1: \documentclass[10pt,aps,prb,showpacs,superscriptaddress,twocolumn,floatfix]{revtex4}

2: \usepackage{amsmath}

3: \usepackage{citesort}

4: %\usepackage{fullpage}

5: \usepackage{graphicx}

6: \usepackage{dcolumn}

7: %\renewcommand\baselinestretch{1.6}

8: \begin{document}

9: \title{Optical Sum Rule in Finite Bands}

10: \author{J.P. Carbotte}

11: \affiliation{Department of Physics and Astronomy, McMaster University,\\

12: Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4M1 Canada}

13: \author{E. Schachinger}

14: \email{schachinger@itp.tu-graz.ac.at}

15: \homepage{www.itp.tu-graz.ac.at/~ewald}

16: \affiliation{Institute of Theoretical and Computational Physics\\

17: Graz University of Technology, A-8010 Graz, Austria}

18: \date{\today}

19: \begin{abstract}

20: In a single finite electronic band the total optical spectral weight

21: or optical sum carries information on the interactions involved

22: between the charge carriers as well as on their band structure.

23: It varies with temperature as well as with impurity scattering.

24: The single band optical sum also bears some relationship to the charge

25: carrier kinetic energy and, thus, can potentially provide

26: useful information, particularly on its change as the charge

27: carriers go from normal to superconducting state. Here we

28: review the considerable advances that have recently been made in

29: the context of high $T_c$ oxides, both theoretical and experimental.

30: \end{abstract}

31: \pacs{74.20.Mn, 74.25.Gz,  74.72.-h.}

32: 

33: \maketitle

34: %\newpage

35: 

36: \section{Introduction}

37: 

38: Much is known about the properties of the superconducting state

39: in the cuprates, yet after 20 years of intense research there is,

40: as yet, no consensus as to the driving interactions responsible

41: for the pairing (mechanism). It is well established that the

42: superconducting order parameter has $d$-wave rather than

43: conventional $s$-wave symmetry. Angular resolved photoemission

44: spectroscopy\cite{ref1,ref2} (ARPES) finds that the leading

45: edge of the electron spectral density at the Fermi energy shifts

46: below the chemical potential as a result of the onset of superconductivity.

47: The observed shift is zero in the nodal direction $(\pi,\pi)$

48: and maximum in the antinodal direction $(0,\pi)$.

49: More recently a non monotonic increase of

50: the gap amplitude as a function of direction has been observed

51: in an electron doped cuprate but the symmetry is again $d$-wave%

52: .\cite{ref3}

53: 

54: Many other independent experimental techniques have provided

55: additional compelling evidence for $d$-wave symmetry. One such

56: technique is microwave spectroscopy which gives a linear in

57: temperature $(T)$ dependence of the superfluid density at low

58: $T$ [\onlinecite{ref4}]. Complimentary to the above techniques are

59: phase sensitive experiments\cite{ref5} based on Josephson

60: tunneling and flux quantization which provide direct evidence for a

61: change in sign of the order parameter not just that it has a zero.

62: 

63: Another important observation which points directly to a non

64: conventional mechanism is the so called collapse of the

65: inelastic scattering rate\cite{ref6,ref7,ref8,ref9} in the

66: superconducting state which results in a large peak at intermediate

67: $T$ below the critical temperature $(T_c)$ in the real part of the

68: microwave conductivity.\cite{ref6,ref7,ref10,ref11} The origin of this

69: peak is understood in terms of a readjustment in the excitation spectrum

70: involved in the interaction as superconductivity develops. This

71: is expected in electronic mechanisms\cite{ref6,ref9} involving

72: the spin or charge susceptibility which looses weight at small

73: energies corresponding to a hardening of the spectrum and little

74: inelastic scattering remains at low $T$.

75: 

76: All the evidence reviewed above points to deviations from a simple

77: BCS $s$-wave phonon driven superconductivity, but, nevertheless,

78: the search goes on for other essential differences which could

79: help identify the underlying mechanism. An avenue to explore is

80: the idea of kinetic as opposed to potential energy driven

81: superconductivity. The idea is that it is a reduction in kinetic

82: energy (KE) that drives the condensation into the superconducting state

83: in contrast to BCS theory where the potential is decreased

84: sufficiently to overcome a KE increase and provides as well a

85: reduction in total energy. The possibility of KE driven

86: superconductivity was considered by Hirsch\cite{ref12} and

87: explicitely demonstrated for the hole mechanism of

88: superconductivity\cite{ref13,ref14,ref15} for which the effective

89: mass of the holes decreases in the superconducting state by

90: pairing. It is also expected in other theoretical frameworks

91: for highly correlated systems.\cite{ref16,ref17}

92: 

93: In a single finite tight binding band with nearest neighbors

94: hopping only, the KE

95: is related to the optical sum defined as the total optical spectral

96: weight under the real part of the optical conductivity

97: $\sigma_1(T,\omega)$ integrated over energy $\omega$.\cite{ref19} This fact

98: applies whatever the interactions involved, the temperature,

99: and also when impurities are present. Of course, for this to hold

100: the conductivity needs to be computed exactly including vertex

101: corrections. At first sight the

102: restriction to a tight binding band with nearest neighbors only

103: appears restrictive but in reality it has been found that KE

104: and optical sum (OS) track each other reasonably well

105: even when higher neighbors are considered (second, third, etc.).

106: In view of this fact several recent experimental and theoretical

107: papers have appeared concerning the temperature dependence of the

108: OS in the normal state and its change in the superconducting state.

109: Here, we review this body of work with the aim of understanding

110: what it tells us about the underlying interactions involved.

111: We will restrict our discussion to the cuprates and to their

112: in-plane response. For the $c$-axis motion a sum rule

113: violation was noticed by Basov {\it et al.}\cite{ref18}

114: but the KE involved in the $c$-axis motion is small.\cite{ref20,ref21}

115: To investigate its relation to the total condensation energy

116: of the transition to the superconducting state, it is necessary to

117: consider the $ab$-plane of the cuprates. Exactly how to treat the

118: $c$-axis transport also complicates the interpretation. Some

119: possible mechanisms include strong intra layer scattering,\cite{ref22}

120: non Fermi liquid ground states,\cite{ref23} confinement,\cite{ref16}

121: inter-plane and in-plane charge fluctuations,\cite{ref24} indirect

122: $c$-axis coupling through the particle-particle channel,\cite{ref25}

123: resonant tunneling on localized states in the blocking layer,\cite{ref26}

124: two band models,\cite{ref27,ref28} and coherent and incoherent

125: tunneling.\cite{ref29,ref30,ref31,ref32,ref33} Clearly this problem

126: is worth further study but is not part of this review which will deal

127: only with the cuprates and their $ab$-plane response.

128: 

129: The in-plane optical sum (OS) in the cuprates is observed to increase

130: as the temperature is decreased below room temperature.

131: In the normal phase it is often, but not always, found to

132: follow a $T^2$ law. The changes are

133: small but larger than is expected on a rigid band model neglecting

134: interactions. % and often, but not always, found to follow a $T^2$ law.

135: In the superconducting phase, on the other hand,

136: %Below the critical temperatureRe: Schachinger - Weber

137: a change in slope of this $T^2$

138: behavior is seen. While there remain some differences in details

139: between the various experimental groups, for underdoped samples it is

140: agreed that the OS falls above the extrapolated normal state value.

141: This is clearly seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:14} which was reproduced from

142: van der Marel {\it et al.}\cite{ref34} and deals with

143: Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+x}$

144: (BSCCO, Bi2212). This behavior is opposite to that expected on the

145: basis of BCS theory for which the OS is predicted to decrease. This

146: fact can be traced to an increase in KE due to the

147: formation of Cooper pairs. On the other hand, such a conventional

148: behavior of the OS or change in KE on entering the superconducting

149: state was observed in overdoped samples of BSCCO by Deutscher

150: {\it et al.}\cite{ref87a} Their data is reproduced in our

151: Fig.~\ref{fig:19}. These authors also find that the crossover

152: from negative to positive KE change occurs around, but slightly

153: above optimum doping (see Fig.~\ref{fig:20}). These findings

154: have been largely confirmed by Carbone {\it et al.}\cite{ref33a} It is

155: these facts that this review is directly concerned with and seeks

156: to understand. Theoretically we will find that the temperature

157: dependence of the OS can in some cases be dominated by a term which is

158: proportional to a specific average over energy of the quasiparticle

159: inelastic scattering rates and this need not give a $T^2$ law. This

160: term is missing in all theories that do not explicitly treat damping

161: effects. Further, this non $T^2$ dependence has implications for the

162: accuracy of experimental results on the OS difference between

163: superconducting and normal state which require an extrapolation to

164: low temperatures of normal state data known only above $T_c$.

165: 

166: The paper is structured as follows. We begin with theoretical

167: considerations and then review experimental information as it relates

168: to the calculations.

169: Section \ref{ssec:2a} introduces the optical sum and its relation to the

170: kinetic energy. In

171: Sec.~\ref{ssec:2d} we provide simple analytic formulas for the KE and

172: OS in a free electron model which allows one to understand some

173: qualitative aspects of this relationship. It also contains a general

174: formulation of the OS for a

175: simplified tight binding model which averages over anisotropies and

176: greatly simplifies the mathematics. We argue that the temperature

177: dependence of the OS is governed mainly by the inelastic scattering.

178: Both, real and imaginary part of the charge carrier self energy are

179: important. In Sec.~\ref{ssec:2b} we describe the Nearly

180: Antiferromagnetic Fermi Liquid model (NAFFL), give the set of generalized

181: Eliashberg equations needed for numerical work, and also specify the

182: electron-spin fluctuations interaction (MMP model). We give results for the

183: temperature dependence of the OS and of the KE in the normal and

184: superconducting state. In Sec.~\ref{ssec:2c} we introduce the Hubbard

185: model and Dynamical Mean Field Theory (DMFT) and give results. 

186: 

187: In Sec.~\ref{ssec:3b} we summarize some of the important

188: effects a finite band cutoff has on the self energy. Section~\ref{ssec:3c}

189: is devoted to results for the OS when a delta function, and

190: Sec.~\ref{ssec:3d} when an MMP form

191: (spin fluctuations) is used for the electron-boson interaction.

192: Section~\ref{ssec:3e} provides an analysis of the temperature

193: dependence of the OS for coupling to a low energy boson which

194: results in a linear

195: rather than quadratic in $T$ law. It is argued that other temperature

196: dependences could arise when different model interactions are used.

197: 

198: In Sec.~\ref{ssec:4a} we investigate within the NAFFL model the effect on

199: the OS of the collapse of the inelastic scattering on entering the

200: superconducting state which can lead to an increase in the OS rather than

201: the usual BCS behavior. We also present experimental results in the

202: BSCCO cuprates. Section~\ref{ssec:4c} deals

203: with a simplified qualitative model based on a temperature dependent

204: scattering rate

205: which decreases with $T$ as $T^4$. While this model is not

206: accurate, it shows clearly how the KE in the superconducting state can

207: decrease below its normal state value due to the collapse of the

208: inelastic scattering.

209: In Sec.~\ref{ssec:4b} we describe a related,

210: more phenomenological model due to Norman and P\'epin which has several

211: common elements with the model discussed in

212: Sec.~\ref{ssec:4a}. We also provide comparison with

213: experiment and additional theoretical results for the KE change on

214: condensation into the superconducting state in Sec.~\ref{ssec:4e}.

215: Section~\ref{ssec:4d}

216: gives DMFT results for the normal as well as superconducting state

217: in the $t$-$J$ model. KE and potential energy are discussed and

218: compared with experiment. Further results based on the Hubbard

219: model are commented on as are those based on the negative $U$

220: Hubbard model

221: used to describe the BCS - BE (Bose - Einstein) crossover.

222: 

223: Section~\ref{sec:5} deals with models of the pseudogap state above

224: $T_c$ (the superconducting critical temperature) that exists up

225: to a temperature $T^\ast>T_c$, with $T^\ast$ the pseudogap temperature.

226: In Sec.~\ref{ssec:5a} we discuss KE changes in the preformed pair model

227: in which pairs form at the pseudogap temperature $T^\ast$ and

228: superconductivity sets in only at a lower temperature when phase

229: coherence is established. In Sec.~\ref{ssec:5b} we consider an alternative

230: model to phase fluctuations of the pseudogap state, namely the

231: $D$-density wave model, a competing ordered state with bond currents

232: and associated magnetic moments. In Sec.~\ref{sec:6} we deal briefly with

233: the problem of spectral weight distribution as a function of energy.

234: A short summary is provided in Sec.~\ref{sec:7}.

235: 

236: \section{THEORY}

237: \label{sec:2}

238: \subsection{General considerations}

239: \label{ssec:2a}

240: 

241: The single band OS is defined as\cite{ref34}

242: \begin{equation}

243:   \label{eq:1}

244:   \int\limits_{-\Omega}^\Omega\!d\omega\,\Re{\rm e}[

245:   \sigma_{1xx}(\omega)] = \frac{\pi e^2}{\hbar^2V}

246:   \sum\limits_{{\bf k},\sigma}n_{{\bf k},\sigma}

247:   \frac{\partial^2\varepsilon_{\bf k}}{\partial k_x^2} =

248:   \frac{\pi e^2}{\hbar^2} W.

249: \end{equation}

250: Here $\sigma_{1xx}(\omega)$ is the real part of the 

251: $(x,x)$-component of the optical conductivity,

252: $e$ is the electron charge, $\hbar$ Planck's constant, {\bf k}

253: momentum, $\sigma$ spin, and $V$ the crystal volume. The limits

254: $-\Omega$ to $\Omega$ on the conductivity integral are to be taken

255: to include all the contributions to $\sigma_{1xx}(\omega)$ from the

256: band of interest and from no other.

257: The integration from $-\Omega$ to $\Omega$

258: can be restricted to $(0,\Omega)$ by making use of the fact that

259: the real part of the conductivity is an even function of $\omega$.

260: Often the integration on $\Omega$ is also extended to infinity under

261: the condition that only transitions from the one band of interest

262: are included.

263: The sum over {\bf k} extends over the

264: entire first Brillouin zone, $n_{{\bf k},\sigma}$ is the probability

265: of occupation of a state $\vert{\bf k},\sigma\rangle$, and

266: $\varepsilon_{\bf k}$ is the electron dispersion relation.

267: $W$ is the OS divided by $\pi e^2/\hbar^2$ and will be quoted in

268: meV. In deriving this OS rule the one body part of the Hamiltonian

269: gives the single particle orbitals of energy

270: $\varepsilon_{\bf k}$ and the two body piece

271: provides correlation effects beyond those included in

272: \begin{table}[tp]

273: \caption{\label{tab:1}The two tight binding models used within this

274: paper. Model A corresponds to the tight binding model discussed by

275: van der Marel {\it et al.}\protect{\cite{ref34}} $t$ and $t'$ are

276: given in meV, the critical temperature $T_c$ in K, and the filling

277: $\langle n\rangle$ is defined in Eq.~\protect{\eqref{eq:8}}.

278: }

279: \begin{ruledtabular}

280: \begin{tabular}{ldddd}

281: Model & t & t' & \langle n\rangle & T_c\\

282: \hline

283: A & 148.8 & 40.9 & 0.425 & 90\\

284: B & 100.0 & 16.0 & 0.4 & 100\\

285: \end{tabular}

286: \end{ruledtabular}

287: %\vspace*{10cm}

288: \end{table}

289: $\varepsilon_{\bf k}$ (referred to as kinetic energy even though it

290: can contain effects of interactions).

291: If all bands are included rather than just the one in Eq.~\eqref{eq:1}

292: one would obtain the exact sum rule proportional to $n/m$ with $m$

293: the bare electron mass and $n$ the total electron density. This

294: is a constant independent of temperature. It does not change when

295: the system undergoes a phase transition to the superconducting state

296: by charge conservation. This also applies to the free electron

297: infinite band and is the basis for the Ferrell-Glover-Tinkham

298: sum rule\cite{ref123,ref124} which will be elaborated upon in Sec.~\ref{sec:6}.

299: 

300: \begin{figure}[tp]

301: %\centering

302:   \vspace*{-4mm}

303:   \includegraphics[width=9cm]{srFig1.eps}

304: %  \includegraphics[width=13cm]{smFig1.eps}

305: \vspace*{-8mm}

306:   \caption{Optical sum $W$ and kinetic energy, $-W_{\rm KE}/2$,

307: as a function of $T^2$. Solid circles and squares are for the non

308: interacting case while solid up-triangles and solid down-triangles

309: include interactions.

310: The left hand frame applies to

311: Model A of Table~\protect{\ref{tab:1}} and an MMP model

312: parameter $\omega_{SF}=82\,$meV [see Eq.~\protect{\eqref{eq:5}}] was

313: used. Here, the interacting and non interacting cases show similar

314: temperature dependencies. The right hand frame is for

315: Model B of Table~\protect{\ref{tab:1}} with an MMP model parameter

316: $\omega_{SF}=10\,$meV. Note the difference in temperature dependence

317: between interacting and non interacting case.

318: }

319:   \label{fig:1}

320: \end{figure}

321: The

322: important observation for this review is that for tight binding bands

323: with nearest neighbors hopping, $t$, only, i.e.:

324: \begin{equation}

325:   \label{eq:2}

326:   \varepsilon_{\bf k} = -2t\left[\cos(ak_x)+\cos(ak_y)\right],

327: \end{equation}

328: where $a$ is the CuO$_2$ plane lattice parameter,

329: \begin{equation}

330:   \label{eq:3}

331:   W\equiv-\frac{1}{2}W_{KE}\equiv -\frac{1}{2}

332:   \frac{a^2}{V}\sum\limits_{{\bf k},\sigma} n_{{\bf k},\sigma}

333:   \varepsilon_{\bf k}.

334: \end{equation}

335: $W_{KE}$ is the kinetic energy per copper atom.

336: Thus, for this simple case an experimental measurement of $W$

337: gives a measure of the KE. The band structure in the oxides is not,

338: in general, limited to first neighbor hopping and one may well

339: wonder if the above observation is of any practical use.

340: 

341: For second neighbor hopping ($t,\, t'$ model)

342: \begin{eqnarray}

343:   \varepsilon_{\bf k} &=& -2\left\{

344:    t\left[\cos(ak_x)+\cos(ak_y)\right]\right.\nonumber\\

345:   &&\left.- 2t'\cos(ak_x)\cos(ak_y)

346:    \right\} - \mu, 

347:   \label{eq:4}

348: \end{eqnarray}

349: with $\mu$ the chemical potential. In Fig.~\ref{fig:1} we

350: compare results for $W$ (solid circles) with results for

351: $-W_{KE}/2$ (solid squares) for two models, A and B, left and right hand

352: frame, respectively. Parameters of the models are defined in

353: Table~\ref{tab:1} where $\langle n\rangle$ is the filling  factor

354: which determines the chemical potential; with $\langle n\rangle = 0.5$,

355: half filling, $\mu = 0$ and $t'=0$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:4}. No interactions are

356: included beyond those giving rise to the tight binding band structure.

357: It is clear that while $W$ in both cases is a few percent

358: smaller than $-W_{KE}/2$ their dependence on temperature track

359: each other fairly well. Thus, it makes sense to pursue this avenue as

360: a means to get information on the KE and its variation with temperature

361: and also when it undergoes a phase transition to the superconducting

362: state. One should be aware, however, that for some sets of tight

363: binding parameters the difference between OS and KE can be much larger

364: and they may no longer track each other (see the very recent

365: paper by Marsiglio {\it et al.}\cite{ref124a} for more discussion).

366: A final point should be stressed. To compute the OS in Eq.~\eqref{eq:1}

367: it is not necessary, although one can if one wishes, to calculate

368: the conductivity which depends on a two-particle Green's function

369: and is to be calculated with vertex corrections. The right hand side

370: of Eq.~\eqref{eq:1}, instead, depends only on the one particle

371: spectral density $n_{{\bf k},\sigma}$ which determines the probability

372: of occupation of the state $\vert\textbf{k},\sigma\rangle$.

373: On the other hand, if one is interested in the optical spectral

374: weight integrated only to $\omega_M$ with $\omega_M<\Omega$ one

375: can no longer avoid calculating the conductivity. For this reason

376: the problem of optical weight distribution is left to a last

377: section \ref{sec:6}.

378: 

379: \subsection{The Continuum Limit and Quadratic Dispersion; Simple Results}

380: \label{ssec:2d}

381: 

382: To get some insight into the significance of the OS, we

383: consider next several simplifications. The probability of occupation

384: of the state $\vert{\bf k}\rangle$ (both spins)

385: is related to the charge carrier

386: spectral density $A({\bf k},\omega)$ by

387: \begin{equation}

388:   \label{eq:10}

389:   n_{\bf k}(T) = \int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty\!d\omega\,f(T,\omega)

390:   A({\bf k},\omega),

391: \end{equation}

392: where $f(T,\omega)$ is the Fermi-Dirac distribution function at

393: temperature $T$.

394: For tight binding electrons with no correlation effects the spectral

395: function $A({\bf k},\omega)=\delta(\varepsilon_{\bf k}-\omega)$ and

396: $n_{\bf k}(T) = f(\varepsilon_{\bf k},T)$. Before proceeding to

397: include interactions it is convenient in what follows to rewrite

398: Eq.~\eqref{eq:1} in an equivalent form through integration by parts

399: with the surface integral equal to zero by symmetry in a periodic

400: band:

401: \begin{equation}

402:   \label{eq:11}

403:   \bar{W} = -\frac{2}{V}

404:   \sum\limits_{\bf k}\left(\frac{\partial\varepsilon_{\bf k}}{\partial

405:   {\bf k}}\right)^2\frac{dn_{\bf k}}{d\varepsilon_{\bf k}}.

406: \end{equation}

407: 

408: Knigavko {\it et al.}\cite{ref49} have found this second form to be

409: very useful when making approximations. In the Kubo formula which

410: defines the conductivity $\sigma_{1xx}(\omega)$ which appears on the

411: left hand side of Eq.~\eqref{eq:1} it is the velocity squared,

412: $(\partial\varepsilon_{\bf k}/\partial k_x)^2$ that enters naturally.

413: In making approximations to the band structure in order to get

414: simplified expressions it is important to have the same quantity

415: $(\partial\varepsilon_{\bf k}/\partial k_x)^2$ on both sides of

416: Eq.~\eqref{eq:1} and, indeed, in Ref.~\onlinecite{ref49} it is verified

417: that the right hand side (RHS)

418: of Eq.~\eqref{eq:1} and $\bar{W}$ of Eq.~\eqref{eq:11} agree

419: to high accuracy for the two simplified band structure models they

420: considered, namely free electron bands cut off to $-D/2$ and $D/2$ at

421: half filling and another model designed to treat the tight binding case

422: which we will define later. In both cases the density of states was

423: approximated by a constant. Such an approximation, however, is not

424: completely compatible with the assumed Fermi velocity model and this

425: explains why we use $\bar{W}$ rather than $W$.

426: In the continuum limit of Eq.~\eqref{eq:4}

427: with $t' = \mu = 0$ as the lattice parameter $a\to 0$ one gets

428: \[

429:   \varepsilon_{\bf k} = -4t+\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\left(k_x^2+k_y^2\right),

430: \]

431: with $\hbar^2/2m = t a^2$ (where this product is assumed to be finite

432: as $a\to 0$) or $a^2 = \frac{\hbar^2}{m}\frac{4}{D}$

433: and $D/2 = 4t$. For these approximations

434: \[

435:   W = \bar{W} = \frac{(\hbar\Omega_p)^2}{4\pi e^2},

436: \]

437: the well known result for free electron bands, with $\Omega^2_p =

438: 4\pi ne^2/m$ the plasma frequency squared and $n$ the electron density.

439: We can also show that

440: \[

441:   W_{KE} = -W,

442: \]

443: so that the relationship between KE and OS found for

444: tight binding bands with first neighbors is profoundly changed

445: when these are approximated by their continuum

446: limit (free electron case). This is, in a sense, the extreme opposite

447: case to the nearest neighbor only tight binding model.

448:  These results were obtained at zero

449: temperature. At finite $T$ things are not quite as simple. $W$

450: and $\bar{W}$ undergo no change with temperature but

451: $W_{KE}$ does and is

452: \[

453:   W_{KE} = \frac{N(0)D\hbar^2}{m}\left[\frac{\pi^2}{3}\left(

454:   \frac{k_BT}{D/2}\right)^2-1\right],

455: \]

456: which is the well known result that the KE increases as the square of

457: the temperature normalized to the half band width $D/2$. These results

458: show that the correspondence between $W$ and $W_{KE}$ can be

459: rather subtle and it can be lost when approximations to the tight

460: binding band are made. Here $N(0)$ is the charge carrier density

461: of states at the Fermi energy.

462: 

463: Knigavko {\it et al.}\cite{ref49} used a

464: somewhat more sophisticated model to approximate a tight binding

465: band. This model was used previously by Marsiglio and Hirsch.\cite{ref50}

466: In this approach the square of the electron velocity is replaced by

467: \[

468: %  \label{eq:14}

469:   \left(\frac{1}{\hbar}\frac{\partial\varepsilon_{\bf k}}

470:   {\partial k_x}\right)^2 =

471:   \frac{D}{4m_b}\left[1-\left(\frac{\varepsilon_{\bf k}}{D/2}

472:   \right)^2\right]

473: \]

474: and

475: \begin{equation}

476:   \label{eq:15}

477:   \bar{W}(T) = \frac{\hbar^2}{m_b}\left(-\int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty

478:   \frac{d\omega}{D/2}\,f(T,\omega)

479:   \int\limits_{-D/2}^{D/2}\frac{d\epsilon}{D/2}\,

480:   \epsilon A(\epsilon,\omega)\right).

481: \end{equation}

482: Here, $m_b$ is a band electronic mass. In this model the rule that

483: $\bar{W} = -W_{KE}/2$ still holds. 

484: For $A(\epsilon,\omega) = \delta(\epsilon-\omega)$ (no correlations)

485: we recover

486: \begin{equation}

487:   \label{eq:16}

488:   \bar{W}(T) = \frac{\hbar^2}{m_b}\left[1-\frac{1}{3}\left(

489:   \frac{k_BT}{D/2}\right)^2\right],

490: \end{equation}

491: which is a result obtained by van der Marel {\it et al.}\cite{ref34}

492: and often used to interpret experiments. It is important to contrast this

493: result with the free electron case for which

494: \[

495:  \left(\frac{1}{\hbar}\frac{\partial\varepsilon_{\bf k}}{\partial

496:  k_x}\right)^2 = \frac{D/2+\varepsilon_{\bf k}}{m}

497: \]

498: and

499: \begin{equation}

500:   \label{eq:16a}

501:   \bar{W}(T) = \frac{\hbar^2 n}{m}\left[1-\frac{2}{n}

502:   \int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty\!d\omega\,f(T,\omega)A(D/2,\omega)

503:   \right],

504: \end{equation}

505: where $n$ is the charge carrier density.

506: 

507: To treat interactions it is convenient to rewrite Eq.~\eqref{eq:15}

508: in the form

509: \begin{equation}

510:   \label{eq:17}

511:   \bar{W}(T) = \frac{\hbar^2}{2m_b}\left[1-\int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty

512:   \!d\omega\,f(T,\omega)h(T,\omega)\right],

513: \end{equation}

514: where

515: \begin{equation}

516:   \label{eq:18}

517:   h(T,\omega) = \frac{4}{(D/2)^2}\int\limits_0^{D/2}\!d\epsilon\,

518:   \epsilon A(\epsilon,\omega).

519: \end{equation}

520: Note also that the probability of occupation of the state $\epsilon$

521: given in Eq.~\eqref{eq:10}

522: %\begin{equation}

523: %  \label{eq:18a}

524: %  n(\epsilon,T) = \int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty\!d\epsilon\,

525: %  f(T,\epsilon)A(\epsilon,\omega)

526: %\end{equation}

527: is closely related to Eqs.~\eqref{eq:17} and \eqref{eq:18}. We can

528: apply the Sommerfeld expansion to Eq.~\eqref{eq:18} to get

529: \begin{eqnarray}

530:   \bar{W}(T) &=& \frac{\hbar^2}{2m_b}\left[1-\int\limits_{-\infty}^0\!

531:   d\omega\,h(T,\omega)-\frac{\pi^2}{6}\left(k_BT\right)^2\right.

532:   \nonumber \\

533:   && \times\left.

534:   \left.\frac{d\,h(T,\omega)}{d\,\omega}\right\vert_{\omega=0}

535:   \right].

536:   \label{eq:19}

537: \end{eqnarray}

538: For no interactions $h(T,\omega) = 4\omega/(D/2)^2$ for $\omega\ge 0$

539: and zero for $\omega<0$

540: [note that the derivative in Eq.~\eqref{eq:19} (non interacting case)

541: is to be weighted by $1/2$ at $\omega=0$]

542: so that the second term in Eq.~\eqref{eq:19}

543: vanishes and the third term

544: gives the first correction in \eqref{eq:16}. In terms of the real and

545: imaginary part of the self energy we can work out $h(T,\omega)$ to

546: get

547: \begin{eqnarray}

548:   h(T,\omega) &=& \frac{4}{\left(\frac{D}{2}\right)^2}\left\{\frac{\chi}{\pi}

549:   \left[\tan^{-1}\left(\frac{\frac{D}{2}-\chi}{y}\right)+

550:   \tan^{-1}\left(\frac{\chi}{y}\right)\right]\right.\nonumber\\

551:   &&\left.+

552:   \frac{y}{2\pi}\ln\left\vert\frac{y^2+\left(\frac{D}{2}-\chi\right)^2}

553:   {y^2+\chi^2}\right\vert\right\},

554:   \label{eq:20}

555: \end{eqnarray}

556: where $\chi=\omega-\Sigma_1(\omega)$ and $y = -\Sigma_2(\omega)$ with

557: $\Sigma_1(\omega)$ [$\Sigma_2(\omega)$] the real [imaginary] part of

558: the self energy $\Sigma(\omega)$. If the real part of $\Sigma$ is

559: neglected and its imaginary part is assumed to be a constant $\Gamma$

560: as it would be for impurities in an infinite band we can work out the

561: integral in Eq.~\eqref{eq:19} and get:

562: \begin{equation}

563:   \label{eq:21}

564:   \bar{W}(T) = \frac{\hbar^2}{2m_b}\left[1-\frac{8\Gamma}{D\pi}-

565:   \frac{\pi^2}{3}\left(\frac{k_BT}{D/2}\right)^2\right].

566: \end{equation}

567: Note that the second term which deals directly

568: with interactions between

569: the electrons is of order some scattering rate over $D/2$ while the

570: third which has often been emphasized in literature, is of order

571: $[k_BT/(D/2)]^2$ and, therefore, can be expected to be much smaller

572: than the first. In the oxides, as an example, $\Gamma$ is known to be

573: of order $T$.\cite{ref126}

574: Eq.~\eqref{eq:21} was arrived at independently by

575: Benfatto {\it et al.}\cite{ref52} and by Karakozov and Maksimov.\cite{ref53}

576: It is central to any discussion of single band sum rule. While the

577: approach taken in Refs.~\onlinecite{ref52} and \onlinecite{ref53} are

578: somewhat different much of the basic content is similar.

579: 

580: Finally, we consider the superconducting state at $T=0$ for which in

581: BCS theory

582: \begin{equation}

583:    \label{eq:11a}

584:    n_{\bf k} = \frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{\varepsilon_{\bf k}}

585:    {\sqrt{\varepsilon_{\bf k}^2+\Delta_{\bf k}^2}}\right),

586: \end{equation}

587: where the gap $\Delta_{\bf k}$ can have $d$-wave symmetry of the

588: form $\Delta_{\bf k} = \Delta\cos(2\phi)$. Here $\Delta$ is the

589: gap amplitude and $\phi$ an angle along the cylindrical Fermi

590: surface. To keep things simple, we start with the $s$-wave case

591: and obtain

592: \begin{subequations}

593: \begin{equation}

594:   \label{eq:12}

595:   W^S_{KE}-W^N_{KE} = \frac{4\hbar^2}{m}\frac{N(0)}{D}

596:   \Delta^2\left[\ln\left(\frac{D}{\Delta}

597:   \right)-\frac{1}{2}\right].

598: \end{equation}

599: Eq.~\eqref{eq:12}

600: is the difference in KE between superconducting (S) and normal (N)

601: state which has increased as expected since $n_{\bf k}$ given by

602: Eq.~\eqref{eq:11a}

603: populates states above the chemical potential while the step function

604: of the normal state

605: does not. We have also worked out the difference in OS to give

606: \begin{equation}

607:   \label{eq:13}

608:   \bar{W}^S -\bar{W}^N = -\frac{N(0)\hbar^2}{m}

609:   \frac{2\Delta^2}{D},

610: \end{equation}

611: \end{subequations}

612: which has dropped in the superconducting state.

613: Knigavko {\it et al.}\cite{ref49} argued that $\bar{W}$ is the

614: quantity to use when discussing the OS. Here we note that $W$

615: itself shows no change with superconducting transition. Taking ratios

616: with the normal state in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:12} and \eqref{eq:13} we obtain

617: \begin{subequations}

618:   \begin{equation}

619:   \label{eq:13a}

620:   \frac{W^S_{KE}-W^N_{KE}}{\left\vert W^N_{KE}\right\vert} =

621:   \left(\frac{2\Delta}{D}\right)^2\left[\ln\left(\frac{D}

622:   {\Delta}\right)-\frac{1}{2}\right],

623: \end{equation}

624: and

625: \begin{equation}

626:   \label{eq:13b}

627:   \frac{\bar{W}^S-\bar{W}^N}{\bar{W}^N} =

628:   -\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{2\Delta}{D}\right)^2.

629: \end{equation}

630: \end{subequations}

631: Note that because $\ln\left(D/\Delta\right)$ is expected to be

632: greater than one, the normalized KE change is greater than the value of the

633: OS drop in this very simplified model. So far we have considered only

634: $s$-wave. The formulas given above hold for $d$-wave with

635: $\Delta\to\Delta\cos(2\phi)$ and an average over angles is required.

636: When this is done

637: \begin{subequations}

638: \begin{equation}

639: \label{eq:13c}

640: \frac{W^S_{KE}-W^N_{KE}}{\left\vert W^N_{KE}\right\vert} =

641: \left(\frac{2\Delta}{D}\right)^2\frac{1}{2}\left[\ln\left(\frac{2D}

642: {\Delta}\right)-\frac{1}{2}\right],

643: \end{equation}

644: and

645: \begin{equation}

646: \label{eq:13d}

647: \frac{\bar{W}^S-\bar{W}^N}{\bar{W}^N} =

648: -\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{2\Delta}{D}\right)^2.

649: \end{equation}

650: \end{subequations}

651: These are useful expressions to understand qualitatively the physics

652: but are not believed to be accurate. They do represent an extreme

653: case where the OS does not follow the temperature dependence of the

654: KE and they differ in the superconducting case as well.

655: 

656: \subsection{The Nearly Antiferromagnetic Fermi Liquid Model}

657: \label{ssec:2b}

658: 

659: So far we have not considered interactions yet the oxides are highly

660: correlated systems. A phenomenological approach to correlations

661: is embodied in the Nearly Antiferromagnetic Fermi Liquid model (NAFFL)

662: of Pines and coworkers\cite{ref35,ref36,ref37} and this approach is

663: convenient to obtain some information on the effect of interactions.

664: In this approach the important interactions proceed through the

665: exchange of spin fluctuations and the imaginary part of the spin

666: susceptibility enters a generalized set of Eliashberg equations.

667: A model susceptibility often used is\cite{ref37}

668: \begin{equation}

669:   \label{eq:5}

670:   \Im{\rm m}\left\{\chi({\bf q},\omega)\right\}

671:    = \frac{(\omega/\omega_{SF})\chi_{\bf Q}}

672:   {\left[1+\zeta^2({\bf q}-{\bf Q})^2\right]^2+(\omega/\omega_{SF})^2}.

673: \end{equation}

674: The parameters are $\chi_{\bf Q}$ the static susceptibility,

675: {\bf Q} the commensurate antiferromagnetic wave vector $(\pi/a,\pi/a)$

676: in the upper right hand quadrant of the first Brillouin zone and

677: symmetry related points. $\zeta$ is the magnetic coherence length

678: set at $\zeta = 2.5\,a$ in this paper and $\omega_{SF}$ is a

679: characteristic spin fluctuation frequency. Finally, $g$ is the

680: coupling between charge carriers and the spin fluctuations.

681: The Eliashberg equations for renormalized Matsubara frequencies

682: $\tilde{\omega}({\bf k},i\omega_n)$, renormalized energies

683: $\xi({\bf k},i\omega_n)$, and pairing energy (gap) in the

684: \begin{figure}[tp]

685: \vspace*{-5mm}

686:   \includegraphics[width=9cm]{srFig2.eps}

687:   \caption{The occupation number $n_{\bf k}$ for

688: selected directions in the CuO$_2$ Brillouin zone. Model A of

689: Table~\protect{\ref{tab:1}} was used.

690: Top frame: the non interacting case at $T=0$. It is included for

691: comparison. Center frame: The interacting

692: case at a temperature $T=20\,$K. We show normal state (solid line)

693: and superconducting state (dashed line) results. Bottom frame: The

694: temperature influence on the normal state $n_{\bf k}$ for

695: $T=20\,$K (solid line) and $T=150\,$K (dashed line). }

696:   \label{fig:2}

697: \end{figure}

698: superconducting state

699:  $\phi({\bf k},i\omega_n)$

700: are\cite{ref35,ref38,ref39,ref40,ref40a}

701: \begin{widetext}

702: \begin{subequations}

703: \label{eq:6}

704: \begin{eqnarray}

705:   \tilde{\omega}({\bf k},i\omega_n) &=& \omega_n+

706:   T\sum\limits_m\sum\limits_{{\bf k}'}

707:   \lambda_{SF}({\bf k}-{\bf k}',i\omega_n-i\omega_m)

708:   \frac{\tilde{\omega}({\bf k}',i\omega_m)}{D({\bf k}',i\omega_m)},

709:   \label{eq:6a}\\

710:   \xi({\bf k},i\omega_n) &=&

711:   -T\sum\limits_m\sum\limits_{{\bf k}'}

712:   \lambda_{SF}({\bf k}-{\bf k}',i\omega_n-i\omega_m)

713:   \frac{\epsilon_{{\bf k}'}+\xi({\bf k}',i\omega_m)}{D({\bf k}',i\omega_m)},

714:   \label{eq:6b}\\

715:   \phi({\bf k},i\omega_n) &=&

716:   -T\sum\limits_m\sum\limits_{{\bf k}'}

717:   \lambda_{SF}({\bf k}-{\bf k}',i\omega_n-i\omega_m)

718:   \frac{\phi({\bf k}',i\omega_m)}{D({\bf k}',i\omega_m)},

719:   \label{eq:6c}

720: \end{eqnarray}

721: with

722: \begin{equation}

723:   \label{eq:6d}

724:   D({\bf k},i\omega_n) = \tilde{\omega}^2({\bf k},i\omega_n)+

725:   \left[\epsilon_{\bf k}+\xi({\bf k},i\omega_n)\right]^2+

726:   \phi^2({\bf k},i\omega_n),

727: \end{equation}

728: \end{subequations}

729: and

730: \begin{equation}

731:   \label{eq:7}

732:   \lambda_{SF}({\bf q},i\nu_n) = \frac{g^2\chi_{\bf Q}}

733:   {1+\zeta^2({\bf q}-{\bf Q})^2+(\vert\nu_n\vert/\omega_{SF})}.

734: \end{equation}

735: Here {\bf q} is the momentum transfer and

736: $i\omega_n$, $i\nu_n$ are the electron and boson Matsubara frequencies,

737: respectively. Finally, the filling $\langle n \rangle$ is determined

738: from

739: \begin{equation}

740:   \label{eq:8}

741:   \langle n\rangle = \frac{1}{2}-\sum\limits_{\bf k}\sum\limits_{n\ge 0}

742:   \frac{\epsilon_{\bf k}+\xi({\bf k},i\omega_n)}

743:   {\tilde{\omega}^2({\bf k},i\omega_n)+\left[\epsilon_{\bf k}+

744:   \xi({\bf k},i\omega_n)\right]^2+\phi^2({\bf k},i\omega_n)}.

745: \end{equation}

746: \end{widetext}

747: For fixed filling $\langle n\rangle$ this last equation determines the

748: chemical potential which changes with temperature for bands which do

749: not have particle-hole-symmetry.

750: 

751: We solved the Eliashberg

752: equations\cite{ref40} for the two models of Table~\ref{tab:1} with

753: the single parameter not yet specified, $g$, adjusted to get a

754: critical temperature of $90\,$K and $100\,$K, respectively, for model A

755: and model B. The results for $W$ (solid down-triangles) and

756: $-W_{KE}/2$ (solid up-triangles) are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1} in which

757: they are compared with the non interacting results. [A $128\times 128$

758: sampling of the \textbf{k}-space, $ak_x$, $ak_y\in[0,\pi]$ was used

759: which accounts for the wiggles. In one case (not shown in the figure)

760: the \textbf{k}-space sampling was increased to $512\times 512$. This

761: made the curves smoother but there were no other changes.]

762: In both models

763: the interactions have lowered the value of each integral but the

764: temperature dependence of $W$ and $-W_{KE}/2$ still largely

765: track each other. The role played by the interactions can be

766: traced simply in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:1} and \eqref{eq:3} as changing the

767: probability of occupation of the state $\vert{\bf k},\sigma\rangle$

768: factor $n_{{\bf k},\sigma}$.

769: This factor depends on correlations as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}

770: where we show results for model A. The top frame gives $n_{\bf k}$

771: (for both spins)

772: along $\Gamma\to X\to M\to \Gamma$ in the first Brillouin zone for the

773: non interacting case while the bottom frame shows results at $T=20\,$K

774: (solid curve) and $T=150\,$K (dotted curve) in the normal state. We

775: see that the effect of interactions is to make the probability of

776: occupation of the state $\vert{\bf k}\rangle$

777: non zero even in regions where there

778: is no occupation in the non interacting case. Also, there is

779: considerable ``smearing'' of the interacting case distribution which

780: changes with temperature and with the onset of superconductivity (center

781: frame). On comparing bottom and center frame we note an increase

782: in temperature of about $100\,$K in the normal state

783: corresponds roughly to the same amount

784: of extra smearing as is due to the onset of superconductivity. This

785: smearing in the occupation factor means an increase in kinetic

786: energy. This is expected in a BCS mechanism. In the Cooper pair

787: model two electrons are introduced at the Fermi surface of a

788: quiescent Fermi sphere. Because of an effective attractive potential

789: between them they prefer to go into a superposition of plane wave

790: states with $\vert{\bf k}\vert$ equal or slightly greater than

791: $k_F$, the Fermi momentum,

792: and so reduce their potential energy. Although the kinetic

793: energy in the process is increased over the free electron value

794: of $2\varepsilon(k_F)$, the potential is sufficiently reduced to

795: compensate for this increase.

796: 

797: Returning to Fig.~\ref{fig:1} several features are to be noted.

798: For the case of no interactions the numerical data for both

799: $W$ and $W_{KE}$ is well fit by a $T^2$ law as is also

800: the interacting case based on Model A. But this is clearly not

801: so for Model B for which the OS and also $-W_{KE}/2$ turns up

802: from a $T^2$ law as $T$ is lowered towards zero with turn up onset

803: occurring around $T=100\,$K. In this case the change in $W$

804: between $T=0$ and $200\,$K is 6.4\% which is much larger than for

805: the non interacting case (1.5\%). While the two models A and B have a

806: different Fermi surface, dispersion relation, and filling, the

807: most important parameter

808: \begin{figure}[tp]

809: \vspace*{-3mm}

810: %\centering

811:   \includegraphics[width=9cm]{srFig3.eps}

812:  \vspace*{-5mm}

813:   \caption{Comparison of normal and superconducting state for the

814: optical sum and the kinetic energy. The left hand frame applies to

815: Model A of Table~\ref{tab:1} and $\omega_{SF}=82\,$meV and the

816: right hand frame is for the band structure Model B of Table~\ref{tab:1} and

817: $\omega_{SF} = 10\,$meV. The dotted line in this frame shows

818: a $T^2$ law extrapolation of the normal state data for $T>T_c$ to

819: zero temperature. Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref40}}.

820: }

821:   \label{fig:3}

822: %\vspace*{5cm}

823: \end{figure}

824: which gives the deviation from the $T^2$ law noted above is the small

825: value of the spin fluctuation frequency $\omega_{SF}=10\,$meV

826: used in Model B. This implies that the thermally activated scattering is

827: larger in this model than it is for Model A. Later, when we consider

828: simpler versions of our interaction model, we will return to this

829: issue where it will become much easier to trace these dependencies.

830: 

831: In Fig.~\ref{fig:3} we compare normal and superconducting state for the

832: two models of Table~\ref{tab:1}. We see that both KE and OS (open squares

833: and up triangles, respectively) fall below their normal state

834: values (solid squares and up triangles, respectively) at the same

835: temperature. This corresponds to an increase in KE as the

836: superconducting state is entered. The changes are small in all

837: cases. The KE in meV has increased by 0.2\% for Model A and

838: by 0.77\% in Model B between superconducting and normal state at

839: $T=0$. For the OS the differences are 0.22\% and 0.6\%, respectively,

840: very comparable to what is found for the KE but not identical. We

841: note that in the NAFFL model once the susceptibility \eqref{eq:7}

842: is specified, superconducting solutions with $d$-wave symmetry result.

843: These are not put in by hand as to symmetry or functional form.

844: The gap involves a harmonic $[\cos(ak_x)-\cos(ak_y)]$ as well as

845: many of the higher harmonics consistent with the

846: $d_{x^2-y^2}$ irreducible representation of the symmetry group

847: for the square CuO$_2$ lattice. The solutions are far from simple

848: BCS. In $d$-wave BCS an ansatz on the pairing potential

849: $V_{{\bf k},{\bf k}'}$ is made that it have the form

850: $\eta_{\bf k}V \eta_{{\bf k}'}$ with $\eta_{\bf k}\sim[\cos(ak_x)-\cos(ak_y)]$.

851: This leads to a $d$-wave gap consisting of the lowest harmonic only.

852: Early solutions\cite{ref38}

853: based on Model A with $\omega_{SF} = 7.76\,$meV showed that the gap

854: had maximum amplitude at the $X$-point $(\pi,0)$

855: of the two dimensional CuO$_2$

856: Brillouin zone with $\Delta_{max}^{BZ} = 33\,$meV. On the other

857: hand the maximum gap on the Fermi surface was $\Delta_{max}^{FS}=27\,$meV at

858: $T=20\,$K far below its BZ maximum. The value of

859: $2\Delta_{max}^{FS}/(k_BT_c) = 6.27$ is quite different from the BCS

860: value of 4.28. Also shown on the right hand panel is a dotted

861: straight line which indicates the least squares fit extrapolation of

862: the normal state data to zero temperature from $T>T_c$. It represents

863: a $T^2$ law. It is important to notice, for later reference, that both,

864: the superconducting as well as normal state $W$ data are above this

865: dotted line for all temperatures $T<T_c$.

866: 

867: \subsection{The Hubbard Model and Dynamical Mean Field}

868: \label{ssec:2c}

869: 

870: %Throughout this section we follow the notation of Toschi

871: %{\it et al.}\cite{ref42} and use the symbol $D$ for half the bandwidth

872: %in contrast to the main body of this review in which $D$ symbolizes the full

873: %band width.

874: %

875: Another approach used to treat strongly correlated systems such as

876: the cuprates is Dynamical Mean Field Theory (DMFT).\cite{ref41} The

877: approach is numerical and based on the Hubbard model with hopping

878: $t$, onsite Coulomb repulsion $U$, and chemical potential $\mu$.

879: The half bandwidth $D = 8\,t$ is taken to be $1.2\,$eV in what

880: follows with $U = 3D/2 = 12\,t$, so that the antiferromagnetic

881: super exchange $J = 4\,t^2/U\simeq 100\,$meV. For large values of

882: $4U/D$ at half filling the system is a Mott insulator. Away from

883: half filling, the weight of the quasiparticle peak at the Fermi

884: level denoted by $Z$ and related to the self energy $\Sigma(\omega)$

885: by 

886: \[

887: %      \label{eq:9}

888:    Z = \left[1-\left.\frac{\partial\Sigma(\omega)}{\partial \omega}

889:   \right\vert_{\omega=0}\right]^{-1}   

890: \]

891: is non zero but small and is a measure of the metalicity.

892: 

893: The Hamiltonian used has the form

894: \begin{equation}

895:   \label{eq:9}

896:   H = -t\sum\limits_{\langle ij\rangle\sigma}c^\dagger_{i\sigma}

897:   c_{j\sigma}+U\sum\limits_i n_{i\uparrow} n_{j\downarrow}-

898:   \mu\sum\limits_i\left(n_{i\uparrow}+n_{i\downarrow}\right),

899: \end{equation}

900: where $\sigma$ is spin $\uparrow$, $\downarrow$, $c_{i\sigma}$

901: ($c^\dagger_{i\sigma}$) are annihilation (creation) operators

902: for fermions of spin $\sigma$ on site $i$, $n_{i\sigma} =%

903: c^\dagger_{i\sigma}c_{i\sigma}$, and the sum $\langle ij\rangle$

904: \begin{figure}[tp]

905: %  \vspace*{0.5cm}

906: %  \centering

907:   \includegraphics[width=8.3cm]{srFig4a.eps}

908:   \includegraphics[width=7.9cm]{srFig4b.eps}

909: %  \includegraphics[width=14cm]{Toschi1.eps}

910: %  \includegraphics[width=8cm]{Toschi2.eps}

911:   \caption{(Color online) $W(\Omega,T)$ normalized to its $T=0$ value

912: as a function of $T^2$ for the Hubbard model,

913: for $\Omega = 0.05\,D$ (top frame) and $\Omega = 0.75\,D$

914: (bottom frame).

915: Symbols are the results of the DMFT calculations; lines are best

916: fits to them. The various symbols give four dopings $(x)$.

917: Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref42}}.

918: }

919:   \label{fig:4}

920: \end{figure}

921: is restricted to nearest neighbors only. In DMFT the full many body

922: system with strong interactions is modeled as a single site

923: problem with relevant interactions between, say, two electrons at

924: that site plus coupling to a bath which represents on

925: average the remaining degrees of freedom. The bath and local

926: problem is to be solved for in a self consistent way. The method is

927: now well developed and has proved its ability to simultaneously

928: describe low and high energy features in Mott systems.

929: Toschi {\it et al.}\cite{ref42} have calculated the real part

930: of the optical conductivity in this model and obtained the results

931: \begin{figure}[tp]

932: %  \vspace*{5mm}

933:   \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{srFig5.eps}

934:   \caption{The relative variation of spectral weight between the

935: lowest $T$ and $300\,$K as a function of doping $x$ for various

936: cuprates (full symbols) is compared with DMFT calculations

937: (open squares) and with the predictions of non interacting models

938: [tight binding model (solid line), constant density of states

939: approximation (dashed line)]. The

940: dotted line is a guide to the eye. The simple inclusion of

941: correlation effects allows one to reproduce the observed absolute values

942: with no need of fitting parameters. Data for LSCO are obtained from

943: Refs.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref43}} and \protect{\onlinecite{ref44}},

944: and for BSCCO from

945: Refs.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref45,ref46,ref47}}

946: (BSCCO$_1$) and from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref48}} (BSCCO$_2$).

947: Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref42}}.

948: }

949:   \label{fig:5}

950: \end{figure}

951: \begin{figure}[tp]

952:   \centering

953:   \includegraphics[width=9cm]{srFig6.eps}

954:   \caption{The $T=0$ spectral weight $W_0$ for $\Omega = 0.75D$ as a

955: function of doping $x$ for the Hubbard model (open squares) and the

956: experimental observation of Lucarelli {\it et al.}

957: Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref44}} (solid circles) obtained by integrating

958: data on $\sigma_1(\omega)$ for LSCO. The dotted curve is for reference

959: and gives results for $U=0$ (no correlations included). Adapted by

960: A. Toschi from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref42}}.

961: }

962:   \label{fig:4a}

963: \end{figure}

964: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:4} for various values of the doping $x$ as

965: indicated in the figure which gives $W(\Omega,T)/W(\Omega,T=0)$

966: as a function of $(2T/D)^2$. The left hand frame employs a cutoff

967: $\Omega$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:1} of $0.05D$ while the right hand

968: frame is for $\Omega = 0.75D$. All curves appear to follow a $T^2$

969: behavior and the slope of

970: these lines becomes smaller with increasing $\Omega$.

971: A comparison of their DMFT results with experiment is also

972: offered by the same authors and we reproduce it in Fig.~\ref{fig:5}

973: where we show

974: the difference $\Delta W \equiv W(T=0)-W(T=300\,{\rm K})$ for

975: $\Omega=1.5\,D$ renormalized to $W_0=W(T=0)$ denoted by $\Delta W/W_0$

976: on the figure as a function of doping $x$ (open squares).

977: 

978: Experimental

979: results are for La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$ (LSCO, solid circles), Refs.~%

980: \onlinecite{ref43} and \onlinecite{ref44},

981: and Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+x}$. Solid squares

982: are from Refs.~\onlinecite{ref45,ref46,ref47} (BSCCO$_1$) and solid

983: triangles from Ref.~\onlinecite{ref48} (BSCCO$_2$). Also shown for

984: comparison are results for tight binding with no interactions (solid line)

985: and in a constant density of states approximation (dashed line).

986: It is clear that

987: correlations dominate the observed change in $W$ between zero and

988: $300\,$K to its $T=0$ value.

989: DMFT provides a reasonable fit to the data while tight binding fails badly,

990: giving values that are too small.

991: 

992: In Fig.~\ref{fig:4a} DMFT results (open squares) as a function of

993: doping $x$ are compared with the experimental results (sold circles)

994: of Lucarelli {\it et al.}\cite{ref44} for the optical sum

995: of LSCO at $T=0$.

996: The theory reproduces well the doping dependence of

997: $W_0\equiv W(\Omega=0.75D,0)$. While the absolute value of $W_0$ is

998: somewhat underestimated its large decrease as the Mott transition

999: is approached is well captured by the model calculations. Also shown

1000: on the same figure (dotted line) are results obtained in the limit

1001: $U=0$ (no Hubbard $U$). We see that in this case the observed trend

1002: with doping is not reproduced and $W_0$ is much too large, particularly

1003: at small dopings indicating, as expected, that near the Mott transition

1004: $W_0$ goes like $x$ rather than $1-x$. Finally, we note that the

1005: inclusion of $U$ (correlation effects) reduces $W_0$ just as we have

1006: seen in the NAFFL model. We note, however, that this model is not well

1007: suited to describe doping differences because the phenomenological

1008: spin susceptibility \eqref{eq:5} really needs to be fixed to some

1009: experimental observation at each doping level, particularly as the

1010: Mott transition is approached. 

1011: 

1012: One thing to note about the DMFT results shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:4} is

1013: that even for the smaller value of the cutoff $\Omega$ on the OS, a

1014: $T^2$ behavior is observed at least for the limited data available

1015: in the figure. By contrast, we have seen in the NAFFL calculations

1016: of Figs.~\ref{fig:2} and \ref{fig:3} that deviations from $T^2$ can

1017: occur when the characteristic spin fluctuation energy $\omega_{SF}$

1018: is small even when the sum is taken over the entire band, i.e.:

1019: $\Omega$ is large enough to include all contributions. Thus, the

1020: two calculations differ in this important point. We will see later

1021: that there is no guarantee that a given model for the interactions

1022: should always give a $T^2$ law.

1023: 

1024: To end we mention related Hubbard

1025: model work by Maier {\it et al.}\cite{ref89c} They work directly

1026: with the KE rather than with the conductivity as did Toschi

1027: {\it et al.}\cite{ref42} and use the dynamical cluster approximation

1028: (DCA). They present results in both normal and superconducting

1029: state for two doping levels, namely $x = 0.05$ and

1030: $x=0.2$. In both cases the KE is found to decrease with

1031: decreasing temperature even in the superconducting state and this

1032: decrease, in fact, drives superconductivity. The changes are of order

1033: a few percent at most.

1034: 

1035: As we have been so far mainly interested in

1036: the normal state we postpone further discussion of this work to

1037: a later section which deals explicitly with the superconducting state.

1038: We will also describe the recent work of Haule and Kotliar\cite{ref89b}

1039: which deals with the $t$-$J$ model (see Sec.~\ref{sec:4}).

1040: 

1041: \section{The effect of interactions in isotropic boson

1042: exchange models}

1043: \label{sec:3}

1044: \subsection{Self Energy in Finite Bands}

1045: \label{ssec:3b}

1046: 

1047: Recent studies of finite band effects have revealed that the self

1048: energy due to impurities or to interaction with bosons is profoundly

1049: changed by the application of a cutoff $\pm D/2$ in a half filled

1050: band.\cite{ref54,ref55,ref56,ref57,ref58,ref59,ref62}

1051: In a finite band, the normal state self energy due to the

1052: electron-phonon (or some other boson) interaction is given by

1053: \begin{subequations}

1054: \label{eq:23s}

1055: \begin{eqnarray}

1056:   \Sigma(z) &=& T\sum\limits_m\lambda(z-i\omega_m)\eta(i\omega_m)\nonumber\\

1057:   &&+

1058:   \int\limits_0^\infty\!d\nu\,\alpha^2F(z)\left\{

1059:   [f(T,\nu-z)+n(T,\nu)]\right.\nonumber\\

1060:   &&\left.\times\eta(z-\nu)+[f(T,\nu+z)+n(T,\nu)]\eta(z+\nu)\right\},

1061:   \nonumber\\

1062:   \label{eq:23}

1063: \end{eqnarray}

1064: in the mixed representation of Marsiglio {\it et al.}\cite{ref60}

1065: Here,

1066: \begin{equation}

1067:   \label{eq:24}

1068:   \lambda(z) = \int\limits_0^\infty\!d\nu\alpha^2F(\nu)\frac{2\nu}

1069:    {\nu^2-z^2}

1070: \end{equation}

1071: and

1072: \begin{equation}

1073:   \label{eq:25}

1074:   \eta(z) = \int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty\!d\epsilon\,

1075:   \frac{N_0(\epsilon)}{N_0(0)}\frac{1}{z-\epsilon-\Sigma(z)}.

1076: \end{equation}

1077: \end{subequations}

1078: These equations need to be solved self consistently

1079: as $\Sigma(z)$ itself depends on itself through Eq.~\eqref{eq:25}.

1080: Here $z$ is a complex variable, $n(T,\nu)$ is the Bose thermal factor,

1081: $\alpha^2F(z)$ the electron-phonon spectral density and

1082: $N_0(\epsilon)/N_0(0)$ the normalized bare electronic density of

1083: states taken here to be constant and confined to $[-D/2,D/2]$.

1084: This provides a band cutoff in $\eta(z)$ of Eq.~\eqref{eq:25}

1085: and makes Eq.~\eqref{eq:23} self consistent. These equations are also

1086: given by Karakozov and Maksimov\cite{ref53} where they are written

1087: either in pure Matsubara notation or fully on the real frequency

1088: axis rather than in the mixed notation of Eqs.~\eqref{eq:23s} %to

1089: %\eqref{eq:25} 

1090: which includes both versions, Matsubara and real axis.

1091: We have found the mixed notation more convenient for numerical

1092: work. For coupling to a

1093: single Einstein boson mode $\alpha^2F(\omega) = a\delta(\omega-\Omega_E)$

1094: where $\Omega_E$ and $a$ are taken in units of $D/2$. The electron mass

1095: renormalization is given by $\lambda = 2a/\Omega_E$ which is

1096: dimensionless. For an

1097: infinite band at $T=0$ we recover from Eqs.~\eqref{eq:23s} %to

1098: %\eqref{eq:25} 

1099: the very familiar result\cite{ref62}

1100: \begin{equation}

1101:   \label{eq:26}

1102:   \Sigma_1(\omega) = a\ln\left\vert\frac{\omega-\Omega_E}{\omega+

1103:   \Omega_E}\right\vert,

1104: \end{equation}

1105: and

1106: \begin{equation}

1107:   \label{eq:27}

1108:   \Sigma_2(\omega) = -\pi a \theta\left(\vert\omega\vert-\Omega_E\right),  

1109: \end{equation}

1110: where $\theta(x)$ is the theta function equal to one for $x>0$ and

1111: zero otherwise. For positive values of $\omega$ the real part

1112: $\Sigma_1(\omega)\le 0$ and approaches  zero as $\omega\gg\Omega_E$.

1113: The imaginary part $\Sigma_2(\omega)$ is zero till

1114: $\vert\omega\vert = \Omega_E$ at which point it jumps to a value

1115: of $\pi a$ and then stays constant. Finite band effects change this

1116: behavior radically.

1117: 

1118: In Fig.~\ref{fig:7} we show results of Knigavko and Carbotte\cite{ref58}

1119: for minus the imaginary part $[-\Sigma_2(\omega)]$ of the self energy

1120: in frame (a) and its real part $[\Sigma_1(\omega)]$ in frame (b) for

1121: \begin{figure}[tp]

1122: %  \centering

1123:   \includegraphics[width=9cm]{srFig7.eps}

1124:   \caption{Evolution of the self energy vs frequency dependence with

1125: temperature for the Einstein spectrum with $a=0.1$ and $\Omega_E =

1126: 0.1$ $(\lambda = 2)$. Frame (a) is for minus the imaginary part,

1127: $-\Sigma_2(\omega)$, while frame (b) is for the real part,

1128: $\Sigma_1(\omega)$. In each frame the different curves correspond

1129: to temperatures $t\equiv 2T/D =0.1$ (dash-dotted line),

1130: 0.05 (dotted line),

1131: 0.01 (dashed line), 0.001. All energies are in units of $D/2$.

1132: Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref58}}.

1133: }

1134:   \label{fig:7}

1135: \end{figure}

1136: %\clearpage

1137: coupling to a single Einstein phonon at $\Omega_E = 0.1$ with

1138: mass enhancement parameter $\lambda = 2$ for different temperatures,

1139: all in units of $D/2$.

1140: The temperatures are as given in the figure caption.

1141: The sharper curves correspond to the lower temperatures.

1142:  For $T=0$, $\Sigma_1(\omega)$ has a

1143: logarithmic like singularity at $\omega = \Omega_E$ as in the

1144: infinite band case of Eq.~\eqref{eq:26} but now, rather than remain

1145: negative as it goes towards zero for $\omega\gg \Omega_E$,

1146: $\Sigma_1(\omega)$ crosses the $\omega$-axis and takes on large

1147: positive values before dropping towards zero from above. Equally

1148: different from the infinite band case, $-\Sigma_2(\omega)$ is not

1149: a constant equal to $\pi a$ [see Eq.~\eqref{eq:27}] above

1150: $\omega>\Omega_E$ but rather drops as we approach the bare band

1151: edge at $\omega=1.0$ after which it becomes small for

1152: $\omega\stackrel{>}{\sim}1.5$ which is where the renormalized

1153: density of states $\tilde{N}(\omega)$ also becomes small. For further

1154: discussion of finite band features we refer the reader to Refs.

1155: \onlinecite{ref54} to \onlinecite{ref62} as well as to Ref.~%

1156: \onlinecite{ref53} where a somewhat different density of states

1157: model is used but this does not change the qualitative behavior of the

1158: self energy seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:7}. An advantage of Karakozov and

1159: Maksimov's  choice of

1160: DOS, however, is that they can get a simple analytic expression

1161: for the self energy which they also show to be accurate by comparing

1162: with numerical results based on the full Eliashberg equations.

1163: 

1164: We return next to the OS of Eq.~\eqref{eq:17}. % which can be rewritten

1165: %as:

1166: %\begin{equation}

1167: %  \label{eq:28}

1168: %  \bar{W}(T) = \frac{\hbar^2}{2m_b}\left[1-\frac{4}{(D/2)^2}

1169: %  \int\limits_0^{D/2}\!d\epsilon\,\epsilon\int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty\!

1170: %  d\omega\,f(T,\omega)A(\epsilon,\omega)\right].

1171: %\end{equation}

1172: One can get insight into the relative importance of the temperature

1173: dependence carried by the thermal factor $f(T,\omega)$ in

1174: $\bar{W}(T)$ and the temperature

1175: \begin{figure}[tp]

1176: %  \centering

1177:   \includegraphics[width=9cm]{srFig8.eps}

1178:   \caption{The probability of occupation $n(\epsilon)$ of a state

1179: of energy $\epsilon$ vs

1180: normalized energy $2\epsilon/D$. (a) The results for the case when only

1181: the temperature dependence of the self energy is included. The normalized

1182: temperatures are $t \equiv 2T/D = 0.0$ (solid line), 

1183: 0.01 (dashed line), 0.03 (dotted line), and 0.05

1184: (dash-dotted line). (b) Comparison of the

1185: results when the complete temperature dependence  of $n(\epsilon)$

1186: [see Eq.~\protect{\eqref{eq:17}}] is accounted for (solid lines)

1187: with the case presented in frame (a). The normalized

1188: temperatures are $t=0.01$ (dashed line) and 0.05 (dash-dotted

1189: line). (All energies are in units of $D/2$.) A constant density of states

1190: model with cutoff $\pm D/2$ is used. Adapted from

1191: Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref49}}.

1192: }

1193:   \label{fig:8}

1194: \end{figure}

1195: dependence solely due

1196: to the interactions in $A(\epsilon,\omega)$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:8}

1197: we show results obtained by Knigavko {\it et al.}\cite{ref49}

1198: for $n(\epsilon)$, Eq.~\eqref{eq:10}.

1199: Frame (a) shows $n(\epsilon)$

1200: vs the renormalized energy $2\epsilon/D$ for four values of reduced

1201: temperatures $t=2T/D$,

1202: namely 0.0 (solid line), 0.01 (dashed line),

1203: 0.03 (dotted line), and 0.05 (dash-dotted line)

1204: when only the temperature dependence

1205: in $A(\epsilon,\omega)$ is included, i.e.: the $f(T,\omega)$ factor

1206: in $n(\epsilon)$ was excluded. Here we have considered coupling to a

1207: single phonon of energy $\Omega_E=0.04$ with mass enhancement

1208: $\lambda = 1$.

1209: It is clear that considerable temperature dependence comes from this

1210: source alone

1211: and will influence the temperature dependence of the

1212: OS. In frame (b) of Fig.~\ref{fig:8} we show results

1213: (solid curves)

1214: when both sources of $T$ dependence in $n(\epsilon)$ are included

1215: and compare with the two equivalent curves of frame (a) for

1216: $t=0.01$ (dashed line) and 0.05 (dash-dotted line).

1217: It is clear from these figures that the temperature

1218: dependence of the self energy is always important in determining

1219: the probability of occupation, $n(\epsilon)$, of a state of energy

1220: $\epsilon$ and hence the

1221: OS's $T$ dependence.

1222: 

1223: \subsection{Results for a delta-function boson model}

1224: \label{ssec:3c}

1225: 

1226: \begin{figure}[tp]

1227: %  \centering

1228: \vspace*{-7mm}

1229:   \includegraphics[width=9cm]{srFig9.eps}

1230:   \caption{The variation of the optical sum $S$ vs reduced temperature

1231: $t = 2T/D$ for the

1232: interaction strengths (a) $a=0.02$ and (b) $a=0.1$. The results are for

1233: both the quadratic (solid symbols) and tight binding

1234: (open symbols) bands, as indicated. In the top frame

1235: the mass enhancement factor $\lambda=0.8$ (squares) and

1236: $\lambda=1$ (triangles), while in the bottom frame $\lambda=2$ (squares)

1237: and $\lambda=4$ (triangles).

1238: The inset in the top frame illustrates

1239: the behavior of the optical sum during a sudden ``undressing

1240: transition'' at $t_{undress}=0.02$ with 20\% hardening of the

1241: normalized boson frequency $\Omega$ and a corresponding reduction

1242: of the mass enhancement factor from $\lambda=1.0$ to 0.8. Adapted

1243: from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref49}}.

1244: }

1245:   \label{fig:9}

1246: \vspace*{-3mm}

1247: \end{figure}

1248:  Results for the OS normalized by a factor

1249: of $\hbar^2/(2m_b)$ for the tight binding case \eqref{eq:17}

1250: and by $\hbar^2\, n/m$ for the quadratic dispersion, both

1251: denoted by $S(t)$, are given in Fig.~\ref{fig:9} reproduced

1252: from Knigavko {\it et al.}\cite{ref49} The parameters are as shown on the

1253: figure and given in the caption. The top frame is for $a=0.02$ and

1254: the bottom frame for $a=0.1$. The former corresponds

1255: to a conventional metal while the latter may be more characteristic of

1256: the cuprates. Two representative values of the boson energy

1257: $\Omega_E$ have been chosen to get $\lambda = 0.8$

1258: (squares) and 1.0 (triangles)

1259: in the top frame and $\lambda = 2$ (squares) and

1260: $\lambda = 4$ (triangles) in the bottom frame.

1261: Both tight binding (open symbols)

1262: and quadratic (solid symbols) dispersion

1263: relations are considered. It is quite clear from

1264: these results that the temperature dependence of the OS needs not be

1265: quadratic and depends on the size of the coupling to the phonons

1266: ($\lambda$ value) and also on the dispersion relation used to describe

1267: the electron dynamics. An important observation for what will follow

1268: is contained in the inset of the top frame of Fig.~\ref{fig:9}. The

1269: heavy solid line follows the temperature evolution of the OS when

1270: a sharp ``undressing'' transition is assumed to take place at $t=0.02$

1271: where a 20\% hardening of the phonon spectrum occurs.

1272: This corresponds to a shift in the mass enhancement parameter from

1273: $\lambda=1$ to 0.8. Such a hardening of the phonon energy leads to

1274: an increase in the OS corresponding to a decrease in the KE of the

1275: charge carriers.\cite{ref49}

1276: 

1277: \subsection{Results for an MMP spin fluctuation model}

1278: \label{ssec:3d}

1279: 

1280: The delta function spectra used in the work of Knigavko {\it et al.}%

1281: \cite{ref49} while giving us insight

1282: into the mechanism that leads to temperature dependences in the OS is not

1283: realistic for the cuprates. If one wishes to remain within the framework of

1284: a boson exchange mechanism one should at the very least choose a different

1285: form for $\alpha^2F(\omega)$. For spin fluctuation exchange a much

1286: used choice is the MMP model of Millis {\it et al.}\cite{ref37,ref61,ref63}

1287: In its simplest form $\alpha^2F(\omega)$ which will now be denoted

1288: $I^2\chi(\omega)$ is taken as

1289: \begin{equation}

1290:   \label{eq:29}

1291:   I^2\chi(\omega) = I^2\frac{\omega/\omega_{SF}}{1+(\omega/\omega_{SF})^2},

1292: \end{equation}

1293: with $I$ a coupling between charge carriers and spin susceptibility

1294: and $\omega_{SF}$ a spin fluctuation frequency. Here, the coupling $I$ is

1295: adjusted to get a superconducting transition temperature $T_c$ of

1296: \begin{figure}[tp]

1297: %  \centering

1298:   \includegraphics[width=9cm]{srFig10.eps}

1299:   \caption{Top frame: minus the imaginary part of the carrier self

1300: energy $-\Sigma_2(\omega,T)$ vs $\omega$ at the various temperatures

1301: shown. Middle frame: minus the real part of the carrier self energy

1302: $\Sigma_1(\omega,T)$ vs $\omega$. Bottom frame: the function

1303: $h(T,-\omega)$ of Eq.~\protect{\eqref{eq:18}} vs $\omega$. The

1304: calculation is for an MMP model, Eq.~\protect{\eqref{eq:29}}, with

1305: $\omega_{SF} = 20\,$meV, $I^2=0.82$, and $D=800\,$meV.

1306: }

1307:   \label{fig:10}

1308: \end{figure}

1309: $100\,$K when used in the corresponding Eliashberg

1310: equations generalized for a $d$-wave gap symmetry. In this section we

1311: concentrate on the

1312: normal state only. Thus, Eqs.~\eqref{eq:23s} %and \eqref{eq:24}

1313: apply with

1314: $\alpha^2F(\omega)$ replaced by Eq.~\eqref{eq:29}. Results for a case

1315: with $\omega_{SF}=20\,$meV, $I^2=0.82$, and $D/2 = 400\,$meV are shown in

1316: Fig.~\ref{fig:10} which has three frames. In the top frame we show

1317: $-\Sigma_2(T,\omega)$ for four temperatures as labeled, in the center

1318: frame $\Sigma_1(T,\omega)$,

1319:  and in the bottom frame $h(T,-\omega)$

1320: vs $\omega$. It is clear that both real and imaginary part of

1321: $\Sigma(T,\omega)$ have important $T$ dependencies which get

1322: reflected in $h(T,\omega)$ and consequently in the OS given by

1323: Eq.~\eqref{eq:17} and more approximately by Eq.~\eqref{eq:19} with

1324: \begin{figure}[tp]

1325: %  \centering

1326:   \includegraphics[width=9cm]{srFig11.eps}

1327:   \caption{The reduced optical sum $S(T)$ according to

1328: Eq.~\protect{\eqref{eq:29a}}

1329: vs temperature $(T)$ squared. The left hand frame is for

1330: an MMP model \protect{\eqref{eq:29}} with $\omega_{SF} = 20\,$meV and

1331: $I^2=0.82$ while the right hand frame is for $\omega_{SF} = 82\,$meV

1332: and $I^2 = 0.655$.

1333: }

1334:   \label{fig:11}

1335: \end{figure}

1336: the last term dropped. In this instance it is simply the area under

1337: $h(T,\omega)$ for negative $\omega$ that determines the OS while in

1338: Eq.~\eqref{eq:17} it is its overlap with the Fermi distribution and this

1339: has an additional temperature dependence due to $f(T,\omega)$ but it

1340: is small. Results for

1341: \begin{equation}

1342:    \label{eq:29a}

1343:    S(T) = 2\bar{W}(T)\frac{m_b}{\hbar^2}

1344: \end{equation}

1345: are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:11} which has two frames. In the left hand

1346: frame we show results for $S(T)$ vs $T^2$ up to $40 000\,$K$^2$ for our

1347: MMP model with $\omega_{SF} = 20\,$meV and $I^2 = 0.82$ while in the

1348: right hand frame $\omega_{SF}$ is increased to $82\,$meV with

1349: $I^2=0.655$. In both cases the full band width $D$ ranges over 2500

1350: (dashed line), 800 (solid line), and $500\,$meV (dash-dotted line).

1351: It is clear that decreasing $D$ reduces the value of $S(T=0)$ and

1352: gives a stronger $T$ dependence which, nevertheless, remains near

1353: a $T^2$ behavior for the right hand frame but not in the left hand

1354: frame. These results are in qualitative agreement with those shown

1355: in the previous section, Figs.~\ref{fig:1} and \ref{fig:3} obtained

1356: in a tight binding model with a {\bf k}-point sampling method of

1357: the Brillouin zone and the full momentum dependent Eliashberg

1358: equations \eqref{eq:6}. Also shown in both frames as a dotted curve for the

1359: case $D=800\,$meV are straight lines which allow us to judge better

1360: the deviations from a $T^2$ law at small $T$ in the curves of the left

1361: hand frame. For the right hand frame there is little deviation.

1362: Note that both these behaviors are completely consistent with

1363: numerical results of Fig.~\ref{fig:3} and show that the upward

1364: deviation at small $T$ of the solid curve as compared with the

1365: dotted $(T^2)$ is a robust result not dependent on the model

1366: used, provided that the spin fluctuation frequency is small.

1367: Note also that Eq.~\eqref{eq:17} includes $T$ variations in $h(T,\omega)$

1368: as well as the thermal factor $f(T,\omega)$, but this latter factor

1369: can be neglected. The differences are very small

1370: confirming our previous claim that the temperature dependence

1371: in $S(T)$ is mainly due to variations in the interaction term

1372: at least for these cases. Finally, we stress again that the $T^2$

1373: law found in the DMFT calculations for the Hubbard model and

1374: often confirmed in experiments also arises in the NAFFL model with

1375: an MMP interaction provided the spin fluctuation energy is fairly large

1376: and $D$ not too small. In principle, however, there is no fundamental

1377: reason for an exact $T^2$ law. The actual $T$ dependence of $S(T)$

1378: comes from the $T$ dependence of the area under the curves for

1379: $h(T,-\omega)$ (bottom frame of Fig.~\ref{fig:10}). We see that

1380: these curves change most at small $\omega$ as $T$ is increased but

1381: there are also important changes at large $\omega$ and we are sampling

1382: an average of these changes. Nevertheless, the $\omega$

1383: dependence of $\alpha^2F(\omega)$ or $I^2\chi(\omega)$ at low energies

1384: $\omega$ will determine most strongly the temperature dependence of

1385: $h(T,-\omega)$ at those energies and, thus, plays an important role

1386: in the temperature dependence of $S(T)$. However, even at higher

1387: energies there is still significant $T$ dependence in $h(T,-\omega)$.

1388: 

1389: \subsection{The non $T^2$ temperature dependence of the optical sum}

1390: \label{ssec:3e}

1391: 

1392: Benfatto {\it et al.}\cite{ref52} have reconsidered the effect of

1393: \begin{figure}[tp]

1394: %  \centering

1395: %  \includegraphics[width=9cm]{fig3bw.eps}

1396:   \includegraphics[width=8cm]{srFig12.eps}

1397:   \caption{(Color online)

1398: The negative of the KE, $-\langle K\rangle$, vs temperature

1399: showing the breakdown for the various contributions. The solid

1400: curves are for a small boson frequency $\omega_E=2\,$meV with

1401: $\lambda=1$. The two thin lines show how the zero temperature value

1402: is modified by the Sommerfeld term by a very small amount. A similar

1403: size contribution (actually a bit larger) is illustrated for the

1404: noninteracting case by dotted curves, where only the

1405: Sommerfeld term is responsible for the temperature variation. Finally,

1406: for higher boson frequencies, the dashed curves illustrate

1407: the amount of temperature variation due to the Sommerfeld term

1408: compared with the rest. The band width $W \equiv D = 1\,$eV.

1409:  Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref52}}.

1410: }

1411:   \label{fig:12}

1412: \end{figure}

1413: interaction on the temperature dependence of $S(T)$ with an aim at

1414: providing simple analytic expressions that would help trace more

1415: directly the dependence on the interactions.

1416: In Fig.~\ref{fig:12} we reproduce some of their results for the

1417: temperature dependence of the negative of the KE, $-\langle K\rangle \equiv

1418: K(T)$, in meV. The two dotted lines at the top of the graph represent

1419: the noninteracting case $(\lambda=0)$ and are for reference. As expected,

1420: there is little difference between $K(T)$ and its zero temperature

1421: value $K(T=0)$. The three solid curves are for a system with coupling

1422: to a boson of frequency $\omega_E=2\,$meV and $\lambda=1$. We see that

1423: $K(T=0)$ and $K(T=0)+K_{\rm Somm}(T)$, the Sommerfeld contribution, are

1424: not significantly different. Thus, $K_{\rm Somm}(T)$ is not the

1425: important contribution to the temperature dependence of the complete KE

1426: [heavy solid line, denoted $K(T)$] which develops a linear temperature

1427: dependence for $T\sim20\,$K. The same holds for the case

1428: $\omega_E=25\,$meV (three dashed curves) but the variation in $T$ of

1429: $K(T)$ in this case is less pronounced and closer to a $T^2$ law as

1430: was found for the MMP spectrum. The band width in all three cases was

1431: $W \equiv D = 1\,$eV. Benfatto {\it et al.}\cite{ref52} trace these

1432: $T$ dependences in detail using analytic as well as numerical techniques.

1433: They concluded that both the real and imaginary parts of $\Sigma$

1434: contribute. Karakozov and Maksimov\cite{ref53} also find deviations

1435: from a $T^2$ law and provide an approximate analytic formula for

1436: these deviations in a particular case.

1437: For different models of $\alpha^2F(\omega)$ other

1438: $T$ dependencies are possible. This means that in principle one

1439: can learn about some features of this underlying $\alpha^2F(\omega)$

1440: from a study of the temperature dependence of the OS, but the

1441: correspondence is not necessarily simple or unique.

1442: On the other hand, a complete study of the

1443: temperature and frequency dependence of the optical self energy\cite{ref64}

1444: as is now done routinely, provides much more detailed information

1445: than does the OS.

1446: Recall that $h(T,\omega)$ is dependent on an average over the

1447: real and imaginary part of $\Sigma$, the quasiparticle self energy.

1448: This information is accessible directly from angular resolved

1449: photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) at each point in the Brillouin

1450: zone separately.

1451: 

1452: \begin{figure}[tp]

1453: \vspace*{-16mm}

1454: %  \centering

1455: %  \includegraphics[width=10cm]{srFig13.eps}

1456:   \includegraphics[width=9cm]{srFig13.eps}

1457:   \vspace*{-2cm}

1458:   \caption{(Color online)

1459: The partial spectral weight integrated up to various

1460: frequencies as a function of temperature. Below $16\,000\,$cm$^{-1}$

1461: there is an increase in spectral weight as the temperature is lowered

1462: signaling a line narrowing on this frequency scale. Below $T_c$ there

1463: is strong loss of spectral weight to the superconducting condensate.

1464: There is no evidence of any precursors to superconductivity at

1465: $67\,$K. In the inset we show $N_{eff}(\omega)$ at $295\,$K. Adapted

1466: from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref64}}.

1467: }

1468:   \label{fig:13}

1469: %\vspace*{-1cm}

1470: \end{figure}

1471: While many experiments give a $T^2$ dependence in the normal state

1472: within the precision of measurement there is some evidence for

1473: other dependences in the cuprates. In Fig.~\ref{fig:13} we reproduce

1474: data from the paper of Hwang {\it et al.}\cite{ref64} for the partial sum

1475: to $\omega_c$ in units of carriers per Cu atom denoted by

1476: $N_{eff}(T)$. What is shown is the difference $N_{eff}(T)-N_{eff}(300\,

1477: {\rm K})$ as a function of temperature $T$ to $300\,$K. The data is for

1478: underdoped

1479: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.50}$ (YBCO$_{6.50}$) Ortho II material of high

1480: quality and purity. There are 5 values of $\omega_c$, namely 1000, 5000,

1481: $10\,000$, $16\,000$, and $20\,000\,$cm$^{-1}$. It is clear that the

1482: temperature dependence of $N_{eff}(T)$ is not necessarily quadratic

1483: in $T$ for the partial sums and also for the case most relevant for

1484: our discussions with $\omega_c = 16\,000\,$cm$^{-1}$. These samples

1485: are, however, underdoped and a pseudogap is involved which could

1486: have some effect on the temperature dependence of the OS as we will

1487: discuss later within a phase fluctuation model for the pseudogap and

1488: alternatively a $D$-density wave model.

1489: 

1490: \section{The Optical Sum in the Superconducting State}

1491: \label{sec:4}

1492: \subsection{Superconducting optical sum including of inelastic

1493: scattering collapse}

1494: \label{ssec:4a}

1495: 

1496: \begin{figure}[tp]

1497: \vspace*{-4mm}

1498:   \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{srFig14.eps}

1499:   \caption{Experimental values of the $ab$-plane spectral function 

1500: $\rho_L$ defined in Eq.~\protect{\eqref{eq:30}}.

1501: Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref34}}.

1502: }

1503:   \label{fig:14}

1504: %\vspace*{5cm}

1505: \end{figure}

1506: Next we return to a more detailed look at the superconducting state.

1507: In Fig.~\ref{fig:14} we reproduce the original results of

1508: Molegraaf {\it et al.}\cite{ref48} for two samples of BSCCO

1509: as they were presented by van der Marel {\it et al.}\cite{ref34}

1510: The top frame is for optimally doped and the bottom frame for

1511: an underdoped sample. What is shown is

1512: \begin{equation}

1513:   \label{eq:30}

1514:   \rho_L \equiv C\frac{\hbar^2}{\pi e^2}\int\limits_{-\Omega}^\Omega\!

1515: d\omega\,\Re{\rm e}[\sigma(\omega)]

1516: \end{equation}

1517: in meV with $C$ a constant to be specified shortly.

1518: It is striking that in these two samples the OS appears to

1519: increase faster in the superconducting state than in the underlying

1520: normal state extrapolated to low temperatures (dotted line). This

1521: was interpreted by Molegraaf {\it et al.}\cite{ref48} as indicating

1522: a decrease in KE in the superconducting state as compared with the

1523: underlying normal state which also shows a decrease in KE as $T\to 0$

1524: but by less than in the superconducting state. This behavior

1525: clearly goes beyond ordinary BCS theory and also Eliashberg theory as

1526: formulated for phonons.

1527: 

1528: There remains some controversy about the interpretation of such data

1529: with some authors finding the opposite effect.\cite{ref65} We will not go into

1530: these details here but refer the reader to some relevant

1531: literature\cite{ref65,ref66,ref67} and note that Santander-Syro%

1532: \cite{ref47} confirm the basic results of Molegraaf {\it et al.}\cite{ref48}

1533: See also the recent work of Carbone {\it et al.}\cite{ref33a}

1534: 

1535: We have already seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:9} [inset in frame (a)] for

1536: the normal state, that undressing effects associated with a hardening of

1537: the phonon spectra at a particular onset temperature can give an OS curve

1538: that behaves very much like those seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:14}.

1539: While in principle

1540: phonon frequencies can shift as a result of the onset of superconductivity

1541: these effects are small and usually negligible. For an electronic mechanism,

1542: however, we have already discussed in the introduction the idea of the

1543: collapse of the inelastic scattering as superconductivity sets in which

1544: leads directly to a peak in the real part of the microwave conductivity

1545: at some intermediate temperature below $T_c$. Within a spin fluctuation

1546: mechanism this translates into a hardening of the spin fluctuation spectrum

1547: and the modification of $I^2\chi(\omega)$ of Eq.~\eqref{eq:29} as the

1548: $d$-wave superconducting gap opens. An analysis of the optical scattering

1549: rates in YBCO$_{6.95}$ by Carbotte {\it et al.}\cite{ref68} showed that

1550: \begin{figure}[tp]

1551: \vspace*{7mm}

1552: \vspace*{-2mm}

1553:   \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{srFig15.eps}

1554:   \caption{The charge carrier-spin spectral density $I^2\chi(\omega)$

1555:   determined from optical scattering data of YBCO$_{6.95}$

1556: at various temperatures.

1557:   Solid gray curve $T=90\,$K, dash-dotted $T=80\,$K, dashed $T=60\,$K,

1558: dotted $T=40\,$K, and black solid $T=10\,$K. Note the growth in strength

1559: of the $41\,$meV optical resonance as the temperature is lowered.

1560: Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref70}}.

1561: }

1562:   \label{fig:15}

1563: \end{figure}

1564: there is a reduction in $I^2\chi(\omega)$ at small $\omega$ as the

1565: temperature is reduced. Results obtained by Schachinger

1566: {\it et al.}\cite{ref69,ref70} for the temperature evolution of

1567: $I^2\chi(\omega)$

1568: in YBCO$_{6.95}$ are reproduced in Fig.~\ref{fig:15}. We see a reduction in

1569: spectral weight at low $\omega$ as well as the growth of an optical

1570: resonance at $41\,$meV, the energy of the spin one resonance seen in

1571: neutron scattering.\cite{ref71} When these spectra are used in a

1572: \begin{figure}[tp]

1573: %  \centering

1574: \vspace*{8mm}

1575:   \includegraphics[width=8cm]{srFig16.eps}

1576:   \caption{

1577: Temperature dependence of the conductivity $\sigma_1(\omega)$ at

1578: microwave frequency $\omega=0.144\,$meV in YBCO$_{6.95}$.

1579: The open circles are results based on

1580: our model spectral density (see Fig.~\protect{\ref{fig:15}}) obtained

1581: from inversion of optical conductivity data and the dashed line is

1582: based on an

1583: MMP model with low frequency cutoff. The solid triangles include impurities

1584: with the solid line from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref74}}. The solid

1585: squares represent experimental data by Bonn {\it et al.}\protect{%

1586: \cite{ref75}} Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref69}}.

1587: }

1588:   \label{fig:16}

1589: \end{figure}

1590: generalization of the ordinary Eliashberg equations that

1591: includes the possibility of $d$-wave symmetry with gap $\Delta(\phi) =

1592: \Delta_0\cos(2\phi)$ where $\phi$ is an angle on the Fermi surface

1593: taken to be cylindrical, Schachinger and Carbotte,\cite{ref70,ref72}

1594: find excellent agreement for the microwave data of Hosseini {\it et al.}%

1595: \cite{ref73} taken at five different microwave frequencies on high quality

1596: samples of YBCO$_{6.99}$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:16}, reproduced from

1597: Ref.~\onlinecite{ref69}, we show older results obtained by Bonn {\it et

1598: al.}\cite{ref75} fit by Schachinger {\it et al.}\cite{ref74} by simply

1599: applying a low frequency cutoff to an MMP form.\cite{ref74,ref76} The data

1600: are given as the solid squares while the theoretical calculations without

1601: impurities (open circles and dashed line) and with impurities

1602: (solid triangles and solid line) are shown for comparison. Here

1603: $t^+$ gives the impurity scattering rate in Born approximation.

1604: Open circles and solid triangles are based on the spectra of Fig.~\ref{fig:15}

1605: which include the $41\,$meV spin resonance. The dashed and solid lines

1606: are from earlier calculations based on an MMP spectrum with application

1607: of a low frequency cutoff without resonance.\cite{ref74,ref76} We see

1608: that such a procedure gives results that are very close to those based

1609: on the more exact results of Fig.~\ref{fig:15}.

1610: 

1611: Calculations in the model of Eqs.~\eqref{eq:6} of the OS and KE

1612: of optimally doped BSCCO have

1613: been carried out by Schachinger and Carbotte\cite{ref40} who simulated

1614: \begin{figure}[tp]

1615: %  \centering

1616:   \includegraphics[width=9cm]{srFig17.eps}

1617:   \caption{The optical sum of optimally doped BSCCO 

1618: as a function of the square of the temperature

1619: for the band structure Model A of Table~\protect{\ref{tab:1}} with

1620: different values of $\omega_{SF}$. Also in one case a low frequency

1621: cutoff is applied to the spin susceptibility. Note the significance

1622: of the $T^2$-variation on the value of $\omega_{SF}$. The thick solid

1623: line represents experimental normal state data of Molegraaf {\it et al.}%

1624: \protect{\cite{ref48}} also shown in the top frame of

1625: Fig.~\protect{\ref{fig:14}}.

1626: Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref40}}.

1627: }

1628:   \label{fig:17}

1629: \end{figure}

1630: the expected hardening of the spin fluctuation spectra in the

1631: superconducting state by applying a low frequency cutoff to the

1632: interaction of Eq.~\eqref{eq:7}. This cutoff varies with temperature.

1633: It is zero at $T_c$ and has a maximum amplitude of $23\,$meV at $T=0$ with

1634: intensity changed according to a mean field BCS $d$-wave order parameter

1635: temperature dependence. Their results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:17}.

1636: The quantity $\rho_L$ according to Eq.~\eqref{eq:30} on the vertical

1637: axis is in meV and the horizontal scale is $T^2$ in K$^2$. The heavy

1638: solid line are normal state experimental data of Molegraaf {\it et al.},%

1639: \cite{ref48} also shown in the top frame of Fig.~\ref{fig:14} of this

1640: review. The theoretical results for the OS are all based on Model A

1641: of Table~\ref{tab:1} but were scaled upward by a factor

1642: [$C$ of Eq.~\eqref{eq:30}] of approximately

1643: two to fit the data. The spin fluctuation frequency $\omega_{SF}$

1644: was also adjusted to improve the fit; $\omega_{SF}=13\,$meV is best.

1645: To reduce the discrepancy in absolute value of the OS the value of

1646: the nearest neighbor hopping parameter $t$ in our band structure model

1647: would need to be increased. This would, however, also decrease the

1648: sensitivity of the OS to temperature variations and so $\omega_{SF}$

1649: would have to be adjusted downwards as well. Markiewicz {\it et al.}%

1650: \cite{ref77} have suggested significantly larger values of nearest

1651: neighbor hopping $t$ for

1652: the bare band structure of BSCCO  than used to fit ARPES data. As is

1653: well known, there can be a factor of two or more. We have

1654: used the dispersion relation of Table I of Ref.~\onlinecite{ref77}

1655: (specifically we used $t=360\,$meV, $t'=-100\,$meV, and

1656: $\langle n\rangle = 0.4$. We also included further neighbors, namely

1657: $t''=35\,$meV and $t'''=20\,$meV)

1658: and found a value of $W(T=0)$ of $230\,$meV well above the

1659: experimental value with $\omega_{SF}=8\,$meV giving the proper

1660: temperature dependence. It is clear that a value of $t$ intermediate between

1661: that of Markiewicz {\it et al.}\cite{ref77} and the one in Table~\ref{tab:1}

1662: for Model A would be needed to get agreement with the OS data without any

1663: adjustment and a $\omega_{SF}$ value between 8 and $13\,$meV. Schachinger

1664: and Carbotte\cite{ref40} did not attempt such a fit

1665: as their aim was not

1666: to fit any particular case but rather see how a low frequency cutoff

1667: applied to a spin fluctuation model changes the OS. The solid

1668: squares in Fig.~\ref{fig:17} show the normal state results while the

1669: solid triangles are in the superconducting state. These are obtained

1670: without cutoff and so the KE has increased with respect to its normal

1671: state. The open squares and triangles show results for the same two

1672: cases but now the low frequency cutoff is applied to simulate the

1673: hardening of the spectrum as $T$ is reduced below $T_c$. We see a

1674: large decrease in KE as compared to the case without cutoff and the

1675: superconducting state would then show a decrease in KE as compared to

1676: the normal state without cutoff in agreement with the data of

1677: Fig.~\ref{fig:14}. It is the modification of the underlying interactions

1678: that have lead to this effect. It is clear that a modest hardening of

1679: the spectra consistent with the changes seen in the electron-boson

1680: spectral functions of Fig.~\ref{fig:15} would be sufficient to explain

1681: the data in Fig.~\ref{fig:14}. Of course, in a complete theory as yet

1682: not attempted, it would be necessary to find an interaction which

1683: can give not only the correct OS but also the microwave peak

1684: and all the

1685: other properties of the superconducting state. Finally, we note that

1686: in Fig.~\ref{fig:17} the OS shows a non $T^2$ behavior at low

1687: temperatures even without the low frequency cutoff which has the effect

1688: of making it more pronounced.

1689: If we did not have the normal state data below $T_c$ and simply

1690: extrapolated the normal state data above $T_c$ with a $T^2$ law 

1691: to $T=0$ we would have to conclude that the OS is higher in

1692: the superconducting state

1693: than in the extrapolated ``normal state'' yet in this case the mechanism

1694: for pairing is not exotic in any way, i.e.: there is no low frequency cut

1695: off. (See also Fig.~\ref{fig:3}.) With the introduction of a low frequency

1696: cutoff this effect becomes even more pronounced and

1697: for the case shown the rise in the superconducting state is larger

1698: than seen in the experiments of Fig.~\ref{fig:14}. We caution the reader,

1699: however, that while this rise is seen by several experimental groups and is

1700: not controversial, its actual size is.

1701: 

1702: \subsection{The Temperature Dependent Scattering Time Model}

1703: \label{ssec:4c}

1704: 

1705: Recently Marsiglio\cite{ref90} has

1706: given calculations that provide support for the results of Fig.~\ref{fig:17}

1707: using a related but much simpler model. He notes that in an infinite band for

1708: an elastic scattering rate $\Gamma$ the probability of occupation of the

1709: state $\vert{\bf k}\rangle$ at finite temperature is given by

1710: \begin{equation}

1711:   \label{eq:32}

1712:   n_N(\epsilon_{\bf k}) = \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{\pi}\,\Im{\rm m}\psi\left(

1713:   \frac{1}{2}+\frac{\Gamma}{4\pi T}+i\frac{\epsilon_{\bf k}}{2\pi T}

1714:   \right)

1715: \end{equation}

1716: for the normal state and, to a good approximation, by

1717: \begin{equation}

1718:   \label{eq:33}

1719:   n_S(\epsilon_{\bf k}) = \frac{1}{2}-\frac{\epsilon_{\bf k}}{E_{\bf k}}

1720:   \frac{1}{\pi}\Im{\rm m}\,\psi\left(

1721:   \frac{1}{2}+\frac{\Gamma}{4\pi T}+i\frac{E_{\bf k}}{2\pi T}

1722:   \right)

1723: \end{equation}

1724: for the superconducting state with $E_{\bf k} = \sqrt{\epsilon_{\bf k}^2+

1725: \Delta_{\bf k}^2}$,

1726: with $\Delta_{\bf k}$ the superconducting gap and

1727: $\psi(z)$ is the digamma function.  Note that at zero temperature

1728: \begin{equation}

1729:   \label{eq:34}

1730:   n_S(\epsilon_{\bf k}) = \frac{1}{2}\left[1-\frac{\epsilon_{\bf k}}

1731:   {E_{\bf k}}\frac{2}{\pi}\tan^{-1}\left(\frac{2E_{\bf k}}{\Gamma}\right)

1732:   \right],

1733: \end{equation}

1734: which, in the limit $\Gamma\to 0$, reduces to the well known expression

1735: $(1-\epsilon_{\bf k}/E_{\bf k})/2$, Eq.~\eqref{eq:11a}

1736: introduced in Sec.~\ref{ssec:2d}.

1737: It is clear from Eq.~\eqref{eq:34} that both, the appearance of a

1738: gap in $E_{\bf k}$ and the elastic scattering $\Gamma$ smear

1739: $n_S(\epsilon_{\bf k})$.

1740: \begin{figure}[tp]

1741: %  \centering

1742: %  \includegraphics[width=11cm]{srFig21.eps}

1743:   \includegraphics[width=9cm]{srFig18.eps}

1744:   \caption{(Color online)

1745: Minus the kinetic energy, $-\langle T_{xx}\rangle$,

1746: vs temperature squared for various

1747: degrees of elastic scattering. Below $T_c$ we change the elastic

1748: scattering rate smoothly to zero [as $\Gamma_0 (T/T_c)^4$] as the

1749: temperature is lowered.

1750: Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref90}}

1751: }

1752:   \label{fig:21}

1753: \end{figure}

1754: From these expressions for $n(\epsilon_{\bf k})$ it is easy

1755: to work out the average KE which Marsiglio denotes by $-\langle T_{xx}

1756: \rangle$. He uses a tight binding band and a constant

1757: $\Gamma_0 = 1/\tau = 0$, 2, 5, 10, and $15\,$meV from top to bottom

1758: in Fig.~\ref{fig:21}. For the superconducting state $\Gamma_0$ is

1759: changed to $\Gamma(T)$ with $\Gamma(T) = \Gamma_0(T/T_c)^4$ which is

1760: observed in the work of Hosseini {\it et al.}\cite{ref73} This

1761: introduces phenomenologically the idea of the collapse of the

1762: scattering rate. We see in Fig.~\ref{fig:21} that for $1/\tau = 5\,$meV

1763: and larger the KE decreases below its normal state extrapolation as the

1764: system becomes superconducting. The change is of the order of a few

1765: percent for the largest $1/\tau$ considered and is large enough to

1766: explain the measured KE changes in the underdoped cuprates.

1767: 

1768: \subsection{The model of Norman and P\'epin}

1769: \label{ssec:4b}

1770: 

1771: The mechanism described above which leads to an OS increase as

1772: superconductivity sets in has some common elements with the ideas

1773: of Norman and P\'epin\cite{ref78,ref79} although there are also

1774: important differences. These authors use a less fundamental, more

1775: phenomenological approach based on ARPES\cite{ref80} and optical

1776: conductivity data from which they construct directly a model for

1777: the self energy $\Sigma(\omega)$. For the normal state they begin

1778: with a constant, frequency independent scattering rate

1779: $\Gamma_0 = \Im{\rm m}\Sigma(\omega)$ (taken to be of order

1780: $100\,$meV) to simulate the very broad (incoherent) line shapes seen

1781: in ARPES at the anti nodal point $(0,\pi)$. In the superconducting

1782: state a sharp coherence peak appears which signals increased coherence.

1783: To model this fact a low frequency cutoff $\omega_0$ is applied

1784: to the imaginary part of $\Sigma(\omega)$ making it zero for

1785: $\omega\le\omega_0$ and $\Gamma_0$ above. The value of $\omega_0$

1786: is chosen as the energy of the spectral dip feature seen in ARPES

1787: in the superconducting state. Here, as in the model described

1788: in Sec.~\ref{ssec:4c},

1789: the underlying normal state on top of which superconductivity

1790: develops effectively has reduced scattering, i.e.: is more coherent

1791: which is a critical additional feature not contained in ordinary

1792: BCS and this leads to a reduction in KE and, consequently, in an increase

1793: of the OS. To arrive at their final estimates for the KE increase

1794: Norman and P\'epin include further complications in their model

1795: such as the anisotropy observed in scattering rates\cite{ref81,ref82,ref83,%

1796: ref84} ($\Gamma_{\bf k}$ instead of $\Gamma_0$)

1797: \begin{figure}[tp]

1798: %  \centering

1799: %\vspace*{5mm}

1800:   \includegraphics[width=7cm]{srFig19a.eps}

1801:   \includegraphics[width=7cm]{srFig19b.eps}

1802:   \caption{Top frame:

1803: The optical scattering rate $1/\tau(\omega)$ vs $\omega$

1804: for various BSCCO samples from

1805: Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref87}} (OD overdoped, OPT optimal doped,

1806: UD underdoped). Bottom frame:

1807: Calculated sum rule violation $(-\Delta E_K)$ vs

1808: doping $x$ (solid circles).

1809: The curve is $T_c$. Also shown in this frame are the

1810: experimental results (open squares from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref46}},

1811: open diamonds from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref48}}). The theoretical

1812: doping trend in (b) is due to the increasing offset in $1/\tau$ seen

1813: in (a). Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref78}}.

1814: }

1815:   \label{fig:18}

1816: \end{figure}

1817: going from anti nodal to nodal direction as well as an

1818: $\omega$ dependence (proportional to a momentum independent parameter

1819: $\alpha$) in the self energy modeled on the Marginal

1820: Fermi Liquid model\cite{ref85,ref86} with parameters determined

1821: from optical

1822: data on scattering rates. We reproduce in Fig.~\ref{fig:18} their

1823: final estimates for the KE change $-\Delta E_K$ between superconducting

1824: and normal state. The left hand frame shows the optical scattering rate

1825: denoted $1/\tau(\omega)$ for four

1826: BSCCO samples from Puchkov {\it et al.}\cite{ref87} which they use

1827: to fit parameters. The right hand frame presents the results for the change in

1828: KE $(-\Delta E_K)$ associated with the formation of the superconducting

1829: state in

1830: meV as a function of doping $x$. The solid circles give the theoretical

1831: results and the open squares and open diamonds experimental data from

1832: Santander-Syro {\it et al.}\cite{ref46} and Molegraaf {\it et al.},\cite{ref48}

1833: respectively. The theoretical estimates are deemed reasonable

1834: but not accurate. On the overdoped side the OS behaves in a conventional

1835: fashion while for the underdoped side it is anomalous representing a

1836: lowering of KE as compared with what is expected in conventional BCS.

1837: Note that the lowest open square in this graph shown as being zero for

1838: the overdoped sample represents an early not very accurate estimate. In

1839: Ref.~\onlinecite{ref46} it is actually negative rather than zero

1840: bringing it closer in agreement with the lowest solid circle (theory).

1841: This point was further discussed by Deutscher {\it et al.}\cite{ref87a}

1842: %taken from

1843: %Ref.~\onlinecite{ref48} for an overdoped sample falls at negative values

1844: %of $-\Delta E_K$ rather than at zero\cite{ref87a,ref88} as shown in

1845: %Fig.~\ref{fig:18} bringing it in closer agreement with the lowest solid

1846: %circle (theory).

1847: 

1848: \subsection{Additional data on kinetic energy changes}

1849: \label{ssec:4e}

1850: 

1851: \begin{figure}[tp]

1852: %  \centering

1853:   \includegraphics[width=8cm]{srFig20.eps}

1854:   \caption{Spectral weight of the overdoped Bi2212 sample, integrated

1855: up to $1\,$eV, plotted vs $T^2$, from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref46}}.

1856: Closed symbols: spectral weight in the normal state, open symbols:

1857: spectral weight in the superconducting state, including the weight

1858: of the superfluid. The errors in the {\it relative} variations of the

1859: spectral weight are of the size of the symbols. Adapted from

1860: Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref87a}}.

1861: }

1862:   \label{fig:19}

1863: \end{figure}

1864: We reproduce in Fig.~\ref{fig:19} the data of Santander-Syro {\it et al.}%

1865: \cite{ref46} for their overdoped sample as presented by Deutscher

1866: {\it et al.}\cite{ref87a} What is shown is the optical spectral weight

1867: in units $10^6\,\Omega^{-1}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}$ as a function of $T^2$.

1868: The solid circles are in the normal state and the open circles in the

1869: superconducting state below $T_c = 63\,$K. A clear $T^2$ law is noted

1870: above $T_c$ and a reduction in spectral weight below, as expected in

1871: ordinary BCS theory.  For the optimally doped sample

1872: \begin{figure}[tp]

1873: %  \centering

1874:   \includegraphics[width=8cm]{srFig21.eps}

1875:   \caption{Change $\Delta E_{kin}$ of the KE, in meV per copper site

1876: vs the charge $p$ per copper site with

1877: respect to $p_{opt}$ [Eq.~\protect{\eqref{eq:31}}] in BSCCO.

1878: Full diamonds: data from

1879: Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref47}}, high-frequency cutoff $1\,$eV. Open

1880: circles: data from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref48}}, high frequency

1881: cutoff $1.25\,$eV. Error bars: vertical, uncertainties due to the

1882: extrapolation of the temperature dependence of the normal state spectral

1883: weight down to zero temperature; horizontal, uncertainties resulting

1884: from $T_c/T_{c,max}$ through Eq.~\protect{\eqref{eq:31}}.

1885: Deutscher {\it et al.}\protect{\cite{ref87a}} took

1886: $T_{c,max} = (83\pm2)\,$K for films and $(91\pm2)\,$K for crystals.

1887: Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref87a}}.

1888: }

1889:   \label{fig:20}

1890: \end{figure}

1891: (not shown) the normal state temperature dependence is closer to

1892: linear than quadratic and the underdoped sample shows a very

1893: flat region before entering the superconducting state. This demonstrates

1894: once more that there is as yet no strong consensus in the literature

1895: as to the $T$ dependence of the normal state. (Please see also

1896: Ref.~\onlinecite{ref89a}.)

1897: The same paper also analyses the data in terms

1898: of KE change for three samples UND70K, OPT80K, and OVR63K, as shown

1899: in Fig.~\ref{fig:20} reproduced from Deutscher {\it et al.}\cite{ref87a}

1900: The horizontal axis is $p-p_{opt}$ where $p$ is the charge per Cu atom related

1901: to $T_c$ by

1902: \begin{equation}

1903:   \label{eq:31}

1904:   \frac{T_c}{T_{c,opt}} = 1-86.2\left(p-p_{opt}\right)^2,

1905: \end{equation}

1906: with $T_{c,opt}$ the maximum critical temperature for the Bi2212 series.%

1907: \cite{ref89} What is clear from this figure is that there is a smooth

1908: crossover from standard behavior on the overdoped side to anomalous

1909: behavior on the underdoped side. The very recent data of

1910: Carbone {\it et al.}\cite{ref33a} lends further support to this

1911: conclusion.

1912: 

1913: \subsection{Cluster dynamical mean field of the $t$--$J$ model}

1914: \label{ssec:4d}

1915: 

1916: Recently Haule and Kotliar\cite{ref89b} calculated the optical

1917: conductivity of the $t$--$J$ model within a cluster DMFT (CDMFT).

1918: (Please see also earlier work by Maier {\it et al.}\cite{ref89c}

1919: \begin{figure}[tp]

1920: %  \centering

1921: %  \includegraphics[width=12cm]{srFig32.eps}

1922:   \includegraphics[width=8cm]{srFig22.eps}

1923:   \caption{(Color online)

1924: The difference between the superconducting and normal state

1925: energies as a function of temperature. The following curves are shown:

1926: up-triangles - $E_{kin-S}-E_{kin-N}$; squares - $E_{x-S}-E_{x-N}$;

1927: diamonds - $E_{tot-S}-E_{tot-N}$; circles - $\mu_S-\mu_N$.

1928: Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref89b}}.

1929: }

1930:   \label{fig:32}

1931: \end{figure}

1932: based on the Hubbard model.) Haule and Kotliar\cite{ref89b} treat

1933: the temperature and doping

1934: dependence and address the issue of the change in KE of the holes

1935: when superconductivity sets in. They find, in agreement with

1936: experiment, that on the overdoped side the KE makes a negative

1937: contribution to the condensation energy as in conventional BCS theory

1938: but that there is a crossover to the opposite case on the underdoped

1939: side. This is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:32} reproduced from

1940: Ref.~\onlinecite{ref89b}. What is shown is the difference between the

1941: superconducting and normal state energies $(E)$ as a function of

1942: temperature, both in units of $t$ (nearest neighbor hopping). The

1943: up-triangles give the KE contribution $(E_{kin})$,

1944: the squares are the super exchange $(E_x)$,

1945: and the diamonds the total energy $(E_{tot})$.

1946: We see a change in sign in the KE

1947: contribution upon condensation as we go from the overdoped to

1948: the underdoped regime. ($\delta$ denotes the doping.) These results

1949: contrast with earlier work of Maier {\it et al.}\cite{ref89c} also based

1950: on the Hubbard model. There, the KE is found to be lower in the

1951: superconducting state than in the normal state for both values

1952: of doping presented, namely $\delta=0.05$ and $\delta=0.2$ (overdoped).

1953: In the underdoped case the potential energy increases slightly

1954: above its normal state value below $T=T_c$. For the overdoped case

1955: it does decrease very slightly but plays a much smaller role in the

1956: condensation than the corresponding drop in KE.

1957: 

1958: We end this section by mentioning two related works\cite{ref127,ref128}

1959: based on the negative $U$ Hubbard model which has been used

1960: successfully to describe the BCS - Bose Einstein (BE) crossover.

1961: Toschi {\it et al.}\cite{ref127} employ DMFT and Kyung {\it et al.}%

1962: \cite{ref128} a cellular DMFT and obtain very similar results. Both

1963: normal and superconducting states are considered. Both groups find

1964: a change of sign in the KE difference between superconducting and

1965: \begin{figure}[tp]

1966:   \centering

1967:   \includegraphics[width=9cm]{srFig23.eps}

1968:   \caption{(Color online) Low-temperature behavior of the normalized kinetic

1969: energy $E_{\rm kin}/D$ (upper panels) and the normalized potential energy

1970: $E_{\rm pot}/\vert U\vert$ (lower panels) as a function of the normalized

1971: temperature $T/D$. Here $U$ is the Hubbard attraction.

1972: The critical temperature is marked by arrows. Adapted from

1973: Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref127}}.}

1974:   \label{fig:32a}

1975: \end{figure}

1976: normal state as one goes from underdoping (anomalous) to overdoping

1977: (conventional BCS behavior) as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:20}. In

1978: Fig.~\ref{fig:32a} we reproduce from Ref.~\onlinecite{ref127} results

1979: for KE $(E_{\rm kin})$ in units of the band width $D$ vs the

1980: normalized temperature $T/D$ (upper frames) and for the potential energy

1981: $E_{\rm pot}$ in units of $\vert U\vert$ (lower frames). Three values

1982: of $U$ are considered, $U=0.4\,D$ in the left frames and $U=1.2\,D$

1983: and $3.2\,D$ in the frames on the right. These values correspond to

1984: BCS, intermediate, and BE (Bose - Einstein) regimes, respectively. The frames

1985: on the left show conventional behavior with a small increase in KE

1986: in the superconducting state and a decrease in potential energy.

1987: On the other hand, in the frames on the right the KE decreases

1988: while the potential

1989: energy increases which is referred to as KE driven superconductivity.

1990: 

1991: \section{Models of the Pseudogap State}

1992: \label{sec:5}

1993: \subsection{The Preformed Pair Model}

1994: \label{ssec:5a}

1995: 

1996: Another model for superconductivity in the oxides is the preformed

1997: pair model.\cite{ref91,ref92,ref93,ref94,ref95,ref96} The idea is

1998: that the pairs form at a temperature $T^\ast$, the pseudogap formation

1999: temperature. The superconducting state emerges from the preformed

2000: pair state at a lower temperature $T_c$ when phase coherence sets in. The

2001: pseudogap regime is then due to superconducting phase fluctuations.

2002: In a recent paper Eckl {\it et al.}\cite{ref97}

2003: considered the effect of phase fluctuations on the OS, i.e.: the KE

2004: in the pseudogap regime. [See also the related work of

2005: Kope\'c, Ref.~\onlinecite{ref97a}.]

2006: They start with a Hamiltonian which contains

2007: two terms, the KE

2008: \begin{equation}

2009:   \label{eq:35}

2010:   K = -t\sum\limits_{\langle ij\rangle\sigma}\left(

2011:   c^\dagger_{i\sigma}c_{j\sigma}+c^\dagger_{j\sigma}c_{i\sigma}\right)

2012: \end{equation}

2013: and a pairing term

2014: \begin{equation}

2015:   \label{eq:36}

2016:   -\frac{1}{4}\sum\limits_{i\delta}\left(\Delta_{i\delta}\left\langle

2017:   \Delta^\dagger_{i\delta}\right\rangle+\Delta^\dagger_{i\delta}

2018:   \left\langle\Delta_{i\delta}\right\rangle\right),

2019: \end{equation}

2020: where $\delta$ connects the site $i$ to its nearest neighbors only and

2021: $\langle ij\rangle$, as before, is limited to nearest neighbors as well.

2022: Furthermore,

2023: \begin{equation}

2024:   \label{eq:37}

2025:   \Delta^\dagger_{i\delta} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(c^\dagger_{i\uparrow}

2026:   c^\dagger_{i+\delta\downarrow}-c^\dagger_{i\downarrow}

2027:   c^\dagger_{i+\delta\uparrow}\right).

2028: \end{equation}

2029: Its average $\left\langle\Delta^\dagger_{i\delta}\right\rangle\equiv\Delta\,

2030: \exp\left(i\Phi_{i\delta}\right)$ with $\Delta$ the gap amplitude is

2031: assumed to have $d$-wave symmetry and the phase

2032: \begin{equation}

2033: \label{eq:38}

2034: \Phi_{i\delta} = \begin{cases}

2035:     \left(\phi_i+\phi_{i+\delta}\right)/2 & \mbox{for $\delta$ along $x$},\\

2036:     \left(\phi_i+\phi_{i+\delta}\right)/2+\pi &

2037:      \mbox{for $\delta$ along $y$}.

2038: \end{cases}

2039: \end{equation}

2040: The phases are assumed to fluctuate according to classical XY free energy.

2041: In this model the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition $T_{KT}$ is identified with

2042: \begin{figure}[tp]

2043: %  \centering

2044:   \includegraphics[width=8cm]{srFig24.eps}

2045:   \caption{Kinetic energy per bond, $\langle k_x\rangle$, as a function of

2046: temperature for non interacting tight-binding electrons (TB), the BCS

2047: solution (BCS), and the phase fluctuation (PP) model for $\mu=0$

2048: $(\langle n\rangle = 1)$. The large vertical arrows indicate the increase

2049: in KE upon pairing, relative to the free tight-binding model, and

2050: the small arrows indicate the additional increase due to phase

2051: fluctuations. This additional phase fluctuation energy rapidly

2052: vanishes near $T_c=T_{KT}$, which causes the significant change in the

2053: OS upon entering the superconducting state at $T_{KT}=0.1\,t$. Note

2054: that the thick line follows the actual KE encountered in this model, when

2055: going from the pseudogap to the superconducting regime. Adapted from

2056: Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref97}}.

2057: }

2058:   \label{fig:22}

2059: \end{figure}

2060: the superconducting transition temperature $T_c$ and the mean field

2061: temperature $T_{MF}$ at which the pairs form, is identified with the

2062: pseudogap temperature $T^\ast$. They take $T_{KT}\simeq T_{MF}/4$ with

2063: $T_{KT}=0.1\,t$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:22}, reproduced from Ref.~\onlinecite{%

2064: ref97}, we show the KE per bond, $\langle k_x\rangle$ as a function

2065: of the reduced temperature $T/T_{KT}$. Here

2066: \begin{equation}

2067:   \label{eq:39}

2068:    \langle k_x\rangle = -t\sum\limits_\sigma\left\langle

2069:    c^\dagger_{i\sigma}c_{i+x,\sigma}+c^\dagger_{i+x.\sigma}c_{i\sigma}

2070:    \right\rangle.

2071: \end{equation}

2072: The dashed curve is the result of the simple tight-binding

2073: Hamiltonian [$K$ of Eq.~\eqref{eq:35}

2074: only] for zero chemical potential and $\langle n\rangle=1$. The light

2075: solid line is the result of BCS mean field and the heavy solid

2076: line the result obtained by taking into account phase fluctuations

2077: within the preformed pair model. The mean field BCS condensation

2078: increases the KE above its

2079: tight-binding value and the phase fluctuations provide an additional

2080: KE increase which vanishes at $T_c=T_{KT}$ and this causes significant

2081: \begin{figure}[tp]

2082: %  \centering

2083:   \includegraphics[width=8cm]{srFig25.eps}

2084:   \caption{Kinetic energy contribution from phase fluctuations

2085: $\delta\langle k_x\rangle \equiv \langle k_x\rangle_{PP}-

2086: \langle k_x\rangle_{BCS}$. One can clearly see the sharp decrease of KE

2087: near the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition $T_{KT}=0.1\,t\equiv T_c$.

2088: $\Delta E_k$ gives an estimate of the kinetic condensation energy.

2089: Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref97}}.

2090: }

2091:   \label{fig:23}

2092: \end{figure}

2093: change in the OS as the superconducting state is entered at

2094: $T_{KT}=0.1\,t$ in this model calculations. The KE gain from the

2095: phase fluctuations $\delta\langle k_x\rangle \equiv \langle k_x\rangle_{PP}-

2096: \langle k_x\rangle_{BCS}$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:23} which shows

2097: a sharp decrease in KE near the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition and

2098: $\Delta E_k$ gives an estimate of the KE condensation $\propto 0.003\,t$

2099: of the same order as was found in other models. However, this is not the

2100: KE change between normal and superconducting state at $T=0$

2101: as discussed previously. 

2102: Rather it is a change in KE due to the suppression of phase

2103: fluctuations present in the pseudogap state. At $T_c=T_{KT}$ the

2104: phases become locked in and $\delta\langle k_x\rangle$ consequently

2105: becomes zero. The change in KE on formation of the Cooper pairs is

2106: never explicitly considered in this model as the pairs are assumed to

2107: form at a much higher temperature $T=T^\ast = 0.4\,t$.

2108: 

2109: \subsection{The $D$-density Waves, Competing Order Model}

2110: \label{ssec:5b}

2111: 

2112: There are other very different models that have been proposed for the

2113: pseudogap state which exists at temperatures above the superconducting

2114: state in the underdoped regime. One proposal is $D$-density waves\cite{%

2115: ref98,ref99,ref100,ref101,ref102,ref103,ref103a,ref104,ref105,ref106}

2116: (DDW) which

2117: falls into the general category of competing interactions. The view is

2118: that a new phase, not superconducting, but having a gap with $d$-wave

2119: symmetry,

2120: forms at $T^\ast$ and the superconductivity which arises only at some

2121: lower temperature $T_c$ is based on this new ground state.\cite{%

2122: ref98,ref99,ref100,ref101,ref102,ref103,ref103a,ref104,ref105,ref106,%

2123: ref107,ref108,ref109,ref110,ref111,ref112,ref113,ref114} The DDW state breaks

2124: time reversal symmetry because it introduces bond currents\cite{ref115,%

2125: ref116} with associated small magnetic moments and a gap forms at the

2126: antiferromagnetic Brillouin zone boundary. The mean field DDW Hamiltonian is

2127: \begin{equation}

2128:   \label{eq:40}

2129:   H = \sum\limits_{{\bf k},\sigma}\left[\left(\epsilon_{\bf k}-

2130: \mu\right) c^\dagger_{{\bf k}\sigma}c_{{\bf k}\sigma}+i D_{\bf k}

2131: c^\dagger_{{\bf k}\sigma}c_{{\bf k}+{\bf Q}\sigma}\right],

2132: \end{equation}

2133: where the sum on {\bf k} ranges over the entire Brillouin zone and

2134: {\bf Q} is the commensurate wave vector $(\pi/a,\pi/a)$. Here

2135: $D_{\bf k} = D_0\left[\cos(k_xa)-\cos(k_ya)\right]/2$ with $D_0$ the

2136: gap amplitude. Within a mean field approximation

2137: the probability of occupation of

2138: the state $\vert{\bf k}\sigma\rangle$ is given by\cite{ref112}

2139: \begin{eqnarray}

2140:   n_{{\bf k}\sigma}(T) &=& \frac{1}{2E_{\bf k}}\left\{E_{\bf k}\left[

2141:   f(T,\xi_{+{\bf k}})+f(T,\xi_{-{\bf k}})\right]\right.\nonumber\\

2142:   &&\left.+\epsilon_{\bf k}\left[

2143:  f(T,\xi_{+{\bf k}})-f(T,\xi_{-{\bf k}})\right]\right\},

2144:   \label{eq:41}

2145: \end{eqnarray}

2146: where $\xi_{\pm{\bf k}} = -\mu\pm E_{\bf k}$ and $E_{\bf k} = \sqrt{%

2147: \epsilon_{\bf k}^2+D_{\bf k}^2}$. The number density is

2148: \begin{equation}

2149:   \label{eq:42}

2150:   n(T) = \frac{2}{N}\sum\limits_{{\bf k}\in{\rm MBZ}}\left[f(T,\xi_{-{\bf k}})+

2151:   f(T,\xi_{+{\bf k}})\right],

2152: \end{equation}

2153: where the sum over {\bf k} is restricted to half the original

2154: Brillouin zone, i.e.: to the magnetic Brillouin zone (MBZ).

2155: The KE from Refs. \onlinecite{ref108}, \onlinecite{ref113}, and

2156: \onlinecite{ref114} is denoted by $W(D,T)$ and is

2157: \begin{equation}

2158:   \label{eq:43}

2159:   W(D,T) = \frac{2}{N}\sum\limits_{{\bf k}\in{\rm MBZ}}

2160:   \frac{\epsilon_{\bf k}^2}

2161:   {E_{\bf k}}\left[f(T,\xi_{+{\bf k}})-f(T,\xi_{-{\bf k}})\right].

2162: \end{equation}

2163: Here and later in this section we give formulas only for the simpler

2164: case of $t'=0$, i.e.: only nearest neighbors. The results to be presented,

2165: however, are based on straightforward generalizations that include

2166: second nearest neighbors hopping.

2167: 

2168: Aristov and Zeyher\cite{ref119} calculated the optical conductivity in

2169: the DDW model with and without vertex corrections to the usual current

2170: operator. The previous work of Valenzuela {\it et al.}\cite{ref110} was

2171: without vertex corrections as is the more recent work of Gerami and

2172: Nayak\cite{ref120} who, however, consider the effect of anisotropic

2173: scattering. These authors use a current operator which includes a term

2174: proportional to the gap velocity $\nabla_{\bf k}D_{\bf k}$ which is

2175: \begin{figure}[tp]

2176: \vspace*{-4mm}

2177:   \includegraphics[width=9cm]{srFig26.eps}

2178:   \caption{Restricted optical sums with (solid line) and without

2179: (dot-dashed line) vertex corrections, and Drude weights with (dashed

2180: line) and without (dotted line) vertex corrections.

2181: Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref119}}.

2182: }

2183:   \label{fig:24}

2184: \end{figure}

2185: introduced so as to ensure charge conservation as is discussed in more

2186: detail by Benfatto {\it et al.}\cite{ref113} Here we follow

2187: Aristov and Zeyher\cite{ref119} and show in Fig.~\ref{fig:24} their

2188: results for the optical spectral weight as a function of temperature

2189: $T$ in units of the hopping parameter $t$. The solid curve is with

2190: and the dash-dotted curve is without vertex corrections. 

2191: We see that while vertex corrections

2192: have changed the magnitude of the OS they have changed much less its

2193: temperature dependence which is somewhat more pronounced in the solid

2194: curve. In both cases the OS decreases with decreasing temperature as

2195: was the case in BCS theory. Also shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:24} are results

2196: for the Drude weight separately, dashed and dotted lines with and

2197: without vertex corrections. We see that it is also strongly enhanced by

2198: vertex corrections. In Fig.~\ref{fig:25} we reproduce

2199: results of Aristov and Zeyher\cite{ref119} for the conductivity

2200: $\sigma(\omega)$ vs frequency $\omega$ for $t=0.25\,$eV, $t'=0.076$,

2201: $T=0.001$, $n=0.4$ and a scattering rate of $1/\tau = 0.01$. It is

2202: seen that both the Drude region (intra-band) and the inter-band

2203: transitions which set in at higher $\omega\ge 0.2$ are larger when

2204: vertex corrections are included but that beyond $\omega\ge0.3$ the two

2205: curves merge and the vertex corrections are no longer important.

2206: 

2207: In the continuum limit of the DDW model Valenzuela {\it et al.}%

2208: \cite{ref110} have obtained useful analytic results for intra

2209: (Drude) and inter (verticle transitions) separately. Vertex

2210: \begin{figure}[tp]

2211: \vspace*{-4mm}

2212:   \includegraphics[width=9cm]{srFig27.eps}

2213:   \caption{Optical conductivity $\sigma(\omega)$ with (solid line)

2214: and without (dashed line) vertex corrections.

2215: Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref119}}.

2216: }

2217:   \label{fig:25}

2218: \end{figure}

2219: corrections are neglected and the limit of zero impurity scattering

2220: was taken. They find

2221: \begin{equation}

2222:   \label{eq:46}

2223:   \sigma_{intra}(T,\omega) = -\delta(\omega)\pi e^2

2224:   \int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty\!d\nu\,\left[\frac{\partial f(t,\nu)}

2225:   {\partial \nu}\right]g_1(\nu),

2226: \end{equation}

2227: with

2228: \begin{equation}

2229:   \label{eq:47}

2230:   g_1(\nu) = (\hbar v_F)^2 N(0)\frac{2}{\pi}\int\limits_0^{\pi/2}\!

2231:   d\theta\,\Re{\rm e}\sqrt{1-\frac{D_0^2}{(\mu+\nu)^2}\cos^2\theta},

2232: \end{equation}

2233: which can be written in terms of elliptic integrals. Here, $v_F$

2234: is the Fermi velocity. Note

2235: also that the Fermi factor $f(T,\nu)$ has $\mu=0$ and the chemical

2236: potential has been transfered to $g_1(\nu)$. For the inter-band

2237: \begin{widetext}

2238: \begin{equation}

2239:   \label{eq:48}

2240:   \sigma_{inter}(T,\omega) = (\hbar v_F)^2N(0)\frac{1}{\pi}\left(\frac{2D_0}

2241:   {\omega}\right)^2\int_0^{\pi/2}\!d\theta\,\Re{\rm e}

2242:   \left[\frac{\cos^2\theta}{\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{2\Delta}{\omega}\right)^2

2243:   \cos^2\theta}}\right]B(T,\omega),

2244: \end{equation}

2245: \end{widetext}

2246: where $B(T,\omega)$ is a universal thermal factor

2247: \begin{equation}

2248:   \label{eq:49}

2249:   B(T,\omega) = \frac{\pi e^2}{\omega}\frac{\sinh(\beta\omega/2)}

2250:   {\cosh(\beta\mu)+\cosh(\beta\omega/2)},\qquad \beta=\frac{1}{k_B T},

2251: \end{equation}

2252: which at $T=0$ becomes proportional to a theta function

2253: $\theta(\omega-2\vert\mu\vert)$. This provides a low energy cutoff to the

2254: inter-band transitions. When impurity scattering is included the

2255: delta function $\delta(\omega)$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:46} broadens into a

2256: Lorentzian and temperature leads to the overlap of the two contributions

2257: as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:25}.

2258: 

2259: \begin{figure}[tp]

2260: %  \centering

2261: %  \includegraphics[width=10cm,angle=270]{srFig26.eps}

2262:   \includegraphics[width=6cm,angle=270]{srFig28.eps}

2263:   \caption{(Color online)

2264: Optical spectral weight in the presence of a $t'$ term in the band

2265: dispersion.

2266: Here $W(D,T)$ (Eq.~\protect{\eqref{eq:43}}, dash-dotted line),

2267: $W^{DDW}(D,T)$ (Eq.~\protect{\eqref{eq:49a}} (solid line) are shown

2268: together with $W(T)$ (dashed line) which is for the non interacting

2269: case. The parameters are $t'=0.3\,t$, $T_{DDW}=0.12\,t$,

2270: $D(0) = 4T_{DDW}$, and the doping $\delta = 0.1$. The chemical potential is

2271: evaluated self consistently at each temperature.

2272: Observe that near $T_{DDW}$ a small decrease of $W^{DDW}$ with

2273: respect to $W(T)$ is seen, due to the change of chemical potential

2274: near $T_{DDW}$. Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref113}}.

2275: }

2276:   \label{fig:26}

2277: \end{figure}

2278: We note that the kinetic energy shows the same trend in its temperature

2279: dependence as does the OS of Fig.~\ref{fig:24}. This is shown in

2280: Fig.~\ref{fig:26} which we took from the work of Benfatto

2281: {\it et al.}\cite{ref113} and where it is denoted by $W(D,T)$ as

2282: the dash-dotted curve for the parameters shown in the figure and described

2283: in the caption. We see the same decreasing trend with decreasing

2284: temperatures as for the OS. There are two other curves, the dashed

2285: one is for

2286: a pure tight-binding band with no DDW and is included for comparison.

2287: The solid curve is for $W^{DDW}(D,T)$ given by

2288: \begin{equation}

2289:   \label{eq:49a}

2290:   W^{DDW}(D,T) = -\frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{\bf k}^{MBZ}E_{\bf k}

2291:   \left[f(T,\xi_{+{\bf k}})-f(T,\xi_{-{\bf k}})\right]

2292: \end{equation}

2293: (again in units of $\pi e^2/\hbar^2$)

2294: in the notation of Benfatto

2295: {\it et al.}\cite{ref113,ref114} and requires explanation. It was obtained

2296: from a current operator which was modified to ensure charge

2297: conservation without the need for vertex corrections. This current

2298: operator has been used in other works\cite{ref108,ref120} as well.

2299: As noted by Aristov and Zeyher\cite{ref119}, however, such a

2300: procedure tends to overestimate the conductivity at higher

2301: frequencies and the OS now shows an increase as $T$ is decreased.

2302: 

2303: We can also add a mean field BCS term

2304: \begin{equation}

2305:   \label{eq:44}

2306:   H' = \sum\limits_{\bf k}\left[\Delta^\ast_{\bf k}c_{-{\bf k}\downarrow}

2307:   c_{{\bf k}\uparrow}+ h.c.\right],

2308: \end{equation}

2309: to the Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:40},

2310: where $\Delta_{\bf k}$ is the superconducting order parameter.

2311: $\Delta_{\bf k}=\Delta_0\left[\cos(k_xa)-\cos(k_ya)\right]$ with

2312: $\Delta_0$ the superconducting gap amplitude. In this case the

2313: OS in units of $\pi e^2/\hbar^2$ is given by

2314: \begin{eqnarray}

2315:   W^{DDW}(D,\Delta,T) &=& \frac{2}{N}

2316:   \sum\limits_{\bf k}^{\rm MBZ} E_{\bf k}\left[

2317:   \frac{\xi_{+{\bf k}}}{E_{+{\bf k}}}\tanh\left(\frac{E_{+{\bf k}}}{2T}\right)

2318:   \right.\nonumber\\

2319:   &&\left.

2320:  -\frac{\xi_{-{\bf k}}}{E_{-{\bf k}}}\tanh\left(\frac{E_{-{\bf k}}}{2T}\right)

2321:   \right],

2322:   \label{eq:45}

2323: \end{eqnarray}

2324: with $E_{\pm{\bf k}} = \sqrt{\xi^2_{\pm{\bf k}}+\Delta^2_{\bf k}}$.

2325: 

2326: \begin{figure}[tp]

2327: %  \centering

2328: %  \includegraphics[width=14cm]{srFig27.eps}

2329:   \includegraphics[width=8cm]{srFig29.eps}

2330:   \caption{(Color online)

2331: Optical spectral weight in units of $e^2\pi/\hbar^2$ in the

2332: normal state

2333: (dash double-dotted line), in the DDW state

2334: Eq.~\protect{\eqref{eq:49a}} (solid line)

2335: and in DDW+SC state Eq.~\protect{\eqref{eq:45}} (dashed line).

2336: The values of parameters are

2337: for the doping $\delta = 0.13$ [$D_0(T=0)=0.92\,t$,

2338: $\Delta(T=0)=0.064\,t$, see Refs.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref107}} and

2339: \protect{\onlinecite{ref108}}

2340: for further details. The critical temperature is marked by the arrow.

2341: Observe that the decrease of $W^{DDW}(D,\Delta,T)$ below $T_c$ is

2342: small. Inset: spectral weight plotted as a function of

2343: $(T/t)^2$. Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref114}} (see also

2344: Ref.~\onlinecite{ref108}).

2345: }

2346:   \label{fig:27}

2347: \end{figure}

2348: In Fig.~\ref{fig:27} we show results reproduced from Benfatto and

2349: Sharapov\cite{ref114} for the effect of combined DDW and superconducting

2350: transition described by Eq.~\eqref{eq:45}.

2351: The optical weight is given in units of $t$ (nearest neighbor hopping)

2352: as is the temperature. The dash-double-dotted curve $[W(T)]$ is for

2353: reference

2354: and gives results for the tight binding band without interactions while

2355: the solid lines gives $W^{DDW}(D,T)$ as before and the dashed

2356: curve is for $W^{DDW}(D,\Delta,T)$ which includes the effect of a $d$-wave

2357: superconducting gap of amplitude $\Delta$. We note that, as expected,

2358: this leads to an increase in KE with respect to the pure DDW case and,

2359: therefore, a drop in the OS.

2360: 

2361: It is clear that, as yet, a complete theory of the OS in the DDW model

2362: does not

2363: exist. The calculations of Aristov and Zeyher\cite{ref119} with vertex

2364: corrections properly accounted for give the opposite temperature

2365: dependence than found experimentally. This theory, however, does not

2366: include correlations beyond those directly responsible for the DDW

2367: transition. It is clear from what we have described here that correlations

2368: leading to lifetime effects need to be included as these are very

2369: closely related to the observed temperature dependence of the OS

2370: and cannot be ignored.

2371: 

2372: \section{Optical Spectral Weight Distribution}

2373: \label{sec:6}

2374: 

2375: In this review we focused mainly on the OS for a single band

2376: \begin{figure}[tp]

2377: %  \centering

2378:   \includegraphics[width=8cm]{srFig30.eps}

2379:   \caption{Selection of conductivity spectra for

2380: three BSCCO samples,  underdoped, $T_c=70\,$K (B70KUND, top frame),

2381: optimally doped, $T_c=80\,$K (B80KOPT, middle frame), and overdoped,

2382: $T_c=63\,$K (B63KOVR, bottom frame). For the

2383: B70KUND sample, within the showed spectral range, the spectra at

2384: $50\,$K and $10\,$K are indistinguishable.

2385:  Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref47}}.

2386: }

2387:   \label{fig:28}

2388: \end{figure}

2389: integrated over all energies of relevance. As is seen from Eq.~\eqref{eq:1}

2390: this quantity can be computed from a knowledge of the single electron

2391: spectral density $A({\bf k},\omega)$ which determines the probability

2392: of occupation $n_{{\bf k},\sigma}$ of the state $\vert{\bf k},\sigma\rangle$.

2393: This is a much simpler problem than computing the frequency dependent

2394: conductivity from a Kubo formula which involves the two-particle Green's

2395: functions. However, calculating the full frequency dependent conductivity

2396: cannot be avoided if one wishes to discuss the optical spectral weight

2397: distribution. The partial integration of

2398: $\sigma_1(T,\omega)$ to a maximum $\omega$ equal to $\omega_M$ has

2399: proved be very useful and has provided valuable information

2400: about normal and superconducting state beyond what is obtained from the

2401: OS itself. We give here only two

2402: examples. In Fig.~\ref{fig:28} we reproduce the conductivity

2403: data of Santander-Syro

2404: {\it et al.}\cite{ref47} in three BSCCO samples, underdoped $T_c=70\,$K

2405: (B70KUND), optimally doped at $T_c=80\,$K (B80KOPT), and overdoped

2406: at $T_c=63\,$K (B63KOVR) at the various temperatures noted in the figure.

2407: From these data it is possible to calculate

2408: $W(T,\omega_M)=\int_{0^+}^{\omega_M}%

2409: d\omega\,\sigma_1(T,\omega)$ at various temperatures.

2410: Here the $0^+$ indicates that

2411: \begin{figure}[tp]

2412: %  \centering

2413:   \includegraphics[width=8cm]{srFig31.eps}

2414:   \caption{Rato $\Delta W/W_S$ vs frequency showing the exhaustion of the

2415: Ferrell-Glover-Tinkham sum rule at conventional energies for the OVR (diamonds)

2416: and OPT (triangles) samples. An

2417: unconventional ($\sim 16 000\,$cm$^{-1}$ or $2\,$eV) energy scale is

2418: required for the UND sample (circles). Note that the frequency scale changes at

2419: 800 and $8 000\,$cm$^{-1}$. The changes in spectral weight are taken

2420: between $80\,$K - $10\,$K, $91\,$K - $10\,$K, and $100\,$K - $10\,$K

2421: for the OVR, OPT, and UND samples, respectively. Adapted from

2422: Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref47}}.

2423: }

2424:   \label{fig:29}

2425: \end{figure}

2426: the delta function representing the  condensate has been left out.

2427: In Fig.~\ref{fig:29}

2428: we reproduce the experimental results of Santander-Syro {\it et

2429:   al.}\cite{ref47} for the normalized change in spectral weight

2430: $\Delta W/W_S$ vs $\omega_M$ in $10^3\,$cm$^{-1}$ based on the data of

2431: Fig.~\ref{fig:28}. Open diamonds,

2432: triangles, and circles are for B63KOVR, B80KOPT, and B70KUND, respectively.

2433: Note the two breaks in the horizontal scale for $\omega_M$ at 800 and

2434: $8 000\,$cm$^{-1}$. The change in optical spectral weight is slightly

2435: different

2436: \begin{figure}[tp]

2437: %  \centering

2438: %  \includegraphics[width=12cm]{srFig30.eps}

2439:   \includegraphics[width=9cm]{srFig32.eps}

2440:   \caption{(Color online)

2441: The normalized weight of the condensate [$N_n(\omega)-

2442: N_s(\omega)]/\rho_{s,a}$ vs $\omega$ for optimally doped YBCO$_{6.95}$

2443: (solid line)

2444: and underdoped YBCO$_{6.60}$ (dotted line) along the $a$-axis direction.

2445: The condensate for the optimally

2446: doped material has saturated by $\simeq 800\,$cm$^{-1}$, while in the

2447: underdoped material the condensate is roughly 80\% formed by this

2448: frequency, but the other 20\% is not recovered until much higher

2449: frequencies. The error bars on the curve for the underdoped material

2450: indicate the uncertainty associated with the Ferrell-Glover-Tinkham

2451: sum rule. Inset:

2452: The low-frequency region. Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref121}}.

2453: }

2454:   \label{fig:30}

2455: \end{figure}

2456: for the OVR, OPT, and UND samples as indicated in the caption. Note

2457: the approach to its asymptotic  value of one. For the overdoped case

2458: the scale is $\sim 600\,$cm$^{-1}$ while for the UND sample it is

2459: much larger and of order $2\,$eV. These experiments clearly reveal a

2460: fundamental difference in behavior between overdoped and underdoped

2461: samples. This was also observed in the YBCO series. Data from Homes

2462: {\it et al.}\cite{ref121} are reproduced in Fig.~\ref{fig:30} for electric

2463: field {\bf E} parallel to the $a$-axis in YBCO$_{6.95}$ (solid line)

2464: and YBCO$_{6.60}$ (dotted line). For the optimally doped sample the OS

2465: is rapidly saturated  ($\omega_M\simeq 800\,$cm$^{-1}$) while for the

2466: underdoped case a frequency of about $9 000\,$cm$^{-1}$ is needed.

2467: 

2468: For a BCS $s$-wave superconductor the expectation is that the saturation

2469: of the OS should occur at a frequency $\omega$ a few times the gap $\Delta$

2470: even if

2471: the system is dirty with scattering rates $\stackrel{>}{\sim}2\Delta$,

2472: Refs.~\onlinecite{ref121} and \onlinecite{ref122}.

2473: However, superconductors are better

2474: described by Eliashberg theory which properly accounts for coupling

2475: of the electrons to phonons. In this case the weight in the coherent

2476: quasiparticle part of the spectral function is

2477: $Z = 1/(1+\lambda)$ where $\lambda$ is the mass enhancement factor. The rest

2478: of the spectral weight lies in an incoherent phonon induced band at

2479: higher energy, usually in the infrared. This part of the spectral

2480: function $A({\bf k},\omega)$ contributes the so called Holstein band to

2481: the optical conductivity. Only the quasiparticle part is included in

2482: BCS theory, yet for $\lambda > 1$, say, more of the electron spectral

2483: weight is in the incoherent part than one finds in the coherent part.

2484: This part introduces a new energy scale into the problem, namely, an

2485: average phonon energy and it is no longer true to say that readjustment

2486: of optical spectral weight on entering the superconducting state

2487: can only occur on the scale of twice the gap. In fact, one should expect

2488: that when the electrons pair, an absorption process involving a phonon

2489: $\omega_E$ would be changed and shifted to an energy of $2\Delta+\omega_E$,

2490: thus shifting the Holstein band to higher energies and, hence, the incoherent

2491: part of the optical spectral weight in the superconducting state

2492: extends to higher energies. This implies that

2493: \begin{figure}[tp]

2494: \vspace*{-4mm}

2495:   \includegraphics[width=9cm]{srFig33.eps}

2496:   \caption{Top frame: Optical spectral weight $W(\omega,T) = \int_{0^+}^\omega\!

2497: d\nu\,\sigma_1(\nu)$ for various cases as a function of $\omega$. The

2498: dotted (dash-double-dotted) curve is for the normal state at $T=10\,$K

2499: ($T=95\,$K), the solid curve for the superconducting state at $T=10\,$K.

2500: The dashed (dash-dotted) curve is the difference curve between superconducting

2501: at $T=10\,$K and normal states

2502: at $T=10\,$K ($T=95\,$K). The approach of the difference curve to its

2503: saturated large $\omega$ value depends significantly on the temperature

2504: used for the subtracted normal state. The thin dash-double-dotted

2505: horizontal line is the value of the condensate contribution

2506: (penetration depth). The bottom frame

2507: shows the real part of the conductivity for the normal state at

2508: $T=293\,$K (dashed curve), $T=95\,$K (dash-dotted curve), $T=10\,$K

2509: (dotted curve), and for the superconducting state at a $T=10\,$K

2510: (solid curve). All curves are for YBCO$_{6.95}$ with the impurity parameter

2511: given in Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref122a}}.

2512: }

2513:   \label{fig:31}

2514: \end{figure}

2515: $\int_{0^+}^\omega\!d\nu\,[\sigma_N(T,\nu)-\sigma_S(T,\nu)]$

2516: for large $\omega$ should saturate from above rather than from below as

2517: is the case in BCS. This is known from the $s$-wave phonon mediated

2518: case\cite{ref129}

2519: and is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:31} taken from

2520: Carbotte and Schachinger\cite{ref122a} for a $d$-wave superconductor

2521: using for $I^2\chi(\omega)$ an MMP form. What is shown in the top frame are

2522: numerical results for $W(T,\omega)$ defined as $W(T,\omega) =

2523: \int_{0^+}^{\omega}\!d\nu\,\sigma_1(T,\nu)$. % where the $0^+$ indicates that

2524: %the delta function representing the  condensate has been left out.

2525: The real part of the conductivity $\sigma_1(T,\omega)$ in arbitrary

2526: units on which these

2527: various curves are based are shown in the bottom frame. These calculations

2528: are all done for infinite bands and corresponding Eliashberg equations

2529: for a $d$-wave superconductor so that the Ferrell-Glover-Tinkham

2530: sum rule holds, i.e.: the total optical spectral weight is conserved

2531: between normal and superconducting state.\cite{ref123,ref124} Parameters

2532: were varied to get a good fit to data on YBCO$_{6.95}$. The reader is

2533: referred to the paper of Schachinger and Carbotte\cite{ref33} for

2534: details. Some impurity scattering in the unitary limit is included to

2535: get Fig.~\ref{fig:31}. $W(T,\omega)$ is shown for

2536: $\omega$ up to $250\,$meV. The solid curve is in the superconducting state at

2537: $T=10\,$K and the dotted the normal state at the same temperature.

2538: $W_N(T)$ (normal state) rises much more rapidly at small $\omega$

2539: than does $W_S(T)$ (supercond. state) and goes

2540: to much larger values. The difference $W_N(T=10\,{\rm K},\omega)-

2541: W_S(T=10\,{\rm K},\omega)$ (dashed curve) is the amount of optical

2542: spectral weight that has been transferred to the condensate between

2543: $(0^+,\omega)$. This curve rapidly grows to a value slightly below

2544: the horizontal line representing the condensate contribution to the

2545: total sum rule. After this the remaining variation is small with a shallow

2546: minimum around $30\,$meV followed by a broad peak around $60\,$meV which

2547: falls above the thin dash-double-dotted horizontal line before gradually

2548: falling again towards its asymptotic value which must be equal to the

2549: condensate contribution. All these features can be understood from a

2550: consideration of the curves for $\sigma_1(T,\omega)$ given in the

2551: bottom frame. Comparing dotted and solid curves, we see that they cross

2552: at three places on the frequency axis at $\omega_1\approx 8\,$meV,

2553: $\omega_2\approx 32\,$meV, and $\omega_3\approx 130\,$meV. These

2554: features are a result of the shift in incoherent background towards

2555: higher energies due to the opening of the superconducting gap.

2556: 

2557: In an actual experiment it is usually not possible to access the

2558: normal state at $T=10\,$K (say) so that $W_N(T=95\,{\rm K},\omega)$

2559: just above $T_c = 92\,$K needs to be used (dash-double dotted curve).

2560: The difference

2561: $W_N(T=95\,{\rm K},\omega)-W_S(T=10\,{\rm K},\omega)$ is shown as the

2562: dash-dotted curve in the top frame and is seen to merge with the

2563: dashed curve only at higher values of $\omega$. Reference to the

2564: bottom frame shows that the real part of the normal state conductivity

2565: at $T=95\,$K (dash-dotted curve) is much broader than at

2566: $T=10\,$K (dotted curve) and this accounts for the slower rise towards

2567: saturation of the dash-dotted as compared to the dashed curve in the

2568: top frame. We note, however, that

2569: $W_N(T=95\,{\rm K},\omega)-W_S(T=10\,{\rm K},\omega)$ still approaches

2570: the penetration depth curve from above but much of the structure seen

2571: in the dashed curve is lost by using the data for the normal state at

2572: $T=95\,$K rather than at $T=10\,$K. Nevertheless, the energy scale

2573: over which the condensate is formed is set by the energy of the

2574: spin fluctuation spectra which extends up to $400\,$meV in our

2575: calculations and not by the gap value $2\Delta_0$.

2576: 

2577: %We give one more example of the usefulness of considering the spectral

2578: %weight up to some finite, small $\omega_N$ rather than considering the

2579: %total spectral weight for the particular band of interest. As we have

2580: %said before, many experiments show that a pseudogap develops in

2581: %underdoped systems. One might expect that its opening should lead to

2582: %loose spectral weight at small frequencies as it opens.

2583: 

2584: \section{Summary}

2585: \label{sec:7}

2586: 

2587: The temperature dependence of the OS has recently been measured up to

2588: $\sim 300\,$K in the normal state of several cuprates as well as in

2589: the superconducting state. Some controversy remains about details such

2590: as the exact temperature dependence followed in the normal state.

2591: However, it seems established that underdoped samples show anomalous

2592: behavior when they enter the superconducting state. For a normal

2593: BCS superconductor the KE should increase while it is seen to decrease

2594: over its extrapolated normal state value. This, on its own, does not

2595: mean that the condensation is purely driven by the kinetic energy but it

2596: does mean that we are faced with non BCS behavior. For optimally

2597: doped samples the change in KE is close to zero with a definite

2598: crossover to conventional behavior in overdoped samples.

2599: For the normal state many experiments, but not all, give a $T^2$ dependence

2600: of the OS. Recent

2601: DMFT calculations for the Hubbard model provide evidence for a

2602: universal $T^2$ behavior in the normal state.

2603: We argue, however, that such a law is not robust when

2604: electron-boson theories for the interaction are considered. In this

2605: case, if the boson energy is low, a linear in $T$ dependence can result and

2606: by implication other dependences on $T$ can arise for different

2607: electron-boson spectral densities. The same holds for coupling to

2608: spin fluctuations in the NAFFL model. The issue of the temperature

2609: dependence of the underlying normal state OS or KE impacts the

2610: analysis of the change in KE that results from the superconducting

2611: condensation. If the normal state KE decreases faster

2612: at low temperatures than it does above $T_c$ (as we have seen in some

2613: models) this could be interpreted as an anomalous superconducting

2614: state, yet it would not be. On the other hand, in the

2615: NAFFL model as well as in electronic models more generally, anomalous

2616: behavior of the optical sum can be understood as due to the so called

2617: collapse of the inelastic scattering rates in the superconducting

2618: state if this reduces the effect of spin fluctuations at small

2619: $\omega$. % In this model

2620: %anomalous behavior of the OS can be understood on the basis of the

2621: %so called collapse of the inelastic scattering rates as

2622: %superconductivity sets in and reduces the effect of spin fluctuations

2623: %at small $\omega$. Coupling to an optical resonance is also observed

2624: %in some cases. 

2625: Such a hardening of the spin fluctuation spectrum is

2626: thought to be a viable explanation for the peak in the

2627: microwave conductivity which is observed at a temperature

2628: considerably below $T_c$. This effect, which can be modeled by a

2629: low energy cutoff in the electron-spin fluctuation spectral density,

2630: results directly in a decrease in KE of the underlying normal state

2631: as additional coherence sets in with the establishment of

2632: superconductivity. This idea is related to the work of

2633: Norman and P\'epin\cite{ref78,ref79} who model directly the

2634: charge carrier self

2635: energy rather than go through the electron-boson spectral function.

2636: They take the imaginary part of the self

2637: energy $(\Sigma_2)$ to be large in the normal state (incoherence)

2638: and increase coherence in the superconducting state through

2639: a low frequency cutoff

2640: below which $\Sigma_2$ is zero. Another related model, which is even simpler,

2641: is to use a temperature dependent elastic scattering time which collapses

2642: in the superconducting state as $\alpha T^4$ with $\alpha$ taken from

2643: microwave experiments. All these mechanisms can easily provide savings in KE

2644: sufficiently large to explain the OS experiments.

2645: None, however, are fully quantitative at present. They also need to be

2646: extended to the overdoped side of the phase diagram. In this case one

2647: would expect the corresponding microwave peak to be greatly reduced

2648: and be more conventional. More sophisticated,

2649: but perhaps less transparent numerical calculations based on the

2650: Hubbard model and on the $t$-$J$ model have also found that, as a

2651: function of doping, the KE can favor pairing in underdoped systems

2652: while for the overdoped case it behaves as for a conventional

2653: superconductor. Earlier calculations based on the Hubbard model, however,

2654: give kinetic energy pairing even on the overdoped side of the phase

2655: diagram. By contrast, calculations based on the negative $U$ Hubbard model

2656: used to describe the BCS-BE crossover do capture the observed change

2657: in sign of the kinetic energy difference.

2658: 

2659: In Ref.~\onlinecite{ref122} and, more recently, in Ref.~\onlinecite{ref53}

2660: the possibility is raised

2661: that some of the effects studied in this review may arise from infinite

2662: bands when a finite cutoff is applied to the optical sum integral as

2663: it must in the analysis of experimental data. Certainly, for the high

2664: $T_c$ oxides there is no clear `ending' of one band at a given energy

2665: followed by a gap before the next band sets in at higher energies.

2666: Instead, only a minimum is observed in the real part of the conductivity

2667: as a function of $\omega$ at about $1.2\,$eV. This energy has been taken

2668: as the cutoff on the transitions associated with the single band of

2669: interest. This cutoff is also roughly consistent with what is known

2670: about the width in energy of the bands in the oxides. Nevertheless,

2671: ambiguity remains and a theoretical study of overlapping bands and what

2672: this might imply for the single band sum rule would be valuable in

2673: clarifying this situation further.

2674: 

2675: Much remains to be done to connect weak coupling

2676: approaches with the more numerical strong coupling results. There

2677: is also a need to get more accurate data which could resolve the

2678: experimental debate that still goes on and to achieve quantitative

2679: agreement with experiments.  What is clear, however, is that such

2680: experiments can give useful information on the correlation effects

2681: that are involved and they certainly have shown that

2682: superconductivity on the underdoped side of the phase diagram of the

2683: cuprates is likely to be unconventional. It cannot be understood on the basis

2684: of a simple BCS model or an Eliashberg model with conventional phonons

2685: as these are not expected to change much as superconductivity sets in

2686: and they are distributed over a large energy range rather than peaked at low

2687: $\omega$. However, we stress again that as we have seen in one case,

2688: a small upturn in the

2689: OS at low temperature in the superconducting state can arise in spin

2690: fluctuation models without a readjustment of the electron-spin fluctuation

2691: spectrum, when the spin fluctuation energy in the MMP spin

2692: susceptibility is sufficiently small. While this upturn is less in the

2693: superconducting state than in its normal state at this same temperature

2694: (below $T_c$) it is above the value  extrapolated to $T=0$ from the

2695: normal state above $T_c$. A second important conclusion of this review

2696: is that lifetime effects are

2697: important in determining the temperature dependence of the OS in

2698: both normal and superconducting state. These have to be accounted for in

2699: any definitive theory of this effect.

2700: 

2701: There is a need to continue to explore other models such as

2702: phase fluctuations. In particular, the $D$-density wave model as a

2703: possible competing order for the pseudogap phase has not yet included

2704: effects of correlations beyond those that lead to the DDW order,

2705: i.e: lifetime effects which we have argued to be central to this

2706: problem. More work involving other models of interaction effects

2707: so as to understand what other temperature laws are possible for the

2708: OS vs $T$ would also be useful.\\[3ex]

2709: 

2710: \begin{acknowledgments}

2711: Research supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering

2712: Research Council (NSERC) of Canada and the Canadian Institute of Advanced

2713: Research (CIAR). We thank, E. Arrigoni, L. Benfatto, N. Bontemps,

2714: R.P.S.M. Lobo, D. van der Marel, F. Marsiglio,

2715: E. Nicol, S. Sharapov, A. Toschi, and R. Zeyher for discussion

2716: and/or correspondence.

2717: \end{acknowledgments}

2718: 

2719: \begin{thebibliography}{999}

2720: 

2721: \bibitem{ref1} C. Campuzano, M.R. Norman, and M. Randeria, in: The Physics

2722: of Superconductivity; Conventional and High-T$_c$ Superconductors,

2723: edited by K.-H. Bennemann and J. B. Ketterson (Springer, Berlin, 2003),

2724: Vol. II, p. 167.

2725: \bibitem{ref2}A. Damascelli, Z. Hussain, and Z.X. Shen, Rev. Mod. Phys.

2726: {\bf 75}, 473 (2003).

2727: \bibitem{ref3}H. Matsui, K. Terashima, T. Sato, T. Takahashi,

2728: M. Fujita, and K. Yamada, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95}, 017003 (2005).

2729: \bibitem{ref4}D.A. Bonn and W.N. Hardy, in: Physical Properties of

2730: High Temperature Superconductors, edited by D.M. Ginsberg (World

2731: Scientific, Singapore, 1996), Vol. 5, p. 7.

2732: \bibitem{ref5} C.C. Tsuei and J.R. Kirtley, in: The Physics

2733: of Superconductivity; Conventional and High-T$_c$ Superconductors,

2734: edited by K.-H. Bennemann and J. B. Ketterson (Springer, Berlin, 2003),

2735: Vol. I, p. 648.

2736: \bibitem{ref6}M.C. Nuss, P.M. Mankiewich, M.L. O'Malley, E.H.

2737: Westerwick, and P.B. Littlewood, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 66}, 3305

2738: (1991).

2739: \bibitem{ref7}D.A. Bonn, P. Dosanjh, R. Liang, and W.N. Hardy,

2740: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 68}, 2390 (1992).

2741: \bibitem{ref8}D.B. Romero, C.D. Porter, D.B. Tanner, L. Forro,

2742: D. Mandrus, L. Mihaly, G.L. Carr, and G.P. Williams, Phys. Rev. Lett.

2743: {\bf 68}, 1590 (1992).

2744: \bibitem{ref9}E.J. Nicol and J.P. Carbotte, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 44},

2745: 7741 (1991).

2746: \bibitem{ref10}Shih-Fu Lee, D.C. Morgan, R.J. Ormeno, D.M. Broun,

2747: R.A. Doyle, J.R. Waldram, and K. Kadowaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77},

2748: 735 (1996).

2749: \bibitem{ref11}S.M. Broun, D.C. Morgan, R.J. Ormeno, S.F. Lee,

2750: A.W. Tyler, A.P. Mackenzie, and J.R. Waldram, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 56},

2751: R11443 (1997).

2752: \bibitem{ref12}J.E. Hirsch, Phys. Lett. A {\bf 134}, 451 (1989).

2753: \bibitem{ref13}J.E. Hirsch, Physica C {\bf 199}, 305 (1992);

2754: Physica C {\bf 201}, 347 (1992).

2755: \bibitem{ref14}J.E. Hirsch and F. Marsiglio, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 39},

2756: 11515 (1989).

2757: \bibitem{ref15}J.E. Hirsch and F. Marsiglio Physics C {\bf 331}, 150

2758: (2000); Phys. Rev. B {\bf 62}, 15131 (2000).

2759: \bibitem{ref16}P.W. Anderson, Science {\bf 279}, 1196 (1998);

2760: in: The Theory of Superconductivity in the

2761: High $T_c$ Cuprates (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1997).

2762: \bibitem{ref17}S. Chakravarty, Eur. Phys. J. B {\bf 5}, 337 (1998).

2763: \bibitem{ref19}R. Kubo, J. Phys. Soc. Japan {\bf 12}, 570 (1957).

2764: \bibitem{ref18}D.N. Basov, S.I. Woods, A.S. Katz, E.J. Singley,

2765: R.C. Dynes, M. Xu, D.G. Hinks, C.C. Homes, and M. Strongin, Science

2766: {\bf 283} 49 (1999).

2767: \bibitem{ref20}L.B. Ioffe and A.J. Millis, Science {\bf 285}, 1241 (1999);

2768: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 61}, 9077 (2000).

2769: \bibitem{ref21}Wonkee Kim and J.P. Carbotte, Phys. Rev B {\bf 61}, 11886R

2770: (2000); {\bf 62}, 8661 (2000); {\bf 63}, 140505R (2001);

2771: {\bf 63}, 054526 (2001); {\bf 64}, 104501 (2001).

2772: \bibitem{ref22}N. Kumar and A.M. Jayannavar, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 45},

2773: 5001 (1992).

2774: \bibitem{ref23}P.W. Anderson and Z. Zou, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 60},

2775: 132 (1988); {\bf 60}, 2557 (1988).

2776: \bibitem{ref24}A.J. Leggett, Braz. J. Phys. {\bf 22}, 129 (1992);

2777: M. Turlabov and A.J. Leggett, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 62}, 064518 (2001).

2778: \bibitem{ref25}Z. Tesanovic, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 36}, 2364 (1987);

2779: {\bf 38}, 2489 (1988).

2780: \bibitem{ref26}J. Halbritter, J. Supercond. {\bf 11}, 231 (1998).

2781: \bibitem{ref27}W.A. Atkinson and J.P. Carbotte, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 52},

2782: 10 601 (1995); {\bf 55}, 3230 (1997); {\bf 55}, 12 748 (1997).

2783: \bibitem{ref28}W.C. Wu, W.A. Atkinson, and J.P. Carbotte, J.

2784: Supercond. {\bf 11}, 305 (1997).

2785: \bibitem{ref29}T. Xiang and J.M. Wheatley, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77},

2786: 4632 (1996).

2787: \bibitem{ref30}P.J. Hirschfeld, S.M. Quinlan, and D.J. Scalapino,

2788: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 55}, 12 742 (1997).

2789: \bibitem{ref31}E.H. Kim, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 58}, 2452 (1997).

2790: \bibitem{ref32}M.J. Graf, M. Palumbo, D. Rainer, and J.A. Sauls,

2791: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 52}, 10 588 (1995).

2792: \bibitem{ref33}E. Schachinger and J.P. Carbotte, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 64},

2793: 094501 (2001).

2794: \bibitem{ref34} D.~van der Marel, H.J.A.~Molegraaf, C.~Presura, and

2795: L.~Santoso, in {\it Concepts in Electron Correlations}, edited by

2796: A.~Hewson and V.~Zlatic (Kluwer, 2003) p. 7.

2797: \bibitem{ref87a}G. Deutscher, A.F. Santander-Syro, and N. Bontemps,

2798: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 72}, 092504 (2005).

2799: \bibitem{ref33a} F. Carbone, A.B. Kuzmenko, H.J.A. Molegraaf,

2800: E. van Heumen, V. Lukovac, F. Marsiglio, D. van der Marel,

2801: K. Haule, G. Kotliar, H. Berger, S. Courjault, P.H. Kes,

2802: M. Li, cond-mat/0605209 (unpublished).

2803: \bibitem{ref123}R.A. Ferrell and R.E. Glover, Phys. Rev. {\bf 109}, 1398

2804: (1958).

2805: \bibitem{ref124}M. Tinkham and R.B. Ferrell, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 2},

2806: 331 (1959).

2807: \bibitem{ref124a}F. Marsiglio, F. Carbone, A. Kuzmenk, and D.

2808: van der Marel, cond-mat/0606688 (unpublished).

2809: \bibitem{ref49}A. Knigavko, J.P. Carbotte, and F. Marsiglio, Phys. Rev.

2810: B. {\bf 70}, 224501 (2004).

2811: \bibitem{ref50}F. Marsiglio and J.E. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 41}, 6435

2812: (1990); Physica C {\bf 165}, 71 (1990).

2813: \bibitem{ref126} M.A. Quijada, D.B. Tanner, R.J. Kelley, M. Onellion,

2814: H. Berger, and G. Margaritondo, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{60}, 14917 (1999).

2815: \bibitem{ref52}L. Benfatto, F. Marsiglio, and J.P. Carbotte,

2816: cond-mat/0603661 (unpublished).

2817: \bibitem{ref53}A.E. Karakozov and E.G. Maksimov, cond-mat/0511185

2818:   (unpublished).

2819: \bibitem{ref35}P.~Monthoux and D.~Pines, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 47}, 6069 (1993);

2820: {\bf 49}, 4261 (1994).

2821: \bibitem{ref36} P.~Monthoux, A.V.~Balatsky, and D.~Pines, Phys. Rev.

2822: Lett. {\bf 67}, 3448 (1991); Phys. Rev. B {\bf 46}, 14 803 (1992).

2823: \bibitem{ref37}A.J.~Millis, H.~Monien, and D.~Pines,

2824: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 42}, 167 (1990).

2825: \bibitem{ref38}D.~Branch and J.P.~Carbotte, Can.\ J.\ Phys. {\bf 77},

2826: 531 (1999); J.\ Superconductivity {\bf 12}, 667 (1999);

2827: {\bf 13}, 535 (2000).

2828: \bibitem{ref39}A.~Abanov, A.V.Chubukov, and J.~Schmalian,

2829: Adv. in Physics {\bf 52}, 119 (2003).

2830: \bibitem{ref40}E. Schachinger and J.P. Carbotte, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 72},

2831: 014535 (2005).

2832: \bibitem{ref40a} V. Chubukov, D. Pines, and J. Schmalian, in: The Physics

2833: of Superconductivity; Conventional and High-T$_c$ Superconductors,

2834: edited by K.-H. Bennemann and J. B. Ketterson (Springer, Berlin, 2003),

2835: Vol. I, p. 495.

2836: \bibitem{ref42}A. Toschi, M. Capone, M. Ortolani, P. Calvani, S. Lupi,

2837: C. Castellani, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95}, 097002 (2005).

2838: \bibitem{ref41}A. Georges, G. Kotliar, M.J. Rozenberg, and W. Krauth,

2839: Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 68}, 13 (1996).

2840: \bibitem{ref43}M. Ortolani, P. Calvani, and S. Lupi, Phys. Rev. Lett.

2841: {\bf 94}, 067002 (2005).

2842: \bibitem{ref44}A. Lucarelli, S. Lupi, M. Ortolani, P. Calvani, P. Maselli,

2843: M. Capizzi, P. Giura, H. Eisaki, N. Kikugawa, T. Fujita, M. Fujita, and

2844: K. Yamada, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 037002 (2003).

2845: \bibitem{ref45}A.F. Santander-Syro, R.P.S.M. Lobo, N. Bontemps, Z.

2846: Konstantinovic, and H. Raffy, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 097005 (2002).

2847: \bibitem{ref46}A.F. Santander-Syro, R.P.S.M. Lobo, N. Bontemps,

2848: Z. Konstantinovic, Z.Z. Li, and H. Raffy,

2849: Europhys. Lett. {\bf 62}, 568 (2003).

2850: \bibitem{ref47}A.F. Santander-Syro, R.P.S.M. Lobo, N. Bontemps, W. Lopera,

2851: D. Girat\'{a}, Z. Konstantinovic, Z.Z. Li, and H. Raffy, Phys. Rev.

2852: {\bf 70}, 134504 (2004).

2853: \bibitem{ref48}H.J.A. Molegraaf, C. Presura, D. van der Marel, P.H. Kes,

2854: and M. Li, Science {\bf 295}, 22 (2002).

2855: \bibitem{ref89c}Th.A. Maier, M. Jarrell, A. Macridin, and

2856: C. Slezak, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 027005 (2004)

2857: \bibitem{ref89b}K. Haule and G. Kotliar, cond-mat/0601478 (unpublished).

2858: \bibitem{ref54}G. Grimaldi, E. Cappelutti, and L. Pietrobero,

2859: Europhys. Lett. {\bf 42}, 667 (1998).

2860: \bibitem{ref55}E. Cappelluti, C. Grimaldi, and L. Pietronero,

2861: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 64}, 125104 (2001).

2862: \bibitem{ref56}E. Capeppelluti and L. Pietronero, Phys. Rev. B

2863: {\bf 68}, 224511 (2003). 

2864: \bibitem{ref57}F. Do\v{g}an and F. Marsiglio, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68},

2865: 165102 (2003).

2866: \bibitem{ref58}A. Knigavko and J.P. Carbotte, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 72},

2867: 035125 (2005).

2868: \bibitem{ref59}A. Knigavko and J.P. Carbotte, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 73},

2869: 125114 (2006).

2870: \bibitem{ref62}A. Knigavko, J.P. Carbotte, and F. Marsiglio,

2871: Europhys. Lett. {\bf 71}, 776 (2005).

2872: \bibitem{ref60}F. Marsiglio, M. Schossmann, and J.P. Carbotte, Phys.

2873: Rev. B {\bf 32}, 4965 (1988).

2874: \bibitem{ref63}J.P. Carbotte, E. Schachinger, and J. Hwang, Phys.

2875: Rev. B {\bf 71}, 054506 (2005).

2876: \bibitem{ref61}E. Schachinger and J.P. Carbotte, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 62},

2877: 9054 (2000).

2878: \bibitem{ref64}J. Hwang, J. Yang, T. Timusk, S.G. Sharapov, J.P. Carbotte,

2879: D.A. Bonn, Ruixing Liang, and W.N. Hardy, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 73},

2880: 014508 (2006).

2881: %\bibitem{ref51} D. van der Marel, {\bf \ldots ??????????????} 

2882: %\bibitem{ref60a}E. Schachinger, J.J. Tu, and J.P. Carbotte, Phys.

2883: %Rev. B {\bf 67}, 214508 (2003).

2884: \bibitem{ref65}A.V. Boris, N.N. Kovaleva, D.V. Dolgov, T. Holden,

2885: C.T. Lin, B. Keimer, and C. Bernhard, Science {\bf 304}, 708 (2004).

2886: \bibitem{ref66}A.B. Kuzmenko, H.J.A. Molegraaf, F. Carbone, and

2887: D. van der Marel, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 72}, 144503 (2005).

2888: \bibitem{ref67}A.F. Santander-Syro and N. Bontemps, Science {\bf 304},

2889: 708 (2004).

2890: \bibitem{ref68}J.P. Carbotte, E. Schachinger, and D.N. Basov,

2891: Nature (London) {\bf 401}, 354 (1999).

2892: \bibitem{ref69}E. Schachinger, J.P. Carbotte, and D.N. Basov,

2893: Europhys. Lett. {\bf 54}, 380 (2001).

2894: \bibitem{ref70} E.~Schachinger and J.P.~Carbotte, 

2895: in: {\it Models and Methods of High-TC Superconductivity: some Frontal

2896: Aspects}, edited by J.K.~Srivastava and S.M.~Rao,

2897: (Nova Science, Hauppauge, NY, 2003),  Vol. II, p. 73.

2898: \bibitem{ref71}P. Bourges, in: The Gap Symmetry and Fluctuations in

2899: High Temperature Superconductors, edited by J. Bok, G. Deutscher,

2900: D. Pavuna, and S.A. Wolf (Plenum Press, London, 1998), p. 349.

2901: \bibitem{ref72}E. Schachinger and J.P. Carbotte, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 65},

2902: 064514 (2002).

2903: \bibitem{ref73}A. Hosseini, R. Harris, Saeid Kamal, P. Dosanjh,

2904: J. Preston, Ruixing Liang, W.N. Hardy, and D.A. Bonn, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 60},

2905: 1349 (1999).

2906: \bibitem{ref75}D.A. Bonn, Ruixing Liang, T.M. Risemann, D.J. Baar,

2907: D.C. Morgan, K. Zhang, P. Dosanjh, T.L. Duty, A. MacFarlane,

2908: G.D. Morris, J.H. Brewer, W.H. Hardy, C. Kallin, and A.J.

2909: Berlinsky, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 47}, 11 314 (1993).

2910: \bibitem{ref74}E. Schachinger and J.P. Carbotte, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 57},

2911: 13 773 (1998); {\bf 57}, 7970 (1998).

2912: \bibitem{ref76}E. Schachinger, J.P. Carbotte, and F. Marsiglio,

2913: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 56}, 2738 (1997).

2914: \bibitem{ref77}R.S.~Markiewicz, S.~Sahrakorpi, M.~Lindroos, Hsin Lin,

2915: and A.~Bansil, cond-mat/0503064 (unpublished) and references therein.

2916: \bibitem{ref90}F. Marsiglio, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 73} 064507 (2006);

2917: Erratum to be published.

2918: \bibitem{ref78}M.R. Norman and C. P\'epin, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 66},

2919: 100506(R) (2002).

2920: \bibitem{ref79}M.R. Norman and C. P\'epin, Rep. Progr. Phys. {\bf 66},

2921: 1547 (2003).

2922: \bibitem{ref80}M.R. Norman and H. Ding, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 57},

2923: R11089 (1998).

2924: \bibitem{ref81}R. Hlubina and T.M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 51},

2925: 9253 (1995).

2926: \bibitem{ref82}T. Valla, A.V. Fedorov, P.D. Johnson, Q. Li, G.D. Gu,

2927: and N. Koshizuka, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 828 (2000).

2928: \bibitem{ref83}K.G. Sandeman and A.J. Schofield, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 63},

2929: 094510 (2001).

2930: \bibitem{ref84}B.P. Stojkovic and D. Pines, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 76},

2931: 811 (1996).

2932: \bibitem{ref85}C.M. Varma, P.B. Littlewood, S. Schmitt-Rink,

2933: A. Abrahams, and A.E. Ruckenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 63},

2934: 1996 (1989).

2935: \bibitem{ref86}C.M. Varma, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 55}, 14 554 (1997).

2936: \bibitem{ref87}A.V. Puchkov, D.N. Basov, and T. Timusk, J. Phys.:

2937: Condens. Matter {\bf 8}, 10 049 (1996).

2938: \bibitem{ref88}This was pointed out in footnote 15 of

2939:   Ref.~\onlinecite{ref87a}.

2940: \bibitem{ref89a}N. Bontemps, R.P.S.M. Lobo, A.F. Santander-Syro,

2941: A. Zimmers, cond-mat/0603024 (unpublished).

2942: \bibitem{ref89}J.L. Tallon and J.W. Loram, Physica C {\bf 349}, 53

2943: (2001).

2944: \bibitem{ref127}A. Toschi, M. Capone, and C. Castellani, Phys. Rev.

2945: B \textbf{72}, 235118 (2005).

2946: \bibitem{ref128}B. Kyung, A. Georges, and A.-M. S. Tremblay,

2947: cond-mat/0508645 (unpublished).

2948: \bibitem{ref91}V.J. Emery and S.A. Kivelson, Nature (London) {\bf 374},

2949: 434 (1995).

2950: \bibitem{ref92}M. Randeria, N. Trivedi, A. Moreo, and R.T. Scalettar,

2951: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 69}, 2001 (1992).

2952: \bibitem{ref93}M. Franz and A.J. Millis, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 58}, 14 572

2953: (1998).

2954: \bibitem{ref94}N.-J. Kwon and A.T. Dorsey, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 59},

2955: 6438 (1999).

2956: \bibitem{ref95}I.F. Herbut, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 047006 (2002).

2957: \bibitem{ref96}T. Eckl, D.J. Scalapino, E. Arrigoni, and W. Hanke,

2958: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 66}, 140510(R) (2002).

2959: \bibitem{ref97}T. Eckl, W. Hanke, and E. Arrigoni, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68},

2960: 014505 (2003).

2961: \bibitem{ref97a}T.K. Kope\'c, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 67}, 014520 (2003).

2962: \bibitem{ref98}S. Chakravarty, R.B. Laughlin, D.K. Morr, and C. Nayak,

2963: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 63}, 094503 (2001).

2964: \bibitem{ref99}B. D\`ora, A. Virosztek, and K. Maki, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 65},

2965: 155119 (2002); K. Maki, B. D\`ora, M. Kartsovnik, A. Virosztek, B.

2966: Korin-Hamzic, and M. Basletic, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 256402 (2003).

2967: \bibitem{ref100}S. Chakravarty, H.-Y. Kee, and C. Nayak, Int. J. Mod. Phys.

2968: B {\bf 15}, 2901 (2001).

2969: \bibitem{ref101}J.-X. Zhu, W. Kim, C.S. Ting, and J.P. Carbotte,

2970: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 197001 (2001).

2971: \bibitem{ref102}X. Yang and C. Nayak, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 65}, 064523 (2002).

2972: \bibitem{ref103}Q.H. Wang, J.H. Han, and D.H. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett.

2973: {\bf 87}, 077004 (2001).

2974: \bibitem{ref103a}S. Chakravarty, C. Nayak, and S. Tewari, Phys. Rev. B

2975: {\bf 68}, 100504 (2003).

2976: \bibitem{ref104}S. Chakravarty, C. Nayak, S. Tewari, and X. Yang,

2977: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 277003 (2002).

2978: \bibitem{ref105}S. Tewari, H.-Y. Kee, C. Nayak, S. Chakravarty, Phys.

2979: Rev. B {\bf 64}, 224516 (2001).

2980: \bibitem{ref106}E. Capelutti and R. Zehyer, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 59},

2981: 6475 (1999).

2982: \bibitem{ref107}L. Benfatto, S. Caprara, and C. DiCastro, Eur. Phys. J. B

2983: {\bf 17}, 95 (2000).

2984: \bibitem{ref108}L. Benfatto, S. Sharapov, and H. Beck, Eur. Phys. J. B

2985: {\bf 34}, 469 (2004).

2986: \bibitem{ref109}D.N. Aristov and R. Zeyher, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 70},

2987: 212511 (2004).

2988: \bibitem{ref110}B. Valenzuela, E.J. Nicol, and J.P. Carbotte, Phys.

2989: Rev. B {\bf 71}, 134503 (2005).

2990: \bibitem{ref111}Wonkee Kim and J.P. Carbotte, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 66},

2991: 033104 (2002).

2992: \bibitem{ref112}Wonkee Kim, J.X. Zhu, J.P. Carbotte, and C.S. Ting,

2993: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 65}, 064502 (2002).

2994: \bibitem{ref113}L. Benfatto, S. Sharapov, N. Andrenacci, and H. Beck,

2995: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 71}, 104511 (2005).

2996: \bibitem{ref114}L. Benfatto and S. Sharapov, Low Temp. Phys.

2997: \textbf{32}, 533 (2006).

2998: \bibitem{ref115}B.I. Halperin and T.M. Rice, Solid State Phys. {\bf 21},

2999: 115 (1968).

3000: \bibitem{ref116}I. Affleck and J.B. Marston, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 37},

3001: 3774 (1988).

3002: \bibitem{ref119}D.N. Aristov and R. Zeyher, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 72},

3003: 115118 (2005).

3004: \bibitem{ref120}R. Gerami and C. Nayak, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 73}, 024505

3005: (2006).

3006: \bibitem{ref121}C.C. Homes, S.V. Dordevic, D.A. Bonn, Ruixing Liang,

3007: W.N. Hardy, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 69}, 024514 (2004).

3008: \bibitem{ref122}A.E. Karakozov, F.G. Maksimov, and O.V. Dolgov,

3009: Solid State Commun. {\bf 124}, 119 (2002).

3010: \bibitem{ref129}W. Shaw and J.C. Swihart, \prl {\bf 20}, 1000 (1968).

3011: \bibitem{ref122a}J.P. Carbotte and E. Schachinger, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 69},

3012: 224501 (2004).

3013: %\bibitem{ref125}E. Schachinger and J.P. Carbotte, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 64},

3014: %094501 (2001).

3015: \end{thebibliography}

3016: %\newpage

3017: %\section*{Tables}

3018: %\begin{table}[h]

3019: %\caption{\label{tab:1}The two tight binding models used within this

3020: %paper. Model A corresponds to the tight binding model discussed by

3021: %van der Marel {\it et al.}\protect{\cite{ref34}} $t$ and $t'$ are

3022: %given in meV, the critical temperature $T_c$ in K, and the filling

3023: %$\langle n\rangle$ is defined in Eq.~\protect{\eqref{eq:8}}.

3024: %}

3025: %\begin{ruledtabular}

3026: %\begin{tabular}{ldddd}

3027: %Model & t & t' & \langle n\rangle & T_c\\

3028: %\hline

3029: %A & 148.8 & 40.9 & 0.425 & 90\\

3030: %B & 100.0 & 16.0 & 0.4 & 100\\

3031: %\end{tabular}

3032: %\end{ruledtabular}

3033: %\vspace*{10cm}

3034: %\end{table}

3035: %\mbox{ }

3036: %\clearpage

3037: %\begin{table}

3038: %\caption{\label{tab:2}Results of the fits in Fig.~\protect{\ref{fig:4}}

3039: %for selected doping values. First and second columns: values of the

3040: %coefficient $B$ (in units of $1/D$) for low and high frequency cutoff,

3041: %respectively (note that, for $U=0$, $B\simeq 2/D$ in the whole doping

3042: %range considered here). Third and forth column: corresponding spectral

3043: %weights. Last two columns: kinetic energy and quasiparticle weight.

3044: %Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref42}}.

3045: %}

3046: %\begin{ruledtabular}

3047: %\begin{tabular}{ldddddd}

3048: %\begin{center}

3049: %\begin{tabular}{lcccccc}

3050: % & B(0.1D) & B(1.5D) & W_0(0.1D) & W_0(1.5D) & -E_{kin} & Z\\

3051: %\hline

3052: %x=0.07 & 58\pm5 & 27\pm3 & 0.05D & 0.11D & 0.17D & 0.12\\

3053: %x=0.12 & 48\pm5 & 16\pm4 & 0.08D & 0.16D & 0.21D & 0.20\\

3054: %x=0.15 & 43\pm5 & 15\pm4 & 0.09D & 0.18D & 0.22D & 0.22\\

3055: %x=0.19 & 51\pm5 & 13\pm5 & 0.11D & 0.20D & 0.24D & 0.27\\

3056: %x=0.26 & 33\pm7 & 11\pm3 & 0.14D & 0.24D & 0.27D & 0.35\\

3057: %\\

3058: %\end{tabular}

3059: %\end{center}

3060: %\end{ruledtabular}

3061: %\end{table}

3062: %\mbox{ }

3063: %\clearpage

3064: %\section*{Figures}

3065: %\begin{figure}[h]

3066: %\centering

3067: %  \vspace*{-3cm}

3068: %  \includegraphics[width=13cm]{vmFig3.eps}

3069: %  \includegraphics[width=13cm]{smFig1.eps}

3070: %\vspace*{-5mm}

3071: %  \caption{Optical sum $W$ and kinetic energy, $-W_{\rm KE}/2$,

3072: %as a function of $T^2$. Solid circles and squares are for the non

3073: %interacting case while solid up-triangles and solid down-triangles

3074: %include interactions.

3075: %The left hand frame applies to

3076: %Model A of Table~\protect{\ref{tab:1}} and $\omega_{SF}=82\,$meV was

3077: %used. Here, the interacting and non interacting cases show similar

3078: %temperature dependencies. The right hand frame is for

3079: %Model B of Table~\protect{\ref{tab:1}} with an MMP model

3080: %$\omega_{SF}=10\,$meV. Note the difference in temperature dependence

3081: %between interacting and non interacting case.

3082: %}

3083: %  \label{fig:1}

3084: %\end{figure}

3085: %\mbox{ }

3086: %\clearpage

3087: %\begin{figure}[h]

3088: %  \centering

3089: %  \includegraphics[width=10cm]{vmFig2.eps}

3090: %  \caption{The occupation number $n_{\bf k}$ for

3091: %selected directions in the CuO$_2$ Brillouin zone. Model A of

3092: %Table~\protect{\ref{tab:1}} was used.

3093: %Top frame: the non interacting case. Center frame: The interacting

3094: %case at a temperature $T=20\,$K. We show normal state (solid line)

3095: %and superconducting state (dashed line) results. Bottom frame: The

3096: %temperature influence on the normal state $n_{\bf k}$ for

3097: %$T=20\,$K (solid line) and $T=150\,$K (dashed line). }

3098: %  \label{fig:2}

3099: %\end{figure}

3100: %\clearpage

3101: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3102: %\vspace*{-1cm}

3103: %\centering

3104: %  \includegraphics[width=13cm]{vmFig5a.eps}

3105: %  \includegraphics[width=13cm]{smFig3.eps}

3106: %  \caption{Comparison of normal and superconducting state for the

3107: %optical sum and the kinetic energy. The left hand frame applies to

3108: %Model A of Table~\ref{tab:1} and $\omega_{SF}=82\,$meV and the

3109: %right hand frame is for the band structure Model B of Table~\ref{tab:1} and

3110: %$\omega_{SF} = 10\,$meV. The dotted line in this frame shows

3111: %a $T^2$ law extrapolation of the normal state data for $T>T_c$ to

3112: %zero temperature. Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref40}}.

3113: %}

3114: %  \label{fig:3}

3115: %\vspace*{5cm}

3116: %\end{figure}

3117: %\clearpage

3118: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3119: %  \vspace*{0.5cm}

3120: %  \centering

3121: %  \includegraphics[width=8cm]{srFig4a.eps}

3122: %  \includegraphics[width=8cm]{srFig4b.eps}

3123: %  \caption{$W(\Omega,T)$ normalized to its $T=0$ value

3124: %as a function of $T^2$ for the Hubbard model,

3125: %for $\Omega = 0.1\,D$ (left hand frame) and $\Omega = 1.5\,D$

3126: %(right hand frame).

3127: %Symbols are the results of the DMFT calculations; lines are best

3128: %fits to them. The various symbols give four dopings $(x)$.

3129: %Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref42}}.

3130: %}

3131: %  \label{fig:4}

3132: %\end{figure}

3133: %\clearpage

3134: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3135: %  \vspace*{-2cm}

3136: %  \centering

3137: %  \includegraphics[width=13cm]{srFig5.eps}

3138: %  \caption{The relative variation of spectral weight between the

3139: %lowest $T$ and $300\,$K as a function of doping $x$ for various

3140: %cuprates (full symbols) is compared with DMFT calculations

3141: %(open squares) and with the predictions of non interacting models

3142: %[tight binding model (solid line), flat band (dashed line)]. The

3143: %dotted line is a guide to the eye. The simple inclusion of

3144: %correlation effects allows one to reproduce the observed absolute values

3145: %with no need of fitting parameters. Data for LSCO are obtained from

3146: %Refs.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref43}} and \protect{\onlinecite{ref44}},

3147: %and for BSCCO from

3148: %Refs.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref45,ref46,ref47}}

3149: %(BSCCO$_1$) and from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref48}} (BSCCO$_2$).

3150: %Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref42}}.

3151: %}

3152: %  \label{fig:5}

3153: %\end{figure}

3154: %\clearpage

3155: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3156: %  \centering

3157: %  \includegraphics[width=10cm]{srFig6.eps}

3158: %  \caption{$T=0$ spectral weight $W_0$ for $\Omega=1.5D$ as a function of

3159: %doping $x$, for both the Hubbard model (solid circles) and for the

3160: %observations in LSCO (open circles). The latter data are obtained by

3161: %integrating the $\sigma_1(\omega)$ of LSCO in Ref.~\protect{

3162: %\onlinecite{ref44}}. Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref42}}.

3163: %}

3164: %  \label{fig:6}

3165: %\end{figure}

3166: %\clearpage

3167: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3168: %  \centering

3169: %  \includegraphics[width=12cm]{srFig7.eps}

3170: %  \caption{Evolution of the self energy vs frequency dependence with

3171: %temperature for the Einstein spectrum with $a=0.1$ and $\Omega_E =

3172: %0.1$ $(\lambda = 2)$. Frame (a) is for the minus imaginary part,

3173: %$-\Sigma_2(\omega)$, while frame (b) is for the real part,

3174: %$\Sigma_1(\omega)$. In each frame different curves correspond

3175: %to temperatures $t\equiv 2T/D =0.1$ (dash-dotted line),

3176: %0.05 (dotted line),

3177: %0.01 (dashed line), 0.001. All energies are in units of $D/2$.

3178: %Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref58}}.

3179: %}

3180: %  \label{fig:7}

3181: %\end{figure}

3182: %\clearpage

3183: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3184: %  \centering

3185: %  \includegraphics[width=11cm]{srFig8.eps}

3186: %  \caption{The probability of occupation of the state $n(\omega)$ vs

3187: %normalized energy $2\omega/D$. (a) The results for the case when only

3188: %the temperature dependence of the self energy is included. The normalized

3189: %temperatures are $t \equiv 2T/D = 0.0$ (solid line), 

3190: %0.01 (dashed line), 0.03 (dotted line), and 0.05

3191: %(dash-dotted line). (b) Comparison of the

3192: %results when the complete temperature dependence  of $n(\omega)$

3193: %[see Eq.~\protect{\eqref{eq:17}}] is accounted for (solid lines)

3194: %with the case presented in frame (a). The normalized

3195: %temperatures are $t=0.01$ (dashed line) and 0.05 (dash-dotted

3196: %line). (All energies are in units of $D/2$.) Adapted from

3197: %Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref49}}.

3198: %}

3199: %  \label{fig:8}

3200: %\end{figure}

3201: %\clearpage

3202: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3203: %  \centering

3204: %  \includegraphics[width=11cm]{srFig9.eps}

3205: %  \caption{The variation of the optical sum $S$ vs temperature for the

3206: %interaction strengths (a) $a=0.02$ and (b) $a=0.1$. The results are for

3207: %both the quadratic (solid symbols) and tight binding

3208: %(open symbols) bands, as indicated. In the top frame

3209: %the mass enhancement factor $\lambda=0.8$ (squares) and

3210: %$\lambda=1$ (triangles), while in the bottom frame $\lambda=2$ (squares)

3211: %and $\lambda=4$ (triangles).

3212: %The insert in the top frame illustrates

3213: %the behavior of the optical sum during a sudden ``undressing

3214: %transition'' at $t_{undress}=0.02$ with 20\% hardening of the

3215: %normalized boson frequency $\Omega$ and a corresponding reduction

3216: %of the mass enhancement factor from $\lambda=1.0$ to 0.8. Adapted

3217: %from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref49}}.

3218: %}

3219: %  \label{fig:9}

3220: %\end{figure}

3221: %\clearpage

3222: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3223: %  \centering

3224: %  \includegraphics[width=11cm]{srFig10.eps}

3225: %  \caption{Top frame: minus the imaginary part of the carrier self

3226: %energy $-\Sigma_2(\omega,T)$ vs $\omega$ at the various temperatures

3227: %shown. Middle frame: minus the real part of the carrier self energy

3228: %$-\Sigma_1(\omega,T)$ vs $\omega$. Bottom frame: the function

3229: %$h(T,-\omega)$ of Eq.~\protect{\eqref{eq:18}} vs $\omega$. The

3230: %calculation is for an MMP model, Eq.~\protect{\eqref{eq:29}}, with

3231: %$\omega_{SF} = 20\,$meV, $I^2=0.82$, and $D=800\,$meV.

3232: %}

3233: %  \label{fig:10}

3234: %\end{figure}

3235: %\clearpage

3236: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3237: %  \centering

3238: %  \includegraphics[width=14cm]{srFig11.eps}

3239: %  \caption{The reduced optical sum $S(T)$ according to

3240: %Eq.~\protect{\eqref{eq:29a}}

3241: %vs temperature $(T)$ squared. The left hand frame is for

3242: %an MMP model \protect{\eqref{eq:29}} with $\omega_{SF} = 20\,$meV and

3243: %$I^2=0.82$ while the right hand frame is for $\omega_{SF} = 82\,$meV

3244: %and $I^2 = 0.655$.

3245: %}

3246: %  \label{fig:11}

3247: %\end{figure}

3248: %\clearpage

3249: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3250: %  \centering

3251: %  \includegraphics[width=12cm]{fig3bw.eps}

3252: %  \caption{The negative of the KE, $-\langle K\rangle$, vs temperature

3253: %showing the breakdown for the various contributions. The solid

3254: %curves are for a small boson frequency $\omega_E=2\,$meV with

3255: %$\lambda=1$. The two thin lines show how the zero temperature value

3256: %is modified by the Sommerfeld term by a very small amount. A similar

3257: %size contribution (actually a bit larger) is illustrated for the

3258: %noninteracting case by dotted curves, where only the

3259: %Sommerfeld term is responsible for the temperature variation. Finally,

3260: %for higher boson frequencies, the dashed curves illustrate

3261: %the amount of temperature variation due to the Sommerfeld term

3262: %compared with the rest. The band width $W = 1\,$eV.

3263: % Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref52}}.

3264: %}

3265: %  \label{fig:12}

3266: %\end{figure}

3267: %\clearpage

3268: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3269: %  \centering

3270: %  \includegraphics[width=13cm]{srFig13.eps}

3271: %  \caption{The partial spectral weight integrated up to various

3272: %frequencies as a function of temperature. Below $16\,000\,$cm$^{-1}$

3273: %there is an increase in spectral weight as the temperature is lowered

3274: %signaling a line narrowing on this frequency scale. Below $T_c$ there

3275: %is strong loss of spectral weight to the superconducting condensate.

3276: %There is no evidence of any precursors to superconductivity at

3277: %$67\,$K. In the inset we show $N_{eff}(\omega)$ at $295\,$K. Adapted

3278: %from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref64}}.

3279: %}

3280: %  \label{fig:13}

3281: %\vspace*{-1cm}

3282: %\end{figure}

3283: %\clearpage

3284: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3285: %  \centering

3286: %  \includegraphics[width=9cm]{srFig14.eps}

3287: %  \caption{Experimental values of the $ab$-plane spectral function 

3288: %defined in Eq.~\protect{\eqref{eq:30}}.

3289: %Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref34}}.

3290: %}

3291: %  \label{fig:14}

3292: %\vspace*{5cm}

3293: %\end{figure}

3294: %\endfloats

3295: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3296: %  \centering

3297: %  \includegraphics[width=11cm]{srFig15.eps}

3298: %  \caption{The charge carrier-spin spectral density $I^2\chi(\omega)$

3299: %  determined from optical scattering data of YBCO$_{6.95}$

3300: %at various temperatures.

3301: %  Solid gray curve $T=90\,$K, dash-dotted $T=80\,$K, dashed $T=60\,$K,

3302: %dotted $T=40\,$K, and black solid $T=10\,$K. Note the growth in strength

3303: %of the $41\,$meV optical resonance as the temperature is lowered.

3304: %Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref70}}.

3305: %}

3306: %  \label{fig:15}

3307: %\end{figure}

3308: %\clearpage

3309: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3310: %  \centering

3311: %  \includegraphics[width=11cm]{srFig16.eps}

3312: %  \caption{

3313: %Temperature dependence of the conductivity $\sigma_1(\omega)$ at

3314: %microwave frequency $\omega=0.144\,$meV in YBCO$_{6.95}$.

3315: %The open circles are results based on

3316: %our model spectral density (see Fig.~\protect{\ref{fig:15}}) obtained

3317: %from inversion of optical conductivity data and the dashed line is

3318: %based on an

3319: %MMP model with low frequency cutoff. The solid triangles include impurities

3320: %with the solid line from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref74}}. The solid

3321: %squares represent experimental data by Bonn {\it et al.}\protect{%

3322: %\cite{ref75}} Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref69}}.

3323: %}

3324: %  \label{fig:16}

3325: %\end{figure}

3326: %\clearpage

3327: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3328: %  \centering

3329: %  \includegraphics[width=12cm]{srFig17.eps}

3330: %  \caption{The optical sum of optimally doped BSCCO 

3331: %as a function of the square of the temperature

3332: %for the band structure Model A of Table~\protect{\ref{tab:1}} with

3333: %different values of $\omega_{SF}$. Also in one case a low frequency

3334: %cutoff is applied to the spin susceptibility. Note the significance

3335: %of the $T^2$-variation on the value of $\omega_{SF}$. The thick solid

3336: %line represents experimental normal state data of Molegraaf {\it et al.}%

3337: %\protect{\cite{ref48}} also shown in the top frame of

3338: %Fig.~\protect{\ref{fig:14}}.

3339: %Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref40}}.

3340: %}

3341: %  \label{fig:17}

3342: %\end{figure}

3343: %\clearpage

3344: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3345: %  \centering

3346: %  \includegraphics[width=7cm]{srFig18a.eps}

3347: %  \includegraphics[width=7cm]{srFig18b.eps}

3348: %  \caption{(a) $1/\tau(\omega)$ vs $\omega$ for various BSCCO samples from

3349: %Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref87}} (OD overdoped, OPT optimal doped,

3350: %UD underdoped). (b) Calculated sum rule violation $(-\Delta E_K)$ vs

3351: %doping $x$ (solid circles).

3352: %The curve is $T_c$. The parameters (meV) extracted from

3353: %(a) are $\Gamma_N$ (1, 22, 27, 37), $\alpha$ (.65, .75, .88, .98),

3354: %$\omega_0$ (54, 71, 76, 83), and $\Delta_{max}$ (24, 32, 41, 54) for

3355: %OD70, OPT90, UD82, and UD67, respectively. Also shown in (b) are the

3356: %experimental results (open squares from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref46}},

3357: %open diamonds from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref48}}). The theoretical

3358: %doping trend in (b) is due to the increasing offset in $1/\tau$ seen

3359: %in (a). Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref78}}.

3360: %}

3361: %  \label{fig:18}

3362: %\end{figure}

3363: %\clearpage

3364: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3365: %  \centering

3366: %  \includegraphics[width=11cm]{srFig19.eps}

3367: %  \caption{Spectral weight of the overdoped Bi2212 sample, integrated

3368: %up to $1\,$eV, plotted vs $T^2$, from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref46}}.

3369: %Closed symbols: spectral weight in the normal state, open symbols:

3370: %spectral weight in the superconducting state, including the weight

3371: %of the superfluid. The errors in the {\it relative} variations of the

3372: %spectral weight are of the size of the symbols. Adapted from

3373: %Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref87a}}.

3374: %}

3375: %  \label{fig:19}

3376: %\end{figure}

3377: %\clearpage

3378: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3379: %  \centering

3380: %  \includegraphics[width=11cm]{srFig20.eps}

3381: %  \caption{Change $\Delta E_{kin}$ of the KE, in meV per copper site

3382: %vs the charge $p$ per copper with

3383: %respect to $p_{opt}$ [Eq.~\protect{\eqref{eq:31}}] in BSCCO.

3384: %Full diamonds: data from

3385: %Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref47}}, high-frequency cutoff $1\,$eV. Open

3386: %circles: data from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref48}}, high frequency

3387: %cutoff $1.25\,$eV. Error bars: vertical, uncertainties due to the

3388: %extrapolation of the temperature dependence of the normal state spectral

3389: %weight down to zero temperature; horizontal, uncertainties resulting

3390: %from $T_c/T_{c,max}$ through Eq.~\protect{\eqref{eq:31}}.

3391: %Deutscher {\it et al.}\protect{\cite{ref87a}} took

3392: %$T_{c,max} = (83\pm2)\,$K for films and $(91\pm2)\,$K for crystals.

3393: %Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref87a}}.

3394: %}

3395: %  \label{fig:20}

3396: %\end{figure}

3397: %\clearpage

3398: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3399: %  \centering

3400: %  \includegraphics[width=12cm]{srFig32.eps}

3401: %  \caption{The difference between the superconducting and normal state

3402: %energies as a function of temperature. The following curves are shown:

3403: %up-triangles - $E_{kin-S}-E_{kin-N}$; squares - $E_{x-S}-E_{x-N}$;

3404: %diamonds - $E_{tot-S}-E_{tot-N}$; circles - $\mu_S-\mu_N$.

3405: %Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref89b}}.

3406: %}

3407: %  \label{fig:32}

3408: %\end{figure}

3409: %\clearpage

3410: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3411: %  \centering

3412: %  \includegraphics[width=11cm]{srFig21.eps}

3413: %  \caption{Minus the kinetic energy, $-\langle T_{xx}\rangle$,

3414: %vs temperature for various

3415: %degrees of elastic scattering. Below $T_c$ we change the elastic

3416: %scattering rate smoothly to zero [as $\Gamma_0 (T/T_c)^4$] as the

3417: %temperature is lowered.

3418: %Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref90}}

3419: %}

3420: %  \label{fig:21}

3421: %\end{figure}

3422: %\clearpage

3423: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3424: %  \centering

3425: %  \includegraphics[width=10cm]{srFig22.eps}

3426: %  \caption{Kinetic energy per bond, $\langle k_x\rangle$, as a function of

3427: %temperature for non interacting tight-binding electrons (TB), the BCS

3428: %solution (BCS), and the phase fluctuation (PP) model for $\mu=0$

3429: %$(\langle n\rangle = 1)$. The large vertical arrows indicate the increase

3430: %in KE upon pairing, relative to the free tight-binding model, and

3431: %the small arrows indicate the additional increase due to phase

3432: %fluctuations. This additional {\it phase fluctuation energy} rapidly

3433: %vanishes near $T_c=T_{KT}$, which causes the significant change in the

3434: %OS upon entering the superconducting state at $T_{KT}=0.1\,t$. Note

3435: %that the thick line follows the actual KE encountered in our model, when

3436: %going from the pseudogap to the superconducting regime. Adapted from

3437: %Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref97}}.

3438: %}

3439: %  \label{fig:22}

3440: %\end{figure}

3441: %\clearpage

3442: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3443: %  \centering

3444: %  \includegraphics[width=11cm]{srFig23.eps}

3445: %  \caption{Kinetic energy contribution from phase fluctuations

3446: %$\delta\langle k_x\rangle \equiv \langle k_x\rangle_{PP}-

3447: %\langle k_x\rangle_{BCS}$. One can clearly see the sharp decrease of KE

3448: %near the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition $T_{KT}=0.1\,t\equiv T_c$.

3449: %$\Delta E_k$ gives an estimate of the kinetic condensation energy.

3450: %Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref97}}.

3451: %}

3452: %  \label{fig:23}

3453: %\end{figure}

3454: %\clearpage

3455: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3456: %  \centering

3457: %  \includegraphics[width=12cm]{srFig24.eps}

3458: %  \caption{Restricted optical sums with (solid line) and without

3459: %(dot-dashed line) vertex corrections, and Drude weights with (dashed

3460: %line) and without (dotted line) vertex corrections.

3461: %Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref119}}.

3462: %}

3463: %  \label{fig:24}

3464: %\end{figure}

3465: %\clearpage

3466: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3467: %  \centering

3468: %  \includegraphics[width=12cm]{srFig25.eps}

3469: %  \caption{Optical conductivity $\sigma(\omega)$ with (solid line)

3470: %and without (dashed line) vertex corrections.

3471: %Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref119}}.

3472: %}

3473: %  \label{fig:25}

3474: %\end{figure}

3475: %\clearpage

3476: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3477: %  \centering

3478: %  \includegraphics[width=13cm]{srFig26.eps}

3479: %  \caption{Spectral weight in the presence of a $t'$ term in the band

3480: %dispersion.

3481: %Here $W(D,T)$ (Eq.~\protect{\eqref{eq:43}}, dash-dotted line),

3482: %$W^{DDW}(D,T)$ (Eq.~\protect{\eqref{eq:49a}} (solid line) are shown

3483: %together with $W(T)$ (dashed line) which is for the non interacting

3484: %case. The parameters are $t'=0.3\,t$, $T_{DDW}=0.12\,t$,

3485: %$D(0) = 4T_{DDW}$, and the doping $\delta = 0.1$. The chemical potential is

3486: %evaluated self consistently at each temperature.

3487: %Observe that near $T_{DDW}$ a small decrease of $W^{DDW}$ with

3488: %respect to $W(T)$ is seen, due to the change of chemical potential

3489: %near $T_{DDW}$. Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref113}}.

3490: %}

3491: %  \label{fig:26}

3492: %\end{figure}

3493: %\clearpage

3494: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3495: %  \centering

3496: %  \includegraphics[width=14cm]{srFig27.eps}

3497: %  \caption{Spectral weight in units of $e^2\pi/\hbar^2$ in the normal state

3498: %(dash double-dotted line), in the DDW state

3499: %Eq.~\protect{\eqref{eq:49a}} (solid line)

3500: %and in DDW+SC state Eq.~\protect{\eqref{eq:45}} (dashed line).

3501: %The values of parameters are

3502: %for the doping $\delta = 0.13$ [$D_0(T=0)=0.92\,t$,

3503: %$\Delta(T=0)=0.064\,t$, see Refs.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref107}} and

3504: %\protect{\onlinecite{ref108}}

3505: %for further details. The critical temperature is marked by the arrow.

3506: %Observe that the decrease of $W^{DDW}(D,\Delta,T)$ below $T_c$ is

3507: %small. Inset: spectral weight plotted as a function of

3508: %$(T/t)^2$. Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref114}} (see also

3509: %Ref.~\onlinecite{ref108}).

3510: %}

3511: %  \label{fig:27}

3512: %\end{figure}

3513: %\clearpage

3514: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3515: %  \centering

3516: %  \includegraphics[width=10cm]{srFig28.eps}

3517: %  \caption{Selection of conductivity spectra for

3518: %three BSCCO samples,  underdoped, $T_c=70\,$K (B70KUND, top frame),

3519: %optimally doped, $T_c=80\,$K (B80KOPT, middle frame), and overdoped,

3520: %$T_c=63\,$K (B63KOVR, bottom frame). For the

3521: %B70KUND sample, within the showed spectral range, the spectra at

3522: %$50\,$K and $10\,$K are indistinguishable.

3523: % Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref47}}.

3524: %}

3525: %  \label{fig:28}

3526: %\end{figure}

3527: %\clearpage

3528: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3529: %  \centering

3530: %  \includegraphics[width=11cm]{srFig29.eps}

3531: %  \caption{Rato $\Delta W/W_S$ vs frequency showing the exhaustion of the

3532: %FGT sum rule at conventional energies for the OVR (diamonds)

3533: %and OPT (triangles) samples. An

3534: %unconventional ($\sim 16 000\,$cm$^{-1}$ or $2\,$eV) energy scale is

3535: %required for the UND sample (circles). Note that the frequency scale changes at

3536: %800 and $8 000\,$cm$^{-1}$. The changes in spectral weight are taken

3537: %between $80\,$K - $10\,$K, $91\,$K - $10\,$K, and $100\,$K - $10\,$K

3538: %for the OVR, OPT, and UND samples, respectively. Adapted from

3539: %Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref47}}.

3540: %}

3541: %  \label{fig:29}

3542: %\end{figure}

3543: %\clearpage

3544: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3545: %  \centering

3546: %  \includegraphics[width=12cm]{srFig30.eps}

3547: %  \caption{The normalized weight of the condensate [$N_n(\omega)-

3548: %N_s(\omega)]/\rho_{s,a}$ vs $\omega$ for optimally doped YBCO$_{6.95}$

3549: %(solid line)

3550: %and underdoped YBCO$_{6.60}$ (dotted line) along the $a$-axis direction.

3551: %The condensate for the optimally

3552: %doped material has saturated by $\simeq 800\,$cm$^{-1}$, while in the

3553: %underdoped material the condensate is roughly 80\% formed by this

3554: %frequency, but the other 20\% is not recovered until much higher

3555: %frequencies. The error bars on the curve for the underdoped material

3556: %indicate the uncertainty associated with the FGT sum rule. Inset:

3557: %The low-frequency region. Adapted from Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref121}}.

3558: %}

3559: %  \label{fig:30}

3560: %\end{figure}

3561: \clearpage

3562: %\begin{figure}[tp]

3563: %  \centering

3564: %  \includegraphics[width=10cm]{srFig31.eps}

3565: %  \caption{Top frame: Optical spectral weight $W(\omega,T) = \int_{0^+}^\omega\!

3566: %d\nu\,\sigma_1(\nu)$ for various cases as a function of $\omega$. The

3567: %dotted (dash-double-dotted) curve is for the normal state at $T=10\,$K

3568: %($T=95\,$K), the solid curve for the superconducting state at $T=10\,$K.

3569: %The dashed (dash-dotted) curve is the difference curve between superconducting

3570: %at $T=10\,$K and normal states

3571: %at $T=10\,$K ($T=95\,$K). The approach of the difference curve to its

3572: %saturated large $\omega$ value depends significantly on the temperature

3573: %used for the subtracted normal state. The thin dash-double-dotted

3574: %horizontal line is the value of the condensate contribution

3575: %(penetration depth). The bottom frame

3576: %shows the real part of the conductivity for the normal state at

3577: %$T=293\,$K (dashed curve), $T=95\,$K (dash-dotted curve), $T=10\,$K

3578: %(dotted curve), and for the superconducting state at a $T=10\,$K

3579: %(solid curve). All curves are for YBCO$_{6.95}$ with the impurity parameter

3580: %given in Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{ref122a}}.

3581: %}

3582: %  \label{fig:31}

3583: %\end{figure}

3584: \end{document}

3585: