1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Pseudogap and high-temperature superconductivity from weak to strong coupling. Towards a quantitative theory (Review Article)
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1063/1.2199446
/content/aip/journal/ltp/32/4/10.1063/1.2199446
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/ltp/32/4/10.1063/1.2199446
View: Figures

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

The and extended -wave susceptibilities obtained from QMC simulations for and a lattice. The solid lines are the noninteracting results. From Ref. 10. The low temperature downturn, however, seems to come from a mistreatment of the sign problem (D.J. Scalapino, private communication).

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Comparisons between the QMC simulations (symbols) and TPSC (solid lines) for the filling dependence of the double occupancy. The results are for as a function of filling and for various values of except for , where the dashed line shows the results of our theory at the crossover temperature . From Ref. 22.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Wave-vector dependence of the spin and charge structure factors for different sets of parameters. Solid lines are from TPSC and symbols are our QMC data. Monte Carlo data for and are for clusters and ; all other data are for clusters and . Error bars are shown only when significant. From Ref. 32.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Temperature dependence of at half-filling . The solid line is from TPSC and symbols are Monte Carlo data from Ref. 46. Taken from Ref. 32.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Comparisons between Monte Carlo simulations (BW), FLEX calculations and TPSC for the spin susceptibility at as a function of temperature at zero Matsubara frequency. The filled circles (BWS) are from Ref. 48. Taken from Ref. 22.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Single-particle spectral weight for , , , and all independent wave vectors of an lattice. Results obtained from maximum entropy inversion of QMC data are in the left panel, from many-body TPSC calculations with Eq. (6) in the middle panel, and from FLEX in the right panel. From Ref. 36.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Size dependent results for various types of calculations for , , , , , 6, 8, 10. Upper panels show extracted from maximum entropy on shown in the corresponding lower panels. QMC , TPSC using Eq. (6), FLEX . From Ref. 36.

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Comparisons between the susceptibility obtained from QMC simulations (symbols) and from the TPSC approach (lines) in the two-dimensional Hubbard model. Both calculations are for , a lattice. QMC error bars are smaller than the symbols. Analytical results are joined by solid lines. The size dependence of the results is small at these temperatures. The case is also shown at as the upper line. The inset compares QMC and FLEX at , . From Ref. 41.

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

The crossover diagram as a function of next-nearest-neighbor hopping from TPSC and from a temperature cutoff renormalization group technique from Ref. 27. The corresponding van Hove filling is indicated on the upper horizontal axis. Crossover lines for magnetic instabilities near the antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic wave vectors are represented by filled symbols, while open symbols indicate instability towards -wave superconducting. The solid and dashed lines below the empty symbols show, respectively, for and , where the antiferromagnetic crossover temperature would have been in the absence of the superconducting instability. The largest system size used for this calculation is . From Ref. 49.

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

TPSC -wave paring structure factor (filled triangles) and QMC (open circles) for and various temperatures at and at on a lattice. The dashed lines are to guide the eye. From Ref. 44.

Image of FIG. 11.
FIG. 11.

Chemical potential shifts (open diamonds) and (open squares) with the results of QMC calculations (open circles) for . The momentum dependent occupation number . Circles: QMC calculations from Ref. 51. The solid curve: TPSC. The dashed curve is obtained by replacing by in the self-energy with all the rest unchanged. The long-dashed line is the result of a self-consistent -matrix calculation, and the dotted-dashed line the result of second-order perturbation theory . From Ref. 44.

Image of FIG. 12.
FIG. 12.

Comparisons of local density of states and single-particle spectral weight from TPSC (solid lines) and QMC (dashed lines) on a lattice. QMC data for the density of states taken from Ref. 52. Figures from Ref. 44.

Image of FIG. 13.
FIG. 13.

Various tilings used in quantum cluster approaches. In these examples the gray and white sites are inequivalent, since an antiferromagnetic order is possible.

Image of FIG. 14.
FIG. 14.

The spectral function of the of the one-dimensional Hubbard model, as calculated from an exact diagonalization of the Hubbard model with on a periodic 12-site cluster; the same, but with CPT, on a 12-site cluster with open boundary conditions; the exact solution, taken from Ref. 72; beware: the axes are oriented differently. In and a finite width has been given to peaks that would otherwise be Dirac -functions.

Image of FIG. 15.
FIG. 15.

Chemical potential as a function of density in the one-dimensional Hubbard model, as calculated by CPT (from Ref. 62). The exact, Bethe-ansatz result is shown as a solid line.

Image of FIG. 16.
FIG. 16.

Comparison (expressed in relative difference) between the ground-state energy density of the half-filled, one-dimensional Hubbard model calculated from the exact, Bethe–ansatz result. The results are displayed as a function of the hopping , for and various cluster sizes (connected symbols). For comparison, the exact diagonalization values of finite clusters with periodic boundary conditions are also shown (dashed lines) for and . Bottom: Same for the double occupancy. An extrapolation of the results to infinite cluster size using a quadratic fit in terms of is also shown, and is accurate to within 0.5% . Taken from Ref. 62.

Image of FIG. 17.
FIG. 17.

Ground-state energy of the half-filled, two-dimensional Hubbard model as a function of , as obtained from various methods: exact diagonalization (ED), CPT and VCPT on a 10-site cluster, quantum Monte Carlo (QMC), and variational Monte Carlo (VMC). Taken from Ref. 73.

Image of FIG. 18.
FIG. 18.

CDMFT calculation on a cluster with 8 bath sites of the density as a function of the chemical potential in the one-dimensional Hubbard model for , as compared with the exact solution, DMFT and other approximation schemes. Taken from Ref. 74.

Image of FIG. 19.
FIG. 19.

Single-particle spectral weight, as a function of energy in units of , for wave vectors along the high-symmetry directions shown in the inset. CPT calculations on a cluster with ten electrons (17% hole-doped) ; the same as , with 14 electrons (17% electron-doped). In all cases and . A Lorentzian broadening is used to reveal the otherwise delta peaks . From Ref. 77.

Image of FIG. 20.
FIG. 20.

Onset of the pseudogap as a function of corresponding to Fig. 19, taken from Ref. 77. Hole-doped case on the left, electron-doped case on the right panel.

Image of FIG. 21.
FIG. 21.

MDC from CPT in the , Hubbard model, taken from Ref. 77.

Image of FIG. 22.
FIG. 22.

The Fermi energy–momentum distribution curve . The corresponding EDC in the Hubbard model, calculated on a 16-site cluster in CPT, at . Inset: the pseudogap .

Image of FIG. 23.
FIG. 23.

EDC in the Hubbard model, with and , calculated on an 8-site cluster for in VCPT. -wave superconductivity is present in the hole-doped case (left) and both antiferromagnetism and -wave superconductivity in the electron-doped case. The resolution is not large enough in the latter case to see the superconducting gap. The Lorentzian broadening is . From Ref. 18.

Image of FIG. 24.
FIG. 24.

MDC in the , Hubbard model, calculated on a 4-site cluster in CDMFT. Energy resolution, , . Hole-doped dSC (, ) . Electron-doped dSC (, ) . Same as with . Note the particle–hole transformation in the electron-doped case. From Ref. 16.

Image of FIG. 25.
FIG. 25.

EDC in the , Hubbard model, calculated on a 4-site cluster in CDMFT. Top: normal (paramagnetic) state for various densities. Bottom: same for the antiferromagnetic state. From Ref. 67.

Image of FIG. 26.
FIG. 26.

EDC in the Hubbard model, , calculated in CPT, VCPT, and QMC. From Ref. 73.

Image of FIG. 27.
FIG. 27.

Double occupancy in the two-dimensional Hubbard model for , as calculated from TPSC (lines with ) and from DCA (symbols) from Ref. 81. Taken from Ref. 84.

Image of FIG. 28.
FIG. 28.

MDC at the Fermi energy for the two-dimensional Hubbard model for , , at various hole dopings, as obtained from TPSC. The far left from Ref. 85 is the Fermi surface plot for 10% hole-doped .

Image of FIG. 29.
FIG. 29.

MDC at the Fermi energy in the electron-doped case with , and two different ’s, and obtained from TPSC. The first column shows the corresponding experimental plots at 10% and 15% doping in Ref. 86. From Refs. 41 and 87.

Image of FIG. 30.
FIG. 30.

Cartoon explanation of the pseudogap in the weak-coupling limit. Below the dashed crossover line to the renormalized classical regime, when the antiferromagnetic correlation length becomes larger than the thermal de Broglie wave length, there appear precursors of the zero-temperature Bogoliubov quasiparticles for the long-range-ordered antiferromagnet.

Image of FIG. 31.
FIG. 31.

MDC plots at the Fermi energy (upper) and corresponding scattering rates (lower) obtained from TPSC. The semicircular dark gray (red) lines on the upper panel indicate the region where the scattering rate in the corresponding lower panels is large.

Image of FIG. 32.
FIG. 32.

Antiferromagnetic (bottom) and -wave (top) order parameters for , , , as a function of the electron density for -, -, and 10-site clusters, calculated in VCPT. Vertical lines indicate the first doping where only -wave order is nonvanishing. From Ref. 18.

Image of FIG. 33.
FIG. 33.

-wave order parameter as a function of for various values of , calculated in CDMFT on a cluster for . The positive case corresponds to the electron-doped case when a particle–hole transformation is performed. From Ref. 16.

Image of FIG. 34.
FIG. 34.

Antiferromagnetic (bottom) and -wave (top) order parameters as functions of the electron density for and various values of on an 8-site cluster, calculated in VCPT. From Ref. 18.

Image of FIG. 35.
FIG. 35.

-wave order parameter as a function of for various values of , and calculated in CDMFT on a 4-site cluster. From Ref. 16.

Image of FIG. 36.
FIG. 36.

VCPT calculations for , near half-filling on lattice. Contrary to the strong coupling case, the -wave order parameter survives all the way to half-filling at weak coupling, unless we also allow for antiferromagnetism.

Image of FIG. 37.
FIG. 37.

as a function of doping, , for calculated in TPSC using the Thouless criterion. From Ref. 41.

Image of FIG. 38.
FIG. 38.

MDC at the Fermi energy for 10% hole-doped from Ref. 85.

Image of FIG. 39.
FIG. 39.

Doping dependence of the MDC from experiments on NCCO with the corresponding EDC. From Ref. 86.

Image of FIG. 40.
FIG. 40.

Intensity plot of the spectral function as a function of in units of and wave vector from VCPT for , , , and at the bottom and (electron-doped) at the top. The Lorentzian broadening is in the main figure and in the inset, which displays the -wave gap. Top panel is for the electron-doped case in the right-hand panel of Fig. 23, while the bottom panel is for the hole-doped case on the left of Fig. 23. From Ref. 18.

Image of FIG. 41.
FIG. 41.

Experimental Fermi surface plot (MDC at the Fermi energy) for NCCO (left) and corresponding energy distribution curves (right) for 15% electron-doping. From Ref. 86.

Image of FIG. 42.
FIG. 42.

EDC along the Fermi surface calculated in TPSC (left column) at optimal doping for , , and corresponding ARPES data on NCCO (right column). From Ref. 87.

Image of FIG. 43.
FIG. 43.

EDC along two other directions calculated for , , in TPSC (left column) and corresponding ARPES data on NCCO (right column). From Ref. 87.

Image of FIG. 44.
FIG. 44.

EDC along the Fermi surface shown for , and corresponding energy distribution curves . Lines are shifted by a constant for clarity. From Ref. 87.

Image of FIG. 45.
FIG. 45.

Hot spots from quasi-static scatterings off antiferromagnetic fluctuations (renormalized classical regime).

Image of FIG. 46.
FIG. 46.

Semi-log plot of the AFM correlation length (in units of the lattice constant) against inverse temperature (in units of ). Filled symbols denote calculated results and empty ones experimental data of Ref. 126 and Ref. 127. From Ref. 87.

Image of FIG. 47.
FIG. 47.

Pseudogap temperature (filled circles denote calculated from TPSC, empty ones experimental data extracted from optical conductivity128). Empty triangles are experimental Néel temperatures . The samples are reduced.126 From Ref. 87.

Image of FIG. 48.
FIG. 48.

The generic phase diagram of high- superconductors, from Ref. 110. There should also be a pseudogap line on the electron-doped side. It was not well studied at the time of publication of that paper.

Image of FIG. 49.
FIG. 49.

Antiferromagnetic order parameter (dashed) and -wave (solid) order parameter obtained from CDMFT on a cluster. The result obtained by forcing is also shown as a thin dashed line.

Image of FIG. 50.
FIG. 50.

Phase diagram obtained from DCA for for the two-band model. From Ref. 104.

Image of FIG. 51.
FIG. 51.

The gap in the density of states of the dSC as a function of filling for , as calculated in CDMFT on a cluster. From Ref. 16.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aip/journal/ltp/32/4/10.1063/1.2199446
2006-04-01
2014-04-23
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Pseudogap and high-temperature superconductivity from weak to strong coupling. Towards a quantitative theory (Review Article)
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/ltp/32/4/10.1063/1.2199446
10.1063/1.2199446
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM