1: %%\documentclass{jpsj2}
2: \documentclass[letter,twocolumn]{jpsj2} %% for letters
3: %%\documentclass[shortnote]{jpsj2} %% for short notes
4: %%\documentclass[comment]{jpsj2} %% for comments
5: %%\documentclass[addenda]{jpsj2} %% for addenda
6: %%\documentclass[errata]{jpsj2} %% for errata
7: %%\documentclass[twocolumn]{jpsj2} %% two-column layout
8: %%\documentclass[seceq]{jpsj2} %% It makes equation numbers included within the section number (for regular paper only).
9: %%% The following is the list of packages loaded automatically into this class file.
10: %% amsmath.sty
11: %% amssymb.sty
12: %% graphicx.sty
13: %% overcite.sty
14: %
15: \renewcommand{\Vec}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath$#1$}}
16: \title{The effect of interchain interaction on the
17: pairing symmetry competition in organic superconductors (TMTSF)$_2$X}
18:
19: \author{Kazuhiko \textsc{Kuroki}$^{1}$ and Yukio \textsc{Tanaka}$^{2}$}
20:
21: \inst{$^{1}$Department of Applied Physics and
22: Chemistry, The University of Electro-Communications,
23: Chofu, Tokyo 182-8585, Japan\\
24: $^{2}$ Department of Applied Physics,
25: Nagoya University, Nagoya, 464-8603, Japan\\
26: }
27:
28: \abst{We investigate the effect of interchain repulsive interaction
29: on the pairing symmetry competition in quasi-one-dimensional
30: organic superconductors (TMTSF)$_2$X by applying random
31: phase approximation and quantum Monte Carlo calculation to an
32: extended Hubbard model.
33: We find that interchain repulsive interaction enhances the
34: $2k_F$ charge fluctuations, thereby making the possibility
35: of spin-triplet $f$-wave pairing dominating over spin-singlet $d$-wave
36: pairing realistic.}
37:
38: \kword{(TMTSF)$_2$X, superconductivity, spin-triplet pairing,
39: interchain interaction, charge and spin fluctuations}
40:
41: \begin{document}
42: \maketitle
43:
44: %\section{Introduction} %% No sections necessary for express letters, letters and short notes
45:
46: Possible occurrence of unconventional superconductivity
47: in organic conductors has been of great interest recently.
48: Microscopically understanding
49: the mechanism of pairing in those materials is
50: an intriguing theoretical challenge.
51: Among the various candidates of unconventional superconductors,
52: the pairing mechanism of
53: quasi-one-dimensional (q1D) organic superconductors
54: $\mbox{(TMTSF)}_{2}X$
55: ($X=\mbox{PF}_{6}$, $\mbox{ClO}_{4}$, etc.),
56: so called the Bechgaard salts,\cite{Jerome,Bechgaard}
57: has been quite puzzling.
58: Namely, since superconductivity lies right next to the $2k_{\rm F}$
59: spin density wave (SDW) phase
60: in the pressure-temperature phase diagram,
61: a spin-singlet $d$-wave-like pairing (shown schematically in
62: Fig.\ref{fig1}(a)) is expected to take place
63: as suggested by several authors.\cite{Shima01,KA99,KK99}.
64: However,
65: an unchanged Knight shift across $T_c$ \cite{Lee02}
66: and a large $H_{c2}$ exceeding the Pauli limit\cite{Lee00}
67: suggest a realization of spin-triplet pairing.
68: As for the orbital part of the order parameter,
69: there have been NMR experiments
70: suggesting the existence of nodes and thus unconventional
71: pairing,\cite{Takigawa}
72: although a thermal conductivity measurement suggests absence of
73: nodes for (TMTSF)$_2$ClO$_4$.\cite{BB97}
74: %
75:
76: %
77: %
78: As a possible solution for this puzzle of spin-triplet pairing,
79: one of the present authors
80: has phenomelogically proposed
81: that triplet $f$-wave-like
82: pairing (whose gap is shown schematically in Fig.\ref{fig1}(b))
83: may take place
84: due to a combination of quasi-1D (disconnected) Fermi surface
85: and the coexistence of $2k_{\rm F}$ spin
86: and $2k_{\rm F}$ charge fluctuations.\cite{KAA01}
87: Namely, due to the disconnectivity of the Fermi surface,
88: the number of gap nodes that intersect the Fermi surface is the
89: same between $d$ and $f$. Moreover, if the $2k_F$ spin
90: and charge fluctuations have about the same magnitude,
91: spin-singlet and spin-triplet pairing interactions have
92: close absolute values (with opposite signs) as will be explained later.
93: In such a case, spin-triplet $f$-wave pairing should be
94: closely competitive against singlet $d$-wave pairing.
95: As for other possibilities of triplet pairing,
96: the $p$-wave state in which
97: the nodes of the gap (Fig.\ref{fig1}(c)) do not intersect
98: the Fermi surface has been considered
99: from the early days,\cite{Abrikosov,HF87,Lebed}
100: but from a microscopic
101: point of view, spin-triplet pairing interaction has a negative
102: sign for the momentum transfer of $2k_F$ unless spin fluctuations are
103: highly anisotropic, so that a gap that changes sign between the left and
104: right portions of the Fermi surface is unlikely to take place.
105: \cite{Kohmoto}
106: A similar phenomelogical proposal of $f$-wave pairing
107: in (TMTSF)$_2$X has also been given by Fuseya {\it et al.}\cite{Fuseya1}
108: Experimentally, the $f$-wave scenario due to the coexistence of
109: $2k_F$ spin and charge fluctuations is indirectly supported by the
110: observation that $2k_F$ charge density wave (CDW) actually coexists
111: with $2k_F$ SDW in the insulating phase lying next to the
112: superconducting phase.\cite{Pouget,Kagoshima}
113:
114: \begin{figure}[tb]
115: \begin{center}
116: \includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{fig1.eps}
117: \end{center}
118: \caption{Candidates for the gap function of (TMTSF)$_2$X
119: are schematically shown along with the Fermi surface (solid curves).
120: The dashed lines represent the nodes of the gap,
121: whose $k_b$ dependence is omitted
122: for simplicity. (For the actual $k_b$ dependence, see
123: Fig.\protect\ref{fig3}.) We call
124: the gap in fig.(a)((b)) $d$-wave ($f$-wave) in the sense that the gap
125: changes sign as $+-+-$ ($+-+-+-$) along the Fermi surface.}
126: \label{fig1}
127: \end{figure}
128:
129:
130: As for {\it microscopic} theories for the pairing competition,
131: we have previously shown using a ground state quantum Monte Carlo method that
132: $f$-wave strongly dominates over $p$-wave in the Hubbard model
133: that considers only the on-site repulsive interaction.\cite{KTKA}
134: More recently, we have shown, by applying random phase
135: approximation (RPA) to an extended Hubbard model,
136: that $f$-wave pairing can indeed dominate over $d$-wave pairing
137: when we have large enough
138: second nearest neighbor repulsion $V'$,\cite{TanakaKuroki04} which has been
139: known for some years to have the effect of stabilizing
140: $2k_F$ CDW configuration.\cite{Kobayashi,Suzumura}
141: To be more precise, the condition for $f$-wave dominating over
142: $d$-wave is to have $V'\simeq U/2$ (where $U$ is the on-site repulsion)
143: or larger $V'$ because
144: $2k_F$ spin and $2k_F$ charge fluctuations have the same magnitude for
145: $V'=U/2$ within RPA.
146: A similar condition for $f$-wave being competitive against $d$-wave
147: has also been obtained in a recent renormalization group study.\cite{Fuseya04}
148: Although these results do suggest that $f$-wave pairing can indeed
149: be realized in microscopic models, the condition
150: that the {\it second} nearest neighbor repulsion being nearly equal to or
151: larger than half the
152: {\it on-site} repulsion may not be realized so easily in actual materials.
153: In the present study,
154: we consider a model where the {\it interchain}
155: repulsion is taken into account, which turns out to give a more
156: realizable condition for $f$-wave dominating over $d$-wave
157: due to the enhancement of $2k_F$ charge fluctuations.
158: After completing the major part of this study, we came to notice that
159: a similar conclusion has been reached quite recently
160: using a renormalization group approach.\cite{Nickel}
161:
162:
163: The model considered in the present study
164: is shown in Fig.\ref{fig2}. In standard notations,
165: the Hamiltonian is given as
166: \[
167: H=-\sum_{<i,j>,\sigma}
168: t_{ij}c^{\dagger}_{i\sigma}c_{j\sigma}
169: +U\sum_{i}n_{i\uparrow}n_{i\downarrow}
170: + \sum_{<i,j>}V_{ij} n_{i}n_{j},
171: \]
172: where $c^{\dagger}_{i\sigma}$ creates a hole (note
173: that (TMTSF)$_2$X is actually a 3/4 filling system in the electron picture)
174: with spin $\sigma = \uparrow, \downarrow$ at site $i$.
175: %Here, $<\Vec{ i, j}>$ stands for the summation over nearest neighbor
176: %pairs of sites.
177: As for the kinetic energy terms, we consider nearest neighbor hoppings
178: $t_{ij}=t$ in the (most conductive) $a$-direction
179: and $t_{ij}=t_\perp$ in the $b$-direction.
180: $t$ is taken as the unit of energy,
181: and we adopt $t_\perp=0.2t$ throughout the study.
182: $U$ and $V_{ij}$ are the on-site and the off-site repulsive interactions,
183: respectively, where
184: we take into account the nearest neighbor {\it interchain}
185: repulsion $V_\perp$ in addition to the intrachain
186: on-site ($U$), nearest ($V$), next nearest ($V'$), and third
187: nearest ($V''$) neighbor repulsions
188: considered in our previous study.\cite{TanakaKuroki04}
189: \begin{figure}[tb]
190: \begin{center}
191: \includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{fig2.eps}
192: \end{center}
193: \caption{The model of the present study is shown.}
194: \label{fig2}
195: \end{figure}
196:
197:
198: %
199: %We use the unit where lattice constant is unity.
200: %
201: Within RPA\cite{Scalapino,TYO,KTOS},
202: the effective pairing interactions for the singlet and
203: triplet channels due to spin and charge fluctuations are given as
204: \begin{align}
205: \label{1}
206: V^{s}(\Vec{q})=
207: U + V({\Vec q}) + \frac{3}{2}U^{2}\chi_{s}(\Vec{q})
208: \nonumber\\
209: -\frac{1}{2}(U + 2V({\Vec q}) )^{2}\chi_{c}(\Vec{q})
210: \end{align}
211: \begin{align}
212: \label{2}
213: V^{t}(\Vec{q})=
214: V({\Vec q}) - \frac{1}{2}U^{2}\chi_{s}(\Vec{q})
215: \nonumber\\
216: -\frac{1}{2}(U + 2V({\Vec q}) )^{2}\chi_{c}(\Vec{q}),
217: \end{align}
218: where
219: \begin{equation}
220: V(\Vec{q})=2V\cos q_{x} + 2V'\cos(2q_{x}) + 2V''\cos(3q_{x})
221: +2V_\perp\cos(q_y)
222: \label{3}
223: \end{equation}
224: %
225: Here, $\chi_{s}$ and $\chi_{c}$ are the spin and charge
226: susceptibilities, respectively, which are given as
227: \begin{align}
228: \label{4}
229: \chi_{s}(\Vec{q})=\frac{\chi_{0}(\Vec{q})}
230: {1 - U\chi_{0}(\Vec{q})}
231: \nonumber\\
232: \chi_{c}(\Vec{q})=\frac{\chi_{0}(\Vec{q})}
233: {1 + (U + 2V(\Vec{q}) )\chi_{0}(\Vec{q})}.
234: \end{align}
235: %
236: Here $\chi_{0}$ is the bare susceptibility given by
237: \[
238: \chi_{0}(\Vec{q})
239: =\frac{1}{N}\sum_{\Vec{p}}
240: \frac{ f(\epsilon_{\Vec{p +q}})-f(\epsilon_{\Vec{p}}) }
241: {\epsilon_{\Vec{p}} -\epsilon_{\Vec{p+q}}}
242: \]
243: with
244: $\epsilon_{\Vec{k}}=-2t\cos k_a -2t_\perp\cos k_b - \mu$ and
245: $f(\epsilon_{\Vec{p}})=1/(\exp(\epsilon_{\Vec{p}}/T) + 1)$.
246: %
247: $\chi_0$ peaks at the nesting vector
248: $\Vec{Q}_{2k_F}$ ($=(\pi/2,\pi)$ here) of the Fermi surface.
249: %The terms proportional to $\chi_s$ and $\chi_{c}$ in eqs. (\ref{1}) and
250: %(\ref{2}) represent effective pairing interactions due to the
251: %spin and charge fluctuations, respectively.
252: %
253: %
254: %In the following, we use $k_{B}=1$.
255: %
256: %We fix $t_{b}=0.2t$ and $t_{a}=t$ with the parameter of transfer energy
257: %$t$.
258:
259: To obtain $T_c$, we solve the linearized gap equation within the
260: weak-coupling theory,
261: \begin{equation}
262: \lambda^{s,t} \Delta^{s,t}(\Vec{k})
263: =-\sum_{\Vec{k'}} V^{s,t}(\Vec{k-k'})
264: \frac{ \rm{tanh}(\beta \epsilon_{{\Vec{k'} }}/2) }{2 \epsilon_{\Vec{k'}} }
265: \Delta^{s,t}(\Vec{k'}).
266: \end{equation}
267: The eigenfunction $\Delta^{s,t}$ of this eigenvalue equation is the
268: gap function.
269: The transition temperature $T_c$ is determined as the temperature
270: where the eigenvalue $\lambda$ reaches unity. Note that
271: the main contribution to the summation in the right hand side comes from
272: $\Vec{k-k'}\simeq\Vec{Q}_{2k_F}$ because $V^{s,t}(\Vec{q})$ peaks around
273: $\Vec{q}=\Vec{Q}_{2k_F}$.
274: Although RPA is quantitatively insufficient for discussing the
275: absolute values of $T_c$,
276: we expect this approach to be valid for studying
277: the {\it competition} between different pairing symmetries.
278: %
279:
280: Now, from eqs.(\ref{3}) and (\ref{4}),
281: it can be seen that $\chi_c(\Vec{Q}_{2k_F})=
282: \chi_s(\Vec{Q}_{2k_F})$ holds when $V'+V_{\perp}=U/2$, which
283: in the absence $V_\perp$ of course
284: reduces to the condition $V'=U/2$ obtained in our previous study.
285: This in turn results in $V^s(\Vec{Q}_{2k_F})=-V^t(\Vec{Q}_{2k_F})$
286: for the pairing interactions apart from the first order terms
287: as can be seen from eqs.(\ref{1}) and (\ref{2}).
288: Thus, considering the fact that the number of nodes intersecting the
289: Fermi surface is the same between $d$ and $f$,
290: the condition for $f$-wave being competitive against $d$-wave should be
291: $V'+V_{\perp}\simeq U/2$.
292: The possibility of this condition being satisfied in actual materials
293: is realistic since
294: $V_{\perp}$ can be comparable with the intrachain off-site repulsions
295: due to the fact that
296: the lattice constant in the $a-$ and $b-$ directions are of the
297: same order. An intuitive picture here is that $V_\perp$ tends to
298: ``lock'' more firmly the $2k_F$ charge configuration induced by $V'$,
299: so that $2k_F$ charge fluctuations
300: are enhanced, thereby stabilizing the spin-triplet $f$-wave state.
301:
302:
303: Bearing the above analysis in mind,
304: we now move on to the RPA calculation results for the pairing symmetry
305: competition between $f$- and $d$-waves.
306: We first focus on the case where the parameter values satisfy the
307: condition for $\chi_c(\Vec{Q}_{2k_F})=\chi_s(\Vec{Q}_{2k_F})$, that is
308: when $V'+V_\perp=U/2$ holds. Here we take $U=1.7$, $V=0.8$, $V'=0.45$,
309: $V''=0.2$, and $V_\perp=0.4$ in units of $t$.
310: Note that $V'$ is much smaller than $U/2$.
311: As expected,
312: the singlet pairing having the largest eigenvalue $\lambda$ has a
313: $d$-wave gap, while the triplet pairing with the largest $\lambda$ has
314: a $f$-wave gap, as seen in Fig.\ref{fig3}.
315: In Fig.\ref{fig4}, we plot $\lambda$ as functions of temperature
316: for $d$-wave and $f$-wave pairings.
317: The two pairings closely compete with each other,
318: but $f$-wave pairing dominates over $d$-wave pairing and gives a
319: higher $T_c$. $f$-wave not being degerate with $d$-wave
320: even for $V'+V_\perp=U/2$ is due to the effect of the
321: first order terms in eqs.(\ref{1}) and (\ref{2})
322: as discussed in our previous study.\cite{TanakaKuroki04}
323: \begin{figure}[tb]
324: \begin{center}
325: \includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{fig3.eps}
326: \end{center}
327: \caption{The gap functions having the largest
328: eigenvalue for the (a)triplet and (b)singlet pairing channels.
329: The parameter values are taken as $U=1.7$, $V=0.8$, $V'=0.45$,
330: $V''=0.2$, $V_\perp=0.4$ and $T=0.011$ (=$T_c$ of the $f$-wave pairing).
331: The dark dashed curves represent the nodes of the gap, while
332: a pair of light dotted curves near $k_a=\pm\pi/4$ is
333: the Fermi surface.}
334: \label{fig3}
335: \end{figure}
336: \begin{figure}[tb]
337: \begin{center}
338: \includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{fig4.eps}
339: \end{center}
340: \caption{The largest eigenvalue in the singlet and the triplet
341: channels are plotted as functions of temperature for
342: $U=1.7$, $V=0.8$, $V'=0.45$, $V''=0.2$, and $V_\perp=0.4$.}
343: \label{fig4}
344: \end{figure}
345:
346:
347: To look into the effect of $V_\perp$ on the $f$- vs. $d$- competition
348: in more detail, we plot $T_c$ along with the pairing symmetry
349: as a function of $V_\perp$ in Fig.\ref{fig5}.
350: The pairing symmetry is $f$-wave and $T_c$ increases
351: with $V_\perp$ for $V_\perp \geq U/2-V'$(=0.4 here),
352: while the pairing occurs in the $d$-wave channel
353: with a nearly constant $T_c$ for $V_\perp < U/2-V'$.
354: The increase of the $f$-wave $T_c$
355: is due to the enhancement of $2k_F$ charge fluctuations with
356: increasing $V_\perp$.
357: \begin{figure}[tb]
358: \begin{center}
359: \includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{fig5.eps}
360: \end{center}
361: \caption{$T_c$ plotted as a function of $V_\perp$ for
362: $U=1.7$, $V=0.8$, $V'=0.45$, and $V''=0.2$. The solid (dashed)
363: curve represent the $f$ ($d$)-wave regime.}
364: \label{fig5}
365: \end{figure}
366:
367: Finally, in order to check the validity of RPA,
368: we have performed auxiliary field quantum Monte Carlo (AFQMC)
369: calculation\cite{Hirsch,ZC,White} for the same extended Hubbard model.
370: Let us first briefly summarize this method.
371: In AFQMC, the density operator is decomposed into
372: the kinetic energy part and the interaction part using
373: Trotter-Suzuki decomposition,\cite{Trotter,Suzuki} and we perform
374: discrete Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation\cite{Hirsch}
375: for the interaction part.
376: The summation over the Stratonovich variables are taken by
377: Monte-Carlo importance sampling.
378: Using this method, correlation functions and susceptibilities
379: can be calculated for finite size systems (16 sites in the $a$-direction and
380: 4 sites in the $b$-direction=64 sites in the present study),
381: and the results are exact
382: within the statistical errors. A defect of this
383: approach is that we cannot go down to very low temperatures
384: in the presence of off-site repulsions such as $V$, $V'$ and
385: $V_\perp$ due to the negative sign problem, so that
386: it is difficult to look into the pairing symmetry competition itself.
387: Nevertheless, we can check the validity of
388: RPA at moderate temperatures of the order of $0.1t$.
389: Here we compare the values of
390: $\chi_s(\Vec{Q}_{2k_F})$ and $\chi_c(\Vec{Q}_{2k_F})$ calculated
391: by AFQMC at $T=0.25$,fixing $V=0.9$, $V''=0$ and $V_\perp=0.3$.
392: In Fig.\ref{fig6}, we show the ``phase diagram'' in $U-V'$ plane,
393: where we find that the
394: AFQMC boundary for
395: $\chi_c(\Vec{Q}_{2k_F})=\chi_s(\Vec{Q}_{2k_F})$
396: is very close to the RPA boundary $V'+V_\perp=U/2$.
397: This result suggests that the RPA condition for
398: $\chi_c(\Vec{Q}_{2k_F})=\chi_s(\Vec{Q}_{2k_F})$
399: is reliable at least at
400: moderate temperatures.
401: \begin{figure}[tb]
402: \begin{center}
403: \includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{fig6.eps}
404: \end{center}
405: \caption{AFQMC result for the competition between
406: $\chi_s(\Vec{Q}_{\rm 2k_F})$ and $\chi_c(\Vec{Q}_{\rm 2k_F})$
407: shown in $U-V'$ space. $V=0.9$, $V''=0$, $V_\perp=0.3$, and $T=0.25$.
408: The dashed line represents the
409: RPA condition for $\chi_s(\Vec{Q}_{\rm 2k_F})=\chi_c(\Vec{Q}_{\rm 2k_F})$.}
410: \label{fig6}
411: \end{figure}
412:
413: To summarize, we have studied the pairing symmetry competition in
414: a model for (TMTSF)$_2$X which considers not only the
415: intrachain repulsions but also the interchain repulsion.
416: We find that the possibility of satisfying the condition for
417: realizing $f$-wave pairing becomes more realistic
418: in the presence of the interchain repulsion.
419: It would be an interesting
420: future study to investigate whether this condition
421: is actually satisfied in (TMTSF)$_2$X using
422: first principles or quantum chemical calculations.
423: Experimentally, it would be interesting to further confirm
424: spin-triplet pairing by using probes
425: complementary to those in the previous studies\cite{Lee02,Lee00},
426: for example, a phase sensitive
427: tunneling spectroscopy study\cite{TK95}
428: with\cite{Tanuma2} or without\cite{Tanuma1,Sengupta}
429: applying a magnetic field, or those based on a newly
430: developed theory for triplet superconductors, which has been
431: proposed by one of the present authors.\cite{TanakaKas}
432:
433:
434: K.K. acknowledges H. Fukuyama, H. Seo, and A. Kobayashi for
435: motivating us to study the effect of interchain repulsion.
436: He also thanks J. Suzumura and Y. Fuseya for valuable discussion.
437: Part of the numerical calculation has been performed
438: at the facilities of the Supercomputer Center,
439: Institute for Solid State Physics,
440: University of Tokyo.
441:
442:
443:
444: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
445: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
446: % TMTSF
447: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
448: \bibitem{Jerome}
449: D. J\'{e}rome, A. Mazaud, M. Ribault, and K. Bechgaard:
450: J. Phys. Lett. (France) {\bf 41} (1980) L92.
451: %
452: \bibitem{Bechgaard}
453: K. Bechgaard, K. Carneiro, M. Olsen, F.B. Rasmussen, and C.S. Jacobsen:
454: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 46} (1981) 852.
455:
456: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
457: % d-wave
458: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
459: \bibitem{Shima01}
460: H. Shimahara: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 58} (1989) 1735.
461: %
462: \bibitem{KA99}
463: K. Kuroki and H. Aoki: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 60} (1999) 3060.
464: %
465: \bibitem{KK99}
466: H. Kino and H. Kontani: J. Low. Temp. Phys. {\bf 117} (1999) 317.
467:
468: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
469: % TMTSF triplet experiment
470: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
471: \bibitem{Lee02}
472: I.J. Lee, S.E. Brown,
473: W.G. Clark, M.J. Strouse, M.J. Naughton, W. Kang, and P.M. Chaikin:
474: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88} (2002) 017004.
475: %Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68} (2003) 092510.
476: %
477: \bibitem{Lee00}
478: I.J. Lee, M.J. Naughton, G.M. Danner, and P.M. Chaikin: Phys. Rev. Lett.
479: {\bf 78} (1997) 3555;
480: I.J. Lee, P.M. Chaikin, and M.J. Naughton:
481: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 62} (2000) R14669.
482: %J. I. Oh and M. J. Naughton: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92} (2004) 067001.
483: %I.Lee et al, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 62} R14669 (2000)
484: %may be considered as a evidence for triplet pairing.
485: %However, there has been a debated as to whether this is
486: %actually related to superconductivity, as discussed
487: %in ref.\protect\cite{Lebed}, or related to
488: %the SDW phase as stated in Lee et al,
489: %Phys.Rev.Lett. 88, 207002 (2002); Phys.Rev.B {\bf 65}, 180502(R) (2002).
490: %I.J. Lee,
491: %$et$ $al$,
492: %M.J. Naughton, G.M. Danner,
493: %and P.M. Chaikin,
494: %Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 3555 (1997);
495:
496: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
497: % TMTSF nodes or not ?
498: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
499: \bibitem{Takigawa}
500: M. Takigawa, H. Yasuoka, and G. Saito:
501: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 56} (1987) 873.
502: %
503: \bibitem{BB97}
504: S. Belin and K. Behnia:
505: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79} (1997) 2125.
506: %
507: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
508: % Possible f-wave, phenomelogical (I)
509: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
510: \bibitem{KAA01}
511: K. Kuroki, R. Arita, and H. Aoki:
512: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 63} (2001) 094509.
513: %%
514: %
515: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
516: % p-wave
517: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
518: %
519: \bibitem{Abrikosov}
520: A.A. Abrikosov:
521: J. Low Temp. Phys. {\bf 53} (1983) 359.
522: %
523: \bibitem{HF87}
524: Y. Hasegawa and H. Fukuyama:
525: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 56} (1987) 877.
526: %
527: \bibitem{Lebed}
528: A.G. Lebed,
529: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 59} (1999) R721;
530: A.G. Lebed, K. Machida, and M. Ozaki:
531: $ibid.$ {\bf 62} (2000) R795.
532: %
533: \bibitem{Kohmoto}
534: It has been shown in M.Kohmoto and M.Sato, cond-mat/0001331,
535: that the presence of spin fluctuation works in favor of spin triplet $p$-wave
536: pairing if attractive interactions due to electron-phonon interactions
537: are considered.
538: %
539: %\bibitem{Ohta}
540: %Recently, a mechanism for $p$-wave pairing
541: %based on a triangular lattice structure has been proposed in
542: %Nishimoto and Ohta, cond-mat/ in the strong coupling regime.
543: %
544: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
545: % Possible f-wave, phenomelogical (II)
546: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
547: \bibitem{Fuseya1} Y. Fuseya, Y. Onishi, H. Kohno, and K. Miyake:
548: J. Phys. Cond. Matt. {\bf 14} (2002) L655.
549:
550: %
551: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
552: % Coexistence of CDW and SDW experiment
553: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
554: \bibitem{Pouget}
555: J. P. Pouget and S. Ravy: J. Phys. I {\bf 6} (1996) 1501.
556: \bibitem{Kagoshima} S. Kagoshima,
557: Y. Saso, M. Maesato, R. Kondo, and T. Hasegawa:
558: Solid State Comm. {\bf 110} (1999) 479.
559: %
560: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
561: % microscopic theories of f-wave (I)
562: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
563: \bibitem{KTKA} K. Kuroki, Y. Tanaka, T. Kimura, and R. Arita:
564: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 69} (2004) 214511.
565:
566: \bibitem{TanakaKuroki04}
567: Y. Tanaka and K. Kuroki: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 70} (2004) 060502.
568:
569: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
570: % Coexistence of CDW and SDW theory
571: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
572: \bibitem{Kobayashi}
573: N. Kobayashi and M. Ogata:
574: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 66} (1997) 3356;
575: N. Kobayashi, M. Ogata and K. Yonemitsu:
576: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 67} (1998) 1098.
577: \bibitem{Suzumura}
578: Y. Tomio and Y. Suzumura: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 69} (2000) 796.
579:
580: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
581: % microscopic theories of f-wave (II)
582: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
583: \bibitem{Fuseya04} Y. Fuseya and Y. Suzumura: cond-mat/0411013.
584:
585: \bibitem{Nickel} J.C. Nickel, R. Duprat, C. Bourbonaais, and N. Dupuis:
586: cond-mat/0502614.
587:
588: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
589: % RPA with long Coulomb
590: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
591: %
592: \bibitem{Scalapino}
593: D. J. Scalapino, E. Loh, Jr. and J. E. Hirsch:
594: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 35} (1987) 6694.
595: %J. Merino and R. H. McKenzie, Phys. Rev. Lett.
596: %{\bf 87} (2001) 237002;
597: \bibitem{TYO} Y. Tanaka, Y. Yanase and M. Ogata:
598: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 73} (2004) 319.
599: \bibitem{KTOS} A. Kobayashi, Y. Tanaka, M. Ogata and Y. Suzumura:
600: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 73} (2004) 1115.
601:
602: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
603: % AFQMC
604: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
605: \bibitem{Hirsch} J.E. Hirsch: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 31} (1985) 4403.
606: \bibitem{ZC} Y. Zhang and J. Callaway: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 39} (1989) 9397.
607: \bibitem{White} S.R. White, D.J. Scalapino, R.L.Sugar, E.Y.Loh.,
608: J.E. Gubernatis, R.T. Scalettar: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 40} (1989) 506.
609: \bibitem{Trotter} H.F. Trotter: Proc. Am. Math. Soc. {\bf 10} (1959) 545.
610: \bibitem{Suzuki} M. Suzuki: Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 56} (1976) 1454.
611:
612: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
613: % Phase sensitive probe
614: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
615: \bibitem{TK95}
616: Y. Tanaka and S. Kashiwaya,
617: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 74}, 3451 (1995).
618: %S. Kashiwaya and Y. Tanaka,
619: %Rep. Prog. Phys. {\bf 63}, 1641 (2000).
620:
621: \bibitem{Tanuma2}
622: Y. Tanuma, K. Kuroki, Y. Tanaka, R. Arita, S. Kashiwaya, and H. Aoki:
623: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 64} (2001) 214510.
624:
625: \bibitem{Sengupta} K. Sengupta,
626: I. \v{Z}uti\'c, H.-J. Kwon, V.M. Yakovenko,
627: and S. Das Sarma:
628: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 63} (2001) 144531.
629:
630: \bibitem{Tanuma1} Y. Tanuma, K. Kuroki, Y. Tanaka, and S. Kashiwaya:
631: {Phys. Rev. B} {\bf 64} 214510 (2001).
632:
633: \bibitem{TanakaKas} Y. Tanaka and S. Kashiwaya: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 70}
634: (2004) 012507.
635:
636:
637:
638:
639:
640: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
641: %Long range Coulomb and Flex
642: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
643: %\bibitem{Esirgen}
644: %G. Esirgen, H.B. Schuttler, and N. E. Bickers,
645: %Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82} 1217 (1999).
646: %
647: %\bibitem{Onari}
648: %S. Onari $et$ $al$. cond-mat/0312314.
649: %
650:
651: %\bibitem{warping}
652: %L. Ducasse
653: %M. Abderrabba, J. Hoarau,
654: %M. Pesquer, B. Gallois, and J. Gaultier,
655: %J. Phys. C {\bf 19}, 3805 (1986).
656: %K. Yamaji,
657: %J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 55}, 860 (1986),
658: %L.P. Le,
659: %$et$ $al$,
660: %A. Keren, G.M. Luke, B.J. Sternlieb,
661: %W.D. Wu, Y.J. Uemura, J.H. Brewer, T.M. Riseman,
662: %R.V. Upasani, L.Y. Chiang, W. Kang, P.M. Chaikin,
663: %T. Csiba, and G. Gr\"{u}ner,
664: %Phys. Rev. B {\bf 48}, 7284 (1993).
665:
666:
667:
668: \end{thebibliography}
669:
670:
671:
672:
673: \end{document}
674: