text:
# Supernovae with “Super-Hipparcos”

## 1 Introduction

GAIA is the super-Hipparcos satellite that is planned for launch in about 2010 (see “http//astro.estec.esa.nl/gaia” or Perryman et al. 2001). It is the successor to the pioneering Hipparcos satellite which revolutionised our knowledge of the solar neighborhood. GAIA gathers 4 colour broad band and 11 colour narrow band photometry on all objects brighter than $`20`$th magnitude and it performs spectroscopy in the range 850-875 nm on all objects brighter than $`18`$th magnitude. Here, we discuss the capabilities of this remarkable satellite for supernovae (SNe) detection.

SNe are divided into type I and II primarily on the basis of their spectra, with lightcurve shape as a secondary diagnostic. SNe Ia are thermonuclear explosions in white dwarf stars which have accreted too much matter from a companion. It is unclear whether the companion is also a white dwarf or is a main sequence/red giant star. In fact, whether the progenitors of SNe Ia are doubly degenerate or singly degenerate binaries is one of the major unsolved problems in the subject. SNe Ib/c and II originate in the core collapse of massive stars. SNe Ia have found ready application in cosmology. Their intrinsic brightness means that they can be detected to enormous distances. Although their peak luminosities vary by a factor of 10, Phillips (1993) found a correlation between the peak absolute magnitude and the rate of decline, which enables SNe Ia to be calibrated and used as “standard candles”. Claims for an accelerating universe (e.g., Riess et al. 1998, Schmidt et al. 1998, Perlmutter et al. 1999) partly rest on their use as distance estimators, yet there are obvious concerns regarding systematic errors (e.g., Leibundgut 2000, 2001). So, a major thrust of modern SNe studies is to understand and quantify the differences in the morphology of SNe Ia lightcurves and the scatter in the Phillips relation.

SNe surveys go back at least as far as Zwicky (1938). Amongst the most influential are the Asiago SNe survey (Ciatti & Rosino 1978) and the Calán/Tololo SNe survey (Hamuy et al. 1993). At the moment, there is some, albeit limited, information on $`2000`$ SNe available in the standard catalogues (see Tsvetkov et al. 1998 or “http://www.sai.msu.su/sn/sncat/” and Barbon et al. 1999 or “http://web.pd.astro.it/supern/”). Perhaps only as many as $`300`$ SNe have reasonably detailed lightcurves (e.g., Leibundgut et al. 1991, Hamuy et al. 1996, Leibundgut 2000). Even with the limited dataset available, there is a considerable spread in the intrinsic properties and uncertainty as to the rate, type and location of SNe as a function of host galaxy.

GAIA is an ideal tool to study nearby SNe (within a few hundred Mpc). GAIA will provide a huge dataset of high quality local SNe Ia in which any deviations from “standard candles” can be analysed. As the dataset is so large, there will be good numbers of rarer phenomena, such as subluminous SNe and SNe Ib/c. Earlier papers (Høg, Fabricius & Makarov 1999; Tammann & Reindl 2002) have already provided rough estimates of the numbers of SNe Ia that GAIA will discover. Here, we carry out detailed simulations using a Galactic extinction model and the satellite scanning law to compute the numbers of SNe detected as a function of the phase of the lightcurve. We show that GAIA will record data on at least $`\mathrm{21\hspace{0.17em}400}`$ SNe during the five-year mission lifetime. This breaks down into $`\mathrm{14\hspace{0.17em}300}`$ SNe 1a, $`1400`$ SNe Ib/c and $`5700`$ SNe II. These SNe span a redshift range up to $`z0.14`$. GAIA will probably alert on all SNe detected before maximum. These numbers are $`6300`$ SNe Ia, $`500`$ SNe Ib/c and $`1700`$ SNe II during the whole mission. In other words, GAIA will issue $`1700`$ SNe alerts a year or $`5`$ alerts a day. Roughly $`75\%`$ of all alerts will be SNe Ia, the remainder will be SNe Ib/c and II. All these numbers are lower limits and may be increased by at a factor of $`2`$ depending on the SNe contribution from low-luminosity galaxies.

## 2 Monte Carlo Simulations

GAIA’s G band is very close to the conventional V band for a wide colour range (ESA 2000). Richardson et al. (2002) use the Asiago Supernova Catalogue to study the V band absolute magnitude distributions according to type. They find that the mean absolute magnitude of SNe Ia at maximum is $`18.99`$. This figure includes the contribution from the internal absorption of the host galaxy, as well as a correction to our preferred value of the Hubble constant of $`65\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, which we use henceforth. As GAIA’s limiting magnitude is $`G20`$, this means that the most distant SNe Ia accessible to GAIA are $`630`$ Mpc away. Similarly, the mean absolute magnitude of SNe Ib/c at maximum is $`17.75`$, so that the most distant SNe Ib/c detectable by GAIA are $`355`$ Mpc away. SNe II are subdivided further according to lightcurve into linear (L) and plateau (P) types. The mean absolute magnitude of II-L type is $`17.63`$ and of II-P type is $`16.44`$ (Richardson et al. 2002). These correspond to distances of $`335`$ Mpc and $`195`$ Mpc respectively. Such distances emphasise that GAIA is the ideal tool to discover relatively nearby SNe, but will not make any contribution to the searches for high redshift SNe.

The rates with which SNe occur in different galaxies at low redshift are given in Table 1, inferred from van den Bergh & Tammann (1991). This gives the number of SNe per century per $`10^{10}L_{}`$. Although the data come with substantial uncertainties, there are three recent studies that provide some supporting evidence. First, the EROS collaboration (Hardin et al. 2000) found a SNe Ia rate of $`0.18`$ per century per $`10^{10}L_{}`$ for redshifts $`z`$ in the range $`0.02`$ to $`0.2`$. Second, Pain et al. (1996) found a SNe Ia rate of $`0.36`$ per century per $`10^{10}L_{}`$ at the somewhat higher redshift of $`z0.4`$. Third, the rates in Cappellaro et al. (1997) are of the same order as van den Bergh & Tammann (1991), although typically lower by a factor of two.

The host galaxies follow the local large-scale structure. We use the latest version of the CfA redshift catalogue (Huchra et al. 1992, see “http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~huchra/zcat/”). This contains the sky positions and heliocentric velocities of $`\mathrm{20\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ galaxies. On plotting numbers of galaxies versus distance, the graph peaks at $`75`$ Mpc and thence shows a steady decline. This suggests that the catalogue can be used out to at most $`75`$ Mpc. The number of galaxies of each Hubble type in the CfA catalogue within 75 Mpc is listed in Table 2. These numbers must be regarded as lower limits to the true numbers within 75 Mpc, as the luminosity functions (LFs) derived from the CfA catalogue are incomplete at faint magnitudes. To take this into account, we assume that after reaching maximum the galaxy LF remains flat down to an absolute magnitude of $`14`$. Given in parentheses in Table 2 are the number of galaxies and SNe within 75 Mpc assuming such a flat LF. These numbers can be regarded as upper limits. Beyond 75 Mpc, we assume that the distribution of galaxies is homogeneous and that the number scales like $`D^3`$ where $`D`$ is the heliocentric distance. Given the numbers of galaxies and the observed rates, we can then straightforwardly compute the total number of SNe that explode during the five-year GAIA mission lifetime and are brighter than the limiting magnitude. In all, there are at least $`\mathrm{48\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ SNe Ia and $`7000`$ SNe Ib/c. The numbers for SNe II depend on the relative frequency of II-L with respect to II-P, which is not very well-known. Henceforth, we denote the fraction of all SNe II that are L-type by $`f_{\mathrm{II}}`$. Then, the numbers of SNe II that explode are $`\mathrm{28\hspace{0.17em}500}f_{\mathrm{II}}+5600(1f_{\mathrm{II}})`$. These numbers are lower limits for two reasons – first because no contribution from faint galaxies is included and second because GAIA’s limiting magnitude may be deeper than 20th in practice. Allowing for faint galaxies with the flat LF gives results a factor $`2`$ times larger.

To assess the efficiency of SN detection, we perform Monte Carlo simulations (e.g., Li, Filippenko & Riess 2001). First, the distance to the host galaxy is picked from the $`D^3`$ distribution. If $`D<75`$ Mpc, then the galaxy is chosen from the CfA catalogue. If $`D>75`$ Mpc, then the galaxy positions are distributed uniformly over the sky. Next, we choose the SN absolute magnitudes from Gaussian distributions with means and dispersions given in Table 3. These numbers already includes the effects of absorption in the host galaxy. The contribution to dimming of the SN from Galactic absorption is calculated using software kindly supplied by R. Drimmel, which is based on the extinction model of Drimmel & Spergel (2001).

The lightcurve can now be generated using the templates illustrated in Figure 1. For SNe Ia, we use the data of Lira et al. (1998) on SN 1991T as a standard template. This is an unusually bright SN Ia with a peculiar spectrum (Saha et al. 2001). However, our algorithm chooses the magnitude at maximum from a Gaussian distribution and so only the shape of the template is important. Therefore, although SN 1991T is overluminous, this does not cause exaggeration of our results. We reconstruct the rising part of the lightcurve of SNe Ia using the fact that luminosity is proportional to the square of the time since explosion (e.g., Riess et al. 1999). For SNe Ib/c, we use the photometry on SN 1994I from Richmond et al. (1996). This is a SN Ic, but we use it as a template for all SN Ib/c, taking the view that there is little point in trying to distinguish between SN Ibs and SN Ics in our simulations. It is not even clear that they are intrinsically very different, other than in the location of the ionizing source for helium. There is considerable diversity in SNe II lightcurves, as illustrated in Patat et al. (1994). We use the photometry of Cappellaro et al. (1995) on SN 1990K as the basis of our standard template for SNe II-L. However, this is missing the rising part, which is reconstructed using the mean lightcurve data in Doggett & Branch (1985). We use the photometry of Hamuy et al. (2001) on SN 1999em as a template for SN II-P.

Lastly, the lightcurves are sampled according to GAIA’s scanning law using software kindly supplied by L. Lindegren. GAIA has three telescopes on board. ASTRO-1 and ASTRO-2 perform astrometry and broad-band photometry on all objects brighter than $`G20`$. SPECTRO performs spectroscopy and medium-band photometry. The spacecraft is assumed to rotate about its spin axis once every $`3`$ hours, performing a great circle scan. (This corresponds to the prototype, although a slower spin rate may be adopted in the final mission). The spin axis is constrained to move on a Sun-centered cone of $`55^{}`$ with a period of 76 days, forcing the plane of the scan to sway back and forth. The axis of the cone follows the yearly solar motion (see ESA 2000). The number of times an object enters the fields of view of ASTRO-1 and ASTRO-2 during mission lifetime depends on ecliptic latitude and is shown in Figure 2 (see e.g., Belokurov & Evans 2002).

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Numbers Detected

Figure 3 shows the fraction of SNe within a distance $`D`$ which enter the field of view of GAIA’s telescopes ASTRO-1 and ASTRO-2. GAIA records data on $`30\%`$ of all the SNe Ia within 630 Mpc, which marks the limit of the most distant SNe Ia accessible. The distance cut-offs for the intrinsically less bright SNe Ib/c, II-L and II-P are 355 Mpc, 335 Mpc and 195 Mpc respectively. GAIA records data on $`20\%`$ of all SNe Ib/c, $`31\%`$ of all SNe II-L and $`48\%`$ SNe II-P within these distances. This means that GAIA will provide some (perhaps rather limited) information on $`\mathrm{14\hspace{0.17em}300}`$ SNe Ia and $`1400`$ SNe Ib/c during its five-year mission. For SNe II, the number depends on the relative frequency $`f_{\mathrm{II}}`$ and is $`8700f_{\mathrm{II}}+2700(1f_{\mathrm{II}})`$. If SNe II-L and SNe II-P occur equally frequently ($`f_{\mathrm{II}}=0.5`$), then the total number of SNe II is $`5700`$. In other words, GAIA will provide some information on $`\mathrm{21\hspace{0.17em}400}`$ SNe in total. For comparison, Høg et al. (1999) used simple scaling arguments to estimate that the total number of SNe in the GAIA observations would be $`\mathrm{100\hspace{0.17em}000}`$.

These are huge numbers, both compared to the sizes of existing catalogues and to the likely datasets gathered by other planned space missions. Almost all the SNe that GAIA misses explode in the 20 days just after GAIA samples that location in the sky. Before the next transit of ASTRO-1 or ASTRO-2, the SN reaches maximum and then fades to below GAIA’s limiting magnitude ($`G20`$). It may be wondered whether some SNe are missed because light from the background galaxy can overwhelm the SN. This is clearly a problem for distant galaxies, which are wholly contained within GAIA’s PSF ($`.35^{\prime \prime }`$ at FWHM). However, rough calculations show that this is not a problem for SNe Ib/c and II, as they occur relatively close by; we estimate that it may affect $`<10\%`$ of SNe Ia.

Figure 4 shows the fraction of the detected SNe as a function of phase of the lightcurve. Some $`44\%`$ of the detected SNe Ia are caught before maximum, $`37\%`$ of the detected SNe Ib/c, $`37\%`$ of the detected SNe II-L and $`9\%`$ of the detected SNe II-P. The low fraction for SNe II-P is largely a consequence of the fact that they are intrinsically the faintest. The numbers of each type of SNe caught before maximum by GAIA are recorded in Table 4. The total number of all SNe found before maximum during the 5 year mission lifetime is $`8500`$. This number can be broken down into $`6300`$ SNe Ia, $`500`$ SNe Ib/c and 1700 SNe II (assuming $`f_{\mathrm{II}}=0.5`$). If data on a SN is taken before maximum, then GAIA has an excellent chance of identifying the rapidly brightening object as a SN.

### 3.2 Identification Strategy

Every new object in a field of view is potentially a SN. Before GAIA can identify a SN, it must have visited that location on the sky at least once before. To provide SN alerts, we must ensure that the brightening object is not just a common variable star. We use the General Catalogue of Variable Stars (Kholopov et al. 1999) to build a subsample of variables with periods in excess of 10 days. Some $`34\%`$ of this subsample have periods less than 6 months and $`86\%`$ have periods less than 1 year. In practice, $`12`$ months baseline photometry may be needed to discriminate against common forms of stellar variability. One way round this problems is to restrict SN alerts to high galactic latitudes ($`|b|>30^{}`$), where the problem of variable star contamination is mitigated.

The objects that can cause most confusion are fast-moving solar system asteroids and novae. Main Belt asteroids move at $`10`$ mas s-1 and Near-Earth objects at $`40`$ mas s-1 (e.g., Mignard 2002). Høg (2002) has shown that fast moving objects can be detected by a single field of view crossing. This offers quick discrimination between solar system asteroids and SNe. More problematical are novae. Shafter (1997) gives the Galactic nova rate as $`35\pm 11`$ yr-1. We assume that this is typical of large galaxies. We take the absolute magnitude of novae to be in the range $`6<M<9`$ (Sterken & Jaschek 1996). Given GAIA’s limiting magnitude, there are between 20 and 150 galaxies in CfA catalogue for which novae are detectable. This means that there are $`1000`$ novae per year in the GAIA datastream. These can possibly be distinguished from SNe on the basis of colour information and spectroscopy. However, contamination by novae from external galaxies – which is the bulk of the numbers – is restricted to a number of small and pre-determined areas of the sky. These can, if necessary, be excised from the SNe survey.

Therefore, a reasonable expectation is that GAIA will alert on all SNe caught before maximum, that is $`1700`$ SNe a year. Riess et al. (1998) show how the distance to a SNe Ia can be estimated to within $`10\%`$ from a single spectrum and photometric epoch. For a 20th magnitude SN, the most suitable combination is a 2m telescope for imaging and a 4m for spectroscopy. On a 2m telescope, it is feasible to carry out high signal-to-noise UBVRI photometry on a 20th magnitude SN in $`<1`$ hr. The typical signal-to-noise needed for identifying type from spectroscopy is $`30`$. This needs $`2`$ hrs on a $`V20`$ point source in dark sky at low spectral resolution. However, roughly half the SNe will not be suitable for follow-up from the ground as they will be daytime objects. Assuming we wish to follow up the sample of (nightime) SNe alerted before maximum, then roughly two dedicated telescopes (say one 2m and one 4m) are required to get distance and phase estimates. This will confirm detection and type. Based on the information from the one night snapshot, selected SNe can be chosen for more detailed monitoring. Candidates for intensive monitoring might include all the SNe Ib/c and II-L (as there is little information on their lightcurves), subluminous and over-luminous events, all SNe Ia caught well before maximum and any SN for which the snapshot gives an unusual luminosity or spectral composition. Tammann & Reindl (2002) have also recently emphasised the value for the extragalactic distance scale of such a follow-up program of GAIA SNe Ia alerts.

## 4 Scientific Returns

### 4.1 Follow-Ups, Neutrinos and Gravitational Waves

Of course, it is important to follow up the alerted SN in bandwidths other than the optical, including infrared, X-rays and gamma-rays. This is needed – amongst other things – for the calculation of the bolometric luminosity, which sums together all the flux associated with the energy of the explosion and which provides tests and constraints on the progenitor and detonation models (e.g., Mazzali et al. 2001). More exotically, the SN can also be sought with neutrino and gravitational wave detectors, though these signals reach us before the optical detection.

Infrared and optical photometry of a SN can be used to construct a curve of colour versus time. By matching this to a template with zero reddening, the extinction in the host galaxy can be measured (e.g., Krisciunas et al. 2001) and hence the absolute magnitude and distance of the SN found. There are additional benefits to infrared follow-ups. One of the causes of uncertainty in SNe rates is extinction. For SNe Ib/c and II, which originate in the core collapse of massive stars, the observed rates are likely to be a severe underestimate of the true rate as extinction is usually high – as much as $`1020`$ magnitudes – in some starburst regions (Grossan et al. 1999). Of course, the true SNe rate is important for understanding chemical enrichment and evolution of galaxies and the ISM. Infrared photometry, together with GAIA data, will allow the rates to be computed as a function of infrared (rather than blue) luminosity.

The X-ray and gamma-rays are associated with the radioactive decay of nuclides produced in the SN explosion or Compton scattering associated with high energy radiation. Only the explosions of SN 1987A and SN 1993J were detected in X-rays, whereas SN 1987A remains the only one thus far detected in gamma-rays. The present generation of satellites, such as the International Gamma-Ray Astrophysical Laboratory (INTEGRAL) can detect the gamma-ray signal of SNe out to $`10`$ Mpc. However, as Höflich, Wheeler & Khokhlov (1998) point out, next generation Laue telescopes will allow gamma-rays from SNe within $`100`$ Mpc to be detected. The numbers of SNe alerted by GAIA within 100 Mpc are listed in Table 5. Some of these SNe (typically those brighter than 15th magnitude) are likely to have been found by other means beforehand. So, we conclude that GAIA will alert on $`920`$ SNe in total for which the X-ray and gamma-ray signal will be detectable. Of these, $`760`$ SNe will not have been discovered by others beforehand.

Gravitational waves may also be sought from nearby SNe. For SNe Ib/c and II, the asymmetry of the core collapse generates gravitational waves which have a typical frequency $`1`$ kHz (e.g., Mönchmeyer et al. 1991). For SNe Ia, if the progenitor is a singly degenerate binary (white dwarf and main sequence or red giant star), then no detectable gravitational waves are expected. However, if the progenitor is a double degenerate binary, then the collapse will look like a SN II probably with a similar output of gravitational waves. The maximal amplitude of gravitational waves for a SNe at 30 Mpc is in the range $`10^{21}`$ to $`10^{25}`$ (e.g., Mönchmeyer et al. 1991, Bonnell & Pringle 1995, Yamada & Sato 1995). The Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO, see “http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/”) is scheduled to begin taking data in 2003. The advanced LIGO will be operational after 2006 and can measure gravitational waves with an amplitude down to $`10^{21}`$. This raises the possibility that gravitational waves from SNe within 10-50 Mpc may be detected. From table 5, there may be $`130`$ SNe alerted by GAIA over 5 years for which detection of the gravitational wave signal is feasible. Note that gravitational waves arrive before any photons. However, the directional sensitivity of gravitational wave detectors is very poor, so GAIA may play an important rôle in identifying the relevant SN.

Lastly, little is known about the neutrino emission from SNe Ia. For SNe associated with core collapse, there are detailed theoretical predictions. However, the only SN for which neutrinos have been detected remains SN 1987A. Neutrinos were registered by the Kamiokande II, the Irvine-Michigan-Brookhaven and the Baksan neutrino detectors. From the three detectors, a combined total of $`25`$ neutrinos with energies in the range 10-50 MeV are reckoned to originate from SN 1987A (e.g., Burrows 1989). These are believed to be anti-electron neutrinos, for which the detection cross-section is largest. They were emitted in a burst of $`10`$ s associated with the birth of the neutron star. However, both global fits to the SN parameters as well as theory suggest that the Kamiokande II yield was smaller than expected, probably due to statistical fluctations and the fact that the detector was not optimized at low energies. By comparison, in the 32 kton Super-Kamiokande water-Cerenkov detector, about $`10^4`$ detected events are expected from a core collapse SN at an assumed distance of 10 kpc (Beacom, private communication). This is larger than the SN 1987A yield in Kamiokande II by roughly the factors 25 (5 times closer), 16 (32 kton detector rather than 2 kton), and 2 (optimisation). In addition, some other reaction channels are expected to become important once the yield is so high.

Scaling this result, the typical number of MeV neutrinos expected from a SN Ib/c or II in a host galaxy at a distance $`D`$ with a water-Cerenkov detector of volume $`V`$ is

$$N30\left(\frac{\mathrm{Mpc}}{D}\right)^2\left(\frac{V}{\mathrm{Mton}}\right).$$
(1)
By GAIA’s launch date of 2010, it is reasonable to expect 1 Mton Hyper-Kamiokande detectors and so neutrinos from SNe at distances up to $`5`$ Mpc may be detectable. This is the hardest challenge of all! Only a very few such nearby SNe are expected over the 5 year GAIA mission lifetime, and they may perhaps have been found by other means before GAIA alerts on them. However, even today, very nearby SNe are still missed, particularly those that are intrinsically faint or those occurring in obscured parts of the sky

### 4.2 Applications

Cosmological problems regarding the dark energy will not be addressed directly by GAIA. Even the most distant SNe that GAIA detects have $`z0.14`$. By contrast, GAIA will provide a large dataset of nearby SNe. These are more interesting from the point of view of understanding the properties and the underlying physics of the explosions themselves.

The advantage of SNe surveys with GAIA is that selection effects are either minimised or easy to model, and that there will be many examples of comparatively scarce phenomena (e.g., subluminous SNe, SNe II-L, SNe Ib/c). At present, SNe rates come from relatively small datasets (e.g., Hardin et al. 2000) and are subject to substantial uncertainties. Selection effects – depending on the type of host galaxy, the extinction and the distance from the center of the galaxy – seriously afflict all current datasets. Given the large numbers of alerted SNe, GAIA will provide accurate rates as a function of position, extinction and type of host galaxy. These give valuable, if indirect, information on both the star formation rate and the high mass end of the mass function. There have also been suggestions that populations of subluminous SNe may have been systematically missed in existing catalogues (e.g., Richardson et al. 2002). If so, then GAIA is the ideal instrument with which to find them. The value of GAIA in richly populating the Hubble diagram has also been pointed out recently by Tammann & Reindl (2002).

The nature of the progenitor populations of the different types of SNe – and especially SNe Ia’s – will probably remain unsolved over the next decade. GAIA can help as it provides milliarcsecond astrometry or better with a single transit. For a SN at a typical distance of $`200`$ Mpc, the projected position can be determined to $`1`$ pc (assuming the main error contribution comes from angle measurements). There are only two detections of a SN progenitor before explosion (namely SN 1987A and SN 1993J). Attempts have been made to locate the progenitors of nearby SNe using astrometry with an accuracy of 0.17”, though without success so far (Smartt et al. 2002). GAIA will provide milliarcsecond error boxes and therefore it may be easier to locate the progenitor for nearby SNe using HST or other deep search archives. Even if no star is visible, then constraints can still be placed on the progenitor mass, as Smartt et al. (2002) demonstrate. Accurate positional information on the location of SNe within galaxies is important because it sheds light on the spatial distribution (and hence nature) of the progenitor population.

Zampieri et al. (1998) and Balberg & Shapiro (2001) emphasise that the formation of the black hole may also be detectable in nearby SNe as luminosity generated by late-time accretion. This is only possible in the case of subluminous SNe, as otherwise it is masked by radiative heating. Using Figure 4 of Balberg & Shapiro (2001), we see that the fraction of suitable SNe comprise roughly $`10\%`$ of all core collapse SNe within 50 Mpc. From Table 5, it follows that there will be $`10`$ SNe Ib/c and II with the required properties alerted by GAIA during the whole mission. If subluminous SNe have been systematically missed in current catalogues, then this number will be still higher. For these SNe, follow-ups may be able to detect the faint luminosity indicative of black hole accretion. This requires scheduling observations with instruments like the Hubble Space Telescope or the Next Generation Space Telescope of the declining light curve with the hope of observing accretion onto the emerging black hole.

Another application of GAIA’s SNe Ia dataset is to measurements of the local velocity field (e.g., Høg et al 1999, Tamman & Reindl 2002). Nowadays, the bulk flow and the bias parameter are often calculated using distance estimators of galaxies such as the Tully-Fisher relationship or the fundamental plane, combined with radial velocity measurements (e.g., Hudson et al. 1999). Typically, this proceeds by finding the best fitting bulk flow $`𝐕`$ which minimises

$$\chi ^2=\underset{i}{}\frac{(v_i𝐕.\widehat{𝐫}_𝐢)^2}{\sigma _i^2},$$
(2)
where $`v_i`$ is the observed peculiar velocity for the ith galaxy, whose direction vector is $`\widehat{𝐫}_𝐢`$, and $`\sigma _i`$ is an estimate of the error. As pointed out by Riess et al. (1997), SNe Ia offer a more accurate distance estimator than galaxies, as the typical uncertainty is reduced to $`5\%`$. In other words, every SNe Ia identified by GAIA can give the distance of its host galaxy with unprecedented accuracy. When combined with ground-based spectroscopy, GAIA will provide $`6300`$ positions and peculiar velocities of galaxies in the nearby Universe. These can be used to study the deviations from the Hubble flow and compared with the velocities predicted by gravity fields of full-sky galaxy catalogues. With such data, not merely the local bulk flow but also the shear field will be measurable.

## 5 Conclusions

The theory of SNe explosions is well-developed but somewhat poorly calibrated against data. Nearby SNe are ideal for carrying out such detailed comparisons. Provided we can alert on a large enough sample of SNe, then there are good prospects for the identification of the progenitor population and the detection of the ongoing explosion in all wavebands. All these provide tests and checks on the theory of stellar evolution and SNe detonation. The identification of the gamma-ray and gravitational wave signals may also be possible for close SNe (within 50 Mpc).

We have demonstrated that the astrometric scanning satellite GAIA has exactly the required capabilities. GAIA is the European Space Agency satellite that is the successor to Hipparcos. Over GAIA’s five year mission lifetime, we estimate that the numbers caught before maximum are $`6300`$ SNe Ia, $`500`$ SNe Ib/c and $`1700`$ SNe II. After launch in about 2010, GAIA will issue $`5`$ SN alerts a day. In total, GAIA will report data on at least $`\mathrm{21\hspace{0.17em}400}`$ SNe during the mission, of which $`\mathrm{14\hspace{0.17em}300}`$ are SNe 1a, $`1400`$ are SNe Ib/c and $`5700`$ are SNe II. These numbers come from detailed simulations in which SNe explode in galaxies tracing the local large-scale structure. The effects of the dimming of SNe because of absorption in the host galaxy and in the Milky Way are included. The SNe lightcurves are sampled according the scanning law of the satellite. We note that, though huge, these numbers are lower limits. They do not take into account the contribution of SNe in low-luminosity galaxies, which may result in a further doubling of the numbers. They do not take into account the fact that GAIA’s limiting magnitude is likely to be somewhat deeper than 20th in practice.

GAIA is complementary to the SNAP satellite (see “http://snap.lbl.gov”), which will probe much deeper out to a redshift of $`1.7`$ to obtain $`2000`$ SNe Ia a year. By contrast, GAIA will obtain data on $`4280`$ SNe a year but probe at most out to a redshift of $`0.14`$. GAIA will play its role in cosmology by providing a huge dataset of high quality local SNe Ia in which any scatter in the Phillips relation with colour can be quantified and analysed (Tammann & Reindl 2002).

GAIA will provide an important database of nearby SNe which are particularly interesting for studies of the explosions themselves. Many statistics – SNe rates, frequency of different lightcurve morphologies, location in the host galaxy – are poorly known. GAIA will provide the definitive dataset. In particular, SNe rates can be corrected for known biases, such as extinction and position in the host galaxy, and so will be measured with unprecedented accuracy. The huge numbers mean that even examples of comparatively rare phenomena will be present in the database. Despite the enormous efforts of the last decade, there are still very few subluminous SNe, over-luminous SNe, SNe II-L and SNe Ib/c in the standard catalogues. GAIA will present us with good chances of finding examples of nearby subluminous SN Ib/c and II, which needed to detect the emergence of the black hole. Every SNe Ia identified by GAIA can give the distance of its host galaxy with better accuracy than any other method. Thus, the density and velocity field within a few hundred Mpc will be delineated with unprecedented precision.

## Acknowledgments

We wish to thank James Binney, Erik Høg and Michael Perryman for encouragement and information about the GAIA satellite. Additionally, John Beacom, Bruno Leibundgut, Philipp Podsiadlowski, Serge Popov, Steve Smartt and Chris Tout provided helpful advice on supernovae. L. Lindegren and R. Drimmel kindly supplied software on the scanning law and on the Galactic extinction model respectively. VB acknowledges support from the Dulverton Fund, while NWE is supported by the Royal Society. Additionally, we thank the anonymous referee for some helpful criticisms that improved the paper.


format: text

text:
# Superconductivity in the t-J model

## I Introduction

A mechanism of high-temperature superconductivity in cuprates is still unresolved since strong electron correlations in copper-oxygen planes prevent from applying well established methods of band structure calculations developed for conventional metals. An important role of electron correlations in cuprates was initially stressed by Anderson  who proposed to consider them within the framework of the Hubbard model or the so-called $`t`$-$`J`$ model which follows from the Hubbard model in the limit of strong correlations. To study these models, a lot of numerical work have been done  though the obtained results are still controversial. For instance, a robust $`d`$-wave pairing was observed for the $`t`$-$`J`$ model , while a long-range order was not found in the original Hubbard model.

In analytical approache mostly a mean-field theory (MFA) was applied in studies of the Hubbard model or the $`t`$-$`J`$ model. The resonating valence bond (RVB) state in the $`t`$-$`J`$ model was proposed by Baskaran et al.  where superconductivity was obtained as a result of spin correlations induced by the superexchange interaction. Similar results were found by Cyrot  for superconducting pairing mediated by superexchange interaction. To overcome the problem of strong correlations in the $`t`$-$`J`$ model and nonfermionic commutation relations for the physical electron operators a number of auxiliary field representations was proposed (see, e.g., - ). However, in these methods usually a spin-charge separation is assumed for spinon and holon fields which violates rigorous restrictions imposed by nonfermionic commutation relations as the ”no double occupancy” constraint which may result in unphysical conclusions.

A reliable analytical approach to deal with strong correlations in the Hubbard or the $`t`$-$`J`$ model is based on the Green function methods in terms of the Hubbard operators which rigorously preserve the non-fermionic commutation relations . Here we may mention our results based on the Mori-type projection technique for the Green functions - and the diagram technique calculations by Izyumov et al. . These approaches enable one to go beyond MFA by taking into account self-energy corrections. For instance, a numerical solution of the Dyson equation in  revealed a non Fermi-liquid behavior in the normal state at low doping and the $`d`$-wave superconductivity mediated by the exchange and spin-fluctuation pairing. In the recent paper  a microscopical theory of superconductivity in CuO2 layer within the effective two-band $`p`$-$`d`$ Hubbard model in the strong correlation limit was developed. It has been proved that the MFA for the Hubbard model results in the antiferromagnetic exchange $`d`$-wave pairing which is equivalent to pairing observed in the $`t`$-$`J`$ model in MFA.

In the present paper I compare the results for the $`t`$-$`J`$ model obtained within the Green function (GF) method in terms of the Hubbard operators - and by applying the slave-fermion hard-boson representation  for the RVB state. It will be shown that the latter approach results in an odd-symmetry $`p`$-wave pairing for the spinless fermions as in the path-integral representation in  which contradicts to known numerical and analytical calculations. It casts doubts on the validity of spin-charge separation approach in studying superconducting pairing in the $`t`$-$`J`$ model.

In the next Section we present briefly the results of the projection technique for the GF  for the $`t`$-$`J`$ model. In Sec. 3 superconducting pairing within the slave-fermion representation for the Hubbard operators is considered. Results and discussions are given in Sec. 4. Concluding remarks are in Sec. 5.

## II Green function method

### A Dyson Equation for the t-J Model

In the present Section we consider superconducting pairing in the $`t`$-$`J`$ model by applying the GF technique -. The $`t`$-$`J`$ model in the standard notation  reads:

$$H_{tJ}=t\underset{ij,\sigma }{}\stackrel{~}{a}_{i\sigma }^+\stackrel{~}{a}_{j\sigma }+J\underset{ij}{}(\text{S}_i\text{S}_j\frac{1}{4}n_in_j),$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{~}{a}_{i\sigma }^+=a_{i\sigma }^+(1n_{i\sigma })`$ are projected operators for physical electrons, $`n_i=_\sigma \stackrel{~}{a}_{i\sigma }^+\stackrel{~}{a}_{i\sigma }`$ is the number operator and $`S_i^\alpha =(1/2)_{s,s^{}}\stackrel{~}{a}_{is}^+\sigma _{s,s^{}}^\alpha \stackrel{~}{a}_{is^{}}`$ are spin-1/2 operators. Here $`t`$ is effective transfer integral and $`J`$ is antiferromagnetic exchange energy for a pair of nearest neighbor spins, $`ij,i>j`$.

To take into account on a rigorous basis the projected character of electron operators we employ the Hubbard operator technique. The Hubbard operators (HO) are defined as $`X_i^{\alpha \beta }=|i,\alpha i,\beta |`$ for three possible states $`|i,\alpha `$ at a lattice site $`i`$: for an empty site $`|i,0`$ and for a singly occupied site $`|i,\sigma `$ by an electron with spin $`\sigma /2`$ ($`\sigma =\pm 1,\overline{\sigma }=\sigma `$). They obey the completeness relation

$$X_i^{00}+\underset{\sigma }{}X_i^{\sigma \sigma }=1,$$
(2)
which rigorously preserves the constraint of no double occupancy. The spin and density operators in Eq.(1) are expressed by HO as

$$S_i^\sigma =X_i^{\sigma \overline{\sigma }},S_i^z=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\sigma }{}\sigma X_i^{\sigma \sigma },n_i=\underset{\sigma }{}X_i^{\sigma \sigma }.$$
(3)
The HO obey the following multiplication rule $`X_i^{\alpha \beta }X_i^{\gamma \delta }=\delta _{\beta \gamma }X_i^{\alpha \delta }`$ and commutation relations

$$[X_i^{\alpha \beta },X_j^{\gamma \delta }]_\pm =\delta _{ij}\left(\delta _{\beta \gamma }X_i^{\alpha \delta }\pm \delta _{\delta \alpha }X_i^{\gamma \beta }\right),$$
(4)
where the upper sign stands for the the Fermi-like HO (as, e. g., $`X_i^{0\sigma }`$) and the lower sign for the Bose-like operators (as the spin and number operators in Eq. (3) ).

By using the Hubbard operator representation we write the Hamiltonian of the $`t`$-$`J`$ model (1) in a more general form:

$`H_{tJ}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ij,\sigma }{}}t_{ij}X_i^{\sigma 0}X_j^{0\sigma }\mu {\displaystyle \underset{i\sigma }{}}X_i^{\sigma \sigma }`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij,\sigma }{}}J_{ij}\left(X_i^{\sigma \overline{\sigma }}X_j^{\overline{\sigma }\sigma }X_i^{\sigma \sigma }X_j^{\overline{\sigma }\overline{\sigma }}\right).`$ (6)
The electron hopping energy for the nearest neighbors, $`t_{ij}=t`$, and the second neighbors, $`t_{ij}=t^{^{}}`$, on a 2D square lattice, and the exchange interaction $`J_{ij}=J`$ for the nearest neighbors  can be considered as independent parameters if, starting from a more realistic for copper oxides three-band $`p`$-$`d`$ model , we reduce it to the $`t`$-$`J`$ model . In that case the parameters $`t,t^{}`$ and $`J`$ can be evaluated in terms of the original parameters of the $`p`$-$`d`$ model (see, e.g., ). We introduced also the chemical potential $`\mu `$ which can be calculated from the equation for the average number of electrons

$$n=n_i=\underset{\sigma }{}X_i^{\sigma \sigma }.$$
(7)
To discuss the superconducting pairing within the model (6) we introduce the Nambu notation for HO:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{i\sigma }=\left(\begin{array}{c}X_i^{0\sigma }\\ X_i^{\overline{\sigma }0}\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Psi }_{i\sigma }^+=\left(X_i^{\sigma 0}X_i^{0\overline{\sigma }}\right),`$

and consider the matrix GF

$$\widehat{G}_{ij,\sigma }(tt^{})=\mathrm{\Psi }_{i\sigma }(t)|\mathrm{\Psi }_{j\sigma }^+(t^{})=\left(\begin{array}{cc}G_{ij\sigma }^{11}& G_{ij\sigma }^{12}\\ G_{ij\sigma }^{21}& G_{ij\sigma }^{22}\end{array}\right)$$
(8)
where Zubarev’s notation for the anticommutator GF is used .

By differentiating the GF (8) over the time $`t`$ we get for the Fourier component the following equation

$$\omega \widehat{G}_{ij\sigma }(\omega )=\delta _{ij}\widehat{Q_\sigma }+\widehat{Z}_{i\sigma }\mathrm{\Psi }_{j\sigma }_\omega ,$$
(9)
where $`\widehat{Z}_{i\sigma }=[\mathrm{\Psi }_{i\sigma },H]`$, $`\widehat{Q_\sigma }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}Q_\sigma & 0\\ 0& Q_{\overline{\sigma }}\end{array}\right)`$ with $`Q_\sigma =X_i^{00}+X_i^{\sigma \sigma }`$. Since we consider a spin-singlet state the correlation function $`Q_\sigma =Q=1n/2`$ depends only on the average number of electrons (7).

Now, we project the many–particle GF in (9) on the original single–electron GF

$`\widehat{Z}_{i\sigma }\mathrm{\Psi }_{j\sigma }^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\widehat{E}_{il\sigma }\mathrm{\Psi }_{l\sigma }\mathrm{\Psi }_{j\sigma }^+`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`\widehat{Z}_{i\sigma }^{(irr)}\mathrm{\Psi }_{j\sigma }^+,`$ (11)
where the irreducible (irr) part of the many–particle operator $`\widehat{Z}_{i\sigma }`$ is defined by the equation

$`\{\widehat{Z}_{i\sigma }^{(irr)},\mathrm{\Psi }_{j\sigma }^+\}=\{\widehat{Z}_{i\sigma }{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\widehat{E}_{il\sigma }\mathrm{\Psi }_{l\sigma },\mathrm{\Psi }_{j\sigma }^+\}=0,`$

which results in the definition of the frequency matrix

$$\widehat{E}_{ij\sigma }=\{[\mathrm{\Psi }_{i\sigma },H],\mathrm{\Psi }_{j\sigma }^+\}Q^1.$$
(12)
Now we can introduce the zero–order GF in the generalized MFA which is given by the frequency matrix (12)

$$\widehat{G}_{ij\sigma }^0(\omega )=Q\{\omega \widehat{\tau }_0\delta _{ij}\widehat{E}_{ij\sigma }\}^1.$$
(13)
To derive the Dyson equation for the single-electron GF (8) we write down an equation of motion for the irreducible part of the GF in (11) with respect to the second time $`t^{}`$ for the right–hand side operator $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{j\sigma }^+(t^{})`$. Then performing the same projection procedure as in Eq. (11) we obtain the Dyson equation for the GF in the form

$$\widehat{G}_{ij\sigma }(\omega )=\widehat{G}_{ij\sigma }^0(\omega )+\underset{kl}{}\widehat{G}_{ik\sigma }^0(\omega )\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{kl\sigma }(\omega )\widehat{G}_{lj\sigma }(\omega ),$$
(14)
where the self–energy operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{kl\sigma }(\omega )`$ is defined by the equation

$$\widehat{T}_{ij\sigma }(\omega )=\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij\sigma }(\omega )+\underset{kl}{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ik\sigma }(\omega )\widehat{G}_{kl\sigma }^0(\omega )\widehat{T}_{lj\sigma }(\omega ).$$
(15)
Here the scattering matrix is given by

$$\widehat{T}_{ij\sigma }(\omega )=Q^1\widehat{Z}_{i\sigma }^{(irr)}\widehat{Z}_{j\sigma }^{(irr)^+}_\omega Q^1.$$
(16)
From Eq. (15) it follows that the self-energy operator is given by the irreducible part of the scattering matrix (16) that has no parts connected by the single zero-order GF (13):

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij\sigma }(\omega )=Q^1\widehat{Z}_{i\sigma }^{(irr)}\widehat{Z}_{j\sigma }^{(irr)^+}_\omega ^{(irr)}Q^1.$$
(17)
Equations (13), (14) and (17) give an exact representation for the single–electron GF (8). However, to solve the self-consistent system of equations one has to introduce an approximation for the many–particle GF in the self-energy matrix (17) which describes inelastic scattering of electrons on spin and charge fluctuations.

### B  Self-Consistent Equations

Here we derive a self-consistent system of equations in MFA. To calculate the frequency matrix (12) we use the equation of motion for the HO:

$`\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}+\mu \right)X_i^{0\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l,\sigma ^{}}{}}t_{il}B_{i\sigma \sigma ^{}}X_l^{0\sigma ^{}}`$ (18)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l,\sigma ^{}}{}}J_{il}(B_{l\sigma \sigma ^{}}\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}})X_i^{0\sigma ^{}},`$ (19)
where we introduced the operator

$`B_{i\sigma \sigma ^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`(X_i^{00}+X_i^{\sigma \sigma })\delta _{\sigma ^{}\sigma }+X_i^{\overline{\sigma }\sigma }\delta _{\sigma ^{}\overline{\sigma }}`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n_i+S_i^z)\delta _{\sigma ^{}\sigma }+S_i^{\overline{\sigma }}\delta _{\sigma ^{}\overline{\sigma }}.`$ (21)
The Bose-like operator (21) describes electron scattering on spin and charge fluctuations caused by the kinematic interaction (the first term in (19)) and by the exchange spin-spin interaction (the second term in (19)).

By performing commutations in (12) we get for the normal and the anomalous parts of the frequency matrix:

$`E_{ij\sigma }^{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu \delta _{ij}+\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\{t_{il}X_i^{\sigma 0}X_l^{0\sigma }/Q`$ (22)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_{il}(Q1+\chi _{il}^{cs}/Q)\}`$ (23)
$``$ $`t_{ij}(Q+\chi _{ij}^{cs}/Q){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_{ij}X_j^{\sigma 0}X_i^{0\sigma }/Q`$ (24)
$`E_{ij\sigma }^{12}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}t_{il}X_i^{0\overline{\sigma }}X_l^{0\sigma }X_i^{0\sigma }X_l^{0\overline{\sigma }}/Q`$ (25)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_{ij}X_i^{0\overline{\sigma }}X_j^{0\sigma }X_i^{0\sigma }X_j^{0\overline{\sigma }}/Q.`$ (26)
Here in calculation of the correlation function for the normal component of the frequency matrix:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ^{}}{}}B_{i\sigma \sigma ^{}}B_{j\sigma ^{}\sigma }=`$ (28)
$`(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n_i+S_i^z)(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n_j+S_j^z)+S_i^\sigma S_j^{\overline{\sigma }}`$
$`=`$ $`(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n_i)(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n_j)+𝐒_i𝐒_j=Q^2+\chi _{ij}^{cs},`$ (29)
we introduce the charge- and spin-fluctuation correlation functions

$`\chi _{ij}^{cs}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\delta n_i\delta n_j+𝐒_𝐢𝐒_𝐣,`$

with $`\delta n_i=n_in_i`$. Further we neglect the charge fluctuations, $`\delta n_i\delta n_j0`$, but take into account spin correlations given by spin correlation functions for the nearest ($`\chi _{1s}`$) and the next-nearest ($`\chi _{2s}`$) neighbor lattice sites:

$$\chi _{1s}=𝐒_i𝐒_{i+a_1},\chi _{2s}=𝐒_i𝐒_{i+a_2},$$
(30)
where $`a_1=(\pm a_x,\pm a_y)`$ and $`a_2=\pm (a_x\pm a_y)`$. In a paramagnetic state assumed here they depend only on the distance between the lattice sites.

In the $`𝐤`$-representation for the GF

$`G_\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }(𝐤,\omega )={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}G_{oj\sigma }^{\alpha \beta }(\omega )\text{e}^{i\text{kj}},`$

we get for the zero-order GF (13):

$`\widehat{G}_\sigma ^{(0)}(𝐤,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`Q\{\omega \widehat{\tau }_0(\epsilon _𝐤\stackrel{~}{\mu })\widehat{\tau }_3\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^\sigma \widehat{\tau }_1\}^1`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`Q{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \widehat{\tau }_0+(\epsilon _𝐤\stackrel{~}{\mu })\widehat{\tau }_3+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^\sigma \widehat{\tau }_1}{\omega ^2(\epsilon _𝐤\stackrel{~}{\mu })^2\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^\sigma ^2}},`$ (32)
where $`\widehat{\tau }_0,\widehat{\tau }_1,\widehat{\tau }_3`$ are the Pauli matrices. The quasiparticle energy $`\epsilon _𝐤`$ and the renormalized chemical potential $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }=\mu \delta \mu `$ in the MFA are defined by the frequency matrix (24)

$`\epsilon _𝐤`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{t}(𝐤){\displaystyle \frac{2J}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}\gamma (𝐤𝐪)N_{𝐪\sigma },`$ (33)
$`\delta \mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}t(𝐪)N_{𝐪\sigma }2J(n/2\chi _{1s}/Q),`$ (34)
where $`J(𝐪)=4J\gamma (𝐪),t(𝐤)=4t\gamma (𝐤)+4t^{}\gamma ^{}(𝐤)`$ with $`\gamma (𝐤)=(1/2)(\mathrm{cos}a_xq_x+\mathrm{cos}a_yq_y)`$, $`\gamma ^{}(𝐤)=\mathrm{cos}a_xq_x\mathrm{cos}a_yq_y`$, while the renormalized hopping integral is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{t}(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`4t\gamma (𝐤)Q(1+\chi _{1s}/Q^2)`$ (35)
$`+`$ $`4t^{}\gamma ^{}(𝐤)Q(1+\chi _{2s}/Q^2).`$ (36)
The average number of electrons in Eqs. (33), (34) in the $`𝐤`$-representation is written in the form:

$`n_{𝐤,\sigma }=X_𝐤^{\sigma 0}X_𝐤^{0\sigma }=QN_{𝐤\sigma }.`$

It should be pointed out that the renormalization of the hopping parameter (36) caused by the spin correlation functions (30) are essential at low doping when short-range antiferromagnetic correlations are strong. For instance, for hole doping $`\delta =1n0.05`$ and $`Q=(1+\delta )/20.53`$ the correlation functions are estimated as : $`\chi _{1s}0.3,\chi _{2s}0.2,`$ which results in complete suppression of the nearest neighbors hopping, while the next-neighbor hopping is quite large:

$`t_{eff}=tQ[1+\chi _{1s}/Q^2]0,`$

$`t_{}^{}{}_{eff}{}^{}=t^{}Q[1+\chi _{2s}/Q^2]0.9t^{}.`$

For large doping the antiferromagnetic correlations are suppressed and the nearest neighbor hopping prevails: $`t_{eff}/t_{}^{}{}_{eff}{}^{}t/t^{}1`$.

The superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^\sigma `$ in Eq. (32) is defined by the anomalous component of the the frequency matrix (26):

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^\sigma =\frac{2}{NQ}\underset{𝐪}{}[t(𝐪)\frac{1}{2}J(𝐤𝐪]X_𝐪^{0\overline{\sigma }}X_𝐪^{0\sigma },$$
(37)
There are two contributions in Eq. (37) given by the $`𝐤`$-independent kinematic interaction $`t(𝐪)`$ and the exchange interaction $`J(𝐤𝐪)`$. The kinematic interaction gives no contribution to the $`d`$-wave pairing in MFA, Eq. (37) (see ), and we disregard it in the following equations . The anomalous correlation function in Eq. (37) can be easily calculated from the anomalous part of the GF (32):

$$X_𝐪^{0\overline{\sigma }}X_𝐪^{0\sigma }=Q\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐪^\sigma }{2E_𝐪}\mathrm{tanh}\frac{E_𝐪}{2T},$$
(38)
which results in the BCS-type equation for the gap function:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^\sigma =\frac{1}{N}\underset{𝐪}{}J(𝐤𝐪)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐪^\sigma }{2E_𝐪}\mathrm{tanh}\frac{E_𝐪}{2T},$$
(39)
where $`E_k=[(\epsilon _𝐤\stackrel{~}{\mu })^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^\sigma ^2]^{1/2}`$ is the quasiparticle energy in the superconducting state. As was proved in , the retardation effects for the exchange interaction are negligible and therefore there is no restriction in integration over the energy in Eq. (39). It means that all electrons in the conduction band participate in the superconducting pairing contrary to the BCS equation for the electron-phonon model where the energy integration and pairing are restricted to a narrow energy shell of the order of the phonon energy close to the Fermi energy.

The equation (39) is identical to the results in MFA of the diagram technique , while the gap equation obtained in  has an additional factor $`Q=(1n/2)`$ which is spurious. This factor appears if we apply a simple decoupling procedure in the equation of motion (19) for GF instead of the projection technique given by Eq. (12). Writing the bosonic operators in the exchange interaction as a product of two fermionic operators: $`X_i^{\overline{\sigma }\sigma }=X_i^{\overline{\sigma }0}X_i^{0\sigma }`$ and performing decoupling of the fermionic operators:

$`X_l^{\overline{\sigma }0}X_l^{0\sigma }X_i^{0\overline{\sigma }}X_l^{\overline{\sigma }0}X_l^{0\overline{\sigma }}X_i^{0\sigma }X_j^{\sigma 0}_\omega `$ (40)
$`X_l^{0\sigma }X_i^{0\overline{\sigma }}X_l^{0\overline{\sigma }}X_i^{0\sigma }X_l^{\overline{\sigma }0}X_j^{\sigma 0}_\omega ,`$ (41)
we obtain the same equation (39) for the gap function but with the additional $`Q`$-factor at the right hand side. In the decoupling we miss the normalization factor for the correlation functions in the denominator of the frequency matrix, Eq. (12), which cancels out with $`Q`$ in the numerator of the corresponding GF (32). So, a rigorous way to apply MFA with a proper account of projected character of HO is to use the projection technique as discussed above.

The self-energy contribution (17) in the second order of the the kinematic interaction is considered in  while it is omitted in . As discussed in , it mediates the spin-fluctuation pairing and results in finite life-time effects for the quasiparticle spectrum giving rise to an incoherent contribution to the single-particle density of states. Here we shall not discuss further these self-energy effects since for comparison the GF approach with the slave-fermion technique it will be sufficient to consider only MFA for the gap equation (39).

## III Slave-fermion approach

### A Slave-fermion representation

A number of auxiliary field representations has been proposed so far (see, e.g., -). In the slave-boson method - the projected electron operator is expressed as a product of the auxiliary Bose field for the charge degree of freedom (holon) and the Fermi field for the spin degree of freedom (spinon). The main problem in this approach is the so called constraint imposed by projected character of electronic operators in the $`t`$-$`J`$ model which prohibits double occupancy of any lattice site. To treat the constraint a site-dependent Lagrange multiplier is introduced. However, to solve the problem the MFA is usually applied and the Lagrange multiplier is taken to be independent on the lattice site so the local constraint is replaced by a global one with uncontrollable consequences. In the slave-fermion method the charge degree of freedom is represented by spinless fermion operators, while to describe the spin degree of freedom the Bose field (Schwinger bosons - or spin operators -) are used. The Schwinger boson representation though being physically meaningful for the Heisenberg model  gives poor results for the doped case: the antiferromagnetic ground state persists up to very high doping and it does not reproduce the large Fermi surface as in the slave-boson method. In the slave fermion and spin operator representation the magnetic properties of the model are described in a more reliable way (see, e.g., ).

Below we consider the slave-fermion hard-core $`(\mathrm{CP}^1)`$ boson representation proposed in  and later on employed in - to investigate different physical properties of cuprates within the $`t`$-$`J`$ model. It has some advantage since the constraint of no double occupancy can be fulfilled without introducing the Lagrange multiplier. To decouple the charge and spin degrees of freedom for physical electrons the HO in the theory  is represented as a product of a spinless fermion $`h_i^+`$ for the charge degree of freedom (holon) and a hard-core boson $`b_{i\sigma }`$ for the spin degree of freedom (spinon):

$$X_i^{0\sigma }=h_i^+b_{i\sigma },X_i^{\sigma 0}=h_ib_{i\sigma }^+,$$
(42)
which have the following commutation relations:

$`h_i^+h_j+h_jh_i^+=\delta _{i,j},b_{i\sigma }b_{j\sigma }^+b_{j\sigma }^+b_{i\sigma }=\delta _{i,j}(12b_{i\sigma }^+b_{i\sigma }).`$

The hard-core bosons are Pauli operators which commute on different lattice sites and anticommute on the same lattice site prohibiting double occupancy. The Pauli operators can be also represented by the spin-lowering $`S_i^{}`$ and spin-raising $`S_i^+`$ operators for spin-$`1/2`$ :

$`b_i^+=S_i^+,b_i=S_i^{},\mathrm{or}b_{i\sigma }^+=S_i^\sigma ,b_{i\sigma }=S_i^{\overline{\sigma }}.`$

The on-site electron local constraint

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}X_i^{\sigma 0}X_i^{0\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}X_i^{\sigma \sigma }=h_ih_i^+{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}b_{i\sigma }^+b_{i\sigma }`$ (43)
$`=`$ $`h_ih_i^+=1h_i^+h_i1`$ (44)
is satisfied here since for the Pauli operators at any lattice site we have the equation

$$\underset{\sigma }{}b_{i\sigma }^+b_{i\sigma }=S_i^+S_i^{}+S_i^{}S_i^+=1,$$
(45)
and the spinless holon number $`n_i^{(h)}=h_i^+h_i`$ can be equal to 1 or 0.

However, the spin-charge separation imposed by the representation (42) results in extra degrees of freedom: a spin $`1/2`$ is assigned to any lattice site including an empty site, while in the HO representation, Eq. (2), we have only 3 states: an empty state and a filled state with spin $`\pm 1/2`$. To cure this defect one should introduce a projection operator to exclude the unphysical states  (The same applies to other slave-fermion spin operator representations as in -). Otherwise the commutation relations for the original HO, Eq. (4), and their representation, Eq. (42), will give different results. For instance, for the physical electrons which are described by HO we have

$`\{X_i^{0\sigma },X_i^{\sigma 0}\}=X_i^{00}+X_i^{\sigma \sigma }=1X_i^{\overline{\sigma }\overline{\sigma }},`$ (46)
$`\mathrm{and}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}\{X_i^{0\sigma },X_i^{\sigma 0}\}=2n_i=1+\delta ,`$ (47)
where the hole doping concentration $`\delta =1n`$. If we use the representation (42) then we can write the commutation relations as

$`\{X_i^{0\sigma },X_i^{\sigma 0}\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{h_i^+b_{i\sigma },h_ib_{i\sigma }^+\}`$ (48)
$`=`$ $`h_i^+h_i+(12h_i^+h_i)b_{i\sigma }^+b_{i\sigma }`$ (49)
$`\mathrm{and}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}\{h_i^+b_{i\sigma },h_ib_{i\sigma }^+\}=1,`$ (50)
where we have used Eq. (45). For the average value in Eq. (50) we get, respectively,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}\{h_i^+b_{i\sigma },h_ib_{i\sigma }^+\}`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (51)
which contradicts to the rigorous result for HO, Eq. (47). For the average number of electrons in the representation (42) by using the definition (7) we can write

$`n`$ $`=`$ $`n_i={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}X_i^{\sigma 0}X_i^{0\sigma }`$ (52)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}h_ib_{i\sigma }^+h_i^+b_{i\sigma }=h_ih_i^+=1\delta ,`$ (53)
which coincides with the definition (7) if we take for the hole number operator the following definition: $`X_i^{00}=h_i^+h_i`$. However, this definition is not unique. For instance we can write: $`X_i^{00}=X_i^{0\sigma }X_i^{\sigma 0}=X_i^{0\overline{\sigma }}X_i^{\overline{\sigma }0}`$, which results in the equation: $`X_i^{00}=(1/2)h_i^+h_i`$ if we use the representation (42) and the condition(45). So the double counting of empty sites results in controversial equation for an average number of electrons which is therefore valid only with accuracy of $`\pm \delta `$.

### B Mean-field approximation

Let us consider the resonating valence bond (RVB) state in the original Hamiltonian (6) as proposed by Baskaran et al. . For this we should write the Bose-like spin operators in the exchange energy in $`H_{tJ}`$ (6) as a product of two single-particle Fermi-like operators: $`X_i^{\sigma \overline{\sigma }}=X_i^{\sigma 0}X_i^{0\overline{\sigma }}`$ and introduce the singlet operators

$$b_{ij}^{}b_{ij}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(X_i^{0+}X_j^0X_i^0X_j^{0+}).$$
(54)
Then using MFA for the singlet operators in the exchange interaction of the $`t`$-$`J`$ model we get the RVB effective Hamiltonian:

$`H_J`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}J_{ij}(X_i^+X_j^+X_i^{++}X_j^{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}J_{ij}b_{ij}^+b_{ij}`$ (55)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}J_{ij}\left(B_{ij}^+b_{ij}+b_{ij}^+B_{ij}|B_{ij}|^2\right),`$ (56)
where we introduced the RVB order parameter:

$$B_{ij}^{()}B_{ij}=b_{ij}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}X_i^{0+}X_j^0X_i^0X_j^{0+}.$$
(57)
Here we should point out that in MFA (56) a decoupling of the Hubbard operators on the same lattice site is used:

$`X_i^+X_j^+`$ $`=`$ $`X_i^{+0}X_i^0X_j^0X_j^{0+}`$ (58)
$``$ $`X_i^{+0}X_j^0X_j^{0+}X_i^0,`$ (59)
which is not unique and results in uncontrollable approximation since the Hubbard operators obey the multiplication rule: $`X_i^{\alpha \beta }X_i^{\beta \gamma }=X_i^{\alpha \gamma }`$, and any intermediate state $`\beta `$ can be used in the decoupling.

To obtain a self-consistent equation for the order parameter we assume a spin-charge separation as it is usually done in the slave-particle methods by applying a decoupling of spinon and holon degrees of freedom introduced in Eq. (42):

$`B_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}h_i^+b_ih_j^+b_jh_i^+b_ih_j^+b_j`$ (60)
$``$ $`h_i^+h_j^+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}b_ib_jb_ib_jF_{ij}^+\phi _{ij},`$ (61)
$`b_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(h_i^+b_ih_j^+b_jh_i^+b_ih_j^+b_j)h_i^+h_j^+\phi _{ij}.`$ (62)
Within these approximations we obtain the effective Hamiltonian for holons

$`H_h`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\stackrel{~}{t}_{ij}h_ih_j^+\mu {\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}h_ih_i^+`$ (63)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\stackrel{~}{J}_{ij}(h_jh_ih_i^+h_j^++h_jh_ih_i^+h_j^+),`$ (64)
where the effective hopping parameter and the exchange energy are given by

$`\stackrel{~}{t}_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`t_{ij}b_i^+b_j+b_i^+b_j=t_{ij}S_i^+S_j^{}+S_i^{}S_j^+`$ (65)
$`\stackrel{~}{J}_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`J_{ij}|\phi _{ij}|^2=J_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|b_ib_jb_ib_j|^2.`$ (66)
To obtain a phase diagram for the RVB order parameter $`B_{ij}=F_{ij}^+\phi _{ij}`$ as a function of temperature $`T`$ and hole doping $`\delta `$ one should solve a self-consistent system of equations for the both order parameters, holon $`F_{ij}`$ and spinon $`\phi _{ij}`$ ones. Here we consider only equations for the holon order parameter by suggesting that there exists a region of $`(T,\delta )`$ where the spinon order parameter is nonzero.

Introducing $`𝐤`$-vector representation for the correlation functions:

$`F_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`h_ih_j={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\mathrm{e}^{i(𝐤(𝐢𝐣))}F(𝐤)`$ (67)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\mathrm{sin}(𝐤(𝐢𝐣))h_𝐤h_𝐤,`$ (68)
$`\phi _{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}b_ib_jb_ib_j={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\mathrm{e}^{i(𝐤(𝐢𝐣))}\phi (𝐤)`$ (69)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\mathrm{sin}(𝐤(𝐢𝐣)){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}b_𝐤b_𝐤,`$ (70)
the Hamiltonian (64) can be written in $`𝐤`$-space as

$`H_h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}(\epsilon (𝐤)\mu _h)h_𝐤^+h_𝐤`$ (71)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\{\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)h_𝐤^+h_𝐤^++\mathrm{\Delta }^+(𝐤)h_𝐤h_𝐤\},`$ (72)
where the chemical potential for holons $`\mu _h=\mu `$ and the holon spectrum $`\epsilon (𝐤)`$ according to Eq. (66) is written in the form (cf. Eq. (36)):

$`\epsilon (𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{t}(𝐤)=4t\gamma (𝐤)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}S_i^+S_{i+a_1}^{}`$ (73)
$`+`$ $`4t^{}\gamma ^{}(𝐤)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}S_i^+S_{i+a_2}^{},`$ (74)
Here we assumed that the spin correlation functions have $`s`$-wave symmetry, e.i., $`\chi _{i,i\pm a_x}=\chi _{i,i\pm a_y}`$. We also introduced the holon gap function defined by the equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)=\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{𝐪}{}\stackrel{~}{J}(𝐤𝐪)h_𝐪h_𝐪.$$
(75)
In Eqs. (74), (75) we used notation $`\epsilon (𝐤),\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)`$ for the holon spectrum and the holon gap to distinguish them from that ones of physical electrons in Sec. 2.2.

The normal and anomalous correlation functions can be easily calculated for the BCS-type Hamiltonian (72):

$`h_𝐪^+h_𝐪`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon (𝐪)\mu _h}{E(𝐪)}}\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{E(𝐪)}{2T}}\right),`$ (76)
$`F(𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`h_𝐪h_𝐪={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐪)}{2E(𝐪)}}\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{E(𝐪)}{2T}},`$ (77)
where the quasipartical spectrum $`E(𝐤)=[(\epsilon (𝐤)\mu _h)^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)|^2]^{1/2}`$. From these equations follow the self-consistent equations for the gap function and the average number of holes $`\delta `$ which defines the holon chemical potential $`\mu _h`$:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}\stackrel{~}{J}(𝐤𝐪){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐪)}{2E(𝐪)}}\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{E(𝐪)}{2T}},`$ (78)
$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}h_𝐪^+h_𝐪`$ (79)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon (𝐪)\mu _h}{E(𝐪)}}\right)\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{E(𝐪)}{2T}}.`$ (80)
These equations are identical to the results obtained in  where the path-integral representation for the $`t`$-$`J`$ model was applied and an effective BCS-type Hamiltonian analogous to Eq. (72) was derived. Starting from the MFA for RVB order parameter as in Eq. (56), the authors introduced MFA for the spinon auxiliary field that resulted in the spin-charge separation as in our Eq. (62). Therefore, we have proved that the results of the path-integral representation for the $`t`$-$`J`$ employed in Ref.  are equivalent to the MFA for the slave fermion - hard-core boson approach considered in this section.

### C Holon Green functions

To avoid uncontrollable approximation caused by the decoupling of the Hubbard operators on the same lattice site in Eq. (59) used in MFA for RVB state in the Hamiltonian (56), in the present section we consider projection technique for the holon GF for the spinon-holon model. By using the spinless fermion hard-core boson representation (42) we write the Hamiltonian of the $`t`$-$`J`$ model (6) as follows:

$`H_{tJ}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}t_{ij}h_ih_j^+(S_i^+S_j^{}+S_i^{}S_j^+)`$ (81)
$``$ $`\mu {\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}h_ih_i^+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}J_{ij}h_ih_jh_j^+h_i^+`$ (82)
$`\times `$ $`(S_i^+S_j^{}S_i^{}S_j^+)(S_j^+S_i^{}S_j^{}S_i^+).`$ (83)
To obtain equation for the holon GF we apply the projection technique described in Sec. 2.1. By introducing the matrix GF for holon operators:

$`\widehat{G}_{ij}^h(tt^{})=\left(\begin{array}{cc}h_i(t)|h_j^+(t^{})& h_i(t)|h_j(t^{})\\ h_i^+(t)|h_j^+(t^{})& h_i^+(t)|h_j(t^{})\end{array}\right),`$

we can obtain equation of motion for the GF as discussed in Sec. 2.1 (see Eqs. (9)–(13)). For the zero-order GF in MFA we get the following result:

$`\widehat{G}^{(h,0)}(𝐤,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{\omega \widehat{\tau }_0+(\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }(𝐤)\mu _h)\widehat{\tau }_3+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐤)\widehat{\tau }_1}{\omega ^2(\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }(𝐤)\mu _h)^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐤)^2}},`$ (84)
where the the holon dispersion and the gap function are given by the equations:

$`\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{t}(𝐤){\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}\{\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(𝐤𝐪)\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(0)\}h_𝐪^+h_𝐪,`$ (85)
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(𝐤𝐪)h_𝐪h_𝐪.`$ (86)
In comparison with MFA for RVB state considered previously, in the GF approach we obtain additional renormalization for the holon dispersion, Eq. (74), while the gap equation has the same form, Eq. (75), but with a different renormalized exchange interaction:

$`\stackrel{~}{J}_{}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`J_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|S_i^+S_j^{}S_i^{}S_j^+|^2`$ (87)
$`=`$ $`J_{ij}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}S_i^zS_j^z).`$ (88)
By using equation of motion method instead of MFA for RVB state we managed to take into account spinon correlations in the effective holon interaction (87) and obtained a simple formula for it by using the identities: $`S_i^+S_i^+=0,S_i^{}S_i^+=(1/2)S_i^z`$ in the last equation. From Eq. (87) we get the following estimation for the effective exchange energy for the nearest neighbors: $`\stackrel{~}{J}^{}(0.5÷0.25)J`$ if we assume the AFM Neél phase: $`S_i^zS_j^z=1/4`$ or completely neglect AFM correlations: $`S_i^zS_j^z=0`$, respectively.

## IV Results and discussion

### A Spectral density

Spectral density for physical electron excitations in the lower Hubbard subband within the $`t`$-$`J`$ model which is defined by the equation

$`A_\sigma (𝐤,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\mathrm{Im}X_𝐤^{0\sigma }|X_𝐤^{\sigma 0}_{\omega +iϵ},`$ (89)
satisfies the sum rule:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}d\omega A_\sigma (𝐤,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}\{X_i^{0\sigma },X_i^{\sigma 0}\}`$ (90)
$`=`$ $`2Q=1+\delta .`$ (91)
In the MFA for the GF in terms of the HO, Eq. (32), we get:

$$A_\sigma (𝐤,\omega )=Qu_𝐤\delta (\omega E_𝐤)+Qv_𝐤\delta (\omega +E_𝐤),$$
(92)
where

$$u_𝐤=\frac{1}{2}(1+\frac{(\epsilon _𝐤\stackrel{~}{\mu })}{E_𝐤}),v_𝐤=\frac{1}{2}(1\frac{(\epsilon _𝐤\stackrel{~}{\mu })}{E_𝐤}).$$
(93)
In MFA the spectral density (92) satisfies the sum rule (90) but have no incoherent background which appears if one takes into account the self-energy corrections as shown in Ref. .

In the spinon-holon representation (42) the spectral density, as follows from Eq. (51), does not obey the sum rule (90):

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}d\omega A_\sigma ^{(sh)}(𝐤,\omega )=`$ (94)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}d\omega \{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\mathrm{Im}h_i^+b_{i\sigma }|h_ib_{i\sigma }^+_{\omega +iϵ}\}`$ (95)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}\{h_i^+b_{i\sigma },h_ib_{i\sigma }^+\}=1.`$ (96)
MFA for the spinon-holon GF in Eq. (96) results in the spin-charge separation which defines the spectral density (96) as a convolution of the anticommutator holon and the commutator spinon GF :

$`A_\sigma ^{(sh)}(𝐤,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\omega _1\mathrm{d}\omega _2}{\omega \omega _1\omega _2}}`$ (97)
$`\times `$ $`[\mathrm{tanh}(\omega _1/2T)+\mathrm{coth}(\omega _2/2T)]`$ (98)
$`\times `$ $`\text{Im}h_𝐪^+h_𝐪_{\omega _1}\text{Im}S_{𝐤𝐪}^{\overline{\sigma }}S_{𝐤𝐪}^\sigma _{\omega _2}.`$ (99)
In this representation the spectral density of physical electron excitations is given by a superposition of the spectral density for spinless fermion (holon) excitations and a background produced by spin excitations . In MFA the holon spectral density in the paired state below $`T_c`$ is defined by the GF (84):

$`A^{(h)}(𝐤,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\mathrm{Im}h_𝐤^+|h_𝐤_{\omega +iϵ}`$ (100)
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{u}_𝐤\delta (\omega +\stackrel{~}{E}(𝐤))+\stackrel{~}{v}_𝐤\delta (\omega \stackrel{~}{E}(𝐤)),`$ (101)
where $`\stackrel{~}{E}(𝐤)=[(\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }(𝐤)\mu _h)^2+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐤)^2]^{1/2}`$ is the quasiparticle energy and $`\stackrel{~}{u}_𝐤,\stackrel{~}{v}_𝐤`$ are given by Eq. (93) but with quasiparticle energies for holons. The spectral density of electron excitations is measured in the angle-resolved photoemission (ARPES) experiments which provide information concerning the symmetry of the gap function. As discussed below, the symmetry of superconducting gap function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤`$ defined by Eq. (39) appears to be $`d`$-wave, while the holon gap function $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)`$ in Eq. (78) has odd symmetry of the $`p`$-type as in the triplet pairing. This $`p`$-wave gap symmetry has never observed in ARPES experiments in cuprates.

### B Gap symmetry

For models with strong electron correlations the $`s`$-wave component of superconducting gap must be strongly suppressed due to on-site Coulomb correlations. For the $`t`$-$`J`$ model it follows from the constraint of no double occupancy on a single site given by the identity:

$$\widehat{c}_{i,\sigma }\widehat{c}_{i,\sigma }=\frac{1}{N}\underset{𝐤}{}\widehat{c}_{𝐤,\sigma }\widehat{c}_{𝐤,\sigma }=0,$$
(102)
for the physical electron operators $`\widehat{c}_{i,\sigma }=c_{i,\sigma }(1n_{i,\sigma })`$. Since the anomalous correlation function $`\widehat{c}_{𝐤,\sigma }\widehat{c}_{𝐤,\sigma }`$ is proportional to the gap function $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)`$, Eq. (102) imposes a certain constraint on the symmetry of the gap function. In particular, for the solution (38) in MFA Eq. (102) reads :

$`X_i^{0\sigma }X_i^{0\overline{\sigma }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}X_𝐪^{0\sigma }X_𝐪^{0\overline{\sigma }}`$ (103)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐪^\sigma }{2E_𝐪}}\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{E_𝐪}{2T}}=0.`$ (104)
For a tetragonal lattice the Fermi surface (FS) is invariant under the $`C_4`$-axis rotation in the $`𝐤`$-space and therefore to satisfy the condition (104) for $`E_𝐪>0`$ the gap function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐪^\sigma `$ should change its sign along the FS. It means that the symmetric $`s`$-wave solution, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s(k_x,k_y)(\mathrm{cos}q_x+\mathrm{cos}q_y)`$, does not fit Eq. (104), while the $`d`$-wave solution with $`B_{1g}`$ or $`B_{2g}`$ symmetry, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d(k_x,k_y)=\mathrm{\Delta }_d(k_y,k_x)`$, satisfy the condition (104). In general, Eq. (104) should be considered as a constraint on the symmetry of the gap function in the superconducting phase and solutions which violate this constraint should be disregarded.

Now we consider the symmetry of the spinon and holon order parameters. The condition (102) for the RVB order parameter reads

$$B_{ii}=\frac{1}{N}\underset{𝐤}{}B(𝐤)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{𝐤,𝐪}{}\phi (𝐤𝐪)F^+(𝐪)=0,$$
(105)
which also imposes a constraint on the symmetry of the spinon and holon order parameters. Since the symmetry of the holon pairing order parameter, Eq. (68), for spinless fermions is odd, imposed by their anticommutation relations, it results in the odd symmetry of the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)`$ in Eq. (75). For a tetragonal lattice the symmetry is given by the odd two-dimensional irreducible representation $`E_u`$ which can be modelled by the function: $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)\eta _p^\pm (𝐤)=(\mathrm{sin}k_x\pm \mathrm{sin}k_y)`$ as in the $`p`$-wave triplet pairing. The same holds for the spinon order parameter in Eq. (70), $`\phi (𝐤)\eta _p^\pm (𝐤)`$.

The RVB order parameter $`B_{ij}=b_{ij}=\phi _{ij}F_{ij}^+`$ as a product of two antisymmetric order parameters with $`E_u`$ symmetry has either $`A`$ ($`s`$-wave) or $`B_{1g}`$ ($`d`$-wave) symmetry. Namely, if we adopt only the nearest neighbor pairing for both the order parameters:

$`\phi _{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _{i,i+a_x}\{(\delta _{j,i+a_x}\delta _{j,ia_x})\pm (\delta _{j,i+a_y}\delta _{j,ia_y})\},`$ (106)
$`F_{ij}^+`$ $`=`$ $`F_{i,i+a_x}^+\{(\delta _{j,i+a_x}\delta _{j,ia_x})\pm (\delta _{j,i+a_y}\delta _{j,ia_y})\},`$ (107)
then for the Fourier transform of the RVB order parameter we get

$`B(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}\phi (𝐤𝐪)F^+(𝐪)=2b{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}\{\mathrm{sin}(k_xq_x)`$ (108)
$`\pm `$ $`\mathrm{sin}(k_yq_y)\}\{\mathrm{sin}q_x\pm \mathrm{sin}q_y\}`$ (109)
$`=`$ $`b(\mathrm{cos}k_x\pm \mathrm{cos}k_y)`$ (110)
where $`b=\phi _{i,i+a_x}F_{i,i+a_x}^+`$ and the sign $`+()`$ in the last line corresponds to the same (different) signs in the first line. The solution (108) satisfies the condition (105) for both the $`s`$\- and $`d`$-wave symmetry: $`_𝐤B(𝐤)_𝐤(\mathrm{cos}k_x\pm \mathrm{cos}k_y)=0`$.

However, the explicit solution for the holon order parameter (77) shows its more complicated $`𝐤`$-dependence which proves that the frequently used model for the nearest neighbor pairing is inadequate. For the solution (77) the condition (105) for the RVB order parameter reads:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐪}{}}\phi (𝐤𝐪)F^+(𝐪)=`$ (111)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐪}{}}\phi (𝐤𝐪){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^+(𝐪)}{2E(𝐪)}}\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{E(𝐪)}{2T}}=0,`$ (112)
which also imposes a requirement on the symmetry of the singlet (RVB) order parameter which should have only the $`d`$-wave symmetry, $`B(k_x,k_y)=B(k_y,k_x)`$, to satisfy this condition.

It is interesting to compare results for the gap equation derived in MFA for the $`t`$-$`J`$ model and that one for the Hubbard model. By applying the projection technique for the GF for the Hubbard model one can get the following equation for the gap function (see, e.g., ):

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij\sigma }X_i^{02}N_j=c_ic_iN_j,$$
(113)
where we have used the identity for the Hubbard operators, $`X_i^{02}=X_i^0X_i^2=c_ic_i`$. From Eq. (113) follows that the pairing occurs on one lattice site but in the different Hubbard subbands. By using equation of motion for the GF $`X_i^{02}(t)N_j(t^{})`$ the anomalous correlation function $`X_i^{02}N_j`$ can be calculated without any decoupling that results in the same gap equation as in the MFA for the $`t`$-$`J`$ model : $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij\sigma }=J_{ij}X_i^{0\sigma }X_j^{0\overline{\sigma }}/Q`$ where we have used the notation of the present paper. Therefore the symmetry constraint considered above is also applicable for the gap solutions obtained in the Hubbard model.

### C Superconducting $`𝐓_𝐜`$

In the present section we compare the pairing temperature $`T_c`$ defined by the gap equation for physical electrons (39) and that one for holons, Eq. (78). We study $`T_c`$ as a function of corresponding chemical potential $`\nu =\mu /W`$ for a given value of the pairing interaction $`\lambda =J/W`$ where all energies are measured in units of the renormalized half bandwidth for pairing fermions $`W=4\stackrel{~}{t}`$:

$$e(𝐤)=\frac{\epsilon (𝐤)}{W}=\gamma (𝐤)+\tau \gamma ^{^{}}(𝐤),d(𝐤)=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)}{W},$$
(114)
where $`\tau =t_{eff}^{}/t_{eff}`$. The gap Eqs. (39), (78) (or (86)) can be written in the form

$`d(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\lambda }{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (𝐤𝐪)d(𝐪)}{2[(e(𝐪)\nu )^2+d(𝐪)]^{1/2}}}`$ (115)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{[(e(𝐪)\nu )^2+d(𝐪)]^{1/2}}{2T}},`$ (116)
Let us consider $`T_c(\nu )`$ for different pairing symmetry, $`d(𝐤)=d_\alpha \eta _\alpha (𝐤)`$:

$`s\mathrm{wave}:\eta _s(𝐤)=(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y),`$ (117)
$`d\mathrm{wave}:\eta _d(𝐤)=(\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y),`$ (118)
$`p\mathrm{wave}:\eta _p^\pm (𝐤)=(\mathrm{sin}k_x\pm \mathrm{sin}k_y).`$ (119)
By integrating Eq. (116) with the corresponding symmetry parameter $`\eta _\alpha (𝐤)`$ we obtain Eq. (116) for $`T=T_c`$ in the same form for any symmetry:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}(\eta _\alpha (𝐤))^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(e(𝐤)\nu )}}\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{e(𝐤)\nu }{2T_c^{(\alpha )}}}`$ (120)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _1^{+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dϵ}{ϵ\nu }}N_\alpha (ϵ)\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ\nu }{2T_c^{(\alpha )}}},`$ (121)
if we introduce an effective density of state (DOS) for the corresponding symmetry, $`\alpha =s,d,p`$:

$$N_\alpha (ϵ)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{𝐤}{}(\eta _\alpha (𝐤))^2\delta (ϵe(𝐤)),$$
(122)
which is normalized

$`{\displaystyle _1^{+1}}𝑑ϵN_\alpha (ϵ)=1,\mathrm{since}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}(\eta _\alpha (𝐤))^2=1.`$

The results of calculation of the effective DOS, Eq. (122), for different symmetry $`\alpha =s,d,p`$ is presented on Fig. 1 for $`t^{}=0`$. From this dependence it is easy to draw a conclusion that the $`T_c(\nu )`$ function will follow the dependence $`N_\alpha (\nu )`$ for corresponding symmetry since the effective coupling constant $`V\lambda N_\alpha (\nu )`$ reaches its maximum value at the maximum value of $`N_\alpha (\nu )`$. In the logarithmic approximation a solution for $`T_c(\mu )`$, Eq. (121), can be written in the conventional BCS form:

$$T_c\sqrt{\mu (W\mu )}\mathrm{exp}(1/V),VJN_\mu ,$$
(123)
but with the prefactor proportional to the Fermi energy, $`\mu =E_F`$ which can result in high-$`T_c`$. The highest $`T_c(\nu )`$ appears for the $`d`$-wave pairing and the lowest $`T_c(\nu )`$ – for the $`p`$\- wave pairing since in the former case the van Hove singularity gives a strong contribution for DOS ($`[\eta _d(𝐤=(\pm \pi ,0))]^2=4`$), while in the latter case it is completely suppressed ($`[\eta _p(𝐤=(\pm \pi ,0))]=0`$). This estimation can be checked by a direct numerical solution of Eq. (121) (see, e.g.  and  for the $`p`$-wave symmetry).

## V Conclusion

In the present paper we consider superconducting pairing mediated by the exchange interaction which is generic for system with strong electron correlations as cuprates. The mechanism of the exchange pairing is the lowering of kinetic energy of electron pairs due to their coherent hopping between different Hubbard subbands. Since the excitation energy of this hopping is much larger then the Fermi energy the retardation effects in the exchange interaction are negligible  which results in pairing of all electrons (holes) in the conduction band and a high-$`T_c`$ proportional to the Fermi energy, Eq. (123).

To obtain estimation for the superconducting $`T_c`$ it is tempting to use a mean-field approximation for the exchange interaction within the $`t`$-$`J`$ model. However, meaningful physical results can be obtained only if one takes into account strong electron correlations on a rigorous basis which is provided by the Hubbard operator technique. Any auxiliary field representations applied within MFA inevitably violates rigorous commutation relations for HO which may result in unphysical conclusions. In the present paper we have proved this by comparing the results for superconducting gap equation derived within the slave fermion - hard-core boson representation, Eq. (42), and HO technique for the Green functions (Sec. 2.1). In the former method the projected character of physical electron operators is neglected that results in double counting of empty states and violation of the sum rule, Eq. (96). The spin-charge separation which occurs in MFA, Eqs. (61), (62), results in separate equations for two order parameters for spinons and holons instead of one equation for physical electrons as in the GF method. The gap equation (78) for spinless fermions has only antisymmetric solutions which results in the $`p`$-wave gap for the quasiparticle excitations in superconducting state never observed in ARPES experiments in cuprates and much lower $`T_c`$ then for the $`d`$-wave pairing given by Eq. (39) for physical electrons.

The obtained results within MFA for the spinless fermion – hard core bosons in Sec. 2 appears to be identical to the path-integral representation for the $`t`$-$`J`$ model employed in Ref. . Therefore the latter results have the same flaws as discussed above which casts doubts on approaches based on the idea of spin-charge separation. Violation of the local constraint in the two-band Hubbard model may lead also to unphysical results, as shown in Ref. .

Acknowledgments

The author thanks V. Oudovenko for preparing Fig. 1 and V.Yu. Yushankhai for discussions. The author is grateful to Prof. P. Fulde for the hospitality extended to him during his stay at MPIPKS, where the final version of the paper was prepared.