1: %\documentstyle[12pt]{article}
2: %\documentstyle[preprint,epsfig,aps]{revtex}
3: %\documentstyle[aps,prb,twocolumn,epsfig]{revtex}
4: \documentclass[aps,prb,twocolumn,showpacs]{revtex4}
5: %\documentclass[aps,preprint,showpacs]{revtex4}
6: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
7: \renewcommand{\theenumi}{(\roman{enumi})}
8: %\def\baselinestretch{1.2}
9: %\parindent=0cm
10:
11: \begin{document}
12:
13: \title{{\it s}-Wave-Like excitation in the superconducting state of electron-doped cuprates with {\it d}-wave pairing}
14: \author{Qingshan Yuan,$^1$ Xin-Zhong Yan,$^{1,2}$ and C. S. Ting$^1$}
15: \address{$^1$Texas Center for Superconductivity
16: and Department of Physics, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204\\
17: $^2$Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P. O. Box 603,
18: Beijing 100080, China}
19:
20: \begin{abstract}
21: An intrinsic physical mechanism, based on the doping evolution of the Fermi surface (FS), is explored to reconcile the contradictory experimental results on the superconducting (SC) pairing symmetry in electron-doped cuprates.
22: It is argued that the FS pocket around $(\pi/2,\pi/2)$ has not yet formed until doping reaches about the optimal value. Therefore, in the underdoped regime,
23: even if the SC order parameter is $d$ wave which vanishes along the line $k_x=k_y$,
24: the quasiparticle excitation gap is still finite and looks $s$-wave-like
25: due to the absence of the FS across that line. This makes it possible, with
26: $d$-wave SC pairing, to understand those experiments which evidenced the
27: $s$-wave quasiparticle excitation. An explicit theory with consideration of
28: both antiferromagnetic and SC orders is implemented to exhibit
29: the FS evolution from underdoping to overdoping and associated with it
30: the variations of the quasiparticle property, electronic density of states,
31: and low temperature dependences of the physical quantities heat capacity and superfluid density.
32: \end{abstract}
33:
34: \pacs{74.72.Jt, 74.20.-z, 74.25.Nf, 74.25.Bt}
35: \maketitle
36: \section{Introduction}
37: The electron-doped (e-doped) cuprate superconductors, typically Nd$_{2-x}$Ce$_x$CuO$_4$ (NCCO) and Pr$_{2-x}$Ce$_x$CuO$_4$ (PCCO), are an important component in the study of high-$T_c$ superconductivity.
38: Compared to hole-doped cuprates, the e-doped ones have a much more robust antiferromagnetic (AF) phase and a much narrower superconducting (SC) phase. Moreover, there is strong evidence for the coexistence of both AF and SC orders around optimal doping $x=0.15$,\cite{Uefuji02,Kang} although this issue is
39: still under debate.\cite{Motoyama}
40: The transport measurements on PCCO \cite{Dagan,Zimmers} suggest a quantum phase transition from antiferromagnetism to paramagnetism at $x\simeq 0.17$.
41: The schematic phase diagram is plotted in Fig.~\ref{Fig:PD}(a).
42:
43: As the fundamental topic, the SC pairing symmetry has been intensely studied.
44: While the {\it s}-wave symmetry was supported by the measurements like
45: penetration depth \cite{Alff,Kim} and tunneling,\cite{Kashiwaya,Shan,Chen}
46: the {\it d}-wave symmetry was suggested by the seemingly more
47: extensive measurements including phase-sensitive Josephson junctions, \cite{Tsuei,Ariando} angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES), \cite{Armitage01} specific heat,\cite{Yu} and also penetration depth. \cite{Kokales,Snezhko} In addition, there is other evidence to show
48: the so-called nonmonotonic {\it d}-wave behavior \cite{Blumberg,Matsui95}
49: or a transition from $d$- to $s$-wave symmetry \cite{Biswas,Skinta}
50: with increasing doping.
51: Thus the experimental data are rather controversial to support the $s$-wave
52: or essentially $d$-wave (no matter monotonic or not) pairing. In particular,
53: a puzzle arised in the penetration depth measurements that
54: different results were obtained by different groups and even the same group.
55: For example, a finite SC gap was inferred by Kim {\it et al.} \cite{Kim}
56: over a wide range of doping levels from underdoping to overdoping,
57: even though a transition from $d$- to $s$-wave behavior with increasing doping
58: was claimed earlier by the same group.\cite{Skinta}
59: On the other hand, completely contrary result, i.e., $d$-wave behavior
60: at various doping levels, was reported by Snezhko et al.\cite{Snezhko}
61: Why are the experimental data so contradictory? Perhaps it is partly due to differences between fabricated samples. However, in this paper we intend to
62: explore an intrinsic physical mechanism, based on the doping evolution of the
63: Fermi surface (FS), to understand the diverse experimental results. With it the apparent discrepancies might be largely reconciled.
64:
65: \begin{figure}[ht]
66: \begin{center}
67: \includegraphics[width=4.cm,height=3.8cm,clip]{PD.eps}\hspace*{4mm}
68: \includegraphics[width=4.cm,height=3.8cm,clip]{OP.eps}
69: \end{center}
70: \caption{(a) The schematic phase diagram for electron-doped cuprates Nd(Pr)$_{2-x}$Ce$_x$CuO$_4$. The AF order persists beyond optimal doping
71: $x=0.15$.\cite{Uefuji02,Kang,Dagan,Zimmers} (b) The calculated order parameters
72: $m$ (``$\times$'') and $\Delta$ (``$\circ$'') at $T=0$ for three doping levels $x=0.13,\ 0.15$ and $0.17$ from the phenomenological $t$-$t'$-$t''$-$U$-$V$ model to reproduce the experimental features. The lines are only for guiding the eyes.}
73: \label{Fig:PD}
74: \end{figure}
75:
76: To expound the mechanism, we first examine the FS structure of
77: e-doped cuprates. The ARPES measurements on NCCO \cite{Armitage02,Matsui94}
78: have revealed the intriguing FS evolution with doping.
79: It was found that at low doping $x=0.04$ only a small FS pocket appears around $(\pi,0)$. With increasing doping new spectral intensity around $(\pi/2,\pi/2)$
80: begins to emerge and becomes enough strong at optimal doping $x=0.15$,
81: indicating the formation of the new FS pocket around $(\pi/2,\pi/2)$.
82: The ARPES data have been explained within the two-band model
83: in consideration of the AF order \cite{Kusko,Yuan,Yan} or by
84: numerically considering the AF short-range correlation.\cite{Tremblay}
85: According to the two-band analysis, at low doping only the upper AF band is crossed by the Fermi level around $(\pi,0)$, leading to the small FS pocket around $(\pi,0)$. With increasing doping the AF order weakens so that the lower band, with the maximum at $(\pi/2,\pi/2)$, approaches the Fermi level and
86: contributes the new spectral intensity around $(\pi/2,\pi/2)$. The question is at which doping the lower band will be crossed by the Fermi level. As seen from the ARPES data on NCCO at $x=0.13$ (Fig.~2 of Ref.~\onlinecite{Matsui94}),
87: the lower band is still away from the Fermi level, although it is close to the
88: latter and thus contributes weak spectral intensity around $(\pi/2,\pi/2)$
89: in the intensity map (Fig.~1 of Ref.~\onlinecite{Matsui94}).
90: In view that the lower band lifts continuously with increasing doping,
91: we naturally imagine that it does not touch the Fermi level until $x\simeq 0.15$. That is to say, in nearly the whole underdoped regime $(x<0.15)$,
92: the real FS pocket around $(\pi/2,\pi/2)$ has not yet formed.
93:
94: On the other hand, as far as we know, many experimental measurements to study the SC pairing symmetry only give direct information about the quasiparticle excitation gap, and not the SC order parameter. For example, from the low temperature dependence of the penetration depth (exponential function or power law), one can only infer whether the quasiparticle excitation has a finite gap or not.
95: It must be noted that a finite quasiparticle excitation gap,
96: which was actually obtained by e.g. Kim {\it et al.},\cite{Kim}
97: does not necessarily mean a nodeless SC order parameter. Here our essential idea is: The quasiparticle excitation gap may be finite and look
98: {\it s}-wave-like, but the SC order parameter is {\it d}-wave and has nodes. This possibility becomes
99: true if the nodal line of the SC order parameter does not cross the FS.
100: Such a case is exactly exhibited above in the underdoped regime
101: where the FS is lacking around $(\pi/2,\pi/2)$. Therefore, even if the SC order
102: parameter is {\it d}-wave which vanishes along the line $k_x=k_y$,
103: the quasiparticle excitation is still gapped due to the absence of the FS across that line.
104:
105: As indicated above, it is of general interest to investigate how the quasiparticle property varies with the intrinsic FS evolution with doping in e-doped cuprates.
106: This guides us to conceive the following scenario to largely reconcile the
107: experimental discrepancies. Simply we assume that the SC order parameter
108: is $d$-wave at all doping levels. This is consistent with the phase sensitive experiments \cite{Tsuei,Ariando} on optimally doped NCCO and PCCO and overdoped NCCO as well as the ARPES measurements \cite{Armitage01} on optimally doped NCCO. In view of the FS evolution, we expect that the quasiparticle
109: excitation will have a finite, i.e., {\it s}-wave-like gap in the underdoped regime and zero gap in the optimally and overdoped regime. Then those penetration depth measurements to support the {\it s}-wave gap might be consistently understood if nominally optimally or overdoped samples in those measurements are in reality underdoped.
110:
111: The paper is organized as follows.
112: In the next section the model Hamiltonian is introduced and the diagonalization
113: is performed. In Sec.~III, the FS evolution from underdoping to overdoping,
114: and simultaneously the variation of
115: the quasiparticle property and electronic density of states (DOS), are exhibited. A remarkable new finding, i.e., a double-peak feature, in the DOS
116: at optimal doping is discovered.
117: In sections IV and V the physical quantities heat capacity and superfluid density are calculated, respectively, and their low temperature dependences
118: are discussed. Conclusive remarks are given in Sec.~VI. Two appendices A and B
119: are supplemented to describe the details of Hamiltonian diagonalization and derivation of the electronic spectral function, respectively.
120:
121: \section{Model Hamiltonian and diagonalization}
122: Our idea itself is independent of the concrete model calculations as long as
123: the argued FS structures at different doping levels are recognized.
124: The microscopic Hubbard and $t$-$J$ type models, as extensively applied
125: to e-doped cuprates, are difficult \cite{Senechal,Li} to reproduce the global phase diagram. Alternatively, we take as our starting point the experimental phase diagram and for convenience adopt the phenomenological $t$-$t'$-$t''$-$U$-$V$ model with repulsive on-site $U$ and attractive intersite $V$ to simulate the experimental phases. For the $V$-term $-V\sum_{\langle ij\rangle}n_i n_j$,
126: only the SC pairing interaction is retained.
127: The model Hamiltonian reads as follows after mean-field decoupling
128: (without irrelevant constant)
129: \begin{eqnarray}
130: H & = & -t\sum_{\langle ij\rangle \sigma}(c_{i\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{j\sigma}+{\rm H.c.})
131: -t'\sum_{\langle ij\rangle'\sigma}(c_{i\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{j\sigma}+{\rm H.c.})
132: \nonumber\\
133: & & -t''\sum_{\langle ij\rangle'' \sigma}(c_{i\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{j\sigma}+{\rm H.c.}) - \sum_{i\sigma} [Um(-1)^i \sigma +\mu] c_{i\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{i\sigma}
134: \nonumber\\
135: & & -(V/2)\sum_{\langle ij\rangle}[\Delta_{ij}^*(c_{i\uparrow}c_{j\downarrow}-
136: c_{i\downarrow}c_{j\uparrow})+{\rm H.c.}] \nonumber\\
137: & & + NUm^2+(V/2)\sum_{\langle ij\rangle}|\Delta_{ij}|^2,\label{H}
138: \end{eqnarray}
139: where $\langle\rangle,\ \langle\rangle',\ \langle\rangle''$
140: represent the nearest neighbor (n.n.), second n.n., and third n.n. sites,
141: respectively, $m=(-1)^i \langle c_{i\uparrow}^{\dagger}c_{i\uparrow}-
142: c_{i\downarrow}^{\dagger}c_{i\downarrow}\rangle/2$ is the AF order parameter,
143: $\Delta_{ij}=\langle c_{i\uparrow}c_{j\downarrow}-c_{i\downarrow}c_{j\uparrow}
144: \rangle=2\langle c_{i\uparrow}c_{j\downarrow}\rangle$ is the pairing order parameter, $N$ is the total number of lattice sites, and the rest of the notation is standard. As mentioned above, we assume throughout the doping range that the pairing symmetry is standard $d$ wave, i.e.,
145: $\Delta_{ij}=\Delta\ (-\Delta)$ for bond $\langle ij\rangle$
146: along $x\ (y)$ direction. We set $t$ as the energy unit and
147: $k_B=\hbar=a=1$ ($a$: lattice constant). Typical values $t'=-0.3$ and $t''=0.2$
148: are adopted.
149:
150: To be transparent, the original lattice is divided into two sublattices D and E,
151: with net spin orientation $\uparrow$ and $\downarrow$, respectively.
152: Correspondingly new fermionic operators $d$ and $e$ for the two sublattices
153: are introduced,
154: i.e., $c_{i\sigma}=d_{i\sigma}\ (e_{i\sigma})$ for $i\in {\rm D}\ ({\rm E})$.
155: Then the Hamiltonian (\ref{H}) can be written in momentum space as
156: \begin{equation}
157: H=\sum'_k [\hat{\Psi}_k^{\dagger} \hat{H}_k \hat{\Psi}_k
158: + 2(\varepsilon'_k-\mu)]+N(Um^2+V\Delta^2),\label{HM}
159: \end{equation}
160: where the four-component operator $\hat{\Psi}_k^{\dagger}$ is defined as
161: $$\hat{\Psi}_k^{\dagger}=(d_{k\uparrow}^{\dagger}\ e_{-k\downarrow}\
162: e_{k\uparrow}^{\dagger}\ d_{-k\downarrow})$$
163: and the matrix $\hat{H}_k$ is
164: \begin{widetext}
165: \begin{equation}
166: \hat{H}_k = \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
167: \varepsilon'_k-\mu-Um & \Delta_k & \varepsilon_k & 0\\
168: \Delta_k & -(\varepsilon'_k-\mu-Um) & 0 & -\varepsilon_k\\
169: \varepsilon_k & 0 & \varepsilon'_k-\mu+Um & \Delta_k\\
170: 0 & -\varepsilon_k & \Delta_k & -(\varepsilon'_k-\mu+Um)
171: \end{array}
172: \right),
173: \end{equation}
174: \end{widetext}
175: with
176: \begin{eqnarray}
177: \varepsilon_k & = & -2t(\cos k_x +\cos k_y),\\
178: \varepsilon'_k & = & -4t'\cos k_x \cos k_y - 2t''(\cos 2k_x +\cos 2k_y),\\
179: \Delta_k & = & V\Delta(\cos k_x -\cos k_y).
180: \end{eqnarray}
181: Throughout the paper the summation $\sum_k$ with or without a prime on it means
182: that $k$ is within the magnetic Brillouin zone (BZ) $-\pi<k_x\pm k_y\le \pi$
183: or the original BZ, and the quantities with a hat represent matrices.
184: Under a unitary transformation $\hat{\Psi}_k=\hat{U}_k\hat{\tilde{\Psi}}_k$
185: with the new operator
186: $$\hat{\tilde{\Psi}}_k^{\dagger}=(\tilde{d}_{k\uparrow}^{\dagger}\
187: \tilde{e}_{-k\downarrow}\ \tilde{e}_{k\uparrow}^{\dagger}\
188: \tilde{d}_{-k\downarrow}),$$
189: the Hamiltonian (\ref{HM}) can be diagonalized into
190: \begin{equation}
191: H=\sum'_k [\hat{\tilde{\Psi}}_k^{\dagger} \hat{\tilde{H}}_k \hat{\tilde{\Psi}}_k
192: + 2(\varepsilon'_k-\mu)]+N(Um^2+V\Delta^2),\label{HD}
193: \end{equation}
194: where $\hat{\tilde{H}}_k$ is a diagonal matrix
195: \begin{equation}
196: \hat{\tilde{H}}_k = \left(\begin{array}{llll}
197: E_k^- & & &\\
198: & -E_k^- & &\\
199: & & E_k^+ &\\
200: & & & -E_k^+
201: \end{array}\right)
202: \end{equation}
203: with the quasiparticle energy bands
204: \begin{eqnarray}
205: E_k^{\pm} & = & \sqrt{(\xi_k^{\pm}-\mu)^2+\Delta_k^2},\\
206: \xi_k^{\pm} & = & \varepsilon'_k\pm \sqrt{\varepsilon_k^2+U^2m^2}.
207: \end{eqnarray}
208: Here the spectra $E_k^{\pm}$ show formally the SC pairing in the two
209: AF bands $\xi_k^{\pm}$, which are originated from the beginning single band
210: in the presence of the AF order.
211: The unitary matrix $\hat{U}_k$ is
212: \begin{widetext}
213: \begin{equation}
214: \hat{U}_k=\left[\begin{array}{rr}
215: \cos\phi_k\left(\begin{array}{rr}
216: \cos\theta_k^- & \sin\theta_k^- \\
217: -\sin\theta_k^- & \cos\theta_k^- \end{array}\right) &
218: \sin\phi_k\left(\begin{array}{rr}
219: \cos\theta_k^+ & \sin\theta_k^+ \\
220: -\sin\theta_k^+ & \cos\theta_k^+ \end{array}\right)\\
221: -\sin\phi_k\left(\begin{array}{rr}
222: \cos\theta_k^- & \sin\theta_k^- \\
223: -\sin\theta_k^- & \cos\theta_k^- \end{array}\right) &
224: \cos\phi_k\left(\begin{array}{rr}
225: \cos\theta_k^+ & \sin\theta_k^+ \\
226: -\sin\theta_k^+ & \cos\theta_k^+ \end{array}\right)
227: \end{array}\right]
228: \label{U}
229: \end{equation}
230: \end{widetext}
231: with $\phi_k$ and $\theta_k^{\pm}$ satisfying
232: \begin{eqnarray}
233: \cos 2\phi_k & = & Um/\sqrt{\varepsilon_k^2+U^2m^2},\label{cosphi}\\
234: \sin 2\phi_k & = & \varepsilon_k/\sqrt{\varepsilon_k^2+U^2m^2},\label{sinphi}\\
235: \cos 2\theta_k^{\pm} & = & (\xi_k^{\pm}-\mu)/E_k^{\pm},\label{costhe}\\
236: \sin 2\theta_k^{\pm} & = & -\Delta_k/E_k^{\pm}.\label{sinthe}
237: \end{eqnarray}
238: The details of diagonalization are given in Appendix A.
239:
240: For late use, we define the $4\times 4$ matrix of the Matsubara
241: Green's functions
242: \begin{equation}
243: \hat{G}(k,\tau)=-\langle T_\tau \hat{\Psi}_k(\tau)\hat{\Psi}_k^{\dagger}(0)\rangle.
244: \end{equation}
245: Its Fourier transform is easily obtained
246: \begin{equation}
247: \hat{G}(k,i\omega_n)=\hat{U}_k
248: (i\omega_n-\hat{\tilde{H}}_k)^{-1}\hat{U}_k^{\dagger}.
249: \label{GM}
250: \end{equation}
251:
252: The free energy is given by $F=-T\ln ({\rm Tr} e^{-H/T})+N(1+x)\mu$
253: with $x$: electron doping concentration. This leads to
254: \begin{eqnarray}
255: F & = & -2T\sum'_{k,\nu=+,-} \ln [2\cosh (E_k^{\nu}/2T)]\nonumber\\
256: & & +N(\mu x + Um^2+V\Delta^2).
257: \end{eqnarray}
258: For given doping $x$ and temperature $T$, the order parameters $m$ and $\Delta$
259: are determined by minimizing the free energy, where
260: the chemical potential $\mu$ is fixed to ensure the correct electron number.
261:
262: \section{Fermi surface evolution, quasiparticle property and electronic
263: density of states}
264: \begin{figure}[ht]
265: \begin{center}
266: \includegraphics[width=8.4cm,height=6.cm,clip]{FS.eps}\\
267: \vskip 3mm
268: \hskip -2mm
269: \includegraphics[width=8.4cm,height=2.5cm,clip]{At0302s01w004.eps}
270: \end{center}
271: \caption{(Color online) (a)-(c) Quasiparticle spectra $E_k^{\pm}$ at $T=0$ along the line $\Gamma(0,0)$--M$(\pi,\pi)$ and (d)-(f) Fermi surfaces for the corresponding
272: AF bands $\xi_k^{\pm}-\mu$ plotted in the first quadrant
273: [X=$(\pi,0)$]. In each panel the solid line is contributed by band ``$-$''
274: and the dashed one by ``$+$''. (g)-(i) Density plots of the corresponding
275: spectral intensity at $T=0$, obtained by integrating $A(k,\omega)$ [Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Akw})] over an energy interval $[-0.04,0]t$.
276: The broadening factor is $0.1t$.}
277: \label{Fig:FS}
278: \end{figure}
279:
280: In this work we are focused on the SC (or SC+AF) phase
281: and choose three typical doping levels for study: $x=0.13,\ 0.15$ and $0.17$
282: which correspond to underdoping, optimal and overdoping, respectively.
283: In order to reproduce the experimental orders at these doping levels,
284: the model parameters $U$ and $V$ are slightly changed with $x$:
285: (i) $U=3.9,\ V=1$ at $x=0.13$ (ii) $U=3.8,\ V=1.1$ at $x=0.15$
286: (iii) $U=3.7,\ V=1.1$ at $x=0.17$.
287: The underlying strategy is to accept part experimental facts from the beginning
288: and based on them to work out other theoretical results for
289: experimental comparison. The calculated order parameters $m$ and
290: $\Delta$ at $T=0$ are given in Fig.~\ref{Fig:PD}(b),
291: which show the experimental features including (i) the coexistence of both AF and SC orders at $x=0.13$ and $0.15$ (ii) the decreasing AF order with
292: increasing doping and the vanishing AF order at $x=0.17$ (iii) the strongest
293: SC order (i.e., biggest $\Delta$) at $x=0.15$.
294: Accordingly, the quasiparticle spectra $E_k^{\pm}$ at $T=0$
295: are plotted along the diagonal line $k_x=k_y$ (where $\Delta_k=0$)
296: in Figs.~\ref{Fig:FS}(a)-(c). It is realized that
297: a minimal finite gap exists for $x=0.13$ but nodal excitations are
298: present around $(\pi/2,\pi/2)$ for $x\ge 0.15$.
299: To thoroughly understand these results, we have plotted the
300: Fermi surfaces for the corresponding AF bands $\xi_k^{\pm}-\mu$ in Figs.~\ref{Fig:FS}(d)-(f). Also, for direct comparison with the ARPES data,
301: we have calculated the electronic spectral function $A(k,\omega)$
302: (see below) and shown the intensity maps in Figs.~\ref{Fig:FS}(g)-(i).
303: Explicitly, three different cases are distinguished:
304: \begin{enumerate}
305: \item At underdoping $x=0.13$ the FS is lacking around $(\pi/2,\pi/2)$ [Fig.~\ref{Fig:FS}(d)].
306: That is why the finite energy ($s$-wave-like) excitation appears despite
307: the $d$-wave SC pairing. At the same time, it should be emphasized that,
308: due to the proximity of the lower AF band to the Fermi level,
309: some spectral intensity is already contributed around $(\pi/2,\pi/2)$ [Fig.~\ref{Fig:FS}(g)], in consistence with the ARPES data \cite{Remark}
310: in Ref.~\onlinecite{Matsui94}.
311:
312: \item At optimal doping $x=0.15$ the FS pocket around $(\pi/2,\pi/2)$ truly
313: forms [Fig.~\ref{Fig:FS}(e)]. Correspondingly, the spectral intensity becomes
314: enough strong around $(\pi/2,\pi/2)$ [Fig.~\ref{Fig:FS}(h)],
315: as revealed by ARPES in Ref.~\onlinecite{Armitage02}.
316: Also note that the FS pocket around $(\pi/2,\pi/2)$
317: is separated from the others around $(\pi,0)$ and $(0,\pi)$.
318:
319: \item At overdoping $x=0.17$ a large FS emerges around $(\pi,\pi)$ [Fig.~\ref{Fig:FS}(f)]. With vanishing AF order, the two AF bands
320: will essentially merge into a single band and the several FS pieces
321: contributed by the two bands will recover to a large continuous curve.
322: At present the ARPES data on overdoped samples are scarce. According to
323: the evolutionary trend, the ARPES intensity map is expected
324: to look like Fig.~\ref{Fig:FS}(i).
325: \end{enumerate}
326: In both cases (ii) and (iii), gapless quasiparticles are induced
327: from the cross of the FS and the nodal line of the SC order parameter
328: (or SC gap) $\Delta_k$.
329:
330: Above, the spectral function is calculated by $A(k,\omega)=(-1/\pi){\rm Im}
331: G(k,i\omega_n)|_{i\omega_n\rightarrow \omega+i0^+}$. $G(k,i\omega_n)$ is the
332: Fourier transform of the Matsubara Green's functions $G_{\sigma}(k,\tau)=
333: -\langle T_\tau c_{k\sigma}(\tau)c_{k\sigma}^{\dagger}(0)\rangle$,
334: which turns out to be spin $\sigma$-irrelevant. For details, one can see Appendix B.
335: $A(k,\omega)$ is derived as follows, for all $k$ within the original BZ,
336: \begin{eqnarray}
337: A(k,\omega) & = & {1\over 4}\sum_{\nu=+,-}
338: (1+\nu \sin 2\phi_k)[(1+\cos 2\theta_k^{\nu})\delta(\omega-E_k^{\nu}) \nonumber\\
339: & & \hspace*{2cm} +(1-\cos 2\theta_k^{\nu})\delta(\omega+E_k^{\nu})]. \label{Eq:Akw}
340: \end{eqnarray}
341:
342: \begin{figure}[ht]
343: \begin{center}
344: \includegraphics[width=8.4cm,height=4cm,clip]{Nw.eps}
345: \end{center}
346: \caption{(Color online) Electronic density of states at low energy
347: (in unit of $t\sim 300$ meV) and $T=0$. In each panel, the red (dark gray),
348: blue (black) and green (gray) curves show the results under the broadening factors $\Gamma/t=10^{-4}$, $10^{-3}$ and $5\times 10^{-3}$, respectively.}
349: \label{Fig:Nw}
350: \end{figure}
351:
352: Furthermore, the electronic DOS per spin is given by
353: $N(\omega)=\sum_k A(k,\omega)$,
354: which is simplified into
355: \begin{eqnarray}
356: N(\omega) & = & {1\over 4} \sum_{k,\nu=+,-}
357: [(1+\cos 2\theta_k^{\nu})\delta(\omega-E_k^{\nu}) \nonumber\\
358: & & \hspace*{1.5cm} +(1-\cos 2\theta_k^{\nu})\delta(\omega+E_k^{\nu})].
359: \end{eqnarray}
360: The electronic DOS at low energy is plotted in Fig.~\ref{Fig:Nw},
361: where the results obtained with different broadening factors $\Gamma$ are given.
362: Let us focus on the curves with $\Gamma/t=10^{-4}$ [red (dark gray) lines].
363: As expected, the DOS takes on a ``U'' shape at $x=0.13$ indicating a
364: finite energy gap, whereas it has a ``V'' shape around zero energy
365: for $x\ge 0.15$ showing vanishing gap.
366:
367: At this stage, we would like to point out another remarkable finding in the DOS,
368: i.e., the double-peak structure in the case of $x=0.15$.
369: (Only the half side $\omega>0$ is talked about.)
370: Careful investigation shows that the small peak at lower energy is the coherence peak for the ``$-$'' band, i.e., the peak position corresponds to the SC gap maximum opened on the small FS piece around $(\pi/2,\pi/2)$
371: [solid line in Fig.~\ref{Fig:FS}(e)], and the large one at higher energy is the coherence peak for the ``$+$'' band, i.e., the peak position corresponds to that
372: on the FS pieces shown by the dashed lines in Fig.~\ref{Fig:FS}(e).
373: Thus this double-peak structure is a characteristic feature for the
374: e-doped cuprates at optimal doping which have a segmented FS and for the two-band modeling of them. In contrast, at $x=0.17$ the two bands recover to the single band and the FS turns into a large continuous curve. Then only a
375: single coherence peak shows up [Fig.~\ref{Fig:Nw}(c)], at the energy
376: corresponding to the SC gap maximum on this whole large FS.
377: So far, the double-peak structure has not yet been observed in tunneling experiments on optimally doped NCCO.\cite{Kashiwaya,Shan}
378: One possible reason is the effect of the broadening factor $\Gamma$.
379: As seen from Fig.~\ref{Fig:Nw},
380: with increasing $\Gamma$ the sharp peaks will be smoothened and in particular,
381: the small peak at the lower energy in the case of $x=0.15$ will
382: be smeared out. Actually, for $\Gamma=5\times 10^{-3}t\sim 1.5$ meV which is in the order of the corresponding experimental value,\cite{Shan} the DOS shape
383: at $x=0.15$ is more suggestive of a $s$-wave-like gap.
384: Apparently, much smaller $\Gamma$ is required in order to observe the double-peak structure and further experiments are needed to clarify the issue.
385:
386: After extracting the properties of the quasiparticle excitation and
387: electronic DOS at different doping levels, we continue to study
388: their consequences to the physical quantities in the following.
389:
390: \section{Heat capacity}
391: First we calculate the heat capacity, which is given by
392: $C=T(\partial S/\partial T)$ with the entropy $S=-\partial F/\partial T$.
393: Explicitly $S$ is expressed as
394: \begin{equation}
395: S=2\sum_{k,\nu=+,-}' \left\{\ln [2\cosh (E_k^{\nu}/2T)]-
396: (E_k^{\nu}/2T)\tanh (E_k^{\nu}/2T)\right\}.
397: \end{equation}
398: For general $T$, the derivative $\partial S/\partial T$ has no explicit
399: form due to the $T$-dependence of the order parameters.
400: Only at low $T\ll T_c$ (the SC transition temperature), the order parameters
401: are nearly $T$-independent, leading to the simple formula for $C$, i.e.,
402: \begin{equation}
403: C=(1/2T^2)\sum_{k,\nu=+,-}' (E_k^{\nu})^2/\cosh^2 (E_k^{\nu}/2T).
404: \end{equation}
405:
406: \begin{figure}[ht]
407: \begin{center}
408: \includegraphics[width=8.4cm,height=6.cm,clip]{cap.eps}
409: \end{center}
410: \caption{Specific heat as a function of temperature at three doping levels.
411: It is seen $T_c/t=0.008,\ 0.0113$ and $0.0075$ at $x=0.13,\ 0.15$ and $0.17$,
412: respectively. The data at low temperatures ($T/T_c\ll 1$) are replotted in the lower inset for $x=0.13$ and upper inset for $x=0.15$ and $0.17$.
413: Note that the different axis rescales are used in the two insets.}
414: \label{Fig:cap}
415: \end{figure}
416:
417: The heat capacity per site is shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:cap}.
418: The obtained transition temperatures at three doping levels are around $30$ K,
419: close to the experimental data. That the $C$ values at $x=0.15$ are bigger
420: than those at $x=0.17$ in the region about $T/t<0.002$ is consistent
421: with the fact seen in Fig.~\ref{Fig:Nw} that the DOS at $x=0.15$
422: is greater than that at $x=0.17$ in the very low
423: energy region [below the small peak in Fig.~\ref{Fig:Nw}(b)].
424: Here we are mainly interested in the qualitative behaviors
425: at low $T\ll T_c$. It is found that the heat capacity takes on an exponential
426: $T$-dependence for $x=0.13$ due to the $s$-wave-like excitations,
427: but a power law behavior for $x=0.15$ and $0.17$ due to the nodal excitations.
428: To more clearly see this point, we have replotted the low-$T$ data for $x=0.13$ in the lower inset by using $-1/\ln (C/Nk_B)$ vs $T/T_c$ and those for $x=0.15$ and $0.17$ in the upper inset with logarithmic scales for both axes. Now we have nearly straight lines in all cases. Moreover, it is easy to check that the slopes for the two lines in the upper inset are both $2$, which means $T^2$ dependence of $C$ for $x=0.15$ and $0.17$.
429: In addition, we find that in the pure AF phase without SC order, e.g., at doping $x=0.1$, the heat capacity takes on a linear $T$-dependence (not shown), indicating an AF metal. So it is of great interest to experimentally extract the electronic part of the heat capacity and investigate the variation of its
430: $T$-dependence with doping.
431:
432: \section{Superfluid density}
433: Another important quantity for calculation is the superfluid density $\rho$
434: which relates to the penetration depth $\lambda$ by $\rho\propto \lambda^{-2}$.
435: The superfluid density divided by the carrier effective mass $m^*$ is given by \cite{Scalapino}
436: \begin{equation}
437: \rho/m^*= \langle -K_x \rangle /N -
438: \Lambda (q_x=0,q_y\rightarrow 0,i\Omega_n=0),\label{rho}
439: \end{equation}
440: where the operator $K_x$ is derived as follows
441: ($\vec{x},\ \vec{y}$: unit vectors in $x,\ y$ directions, respectively)
442: \begin{eqnarray}
443: K_x & = & -t\sum_{l\sigma} (c_{l+\vec{x}\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{l\sigma}+
444: {\rm H.c.})-t'\sum_{l\sigma,\delta'=\vec{x}\pm \vec{y}} (c_{l+\delta'\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{l\sigma}+{\rm H.c.})\nonumber\\
445: & & -4t''\sum_{l\sigma} (c_{l+2\vec{x}\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{l\sigma}+{\rm H.c.})
446: \end{eqnarray}
447: and the current-current correlation function $\Lambda$ is ($\beta=1/T$ and
448: $\Omega_n=2n\pi/\beta$: bosonic Matsubara frequencies)
449: \begin{equation}
450: \Lambda(q,i\Omega_n)={1\over N}\int_0^{\beta} {\rm d}\tau e^{i\Omega_n\tau}
451: \langle T_{\tau}J_q^x(\tau)J_{-q}^x(0)\rangle\label{Lambda}
452: \end{equation}
453: with $J_q^x=\sum_l e^{-i\vec{q}\cdot\vec{R}_l}J_l^x$. Here
454: $J_l^x$ is the $x$-component of the paramagnetic current operator
455: at site $l$
456: \begin{eqnarray}
457: J_l^x & = & it\sum_{\sigma} (c_{l+\vec{x}\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{l\sigma}-
458: {\rm H.c.})+it'\sum_{\sigma,\delta'=\vec{x}\pm \vec{y}} (c_{l+\delta'\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{l\sigma}-{\rm H.c.})\nonumber\\
459: & & +2it''\sum_{\sigma} (c_{l+2\vec{x}\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{l\sigma}-{\rm H.c.}).
460: \end{eqnarray}
461:
462: The first term of Eq.~(\ref{rho}) can be easily calculated if
463: $K_x$ is expanded in momentum space, i.e.,
464: \begin{equation}
465: K_x =\sum'_k \hat{\Psi}_k^{\dagger} \hat{P}_k \hat{\Psi}_k=
466: \sum'_k \hat{\tilde{\Psi}}_k^{\dagger} \hat{\tilde{P}}_k \hat{\tilde{\Psi}}_k,
467: \end{equation}
468: with
469: \begin{equation}
470: \hat{P}_k = \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
471: g'_k & 0 & g_k & 0\\
472: 0 & -g'_k & 0 & -g_k\\
473: g_k & 0 & g'_k & 0\\
474: 0 & -g_k & 0 & -g'_k
475: \end{array}\right),\
476: \hat{\tilde{P}}_k=\hat{U}_k^{\dagger}\hat{P}_k\hat{U}_k,
477: \end{equation}
478: $g_k=-\partial^2\varepsilon_k/ \partial k_x^2$ and
479: $g'_k = -{\partial^2\varepsilon'_k/ \partial k_x^2}$.
480: Then the thermal average is obtained
481: \begin{equation}
482: \langle K_x\rangle=\sum'_k \sum_{s=1}^4 (\hat{\tilde{P}}_k)_{ss}/(1+e^{E_k^s/T}),
483: \end{equation}
484: where $(\hat{\tilde{P}}_k)_{ss'}$ represents the matrix element of $\hat{\tilde{P}}_k$ and for convenient statement the quasiparticle
485: energy bands are relabeled by $E_k^s\ (s=1,2,3,4)$
486: with $E_k^1=E_k^-,\ E_k^2=-E_k^-,\ E_k^3=E_k^+$ and $E_k^4=-E_k^+$.
487:
488: To calculate the second term of Eq.~(\ref{rho}), we first write down
489: the current operator $J_q^x$, i.e.,
490: \begin{equation}
491: J_q^x=\sum'_k \hat{\Psi}_{k-q}^{\dagger}\hat{V}_{k,q}\hat{\Psi}_k,
492: \end{equation}
493: with
494: \begin{equation}
495: \hat{V}_{k,q}= \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
496: f'_{k,q} & 0 & f_{k,q} & 0\\
497: 0 & -f'_{-k+q,q} & 0 & -f_{-k+q,q}\\
498: f_{k,q} & 0 & f'_{k,q} & 0\\
499: 0 & -f_{-k+q,q} & 0 & -f'_{-k+q,q}
500: \end{array}\right).
501: \end{equation}
502: Above, $f_{k,q} = it[e^{-i(k_x-q_x)}-e^{ik_x}]$ and
503: $f'_{k,q} = 2it'[e^{-i(k_x-q_x)}\cos (k_y-q_y)-e^{ik_x}\cos k_y]
504: +2it''[e^{-2i(k_x-q_x)}-e^{2ik_x}]$,
505: which reduce to the simple form at $q=0$:
506: $f_{k,0}=\partial \varepsilon_k/ \partial k_x$
507: and $f'_{k,0}=\partial \varepsilon'_k/ \partial k_x$.
508: According to Eq.~(\ref{Lambda}), the correlation function $\Lambda$ is
509: derived as, after expansion of $\hat{G}(k,\tau)$ into $\hat{G}(k,i\omega_n)$,
510: \begin{eqnarray}
511: \Lambda(q,i\Omega_n) & = & -{1\over N\beta}\sum'_k\sum_{i\omega_n}
512: {\rm Tr}[\hat{G}(k-q,i\omega_n)\hat{V}_{k,q} \nonumber\\
513: & & \hspace*{1cm} \hat{G}(k,i\Omega_n+i\omega_n)\hat{V}_{k-q,-q}].
514: \end{eqnarray}
515: Substituting $\hat{G}(k,i\omega_n)$ with Eq.~(\ref{GM}) and completing
516: the summation over $i\omega_n$, we obtain
517: \begin{eqnarray}
518: \Lambda(q,i\Omega_n) & = & {1\over 2N}\sum'_k \sum_{s,s'=1}^4 (\hat{W}_{k,q})_{ss'}(\hat{W}_{k-q,-q})_{s's}\nonumber\\
519: & & \times {\tanh (E_{k-q}^s/2T)-\tanh (E_k^{s'}/2T) \over
520: i\Omega_n+E_{k-q}^s-E_k^{s'}},
521: \end{eqnarray}
522: where $(\hat{W}_{k,q})_{ss'}$ represents the matrix element of $\hat{W}_{k,q}=\hat{U}_{k-q}^{\dagger}\hat{V}_{k,q}\hat{U}_k$.
523: Finally we set $i\Omega_n=0$ and then take the limit $q_y\rightarrow 0$
524: to have
525: \begin{widetext}
526: \begin{equation}
527: \Lambda(q_x=0,q_y\rightarrow 0,i\Omega_n=0) =
528: {1\over 2N}\sum'_k\sum_{s=1}^4 \left\{
529: \sum_{s'\neq s} [(\hat{W}_{k,0})_{ss'}]^2
530: {\tanh (E_k^s/2T)-\tanh (E_k^{s'}/2T) \over E_k^s-E_k^{s'}}+
531: {[(\hat{W}_{k,0})_{ss}]^2 \over 2T\cosh^2(E_k^s/2T)}
532: \right\}.
533: \end{equation}
534: \end{widetext}
535:
536: \begin{figure}[ht]
537: \begin{center}
538: \includegraphics[width=8.4cm,height=6cm,clip]{fluid.eps}
539: \end{center}
540: \caption{Superfluid density as a function of temperature at three doping
541: levels. The low-$T$ regime is enlarged in the inset.
542: The circles in the main panel are the experimental data for PCCO at $x=0.131$
543: extracted from Ref.~\onlinecite{Kim} (see text).}
544: \label{Fig:fluid}
545: \end{figure}
546:
547: The superfluid density is given in Fig.~\ref{Fig:fluid},
548: where the ratio $\rho(T)/\rho(0)$ vs $T/T_c$ is plotted.
549: Still we are concentrated on the low-$T$ regime, which is enlarged in the inset.
550: The notable observation is that the curve for $x=0.13$ is very flat, which may be characterized by the formula $1-\rho(T)/\rho(0)\propto \exp (-b/T)$ with
551: a constant $b$. When the quasiparticle excitations become gapless at
552: $x=0.15$ and $0.17$, the results are much different. Now $\rho(T)$ decreases
553: faster, with a linear relation $1-\rho(T)/\rho(0)\propto T$,
554: as apparently seen from $x=0.17$ in the inset of Fig.~\ref{Fig:fluid}.
555: At $x=0.15$, $\rho(T)/\rho(0)$ in the main panel shows an inflexion point as a result of crossover from $x=0.13$ to $x=0.17$. Similar to the case for $x=0.17$,
556: the linear relation holds at $T/T_c<0.1$ due to the nodal excitations on the
557: small FS pocket around $(\pi/2,\pi/2)$ [solid line in Fig.~\ref{Fig:FS}(e)].
558: When $T$ increases the low energy quasiparticles
559: around this small FS pocket are completely excited. Then the change
560: of the superfluid density is controlled by the finite energy excitations
561: around the FS pockets circling $(\pi,0)$ and $(0,\pi)$, similar to
562: the case for $x=0.13$. So the curve at $x=0.15$ away from low-$T$
563: tends to behave like the one at $x=0.13$.
564: The linear low-$T$-dependence at $x=0.15$ and $0.17$ may become $T^2$
565: in real materials if impurity scattering is considered.\cite{Hirschfeld}
566:
567: The low-$T$-dependence of the superfluid density (or penetration depth)
568: is important to hint the SC pairing symmetry and
569: has been substantially measured for e-doped cuprates.\cite{Alff,Kim,Kokales,Snezhko,Skinta}
570: However, the experimental results are controversial and some of them might
571: be misexplained. For example, the $s$-wave SC gap was inferred, from the flat feature of the experimental data, by Kim {\it et al.} \cite{Kim} for PCCO over a wide doping range $0.124\le x\le 0.144$. In Fig.~\ref{Fig:fluid} our theoretical result at $x=0.13$ is compared with their data at $x=0.131$, and good agreement
572: is obtained. But actually in our theory the SC gap $\Delta_k$ is $d$-wave. It should be reminded that the doping level $x=0.131$ in the work by Kim {\it et al}. corresponds to the optimal doping, although this optimal value is $0.15$ for PCCO in most experiments.\cite{Dagan,Zimmers,Tsuei,Snezhko} Our result suggests that,
573: even with a $d$-wave SC pairing, it is not difficult to understand the $s$-wave-like excitation from some penetration depth measurements at various doping levels \cite{Alff,Kim,Skinta} if nominally optimally or overdoped samples in those measurements are in reality underdoped, or more generally,
574: if the FS is absent around $(\pi/2,\pi/2)$ in those samples perhaps due to
575: the still strong AF order. On the other hand, the power law
576: $T$-dependence ($T$ or $T^2$) of $\rho$
577: at optimal and overdoping is consistent with other penetration depth
578: measurements \cite{Kokales,Snezhko} and many others such as phase sensitive Josephson junctions \cite{Tsuei,Ariando} and ARPES.\cite{Armitage01}
579: Thus in this way the diverse experimental results could be largely reconciled.
580: Finally, we mention that our essential idea to exhibit the $s$-wave-like excitation and to explain the flat feature of some penetration depth data is different from the phenomenological superfluid response theory in
581: Ref.~\onlinecite{Luo} where the existence of nodal quasiparticle excitations
582: is assumed at all doping levels.
583:
584: \section{Conclusion}
585: In conclusion, we have explored an intrinsic physical mechanism,
586: based on the FS evolution with doping, to understand
587: the diverse experimental results on the SC pairing symmetry in e-doped cuprates.
588: We argue that the FS pocket around $(\pi/2,\pi/2)$ has not yet formed until doping reaches about the optimal value. Therefore, in the underdoped regime, even if the SC pairing order parameter is $d$-wave which vanishes along the diagonal line, the quasiparticle excitation is still gapped which shows a $s$-wave-like behavior due to the absence of the FS across that line.
589: To demonstrate this idea, we have elaborated a theory with consideration of
590: coexisting AF and SC orders in e-doped cuprates.
591: The variations of the quasiparticle property and electronic DOS are exhibited
592: as the FS evolves from underdoping to overdoping.
593: The physical quantities heat capacity and superfluid density are calculated and their low temperature dependences are compared at different doping levels. Our study gives new understanding of some measurements which actually detected the $s$-wave character of the quasiparticle excitation (rather than the SC order parameter) and thus tends to reconcile the apparently contradictory experimental
594: results. We have also predicted the remarkable double-peak feature in the DOS
595: for the e-doped cuprates at optimal doping which have a segmented FS.
596:
597: \section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
598: This work was supported by the Texas Center for Superconductivity at
599: the University of Houston and the Robert A. Welch Foundation under
600: Grant No. E-1146.
601:
602: \appendix
603: \section{Hamiltonian diagonalization}
604: We consider the following two steps to diagonalize the Hamiltonian (\ref{HM}),
605: which is explicitly
606: \begin{eqnarray}
607: H & = & \sum'_{k\sigma} \varepsilon_k (d_{k\sigma}^{\dagger}e_{k\sigma}+{\rm H.c.})
608: +\sum'_{k\sigma}(\varepsilon'_k-\mu-\sigma Um)d_{k\sigma}^{\dagger}d_{k\sigma}
609: \nonumber\\
610: & & +\sum'_{k\sigma}(\varepsilon'_k-\mu+\sigma Um)e_{k\sigma}^{\dagger}e_{k\sigma}
611: \nonumber\\
612: & & -\sum'_k \Delta_k (d_{k\uparrow}e_{-k\downarrow}+e_{k\uparrow}d_{-k\downarrow}+
613: {\rm H.c.})\nonumber\\
614: & & +N(Um^2+V\Delta^2). \label{Hk}
615: \end{eqnarray}
616:
617: First, we use the rotational transformations to remove the
618: hopping term between $d$ and $e$, i.e.,
619: \begin{equation}
620: \left( \begin{array}{l}
621: d_{k\uparrow}\\
622: e_{k\uparrow}\end{array} \right)= \hat{U}_{1k}
623: \left( \begin{array}{l}
624: \bar{d}_{k\uparrow}\\
625: \bar{e}_{k\uparrow}\end{array} \right),\
626: \left( \begin{array}{l}
627: e_{k\downarrow}\\
628: d_{k\downarrow}\end{array} \right)= \hat{U}_{1k}
629: \left( \begin{array}{l}
630: \bar{e}_{k\downarrow}\\
631: \bar{d}_{k\downarrow}\end{array} \right)\label{U1}
632: \end{equation}
633: with [see Eqs.~(\ref{cosphi}) and (\ref{sinphi}) for the choice of $\phi_k$]
634: \begin{equation}
635: \hat{U}_{1k}=\left( \begin{array}{rr}
636: \cos \phi_k & \sin \phi_k\\
637: -\sin \phi_k & \cos \phi_k \end{array} \right).
638: \end{equation}
639: In terms of the new operators $\bar{d}$ and $\bar{e}$, (\ref{Hk}) turns into
640: \begin{eqnarray}
641: H & = & \sum'_k (\xi_k^- -\mu) (\bar{d}_{k\uparrow}^{\dagger}\bar{d}_{k\uparrow}
642: +\bar{e}_{k\downarrow}^{\dagger}\bar{e}_{k\downarrow})\nonumber\\
643: & & +\sum'_k (\xi_k^+ -\mu) (\bar{e}_{k\uparrow}^{\dagger}\bar{e}_{k\uparrow}
644: +\bar{d}_{k\downarrow}^{\dagger}\bar{d}_{k\downarrow}) \nonumber\\
645: & & -\sum'_k \Delta_k (\bar{d}_{k\uparrow}\bar{e}_{-k\downarrow}+
646: \bar{e}_{k\uparrow}\bar{d}_{-k\downarrow}+{\rm H.c.})\nonumber\\
647: & & +N(Um^2+V\Delta^2),\label{Hkb}
648: \end{eqnarray}
649: where the pairing term is formally unchanged.
650:
651: Second, we adopt the Bogliubov transformations
652: \begin{equation}
653: \left( \begin{array}{l}
654: \bar{d}_{k\uparrow}\\
655: \bar{e}_{-k\downarrow}^{\dagger}\end{array} \right)= \hat{U}_{2k}^-
656: \left( \begin{array}{l}
657: \tilde{d}_{k\uparrow}\\
658: \tilde{e}_{-k\downarrow}^{\dagger}\end{array} \right),\
659: \left( \begin{array}{l}
660: \bar{e}_{k\uparrow}\\
661: \bar{d}_{-k\downarrow}^{\dagger}\end{array} \right)= \hat{U}_{2k}^+
662: \left( \begin{array}{l}
663: \tilde{e}_{k\uparrow}\\
664: \tilde{d}_{-k\downarrow}^{\dagger}\end{array} \right)\label{U2}
665: \end{equation}
666: with [see Eqs.~(\ref{costhe}) and (\ref{sinthe}) for the choice of $\theta_k^{\pm}$]
667: \begin{equation}
668: \hat{U}_{2k}^{\pm} =
669: \left( \begin{array}{rr}
670: \cos \theta_k^{\pm} & \sin \theta_k^{\pm}\\
671: -\sin \theta_k^{\pm} & \cos \theta_k^{\pm} \end{array} \right).
672: \end{equation}
673: Then (\ref{Hkb}) is diagonalized into
674: \begin{eqnarray}
675: H & = & \sum'_k [E_k^- (\tilde{d}_{k\uparrow}^{\dagger}\tilde{d}_{k\uparrow}-
676: \tilde{e}_{-k\downarrow}\tilde{e}_{-k\downarrow}^{\dagger})\nonumber\\
677: & & +E_k^+ (\tilde{e}_{k\uparrow}^{\dagger}\tilde{e}_{k\uparrow}-
678: \tilde{d}_{-k\downarrow}\tilde{d}_{-k\downarrow}^{\dagger})
679: +2(\varepsilon'_k-\mu)]\nonumber\\
680: & & +N(Um^2+V\Delta^2),
681: \end{eqnarray}
682: which is exactly the Hamiltonian (\ref{HD}). If all the transformations
683: (\ref{U1}) and (\ref{U2}) are integrated, we will arrive at the global transformation $\hat{\Psi}_k=\hat{U}_k\hat{\tilde{\Psi}}_k$
684: with $\hat{U}_k$ given by Eq.~(\ref{U}).
685:
686: \section{Derivation of the spectral function Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Akw})}
687: With division of the original lattice into two sublattices,
688: one has the following correspondence for the operators $c$ and $d/e$
689: in momentum space [$Q=(\pi,\pi)$]
690: \begin{eqnarray}
691: c_{k\sigma} & = & (d_{k\sigma}+e_{k\sigma})/\sqrt{2},\\
692: c_{k+Q\sigma} & = & (d_{k\sigma}-e_{k\sigma})/\sqrt{2},
693: \end{eqnarray}
694: where $k$ is restricted into the magnetic BZ.
695: Then the Green's functions for the original $c$-electron
696: can be expressed as follows, with help of the matrix elements [denoted by $\hat{G}_{ss'}(k,\tau)$] of $\hat{G}(k,\tau)$,
697: \begin{eqnarray}
698: G_{\uparrow}(k,\tau) & = & {1\over 2} \sum_{s,s'=1,3} \hat{G}_{ss'}(k,\tau),\\
699: G_{\downarrow}(k,\tau) & = & -{1\over 2} \sum_{s,s'=2,4} \hat{G}_{ss'}(-k,-\tau),\\
700: G_{\uparrow}(k+Q,\tau) & = & {1\over 2} \sum_{s,s'=1,3} \epsilon_{ss'} \hat{G}_{ss'}(k,\tau),\\
701: G_{\downarrow}(k+Q,\tau) & = & -{1\over 2} \sum_{s,s'=2,4} \epsilon_{ss'}
702: \hat{G}_{ss'}(-k,-\tau),
703: \end{eqnarray}
704: where the coefficient $\epsilon_{ss'}=1\ (-1)$ for $s'=s$\ ($s'\neq s$)
705: is introduced. All the above equations are also valid for the Fourier transformed functions after the replacement $\tau\rightarrow i\omega_n$.
706:
707: By use of Eq.~(\ref{GM}), we can obtain the following sums
708: \begin{widetext}
709: \begin{eqnarray}
710: I_1(k,i\omega_n) & = & \sum_{s,s'=1,3}\hat{G}_{ss'}(k,i\omega_n)
711: \hspace*{5mm} = \sum_{\nu=+,-}
712: (1+\nu\sin 2\phi_k)\left({\cos^2\theta_k^{\nu} \over i\omega_n-E_k^{\nu}}+
713: {\sin^2\theta_k^{\nu} \over i\omega_n+E_k^{\nu}}\right),\\
714: I_2(k,i\omega_n) & = & \sum_{s,s'=2,4}\hat{G}_{ss'}(k,i\omega_n)
715: \hspace*{5mm} = \sum_{\nu=+,-}
716: (1+\nu\sin 2\phi_k)\left({\sin^2\theta_k^{\nu} \over i\omega_n-E_k^{\nu}}+
717: {\cos^2\theta_k^{\nu} \over i\omega_n+E_k^{\nu}}\right),\\
718: I_3(k,i\omega_n) & = & \sum_{s,s'=1,3}\epsilon_{ss'} \hat{G}_{ss'}(k,i\omega_n)
719: = \sum_{\nu=+,-}
720: (1-\nu\sin 2\phi_k)\left({\cos^2\theta_k^{\nu} \over i\omega_n-E_k^{\nu}}+
721: {\sin^2\theta_k^{\nu} \over i\omega_n+E_k^{\nu}}\right),\\
722: I_4(k,i\omega_n) & = & \sum_{s,s'=2,4}\epsilon_{ss'}\hat{G}_{ss'}(k,i\omega_n)
723: = \sum_{\nu=+,-}
724: (1-\nu\sin 2\phi_k)\left({\sin^2\theta_k^{\nu} \over i\omega_n-E_k^{\nu}}+
725: {\cos^2\theta_k^{\nu} \over i\omega_n+E_k^{\nu}}\right).
726: \end{eqnarray}
727: It is easy to check $G_{\downarrow}(k,i\omega_n)=-{1\over 2} I_2(-k,-i\omega_n)=-{1\over 2}I_2(k,-i\omega_n)={1\over 2} I_1(k,i\omega_n)
728: =G_{\uparrow}(k,i\omega_n)$. Similarly
729: one has $G_{\downarrow}(k+Q,i\omega_n)=G_{\uparrow}(k+Q,i\omega_n)$.
730: So the spin index can be dropped out and we obtain
731: \begin{eqnarray}
732: G(k,i\omega_n) & = & {1\over 2}I_1(k,i\omega_n),\label{GS1}\\
733: G(k+Q,i\omega_n) & = & {1\over 2} I_3(k,i\omega_n)=
734: {1\over 2} I_1(k+Q,i\omega_n),
735: \end{eqnarray}
736: \end{widetext}
737: where the last equation holds if the definitions for $\phi_k$, $\theta_k^{\pm}$
738: and $E_k^{\pm}$ are extended to the original BZ.
739: Therefore, no matter $k$ is within or beyond the magnetic BZ,
740: $G(k,i\omega_n)$ has the unified form (\ref{GS1}).
741: Analytical continuation $i\omega_n\rightarrow \omega+i0^+$ for $G(k,i\omega_n)$
742: will lead to Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Akw}).
743:
744: \begin{references}
745: \bibitem{Uefuji02} T. Uefuji, K. Kurahashi, M. Fujita, M. Matsuda, K. Yamada,
746: Physica C {\bf 378-381}, 273 (2002).
747: \bibitem{Kang} H. J. Kang, P. Dai, J. W. Lynn, M. Matsuura, J. R. Thompson,
748: S.-C. Zhang, D. N. Argyriou, Y. Onose, and Y. Tokura,
749: Nature {\bf 423}, 522 (2003).
750: \bibitem{Motoyama} E. M. Motoyama, G. Yu, I. M. Vishik, O. P. Vajk,
751: P. K. Mang, and M. Greven, cond-mat/0609386.
752: \bibitem{Dagan} Y. Dagan, M. M. Qazilbash, C. P. Hill, V. N. Kulkarni, and R. L. Greene, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 167001 (2004).
753: \bibitem{Zimmers} A. Zimmers, J. M. Tomczak, R. P. S. M. Lobo, N. Bontemps, C. P. Hill, M. C. Barr, Y. Dagan, R. L. Greene, A. J. Millis, and C. C. Homes, Europhys. Lett. {\bf 70}, 225 (2005).
754: \bibitem{Alff} L. Alff, S. Meyer, S. Kleefisch, U. Schoop, A. Marx, H. Sato, M. Naito, and R. Gross, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 2644 (1999).
755: \bibitem{Kim} M.-S. Kim, J. A. Skinta, T. R. Lemberger, A. Tsukada, and
756: M. Naito, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 087001 (2003).
757: \bibitem{Kashiwaya} S. Kashiwaya, T. Ito, K. Oka, S. Ueno, H. Takashima,
758: M. Koyanagi, Y. Tanaka, and K. Kajimura, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 57}, 8680 (1998).
759: \bibitem{Shan} L. Shan, Y. Huang, H. Gao, Y. Wang, S. L. Li, P. Dai, F.
760: Zhou, J. W. Xiong, W. X. Ti, and H. H. Wen, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 72},
761: 144506 (2005).
762: \bibitem{Chen} C.-T. Chen, P. Seneor, N.-C. Yeh, R. P. Vasquez, L. D. Bell,
763: C. U. Jung, J. Y. Kim, M.-S. Park, H.-J. Kim, and S.-I. Lee,
764: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 227002 (2002).
765: \bibitem{Tsuei} C. C. Tsuei and J. R. Kirtley, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 182
766: (2000).
767: \bibitem{Ariando} Ariando, D. Darminto, H. -J. H. Smilde, V. Leca, D. H. A. Blank, H. Rogalla, and H. Hilgenkamp, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 167001 (2005).
768: \bibitem{Armitage01} N. P. Armitage, D. H. Lu, D. L. Feng, C. Kim, A.
769: Damascelli, K. M. Shen, F. Ronning, Z.-X. Shen, Y. Onose, Y. Taguchi, and Y.
770: Tokura, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 1126 (2001).
771: \bibitem{Yu} W. Yu, B. Liang, and R. L. Greene, Phys. Rev. B
772: {\bf 72}, 212512 (2005).
773: \bibitem{Kokales} J. D. Kokales, P. Fournier, L. V. Mercaldo, V. V. Talanov,
774: R. L. Greene, and S. M. Anlage, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 3696 (2000);
775: R. Prozorov, R. W. Giannetta, P. Fournier, and R. L. Greene,
776: {\it ibid.}, 3700 (2000).
777: \bibitem{Snezhko} A. Snezhko, R. Prozorov, D. D. Lawrie, R. W. Giannetta, J.
778: Gauthier, J. Renaud, and P. Fournier, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 157005 (2004).
779: \bibitem{Blumberg} G. Blumberg, A. Koitzsch, A. Gozar, B. S. Dennis,
780: C. A. Kendziora, P. Fournier, and R. L. Greene, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88},
781: 107002 (2002).
782: \bibitem{Matsui95} H. Matsui, K. Terashima, T. Sato, T. Takahashi, M. Fujita,
783: K. Yamada, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95}, 017003 (2005).
784: \bibitem{Biswas} A. Biswas, P. Fournier, M. M. Qazilbash, V. N. Smolyaninova,
785: H. Balci, and R. L. Greene, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 207004 (2002).
786: \bibitem{Skinta} J. A. Skinta, M.-S. Kim, T. R. Lemberger, T. Greibe,
787: and M. Naito, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 207005 (2002).
788: \bibitem{Armitage02} N. P. Armitage, F. Ronning, D. H. Lu, C. Kim, A.
789: Damascelli, K. M. Shen, D. L. Feng, H. Eisaki, Z.-X. Shen, P. K. Mang, N.
790: Kaneko, M. Greven, Y. Onose, Y. Taguchi, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. Lett.
791: {\bf 88}, 257001 (2002).
792: \bibitem{Matsui94} H. Matsui, K. Terashima, T. Sato, T. Takahashi, S.-C. Wang,
793: H.-B. Yang, H. Ding, T. Uefuji, and K. Yamada,
794: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 047005 (2005).
795: \bibitem{Kusko} C. Kusko, R. S. Markiewicz, M. Lindroos, and A. Bansil,
796: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 66}, 140513(R) (2002).
797: \bibitem{Yuan} Q. S. Yuan, Y. Chen, T. K. Lee, and C. S. Ting,
798: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 69}, 214523 (2004); Q. S. Yuan, F. Yuan, and C. S. Ting,
799: {\it ibid.} {\bf 72}, 054504 (2005); {\bf 73}, 054501 (2006).
800: \bibitem{Yan} X.-Z. Yan, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 73}, 052501 (2006).
801: \bibitem{Tremblay} A.-M. S. Tremblay, B. Kyung, and D. S\'en\'echal,
802: Low Temp. Phys. {\bf 32}, 561 (2006); B. Kyung, V. Hankevych, A.-M. Dar\'e,
803: and A.-M. S. Tremblay, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93}, 147004 (2004).
804: \bibitem{Senechal} D. S\'en\'echal, P.-L. Lavertu, M.-A. Marois, and
805: A.-M. S. Tremblay, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 156404 (2005).
806: \bibitem{Li} J.-X. Li, J. Zhang, and J. Luo, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68}, 224503 (2003).
807: \bibitem{Remark} The ARPES intensity map for NCCO at $x=0.13$ in Ref.~\onlinecite{Matsui94} was obtained at $T=30$ K, i.e., in the normal state
808: (but with AF order). We believe that the similar map is valid at lower $T$
809: where the compound is in the SC+AF state as we consider here.
810: \bibitem{Scalapino} D. J. Scalapino, S. R. White, and S. C. Zhang,
811: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 68}, 2830 (1992).
812: \bibitem{Hirschfeld} P. J. Hirschfeld and N. Goldenfeld, Phys. Rev. B
813: {\bf 48}, 4219(R) (1993).
814: \bibitem{Luo} H. G. Luo and T. Xiang, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 027001 (2005).
815: \end{references}
816: \end{document}
817: