text:
# Temperature dependence of the specific heat and the penetration depth of anisotropic-gap BCS superconductors for a factorizable pairing potential

## I Specific heat

Virtually all recently studied superconductors exhibit considerable anisotropy of the superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p(T)`$ over the Fermi surface $`\epsilon _p=E_F`$. Despite the strong coupling effects and influence of disorder, which are all essential as a rule, for a qualitative analysis it is particularly useful to start with the weak-coupling BCS approximation for clean superconductors. In this case, very often model factorizable pairing potentials give an acceptable accuracy for the preliminary analysis of the experimental data.

The aim of the present work is twofold. Firstly, we shall derive an explicit interpolation formula for the temperature dependence of the specific heat $`C(T).`$ The formula is formally exact for factorizable pairing kernels which are consequence of the approximative separation in superconducting order parameter derived in BCS weak-coupling approximation by Pokrovskii.Pokrovskii and Ryvkin (1962) Our formula reproduces the specific heat jump derived by PokrovskiiPokrovskii and Ryvkin (1962) for arbitrary weak coupling kernels and Gor’kov and Melik-BarkhudarovGor’kov and Melik-Barkhudarov (1963) results for the Ginzburg-Landau (GL) coefficients of an anisotropic superconductor. That is why we believe that the suggested formula can be useful for the analysis of experimental data when only gap anisotropy and band structure are known. Secondly, within the same system of notions and notation we present the recent results by KoganKogan (2002) for the penetration depth $`\lambda (T)`$, and propose for the zero-scattering case new formulas which may be used for experimental data processing.

We begin with the entropy of a Fermi system per unit volume divided by the Boltzmann’s constant $`k_B`$

$$S(T)=2\overline{n_p\mathrm{ln}n_p+(1n_p)\mathrm{ln}(1n_p)},$$
(1)
where the factor 2 takes into account the spin degeneracy and the overline denotes integration over the $`D`$-dimensional momentum space

$$\overline{f_p}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d^Dp}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^D}f(𝐩).$$
(2)
The Fermi filling factors of independent Fermions

$$n_p=\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(2z_p)+1},z_p\frac{E_p}{2T},$$
(3)
where $`T`$ is the temperature times $`k_B`$, are expressed by spectrum of superconductor

$$E_p=\sqrt{\xi _p^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }_p|^2},\xi _p=\epsilon _pE_F.$$
(4)
Here we have to emphasize that for a model factorizable pairing potential $`V_{p,q}\chi _p\chi _q`$ the gap function is always separable as a product of a temperature dependent function which can be associated with the GL order parameter $`Q(T)`$ and a rigid temperature independent function of the momentum $`\chi _p`$. The nontrivial resultsPokrovskii and Ryvkin (1962) is that this separation of the variables is asymptotically correct in the BCS weak-coupling limit for an arbitrary kernel which is generally non factorizable. In fact, a factorizable kernel is a fairly unnatural property which, however, can occur if the pairing interaction is local, intra-atomic and located in a single atom in the unit cell. This is the special case of the $`s`$-$`d`$ interaction at the copper site(s) in the CuO2 plane;Mishonov et al. (2003a) The separability ansatz, though, shall be employed here to obtain a general interpolation formula formally exact for factorizable kernels. We assume that the gap anisotropy function $`\chi _p`$ is known, either as a result of solving the general BCS equation at $`T_c`$, inferred from experimental data processing, or merely postulated within some model Hamiltonian, which is often the case for the high-temperature and exotic superconductors.

With the above remarks, we will derive $`C(T)`$ for the separable gap

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_p(T)=Q(T)\chi _p$$
(5)
and a factorizable kernel.Markowitz and Kadanoff (1965) We apply the ansatz (5) to the BCS gap equationBardeen et al. (1957)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_p(T)=\frac{d^Dq}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^D}V_{p,q}\frac{12n_q}{2E_q}\mathrm{\Delta }_q(T),$$
(6)
and use the convention that a positive sign of $`V_{p,q}`$ corresponds to attraction of charge carriers and a negative potential energy of interaction. Substituting here

$`V_{p,q}`$ $`G\chi _p\chi _q`$ (7)
and introducing $`\eta |Q|^2`$ we obtain a transcendental equation for the temperature dependence of the gap $`Q(T)`$

$`GA(\eta ,T)`$ $`=1,`$ (8)
$`A(\eta ,T)`$ $`\overline{\left({\displaystyle \frac{\chi _p^2\mathrm{tanh}z_p}{2E_p}}\right)},`$
where we have used the identity $`12n_p=\mathrm{tanh}z_p`$ and the coupling constant is defined by $`G1/A(0,T_c)`$. Details on the derivation of the trial function approximation Eq. (7) and the numerical solution of Eq. (8) for $`T_c\omega _D`$ are given in Appendix A.

For the specific heat of the superconducting phase per unit volume divided by $`k_B`$ we have

$$C(T)=Td_TS(\eta (T),T)=2\overline{E_pd_Tn_p}=C_\nu +C_\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(9)
where $`d_T=d/dT`$. Here $`C_\nu `$ is the “normal” part of the specific heat

$$C_\nu (T)T(_TS)_\eta =\frac{\pi ^2}{3}\overline{g_c(z_p)},$$
(10)
where

$`g_c(z)`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^2}{\mathrm{cosh}^2z}},`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}g_c(z)𝑑z=1,`$ (11)
and $`(_T\mathrm{})_\eta `$ is the temperature differentiation for constant order parameter. For zero order parameter, $`\eta =0`$ at $`T_c`$ and above, $`C_\nu `$ is just the specific heat of the normal phase $`C_N(T)=C_\nu (T,\eta =0)`$.

Introducing

$$\alpha (\eta ,T)(_TA)_\eta =(_\eta S)_T=\frac{\overline{\chi _p^2g_a(z_p)}}{2T^2},$$
(12)
where

$`g_a(z)`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{cosh}^2z}},`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}g_a(z)𝑑z=1,`$ (13)
the other term of the specific heat

$$C_\mathrm{\Delta }T_\eta S(\eta ,T)d_T\eta (T)$$
(14)
can be written as

$$C_\mathrm{\Delta }=\alpha (\eta ,T)[d_T\eta (T)]\theta (T_cT).$$
(15)
Eq. (12) is actually a Maxwell-type equation $`_\eta _TF=_T_\eta F`$, where $`F`$ is the free energy: $`S=(_TF)_\eta `$, $`A=(_\eta F)_T`$; cf. Ref. Mishonov and Penev, 2002.

Differentiating Eq. (8) we obtain $`dA=0`$ and

$$d_T\eta (T)=\frac{(_TA)_\eta }{(_\eta A)_T}|_{\eta (T)}=\frac{\alpha }{b}|_{\eta (T)},$$
(16)
where the functions $`\alpha `$ and $`b`$ represent a generalization of the GL coefficients for arbitrary temperature and order parameter

$$b(\eta ,T)(_\eta A)_T=\frac{7\zeta (3)}{16\pi ^2T^3}\overline{\chi _p^4g_b(z_p)},$$
(17)
$$g_b(z)\frac{\pi ^2}{14\zeta (3)}\frac{1}{z^2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{tanh}z}{z}\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2z}\right),$$
(18)
$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}g_b(z)𝑑z=1,$$
(19)
and $`\zeta `$ is the Riemann zeta function. Then

$$C_\mathrm{\Delta }=T\frac{\alpha ^2}{b}=\frac{4\pi ^2}{7\zeta (3)}\frac{\left[\overline{\chi _p^2g_a(z_p)}\right]^2}{\overline{\chi _p^4g_b(z_p))}}\theta (T_cT)$$
(20)
and

$$\frac{C_\mathrm{\Delta }}{C_\nu }=\frac{12}{7\zeta (3)}\frac{\left[\overline{\chi _p^2g_a(z_p)}\right]^2}{\overline{\chi _p^4g_b(z_p)}\overline{g_c(z_p)}}\theta (T_cT).$$
(21)
The functions $`g_i(z_p)`$, $`i=a,b,c`$, introduced in Refs. Mishonov and Penev, 2002 and Mishonov et al., 2003b, have sharp maximum at the Fermi surface and in a good approximation we have

$$\overline{\chi _p^ng_i(z_p)}2T\nu _F\chi _p^nr_i\left(y_p\right),y_p\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}{2T},$$
(22)
where

$$r_i(y)_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}g_i(\sqrt{x^2+y^2})𝑑x,x=\frac{\xi _p}{2T},$$
(23)
$$r_i(0)=1,r_i(\mathrm{})=0,i=a,b,c.$$

We define averaging over the Fermi surface

$$f_p=\frac{\overline{f_p\delta (\xi _p)}}{\nu _F},\nu _F=\nu (E_F)=\overline{\delta (\xi _p)},$$
(24)
where $`\nu _F`$ is the density of electron states per unit energy, volume and spin at the Fermi level. In such a way we obtain

$$C_\nu (T)=\frac{2}{3}\pi ^2T\nu _Fr_c(y_p)$$
(25)
and

$$\frac{C_\mathrm{\Delta }}{C_\nu }=\frac{12}{7\zeta (3)}\frac{\chi _p^2r_a(y_p)^2\theta (T_cT)}{\chi _p^4r_b(y_p)r_c(y_p)}.$$
(26)
At $`T_c`$, where the gap is small and $`r_i(0)=1`$ this formula gives the PokrovskiiPokrovskii and Ryvkin (1962) result for the reduced specific heat jump

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }C}{C_N(T_c)}=\frac{12}{7\zeta (3)}\frac{\chi _p^2^2}{\chi _p^4}.$$
(27)
For the GL coefficient Eq. (12) and Eq. (17) the approximation (22) gives

$`\alpha (\eta ,T)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\nu _F}{T}}\chi _p^2r_a\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_p/2T\right),`$ (28)
$`b(\eta ,T)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{7\zeta (3)\nu _F}{8\pi ^2T^2}}\chi _p^4r_b\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_p/2T\right).`$
Then the specific heat takes the simple GL form for arbitrary temperatures

$$C(T)=C_\nu (\eta ,T)+T\frac{\alpha ^2(\eta ,T)}{b(\eta ,T)}\theta (T_cT).$$
(29)
Here, for the functions on the right-hand side we have substituted the thermal equilibrium value of the order parameter $`\eta (T)=|Q(T)|^2`$, obtained from the solution of Eq. (8). This BCS formula (29) is an example how good the physical intuition was in the phenomenology of superconductivity. According to the Gorter-CasimirGorter and Casimir (1934) model the specific heat is a sum of a “normal” part and another therm, governed by the temperature dependence of the order parameter and having exactly the GL form. The Gorter-Casimir two fluid model has very simple physical grounds. In the self-consistent approximation, the entropy $`S(T,\mathrm{\Delta }(T))`$ is a function of the temperature and a temperature dependent order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$. The temperature differentiation $`C(T)=T(dS/dT)`$ inevitably gives two terms in Eq. (9). According to the general idea by Landau,Ginzburg and Landau (1950) the order parameter is an adequate notion for description of second order phase transitions, regardless of the concrete particle dynamics. The $`ϵ`$-expansion by Wilson and Fisher is only an ingenious realization of the same Landau’s idea when the influence of fluctuations is essential.

Again, at $`T_c`$ the general formulas Eq. (28) give the Gor’kov and Melik-BarkhudarovGor’kov and Melik-Barkhudarov (1963) result for the GL coefficients

$$\alpha (0,T_c)=\frac{\nu _F}{T_c}\chi _p^2,b(0,T_c)=\frac{7\zeta (3)\nu _F}{8\pi ^2T_c^2}\chi _p^4.$$
(30)
This result can be directly derivedMishonov and Penev (2002) from the variational free energy $`F(\eta ,T)`$ of the superconductor which close to $`T_c`$ has the GL form

$$F_{GL}(\eta ,T)\alpha (0,T_c)(TT_c)|Q|^2+\frac{1}{2}b(0,T_c)|Q|^4.$$
(31)
The simplest method to calculate the GL coefficients is to differentiateMishonov and Penev (2002) the free energy after a $`u`$-$`v`$ transformations $`F(\eta ,T)=\overline{H}TS`$. Then

$`\alpha (0,T_c)=`$ $`(_\eta F)_T(\eta =0,T=T_c),`$ (32)
$`b(0,T_c)=`$ $`(_\eta ^2F)_T(\eta =0,T=T_c).`$
If a Van Hove singularity (VHS) is close to the Fermi level the formulas for GL coefficients are slightly modifiedMishonov et al. (2003b)

$`\alpha (0,T_c)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _p^2}{T_c}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}\nu (E_F+2T_cx)g_a(x)𝑑x,`$ (33)
$`b(0,T_c)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{7\zeta (3)\chi _p^4}{8\pi ^2T_c^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}\nu (E_F+2T_cx)g_b(x)𝑑x,`$
$`C_\nu (T_c)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\pi ^2T_c{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}\nu (E_F+2T_cx)g_c(x)𝑑x.`$
Some important references on the influence of the VHS on the properties of superconductors, and pioneering works on the two-band model are given in Ref. Mishonov et al., 2003b. Let us evaluate the upper limit which can give a VHS. Let us take 1D density of states $`\nu (E)1/\sqrt{EE_{\mathrm{VHS}}}`$ and $`E_F=E_{\mathrm{VHS}}=0`$; there is no doubt that this mathematical illustration is unphysical. In this case we have for the reduced specific heat jump $`\mathrm{\Delta }C/C_N(T_c)`$, Eq. (27), an additional factor

$$\frac{\left[{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}g_a(\stackrel{~}{x}^2)𝑑\stackrel{~}{x}\right]^2}{{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}g_c(\stackrel{~}{x}^2)𝑑\stackrel{~}{x}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}g_b(\stackrel{~}{x}^2)𝑑\stackrel{~}{x}}=2.51,\stackrel{~}{x}\sqrt{E}.$$
(34)
Although this mathematical example is not realistic, it can be seen that the VHS emulates qualitatively strong coupling corrections to the BCS theory: an enhancement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }C/C_N(T_c)`$ and $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{max}}(0)/T_c`$. Another simulation of strong coupling effects can be demonstrated by simple model density of states, corresponding to the case of layered cuprates

$$\nu (\xi )=1+k\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{|\xi E_{\mathrm{VHS}}|}.$$
(35)
For illustration, we solve the equation

$$_{\omega _D}^{\omega _D}\frac{\mathrm{tanh}(\sqrt{\xi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2(T)}/2T)}{2\sqrt{\xi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2(T)}}\nu (\xi )𝑑\xi =G^1$$
(36)
taking $`\omega _D=10`$, $`G=1/2`$, and $`k=10`$. The $`Z(2\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/T_c)/(2\pi /\gamma )`$ vs $`E_{\mathrm{VHS}}/T_c`$ plot is given in Fig. 1. It can be seen that 7% enhancement corresponds to $`E_{\mathrm{VHS}}=T_c`$. Thus, the influence of the VHS on the specific heat is much stronger than on the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/T_c`$ ratio.

Let us also recall the general GL formula for the specific heat jump at $`T_c`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }C=T_c\frac{\alpha ^2(0,T_c)}{b(0,T_c)}.$$
(37)
The two-band model provides probably the simplest possible illustration of the derived formula for the specific heat; for pioneering references on the two-band model see Ref. Mishonov et al., 2003b. The model is applicable with a remarkable accuracyBouquet et al. (2003) to MgB2—a material which is in the limelight in the physics of high-$`T_c`$ superconductivity over the past years.

For the normal specific heat we have

$$C_\nu (T)=\frac{2}{3}\pi ^2T\nu _F\left[c_1r_c(y_1)+c_2r_c(y_2)\right],$$
(38)
where

$$y_1=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_1}{2T},y_2=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_2}{2T},c_1+c_2=1,$$
(39)
and $`c_1\nu _F`$ and $`c_2\nu _F`$ are the densities of states for the 2 bands of the superconductor. Above $`T_c`$ or in the case of strong magnetic fields $`B>B_{c2}`$ we have

$$C_N(T)=\frac{2}{3}\pi ^2\nu _FT.$$
(40)
As pointed out earlier, within the weak-coupling BCS approximation PokrovskiiPokrovskii and Ryvkin (1962) has proved the general separation of the variables Eq. (5) which for a two-band superconductor results in a weakly temperature dependent gap ratio $`\delta =\mathrm{\Delta }_1/\mathrm{\Delta }_2=\chi _1/\chi _2`$. For MgB2 determination of the two gaps has been carried out by directional point-contact spectroscopyGonnelli et al. (2002) in single crystals. One can see that for model evaluations the temperature dependence of the gap ratio could be neglected.

For the moments of the gap we have

$$\chi _p^nr_i\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}{2T}\right)=\frac{c_1\delta ^nr_i(y_1)+c_2r_i(y_2)}{(c_1\delta ^2+c_2)^{n/2}},i=a,b,c,$$
(41)
where the normalization is irrelevant in further substitution in the GL coefficients. Finally for the second, GL-order-parameter term of the specific heat below the $`T_c`$ we obtain

$$C_\mathrm{\Delta }(T)=\frac{8\pi ^2}{7\zeta (3)}\nu _FT\frac{\left[c_1\delta ^2r_a(y_1)+c_2r_a(y_2)\right]^2}{c_1\delta ^4r_c(y_1)+c_2r_c(y_2)}.$$
(42)
For the jump of the specific heat this formula reduces to the MoskalenkoMoskalenko (1959) result

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }C}{C_N(T_c)}=\frac{12}{7\zeta (3)}\frac{\left(c_1\chi _1^2+c_2\chi _2^2\right)^2}{c_1\chi _1^4+c_2\chi _2^4},$$
(43)
which is, in fact, a special case of the PokrovskiiPokrovskii and Ryvkin (1962) formula Eq. (27) applied to the two-band model. For application of the two-band model to the specific heat of MgB2 the reader is referred to Ref. Mishonov et al., .

The analysis of the specific heat for MgB2 gives perhaps the best corroboration of the BCS results due to PokrovskiiPokrovskii and Ryvkin (1962) and Moskalenko.Moskalenko (1959) Solving the Eliashberg equation and performing first-principle calculations for the specific heat of MgB2 Golubov et al. \[Ref. Golubov et al., 2002a, Fig. 3\] derived 65$`\%`$ reduction of the specific heat jump at $`T_c`$. On the other hand, Eqs. (27) (43), using the parameters from Ref. Golubov et al., 2002a, gives $`\chi ^2^2/\chi ^4=58\%`$ reduction of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }C/C_N(T_c)`$ ratio. The 7$`\%`$ difference between those two estimates is in the range of the experimental accuracy and the Eliashberg corrections to the BCS result is difficult to extracted. Unfortunately, the groups solving the Eliashberg equation have not compared their results to the classical results of the BCS theory for anisotropic superconductorsPokrovskii and Ryvkin (1962) in order to analyze several percent strong-coupling corrections to the specific heat jump for MgB2.

In the single band case $`c_1=1`$ and Eq. (42) gives a simple relation between the specific heat and the BCS isotropic gap

$$\frac{C(T)}{C_N(T)}=r_c(y)+\frac{12}{7\zeta (3)}\frac{r_a^2(y)}{r_b(y)},$$
(44)
where $`y(T)=\mathrm{\Delta }(T)/2T.`$ For anisotropic superconductors, functions of the gap have to be averaged independently on the Fermi surface; this is the interpretation of the general formulas Eq. (28) and Eq. (29). Thus, we have the natural generalization

$$\frac{C(T)}{C_N(T)}=r_c(y_p)+\frac{12}{7\zeta (3)}\frac{\chi _p^2r_a(y_p)^2}{\chi _p^4r_b(y_p)},$$
(45)
where $`y_p(T)=\mathrm{\Delta }_p(T)/2T=\chi _pQ(T)/2T.`$

For illustration, we now apply this general formula to three typical cases and the results are shown in Fig. 2: (i) the isotropic-gap BCS model $`\chi _p=1`$, familiar from a number of textbooks;Lifshitz and Pitaevskii (1981); Abrikosov (1988); Abrikosov et al. (1975) (ii) the two-dimensional (2D) $`d`$-wave superconductor $`\chi _p=\mathrm{cos}2\phi `$, $`\mathrm{tan}\phi =p_y/p_x`$; and (iii) a two-band superconductor $`c_1=c_2=1/2`$, for which the gap ratio parameter is taken to reproduce the same reduced specific heat jump of the $`d`$-wave superconductor ($`\delta =\sqrt{3\pm \sqrt{8}}=2.41`$ or $`0.41`$).

The latter two models are often applied to analyze the behavior of CuO2 or MgB2 superconductors. Note also the qualitative difference: for a $`d`$-wave superconductor we have a quadratic specific heat at $`TT_c`$, whereas for a two-band superconductor we have the exponential behavior $`C(T)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }_2/2T)`$; see also Fig. 3 below.

Consider now the low temperature behavior of the specific heat per unit area for a 2D $`d`$-wave superconductors. Close to a node the gap is proportional to the momentum component along the Fermi contour $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p(0)v_\mathrm{\Delta }p_l`$. The corresponding superfluid velocity $`v_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is much smaller than the Fermi velocity $`v_F`$, which parameterizes the dependence of the normal excitations energy $`\xi _pv_Fp_t`$ as a function of the transversal to the Fermi contour momentum component. For the ground state quasiparticle spectrum we have $`E_p\sqrt{v_\mathrm{\Delta }^2p_l^2+v_F^2p_t^2}`$. It is convenient to introduce the dimensionless variables $`q_1=v_\mathrm{\Delta }p_l/2T`$ and $`q_2=v_Fp_t/2T`$. In terms of the latter we have for the element of the area in momentum space

$$4\frac{dp_ldp_t}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^2}=4\frac{(2T)^2}{v_\mathrm{\Delta }v_F}\frac{2\pi qdq}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^2}=\frac{2EdE}{\pi \mathrm{}^2v_\mathrm{\Delta }v_F},$$
(46)
where $`q=\sqrt{q_1^2+q_2^2}=z_p=E_p/2T`$, and for axial symmetric functions we can use polar coordinates; cf. Ref. Hussey, 2002. Here we have taken into account 4 nodal points. In such a way Eq. (10) gives

$$C_\nu (TT_c)=\frac{16}{\pi \mathrm{}^2}\frac{T^2}{v_\mathrm{\Delta }v_F}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{q^3dq}{\mathrm{cosh}^2q}6.89\frac{T^2}{\mathrm{}^2v_\mathrm{\Delta }v_F},$$
(47)
where we used $`18\zeta (3)/\pi 6.89`$; cf. Ref. Hussey, 2002, Eq. (2.9). This result together with Eq. (40) gives for the superconducting-to-normal specific heat ratio

$$\frac{C_\nu }{C_N}(t1)=1.047\frac{T_c}{\mathrm{}^2\nu _Fv_\mathrm{\Delta }v_F}t,$$
(48)
where $`t=T/T_c`$ is the reduced temperature. The penetration depth has a similar linear low temperature behavior for $`d`$-wave superconductors.

Very often fluctuations of stoichiometry and crystal defects make the theory of homogeneous crystal inapplicable close to the critical region. Let $`T_c(𝐫)`$ be a weakly fluctuating Gaussian field of the space vector $`𝐫`$. Hence, the simplest possible empirical model is to apply a Gaussian kernel to the theoretically calculated curve. Then for the heat capacity we have

$$C(t)=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}C_{\mathrm{theor}}(t)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{(tt^{})^2}{2(\mathrm{\Delta }t)^2}\right\}\frac{dt^{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }t\sqrt{2\pi }}.$$
(49)
The philosophy of applying the convolution technique to all theoretical curves with singularities was advocated in the book by Migdal.Migdal (2000) Such an empirically smeared curve with $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0.027`$ describes better the experimental data for MgB2 close to $`T_c`$; $`T_c\mathrm{\Delta }t1.1`$ K, $`B_{c2}(0)=2.5`$ T and $`B_{c2}(0)\mathrm{\Delta }t=750`$ G. The result is depicted at Fig. 3, where the smeared theoretical curve is compared with the experimental data.Bouquet et al. (2003) In order to achieve a good fit of the theory to the experimental data we have treated $`c_1`$ and $`\delta `$ as fitting parameters (cf. Refs. Bouquet et al., 2003, Mishonov et al., , Fisher et al., 2003 and Choi et al., 2003). The values used $`c_1=0.49`$ and $`\delta =2.9`$ are slightly different from the set of parameters used latter for computing the penetration depth, but are still in agreement with different spectroscopic evaluations. In order to reach the analogous quality of the fit of $`C(T)`$ for cuprates we have to take into account simultaneously the gap anisotropy and the VHS in the general expressions Eq. (12) and Eq. (17).

An analogous to Eq. (49) smearing of the fluctuation magnetization above $`T_c`$ reads

$`M(B,TT_c)`$ (50)
$`={\displaystyle M_{\mathrm{theor}}(B,TT_c^{})\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{(T_c^{}T_c)^2}{2(T_c\mathrm{\Delta }t)^2}\right\}\frac{dT_c^{}}{\sqrt{2\pi }T_c\mathrm{\Delta }t}}.`$
However, for big fluctuations of $`T_c`$ we have to take into account the appearance of superconducting domains. Such a precise investigation of fluctuations in the magnetization of Nb and Sn in the past led to the discovery of twinning plane superconductivity. For analytical GL results for twinning plane superconductivity see Ref. Mishonov, 1990.

Here we wish to emphasize that a large body of experimental data for $`B_{c2}(T)`$ are strongly influenced by the disorder. It is imperative to cut off a region of width $`T_c\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ or $`B_{c2}(0)\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ close to $`B_{c2}(T_c)`$ if we wish to determine $`B_{c2}(T)`$ by extrapolation of properties from the superconducting phase or fluctuation behavior of the normal phase. Various spurious curvatures of $`B_{c2}(T)`$ have been reported merely as a result of disorder of the crystals.

## II Electrodynamic behavior

An analysis of the London penetration depth tensor, similar to that carried out by Kogan in Ref. Kogan, 2002, gives

$$(\lambda ^2(T))_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{e^2}{\epsilon _0c^2}2\nu _Fr_d(y_p)v_\alpha v_\beta ,\alpha ,\beta =x,y,z,$$
(51)
where

$$𝐯_p=\frac{\epsilon _p}{𝐩},m_p^1=\frac{𝐯_p}{𝐩}=\frac{^2\epsilon _p}{𝐩^2}$$
(52)
are the band velocity and effective mass and

$$r_d(y)(y/\pi )^2\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[(y/\pi )^2+\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)^2\right]^{3/2},$$
(53)
$$r_d(y)7\zeta (3)(y/\pi )^21,r_d(\mathrm{})=1.$$

For comparison, the conductivity tensor of the normal phase in $`\tau _p`$-approximation reads

$$\sigma _{\alpha \beta }=2\nu _Fe^2\tau _pv_\alpha v_\beta .$$
(54)
For the penetration depths along the principal crystal axes we have in the two-band model

$$\lambda _\alpha ^2(T)=\lambda _{\alpha ,1}^2(0)r_d(y_1)+\lambda _{\alpha ,2}^2(0)r_d(y_2),$$
(55)
where for uniaxial crystals like MgB2 there are only 4 constants: $`\lambda _{x,1}(0)=\lambda _{y,1}(0)`$, $`\lambda _{x,2}(0)=\lambda _{y,2}(0)`$, $`\lambda _{z,1}(0)`$ and $`\lambda _{z,2}(0)`$. These can be obtained from electron band calculations,Mishonov and Penev (2003)

$`(\lambda ^2(T))_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\epsilon _0c^2}}2\nu _F{\displaystyle \underset{b=1,2}{}}c_br_d({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_b\left(T\right)}{2T}})v_\alpha v_\beta _b`$ (56)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{b=1,2}{}}(\lambda _b^2(0))_{\alpha \beta }r_d({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_b\left(T\right)}{2T}}),`$
where the band index $`b`$ labels the leaf of the Fermi surface over which the averaging of the electron velocities is carried out. For a discussion and details see the review by Kogan and Bud’ko.Kogan (2002) There is a natural “Eliashbergization” of this result (cf. Refs. Golubov et al., 2002a, Choi et al., 2003, Golubov et al., 2002b; Zehetmayer et al., 2003; Wälte et al., ):

$`r_d({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}{2T}})`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi T\mathrm{\Delta }_p^2}{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_p^2+\omega _n^2\right)^{3/2}}}`$ (57)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi T\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_p^2}{\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_p^2(\omega _n)+\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{n,p}^2\right]^{3/2}}},`$
where $`\omega _n=(2n+1)\pi T`$ are the Matsubara frequencies, $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{n,p}=Z_p(\omega _n)\omega _n`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_p(\omega _n)=Z_p(\omega _n)\mathrm{\Delta }_p(\omega _n)`$ and $`Z_p(\omega _n)`$ is the normalization factor. Analogous expressions can be worked out for the specific heat.

For a heuristic consideration of the result by KoganKogan (2002) at $`T=0`$ see Ref. Mishonov and Penev, 2003. At $`T=0`$ the Fermi surface is shifted as a rigid object in the momentum space under the influence of electromagnetic field. This shift of all conduction electrons explains why for the penetration depth the influence of VHS is less essential than the influence on the heat capacity. The increase of the kinetic energy of all conduction electrons is actually the increase of the Gibbs free energy density $`\mathrm{\Delta }G=\frac{1}{2\epsilon _0c^2}\lambda ^2j^2`$. At finite temperatures the number of superfluid electrons is $`r_d(\mathrm{\Delta }_p/2T)`$ times smaller.

The penetration depths at $`T=0`$ can be also expressed by the optical masses and the Hall constant of the normal metal at high magnetic field

$$(\lambda ^2(0))_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{e}{\epsilon _0c^2}\frac{1}{_{\mathrm{}}}(m^1)_{\alpha \beta },$$
(58)
$$\frac{1}{_{\mathrm{}}}=2e_{\epsilon _p<E_F}\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3},$$

$$m^1=\frac{{\displaystyle _{\epsilon _p<E_F}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}}m_p^1}{{\displaystyle _{\epsilon _p<E_F}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}}}=\frac{{\displaystyle _{\epsilon _p=E_F}}{\displaystyle \frac{dS_p}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3v_p}}𝐯_p𝐯_p}{{\displaystyle _{\epsilon _p<E_F}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}}},$$

the last equation being a consequence of the Gauss theorem $`_{\epsilon _p<E_F}d^3p\frac{}{𝐩}=_{\epsilon _p=E_F}𝑑𝐒_p`$, where $`d𝐒_p`$ is the element of the Fermi surface oriented along the outward normal. For an extensive discussion on galvanomagnetic properties of normal metals and inclusion of hole pockets with volume density $`n_h`$ for $`_{\mathrm{}}^1=e(n_en_h)`$ see the textbook by Lifshitz and PitaevskiiLifshitz and Pitaevskii (1979) or the monograph by Lifshitz, Azbel and Kaganov.Lifshitz et al. (1971) The Bernoulli effect can be easily observed in almost compensated superconductors for which $`n_en_h`$ and the Hall constant is bigger.

In the superconducting phase the Hall constant $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ can be determined by the Bernoulli potential

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =_{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{2\epsilon _0c^2}\lambda ^2(T)j^2;$$
(59)
generalization for the anisotropic case can be obtained by the obvious replacement $`\lambda ^2j^2j_\alpha \lambda _{\alpha \beta }^2j_\beta `$. Here we suppose that $`jj_c(T)`$, $`j_c`$ being the critical current. If the magnetic field $`𝐁`$ is parallel to the surface of a bulk superconductor this formula gives

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =_{\mathrm{}}\frac{B^2}{2\mu _0}.$$
(60)
All charge carriers interact with the electric potential $`\phi `$, but only the superfluid part $`r_d(\mathrm{\Delta }_p/2T)`$ creates kinetic energy. The constancy of the electrochemical potential in the superconductor gives the change of the electric potential, i.e., the Bernoulli effect. For the temperature dependent condensation energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }G=B_c^2(T)/2\mu _0`$ the corresponding change of the electric potential is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =_{\mathrm{}}\frac{B_c^2(T)}{2\mu _0}.$$
(61)
For complete determination of the Hall constant $`_{\mathrm{}}`$, the penetration depth $`\lambda (T)`$ and the optical mass of conduction electrons in a clean superconductor \[cf. Ref. Mishonov and Penev, 2003, Eq. (20)\],

$$m=\frac{e\lambda ^2(0)}{\epsilon _0c^2_{\mathrm{}}},$$
(62)
we have to investigate the Bernoulli effect for thin, $`d_{\mathrm{film}}\lambda (T)`$, and thick, $`d_{\mathrm{film}}\lambda (T)`$, superconducting films of the same material. $`M_{\mathrm{cp}}2m`$ can be called effective mass of the Cooper pairs; this parameter can be significantly increased by disorder.

For the temperature dependence of the electrochemical potential of the normal phase we have \[Ref. Lifshitz et al., 1971, Eq. (12.16)\]

$$e\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =\frac{\pi ^2}{6}\frac{\nu ^{}(E_F)}{\nu (E_F)}T^2.$$
(63)
Close to a VHS the influence of the energy derivative of the density of states can be significant and measurable.

The entropy and specific heat related to the volume density of the free energy of superconducting condensation $`B_c^2(T)/2\mu _0`$ can be determined by electric capacitor measurements, applying surface temperature oscillations. For discussions of possible experimental setups see Ref. Mishonov and Penev, 2003 and references therein.

It is a matter of technical calculations to verify the identity

$`(y/\pi )^2{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}`$ $`\left[(y/\pi )^2+\left(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)^2\right]^{3/2}`$ (64)
$`+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{2\mathrm{cosh}^2\sqrt{x^2+y^2}}}=1,`$
which transcribes into the form

$$r_a(y)+r_d(y)=1.$$
(65)
In such a way the *electrodynamic behavior* of a superconductor can be expressed in terms of the functions, defined for description of its *thermodynamic behavior*. Using Eqs. (65) and (51) we obtain

$$\rho _\mathrm{N}(T)=1\frac{(\lambda ^2(T))_{\alpha \beta }}{(\lambda ^2(0))_{\alpha \beta }}=\frac{r_a({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}{2T}})v_\alpha v_\beta }{v_\alpha v_\beta }.$$
(66)
Within the framework of London electrodynamics $`\rho _\mathrm{N}(T)=1\lambda ^2(0)/\lambda ^2(T)`$ is the normal fluid density, and $`\rho _\mathrm{S}(T)=\lambda ^2(0)/\lambda ^2(T)`$ is the superfluid one, having total charge density $`\rho _\mathrm{S}(T)/_{\mathrm{}}`$. For a two-band superconductor, Eqs. (56) and (66) give for the penetration depth along the principal crystal axes

$`\rho _\mathrm{S}(T)={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\alpha ^2(0)}{\lambda _\alpha ^2(T)}}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{b=1,2}{}}w_{\alpha ,b}r_d({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_b(T)}{2T}}),w_{\alpha ,b}=c_b{\displaystyle \frac{v_\alpha ^2_b}{v_\alpha ^2}},`$
$`w_{\alpha ,1}+w_{\alpha ,2}=`$ $`1,v_\alpha ^2=c_1v_\alpha ^2_1+c_2v_\alpha ^2_2.`$ (67)
For a set of parameters see the review by Kogan and Bud’ko.Kogan (2002) We take $`\delta =7.1/2.8`$ according to the spectroscopic data;Mishonov et al. ; Daghero et al. (2003) see also the point contact spectroscopy data in Ref. Samuely et al., 2003. In Fig. 4 we compare our theoretical calculation with the experimental data for $`\lambda (T)`$ by Carrington and Manzano.Carrington and Manzano (2003) Here we take $`c_1=0.59`$ which gives $`w_{a,1}w_{a,2}0.5`$.

The functions $`r_i(y)`$ for $`i=a,b,c,d`$ can be easily programmed for the purposes of experimental data processing. The graphs of $`r_i(y)`$ and the corresponding $`g_i(z)`$ functions are given in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6. The temperature dependence of the penetration depth $`\lambda (T)`$ is also programmed for isotropic-gap, two-band and model 2D $`d`$-wave superconductor. In the 2D $`d`$-wave case the theoretical result is compared with the experimental dataHussey (2002) for YBa2Cu3O7-δ, which is also depicted at the figure. The linear dependence of $`1\lambda ^2(0)/\lambda ^2(T)`$ at low temperatures for YBa2Cu3O7-δ is discussed in Ref. Hussey, 2002, Eq. (2.10). For a 2D $`d`$-wave superconductor the general formula Eq. (51) gives

$$\rho _\mathrm{S}(T)=\frac{\lambda ^2(0)}{\lambda ^2(T)}=_0^{2\pi }r_d(Z\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{max}}\left(T\right)}{2T}\mathrm{cos}2\phi )\frac{d\phi }{2\pi },$$
(68)
where the temperature dependence of the order parameter is described in Appendix A. We are using an oversimplified model for cuprate superconductivity for which are neglected (i) the anisotropy of the Fermi velocity $`v_F(𝐩)`$ along the Fermi contour; (ii) higher harmonics of the gap function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ along the Fermi contour and (iii) the influence of VHS of the density of states slightly below the Fermi level. For comparison between Angle Resolved Photoemission Spectroscopy (ARPES) data and a lattice model for high-$`T_c`$ spectrum see Ref. Mishonov et al., 2003a, Fig. 3.

Let us assume now that the order parameter for YBa2Cu3O7-δ is $`Z`$-times higher than the BCS prediction. This could be due to the influence of VHS or, which is more important, strong coupling effects. Inserting here $`Z=1.4`$ we can see that such a renormalization well describes the temperature dependence of the penetration depth in the whole temperature interval. Finally, we have a good working BCS-like formula. In fact, significantly higher $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{max}}(0)/T_c`$ than BCS prediction is in agreement with the ARPES data.

## III The case for Sr2RuO4

Our approach is aslo applicable to the triplet superconductor Sr2RuO4; for a review see Ref. Mackenzie and Maeno, 2003. We adopt the promising gap anisotropy model by Zhitomirsky and Rice,Zhitomirsky and Rice (2001) which gives $`E_p=\sqrt{\xi _p^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }_p|^2}`$, with

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }_p|^2\left[\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{p_xa}{2\mathrm{}}\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{p_ya}{2\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{p_xa}{2\mathrm{}}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{p_ya}{2\mathrm{}}\right]\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{p_zc}{2\mathrm{}},$$
(69)
where $`p_xa/\mathrm{}`$, $`p_ya/\mathrm{}`$, $`p_zc/\mathrm{}(0,2\pi )`$. For the Fermi surface we take a simple cylinder $`\epsilon _p\epsilon (\sqrt{p_x^2+p_y^2})`$ with radius $`p_Fa/\mathrm{}0.93\pi `$. Our calculations are depicted in Fig. 7. In this model calculation we have taken into account only one band responsible for superconductivity. Although it is not a priori clear how “good” is this assumption, our curve reproduces the theoretical curve by Zhitomirsky and RiceZhitomirsky and Rice (2001) and passes close to the experimental points by NishiZaki et al.NishiZaki et al. (1999) This promising success encouraged us to present the theoretical prediction for the penetration depth calculated from Eq. (66). According to the conclusions by Zhitomirsky and RiceZhitomirsky and Rice (2001) their model with horizontal line nodes (see also Ref. Litak et al., 2004) describes the experimental data better than a model with vertical line nodes. For illustration, in Fig. 7 we present also our calculations for a simple 2D vertical line nodes model with gap anisotropy function

$$\chi _p\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{p_xa}{2\mathrm{}}\right).$$
(70)
Similar model was studied by NishiZaki et al.;NishiZaki et al. (1999) see also Fig. 26 in the review by Mackenzie and Maeno.Mackenzie and Maeno (2003)

From aesthetic point of view our preferences are for the recent model for the gap anisotropy by Deguchi et al.Deguchi et al. (2004)

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }_p|^2\mathrm{sin}^2(p_xa/\mathrm{})+\mathrm{sin}^2(p_ya/\mathrm{}).$$
(71)
Such type of anisotropy can be derived in the framework of quasi-two-dimensional exchange models for perovskite superconductivity of the type of the considered for CuO2 plane in Ref. Mishonov et al., 2003a. The theoretical prediction corresponding to Eq. (71) is also illustrated in Fig. 7 together with the experimental data by Deguchi et al.Deguchi et al. (2004)

## IV Discussion and conclusions

Let us discuss now the specific heat. We have shown that for factorizable kernelsMarkowitz and Kadanoff (1965) the specific heat can be represented as a sum of a “normal” component $`C_\nu (T)`$ and a term dependent on the order parameter $`C_\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$, which has the same form as in the GL theory. There is one detail that is worth focusing on: for the $`s`$-$`d`$ model for high-$`T_c`$ superconductivityMishonov et al. (2003a) the kernel is indeed separable because the contact interaction is localized in a single atom in the lattice unit cell. One should only substitute the spectrum of the superconductor at $`T<T_c`$ in the known expression for the GL coefficients from classical work of Gor’kov and Melik-Barkhudarov.Gor’kov and Melik-Barkhudarov (1963) The final expression for the specific heat is a generalization of the result of Pokrovskii.Pokrovskii and Ryvkin (1962) The derived formulas can be easily programmed for fitting the experimental data of anisotropic superconductors. For the jump of the specific heat at the critical temperature $`\mathrm{\Delta }C|_{T_c}=C_\mathrm{\Delta }(T_c^{})`$ general consideration has already been given in Ref. Mishonov and Penev, 2002. The derived formula is not exact, but interpolates between the correct low-temperature behavior and the result by PokrovskiiPokrovskii and Ryvkin (1962) for the specific heat jump at $`T_c.`$ That is why we believe that our interpolation formula Eq. (29) can be useful for preliminary analysis of the experimental data for the specific heat in superconductors; for experimental data processing the accuracy could be comparable, e.g., with the accuracy of the Debye formula for the phonon heat capacity.

We illustrated our formulas for $`C(T)`$ and $`\lambda (T)`$ for isotropic-gap BCS model and three of the best investigated anisotropic-gap superconductors YBa2Cu3O7-δ, Sr2RuO4 and MgB2. The nature of superconductivity for those superconductors is completely different: high-$`T_c`$ and low-$`T_c`$, phonon- and exchange-mediated, singlet and triplet Cooper pairs. In all those cases the derived formulas work with an acceptable accuracy; in some cases we have even quantitative agreement and for high-$`T_c`$ cuprates we have shown what the BCS analysis can give. We conclude that the statistical properties of the superconductors \[thermodynamic $`C(T)`$ and kinetic $`\lambda (T)`$\] are determined mainly by the gap anisotropy, irrespective of the underlying pairing mechanism, and the approximative weak coupling separation of variablesPokrovskii and Ryvkin (1962) $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p(T)=Q(T)\chi _p`$ is an adequate approach. It is worth applying the derived formulas for $`C(T)`$ and $`\lambda (T)`$ for every new superconductor. Often after the synthesis of a new superconductor single crystals are not available and only the data for heat capacity $`C(T)`$ can help the theory to distinguish between different models for the gap anisotropy even before detailed spectroscopic investigation is performed.

###### Acknowledgements.

One of the authors (TM) is thankful to F. Bouquet, A. Carrington, K. Deguchi, L.P. Gor’kov, N. E. Hussey, A. Junod, V.G. Kogan, Y. Maeno, V.A. Moskalenko, V.L. Pokrovsky, A. Rigamonti, Y. Wang, O. Dolgov and O.K. Andersen for clarifying correspondence related to their papers. The authors are thankful to L.A. Atanasova and T.I. Valchev for the cooperation in the initial stage of the present research. This work was partially supported by the Scientific Fund of Sofia University under Contract 57/2004.

## Appendix A Order parameter equation for anisotropic-gap superconductors

Following Ref. Pokrovskii and Ryvkin, 1962, let us scrutinize the derivation of and the solution to Eq. (8). The gap anisotropy function will have non-zero values only in a narrow region near the Fermi surface

$$\chi _p=\chi _p\theta (\omega _D|\xi _p|),T_c\omega _DE_F.$$
(72)
Later, the differential volume in the momentum space can be separated to Fermi surface element $`dS`$ and a normal element $`dp_t`$

$$d^Dp=dp_tdS=\frac{d\epsilon }{v_F}dS,v_F(𝐩)=\left|\frac{\epsilon _p}{𝐩}\right|.$$
(73)
Returning to Eq. (8) we have

$$\frac{G}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^D}\frac{\chi _p^2}{2E_p}\mathrm{tanh}(z_p)\theta (\omega _D|\xi _p|)\frac{d\epsilon dS}{v_F}=1,$$
(74)
where $``$ denotes integration over the Fermi surface. With the account of the energy cutoff $`\omega _D`$ the last reads

$$\frac{G}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^D}\frac{dS}{v_F}\chi _p^2_0^{\omega _D}\frac{\mathrm{tanh}(\sqrt{\xi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_p^2}/2T)}{\sqrt{\xi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_p^2}}𝑑\xi =1.$$
(75)
According to Eq. (24) we have for the density of states

$`\nu _F=\overline{\delta (\xi _p)}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^D}}{\displaystyle \delta (\epsilon E_F)𝑑\epsilon \frac{dS}{v_F}}`$ (76)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^D}}{\displaystyle \frac{dS}{v_F}}.`$
Similarly, the averaging over the Fermi surface can be represented as a surface integral

$$f(p)=\frac{1}{\nu _F}\frac{dS}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^Dv_F}f(p).$$
(77)
In these notation Eq. (75) reads

$$\chi _p^2\underset{0}{\overset{\omega _D}{}}\frac{\mathrm{tanh}(\sqrt{\xi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_p^2}/2T)}{\sqrt{\xi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_p^2}}𝑑\xi =\frac{1}{G\nu _F}=\frac{1}{\lambda _{\mathrm{BCS}}},$$
(78)
where $`\lambda _{\mathrm{BCS}}G\nu _F`$ is the dimensionless BCS coupling constant.

At $`T=T_c`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p=0`$ and $`E_p=|\xi _p|`$, substituting $`x=\xi /2T`$ we obtain

$$\chi _p^2_0^M\frac{\mathrm{tanh}x}{x}𝑑x=\frac{1}{\lambda _{\mathrm{BCS}}},M=\frac{\omega _D}{2T_c}1.$$
(79)
Now the identity

$$_0^M\frac{\mathrm{tanh}x}{x}𝑑x=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{4\gamma }{\pi }M\right)$$
(80)
gives

$$T_c=2\omega _D\frac{\gamma }{\pi }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{\chi _p^2\lambda _{\mathrm{BCS}}}\right).$$
(81)
Analogously, at $`T=0`$ we have

$$\chi _p^2_0^{\omega _D}\frac{d\xi }{\sqrt{\xi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_p^2(0)}}=\frac{1}{\lambda _{\mathrm{BCS}}}.$$
(82)
Then taking into account that $`\omega _D\mathrm{\Delta }_p(0)`$ we have

$$\underset{0}{\overset{\omega _D}{}}\frac{d\xi }{\sqrt{\xi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_p^2}}=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\omega _D}{|\mathrm{\Delta }_p|}+\sqrt{1+\frac{\omega _D^2}{|\mathrm{\Delta }_p|^2}}\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{2\omega _D}{|\mathrm{\Delta }_p|}.$$
(83)
As we will see later, it is convenient to modify the normalization of the order parameter and gap anisotropy function:

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }_p=\frac{\chi _p}{\chi _{\mathrm{av}}},\stackrel{~}{Q}=Q\chi _{\mathrm{av}},\chi _{\mathrm{av}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\chi _p^2\mathrm{ln}|\chi _p|}{\chi _p^2}\right\}.$$
(84)
The renormalizing multiplier $`\chi _{\mathrm{av}}`$ is chosen in order for the renormalized gap anisotropy function to obey the relation

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }_p^2\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_p^2=0.$$
(85)
For the two-band model this gives

$$\chi _{\mathrm{av}}=\chi _1^{c_1\chi _1^2}\chi _2^{c_2\chi _2^2},$$
(86)
and one can easily verify that

$$c_1\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^2\mathrm{ln}|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1|+c_2\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^2\mathrm{ln}|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2|=0.$$
(87)
Similarly, using

$$_0^{\pi /2}\mathrm{cos}^2\phi \mathrm{ln}|\mathrm{cos}\phi |d\phi =\frac{\pi }{8}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{e}/4)$$
(88)
we obtain for a 2D $`d`$-wave superconductor

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }_p(\phi )=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\mathrm{e}}}\mathrm{cos}2\phi ,$$
(89)
$$_0^{2\pi }\stackrel{~}{\chi }_p^2(\phi )\mathrm{ln}|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_p(\phi )|d\phi =0.$$

Using the approximation (83) with a renormalized order parameter and gap anisotropy function, from Eq. (82) we derive

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}(0)=2\omega _D\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{\chi _p^2\lambda _{\mathrm{BCS}}}\right).$$
(90)
This equation together with (81) gives the well-known BCS relation for the renormalized order parameter for anisotropic superconductorsPokrovskii and Ryvkin (1962)

$$\frac{2\stackrel{~}{Q}(0)}{T_c}=\frac{2\pi }{\gamma }3.53.$$
(91)
We assume that the density of states $`\nu (E)`$ is almost constant in the energy interval $`E_F\pm 2T_c`$.

The renormalization does not change the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p(T)=Q\chi _p=\stackrel{~}{Q}\stackrel{~}{\chi _p}`$, but in a sense $`\stackrel{~}{Q}(T)`$ is the “true” BCS gap for an anisotropic superconductor. For $`T=0`$ the BCS model gives for $`d`$-wave superconductors $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p(0)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{cos}2\phi `$, where

$$\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{max}}}{T_c}=\frac{2\pi }{\gamma }\frac{2}{\sqrt{\mathrm{e}}}4.28.$$
(92)
However, for cuprates we have to take into account the influence of Van Hove singularity and strong coupling correlations. As we fitted from the temperature dependence of the penetration depth for YBa2Cu3O7-δ we have 40% bigger gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{max}}=Z\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{max}}^{(\mathrm{BCS})}`$ and $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{max}}/T_c6.0`$. In such a way the thermodynamic behavior is in agreement with the spectroscopic data. This is a good hint in favor of the Landau-Bogoliubov quasiparticle picture applied to high-$`T_c`$ cuprates. For MgB2 taking $`c_1=0.44`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1(0)=7.1`$ meV and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2(0)=2.8`$ we obtain $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_11.17`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_20.46`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{Q}(0)=\mathrm{\Delta }_1(0)/\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1=\mathrm{\Delta }_2(0)/\stackrel{~}{\chi }_26.08`$ meV $`=70.6`$ K. For the critical temperature $`T_c=39`$ K we obtain $`2\stackrel{~}{Q}(0)/T_c3.62`$ which agrees with the BCS ratio (91) within $`3\%`$ accuracy as found in Ref. Mishonov et al.,

For arbitrary temperatures using the identity

$$\mathrm{tanh}\frac{x}{2}=1\frac{2}{\mathrm{e}^x+1}$$
(93)
Eq. (78) reads

$`\chi _p^2{\displaystyle _0^{\omega _D}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi }{\sqrt{\xi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_p^2(T)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _{\mathrm{BCS}}}}`$ (94)
$`=`$ $`2\chi _p^2{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\omega _D}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi }{\sqrt{\xi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_p^2(T)}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\sqrt{\xi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_p^2(T)}}{T}\right)+1\right]}}.`$
Substituting here $`1/\lambda _{\mathrm{BCS}}`$ from Eq. (82) and taking into account the $`\omega _D|\mathrm{\Delta }_p(0)|`$ approximation, Eq. (83), we obtain the Pokrovskii equation

$$q:=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\chi _p^2F(2y_p)}{\chi _p^2}\right\},2y_p=\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\frac{\chi _p}{\chi _{\mathrm{av}}}\frac{q}{t}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}{T},$$
(95)
where

$$q(t)=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_p(T)}{\mathrm{\Delta }_p(0)}=\frac{Q(T)}{Q(0)}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{Q}(T)}{\stackrel{~}{Q}(0)}$$
(96)
is the reduced order parameter $`0q1`$ as a function of the reduced temperature $`t=T/T_c`$. In physical variables PokrovskiiPokrovskii and Ryvkin (1962) equation reads

$$\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_p(T)}{\mathrm{\Delta }_p(0)}+\chi _p^2F(\mathrm{\Delta }_p(T)/T)_p=0.$$
(97)
The function $`F(x)`$ associated with the right-hand side of Eq. (94) is defined by an integral, for which we have one integral and two different summation formulas, convenient for small and large argumentsRumer and Ryvkin (1980)

$`F(x)`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{\sqrt{u^2+x^2}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{u^2+x^2}\right)+1\right]}}`$ (98)
$`=2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{\mathrm{exp}(x\mathrm{cosh}u)+1}}`$
$`=\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\gamma x}}+2\pi {\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2l1)\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{x^2+(2l1)^2\pi ^2}}}\right]`$
$`=2{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^nK_0(nx),`$
where for large arguments we have the approximate formula

$$2K_0(x1)\sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{x}}\mathrm{e}^x\left(1\frac{1}{8x}+\frac{9}{128x^2}\frac{225}{3972x^3}\right).$$
(99)
Physically, here $`x=\mathrm{\Delta }/T`$, $`u=\xi /T`$ and the upper integration bound $`\omega _D/T`$ has been replaced by $`\mathrm{}`$. For this function we have the approximate formulas

$`F(x1)`$ $`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\gamma x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{8\pi ^2}}\zeta (3)x^2,`$ (100)
$`F(x1)`$ $`2K_0(x).`$ (101)
The Euler constant is $`\gamma =\mathrm{e}^C1.781072418`$ and $`\zeta (3)1.202056903`$, where $`\zeta `$ is the Riemann zeta function. A plot of the function $`F(x)`$ is shown in Fig. 8. In Appendix B a simple C++ code for numerical evaluation of this function is provided. The use of the limes() function is optional; it increases the accuracy, but slows down the computation. For fast calculations we have to take only several terms of the expansions Eq. (98). The colon (:) in Eq. (95) represents an iterative assignment in which we use the initial approximation $`q=1`$.

The BCS order parameter equation Eq. (95) is not specific for the physics of superconductivity. Recently, AbrikisovAbrikosov (2003) has derived the same equation for the temperature dependence of the amplitude of spin density waves in cuprates.

For 2D $`d`$-wave superconductors the Pokrovskii equation (95) reads

$$\mathrm{ln}q=\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}2\mathrm{cos}^2(2\phi )F\left(\frac{2\pi }{\gamma \sqrt{\mathrm{e}}}\mathrm{cos}(2\phi )\frac{q}{t}\right)\frac{d\phi }{2\pi }.$$
(102)
The numerical solution for the squared reduced order parameter $`q^2(t)`$ is shown in Fig. 9. The linear dependence near the critical temperature $`t=1`$ corresponds to the GL approximation. In Fig. 10 the squared reduced order parameter for MgB2 (two-band model with $`c_1=0.44`$, $`\delta =7.1/2.8`$) is compared with the experimental data from Ref. Daghero et al., 2003.

As a last problem, let us derive the factorizable kernel (7) as a result from the BCS equation (6). For $`\omega _DE_F`$, Eq. (6) reads

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_q(T)`$ $`={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{FS}}}V_{q,p}\mathrm{\Delta }_p{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\omega _D}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}(E_p/2T)}{E_p}}𝑑\xi _p{\displaystyle \frac{dS_p}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^Dv_F}}`$
$`=\nu _FV_{q,p}\mathrm{\Delta }_p{\displaystyle _0^{\omega _D}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}(E_p/2T)}{E_p}}𝑑\xi _p_p.`$ (103)
At $`T=T_c`$ \[cf. Eqs. (79)–(81)\] this formula gives

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_q(T_c)\nu _F\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2\gamma \omega _D}{\pi T_c}\right)V_{q,p}\mathrm{\Delta }_p_p.$$
(104)
Let us also mention the dimensions of the variables. Since the integration $`\mathrm{}\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}`$ has a dimension of $`1/`$volume, then $`V_{q,p}`$, being a Fourier component of potential energy, has dimension of energy$`\times `$volume. For example, the Coulomb potential $`e^2/r`$ has dimension of energy and its Fourier transformation

$$\frac{4\pi e^2}{k^2}=\frac{e^2}{r}\mathrm{e}^{i𝐤𝐫}d^3r$$
(105)
has dimension of energy$`\times `$volume. The same holds for the contact attraction in the BCS model potential $`V(𝐫)=G\delta (𝐫)`$ having a constant Fourier component $`G`$. The density of states $`\nu _F`$ has dimension of (energy$`\times `$volume)-1, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ and $`E_p`$ have dimension of energy and the Fermi surface averaging brackets $`\mathrm{}`$ represent a dimensionless operation.

Let the dimensionless parameter $`V_0`$ denotes the maximum eigenvalue of the problem

$$V_{q,p}\chi _p_p=V_0\chi _q,$$
(106)
and $`\chi _p`$ is the corresponding eigenvector, with normalization $`\chi _p^2=1`$. The comparison of Eq. (106) and Eq. (104) gives

$$T_c=\frac{2\gamma \omega _D}{\pi }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{\nu _FV_0}\right),$$
(107)
which is identified with Eq. (81) and we obtain

$$G=V_0=\frac{\chi _qV_{q,p}\chi _p_{q,p}}{\chi _p^2_p}.$$
(108)
As the maximal eigenvalue is sought, one can apply in this case the Krilov iterations

$$\chi _q^{(n+1)}V_{q,p}\chi _p^{(n)}_p,(\chi _p^{(n+1)})^2=1,$$
(109)
starting from some solution-like trial vector $`\chi _p^{(0)}`$. Then the gap anisotropy function $`\chi _p`$ is just the limit of the Krilov iterations $`\chi _p^{(\mathrm{})}`$.

For $`T=0`$, the gap equation (A) gives

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_p(0)=V_{q,p}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2\omega _D}{\stackrel{~}{Q}(0)|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_p|}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_p_p.$$
(110)
Within the weak-coupling BCS approximation, in the integrant

$$\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2\omega _D}{|\mathrm{\Delta }_p(0)|}\right)=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2\omega _D}{\stackrel{~}{Q}(0)}\right)\mathrm{ln}|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_p|$$
(111)
the first term is much bigger than the second one. For details we refer to the original work by Pokrovsky,Pokrovskii and Ryvkin (1962) but roughly speaking $`\mathrm{ln}[2\omega _D/\mathrm{\Delta }_p(0)]\mathrm{const}1`$. Within the latter approximation for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p(0)`$ we obtain again the same eigenvalue problem and this constitutes the proof that the momentum dependence of the gap is rigid. Hence we derive the separation of the variables $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p(T)Q(T)\chi _p`$. When the term $`\mathrm{ln}|\chi _p|`$ in Eq. (111) is small it can be treated perturbatively, and according to the normalization Eq. (85) its influence diminish. The properties of this approximative separation of the variables can be simulated by a factorizable kernel

$$V_{q,p}=\underset{n}{}V_n\mathrm{\Psi }_q^{(n)}\mathrm{\Psi }_p^{(n)}V_0\chi _q\chi _p,$$
(112)
where $`V_n`$ are the eigenvalues and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_p^{(n)}`$ are the corresponding eigenvectors of the problem

$$V_{q,p}\mathrm{\Psi }_p^{(n)}_p=V_n\mathrm{\Psi }_q^{(n)},|\mathrm{\Psi }_p^{(n)}|^2=1.$$
(113)
In other words, the factorizable approximation, Eq. (112) and Eq. (7), works well when the influence of smaller eigenvalues is small.

Generally speaking, the separability ansatz is a low-$`T_c`$ approximation; $`T_c`$ should be much smaller than all other energy parameters: energy cutoff, Debye frequency for phonon superconductors, exchange integrals for exchange mediated superconductivity, the Fermi energy and the bandwidths. Room temperature superconductivity is not yet discovered, but the good message is that we have still a simple approximation acceptably working for all superconductors. For theoretical models the accuracy of the separable approximation can be easily probed when investigating the angle between the order parameter at different temperatures, e.g.,

$$\mathrm{arccos}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_p^{}(T)\mathrm{\Delta }_p(T_c)}{\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Delta }_p(T)|^2|\mathrm{\Delta }_p(T_c)|^2}}1,$$
(114)
or

$$\mathrm{arccos}\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }_p^{}(T)\mathrm{\Delta }_p(T_c)}}{\sqrt{\overline{|\mathrm{\Delta }_p(T)|^2}\overline{|\mathrm{\Delta }_p(T_c)|^2}}}1.$$
(115)
Those angles are just zero at $`T_c`$ and the expressions for the specific heat jump and the GL coefficients is correct. Only for $`T0`$ some small deviations can be observed, but in that case one can treat $`\chi _p`$ as a trial function in a variational approach.

The performed analysis shows that the separation of the variables Eq. (5) due to PokrovskyPokrovskii and Ryvkin (1962) and consequent factorizable kernel Eq. (7) are tools to apply the weak-coupling BCS approximation to anisotropic-gap superconductors. The factorizable kernel gives a simple solution to the gap equation, the nontrivial detail being that this separability can be derived by the BCS gap equation. The factorizable kernel has also been discussed by Markowitz and KadanoffMarkowitz and Kadanoff (1965) and employed, e.g., by ClemClem (1966) to investigate the effect of gap anisotropy in pure and superconductors with nonmagnetic impurities. Factorizable kernels are now used in many works on exotic superconductors. However, in none of them is mentioned that the separability of the superconducting order parameter is an immanent property of the BCS theory.Pokrovskii and Ryvkin (1962) The accuracy of the separable approximation is higher if the other eigenvalues of the pairing kernel are much smaller than the maximal one. This is likely to be the situation for the $`s`$-$`d`$ model for layered cuprates, Mishonov et al. (2003a) where the $`s`$-$`d`$ pairing amplitude $`J_{sd}`$ is much bigger than the phonon attraction and the other interatomic exchange integrals. In order for us to clarify this important approach to the theory of superconductivity, we have given here a rather methodical derivation of the Pokrovsky theory.

## Appendix B C++ code for computing the $`𝑭\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$ function Eq. (98)

```
/*
 *  Calculates the F(x) function. By default this function
 *  uses the epsilon algorithm (the limes() function), but if
 *  you need faster calculation with smaller accuracy, you
 *  can set the optimized argument to false. Uses sum for
 *  x < 0.32, hankel sum for x >= 0.32, the
 *  F(x) ~= sqrt(2PI/x).exp(-x) approximation for x > 13
 *  and F(x) ~= log(PI / (GAMA * x)) for x < 0.001
 */
double F(double x, bool optimized = true) {
    if(x == 0) // return maximum possible double value.
    {
        return 1.0E308;
    }

    if(x < 0) // F(x) is an even function.
    {
        x = -x;
    }

    // For x < 0.001 we use the approximation
    // F(x) ~= log(PI / (GAMA * x)).
    if(x < 0.001)
    {
        return log(PI / (GAMA * x));
    }

    // For x > 13 we use the approximation
    // F(x) ~= sqrt(2PI/x).exp(-x).
    if(x > 13.0)
    {
        return sqrt(2.0*PI/x) * exp(-x);
    }

    double F_limes(double);
    double F_fast(double);

    return optimized ? F_limes(x) : F_fast(x);
}

/*
 *  Calculates the F(x) function without resorting to
 *  the epsilon algorithm.
 */
double F_fast(double x) {
    double sum=0.0, oldSum, k=1.0, eps, PI2=PI*PI;

    // For 0.001 <= x < 0.32 we use the sum
    // 0.5*F(x)  = 0.5 * log(PI / (GAMA * x)) +
    //                1 - PI/sqrt(x^2 + PI^2) +
    //           1/3 - PI/sqrt(x^2 + (3PI)^2) +
    //       ................................ +
    // 1/(2l+1) - PI/sqrt(x^2 + ((2l+1)PI)^2) +
    //       ................................ +
    if(x < 0.32)
    {
        eps = 2.0E-8 / (x * sqrt(x));
        sum = 0.5 * log(PI / (GAMA * x));
        do
        {
            oldSum = sum;
            sum += 1.0 / k - PI / (sqrt(x*x+k*k*PI2));
            k += 2.0;
        }
        while(fabs(sum - oldSum) >= eps * fabs(sum));

        return 2.0 * sum;
    }

    // For 0.32 <= x <= 13 we use the sum
    // 0.5*F(x) = K0(x) - K0(2x) + K0(3x) - ...
    // + (-1)^(n+1)*K0(nx) + ...
    eps = 2.3E-6 * pow(x, 0.8) * exp(1.5 * (x - 0.3));
    do
    {
        oldSum = sum;
        sum += bessk0(k * x) - bessk0((k + 1.0) * x);
        k += 2.0;
    }
    while(fabs(sum - oldSum) >= eps * fabs(sum));

    return 2.0 * sum;
}

/*
 *  Calculates the F(x) function using the epsilon algorithm.
 */
double F_limes(double x) {
    double err;
    int iPade, kPade;
    // Number of the partial sums.
    int N = 11;
    // Array, storing the partial sums.
    double Sn[12];
    // Array, storing the limes() function result.
    double An[12];
    double k = 1.0;
    // The lower bound should start at 0!
    Sn[0] = 0.0;
    // For 0.001 <= x < 0.32 we use the sum
    // 0.5*F(x)  = 0.5 * log(PI / (GAMA * x)) +
    //                1 - PI/sqrt(x^2 + PI^2) +
    //           1/3 - PI/sqrt(x^2 + (3PI)^2) +
    //       ................................ +
    // 1/(2l+1) - PI/sqrt(x^2 + ((2l+1)PI)^2) +
    //       ................................ +
    if(x < 0.32)
    {
        double PI2 = PI * PI;
        for(int i=1; i<=N; i++)
        {
            Sn[i] = Sn[i-1] +
                1.0/k-PI/(sqrt(x*x + k*k*PI2));
            k += 2.0;
        }

        return log(PI / (GAMA * x)) +
            2.0*limes(Sn, An, N, err, iPade, kPade);
    }
    // For 0.32 <= x <= 13 we use the sum
    // 0.5*F(x) = K0(x) - K0(2x) + K0(3x) - ...
    // + (-1)^(n+1)*K0(nx) + ...
    for(int i=1; i<=N; i++)
    {
        Sn[i] = Sn[i-1] +
            bessk0(k*x) - bessk0((k + 1.0)*x);
        k += 2.0;
    }

    return 2.0*limes(Sn, An, N, err, iPade, kPade);
}

/*
 *  Finds the limit of a series in the case where only
 *  the first N+1 terms are known. Method: The subroutine
 *  operates by applying the epsilon-algorithm to the
 *  sequence of partial sums of a series supplied on input.
 *  For further details, please see:
 *  T. Mishonov and E. Penev
 *  Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 14, 3831 (2000).
 */
double limes(double* S, double* A, int N,
             double& err, int& i_pade, int& k_pade)
{
    int i, k = 1;
    double rLimes = S[N], A_max = 0.0;
    err = fabs(S[N] - S[N-1]);
    i_pade = N;
    k_pade = 0;
    for(i=0; i<=N; i++)
    {
        A[i] = 0.0;
    }

    while(N - 2*k + 1 >= 0)
    {
        for(i=0; i<=N - 2*k + 1; i++)
        {
            A[i] = (S[i+1] != S[i]) ?
                A[i+1] + 1.0 / (S[i+1] - S[i] : A[i+1];
        }

        if(N - 2*k < 0)
        {
            break;
        }

        for(i=0; i<=N - 2*k; i++)
        {
            S[i] = (A[i+1] != A[i]) ?
                S[i+1] + 1.0 / (A[i+1] - A[i]) : S[i+1];

            if(fabs(A[i]) > A_max)
            {
                A_max = fabs(A[i]);
                rLimes = S[i];
                k_pade = k;
                i_pade = i + k_pade;
                err = 1.0/A_max;
                if(S[i+1] == S[i])
                {
                    return rLimes;
                }
            }
        }

        k++;
    }

    return rLimes;
}

```


format: text

text:
# DOUBLE CHARM PHYSICS

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The discovery of the $`(b\overline{c})`$ ground state , and that of the $`(ccd)`$ baryon  demonstrates that new sectors of hadron physics are becoming accessible to experiments.

There are several good reasons to study hadrons systems with two $`c`$ quarks:

* Double charm baryons provide tests of mechanisms proposed to describe the weak decays of charmed mesons and single-charm baryons.
* The dynamics of confinement in $`(QQq)`$ baryons combine the slow relative motion of two heavy quarks with the fast motion of a light quark.
* $`(QQ\overline{q}\overline{q})`$ multiquark states have been predicted, whose stability results from the flavour-independent character of quark forces at short distances and from pion-exchange between two heavy mesons at large distances.

These aspects will be reviewed in the next sections. Details will be skipped. Many references will be provided for further reading.

## 2 WEAK DECAY OF CHARM

### 2.1 General considerations

It was a surprise in our community when the ratio of lifetimes $`r=\tau (D^\pm )/\tau (D^0)`$ was announced to significantly differ from unity. The preliminary value $`r4`$ even amplified the shock. Still, the stabilised value $`r2.5`$  is impressive. With only spectator diagrams such as those of Fig. 1, all lifetimes would be equal (up to minor phase-space effects) and all semileptonic widths comparable.

$`r1`$ reveals important non-spectator effects: interferences between a constituent quark or antiquark, and another coming from $`c`$ or $`W`$ decay; $`W`$ exchange between $`c`$ and $`d`$ or $`s`$; to a lesser extent, $`W`$ formation in the $`s`$-channel. Further refinements such as penguin diagrams might also be included.

### 2.2 Charmed mesons

There are many data on charmed mesons. In particular, the semileptonic widths are comparable

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{SL}}(D^\pm )\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{SL}}(D^0)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{SL}}(D_s)0.3(\mathrm{ps})^1.$$
(1)
There is no major interference effect. So the mechanism of Fig. 1 (left) with $`(f,\overline{f})=(e^+,\nu _e)`$ or $`(\mu ^+,\nu _\mu )`$ provides all mesons with a similar semi-leptonic rate.

The differences in lifetimes come from the hadronic part. The results

$$\tau (D^0)400\mathrm{fs},\tau (D_s)500\mathrm{fs},\tau (D^+)1000\mathrm{fs},$$
(2)
indicate that the light antiquark is not a mere spectator. When $`\overline{f}=\overline{d}`$ in $`Wf\overline{f}`$ decay, this $`\overline{d}`$ interferes with the $`\overline{d}`$ of $`D^+`$. For $`D^0`$ and $`D_s`$, a $`W`$ boson can be exchanged. For $`D_s`$, there is a small contribution of $`W`$ formation. Some effects are pictured in Fig. 2.

### 2.3 Baryons with single charm

The above mechanisms have been applied to charmed baryons: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+(cud)`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+(csu)`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0(csd)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c(css)`$. A new interference appears with respect to the meson case: the $`s`$-quark coming from the decaying $`c`$ might “feel” the presence of another $`s`$. The $`W`$-exchange contribution receives a larger strength. Annihilation becomes negligible, since requiring an antiquark from the sea. Some typical contributions are shown in Fig. 3. The mechanisms can be tested in subclasses of decays, once the statistics becomes sufficient for such filtering. An example is the last diagram of Fig. 3 showing a $`W`$-exchange contribution to doubly-Cabbibo-suppressed decay.

The main predictions  are that

* there are differences in the semileptonic partial widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}`$, namely

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{SL}}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)<\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{SL}}(\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+)<\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{SL}}(\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0)<\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{SL}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_c^0),$$
(3)
* the lifetimes are ordered as

$$\tau (\mathrm{\Omega }_c)<\tau (\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0)<\tau (\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)<\tau (\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+).$$
(4)

Present data do not enable one to check the prediction (3). The ordering (4) of lifetimes is remarkably verified by the data, but the spread of values seems allways underestimated in theoretical calculations, at least to my knowledge. This is hopefully just a matter of using more realistic values of some model-dependent parameters, such as the probability to find two quarks at the same location, which enters the contribution of $`W`$ exchange.

There are many predictions for exclusive rates, at least for their relative values. See, e.g., Ref.  for a flavour of this rich physics.

### 2.4 Weak decays of baryons with double charm

The same mechanisms have been further applied to baryons with double charm. Examples are drawn in Fig. 4.

There is an overall agreement that the hierarchy of lifetimes is

$$\tau (\mathrm{\Xi }_{cc}^+)\tau (\mathrm{\Omega }_{cc}^+)\tau (\mathrm{\Xi }_{cc}^{++}),$$
(5)
with, perhaps, an underestimate of the magnitude of the effect. For instance, Kiselev et al.  predicted $`\tau (\mathrm{\Xi }_{cc}^+)400`$fs, as compared to the value $`\tau 30`$fs suggested by SELEX data . This is one of the reasons leading Kiselev et al.  to cast some doubt about the Fermilab result. See, also, . But, again, the lifetime of other charmed baryons was also overestimated by theorists. In the plot of lifetimes, Fig. 5, a value as low as $`30`$fs does not look too extravagant an extrapolation.

## 3 SPECTROSCOPY OF DOUBLE-CHARM BARYONS

In the 60’s, the flavour group SU(3)F has been immediately extrapolated to SU(4) or higher. A better motivation for a fourth quark came from the GIM mechanism . At the time where charm was discovered, in the hidden form of $`(c\overline{c})`$, some classic papers were written on hadrons with charm, including a section on $`(ccq)`$ states .

More detailed studies of $`(QQq)`$ baryons came in the 80’s and later . No doubt that the recent discovery at SELEX will stimulate further works.

$`(QQq)`$ baryons are perhaps the most interesting of ordinary hadrons, as they combine in a single bag two extreme regimes:

1. the slow relative motion of two heavy quarks, as in charmonium,
2. the fast motion of a light quark. Remember that the electron moves faster in hydrogen than in positronium. Similarly, a light quark is likely more relativistic in heavy-light hadrons than in light mesons.

Hence, $`(QQq)`$ baryons offer an very interesting laboratory to study confinement.

### 3.1 Diquark clustering and excitations

In the $`(QQq)`$ wave function, the average $`QQ`$ separation is smaller than the $`Qq`$ one. This leads to envisage approximations, such as a quark–diquark picture, to be discussed shortly. The diquark is, however, not frozen. The first excitations arise in the $`QQ`$ relative motion, i.e., the $`(QQq)`$ ground state, and its first orbital excitation $`(QQq)^{}`$ are built out of different diquarks.

### 3.2 The two-step approximation

It is rather legitimate to replace the full three-body calculation by a two-step procedure where one

1. calculates the $`QQ`$ mass, by solving a two-body problem,
2. calculates the $`QQq`$ mass by solving another two-body problem.

The second step is rather safe. The finite-size corrections are small. For instance, they cancel out exactly for the harmonic oscillator.

As for the first step, one should be aware that the $`QQ`$ potential is effective, since it contains both the direct $`QQ`$ interaction and a contribution from the light quark. For instance, in the harmonic oscillator model, the identity

$$r_{12}^2+r_{23}^2+r_{31}^2=\frac{3}{2}r_{12}^2+2r_{123}^2,$$
(6)
demonstrates that 1/3 of the $`QQ`$ interaction comes from the light quark. Replacing 3/2 by 1 results into an underestimate of energies and spacings by a factor $`\sqrt{3/2}`$.

### 3.3 The Born–Oppenheimer approximation

It was used, e.g., by Fleck and Richard . For a given $`QQ`$ separation $`r_{12}`$, the two-centre problem is solved for the light quark, with proper reduced mass. The ground-state energy $`E_0(r_{12})`$, supplemented by the direct $`QQ`$ interaction, provides the adiabatic potential $`V_{QQ}`$. Solving the 2-body problem with this potential gives the first levels. The adiabatic potential built out of the second “electronic” energy $`E_1(r_{12})`$ leads to a second series of levels. This is very similar to the spectroscopy of H$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ in atomic physics.

Within explicit potential models, the Born–Oppenheimer approximation can be checked against an accurate solution of the 3-body problem, using for instance a systematic hyperspherical expansion. The approximation is excellent for $`(bbq)`$ and $`(ccq)`$, with $`q=u`$, $`d`$ or $`s`$, or even for $`(ssu)`$ or $`(ssd)`$.

### 3.4 Typical results

In Ref. , $`(ccq)`$ masses were estimated from a specific variant of the bag model, already used for charmed mesons. The results turn out to be rather sensitive to details such as centre-of-mass corrections, value of the bag constant, etc. Other bag-model calculations have been performed .

Potential models, on the other hand, tend to give very stable results, when the parameters are varied while maintaining a reasonable fit of lighter hadrons. Typically

* a ground-state near or slightly above $`3.6`$GeV for the $`(ccu)`$ or $`(ccd)`$ ground state,
* a hyperfine splitting of about $`80`$MeV between the spin 3/2 and spin 1/2 states,
* the first orbital excitation about $`300`$MeV above the ground-state,
* the first $`(ccs)`$ state near $`3.7`$GeV

Note that models tuned to $`(cqq)`$ or lighter baryons might underestimate the short-range $`QQ`$ attraction. If models are adjusted to $`(c\overline{c})`$ spectroscopy, there is an ambiguity on how to translate it to $`cc`$. The usual recipe stating that

$$V_{QQ}=\frac{1}{2}V_{Q\overline{Q}},$$
(7)
implies pairwise forces mediated by colour-octet exchanges. Small, non-confining, colour-singlet exchanges, as well as three-body forces might complicate the issue.

### 3.5 Towards better estimates

Most existing calculations are of rather exploratory nature, since made when double charm was considered as science fiction, or far future. Meanwhile, the art of QCD has made significant progress.

One could retain from simple potential models that the Born–Oppenheimer approximation provides an adequate framework. The effective $`QQ`$ potential could be estimated from relativistic models or from lattice calculations, similar to those of the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ potential or the effective $`QQ`$ potential in exotic $`(QQ\overline{q}\overline{q})`$ mesons, on which more shortly. It is hoped that the new experimental results will stimulate such calculations.

The literature already contains approaches somewhat more ambitious than simple bag or potential models: QCD sum rules , string picture , etc.

## 4 EXOTIC MESONS WITH DOUBLE CHARM?

### 4.1 Minireview on advertised exotics

The famous $`H`$ dibaryon proposed by Jaffe , and the less notorious pentaquark $`P`$ proposed independently by Lipkin  and the Grenoble group , owe their tentative stability to chromomagnetic forces. Other mechanisms might lead to stable multiquarks: chromoelectric forces and long-range Yukawa interaction. These mechanisms have been first proposed with crude approximations for the overall dynamics. It is important to examine to which extent multiquark binding survives all refinements brought in model calculations.

#### 4.1.1 Hexaquark

The chromomagnetic interaction

$$H_{\mathrm{c}m}=C\underset{i<j}{}\frac{\sigma _i.\sigma _j\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_i.\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_j}{m_im_j}\delta ^{(3)}(𝐫_{ij}),$$
(8)
or its bag model analogue , successfully describes the observed hyperfine splittings such as $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ or $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }\eta _c`$. The astute observation by Jaffe  is that this operator provides a binding

$$(ssuudd)2(sud)150\mathrm{MeV}$$
(9)
to the $`H=(ssuudd)`$ dibaryon with spin and isospin $`J=I=0`$. This estimates, however, relies on:

1. SU(3)F flavour symmetry
2. $`\delta ^{(3)}(𝐫_{ij})`$ independent of $`(i,j)`$ pair and borrowed from the wave function of ordinary baryons.

Relaxing these hypotheses, and introducing kinetic energy and spin-independent forces in the 6-body Hamiltonian usually spoils the stability of $`H`$ . The existence of $`H`$ is nowadays controversial. It has been searched in many experiments, without success so far. For instance, the doubly-strange hypernucleus $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{6}\mathrm{He}`$ is not observed to decay into $`H+\alpha `$ .

#### 4.1.2 Pentaquark

If the calculation made for the $`H`$ is repeated in the limit where $`m(Q)\mathrm{}`$, the same binding

$$(\overline{Q}qqqq)(\overline{Q}q)(qqq)150\mathrm{MeV}$$
(10)
is obtained for the pentaquark $`(\overline{Q}qqqq)`$, $`qqqq`$ being in a SU(3)F triplet . All corrections, again, tend to weaken this binding  so it is not completely sure that the actual pentaquark is stable. See, also, .

For the case where the chromomagnetic term (8) is replaced by Goldstone-boson exchange, see, e.g., the review by Stancu  and references therein.

### 4.2 Tetraquark

Twenty years ago, it was pointed out that current confining potentials bind $`(QQ\overline{q}\overline{q})`$ below its dissociation threshold into $`(Q\overline{q})+(Q\overline{q})`$, provided the mass ratio $`m(Q)/m(q)`$ is large enough . This chromoelectric binding was studied by several authors, in the context of flavour-independent potentials  or with lattice QCD  (see, also, ), with a remarkable convergence towards the same conclusion. This somewhat contrasts with the confusion in other sectors of multiquark spectroscopy.

#### 4.2.1 Favourable symmetry breaking

Let us consider the limit of a purely flavour-independent potential $`V`$ for $`(QQ\overline{q}\overline{q})`$. The situation becomes similar to that of exotic four-body molecules $`(M^+,M^+,m^{},m^{})`$, which all use the very same Coulomb potential. The hydrogen molecule with $`Mm`$ is much more stable than the positronium molecule Ps2 with $`M=m`$. If one decomposes the 4-body Hamiltonian as

$$_4=\left[\frac{M^1+m^1}{4}\left(𝐩_1^2+𝐩_2^2+𝐩_3^2+𝐩_4^2\right)+V\right]+\frac{M^1m^1}{4}\left(𝐩_1^2+𝐩_2^2𝐩_3^2𝐩_4^2\right),$$
(11)
the first term, even under charge conjugation, corresponds to a rescaled equal-mass system with the same threshold as $`_4`$. The second term, which breaks charge conjugation, improves the energy of $`_4`$ (one can applies the variational principle to $`_4`$ using the symmetric ground state of the first term as a trial wave function). In the molecular case, the second term changes the marginally bound Ps2 (or rescaled copy) into the deeply bound H2. In quark models, an unbound $`(qq\overline{q}\overline{q})`$ becomes a stable $`(QQ\overline{q}\overline{q})`$.

The effective $`QQ`$ potential has been estimated by Rosina et al.  in the framework of empirical potential models, and by Mihaly et al.  and Michael et al. (UKQCD) , who used lattice simulations of QCD.

The question is obviously: is the $`c`$ quark heavy enough to make $`(cc\overline{q}\overline{q})`$ bound when $`q=u`$ or $`d`$? At this point, the answer is usually negative, most authors stating that $`b`$ is required to bind $`(QQ\overline{q}\overline{q})`$ below its $`(Q\overline{q})+(Q\overline{q})`$ threshold.

### 4.3 Deuterium-like binding

There is, however, another mechanism: pion-exchange or, more generally, nuclear-like forces between hadrons containing light quarks or antiquarks. This effect was studied by several authors, in particular Törnqvist , Manohar and Wise , and Ericson and Karl . In particular a $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ can exchange a pion, this inducing an attractive potential. It is weaker than in the nucleon–nucleon case, but what matters for a potential $`gV(r)`$ to bind, is the product $`gm`$ of the strength $`g`$ and reduced mass $`m`$.

It is found that $`(DD^{})`$ is close to be bound, while binding is better established for $`(BB^{})`$. The result depends on how sharply the long-range potential is empirically regularised at short distances.

### 4.4 Combining long- and short-range forces

A lattice calculation such as those of Refs.  contains in principle all effects. In practice, space is truncated, so long-range forces are perhaps not entirely included. Explicit quark models such as  make specific assumptions about interquark forces, but do not account for pion exchange.

In our opinion, a proper combination of long- and short-range forces should lead to bind $`(DD^{})`$, since each component is almost sufficient by itself. This is presently under active study.

### 4.5 Borromean binding

There is a further possibility to build exotic, multicharmed systems. If the interaction between two charmed mesons cannot lead to a bound state (this is presumably the case for $`(DD)`$, since pion exchange does not contribute here), it is likely that the very same meson–meson interaction binds three or more mesons. This is known as the phenomenon of “Borromean” binding.

For instance, in atomic physics, neither two 3He atoms nor a 3He atom and a 4He atom can form a binary molecule, even at vanishing temperature, but it is found that $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ is bound . Similarly, in nuclear physics, the isotope 6He is stable against evaporating two neutrons, or any other dissociation process, while 5He is unstable. In a 3-body picture, this means that $`(\alpha ,n,n)`$ is stable, while neither $`(\alpha ,n)`$ nor $`(n,n)`$ have a stable bound state. In short, binding three constituents is easier than two.

## 5 Conclusions and outlook

The results by SELEX  and BELLE  groups show that we are know able to produce and identify two units of charm in hadron or electron collisions.

Double charm opens unique perspectives for studying new aspects of weak decays and confining forces, and for producing heavy exotic states.

A step further is triple-charm. The $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ccc}`$ family was named by Bjorken  the “ultimate goal of baryon spectroscopy”. It will reveals a “pure” baryon spectrum, without light quark complications. Comparing $`(c\overline{c})`$ and $`(ccc)`$ ordering and spacing pattern will be crucial to check current ideas on the gluon strings picture leading to linear confinement.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my collaborators on the spectroscopy of charmed particles, in particular J.-P. Ader, S. Fleck, M. Genovese, A. Martin, S. Pepin, B. Silvestre-Brac, Fl. Stancu, P. Taxil and S. Zouzou. I am also grateful to P. Fayet and X.Y. Pham for informative discussions on weak decays.


text:
# Noether-Lefschetz for 𝐾₁ of a Surface, Revisited

## 1. Statement of result

Let $`Z`$ be a smooth quasiprojective variety over $``$, and for given nonnegative integers $`k,m`$, let $`\mathrm{CH}^k(Z,m)`$ be the higher Chow group as introduced in \[Blo1\]. In \[Blo2\], Bloch constructs a cycle class map into any suitable cohomology theory. In our setting, the corresponding map is:

$$\mathrm{cl}_{k,m}:\mathrm{CH}^k(Z,m)H_𝒟^{2km}(Z,(k)),$$

where $`H_𝒟^{2km}(Z,(k))`$ is Deligne-Beilinson cohomology, which fits in a short exact sequence

$$0\frac{H^{2km1}(Z,)}{F^kH^{2km1}(Z,)+H^{2km1}(Z,(k))}H_𝒟^{2km}(Z,(k))$$

$$F^kH^{2km}(Z,)H^{2km}(Z,(k))0.$$

Our primary interest is when $`Z`$ is also complete, and $`m=1`$. Thus one has the corresponding map:

$$\mathrm{cl}_{k,1}:\mathrm{CH}^k(Z,1)\frac{H^{2k2}(Z,)}{F^kH^{2k2}(Z,)+H^{2k2}(Z,(k))}.$$

Let $`\mathrm{Hg}^{k1}(Z):=H^{2k2}(Z,(k1))F^{k1}H^{2k2}(Z,)`$ be the Hodge group. Then one has an induced map

$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{cl}}_{k,1}:\mathrm{CH}^k(Z,1)\frac{H^{2k2}(Z,)}{F^kH^{2k2}(Z,)+\mathrm{Hg}^{k1}(Z)+H^{2k2}(Z,(k))}.$$

It is known that $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{cl}}_{k,1}`$ is trivial for $`Z`$ a sufficiently general complete intersection and of sufficiently high multidegree. This is an consequence of the work of Nori \[No\], together with a technique similar to that given in \[G-S\]. The argument is presented in \[MS\]. Further, it is noted in \[MS\], based on an effective bound in \[Pa\], that

$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{cl}}_{2,1}:\mathrm{CH}^2(Z,1)\frac{H^2(Z,)}{F^2H^2(Z,)+\mathrm{Hg}^1(Z)+H^2(Z,(2))},$$

is trivial for sufficiently general surfaces $`Z^3`$ of degree $`d5`$. The method of Nori involves passing to the universal family of complete intersections of a given multidegree, in a given projective space. A similar point of view appears in \[Na\]. In this paper, we give an elementary and direct proof of the triviality of $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{cl}}_{2,1}`$ for a general surface $`Z^3`$ of degree $`5`$, by working with a Lefschetz pencil of degree $`d5`$ surfaces in $`^3`$. Thus our main theorem is an elementary new proof of the following:

Main Theorem. For a sufficiently general surface $`Z^3`$ of degree $`d5`$, the map $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{cl}}_{2,1}`$ is trivial.

We remark that the theorem is trivially true, without the generic hypothesis, if $`\mathrm{deg}Z3`$, as $`H^2(Z)`$ is algebraic. From the works of Collino, Voisin, S. Müller-Stach, et al, and more recently the authors \[C-L\], it is false if $`\mathrm{deg}Z=4`$. Since our method requires only a Lefschetz pencil as opposed to the universal family of surfaces of degree $`d`$ in $`^3`$, and that it provides a rather simple proof of a counterexample of the Hodge-$`𝒟`$-conjecture of Beilinson \[Bei1\], we believe that this approach has some merit. In particular, we believe that this argument is potentially useful in other settings.

## 2. Some definitions

(1) Deligne cohomology. We assume that the reader is familiar with Deligne cohomology, such as can be found in \[Bei1\] and \[EV\]. In the case of a smooth projective variety $`Z`$, and if we put $`(j)=(2\pi \sqrt{1})^j`$, one introduces the Deligne complex

$$(j)_𝒟:(j)𝒪_Z\mathrm{\Omega }_Z^1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_Z^{j1},$$

and defines $`H_𝒟^i(Z,(j)):=^i((j)_𝒟)`$ (hypercohomology). This gives rise to a short exact sequence

$$0\frac{H^{i1}(Z,)}{F^jH^{i1}(Z,)+H^{i1}(Z,(j))}H_𝒟^i(Z,(j))$$

$$F^jH^i(Z,)H^i(Z,(j))0.$$

A similar exact sequence holds quasiprojective $`Z`$ that are not necessarily smooth.

(2) Higher Chow groups. For a quasiprojective $`Z`$, the following abridged definition of $`\mathrm{CH}^k(Z,1)`$ will suffice \[La\] (cf. \[MS\]).

Definition. $`\mathrm{CH}^k(Z,1)`$ is the homology of the middle term in the complex

$$\underset{\mathrm{cd}_ZY=k2}{}K_2((Y))\stackrel{Tame}{}\underset{\mathrm{cd}_ZY=k1}{}K_1((Y))\stackrel{div}{}\underset{\mathrm{cd}_ZY=k}{}K_0((Y)),$$

where we recall that $`K_1(𝐅)=𝐅^\times `$ and $`K_0(𝐅)=`$, for a field $`𝐅`$, and Tame, div are respectively the Tame symbol and divisor maps.

Note: For the most part, we will identify $`\mathrm{CH}^k(,m)`$ with $`\mathrm{CH}^k(,m)`$, unless there is a specific reason to work with $`\mathrm{CH}^k(,m)`$ (and in which case the interpretation will be clear).

(3) Horizontal displacement. Let $`h:WS`$ be a proper smooth morphism of quasiprojective varieties over $``$, where say for simplicity $`dimS=1`$, with smooth projective fiber $`W_t:=h^1(t)`$. Fix a reference point $`t_0S`$ and consider a disk $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ centered at $`t_0`$. It is well known that there is a diffeomeomorphism $`h^1(\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Delta }\times W_{t_0}`$. Thus for a cohomology class $`\gamma :=\gamma _{t_0}H^{}(W_{t_0})`$, one can talk about its horizontal displacement $`\gamma _tH^{}(W_t)`$, for $`t\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and more generally for $`tS`$. Consider the Hodge decomposition $`H^{}(W_t,)=_{p+q=}H^{p,q}(W_t)`$, $`\gamma _t=_{p+q=}\gamma ^{p,q}`$. We say that the Hodge $`(p,q)`$ components deform horizontally if $`\gamma _t^{p,q}=(\gamma ^{p,q})_t`$ for all $`t\mathrm{\Delta }`$. By analytic considerations of Hodge subbundles, this is equivalent to saying that $`\gamma _t^{p,q}=(\gamma ^{p,q})_t`$ for all $`tS`$.

## 3. Proof of the main theorem

Let $`\{X_t\}_{t^1}`$ be a Lefschetz pencil of surfaces of degree $`d5`$ in $`^3`$, i.e. the general fiber $`X_t`$ is smooth, and each singular fiber has an ordinary double point singularity. We will think of this pencil in the form $`X^3\times ^1`$, i.e. where $`X`$ is the blowup of $`^3`$ along the base locus $`_{t^1}X_t`$. Suppose that for a general $`t^1`$, the cycle class map $`\mathrm{cl}_{2,1}:\mathrm{CH}^2(X_t,1)H_𝒟^3(X_t,(2))`$ is nontrivial. We can assume that $`X`$ is defined over an algebraically closed field $`L`$ of finite transcendence degree over $``$, i.e. $`X/_{}=X_L\times `$. Let $`\eta `$ be the generic point of $`_L^1`$. For some finite algebraic extension $`KL(\eta )`$, and via a suitable embedding $`K`$, there is a class $`\xi _K\mathrm{CH}^2(X_K:=X_\eta \times K,1)`$ such that $`\mathrm{cl}_{2,1}(\xi _K)0`$ in $`H_𝒟^3(X_K(),(2))`$. \[The situation here is not unlike that found in \[Lew, p. 191\].\] There is a smooth projective curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$ with function field $`L(\mathrm{\Gamma })=K`$. Then after a base change $`Y=X\times _^1\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\xi _K`$ defines a cycle in $`\xi \mathrm{CH}^2(Y_U,1)`$, where $`U\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a Zariski open subset of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`Y_U=_{tU}Y_t`$. This uses the fact that

$$\mathrm{CH}^2(X_K,1)=\mathrm{CH}^2(Y_{\stackrel{~}{\eta }},1)=\underset{\stackrel{}{U}}{lim}\mathrm{CH}^2(Y_U,1),$$

where $`Y_{\stackrel{~}{\eta }}`$ is the generic fiber of $`Y`$ over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$. We want to spread $`\xi `$ to all of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. However, there is obstruction preventing us to do it; rather we can extend it after a suitable modification of $`\xi `$. That is, we will show that there exists $`\xi ^{}\mathrm{CH}^2(Y,1)`$ such that $`\mathrm{cl}_{2,1}(\xi _t)=\mathrm{cl}_{2,1}(\xi _t^{})`$ for every $`tU`$. Our main tool is the localization sequence111Strictly speaking, we don’t really need the localization sequence in this paper. Rather, it is used out of convenience.

(3.1)
$$\mathrm{CH}^2(Y,1)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{CH}^2(Y_U,1)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{CH}^1(Y_B)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{CH}^2(Y)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{CH}^2(Y_U)\stackrel{}{}0$$

over $``$, where $`B=\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash U`$ and $`Y_B=_{tB}Y_t`$.

Note that the map $`\mathrm{CH}^1(Y_B)\mathrm{CH}^2(Y)`$ might not be injective if $`|B|>1`$, so there is obstruction to extend $`\xi `$ directly.

Let $`H`$ be a plane in $`^3`$ and $`\pi ^{}HY`$ be the pullback of $`H`$ under the projection $`\pi :Y^3`$. Let $`C_b=\pi ^{}HY_b`$ for $`bB`$ and $`C_B=_{bB}C_b`$. Let us first extend $`\xi `$ to $`Y\backslash C_B`$. We look at the localization sequence

(3.2)
$$\mathrm{CH}^2(Y\backslash C_B,1)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{CH}^2(Y_U,1)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{CH}^1(Y_B\backslash C_B)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{CH}^2(Y\backslash C_B)$$

Note that

(3.3)
$$\mathrm{CH}^1(Y_B\backslash C_B)=\underset{bB}{}\mathrm{CH}^1(Y_b\backslash C_b)$$

We claim that $`\mathrm{CH}^1(Y_t\backslash C_t)=0`$ for every $`t\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

The classical Noether-Lefschetz theorem tells us that a general surface of degree $`d4`$ in $`^3`$ has Picard rank $`1`$. This statement was refined by Mark Green \[G\] to the following. Let $`M=^N`$ be the space parameterizing surfaces of degree $`d`$ in $`^3`$ and $`M_2M`$ be the subset parameterizing surfaces with Picard rank $`2`$. Then $`\mathrm{codim}_MM_2=d3`$. So when $`d5`$, $`M_2`$ has codimension at least $`2`$ in $`M`$ and a general pencil will avoid this locus. Thus $`\mathrm{Pic}(Y_t)=`$ for every $`t\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Note that $`Y_t`$ might be singular, i.e., $`Y_t`$ has an ordinary double point. Since an ordinary double point is a quotient singularity, every Weil divisor of $`Y_t`$ is $``$-Cartier. Therefore, $`\mathrm{CH}^1(Y_t)=\mathrm{Pic}(Y_t)`$. In any case, we have

(3.4)
$$\mathrm{CH}^1(Y_t)=\mathrm{Pic}(Y_t)=\mathrm{Pic}(^3)=.$$

Obviously, $`\mathrm{CH}^1(Y_t)`$ is generated by $`C_t=\pi ^{}HY_t`$ over $``$. Consequently,

(3.5)
$$\mathrm{CH}^1(Y_t\backslash C_t)=0$$

and there is no obstruction to extend $`\xi `$ to $`Y\backslash C_B`$. So we may regard $`\xi `$ as a class in $`\mathrm{CH}^2(Y\backslash C_B,1)`$ from now on.

There might be obstruction to further extend $`\xi `$ to all of $`Y`$ by the localization sequence

(3.6)
$$\mathrm{CH}^2(Y,1)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{CH}^2(Y\backslash C_B,1)\stackrel{\mathit{\varphi }}{}\mathrm{CH}^0(C_B)\stackrel{𝛾}{}\mathrm{CH}^2(Y)$$

where

(3.7)
$$\mathrm{CH}^0(C_B)=\underset{bB}{}\mathrm{CH}^0(C_b)=^\beta $$

with $`\beta =|B|`$.

Let $`\xi =_\alpha (f_\alpha ,D_\alpha )`$ where $`D_\alpha `$ is a divisor on $`Y\backslash C_B`$ and $`f_\alpha `$ is a rational function on $`D_\alpha `$. We have

(3.8)
$$\underset{\alpha }{}\mathrm{div}(f_\alpha )=0.$$

Let $`\overline{D}_\alpha `$ be the closure of $`D_\alpha `$ in $`Y`$ and $`f_\alpha `$ naturally extends to a rational function $`\overline{f}_\alpha `$ on $`\overline{D}_\alpha `$. Let $`\overline{\xi }=_\alpha (\overline{f}_\alpha ,\overline{D}_\alpha )`$. We no longer have (3.8). Instead,

(3.9)
$$\underset{\alpha }{}\mathrm{div}(\overline{f}_\alpha )=\underset{bB}{}m_bC_b$$

for some $`m_b`$. Actually, the RHS of (3.9) is exactly the image of $`\xi `$ under the map $`\varphi :\mathrm{CH}^2(Y\backslash C_B,1)\mathrm{CH}^0(C_B)`$ in (3.6), i.e.,

(3.10)
$$\varphi (\xi )=\underset{bB}{}m_bC_b.$$

Note that $`\varphi (\xi )`$ lies in the kernel of $`\gamma :\mathrm{CH}^0(C_B)\mathrm{CH}^2(Y)`$ and there is a natural map $`\mathrm{CH}^0(C_B)\mathrm{CH}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ via

(3.11)
$$\mathrm{CH}^0(C_B)\stackrel{𝛾}{}\mathrm{CH}^2(Y)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{CH}^3(^3\times \mathrm{\Gamma })\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{CH}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$

Note that the map $`\mathrm{CH}^3(𝐏^3\times \mathrm{\Gamma })\stackrel{}{}[^1]\mathrm{CH}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\mathrm{CH}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, comes from the projective bundle formula. Of course, the map $`\mathrm{CH}^0(C_B)\mathrm{CH}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ simply sends $`C_b`$ to $`Nb`$, where $`N=d`$. And $`\varphi (\xi )`$ maps to zero under this map, i.e. the divisor $`m_bb`$ is $`N`$-torsion in $`\mathrm{CH}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\mathrm{Pic}(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

Note that $`\pi ^{}H`$ is a fibration of curves over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. So the fact $`m_bb`$ is torsion in $`\mathrm{CH}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ implies that $`m_bC_b`$ is $`N`$-torsion in $`\mathrm{CH}^1(\pi ^{}H)`$. Consequently, there exists a rational function $`f_H`$ on $`\pi ^{}H`$ such that

(3.12)
$$\mathrm{div}(f_H)=N\underset{bB}{}m_bC_b.$$

So we may simply modify $`\overline{\xi }`$ as follows

(3.13)
$$\xi ^{}=\overline{\xi }\frac{1}{N}(f_H,\pi ^{}H).$$

Now $`\xi ^{}\mathrm{CH}^2(Y,1)`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{cl}}_{2,1}(\xi _t^{})=\underset{¯}{\mathrm{cl}}_{2,1}(\xi _t)`$ for all $`tU`$, where we recall that

$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{cl}}_{2,1}:\mathrm{CH}^2(Y_t,1)\frac{H_𝒟^3(Y_t,(2))}{\mathrm{Hg}^1(Y_t)\left(/(1)\right)}$$

is the induced map. This is due to the fact that the restrictions $`f_H`$ to $`Y_t`$ are obviously constants. Thus we can now replace $`\xi `$ by $`\xi ^{}`$. Next observe that even though $`Y`$ is complete, it may be singular. It is worthwhile pointing out that we can further pull back $`\xi `$ to a desingularization $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ of $`Y`$. More precisely,

Claim. There exists $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }\mathrm{CH}^2(\stackrel{~}{Y},1)`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$ and $`\xi `$ agree on the open set where $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ and $`Y`$ are isomorphic.

The usefulness of this claim is as follows. The (cohomological) cycle class map $`\mathrm{cl}_{2,1}:\mathrm{CH}^2(Y,1)H_𝒟^3(Y,(2))`$ is only defined if $`Y`$ is smooth. Granting the existence of this cycle class map, the remaining argument only requires the completeness of $`Y`$. There is a short exact sequence:

$$0\frac{H^2(Y,)}{F^2H^2(Y,)+H^2(Y,(2))}H_𝒟^3(Y,(2))F^2H^3(Y,(2))0.$$

But since $`Y`$ is complete, a weight argument gives $`F^2H^3(Y,(2))=0`$. Thus for $`tU`$, $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{cl}}_{2,1}(\xi _t)`$ is given by the restriction $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{cl}}_{2,1}(\xi )|_{Y_t}`$, i.e. induced by the restriction

$$\frac{H^2(Y,)}{F^2H^2(Y,)+H^2(Y,(2))}\frac{H^2(Y_t,)}{F^2H^2(Y_t,)+H^2(Y_t,(2))}.$$

Thus as $`tU`$ varies, the class $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{cl}}_{2,1}(\xi _t)`$ varies by horizontal displacement; further, the restriction $`H^2(Y)H^2(Y_t)`$ is a morphism of mixed Hodge structures. Thus $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{cl}}_{2,1}(\xi _t)`$ is induced by a class in $`H^2(Y_t)`$, whose Hodge $`(p,q)`$ components displace horizontally, i.e. preserving the given Hodge type. But over the set where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ ramifies, one can find open sets $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }U\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^1`$, in the strong topology, such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Thus $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{cl}}_{2,1}(\xi _t)=0`$, by virtue of:

Lemma. Consider a Lefschetz pencil $`\{Z_t\}_{t^1}`$ of surfaces in $`^3`$ of degree $`d1`$, and let $`U_0^1`$ be the smooth set. Further, let $`\mathrm{\Delta }U_0`$ be a disk, and assume given $`\gamma _tH^2(Z_t,)`$, a horizontal displacement of a class $`\gamma `$ for $`t\mathrm{\Delta }`$. If the $`(p,q)`$ components of $`\gamma _t`$ also horizontally displace, then $`\gamma _t\mathrm{Hg}^1(Z_t)`$.

Proof. This follows from a standard monodromy argument, together with the analyticity of Hodge subbundles.

Finally, we attend to:

Proof of claim. It turns out that the singularities of $`Y`$ are quite mild. Note that the singularities of $`Y`$ are introduced during the base change $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$; $`Y`$ becomes singular when the map $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ ramifies over a point $`t^1`$ where $`X_t`$ is singular, i.e., it has an ordinary double point. Therefore, the singularities of $`Y`$ have the type of $`x^2+y^2+z^2+t^m=0`$. Let $`pY`$ be such a singularity. We may solve $`p`$ by a sequence of blowups:

(3.14)
$$\stackrel{~}{Y}=Y_\mu \stackrel{\phi _\mu }{}Y_{\mu 1}\stackrel{\phi _{\mu 1}}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{\phi _1}{}Y_0=Y$$

where $`\mu =m/2`$. The exceptional divisor $`E_kY_k`$ of $`\phi _k`$ is a quadric in $`^3`$; it is a cone over a conic curve if $`2k<m`$ and it is a smooth quadric if $`m=2k`$. Let $`p_0=p`$ and $`p_kE_k`$ be the vertex of the cone $`E_k`$ for $`2k<m`$. It is obvious that $`Y_k`$ is locally given by $`x^2+y^2+z^2+t^{m2k}=0`$ at $`p_k`$ and $`\phi _{k+1}:Y_{k+1}Y_k`$ is the blowup of $`Y_k`$ at $`p_k`$.

In order to pull back $`\xi `$ to $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$, we do it step by step, i.e., we first pull it back to $`Y_1`$, then $`Y_2`$ and so on. We will show that there exists a sequence of cycles $`\{\xi _k\mathrm{CH}^2(Y_k,1)\}`$ with all of them agreeing on the open set $`Y\backslash \{p\}`$.

By induction, it suffices to pull back the cycle $`\xi _{k1}\mathrm{CH}^2(Y_{k1},1)`$ to $`\xi _k\mathrm{CH}^2(Y_k,1)`$.

Since $`\phi _k:Y_kY_{k1}`$ is the blowup of $`Y_{k1}`$ at $`p_{k1}`$,

(3.15)
$$Y_k\backslash E_kY_{k1}\backslash \{p_{k1}\}.$$

So the question is again to extend a class in $`\mathrm{CH}^2(Y_k\backslash E_k,1)`$ to $`\mathrm{CH}^2(Y_k,1)`$. We look at the localization sequence

(3.16)
$$\mathrm{CH}^2(Y_k,1)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{CH}^2(Y_k\backslash E_k,1)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{CH}^1(E_k)\stackrel{𝛾}{}\mathrm{CH}^2(Y_k)$$

If $`E_k`$ is a cone over a conic curve, then $`\mathrm{CH}^1(E_k)=`$ (see \[Ha, Appendix A, Example 1.1.2, p. 428\]) and $`\gamma :\mathrm{CH}^1(E_k)\mathrm{CH}^2(Y_k)`$ is obviously injective.

Suppose that $`E_k`$ is a smooth quadric. This happens in the last step of blowups, i.e., when $`k=\mu `$ and $`m=2\mu `$ is even. Now

(3.17)
$$\mathrm{CH}^1(E_k)=\mathrm{CH}^1(^1\times ^1)=.$$

Let $`L_1,L_2E_k`$ be the two rulings of $`E_k`$ which generate $`\mathrm{CH}^1(E_k)`$. We claim that $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ are numerically independent on $`Y_k`$, i.e., there exist divisors $`D_1,D_2Y_k`$ such that $`D_iL_j=0`$ if $`i=j`$ and $`D_iL_j0`$ if $`ij`$. This certainly implies that $`\gamma `$ is injective.

Note that $`Y_{k1}`$ has an ordinary double point $`x^2+y^2+z^2+t^2=0`$ at $`p_{k1}`$. It is well known that there exist two small resolutions of $`Y_{k1}`$. That is, we may blow down $`Y_k`$ along either of the two rulings $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$. Let $`g:Y_kY_k^{}`$ be the blowdown of $`Y_k`$ along $`L_1`$. Let $`D`$ be an ample divisor on $`Y_k^{}`$. Then $`g^{}DL_20`$ since $`D`$ is ample on $`Y_k^{}`$ and $`g^{}DL_1=0`$ since $`g_{}L_1=0`$. We are done.