# Two-gap model for underdoped cuprate superconductors

## Abstract

Various properties of underdoped superconducting cuprates, including the momentum-dependent pseudogap opening, indicate a behavior which is neither BCS nor Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) like. To explain this issue we introduce a two-gap model. This model assumes an anisotropic pairing interaction among two kinds of fermions with small and large Fermi velocities representing the quasiparticles near the M and the nodal points of the Fermi surface respectively. We find that a gap forms near the M points resulting into incoherent pairing due to strong fluctuations. Instead the pairing near the nodal points sets in with phase coherence at lower temperature. By tuning the momentum-dependent interaction, the model allows for a continuous evolution from a pure BCS pairing (in the overdoped and optimally doped regime) to a mixed boson-fermion picture (in the strongly underdoped regime).

PACS numbers:74.20.De, 74.20.Mn, 71.10.-w

The underdoped cuprates are characterized by a pseudogap opening below a strong doping $`(\delta )`$ dependent crossover temperature $`T^{}(\delta )`$, above the superconducting critical temperature $`T_c(\delta )`$ . By decreasing the doping the temperature $`T^{}`$ increases, while the superconducting critical temperature $`T_c`$ decreases until the insulating state is reached. The different behavior of $`T^{}`$ and $`T_c`$ as doping is varied, finds a counterpart in the different behavior of the coherence energy scale, obtained in Andreev reflection measurements , and the single-particle gap, observed both in angle-resolved photoemission (ARPES) and in tunneling experiments . This has triggered a very active debate on the relevance of a non-BCS superconductivity and of a BCS-BEC crossover in these materials . In particular ARPES shows that below $`T^{}`$ the gap opens around the M points of the Brillouin zone \[i.e. $`(\pm \pi ,0),(0,\pm \pi )`$\] suggesting that $`T^{}`$ can be interpreted as a mean-field-like temperature where electrons start to form local pairs without phase coherence. However, it is also found  that below $`T^{}`$ substantial portions of the Fermi surface remain gapless. This behavior can be described neither by BCS nor by Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) schemes. Instead it is suggestive of strong pairing between the states around the M points and of weak coupling near the zone diagonals. Various other experiments  carried below $`T_c`$ show a doping and temperature dependence of the gap anisotropy and therefore are again suggestive of a strong anisotropy in the pairing potential.

In this letter we explore a new direction (neither BCS nor BEC) focusing on the consequences of a strongly anisotropic interaction. To this aim we introduce a two-gap model, where strongly paired fermionic states can coexist and interplay with weakly coupled pairs in different regions of the Fermi surface (FS). This line of thinking was partly explored in Refs. , where only the extreme strong-coupling limit of one component was considered. In particular the view of Ref.  would allow to describe only the very underdoped region of the cuprate phase diagram. Our approach, instead, turns out to be sufficiently flexible to investigate with continuity the evolution of the bifurcation (taking place around optimal doping in the real systems) between a mean-field-like pairing temperature $`T^{}`$ and the coherence superconducting temperature $`T_c`$. We implement our model by a two-band system with different intraband and interband pairing interactions. One band has a large Fermi velocity $`v_F`$ and a small attraction giving rise to largely overlapped Cooper pairs with weak superconducting fluctuations. On the contrary, the other band has a small $`v_F`$ and a large attraction resulting into tightly bound pairs having strong fluctuations. At variance from the models of mixed fermions and bosons, we keep the fermionic nature of both the weakly and strongly bound Cooper pairs.

A possible realization of a strongly momentum-dependent effective interaction in underdoped cuprates has been proposed in connection to the occurrence of a charge instability for stripe formation . It was indeed suggested that the tendency to spatial charge order (which evolves into a spin-charge stripe phase by lowering the doping) gives rise to an instability line. This line $`T_{stripe}^c(\delta )`$ starts from a Quantum Critical Point (QCP) at $`T=0`$ near optimal doping and increses by lowering the doping. By approaching the instability line the pairing is mediated by the strong attractive quasi-critical stripe fluctuations, which affect the states on the FS in a quite anisotropic way:

$$V_{\mathrm{eff}}(𝐪,\omega )\stackrel{~}{U}\frac{V}{\kappa ^2+|𝐪𝐪_c|^2i\gamma \omega }$$
(1)   
where $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ is the residual repulsive interaction between the quasiparticles, $`\gamma `$ is a damping parameter, and $`𝐪_c`$ is the wavevector of the stripe instability. The crucial parameter $`\kappa ^2`$ is a mass term proportional to the inverse square of the correlation length of charge order $`\xi _c^2`$ and provides a measure of the distance from criticality. At $`T=0`$, in the overdoped regime, $`\kappa ^2`$ is linear in the doping deviation from the critical concentration $`\kappa ^2(\delta \delta _c)`$. On the other hand, in the finite-temperature region above $`\delta _c`$ $`\kappa ^2T`$. In the underdoped regime $`\kappa ^2`$ vanishes approaching the instability line $`T_{stripe}^c(\delta )`$ and extend the singular potential to finite temperatures. For $`\kappa ^20`$, the fermionic states around the M points are such that $`𝐤_F𝐤_{𝐅}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐪_𝐜`$ and interact strongly. These are the so-called “hot spots”, they have a low dispersion, and possibly form tightly bound local pairs giving rise to the pseudogaps below $`T^{}T_{stripe}^c(\delta )`$. On the other hand, “cold” states in the arcs of FS around the zone diagonals $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-$`Y`$ or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-$`X`$ (nodal points) have larger dispersions and interact more weakly since $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is now cut-off by $`𝐪_c`$. In the underdoped regime $`\kappa ^20`$ at higher and higher temperatures by lowering the doping and $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ has a more dramatic effect. On the contrary, in going to the optimum and the overdoped region $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is cut-off first by the temperature and then by the doping itself. All the states then interact more isotropically.

— The two-gap model. Irrespectively of the origin of the anisotropy, in the presence of a strong momentum dependence both of ($`i`$) the effective pairing interaction and ($`ii`$) the Fermi velocity, we must allow for enough freedom of the pairing and of its fluctuations in order to capture the relevant physical effects of the anisotropy. Following the above discussion we introduce a simple two-band model for the cuprates. We describe the quasiparticle arcs of FS about the nodal points by a free electron band (labelled below by the index 1) with a large Fermi velocity $`v_{F1}=k_{F1}/m_1`$ and the hot states about the M points with a second free electron band, displaced in momentum and in energy from the first, with a small $`v_{F2}=k_{F2}/m_2`$ (see Fig. 1) .

Fig. 1: Sketch of the Fermi surface of underdoped cuprates with quasiparticle arcs (thick solid line) and patches of quasi-localized states (thick dotted line) and the Fermi surface of the two-band spectrum (thin solid line).

The assumed electronic spectrum consists therefore of two different free electron dispersions, $`\epsilon _1(𝐩)=𝐩^2/2m_1`$ and $`\epsilon _2(𝐩)=𝐩𝐩_0^2/2m_2+\epsilon _0`$, displaced by a momentum $`𝐩_0`$ and by an energy $`\epsilon _0E_{F1}`$ introduced to allow the chemical potential to cross both bands: $`E_{F1}=\epsilon _0+E_{F2}`$. To connect our two-band structure with the single-band dispersion of the cuprates, we choose $`𝐩_0=(\pm \pi ,0),(0,\pm \pi )`$.

This choice gives rise to two branches for the band 2 along the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions. Moreover, we only consider Cooper pairs of zero total momentum formed by time-reversed momentum eigenstates. Therefore the 2-2 pairs are always formed by $`(𝐤,𝐤)`$ states on portions of the band 2 symmetrically located on opposite sides with respect to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,0)`$ point. If the pairs have a $`s`$-wave symmetry, the branches along $`x`$ and $`y`$ of the band 2 are equivalent and just one can be considered. On the other hand, in the case of $`d`$-wave pairing, the pairs in the branch along $`x`$ have a different phase from the pairs in the branch along $`y`$ and both branches have to be treated. Since in this paper our main interest is the interplay between strongly and weakly coupled pairs irrespectively of their symmetry, for simplicity we consider the $`s`$-wave problem . The model Hamiltonian for pairing in the two-band system is taken to be

$$H=\underset{k\sigma i}{}\epsilon _{ki}n_{k\sigma i}+\underset{kk^{}pij}{}V_{ij}(k,k^{})c_{k^{}+pj}^+c_{k^{}j}^+c_{ki}c_{k+pi}$$
(2)   
where $`i`$ and $`j`$ run over the band indices 1 and 2 and $`\sigma `$ is the spin index. The interaction is approximated by a BCS-like attraction given by

$$V_{ij}(k,k^{})=g_{ij}\mathrm{\Theta }(\omega _0\xi _i(k))\mathrm{\Theta }(\omega _0\xi _j(k^{}))$$
(3)   
with an energy cutoff $`\omega _0`$. The strongly $`q`$-dependent effective interaction in the particle-particle channel $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(𝐪=𝐤𝐤^{})`$ of the original single-band system is accounted for by the $`2\times 2`$ scattering matrix $`\widehat{g}`$. The matrix elements $`g_{ij}`$ couple the electrons within the same band ($`g_{11}`$ and $`g_{22}`$) and between different bands ($`g_{12}=g_{21}`$). The self-consistency equation for the superconducting fluctuation propagator  in the matrix form is given by $`\widehat{L}=\widehat{g}+\widehat{g}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}\widehat{L}`$, where the particle-particle bubble operator for the two-band spectrum has a diagonal $`2\times 2`$ matrix form with elements $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}(q)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{22}(q)`$ . The resulting fluctuation propagator is given by

$$\widehat{L}(q)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{g}_{11}\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}(q)& \stackrel{~}{g}_{12}\\ \stackrel{~}{g}_{12}& \stackrel{~}{g}_{22}\mathrm{\Pi }_{22}(q)\end{array}\right)^1;$$
(4)   
where we have defined $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij}(\widehat{g}^1)_{ij}`$. It turns out useful to define the temperatures $`T_{c1}^0`$ and $`T_{c2}^0`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{11}\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}(0,T)=\stackrel{~}{g}_{11}\rho _1\mathrm{ln}\frac{\omega _0}{T}\rho _1\mathrm{ln}\frac{T}{T_{c1}^0}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{22}\mathrm{\Pi }_{22}(0,T)=\stackrel{~}{g}_{22}\rho _2\mathrm{ln}\frac{\omega _0}{T}\rho _2\mathrm{ln}\frac{T}{T_{c2}^0}`$, where $`\rho _i=m_i/(2\pi )`$ is the density of states of the $`i`$-th band. In the underdoped regime, to emulate the hot and cold points related for instance to the system near a stripe instability, we assume the following relations between the $`g_{ij}`$ elements: $`g_{22}V/\kappa ^2>>g_{11}V/|𝐪_c|^2g_{12}`$. Then one has $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{11}1/g_{11},\stackrel{~}{g}_{22}1/g_{22},\stackrel{~}{g}_{12}g_{12}/(g_{11}g_{22}).`$ In this limit $`T_{c1}^0`$ and $`T_{c2}^0`$ (with $`T_{c2}^0T_{c1}^0`$) assume the value of the two BCS critical temperatures for the two decoupled bands. The mean-field BCS superconducting critical temperature for the coupled system $`T_c^0`$ is defined by the equation $`\text{det}\widehat{L}^1(𝐪=0,T_c^0)=0`$. We obtain $`T_c^0>T_{c2}^0`$ given by

$$T_c^0=\sqrt{T_{c1}^0T_{c2}^0}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}^2\left(\frac{T_{c2}^0}{T_{c1}^0}\right)+\frac{4\stackrel{~}{g}_{12}^2}{\rho _1\rho _2}}\right].$$
(5)   
— The Ginzburg-Landau approach. The role of fluctuations can be investigated within a standard Ginzburg-Landau (GL) scheme, when both $`\rho _2g_{22}\omega _0<E_{F2}`$ and $`\omega _0<E_{F2}`$. Under these conditions the chemical potential is not affected significantly by pairing. Moreover, in order to remain within the GL approach, we will assume that fluctuations from the BCS result are not too strong. The relevance of the space fluctuations of the order parameter is assessed by the gradient term coefficient $`\eta `$, which provides the momentum dependence of the fluctuation propagator in Eq.(4). In particular the expansion of the particle-particle bubbles, in terms of $`q`$, reads $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}(q)\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}(0)\rho _1\eta _1q^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{22}(q)\mathrm{\Pi }_{22}(0)\rho _2\eta _2q^2`$. Here $`\eta _i(i=1,2)`$ is the gradient term coefficient of the $`i`$-th band which, in 2D and for a free electron band, is given by $`\eta _i=(7\zeta (3)/32\pi ^2)v_{Fi}^2/T^2`$, with $`\eta _1\eta _2`$ . In the absence of the interband coupling $`g_{12}`$, $`\eta _1`$ provides the (large) gradient term coefficient corresponding to (the weak) superconducting fluctuations for the band with a large $`v_{F1}`$, while (the small) $`\eta _2`$ corresponds to (strong) superconducting fluctuations for the band 2. For the coupled system near $`T_c^0`$, the coefficient $`\eta `$ in terms of $`\eta _1`$ and $`\eta _2`$ is obtained by evaluating $`(\widehat{L}^1)_{ij}\left(ϵ+\eta q^2\right)`$ in terms of the relative temperature deviation $`ϵ(TT_c^0)/T_c^0`$. We get the expression

$$\eta =\frac{\rho _1(\stackrel{~}{g}_{22}\mathrm{\Pi }_{22})\eta _1+\rho _2(\stackrel{~}{g}_{11}\mathrm{\Pi }_{11})\eta _2}{T(\stackrel{~}{g}_{22}\mathrm{\Pi }_{22})d\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}/dTT(\stackrel{~}{g}_{11}\mathrm{\Pi }_{11})d\mathrm{\Pi }_{22}/dT},$$
(6)   
where all the bubbles are evaluated at $`q=0`$. Using the definitions for $`T_{c1,2}^0`$ and the condition $`\text{det}\widehat{L}^1(𝐪=0,T_c^0)=0`$, the coefficient $`\eta `$ can be explicitly written as

$$\eta =\alpha _1\eta _1+\alpha _2\eta _2,\mathrm{with}\frac{\alpha _1}{\alpha _2}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}_{12}^2}{\rho _1\rho _2\mathrm{ln}^2(T_c^0/T_{c1}^0)},$$
(7)   
and $`\alpha _1+\alpha _2=1`$. The presence of a fraction of electrons with a large $`\eta _1`$ increases the stiffness of the whole electronic system (i.e. increases $`\eta `$ with respect to $`\eta _2`$). However when the mean-field critical temperature $`T_c^0`$ is much larger than $`T_{c1}^0`$ the correction to $`\eta _2`$ due to the interband coupling is small. At the same time the Ginzburg number is large implying a sizable mass correction $`\delta ϵ(T)`$ to the “mass” $`ϵ(T)`$ of the bare propagator $`\widehat{L}(q)`$. The renormalized critical temperature $`T_c^r`$, given by the equation $`ϵ(T_c^r)+\delta ϵ(T_c^r)=0`$, is lower than $`T_c^0`$ . By evaluating the renormalized gradient term coefficient $`\eta ^r`$ in the presence of the mass correction, we find that this is still given by Eq. (7) with $`T_c^0`$ replaced by $`T_c^r`$. Therefore $`\eta ^r=\eta (T_c^r)`$ is greater than $`\eta (T_c^0)`$. This result indicates that the mass renormalizations of the fluctuation propagator tends to lower $`T_c`$ and, at the same time, increases the gradient term coefficient $`\eta `$ by increasing the coupling to $`\eta _1`$. As a consequence the effective Ginzburg number is reduced and the system is stabilized with respect to fluctuations allowing for a coherent superconducting phase even in the limit $`\eta _20`$. Within the GL approach we associate the temperature $`T_c^0T_{c2}^0`$ to the crossover temperature $`T^{}`$ and $`T_c^r`$ to the superconducting critical temperature $`T_c`$ of the whole system. In the region $`T_c<T<T^{}`$ the pseudogap is formed in band 2. Superconducting fluctuations only affect band 2 while are immaterial for band 1, where the Fermi surface is mantained until phase coherence sets in. Within the Stripe-QCP scenario the coupling $`g_{22}`$ is related to the singular part of the effective interaction mediated by the stripe fluctuations. $`g_{22}`$ is the most doping dependent coupling and attains its largest value in the underdoped regime, where $`\kappa ^2`$ vanishes at higher temperatures. The regular parts of the interaction $`g_{11}`$ and $`g_{12}`$, being cut-off by $`𝐪_𝐜`$, are instead only weakly doping-dependent. In the region of validity of the GL approach, the explicit calculations show that $`r(\delta )(T_c^0T_c^r)/T_c^0(T^{}T_c)/T^{}`$ is increasing by increasing $`g_{22}`$, i.e., by decreasing doping. For small values of $`r`$ we find that both $`T^{}`$ and $`T_c`$ increase. This regime corresponds to the overdoped and optimally doped region. Specifically, above optimum doping, $`g_{22}`$ and $`g_{11}`$ become comparable and the two lines merge together. For $`r0.25÷0.5`$, $`T_c`$ is instead decreasing while $`T^{}`$ is always increasing by decreasing doping. The large values of $`r`$, which are attained in the underdoped region show that we are reaching the limit of validity of our GL approach. We think, however, that the behavior of the bifurcation between $`T^{}`$ and $`T_c`$ represents correctly the physics of the pseudogap phase, while a quantitative description would require a more sophisticated approach like a RG analysis.

— The strong-coupling limit. In the very low doping regime, where $`T^{}`$ has increased strongly, the value of $`g_{22}`$ can be so large to drive the system in a strong coupling regime for the fermions in band 2 ($`\rho _2g_{22}\omega _0>E_{F2}`$). In this case, taking $`\omega _0>E_{F2}`$ the chemical potential is pulled below the bottom of the band 2. In this limit of tightly bound 2-2 pairs, the propagator of the superconducting fluctuations in band 2, i.e. $`L_{22}(q)`$, assumes the form of a single pole for a bosonic particle. Since $`E_{F1}`$ is still the largest energy scale in the problem, the fermionic character of the particles in band 1 is preserved. The critical temperature of the system is again obtained by the vanishing of $`det\widehat{L}^1(q=0)`$ where, however, the chemical potential is now self-consistently evaluated including the selfenergy corrections to the Green function in band 2 and the fermions left in band 1. One gets $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{22}=\rho _2\omega _0/|\mu _2|`$ and

$$T_c^0=T_{c1}^0\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}_{12}^2}{\rho _1\rho _2\omega _0}\frac{|\mu _2||\mu _B|}{(|\mu _2||\mu _B|)}\right]$$
(8)   
where $`\mu _2`$ is the chemical potential measured with respect to the bottom of the band 2 and $`|\mu _B|=\rho _2g_{22}\omega _0`$ represents the bound-state energy. The calculation of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{22}`$ at small $`q`$ leads to a finite value of $`\eta _2=1/(8m_2|\mu _2|)`$, while the small-$`q`$ expansion of $`det\widehat{L}^1`$ provides the new $`\eta `$ coefficient 

$$\eta =\eta _1+\rho _1\rho _2\omega _0\frac{g_{22}^2}{|\mu _2|}\mathrm{ln}^2(T_c^0/T_{c1}^0)\eta _2$$
(9)   
In this strong-coupling case most of the non-mean-field effect has been taken into account by the formation of the bound state occurring at a very high temperature of the order $`\rho _2g_{22}\omega _0`$, which provides the new $`T^{}`$ in this regime. $`\eta \eta _1`$ stays sizable and the fluctuations will not strongly further reduce $`T_c^r`$ with respect to $`T_c^0`$: $`T_cT_c^rT_c^0`$. In this low-doping regime $`\frac{T^{}T_c}{T^{}}`$ approaches its largest values before $`T_c`$ vanishes.

The strong coupling limit of our model shares some similarities as well as some important differences with phenomenological models of interacting bosons and fermions . In particular, in the model of Ref.  pairs of non interacting electrons are scattered from the Brillouin zone near the nodal points into dispersionless boson states, localized about the M points at an energy $`\epsilon _B`$. The correspondence with our model can be seen by noticing that the tightly bound bosonic states correspond to $`\rho _2g_{22}\omega _0E_{F2}`$ and $`g_{11}=0`$. The tightly bound dispersionless bosonic states are fully incoherent ($`\eta _2=0`$), while the fermionic states are unpaired as long as bosons and fermions are independent. The fermion-boson coupling $`g_{12}`$ effectively introduces an $`e`$-$`e`$ coupling of the order of $`\rho _1\rho _2\omega _0g_{12}^2/\epsilon _B`$ and drives the system superconducting. In this particular limiting case of our model we recover the results of Ref.  with an explicit expression for the bosonic level $`\epsilon _B=|\mu ||\mu _B|`$, while in Ref.  it is a free phenomenological parameter.

— Conclusions. In our paper we have analyzed the pairing properties of the underdoped cuprates in terms of an effective two-gap model, motivated by the strong anisotropy of the band dispersions and of the effective pairing interaction. The crucial schematization was based on the introduction of two bands weakly coupled in order to preserve a substantial distinction between the superconducting order parameter in different regions of the momentum space. This has to be contrasted with more standard approaches producing one single gap (even with complicated momentum dependence) and a common fluctuating order parameter all over the FS. Our approach allows for different fluctuation regimes for pairs in different $`𝐤`$ regions. According to our analysis, the strongly bound pairs forming at an high temperature $`T^{}`$ can experience large fluctuations until the system is stabilized by the coupling with less bound BCS-like states, leading to a coherent superconducting state at $`T_c<T^{}`$. $`T_c`$ and $`T^{}`$ merge around or above optimum doping, where $`g_{22}`$, according to our stripe scenario, becomes of the order of $`g_{11}`$. Our model shares similarities with the fermion-boson models for cuprates  to which it reduces in the strong-coupling limit for $`g_{22}g_{11}0`$. The two-gap model considered here applies to a much wider doping region and is more suitable to describe the crossover to the optimal and over-doped regime, where no preformed bound states are present and the superconducting transition is quite similar to a standard BCS transition.

Acknowledgments. We acknowledge S. Caprara for helpful discussions.