Jeong-Pil Song,Sumit Mazumdar,R. Torsten Clay
Abstract:The relevance of the single-band two-dimensional Hubbard model to superconductivity in the doped cuprates has recently been questioned, based on Density matrix Renormalization Group (DMRG) computations on extended t-J models that found superconductivity over unrealistically broad doping region upon electron-doping, yet complete absence of superconductivity for hole-doping. We report very similar results from DMRG calculations on Cu$_2$O$_3$ two-leg ladder within the parent three-band correlated-electron Hamiltonian. The strong asymmetry found in our calculations are in contradiction to the deep and profound symmetry between electron- and hole-doped cuprate superconductors, apart from their critical temperatures, that has been found from recent experiments.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
This paper aims to explore the problem of doping asymmetry in copper - based superconductors, especially the failure of the standard superconducting model in the copper - based ladder structure. Specifically, through density - matrix renormalization - group (DMRG) calculations, the paper studies the superconducting properties of the Cu_2O_3 two - leg ladder structure under the three - band correlated - electron Hamiltonian, especially its performance under hole - doping and electron - doping conditions.
### Main problems the paper attempts to solve:
1. **Limitations of the standard model**:
- The standard single - band two - dimensional Hubbard model has limitations in describing the superconducting properties of copper - based superconductors. Some studies show that under electron - doping, the superconducting region predicted by this model is too broad, and there is no superconducting phenomenon at all under hole - doping. This is inconsistent with experimental observations.
2. **Verification of the three - band model**:
- In order to describe the electronic structure of copper - based superconductors more accurately, the paper adopts a three - band model (considering the interaction between Cu and O orbitals) and verifies the superconducting behavior of this model under different doping conditions through DMRG calculations.
3. **Explanation of doping asymmetry**:
- It is found that the three - band model shows significant asymmetry under hole - doping and electron - doping conditions. Specifically, the superconducting pairing correlation is stronger under electron - doping, while it is weaker under hole - doping. This asymmetry contradicts the symmetry in the phase diagram of copper - based superconductors observed experimentally.
### Main conclusions:
- **Asymmetry of superconducting pairing correlation**:
- Under electron - doping conditions, the superconducting pairing correlation is strong and remains stable in a wide doping range.
- Under hole - doping conditions, the superconducting pairing correlation is weak and decays rapidly as the doping concentration increases.
- **Failure of the standard model**:
- The single - band Hubbard model cannot explain the symmetry of copper - based superconductors observed experimentally, while the three - band model can better describe this symmetry.
- **Comparison between theory and experiment**:
- Experimental results show that whether it is electron - doping or hole - doping, copper - based superconductors show similar quantum critical points and Fermi - surface reconstruction phenomena. These phenomena are better explained in the three - band model.
### Formula summary:
- **Three - band model Hamiltonian**:
\[
H=\Delta_{dp}\sum_{i\sigma}p^{\dagger}_{i,\sigma}p_{i,\sigma}+\sum_{\langle ij\rangle,\lambda,\sigma}t^{\perp}_{dp}(d^{\dagger}_{i,\lambda,\sigma}p_{j,\sigma}+\text{H.c.})+\sum_{\langle ij\rangle,\lambda,\sigma}t_{dp}(d^{\dagger}_{i,\lambda,\sigma}p_{j,\sigma}+\text{H.c.})+\sum_{\langle ij\rangle,\sigma}t_{pp}(p^{\dagger}_{i,\sigma}p_{j,\sigma}+\text{H.c.})
\]
\[
+U_d\sum_{i,\lambda}d^{\dagger}_{i,\lambda,\uparrow}d_{i,\lambda,\uparrow}d^{\dagger}_{i,\lambda,\downarrow}d_{i,\lambda,\downarrow}+U_p\sum_jp^{\dagger}_{j,\uparrow}p_{j,\uparrow}p^{\dagger}_{j,\downarrow}p_{j,\downarrow}
\]
- **Pairing binding energy**:
\[
E_{pb} = 2E(N_\uparrow - 1, N_\downarrow)-E(N_\uparrow - 1, N_\downar