Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Physical review. B, Condensed matter

Reply to “Comment on ‘BCS to Bose-Einstein crossover phase diagram at zero temperature for a dx2−y2 order parameter superconductor: Dependence on the tight-binding structure’ ”

José Jesús Rodríguez-Núñez, Orlando Alvarez-Llamoza, Eligio Orozco, Otto Rendón, F. Kokubun, M. B. Soares

Published Aug 28, 2003• 2 citations
Publisher

Abstract

In a recent Comment, Perali, Pieri, and Strinati [Phys. Rev. B 68, 066501 (2003)] came forward with a correction to the work of Soares et al. [Phys. Rev. B 65, 174506 (2002)], in the sense that they correctly found no nonpairing region in the density vs coupling diagram of the two-dimensional attractive Hubbard model for a d-wave symmetry for the order parameter. But, the BCS-Bose-Einstein crossover diagram also changes, a point missed by Perali, Pieri, and Strinati in their Comment. Furthermore, they use an analytical treatment of the gap equation to find the order parameter as C function of interaction strength, namely, $\ensuremath{\Delta}/4t$ vs $V/4t.$ We point out that this treatment is not completely correct for the evaluation of the chemical potential, $\ensuremath{\mu}/4t$ vs $V/4t,$ when we include the Debye frequency, ${\ensuremath{\omega}}_{D}/4t,$ and their cutoff frequency, ${\ensuremath{\omega}}_{o}.$ As a consequence, the phase diagram, namely, n vs $V/4t,$ strongly depends on the value of ${\ensuremath{\omega}}_{D}/4t,$ i.e., for small values of ${\ensuremath{\omega}}_{D}/4t$ the phase diagram moves to higher values of $V/4t.$

DOI
10.1103/physrevb.68.066502

Related papers

Comment on “BCS to Bose-Einstein crossover phase diagram at zero temperature for a dx2−y2 order parameter superconductor: Dependence on the tight-binding structure”

A. Perali, P. Pieri, Giancarlo Calvanese Strinati

The work by Soares et al. [Phys. Rev. B 65, 174506 (2002)] investigates the BCS to Bose-Einstein crossover for d-wave pairing in the two-dimensional attractive Hubbard model. Contrary to their claims, we found that a nonpairing region does not exist in the density vs coupling phase diagram. The gap parameter at $T=0,$ as obtained by solving analytically as well as numerically the BCS equations, is in fact finite for any nonzero density and coupling, even in the weak-coupling regime.

arXiv:cond-mat/0211132•Physical review. B, Condensed matter•Aug 28, 2003•16 citations

The BCS–BE crossover phase diagram atT= 0 K for a d-wave superconductor: the importance of the Debye frequency and the tight binding band structure

José Jesús Rodríguez-Núñez, Alex A. Schmidt, Orlando Alvarez-Llamoza +1 more

We consider the phase diagram of the BCS (Bardeen?Cooper?Schrieffer)?BE (Bose?Einstein) crossover in the ground state (T = 0?K) of a dx2?y2-wave superconductor, with a nearest neighbour tight binding structure, when we take into account the Debye (phononic) frequency around the chemical potential, ?. This approach is a continuation of the work of den Hertog (1999 Phys.?Rev.?B 60 559) and that of Soares et al (2002 Phys.?Rev.?B 65 174506). The latter authors considered the influence of the second-nearest neighbours, but neither set of authors took into account the effect of the Debye frequency, ?D, or the influence of the next nearest neighbour matrix hopping element. We have found the following results: (1)?there is not a metallic phase?that is, when , , , and , where n is the carrier density per site, V is the attractive interaction, t is the nearest neighbour hopping integral, and is the next nearest neighbour hopping ratio; (2)?the BCS?BE crossover line is strongly affected by the presence of ?D/4t and that of ?actually, the values of V/4t needed to achieve the Bose?Einstein regime become extremely large for small values of ?D/4t; and (3)?both ?/4t and ?/4t strongly depend on the values of ?D/4t and . The results?(1) are in agreement with the ones found by Perali et al (2003 Phys.?Rev.?B 68 066501 (Preprint cond-mat/0211132)) and Rodr?guez-N??ez et al (2003 Phys.?Rev.?B 68 066502), and in disagreement with those of den Hertog and Soares et al.

Journal of Physics Condensed Matter•Jun 8, 2004•0 citations

BCS to Bose-Einstein crossover phase diagram at zero temperature for a dx2−y2 order parameter superconductor: Dependence on the tight-binding structure

M. B. Soares, F. Kokubun, José Jesús Rodríguez-Núñez +1 more

We study the effect of the next-nearest-neighbor (NNN) hopping matrix element ${t}^{\ensuremath{'}}$ on the zero-temperature $(T=0\mathrm{K})$ crossover phase diagram, namely, from the BCS limit to the Bose-Einstein regime, for a model which presents a ${d}_{{x}^{2}\ensuremath{-}{y}^{2}}$ superconductor order parameter symmetry. This theoretical generalization is required by angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy experiments. Our NNN hopping is characterized by the parameter $\ensuremath{\alpha}\ensuremath{\equiv}{t}^{\ensuremath{'}}/t\ensuremath{\ne}0,$ where t is the nearest neighbor hopping matrix element. For \ensuremath{\alpha}\ensuremath{\geqslant}0, there is a crossover of BCS binding energy type as described [B. C. den Hertog, Phys. Rev. B 60, 559 (1999)] by keeping the density fixed. However, for \ensuremath{\alpha}0, the system is always in the Bose-Einstein regime for $n~{n}_{c}\ensuremath{\approx}0.12.$ We conclude that the presence of the NNN hopping matrix element drastically influences the crossover diagram for a ${d}_{{x}^{2}\ensuremath{-}{y}^{2}}$ superconductor.

Physical review. B, Condensed matter•Apr 16, 2002•11 citations

Comment on "Evolution from BCS Superconductivity to Bose-Einstein Condensation: Role of the Parameter $k_{\rm F} \xi$ in Interpreting the Experimental Plot by Uemura et al.''}

José Jesús Rodríguez-Núñez, Sandra Schafroth, T. Schneider +2 more

The problem of crossover from BCS to Bose-Einstein condensation has recently attracted considerable interest owing to the discovery of high-$T_{\rm c}$ cuprates. Their short coherence length, $\xi$, places these materials in the interesting region between BCS and Bose-Einstein condensation. In the paper of F. Pistolesi and G.C. Strinati (Phys. Rev. B {\bf 49}, 6356 (1994)), the Nozi\`eres and Schmitt-Rink approach (NSR) is taken, which is valid for the weak coupling regime. They derive a relation between $T_{\rm c}$ and $T_{\rm F}$, which they insist is valid for any coupling strength. We present arguments that their assumptions are incorrect by using our fully self-consistent T-matrix formalism in two dimensions, and show that the NSR approach produces unphysical results in this case.

arXiv:cond-mat/9405001•May 2, 1994•0 citations

Phase diagram of a two-dimensional narrow-band nematic superconductor: Can the BCS–BEC crossover be observed?

В. М. Локтев, Volodymyr Turkowski

We have analyzed the doping and temperature dependencies of the physical properties of a square-lattice narrow-band superconductor with a relevant for systems with local Hubbard repulsion nematic pairing due to effective nearest-neighbor attraction. Our focus was a possible crossover of the system from the Bardeen–Cooper–Schrieffer (BCS) superconductivity to the Bose–Einstein condensation (BEC) regimes with increasing temperature. We have found that in the d-channel the crossover does not take place at realistic values of doping and temperature, and even at a large attraction, i.e., the system is always in the BCS regime, unlike the “usual” d-wave superconductor. Contrary to non-nematic d-wave superconductors, the chemical potential μ always grows with temperature increase that might indicate an unexpectedly large size of Cooper pairs. At the same time, in the s-channel, we have found a BCS–BEC crossover with temperature for a wide range of temperatures even at rather high dopings, nf ≈ 0.2. This result is different from the “usual” s-case, where a narrow-band (i.e., at strong coupling) system is always in the BEC state. We have found for a given large value of attraction that there is a value of doping when for a wide range of temperature the system is in a “pre-crossover” regime with μ ≈ 0, i.e., in a regime of coexistence of local and extended pairs. Thus, in narrow-band systems a “usual” s-superconductor is in a BEC state, but in the nematic case one can expect a BCS–to–BEC crossover with temperature growth at realistic system parameters, i.e., the crossover might be measured experimentally.

Low Temperature Physics•Apr 1, 2026•0 citations

Phase diagram and BCS-Bose condensation crossover in 1D and 2D Hubbard models

Kocharian AN; Yang C; Chiang YL, Yang L; Yeh SD; Xie S; Altuwaijri S; Ni J; Hu YC; Chen YT; Bao BY; Su CH; Chang C, Y L Chiang

[[abstract]]The ground-state energy, the concentration of double occupied sites and the density of bound electron pairs in low-dimensional attractive Hubbard model are calculated by means of the generalized self-consistent field (GSCF) approach. This approach gives an excellent agreement with the corresponding Bethe-ansatz solution and the quantum Monte-Carlo calculations in a wide range of interaction strength U < 0 and electron concentration n. A simple relationship is found between the order parameter and the density of bound electron pairs, valid for any dimension and in entire parameter space U, n and magnetic field h. The electron pairing and the crossover from the itinerant BCS regime into the Bose condensation regime of local pairs are studied in dependence of both U and n. The GSCF theory correctly displays the separation of the energy gap from the BCS order parameter at n not equal 1 as \U \ increases. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

•Jan 1, 2001•0 citations
In a recent Comment, Perali, Pieri, and Strinati [Phys. Rev. B 68, 066501 (2003)] came forward with a correction to the work of Soares et al. [Phys. Rev. B 65, 174506 (2002)], in the sense that they correctly found no nonpairing region in the density vs coupling diagram of the two-dimensional attractive Hubbard model for a d-wave symmetry for the order parameter. But, the BCS-Bose-Einstein crossover diagram also changes, a point missed by Perali, Pieri, and Strinati in their Comment. Furthermore, they use an analytical treatment of the gap equation to find the order parameter as C function of interaction strength, namely, \ensuremathΔ/4t\ensuremath{\Delta}/4t\ensuremathΔ/4t vs V/4t.V/4t.V/4t. We point out that this treatment is not completely correct for the evaluation of the chemical potential, \ensuremathμ/4t\ensuremath{\mu}/4t\ensuremathμ/4t vs V/4t,V/4t,V/4t, when we include the Debye frequency, \ensuremathωD/4t,{\ensuremath{\omega}}_{D}/4t,\ensuremathωD​/4t, and their cutoff frequency, \ensuremathωo.{\ensuremath{\omega}}_{o}.\ensuremathωo​. As a consequence, the phase diagram, namely, n vs V/4t,V/4t,V/4t, strongly depends on the value of \ensuremathωD/4t,{\ensuremath{\omega}}_{D}/4t,\ensuremathωD​/4t, i.e., for small values of \ensuremathωD/4t{\ensuremath{\omega}}_{D}/4t\ensuremathωD​/4t the phase diagram moves to higher values of V/4t.V/4t.V/4t.
The work by Soares et al. [Phys. Rev. B 65, 174506 (2002)] investigates the BCS to Bose-Einstein crossover for d-wave pairing in the two-dimensional attractive Hubbard model. Contrary to their claims, we found that a nonpairing region does not exist in the density vs coupling phase diagram. The gap parameter at T=0,T=0,T=0, as obtained by solving analytically as well as numerically the BCS equations, is in fact finite for any nonzero density and coupling, even in the weak-coupling regime.
We consider the phase diagram of the BCS (Bardeen?Cooper?Schrieffer)?BE (Bose?Einstein) crossover in the ground state (T = 0?K) of a dx2?y2-wave superconductor, with a nearest neighbour tight binding structure, when we take into account the Debye (phononic) frequency around the chemical potential, ?. This approach is a continuation of the work of den Hertog (1999 Phys.?Rev.?B 60 559) and that of Soares et al (2002 Phys.?Rev.?B 65 174506). The latter authors considered the influence of the second-nearest neighbours, but neither set of authors took into account the effect of the Debye frequency, ?D, or the influence of the next nearest neighbour matrix hopping element. We have found the following results: (1)?there is not a metallic phase?that is, when , , , and , where n is the carrier density per site, V is the attractive interaction, t is the nearest neighbour hopping integral, and is the next nearest neighbour hopping ratio; (2)?the BCS?BE crossover line is strongly affected by the presence of ?D/4t and that of ?actually, the values of V/4t needed to achieve the Bose?Einstein regime become extremely large for small values of ?D/4t; and (3)?both ?/4t and ?/4t strongly depend on the values of ?D/4t and . The results?(1) are in agreement with the ones found by Perali et al (2003 Phys.?Rev.?B 68 066501 (Preprint cond-mat/0211132)) and Rodr?guez-N??ez et al (2003 Phys.?Rev.?B 68 066502), and in disagreement with those of den Hertog and Soares et al.
We study the effect of the next-nearest-neighbor (NNN) hopping matrix element ${t}^{\ensuremath{'}}$ on the zero-temperature (T=0K)(T=0\mathrm{K})(T=0K) crossover phase diagram, namely, from the BCS limit to the Bose-Einstein regime, for a model which presents a ${d}_{{x}^{2}\ensuremath{-}{y}^{2}}$ superconductor order parameter symmetry. This theoretical generalization is required by angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy experiments. Our NNN hopping is characterized by the parameter $\ensuremath{\alpha}\ensuremath{\equiv}{t}^{\ensuremath{'}}/t\ensuremath{\ne}0,$ where t is the nearest neighbor hopping matrix element. For \ensuremath{\alpha}\ensuremath{\geqslant}0, there is a crossover of BCS binding energy type as described [B. C. den Hertog, Phys. Rev. B 60, 559 (1999)] by keeping the density fixed. However, for \ensuremath{\alpha}0, the system is always in the Bose-Einstein regime for $n~{n}_{c}\ensuremath{\approx}0.12.$ We conclude that the presence of the NNN hopping matrix element drastically influences the crossover diagram for a ${d}_{{x}^{2}\ensuremath{-}{y}^{2}}$ superconductor.
Comment on "Evolution from BCS Superconductivity to Bose-Einstein Condensation: Role of the Parameter kFξk_{\rm F} \xikF​ξ in Interpreting the Experimental Plot by Uemura et al.''}
The problem of crossover from BCS to Bose-Einstein condensation has recently attracted considerable interest owing to the discovery of high-TcT_{\rm c}Tc​ cuprates. Their short coherence length, ξ\xiξ, places these materials in the interesting region between BCS and Bose-Einstein condensation. In the paper of F. Pistolesi and G.C. Strinati (Phys. Rev. B {\bf 49}, 6356 (1994)), the Nozi\`eres and Schmitt-Rink approach (NSR) is taken, which is valid for the weak coupling regime. They derive a relation between TcT_{\rm c}Tc​ and TFT_{\rm F}TF​, which they insist is valid for any coupling strength. We present arguments that their assumptions are incorrect by using our fully self-consistent T-matrix formalism in two dimensions, and show that the NSR approach produces unphysical results in this case.
We have analyzed the doping and temperature dependencies of the physical properties of a square-lattice narrow-band superconductor with a relevant for systems with local Hubbard repulsion nematic pairing due to effective nearest-neighbor attraction. Our focus was a possible crossover of the system from the Bardeen–Cooper–Schrieffer (BCS) superconductivity to the Bose–Einstein condensation (BEC) regimes with increasing temperature. We have found that in the d-channel the crossover does not take place at realistic values of doping and temperature, and even at a large attraction, i.e., the system is always in the BCS regime, unlike the “usual” d-wave superconductor. Contrary to non-nematic d-wave superconductors, the chemical potential μ always grows with temperature increase that might indicate an unexpectedly large size of Cooper pairs. At the same time, in the s-channel, we have found a BCS–BEC crossover with temperature for a wide range of temperatures even at rather high dopings, nf ≈ 0.2. This result is different from the “usual” s-case, where a narrow-band (i.e., at strong coupling) system is always in the BEC state. We have found for a given large value of attraction that there is a value of doping when for a wide range of temperature the system is in a “pre-crossover” regime with μ ≈ 0, i.e., in a regime of coexistence of local and extended pairs. Thus, in narrow-band systems a “usual” s-superconductor is in a BEC state, but in the nematic case one can expect a BCS–to–BEC crossover with temperature growth at realistic system parameters, i.e., the crossover might be measured experimentally.
[[abstract]]The ground-state energy, the concentration of double occupied sites and the density of bound electron pairs in low-dimensional attractive Hubbard model are calculated by means of the generalized self-consistent field (GSCF) approach. This approach gives an excellent agreement with the corresponding Bethe-ansatz solution and the quantum Monte-Carlo calculations in a wide range of interaction strength U < 0 and electron concentration n. A simple relationship is found between the order parameter and the density of bound electron pairs, valid for any dimension and in entire parameter space U, n and magnetic field h. The electron pairing and the crossover from the itinerant BCS regime into the Bose condensation regime of local pairs are studied in dependence of both U and n. The GSCF theory correctly displays the separation of the energy gap from the BCS order parameter at n not equal 1 as \U \ increases. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.