text:
# Interplay between spin-density-wave and superconducting states in quasi-one-dimensional conductors

## I Introduction

The problem raised by the interdependence of antiferromagnetism and superconductivity in low dimensional electronic materials stands among the most important challenges facing condensed matter physics in the last two decades or so. Although this issue takes on considerable importance in the description of high-temperature cuprate superconductors, it likely acquired its first focus of interest in the context of quasi-one-dimensional organic superconductors, the Bechgaard salts \[(TMTSF)2X\] and their sulfur analogs, the Fabre salts \[(TMTTF)2X\]. The close proximity of antiferromagnetic correlations with the onset of organic superconductivity in the temperature and pressure phase diagram of these compounds soon indicated that the apparent difficulty to describe both phenomena could find its origin in their mutual interaction.

Given the dominant part played by Coulomb repulsion on the scene of interactions in these materials, early attempts to consider the nature of superconducting pairing suggested that in order to avoid local repulsion $``$ so resistant to conventional pairing $``$ electrons may pair on different stacks. The driving force for such a pairing would derive from antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations, a mechanism that can be seen as the spin counterpart of what Kohn and Luttinger have proposed long ago for pairing induced by charge (Friedel) oscillations in the context of isotropic metals. Its influence in quasi-one-dimensional metals, however, turns out to be more important than in isotropic materials extending over a larger domain of temperature in the normal phase, and becoming further enhanced by singular spin-density-wave (SDW) correlations near the critical pressure $`P_c`$ above which superconductivity (SC) is singled out as the only stable state. An intrinsic difficulty of this problem is that both SDW and SC instabilities refer to the same electron degrees of freedom. Put at the level of elementary scattering events close to the Fermi surface, electron-hole pairs leading to density-wave correlations interfere with the electron-electron (hole-hole) pairs connected with superconductivity. In previous ladder diagrammatic summation, mean-field and RPA  approaches to ordered phases at low temperature, interference is neglected; an assumption actually grounded on the existence of a coherent warped Fermi surface which is considered as sufficient to entirely decouple both types of pairing so that each can be treated separately in perturbation theory. However, as the electron system deconfines at low temperature, namely when a Fermi liquid component can be defined in at least two spatial directions, interference $``$ of maximum strength in the 1-D non-Fermi (Luttinger) liquid domain $``$ is still present for quasi-particles but becomes non uniform along the open Fermi surface. It turns out that it is precisely from this uneven pairing that the interplay between SDW and SC states is found to take place. In practice, the treatment of both singularities using the renormalization group (RG) method proved not insurmountable if interactions within the Fermi liquid component are not too large and a reduction of the number of variables in flow equations can be made. Thus at the one-loop RG level, we will show that when density-wave and superconducting channels interfere on equal footing, the Kohn-Luttinger mechanism is dynamically generated from which a critical threshold for nesting deviations lead to a SDW-SC crossover, a feature that underlies the possibility of reentrant superconductivity, in fair agreement with experimental findings for (TM)2X materials in general. As far as the nature of superconductivity is concerned, singlet interchain pairing is found to be the most favoured symmetry of this ordered state.

In section II, we introduce the model and define the effective theory for interacting quasi-particles at low energy. The renormalization group method is applied in section III and two-variable flow equations for the scattering amplitudes are found. The possibilities of long-range order in either density-wave (Peierls) or superconducting (Cooper) channel are then analyzed as a function of deviations from perfect nesting of the Fermi surface. The results for the couplings are corroborated by the evaluation of the response functions in both channels. We close the section III with considerations on the possibility of reentrant superconductivity in the crossover region. Concluding remarks are given in section IV.

## II The model at low energy

We shall base our theoretical description of the competition between antiferromagnetism and superconductivity on the quasi-one-dimensional electron gas model. Consider a system of interacting electrons in a linear array of $`N_{}`$ chains of length $`L`$ ($`d_{}`$ is the interchain distance) and described by the Hamiltonian

$`H=H_0+H_I={\displaystyle \underset{p,𝐤,\sigma }{}}E_p(𝐤)a_{p,𝐤,\sigma }^{}a_{p,𝐤,\sigma }`$ (1)
$`+(LN_{})^1\pi v_F{\displaystyle \underset{\{𝐤,𝐪,\sigma \}}{}}(g_2\delta _{\sigma _1\sigma _4}\delta _{\sigma _2\sigma _3}g_1\delta _{\sigma _1\sigma _3}\delta _{\sigma _2\sigma _4})`$ (2)
$`\times a_{+,𝐤_1+𝐪,\sigma _1}^{}a_{,𝐤_2𝐪,\sigma _2}^{}a_{,𝐤_2,\sigma _3}a_{+,𝐤_1,\sigma _4},`$ (3)
where

$$E_p(𝐤)=ϵ_p(k)2t_{}\mathrm{cos}(k_{}d_{})2t_2\mathrm{cos}(2k_{}d_{}),$$
(4)
is the electron spectrum, while $`ϵ_p(k)=v_F(pkk_F^0)`$ is the one-dimensional $``$ linearized $``$ part of the spectrum close to the left and right Fermi points $`pk_F^0=\pm k_F^0`$ and $`v_F`$ is the 1-D Fermi velocity \[$`𝐤(k,k_{})`$\]. The interchain single electron hopping $`t_{}`$ is considered as small compared to the Fermi energy $`E_F=v_Fk_F^0`$ ($`\mathrm{}=1`$), which is fixed to be half of the bandwidth cut-off $`E_02E_F`$ along the chains. The even smaller transverse hopping term to second nearest-neighbor chains $`t_2t_{}`$ is included in order to parametrize nesting deviations of the entire Fermi surface. As for the interacting part $`H_I`$, we follow the usual ‘g-ology’ decomposition of the direct interaction between carriers defined close to the 1-D Fermi points and retain the backward $`g_1`$ and forward $`g_2`$ scattering amplitudes $``$ here normalized by $`\pi v_F`$ between right- and left-moving carriers. Given the metallic conditions, one can take into account of the influence of umklapp scattering through a renormalization of $`g_2`$ at low energy.

In the following, we will examine the properties of the model in the gapless regime at sufficiently low energy scale, that is when a coherent interchain motion for electrons prevails and a Fermi liquid component can be defined. More specifically, we will focus on the effective Hamiltonian or $``$ which will be more convenient for our purposes $``$ on the effective action of the system having $`E_xE_0`$ as a new bandwidth cut-off for electrons in the neighborhood of an open but warped Fermi surface. This corresponds to the temperature domain $`T<E_x/2`$ ($`k_B=1`$) of transverse coherence at the single-particle level.  Application of the RG method in the 1-D energy domain allows the systematic integration of high-energy degrees of freedom. The resulting partition function for our model can then be expressed as a functional integral

$`Z=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}e^{\beta H}`$ (5)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _<D\psi ^{}D\psi \mathrm{e}^{S^{}[\psi ^{},\psi ]}}`$ (6)
over the fermion fields $`\psi `$ having energies below $`E_x`$. In the Fourier-Matsubara space, the essential contributions to the effective action $`S^{}`$ $``$ up to a renormalization factor for the fields $``$ can be written in the form

$`S^{}[\psi ^{},\psi ]=`$ $`S_0^{}[\psi ^{},\psi ]+S_I^{}[\psi ^{},\psi ]`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p,\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{\stackrel{~}{𝐤}\}^{}}{}}[G_p^0(\stackrel{~}{𝐤})]^1\psi _{p,\sigma }^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤})\psi _{p,\sigma }(\stackrel{~}{𝐤})`$ (9)
$`\pi v_F{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,\stackrel{~}{𝐐},}{}}J_\mu (q_{},T_{x^1})O_\mu ^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝐐})O_\mu (\stackrel{~}{𝐐})+\mathrm{},`$
where

$$G_p^0(\stackrel{~}{𝐤})=[i\omega _nE_p^{}(𝐤)]^1,$$
(10)
is the ‘free’ propagator in which the substitutions $`t_{(2)}t_{(2)}^{}<t_{(2)}`$ lead to the renormalization of the spectrum $`E_pE_p^{}`$ \[here $`\stackrel{~}{𝐤}=(𝐤,\omega _n=\pm \pi T,\pm 3\pi T,\mathrm{})`$\]. The cut-off $`E_xt_{}^{}`$ fixes the maximum energy (or twice the maximum temperature) and the range $`\{𝐤\}^{}`$ of wavevectors in the deconfined region. The right (resp. left) warped open Fermi surface is parametrized by $`k_{}`$

$$\pm k_F(k_{})=\pm \left(k_F^0+2\frac{t_{}^{}}{v_F}\mathrm{cos}(k_{}d_{})+2\frac{t_2^{}}{v_F}\mathrm{cos}(2k_{}d_{})\right).$$
(11)
It is convenient to write the effective interaction between electrons denoted $`S_I^{}`$ in (9) as products of electron-hole pair fields

$`O_\mu (\stackrel{~}{𝐐})=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{T}{LN_{}}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta \{\stackrel{~}{𝐤}\}^{}}{}}\psi _{,\alpha }^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}\stackrel{~}{𝐐})\sigma _\mu ^{\alpha \beta }\psi _{+,\beta }(\stackrel{~}{𝐤})`$ (12)
describing CDW ($`\mu =0`$) and SDW ($`\mu =1,2,3`$) correlations, where $`\sigma _0`$ and $`\sigma _{1,2,3}`$ are the identity and Pauli matrices respectively \[$`\stackrel{~}{𝐐}=(2k_F^0+q,q_{},\omega _m=0,\pm 2\pi T,\mathrm{})`$, $`q2k_F^0`$\]. These correlations are associated to the combinations of couplings

$`J_{\mu =0}(q_{},\mathrm{}_x)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(g_2^{}2g_1^{})+j_0\mathrm{cos}(q_{}d_{}),`$ (13)
$`J_{\mu 0}(q_{},\mathrm{}_x)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_2^{}+j_\mu \mathrm{cos}(q_{}d_{}),`$ (14)
for the CDW and SDW amplitudes respectively, where the $`g_i^{}`$ are the renormalized intrachain couplings evaluated at $`\mathrm{}_x`$ ($`E_x=E_0e^\mathrm{}_x`$). The $`q_{}`$ dependence comes from the interchain short-range correlations that are generated in the 1-D energy interval from the combined influence of $`g_i`$ and $`t_{}`$, that is from $`E_0`$ down to $`E_x`$. The corresponding interchain pair hopping amplitudes denoted $`j_\mu `$, follows from an explicit RG calculation and then modify the boundary conditions for the low-energy description. $`J_\mu `$ is taken independent of the longitudinal momentum and Matsubara frequency which is irrelevant (in the RG sense) in the 1-D domain. This independence is assumed to carry over at lower energy as implied for example in the $`k`$-dependence of boundary conditions (14), where the couplings defined with respect to 1-D Fermi points are used to describe scattering events on energy edges $`\pm E_x/2`$ with respect to a warped Fermi surface.

## III Interference between density-wave and superconductivity

The nature of correlations that can naturally develop in the deconfined region for electrons is linked in the first place to the amplitude and sign of $`J_\mu `$. For repulsive couplings $`g_{1,2}>0`$, the SDW coupling ($`\mu 0`$) is negative and the most favorable, while the CDW one, though having the possibility to get the right sign, is sizably weaker in amplitude at $`T>E_x/2`$. In the second place, the possibility for these correlations to develop long-range order at lower temperature is bound to the singular (logarithmic) response of the system to produce staggered density-wave correlations; it relies on the electron-hole symmetry of the spectrum, that is on nesting properties. For an open Fermi surface, however, the singular response to electron-hole pairing, albeit weakened by $`t_2`$, competes with the response of the Cooper channel for electron-electron pairing, which is also singular and unaltered by nesting deviations.

### A One-loop renormalization group

The summation of the leading interfering contributions of the perturbation theory below $`E_x`$ is best obtained from the application of the RG method. The technique consists in partial integrations of $`Z`$ over fermion degrees of freedom denoted as $`\overline{\psi }^{()}`$ in the outer energy shell (o.s) $`\pm E_x(\mathrm{})d\mathrm{}/2`$ above and below the warped Fermi surface, where $`E_x(\mathrm{})=E_xe^{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`\mathrm{}>0`$, is now the scaled bandwidth below $`E_x`$. Focusing on the results at the one-loop level, we have

$`Z`$ $`{\displaystyle _<D\psi ^{}D\psi e^{S^{}[\psi ^{},\psi ]_{\mathrm{}}}_{o.s}D\overline{\psi }^{}D\overline{\psi }e^{S_0^{}}e^{S_{I,2}^{}+\mathrm{}}}`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle _<D\psi ^{}D\psi e^{S^{}[\psi ^{},\psi ]_{\mathrm{}}+\frac{1}{2}S_{I,2}^2_{o.s}+\mathrm{}}}`$
where $`(S_{I,2}^{})^2_{o.s}`$ are the one-loop outer energy shell averages calculated with respect to $`S_0^{}[\overline{\psi }^{},\overline{\psi }]`$, which ultimately lead to the renormalization (flow) of the $`J_\mu `$ couplings in $`S`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{}`$. Explicitly, by taking $`S_{I,2}^{}`$ as a decomposition of the interaction having two fields among four to be contracted in the outer shell and retaining the contributions coming from the Peierls and Cooper channels, one finds

$`S_{I,2}^{}=`$ $`S_{I,2}^P+S_{I,2}^C`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`\pi v_F{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\underset{\stackrel{~}{𝐤}}{{\displaystyle }}{\displaystyle \underset{\{\stackrel{~}{𝐤}^{},\stackrel{~}{𝐐}\}^{}}{}}J_\mu (q_{}k_{}^{},k_{}^{};\mathrm{})`$ (21)
$`\times \overline{O}_\mu (\stackrel{~}{𝐤}\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_0)O_\mu (\stackrel{~}{𝐤}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐐})+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}`$
$`+\pi v_F{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{\mu }}{}}\underset{\stackrel{~}{𝐤}}{{\displaystyle }}{\displaystyle \underset{\{\stackrel{~}{𝐤}^{},\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_c\}^{}}{}}W_{\overline{\mu }}(k_{},k_{}^{};\mathrm{}))`$
$`\times \overline{𝒪}_{\overline{\mu }}^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤})𝒪_{\overline{\mu }}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_c)+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c},`$
in which $`_𝐤`$ is a sum in the outer momentum shell. Following (12), we have also defined $`_{\stackrel{~}{𝐤}}O_\mu (\stackrel{~}{𝐤}\stackrel{~}{𝐐})=O_\mu (\stackrel{~}{𝐐})`$ for the Peierls fields, whereas in the Cooper channel, we have introduced the new fields

$`𝒪_{\overline{\mu }}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_c)=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{T}{LN_{}}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}\alpha \psi _{,\alpha }(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}+\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_c)\sigma _{\overline{\mu }}^{\alpha \beta }\psi _{+,\beta }(\stackrel{~}{𝐤})`$ (22)
for singlet ($`\overline{\mu }=0`$; SS) and triplet ($`\overline{\mu }0`$; TS) pairings, where $`\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_C=(q_C,q_C,\omega _{mC})`$ corresponds to the momentum and frequency of the Cooper pair. For the fields to be integrated out in the contractions (21), the static Peierls and Cooper external variables have been set to $`\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_0=(2k_F^0,q_{},0)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_C=0`$ respectively.

The contraction in the Cooper channel yields the combinations of couplings

$`W_{\overline{\mu }=0}(k_{},k_{}^{};\mathrm{})=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_0(k_{},k_{}^{};\mathrm{})+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}J_{\mu 0}(k_{},k_{}^{};\mathrm{})`$ (23)
$`W_{\overline{\mu }0}(k_{},k_{}^{};\mathrm{})=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_0(k_{},k_{}^{};\mathrm{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_{\mu 0}(k_{},k_{}^{};\mathrm{})`$ (24)
for SS and TS Cooper pairings. The explicit evaluation of $`\frac{1}{2}(S_{I,2}^{})^2_{o.s}`$, is given in the appendix A. In the case of the Cooper contraction, one can invert the relations (A16) to re-express $`\frac{1}{2}(S_{I,2}^C)^2_{o,s}`$ in terms of pair fields of the Peierls channel. Together with $`\frac{1}{2}(S_{I,2}^P)^2_{o.s}`$ this yields the one-loop flow equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{}}}J_\mu (q_{}k_{},k_{};\mathrm{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{\mu },k_{}^{}}{}}c_{\mu ,\overline{\mu }}[W_{\overline{\mu }}(q_{}k_{},k_{}^{};\mathrm{})`$ (25)
$`\times W_{\overline{\mu }}(k_{}^{},k_{};\mathrm{})]I_C(\mathrm{})`$ (26)
$`J_\mu (q_{}k_{},k_{};\mathrm{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_{}^{}}{}}[J_\mu (q_{}k_{}^{},k_{}^{};\mathrm{})`$ (27)
$`\times I_P(q_{},k_{}^{};\mathrm{})],`$ (28)
where the first term comes from the Cooper contraction with the constants $`c_{0,0}=1/2`$, $`c_{0,\overline{\mu }0}=1/2`$ and $`c_{\mu 0,0}=1/2`$, $`c_{\mu 0,\overline{\mu }0}=1/6`$ and the thermal transient $`I_C(\mathrm{})=\mathrm{tanh}[\beta E_x(\mathrm{})/4]`$. As for the Peierls contraction in the second term, a kernel $`I_P(q_{},k_{};\mathrm{})`$ follows from the evaluation of the Peierls loop which is given in appendix A. Reverting to the initial form of the action at $`\mathrm{}_x`$ given in (9), we see that the interference between both channels does not conserve the dependence on a single transverse Peierls variable $`q_{}`$ for $`J_\mu `$; the scattering amplitudes now depends on both ingoing $`[\pm k_F(k_{}),k_{}]`$ and outgoing $`[k_F(k_{}q_{}),k_{}q_{}]`$ momentum (note that $`J_\mu `$ in (21) is symmetric with respect to the interchange $`k_{}k_{}^{}`$). The extra $`k_{}`$ dependence leads to non-uniform electron-hole pairing, which gives valuable information about the strength of the scattering matrix element and in turn the formation of the order parameter along the Fermi surface.

The information concerning density-wave or superconducting instabilities of the normal state is obtained from the singularities of the flow equations. Although 2D systems cannot sustain these forms of long-range order at finite temperature (or finite $`\mathrm{}`$), the temperature $`T_i=E(\mathrm{}_i)/2`$ at which the singularity occurs is nevertheless indicative of the temperature range of true long-range ordering if a finite coupling in the third direction is added. Tackling first the possibility of a SDW instability in the absence of nesting deviations ($`t_2^{}=0`$) and when repulsive interactions $`g_{i=1,2}^{}`$, $`j_{}`$ prevail at $`E_x`$, the SDW coupling $`J_{\mu 0}(q_{}k_{},k_{};\mathrm{})`$ is found to be the most singular as a function of $`\mathrm{}`$. By way of illustration, if we take $`g_1=0.71`$, $`g_2=0.80`$ and $`t_{}=160`$K at $`E_F=3600`$K, the 1D two-loop RG results yield, $`g_1^{}=0.17`$, $`g_2^{}=0.54`$, and $`j_{\mu 0(0)}=0.33(0.024)`$ as boundary conditions at $`E_x=t_{}^{}=120`$K. Thus feeding (28) with the latter initial conditions, the solution of the flow equation does predict a singularity at $`\mathrm{}_{SDW}`$ corresponding to a critical temperature $`T_{SDW}=E_x(\mathrm{}_{SDW})/28.5`$K, which falls in the range of experimental $`T_{SDW}`$ in (TM)2X when metallic conditions prevail and nesting deviations ($`t_2`$) are small.  The singularity occurs along the lines $`k_{}^{}=\pm \pi /d_{}k_{}`$ (Figure 1a) and is associated to the SDW modulation vector $`𝐐_P=(2k_F^0,q_{}=\pi /d_{})`$ which is the best nesting vector of the model. On closer examination, Figure 1a shows that the scattering amplitude is not uniform, especially in regions centered at $`k_{}=\pm \pi /(2d_{})`$ (resp. $`k_{}=0,\pm \pi /d_{}`$), which can be seen as ‘cold spots’ (resp. hot spots) where a decrease of $``$ 50 % in the scattering intensity is found. This variation denoted $`d(k_{})`$ in Figure 2 reflects in turn the one of the SDW order parameter along the Fermi surface.  Therefore the interference with the Cooper channel modifies significantly the variation of the SDW gap along the Fermi surface even though nesting deviations are absent. As we will see below, these cold regions actually coincide with the nodes of an interchain superconducting gap at sufficiently large $`t_2^{}`$.

Now if we try to mimic the influence of pressure, its effect can be parametrized through the growth of $`t_2^{}`$. Thus by taking $`dE_F(v_F)/dt_2^{}90`$, the RG procedure in the 1-D regime gives $`dg_{1(2)}^{}/dt_2^{}2.5\%(4\%)`$/K, $`dj_{\mu 0(0)}/dt_2^{}4\%(8\%)`$/K and $`dE_x/dt_2^{}5`$. These variations lead to a monotonic decrease of $`T_{SDW}`$ at small $`t_2^{}`$ and ultimately initiate a rapid drop of $`T_{SDW}`$ (Figure 3). Along this drop, the electron system, albeit still unstable to the formation SDW order, develops a scattering amplitude and in turn an order parameter that is highly non uniform on the Fermi surface. ‘Hot’ (resp.‘cold’) spots close to $`(\pm k_F(k_{}),k_{}=0,\pm \pi /d_{})`$ \[resp. $`(\pm k_F(k_{}),k_{}=\pm \pi /2d_{})`$\] are really taking shape and their locations on the Fermi surface are kept fixed by the interaction with Cooper pairing as $`t_2^{}`$ varies (Figures 1,2). This contrasts with the results of mean-field theory of the SDW state for which only nesting deviations are involved and lead to a qualitatively different variation of the gap. As we will see below, a non uniform gap leads to an important reduction of condensation energy for the SDW state.

As $`t_2^{}`$ is further increased, the critical line in Fig. 3 develops an inflexion point at $`t_2^c`$ ($`t_2^c6.25`$K using the above figures) above which the scattering amplitude becomes warped by a singular modulation in the $`k_{},k_{}^{}`$ plane at $`\mathrm{}_c`$ (Figure 1c). This signals an instability at $`T_c=E_x(\mathrm{}_c)/2`$, which involves an additional channel connected with superconductivity. In order to see what type of superconducting pairing scales to strong coupling, it is natural to make a Fourier decomposition of $`J_\mu `$. Given the relation for the scattering amplitude in $`S`$, that is

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{\stackrel{~}{𝐤},\stackrel{~}{𝐤}^{},\stackrel{~}{𝐐}\}^{}}{}}J_\mu (q_{}k_{},k_{}^{};\mathrm{})O_\mu ^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}+\stackrel{~}{𝐐})O_\mu (\stackrel{~}{𝐤}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐐})`$ (29)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\overline{\mu }}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{\stackrel{~}{𝐤},\stackrel{~}{𝐤}^{},\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_c\}^{}}{}}W_{\overline{\mu }}(k_{},k_{}^{};\mathrm{})𝒪_{\overline{\mu }}^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}+\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_c)𝒪_{\overline{\mu }}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_c)`$ (30)
and the property $`W_{\overline{\mu }}(k_{},k_{}^{};\mathrm{})=W_{\overline{\mu }}(k_{},k_{}^{};\mathrm{})`$, one can write

$`W_{\overline{\mu }}(k_{},`$ $`k_{}^{};\mathrm{})=a_{\overline{\mu }}^0(\mathrm{})`$ (31)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m,n>0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}[a_{\overline{\mu }}^{m,n}(\mathrm{})\mathrm{cos}(mk_{}d_{})\mathrm{cos}(nk_{}^{}d_{})`$ (33)
$`+b_{\overline{\mu }}^{m,n}(\mathrm{})\mathrm{sin}(mk_{}d_{})\mathrm{sin}(nk_{}^{}d_{})],`$
which allows to express the interaction in the Cooper channel as a sum of potential with separate variables with Fourier coefficients $`a_{\overline{\mu }}^{m,n}(\mathrm{})`$ and $`b_{\overline{\mu }}^{m,n}(\mathrm{})`$ that are scale dependent (here the coefficients $`a^{m,n}`$ and $`b^{m,n}`$ with $`mn`$ are essentially zero). In this way, to each Fourier amplitude corresponds an interchain superconducting coupling of different orbital symmetry in the SS ($`\overline{\mu }=0`$) and TS ($`\overline{\mu }0`$) channels. As it is obvious from the parity of the modulation in Figures 1c-d, the positive coefficient $`a_{\overline{\mu }=0}^{1,1}(\mathrm{})`$ of the first harmonic dominates and is singular at $`\mathrm{}_c`$; it corresponds to an instability for singlet ($`\overline{\mu }=0`$) pairing between nearest-neighbor chains having a symmetric orbital part and a spin part that is antisymmetric. From (24), a smaller contribution of the same Fourier coefficient also applies to triplet superconductivity ($`\overline{\mu }0`$), but this pairing is not globally antisymmetric and remains inactive for both short-range and long-range orders. Actually, our results show that the first positive triplet pairing coefficient satisfying symmetry requirements is rather contained in the much smaller Fourier coefficient $`b_{\overline{\mu }0}^{2,2}(\mathrm{})`$ having odd orbital parity for pairing between second nearest-neighbor chains.

One can then define a finite $`t_2^{}`$ interval above $`t_2^c`$ in which both SS and SDW pairings scale to strong coupling. This region is delimited by a shaded area in Figure 3 and can be equated with the SDW-SS crossover region. Although a one-loop weak coupling approach does not allow to make definite conclusions about the actual structure of the phase diagram in the crossover domain, from the variation of the strength of electron-hole pairing $`J_{\mu 0}`$ (or the SDW gap) across the Fermi surface (Fig.2-b), it is possible at a more qualitative level to infer that superconductivity will be the most stable state at low temperature in that region of the phase diagram (cf. § III C).

The regular but rapid variation under pressure of $`T_c(t_2^{})`$ above the crossover in Fig. 3 can be obviously understood as the reduction of the density-wave correlations that feed the Cooper channel.

### B Response functions

The temperature dependence of the amplitude of correlations leading to the instabilities of the phase diagram can be obtained from the calculation of response functions in both Peierls and Cooper channels. To do so in the RG framework, we follow the work of reference  and couple the electrons to a set of source fields at $`E_x`$

$`S_h[\psi ^{},\psi ]=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}z_\mu [O_\mu ^{}(𝐐_P)h_\mu (𝐐_P)+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}]`$ (34)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{\mu },\{\stackrel{~}{𝐤}\}^{}}{}}z_{\overline{\mu }}^{(n)}[𝒪_{\overline{\mu }}^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤})h_{\overline{\mu }}^{(n)}(k_{})+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}],`$ (35)
where the source fields $`h_\mu `$ are taken independent of the frequency for the static response at $`𝐐_P=(2k_F^0,\pi /d_{})`$ in the Peierls channel; whereas in the Cooper channel we are interested in the $`n`$-th harmonic of the static interstack pairing response at $`\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_C=0`$ with $`h_0^{(n)}(k_{})=h_0^{(n)}\mathrm{cos}(nk_{}d_{})`$ for SS and $`h_{\overline{\mu }0}^{(n)}(k_{})=h_{\overline{\mu }0}^{(n)}\mathrm{sin}(nk_{}d_{})`$ for TS. Here the $`z_{\mu (\overline{\mu })}^{(n)}`$ are the corresponding vertex corrections, which for simplicity are put equal to unity at $`E_x`$.

Performing successive partial traces according to (16), the one-loop corrections yield

$`S_h`$ $`[\psi ^{},\psi ]_{\mathrm{}}={\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}z_\mu (\mathrm{})[O_\mu ^{}(𝐐_P)h_\mu (𝐐_P)+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}]`$ (39)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{\mu },\{\stackrel{~}{𝐤}\}^{}}{}}z_{\overline{\mu }}^{(n)}(\mathrm{})[𝒪_{\overline{\mu }}^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤})h_{\overline{\mu }}^{(n)}(k_{})+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\chi _\mu (\mathrm{})h_\mu ^{}(𝐐_P)h_\mu (𝐐_P)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{\mu },k_{}}{}}\chi _{\overline{\mu }}^{(n)}(\mathrm{})h_{\overline{\mu }}^{(n)}(k_{})h_{\overline{\mu }}^{(n)}(k_{}),`$
where the pair vertex corrections are obtained from the contractions $`S_{I,2}S_{h,2}_{o.s}`$ which involved electron-hole and electron-electron loops whose evaluation is similar to the one given in Appendix A. The pair vertex parts are then governed by the flow equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{ln}z_\mu (\mathrm{})=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_{}}{}}[J_\mu (\pi /d_{}k_{},k_{};\mathrm{})`$ (41)
$`\times I_P(\pi /d_{},k_{},\mathrm{})]`$
in the Peierls channel and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{ln}z_{\overline{\mu }=0}^{(n)}(\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{\overline{\mu }=0}^{n,n}(\mathrm{})I_C(\mathrm{})`$ (42)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{ln}z_{\overline{\mu }0}^{(n)}(\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}b_{\overline{\mu }0}^{n,n}(\mathrm{})I_C(\mathrm{}),`$ (43)
in the Cooper channel.

The second term in (39) comes from the contraction $`\frac{1}{2}S_{h,2}^2_{o.s}`$, which generates expressions that are quadratic in the source fields and whose coefficients

$$\chi _{\mu (\overline{\mu })}^{(n)}(\mathrm{})=(\pi v_F)^1_0^{\mathrm{}}[z_{\mu (\overline{\mu })}^{(n)}(\mathrm{}^{})]^2𝑑\mathrm{}^{}$$
(44)
correspond to the static response function (defined as positive). From the integration of the flow equations for the pair vertex parts (41-43), the temperature dependence of SDW and SC pairing responses are calculated with the set of coupling parameters used in Figure 3. Below $`t_2^c`$, the SDW response dominates for all temperatures and becomes singular at $`T_{SDW}`$ (Figures 4-a,b). In the crossover region, however, both SDW and SS become large but it is only very close to $`T_c`$ that the amplitude of SS response catches up with the SDW one (Figure 4-c). Finally above the crossover (Figure 4-d), the SS correlations diverge at $`T_c`$ whereas SDW correlations, albeit still enhanced, show no sign of singular behavior. In Figures 4-c,d, we verify that the amplitude of interstack $`n=2`$ triplet superconducting response $`\chi _{TS}^{(2)}(T)`$ is scarcely enhanced so it essentially merges with the free or non interacting limit $`\chi _{Free}(T)`$ over the whole temperature range.

### C On the possibility of reentrant superconductivity

Before closing this section, we would like to examine on a qualitative basis the consequences of non uniform pairing on the relative stability of the SDW and SS order parameters in the crossover region. Under the light of the above results, the profile of the SDW scattering amplitude $`J_\mu (k_{}q_{},k_{};\mathrm{})`$, albeit singular on the lines $`q_{}=\pm \pi /d_{}`$ for all $`k_{}`$ as $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_{SDW,c}`$ (Fig.1a-c,2,4a-c), reflects the variation $`d(k_{})`$ of the order parameter and in turn the one of the SDW gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu 0}(k_{})`$ along the Fermi surface within the ordered phase. Therefore if the SDW transition occurs first, the reduction of the gap in cold regions will lower the SDW condensation energy with respect to the case where a uniform gap would be created. This reduction along with the one of $`T_{SDW}`$ (Fig. 3) continues up to the crossover region where the condensation energy becomes comparable and ultimately weaker than the one of a superconducting ordered state having a lower critical temperature but a singlet gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_{})=|\mathrm{\Delta }_0|\mathrm{cos}(k_{}d_{})`$ that would be more developed along the Fermi surface (Figure 2-b). This crossing of condensation energy will then signal a first-order transition from SDW to the SS state $``$ a possibility known as reentrant superconductivity as pointed out by Yamaji in the framework of a phenomenological mean-field theory of the competition between SDW and s-wave states in the Bechgaard salts.

A quantitative analysis of reentrance in the present context would require the microscopic derivation of the temperature dependent Landau free energy at $`T<T_{SDW}`$, which includes interference effects between the density-wave and Cooper channels, a derivation that is beyond the scope of the present paper. More qualitatively, however, it is possible to estimate the extent of the reentrance on the $`t_2^{}`$ scale by making few assumptions on the form taken by condensation energy in the zero temperature limit. Thus if the drop in energy (here expressed per chain and per unit of length) with respect to the normal phase can be expanded in powers of the gap, one can write in lowest order

$$\delta E_i[\mathrm{\Delta }_i]\frac{1}{2}(\pi v_F)^1C_i\frac{1}{N_{}}\underset{k_{}}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_i^2(k_{})+\mathrm{},$$
(45)
for $`i=`$SDW and SS, where $`C_i`$ is a constant (within the mean-field (BCS) theory, $`C_i=1`$, and $`\delta E_i`$ is purely quadratic). Taking $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SDW}(k_{})=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu 0}d(k_{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SS}(k_{})=\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{cos}(k_{}d_{})`$ for the SDW and a SS gaps respectively and assuming a BCS-like correspondance $`\mathrm{\Delta }_iT_{c,i}`$ between the maximum amplitude of the gap at zero temperature and the critical temperature, the ratio of condensation energies will take the approximate form

$$\frac{\delta E_{SDW}}{\delta E_{SS}}\frac{T_{SDW}^2}{T_c^2}2N_{}^1\underset{k_{}}{}d^2(k_{}).$$
(46)
Thus by extracting $`d(k_{})`$ from the normalized scattering amplitude along $`k_{}^{}=\pm \pi /d_{}k_{}`$ (Fig. 2-b), the ratio of condensation energies becomes invariably smaller than unity for $`T_c`$ not too far below $`T_{SDW}`$ in the crossover region. This indicates that whenever SDW is first stabilized in that part of phase diagram, the conditions are favorable for reentrant superconductivity. The corresponding SDW-SS equilibrium curve should join the critical line with a positive slope.

## IV Concluding remarks

Under the light of previous results interesting conclusions can be drawn. Concerning first the applications to real materials like the Bechgaard salts and their sulfur analogs, the present approach may serve as a microscopic basis towards a synthesis of itinerant antiferromagnetism and unconventional superconductivity in these compounds. This would include the description of systems like the spin-Peierls Fabre salt (TMTTF)2PF6 for which a crossover from itinerant antiferromagnetism to superconductivity has been found under very high pressure.

The interplay between SDW and SS correlations has various impacts which may cast new light on both types of ordering. Starting with the normal phase, the calculation of the response functions shows that both types of correlations can be enhanced in the same temperature domain, indicating that the different ordering factors interfere constructively $``$ this is particularly manifest within the narrow confines of reentrant superconductivity in the crossover domain. Another impact concerns the description of the SDW state itself, which show qualitative difference with respect to mean-field prediction as a result of interference with superconductivity. All goes to show that nesting conditions do not govern alone the characterization of the SDW state, but that Cooper pair correlations have a determining influence leaving their stamp on electron-hole pairing or the SDW gap along the Fermi surface. The impact of interference on the properties of normal state in the vicinity of a SDW ordering in the normal phase is also of interest. It indeed provides a microscopic basis as to the origin and the location of cold and hot spots on the Fermi surface which are suspected to be important in explaining anomalous magnetotransport effects close to $`t_2^c`$.

The physical picture of interfering channels in the emergence of superconductivity naturally bridges to the physics of the field-induced SDW states for which geometrical properties (nesting) of the Fermi surface play a so important role in their description. In this matter, it would be worth examining the weakening of the interference when a magnetic field is turned on close to the crossover on the SS side, namely where FISDW are found. The presence of a field (oriented properly) will weaken both the infrared singularity of the Cooper channel and nesting deviations, which should tip the balance in favour of a single channel or mean-field description. However, it is possible that some traces of interference are still present and may affect to some extend the profile of the gap and then the properties of the FISDW state.

The present theoretical weak coupling calculation of the critical temperatures cannot of course pretend to be quantitative, if one considered the reduction of variables in the obtaining the flow equations, especially those related to dynamical (retardation) effects which are likely to become relevant within the crossover region when both SDW and SS pairings scale to strong coupling. However we think that our approach embodies the essential ingredients of the competition between SDW and SC states in these kind of materials.

###### Acknowledgements.

C.B thanks L.G. Caron, N. Dupuis, D. Jérome, D. Jaccard, A.-M. Tremblay and H. Wilhelm for numerous discussions at various stages of this work. C.B and R.D also thank the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), le Fonds pour la Formation de Chercheurs et l’Aide à la Recherche du Gouvernement du Québec (FCAR), the ‘superconductivity program’ of the Institut Canadien de Recherches Avancées (CIAR) for financial support.

## A One-loop contractions

### 1 Cooper channel

From the last term of the outer shell decomposition in (21), the contraction in the Cooper channel evaluated at $`\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_c=0`$ reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ $`(S_{I,2}^C)^2_{o.s}=(\pi v_F)^2{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{\mu }_1,\overline{\mu }_2}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{\stackrel{~}{𝐤},\stackrel{~}{𝐤^{}}\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_C\}^{}}{}}\underset{\{\stackrel{~}{𝐤}_1,\stackrel{~}{𝐤}_2\}}{{\displaystyle }}`$ (A3)
$`\times W_{\overline{\mu }_1}(k_{},k_{,1};\mathrm{})\overline{𝒪}_{\overline{\mu }_1}^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}_1)\overline{𝒪}_{\overline{\mu }_2}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}_2)W_{\overline{\mu }_2}(k_{,2},k_{}^{};\mathrm{})`$
$`\times 𝒪_{\overline{\mu }_2}^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}+\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_C)𝒪_{\overline{\mu }_1}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_C)\delta _{\overline{\mu }_1,\overline{\mu }_2}\delta _{\stackrel{~}{𝐤}_1,\stackrel{~}{𝐤}_2},`$
where the outer shell average is given by

$`\underset{\stackrel{~}{𝐤}_1}{{\displaystyle }}`$ $`W_{\overline{\mu }}(k_{},k_,;\mathrm{})\overline{𝒪}_{\overline{\mu }}^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}_1)\overline{𝒪}_{\overline{\mu }}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}_1)W_{\overline{\mu }}(k_1,k_{}^{};\mathrm{})`$ (A4)
$`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{T}{LN_{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\omega _n}{}}\underset{𝐤_1}{{\displaystyle }}[W_{\overline{\mu }}(k_{},k_1;\mathrm{})G_+^0(𝐤_1,\omega _n)`$ (A6)
$`\times G_{}^0(𝐤_1,\omega _n)W_{\overline{\mu }}(k_1,k_{}^{};\mathrm{})]`$
$`=`$ $`(\pi v_F)^1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_1}{}}W_{\overline{\mu }}(k_{},k_1;\mathrm{})W_{\overline{\mu }}(k_1,k_{}^{};\mathrm{})`$ (A8)
$`\times {\displaystyle _{o.s}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\beta }{2}E_+}{E_+}}dE_+,`$
where the last line follows from the frequency sum and the use of the relation

$$\frac{d_{}}{2\pi }\frac{dSdE_+}{E_+}\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{N_{}v_F}\underset{k_1}{}𝑑E_+\mathrm{}$$

for the curve integral over constant energy shell. The integral in the outer energy shell is made over the intervals $`[E_x(\mathrm{})/2,E_x(\mathrm{}+d\mathrm{})/2]`$ and $`[E_x(\mathrm{}+d\mathrm{})/2,E_x(\mathrm{})/2]`$, and yields the result for the Cooper contraction

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ $`(S_{I,2}^C)^2_{o.s}=\pi v_F{\displaystyle \underset{\{\stackrel{~}{𝐤},\stackrel{~}{𝐤^{}}\}^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{}}{N_{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_1}{}}[W_{\overline{\mu }}(k_{},k_1;\mathrm{})`$ (A10)
$`\times W_{\overline{\mu }}(k_1,k_{}^{};\mathrm{})I_C(\mathrm{})𝒪_{\overline{\mu }}^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}+\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_C)𝒪_{\overline{\mu }}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_C),`$
where $`I_C(\mathrm{})=\mathrm{tanh}[\beta E_x(\mathrm{})/4]`$. Using the relations

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\{\stackrel{~}{𝐤},\stackrel{~}{𝐤}^{},\stackrel{~}{𝐐}\}}{}}O_0^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}+\stackrel{~}{𝐐})O_0(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐐})=`$ (A11)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\{\stackrel{~}{𝐤},\stackrel{~}{𝐤}^{},\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_C\}}{}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒪_{\overline{\mu }=0}^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}+\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_C)𝒪_{\overline{\mu }=0}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_C)`$ (A12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{\mu }0}{}}𝒪_{\overline{\mu }}^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}+\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_C)𝒪_{\overline{\mu }}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_C`$ $`)\}`$ (A13)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\{\stackrel{~}{𝐤},\stackrel{~}{𝐤}^{},\stackrel{~}{𝐐}\}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu 0}{}}O_\mu ^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}+\stackrel{~}{𝐐})O_\mu (\stackrel{~}{𝐤}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐐})=`$ (A14)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\{\stackrel{~}{𝐤},\stackrel{~}{𝐤}^{},\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_c\}}{}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}𝒪_{\overline{\mu }=0}^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}+\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_C)𝒪_{\overline{\mu }=0}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_C)`$ (A15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{\mu }0}{}}𝒪_{\overline{\mu }}^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}+\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_C)𝒪_{\overline{\mu }}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_C`$ $`)\}`$ (A16)
this result can be rewritten in terms of products of Peierls fields contributing to the first term of the flow equation for $`J_\mu `$ \[Eq. (28)\].

### 2 Peierls Channel

From the first two terms of (21), the contractions in the Peierls channel are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(S_{I,2}^P)^2_{o.s}=(\pi v_F)^2{\displaystyle \underset{\mu _1,\mu _2}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{\stackrel{~}{𝐤},\stackrel{~}{𝐤^{}},\stackrel{~}{𝐐}\}^{}}{}}\underset{\{\stackrel{~}{𝐤}_1,\stackrel{~}{𝐤}_2\}}{{\displaystyle }}`$ (A17)
$`\times [J_{\mu _1}(q_{}k_1,k_1;\mathrm{})\overline{O}_{\mu _1}^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}_1+\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_0)\overline{O}_{\mu _2}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}_2\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_0)`$ (A18)
$`\times J_{\mu _2}(q_{}k_{}^{},k_{}^{};\mathrm{})O_{\mu _2}^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}+\stackrel{~}{𝐐})O_{\mu _1}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐐})`$ (A19)
$`\times \delta _{\mu _1,\mu _2}\delta _{\stackrel{~}{𝐤}_1+\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_0,\stackrel{~}{𝐤}_2}],`$ (A20)
in which we define

$`F(q_{}`$ $`)={\displaystyle }_{\stackrel{~}{𝐤}_1}J_\mu (q_{}k_1,k_1;\mathrm{}^{})\overline{O}_\mu ^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}_1+\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_0)\overline{O}_\mu (\stackrel{~}{𝐤}_1)`$ (A23)
$`=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}{\displaystyle \frac{T}{LN_{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\omega _n}{}}\underset{𝐤_1}{{\displaystyle }}[J_\mu (q_{}k_1,k_1;\mathrm{})`$
$`\times G_+^0(𝐤_1+\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_0,\omega _n)G_{}^0(𝐤_1,\omega _n)`$
As a function of $`q_{}`$, the electron and hole of the Peierls loop cannot be put simultaneously in the outer energy shell for all values of $`k_1`$ in the Brillouin zone. Parts of the $`k_1`$ summation would then refer to $`J_\mu `$ obtained at previous values of $`\mathrm{}`$. However, this variation of $`J_\mu `$ with $`\mathrm{}`$ within the $`k_1`$ interval will be neglected consistently with the absence of dependence on the longitudial momentum for the couplings. After a frequency sum, one then finds

$`F`$ $`(q_{})=(\pi v_F)^1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_1}{}}J_\mu (q_{}k_1,k_1;\mathrm{})`$ (A25)
$`\times {\displaystyle _{o.s}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\beta }{2}[E_{}+A(k_1,q_{})]+\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\beta }{2}E_{}}{2E_{}+A(k_1,q_{})}}dE_{},`$
where

$`A(k_1`$ $`,q_{})=2t_{}^{}[\mathrm{cos}(k_1d_{})+\mathrm{cos}(k_1d_{}+q_{}d_{})]`$ (A27)
$`+2t_2^{}[\mathrm{cos}(2k_1d_{})+\mathrm{cos}(2k_1d_{}+2q_{}d_{})].`$
Integrating in the outer energy shell yields

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ $`(S_{I,2}^P)^2_{o.s}=(\pi v_F){\displaystyle }_\mu {\displaystyle }_{\{\stackrel{~}{𝐤},\stackrel{~}{𝐤}^{},\stackrel{~}{𝐐}\}^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{}}{N_{}}}{\displaystyle }_{k_1}`$ (A30)
$`\times \left[I_P(q_{},k_1,\mathrm{})J_\mu (q_{}k_1,k_1;\mathrm{})J_\mu (q_{}k_{}^{},k_{}^{};\mathrm{})\right]`$
$`\times O_\mu ^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝐤}+\stackrel{~}{𝐐})O_\mu (\stackrel{~}{𝐤}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐐})`$
where

$`I_P(q_{},k_1,\mathrm{})={\displaystyle \frac{E_x(\mathrm{})}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=\pm }{}}[\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{4}}E_x(\mathrm{})+`$ (A31)
$`\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}[E_x(\mathrm{})/2+pA(k_1,q_{})]]/[E_x(\mathrm{})+pA(k_1,q_{})].`$ (A32)


format: text

text:
# Spin polarization and magneto-luminescence of confined electron-hole systems

## I Introduction

In the present paper, we study the spin polarization and the magneto-luminescence of a neutral, medium-size quantum dot (qdot) subjected to a strong (pulsed) laser pumping and a strong magnetic field. There are many good reasons to study the properties of this system.

On one hand, recent magneto-tunneling experiments oosterkamp ; haw  have stated very clearly the role of Zeeman energies, lateral confinement and Coulomb repulsion in the spin polarization of a qdot filled with $`N`$ electrons. At “filling factors” $`2>\nu 1`$, ground-state rearrangements lead to significant oscillations of the conductance peak positions as a function of the magnetic field. The situation could be even more interesting for electron-hole (e-h) clusters, where additional e-h correlations come into play. Traces of spin rearrangements shall be seen in the luminescence and other optical properties.

On the other hand, extensive measurements of quantum well (qwell) luminescence exist for different e-h densities (laser excitation power) and polarizations lumin . A BCS-based theory has been proposed tejedor . Very high magnetic fields, up to 60 T, have been applied mainly to low-density systems, and the results have been interpreted in terms of isolated neutral and negatively charged excitons kim1 . Analogous experiments in qdots are lacking, but the available experimental resources are enough to create a high population of excitons in a medium-size qdot in a strong magnetic field. 6-exciton luminescence has been undoubtedly observed in single small InAs quantum dots at $`B=0`$ gershoni . In qwells, very high e-h densities ($`10^{13}`$ pairs/cm2) have been achieved with pulsed pumping kim2 .

Our model quantum dot is made up from a symmetrical GaAs-AlGaAs quantum well, 8.5 nm wide in the growth direction. Stress is supposed to induce a lateral confinement, which is described by a parabolic potential with $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }1.2`$ meV. An electron-hole system is created in the dot by a strong 5 ps pulsed laser, as it is experimentally done for example in Ref.kim2, . The mean lifetime of this system is around hundred of ps or even longer, i. e. a time scale much greater than the characteristic times ($``$ 1 ps) to reach equilibrium time . Thus, at very low temperatures we end up with an “stable” $`N`$-pair e-h cluster in its ground state.

Results for spin-up and -down densities, hole and electron spin polarizations and for the position and magnitude of the coherent luminescence peak as functions of the magnetic field and of the mean number of excitons are presented below. The theoretical framework used is a BCS-like wave function, corrected against particle number non-conservation by means of a Lipkin-Nogami procedure LN ; yo . This wave function is able to reproduce the expected “Bose condensed” state in the $`B\mathrm{}`$ limit lerner ; dzyubenko ; paquet . A big basis of one-particle states is used, which includes up to 3 Landau levels and 202 states per Landau level. We consider systems with up to 40 e-h pairs.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In Section II, the model to be employed is described in details. The basics of our theoretical scheme are summarized in Section III. In Section IV, the main results are presented and discussed. Concluding remarks are given in the last section.

## II The Model

We consider a system of $`N`$ electrons and $`N`$ holes confined in a quasi two-dimensional quantum dot, and in the presence of a perpendicular magnetic field. As mentioned above, the qdot is made up from a 85 Å-wide symmetric qwell. A parabolic potential confines the motion of the particles in the plane perpendicular to the grow direction. The first qwell sub-band approximation is used, i. e. the confining energies along the $`z`$ direction are written as $`E_{e(h)}^z=\frac{\mathrm{}^2\pi ^2}{2m_{e(h)}L_z^2}k_{e(h)}^2`$, with $`k_{e(h)}=1`$. Notice that for the $`85`$ Å-width GaAs well, the gap to the second qwell state is $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_e^z210`$ meV, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_h^z39`$ meV for electrons and holes respectively, whereas the typical Coulomb energy is $`E_{Coulomb}3.18\sqrt{B[T]}`$ meV. This model is a common theoretical framework in the study of strained or self-assembled quantum dots qdot . By using the symmetric gauge, $`\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{r})=\frac{\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{r}}{2}`$, dimensionless coordinates, $`\stackrel{}{r}l_B\stackrel{}{r}`$, with $`l_B=\sqrt{2\mathrm{}c/eB}`$, and using Landau level (LL) states $`\left\{|i=|n_i,m_i,s_i\right\}`$ ($`n_i=0,1,\mathrm{};m_i=\mathrm{},\mathrm{},1,0,1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{};`$ and $`s_i=\pm 1/2`$ are the radial, angular momentum and spin quantum numbers, respectively) as set of one-particle states, we can write the Hamiltonian in second quantization as:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _c^e}{2}}\epsilon _i^e+E_{e_i}^{Zeeman}\right\}e_i^{}e_i`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _c^h}{2}}\epsilon _i^h+E_{h_i}^{Zeeman}\right\}h_i^{}h_i`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\mathrm{}i|\stackrel{}{r}^2|j\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\omega _c^e}}e_i^{}e_j+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\omega _c^h}}h_i^{}h_j\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`N\left\{E_{gap}+E_e^z(k_e=1)+E_h^z(k_h=1)\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{ϵl_B}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ijkl}{}}ij|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left|\stackrel{}{r}\right|}}|kle_i^{}e_j^{}e_le_k`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ijkl}{}}ij|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left|\stackrel{}{r}\right|}}|klh_i^{}h_j^{}h_lh_k`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ijkl}{}}ij|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left|\stackrel{}{r}\right|}}|kle_i^{}h_j^{}h_le_k\},`$
where $`m_e(m_h)`$ are the electron and hole effective masses, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the dot confining frequency, and $`ϵ`$ is the dielectric constant. $`E_{gap}`$ is the gap separation between the conduction and valence bands, $`E_{e_i(h_i)}^{Zeeman}=\pm g_{e(h)}\mu Bs_i^{e(h)}`$, with $`g_{e(h)}`$ the effective g-factors, $`\mu `$ is the Bohr magneton, $`s_i^{e(h)}`$ are the $`z`$-components of the ith particle spin, $`\epsilon _i^{e(h)}=2n_i+|m_i|\pm m_i+1`$ are the LL energies for electrons (holes), $`\omega _c^{e(h)}=eB/m_{e(h)}c`$ is the electron (hole) cyclotron frequency, and $`e_i(h_i),e_i^{}(h_i^{})`$ are the electron (hole) destruction and creation operators. Conventionally, we write $`s_h=\pm 1/2`$ for the two branches of the heavy hole sub-band. To the electronic $`j_z=3/2`$, for example, we ascribe $`s_h=1/2`$.

The effective parameters entering the Hamiltonian (masses and g factors) are magnetic field- and width-dependent magnitudes to approximately account for band mixing. For the $`85`$ Å well, we fitted the experimental in-plane heavy hole mass mh , thus obtaining:

$$m_h^{85\text{Å}}(B)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0.17,\hfill & \text{for }B<10\text{ T}\hfill \\ \frac{0.17+0.0168B}{1+0.023B},\hfill & \text{for }B>10\text{ T}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
Experimentally, the dependence of the electron g-factor on well width and magnetic field is well determined ge5 ; ge1 ; ge2 ; ge3 ; ge4 , and in our case we have:

$$g_e^{85\text{Å}}(B)=0.1667+0.0052B[\mathrm{T}].$$
(3)
The dependence of the hole g-factor on the magnetic field for high $`B`$ values, however, is not properly determined ge2 ; ge3 . Here we assume a linear behavior with the field, as in the electron case, and fitted it to kim1 . The result is

$$g_h^{85\text{Å}}(B)=0.05B[\mathrm{T}].$$
(4)
Notice that in the $`B0`$ limit, $`g_h`$ vanish because the exciton (X) g-factor, defined as $`g_X=g_e+g_h`$, and the electron g-factor are equal in the $`85`$ Å width wellge2 .

With this parameterization, $`g_e`$ changes sign at $`B_c32`$ T. Consequences of this facts are discussed below.

## III The BCS scheme

The BCS approach has been successfully applied by Paquet et. al. in the study of the two-dimensional (2D) e-h system paquet , and by Fernández-Rossier and Tejedor to the exciton gas in a qwelltejedor . We used it previously in the study of finite e-h systems at zero magnetic field yo . We employ the Lipkin-Nogami (LN) scheme to avoid particle number non-conservation in a finite system. The BCS wave function is given by

$$|BCS_N=\underset{i}{}\left(u_i+v_ie_i^{}h_{\overline{ı}}^{}\right)|0_h|0_e,$$
(5)
where $`|0_h(|0_e)`$ are the respective electron (hole) vacuum. The subscript “$`N`$” in the BCS function means that the average number of pairs is just $`N`$, i.e. $`\widehat{N}=BCS|\widehat{N}|BCS_N=N`$. $`u_i`$ and $`v_i`$ are the variational parameters. They fulfill the normalization conditions $`u_i^2+v_i^2=1,i`$. The hole state $`|\overline{ı}`$ which is paired with the electron state $`|i=|n_i,m_i,s_i`$ is different for the two magnetic field regimes, reflecting the ground state spin structure, as it is show in Fig. 1. For $`B<32`$ T, electrons and holes with opposite spins are paired, then $`|\overline{ı}=|n_i,m_i,s_i`$. Whereas for $`B>32`$ T, the energy is minimized when the $`|i`$ electronic state is paired with $`|\overline{ı}=|n_i,m_i,s_i`$.

The total angular momentum (projection onto the z axis), corresponding to $`|BCS_N`$ is zero because the angular momentum of each pair is zero. The total electron or hole spin, however, depend on the populations of spin-up and down components.

The detailed description of the LN method can be found in Refs. LN ; yo . For completeness, we sketch the main results. The LN estimate for the ground state energy is given by:

$$E_{LN}=E_{BCS}2\lambda _1(\widehat{N}N)\lambda _2(\widehat{N}^2N^2),$$
(6)
where $`E_{BCS}`$ is the expectation value of the effective Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}=HN\left\{E_{gap}E_e^z(k_e=1)E_h^z(k_h=1)\right\}`$ in $`|BCS_N`$:

$`E_{BCS}`$ $`=`$ $`_NBCS|\widehat{H}|BCS_N`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _c^e}{2}}\epsilon _i^e+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\omega _c^e}}\epsilon _i^{OA}+g_e\mu Bs_i^e\right\}v_i^2`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{ı}}{}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _c^h}{2}}\epsilon _{\overline{ı}}^h+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\omega _c^h}}\epsilon _{\overline{ı}}^{OA}g_h\mu Bs_{\overline{ı}}^h\right\}v_i^2`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{ϵl_B}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}ij|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left|\stackrel{}{r}\right|}}|ji(v_i^2v_j^2+v_iu_iv_ju_j)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}ii|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left|\stackrel{}{r}\right|}}|iiv_i^2\}.`$
Notice that in the second term, the sum runs over hole states $`|\overline{ı}`$. $`\epsilon _i^e=\epsilon _{\overline{ı}}^h=2n_i+|m_i|+m_i+1`$ are the one-particle energies, and $`\epsilon _i^{OA}=\epsilon _{\overline{ı}}^{OA}=2n_i+|m_i|+1=i|\stackrel{}{r}^2|i`$ is the expectation value of the harmonic potential. The mean value of the number of pairs is

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}e_i^{}e_i_{BCS}={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}h_i^{}h_i_{BCS}`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}v_i^2.`$
The extrema conditions can be written in the standard form of gap equations

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_i=\frac{e^2}{ϵl_B}\underset{j(ji)}{}ij|\frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{r}|}|ji\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_j}{2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_j^2(ϵ_i^{HF}\mu )^2}},$$
(9)
where the Hartree-Fock energies are given by

$`ϵ_i^{HF}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\mathrm{}\omega _c^e+\omega _c^h)(2n_i+|m_i|+m_i+1)`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2}{\omega _c^e}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_h^2}{\omega _c^h}}\right)(2n_i+|m_i|+1)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}B(g_es_ig_hs_{\overline{ı}}){\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2ϵl_B}}ii|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left|\stackrel{}{r}\right|}}|ii`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{ϵl_B}}{\displaystyle \underset{j(ji)}{}}ij|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left|\stackrel{}{r}\right|}}|jiv_j^2\lambda _2(Nv_i^2),`$
and we have used the usual BCS parameterization

$$v_i^2=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\frac{ϵ_i^{HF}\mu }{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_i^2(ϵ_i^{HF}\mu )^2}}\right).$$
(11)
The chemical potential $`\mu =\lambda _1+\lambda _2/2`$ was introduced to fix the particle number, and $`\lambda _2`$ is determined in the LN scheme as:

$`\lambda _2`$ $`=`$ $`\{\widehat{H}\widehat{N}^2(N^2\widehat{N}^2)+\widehat{H}\widehat{N}(\widehat{N}^3N\widehat{N}^2)`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`\widehat{H}(\widehat{N}^2^2N\widehat{N}^3)\left\}\right\{\widehat{N}^2^3+\widehat{N}^3^2`$
$`+`$ $`N^2\widehat{N}^4\widehat{N}^2(2N\widehat{N}^3+\widehat{N}^4)\}^1,`$
where the expectation values $`\mathrm{}`$ are taken in the $`|BCS_N`$ state. The resulting equations are solved iteratively up to a precision of $`10^{12}`$ in $`ϵ_i^{HF}`$. Calculations were performed for $`20N40`$ pairs and $`606`$ one-particle LL states.

## IV Polarization and magneto-luminescence

As shown below, the spin polarization of the electronic subsystem increases as the magnetic field is increased. At $`B=32`$ T, the electronic $`g`$-factor changes sign according to Eq. 3, leading to a rearrangement of electron-hole pairing in the absolute ground state. The kind of pairing minimizing the energy is represented in Fig. 1 by dashed lines. For $`B>32`$ T, the ground state is dark, and it is not even clear whether it can be reached by means of light excitation followed by spin relaxation processes. Thus, besides the ground state, for $`B>32`$ T, we compute also the lowest BCS state with $`\sigma ^+`$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$ excitons. Below, we present results for the $`N=40`$ system, obtained with three LLs and 202 states per level, i. e. a total of 606 one-particle states.

As mentioned above, two BCS functions may be constructed. One in which optical excitons are formed, and a second one in which dark excitons are formed. The difference $`E_{opt}E_{dark}`$ is drawn in Fig. 2 as a function of $`B`$, showing that the dark state becomes the ground state when the value $`B32`$ T is crossed and the electronic sub-bands are re-ordered. The absence of efficient spin relaxation mechanisms may, however, prevent the actual ground state to be occupied.

It is interesting to note that the difference $`E_{opt}E_{dark}`$, in the magnetic field interval shown in Fig. 2 is very close to the difference between the electronic Zeeman energies. A simple qualitative picture can be offered for the understanding of this and the next figures. The properties of the system are roughly determined by the holes because of the competition among the hole Zeeman energies and the total harmonic and Coulomb energies. The hole occupations are thus very similar for optical and dark states. The form of e-h pairing provides the “fine structure”. That is, the minimization of the energy leads to a definite pairing.

Scaled spin-up and -down densities, obtained from

$`\rho _e^{(,)}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i=\{n_i,m_i,(,)\}}{j=\{n_j,m_j,(,)\}}}{}}\varphi _i^e(\stackrel{}{r})\varphi _j^e(\stackrel{}{r})_NBCS|e_i^{}e_j|BCS_N`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{r^2}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{i=\{n_i,m_i,(,)\}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_i!r^{2|m_i|}v_i^2}{(n_i+|m_i|)!}}\left[L_{n_i}^{|m_i|}(r^2)\right]^2,`$
are shown in Fig. 3. At $`B=40`$ T, we show the ground (dark) and optically-active excited-state densities, which are almost inverted in agreement with the argument given above. Notice that there are only four excess spin-up electrons at $`B=20`$ T. These small net polarizations for high magnetic fields are related to the attractive character of the e-h interaction. Unlike pure electron systems, small-radius orbits maximize e-h attraction, and the competition between Zeeman and Coulomb energies starts at higher fields.

The “hole dominance picture” leads to changes in the polarization, as $`B`$ is increased, through the reconstruction of the droplet edge, in a way very similar to electrons near filling factor one edge . This fact is illustrated in Fig. 4, where the difference between ground-state spin-up and -down densities for different values of $`B`$ are shown. It is evident that polarized densities differ mainly at the edge, and that changes in the polarization are more significant at the edge.

The following two figures, Figs. 5 and 6, contain the main results of our paper. Electron and hole spin polarizations are drawn in Fig. 5a as a function of $`B`$. Solid lines refer to the ground state, while the dashed lines for $`B>32`$ T refer to the optically active state. Notice that even at a high field value like 45 T, the electronic polarization is only 70 %. Notice also the change in sign of the ground-state electronic spin at $`B=B_c`$. The inset shows the total ground-state spin squared, computed from

$$\stackrel{}{S}_e^2_{BCS}=\frac{3}{4}N+\underset{i,j}{}s_is_jv_i^2v_j^2\underset{i}{}s_iv_i^4+\frac{1}{2}\underset{\alpha }{}v_\alpha ^2v_\alpha ^2.$$
(14)
The total (coherent) magnetoluminescence intensity for both $`\sigma ^+`$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$ polarizations is presented in Fig. 5b. We compute it for $`\sigma ^{}`$ polarization, for example, from the expression

$`I_{total}^\sigma ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}\left|_{N1}f|P_\sigma ^{}|BCS_N\right|^2`$ (17)
$``$ $`_NBCS|P_\sigma ^{}^{}P_\sigma ^{}|BCS_N`$
$`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}_\alpha v_\alpha ^4+\left(_\alpha u_\alpha v_\alpha \right)^2,\hfill & \text{bright state}\hfill \\ _\alpha v_\alpha ^2v_\alpha ^2,\hfill & \text{dark state},\hfill \end{array}`$
where $`|f`$ is a basis of $`N1`$ particle states , $`\alpha =(n,m)`$ is a composed index and, $`P_\sigma ^{}=_\alpha e_\alpha h_{\overline{\alpha }}`$ is the interband dipole transition operator for the $`\sigma ^{}`$ circularly polarized light. Notice that $`I_{total}`$ is the integrated luminescence, corresponding to the transition from the given initial BCS state to any final state. The convention for solid and dashed lines is the same as in Fig. 5a. It shall be stressed that the degree of polarization, defined from

$$\frac{I_{total}^\sigma ^{}I_{total}^{\sigma ^+}}{I_{total}^\sigma ^{}+I_{total}^{\sigma ^+}},$$
(18)
follows very well the behaviour of $`S_z`$, i. e. the difference between the occupation of spin-up and -down sub-bands. This polarization is nearly 10 % at 20 T, and around 70 % at 45 T.

Finally, in Fig. 6 we show results for the position of the luminescence line and the intensities as functions of the numbers of pairs in the dot. In our computations, the energy is corrected against non-conservation of the total number of excitons, $`N`$. Conservation of the number of $`\sigma ^+`$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$ excitons is not properly taken into account. Thus, we can not exactly compute the position of the $`\sigma ^+`$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$ lines. In place of it, we show in Fig. 6a the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_N=E_{LN}(N)E_{LN}(N1)`$ relative to the exciton $`\sigma ^{}`$ line, $`E_X`$. The following interesting properties can be noticed in this figure: a) A blueshift as the number of excitons is raised kim2 . It is around 0.2 meV/exciton at $`N=20`$, and 0.15 meV/exciton at $`N=30`$, and b) An apparent minimum of each curve at $`B`$ around 30 T, i. e. at $`B_c`$. On the other hand, the intensity (Fig. 6b) shows an increase with $`N`$ for both polarizations, as one would expect from coherent emission.

## V Concluding remarks

We have computed the spin polarization and the luminescence of a quantum dot in which a mean number of electron-hole pairs, $`N`$, have been created by a laser pulse. Band mixing effects were approximately taken into account by means of well width- and magnetic field-dependent masses and $`g`$-factors. For the model under study, the electron $`g`$-factor vanishes at $`B_c32`$ T. It means that, for magnetic field values around $`B_c`$, the electron polarization, and thus the ratio of intensities given by formula (18), is determined as a result of the interplay among Coulomb, confinement and hole Zeeman energies. The net polarization is only 70 % at $`B=45`$ T because of the attractive electron-hole interaction.

The general features found in our calculations, i. e. relatively small polarizations even at high magnetic field values, blueshift of the luminescence lines with an increase of the laser power, etc seem to be not related to the specific parametrization used for carrier masses and $`g`$-factors.

The developed computational scheme may be applied to many other interesting situations, from which two of them may be distinguished. The first is the stationary regime, in which constant populations of $`\sigma ^{}`$ and $`\sigma ^+`$ excitons arise as a result of appropriate pumping, recombination and spin-flip processes lumin . The second is the study of the effects of hyperfine interactions between nuclear and electronic spins on the position of the recombination lines, known as Overhauser shifts overhauser . Research along both directions is in progress.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors wish to thank R. Pérez for helpful discussions. Support from the Colombian Institute for Science and Technology (COLCIENCIAS), the Committee for Research of the University of Antioquia (CODI), and the Caribbean Network for Theoretical Physics are gratefully acknowledged.