1: %\documentclass[aps,prb,preprint,unsortedaddress]{revtex4}
2: \documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,unsortedaddress,floatfix]{revtex4}
3: \usepackage{amsmath}
4: \usepackage{amsfonts}
5: \usepackage{amssymb}
6: \usepackage{natbib}
7: \usepackage{graphicx}
8: \usepackage{times}
9:
10:
11: \begin{document}
12:
13: \title{Band filling and interband scattering effects in MgB$_2$: C vs Al doping}
14: \author{Jens Kortus}\email{j.kortus@fkf.mpg.de}
15: \altaffiliation[Current address: ]{Institut de Physique et de Chimie des
16: Mat\'eriaux de Strasbourg, 23 Rue du Loess, F-67037 Strasbourg Cedex 2, France}
17: \author{Oleg V. Dolgov}
18: \author{Reinhard K. Kremer}%\email{rekre@fkf.mpg.de}
19:
20: \affiliation{Max-Planck-Institut f{\"u}r Festk{\"o}rperforschung,
21: Heisenbergstr. 1, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany}
22:
23: \author{Alexander A. Golubov}
24: \affiliation{
25: MESA+ Research Institute and Faculty of Science and Technology,
26: University of Twente, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands
27: }
28:
29:
30:
31: \date{\today}
32:
33:
34: \begin{abstract}
35: We argue, based on band structure calculations and Eliashberg
36: theory, that the observed decrease of $T_c$ of Al and C doped MgB$_2$ samples
37: can be understood mainly in terms of a band filling effect due to the
38: electron doping by Al and C. A simple scaling of the electron-phonon
39: coupling constant $\lambda$ by the variation of the density
40: of states as function of electron doping is sufficient to capture the
41: experimentally observed behavior.
42: Further, we also explain the long standing open question of the
43: experimental observation of a nearly constant $\pi$ gap as function of
44: doping by a compensation of the effect of band filling and interband scattering.
45: Both effects together generate a nearly constant $\pi$ gap and shift the
46: merging point of both gaps to higher doping concentrations, resolving the
47: discrepancy between experiment and theoretical predictions based on
48: interband scattering only.
49: \end{abstract}
50:
51: \pacs{74.70.Ad,74.62.-c,74.62.Dh}
52: \maketitle
53:
54: The high critical temperature of 40 K in the simple
55: binary compound MgB$_2$ (Ref.\ \onlinecite{Nagamatsu}) was an unexpected
56: present of nature to the scientific community.
57: Now, after a few years of intense experimental and theoretical research
58: the main features of superconductivity in this material seem well
59: understood as due to a phonon mediated mechanism with different coupling
60: strengths to the electronic $\sigma$- and $\pi$-bands \cite{Kortus,Liu,Canfield,PhysicaC},
61: which leads to the appearance of two distinct superconducting gaps.
62:
63: Historically, two-band superconductivity is an old
64: topic which has been proposed already shortly after
65: the formulation of the BCS theory. Suhl, Matthias
66: and Walker \cite{Suhl} suggested a model for superconductivity in transition
67: metals considering overlapping $s$- and $d$-bands.
68: At the same time, Moskalenko formulated an extension of BCS theory for multiple bands \cite{Moskalenko}.
69: In the early 1960 there have been experimental claims for the
70: observation of two-band superconductivity in some transition metals like e.g.\
71: V, Nb and Ta \cite{Shen} and later, in the 1980, in oxygen
72: depleted SrTiO$_3$ \cite{Bednorz}.
73:
74: However until now, MgB$_2$ appears to be first system for which multi-band
75: superconductivity has independently been evidenced by several experimental
76: techniques: heat capacity, tunneling spectroscopy, Raman
77: spectroscopy, penetration depth measurements, ARPRES and the analysis of the
78: critical fields \cite{PhysicaC}.
79: The appearance of multiple gaps had been predicted theoretically \cite{Liu}
80: based on the electronic structure of MgB$_2$ \cite{Kortus,Pickett,Kong}.
81: The Fermi surface consists of four sheets:
82: Two cylindrical sheets corresponding to quasi two-dimensional
83: $\sigma$-bands and two tubular networks derived from the
84: more three dimensional $\pi$-bands \cite{Kortus}. The phonons,
85: in particular the optical bond-stretching phonon branch along
86: $\Gamma$-A \cite{Kong}, couple about three times stronger to the holes
87: at the top of the $\sigma$-band as compared to the $\pi$-band
88: \cite{Liu,Kong,Bohnen,Kunc,Golubov,Choi}.
89: Using linear response theory it is possible to calculate from first
90: principles the electron-phonon coupling (Eliashberg function)
91: which is needed as input for Eliashberg theory.
92: The solution of the Eliashberg equations allows for the calculation
93: of the superconducting gaps or thermodynamical properties like specific
94: heat in good agreement with the experiments \cite{Golubov,Choi}.
95:
96:
97: As for any anisotropic order parameter,
98: scattering by non-magnetic impurities should have a pair breaking effect,
99: just as magnetic impurities have in conventional superconductors.
100: Interband impurity scattering should lead to a decrease of
101: $T_{\mathrm{c}}$ and if strong enough to a single (averaged)
102: order parameter \cite{Schopohl,GolMaz,Golubov}.
103: The interband impurity scattering between the $\sigma$- and $\pi$-bands is
104: exceptionally small \cite{mazinimp},
105: due to the particular electronic structure of MgB$_{2},$
106: so that in the superconducting state, the two gaps in the
107: $\sigma$- and the $\pi$-bands are preserved even in 'dirty' samples
108: with a considerably reduced $T_{\mathrm{c}}$ and a broad range of normal state
109: resistivities.
110:
111:
112: The decrease of $T_c$ has been experimentally demonstrated
113: by a series of substitution experiments in which Mg
114: has been replaced by Al and B by C \cite%
115: {Agrestini,Xiang,Li,Margadonna,Papavass,Bianconi,Pena,Postorino,
116: Castro,Putti,Ribeiro,Schmidt,Papagelis}. Similarly, irradiation with
117: neutrons leads also to a decrease of $T_{\mathrm{c}}$ \cite{Wangirra}.
118: %
119: Figure \ref{fig:tc-dop} shows a compilation of experimental data for the
120: critical temperature $T_c$ versus Al and C doping concentration.
121: \begin{figure}
122: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth,clip=true]{fig1}
123: \caption{\label{fig:tc-dop} Critical temperature $T_c$ as function of Al
124: (filled symbols) and C (open symbols)versus doping concentration defined as
125: Mg$_{1-x}$Al$_x$(B$_{1-y}$C$_y$)$_2$.
126: Al-doping: ($\blacksquare$)\cite{Gonnelli1}, ($\blacktriangle$)\cite{Putti},
127: ($\bullet$)\cite{Postorino},
128: ($\blacklozenge$)\cite{Slusky}, ($\blacktriangleright$)\cite{Renker}
129: C-doping: ($\star$)\cite{Holanova}, ($\rhd$)\cite{Gonnelli1}, ($\diamondsuit$)\cite{Schmidt},
130: ($\square$)\cite{Bharathi}, ($\bigcirc$)\cite{Lee}, ($\times$)\cite{Takenobu,Papagelis},
131: ($\bigtriangleup$)\cite{Wilke}, ($+$)\cite{Ribeiro}, ($\lhd$)\cite{Kazakov}.
132: The lines present estimates based on Eliashberg theory with different
133: levels of approximation: dotted line with DOS from rigid band model,
134: dashed line with DOS from VCA and solid line with DOS and phonon
135: renormalization from VCA. The horizontal dotted line is the lower limit
136: for interband scattering only.}
137: \end{figure}
138:
139: For the two superconducting gaps it has been observed that
140: the $\sigma$ gap decreases with decreasing $T_{\rm c}$
141: and approaches the intermediate coupling value of
142: 2\,$\Delta$\,/$k_{\rm B}$\,$T_{\rm c}$ at $T_{\rm c} \sim$ 25 K.
143: In most experimental reports the $\pi$ gap is found to be independent
144: on the $T_c$ of the sample and to remain close to the value of
145: $\sim$ 2 meV seen for undoped samples \cite{note}.
146:
147:
148: There have been recent reports by
149: Gonnelli and coworkers \cite{Gonnelli1,Gonnelli2}
150: which demonstrate a different behavior of the superconducting gaps
151: depending on the type of dopant.
152: For C doped single crystals with composition Mg(B$_{1-y}$C$_y$)$_2$
153: ($y$\,$\leq$\,0.132) their point contact spectroscopy measurements
154: show a merging of the $\sigma$ and $\pi$ gaps for the first time
155: \cite{Gonnelli1,Gonnelli2}. On the other hand, Gonnelli {\it et al.} also
156: find that the behavior of Al doping in single crystals
157: with composition Mg$_{1-x}$Al$_x$B$_2$ ($x$\,$\leq$\,0.21)
158: is quite different. Even samples with very low $T_{\rm c}$ of about 20\,K
159: still exhibit distinct gaps, at critical temperatures
160: for which theoretical calculations based on
161: Eliashberg theory including interband scattering always
162: predict a single order parameter only \cite{tunneling}.
163: Therefore, at present, there is disagreement between experiment and theory.
164:
165:
166: In the following we will argue that one essential ingredient to understand
167: the behavior of $T_c$ is the effect of band filling of holes
168: in the $\sigma$-band due to electron doping. To understand the different
169: behavior of the two gaps in Al and C doped samples one additionally needs
170: to consider interband scattering. While band filling will decrease
171: the superconducting gaps, interband scattering will
172: decrease the value of the larger gap and \textit{increase} the smaller one.
173: These two effects may compensate for the smaller $\pi$ gap and
174: enable us to explain the observed nearly constant value of the small gap.
175:
176: First, we will focus on the doping dependence of the critical temperature.
177: Figure \ref{fig:tc-dop} summarizes experimental results from different groups.
178: $T_c$ as function of Al and C doping shows very similar behavior
179: if the C doping is scaled by a factor of two as compared to the Al doping.
180: This follows naturally from the definition of the C doping concentration
181: per boron atom, as expressed in Mg$_{1-x}$Al$_x$(B$_{1-y}$C$_y$)$_2$,
182: with $x$ ($y$) for the amount of Al (C) doping.
183: The importance of the band filling is already indicated by the
184: horizontal dotted line $\sim$25 K. This value would be the upper limit
185: of $T_c$ due to the pair breaking effect of interband scattering only.
186: If interband
187: scattering would be the only relevant mechanism no sample should show
188: a $T_c$ lower than indicated by the horizontal line. This is clearly not
189: the case as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:tc-dop}.
190:
191: MgB$_2$ has a total of 0.26 holes: 0.15 holes in both $\sigma$ bands
192: and the remaining 0.11 holes in the hole $\pi$-band. Al and C
193: substitution will both dope electrons and therefore reduce the number of holes.
194: In a rigid band model the electron doping would be
195: defined with respect to the total number of holes in MgB$_2$ and
196: simply corresponds to a shift of the Fermi level.
197: For small doping the $\sigma$-band DOS is practically constant as expected
198: from the quasi two-dimensional character of the $\sigma$-bands.
199: After adding 0.15 electrons the $\sigma$ bands become nearly filled and the
200: DOS starts to decrease rapidly.
201: The coupling of the $\sigma$-holes to the optical bond-stretching $E_{2g}$ phonons
202: drives the superconductivity in this material and determines $T_c$.
203: Therefore, we just scale the band splitted electron-phonon
204: Eliashberg functions $\alpha_{ij}^2F$ \cite{Golubov}
205: and the $\mu^{*}$-matrix \cite{comment} with the
206: the change of the $\sigma$- or $\pi$-band DOS as function of doping.
207: We use the Eliashberg functions for pure MgB$_2$ calculated from
208: first-principles linear response theory \cite{Kong},
209: which have been used successfully to describe the specific heat \cite{Golubov},
210: tunneling \cite{tunneling} and penetration depth \cite{penetration}.
211:
212: The dotted line shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:tc-dop} corresponds to the rigid band scaling.
213: The decrease in $T_c$ for small doping concentrations is well reproduced
214: and originates from the small $k_z$ dispersion of the $\sigma$ bands along the $\Gamma$-A
215: line. The $\sigma$-band Fermi surfaces are not perfect cylinders but are slightly
216: warped (see Fig.\ 3, Ref.~\cite{Kortus}). For larger doping concentration,
217: $T_c$ obtained from this simple model decreases faster than observed in
218: experiment.
219: This is not surprising because we used the unperturbed band structure of pure
220: MgB$_2$ not taking into account neither alterations of the bands due to doping
221: nor the change of the phonon frequencies.
222:
223:
224: To correct for this failure we further calculate the change of the DOS using
225: the virtual crystal approximation (VCA). In order to simulate the
226: doping of Al, we replace the Mg atom with a virtual atom with charge
227: $Z= x Z_{Al} + (1-x) Z_{Mg}$ and recalculate the electronic band structure
228: self-consistently using the full potential LMTO method \cite{Savrasov}.
229: In agreement with \cite{Massidda}, we find a slower decrease of the
230: $\sigma$-band DOS. Using the DOS from the VCA to scale
231: $\alpha_{ij}^2F$ we solve the Eliashberg equations and obtain
232: a slower decrease of $T_c$ (dashed line in Fig.~\ref{fig:tc-dop})
233: in better agreement with the experimental observations.
234: Recent supercell calculations indicate an even slower $\sigma$-band
235: filling\cite{Pick-Cdop} compared to the VCA.
236:
237: An additional effect of doping will be the hardening of the $E_{2g}$ phonon
238: branch which will decrease the electron-phonon coupling $\lambda \sim 1/\omega^2$
239: \cite{Pickett}.
240: In order to take this effect into account we also calculated the
241: $E_{2g}$-$\Gamma$-point frequency in the VCA using linear response methods \cite{Savrasov}.
242: The final result from scaling $\alpha_{ij}^2F$ by the DOS and the
243: $E_{2g}$ phonon frequency is shown by the solid line in Fig.~\ref{fig:tc-dop}.
244: The agreement with experiment improved significantly.
245:
246: Band filling with the corresponding changes in the DOS seems to be sufficient
247: to understand the behavior of $T_c$ as function of doping. However, this
248: is not sufficient to understand the evolution of the superconducting gaps,
249: because there should be no difference in the behavior
250: between Al and C doping because both are electron dopants.
251: We now argue that the additional ingredient to understand this behavior
252: is interband scattering.
253:
254: In the upper panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:gaps-tc} we plot the experimental
255: $\sigma$- and $\pi$-gaps for Al doped crystals as
256: obtained by Gonnelli \textit{et al.} \cite{Gonnelli1}
257: and by Putti \textit{et al.} \cite{Putti} as function
258: of the critical temperature of the samples.
259: Together with the experimental data we display the results from
260: the solution of the two-band Eliashberg equations
261: without interband scattering but the Eliashberg functions
262: scaled by the change of DOS and phonon frequency as described above.
263: \begin{figure}
264: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth,clip=true]{fig2.eps}
265: \caption{\label{fig:gaps-tc}%
266: Upper panel Al doping:
267: Superconducting $\sigma$-gap (upper curve and filled symbols) and
268: $\pi$-gap (lower curve and open symbols) as function of
269: critical temperature $T_c$ obtained from
270: the solution of the Eliashberg equations with scaled $\alpha_{ij}^2F$
271: without interband scattering (solid lines) compared to experimental results
272: ($\square$) \protect\cite{Gonnelli1} and
273: ($\diamond$) \protect\cite{Putti}.
274: Lower panel C doping:
275: The solid lines show the solution of the Eliashberg equations
276: with interband scattering rate $2000\cdot y$ cm$^{-1}$
277: compared to the experimental results ($\square$) \protect\cite{Gonnelli1,Gonnelli2}.
278: The limiting cases of interband scattering only (dotted lines)
279: or scaling of $\alpha_{ij}^2F$ (dash-dotted lines) are also shown.
280: The dashed straight line indicates the BCS gap relation
281: for $\Delta$/$T_{\rm c}$.}
282: \end{figure}
283:
284:
285: The agreement with experiment seems to be reasonable.
286: The results by Putti \textit{et al.} \cite{Putti} show
287: a merging of the gaps for Al-doping, however both gaps
288: have a ratio of $\Delta / k_B T_c$ somewhat lower than the canonical
289: BCS ratio as indicated by a dashed line in Fig.~\ref{fig:gaps-tc},
290: which casts doubt on this data point.
291: However, it is still premature to give a definite answer
292: because more experimental data for single crystals and
293: high doping concentrations will be required for a complete picture.
294: Based on the available data which show no clear merging of the two gaps,
295: we conclude that the interband scattering in Al doped samples is
296: small, even at high doping concentrations.
297:
298: The experimental results for C doped single crystals indicate
299: for the first time a merging of the two superconducting gaps,
300: which is a clear manifestation of interband scattering.
301: In the lower panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:gaps-tc} we show the experimental
302: results \cite{Gonnelli1} together with our Eliashberg theory calculations.
303: In difference to the previous case we include the interband scattering in our
304: calculations, which will also cause an additional reduction of $T_c$.
305: Using a simple linear relation of the interband scattering rate to the doping
306: concentration ($\gamma_{\mbox{inter}}=2000\cdot y$ cm$^{-1}$)
307: we find e.g.\ for 10-15\% C concentration an additional lowering
308: of $T_c$ of about 6 K.
309:
310:
311: The two limiting cases (interband scattering only, scaling of $\alpha_{ij}^2F$)
312: are also shown in the lower panel in Fig.~\ref{fig:gaps-tc}.
313: The decrease of the DOS causes a decrease of both gaps, as
314: can be seen from the dash-dotted lines. In contrast the interband scattering will
315: decrease the $\sigma$ gap and \textit{increase} the $\pi$ gap. Both effects
316: can compensate each other resulting in the solid line,
317: which includes the effects of the scaled $\alpha_{ij}^2F$ and interband
318: scattering.
319: This may explain the experimental observation of a nearly constant
320: $\pi$-gap as function of doping, which has been a long standing open question.
321:
322: The difference in the magnitude of the interband scattering for Al and C doping
323: can be easily rationalized. The $\sigma$ bond-orbitals are located in the boron plane
324: and there is not much weight of the $\sigma$-bands in the Mg plane.
325: The $\pi$-orbitals are also centered at the boron plane, but extend
326: further out towards the Mg plane.
327: For that reason impurities in the boron plane are more effective
328: interband scatterers \cite{mazinimp,MazErw}. Therefore interband scattering due to
329: doped C atoms replacing B atoms is much more likely than for Al doping.
330:
331: In summary, we have shown that the variation in $T_c$ of Al and C doped
332: samples of MgB$_2$ can be understood mainly
333: as due to a simple effect of band filling. Al and C are both
334: electron dopants which reduce the number of holes at the top of the
335: $\sigma$ bands together with a reduction of the electronic DOS.
336: Further, we suggest that the nearly constant $\pi$ gap as function of
337: doping can be understood due to a compensation of band filling and interband scattering.
338: The compensation of these effects shifts the merging point of both gaps to
339: higher doping concentrations and lower $T_c$,
340: resolving the discrepancy between experiment and theoretical predictions based on
341: interband scattering only.
342:
343: \begin{acknowledgments}
344: We thank J.\ K\"ohler, and A. Simon for sharing with us their
345: insight into the chemistry of the substitution experiments
346: and O.\ K.\ Andersen and O.\ Jepsen for many enlightening discussions
347: and H.\ U.\ Habermeier for useful comments.
348: We are indebted to M. Putti and R.S. Gonnelli for sending us their experimental data.
349:
350: \end{acknowledgments}
351:
352: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
353:
354: \bibitem{Nagamatsu}J. Nagamatsu, N. Nakagawa, T. Muranaka, Y. Zenitani, and J. Akimitsu, Nature (London) \textbf{63}, 401 (2001).
355:
356: \bibitem{PhysicaC} See e.g. the special issue on MgB$_2$ in Physica C \textbf{385} (2003).
357:
358: \bibitem{Canfield} P.C. Canfield and G. W. Crabtree, Physics Today March, p. 34 (2003).
359:
360: \bibitem{Liu}
361: A.Y. Liu, I.I. Mazin, and J. Kortus, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{87}, 087005 (2001).
362:
363: \bibitem{Kortus}
364: J. Kortus, I. I. Mazin, K. D. Belashchenko, V. P. Antropov, and L. L. Boyer, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{86}, 4656 (2001).
365:
366:
367: \bibitem{Suhl}H. Suhl, B.T. Matthias, and L.R. Walker, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{3}, 552 (1959).
368:
369:
370: \bibitem{Moskalenko}A. Moskalenko, M.E.Palistrant, and V.M.Vakalyuk, Sov. Phys. Uspekhi \textbf{161}, 155 (1991)
371:
372:
373: \bibitem{Shen}L. Y. L. Shen, N. M. Senozan, and N. E. Phillips, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{14}, 1025 (1965);
374: R. Radebaugh and P. H. Keesom, Phys. Rev. \textbf{149}, 209 (1966).
375:
376:
377:
378:
379: \bibitem{Bednorz} G. Binnig, A. Baratoff, H.E. Hoenig, and J.G. Bednorz, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{45}, 1352 (1980).
380:
381:
382:
383: \bibitem{Pickett}J.M. An, W.E. Pickett, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{86}, 4366 (2001).
384:
385:
386: \bibitem{Kong}Y. Kong, O. V. Dolgov, O. Jepsen, and O. K. Andersen, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{64}, 020501(R) (2001).
387:
388:
389:
390: \bibitem{Bohnen}K. P. Bohnen, R. Heid, and B. Renker, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{86}, 5771 (2001).
391:
392:
393: \bibitem{Kunc}K. Kunc, I. Loa, K. Syassen, R. K. Kremer, and K. Ahn J. Phys: Cond. Matter \textbf{13}, 9945 (2001).
394:
395:
396: \bibitem{Golubov}
397: A. A. Golubov, J. Kortus, O. V. Dolgov, O. Jepsen, Y. Kong, O. K. Andersen, B. J. Gibson, K. Ahn, and R. K. Kremer, J. Phys: Condens. Matter \textbf{14}, 1353 (2002).
398:
399:
400: \bibitem{Choi}
401: H.J.~Choi, D. Roundy, H. Sun, M.L. Cohen, and S.G. Louie, \prb \textbf{66}, 020513 (2002);
402: H.J.~Choi, D. Roundy, H. Sun, M.L. Cohen, and S.G. Louie, Nature (London) \textbf{418}, 758 (2002).
403:
404: \bibitem{Schopohl}N. Schopohl and K. Scharnberg, Solid State Commun. \textbf{22}, 371 (1977);
405: C.C. Sung and V. K.Wong, J. Phys. Chem. Solids \textbf{28}, 1933 (1967).
406:
407:
408: \bibitem{GolMaz}
409: A. A. Golubov and I. I. Mazin, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{55}, 15146 (1997).
410:
411: \bibitem{mazinimp}I.I.~Mazin, O.K.~Andersen, O.~Jepsen, O.V.~Dolgov, J.~Kortus, A.A.~Golubov, A.B. Kuz'menko, and D. van der Marel, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{89}, 107002 (2002).
412:
413: \bibitem{Agrestini}
414: S. Agrestini, D. Di Castro, M. Sansoni, N. L. Saini, A. Saccone,
415: S. De Negri, M. Giovannini, M. Colapietro, and A. Bianconi, J.
416: Phys.: Condens. Matter \textbf{13}, 11689 (2001).
417:
418: \bibitem{Xiang}
419: J. Y. Xiang, D. N. Zheng, J. Q. Li, L. Li, L. Lang, H. Chen, C. Dong, G. C. Che, Z. A. Ren, H. H. Qi, Y. Tian, Y. M. Ni, and Z. X. Zhao, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{65}, 214536 (2002).
420:
421: \bibitem{Li}
422: J. Q. Li, L. Li, F. M. Liu, C. Dong, J. Y. Ziang, and Z. X. Zhao, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{65}, 132505 (2002).
423:
424: \bibitem{Margadonna}
425: S. Margadonna, K. Prassides, I. Arvanitidis, M. Pissas, G. Papavassiliou, and A. N. Fitch,
426: Phys. Rev, B \textbf{66}, 014518 (2002).
427:
428: \bibitem{Papavass}
429: G. Papavassiliou, M. Pissas, M. Karayanni, M. Fardis, S. Koutandos and K. Prassides,
430: Phys. Rev, B \textbf{66}, 140514 (2002).
431:
432: \bibitem{Bianconi}
433: A. Bianconi, S. Agrestini, D. Di Castro, G. Campi, Z. Zangari, N. L. Saini, A. Saccone, S. De Negri, M. Giovannini, G. Profeta, A. Continenza, G. Satta, S. Massidda, A. Cassetta, A. Pifferi, and M. Colapietro, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{65}, 174515 (2002).
434:
435:
436: \bibitem{Pena} O. de la Pena, A. Aguayo, and R. de Coss, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{66}, 012511 (2002).
437:
438: \bibitem{Postorino}
439: P. Postorino, A. Congeduti, P. Dore, A. Nucara, A. Bianconi, D. Di Castro, S. De Negri, and A. Saccone, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{65}, 020507 (2001).
440:
441: \bibitem{Castro}
442: D. Di Castro, S. Agrestini, G. Campi, A. Cassetta, M. Colapietro, A. Congeduti, A. Continenza, S. De Negri, M. Giovannini, S. Massidda, M. Tardone, A. Pifferi, P. Postorino, G. Profeta, and A.
443: Saccone, Europhys. Lett. \textbf{58}, 278 (2002).
444:
445:
446: \bibitem{Putti}
447: M. Putti, M. Affronte, P. Manfrinetti, and A. Palenzona, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{68}, 094514 (2003).
448:
449: \bibitem{Ribeiro}
450: R.A. Ribeiro, S.L. Bud'ko, C. Petrovic, and P.C. Canfield, Physica C \textbf{384}, 227 (2003); R.A. Ribeiro, S.L. Budko, C. Petrovic, and P.C. Canfield, Physica C \textbf{385}, 16 (2003).
451:
452: \bibitem{Schmidt}
453: H. Schmidt, K. E. Gray, D. G. Hinks, J. F. Zasadzinski, M. Avdeev, J. D. Jorgensen, and J. C. Burlea, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{68}, 060508(R) (2003).
454:
455: \bibitem{Papagelis}
456: K. Papagelis, J. Arvanitidis, K. Prassides, A. Schenck, T. Takenbou, and Y. Iwasa, Europhys. Lett. \textbf{61}, 254 (2003).
457:
458: \bibitem{Wangirra}
459: Y. Wang, F. Bouquet, I. Sheikin, P. Toulemonde, B. Revaz, M. Eisterer, H. W. Weber, J. Hinderer, and A. Junod, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter \textbf{15}, 883 (2003).
460:
461: \bibitem{Gonnelli1}
462: R.S. Gonnelli, D. Daghero, G.A. Ummarino, A. Calzolari, V. Dellarocca, V.A. Stepanov, S.M. Kazakov, J. Jun, J. Karpinski, \eprint{cond-mat/0407267}.
463:
464: \bibitem{Slusky}
465: J. S. Slusky, N. Rogado, K. A. Regan, M. A. Hayward, P. Khalifah, T. He, K. Inumaru, S. M. Loureiro, M. K. Haas, H. W. Zandbergen, and R. J. Cava, Nature \textbf{410}, 343 (2001).
466:
467: \bibitem{Renker}
468: B. Renker, K.B. Bohnen, R. Heid, and D. Ernst, H. Schober and M. Koza, P. Adelmann, P. Schweiss, and T. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{88}, 067001 (2002).
469:
470: \bibitem{Holanova}
471: Z. Ho$\breve{\rm l}$anov$\acute{\rm a}$, P. Szab$\acute{\rm o}$,
472: P. Samuely, R. H. T. Wilke, S. L. Bud'ko, and P. C. Canfield,
473: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{70}, 064520 (2004).
474:
475: \bibitem{Bharathi}
476: A. Bharathi, S. Jemima Balaselvi, S. Kalavathi, G. L. N. Reddy, V. Sankara Sastry, Y. Hariharan, T. S. Radhakrishnan, Physica C \textbf{370}, 211 (2002).
477:
478:
479: \bibitem{Lee}
480: S. Lee, T. Masui, A. Yamamoto, H. Uchiyama, and S. Tajima, Physica C \textbf{397}, 7 (2003).
481:
482: \bibitem{Takenobu}
483: T. Takenobu, T. Ito, Dam Hieu Chi, K. Prassides, and Y. Iwasa, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{64}, 134513 (2001).
484:
485: \bibitem{Wilke}
486: R. H. T. Wilke, S. L. Bud'ko, P. C. Canfield, and D. K. Finnemore, Raymond J. Suplinskas, and S.T. Hannahs, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{92}, 217003 (2004).
487:
488: \bibitem{Kazakov}
489: S. M. Kazakov, R. Puzniak, K. Rogacki, A. V. Mironov, N. D. Zhigadlo, J. Jun, Ch. Soltmann, B. Batlogg, and J. Karpinski, \eprint{cond-mat/0405060}.
490:
491: \bibitem{note} We note that there are some experimental reports \cite{Papagelis} which deviate from this general trend as e.g. the gap values obtained from the $\mu^+$SR study of
492: carbon\,-\,doped MgB$_2$.
493: \bibitem{Gonnelli2}
494: R.S. Gonnelli, D. Daghero, A. Calzolari, G.A. Ummarino, V. Dellarocca, V.A. Stepanov, S.M. Kazakov, J. Jun, J. Karpinski, \eprint{cond-mat/0407265}.
495:
496: \bibitem{tunneling}
497: A.\ Brinkman, A.\ A.\ Golubov, H.\ Rogalla, O.\ V.\ Dolgov,
498: J.\ Kortus, Y.\ Kong, O.\ Jepsen, O.\ K.\ Andersen, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{65}, 180517(R) (2002).
499:
500:
501: \bibitem{comment}
502: I.I.~Mazin, O.K.~Andersen, O.~Jepsen, A.A.~Golubov, O.V.~Dolgov, and J.~Kortus, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{69}, 056501 (2004).
503:
504:
505: \bibitem{penetration}A.\ A.\ Golubov, A.\ Brinkman, O.\ V.\ Dolgov, J.\ Kortus, and O.\ Jepsen, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{66}, 054524 (2002).
506:
507: \bibitem{Savrasov} S.\ Y.\ Savrasov, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 54}, 16470 (1996);
508: S.\ Y.\ Savrasov and D.\ Y.\ Savrasov, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 54} 16487 (1996).
509:
510: \bibitem{Massidda}G. Profeta, A. Continenza, and S. Massidda, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{68}, 144508 (2003).
511:
512: \bibitem{Pick-Cdop}D.\ Kasinathan, K.-W.\ Lee, W.\ E.\ Pickett,
513: \eprint{cond-mat/0409563} (unpublished).
514: %%% On Heavy Carbon Doping of MgB$_2$
515:
516: \bibitem{MazErw} S. C. Erwin and I. I. Mazin, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{68}, 132505 (2003).
517:
518:
519: \end{thebibliography}
520:
521: \end{document}
522: