text:
# Enumeration of chord diagrams

## §1

Given $`2n`$ different points on a circle ask a question: in how many different ways may the points be joined by chords. The answer depends of course on our understanding of the word ”different”.

The configuration (actually a graph) consisting of the circle and $`n`$ chords joining $`2n`$ different point is called a chord diagram of order $`n`$ or, shortly, $`n`$-diagram. In the present paper, we let a group $`G`$ act on the circle and consider two $`n`$-diagrams as indistinguishable or equivalent if the one is transformed into the other by a suitable element of the group.

With the identity group acting on the circle, all $`n`$-diagrams are distinct and there are altogether $`\frac{(2n)!}{2^nn!}=(2n1)!!`$ diagrams with $`n`$ chords. This case is well-studied: Errera  (see also A. M. Jaglom and I. M. Jaglom ) determined the number of $`n`$-diagrams with the additional requirement that no chords intersect inside the circle which equals $`\frac{(2n)!}{n!(n+1)!}`$. Touchard  and later Riordan  extended that result to enumeration of $`n`$-diagrams by the number of crossings of the chords, which is given by a generating function $`T_n(x)`$ satisfying the following relation

$$(1x)^nT_n(x)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^jt_{nj}x^J$$

with

$$J=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j+1}{2}\right),t_{nj}=\frac{2j+1}{2n+1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n+1}{nj}\right).$$

Generally chord diagrams are not strict graphs as they may have double edges. Chord diagrams which are strict graphs were considered by Hazewinkel and Kalashnikov . Let $`b_{2n}`$ be the number of strict $`n`$-diagrams under the identity group. They proved that $`a_{2n}=_{i=1}^nb_{2i}`$ satisfies the recurrence $`a_{2n}=(2n1)a_{2n2}+a_{2n4}`$.

Chord diagrams considered to within an equivalence induced by a cyclic group action appear in different contexts. In the theory of knots they are used to describe Vassiliev knot invariants in a purely combinatorial way by considering the algebra of functions defined on the set of chord diagrams satisfying certain linear equations , . Chord diagrams also appear in the classification of vector fields and smooth functions on surfaces up to a homeomorphism where stable separatrices of critical points together with a component of the surface boundary form a chord diagram embedded into the surface .

## §2

###### Definition 1.

A chord diagram of order $`n`$ is a 3-regular graph with the vertex set $`[2n]=\{1,2,\mathrm{},2n\}`$ containing the $`2n`$-circuit $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2n}=(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{}2n)`$ as a subgraph. The circuit is called a circle, the edges not belonging to the circuit are called chords.

###### Definition 2.

Let a group $`G`$ act on the circuit $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2n}`$. Two $`n`$-diagrams $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ are said to be equivalent if there is a $`gG`$ which takes the chords of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ into the chords of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$.

Our first result is the following

###### Theorem 1.

The number of nonequivalent $`n`$-diagrams under the action of a group $`G`$ equals

$$\frac{1}{|S_nS_2||G|}\underset{\pi S_nS_2}{}\underset{\eta G}{}\underset{i}{}i^{\pi _i}\eta _i(\eta _i1)\mathrm{}(\eta _i\pi _i+1).$$
(1)
Here $`S_nS_2`$ is the wreath product of two symmetric groups $`S_n`$ and $`S_2`$, $`\pi S_nS_2`$ has cycle type $`1^{\pi _1}2^{\pi _2}\mathrm{}(2n)^{\pi _{2n}}`$, $`\eta G`$ cycle type $`1^{\eta _1}2^{\eta _2}\mathrm{}(2n)^{\eta _{2n}}`$ and the product is taken over all $`i[2n]`$ such that $`\pi _i>0`$, the product being equal to zero if $`\pi _i>\eta _i`$ for some $`i`$.

###### Proof.

For each chord diagram, a subgraph consisting of its chords is a 1-factor. The chords of all $`n`$-diagrams constitute the complete graph $`K_{2n}`$, the chords of each single $`n`$-diagram being again a 1-factor of $`K_{2n}`$. The action of $`G`$ on $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2n}`$ induces an action on the set $`_1`$ of all 1-factors of $`K_{2n}`$. The orbits of $`_1`$ under that action are in a one-one correspondence with the nonequivalent $`n`$-diagrams.

A 1-factor of $`K_{2n}`$ can be represented by a $`n\times 2`$ matrix whose entries belong to $`[2n]`$ and are all distinct: each row corresponds to an edge, two row entries being the end points of the edge. This correspondence is not unique. It is defined to whithin an equivalence induced on the set of such matrices by independently permuting entries in each row and permuting the rows bodily. This amounts to the action of the wreath product $`S_nS_2`$. The action of $`G`$ on the set of 1-factors is equivalent to the action of $`G`$ on the set of $`2\times n`$-matrices.

We thus arrive at the following setting: given two sets $`[n]\times [2]`$ and $`[2n]`$, consider the set of bijective mappings $`[n]\times [2][2n]`$. The wreath product $`S_nS_2`$ acts on the set $`[n]\times [2]`$ by the rule $`(\tau ,\overline{\sigma })(i,j)=(\tau (i),\sigma _i(j))`$ where $`\tau S_n`$, $`\overline{\sigma }=(\sigma _1,\mathrm{}\sigma _n)S_2^n`$, and the group $`G`$ acts on the set $`[2n]`$. Two mappings $`f_1,f_2:[n]\times [2][2n]`$ are equivalent if there exist a $`\pi S_nS_2`$ and an $`\eta G`$ such that

$$f_1(\pi (i,j))=\eta f_2((i,j))$$

for all $`(i,j)[n]\times [2]`$. The equivalence classes of mappings are in a one-one correspondence with the orbits of $`_1`$. In this setting, an argument of de Bruijn  applies which he used to prove a theorem on the number of classes of bijective mappings. The proofe is complete. ∎

## §3

We now specialize $`G`$ to a cyclic group $`C_{2n}`$ of order $`2n`$ and obtain a much simpler expression for the number of nonequivalent $`n`$-diagrams.

###### Theorem 2.

The number $`c_n`$ of nonequivalent $`n`$-diagrams under the action of a cyclic group $`C_{2n}`$ equals

$$c_n=\frac{1}{2n}\underset{i|2n}{}\phi (i)\nu _n(i),$$
(2)
where $`\phi (i)`$ is the Euler function and

$$\nu _n(i)=\{\begin{array}{cc}i^{n/i}\left(2n/i1\right)!!\hfill & i\text{ odd},\hfill \\ \underset{k=0}{\overset{\frac{n}{i}}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n/i}{2k}\right)i^k(2k1)!!\hfill & i\text{ even}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
for $`i|2n`$.

###### Proof.

Each permutation $`\eta C_{2n}`$ has cycle type $`i^{2n/i}`$, $`i|2n`$. If $`\pi S_nS_2`$ has a cycle of length $`i`$ the product in (1) equals zero, otherwise it reduces to a single term $`i^{\pi _i}\eta _i(\eta _i1)\mathrm{}(\eta _i\pi _i+1)=i^{2n/i}(2n/i)!`$ since $`\pi _i=\eta _i=2n/i`$. The double sum in (1) can then be replaced with a single sum over all $`i|2n`$. The group $`C_{2n}`$ contains $`\phi (i)`$ permutations of cycle type $`i^{2n/i}`$. Denoting by $`\psi _n(i)`$ the number of permutations of the same cycle type $`i^{2n/i}`$ in $`S_nS_2`$ we rewrite (1) as follows

$$c_n=\frac{1}{2^nn!\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}n}\underset{i|2n}{}i^{2n/i}(2n/i)!\phi (i)\psi _n(i).$$
(4)
To determine $`\psi _n(i)`$ we first establish a relationship between the cycles of $`\tau S_n`$ and the cycles of $`(\tau ,\overline{\sigma })S_nS_2`$.

If $`K_\pi [n]\times [2]`$ is a cycle of $`\pi =(\tau ,\overline{\sigma })`$ then its projection onto $`[n]`$ is a cycle of $`\tau `$.

If $`K_\tau [n]`$ is a cycle of $`\tau S_n`$ then, for any $`\overline{\sigma }S_2^n`$, the length of a cycle of $`(\tau ,\overline{\sigma })S_nS_2`$ induced by $`K_\tau `$ depends only on $`\sigma _kS_2`$, $`kK_\tau `$. Let $`L=\{kK_\tau :\sigma _ke\}`$ where $`e`$ is the identity permutation. If $`|L|`$ is odd then $`K_\tau `$ induces one cycle of length $`2|K_\tau |`$. If $`|L|`$ is even then $`K_\tau `$ induces two cycles both of length $`|K_\tau |`$.

Let $`i|2n`$ be odd. For $`\pi =(\tau ,\overline{\sigma })`$ to have cycle type $`i^{2n/i}`$ the permutation $`\tau `$ must have cycle type $`i^{n/i}`$. The number of such $`\tau S_n`$ equals

$$\frac{n!}{i^{n/i}(n/i)!}.$$

Now we fix $`\tau `$ and count the number of $`\overline{\sigma }S_2^n`$ such that $`(\tau ,\overline{\sigma })`$ has cycle type $`i^{2n/i}`$. Each cycle $`K_\tau `$ of $`\tau `$ induces two cycles of $`(\tau ,\overline{\sigma })`$ of the same length $`i`$. Hence $`|L|`$ must be even for each $`K_\tau `$. There are

$$\underset{mi,m\text{even}}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i}{m}\right)=2^{i1}$$

choices for $`LK_\tau `$. Clearly, $`L`$ uniquely determines $`\sigma _k`$ for all $`kK_\tau `$. For different cycles of $`\tau `$ the choices are independent, so we have $`(2^{i1})^{n/i}=2^{nn/i}`$ different $`\overline{\sigma }S_2^n`$. Multiplying the expressions for $`\tau `$ and $`\overline{\sigma }`$ we get

$$\psi _n(i)=\frac{2^nn!}{2^{n/i}i^{n/i}(n/i)!}$$
(5)
for $`i`$ odd.

Let now $`i|2n`$ be even. For $`\pi =(\tau ,\overline{\sigma })`$ to have cycle type $`i^{2n/i}`$ the permutation $`\tau `$ must have cycle type $`(i/2)^li^k`$ with $`l0,k0`$, $`li/2+ki=n`$. The number of such $`\tau S_n`$ equals

$$\frac{n!}{(i/2)^ll!i^kk!}.$$

We fix $`\tau `$ and count the number of corresponding $`\overline{\sigma }`$. Each $`i/2`$-cycle of $`\tau `$ induces one cycle of $`(\tau ,\overline{\sigma })`$ of the length $`i`$. Hence $`|L|`$ must be odd for each $`i/2`$-cycle of $`\tau `$. There are

$$\underset{mi/2,m\text{odd}}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i/2}{m}\right)=2^{i/21}$$

choices for $`L`$. Each $`i`$-cycle of $`\tau `$ induces two cycles of $`(\tau ,\overline{\sigma })`$, both having length $`i`$. Hence $`|L|`$ must be even for each $`i`$-cycle of $`\tau `$, and we again have $`2^{i1}`$ choices for $`L`$. It follows, there are $`(2^{i/21})^l(2^{i1})^k=2^{nlk}`$ different $`\overline{\sigma }S_2^n`$ such that $`(\tau ,\overline{\sigma })`$ has cycle type $`i^{2n/i}`$. Multiplying the expressions for $`\tau `$ and $`\overline{\sigma }`$ and summing up over all admissible $`l,k`$ we obtain

$$\psi _n(i)=\underset{\begin{array}{c}l0,k0\\ li/2+ki=n\end{array}}{}\frac{2^nn!}{2^l(i/2)^ll!\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}^ki^kk!}=\frac{2^nn!}{i^{2n/i}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\frac{n}{i}}{}}\frac{i^k}{(2n/i2k)!\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}^kk!}$$
(6)
for $`i`$ even.

It remains to substitute (5) and (6) into (4). Setting

$$\nu _n(i)=\frac{i^{2n/i}(2n/i)!}{2^nn!}\psi _n(i)$$

we have

$$\nu _n(i)=\frac{i^{n/i}(2n/i)!}{2^{n/i}(n/i)!}=i^{n/i}(2n/i1)!!$$

for $`i`$ odd and

$$\nu _n(i)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\frac{n}{i}}{}}\frac{i^k(2n/i)!}{(2n/i2k)!\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}^kk!}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\frac{n}{i}}{}}i^k\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n/i}{2k}\right)(2k1)!!$$

for $`i`$ even which completes the proof. ∎

As the terms in (2) are all positive it is clear that $`\underset{¯}{c}_n=(2n)^1(2n1)!!`$ is a lower bound for $`c_n`$ for $`n1`$. It is an easy matter to show that $`\underset{¯}{c}_n`$ is actually an asymptotic estimate for $`c_n`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$.

###### Corollary 1.

$$c_n\underset{¯}{c}_n\text{as }n\mathrm{}$$
(7)
###### Proof.

Dividing out the first term in (2) gives

$$2nc_n=(2n1)!!+\underset{i|2n,i>1}{}\phi (i)\nu _n(i).$$
(8)
We begin with establishing an upper bound for $`\nu _n(i)`$ using Stirling’s formula in the following form

$$n!=\sqrt{2\pi n}\left(\frac{n}{e}\right)^ne^{\frac{\theta }{12n}}$$

where $`\theta =\theta (n)`$ satisfies $`0<\theta <1`$ (see ). We have

$$(2k1)!!=\sqrt{2}\left(\frac{2k}{e}\right)^ke^{\left(\frac{1}{2}\theta _1\theta _2\right)\frac{1}{12k}}<\sqrt{2e}\left(\frac{2k}{e}\right)^k$$

for $`k1`$, $`0<\theta _1<1`$, $`0<\theta _2<1`$. Then we find

$$\nu _n(i)=(2n/i1)!!<\sqrt{2e}\left(\frac{2n}{ei}\right)^{n/i}$$
(9)
for $`i|2n`$ odd. Using the following estimate

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)\left(\frac{ne}{k}\right)^k$$

(see ) for the binomal coefficients we obtain

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n/i}{2k}\right)i^k(2k1)!!<\sqrt{2e}\left(\frac{2n^2e}{ik}\right)^k<\sqrt{2e}\left(2en\right)^{n/i}$$

for $`k\{1,\mathrm{},n/i\}`$ whence

$$\nu _n(i)=1+\underset{k=1}{\overset{n/i}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n/i}{2k}\right)i^k(2k1)!!<\sqrt{2e}n\left(2en\right)^{n/i}$$
(10)
for $`i|2n`$ even. Comparing upper bounds (9) and (10) we conclude that

$$\nu _n(i)<\overline{\nu }_n=\sqrt{2e}n\left(2en\right)^{n/2}$$

for $`i>1`$, $`i|2n`$. Going back to (8) we see that

$$\underset{i|2n,i>1}{}\phi (i)\nu _n(i)<2n\overline{\nu }_n=𝑜\left((2n1)!!\right)$$

as $`n\mathrm{}`$ and the result follows. ∎

Corollary 1 shows that asymptotically each equivalence class contains $`2n`$ diagrams, which is equivalent to saying that the fraction of 1-factors of $`K_{2n}`$ with a nontrivial stabilizer in $`C_{2n}`$ tends to zero as $`n\mathrm{}`$.

## §4

The analysis done in the proof of Theorem 2 allows us to handle the case of a dihedral group $`D_{2n}`$.

###### Theorem 3.

The number $`d_n`$ of nonequivalent $`n`$-diagrams under the action of a dihedral group $`D_{2n}`$ equals

$$d_n=\frac{1}{2}\left(c_n+\frac{1}{2}\left(\kappa _{n1}+\kappa _n\right)\right)$$
(11)
where

$$\kappa _n=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\frac{n}{2}}{}}\frac{n!}{k!(n2k)!}.$$

###### Proof.

As $`C_{2n}<D_{2n}`$ it follows from (1) that

$$d_n=\frac{1}{2}\left(c_n+\frac{1}{2^nn!\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}n}\gamma _n\right)$$
(12)
where $`\gamma _n`$ represents the contribution of those permutations of $`D_{2n}`$ which are not in $`C_{2n}`$. Such permutations have cycle type either $`2^n`$ or $`1^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{n1}`$ and there are $`n`$ permutations of each type in $`D_{2n}`$. The product in (1) equals $`2^nn!`$ for permutations of cycle type $`2^n`$ and $`2^n(n1)!`$ for permutations of cycle type $`1^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{n1}`$. So we can write

$$\gamma _n=2^nn!n\psi _n(2)+2^n(n1)!n\mathrm{\Psi }_n$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ is the number of $`\pi S_nS_2`$ of cycle type $`1^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{(n1)}`$ and $`\psi _n(2)`$ is the number of $`\pi `$ of cycle type $`2^n`$. Applying the analysis in the proof of Theorem 2 we see that for each $`\tau S_n`$ of cycle type $`1^l\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^k`$, $`l+2k=n`$, $`l1`$, $`k0`$ there are $`l2^k`$ permutations $`\overline{\sigma }S_2^n`$ such that $`\pi =(\tau ,\overline{\sigma })S_nS_2^n`$ has cycle type $`1^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{(n1)}`$. Multiplying and summing up over all admissible $`l,k`$ and simplifying we get

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_n=\underset{\begin{array}{c}l1,k0\\ l+2k=n\end{array}}{}\frac{ln!}{l!k!}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\frac{n1}{2}}{}}\frac{n!}{(n12k)k!}.$$

Substituting the expressions for $`\psi _n(2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ into (13) we obtain

$$\gamma _n=2^nn!n\left(\underset{k=0}{\overset{\frac{n}{2}}{}}\frac{n!}{(n2k)!k!}+\underset{k=0}{\overset{\frac{n1}{2}}{}}\frac{(n1)!}{(n12k)!k!}\right).$$
(14)
Denoting

$$\kappa _n=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\frac{n}{2}}{}}\frac{n!}{k!(n2k)!}$$

and substituting (14) into (12) we get the statement of the theorem. ∎

As in the case of the cyclic group, $`\underset{¯}{d}_n=(4n)^1(2n1)!!`$ is a lower bound for $`d_n`$ for $`n1`$ and in fact an asymptotic estimate.

###### Corollary 2.

$$d_n\underset{¯}{d}_n\text{as }n\mathrm{}$$
(15)
###### Proof.

From (11) we get

$$4nd_n=2nc_n+n(\kappa _{n1}+\kappa _n).$$

Clearly

$$n(\kappa _{n1}+\kappa _n)<2n\kappa _n<2nn!\underset{k=0}{\overset{\frac{n}{2}}{}}\frac{1}{k!}<2n^2n!$$

for $`n1`$. Stirling’s formula shows that $`2n^2n!=𝑜((2n1)!!)`$ and hence $`n(\kappa _{n1}+\kappa _n)=𝑜((2n1)!!)`$. But $`2nc_n(2n1)!!`$ which completes the proof. ∎

Corollary 2 shows that asymptotically each equivalence class contains $`4n`$ diagrams.

## §5

The following table gives an idea of the growth rate of $`c_n`$ and $`d_n`$ along with the integral parts of the corresponding asymptotic estimates.

| $`n`$ | $`c_n`$ | $`\underset{¯}{c}_n`$ | $`d_n`$ | $`\underset{¯}{d}_n`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 3 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 1 |
| 4 | 18 | 13 | 17 | 6 |
| 5 | 105 | 94 | 79 | 47 |
| 6 | 902 | 866 | 554 | 433 |
| 7 | 9749 | 9652 | 5283 | 4826 |
| 8 | 127072 | 126689 | 65346 | 63344 |
| 9 | 1915951 | 1914412 | 966156 | 957206 |
| 10 | 32743182 | 32736453 | 16411700 | 16368226 |
| 11 | 625002933 | 624968662 | 312702217 | 312484331 |

Below are shown all nonequivalent (under the cyclic group) 3- and 4-diagrams. Except for the two diagrams 12 and 13 all of them are also nonequivalent under the dihedral group.

Acknowledgement. The author is grateful to Vladimir Sharko for posing the problem and stimulating conversations.

Rofin-Sinar Laser GmbH
Neufeldstr. 16
85232 Guending
Germany
KhruzinA@rofin-muc.de


format: text

text:
# Superconducting Alloys with Weak and Strong Scattering: Anderson’s Theorem and a Superconductor-Insulator Transition.

## I Introduction

As is well known, s-wave superconductivity is possible even in highly disordered systems. Examples are superconducting intermetalic alloys $`(`$such as $`Au_cSi_{1c},Nb_cSi_{1c}`$, $`Mo_{1c}Rh_c`$$`)`$, heavily doped cubic perovskites $`(`$such as $`Ba_{1c}K_cBiO_3`$ with $`x0.4`$$`)`$ and chevrel phases $`(`$ such as $`Cs_{0.3}MoS_2`$$`)`$. What lies beyond these initially surprising facts is Anderson’s theorem according to which pairing of time-reversed states leads to a finite gap $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the density of states. Namely, the one particle states involved in the pairing need not be eigenstates of any translation operators and hence both $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`T_c`$ are only weakly influenced by the disorder.

The key assumptions required for Anderson’s theorem are $`(i)`$ non- magnetic scattering only $`(`$time reversal symmetry$`)`$ $`(ii)`$ the self-consistent order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ does not fluctuate from configuration to configuration. Previously Györffy et al. examined the conditions for $`(ii)`$ to hold, and found that spatial fluctuations in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ could be neglected provided that coherence length

$$\xi =\frac{\mathrm{}v_F}{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }}$$
(1)
is much greater than the lattice spacing, $`a`$. Anderson’s theorem also follows from the classic theory of Abrikosov and Gorkov. Their argument is based on perturbation theory and the proof requires that the real part of the self energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(E)`$ varies slowly near the Fermi energy $`E_F`$. It turns out that this is equivalent to the condition $`\xi >>a`$ in Eq. 1.

The purpose of this paper is to examine disordered s-wave superconductors for which the spatial fluctuations of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ cannot be neglected. The results of an such inquiry will be important for narrow band or short coherence length superconductors where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_F`$ or $`\xi a`$, such as some of those mentioned above. In the work of Györffy et al. the order parameter fluctuations due to impurities were studied using a perturbative technique. Zhitomirsky and Walker also calculated corrections to $`T_c`$ beyond Anderson’s theorem due to order parameter fluctuations evaluated perturbatively. In the present paper the goal is to treat the spatially varying $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and charge density fully self-consistently within the coherent potential approximation (CPA), and hence allow for the case of arbitrarily strong $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ or charge fluctuations.

In this regime a number of interesting new issues arise. For example Ghosal et al. showed that strong disorder scattering leads to strong spatial variations in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, with the formation of superconducting ’islands’ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is large and other regions where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is small. Moreover, they found that the spectral gap persists even when $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is very small in large regions of the sample. By contrast it was argued by Opperman and Ziegler that order parameter fluctuations lead to a finite density of states within the gap. Similarly, in the calculations of the non-self-consistent density of states by Annett and Goldenfeld an impurity band tail develops due to spatial fluctuations in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and eventually this leads to gap-less s-wave superconductivity. Obviously the fluctuations in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can arise either due to randomness in the single particle site energy, $`\epsilon _i`$, at each atomic site, as in an alloy, or due to randomness in the attractive interaction potential, $`U_i`$, as considered by Litak and Györffy. Here we consider only the former case of alloy type disorder.

In this paper we calculate the spatially random, self-consistent order parameter and charge due to AB binary alloy type disorder. The on site energy is $`\epsilon _A`$ on a fraction c of lattice sites and $`\epsilon _B`$ on the fraction $`1c`$. The Green functions are calculated using the coherent potential approximation$`(CPA)`$. This has been shown to be exact in the limit of infinite dimensions and to reproduce the results of the self-consistent Born approximation for weak scattering $`(\epsilon _A\epsilon _BW,`$ where W is the bandwith $`)`$ and the self-consistent T-matrix approximation in the limit of low impurity concentration ($`c1`$). We calculate the self-consistent A or B site order parameter $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_A,\mathrm{\Delta }_B)`$ and charge density $`(n_A,n_B)`$. Interestingly, we find that particle-hole symmetry leads to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A=\mathrm{\Delta }_B`$, and we show that Anderson’s theorem applies exactly in this case, even though $`\xi a`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }W`$. A similar result was obtained previously for weak ($`|U|W`$)  and strong $`(|U|W)`$ interactions, but only for the weak disorder limit. By contrast the result here is exact for both weak and strong scattering. Evidently, this latter result implies that $`\xi a`$ is not a necessary condition for Anderson’s theorem. Furthermore in the extreme disorder limit $`(\epsilon _A\epsilon _B>W`$) we have a disorder induced band-splitting in the normal state. Remarkably, if the chemical potential lies in the band gap there is a superconductor to insulator quantum phase transition at $`T=0`$. If the chemical potential lies inside one of the split bands, the normal state is metalic but there are impurity states inside the superconducting gap.

Below, in section II, we describe the model, and our CPA formalism and report our numerical results for the cases of weak $`(\epsilon _A\epsilon _B<<W)`$ and intermediate $`(\epsilon _A\epsilon _B<W)`$ scattering. In section III we show that the gap fluctuation vanishes in the case of particle-hole symmetry, whilst in section IV we argue that within CPA Anderson’s theorem is exact in this case. Section V contain our results for the strong scattering $`(\epsilon _A\epsilon _B>W)`$ case where we find a superconductor-insulator transition.

## II  The model and CPA for s-wave superconducting alloys.

We use an attractive U single band Hubbard model defined by the Hamiltonian:

$$H=\underset{ij\sigma }{}t_{ij}c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i\sigma }{}U_i\widehat{n}_{i\sigma }\widehat{n}_{i\sigma }+\underset{i\sigma }{}(\epsilon _i\mu _{bare})\widehat{n}_{i\sigma }.$$
(2)
where $`c_{i\sigma }^{}`$, $`c_{i\sigma }`$ are, respectively, the creation and annihilation operators of electrons with spin $`\sigma `$ on the lattice site $`i`$, $`\widehat{n}_{i\sigma }=c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma }`$ is the local occupation number operator, $`\mu _{bare}`$ is the chemical potential, and $`t_{ij}`$ is the hopping integral from site $`i`$ to site $`j`$. $`U_i`$ is the attractive pairing interaction at site i. In all of the numerical calculations shown below the interaction potential is $`U_i=3.2t`$. For other interaction strengths we found similar results. $`\epsilon _i`$ is the site diagonal random disorder potential which takes on values $`\epsilon _A`$ with probablity c and $`\epsilon _B`$ with probablity $`1c`$.

After applying the Hartree-Fock-Gorkov (HFG) approximation to Eq. 2 our task becomes a study of the Gorkov equation:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}t_{il}+(ı\omega _n+\mu _{bare}\epsilon _iU_in_i)\delta _{il}& \mathrm{\Delta }_i\delta _{il}\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_i^{}\delta _{il}& t_{li}+(ı\omega _n\mu _{bare}+\epsilon _i+n_iU_i)\delta _{il}\end{array}\right)`$ (5)
$`\times \widehat{G}(l,j,ı\omega _n)=\delta _{ij}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (8)
where $`\widehat{G}(i,j,ı\omega _n)`$ is the Fourier transform, with respect to the complex-time variable $`\tau `$, of the Greens function $`\widehat{G}(i,j,\tau )=\frac{1}{\beta }_{\omega _n}e^{ı\omega _n\tau }\widehat{G}(i,j,ı\omega _n)`$.The self-consistency conditions for the local order parameter and charge density are

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_i=\frac{U_i}{\beta }\underset{\omega _n}{}e^{ı\omega _n\eta }G_{12}(i,i,ı\omega _n)$$
(9)
and

$$n_i=\frac{1}{\beta }\underset{\omega _n}{}e^{ı\omega _n\eta }G_{11}(i,i,ı\omega _n)$$
(10)
where $`\eta `$ is a positive infinitesimal. The task at hand is to solve the above equations for each configuration $`\{\epsilon _i\}`$ of the site energy and pairing interaction, to obtain the local order parameter and charge $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }_i,,n_i\}`$ and hence to calculate the configurationally averaged Greens function $`\widehat{\overline{G}}(i,i;ı\omega _n)=\widehat{G}(i,i;ı\omega _n;\{\epsilon _i\})`$.

Whilst most of the salient features of disordered superconductors are well described by the Abrikosov and Gorkov(AG) theory, recently the CPA has also been brought to bear on the problem. Within the CPA one replaces the on site random potential with a site independent self-energy matrix

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(ı\omega _n)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(ı\omega _n)& \mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}(ı\omega _n)\\ \mathrm{\Sigma }_{21}(ı\omega _n)& \mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}(ı\omega _n)\end{array}\right)$$
(11)
which is determined by the condition that an A or B impurity, corresponding to $`\epsilon _A`$ and $`\epsilon _B`$ respectively does not scatter on the average. Thus the average Green function is given by

$`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}t_{il}+(ı\omega _n+\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(ı\omega _n))\delta _{il}& \mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}(ı\omega _n)\delta _{il}\\ \mathrm{\Sigma }_{21}(ı\omega _n)\delta _{il}& t_{li}+(ı\omega _n\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}(ı\omega _n))\delta _{il}\end{array}\right)`$ (14)
$`\times \widehat{G}^c(l,j,ı\omega _n)=\delta _{ij}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (17)
In the previous application of the CPA to the above model the condition which determined $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ was implemented under the assumption that the pairing potential $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ does not fluctuate with the site energies. Therefore the self-consistency conditions (Eqs. 910) were satisfied only on average. However, this presumption is not a necessary part of the CPA and, as will be seen presently, is unduely restrictive. Here, we consider the more general case where on an A or B site, with site energy $`\epsilon _A`$ or $`\epsilon _B`$, the pairing potential is allowed to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }_B`$ respectively and the two local gaps, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_B`$, are determined by the condition that the corresponding local gap equations (Eq. 9) are separately satisfied. Thus if the probability that a site is occupied by an A atom is c and that for a B atom is $`1c`$ the generalized CPA condition is

$$c\widehat{T}_A(ı\omega _n)+(1c)\widehat{T}_B(ı\omega _n)=0$$
(18)
where the single site T-matrices, $`\widehat{T}_A`$ and $`\widehat{T}_B`$, are given by

$$\widehat{T}_i(ı\omega _n)=\widehat{V}_i(ı\omega _n)\left(\widehat{1}\widehat{G}^c(l,j,ı\omega _n)\widehat{V}_i(ı\omega _n)\right)^1$$
(19)
in terms of the local, single site, scattering potential matrix

$$\widehat{V}_i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\epsilon _i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}\mu _i& \mathrm{\Delta }_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_i^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{21}& \epsilon _i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}+\mu _i\end{array}\right)$$
(20)
for $`i=A,B`$.

Note that in the above expression not only $`\epsilon _i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ are allowed to fluctuate but the local $`\mu _i`$ also take on different values on A and B sites. Evidently, such variations arise from charge fluctuations. In the present HFG approximation this is described by

$$\mu _{i\sigma }=\mu _{bare}\frac{1}{2}n_{i\sigma }U_i.$$
(21)
Clearly, once the above CPA problem has been solved for a set of $`\epsilon _A,\epsilon _B,\mathrm{\Delta }_A,\mathrm{\Delta }_B,n_A`$ and $`n_B`$ self-consistency requires that they are recalculated using the relations

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{A,B}=\frac{U_{A,B}}{\beta }\underset{\omega _n}{}e^{ı\omega _n\eta }G_{12}^{A,B}(i,i;ı\omega _n)$$
(22)
$$n_{A,B}=\frac{1}{\beta }\underset{\omega _n}{}e^{ı\omega _n\eta }G_{11}^{A,B}(i,i;ı\omega _n)$$
(23)
where $`\widehat{G}^{A,B}(i,i;ı\omega _n)`$ is the Greens function matrix averaged over all configurations with an A or B atom, respectively, on the site i. In our calculation we assume, the non-magnetic case, that $`n_i=n_i=\frac{1}{2}n_i`$, and hence

$$\mu _{A,B}=\mu _{bare}\frac{1}{2}U_{A,B}n_{A,B}.$$
(24)
Moreover, the patially averaged Green functions $`\widehat{G}^{A,B}(i,i;ı\omega _n)`$ are approximated by the Green function for A or B impurity in the CPA effective lattice described by the self-energy $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$. They are given by

$$\widehat{G}^{A,B}(i,i;ı\omega _n)=\widehat{G}^c(i,i;ı\omega _n)+\widehat{G}^c(i,i;ı\omega _n)\widehat{T}_{A,B}\widehat{G}^c(i,i;ı\omega _n).$$
(25)
In short, equations $`615`$ fully specify a self-consistent procedure, which when carried to convergence, constitutes the complete CPA for disordered superconductors, in the HFG approximation, for the model Hamiltonian in Eq. 2. Note that since the CPA is the mean field theory of disorder and the HFG approximation is that for superconductivity, the above theory should be regarded as the mean field theory which treats disorder and electron interaction simultaneously and on an equal footing. By treating the self-consistency only on average, earlier works did not include the effects of fluctuations in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`n`$. Previously the full CPA was only implemented to determine the influence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ fluctuation on $`T_c`$. In the remainder of this paper we investigate the full consequences of treating interaction and disorder together on the basis of Eqs. $`615`$.

Our results for the gap and charge fluctuations as functions of the average band filling $`\overline{n}`$ are shown in Figs.$`1`$ and $`2`$. To simplify matters we used a $`2d`$ square lattice with lattice constant $`a=1`$ and band energy

$$ϵ_𝐤=2t(cosk_x+cosk_y)$$
(26)
where t is the nearest neighbour hopping amplitude. In these calculations we have taken the energy difference $`\delta =\epsilon _A\epsilon _B`$ to be a significant fraction of the bandwidth $`W=8t`$ $`(\delta =0.5t,\delta =2t)`$ and hence we are in the fairly strong scattering regime $`(`$ for $`\delta =2t)`$. As Fig.$`1`$ shows $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A\mathrm{\Delta }_B`$ except at the point $`\overline{n}=1`$, namely a half filled band. Clearly from Fig.$`2`$ $`n_An_B`$ at any filling except $`0`$ or $`2`$. Thus, unlike in previous calculations the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`n`$ fluctuations are central features of our results. For emphasis we show in Fig.$`3`$ the standard deviations of the order parameter

$$M_\mathrm{\Delta }=(|\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_i)^2|=|\mathrm{\Delta }_i^2||\mathrm{\Delta }_i|^2c(1c)(\mathrm{\Delta }_A\mathrm{\Delta }_B)^2$$
(27)
and charge density

$$M_n=(\delta n_i)^2=n_i^2n_i^2c(1c)(n_An_B)^2$$
(28)
as predicted by our CPA calculations.

Remarkably, at half filling the fluctuations in the pairing potential go to zero, whilst the charge density fluctuations are at their strongest. To investigate the origin of this interesting phenomena we studied the case where $`c=0.750.5`$ but the band is still half filled at $`\overline{n}=1`$. For this case $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A,\mathrm{\Delta }_B`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ are shown in Fig.$`4`$ as a function of temperature. Evidently for all $`T<T_c`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A\mathrm{\Delta }_B`$ and hence $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }0`$. In what follows we unravel the root cause of this behavior.

## III particle-hole symmetry

Recall that in Figs.$`13`$ the order parameter fluctuations vanish, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A=\mathrm{\Delta }_B`$, for the case $`\overline{n}=1`$ and $`c=0.5`$, namely equal concentrations of A and B atoms. This special case is one where the Fermi energy is at the center of the band and the density of states is symmetric, and hence particle-hole symmetry occurs. For this case and only this case $`\mu =0`$, $`\mu _{bare}=\frac{1}{2}U`$ and $`\mu _B=\mu _A`$. Furthermore, since the self-energy always obey the same symmetries as the Green functions

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(ı\omega _n)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}^{}(ı\omega _n)`$ (29)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}(ı\omega _n)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{21}^{}(ı\omega _n),`$ (30)
for particle-hole symmetry there is also the property that

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(ı\omega _n)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}^{}(ı\omega _n).$$
(31)
Namely,

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(ı\omega _n)=0$$
(32)
and consequently

$$\mathrm{}G_{11}^c(ı\omega _n)=0.$$
(33)
Noting that the CPA respects these symmetries we can rewrite the CPA condition in Eq. 18, as

$$c\widehat{V}_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}+(1c)\widehat{V}_{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=\widehat{G}^c(i,i;ı\omega _n).$$
(34)
Combining this with particle-hole symmetry as described by Eqs. 30313233 implies that

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }_A\mathrm{\Delta }_B)\left(\frac{\delta }{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}+\frac{\delta }{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{21}+(\mu _A\frac{\delta }{2})\mathrm{\Delta }_A+(\mu _A\frac{\delta }{2})\mathrm{\Delta }_B\right)=0.$$
(35)
and hence, since the second bracket is non-zero, that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_A=\mathrm{\Delta }_B.$$
(36)
Therefore particle-hole symmetry implies the absence of the order parameter fluctuations.

## IV Proof of Anderson’s theorem in the particle-hole symmetric density of state case

In non-magnetic disordered local s-wave superconductors the traditional argument leading to Anderson’s theorem assumes that the fluctuations of the order parameter are negligible, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. Anderson’s theorem shows that in this case there are no bound states between quasi-particles and impurity sites and therefore the quasi-particle energy gap is absolute. Namely, there are no impurity states inside of the gap. Furthermore $`T_c`$ is found simply by replacing, the clean system density of states $`N(E)`$, with its disordered system average $`\overline{N}(E)`$ in the gap equation.

In an alternative route to the same result Abrikosov and Gorkov use perturbation theory which implies that the self-energy can be approximated by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(ı\omega _n)=\frac{ı}{\tau }sign(\omega _n)$$
(37)
where $`\tau `$ is a wave vector and frequency independent quasi-particle life time. This is justified in the case of the non-self-consistent Born approximation by the assumption that the relevant energy scale is $`|\omega _n|\omega _D`$ $`(\omega _D`$ is Debeye frequncy$`)`$ and hence only states near the Fermi surface are relevant. More implicitly it is assumed that near the Fermi surface the density of states is a constant and hence there is effectively particle-hole symmetry.

However in general we cannot assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(ı\omega _n)`$ is of this form. In the case of narrow band superconductors, there is no Debeye cut off and so one cannot assume that only states near the Fermi level are significant. In particular $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(ı\omega _n)`$ will not be a constant, and $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(ı\omega _n)`$ need not be zero. Nevertheless, if for some reason particle-hole symmetry is obeyed, Anderson’s theorem will obtain in full CPA, self-consistent Born, and T-matrix approximations.

In Figs.$`5`$ and $`6`$ we illustrate using our explicit calculation the energy dependence of $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(E)`$, $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(E)`$, $`\mathrm{}(R(E))`$ and $`\mathrm{}(R(E))`$ for the cases of particle-hole symetric or nonsymmetric cases. Note that function $`R(E)`$ is defined by

$$R(E)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(E+ı0^+)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(Eı0^+)\right),$$
(38)
and $`R(E)`$ is the analytical continuation of $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(ı\omega _n)`$ to the real axis. Figs.$`5`$ and $`6`$ show that for particle-hole symmetry, $`\overline{n}=1`$ and $`c=0.5`$, $`R(E)`$ is equal to zero but in other cases $`R(E)0`$. We shall now analyze the consequences of the particle-hole symmetry $`EE`$.

The Green function for CPA, self-consistent Born or T-matrix approximations can be written in the form

$$\widehat{\overline{G}}(i,i;ı\omega _n)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{k}{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}ı\stackrel{~}{\omega }_nϵ_k+\stackrel{~}{\mu }& \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\\ \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}& ı\stackrel{~}{\omega }_n+ϵ_k\stackrel{~}{\mu }\end{array}\right)^1$$
(39)
where the renormalized parameters $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_n`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ and $`\eta _\omega `$ are given by

$`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_n`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _n(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(ı\omega _n)}{\omega _n}})`$ (40)
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(ı\omega _n)}{\omega _n}})`$ (41)
$`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\mu \mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(ı\omega _n)`$ (42)
$`\eta _\omega `$ $`=`$ $`(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(ı\omega _n)}{\omega _n}}).`$ (43)
Note that these renormalized parameters are the same as in the original paper of Abrikosov and Gorkov, where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ was computed in the non-self-consistent Born approximation. They found that $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}`$ near the Fermi surface is independents of $`\omega `$, and therefore eventually it can be absorbed into the chemical potential. The same procedure was followed Martin et al..

However we proceed without these simplifications and retain the full energy dependence of $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(E)`$ and $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(E)`$. Now, particle-hole symmetry implies that $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(ı\omega _n)=0`$, and therefore $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }=\mu `$. Using the above relations the gap equation becomes

$$1=\frac{|U|}{\beta }\underset{n}{}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{N(\stackrel{~}{ϵ},ı\omega _n)}{\omega _n^2+\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2}𝑑\stackrel{~}{ϵ}$$
(44)
where

$$N(\stackrel{~}{ϵ},ı\omega _n)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{k}{}\frac{1}{\eta _\omega }\delta (\stackrel{~}{ϵ}\stackrel{~}{ϵ_k})$$
(45)
and, $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ_k}=\frac{ϵ_k}{\eta _\omega }`$ is the renormalized band energy.

Surprisingly in the case of particle-hole symmetry the quantity $`N(\stackrel{~}{ϵ},ı\omega _n)`$ in Eq. 44 becomes equal to the disorder average normal state density of states, namely, $`\overline{N}(\stackrel{~}{ϵ})`$ and hence, without further assumptions, Anderson’s theorem obtains. To be quick and explicit we note that this last step follows from the property of a delta function that $`\delta (\frac{x}{a})=a\delta (x)`$, and hence

$$N(\stackrel{~}{ϵ},ı\omega _n)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{k}{}\frac{1}{\eta _\omega }\delta (\stackrel{~}{ϵ}\stackrel{~}{ϵ_k})=N(\eta _\omega \stackrel{~}{ϵ})=\overline{N}(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}),$$
(46)
In short, we again have Anderson’s theorem that $`T_c`$ is given by the usual gap equation, but with the disorder average normal density of states. However, unlike other proofs,ours does not neglect the energy dependence of $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(E)`$ or $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(E)`$.

## V Superconductors in the split band regime

One of the main virtues of the CPA in the normal state is the fact that it describes band splitting correctly. Namely, for $`\epsilon _A\epsilon _B`$ less than the bandwidth, $`8t`$ in our case, it predicts an effective band somewhere in between the bands of pure A or pure B metal, whilst for $`\epsilon _A\epsilon _B`$ bigger than the half bandwidth CPA predicts two, smeared, but nevertheless well defined, bands seperated by a gap. The two bands are at energies where there would have been an A or B band in one of the pure systems. In this later case the wave function corresponding to the A band is large mainly on the A sites and that in the B band is significant only on the B sites. In what follows we shall investigate superconductivity in this split band regime of CPA.

To investigate the consequences for superconductivity in the above split band regime we have solved Eq.6-15 using a strong scattering potential $`(\epsilon _A\epsilon _BW)`$. From these solutions two interesting points emerged. Firstly we found that for the particle-hole symmetric case, reported in Fig.$`8`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A=\mathrm{\Delta }_B`$ and hence even in this strong scattering state there are no fluctuations in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Nevertheless, scattering has a large effect on the superconductivity through the configurationally average density of states $`\overline{N}(E)`$ in the Eq. 46. Namely as shown in Fig.$`8`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ for the critical strength of scattering $`\delta 4.5t`$.

The other interesting phenomenon is a superconductor to insulator transition. Recently Scalettar, Trivedi and Huscroft discovered a superconductor-insulator transition in the disordered attractive U Hubbard model, using Monte Corlo simulations. They found that for strong disorder the superconducting gap is replaced by an insulating gap, both for weak and strong interaction U. Clearly the superconductor to insulator transition in our CPA calculaton has a similar origin, although our model of disorder is different.

In general the band filling $`\overline{n}`$ is given by

$$\overline{n}=(1c)n_B+cn_A.$$
(47)
where $`n_A`$ and $`n_B`$ are the partial averaged occupation numbers on A or B sites respectively. We shall discuss three different cases of Eq. 47: case $`(i)`$ $`(n_A=0,n_B<2)`$, case $`(ii)`$ $`(n_A=0,n_B=2)`$ and case $`(iii)`$ $`(n_A0,n_B=2)`$. In the first case the A band is empty and the filling of the B band$`(n_B)`$ is

$$n_B=\frac{\overline{n}}{1c}.$$
(48)
For the second case the B band is completely, doubly, occupied and the A band completly empty.In the third case the A band is partially occupied with

$$n_A=\frac{\overline{n}2(1c)}{c}.$$
(49)
and the B band is fully occupied. The second case is a special case of Eq. 49. Fig.$`7`$ shows the A, B and average normal density of states for these three different concentrations. In Fig.$`7(a)`$ the A sites are approximately empty $`(n_A0)`$ but there is more than one electron on the B sites. The graph plotted was for the case $`\overline{n}=1`$ and $`c=0.25`$, and therefore from Eq. 48 we have $`n_B=\frac{4}{3}`$. Fig.$`7(a)`$ is a band metal with hopping of electrons from the B sites to the B sites. In Fig.$`7(b)`$ the A sites are almost completely empty, $`n_A=0`$, and the B sites are doubly occupied, $`n_B=2`$. Therefore there is a gap at the Fermi energy and the system is a band insulator. In Fig.$`7(c)`$ the B band is fully occupied while the A band is partially filled. For this case we had $`\overline{n}=1`$ and $`c=0.75`$ and so by Eq. 49, the band filling of the A sites is $`n_A=\frac{2}{3}`$. Similarly Fig.$`7(c)`$ is a metal band with hopping from the A sites to the A sites. In Fig.$`7(b)`$ there is no hopping and we can regard this state as a band insulator.

As illustrated in Fig.$`8a`$, in the split band regime the superconductor gap closes,$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}0`$ as $`\delta 4.5t`$ but is replaced by an insulating gap for $`\delta >4.5t`$ . Evidently, this can also happen in the non particle-hole symmetric case as shown in Fig.$`8b`$. The general condition for the superconductor-insulator transition is saturation of the B sites with $`2`$ electrons of opposite spin while the A sites are empty. This happens when

$$\overline{n}=2(1c).$$
(50)
In this case the Fermi level lies in the gap and all the B states are filled and the A states are empty. For completeness we show the suppression of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ by disorder for particle-hole symmetric and non particle-hole symmetric cases in Fig.$`9`$, obeying the condition from Eq. 50.

Now numerically we shall test our prediction, in Eqs. 4948, for the two non-particle-hole symmetric cases:$`c=0.25,\overline{n}=1`$ and $`c=0.75,\overline{n}=1`$, as discussed at the beginning of this section. In this cases there is no superconductor-insulator transition. For a greater understanding of the details of the band splitting mechanism we plot the density of states, the order parameter and the charge density on A and B sites. In the first case the concentration of A sites is less than B sites, but in the second case the concentration of A sites is more than of B sites. As expected, in Fig.$`10(a)`$ we see that there are two split bands, a normal empty band on the A sites and a superconducting band on B sites. Conversely in Fig.$`10(b)`$ the B band is a normal doubly occupied band and the A band is the superconducting band.

The effect of disorder on the average order parameter and the A and B sites local order parameters $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }},\mathrm{\Delta }_A,\mathrm{\Delta }_B)`$ and charge densities $`(n_A,n_B)`$ are shown in Figs.$`11`$ and Fig.$`12`$. One can see that, for weak scattering the local order parameters and charge densities of A and B sites are approximatly the same but with increasing disorder the difference between them will increase, with one of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }_B`$ going to zero$`(`$depending on the relative concentrations$`)`$. In Fig.$`11(a)`$ and Fig.$`12(a)`$ the concentration of A sites is less than that of B sites therefore $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_Bconstant`$ while $`n_A0`$, $`n_B\frac{4}{3}`$. In contrast to this, in Fig.$`11(b)`$ and Fig.$`12(b)`$ the concentration of A sites is more than that of B sites, consequently $`\mathrm{\Delta }_Aconstant`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_B0`$ and $`n_A\frac{2}{3}`$, $`n_B2`$.

Schematically Fig.$`13`$ shows the physical mechanism of the band splitting in terms of A and B lattice sites. Clearly when all B sites become doubley occupied and all the A sites become empty there is no hopping and the system becomes insulating. Therefore as a function of the disorder, $`\delta `$, or band filling $`\overline{n}`$ there is a $`T=0`$ superconductor-insulator quantum phase transition. This transition corroborates the suggestion of Scalettar, Trivedi and Huscroft that disorder in superconductors can lead to a superconductor-insulator transition. However it shuld be noted that they used a uniform random distribution of site energies, $`\epsilon _i`$, wheras we used a binary alloy model.

## VI Conclusion

In this paper, for the first time, we applied the full CPA for disorder superconductors. In our calculations the self-consistency equations were solved fully within CPA so that self-consitency was properly satisfied on each type of CPA impurity sites, and not just on the average. It is in this form that the CPA-HFG is the only ‘controled’ mean field theory of disordered superconductors.

We plotted the local order parameter and charge density of A or B atoms of a binary alloy for both weak and strong scattering limits. We found that only for one special case are the order parameters of A and B sites equal, and consequently the fluctuations of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are zero. For this point we have shown analytically that the condition for Anderson’s theorem is fullfilled not only for weak scattering but also for strong scattering in a particle-hole symmetric band. By contrast neither, the density of states nor $`T_c`$ is exactly constant, although in the gap equation, the quasi-particle energy gap is absolute. In the gap equation the normal clean system density of states in the gap equation is replaced by the normal disorder average density of states, and therefore the only changes of the superconducting density of states and $`T_c`$ come from the latter.

In narrow band binary alloy s-wave superconductors, we showed that strong disorder leads to two different interesting phenomena: $`(i)`$ band splitting with a quantum superconductor-insulator phase transition at $`T=0`$, $`(ii)`$ band splitting without a phase transition. In this last case in terms of concentration and average band filling, one band is normal $`(`$doubly occupied or empty$`)`$ and superconductivity is only present in the another band that is partially occupied.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work has been supported by Ministry of Science, Reaserch and Technology of Iran under grant number GR/752066.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


text:
# Spatially inhomogeneous condensate in asymmetric nuclear matter

## I Introduction

The theory of fermion pairing when the fermions, which are bound in Cooper pairs, lie on different Fermi surfaces was addressed in the early 1960s in the context of metallic superconducting alloys containing paramagnetic impurities. Recently, the theory has received renewed attention in several contexts, including the pairing in asymmetric nuclear matter and color superconductivity in flavor-asymmetric high-density QCD.

This paper elaborates on an earlier suggestion that the ground state of the superconducting asymmetric nuclear matter at large asymmetries corresponds to a pair condensate with nonzero total momentum of the Cooper pairs. The argument is based on the observation by Larkin and Ovchinnikov and Fulde and Ferrell  who first showed, in the context of the metallic superconductors, that the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) equations admit solutions with nonzero total momentum of Cooper pairs. In the configuration space such a condensate forms a periodic lattice with finite shear modulus. The resulting spatially inhomogeneous superconducting state is called the Larkin-Ovchinnikov-Fulde-Ferrell (LOFF) phase.

The occurrence of pair correlations crucially depends upon the overlap between the neutron and proton Fermi surfaces; the pairing gap is largest in the isospin symmetric case and is suppressed as the system is driven out of the symmetric state. The thermal smearing of the Fermi surfaces promotes the pairing, but, however is ineffective when the separation between the surfaces is large compared to the temperature. If the total momentum of the Cooper pairs is zero, the Fermi surfaces (for homogeneous systems) are located on concentric spheres. If, however, a Cooper pair moves with a finite momentum, the centers of the spheres are shifted. This allows for the pairing, even for vastly different radii of the spheres, since now the nonconcentric spheres may intersect. The overlap regions then provide the kinematical phase space for pairing phenomena to occur.

The microscopic calculations, based on the BCS theory for the bulk nuclear matter show that the isospin-symmetric matter supports Cooper-type pair correlations in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$-$`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{}`$ partial-wave channel due to the tensor component of the nuclear force. The energy gap is of the order of 10 MeV at the empirical saturation density (Refs.  and references therein) if one assumes that the effective pairing interaction can be approximated by the bare interaction and if the renormalization of the single particle spectrum reduces the density of the state at the Fermi surface by a factor of 2.

There is little evidence for large gap isospin singlet pairing in ordinary nuclei, which is evidently suppressed due to the spin-orbit splitting. The laboratory data do not exclude the possibility that the bulk nuclear matter, as encountered in the supernovas and neutron stars, may support large gap pairing in the isospin singlet channel. In the model of “nucleon stars” the kaon condensation implies nearly isospin symmetric matter, in which case the isospin singlet pairing can play a major role in determining the cooling and rotation dynamics of such objects. Note, however, that in the models without meson condensates the proton concentration in supernova and neutron star matter is of the order of $`5\%30\%`$ and these asymmetries are too large to allow for neutron-proton pairing. In the high-density regime, the hyperon-rich neutron star matter may be much more symmetric than at the densities around the saturation density and therefore can support neutron-proton pairing, most likely due to the attractive $`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{2}^{}`$ partial-wave interaction. If the nucleon-hyperon and hyperon-hyperon interactions are attractive, the pairing among fermions lying on different Fermi surfaces, and in particular the formation of the LOFF phase, could be a realistic possibility in hyperon rich matter. Finally, in superstrong magnetic fields of highly magnetized neutrons stars (magnetars) the Pauli paramagnetism will cause a splitting in the Fermi energies of the spin-up and spin-down fermions; in this case the pairing in the isospin triplet channel among the $`S`$-wave paired neutrons should exhibit the properties of the LOFF phase.***This problem is currently under study.

Before turning to the main body of the paper, we draw the reader’s attention to Ref.  who considered the color superconducting LOFF phase in the context of high-density QCD and Ref.  who considered the finite momentum pairing between quarks in the particle-hole channel (chiral condensate). Our work, to some extent, parallels the former reference, but we do not attempt any comparison at this stage, as the formalisms and contexts are entirely different.

In Sec. II we derive the BCS equations, which include the effects of the finite momentum of the Cooper pairs, within the finite temperature real-time Green’s functions formalism. The numerical solutions of these equations are shown in Sec. III. Sec. IV contains a summary of the results.

## II Formalism

Below, we shall use the real-time Green’s functions extended to the Nambu-Gor’kov space to account for pair correlations. The single particle retarded Green’s function in this space is defined as usual:

$`i\widehat{G}_{\alpha \beta }(x_1,x_2)i\left(\begin{array}{cc}G_{\alpha \beta }(x_1,x_2)& F_{\alpha \beta }(x_1,x_2)\\ F_{\alpha \beta }^{}(x_1,x_2)& G_{\alpha \beta }^{}(x_1,x_2)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}T_t\psi _\alpha (x_1)\psi _\beta ^{}(x_2)& T_t\psi _\alpha (x_1)\psi _\beta (x_2)\\ T_t\psi _\alpha ^{}(x_1)\psi _\beta ^{}(x_2)& T_t\psi _\beta ^{}(x_1)\psi _\alpha (x_2)\end{array}\right),`$ (5)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ stand for discrete quantum numbers (spin, isospin, etc.), $`\psi ^{}`$ and $`\psi `$ are the nucleon creation and annihilation operators, $`x(𝒓,t)`$ denotes the space-time coordinate, and $`T_t`$ is the time-ordering symbol. The averaging is carried out over the equilibrium ensemble at a fixed density and temperature. The equation of motion for the matrix Green’s function is given by the time-dependent Dyson equation

$`\widehat{G}_\alpha ^1(x_1)\widehat{G}_{\alpha \beta }(x_1,x_2)=\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta (x_1x_2)+i{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma }{}}{\displaystyle d^3x_3\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\alpha \gamma }(x_1,x_3)\widehat{G}_{\gamma \beta }(x_3,x_2)},`$ (6)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}`$ is a unit matrix in the Nambu-Gor’kov space, the inverse free-particle propagator and the self-energy matrixes are

$`\widehat{G}_\alpha ^1(x)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}G_\alpha ^1(x)& 0\\ 0& \left[G_\alpha ^1(x)\right]^{}\end{array}\right),\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\alpha \beta }(x_1,x_2)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta }(x_1,x_2)& \mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }(x_1,x_2)\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }^{}(x_1,x_2)& \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta }^{}(x_1,x_2)\end{array}\right),`$ (11)
where $`G_\alpha ^1(x)i/t+\mathbf{}^2/2m_\alpha +\mu _\alpha `$, $`\mu _\alpha `$ is the chemical potential, and $`m_\alpha `$ is the bare mass. The self-energy matrix is defined according to the rules of the usual diagram technique in the terms of $`\widehat{G}`$ and the four-fermion interaction vertex $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. In particular, the anomalous self-energy, which incorporates the pair correlations, is given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }(x_1,x_2)={\displaystyle \underset{\gamma \kappa }{}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta \gamma \kappa }(x_1,x_2;x_3,x_4)F_{\gamma \kappa }(x_3,x_4)𝑑x_3𝑑x_4}.`$ (12)
In the following we shall be interested in stationary (time-independent) and spatially inhomogeneous solutions of the equations above in the quasiclassical approximation. This approximation holds when the characteristic length scales of the spatial variations of the macroscopic condensate are much larger than the inverse of the momenta involved in the problem $`p_F`$, where $`p_F`$ is the Fermi momentum. The quasiclassical counterparts of the equations above are obtained by going over to the center of mass $`X=(x_1+x_2)/2`$ and relative $`x=x_1x_2`$ coordinates in the two-point functions and carrying a Fourier transform with respect to the relative coordinates: $`\widehat{G}(x,X)\widehat{G}(\omega ,𝒑,𝑹,T)`$, where $`\omega ,𝒑`$ are the relative frequency and momentum, and $`X(𝑹,T)`$. As the variations of the propagators and self-energies are slow on the scales of the order of $`𝑹`$, keeping the leading order terms in the gradient expansion is accurate to order $`𝒪[(p_FR)^1`$\]. Carrying out a Fourier transformation with respect to $`𝑹`$, we arrive at the Dyson equation for the quasiclassical functions:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma }{}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\omega ϵ_{\alpha \gamma }^+& \mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \gamma }\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \gamma }^{}& \omega +ϵ_{\alpha \gamma }^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}G_{\gamma \beta }& F_{\gamma \beta }\\ F_{\gamma \beta }^{}& G_{\gamma \beta }^{}\end{array}\right)=\delta _{\alpha \beta }\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}},`$ (17)
where

$`ϵ_{\alpha \beta }^\pm =\left(𝑷/2\pm 𝒑\right)^2/2m_\alpha \mu _\alpha \pm \mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta },`$ (18)
and $`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta }(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta }^{})/2`$, $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta }(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta }^{})/2`$; all propagators and self-energies are functions of $`\omega ,𝒑`$ and $`𝑷`$ (the dependence on center-of-mass time is dropped in the stationary limit). Equation (17) is a $`(4\times 4)`$ matrix in the spin-isospin space in general. The number of degrees of freedom can be reduced since the fermionic wave function of paired fermions must be antisymmetric. In the case of spin and isospin conserving forces the normal Green’s functions and self-energies are diagonal in the spin and isospin spaces. It is sufficient to consider the anomalous propagators, e.g., in the isospin space, since the resulting spin structure, for $`S`$ wave interactions, is uniquely determined for each isospin combination. The quasiparticle excitation spectrum is determined in the standard fashion by finding the poles of the propagators in Eq. (17):

$`\omega _{\pm \pm }=ϵ_A\pm \sqrt{ϵ_S+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}(𝚫𝚫^{})\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{[\mathrm{Tr}(𝚫𝚫^{})]^24\mathrm{D}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}\left(𝚫𝚫^{}\right)}}.`$ (19)
Here $`𝚫\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }`$, $`ϵ_S=(ϵ^++ϵ^{})/2`$, and $`ϵ_A=(ϵ^+ϵ^{})/2`$. The new quasiparticle spectrum has four branches. The fourfold splitting of the BCS spectrum is due to (a) isospin asymmetry and/or the finite momentum of the condensate and/or the finite lifetime of the quasiparticles; and (b) the coupling of the pairing gaps in different isospin channels. If we restrict ourselves to the neutron-proton pairing in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$-$`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{}`$ channel, which is justified when $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{nn},\mathrm{\Delta }_{pp}\mathrm{\Delta }_{np}`$, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }=\sigma _x\mathrm{\Delta }`$ ($`\sigma _x`$ is the first component of the vector of Pauli matrixes). The spectrum, in this case, simplifies to

$`\omega _\pm =ϵ_A\pm \sqrt{ϵ_S^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2},`$ (20)
where the symmetric and asymmetric parts of the spectrum (which are even and odd with respect to the time-reversal symmetry) are defined as

$`ϵ_SP^2/8m+p^2/2m+\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }\mu ,ϵ_A𝑷𝒑/2m+\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }\delta \mu .`$ (21)
Here $`\mu =(\mu _n+\mu _p)/2`$, $`\delta \mu =(\mu _n\mu _p)/2`$ and $`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{nn}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp}^{})/2`$, $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{nn}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp}^{})/2`$ (subscripts $`n`$ and $`p`$ refer to protons and neutrons). The limit $`ϵ_A0`$ corresponds to the BCS pairing in the isospin symmetric nuclear matter. It is explicit now that the spectrum (20) is twofold split due to three factors, the isospin asymmetry ($`\delta \mu 0)`$, the finite-momentum of the Cooper pair ($`𝑷0`$), and the finite lifetime of the quasiparticle ($`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }0)`$. Below, we shall keep the first two factors, and shall neglect the last one, since the quasiparticle approximation is valid in the density-temperature range of interest (densities around the nuclear saturation density and temperatures $``$ 10 MeV). The solution of the Dyson equation (17) is

$`G_{n/p}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_p^2}{\omega \omega _{+/}+i\eta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{v_p^2}{\omega \omega _{/+}+i\eta }},`$ (22)
$`F`$ $`=`$ $`u_pv_p\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega \omega _++i\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega \omega _{}+i\eta }}\right),`$ (23)
where the Bogolyubov amplitudes are

$`u_p^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_S}{2\sqrt{ϵ_S^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2}}},v_p^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_S}{2\sqrt{ϵ_S^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2}}}.`$ (24)
Let us turn to the solution of the gap equation (12), which in the quasiclassical limit takes the form

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒑,𝑷)=2{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega ^{}d^3p^{}}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega ^{},𝒑,𝒑^{},𝑷)\mathrm{Im}F(\omega ^{},𝒑^{},𝑷)f(\omega ^{})},`$ (25)
where $`f(\omega )=\left[\mathrm{exp}(\beta \omega )+1\right]^1`$is the Fermi distribution function and $`\beta `$ is the inverse temperature; the effective pairing interaction $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is assumed real and will be replaced by the bare interaction below. The $`\omega `$ integration is straightforward in the quasiparticle approximation, since the frequency dependence of the propagator is constrained by the on-shell condition. Further progress requires partial wave decomposition of the interaction, which can be done after an angle averaging in the remainder functions on the right-hand side of the Eq. (25). The result of this procedure is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_l(p,P)={\displaystyle \underset{l^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp^{}p^2}{(2\pi )^2}V_{ll^{}}(p,p^{})\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_l^{}(p^{},P)}{2\sqrt{ϵ_S^2+\mathrm{\Delta }(p^{},P)^2}}\left[f(\omega _+)f(\omega _{})\right]},`$ (26)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the average over the angle between the relative and total momenta, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p,P)^2\mathrm{\Delta }_0(p,P)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_2(p,P)^2`$ is the angle-averaged gap. Here the pairing interaction is approximated by the bare neutron-proton interaction $`V(𝒑,𝒑^{})`$ in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$-$`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{}`$-channel. The self-consistent procedure of the determination of the gap function requires a normalization condition for the net density $`\rho \rho _n+\rho _p`$ of the system at a fixed temperature and the magnitude of the total momentum $`P`$. The corresponding expression is provided by

$`\rho _{n/p}(P)=2{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{Im}G_{n/p}(\omega ,𝒑,𝑷)f(\omega )}={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\left\{u_p^2f(\omega _\pm )+v_p^2f(\omega _{})\right\}},`$ (27)
where $`\sigma `$ stands for quasiparticle spin and the second equality follows in the quasiparticle approximation. The coupled equations (26) and (27) should be solved simultaneously.

To find the true ground state we have to minimize the free energy of the system at fixed total density and temperature. In the mean-field approximation the entropy of the system is given by the combinatorical expression

$`S=2k_B{\displaystyle \left\{f(\omega _+)\mathrm{ln}f(\omega _+)+\overline{f}(\omega _+)\mathrm{ln}\overline{f}(\omega _+)+f(\omega _{})\mathrm{ln}f(\omega _{})+\overline{f}(\omega _{})\mathrm{ln}\overline{f}(\omega _{})\right\}},`$ (28)
where $`\overline{f}(\omega _\pm )=[1f(\omega _\pm )]`$, and $`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant. The internal energy, defined as the grand canonical statistical average of the Hamiltonian, $`U=\widehat{H}\mu ^{(n)}\widehat{\rho }_n\mu ^{(p)}\widehat{\rho }_p`$, reads

$`U=2{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}}\{[ϵ^+n_n(p)+ϵ^{}n_p(p)]+{\displaystyle \underset{ll^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p^{}}{(2\pi )^3}}V_{ll^{}}(p,p^{})\nu _l(p)\nu _l^{}(p^{})\},`$ (29)
where

$`n_{n/p}(p)u_p^2f(\omega _\pm )+v_p^2f(\omega _{}),\nu (p)u_pv_p\left[f(\omega _+)f(\omega _{})\right].`$ (30)
The first term in Eq. (29) includes the kinetic and non-pairing energies of the quasiparticles. The second term includes the BCS mean-field interaction among the particles in the condensate. The free energy (at fixed density and temperature) is defined as

$`(F)_{\rho ,\beta }=U\beta ^1S.`$ (31)
The true ground state of the system minimizes the free-energy difference $`(\delta F)_{\rho ,\beta }`$ between the superconducting and normal states \[the free energy in the normal state follows from Eqs. (28) and (29) when $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$\].

## III Results

The main focus of the numerical calculations shown below is the effects of the finite momentum of the Cooper pairs and the emergence of the LOFF phase in the asymmetric nuclear matter. A number of simplifying assumptions went into these calculations: first, the pairing interaction is approximated by the bare interaction; i.e., the effects of the screening of the pairing interaction are ignored. Second, we employ the quasiparticle approximation and set the effective mass of the quasiparticles equal to their bare mass. Third, we ignore the coupling between the pairing in the isospin triplet and singlet states. The first two approximations change the absolute magnitude of the paring gap by affecting, respectively, the strength of the interaction and the density of states at the Fermi surface. To remove the dependence on the absolute scale of the gap we present the results normalized to the pairing gap in the symmetric matter at zero total momentum of the pairs. The third approximation is valid whenever the pairing in the isospin singlet channel is much larger than in the isospin triplet channel. This could be the case since the strength of the interaction in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$-$`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{}`$ in the free space is much larger the one in the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ channel and these channels are attractive in the same range of the energies. This argument, however, implicitly assumes that effects of the quasiparticle renormalization and the screening of the pairing interaction are of the same order in both channels, which could be false.

Figure 1 shows the pairing gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p_F)`$ in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$-$`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{}`$ partial wave channel as a function of the isospin asymmetry, defined as $`\alpha (\rho _n\rho _p)/\rho `$ and total momentum $`P`$ in units of the Fermi momentum. The pairing interaction has been approximated by a separable form of the Paris nucleon-nucleon interaction (PEST1 of Ref. ). The pairing gap is normalized to its value in the symmetric and zero-total-momentum case $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{00}=14.38`$ MeV at fixed total density $`\rho =0.16`$ fm-3 and the temperature $`\beta ^1=3`$ MeV. The results reported here are relevant for the low-temperature regime ($`\beta ^1/\mathrm{\Delta }_{00}=0.2081`$); the temperature dependence of the LOFF phase, in particular the $`TT_c`$ limit, will be discussed elsewhere.

The absolute magnitude of the gap is consistent with the previous results based on the free-single-particle spectrum (although, note that the gap in Ref.  is by 15$`\%`$ smaller, since there a rank 4 potential has been used instead of the rank 1 potential used in this work). A renormalization of the single particle spectrum, for example within the Brueckner theory, leads to a decrease of the gap by a factor of 2, see Ref. . This reduction also affects the critical asymmetry at which the BCS state disappears, by reducing it, e.g., at nuclear saturation density, from 0.35 for the free-particle spectrum to 0.11 for the Brueckner-renormalized particle spectrum . Therefore, the absolute magnitude of the asymmetry, at which the transition from the BCS to the LOFF phase occurs, and its critical value, at which the LOFF phase disappears, will be reduced by roughly a factor of 3, if the renormalization of the single particle spectrum is carried out within the Brueckner theory. For $`\alpha =0`$ the gap is maximal at $`P=0`$, decreases as the total momentum is increased, and vanishes at the critical total momentum $`P_{c,0}=0.558p_F`$. For $`P=0`$ the gap again decreases as a function of $`\alpha `$ and vanishes at $`\alpha _{c,0}=0.37`$. The onset of the LOFF phase is signaled by the change of the shape of the constant $`\alpha `$ slices in the $`\alpha `$-$`P`$ plane: for $`\alpha 0.25`$ the maximum of the gap as a function of $`P`$ shifts from the $`P=0`$ to $`P0`$ values; i.e., the condensation energy becomes maximal for $`P0`$. The maximum is located at $`P0.3p_F`$ and is not sensitive to the value of $`\alpha 0.25`$. Interestingly, for $`\alpha 0.37`$ the pairing exists only for finite momentum states; i.e. there is a nonzero lower critical momentum at which the pairing disappears. The maximal critical values at which the pairing disappears in the whole $`\alpha `$-$`P`$ plane are $`\alpha _c=0.41`$ and $`P_c=0.3p_F`$. The main conclusion that can be drawn from the discussion above, is that two phase transition take place as the isospin asymmetry is increased: first a phase transition from the BCS superfluid state with $`P=0`$ to the LOFF superfluid state with $`P0`$ and, second, a phase transition from the LOFF state to the normal (unpaired) state.

Figure 2 displays the latent heat of phase transition $`Q=(S_nS_s)/\beta `$ as a function of the isospin asymmetry $`\alpha `$ and total momentum $`P`$. At the boundary of the phase transition from superfluid to the normal state in the $`\alpha `$-$`P`$ plane $`Q=0`$, $`S_s=S_n`$; hence the phase transition is of the second order (recall that this result holds in the mean-field approximation used in determining the entropy). In contrast, $`Q0`$, for the phase transition from the BCS to the LOFF phase and the phase transition is of the first order, except along the line of the intersection of $`Q(\alpha ,P)`$ surface with the $`\alpha =0=P`$ plane. Note that this line marks the region with anomalous negative sign of $`Q`$ (i.e., in this region the entropy of the superfluid state is larger than that of the normal state). This anomaly does not result in a metastable state, as the net change of the free energy shown below remains always negative.

Figure 3 shows the difference of the free energies of the normal and superconducting states $`(\delta F)_{\rho \beta }`$, which is normalized to its value in the symmetric and zero-total-momentum case $`(\delta F_{00})_{\rho \beta }=7.35`$ MeV at $`\rho =0.16`$ fm-3 and $`\beta ^1=3`$ MeV. The onset of the LOFF phase is seen by examining the constant $`\alpha `$ slices of the $`(\delta F)_{\rho \beta }`$ surface. The onset of the LOFF phase is signaled by the change of the shape of the these curves: for $`\alpha 0.25`$ the minimum of $`(\delta F)_{\rho \beta }`$ as a function of $`P`$ shifts from the $`P=0`$ to $`P0`$ values; i.e., the ground state energy corresponds to the state with a total nonzero momentum of the pairs. The minimum of the free energy difference, as the maximum of the gap function, is located at $`P0.3p_F`$ and is not sensitive to the value of $`\alpha 0.25`$. The similarity of the functional dependence of the free energy difference and the pairing gap on the parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`P`$ is not accidental, as $`(\delta F)_{\rho \beta }`$ is dominated by the pair interaction (condensation) energy given by the second term in Eq. (29), which scales as pairing gap squared.

## IV Summary and Outlook

In this work we have analyzed the BCS solutions for the neutron-proton pairing in the asymmetric nuclear matter when the Cooper pairs are allowed for a nonzero total momentum. The quasiparticle excitation spectrum is four-fold split compared to the usual BCS spectrum of the symmetric, homogeneous matter. The twofold splitting occurs due to the finite momentum of the condensate and/or the isospin asymmetry and/or the finite quasiparticle lifetime; the simultaneous paring in the isospin single and triplet states leads to a further twofold splitting of the spectrum. The gap equation, which was solved numerically in the limiting case of vanishing isospin triplet pairing, has nontrivial solutions with finite total momentum of the pairs. The corresponding nuclear LOFF phase is the true ground state of the system for density asymmetries larger than 0.25. The minimum of the free energy corresponds to the total momentum of the condensate $`P=0.3p_F`$ independent of the value of $`\alpha `$. For sufficiently large asymmetries ($`\alpha 0.3)`$ the condensate can exist only in the state with finite momentum; i.e., apart from a upper critical total momentum for vanishing of the condensate, there is a lower one at which condensate sets in. The maximal values of the total momentum and asymmetry that the condensate can sustain are $`P=0.3p_F`$ and $`\alpha =0.41`$. The actual value of $`\alpha `$ found for the nonrenormalized single particle spectrum could be reduced by a factor of 3 if a renormalization is carried in the Brueckner theory of nuclear matter.

Thus, in a definite region of the $`\alpha `$-$`P`$ plane the neutron-proton condensation occurs at nonzero momentum of the Cooper pairs, which leads to the formation of a spatially inhomogeneous phase of nuclear matter. This implies a periodic (translationally and rotationally invariant with respect to the basis vectors) spatial structure of the condensate which carries an isospin density wave at constant total number of particles. One of the consequences of the periodic structure is that the quasiparticle velocities in certain directions could be close to zero, which implies a strong anisotropy of the kinetic coefficients of the matter and larger heat capacity than in the homogeneous phase.

The phase transition from the LOFF phase to the normal (nonsuperconducting) phase is a transition of the second order. However, the phase transition from the BCS to the LOFF phase turns out to be of the first order; i.e., there is a latent heat of transition associated with this phase transition. In a certain region of the $`\alpha `$-$`P`$ plane the latent heat has an anomalous negative sign. However, this does not affect the stability of the LOFF phase, since its energy budget is dominated by the pair-condensation energy.

What lattice structure prefers the nuclear LOFF phase? The problem of the energetically most favorable structure of the LOFF phase has not been solved so far in general. For small gaps the integral equation (25) is linear and we can seek the solutions in terms of a Fourier expansion

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒓)={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_ne^{i𝑷_n𝒓},`$ (32)
where the lengths of the “basis vectors” $`|𝑷_n|`$ are equal. Fulde and Ferrell studied in detail the thermodynamics of the LOFF phase with the order parameter containing a single harmonic: $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒓)=\mathrm{\Delta }_0e^{i𝑷𝒓}`$ . Perhaps on symmetry grounds one can argue that a symmetric ansatz $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒓)=\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒓)`$, which implies a real gap function, is the case. In the latter case the most general form of the harmonic expansion is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒓)=2{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_n\mathrm{cos}(𝑷_n𝒓).`$ (33)
The limiting case of a single harmonic $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒓)=2\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{cos}(𝑷𝒓)`$ has been studied by Larkin and Ovchinnikov ; in this case one finds a layered structure. Perhaps, a cubic structure, in which case $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒓)=2\mathrm{\Delta }_0\left[\mathrm{cos}(Px)+\mathrm{cos}(Py)+\mathrm{cos}(Pz)\right]`$, is preferred to the layered one if there are no preferred directions in the problem. To conclude, the periodic structure of the LOFF phase has been studied only for limited configurations or spatial dimensions so far. The determination of the true ground state structure of this phase remains for the future work.

## Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Umberto Lombardo for discussions in the course of our collaboration on the pairing in nuclear matter and to Krishna Rajagopal for discussions on the LOFF phase and for pointing out Ref. . This work has been supported by the Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie of the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek.