1: %FORMAT LATEXE

2: \documentstyle[multicol,aps,rmp,amsfonts,graphics,epsfig]{revtex}

3: \begin{document}

4: \title{Saturation of electrical resistivity}                              

5: \author{O. Gunnarsson$^{(1)}$, M. Calandra$^{(2)}$ and J.E. Han$^{(3)}$}

6: \address{${}^{(1)}$ Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Festk\"orperforschung, 

7: Postfach 800665, D-70506 Stuttgart, Germany \\

8: ${}^{(2)}$Laboratoire de Min\'eralogie-Cristallographie, case 115, 

9: 4 Place Jussieu, 75252, Paris cedex 05, France \\

10: ${}^{(3)}$Department of Physics, The Pennsylvania State University,

11: University Park, PA 16802-6300}

12: 

13: 

14: \maketitle

15: 

16: \begin{abstract}

17: Resistivity saturation is observed in many metallic systems with  

18: large resistivities, i.e., when the resistivity has reached a critical

19: value, its further increase with temperature is substantially reduced. 

20: This typically happens when the apparent mean free path is comparable 

21: to the interatomic separations - the Ioffe-Regel condition. Recently, 

22: several exceptions to this rule have been found. Here, we review 

23: experimental results and early theories of resistivity saturation.

24: We then describe more recent theoretical work, addressing cases both 

25: where the Ioffe-Regel condition is satisfied and where it is violated. 

26: In particular we show how the (semiclassical) Ioffe-Regel condition 

27: can be derived quantum-mechanically under certain assumptions about 

28: the system and why these assumptions are violated for high-$T_c$

29: cuprates and alkali-doped fullerides.

30: \end{abstract}

31: 

32: \begin{multicols}{2}

33: \tableofcontents

34: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:a}

35: The electrical resistivity, $\rho$, of metals is usually calculated in

36: the Boltzmann theory, where the electrons are treated semiclassically.

37: An electron is assumed to move with a wave vector 

38: ${\bf k}$ between scattering events, caused by phonons,  

39: other electrons, impurities or some other disorder. The average 

40: distance an electron moves between two scattering events is    

41: the mean free path $l$. Assuming a three-dimensional system and a 

42: spherical Fermi surface with one sheet, $\rho$ can be expressed 

43: in terms of $l$ as (see Appendix A) 

44: \begin{equation}\label{eq:1}

45: \rho={3\pi^2 \hbar\over e^2k_F^2 l},

46: \end{equation}

47: where $k_F$ is the Fermi wave vector. Alternatively, if the resistivity 

48: is known experimentally, an apparent mean free path can be determined 

49: from Eq.  (\ref{eq:1}). In the following, Eq. (\ref{eq:1}) will

50: be used in the latter way to determine $l$, which then only depends 

51: on the experimental resistivity and the density of conduction electrons 

52: (giving $k_F$). 

53: 

54: 

55: \begin{figure}[t]

56: \centerline{

57: \rotatebox{-90}{\resizebox{2.0in}{!}{\includegraphics{fig1.eps}} }}

58: \caption[]{\label{fig:1}Resistivity of Cu, Nb$_3$Sb (Fisk and Webb, 

59: 1976) and Nb (Abraham and Deviot, 1972). The figure also shows the the 

60: Ioffe-Regel (Ioffe and Regel, 1960) saturation resistivities of Nb$_3$Sb

61: and Nb, setting the mean free path $l$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:1}) equal to the  

62: distance between the Nb atoms. The corresponding value for Cu, 260

63: $\mu\Omega$cm, falls outside the figure. The figure illustrates that 

64: for Nb$_3$Sb and Nb the resistivity saturates roughly as predicted by 

65: the Ioffe-Regel criterion, while $\rho(T) \sim T$ for Cu at large $T$.}

66: \end{figure}

67: 

68: For a good metal like Cu, $l$ is of the order of hundreds or even 

69: thousands of \AA. In the semiclassical Boltzmann theory and for $T$ 

70: larger than a fraction of a typical phonon energy, the resistivity 

71: due to phonon scattering grows linearly with $T$. This is shown           

72: for Cu in Fig. \ref{fig:1}. The apparent mean free path is then reduced 

73: correspondingly. For a good metal, however, $l$ is much larger than the 

74: separation $d$ of the atoms, even at the melting temperature. 

75: 

76: For certain metals, in particular many transition metals and 

77: transition metal compounds, the resistivity behaves in a completely 

78: different way. This was emphasized by Fisk and Webb (1976),     

79: who studied the A15 compounds Nb$_3$Sb (see Fig. \ref{fig:1}).

80: Similar results had earlier been obtained by Woodard and Cody (1964)

81: for Nb$_3$Sn and by several other groups for other compounds. 

82: For small $T$§, $\rho(T)$ grows much faster than for Cu and $l$     

83: becomes comparable to $d$ already for $T$ of the order of several 

84: hundred K. At this point, the slope of the resistivity curve is

85: substantially reduced, and $l$ stays comparable to 

86: $d$ for experimentally accessible values of $T$. This is referred to 

87: as resistivity saturation. It describes the situation where $\rho(T)$ 

88: grows much slower than $\rho(T)\sim T$, predicted by the Boltzmann 

89: equation, but it does not necessarily mean that $\rho(T)$ becomes 

90: a constant. 

91: 

92: Ioffe and Regel (1960) pointed out that the semiclassical

93: theory makes no sense if $l<d$, and we refer to $l \gtrsim d$

94: as the Ioffe-Regel condition. Inserting $l=d$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:1}) 

95: gives the Ioffe-Regel resistivity, shown in Fig. \ref{fig:1}. 

96: In a semiclassical picture, it is natural that $l$ cannot be much 

97: smaller than $d$, since one may expect that an electron at most is

98: scattered at every atom. Saturation is then expected 

99: when $l \sim d$. A semiclassical theory, however,  breaks down when 

100: $l\sim d$, since the uncertainty in the ${\bf k}$-vector

101: of an electron is comparable to the size of the Brillouin

102: zone. A semiclassical theory cannot therefore explain 

103: saturation. Nevertheless, as discussed in Sec. \ref{sec:b}, in the 

104: 1970's and early 1980's a large number of metals were found which showed 

105: saturation when $l\sim d$, and the behavior seemed to be universal. 

106: During this time, much theoretical work was performed to explain 

107: saturation. No consensus was reached, however, and the interest 

108: turned to other problems.                  

109: 

110: \begin{figure}[t]

111: \centerline{

112: \rotatebox{-90}{\resizebox{2.3in}{!}{\includegraphics{fig2.eps}} }}

113: \caption[]{\label{fig:2}Resistivity of

114: Bi$_2$Sr$_2$Ca$_{1-x}$Y$_x$Cu$_2$O$_{8+y}$  ($T_c=30$ K) (Wang 

115: {\it et al.}, 1996ab), La$_{1.93}$Sr$_{0.07}$CuO$_4$  (Takagi 

116: {\it et al.}, 1992), Nd$_{1.84}$Ce$_{0.16}$Cu$_{4-y}$ ($T_c=22.5$ K)

117: (Hikada and Suzuki, 1989), YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ ($T_c=60$ K)

118: (Orenstein {\it et al.}, 1990), Bi$_2$Sr$_2$Cu$_{6+y}$ ($T_c=6.5$ K)

119: (Martin {\it et al.}, 1990) and Nb$_3$Sb (Fisk and Webb, 1976). 

120: The arrow shows the Ioffe-Regel resistivity of 

121: La$_{1.93}$Sr$_{0.07}$CuO$_4$. The figure illustrates 

122: that there is no sign of saturation at the Ioffe-Regel resistivity, 

123: but in some cases perhaps at much larger resistivities. Observe the 

124: magnitude compared with Nb$_3$Sb.}

125: \end{figure}

126: 

127: The situation changed drastically in the late 1980's, when it was found 

128: that the high-$T_c$ cuprates behave very differently (Gurvitch and Fiory, 

129: 1987). Fig. \ref{fig:2} shows that the resistivity for these compounds 

130: is typically much larger than for metals as Nb$_3$Sb, 

131: satisfying the Ioffe-Regel condition. As described in Appendix A, the 

132: Ioffe-Regel resistivity for La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$ is very large, 

133: about 0.7 m$\Omega$cm, due to the small carrier concentration. 

134: Nevertheless, the resistivities of the high-$T_c$ cuprates  

135: substantially exceed the Ioffe-Regel resistivity

136: or are comparable to this resistivity without signs

137: of saturation. The Ioffe-Regel condition is therefore strongly

138: violated. Both La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$ for small $x$ and 

139: Bi$_2$Sr$_2$Ca$_{1-x}$Y$_x$Cu$_2$O$_{8+y}$ show, however, signs 

140: of saturation, although at much larger values than the Ioffe-Regel 

141: resistivity. 

142: Fig. \ref{fig:3} shows other examples of the violation of the 

143: Ioffe-Regel condition, namely Rb$_3$C$_{60}$ (Hebard {\it et al.}, 

144: 1993), La$_4$Ru$_6$O$_{19}$ (Khalifah {\it et al.}, 2001) and

145: Sr$_2$RuO$_4$ (Tyler {\it et al.}, 1998).

146: 

147: 

148: \begin{figure}[t]

149: \centerline{

150: \rotatebox{-90}{\resizebox{2.2in}{!}{\includegraphics{fig3.eps}} }}

151: \caption[]{\label{fig:3}Resistivity of Rb$_3$C$_{60}$

152: (Hebard {\it et al.}, 1993) La$_4$Ru$_6$O$_{19}$ (Khalifah {\it et al.},

153: 2001), Sr$_2$RuO$_4$ (Tyler {\it et al.}, 1998), Nb$_3$Sb (Fisk and 

154: Webb, 1976) and the Ioffe-Regel resistivity for Rb$_3$C$_{60}$. There 

155: is no sign of saturation at the Ioffe-Regel resistivity, but 

156: La$_4$Ru$_6$O$_{19}$ may saturate at a much larger resistivity. }

157: \end{figure}

158: 

159: Although there are substantial uncertainties in the absolute values 

160: of the experimental resistivity, it is, nevertheless, clear that the 

161: Ioffe-Regel condition can be violated. This shows that the semiclassical 

162: argument for saturation is not just questionable, but actually gives 

163: wrong predictions for these systems. This emphasizes the need for a 

164: theory of saturation going beyond the semiclassical treatment of the 

165: electrons. Such a theory should also explain the violation of the 

166: Ioffe-Regel condition for the systems mentioned above. The drastic 

167: change in the experimental situation over the last 15 years has led 

168: to a renewed interest in resistivity saturation.                     

169: 

170: In Sec. \ref{sec:b}, we review the experimental results, and in Sec.

171: \ref{sec:c} early theoretical work. We then briefly describe methods

172: for calculating the resistivity in Sec. \ref{sec:ca}. 

173: Much of the theoretical work has started from 

174: a Boltzmann-like approach, assuming that the scattering mechanism 

175: is a relatively weak perturbation. In Sec. \ref{sec:d}, we describe 

176: an approach starting from the opposite limit of very strong scattering,

177: assuming that the Drude peak has been completely removed. This approach 

178: is based on the f-sum rule. It leads to an approximate upper limit 

179: $\rho_{\rm sat}$ to the resistivity, which usually has a weak $T$ 

180: dependence. Resistivity saturation then happens if the initial slope 

181: of $\rho(T)$ is so large that $\rho_{\rm sat}$ is reached at small 

182: values of $T$ and if $\rho_{\rm sat}$ has a weak $T$ dependence.

183: This approach is  applied to three models with different saturation 

184: behavior. In Sec. \ref{sec:e}, we describe the treatment of a model 

185: of weakly correlated electrons in a broad band, appropriate for many 

186: transition metal compounds. This model shows saturation in agreement 

187: with the Ioffe-Regel condition. We show how this condition can be derived 

188: quantum-mechanically by assuming i) noninteracting electrons and ii) $T\ll 

189: W$, where $W$ is the band width. In Sec. \ref{sec:f} we treat high-$T_c$ 

190: cuprates, for which assumption i) about noninteracting electrons is

191: violated. Using the $t-J$ model, we find that saturation can occur, but at  

192: much larger resistivities than predicted by the Ioffe-Regel condition. 

193: Other metals violating the Ioffe-Regel condition are discussed in 

194: Sec. \ref{sec:g}. In Sec. \ref{sec:h}, we describe a model of 

195: alkali-doped C$_{60}$, which shows no saturation. This result depends on

196: the intramolecular character of the phonons and on condition ii) ($T\ll W$)

197: being violated.

198: The relation to Anderson localization and Mott's minimum

199: conductivity is discussed in Sec. \ref{sec:i}. 

200: 

201: 

202: \begin{figure}

203: \centerline{

204: \rotatebox{0}{\resizebox{1.7in}{!}{\includegraphics{fig4.eps}} }}

205: \caption[]{\label{fig:4}Resistivity of Ti$_{1-x}$Al$_x$ alloys.

206: The figure suggests that the saturation resistivity is 

207: independent of the disorder (after Mooij, 1973).}

208: \end{figure}

209:  

210: \section{Experimental results}\label{sec:b}

211: Most cases of

212: resistivity saturation have been found for transition metal compounds.

213: Mooij (1973) made one of the first observations for Ti$_{1-x}$Al$_x$ 

214: (see Fig. \ref{fig:4}) and several other alloys. In addition, he found 

215: that the positive $T$ dependence of the resistivity becomes weaker or 

216: even negative for strongly disordered systems. Similar results were found 

217: by Arko {\it et al.} (1973) and by Tsuei (1986) for other compounds. 

218: These results suggest that compositional disorder and disorder due to 

219: thermally excited phonons can have a similar effect. Other early 

220: examples were found by Fisk and Lawson (1973).

221: 

222: As discussed in the introduction, resistivity saturation was

223: found for A15 compounds (Woodard and Cody, 1964; Marchenko, 1973; 

224: Fisk and Webb, 1976; Wiesmann {\it et al.}, 1977; Gurvitch {\it et al.}, 

225: 1978). Another class of systems showing resistivity saturation 

226: is the Chevrel phases (Martin {\it et al.}, 1978; Sunandana, 

227: 1979). Early measurements gave very large values for the resistivity, 

228: probably because of sample problems, but later measurements 

229: on single crystals gave resistivities comparable to those of A15 

230: compounds (Kitazawa {\it et al.}, 1981). Fig. \ref{fig:5} shows the 

231: resistivity of the 3d and 5d transition metals. Several of these 

232: metals show clear signs of saturation, in particular $\alpha$-Mn. Other

233: cases are less clear, and, e.g., the resistivity of W even bends slightly 

234: upwards, although it is already large. As discussed at the end of this 

235: section, W is nevertheless an example of saturation, if anharmonic 

236: effects are considered. The above metals can be considered as cases 

237: where the Ioffe-Regel condition is satisfied.

238: 

239:  

240: \begin{figure}[t]

241: \centerline{

242: \rotatebox{-90}{\resizebox{1.9in}{!}{\includegraphics{fig5a.eps}} }}

243: \centerline{

244: \rotatebox{-90}{\resizebox{1.9in}{!}{\includegraphics{fig5b.eps}} }}

245: \caption[]{\label{fig:5}Resistivity of 3d (a) and 5d (b) transition metals

246: (Bass, 1982).}  

247: \end{figure}

248: 

249: We next consider the in-plane resistivity of high-$T_c$ cuprates.

250: The resistivity depends strongly on the doping of the CuO$_2$ plane. 

251: Information about the 

252: doping is given by the superconductivity transition temperature $T_c$, 

253: which is quoted below, when available. As the doping is reduced below

254: the optimum value, $T_c$ drops and $\rho$ increases. In the case 

255: of La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$  we assume that the doping is given by $x$.

256: Results for several cuprates were given in Fig. \ref{fig:2}, and we 

257: give some further examples in Table \ref{table1}. 

258: These are examples of systems where the resistivity is comparable

259: to the Ioffe-Regel resistivity already at moderate values of $T$ and 

260: without showing signs of saturation.

261: 

262: \begin{minipage}{8.6cm}

263: \begin{table}

264: \caption{Resistivity $\rho(T)$ (in m$\Omega$cm) of high-$T _c$ 

265: cuprates. The measurment temperature $T$ and the superconductivity

266: transition temperature $T_c$ are given in K.\label{table1}}  

267: \begin{tabular}{lllll}

268: Compound & $T_c$  & $T$ &$\rho(T)$  & Reference \\

269: \hline

270: HgBa$_2$Ca$_0$Cu$_1$O$_{4+x}$ & 94 & 300 & 0.5  &  Daignere 

271: {\it et al.}, 2001 \\

272: HgBa$_2$Ca$_1$Cu$_2$O$_{6+x}$ &122 & 300 & 0.3  &  Yan      

273: {\it et al.}, 1998 \\

274: HgBa$_2$Ca$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{8+x}$ & 125 & 500 & 0.6  &  Carrington

275: {\it et al.}, 1994 \\

276: HgBa$_2$Ca$_3$Cu$_4$O$_{10+x}$ & 130 & 400 & 0.5  &  L\"ohle   

277: {\it et al.}, 1996 \\

278: Tl$_2$Ba$_2$CuO$_{6+y}$        &  80 & 300 & 1.3  &  Kubo       

279: {\it et al.}, 1991\\

280: Tl$_2$Ba$_2$CuO$_{6+y}$        &  80 & 270 & 0.6  &  Duan      

281: {\it et al.}, 1991\\

282: TlSr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{7-y}$      &  65 & 300 & 0.5  &  Kubo      

283: {\it et al.}, 1991\\

284: Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+y}$  & 76  & 300 & 1.2  &  Chen      

285: {\it et al.}, 1998\\

286: \end{tabular}

287: \end{table}

288: \end{minipage}

289: 

290: 

291: Bi$_2$Sr$_2$Ca$_{1-x}$Y$_x$Cu$_2$O$_{8+y}$ is of particular interest,

292: since Wang {\it et al.} (1996ab) found saturation for the most 

293: underdoped samples, e.g., $x=0.11$ ($T_c=30$ K) as shown in Fig. 

294: \ref{fig:2}. Similar results have also been obtained by Forro 

295: {\it et al.} (2002). Other measurements only showed weak signs of 

296: saturation (Mandrus {\it et al.}, 1992; Ruan {\it et al.}, 2001). 

297: In the measurements of Ruan {\it et al.} (2001), the reason may have 

298: been that their $x=0.11$ sample had a higher $T_c=56$ K than that of 

299: Wang {\it et al.} (1996ab) ($T_c=30$ K), suggesting that the former 

300: sample was less underdoped. We conclude that the Ioffe-Regel condition

301: is violated for high-$T_c$ superconductors but that some systems with

302: very large resistivities may show signs of saturation at much larger 

303: values than the Ioffe-Regel resistivity.  

304: 

305:  

306: \begin{figure}[t]

307: \centerline{

308: \rotatebox{-90}{\resizebox{2.0in}{!}{\includegraphics{fig6.eps}} }}

309: \caption[]{\label{fig:fig6}Resistivity of CaRuO$_3$ (Klein {\it et al.},

310: 1999ab), CrO$_2$ (Rodbell {\it et al.}, 1966), VO$_2$ (Allen {\it et al.}, 

311: 1993) and SrRuO$_3$ (Allen {\it et al.}, 1996).  }

312: \end{figure}

313: 

314: Apart from the high-$T_c$ cuprates, a number of transition metal compounds 

315: have been found which violate the Ioffe-Regel condition. Fig. \ref{fig:3}

316: and Fig. \ref{fig:fig6} shows some examples. Some of these metals 

317: show signs of saturation (La$_4$Ru$_6$O$_{19}$, CrO$_2$ and perhaps 

318: CaRuO$_3$), but at higher resistivities than the Ioffe-Regel resistivity,

319: while other systems show no sign of saturation. Several of 

320: theses metals are believed to be non-Fermi liquids. The data in Figs. 

321: \ref{fig:3} and \ref{fig:fig6} were obtained from single crystals, except 

322: for Rb$_3$C$_{60}$ and CaRuO$_3$. This could be a reason why the

323: resistivity in Fig. \ref{fig:fig6} is much larger for CaRuO$_3$ 

324: than for the related SrRuO$_3$. Large resistivities are also found

325: in manganites (Salamon and Jaime, 2001). These systems raise interesting

326: problems in terms of the colossal magnetoresistance, possibly 

327: important polaron effects and many phase transitions, but they are 

328: outside the scope of this paper.   

329: 

330: The resistivity of A$_3$C$_{60}$ (A= K, Rb) shows a quite substantial 

331: spread between different measurements (Hebard {\it et al.}, 1993;

332: Hou {\it et al.}, 1993; Palstra {\it et al.}, 1994; Degiorgi {\it

333: et al}, 1994). These have been performed for thin films and doped 

334: single crystals using direct and optical methods. In particular

335: the thin films may have substantial defects (e.g., grain boundaries)

336: which would increase the resistivity. The optical measurements

337: should, however, be much less sensitive to this. Indeed, optical 

338: measurements for doped single crystals (Degiorgi {\it et al.}, 1994) 

339: gave resistivities that are about a factor of two smaller than those

340: obtained from direct measurements for thin films (Palstra {\it et 

341: al.}, 1994), but comparable to (somewhat larger than) direct measurements

342: for doped single crystals (Hou {\it at al.}, 1993).  This suggests 

343: that the thin film results in Fig. \ref{fig:3} could overestimate 

344: the resistivity of Rb$_3$C$_{60}$ by a factor of two or somewhat more. 

345: This would not change the qualitative conclusion  

346: that the Ioffe-Regel condition is violated for A$_3$C$_{60}$.

347: 

348: Experiments for Rb$_3$C$_{60}$ show no signs of saturation up to

349: about 500 K (Hebard {\it et al.}, 1993). It is difficult to reach

350: higher values of $T$, due to the possibility of thermally driven 

351: rearrangements of the alkali atoms. Hou {\it et al.} (1995), using

352: a pulsed heating technique to reach 800 K, found a small change 

353: in the slope at about $T=500$ K. This was interpreted as a sign of 

354: saturation. Using the parallel resistor formula (Wiesmann {\it et al.}, 

355: 1977), they deduced the saturation resistivity $6\pm 3$ m$\Omega$cm,  

356: corresponding to the mean free path $l=1\pm0.5$ \AA. Thus there is 

357: no saturation at $l \sim d$, where $d=10$ \AA \ is the separation of

358: two C$_{60}$ molecules (see Appendix A), but it is hard to judge 

359: if there is saturation at some larger resistivity. 

360: 

361: The Boltzmann equation predicts $\rho(T)\sim T$ for large $T$

362: only if various parameters, such as the electron-phonon interaction, 

363: are independent of $T$. This assumption is sometimes strongly 

364: violated. For instance, anharmonic effects reduce the phonon 

365: frequencies of W by about 30 $\%$ at the melting 

366: point (Grimvall, 2001; Grimvall {\it et al.}, 1987; Guillermet and 

367: Grimvall, 1991). According to the Boltzmann equation, this 

368: should increase $\rho(T)$  by about a factor of two, 

369: due to an increase in the electron-phonon coupling, giving a growth

370: of $\rho(T)$ which is much faster than linear. Experimentally,

371: however, the growth is only slightly faster than linear 

372: (Fig. \ref{fig:5}b). This suggests that saturation in W is masked 

373: by the reduction of the phonon frequencies (Grimvall, 2001).

374: 

375: The resistivity is usually measured at constant pressure.

376: As $T$ is increased, the crystal expands and various parameters

377: are changed. Sundqvist and Andersson (1990) converted the resistivity

378: of YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7-y}$ to constant volume data, which is the more

379: relevant quantity for theoretical discussions. They found

380: that this lowered the $T=500$ K resistivity by about 32 $\%$.

381: Although this conversion involves many uncertainties (Sundqvist

382: and Andersson, 1990), it was concluded that the pronounced 

383: linearity in the constant pressure data is lost. Actually, the

384: corrected data show signs of saturation. A similar correction

385: of the data for Rb$_3$C$_{60}$ (Vareka and Zettl,

386: 1994) changed the approximately  quadratic $T$ dependence found 

387: for constant pressure (see Fig. \ref{fig:3}) to an approximately 

388: linear dependence for constant volume. 

389: 

390: \section{Early theoretical work}\label{sec:c}

391: Resistivity saturation was studied theoretically very intensively

392: from the middle of the 1970's to the early 1980's. In this section

393: we review some of this work as well as some later work. We focus

394: on work related to the electron-phonon scattering, 

395: while work based on electron-electron scattering (Jarrell and Pruschke, 

396: 1994; Lange and Kotliar, 1999; Parcollet and Georges, 1999; Merino 

397: and McKenzie, 2000; Gunnarsson and Han, 2000) fall outside the scope 

398: of this review. 

399: 

400: Much of the early work has been reviewed by Allen (1980ab).     

401: Initially, explanations were proposed in terms of strong variations 

402: of the electronic structure on the energy scale of $k_BT$ or 

403: unusual anharmonic effects. These effects appear, however, to be 

404: too small to explain experiment, and as ever more examples of 

405: resistivity saturation were discovered, such theories had to be 

406: abandoned (Allen, 1980ab). 

407: 

408: Wiesmann {\it et al.} (1977) found empirically that the resistivity 

409: of systems such as Nb$_3$Sb can be rather accurately described by 

410: a parallel resistor formula

411: \begin{equation}\label{eq:rb1}

412: {1\over \rho(T)}= {1\over \rho_{\rm sat}}+{1\over \rho_{\rm ideal}(T)},

413: \end{equation}

414: where $\rho_{\rm sat}$ is a saturation resistivity and $\rho_{\rm 

415: ideal}(T)$ is the resistivity of the Boltzmann equation, i.e., linear 

416: in $T$ for large $T$. 

417: 

418: Mooij (1973) observed that strong disorder can lead to a negative

419: slope of $\rho(T)$ (Fig. \ref{fig:4}). Jonson and Girvin (1979), 

420: Girvin and Jonson (1980) and Imry  (1980) argued that this is due 

421: to an incipient Anderson transition. The disorder is assumed to be 

422: so large that the system is close to an Anderson transition for $T=0$. 

423: As $T$ is increased, inelastic scattering (phonon assisted hopping)

424: leads to a loss of phase information (Lee and Ramakrishnan, 1985)

425: and the system moves away from the Anderson transition. This was argued 

426: to lead to a reduction of the resistivity, as observed by Mooij (1973) 

427: for strongly disordered systems.

428: 

429: Weger and Mott (1985) and Weger (1985) proposed a theory in terms 

430: dehybridization of the $s$- and $d$-electrons at large values of $T$.

431: Laughlin (1982) presented a theory where exchange interaction reduced 

432: the density of states and increased the Fermi velocity in such a way 

433: that resistivity saturation was obtained.

434: 

435: Cote and Meisel (1978) and Morton {\it et al.} (1978) proposed

436: that an electron is only scattered by a phonon if the mean free

437: path of the electron is longer than the phonon wave length. As $T$ 

438: is increased and $l$ becomes shorter, an increasing number of phonons 

439: become inefficient scatters. With these assumptions, resistivity 

440: saturation can be derived. Later calculations treating the electrons 

441: quantum mechanically, as described before Eq.  (\ref{eq:reb6}), do not 

442: seem to support the basic assumption in this theory (Calandra and 

443: Gunnarsson, 2002). 

444: 

445: Several theories have been based on models with one

446: electronic state per unit cell.  Christoph and Shiller (1984) 

447: studied the Fr\"ohlich Hamiltonian. Using a truncated equation 

448: of motion approach, they included some higher order terms

449: in the electron-phonon interaction. In this way they derived

450: the parallel resistor formula (Eq. (\ref{eq:rb1})). As pointed

451: out by them, their $\rho_{\rm sat}\sim 0.84$ m$\Omega$cm is substantially

452: larger than what is observed for transition metal compounds, but 

453: it is comparable to what might be expected for a one band model, 

454: as in Eq. (\ref{eq:reb8}) below ($N_d=1$). Belitz and Schirmacher 

455: (1983) studied a generalized Fr\"olich model which also included 

456: impurity scattering. They included higher order terms by using a 

457: mode coupling technique in a memory function approach. They found 

458: a rather good agreement with experiment, but a substantially smaller 

459: $\rho_{\rm sat}$ than might have been expected from Eq. (\ref{eq:reb8}) 

460: for $N_d=1$. 

461: 

462: Ron {\it et al.} (1986) treated a Kronig-Penney chain, where 

463: the positions of the $\delta$-functions vibrate.                 

464: Using the Landauer formula they found saturation in the 

465: limit of large amplitude vibrations. Their $\rho_{\rm sat}$ depends, 

466: however, on the strength of the potentials, and it therefore appears 

467: that the Ioffe-Regel condition is not explained.

468: 

469: The Boltzmann equation only includes intraband transitions. 

470: Chakraborty and Allen (1979) and Allen and Chakraborty (1981) emphasized 

471: that resistivity saturation is typically found for systems where 

472: interband transitions are important. They included these transitions

473: by generalizing the Boltzmann equation, treating terms of the 

474: order $(d/l)^0$, while the Boltzmann equation only contains 

475: terms of the of the order $(d/l)^{-1}$. They demonstrated that 

476: this leads to a parallel resistor type of formula (Eq. (\ref{eq:rb1})) 

477: and estimated the saturation resistivity to be of the right order 

478: of magnitude. Due to the complexity of the equations, it was not 

479: possible to make explicit calculations and the sign of the $\rho_{\rm 

480: sat}$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:rb1}) could not be determined. They  

481: also pointed out that higher order terms in $(d/l)$ may be important. 

482: 

483: \begin{figure}[t]

484: \centerline{

485: \rotatebox{-90}{\resizebox{!}{3.5in}{\includegraphics{fig7.eps}}}}

486: \caption[]{\label{fig:fig7}Resistivity of the C$_{60}$ model for different

487: electron-phonon couplings $\lambda$ according to QMC calculations 

488: (Gunnarsson and Han, 2000; Calandra and Gunnarsson, 2002). The phonon 

489: frequency is $\omega_{ph}=0.1$ eV.  The figure illustrates the lack of 

490: saturation. For $\lambda=0.80$ the onset of superconductivity can be seen 

491: as a sharp downturn in $\rho(T)$ as $T$ is lowered, due to superconducting 

492: fluctuations. For $\lambda= 1.06$ and 1.32, the resistivity has a negative 

493: slope for small $T$, indicating an insulating system. }

494: \end{figure}

495: 

496: Millis {\it et al.} (1999) studied a Holstein like model, where 

497: the phonons couple to the electron level energies (in the following

498: called LE coupling).

499: They found that there is a change of slope in the $\rho(T)$ curve 

500: for the case of a strong electron-phonon coupling, and associated 

501: this with resistivity saturation. They observed, however, that 

502: the resistivity does not saturate and remarked that resistivity 

503: saturation is a misnomer. Gunnarsson and Han (2000) performed a 

504: quantum Monte-Carlo (QMC) calculation for a somewhat related model 

505: of A$_3$C$_{60}$ (A= K, Rb). This model included the partly occupied, 

506: three-fold degenerate $t_{1u}$ level as well as the LE coupling to a 

507: five-fold degenerate H$_g$ phonon. We refer to this as the C$_{60}$ model. 

508: The results, shown in Fig. \ref{fig:fig7}, are somewhat similar

509: to those of Millis {\it et al.} (1999), but they were considered as an 

510: example of lack of saturation. It was later shown (Calandra and 

511: Gunnarsson, 2001) that a more realistic description of saturation

512: can be obtained by using a coupling to the hopping integrals (HI 

513: coupling) (see Sec. \ref{sec:e}).  

514: 

515: 

516: \section{Calculation of resistivity}\label{sec:ca}

517: 

518: The resistivity is usually calculated in the Boltzmann theory.

519: The electrons are treated semiclassically, and are assumed to

520: be accelerated by the electric field between scattering processes,

521: caused by impurities, phonons or other electrons. This can be considered

522: as the lowest order theory in an expansion in $1/(k_Fl)$ (Kohn and 

523: Luttinger, 1957). Both because of this and because of its prediction

524: $\rho(T)\sim T$ for large $T$, it is clear that the Boltzmann equation

525: cannot be used for describing saturation. Instead, it is 

526: necessary to treat the electrons quantum-mechanically.

527: This can be done in the Kubo formalism. For an isotropic system,

528: this requires the calculation of a current-current correlation 

529: function (Mahan, 1990)

530: \begin{equation}\label{eq:1a}

531: \pi(i\omega)=-{1\over 3N\Omega}\int_0^{\beta}d\tau e^{i\omega \tau}

532: \langle T_{\tau} {\bf \hat j}(\tau) \cdot {\bf \hat j}(0)\rangle,

533: \end{equation}

534: where $N$ is the number of atoms, $\Omega$ is the volume per atom, 

535: $\beta=1/(k_BT)$, $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, $T_{\tau}$ is a 

536: time-ordering operator and ${\bf j}$ is the current operator. 

537: $\pi(i\omega)$ is analytically continued to real frequencies,           

538: giving $\pi_{\rm ret} (\omega)$. The optical conductivity is then 

539: \begin{equation}\label{eq:1b}

540: \sigma(\omega)=-{{\rm Im}\pi_{\rm ret}(\omega)

541: \over \omega},

542: \end{equation} 

543: and the resistivity is $1/\sigma(0)$.

544: 

545: $\pi(i\omega)$ can be calculated for imaginary times by using  

546: a determinantal quantum Monte-Carlo (QMC) method (Blankenbecler 

547: {\it et al.}, 1981). It is then analytically continued

548: to real frequencies by using a maximum entropy method (Jarrell and 

549: Gubernatis, 1996). This approach is very useful for establishing 

550: the saturation properties of a given model. 

551: 

552: To interpret the results, 

553: a simpler method is used, where the phonons are treated semiclassically 

554: (Calandra and Gunnarsson, 2001; 2002). A large supercell with $N$ atoms 

555: and periodic boundary conditions is considered. Each 

556: phonon coordinate is given a random displacement according to a 

557: Gaussian distribution with the width determined by $T$. This set 

558: of displaced coordinates (snap shot) defines a new Hamiltonian.

559: While the original Hamiltonian represents a complicated many-body 

560: problem due to the electron-phonon interaction, the dynamics of the 

561: phonons have been eliminated in the new Hamiltonian. Since we assume 

562: no electron-electron interaction, this is then a one-particle 

563: Hamiltonian for a disordered system. The corresponding eigenstates 

564: $|l\rangle$ and eigenvalues $\varepsilon_l$ are found. The Kubo-Greenwood

565: formula (Greenwood, 1958) is then used         

566: \begin{equation}\label{eq:reb6}

567: \sigma_{xx}(\omega)={2\pi\over N\Omega \omega}\sum_{ll^{'}}|\langle l|

568: \hat j_x| l^{'}\rangle |^2(f_l-f_{l^{'}})\delta(\hbar \omega -

569: \varepsilon_{l^{'}} +\varepsilon_l),

570: \end{equation}

571: where $\hat j_x$ is the current operator in the $x$ direction, and 

572: $f_l$ is the Fermi function for the energy $\varepsilon_l$.  

573: It is essential that in this approach only the phonons are treated

574: semiclassically and that the electrons are treated 

575: quantum-mechanically. This is in contrast to the semiclassical 

576: treatment of the electrons in the Boltzmann theory, which is unable 

577: to describe saturation. 

578: 

579: In the following sections we discuss a new theory for describing

580: different classes of materials with different saturation

581: properties (Gunnarsson and Han, 2000; Calandra and Gunnarsson, 

582: 2001; 2002; 2003).

583: 

584: \begin{figure}[t]

585: \rotatebox{-90}{\resizebox{2.0in}{!}{\includegraphics{fig8.eps}}} 

586: \caption[]{\label{fig:fig8}

587: $\sigma(\omega)$ as a function of $\omega$ for the Nb$_3$Sb model in the 

588: semiclassical treatment of the phonons. The frequency has been scaled  

589: by the $T=0$ band width $W$. The figure illustrates how the Drude peak 

590: is lost as $T$ is increased.}

591: \end{figure}

592: 

593: 

594: \section{\lowercase{f}-sum rule}\label{sec:d}

595: 

596: For small $T$, the optical conductivity $\sigma(\omega)$ typically 

597: has a Drude peak, due to intraband transitions between quasiparticles 

598: and centered at $\omega=0$, and a remaining incoherent part, as 

599: illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:fig8} for Nb$_3$Sb.  As $T$ is increased, 

600: the height of the Drude peak is reduced, and for large 

601: $T$ it disappears. This is also illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:fig9}, 

602: which shows the experimental optical conductivity of CrO$_2$ at $T=300$ K. 

603: The arrow marks the conductivity corresponding to the saturation 

604: resistivity (see Fig. \ref{fig:fig6}). This conductivity is similar 

605: to the magnitude of the incoherent contribution (at 300 K). Again,      

606: this suggests that as $T$ is   increased, the Drude peak disappears 

607: without the incoherent part changing very much.  In the following, we 

608: therefore assume that $T$ is so large that the Drude peak has disappeared

609: (Calandra and Gunnarsson, 2002). 

610: 

611: The Boltzmann theory starts from the periodic system and treats the 

612: scattering mechanisms as small perturbations. The theory focuses on 

613: intraband transitions and the Drude peak. Here we start from the    

614: the opposite limit, where the scattering is so strong that the Drude 

615: peak disappears.  

616: 

617: To estimate the incoherent contribution to $\sigma(\omega)$, we use 

618: the f-sum rule. We focus on tight-binding models with one type 

619: of electrons, e.g., $d$ electrons in a transition metal compound. 

620: Then there are no on-site matrix elements of the current operator. 

621: The off-site matrix elements can be related to hopping matrix 

622: elements, using charge and current conservation.  For an isotropic 

623: three-dimensional system, the tight-binding version of the f-sum rule 

624: then takes the form (Maldague, 1977; Calandra and Gunnarsson, 2002)

625: \begin{equation}\label{eq:rea1}

626: \int_0^{\infty} \sigma(\omega)d \omega=

627: {\pi\over 6}{d^2e^2 \over N\Omega\hbar^2}|E_K|,

628: \end{equation}

629: where $E_K$ is the hopping (kinetic) energy, $N$ is the number 

630: of atoms and $\Omega$ is the volume per atom. 

631: For a system with just nearest neighbor hopping and fixed atoms, 

632: $d$ is the separation of the sites. If the atoms vibrate    

633: or if there is hopping between more distant neighbors, $d$ is a weighted 

634: average of neighboring distances (Calandra and Gunnarsson, 2002). 

635: 

636: 

637: \begin{figure}[t]

638: \centerline{

639: \rotatebox{-90}{\resizebox{!}{2.7in}{\includegraphics{fig9.eps}}}}

640: \caption[]{\label{fig:fig9}$\sigma(\omega)$ for CrO$_2$ according

641: to experiment (full line) at $T=300$ K (Singley {\it et al.}, 1999) and 

642: the large $T$ model in Fig. \ref{fig:fig10} (dotted line), 

643: adjusting the area to the sum rule (\ref{eq:rea1}). The experimental 

644: intensity above $\omega\sim 1.5$ eV is due to interband transitions. 

645: The arrow shows the conductivity corresponding to the saturation

646: resistivity in Fig. \ref{fig:fig6}. It suggests that for large $T$, the 

647: Drude peak in the experimental $\sigma(\omega)$ disappears.

648: }

649: \end{figure}

650: 

651: For models with only one type of electrons, e.g, $d$ electrons,     

652: $\sigma(\omega)$ at large $T$ looks schematically as in Fig. 

653: \ref{fig:fig10}. This can be compared with the calculation for Nb$_3$Sb 

654: in Fig. \ref{fig:fig8} or the expected large $T$ contribution from the 

655: $t_{2g}$ band of CrO$_2$ in Fig.  \ref{fig:fig9} (Drude peak gone),

656: excluding the interband transitions for $\hbar\omega > 1.5$ eV. For 

657: $\hbar\omega$ larger than the band width $W$, $\sigma(\omega)\approx 0$. 

658: If $\sigma(\omega)$ furthermore lacks large structures around $\omega=0$, 

659: we can approximate 

660: \begin{equation}\label{eq:rea2}

661: \sigma(\omega)= \cases{ \sigma(0)/\gamma,&if $\hbar|\omega|\le W$;\cr

662: 0, &  otherwise.\cr}

663: \end{equation}

664: Then $\int \sigma(\omega)\hbar d\omega=\sigma(0)W/\gamma$, 

665: and the f-sum rule (\ref{eq:rea1}) requires that $\sigma(0)$

666: is given by the right hand side of Eq. (\ref{eq:rea1})

667: multiplied by $\gamma\hbar/W$ (Calandra and Gunnarsson, 2002; 2003), i.e., 

668: \begin{equation}\label{eq:rea3}

669: \sigma(0)={\gamma \hbar\over W}\int_0^{\infty} 

670: \sigma(\omega)d \omega=   {\pi\gamma\over 6W}{d^2e^2 

671: \over N\Omega\hbar}|E_K|,

672: \end{equation}

673: where $\gamma\sim 2$ depends on the shape of $\sigma(\omega)$. 

674: This provides an approximate lower limit to the conductivity 

675: (upper limit to the resistivity), which may be reached 

676: if $T$ is so large that the Drude peak is negligible. The conductivity 

677: could be appreciably smaller only if there is a substantial amount of 

678: weight for $\omega>W$ or if $\sigma(\omega)$ is anomalously small for  

679: $\omega=0$. The former should not be important, since 

680: $\hbar\omega>W$ requires multiple electron-hole pair excitations. Since 

681: the current operator is a one-particle operator, these excitations  

682: should have a small weight. The latter could happen in the case of an 

683: incipient Anderson transition, but it should normally not occur at large 

684: $T$, where inelastic scattering destroys the phase information required 

685: for an Anderson localization (Lee and Ramakrishnan, 1985). The (lower) limit 

686: (\ref{eq:rea3}) to the conductivity is $T$ dependent, due to the 

687: $T$ dependence of $E_K$ and $W$. This $T$ dependence is often, but not 

688: always, rather weak.  Below we use Eq. (\ref{eq:rea3}) to discuss

689: different classes of metals.                           

690: 

691: 

692: \begin{figure}[t]

693: \centerline{

694: \resizebox{2.0in}{!}{\includegraphics{fig10.eps}} }

695: \caption[]{\label{fig:fig10}

696: Schematic picture of $\sigma(\omega)$. The average of $\sigma(\omega)$   

697: over the band width is given by $\sigma(0)/\gamma$, where $\gamma\sim 2$.

698: }

699: \end{figure}

700: 

701: \section{Weakly correlated broad band systems}\label{sec:e}

702: 

703: We first focus on metals with a large band width $W$. We therefore

704: assume that i) $W$ is so large that the electrons can be treated 

705: as noninteracting and ii) $T\ll W$. 

706: In particular, we focus on  Nb$_3$Sb, showing a pronounced saturation, 

707: and Nb, showing a much weaker saturation (see

708: Fig. \ref{fig:1}). We use a model with an $N_d$-fold degenerate orbital 

709: on each site. The orbitals on different atoms are connected by hopping 

710: matrix elements, $t_{im,jm^{'}}$, where $i$ and $j$ label the atoms and 

711: $m, m^{'} = 1, .., N_d$ the orbital. Then the electronic Hamiltonian is 

712: \begin{equation}\label{eq:reb1}

713: H^{\rm el}=\sum_{i\ne j,mm^{'}\sigma}t_{im,jm^{'}} 

714: c^{\dagger}_{im\sigma}c_{jm^{'}\sigma},

715: \end{equation}

716: Three Einstein phonons are introduced for each atom, describing its 

717: displacement in the three coordinate directions. The phonons couple 

718: to the hopping integrals, since these depend on the atomic positions. 

719: We refer to this as HI coupling and the model is referred to as the 

720: transition metal (TM) model. The model for Nb has $4d$ orbitals 

721: ($N_d=5$) on a bcc lattice. For Nb$_3$Sb we use the Nb$_3^{\ast}$ model, 

722: neglecting the Sb atoms (Pickett {\it et al.}, 1979), and putting $4d$ 

723: orbitals on the Nb sites. The models are therefore identical except 

724: for the lattice structure. For strongly ionic systems, the coupling 

725: to the level energies (LE) may also be important. 

726: 

727: 

728: Fig. \ref{fig:fig11} shows the QMC (circles) results for the resistivity

729: of Nb$_3^{\ast}$ model for a supercell with $N=36$ atoms. These results 

730: extrapolate to a large resistivity 

731: at $T=0$. On the other hand, the resistivity of the model must be zero at 

732: $T=0$. It then follows that there must be a large change of the slope 

733: of $\rho(T)$ as $T$ is increased, i.e., resistivity saturation. 

734: This model can therefore be used for analyzing saturation. Fig. 

735: \ref{fig:fig11} also shows that the semiclassical treatment of the

736: phonons is quite accurate for the TM model, and that it therefore

737: can be used for interpreting the results.     

738: 

739: To use f-sum rule of Sec. \ref{sec:d}, we calculate the hopping energy 

740: $E_K$. Since we have assumed that the electrons are noninteracting 

741: and that $T\ll W$, we obtain 

742: \begin{equation}\label{eq:reb7}

743: E_K=2N_d\int_{-W/2}^{E_F}\varepsilon

744: N(\varepsilon)d\varepsilon\equiv -2\alpha N_d W N,

745: \end{equation}

746: where $E_F$ is the Fermi energy, $N(\varepsilon)$ is the density of 

747: states per atom, orbital and spin, $N_d$ is the orbital degeneracy,

748: and $\alpha$ depends on the shape 

749: of $N(\varepsilon)$ and the filling. Typically $\alpha\sim 0.1$ for 

750: a metal close to half-filling.  The dependence on filling is moderate

751: around half-filling (Calandra and Gunnarsson, 2002), but $\alpha=0$ 

752: for an empty or full band.  Inserting Eq. (\ref{eq:reb7}) in

753: Eq. (\ref{eq:rea3}) gives an approximate lower limit to the 

754: conductivity (Calandra and Gunnarsson, 2002; 2003)

755: \begin{equation}\label{eq:reb8}

756: \sigma_{\rm sat}(0)={\pi \alpha\gamma\over 3} 

757: {d^3\over \Omega}{N_de^2\over \hbar d}.

758: \end{equation}

759: Here $\pi\alpha\gamma/3 \sim 0.2 $ depends on the details of the electronic 

760: structure, and $d^3/\Omega\sim 1$ depends on the lattice structure. The 

761: result is independent of $W$, since the $W$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:rea3}) cancels 

762: that in Eq. (\ref{eq:reb7}). The essential material parameters, $d$

763: and $N_d$ appear in $N_de^2/(\hbar d)$, which has the dimension conductivity.

764: The corresponding apparent mean free path is (Calandra and Gunnarsson,

765: 2001)

766: \begin{equation}\label{eq:reb8a}

767: l=cN_d^{1\over 3}d,

768: \end{equation}

769: where $c\sim 0.6-0.8$, which is an approximate lower limit to $l$. It 

770: then follows that $l \gtrsim d$. This provides a quantum-mechanical 

771: derivation of the Ioffe-Regel condition, assuming that the electrons 

772: can be treated as noninteracting and that $T\ll W$. For a transition metal 

773: compound, with $N_d=5$ and $d\sim 3$ \AA, this leads to a resistivity of 

774: the order of 0.1-0.2 m$\Omega$cm, in agreement with the experiments. 

775: 

776: 

777: \begin{figure}[t]

778: \centerline{

779: \resizebox{2.5in}{!}{\includegraphics{fig11.eps}} }

780: \caption[]{\label{fig:fig11}Resistivity for the Nb$_3^{\ast}$ model of

781: Nb$_3$Sb, comparing the semiclassical $\lbrack$ broken ($N=36$ atoms) 

782: and full ($N=648$) curves$\rbrack$ and QMC (circles, $N=36$) treatment 

783: of the phonons. The figure also shows the 

784: small (Eq. (\ref{eq:reb9})) and large (Eq. (\ref{eq:reb8})) $T$         

785: results. It illustrates that the resistivity of the TM model 

786: saturates at large $T$ (after Calandra and Gunnarsson, 2001).}

787: \end{figure}

788: 

789: We next consider the small $T$ behavior of $\rho(T)$. In this limit 

790: the Boltzmann theory can be used, since $l\gg d$. For $T$ larger than 

791: some fraction of $\omega_{ph}$ (Grimvall, 1981) 

792: \begin{equation}\label{eq:reb9}

793: \rho(T)= 8\pi^2{\lambda T k_B\over \hbar \Omega_{pl}^2},

794: \end{equation}

795: where $\lambda$ is the dimensionless electron-phonon coupling constant 

796: and $\Omega_{pl}$ is the plasma frequency

797: \begin{equation}\label{eq:reb10}

798: (\hbar\Omega_{pl})^2={e^2\over 3\pi^2}\sum_{\nu} \int_{Bz}d^3k \lbrack 

799: {\partial \varepsilon_{\nu}({\bf k}) \over \partial {\bf k}}\rbrack^2\delta

800: (\varepsilon_{\nu}({\bf k})-E_F).

801: \end{equation}

802: Here $\varepsilon_{\nu}({\bf k})$ is the energy of a state with

803: the band index $\nu$ and the wave vector ${\bf k}$. $\Omega_{pl}$ 

804: depends on the average Fermi velocity.

805: 

806: The straight line corresponding to Eq. (\ref{eq:reb9}) is shown 

807: in Fig. \ref{fig:fig11}. It shows how the conductivity is reduced 

808: and the resistivity is increased due to the reduction of the Drude 

809: peak height as $T$ is increased. The horizontal line in Fig. 

810: \ref{fig:fig11} corresponds to the large $T$ limit (Eq. (\ref{eq:reb8})) 

811: of the conductivity. When this horizontal line is crossed by the 

812: steep line (Eq. (\ref{eq:reb9})), the Drude peak has been so strongly 

813: reduced that it disappears under the incoherent part, and is spread 

814: out over a large energy range. As discussed above, due to the f-sum rule, 

815: the conductivity cannot normally be much further reduced at this point. 

816: 

817: Saturation requires that the two lines (Eqs. (\ref{eq:reb8}, 

818: \ref{eq:reb9})) cross in the available temperature range. For most 

819: metals, the line in Eq. (\ref{eq:reb9}) has such a small slope that 

820: the crossing would happen far above the melting point. 

821: 

822: 

823: The model of Nb shows a much weaker saturation than the Nb$_3^{\ast}$ 

824: model of Nb$_3$Sb (Calandra and Gunnarsson, 2001), as is also found 

825: experimentally (see Fig. \ref{fig:1}). This is due to a much larger 

826: $\Omega_{pl}$ for Nb (9.5 eV in the model) than for Nb$_3$Sb (3.4 eV). 

827: The slope of the line in Eq. (\ref{eq:reb9}) is therefore a factor of 

828: five larger for Nb$_3$Sb than for Nb. This leads to the much more

829: pronounced saturation for Nb$_3$Sb. The difference in $\Omega_{pl}$

830: is due to the large unit cell of Nb$_3^{\ast}$, which leads to            

831: many bands and many forbidden crossings. This results in quite flat 

832: bands and small electron velocities and a small $\Omega_{pl}$

833: (Eq. (\ref{eq:reb10})). In this context it is interesting to 

834: note that $\alpha$-Mn has the most pronounced saturation among

835: the transition metals (see Fig. \ref{fig:5}a). The unit cell of 

836: $\alpha$-Mn has 58 atoms, suggesting a very small $\Omega_{pl}$ 

837: and a very steep initial slope of $\rho(T)$. Chakraborty and Allen 

838: (1979) and Allen and Chakraborty (1981) observed that saturation 

839: usually happens for systems with important interband transitions. 

840: Such systems typically have large unit cells and small $\Omega_{pl}$. 

841: Their observation can then be understood in terms of the arguments above. 

842: 

843: For a one-band model with one $s$-state per unit cell, 

844: $\rho_{\rm sat}$ is large ($N_d=1$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:reb8}) instead of 

845: $N_d=5$ for the TM model) and 

846: $\lambda/\Omega_{pl}$ is typically small. The crossing of the two

847: lines in Eqs. (\ref{eq:reb8}, \ref{eq:reb9}) then happens for such  

848: large vibration amplitudes that a calculation is not very meaningful.

849: The main reason is that for an $s$-band model, the matrix elements 

850: do not change sign as the atoms vibrate, and very large vibration 

851: amplitudes are needed to make the scattering so strong that the Drude 

852: peak essentially disappears. It is therefore interesting 

853: to study a one-band model where the state has many strongly directed 

854: lobes. Even moderate atomic vibrations then change the signs of 

855: the matrix elements. As a model we use one of the three $t_{1u}$ 

856: orbitals of a C$_{60}$ molecule (hypothetical case of a strong 

857: crystal-field splitting). This orbital has $l=5$ and correspondingly 

858: many nodes. The resulting resistivity saturation is moderate, with 

859: the slope at large $T$ being reduced by about a factor of three to four 

860: in the semiclassical treatment of the phonons. This illustrates that 

861: interband transitions are not indispensable for resistivity saturation.  

862: 

863: The optical conductivity in Figs. \ref{fig:fig8} and \ref{fig:fig9} 

864: can be viewed as a Drude peak riding on top of a broad 

865: structure of incoherent contributions. According to the f-sum rule and 

866: the arguments above, the height and shape of the latter part does not 

867: change much for values of $T$ discussed here.  

868: We then approximately have   

869: \begin{equation}\label{eq:d17}

870: \sigma(\omega=0,T)=\sigma_{\rm Drude}(\omega=0,T)+\sigma_{\rm sat},

871: \end{equation}

872: where $\sigma_{\rm Drude}(\omega=0,T)$ is the inverse of the resistivity

873: in Eq. (\ref{eq:reb9}) and $\sigma_{\rm sat}$ is the height of the 

874: incoherent contribution (Eq. (\ref{eq:reb8})). This is the parallel resistor 

875: formula (Wiesmann {\it et al.}, 1977). 

876: 

877: \section{Strongly correlated systems. High-$T_{\lowercase{c}}$ cuprates}\label{sec:f}

878: 

879: In the derivation of the Ioffe-Regel condition, we assumed i) noninteracting

880: electrons. We now focus on the high-$T_c$ cuprates, where this assumption

881: is invalid. The transport properties in the CuO$_2$ plane are mainly 

882: determined by the antibonding band of Cu $x^2-y^2$ and O $2p$ character. 

883: It is then natural to consider one ($x^2-y^2$) orbital per site and the 

884: orbital degeneracy $N_d=1$. These orbitals are put on a two-dimensional 

885: square lattice, describing the CuO$_2$ plane. The Coulomb 

886: interaction is described by a Hubbard $U$ acting between two electrons 

887: on the same site. $U$ is assumed to be so large that states with double 

888: occupancy on a site can be projected out, leading to the $t-J$ model 

889: (Zhang and Rice, 1988).  

890: 

891: \begin{figure}[t]

892: \centerline{

893: \rotatebox{-90}{\resizebox{!}{3.0in}{\includegraphics{fig12.eps}}}}

894: \caption[]{\label{fig:fig12} 

895: In-plane optical conductivity of La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$ as a function of 

896: $\omega$ for $x=0.06$ and $x=0.10$ (Takenaka {\it et al.}, 2002). The 

897: figure illustrates how the peak at $\omega=0$ gradually goes away as $T$ 

898: is increased and that the intraband contribution to $\sigma(\omega)$ 

899: is reduced as $x$ is reduced. The sharp structures at small $\omega$ are 

900: due to phonons. Interband transitions become important for $\hbar \omega

901: \gtrsim 1$ eV. }

902: \end{figure}

903: 

904: 

905: To use the f-sum rule, we first make a simple estimate of the hopping 

906: energy. Due to the doping with $x$ holes per site, a given site is 

907: occupied by a hole or an electron with the probabilities $x$ and $(1-x)$, 

908: respectively. In the $t-J$ model, a hole can hop to a neighboring site 

909: only if the site is occupied by an electron. This suggests a hopping 

910: probability of the order of $x(1-x)$. Multiplying by the number of 

911: nearest neighbors (four) and the hopping integral $t$ gives a simple 

912: estimate of the hopping energy (Calandra and Gunnarsson, 2003)

913: \begin{equation}\label{eq:rec2}

914:  E_K =-4tx(1-x)N,

915: \end{equation}

916: where $N$ is the number of sites. An exact diagonalization calculation 

917: for the $t-J$ model, gives a similar dependence on $x$ but a

918: somewhat smaller prefactor of about 3.4 (Calandra and Gunnarsson, 2003). 

919: 

920: Typically, $x \ll 1$. From Eq. (\ref{eq:rec2}) it then follows that 

921: the right hand side of the 

922: f-sum rule (Eq. (\ref{eq:rea1})) should be approximately proportional 

923: to $x$, as is also found experimentally (Yamada {\it et al.}, 1998). 

924: The constant of proportionality, extracted from  Uchida {\it et al.} 

925: (1991), agrees with the calculation to within about 20-30 $\%$ (Calandra 

926: and Gunnarsson, 2003). 

927: 

928: Fig. \ref{fig:fig12} shows $\sigma(\omega)$ of La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$

929: for different $T$ and $x$ (Takenaka {\it et al.}, 2002).

930: The figure illustrates how the peak at $\omega=0$ gradually disappears 

931: as $T$ is increased and that for large $T$, apart from phonon structures, 

932: $\sigma(\omega)$ behave roughly as assumed in Fig. \ref{fig:fig10}. 

933: A comparison of the curves

934: for $x=0.06$ and $x=0.10$, shows that $\sigma(\omega)$ is much smaller

935: for $x=0.06$ in the energy range $\omega\lesssim 1$ eV, where the 

936: intraband contributions dominate. This illustrates the reduction of 

937: the intraband contribution to $\sigma(\omega)$ when $x$ is reduced, 

938: as assumed above. Similar results were found for 

939: La$_{2-x}$(Ca,Sr)$_x$CaCuO$_{6+\delta}$ 

940: by Wang {\it et al} (2002).

941: 

942: We now analyze the resistivity in terms of the f-sum rule (Eqs. 

943: (\ref{eq:rea1}, \ref{eq:rea3})).  For conduction in the 

944: ab-plane of a cuprate, the factor $1/6$ in Eqs. (\ref{eq:rea1},

945: \ref{eq:rea3}) should be replaced by a factor $1/4$, since the 

946: the system is quasi-two-dimensional.                            

947: Insertion of Eq. (\ref{eq:rec2}), but with the prefactor 3.4, 

948: in Eq. (\ref{eq:rea3}) gives 

949: \begin{equation}\label{eq:rec3}

950: \rho_{\rm sat}={0.07 c \over x(1-x)} \approx 

951: {0.4\over x(1-x)} \hskip0.3cm {\rm m}\Omega{\rm cm},

952: \end{equation}

953: where we have used distance $c=6.4$ \AA \ between the CuO$_2$ planes

954: appropriate for La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$. For small $x$, the saturation 

955: resistivity in Eq. (\ref{eq:rec3}) is very much larger than the Ioffe-Regel 

956: resistivity, 0.7 m$\Omega$cm. It is also much larger than the 

957: result in Sec. \ref{sec:e} for weakly correlated transition metal 

958: compounds (Eq. (\ref{eq:reb8}))

959: \begin{equation}\label{eq:rec4}

960: \rho_{\rm sat} \sim {0.14 d\over N_d}\approx {0.4 \over N_d} \hskip0.3cm 

961: {\rm m}\Omega{\rm cm},

962: \end{equation}

963: where $d\sim 3$ is expressed in \AA.  This is partly due to the 

964: degeneracy being just $N_d=1$ for the $t-J$ model but $N_d=5$ for the 

965: TM model. Furthermore, the strong correlation drastically reduces the 

966: hopping energy in the cuprates, which gives the factor $x(1-x)$ in Eq. 

967: (\ref{eq:rec3}). Finally, the large separation of the CuO$_2$ planes 

968: also increases $\rho$. 

969: 

970: Fig. \ref{fig:fig13} compares the experimental results of Takagi (1992) 

971: for La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$ with the saturation resistivity in Eq. 

972: (\ref{eq:rec3}). Due to the factor $1/x$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:rec3}), all 

973: resistivities are multiplied by the doping $x$. For small $x$, 

974: $\rho_{\rm sat}$ is then a constant. The experimental resistivity is smaller 

975: than the predicted saturation resistivity. The same conclusion is obtained 

976: for other high-$T_c$ superconductors (Calandra and Gunnarsson, 2003).

977: The experimental data do therefore not demonstrate absence of saturation. 

978: On the contrary, for La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$ with $x=0.04$ and $x=0.07$ 

979: there are signs of saturation where saturation is expected to occur.

980: It is interesting that the curves $x\rho(T)$ for $x=0.04$ and $x=0.07$ 

981: fall almost on top of each other, giving a dependence $\rho\sim 1/x$, 

982: as suggested by the arguments above. For small dopings, saturation has 

983: also been reported (Wang {\it et al.}, 1996ab) for 

984: Bi$_2$Sr$_2$Ca$_{1-x}$Y$_x$Cu$_2$O$_{8+y}$ at similar values as for

985: La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$ (see Fig. \ref{fig:2}). 

986: 

987: 

988: \begin{figure}[t]

989: \hskip0.5cm

990: \rotatebox{-90}{\resizebox{!}{3.5in}{\includegraphics{fig13.eps}} }

991: \caption[]{\label{fig:fig13} Resistivity multiplied by the doping

992: $x$ for La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$ (Takagi {\it et al.}, 

993: 1992) for $x=0.04$ (full curve), $x=0.07$ (broken curve), $x=0.15$ 

994: (dotted curve) and $x=0.34$ (chain curve). The horizontal 

995: line shows the saturation resistivity (Eq. (\ref{eq:rec3})), 

996: $x\rho_{\rm sat}$, in the limit of small $x$. The figure illustrates 

997: that the saturation resistivity is not exceeded by the experimental 

998: data and that there are signs of saturation for small $x$ roughly 

999: where saturation is expected.}

1000: \end{figure}

1001: 

1002: Above we gave an upper limit to the resistivity without 

1003: specifying a scattering mechanism. For $x=0.15$, the resistivity 

1004: in the $t-J$ model is of the right order of magnitude, suggesting

1005: that electron-electron scattering can explain the resistivity, 

1006: while for $x=0.07$ and $x=0.04$ the resistivity is much too small 

1007: compared with experiment(Calandra and Gunnarsson, 2003). This 

1008: suggests that for $x=0.04$ and $x=0.07$, there is an additional 

1009: important scattering mechanism, beyond the electron-electron scattering 

1010: mechanism in the $t-J$ model, or that our small cluster (16 sites) 

1011: cannot describe some important scattering mechanism.  

1012: This mechanism apparently increases the resistivity so rapidly for 

1013: small $T$ that the upper limit (\ref{eq:rec3}) is approached and 

1014: the resistivity shows sign of saturation. The estimate of the upper limit 

1015: (\ref{eq:rec3}) is nevertheless correct, unless the additional 

1016: scattering mechanism appreciably influences the hopping energy. 

1017: The $t-J$ model alone only gives a rather weak saturation and only 

1018: at larger $T$ than seen in Fig. \ref{fig:fig13}. 

1019: 

1020: 

1021: \section{Violation of the Ioffe-Regel condition in other compounds}

1022: \label{sec:g}

1023: 

1024: Figs. \ref{fig:3} and \ref{fig:fig6} show that the Ioffe-Regel condition is 

1025: violated for several other compounds. We first discuss CrO$_2$, which 

1026: is a ferromagnet below $T_C=390$ K. According to band structure 

1027: calculations, three bands of mainly Cr t$_{2g}$ spin up character are

1028: occupied by two electrons (Lewis {\it et al.}, 1997; Mazin {\it et al.}, 

1029: 1999). We therefore consider a three-fold degenerate band with the width 

1030: $W=2.3$ eV (Lewis {\it et al.}, 1997) and without spin degeneracy. 

1031: Fig. \ref{fig:fig9} compares the experimental $\sigma(\omega)$ at 

1032: $T=300$ K (Singley {\it et al.}, 1999) with the large $T$ theoretical 

1033: model in Fig. \ref{fig:fig10}. The theoretical area, $\hbar^2 \int

1034: \sigma(\omega)d\omega =2.7$ (eV)$^2$ (for units see Appendix A) has 

1035: been obtained from the f-sum rule (Eq. (\ref{eq:rea1})), assuming           

1036: a semi-elliptical band with $W=2.3$ eV. We estimate the experimental 

1037: t$_{2g}$ contribution to the f-sum rule to be 2.2 (eV)$^2$, i.e., somewhat 

1038: smaller. As a result, our estimate of the saturation resistivity

1039: ($\rho_{\rm sat}=0.4$ m$\Omega$cm) is somewhat smaller than the

1040: experimental result ($\sim 0.6-0.7$ m$\Omega$cm). The reason is 

1041: probably both that the area of $\sigma(\omega)$ is somewhat 

1042: overestimated and that the theoretical shape of $\sigma(\omega)$ does 

1043: not take into account a strong dip in $N(\varepsilon)$ at $E_F$ 

1044: for CrO$_2$. These considerations suggest that theory gives

1045: a qualitatively correct description of saturation for CrO$_2$. 

1046: The strong increase in $\sigma(\omega)$ for $\omega\sim 1.5$

1047: eV is due to interband transitions, which are neglected in the model.    

1048: 

1049: This treatment assumed CrO$_2$ to be ferromagnetic. If we had taken

1050: into account that CrO$_2$ is paramagnetic for $T>T_C$, the theoretical

1051: saturation resistivity would have dropped by a factor of two,

1052: due to an increase of $|E_K|$. Experimentally, however, the resistivity 

1053: changes little at $T=T_C$, suggesting that correlation effects reduce 

1054: $|E_K|$ above $T_C$ in a way similar to that of magnetic effects below 

1055: $T_C$. Actually, the Hubbard $U$ of CrO$_2$ has been estimated to 

1056: $U\approx 3$ eV (Korotin {\it et al.}, 1998), comparable to the 

1057: $t_{2g}$ band width, and suggesting appreciable correlation effects. 

1058: There are rather strong magnetic fluctuations in several of the systems 

1059: violating the Ioffe-Regel condition. The arguments above suggest that 

1060: this may reduce $|E_K|$ and increase the saturation resistivity.

1061: 

1062: Using similar assumptions (correlation reduces $|E_K|$ by a factor

1063: of two in the paramagnetic state) as for CrO$_2$, we predict a similar 

1064: saturation resistivity for VO$_2$ and a somewhat larger value

1065: (0.6 m$\Omega$cm) for CaRuO$_3$ and SrRuO$_3$. As for CrO$_2$, more 

1066: experimental data is needed to decide whether this agrees qualitatively with 

1067: experiment. It is not clear if this framework (strong correlation

1068: effects reducing $|E_K|$)  can be used to understand 

1069: Sr$_2$RuO$_4$, which shows no signs of saturation up to $T=1300$ K, and 

1070: La$_4$Ru$_6$O$_{19}$, which shows signs of saturation, but at a very 

1071: large resistivity.

1072:  

1073: \section{Very large $T$ behavior. C$_{60}$ compounds}\label{sec:h}

1074: 

1075: To derive the Ioffe-Regel condition, we assumed that ii) $T\ll W$, leading 

1076: to a $T$ independent upper limit $\rho_{\rm sat}$ to the resistivity. 

1077: We now consider $T$ to be so large that the phonons substantially 

1078: change $W$. Such effects are usually not very important, but the C$_{60}$ 

1079: model is an important exception, due to its small band width. The $T$

1080: dependence of $\rho_{\rm sat}$ can then be so strong that the concept

1081: of resistivity saturation becomes meaningless. In the following 

1082: we neglect the electron-electron interaction, although it could

1083: play a substantial role for alkali-doped fullerides. We treat

1084: the phonons in the semiclassical approximation (Sec. \ref{sec:ca}).

1085: 

1086: For very large $T$, there is a rather trivial $T$ dependence

1087: due to the Fermi temperature, $T_F$, entering in the Fermi-functions

1088: of Eq. (\ref{eq:reb6}). Let us consider the resistivity due to 

1089: static disorder. Expanding the Fermi functions in $1/T$, we

1090: obtain $\sigma(0)\sim 1/T$ and $\rho(T)\sim T$,

1091: although the scattering mechanism itself is $T$-independent. 

1092: A similar dependence also enters for the electron-phonon

1093: scattering, which tends to mask interesting differences between

1094: couplings to the level energies (LE) and hopping integrals (HI). 

1095: We therefore study the case when the Fermi functions are replaced

1096: by $\Theta$-functions in Eq. (\ref{eq:reb6}) ($T_F=0$).

1097: 

1098: 

1099: 

1100: \begin{figure}[t]

1101: \centerline{

1102: \rotatebox{-90}{\resizebox{!}{3.0in}{\includegraphics{fig14.eps}}}}

1103: \caption[]{\label{fig:fig14}Resistivity for a model of ordered C$_{60}$ 

1104: molecules, considering couplings 

1105: to the level energies (full line, LE coupl.) and to the hopping 

1106: integrals (broken line, HI coupling) in the semiclassical treatment 

1107: of the phonons. Results are also shown for $T_F=0$, replacing 

1108: the Fermi functions in Eq. (\ref{eq:reb6}) by $\Theta$-functions. 

1109: The figure shows that there is a large difference between LE and HI 

1110: coupling (after Calandra and Gunnarsson, 2002).}

1111: \end{figure}

1112: 

1113: We consider the C$_{60}$ model (see Sec. \ref{sec:c}) with either 

1114: LE or HI coupling (Calandra and Gunnarsson, 2002), using the same 

1115: coupling $\lambda$ in both cases (Fig. \ref{fig:fig14}). While the 

1116: resistivity shows no signs of saturation for the LE coupling (full curve),

1117: the model with HI coupling shows a weak saturation (broken curve),

1118: i.e.,  a moderate reduction of the slope for $T\gtrsim 0.03$ eV.

1119: This saturation becomes much more pronounced for $T_F=0$ (dotted curve). 

1120: For the TM model, the slope of $\rho(T)$ is reduced at high $T$ for both 

1121: HI and LE coupling, but the reduction is more pronounced for HI coupling.

1122: 

1123: To apply the analysis of Sec. \ref{sec:d}, we calculate $W(T)$ and 

1124: $E_K(T)$. $W(T)$ increases with $T$ for both LE and HI coupling. 

1125: In the LE case this happens because the fluctuations in the level 

1126: positions increase and in the HI case because the average of the 

1127: square of the hopping integrals increases. Since the average phonon 

1128: amplitude squared is $\langle x^2\rangle \sim T$, the second moment 

1129: $S_2(T)$ of the density of states goes as $S_2(T)=S_2(0)+aT$, where 

1130: $a$ is some constant. This leads to (Calandra and Gunnarsson, 2002)

1131: \begin{equation}\label{eq:de6}

1132: W(T)=W(0)\sqrt{1+c\lambda {k_B T\over W(T=0)}},

1133: \end{equation}

1134: The $T$ dependence comes in the form $\lambda T/W$, where 

1135: the large prefactor $c=12$ is due to the large ratio $W^2/S_2\sim 12$. 

1136: Using the considerations of Sec. \ref{sec:e}, it follows 

1137: that for the HI coupling $E_K$ varies in a similar way, and the $T$ 

1138: dependences of $E_K$ and $W$ essentially cancel (Eq. (\ref{eq:rea3})). 

1139: This is confirmed by Fig. \ref{fig:fig14} for the C$_{60}$ model 

1140: (lowest HI curve), while the cancellation is less complete for the TM 

1141: model due to a stronger $T$ dependence of $\alpha$ (Eq. (\ref{eq:reb7})) 

1142: and $\gamma$ (Eq. (\ref{eq:rea3})). With LE coupling, on the other hand, 

1143: $E_K$ is reduced as $T$ is increased. As the phonons are excited, the 

1144: level energies on different sites become different and hopping 

1145: becomes more difficult. For the C$_{60}$ model  $|E_K|\sim 1/

1146: \sqrt{1+c\lambda k_BT/W(T=0)}$ (Calandra and Gunnarsson, 2002). 

1147: For the LE coupling, the hopping energy and the band width work 

1148: together, and the upper limit to the resistivity takes the form

1149: \begin{equation}\label{eq:de11}

1150: \rho_{\rm sat}(T)={0.8\over \gamma(T)}(1+c \lambda {k_BT\over W(T=0)})

1151: \hskip0.5cm {\rm m}\Omega{\rm cm}.

1152: \end{equation}

1153: 

1154: In A$_3$C$_{60}$ (A= K, Rb) there is orientational disorder, i.e.,

1155: the C$_{60}$ molecules more or less randomly take one out of two 

1156: preferred orientations (Stephens {\it et al.}, 1991). As a result, 

1157: the Drude peak is essentially gone already for $T=0$.          

1158: The resistivity can therefore be considered

1159: as ``saturated'' already at $T=0$. The upper limit for the resistivity

1160: (Eq. (\ref{eq:de11})) has, however, such a strong $T$ dependence 

1161: that the term ``saturation'' becomes meaningless in this case

1162: (see Fig. \ref{fig:fig7}). The reason for this strong $T$ dependence 

1163: is both the small band width and the LE coupling to the intramolecular

1164: phonons. The $T$ dependence of the TM model is weaker, due to the larger 

1165: band width and to the HI coupling. Even in this case, however, $\rho(T)$ 

1166: does not become a constant because of the $T$ dependence of $\alpha$ 

1167: and $\gamma$.  

1168: 

1169: \section{Anderson metal-insulator transition and Mott's

1170: minimum conductivity.} \label{sec:i}   

1171: 

1172: In the semiclassical treatment of the phonons, the phonons cause a 

1173: static disorder, and the problem is therefore related to 

1174: conduction in disordered system. Thus the LE and HI couplings 

1175: correspond to diagonal and off-diagonal disorder, respectively. 

1176: While the disordered systems are usually studied for small $T$, 

1177: we are here interested in the large $T$ behavior. In the semiclassical 

1178: treatment of the phonons, however, apart from causing disorder, 

1179: $T$ only enters via the Fermi-functions (Eq. (\ref{eq:reb6})), which 

1180: is not important for the qualitative behavior. 

1181: 

1182: Diagonal disorder can lead to an Anderson metal-insulator

1183: transition at $T=0$ (Lee and Ramakrishnan, 1985). For 

1184: off-diagonal disorder, however, Antoniou and Economou (1977)             

1185: found that there is no metal-insulator transition if

1186: the Fermi energy is located in some finite region around

1187: the middle of the band. The semiclassical calculations

1188: agree with these results, i.e., localization is found for

1189: LE but not for HI coupling as $T$ is increased.

1190: 

1191: In the QMC calculation there is no sign of localization 

1192: for LE coupling, just a lack of saturation.  This is natural. 

1193: Localization depends sensitively on the phase factors, which 

1194: are not destroyed by the elastic scattering in a disordered 

1195: system. The phase information is, however, lost in the inelastic 

1196: scattering by phonons at finite $T$, and localization is not 

1197: expected (Lee and Ramakrishnan, 1985). These effects 

1198: is properly included in the QMC but not in the 

1199: semiclassical treatment of the phonons, and therfore localization 

1200: shows up in the semiclassical (Calandra and Gunnarsson, 2002) but 

1201: not in the QMC treatment (Gunnarsson and Han, 2000).  

1202: 

1203: Mott (1974) has argued that as the disorder increases, there is 

1204: a discontinuous transition from a metal to an insulator at $T=0$.  

1205: He therefore introduced the concept of the minimum conductivity

1206: \begin{equation}\label{eq:ree1}

1207: \sigma_{\rm min}=0.026 {e^2\over \hbar d},

1208: \end{equation}

1209: where $d$ is the nearest neighbor atomic distance. Later work showed

1210: that the transition from a metal to an insulator actually 

1211: is continuous, but that $\sigma_{\rm min}$ is still relevant  

1212: for low but nonzero temperatures (Lee and Ramakrishnan, 1985).

1213: We therefore make a comparison of $\sigma_{\rm min}$  to the 

1214: resistivity in the TM and C$_{60}$ models. Converting Eq. 

1215: (\ref{eq:ree1}) to a resistivity, we obtain

1216: \begin{equation}\label{eq:ree2}

1217: \rho_{\rm max}=1.6 d \ \ {\rm m}\Omega{\rm cm},

1218: \end{equation}

1219: where $d$ is measured in \AA.

1220: Based on experiment, Mott deduced a somewhat larger minimum conductivity

1221: for systems containing transition metal atoms, 

1222: resulting in the maximum resistivity

1223: \begin{equation}\label{eq:ree3}

1224: \rho_{\rm max}=1 \ \ {\rm m}\Omega{\rm cm}.

1225: \end{equation}

1226:    

1227: Mott derived his result for diagonal disorder. His result can most

1228: naturally be compared with our saturation resistivity for HI coupling

1229: (off-diagonal disorder), since saturation is most pronounced in this 

1230: case. The resistivity $\rho_{\rm max}$ is much larger than the saturation 

1231: resistivity obtained above (Eq. (\ref{eq:reb8}, \ref{eq:rec4})) for the 

1232: TM model with a five-fold degenerate orbital ($N_d=5$). For a fcc lattice 

1233: and a half-filled semi-elliptical band it takes the form

1234: \begin{equation}\label{eq:ree4}

1235: \rho_{\rm sat}={0.14 d \over N_d} \ \ {\rm m}\Omega{\rm cm},

1236: \end{equation}

1237: which is of the order of 0.1-0.2 m$\Omega$cm. The corresponding 

1238: conductivity is substantially larger than Mott's minimum conductivity.

1239: 

1240: \section{Conclusions}\label{sec:j}

1241: We have reviewed experiments showing resistivity saturation, i.e.,

1242: $\rho(T)$ growing more slowly than $\rho(T)\sim T$ for large $T$. 

1243: Resistivity saturation is found for several classes of metals with 

1244: large resistivities, in particular for many transition metal 

1245: compounds. Saturation often happens in such a way that the Ioffe-Regel 

1246: condition, $l\gtrsim d$, remains fulfilled. Over 

1247: the last 15 years, however, a number of metals have been found 

1248: for which the Ioffe-Regel condition is violated. Some of these 

1249: metals probably show resistivity saturation, but at a much larger

1250: value than the Ioffe-Regel resistivity, while in other cases

1251: little or no sign of saturation is seen.  

1252: 

1253: We have reviewed early theories, presented at a time

1254: when saturation appeared to be universal. Several of the theories

1255: derived saturation. These theories emphasized different

1256: mechanisms for saturation, and no consensus was reached about

1257: which mechanism dominates.             

1258: 

1259: Here we argue that it is useful to study the problem

1260: using the f-sum rule. By assuming that the (Drude) peak at 

1261: $\omega=0$ is gone and that only incoherent contributions are left, 

1262: we obtain an approximate upper limit, $\rho_{\rm sat}$, to the resistivity, 

1263: which usually has a weak $T$ dependence. Saturation then happens if 

1264: the resistivity initially grows so rapidly that $\rho_{\rm sat}$ is

1265: reached for small values of $T$ and if $\rho_{\rm sat}$ has a 

1266: weak $T$ dependence.    

1267: 

1268: We have considered three models with qualitatively different 

1269: behavior: 1) A model of weakly correlated transition metal 

1270: compounds, which shows saturation in agreement with the 

1271: Ioffe-Regel condition, 2) a model of strongly correlated 

1272: high-$T_c$ cuprates, which can give saturation but at much

1273: larger values than the Ioffe-Regel resistivity, and 3) a 

1274: model of alkali-doped C$_{60}$ compounds, which shows no 

1275: saturation. 

1276: 

1277: To derive the Ioffe-Regel condition for model 1)

1278: we assumed i) noninteraction electrons and ii) $T\ll W$.  

1279: Assumption i) is violated for model 2) and assumption ii)

1280: for model 3). The type of electron-phonon coupling, i.e., 

1281: coupling to the level energies or the hopping integrals,

1282: is also important when comparing models 1) and 3). 

1283: 

1284: We have focused on work where either the electron-phonon or the 

1285: electron-electron interaction was treated alone.  In many cases 

1286: this may be an oversimplification. For instance, the electron-electron 

1287: interaction is believed to be important for alkali-doped fullerides 

1288: (Gunnarsson, 1997), although only the electron-phonon interaction was 

1289: considered here. Generally, the electron-electron interaction should 

1290: reduce the magnitude of the hopping energy and tend to increase the 

1291: resistivity, as was found for the high-$T_c$ cuprates. The interplay 

1292: between the electron-electron and electron-phonon interactions may, 

1293: however, be more intricate, as found for metal-insulator transitions 

1294: (Han {\it et al.}, 2000) and superconductivity (Han {\it et al.}, 2003) 

1295: in alkali-doped fullerides.

1296: 

1297: 

1298: \appendix

1299: \section{Mean-free path}

1300: Since the mean-free path and the Ioffe-Regel resistivity play

1301: an important role in the discussion, we give details     

1302: of how these quantities were obtained. The conductivity tensor 

1303: can be written as (Ashcroft and Mermin, 1976)

1304: \begin{equation}\label{eq:2}

1305: {\bf \sigma}=e^2\sum_{\nu}\int {d^3k\over 4\pi^3}\tau_{\nu}({\bf k})

1306: {\bf v}_{\nu}({\bf k}){\bf v}_{\nu}({\bf k})\lbrack -{\partial f\over 

1307: \partial \varepsilon}\rbrack_{\varepsilon=\varepsilon_{\nu}({\bf k})},

1308: \end{equation}

1309: where $f$ is the fermi function, $\tau_{\nu}({\bf k}$) is the relaxation 

1310: time and ${\bf v}_{\nu}({\bf k})$ is the velocity for a state with band 

1311: index $\nu$ and wave vector ${\bf k}$. We assume a 

1312: three-dimensional isotropic system and a spherical Fermi surface 

1313: with one sheet. We furthermore assume that $\tau$ is independent of

1314: $\nu$ and ${\bf k}$. Together with $v_F=\hbar k_F/m$, where $v_F$ is the 

1315: Fermi velocity, and $l=\tau v_F$, this leads to Eq. (1).  Assuming that 

1316: there are $M$ sheets, we find a moderate reduction of the apparent 

1317: mean free path from Eq. (\ref{eq:1}) by a factor $M^{1/3}$. 

1318: For a quasi-two-dimensional system, like the high-$T_c$ cuprates, 

1319: we instead assume a cylindrical Fermi surface with the height 

1320: $2\pi/c$ and radius $k_F$, where $c$ is the average separation 

1321: of the CuO$_2$ planes. Based on photoemission results (Ino {\it et al.}, 

1322: 1999; Yoshida {\it et al.}, 2001), we assume a ``large'' Fermi surface 

1323: containing roughly one electron or hole (more precisely $1\pm x$ carriers, 

1324: where $x$ is the doping). This leads to $k_F=\sqrt{2\pi}/a$, 

1325: where $a$ is the lattice parameter of the CuO$_2$ plane. Then

1326: \begin{equation}\label{eq:3}

1327: \rho_{2d}={2\pi \hbar c\over e^2k_F l}.

1328: \end{equation} 

1329: Assuming the Ioffe-Regel condition $l=a$, we find           

1330: \begin{equation}\label{eq:4}

1331: \rho_{2d}^{Ioffe}=0.055 (c/a_0) \hskip0.5cm {\rm m}\Omega{\rm cm},

1332: \end{equation}

1333: where $a_0=0.529$ \AA \ is the Bohr radius and we have used the

1334: conversion $\hbar a_0/e^2=0.022$ m$\Omega$cm. Assuming $c=6.4$ \AA, 

1335: appropriate for La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$, we obtain 

1336: $\rho_{2d}^{Ioffe}=0.7$ m$\Omega$cm. If we instead had assumed 

1337: a ``small'' Fermi surface, containing $x$ carriers, the resistivity

1338: would have been $0.7/\sqrt{x}$. 

1339: Even in this case, the experimental

1340: resistivity of La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$ in Fig. \ref{fig:2} exceeds 

1341: the Ioffe-Regel resistivity for small $x$.   

1342: 

1343: For A$_3$C$_{60}$ (A= K, Rb),

1344: the Ioffe-Regel resistivity was calculated by assuming that $l$ 

1345: is the separation of two C$_{60}$ molecules. Scattering inside the 

1346: molecule is not possible at small and intermediate $T$, since this 

1347: would involve scattering into states that are at least 10000 K higher 

1348: in energy. Therefore the intermolecular separation is the appropriate 

1349: length scale.

1350: 

1351: \parindent -10pt

1352: \vskip0.4cm

1353: {\bf REFERENCES}

1354: \vskip0.4cm

1355: 

1356: Abraham, J.M., and B. Deviot, 1972, J. Less-Common Metals {\bf 29}, 311.

1357: 

1358: Allen, P.B., 1980a, in {\it Superconductivity in d- and

1359: f-Band Metals} H. Suhl and M.B. Maple, Eds. (Academic, New York)

1360: p. 291.

1361: 

1362: Allen, P.B., 1980b, in {\it Physics of Transition Metals}, P. Rhodes, 

1363: Ed. (Inst. Phys. Conf. Ser. No. 55) p. 425.

1364: 

1365: Allen, P.B., and B. Chakraborty, 1981, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 23}, 4815.

1366: 

1367: Allen, P.B., R.M. Wentzcovitch, W.W. Schulz, and P.C. Canfield, 1993,

1368: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 48}, 4359.

1369: 

1370: Allen, P.B., H. Berger, O. Chauvet, L. Forro, T. Jarlborg, A. Junod,

1371: B. Revaz, and G. Santi, 1996, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 53}, 4393.

1372: 

1373: Antoniou, P.D., and E.N. Economou, 1977, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 16}, 3768.

1374: 

1375: Arko, A.J., F.Y. Fradin, and M.B. Brodsky, 1973, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 8}, 4104.

1376: 

1377: Ashcroft, N.W., and N.D. Mermin, 1976 {\it Solid State Physics}

1378: (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York), p. 259. 

1379: 

1380: Bass, J., 1982, in {\it Landolt-B\"ornstein: Numerical data and functional 

1381: relationships in science and technology}, New Series III/15a, edited 

1382: by K.-H. Hellwege and J.L. Olsen, (Springer, Berlin), p. 1. 

1383: 

1384: Belitz, D., and W. Schirmacher, 1983, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 

1385: {\bf 16}, 913.  

1386: 

1387: 

1388: Blankenbecler, R., D.J. Scalapino, and R.L. Sugar, 1981, Phys. Rev. D 

1389: {\bf 24}, 2278.

1390: 

1391: Calandra, M., and O. Gunnarsson, 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 266601.

1392: 

1393: Calandra, M., and O. Gunnarsson, 2002, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 66}, 205105.

1394: 

1395: Calandra, M., and O. Gunnarsson, 2003, Europhys. Lett. {\bf 61},88.

1396: 

1397: Carrington, A., D. Colson, Y. Dumont, C. Ayache, A. Bertinotti, 

1398: and J.F. Marucco, 1994, Physica C {\bf 234}, 1. 

1399: 

1400: Chakraborty, B., and P.B. Allen, 1979, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 42}, 736.

1401: 

1402: Chen, X.H., M. Yu, K.Q. Ruan, S.Y. Li, Z. Gui, G.C. Zhang, and

1403: L.Z. Cao, 1998, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 58}, 14219.

1404: 

1405: Christoph, V., and W. Schiller, 1984, J.Phys. F: Met. Phys. {\bf 14}, 1173.

1406: 

1407: Cote, P.J., and L.V. Meisel, 1978, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 40}, 1586.

1408: 

1409: 

1410: Daignere, A., A. Wahl, V. Hardy, and A. Maignan, 2001, Physica C 

1411: {\bf 349}, 189.

1412: 

1413: Degiorgi, L., B. Briceno, M.S. Fuhrer, A. Zettl,

1414: and P. Wachter, 1994, Nature {\bf 369}, 541.

1415: 

1416: 

1417: Duan, H.M., R.M. Yandrofski, T.S. Kaplan, B. Dlugosch, J.H. Wang, 

1418: and A.M. Hermann, 1991, Physica C {\bf 185-189}, 1283.

1419: 

1420: Fisk, Z., and G.W. Webb, 1976, Phys. Rev. Lett.  {\bf 36}, 1084. 

1421: 

1422: Fisk, Z., and A.C. Lawson, 1973, Solid State Commun. {\bf 13}, 277.

1423: 

1424: Forro, L., 2002 (priv. comm.).

1425: 

1426: Girvin, S.M., and M. Jonson, 1980, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 22}, 3583.

1427: 

1428: Greenwood, D.A., 1958, Proc. Phys. Soc. {\bf 71}, 585.

1429: 

1430: Grimvall, G., 1981, {\it The electron-phonon interaction 

1431: in metals}, North-Holland (Amsterdam) pp. 210-223.

1432: 

1433: Grimvall, G., 2001, private commun.

1434: 

1435: Grimvall, G., M. Thiessen, and A.F. Guillermet, 1987, Phys. Rev. B

1436: {\bf 36}, 7816.

1437: 

1438: Guillermet, A.F. and G. Grimvall, 1991, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 44}, 4332.

1439: 

1440: Gunnarsson, O., 1997, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 69}, 575.

1441: 

1442: Gunnarsson, O., and J.E. Han, 2000, Nature  {\bf 405}, 1027.

1443: 

1444: Gurvitch, M., A.K. Ghosh, B.L. Gyorffy, H. Lutz, O.F. Kammerer,

1445: J.S. Rosner, and M. Strongin, 1978, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 41}, 1616.

1446:  

1447: Gurvitch, M., and A.T. Fiory, 1987, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 59}, 1337.

1448: 

1449: Han, J.E., E. Koch, and O. Gunnarsson, 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett. 

1450: {\bf 84}, 1276.

1451: 

1452: Han, J.E., O. Gunnarsson, and V.H. Crespi, 2003, Phys. Rev. Lett. 

1453: {\bf 90}, 167006.

1454: 

1455: Hidaka, Y., and M. Suzuki, 1989, Nature {\bf 338}, 635.

1456: 

1457: Hou, J.G.,  V.H. Crespi, X.-D. Xiang, W.A. Vareka, G. Briceno, 

1458: A. Zettl, and M.L. Cohen, 1993, Solid State Commun. {\bf 86}, 643.

1459: 

1460: Hou, J.G., L. Lu, V.H. Crespi, X.-D. Xiang, A. Zettl, and M.L. Cohen, 

1461: 1995, Solid State Commun. {\bf 93}, 973. 

1462: 

1463: Imry, Y., 1980, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 44}, 469.

1464: 

1465: Ino, A., C. Kim, T. Mizokawa, Z.-X. Shen,

1466: A. Fujimori, M. Takaba, K. Tamasaku, H. Eisaki, and S. Uchida, 1999,

1467: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn {\bf 68}, 1496. 

1468: 

1469: Ioffe, A.F., and A.R. Regel, 1960, Prog. Semicond. {\bf 4}, 237.

1470: 

1471: Jarrell, M., and J.E. Gubernatis,  1996, Phys. Rep. {\bf 269}, 133.

1472: 

1473: Jarrell, M., and Th. Pruschke, 1994, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 49}, 1458.

1474: 

1475: Jonson, M., and S.M. Girvin, 1979, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 43}, 1447.

1476: 

1477: Hebard, A.F., T.T.M. Palstra, R.C. Haddon, and R.M. Fleming, 1993,

1478: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 48}, 9945.

1479: 

1480: Khalifah, P., K.D. Nelson, R. Jin, Z.Q. Mao, Y. Liu, Q. Huang,

1481: X.P.A. Gao, A.P. Ramirez, and R.J. Cava, 2001, Nature {\bf 411}, 669.

1482: 

1483: Kitazawa, K., T. Matsuura, S. Tanaka, 1981, in {\it Ternary 

1484: Superconductors}, edited by G.K. Shenoy, B.D. Dunlap, and F.Y. Fradin,

1485: Elsevier, (North-Holland, New York), p. 83.

1486: 

1487: Klein, L., L. Antognazza, T.H. Geballe, M.R. Beasley, and 

1488: A. Kapitulnik, 1999a, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 60}, 1448. 

1489: 

1490: Klein, L., L. Antognazza, T.H. Geballe, M.R. Beasley, and 

1491: A. Kapitulnik, 1999b, Physica B {\bf 259-261}, 431.

1492:  

1493: Kohn, W., and J.M. Luttinger, 1957, Phys. Rev. {\bf 108}, 590.

1494: 

1495: Korotin, M.A., V.I. Anisimov, D.I Khomskii, and G.A. Sawatzky, 1998,

1496: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 4305.

1497: 

1498: Kubo, Y., Y. Shimakawa, T. Manako, T. Kondo, and H. Igarashi, 1991,

1499: Physica C {\bf 185-189}, 1253.

1500: 

1501: Lange, E., and G. Kotliar, 1999, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 59}, 1800.

1502: 

1503: Laughlin, R.B., 1982, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 26}, 3479.

1504: 

1505: Lee, P.A., and T.V. Ramakrishnan, 1985, Rev. Mod.  Phys. {\bf 57}, 287.

1506: 

1507: Lewis, S.P., P.B. Allen, and T. Sasaki, 1997, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 55}, 10253.

1508: 

1509: L\"ohle, J., J. Karpinski, A. Morawski, and P. Wachter, 1996, Physica C

1510: {\bf 266}, 104.

1511: 

1512: Mahan, G.D., 1990, {\it Many-Particle Physics}, Plenum (New York), p. 651.

1513: 

1514: Mandrus, D., L. Forro, C. Kendziora, and L. Mihaly, 1992,

1515: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 45}, 12640.

1516: 

1517: 

1518: Marchenko, V.A., 1973, Sov. Phys.-Solid Sate {\bf 15}, 1261.

1519: 

1520: Maldague, P.F., 1977, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 16}, 2437.

1521:  

1522: Martin, R., K.R. Mountfield, and L. Corruccini, 1978, J. de Phys. 

1523: (Paris) {\bf 39}, C6-371 (1978).

1524:  

1525: Martin, S., A.T. Fiory, R.M. Fleming, L.F. Schneemeyer, and J.V. 

1526: Waszczak, 1990, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 41}, 846.

1527: 

1528: Mazin, I.I., D.J. Singh, and C. Ambrosch-Draxl, 1999, J. Appl. Phys.

1529: {\bf 85}, 6220.

1530: 

1531: Merino, J., and R.H. McKenzie, 2000, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 61}, 7996.

1532: 

1533: Millis, A.J., J. Hu, and S. Das Sarma, 1999, Phys. Rev.

1534: Lett. {\bf 82}, 2354.

1535: 

1536: Mooij, J.H., 1973 phys. stat sol. (a) {\bf 17}, 521.

1537: 

1538: Mott, N.F., 1974, {\it Metal-insulator transitions}, Taylor $\&$ Francis 

1539: (London).

1540: 

1541: Morton, N., B.W. James, and G.H. Wostenholm, 1978, Cryogenics {\bf 18}, 131.

1542: 

1543: Orenstein, J., G.A. Thomas, A.J. Millis, S.L. Cooper,

1544: D.H. Rapkine, T. Timusk, L.F. Schneemeyer, and J.V. Waszczak, 1990,

1545: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 42}, 6342.

1546: 

1547: Parcollet, O., and A. Georges, 1999, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 59}, 5341.

1548: 

1549: Palstra, T.T.M., A.F. Hebard, R.C. Haddon, and P.B. Littlewood, 1994,

1550: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 50}, 3462.

1551: 

1552: Pickett, W.E., K.M. Ho, and M.L. Cohen, 1979, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 19}, 1734.

1553: 

1554: Rodbell, D.S., J.M. Lommel, and R.C. DeVries, 1966, J. Phys. Soc. Japan

1555: {\bf 21}, 2430.

1556: 

1557: Ron, A., B. Shapiro, and M. Weger, 1986, Phil. Mag. B {\bf 54}, 553.

1558: 

1559: Ruan, K.Q., Q. Cao, S.Y. Li, G.G. Qian, C.Y. Wang, X.H. Chen, L.Z. Cao,

1560: 2001, Physica C {\bf 351}, 402.

1561:  

1562: Salamon, M.B. and M. Jaime, 2001, Rev. Mod. Phys, {\bf 73}, 583. 

1563: 

1564: Singley, E.J., C.P. Weber, D.N. Basov, A. Barry, and J.M.D. Coey, 1999,

1565: Phys. Rev. {\bf 60}, 4126.

1566: 

1567: Stephens, P.W., L. Mihaly, P.L. Lee, R.L. Whetten, S.-M. Huang, 

1568: R. Kaner, F. Deiderichs, and K. Holczer, 1991, Nature {\bf 351}, 632.

1569: 

1570: 

1571: Sunandana, C.S., 1979, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. {\bf 12}, L165.

1572:  

1573: Sundqvist, B., and B.M. Andersson, 1990, Solid State Commun. {\bf 76}, 1019.

1574: 

1575: Takagi, H., B. Batlogg, H.L. Kao, J. Kwo, R.J. Cava, J.J. Krajewski, 

1576: and W.F. Peck, Jr., 1992, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 69}, 2975.

1577: 

1578: Takenaka, K, R. Shiozaki, S. Okuyama, J. Nohara, A. Osuka, 

1579: Y. Takayanagi, and S. Sugai, 2002, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 65}, 092405.

1580: 

1581: Tsuei, C.C., 1986, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 57}, 1943.

1582:  

1583: Tyler, A.W., A.P. Mackenzie, S. NishiZaki, and Y. Maeno, 1998,

1584: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 58}, R10107.

1585: 

1586: Uchida, S., T. Ido, H. Takagi, T. Arima, Y. Tokura, and S. Tajima, 1991,

1587: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 43}, 7942.

1588: 

1589: Vareka, W.A., and A. Zettl, 1994, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 72}, 4121.

1590: 

1591: Wang, N.L., C. Geibel, and F. Steglich, 1996a, Physica C {\bf 262},  231.

1592: 

1593: Wang, N.L., B. Buschinger, C. Geibel, and F. Steglich, 1996b, 

1594: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 54}, 7445.

1595: 

1596: Wang, N.L., P. Zheng, T. Feng, C.D. Gu, C.C. Homes, J.M. Tranquada, 

1597: B.D. Gaulin, and T. Timusk, 2002, cond-mat/0211224.

1598: 

1599: Weger, M., and N.F. Mott, 1985, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys.

1600: {\bf 18}, L201.

1601: 

1602: Weger, M., 1985, Phil Mag. B {\bf 52}, 701.

1603: 

1604: Wiesmann, H., M. Gurvitch, H. Lutz, A. Ghosh, B. Schwartz, M. Strongin, 

1605: P.B. Allen, and J.W. Halley, 1977, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 38}, 782.

1606: 

1607: 

1608: Woodard, D.W., and G.D. Cody, 1964, Phys. Rev. {\bf 1964}, A166.

1609: 

1610: Zhang, F.C., and T.M. Rice, 1988, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 37}, 3759.

1611: 

1612: Yamada, K.,  C.H. Lee, K. Kurahashi, J. Wada, S. Wakimoto, S. Ueki,

1613: H. Kimura, Y. Endoh, S. Hosoya, G. Shirane, R.J. Birgeneau,

1614: M. Greven, M.A. Kastner, and Y.J. Kim, 1998, Phys.  Rev. B {\bf 57}, 6165.

1615: 

1616: 

1617: Yan, S.L., Y.Y. Xie, J.Z. Wu, T. Aytug, A.A. Gapud, B.W. Kang,

1618: L. Fang, M. He, S.C. Tidrow, K.W. Kirchner, J.R. Liu, and W.K. Chu,

1619: 1998, Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf 73}, 2989. 

1620: 

1621: 

1622: Yoshida, T., X.J. Zhou, M. Nakamura, S.A. Kellar, P.V. Bogdanov, 

1623: E.D. Lu, A. Lanzara, Z. Hussain, A. Ino, T. Mizokawa, A. Fujimori, 

1624: H. Eisaki, C. Kim, Z.-X. Shen, T. Kakeshita, and S. Uchida, 2001, 

1625: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 63}, 220501(R).

1626: 

1627: \end{multicols}

1628: \end{document}

1629: 

1630: