1: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,prb]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,prb]{revtex4}
3:
4: % Some other (several out of many) possibilities
5: %\documentclass[preprint,eqsecnum,aps]{revtex4}
6: %\documentclass[eqsecnum,aps,draft]{revtex4}
7: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B
8:
9: \usepackage{graphicx}%
10: \usepackage{dcolumn}
11: \usepackage{amsmath}
12:
13: % NOTICE: the following definitions are only for the sake of formatting
14: % the LaTeX commands incorporated into this particular document.
15: % You will not need them for a typical Physical Review paper;
16: % you should *not* include them in your own documents.
17: \makeatletter
18: \def\btt#1{\texttt{\@backslashchar#1}}%
19: \DeclareRobustCommand\bblash{\btt{\@backslashchar}}%
20: \makeatother
21:
22: %\nofiles
23:
24: \begin{document}
25:
26:
27: \title[Short Title]{A theoretical study of tunneling conductance in PrOs$_4$Sb$_{12}$
28: superconducting junctions}
29:
30: \author{Yasuhiro Asano}
31: \email{asano@eng.hokudai.ac.jp}
32: \affiliation{%
33: Department of Applied Physics, Hokkaido University,
34: Sapporo 060-8628, Japan
35: }%
36:
37: \author{Yukio Tanaka}
38: \affiliation{
39: Department of Applied Physics, Nagoya University,
40: Nagoya 464-8603, Japan}%
41:
42: \author{Yuji Matsuda }
43: \affiliation{Institute for Solid State Physics, University of Tokyo,
44: Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8581, Japan}%
45:
46:
47: \author{Satoshi Kashiwaya}
48: \affiliation{
49: National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology,
50: Tsukuba 305-8568, Japan}%
51:
52: \date{\today}
53:
54: \begin{abstract}
55: The tunnel conductance in normal-metal / insulator / PrOs$_4$Sb$_{12}$ junctions
56: is theoretically studied, where skutterudite PrOs$_4$Sb$_{12}$ is considered to
57: be an unconventional superconductor.
58: The conductance is calculated for several pair potentials which have been
59: proposed in recent work.
60: The results show that the conductance is sensitive to the relation between the
61: direction of electric currents and the position of point nodes.
62: The conductance spectra often deviate from the shape of bulk
63: density of states. The sub gap spectra have peak structures in the
64: case of the spin-triplet pair potentials.
65: The results indicate that the tunnel conductance is a useful tool to
66: obtain information of the pairing symmetry.
67: \end{abstract}
68:
69: \pacs{74.50.+r, 74.25.Fy,74.70.Tx}% PACS,
70: %\keywords{Suggested keywords}%Use showkeys class option if keyword
71: %display desired
72: \maketitle
73:
74: \section{Introduction}
75:
76: Superconductivity in the cubic skutterudite PrOs$_4$Sb$_{12}$ (POS) has received
77: a great interest in recent years since it has two superconducting
78: phases~\cite{bauer}.
79: The specific heat results~\cite{vollmer} show jumps at $T_{c1}=$ 1.82K and $T_{c2}=$ 1.75 K.
80: Nowadays such two superconducting phases are well known
81: in a spin-triplet superconductor UPt$_3$ and a superfluid $^3$He.
82: A NQR experiment shows the absence of the coherence
83: peak, which suggests that POS is an unconventional superconductor~\cite{kotegawa1}.
84: A thermal conductivity experiment indicates 6 point nodes at (1,0,0)
85: direction and directions equivalent to (1,0,0) for the high temperature phase
86: (H-phase)~\cite{izawa}.
87:
88: The mechanism and the symmetry of pairing have been
89: discussed in several theoretical studies~\cite{ichioka,maki,miyake,sugawara,goryo}.
90: POS should be distinguished from the other unconventional
91: superconductors, in that it has a non-magnetic ground state of the
92: localized $f$-electrons in the crystalline electric field. The origin
93: of heavy Fermion behavior in this compound has been discussed in terms
94: of the interaction of the electric quadrupole moments of Pr$^{3+}$ with the conduction electrons,
95: rather than local magnetic moments as in the other heavy Fermion superconductors.
96: Therefore the relation between the
97: superconductivity and the orbital fluctuation of $f$-electron state
98: has aroused great interest; POS is a candidate for the first
99: superconductor mediated neither by electron-phonon nor magnetic
100: interactions. Hence it is of the utmost importance to determine the
101: symmetry of the superconducting gap.
102: At present, however, the pairing symmetry of POS is still unclear.
103: This is simply because we lack both experimental data and theoretical analysis
104: enough to address the pairing symmetry.
105: So far, a possibility of anisotropic $s$ wave symmetries has been discussed for
106: spin-singlet Cooper pairs.
107: In the low-temperature phase (L-phase), an additional symmetry breaking decreases
108: the number of point nodes to 4 or 2~\cite{goryo,maki}.
109: The spin-triplet superconductivity still has a possibility~\cite{miyake}, where the pairing
110: interaction is mediated by the quadrupolar fluctuations.
111: The double transition is more easily constructed in spin-triplet pairing with degeneracy due
112: to the time-reversal symmetry than the spin-singlet pairing~\cite{miyake}.
113: In a theory~\cite{ichioka}, unitary and nonunitary spin-triplet states are proposed
114: for H- and L-phase, respectively.
115:
116:
117: Generally speaking, the tunneling spectra are expected to reflect the bulk density
118: of states (DOS) of superconductors. This is true for isotropic $s$ wave
119: superconductors.
120: In unconventional superconductors, however, the tunneling spectra
121: often differ from the bulk DOS.
122: A zero-bias conductance peak (ZBCP) of high-$T_c$ materials is an important
123: example~\cite{yt95l,sk00r,exp1,Kashi95,Kashi96,TK96,Tanuma,fogelstrom,matsu}.
124: The interference effect of a quasiparticle enables the zero-energy
125: Andreev bound states on the Fermi energy
126: at surfaces of $d$ wave superconductors~\cite{hu,ya03-3}.
127: The formation of the zero-energy states (ZES) is a universal phenomenon
128: expected in unconventional superconductors~\cite{sk00r,buch,exp2,yamashiro,honerkamp,organic},
129: and affects the low-temperature behavior of
130: charge transport properties~\cite{Asai,Kusakabe,charge,ya02-1,ya03-2}
131: and the Josephson current
132: ~\cite{tanaka2,tj1,tj2,tj3,tj4,barash,ilichev1,ilichev2,ya01-1,ya01-2,ya01-3,ya02-2,ya02-3,ya03-1}.
133: When the direction of the electric current deviates from
134: the $a$ axis of high-$T_c$ superconductors, a large conductance peak is observed around
135: the zero-bias, which reflects the DOS of such surface states.
136: When the current is parallel to the $a$ axis, on the other hand, the conductance shape is
137: close to that of the bulk DOS in high-$T_c$ superconductors.
138: Thus the tunneling spectra are essentially anisotropic in
139: unconventional superconductors, which means that it is possible to
140: extract useful information of the pairing symmetry from tunneling spectra.
141:
142:
143: The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the differential conductance in normal-metal /
144: insulator / POS junctions for several pair potentials proposed in recent studies.
145: The junctions are described by the Bogoliubov-de Gennes
146: equation~\cite{degennes} and the conductance is
147: calculated from the normal and the Andreev~\cite{andreev}
148: reflection coefficients of junctions.
149: We discuss candidates of pair potentials in anisotropic $s$ wave symmetry for the
150: spin-singlet pairing.
151: The conductance is sensitive to the relation between the directions of currents
152: and the position of point nodes. In some cases, shapes of the
153: conductance deviate from those of the bulk DOS.
154: In the spin-singlet pairing, we found that the conductance vanishes in the limit of
155: the zero-bias for most candidates.
156: While in the spin-triplet pairing, we discuss the conductance
157: for several candidates of pair potentials in H-phase and in L-phase.
158: The results show peak structures in the sub gap conductance for
159: all candidates.
160:
161:
162: \section{model}
163: We consider a junction between a normal metal
164: (left hand side) and a POS (right hand side) as shown in Fig.~\ref{system}.
165: The geometry is chosen so that the current flows in the $z$-direction.
166: Periodic boundary conditions are assumed in the
167: transverse directions to the current and the cross section of the junction is $S$.
168: %
169: \begin{figure}[htbp]
170: \begin{center}
171: \includegraphics[width=9.0cm]{fig1.eps}
172: \end{center}
173: \caption{
174: The normal metal / POS junction is schematically illustrated.
175: }
176: \label{system}
177: \end{figure}
178: %
179: The junction is described by the Bogoliubov-de Gennes (BdG)
180: equation~\cite{degennes},
181: %
182: \begin{align}
183: \int \!\! d\boldsymbol{r}' &\left[ \begin{array}{cc}
184: \delta\left( \boldsymbol{r}-\boldsymbol{r}'\right)
185: \hat{h}_0(\boldsymbol{r}') & \hat{\Delta}\left(
186: \boldsymbol{r},\boldsymbol{r}'\right)\\
187: -\hat{\Delta}^\ast\left( \boldsymbol{r},\boldsymbol{r}'\right)
188: & - \delta\left( \boldsymbol{r}-\boldsymbol{r}'\right)
189: \hat{h}_0^\ast(\boldsymbol{r}')
190: \end{array}
191: \right]
192: \left[ \begin{array}{c} \hat{u}(\boldsymbol{r}') \\
193: \hat{v}(\boldsymbol{r}')\end{array}\right] \nonumber \\
194: & = E\left[ \begin{array}{c} \hat{u}(\boldsymbol{r}) \\
195: \hat{v}(\boldsymbol{r})\end{array}\right],
196: \label{bdg}
197: \end{align}
198: \begin{align}
199: \hat{h}_0(\boldsymbol{r})=& \left[ -\frac{\hbar^2\nabla^2}{2m}-\mu_F + V(\boldsymbol{r})\right]
200: \hat{\sigma}_0. \label{h0}
201: \end{align}
202: In POS, the pair potential is expressed in the
203: Fourier transformation
204: \begin{align}
205: \hat{\Delta}(\boldsymbol{R},\boldsymbol{r}_r)= &
206: \frac{1}{\cal{V}} \sum_{\boldsymbol{k}} \hat{\Delta}(\boldsymbol{k})
207: e^{i\boldsymbol{k}\cdot \boldsymbol{r}_r},\\
208: \hat{\Delta}(\boldsymbol{k})=& \begin{cases} i
209: \boldsymbol{d}(\boldsymbol{k})\cdot \hat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\hat{\sigma}_2 &
210: \text{: triplet} \\
211: i d(\boldsymbol{k}) \hat{\sigma}_2 & \text{: singlet},
212: \end{cases}
213: \end{align}
214: for $Z_c > L$, where $L$ is the
215: thickness of the insulator as shown in Fig.\ref{system},
216: $\boldsymbol{R}=(X_c,Y_c,Z_c)=(\boldsymbol{r}+\boldsymbol{r}')/2$, and
217: $\boldsymbol{r}_r=\boldsymbol{r}-\boldsymbol{r}'$.
218: The anisotropy of the pairing symmetry is characterized by $\hat{\Delta}(\boldsymbol{k})$
219: with $\boldsymbol{k}=(\boldsymbol{p},k_z)$ and $\boldsymbol{p}=(k_x,k_y)$.
220: In normal metals and insulators, the pair potential is taken to be zero.
221: The unit matrix and the Pauli matrices are denoted as $\hat{\sigma}_0$ and
222: $\hat{\sigma}_j$ with $j=1, 2, 3$, respectively.
223: Throughout this paper, we measure the energy and the length in units of the Fermi energy,
224: $\mu_F=\hbar^2k_F^2/2m$, and $1/k_F$, respectively.
225: The potential of the insulator is given by
226: \begin{equation}
227: V(\boldsymbol{r})= V_0 \left[ \Theta(z) - \Theta(z-L)\right], \label{v01}\\
228: \end{equation}
229: and $q_z = k_F \sqrt{(V_0/\mu_F) - (k_z/k_F)^2}$ is the wave number in the $z$
230: direction at the insulator.
231: The Andreev and the normal reflection coefficients of the junction are
232: calculated analytically
233: \begin{align}
234: \hat{r}_{ee} =& - z_0z_1 \left[ \hat{\sigma}_0 - \hat{W}\right]
235: \left[ |z_1|^2\hat{\sigma}_0 - z_0^2\hat{W}\right]^{-1}, \\
236: \hat{r}_{he} =& - e^{-i\varphi_s} 4\bar{k}_z^2\bar{q}_z^2
237: \hat{\Delta}_{(+)}^\dagger \hat{R}_{(+)}
238: \left[ |z_1|^2\hat{\sigma}_0 - z_0^2\hat{W}\right]^{-1}, \\
239: \hat{R}_{(\pm)} =& \frac{1}{2|\boldsymbol{q}_\pm|}\sum_{l=1}^2
240: \left[ \frac{K_{l,\pm}}{\Delta_{l,\pm}^2} \hat{P}_{l,\pm}\right],\\
241: \Delta_{l,\pm}=&\sqrt{ |\boldsymbol{d}_\pm|^2 -(-1)^l |\boldsymbol{q}_\pm|},\label{delnu}\\
242: K_{l,\pm}=& \sqrt{E^2-\Delta_{l,\pm}^2}-E,\\
243: \hat{P}_{l,\pm} =& |\boldsymbol{q}_\pm| \hat{\sigma}_0 -(-1)^l \boldsymbol{q}_\pm \cdot
244: \hat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}},\\
245: \boldsymbol{q}_\pm =& i \boldsymbol{d}_\pm \times \boldsymbol{d}_\pm^\ast,\\
246: \hat{W} =& \hat{R}_{(-)} \hat{\Delta}_{(-)} \hat{\Delta}_{(+)}^\dagger \hat{R}_{(+)},\label{defw}\\
247: z_0 =& \frac{V_0}{\mu_F}\sinh(q_zL),\\
248: z_1=& (\bar{q}_z^2-\bar{k}_z^2) \sinh(q_zL) + 2i\bar{k}_z\bar{q}_z \cosh(q_zL),
249: \end{align}
250: where $\varphi_s$ is a macroscopic phase of superconductor,
251: $\bar{k}_z=k_z/k_F$, $\bar{q}_z=q_z/k_F$,
252: and $l(=1$ or 2) indicates the spin branch of a Cooper pair.
253: These coefficients are characterized by the two Fourier components
254: of the pair potentials,
255: \begin{equation}
256: \hat{\Delta}_{(\pm)}=\left\{
257: \begin{array}{cccc}
258: i d_\pm \hat{\sigma}_2 &:& d_\pm \equiv d(\boldsymbol{p},\pm k_z)& : \textrm{singlet}\\
259: i \boldsymbol{d}_\pm \cdot \hat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}} \hat{\sigma}_2 &:&
260: \boldsymbol{d}_\pm \equiv \boldsymbol{d}(\boldsymbol{p},\pm k_z) & : \textrm{triplet}.
261: \end{array}\right.
262: \end{equation}
263: In unitary states, we find
264: \begin{align}
265: \hat{R}_{(\pm)} =& \frac{\sqrt{E^2-|D_\pm|^2}-E}{|D_\pm|^2}\hat{\sigma}_0,\\
266: |D_\pm| =& \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} |d_\pm| & \textrm{: singlet} \\
267: |\boldsymbol{d}_\pm| & \textrm{: triplet}.
268: \end{array} \right.
269: \end{align}
270:
271: The differential conductance is given by~\cite{btk,takane}
272: \begin{align}
273: G_{NS}&(E) =\frac{e^2}{h} N_c \int_0^{2\pi}\!\!\!\! d\phi
274: \int_0^{\pi/2}\!\!\!\!\!\!\! d\theta \; \sin\theta\nonumber\\
275: &\times \left.\textrm{Tr} \left[ \hat{\sigma}_0 - \hat{r}_{ee}\hat{r}_{ee}^\dagger
276: + \hat{r}_{he}\hat{r}_{he}^\dagger\right]\right|_{E=eV_{bias}},
277: \end{align}
278: where $k_x=k_F \sin\theta\cos\phi$, $k_y=k_F \sin\theta\sin\phi$, $k_z=k_F\cos\theta$,
279: $N_c=Sk_F^2/(2\pi)$ is the number of the propagating channels on the Fermi surface
280: and $V_{bias}$ is the bias voltage applied to the junctions.
281: The normal conductance of the junction is also calculated to be
282: \begin{align}
283: G_N=& \frac{2e^2}{h} N_c T_B,\\
284: T_B =& \int_0^{2\pi}\!\!\!\! d\phi
285: \int_0^{\pi/2}\!\!\!\!\!\! d\theta \;\sin\theta \frac{4\bar{k}_z^4\bar{q}_z^4}{
286: 4\bar{k}_z^4\bar{q}_z^4+z_0^2},
287: \end{align}
288: where $T_B$ is the transmission probability of the junctions.
289:
290: \section{spin-singlet}
291: Several candidates of pair potential are proposed
292: theoretically for the spin-singlet superconductivity~\cite{goryo,maki}.
293: Here we show two sets of pair potentials discussed in Ref.~\onlinecite{maki},
294: \begin{align}
295: d(H1) =& \Delta_0\frac{3}{2}\left( 1- \bar{k}_x^4 - \bar{k}_y^4 - \bar{k}_z^4 \right),\label{h1}\\
296: d(L1) = & \Delta_0\left(1- \bar{k}_y^4 - \bar{k}_z^4\right),\label{l1}\\
297: d(H2) =& \Delta_0\left(1- \bar{k}_x^4 - \bar{k}_y^4\right),\label{h2}\\
298: d(L2) = & \Delta_0\left(1- \bar{k}_y^4\right),\label{l2}
299: \end{align}
300: where $\Delta_0$ is the amplitude of the pair potential at the zero temperature,
301: $\bar{k}_{j} = k_{j} / k_{F}$ for $j=x, y$ and $z$ are the normalized
302: wave numbers on the isotropic Fermi surface.
303: When H-phase is described by $d(H1)$ ($d(H2)$), corresponding L-phase
304: is characterized by $d(L1)$ ($d(L2)$).
305: In these pair potentials, anisotropic $s$ wave symmetry is assumed to have a number of
306: point nodes.
307: In what follows, we define 'node directions $(\boldsymbol{n}_{nd})$'
308: in which the pair potential has point nodes.
309: The pair potential of $d(H1)$, for instance, has 6 point nodes. The node directions are
310: $(\bar{k}_x, \bar{k}_y, \bar{k}_z)=(\pm 1,0,0)$, (0,$\pm 1$,0),
311: and (0,0,$\pm 1$). The thermal conductivity experiment indicates at least 6 point nodes
312: in H-phase.
313: In Fig.~\ref{fig:s1}, we show the tunneling conductance of the pair potentials for
314: $d(H1)$ and $d(L1)$ for several choices of $Lk_F$.
315: Throughout this paper, we fix $V_0/\mu_F=$ 2.0 and choose three values of $Lk_F$ such as
316: 0.0, 0.5 and 2.0.
317: The transmission probability of junctions, $T_B$, are
318: about 1.0, 0.4 and 0.003 for $Lk_F$ = 0.0, 0.5 and 2.0, respectively.
319: In what follows, the junction with $Lk_F=2.0$ is refereed to as the low transparent junction
320: or the junction with $T_B\ll 1$.
321: %
322: \begin{figure}[htbp]
323: \begin{center}
324: \includegraphics[width=9.0cm]{fig2.eps}
325: \end{center}
326: \caption{
327: The tunneling spectra of $d(H1)$ in (a) and those of $d(L1)$ in (b)-(c).
328: In (b), the current is parallel to the node directions of $d(L1)$.
329: In (c), the current is perpendicular to the node directions of $d(L1)$.
330: The transmission probability of the junction in the normal states is denoted by $T_B$.
331: }
332: \label{fig:s1}
333: \end{figure}
334: %
335: The results in Fig.~\ref{fig:s1} (a) are the conductance for Eq.~(\ref{h1}).
336: In the limit of $T_B \ll 1$, the conductance shape is close to that of
337: the bulk DOS denoted by a dot-dash line.
338: Here the density of states are normalized by those of the normal state at the Fermi
339: energy.
340: When the pair potential are given in Eq.~(\ref{l1}), the
341: conductance depends on the current direction.
342: In Fig.~\ref{fig:s1} (b), the current is parallel to the node direction
343: of $d(L1)$ (i.e., $\boldsymbol{I} // \boldsymbol{n}_{nd}$). The conductance shape in the
344: limit of $T_B \ll 1$ becomes similar to that found in Fig.~\ref{fig:s1} (a).
345: When the current is perpendicular to the node direction
346: (i.e., $\boldsymbol{I} \bot \boldsymbol{n}_{nd}$), on the other hand,
347: the large enhancement of the conductance is seen at $E=\Delta_0$ as shown in
348: Fig.~\ref{fig:s1} (c).
349: Thus the tunneling spectra become anisotropic because of the
350: anisotropy in the pair potential. The conductance shapes
351: deviate from those of the bulk DOS even in the
352: limit of $T_B \ll 1$ in both Figs.~\ref{fig:s1} (b) and (c).
353:
354: In Fig.~\ref{fig:s2}, we show the tunneling spectra for
355: Eqs.~(\ref{h2}) and (\ref{l2}).
356: The pair potential of $d(H2)$ is equivalent to $d(L1)$ under an appropriate
357: rotation. Thus Fig.~\ref{fig:s2} (a) and (b) are the same with
358: Fig.~\ref{fig:s1} (b) and (c), respectively.
359: There are two point nodes in the direction of (0,$\pm 1$,0) in $d(L2)$.
360: %
361: \begin{figure}[htbp]
362: \begin{center}
363: \includegraphics[width=9.0cm]{fig3.eps}
364: \end{center}
365: \caption{
366: The tunneling spectra of $d(H2)$ in (a)-(b) and those of
367: $d(L2)$ in (c)-(d).
368: In (a) and (c), the current is parallel to the node directions.
369: In (b) and (d), the current is perpendicular to the node directions.}
370: \label{fig:s2}
371: \end{figure}
372: %
373: In Figs.~\ref{fig:s2} (c) and (d), the current
374: is parallel and perpendicular to the node directions of $d(L2)$, respectively.
375: In Fig.~\ref{fig:s2} (d), there is a large peak
376: at $E=\Delta_0$ and the
377: sub gap conductance has the U-shape as that of the bulk DOS.
378: On the other hand in (c), the singularity
379: at $E=\Delta_0$ is slightly suppressed and the sub gap conductance has
380: V-shape. In Fig.~\ref{fig:s2} (c) and (d), the anisotropy of the pair potential
381: mainly appears in the shape of the sub gap conductance.
382:
383: When H-phase is characterized by Eq.~(\ref{h1}), an anisotropic
384: $s+id$ wave pair potential in L-pahse is proposed by Goryo~\cite{goryo},
385: \begin{align}
386: d(L3) =& \Delta_0\left[\frac{3}{2}\left( 1- \bar{k}_x^4 - \bar{k}_y^4 - \bar{k}_z^4 \right)
387: + i (\bar{k}_z^2-\bar{k}_x^2 )\right]. \label{l3}
388: \end{align}
389: In the second term, the $d$-wave component multiplied by $i$ breaks the time-reversal symmetry.
390: The pair potential in Eq.~(\ref{l3}) has two point nodes on the Fermi surface
391: in ($0,\pm 1, 0$) directions.
392: In Fig.~\ref{fig:s4} (a), we show the conductance for Eq.~(\ref{l3}), where the current is
393: perpendicular to the node direction. When the current is parallel to the node direction,
394: the conductance is plotted in (b), where $\bar{k}_z^2-\bar{k}_x^2$ in Eq.~(\ref{l3}) is
395: replaced by $\bar{k}_x^2-\bar{k}_y^2$.
396: %
397: \begin{figure}[htbp]
398: \begin{center}
399: \includegraphics[width=9.0cm]{fig4.eps}
400: \end{center}
401: \caption{
402: The tunneling spectra of $d(L3)$ are shown in 8a) and (b).
403: The current is perpendicular to the node directions in (a).
404: In (b), the current is perpendicular to the node directions.
405: In (c), the conductance is plotted for $d(H3)$.}
406: \label{fig:s4}
407: \end{figure}
408: %
409: In both (a) and (b), the conductance in low transparent junctions has a peak around
410: $E\sim \Delta_0$. The conductance in (a) is almost zero for $E <0.75 \Delta_0$ and are
411: close to the bulk DOS for $E >0.75 \Delta_0$.
412: On the other hand in (b), the conductance deviates from the bulk DOS even in the
413: limit of $T_B \ll 1$ and has the V-shape subgap structure.
414: The anisotropy of the pair potential
415: appears in the shape of the sub gap conductance as well as those
416: in Figs.~\ref{fig:s2} (c) and (d).
417:
418: In addition to Eq.~(\ref{h1}), it is possible to consider a pair potential
419: with 6 point nodes by using gap functions of the cubic symmetry ($O_h$)~\cite{sigrist}.
420: For example, a simple linear combination of three $d$ wave gap functions,
421: \begin{equation}
422: d(H3) = \Delta_0\left(\bar{k}_x\bar{k}_y + \bar{k}_y\bar{k}_z + \bar{k}_z\bar{k}_x\right),
423: \label{h3}
424: \end{equation}
425: has 6 point nodes.
426: We show the conductance for $d(H3)$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:s4} (c).
427: The pair potential $d(H3)$ changes its sign on the Fermi surface, which is
428: the most important difference between Eq.~(\ref{h3}) and Eqs.~(\ref{h1})-(\ref{l3}).
429: As a consequence, the conductance has the ZBCP as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:s4} (c)
430: because a relation $d_+\sim -d_-$ is approximately satisfied for $|\bar{k}_z| \sim 1$.
431:
432:
433: \section{spin-triplet}
434: As well as the spin-singlet superconductivity, a possibility of
435: the spin-triplet superconductivity is also discussed in POS~\cite{miyake}.
436: Ichioka et. al. proposed a pair potential for H-phase~\cite{ichioka},
437: \begin{align}
438: \boldsymbol{d}(H1) =& \Delta_0\sqrt{\frac{27}{8}}(\bar{k}_x+i\bar{k}_y)(\bar{k}_y+i\bar{k}_z)
439: (\bar{k}_z+i\bar{k}_x)
440: \boldsymbol{e}_1, \label{th1}
441: \end{align}
442: where $\boldsymbol{e}_1$, $\boldsymbol{e}_2$ and $\boldsymbol{e}_3$
443: are three unit vectors in the spin space.
444: Although Eq.~(\ref{th1}) is not included in the gap functions of cubic symmetry ($O_h$),
445: it explains 6 point nodes on the $k_x$, $k_y$ and $k_z$ axes.
446: %
447: \begin{figure}[htbp]
448: \begin{center}
449: \includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{fig5.eps}
450: \end{center}
451: \caption{
452: The tunneling spectra of $\boldsymbol{d}(H1)$.
453: The transmission probability of the junction in the normal states is denoted by $T_B$.
454: }
455: \label{fig:th1}
456: \end{figure}
457: %
458: In Fig.~\ref{fig:th1}, we show the conductance for the spin-triplet pair potentials
459: in Eq.~(\ref{th1}) for several choices of $T_B$.
460: When the $d$ vector has a single component, Eq.~(\ref{defw}) becomes
461: \begin{align}
462: \hat{W} =& \frac{K_+K_-}{|d_+||d_-|} e^{i\phi_--i\phi_+} \hat{\sigma}_0,\\
463: \boldsymbol{d}_\pm =& {\boldsymbol{e}} |\boldsymbol{d}_\pm| e^{i\phi_\pm},
464: \end{align}
465: where ${\boldsymbol{e}}$ is a unit vector which
466: points the direction of
467: the $d$ vector.
468: In the case of $e^{i\phi_--i\phi_+} =-1$, the ZBCP appears because of
469: the ZES~\cite{ya03-3}. When $e^{i\phi_--i\phi_+} =1$, on the other hand, a peak-like structure
470: is expected around $E=\Delta_0$.
471: In Eq.~(\ref{th1}), $e^{i\phi_--i\phi_+} $ is a complex value
472: because the pair potential breaks the time-reversal symmetry.
473: In such a situation, the resonance energy deviates from both $E=0$ and $E=\Delta_0$
474: and the resonance peak is expected between $E=0$ and $E=\Delta_0$~\cite{ya03-3}.
475: As a result, the conductance peak can be seen in the sub gap region as shown
476: in Fig.~\ref{fig:th1}.
477: The bulk DOS vanishes at $E=0$, whereas the conductance remains a finite value
478: even in the limit of $T_B \ll 1$, which reflects the surface states due to the
479: interference effect of a quasiparticle.
480:
481: %
482: \begin{figure}[htbp]
483: \begin{center}
484: \includegraphics[width=9.0cm]{fig6.eps}
485: \end{center}
486: \caption{
487: The tunneling spectra of $\boldsymbol{d}(L1)$ in (a)-(b) and
488: those of $\boldsymbol{d}(L2)$ in (c)-(d). The current flows in the node direction
489: in (a) and (d). In (b) and (c), the node direction is perpendicular to the
490: current.
491: }
492: \label{fig:tl1l2}
493: \end{figure}
494: %
495: When H-phase is described by Eq.~(\ref{th1}), corresponding pair potential in the
496: L-phase are given by
497: \begin{align}
498: \boldsymbol{d}(L1) =& \Delta_0\left[(\bar{k}_x+i\bar{k}_y)(\bar{k}_y+i\bar{k}_z)
499: (\bar{k}_z+i\bar{k}_x)
500: \boldsymbol{e}_1 \right. \nonumber\\
501: &\left.+ \bar{k}_x\boldsymbol{e}_2\right], \label{tl1}\\
502: \intertext{or}
503: \boldsymbol{d}(L2) =& \Delta_0\left[(\bar{k}_x+i\bar{k}_y)(\bar{k}_y+i\bar{k}_z)
504: (\bar{k}_z+i\bar{k}_x)
505: \boldsymbol{e}_1 \right.\nonumber\\
506: &\left. + (\bar{k}_x+i\bar{k}_z)\boldsymbol{e}_2\right]. \label{tl2}
507: \end{align}
508: These pair potentials are in the nonunitary states.
509: In L-phase, some of point nodes are removed by adding the $p$ wave component to the
510: $d$ vector in Eq.~(\ref{th1}).
511: There are 4 and 2 point nodes in Eqs.(\ref{tl1}) and (\ref{tl2}), respectively.
512: Since it is difficult to determine the relative amplitudes of $\boldsymbol{e}_1$ and
513: $\boldsymbol{e}_2$ components,
514: we simply add them with an equal amplitude.
515: In Fig.~\ref{fig:tl1l2}, we show the conductance in these L-phase pair potentials.
516: When the current flows in the node direction of Eq.~(\ref{tl1}),
517: the results are plotted in (a).
518: The conductance for
519: small $T_B$ has a peak around $E=0.3\Delta_0$ which may come from the large
520: peak in Fig.~\ref{fig:th1}.
521: The DOS has a small peak at $E=1.3\Delta_0$ which corresponds to the
522: maximum value of $\Delta_{1,\pm}$ in Eq.~(\ref{delnu}).
523: In (b), the current is
524: perpendicular to the node direction of Eq.~(\ref{tl1}),
525: where $\boldsymbol{e}_2$ component in Eq.(\ref{tl1})
526: is replaced by $\bar{k}_z\boldsymbol{e}_2$.
527: The conductance for small $T_B$ has a large amplitude around the
528: zero-bias. In spin-triplet superconductors, $\boldsymbol{d}_- =- \boldsymbol{d}_+$
529: represents the condition for the perfect formation of the ZES.
530: Actually when $\boldsymbol{d}_+ =\boldsymbol{d}=\nu \boldsymbol{d}_- $ with $\nu =\pm 1$,
531: the Andreev reflection probability becomes
532: \begin{equation}
533: R_A=\textrm{Tr} \hat{r}_{he} \hat{r}_{he}^\dagger =
534: \sum_{l} \left|\frac{4\bar{k}^2\bar{q}^2 \Delta_l K_l}
535: {4\bar{k}^2\bar{q}^2 \Delta_l^2 + z_0^2 (\Delta_l^2 - \nu K_l^2)}\right|^2.
536: \end{equation}
537: In the limit of $E\to 0$ and $z_0 \gg 1$, this goes to
538: \begin{equation}
539: R_A = \left\{ \begin{array}{ccc}
540: 2 \left(\frac{ 4\bar{k}^2\bar{q}^2}{2 z_0^2}\right)^2 & :& \nu=1 \\
541: & & \\
542: 2 & :& \nu = -1, \end{array}\right.
543: \end{equation}
544: where spin degree of freedom give rise to a factor 2.
545: Thus the zero-bias conductance is independent of $T_B$ when
546: $\boldsymbol{d}_- =- \boldsymbol{d}_+$ is satisfied.
547: The pair potential in (b) partially satisfies the condition because
548: the $\boldsymbol{e}_2$ component is an odd function of $k_z$.
549: As a consequence, the conductance at $E=0$ increases with decreasing $T_B$
550: as shown in (b). Thus the anisotropy of the pair potential in Eq.~(\ref{tl1})
551: appears the conductance shape around the zero-bias.
552: The conductance for Eq.~(\ref{tl2}) has a large peak as shown in (c),
553: which is also explained by the ZES.
554: On the other hand, the conductance linearly decreases with decreasing $E$ in (d),
555: where $(\bar{k}_x+i\bar{k}_z)\boldsymbol{e}_2$ in Eq.~(\ref{tl2}) is
556: replaced by $(\bar{k}_y+i\bar{k}_x)\boldsymbol{e}_3$.
557: A peak around $E=0.8\Delta_0$ may come from the large sub gap peak in Fig.~\ref{fig:th1}.
558: We note that the position of the sub gap peaks may depends on parameters such as
559: the thickness of the insulating layer and the relative amplitudes among the components
560: in $d$ vectors.
561:
562:
563: %
564: \begin{figure}[htbp]
565: \begin{center}
566: \includegraphics[width=9.0cm]{fig7.eps}
567: \end{center}
568: \caption{
569: The tunneling spectra of $\boldsymbol{d}(H2)$ in (a),
570: $\boldsymbol{d}(H3)$ in (c) and $\boldsymbol{d}(H4)$ in (d).
571: The conductance for BW states is shown in (b) for comparison.
572: }
573: \label{fig:th234}
574: \end{figure}
575: %
576:
577: For H-phase, there are another candidates of the pair potentials such as~\cite{ichioka}
578: \begin{align}
579: \boldsymbol{d}(H2) =& \Delta_0\left[\bar{k}_x\boldsymbol{e}_1
580: + \bar{k}_y\epsilon\boldsymbol{e}_2
581: + \bar{k}_z\epsilon^2 \boldsymbol{e}_3\right],\label{th2}\\
582: \boldsymbol{d}(H3) =& 2\Delta_0\left[\bar{k}_x(\bar{k}_z^2-\bar{k}_y^2)\boldsymbol{e}_1
583: + \bar{k}_y(\bar{k}_x^2-\bar{k}_z^2)\boldsymbol{e}_2\right.\nonumber\\
584: & + \left. \bar{k}_z(\bar{k}_y^2-\bar{k}_x^2)\boldsymbol{e}_3\right],\label{th3}\\
585: \boldsymbol{d}(H4) =& 2\Delta_0\left[\bar{k}_x(\bar{k}_z^2-\bar{k}_y^2)\boldsymbol{e}_1
586: + \bar{k}_y(\bar{k}_x^2-\bar{k}_z^2)\epsilon \boldsymbol{e}_2\right.\nonumber\\
587: & + \left. \bar{k}_z(\bar{k}_y^2-\bar{k}_x^2)\epsilon^2 \boldsymbol{e}_3\right],\label{th4}
588: \end{align}
589: where $\epsilon=e^{i 2\pi/3}$.
590: The pair potential in Eq.(\ref{th2}) is similar to that of Barian-Werthamer (BW)
591: states~\cite{bw} described by
592: \begin{equation}
593: \boldsymbol{d}(BW) = \Delta_0\left[\bar{k}_x\boldsymbol{e}_1
594: + \bar{k}_y\boldsymbol{e}_2
595: + \bar{k}_z \boldsymbol{e}_3\right].\label{bws}
596: \end{equation}
597: Eq.~(\ref{th2}), however, is in the nonunitary states because of a phase factor.
598: One spin branch has a full gap, other has 8 point nodes in $(\pm 1, \pm 1, \pm 1)$
599: directions. The node directions of this pair potential contradict to the experimental
600: results.
601: In Fig.~\ref{fig:th234}, we show the conductance for Eqs.~(\ref{th2})
602: in (a). For comparison, we also show the conductance of the BW states in (b).
603: The conductance for $T_B\ll 1$ increases rapidly with increasing
604: $E$ and has a peak around $E=0.2\Delta_0$ as shown in (a).
605: We note that the conductance spectra of
606: the BW state in (b) also show a peak around $E=0.5\Delta_0$. The peak structure may
607: indicate some surface states of the BW type superconductors because
608: the bulk DOS only have a peak at $E=\textrm{max}(\Delta_{1,\pm})=1.4\Delta_0$
609: in (a) and $E=\Delta_0$ in (b).
610: When $d$ vectors have more than two components, the shapes of the conductance
611: spectra tend to have sub gap peaks.
612: Mathematically speaking, when $\boldsymbol{d}_-$ is not parallel to $\boldsymbol{d}_+^\ast$,
613: the product of the two pair potentials in Eq.~(\ref{defw}) becomes
614: \begin{equation}
615: \hat{\Delta}_{(-)} \hat{\Delta}_{(+)}^\dagger =
616: \boldsymbol{d}_- \cdot \boldsymbol{d}_+^\ast \hat{\sigma}_0
617: + i \boldsymbol{d}_- \times \boldsymbol{d}_+^\ast \cdot \hat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}.
618: \end{equation}
619: The second term is a source of the sub gap peaks in the BW type states.
620: At present, however, we have not yet confirmed an existence of some surface states.
621: In Fig.~\ref{fig:th234} (c) and (d), we show the conductance for Eqs.~(\ref{th3})
622: and (\ref{th4}), respectively.
623: There are 14 point nodes on the Fermi surface in Eqs.~(\ref{th3}) and (\ref{th4}).
624: Although the number of point nodes are larger than that found in the experiment,
625: these pair potentials explain the 6 point nodes in $k_x$, $k_y$ and $k_z$ directions.
626: The conductance in Fig.~\ref{fig:th234} (c) shows peak structures at $E=0.36\Delta_0$ and
627: $0.76\Delta_0$. These peaks are far from a peak in the bulk DOS at $E=\Delta_0$.
628: The conductance in Fig.~\ref{fig:th234} (d) also shows peak structures at $E=0.13\Delta_0$,
629: $0.34\Delta_0$ and $0.86\Delta_0$. However, there is no structure in the bulk DOS
630: around the lowest peak.
631: In addition to Eqs.~(\ref{th2})-(\ref{th4}), the polar state and the Anderson-Brinkman-Morel
632: (ABM)~\cite{abm} state are
633: proposed for H-phase of the spin-triplet pairing~\cite{miyake},
634: \begin{align}
635: \boldsymbol{d}(polar) =& \Delta_0 \bar{k}_z \boldsymbol{e}_3,\label{px}\\
636: \boldsymbol{d}(ABM) =& \Delta_0(\bar{k}_x + i \bar{k}_y)\boldsymbol{e}_3.\label{chiral}
637: \end{align}
638: The transition to L-phase is caused by the spin-orbit coupling~\cite{miyake}.
639: The polar state in Eq.~(\ref{px}) has a line node at $\bar{k}_z=0$ and the ABM state
640: in Eq.~(\ref{chiral}) has two point nodes at $\bar{k}_z=1$.
641: In Fig.~\ref{fig:th5} (a), we show the conductance in Eq.~(\ref{px}), where
642: a plain including the line node, $k_z=0$, is perpendicular to the current.
643: The results show the ZBCP because Eq.~(\ref{px}) satisfies $\boldsymbol{d}_-
644: =- \boldsymbol{d}_+$.
645: In (b), we show the conductance in the ploar state, where $\bar{k}_z$ in Eq.(\ref{px})
646: is replaced by $\bar{k}_x$ and a plain including the line node, $k_x=0$,
647: is parallel to the current.
648: The conductance at the zero-bias vanishes in the limit of $T_B\ll 1$ and increases
649: linearly with increasing $E$. The shape of the conductance, however, deviates from
650: that of the bulk DOS.
651: %
652: \begin{figure}[htbp]
653: \begin{center}
654: \includegraphics[width=9.0cm]{fig8.eps}
655: \end{center}
656: \caption{
657: The tunneling spectra of $\boldsymbol{d}(polar)$ in (a) and (b).
658: Those for $\boldsymbol{d}(ABM)$ are in (c) and (d).
659: }
660: \label{fig:th5}
661: \end{figure}
662: %
663: In Fig.~\ref{fig:th5} (c), we show the conductance in Eq.~(\ref{chiral}), where
664: the node direction is parallel to the current.
665: In low transparent junctions, the conductance vanishes in the limit of $E\to 0$.
666: The shape of the conductance, however, deviates from that of the bulk DOS.
667: In (d), we show the conductance in the ABM state, where $\bar{k}_x+i\bar{k}_y$ in
668: Eq.(\ref{chiral})
669: is replaced by $\bar{k}_z+i\bar{k}_x$ and the node direction
670: is perpendicular to the current.
671: The broad ZBCP appears because Eq.~(\ref{chiral}) satisfies
672: $\boldsymbol{d}_- =- \boldsymbol{d}_+$ only when $|\bar{k}_z|=1$~\cite{yamashiro}.
673: The height of the ZBCP is expected to be much larger in junctions with thicker insulating
674: layers. The transmission probability for perpendicular injection to the
675: thicker insulating layers become much larger than those for another incident angles.
676: As a consequence, the condition $\boldsymbol{d}_- =- \boldsymbol{d}_+$ is better
677: satisfied in junctions with thicker insulators.
678:
679:
680: In comparison with the spin-singlet pairing, the conductance in the spin-triplet
681: superconductivity tends to have the sub gap structures.
682: The peak structures in Figs.~\ref{fig:th1}, \ref{fig:tl1l2} (a) and
683: \ref{fig:tl1l2} (d) are stemming from
684: the broken time-reversal symmetry states in Eq.~(\ref{th1}).
685: The ZES is responsible for the peaks around the zero-bias in
686: Figs.~\ref{fig:tl1l2} (b) and (c). The $d$ vectors with multi components
687: are the origin of the peaks in Fig.~\ref{fig:th234}.
688: Thus POS may be the spin-triplet superconductors
689: if the sub gap conductance shows complicated peak structures in experiments.
690: The argument, however, is still a guess based on the calculated results.
691: This is because it may be possible to consider another pair potentials with 6
692: point nodes.
693:
694:
695: In this paper, we do not consider the self-consistency of the pair potential
696: near the junction interface. It is empirically known that the depletion
697: of the pair potential modifies the conductance structure around $E=\Delta_0$
698: or maximum of $\Delta_{1,\pm}$.
699: Our conclusions remain unchanged even in the self-consistent pair potential
700: unless the self-consistency does not change the symmetry of
701: the pair potential and/or the number of components in $d$ vectors.
702:
703:
704:
705: \section{conclusion}
706: We have discussed the differential conductance in normal-metal /
707: insulator / POS junctions based on the Bogoliubov-de Gennes
708: equation. For spin-singlet pairing, the conductance is calculated
709: for three candidates of pair potentials in the anisotropic $s$ wave symmetry.
710: The results show that the conductance spectra depend strongly
711: on the relation between the direction of currents and that of nodes.
712: We found that the conductance vanishes in the limit of
713: the zero-bias and there is no anomalous behavior around the zero-bias
714: for these candidates. The conductance for $s+id$ wave symmetry in L-phase
715: and that for $d$ wave symmetry in H-phase are also demonstrated.
716: In the case of spin-triplet superconductivity, we discuss the conductance
717: for six candidates of pair potentials in H-phase and two candidates in L-phase.
718: The results show peak structures in the sub gap conductance for
719: all candidates. The broken-time reversal symmetry states, the zero-energy states and
720: $d$ vectors with multi components arise these peak structures.
721: POS may be a spin-triplet superconductor if
722: the peak structures in the
723: sub gap conductance is observed in future experiments.
724: In particular, the presence or the absence of the ZBCP is an important
725: information to address the pairing symmetry.
726: Thus experiments of the tunneling spectra are desired~\cite{suderow}.
727:
728:
729: Recently, it has been pointed out that the
730: magneto tunneling spectroscopy is a useful tool to know
731: details of internal structures of pair potentials~\cite{magneto}.
732: The tunnel spectra through a ferromagnetic tip~\cite{ferro}
733: reflect the spin configuration of Cooper pairs in the case of the
734: spin-triplet superconductors.
735: Even in the spin-singlet superconductors, the absence of the time-reversal
736: symmetry in ferromagnets affects the interference effects of a quasiparticle
737: and modifies the tunneling spectra.
738: At present, however, the investigations in this direction are
739: limited in the $d$ wave high-$T_c$ superconductors.
740: The magneto tunneling spectroscopy in another unconventional
741: superconductors is a future problem.
742:
743: In this paper, we assumed the clean ballistic junctions.
744: It is known impurity scatterings in normal metals induce the proximity effect~\cite{random}.
745: The proximity effect of unconventional superconductors with point nodes is
746: also a open question.
747:
748:
749:
750: \begin{thebibliography}{}
751:
752: % discoverry
753: \bibitem{bauer} E.~D.~Bauer, N.~A.~Frederick, P.-C.~Ho, V.~S.~Zapf, and
754: M.~B.~Maple, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{65}, R100506 (2002).
755:
756: % specific heat
757: \bibitem{vollmer} R.~Vollmer, A.~Faisst, C.~Pfleiderer, H.~v.~L\"{o}hneysen,
758: E.~D.~Bauer, P.-C.~Ho, V.~S.~Zapf, and M.~B.~Maple,
759: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{90}, 057001 (2003).
760:
761:
762: % nuclear spin-lattice relaxzation
763: \bibitem{kotegawa1} H.~Kotegawa, M.~Yogi, Y.~Imamura, Y.~Kawasaki, G.~-q.~Zheng,
764: Y.~Kitaoka, S.~Ohsaki, H.~Sugawara, Y.~Aoki, and H.~Sato,
765: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{90}, 027001 (2003).
766:
767:
768: % thermal conductivity
769: \bibitem{izawa} K.~Izawa, Y.~Nakajima, J.~Goryo, Y.~Matsuda, S.~Osaki, H.~Sugawara,
770: H.~Sato, and K.~Maki, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{90}, 117001 (2003).
771:
772: \bibitem{ichioka} M.~Ichioka, N.~Nakai, and K.~Machida, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \textbf{72},
773: 1322 (2003).
774:
775: % anisotropic s
776: \bibitem{maki} K.~Maki, P.~Thalmeier, Q.~Yuan, K.~Izawa, and Y.~Matsuda, cond-mat/0212090.
777:
778: \bibitem{miyake} K.~Miyake, H.~Kohno, and H.~Harima, J. Phys. Condens. Matter \textbf{15},
779: L275 (2003).
780:
781: % band calculation
782: \bibitem{sugawara} H.~Sugawara, S.~Osaki, S.~R.~Saha, Y.~Aoki, H.~Sato, Y.~Inada,
783: H.~Shishido, R.~Settai, Y.~Onuki, H.~Harima, and K.~Oikawa, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{66},
784: 220504 (2002).
785:
786: %s+id
787: \bibitem{goryo} J.~Goryo, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{67}, 184511 (2003).
788:
789: \bibitem{yt95l} Y.~Tanaka and S.~Kashiwaya, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{74}, 3451 (1995).
790:
791: \bibitem{sk00r} S.~Kashiwaya and Y.~Tanaka, Rep. Prog. Phys. \textbf{63}, 1641 (2000).
792:
793:
794: \bibitem{exp1} J.~Geerk, X.~X.~Xi, and G.~Linker, Z. Phys. B. \textbf{73}, 329 (1988);
795: S.~Kashiwaya, Y.~Tanaka, M.~Koyanagi, H.~Takashima, and K.~Kajimura,
796: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{51}, 1350 (1995);
797: L.~Alff, H.~Takashima, S.~Kashiwaya, N.~Terada, H.~Ihara, Y.~Tanaka, M.~Koyanagi, and K.~Kajimura,
798: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{55}, 14757 (1997);
799: M.~Covington, M.~Aprili, E.~Paraoanu, L.~H.~Greene, F.~Xu, J.~Zhu, and C.~A.~Mirkin,
800: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{79}, 277 (1997);
801: J.~Y.~T.~Wei, N.~-C.~Yeh, D.~F.~Garrigus, and M.~Strasik, Phys. Rev. Lett.
802: \textbf{81}, 2542 (1998);
803: I.~Iguchi, W.~Wang, M.~Yamazaki, Y.~Tanaka, and S.~Kashiwaya, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{62}, R6131
804: (2000);
805: H.~Aubin, L.~H.~Greene, S.~Jian, and D.~G.~Hinks, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{89}, 177001 (2002);
806: Z.~Q.~Mao, M.~M.~Rosario, K.~D.~Nelson, K.~Wu, I.~G.~Deac, P.~Schiffer, Y.~Liu, T.~He,
807: K.~A.~Regan, and R.~J.~Cava, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{67}, 094502 (2003);
808: A.~Sharoni, O.~Millo, A.~Kohen, Y.~Dagan, R.~Beck, G.~Deutscher, and G.~Koren
809: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{65}, 134526 (2002);
810: A.~Biswas, P.~Fournier, M.~M.~Qazilbash, V.~N.~Smolyaninova, H.~Balci,
811: and R.~L.~Greene, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{88} 207004 (2002);
812: Y.~Dagan and G.~Deutscher, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{87}, 177004 (2001);
813: J.~W.~Ekin, Y.~Xu, S.~Mao, T.~Venkatesan, D.~W.~Face, M.~Eddy,
814: and S.~A.~Wolf, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{56}, 13746 (1997).
815:
816:
817:
818: \bibitem{Kashi95} S.~Kashiwaya, Y.~Tanaka, M.~Koyanagi, H.~Takashima, and K.~Kajimura,
819: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{51}, 1350 (1995).
820:
821: \bibitem{Kashi96} S.~Kashiwaya, Y.~Tanaka, M.~Koyanagi, and K.~Kajimura, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{53},
822: 2667 (1996).
823:
824: \bibitem{TK96} Y.~Tanaka and S.~Kashiwaya, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{53}, 9371 (1996).
825:
826:
827: \bibitem{Tanuma}
828: Y.~Tanuma, Y.~Tanaka, M.~Ogata, and S. Kashiwaya, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \textbf{67}, 1118 (1998);
829: Y.~Tanuma, Y.~Tanaka, M.~Ogata, and S.~Kashiwaya, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{60}, 9817 (1999);
830: Y.~Tanuma, Y.~Tanaka, and S.~Kashiwaya, Rhys. Rev. B \textbf{64}, 214519 (2001).
831:
832:
833: \bibitem{fogelstrom} M.~Fogelstr\"{o}m, D.~Rainer, and J.~A.~Sauls, Phys. Rev. Lett.
834: \textbf{79}, 281 (1997);
835: D.~Rainer, H.~Burkhardt, M.~Fogelstr\"{o}m, and J.~A.~Sauls,
836: J. Phys. Chem. Solids \textbf{59}, 2040 (1998).
837:
838: \bibitem{matsu} M.~Matsumoto and H.~Shiba, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \textbf{64}, 1703 (1995).
839:
840:
841: \bibitem{hu} C.~R.~Hu, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{72}, 1526 (1994).
842:
843: \bibitem{ya03-3} Y.~Asano, Y.~Tanaka, and S.~Kashiwaya, cond-mat/0307345
844:
845: \bibitem{buch} L.~J.~Buchholtz and G.~Zwicknagl, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{23}, 5788 (1981).
846:
847: \bibitem{exp2}
848: F.~Laube, G.~Goll, H.~v.~L\"{o}hneysen, M.~Fogelstr\"{o}m, and F.~Lichtenberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.
849: \textbf{84}, 1595 (2000); Z.~Q.~Mao, K.~D.~Nelson, R.~Jin, Y.~Liu, and Y.~Maeno,
850: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{87}, 037003 (2001); Ch.~W\"{a}lti, H.~R.~Ott,
851: Z.~Fisk, and J.~L.~Smith, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{84}, 5616 (2000).
852:
853:
854: \bibitem{yamashiro} M.~Yamashiro, Y.~Tanaka, and S.~Kashiwaya, Phys. Rev. B
855: \textbf{56}, 7847 (1997);
856: M.~Yamashiro, Y.~Tanaka Y. Tanuma, and S.~Kashiwaya, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \textbf{67}, 3224 (1998);
857: M.~Yamashiro, Y.~Tanaka, and S.~Kashiwaya, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \textbf{67}, 3364 (1998);
858: M. Yamashiro, Y. Tanaka Y. Tanuma, and S. Kashiwaya, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \textbf{68}, 2019 (1999).
859:
860: \bibitem{honerkamp}
861: C.~Honerkamp and M.~Sigrist, Prog. Theor. Phys. \textbf{100}, 53 (1998);
862: C.~Honerkamp and M.~Sigrist, J. Low Temp. Phys. \textbf{111}, 895 (1998).
863:
864: \bibitem{organic}
865: Y.~Tanuma, K.~Kuroki, Y.~Tanaka, and S.~Kashiwaya,
866: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{64}, 214510 (2001);
867: K.~Sengupta, I.~\v{Z}uti\'c, H.~-J.~Kwon, V.~M.~Yakovenko,
868: and S.~Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{63}, 144531 (2001).
869:
870:
871: \bibitem{Asai}
872: Y.~Tanaka, T.~Asai, N.~Yoshida, J.~Inoue, and S.~Kashiwaya,
873: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{61}, R11902 (2000).
874:
875:
876: \bibitem{Kusakabe}
877: Y.~Tanaka, T.~Hirai, K.~Kusakabe, and S.~Kashiwaya,
878: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{60}, 6308 (1999);
879: T.~Hirai, K.~Kusakabe, and Y.~Tanaka, Physica C \textbf{336}, 107 (2000);
880: K.~Kusakabe and Y.~Tanaka, Physica C \textbf{367}, 123 (2002);
881: K.~Kusakabe and Y.~Tanaka, J. Phys. Chem. Solids \textbf{63}, 1511 (2002).
882:
883: \bibitem{charge}
884: N.~Stefanakis, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{64}, 224502 (2001);
885: Z.~C.~Dong, D.~Y.~Xing, and J.~Dong, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{65}, 214512 (2002);
886: Z.~C.~Dong, D.~Y.~Xing, Z.~D.~Wang, Z.~Zheng, and J.~Dong,
887: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{63}, 144520 (2001);
888: Yu.~S.~Barash, M.~S.~Kalenkov, and J.~Kurkijarvi,
889: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{62}, 6665 (2000);
890: M.~H.~S.~Amin, A.~N.~Omelyanchouk, and A.~M.~Zagoskin,
891: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{63}, 212502 (2001);
892: S.-T.~Wu and C.-Y.~Mou,
893: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{66}, 012512 (2002).
894:
895: \bibitem{ya02-1} Y.~Asano and Y.~Tanaka, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{65}, 064522 (2002).
896:
897: \bibitem{ya03-2} Y.~Asano, Y.~Tanaka, and S.~Kashiwaya, cond-mat/0302287.
898:
899: \bibitem{tanaka2} Y.~Tanaka and S.~Kashiwaya, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{53},
900: R11957 (1996).
901:
902: \bibitem{tj1} Y.~Tanaka and S.~Kashiwaya, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{56}, 892 (1997).
903:
904: \bibitem{tj2} Y.~Tanaka and S.~Kashiwaya, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{58}, 2948 (1998).
905:
906: \bibitem{tj3} Y.~Tanaka and S.~Kashiwaya, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \textbf{68}, 3485 (1999).
907:
908: \bibitem{tj4} Y.~Tanaka and S.~Kashiwaya, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \textbf{69}, 1152 (2000).
909:
910:
911: \bibitem{barash} Y.~S.~Barash, H.~Burkhardt, and D.~Rainer,
912: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{77}, 4070 (1996).
913:
914:
915: \bibitem{ilichev1} E.~Il'ichev, V.~Zakosarenko, R.~P.~J.~IJsselsteijn,
916: V.~Schultze, H.~-G.~Meyer, H.~E.~Hoenig, H.~Hilgenkamp, and J.~Mannhart,
917: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{81}, 894 (1998).
918:
919: \bibitem{ilichev2} E.~Il'ichev, M.~Grajcar, R.~Hlubina, R.~P.~J.~IJsselsteijn,
920: H.~E.~Hoenig, H.~-G.~Meyer, A.~Golubov, M.~H.~S.~Amin, A.~M.~Zagoskin.
921: A.~N.~Omelyanchouk, and M.~Yu.~Kupriyanov,
922: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{86}, 5369 (2001).
923:
924: \bibitem{ya01-1} Y.~Asano, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{63}, 052512 (2001).
925:
926: \bibitem{ya01-2} Y.~Asano, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{64}, 014511 (2001).
927:
928: \bibitem{ya01-3} Y.~Asano, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{64}, 224515 (2001).
929:
930: \bibitem{ya02-2} Y.~Asano, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \textbf{71}, 905 (2002);
931: Y.~Asano, Physica C \textbf{367}, 92 (2002);
932: Y.~Asano, Physica C \textbf{367}, 157 (2002).
933:
934:
935: \bibitem{ya02-3} Y.~Asano and K.~Katabuchi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \textbf{71}, 1974 (2002).
936:
937: \bibitem{ya03-1} Y.~Asano, Y.~Tanaka, M.~Sigrist, and S.~Kashiwaya,
938: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{67}, 184505 (2003).
939:
940: \bibitem{degennes} P.~G.~de~Gennes, \textit{Superconductivity of Metals
941: and Alloys}, (Benjamin, New York, 1966).
942:
943:
944: \bibitem{andreev} A.~F.~Andreev, Zh. Eksp. Theor. Fiz, \textbf{46}, 1823 (1964)
945: [Sov. Phys. JETP \textbf{19}, 1228 (1964)].
946:
947: \bibitem{btk} G.~E.~Blonder, M.~Tinkham, and T.~M.~Klapwijk,
948: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{25}, 4515 (1982).
949:
950: \bibitem{takane} Y.~Takane and H.~Ebisawa, J.Phys. Soc. Jpn. \textbf{61},
951: 1685 (1992).
952:
953: \bibitem{sigrist} M.~Sigrist and K.~Ueda, Rev. Mod. Phys. \textbf{63}, 239 (1991).
954:
955: \bibitem{bw} R.~Balian and N.~R.~Werthamer, Phys. Rev. \textbf{131}, 1553 (1963).
956:
957: \bibitem{abm} P.~W.~Anderson and P.~Morel, Phys. Rev. \textbf{123}, 1911 (1961).
958:
959: \bibitem{suderow} After submission, a tunneling experiment was reported by H.~Suderow, S.~Vieria, J.~D.~Strand, S.~Bud'ko, and P.~C.~Canfield in cond-mat/0306463.
960: The results show the U-shape subgap structure for L-phase.
961:
962: \bibitem{magneto}
963: Y.~Tanuma, K.~Kuroki, Y.~Tanaka, R.~Arita, S.~Kashiwaya, and H.~Aoki,
964: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{66}, 094507 (2002);
965: Y.~Tanuma, K.~Kuroki, Y.~Tanaka, and S.~Kashiwaya,
966: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{66}, 174502 (2002);
967: Y.~Tanaka, H.~Tsuchiura, Y.~Tanuma, and S.~Kashiwaya,
968: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \textbf{71}, 271 (2002);
969: Y.~Tanaka, Y.~Tanuma K.~Kuroki and S.~Kashiwaya,
970: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \textbf{71}, 2102 (2002);
971: Y.~Tanaka, H.~Itoh, H.~Tsuchiura, Y.~Tanuma, J.~Inoue,
972: and S.~Kashiwya, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \textbf{71}, 2005 (2002).
973:
974: \bibitem{ferro}
975: J.-X.~Zhu, B.~Friedman, and C.~S.~Ting, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{59}, 9558 (1999);
976: S.~Kashiwaya, Y.~Tanaka, N.~Yoshida, and M.~R.~Beasley, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{60}, 3572 (1999);
977: I.~Zutic and O.~T.~Valls, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{60}, 6320 (1999);
978: N.~Yoshida, Y.~Tanaka, J.~Inoue, and S.~Kashiwaya, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \textbf{68}, 1071 (1999);
979: T.~Hirai, N.~Yoshida, Y.~Tanaka, J.~Inoue, and S.~Kashiwaya,
980: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \textbf{70}, 1885 (2001);
981: N.~Yoshida, H.~Itoh, T.~Hirai, Y.~Tanaka, J.~Inoue, and S.~Kashiwaya,
982: Phsica C \textbf{367}, 135 (2002);
983: T.~Hirai, Y.~Tanaka, N.~Yoshida, Y.~Asano,
984: J.~Inoue, and S.~Kashiwaya, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{67}, 174501 (2003);
985: Y.~Tanuma, Y.~Tanaka, K.~Kuroki, and S.~Kashiwaya, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{66}, 174502 (2002);
986: N.~Yoshida, Y.~Asano, H.~Itoh, Y.~Tanaka, and J.~Inoue,
987: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \textbf{72}, 895 (2003).
988: %
989:
990: \bibitem{random}
991: Y.~Tanuma, Y.~Tanaka, M.~Yamashiro, and S.~Kashiwaya, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{57}, 7997 (1998);
992: Y.~Tanaka, Y.~Tanuma, and S.~Kashiwaya, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{64}, 054510 (2001);
993: Y.~Tanaka, Yu.~V.~Nazarov, and S.~Kashiwaya, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 167003 (2003);
994: A.~A.~Golubov and M.~Y.~Kupriyanov: Pis'ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. fiz
995: \textbf{69}, 242 (1999).[ Sov. Phys. JETP Lett. \textbf{69}, 262 (1999).];
996: Pis'ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. fiz \textbf{67}, 478 (1998).
997: [ Sov. Phys. JETP Lett. \textbf{67}, 501 (1998).];
998: A.~Poenicke, Yu.~S.~Barash, C.~Bruder, and V.~Istyukov,
999: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{59}, 7102 (1999);
1000: K.~Yamada, Y.~Nagato, S.~Higashitani, and K.~Nagai, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \textbf{65}, 1540 (1996);
1001: T.~L\"{u}ck, U.~Eckern, and A.~Shelankov, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{63}, 064510 (2002);
1002: N.~Kitaura, H.~Itoh, Y.~Asano, Y.~Tanaka, J.~Inoue, Y.~Tanuma,
1003: and S.~Kashiwaya, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \textbf{72}, 1718 (2003).
1004:
1005:
1006:
1007:
1008: \end{thebibliography}
1009:
1010:
1011: \end{document}
1012:
1013: