format: text

text:
# SPIN-CHARGE GAUGE APPROACH TO THE “PSEUDOGAP PHASE” OF HIGH 𝑇_𝑐 CUPRATES: THEORY VERSUS EXPERIMENTS

## I Introduction

The mechanism of High $`T_c`$ superconductivity, a great intellectual challenge posed by Bednorz and Müller to the condensed matter physics community 16 years ago, to large extent remains unresolved. The understanding of the ”pseudogap”, i.e., a suppressed density of states (DOS) near the Fermi level, as one of the most distinctive features of cuprates (particularly in the underdoped regime) from the conventional superconductors, may serve as a key to the High $`T_c`$ conundrum.( For a recent review on this issue please consult Ref. timusk, .)

### I.1 Pseudogap Phenomenology

A gap in the spin excitation spectrum was first observed in the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) experiments,warren  showing up as DOS reduction in both Knight shift and spin-lattice relaxation rate, below certain crossover temperature $`T^{}`$. Later on, a gap in the charge excitations was also found in transport measurements. Unlike optimally-doped cuprates where the linear temperature dependence of the in-plane resistivity extends to very low temperatures, in underdoped samples the temperature dependence becomes sublinear below some characteristic temperature $`T^{}`$ because of reduced scattering rate due to gap opening.ito ; bat94  Upon further decrease of doping a striking metal-insulator crossover (MIC) was observed.Taka  The existence of pseudogap in the normal state of underdoped cuprates was further confirmed by studying the ab-plane optical conductivity,rotter91  the specific heat measurements,loram93  and many others. However, the most direct evidence of the pseudogap comes from the Angle-Resolved-Photoemission Spectroscopy(ARPES) experiments which showed a d-wave like gap in the normal state in Bi-2212 below the crossover temperature $`T^{}`$.loeser  The pseudogap structure in the total density of states was also detected in the tunneling experiments on Bi-2212.tao

The current picture of the pseudogap opening appears as follows:norman98  There exists a large Fermi surface (FS) in cuprate superconductors, consistent with predictions of electronic structure studies at high temperatures. As the temperature decreases below $`T^{}`$, the pseudogap first opens near (0,$`\pi `$), it then gradually “eats” up the original FS, converting it into “pseudogapped” part, eventually leaving only short disconnected arcs around ($`\pi /2,\pi /2`$). Finally, these arcs shrink to nodal points of the gap function, and the pseudogap converges to the superconducting gap, with the same d-wave like symmetry. Meanwhile, the quasiparticle peak which is ill-defined in the normal-pseudogap state, becomes well-defined in the superconducting state, like in the typical BCS superconductors. This picture seems to be universal for all classes of cuprate superconductors, and is consistent with all available data on pseudogap phenomena.

### I.2 Different Schools of Thought

However, the smooth crossover of pseudogap into superconducting gap does not tell us the origin of the pseudogap itself. Theoretical models attempting to interpret the pseudogap are very much diversified, including the nearly antiferromagnetic Fermi liquid (NAFF) approach,pines  the crossover from Bose-Einstein condensation(BEC) to BCS scenario,levin  and many others.timusk  Closely related to our approach, there are two schools of thought. According to one school, pseudogap is a “precursor” to superconductivity, i.e., the superconducting state is more fundamental. The other school emphasizes the proximity to the Mott insulating state, considering the pseudogap phase as nothing but doped Mott insulators. Therefore, the normal state is more fundamental, while the superconduting state is derived from this anomalous normal state, as the BCS superconductivity appears when a pairing force is present in the Landau Fermi liquid.

There were several early proposals on the first approach, assuming preformed pairs in the normal state.uemura  This approach was developed further by different groups. Emery and Kivelson considered phase fluctuations of the superconducting order parameter which destroy the coherence above $`T_c`$.emery95  Somewhat related appear the nodal liquid approach fisher  and its $`QED_3`$ variant tesanovic . Randeria and collaborators attempted to derive several properties of the pseudogap phase, starting from a low-density, short-correlation length superconducting state.randeria97  It’s fair to say that to describe the rich variety of phenomena in the pseudogap phase by superconducting fluctuations alone is a too difficult, if not impossible task.

The other school of thought was pioneered by P.W. Anderson.PWA  The reference compound before doping is a Mott insulator characterized by a strong on-site Coulomb repulsion. The electrons are basically localized, forming singlet pairs. A finite amount of energy (spin gap) is needed to break this singlet pair. Although similar to superconducting singlet pairing, this state itself is very different from the superconducting state. A mean field theory using the spin-charge separation concept and “slave boson” technique was developed very early.bas  To implement the single-occupancy constraint coming from the on-site repulsion and to describe the interaction between “slave” particles a gauge field theory was developed.basgauge ; Iof  First the U(1) gauge field theory,Lee  then the SU(2) gauge field theorylee  was developed to account for various properties of the pseudogap phase by P.A. Lee and his collaborators. The transport properties in the pseudogap phase was also considered using the U(1) gauge field model.ichinose  A new version of this approach was formulated recently in terms of “spinons”, “chargons” and “visons” with some predictions to be verified by experiments.senth

A different, but related approach is to associate the pseudogap phase with a quantum critical point (QCP).sachdev  It was proposed that the strong fluctuations near the QCP may be responsible for superconducting pairing and anomalous properties in the normal state.castellani  What is the order parameter related to this quantum phase transition? There were several proposalszaa ; castellani  to be checked by experiments. By extrapolating the curve $`T^{}(\delta )`$, where $`\delta `$ is the doping concentration to temperatures below $`T_c`$, a “critical concentration”$`\delta _c0.19`$ was identified, where the superconducting condensation energy also reaches a maximum.loram  The specific heat jump at the superconducting transition changes its doping dependence at this point as well.loram  These authors argue that below the QCP the short range antiferromagnetic correlations dominate, giving their way to superconducting ordering at that point.

Before resorting to review our own work we would like to mention a recent scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) experiment exhibiting explicitly the competition and coexistence of the pseudogap and superconducting phases.lang  The STM pattern seems to be messy: the superconducting regions are separated by pseudogap areas at nanoscale, but are kept coherent as Josephson arrays. However, these two types of regions refuse to mix with each other, as Zaanen put it pictorially,zaanen  like “oil and vinegar in salad dressing”. Moreover, these two regions behave totally differently: the typical “resonance” states caused by Ni impurities in the superconducting areas disappear completely in the pseudogap phase. This means these two phases, in spite of their apparent similarity, are of different nature.zhu  To elucidate their competition and coexistence is a real challenge to theory.

### I.3 Clue to the Problem

What is the key to the understanding of the pseudogap phase? An “obvious” answer is the pseudogap formation, i.e., to explain how a gap is originated and how the states are filled in as the temperature increases. Apparently this is not enough, as we know that one scale or a single variable usually cannot give rise to a “show” in physics. There must be some competition. Our attention was attracted by the spectacular MIC observed in underdoped, non-superconducting cuprates in the absence of magnetic field and a similar phenomenon in superconducting samples when an applied strong magnetic field suppresses the superconductivity.

First of all, this crossover is a rather universal phenomenon. A minimum in resistance (around 50 - 100K) and a crossover from metallic conductivity at high temperatures to insulating behavior at low temperatures has been observed in heavily underdoped La2-xSrxCuO4 (LSCO),Taka ; keimer  non-superconducting Bi2+xSr2-yCuO6±δ,fiory  and non-superconducting YBa2Cu3O7-δ(YBCO)Wuyts ; ando99  and La-doped Bi-2201.ono02  It has also been observed in electron-underdoped Nd2-xCexCuO4 (NCCO)Onose  and Pr2-xCexCuO4 (PCCO).Fournier  Very recently, this issue has been studied systematically again on a series of high quality LSCO samples,ando01  and the earlier results have been reconfirmed. Quite some people consider this crossover as localization due to inhomogeneities. We disagree with this interpretation. In some of these samples, the estimated $`k_F\mathrm{}0.1`$, where $`k_F`$ is the Fermi wave vector and $`\mathrm{}`$ is the elastic mean-free path, i.e., the resistivity is well above the Ioffe-Regel limit. This means localization due to disorder effect is irrelevant here.

More importantly, such a MIC has also been observed in a number of superconducting samples when a strong magnetic field suppresses the superconductivity. It was first found on LSCO, where a strong pulsed magnetic field up to 60T could suppress superconductivity in samples up to optimal doping.log ; Boebinger  Further, a crossover to insulating behavior was found at low temperatures. Similar crossover was also found in La-doped Bi-2201,ando96 ; Ono  electron-doped Pr2-xCexCuO4,Fournier  as well as in Zn-doped YBCO.Zn  Again, the interpretation in terms of localization due to disorder does not work here, since the estimated $`k_F\mathrm{}1225`$ at the MIC point in some of these systems, and the resistivity is well below the Ioffe-Regel limit. Ascribing MIC to proximity to the QCP as caused by charge density wave or d-density wave instabilitieszaa ; castellani  is not a good explanation, either. While in LSCO the insulating behavior persists up to optimal doping,log ; Boebinger  in La-doped Bi-2201 such a behavior stops at 1/8 doping,Ono  well below the optimal doping, and no signatures of any stripe phase showed up. Several authors consider the insulating behavior at low temperatures as due to non-Fermi liquid properties.nonfl  However, the MIC itself was not addressed in any theoretical considerations known to us.

In our view the MIC is the clue to the understanding of the pseudogap phase. We consider the MIC in underdoped cuprates in the absence of magnetic field and MIC in superconducting samples when a strong magnetic field suppresses superconductivity the same phenomenon with the same origin: as an outcome of competition between the short range antiferromagnetic order and the dissipative motion of the charge carriers. We have applied the SU(2)$`\times `$U(1) Chern-Simons (the spin-charge) gauge field theory to treat this problem.Mar ; Dai ; magneto  The formalism itself will be outlined briefly in the next Section, whereas here we give some intuitive picture of our main results.

We start from the Mott insulating state which shows antiferromagnetic long range order (AF LRO). Upon doping beyond certain threshold the AF LRO is destroyed, being replaced by AF short range order (SRO), characterized by an AF correlation length $`\xi `$. Since the holes distort the AF background and their average distance $`\delta ^{1/2}`$, intuitively, $`\xi \delta ^{1/2}`$, where $`\delta `$ is the doping concentration. This has been confirmed by the neutron scattering experiments.Birgenau  Our theoretical treatment proves $`\xi (\delta |\mathrm{ln}\delta |)^{1/2}`$, providing the first length scale. Put another way, the corresponding energy scale is the spin excitation (spinon) gap $`m_s=J(\delta |\mathrm{ln}\delta |)^{1/2}`$, where $`J`$ is the AF exchange interaction. A competing factor is the dissipative motion of the charge carriers with characteristic energy $`Tm_h`$, where $`T`$ is the temperature, while $`m_h\delta /t`$ is the effective mass of the charge carrier (holon), $`t`$ the hopping integral. The corresponding length scale is the thermal de Broglie wave length $`\lambda _T(T\delta /t)^{1/2}`$. We know that in transport and many related phenomena when two scales are competing producing a crossover, only the shortest time (and corresponding length) scale, or the largest energy scale matters. Thus at low temperatures $`\xi \lambda _T`$, the AF SRO dominates, the charge carriers become localized showing insulating behavior. We would like to emphasize this ”peculiar localization” is mainly due to interaction rather than disorder. On the other hand, at high temperatures $`\xi \lambda _T`$, the dissipative motion of charge carriers dominates, exhibiting metallic conductivity. Therefore the competition, or fighting of the real part of the “self-energy”, the mass gap, and the imaginary part, the dissipation gives rise to this spectacular phenomenon: MIC. In this sense, it serves as a clue to the understanding of the pseudogap phase.

A natural question would be: what are the other consequences of the existence of these two factors? It turns out that a number of experimental observations in the pseudogap phase can be explained by it. Roughly speaking, the spin (spinons) and charge (holons) excitations in the pseudogap phase behave like ”separate particles” in their scattering against gauge fluctuations, which renormalizes their properties and dominates the in-plane transport phenomena. However, at small enery-momentum scale the gauge field binds spinon and anti-spinon into magnon ”resonance”. similarly spinon and holon are bound into electron ”resonance” with non-Fermi-liquid properties. In particular, these ”recombined” particles show up in the out-of-plane transport.

### I.4 Outline of the Rest of the Paper

The formulation of the spin-charge gauge field theory was presented earlier.Mar  The calculation of the in-plane resistivity and MIC in underdoped cuprates in the absence of magnetic field was briefly reported in Ref. Dai, , whereas the MIC in superconducting samples when a strong magnetic field suppresses superconductivity was considered in Ref.magneto, . Due to space limitations the presentation in the these two publications was inevitably too concise. The main purpose of this paper is twofold: To present the computations in more detail to outline the essential steps and to compare the results of our calculation with experiments in the pseudogap phase in a more systematic way. Most results have not been published before.

The spin-charge gauge formalism is outlined in Section II, whereas the calculation of the in-plane and out-of-plane resistivity is described in Section III. The computation of the “spinon” current-current correlation function which is the key ingredient in studying many physical quantities is presented in Section IV. The calculation of the Green’s function for the physical electron needed to compare with the ARPES data and FS, as well as the c-axis resistivity calculation, is described in Section V. In our approach the spin and charge are not fully separated, as in one-dimensional interacting systems. They are not confined, either. Instead, they form a bound state due to the transverse gauge field. A new energy scale, the inverse recombination time for the physical electron, appears in the binding process which shows up in the out-of-plane resistivity. Section VI is devoted to comparison of theory with experiment. We first start with the in-plane resistivity (A), whose normalized value shows universal behavior (B), then continue with out-of-plane resistivity (C). Finally, we consider other observables, including the magnetoresistance (D) and the spin-lattice relaxation rate (E). The paper ends with several concluding remarks (Section VII).

## II The spin-charge gauge formalism

In this Section we review the formalism involved in the derivation of the low-energy effective action for the $`t`$-$`J`$ model in a range of parameters which should provide an adequate theoretical description of the “pseudogap phase” of high-$`T_c`$ cuprates. This effective action will be the starting point for the computation of physical observables to be compared with the experimental data. For further details on the derivation, see Ref. Mar, .

### II.1 Chern-Simons Representation of the $`tJ`$ Model

Our theoretical treatment of the $`t`$-$`J`$ model is based on the following theorem:Fro ; Mar

If we couple the fermions of the $`t`$-$`J`$ model to a $`U(1)`$ gauge field, $`B_\mu `$, gauging the global charge symmetry, and to an $`SU(2)`$ gauge field, $`V_\mu `$, gauging the global spin symmetry of the model, and we assume that the dynamics of the gauge fields is described by the Chern-Simons actions:

$$S_{c.s.}(B)=\frac{1}{2\pi }d^3xϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }B_\mu _\nu B_\rho ,$$

$$S_{c.s.}(V)=\frac{1}{4\pi }d^3x\mathrm{Tr}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }[V_\mu _\nu V_\rho +\frac{2}{3}V_\mu V_\nu V_\rho ],$$
(1)
where $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }`$ is the fully anti-symmetric tensor, then the spin-charge (or $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$) gauged model so obtained is exactly equivalent to the original $`t`$-$`J`$ model.

Let us give some ideas of the proof of the above theorem for the partition function. We expand the partition function of the gauged model in the first-quantized formalism in terms of the worldlines of fermions. After integrating out the gauge fields, the effect of the coupling to $`B_\mu (V_\mu )`$ is only to give a factor $`e^{i\frac{\pi }{2}}(e^{i\frac{\pi }{2}})`$ for any single exchange of the fermion worldlines, so the two effects cancel each other exactly.

To the fermion field of the gauged model, denoted by $`\chi _\alpha `$ ($`\alpha `$ spin index), we apply a formal spin-charge decomposition: $`\chi _\alpha Hz_\alpha `$, where $`H`$ denotes a spinless fermion (holon) field and $`z_\alpha `$ a spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ hard-core boson (spinon) field satisfying the constraint $`z_\alpha ^{}z_\alpha =1`$. This constraint eliminates double occupation, as required in the $`t`$-$`J`$ model.

The above spin-charge decomposition introduces a further $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetry which will be called h/s (from holon/spinon):

$$z_\alpha (x)e^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)}z_\alpha (x),H(x)H(x)e^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)},$$
(2)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ a real gauge parameter, with which a self-generated gauge field $`A_\mu `$ is associated, analogous to the one appearing in the slave boson and slave fermion approaches.Iof ; Lee

We remark that, in view of this residual h/s gauge interaction, the spin-charge separation performed above is a priori purely formal and only the dynamics of the coupled system determines if it has a physical substance. As an example, a confining dynamics would completely destroy the physical spin-charge separation.

In a Mean-Field-Approximation (MFA) Mar  to the spin-charge gauged $`t`$-$`J`$ model, in a region of parameters which should correspond to the “pseudogap phase” of high $`T_c`$ cuprates, the role of the three gauge fields is the following:

\- $`B_{MFA}`$ carries a flux $`\pi `$ per plaquette, converting via Hofstadter mechanism the spinless holon $`H`$ into a Dirac fermion, with linear dispersion and a pseudospin structure related to the two Néel sublattices. The fermion system exhibits a “small” FS with $`ϵ_Ft\delta `$, $`\delta `$ being the doping concentration, centered around the points $`(\pm \pi /2,\pm \pi /2)`$ in the Brillouin zone.

\- $`V_{MFA}`$ dresses the holons by spin vortices of opposite chirality in the two Néel sublattices. The spinons in the presence of this gas of “slowly moving” dressed holons acquire a mass $`m_s\sqrt{\delta |\mathrm{ln}\delta |}`$ yielding SRAFO. This is due to a coupling at large scales of the form $`(V_{MFA}^2z_\alpha ^{}z_\alpha )`$. Self-consistency of this treatment relies on the inequality $`ϵ_Ft\delta ϵ_sJ\sqrt{\delta |\mathrm{ln}\delta |}`$ for small $`\delta `$. The derived doping dependence of the AF correlation length is consistent with the neutron data.Birgenau

\- The self-generated “photon” field $`A_\mu `$ couples the Fermi liquid of holons to the gapped spinons, described by a massive ($`CP^1`$) non-linear sigma (NL$`\sigma `$) model.

### II.2 Magnons and Electrons as “Composite” Particles

A low-energy effective action for $`A`$ is obtained by integrating out spinons and holons, in a path-integral formulation. We make the assumption that the scaling limit (large distance, long time) can be taken separately for the two subsystems.note1  Then, using the techniques of Ref. Froh, , one can prove that in this scaling limit the action is quadratic in $`A`$. This conclusion follows from a derivative expansion for the spinon action, due to the presence of a mass scale, $`m_s`$, and from a tomographic decomposition along rays perpendicular to the FS of holons, using the quadratic dependence on $`A`$ of the scaling action for a single ray (Schwinger action). This means that all results derived from the renormalized quadratic action in $`A`$ are valid beyond the standard perturbative treatment. Thus the skeptism towards the gauge field approach based on the worry that the coupling to the gauge field is strong, while the treatment is perturbative, is not well justified.

The term obtained from spinon integration is a 2D Maxwell-like action (as in quantum electrodynamics), because the spinons are massive and the spinon action is parity-invariant. The transverse component would then generate a logarithmic confining potential between spinons and anti-spinons. The longitudinal part is gapped due to the plasmon effect at finite $`T`$. This means if only spinons were coupled to the gauge field, the renormalized gauge field would have confining dynamics. However, there are also fermions (holons) coupled to the gauge field, as well. The term obtained from holon integration, due to the presence of a finite FS, exhibits a Reizer singularity.Reizer  More precisely, the transverse component $`A^T`$ of the gauge field turns out to be, for $`\omega ,|\stackrel{}{q}|,\omega /|\stackrel{}{q}|0,`$ of the form

$$A^TA^T(\omega ,\stackrel{}{q})(\chi |\stackrel{}{q}|^2+i\kappa \frac{\omega }{|\stackrel{}{q}|})^1,$$
(3)
where $`\chi `$ is the diamagnetic susceptibility and $`\kappa `$ the Landau damping.

This behavior dominates over the Maxwellian term at large scales, destroying confinement. Nevertheless, as we shall see, the attraction generated by $`A^T`$ in spinon-antispinon and spinon-holon pairs will be sufficient to produce resonances with the quantum numbers of the magnon and electron, respectively. Therefore a true spin-charge separation is not realized in our approach. An “intermediate” situation in-between confinement and full separation, namely the “composite” nature of magnons and electrons is at the root of our interpretation of the anomalous behavior of physical quantities.

A key and novel feature of our approach is the mass of the spinon with a specific doping dependence described above. This feature is not shared by the other $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ gauge field theorylee  where the gauged $`SU(2)`$ symmetry is an enlargement of the particle-hole symmetry at half-filling with switched statistics of holon and spinon w.r.t. ours. The mass of the spinons in our approach and its competition with dissipation of the gauge field due to coupling with holons have far-reaching consequences, and it turns out to be responsible, in our scheme, for phenomena like the MIC, the low-$`T`$ positive transverse in-plane magnetoresistance, the peak in the DC conductivity and the Cu spin-lattice relaxation rate, hence for many experimental signatures of the “pseudogap phase”.

### II.3 Motivation for the Gauging Group Choice

We end this Section with some comments on our choice of the gauging group in the theorem stated at the beginning of this Section. This theorem is a special case of the following more general

Theorem FKM (Chern-Simons representations of the $`t`$-$`J`$ model):

Let $`G`$ be a subgroup of the global symmetry group of the 2D $`t`$-$`J`$ model; consider the $`G`$-gauged $`t`$-$`J`$ model obtained by replacing the fermion field, $`c`$, of the $`t`$-$`J`$ model in the action, $`S_{tJ}(c)`$, with a new field, $`\chi `$, minimally coupled to a gauge field $`W`$, with gauge group $`G`$. Denote the action of the $`G`$-gauged model by $`S_{tJ}(\chi ,W)`$. Define the Chern-Simons action for $`W`$ by:

$$S_{c.s.}(W)=\frac{1}{4\pi }d^3x\mathrm{Tr}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }[W_\mu _\nu W_\rho +\frac{2}{3}W_\mu W_\nu W_\rho ].$$

Then, for a suitable choice of a real constant $`k_G`$ and of the statisics of $`\chi `$, fermionic or bosonic depending on $`k_G`$, the model with action $`S_{tJ}(\chi ,W)+k_GS_{c.s.}(W)`$ is exactly equivalent to the original $`t`$-$`J`$ model.

The two basic features of the 2D $`t`$-$`J`$ model needed for the proof of the theorem are its dimensionality, necessary to apply the Chern-Simons theory, and the Gutzwiller projection forbidding double occupation, needed to have at most pointlike intersection between $`\chi `$ worldlines. In fact, (see the comment after the theorem in Section IIA) only with this property we can associate well defined phase factors to interchange of the worldlines.

Each of the Chern-Simons representations allowed by the theorem can be taken as a starting point for a Mean Field Theory. In particular the slave boson and slave fermion approaches can be derived by choosing $`G=U(1)`$ and $`k_{U(1)}`$=+1 and -1, respectively.Fro  Our choice of the $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ spin-charge gauging is motivated by the analysis of the one-dimensional (1D) $`t`$-$`J`$ model in the limit of small $`J/t`$.MSY  The model is exactly solvable by Bethe Ansatz and Conformal Field Theory techniques, and one knows the critical exponents of its correlation functions. They are basically derived by decomposing the fermion field of the model into spinon and holon. The spin-charge gauging corresponds, using a dimensional reduction from 2D to 1D, to a semionic nature of the two excitations, i.e. an exchange of spinon or holon fields yields phase factors $`e^{\pm i\pi /2}`$, intermediate between the fermionic $`e^{i\pi }`$ and the bosonic 1. This is exactly a property needed to reproduce, in a sort of MFA, the known critical exponents. It may be worthwhile to compare the role of the $`U(1)`$, $`SU(2)`$ and h/s gauge fields in 1D and 2D. In 1D a gauge field has no transverse (physical) components, while in 2D it does have one. The disappearance of this degree of freedom in 1D w.r.t. 2D induces the following effects:

\- $`B_{MFA}^T`$ =0, hence there is no Hofstatder mechanism and the holon has a quadratic dispersion;

\- $`V_{MFA}^T`$=0, hence there is no spinon mass generation;

\- $`A_\mu ^T`$=0, hence spinons and holons are decoupled and this yields a true spin-charge separation in 1D.

## III Resistivity and spin-charge decomposition

In this Section we highlight the distinctive features of the experimental data on in-plane and out-of-plane resistivity in underdoped cuprates, sketch the theoretical scheme for computations and outline the qualitative understanding of the resistivity behavior in our gauge field approach.

### III.1 In-Plane Resistivity

One of the first striking experimental findings on high $`T_c`$ cuprates was the anomalous behavior of in-plane resistivity, which in optimally doped samples appear linear in $`T`$. In underdoped samples, it deviates from the linear dependence at low temperatures, but the standard metallic behavior $`T^2`$ derived from the Fermi liquid theory is not observed. Instead, there are the following two distinctive features:

a) In many strongly underdoped samples there exists a minimum in the resistivity, around $`50100K`$, corresponding to a MIC, as we outlined in Section IC. A similar crossover is also observed in superconducting samples, if superconductivity is suppressed by applying a strong magnetic field.

b) Another characteristic feature of in-plane resistivity which appear quite universal in underdoped samples is an inflection point, i.e. a maximum of $`d\rho /dT`$ at $`T^{}100300K`$; this maximum disappears for higher dopings. At even higher temperatures the resistivity exhibits a linear in $`T`$ behavior approached from below. In the literature $`T^{}`$ is also defined by some authors as the temperature where the resistivity deviates from the linear dependence, as we mentioned in Sec. IA. That value is higher than the inflection point.

To calculate the in-plane resistivity we use the Ioffe-Larkin rule,Iof  a somewhat counterintuitive but a typical feature of the gauge approach, stating that the physical resistivity, $`\rho `$, is a sum of the resistivity due to spinons, $`\rho _s`$ and the resistivity due to holons, $`\rho _h`$:

$$\rho =\rho _s+\rho _h.$$
(4)
The derivation of this addition rule is based on the following consideration: If we couple the electron to an external electromagnetic (e.m.) field, $`A_{e.m}`$, it turns out that we can attribute an arbitrary e.m. charge $`ϵ`$ with $`0ϵ1`$, to the spinon and a charge $`1ϵ`$ to the holon, because, in the path integral formalism, $`ϵ`$ can always be eliminated by the change of variable $`AA+ϵA_{e.m}`$. As a consequence, neglecting “photon” drag, the renormalized e.m. current polarization bubble, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{e.m.}`$, obeys the rule:

$$(\mathrm{\Pi }_{e.m.})^1=(\mathrm{\Pi }_s)^1+(\mathrm{\Pi }_h)^1.$$
(5)
From (5) and Kubo formula, one can derive Ioffe-Larkin rule, provided both conductivities $`\sigma _s`$ and $`\sigma _h`$ are non-vanishing. This will be self-consistently verified a posteriori except for very low temperatures. A crucial assumption here is the quadratic dependence of the effective action in $`A`$, which, as we pointed out in Sec. IIA, is valid beyond the standard perturbation expansion in the scaling limit. So does the Ioffe-Larkin formula.

Denoting by $`j^s`$ the spinon current, the spinon resistivity is calculated from the fully renormalized current polarization bubble:

$$j^s(x)j^s(y)=\mathrm{\Pi }_s(xy)$$
(6)
via the Kubo formula:

$`(\rho _s)^1`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _s=(\omega ^1\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_s^R(\omega ,\stackrel{}{q}=0))_{|\omega 0}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x^0x^0\mathrm{\Pi }_s(x^0,\stackrel{}{q}=0).`$
For holons we have similar equations replacing the index $`s`$ by $`h`$ (e.g. $`j^h`$ denotes the holon current). In eq.(6) the expectation value is taken by integration over $`A`$, the spinon field, $`z_\alpha `$ of the continuum NL$`\sigma `$ model and the Dirac holon field $`\psi `$. The last equality in (7) is obtained via Lehmann representation and the superscript $`R`$ denotes the retarded propagator.

As pointed out first by Anderson,PWA  the in-plane resistivity should be interpreted in terms of spin-charge separation. In a gauge approach if the scattering time of spinons or holons by gauge fluctuations is shorter than the lifetime of the electron (as in our case), then this time scale will dominate the in-plane resistivity and it might exhibit a different temperature dependence than the electron lifetime.

It turns out that the peculiar feature like MIC is mainly due to the spinon contribution. As we mentioned in Sec.IC, MIC is caused by the competition between the spinon mass term with the gauge field dissipation. The spinon contribution to resistivity, proportional to the spinon scattering time against the gauge field, turns out to be $`T^1`$ at low temperatures when the spinon mass effect dominates, while it is $`T^{1/4}`$ at high temperatures when the gauge field dissipation overwhelms.

In our theoretical framework we identify the inflection point as the signal of a crossover to a different “phase”, the so-called strange-metal phase, characterized by $`T`$-linear resistivity, which will be addressed in a separate paper.stmet  Moreover, as will be shown in Sec. VIB, the normalized resistivity is a universal curve, if its value at the MIC point $`T_{MIC}`$ and the inflection point $`T^{}`$ are used as references. At very low temperature many samples exhibit a second inflection point below which the resistivity appears approximately logarithmic in $`T`$;log  again we interpret this as a crossover to a different “phase”.

### III.2 Out-of-Plane Resistivity

The out-of-plane resistivity exhibits a completely different $`T`$ dependence. At low temperatures in the “pseudogap phase” $`\rho _c`$ is insulating, behaving like $`T^1`$ with a coefficient essentially independent of the material.PWA  At higher temperatures $`\rho _c`$ typically develops a rounded knee.knee ; Komiya  As emphasized by Anderson,PWA  the coexistence at the same temperature of a metallic in-plane and an insulating out-of-plane resistivity is hard to reconcile within a Fermi liquid theory, whereas it might have a natural explanation in the framework of spin-charge “separation”. In such scheme, in fact, a spinon-holon decomposition of the electron holds only in the CuO2 layer and spinons and holons should recombine into electrons to hop between layers and contribute to $`\rho _c`$. The out-of-plane resistivity is then determined by the time scale of electron recombination. In our approach we have a way to implement this general ideas proposed by Anderson in the “pseudogap phase”.

To calculate $`\rho _c`$ we use the approach proposed by Kumar and Jayannavar (K-J)Kumar  which is motivated by the experimental observation that the $`c`$-axis transport is essentially incoherent, i.e. there is no band-like motion orthogonal to the CuO2 planes. One can then consider a system of two layers weakly coupled by an effective tunnelling matrix element $`t_c`$, taking into account an averaged momentum dependence of the hopping parameter (vanishing for diagonal momenta). One can write the 2D retarded Green function of the electron (holon-spinon) resonance for small $`\omega `$ and momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}_F`$ on the FS as

$$G^R(\omega ,\stackrel{}{k}_F)\frac{Z}{\omega +i\mathrm{\Gamma }},$$
(8)
where $`Z`$ is the wave function renormalization and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the scattering rate. Taking into account a virtual hopping between two layers induces a shift of the real part of the denominator of (8) from $`\omega `$ to $`\omega \pm Zt_c`$. Let us denote by $`G_\pm ^R`$ the corresponding Green’s functions. The out-of-plane conductivity in the incoherence regime can be written through the Kubo formula as

$$\sigma _c=\underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }2t_c^2e^2\frac{n}{\omega }(\omega )A_+(\stackrel{}{k},\omega )A_{}(\stackrel{}{k},\omega ),$$
(9)
where $`A_\pm =\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}G_\pm `$ are the spectral functions and $`n(\omega )`$ the Fermi distribution function. Inserting (8) in (9) after standard manipulations one obtains

$$\rho _c\frac{1}{\nu }\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{t_c^2Z^2}\right),$$
(10)
where $`\nu `$ is the density of states at the FS. One can already anticipate that the first term causes the insulating behaviour and, being independent of $`t_c`$, it is essentially independent of the material, as experimentally observed. Via eq. (10) we have related the behavior of $`\rho _c`$ to the computation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`Z`$, thus to the low-energy behavior of electron Green function. This propagator in turn can be expressed at large scales in terms of holon and spinon fields, $`z_\alpha ,\psi _\sigma `$ and be extracted from a linear combination of terms

$$\psi _\sigma (x)z_\alpha ^{}(x)\overline{\psi }_\sigma (y)z_\alpha (y),$$
(11)
where $`\sigma `$ denotes the pseudospin structure of the Dirac holons, $`\alpha `$ the component-spin index of the spinons, and the propagator (11) is calculated using the low-energy spinon and holon effective actions.

We shall see that the derived lifetime of the electron resonance is $`T^1,T^{1/2}`$ at low and high temperatures, respectively, and therefore it cannot explain the temperature behavior of in-plane resistivity, in particular the MIC, but it indeed sets the scale of the out-of-plane resistivity. We shall also see that the theoretical curve indeed has a rounded knee, corresponding to the crossover between the high- and low-temperature regimes, in full consistency with experiment.

The following two Sections (IV and V) are more technical. Those who are mainly interested in the qualitative aspect of the gauge field approach can skip them and move directly to Section VI.

## IV The spinon current-current correlation function

In this Section we outline the computation of the spinon current polarization bubble, i.e., the current-current correlation function $`\mathrm{\Pi }_s(\omega ,\stackrel{}{q})`$, at small $`\omega `$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}`$. This computation was briefly sketched in Ref. Dai,  and it is needed to derive the in-plane resistivity, as explained above. We will provide more technical detail here for those who would like to follow the actual calculation.

### IV.1 Feynman-Schwinger-Fradkin Representation

We start by writing explicitly the spinon NL$`\sigma `$ model effective action

$$S=d^3x\frac{1}{g}\left[v_s^2\right|(_0iA_0)z_\alpha |^2+|(_iiA_i)z_\alpha |^2+m_s^2z_\alpha ^{}z_\alpha ,]$$
(12)
where $`gJ^1`$, $`v_sJa`$ is the spinon velocity, with $`a`$ the lattice spacing, and $`m_s^1a/(|\delta \mathrm{ln}\delta |)^{1/2}`$ the spinon correlation length. After a suitable riscaling of variables, the spinon propagator can be recast in the Schwinger representation:

$$G_\alpha (x,y|A)=igv_s_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑se^{is(\mathrm{\Delta }_A+m_s^2)}(x,y).$$
(13)
where $`x=(v_sx^0,\stackrel{}{x})`$, $`A=(v_sA_0,\stackrel{}{A})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A`$ denotes the 3D covariant Dalambertian (or relativistic Laplacian). The propagator has been considered in the zero temperature formalism, an approximation justified by the mass gap of the spinon. Roughly speaking, it is valid provided $`TJam_sJ(|\delta \mathrm{ln}\delta |)^{1/2}`$. The kernel appearing in (13) has the formal structure of an evolution kernel for a 3D Hamiltonian $`H=\mathrm{\Delta }_A+m_s^2`$ and time parameter $`s`$. It can thus be expanded in terms of Feynman paths starting from $`y`$ at “time” 0 and reaching $`x`$ at “time” $`s`$. It is convenient to parametrize these paths through their 3-velocity, $`\varphi ^\mu ,\mu =0,1,2`$, using a Feynman-Schwinger-Fradkin (FSF) representation (see e.g. Ref. Fried, ):

$$G_\alpha (x,0|A)=igv_s_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑se^{ism_s^2}𝒟\varphi d^3pe^{ip\left(_0^s\varphi (t)𝑑tx\right)}e^{i_0^s𝑑t\left[\frac{1}{4}\varphi ^2(t)+\varphi A\left(x+_0^t\varphi (t^{})𝑑t^{}\right)\right]}.$$
(14)
Here the $`p`$-integration enforces the constraint on the initial and final points of the paths and we use a short-hand notation for the 3D scalar product: e.g.

$$px=p_\mu x^\mu .$$
(15)
For a better understanding of the formula (14), notice that formally setting $`\varphi ^\mu (t)=\frac{dx^\mu (t)}{dt}`$ the last exponential is $`i`$ times the Lagrangian of a 3D particle coupled to the e.m. potential $`A_\mu `$, corresponding to the previous Hamiltonian $`H`$, as one expects in a path-integral formulation. Since under a h/s gauge transformation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$, the spinon field $`z_\alpha (x)`$ changes by the phase factor $`e^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)}`$, it follows that

$$G_\alpha (x,0|A_\mu +_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda })=e^{i(\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)\mathrm{\Lambda }(0))}G_\alpha (x,0|A_\mu ).$$
(16)
The gauge dependence of the Green function is already captured by the so-called “Gor’kov approximation”

$$G_\alpha (x,0|A)=e^{i_0^xA_\mu 𝑑x^\mu }G_\alpha (x,0),$$
(17)
where $`_0^x`$ denote integration along a straight line from $`0`$ to $`x`$ and $`G_\alpha (x,0)`$ is the free propagator (in the absence of gauge field). The expression (14) is useful to go beyond Gor’kov approximation by means of the identityFried

$$_0^sA_\mu \left(x+_0^t\varphi (t^{})𝑑t^{}\right)\varphi ^\mu (t)𝑑t=_0^xA_\mu 𝑑x^\mu $$

$$_0^1𝑑\lambda \lambda _0^s𝑑t_0^t𝑑t^{}\varphi ^\mu (t)\varphi ^\nu (t^{})F_{\mu \nu }\left(x+\lambda _0^t\varphi (t^{\prime \prime })𝑑t^{\prime \prime }\right),$$
(18)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$ is the gauge field strength. Pictorially, this representation is illustrated in Fig. 1. The second term in (18) denoted by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(P)`$, gives the correction to Gor’kov approximation and it is gauge invariant, as it depends only on $`F_{\mu \nu }`$. Shifting $`\varphi ^\mu (t)`$ by $`2p^\mu `$ one can rewrite

$$G_\alpha (x,0|A)=e^{i_0^xA_\mu 𝑑x^\mu }G_\alpha (x,0|F),$$
(19)
$$G_\alpha (x,0|F)=igv_se^{i_0^xA(\xi )𝑑\xi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}e^{ipxi(p^2+m_s^2)}𝒟\varphi e^{i\frac{1}{4}_0^s𝑑t\varphi ^2(t)}$$

$$e^{i_0^1𝑑\lambda \lambda _0^s𝑑s^{}_0^s^{}𝑑s^{\prime \prime }\left[\varphi ^\mu (s^{})2p^\mu \right]\left[\varphi ^\nu (s^{\prime \prime })2p^\nu \right]F_{\mu \nu }\left(\lambda _0^s^{}\left(\varphi (s^{\prime \prime \prime })2p\right)𝑑s^{\prime \prime \prime }\right)}.$$
(20)
### IV.2 Gauge Field Strength F Correlation Function

Now we turn to the polarization operator $`\mathrm{\Pi }_s`$. Expressing it in terms of spinon propagators we find:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_s(x,y)=D_{A(x)}G(x,y|A)D_{A(y)}^{}G(y,x|A)_A=(_\mu \frac{i}{2}_y^xF_{\mu \nu }𝑑x^\nu )G(x,y|F)(^\mu \frac{i}{2}_y^xF^{\mu \rho }𝑑x_\rho )G(x,y|F)_A,$$
(21)
where $`_A`$ denotes the integration over $`A`$ with the effective action in the scaling limit and $`D_A`$ the covariant derivative. Notice that the two non-gauge invariant Gor’kov terms of the two spinon propagators cancel against each other so that the result is explicitly gauge-invariant and it depends only on $`F`$. We use now the quadratic structure of the scaling action $`S(A)`$ (see Sect.II B) to integrate out the gauge field. The explicit expression for $`S(A)`$ in the Coulomb gauge is :

$$S(A)=\frac{1}{2}𝑑x^0d^2xA_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{\mu \nu }A_\nu ,$$

with non-vanishing polarization components in the limit of small $`\omega ,\stackrel{}{q}`$ and $`\omega /|\stackrel{}{q}|`$, where one finds the leading, Reizer singularity, given byReizer

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{ij}^{}(\stackrel{}{q},\omega )=(\delta _{ij}\frac{q_iq_j}{q^2})[i\kappa \frac{\omega }{|\stackrel{}{q}|}+\chi |\stackrel{}{q}|^2],i,j=1,2,$$
(22)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}(\stackrel{}{q},\omega )=\nu +\omega _p.$$
(23)
In (22) and (23) $`\chi =\chi _s+\chi _h`$, where $`\chi _{s(h)}`$ is the spinon (holon) diamagnetic susceptibility, $`\kappa `$ the Landau damping, $`\nu `$ the density of states at the FS of holons and $`\omega _p`$ the plasmon gap. For free holons

$$\chi _h=\frac{1}{12\pi m_h}\frac{t}{6\pi \delta }$$
(24)
and for free spinons

$$\chi _sm_s^1.$$
(25)
Hence, in this presumably reasonable approximation, for low doping $`\chi _h>>\chi _s`$. Due to the dependence on the field strength $`F`$ in (21) only correlator of electric ($`F_{0i}`$) and magnetic ($`F_{ij}`$) field can appear in the computation. Since the $`A_0`$-propagator is short-ranged whereas the $`A^T`$-propagator is long-ranged, the “electric” field contribution at large scales is negligible w.r.t. the “magnetic”, and in first approximation we neglect it. However, it might be useful to keep in mind that doing this we neglect a short-range attraction between spinon and antispinon (or holon). Due to the gapless nature of $`A^T`$ we consider the effect of finite temperature using the thermal propagator:

$$F_{ij}(x)F_{rs}(0)=(\delta _{ir}\delta _{js}\delta _{is}\delta _{jr})\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }\frac{d\stackrel{}{k}}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{|\stackrel{}{k}|^2e^{i\omega \xi ^0+i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{\xi }}}{i\frac{\omega }{|\stackrel{}{k}|}\kappa \chi |\stackrel{}{k}|^2}\mathrm{coth}(\frac{\omega }{2T}).$$
(26)
This does not contradict our earlier approximation in considering the zero-temperature spinon propagator in view of the finite spinon mass gap. The leading order in $`T`$ correction enters via the thermal gauge-field propagator in our scheme. Since the energy scale for field fluctuations is set by $`T`$, in (26) the integration over frequency is cut-off at $`\omega T`$ which in turn implies $`|\stackrel{}{k}|(\frac{T\kappa }{\chi })^{1/3}`$.

In the limit $`T\xi ^01`$ an approximate evaluation of the above integral gives

$$i\frac{T}{4\pi \chi }Q_0^2e^{\frac{Q_0^2|\stackrel{}{\xi }|^2}{4}},$$
(27)
where $`Q_0=\left(\frac{\kappa T}{\chi }\right)^{1/3}`$ is a momentum cutoff and $`Q_0^1`$ can be identified as the length scale of gauge fluctuations, analogous to the anomalous skin depth. \[A posteriori the upper limit for $`T`$ in the inequality above turns out to be reasonable because the typical time scale is $`Q_0^1T^{1/3}<T^1`$ at low $`T`$.\] It turns out that this scale is triggering also the size of the spinon-antispinon magnon resonance. It also follows that for $`m_sQ_0`$ in the expectation value (21) the derivative term dominates over the $`F`$-terms at large scales, so that to evaluate $`\mathrm{\Pi }_s`$ the leading term is obtained by computing

$$G(x,0|F)G(x,0|F)_A$$
(28)
and then taking the spatial derivatives. Notice that (28) coincides with the propagator $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(x)\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(0)`$, where $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=z^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }z`$ is a “magnon” field. We denote by $`\varphi _1^\mu `$ and $`\varphi _2^\mu `$ the velocity fields relative to the FSF representation of the two Green functions in (28). Integrating over $`A`$ the product of the two FSF expansions one obtains an effective action, $`I(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)`$, in the velocity fields, which is quartic neglecting the $`\varphi `$-dependence in $`F`$. This approximation can be self-consistently justified a posteriori, because (see eq. (33)):

$$pm_s\frac{1}{s}_0^s𝑑s^{}\varphi (s^{})s^{1/2}(x^0/m_s)^{1/2}.$$
(29)
### IV.3 Eikonal and Saddle Point Approximation

The $`\varphi `$-integration is then performed using the eikonal approximation:

$$[𝒟\varphi _1][𝒟\varphi _2]\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{i}{4}\varphi _1^2+\frac{i}{4}\varphi _2^2\}e^{I(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)}e^{iI(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)_{\varphi _1,\varphi _2}},$$
(30)
where $`_{\varphi _1,\varphi _2}`$ denotes the average w.r.t. the gaussian measure appearing in the l.h.s. of (30). This can be justified if $`I`$ is small, since $`IT`$ for $`T`$ small. Within this approximation the contribution of the two Green functions factorizes. This factorization in a diagrammatic language means that after the cancellation of self-energy and vertex renormalization implicitly involved in the cancellation among Gor’kov terms, the remaining leading effect of $`A`$-fluctuations is a self-energy renormalization of the gauge-invariant spinon propagator. At this stage the correlator $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(x)\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(0)`$ can be written as

$$\left[d^3p_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑se^{\{i(p^2+m_s^2\frac{T}{\chi }f(\alpha ))s+ipx\frac{T}{\chi }Q_0^2s^2g(\alpha )\}}\right]^2,$$
(31)
where $`\alpha =|\stackrel{}{p}|sQ_0,f`$ and $`g`$ are functions which summarize the effect of gauge fluctuations and their length scale variation is in fact $`Q_0^1`$. Explicit integral representations of $`f`$ and $`g`$ are:

$`f(\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\lambda \lambda {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\stackrel{~}{\lambda }{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑vv^2e^{\alpha ^2v^2(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\lambda )^2},`$
$`g(\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\lambda \lambda {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\stackrel{~}{\lambda }{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑vve^{\alpha ^2v^2(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\lambda )^2}.`$ (32)
Finally we evaluate the $`p`$ and $`s`$ integrals by saddle point approximation, obtaining for $`m_s^2T/\chi `$:

$$px/2ss\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{(x^0)^2\stackrel{}{x}^2}{m_s^2\frac{T}{\chi }f(\alpha )}}$$
(33)
and the magnon $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ propagator in $`x`$-space becomes

$$\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(x)\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(0)\frac{1}{(x^0)^2|\stackrel{}{x}|^2}e^{2i\sqrt{m_s^2\frac{T}{\chi }f(\frac{|\stackrel{}{x}|Q_0}{2})}\sqrt{(x^0)^2\stackrel{}{x}^2}\frac{T}{2\chi }Q_0^2g(\frac{|\stackrel{}{x}|Q_0}{2})\frac{(x^0)^2|\stackrel{}{x}|^2}{m_s^2\frac{T}{\chi }f(\frac{|\stackrel{}{x}|Q_0}{2})}}.$$
(34)
To apply the Kubo formula one needs to perform the Fourier transform at $`\stackrel{}{q}=0`$ of $`\stackrel{}{j}^s(x)\stackrel{}{j}^s(0)_\mu \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(x)^\mu \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(0)`$. We consider the region $`x^0>>|\stackrel{}{x}|`$ and evaluate the $`|\stackrel{}{x}|`$-integration via saddle point. Using the form of $`f`$ and $`g`$ one finds that the exponent of (34) at large $`x^0`$ exhibits a complex saddle point at a scale $`|\stackrel{}{x}|(x^0)(x^0)^{1/2}`$, thus verifying the above assumed inequality with a behavior of a standard diffusion, and with argument $`\pi /4`$. \[In the more precise numerical evaluation we neglect small scale fluctuations splitting the above saddle-point into a set of isolated saddle points.\] A numerical extrapolation in the region of small $`x^0`$ yields an approximate $`x^0`$-dependence of the form:

$$|\stackrel{}{x}|(x^0)e^{i\pi /4}x_c(x^0),x_c(x^0)=(C^2Q_0^2+C^{}|x^0|/m_s)^{1/2}$$
(35)
with $`C,C^{}`$ finite positive constant $`(C0.5)`$, thus approaching a finite value as $`x^00`$. Setting $`\alpha (x^0)=Q_0|\stackrel{}{x}|(x^0)`$ and

$$I(x^0)=i\sqrt{m_s^2\frac{T}{\chi }f(\alpha (x^0))}x^0\frac{T}{4\chi }Q_0^2g(\alpha (x^0))\frac{(x^0)^2}{m_s^2\frac{T}{\chi }f(\alpha (x^0))}$$
(36)
we have:

$`j_\mu j^\mu (\stackrel{}{q}=0,x^0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\stackrel{}{x}j_\mu (x^0,\stackrel{}{x})j^\mu (0,\stackrel{}{0})}`$ (37)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_c^3}{((x^0)^2x_c^2)^3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2I(x^0)}{x_c(x^0)^2}}\right)^{1/2}e^{2I(x^0)}.`$
Since $`f`$ is smooth on the scale $`|\stackrel{}{x}|Q_0^1`$, assuming for $`x^0`$ the same scale the dominance of the saddle point requires a lower bound for the temperature, which combined with previous upper bound yields a range of validity given by

$$m_s^2\frac{T}{\chi }m_sQ_0.$$
(38)
In physical units, this gives a range of temperatures between a few tens and a few hundreds of Kelvin. The real part of the exponential in (37) is monotonically decreasing in $`x^0`$, therefore we evaluate the $`x^0`$ integral appearing in Kubo formula (7) by principal part evaluation. Since our approach is valid only at large scales, we introduce an UV cutoff in the integral at $`\lambda Q_0^1`$ and evaluate the integration assuming $`\lambda `$ large. Then we make the conjecture that for small $`\omega `$ the physics is dominated by large scales and the small-scale contribution can be taken into account by removing the UV cutoff after a multiplicative scale renormalization. The result of this approximation is

$$\sigma _s=2\mathrm{Im}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x^0x^0\mathrm{\Pi }(x^0,\stackrel{}{q}=0)\mathrm{Im}\left(\frac{Z_j}{\sqrt{m_s^2\frac{T}{\chi }f(Ce^{i\pi /4})}}\right),$$
(39)
where $`Z_j=Q_0Z_\mathrm{\Omega },Z_\mathrm{\Omega }=(m_s^2ic\frac{T}{\chi })^{1/4}(\chi /Tf^{\prime \prime }(Ce^{i\pi /4}))^{1/2}Q_0^{1/2}`$ and numerically one finds $`f(Ce^{i\pi /4})0.2+i3.3`$ and $`f^{\prime \prime }(Ce^{i\pi /4})`$ real. For simplicity we set $`\mathrm{Im}f(Ce^{i\pi /4})=c`$ and we still denote by $`m_s^2`$ the quantity $`m_s^2\mathrm{Re}f(Ce^{i\pi /4})T/\chi `$ which in the range of temperature we are interested is in fact almost equal to $`m_s^2`$.

### IV.4 Spinon-Antispinon “Resonance” (Magnon) Propagator

For a better understanding of the above equation, we notice that the retarded magnon correlator at positive $`\omega `$ is given in the same approximations by

$$\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(\omega ,\stackrel{}{q})\frac{Z_\mathrm{\Omega }}{\omega 2\sqrt{m_s^2ic\frac{T}{\chi }}}J_0(|\stackrel{}{q}|CQ_0^1e^{i\pi /4})$$
(40)
where $`J_0`$ is the Bessel function.

The above formula explains the physics underlying eq.(39): the gauge fluctuations couple the spinon-antispinon pair into a resonance with mass gap

$$m_\mathrm{\Omega }=2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\sqrt{m_s^2ic\frac{T}{\chi }},$$
(41)
and inverse life-time

$$\tau _\mathrm{\Omega }^1=2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}\sqrt{m_s^2ic\frac{T}{\chi }}.$$
(42)
$`Z_j`$ and $`Z_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can be interpreted as $`T`$-dependent wave-function renormalization factors which modify the temperature dependence of the (physical) correlation functions. Finally, we expect that the plausible effect of the neglected residual short range attraction is a further renormalization of the mass gap, but we believe that this does not introduce significative changes.

## V The electron Green’s function

In this Section we evaluate the continuum limit of the electron Green’s function within our approach, extracting, in particular, the wave function renormalization constant, $`Z`$, and the inverse lifetime, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, needed to compute $`\rho _c`$ in K-J’s approach.

### V.1 Holon Effective Action

In order to have a more systematic derivation, it is worthwhile to start by writing the hopping Hamiltonian for holons, $`H_{hopp}`$, neglecting at first the coupling to the $`h/s`$ gauge field.

Restricting the holon field $`H`$ to the two Néel sublattices, labelled by $`A`$, to which the origin belongs, and $`B`$, we have in momentum space

$$H_{hopp}=\underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}\left(H_A^{}(\stackrel{}{k})H_B^{}(\stackrel{}{k})\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 2t\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\gamma _++i\gamma _{})\\ 2t\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\gamma _+i\gamma _{})& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}H_A(\stackrel{}{k})\\ H_B(\stackrel{}{k}).\end{array}\right)$$
(43)
where

$$\gamma _\pm =\mathrm{cos}(k_xa)\pm \mathrm{cos}(k_ya),$$
(44)
$`a`$ being the lattice spacing and the sum over $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ running in the reduced Brillouin zone. The eigenvalues of $`H_{hopp}`$ are given by:

$$ϵ_\pm (\stackrel{}{k})=\pm 2t\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}(k_xa)^2+\mathrm{cos}(k_ya)^2},$$
(45)
hence they describe double cones with vertices at $`(\pm \frac{\pi }{2},\pm \frac{\pi }{2})`$ in the Brillouin zone.

Since the chemical potential for the holon system is positive, $`\mu 2t\delta `$, only the $`ϵ_+`$ band of the double cones exhibits a FS. For each of these double cones one can identify a two-component, continuum, Dirac field $`\psi _\alpha `$, $`\alpha =,`$ describing the low energy physics of the system. The continuum effective action for holons $`\psi _\alpha `$ coupled to the $`h/s`$ field $`A_\mu `$ can be cast in the form

$$S_h(\psi ,A)=d^3x\overline{\psi }[\gamma _0(_0\mu iA_0)+v_F\gamma _i(_iiA_i)]\psi ,$$
(46)
where $`\overline{\psi }=\psi ^{}\gamma _0`$, $`\gamma _0=\sigma _z`$, $`\gamma _i=(\sigma _y,\sigma _x)`$ and $`v_F=2ta`$ being the Fermi velocity. The relation between $`\psi ,z`$ and the original electron field $`c_\alpha `$ in the two sublattices is found to be given, e.g. near the $`(\frac{\pi }{2},\frac{\pi }{2})`$ double cone, by

$`c_\alpha ^A(x)c_\alpha ^A(0)`$ $``$ $`e^{i(\frac{\pi }{2},\frac{\pi }{2})\stackrel{}{x}}(\overline{\psi }_{}(x)\psi _{}(0)\overline{\psi }_{}(x)\psi _{}(0))z_\alpha (x)z_\alpha ^{}(0)`$ (47)
$`c_\alpha ^B(x)c_\alpha ^A(0)`$ $``$ $`e^{i(\frac{\pi }{2},\frac{\pi }{2})\stackrel{}{x}}\left(e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}\overline{\psi }_{}(x)\psi _{}(0)+e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}\overline{\psi }_{}(x)\psi _{}(0)\right)z_\alpha (x)z_\alpha ^{}(0).`$
Analogous relations hold near the other three double cones. Note that in the $`z`$ correlator, the contribution of the spin flips of the “optimal spinon configuration” of Ref. Mar,  must be taken into account.

### V.2 Tomographic Decomposition

In the previous Section we evaluated the effect of gauge fluctuations on the $`z`$ correlator at large scales, using the FSF path-integral representation. An analogous representation is hard to use for the $`\psi _\alpha `$ correlator because of the finite density of holons. This representation would in fact contain a series of alternating sign contributions, corresponding to an arbitrary number of closed fermion wordlines, describing the contributions of the particles in the finite-density ground state, besides the path from $`0`$ to $`x`$ (see e.g. Ref. Fro, ). To overcome this difficulty, we apply a dimensional reduction by means of the tomographic decomposition introduced by Luther-Haldane.lu  To treat the low-energy degrees of freedom we choose a slice of thickness $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=k_F/\lambda `$, with $`\lambda 1`$, in momentum space around the FS of $`\psi `$, as shown in Fig. 2.

To simplify the description, we assume a circular FS, an approximation reasonable for low $`\delta `$ (the method applies nevertheless to the general case by considering a Fermi momentum varying along the FS). We decompose the slice in approximately square sectors; each sector corresponds to a quasi-particle field in the sense of Gallavotti-Shankar renormalizationgal  (see also Ref. frolh, ). Each sector is characterized by a unit vector $`\stackrel{}{n}(\theta )`$, pointing from the center of the FS to the centre of the box, labelled by the angle $`\theta `$ between this direction and the $`k_x`$ axis. The original momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ inside a given sector is written as

$$\stackrel{}{k}=k_F\stackrel{}{n}(\theta )+\stackrel{}{q},$$
(48)
where $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ spans the box, therefore $`|\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{n}(\theta )|`$, $`|\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{n}(\theta )|\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Due to the Dirac structure of $`\psi `$, to apply the tomographic decomposition to the holon propagator, we first decompose the free $`\psi `$ correlator as

$`\overline{\psi }_\alpha (x)\psi _\beta (0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\left[\frac{e^{ikx}}{\gamma _0(k_0+k_F)+\gamma _\mu k_\mu i\epsilon \mathrm{sgn}(|\stackrel{}{k}|k_F)}\right]_{\alpha \beta }}`$ (49)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}e^{ikx}\frac{1}{k_0+k_F|\stackrel{}{k}|+i\epsilon \mathrm{sgn}(|\stackrel{}{k}|k_F)}}`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0(k_0+k_F)\gamma _\mu k_\mu }{k_0+k_F+|\stackrel{}{k}|i\epsilon \mathrm{sgn}(|\stackrel{}{k}|k_F)}}\right]_{\alpha \beta }.`$
In the scaling limit the matrix in square brackets does not have a pole and, for momenta in a box labelled by $`\stackrel{}{n}(\theta )`$, it approaches

$$A(\theta )=\frac{\gamma _0\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{n}(\theta )}{2}.$$
(50)
In Ref. FMG,  it has been shown that the tomographic decomposition is valid at large distances even in the presence of a minimal coupling to a “photon” field. Applying the tomographic decomposition to the holon propagator in the presence of an external $`h/s`$ gauge field $`A`$, in the scaling limit, using (49),(50), we derive

$`\overline{\psi }_\alpha (x)\psi _\beta (0)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}A_{\alpha \beta }(\theta _i){\displaystyle \frac{dq_0}{2\pi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}e^{ik_F\stackrel{}{n}(\theta _i)\stackrel{}{x}}e^{iq_0x_0i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{x}}}`$ (51)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q_0H_{\theta _i}+i\epsilon \mathrm{sgn}(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{q}}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{n}}(\theta ))}}\right],`$
where

$$H_\theta =A_0+\stackrel{}{n}(\theta )(\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{A})+\frac{1}{2k_F}\left[(\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{A})\stackrel{}{n}(\theta )\right]^2,$$
(52)
and $`_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ denotes integration over a square box of size $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. To the Fourier transform of the term in square bracket of (51) one can apply the FSF path representation (see also Ref. svi,  for a treatment of linear dispersion). Using manipulations analogous to those performed in the previous Section, one can rewrite (51) as

$$\frac{k_F}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}d\theta A(\theta )e^{ik_F\stackrel{}{n}(\theta )\stackrel{}{x}}e^{i_0^xA_\mu 𝑑x^\mu }\frac{dq_0}{2\pi }[_0^{\mathrm{}}du_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{\Theta }(q_{})+$$

$$_{\mathrm{}}^0du_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{\Theta }(q_{})]e^{iq^0(x^0u)i\stackrel{}{q}(\stackrel{}{x}+\stackrel{}{n}(\theta )u)}e^{\frac{iq_{}^2}{2k_F}}$$

$$\times \{𝒟\phi _{}e^{i_0^u\frac{k_F}{2}\phi _{}^2(u^{})𝑑u^{}}e^{i_0^1𝑑\tau \tau _0^u𝑑u^{}_0^u^{}𝑑u^{\prime \prime }\phi ^\mu (u^{})\phi ^\nu (u^{\prime \prime })F_{\mu \nu }(\tau _0^u^{}\phi (u^{\prime \prime \prime })𝑑u^{\prime \prime \prime })}\},$$
(53)
where we use the short notation $`q_{}=\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{n}(\theta )`$, $`q_{}=\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{n}(\theta )`$ and $`\phi `$ is the velocity field of components $`\phi ^\mu (t)=(1,1,\phi _{}(t))`$. Note that in (53) we have replaced the original discrete summation $`_i`$ with the continuum limit $`\frac{k_F}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}𝑑\theta `$. We have checked by explicit computation deL  that the term in curly brackets describing the correction to Gork’ov approximation is irrelevant within the approximation scheme adopted in previous Section and below, so we shall drop it from now on.\[ This agrees with the fact that the holon scattering time behaves like $`T^{4/3}`$ , a posteriori a much longer time with respect to the electron scattering time, triggered by gauge fluctuations on spinons.\] Then, the $`u`$ integration can be performed exactly, after the trivial $`q_0`$ integration. The $`q_{}`$ integration gives

$$_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Lambda }𝑑q_{}e^{iq_{}(x_{}x^0v_F)}\mathrm{\Theta }(q_{})=\frac{1}{i}\frac{e^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_{}x^0v_F)}1}{(x_{}x^0v_F)}i\frac{1}{x_{}x^0v_F},$$
(54)
where the last approximation is valid (in the weak sense) in the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }v_Fx^01`$. Setting $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_0)=\left(\frac{k_F}{v_Fx^0}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, the $`q_{}`$ integration gives

$$_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Lambda }𝑑q_{}e^{i(q_{}x_{}\frac{v_F}{k_F}q_{}^2x^0)}=\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_0)_{\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_0)}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_0)}𝑑ye^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_0)x_{}y}e^{i\frac{1}{2}y^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_0)\frac{e^{\frac{i}{2}x_{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_0)}}{\sqrt{i}}.$$
(55)
Collecting all pieces, the holon Green’s function in the scaling limit and for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }x_01`$ can be written as:

$`\overline{\psi }_\alpha (x)\psi _\beta (0)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_0)k_F}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\theta \frac{e^{\frac{i}{2}x_{}(\theta )^2\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_0)}}{\sqrt{i}}A(\theta )_{\alpha \beta }e^{ik_Fx_{}(\theta )}}`$ (56)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_{}(\theta )x^0v_F}}\mathrm{\Theta }(x_0)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_{}(\theta )+x^0v_F}}\mathrm{\Theta }(x_0)\right]e^{i_0^xA_\mu 𝑑x^\mu }.`$
### V.3 Electron Propagator

Next, we compute the electron Green’s function using equation (47). The Gor’kov terms in the $`\psi `$ and the $`z`$ correlators cancel against each other and the gauge field fluctuations act only on the gauge-invariant spinon correlator. Within the approximations used in previous Section, one can easily verify that this correlator in the scaling limit in $`x`$-space behaves as square root of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-propagator (40). We perform now the Fourier transform of the electron propagator for momenta close to the Fermi surface, in a sector laballed by the angle $`\eta `$, $`G_\alpha (\omega ,(\pi /2,\pi /2)+\stackrel{}{n}(\eta )k_F+\stackrel{}{q})`$, for small $`\omega `$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}`$. We integrate over $`\theta `$ using the following:

Lemma: FMG  Let $`f(\theta ,\stackrel{}{x})`$ be a smooth function, then in the large distance limit $`|\stackrel{}{x}|\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ we have

$$𝑑\theta e^{ik_F(\stackrel{}{n}(\eta )\stackrel{}{n}(\theta )\stackrel{}{x}}f(\theta ,\stackrel{}{x})\frac{2\pi }{k_F}f(\eta ,\stackrel{}{x})\delta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^1}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{n}(\eta )),$$
(57)
where $`\delta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^1}`$ denotes an approximate $`\delta `$-function of width $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$.

Setting $`\stackrel{}{x}=|\stackrel{}{x}|\stackrel{}{n}(\varphi )`$ we approximate

$$\delta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^1}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{n}(\eta ))\frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{x}|}[\delta (\varphi \eta )+\delta (\varphi \eta +\pi )].$$
(58)
One can easily perform the $`\varphi `$-integration; the remaining integration over space-time variables is done as in previous Section, namely by saddle point approximation for $`|\stackrel{}{x}|`$ in the limit $`x^0|\stackrel{}{x}|`$ and by principal part evaluation and scale renormalization for $`x^0`$. The final result is

$$G_\alpha (\omega ,(\frac{\pi }{2},\frac{\pi }{2})+\stackrel{}{n}(\eta )k_F+\stackrel{}{q})$$

$$S(\eta )Z\left[e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{n}(\eta )|x_c(0)|}\frac{1}{\omega +\mathrm{\Sigma }v_F\frac{d|x_c|}{d|x_0|}(0)q_{}}+e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{n}(\eta )|x_c(0)|}\frac{1}{\omega \mathrm{\Sigma }v_F\frac{d|x_c|}{d|x_0|}(0)q_{}}\right],$$
(59)
where $`S(\eta )`$ is the angle dependent part of the wave function renormalization constant

$$S(\eta )=\frac{1}{2}\left[1\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\mathrm{cos}(\eta )+\mathrm{sin}(\eta ))\right].$$
(60)
This angle-dependent spectral weight is demonstrated in Fig. 3. In (59) $`Z`$ is the wave function renormalization constant averaged over the FS; writing the tomographic momentum cut-off as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{k_F}{\lambda }`$, with $`\lambda 1`$ and taking into account the definition of $`Q_0`$ we obtain

$$Z\lambda (\frac{Q_0}{k_F})^{\frac{1}{2}}(\frac{m_s\kappa }{J^2})^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(61)
The renormalized electron self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=v_s\sqrt{m_s^2ic\frac{T}{\chi }},$$
(62)
where we have reintroduced the spinon velocity $`v_s`$ previously set equal to 1. From (59) we can immediately read off the inverse scattering time $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the electron: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

### V.4 Fermi Surface and Electron Resonance

We now make the following

Assumption FS: the neglected short - range attraction between spinon and holon renormalize the real part of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ exactly to $`0`$, so that the electron exhibits a Fermi surface.

If Assumption FS holds, one might conjecture that this is due to a mechanism somewhat analogous to the one which renormalizes to zero the mass of the 2-fermion bound state (“pion”) of massless $`QED_3`$, whose constituent fermion are dynamically massive.qed3  This cancellation between mass and self-energy attractions is there triggered by a symmetry principle, whose analogue in our scheme would require further investigation. One should remark that our treatment of the problem makes resemblance to the one discussed in Ref. lee, , in the SU(2) $`\times `$ U(1) slave boson approach and in fact it yields a similar structure for the FS, although the scattering time is rather different.

Under Assumption FS, finally, for $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0}`$ and $`\omega >0`$ small we find the structure (8) with the replacement $`ZS(\eta )Z`$.

This structure shows that the gauge fluctuations are able to bind together spinon and holon into a resonance for low energies and momenta close to the Fermi momenta, but with a wave function renormalization constant which depends both on the point of the FS, due to $`S(\eta )`$, and the temperature. In particular $`ZT^{1/6}`$, so $`Z`$ vanishes if formally extrapolated to $`T=0`$. This implies a peculiar non-Fermi liquid character for this system of “electron resonances”. However, a real extrapolation to $`T=0`$ cannot be done because the $`|\stackrel{}{x}|`$ \- saddle point is only dominant for $`T\chi m_sQ_0`$. The system therefore appears to fit naturally within the scheme of Unstable Fixed Points (UFP) outlined by Anderson.Ander  There it is argued that in general in the Renormalization Group (RG) formalism, starting at high temperature and energy and integrating out high frequencies one derives a low temperature - low frequency model. However the system does not always flow smoothly under RG to $`T=0`$. It might develop a tendency to approach at intermediate temperatures an infrared UFP. The composite holon-spinon system discussed above yielding the “electron resonance”, might be a UFP in the temperature range of validity of our approximations. The angular dependence of the wave function renormalization $`S(\eta )`$ yields a reduction of the spectral weight outside the reduced Brillouin zone,in qualitative agreement with ARPES experiments in underdoped cuprates (see Ref. lee,  for a similar situation in the SU(2) $`\times `$ U(1) slave boson approach). In fact, the intensity measured in ARPES experiment, is proportional to $`\mathrm{Im}G(\omega ,\stackrel{}{k})n(\omega )`$; denoting by $`I(\stackrel{}{k})`$ the integrated intensity along the “electron FS” we have a contribution to $`I`$ due to the “electron resonance” given by

$$I(\stackrel{}{n}(\theta )k_F)S(\theta )Z.$$

The factor $`S(\theta )`$ is peaked around $`\theta =\frac{5\pi }{4}`$ (for the FS near ($`\frac{\pi }{2},\frac{\pi }{2}`$)) and it is substantially reduced on the opposite side (see Fig. 3 ).

One might try to extend the analysis performed above for momenta $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ around the holon FS in a shell of thickness $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, by including the contributions of momenta $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ outside the shell, but still smaller than the U.V. cutoff of the continuum model. If in this contribution one tentatively neglects the effect of gauge fluctuations which give rise to incoherent component to the “electron” Green function, the essential features of our present consideration will remain; a detailed analysis is in progress.

## VI Comparison with experiments

### VI.1  MIC of In-plane Resistivity

Let us now summarize the main results of Section IV, useful to derive a formula for the in-plane resistivity $`\rho `$, for comparison with the experimental data.

We have shown that (under the stated approximations) the gauge fluctuations exhibit a typical scale, a sort of anomalous skin penetration depth, $`Q_0^1\delta ^{2/3}T^{1/3}`$. In the range of temperature identified by $`m_s^2\frac{T}{\chi }m_sQ_0`$ the gauge field couples a spinon-antispinon pair into a magnon resonance on a scale triggered by $`Q_0^1`$. The resonance exhibits a complex mass term, $`M`$, of “relativistic” structure:

$$M=2\sqrt{m_s^2ic\frac{T}{\chi }},$$
(63)
where $`c3.3`$, whose imaginary part appears as a consequence of the dissipative nature of gauge fluctuations for energies smaller than $`T`$.

The residue of the complex pole in the magnon resonance correlator is also $`T`$-dependent and behaves like $`Q_0^1(M\kappa )^{1/2}`$, where $`\kappa `$ is the Landau damping. Using $`\stackrel{}{j}^s\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}Q_0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ and the Kubo formula for spinon conductivity one obtains:

$$\rho _s\frac{m_s^{1/2}}{\sqrt{\delta }}\frac{\left(1+\left(\frac{\xi }{\lambda _T}\right)^4\right)^{\frac{1}{8}}}{\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{\xi }{\lambda _T}\right)^2\right]},$$
(64)
where $`\xi |\delta \mathrm{ln}\delta |^{1/2}`$, $`\lambda _T(\chi /Tc)^{1/2}`$.

For the holons one can borrow a computation performed diagrammatically in Ref. Lee,  for a Fermi liquid interacting with a gauge field exhibiting Reizer singularity. Adding, via Matthiessen rule, the contribution of impurities one finds:

$$\rho _h\delta [(ϵ_F\tau _{imp})^1+(\frac{T}{ϵ_F})^{4/3}],$$
(65)
For small $`\delta ,\frac{T}{t}`$ we have $`\rho _s>>\rho _h`$, so the spinon contribution dominates the physical resistivity in the Ioffe-Larkin rule. For low $`T`$, $`\rho _s\frac{1}{T}`$, thus exhibiting an insulating behaviour, for $`T\chi m_s^2`$ one finds $`\rho _sT^{1/4}`$, thus showing a metallic behaviour. From formula (64) a MIC is thus recovered decreasing the temperature, as shown in the experiments discussed in Sect. IC. This crossover is determined by the interplay between the AF correlation length $`\xi `$ and the thermal de Broglie wave length $`\lambda _T`$. note2  When $`\lambda _T\xi `$ the “peculiar” localization due to SRAFO is not felt and a metallic behavior is observed. In the opposite limite $`\lambda _T\xi `$ we find the insulating behaviour (but due to the gauge interaction , $`\rho _se^{(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{T})^\alpha }`$, a behavior found for a “standard” localization). The doping dependence is rather weak, due to a delicate cancellation in the doping dependence of the dimensionless variable

$$y=\left(\frac{\xi }{\lambda _T}\right)^2=\frac{Tc}{\chi m_s^2}\frac{Tc}{t|\mathrm{ln}\delta |}.$$
(66)
which controls $`\rho _s`$, see (64). Our formula for $`\rho _s`$ has essentially no free parameters except for an overall resistivity scale. The only parameter $`O(1)`$ used in our numerical calculations is the coefficient $`r`$ in the parametrization

$$\chi m_s^2\frac{t}{6\pi \delta }|\delta \mathrm{ln}\delta |r,$$

which one can fine-tune by using e.g. the minimum of resistivity for some fixed doping. The entire set of curves $`\rho (\delta ,T)`$ are then completely determined. As shown in Fig.1 of Ref. Dai, , the agreement with experimental data is really good, and the MIC temperature goes down, as the doping increasing. If there were no logarithmic correction in our derived spinon mass, there would be no doping dependence AT ALL for the MIC temperature.

### VI.2 Universal Normalized Resistivity

Now we consider a more subtle prediction following from our theoretical treatment.

As mentioned in Sect. IIIA, an inflection point $`T^{}`$ has been observed in heavily underdoped cuprates at a higher temperature, where $`d\rho /dT`$ has a maximum. Such an inflection point can be tentatively identified with the pseudogap temperature. Such an inflection point also appears in our derived in-plane resistivity formula (we still denote it by $`T^{}`$), and the “relativistic” structure of the mass term is responsible for it. We find that $`T^{}`$ corresponds to $`y3.4`$ Moreover, there is another inflection point in experimental data at low temperatures below which the resistivity exhibits an approximate logarithmic temperature dependence. log  We propose to identify these two inflection points as the upper and lower bounds for the validity of our approximation and to approximately identify the $`\delta T`$ parameter region corresponding to the “pseudogap phase” of cuprates. Above the upper inflection point, the system enters the “strange metal” phase to which a separate paper is devoted.stmet  Below the lower inflection point, the system also crosses over to a new phase whose properties have to be explored.

Neglecting the $`T^{\frac{4}{3}}`$ contribution, as justified at low $`T`$, from our formula (64) we notice that if we define the “normalised resistivity”

$$\rho _n(T)=\frac{\rho (T)\rho (T_{MIC})}{\rho (T^{})\rho (T_{MIC})}$$
(67)
this is a universal (i.e. doping independent) function of the variable $`y`$ eq. (66), where $`T_{MIC}`$ denotes the minimum of $`\rho _s`$ and one finds it corresponding to $`y1.7`$.

This curve has been noticed in the YBCO Wuyts  data and quantitatively similar “universal curves” have been observed also for LSCO,loram  BSLCO, BSCO.raffy  \[In these last references a different definition of $`T^{}`$ was used, based on deviation from linearity of $`\rho `$, not directly accessible to our approach, and therefore not permitting a direct comparison with our formula. A rough estimate, however, gives for that $`T^{}`$ a value dependent on the material, but approximately twice our definition of $`T^{}`$\]. Our formalism, on the other hand, explains in a neat way their universality character. In Fig. 4 we plot the calculated normalized resistivity $`\rho _n`$ to be compared with the corresponding experimental curve on LSCO and YBCO that we extracted from the data of Takagi et al. Taka  and Trappeniers et al.,Wuyts  see Fig. 5. We did not make any attempts to reconcile the calculated and observed location of MIC temperature which may depend on factors, not included in our consideration but the the universal character of the normalized resistivity is an explicit prediction of theory in agreement with experiment.

Also, the recently experimentally observed $`ab`$ asymmetry in the conductivity of LSCO at low temperaturesando021d ; basov  has a natural explanation in our framework as due to the anisotropy of the MIC temperature in $`ab`$ directions. A detailed explanation will be given in a separate communication.ab-anisotropy

### VI.3 Out-of-Plane Resistivity

Let us summarize the results of Section V needed to compute $`\rho _c.`$ In the temperature range $`m_s^2\frac{T}{\chi }m_sQ_0`$, the gauge fluctuations couple spinon and holon close to the FS into an “electron” resonance with scattering rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ proportional to the inverse life-time of the magnon, hence

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{Im}\sqrt{m_s^2ic\frac{T}{\chi }}\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{JT}{t}(\frac{\delta }{|\mathrm{ln}\delta |})^{\frac{1}{2}},\hfill & \frac{T}{\chi m_s^2}1\hfill \\ J(\frac{T\delta }{t})^{\frac{1}{2}},\hfill & \frac{T}{\chi m_s^2}1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(68)
The wave function renormalization is the product of a term $`S(\theta )`$, varying along the FS, where $`\theta `$ is the angle labelling the direction from the center, inherited from the Dirac structure of the holon action, and a $`T`$-dependent term $`Z`$. This in turn is a product of a term proportional to the “magnon” renormalization constant $`Z_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and a term coming from integration over fluctuations of holons, gaussian for those along and linear for those perpendicular to the FS, with a scale set by gauge fluctuations, hence giving a contribution $`Q_0^{3/2}`$

$$ZZ_\mathrm{\Omega }Q_0^{3/2}\sqrt{\delta m_sQ_0}.$$
(69)
To compute $`\rho _c`$ we average the angular dependence of $`S(\theta )`$ and insert (68) and (69) in K-J’s formula eq.(10).

It follows from (68,10) that for low $`T`$, $`\rho _cT^1`$ and for higher temperature, if the first term in (10) still dominates, $`\rho _cT^{1/2}`$ with a coefficient independent of $`t_c`$. These features reproduce qualitatively the behavior observed experimentally in several materials (LSCO,YBCO… ) in the “pseudogap phase” including the rounded knee cited in Sect. IIIB, which corresponds to the above change of temperature dependence.

As a consequence of K-J’s approach $`\rho _c`$ at low $`T`$ appears to give a direct test for the scattering rate of the “electron” in the pseudogap phase. The “metallic” contribution of the second term is important only at higher temperature, where it scales as $`T^{1/6}`$, causing a further flattening of the $`\rho _c(T)`$ curves or possibly a minimum. Apart from an overall scale, having already fixed with $`\rho _{ab}`$ the variable $`\chi m_s^2`$, our formula has only one free parameter, the scale of $`Z`$, i.e. essentially the scale $`\lambda `$ controlling the cutoff on momenta perpendicular to the FS, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=k_F/\lambda `$ and weighting the “metallic” contribution. This parameter should be a somewhat large number and might be roughly estimated by fitting $`\rho _c`$ for one doping concentration. For other dopings the $`T`$-dependence behavior of $`\rho _c`$ is then derived and as one can see from Fig. 6, the theoretical results are in good agreement with experimental data.knee

Having an explicit theoretical dependence on $`\delta `$ and $`T`$ for both $`\rho _c`$ and $`\rho _{ab}`$ one can further analyze the anisotropy ratio $`\frac{\rho _c}{\rho _{ab}}`$. The derived temperature dependence of this ratio is shown in Fig. 7; this ratio clearly saturates at low $`T`$, since both $`\rho _c`$ and $`\rho `$ scale as $`\frac{1}{T}`$ but at higher temperature, in the “metallic” region for in-plane resistivity, the ratio decreases like $`T^{1/4}`$. Again this behavior is qualitatively consistent with the experimental data in the “pseudogap phase”PWA ; log , as shown in the inset of the same figure.

### VI.4 Hidden MIC in Superconducting Cuprates and Magnetoresistance

The techniques developed in previous sections are useful to compute other observables, like the transverse in-plane magnetoresistance and the 63Cu spin-lattice relaxation rate. The calculation of magnetoresistance is outlined in Ref. magneto, , therefore here we only briefly review the results.

The basic underlying hypothesis is that suppressing superconductivity by applying a magnetic field, in superconducting underdoped samples one recovers the normal-state “pseudogap phase”.

A magnetic field $`H`$ perpendicular to the plane then modifies the gauge effective action in two ways: 1) Via a minimal coupling it induces a shift $`AA\epsilon A_{em}`$ in the spinon term and $`AA+(1\epsilon )A_{em}`$ in the holon term, where $`\epsilon `$ is the spinon effective charge and $`A_{em}`$ is the vector potential corresponding to the applied uniform static magnetic field $`H`$. In a mean-field treatment the effective charge should be chosen as to satisfy the Ioffe-Larkin rule for diamagnetic susceptibility (see Refs. iof, ; magneto, ). Therefore $`\epsilon \chi _h/\chi `$. 2) The presence of $`H`$ induces a parity-breaking Chern-Simons term in the holon action $`(\sigma _h(H)/2\pi )A^0ϵ_{ij}^iA^j`$, where $`\sigma _h(H)`$ is the holon Hall conductivity. Since $`A_0`$ is short-ranged, with a gap $`\gamma =\nu +\omega _p`$ (see eq.(22)), it can be integrated out first yielding an effective renormalization of the diamagnetic susceptibility in the transverse action: $`\chi \chi (H)=\chi +\frac{\sigma _h^2(H)}{4\pi ^2\gamma }`$ as discussed in Ref. iof, . This effect is however subleading at low $`T`$.

Under the approximations of Sect. IV the result of effects 1) and 2) can be summarized by a modification of the “relativistic” mass term of spinon:

$$MM(H)=\sqrt{m_s^2i\left(\frac{cT}{\chi (H)}\frac{\epsilon ^2H^2}{3Q_0^2}\right)}.$$
(70)
\[A technical comment: the minimal coupling in the FSF path-representation of $`G(x,0|F)`$ produces a term $`\mathrm{exp}[i\epsilon _0^1𝑑\lambda \lambda _0^s𝑑s^{}_0^s^{}𝑑s^{\prime \prime }(\varphi ^i(s^{})2p^i)(\varphi ^j(s^{\prime \prime })2p^j)ϵ_{ij}H]`$ , see eq.(20), and evaluating the $`\varphi `$ integral in gaussian approximation this term yields a contribution $`e^{is^3|\stackrel{}{p}|^2H^2}`$ to the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ correlator in eq.(31). This finally is responsible for the shift of the last term in the square root in eq. (70)\] The limits of validity of the $`|\stackrel{}{x}|`$ saddle point become $`\chi (H)Q_0|M(H)|T`$, $`\mathrm{Im}(M(H))m_s^2`$, which for the range of physical parameters considered here ($`H`$ 100 Tesla) gives a temperature range still lying between a few tens and a few hundreds degrees. Hence, to conclude, the presence of $`H`$ modifies $`\rho _s`$ via the cyclotron effect, by reducing the damping from $`\frac{T}{\chi }`$ to $`\frac{T}{\chi (H)}\frac{H^2\epsilon ^2}{3Q_0^2}`$.

This reduction makes the thermal de Broglie wavelength $`\lambda _T`$ longer, so the MIC occurs at a higher temperature w.r.t. the system at $`H=0`$. The external magnetic field then reveals the MIC originally hidden in the superconducting samples.

Furthermore the shift of the minimum of $`\rho `$ causes a strong positive transverse magnetoresistance (MR) at low $`T`$, as in fact experimentally seen,lacerda ; magnes  an effect missing in previous theoretical treatments.iof  At higher temperatures, in the region where dissipation dominates, the shift of diamagnetic susceptibility due to the Chern-Simons term induces a reduction of resistivity, a tendency contrasted by the classical cyclotron effect on holons, taken into account in the Boltzmann equation approximation. One then has two possible types of MR curves: one is always positive but it exhibits a knee below the crossover temperature between the mass gap and the dissipation dominated regions (See Fig. 3 in Ref. magneto, ). This behavior can be compared with the one observed in LSCO reported in Ref. lacerda,  and one finds a reasonably good agreement. If, on the contrast, the quantum effects related to $`\sigma _h(H)`$ are sufficiently strong, a minimum develops, eventually leading to a negative MR in some region around it. The MR scales quadratically with $`H`$ (See Fig. 2 in Ref. magneto,  ) in agreement, in particular, with data on LSCO, magnes  away from the doping $`\delta =1/8`$ where the stripe effects dominate. \[In the explicit formula one should also take into account the modification induced by $`H`$ in the contribution of the Landau damping to $`Z_j`$: $`\sqrt{\kappa }(\frac{T}{\chi (H)}Q_0^3c^{}H^2Q_0^5)^{1/2}`$ where $`c^{}`$ is a new constant $`f^{\prime \prime }(Ce^{i\pi /4}`$) in fact roughly estimated, together with a parameter coefficient of $`H`$ in $`\sigma (H)`$, by comparison with an experimental curve at some doping.\]

Finally we notice that in $`Zn`$-doped superconducting samples of BSLCO the MIC become observable upon increase of $`Zn`$ doping (when a magnetic field suppresses superconductivity) and it shifts to higher temperature as the level of $`Zn`$-doping increases.Zn  This effect is qualitatively consistent with our picture. In fact, the $`Zn`$-doping disturbs the AF background, so making the AF correlation length shorter, therefore shifting the MIC temperature up, although we are not able, at the moment, to make a quantitative estimate of this shift.

### VI.5 Spin-Lattice Relaxation Rate

We turn now to the spin-lattice relaxation rate for the Cu-sites, ($`\frac{1}{T_1})^{63}`$, see Ref. Dai, . This can be theoretically computed using the Kubo formula:

$$\frac{1}{T_1T}=\underset{\omega 0}{lim}d^2q|\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{q})|^2\frac{\mathrm{Im}\chi _s(\stackrel{}{q},\omega )}{\omega },$$
(71)
where $`\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{q})`$ is the hyperfine field and $`\chi _s(\stackrel{}{q},\omega )`$ the spin susceptibility. For the Cu sites the hyperfine field $`\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{q})`$ is peaked around $`Q_{AF}=(\pi ,\pi )`$, thus probing the AF spin fluctuations. The electron spin field $`\stackrel{}{S}(x)=c^{}\frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{2}c(x)`$ is related to the spinon and holon fields by

$$\stackrel{}{S}(x)(1H^{}H(x))e^{i\stackrel{}{Q}_{AF}\stackrel{}{x}}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(x).$$

Approximating $`H^{}H`$ by its mean field value $`\delta `$ and using the Lehmann representation one finds, for small $`\stackrel{}{q}`$:

$$\underset{\omega 0}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{Im}\chi _s(𝒬_{AF}+\stackrel{}{q},\omega )}{\omega }\mathrm{Im}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_0d^2x(1\delta )^2<\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(x)\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(0)>e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{x}}.$$
(72)
The $`|\stackrel{}{x}|`$ and $`x^0`$ integration are performed as in Sect. IVC. Assuming a cutoff for the $`|\stackrel{}{q}|`$ integration in (71 ) given by the inverse anomalous skin depth, $`Q_0`$, and using the smoothness of $`\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{q})`$ at this scale we derive

$$𝑑\theta _{|\stackrel{}{q}|<Q_0}d|\stackrel{}{q}||\stackrel{}{q}||\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{q})|^2e^{i\stackrel{}{q}|\stackrel{}{x}|(0)\mathrm{cos}\theta }Q_0^2J_0(Ce^{i\pi /4}).$$
(73)
Numerically one finds $`\mathrm{Re}J_0(ce^{i\pi /4})a`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}J_0(ce^{i\pi /4})b`$ with $`a/b0.1`$. Plugging (73) and (40) in (72) one obtains from the Kubo formula (71)

$`(T_1T)^1(1\delta )^2\sqrt{\delta }|M|^{\frac{1}{2}}(a\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{arg}M}{2}})+b\mathrm{sin}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{arg}M}{2}}))`$ (74)
For low $`T`$, $`\frac{1}{T_1T}a+bT`$ and for higher $`T`$ one finds $`\frac{1}{T_1T}T^{1/4}`$; therefore the spin lattice relaxation rate $`(\frac{1}{T_1T})`$ on Cu- sites exhibits a maximum and an inflection point at higher temperature, as observed in YBCO underdoped samples.Ber

If $`a`$ would be $`0`$, then $`\frac{1}{T_1T}`$ would be proportional to the spinon conductivity $`\sigma _s`$, and the maximum and the inflection point would be at the same temperature of the MIC and $`T^{}`$, respectively. However, due to the $`a`$ term in (74) they are shifted. In particular, the inflection point is found at a lower temperature $`T_0`$, in qualitative agreement with the fact that experimentally the pseudogap temperature deduced from spin-lattice relaxation rate is lower than that derived from the resistivity measurements.T\*

We end this Section by remarking that preliminary calculations are giving also encouraging results, when compared with the experimental data, for the electronic AC conductivity at small $`\omega `$ basov  and the electronic specific heat. spheat

## VII Concluding Remarks

To summarize we have presented in this paper the calculation of physical quantities like the in-plane and out-of-plane resistivities, spin-lattice relaxation rate, etc within the spin-charge gauge field approach, and compared the theoretical results with experimental data in the pseudogap phase with a very good agreement. In particular, we have elucidated the origin of the MIC in the non-superconducting cuprates as well as the MIC in superconducting samples when a strong magnetic field suppresses the superconductivity. In our view, this striking phenomenon is an intrinsic property of the pseudogap phase which can shed light on other puzzles in this regime. We are still in the process of studying the diversified properties using our approach in this interesting phase.

There is some skeptism w.r.t. the gauge field approach in general, mainly because of the strong interactions among the constituent particles. Our attempt in this direction, at least, gives some encouraging signal: if the underlying physics is grasped by the treatment, and appropriate non-perturbative tools are employed, there is a fair chance to correctly describe the puzzling phenomena in the strongly-correlated systems. The treatment is not ”rigorous” in the mathematical-physics sense, but still acceptable by ”theoretical-physics” standard. Needless to say, the final word belongs to experiments, verifying all consequences of the theoretical interpretation.

The gauge field approach provides us with a non-trivial picture in strongly correlated two-dimensional systems. Unlike the one-dimensional systems where the spin and charge are fully separated, and three-dimensional systems where the spin and charge are confined, the spin and charge in two-dimensional systems appear ”separated” in their scattering against gauge fluctuations, while being bound into ”electron” resonance at low energy-momentum scale. In particular, in the “pseudogap phase” the presence of $`\pi `$ flux and AF Néel background makes the system ”relativistic” with linear dispersion for the holons and spinons ”massive” due to interaction with vortices attached to slowly moving renormalized holons. If the system were truly ”relativistic”, we would have spinon-holon confinement. However in the actual system the presence of a finite Fermi surface breaks the ”bootstrap” symmetry and gives rise to the very peculiar Reizer singularity, producing the binding force between spinon-antispinon and spinon-holon. The physical consequences of this non-trivial picture have to be further explored.

Acknowlegments. We thank J.H. Dai for his collaboration in an early stage of this project. Useful discussions with Y. Ando and D. Basov are gratefully acknowledged.