Citation |

- Permanent Link:
- http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00014273/00001
## Material Information- Title:
- Quasiparticale interference and the local electronic structure of disordered d-Wave superconductors
- Creator:
- Zhu, Lingyin
- Publication Date:
- 2005
- Language:
- English
- Physical Description:
- xiv, 117 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.
## Subjects- Subjects / Keywords:
- Atoms ( jstor )
Electrons ( jstor ) Energy ( jstor ) Fermi surfaces ( jstor ) Greens function ( jstor ) Impurities ( jstor ) Momentum ( jstor ) Quasiparticles ( jstor ) Superconductivity ( jstor ) Superconductors ( jstor ) Dissertations, Academic -- Physics -- UF ( lcsh ) Physics thesis, Ph. D ( lcsh ) - Genre:
- bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt ) non-fiction ( marcgt )
## Notes- Thesis:
- Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 2005.
- Bibliography:
- Includes bibliographical references.
- General Note:
- Printout.
- General Note:
- Vita.
- Statement of Responsibility:
- by Lingyin Zhu.
## Record Information- Source Institution:
- University of Florida
- Holding Location:
- University of Florida
- Rights Management:
- Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
- Resource Identifier:
- 027719682 ( ALEPH )
880138586 ( OCLC )
## UFDC Membership |

Downloads |

## This item has the following downloads: |

Full Text |

QUASIPARTICLE INTERFERENCE AND THE LOCAL ELECTRONIC STRUCTURE OF DISORDERED d-WAVE SUPERCONDUCTORS By LINGYIN ZHU A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005 Copyright 2005 by Lingyin Zhu I dedicate this work to my loyal family. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I attribute the completion of my dissertation in great part to my wonderful It i I advisor and friends. I would like to express my special gratitude to Prof. Peter Joseph Hirschfeld for his patience, caring guidance and invaluable friendship. He has been not only an academic advisor, but also a mentor to me. If there is a perfect advisor, he can never be closer to that. Special thanks go to Prof. David Tanner for his continuous care and support and Prof. Douglas Scalapino for his instructive discussions with me. I appreciate the invaluable help from Prof. Alan T. Dorsey greatly. I should also thank my committee members Prof. Selman Hirchfield, and Prof. Stephen Pearton for their time and input. I have benefitted greatly from stimulating conversations with my best friends Xu Du, 21,iw..,.- and Tamara, Brian, Ashot, Matthew,Wei, Suhas, Fillippo. Finally, the loyalty and encouragement from my family were the priceless treasure to me in the past 28 years. I can never thank my wife enough for her tolerance, understanding, support and what she has sacrificed for me. I am forever indebted to my ., io.11 Irl and my parents: they seeded this special moment with endless love and have been .- 1 .... for it for so long. I wish my dear grandma could share this happiness with all of us in heaven, peacefully. TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........... ................... iv LIST OF TABLES .. .............. .............. viii LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ix ABSTRACT ............................ ........ xiii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............ .................... 1 1.1 History of High Temperature Superconductivity .......... 1 1.2 Background About High Temperature Superconductivity ..... 2 1.2.1 Crystal Structure ....................... 2 1.2.2 Phase Diagram .................. ..... 3 1.3 Current Situation in High Temperature Superconductivity Research 5 1.3.1 What We Know About High Temperature Superconductivity 7 1.3.2 What We Do Not Know About High Temperature Super- conductivity .............. ... ..... 7 1.4 Disorder ill Spectroscopic Experiments ............ 8 1.4.1 Scanning Tunnelling Microscopy (STM): In Touch With A tom s .. .. 8 1.4.2 Impurities in Bi2Sr2CaCu120 : A Probe of High Tempera- ture superconductivity ................... 9 2 SINGLE IMPURITY PROBLEM ................. 13 2.1 One Impurity in Normal State ................... 13 2.1.1 Bound State and Resonant State ............... 13 2.1.2 Local Density of States: Friedel Oscillations and Ripples in the Fermi Sea ............. ........ 15 2.2 Green's function for BCS Superconductors .............. 16 2.3 One Impurity in an s-wave Superconductor ............. 18 2.3.1 Nonmagnetic Impurity Problem .............. ..18 2.3.2 Magnetic Impurity Problem .. 19 2.4 One Impurity in a d-wave Superconductor 20 2.4.1 Nonmagnetic Impurity ................... .20 2.4.2 Magnetic Impurity .. 26 2.4.3 Discussion: Characteristics of Impurities ... 28 3 QUANTUM INTERFERENCE BETWEEN IMPURITIES ........ 32 3.1 Two Impurities in a d-wave Superconductor ............ 33 3.1.1 T-matrix and Resonance Frequency ............. 33 3.1.2 Resonance Frequencies ................. .. 35 3.1.3 The Interference of Two One-impurity Wavefunctions 38 3.1.4 Local Density of States, Realistic Band and Standing Wave Condition ....... ..... ........... 41 3.2 DOS of two Impurities and Many Impurities at w = 0 : Local Resonance vs. Cumulative Interference .... 47 3.2.1 Perturbative Prediction: SCTMA and Its Validity 47 3.2.2 Nonperturbative Predictions: .... 48 3.2.3 Divergence in Pure Nested Band with Unitary Scatters .. 49 3.2.4 Discussion: Bridge Between the Two-impurity and the Many- impurity Problems ...... 53 3.2.5 Conclusion ......... .... 56 3.3 Power Spectrum for Many Impurities .... 57 3.3.1 Weak Scattering Limit: Octet Model and Kinematics of Quasiparticles ........................ 58 3.3.2 Power Spectrum for Many Impurities in Bi2Sr2CaCu20O 60 4 DISCUSSION: QUASIPARTICLES, DISORDERS AND THEIR IMPLI- CATIONS FOR STM SPECTROSCOPY .... 68 4.1 Atomic Level Resonances, Quasparticle States and Unitary Scat- ters ................ ..... ...... 68 4.2 Nanoscale Gap Inhomogeneity .................. 70 4.3 Long-range Modulation and Exotic Orders ... 74 5 ANGLE-RESOLVED PHOTOEMISSION SPECTRA OF DISORDERED CUPRATES ....... ............. ...... .. 76 5.1 Angle-resolved Photoemission Spectra of High Temperature Su- perconductors ............................ 77 5.1.1 Spectral Function and Self-energy .............. 77 5.1.2 Self-energy in Normal and '%i.. [* .,i,,. t i.-, States 78 5.2 Elastic Forward Scattering in Bi2Sr2CaCu2Os ... 82 5.2.1 Self-energy ........ 82 5.2.2 Spectral Function ................ ... .. 89 5.3 Discussion and Conclusion ................. .. .. 94 6 CONCLUSION AND REMAINING QUESTIONS .... 97 APPENDIX ................... 99 A GREEN'S FUNCTION FOR THE SUPERCONDUCTING STATE .. 99 B EVALUATION OF THE SELF-ENERGY IN BORN APPROXIMATION 102 B.1 "Yukawa I" Potential ............. ............ 102 B.1.1 Normal State ................... 102 B.1.2 Superconducting State ..... .. 103 B.2 F .... n i l" Potential ................... .. 106 B.2.1 Normal State .................. .... .. .. 107 B.2.2 Superconducting State ........... .. .. .. 107 B.3 Delta-function Type Potentials ..... .. 107 REFERENCES... ..... ......... .......... 110 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................ .. .. 117 vii LIST OF TABLES Table p 2-1 The imaginary part of self-energies due to non-magnetic impurities in superconductors ................... ......... 21 2-2 The ionization energy of Copper and Zinc atoms ... 30 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 The crystal structure of La2CuO4. Red sphere: Cu2+; blue sphere: 02-; yellow sphere: La3+. .................. 2 1 2 Schematic plot of the phase diagram of hole-doped high temperature superconductors. X axis: hole dopant concentration; y axis: tem- perature. . 4 1-3 Current situation in high temperature superconductivity. ...... .. 6 1-4 The crystal structure of Bi2Sr2CaCu2O0 ..... 10 1-5 STM image in Bi2Sr2CaCu2Os showing a) atomic scale native defect resonances; b) Zn resonance. Both were taken at zero bias ... 11 2 1 Diagranunatic representation for the scattering process by single im- purity. Coarse arrow: full Green's function; solid line: pure Green's function; cross: impurity; dashline: impurity potential. ...... .. 14 2 2 Schematic illustration of the bound state in normal metal. Left:solution to the T-matrix; Right: the bound state is only located at high en- ergies, i.e., outside of the band. ............... .. .... 15 2-3 LDOS modification due to single impurity in metals. Right: image on the surface of Ag [36]; left: theoretical calculation of LDOS around a single impurity in a two-dimensional metal. .... 16 2-4 Schematic illustration of the pair breaking effect due to potential scat- ters in a d-wave superconductor. ................. 21 2-5 The fall-off of LDOS around a native defect. ............. .24 2-6 On-site and NN site spectra for tight binding band with one impurity. 25 2-7 Conductance spectra above the Ni atom and at several nearby loca- tions. Solid circle: on-site; open circle: NN-site; square: 2NN-site; triangle: 30A away from Ni; solid line: average of the first four spec- tra ................. .... 27 2-8 Left: the schematic plot of CuO2 plane; middle: experimental LDOS around Zn impurity; right: theoretically predicted LDOS for Vo = 5.3t (rotated by 45 with respect to a) and b)). ... 28 2-9 The resonance frequency as a function of scattering potential Vo; in- set: the resonance frequency as a function of 1/Vo. ... 31 3-1 Two-impurity resonance energies l,2 vs impurity orientation. 38 3-2 The wavefunction at resonance and corresponding LDOS. Impurities are separated by R = (6,6). ..... ...... 40 3-3 Spectra on the nearest sites close to the impurities. See text for de- tails. ................... .... .. ....... 41 3 4 LDOS maps at resonant energies for R 11 (110). Pure nested band, Vo = 10t; Impurity separations are shown on the top of the graph. 43 3-5 LDOS maps at resonant energies for R 1| (100). Pure nested band, Vo = 10t; Impurity separations are shown on the top of the graph. 44 3-6 LDOS spectra for realistic band and Vo = 5.3tl on nearest neigh- bor site. Left panel: impurities at (-R/2, 0) and (R/2, 0) ( R = (R, 0)), spectra taken at r = (R/2, 1). Right panel: impurities at (-R/2, -R/2) and (R/2, R/2) ( R = (R, R)), spectra taken at r =(R/2, R/2 + 1) .................. ........ 45 3-7 Fermi surface of BSCCO-2212 with constant energy surfaces at w = 0.04 shown as small filled ellipses at the nodal points. ql, q2, q3 are wave vectors for which the joint density of states is large. ... 46 3-8 Schematic plot of the self-energy diagram with many impurities. .. 48 3 -9 Schematic figure of the many-impurity DOS (a) in the unitary limit of the half-filled band and (b) in the unitary limit of a generic band. 48 3-10 Schematic plot of bipartite lattice. .................. ..50 3- 11 ( I. ii-. in p(w) due to impurities. Impurity separation: R = (2, 2). 51 3-12 Change in p(w) due to impurities. Impurity separation: R = (2, 1). 52 3-13 (a) DOS for Vo=100t. (b) Scaling of the DOS with V0. (c) Scaling of the DOS with L. (d) Scaling of the DOS with Vo and L=60. .... 53 3-14 LDOS for 2% concentration of impurities and IEn| < 10-5t (20 eigen- values). ...... .......... ....... ........... 55 3-15 LDOS for 0.5% concentration of impurities. Left: E, = 0.0385t; right: averaged over five eigenvalue in energy interval IE, 0.03t\ < 0.02t. 57 3-16 Left panel:the constant energy contours with the q vectors; right panel: the evolutions of q vectors as a function of energy. ... 58 3-17 FTDOS at w =14 meV for weak potential scatters (Vo = 0.67t1): (a) for one weak impurity, with a few important scattering wavevec- tors indicated; (b) for 0.15% weak scatterers. Cuts through the data of (a)(thick line) and (b)(thin line) along the (110) direction and scaled by 1/ J are plotted vs. q, in (c), while (d) shows the weak scattering response function Im A3(q,w). Peaks at q = 0 are re- moved for clarity. In all the figures, the x and y axes are aligned with the Cu-0 bonds ................... .. 62 3 18 The plot of Nambu component of spectral functions at several fre- quencies ......... ...... ..... ....... 64 3 19 Comparison of theory and experiment. Left panel: LDOS; middle panel: calculated FTDOS; right panel: FTDOS from STM exper- iments ............ ...... ....... ........ 67 4 1 Zn impurity resonance, left channel: dI/dV Vs.w; right channel: the LDOS spectrum above the Zn site. .. ...... 69 4 2 The gapmap of overdoped BSSCO. Sample size 500Ax500A ..... 71 4 3 Spectra on different sites along the horizontal cut. ... 71 4-4 Gap map from numerical solution of BDG equations with only smooth disorder. .. ......... .... ....... .. 73 4-5 LDOS along the horizontal cut in the top figure .... 73 5-1 ARPES spectra from overdoped Bi2212 (T,=87K). a) normal- and b), (c) superconducting state data measured at the k point indi- cated in the inset of (c). ................... 79 5 2 Geometry for the forward scattering process in which a quasiparticle scatters from k to k'. ................. ....... 83 5 3 The self-energy terms -Im Eo(k,w), Im El(k,w), and -Im E3(k,w) in the superconducting state at T = 0 for k = kA (top) and kN (bottom), for K = 5 and 0.5 and the same band and scattering pa- rameters as previously used. Here Ak = Ao (cos, cos k,)/2 with Ao = 0.2t .. ......... .. ............... 86 5-4 Scattering rate t,,(k,w) vs. w for k = kA(left) and kN(right) in the superconducting state at T = 0, for K = 5 (top) and K = 0.5 (bot- tom). Here Fo(kA) = 0.21. ................ .... ..88 5-5 Finite temperature spectral function at the antinodal point A and nodal point N on the Fermi surface multiplied by the fermi func- tion. Results for n = 2 and 0.5 with Fo(kA) = 0.2t are shown. 92 5-6 A(k,w) vs. w for n = 2 and 0.5. Results are given for the k points at (Tr, 0), (r, 0.05r), (ir, 0.17), (7, 0.15r). The disorder levels corre- spond to ro(kA)/Ao = 1, 0.5, and 0.025. Note the spectra for dif- ferent k points have been offset for clarity. .... 93 5-7 Comparison between recent ARPES data (left panel) and calculated A(k, w) (right panel). .................. ...... .. 94 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy QUASIPARTICLE INTERFERENCE AND THE LOCAL ELECTRONIC STRUCTURE OF DISORDERED d-WAVE SUPERCONDUCTORS By Lingyin Zhu May 2005 Chair: Peter J. Hirschfeld Major Department: Physics This dissertation studies the electronic structure of disordered cuprate super- conductors. Bi2Sr2CaCu2aO (BSCCO), a typical candidate for high temperature superconductivity(HTS), is believed to be intrinsically nonstochiometric due to the way it is prepared. The anisotropic form of the gap function makes the quasi- particle states extremely sensitive to impurities and therefore the spectroscopy and transport properties of BSCCO are influenced significantly by disorder. This compound is singled out for study because it turns out to be the most suitable sample for surface probes like angle-resolved photoemission (ARPES) and scanning tunnelling microscopy (STM). In this dissertation, two kinds of nonmagnetic impurities are studied: point- like, strong scatters and spatially extended, weak scatters, since both are believed to occur naturally in BSCCO. The quantum interference between two point-like scatters is solved explicitly, with detailed analysis of the resonant energy, local density of states and interference of wavefunctions. Understanding of the low energy DOS for a fully-disordered system is developed at the local two-impurity level. It is pointed out the divergent DOS at the Fermi level proposed by Pepin and Lee [1] is the consequence of a special nesting symmetry possessed by the half-filled tight-binding model as well as two-impurity interference. The Fourier transformed density of states in the presence of impurities is also studied. It is proposed that unitary and extended scatters are both necessary to explain the experimental observations. The implication of weak scatters on nanoscale gap inhomogeneity is discussed afterwards. I! ,i, ll the influence of forward scatters on single particle spectral functions is investigated. It is found that the II- .. ,-.' due to forward scattering collapses in the superconducting state. It is then concluded that a wealth of data from experiments different in nature can be understood in terms of quasiparticle scattering due to impurities of various spatial structure. The limitations of the quasiparticle scattering scenario are also discussed. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 History of High Temperature Superconductivity The year of 1986 witnessed one of the most revolutionary discoveries in the history of science -high temperature superconductivity-by Bednorz and Miiller [2]. The critical temperature T,, below which the electrons can pair and superconduct, was unprecedentedly as high as 35K in the perovskite structure. Such a high transition temperature suggested the possibility of superconductivity (SC) even at the liquid nitrogen temperature and immediately created a renaissance in research on superconductivity. The enthusiasm and perseverance invested in this area over the past two decades have been particularly fruitful and have led to the application of related techniques to diverse fields of industry. Besides the previously inconceivable increase in T, ( which is approximately 153K now !), a collection of novel physical effects, such as the anisotropic form of the order parameter, peculiar normal state properties, hidden ordered states and so on, emerged successively, but generally in unexpected manners. Their appearances kept turning over our conventional understanding of SC within the BCS framework [3] and stimulated numerous theoretical concepts aiming at the explanation on the underlying mechanism of HTS [5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. However, until now, a basic yet convincing picture of HTS has not been found, not only because of deficiencies in proposed theories, but also because of the lack of direct experimental tests at the microscopic level (Until 1999, only bulk measurements such as conductivity, heat capacity, etc. were available). Due to the omnipresence of -..-in. ... disorder in all HTS samples, analysis of all such experiments required a model of disorder treated in an effective medium approach. This obstacle was circumvented in 1999, by the notable progress in the scanning tunnelling microscopy technique. The differential conductance map Figure 1-1: The crystal structure of La2CuO4. Red sphere: Cu2"; blue sphere: 02-; yellow sphere: La4. displays an amazing surface structure of superconducting samples with atomic resolution [10]. The improved low temperature STM boosted our observational capacity to an unprecedentedly fine level and enabled us to concentrate on the electronic properties of high temperature superconductors (HTS) in the view of local probes. This has raised a new era of the theoretical study of HTS and contributed to the debate over the nature of the pseudogap regime where electronic states display spontaneous ordering and possibly intrinsic inhomogeneity. 1.2 Background About High Temperature Superconductivity 1.2.1 Crystal Structure Among the various types of HTS, the copper-oxide compounds, generally referred to as cuprates, are of particular importance. They usually possess high critical temperatures and complicated crystal structures. But what really makes them so interesting is the illuminating ubiquity of CuO2 planes. These layers are separated by intervening insulating layers (See Fig. 1-1). LaCCuO4 is a typical candidate, whose structure basically mimics a "sandwich," with one CuO2 plane between two LaO planes. Each Cu atom is surrounded by four in-plane and two out-of-plane oxygen atoms forming a perovskite structure. The electronic structure of parent compounds of HTS is quite unusual. Con- ventionally, transition metal oxides have 3d and 2p orbitals whose bare energies are well separated, and the strong local Coulomb interaction gives rise to superex- change mediating long range antiferromagnetic order in a Mott-insulating state with gap of order 10 eV; in HTS compounds, Cu atoms lose two electrons and become divalent ions, leaving a hole in the 3d,2ry orbit with a net 1/2 spin; the 3d level of copper ions is so close to the in-plane -, level of oxygen ions that they hybridize' strongly with each other to form the so-called charge transfer insulators with a much smaller insulating gap (~ 2ev). 1.2.2 Phase Diagram Superconducting materials are formed from the half-filled antiferromagnetic Mott-type ground state when the parent compounds are doped, leaving mobile carriers in the CuO, plane. The evolution of the electronic and magnetic order upon doping establishes a complicated phase diagram as illustrated in Fig. 1- 2 [11]. The intrinsic antiferromagnetic magnetic order is quickly destroyed by adding a small number of holes, and only occupies a "sliver" region close to hall- :.!II.,. whereas lr .... i 1 r in electron-doped samples is more robust. When the doping increases, a spin-glass behavior may be present before the superconducting phase appears. At a certain minimal hole concentration, we obtain the superconducting state. The critical temperature increases initially with the doping concentration, peaks at about x = 0.16 (optimally doped), and then decreases until it drops to zero. Besides the high critical temperature and the peculiar low carrier density in this domain, the unusual shape of the energy gap in momentum space is another defining property in HTS. And it is ( i1 the reason I HI 1 I.. includes many physical procedures here: the crystal field split- ting lifts the degeneracy of 3d Cu atomic level; Jahn-Teller effect further lifts the degeneracy by crystal distortion; the resultant 3d orbitals then hybridize with the in-plane 2p oxygen orbitals to form Cu-O bands which we may have Mott insulator or charge transfer insulator depending on where the lower anti-bonding Hubbard band lies. T Strange IMtal T(K) Pseudogap Optimally doped Underdoped Overdoped AFM T Halsd r Superconductor 0.16 Holes per CuO, plane Figure 1 2: Schematic plot of the phase diagram of hole-doped high temperature superconductors. X axis: hole dopant concentration; y axis: temperature. we generally refer to them as unconventional superconductors: the order parameter is found to possess a dz_,2 symmetry, lower than that of the Fermi surface itself. The w. .......l. ,.... phase becomes unstable at higher temperatures since thermal fluctuations break the ground state Cooper pairs and a "normal" domain with anomalous attributes emerges. It is the normal phase of HTS since the temperature T > T,, but is anomalous in the sense that the conventional Fermi liquid (FL) theory of metals fails to predict its one particle spectrum and transport properties [12, 13, 14, 15]. Among numerous proposals, the so-called Marginal Fermi Liquid theory" [8] (MFL) was aimed to address the normal state properties of cuprates by reconciling the contradiction between the well-defined Fermi surface and the non-Fermi liquid (but universal) behaviors in a phenomenological fashion. In the MFL theory, electrons are postulated to couple with bosonic excitations whose spectrum is only a scale-invariant function of energy and temperature, i.e., B(w, T) ~ min(w/T, 1). As the consequence, the self-energy for the coherent component of the one particle spectrum, extracted from this proposal displays a peculiar form (See Ch. 5 for details) with logarithmically vanishing Z = (1 - dReE(w)/ddw) at zero temperature on the Fermi surface. The Marginal Fermi Liquid theory has proved to be reasonably consistent with a wealth of unusual experimental observations, such as the linear resistivity I, in several decades of temperature, but has never been convincingly derived from a microscopic theory. Especially, how it yields the momentum-anisotropic d-wave pairing symmetry is the intrinsic deficiency of this theory (although it has been argued that this could come from the vertex corrections). In the optimal- and overdoped region, while the normal state property is fairly depicted by MFL theory, a conventional BCS theory is believed to be qualitatively applicable to the superconducting states, with the order parameter taken to possess d-wave like symmetry. There is one well-established, controversial region which is presently at the heart of the debate of HTS, which lies in the crossover from AF order to SC state, above the possible messy spin glass phase. It is named the "pseudogap" phase because of the spectroscopic identification of strongly depleted density of states (DOS) near the Fermi level. The pseudogap temperature T*, below which this phenomenon develops, declines linearly with increasing doping and merges with T, at roughly optimal concentration. This phase is believed by some physicists to be strongly related to the superconducting state in that it evolves smoothly into the latter and displays a similar d-wave symmetry in the order parameter. So far, numerous theories such as, spin-fluctuation [4], resonant-valence bond [5], precursor scenario [17], and competing states [18] have been proposed to address the underlying mechanism of the pseudogap region with each of them winning support from certain experiments [19]. Nevertheless, there is yet no consensus about the origin of the pseudogap to date. 1.3 C un ir i ; _,i ,, ;, |T;, iT i, ,i, ,. ,,, i. n i I. II ,i. h h n l The research on HTS in the past twenty years attracted an enormous amount of theoretical and experimental attention, generating interest from physicists, chemists, material scientists, and even mathematicians because of its fascinating Figure 1-3: Current situation in high temperature superconductivity. anomalous behavior observed and enticing potential applications. However, despite all this work, no consensus on the origin of unconventional superconductivity has been reached and there is a huge number of interpretations on HTS, based on the diverse observations collected from different groups, with different techniques, and on different physical properties. In fact, the current situation in the study of high temperature superconductivity can be "figuratively" depicted by Fig. 1 3 -:- which comes from a famous Indian Buddhist parable about the blind men and the elephant. And the following paragraph from this famous parable reflects how intensive the debate among them over the shape of the elephant ( according to everyone's own understanding) is: "Oh, how they cling and wrangle, some who claim For preacher and monk the honored name! For, quarrelling, each to his view they cling. Such folk see only one side of a thing." There is such an analogy happening in the high-T, community! I am sure that one day the "Buddha" ( a correct and comprehensive theory) will come for the sake of our piety and opens our eyes to the rest of the "elephant" (the nature of high temperature superconductivity), but I would like to, with the modest expectation that I could not be the most "blind" disciple, summarize the appearance of the monster after "caressing" it carefully: 1.3.1 What We Know About High Temperature Superconductivity 1. Cuprates have copper oxide planes, and these planes are crucial to high tem perature ii. I..ii.,. t. .r. 2. The electrons pair up in the CuO2 plane in a state with d-wave symmetry; there are nodes in the pairing function which give lower energy excitations in quasiparticle spectra; 3. The carrier density in HTS is considerably lower than that of the conven- tional superconductors; the coherence length is as small as (0 ~ 3 4a; 4. It is the proximity to a underdoped antiferromagnetic Mott insulator that may be essential to understand HTS, and probably indicative of the underly- ing magnetic mechanism of HTS; 5. Cuprates are in general metals; there exists generically a Fermi surface (at least a segment) in these samples. Normal states are anomalous, compared to good metals which can be well described by Fermi liquid theory. 1.3.2 What We Do Not Know About High Temperature Superconductivity 1. What is the mechanism responsible for the formation of Cooper pairs? 2. What is the nature of the normal state and the pseudogap regime? 3. What do the disorders in HTS tell us? What is the source of the local inhomogeneities observed in the tunnelling experiments? The collection of known and unknown aspects of cuprates paints the big picture about high temperature superconductivity but also imposes rather constraints on any theory regarding the fundamental mechanism. In my dissertation, I do not intend to propose any novel fundamental mechanism or reconcile the discrepancies between already existing theories; instead, I will concentrate on an interesting issue related to the impurities in d-wave superconductor, which has been the focus in the recent spectroscopic experiments on cuprates and discussed intensively by a huge number of illuminating works, within the extended version of conventional BCS quasiparticle theory in high temperature superconductivity. 1.4 Disorder in Spectroscopic Experiments 1.4.1 Scanning Tunnelling Microscopy (STM): In Touch With Atoms In 1981 Binnig and Rohrer revolutionized the field of surface science by inventing the scanning 1 .ni. IIn;,., microscopy [21]. When a fine pointed tip of metallic needle is brought extremely close to the sample surface (in general a few Angstroms) and a voltage is applied in between, the wavelike properties of electrons allow quantum tunnelling to happen. The probability of finding the I ...I. lih.. electrons decays exponentially when the distance between the tip and the sample surface increases. The topographical image of the surface is registered as the variation in the current when the tip scans over the surface. First-order time-dependent perturbation theory gives out the tunnelling current as function of sample bias V and position r: I(r, V) 27re r, V)= {f(p) [1-f(l-eV)-f(v)[1-f(E,-eV)]}lMJ(r)'28(E,-E,+eV). rv (1.1) where A,,(r) is the -.II... matrix element and f the Fermi function. The 6 function conserves the energy as it does in the usual cases. With several appropri- ate assumptions2 we can write I as I(r, V) = e-k dep(r, EF + e), (1.2) where r is the coordinate of points sampled and z is the vertical distance between the tip and the plane: the local density of state (LDOS) is defined as p(r, E) '. I, .,I E,). (1.3) 2 1) the -i.,. lii... event is extremely localized (this ensures the ,.[I Ui cur- rent is proportional to the local density of states): 2) it is spin-independent; 3) for small V, we can using WKB approximation such that AI(k, z) Aloe ", where k'2 = 4mr(Aw + V)/h' for a rectangular barrier of height A,,. Assiuning that p(r, E) is roughly a constant, the the differential tunnelling con- ductance dl/dV is proportional to the LDOS (this can be obtained by moving the tip away or towards to the surface to maintain a constant current and then apply an ,i. i!,, .i. voltage). This separation enables us to compare the theoretically calculate LDOS with the STM measurement qualitatively. The invention of STM technique opened an new era of surface science by extending our "fingers" to atoms and obtain atomic resolution images of sample surfaces for the first time. It was such an important contribution that Binnig and Rohrer were awarded with the Nobel Prize of physics in 1986. In the study of high temperature superconductivity, STM also contributed in a unique way, especially from 1999, by producing stun- ning local electronic images of the surface of BSCCO and providing local spectral information. 1.4.2 Impurities in Bi2Sr2CaCu2Os : A Probe of High Temperature superconductivity ,.i ', ., I is a typical candidate of high temperature superconductors. It is well known that the Van der Waals coupling between the BiO layers in BSSCO makes it easy to cleave (Fig. 1 4) and obtain the image of its surface by STM. However, this attribute also provides space where dopant oxygen atoms can reside and hence result in interesting experimental observations. Five years ago, the first high-resolution STM experiment on BSCCO [10] displayed fascinating atomic- scale resonances (as shown in Fig. 1-5), whose spatial and spectroscopic features agreed crudely with the theory of strong quasiparticle scattering from impurities in a d-wave superconductor. This agreement underscored the possibility of using impurities of different electronic properties to probe the superconducting phase [22, 23]. Publications about STM images on the ir, ? I....ii. impurity-doped BSCCO soon appeared, supporting the simple theoretical impurity scattering models by their qualitative agreement with predicted resonance energies and fourfold spatial structure [24, 25. 26]. Subsequent STM measurements revealed further the existence of nanoscale inhomnogeneities in the order parameter map [33,either to interactiondriven effects such as stripe formation [31, 32] or to the34]. [33, 34]. Figure 1 5: STM image in Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8 showing a) atomic scale native defect resonances; b) Zn resonance. Both were taken at zero bias. Appreciable differences in the spectroscopic and transport properties between BSCCO and YBCO, another popular HTS material (T, 2 93K), were reported extensively [34, 35], despite the fact that both are good high temperature supercon- ductors with well-identified d-wave order parameters as well. These discrepancies were not successfully reconciled until it was realized that unlike YBCO, BSCCO is ,irr,,.... l,!." contaminated by disorder through the way it is prepared; this was gradually established by the accumulated facts from STM and ARPES exper- iments. The charge inhomogeneity introduced by doping is poorly screened by the states in the CuO2 plane and induces spatially smooth potentials from which quasi- particles scatter. We have proposed that the dopant disorder should be responsible for the observed unusual properties of BSCCO. Hi.--r... ol. disorder studies have played essential roles in the comprehension of superconductivity: we can understand the mechanism of superconductivity by understanding how it could be destroyed by perturbations. However, until recently, research on impurity effects was limited to their impact on bulk properties such as transport coefficients or heat capacity, in which a finite concentration of disorder is generally assumed and treated in a statistical manner. It is the improvement in STM image resolution that enables us for the first time to focus on the local response from the superconducting state to one single impurity individually, from 12 which we can attempt to understand inter-impurity correlations and macroscopic disorder phenomena from a microscopic point of view. CHAPTER 2 SINGLE IMPURITY PROBLEM The study of the impact of impurities or atomic-scale disorder on the physical properties of materials has been of great theoretical and practical significance. In reality, no samples are pure. As Pauli said: "solid state physics is the physics of dirt." Sometimes impurities are destructive to desired physics; sometimes they are substituted intentionally to bring out special features and help identifying the underlying physics of the pure system. For example, impurity induced Friedel oscillations can aid to probe the kinematics of quasiparticles in metals [36, 37]. In this chapter, I will discuss the effect of a single impurity in an otherwise clean sample. The cases in normal metals and conventional superconductors are reviewed, followed by detailed analysis of the case of a d-wave superconductor. I will then discuss the discrepancies between recent STM experiments and theoretical predictions. 2.1 One Impurity in Normal State 2.1.1 Bound State and Resonant State It is of pedagogical significance to review the problem of single impurity in a metallic state before we begin to discuss its effect in a superconductor. The simplest grand canonical haniltonian for the normal state problem is i = (c(k) u1)ck,, + Y V+OCkCk (2.1) k k,k' where Ck, ctk are the creation and annihilation operators of particles respectively The first term in Eqn. 2.1 describes the single particle dispersion of the non- interacting ground state and the latter denotes the on-site energy change due to the perturbation (The single impurity is assumed to be located at R=0). The + 2 + Figure 2 1: Diagrammatic representation for the scattering process by single im- purity. Coarse arrow: full Green's function; solid line: pure Green's function; cross: impurity; dashline: impurity potential. single particle propagator is defined as G(k, k') = -(Tck(r)ct,), with 7 being the imaginary time. In the case of free fermions, it takes the simple form: G"(k,w) [w (k)]-' (2.2) The single impurity problem is ... i. i i!i solved by the so-called T-matrix method which provides immediate access to spectral properties [38]. The perturbed Green's function can be expressed in terms of the pure propagator G and the T-matrix as G = Go + GoTGo, (2.3) where the T-matrix is defined as T = V + VGT (2.4) and V is the potential matrix. Fig. 2-1 shows the perturbative expansion of the full Green's function in a geometric series in V. In the case of isotropic point-like scattering, i.e., V(r) = Vo6(r r') (Vo is the impurity strength), the T-matrix is momentum- independent and reduces to a simple form: vs T(w) 1 V k ) (2.5) 1 Vo Ek Go(k, W) The poles of T-matrix signify the formation of new quantum states, since they are not poles of Go, i.e., the eigenstates of the pure system. There are two kinds of states introduced in general, as shown in Fig. 2-2: a discrete, real bound or anti-bound state located outside of the band where the imaginary part of G() = Gk OG(k, w) vanishes, i.e., where the density of states (DOS) is zero (the -- -- _fl) no low-E BS Figure 2-2: Schematic illustration of the hound state in normal metal. Left:solution to the T-matrix; Right: the hound state is only located at high energies, i.e., out- side of the band. right panel), and an overdamped state in the continuum, which has a finite lifetime because of its overlapping with the background (the left panel). A real bound state is generically localized on an atomic scale if the impurity potential is of short range. 2.1.2 Local Density of States: Friedel Oscillations and Ripples in the Fermi Sea Apart from the determination of bound state energies, the correction to the local density of states due to the impurity is interesting as well. The introduction of the imperfection does break the stillness of the degenerate Fermi sea, inducing "ripples" in the space referred to as the Friedel oscillations. The change of LDOS in the bound state is 6N (r, ) = l,'. ,,r 1 .. o). (2.6) In a two-dimensional space, the real space Green's function is evaluated as GO(r,w) .- .. I ,'', .... r], k(w)= kF 1+ (2.7) where 1 is the chemical potential and kF is the Fermi momentum. When k(w)r is large, the Green's function has the following asymptotic form: CGO(r, ) -~ i'i- ,. r- /4J. (2.8) The LDOS falls off from the impurity with an envelope of 1/(kFr) and oscillates with a period of the inverse of the Fermi vector. .- Figure 2 3: LDOS modification due to single impurity in metals. Right: image on the surface of Ag [36]; left: theoretical calculation of LDOS around a single impurity in a two-dimensional metal. In Fig. 2-3, the theoretical prediction on the distribution of LDOS around an repulsive impurity (right panel) at zero energy in a two dimensional square lattice is shown. The four-fold symmetry of LDOS is the signature of the underling lattice symmetry. In the left panel, the Fourier component of LDOS ( obtained from the experiment performed by Crommie et al.[36] on the surface of Ag), which is defined as p(q, w) = e"rp(r, w) (2.9) is plotted: the radius of the bright feature in the FT-STS spectroscopy is 2kp. 2.2 Green's function for BCS Superconductors In the conventional BCS theory, the ground state of superconducting systems is a condensation in momentum space in which electrons pair up into "Cooper pairs." The mean field hamiltonian for the BCS superconducting state is : NHcs = tkcfk k + -(c'ctki*Ak + h.c), (2.10) k,, k with Ak = V(cklC-kl). The first term describes the motion of free band electrons and the second term describe how two electrons pair up to form the superconduct- ing order. It is convenient to define the column vector Dk and its conjugate' as the following: 4k Ckt) = (C C-kj), (2.11) and work within this framework. The single particle Green's function is then a 2x2 matrix: Go(k,T) = -(Tk(T7)I) S(TrCk(T)C4k) (Trkt(T)-k) (Trtkl ()Ckt) (T-rCtk(T)C-ki) For a time-invariant system, we can further introduce the Fourier transform: Go(k. iw) = e""''Go(k, T), (2.13) where uw, is the Matsubara frequency. With the gap Ak being the exact self-energy due to the phonon-mediated electron-electron interaction, the mean field single particle Green's function for the clean SC state (after analytical continuation to the real axis) is 0(O(k, w) = ,T7 + AkT1 + CkT3 (2.14) 2 E(2.14) where the quasiparticle energy defined as Ek = "-, + A and T, T,T 7 are the Pauli matrices. The imaginary part of the real space Green's function (G(r, v) = ,k e'kG(k. w)) is related directly to the local tunnelling density of states: p(r, ) = p,(r, ) (2.15) SThis spin and particle-hole resolved matrix structure is conventionally referred to as Nambu representation. with the spin-resolved LDOS, Pr(r,) = -r-llm Gjj(r,r,w+iO+) (2.16a) pI(r,w) = +T-Im G22(r,r,- iO*) (2.16b) With the general property of the retarded Green's function: ImG(w + i0 ) = -ImG(w iO') (2.17) the LDOS may also be written as : 11 p(r,w) = -n- Im [GI (r, r,r + iO ) + G22(r,r, -w+ ]1 (2.18) 2.3 One Impurity in an s-wave Superconductor 2.3 .1 ...... ... r.. I,, ., p F,,|; r i,., .. The non-magnetic disorder problem in an isotropic s-wave superconductor was studied by Anderson [39]. In the conventional Nambu notation, the hamiltonian with the presence of impurity (at R = 0) is formulated as 7 = Hu[s + Y VcCk', (2.19) kk',. where Vo is the strength of the impurity. It was pointed out that in dilute concen- tration limit, nonmagnetic impurities introduce :. ...I.I.I effects on bulk properties (such as T,) of isotropic superconductors, because the quasiparticle energy should be conserved in elastic scattering and the momentum transfer of quasiparticles in scattering process cannot disrupt the phase coherence established if the pair- ing is isotropic, i.e., Ak = A0. This conclusion goes under the name "Anderson Theorem." As a trivial test, the self-energy of quasiparticles can be treated with Abrikosov-Gorkov formalism [40] (AG) yielding: 1 IIk F(k, ) = 2- +A (2.20) 2TN Vk _+A 19 where TN is the normal state scattering rate. It is easy to see that the quasiparticle elastic scattering rate is suppressed from its normal state value 1/rN upon the opening of a gap, and it is zero at the Fermi level, reflecting Anderson's theorem. 2.3.2 Magnetic Impurity Problem When a :, .. ,.. i impurity is injected into the superconducting condensate, it couples with the spin density of conduction electrons by means of the exchange interaction. In the classical limit, 2 the impurity term in the momentum space may be written as: li,,, = J(k, k')ct 6io3 Sck,/3, (2.21) k,k' with J(k, k') the exchange energy, S the impurity spin and 5 the spin operator of electrons. Abrisokov and Gorkov [40] first treated the magnetic impurity in Born approximation, followed by a treatment in the unitary-scattering limit by Yu [41] and Shiba [42]. It is found that the magnetic moment breaks the time-reversal sym- metry upon which the Cooper pairs are formed and hence lifts the spin degeneracy of quasiparticle excitations.3 Consequently, an intragap bound state appears for spin down excitations if the local moment is spin up and vice visa. Increasing the concentration of magnetic moments leads to gapless superconductivity and finally destroys the superconducting state. The T, suppression is obtained in AG form [40] as T, 1 In(t) = (1/2) + p,), (2.22) 2 The classical limit is obtained by taking J 0 and S oo, but keeping JS = constant. In that sense, the spin can be viewed as a local magnetic field. 3 This can be verified by working on the BCS hamiltonian in the Bogoliubov for- malism. One caln that the magnetic term couples in the Nambu To channel and changes sign for spin up and down excitations. A potential scatter couples in the T channel, introducing nothing but level shifts. where i is the digamma function4 T, and Te are the actual and disorder-free transition temperatures respectively, and c, = (27rTbT)-' is a constant determined by the self-energy due to magnetic interaction, where r71 = rTco/2y. 2.4 One Impurity in a d-wave Superconductor Because of the doping procedures through which superconducting BSCCO samples are prepared, atomic scale imperfections are inevitably introduced. Recently, the differential conductance map obtained by STM experiments on the cuprates BSCCO-2212 with astonishing resolution have verified the existence of point-like atomic defects, and further investigated the behavior of Zn or Ni atoms in the d-wave superconducting bath by replacing Cu atoms with them on purpose [43, 44]. I will mainly review the works on single impurity in d-wave superconductors and discuss extensively their implications for STM experiments. 2.4.1 Nonmagnetic Impurity Isotropic Scattering and Pair-breaking Effect. It is speculated that when a Zn atom (with atomic configuration '...t'" i replaces the on-site Cu atom in the copper oxide plane, it will lose 2 electrons and the resulting Zn2+ should behave like a classical nomnagnetic impurity (if we neglect its quantum nature). This is because the Zinc cation has a closed 3d"0 shell which will gives a zero net spin S = 0. SThe digamma function is defined as v(x.) = lnr(x) = -y+ 1-(7,+ ,x -1, -2, -3...... (2.23) 7(n + x) where 7 is the Euler constant. There are also other points of view which are suggestive of the magnetic nature of ZIn2 impurity because magnetic moment sensitive experiments [45] revealed that Zn atoms actually induce local moments and hence one probably has to also take the local correlation or dynamic effect (Kondo resonance) into consideration [46]. S-A( ) clean + + fermi sea angle on FS -- Figure 2-4: Schematic illustration of the pair breaking effect due to potential scat- ters in a d-wave superconductor. However, unlike the case of nonmagnetic impurities in s-wave superconductors, quasiparticle scattering due to Zni+ ions in cuprates violates Anderson's theorem without breaking time-reversal symmetry. The physical process is illustrated in Fig. 2 4: scattering of quasiparticles mixes the initial and final states with different momenta k, thus mixing order parameters with different phases. When the scattering is strong enough, it mixes the states of complete opposite signs of order parameters with high probability and suppresses the condensate. However, I emphasize there that the gap structure for any T < T, is still unrenormalized since Ek Ak = 0 and the angular structure of the gap function remains unchanged [47]. To illustrate the effect of impurities in superconductors with different order parameter symmetries, I hereby tabulate the corresponding Nambu components of self-energies (in Born approximation, i.e., E(w) = n, Vo2 Ek G(k, )) in the table below: Table 2-1: The imaginary part of self-energies due to non-magnetic impurities in superconductors. d-wave Fo( ) 0 s-wave -rFu r where rF is the impurity scattering rate in the normal state, with j = w Eo(w) and Ak =A k E1. The symbol (.) denotes angle averaging around the Fermi surface. Gas Model: Circular Fermi Surface and Parabolic Band. The single impurity is analytically solvable in a d-wave superconductor with a circular Fermi surface and a planar continuum form of the gap function, i.e., Ak = Ao cos(20). With the T-matrix formalism introduced in Sec 2.1.1 and the BCS formalism of the Green's function, the full Green's function can be constructed as G(k, k', w)= ("0(k. a)kk, + G(;(k, w)T,.., .'" k', w). (2.24) While its off-diagonal component vanishes because Zk Ak = 0, the T-matrix reduces to the simple form: T = Toro + TT3r To = Vig1/(S+S-) T, = v (,c- l,,, i i SY T..",. i- (2.25) (2.26) where 1/, .,,., = c is the cotangent of the s-wave scattering phase shift r1o, and No is the density of states at the Fermi level. 9 is the momentum integrated Green's function. This expression has resonances when S = 1 Vo(G3a F Go) = 0. (2.27) In the special case of a particle hole symmetric system gs = 0, and the resonances are entirely dominated by gs(w). In the unitary limit, i.e., lo -> 7r/2 (this is equal to c < 1), the resonance energy f0L and scattering rate F are f = a (2.28a) 2 log(8/rc) f = ..c (2.28b) I I '. 7rC) These results were first obtained by Balatsky et al. [24]. Clearly, the two symmet- ric resonances are the signature of electron-hole duality nature of BCS quasipar- tides; furthermore, there is a finite damping rate for those resonances since they emerge from a continuum background, namely p(w) $ 0. However, a salient feature of those resonances should be pointed out: when c -- 0, the resonances will be tuned towards to the Fermi level and the damping rate diminishes simultaneously, i.e, the resonant states become "marginally" bound. These midgap states are ..... II referred as virtual bound states because of their asymptotic behavior described above, which can be attributed to the linearly-vanishing DOS (p('i) ~ w) at low energies. The spatial distribution of the impurity induced states conveys additional information about the nature of HTS and can be measured directly by STM experiments. The theory anticipates that the LDOS spreads in an anisotropic manner [24. 26]: it decays as the inverse second power of the distance from impurity along the nodes of the gap and exponentially in the vicinity of the extrema of the gap, and the decay length of the latter is characterized by (o = '-,. The spatial patterns of these "native" defects [10] agree with the naive theory to the extent that the observance of a bright spot of the diameter of 2- 3nin6 with p(r) decaying s 1/r2 for r > o, i.e., the Friedel oscillations at the periphery of the central bright image, as illustrated in Fig. 2 5. The coherence length extracted from the size of the atomic resonance is around 15 A. This again coincided with the ( known for Bi2Sr2CaCu2() being a convinc- ing evidence for the quasiparticle scattering scenario. However, the anisotropic con- figuration of LDOS distribution within a distance of o0 from the impurity, namely, the structure inside the bright spots, was not discernible due to the poor spatial resolution. Later improvement in STM yielded differential conductance map with subatomic details, and the fine structure of LDOS around impurities were obtained eventually, which invoked another quarrels upon the t1. ..,, II..,,, mechanism and the nature of impurity itself. 24 01 1 - I ; \ Distance from scattering center (nm) Figure 2-5: The fall-off of LDOS around a native defect. To study the spatial modulation of LDOS, we need the explicit form of the Green's function. These have been worked out by Joynt and Balatsky in some special cases [26, 48]. I also evaluated the Greens function when for the situation w/Ao < 1/ke.r < 1/ ..,, The results are tabulated as follows for future adoption: cO(R,w) (2.29) ,.-- R II (110) S N [(i--- -[,, + T- + T3) cos kF?+ R (100) (i a To + r T3) sin kFRI Lattic :I1...-. i ..ir _.. ,rr, _,,, i i ,r ,,. Li.,,,. The copper-oxide plane of cuprates materials consists one Cu atom and two oxygen atoms in one unit cell. A square lattice with copper atoms on the commensurate sites is the simplest reasonable model for practical computations. While the real-space components of the Green's functions are analytically unobtainable in the SC state, I hereby present the numerics for both a simple tight binding model Ck = -2t(cos k,. + cos ky) p and a realistic 6-parameter tight-binding model proposed by Norman et al. [49], both having the corresponding d-wave order parameter Ak = Ao(cos k, - cos k). Note the maximum value of the order parameter in the half-filled lattice system with the current convention is 2Ao. LDOS on-site LDOS nearest neighbor o0 02 0 0 1 0 2 02 -01 0 0 electron hole Figure 2-6: On-site and NN site spectra for tight binding band with one impurity. Fig. 2-6 shows the results for the nearest neighbor tight binding model. The impurity potential is taken to be Vo = 5.311, which generates two resonances at f = 0.013t, : l.5,mev using the Norman band, chosen to reproduce the observed resonance energy of Zn. The LDOS on the impurity site and its neighbor site are plotted. Note that the weight is almost excluded from the impurity site due to the strong potential 7 and the peak at f = -0.013tl captures the essence of resonant physics. Because the off-diagonal components of the integrated Green's function vanish, i.e., Gi12(r = 0, ) = 0, only the 11 element of the T-matrix contributes to the LDOS and this yields only one peak in the on-site spectrum. The situation is completely inverted on its nearest neighbor sites, where one observes a pronounced peak at positive sample bias. The coherence peak heights are also strongly suppressed, implying that superconductivity is locally suppressed as well. There are two distinct ranges for the falloff of LDOS: an exponential 7 The integrated spectrum weight on arbitrary site is still conserved f dwp(r, w) = 1. The sum rule is verified by the excessive weight trapped at high energy regime, i.e., the real bound or antibound states. However,we focus on the low energy bound states within the gap. envelope along the antinodal direction and a power law decay along the gap nodes. Additionally, the alignment of LDOS around the scatters shows a four-fold symmetry. 2.4.2 Magnetic Impurity Unlike the nonmagnetic impurities, even for a s-wave superconductor, mag- netic impurities are pairbreaking since they violate time-reversal symmetry, lift the Kramers degeneracy of the quasiparticle states and hence introduce intragap bound states.8 While the theoretical expectation for a magnetic impurity in a s-wave superconductor (for example, Nb) has been experimentally verified by Yazdani et al. [50], Hudson et al. [44] performed the first atomically resolved STM experiment on Ni doped Bi2Sr2CaCu2() (d-wave superconductor). As shown in Fig. 2-7, two distinguishable peaks were reported, at Q1 = 9.2 1.1 meV and Q2 = 18.6 0.7 meV separately in both the particle and hole channels. The spectral weight of the impurity state decayed in an *.. .;1 .i 1 manner: these peaks were particle-like (i.e., on positive sample bias) on the impurity site, then became hole-like on the next nearest sites and again particle-like at the 2-NN sites. Therefore, the LDOS around the impurity at positive and negative biases were rotated by 450 with respect to each other. The spatially complementary feature led to overall nearly particle-hole symmetric site-averaged spectra; moreover, the coherence peaks remained robust. A conclusion which was apparently in conflict with our naive intuition was then drawn: superconductivity was not: ... il disrupted substantially by the Ni impu- rity. Detailed analysis even revealed that the potential scattering is the dominant agent in Ni doped cuprates since the associated energy is of roughly 5-10 times bigger than those of other channels. s We neglect the Kondo physics here. The Kondo screening in HTS supercon- ducting state is novel in sense that it takes place on the background with depleted DOS rather than on the background with a roughly constant DOS around the Fermi level. 2 -"2 +0, b 075 -0 -25 0 25 0 75 Sample bas (mY) F ........ 2 7: Conductance spectra above the Ni atomni and at several nearly loca- tions. Solid circle: oil-site; open circle: NN-site; square: 2NN-site: triangle: 30A away flom Ni; solid line: average of the first four spectra. S3- ^ l2- A 1 !i* ^ |0 I '-- away from Ni; solid line: average of thie first, four spectra. Figure 2 8: Left: the schematic plot of Cu02 plane; middle: experimental LDOS around Zn impurity; right: -i .... I. i. predicted LDOS for Vo = 5.3t (rotated by 450 with respect to a) and b)). 2.4.3 Discussion: Characteristics of Impurities Classic impurities are generally categorized into non-magnetic and magnetic ones, with the Zn and Ni as the representatives. Although experiments exploiting them as probes for the superconducting state have achieved crude agreement with the quasiparticle scattering theory, characterization of their own nature is far from complete yet. While the measurements on the bulk properties such as resistivity [51, 52]. microwave conductivity [53] and T,: suppression display qualitatively similar dependence of Zn and Ni. the magnetically sensitive probes such as NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) [45], INS (inelastic neutron scattering) exhibit appreciable differences between Zn- and Ni-doped samples. On one hand. the standard Abrikosov-Gorkov formalism predicts that T, is only suppressed about 20% faster by Zn than Ni if the magnetic nature of Ni impurity is neglected: on the other hand. the superfluid density is known to be strongly depleted by Zn rather than Ni. The image of the immediate surroundings of Zn and Ni provided by the STM experiments now provides a coherent microscopic picture: while Zn is fatal to local superconductivity, Ni has a much weaker impact, consistent with earlier transport measurements suggesting Zn is a unitary scatterer and Ni is an intermediate strength scatterer. Besides those differences between Zu and Ni impurities, the sign of Zn poten- tial itself is a matter of controversy. It was first claimed that, according to Hudson 29 et al.. Zn atoms are attractive potentials for electrons since "the on-site (impurity site) spectrum only has one peak at the negative sample bias around Do = -1.5 meV 0.5 meV [10]. However, theoretical calculations predict that an attrac- tive potential should break the pairs and bind the electrons, yielding prominent tunnelling DOS peaks at positive sample bias [24, 54]. Beyond the position of the resonance peaks, there are other discrepancies between the STM differential conductance map and the predicted LDOS. In Fig. 2 8, the schematic plot of the structure of CuO2 plane is given, where the orange spots and green spots stand for copper atoms and oxygen atoms respectively. The middle panel shows the experimental results around a Zn impurity with the same lattice orientation as the left panel and the rightmost panel displays the theoretical calculation of LDOS for a repulsive potential (Vo = 5.35t), but rotated by 45 degrees with respect the first two panels. Strong potentials scatterers are expected to exclude weight significantly from the impurity site and produce an on-site LDOS minima with a relatively bright spots on the next nearest neighbor sites, as illustrated by the right panel in Fig. 2-8, whereas the experiments observe completely reversed patterns with a local maxima on the impurity site and darker spots on the NN sites (the middle channel). Comparison between the middle and right panels elucidates these discrepancies clearly. Is Zn a repulsive or attractive potential in BSCCO-2212? A hand-waving argument can be given by considering the atomic configurations of Zn and Cu atoms. After losing two electrons, the energy of the closed 3d shell of Zn should be a prior far below the Fermi level, as derived from tlhe tabulated ionization energies (Table 2 2) of Copper and Zinc atoms, since the energy to create a Cu' is less than that required to create Zn' '. It is then speculated that Zn atoms should be attractive potentials relative to background Cu2I ions with strength of approximately -2ev. Table 2 2: The ionization energy of Copper and Zinc atoms. Cu Zn first ionization energy(eV) 7.726 9.934 second ionization I i.. r,,i \ I 20.292 17.964 third ionization energy(eV) 36.83 39.722 However, calculations based on the criterion for uiitarity in the realistic band structure of BSCCO [49] yield an opposite result. It has been well established by experiments that Zn atoms are indeed hard-core, unitary scatters, for example, the phase shift *m7 extracted from the STM data of Zn impurity [44] is 0.487r, close to r/2, i.e.. unitary limit. One can also perform computations on the phase shift with the conventional T-matrix fashion hIn detT rj(w) = tan det (2.30) Re detT It is found that only a repulsive potential can possibly approach to this limit." In Fig. 2 9, I show the resonance energy as a function of the impurity potential. as the resonance energy is defined to be the position of the local maxima in the on-site (the impurity site) spectrum. It is clear that to drive the resonant frequency towards to the Fermi level, a repulsive potential with Vo 1- 201t I is needed. Finally, a recent ab initio calculation exploiting density functional ,,..*. on the band structures and effective potentials of different defect-doped BSCCO samples [55] claims that Zn atoms are actually short range repulsive scattering centers. Recently, two similar arguments [56, 57] were addressed to reconcile the discrepancy between the result of attractive potentials and the spectra from experiments. It was contemplated that the spectral weight on the nearest neighbor Cu sites in the CuO2 planes appears above the surface Bi atoms directly over the 9 The conclusion is rigorously robust regardless of the detailed band structure as long as the particle-hole asymmetry is introduced and a hole-doped sample is discussed. VEt Figure 2-9: The resonance frequency as a function of scattering potential Vo; inset: the resonance frequency as a function of 1/Vo- impurity sites since STM tips are indeed probing the wave functions or LDOS of the nearest sites rather than the impurity site itself, the so called "filter effect." The Zn impurity is then identified as an attractive scatter, since it is the "filter effect" that allows us to observe a pronounced on-site peak at negative energy (an attractive potential is expected to yield a peak on the positive sample bias) However, it doesn't explain why the calculations based on the realistic band structure aiming to the unitary limit necessitate a repulsive potential. dO -XI CHAPTER 3 QUANTUM INTERFERENCE BETWEEN IMPURITIES Images of the LDOS around impurities have confirmed the existence of resonant quasiparticle states near strong scatters as Zn, but have given rise to new questions regarding the microscopic model for impurities as well. While the debate on single impurity is unsettled yet, HTS materials usually contain finite concentrations of impurities and the impurity wavefunctions do interfere with each other. The most remarkable consequence of the quantum interference between many impurities is the formation of a impurity band at low energies (the nodal quasiparticle states), which is believed to dominate the transport properties such as microwave conductivity. The many-impurity problem has been treated with numerous methods, including the self-consistent T-matrix approximation (SCTMA) [48, 58, 59, 60], exact diagonalization of Bogoliubov De-Gennes equations (BDG) [61, 62, 63], nonperturbative techniques [1, 64, 65] and perturbative treatment including weak localization effects [66]. None of these approaches offers insight into the mechanism of interference itself and we are still unable to answer the question of how the macroscopic i;-....i., ... .1 properties of a d-wave superconductor actually arise from the local properties of individual impurity states. The lack of the connection between the understandings of physics at these two different scales initiated the studies on the two-impurity problem [54, 67, 68], which (.- .i, the quantum interference effect at the simplest level. In this chapter, I will report my study on the two-impurity problem with a nongeneric band. I will then generalize the conclusion from this special example to generic cases and discuss how we can make the bridge connecting the single impurity result to the STM experiments on the :-iil, .- 1~ .1. !. I..1 system s. 3.1 Two Impurities in a d-wave Superconductor 3.1.1 T-matrix and Resonance Frequency With the formalism introduced in the previous chapter, the T-matrix for two isolated point-like impurities can be obtained by iterating the procedure for single-impurity T-matrix, in a 4 x 4 basis of spin and impurity site labels, T,,,( )= (3.1) T,,,(-R)T, fT,, where R = R, R, and where T, T,,, are the single impurity T-matrices associated with the two impurities. For identical impurities, TF = P,, = T(w), the single impurity T-matrix defined previously. The quantity f is defined as: f/(w) = [1 '"(-R,w ,i ....' ", R ,7 1 i-', (3.2) where G(R, w) = Ek exp[ik R]G(7(w) is just the Fourier transformation of G0(w), the unperturbed Nambu Green's function. For systems with inversion symmetry G((R, u) = G(-R.w). Note that in Eqn. 3.1, the physical processes are clearly identifiable as multiple scatterings from each impurity e and m, individually, plus interference terms where electrons scatter many times between f and In. In k-space, we can write the T-matrix in the more usual 2 x 2 notation as Tw(w)= [eikTRO R e 'RT (3.3) e-ik',R,,, where To is the Pauli matrix. Provided the resonance energies are distinct, peaks in the total density of states correspond to minima of the T-matrix denominator: V det[1 G(-R, )T(uw)GO(R,w)T , Si.1. .,l V)= DID2/(S S' ) with DI = D'1 + V2G (R,w) DV D2= D + VoCG(R,w) (3.5) where D~ = [1 VoG(0.) VoGo(O,w)] +(-1 l.,[F.....R -)+G3(R,w)]. (3.6) The factors Di, DI determine the four 2-impurity resonant energies. Here G,,(R, w) is the T. component of the integrated bare Green's function Go(R, w) = Tr (T,,Go(R, w)) (3.7) In certain special configurations, e.g. if the two impurities are located at 45 with respect to one other, it is easy to check that the off-diagonal Green's function Gi(R, w) = 0 V R. In this case the entire resonant denominator factories D= D14D1 _D2iD2-. The T-matrix then takes the simple diagonal form Tk,k'() = 2V cos(k. R) cos(k'- + 2 2 [1 Un \ R R r + 2Vosin(k. -)sin(k'.) +- 2 2 [ 152+ (3.8) where T (T3 0o)/2. When two identical impurities with resonance energies So are brought together, the bound state wavefunctions interfere with one another, in general split- ting and shifting each resonance, leading to four resonant frequencies fi-+, fi, I- and Q where the subscript indicates which factor in Eqn. 3.6 is resonant. If splitting are not too large, the electron and hole resonances are related in a sim- ilar way as in the 1-impurity problem, ; l -Q' and Qf 2 -Q+. Again the weight of each resonance may be quite different or even zero on any given site. A large splitting may be taken as evidence for strong hybridization of quasiparticle wavefunctions. If we take the interimpurity distance R as a parameter and keep impurity potentials and other parameters fixed, there are two obvious limits where this splitting vanishes. In the case of separation R = 0, the two impurities combine ii, ,i,. ,,I. ,ii .. to create a single impurity of strength 2Vo, so both 1,2 approach the Q1(2Vo) appropriate for the double strength potential. In the case of infinite separation R -> oo, we must find fl,2 approaching the Qo(Vo) appropriate for isolated single impurities. To illustrate this argument explicitly, I will present both the analytical calculation with a gas model and numerical results on a tight binding lattice model. 3.1.2 Resonance Frequencies Gas Model. Eqn. 3.4 is a general result for two 6-function potentials embedded in a host described by an arbitrary G. We would like to derive analytical results for the resonance energies obtained therefrom to get some sense of the appropriate length scales and symmetries in the problem. At large distances, the resonance energies must approach the single impurity values, so the splitting can be cal- culated perturbatively. To do so one must first obtain analytical expressions for the large-distance behavior of the unperturbed Green's functions. This is difficult for the superconducting lattice ],,i.I -..,....., model on which most of this work is based, but much insight can be gained by studying the equivalent gas model, with spectrum (k = k2/2m. In this case expressions have been obtained by Joynt and Balatsky et al. [24, 48] for the d-wave integrated Green's functions G,(R,w = 0) at large distances, both for R making an angle 45 or 0 with the x axis. We have evaluated the real space Greens function in the last chapter for the range of fre- quencies w/Ao < 1 r < 1/kFo. With these expressions, the resonance energies may now be found by inserting these expressions for frequencies WJ = fl + 6 into (3.4) and solving for the shifts 6. We find f+12 if 6, with (3.9) S (o .... .R- II (110) A.r .. r..-/o ,,,P *' + 7r/4) R (100) These expressions are valid for 6/112 < 1. Clearly the decay of the splitting cxp(-r/l,,I i r- is much more rapid for distances larger than the coherence length along the antinode (100) than for along the nodes, where it falls as ~ 1/r. This anisotropic form of the splitting is the signature of the marginal bound (nearly localize) single impurity state in a d-wave superconductor, which, by allowing :-i..I..- ,n..- low-energy nodal quasiparticles, has extended tails along the gap nodes. It is the lack of a scale along this particular direction in the impurity wavefunctions that allows the strong overlapping even over long-distances. We will see later that how this attribute and its consequence questions the STM analysis of "isolated" impurity patterns. Lattice Model. In the following sections, I will briefly sum up the numerical results on two types of lattice band structure: the nearest neighbor hopping model (i = 0, pure nested band) and the 6-site tight binding hand [49], with Ak = Ao(cos k, cos ky). A = 0.11 and impurity strength Vo = 10t for the former band and Vo = 5.3t for the latter. The solutions of resonant frequency corresponding to each factor in Eqn. 3.5 can be tracked as a function of separation R by minimizing Di,2 separately. In Fig. 31 1 show the result for the pure nested band : the pentagons and open circles identify different branches of the splitting resonance frequencies: the left panel illustrates the result of R I| (110) inter-inpurity separation and the right panel the R 11 (100) case. It is seen that each factor D, corresponds to an i. 'l.r .-, function of R. with the factor determining, e.g., 12, changing from site to site according to whether the site is even or odd. This is due to the strong R dependence of the components Go; in the simplest case, R || (110) and p = 0, G3(R,w) = G,(R,w) = 0 but Go(R,w) Ek cos(kR/v/2)cos(kyR/v -: .*, ) oscillates rapidly. At R = 0, the problem reduces to the double-strength single impurity case; the factor il gives the resonant frequency to (2Vo) and the factor D2 is 1. At large separation the l2 and Ojf "envelopes" are seen to converge to QO (Vo) with a length scale of a few so 10a for the parameters chosen. In the R | (100) case, the oscillations of the bound state energies with increasing R are not so simple, as seen in Fig. 3-1. The one obvious simple difference from the (110) case is that the energy splitting vanish much faster with distance, as expected hrom the discussion in Sec. 3.1.2. Otherwise the short distance behavior of the bound state energies is complicated. One can check that the resonant frequency closest to the Fermi level is QL1 when R = 2 + 4n, n integer, and Wf otherwise. In general, short inter-impurity distance behavior is difficult to analyze ana- lytically and it is found that in neither the (110) or (100) direction do resonances appear at all for R = 1. The hybridization between wavefunctions is so strong in these cases that the picture of perturbatively split 1-impurity states breaks down. More importantly, the splitting are significant up to quite large distances. Param- eters in Fig. 3-1 are chosen such that So 10a, as seen from the right panel of Fig. 3-1 where we indeed expect an e-r/9t falloff according to the previous section. On the other hand, the left panel of Fig. 3 1 indicates strong interference out to separations of 30a or more! This means that if two impurities are oriented along 45 degree with each other, the interference effect will be long range, due to the delocalized nature of the single impurity states along gap nodes. 0 035 0.03 0025 ! -- ---05-- 0,015 upp rsonanc lower 2 ~onc 2a. * o io 20 .. R a Figure 3 1: Two-impurity resonance energies Q.,2 vs impurity orientation. 3.1.3 The Interference of Two One-impurity Wavefunctions In the 1-impurity case, the T-matrix is given by Eqn. 2.26 and it is easy to show (from Eqn. 2.3) that the change of LDOS due to the single impurity is: ( .llrl (G (r))2 -6Gf,(r,r,'u) = -Vo Im r + ( ). (3.10) Quite _. 1 ,il1 the Green's function can also be expressed in terms of the exact eigenfunction (,,(r) of the system (and its conjugate component r I i, with the presence of the impurity [24, 38] G(r,r,) = (r),,(r) S-' (3.11) where the final approximation is valid for a true bound state with w very close to a particular bound state energy n,, and will be a good approximation in the present case to the extent the resonances are well defined, in the sense discussed previously. Comparing with the form (3.10) allows us to identify the positive and negative energy wavefunctions of the single-impurity resonances (assuming Vo > 0): S GoI(r, ) = O ' (r) 0 Z (3.12) ;,.i ') wu=ttQ where Z are non-resonant wave function normalization factors. Note that the electron-like bound state eigenfunction is directly related to the off-diagonal bare Green's function, while the hole-like wave function is proportional to the diagonal bare Green's function. We can follow the same procedure for the two-impurity Green's function, and ask how the eigenfunctions at a particular resonant energy are related to the single impurity wave functions we have just found. Since the single-impurity resonant energies are different from the 2-impurity energies, this analysis will be valid to the extent the splitting are small compared to Sos. The Green's function iG(r. r) can now be constructed from Eqn. 3.8 and the wave functions read off by comparing with the spectral representation in the same way as in the 1-imlpurity case. By examining Eqn. 3.8, it may be shown that, depending on whether D1 or D2 is resonant, the wave functions thus extracted will be of definite spatial parity, ,,(r) = +p,,(-r). We find (R)Vo' ',f = (f +- (R)Vo ''1 ,h' = Z (c1, + jv R) ) =11- where G,) -= ((r R/2) G0(r + R/2), and the Z'P are normalization coefficients. These are the two-impurity odd (p) and even-parity (s) resonant state eigenfunctions expressed directly as linear combinations of the corresponding one- impurity eigenfunctions ip given in Eqn. 3.12 With the aid of the explicit forms of those wavefunctions, we can study how the Friedel oscillations induced by single impurity interfere. In general. impurity wavefunctions include particle and hole components because of the anomalous scattering processes with amplitude G, (R). However, in some special cases where GI (R) = 0, for example. R 1] (110), the ReW ImV I 12 LDOS 1 (r, c A are separated by R = (6, 6). eigenfunction become simpler and do not mix particle and hole degrees of freedom. L;(r) = Z; G ,(r, ) 0 = Oi- (3.14) and (r) = Z j(r) (3.15) / lP(r, L,)) U) = ,_ In order to illustrate to what extent the approximated wavefunction is effective, I show the real part (1st column) and imaginary part (2nd column) of those wavefunctions at energies equal to the four resonant frequencies (in this separation, 2l/t = 0.0195, l-/t = -0.0075) explicitly in Fig. 3 2. The density probability, i.e., 1 p21 (3rd column) and the actual LDOS (4th cloumn), defined as G(r,r,w) = Y (k, w) (3.16) k k,k' I .-.i e I 03 03 Figure 3 3: Spectra on the nearest sites close to the impurities. See text for details. are plotted as well. It is clearly seen that there is a good agreement between the spatial pattern of the I|',|2 and the exact LDOS calculated at each resonant energy, implying that near each resonant energy the nonresonant contributions are quite insignificant. The distribution of LDOS with different inter-impurity orientations for pure nested band is plotted in Fig. 3 4 and Fig. 3 5. There are several novel features which need to be addressed. First, It is clear that some states involve constructive and some destructive interference between the 1-inpurity wavefunctions in different regions of space, but the spatial patterns are, not unexpectedly, considerably more intricate than the I. -,,. ,, molecule" type states one might first imagine would form, with electrons living either directly between impurities or completely expelled from this region. This is of course due to the d-wave character of the medium in which the quasiparticles propagate. For example, the LDOS is zero at the point halfway between the two impurities for the p-wave states, but it is quite small in the s-wave states as well. It is furthermore clear from the figure that both s I-.. ,i 1.,- 1 and p .nI l....i. i.,_ I functions can have either constructive or destructive character, in the molecular sense. Note that the states are shown arranged vertically according to their eigenenergies, but recall that the ordering of the s and p (D) and D2) states changes according to whether R is even or odd, as indicated in Fig. 3 1. In addition, one can look into the spectra on some particular sites close to the impurities. I -.- 3 3 displays the spectra on several sites whose positions are illustrated as the numbers in the insets and the impurities positions are R1 = (-3,0) R2 = (3, 0) (left), R1 = (-3, -3), R2 = (3,3) (right). It is surprising to observe that there are some surprisingly sharp peaks, which always happen at high energies and are far sharper than a single-impurity resonance at the same energy. This is counterintuitive based on our knowledge of the one-impurity problem: the T-matrix denominator S possess an imaginary part which vanishes linearly when Fermi surface is approached, hence a resonance with lower energy naively has narrower width (longer lifetime). This novel peculiarity must then stem from the quantum interference effect. Indeed, this can be understood by examining the structure of the denominator of T-matrix, with one impurity at origin: D =det[Vo (G'""P) R R I i.1 I (w), where T is the one-impurity T-matrix and 0(-"r"p) is the Green's function with one impurity at the origin. Thus sharp two-impurity resonances occur for exactly the same reason as in the one-impurity case, but because the one-impurity DOS at R is nonmonotonic in uw, the resonance broadening is not i ..* i1i proportional to the resonance energy. One might attribute the unexpected "trapped" (weight primarily sitting between impurities) or I. .i n,'' (weight is populated outside of the region between impurities rather than inside) patterns to the special symmetries of the half-filling -I.i.r-i .i..i. band structure, for example, the pure nesting of the Fermi surface. It is this nesting which by allowing a considerable phase space for scatterings with a fixed, momentum vector Q ( in general, Q = (, 7r)), leads to a static or dynamic spatial modulation in terms of periodic arrangement of particle density, i.e., charge density wave (CDW), spin density wave (SDW) etc. Upon the study on a realistic band, we demonstrate that it is the commensuration of dominating scattering (2,2) (5,5) (6,6) P-M sM I -, -,' 3 4: LDOS maps at resonant energies for R (110). Pure nested band, Vo = 10t; Impurity separations are shown on the top of the graph. wave vectors at the bound-state energy rather than the peculiarity described above that determines the standing-wave like modulation, a typical argument for wave interference. Fig. 3-6 illustrates the spectra on the adjacent sites of one of the two impu- rities, with impurity separation R = (R, 0) and R = (R, R) for a more realistic tight-binding coefficients fitted by Norman et al. [49] from ARPES data, t(k) = to + 2t[cos(k, ) + cos(k,)] + 4t2 cos(kf,)cos(k,) +2t3[cos(2k,) + c..-, : I +2t4[cos(2k, ) cos(ky) + c... I i..... : ., I I + 1. .. .. .. .,I (3.17) with to... t = 0.879, -1,0.275, -0.087, -0.1876, 0.086 and I|i 0.1488eV. All the curves have been offset for optical clarity. The impurity resonance dependence on separation is transparent: the hybridization is strong when they are too close (no resonance pattern for R=l); then the -.i, ,-.. shows up and persists over a certain (2,0) (5,0) (6,0) n P mms-m Figure 3-5: LDOS maps at resonant energies for R I| (100). Pure nested band, VO = 10t; Impurity separations are shown on the top of the graph. range of inter-inmpurity distance for each case. The sharp high energy peaks emerge sporadically and those along (100) direction occur more frequently than that of (110) direction. In wave mechanics, when two waves are Ir II.. along a string in opposite directions, a standing wave can he established as the position and time depen- dence of the resulting wave could be separated(when the two waves are 180 out-of-phase with each other they cancel, and when they are in-phase with each other they add together). In our case, the formation of these trapped states is surprisingly explicable' in a similar fashion. For a real bound-state, the equation (G'(R, w))tFO(R, w)T = 1 should be satisfied strictly for both real and imaginary parts at particular energies. The product (;'(R. w)T((R, w)T in Enq. 3.4 could 1 It is a bit surprising in that this native picture doesn't take into consideration the w dependence of the T-matrix, or the Nambu structure of Green's functions. Moreover, the quantitative justification of the analysis is unexpectedly obtained although there are some fundamental difference between the one-impurity and two- impurity problems as discussed below. -003 -002 1 0 001 002 003 FreuencvO Frequency (( Figure 3 6: LDOS spectra for realistic band and Vo = ". :, on nearest neighbor site. Left panel: impurities at (- 1/2, 0) and (R/2, 0) ( R = (R, 0)), spectra taken at r (H/2, 1). Right panel: impurities at (-R/2, -1/2) and (R/2, R/2) ( R - (R, R)), spectra taken at r = (R/2. R/2 + 1). be equivalently written as eiq' (G(k, w)T(,)G(k + q, )T(w). (3.18) k,q It was argued by Hoffman et al. [69, 70]. that the characteristic wavevectors in the spatial Fourier transform of the LDOS of disordered BSCCO samples are determined by peaks in the joint density of states (See Sec. 3.3.1 for details), i.e., Ek Im G11(k, w)Im G (k + q, w), as illustrated in Fig. 3-16 Although the above argument was proposed for single impurity and in Eqn. 3.18 we have a separation dependent phase factor e"'R which is deleterious to this argument by averaging the joint density of states with random phase factors, it is still found that the long- lived two-impurity bound-states are primarily derived from a a few selected wave vectors; in order to have standing waves, the phase accumulated from scattering off from two impurities, together with the contribution from space propagation should sum up to nr, i.e., q R + 2j0o = nor, with q being the dominating vectors of scattering process and rio the phase shift from one impurity. In the unitary limit, 2r0 = wr, so the -.... n, i.-.i i.- requires qi R + 20r0 = q2 R + 20/o = nr, qc R + 210o = mr to be satisfied simultaneously. It is easy to check for our present band structure that (3.0), (7,0), (11.0). (14,0) and (3.3), (11,11) roughly cI/2 q, n nt2 0 i/2 I !,-.' 3 7: Fermi surface of BSCCO-2212 with constant energy surfaces at w = 0.04 shown as small filled ellipses at the nodal points. ql, q2, qs are wave vectors for which the joint density of states is large. balance the equation and we indeed see sharp resonant states for those specific I...-f,,.io ,i.... Also, it is observed that the sharp resonant states occur much frequently in the (100) direction than in the (110) direction as the criterion holds. We also noticed that the splitting surprisingly persists up even to a relatively large distance R = 13 in (100) direction, while the exponential decay of wavefluc- tions in the gas model would predict weak interference and negligible splitting at this separation. This results suggests that even with a .. i r. 1, dilute concen- tration of impurities, the spatial LDOS around impurities should not be identical because of the random distribution of impurities and the interference between their wavefunctions; however, STM experiments apparently observed point-like, well isolated, and nearly identical impurities patterns embedded in the superconducting bath. In the following sections, I will show how this contradiction can be relaxed. F... il it is also noteworthy that while the gas model or pure nested band an- ticipates four distinctive resonant peaks, there are usually only 2 visible resonant peaks which can be observed for the realistic band. 47 3.2 DOS of two Impurities and Many Impurities at w = 0 : Local Resonance vs. Cumulative Interference 3.2.1 F. ,, 1 ; F ,,, I; ... -,-T 'IN ,i;, , The problem of low-energy d-wave quasiparticle excitations has been treated I, 1..,. .,11 ,! with a so called self consistent T-matrix approximation (SCTMA) [48, 58, 59, 60] which partially sums up the perturbation series and models the impurities as strong point-like scatters. As illustrated in Fig. 3-8, the self-energy is approximated as E(u) a n,T(w), i.e., the product of the concentration of impurities and the single impurity T-matrix, by dropping all the crossed diagrams. It is then clear that SCTMA incorporates arbitrary potential -r. i-.!-b appropriately but neglects inter-impiuity correlations. SCTMA predicts that the impurity states broaden with the increase of impurity concentration and finally evolve into a subgap impurity Iand. The corresponding roughly constant low energy region of the DOS is referred to as the impurity plateau, as illustrated in Fig. 3 9. While the existence of excess quasiparticle states (the impurity band) has been confirmed by several transport and thermodynamic measurements, the lifetime of those nodal quasiparticles is not consistent with what the simplest SCTMA conjectures. For example, the absorptive part of the microwave ..k. l i. r a is significantly larger than the disorder-independent "universal limit" proposed by Lee [71]. Moreover, the expected T2-dependence of a at low temperatures (one factor of T comes from the density of states and another one comes from the self-energy which is inversely proportional to T) [72] arc not borne out by experiments as well; instead, a displays a linear T dependence in YBa2Cu107_a [73. 74, 75]. Among the various explanations proposed for these discrepancies, one crit- icism casts doubts on the validity of the SCTMA itself by arguing that crossed interference diagrams neglected in this approximation leads to a second-order r.a log' 2, divergence in 2D coming from the gap nodes [64], to be compared with the SCTMA, where one has 2nd order contribution of hi ,. Thus for any fixed n,, the crossed diagrams dominate at sufficiently low energy. SCTM (B) U., + ,. + ... .' * G + + miad diagmm Figure 3 8: Schematic plot of the self-energy diagram with many impurities. (a) Zero-energy (b) peak Sero-energy suppression Impurity hand F r-i-. 3-9: Schematic figure of the many-impurity DOS (a) in the unitary limit of the half-filled band and (b) in the unitary limit of a generic band. 3.2.2 Nonperturbative Predictions: When casting doubt on the effectiveness of SCTMA, Nersesyan et al. [64] accordingly performed a nonperturbative calculation for scattering within a single node and predicted a vanishing DOS at the Fermi level, p(w) w L with exact hosonization. After this work, several i.i......ii11 exact nonperturbative theories made diverse conclusions: p(O) may vanish with different power laws [61, 76], saturate at a finite value [65], or even diverge[l, 62, 77, 78]. Fig. 3 9 displays the band-dependent p()I = 0) .. ,. ,, i,. .11. All these nonperturbative works claimed to yield exact results for the problem of low-energy DOS of a d-wave superconductor. These apparently conflicting results were reconciled by Hirschfeld and Atkinson [63] and Yashenkin et al. *-,.*. who pointed out the d-wave disorder problem was very sensitive to symmetries of both the disorder model and the normal state band. Among all the theories, the one proposed by Pepin and Lee [1] is of great interest to me, which claims that the result for a N-impurity T-matrix is essentially n, times the single-impurity result. However, a closer inspection reveals that this peculiarity is tied to the disorder interference rather than the single impurity resonance at the Fermi level. Hirschfeld and Atkinson [63], Yashenkin et al. [66]. and Atkinson et al. [79] further pointed out that this divergence is the consequence of a global particle-symmetry particularly possessed by the half-filled tight binding model. 3.2.3 Divergence in Pure Nested Band with Unitary Scatters Hirschfeld and Atkinson [63] have expended considerable effort to reconcile the disagreement among the nonperturbative approaches. However, including their works, none of the studies above have addressed this problem from a local point of view. The two-impurity problem offers a possibility to study this problem, to observe how the divergent DOS in the perfectly nested case might arise. As we know from Sec. 3-1, the Green's function for two a-like impurities can be written as G(r,r', w) = G;(r r', w) + ("(r R .. i i., o'(R, r, s). The 2-impurity T-matrix is a 4 x 4 matrix (in the Hilbert space expanded by site and spin indices) satisfies VU 4-C (^O .) -Go(Rw) T= "(. ) (R (3.19) -G (R,1 ) to-'3 (G" (0,) It is technically expensive to evaluate of the local Green's functions ("(R. 1 ) and we can only approximate then under some specific circumstances. For the A F,-.!. 3 10: Schematic plot of bipartite lattice. -i-i.,,ii.,,Lh.. hlall-filled band and the limit w -- 0, we obtained an asymptotic form (see Appendix A): (o, ) = o. (3.20) where a = N I i _, N = 4 is the number of nodes, vF is the Fermi velocity and v is the anomalous quasiparticle velocity IVkAk|. and the cutoff A is of order of An. The expansion in w for r = (mn, ) depends on whether n and m are odd or even. For the (even, even) case, we have G"(r,w) (-1) i' ) + C'o(r)] to, (3.21) where Co(r) is a real function of r. We find similar leading-order expressions for (m, n) = (odd, odd), ( ... ... ^) Co(r)o,. (3.22) while for (m, n) = (odd. even) or (even. odd). G o(m, n, L) Cl(r)f + (.(r)3s, (3.23) where C1 (r), and C3(r) are real coefficients as functions of r as well. This dis- tinction between even and odd sites accounts for the oscillatory nature of the wavefunctions for the special case that the Fermi wavevector is commensurate with the lattice. A concept of bipartite" lattice should be introduced here, which divides the square lattice into two interleaved subsets, as illustrated in Fig. 3 10, where V102 2x10' 001 Vo= .0. 002 0 Vo 5xl0 vo=100 V o=1000 S-0.002 -0.01 0 .o001 0.002 Figure 3-11: ( I, i... in p(w) due to impurities. Impurity separation: R = (2,2). red and blue sports belong to different sub-lattices respectively. A stunning effect happens when the two impurities are in the same sub-lattice, i.e., R = (even, even) or R = (odd, odd). In that case, we found det T diverges as det :-T .. R .::,. i R = (even, even) SGo(0, )- R= (odd, odd) and the correction to total density of states: S1/[wIn2\ -" R = (even, even) (3.24) S2/[wh l2(A/w)] R (odd, odd) It is worthy to pinpoint the origin of the divergence since the similar result was also obtained by Pepin and Lee (PL)[1], which claims that by averaging over all the possible impurity separation using the approximate form G0(R, w) ~ 1/R out to a cutoff t/R, p(w 0) diverges as p(n)= (3.25) p(w) i(A/w) + (7/2)2] where A is a cutoff. In our model, for the (odd, odd) case, the local Green's functions dominate over the nonlocal ones and the physics of the low-energy resonance is essentially that of two noninteracting impurities, which is verified by the factor of 2 in front of the single impurity result( see Eqn. 3.24). For the (even, 10 0. 10V1000 0 04 Figure 3 12: ( I .... in p(~) due to impurities. Impurity separation: R = (2, 1). even) case, the interference effect seems to wipe out the spectral weight and move it to high energies but the divergence survives, as its magnitude reduces to half of that of two isolated resonances. In Fig. 3 11, I show the change of DOS due to two impurities with separation R = (2, 2) for different impurity strengths. It is observed for intermediate impurity strengths, four resonant peaks are clearly defined as the consequence of -i .i t ..... of single impurity resonances. When the unitary limit is approached, a single divergent peak is emergent. However, it should he stressed that, in both cases of separation above, our results are intrinsically different from PL result which is inherently nonlocal. When impurities belong to different sublattices and are separated by a distance with site indices parity as R =(even, odd). The two-impurity T-matrix defined in Eqn.3.19 is: 1 -i, )|) C,R Rl-,+C3(R)fc D' Ct(R)Tl + C3(R)f3 -( i, .-, with )'= G(0, w)2 C (R)2 -(C3(R)2. It follows easily that det T = D'-2 and that 6p( I 0) cx d In -1 A 0 (3.26) A similar result holds for R =(odd. even). Physically, the fact that bp vanishes at the Fermi level indicates that bound state energies must always arise at nonzero 1*5 | I. I l t | 1.5 Vl(X) (a) (b) 2 .Vo=250 0 I 05 I V r'- :o-0.5 -0.02 0 0.02 -0.02 0 0.02 (1) =20 (c) (d)- 8 4- 62 V,)=250 -2 -0.01 0 0.0] -2 0 2 Figure 3 13: (a) DOS for V0=100t. (b) Sealing of the DOS with Va. (c) Scaling of the DOS with L. (d) Scaling of the DOS with Vo and L=60. energies. Numerical calculations of the DOS shown in Fig. 3 12 demonstrate that there is no remnant of the single impurity w 0 divergence for this orientation, and that the resonance energies scale very little with Vo. In this case, it is the dominance of the nonlocal terms which shifts the resonance to finite energy. 3.2.4 Discussion: Bridge Between the Two-impurity and the Many-impurity Problems We have been aiming to show how the two-impurity problem is suggestive of the fully disordered system. To explore their correspondence, two basic issues need to be addressed here: 1) what gives the divergence at a = 0 in the pure nested tight-binding model? 2) how does the impurity band evolve away from w=0? 6-like Divergence at w = 0. In Fig. 3 13, I show the scaling of the integrated DOS as a function of the impurity strength and the system size. The impurity concentration is fixed to be in = 0.1%. The nonperturbative PL result from Eqn. 3.25 is also plotted as dash lines for direct comparison. By setting A = 1, we achieved a good fit the numerics at Vo = 100t. However, when the impurity strength increases, the weight keeps concentrating at the center peak and saturates slowly. This finite-size effect requires us to work in the limit where the level spacing is smaller than the center peak width. The limit Vo -r oo is illustrated in Fig. 3 13 (d). Generally, the peak becomes sharper when Vo is bigger. It is indicated that the divergence is -II,. a delta function, i.e., liimvoi, p(w) ~ 6(w) since the peaks scales as p(w) z VoF'(wVo). What gives the divergence at zero energy and why it is not observed in any other many-impurity case with a generic band? It is pointed out by Yashenkin et al. [66] that the half-filled tight-binding band possesses a particular global nesting symmetry 2G0o(k + Q)f2 = Go(k), which in the unitary limit, i.e., U = oo and p = 0 (in this this special band) gives additional poles with moment Q = (7T, 7) to the particle-hole and particle-pariclcle propagators. This diffusive mode is gapless and hence controls the singularity at zero energy. Any distortion on the band or deviation from unitarity will destroy this nesting symmetry and yield zero DOS at the Fermi level. We have performed careful examinations on the scaling of the peak area with respect to the system size and extracted that the localization length -o x 40a. When system size is bigger than o, the localization effect makes the effective system size finite and the peak weight saturates. This is distinctively different from the Pepin and Lee's result in origin. The divergence of the latter arises from the cumulative effects of interference between a large number of distant impurities. In Fig. 3 14, I show the real space structure of those states in the divergent peak. The LDOS from the eigenstates with energy |E,, < 10-s is plotted, where impurities on different sublattices are indicated with open and filled circles respectively. A remarkable discovery is that only part of the impurities have pronounced structures while others are weakly visible. It is further noticed that + + oo 4 + Fi-.,!, 3 14: LDOS for 2% concentration of impurities and E1,, < 10- t (20 eigen- values). those which "light up" or "dim out" are located in the same sublattice A or B as denoted in the previous section. While this finding can be tmderstood as reminiscent of the two-impurity problem, it is still puzzling in that every impurity is expected to have some close neighbours which belong to a different sublattice and hence contribute to the destruction of the zero-energy peak, but this is not observed apparently. Away from uJ = 0: A Real Space Perspective for STM Experiments. An amazing pattern observed in STM is that almost all impurities, regardless of their local environment, appear to be"resonant" all through the impurity band [10, 43, 44]. Furthermore, the number of the Zu atoms matches the number of resonances, which likely implies that there are no impurity atoms "missing." These collective evidences above were exactly the impetus to the proposal of single impurity quasiparticle scattering scenario. However, the disagreement between the width of resonance peaks observed in experiments (which is of the order of ~ 10 meV and is surprisingly as the same order of the impurity band width in the dilute unitary limit 7y ~ ~1 !) and that of theoretical prediction on single-impurity (7 <1 meV) questioned the preciseness of the single-impurity scenario. Fig. 3 15 displays the spatial distribution of LDOS, with a 0.2% concentration of impurity, a value close to the experimental observations. In the left panel, LDOS is plotted at a particular eigenstate whose energy lies in the impurity band but far enough away from the Fermi level; in the right panel, LDOS is plotted by averaging over a final energy window within which five eigenstates are included. It is interesting to note that while in the left panel, only a portion of impurities "light up" (resonant) while others are "dark" (not resonant) simultaneously; the right panel recovers the experimentally observed single impurity pattern I. ,i ,1tr i' .. This possibly implies that the DOS plateau for wu > 0 is formed by summing over many impurities with inhomogeneouss broadening" (different impurities become resonant and turn off at different energies, the basic fact is that the resonant lifetimes are different for different energies, since we have a nontrivial w-dependent DOS for the pure system with which the resonant states overlap). We are then inspired to formulate such a hypothesis: the exact image obtained by STM tips could be the summation of many N-impurity eigenstates, some of which are resonant at a given energy and others are not. over a finite energy window, and the "single" impurity pattern is visually recovered by piling up the snapshots at different energies. Notice that even though the energy resolution in STM is as small as 1meV, there are still numerous eigenstates within such a window size for a typical sample size (L ~ 500A) and impurity concentration (ni, 0.2 0.5W) with which the tips may bin over to produce the nearly isolated, four-fold symmetric, localized impurity patterns. 3.2.5 Conclusion I would like to finish the discussion on two-impurity problem by summing up the physics of most importance we learnt from this specific model: The commensurability of the nodal wave vectors and the tight-binding lattice classifies the two-impurity configuration into two sublattices: the impurity pairs on the same sublattice contribute to a divergence in p(w). At a = 0. The extended tails are blurred by the incommensurability between the lattice and the wavevectors of eigenstates, and this also helps to set up the single impurity pattern. Apart from the Fermi level, this phenomenon is even more pronounced. C4: +****. SI * X po2it2n Xposi-n Figure 3-15: LDOS for 0.5% concentration of impurities. Left: E, = 0.03851; right: averaged over five eigenvalue in energy interval IE,, 0.03t| < 0.02t. with the global constructive interference by the particular T2 symmetry in hall-filled tight binding band, the DOS of the many-impurity system diverges and contains a 6-function form. However, I should emphasize that this sharp peak at w = 0 is the consequence of the special feature of hamiltonians with 72 symmetry only, and is not a generic attribute of d-wave superconductors. SAway from the Fermi level, the quantumn interference between impurities still exists. Incommensurate scattering wavevectors allowed by the increase in the available kinematics phase space smears the nodal network and distorts the resonant states, which are inhomogeneously distributed. However, the finite energy window of STM technique, although it is quite small in laboratory terms, still introduces considerable homogeneous broadening to the resonant states by essentially averaging over a large number of eigenstates of the macroscopic system. The isolated impurity pattern with classic fourfold symmetry is visually recovered. 3.3 Power Spectrum for Many Impurities When pebbles are thrown into water, they cause ripples. Impurities induce "ripples" in the electron sea in the similar way. If the images of the impurity induced "ripples" are Fourier transformed (FT) into momentum space, they generally select out some defining wavevectors from which we can map out the S (1.1) ; (0.I) (1.1) a 56 10 16 20 30 3 R,(a) u ntV) i ,._i,. 3 16: Left panel:the constant energy contours with the q vectors; right panel: the evolutions of q vectors as a function of energy. dispersion of eigenstates in the pure system. In normal metals, they are mainly Fermi wavevectors [36, 37]; in a d-wave superconductor, those Fourier transformed DOS (FTDOS) patterns contain fruther useful information on the SC state. 3.3.1 Weak Scattering Limit: Octet Model and Kinematics of Quasiparticles The Cornell STM group [69, 70] first obtained the Fourier transformed density of states for optimal-doped disordered BSCCO. which is defined as p(q) = r e,"rp(r). They plotted its absolute value as a function of momentum q and bias energy w and observed some distinct peaks. An explanation based on quasiparticle scattering identified those peaks as the consequence of a disturbance due to atomic scale disorder. It was speculated [80] that the scattering processes which have a momentum shift q = kfj,,,,, kiltel connecting the regions with substantial density of states will dominate others, because there is large available phase space both in the initial and final states. In a hand theory, the quasiparticle DOS p(w) at w is proportional to J Vk' I k|k (3.27) E(k) and the area with the smallest energy gradient contributes to p(w) mostly. If there exist well defined quasiparticles in the superconducting state, then certain segments of the Fermi surface will be gapped out and the constant energy contour (CEC. the surface of which all the points have the same energy {k : E(k) = Jo}) deforms in the d-wave case into "bananas", as schematically plotted in Fig. 3 16. The quasiparticle DOS around the tips of bananas is higher than the other domains and we should be able to observe a pronounced |p(q)[ for the q vectors connecting these tips. In addition, these q vectors should disperse with STM sample bias w in a characteristic way as the quasiparticle CEC's change. This proposal is called the "octet" model for quasiparticle scattering since for each binding energy there are eight identical q vectors connecting the "banana" tips in the first Brillouin zone. We can work in momentum space within the T-matrix formalism and obtain the explicit form of p(q) (after taking off the homogeneous component) as well: p(q) Im[ G(e)(k + q,)T(k + q k ,.."'k (3.28) k Of course the p(q) derived from the complete T-matrix includes not only the octet peaks but also additional structures that may hinder the visibility of the desired ones. However, in the weak scattering limit, i.e., T(k', k) V(k', k), may scattering of high order be neglected and the disorder potential be factored out as well: p(q) h~Im{V(q) G(O)(k + q, w)G(O)(k, w)}, (3.29) k where V(q) is the Fourier component of the real space potential V(r). The term k G(')(k + q, w)G(O)(k, w) is called the response function (also named A function) which is only determined by the kinematics of the pure system. The physical interpretation of Eqn. 3.29 is transparent: the imaginary parts of the Green's functions, namely, density of states, p,,i,,,l and Pfnal determine the probability of scattering events jointly. Furthermore, the magnitudes of those q's display two distinct dispersions: while some of them increase with increasing bias, others decrease monotonically (see Fig. 3 16). The comparison between the experimental and theoretical w-dependence of those q peaks is presented in Fig. 3 16, showing good agreement with each other! The theoretical prediction is calculated from a standard BCS theory with quasiparticle dispersion Ek = ,+ A. (3.30) where Ak takes d,2_,2 form. It should be noted that Eqn.3.3.1 has contributions also from the real parts of the Green's functions as well. The result of FT-STS analysis has several implications: it suggests that opti- mally doped BSCCO is qualitatively well described by conventional BCS quasipar- tides. Moreover, because the unperturbed Green's function contains the dispersion of free quasiparticles in a homogeneous system, we then can trace the energy dependence of those vectors and map out the kinematics of the clean system! In fact, the q vectors extracted from FT-STS have been used to construct the Fermi surface of BSCCO and a comparison with that from angle-resolved photoemission experiments displayed a good agreement [70, 81] which confirms our knowledge of the electronic structure of BSSCO and, probably more importantly, reinforces our confidence in both the real space (STM) and momentum space (ARPES) tech- niques because the matrix elements for these physical processes are quite different. It is interesting to note that the "signal" used to determine the Fermi surface of he clean system via this technique vanishes in the absence of disorder. Finally, it can also be used to measure the momentum-dependence of the gap function Ak. A result performed by Hoffman et al. gave: Ak = Ao[Acos(20k) + Bi w-i", with A0 = 39.3 meV, A = 0.818, B = 0.182, which reflects approximately the proposed d,2-y. symmetry of the pairing function in BSCCO. 3.3.2 Power Spectrum for Many Impurities in Bi2Sr2CaCu2Os The "octet" model demonstrates that effectiveness of the quasiparticle scattering scenario within the conventional BCS theory for the superconducting state of optimal- or over- doped samples. The study on the Fourier transform of the Friedel oscillations due to impurities further provides important information on the kinematics of pure systems. However, there are also some distinct features in experimental data which is not explicable within this simple model, for examples, the resolved q,.q7 peaks are much broader than expected; furthermore, they have roughly equal weight while the octet model predicts the peak intensity of q7 should be much stronger that of ql. Is the quantum interference between the Friedel oscillations responsible for these discrepancies? In the study of two-impurity problem [54], I have shown that the interference pattern can persist up to a relatively long separation; practically. concentration of impurities in samples generally yields an average inter-impurity distance over which the impurities are still quite "visible" to each other. If we further recall 1) PL's result of the low energy DOS obtained by averaging over the randomly distributed impurity configurations: the interference gives an expression for N-impurity T-matrix which is essentially n, times the single-impurity result; 2) the nearly isolated impurity pattern could be the artifact of homogeneous broadening by the energy window size of STM. We should then doubt the precision of the "octet" model and ask the following questions: 1) is it appropriate for us to a prior assume that one-impurity pattern survives from many impurities and manipulate the experiments data on fully-disordered samples within the frame of this theory? 2) to what extent will its predictions such as peak positions and peak widths be modified qualitatively and quantatively by the interference effect? Many Random Weak Scatters. Capriotti et al. [82] and Zhu et al. [83] an- swered the first question by studying the power spectrum of N randomly dis- tributed point-like impurities. In these works, the N-impurity T-matrix is expressed in terms of the 1-impurity T-matrix 1, = [1 VG(r =I L by N, T, i = ij + t ,[1 ,' "i R -R,,.)T,,,, (3.31) where the impurity potential at R, is V = Vo, and t, are the Pauli matrices. In the dilute concentration limit, only the leading order in i, of Eqn 3.31 needs to be Figure 3 17: FTDOS at u =14 meV for weak potential scatters (V0 = 1 '* I: (a) for one weak impurity, with a few important scattering wavevectors indicated; (b) for 0.15% weak scatterers. Cuts through the data of (a)(thick line) and (b)(thin line) along the (110) direction and scaled by 1/V/'V are plotted vs. q, in (c), while (d) shows the weak scattering response function In A3(q,w). Peaks at q = 0 are removed for clarity. In all the figures, the r and y axes are aligned with the Cu-O bonds. considered: 6p(q,w) qi1,,,," q (3.32) S00,3 where t,(q) = I,, i e-iqR and A,,(q, ) = Ek [G(k, w)ioGo(k + q "," In the weak potential limit, Eqn. 3.32 reduces to 6p(q,i) 2- -V(q)Im A;,(q,w)/7r, (3.33) which is also valid for finite range V(r). It is realized that both of the limits afford a complete separation between degrees of freedom associated with the disorder potential and those of the pure system. There are several consequences of this separation: 1) the "octet" peaks are not broadened or shifted by disorder and it is A_,, the response function of the clean system that determines the peak positions and the widths in the FTDOS; 2) the randomness of disorder introduces noise which is actually as large as the signal since the disorder average gives ',,i.q I-: N, and (16p(q,w)j4) - SI '*- -'I 1- ~ N ,(NI 1); consequently, some one impurity peaks will not be robust in many-impurity case (for example, the weak qi peaks in Fig. 3-17 (a) are lost in Fig. 3-17 (b)); 3) technically, we may also compare the response function and the many-impurity FTDOS at different energies to map out the shape of the potentials V(q) if-l.. are spatially extended. Actually, since there is still lack of the knowledge on the spatial form of the disorder in BSCCO, this proposes in principle a method to resolve the impurity structure from LDOS measurement directly. Finally, it should be pointed out that the imaginary part of the single particle self-energy due to the point-like scatters does not broaden the "octet" peaks but suppresses their magnitude in momentum space (at any energies) since it is momentum-isotropic, i.e., 6E/dk = 0. Point-like impurities with either dilute concentration or weak strength prove to be inadequate to address on the relevant peak widths and peak intensities of ql and q7 vectors in experiments. Probably, the former fails because it neglects the interference effect and the latter further excludes the contribution from other channels of the response function. In Fig. 3 18, I show To, T and T7 components of An at several energies. It is observed that, interestingly, while Aa resolves q7, q,, q6, Ao resolves qi, q5 quite clearly (q3 and q4 are present in both of the two channels). This difference between Ao and Aa seems to necessitate the inclusion of unitary impurities as possible scattering centers and is supported plainly from the structure of the T-matrix for point-like scatters, 9a( )ra cr3 T(w) = g(a- CT (3.34) c- .(W) ....,- ( where go(w -> 0) ~ w. In the weak scattering limit the second term in Eqn 3.34 dominates and ql and qs peaks are missing. However, in the unitary limit, i.e., W=0.045455 w=0.090909 w0.13636 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 IT 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 MEN 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 Figure 3-18: The plot of Nambu component of spectral functions at several fre quencies. c = g(w 0) -' 0, To and r, channels will have roughly equal weight and therefore bring up all the q peaks at lower energies. Additionally, the presence of unitary scatters is also consistent with the finding of the plainly evident local resonances in the LDOS from STM for w < 15meV.3 Another constraint on the impurity potential imposed by the experiments is the peak widths of those vectors. If we allow that experiments may be seeing background features as well as (or instead of) the true "octet" peaks, then the FTDOS in Fig. 3-17 is fairly compatible with experimental data at -14 meV (as shown in Fig. 3-19). However, comparisons at other energies are significantly worse. As revealed by the experiments, besides the observance of unitary scatters, the energy gap extracted from STM measurements of BSCCO is inhomogeneous at the nanometer scales [84, 85], ranging from underdoping to slightly overdoped. With the lack of understanding of the source of those inhomogeneities, we modified them as smooth random potentials, probably originating from charge inhomo- geneities from BiO layer, with the structure as V(r) = Ej V(i) exp(-ri/A)/ii and fi = [(r Ri)2 + (~]1/2, where R, + zd, are the defect locations, V(i) are the defect potentials and A is a screening length. These extended impurities do not induce any resonance feature at all as they never make real poles for the denominator of T-matrix, but their momentum-dependent potentials V(q) assign a considerable probability to the "off-shell" scattering (the process involved with the k's which do not satisfy the poles equations for the Green's functions of initial and final states simultaneously) which act to blur the octet peaks. 3 This is also true for magnetic impurities since their spin resolved matrix is written as To in Nambu notation. But we focus on the potential scatters here. 66 In Fig. 3 19, I show the comparison between theoretically calculated FT-DOS and experimental results. The theoretical results were obtained by solving the Bo- golingov De-Gennes (BDG) equations 4 including both unitary and weak, extended scatters. The q vectors from the "octet" model are also plotted. A fair agreement between the calculated and experimental FT-DOS is achieved at low energies. The qi and qr, peaks are well-resolved theoretically, but most of the structure comes from a set of broader background features which disperse along with the octet vec- tors simultaneously. In general, the background structures disperse qualitatively as one expects in single impurity model. Meanwhile, theoretically calculated FTDOS display an asymmetry between positive and negative energies where experimental ones do not. This is maybe the result of the large asymmetry of the model band, in which there is a Van hove singularity at w 5 50 meV that is not observed in STM experiments. While ql, q5 are identified as "remnant" of octet peaks together with the dispersing back ground, qr seems to be inisidentified as octet peaks in experimental data, as we argued. since the measured magnitude is as twice as the predicted value from nearest-neighbor d-wave model. Because the q7 peaks comes from intranodal scattering, they are a direct measure of the k-dependence of the superconducting gap and scales with ~ 1/vI, where Ca is the gap velocity at the nodes. McEhoy et a. [70] have exploited this mechanism to map out the gap function Ak and were forced to introduced a significant subleading cos 60 harmonic to fit their data. This is in sharp contrast to the pure near-neighbor d-wave form at optimal doping resolved from ARPES spectroscopy. Recognizing that the observed SIn BDG formalism, the hamiltonian for a superconductor on a square lattice is, where the angle brackets indicate that site indices i and jare nearest neighbors, Ui is the impurity potential, and A,a = -V(cjlcii) is the mean-field order parameter. I ,. ,. 3 19: Comparison of theory and experiment. Left panel: LDOS: middle panel: calculated FTDOS; right panel: FTDOS from STM experiments. feature at roughly twice the true q7 is in fact the background feature found in our calculations may enable one to bring the two experiments in closer agreement. At energies Iw, > 15 meV, Fig. 3 19 shows a qualitatively similar nanoscale variation of LDOS as seen in experiments. However, the (110) peaks associated with forward scattering are stronger than (100) peaks. This can be understood since the unitary scatters are only resonant at low energies and do not have noticeable effects at high energies. Therefore, the difficulty to bring up qi peaks places further constraint on the impurity potential. Alternatively, it has also been proposed that q, peaks could be attributed either to the exotic orders such as stripe formation [30, 31] or to the scattering from gap inhomogeneities, i.e., the contribution from Ti channel. CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION: QUASIPARTICLES, DISORDERS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR STM SPECTROSCOPY The notable improvement in the resolution of STM experiments has shifted the focus of the study of high-temperature superconductivity from bulk, macroscopic property to nanoscale, specifically, local quantum states and electronic structures. a level from which we believe the fundamental mechanism of high temperature superconductivity may eventually be uncovered. The lii.... ....... results of STM experiments have established several undisputed facts: a) the spatial modula- tions of the LDOS and order parameters are inhomogeneous at the nanoscale in Bi2Sr2CaCu2Os ; b) disorder with unknown origin and structure is ubiquitous in this sample; c) optimal- and over-doped cuprates may be well described by the conventional BCS theory with unusual order parameters. I attempt to elucidate to what extent we can relate such atomnic-scale electronic phenomena to disorder induced wave-like quasiparticle states and the quantum interference effects be- tween them. I here briefly summarize my i.i. 1 .1 ,-,.i... on the implications of the quasiparticle scattering model for the recent discoveries in STM experiments. 4.1 Atomic Level Resonances. Quasparticle States amd Unitary Scatters The zero-bias differential conductance map on the surface of BSCCO displays localized resonant features of size of 3 nanometers and four-fold symmetric distribu- tion of LDOS. In addition, the spectra on the centers of those bright spots exhibit a zero-bias sharp peak, as shown in ..- 4 1 [43]. There has been great deal of effort ascribing these observations to the quasi- particle scattering from atomic-scale defects. While the identities of these "native" defects are still not clear ( the possible candidates include defects such as Cu and O vacancies, crystal defects etc), tIhe spectroscopic signature are quite similar to I Figure 4 1: Zn impurity resonance. left channel: dI/dV Vs.w; right channel: the LDOS spectrum above the Zn site. those observed when Zn and Ni are explicitly substituted for Cu. Theoretical cal- culations, in which Zn and Ni were modelled as potential and magnetic scatterers respectively, seemed to support this conjecture by yielding qualitative agreement with experimental results and further substantiated the possibility of using local- ized defects as atomic probes for the superconducting state. The validity of this scenario was afterwards reinforced by its successful application to the analysis of Fourier transformed LDOS, through which we mapped out the kinematics of the pure superconducting state (such as the Fermi surface, the band dispersion and the momentum-dependence of the order parameter) that was confirmed by the results from momentum sensitive techniques as well. Additionally, transport measurements [86, 87] also demonstrated the existence of excess low-energy quasiparticle states, which may result from the collective interference between impurity wavefunctions. However, there remain a few difficulties in the quasiparticle scattering scenario: The expected spectral weight distributions around Zn impurities are com- pletely reversed in experiments ( see Chapter 2 for details). A proposal emphasizing the "filter" effect arising from the coupling between the orbitals with zero in plane components and the 3d,.2 _, wavefunctions of the nearest neighbor Cu reconciles this disagreement but raises another debate on the sign of the Zn impurity itself. So far. hand-waving arguments based on the atomic configuration suggests Zn is an attractive potential for electrons while calculations determining the unitary limit by adopting realistic band structure and ab initio DFT calculations find a repulsive potential. This, together with the fact that Zn (presumably a potential scatterer) atoms are more destructive to local coherence than Ni (presumably a magnetic scatter), remains an unsettled issue. The ability of one-impurity quasiparticle scattering model of any kind to explain the details of local STM spectra in samples with percent level disorder is severely limited. Despite the fact that conventional scattering theory might be intrinsically deficient since it is completely blind to the possible strong correlations between the impurity states and the surrounding electrons, it is inadequate to address several experimental observations. For example, although the analysis of Fourier transformed LDOS (within the single impurity scattering scenario) resolved the characteristic peaks associated with the kinematics of pure system, the actual heights and widths of these peaks are inconsistent with the one-impurity model. With the inclusion of extended impluities, proposals based on the quantum interference between impurities yielded better agreement with the experimental data but still could not reproduce all the observations consistently. 4.2 Nanoscale Gap Inhomogeneity In addition to aforementioned zero bias resonances due to planar defects. a further fascinating aspect of the local electronic structure is the observation of large, nanoscale fluctuations of the LDOS. In Fig. 4-2, I show the plot of gapmap in an overdoped BSCCO-2212. In this plot, each spot is a real lattice point and the color represents the relative magnitude of the local gap maxima which is defined as the position of coherent peak in the local spectral weight on the chosen site. Generally, this nanoscale inhomogeneity appears at biases close to the bulk gap edge in BSCCO accompanied by homogeneous low energy (IwI < Ao) spectra across Figure 4 2: The gapmap of overdoped BSSCO. Sample size 500A x500A. fb I , -10 -50 0 50 100 Sample has (mV) Figure 4-3: Spectra on different sites along the horizontal cut. the sample (See Fig. 4-3). This observance was interpreted as the local fluctuation of the order parameter and divided the system into "patches" with fluctuating phase coherence, which motivated the study of "granular -.[" 1 ...i.i+i. 1i. %T, . However, we should keep in mind that the STM tips measure qiuasiparticle excita- tions directly rather than the order parameter; additionally, in a fully-disordered superconductors, quantum interference effects can also give birth to the local gap inhomogeneity. While we should question whether this inhomogeneity is intrinsic in BSCCO, we may also ask how for can we proceed with quaiparticles and disorder alone, i.e., is this phenomenon completely explicable in "QP+disorder" scenario, or is it some intrinsically exotic state that can be distinguished from a highly disor- dered superconductor? There was an attempt [29] to study the second i .. 11I.1, by using Ni to induce local resonance in superconducting regions and discriminate them from regions of other identities. It was found that Ni atoms only "light up" in the region with relatively small gap value and higher coherent peak (i.e., good superconducting grains) but how the Ni resonances correlated with the inhomo- geneity was not resolved explicitly yet. As far as the first : -,l..j is concerned, the homogeneous shape of the low energy spectra excludes a large concentration of short-range, strong scatters since they should scatter the nodal quasiparticles and result in excess weight around the Fermi level presumably; furthermore, the fact that these inhomogeneities take place at energies close to the bulk gap edge suggests that it is the antinodal quasiparticles that suffer intense scattering from weak, smooth potentials. This could be particularly true in the optimal- to overdoped BSCCO where we have a better global .i ..-..1....i. 11... phase coherence. In Fig. 4 4 and Fig. 4-5. I show the simulation on the gapmap and the spectra along a horizontal cut by solving the Bogoliubov De-Gennes equations. The superconducting patches are not granular in a structural sense. We call them "granular" to refer the fluctuation of the order parameters which characterize the phase condensate in each "grain." Figure 4-4: Gap map from numerical solution of BDG equations with only smooth disorder. Figure 4-5: LDOS along the horizontal cut in the top figure. Finally, there is another piece of evidence supporting the significant scattering of antinodal quasiparticles regardless of the origin of the disorder [70]: the con- ductance map shows that for a given w, the observed Umklapp scattering induced LDOS modulation is extremely localized to the region whose local gap value is approximately equal to w. This indicates that for k s (7, 0), the quasiparticle dispersion experiences strong nanoscale variation and the antinodal quasipaticle lifetime is remarkably influenced by the scattering. Nevertheless, this is in con- tradiction with the fact that the antinodal quasiparticles are well-defined in the superconducting state, indicated by the the sharp (Tr, 0) quasiparticle spectra in ARPES. 4.3 Long-range Modulation and Exotic Orders The electronic structure of cuprates has been proven to be extremely sensitive to transitions into a variety of ordered states. Doping increases the mobility of the itinerant holes and they redistribute among the disordered potential landscape to establish ......h. r..1 electronic modulations. Various spatial modulations, such as inhomogeneous gap distribution, incommensurate periodicity oriented along the copper-oxygen bond, "checkboard" pattern were consecutively reported in various underdoped samples [88, 89]. Identification of those spatial modulations generally falls into two categories: it could be the ordering either tied to the lattice or tied to the Fermi surface (interference effect). The first possibility tries to attribute the experimental observations as the consequence of competition between the superconducting state and exotic orders such as d-density-wave [18], antiferromagnetic spin density-wave [90] and centers the debate onto the exploration on the underlying mechanism of the "pseudogap" state, the region where the observations described above are prominent. Several authors have studied the impurity effect in those hypothesized orders (or a mixed states of the exotic orders and the ..w. '.. ..1.,. I.. state) in the "pseudogap" state [91, 92, 93] and proposed that the spectroscopic feature, such as the spatial distribution and energy of the resonant states could be used to i. I. wii the different types of orders. The second scenario, although depending on the detailed information about the quasiparticle excitations for the proposed order, generally predicts energy-dependent characteristic scattering vectors, which is in conflict with the energy-independent wavevectors extracted from the Fourier transformed STM DOS at q = 4.5ao in underdoped samples. While it might be premature to reject the quasiparticle interference scenario entirely, this contradiction at least imposes a constraint on the Green's function by asking for a dispersive imaginary part and a non-dispersive convolution between two imaginary components (similar to the argument of the joint density of states ) simultaneously. As for now, the content 75 in this section still remains the most intriguing puzzle in the understanding of the phase diagram of cuprates. CHAPTER 5 ANGLE-RESOLVED PHOTOEMISSION SPECTRA OF DISORDERED CUPRATES In the previous chapters, I have discussed how the recent improvements in STM technique facilitated our comprehension of the cuprates by providing detailed real space image of their surfaces and extracting local, subatomic electronic structures of superconducting materials directly. However, spectroscopies in momentum space provide complementary information and are sometimes even more important because they interpret the dynamics and kinematics of the systems in a more "physically transparent" way. The angle-resolved photoemission (ARPES) technique is such one desirable method since the coherent part of its momentum-resolved spectrum elucidates the dispersion and self-energy of single particle unambiguously in quasi two dimensional systems. ARPES has been empirically useful in determining the electronic states of cuprates. for example, the energy distribution curves (EDC) of ARPES follow the hypothesized d-wave like momentum-dependence of the order parameter Ak. Recently, the dramatic improvement in the angular and momentum resolution of ARPES, as of 2 meV and 0.2" respectively, makes this technique a leading tool in the study of high-T,. superconductors. The one particle spectral function resolved from the advanced ARPES experiments reveals novel and perplexing line shapes [33, 94, 95, 96, 34] in the low energy regime and each has ushered in a new round of investigation in high-T, superconductors. I will concentrate, in this chapter, on the impact of elastic forward scattering and its implications on the contemporary dispute, regarding the energy- and momentunm-dependence of the single particle self-energy [97, 98]. 77 5.1 Angle-resolved Photoeinission Spectra of High Temperature Superconductors 5.1.1 Spectral Function and Self-energy When photons hit metal surface, they will be absorbed by electrons and hence pump the electrons up into higher energy levels. The excited electrons will then propagate in the metals and eventually be emitted through the surfaces if they have sufficient energy to overcome the work function. The excitation of electrons is governed by the Fermi's golden rule. The intensity of the photoelectrons are measured by the detectors. If we assume that the relaxation time of the excited electrons is much longer than the time for them to reach the surface (this is the so called sudden approximation). we could roughly formulate the intensity of outgoing electrons beams as: I(k, ) = lo(k)f(a()A(k, )., (5.1) where lo(k) is determined by the momentum dependent matrix elements and the Fermi function f(w) illustrates that this process can only measure the unoccupied states. The one particle spectral function A(k,w) describes the probability of creating or i..... iii .1 one particle in an interacting many-body system and is associated with the imaginary part of the retarded Green's function, as defined in Eqn. 5.2: A/(k, ) = .; I .I +'- '"+ ) + + | 1 | t .*- E + ') u=Im(k., + iO ). (5.2) In a non-interacting system, A(k, )) is nothing but a delta function, 6(. (k), everywhere, due to the infinite lifetime of electrons in the absence of inter-body interactions. When the many-body interaction is turned on adiabatically, the bare electrons will be "dressed" by the medium and can be described by the Landau Fermi liquid theory (FL) provided they still live long enough to be considered as approximately independent objects. The FL theory painted the big picture of interacting-electron dynamics and introduced an important theoretical concept. i.e., the "quaisparticles." With this concept, we can treat the dressed "electrons" as bare entities with finite but considerable long lifetimes. The one particle Green's function is generally modified as G-'(k, w) = Go1 E(k, ), where E(k, w) = E'(k,w) + iE"(k, w), E'(k, w) = ReE(k, )), E"(k, w) = ImnE(k, ) and E is called the "self-energy." Its real part describes the renormalization of the bare electronic dispersion due to many-body effects and its imaginary part is related to the one particle lifetime by r(k, w) = -1/2Im(k, w). The general expression for the spectral function is then: 1 E"(k, J) A(k, w)) --- ( (5.3) i I k The self energy E(k, w) arises from many-body and impurity effects and encapsulates all the information about interactions. Generally, we can plot the measured intensity (oc A(k, )) either as a function of w I. I.lhiI- energy) for a fixed momentum k (EDC), or as function of k with a fixed value of w (MDC). The detailed forms of self-energies extracted for the cuprates from these two methods exhibit quite unusual features which are in conflict with the traditional FL theory and will be the focus point in the discussions below. The spectral properties of single particles in the normal states obtained from ARPES data are extremely unusual. Despite the existence of well-defined Fermi surfaces in various samples I the energy and momentum dependence of the spectral function deviates considerably from the predictions of the FL theory. The most striking discovery is that there exist no well-defined quasiparticles in the normal state of optimally doped or slightly overdoped HTS's near the (7r, 0) point of the Brillouin zones [99, 100, 101], while in superconducting states of these samples quasi-particles are well-defined over a certain range in the 1st BZ, 0.4 0.2 0 Binding energy (eV) Figure 5 1: ARPES spectra from overdoped Bi2212 (T,=87K). a) normal- and b), (c) superconducting state data measured at the k point indicated in the inset of (c). as shown in Fig. 5 1 [100]. The photoemission intensity exhibits (panel (b)) a pronounced peak, followed immediately by a "dip" and then a "hump" feature at higher binding energies in the -. ......-l. i,.... i ,,. state' When the temperature increases, the coherent low energy quasiparticle peak evolutes -..I IiriI.., .i and finally melts into a quite broaden background (panel (a)). indicating that a considerable self-energy develops across the phase transition and the quasiparticles are no longer well-defined. We might cast a doubt on the applicability of the FL theory to the normal state of high T,. superconductors since the normal state temperature is of the order of 100K ( it is quite high compared to the general definition of "low" temperature), I It is called the "peak-dip-hump" feature. The high energy humps are specu- lated generally to he the consequence of phonon modes, magnetic, collective mode or I ilayer ..J.r r.,. effects. but we should also not abandon it unthinkingly because 1) it has assisted our understanding in various crystalline solids and been useful over a wide range of temperatures 2) there are still well-defined quasiparticles in certain segments of Fermi surfaces when the gap opens, which is consistent with the conventional BCS theory. However, an estimate of the full width-half maximum (FWHM) of the broadened peak yields a value of ~ 100meV, which is one order of magnitude bigger than the thermal broadening. This, together with the continuous evolution of the qp peak suggests that temperature cannot be responsible for such a large peak width directly. While there are numerous scenarios concerning the origin of the one particle self-energy such as electron-phonon coupling, spin-fluctuations, magnetic resonance etc, a Marginal Fermi liquid hypothesis proposed by Varma et Ua. [8] seems to describe the transport and thermodynamic properties and the anomalies observed in ARPES phenomenologically.2 It was further speculated [9] that in order to interpret the behavior of self-energy, we need include a term independent of frequency and temperature, which is probably associated with elastic forward scattering of quasiparticles by impurities located away from the CuO2 plane, and a MFL component as defined in Eqn 5.4. The scattering rate in the normal state then reads: F(k,w) -I ik .,)+r ,... .k ), (5.5) 2 The MFL theory was postulated to reconcile the conflict between the anoma- lous (but universal) properties in the normal state of cuprates and the well-defined Fermi surface (in optimally doped samples). It assumes that electrons couple with a bosonic excitation whose spectrum has a scale-invariant form B(w) minr(, 1). The electron self energy due to the scattering from this bosonic spectrum has a form: E(k.,w) = A( wlog .r, (5.4) a', 2' where : =. ... I | T). This singular behavior of self-energy leads to the absence of the FL-like quasiparticles even on the Fermi surface when T=0. The possible 'l,.i;. .iii of elastic forward scattering is further reinforced by the f. -1..- --.- fact: in Born approximation, the self-energy due to impurity scattering is written as E(k,w) = n, IVk,k'l2o(k',w). (5.6) k' Qualitatively, if Vk,k' is peaked at certain direction, then E(k, w) is roughly proportional to the imaginary part of the integrated Green's function over a narrow range centered around k, i.e., G(k, ) ~ Ek'-kk Go(k', w). When 16k is extremely small, namely, in forward limit, E(k,w) is proportional to vF(k)-l (the inverse of group velocity of hand electrons), which generally takes the maximum value at antinodes and minimuun value at the nodes on the Fermi surface. This momentum anisotropy of i k I coincides with the experimentally extracted elastic component Fr,(k, w) by assuming the forward scattering scenario, which also displays the similar behavior with a maximum value of 120 meV at antinodal points and 40 meV at nodal points. However, there are two obvious difficulties with this scenario. The first is that the spectral peak measured by ARPES near the (7r, 0) point is known to sharpen dramatically when one goes below T,, a phenomenon interpreted as the formation of a coherent quasiparticle in the superconducting state. This sharpening has normally been attributed to the well-known collapse of the inelastic scattering rate below T, due to the opening of the superconducting gap, but it is hard a priori to guess why something similar should happen in the presence of an elastic scattering rate of order 100meV. The second problem is that recently increased momentum resolution [34] and the use of different photon energies [102, 103, 104, 105] has resolved a .I, splitting which has its maximum effect near the (7r, 0) point. Some of the previously observed "elastic broadening" is therefore certainly due to this as well as to pseudogap effects [106], but exactly how much is not clear. On the other hand, one can certainly not ignore the out-of-plane disorder. The BSCCO material is thought to be doped by excess oxygen in the SrO and BiO planes, and even the best single crystals are believed to contain significant amounts of cation ., ;. iT .. and other out-of-plane defects [107]. It is therefore reasonable to assume that quasiparticles moving in the CuO2 planes of this material must experience a smooth potential landscape due to these defects, and useful to pursue the question of the effect of this type of scattering in the superconducting state. In fact, fits [83] to Fourier transformed-scanning tunnelling spectroscopy measurements [69, 70] on similar samples to those used in the ARPES studies have recently been shown to require both a strong (near-unitary limit) scattering component, attributed to native defects in the Cu02 planes, as well as a weaker. smooth scattering potential component attributed to defects away from the plane. Recently, Markiewicz has also attempted to relate STM and ARPES data in the .ii" ......1.. r .... state assuming a smooth potential [108]. 5.2 Elastic Forward S ..... .1 ,* , r. i : ; .i ... Normal State. Consider a model system including elastic scatters of finite range K-1, with a concentration ni. Assuming the single impurity takes the form 3 V(r) = Voe-", we can calculate its two dimensional Fourier component: 27r Vo Vkk' = 27 (5.7) Iuk- k I .I where Vo sets the strength of the potential. The -. il... ,. in Born approximation is then defined through Eqn 5.6 As the range of the potential ;-' increases, the scattering of a qnasiparticle from k to k' becomes peaked in the forward direction. As shown in Fig. 5 2, 3 There is a consensus that quasiparticle moving in the CuO2 plane experience a smooth potential landscape due to defects whose detailed structure is unclear yet. However, a concrete impurity model is needed for any computations. We adopt the exponential form rather than any other particular structure such as Yukawa law for the sake of analytical convenience. Our qualitative picture is robust against any specific form of forward scatters. 0 In Fr. ,w.' 5 2: Geometry for the forward scattering process in which a quasiparticle scatters from k to k'. when k is close to k' and both are not too far from the Fermi surface, we may parameterize them as k = k. + k-k (5.8) k' = kF + q1 + l'k (5.9) where q = k k' is the momentum transfer and q|| its component parallel to the Fermi surface. The unit vectors kj and k' are the projections of k and k' onto the Fermi surface, respectively, such that, e.g., tk' = iF(k')k'. The imaginary part of the retarded self-energy Eqn. 5.6 becomes ,, I. i i+ Y"(k, ) = ,(w k') "" [+ 2+(k -)2 + ] S(5.10) Eqn. 5.10 shows explicitly that in the limit of small K, the -, iI I.. becomes more and more sharply peaked "on the Imass shell" ; = tk, as a generic feature of long-range potentials. The angular dependence of the self-energy in the limit of -> 0 can be verified exactly as the same as that of 1/vF(k). Furthermore, I should point out the self-consistent treatment (by requiring E[Go] -. 11 is important in forward scattering case since it eliminates the van Hove singularity in the spectrum, which may account for the absence of such peculiarity in STM and other -,-..i.- I!1_... experiments on BSCCO. while in the case of point-like scatters, the self-consistency (in Born approximation) only introduces a correction of the order of w'2/E to the non-selfconsistent result, which may be neglected. Superconducting State. In the superconducting state, the self-energy is approxi- mated similar to Eqn. 5.6 as: E = n, ViVkk'I2T3GO(k',w)T, k' = F.S0 (5.11) with Nambu components E, defined as following; (5.12) Eo(k,w) = n, |V(k,k') |2 (5.12) SE(k,w) = n, lV(k,k '2 2 (5.13) k' k' ~ k' and ,o ( 2 Ak, (5.14) El(k,w) = -n E |V(k,k, Ak (5.14) k' k ~ k' In the limit of << 1, the asymptotic forms of self-energies can be derived analytically, which read: 2, Ak,, 1 [ ',(k) (5.15) Here s, I = wl. -Ak sgnw, and v .* ... K -, for the Nambu components a = 0, 1 and 3 respectively, and ro(k) is the normal state scattering rate. E' vanishes on the Fermi surface (k = 0 in this limit. Specifically, when the momentum k is close to the Fermi surface and the energies u; are small, such that I(tk + V-w ,1 i k i < 1, the self-energies reduce to the following: :.,,k ) ~ -ro(kF) K(. V2 (5.16) ) ~Fo(k k sgn w (5.17) ,i'k I 1 0, (5.18) but are strongly suppressed due to energy conservation when I 2 A - (kh becomes greater than KvI, as one may observe in Fig. 5-34 The detailed derivation of superconducting self-energies are included in the appendix. It is noteworthy that for k's away from the node, these results are identical to those expected from an s-wave superconductor [109] (even when self-consistency is included) since the extreme forward scattering eliminates the momentum averaging over the Fermi surface. We therefore expect to recover Anderson's theorem, the insensitivity of bulk thermodynamic properties to nonmagnetic scattering. The physics here is that the for k away from the nodal direction, forward peaked scattering doesn't mix the order parameter of different signs, and hence doesn't break the Cooper pairs. In Fig. 5 3, I also present the numerical results for the self-energy components at nodal and antinodal points on the Fernmi surface. The bare electron band 4 Roughly speaking, the change of momentum 6k in the scattering is cut off by K. Therefore for scattering processes close to the Fermi level, the corresponding variation of energy is avp(k). if we linearize the electron dispersion. On one hand, the quasiparticle energy should be conserved in scattering and kinematics only gives a finite available phase space, i.e., the constant energy contour as discussed in Chapter 3. On the other hand, the linearization in analytical computation may violate the exact energy conservation. But the energy difference between the initial (tk) and final electron (V Ak) component should still be cut off as well due to the forward nature of scattering. 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.15 X 1 < 0.3 N * S- 0.110. 0.2 c=5 0 0 -1 -0.5 0 -1 -0. 0 I T 0 8 0.8 0.6 I 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 0- -1 -0.5 0 -1 -0.5 0 (0 O0 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.3 N I 'I 0 0.2 0.1 ic=5 00 0 o -0.1 -1 -0.5 0 -1 -0.5 0 {) (0. Z /1 I - 9 I=0.5 -0.5 0 00 0.2 4 0.15 / 0 0.1 * % 0.05 - -1 -0.5 0 0) 0.2 0.15 -0.05 -1 -05 0 -I 0.02 -1 -0.5 0 (0 0) 0 -1 -0.5 co Figure 5-3: The self-energy terms -Im :",, k Im i (k, ), and -Im E3(k,w) in the -.i ..-...,.1,1. I.... state at T = 0 for k = kA (top) and kN (bottom), for N: 5 and 0.5 and the same band and scattering parameters as previously used. Here Ak = Ao (cos, cos k)/2 with Ao = 0.21. |

Full Text |

QUASIPARTICLE INTERFERENCE AND THE LOCAL ELECTRONIC STRUCTURE OF DISORDERED rf-WAVE SUPERCONDUCTORS By LINGYIN ZHU A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005 Copyright 2005 by Lingyin Zhu I dedicate this work to my loyal family. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I attribute the completion of my dissertation in great part to my wonderful family, advisor and friends. I would like to express my special gratitude to Prof. Peter Joseph Hirschfeld for his patience, caring guidance and invaluable friendship. He has been not only an academic advisor, but also a mentor to me. If there is a perfect advisor, he can never be closer to that. Special thanks go to Prof. David Tanner for his continuous care and support and Prof. Douglas Scalapino for his instructive discussions with me. I appreciate the invaluable help from Prof. Alan T. Dorsey greatly. I should also thank my committee members Prof. Selman Hirchfield, and Prof. Stephen Pearton for their time and input. I have benefitted greatly from stimulating conversations with my best friends Xu Du, Zhihong and Tamara, Brian, Ashot, Matthew,Wei, Suhas, Fillippo. Finally, the loyalty and encouragement from my family were the priceless treasure to me in the past 28 years. I can never thank my wife enough for her tolerance, understanding, support and what she has sacrificed for me. I am forever indebted to my grandfather and my parents: they seeded this special moment with endless love and have been waiting for it for so long. I wish my dear grandma could share this happiness with all of us in heaven, peacefully. IV TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF FIGURES ix ABSTRACT xiii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 History of High Temperature Superconductivity I 1.2 Background About High Temperature Superconductivity 2 1.2.1 Crystal Structure 2 1.2.2 Phase Diagram 3 1.3 Current Situation in High Temperature Superconductivity Research 5 1.3.1 What We Know About High Temperature Superconductivity 7 1.3.2 What We Do Not Know About High Temperature SuperÂ¬ conductivity 7 1.4 Disorder in Spectroscopic Experiments 8 1.4.1 Scanning Tunnelling Microscopy (STM): In Touch With Atoms 8 1.4.2 Impurities in B^S^CaC^Og : A Probe of High TemperaÂ¬ ture superconductivity 9 2 SINGLE IMPURITY PROBLEM 13 2.1 One Impurity in Normal State 13 2.1.1 Bound State and Resonant State 13 2.1.2 Local Density of States: Friedel Oscillations and Ripples in the Fermi Sea 15 2.2 Greenâ€™s function for BCS Superconductors 16 2.3 One Impurity in an s-wave Superconductor 18 2.3.1 Nonmagnetic Impurity Problem 18 2.3.2 Magnetic Impurity Problem 19 2.4 One Impurity in a d-wave Superconductor 20 2.4.1 Nonmagnetic Impurity 20 2.4.2 Magnetic Impurity 26 2.4.3 Discussion: Characteristics of Impurities 28 v 3QUANTUM INTERFERENCE BETWEEN IMPURITIES 32 3.1 Two Impurities in a d-wave Superconductor 33 3.1.1 T-matrix and Resonance Frequency 33 3.1.2 Resonance Frequencies 35 3.1.3 The Interference of Two One-impurity Wavefunctions ... 38 3.1.4 Local Density of States, Realistic Band and Standing Wave Condition 41 3.2 DOS of two Impurities and Many Impurities at u = 0 : Local Resonance vs. Cumulative Interference 47 3.2.1 Perturbative Prediction: SCTMA and Its Validity 47 3.2.2 Nonperturbative Predictions: 48 3.2.3 Divergence in Pure Nested Band with Unitary Scatters . . 49 3.2.4 Discussion: Bridge Between the Two-impurity and the Many- impurity Problems 53 3.2.5 Conclusion 56 3.3 Power Spectrum for Many Impurities 57 3.3.1 Weak Scattering Limit: Octet Model and Kinematics of Quasiparticles 58 3.3.2 Power Spectrum for Many Impurities in BUS^CaCu/L . 60 4 DISCUSSION: QUASIPARTICLES, DISORDERS AND THEIR IMPLIÂ¬ CATIONS FOR STM SPECTROSCOPY 68 4.1 Atomic Level Resonances, Quasparticle States and Unitary ScatÂ¬ ters 68 4.2 Nanoscale Gap Inhomogeneity 70 4.3 Long-range Modulation and Exotic Orders 74 5 ANGLE-RESOLVED PHOTOEMISSION SPECTRA OF DISORDERED CUPRATES 76 5.1 Angle-resolved Photoemission Spectra of High Temperature SuÂ¬ perconductors 77 5.1.1 Spectral Function and Self-energy 77 5.1.2 Self-energy in Normal and Superconducting States 78 5.2 Elastic Forward Scattering in B^S^CaC^Os 82 5.2.1 Self-energy 82 5.2.2 Spectral Function 89 5.3 Discussion and Conclusion 94 6 CONCLUSION AND REMAINING QUESTIONS 97 APPENDIX 99 A GREENâ€™S FUNCTION FOR THE SUPERCONDUCTING STATE ... 99 B EVALUATION OF THE SELF-ENERGY IN BORN APPROXIMATION 102 B.l â€œYukawa Iâ€ Potential 102 vi B.1.1 Normal State 102 B.1.2 Superconducting State 103 B.2 â€œExponentialâ€ Potential 106 B.2.1 Normal State 107 B.2.2 Superconducting State 107 B.3 Delta-function Type Potentials 107 REFERENCES 110 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 117 vii LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 The imaginary part of self-energies due to non-magnetic impurities in superconductors 21 2-2 The ionization energy of Copper and Zinc atoms 30 viii Figure 1-1 LIST OF FIGURES page The crystal structure of La2Cu04. Red sphere: Cu2+; blue sphere: O2-; yellow sphere: La3+ 2 1-2 Schematic plot of the phase diagram of hole-doped high temperature superconductors. X axis: hole dopant concentration; y axis: temÂ¬ perature 4 1-3 Current situation in high temperature superconductivity 6 1-4 The crystal structure of Bi2Sr2CaCu208 10 1-5 STM image in Bi2Sr2CaCu20g showing a) atomic scale native defect resonances; b) Zn resonance. Both were taken at zero bias 11 2-1 Diagrammatic representation for the scattering process by single imÂ¬ purity. Coarse arrow: full Greenâ€™s function; solid line: pure Greenâ€™s function; cross: impurity; dashline: impurity potential 14 2-2 Schematic illustration of the bound state in normal metal. Left solution to the T-matrix; Right: the bound state is only located at high enÂ¬ ergies, i.e., outside of the band 15 2-3 LDOS modification due to single impurity in metals. Right: image on the surface of Ag [36]; left: theoretical calculation of LDOS around a single impurity in a two-dimensional metal 16 2-4 Schematic illustration of the pair breaking effect due to potential scatÂ¬ ters in a d-wave superconductor 21 2-5 The fall-off of LDOS around a native defect 24 2-6 On-site and NN site spectra for tight binding band with one impurity. 25 2-7 Conductance spectra above the Ni atom and at several nearby locaÂ¬ tions. Solid circle: on-site; open circle: NN-site; square: 2NN-site; triangle: 30A away from Ni; solid line: average of the first four specÂ¬ tra 27 2-8 Left: the schematic plot of CuO^ plane; middle: experimental LDOS around Zn impurity; right: theoretically predicted LDOS for Vq = 5.3Â£ (rotated by 45Â° with respect to a) and b)) 28 2-9 The resonance frequency as a function of scattering potential Vo; inÂ¬ set: the resonance frequency as a function of 1/Vo 31 IX 3-1 Two-impurity resonance energies vs impurity orientation 38 3-2 The wavefunction at resonance and corresponding LDOS. Impurities are separated by R = (6,6) 40 3-3 Spectra on the nearest sites close to the impurities. See text for deÂ¬ tails 41 3-4 LDOS maps at resonant energies for R || (110). Pure nested band, Vo = 10i; Impurity separations are shown on the top of the graph. . 43 3-5 LDOS maps at resonant energies for R || (100). Pure nested band, Vo = 101] Impurity separations are shown on the top of the graph. 44 3-6 LDOS spectra for realistic band and Vb = 5.3Â¿i on nearest neighÂ¬ bor site. Left panel: impurities at {â€”R/2,0) and (R/2,0) ( R = (/?, 0)), spectra taken at r = (R/2,1). Right panel: impurities at (â€”R/2, â€”R/2) and (R/2, R/2) ( R = (R, R)), spectra taken at r = (R/2, R/2 + 1) 45 3-7 Fermi surface of BSCCO-2212 with constant energy surfaces at u = 0.04 shown as small filled ellipses at the nodal points, qi, q2, q3 axe wave vectors for which the joint density of states is large 46 3-8 Schematic plot of the self-energy diagram with many impurities. . . 48 3-9 Schematic figure of the many-impurity DOS (a) in the unitary limit of the half-filled band and (b) in the unitary limit of a generic band. 48 3-10 Schematic plot of bipartite lattice 50 3-11 Change in p(uj) due to impurities. Impurity separation: R = (2,2). . 51 3-12 Change in p{uj) due to impurities. Impurity separation: R = (2,1). . 52 3-13 (a) DOS for Vb=100t. (b) Scaling of the DOS with Vb. (c) Scaling of the DOS with L. (d) Scaling of the DOS with Vb and L=60 53 3-14 LDOS for 2% concentration of impurities and \En\ < 10~5t (20 eigenÂ¬ values) 55 3-15 LDOS for 0.5% concentration of impurities. Left: En = 0.0385Ã; right: averaged over five eigenvalue in energy interval \En â€” 0.03Â£| < 0.02L 57 3-16 Left panel:the constant energy contours with the q vectors; right panel: the evolutions of q vectors as a function of energy 58 x 3-17 FTDOS at uj =14 meV for weak potential scatters (Vo = 0.67*i): (a) for one weak impurity, with a few important scattering wavevec- tors indicated; (b) for 0.15% weak scatterers. Cuts through the data of (a) (thick line) and (b)(thin line) along the (110) direction and scaled by 1 /y/Nj are plotted vs. qx in (c), while (d) shows the weak scattering response function Im As(q, uj). Peaks at q = 0 are reÂ¬ moved for clarity. In all the figures, the x and y axes are aligned with the Cu-0 bonds 62 3-18 The plot of Nambu component of spectral functions at several freÂ¬ quencies 64 3-19 Comparison of theory and experiment. Left panel: LDOS; middle panel: calculated FTDOS; right panel: FTDOS from STM experÂ¬ iments 67 4-1 Zn impurity resonance, left channel: dl/dV Vs.u;; right channel: the LDOS spectrum above the Zn site 69 4-2 The gapmap of overdoped BSSCO. Sample size 500Ax500A 71 4-3 Spectra on different sites along the horizontal cut 71 4-4 Gap map from numerical solution of BDG equations with only smooth disorder 73 4-5 LDOS along the horizontal cut in the top figure 73 5-1 ARPES spectra from overdoped BÃ2212 (Tc=87K). a) normal- and b), (c) superconducting state data measured at the k point indiÂ¬ cated in the inset of (c) 79 5-2 Geometry for the forward scattering process in which a quasiparticle scatters from k to k' 83 5-3 The self-energy terms -Im Eo(k, cj), Im Â£j(k, uj), and -Im Es(k, uj) in the superconducting state at T = 0 for k = k^ (top) and kjv (bottom), for k = 5 and 0.5 and the same band and scattering paÂ¬ rameters as previously used. Here A*, = A0 (cosx â€” cosky)/2 with A0 = 0.2* 86 5-4 Scattering rate re/(k,u;) vs. uj for k = k^(left) and k#(right) in the superconducting state at T = 0, for k, = 5 (top) and k = 0.5 (botÂ¬ tom). Here r0(k^) = 0.2* 88 5-5 Finite temperature spectral function at the antinodal point A and nodal point N on the Fermi surface multiplied by the fermi funcÂ¬ tion. Results for k = 2 and 0.5 with Toik^) = 0.2* are shown. ... 92 xi 5-6 A(k,u;) vs. u for k = 2 and 0.5. Results are given for the k points at (ir, 0), (%, 0.05ir), (n, 0.l7r), (7T, 0.157t). The disorder levels correÂ¬ spond to ro(kyi)/Ao = 1, 0.5, and 0.025. Note the spectra for difÂ¬ ferent k points have been offset for clarity. 93 5-7 Comparison between recent ARPES data (left panel) and calculated A(k, to) (right panel) 94 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy QUASIPARTICLE INTERFERENCE AND THE LOCAL ELECTRONIC STRUCTURE OF DISORDERED d-WAVE SUPERCONDUCTORS By Lingyin Zhu May 2005 Chair: Peter J. Hirschfeld Major Department: Physics This dissertation studies the electronic structure of disordered cuprate superÂ¬ conductors. Bi2Sr2CaCu208 (BSCCO), a typical candidate for high temperature superconductivity(HTS), is believed to be intrinsically nonstochiometric due to the way it is prepared. The anisotropic form of the gap function makes the quasiÂ¬ particle states extremely sensitive to impurities and therefore the spectroscopy and transport properties of BSCCO are influenced significantly by disorder. This compound is singled out for study because it turns out to be the most suitable sample for surface probes like angle-resolved photoemission (ARPES) and scanning tunnelling microscopy (STM). In this dissertation, two kinds of nonmagnetic impurities are studied: pointÂ¬ like, strong scatters and spatially extended, weak scatters, since both are believed to occur naturally in BSCCO. The quantum interference between two point-like scatters is solved explicitly, with detailed analysis of the resonant energy, local density of states and interference of wavefunctions. Understanding of the low energy DOS for a fully-disordered system is developed at the local two-impurity level. It is pointed out the divergent DOS at the Fermi level proposed by Pepin and Lee [1] is the consequence of a special nesting symmetry possessed by the half-filled xiii tight-binding model as well as two-impurity interference. The Fourier transformed density of states in the presence of impurities is also studied. It is proposed that unitary and extended scatters are both necessary to explain the experimental observations. The implication of weak scatters on nanoscale gap inhomogeneity is discussed afterwards. Finally, the influence of forward scatters on single particle spectral functions is investigated. It is found that the self-energy due to forward scattering collapses in the superconducting state. It is then concluded that a wealth of data from experiments different in nature can be understood in terms of quasiparticle scattering due to impurities of various spatial structure. The limitations of the quasiparticle scattering scenario are also discussed. xiv CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 History of High Temperature Superconductivity The year of 1986 witnessed one of the most revolutionary discoveries in the history of science - high temperature superconductivity-by Bednorz and MÃ¼ller [2]. The critical temperature Tc, below which the electrons can pair and superconduct, was unprecedentedly as high as 35K in the perovskite structure. Such a high transition temperature suggested the possibility of superconductivity (SC) even at the liquid nitrogen temperature and immediately created a renaissance in research on superconductivity. The enthusiasm and perseverance invested in this area over the past two decades have been particularly fruitful and have led to the application of related techniques to diverse fields of industry. Besides the previously inconceivable increase in Tc ( which is approximately 153K now !), a collection of novel physical effects, such as the anisotropic form of the order parameter, peculiar normal state properties, hidden ordered states and so on, emerged successively, but generally in unexpected manners. Their appearances kept turning over our conventional understanding of SC within the BCS framework [3] and stimulated numerous theoretical concepts aiming at the explanation on the underlying mechanism of HTS [5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. However, until now, a basic yet convincing picture of HTS has not been found, not only because of deficiencies in proposed theories, but also because of the lack of direct experimental tests at the microscopic level (Until 1999, only bulk measurements such as conductivity, heat capacity, etc. were available). Due to the omnipresence of significant disorder in all HTS samples, analysis of all such experiments required a model of disorder treated in an effective medium approach. This obstacle was circumvented in 1999, by the notable progress in the scanning tunnelling microscopy technique. The differential conductance map 1 2 Figure 1-1: The crystal structure of La2Cu04. Red sphere: Cu2+; blue sphere: O2-; yellow sphere: La3+. displays an amazing surface structure of superconducting samples with atomic resolution [10]. The improved low temperature STM boosted our observational capacity to an unprecedentedly fine level and enabled us to concentrate on the electronic properties of high temperature superconductors (HTS) in the view of local probes. This has raised a new era of the theoretical study of HTS and contributed to the debate over the nature of the pseudogap regime where electronic states display spontaneous ordering and possibly intrinsic inhomogeneity. 1.2 Background About High Temperature Superconductivity 1.2.1 Crystal Structure Among the various types of HTS, the copper-oxide compounds, generally referred to as cuprates, are of particular importance. They usually possess high critical temperatures and complicated crystal structures. But what really makes them so interesting is the illuminating ubiquity of Cu02 planes. These layers are separated by intervening insulating layers (See Fig. 1-1). La2Cu04 is a typical candidate, whose structure basically mimics a â€œsandwich,â€ with one Cu02 plane between two LaO planes. Each Cu atom is surrounded by four in-plane and two out-of-plane oxygen atoms forming a perovskite structure. The electronic structure of parent compounds of HTS is quite unusual. ConÂ¬ ventionally, transition metal oxides have 3d and 2p orbitals whose bare energies 3 are well separated, and the strong local Coulomb interaction gives rise to superexÂ¬ change mediating long range antiferromagnetic order in a Mott-insulating state with gap of order 10 eV; in HTS compounds, Cu atoms lose two electrons and become divalent ions, leaving a hole in the 3dxz-y2 orbit with a net 1/2 spin; the 3d level of copper ions is so close to the in-plane 2pXtV level of oxygen ions that they hybridize1 strongly with each other to form the so-called charge transfer insulators with a much smaller insulating gap (~ 2ev). 1.2.2 Phase Diagram Superconducting materials are formed from the half-filled antiferromagnetic Mott-type ground state when the parent compounds are doped, leaving mobile carriers in the Cu02 plane. The evolution of the electronic and magnetic order upon doping establishes a complicated phase diagram as illustrated in Fig. 1 2 [11]. The intrinsic antiferromagnetic magnetic order is quickly destroyed by adding a small number of holes, and only occupies a â€œsliverâ€ region close to liall- filling, whereas antiferromagnetism in electron-doped samples is more robust. When the doping increases, a spin-glass behavior may be present before the superconducting phase appears. At a certain minimal hole concentration, we obtain the superconducting state. The critical temperature increases initially with the doping concentration, peaks at about x = 0.16 (optimally doped), and then decreases until it drops to zero. Besides the high critical temperature and the peculiar low carrier density in this domain, the unusual shape of the energy gap in momentum space is another defining property in HTS. And it is exactly the reason 1 â€œHybridizeâ€ includes many physical procedures here: the crystal field splitÂ¬ ting lifts the degeneracy of 3d Cu atomic level; Jahn-Teller effect further hits the degeneracy by crystal distortion; the resultant 3d orbitals then hybridize with the in-plane 2p oxygen orbitals to form Cu-0 bands which we may have Mott insulator or charge transfer insulator depending on where the lower anti-bonding Hubbard band lies. 4 Figure 1-2: Schematic plot of the phase diagram of hole-doped high temperature superconductors. X axis: hole dopant concentration; y axis: temperature. we generally refer to them as unconventional superconductors: the order parameter is found to possess a dx2_y2 symmetry, lower than that of the Fermi surface itself. The superconducting phase becomes unstable at higher temperatures since thermal fluctuations break the ground state Cooper pairs and a â€œnormalâ€ domain with anomalous attributes emerges. It is the normal phase of HTS since the temperature T > Tc, but is anomalous in the sense that the conventional Fermi liquid (FL) theory of metals fails to predict its one particle spectrum and transport properties [12, 13, 14, 15]. Among numerous proposals, the so-called â€œ Marginal Fermi Liquid theoryâ€ [8] (MFL) was aimed to address the normal state properties of cuprates by reconciling the contradiction between the well-defined Fermi surface and the non-Fermi liquid (but universal) behaviors in a phenomenological fashion. In the MFL theory, electrons are postulated to couple with bosonic excitations whose spectrum is only a scale-invariant function of energy and temperature, i.e., B(u,T) ~ min(uj/T, 1). As the consequence, the self-energy for the coherent component of the one particle spectrum, extracted from this proposal displays a peculiar form (See Ch. 5 for details) with logarithmically vanishing Z = (1 â€” 5 dReÂ£(a;)/du)~x at zero temperature on the Fermi surface. The Marginal Fermi Liquid theory has proved to be reasonably consistent with a wealth of unusual experimental observations, such as the linear resistivity [16], in several decades of temperature, but has never been convincingly derived from a microscopic theory. Especially, how it yields the momentum-anisotropic d-wave pairing symmetry is the intrinsic deficiency of this theory (although it has been argued that this could come from the vertex corrections). In the optimal- and overdoped region, while the normal state property is fairly depicted by MFL theory, a conventional BCS theory is believed to be qualitatively applicable to the superconducting states, with the order parameter taken to possess d-wave like symmetry. There is one well-established, controversial region which is presently at the heart of the debate of HTS, which lies in the crossover from AF order to SC state, above the possible messy spin glass phase. It is named the â€œpseudogapâ€ phase because of the spectroscopic identification of strongly depleted density of states (DOS) near the Fermi level. The pseudogap temperature T*, below which this phenomenon develops, declines linearly with increasing doping and merges with Tc at roughly optimal concentration. This phase is believed by some physicists to be strongly related to the superconducting state in that it evolves smoothly into the latter and displays a similar d-wave symmetry in the order parameter. So far, numerous theories such as, spin-fluctuation [4], resonant-valence bond [5], precursor scenario [17], and competing states [18] have been proposed to address the underlying mechanism of the pseudogap region with each of them whining support from certain experiments [19]. Nevertheless, there is yet no consensus about the origin of the pseudogap to date. 1.3 Current Situation in High Temperature Superconductivity Research The research on HTS in the past twenty years attracted an enormous amount of theoretical and experimental attention, generating interest from physicists, chemists, material scientists, and even mathematicians because of its fascinating 6 High Tc Superconductivity Palrlmf Defect | EORY m â– * â€˜5 n Li Neutron 1 Scattering 1 Transport Figure 1-3: Current situation in high temperature superconductivity. anomalous behavior observed and enticing potential applications. However, despite all this work, no consensus on the origin of unconventional superconductivity has been reached and there is a huge number of interpretations on HTS, based on the diverse observations collected from different groups, with different techniques, and on different physical properties. In fact, the current situation in the study of high temperature superconductivity can be â€œfigurativelyâ€ depicted by Fig. 1-3 [20], which comes from a famous Indian Buddhist parable about the blind men and the elephant. And the following paragraph from this famous parable reflects how intensive the debate among them over the shape of the elephant ( according to everyoneâ€™s own understanding) is: â€œOh, how they cling and wrangle, some who claim For preacher and monk the honored name! For, quarrelling, each to his view they cling. Such folk see only one side of a thing.â€ There is such an analogy happening in the high-Tc community! I am sure that one day the â€œBuddhaâ€ ( a correct and comprehensive theory) will come for the sake of our piety and opens our eyes to the rest of the â€œelephantâ€ (the nature of high temperature superconductivity), but I would like to, with the modest expectation that I could not be the most â€œblindâ€ disciple, summarize the appearance of the monster after â€œcaressingâ€ it carefully: 7 1.3.1 What We Know About High Temperature Superconductivity 1. Cuprates have copper oxide planes, and these planes are crucial to high temperature superconductivity; 2. The electrons pair up in the CuC>2 plane in a state with d-wave symmetry; there are nodes in the pairing function which give lower energy excitations in quasiparticle spectra; 3. The carrier density in HTS is considerably lower than that of the convenÂ¬ tional superconductors; the coherence length is as small as Â£o ~ 3 â€” 4a; 4. It is the proximity to a underdoped antiferromagnetic Mott insulator that may be essential to understand HTS, and probably indicative of the underlyÂ¬ ing magnetic mechanism of HTS; 5. Cuprates are in general metals; there exists generically a Fermi surface (at least a segment) in these samples. Normal states are anomalous, compared to good metals which can be well described by Fermi liquid theory. 1.3.2 What We Do Not Know About High Temperature Superconductivity 1. What is the mechanism responsible for the formation of Cooper pairs? 2. What is the nature of the normal state and the pseudogap regime? 3. What do the disorders in HTS tell us? What is the source of the local inhomogeneities observed in the tunnelling experiments? The collection of known and unknown aspects of cuprates paints the big picture about high temperature superconductivity but also imposes rather constraints on any theory regarding the fundamental mechanism. In my dissertation, I do not intend to propose any novel fundamental mechanism or reconcile the discrepancies between already existing theories; instead, I will concentrate on an interesting issue related to the impurities in d-wave superconductor, which has been the focus in the recent spectroscopic experiments on cuprates and discussed intensively by a huge number of illuminating works, within the extended version of conventional BCS quasiparticle theory in high temperature superconductivity. 1.4 Disorder in Spectroscopic Experiments 1.4.1 Scanning Tunnelling Microscopy (STM): In Touch With Atoms In 1981 Binnig and Rohrer revolutionised the field of surface science by inventing the scanning tunnelling microscopy [21]. When a fine pointed tip of metallic needle is brought extremely close to the sample surface (in general a few Angstroms) and a voltage is applied in between, the wavelike properties of electrons allow quantum tunnelling to happen. The probability of finding the tunnelling electrons decays exponentially when the distance between the tip and the sample surface increases. The topographical image of the surface is registered as the variation in the current when the tip scans over the surface. First-order time-dependent perturbation theory gives out the tunnelling current as function of sample bias V and position r: /(r, V) = ^ ^i{f(ii)[lâ€”f(Eiyâ€”eV)â€”f(i')[lâ€”f(El,â€”eV)}}\MlÃv(r)\2Ã³(Ellâ€”Eâ€ž+eV), (1.1) where Mmâ€ž(r) is the tunnelling matrix element and / the Fermi function. The <5 function conserves the energy as it does in the usual cases. With several appropriÂ¬ ate assumptions2 , we can write / as (1.2) where r is the coordinate of points sampled and 2 is the vertical distance between the tip and the plane; the local density of state (LDOS) is defined as (1.3) 2 1) the tunnelling event is extremely localized (this ensures the tunnelling curÂ¬ rent is proportional to the local density of states); 2) it is spin-independent; 3) for small V, we can using WKB approximation such that M(k, z) = Moe~kz, where k2 = 4mn(Aw +V)/h2 for a rectangular barrier of height A^. 9 Assuming that p(r, E) is roughly a constant, the the differential tunnelling conÂ¬ ductance dl/dV is proportional to the LDOS (this can be obtained by moving the tip away or towards to the surface to maintain a constant current and then apply an alternating voltage). This separation enables us to compare the theoretically calculate LDOS with the STM measurement qualitatively. The invention of STM technique opened an new era of surface science by extending our â€œfingersâ€ to atoms and obtain atomic resolution images of sample surfaces for the first time. It was such an important contribution that Binnig and Rohrer were awarded with the Nobel Prize of physics in 1986. In the study of high temperature superconductivity, STM also contributed in a unique way, especially from 1999, by producing stunÂ¬ ning local electronic images of the surface of BSCCO and providing local spectral information. 1.4.2 Impurities in Bi2Sr2CaCu208 : A Probe of High Temperature superconductivity Bi2Sr2CaCu20s is a typical candidate of high temperature superconductors. It is well known that the Van der Waals coupling between the BiO layers in BSSCO makes it easy to cleave (Fig. 1-4) and obtain the image of its surface by STM. However, this attribute also provides space where dopant oxygen atoms can reside and hence result in interesting experimental observations. Five years ago, the first high-resolution STM experiment on BSCCO [10] displayed fascinating atomic- scale resonances (as shown in Fig. 1-5), whose spatial and spectroscopic features agreed crudely with the theory of strong quasiparticle scattering from impurities in a d-wave superconductor. This agreement underscored the possibility of using impurities of different electronic properties to probe the superconducting phase [22, 23]. Publications about STM images on the intentionally impurity-doped BSCCO soon appeared, supporting the simple theoretical impurity scattering models by their qualitative agreement with predicted resonance energies and fourfold spatial structure [24, 25, 26]. Subsequent STM measurements revealed further the existence of nanoscale inhomogeneities in the order parameter map 10 &Q ScQ CuQj Ca CuQ, StQ fiiQ SrQ QaQ, Ca QuQi sea Figure 1-4: The crystal structure of B^S^CaC^Os . [27, 28, 29, 30] which are currently the subject of intense debate, being attributed either to interaction-driven effects such as stripe formation [31, 32] or to the Friedel oscillations [28, 29] of weakly interacting quasiparticles due to disorder. Those results were then Fourier transformed (FT-STS) to successfully extract some characteristic wave-vectors which reflect kinematics of quasiparticles in clean samples; but other nondispersive wave-vectors, which are not explicable in terms of the quasiparticle scattering scenario, were found as well and provoked diverse proposals concerning the ground state of cuprates. Besides STM experiments, angle-resolved photoemission (ARPES) is another leading technique in the study of HTS. ARPES provides the momentum dependent single particle spectrum and information regarding the self-energy which is inherent from many-body effects. In the ARPES spectra of BSCCO, the width of the quasiparticle peak also suggested a significant elastic component in the self-energy due to the scattering from spatially extended potentials with unknown identity [33, 34]. 11 Appreciable differences in the spectroscopic and transport properties between BSCCO and YBCO, another popular HTS material (Tc ~ 93K), were reported extensively [34, 35], despite the fact that both are good high temperature superconÂ¬ ductors with well-identified d-wave order parameters as well. These discrepancies were not successfully reconciled until it was realized that unlike YBCO, BSCCO is â€œintrinsicallyâ€ contaminated by disorder through the way it is prepared; this was gradually established by the accumulated facts from STM and ARPES experÂ¬ iments. The charge inhomogeneity introduced by doping is poorly screened by the states in the Cu02 plane and induces spatially smooth potentials from which quasiÂ¬ particles scatter. We have proposed that the dopant disorder should be responsible for the observed unusual properties of BSCCO. Historically, disorder studies have played essential roles in the comprehension of superconductivity: we can understand the mechanism of superconductivity by understanding how it could be destroyed by perturbations. However, until recently, research on impurity effects was limited to their impact on bulk properties such as transport coefficients or heat capacity, in which a finite concentration of disorder is generally assumed and treated in a statistical manner. It is the improvement in STM image resolution that enables us for the first time to focus on the local response from the superconducting state to one single impurity individually, from 12 which we can attempt to understand inter-impurity correlations and macroscopic disorder phenomena from a microscopic point of view. CHAPTER 2 SINGLE IMPURITY PROBLEM The study of the impact of impurities or atomic-scale disorder on the physical properties of materials has been of great theoretical and practical significance. In reality, no samples are pure. As Pauli said: â€œsolid state physics is the physics of dirt.â€ Sometimes impurities are destructive to desired physics; sometimes they are substituted intentionally to bring out special features and help identifying the underlying physics of the pure system. For example, impurity induced Friedel oscillations can aid to probe the kinematics of quasiparticles in metals [36, 37]. In this chapter, I will discuss the effect of a single impurity in an otherwise clean sample. The cases in normal metals and conventional superconductors are reviewed, followed by detailed analysis of the case of a d-wave superconductor. I will then discuss the discrepancies between recent STM experiments and theoretical predictions. 2.1 One Impurity in Normal State 2.1.1 Bound State and Resonant State It is of pedagogical significance to review the problem of single impurity in a metallic state before we begin to discuss its effect in a superconductor. The simplest grand canonical hamiltonian for the normal state problem is n = +52 i2-1) k k,k' where c^, cj, are the creation and annihilation operators of particles respectively. The first term in Eqn. 2.1 describes the single particle dispersion of the nonÂ¬ interacting ground state and the latter denotes the on-site energy change due to the perturbation (The single impurity is assumed to be located at R=0). The 13 14 > = 1 + â€”i :â€” + -Lâ€”'â€”+ Figure 2-1: Diagrammatic representation for the scattering process by single imÂ¬ purity. Coarse arrow: full Greenâ€™s function; solid line: pure Greenâ€™s function; cross: impurity; dashline: impurity potential. single particle propagator is defined as (7Â°(k, k') = â€” (Tt-c^t)^,) , with r being the imaginary time. In the case of free fermions, it takes the simple form: <7Â°(k,u;) = [uj â€” e(k)]â€”1 (2.2) The single impurity problem is generally solved by the so-called T-matrix method which provides immediate access to spectral properties [38]. The perturbed Greenâ€™s function can be expressed in terms of the pure propagator G and the T-matrix as G = GÂ° + GÂ°TGÂ°, (2.3) where the T-matrix is defined as T = V + VGT (2.4) and V is the potential matrix. Fig. 2-1 shows the perturbative expansion of the full Greenâ€™s function in a geometric series in V. In the case of isotropic point-like scattering, i.e., V(r) = VoÂ¿(r â€” r') (Vo is the impurity strength), the T-matrix is momentum- independent and reduces to a simple form: 7Â» = Vo 1 - M,EkGÂ°(k,w)' (2.5) The poles of T-matrix signify the formation of new quantum states, since they are not poles of Go, i.e., the eigenstates of the pure system. There are two kinds of states introduced in general, as shown in Fig. 2-2: a discrete, real bound or anti-bound state located outside of the band where the imaginary part of GÂ°(uj) = vanishes, i.e., where the density of states (DOS) is zero (the 15 1 0) no low-E BS Figure 2-2: Schematic illustration of the bound state in normal metal. Left:solution to the T-matrix; Right: the bound state is only located at high energies, i.e., outÂ¬ side of the band. right panel), and an overdamped state in the continuum, which has a finite lifetime because of its overlapping with the background (the left panel). A real bound state is generically localized on an atomic scale if the impurity potential is of short range. 2.1.2 Local Density of States: Friedel Oscillations and Ripples in the Fermi Sea Apart from the determination of bound state energies, the correction to the local density of states due to the impurity is interesting as well. The introduction of the imperfection does break the stillness of the degenerate Fermi sea, inducing â€œripplesâ€ in the space referred to as the Friedel oscillations. The change of LDOS in the bound state is 6N(r,ui) = Vq2 |G0(r,<Â¿)|2<5(u/ â€” w0)- (2.6) In a two-dimensional space, the real space Greenâ€™s function is evaluated as (2.7) where Â¡i is the chemical potential and kp is the Fermi momentum. When k(u))r is large, the Greenâ€™s function has the following asymptotic form: GÂ°(r,ui) ~ -Â¿W(0)[â€”JLlVVM")â€™-*/4!. k(u))r (2.8) The LDOS falls off from the impurity with an envelope of l/(kpr) and oscillates with a period of the inverse of the Fermi vector. 16 Figure 2-3: LDOS modification due to single impurity in metals. Right: image on the surface of Ag [36]; left: theoretical calculation of LDOS around a single impurity in a two-dimensional metal. In Fig. 2-3, the theoretical prediction on the distribution of LDOS around an repulsive impurity (right panel) at zero energy in a two dimensional square lattice is shown. The four-fold symmetry of LDOS is the signature of the underling lattice symmetry. In the left panel, the Fourier component of LDOS ( obtained from the experiment performed by Crommie et al.[36] on the surface of Ag), which is defined as p(q,w) = ^Vqrp(r,w) (2.9) r is plotted: the radius of the bright feature in the FT-STS spectroscopy is 2kp- 2.2 Greenâ€™s function for BCS Superconductors In the conventional BCS theory, the ground state of superconducting systems is a condensation in momentum space in which electrons pair up into â€œCooper pairs.â€ The mean field hamiltonian for the BCS superconducting state is : (2.10) with Ak = F(ck|C_k|). The first term describes the motion of free band electrons and the second term describe how two electrons pair up to form the superconductÂ¬ ing order. 17 It is convenient to define the column vector <3?^ and its conjugate1 as the following: V c-ki .n = (4T.c-ki), (2.11) and work within this framework. The single particle Greenâ€™s function is then a 2x2 matrix: GÂ°(k,r) = -{TAfr)*!) (TTCkt(r)4T> (TrCktii-jc-ki) \ ^ (TVcLyirJckf) (TVclyMc-w) J For a time-invariant system, we can further introduce the Fourier transform: (2.12) GÂ°(k,iuâ€ž) = ^ei""TGÂ°(k,r), (2.13) where ujn is the Matsubara frequency. With the gap Ak being the exact self-energy due to the phonon-mediated electron-electron interaction, the mean field single particle Greenâ€™s function for the clean SC state (after analytical continuation to the real axis) is GÂ°(k,u) = UlTo + AfcTi + ekT3 (2.14) where the quasiparticle energy defined as Ek = y/tk + A|, and To, r,, T3 are the Pauh matrices. The imaginary part of the real space Greenâ€™s function (G(r,ur) = (2.15) 1 This spin and particle-hole resolved matrix structure is conventionally referred to as Nambu representation. 18 with the spin-resolved LDOS, Pf(r,u>) = â€”n 'im Gn(r,r,ii) + Â¿0+) pj(r,a>) = +7r_1Im G22(r,r, â€”n; â€” j0+) (2.16a) (2.16b) With the general property of the retarded Greenâ€™s function: IinGfoi + Â¿0+) = â€” ImG(o; - Â¿0+) (2.17) the LDOS may also be written as : 2.3 One Impurity in an .s-wave Superconductor 2.3.1 Nonmagnetic Impurity Problem The non-magnetic disorder problem in an isotropic s-wave superconductor was studied by Anderson [39]. In the conventional Nambu notation, the hamiltonian with the presence of impurity (at R. = 0) is formulated as (2.19) k,k' ,(t where Vo is the strength of the impurity. It was pointed out that in dilute concenÂ¬ tration limit, nonmagnetic impurities introduce negligible effects on bulk properties (such as Tc) of isotropic superconductors, because the quasiparticle energy should be conserved in elastic scattering and the momentum transfer of quasiparticles in scattering process cannot disrupt the phase coherence established if the pairÂ¬ ing is isotropic, i.e., Ak = Aq. This conclusion goes under the name â€œAnderson Theorem.â€ As a trivial test, the self-energy of quasiparticles can be treated with Abrikosov-Gorkov formalism [40] (AG) , yielding: (2.20) 19 where tn is the normal state scattering rate. It is easy to see that the quasiparticle elastic scattering rate is suppressed from its normal state value 1 /tn upon the opening of a gap, and it is zero at the Fermi level, reflecting Andersonâ€™s theorem. 2.3.2 Magnetic Impurity Problem When a magnetic impurity is injected into the superconducting condensate, it couples with the spin density of conduction electrons by means of the exchange interaction. In the classical limit, 2 the impurity term in the momentum space may be written as: (2.21) with J(k, k') the exchange energy, S the impurity spin and 3 the spin operator of electrons. Abrisokov and Gorkov [40] first treated the magnetic impurity in Born approximation, followed by a treatment in the unitary-scattering limit by Yu [41] and Shiba [42]. It is found that the magnetic moment breaks the time-reversal symÂ¬ metry upon which the Cooper pairs are formed and hence lifts the spin degeneracy of quasiparticle excitations.3 Consequently, an intragap bound state appears for spin down excitations if the local moment is spin up and vice visa. Increasing the concentration of magnetic moments leads to gapless superconductivity and finally destroys the superconducting state. The Tc suppression is obtained in AG form [40] as ln(^) = ^(1/2) â€” + Pc), 1 cO Â¿ (2.22) 2 The classical limit is obtained by taking J â€”â–º 0 and S â€”â–º oo, but keeping JS = constant. In that sense, the spin can be viewed as a local magnetic field. 3 This can be verified by working on the BCS hamiltonian in the Bogoliubov forÂ¬ malism. One can verify that the magnetic term couples in the Nambu ro channel and changes sign for spin up and down excitations. A potential scatter couples in the 73 channel, introducing nothing but level shifts. 20 where iÂ¡) is the digamma function4 , Tc and T& are the actual and disorder-free transition temperatures respectively, and pc = (27rr^Tc)_1 is a constant determined by the self-energy due to magnetic interaction, where r6_1 = kTcq/2'). 2.4 One Impurity in a d-wave Superconductor Because of the doping procedures through which superconducting BSCCO samples are prepared, atomic scale imperfections are inevitably introduced. Recently, the differential conductance map obtained by STM experiments on the cuprates BSCCO-2212 with astonishing resolution have verified the existence of point-like atomic defects, and further investigated the behavior of Zn or Ni atoms in the d-wave superconducting bath by replacing Cu atoms with them on purpose [43, 44]. I will mainly review the works on single impurity in d-wave superconductors and discuss extensively their implications for STM experiments. 2.4.1 Nonmagnetic Impurity Isotropic Scattering and Pair-breaking Effect. It is speculated that when a Zn atom (with atomic configuration 3d104s2) replaces the on-site Cu atom in the copper oxide plane, it will lose 2 electrons and the resulting Zn2+ should behave like a classical nonmagnetic impurity (if we neglect its quantum nature). This is because the Zinc cation has a closed 3d10 shell which will gives a zero net spin S = 0.5 4 The digamma function is defined as ^(x) shr'*l OO -7+ ^ â€œ n(n + x) ,xÂ± -1,-2,-3.. (2.23) where 7 is the Euler constant. 5 There are also other points of view which are suggestive of the magnetic nature of Zn2+ impurity because magnetic moment sensitive experiments [45] revealed that Zn atoms actually induce local moments and hence one probably has to also take the local correlation or dynamic effect (Kondo resonance) into consideration [46]. 21 A(Â«) O angle on FS Figure 2-4: Schematic illustration of the pair breaking effect due to potential scatÂ¬ ters in a d-wave superconductor. However, unlike the case of nonmagnetic impurities in s-wave superconductors, quasiparticle scattering due to Zn2+ ions in cuprates violates Andersonâ€™s theorem without breaking time-reversal symmetry. The physical process is illustrated in Fig. 2-4: scattering of quasiparticles mixes the initial and final states with different momenta k, thus mixing order parameters with different phases. When the scattering is strong enough, it mixes the states of complete opposite signs of order parameters with high probability and suppresses the condensate. However, I emphasize there that the gap structure for any T < Tc is still unrenormalized since X]k A* = 0 and the angular structure of the gap function remains unchanged [47]. To illustrate the effect of impurities in superconductors with different order parameter symmetries, I hereby tabulate the corresponding Nambu components of self-energies (in Born approximation, i.e., E(o)) = nÂ¡VÂ¿ X)kÂ£rÂ°(k>w)) m the table below: Table 2-1: The imaginary part of self-energies due to non-magnetic impurities in superconductors. Eo Ei d-wave r0( _2) 0 s-wave where To is the impurity scattering rate in the normal state, with Si = ui â€” E0(u>) and Ak = Ak - Sp The symbol (â€¢} denotes angle averaging around the Fermi surface. 22 Gas Model: Circular Fermi Surface and Parabolic Band. The single impurity is analytically solvable in a d-wave superconductor with a circular Fermi surface and a planar continuum form of the gap function, i.e., AÂ¿ = Aocos(2). With the T-matrix formalism introduced in Sec 2.1.1 and the BCS formalism of the Greenâ€™s function, the full Greenâ€™s function can be constructed as G(k,k',o;) = GÃ¼(k,Ã¼;)<5kk< + G0(k,iu)TV)GÂ°(k',in). (2.24) While its off-diagonal component vanishes because Ak = 0, the T-matrix reduces to the simple form: f = T0t0 + T3t3 To = V02g0/(S+S-) t3 = v0\c-g3 )/(s+s_) Â«Â» = Â¿5>GV,k)T0, (2.25) k (2.26) where l/(nN0Vo) = c is the cotangent of the s-wave scattering phase shift r/o, and No is the density of states at the Fermi level. Q is the momentum integrated Greenâ€™s function. This expression has resonances when sÂ± = 1 - v0(g3 t So) = 0. (2.27) In the special case of a particle hole symmetric system g3 = 0, and the resonances are entirely dominated by ). In the unitary limit, i.e., r)0 â€”* 7t/2 (this is equal to c Â±7rcAo 21og(8/7rc) 7T2cAq 41og2(8/7Tc) (2.28a) r (2.28b) 23 These results were first obtained by Balatsky et al. [24]. Clearly, the two symmetÂ¬ ric resonances are the signature of electron-hole duality nature of BCS quasiparÂ¬ ticles; furthermore, there is a finite damping rate for those resonances since they emerge from a continuum background, namely p(uj) ^ 0. However, a salient feature of those resonances should be pointed out: when c â€”â–º 0, the resonances will be tuned towards to the Fermi level and the damping rate diminishes simultaneously, i.e, the resonant states become â€œmarginallyâ€ bound. These nfidgap states are generally referred as virtual bound states because of their asymptotic behavior described above, which can be attributed to the linearly-vanishing DOS (p(u^) ~ cu) at low energies. The spatial distribution of the impurity induced states conveys additional information about the nature of HTS and can be measured directly by STM experiments. The theory anticipates that the LDOS spreads in an anisotropic manner [24, 26]: it decays as the inverse second power of the distance from impurity along the nodes of the gap and exponentially in the vicinity of the extrema of the gap, and the decay length of the latter is characterized by Â£0 = vp/hAo. The spatial patterns of these â€œnativeâ€ defects [10] agree with the naive theory to the extent that the observance of a bright spot of the diameter of 2- 3nm6 , with p(r) decaying s 1/r2 for r > Â£0, ie., the Friedel oscillations at the periphery of the central bright image, as illustrated in Fig. 2 5. 6 The coherence length extracted from the size of the atomic resonance is around 15 A. This again coincided with the Â£0 known for B^S^CaC^Og , being a convincÂ¬ ing evidence for the quasiparticle scattering scenario. However, the anisotropic conÂ¬ figuration of LDOS distribution within a distance of Â£0 from the impurity, namely, the structure inside the bright spots, was not discernible due to the poor spatial resolution. Later improvement in STM yielded differential conductance map with subatomic details, and the fine structure of LDOS around impurities were obtained eventually, which invoked another quarrels upon the tunnelling mechanism and the nature of impurity itself. 24 21 Â° o o o I cÃ, c* c 0.1 ; Â«r Distance from scattering center (nm) Figure 2-5: The fall-off of LDOS around a native defect. To study the spatial modulation of LDOS, we need the explicit form of the Greenâ€™s function. These have been worked out by Joynt and Balatsky in some special cases [26, 48]. I also evaluated the Greens function when for the situation u;/A0 1 /kpr l/kp^Q. The results are tabulated as follows for future adoption: GÂ°(R,u) (2.29) Lattice Model, Strong scatters and Unitary Limit. The copper-oxide plane of cuprates materials consists one Cu atom and two oxygen atoms in one unit cell. A square lattice with copper atoms on the commensurate sites is the simplest reasonable model for practical computations. While the real-space components of the Greenâ€™s functions are analytically unobtainable in the SC state, I hereby present the numerics for both a simple tight binding model ek = â€”2t(coskx + cos ky) â€” fi and a realistic 6-parameter tight-binding model proposed by Norman et al. [49], both having the corresponding d-wave order parameter Ak = Ao(cos kx â€” cos ky). Note the maximum value of the order parameter in the half-filled lattice system with the current convention is 2A0. 25 Figure 2-6: On-site and NN site spectra for tight binding band with one impurity. Fig. 2-6 shows the results for the nearest neighbor tight binding model. The impurity potential is taken to be Vo = 5.3Â¿i, which generates two resonances at = Â±0.013Â¿i ~ Â±1.5mev using the Norman band, chosen to reproduce the observed resonance energy of Zn. The LDOS on the impurity site and its neighbor site are plotted. Note that the weight is almost excluded from the impurity site due to the strong potential 7 and the peak at Q = â€”0.013Â¿i captures the essence of resonant physics. Because the off-diagonal components of the integrated Greenâ€™s function vanish, i.e., Gi2(r = 0, cu) = 0, only the 11 element of the T-matrix contributes to the LDOS and this yields only one peak in the on-site spectrum. The situation is completely inverted on its nearest neighbor sites, where one observes a pronounced peak at positive sample bias. The coherence peak heights are also strongly suppressed, implying that superconductivity is locally suppressed as well. There are two distinct ranges for the falloff of LDOS: an exponential 7 The integrated spectrum weight on arbitrary site is still conserved / dujp(r,uj) = 1. The sum rule is verified by the excessive weight trapped at high energy regime, i.e., the real bound or antibound states. However,we focus on the low energy bound states within the gap. 26 envelope along the antinodal direction and a power law decay along the gap nodes. Additionally, the alignment of LDOS around the scatters shows a four-fold symmetry. 2.4.2 Magnetic Impurity Unlike the nonmagnetic impurities, even for a s-wave superconductor, magÂ¬ netic impurities are pairbreaking since they violate time-reversal symmetry, lift the Kramers degeneracy of the quasiparticle states and hence introduce intragap bound states.8 While the theoretical expectation for a magnetic impurity in a s-wave superconductor (for example, Nb) has been experimentally verified by Yazdani et al. [50], Hudson et al. [44] performed the first atomically resolved STM experiment on Ni doped BUS^CaC^Os (d-wave superconductor). As shown in Fig. 2-7, two distinguishable peaks were reported, at Qi = 9.2 Â±1.1 meV and Q2 = 18.6 Â± 0.7 meV separately in both the particle and hole channels. The spectral weight of the impurity state decayed in an oscillating manner: these peaks were particle-like (i.e., on positive sample bias) on the impurity site, then became hole-like on the next nearest sites and again particle-like at the 2-NN sites. Therefore, the LDOS around the impurity at positive and negative biases were rotated by 45Â° with respect to each other. The spatially complementary feature led to overall nearly particle-hole symmetric site-averaged spectra; moreover, the coherence peaks remained robust. A conclusion which was apparently in conflict with our naive intuition was then drawn: superconductivity was not locally disrupted substantially by the Ni impuÂ¬ rity. Detailed analysis even revealed that the potential scattering is the dominant agent in Ni doped cuprates since the associated energy is of roughly 5-10 times bigger than those of other channels. 8 We neglect the Kondo physics here. The Kondo screening in HTS superconÂ¬ ducting state is novel in sense that it takes place on the background with depleted DOS rathern than on the background with a roughly constant DOS around the Fermi level. 27 Figure 2-7: Conductance spectra above the Ni atom and at several nearby locaÂ¬ tions. Solid circle: on-site; open circle: NN-site; square: 2NN-site; triangle: 30A away from Ni; solid line: average of the first four spectra. 28 Figure 2-8: Left: the schematic plot of CUO2 plane; middle: experimental LDOS around Zn impurity; right: theoretically predicted LDOS for Vo = 5.3Â£ (rotated by 45Â° with respect to a) and b)). 2.4.3 Discussion: Characteristics of Impurities Classic impurities are generally categorized into non-magnetic and magnetic ones, with the Zn and Ni as the representatives. Although experiments exploiting them as probes for the superconducting state have achieved crude agreement with the quasiparticle scattering theory, characterization of their own nature is far from complete yet. While the measurements on the bulk properties such as resistivity [51, 52], microwave conductivity [53] and Tc suppression display qualitatively similar dependences of Zn and Ni, the magnetically sensitive probes such as NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) [45], INS (inelastic neutron scattering) exhibit appreciable differences between Zn- and Ni-doped samples. On one hand, the standard Abrikosov-Gorkov formalism predicts that Tc is only suppressed about 20% faster by Zn than Ni if the magnetic nature of Ni impurity is neglected; on the other hand, the superfluid density is known to be strongly depleted by Zn rather than Ni. The image of the immediate surroundings of Zn and Ni provided by the STM experiments now provides a coherent microscopic picture: while Zn is fatal to local superconductivity, Ni has a much weaker impact, consistent with earlier transport measurements suggesting Zn is a unitary scatterer and Ni is an intermediate strength scatterer. Besides those differences between Zn and Ni impurities, the sign of Zn potenÂ¬ tial itself is a matter of controversy. It was first claimed that, according to Hudson 29 et al., Zn atoms are attractive potentials for electrons since â€œthe on-site (impurity site) spectrum only has one peak at the negative sample bias around fio = â€”1.5 meV Â±0.5 meV â€ [10]. However, theoretical calculations predict that an attracÂ¬ tive potential should break the pairs and bind the electrons, yielding prominent tunnelling DOS peaks at positive sample bias [24, 54]. Beyond the position of the resonance peaks, there are other discrepancies between the STM differential conductance map and the predicted LDOS. In Fig. 2-8, the schematic plot of the structure of Cu02 plane is given, where the orange spots and green spots stand for copper atoms and oxygen atoms respectively. The middle panel shows the experimental results around a Zn impurity with the same lattice orientation as the left panel and the rightmost panel displays the theoretical calculation of LDOS for a repulsive potential (Vo = 5.35f), but rotated by 45Â° degrees with respect the first two panels. Strong potentials scatterers are expected to exclude weight significantly from the impurity site and produce an on-site LDOS minima with a relatively bright spots on the next nearest neighbor sites, as illustrated by the right panel in Fig. 2-8, whereas the experiments observe completely reversed patterns with a local maxima on the impurity site and darker spots on the NN sites (the middle channel). Comparison between the middle and right panels elucidates these discrepancies clearly. Is Zn a repulsive or attractive potential in BSCCO-2212? A hand-waving argument can be given by considering the atomic configurations of Zn and Cu atoms. After losing two electrons, the energy of the closed 3d shell of Zn should be a prioÃ± far below the Fermi level, as derived from the tabulated ionization energies (Table 2-2) of Copper and Zinc atoms, since the energy to create a Cu++ is less than that required to create Zn++. It is then speculated that Zn atoms should be attractive potentials relative to background Cu2+ ions with strength of approximately -2ev. Table 2-2: The ionization energy of Copper and Zinc atoms. 30 Cu Zn Atomic configuration 3dlu4s' 3<Â¿lu4s'Â¿ first ionization energy(eV) 7.720 9.934 second ionization energy(eV) 20.292 17.964 third ionization energy (eV) 36.83 39.722 However, calculations based on the criterion for unitarity in the realistic band structure of BSCCO [49] yield an opposite result. It has been well established by experiments that Zn atoms are indeed hard-core, unitary scatters, for example, the phase shift 770 extracted from the STM data of Z11 impurity [44] is 0.487T, close to 7t/2, i.e., unitary limit. One can also perform computations on the phase shift with the conventional T-rnatrix fashion , , Im det f V(u) = tan . -â– (2.30) Re detT It is found that only a repulsive potential can possibly approach to this limit.9 In Fig. 2-9, I show the resonance energy as a function of the impurity potential, as the resonance energy is defined to be the position of the local maxima in the on-site (the impurity site) spectrum. It is clear that to drive the resonant frequency towards to the Fermi level, a repulsive potential with Vo ~ 20|/i| is needed. Finally, a recent ab initio calculation exploiting density functional theory on the band structures and effective potentials of different defect-doped BSCCO samples [55] claims that Zn atoms are actually short range repulsive scattering centers. Recently, two similar arguments [56, 57] were addressed to reconcile the discrepancy between the result of attractive potentials and the spectra from experiments. It was contemplated that the spectral weight on the nearest neighbor Cu sites in the Cu02 planes appears above the surface Bi atoms directly over the 9 The conclusion is rigorously robust regardless of the detailed band structure as long as the particle-hole asymmetry is introduced and a hole-doped sample is discussed. 31 Figure 2-9: The resonance frequency as a function of scattering potential Vo; inset: the resonance frequency as a function of 1/Vo. impurity sites since STM tips are indeed probing the wave functions or LDOS of the nearest sites rather than the impurity site itself, the so called â€œfilter effect.â€ The Zn impurity is then identified as an attractive scatter, since it is the â€™â€™filter effectâ€ that allows us to observe a pronounced on-site peak at negative energy (an attractive potential is expected to yield a peak on the positive sample bias) However, it doesnâ€™t explain why the calculations based on the realistic band structure aiming to the unitary limit necessitate a repulsive potential. CHAPTER 3 QUANTUM INTERFERENCE BETWEEN IMPURITIES Images of the LDOS around impurities have confirmed the existence of resonant quasiparticle states near strong scatters as Zn, but have given rise to new questions regarding the microscopic model for impurities as well. While the debate on single impurity is unsettled yet, HTS materials usually contain finite concentrations of impurities and the impurity wavefunctions do interfere with each other. The most remarkable consequence of the quantum interference between many impurities is the formation of a impurity band at low energies (the nodal quasiparticle states), which is believed to dominate the transport properties such as microwave conductivity. The many-impurity problem has been treated with numerous methods, including the self-consistent T-matrix approximation (SCTMA) [48, 58, 59, 60], exact diagonalization of Bogoliubov De-Gennes equations (BDG) [61, 62, 63], nonperturbative techniques [1, 64, 65] and perturbative treatment including weak localization effects [66]. None of these approaches offers insight into the mechanism of interference itself and we are still unable to answer the question of how the macroscopic disorder-averaged properties of a d-wave superconductor actually arise from the local properties of individual impurity states. The lack of the connection between the understandings of physics at these two different scales initiated the studies on the two-impurity problem [54, 67, 68], which displays the quantum interference effect at the simplest level. In this chapter, I will report my study on the two-impurity problem with a nongeneric band. I will then generalize the conclusion from this special example to generic cases and discuss how we can make the bridge connecting the single impurity result to the STM experiments on the fully-disordered systems. 32 3.1 Two Impurities in a d-wave Superconductor 33 3.1.1 T-matrix and Resonance Frequency With the formalism introduced in the previous chapter, the T-matrix for two isolated point-like impurities can be obtained by iterating the procedure for single-impurity T-matrix, in a 4 x 4 basis of spin and impurity site labels, ' ffe ffeGÂ°(R)fm K ffmGÂ°(-R)ft ffm (3.1) where R = R< â€” Râ€ž( and where 7), Tm are the single impurity T-matrices associated with the two impurities. For identical impurities, 7) = Tm = T(in), the single impurity T-matrix defined previously. The quantity / is defined as: /M = [1 - GÂ°(-R, in)7f(ai)GÂ°(R,in)f'm(aj)]_1, (3.2) where GÂ° (R, uj) = X]kexP[?^ ' is just the Fourier transformation of (7Â£(Ã¼;), the unperturbed Nambu Greenâ€™s function. For systems with inversion symmetry GÂ°(R,Â¿j) = GÂ°(â€”K,uj). Note that in Eqn. 3.1, the physical processes are clearly identifiable as multiple scatterings from each impurity Ã and m individually, plus interference terms where electrons scatter many times between i and m. In k-space, we can write the T-matrix in the more usual 2x2 notation as Tkk'(in) = [e'kR|ro eik'R"T0]Ttm p-ik'-R; T0 (3.3) where To is the Pauli matrix. Provided the resonance energies are distinct, peaks in the total density of states correspond to minima of the T-matrix denominator: V = det[l - GÂ°(-R, in)T(u;)G0(R, in)T(u;)]. (3.4) Explicitly, V = V\Vi/{S\S^_) with 34 Vi = VfV^+ VÂ¿Gl(R,u>) V2 = VÂ¡V2+V2G\( R,w) (3.5) where = [1-VoG3(0,w)Â±VoGo(0,w)] +(-1)"V,o[tG0(R.u;) + G3(R,o>)]. (3.6) The factors V\, Vâ€˜Â¿ determine the four 2-impurity resonant energies. Here Ga(R, u) is the rQ component of the integrated bare Greenâ€™s function (3.7) In certain special configurations, e.g. if the two impurities are located at 45Â° with respect to one other, it is easy to check that the off-diagonal Greenâ€™s function Gi(R, uj) â€” 0 V R. In this case the entire resonant denominator factorizes D = Â£>!+Â£>! _X>2+X>2-. The T-matrix then takes the simple diagonal form Tk,k'M = 2V'ocos(k-5:)cos(k'â– y) + + 21/0sin(k.5)sin(k'.5)[^: + ^_ (3.8) where rÂ± = (r3 Â± r0)/2. When two identical impurities with resonance energies Hq , are brought together, the bound state wavefunctions interfere with one another, in general splitÂ¬ ting and shifting each resonance, leading to four resonant frequencies ÃÃ+, Â£1% and > where the subscript indicates which factor in Eqn. 3.6 is resonant. If 35 splittings are not too large, the electron and hole resonances are related in a simÂ¬ ilar way as in the 1-impurity problem, Ã2]- ~ â€” and f^2 â€¢ Again the weight of each resonance may be quite different or even zero on any given site. A large splitting may be taken as evidence for strong hybridization of quasiparticle wavefunctions. If we take the interimpurity distance R as a parameter and keep impurity potentials and other parameters fixed, there are two obvious limits where this splitting vanishes. In the case of separation R. = 0, the two impurities combine (mathematically) to create a single impurity of strength 2Vo, so both iif2 approach the Ã2q (2Vo) appropriate for the double strength potential. In the case of infinite separation R â€”> 00, we must find Q|2 approaching the Qo(Vo) appropriate for isolated single impurities. To illustrate this argument explicitly, I will present both the analytical calculation with a gas model and numerical results on a tight binding lattice model. 3.1.2 Resonance Frequencies Gas Model. Eqn. 3.4 is a general result for two Â¿-function potentials embedded in a host described by an arbitrary GÂ°. We would like to derive analytical results for the resonance energies obtained therefrom to get some sense of the appropriate length scales and symmetries in the problem. At large distances, the resonance energies must approach the single impurity values, so the splittings can be calÂ¬ culated perturbatively. To do so one must first obtain analytical expressions for the large-distance behavior of the unperturbed Greenâ€™s functions. This is difficult for the superconducting lattice tight-binding model on which most of this work is based, but much insight can be gained by studying the equivalent gas model, with spectrum ek = k2/2m. In this case expressions have been obtained by Joynt and Balatsky et al. [24, 48] for the d-wave integrated Greenâ€™s functions <7Q(R,u; = 0) at large distances, both for R making an angle 45Â° or 0Â° with the x axis. We have evaluated the real space Greens function in the last chapter for the range of freÂ¬ quencies u;/A0 1/kpr Â«C l/kp^o- With these expressions, the resonance energies 36 may now be found by inserting these expressions for frequencies = Ã2q + <5 into (3.4) and solving for the shifts d. We find 11/ 2 â€” Qq Â± S, with (3.9) R || (110) 1 sinfep-fi kpÂ£o log(i!â€ž/Amâ€ž) kFR 4+nHâ€˜kj. Â»k)â€œsfrÂ« + '/4) Â«- II (100) These expressions are valid for <5/ÃÃq distances larger than the coherence length along the antinode (100) than for along the nodes, where it falls as ~ 1/r. This anisotropic form of the splitting is the signature of the marginal bound (nearly localized) single impurity state in a d-wave superconductor, which, by allowing propagating low-energy nodal quasiparticles, has extended tails along the gap nodes. It is the lack of a scale along this particular direction in the impurity wavefunctions that allows the strong overlapping even over long-distances. We will see later that how this attribute and its consequence questions the STM analysis of â€œisolated" impurity patterns. Lattice Model. In the following sections, I will briefly sum up the numerical results on two types of lattice band structure: the nearest neighbor hopping model (p = 0, pure nested band) and the 6-site tight binding band [49], with Ak = Ao(cos kx - cosky), A0 = O.lf and impurity strength Vo = 10i for the former band and Vo = 5.3f for the latter. The solutions of resonant frequency corresponding to each factor in Eqn. 3.5 can be tracked as a function of separation R by minimizing VÂ¡ 2 separately. In Fig. 3-1 I show the result for the pure nested band : the pentagons and open circles identify different branches of the splitting resonance frequencies; the left panel illustrates the result of R || (110) inter-impurity separation and the right panel the R || (100) case. It is seen that each factor Va corresponds to an oscillating function of R, with the factor determining, e.g., il2 , changing from site to site according to whether the site is even or odd. This is due to the strong R 37 dependence of the components Ga; in the simplest case, R || (110) and = 0, G3(R,u>) = Gi(R,u) = 0 but G0(R,u) = Ek cos(kxR/y/2)cos(kyR/y/2)GÂ°k(uj) oscillates rapidly. At R = 0, the problem reduces to the double-strength single impurity case; the factor V\ gives the resonant frequency Qq (2Vo) and the factor V2 is 1. At large separation the and ilj â€œenvelopesâ€ are seen to converge to ft0+ (Vo) with a length scale of a few Â£o â€” 10a for the parameters chosen. In the R || (100) case, the oscillations of the bound state energies with increasing R are not so simple, as seen in Fig. 3-1. The one obvious simple difference from the (110) case is that the energy splittings vanish much faster with distance, as expected from the discussion in Sec. 3.1.2. Otherwise the short distance behavior of the bound state energies is complicated. One can check that the resonant frequency closest to the Fermi level is when R = 2 + 4n, n integer, and ill otherwise. In general, short inter-impurity distance behavior is difficult to analyze anaÂ¬ lytically and it is found that in neither the (110) or (100) direction do resonances appear at all for R = 1. The hybridization between wavefunctions is so strong in these cases that the picture of perturbatively split 1-impurity states breaks down. More importantly, the splittings are significant up to quite large distances. ParamÂ¬ eters in Fig. 3-1 are chosen such that Â£o ~ 10a, as seen from the right panel of Fig. 3-1 where we indeed expect an e~R^Â° falloff according to the previous section. On the other hand, the left panel of Fig. 3-1 indicates strong interference out to separations of 30a or more! This means that if two impurities are oriented along 45 degree with each other, the interference effect will be long range, due to the delocalized nature of the single impurity states along gap nodes. 38 o.c o o 10 20 O 5 io R/a Figure 3-1: Two-impurity resonance energies Ãlf2 vs impurity orientation. 3.1.3 The Interference of Two One-impurity Wavefunctions In the 1-impurity case, the T-matrix is given by Eqn. 2.26 and it is easy to show (from Eqn. 2.3) that the change of LDOS due to the single impurity is: (3.10) Quite generally, the Greenâ€™s function can also be expressed in terms of the exact eigenfunction ipâ€ž(r) of the system (and its conjugate component ip*(r))in with the presence of the impurity [24, 38] C(r)lMr) uj (3.11) where the final approximation is valid for a true bound state with u very close to a particular bound state energy fin, and will be a good approximation in the present case to the extent the resonances are well defined, in the sense discussed previously. Comparing with the form (3.10) allows us to identify the positive and negative energy wavefunctions of the single-impurity resonances (assuming Vo > 0): u = Qq U = fÂ¡Ã³ (3.12) 39 where ZÂ± are non-resonant wave function normalization factors. Note that the electron-like bound state eigenfunction is directly related to the off-diagonal bare Greenâ€™s function, while the hole-like wave function is proportional to the diagonal bare Greenâ€™s function. We can follow the same procedure for the two-impurity Greenâ€™s function, and ask how the eigenfunctions at a particular resonant energy are related to the single impurity wave functions we have just found. Since the single-impurity resonant energies are different from the 2-impurity energies, this analysis will be valid to the extent the splittings are small compared to QqÂ±. The Greenâ€™s function 6G(r, r) can now be constructed from Eqn. 3.8 and the wave functions read off by comparing with the spectral representation in the same way as in the 1-impurity case. By examining Eqn. 3.8, it may be shown that, depending on whether T>\ or V2 is resonant, the wave functions thus extracted will be of definite spatial parity, ipn(r) = Â±^â€ž(-r). We find (3.13) where GÂ°M = GÂ°(r - R/2) Â± GÂ°(r + R/2), and the ZsÂ¿r are normalization coefficients. These are the two-impurity odd (p) and even-parity (s) resonant state eigenfunctions expressed directly as linear combinations of the corresponding one- impurity eigenfunctions ipÂ± given in Eqn. 3.12 With the aid of the explicit forms of those wavefunctions, we can study how the Friedel oscillations induced by single impurity interfere. In general, impurity wavefunctions include particle and hole components because of the anomalous scattering processes with amplitude Gi(R). However, in some special cases where Gi(R) = 0, for example, R || (110), the 40 |V|/|2 LDOS HI HI m li H Figure 3-2: The wavefunction at. resonance and corresponding LDOS. Impurities are separated by R. = (6,6). eigenfunction become simpler and do not mix particle and hole degrees of freedom. GiiJr.w) GÂ°n.(r,cj) f <%,(r,w) ( G?ip(r,^) UJ â€” ÃÃ i_|_ UJ = ill- UJ â€” Ã124- UJ = ÃI2â€” (3.14) (3.15) In order to illustrate to what extent the approximated wavefunction is effective, I show the real part (1st column) and imaginary part (2nd column) of those wavefunctions at energies equal to the four resonant frequencies (in this separation, = Â±0.0195. Â£l\Â±/t = Â±0.0075) explicitly in Fig. 3-2. The density probability, i.e., |>f2| (3rd column) and the actual LDOS (4th cloumn), defined as G(r, r, u) = ^GÂ°(k,a;) k + e'i (3.16) 41 Figure 3-3: Spectra on the nearest sites close to the impurities. See text for details. are plotted as well. It is clearly seen that there is a good agreement between the spatial pattern of the \ip\2 and the exact LDOS calculated at each resonant energy, implying that near each resonant energy the nonresonant contributions are quite insignificant. 3.1.4 Local Density of States, Realistic Band and Standing Wave Condition The distribution of LDOS with different inter-impurity orientations for pure nested band is plotted in Fig. 3-4 and Fig. 3-5. There are several novel features which need to be addressed. First, It is clear that some states involve constructive and some destructive interference between the 1-impurity wavefunctions in different regions of space, but the spatial patterns are, not unexpectedly, considerably more intricate than the â€œhydrogen moleculeâ€ type states one might first imagine would form, with electrons living either directly between impurities or completely expelled from this region. This is of course due to the d-wave character of the medium in which the quasiparticles propagate. For example, the LDOS is zero at the point halfway between the two impurities for the p-wave states, but it is quite small in the s-wave states as well. It is furthermore clear from the figure that both s (bonding) and p (antibonding) functions can have either constructive or destructive character, in the molecular sense. Note that the states are shown arranged vertically according to their eigenenergies, but recall that the ordering of the s and p (V\ and T>â€˜Â¿) states changes according to whether R is even or odd, as indicated in Fig. 3-1. 42 In addition, one can look into the spectra on some particular sites close to the impurities. Fig. 3-3 displays the spectra on several sites whose positions are illustrated as the numbers in the insets and the impurities positions are Ri = (â€”3,0), R-2 = (3,0) (left), R, = (-3,-3),R2 = (3,3) (right). It is surprising to observe that there are some surprisingly sharp peaks, which always happen at high energies and are far sharper than a single-impurity resonance at the same energy. This is counterintuitive based on our knowledge of the one-impurity problem: the T-matrix denominator SÂ± possess an imaginary part which vanishes linearly when Fermi surface is approached, hence a resonance with lower energy naively has narrower width (longer lifetime). This novel peculiarity must then stem from the quantum interference effect. Indeed, this can be understood by examining the structure of the denominator of T-matrix, with one impurity at origin: V = det^-V-, - G where T is the one-impurity T-matrix and Cilrmv> is the Greenâ€™s function with one impurity at the origin. Thus sharp two-impurity resonances occur for exactly the same reason as in the one-impurity case, but because the one-impurity DOS at R is nonmonotonic in u>, the resonance broadening is not necessarily proportional to the resonance energy. One might attribute the unexpected â€œtrappedâ€ (weight primarily sitting between impurities) or â€œleakingâ€ (weight is populated outside of the region between impurities rather than inside) patterns to the special symmetries of the half-filling tight-binding band structure, for example, the pure nesting of the Fermi surface. It is this nesting which by allowing a considerable phase space for scatterings with a fixed, momentum vector Q ( in general, Q = (jr,7r)), leads to a static or dynamic spatial modulation in terms of periodic arrangement of particle density, i.e., charge density wave (CDW), spin density wave (SDW) etc. Upon the study on a realistic band, we demonstrate that it is the commensuration of dominating scattering 43 (2,2) (53) (6,6) Figure 3-4: LDOS maps at resonant energies for R || (HO). Pure nested band, Vo = 10Ã; Impurity separations are shown on the top of the graph. wave vectors at the bound-state energy rather than the peculiarity described above that determines the standing-wave like modulation, a typical argument for wave interference. Fig. 3-6 illustrates the spectra on the adjacent sites of one of the two impuÂ¬ rities, with impurity separation R = (fi, 0) and R = (R, R) for a more realistic tight-binding coefficients fitted by Norman et al. [49] from ARPES data, e(k) = io + 2/., [cos(!:â€ž.) + cos(fcÂ¡,)] + 4Ã2 cos(kx) cos(ky) +2Ã3[cos(2A:i) + cos(2fcy)[ +2Ã4[cos(2fcI) cos (ky) + cos (kx) cos(2 ky)} +4Ã5 cos(2fcr) cos(2 ky) (3-17) with to... t5 = 0.879, -1,0.275, -0.087, -0.1876,0.086 and |fi| = 0.1488eV. All the curves have been offset for optical clarity. The impurity resonance dependence on separation is transparent: the hybridization is strong when they are too close (no resonance pattern for R=l); then the splitting shows up and persists over a certain 44 Figure 3-5: LDOS maps at resonant energies for R || (100). Pure nested band, Vo = lOt; Impurity separations are shown on the top of the graph. range of inter-impurity distance for each case. The sharp high energy peaks emerge sporadically and those along (100) direction occur more frequently than that of (110) direction. In wave mechanics, when two waves are travelling along a string in opposite directions, a standing wave can be established as the position and time depenÂ¬ dence of the resulting wave could be separated (when the two waves are 180 out-of-phase with each other they cancel, and when they are in-phase with each other they add together). In our case, the formation of these trapped states is surprisingly explicable1 in a similar fashion. For a real bound-state, the equation GÂ°(R, ui)TGÂ°(R, ui)T = 1 should be satisfied strictly for both real and imaginary parts at particular energies. The product GÂ°(R, u;)TG0(R, ui)T in Enq. 3.4 could 1 It is a bit surprising in that this native picture doesnâ€™t take into consideration the w dependence of the T-matrix, or the Nambu structure of Greenâ€™s functions. Moreover, the quantitative justification of the analysis is unexpectedly obtained although there are some fundamental difference between the one-impurity and two- impurity problems as discussed below. 45 Figure 3-6: LDOS spectra for realistic baud and VÃ³ = 5.3fi on nearest neighbor site. Left panel: impurities at (â€”if/2,0) and (if/2,0) ( R = (if,0)), spectra taken at r = (if/2,1). Right panel: impurities at (-if/2, â€”if/2) and (if/2, if/2) ( R = (if, if)), spectra taken at r = (if/2, if/2 + 1). be equivalently written as Y eâ€˜qRG(k,iu)7'(w)G(k + q,u)f(a>). (3.18) k.q It was argued by Hoffman et al. [69, 70], that the characteristic wavevectors in the spatial Fourier transform of the LDOS of disordered BSCCO samples are determined by peaks in the joint density of states (See Sec. 3.3.1 for details), i.e., bn Gn(k, o>)Im Gn(k + q, u>), as illustrated in Fig. 3-16 Although the above argument was proposed for single impurity and in Eqn. 3.18 we have a separation dependent phase factor e""R which is deleterious to this argument by averaging the joint density of states with random phase factors, it is still found that the long- lived two-impurity bound-states are primarily derived from a a few selected wave vectors; in order to have standing waves, the phase accumulated from scattering off from two impurities, together with the contribution from space propagation should sum up to mr, i.e., q R + 2r/0 = rwr, with q being the dominating vectors of scattering process and r/o the phase shift from one impurity. In the unitary limit, 2r/o â€” it, so the commensurability requires qi â– R + 2r/o = q2 â€¢ R + 2r/o = mr, q3 â€¢ R + 2r/o = rmr to be satisfied simultaneously. It is easy to check for our present band structure that (3,0), (7,0), (11,0), (14,0) and (3,3), (11,11) roughly 46 Figure 3-7: Fermi surface of BSCCO-2212 with constant energy surfaces at Â¡11 = 0.04 shown as small filled ellipses at the nodal points, qi, qj, q3 are wave vectors for which the joint density of states is large. balance the equation and we indeed see sharp resonant states for those specific configurations. Also, it is observed that the sharp resonant states occur much frequently in the (100) direction than in the (110) direction as the criterion holds. We also noticed that the splitting surprisingly persists up even to a relatively large distance R = 13 in (100) direction, while the exponential decay of wavefunc- tions in the gas model would predict weak interference and negligible splitting at this separation. This results suggests that even with a relatively dilute concenÂ¬ tration of impurities, the spatial LDOS around impurities should not be identical because of the random distribution of impurities and the interference between their wavefunctions; however, STM experiments apparently observed point-like, well isolated, and nearly identical impurities patterns embedded in the superconducting bath. In the following sections, I will show how this contradiction can be relaxed. Finally, it is also noteworthy that while the gas model or pure nested band anÂ¬ ticipates four distinctive resonant peaks, there are usually only 2 visible resonant peaks which can be observed for the realistic band. 47 3.2 DOS of two Impurities and Many Impurities at w = 0 : Local Resonance vs. Cumulative Interference 3.2.1 Perturbative Prediction: SCTMA and Its Validity The problem of low-energy d-wave quasipaxticle excitations has been treated traditionally with a so called self consistent T-matrix approximation (SCTMA) [48, 58, 59, 60] which partially sums up the perturbation series and models the impurities as strong point-like scatters. As illustrated in Fig. 3-8, the self-energy is approximated as E(a;) Â« nÂ¿T(a;), i.e., the product of the concentration of impurities and the single impurity T-matrix, by dropping all the crossed diagrams. It is then clear that SCTMA incorporates arbitrary potential strength appropriately but neglects inter-impurity correlations. SCTMA predicts that the impurity states broaden with the increase of impurity concentration and finally evolve into a subgap impurity band. The corresponding roughly constant low energy region of the DOS is referred to as the impurity plateau, as illustrated in Fig. 3-9. While the existence of excess quasiparticle states (the impurity band) has been confirmed by several transport and thermodynamic measurements, the lifetime of those nodal quasiparticles is not consistent with what the simplest SCTMA conjectures. For example, the absorptive part of the microwave conductivity a is significantly larger than the disorder-independent â€œuniversal limitâ€ proposed by Lee [71]. Moreover, the expected T2-dependence of a at low temperatures (one factor of T comes from the density of states and another one comes from the self-energy which is inversely proportional to T) [72] are not borne out by experiments as well; instead, a displays a linear T dependence in YBa2Cu307_Â¿ [73, 74, 75]. Among the various explanations proposed for these discrepancies, one critÂ¬ icism casts doubts on the validity of the SCTMA itself by arguing that crossed interference diagrams neglected in this approximation leads to a second-order n2u2 log2 a; divergence in 2D coming from the gap nodes [64], to be compared with the SCTMA, where one has 2nd order contribution of iiiuJ2. Thus for any fixed n*, the crossed diagrams dominate at sufficiently low energy. SCTM 48 (B) I - x X u/ \ + ,*T\ + ... X x , * V * 4. ' L I ) crossed diagrams Figure 3-8: Schematic plot of the self-energy diagram with many impurities. (a) Zero-energy (b) peak Figure 3-9: Schematic figure of the many-impurity DOS (a) in the unitary limit of the half-filled band and (b) in the unitary limit of a generic band. 3.2.2 Nonperturbative Predictions: When casting doubt on the effectiveness of SCTMA, Nersesyan et al. [64] accordingly performed a nonperturbative calculation for scattering within a single node and predicted a vanishing DOS at the Fermi level, p(ui) ~ uia with exact bosonization. After this work, several supposedly exact nonperturbative theories made diverse conclusions: p(0) may vanish with different power laws [61, 76], saturate at a finite value [65], or even diverge[l, 62, 77, 78], Fig. 3-9 displays the band-dependent p(ui = 0) schematically. All these nonperturbative works claimed to yield exact results for the problem of low-energy DOS of a d-wave superconductor. These apparently conflicting results were reconciled by Hirschfeld and Atkinson [63] and Yashenkin et al. [66], who pointed out the d-wave disorder 49 problem was very sensitive to symmetries of both the disorder model and the normal state band. Among all the theories, the one proposed by Pepin and Lee [1] is of great interest to me, which claims that the result for a N-impurity T-matrix is essentially rii times the single-impurity result. However, a closer inspection reveals that this peculiarity is tied to the disorder interference rather than the single impurity resonance at the Fermi level. Hirschfeld and Atkinson [63], Yashenkin et al. [66], and Atkinson et al. [79] further pointed out that this divergence is the consequence of a global particle-symmetry particularly possessed by the half-filled tight binding model. 3.2.3 Divergence in Pure Nested Band with Unitary Scatters Hirschfeld and Atkinson [63] have expended considerable effort to reconcile the disagreement among the nonperturbative approaches. However, including their works, none of the studies above have addressed this problem from a local point of view. The two-impurity problem offers a possibility to study this problem, to observe how the divergent DOS in the perfectly nested case might arise. As we know from Sec. 3-1, the Greenâ€™s function for two Â¿-like impurities can be written as G(r, r',ui) = GÂ°(r-r',w) + ^GÂ°(r - R,,oi)Ty(u;)GÂ°(Rj - r,u;). The 2-impurity T-matrix is a 4 x 4 matrix (in the Hilbert space expanded by site and spin indices) satisfies Vq'tz - GÂ°(0,u;) â€”GÂ°(R,tn) T = (3.19) â€”GÂ°(R,o>) Vo-1T3 â€” GÂ°(0,u>) It is technically expensive to evaluate of the local Greenâ€™s functions GÂ°(R, ui) and we can only approximate them under some specific circumstances. For the 50 â€¢ â€¢ A â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ / â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ /B â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ Figure 3-10: Schematic plot of bipartite lattice. tight-binding hall-filled band and the limit ui â€”â–º 0, we obtained an asymptotic form (see Appendix A): G0(0,u) = -^ln^fo, (3.20) where a = NI(2i\vfv^), N = 4 is the number of nodes, Up is the Fermi velocity and Ua is the anomalous quasiparticle velocity and the cutoff A is of order of A0. The expansion in ui for r = (m, n) depends on whether n and m are odd or even. For the (even, even) case, we have GÂ°(r,w) -* (-1)^ [GÂ°(0, (u) + uiCo(r)] f0, (3.21) where Go(r) is a real function of r. We find similar leading-order expressions for (m, n) = (odd, odd), GÂ°(m,n,ui) -* iuC0(r)fo, (3.22) while for (m,n) = (odd, even) or (even, odd), GÂ°(m,n,ui) â€”* Ci(r)fi + C3(r)f3, (3.23) where Ci(r), and G;Â¡(r) are real coefficients as functions of r as well. This disÂ¬ tinction between even and odd sites accounts for the oscillatory nature of the wavefunctions for the special case that, the Fermi wavevector is commensurate with the lattice. A concept of â€œ bipartiteâ€ lattice should be introduced here, which divides the square lattice into two interleaved subsets, as illustrated in Fig. 3-10, where 51 Figure 3-11: Change in p(u) due to impurities. Impurity separation: R = (2,2). red and blue sports belong to different sub-lattices respectively. A stunning effect happens when the two impurities are in the same sub-lattice, i.e., R = (even, even) or R - (odd, odd). In that case, we found det T diverges as det T [2wCo(R)G(j(0,uj)] 2 R = (even, even) GÂ°( 0, u)_4 R = (odd, odd) and the correction to total density of states: Sp(u) - l/[o>ln2(A/u>)] R = (even, even) 2/[u>ln2(A/u;)] R= (odd,odd) (3.24) It is worthy to pinpoint the origin of the divergence since the similar result was also obtained by Pepin and Lee (PL)[1], which claims that by averaging over all the possible impurity separation using the approximate form GÂ°(R, u) ~ 1/R out to a cutoff ~ t/R, p(u â€”> 0) diverges as M[lna(A/w) + (7r/2)s]â€™ <3'25) where A is a cutoff. In our model, for the (odd, odd) case, the local Greenâ€™s functions dominate over the nonlocal ones and the physics of the low-energy resonance is essentially that of two noninteracting impurities, which is verified by the factor of 2 in front of the single impurity result( see Eqn. 3.24). For the (even, 52 150 100 3 Â£ 50 0 Figure 3-12: Change in p(cj) due to impurities. Impurity separation: R = (2,1). even) case, the interference effect seems to wipe out the spectral weight and move it to high energies but the divergence survives, as its magnitude reduces to half of that of two isolated resonances. In Fig. 3-11, I show the change of DOS due to two impurities with separation R = (2,2) for different impurity strengths. It is observed for intermediate impurity strengths, four resonant peaks are clearly defined as the consequence of splitting of single impurity resonances. When the unitary limit is approached, a single divergent peak is emergent. However, it should be stressed that, in both cases of separation above, our results are intrinsically different from PL result which is inherently nonlocal. When impurities belong to different sublattices and are separated by a distance with site indices parity as R =(even, odd). The two-impurity T-matrix defined in Eqn.3.19 is: -<7Â°(0, cj)t0 C, (R)fi + C3(R)f3 C1(R)fi + C3(R)f3 - with D' = (7(0, a;)2 â€” Ci(R)2 â€” C^R)2. It follows easily that det T = D'~2 and that Sp(uj â€”Â» 0) oc -j- fa;2Inâ€” ^ â€”â–º 0 (3.26) duj \ uj ) A similar result holds for R =(odd, even). Physically, the fact that bp vanishes at the Fermi level indicates that bound state energies must always arise at nonzero 53 Figure 3-13: (a) DOS for Vo=100t. (b) Scaling of the DOS with Vo. (c) Scaling of the DOS with L. (d) Scaling of the DOS with V0 and L=60. energies. Numerical calculations of the DOS shown in Fig. 3-12 demonstrate that there is no remnant of the single impurity u-*0 divergence for this orientation, and that the resonance energies scale very little with Vo. In this case, it is the dominance of the nonlocal terms which shifts the resonance to finite energy. 3.2.4 Discussion: Bridge Between the Two-impurity and the Many-impurity Problems We have been aiming to show how the two-impurity problem is suggestive of the fully disordered system. To explore their correspondence, two basic issues need to be addressed here: 1) what gives the divergence at ui = 0 in the pure nested tight-binding model? 2) how does the impurity band evolve away from iu=0? Â¿-like Divergence at. uj â€” 0. In Fig. 3 13, I show the scaling of the integrated DOS as a function of the impurity strength and the system size. The impurity concentration is fixed to be nÂ¡ = 0.1%. The nonperturbative PL result from 54 Eqn. 3.25 is also plotted as dash lines for direct comparison. By setting A = 1, we achieved a good fit the numerics at Vo = lOOi. However, when the impurity strength increases, the weight keeps concentrating at the center peak and saturates slowly. This finite-size effect requires us to work in the limit where the level spacing is smaller than the center peak width. The limit Vo â€”> oo is illustrated in Fig. 3-13 (d). Generally, the peak becomes sharper when Vo is bigger. It is indicated that the divergence is actually a delta function, i.e., lim^o-*Â» p(w) ~ <5(w) since the peaks scales as p(u) Â« VqF(ljVq). What gives the divergence at zero energy and why it is not observed in any other many-impurity case with a generic band? It is pointed out by Yashenkin et al. [66] that the half-filled tight-binding band possesses a particular global nesting symmetry k + Q)t2 = GÂ°(k), which in the unitary limit, i.e., U = oo and p = 0 (in this this special band) gives additional poles with momenta Q = (7r, 7r) to the particle-hole and particle-particle propagators. This diffusive mode is gapless and hence controls the singularity at zero energy. Any distortion on the band or deviation from unitarity will destroy this nesting symmetry and yield zero DOS at the Fermi level. We have performed careful examinations on the scaling of the peak area with respect to the system size and extracted that the localization length Â£0 ~ 40a. When system size is bigger than Â£0, the localization effect makes the effective system size finite and the peak weight saturates. This is distinctively different from the Pepin and Leeâ€™s result in origin. The divergence of the latter arises from the cumulative effects of interference between a large number of distant impurities. In Fig. 3-14, I show the real space structure of those states in the divergent peak. The LDOS from the eigenstates with energy \En\ < 10-5 is plotted, where impurities on different sublattices are indicated with open and filled circles respectively. A remarkable discovery is that only part of the impurities have pronounced structures while others are weakly visible. It is further noticed that 55 Figure 3-14: LDOS for 2% concentration of impurities and \En\ < 10 5t (20 eigenÂ¬ values). those which â€œlight upâ€ or â€œdim outâ€ are located in the same sublattice A or B as denoted in the previous section. While this finding can be understood as reminiscent of the two-impurity problem, it is still puzzling in that every impurity is expected to have some close neighbours which belong to a different sublattice and hence contribute to the destruction of the zero-energy peak, but this is not observed apparently. Away from uj = 0: A Real Space Perspective for STM Experiments. An amazing pattern observed in STM is that almost, all impurities, regardless of their local environment, appear to be â€œresonantâ€ all through the impurity band [10, 43, 44]. Furthermore, the number of the Zn atoms matches the number of resonances, which likely implies that there are no impurity atoms â€œmissing.â€ These collective evidences above were exactly the impetus to the proposal of single impurity quasiparticle scattering scenario. However, the disagreement between the width of resonance peaks observed in experiments (which is of the order of ~ 10 meV and is surprisingly as the same order of the impurity band width in the dilute unitary limit 7 ~ y/Ã±Â¡ErA0!) and that of theoretical prediction on single-impurity (7 <1 meV) questioned the preciseness of the single-impurity scenario. Fig. 3-15 displays the spatial distribution of LDOS, with a 0.2% concentration of impurity, a value close to the experimental observations. In the left panel, LDOS is plotted 56 at a particular eigenstate whose energy lies in the impurity band but far enough away from the Fermi level; in the right panel, LDOS is plotted by averaging over a final energy window within which five eigenstates are included. It is interesting to note that while in the left panel, only a portion of impurities â€œlight upâ€ (resonant) while others are â€œdarkâ€ (not resonant) simultaneously; the right panel recovers the experimentally observed single impurity pattern qualitatively. This possibly implies that the DOS plateau for uj > 0 is formed by summing over many impurities with â€œinhomogeneous broadeningâ€ (different impurities become resonant and turn off at different energies, the basic fact is that the resonant lifetimes are different for different energies, since we have a nontrivial (Â¿-dependent DOS for the pure system with which the resonant states overlap). We are then inspired to formulate such a hypothesis: the exact image obtained by STM tips could be the summation of many N-impurity eigenstates, some of which are resonant at a given energy and others are not, over a finite energy window, and the â€œsingleâ€ impurity pattern is visually recovered by piling up the snapshots at different energies. Notice that even though the energy resolution in STM is as small as ImeV, there are still numerous eigenstates within such a window size for a typical sample size (L ~ 500/1) and impurity concentration (nÂ¿ ~ 0.2 â€” 0.5%) with which the tips may bin over to produce the nearly isolated, four-fold symmetric, localized impurity patterns.2 3.2.5 Conclusion I would like to finish the discussion on two-impurity problem by summing up the physics of most importance we learnt from this specific model: â€¢ The coinmensurability of the nodal wave vectors and the tight-binding lattice classifies the two-impurity configuration into two sublattices: the impurity pairs on the same sublattice contribute to a divergence in p(uj). At uj = 0, 2 The extended tails are blurred by the incommensurability between the lattice and the wavevectors of eigenstates, and this also helps to set up the single impurity pattern. Apart from the Fermi level, this phenomenon is even more pronounced. 57 Figure 3-15: LDOS for 0.5% concentration of impurities. Left: En = 0.0385Â£; right: averaged over five eigenvalue in energy interval \En â€” 0.03Â£| < 0.02Â£. with the global constructive interference by the particular 72 symmetry in hall-filled tight binding band, the DOS of the many-impurity system diverges and contains a Â¿-function form. However, I should emphasize that this sharp peak at u = 0 is the consequence of the special feature of hamiltonians with 72 symmetry only, and is not a generic attribute of d-wave superconductors. â€¢ Away from the Fermi level, the quantum interference between impurities still exists. Incommensurate scattering wavevectors allowed by the increase in the available kinematics phase space smears the nodal network and distorts the resonant states, which are inhomogeneously distributed. However, the finite energy window of STM technique, although it is quite small in laboratory terms, still introduces considerable homogeneous broadening to the resonant states by essentially averaging over a large number of eigenstates of the macroscopic system. The isolated impurity pattern with classic fourfold symmetry is visually recovered. 3.3 Power Spectrum for Many Impurities When pebbles are thrown into water, they cause ripples. Impurities induce â€œripplesâ€ in the electron sea in the similar way. If the images of the impurity induced â€œripplesâ€ are Fourier transformed (FT) into momentum space, they generally select out some defining wavevectors from which we can map out the 58 Figure 3-16: Left panel:the constant energy contours with the q vectors; right panel: the evolutions of q vectors as a function of energy. dispersion of eigenstates in the pure system. In normal metals, they are mainly Fermi wavevectors [36, 37]; in a d-wave superconductor, those Fourier transformed DOS (FTDOS) patterns contain fruther useful information on the SC state. 3.3.1 Weak Scattering Limit: Octet Model and Kinematics of Quasiparticles The Cornell STM group [69, 70] first obtained the Fourier transformed density of states for optimal-doped disordered BSCCO, which is defined as p(q) = e?qr/9(r). They plotted its absolute value as a function of momentum q and bias energy u and observed some distinct peaks. An explanation based on quasiparticle scattering identified those peaks as the consequence of a disturbance due to atomic scale disorder. It was speculated [80] that the scattering processes which have a momentum shift q = kfinai â€” kinitial connecting the regions with substantial density of states will dominate others, because there is large available phase space both in the initial and final states. In a band theory, the quasiparticle DOS p(uj) at uj is proportional to (3.27) and the area with the smallest energy gradient contributes to p{uj) mostly. If there exist well defined quasiparticles in the superconducting state, then certain segments of the Fermi surface will be gapped out and the constant energy contour (CEC, the surface of which all the points have the same energy {k : E'(k) = cjq}) deforms 59 in the d-waive case into â€œbananasâ€, as schematically plotted in Fig. 3-16. The quasiparticle DOS around the tips of bananas is higher than the other domains and we should be able to observe a pronounced |p(q)| for the q vectors connecting these tips. In addition, these q vectors should disperse with STM sample bias u in a characteristic way as the quasiparticle CECâ€™s change. This proposal is called the â€œoctetâ€ model for quasiparticle scattering since for each binding energy there are eight identical q vectors coimecting the â€œbananaâ€ tips in the first Brillouin zone. We can work in momentum space within the T-matrix formalism and obtain the explicit form of p(q) (after taking off the homogeneous component) as well: p(q) ~ Im[^G<0)(k + q,u;)r(k + q,k,u;)G<0)(k,a;)]. (3.28) k Of course the p(q) derived from the complete T-matrix includes not only the octet peaks but also additional structures that may hinder the visibility of the desired ones. However, in the weak scattering limit, i.e., T(k',k) ~ V'fk', k), may scattering of high order be neglected and the disorder potential be factored out as well: p(q) ~ ImiV'tq^G^k + q.i^G^k,^)}, (3.29) k where F(q) is the Fourier component of the real space potential Ffr). The term Â£kc(0)(k + q, a;)(7(0)(k,a;) is called the response function (also named A function) which is only determined by the kinematics of the pure system. The physical interpretation of Eqn. 3.29 is transparent: the imaginary parts of the Greenâ€™s functions, namely, density of states, Pintuai and p final determine the probability of scattering events jointly. Furthermore, the magnitudes of those qâ€™s display two distinct dispersions: while some of them increase with increasing bias, others decrease monotonically (see Fig. 3-16). The comparison between the experimental and theoretical (Â¿-dependence of those q peaks is presented in Fig. 3-16, showing good agreement with each other! The theoretical prediction is calculated from a 60 standard BCS theory with quasiparticle dispersion Ev = (3.30) where Ak takes dx2_ya form. It should be noted that Eqn.3.3.1 has contributions also from the real parts of the Greenâ€™s functions as well. The result of FT-STS analysis has several implications: it suggests that optiÂ¬ mally doped BSCCO is qualitatively well described by conventional BCS quasiparÂ¬ ticles. Moreover, because the unperturbed Greenâ€™s function contains the dispersion of free quasiparticles in a homogeneous system, we then can trace the energy dependence of those vectors and map out the kinematics of the clean system! In fact, the q vectors extracted from FT-STS have been used to construct the Fermi surface of BSCCO and a comparison with that from angle-resolved photoemission experiments displayed a good agreement [70, 81] which confirms our knowledge of the electronic structure of BSSCO and, probably more importantly, reinforces our confidence in both the real space (STM) and momentum space (ARPES) techÂ¬ niques because the matrix elements for these physical processes are quite different. It is interesting to note that the â€œsignalâ€ used to determine the Fermi surface of he clean system via this technique vanishes in the absence of disorder. Finally, it can also be used to measure the momentum-dependence of the gap function Ak. A result performed by Hoffman et al. gave: Ak = Ao[Acos(20k) + Â£cos(60k)L with A0 = 39.3 meV, A = 0.818, B = 0.182, which reflects approximately the proposed dx2_y2 symmetry of the pairing function in BSCCO. 3.3.2 Power Spectrum for Many Impurities in B^S^CaC^Os The â€œoctetâ€ model demonstrates that effectiveness of the quasiparticle scattering scenario within the conventional BCS theory for the superconducting state of optimal- or over- doped samples. The study on the Fourier transform of the Friedel oscillations due to impurities further provides important information on the kinematics of pure systems. However, there are also some distinct features in 61 experimental data which is not explicable within this simple model, for examples, the resolved qi, qr peaks are much broader than expected; furthermore, they have roughly equal weight while the octet model predicts the peak intensity of q7 should be much stronger that of qj. Is the quantum interference between the Friedel oscillations responsible for these discrepancies? In the study of two-impurity problem [54], I have shown that the interference pattern can persist up to a relatively long separation; practically, concentration of impurities in samples generally yields an average inter-impurity distance over which the impurities are still quite â€œvisibleâ€ to each other. If we further recall 1) PLâ€™s result of the low energy DOS obtained by averaging over the randomly distributed impurity configurations: the interference gives an expression for N-impurity T-matrix which is essentially nÂ¡ times the single-impurity result; 2) the nearly isolated impurity pattern could be the artifact of homogeneous broadening by the energy window size of STM. We should then doubt the precision of the â€œoctetâ€ model and ask the following questions: 1) is it appropriate for us to a priori assume that one-impurity pattern survives from many impurities and manipulate the experiments data on fully-disordered samples within the frame of this theory? 2) to what extent will its predictions such as peak positions and peak widths be modified qualitatively and quantatively by the interference effect? Many Random Weak Scatters. Capriotti et al. [82] and Zhu et al. [83] anÂ¬ swered the first question by studying the power spectrum of N randomly disÂ¬ tributed point-like impurities. In these works, the N-impurity T-matrix is expressed in terms of the 1-impurity T-matrix Â¿Â¡ = [1 â€” VjGÂ°(r = 0)]-1Vj by N, Tij = iAj + Â¿Â¡[1 - (W]GÂ°(R, - Râ„¢)tmâ€ž (3.31) m=l where the impurity potential at R, is VÂ¿ = V0T3, and fÂ¿ are the Pauli matrices. In the dilute concentration limit, only the leading order in U of Eqn 3.31 needs to be 62 Figure 3-17: FTDOS at u =14 meV for weak potential scatters (Vo = 0.67Â¿i): (a) for one weak impurity, with a few important scattering wavevectors indicated; (b) for 0.15% weak scatterers. Cuts through the data of (a)(thick line) and (b)(thin line) along the (110) direction and scaled by l/y/N] are plotted vs. qx in (c), while (d) shows the weak scattering response function Im A3(q,a;). Peaks at q = 0 are removed for clarity. In all the figures, the x and y axes are aligned with the Cu-0 bonds. considered: sp(q,w) - -- y; ia(q)Im[e'*â€œA0(q,w)] (3.32) where ta(q) = Â«<,Â£ie_iq'R' and A0(q,in) = [GÂ°(k, u)faGÂ°(k + q, w)]u . In the weak potential limit, Eqn. 3.32 reduces to Sp(q, ui) ~ â€” K(q)Im A3(q,Ã¼;)/7r, (3.33) which is also valid for finite range V (r). It is realized that both of the limits afford a complete separation between degrees of freedom associated with the disorder potential and those of the pure system. There are several consequences of this separation: 1) the â€œoctetâ€ peaks are not broadened or shifted by disorder and it is Aâ€ž, the response function of the clean system that determines the peak positions and the widths in the FTDOS; 2) the randomness of disorder introduces noise which is actually as large as the 63 signal since the disorder average gives (|Â¿p(q, a;)|2) ~ NÂ¡ and (|Â£p(q, w)|4) â€” (|Â¿p(q,uj)\2)2 ~ 7V/(iVj â€” 1); consequently, some one impurity peaks will not be robust in many-impurity case (for example, the weak qi peaks in Fig. 3-17 (a) are lost in Fig. 3-17 (b)); 3) technically, we may also compare the response function and the many-impurity FTDOS at different energies to map out the shape of the potentials V (q) if they are spatially extended. Actually, since there is still lack of the knowledge on the spatial form of the disorder in BSCCO, this proposes in principle a method to resolve the impurity structure from LDOS measurement directly. Finally, it should be pointed out that the imaginary part of the single particle self-energy due to the point-like scatters does not broaden the â€œoctetâ€ peaks but suppresses their magnitude in momentum space (at any energies) since it is momentum-isotropic, i.e., 6T,/dk = 0. Unitary Scatters and Extended Weak Scatters. Point-like impurities with either dilute concentration or weak strength prove to be inadequate to address on the relevant peak widths and peak intensities of qi and q7 vectors in experiments. Probably, the former fails because it neglects the interference effect and the latter further excludes the contribution from other channels of the response function. In Fig. 3-18, I show To, T\ and T3 components of Aa at several energies. It is observed that, interestingly, while A3 resolves q7, q2, qe, Ao resolves qi, qs quite clearly (q3 and qi are present in both of the two channels). This difference between Ao and A3 seems to necessitate the inclusion of unitary impurities as possible scattering centers and is supported plainly from the structure of the T-matrix for point-like scatters, T M = goMro ct3 C2 - flg(w) C2 - 0Â¡j(Ã¼>) (3.34) where go(u> â€”> 0) ~ a;. In the weak scattering limit the second term in Eqn 3.34 dominates and qi and qs peaks are missing. However, in the unitary limit, i.e., 64 w=0.045455 w=0.090909 w=0.13636 Figure 3-18: The plot of Nambu component of spectral functions at several freÂ¬ quencies. 65 c = g(uj â€”> 0) â€”> 0, To and 73 channels will have roughly equal weight and therefore bring up all the q peaks at lower energies. Additionally, the presence of unitary scatters is also consistent with the finding of the plainly evident local resonances in the LDOS from STM for uj < 15rneV.3 Another constraint on the impurity potential imposed by the experiments is the peak widths of those vectors. If we allow that experiments may be seeing background features as well as (or instead of) the true â€œoctetâ€ peaks, then the FTDOS in Fig. 3-17 is fairly compatible with experimental data at -14 meV (as shown in Fig. 3-19). However, comparisons at other energies are significantly worse. As revealed by the experiments, besides the observance of unitary scatters, the energy gap extracted from STM measurements of BSCCO is inhomogeneous at the nanometer scales [84, 85], ranging from underdoping to slightly overdoped. With the lack of understanding of the source of those inhomogeneities, we modified them as smooth random potentials, probably originating from charge inhomoÂ¬ geneities from BiO layer, with the structure as V'(r) = JT V(i) exp(â€”fÂ¿/A)/rÂ¿ and = [(r â€” Rj)2 -|- d2]1/2, where R, -I- zdz are the defect locations, V(i) are the defect potentials and A is a screening length. These extended impurities do not induce any resonance feature at all as they never make real poles for the denominator of T-matrix, but their momentum-dependent potentials V (q) assign a considerable probability to the â€œoff-shellâ€ scattering (the process involved with the k's which do not satisfy the poles equations for the Greenâ€™s functions of initial and final states simultaneously) which act to blur the octet peaks. 3 This is also true for magnetic impurities since their spin resolved matrix is written as To in Nambu notation. But we focus on the potential scatters here. 66 In Fig. 3-19, I show the comparison between theoretically calculated FT-DOS and experimental results. The theoretical results were obtained by solving the Bo- goliugov De-Gennes (BDG) equations 4 including both unitary and weak, extended scatters. The q vectors from the â€œoctetâ€ model are also plotted. A fair agreement between the calculated and experimental FT-DOS is achieved at low energies. The qi and qs peaks are well-resolved theoretically, but most of the structure comes from a set of broader background features which disperse along with the octet vecÂ¬ tors simultaneously. In general, the background structures disperse qualitatively as one expects in single impurity model. Meanwhile, theoretically calculated FTDOS display an asymmetry between positive and negative energies where experimental ones do not. This is maybe the result of the large asymmetry of the model band, in which there is a Van hove singularity at uj Â« 50 meV that is not observed in STM experiments. While qi, qs are identified as â€œremnantâ€ of octet peaks together with the dispersing back ground, q7 seems to be misidentified as octet peaks in experimental data, as we argued, since the measured magnitude is as twice as the predicted value from nearest-neighbor d-wave model. Because the q7 peaks comes from intranodal scattering, they are a direct measure of the k-dependence of the superconducting gap and scales with ~ 1/^a, where va is the gap velocity at the nodes. McElroy et al. [70] have exploited this mechanism to map out the gap function Ak and were forced to introduced a significant subleadiug cos 6(9 harmonic to fit their data. This is in sharp contrast to the pure near-neighbor d-wave form at optimal doping resolved from ARPES spectroscopy. Recognizing that the observed 4 In BDG formalism, the hamiltonian for a superconductor on a square lattice is, n=-,Y,micW- 12^-5Z{aÂ¡Ãc!tc]i}+(3-35) o i,(T i,jwhere the angle brackets indicate that site indices i and jare nearest neighbors, UÂ¡ is the impurity potential, and Ai3- = â€” K(CjjCÂ¡,) is the mean-field order parameter. 67 LDOS FTDOS EXPT Figure 3-19: Comparison of theory and experiment. Left panel: LDOS; middle panel: calculated FTDOS; right panel: FTDOS from STM experiments. feature at roughly twice the true q7 is in fact the background feature found in our calculations may enable one to bring the two experiments in closer agreement. At energies |u>| > 15 meV, Fig. 3-19 shows a qualitatively similar nanoscale variation of LDOS as seen in experiments. However, the (110) peaks associated with forward scattering are stronger than (100) peaks. This can be understood since the unitary scatters are only resonant at low energies and do not have noticeable effects at high energies. Therefore, the difficulty to bring up qi peaks places further constraint on the impurity potential. Alternatively, it has also been proposed that qi peaks could be attributed either to the exotic orders such as stripe formation [30, 31] or to the scattering from gap inhomogeneities, i.e., the contribution from t\ channel. CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION: QUASIPARTICLES, DISORDERS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR STM SPECTROSCOPY The notable improvement in the resolution of STM experiments has shifted the focus of the study of high-temperature superconductivity from bulk, macroscopic property to nanoscale, specifically, local quantum states and electronic structures, a level from which we believe the fundamental mechanism of high temperature superconductivity may eventually be uncovered. The illuminating results of STM experiments have established several undisputed facts: a) the spatial modulaÂ¬ tions of the LDOS and order parameters are inhomogeneous at the nanoscale in B^S^CaCujOg ; b) disorder with unknown origin and structure is ubiquitous in this sample; c) optimal- and over-doped cuprates may be well described by the conventional BCS theory with unusual order parameters. I attempt to elucidate to what extent we can relate such atomic-scale electronic phenomena to disorder induced wave-like quasiparticle states and the quantum interference effects beÂ¬ tween them. I here briefly summarize my understanding on the implications of the quasiparticle scattering model for the recent discoveries in STM experiments. 4.1 Atomic Level Resonances, Quasparticle States and Unitary Scatters The zero-bias differential conductance map on the surface of BSCCO displays localized resonant features of size of 3 nanometers and four-fold symmetric distribuÂ¬ tion of LDOS. In addition, the spectra on the centers of those bright spots exhibit a zero-bias sharp peak, as shown in Fig. 4-1 [43]. There has been great deal of effort ascribing these observations to the quasiÂ¬ particle scattering from atomic-scale defects. While the identities of these â€œnativeâ€ defects are still not clear (the possible candidates include defects such as Cu and O vacancies, crystal defects etc), the spectroscopic signature are quite similar to 68 69 Figure 4-1: Zn impurity resonance, left channel: dl/dV Vs.a;; right channel: the LDOS spectrum above the Zn site. those observed when Zn and Ni axe explicitly substituted for Cu. Theoretical calÂ¬ culations, in which Zn and Ni were modelled as potential and magnetic scatterers respectively, seemed to support this conjecture by yielding qualitative agreement with experimental results and further substantiated the possibility of using localÂ¬ ized defects as atomic probes for the superconducting state. The validity of this scenario was afterwards reinforced by its successful application to the analysis of Fourier transformed LDOS, through which we mapped out the kinematics of the pure superconducting state (such as the Fermi surface, the band dispersion and the momentum-dependence of the order parameter) that was confirmed by the results from momentum sensitive techniques as well. Additionally, transport measurements [86, 87] also demonstrated the existence of excess low-energy quasiparticle states, which may result from the collective interference between impurity wavefunctions. However, there remain a few difficulties in the quasiparticle scattering scenario: â€¢ The expected spectral weight distributions around Zn impurities are comÂ¬ pletely reversed in experiments ( see Chapter 2 for details). A proposal emphasizing the â€œfilterâ€ effect arising from the coupling between the orbitals with zero in plane components and the 3dx2_y2 wavefunctions of the nearest neighbor Cu reconciles this disagreement but raises another debate on the sign of the Zn impurity itself. So far, hand-waving arguments based on the 70 atomic configuration suggests Zn is an attractive potential for electrons while calculations determining the unitary limit by adopting realistic band structure and ab initio DFT calculations find a repulsive potential. This, together with the fact that Zn (presumably a potential scatterer) atoms are more destructive to local coherence than Ni (presumably a magnetic scatter), remains an unsettled issue. â€¢ The ability of one-impurity quasiparticle scattering model of any kind to explain the details of local STM spectra in samples with percent level disorder is severely limited. Despite the fact that conventional scattering theory might be intrinsically deficient since it is completely blind to the possible strong correlations between the impurity states and the surrounding electrons, it is inadequate to address several experimental observations. For example, although the analysis of Fourier transformed LDOS (within the single impurity scattering scenario) resolved the characteristic peaks associated with the kinematics of pure system, the actual heights and widths of these peaks are inconsistent with the one-impurity model. With the inclusion of extended impurities, proposals based on the quantum interference between impurities yielded better agreement with the experimental data but still could not reproduce all the observations consistently. 4.2 Nanoscale Gap Inhomogeneity In addition to aforementioned zero bias resonances due to planar defects, a further fascinating aspect of the local electronic structure is the observation of large, nanoscale fluctuations of the LDOS. In Fig. 4-2, I show the plot of gapmap in an overdoped BSCCO-2212. In this plot, each spot is a real lattice point and the color represents the relative magnitude of the local gap maxima which is defined as the position of coherent peak in the local spectral weight on the chosen site. Generally, this nanoscale inhomogeneity appears at biases close to the bulk gap edge in BSCCO accompanied by homogeneous low energy (|u;| < Ao) spectra across 71 Figure 4-2: The gapmap of overdoped BSSCO. Sample size 500Ax500A. -100 -50 o â€™ so Too Sample bias (mV) Figure 4-3: Spectra on different sites along the horizontal cut. 72 the sample (See Fig. 4 -3). This observance was interpreted as the local fluctuation of the order parameter and divided the system into â€œpatchesâ€ with fluctuating phase coherence, which motivated the study of â€œgranular superconductivity.â€ 1 However, we should keep in mind that the STM tips measure quasiparticle excitaÂ¬ tions directly rather than the order parameter; additionally, in a fully-disordered superconductors, quantum interference effects can also give birth to the local gap inhomogeneity. While we should question whether this inhomogeneity is intrinsic in BSCCO, we may also ask how for can we proceed with quaiparticles and disorder alone, i.e., is this phenomenon completely explicable in â€œQP+disorderâ€ scenario, or is it some intrinsically exotic state that can be distinguished from a highly disorÂ¬ dered superconductor? There was an attempt [29] to study the second possibility by using Ni to induce local resonance in superconducting regions and discriminate them from regions of other identities. It was found that Ni atoms only â€œlight upâ€ in the region with relatively small gap value and higher coherent peak (i.e., good superconducting grains) but how the Ni resonances correlated with the inhomoÂ¬ geneity was not resolved explicitly yet. As far as the first possibility is concerned, the homogeneous shape of the low energy spectra excludes a large concentration of short-range, strong scatters since they should scatter the nodal quasiparticles and result in excess weight around the Fermi level presumabl; furthermore, the fact that these inhomogeneities take place at energies close to the bulk gap edge suggests that it is the antinodal quasiparticles that suffer intense scattering from weak, smooth potentials. This could be particularly true in the optimal- to overdoped BSCCO where we have a better global superconducting phase coherence. In Fig. 4-4 and Fig. 4-5, I show the simulation on the gapmap and the spectra along a horizontal cut by solving the Bogoliubov De-Gennes equations. 1 The superconducting patches are not granular in a structural sense. We call them â€œgranularâ€ to refer the fluctuation of the order parameters which characterize the phase condensate in each â€œgrain.â€ 73 Figure 4-4: Gap map from numerical solution of BDG equations with only smooth disorder. Figure 4-5: LDOS along the horizontal cut in the top figure. Finally, there is another piece of evidence supporting the significant scattering of antinodal quasiparticles regar dless of the origin of the disorder [70]: the conÂ¬ ductance map shows that for a given u, the observed Umklapp scattering induced LDOS modulation is extremely localized to the region whose local gap value is approximately equal to u. This indicates that for k ~ (7r, 0), the quasiparticle dispersion experiences strong nanoscale variation and the antinodal quasipaticle lifetime is remarkably influenced by the scattering. Nevertheless, this is in conÂ¬ tradiction with the fact that the antinodal quasiparticles are well-defined in the superconducting state, indicated by the the sharp (7r, 0) quasiparticle spectra in ARPES. 74 4.3 Long-range Modulation and Exotic Orders The electronic structure of cuprates lias been proven to be extremely sensitive to transitions into a variety of ordered states. Doping increases the mobility of the itinerant holes and they redistribute among the disordered potential landscape to establish significant electronic modulations. Various spatial modulations, such as inhomogeneous gap distribution, incommensurate periodicity oriented along the copper-oxygen bond, â€œcheckboardâ€ pattern were consecutively reported in various underdoped samples [88, 89]. Identification of those spatial modulations generally falls into two categories: it could be the ordering either tied to the lattice or tied to the Fermi surface (interference effect). The first possibility tries to attribute the experimental observations as the consequence of competition between the superconducting state and exotic orders such as d-density-wave [18], antiferromagnetic spin density-wave [90] and centers the debate onto the exploration on the underlying mechanism of the â€œpseudogapâ€ state, the region where the observations described above are prominent. Several authors have studied the impurity effect in those hypothesized orders (or a mixed states of the exotic orders and the superconducting state) in the â€œpseudogapâ€ state [91, 92, 93] and proposed that the spectroscopic feature, such as the spatial distribution and energy of the resonant states could be used to identify the different types of orders. The second scenario, although depending on the detailed information about the quasiparticle excitations for the proposed order, generally predicts energy-dependent characteristic scattering vectors, which is in conflict with the energy-independent wavevectors extracted from the Fourier transformed STM DOS at q = 4.5ao in underdoped samples. While it might be premature to reject the quasiparticle interference scenario entirely, this contradiction at least imposes a constraint on the Greenâ€™s function by asking for a dispersive imaginary part and a non-dispersive convolution between two imaginary components (similar to the argument of the joint density of states ) simultaneously. As for now, the content 75 in this section still remains the most intriguing puzzle in the understanding of the phase diagram of cuprates. CHAPTER 5 ANGLE-RESOLVED PHOTOEMISSION SPECTRA OF DISORDERED CUPRATES In the previous chapters, I have discussed how the recent improvements in STM technique facilitated our comprehension of the cuprates by providing detailed real space image of their surfaces and extracting local, subatomic electronic structures of superconducting materials directly. However, spectroscopies in momentum space provide complementary information and are sometimes even more important because they interpret the dynamics and kinematics of the systems in a more â€œphysically transparentâ€ way. The angle-resolved photoemission (ARPES) technique is such one desirable method since the coherent part of its momentum-resolved spectrum elucidates the dispersion and self-energy of single particle unambiguously in quasi two dimensional systems. ARPES has been empirically useful in determining the electronic states of cuprates, for example, the energy distribution curves (EDC) of ARPES follow the hypothesized d-wave like momentum-dependence of the order parameter A|<. Recently, the dramatic improvement in the angular and momentum resolution of ARPES, as of 2 meV and 0.2Â° respectively, makes this technique a leading tool in the study of high-Tc superconductors. The one particle spectral function resolved from the advanced ARPES experiments reveals novel and perplexing line shapes [33, 94, 95, 96, 34] in the low energy regime and each has ushered in a new round of investigation in high-Tc superconductors. I will concentrate, in this chapter, on the impact of elastic forward scattering and its implications on the contemporary dispute, regarding the energy- and momentum-dependence of the single particle self-energy [97, 98]. 76 77 5.1 Angle-resolved Photoeinission Spectra of High Temperature Superconductors 5.1.1 Spectral Function and Self-energy When photons hit metal surface, they will be absorbed by electrons and hence pump the electrons up into higher energy levels. The excited electrons will then propagate in the metals and eventually be emitted through the surfaces if they have sufficient energy to overcome the work function. The excitation of electrons is governed by the Fermiâ€™s golden rule. The intensity of the photoelectrons are measured by the detectors. If we assume that the relaxation time of the excited electrons is much longer than the time for them to reach the surface (this is the so called sudden approximation), we could roughly formulate the intensity of outgoing electrons beams as: /(k,u;) = /0(k)/(u;)/l(k,u;), (5.1) where /o(k) is determined by the momentum dependent matrix elements and the Fermi function f(u) illustrates that this process can only measure the unoccupied states. The one particle spectral function /l(k,u;) describes the probability of creating or annihilating one particle in an interacting inany-body system and is associated with the imaginary part of the retarded Greenâ€™s function, as defined in Eqn. 5.2: d(k,w) = ^2\K+'\4\^\2S(cj - E^+1 + Â£f) m = â€”-ImG(k,u; + Â¿0+). (5.2) 7T In a non-interacting system, /Uk,lj) is nothing but a delta function, 6(u) â€” et), everywhere, due to the infinite lifetime of electrons in the absence of inter-body interactions. When the many-body interaction is turned on adiabatically, the bare electrons will be â€œdressedâ€ by the medium and can be described by the Landau Fermi liquid theory (FL) provided they still live long enough to be considered 78 as approximately independent objects. The FL theory painted the big picture of interacting-electron dynamics and introduced an important theoretical concept, i.e., the â€œquaisparticles.â€ With this concept, we can treat the dressed â€œelectronsâ€ as bare entities with finite but considerable long lifetimes. The one particle Greenâ€™s function is generally modified as G_1(k, u;) = Gq1 â€” S(k, a;), where E(k,(j) = E'(k,w) + Â¿E"(k,u>),E'(k,u;) = ReE(k,u;), E"(k,a;) = ImE(k,u/) and S is called the â€œself-energy.â€ Its real part describes the renormalization of the bare electronic dispersion due to many-body effects and its imaginary part is related to the one particle lifetime by T(k, u) = â€” l/2ImE(k, cj). The general expression for the spectral function is then: A(k,u) = - E"(k,w) (5.3) 7r [w â€” tic â€” E'(k, in)]2 + [E"(k, a;)]2 The self energy E(k, u) arises from many-body and impurity effects and encapsulates all the information about interactions. Generally, we can plot the measured intensity (oc A(k, u>)) either as a function of uj (binding energy) for a fixed momentum k (EDC), or as function of k with a fixed value of u; (MDC). The detailed forms of self-energies extracted for the cuprates from these two methods exhibit quite unusual features which are in conflict with the traditional FL theory and will be the focus point in the discussions below. 5.1.2 Self-energy in Normal and Superconducting States The spectral properties of single particles in the normal states obtained from ARPES data are extremely unusual. Despite the existence of well-defined Fermi surfaces in various samples [34], the energy and momentum dependence of the spectral function deviates considerably from the predictions of the FL theory. The most striking discovery is that there exist no well-defined quasiparticles in the normal state of optimally doped or slightly overdoped HTSâ€™s near the (7T, 0) point of the Brillouin zones [99, 100, 101], while in superconducting states of these samples quasi-particles are well-defined over a certain range in the 1st BZ, 79 T-I05K ^ imliiiilimÃiiiiH 0.4 0.2 0 0.4 0.2 0 0.4 0.2 0 Binding energy (eV) Figure 5-1: ARPES spectra from overdoped BÃ2212 (TC=87K). a) normal- and b), (c) superconducting state data measured at the k point indicated in the inset of (c). as shown in Fig. 5-1 [100]. The photoemission intensity exhibits (panel (b)) a pronounced peak, followed immediately by a â€œdipâ€ and then a â€œhumpâ€ feature at higher binding energies in the superconducting state1 . When the temperature increases, the coherent low energy quasiparticle peak evolutes continuously and finally melts into a quite broaden background (panel (a)), indicating that a considerable self-energy develops across the phase transition and the quasiparticles are no longer well-defined. We might cast a doubt on the applicability of the FL theory to the normal state of high Tc superconductors since the normal state temperature is of the order of 100K ( it is quite high compared to the general definition of â€œlowâ€ temperature), 1 It is called the â€œpeak-dip-humpâ€ feature. The high energy humps are specuÂ¬ lated generally to be the consequence of phonon modes, magnetic, collective mode or bilayer splitting effects. 80 but we should also not abandon it unthinkingly because 1) it has assisted our understanding in various crystalline solids and been useful over a wide range of temperatures 2) there are still well-defined quasiparticles in certain segments of Fermi surfaces when the gap opens, which is consistent, with the conventional BCS theory. However, an estimate of the full width-half maximum (FWHM) of the broadened peak yields a value of ~ lOOmeV, which is one order of magnitude bigger than the thermal broadening. This, together with the continuous evolution of the qp peak suggests that temperature cannot be responsible for such a large peak width directly. While there are numerous scenarios concerning the origin of the one particle self-energy such as electron-phonon coupling, spin-fluctuations, magnetic resonance etc, a Marginal Fermi liquid hypothesis proposed by Varma et al. [8] seems to describe the transport and thermodynamic properties and the anomalies observed in ARPES phenomenologically.2 ft was further speculated [9] that in order to interpret the behavior of self-energy, we need include a term independent of frequency and temperature, which is probably associated with elastic forward scattering of quasiparticles by impurities located away from the Cu02 plane, and a MFL component as defined in Eqn 5.4. The scattering rate in the normal state then reads: r(k,o;) = re/(k,u;) + rA/FÂ¿(k,u;), (5.5) 2 The MFL theory was postulated to reconcile the conflict between the anomaÂ¬ lous (but universal) properties in the normal state of cuprates and the well-defined Fermi surface (in optimally doped samples). It assumes that electrons couple with a bosonic excitation whose spectrum has a scale-invariant, form B(lS) ~ 1). The electron self energy due to the scattering from this bosonic spectrum has a form: Â£(k, uj) = Afu; log â€”â€” (5.4) wc 2 where x = max{\uj\, T). This singular behavior of self-energy leads to the absence of the FL-like quasiparticles even on the Fermi surface when T=0. 81 The possible applicability of elastic forward scattering is further reinforced by the following fact: in Born approximation, the self-energy due to impurity scattering is written as E(k,w) = ntJ2 |Vklkf C0(k',u;). (5.6) k' Qualitatively, if Vk,k' is peaked at certain direction, then Â£(k, narrow range centered around k, i.e., G(k, uj) ~ X^k'~kÂ± inverse of group velocity of band electrons), which generally takes the maximum value at antinodes and minimum value at the nodes on the Fermi surface. This momentum anisotropy of Â£(k, uj) coincides with the experimentally extracted elastic component TeÂ¿(k, uj) by assuming the forward scattering scenario, which also displays the similar behavior with a maximum value of 120 meV at antinodal points and 40 meV at nodal points. However, there are two obvious difficulties with this scenario. The first is that the spectral peak measured by ARPES near the (7T, 0) point is known to sharpen dramatically when one goes below Tc, a phenomenon interpreted as the formation of a coherent quasiparticle in the superconducting state. This sharpening has normally been attributed to the well-known collapse of the inelastic scattering rate below Tc due to the opening of the superconducting gap, but it is hard a priori to guess why something similar should happen in the presence of an elastic scattering rate of order lOOmeV. The second problem is that recently increased momentum resolution [34] and the use of different photon energies [102, 103, 104, 105] has resolved a bilayer splitting which has its maximum effect near the (n, 0) point. Some of the previously observed â€œelastic broadeningâ€ is therefore certainly due to this as well as to pseudogap effects [106], but exactly how much is not clear. On the other hand, one can certainly not ignore the out-of-plane disorder. The BSCCO material is thought to be doped by excess oxygen in the SrO and BiO 82 planes, and even the best single crystals are believed to contain significant amounts of cation switching and other out-of-plane defects [107]. It is therefore reasonable to assume that quasiparticles moving in the Cu02 planes of this material must experience a smooth potential landscape due to these defects, and useful to pursue the question of the effect of this type of scattering in the superconducting state. In fact, fits [83] to Fourier transformed-scanning tunnelling spectroscopy measurements [69, 70] on similar samples to those used in the ARPES studies have recently been shown to require both a strong (near-unitary limit) scattering component, attributed to native defects in the Cu0-2 planes, as well as a weaker, smooth scattering potential component attributed to defects away from the plane. Recently, Markiewicz has also attempted to relate STM and ARPES data in the superconducting state assuming a smooth potential [108]. 5.2 Elastic Forward Scattering in Bi2Sr2CaCu2Q8 5.2.1 Self-energy Normal State. Consider a model system including elastic scatters of finite range k-1, with a concentration nÂ¡. Assuming the single impurity takes the form 3 V(r) = Voe~Kr, we can calculate its two dimensional Fourier component: 14k' 27r/tVÃ³ ((k - k')2 + /t2)3/2â€™ (5.7) where Vo sets the strength of the potential. The self-energy in Born approximation is then defined through Eqn 5.6 As the range of the potential re-1 increases, the scattering of a quasiparticle from k to k' becomes peaked in the forward direction. As shown in Fig. 5-2, 3 There is a consensus that quasiparticle moving in the Cu02 plane experience a smooth potential landscape due to defects whose detailed structure is unclear yet. However, a concrete impurity model is needed for any computations. We adopt the exponential form rather than any other particular structure such as Yukawa law for the sake of analytical convenience. Our qualitative picture is robust against any specific form of forward scatters. 83 Figure 5-2: Geometry for the forward scattering process in which a quasiparticle scatters from k to k'. wheu k is close to k' and both are not too far from the Fermi surface, we may parameterize them as kp + kÂ±kÂ± (5.8) kj? + qÂ« + k'Lk'L (5.9) where q = k â€” k' is the momentum transfer and qj| its component parallel to the Fermi surface. The unit vectors and k'Â± are the projections of k and k' onto the Fermi surface, respectively, such that, e.g., = vf(k')fci- The imaginary part of the retarded self-energy Eqn. 5.6 becomes Â£"(k,u/) = [<72 â€”nÂ¡(2jr/ÃVo)2 f dk'^dk'^ (27T)2 nÂ¡K2Vg M*h)I 37r/iÂ¡ Vq J I Ju fiÃ Ã¡(^ - ek') b J dq[. [?f + (fcx - Â£)2 + k2] (5.10) Eqn. 5.10 shows explicitly that in the limit of small k, the self-energy becomes more and more sharply peaked â€œon the mass shellâ€ lj = e*, as a generic feature of long-range potentials. The angular dependence of the self-energy in the limit 84 of /c â€”â–º 0 can be verified exactly as the same as that of l/vjr(k). Furthermore, I should point out the self-consistent treatment (by requiring Â£[(7Â°] â€”â–º Â£[Â£?]) is important in forward scattering case since it eliminates the van Hove singularity in the spectrum, which may account for the absence of such peculiarity in STM and other tunnelling experiments on BSCCO, while in the case of point-like scatters, the self-consistency (in Born approximation) only introduces a correction of the order of uj2/Ep to the non-selfconsistent result, which may be neglected. Superconducting State. In the superconduting state, the self-energy is approxiÂ¬ mated similar to Eqn. 5.6 as: Â£ = n/Â£|Vkk'|27sG0(k',w)r3, k' = aTa (5-11) a with Nambu components Â£a defined as following; Eâ€ž(k,w) = n, ^|\/(k.k')|2 J a . (5.12) SÂ»(k,w) = n;^|K(k.k')|2 â€” 3 . (5.13) k/ U â€” Ck' â€œ ^k' and =i(k,Â«) = -Bf ^|y(k,ior. y A2 â– (5.14) k/ u ~ ek' ~~ In the limit of k Â« 1, the asymptotic forms of self-energies can be derived analytically, which read: SÂ£(k,w) To(kp) . > sn x 2v^A tk ~ vs/u1 - Aâ€˜^ KDjr(k) (5.15) Here sa = |cu|, â€”AkSgnu), and v sgntn â€” A)) for the Nambu components a = 0,1 and 3 respectively, and To(k) is the normal state scattering rate. E3 vanishes on the Fermi surface ek = 0 in this limit. Specifically, when the momentum 85 k is close to the Fermi surface and the energies u are small, such that | (e* Â± sju2 â€” A2k)/KVp(k)\ (5.16) Ej(k, sc) ~ r"â€œ $=* (5.17) ~ 0, (5.18) but are strongly suppressed due to energy conservation when | \/~j2 â€” â€” eic| becomes greater than kvf, as one may observe in Fig. 5 34 . The detailed derivation of superconducting self-energies are included in the appendix. It is noteworthy that for kâ€™s away from the node, these results are identical to those expected from an s-wave superconductor [109] (even when self-consistency is included) since the extreme forward scattering eliminates the momentum averaging over the Fermi surface. We therefore expect to recover Andersonâ€™s theorem, the insensitivity of bulk thermodynamic properties to nonmagnetic scattering. The physics here is that the for k away from the nodal direction, forward peaked scattering doesnâ€™t mix the order parameter of different signs, and hence doesnâ€™t break the Cooper pairs. In Fig. 5-3, I also present the numerical results for the self-energy components at nodal and antinodal points on the Fermi surface. The bale electron band 4 Roughly speaking, the change of momentum Ã¡k in the scattering is cut off by k. Therefore for scattering processes close to the Fermi level, the corresponding variation of energy is kvf(k), if we linearize the electron dispersion. On one hand, the quasipart.icle energy should be conserved in scattering and kinematics only gives a finite available phase space, i.e., the constant energy contour as discussed in Chapter 3. On the other hand, the linearization in analytical computation may violate the exact energy conservation. But the energy difference between the initial (tk) and final electron (\Jui2 â€” AÂ£) component should still be cut off as well due to the forward nature of scattering. 86 Figure 5-3: The self-energy terms -Im Eo(k, u), Im Ei(k,a;), and -Im Â£3(k,(n) in the superconducting state at T = 0 for k = k,i (top) and k/v (bottom), for k = 5 and 0.5 and the same band and scattering parameters as previously used. Here Ak = A0 (cos* â€” cos ky)/2 with A0 = 0.2t. 87 dispersion is taken as: tk = â€”2i(cos kx + cos ky) â€” 4i' cos kx cos ky â€” p (5.19) and t/t' = â€”0.35, p/t = -1. The quasiparticle properties near the Fermi surface Â¡are determined by some particular combination of the Nambu self-energy components, by examining the denominator of the full Greenâ€™s function: (5.20) where Ã¼ = u â€” E0, tk = ek + S3, Ãk = Ak + Ej. The total elastic scattering rate will be: (5.21) provided one can neglect S3 (see Fig. 5-3). In the forward scattering limit where Eqn. 5.16-5.18 hold, the effective elastic scattering rate ( Eqn. 5.21) becomes (5.22) For k along the nodal direction, the elastic broadening in the superconducting d- wave state is equal to its value in the normal state. However, for k in the antinodal region, the broadening vanishes as ui â€”> Ak and approaches the normal state value only when in becomes large compared with Ak- The elastic contribution re|(k,,,u;) to the broadening at the antinodal k.4 point versus in is shown in Fig. 5-4. Physically, the individual contributions to the normal E0(k,w) and anomalous E^k, ui) self-energies are both enhanced by the density of states factor (in2 - A2(k))â€œ^ (Fig. 5-3). However, the normal contribution describing the scattering out of state k into k' is compensated by the anomalous contribution scattering into k from the pair condensate. This gives rise to the suppression of the 88 Figure 5-4: Scattering rate rej(k, ui) vs. ui for k = k.r(left) and kjy (right) in the suÂ¬ perconducting state at T = 0, for k = 5 (top) and k = 0.5 (bottom). Here Tofka) = 0.2t. 89 elastic scattering rate seen in Fig. 5-4 relative to Fig. 5-3 as uj approaches -|Ak,,| from below. 5.2.2 Spectral Function General Spectrum. In the forward scattering limit, with the self-energy given by Eqns. (5.16)-(5.18), one obtains a result for the Greenâ€™s function previously discussed by Markiewicz [108], G(k,u) (iurQ + AkTi)z(k,tu) + ekT3 (in2 â€” AÂ£)z(k.u>)2 â€” tl (5.23) Here z(k,w) = 1 + Â¿ro(k)sgnu>/y,u;2 - AÂ£. The electron component of the spectral function is then A(k, uj) â€”â€”ImGji(k,u) 7T = â€”â€” Im uiz( k, oj) + tk (5.24) tr (tu2 - AÂ£)z(k,iu)2 - tl It is useful to consider a few special cases of (5.24) more closely. In particular, on the Fermi surface tk = 0 one has the simple expression râ€ž(k) 1 M ^U) * â€œ2 - Ak + To(k)2 â€™ while near the gap edge, e.g., uj < â€” |Ar|, A(k, uj) r. râ€ž(k) M (5.25) (5.26) 7T e? + r5(k) ^/w2 - A]l ' At the nodal point k/v, where the gap vanishes, the spectral weight is given by the simple Lorentzian form r0(ky)/7r A(kw,in) = â– (5.27) w2 + r0(kN)2â€™ and at low temperatures where the elastic scattering is dominant one can determine r0(kjv). However, for k at the antinodal point, k^ such that â€”Ak,, - Su < ui < ~Akâ€ž, A(k^,u;) = i Ak" 1 tr r0(kA) (5.28) 90 where the â€œwidthâ€ 6co depends upon the ratio A^/Tof^). If Ak4 is large comÂ¬ pared with the width 6u) ~ Toik^/pAk^). If one integrates Afk^u;) from â€” Ak4 â€” Su to â€” AkA to define a â€œpeak intensityâ€ Ã~AkA l 7(k^) = / A(Ila,u) du ~ , (5.29) 7-Ak/1 -Suj k which is independent of Ak^/rofk^). However, when the system is sufficiently dirty such that AkÂ¿ < Fofk^), the falloff of A(\Ãa,uj) as cj decreases below â€” A^a varies as (a;2 â€” A^)~1//2. In this case, the scale is set by &kA and if one takes Suj = AkÂ¿, the peak intensity varies as / (k^) ~ Ak^/rofk^). This is quite different from the usual DCS quasiparticle result which is proportional to the quasiparticle renormalization factor ^(k^) times a coherence factor which is 1/2 on the fermi surface. It should be possible to test the foward scattering scenerio by comparing the variation of 7(k^) with Akj/r0(kyl). Nodal and Antinodal Spectra. To compute a realistic spectral function and compare it with experiments, one should include a small concentration of unitary scatters as well as inelastic electron-electron collisions. The former is verified by STM experiments and has been intensively discussed in Chapter 2-3. With a concentration roughly ~ 0.2% decided from the number of zero bias resonances in LDOS map, it gives a broadening in the self-consistent T-matrix approximation: Â£el'u = -Â£kG,(k,u;)T0' (530) This gives a scattering rate of r.(t ~ 10~3i in the normal state, leading to an impurity bandwidth 7U ~ \/ruAo ~ 10_2i (of order 1 to 2 meV). As far as the inelastic self-energies are concerned, we use a numerical interpolation of the ujâ€” and Tâ€” dependence obtained from the spin-fluctuations performed by 91 [110, 111, 112].5 Combining the contributions from these three channels, the total scattering rate is then: Sot = Sz,/ + Sl.u + â€”inel â€¢ (5.31) The spectral functions at antinodal point A and nodal point N with the scattering rate defined in Eqn. 5.31 and the Fermi function cutoff f(u/T) are plotted in Fig. 5-5. In the antinodal direction, a square-root-like behavior develops when uj approaches â€” Akâ€ž from below. This should be contrasted with the broad Lorentizian peak in the normal state and is an intrinsic consequence of elastic forward scattering. It is also noteworthy to point out that this anomaly at Ak is stable against the many-body interactions since at lower temperature, when uj is equal to the real paid, of the gap at the gap edge, the inelastic broadening vanishes as T:i and the elastic components dominate. Along the nodal direction, since the scattering always mixes the initial and final states with order parameters of different signs, a Lorentizian centered at Fermi level is observed for zero temperature. This peak will be further cut off by the Fermi distribution and broadened by inelastic effects when temperature increases. In the limit of k, = 0, we recover the normal state spectral function, even at zero temperature Quasiparticle Dispersion Near the Antinodal Point. In a clean superconductor, there is a peak in the spectral function A(k, uj) at the quasipart.icle pole u = = y/c^ + AÂ£. In particular, as the momentum moves along the cut from (kÂ¿, 7r) to (0,7r), one expects to see a dispersion of this peak to higher energies. 5 The spin-fluctuation self-energies behave like follows: at the nodal point, at low temperatures, the scattering rate initially increased as the third power of uj or T depending upon which is larger. At other k points on the Fermi surface, the scatÂ¬ tering rate varies approximately as the third power of this energy measured relative to Ak- The reduction of the inelastic scattering rate at low excitation energies reÂ¬ flects the suppression of the low energy spin-fluctuations due to the opening of the d-wave gap. A(kA, (Ãº)f(co) o A(kAâ€™ 92 (0 Figure 5-5: Finite temperature spectral function at the antinodal point A and nodal point N on the Fermi surface multiplied by the fermi function. Results for ft = 2 and 0.5 with ro(ka) = 0.2t are shown. 93 k=2 ks0.5 Figure 5-6: A(k,uj) vs. uj for k, = 2 and 0.5. Results are given for the k points at (7T, 0), (7T, 0.057r), (it, 0.l7r), (7t, 0.157t). The disorder levels correspond to Tofk^J/Ao = 1, 0.5, and 0.025. Note the spectra for different k points have been offset for clarity. However, if the forward elastic scattering strength Toik^) > Ak^, then the peak in A(k,o;) remains at -Ak rather than dispersing. Fig. 5-6 shows plots of A(k,u;) for different values of k between the M and A points for k = 2 and 0.5, and several values of the scattering rate To(k4). As samples improve, there is a natural tendency in this model for the spectrum for k not too far from the antinode to cross over from one characterized by a nondispersive peak at Ak in the dirty limit where To ~ Ao to one characterized by a dispersive quasiparticle peak at Ek when To is small compared to A0. This crossover is due to the way in which the forward elastic scattering rate for a d-wave superconductor is reduced as the gap edge is approached and is analogous to the same effect discussed analytically (in Appendix B) for an s-wave superconductor. In a system with To > Ao, no quasiparticle peak is observed, but a sharp feature does appear at â€” Ak, representing simply the spectral weight in the overdamped quasiparticle peak piling up at the gap edge as in the s-wave case. Only when To becomes small compared to A0 does one see a true quasiparticle peak dispersing 94 Figure 5-7: Comparison between recent ARPES data (left panel) and calculated A(k,o>) (right panel). as â€” Ek- In the most strongly forward scattering case, n = 0.5, one can see that, depending on the strength of the scattering rate, one can have simultaneously a broadened dispersing feature as well as a gap edge feature. In Fig. 5-7, the measured ARPES spectra along a special cut ( (0,0.64-it) â€”Â» (kf, 0.647r) ) (data from private communication with Stanford ARPES experiÂ¬ mental group (2004)) and the theoretically calculated spectra adopting elastic impurities with 8% and k = 0.5 are compared. While the variation of the calculated order parameter is smaller than the exact measurement, other details, such as the dispersion of the hump feature and the gap peak intensity, are in good agreement with each other. 5.3 Discussion and Conclusion Elastic forward scattering of quasiparticles due to spatially smooth potentials is prevailing in BSCCO. We have discussed how this scattering can fit with the BCS framework to invalidate out naive intuition on the insensitivity of elastic scattering self-energy to entering the SC state and hence argued that elastic forward scattering does not necessarily prevent the formation of quasiparticles across the normal-superconducting transition. 95 While the bulk and thermodynamics properties such like Tc is [113] and the transport properties such as conductivity are not significantly modified by extended impurities because of their forward nature (there is not significant momentum transfer in scattering), the spectroscopic properties are modified significantly by the elastic forward scattering: the near-cancellation of the two Nambu components of the self-energy near the gap edge in the forward scattering limit leads to a dramatically reduced elastic scattering rate in the superconducting state, which sharpens the spectral features of quasiparticles which are not too close to the nodes. Besides the collapse of self-energies, a square-root-like singularity local is also found to develop at the local gap edge uj = Ak- The local gap anomaly is of particular interest since it is inherent from forwar d scattering. This singular structure remains when k is below the Fermi surface and is speculated to be robust against many-body effect because the latter, in general, is suppressed when temperature decreases. To date, ARPES experiments generally mapped out the momentum anisotropy of Ak along the Fermi surface, with assumed information of bare electron dispersion e*. However, this gap edge anomaly seems to propose an alternative method to determine the gap function for k values away from Fermi surface by taking use of forward scatterers. Successful realization of this technique may complete the momentum dependence of Ak in the whole first Brillouin zone, which definitely contributes to the understanding of cuprates. Furthermore, another possible advantage of this method is that it doesnâ€™t necessitate any knowledge of Â£k in advance at all! Moreover, in samples of less disorder, we found a dispersive peak associated with the bare quasiparticle dispersion. It is tempting to speculate that this pheÂ¬ nomenon is related to the peak-dip-hump features observed generically below Tc in cuprate ARPES experiments. When the system becomes dirtier, the quasiparticle peak will be broadened from d'-like function into Lorenzian form. However, far away enough from the nodal direction, since we physically recover Andersonâ€™s theorem 96 and Ak remains unchanged, the weight of the Lorenzian tail cannot leak into the subgap regime, namely, |u;| < |Ak| and will keep piling up at the leading gap edge instead. We then expect this anomaly is qualitatively more pronounced in dirties samples. This could possibly explain the excessive peak height observed by STM experiment at the coherent gap edge, which is even much higher than the theoretically calculated peak height for pure systems. The last concern of this chapter is the lifetime of nodal quasiparticles. By extracting the half-width AA: of the peaks in MDC, we obtained a scattering rate which is linear in temperature above Tc but varies nonlinearly below Tc and saturates to a value determined by the small-angle scattering. However, it was reported by Valla et al. [16] that the width of MDC has a linear dependence on temperature across the normal-superconducting transition, which suggested the irrelevance of the nodal quasiparticles in the superconductivity and a quantum critical behavior. This discrepancy is rather interesting and definitely worthy of further investigation. CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND REMAINING QUESTIONS I have studied impurity induced quasiparticle interference and the related electronic structure in fully disordered BSCCO samples. I adopted two types of nonmagnetic impurities: short-ranged, unitary scatters and spatially extended, weak scatters, in conjunction with the d-wave version of the mean field BCS theory (which is believed to be appropriate to optimally to overdoped cuprates), to calculate the spectroscopic properties such as local density of states, local gap map and spectral function. I discussed how the theoretical predictions on Zn and Ni impurities mesh with the details of the atomic scale resonances observed in the STM image of BSCCO. I addressed on the dispute regarding the characteristics of Zn, which is not fully pinned down yet. There are divergent theories concerning how quantum interference between many impurities modifies the low energy quasiparticle states and the Fourier transformed DOS. I joined into this discussion by solving the two impurity problem exactly. I concluded that the divergent p(u) at the Fermi level for half-filled nearest neighbor band is the consequence of the special symmetry of the nearest tight- binding model seen in the analogous the two impurity interference effect. I further proposed a real space perspective regarding the homogeneous broadening by finite STM resolution and explained why the impurities appear nearly isolated in the STM image while they are expected theoretically to interfere with each other even separated by long distance. I further examined the â€œoctetâ€ single impurity model as a way understanding the Fourier transformed DOS in BSCCO. I argued that while its on-shell approxÂ¬ imation captures the fundamental scattering processes, it fails to explain other 97 98 details such as the peak widths and peak height for certain scattering wavevectors. I showed why it is necessary to include both of the two kinds of disorder above to reconcile these discrepancies. Additionally, I discussed the implications of extended impurities to the nanoscale gap inhomogeneities in STM measurements. The extended weak potentials have a remarkable influence on the spectral function. From my computation, I realized that the quasiparticle scattering rate actually collapses in the superconducting state due to the near cancellation between the normal and anomalous scattering processes, yielding well-defined antinodal quasiparticles. This interesting finding invalidates the argument that elastic scattering is intuitively robust against the opening of a gap upon lowering the temperature. In my dissertation, I have established, within the frame of quasiparticle scattering due to impurities of different spatial nature, a reasonably coherent picture subsuming recent observations in STM and ARPES. However, despite this modest success, there are still remaining discrepancies between STM and ARPES experiments from this point of view, such as, 1) why we have nanoscale electronic disorders at the gap edge but quasiparticles are well defined in momentum space? 2) why the ARPES spectra for the nodal quasiparticle display a kink while STM does not reflect any collective mode features. Full comprehension of these puzzles may require physics beyond the quaisparticle scattering scenario. However, I would like to put a period here, as I realized that Iâ€™ve been too talkative. APPENDIX A GREENâ€™S FUNCTION FOR THE SUPERCONDUCTING STATE In this section, we try to evaluate the real space component oÃ the Greenâ€™s function for a pure nested band, i.e., tk = â€”2t(cos kT + cos ky). If we define, r = (m, n), where m, n are in unit of lattice constant a, the real space Greenâ€™s function is defined through the Fourier transform as: GÂ°(r,u) Â£yk'rGÂ°(k,w), k E cos (kxm) cos (kyn) wfb + (tk - p)f3 + Akfi Start from Eq. (A.l), and we express (A.l) cos (kxm) 2ra_1 cosm kÂ¡ , Ifl 3=1 j\(m - 2j)\ where [...] refers to the integer part of the argument. We focus on the half-filled case fi = 0 and write Eq. (A.l) as the sum of terms of the form fa = Ecos'-tMco S'(ky)â€œfÂ°+fj + Akfl k ^ Ljk where p = m, m â€” 2,... and q = n, n â€” 2,.... We proceed by linearizing the dispersion near the node at (tt/2, 7t/2) and making the coordinate transformation E2 = ek + AÂ£, tand = Ak/ek- a f2lT d6 / sin# cos9\q /sin6 cas8\p 2^ ]0 27t \ ~Aq 2t~) x /A + E(COS + sinfr^) Jo ' ÃU2 - E2 99 100 The prefactor is a = N/(2ttvfVa) where N = 4 is the number of nodes, vf is the Fermi velocity and Va is the anomalous quasiparticle velocity |VkAk|, and the cutoff A is of order Ao- The integrals over E and 8 are easily done and = â– ^iujFp+i(ul)PnfÂ° + + PÂ¿ f,)] where P3pq are constants given by the angular integrations, and Ea W = [ Jo EdE- E*- u2' The constants PÂ¿ vanish for j = 1,3 when p + q = even and vanish for j = 0 when p + q = odd. The first few nonzero elements are P0 â€” 1 MM) â€” 1 P1 â€” â€” P1 â€” 1 ^1Â° ~ 01-2Ao p3 _ p3 â€” L - 'In- 4t p0 _ p0 _ Ml â€œ Ml â€œ ~Ta2 Only even moments of Fa(cj) are needed: n u2j A2(n^) w2n, A2 * â– gTynTT + T1"^ Since we are interested in the leading order behavior of G(R, uj) we note that for small uj , Pit !, A2 Fâ€žH - j In ^ A2" F^u) - - For R = (2m, 2n), the leading order contribution to (7(R,u;) comes from the single term in the expansion containing gooâ– To second order in uj: \ 2 G(R, uj) = -(-l)â€+n*^lnâ€”jio + u/CoWfo, (A.2) 101 where Co(R) is real, and is the sum of several terms. The largest term contributing to C(R) is of order a\ui\ / A_\2(m+B) 16(m + n) VA0/ from which we estimate a range of validity (A/An)a(â€Â»+") |0l| < Ae 16<"'+"> , For other R, there is no single dominant term in the expansion for the Greenâ€™s function, and the leading order behavior comes from the sum over a large number of real nondivergent terms. For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that when R = (2m + 1,2n + 1), the sums take the form G(R,aO=wC0(R)Tb, (A.3) and when R = (2m + 1,2n) or (2m, 2n + 1) G(R,o>) = CjÃRJÃr + C3(R)f3, (A.4) where Gq(R), Cr(R), and C3(R) are real constants. APPENDIX B EVALUATION OF THE SELF-ENERGY IN BORN APPROXIMATION In this section, I give out the evaluation of self-energy in Born approximation for several different types of impurities. B.l â€œYukawa F Potential Assume that V (r) = Qexp(â€”nr)/r, and its Fourier transform in 2D takes the form Vq = 2nQ/ \/q2 + k2. According to Fig. 5-2, we obtain: = kF + kÂ±kÂ± (B.l) = kF + qâ€ž + k'Â±k'Â± (B.2) for momentum close to the Fermi surface, we can linearize the dispersion and we have ek' = Vp(k') B.1.1 Normal State The self energy in Born approximation can be then evaluated: )l [q|| + kÂ±kÂ± â€” â€”tjjtÂ¿x]2 + Ttn,i Q2 nntQ2 TTTliQ2 h J <*4 fall + *l(*l - + k2 1 M*ii)I yck L Mi*,[)> Tr2n.iQ2 1 + K2 y/(kÂ±.vF(ky) - u)2 + it2vF(k||)2â€™ where in the middle steps the difference between vÂ¡.'(k') and vp(k) is neglected since in the limit of small k, the two approach one another, and we need to retain (B.3) 102 103 only the most singular dependence on k â€” k'. In addition it is reasonable to set that dk\\ = dq\\, since k is a constant in the integration. Special Cases:. â€¢ k = kp (on Fermi surface) (B.4) â€¢ k = kF, u> = 0 (B.5) Note this diverges in forward scattering limit as K â€”* 0. If we normalize to EÂ¿, this gives S"(kF,u; = 0) |nF(kj4)| Â£"(kâ€ž,u; = 0) K(k)| ' (B.6) â€¢ u = 0, k kF (B.7) Note in forward scattering limit k â€”> 0, self-energy is a very singular function of either kÂ± or u. B.1.2 Superconducting State In the main Nambu channels, i.e., tallo, tauÂ¡,tau3, the imaginary parts of the Greenâ€™s function are the summation of two 5 functions: ImGo(k', uÂ¡) -- Im w2 - El 2 [% - Ev) + S(u + Bk.)] (B.8) (B.10) (B.9) 104 where Ek> ~ yJvp(k/^)â€˜2k'A2 + AÂ£,. The 6 functions in the above equations can be further evaluated as follows: 0(w Â± Ek>) E 9Ek dk\ S fe', sju2 - Ai, | â€” â€” vfW 0(Tu) (B.ll) ^v2Fk'x2 + A2, = SÃ Â«**1 = M Wffk')^2 - A'Â¿, The sum of 2 delta-functions is therefore (B12) 5 Â¿(o; + a/Jkâ€™) Q=Â± M uF(k')\/w2 - AÂ£, , , M vF( k'Jyi*;2 - AÂ£, M wF(k')^/w2 - AÂ£, ( > x- t s/w2 â€” A J, > <5 fc, - aâ€” SÃ \ Mk') . X' &ik' - a ~ A*' Â¿Ã r Mko SÃ \ uf(k) *(-Â«) |Â«M rp Component of the Self-energy. Â£0(k,w) U'Q^ JdkÂ¡J fdky E J Q=Â± Mk)| 2 nÂ¡Q2\u;\ tt vf(k) 2 riiQ2|a)| 7r |fp(k)| 2 dk Ea=Â±Â¿(fcl-a^Â£) / \ /_ / - - \2 Ãq|| + A:_lA;x - k'Lk'L\ + k? ^li' Â¡ d(Â¡wE - otyj* kâ€™Â± + K2 * <7Â¡ + (fea. - (B14) The integral as it stands is not trivial due to the dependence of Ak> on q\\. Since k' is close to k'. q\\ is small so we may write Ak' ~ Ak + v&q\\. The most singular factor in the limit k â€”Â» 0 is the (Â«2 + a2)-1 factor, so we are justified in neglecting the <7|| dependence in the square root. The self-energy then takes the form: 105 Â£Â¡>'(k,u;) a: niQ2n\uj\ 2i>F(k)vV! - A2 / rf J aâ€”Â± (B.15) 7r2nÂ¡Q2 M 2 \A>2 - Ak x E \J(kÃVF(k\\) - ay/ui2 - AÂ£)2 + K2vF(k\\Y Obviously the result, is valid only for u > A^; otherwise the Im part of E is zero. On the Fermi surface, with k = kp, this reduces to (B.16) Â£"(1cf,ÃÂ¿) â€” -7T 2nÂ¡Q2 M \Ju/2 - AÂ£ yjul2 â€” AÂ¿ + K2VF(kÂ¡\)2 Note this is NOT the form we had earlier in Chapter 5, EÃ³Ãkftw)Â» -r(k)|w|/^ - A2k, (B-17) (B.18) unless u)2 - AÂ£ Â« K.2vF(k\\)2. T3 Component of The Self-energy. For the 73 component, proceeding similarly, we get E3(k,u>) ntQM* [dÂ¡J fdl.,VFk 1 ^Â«=Â±Ã¡(^ Mk)|- â€œ ' nÂ¡Q2sgn ui 7r vF(k) 1W (qÂ« + kÂ±kÂ± - k'Jc'^j + K2 i/*i,E qÂ« - + KÂ¿ tt2tiÃQÂ¿ sgno; Â»=Â± \! (ArM^ll) - ay/Ã¼2- AÂ£)2 + fc2uF(A:||)2 Here the presence of the two contributions for the two different signs of kÂ± is crucial, as we see that on the Fermi surface, kÂ± = 0, E3 vanishes. . (B.19) 106 Ti component of the self-energy. Ei(k,iv) ~ sgnu * Vâ€œ2 - Ak x Y. , 1 =â– Â»=Â± \j(kÂ±VF(kÂ¡Â¡) - ctsJJ1- AÂ£)2 + /t2uP(fc||)2 (B.20) Normal State Limit. It is instructive to take the limit Aj, â€”> 0 of the above expressions and attempt to recover Eqn. B.3. Eo and E3 become So- w2UiQ2 Â£ 1 y/(kÂ±vF(k\\) - <*M)2 + /t2np(fc||)2 ^ 7r2nÂ¿Q2sgnuj y (B-21) (B.22) 2 - a|u;|)2 + k2M*I|)2 Now the normal state self energy is the Nambu 11 component, i.e., Â£o + S3, which goes to Â£jv = lim Â£0 + Â£3 = -7T2n.iQ2 * (B.23) Ak_*Â° y/(kÂ±VF(k\\) - cj)2 + K?vF(k\\)2 Note odd frequency dependence of Â£3 is necessary to recover the correct result. B.2 â€œExponentialâ€ Potential Consider V(r)/V0 = e~Kr which gives in momentum space (neglecting the periodicity) 14,k- = V0 J rdrd = 2x14 [Â°Â° rdre-KrV0J0(qr) Jo 2itk,Vo __ 2-kkVq (1q2 + /C2)3/2 â€ ((k - k')2 + Â«2)3/2 ' (B.24) (B.25) (B.26) 107 B.2.1 Normal State Self energy in Born approximation: SuÃK2Vq E"(k,u/) = - (B.27) â€¢ Special case k = kF, uj = 0: E"(kp,u = 0) 3ir2n,iVg 1 (B.28) 16|t!jr(fc||)| K3â€™ Clearly the above form is more singular than Yukawa I potential, but still varies as |t)f(k)|-1 around the Fermi surface for any nonzero k. B.2.2 Superconducting State If we are allowed to perform analogous operations as we did in the last step and neglect the q dependence of the gap, we find sS(k,Â«) * â€”y r i uF(k)-/iv- - â€ž=Â± 37r2rcÂ¡K2V()2 |oi| + (*-L - aV^?) + K* 16t>F(fc|) sJuj2 - Ak E i k a=Â± (fcx-a^S)2 + Â«2 n s/2 â€ž 3ir2fii/i2Vo2 v-^ Ea(klW) * -ic^ysgnwE 37r2nift2VÂ¡)2 Ak (fci-a^P)2 + Â«2 5/2 Â£"(k,a>) â€” sgnw 16"f(*ll) ~ Ak !r, E i (k^-CC^^Y + K2 5/2 (B.29) (B.30) (B.31) B.3 Delta-function Type Potentials What type of potential gives a self energy as in Chapter 5, e.g., C"(kF, w = 0) ~ r0(k) \ui\/yju2 - A2 (B.32) 108 Itâ€™s not a pure 2D delta function. If we simply assume |Vkk'|2 = V^Ã¡k.k', the self energy in the superconducting state is Â£Â¡Â¡(k,w) = niVtfi'ftG"(k,w) (B.33) = n-^Im^ _ ^ _ A2 (B.34) = -riiV^Mu-EiJ + Siu + E*)}, (B.35) which is much more singular on the Fermi surface than Eqn. B.32. To recover the smoother result we actually need to assume I Vick'|2 = VtfVi (B-36) and then we get (see Eqn. B.13): sjj1 - AjpN o=Â± \ mVg uF(k') M (B.37) 47r|uF(k)| - Al' It would be nice to ask what potential would result in real space from a ID delta function like this. One way to regularize the delta function would be to write vw = k/tt - fcf,)2 + K2 (B.38) but of course we see immediately that this is not a function of |k â€” k'| and therefore canâ€™t correspond mathematically to a function of r if we reverse Fourier transform. The problem is that to get the special form of the self-energy near the Fermi surface, we only need the k-space form of the matrix element near the Fermi surface, but this does not suffice to determine the form in real space everywhere. We would need to guess a real space form which gives this result in k space for a given band, which seems difficult. Therefore the only connection one can make 109 with the simple form in Chapter 5 is an approximate one. Not in the full forward scattering limit n â€”* 0 but in an intermediate regime given by vF Â« K Â« 1 (B.39) do we actually get exactly the anticipated result. It is interesting to note that this works actually for any form of the scattering potential. The only thing that changes is the To(k) describing the normal state scattering. REFERENCES [1] C. Pepin and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B 63, 054502 (2000). [2] J. G. Bednorz and K. A. MÃ¼ller, Z. Phys. B 64, 189 (1986). [3] J. Bardeen , L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. 108. 1175 (1957). [4] D. J. Scalapino, E. Jr. Loh, and J. E. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. B 34, 8190 (1986) [5] P. W. Anderson, Science 235 1196 (1987). [6] K. Miyake, S. Schimitt, and C. M. Varma, Phys. Rev. B 34, 6554 (1986); D. J. Scalapino, E. Loh, and J. E. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. 34, 8190 (1986); N. E. Bickers, D. J. Scalapino, and R. T. Scalettar, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 1, 687 (1987). [7] S.-C. Zhang, Science 275, 1089 (1997). [8] C. M. Varma, P. B. Littlewood, S. Schmitt-Rink, E. Abrahams, and A. E. Ruckenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett 63, 1996 (1989). [9] E. Abrahams and C. M. Varma, Phys. Natâ€™l Acad. Sci. 97, 5714 (2000). [10] E. W. Hudson, S.-H. Pan, A. K. Gjpta, K.-W. Ng, and J. C. Davis, Science 285, 88 (1999). [11] J. Orenstein and A. J. Millis, Science 288, 468 (2000). [12] M. Gurvitch and A. T. Fiory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 1337 (1987). [13] F. Steglich, in Material and Mechanisms of Superconductivity, edited by J. MÃ¼ller and J. L. Olsen (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1988). [14] T. Timusk and D. B. Tanner, in The Physical Properties of High Temperatuer Superconductors, edited by D. M. Ginsberg (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987). [15] S. Sugai, in Mechanism of High Temperatuer Superconductivity, edited by H. Kamimura and A. Pshiyama (Springer-Ver lag, Heidelberg, 1989). [16] T. Valla, A. V. Federov, P. D. Johnson, B. O. Wells, S. L. Hulber, Q. Li, G.-D. Gu and N. Koshikuza, Science 285, 1110 (1999). [17] V. Emery and S. Kivelson, Nature 374. 4347 (1995). [18] S. Chakravarty, R. B. Laughlin, D. K. Morr, and C. Nayak, Phys. Rev. B 63, 094503 (2001). 110 Ill [19] T. Timusk and Bryan Statt, Rep. Prog. Phys. 62, 61 (1999). [20] A Snapshot View of High Temperature Superconductivity, San Diego (2002). [21] G. Binnig, H. RÃ³hrer, and C. Gerber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 57 (1982). [22] J. M. Byers, M. E. Fiatte, and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3363 (1993). [23] M. E. FlattÃ©, Science 411, 901 (2001). [24] A. V. Balatsky, M. I. Salkola, and A. Rosengren, Phys. Rev. B 51, 15547 (1995). [25] A. V. Balatsky and M. I. Salkola, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 2386 (1996). [26] M. I. Salkola, A. V. Balatsky, and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1841 (1996). [27] T. Cren, D. Roditchev, W. Sacks, J. Klein, J.-B. Moussy, C. Deville-Cavellin, and M. LaguÃ©s Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 147 (2000). [28] S.-H. Pan, J. P. Oâ€™Neal, R. L. Badzey, C. Chamon, H. Ding, J. R. En- gelbrecht, Z. Wang, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, A. K. Gupta, K.-W. Ng, E. W. Hudson, K. M. Lang, and J. C. Davis , Nature 413, 282 (2001). [29] K. M. Lang, V. Madhavan, J. E. Hoffman, E. W. Hudson, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, and J. C. Davis, Nature 415, 412 (2002). [30] C. Howald, P. Fournier, and A. Kapit.ulnik, Phys. Rev. B 64, 100504 (2001). [31] C. Howald, H. Eisaki, N. Kaneko, and A. Kapitulnik, cond-mat/0201546, http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat (2002). [32] C. Howald, H. Eisaki, N. Kaneko, M. Greven, and A. Kapitulnik, Phys. Rev. B 67, 014533 (2003). [33] B. Wells, Z.-X. Shen, A. Matsuura, D. M. King, M. A. Kastner, M. Greven, and R. J. Birgeneau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 964 (1995). [34] A. Damasc.elli, Z. Hussain, and Z.-X. Shen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 473 (2003). [35] J. Corson, J. Orenstein, Seongshik Oh, J. Oâ€™Donnell, and J. N. Eckstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2569 (2000). [36] M. F. Crommie, C. P. Lutz, and D. M. Eigler, Nature 363, 524 (1993). [37] P. T. Sprunger, L. Petersen, E. W. Plummer, E. Laegsgaard, and F. Besen- bacher, Science 275, 1764 (1997). [38] E. N. Economou, Greenâ€™s Functions in Quantum Physics, 2nd edition (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983). [39] P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. Chem. Sol. 11, 26 (1959) 112 [40] A. A. Abrikosov and L. P. Gorkov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 39, 1781 (1962). [41] Lu Yu, Acta Pliys. Sin. 21. 75 (1965). [42] H. Shiba, Prog. Theo. Phys. 40. 435 (1968). [43] S.-H. Pan, E. W. Hudson. K. M. Lang, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, and J. C. Davis, Nature 403. 746 (2000). [44] E. W. Hudson, K. M. Lang, V. Madhavan, S.-H. Pan. H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, and J. C. Davis, Nature 411, 920 (2001). [45] K. Ishida, Yoshio Kitaoka, Nobuhito Ogata, Takeshi Kamino, Kunisuke Asayama, J. R. Cooper, and N. Athanassopoulou, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 62, 2803(1993); Y. Tokimaga, K. Ishida, Y. Kitaoka, and K. Asayama, Solid state Connn. 103, 43 (1997); A. V. Mahajan, H. Alloul, G. Collin, and J. F. Marucco, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3100 (1994); J. Bobroff, W. A. MacFarlane, H. Alloull, P. Mendels, N. Blanchard, G. Collin, and J.-F. Marucco ibid, 83, 4381 (1999); J. Bobroff, H. Alloul, W. A. MacFarlane, P. Mendels, N. Blanchard, G. Collin, and J.-F. Marucco ibid 86, 4116 (2001); G. V. M. Williams, J. L. TallÃ³n, and R. Dupree, Phys. Rev B, 61, 4319 (2000); M.-H. Julien, T. FeliÃ©r, M. Horvatic, C. Berthier, O. N. Bakharev, P. Sgransan, G. Collin, and J.-F. Marucco, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 3422 (2000). [46] Anatoli Polkovnikov, S. Sachdev, and Matthias Vojta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 296 (2001). [47] L. S. Borkowski and P. J. Hirschfeld, Phys. Rev. B 49, 15404 (1994). [48] R. Joynt, J. Low. Temp. Phys. 109, 811 (1997). [49] M. R. Norman, M. Randeria, H. Ding, and J. C. Campuzzano, Phys. Rev. B 52, 615 (1995). [50] A. Yazdani, B. A. Jones, C. P. Lutz, M. F. Crommie, and D. M. Eigler, Science 275, 1767 (1997). [51] A. Maeda, T. Yabe, S. Takebayashi, M. Hase, and K. Uchinokura, Phys. Rev. B 41, 4112 (1990). [52] Y. K. Kuo, C. W. Schneider, M. J. Skove, M. V. Nevitt, G. X. Tessema, and J. J. McGee, Phys. Rev. B 56, 6201 (1997). [53] D. A. Bonn, S. Kamal, Kuan Zhang, Ruixing Liang, D. J. Baar, E. Klein, and W. N. Hardy, Phys. Rev. B 50, 4051 (1997). [54] Lingyin Zhu, W. A. Atkinson, and P. J. Hirschfeld, Phys. Rev. B 67, 094508 (2003). [55] L.-L. Wang, P. J. Hirschfeld, and H.-P. Chen , Sec. W32.00004, APS march meeting, Los Angeles (2005). 113 [56] I. Mart.ub, A.V. Balatsky, and J. Zaanen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 097003 (2002). [57] J.-X. Zhu, C.-S. Ting, and C.-R. Hu, Phys. Rev. B 62, 6027 (2000). [58] R. Fehrenbacher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1849 (1996). [59] P. J. Hirschfeld, D. Vollhardt, and P. Wolfle, SoUd State Commun. 59, 111 (1986). [60] T. Xiang and J. M. Wheatley, Phys. Rev. B 51, 11721 (1995). [61] W. A. Atkinson, P. J. Hirschfeld, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3922 (2000). [62] W. A. Atkinson, P. .1. Hirschfeld, A. H. MacDonald and K. Ziegler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3926 (2000). [63] P. J. Hirschfeld and W. A. Atkinson, J. Low. Temp. Phys. 126, 881 (2002). [64] A. A. Nersesyan, A. M. Tsvelik and F. Wenger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 2628 (1994); NucÃ. Phys. B 438, 561 (1995). [65] K. Ziegler, M. H. Hettler, and P. J. Hirschfeld, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3013 (1996). [66] A. G. Yashenkin, W. A. Atkinson, I. V. Gornyi. P. J. Hirschfeld, and D. V. Khveshchenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5982 (2001). [67] D. K. Morr and N. Stavrpoulos, Phys. Rev. B 66, 140508 (2002). [68] U. Micheluchi, F. Venturini, and A. P. Kampf, cond-mat/0107621, http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat. (2001). [69] J. E. Hoffman, K. McElroy, D.-H. Lee, K. M. Lang, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida and J. C. Davis, Science 297, 1148 (2002). [70] K. McElroy, R. W. Simmonds, J. E. Hoffman, D.-H. Lee, J. Orenstein, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, and J. C. Davis, Nature 422, 592 (2003). [71] P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1887 (1993). [72] P. J. Hirschfeld, W. O. Putikka, and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3705 (1993). [73] M. H. Hettler and P. .1. Hirschfeld, Phys. Rev. B 61, 11313 (2000). [74] A. C. Durst and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B 65, 094501 (2002). [75] T. S. Nunner, P. J. Hirschfeld, cond-mat/0411321, http://arxiv.org/abs/cond- mat (2004). [76] T. Senthil and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 60, 6893 (1999). [77] Claudio Chamon and Christopher Murdy, Phys. Rev. B 63, 100503 (2001). 114 [78] M. Fabrizio, L. Dellâ€™Anna, and C. Castellani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 076603 (2002); A. Altland, Phys. Rev. B 65, 104525 (2002). [79] W. A. Atkinson, P. J. Hirschfeld, and Lingyin Zhu, Phys. Rev. B 68, 054501 (2003). [80] Q.-H. Wang and D.-H. Lee, Phys. Rev. B 67, 020511 (2003). [81] H. Ding, M. R. Norman, J. C. Campuzano, M. Randeria, A. F. Bellman, T. Yokoya and T. Takahashi, T. Mochiku and K. Kadowaki, Phys. Rev. B 54, 9678 (1996). [82] L. Capriotti, D. J. Scalapino, and R. D Sedgewick, Phys. Rev. B 68, 45120 (2003). [83] L.-Y. Zhu, W.A. Atkinson, and P.J. Hirschfeld, Phys. Rev. B 69, 064503 (2004). [84] S.-H. Pan, J. P. Oâ€™Neal, R. L. Badzey, C. Chamon, H. Ding, J. R. En- gelbretch, Z. Wang, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, A. K. Gupta, K.-W. Ng, E. W. Hudson, K. M. Lang, and J. C. Davis, Nature 413, 282 (2001). [85] K. M. Lang, V. Madhavan, J. E. Hoffman, E. W. Hudson, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, and J. C. Davis, Nature 415, 412 (2002). [86] S.-F. Lee, D. C. Morgan, R. J. Ormeno, D. M. Broun, R. A. Doyle, J. R. Waldram, and K. Kadowaki Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 735 (1996). [87] R. Mallozzi, J. Orenstein, J. N. Eckstein, and I. Bozovic Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1485 (1998). [88] M. Vershinin, S. Misra, S. Ono, Y. Abe, Y. Ando and A. Yazdani, Science 303, 1995 (2004). [89] T. Hanaguri, C. Lupien, Y. Kohsak, D.-H. Lee, M. Azuma, M. Takano, H. Takagl, and J. C. Davis, Nature 430, 1001 (2004) [90] H.-Y. Chen and C. S. Ting, Phys. Rev. B 68, 212502 (2003). [91] J.-X. Zhu, Wonkee Kim, C. S. Ting, and J. P. Carbotte, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 19700 (2001). [92] D. K. Morr, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 106401 (2002). [93] Q.-H. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 057002 (2002). [94] F. Running, C. Kim, D.L. Feng, D. S. Marshall, A. G. Loeser, L. L. Miller, J. N. Eckstein, I. Bozovic, and Z.-X. Shen, Science 282, 2067 (1998). [95] T. Valla, A. V. Fedorov, P. D. Johnson, Q. Li, G.-D. Gu, and N. Koshizuka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 828 (2000). 115 [96] A. Kaminski, J. Mesot, H. Fretwell, J. C. Campuzano, M. R. Norman, M. Randeria, H. Ding, T. Sato, T. Takahashi, T. Mochiku, K. Kadowaki, and H. Hoechst, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1788 (2000). [97] L.-Y. Zhu, P. J. Hirschfeld, and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. B 70, 214503 (2004). [98] T. Dahm, P. J. Hirschfeld, L.-Y. Zhu, and D. J. Scalapino, cond- mat/0410689, http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat (2004). [99] M. Randeria, H. Ding, J. C. Campuzano, A. Bellman, G. Jennings, T. Yokoya, T. Takahashi, H. Katayama-Yoshida, T. Mochiku, and K. Kadowaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4951 (1995). [100] M. R. Norman, H. Ding, J. C. Campuzano, T. Takeuchi, M. Randeria, T. Yokoya, T. Takahashi, T. Mochiku, and K. Kadowaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3506 (1997). [101] A. V. Fedorov, T. Valla, P. D. Johnson, Q. Li, G.-D. Gu,and N. Koshizuka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2179 (1999). [102] D.-L. Feng, N. P. Armitage, D.-H. Lu, A. Damascelli, J.-P. Hu, P. Bogdanov, A. Lanzara, F. Ronning, K. M. Shen, H. Eisaki, C. Kim, and Z.-X. Shen, J.-I. Shimoyama and K. Kishio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5550 (2001). [103] Y.-D. Chuang, A. D. Gromko, A. Fedorov, Y. Aiura, K. Oka, Yoichi Ando, H. Eisaki, S. I. Uchida, and D. S. Dessau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 117002 (2001). [104] P. V. Bogdanov, A. Lanzara, X.-J. Zhou, S. A. Kellar, D.-L. Feng, E.-D. Lu, H. Eisaki, J.-I. Shimoyama, K. Kishio, Z. Hussain, and Z.-X. Shen, Phys. Rev. B 64, 180505 (2001). [105] A. A. Kordyuk, S. V. Borisenko, T. K. Kim, K. A. Nenkov, M. Knupfer, J. Fink, M. S. Golden, H. Berger, and R. Follath, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 77003 (2002). [106] A. Kaminski, H. M. Fretwell, M. R. Norman, M. Randeria, S. Rosenkranz, J. C. Campuzano, J. Mesot, T. Sato, T. Takahashi, T. Terashima, M. Takano, K. Kadowaki, Z.-Z. Li, and H. Raffy, Phys. Rev. B 71, 014517 (2005). [107] H. Eisaki, N. Kaneko, D.-L. Feng, A. Damascelli, P.-K. Mang, K. M. Shen, Z.-X. Shen, and M. Greven, Phys. Rev. B 69, 064512 (2004). [108] R. S. Markiewicz, Phys. Rev. B 69, 214517 (2004). [109] F. Marsiglio, J. P. Carbotte, Aust. J. Phys. 50, 1011 (1997). [110] S. M. Quinlan, D. J. Scalapino, and N. Bulut, Phys. Rev. B 49, 1470 (1994). [111] S. M. Quinlan, P. J. Hirschfeld, and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. B 53, 8575 (1996). 116 [112] D. Duffy, D. J. Scalapino, and P. J. Hirschfeld, Phys. Rev. B 64, 224533 (2001). [113] H.-Y. Kee, Phys. Rev. B 64, 012506 (2001). BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH I was born in Yichang, one of the most beautiful cities in China, where the world-famous Three-Gorge Dam is located. I went to primary school in 1983 when I was 6 and graduated in 1989. I spent 3 year afterwards in No. 3 middle school of Yichang, and then was matriculated into the No. 1 high school in 1992. In 1995, I was proudly recruited as the first freshman into the Department of Physics, Nankai University. In 1999, I received my bachelorâ€™s degree in physics and was accepted as a graduate student in the Department of Physics, University of Florida. In May 2005, I finished my doctorate study and was awarded the Ph.D. degree in physics. 117 I certify that I have read this study ahd that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor''3f Philosophy. / , JtlUAAk Peter J. Hirschfeld, Chair Professor of Physics I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. David B. Tanner Distinguished Professor of Physics I certify that I have read this study arid that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Professor of Physics I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor o| Philosophy. Selman P. Hershfield Professor of Physics I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Stephen J. Pearton Distinguished Professor of Materials Science and Engineering This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Physics in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. May 2005 Dean, Graduate School LD 1780 90 o 5 rz_ 3 1262 08556 6312 xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd INGEST IEID EZFV7DOAQ_VZ6EAA INGEST_TIME 2013-09-28T00:27:40Z PACKAGE AA00014273_00001 AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC FILES PAGE 1 48$6,3$57,&/( ,17(5)(5(1&( $1' 7+( /2&$/ (/(&7521,& 6758&785( 2) ',625'(5(' G:$9( 683(5&21'8&7256 %\ /,1*<,1 =+8 $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( 6&+22/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ PAGE 2 &RS\ULJKW E\ /LQJ\LQ =KX PAGE 3 , GHGLFDWH WKLV ZRUN WR P\ OR\DO IDPLO\ PAGE 4 $&.12:/('*0(176 DWWULEXWH WKH FRPSOHWLRQ RI P\ GLVVHUWDWLRQ LQ JUHDW SDUW WR P\ ZRQGHUIXO IDPLO\ DGYLVRU DQG IULHQGV ZRXOG OLNH WR H[SUHVV P\ VSHFLDO JUDWLWXGH WR 3URI 3HWHU -RVHSK +LUVFKIHOG IRU KLV SDWLHQFH FDULQJ JXLGDQFH DQG LQYDOXDEOH IULHQGVKLS +H KDV EHHQ QRW RQO\ DQ DFDGHPLF DGYLVRU EXW DOVR D PHQWRU WR PH ,I WKHUH LV D SHUIHFW DGYLVRU KH FDQ QHYHU EH FORVHU WR WKDW 6SHFLDO WKDQNV JR WR 3URI 'DYLG 7DQQHU IRU KLV FRQWLQXRXV FDUH DQG VXSSRUW DQG 3URI 'RXJODV 6FDODSLQR IRU KLV LQVWUXFWLYH GLVFXVVLRQV ZLWK PH DSSUHFLDWH WKH LQYDOXDEOH KHOS IURP 3URI $ODQ 7 'RUVH\ JUHDWO\ VKRXOG DOVR WKDQN P\ FRPPLWWHH PHPEHUV 3URI 6HOPDQ +LUFKILHOG DQG 3URI 6WHSKHQ 3HDUWRQ IRU WKHLU WLPH DQG LQSXW KDYH EHQHILWWHG JUHDWO\ IURP VWLPXODWLQJ FRQYHUVDWLRQV ZLWK P\ EHVW IULHQGV ;X 'X =KLKRQJ DQG 7DPDUD %ULDQ $VKRW 0DWWKHZ:HL 6XKDV )LOOLSSR )LQDOO\ WKH OR\DOW\ DQG HQFRXUDJHPHQW IURP P\ IDPLO\ ZHUH WKH SULFHOHVV WUHDVXUH WR PH LQ WKH SDVW \HDUV FDQ QHYHU WKDQN P\ ZLIH HQRXJK IRU KHU WROHUDQFH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ VXSSRUW DQG ZKDW VKH KDV VDFULILFHG IRU PH DP IRUHYHU LQGHEWHG WR P\ JUDQGIDWKHU DQG P\ SDUHQWV WKH\ VHHGHG WKLV VSHFLDO PRPHQW ZLWK HQGOHVV ORYH DQG KDYH EHHQ ZDLWLQJ IRU LW IRU VR ORQJ ZLVK P\ GHDU JUDQGPD FRXOG VKDUH WKLV KDSSLQHVV ZLWK DOO RI XV LQ KHDYHQ SHDFHIXOO\ ,9 PAGE 5 7$%/( 2) &217(176 SDJH $&.12:/('*0(176 LY /,67 2) 7$%/(6 YLLL /,67 2) ),*85(6 L[ $%675$&7 [LLL &+$37(5 ,1752'8&7,21 +LVWRU\ RI +LJK 7HPSHUDWXUH 6XSHUFRQGXFWLYLW\ %DFNJURXQG $ERXW +LJK 7HPSHUDWXUH 6XSHUFRQGXFWLYLW\ &U\VWDO 6WUXFWXUH 3KDVH 'LDJUDP &XUUHQW 6LWXDWLRQ LQ +LJK 7HPSHUDWXUH 6XSHUFRQGXFWLYLW\ 5HVHDUFK :KDW :H .QRZ $ERXW +LJK 7HPSHUDWXUH 6XSHUFRQGXFWLYLW\ :KDW :H 'R 1RW .QRZ $ERXW +LJK 7HPSHUDWXUH 6XSHUn FRQGXFWLYLW\ 'LVRUGHU LQ 6SHFWURVFRSLF ([SHULPHQWV 6FDQQLQJ 7XQQHOOLQJ 0LFURVFRS\ 670f ,Q 7RXFK :LWK $WRPV ,PSXULWLHV LQ %A6A&D&A2J $ 3UREH RI +LJK 7HPSHUDn WXUH VXSHUFRQGXFWLYLW\ 6,1*/( ,0385,7< 352%/(0 2QH ,PSXULW\ LQ 1RUPDO 6WDWH %RXQG 6WDWH DQG 5HVRQDQW 6WDWH /RFDO 'HQVLW\ RI 6WDWHV )ULHGHO 2VFLOODWLRQV DQG 5LSSOHV LQ WKH )HUPL 6HD *UHHQf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n &$7,216 )25 670 63(&7526&23< $WRPLF /HYHO 5HVRQDQFHV 4XDVSDUWLFOH 6WDWHV DQG 8QLWDU\ 6FDWn WHUV 1DQRVFDOH *DS ,QKRPRJHQHLW\ /RQJUDQJH 0RGXODWLRQ DQG ([RWLF 2UGHUV $1*/(5(62/9(' 3+272(0,66,21 63(&75$ 2) ',625'(5(' &835$7(6 $QJOHUHVROYHG 3KRWRHPLVVLRQ 6SHFWUD RI +LJK 7HPSHUDWXUH 6Xn SHUFRQGXFWRUV 6SHFWUDO )XQFWLRQ DQG 6HOIHQHUJ\ 6HOIHQHUJ\ LQ 1RUPDO DQG 6XSHUFRQGXFWLQJ 6WDWHV (ODVWLF )RUZDUG 6FDWWHULQJ LQ %L6U&D&X 6HOIHQHUJ\ 6SHFWUDO )XQFWLRQ 'LVFXVVLRQ DQG &RQFOXVLRQ &21&/86,21 $1' 5(0$,1,1* 48(67,216 $33(1',; $ *5((1f6 )81&7,21 )25 7+( 683(5&21'8&7,1* 67$7( % (9$/8$7,21 2) 7+( 6(/)(1(5*< ,1 %251 $3352;,0$7,21 %O f PAGE 7 % 1RUPDO 6WDWH % 6XSHUFRQGXFWLQJ 6WDWH % f([SRQHQWLDOf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n SHUDWXUH &XUUHQW VLWXDWLRQ LQ KLJK WHPSHUDWXUH VXSHUFRQGXFWLYLW\ 7KH FU\VWDO VWUXFWXUH RI %L6U&D&X 670 LPDJH LQ %L6U&D&XJ VKRZLQJ Df DWRPLF VFDOH QDWLYH GHIHFW UHVRQDQFHV Ef =Q UHVRQDQFH %RWK ZHUH WDNHQ DW ]HUR ELDV 'LDJUDPPDWLF UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ IRU WKH VFDWWHULQJ SURFHVV E\ VLQJOH LPn SXULW\ &RDUVH DUURZ IXOO *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ VROLG OLQH SXUH *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ FURVV LPSXULW\ GDVKOLQH LPSXULW\ SRWHQWLDO 6FKHPDWLF LOOXVWUDWLRQ RI WKH ERXQG VWDWH LQ QRUPDO PHWDO /HIW VROXWLRQ WR WKH 7PDWUL[ 5LJKW WKH ERXQG VWDWH LV RQO\ ORFDWHG DW KLJK HQn HUJLHV LH RXWVLGH RI WKH EDQG /'26 PRGLILFDWLRQ GXH WR VLQJOH LPSXULW\ LQ PHWDOV 5LJKW LPDJH RQ WKH VXUIDFH RI $J >@ OHIW WKHRUHWLFDO FDOFXODWLRQ RI /'26 DURXQG D VLQJOH LPSXULW\ LQ D WZRGLPHQVLRQDO PHWDO 6FKHPDWLF LOOXVWUDWLRQ RI WKH SDLU EUHDNLQJ HIIHFW GXH WR SRWHQWLDO VFDWn WHUV LQ D GZDYH VXSHUFRQGXFWRU 7KH IDOORII RI /'26 DURXQG D QDWLYH GHIHFW 2QVLWH DQG 11 VLWH VSHFWUD IRU WLJKW ELQGLQJ EDQG ZLWK RQH LPSXULW\ &RQGXFWDQFH VSHFWUD DERYH WKH 1L DWRP DQG DW VHYHUDO QHDUE\ ORFDn WLRQV 6ROLG FLUFOH RQVLWH RSHQ FLUFOH 11VLWH VTXDUH 11VLWH WULDQJOH $ DZD\ IURP 1L VROLG OLQH DYHUDJH RI WKH ILUVW IRXU VSHFn WUD /HIW WKH VFKHPDWLF SORW RI &X2 SODQH PLGGOH H[SHULPHQWDO /'26 DURXQG =Q LPSXULW\ ULJKW WKHRUHWLFDOO\ SUHGLFWHG /'26 IRU 9T e URWDWHG E\ r ZLWK UHVSHFW WR Df DQG Eff 7KH UHVRQDQFH IUHTXHQF\ DV D IXQFWLRQ RI VFDWWHULQJ SRWHQWLDO 9R LQn VHW WKH UHVRQDQFH IUHTXHQF\ DV D IXQFWLRQ RI 9R ,; PAGE 10 7ZRLPSXULW\ UHVRQDQFH HQHUJLHV M YV LPSXULW\ RULHQWDWLRQ 7KH ZDYHIXQFWLRQ DW UHVRQDQFH DQG FRUUHVSRQGLQJ /'26 ,PSXULWLHV DUH VHSDUDWHG E\ 5 f 6SHFWUD RQ WKH QHDUHVW VLWHV FORVH WR WKH LPSXULWLHV 6HH WH[W IRU GHn WDLOV /'26 PDSV DW UHVRQDQW HQHUJLHV IRU 5 __ f 3XUH QHVWHG EDQG 9R L ,PSXULW\ VHSDUDWLRQV DUH VKRZQ RQ WKH WRS RI WKH JUDSK /'26 PDSV DW UHVRQDQW HQHUJLHV IRU 5 __ f 3XUH QHVWHG EDQG 9R @ ,PSXULW\ VHSDUDWLRQV DUH VKRZQ RQ WKH WRS RI WKH JUDSK /'26 VSHFWUD IRU UHDOLVWLF EDQG DQG 9E ÂL RQ QHDUHVW QHLJKn ERU VLWH /HIW SDQHO LPSXULWLHV DW ^fÂ§5f DQG 5f 5 ff VSHFWUD WDNHQ DW U 5f 5LJKW SDQHO LPSXULWLHV DW fÂ§5 fÂ§5f DQG 5 5f 5 5 5ff VSHFWUD WDNHQ DW U 5 5 f )HUPL VXUIDFH RI %6&&2 ZLWK FRQVWDQW HQHUJ\ VXUIDFHV DW XM VKRZQ DV VPDOO ILOOHG HOOLSVHV DW WKH QRGDO SRLQWV TL T T D[H ZDYH YHFWRUV IRU ZKLFK WKH MRLQW GHQVLW\ RI VWDWHV LV ODUJH 6FKHPDWLF SORW RI WKH VHOIHQHUJ\ GLDJUDP ZLWK PDQ\ LPSXULWLHV 6FKHPDWLF ILJXUH RI WKH PDQ\LPSXULW\ '26 Df LQ WKH XQLWDU\ OLPLW RI WKH KDOIILOOHG EDQG DQG Ef LQ WKH XQLWDU\ OLPLW RI D JHQHULF EDQG 6FKHPDWLF SORW RI ELSDUWLWH ODWWLFH &KDQJH LQ SXMf GXH WR LPSXULWLHV ,PSXULW\ VHSDUDWLRQ 5 f &KDQJH LQ S^XMf GXH WR LPSXULWLHV ,PSXULW\ VHSDUDWLRQ 5 f Df '26 IRU 9E W Ef 6FDOLQJ RI WKH '26 ZLWK 9E Ff 6FDOLQJ RI WKH '26 ZLWK / Gf 6FDOLQJ RI WKH '26 ZLWK 9E DQG / /'26 IRU b FRQFHQWUDWLRQ RI LPSXULWLHV DQG ?(Q? aW HLJHQn YDOXHVf /'26 IRU b FRQFHQWUDWLRQ RI LPSXULWLHV /HIW (Q Â ULJKW DYHUDJHG RYHU ILYH HLJHQYDOXH LQ HQHUJ\ LQWHUYDO ?(Q fÂ§ e_ / /HIW SDQHOWKH FRQVWDQW HQHUJ\ FRQWRXUV ZLWK WKH T YHFWRUV ULJKW SDQHO WKH HYROXWLRQV RI T YHFWRUV DV D IXQFWLRQ RI HQHUJ\ [ PAGE 11 )7'26 DW XM PH9 IRU ZHDN SRWHQWLDO VFDWWHUV 9R rLf Df IRU RQH ZHDN LPSXULW\ ZLWK D IHZ LPSRUWDQW VFDWWHULQJ ZDYHYHF WRUV LQGLFDWHG Ef IRU b ZHDN VFDWWHUHUV &XWV WKURXJK WKH GDWD RI Df WKLFN OLQHf DQG EfWKLQ OLQHf DORQJ WKH f GLUHFWLRQ DQG VFDOHG E\ \1M DUH SORWWHG YV T[ LQ Ff ZKLOH Gf VKRZV WKH ZHDN VFDWWHULQJ UHVSRQVH IXQFWLRQ ,P $VT XMf 3HDNV DW T DUH UHn PRYHG IRU FODULW\ ,Q DOO WKH ILJXUHV WKH [ DQG \ D[HV DUH DOLJQHG ZLWK WKH &X ERQGV 7KH SORW RI 1DPEX FRPSRQHQW RI VSHFWUDO IXQFWLRQV DW VHYHUDO IUHn TXHQFLHV &RPSDULVRQ RI WKHRU\ DQG H[SHULPHQW /HIW SDQHO /'26 PLGGOH SDQHO FDOFXODWHG )7'26 ULJKW SDQHO )7'26 IURP 670 H[SHUn LPHQWV =Q LPSXULW\ UHVRQDQFH OHIW FKDQQHO GOG9 9VX ULJKW FKDQQHO WKH /'26 VSHFWUXP DERYH WKH =Q VLWH 7KH JDSPDS RI RYHUGRSHG %66&2 6DPSOH VL]H $[$ 6SHFWUD RQ GLIIHUHQW VLWHV DORQJ WKH KRUL]RQWDO FXW *DS PDS IURP QXPHULFDO VROXWLRQ RI %'* HTXDWLRQV ZLWK RQO\ VPRRWK GLVRUGHU /'26 DORQJ WKH KRUL]RQWDO FXW LQ WKH WRS ILJXUH $53(6 VSHFWUD IURP RYHUGRSHG %Â 7& .f Df QRUPDO DQG Ef Ff VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ VWDWH GDWD PHDVXUHG DW WKH N SRLQW LQGLn FDWHG LQ WKH LQVHW RI Ff *HRPHWU\ IRU WKH IRUZDUG VFDWWHULQJ SURFHVV LQ ZKLFK D TXDVLSDUWLFOH VFDWWHUV IURP N WR Nn 7KH VHOIHQHUJ\ WHUPV ,P eRN Df ,P eLN Xf DQG ,P (VN XMf LQ WKH VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ VWDWH DW 7 IRU N NA WRSf DQG NMY ERWWRPf IRU N DQG DQG WKH VDPH EDQG DQG VFDWWHULQJ SDn UDPHWHUV DV SUHYLRXVO\ XVHG +HUH $r $ FRV[ fÂ§ FRVN\f ZLWK $ r 6FDWWHULQJ UDWH UHNRf YV XM IRU N NAOHIWf DQG NULJKWf LQ WKH VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ VWDWH DW 7 IRU N WRSf DQG N ERWn WRPf +HUH 7RINAf r )LQLWH WHPSHUDWXUH VSHFWUDO IXQFWLRQ DW WKH DQWLQRGDO SRLQW $ DQG QRGDO SRLQW 1 RQ WKH )HUPL VXUIDFH PXOWLSOLHG E\ WKH IHUPL IXQFn WLRQ 5HVXOWV IRU N DQG ZLWK 7RLNAf r DUH VKRZQ [L PAGE 12 $NXLf YV X IRU N DQG 5HVXOWV DUH JLYHQ IRU WKH N SRLQWV DW LU f Q LUf Q OUf 7 Wf 7KH GLVRUGHU OHYHOV FRUUHn VSRQG WR URN\Lf$R DQG 1RWH WKH VSHFWUD IRU GLIn IHUHQW N SRLQWV KDYH EHHQ RIIVHW IRU FODULW\ &RPSDULVRQ EHWZHHQ UHFHQW $53(6 GDWD OHIW SDQHOf DQG FDOFXODWHG $N WRf ULJKW SDQHOf PAGE 13 $EVWUDFW RI 'LVVHUWDWLRQ 3UHVHQWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO RI WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD LQ 3DUWLDO )XOILOOPHQW RI WKH 5HTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH 'HJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 48$6,3$57,&/( ,17(5)(5(1&( $1' 7+( /2&$/ (/(&7521,& 6758&785( 2) ',625'(5(' G:$9( 683(5&21'8&7256 %\ /LQJ\LQ =KX 0D\ &KDLU 3HWHU +LUVFKIHOG 0DMRU 'HSDUWPHQW 3K\VLFV 7KLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ VWXGLHV WKH HOHFWURQLF VWUXFWXUH RI GLVRUGHUHG FXSUDWH VXSHUn FRQGXFWRUV %L6U&D&X %6&&2f D W\SLFDO FDQGLGDWH IRU KLJK WHPSHUDWXUH VXSHUFRQGXFWLYLW\+76f LV EHOLHYHG WR EH LQWULQVLFDOO\ QRQVWRFKLRPHWULF GXH WR WKH ZD\ LW LV SUHSDUHG 7KH DQLVRWURSLF IRUP RI WKH JDS IXQFWLRQ PDNHV WKH TXDVLn SDUWLFOH VWDWHV H[WUHPHO\ VHQVLWLYH WR LPSXULWLHV DQG WKHUHIRUH WKH VSHFWURVFRS\ DQG WUDQVSRUW SURSHUWLHV RI %6&&2 DUH LQIOXHQFHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ E\ GLVRUGHU 7KLV FRPSRXQG LV VLQJOHG RXW IRU VWXG\ EHFDXVH LW WXUQV RXW WR EH WKH PRVW VXLWDEOH VDPSOH IRU VXUIDFH SUREHV OLNH DQJOHUHVROYHG SKRWRHPLVVLRQ $53(6f DQG VFDQQLQJ WXQQHOOLQJ PLFURVFRS\ 670f ,Q WKLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ WZR NLQGV RI QRQPDJQHWLF LPSXULWLHV DUH VWXGLHG SRLQWn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f HYHQ DW WKH OLTXLG QLWURJHQ WHPSHUDWXUH DQG LPPHGLDWHO\ FUHDWHG D UHQDLVVDQFH LQ UHVHDUFK RQ VXSHUFRQGXFWLYLW\ 7KH HQWKXVLDVP DQG SHUVHYHUDQFH LQYHVWHG LQ WKLV DUHD RYHU WKH SDVW WZR GHFDGHV KDYH EHHQ SDUWLFXODUO\ IUXLWIXO DQG KDYH OHG WR WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI UHODWHG WHFKQLTXHV WR GLYHUVH ILHOGV RI LQGXVWU\ %HVLGHV WKH SUHYLRXVO\ LQFRQFHLYDEOH LQFUHDVH LQ 7F ZKLFK LV DSSUR[LPDWHO\ QRZ f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f 'XH WR WKH RPQLSUHVHQFH RI VLJQLILFDQW GLVRUGHU LQ DOO +76 VDPSOHV DQDO\VLV RI DOO VXFK H[SHULPHQWV UHTXLUHG D PRGHO RI GLVRUGHU WUHDWHG LQ DQ HIIHFWLYH PHGLXP DSSURDFK 7KLV REVWDFOH ZDV FLUFXPYHQWHG LQ E\ WKH QRWDEOH SURJUHVV LQ WKH VFDQQLQJ WXQQHOOLQJ PLFURVFRS\ WHFKQLTXH 7KH GLIIHUHQWLDO FRQGXFWDQFH PDS PAGE 16 )LJXUH 7KH FU\VWDO VWUXFWXUH RI /D&X 5HG VSKHUH &X EOXH VSKHUH 2 \HOORZ VSKHUH /D GLVSOD\V DQ DPD]LQJ VXUIDFH VWUXFWXUH RI VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ VDPSOHV ZLWK DWRPLF UHVROXWLRQ >@ 7KH LPSURYHG ORZ WHPSHUDWXUH 670 ERRVWHG RXU REVHUYDWLRQDO FDSDFLW\ WR DQ XQSUHFHGHQWHGO\ ILQH OHYHO DQG HQDEOHG XV WR FRQFHQWUDWH RQ WKH HOHFWURQLF SURSHUWLHV RI KLJK WHPSHUDWXUH VXSHUFRQGXFWRUV +76f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f /D&X LV D W\SLFDO FDQGLGDWH ZKRVH VWUXFWXUH EDVLFDOO\ PLPLFV D fVDQGZLFKf ZLWK RQH &X SODQH EHWZHHQ WZR /D2 SODQHV (DFK &X DWRP LV VXUURXQGHG E\ IRXU LQSODQH DQG WZR RXWRISODQH R[\JHQ DWRPV IRUPLQJ D SHURYVNLWH VWUXFWXUH 7KH HOHFWURQLF VWUXFWXUH RI SDUHQW FRPSRXQGV RI +76 LV TXLWH XQXVXDO &RQn YHQWLRQDOO\ WUDQVLWLRQ PHWDO R[LGHV KDYH G DQG S RUELWDOV ZKRVH EDUH HQHUJLHV PAGE 17 DUH ZHOO VHSDUDWHG DQG WKH VWURQJ ORFDO &RXORPE LQWHUDFWLRQ JLYHV ULVH WR VXSHUH[n FKDQJH PHGLDWLQJ ORQJ UDQJH DQWLIHUURPDJQHWLF RUGHU LQ D 0RWWLQVXODWLQJ VWDWH ZLWK JDS RI RUGHU H9 LQ +76 FRPSRXQGV &X DWRPV ORVH WZR HOHFWURQV DQG EHFRPH GLYDOHQW LRQV OHDYLQJ D KROH LQ WKH G[\r RUELW ZLWK D QHW VSLQ WKH G OHYHO RI FRSSHU LRQV LV VR FORVH WR WKH LQSODQH S;W9 OHYHO RI R[\JHQ LRQV WKDW WKH\ K\EULGL]H VWURQJO\ ZLWK HDFK RWKHU WR IRUP WKH VRFDOOHG FKDUJH WUDQVIHU LQVXODWRUV ZLWK D PXFK VPDOOHU LQVXODWLQJ JDS a HYf 3KDVH 'LDJUDP 6XSHUFRQGXFWLQJ PDWHULDOV DUH IRUPHG IURP WKH KDOIILOOHG DQWLIHUURPDJQHWLF 0RWWW\SH JURXQG VWDWH ZKHQ WKH SDUHQW FRPSRXQGV DUH GRSHG OHDYLQJ PRELOH FDUULHUV LQ WKH &X SODQH 7KH HYROXWLRQ RI WKH HOHFWURQLF DQG PDJQHWLF RUGHU XSRQ GRSLQJ HVWDEOLVKHV D FRPSOLFDWHG SKDVH GLDJUDP DV LOOXVWUDWHG LQ )LJ >@ 7KH LQWULQVLF DQWLIHUURPDJQHWLF PDJQHWLF RUGHU LV TXLFNO\ GHVWUR\HG E\ DGGLQJ D VPDOO QXPEHU RI KROHV DQG RQO\ RFFXSLHV D fVOLYHUf UHJLRQ FORVH WR OLDOO ILOOLQJ ZKHUHDV DQWLIHUURPDJQHWLVP LQ HOHFWURQGRSHG VDPSOHV LV PRUH UREXVW :KHQ WKH GRSLQJ LQFUHDVHV D VSLQJODVV EHKDYLRU PD\ EH SUHVHQW EHIRUH WKH VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ SKDVH DSSHDUV $W D FHUWDLQ PLQLPDO KROH FRQFHQWUDWLRQ ZH REWDLQ WKH VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ VWDWH 7KH FULWLFDO WHPSHUDWXUH LQFUHDVHV LQLWLDOO\ ZLWK WKH GRSLQJ FRQFHQWUDWLRQ SHDNV DW DERXW [ RSWLPDOO\ GRSHGf DQG WKHQ GHFUHDVHV XQWLO LW GURSV WR ]HUR %HVLGHV WKH KLJK FULWLFDO WHPSHUDWXUH DQG WKH SHFXOLDU ORZ FDUULHU GHQVLW\ LQ WKLV GRPDLQ WKH XQXVXDO VKDSH RI WKH HQHUJ\ JDS LQ PRPHQWXP VSDFH LV DQRWKHU GHILQLQJ SURSHUW\ LQ +76 $QG LW LV H[DFWO\ WKH UHDVRQ f+\EULGL]Hf LQFOXGHV PDQ\ SK\VLFDO SURFHGXUHV KHUH WKH FU\VWDO ILHOG VSOLWn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fQRUPDOf GRPDLQ ZLWK DQRPDORXV DWWULEXWHV HPHUJHV ,W LV WKH QRUPDO SKDVH RI +76 VLQFH WKH WHPSHUDWXUH 7 7F EXW LV DQRPDORXV LQ WKH VHQVH WKDW WKH FRQYHQWLRQDO )HUPL OLTXLG )/f WKHRU\ RI PHWDOV IDLOV WR SUHGLFW LWV RQH SDUWLFOH VSHFWUXP DQG WUDQVSRUW SURSHUWLHV > @ $PRQJ QXPHURXV SURSRVDOV WKH VRFDOOHG f 0DUJLQDO )HUPL /LTXLG WKHRU\f >@ 0)/f ZDV DLPHG WR DGGUHVV WKH QRUPDO VWDWH SURSHUWLHV RI FXSUDWHV E\ UHFRQFLOLQJ WKH FRQWUDGLFWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH ZHOOGHILQHG )HUPL VXUIDFH DQG WKH QRQ)HUPL OLTXLG EXW XQLYHUVDOf EHKDYLRUV LQ D SKHQRPHQRORJLFDO IDVKLRQ ,Q WKH 0)/ WKHRU\ HOHFWURQV DUH SRVWXODWHG WR FRXSOH ZLWK ERVRQLF H[FLWDWLRQV ZKRVH VSHFWUXP LV RQO\ D VFDOHLQYDULDQW IXQFWLRQ RI HQHUJ\ DQG WHPSHUDWXUH LH %X7f a PLQWMM7 f $V WKH FRQVHTXHQFH WKH VHOIHQHUJ\ IRU WKH FRKHUHQW FRPSRQHQW RI WKH RQH SDUWLFOH VSHFWUXP H[WUDFWHG IURP WKLV SURSRVDO GLVSOD\V D SHFXOLDU IRUP 6HH &K IRU GHWDLOVf ZLWK ORJDULWKPLFDOO\ YDQLVKLQJ = fÂ§ PAGE 19 G5HeRfGDf DW ]HUR WHPSHUDWXUH RQ WKH )HUPL VXUIDFH 7KH 0DUJLQDO )HUPL /LTXLG WKHRU\ KDV SURYHG WR EH UHDVRQDEO\ FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK D ZHDOWK RI XQXVXDO H[SHULPHQWDO REVHUYDWLRQV VXFK DV WKH OLQHDU UHVLVWLYLW\ >@ LQ VHYHUDO GHFDGHV RI WHPSHUDWXUH EXW KDV QHYHU EHHQ FRQYLQFLQJO\ GHULYHG IURP D PLFURVFRSLF WKHRU\ (VSHFLDOO\ KRZ LW \LHOGV WKH PRPHQWXPDQLVRWURSLF GZDYH SDLULQJ V\PPHWU\ LV WKH LQWULQVLF GHILFLHQF\ RI WKLV WKHRU\ DOWKRXJK LW KDV EHHQ DUJXHG WKDW WKLV FRXOG FRPH IURP WKH YHUWH[ FRUUHFWLRQVf ,Q WKH RSWLPDO DQG RYHUGRSHG UHJLRQ ZKLOH WKH QRUPDO VWDWH SURSHUW\ LV IDLUO\ GHSLFWHG E\ 0)/ WKHRU\ D FRQYHQWLRQDO %&6 WKHRU\ LV EHOLHYHG WR EH TXDOLWDWLYHO\ DSSOLFDEOH WR WKH VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ VWDWHV ZLWK WKH RUGHU SDUDPHWHU WDNHQ WR SRVVHVV GZDYH OLNH V\PPHWU\ 7KHUH LV RQH ZHOOHVWDEOLVKHG FRQWURYHUVLDO UHJLRQ ZKLFK LV SUHVHQWO\ DW WKH KHDUW RI WKH GHEDWH RI +76 ZKLFK OLHV LQ WKH FURVVRYHU IURP $) RUGHU WR 6& VWDWH DERYH WKH SRVVLEOH PHVV\ VSLQ JODVV SKDVH ,W LV QDPHG WKH fSVHXGRJDSf SKDVH EHFDXVH RI WKH VSHFWURVFRSLF LGHQWLILFDWLRQ RI VWURQJO\ GHSOHWHG GHQVLW\ RI VWDWHV '26f QHDU WKH )HUPL OHYHO 7KH SVHXGRJDS WHPSHUDWXUH 7r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fILJXUDWLYHO\f GHSLFWHG E\ )LJ >@ ZKLFK FRPHV IURP D IDPRXV ,QGLDQ %XGGKLVW SDUDEOH DERXW WKH EOLQG PHQ DQG WKH HOHSKDQW $QG WKH IROORZLQJ SDUDJUDSK IURP WKLV IDPRXV SDUDEOH UHIOHFWV KRZ LQWHQVLYH WKH GHEDWH DPRQJ WKHP RYHU WKH VKDSH RI WKH HOHSKDQW DFFRUGLQJ WR HYHU\RQHfV RZQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJf LV f2K KRZ WKH\ FOLQJ DQG ZUDQJOH VRPH ZKR FODLP )RU SUHDFKHU DQG PRQN WKH KRQRUHG QDPH )RU TXDUUHOOLQJ HDFK WR KLV YLHZ WKH\ FOLQJ 6XFK IRON VHH RQO\ RQH VLGH RI D WKLQJf 7KHUH LV VXFK DQ DQDORJ\ KDSSHQLQJ LQ WKH KLJK7F FRPPXQLW\ DP VXUH WKDW RQH GD\ WKH f%XGGKDf D FRUUHFW DQG FRPSUHKHQVLYH WKHRU\f ZLOO FRPH IRU WKH VDNH RI RXU SLHW\ DQG RSHQV RXU H\HV WR WKH UHVW RI WKH fHOHSKDQWf WKH QDWXUH RI KLJK WHPSHUDWXUH VXSHUFRQGXFWLYLW\f EXW ZRXOG OLNH WR ZLWK WKH PRGHVW H[SHFWDWLRQ WKDW FRXOG QRW EH WKH PRVW fEOLQGf GLVFLSOH VXPPDUL]H WKH DSSHDUDQFH RI WKH PRQVWHU DIWHU fFDUHVVLQJf LW FDUHIXOO\ PAGE 21 :KDW :H .QRZ $ERXW +LJK 7HPSHUDWXUH 6XSHUFRQGXFWLYLW\ &XSUDWHV KDYH FRSSHU R[LGH SODQHV DQG WKHVH SODQHV DUH FUXFLDO WR KLJK WHPSHUDWXUH VXSHUFRQGXFWLYLW\ 7KH HOHFWURQV SDLU XS LQ WKH &X&! SODQH LQ D VWDWH ZLWK GZDYH V\PPHWU\ WKHUH DUH QRGHV LQ WKH SDLULQJ IXQFWLRQ ZKLFK JLYH ORZHU HQHUJ\ H[FLWDWLRQV LQ TXDVLSDUWLFOH VSHFWUD 7KH FDUULHU GHQVLW\ LQ +76 LV FRQVLGHUDEO\ ORZHU WKDQ WKDW RI WKH FRQYHQn WLRQDO VXSHUFRQGXFWRUV WKH FRKHUHQFH OHQJWK LV DV VPDOO DV eR a fÂ§ D ,W LV WKH SUR[LPLW\ WR D XQGHUGRSHG DQWLIHUURPDJQHWLF 0RWW LQVXODWRU WKDW PD\ EH HVVHQWLDO WR XQGHUVWDQG +76 DQG SUREDEO\ LQGLFDWLYH RI WKH XQGHUO\n LQJ PDJQHWLF PHFKDQLVP RI +76 &XSUDWHV DUH LQ JHQHUDO PHWDOV WKHUH H[LVWV JHQHULFDOO\ D )HUPL VXUIDFH DW OHDVW D VHJPHQWf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f ,Q 7RXFK :LWK $WRPV ,Q %LQQLJ DQG 5RKUHU UHYROXWLRQLVHG WKH ILHOG RI VXUIDFH VFLHQFH E\ LQYHQWLQJ WKH VFDQQLQJ WXQQHOOLQJ PLFURVFRS\ >@ :KHQ D ILQH SRLQWHG WLS RI PHWDOOLF QHHGOH LV EURXJKW H[WUHPHO\ FORVH WR WKH VDPSOH VXUIDFH LQ JHQHUDO D IHZ $QJVWURPVf DQG D YROWDJH LV DSSOLHG LQ EHWZHHQ WKH ZDYHOLNH SURSHUWLHV RI HOHFWURQV DOORZ TXDQWXP WXQQHOOLQJ WR KDSSHQ 7KH SUREDELOLW\ RI ILQGLQJ WKH WXQQHOOLQJ HOHFWURQV GHFD\V H[SRQHQWLDOO\ ZKHQ WKH GLVWDQFH EHWZHHQ WKH WLS DQG WKH VDPSOH VXUIDFH LQFUHDVHV 7KH WRSRJUDSKLFDO LPDJH RI WKH VXUIDFH LV UHJLVWHUHG DV WKH YDULDWLRQ LQ WKH FXUUHQW ZKHQ WKH WLS VFDQV RYHU WKH VXUIDFH )LUVWRUGHU WLPHGHSHQGHQW SHUWXUEDWLRQ WKHRU\ JLYHV RXW WKH WXQQHOOLQJ FXUUHQW DV IXQFWLRQ RI VDPSOH ELDV 9 DQG SRVLWLRQ U U 9f I (YfÂ§H9ffÂ§I Xf>OfÂ§I(OOfÂ§H9f@`?0LDUf?(OfÂ§(YH9f f ZKHUH 0PfUf LV WKH WXQQHOOLQJ PDWUL[ HOHPHQW DQG WKH )HUPL IXQFWLRQ 7KH IXQFWLRQ FRQVHUYHV WKH HQHUJ\ DV LW GRHV LQ WKH XVXDO FDVHV :LWK VHYHUDO DSSURSULn DWH DVVXPSWLRQV ZH FDQ ZULWH DV f ZKHUH U LV WKH FRRUGLQDWH RI SRLQWV VDPSOHG DQG LV WKH YHUWLFDO GLVWDQFH EHWZHHQ WKH WLS DQG WKH SODQH WKH ORFDO GHQVLW\ RI VWDWH /'26f LV GHILQHG DV f f WKH WXQQHOOLQJ HYHQW LV H[WUHPHO\ ORFDOL]HG WKLV HQVXUHV WKH WXQQHOOLQJ FXUn UHQW LV SURSRUWLRQDO WR WKH ORFDO GHQVLW\ RI VWDWHVf f LW LV VSLQLQGHSHQGHQW f IRU VPDOO 9 ZH FDQ XVLQJ :.% DSSUR[LPDWLRQ VXFK WKDW 0N ]f 0RHaN] ZKHUH N PQ$Z 9fK IRU D UHFWDQJXODU EDUULHU RI KHLJKW $Z PAGE 23 $VVXPLQJ WKDW SU (f LV URXJKO\ D FRQVWDQW WKH WKH GLIIHUHQWLDO WXQQHOOLQJ FRQn GXFWDQFH GOG9 LV SURSRUWLRQDO WR WKH /'26 WKLV FDQ EH REWDLQHG E\ PRYLQJ WKH WLS DZD\ RU WRZDUGV WR WKH VXUIDFH WR PDLQWDLQ D FRQVWDQW FXUUHQW DQG WKHQ DSSO\ DQ DOWHUQDWLQJ YROWDJHf 7KLV VHSDUDWLRQ HQDEOHV XV WR FRPSDUH WKH WKHRUHWLFDOO\ FDOFXODWH /'26 ZLWK WKH 670 PHDVXUHPHQW TXDOLWDWLYHO\ 7KH LQYHQWLRQ RI 670 WHFKQLTXH RSHQHG DQ QHZ HUD RI VXUIDFH VFLHQFH E\ H[WHQGLQJ RXU fILQJHUVf WR DWRPV DQG REWDLQ DWRPLF UHVROXWLRQ LPDJHV RI VDPSOH VXUIDFHV IRU WKH ILUVW WLPH ,W ZDV VXFK DQ LPSRUWDQW FRQWULEXWLRQ WKDW %LQQLJ DQG 5RKUHU ZHUH DZDUGHG ZLWK WKH 1REHO 3UL]H RI SK\VLFV LQ ,Q WKH VWXG\ RI KLJK WHPSHUDWXUH VXSHUFRQGXFWLYLW\ 670 DOVR FRQWULEXWHG LQ D XQLTXH ZD\ HVSHFLDOO\ IURP E\ SURGXFLQJ VWXQn QLQJ ORFDO HOHFWURQLF LPDJHV RI WKH VXUIDFH RI %6&&2 DQG SURYLGLQJ ORFDO VSHFWUDO LQIRUPDWLRQ ,PSXULWLHV LQ %L6U&D&X $ 3UREH RI +LJK 7HPSHUDWXUH VXSHUFRQGXFWLYLW\ %L6U&D&XV LV D W\SLFDO FDQGLGDWH RI KLJK WHPSHUDWXUH VXSHUFRQGXFWRUV ,W LV ZHOO NQRZQ WKDW WKH 9DQ GHU :DDOV FRXSOLQJ EHWZHHQ WKH %L2 OD\HUV LQ %66&2 PDNHV LW HDV\ WR FOHDYH )LJ f DQG REWDLQ WKH LPDJH RI LWV VXUIDFH E\ 670 +RZHYHU WKLV DWWULEXWH DOVR SURYLGHV VSDFH ZKHUH GRSDQW R[\JHQ DWRPV FDQ UHVLGH DQG KHQFH UHVXOW LQ LQWHUHVWLQJ H[SHULPHQWDO REVHUYDWLRQV )LYH \HDUV DJR WKH ILUVW KLJKUHVROXWLRQ 670 H[SHULPHQW RQ %6&&2 >@ GLVSOD\HG IDVFLQDWLQJ DWRPLF VFDOH UHVRQDQFHV DV VKRZQ LQ )LJ f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t4 6W4 &X4M &D &X4 6W4 ILL4 6U4 &D4 &D 4X4L VHD )LJXUH 7KH FU\VWDO VWUXFWXUH RI %A6UD&D&LIH2V > @ ZKLFK DUH FXUUHQWO\ WKH VXEMHFW RI LQWHQVH GHEDWH EHLQJ DWWULEXWHG HLWKHU WR LQWHUDFWLRQGULYHQ HIIHFWV VXFK DV VWULSH IRUPDWLRQ > @ RU WR WKH )ULHGHO RVFLOODWLRQV > @ RI ZHDNO\ LQWHUDFWLQJ TXDVLSDUWLFOHV GXH WR GLVRUGHU 7KRVH UHVXOWV ZHUH WKHQ )RXULHU WUDQVIRUPHG )7676f WR VXFFHVVIXOO\ H[WUDFW VRPH FKDUDFWHULVWLF ZDYHYHFWRUV ZKLFK UHIOHFW NLQHPDWLFV RI TXDVLSDUWLFOHV LQ FOHDQ VDPSOHV EXW RWKHU QRQGLVSHUVLYH ZDYHYHFWRUV ZKLFK DUH QRW H[SOLFDEOH LQ WHUPV RI WKH TXDVLSDUWLFOH VFDWWHULQJ VFHQDULR ZHUH IRXQG DV ZHOO DQG SURYRNHG GLYHUVH SURSRVDOV FRQFHUQLQJ WKH JURXQG VWDWH RI FXSUDWHV %HVLGHV 670 H[SHULPHQWV DQJOHUHVROYHG SKRWRHPLVVLRQ $53(6f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a .f ZHUH UHSRUWHG H[WHQVLYHO\ > @ GHVSLWH WKH IDFW WKDW ERWK DUH JRRG KLJK WHPSHUDWXUH VXSHUFRQn GXFWRUV ZLWK ZHOOLGHQWLILHG GZDYH RUGHU SDUDPHWHUV DV ZHOO 7KHVH GLVFUHSDQFLHV ZHUH QRW VXFFHVVIXOO\ UHFRQFLOHG XQWLO LW ZDV UHDOL]HG WKDW XQOLNH <%&2 %6&&2 LV fLQWULQVLFDOO\f FRQWDPLQDWHG E\ GLVRUGHU WKURXJK WKH ZD\ LW LV SUHSDUHG WKLV ZDV JUDGXDOO\ HVWDEOLVKHG E\ WKH DFFXPXODWHG IDFWV IURP 670 DQG $53(6 H[SHUn LPHQWV 7KH FKDUJH LQKRPRJHQHLW\ LQWURGXFHG E\ GRSLQJ LV SRRUO\ VFUHHQHG E\ WKH VWDWHV LQ WKH &X SODQH DQG LQGXFHV VSDWLDOO\ VPRRWK SRWHQWLDOV IURP ZKLFK TXDVLn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fVROLG VWDWH SK\VLFV LV WKH SK\VLFV RI GLUWf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f B nF/fFN9! f N NNn ZKHUH FA FM DUH WKH FUHDWLRQ DQG DQQLKLODWLRQ RSHUDWRUV RI SDUWLFOHV UHVSHFWLYHO\ 7KH ILUVW WHUP LQ (TQ GHVFULEHV WKH VLQJOH SDUWLFOH GLVSHUVLRQ RI WKH QRQn LQWHUDFWLQJ JURXQG VWDWH DQG WKH ODWWHU GHQRWHV WKH RQVLWH HQHUJ\ FKDQJH GXH WR WKH SHUWXUEDWLRQ 7KH VLQJOH LPSXULW\ LV DVVXPHG WR EH ORFDWHG DW 5 f 7KH PAGE 28 ! Â )LJXUH 'LDJUDPPDWLF UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ IRU WKH VFDWWHULQJ SURFHVV E\ VLQJOH LPn SXULW\ &RDUVH DUURZ IXOO *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ VROLG OLQH SXUH *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ FURVV LPSXULW\ GDVKOLQH LPSXULW\ SRWHQWLDO VLQJOH SDUWLFOH SURSDJDWRU LV GHILQHG DV rN Nnf fÂ§ 7U&N0FAf ZLWK U EHLQJ WKH LPDJLQDU\ WLPH ,Q WKH FDVH RI IUHH IHUPLRQV LW WDNHV WKH VLPSOH IRUP *rNXf >X fÂ§ HNf@fÂ§ f 7KH VLQJOH LPSXULW\ SUREOHP LV JHQHUDOO\ VROYHG E\ WKH VRFDOOHG 7PDWUL[ PHWKRG ZKLFK SURYLGHV LPPHGLDWH DFFHVV WR VSHFWUDO SURSHUWLHV >@ 7KH SHUWXUEHG *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ FDQ EH H[SUHVVHG LQ WHUPV RI WKH SXUH SURSDJDWRU DQG WKH 7PDWUL[ DV *r *r7*r f ZKHUH WKH 7PDWUL[ LV GHILQHG DV 7 9 9*7 f DQG 9 LV WKH SRWHQWLDO PDWUL[ )LJ VKRZV WKH SHUWXUEDWLYH H[SDQVLRQ RI WKH IXOO *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ LQ D JHRPHWULF VHULHV LQ 9 ,Q WKH FDVH RI LVRWURSLF SRLQWOLNH VFDWWHULQJ LH .Uf 9RÂU fÂ§ Unf 9R LV WKH LPSXULW\ VWUHQJWKf WKH 7PDWUL[ LV PRPHQWXP LQGHSHQGHQW DQG UHGXFHV WR D VLPSOH IRUP } 9R O9eN*NXf f 7KH SROHV RI 7PDWUL[ VLJQLI\ WKH IRUPDWLRQ RI QHZ TXDQWXP VWDWHV VLQFH WKH\ DUH QRW SROHV RI *R LH WKH HLJHQVWDWHV RI WKH SXUH V\VWHP 7KHUH DUH WZR NLQGV RI VWDWHV LQWURGXFHG LQ JHQHUDO DV VKRZQ LQ )LJ D GLVFUHWH UHDO ERXQG RU DQWLERXQG VWDWH ORFDWHG RXWVLGH RI WKH EDQG ZKHUH WKH LPDJLQDU\ SDUW RI *rXMf ANNXf YDQLVKHV LH ZKHUH WKH GHQVLW\ RI VWDWHV '26f LV ]HUR WKH PAGE 29 WLf QR ORZ( %6 )LJXUH 6FKHPDWLF LOOXVWUDWLRQ RI WKH ERXQG VWDWH LQ QRUPDO PHWDO /HIWVROXWLRQ WR WKH 7PDWUL[ 5LJKW WKH ERXQG VWDWH LV RQO\ ORFDWHG DW KLJK HQHUJLHV LH RXWn VLGH RI WKH EDQG ULJKW SDQHOf DQG DQ RYHUGDPSHG VWDWH LQ WKH FRQWLQXXP ZKLFK KDV D ILQLWH OLIHWLPH EHFDXVH RI LWV RYHUODSSLQJ ZLWK WKH EDFNJURXQG WKH OHIW SDQHOf $ UHDO ERXQG VWDWH LV JHQHULFDOO\ ORFDOL]HG RQ DQ DWRPLF VFDOH LI WKH LPSXULW\ SRWHQWLDO LV RI VKRUW UDQJH /RFDO 'HQVLW\ RI 6WDWHV )ULHGHO 2VFLOODWLRQV DQG 5LSSOHV LQ WKH )HUPL 6HD $SDUW IURP WKH GHWHUPLQDWLRQ RI ERXQG VWDWH HQHUJLHV WKH FRUUHFWLRQ WR WKH ORFDO GHQVLW\ RI VWDWHV GXH WR WKH LPSXULW\ LV LQWHUHVWLQJ DV ZHOO 7KH LQWURGXFWLRQ RI WKH LPSHUIHFWLRQ GRHV EUHDN WKH VWLOOQHVV RI WKH GHJHQHUDWH )HUPL VHD LQGXFLQJ fULSSOHVf LQ WKH VSDFH UHIHUUHG WR DV WKH )ULHGHO RVFLOODWLRQV 7KH FKDQJH RI /'26 LQ WKH ERXQG VWDWH LV 1UXLf 9n_*UZf_XZf f ,Q D WZRGLPHQVLRQDO VSDFH WKH UHDO VSDFH *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ LV HYDOXDWHG DV f ZKHUH cL LV WKH FKHPLFDO SRWHQWLDO DQG NS LV WKH )HUPL PRPHQWXP :KHQ NXffU LV ODUJH WKH *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ KDV WKH IROORZLQJ DV\PSWRWLF IRUP *rUXf a LO9f>fÂ§-/O990ffr NXffU f 7KH /'26 IDOOV RII IURP WKH LPSXULW\ ZLWK DQ HQYHORSH RI ONSUf DQG RVFLOODWHV ZLWK D SHULRG RI WKH LQYHUVH RI WKH )HUPL YHFWRU PAGE 30 )LJXUH /'26 PRGLILFDWLRQ GXH WR VLQJOH LPSXULW\ LQ PHWDOV 5LJKW LPDJH RQ WKH VXUIDFH RI $J >@ OHIW WKHRUHWLFDO FDOFXODWLRQ RI /'26 DURXQG D VLQJOH LPSXULW\ LQ D WZRGLPHQVLRQDO PHWDO ,Q )LJ WKH WKHRUHWLFDO SUHGLFWLRQ RQ WKH GLVWULEXWLRQ RI /'26 DURXQG DQ UHSXOVLYH LPSXULW\ ULJKW SDQHOf DW ]HUR HQHUJ\ LQ D WZR GLPHQVLRQDO VTXDUH ODWWLFH LV VKRZQ 7KH IRXUIROG V\PPHWU\ RI /'26 LV WKH VLJQDWXUH RI WKH XQGHUOLQJ ODWWLFH V\PPHWU\ ,Q WKH OHIW SDQHO WKH )RXULHU FRPSRQHQW RI /'26 REWDLQHG IURP WKH H[SHULPHQW SHUIRUPHG E\ &URPPLH HW DO>@ RQ WKH VXUIDFH RI $Jf ZKLFK LV GHILQHG DV STZf A9TUSUZf f U LV SORWWHG WKH UDGLXV RI WKH EULJKW IHDWXUH LQ WKH )7676 VSHFWURVFRS\ LV NS *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ IRU %&6 6XSHUFRQGXFWRUV ,Q WKH FRQYHQWLRQDO %&6 WKHRU\ WKH JURXQG VWDWH RI VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ V\VWHPV LV D FRQGHQVDWLRQ LQ PRPHQWXP VSDFH LQ ZKLFK HOHFWURQV SDLU XS LQWR f&RRSHU SDLUVf 7KH PHDQ ILHOG KDPLOWRQLDQ IRU WKH %&6 VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ VWDWH LV f ZLWK $N 9nFNI&NMf 7KH ILUVW WHUP GHVFULEHV WKH PRWLRQ RI IUHH EDQG HOHFWURQV DQG WKH VHFRQG WHUP GHVFULEH KRZ WZR HOHFWURQV SDLU XS WR IRUP WKH VXSHUFRQGXFWn LQJ RUGHU PAGE 31 ,W LV FRQYHQLHQW WR GHILQH WKH FROXPQ YHFWRU DQG LWV FRQMXJDWH DV WKH IROORZLQJ 9 FNL Q &N7FNLf f DQG ZRUN ZLWKLQ WKLV IUDPHZRUN 7KH VLQJOH SDUWLFOH *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ LV WKHQ D [ PDWUL[ *r NUf 7$LUfrf 77&N7Uf7! 77&N7UfFBNLf ? A 79F/\WUfA` U7F/NLUfFBN_! M )RU D WLPHLQYDULDQW V\VWHP ZH FDQ IXUWKHU LQWURGXFH WKH )RXULHU WUDQVIRUP f *rNLX!ff AHL7*rNUf f ZKHUH XQ LV WKH 0DWVXEDUD IUHTXHQF\ :LWK WKH JDS $r EHLQJ WKH H[DFW VHOIHQHUJ\ GXH WR WKH SKRQRQPHGLDWHG HOHFWURQHOHFWURQ LQWHUDFWLRQ WKH PHDQ ILHOG VLQJOH SDUWLFOH *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ IRU WKH FOHDQ 6& VWDWH DIWHU DQDO\WLFDO FRQWLQXDWLRQ WR WKH UHDO D[LVf LV *rNXf XMWR $IFQ HNU X!(W f ZKHUH WKH TXDVLSDUWLFOH HQHUJ\ GHILQHG DV $_ DQG 7R U U DUH WKH 3DXK PDWULFHV 7KH LPDJLQDU\ SDUW RI WKH UHDO VSDFH *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ *UYf SUXf f 7KLV VSLQ DQG SDUWLFOHKROH UHVROYHG PDWUL[ VWUXFWXUH LV FRQYHQWLRQDOO\ UHIHUUHG WR DV 1DPEX UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ PAGE 32 ZLWK WKH VSLQUHVROYHG /'26 3IUX!f fÂ§Q nLP *QU ULLf Âf MMUD!f UB,P *UU fÂ§Z fÂ§ Mf Df Ef :LWK WKH JHQHUDO SURSHUW\ RI WKH UHWDUGHG *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ ,P*X Lf fÂ§ ,P*R fÂ§ Âf f WKH /'26 PD\ DOVR EH ZULWWHQ DV 2QH ,PSXULW\ LQ DQ VZDYH 6XSHUFRQGXFWRU 1RQPDJQHWLF ,PSXULW\ 3UREOHP 7KH QRQPDJQHWLF GLVRUGHU SUREOHP LQ DQ LVRWURSLF VZDYH VXSHUFRQGXFWRU ZDV VWXGLHG E\ $QGHUVRQ >@ ,Q WKH FRQYHQWLRQDO 1DPEX QRWDWLRQ WKH KDPLOWRQLDQ ZLWK WKH SUHVHQFH RI LPSXULW\ DW 5 f LV IRUPXODWHG DV f NNn W ZKHUH 9R LV WKH VWUHQJWK RI WKH LPSXULW\ ,W ZDV SRLQWHG RXW WKDW LQ GLOXWH FRQFHQn WUDWLRQ OLPLW QRQPDJQHWLF LPSXULWLHV LQWURGXFH QHJOLJLEOH HIIHFWV RQ EXON SURSHUWLHV VXFK DV 7Ff RI LVRWURSLF VXSHUFRQGXFWRUV EHFDXVH WKH TXDVLSDUWLFOH HQHUJ\ VKRXOG EH FRQVHUYHG LQ HODVWLF VFDWWHULQJ DQG WKH PRPHQWXP WUDQVIHU RI TXDVLSDUWLFOHV LQ VFDWWHULQJ SURFHVV FDQQRW GLVUXSW WKH SKDVH FRKHUHQFH HVWDEOLVKHG LI WKH SDLUn LQJ LV LVRWURSLF LH $N $R 7KLV FRQFOXVLRQ JRHV XQGHU WKH QDPH f$QGHUVRQ 7KHRUHPf $V D WULYLDO WHVW WKH VHOIHQHUJ\ RI TXDVLSDUWLFOHV FDQ EH WUHDWHG ZLWK $EULNRVRY*RUNRY IRUPDOLVP >@ $*f \LHOGLQJ f PAGE 33 ZKHUH WQ LV WKH QRUPDO VWDWH VFDWWHULQJ UDWH ,W LV HDV\ WR VHH WKDW WKH TXDVLSDUWLFOH HODVWLF VFDWWHULQJ UDWH LV VXSSUHVVHG IURP LWV QRUPDO VWDWH YDOXH UY XSRQ WKH RSHQLQJ RI D JDS DQG LW LV ]HUR DW WKH )HUPL OHYHO UHIOHFWLQJ $QGHUVRQfV WKHRUHP 0DJQHWLF ,PSXULW\ 3UREOHP :KHQ D PDJQHWLF LPSXULW\ LV LQMHFWHG LQWR WKH VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ FRQGHQVDWH LW FRXSOHV ZLWK WKH VSLQ GHQVLW\ RI FRQGXFWLRQ HOHFWURQV E\ PHDQV RI WKH H[FKDQJH LQWHUDFWLRQ ,Q WKH FODVVLFDO OLPLW WKH LPSXULW\ WHUP LQ WKH PRPHQWXP VSDFH PD\ EH ZULWWHQ DV f NNn ZLWK -N Nnf WKH H[FKDQJH HQHUJ\ 6 WKH LPSXULW\ VSLQ DQG WKH VSLQ RSHUDWRU RI HOHFWURQV $EULVRNRY DQG *RUNRY >@ ILUVW WUHDWHG WKH PDJQHWLF LPSXULW\ LQ %RUQ DSSUR[LPDWLRQ IROORZHG E\ D WUHDWPHQW LQ WKH XQLWDU\VFDWWHULQJ OLPLW E\ PAGE 34 ZKHUH LS LV WKH GLJDPPD IXQFWLRQ 7F DQG 7t DUH WKH DFWXDO DQG GLVRUGHUIUHH WUDQVLWLRQ WHPSHUDWXUHV UHVSHFWLYHO\ DQG SF UUA7FfB LV D FRQVWDQW GHWHUPLQHG E\ WKH VHOIHQHUJ\ GXH WR PDJQHWLF LQWHUDFWLRQ ZKHUH UB N7FTnf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f UHSODFHV WKH RQVLWH &X DWRP LQ WKH FRSSHU R[LGH SODQH LW ZLOO ORVH HOHFWURQV DQG WKH UHVXOWLQJ =Q VKRXOG EHKDYH OLNH D FODVVLFDO QRQPDJQHWLF LPSXULW\ LI ZH QHJOHFW LWV TXDQWXP QDWXUHf 7KLV LV EHFDXVH WKH =LQF FDWLRQ KDV D FORVHG G VKHOO ZKLFK ZLOO JLYHV D ]HUR QHW VSLQ 6 7KH GLJDPPD IXQFWLRQ LV GHILQHG DV A[f VKUnrO 22 7n + f QQ [f [s f ZKHUH LV WKH (XOHU FRQVWDQW 7KHUH DUH DOVR RWKHU SRLQWV RI YLHZ ZKLFK DUH VXJJHVWLYH RI WKH PDJQHWLF QDWXUH RI =Q LPSXULW\ EHFDXVH PDJQHWLF PRPHQW VHQVLWLYH H[SHULPHQWV >@ UHYHDOHG WKDW =Q DWRPV DFWXDOO\ LQGXFH ORFDO PRPHQWV DQG KHQFH RQH SUREDEO\ KDV WR DOVR WDNH WKH ORFDO FRUUHODWLRQ RU G\QDPLF HIIHFW .RQGR UHVRQDQFHf LQWR FRQVLGHUDWLRQ >@ PAGE 35 $mf 2 DQJOH RQ )6 W! fÂ§A )LJXUH 6FKHPDWLF LOOXVWUDWLRQ RI WKH SDLU EUHDNLQJ HIIHFW GXH WR SRWHQWLDO VFDWn WHUV LQ D GZDYH VXSHUFRQGXFWRU +RZHYHU XQOLNH WKH FDVH RI QRQPDJQHWLF LPSXULWLHV LQ VZDYH VXSHUFRQGXFWRUV TXDVLSDUWLFOH VFDWWHULQJ GXH WR =Q LRQV LQ FXSUDWHV YLRODWHV $QGHUVRQfV WKHRUHP ZLWKRXW EUHDNLQJ WLPHUHYHUVDO V\PPHWU\ 7KH SK\VLFDO SURFHVV LV LOOXVWUDWHG LQ )LJ VFDWWHULQJ RI TXDVLSDUWLFOHV PL[HV WKH LQLWLDO DQG ILQDO VWDWHV ZLWK GLIIHUHQW PRPHQWD N WKXV PL[LQJ RUGHU SDUDPHWHUV ZLWK GLIIHUHQW SKDVHV :KHQ WKH VFDWWHULQJ LV VWURQJ HQRXJK LW PL[HV WKH VWDWHV RI FRPSOHWH RSSRVLWH VLJQV RI RUGHU SDUDPHWHUV ZLWK KLJK SUREDELOLW\ DQG VXSSUHVVHV WKH FRQGHQVDWH +RZHYHU HPSKDVL]H WKHUH WKDW WKH JDS VWUXFWXUH IRU DQ\ 7 7F LV VWLOO XQUHQRUPDOL]HG VLQFH ;@N $r DQG WKH DQJXODU VWUXFWXUH RI WKH JDS IXQFWLRQ UHPDLQV XQFKDQJHG >@ 7R LOOXVWUDWH WKH HIIHFW RI LPSXULWLHV LQ VXSHUFRQGXFWRUV ZLWK GLIIHUHQW RUGHU SDUDPHWHU V\PPHWULHV KHUHE\ WDEXODWH WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ 1DPEX FRPSRQHQWV RI VHOIHQHUJLHV LQ %RP DSSUR[LPDWLRQ LH (FXf Qc9RN!Aff LQ WKH WDEOH EHORZ 7DEOH 7KH LPDJLQDU\ SDUW RI VHOIHQHUJLHV GXH WR QRQPDJQHWLF LPSXULWLHV LQ VXSHUFRQGXFWRUV (R (L GZDYH U Bf VZDYH ZKHUH 7R LV WKH LPSXULW\ VFDWWHULQJ UDWH LQ WKH QRUPDO VWDWH ZLWK *L WR fÂ§ (WRf DQG $N $N (S 7KH V\PERO ff GHQRWHV DQJOH DYHUDJLQJ DURXQG WKH )HUPL VXUIDFH PAGE 36 *DV 0RGHO &LUFXODU )HUPL 6XUIDFH DQG 3DUDEROLF %DQG 7KH VLQJOH LPSXULW\ LV DQDO\WLFDOO\ VROYDEOH LQ D GZDYH VXSHUFRQGXFWRU ZLWK D FLUFXODU )HUPL VXUIDFH DQG D SODQDU FRQWLQXXP IRUP RI WKH JDS IXQFWLRQ LH $Â $RFRV!f :LWK WKH 7PDWUL[ IRUPDOLVP LQWURGXFHG LQ 6HF DQG WKH %&6 IRUPDOLVP RI WKH *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ WKH IXOO *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ FDQ EH FRQVWUXFWHG DV *NNnRf *NfNN *rNLXf79f*rNnDf f :KLOH LWV RIIGLDJRQDO FRPSRQHQW YDQLVKHV EHFDXVH Â9 WKH 7PDWUL[ UHGXFHV WR WKH VLPSOH IRUP I 7WR 77 7R YJ66Bf 7 WIFtf66f t f N f ZKHUH OQ19Rf F LV WKH FRWDQJHQW RI WKH VZDYH VFDWWHULQJ SKDVH VKLIW UR DQG 1R LV WKH GHQVLW\ RI VWDWHV DW WKH )HUPL OHYHO 4 LV WKH PRPHQWXP LQWHJUDWHG *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ 7KLV H[SUHVVLRQ KDV UHVRQDQFHV ZKHQ 6s 9* 7 6Rf f ,Q WKH VSHFLDO FDVH RI D SDUWLFOH KROH V\PPHWULF V\VWHP 4 DQG WKH UHVRQDQFHV DUH HQWLUHO\ GRPLQDWHG E\ 6RXf ,Q WKH XQLWDU\ OLPLW LH Uf fÂ§r W WKLV LV HTXDO WRH f WKH UHVRQDQFH HQHUJ\ T DQG VFDWWHULQJ UDWH 9 DUH sUF$R RJUFf 7F$T RJ7Ff Df U Ef PAGE 37 7KHVH UHVXOWV ZHUH ILUVW REWDLQHG E\ %DODWVN\ HW DO >@ &OHDUO\ WKH WZR V\PPHWn ULF UHVRQDQFHV DUH WKH VLJQDWXUH RI HOHFWURQKROH GXDOLW\ QDWXUH RI %&6 TXDVLSDUn WLFOHV IXUWKHUPRUH WKHUH LV D ILQLWH GDPSLQJ UDWH IRU WKRVH UHVRQDQFHV VLQFH WKH\ HPHUJH IURP D FRQWLQXXP EDFNJURXQG QDPHO\ SXMf A +RZHYHU D VDOLHQW IHDWXUH RI WKRVH UHVRQDQFHV VKRXOG EH SRLQWHG RXW ZKHQ F fÂ§ WKH UHVRQDQFHV ZLOO EH WXQHG WRZDUGV WR WKH )HUPL OHYHO DQG WKH GDPSLQJ UDWH GLPLQLVKHV VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ LH WKH UHVRQDQW VWDWHV EHFRPH fPDUJLQDOO\f ERXQG 7KHVH QILGJDS VWDWHV DUH JHQHUDOO\ UHIHUUHG DV YLUWXDO ERXQG VWDWHV EHFDXVH RI WKHLU DV\PSWRWLF EHKDYLRU GHVFULEHG DERYH ZKLFK FDQ EH DWWULEXWHG WR WKH OLQHDUO\YDQLVKLQJ '26 SXf a FMf DW ORZ HQHUJLHV 7KH VSDWLDO GLVWULEXWLRQ RI WKH LPSXULW\ LQGXFHG VWDWHV FRQYH\V DGGLWLRQDO LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKH QDWXUH RI +76 DQG FDQ EH PHDVXUHG GLUHFWO\ E\ 670 H[SHULPHQWV 7KH WKHRU\ DQWLFLSDWHV WKDW WKH /'26 VSUHDGV LQ DQ DQLVRWURSLF PDQQHU > @ LW GHFD\V DV WKH LQYHUVH VHFRQG SRZHU RI WKH GLVWDQFH IURP LPSXULW\ DORQJ WKH QRGHV RI WKH JDS DQG H[SRQHQWLDOO\ LQ WKH YLFLQLW\ RI WKH H[WUHPD RI WKH JDS DQG WKH GHFD\ OHQJWK RI WKH ODWWHU LV FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ eR YSK$R 7KH VSDWLDO SDWWHUQV RI WKHVH fQDWLYHf GHIHFWV >@ DJUHH ZLWK WKH QDLYH WKHRU\ WR WKH H[WHQW WKDW WKH REVHUYDQFH RI D EULJKW VSRW RI WKH GLDPHWHU RI QP ZLWK S Uf GHFD\LQJ V U IRU U eR LH WKH )ULHGHO RVFLOODWLRQV DW WKH SHULSKHU\ RI WKH FHQWUDO EULJKW LPDJH DV LOOXVWUDWHG LQ )LJ 7KH FRKHUHQFH OHQJWK H[WUDFWHG IURP WKH VL]H RI WKH DWRPLF UHVRQDQFH LV DURXQG $ 7KLV DJDLQ FRLQFLGHG ZLWK WKH eR NQRZQ IRU %A6A&D&A2J EHLQJ D FRQYLQFn LQJ HYLGHQFH IRU WKH TXDVLSDUWLFOH VFDWWHULQJ VFHQDULR +RZHYHU WKH DQLVRWURSLF FRQn ILJXUDWLRQ RI /'26 GLVWULEXWLRQ ZLWKLQ D GLVWDQFH RI eR IURP WKH LPSXULW\ QDPHO\ WKH VWUXFWXUH LQVLGH WKH EULJKW VSRWV ZDV QRW GLVFHUQLEOH GXH WR WKH SRRU VSDWLDO UHVROXWLRQ /DWHU LPSURYHPHQW LQ 670 \LHOGHG GLIIHUHQWLDO FRQGXFWDQFH PDS ZLWK VXEDWRPLF GHWDLOV DQG WKH ILQH VWUXFWXUH RI /'26 DURXQG LPSXULWLHV ZHUH REWDLQHG HYHQWXDOO\ ZKLFK LQYRNHG DQRWKHU TXDUUHOV XSRQ WKH WXQQHOOLQJ PHFKDQLVP DQG WKH QDWXUH RI LPSXULW\ LWVHOI PAGE 38 r R R F Fr F 'LVWDQFH IURP VFDWWHULQJ FHQWHU QPf )LJXUH 7KH IDOORII RI /'26 DURXQG D QDWLYH GHIHFW 7R VWXG\ WKH VSDWLDO PRGXODWLRQ RI /'26 ZH QHHG WKH H[SOLFLW IRUP RI WKH *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ 7KHVH KDYH EHHQ ZRUNHG RXW E\ -R\QW DQG %DODWVN\ LQ VRPH VSHFLDO FDVHV > @ DOVR HYDOXDWHG WKH *UHHQV IXQFWLRQ ZKHQ IRU WKH VLWXDWLRQ X$ ONSU ONSA4 7KH UHVXOWV DUH WDEXODWHG DV IROORZV IRU IXWXUH DGRSWLRQ *r5Xf f /DWWLFH 0RGHO 6WURQJ VFDWWHUV DQG 8QLWDU\ /LPLW 7KH FRSSHUR[LGH SODQH RI FXSUDWHV PDWHULDOV FRQVLVWV RQH &X DWRP DQG WZR R[\JHQ DWRPV LQ RQH XQLW FHOO $ VTXDUH ODWWLFH ZLWK FRSSHU DWRPV RQ WKH FRPPHQVXUDWH VLWHV LV WKH VLPSOHVW UHDVRQDEOH PRGHO IRU SUDFWLFDO FRPSXWDWLRQV :KLOH WKH UHDOVSDFH FRPSRQHQWV RI WKH *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQV DUH DQDO\WLFDOO\ XQREWDLQDEOH LQ WKH 6& VWDWH KHUHE\ SUHVHQW WKH QXPHULFV IRU ERWK D VLPSOH WLJKW ELQGLQJ PRGHO HN fÂ§WFRVN[ FRV N\f fÂ§ L DQG D UHDOLVWLF SDUDPHWHU WLJKWELQGLQJ PRGHO SURSRVHG E\ 1RUPDQ HW DO >@ ERWK KDYLQJ WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ GZDYH RUGHU SDUDPHWHU $N $RFRV N[ fÂ§ FRV N\f 1RWH WKH PD[LPXP YDOXH RI WKH RUGHU SDUDPHWHU LQ WKH KDOIILOOHG ODWWLFH V\VWHP ZLWK WKH FXUUHQW FRQYHQWLRQ LV $ PAGE 39 )LJXUH 2QVLWH DQG 11 VLWH VSHFWUD IRU WLJKW ELQGLQJ EDQG ZLWK RQH LPSXULW\ )LJ VKRZV WKH UHVXOWV IRU WKH QHDUHVW QHLJKERU WLJKW ELQGLQJ PRGHO 7KH LPSXULW\ SRWHQWLDO LV WDNHQ WR EH 9R fÂ§ ÂL ZKLFK JHQHUDWHV WZR UHVRQDQFHV DW 4r seL a sPHY XVLQJ WKH 1RUPDQ EDQG FKRVHQ WR UHSURGXFH WKH REVHUYHG UHVRQDQFH HQHUJ\ RI =Q 7KH /'26 RQ WKH LPSXULW\ VLWH DQG LWV QHLJKERU VLWH DUH SORWWHG 1RWH WKDW WKH ZHLJKW LV DOPRVW H[FOXGHG IURP WKH LPSXULW\ VLWH GXH WR WKH VWURQJ SRWHQWLDO DQG WKH SHDN DW 4 fÂ§ÂL FDSWXUHV WKH HVVHQFH RI UHVRQDQW SK\VLFV %HFDXVH WKH RIIGLDJRQDO FRPSRQHQWV RI WKH LQWHJUDWHG *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ YDQLVK LH *LU Xf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f 7KH VXP UXOH LV YHULILHG E\ WKH H[FHVVLYH ZHLJKW WUDSSHG DW KLJK HQHUJ\ UHJLPH LH WKH UHDO ERXQG RU DQWLERXQG VWDWHV +RZHYHUZH IRFXV RQ WKH ORZ HQHUJ\ ERXQG VWDWHV ZLWKLQ WKH JDS PAGE 40 HQYHORSH DORQJ WKH DQWLQRGDO GLUHFWLRQ DQG D SRZHU ODZ GHFD\ DORQJ WKH JDS QRGHV $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH DOLJQPHQW RI /'26 DURXQG WKH VFDWWHUV VKRZV D IRXUIROG V\PPHWU\ 0DJQHWLF ,PSXULW\ 8QOLNH WKH QRQPDJQHWLF LPSXULWLHV HYHQ IRU D VZDYH VXSHUFRQGXFWRU PDJn QHWLF LPSXULWLHV DUH SDLUEUHDNLQJ VLQFH WKH\ YLRODWH WLPHUHYHUVDO V\PPHWU\ OLIW WKH .UDPHUV GHJHQHUDF\ RI WKH TXDVLSDUWLFOH VWDWHV DQG KHQFH LQWURGXFH LQWUDJDS ERXQG VWDWHV :KLOH WKH WKHRUHWLFDO H[SHFWDWLRQ IRU D PDJQHWLF LPSXULW\ LQ D VZDYH VXSHUFRQGXFWRU IRU H[DPSOH 1Ef KDV EHHQ H[SHULPHQWDOO\ YHULILHG E\ PAGE 41 )LJXUH &RQGXFWDQFH VSHFWUD DERYH WKH 1L DWRP DQG DW VHYHUDO QHDUE\ ORFDn WLRQV 6ROLG FLUFOH RQVLWH RSHQ FLUFOH 11VLWH VTXDUH 11VLWH WULDQJOH $ DZD\ IURP 1L VROLG OLQH DYHUDJH RI WKH ILUVW IRXU VSHFWUD PAGE 42 )LJXUH /HIW WKH VFKHPDWLF SORW RI &2 SODQH PLGGOH H[SHULPHQWDO /'26 DURXQG =Q LPSXULW\ ULJKW WKHRUHWLFDOO\ SUHGLFWHG /'26 IRU 9R URWDWHG E\ r ZLWK UHVSHFW WR Df DQG Eff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f >@ ,16 LQHODVWLF QHXWURQ VFDWWHULQJf H[KLELW DSSUHFLDEOH GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ =Q DQG 1LGRSHG VDPSOHV 2Q RQH KDQG WKH VWDQGDUG $EULNRVRY*RUNRY IRUPDOLVP SUHGLFWV WKDW 7F LV RQO\ VXSSUHVVHG DERXW b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n WLDO LWVHOI LV D PDWWHU RI FRQWURYHUV\ ,W ZDV ILUVW FODLPHG WKDW DFFRUGLQJ WR +XGVRQ PAGE 43 HW DO =Q DWRPV DUH DWWUDFWLYH SRWHQWLDOV IRU HOHFWURQV VLQFH fWKH RQVLWH LPSXULW\ VLWHf VSHFWUXP RQO\ KDV RQH SHDN DW WKH QHJDWLYH VDPSOH ELDV DURXQG ILR fÂ§ PH9 s PH9 f >@ +RZHYHU WKHRUHWLFDO FDOFXODWLRQV SUHGLFW WKDW DQ DWWUDFn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f EXW URWDWHG E\ r GHJUHHV ZLWK UHVSHFW WKH ILUVW WZR SDQHOV 6WURQJ SRWHQWLDOV VFDWWHUHUV DUH H[SHFWHG WR H[FOXGH ZHLJKW VLJQLILFDQWO\ IURP WKH LPSXULW\ VLWH DQG SURGXFH DQ RQVLWH /'26 PLQLPD ZLWK D UHODWLYHO\ EULJKW VSRWV RQ WKH QH[W QHDUHVW QHLJKERU VLWHV DV LOOXVWUDWHG E\ WKH ULJKW SDQHO LQ )LJ ZKHUHDV WKH H[SHULPHQWV REVHUYH FRPSOHWHO\ UHYHUVHG SDWWHUQV ZLWK D ORFDO PD[LPD RQ WKH LPSXULW\ VLWH DQG GDUNHU VSRWV RQ WKH 11 VLWHV WKH PLGGOH FKDQQHOf &RPSDULVRQ EHWZHHQ WKH PLGGOH DQG ULJKW SDQHOV HOXFLGDWHV WKHVH GLVFUHSDQFLHV FOHDUO\ ,V =Q D UHSXOVLYH RU DWWUDFWLYH SRWHQWLDO LQ %6&&2" $ KDQGZDYLQJ DUJXPHQW FDQ EH JLYHQ E\ FRQVLGHULQJ WKH DWRPLF FRQILJXUDWLRQV RI =Q DQG &X DWRPV $IWHU ORVLQJ WZR HOHFWURQV WKH HQHUJ\ RI WKH FORVHG G VKHOO RI =Q VKRXOG EH D SULRUL IDU EHORZ WKH )HUPL OHYHO DV GHULYHG IURP WKH WDEXODWHG LRQL]DWLRQ HQHUJLHV 7DEOH f RI &RSSHU DQG =LQF DWRPV VLQFH WKH HQHUJ\ WR FUHDWH D &X LV OHVV WKDQ WKDW UHTXLUHG WR FUHDWH =Q ,W LV WKHQ VSHFXODWHG WKDW =Q DWRPV VKRXOG EH DWWUDFWLYH SRWHQWLDOV UHODWLYH WR EDFNJURXQG &X LRQV ZLWK VWUHQJWK RI DSSUR[LPDWHO\ HY PAGE 44 7DEOH 7KH LRQL]DWLRQ HQHUJ\ RI &RSSHU DQG =LQF DWRPV &X =Q $WRPLF FRQILJXUDWLRQ Â‘LGODVnÂ ILUVW LRQL]DWLRQ HQHUJ\H9f VHFRQG LRQL]DWLRQ HQHUJ\H9f WKLUG LRQL]DWLRQ HQHUJ\H9f +RZHYHU FDOFXODWLRQV EDVHG RQ WKH FULWHULRQ IRU XQLWDULW\ LQ WKH UHDOLVWLF EDQG VWUXFWXUH RI %6&&2 >@ \LHOG DQ RSSRVLWH UHVXOW ,W KDV EHHQ ZHOO HVWDEOLVKHG E\ H[SHULPHQWV WKDW =Q DWRPV DUH LQGHHG KDUGFRUH XQLWDU\ VFDWWHUV IRU H[DPSOH WKH SKDVH VKLIW H[WUDFWHG IURP WKH 670 GDWD RI = LPSXULW\ >@ LV 7 FORVH WR W LH XQLWDU\ OLPLW 2QH FDQ DOVR SHUIRUP FRPSXWDWLRQV RQ WKH SKDVH VKLIW ZLWK WKH FRQYHQWLRQDO 7UQDWUL[ IDVKLRQ ,P GHW 7 9XLf WDQ Â‘ f 5H GHW7 ,W LV IRXQG WKDW RQO\ D UHSXOVLYH SRWHQWLDO FDQ SRVVLEO\ DSSURDFK WR WKLV OLPLW ,Q )LJ VKRZ WKH UHVRQDQFH HQHUJ\ DV D IXQFWLRQ RI WKH LPSXULW\ SRWHQWLDO DV WKH UHVRQDQFH HQHUJ\ LV GHILQHG WR EH WKH SRVLWLRQ RI WKH ORFDO PD[LPD LQ WKH RQVLWH WKH LPSXULW\ VLWHf VSHFWUXP ,W LV FOHDU WKDW WR GULYH WKH UHVRQDQW IUHTXHQF\ WRZDUGV WR WKH )HUPL OHYHO D UHSXOVLYH SRWHQWLDO ZLWK 9R a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fILOWHU HIIHFWf 7KH =Q LPSXULW\ LV WKHQ LGHQWLILHG DV DQ DWWUDFWLYH VFDWWHU VLQFH LW LV WKH ffILOWHU HIIHFWf WKDW DOORZV XV WR REVHUYH D SURQRXQFHG RQVLWH SHDN DW QHJDWLYH HQHUJ\ DQ DWWUDFWLYH SRWHQWLDO LV H[SHFWHG WR \LHOG D SHDN RQ WKH SRVLWLYH VDPSOH ELDVf +RZHYHU LW GRHVQf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f ZKLFK LV EHOLHYHG WR GRPLQDWH WKH WUDQVSRUW SURSHUWLHV VXFK DV PLFURZDYH FRQGXFWLYLW\ 7KH PDQ\LPSXULW\ SUREOHP KDV EHHQ WUHDWHG ZLWK QXPHURXV PHWKRGV LQFOXGLQJ WKH VHOIFRQVLVWHQW 7PDWUL[ DSSUR[LPDWLRQ 6&70$f > @ H[DFW GLDJRQDOL]DWLRQ RI %RJROLXERY 'H*HQQHV HTXDWLRQV %'*f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r5f7P? ? I7P*r5f7H `7P f ZKHUH 5 5Â fÂ§ 5 DQG ZKHUH 7W 7P DUH WKH VLQJOH LPSXULW\ 7PDWULFHV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH WZR LPSXULWLHV )RU LGHQWLFDO LPSXULWLHV 7W 7P 7LQf WKH VLQJOH LPSXULW\ 7PDWUL[ GHILQHG SUHYLRXVO\ 7KH TXDQWLW\ LV GHILQHG DV 0 > *rfÂ§5 LQfIDLf*r5LQfInPDMf@B f ZKHUH *r5 OMf H[3>nN f LV MXVW WKH )RXULHU WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ RI ef WKH XQSHUWXUEHG 1DPEX *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ )RU V\VWHPV ZLWK LQYHUVLRQ V\PPHWU\ *r5ÂMf *rfÂ§5XMf 1RWH WKDW LQ (TQ WKH SK\VLFDO SURFHVVHV DUH FOHDUO\ LGHQWLILDEOH DV PXOWLSOH VFDWWHULQJV IURP HDFK LPSXULW\ W DQG P LQGLYLGXDOO\ SOXV LQWHUIHUHQFH WHUPV ZKHUH HOHFWURQV VFDWWHU PDQ\ WLPHV EHWZHHQ Â DQG P ,Q NVSDFH ZH FDQ ZULWH WKH 7PDWUL[ LQ WKH PRUH XVXDO [ QRWDWLRQ DV 7NNn0 >HLN5nUR HLN5f7@IWP SLNn5L 7R f ZKHUH 7R LV WKH 3DXOL PDWUL[ 3URYLGHG WKH UHVRQDQFH HQHUJLHV DUH GLVWLQFW SHDNV LQ WKH WRWDO GHQVLW\ RI VWDWHV FRUUHVSRQG WR PLQLPD RI WKH 7PDWUL[ GHQRPLQDWRU 9 GHW>O *r5MfI Xf*r5Xf9f@ f PAGE 48 ([SOLFLWO\ 9 9[9L^6?6ABf ZLWK 9 9I9U 9*5XMf 9 99 9I*ÂL 5Zf f ZKHUH >O9*Zfs9n*RZf@ f9nR>W*5Xf *5R!f@ f 7KH IDFWRUV 9? 9fÂ GHWHUPLQH WKH IRXU LPSXULW\ UHVRQDQW HQHUJLHV +HUH *D5 Xf LV WKH UD FRPSRQHQW RI WKH LQWHJUDWHG EDUH *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ f ,Q FHUWDLQ VSHFLDO FRQILJXUDWLRQV HJ LI WKH WZR LPSXULWLHV DUH ORFDWHG DW r ZLWK UHVSHFW WR RQH RWKHU LW LV HDV\ WR FKHFN WKDW WKH RIIGLDJRQDO *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ *L5 Xf 9 5 ,Q WKLV FDVH WKH HQWLUH UHVRQDQW GHQRPLQDWRU IDFWRUL]HV ;!L;!LB;!;! 7KH 7PDWUL[ WKHQ WDNHV WKH VLPSOH GLDJRQDO IRUP INYXf 9nFRVN fFRVNn Â‘ \f A 9fVLQNIf6LQNnIf>MJ A f ZKHUH Us U s Uf :KHQ WZR LGHQWLFDO LPSXULWLHV ZLWK UHVRQDQFH HQHUJLHV +T 2T DUH EURXJKW WRJHWKHU WKH ERXQG VWDWH ZDYHIXQFWLRQV LQWHUIHUH ZLWK RQH DQRWKHU LQ JHQHUDO VSOLWn WLQJ DQG VKLIWLQJ HDFK UHVRQDQFH OHDGLQJ WR IRXU UHVRQDQW IUHTXHQFLHV ÂÂ 2 DQG ZKHUH WKH VXEVFULSW LQGLFDWHV ZKLFK IDFWRU LQ (TQ LV UHVRQDQW ,I PAGE 49 VSOLWWLQJV DUH QRW WRR ODUJH WKH HOHFWURQ DQG KROH UHVRQDQFHV DUH UHODWHG LQ D VLPn LODU ZD\ DV LQ WKH LPSXULW\ SUREOHP a fÂ§ DQG a f $JDLQ WKH ZHLJKW RI HDFK UHVRQDQFH PD\ EH TXLWH GLIIHUHQW RU HYHQ ]HUR RQ DQ\ JLYHQ VLWH $ ODUJH VSOLWWLQJ PD\ EH WDNHQ DV HYLGHQFH IRU VWURQJ K\EULGL]DWLRQ RI TXDVLSDUWLFOH ZDYHIXQFWLRQV ,I ZH WDNH WKH LQWHULPSXULW\ GLVWDQFH 5 DV D SDUDPHWHU DQG NHHS LPSXULW\ SRWHQWLDOV DQG RWKHU SDUDPHWHUV IL[HG WKHUH DUH WZR REYLRXV OLPLWV ZKHUH WKLV VSOLWWLQJ YDQLVKHV ,Q WKH FDVH RI VHSDUDWLRQ 5 WKH WZR LPSXULWLHV FRPELQH PDWKHPDWLFDOO\f WR FUHDWH D VLQJOH LPSXULW\ RI VWUHQJWK 9R VR ERWK 4I DSSURDFK WKH ÂT 9Ef DSSURSULDWH IRU WKH GRXEOH VWUHQJWK SRWHQWLDO ,Q WKH FDVH RI LQILQLWH VHSDUDWLRQ 5 fÂ§} RR ZH PXVW ILQG 4_ DSSURDFKLQJ WKH IOR9Rf DSSURSULDWH IRU LVRODWHG VLQJOH LPSXULWLHV 7R LOOXVWUDWH WKLV DUJXPHQW H[SOLFLWO\ ZLOO SUHVHQW ERWK WKH DQDO\WLFDO FDOFXODWLRQ ZLWK D JDV PRGHO DQG QXPHULFDO UHVXOWV RQ D WLJKW ELQGLQJ ODWWLFH PRGHO 5HVRQDQFH )UHTXHQFLHV *DV 0RGHO (TQ LV D JHQHUDO UHVXOW IRU WZR ÂIXQFWLRQ SRWHQWLDOV HPEHGGHG LQ D KRVW GHVFULEHG E\ DQ DUELWUDU\ *r :H ZRXOG OLNH WR GHULYH DQDO\WLFDO UHVXOWV IRU WKH UHVRQDQFH HQHUJLHV REWDLQHG WKHUHIURP WR JHW VRPH VHQVH RI WKH DSSURSULDWH OHQJWK VFDOHV DQG V\PPHWULHV LQ WKH SUREOHP $W ODUJH GLVWDQFHV WKH UHVRQDQFH HQHUJLHV PXVW DSSURDFK WKH VLQJOH LPSXULW\ YDOXHV VR WKH VSOLWWLQJV FDQ EH FDOn FXODWHG SHUWXUEDWLYHO\ 7R GR VR RQH PXVW ILUVW REWDLQ DQDO\WLFDO H[SUHVVLRQV IRU WKH ODUJHGLVWDQFH EHKDYLRU RI WKH XQSHUWXUEHG *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQV 7KLV LV GLIILFXOW IRU WKH VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ ODWWLFH WLJKWELQGLQJ PRGHO RQ ZKLFK PRVW RI WKLV ZRUN LV EDVHG EXW PXFK LQVLJKW FDQ EH JDLQHG E\ VWXG\LQJ WKH HTXLYDOHQW JDV PRGHO ZLWK VSHFWUXP HN NP ,Q WKLV FDVH H[SUHVVLRQV KDYH EHHQ REWDLQHG E\ -R\QW DQG %DODWVN\ HW DO > @ IRU WKH GZDYH LQWHJUDWHG *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQV 45X f DW ODUJH GLVWDQFHV ERWK IRU 5 PDNLQJ DQ DQJOH r RU r ZLWK WKH [ D[LV :H KDYH HYDOXDWHG WKH UHDO VSDFH *UHHQV IXQFWLRQ LQ WKH ODVW FKDSWHU IRU WKH UDQJH RI IUHn TXHQFLHV X$ & ONSU $IeR :LWK WKHVH H[SUHVVLRQV WKH UHVRQDQFH HQHUJLHV PAGE 50 PD\ QRZ EH IRXQG E\ LQVHUWLQJ WKHVH H[SUHVVLRQV IRU IUHTXHQFLHV T LQWR f DQG VROYLQJ IRU WKH VKLIWV G :H ILQG A fÂ§ L ZLWK f 5 __ f VLQLSIL NSeR ORJLf$Pff N)5 Q+fNM ZNQf&2V0 Uf 5 __ f 7KHVH H[SUHVVLRQV DUH YDOLG IRU Â£IM & &OHDUO\ WKH GHFD\ RI WKH VSOLWWLQJ a H[SfÂ§UADf9A)U LV PXFK PRUH UDSLG IRU GLVWDQFHV ODUJHU WKDQ WKH FRKHUHQFH OHQJWK DORQJ WKH DQWLQRGH f WKDQ IRU DORQJ WKH QRGHV ZKHUH LW IDOOV DV a U 7KLV DQLVRWURSLF IRUP RI WKH VSOLWWLQJ LV WKH VLJQDWXUH RI WKH PDUJLQDO ERXQG QHDUO\ ORFDOL]HGf VLQJOH LPSXULW\ VWDWH LQ D GZDYH VXSHUFRQGXFWRU ZKLFK E\ DOORZLQJ SURSDJDWLQJ ORZHQHUJ\ QRGDO TXDVLSDUWLFOHV KDV H[WHQGHG WDLOV DORQJ WKH JDS QRGHV ,W LV WKH ODFN RI D VFDOH DORQJ WKLV SDUWLFXODU GLUHFWLRQ LQ WKH LPSXULW\ ZDYHIXQFWLRQV WKDW DOORZV WKH VWURQJ RYHUODSSLQJ HYHQ RYHU ORQJGLVWDQFHV :H ZLOO VHH ODWHU WKDW KRZ WKLV DWWULEXWH DQG LWV FRQVHTXHQFH TXHVWLRQV WKH 670 DQDO\VLV RI fLVRODWHGf LPSXULW\ SDWWHUQV /DWWLFH 0RGHO ,Q WKH IROORZLQJ VHFWLRQV ZLOO EULHIO\ VXP XS WKH QXPHULFDO UHVXOWV RQ WZR W\SHV RI ODWWLFH EDQG VWUXFWXUH WKH QHDUHVW QHLJKERU KRSSLQJ PRGHO S SXUH QHVWHG EDQGf DQG WKH VLWH WLJKW ELQGLQJ EDQG >@ ZLWK $N $RFRV N[ fÂ§ FRVN\f $ 2OI DQG LPSXULW\ VWUHQJWK 9R O2W IRU WKH IRUPHU EDQG DQG 9R I IRU WKH ODWWHU 7KH VROXWLRQV RI UHVRQDQW IUHTXHQF\ FRUUHVSRQGLQJ WR HDFK IDFWRU LQ (TQ FDQ EH WUDFNHG DV D IXQFWLRQ RI VHSDUDWLRQ ,W E\ PLQLPL]LQJ ;!> L VHSDUDWHO\ ,Q )LJ VKRZ WKH UHVXOW IRU WKH SXUH QHVWHG EDQG WKH SHQWDJRQV DQG RSHQ FLUFOHV LGHQWLI\ GLIIHUHQW EUDQFKHV RI WKH VSOLWWLQJ UHVRQDQFH IUHTXHQFLHV WKH OHIW SDQHO LOOXVWUDWHV WKH UHVXOW RI 5 __ f LQWHULPSXULW\ VHSDUDWLRQ DQG WKH ULJKW SDQHO WKH 5 __ f FDVH ,W LV VHHQ WKDW HDFK IDFWRU 7!D FRUUHVSRQGV WR DQ RVFLOODWLQJ IXQFWLRQ RI 5 ZLWK WKH IDFWRU GHWHUPLQLQJ HJ LO FKDQJLQJ IURP VLWH WR VLWH DFFRUGLQJ WR ZKHWKHU WKH VLWH LV HYHQ RU RGG 7KLV LV GXH WR WKH VWURQJ 5 PAGE 51 GHSHQGHQFH RI WKH FRPSRQHQWV D LQ WKH VLPSOHVW FDVH 5 __ f DQG *5Xf *L5Xf EXW *R5X!f eN FRVN[59fFRVN\5\f*OXf RVFLOODWHV UDSLGO\ $W 5 WKH SUREOHP UHGXFHV WR WKH GRXEOHVWUHQJWK VLQJOH LPSXULW\ FDVH WKH IDFWRU 9? JLYHV WKH UHVRQDQW IUHTXHQF\ ÂÂT 9Ef DQG WKH IDFWRU 9 LV $W ODUJH VHSDUDWLRQ WKH DQG LOM fHQYHORSHVf DUH VHHQ WR FRQYHUJH WR LOR 9Rf ZLWK D OHQJWK VFDOH RI D IHZ eR fÂ§ D IRU WKH SDUDPHWHUV FKRVHQ ,Q WKH 5 __ f FDVH WKH RVFLOODWLRQV RI WKH ERXQG VWDWH HQHUJLHV ZLWK LQFUHDVLQJ 5 DUH QRW VR VLPSOH DV VHHQ LQ )LJ 7KH RQH REYLRXV VLPSOH GLIIHUHQFH IURP WKH f FDVH LV WKDW WKH HQHUJ\ VSOLWWLQJV YDQLVK PXFK IDVWHU ZLWK GLVWDQFH DV H[SHFWHG IURP WKH GLVFXVVLRQ LQ 6HF 2WKHUZLVH WKH VKRUW GLVWDQFH EHKDYLRU RI WKH ERXQG VWDWH HQHUJLHV LV FRPSOLFDWHG 2QH FDQ FKHFN WKDW WKH UHVRQDQW IUHTXHQF\ FORVHVW WR WKH )HUPL OHYHO LV ZKHQ 5 Q Q LQWHJHU DQG LOO RWKHUZLVH ,Q JHQHUDO VKRUW LQWHULPSXULW\ GLVWDQFH EHKDYLRU LV GLIILFXOW WR DQDO\]H DQDn O\WLFDOO\ DQG LW LV IRXQG WKDW LQ QHLWKHU WKH f RU f GLUHFWLRQ GR UHVRQDQFHV DSSHDU DW DOO IRU 5 7KH K\EULGL]DWLRQ EHWZHHQ ZDYHIXQFWLRQV LV VR VWURQJ LQ WKHVH FDVHV WKDW WKH SLFWXUH RI SHUWXUEDWLYHO\ VSOLW LPSXULW\ VWDWHV EUHDNV GRZQ 0RUH LPSRUWDQWO\ WKH VSOLWWLQJV DUH VLJQLILFDQW XS WR TXLWH ODUJH GLVWDQFHV 3DUDPn HWHUV LQ )LJ DUH FKRVHQ VXFK WKDW eR a D DV VHHQ IURP WKH ULJKW SDQHO RI )LJ ZKHUH ZH LQGHHG H[SHFW DQ Ha5Ar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f WKDW WKH FKDQJH RI /'26 GXH WR WKH VLQJOH LPSXULW\ LV f 4XLWH JHQHUDOO\ WKH *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ FDQ DOVR EH H[SUHVVHG LQ WHUPV RI WKH H[DFW HLJHQIXQFWLRQ LSfUf RI WKH V\VWHP DQG LWV FRQMXJDWH FRPSRQHQW LSrUffLQ ZLWK WKH SUHVHQFH RI WKH LPSXULW\ > @ &UfO0Uf XM f ZKHUH WKH ILQDO DSSUR[LPDWLRQ LV YDOLG IRU D WUXH ERXQG VWDWH ZLWK X YHU\ FORVH WR D SDUWLFXODU ERXQG VWDWH HQHUJ\ ILQ DQG ZLOO EH D JRRG DSSUR[LPDWLRQ LQ WKH SUHVHQW FDVH WR WKH H[WHQW WKH UHVRQDQFHV DUH ZHOO GHILQHG LQ WKH VHQVH GLVFXVVHG SUHYLRXVO\ &RPSDULQJ ZLWK WKH IRUP f DOORZV XV WR LGHQWLI\ WKH SRVLWLYH DQG QHJDWLYH HQHUJ\ ZDYHIXQFWLRQV RI WKH VLQJOHLPSXULW\ UHVRQDQFHV DVVXPLQJ 9R f X 4T 8 Ic f PAGE 53 ZKHUH =s DUH QRQUHVRQDQW ZDYH IXQFWLRQ QRUPDOL]DWLRQ IDFWRUV 1RWH WKDW WKH HOHFWURQOLNH ERXQG VWDWH HLJHQIXQFWLRQ LV GLUHFWO\ UHODWHG WR WKH RIIGLDJRQDO EDUH *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ ZKLOH WKH KROHOLNH ZDYH IXQFWLRQ LV SURSRUWLRQDO WR WKH GLDJRQDO EDUH *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ :H FDQ IROORZ WKH VDPH SURFHGXUH IRU WKH WZRLPSXULW\ *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ DQG DVN KRZ WKH HLJHQIXQFWLRQV DW D SDUWLFXODU UHVRQDQW HQHUJ\ DUH UHODWHG WR WKH VLQJOH LPSXULW\ ZDYH IXQFWLRQV ZH KDYH MXVW IRXQG 6LQFH WKH VLQJOHLPSXULW\ UHVRQDQW HQHUJLHV DUH GLIIHUHQW IURP WKH LPSXULW\ HQHUJLHV WKLV DQDO\VLV ZLOO EH YDOLG WR WKH H[WHQW WKH VSOLWWLQJV DUH VPDOO FRPSDUHG WR 4Ts 7KH *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ *U Uf FDQ QRZ EH FRQVWUXFWHG IURP (TQ DQG WKH ZDYH IXQFWLRQV UHDG RII E\ FRPSDULQJ ZLWK WKH VSHFWUDO UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ LQ WKH VDPH ZD\ DV LQ WKH LPSXULW\ FDVH %\ H[DPLQLQJ (TQ LW PD\ EH VKRZQ WKDW GHSHQGLQJ RQ ZKHWKHU 9L RU 9 LV UHVRQDQW WKH ZDYH IXQFWLRQV WKXV H[WUDFWHG ZLOO EH RI GHILQLWH VSDWLDO SDULW\ WSQUf sAfUf :H ILQG f ZKHUH *r0 *rU 5f s *rU 5f DQG WKH =fe DUH QRUPDOL]DWLRQ FRHIILFLHQWV 7KHVH DUH WKH WZRLPSXULW\ RGG Sf DQG HYHQSDULW\ Vf UHVRQDQW VWDWH HLJHQIXQFWLRQV H[SUHVVHG GLUHFWO\ DV OLQHDU FRPELQDWLRQV RI WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ RQH LPSXULW\ HLJHQIXQFWLRQV LSs JLYHQ LQ (TQ :LWK WKH DLG RI WKH H[SOLFLW IRUPV RI WKRVH ZDYHIXQFWLRQV ZH FDQ VWXG\ KRZ WKH )ULHGHO RVFLOODWLRQV LQGXFHG E\ VLQJOH LPSXULW\ LQWHUIHUH ,Q JHQHUDO LPSXULW\ ZDYHIXQFWLRQV LQFOXGH SDUWLFOH DQG KROH FRPSRQHQWV EHFDXVH RI WKH DQRPDORXV VFDWWHULQJ SURFHVVHV ZLWK DPSOLWXGH *L5f +RZHYHU LQ VRPH VSHFLDO FDVHV ZKHUH *L5f IRU H[DPSOH 5 __ f WKH PAGE 54 _9__ /'26 ,, ,, P Q Q )LJXUH 7KH ZDYHIXQFWLRQ DW UHVRQDQFH DQG FRUUHVSRQGLQJ /'26 ,PSXULWLHV DUH VHSDUDWHG E\ 5 f HLJHQIXQFWLRQ EHFRPH VLPSOHU DQG GR QRW PL[ SDUWLFOH DQG KROH GHJUHHV RI IUHHGRP *6LUmf *rX$r0 Â *}OSUXf *"LUZf 8fÂ§ ÂÂ LBB 8LOO 8fÂ§ Â 8Â,fÂ§ f f ,Q RUGHU WR LOOXVWUDWH WR ZKDW H[WHQW WKH DSSUR[LPDWHG ZDYHIXQFWLRQ LV HIIHFWLYH VKRZ WKH UHDO SDUW VW FROXPQf DQG LPDJLQDU\ SDUW QG FROXPQf RI WKRVH ZDYHIXQFWLRQV DW HQHUJLHV HTXDO WR WKH IRXU UHVRQDQW IUHTXHQFLHV LQ WKLV VHSDUDWLRQ s eO?sW sf H[SOLFLWO\ LQ )LJ 7KH GHQVLW\ SUREDELOLW\ LH _!3_ UG FROXPQf DQG WKH DFWXDO /'26 WK FORXPQf GHILQHG DV *U U Xf A*rNcXf N HLNnNnfnU*N XfNÂ/Rf*rNn Zf NNn f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fK\GURJHQ PROHFXOHf W\SH VWDWHV RQH PLJKW ILUVW LPDJLQH ZRXOG IRUP ZLWK HOHFWURQV OLYLQJ HLWKHU GLUHFWO\ EHWZHHQ LPSXULWLHV RU FRPSOHWHO\ H[SHOOHG IURP WKLV UHJLRQ 7KLV LV RI FRXUVH GXH WR WKH GZDYH FKDUDFWHU RI WKH PHGLXP LQ ZKLFK WKH TXDVLSDUWLFOHV SURSDJDWH )RU H[DPSOH WKH /'26 LV ]HUR DW WKH SRLQW KDOIZD\ EHWZHHQ WKH WZR LPSXULWLHV IRU WKH SZDYH VWDWHV EXW LW LV TXLWH VPDOO LQ WKH VZDYH VWDWHV DV ZHOO ,W LV IXUWKHUPRUH FOHDU IURP WKH ILJXUH WKDW ERWK V ERQGLQJf DQG S DQWLERQGLQJf IXQFWLRQV FDQ KDYH HLWKHU FRQVWUXFWLYH RU GHVWUXFWLYH FKDUDFWHU LQ WKH PROHFXODU VHQVH 1RWH WKDW WKH VWDWHV DUH VKRZQ DUUDQJHG YHUWLFDOO\ DFFRUGLQJ WR WKHLU HLJHQHQHUJLHV EXW UHFDOO WKDW WKH RUGHULQJ RI WKH V DQG S 9? DQG 9fÂf VWDWHV FKDQJHV DFFRUGLQJ WR ZKHWKHU 5 LV HYHQ RU RGG DV LQGLFDWHG LQ )LJ fÂ§ PAGE 56 ,Q DGGLWLRQ RQH FDQ ORRN LQWR WKH VSHFWUD RQ VRPH SDUWLFXODU VLWHV FORVH WR WKH LPSXULWLHV )LJ GLVSOD\V WKH VSHFWUD RQ VHYHUDO VLWHV ZKRVH SRVLWLRQV DUH LOOXVWUDWHG DV WKH QXPEHUV LQ WKH LQVHWV DQG WKH LPSXULWLHV SRVLWLRQV DUH 5L fÂ§f 5 f OHIWf 5 f5 f ULJKWf ,W LV VXUSULVLQJ WR REVHUYH WKDW WKHUH DUH VRPH VXUSULVLQJO\ VKDUS SHDNV ZKLFK DOZD\V KDSSHQ DW KLJK HQHUJLHV DQG DUH IDU VKDUSHU WKDQ D VLQJOHLPSXULW\ UHVRQDQFH DW WKH VDPH HQHUJ\ 7KLV LV FRXQWHULQWXLWLYH EDVHG RQ RXU NQRZOHGJH RI WKH RQHLPSXULW\ SUREOHP WKH 7PDWUL[ GHQRPLQDWRU 6s SRVVHVV DQ LPDJLQDU\ SDUW ZKLFK YDQLVKHV OLQHDUO\ ZKHQ )HUPL VXUIDFH LV DSSURDFKHG KHQFH D UHVRQDQFH ZLWK ORZHU HQHUJ\ QDLYHO\ KDV QDUURZHU ZLGWK ORQJHU OLIHWLPHf 7KLV QRYHO SHFXOLDULW\ PXVW WKHQ VWHP IURP WKH TXDQWXP LQWHUIHUHQFH HIIHFW ,QGHHG WKLV FDQ EH XQGHUVWRRG E\ H[DPLQLQJ WKH VWUXFWXUH RI WKH GHQRPLQDWRU RI 7PDWUL[ ZLWK RQH LPSXULW\ DW RULJLQ 9 GHW>9LUU *OLPSf5 5Zf@GHWIRf ZKHUH 7 LV WKH RQHLPSXULW\ 7PDWUL[ DQG *KPSf LV WKH *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ ZLWK RQH LPSXULW\ DW WKH RULJLQ 7KXV VKDUS WZRLPSXULW\ UHVRQDQFHV RFFXU IRU H[DFWO\ WKH VDPH UHDVRQ DV LQ WKH RQHLPSXULW\ FDVH EXW EHFDXVH WKH RQHLPSXULW\ '26 DW 5 LV QRQPRQRWRQLF LQ X! WKH UHVRQDQFH EURDGHQLQJ LV QRW QHFHVVDULO\ SURSRUWLRQDO WR WKH UHVRQDQFH HQHUJ\ 2QH PLJKW DWWULEXWH WKH XQH[SHFWHG fWUDSSHGf ZHLJKW SULPDULO\ VLWWLQJ EHWZHHQ LPSXULWLHVf RU fOHDNLQJf ZHLJKW LV SRSXODWHG RXWVLGH RI WKH UHJLRQ EHWZHHQ LPSXULWLHV UDWKHU WKDQ LQVLGHf SDWWHUQV WR WKH VSHFLDO V\PPHWULHV RI WKH KDOIILOOLQJ WLJKWELQGLQJ EDQG VWUXFWXUH IRU H[DPSOH WKH SXUH QHVWLQJ RI WKH )HUPL VXUIDFH ,W LV WKLV QHVWLQJ ZKLFK E\ DOORZLQJ D FRQVLGHUDEOH SKDVH VSDFH IRU VFDWWHULQJV ZLWK D IL[HG PRPHQWXP YHFWRU 4 LQ JHQHUDO 4 MUUff OHDGV WR D VWDWLF RU G\QDPLF VSDWLDO PRGXODWLRQ LQ WHUPV RI SHULRGLF DUUDQJHPHQW RI SDUWLFOH GHQVLW\ LH FKDUJH GHQVLW\ ZDYH &':f VSLQ GHQVLW\ ZDYH 6':f HWF 8SRQ WKH VWXG\ RQ D UHDOLVWLF EDQG ZH GHPRQVWUDWH WKDW LW LV WKH FRPPHQVXUDWLRQ RI GRPLQDWLQJ VFDWWHULQJ PAGE 57 f f f )LJXUH /'26 PDSV DW UHVRQDQW HQHUJLHV IRU 5 __ +2f 3XUH QHVWHG EDQG 9R O2W ,PSXULW\ VHSDUDWLRQV DUH VKRZQ RQ WKH WRS RI WKH JUDSK ZDYH YHFWRUV DW WKH ERXQGVWDWH HQHUJ\ UDWKHU WKDQ WKH SHFXOLDULW\ GHVFULEHG DERYH WKDW GHWHUPLQHV WKH VWDQGLQJZDYH OLNH PRGXODWLRQ D W\SLFDO DUJXPHQW IRU ZDYH LQWHUIHUHQFH )LJ LOOXVWUDWHV WKH VSHFWUD RQ WKH DGMDFHQW VLWHV RI RQH RI WKH WZR LPSXn ULWLHV ZLWK LPSXULW\ VHSDUDWLRQ 5 IL f DQG 5 5 5f IRU D PRUH UHDOLVWLF WLJKWELQGLQJ FRHIILFLHQWV ILWWHG E\ 1RUPDQ HW DO >@ IURP $53(6 GDWD HNf R WL>FRVN[f FRVIFcf@ Â FRVN[f FRVN\f Â>FRV$,f FRVIF\f> Â>FRVIF[f FRV N\f FRV N[f FRV9f> Â FRVIFUf FRV N\f f ZLWK WR W DQG _LL_ H9 $OO WKH FXUYHV KDYH EHHQ RIIVHW IRU RSWLFDO FODULW\ 7KH LPSXULW\ UHVRQDQFH GHSHQGHQFH RQ VHSDUDWLRQ LV WUDQVSDUHQW WKH K\EULGL]DWLRQ LV VWURQJ ZKHQ WKH\ DUH WRR FORVH QR UHVRQDQFH SDWWHUQ IRU 5 Of WKHQ WKH VSOLWWLQJ VKRZV XS DQG SHUVLVWV RYHU D FHUWDLQ PAGE 58 )LJXUH /'26 PDSV DW UHVRQDQW HQHUJLHV IRU 5 __ f 3XUH QHVWHG EDQG 9R O2W ,PSXULW\ VHSDUDWLRQV DUH VKRZQ RQ WKH WRS RI WKH JUDSK UDQJH RI LQWHULPSXULW\ GLVWDQFH IRU HDFK FDVH 7KH VKDUS KLJK HQHUJ\ SHDNV HPHUJH VSRUDGLFDOO\ DQG WKRVH DORQJ f GLUHFWLRQ RFFXU PRUH IUHTXHQWO\ WKDQ WKDW RI f GLUHFWLRQ ,Q ZDYH PHFKDQLFV ZKHQ WZR ZDYHV DUH WUDYHOOLQJ DORQJ D VWULQJ LQ RSSRVLWH GLUHFWLRQV D VWDQGLQJ ZDYH FDQ EH HVWDEOLVKHG DV WKH SRVLWLRQ DQG WLPH GHSHQn GHQFH RI WKH UHVXOWLQJ ZDYH FRXOG EH VHSDUDWHG ZKHQ WKH WZR ZDYHV DUH RXWRISKDVH ZLWK HDFK RWKHU WKH\ FDQFHO DQG ZKHQ WKH\ DUH LQSKDVH ZLWK HDFK RWKHU WKH\ DGG WRJHWKHUf ,Q RXU FDVH WKH IRUPDWLRQ RI WKHVH WUDSSHG VWDWHV LV VXUSULVLQJO\ H[SOLFDEOH LQ D VLPLODU IDVKLRQ )RU D UHDO ERXQGVWDWH WKH HTXDWLRQ *r5 L\f7f*r5 XLf7 VKRXOG EH VDWLVILHG VWULFWO\ IRU ERWK UHDO DQG LPDJLQDU\ SDUWV DW SDUWLFXODU HQHUJLHV 7KH SURGXFW *r5 Qf7*5 XLf7 LQ (QT FRXOG ,W LV D ELW VXUSULVLQJ LQ WKDW WKLV QDWLYH SLFWXUH GRHVQfW WDNH LQWR FRQVLGHUDWLRQ WKH Z GHSHQGHQFH RI WKH 7PDWUL[ RU WKH 1DPEX VWUXFWXUH RI *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQV 0RUHRYHU WKH TXDQWLWDWLYH MXVWLILFDWLRQ RI WKH DQDO\VLV LV XQH[SHFWHGO\ REWDLQHG DOWKRXJK WKHUH DUH VRPH IXQGDPHQWDO GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH RQHLPSXULW\ DQG WZR LPSXULW\ SUREOHPV DV GLVFXVVHG EHORZ PAGE 59 )LJXUH /'26 VSHFWUD IRU UHDOLVWLF EDQG DQG 9 Wc RQ QHDUHVW QHLJKERU VLWH /HIW SDQHO LPSXULWLHV DW fÂ§LIf DQG LIf 5 LIff VSHFWUD WDNHQ DW U LIf 5LJKW SDQHO LPSXULWLHV DW LI fÂ§LIf DQG LI LIf 5 LI LIff VSHFWUD WDNHQ DW U LI LI f EH HTXLYDOHQWO\ ZULWWHQ DV < HLT5*NX!fZf*N TZfID!f f NT ,W ZDV DUJXHG E\ +RIIPDQ HW DO > @ WKDW WKH FKDUDFWHULVWLF ZDYHYHFWRUV LQ WKH VSDWLDO )RXULHU WUDQVIRUP RI WKH /'26 RI GLVRUGHUHG %6&&2 VDPSOHV DUH GHWHUPLQHG E\ SHDNV LQ WKH MRLQW GHQVLW\ RI VWDWHV 6HH 6HF IRU GHWDLOVf LH EQ *QN RLf,P *QN T X!f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cR WKH SKDVH VKLIW IURP RQH LPSXULW\ ,Q WKH XQLWDU\ OLPLW 7 VR WKH FRPPHQVXUDELOLW\ UHTXLUHV TL Â‘ 5 UR T f 5 UR QL[ T 5 UR PL[ WR EH VDWLVILHG VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ ,W LV HDV\ WR FKHFN IRU RXU SUHVHQW EDQG VWUXFWXUH WKDW f f f f DQG f f URXJKO\ PAGE 60 )LJXUH )HUPL VXUIDFH RI %6&&2 ZLWK FRQVWDQW HQHUJ\ VXUIDFHV DW WR VKRZQ DV VPDOO ILOOHG HOOLSVHV DW WKH QRGDO SRLQWV TL T T DUH ZDYH YHFWRUV IRU ZKLFK WKH MRLQW GHQVLW\ RI VWDWHV LV ODUJH EDODQFH WKH HTXDWLRQ DQG ZH LQGHHG VHH VKDUS UHVRQDQW VWDWHV IRU WKRVH VSHFLILF FRQILJXUDWLRQV $OVR LW LV REVHUYHG WKDW WKH VKDUS UHVRQDQW VWDWHV RFFXU PXFK IUHTXHQWO\ LQ WKH f GLUHFWLRQ WKDQ LQ WKH f GLUHFWLRQ DV WKH FULWHULRQ KROGV :H DOVR QRWLFHG WKDW WKH VSOLWWLQJ VXUSULVLQJO\ SHUVLVWV XS HYHQ WR D UHODWLYHO\ ODUJH GLVWDQFH 5 LQ f GLUHFWLRQ ZKLOH WKH H[SRQHQWLDO GHFD\ RI ZDYHIXQF WLRQV LQ WKH JDV PRGHO ZRXOG SUHGLFW ZHDN LQWHUIHUHQFH DQG QHJOLJLEOH VSOLWWLQJ DW WKLV VHSDUDWLRQ 7KLV UHVXOWV VXJJHVWV WKDW HYHQ ZLWK D UHODWLYHO\ GLOXWH FRQFHQn WUDWLRQ RI LPSXULWLHV WKH VSDWLDO /'26 DURXQG LPSXULWLHV VKRXOG QRW EH LGHQWLFDO EHFDXVH RI WKH UDQGRP GLVWULEXWLRQ RI LPSXULWLHV DQG WKH LQWHUIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKHLU ZDYHIXQFWLRQV KRZHYHU 670 H[SHULPHQWV DSSDUHQWO\ REVHUYHG SRLQWOLNH ZHOO LVRODWHG DQG QHDUO\ LGHQWLFDO LPSXULWLHV SDWWHUQV HPEHGGHG LQ WKH VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ EDWK ,Q WKH IROORZLQJ VHFWLRQV ZLOO VKRZ KRZ WKLV FRQWUDGLFWLRQ FDQ EH UHOD[HG )LQDOO\ LW LV DOVR QRWHZRUWK\ WKDW ZKLOH WKH JDV PRGHO RU SXUH QHVWHG EDQG DQn WLFLSDWHV IRXU GLVWLQFWLYH UHVRQDQW SHDNV WKHUH DUH XVXDOO\ RQO\ YLVLEOH UHVRQDQW SHDNV ZKLFK FDQ EH REVHUYHG IRU WKH UHDOLVWLF EDQG PAGE 61 '26 RI WZR ,PSXULWLHV DQG 0DQ\ ,PSXULWLHV DW Z /RFDO 5HVRQDQFH YV &XPXODWLYH ,QWHUIHUHQFH 3HUWXUEDWLYH 3UHGLFWLRQ 6&70$ DQG ,WV 9DOLGLW\ 7KH SUREOHP RI ORZHQHUJ\ GZDYH TXDVLSD[WLFOH H[FLWDWLRQV KDV EHHQ WUHDWHG WUDGLWLRQDOO\ ZLWK D VR FDOOHG VHOI FRQVLVWHQW 7PDWUL[ DSSUR[LPDWLRQ 6&70$f > @ ZKLFK SDUWLDOO\ VXPV XS WKH SHUWXUEDWLRQ VHULHV DQG PRGHOV WKH LPSXULWLHV DV VWURQJ SRLQWOLNH VFDWWHUV $V LOOXVWUDWHG LQ )LJ WKH VHOIHQHUJ\ LV DSSUR[LPDWHG DV (Df m QÂ7Df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f KDV EHHQ FRQILUPHG E\ VHYHUDO WUDQVSRUW DQG WKHUPRG\QDPLF PHDVXUHPHQWV WKH OLIHWLPH RI WKRVH QRGDO TXDVLSDUWLFOHV LV QRW FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK ZKDW WKH VLPSOHVW 6&70$ FRQMHFWXUHV )RU H[DPSOH WKH DEVRUSWLYH SDUW RI WKH PLFURZDYH FRQGXFWLYLW\ D LV VLJQLILFDQWO\ ODUJHU WKDQ WKH GLVRUGHULQGHSHQGHQW fXQLYHUVDO OLPLWf SURSRVHG E\ /HH >@ 0RUHRYHU WKH H[SHFWHG 7GHSHQGHQFH RI D DW ORZ WHPSHUDWXUHV RQH IDFWRU RI 7 FRPHV IURP WKH GHQVLW\ RI VWDWHV DQG DQRWKHU RQH FRPHV IURP WKH VHOIHQHUJ\ ZKLFK LV LQYHUVHO\ SURSRUWLRQDO WR 7f >@ DUH QRW ERUQH RXW E\ H[SHULPHQWV DV ZHOO LQVWHDG R GLVSOD\V D OLQHDU 7 GHSHQGHQFH LQ <%D&XBÂ > @ $PRQJ WKH YDULRXV H[SODQDWLRQV SURSRVHG IRU WKHVH GLVFUHSDQFLHV RQH FULWn LFLVP FDVWV GRXEWV RQ WKH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH 6&70$ LWVHOI E\ DUJXLQJ WKDW FURVVHG LQWHUIHUHQFH GLDJUDPV QHJOHFWHG LQ WKLV DSSUR[LPDWLRQ OHDGV WR D VHFRQGRUGHU QX ORJ XM GLYHUJHQFH LQ FRPLQJ IURP WKH JDS QRGHV >@ WR EH FRPSDUHG ZLWK WKH 6&70$ ZKHUH RQH KDV QG RUGHU FRQWULEXWLRQ RI WLM 7KXV IRU DQ\ IL[HG QÂ WKH FURVVHG GLDJUDPV GRPLQDWH DW VXIILFLHQWO\ ORZ HQHUJ\ PAGE 62 6&70 %f 6 8 ? 9 ; [ } 9 r f mf f f W , FURVVHG GLDJUDPV )LJXUH 6FKHPDWLF SORW RI WKH VHOIHQHUJ\ GLDJUDP ZLWK PDQ\ LPSXULWLHV Df =HURHQHUJ\ Ef SHDN )LJXUH 6FKHPDWLF ILJXUH RI WKH PDQ\LPSXULW\ '26 Df LQ WKH XQLWDU\ OLPLW RI WKH KDOIILOOHG EDQG DQG Ef LQ WKH XQLWDU\ OLPLW RI D JHQHULF EDQG 1RQSHUWXUEDWLYH 3UHGLFWLRQV :KHQ FDVWLQJ GRXEW RQ WKH HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI 6&70$ 1HUVHV\DQ HW DO >@ DFFRUGLQJO\ SHUIRUPHG D QRQSHUWXUEDWLYH FDOFXODWLRQ IRU VFDWWHULQJ ZLWKLQ D VLQJOH QRGH DQG SUHGLFWHG D YDQLVKLQJ '26 DW WKH )HUPL OHYHO SX!f a XLD ZLWK H[DFW ERVRQL]DWLRQ $IWHU WKLV ZRUN VHYHUDO VXSSRVHGO\ H[DFW QRQSHUWXUEDWLYH WKHRULHV PDGH GLYHUVH FRQFOXVLRQV Sf PD\ YDQLVK ZLWK GLIIHUHQW SRZHU ODZV > @ VDWXUDWH DW D ILQLWH YDOXH >@ RU HYHQ GLYHUJH>O @ )LJ GLVSOD\V WKH EDQGGHSHQGHQW SXL f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f f $ f f f f f f f % f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f )LJXUH 6FKHPDWLF SORW RI ELSDUWLWH ODWWLFH WLJKWELQGLQJ KDOOILOOHG EDQG DQG WKH OLPLW XL fÂ§ ZH REWDLQHG DQ DV\PSWRWLF IRUP VHH $SSHQGL[ $f *rZf aOQAE f ZKHUH D 1WWYI9Df 1 LV WKH QXPEHU RI QRGHV YS LV WKH )HUPL YHORFLW\ DQG Yt LV WKH DQRPDORXV TXDVLSDUWLFOH YHORFLW\ _9N$N_ DQG WKH FXWRII $ LV RI RUGHU RI $ 7KH H[SDQVLRQ LQ XL IRU U P Qf GHSHQGV RQ ZKHWKHU Q DQG P DUH RGG RU HYHQ )RU WKH HYHQ HYHQf FDVH ZH KDYH *rUZf fA >*JZf Z&6fUf@ I f ZKHUH &EUf LV D UHDO IXQFWLRQ RI U :H ILQG VLPLODU OHDGLQJRUGHU H[SUHVVLRQV IRU PQf RGG RGGf *rP Q Xf Z&EUfE f ZKLOH IRU P Qf RGG HYHQf RU HYHQ RGGf *rPQXff fÂ§ &LUfIL I &DUfI f ZKHUH &LUf DQG AUf DUH UHDO FRHIILFLHQWV DV IXQFWLRQV RI U DV ZHOO 7KLV GLVn WLQFWLRQ EHWZHHQ HYHQ DQG RGG VLWHV DFFRXQWV IRU WKH RVFLOODWRU\ QDWXUH RI WKH ZDYHIXQFWLRQV IRU WKH VSHFLDO FDVH WKDW WKH )HUPL ZDYHYHFWRU LV FRPPHQVXUDWH ZLWK WKH ODWWLFH $ FRQFHSW RI f ELSDUWLWHf ODWWLFH VKRXOG EH LQWURGXFHG KHUH ZKLFK GLYLGHV WKH VTXDUH ODWWLFH LQWR WZR LQWHUOHDYHG VXEVHWV DV LOOXVWUDWHG LQ )LJ ZKHUH PAGE 65 )LJXUH &KDQJH LQ SXf GXH WR LPSXULWLHV ,PSXULW\ VHSDUDWLRQ 5 f UHG DQG EOXH VSRUWV EHORQJ WR GLIIHUHQW VXEODWWLFHV UHVSHFWLYHO\ $ VWXQQLQJ HIIHFW KDSSHQV ZKHQ WKH WZR LPSXULWLHV DUH LQ WKH VDPH VXEODWWLFH LH 5 HYHQ HYHQf RU 5 RGG RGGf ,Q WKDW FDVH ZH IRXQG GHW 7 GLYHUJHV DV GHW 7 >Z&R5f*M DWf@ 5 HYHQ HYHQf *rXf 5 RGG RGGf DQG WKH FRUUHFWLRQ WR WRWDO GHQVLW\ RI VWDWHV 6SXf O>R!OQ$X!f@ 5 HYHQ HYHQf >XfOQ$Rf@ 5 RGGRGGf f ,W LV ZRUWK\ WR SLQSRLQW WKH RULJLQ RI WKH GLYHUJHQFH VLQFH WKH VLPLODU UHVXOW ZDV DOVR REWDLQHG E\ 3HSLQ DQG /HH 3/f>@ ZKLFK FODLPV WKDW E\ DYHUDJLQJ RYHU DOO WKH SRVVLEOH LPSXULW\ VHSDUDWLRQ XVLQJ WKH DSSUR[LPDWH IRUP *r5 Xf a 5 RXW WR D FXWRII a W5 SX fÂ§! f GLYHUJHV DV 3OA 0>OQ$X!f Uf@f nf ZKHUH $ LV D FXWRII ,Q RXU PRGHO IRU WKH RGG RGGf FDVH WKH ORFDO *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQV GRPLQDWH RYHU WKH QRQORFDO RQHV DQG WKH SK\VLFV RI WKH ORZHQHUJ\ UHVRQDQFH LV HVVHQWLDOO\ WKDW RI WZR QRQLQWHUDFWLQJ LPSXULWLHV ZKLFK LV YHULILHG E\ WKH IDFWRU RI LQ IURQW RI WKH VLQJOH LPSXULW\ UHVXOW VHH (TQ f )RU WKH HYHQ PAGE 66 a )LJXUH &KDQJH LQ SXf GXH WR LPSXULWLHV ,PSXULW\ VHSDUDWLRQ 5 f HYHQf FDVH WKH LQWHUIHUHQFH HIIHFW VHHPV WR ZLSH RXW WKH VSHFWUDO ZHLJKW DQG PRYH LW WR KLJK HQHUJLHV EXW WKH GLYHUJHQFH VXUYLYHV DV LWV PDJQLWXGH UHGXFHV WR KDOI RI WKDW RI WZR LVRODWHG UHVRQDQFHV ,Q )LJ VKRZ WKH FKDQJH RI '26 GXH WR WZR LPSXULWLHV ZLWK VHSDUDWLRQ 5 f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f 7KH WZRLPSXULW\ 7PDWUL[ GHILQHG LQ (TQ LV r ZfIE & 5fIL 7 &5fI &05-IL &VL5-MM *r XfI ZLWK 'n Df fÂ§ &L5f fÂ§ &5f ,W IROORZV HDVLO\ WKDW GHW 7 'na DQG WKDW 6SXM fÂ§ f RF M ID,QfÂ§ A fÂ§r f GX ? XM $ VLPLODU UHVXOW KROGV IRU 5 RGG HYHQf 3K\VLFDOO\ WKH IDFW WKDW S YDQLVKHV DW WKH )HUPL OHYHO LQGLFDWHV WKDW ERXQG VWDWH HQHUJLHV PXVW DOZD\V DULVH DW QRQ]HUR PAGE 67 )LJXUH Df '26 IRU 9R W Ef 6FDOLQJ RI WKH '26 ZLWK 9R Ff 6FDOLQJ RI WKH '26 ZLWK / Gf 6FDOLQJ RI WKH '26 ZLWK 9R DQG / HQHUJLHV 1XPHULFDO FDOFXODWLRQV RI WKH '26 VKRZQ LQ )LJ GHPRQVWUDWH WKDW WKHUH LV QR UHPQDQW RI WKH VLQJOH LPSXULW\ Xr GLYHUJHQFH IRU WKLV RULHQWDWLRQ DQG WKDW WKH UHVRQDQFH HQHUJLHV VFDOH YHU\ OLWWOH ZLWK 9R ,Q WKLV FDVH LW LV WKH GRPLQDQFH RI WKH QRQORFDO WHUPV ZKLFK VKLIWV WKH UHVRQDQFH WR ILQLWH HQHUJ\ 'LVFXVVLRQ %ULGJH %HWZHHQ WKH 7ZRLPSXULW\ DQG WKH 0DQ\LPSXULW\ 3UREOHPV :H KDYH EHHQ DLPLQJ WR VKRZ KRZ WKH WZRLPSXULW\ SUREOHP LV VXJJHVWLYH RI WKH IXOO\ GLVRUGHUHG V\VWHP 7R H[SORUH WKHLU FRUUHVSRQGHQFH WZR EDVLF LVVXHV QHHG WR EH DGGUHVVHG KHUH f ZKDW JLYHV WKH GLYHUJHQFH DW XL LQ WKH SXUH QHVWHG WLJKWELQGLQJ PRGHO" f KRZ GRHV WKH LPSXULW\ EDQG HYROYH DZD\ IURP LX ÂOLNH 'LYHUJHQFH DW XL fÂ§ ,Q )LJ VKRZ WKH VFDOLQJ RI WKH LQWHJUDWHG '26 DV D IXQFWLRQ RI WKH LPSXULW\ VWUHQJWK DQG WKH V\VWHP VL]H 7KH LPSXULW\ FRQFHQWUDWLRQ LV IL[HG WR EH Qc b 7KH QRQSHUWXUEDWLYH 3/ UHVXOW IURP PAGE 68 (TQ LV DOVR SORWWHG DV GDVK OLQHV IRU GLUHFW FRPSDULVRQ %\ VHWWLQJ $ ZH DFKLHYHG D JRRG ILW WKH QXPHULFV DW 9R L +RZHYHU ZKHQ WKH LPSXULW\ VWUHQJWK LQFUHDVHV WKH ZHLJKW NHHSV FRQFHQWUDWLQJ DW WKH FHQWHU SHDN DQG VDWXUDWHV VORZO\ 7KLV ILQLWHVL]H HIIHFW UHTXLUHV XV WR ZRUN LQ WKH OLPLW ZKHUH WKH OHYHO VSDFLQJ LV VPDOOHU WKDQ WKH FHQWHU SHDN ZLGWK 7KH OLPLW 9R fÂ§! RR LV LOOXVWUDWHG LQ )LJ Gf *HQHUDOO\ WKH SHDN EHFRPHV VKDUSHU ZKHQ 9R LV ELJJHU ,W LV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH GLYHUJHQFH LV DFWXDOO\ D GHOWD IXQFWLRQ LH OLPYR.} SZf a ÂZf VLQFH WKH SHDNV VFDOHV DV SFMf t 9R)XM9Rf :KDW JLYHV WKH GLYHUJHQFH DW ]HUR HQHUJ\ DQG ZK\ LW LV QRW REVHUYHG LQ DQ\ RWKHU PDQ\LPSXULW\ FDVH ZLWK D JHQHULF EDQG" ,W LV SRLQWHG RXW E\ PAGE 69 )LJXUH /'26 IRU b FRQFHQWUDWLRQ RI LPSXULWLHV DQG ?(Q? W HLJHQn YDOXHVf WKRVH ZKLFK fOLJKW XSf RU fGLP RXWf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fUHVRQDQWf DOO WKURXJK WKH LPSXULW\ EDQG > @ )XUWKHUPRUH WKH QXPEHU RI WKH =Q DWRPV PDWFKHV WKH QXPEHU RI UHVRQDQFHV ZKLFK OLNHO\ LPSOLHV WKDW WKHUH DUH QR LPSXULW\ DWRPV fPLVVLQJf 7KHVH FROOHFWLYH HYLGHQFHV DERYH ZHUH H[DFWO\ WKH LPSHWXV WR WKH SURSRVDO RI VLQJOH LPSXULW\ TXDVLSDUWLFOH VFDWWHULQJ VFHQDULR +RZHYHU WKH GLVDJUHHPHQW EHWZHHQ WKH ZLGWK RI UHVRQDQFH SHDNV REVHUYHG LQ H[SHULPHQWV ZKLFK LV RI WKH RUGHU RI a PH9 DQG LV VXUSULVLQJO\ DV WKH VDPH RUGHU RI WKH LPSXULW\ EDQG ZLGWK LQ WKH GLOXWH XQLWDU\ OLPLW a ccf DQG WKDW RI WKHRUHWLFDO SUHGLFWLRQ RQ VLQJOHLPSXULW\ PH9f TXHVWLRQHG WKH SUHFLVHQHVV RI WKH VLQJOHLPSXULW\ VFHQDULR )LJ GLVSOD\V WKH VSDWLDO GLVWULEXWLRQ RI /'26 ZLWK D b FRQFHQWUDWLRQ RI LPSXULW\ D YDOXH FORVH WR WKH H[SHULPHQWDO REVHUYDWLRQV ,Q WKH OHIW SDQHO /'26 LV SORWWHG PAGE 70 DW D SDUWLFXODU HLJHQVWDWH ZKRVH HQHUJ\ OLHV LQ WKH LPSXULW\ EDQG EXW IDU HQRXJK DZD\ IURP WKH )HUPL OHYHO LQ WKH ULJKW SDQHO /'26 LV SORWWHG E\ DYHUDJLQJ RYHU D ILQDO HQHUJ\ ZLQGRZ ZLWKLQ ZKLFK ILYH HLJHQVWDWHV DUH LQFOXGHG ,W LV LQWHUHVWLQJ WR QRWH WKDW ZKLOH LQ WKH OHIW SDQHO RQO\ D SRUWLRQ RI LPSXULWLHV fOLJKW XSf UHVRQDQWf ZKLOH RWKHUV DUH fGDUNf QRW UHVRQDQWf VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ WKH ULJKW SDQHO UHFRYHUV WKH H[SHULPHQWDOO\ REVHUYHG VLQJOH LPSXULW\ SDWWHUQ TXDOLWDWLYHO\ 7KLV SRVVLEO\ LPSOLHV WKDW WKH '26 SODWHDX IRU X LV IRUPHG E\ VXPPLQJ RYHU PDQ\ LPSXULWLHV ZLWK fLQKRPRJHQHRXV EURDGHQLQJf GLIIHUHQW LPSXULWLHV EHFRPH UHVRQDQW DQG WXUQ RII DW GLIIHUHQW HQHUJLHV WKH EDVLF IDFW LV WKDW WKH UHVRQDQW OLIHWLPHV DUH GLIIHUHQW IRU GLIIHUHQW HQHUJLHV VLQFH ZH KDYH D QRQWULYLDO ÂGHSHQGHQW '26 IRU WKH SXUH V\VWHP ZLWK ZKLFK WKH UHVRQDQW VWDWHV RYHUODSf :H DUH WKHQ LQVSLUHG WR IRUPXODWH VXFK D K\SRWKHVLV WKH H[DFW LPDJH REWDLQHG E\ 670 WLSV FRXOG EH WKH VXPPDWLRQ RI PDQ\ 1LPSXULW\ HLJHQVWDWHV VRPH RI ZKLFK DUH UHVRQDQW DW D JLYHQ HQHUJ\ DQG RWKHUV DUH QRW RYHU D ILQLWH HQHUJ\ ZLQGRZ DQG WKH fVLQJOHf LPSXULW\ SDWWHUQ LV YLVXDOO\ UHFRYHUHG E\ SLOLQJ XS WKH VQDSVKRWV DW GLIIHUHQW HQHUJLHV 1RWLFH WKDW HYHQ WKRXJK WKH HQHUJ\ UHVROXWLRQ LQ 670 LV DV VPDOO DV ,PH9 WKHUH DUH VWLOO QXPHURXV HLJHQVWDWHV ZLWKLQ VXFK D ZLQGRZ VL]H IRU D W\SLFDO VDPSOH VL]H / a f DQG LPSXULW\ FRQFHQWUDWLRQ QÂ a fÂ§ bf ZLWK ZKLFK WKH WLSV PD\ ELQ RYHU WR SURGXFH WKH QHDUO\ LVRODWHG IRXUIROG V\PPHWULF ORFDOL]HG LPSXULW\ SDWWHUQV &RQFOXVLRQ ZRXOG OLNH WR ILQLVK WKH GLVFXVVLRQ RQ WZRLPSXULW\ SUREOHP E\ VXPPLQJ XS WKH SK\VLFV RI PRVW LPSRUWDQFH ZH OHDUQW IURP WKLV VSHFLILF PRGHO f 7KH FRLQPHQVXUDELOLW\ RI WKH QRGDO ZDYH YHFWRUV DQG WKH WLJKWELQGLQJ ODWWLFH FODVVLILHV WKH WZRLPSXULW\ FRQILJXUDWLRQ LQWR WZR VXEODWWLFHV WKH LPSXULW\ SDLUV RQ WKH VDPH VXEODWWLFH FRQWULEXWH WR D GLYHUJHQFH LQ SXf $W XM 7KH H[WHQGHG WDLOV D[H EOXUUHG E\ WKH LQFRPPHQVXUDELOLW\ EHWZHHQ WKH ODWWLFH DQG WKH ZDYHYHFWRUV RI HLJHQVWDWHV DQG WKLV DOVR KHOSV WR VHW XS WKH VLQJOH LPSXULW\ SDWWHUQ $SDUW IURP WKH )HUPL OHYHO WKLV SKHQRPHQRQ LV HYHQ PRUH SURQRXQFHG PAGE 71 )LJXUH /'26 IRU b FRQFHQWUDWLRQ RI LPSXULWLHV /HIW (Q Â ULJKW DYHUDJHG RYHU ILYH HLJHQYDOXH LQ HQHUJ\ LQWHUYDO ?(Q fÂ§ e_ e ZLWK WKH JOREDO FRQVWUXFWLYH LQWHUIHUHQFH E\ WKH SDUWLFXODU V\PPHWU\ LQ KDOOILOOHG WLJKW ELQGLQJ EDQG WKH '26 RI WKH PDQ\LPSXULW\ V\VWHP GLYHUJHV DQG FRQWDLQV D ÂIXQFWLRQ IRUP +RZHYHU VKRXOG HPSKDVL]H WKDW WKLV VKDUS SHDN DW X LV WKH FRQVHTXHQFH RI WKH VSHFLDO IHDWXUH RI KDPLOWRQLDQV ZLWK V\PPHWU\ RQO\ DQG LV QRW D JHQHULF DWWULEXWH RI GZDYH VXSHUFRQGXFWRUV f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fULSSOHVf LQ WKH HOHFWURQ VHD LQ WKH VLPLODU ZD\ ,I WKH LPDJHV RI WKH LPSXULW\ LQGXFHG fULSSOHVf DUH )RXULHU WUDQVIRUPHG )7f LQWR PRPHQWXP VSDFH WKH\ JHQHUDOO\ VHOHFW RXW VRPH GHILQLQJ ZDYHYHFWRUV IURP ZKLFK ZH FDQ PDS RXW WKH PAGE 72 )LJXUH /HIW SDQHKWKH FRQVWDQW HQHUJ\ FRQWRXUV ZLWK WKH T YHFWRUV ULJKW SDQHO WKH HYROXWLRQV RI T YHFWRUV DV D IXQFWLRQ RI HQHUJ\ GLVSHUVLRQ RI HLJHQVWDWHV LQ WKH SXUH V\VWHP ,Q QRUPDO PHWDOV WKH\ DUH PDLQO\ )HUPL ZDYHYHFWRUV > @ LQ D GZDYH VXSHUFRQGXFWRU WKRVH )RXULHU WUDQVIRUPHG '26 )7'26f SDWWHUQV FRQWDLQ IUXWKHU XVHIXO LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ WKH 6& VWDWH :HDN 6FDWWHULQJ /LPLW 2FWHW 0RGHO DQG .LQHPDWLFV RI 4XDVLSDUWLFOHV 7KH &RUQHOO 670 JURXS > @ ILUVW REWDLQHG WKH )RXULHU WUDQVIRUPHG GHQVLW\ RI VWDWHV IRU RSWLPDOGRSHG GLVRUGHUHG %6&&2 ZKLFK LV GHILQHG DV STf H"TUUf 7KH\ SORWWHG LWV DEVROXWH YDOXH DV D IXQFWLRQ RI PRPHQWXP T DQG ELDV HQHUJ\ X DQG REVHUYHG VRPH GLVWLQFW SHDNV $Q H[SODQDWLRQ EDVHG RQ TXDVLSDUWLFOH VFDWWHULQJ LGHQWLILHG WKRVH SHDNV DV WKH FRQVHTXHQFH RI D GLVWXUEDQFH GXH WR DWRPLF VFDOH GLVRUGHU ,W ZDV VSHFXODWHG >@ WKDW WKH VFDWWHULQJ SURFHVVHV ZKLFK KDYH D PRPHQWXP VKLIW T NÂQD fÂ§ NÂQÂW"D] FRQQHFWLQJ WKH UHJLRQV ZLWK VXEVWDQWLDO GHQVLW\ RI VWDWHV ZLOO GRPLQDWH RWKHUV EHFDXVH WKHUH LV ODUJH DYDLODEOH SKDVH VSDFH ERWK LQ WKH LQLWLDO DQG ILQDO VWDWHV ,Q D EDQG WKHRU\ WKH TXDVLSDUWLFOH '26 SXMf DW XM LV SURSRUWLRQDO WR f DQG WKH DUHD ZLWK WKH VPDOOHVW HQHUJ\ JUDGLHQW FRQWULEXWHV WR S^XMf PRVWO\ ,I WKHUH H[LVW ZHOO GHILQHG TXDVLSDUWLFOHV LQ WKH VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ VWDWH WKHQ FHUWDLQ VHJPHQWV RI WKH )HUPL VXUIDFH ZLOO EH JDSSHG RXW DQG WKH FRQVWDQW HQHUJ\ FRQWRXU &(& WKH VXUIDFH RI ZKLFK DOO WKH SRLQWV KDYH WKH VDPH HQHUJ\ ^N (nNf FMT`f GHIRUPV PAGE 73 LQ WKH GZDLYH FDVH LQWR fEDQDQDVf DV VFKHPDWLFDOO\ SORWWHG LQ )LJ 7KH TXDVLSDUWLFOH '26 DURXQG WKH WLSV RI EDQDQDV LV KLJKHU WKDQ WKH RWKHU GRPDLQV DQG ZH VKRXOG EH DEOH WR REVHUYH D SURQRXQFHG _STf_ IRU WKH T YHFWRUV FRQQHFWLQJ WKHVH WLSV ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKHVH T YHFWRUV VKRXOG GLVSHUVH ZLWK 670 VDPSOH ELDV X LQ D FKDUDFWHULVWLF ZD\ DV WKH TXDVLSDUWLFOH &(&fV FKDQJH 7KLV SURSRVDO LV FDOOHG WKH fRFWHWf PRGHO IRU TXDVLSDUWLFOH VFDWWHULQJ VLQFH IRU HDFK ELQGLQJ HQHUJ\ WKHUH DUH HLJKW LGHQWLFDO T YHFWRUV FRLPHFWLQJ WKH fEDQDQDf WLSV LQ WKH ILUVW %ULOORXLQ ]RQH :H FDQ ZRUN LQ PRPHQWXP VSDFH ZLWKLQ WKH 7PDWUL[ IRUPDOLVP DQG REWDLQ WKH H[SOLFLW IRUP RI STf DIWHU WDNLQJ RII WKH KRPRJHQHRXV FRPSRQHQWf DV ZHOO STf a ,P>A*fN TXfUN TNXf*fNDf@ f N 2I FRXUVH WKH STf GHULYHG IURP WKH FRPSOHWH 7PDWUL[ LQFOXGHV QRW RQO\ WKH RFWHW SHDNV EXW DOVR DGGLWLRQDO VWUXFWXUHV WKDW PD\ KLQGHU WKH YLVLELOLW\ RI WKH GHVLUHG RQHV +RZHYHU LQ WKH ZHDN VFDWWHULQJ OLPLW LH 7NnNf a .NnNf PD\ VFDWWHULQJ RI KLJK RUGHU EH QHJOHFWHG DQG WKH GLVRUGHU SRWHQWLDO EH IDFWRUHG RXW DV ZHOO STf a ,P^.TfA*fN TXf*fNZf` f N ZKHUH )Tf LV WKH )RXULHU FRPSRQHQW RI WKH UHDO VSDFH SRWHQWLDO )IUf 7KH WHUP (N*fN T ZM*ANAf LV FDOOHG WKH UHVSRQVH IXQFWLRQ DOVR QDPHG $ IXQFWLRQf ZKLFK LV RQO\ GHWHUPLQHG E\ WKH NLQHPDWLFV RI WKH SXUH V\VWHP 7KH SK\VLFDO LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI (TQ LV WUDQVSDUHQW WKH LPDJLQDU\ SDUWV RI WKH *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQV QDPHO\ GHQVLW\ RI VWDWHV 3LQPRL DQG SILQDL GHWHUPLQH WKH SUREDELOLW\ RI VFDWWHULQJ HYHQWV MRLQWO\ )XUWKHUPRUH WKH PDJQLWXGHV RI WKRVH TfV GLVSOD\ WZR GLVWLQFW GLVSHUVLRQV ZKLOH VRPH RI WKHP LQFUHDVH ZLWK LQFUHDVLQJ ELDV RWKHUV GHFUHDVH PRQRWRQLFDOO\ VHH )LJ f 7KH FRPSDULVRQ EHWZHHQ WKH H[SHULPHQWDO DQG WKHRUHWLFDO AGHSHQGHQFH RI WKRVH T SHDNV LV SUHVHQWHG LQ )LJ VKRZLQJ JRRG DJUHHPHQW ZLWK HDFK RWKHU 7KH WKHRUHWLFDO SUHGLFWLRQ LV FDOFXODWHG IURP D PAGE 74 VWDQGDUG %&6 WKHRU\ ZLWK TXDVLSDUWLFOH GLVSHUVLRQ (Y f ZKHUH $N WDNHV G[B\ IRUP ,W VKRXOG EH QRWHG WKDW (TQ KDV FRQWULEXWLRQV DOVR IURP WKH UHDO SDUWV RI WKH *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQV DV ZHOO 7KH UHVXOW RI )7676 DQDO\VLV KDV VHYHUDO LPSOLFDWLRQV LW VXJJHVWV WKDW RSWLn PDOO\ GRSHG %6&&2 LV TXDOLWDWLYHO\ ZHOO GHVFULEHG E\ FRQYHQWLRQDO %&6 TXDVLSDUn WLFOHV 0RUHRYHU EHFDXVH WKH XQSHUWXUEHG *UHHQf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f DQG PRPHQWXP VSDFH $53(6f WHFKn QLTXHV EHFDXVH WKH PDWUL[ HOHPHQWV IRU WKHVH SK\VLFDO SURFHVVHV DUH TXLWH GLIIHUHQW ,W LV LQWHUHVWLQJ WR QRWH WKDW WKH fVLJQDOf XVHG WR GHWHUPLQH WKH )HUPL VXUIDFH RI KH FOHDQ V\VWHP YLD WKLV WHFKQLTXH YDQLVKHV LQ WKH DEVHQFH RI GLVRUGHU )LQDOO\ LW FDQ DOVR EH XVHG WR PHDVXUH WKH PRPHQWXPGHSHQGHQFH RI WKH JDS IXQFWLRQ $N $ UHVXOW SHUIRUPHG E\ +RIIPDQ HW DO JDYH $N $R>$FRVNf eFRVNf/ ZLWK $ PH9 $ % ZKLFK UHIOHFWV DSSUR[LPDWHO\ WKH SURSRVHG G[B\ V\PPHWU\ RI WKH SDLULQJ IXQFWLRQ LQ %6&&2 3RZHU 6SHFWUXP IRU 0DQ\ ,PSXULWLHV LQ %A6A&D&A2V 7KH fRFWHWf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fYLVLEOHf WR HDFK RWKHU ,I ZH IXUWKHU UHFDOO f 3/fV UHVXOW RI WKH ORZ HQHUJ\ '26 REWDLQHG E\ DYHUDJLQJ RYHU WKH UDQGRPO\ GLVWULEXWHG LPSXULW\ FRQILJXUDWLRQV WKH LQWHUIHUHQFH JLYHV DQ H[SUHVVLRQ IRU 1LPSXULW\ 7PDWUL[ ZKLFK LV HVVHQWLDOO\ Qc WLPHV WKH VLQJOHLPSXULW\ UHVXOW f WKH QHDUO\ LVRODWHG LPSXULW\ SDWWHUQ FRXOG EH WKH DUWLIDFW RI KRPRJHQHRXV EURDGHQLQJ E\ WKH HQHUJ\ ZLQGRZ VL]H RI 670 :H VKRXOG WKHQ GRXEW WKH SUHFLVLRQ RI WKH fRFWHWf PRGHO DQG DVN WKH IROORZLQJ TXHVWLRQV f LV LW DSSURSULDWH IRU XV WR D SULRUL DVVXPH WKDW RQHLPSXULW\ SDWWHUQ VXUYLYHV IURP PDQ\ LPSXULWLHV DQG PDQLSXODWH WKH H[SHULPHQWV GDWD RQ IXOO\GLVRUGHUHG VDPSOHV ZLWKLQ WKH IUDPH RI WKLV WKHRU\" f WR ZKDW H[WHQW ZLOO LWV SUHGLFWLRQV VXFK DV SHDN SRVLWLRQV DQG SHDN ZLGWKV EH PRGLILHG TXDOLWDWLYHO\ DQG TXDQWDWLYHO\ E\ WKH LQWHUIHUHQFH HIIHFW" 0DQ\ 5DQGRP :HDN 6FDWWHUV &DSULRWWL HW DO >@ DQG =KX HW DO >@ DQn VZHUHG WKH ILUVW TXHVWLRQ E\ VWXG\LQJ WKH SRZHU VSHFWUXP RI 1 UDQGRPO\ GLVn WULEXWHG SRLQWOLNH LPSXULWLHV ,Q WKHVH ZRUNV WKH 1LPSXULW\ 7PDWUL[ LV H[SUHVVHG LQ WHUPV RI WKH LPSXULW\ 7PDWUL[ Âc > fÂ§ 9M*rU f@9M E\ 1 7LM L$M e L>O :@*r5 5Pf7PM f P O ZKHUH WKH LPSXULW\ SRWHQWLDO DW 5 LV 9Â 97 DQG IÂ DUH WKH 3DXOL PDWULFHV ,Q WKH GLOXWH FRQFHQWUDWLRQ OLPLW RQO\ WKH OHDGLQJ RUGHU LQ 8 RI (TQ QHHGV WR EH PAGE 76 )LJXUH )7'26 DW X PH9 IRU ZHDN SRWHQWLDO VFDWWHUV 9R ÂLf Df IRU RQH ZHDN LPSXULW\ ZLWK D IHZ LPSRUWDQW VFDWWHULQJ ZDYHYHFWRUV LQGLFDWHG Ef IRU b ZHDN VFDWWHUHUV &XWV WKURXJK WKH GDWD RI DfWKLFN OLQHf DQG EfWKLQ OLQHf DORQJ WKH f GLUHFWLRQ DQG VFDOHG E\ O\1@ DUH SORWWHG YV T[ LQ Ff ZKLOH Gf VKRZV WKH ZHDN VFDWWHULQJ UHVSRQVH IXQFWLRQ ,P $TDf 3HDNV DW T DUH UHPRYHG IRU FODULW\ ,Q DOO WKH ILJXUHV WKH [ DQG \ D[HV DUH DOLJQHG ZLWK WKH &X ERQGV FRQVLGHUHG VSTZf 9 LDTf,P>Hnrf$TX!f@ f ZKHUH WDTf DQG $DTLXf eN >*rN XfID*rN T Xf@+ ,Q WKH ZHDN SRWHQWLDO OLPLW (TQ UHGXFHV WR Â£STZf a 9nITLOP $TRWfU f ZKLFK LV DOVR YDOLG IRU ILQLWH UDQJH 9 Uf ,W LV UHDOL]HG WKDW ERWK RI WKH OLPLWV DIIRUG D FRPSOHWH VHSDUDWLRQ EHWZHHQ GHJUHHV RI IUHHGRP DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH GLVRUGHU SRWHQWLDO DQG WKRVH RI WKH SXUH V\VWHP 7KHUH DUH VHYHUDO FRQVHTXHQFHV RI WKLV VHSDUDWLRQ f WKH fRFWHWf SHDNV DUH QRW EURDGHQHG RU VKLIWHG E\ GLVRUGHU DQG LW LV $f WKH UHVSRQVH IXQFWLRQ RI WKH FOHDQ V\VWHP WKDW GHWHUPLQHV WKH SHDN SRVLWLRQV DQG WKH ZLGWKV LQ WKH )7'26 f WKH UDQGRPQHVV RI GLVRUGHU LQWURGXFHV QRLVH ZKLFK LV DFWXDOO\ DV ODUJH DV WKH PAGE 77 VLJQDO VLQFH WKH GLVRUGHU DYHUDJH JLYHV _ÂST Df_f a 79 DQG _eST Zf_f fÂ§ _Â!STXMf?f a 1M1M fÂ§ f FRQVHTXHQWO\ VRPH RQH LPSXULW\ SHDNV ZLOO QRW EH UREXVW LQ PDQ\LPSXULW\ FDVH IRU H[DPSOH WKH ZHDN TL SHDNV LQ )LJ Df DUH ORVW LQ )LJ Eff f WHFKQLFDOO\ ZH PD\ DOVR FRPSDUH WKH UHVSRQVH IXQFWLRQ DQG WKH PDQ\LPSXULW\ )7'26 DW GLIIHUHQW HQHUJLHV WR PDS RXW WKH VKDSH RI WKH SRWHQWLDOV 9 Tf LI WKH\ DUH VSDWLDOO\ H[WHQGHG $FWXDOO\ VLQFH WKHUH LV VWLOO ODFN RI WKH NQRZOHGJH RQ WKH VSDWLDO IRUP RI WKH GLVRUGHU LQ %6&&2 WKLV SURSRVHV LQ SULQFLSOH D PHWKRG WR UHVROYH WKH LPSXULW\ VWUXFWXUH IURP /'26 PHDVXUHPHQW GLUHFWO\ )LQDOO\ LW VKRXOG EH SRLQWHG RXW WKDW WKH LPDJLQDU\ SDUW RI WKH VLQJOH SDUWLFOH VHOIHQHUJ\ GXH WR WKH SRLQWOLNH VFDWWHUV GRHV QRW EURDGHQ WKH fRFWHWf SHDNV EXW VXSSUHVVHV WKHLU PDJQLWXGH LQ PRPHQWXP VSDFH DW DQ\ HQHUJLHVf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f 7KLV GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ $R DQG $ VHHPV WR QHFHVVLWDWH WKH LQFOXVLRQ RI XQLWDU\ LPSXULWLHV DV SRVVLEOH VFDWWHULQJ FHQWHUV DQG LV VXSSRUWHG SODLQO\ IURP WKH VWUXFWXUH RI WKH 7PDWUL[ IRU SRLQWOLNH VFDWWHUV 7 0 IIR0UR FW F IIRAf F 6R0 f ZKHUH JRX! fÂ§! f a XM ,Q WKH ZHDN VFDWWHULQJ OLPLW WKH VHFRQG WHUP LQ (TQ GRPLQDWHV DQG TL DQG TV SHDNV DUH PLVVLQJ +RZHYHU LQ WKH XQLWDU\ OLPLW LH PAGE 78 Z Z Z )LJXUH 7KH SORW RI 1DPEX FRPSRQHQW RI VSHFWUDO IXQFWLRQV DW VHYHUDO IUHn TXHQFLHV PAGE 79 F JXM fÂ§! f fÂ§! 7R DQG FKDQQHOV ZLOO KDYH URXJKO\ HTXDO ZHLJKW DQG WKHUHIRUH EULQJ XS DOO WKH T SHDNV DW ORZHU HQHUJLHV $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH SUHVHQFH RI XQLWDU\ VFDWWHUV LV DOVR FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH ILQGLQJ RI WKH SODLQO\ HYLGHQW ORFDO UHVRQDQFHV LQ WKH /'26 IURP 670 IRU XM UQH9 $QRWKHU FRQVWUDLQW RQ WKH LPSXULW\ SRWHQWLDO LPSRVHG E\ WKH H[SHULPHQWV LV WKH SHDN ZLGWKV RI WKRVH YHFWRUV ,I ZH DOORZ WKDW H[SHULPHQWV PD\ EH VHHLQJ EDFNJURXQG IHDWXUHV DV ZHOO DV RU LQVWHDG RIf WKH WUXH fRFWHWf SHDNV WKHQ WKH )7'26 LQ )LJ LV IDLUO\ FRPSDWLEOH ZLWK H[SHULPHQWDO GDWD DW PH9 DV VKRZQ LQ )LJ f +RZHYHU FRPSDULVRQV DW RWKHU HQHUJLHV DUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZRUVH $V UHYHDOHG E\ WKH H[SHULPHQWV EHVLGHV WKH REVHUYDQFH RI XQLWDU\ VFDWWHUV WKH HQHUJ\ JDS H[WUDFWHG IURP 670 PHDVXUHPHQWV RI %6&&2 LV LQKRPRJHQHRXV DW WKH QDQRPHWHU VFDOHV > @ UDQJLQJ IURP XQGHUGRSLQJ WR VOLJKWO\ RYHUGRSHG :LWK WKH ODFN RI XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH VRXUFH RI WKRVH LQKRPRJHQHLWLHV ZH PRGLILHG WKHP DV VPRRWK UDQGRP SRWHQWLDOV SUREDEO\ RULJLQDWLQJ IURP FKDUJH LQKRPRn JHQHLWLHV IURP %L2 OD\HU ZLWK WKH VWUXFWXUH DV .IUf -7 9Lf H[SfÂ§IÂ$fIÂ DQG IL >U fÂ§ 5Mf G@ ZKHUH 5 ]G] DUH WKH GHIHFW ORFDWLRQV 9Lf DUH WKH GHIHFW SRWHQWLDOV DQG $ LV D VFUHHQLQJ OHQJWK 7KHVH H[WHQGHG LPSXULWLHV GR QRW LQGXFH DQ\ UHVRQDQFH IHDWXUH DW DOO DV WKH\ QHYHU PDNH UHDO SROHV IRU WKH GHQRPLQDWRU RI 7PDWUL[ EXW WKHLU PRPHQWXPGHSHQGHQW SRWHQWLDOV 9 Tf DVVLJQ D FRQVLGHUDEOH SUREDELOLW\ WR WKH fRIIVKHOOf VFDWWHULQJ WKH SURFHVV LQYROYHG ZLWK WKH NnV ZKLFK GR QRW VDWLVI\ WKH SROHV HTXDWLRQV IRU WKH *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQV RI LQLWLDO DQG ILQDO VWDWHV VLPXOWDQHRXVO\f ZKLFK DFW WR EOXU WKH RFWHW SHDNV 7KLV LV DOVR WUXH IRU PDJQHWLF LPSXULWLHV VLQFH WKHLU VSLQ UHVROYHG PDWUL[ LV ZULWWHQ DV 7R LQ 1DPEX QRWDWLRQ %XW ZH IRFXV RQ WKH SRWHQWLDO VFDWWHUV KHUH PAGE 80 ,Q )LJ VKRZ WKH FRPSDULVRQ EHWZHHQ WKHRUHWLFDOO\ FDOFXODWHG )7'26 DQG H[SHULPHQWDO UHVXOWV 7KH WKHRUHWLFDO UHVXOWV ZHUH REWDLQHG E\ VROYLQJ WKH %R JROLXJRY 'H*HQQHV %'*f HTXDWLRQV LQFOXGLQJ ERWK XQLWDU\ DQG ZHDN H[WHQGHG VFDWWHUV 7KH T YHFWRUV IURP WKH fRFWHWf PRGHO DUH DOVR SORWWHG $ IDLU DJUHHPHQW EHWZHHQ WKH FDOFXODWHG DQG H[SHULPHQWDO )7'26 LV DFKLHYHG DW ORZ HQHUJLHV 7KH TL DQG TV SHDNV DUH ZHOOUHVROYHG WKHRUHWLFDOO\ EXW PRVW RI WKH VWUXFWXUH FRPHV IURP D VHW RI EURDGHU EDFNJURXQG IHDWXUHV ZKLFK GLVSHUVH DORQJ ZLWK WKH RFWHW YHFn WRUV VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ ,Q JHQHUDO WKH EDFNJURXQG VWUXFWXUHV GLVSHUVH TXDOLWDWLYHO\ DV RQH H[SHFWV LQ VLQJOH LPSXULW\ PRGHO 0HDQZKLOH WKHRUHWLFDOO\ FDOFXODWHG )7'26 GLVSOD\ DQ DV\PPHWU\ EHWZHHQ SRVLWLYH DQG QHJDWLYH HQHUJLHV ZKHUH H[SHULPHQWDO RQHV GR QRW 7KLV LV PD\EH WKH UHVXOW RI WKH ODUJH DV\PPHWU\ RI WKH PRGHO EDQG LQ ZKLFK WKHUH LV D 9DQ KRYH VLQJXODULW\ DW XM m PH9 WKDW LV QRW REVHUYHG LQ 670 H[SHULPHQWV :KLOH TL TV DUH LGHQWLILHG DV fUHPQDQWf RI RFWHW SHDNV WRJHWKHU ZLWK WKH GLVSHUVLQJ EDFN JURXQG T VHHPV WR EH PLVLGHQWLILHG DV RFWHW SHDNV LQ H[SHULPHQWDO GDWD DV ZH DUJXHG VLQFH WKH PHDVXUHG PDJQLWXGH LV DV WZLFH DV WKH SUHGLFWHG YDOXH IURP QHDUHVWQHLJKERU GZDYH PRGHO %HFDXVH WKH T SHDNV FRPHV IURP LQWUDQRGDO VFDWWHULQJ WKH\ DUH D GLUHFW PHDVXUH RI WKH NGHSHQGHQFH RI WKH VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ JDS DQG VFDOHV ZLWK a YD ZKHUH YD LV WKH JDS YHORFLW\ DW WKH QRGHV 0F(OUR\ HW DO >@ KDYH H[SORLWHG WKLV PHFKDQLVP WR PDS RXW WKH JDS IXQFWLRQ $N DQG ZHUH IRUFHG WR LQWURGXFHG D VLJQLILFDQW VXEOHDGLQJ FRV KDUPRQLF WR ILW WKHLU GDWD 7KLV LV LQ VKDUS FRQWUDVW WR WKH SXUH QHDUQHLJKERU GZDYH IRUP DW RSWLPDO GRSLQJ UHVROYHG IURP $53(6 VSHFWURVFRS\ 5HFRJQL]LQJ WKDW WKH REVHUYHG ,Q %'* IRUPDOLVP WKH KDPLOWRQLDQ IRU D VXSHUFRQGXFWRU RQ D VTXDUH ODWWLFH LV Q < ( Ftf ;^DcMFWF@L`KFÂ‘ f LM! R L7 LM ZKHUH WKH DQJOH EUDFNHWV LQGLFDWH WKDW VLWH LQGLFHV L DQG MDUH QHDUHVW QHLJKERUV 8c LV WKH LPSXULW\ SRWHQWLDO DQG $L fÂ§ .&MM&cMf LV WKH PHDQILHOG RUGHU SDUDPHWHU PAGE 81 /'26 )7'26 (;37 )LJXUH &RPSDULVRQ RI WKHRU\ DQG H[SHULPHQW /HIW SDQHO /'26 PLGGOH SDQHO FDOFXODWHG )7'26 ULJKW SDQHO )7'26 IURP 670 H[SHULPHQWV IHDWXUH DW URXJKO\ WZLFH WKH WUXH T LV LQ IDFW WKH EDFNJURXQG IHDWXUH IRXQG LQ RXU FDOFXODWLRQV PD\ HQDEOH RQH WR EULQJ WKH WZR H[SHULPHQWV LQ FORVHU DJUHHPHQW $W HQHUJLHV _X!_ PH9 )LJ VKRZV D TXDOLWDWLYHO\ VLPLODU QDQRVFDOH YDULDWLRQ RI /'26 DV VHHQ LQ H[SHULPHQWV +RZHYHU WKH f SHDNV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK IRUZDUG VFDWWHULQJ DUH VWURQJHU WKDQ f SHDNV 7KLV FDQ EH XQGHUVWRRG VLQFH WKH XQLWDU\ VFDWWHUV DUH RQO\ UHVRQDQW DW ORZ HQHUJLHV DQG GR QRW KDYH QRWLFHDEOH HIIHFWV DW KLJK HQHUJLHV 7KHUHIRUH WKH GLIILFXOW\ WR EULQJ XS TL SHDNV SODFHV IXUWKHU FRQVWUDLQW RQ WKH LPSXULW\ SRWHQWLDO $OWHUQDWLYHO\ LW KDV DOVR EHHQ SURSRVHG WKDW TL SHDNV FRXOG EH DWWULEXWHG HLWKHU WR WKH H[RWLF RUGHUV VXFK DV VWULSH IRUPDWLRQ > @ RU WR WKH VFDWWHULQJ IURP JDS LQKRPRJHQHLWLHV LH WKH FRQWULEXWLRQ IURP Wc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f WKH VSDWLDO PRGXODn WLRQV RI WKH /'26 DQG RUGHU SDUDPHWHUV DUH LQKRPRJHQHRXV DW WKH QDQRVFDOH LQ %86UA&D&XL2Mf Ef GLVRUGHU ZLWK XQNQRZQ RULJLQ DQG VWUXFWXUH LV XELTXLWRXV LQ WKLV VDPSOH Ff RSWLPDO DQG RYHUGRSHG FXSUDWHV PD\ EH ZHOO GHVFULEHG E\ WKH FRQYHQWLRQDO %&6 WKHRU\ ZLWK XQXVXDO RUGHU SDUDPHWHUV DWWHPSW WR HOXFLGDWH WR ZKDW H[WHQW ZH FDQ UHODWH VXFK DWRPLFVFDOH HOHFWURQLF SKHQRPHQD WR GLVRUGHU LQGXFHG ZDYHOLNH TXDVLSDUWLFOH VWDWHV DQG WKH TXDQWXP LQWHUIHUHQFH HIIHFWV EHn WZHHQ WKHP KHUH EULHIO\ VXPPDUL]H P\ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RQ WKH LPSOLFDWLRQV RI WKH TXDVLSDUWLFOH VFDWWHULQJ PRGHO IRU WKH UHFHQW GLVFRYHULHV LQ 670 H[SHULPHQWV $WRPLF /HYHO 5HVRQDQFHV 4XDVSDUWLFOH 6WDWHV DQG 8QLWDU\ 6FDWWHUV 7KH ]HURELDV GLIIHUHQWLDO FRQGXFWDQFH PDS RQ WKH VXUIDFH RI %6&&2 GLVSOD\V ORFDOL]HG UHVRQDQW IHDWXUHV RI VL]H RI QDQRPHWHUV DQG IRXUIROG V\PPHWULF GLVWULEXn WLRQ RI /'26 ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH VSHFWUD RQ WKH FHQWHUV RI WKRVH EULJKW VSRWV H[KLELW D ]HURELDV VKDUS SHDN DV VKRZQ LQ )LJ >@ 7KHUH KDV EHHQ JUHDW GHDO RI HIIRUW DVFULELQJ WKHVH REVHUYDWLRQV WR WKH TXDVLn SDUWLFOH VFDWWHULQJ IURP DWRPLFVFDOH GHIHFWV :KLOH WKH LGHQWLWLHV RI WKHVH fQDWLYHf GHIHFWV DUH VWLOO QRW FOHDU WKH SRVVLEOH FDQGLGDWHV LQFOXGH GHIHFWV VXFK DV &X DQG 2 YDFDQFLHV FU\VWDO GHIHFWV HWFf WKH VSHFWURVFRSLF VLJQDWXUH DUH TXLWH VLPLODU WR PAGE 83 )LJXUH =Q LPSXULW\ UHVRQDQFH OHIW FKDQQHO GOG9 9VD ULJKW FKDQQHO WKH /'26 VSHFWUXP DERYH WKH =Q VLWH WKRVH REVHUYHG ZKHQ =Q DQG 1L D[H H[SOLFLWO\ VXEVWLWXWHG IRU &X 7KHRUHWLFDO FDOn FXODWLRQV LQ ZKLFK =Q DQG 1L ZHUH PRGHOOHG DV SRWHQWLDO DQG PDJQHWLF VFDWWHUHUV UHVSHFWLYHO\ VHHPHG WR VXSSRUW WKLV FRQMHFWXUH E\ \LHOGLQJ TXDOLWDWLYH DJUHHPHQW ZLWK H[SHULPHQWDO UHVXOWV DQG IXUWKHU VXEVWDQWLDWHG WKH SRVVLELOLW\ RI XVLQJ ORFDOn L]HG GHIHFWV DV DWRPLF SUREHV IRU WKH VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ VWDWH 7KH YDOLGLW\ RI WKLV VFHQDULR ZDV DIWHUZDUGV UHLQIRUFHG E\ LWV VXFFHVVIXO DSSOLFDWLRQ WR WKH DQDO\VLV RI )RXULHU WUDQVIRUPHG /'26 WKURXJK ZKLFK ZH PDSSHG RXW WKH NLQHPDWLFV RI WKH SXUH VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ VWDWH VXFK DV WKH )HUPL VXUIDFH WKH EDQG GLVSHUVLRQ DQG WKH PRPHQWXPGHSHQGHQFH RI WKH RUGHU SDUDPHWHUf WKDW ZDV FRQILUPHG E\ WKH UHVXOWV IURP PRPHQWXP VHQVLWLYH WHFKQLTXHV DV ZHOO $GGLWLRQDOO\ WUDQVSRUW PHDVXUHPHQWV > @ DOVR GHPRQVWUDWHG WKH H[LVWHQFH RI H[FHVV ORZHQHUJ\ TXDVLSDUWLFOH VWDWHV ZKLFK PD\ UHVXOW IURP WKH FROOHFWLYH LQWHUIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ LPSXULW\ ZDYHIXQFWLRQV +RZHYHU WKHUH UHPDLQ D IHZ GLIILFXOWLHV LQ WKH TXDVLSDUWLFOH VFDWWHULQJ VFHQDULR f 7KH H[SHFWHG VSHFWUDO ZHLJKW GLVWULEXWLRQV DURXQG =Q LPSXULWLHV DUH FRPn SOHWHO\ UHYHUVHG LQ H[SHULPHQWV VHH &KDSWHU IRU GHWDLOVf $ SURSRVDO HPSKDVL]LQJ WKH fILOWHUf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f DWRPV DUH PRUH GHVWUXFWLYH WR ORFDO FRKHUHQFH WKDQ 1L SUHVXPDEO\ D PDJQHWLF VFDWWHUf UHPDLQV DQ XQVHWWOHG LVVXH f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f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f VSHFWUD DFURVV PAGE 85 )LJXUH 7KH JDSPDS RI RYHUGRSHG %66&2 6DPSOH VL]H $[$ R f VR 7RR 6DPSOH ELDV P9f )LJXUH 6SHFWUD RQ GLIIHUHQW VLWHV DORQJ WKH KRUL]RQWDO FXW PAGE 86 WKH VDPSOH 6HH )LJ f 7KLV REVHUYDQFH ZDV LQWHUSUHWHG DV WKH ORFDO IOXFWXDWLRQ RI WKH RUGHU SDUDPHWHU DQG GLYLGHG WKH V\VWHP LQWR fSDWFKHVf ZLWK IOXFWXDWLQJ SKDVH FRKHUHQFH ZKLFK PRWLYDWHG WKH VWXG\ RI fJUDQXODU VXSHUFRQGXFWLYLW\f +RZHYHU ZH VKRXOG NHHS LQ PLQG WKDW WKH 670 WLSV PHDVXUH TXDVLSDUWLFOH H[FLWDn WLRQV GLUHFWO\ UDWKHU WKDQ WKH RUGHU SDUDPHWHU DGGLWLRQDOO\ LQ D IXOO\GLVRUGHUHG VXSHUFRQGXFWRUV TXDQWXP LQWHUIHUHQFH HIIHFWV FDQ DOVR JLYH ELUWK WR WKH ORFDO JDS LQKRPRJHQHLW\ :KLOH ZH VKRXOG TXHVWLRQ ZKHWKHU WKLV LQKRPRJHQHLW\ LV LQWULQVLF LQ %6&&2 ZH PD\ DOVR DVN KRZ IRU FDQ ZH SURFHHG ZLWK TXDLSDUWLFOHV DQG GLVRUGHU DORQH LH LV WKLV SKHQRPHQRQ FRPSOHWHO\ H[SOLFDEOH LQ f43GLVRUGHUf VFHQDULR RU LV LW VRPH LQWULQVLFDOO\ H[RWLF VWDWH WKDW FDQ EH GLVWLQJXLVKHG IURP D KLJKO\ GLVRUn GHUHG VXSHUFRQGXFWRU" 7KHUH ZDV DQ DWWHPSW >@ WR VWXG\ WKH VHFRQG SRVVLELOLW\ E\ XVLQJ 1L WR LQGXFH ORFDO UHVRQDQFH LQ VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ UHJLRQV DQG GLVFULPLQDWH WKHP IURP UHJLRQV RI RWKHU LGHQWLWLHV ,W ZDV IRXQG WKDW 1L DWRPV RQO\ fOLJKW XSf LQ WKH UHJLRQ ZLWK UHODWLYHO\ VPDOO JDS YDOXH DQG KLJKHU FRKHUHQW SHDN LH JRRG VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ JUDLQVf EXW KRZ WKH 1L UHVRQDQFHV FRUUHODWHG ZLWK WKH LQKRPRn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fJUDQXODUf WR UHIHU WKH IOXFWXDWLRQ RI WKH RUGHU SDUDPHWHUV ZKLFK FKDUDFWHUL]H WKH SKDVH FRQGHQVDWH LQ HDFK fJUDLQf PAGE 87 )LJXUH *DS PDS IURP QXPHULFDO VROXWLRQ RI %'* HTXDWLRQV ZLWK RQO\ VPRRWK GLVRUGHU )LJXUH /'26 DORQJ WKH KRUL]RQWDO FXW LQ WKH WRS ILJXUH )LQDOO\ WKHUH LV DQRWKHU SLHFH RI HYLGHQFH VXSSRUWLQJ WKH VLJQLILFDQW VFDWWHULQJ RI DQWLQRGDO TXDVLSDUWLFOHV UHJDU GOHVV RI WKH RULJLQ RI WKH GLVRUGHU >@ WKH FRQn GXFWDQFH PDS VKRZV WKDW IRU D JLYHQ X WKH REVHUYHG 8PNODSS VFDWWHULQJ LQGXFHG /'26 PRGXODWLRQ LV H[WUHPHO\ ORFDOL]HG WR WKH UHJLRQ ZKRVH ORFDO JDS YDOXH LV DSSUR[LPDWHO\ HTXDO WR X 7KLV LQGLFDWHV WKDW IRU N a U f WKH TXDVLSDUWLFOH GLVSHUVLRQ H[SHULHQFHV VWURQJ QDQRVFDOH YDULDWLRQ DQG WKH DQWLQRGDO TXDVLSDWLFOH OLIHWLPH LV UHPDUNDEO\ LQIOXHQFHG E\ WKH VFDWWHULQJ 1HYHUWKHOHVV WKLV LV LQ FRQn WUDGLFWLRQ ZLWK WKH IDFW WKDW WKH DQWLQRGDO TXDVLSDUWLFOHV DUH ZHOOGHILQHG LQ WKH VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ VWDWH LQGLFDWHG E\ WKH WKH VKDUS U f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fFKHFNERDUGf SDWWHUQ ZHUH FRQVHFXWLYHO\ UHSRUWHG LQ YDULRXV XQGHUGRSHG VDPSOHV > @ ,GHQWLILFDWLRQ RI WKRVH VSDWLDO PRGXODWLRQV JHQHUDOO\ IDOOV LQWR WZR FDWHJRULHV LW FRXOG EH WKH RUGHULQJ HLWKHU WLHG WR WKH ODWWLFH RU WLHG WR WKH )HUPL VXUIDFH LQWHUIHUHQFH HIIHFWf 7KH ILUVW SRVVLELOLW\ WULHV WR DWWULEXWH WKH H[SHULPHQWDO REVHUYDWLRQV DV WKH FRQVHTXHQFH RI FRPSHWLWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ VWDWH DQG H[RWLF RUGHUV VXFK DV GGHQVLW\ZDYH >@ DQWLIHUURPDJQHWLF VSLQ GHQVLW\ZDYH >@ DQG FHQWHUV WKH GHEDWH RQWR WKH H[SORUDWLRQ RQ WKH XQGHUO\LQJ PHFKDQLVP RI WKH fSVHXGRJDSf VWDWH WKH UHJLRQ ZKHUH WKH REVHUYDWLRQV GHVFULEHG DERYH DUH SURPLQHQW 6HYHUDO DXWKRUV KDYH VWXGLHG WKH LPSXULW\ HIIHFW LQ WKRVH K\SRWKHVL]HG RUGHUV RU D PL[HG VWDWHV RI WKH H[RWLF RUGHUV DQG WKH VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ VWDWHf LQ WKH fSVHXGRJDSf VWDWH > @ DQG SURSRVHG WKDW WKH VSHFWURVFRSLF IHDWXUH VXFK DV WKH VSDWLDO GLVWULEXWLRQ DQG HQHUJ\ RI WKH UHVRQDQW VWDWHV FRXOG EH XVHG WR LGHQWLI\ WKH GLIIHUHQW W\SHV RI RUGHUV 7KH VHFRQG VFHQDULR DOWKRXJK GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH GHWDLOHG LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKH TXDVLSDUWLFOH H[FLWDWLRQV IRU WKH SURSRVHG RUGHU JHQHUDOO\ SUHGLFWV HQHUJ\GHSHQGHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLF VFDWWHULQJ YHFWRUV ZKLFK LV LQ FRQIOLFW ZLWK WKH HQHUJ\LQGHSHQGHQW ZDYHYHFWRUV H[WUDFWHG IURP WKH )RXULHU WUDQVIRUPHG 670 '26 DW T DR LQ XQGHUGRSHG VDPSOHV :KLOH LW PLJKW EH SUHPDWXUH WR UHMHFW WKH TXDVLSDUWLFOH LQWHUIHUHQFH VFHQDULR HQWLUHO\ WKLV FRQWUDGLFWLRQ DW OHDVW LPSRVHV D FRQVWUDLQW RQ WKH *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ E\ DVNLQJ IRU D GLVSHUVLYH LPDJLQDU\ SDUW DQG D QRQGLVSHUVLYH FRQYROXWLRQ EHWZHHQ WZR LPDJLQDU\ FRPSRQHQWV VLPLODU WR WKH DUJXPHQW RI WKH MRLQW GHQVLW\ RI VWDWHV f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fSK\VLFDOO\ WUDQVSDUHQWf ZD\ 7KH DQJOHUHVROYHG SKRWRHPLVVLRQ $53(6f WHFKQLTXH LV VXFK RQH GHVLUDEOH PHWKRG VLQFH WKH FRKHUHQW SDUW RI LWV PRPHQWXPUHVROYHG VSHFWUXP HOXFLGDWHV WKH GLVSHUVLRQ DQG VHOIHQHUJ\ RI VLQJOH SDUWLFOH XQDPELJXRXVO\ LQ TXDVL WZR GLPHQVLRQDO V\VWHPV $53(6 KDV EHHQ HPSLULFDOO\ XVHIXO LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ WKH HOHFWURQLF VWDWHV RI FXSUDWHV IRU H[DPSOH WKH HQHUJ\ GLVWULEXWLRQ FXUYHV ('&f RI $53(6 IROORZ WKH K\SRWKHVL]HG GZDYH OLNH PRPHQWXPGHSHQGHQFH RI WKH RUGHU SDUDPHWHU $_ 5HFHQWO\ WKH GUDPDWLF LPSURYHPHQW LQ WKH DQJXODU DQG PRPHQWXP UHVROXWLRQ RI $53(6 DV RI PH9 DQG r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fV JROGHQ UXOH 7KH LQWHQVLW\ RI WKH SKRWRHOHFWURQV DUH PHDVXUHG E\ WKH GHWHFWRUV ,I ZH DVVXPH WKDW WKH UHOD[DWLRQ WLPH RI WKH H[FLWHG HOHFWURQV LV PXFK ORQJHU WKDQ WKH WLPH IRU WKHP WR UHDFK WKH VXUIDFH WKLV LV WKH VR FDOOHG VXGGHQ DSSUR[LPDWLRQf ZH FRXOG URXJKO\ IRUPXODWH WKH LQWHQVLW\ RI RXWJRLQJ HOHFWURQV EHDPV DV ,NFMf ,RNfIXMf$NX!f f ZKHUH RNf LV GHWHUPLQHG E\ WKH PRPHQWXP GHSHQGHQW PDWUL[ HOHPHQWV DQG WKH )HUPL IXQFWLRQ IXf LOOXVWUDWHV WKDW WKLV SURFHVV FDQ RQO\ PHDVXUH WKH XQRFFXSLHG VWDWHV 7KH RQH SDUWLFOH VSHFWUDO IXQFWLRQ ONXf GHVFULEHV WKH SUREDELOLW\ RI FUHDWLQJ RU DQQLKLODWLQJ RQH SDUWLFOH LQ DQ LQWHUDFWLQJ LQDQ\ERG\ V\VWHP DQG LV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH LPDJLQDU\ SDUW RI WKH UHWDUGHG *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ DV GHILQHG LQ (TQ NXf eOnHL.Or7A (P eIf ÂOr,OOrIOZef enf P fÂ§,P*NX Âf f 7 ,Q D QRQLQWHUDFWLQJ V\VWHP $N Xf LV QRWKLQJ EXW D GHOWD IXQFWLRQ Xf fÂ§ UUM HYHU\ZKHUH GXH WR WKH LQILQLWH OLIHWLPH RI HOHFWURQV LQ WKH DEVHQFH RI LQWHUERG\ LQWHUDFWLRQV :KHQ WKH PDQ\ERG\ LQWHUDFWLRQ LV WXUQHG RQ DGLDEDWLFDOO\ WKH EDUH HOHFWURQV ZLOO EH fGUHVVHGf E\ WKH PHGLXP DQG FDQ EH GHVFULEHG E\ WKH /DQGDX )HUPL OLTXLG WKHRU\ )/f SURYLGHG WKH\ VWLOO OLYH ORQJ HQRXJK WR EH FRQVLGHUHG PAGE 92 DV DSSUR[LPDWHO\ LQGHSHQGHQW REMHFWV 7KH )/ WKHRU\ SDLQWHG WKH ELJ SLFWXUH RI LQWHUDFWLQJHOHFWURQ G\QDPLFV DQG LQWURGXFHG DQ LPSRUWDQW WKHRUHWLFDO FRQFHSW LH WKH fTXDLVSDUWLFOHVf :LWK WKLV FRQFHSW ZH FDQ WUHDW WKH GUHVVHG fHOHFWURQVf DV EDUH HQWLWLHV ZLWK ILQLWH EXW FRQVLGHUDEOH ORQJ OLIHWLPHV 7KH RQH SDUWLFOH *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ LV JHQHUDOO\ PRGLILHG DV *BN Df *T fÂ§ (N Xf ZKHUH (NXf (nNXf Â(NX!f (nNXf 5H(NXf (NXf ,LQ(NDf DQG ( LV FDOOHG WKH fVHOIHQHUJ\f ,WV UHDO SDUW GHVFULEHV WKH UHQRUPDOL]DWLRQ RI WKH EDUH HOHFWURQLF GLVSHUVLRQ GXH WR PDQ\ERG\ HIIHFWV DQG LWV LPDJLQDU\ SDUW LV UHODWHG WR WKH RQH SDUWLFOH OLIHWLPH E\ 7N Xf fÂ§ O,P(N FMf 7KH JHQHUDO H[SUHVVLRQ IRU WKH VSHFWUDO IXQFWLRQ LV WKHQ \N8ff eNZf f U >XL fÂ§ W_ fÂ§ (nN LQf@ >(N LQf@ 7KH VHOI HQHUJ\ (N LQf DULVHV IURP PDQ\ERG\ DQG LPSXULW\ HIIHFWV DQG HQFDSVXODWHV DOO WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW LQWHUDFWLRQV *HQHUDOO\ ZH FDQ SORW WKH PHDVXUHG LQWHQVLW\ RF $N LQff HLWKHU DV D IXQFWLRQ RI LQ ELQGLQJ HQHUJ\f IRU D IL[HG PRPHQWXP N ('&f RU DV IXQFWLRQ RI N ZLWK D IL[HG YDOXH RI LQ 0'&f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fV QHDU WKH 7 f SRLQW RI WKH %ULOORXLQ ]RQHV > @ ZKLOH LQ VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ VWDWHV RI WKHVH VDPSOHV TXDVLSDUWLFOHV DUH ZHOOGHILQHG RYHU D FHUWDLQ UDQJH LQ WKH VW %= PAGE 93 7,. fn9 /L X ,[LL Q %LQGLQJ HQHUJ\ H9f )LJXUH $53(6 VSHFWUD IURP RYHUGRSHG %Â 7& .f Df QRUPDO DQG Ef Ff VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ VWDWH GDWD PHDVXUHG DW WKH N SRLQW LQGLFDWHG LQ WKH LQVHW RI Ff DV VKRZQ LQ )LJ >@ 7KH SKRWRHPLVVLRQ LQWHQVLW\ H[KLELWV SDQHO Eff D SURQRXQFHG SHDN IROORZHG LPPHGLDWHO\ E\ D fGLSf DQG WKHQ D fKXPSf IHDWXUH DW KLJKHU ELQGLQJ HQHUJLHV LQ WKH VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ VWDWH :KHQ WKH WHPSHUDWXUH LQFUHDVHV WKH FRKHUHQW ORZ HQHUJ\ TXDVLSDUWLFOH SHDN HYROXWHV FRQWLQXRXVO\ DQG ILQDOO\ PHOWV LQWR D TXLWH EURDGHQ EDFNJURXQG SDQHO Dff LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW D FRQVLGHUDEOH VHOIHQHUJ\ GHYHORSV DFURVV WKH SKDVH WUDQVLWLRQ DQG WKH TXDVLSDUWLFOHV DUH QR ORQJHU ZHOOGHILQHG :H PLJKW FDVW D GRXEW RQ WKH DSSOLFDELOLW\ RI WKH )/ WKHRU\ WR WKH QRUPDO VWDWH RI KLJK 7F VXSHUFRQGXFWRUV VLQFH WKH QRUPDO VWDWH WHPSHUDWXUH LV RI WKH RUGHU RI LW LV TXLWH KLJK FRPSDUHG WR WKH JHQHUDO GHILQLWLRQ RI fORZf WHPSHUDWXUHf ,W LV FDOOHG WKH fSHDNGLSKXPSf IHDWXUH 7KH KLJK HQHUJ\ KXPSV DUH VSHFXn ODWHG JHQHUDOO\ WR EH WKH FRQVHTXHQFH RI SKRQRQ PRGHV PDJQHWLF FROOHFWLYH PRGH RU ELOD\HU VSOLWWLQJ HIIHFWV PAGE 94 EXW ZH VKRXOG DOVR QRW DEDQGRQ LW XQWKLQNLQJO\ EHFDXVH f LW KDV DVVLVWHG RXU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ LQ YDULRXV FU\VWDOOLQH VROLGV DQG EHHQ XVHIXO RYHU D ZLGH UDQJH RI WHPSHUDWXUHV f WKHUH DUH VWLOO ZHOOGHILQHG TXDVLSDUWLFOHV LQ FHUWDLQ VHJPHQWV RI )HUPL VXUIDFHV ZKHQ WKH JDS RSHQV ZKLFK LV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH FRQYHQWLRQDO %&6 WKHRU\ +RZHYHU DQ HVWLPDWH RI WKH IXOO ZLGWKKDOI PD[LPXP ):+0f RI WKH EURDGHQHG SHDN \LHOGV D YDOXH RI a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f 7HONXMf U0)/NYf f 7KH 0)/ WKHRU\ ZDV SRVWXODWHG WR UHFRQFLOH WKH FRQIOLFW EHWZHHQ WKH DQRPDn ORXV EXW XQLYHUVDOf SURSHUWLHV LQ WKH QRUPDO VWDWH RI FXSUDWHV DQG WKH ZHOOGHILQHG )HUPL VXUIDFH LQ RSWLPDOO\ GRSHG VDPSOHVf ,W DVVXPHV WKDW HOHFWURQV FRXSOH ZLWK D ERVRQLF H[FLWDWLRQ ZKRVH VSHFWUXP KDV D VFDOHLQYDULDQW IRUP %Xf a PLQf 7KH HOHFWURQ VHOI HQHUJ\ GXH WR WKH VFDWWHULQJ IURP WKLV ERVRQLF VSHFWUXP KDV D IRUP eN XMf $IX ORJ fÂ§fÂ§ f ZF ZKHUH [ PD[?XM? 7f 7KLV VLQJXODU EHKDYLRU RI VHOIHQHUJ\ OHDGV WR WKH DEVHQFH RI WKH )/OLNH TXDVLSDUWLFOHV HYHQ RQ WKH )HUPL VXUIDFH ZKHQ 7 PAGE 95 7KH SRVVLEOH DSSOLFDELOLW\ RI HODVWLF IRUZDUG VFDWWHULQJ LV IXUWKHU UHLQIRUFHG E\ WKH IROORZLQJ IDFW LQ %RUQ DSSUR[LPDWLRQ WKH VHOIHQHUJ\ GXH WR LPSXULW\ VFDWWHULQJ LV ZULWWHQ DV (NZf Q_9NNn_&RNnXf f Nn 4XDOLWDWLYHO\ LI OANn LV SHDNHG DW FHUWDLQ GLUHFWLRQ WKHQ eNOMf LV URXJKO\ SURSRUWLRQDO WR WKH LPDJLQDU\ SDUW RI WKH LQWHJUDWHG *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ RYHU D QDUURZ UDQJH FHQWHUHG DURXQG N LH *N XMf a ;ANnaNsIF Xf :KHQ _N_ LV H[WUHPHO\ VPDOO QDPHO\ LQ IRUZDUG OLPLW eN XMf LV SURSRUWLRQDO WR YM"Nf WKH LQYHUVH RI JURXS YHORFLW\ RI EDQG HOHFWURQVf ZKLFK JHQHUDOO\ WDNHV WKH PD[LPXP YDOXH DW DQWLQRGHV DQG PLQLPXP YDOXH DW WKH QRGHV RQ WKH )HUPL VXUIDFH 7KLV PRPHQWXP DQLVRWURS\ RI eN XMf FRLQFLGHV ZLWK WKH H[SHULPHQWDOO\ H[WUDFWHG HODVWLF FRPSRQHQW UHÂN XMf E\ DVVXPLQJ WKH IRUZDUG VFDWWHULQJ VFHQDULR ZKLFK DOVR GLVSOD\V WKH VLPLODU EHKDYLRU ZLWK D PD[LPXP YDOXH RI PH9 DW DQWLQRGDO SRLQWV DQG PH9 DW QRGDO SRLQWV +RZHYHU WKHUH DUH WZR REYLRXV GLIILFXOWLHV ZLWK WKLV VFHQDULR 7KH ILUVW LV WKDW WKH VSHFWUDO SHDN PHDVXUHG E\ $53(6 QHDU WKH U f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f SRLQW 6RPH RI WKH SUHYLRXVO\ REVHUYHG fHODVWLF EURDGHQLQJf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f VFDWWHULQJ FRPSRQHQW DWWULEXWHG WR QDWLYH GHIHFWV LQ WKH &X SODQHV DV ZHOO DV D ZHDNHU VPRRWK VFDWWHULQJ SRWHQWLDO FRPSRQHQW DWWULEXWHG WR GHIHFWV DZD\ IURP WKH SODQH 5HFHQWO\ 0DUNLHZLF] KDV DOVR DWWHPSWHG WR UHODWH 670 DQG $53(6 GDWD LQ WKH VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ VWDWH DVVXPLQJ D VPRRWK SRWHQWLDO >@ (ODVWLF )RUZDUG 6FDWWHULQJ LQ %L6U&D&X4 6HOIHQHUJ\ 1RUPDO 6WDWH &RQVLGHU D PRGHO V\VWHP LQFOXGLQJ HODVWLF VFDWWHUV RI ILQLWH UDQJH m7 ZLWK D FRQFHQWUDWLRQ Qc $VVXPLQJ WKH VLQJOH LPSXULW\ WDNHV WKH IRUP 9Uf 9H.U ZH FDQ FDOFXODWH LWV WZR GLPHQVLRQDO )RXULHU FRPSRQHQW )NNn 7W9R N Nnf Wff f ZKHUH 9R VHWV WKH VWUHQJWK RI WKH SRWHQWLDO 7KH VHOIHQHUJ\ LQ %RUQ DSSUR[LPDWLRQ LV WKHQ GHILQHG WKURXJK (TQ $V WKH UDQJH RI WKH SRWHQWLDO UH LQFUHDVHV WKH VFDWWHULQJ RI D TXDVLSDUWLFOH IURP N WR Nn EHFRPHV SHDNHG LQ WKH IRUZDUG GLUHFWLRQ $V VKRZQ LQ )LJ 7KHUH LV D FRQVHQVXV WKDW TXDVLSDUWLFOH PRYLQJ LQ WKH &X SODQH H[SHULHQFH D VPRRWK SRWHQWLDO ODQGVFDSH GXH WR GHIHFWV ZKRVH GHWDLOHG VWUXFWXUH LV XQFOHDU \HW +RZHYHU D FRQFUHWH LPSXULW\ PRGHO LV QHHGHG IRU DQ\ FRPSXWDWLRQV :H DGRSW WKH H[SRQHQWLDO IRUP UDWKHU WKDQ DQ\ RWKHU SDUWLFXODU VWUXFWXUH VXFK DV PAGE 97 )LJXUH *HRPHWU\ IRU WKH IRUZDUG VFDWWHULQJ SURFHVV LQ ZKLFK D TXDVLSDUWLFOH VFDWWHUV IURP N WR Nn ZKHX N LV FORVH WR Nn DQG ERWK DUH QRW WRR IDU IURP WKH )HUPL VXUIDFH ZH PD\ SDUDPHWHUL]H WKHP DV N) NsNs f NI T__ NnsNn/ f ZKHUH T N fÂ§ Nn LV WKH PRPHQWXP WUDQVIHU DQG TM_ LWV FRPSRQHQW SDUDOOHO WR WKH )HUPL VXUIDFH 7KH XQLW YHFWRUV DQG Nns DUH WKH SURMHFWLRQV RI N DQG Nn RQWR WKH )HUPL VXUIDFH UHVSHFWLYHO\ VXFK WKDW HJ YINnfIFL 7KH LPDJLQDU\ SDUW RI WKH UHWDUGHG VHOIHQHUJ\ (TQ EHFRPHV eNXf > fÂ§QcMU9Rf I GNnAGNns 7f 8.9T UQ )T -X M Â: erf f GT> >"I IF[Af m@ 0r_f_. >WHfL@U f (TQ VKRZV H[SOLFLWO\ WKDW LQ WKH OLPLW RI VPDOO N WKH VHOIHQHUJ\ EHFRPHV PRUH DQG PRUH VKDUSO\ SHDNHG fRQ WKH PDVV VKHOOf X HN DV D JHQHULF IHDWXUH RI ORQJUDQJH SRWHQWLDOV 7KH DQJXODU GHSHQGHQFH RI WKH VHOIHQHUJ\ LQ WKH OLPLW PAGE 98 RI F fÂ§ FDQ EH YHULILHG H[DFWO\ DV WKH VDPH DV WKDW RI OZMUNf )XUWKHUPRUH VKRXOG SRLQW RXW WKH VHOIFRQVLVWHQW WUHDWPHQW E\ UHTXLULQJ e>r@ fÂ§ e>e"@f LV LPSRUWDQW LQ IRUZDUG VFDWWHULQJ FDVH VLQFH LW HOLPLQDWHV WKH YDQ +RYH VLQJXODULW\ LQ WKH VSHFWUXP ZKLFK PD\ DFFRXQW IRU WKH DEVHQFH RI VXFK SHFXOLDULW\ LQ 670 DQG RWKHU WXQQHOOLQJ H[SHULPHQWV RQ %6&&2 ZKLOH LQ WKH FDVH RI SRLQWOLNH VFDWWHUV WKH VHOIFRQVLVWHQF\ LQ %RUQ DSSUR[LPDWLRQf RQO\ LQWURGXFHV D FRUUHFWLRQ RI WKH RUGHU RI X(S WR WKH QRQVHOIFRQVLVWHQW UHVXOW ZKLFK PD\ EH QHJOHFWHG 6XSHUFRQGXFWLQJ 6WDWH ,Q WKH VXSHUFRQGXWLQJ VWDWH WKH VHOIHQHUJ\ LV DSSUR[Ln PDWHG VLPLODU WR (TQ DV e QA_9fNNIU*NnDfU Nn -A=DUD f D ZLWK 1DPEX FRPSRQHQWV eD GHILQHG DV IROORZLQJ (fNZf Q A_9NNnf_ D f 6VNZf Q A_.NNnf_ fÂ§ f N 8 a &Nn f Â9 DQG LNmf QI ;!OFNnf_ A f N 8 a &Nn f rrNI ,Q WKH OLPLW RI N m WKH DV\PSWRWLF IRUPV RI VHOIHQHUJLHV FDQ EH GHULYHG DQDO\WLFDOO\ ZKLFK UHDG 6NX!f )rNnUf 9n m 9 WN $c .'MUNf f +HUH VD _DL_ fÂ§$N6JPX DQG Y VJDXMA-XM fÂ§ $e IRU WKH 1DPEX FRPSRQHQWV D DQG UHVSHFWLYHO\ DQG 7RNf LV WKH QRUPDO VWDWH VFDWWHULQJ UDWH ( YDQLVKHV RQ WKH )HUPL VXUIDFH &N LQ WKLV OLPLW 6SHFLILFDOO\ ZKHQ WKH PRPHQWXP PAGE 99 N LV FORVH WR WKH )HUPL VXUIDFH DQG WKH HQHUJLHV X DUH VPDOO VXFK WKDW Hr s ?-X fÂ§ $NfQYSNf? & WKH VHOIHQHUJLHV UHGXFH WR WKH IROORZLQJ 66NXf f enNXf a Uf r f ennNZf a f EXW DUH VWURQJO\ VXSSUHVVHG GXH WR HQHUJ\ FRQVHUYDWLRQ ZKHQ ?aM fÂ§ fÂ§ eN_ EHFRPHV JUHDWHU WKDQ NYI DV RQH PD\ REVHUYH LQ )LJ 7KH GHWDLOHG GHULYDWLRQ RI VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ VHOIHQHUJLHV DUH LQFOXGHG LQ WKH DSSHQGL[ ,W LV QRWHZRUWK\ WKDW IRU NfV DZD\ IURP WKH QRGH WKHVH UHVXOWV DUH LGHQWLFDO WR WKRVH H[SHFWHG IURP DQ VZDYH VXSHUFRQGXFWRU >@ HYHQ ZKHQ VHOIFRQVLVWHQF\ LV LQFOXGHGf VLQFH WKH H[WUHPH IRUZDUG VFDWWHULQJ HOLPLQDWHV WKH PRPHQWXP DYHUDJLQJ RYHU WKH )HUPL VXUIDFH :H WKHUHIRUH H[SHFW WR UHFRYHU $QGHUVRQfV WKHRUHP WKH LQVHQVLWLYLW\ RI EXON WKHUPRG\QDPLF SURSHUWLHV WR QRQPDJQHWLF VFDWWHULQJ 7KH SK\VLFV KHUH LV WKDW WKH IRU N DZD\ IURP WKH QRGDO GLUHFWLRQ IRUZDUG SHDNHG VFDWWHULQJ GRHVQfW PL[ WKH RUGHU SDUDPHWHU RI GLIIHUHQW VLJQV DQG KHQFH GRHVQfW EUHDN WKH &RRSHU SDLUV ,Q )LJ DOVR SUHVHQW WKH QXPHULFDO UHVXOWV IRU WKH VHOIHQHUJ\ FRPSRQHQWV DW QRGDO DQG DQWLQRGDO SRLQWV RQ WKH )HUPL VXUIDFH 7KH EDUH HOHFWURQ EDQG 5RXJKO\ VSHDNLQJ WKH FKDQJH RI PRPHQWXP Â£N LQ WKH VFDWWHULQJ LV FXW RII E\ 7KHUHIRUH IRU VFDWWHULQJ SURFHVVHV FORVH WR WKH )HUPL OHYHO WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ YDULDWLRQ RI HQHUJ\ LV NYIAf LI ZH OLQHDUL]H WKH HOHFWURQ GLVSHUVLRQ 2Q RQH KDQG WKH TXDVLSDUWLFOH HQHUJ\ VKRXOG EH FRQVHUYHG LQ VFDWWHULQJ DQG NLQHPDWLFV RQO\ JLYHV D ILQLWH DYDLODEOH SKDVH VSDFH LH WKH FRQVWDQW HQHUJ\ FRQWRXU DV GLVFXVVHG LQ &KDSWHU 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG WKH OLQHDUL]DWLRQ LQ DQDO\WLFDO FRPSXWDWLRQ PD\ YLRODWH WKH H[DFW HQHUJ\ FRQVHUYDWLRQ %XW WKH HQHUJ\ GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH LQLWLDO WNf DQG ILQDO HOHFWURQ ?-XL $ef FRPSRQHQW VKRXOG VWLOO EH FXW RII DV ZHOO GXH WR WKH IRUZDUG QDWXUH RI VFDWWHULQJ PAGE 100 )LJXUH 7KH VHOIHQHUJ\ WHUPV ,P eRNX!f ,P (LNXf DQG ,P eVN Xf LQ WKH VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ VWDWH DW 7 IRU N N WRSf DQG Nb ERWWRPf IRU N fÂ§ DQG DQG WKH VDPH EDQG DQG VFDWWHULQJ SDUDPHWHUV DV SUHYLRXVO\ XVHG +HUH $W $R FRVM fÂ§ FRV N\f ZLWK $R W PAGE 101 GLVSHUVLRQ LV WDNHQ DV &N fÂ§LFRV N[ FRV N\f fÂ§ Ln FRV N[ FRV N\ fÂ§ S f DQG WWn fÂ§ SW 7KH TXDVLSDUWLFOH SURSHUWLHV QHDU WKH )HUPL VXUIDFH cDUH GHWHUPLQHG E\ VRPH SDUWLFXODUn FRPELQDWLRQ RI WKH 1DPEX VHOIHQHUJ\ FRPSRQHQWV E\ H[DPLQLQJ WKH GHQRPLQDWRU RI WKH IXOO *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ f ZKHUH X fÂ§ ( WN HN 6 ÂƒN $N (M 7KH WRWDO HODVWLF VFDWWHULQJ UDWH ZLOO EH f SURYLGHG RQH FDQ QHJOHFW 6 VHH )LJ f ,Q WKH IRUZDUG VFDWWHULQJ OLPLW ZKHUH (TQ KROG WKH HIIHFWLYH HODVWLF VFDWWHULQJ UDWH (TQ f EHFRPHV f )RU N DORQJ WKH QRGDO GLUHFWLRQ WKH HODVWLF EURDGHQLQJ LQ WKH VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ G ZDYH VWDWH LV HTXDO WR LWV YDOXH LQ WKH QRUPDO VWDWH +RZHYHU IRU N LQ WKH DQWLQRGDO UHJLRQ WKH EURDGHQLQJ YDQLVKHV DV XL fÂ§! $N DQG DSSURDFKHV WKH QRUPDO VWDWH YDOXH RQO\ ZKHQ LQ EHFRPHV ODUJH FRPSDUHG ZLWK $N 7KH HODVWLF FRQWULEXWLRQ UH_NXf WR WKH EURDGHQLQJ DW WKH DQWLQRGDO N SRLQW YHUVXV LQ LV VKRZQ LQ )LJ 3K\VLFDOO\ WKH LQGLYLGXDO FRQWULEXWLRQV WR WKH QRUPDO (NZf DQG DQRPDORXV (AN XLf VHOIHQHUJLHV DUH ERWK HQKDQFHG E\ WKH GHQVLW\ RI VWDWHV IDFWRU LQ $NfffA )LJ f +RZHYHU WKH QRUPDO FRQWULEXWLRQ GHVFULELQJ WKH VFDWWHULQJ RXW RI VWDWH N LQWR Nn LV FRPSHQVDWHG E\ WKH DQRPDORXV FRQWULEXWLRQ VFDWWHULQJ LQWR N IURP WKH SDLU FRQGHQVDWH 7KLV JLYHV ULVH WR WKH VXSSUHVVLRQ RI WKH PAGE 102 )LJXUH 6FDWWHULQJ UDWH UHMN XLf YV XL IRU N NOHIWf DQG NZ ULJKWf LQ WKH VXn SHUFRQGXFWLQJ VWDWH DW 7 IRU N WRSf DQG N ERWWRPf +HUH 7RINDf W PAGE 103 HODVWLF VFDWWHULQJ UDWH VHHQ LQ )LJ UHODWLYH WR )LJ DV LQ DSSURDFKHV >$NIURP EHORZ 6SHFWUDO )XQFWLRQ *HQHUDO 6SHFWUXP ,Q WKH IRUZDUG VFDWWHULQJ OLPLW ZLWK WKH VHOIHQHUJ\ JLYHQ E\ (TQV ff RQH REWDLQV D UHVXOW IRU WKH *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ SUHYLRXVO\ GLVFXVVHG E\ 0DUNLHZLF] >@ *NWQf WX7S $N7Lf]NWQf HN7 LQ fÂ§ $ef]NLQf fÂ§ f +HUH ]NLQf LURNfVJQXL?X $e 7KH HOHFWURQ FRPSRQHQW RI WKH VSHFWUDO IXQFWLRQ LV WKHQ $ N WQf fÂ§fÂ§,P*QNZf 7 fÂ§fÂ§ ,P WQ]N LQf WN f WU LQ fÂ§ $ef]NWQf fÂ§ ,W LV XVHIXO WR FRQVLGHU D IHZ VSHFLDO FDVHV RI f PRUH FORVHO\ ,Q SDUWLFXODU RQ WKH )HUPL VXUIDFH WN RQH KDV WKH VLPSOH H[SUHVVLRQ UfNf 0 A8f r f $N 7RNf f ZKLOH QHDU WKH JDS HGJH HJ XM fÂ§ _$U_ $N XMf UfNf 0 f f 7 H" UNf \AP $ n $W WKH QRGDO SRLQW N? ZKHUH WKH JDS YDQLVKHV WKH VSHFWUDO ZHLJKW LV JLYHQ E\ WKH VLPSOH /RUHQW]LDQ IRUP UN\fU $ NM\ LQf Â‘ f Z UN1ff DQG DW ORZ WHPSHUDWXUHV ZKHUH WKH HODVWLF VFDWWHULQJ LV GRPLQDQW RQH FDQ GHWHUPLQH UNMYf +RZHYHU IRU N DW WKH DQWLQRGDO SRLQW NA VXFK WKDW fÂ§$NM fÂ§ ÂLQ Q $Nf $NLQf L $N WU UN$f f PAGE 104 ZKHUH WKH fZLGWKf FR GHSHQGV XSRQ WKH UDWLR $NA)RINAf ,I $N LV ODUJH FRPn SDUHG ZLWK UN\Lf WKH ZLGWK OM a URN-f$Nf ,I RQH LQWHJUDWHV $?ODXMf IURP fÂ§ $N fÂ§ 6X WR fÂ§ $N$ WR GHILQH D fSHDN LQWHQVLW\f Ua$r$ L NAf MN!L Xf GX fÂ§ fÂ§ f $N 6XM U ZKLFK LV LQGHSHQGHQW RI $NAURINAf +RZHYHU ZKHQ WKH V\VWHP LV VXIILFLHQWO\ GLUW\ VXFK WKDW $NÂ )RINAf WKH IDOORII RI $NXf DV XM GHFUHDVHV EHORZ fÂ§ $N$ YDULHV DV X! fÂ§ $MAfn ,Q WKLV FDVH WKH VFDOH LV VHW E\ AN$ DQG LI RQH WDNHV GFM $N WKH SHDN LQWHQVLW\ YDULHV DV NAf a $NAURIN\Lf 7KLV LV TXLWH GLIIHUHQW IURP WKH XVXDO '&6 TXDVLSDUWLFOH UHVXOW ZKLFK LV SURSRUWLRQDO WR WKH TXDVLSDUWLFOH UHQRUPDOL]DWLRQ IDFWRU ANAf WLPHV D FRKHUHQFH IDFWRU ZKLFK LV RQ WKH IHUPL VXUIDFH ,W VKRXOG EH SRVVLEOH WR WHVW WKH IRZDUG VFDWWHULQJ VFHQHULR E\ FRPSDULQJ WKH YDULDWLRQ RI ?Df ZLWK $NMUN\Of 1RGDO DQG $QWLQRGDO 6SHFWUD 7R FRPSXWH D UHDOLVWLF VSHFWUDO IXQFWLRQ DQG FRPSDUH LW ZLWK H[SHULPHQWV RQH VKRXOG LQFOXGH D VPDOO FRQFHQWUDWLRQ RI XQLWDU\ VFDWWHUV DV ZHOO DV LQHODVWLF HOHFWURQHOHFWURQ FROOLVLRQV 7KH IRUPHU LV YHULILHG E\ 670 H[SHULPHQWV DQG KDV EHHQ LQWHQVLYHO\ GLVFXVVHG LQ &KDSWHU :LWK D FRQFHQWUDWLRQ URXJKO\ a b GHFLGHG IURP WKH QXPEHU RI ]HUR ELDV UHVRQDQFHV LQ /'26 PDS LW JLYHV D EURDGHQLQJ LQ WKH VHOIFRQVLVWHQW 7PDWUL[ DSSUR[LPDWLRQ eHOnX aeN*NXf7Rn f 7KLV JLYHV D VFDWWHULQJ UDWH RI 7X a aL LQ WKH QRUPDO VWDWH OHDGLQJ WR DQ LPSXULW\ EDQGZLGWK 8 a ?UX$R a BÂ RI RUGHU WR PH9f $V IDU DV WKH LQHODVWLF VHOIHQHUJLHV DUH FRQFHUQHG ZH XVH D QXPHULFDO LQWHUSRODWLRQ RI WKH XMfÂ§ DQG 7fÂ§ GHSHQGHQFH REWDLQHG IURP WKH VSLQIOXFWXDWLRQV SHUIRUPHG E\ PAGE 105 > @ &RPELQLQJ WKH FRQWULEXWLRQV IURP WKHVH WKUHH FKDQQHOV WKH WRWDO VFDWWHULQJ UDWH LV WKHQ 6RW 6L 6OX 6QHO f f 7KH VSHFWUDO IXQFWLRQV DW DQWLQRGDO SRLQW $ DQG QRGDO SRLQW 1 ZLWK WKH VFDWWHULQJ UDWH GHILQHG LQ (TQ DQG WKH )HUPL IXQFWLRQ FXWRII IFM7f DUH SORWWHG LQ )LJ ,Q WKH DQWLQRGDO GLUHFWLRQ D VTXDUHURRWOLNH EHKDYLRU GHYHORSV ZKHQ XM DSSURDFKHV fÂ§ $Nf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m ZH UHFRYHU WKH QRUPDO VWDWH VSHFWUDO IXQFWLRQ HYHQ DW ]HUR WHPSHUDWXUH 4XDVLSDUWLFOH 'LVSHUVLRQ 1HDU WKH $QWLQRGDO 3RLQW ,Q D FOHDQ VXSHUFRQGXFWRU WKHUH LV D SHDN LQ WKH VSHFWUDO IXQFWLRQ $N XMf DW WKH TXDVLSDUWLFOH SROH X (A 9A7$,Q SDUWLFXODU DV WKH PRPHQWXP PRYHV DORQJ WKH FXW IURP NAUf WR Uf RQH H[SHFWV WR VHH D GLVSHUVLRQ RI WKLV SHDN WR KLJKHU HQHUJLHV 7KH VSLQIOXFWXDWLRQ VHOIHQHUJLHV EHKDYH OLNH IROORZV DW WKH QRGDO SRLQW DW ORZ WHPSHUDWXUHV WKH VFDWWHULQJ UDWH LQLWLDOO\ LQFUHDVHG DV WKH WKLUG SRZHU RI X RU 7 GHSHQGLQJ XSRQ ZKLFK LV ODUJHU $W RWKHU N SRLQWV RQ WKH )HUPL VXUIDFH WKH VFDWn WHULQJ UDWH YDULHV DSSUR[LPDWHO\ DV WKH WKLUG SRZHU RI WKLV HQHUJ\ PHDVXUHG UHODWLYH WR $N 7KH UHGXFWLRQ RI WKH LQHODVWLF VFDWWHULQJ UDWH DW ORZ H[FLWDWLRQ HQHUJLHV UHn IOHFWV WKH VXSSUHVVLRQ RI WKH ORZ HQHUJ\ VSLQIOXFWXDWLRQV GXH WR WKH RSHQLQJ RI WKH GZDYH JDS PAGE 106 $N$ fIFRf R $N$f 2 )LJXUH )LQLWH WHPSHUDWXUH VSHFWUDO IXQFWLRQ DW WKH DQWLQRGDO SRLQW $ DQG QRGDO SRLQW 1 RQ WKH )HUPL VXUIDFH PXOWLSOLHG E\ WKH IHUPL IXQFWLRQ 5HVXOWV IRU IW DQG ZLWK URNDf W DUH VKRZQ PAGE 107 N N )LJXUH $NXMf YV XM IRU N DQG 5HVXOWV DUH JLYHQ IRU WKH N SRLQWV DW 7 f 7 Uf W OUf W Wf 7KH GLVRUGHU OHYHOV FRUUHVSRQG WR 7RINA-$R DQG 1RWH WKH VSHFWUD IRU GLIIHUHQW N SRLQWV KDYH EHHQ RIIVHW IRU FODULW\ +RZHYHU LI WKH IRUZDUG HODVWLF VFDWWHULQJ VWUHQJWK 7RMNAf $Nf WKHQ WKH SHDN LQ $NRf UHPDLQV DW $r UDWKHU WKDQ GLVSHUVLQJ )LJ VKRZV SORWV RI $NFMf IRU GLIIHUHQW YDOXHV RI N EHWZHHQ WKH 0 DQG $ SRLQWV IRU N DQG DQG VHYHUDO YDOXHV RI WKH VFDWWHULQJ UDWH 7RIAf $V VDPSOHV LPSURYH WKHUH LV D QDWXUDO WHQGHQF\ LQ WKLV PRGHO IRU WKH VSHFWUXP IRU N QRW WRR IDU IURP WKH DQWLQRGH WR FURVV RYHU IURP RQH FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ D QRQGLVSHUVLYH SHDN DW $N LQ WKH GLUW\ OLPLW ZKHUH 7R a $R WR RQH FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ D GLVSHUVLYH TXDVLSDUWLFOH SHDN DW (N ZKHQ 7R LV VPDOO FRPSDUHG WR $ 7KLV FURVVRYHU LV GXH WR WKH ZD\ LQ ZKLFK WKH IRUZDUG HODVWLF VFDWWHULQJ UDWH IRU D GZDYH VXSHUFRQGXFWRU LV UHGXFHG DV WKH JDS HGJH LV DSSURDFKHG DQG LV DQDORJRXV WR WKH VDPH HIIHFW GLVFXVVHG DQDO\WLFDOO\ LQ $SSHQGL[ %f IRU DQ VZDYH VXSHUFRQGXFWRU ,Q D V\VWHP ZLWK 7R $ QR TXDVLSDUWLFOH SHDN LV REVHUYHG EXW D VKDUS IHDWXUH GRHV DSSHDU DW fÂ§$N UHSUHVHQWLQJ VLPSO\ WKH VSHFWUDO ZHLJKW LQ WKH RYHUGDPSHG TXDVLSDUWLFOH SHDN SLOLQJ XS DW WKH JDS HGJH DV LQ WKH VZDYH FDVH 2QO\ ZKHQ 7R EHFRPHV VPDOO FRPSDUHG WR $ GRHV RQH VHH D WUXH TXDVLSDUWLFOH SHDN GLVSHUVLQJ PAGE 108 )LJXUH &RPSDULVRQ EHWZHHQ UHFHQW $53(6 GDWD OHIW SDQHOf DQG FDOFXODWHG $NR!f ULJKW SDQHOf DV fÂ§ (N ,Q WKH PRVW VWURQJO\ IRUZDUG VFDWWHULQJ FDVH Q RQH FDQ VHH WKDW GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH VWUHQJWK RI WKH VFDWWHULQJ UDWH RQH FDQ KDYH VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ D EURDGHQHG GLVSHUVLQJ IHDWXUH DV ZHOO DV D JDS HGJH IHDWXUH ,Q )LJ WKH PHDVXUHG $53(6 VSHFWUD DORQJ D VSHFLDO FXW LWf fÂ§} NI Uf f GDWD IURP SULYDWH FRPPXQLFDWLRQ ZLWK 6WDQIRUG $53(6 H[SHULn PHQWDO JURXS ff DQG WKH WKHRUHWLFDOO\ FDOFXODWHG VSHFWUD DGRSWLQJ HODVWLF LPSXULWLHV ZLWK b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f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r +RZHYHU WKLV JDS HGJH DQRPDO\ VHHPV WR SURSRVH DQ DOWHUQDWLYH PHWKRG WR GHWHUPLQH WKH JDS IXQFWLRQ IRU N YDOXHV DZD\ IURP )HUPL VXUIDFH E\ WDNLQJ XVH RI IRUZDUG VFDWWHUHUV 6XFFHVVIXO UHDOL]DWLRQ RI WKLV WHFKQLTXH PD\ FRPSOHWH WKH PRPHQWXP GHSHQGHQFH RI $N LQ WKH ZKROH ILUVW %ULOORXLQ ]RQH ZKLFK GHILQLWHO\ FRQWULEXWHV WR WKH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI FXSUDWHV )XUWKHUPRUH DQRWKHU SRVVLEOH DGYDQWDJH RI WKLV PHWKRG LV WKDW LW GRHVQfW QHFHVVLWDWH DQ\ NQRZOHGJH RI eN LQ DGYDQFH DW DOO 0RUHRYHU LQ VDPSOHV RI OHVV GLVRUGHU ZH IRXQG D GLVSHUVLYH SHDN DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH EDUH TXDVLSDUWLFOH GLVSHUVLRQ ,W LV WHPSWLQJ WR VSHFXODWH WKDW WKLV SKHn QRPHQRQ LV UHODWHG WR WKH SHDNGLSKXPS IHDWXUHV REVHUYHG JHQHULFDOO\ EHORZ 7F LQ FXSUDWH $53(6 H[SHULPHQWV :KHQ WKH V\VWHP EHFRPHV GLUWLHU WKH TXDVLSDUWLFOH SHDN ZLOO EH EURDGHQHG IURP Â£OLNH IXQFWLRQ LQWR /RUHQ]LDQ IRUP +RZHYHU IDU DZD\ HQRXJK IURP WKH QRGDO GLUHFWLRQ VLQFH ZH SK\VLFDOO\ UHFRYHU $QGHUVRQf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f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f DW WKH )HUPL OHYHO IRU KDOIILOOHG QHDUHVW QHLJKERU EDQG LV WKH FRQVHTXHQFH RI WKH VSHFLDO V\PPHWU\ RI WKH QHDUHVW WLJKW ELQGLQJ PRGHO VHHQ LQ WKH DQDORJRXV WKH WZR LPSXULW\ LQWHUIHUHQFH HIIHFW IXUWKHU SURSRVHG D UHDO VSDFH SHUVSHFWLYH UHJDUGLQJ WKH KRPRJHQHRXV EURDGHQLQJ E\ ILQLWH 670 UHVROXWLRQ DQG H[SODLQHG ZK\ WKH LPSXULWLHV DSSHDU QHDUO\ LVRODWHG LQ WKH 670 LPDJH ZKLOH WKH\ DUH H[SHFWHG WKHRUHWLFDOO\ WR LQWHUIHUH ZLWK HDFK RWKHU HYHQ VHSDUDWHG E\ ORQJ GLVWDQFH IXUWKHU H[DPLQHG WKH fRFWHWf VLQJOH LPSXULW\ PRGHO DV D ZD\ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKH )RXULHU WUDQVIRUPHG '26 LQ %6&&2 DUJXHG WKDW ZKLOH LWV RQVKHOO DSSUR[n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f ZK\ ZH KDYH QDQRVFDOH HOHFWURQLF GLVRUGHUV DW WKH JDS HGJH EXW TXDVLSDUWLFOHV DUH ZHOO GHILQHG LQ PRPHQWXP VSDFH" f ZK\ WKH $53(6 VSHFWUD IRU WKH QRGDO TXDVLSDUWLFOH GLVSOD\ D NLQN ZKLOH 670 GRHV QRW UHIOHFW DQ\ FROOHFWLYH PRGH IHDWXUHV )XOO FRPSUHKHQVLRQ RI WKHVH SX]]OHV PD\ UHTXLUH SK\VLFV EH\RQG WKH TXDLVSDUWLFOH VFDWWHULQJ VFHQDULR +RZHYHU ZRXOG OLNH WR SXW D SHULRG KHUH DV UHDOL]HG WKDW ,fYH EHHQ WRR WDONDWLYH PAGE 113 $33(1',; $ *5((1f6 )81&7,21 )25 7+( 683(5&21'8&7,1* 67$7( ,Q WKLV VHFWLRQ ZH WU\ WR HYDOXDWH WKH UHDO VSDFH FRPSRQHQW R WKH *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ IRU D SXUH QHVWHG EDQG LH WN fÂ§ LFRVIF, FRV N\f ,I ZH GHILQH U P Qf ZKHUH P Q DUH LQ XQLW RI ODWWLFH FRQVWDQW D WKH UHDO VSDFH *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ LV GHILQHG WKURXJK WKH )RXULHU WUDQVIRUP DV *rUXf e\NnU*rNLXf N \@ FRV N[Pf FRV N\Qf ZIE WN SfI $NIL 6WDUW IURP (T $Of DQG ZH H[SUHVV $Of FRV N[Pf UD FRVn N[ ZKHUH >@ UHIHUV WR WKH LQWHJHU SDUW RI WKH DUJXPHQW :H IRFXV RQ WKH KDOIILOOHG FDVH L DQG ZULWH (T $Of DV WKH VXP RI WHUPV RI WKH IRUP f (FRVAfFRV N A /MN ZKHUH S P P fÂ§ DQG T Q Q fÂ§ :H SURFHHG E\ OLQHDUL]LQJ WKH GLVSHUVLRQ QHDU WKH QRGH DW WW Zf DQG PDNLQJ WKH FRRUGLQDWH WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ ( HN $e WDQG $NHN T IQ G VLQ FRV?T VLQ FRV2$ Ur-R W ? a$T Waf ? a f [ a$ (YDLG(XIR (n&26 rI VLQInA -R X ( PAGE 114 7KH SUHIDFWRU LV D 1WWYI9Df ZKHUH -9 LV WKH QXPEHU RI QRGHV YI LV WKH )HUPL YHORFLW\ DQG 9D LV WKH DQRPDORXV TXDVLSDUWLFOH YHORFLW\ _9N$N_ DQG WKH FXWRII $ LV RI RUGHU $R 7KH LQWHJUDOV RYHU ( DQG DUH HDVLO\ GRQH DQG Â‘ALXM)SLXOf3QIr 3nP ILf@ ZKHUH 3ST DUH FRQVWDQWV JLYHQ E\ WKH DQJXODU LQWHJUDWLRQV DQG (D U -R (G( (rXn 7KH FRQVWDQWV YDQLVK IRU M ZKHQ S T HYHQ DQG YDQLVK IRU M ZKHQ S T RGG 7KH ILUVW IHZ QRQ]HUR HOHPHQWV DUH 3 fÂ§ 00f fÂ§ S fÂ§ fÂ§ S fÂ§ ) (RO fÂ§ $ S B S fÂ§ / S B S2 B BB-B B-B $ O 2QO\ HYHQ PRPHQWV RI )DXMf DUH QHHGHG Q XM $QAff Z $ r Â‘ a A 6LQFH ZH DUH LQWHUHVWHG LQ WKH OHDGLQJ RUGHU EHKDYLRU RI *A5 XMf ZH QRWH WKDW IRU VPDOO XM $ $ )AXf )RU 5 P Qf WKH OHDGLQJ RUGHU FRQWULEXWLRQ WR *5Xf FRPHV IURP WKH VLQJOH WHUP LQ WKH H[SDQVLRQ FRQWDLQLQJ JRR 7R VHFRQG RUGHU LQ XM ? *5XLf OffPAOQfÂ§MIR X&RO5-IR $f PAGE 115 ZKHUH &E5f LV UHDO DQG LV WKH VXP RI VHYHUDO WHUPV 7KH ODUJHVW WHUP FRQWULEXWLQJ WR &5f LV RI RUGHU D?XL? $B?P%f P Qf 9$ IURP ZKLFK ZH HVWLPDWH D UDQJH RI YDOLGLW\ $$QfDf}f _O_ $H OHMPQf )RU RWKHU 5 WKHUH LV QR VLQJOH GRPLQDQW WHUP LQ WKH H[SDQVLRQ IRU WKH *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ DQG WKH OHDGLQJ RUGHU EHKDYLRU FRPHV IURP WKH VXP RYHU D ODUJH QXPEHU RI UHDO QRQGLYHUJHQW WHUPV )RU RXU SXUSRVHV LW LV VXIILFLHQW WR QRWH WKDW ZKHQ 5 P Q f WKH VXPV WDNH WKH IRUP *5D2 Z&5f7E $f DQG ZKHQ 5 P Qf RU P Q f *5R!f &M5-ÂU &5fÂ $f ZKHUH *T5f &5f DQG &5f DUH UHDO FRQVWDQWV PAGE 116 $33(1',; % (9$/8$7,21 2) 7+( 6(/)(1(5*< ,1 %251 $3352;,0$7,21 ,Q WKLV VHFWLRQ JLYH RXW WKH HYDOXDWLRQ RI VHOIHQHUJ\ LQ %RUQ DSSUR[LPDWLRQ IRU VHYHUDO GLIIHUHQW W\SHV RI LPSXULWLHV %O W^ PAGE 117 RQO\ WKH PRVW VLQJXODU GHSHQGHQFH RQ N Nn ,Q DGGLWLRQ LW LV UHDVRQDEOH WR VHW WKDW GN?? GT?? VLQFH N LV D FRQVWDQW LQ WKH LQWHJUDWLRQ 6SHFLDO &DVHV f N NS RQ )HUPL VXUIDFHf %f f N N X! %f 1RWH WKLV GLYHUJHV LQ IRUZDUG VFDWWHULQJ OLPLW DV N fÂ§r ,I ZH QRUPDOL]H WR <$ WKLV JLYHV 6N)X f ?Y)N$f? ;N$L f 0Nf_ f %f f X N A NM" %f 1RWH LQ IRUZDUG VFDWWHULQJ OLPLW N fÂ§! VHOIHQHUJ\ LV D YHU\ VLQJXODU IXQFWLRQ RI HLWKHU Ns RU X % 6XSHUFRQGXFWLQJ 6WDWH ,Q WKH PDLQ 1DPEX FKDQQHOV LH WDOOR WDXcWDX WKH LPDJLQDU\ SDUWV RI WKH *UHHQfV IXQFWLRQ DUH WKH VXPPDWLRQ RI WZR IXQFWLRQV ,P*RNn XMf ,P Z (O >Z (Yf 6X -Nf@ %f %f %f PAGE 118 ZKHUH (N! a \-YSNAffNn$ $e 7KH IXQFWLRQV LQ WKH DERYH HTXDWLRQV FDQ EH IXUWKHU HYDOXDWHG DV IROORZV Z s (N!f ( (N GN? N? VMX $e PAGE 119 ec!nNXf D Qc4Q?XM? YINf\XL $ GQ ( 4 s "c IF[ r %f UQc4 ?X? ?$! $N [ ( ?IHMW})IF__f D\nX $ef .Y)N??I 2EYLRXVO\ WKH UHVXOW LV YDOLG RQO\ IRU XM $A RWKHUZLVH WKH ,P SDUW RI ( LV ]HUR 2Q WKH )HUPL VXUIDFH ZLWK N NS WKLV UHGXFHV WR %f eN)LÂf fÂ§ LUAULL4 0 ?-X $e \MXO fÂ§ $Â .9)Nc?f 1RWH WKLV LV 127 WKH IRUP ZH KDG HDUOLHU LQ &KDSWHU (NIWZf } UNf_Z_A $N % f %f XQOHVV DL $N m .9)N??f 7 &RPSRQHQW RI 7KH 6HOIHQHUJ\ )RU WKH 7 FRPSRQHQW SURFHHGLQJ VLPLODUO\ ZH JHW (NX!f UX40r >MMM I GM mr (m sA 0Nf_ f n Q4VJQ XL U YI^ Nf LKTm NsNs NnMNnAM LrL( Tm rÂ‘ D?-aaA/nf NnL .7 LUULL4 VJQR D s \M$fO8)IF__f D\ $ef $&IF__f +HUH WKH SUHVHQFH RI WKH WZR FRQWULEXWLRQV IRU WKH WZR GLIIHUHQW VLJQV RI Ns LV FUXFLDO DV ZH VHH WKDW RQ WKH )HUPL VXUIDFH Ns ( YDQLVKHV %f PAGE 120 7L FRPSRQHQW RI WKH VHOIHQHUJ\ (LNZf a VJQWWL r VX $N [ < Â‘ } s ?M IF[:Ir__f FWVM$ef FAIH__f %f 1RUPDO 6WDWH /LPLW ,W LV LQVWUXFWLYH WR WDNH WKH OLPLW $M fÂ§r RI WKH DERYH H[SUHVVLRQV DQG DWWHPSW WR UHFRYHU (TQ % (R DQG ( EHFRPH 6R Z8L4 ( \NsY)Nc?f D?X!?f .Y)N^I A UQÂ4VJQXM \ %f %f ?=NAY)^N??f a r0f .Wf)IF__fn 1RZ WKH QRUPDO VWDWH VHOI HQHUJ\ LV WKH 1DPEX FRPSRQHQW LH (R ( ZOLLFK JRHV WR (MY OLP ( ( UQW4 r %f $Narr \Ns9)N??f Xf .9)N??f 1RWH RGG IUHTXHQF\ GHSHQGHQFH RI ( LV QHFHVVDU\ WR UHFRYHU WKH FRUUHFW UHVXOW % f([SRQHQWLDOf 3RWHQWLDO &RQVLGHU 9Uf9 Ha.U ZKLFK JLYHV LQ PRPHQWXP VSDFH QHJOHFWLQJ WKH SHULRGLFLW\f N 9D UGUGM! HAHrr1nrr Q9 ,r1 UGUH.U9-TUf -R WN9R BB NN9T T Nf f N Nnf rf f %f %f %f PAGE 121 % 1RUPDO 6WDWH 6HOI HQHUJ\ LQ %RUQ DSSUR[LPDWLRQ 6X.9T eNXf %f f 6SHFLDO FDVH N NI XL (N)X f 7Q 9T %f _WcUL__f_ .f &OHDUO\ WKH DERYH IRUP LV PRUH VLQJXODU WKDQ PAGE 122 ,WfV QRW D SXUH GHOWD IXQFWLRQ ,I ZH VLPSO\ DVVXPH _9NNn_ 9RNNn WKH VHOI HQHUJ\ LQ WKH VXSHUFRQGXFWLQJ VWDWH LV eccNZf LM9nA7U*N X!f %f L9IIOPA B A f QL9A0X(6LX (rf` %f ZKLFK LV PXFK PRUH VLQJXODU RQ WKH )HUPL VXUIDFH WKDQ (TQ % 7R UHFRYHU WKH VPRRWKHU UHVXOW ZH DFWXDOO\ QHHG WR DVVXPH ,9NNO 9?N %f DQG WKHQ ZH JHW VHH (TQ %f ?-?Â $ R s ? P9 Y)Nnf 0 %f U_XUNf_ $Ân ,W ZRXOG EH QLFH WR DVN ZKDW SRWHQWLDO ZRXOG UHVXOW LQ UHDO VSDFH IURP D ,' GHOWD IXQFWLRQ OLNH WKLV 2QH ZD\ WR UHJXODUL]H WKH GHOWD IXQFWLRQ ZRXOG EH WR ZULWH 9LGHn NWW IF_ IFIf %f EXW RI FRXUVH ZH VHH LPPHGLDWHO\ WKDW WKLV LV QRW D IXQFWLRQ RI _N Nn_ DQG WKHUHIRUH FDQf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fÂ§r EXW LQ DQ LQWHUPHGLDWH UHJLPH JLYHQ E\ Y) m m %f GR ZH DFWXDOO\ JHW H[DFWO\ WKH DQWLFLSDWHG UHVXOW ,W LV LQWHUHVWLQJ WR QRWH WKDW WKLV ZRUNV DFWXDOO\ IRU DQ\ IRUP RI WKH VFDWWHULQJ SRWHQWLDO 7KH RQO\ WKLQJ WKDW FKDQJHV LV WKH 7RNf GHVFULELQJ WKH QRUPDO VWDWH VFDWWHULQJ PAGE 124 5()(5(1&(6 >@ & 3HSLQ DQG 3 $ /HH 3K\V 5HY % f >@ %HGQRU] DQG $ 0OOHU = 3K\V % f >@ %DUGHHQ / 1 &RRSHU DQG 5 6FKULHIIHU 3K\V 5HY f >@ 6FDODSLQR ( -U /RK DQG ( +LUVFK 3K\V 5HY % f >@ 3 : $QGHUVRQ 6FLHQFH f >@ 0L\DNH 6 6FKLPLWW DQG & 0 9DUPD 3K\V 5HY % f 6FDODSLQR ( /RK DQG ( +LUVFK 3K\V 5HY f 1 ( %LFNHUV 6FDODSLQR DQG 5 7 6FDOHWWDU ,QW 0RG 3K\V % f >@ 6& =KDQJ 6FLHQFH f >@ & 0 9DUPD 3 % /LWWOHZRRG 6 6FKPLWW5LQN ( $EUDKDPV DQG $ ( 5XFNHQVWHLQ 3K\V 5HY /HWW f >@ ( $EUDKDPV DQG & 0 9DUPD 3K\V 1DWfO $FDG 6FL f >@ ( : +XGVRQ 6,L 3DQ $ *MSWD .: 1J DQG & 'DYLV 6FLHQFH f >@ 2UHQVWHLQ DQG $ 0LOOLV 6FLHQFH f >@ 0 *XUYLWFK DQG $ 7 )LRU\ 3K\V 5HY /HWW f >@ ) 6WHJOLFK LQ 0DWHULDO DQG 0HFKDQLVPV RI 6XSHUFRQGXFWLYLW\ HGLWHG E\ 0OOHU DQG / 2OVHQ 1RUWK +ROODQG $PVWHUGDP f >@ 7 7LPXVN DQG % 7DQQHU LQ 7KH 3K\VLFDO 3URSHUWLHV RI +LJK 7HPSHUDWXHU 6XSHUFRQGXFWRUV HGLWHG E\ 0 *LQVEHUJ :RUOG 6FLHQWLILF 6LQJDSRUH f >@ 6 6XJDL LQ 0HFKDQLVP RI +LJK 7HPSHUDWXHU 6XSHUFRQGXFWLYLW\ HGLWHG E\ + .DPLPXUD DQG $ 3VKL\DPD 6SULQJHU9HU ODJ +HLGHOEHUJ f >@ 7 9DOOD $ 9 )HGHURY 3 -RKQVRQ % 2 :HOOV 6 / +XOEHU 4 /L *' *X DQG 1 .RVKLNX]D 6FLHQFH f >@ 9 (PHU\ DQG 6 .LYHOVRQ 1DWXUH f >@ 6 &KDNUDYDUW\ 5 % /DXJKOLQ 0RUU DQG & 1D\DN 3K\V 5HY % f PAGE 125 ,OO >@ 7 7LPXVN DQG %U\DQ 6WDWW 5HS 3URJ 3K\V f >@ $ 6QDSVKRW 9LHZ RI +LJK 7HPSHUDWXUH 6XSHUFRQGXFWLYLW\ 6DQ 'LHJR f >@ %LQQLJ + 5RKUHU DQG & *HUEHU 3K\V 5HY /HWW f >@ 0 %\HUV 0 ( )LDWW DQG 6FDODSLQR 3K\V 5HY /HWW f >@ 0 ( )LDWW 6FLHQFH f >@ $ 9 %DODWVN\ 0 6DONROD DQG $ 5RVHQJUHQ 3K\V 5HY % f >@ $ 9 %DODWVN\ DQG 0 6DONROD 3K\V 5HY /HWW f >@ 0 6DONROD $ 9 %DODWVN\ DQG 6FDODSLQR 3K\V 5HY /HWW f >@ 7 &UHQ 5RGLWFKHY : 6DFNV .OHLQ -% 0RXVV\ & 'HYLOOH&DYHOOLQ DQG 0 /DJXV 3K\V 5HY /HWW f >@ 6+ 3DQ 3 2f1HDO 5 / %DG]H\ & &KDPRQ + 'LQJ 5 (Q JHOEUHFKW = :DQJ + (LVDNL 6 8FKLGD $ *XSWD .: 1J ( : +XGVRQ 0 /DQJ DQG & 'DYLV 1DWXUH f >@ 0 /DQJ 9 0DGKDYDQ ( +RIIPDQ ( : +XGVRQ + (LVDNL 6 8FKLGD DQG & 'DYLV 1DWXUH f >@ & +RZDOG 3 )RXUQLHU DQG $ .DSLWXOQLN 3K\V 5HY % f >@ & +RZDOG + (LVDNL 1 .DQHNR DQG $ .DSLWXOQLN FRQGPDW KWWSDU[LYRUJDEVFRQGPDW f >@ & +RZDOG + (LVDNL 1 .DQHNR 0 *UHYHQ DQG $ .DSLWXOQLN 3K\V 5HY % f >@ % :HOOV =; 6KHQ $ 0DWVXXUD 0 .LQJ 0 $ .DVWQHU 0 *UHYHQ DQG 5 %LUJHQHDX 3K\V 5HY /HWW f >@ $ 'DPDVFHOOL = +XVVDLQ DQG =; 6KHQ 5HY 0RG 3K\V f >@ &RUVRQ 2UHQVWHLQ 6HRQJVKLN 2K 2f'RQQHOO DQG 1 (FNVWHLQ 3K\V 5HY /HWW f >@ 0 ) &URPPLH & 3 /XW] DQG 0 (LJOHU 1DWXUH f >@ 3 7 6SUXQJHU / 3HWHUVHQ ( : 3OXPPHU ( /DHJVJDDUG DQG ) %HVHQ EDFKHU 6FLHQFH f >@ ( 1 (FRQRPRX *UHHQfV )XQFWLRQV LQ 4XDQWXP 3K\VLFV QG HGLWLRQ 6SULQJHU9HUODJ %HUOLQ f >@ 3 : $QGHUVRQ 3K\V &KHP 6RO f PAGE 126 >@ $ $ $EULNRVRY DQG / 3 *RUNRY =K (NVS 7HRU )L] f >@ /X PAGE 127 >@ 0DUWXE $9 %DODWVN\ DQG =DDQHQ 3K\V 5HY /HWW f >@ -; =KX &6 7LQJ DQG &5 +X 3K\V 5HY % f >@ 5 )HKUHQEDFKHU 3K\V 5HY /HWW f >@ 3 +LUVFKIHOG 9ROOKDUGW DQG 3 :ROIOH 6ROLG 6WDWH &RPPXQ f >@ 7 ;LDQJ DQG 0 :KHDWOH\ 3K\V 5HY % f >@ : $ $WNLQVRQ 3 +LUVFKIHOG DQG $ + 0DF'RQDOG 3K\V 5HY /HWW f >@ : $ $WNLQVRQ 3 +LUVFKIHOG $ + 0DF'RQDOG DQG =LHJOHU 3K\V 5HY /HWW f >@ 3 +LUVFKIHOG DQG : $ $WNLQVRQ /RZ 7HPS 3K\V f >@ $ $ 1HUVHV\DQ $ 0 7VYHOLN DQG ) :HQJHU 3K\V 5HY /HWW f 1XF 3K\V % f >@ =LHJOHU 0 + +HWWOHU DQG 3 +LUVFKIHOG 3K\V 5HY /HWW f >@ $ PAGE 128 >@ 0 )DEUL]LR / 'HOOf$QQD DQG & &DVWHOODQL 3K\V 5HY /HWW f $ $OWODQG 3K\V 5HY % f >@ : $ $WNLQVRQ 3 +LUVFKIHOG DQG /LQJ\LQ =KX 3K\V 5HY % f >@ 4+ :DQJ DQG '+ /HH 3K\V 5HY % f >@ + 'LQJ 0 5 1RUPDQ & &DPSX]DQR 0 5DQGHULD $ ) %HOOPDQ 7 PAGE 129 >@ $ .DPLQVNL 0HVRW + )UHWZHOO & &DPSX]DQR 0 5 1RUPDQ 0 5DQGHULD + 'LQJ 7 6DWR 7 7DNDKDVKL 7 0RFKLNX .DGRZDNL DQG + +RHFKVW 3K\V 5HY /HWW f >@ /< =KX 3 +LUVFKIHOG DQG 6FDODSLQR 3K\V 5HY % f >@ 7 'DKP 3 +LUVFKIHOG /< =KX DQG 6FDODSLQR FRQG PDW KWWSDU[LYRUJDEVFRQGPDW f >@ 0 5DQGHULD + 'LQJ & &DPSX]DQR $ %HOOPDQ -HQQLQJV 7 PAGE 130 >@ 'XII\ 6FDODSLQR DQG 3 +LUVFKIHOG 3K\V 5HY % f >@ +< .HH 3K\V 5HY % f PAGE 131 %,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ ZDV ERUQ LQ PAGE 132 , FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DKG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRfAI 3KLORVRSK\ n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a=OR 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ |