss another $d$-wave pairing.
509: In order to describe the localized spin moments
510: ${\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \Omega}$}}_j$, we can introduce fermion
511: creation and annihilation operators, $a_j^{\dagger}$ and $a_j$, as
512: ${\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \Omega}$}}_j
513: =a_j^{\dagger} {\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \sigma}$}} a_j$.
514: Due to the constraint $|{\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \Omega}$}}_j|=1$,
515: the fermion operators $a_j^{\dagger}$ and $a_j$ must satisfy,
516: \begin{equation}
517: \sum_{\sigma} a_{j\sigma}^{\dagger} a_{j\sigma}=1.
518: \label{eq_constraint}
519: \end{equation}
520: Note that this constraint, the fermion system is half-filled, is
521: independent of the doping concentration $\delta$.
522: Under the constraint (\ref{eq_constraint}), the Hamiltonian $H_{\rm
523: spin}$ is reduced to, up to a constant term,
524: \begin{equation}
525: H_{\rm spin} = - \frac{J\phi^2}{2} \sum_{\langle i,j \rangle}
526: D_{ij}^{\dagger} D_{ij},
527: \end{equation}
528: where $D_{ij} = a_{i\uparrow}a_{j\downarrow}
529: - a_{i\downarrow}a_{j\uparrow}$ is defined on each bond.
530: Taking the mean fields $\langle D_{ij} \rangle$
531: and $\langle D_{ij}^{\dagger} \rangle$,
532: we find that the $d_{x^2-y^2}$-wave
533: pairing state and the extended $s$-wave state are degenerate.
534: If we introduce a slight hopping term for the fermions,
535: then the $d_{x^2-y^2}$-wave pairing state is
536: stabilized\cite{KOTLIAR_LIU} and the gap is of order of $\phi^2 J$.
537: %%%%%%%%%%
538: %%%%%%%%%%
539: Although the origin of this $d_{x^2-y^2}$ pairing is similar to the
540: spinon pairing in the RVB theory, that is, the short-range
541: antiferromagnetic correlation\cite{ANDERSON_ETAL}, the crucial
542: difference is that we do not rely on the $U(1)$
543: gauge symmetry breaking that is essential for the slave-particle gauge
544: theory.\cite{NAYAK}
545: In addition, it should be stressed that this pairing state does not
546: imply a superconducting state of the fermions because of the
547: constraint (\ref{eq_constraint}).
548:
549: This pairing state provides another $d_{x^2-y^2}$
550: pairing which is independent of $d_{x^2-y^2}$-wave superconductivity.
551: The fact that this pairing state originates from the antiferromagnetic
552: correlation between the localized spin moments suggests that it can be
553: associated with the pseudogap phenomenon observed in the high $T_c$
554: cuprates.
555: If we apply the theory to the $Cu$ site degrees of freedom in the
556: $CuO_2$ plane in the cuprates, then the $d_{x^2-y^2}$
557: pairing can be identified with that observed by angle-resolved
558: photoemission spectroscopy.\cite{ARPES}
559: Furthermore, there is the experiment that indicates the existence of
560: the pseudogap of $d_{x^2-y^2}$ symmetry also in the insulating
561: phase.\cite{RONNING_ETAL}
562: Since our $d_{x^2-y^2}$ pairing exists also in the insulating
563: phase, the experiment supports the relationship between experimentally
564: observed pseudogap with $d_{x^2-y^2}$ symmetry and the $d_{x^2-y^2}$
565: pairing due to the antiferromagnetic correlation.
566:
567: {\it Summary-}
568: To summarize, we have reexamined the possibility of $d$-wave
569: superconductivity in the hole-doped Hubbard model.
570: We have shown that $d$-wave superconductivity is unstable in the
571: perturbative region in $U$.
572: Whereas in the region where $d$-wave superconductivity is possible,
573: there is a strong constraint on the superconducting gap.
574: Instead, there is another $d_{x^2-y^2}$-wave pairing due to the
575: antiferromagnetic spin correlation.
576:
577: {\it Acknowledgement-}
578: I would like to thank M. Sigrist, Y. Morita, and M. Tsuchiizu for
579: helpful discussions.
580: This work was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid from the Ministry of
581: Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.
582:
583: %
584: \begin{references}
585: \bibitem{SCALAPINO} See, for example, D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rep. {\bf
586: 250}, 329 (1995); T. Moriya and K. Ueda, Adv. Phys. {\bf 49}, 555
587: (2000).
588: \bibitem{He3} P. W. Anderson and W. F. Brinkman, in {\it The Helium
589: Liquids}, ed. by J. G. M. Armitage and I. E. Farquhar (New York,
590: Academic Press).
591: \bibitem{ANDERSON_ETAL} P. W. Anderson, G. Baskaran, Z. Zou, and
592: T. Hsu, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 58}, 2790 (1987).
593: \bibitem{KOTLIAR_LIU} G. Kotliar and J. Liu, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 38},
594: 5142 (1988).
595: \bibitem{NAYAK} C. Nayak, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 178 (2000).
596: %\bibitem{SC_SEPARATION} P. W. Anderson,
597: %{\it The theory of superconductivity in the high-$T_c$ cuprates}
598: %(Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1997).
599: \bibitem{HUBBARD} J. Hubbard, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 19}, 2626 (1979).
600: \bibitem{SCHULZ} H. J. Schulz, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 65}, 2462 (1990).
601: \bibitem{LACOUR-GAYET_CYROT} P. Lacour-Gayet and M. Cyrot, J. Phys. C
602: {\bf 7}, 400 (1974).
603: \bibitem{READ_SACHDEV} N. Read and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 42},
604: 4568 (1990).
605: \bibitem{SPIRAL} As shown in Ref.~\cite{SCHULZ}, spiral phase is
606: expected away from half-filling because the kinetic energy of carriers
607: enhances ferromagnetic interaction between the localized spins. In
608: order to concentrate on d-wave superconductivity based on
609: antiferromagnetic correlations, the staggered component is taken here.
610: \bibitem{JOHNSTON} D. C. Johnston, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 62}, 957
611: (1989).
612: \bibitem{ARPES} A. G. Loeser, Z.-X. Shen, D. S. Dessau,
613: D. S. Marshall, C. H. Park, P. Fournier, and A. Kapitulnik, Science
614: {\bf 273}, 325 (1996); H. Ding, T. Yokoya, J. C. Campuzano,
615: T. Takahashi, M. Randeria, M. R. Norman, T. Mochiku, K. Kadowaki, and
616: J. Giapintzakis, Nature {\bf 382}, 51 (1996).
617: \bibitem{RONNING_ETAL} F. Ronning, C. Kim, L. Feng, D. S. Marshall,
618: A. G. Loeser, L. L. Miller, J. N. Eckstein, I. Bozovic, Z.-X. Shen,
619: Science {\bf 282}, 2067 (1998).
620: \end{references}
621:
622: %\widetext
623:
624: \end{multicols}
625:
626: \begin{figure}[tbhp]
627: \center
628: \epsfxsize=2.0truein
629: \psfig{file=fig1.ps,width=2.0in,angle=270}
630: \vspace{0.1in}
631: \caption{The boundary between $\phi \neq 0$ and $\phi=0$
632: in the $U/t-\delta$ plane. The boundary is given by the solid curve.
633: The dashed curve represents $\Delta_c/t=0.20$ and the dotted
634: curve $\Delta_c/t=0.04$.
635: }
636: \label{fig_af}
637: \end{figure}
638:
639: \end{document}
640: