*The complete scientific publication portal*

*Managed by professional scientists*

*For open, global and perpetual access to science*

As Contributors: | Federico Becca · Luca Fausto Tocchio |

Arxiv Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.12268v1 |

Date submitted: | 2018-10-30 |

Submitted by: | Tocchio, Luca Fausto |

Submitted to: | SciPost Physics |

Domain(s): | Theor. & Comp. |

Subject area: | Condensed Matter Physics - Theory |

Short-range antiferromagnetic correlations are known to open a spin gap in the repulsive Hubbard model on ladders with $M$ legs, when $M$ is even. We show that the spin gap originates from the formation of correlated pairs of electrons with opposite spin, captured by the hidden ordering of a spin-parity operator. Since both spin gap and parity vanish in the two-dimensional limit, we introduce the fractional generalization of spin parity and prove that it remains finite in the thermodynamic limit. Our results are based upon variational wave functions and Monte Carlo calculations: performing a finite size-scaling analysis with growing $M$, we show that the doping region where the parity is finite coincides with the range in which superconductivity is observed in two spatial dimensions. Our observations support the idea that superconductivity emerges out of spin gapped phases on ladders, driven by a spin-pairing mechanism, in which the ordering is conveniently captured by the finiteness of the fractional spin-parity operator.

Editor-in-charge assigned

Submission 1810.12268v1 (30 October 2018)

1- Clear presentation of results

2- Well written manuscript

3- Interesting results that draw insights into 2D physics from quasi-1D ladder models

1- Choice of boundary conditions for the $M=2,4,6$ simulations is unclear

2- Accuracy of the simulations as compared to DMRG/tensor networks could be clearly stated

3- Conclusions about nature of the pairing in 2D could be more clearly stated and discussed in the conclusions

In this work, the authors study $M=2,4,6$-leg Hubbard ladders with a particular focus on the Luther-Emery phase. This phase is characterized by the presence of a spin gap and gapless charge excitations, leading to the possibility of quasi-long-range superconducting order if interactions conspire appropriately. It is well known from numerous studies of ladder models that this superconductivity is d-wave in nature, leading to obvious parallels to the cuprates, which are thought to be described by the two-dimensional Hubbard model. The two-dimensional limit is tough to tackle, but can be pictured as the $M\to\infty$ limit of the studied ladder models. Using variational quantum Monte Carlo (VQMC) the authors study how a "fractional" generalization of the spin parity operator, which captures the formation of correlated electron pairs, varies with the number of legs $M$. They use their results to gain insight into the two-dimensional limit, with the region in which the fractional spin parity operator is finite coinciding with that in which superconductivity is observed in fully two-dimensional calculations.

The manuscript is well written, the presentation of the results is clear, and the conclusions are well justified. I support publication in SciPost Physics provided the following comments are addressed by the authors.

1. In the abstract the authors state "Our observations support the idea that superconductivity emerges out of spin gapped phases on ladders, driven by a spin-pairing mechanism". This observation is of interest with regards to high-temperature superconductivity in the cuprates, and is not so clearly stated in the conclusions. I think it would be good to state (and possibly discuss) this explicitly there, and it may also be worth noting that similar ideas lie at the heart of the Yang-Rice-Zhang ansatz for the single-electron propagator in the cuprates (see, e.g., the review Rep. Prog. Phys. 75 016502 (2012)) and recent works by Tsvelik on the cuprate problem (see, e.g., Phys. Rev. B 95, 201112 (2017)).

2. As mentioned by the authors in the introduction, the density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) has been used extensively to study $M$-leg ladders. How does the presented VQMC compare to DMRG for, e.g., the value of the ground state energy or for reproducing the phase diagram as a function of filling and U?

3. As shown explicitly in Ref. [28] by Lin, Balents and Fisher, many details of the $M>2$ phase diagram depend on the boundary conditions along the rungs. Following Eq. (12), the authors state the boundary conditions they use for $M=2$ (open), $M=4$ (antiperiodic) and $M=6$ (periodic), but its unclear why these choices were made. In light of Figs. 9 and 10 of Ref. [28] for $M=4$, this needs to be discussed and justified. Also, for $M=2$ aren't open and periodic boundary conditions equivalent?

4. It would also be good to mention somewhere about the statistical errors. If the error bars are smaller than the points, this should be stated explicitly.

5. More details on the extrapolation to the $M=\infty$ limit would be welcome - is the "2D limit" shown in Fig. 1 from an extrapolation or fully 2D numerical calculations?

1) The paper is very clearly written

2) The results provide an interesting insight in the question of emergence of d-vave superconductivity in two dimensions

1) The paper could contain some more details about the numerics, in particular about some choices made (e.g. boundary conditions, length of the system, …)

The authors discuss the emergence of the Luther-Emery phase in the Hubbard models on ladders with an even number of legs. The problem is tackled with a numerical (variational Monte Carlo) techniques: the ground state of 2-, 4-, 6-legs case is considered, in the repulsive regime and for a wide range of fillings. The analysis is carried out by calculating: i) the spin structure factor which yields information on whether the phase is gapped or gapless ; ii) the pair-pair correlation function between singlets on the rung; iii) the (non-local) spin parity operator. The results show that, similarly to what is expected for the 2 dimensional case, a gapped d-wave like phase is found to be stable at large doping.

The topic considered by the author is very interesting and seems to be very important in order to describe the emergence of superconductivity in the two dimensional case, via a detailed analysis of quasi one-dimensional Hubbard models, defined on spin ladders.

The paper is written in a very clear way and all the results are presented in a concise but precise way.

I believe that the paper deserves publication.

I have only a few minor comments, that the authors might want to consider to better explain their work.

1) Line after eq. (7), the sentence “a free-band dispersion ξk, defined as in the Hubbard Hamiltonian” could be made more explicit;

2) Why simulations are performed with different boundary conditions along the y-direction (see after eq. (12)) depending on the number of legs?

3) Are the sizes L of the systems considered in numerical simulations dictated by the maximum one that computation can achieve or by other considerations? Also, what about a check of the thermodynamical limit?

4) I do not understand the sentence: “no gapless points in the wave function “ at page 9.

## Author Luca Fausto Tocchio on 2018-12-19

(in reply to Report 1 on 2018-12-16)We thank the Referee for recognizing the quality and the potential impact of our work, as well as the clarity in presenting the results.

We provide here a response to his/her questions and comments, in order to better clarify some technical details.

The manuscript will be changed accordingly.

1) The free-band dispersion relation $\xi_k=\epsilon_k-\mu$ in the uncorrelated Hamiltonian of Eq.(7) includes the band structure

$\epsilon_k$ of the $U=0$ Hamiltonian and the chemical potential $\mu$. The explicit form of the band dispersion is

$\epsilon_k=-2t(\cos k_x + \cos k_y)$, for the 4-leg and the 6-leg ladder. In the case with 2 legs, the vertical bond must be counted

only once, thus leading to a slightly different form, namely, $\epsilon_k=-2t\cos k_x \pm 1$. We add this information in the revised

version of the paper.

2) and 4) These two points raised by the Referee are intimately related. In our approach, the variational wave function is constructed

from the ground state of an auxiliary (quadratic) Hamiltonian, i.e., by filling the $N_e$ lowest-energy levels, where $N_e$ is the

number of electrons. Then, in order to deal with a unique and well defined state, there must be a gap (that can be just due to finite

size effects) between the $N_e$-th and the $(N_e+1)$-th levels. The optimal state contains BCS pairing with $d$-wave-like symmetry;

thus the spectrum has gapless points at $k=(\pm \pi/2,\pm \pi/2)$. Our choice of boundary conditions is done in order to avoid having

these points in reciprocal space. We clarify this fact in the revised version of the paper.

3) The sizes $L$ that we consider are taken large enough to be close to the thermodynamic limit for the quantities of interest, even

if largest lattices can be considered in principle. For instance, in Fig.6, the fractional spin parity in the spin gapped region has

a value that does not depend on the size of the lattice, i.e., the results are already in the thermodynamic limit. The fractional

spin parity in the spin gapless region is instead still finite for the lattice that we considered; in this respect, we have shown in

Fig.7 that the fractional spin parity extrapolates to zero when larger lattices and a proper scaling function are taken into account.