text:
# Decoherence of Two-Level Systems Can Be Very Different from Brownian Particles

## 1 Introduction

A two-level system (2LS) interacting with an electromagnetic field (EMF) has proven to be a very useful model for a wide range of problems from atomic-optical  and condensed matter  processes to quantum computation . For the latter application stringent limits in maintaining the coherence of the 2LS (called qubits) are required. This prompted us to revisit the theoretical structure of the 2LS-EMF system, paying special attention to its relaxation and decoherence properties .

Environment-induced decoherence  has been studied extensively in recent years primarily based on models of quantum Brownian motion (QBM)  for the interaction of a simple harmonic oscillator (Brownian particle) with a harmonic oscillator bath (HOB) at a finite temperature, leading to a reasonably good understanding of its characteristic features. Decoherence of a 2LS in an EMF has been studied by a number of authors, notably , and their dissipative and decoherent behavior are reported to be similar to that of a QBM in a harmonic oscillator bath. They described the progression in three stages – quiescent, vacuum fluctuation-dominated and thermal fluctuation-dominated, separated by the cutoff frequency and the thermal de Broglie frequency (wavelength), which are characteristic QBM features . A recent comprehensive review of environment-induced decoherence can be found in .

Our findings, based on the standard 2LA-EMF model , are in stark disagreement from that reported in the literature. From solutions of the exact master equation for the reduced density matrix obtained recently by Charis Anastopoulos and the author  capable of treating non-Markovian dynamics at zero temperature, the decoherence time of the 2LA is found to be close to the relaxation time. In many circumstances these times are rather long – indeed, that is why observations of many optical coherence phenomena are possible. This result is, in first appearance, rather counter-intuitive, and different from all previous findings. However, as will be explained here, the ‘intuition’ one forms about the nature of dissipation and decoherence are hitherto largely based on the QBM model. It is quite general, yet by no means universal. This convenient extrapolation could have influenced the choice of model in previous authors’ investigation and the readers’ impression of decoherence for a 2LS. Our findings show that such a commonly invoked intuition for QBM in a HOB fails to apply to that of a two-level atom (2LA) interacting with an electromagnetic field (EMF). Our conclusion shows the need for extra caution in accepting categorical depiction of decoherence: One needs to identify the correct type of coupling of the 2LS with its environment and consider different decoherent mechanisms at work in a realistic experiment.

Decoherence in QBM

The folklore that decoherence of a Brownian oscillator proceeds in a very short time (typically $`10^{40}`$ of the dissipation time) is really based on high temperature ohmic bath conditions. This is widely known because it is the only technically simple case studied in detail . It is by no means universal. Intuitively, the bath needs to have many degrees of freedom, preferably acting independently of each other so incooperatively that the phase information in the system will be dispersed to the largest extent amongst the many bath degrees of freedom and affords little chance or takes inordinately long time to be revived or reconstituted (recoherence, see, e.g., ). Long decoherence times can appear in cases of low temperature, supraohmic bath, as was first pointed out by Hu, Paz and Zhang in analyzing decoherence behavior of QBM based on their exact non-Markovian master (HPZ) equation for general environments. (For details based on numerical and analytical solutions of the HPZ equation, see ). The almost opposite picture (of very long decoherence time) is exemplified by two coupled subsystems where no coarse-graining is introduced, such as the ‘dressed atom’ description  made possible because of the coherence established between a 2LA and a single resonant mode in the cavity. (Collapse and revival of the Rabi nutation are distinct features of quantum coherence .) This shows that both the coupling and the nature of the environment are important factors affecting the decoherence of the system.

We also want to point out that equating a 2LS with QBM could be as mistaken as ignoring the basic difference between dissipative and mixing systems. To the extent that QBM exemplifies the former, spin echo phenomena (e.g, Chap. 3 )is an example of the latter. Plasma waves showing Landau damping in Vlasov dynamics arising from a mean field approximation is another example  of the latter – the ‘damping’ is really a misnomer. Just as in the spin echo phenomena, the basic physics in this case is not dissipation in the Boltzmann sense, but statistical mixing . We will see that the statistical mechanical properties of a 2LA-EMF system is closer to the latter than the QBM, and reflects in their different decoherence nature.

Coherence in the 2LS

For the 2LA-EMF system, one clear distinction between an EM field and a system of harmonic oscillators acting as bath is that the field (coupled to a detector) has an intrinsic spectral density function, which cannot be chosen arbitrarily. For example, it has been shown  that a conformal scalar field in two dimensions coupled to a monopole detector has an Ohmic character while in four dimensions it is supraohmic . Barone and Caldeira  showed that the spectral density function for EM fields with momentum coupling to an oscillator detector is supraohmic. These density functions would show very different decoherent behavior from the high temperature Ohmic HOB case which molds the common impression of decoherence.

But the most important distinction from QBM is that the 2LA couples with the EMF in the discrete number basis for the field, unlike the continuous amplitude basis in the QBM. This fact (which is true in the rotating wave and dipole approximation) implies that the 2LS plus EMF system is a resonant one. Hence even though the EM field has just as many (in fact, a large number of) modes as the HOB, only a very small fraction of them in a narrow range of the resonance frequency are efficiently coupled to the atom. This is the root cause for the very different qualitative behavior between the QBM and the 2LS as far as decoherence is concerned.

We see that in a 2LA, for purely radiative decay the decay time $`T_1`$ of the inversion is half the decay time $`T_2`$ of the polarization. There is no large order of magnitude differences between dissipation and decoherence time. In fact it is perhaps inappropriate to talk about dissipation for a 2LA-EMF system because the conditions for a bath to actuate such a process is lacking. The transition from excited to ground state is closer in nature to relaxation (with relaxation time constant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) than dissipation. In a cavity where excitation of the atom from the field (absorption)balances with emission, it is more appropriate to refer to the resonant state of the atom-field as a coherent system. In these scenarios the distinction between QBM and 2LA cannot be clearer.

Difference between QBM and 2LS

So what led earlier authors to make the claim that 2LS decoheres easily? We think the confusion arises when the picture of QBM dissipation and decoherence is grafted on the 2LA-EMF system indiscriminately. If the field which acts as the environment is a phonon field (from ion vibrations, see, e.g., ), if there is atomic collisions in a cavity  or if the cavity walls are imperfect, some of these decoherent agents could follow the QBM pattern as reported by many authors. Such sources can be important for some setups.

Quantitatively, the model for the 2LS used by most authors for the discussion of decoherence inspired by QBM type of behavior has the atom in a $`\widehat{\sigma }_z`$ state (the diagonal Pauli matrix) coupled to the field mode operators $`\widehat{b}^{},\widehat{b}`$. This type of coupling term (call it $`\widehat{\sigma }_z`$ type for convenience) commutes with the Hamiltonian of the system, and admits a diagonalization in the eigenbasis of the Hamiltonian. The field is coupled to the atom as a whole, not to the two level system (qubit), which is at the heart of quantum computation. By contrast the standard model for 2LA-EMF which we studied has a $`\widehat{\sigma }_\pm `$ coupling to the field modes which controls the two- level activity of the atom. This coupling considered in the standard model is indispensable, i.e., it cannot be removed from the two-level atom as it defines it and will be present in any realistic situation. Where then could the QBM type of interaction enter in the 2LA?

If the EM field is the only environment present, we can still ask if a QBM type of coupling term with the EM field would appear, and if yes, how strong would its effect be? A useful way to compare the relative importance of these two types of coupling would be to seek out the source where they stem from.

Recall that the standard model is derived under the dipole and rotating wave approximations. In the next section we will show that the $`\widehat{\sigma }_z`$ type of coupling appears only in the next order expansion after the dipole approximation. Since these are good approximations for a large class of atomic states when the atom is nonrelativistic, the contribution from the QBM type of coupling used in  should be negligible in a 2LA-EMF system and its ensuing decoherent effect insignificant. In this sense the EM field does not in leading order of approximation act like a bath in the QBM way, and coherence in a 2LA-EMF system is quite well preserved (excepting other processes, e.g. ).

Decoherent behavior of the 2LA-EMF system we are reporting on here is based on an analysis of the full (non-Markovian) dynamics in the cases of a free quantum field and a cavity field at zero temperature from solutions of an exact master equations derived by Anastopoulos and Hu . They used the influence functional method  to take into account the full backreaction of the field on the atom, while adopting Grassmannian variables for the 2LA and the coherent state representation for the EMF.

## 2 The Model

Our model for atom-field interaction is the standard one (see Appendix A of  for details)  111Our Hamiltonian is given in the so-called minimal coupling (MC) as different from the multipolar coupling (MP) , which may be more relevant to atoms in a cavity because the explicit Coulomb interaction between the atom and its image charge is removed.. The total Hamiltonian for a (stationary) atom interacting with a quantum electromagnetic field (EMF) under the dipole, rotating wave (RW) and two-level (2L) approximation is given by

$$\widehat{H}=\mathrm{}ø_0\widehat{S}_z+\mathrm{}\underset{𝐤}{}\left[ø_𝐤\widehat{b}_𝐤^{}\widehat{b}_𝐤+\left(g_𝐤S_+\widehat{b}_𝐤+\overline{g}_𝐤S_{}\widehat{b}_𝐤^{}\right)\right]$$
(2.1)
where $`\widehat{b}_𝐤^{},\widehat{b}_𝐤`$ are the creation and annihilation operators for the kth normal mode with frequency $`ø_𝐤`$ of the electromagnetic field (thus for the field vacuum $`\widehat{b}_𝐤|0=0,[\widehat{b}_𝐤,\widehat{b}_𝐤^{}^{}]=\delta _{𝐤,𝐤^{}}`$, for all $`𝐤`$.), and $`ø_0=ø_{21}`$ is the frequency between the two levels. Here

$$\widehat{S}_z=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{\sigma }_z,\widehat{S}_\pm =\widehat{\sigma }_\pm \frac{1}{2}(\widehat{\sigma }_x\pm i\widehat{\sigma }_y)$$
(2.2)
where $`\widehat{\sigma }_{x,y,z}`$ are the standard 2x2 Pauli matrices with $`\widehat{\sigma }_z=diag(1,1)`$, etc. The coupling constant $`g_𝐤d_{21𝐤}f_𝐤(𝐗)`$ where

$$d_{ij𝐤}\frac{iø_{ij}}{\sqrt{2\mathrm{}ø_𝐤ϵ_0V}}𝐝_{ij}\widehat{𝐞}_{𝐤\sigma }$$
(2.3)
and $`𝐝_{ij}e\overline{\varphi }_i𝐱\varphi _jd^3x`$ is the dipole matrix element between the eigenfunctions $`\varphi _i`$ of the electron-field system, $`\widehat{𝐞}_{𝐤\sigma }`$ is the unit polarization vector ( $`\sigma =1,2`$ are the two polarizations), and $`f_𝐤(𝐱)`$ is the spatial mode functions of the vector potential of the electromagnetic field (in free space, $`f_𝐤(𝐱)=e^{i𝐤𝐱}`$, $`V`$ is the volume of space.). Under the dipole approximation $`f_𝐤`$ is evaluated at the position of the atom $`𝐗`$. Since $`𝐝_{ij}=\overline{𝐝}_{ji}`$, $`\overline{d}_{ij𝐤}=d_{ji𝐤}`$, we will choose a mode function representation such that $`g_𝐤`$ is real. When only one mode in the EM field is considered, this is the Jaynes-Cummings model.

To see how this could possibly be related to the $`\widehat{\sigma }_z`$ type of coupling with Hamiltonian (used by e.g.,  for the study of decoherence in 2LS)

$$\widehat{H}=\mathrm{}ø_0\widehat{S}_z+\mathrm{}\underset{𝐤}{}\left[ø_𝐤\widehat{b}_𝐤^{}\widehat{b}_𝐤+\mathrm{}\widehat{\sigma }_z\left(\overline{g}_𝐤\widehat{b}_𝐤+g_𝐤\widehat{b}_𝐤^{}\right)\right]$$
(2.4)
we examine the next term after the dipole approximation. This has a contribution to $`g_{ij𝐤}`$ even when $`i=j`$. This is equal to

$$g_{ii𝐤}=c_𝐤𝐤𝐪_i$$
(2.5)
where

$$𝐪_i=\underset{\sigma }{}\overline{\varphi }_i\delta 𝐱(𝐩\widehat{𝐞}_{𝐤\sigma })\varphi _i𝑑x^3$$
(2.6)
and $`c_k`$ is a constant given by

$$c_𝐤=\frac{e}{m}(2\mathrm{}\omega _𝐤ϵ_0V)^{1/2}$$
(2.7)
It generates an additional coupling term

$$\underset{𝐤}{}\widehat{\sigma }_z(g_{1𝐤}b_𝐤+\overline{g}_{1𝐤}b_𝐤^{})+1(g_{2𝐤}b_𝐤+\overline{g}_{2𝐤}b_𝐤^{})$$
(2.8)
where

$$g_{1𝐤}=g_{11𝐤}g_{22𝐤},g_{2𝐤}=g_{11𝐤}+g_{22𝐤}$$
(2.9)
This gives the lowest order $`\widehat{\sigma }_z`$ type of coupling in a 2LA -EMF system. The ratio of the coupling $`g_{1𝐤}`$ of the $`\widehat{\sigma }_z`$ type in (2.4)to the dipole coupling $`g_𝐤`$ in (2.1) is

$$|g_{1𝐤}/g_𝐤|=|\frac{𝐤(𝐪_1𝐪_2)}{m\omega _𝐤d_{12}}|\frac{\omega _𝐤|𝐪_1𝐪_2|}{m\omega _𝐤d_{12}}$$
(2.10)
Thus the $`\widehat{\sigma }_z`$ type of coupling generated from the 2LA- EMF interaction will be significant only for very high frequencies $`\omega _𝐤`$ of the EM field, a point intuitively clear from the meaning of the dipole approximation.

## 3 The Master Equation

We use the open system approach and the influence functional formalism to derive a master equation for the 2LA with backreaction of the field treated self-consistently. This involves deriving the influence functional and the evolution operator for the reduced density matrix of the 2LA. For convenience we use Grassmannian variables for treating fermions, and the coherent state representation for the field. The coherent state of the combined atom-field system is

$$|\{z\},\eta =|\{z\}\times |\eta $$
(3.1)
where $`|z`$, $`z`$ a complex number, denotes the EM field coherent states and $`|\eta `$, $`\eta `$ a Grassmannian or anticommuting number, denotes the electron coherent state. We assume initially that the density matrix of the total system+environment is factorizable $`\widehat{\rho }(0)=\widehat{\rho }_e(0)\widehat{\rho }_b(0)`$. Only at that time would $`z`$ and $`\eta `$ be pure complex and Grassmannian numbers respectively. As the system evolves, both $`\eta `$ and $`z`$ contain Grassmann and c-number parts. The mixing of even and odd parts (note $`g_𝐤`$ is odd) comes about as the initially factorized atom state becomes ”dressed”.

We skip over the details of the derivation which can be found in the original paper  but simply present the master equation, here in operator form (at zero temperature with the field in a vacuum state) as follows: Writing

$$\frac{\dot{u}(t)}{u(t)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)+i\mathrm{\Omega }(t)$$
(3.2)
the master equation reads

$$\frac{}{t}\rho =i[H(t),\rho ]+\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)\{S_+S_{},\rho \}2\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)S_{}\rho S_+$$
(3.3)
where

$`H(t)=\mathrm{\Omega }(t)S_+S_{}`$ (3.4)
The first term corresponds to the unitary Hamiltonian evolution, only now the effect of the environment has induced a time dependent shift in the value of the frequency, the second term is time dependent dissipation and the third corresponds to noise.

The effect of the field is contained in the $`u(s),\overline{u}(s)`$ functions, which are obtained as solutions of the linear integro-differential equations

$`\dot{\eta }+i\omega \eta +{\displaystyle _0^s}𝑑s^{}\mu (ss^{})\eta (s^{})`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (3.5)
$`\dot{\overline{\eta }^{}}i\omega \overline{\eta }^{}+{\displaystyle _0^s}𝑑s^{}\mu ^{}(ss^{})\overline{\eta }^{}(s^{})`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (3.6)
under the condition

$$u(0)=\overline{u}(t)=1$$
(3.7)
Here, the kernel $`\mu (s)`$ is given by

$$\mu (s)=\underset{𝐤}{}g_𝐤^2e^{i\omega _𝐤s}$$
(3.8)
The equations for $`u(t)`$ functions can be solved with the use of the Laplace transform and the convolution theorem. They are given by

$$u(s)=^1\left(\frac{1}{z+i\omega +\stackrel{~}{\mu }(z)}\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{ci\mathrm{}}^{c+i\mathrm{}}\frac{dze^{zs}}{z+i\omega +\stackrel{~}{\mu }(z)}$$
(3.9)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }(z)`$ is the Laplace transform of the kernel $`\mu (s)`$ and $`c`$ is a real constant larger than the real part of the poles of the integrand.

### 3.1 Spontaneous emission

To show how the standard results are regained, and to understand the meaning of the new function in the master equation, let us consider the physical process of spontaneous emission. Start with a generic initial density matrix

$$\rho =\left(\begin{array}{cc}1x& y\hfill \\ y^{}& x\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(3.10)
its corresponding Q-symbol is

$$\rho (\overline{\eta },\eta )=x+y^{}\eta +y\overline{\eta }+(1x)\overline{\eta }\eta $$
(3.11)
If we evolve it with the density matrix propagator (derived in ) we obtain for the state at time $`t`$

$$\rho _t(\overline{\eta },\eta )=1\overline{u}u(1x)+\left(\overline{u}y^{}\eta \right)+\left(u\overline{\eta }y\right)+\left(\overline{u}u(1x)\right)\overline{\eta }\eta $$
(3.12)
corresponding to

$$\rho _t=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{u}u(1x)& uy\hfill \\ \overline{u}y^{}& 1\overline{u}u(1x)\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(3.13)
Considering the case $`x=y=0`$ we get for the probability of spontaneous emission

$$P(10,t)=1\overline{u}u$$
(3.14)
The rate of decoherence in the energy eigenstates is governed by the absolute value of the function $`u`$ (the off- diagonal terms) while $`u`$ itself determines the rate of energy flow from the atom to the environment. Hence for our particular choice of initial state (vacuum) we find that decoherence and relaxation time are essentially identical . This equation is useful for studying decoherence of a qubit in a QED cavity.

### 3.2 Field modes in Free Space and Cavity

Our master equation (3.3) depends solely on the function $`u(t)`$, which in turn is determined by the kernel $`\mu (s)`$. In  we have given some analytic expressions for this function in various cases, including a single mode, an infinite number of modes in the field, and a cavity consisting of two parallel plates at distance $`L`$. The field satisfies Dirichlet boundary conditions on the surface of the plates. In all cases our results obtained from the generalized master equation bear closer resemblance qualitatively to the 2LA behavior than that of quantum Brownian motion. Details can be found in . We now summarize the major findings obtained there.

## 4 Discussion

The physics of a 2LA-EMF system at zero temperature is characterized by a number of time constants:
1) The inverse natural frequency $`\omega _0^1`$
2) The inverse coupling constant $`g_𝐤^1=\sqrt{\omega _𝐤}/\lambda `$
3) The relaxation time constant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$
4) The cavity size $`L`$ (divided by c)

First consider a zero temperature field in free space, thus ignoring factor 4). Start with only one mode in the field in resonance with the atom (whence we omit the subscript in $`g_𝐤`$), then the system undergoes Rabi nutation with frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }g\sqrt{n+1}`$, where $`n`$ is the photon number in the field. The collapse time (assuming a large mean photon number $`\overline{n}`$) is $`g^1`$, and revival time is $`2\pi \sqrt{\overline{n}}/g`$. . Atom excitation becomes significant in a time much greater than $`\omega _0^1`$ but shorter than $`g^1`$. (This is the condition for a first order perturbation theory to give reasonable results.) For a large number of modes, spontaneous emission occurs at the relaxation time scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1=\pi /g>>\omega _0^1`$ which we found to be the same as the decoherence time – the time for the off diagonal elements of the reduced density matrix to decay. When the mean number of photons in the field is large ($`\overline{n}>>1`$), they become comparable to the collapse time. This is a measure of the coherence in the atom-field system, and is controlled mainly by their coupling and the photon number in the field. We see that with the resonance condition, the nature of decoherence in 2LS is very different from the QBM situation, where phase information in the Brownian particle is efficiently dispersed in the many modes in the bath coupled almost equally to the system. As we remarked in the Introduction, the identification of the phase information and energy flow from the 2LS to its environment is similar to the spin echo phenomena (Landau ‘damping’) which is based on statistical mixing rather than dissipation. The mathematical distinction lies between considering the system coupled to the continuous amplitude basis (QBM) of the environment or to the discrete number basis (2LA). The QBM case essentially produces noise that drives the system in a way insensitive to its own intrinsic dynamics. In our model, the coupling respects the internal dynamical structure of the 2LS and allows it to keep its coherence.

To see how the distribution of modes in a field changes the picture, the cavity field calculation is useful. There, as the plots in  show, the relaxation constant develops peaks and minima. The resonance effect is enhanced by a cavity size commensurate with the natural frequency of the 2LA and dissipation weakens. Narrow band resonance fluorescence as well as inhibition of spontaneous decay by frequent measurements – the Quantum Zeno effect – are interesting phenomena which our equations can provide finer details.

Non-Markovian processes involve memory effects (nonlocal in time). When the reaction time of the bath is comparable to or faster than the natural time scale of the system ($`\omega _0`$), one also expects to see non-Markovian behavior. For the QBM problem, the case of high temperature Ohmic bath is almost the only condition that would yield a Markovian dynamics. For other types of spectral density (supraohmic) or for a low temperature bath, the dynamics of the system is generally non-Markovian . By contrast, the 2LA is quite different: At zero temperature there is only one time scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1=\lambda ^2\omega ^1>>\omega ^1`$ that determines both decoherence and relaxation. There is no memory effect and hence the process is Markovian. We expect that at finite temperature the dynamics of the 2LA will be nonMarkovian . This is because there are more ways for the atom and the field to get entangled, and the memory effects of their interaction would presumably persist.

To conclude, we show that not all two level systems (2LS) decohere like quantum Brownian particles (QBM). Specifically, in the case of a two-level atom (2LA) interacting with an electromagnetic field (EMF) alone through the standard $`\widehat{\sigma }_\pm `$ coupling as in a quantum optics / cavity QED quantum computer prototype, decoherence time of the 2LA is close to the relaxation time. This behavior is completely different from the QBM. The crucial difference lies in the type of coupling between the 2LS and the environment: The 2LA interacts resonately with selected modes in the electromagnetic field while the QBM is coupled to all modes in the harmonic oscillator bath. Only for those mechanisms which can be described by a $`\widehat{\sigma }_z`$ type of coupling of the 2LS with the environment (which is subdominant in a 2LA-EMF system) will one expect a QBM-like decoherent behavior. Therefore one has to be careful in specifying what type of 2LS constitutes the qubit and and how it couples to the field, since the field can act as a resonator (2LA) or as a bath (QBM) producing very different decoherent behavior. In a realistic experiment one needs to know which processes are describable by what type of coupling and the weight of their relative contributions in varying environmental conditions before drawing credible conclusions about the overall nature and degree of decoherence in that system.

Acknowledgement This is a summary of work done with Dr. Charis Anastopoulos based on , and ongoing work with Adrian Dragulescu and Sanjiv Shresta, with whom I have enjoyed many useful discussions and fruitful collaboration. This work is supported in part by NSF grant PHY98-00967.


format: text

text:
# Pseudogap and Conduction Dimensionalities in High-𝑇_𝑐 Superconductors

## I Introduction

Two-dimensional (2D) charge-carriers’ transport properties in normal state of high-$`T_c`$ superconductors (HTSC) in accordance with FL theory were widely employed in order to describe the normal state resistivities such as $`\rho _{ab}(T)`$, $`\rho _c(T)`$ and related phenomena. Experimental evidences supporting the existence of Fermi surfaces in superconducting cuprates have also been obtained with various techniques. One of the well established and intriguing aspect is the coexistence of metallic and semiconducting resistivities in both $`\rho _{ab}(T)`$ and $`\rho _c(T)`$. In addition to such anomaly, transition of 2D normal state transport properties in HTSC to a 3D one equivalent to semiconductors with doping is an equally interesting aspect to analyze. In the attempt to derive a $`c`$-axis resistivity model in accordance with 2D FL theory, electrons were believed to tunnel through Cu-O2 planes as required by the resonating-valence-bond (RVB) theory in which it has to overcome an anomalous gap which is currently termed as the Pseudogap ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$). The models derived in ref. emphasized on the variation and the importance of $`E_I`$ as a $`c`$-axis anomalous gap in HTSC. Lately, it has been shown that the opening of spin gap ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SG}`$) reduces spin scattering hence, $`\rho _{ab}(T)`$ reduces rapidly than $`T`$-linear below $`T^{}`$ (characteristics temperature), as a consequence $`\rho _c(T)`$ is supposed to reveal semiconducting behavior below $`T^{}`$. Interestingly, Takenaka et al. also claimed that superconducting fluctuations are unlikely in HTSC since the fluctuations should be proportional to $`T`$. However, one should note that semiconducting behavior of $`\rho _c(T)`$ below $`T_{crossover}`$ for underdoped samples or at least for BSCCO does not coincide with opening of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SG}`$ at $`T^{}`$ in $`\rho _{ab}(T)`$, which put further constraints on $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SG}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$. Recently, Krasnov et al. have found inconsistencies between superconductor gap ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SCG}`$) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ in term of $`H`$ and $`T`$ dependence of each gap where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ persists below $`T_c`$ and is independent of $`H`$ and $`T`$ whereas $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SCG}`$ closes at $`H`$ $``$ $`H_{c2}(T)`$ and $`T`$ $``$ $`T_c`$. These phenomena point towards a different origin for both gaps. Parallel to this, Renner et al. concluded that reduction of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ $``$ 0 at $`T^{}`$ in various experiments is to be considered as a characteristic energy scale and not as $`T`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ $``$ 0. They further proved the existence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ for all under-, over- and optimally-doped samples. On the other hand, $`\rho (T)`$ transition occurring from metallic (normal state) superconductor (MS) to metallic-semiconducting crossover (normal state; with and without $`T^{}`$) superconductor (MSS) and finally to non-superconducting semiconductor (NS) or vice versa with doping is another critical sub-aspect of the above-mentioned conduction peculiarities. The above stated incompatibilities are highlighted and described herein by first deriving a 3D phenomenological resistivity model that fulfills FL theory to accommodate NS characteristics. I.e., this is an extension to 2D $`c`$-axis resistivity model that accommodates normal state characteristics of MSS without $`T^{}`$ and semiconducting (normal state) superconductor (SS). Apart from that, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SG}`$ is assumed to occur only in $`ab`$-planes at $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ $`<`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SG}`$ while $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ is the $`c`$-axis gap. These assumptions are valid since weak dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SG}`$ with $`H`$ and $`T`$, rapid reduction of $`\rho _{ab}(T)`$ with decreasing $`T`$ below $`T^{}`$, incompatibility between $`T^{}`$ ($`ab`$-planes) and $`T_{crossover}`$ ($`c`$-axis) and the confinement behavior of $`\rho (T)`$ in $`ab`$-planes and $`c`$-axis may account for a separate origin of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SG}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$. Thus, 2D $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ in $`c`$-axis normal state conduction that could be thought of as a function of doping, be it ionic substitution or oxygen content, extends to $`ab`$-planes and becomes 3D due to increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ with decreasing oxygen content or certain ionic substitution. Such properties in Y123 and Bi2212 samples with different oxygen content (7$`\delta `$) and Ca2+ (1$`x`$) are studied. Another possibility to further enhance the mentioned transition with persistent proof is that by introducing other researcher’s experimental results in a similar context. Hence the results obtained by Watanabe et al., Ito et al. and Hagen et al. are utilized and coupled with above-mentioned results to illustrate and justify the normal state conduction as well as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$’s dimensionality transition with oxygen content and Y3+.

Ichinose et al. using effective gauge-field theory of t-J model (GFT) in CS separated (CSS) state have derived an expression for $`\rho _{ab}(T)`$ at $`T`$ $`<`$ $`T^{}`$, which is given by

$`\rho _{ab}(T)`$ $`=`$ $`BT[1C(T^{}T)^d].`$ (1)
$`B`$ and $`C`$ are constants, dependent on holons’ scattering rate ($`\tau _h`$) and doping respectively while $`d(\delta ,T)`$ being the critical exponent in 2D. Actually, $`d`$ characterizes the gauge field mass, $`m_A`$ in such a way that $`m_A`$ $``$ $`(T^{}T)^d`$. Moreover, $`d`$-wave spinon pairing parameter, $`\lambda `$ also $``$ $`(T^{}T)^d`$ for $`T`$ $`<`$ $`T^{}`$ hence, $`\rho _{ab}(T)`$ = $`BT`$ at $`T`$ $`>`$ $`T^{}`$ since $`\lambda `$ = 0. In summary, this work differs from previous studies and new in the sense that $`E_I`$ based $`\rho (T)`$ model is introduced to account for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ and $`T_{crossover}`$ between metallic (at high $`T`$) to semiconducting (at low $`T`$) behaviors as well as evaluates quantitatively the transition of $`\rho (T)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ dimensionalities. These were carried out by employing 2D and 3D FL and RVB-GFT models. Moreover, the possibility of separate origins for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SG}`$ is proposed in order to resolve $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SCG}`$ inconsistencies that states $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SCG}`$ could share a similar origin.

## II Resistivity models in the Normal State of HTSC

The 3D $`E_I`$ based $`\rho (T)`$ model can be derived as follows; electron’s distribution as a function of average $`E_I`$ as an anomalous constraint has been derived from Fermi-Dirac (FD) statistics and is given by

$`f_e(E)`$ $`=`$ $`exp\left[{\displaystyle \frac{E_FE_IE}{k_BT}}\right].`$ (2)
Similarly, the probability function for holes is

$`f_h(E)`$ $`=`$ $`exp\left[{\displaystyle \frac{EE_IE_F}{k_BT}}\right].`$ (3)
Both functions (Eq. 2 and Eq. 3) were derived by inserting conditions, $`E_{electron}`$ = $`E_{initialstate}`$ \+ $`E_I`$ and $`E_{hole}`$ = $`E_{initialstate}`$ $``$ $`E_I`$ respectively. This is to justify that an electron to occupy a higher state $`N`$ from initial state $`M`$ is more probable than from initial state $`L`$ if condition $`E_I(M)`$ $`<`$ $`E_I(L)`$ at certain temperature, $`T`$ is satisfied. As for a hole to occupy a lower state $`M`$ from initial state $`N`$ is more probable than to occupy state $`L`$ if the same condition above is satisfied. $`E_{initialstate}`$ is the energy of a particle in a given system at a certain initial state and ranges from $`+\mathrm{}`$ to 0 for electrons and 0 to $`\mathrm{}`$ for holes. Existence of energy gap, $`E_g`$ that tied to lattice is unclear thus it is (if any) coupled with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ while $`E_I`$ is tied to ions. Note that above distributions can be reduced to FD distributions if $`E_I`$ $``$ 0. Subsequently, the respective normal state cocentration of electrons and holes can be obtained from

$`n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}f_e(E)N_e(E)𝑑E,`$ (4)
$`p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}f_h(E)N_h(E)𝑑E.`$ (5)
$`N_e(E)`$ and $`N_h(E)`$ are electron’s and hole’s density of states respectively. Substituting Eq. 2, Eq. 3 and $`N_{e,h}`$($`E`$,3D) = $`[2E(m_{e,h}^{})^3]^{1/2}/\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3`$ accordingly into Eq. 4 and Eq. 5, and solving those integrals give the respective 3D concentration of electrons and holes as

$`n`$ $`=`$ $`2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_e^{}k_BT}{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}}\right]^{\frac{3}{2}}exp\left[{\displaystyle \frac{E_FE_I}{k_BT}}\right],`$ (6)
$`p`$ $`=`$ $`2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_h^{}k_BT}{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}}\right]^{\frac{3}{2}}exp\left[{\displaystyle \frac{E_FE_I}{k_BT}}\right].`$ (7)
where $`k_B`$ is Boltzmann constant, $`m_e^{}`$ and $`m_h^{}`$ are effective electrons’ and holes’ masses respectively, $`\mathrm{}`$ = $`h/2\pi `$, $`h`$ is Plank constant and $`E_F`$ is Fermi level. In addition, Eq. 6 and Eq. 7 can be written in the form of geometric mean, which is given by

$`\sqrt{np}`$ $`=`$ $`2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}}\right]^{\frac{3}{2}}(m_e^{}m_h^{})^{\frac{3}{4}}exp\left[{\displaystyle \frac{E_I}{k_BT}}\right].`$ (8)
Incorporating, $`m`$ = $`m_e^{}`$ = $`m_h^{}`$, $`n`$ = $`\sqrt{np}`$ (Eq. 8) and $`1/\tau `$ = $`A_2T^2`$ into the metallic resistivity equation which is defined as $`\rho `$ = $`m/ne^2\tau `$ with $`e`$ and $`\tau `$ being electron’s charge and scattering rate respectively, then one can derive the 3D phenomenological $`\rho (T,E_I)`$ model for NS samples as given below

$`\rho (T,E_I)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A_2}{2e^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}{k_B}}\right]^{\frac{3}{2}}(m_e^{}m_h^{})^{\frac{3}{4}}\sqrt{T}exp\left[{\displaystyle \frac{E_I}{k_BT}}\right],`$ (9)
$`A_2`$ being a constant independent of $`T`$ and $`\tau `$ dependent. The 2D $`c`$-axis $`\rho (T)`$ model derived elsewhere is given by

$`\rho _c(T,E_I)`$ $`=`$ $`A{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{}^2}{e^2k_B}}Texp\left[{\displaystyle \frac{E_IE_F}{k_BT}}\right].`$ (10)
Note that $`A`$ also $`\tau `$ dependent, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ = $`E_IE_F`$ = $`k_BT_{crossover}`$ for $`c`$-axis in 2D HTSC and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ = $`E_I`$ for 3D NS. The 2D $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ for $`c`$-axis conduction is solely dependent on electron-ion attraction and it is different from semiconductor gap, which is due to energy band splitting or lattice based gap. In CSS state, $`\rho _{ab}(T)`$ and $`\rho _c(T)`$ are interrelated, thus Eq. 1 and Eq. 10 can be summed accordingly to accomodate the process spinon($`s`$) + holon($`h`$) $``$ electron($`e`$) to represent the coupling between $`c`$-axis and $`ab`$-plane conduction. Electrons in $`c`$-axis indeed has different physical properties than spinons and holons in $`ab`$-planes, therefore two different models (FL and GFT) are needed to describe the so-called normal state charge carriers’ properties of HTSC. As such, these two models have to be coupled in order to obtain the overall behaviour due to $`s`$ \+ $`h`$ $``$ $`e`$ and 2D confinement. The Ioffe-Larkin formula in $`ab`$-planes is given by $`\sigma _{total}^1`$ = $`\sigma _h^1`$ \+ $`\sigma _s^1`$ where $`\sigma _{ab}^1`$ = $`\sigma _h^1`$ i.e., the total resistivity in $`ab`$-planes is equals to holons only since spinons conductivity diverges $`\sigma _s`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}`$ as a result of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SG}`$ condensation below $`T^{}`$. The total resistivity in $`c`$-axis and $`ab`$-planes namely, $`\rho _c^{total}(T)`$ ($`\rho _c^{(t)}(T)`$) and $`\rho _{ab}^{(t)}(T)`$ in CSS region can be respectively written as,

$`\rho _c^{(t)}(T)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _e^1+\sigma _{es+h}^1`$ (11)
$`\rho _{ab}^{(t)}(T)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _s^1+\sigma _h^1+\sigma _{s+he}^1`$ (12)
The term $`\sigma _{es+h}^1`$ in Eq. 11 is defined to be the resistivity caused by blockage in the process $`e`$ $``$ $`s`$ \+ $`h`$ or the resistivity caused by the blockage faced by electrons to enter the $`ab`$-planes ($`e`$ $``$ $`s`$ \+ $`h`$) and the blockage faced by spinons and holons to leave the $`ab`$-planes ($`s`$ \+ $`h`$ $``$ $`e`$). These blockages originate from the non-spontaneity conversion of $`e`$ $``$ $`s`$ \+ $`h`$. The resistivity, $`\sigma _{es+h}^1`$ can also be solely due to the blockage of $`e`$ $``$ $`s`$ \+ $`h`$ or $`s`$ \+ $`h`$ $``$ $`e`$. Actually, if the magnitude of blockage in $`e`$ $``$ $`s`$ \+ $`h`$ $`>`$ $`s`$ \+ $`h`$ $``$ $`e`$ then the blockage of $`e`$ $``$ $`s`$ \+ $`h`$ contributes to $`\rho _c^{(t)}(T)`$ apart from $`\sigma _e^1(T)`$ or vice versa if $`e`$ $``$ $`s`$ \+ $`h`$ $`<`$ $`s`$ \+ $`h`$ $``$ $`e`$. In short, if one of the conversion, say $`e`$ $``$ $`s`$ \+ $`h`$ is less spontaneous than $`s`$ \+ $`h`$ $``$ $`e`$, then the former conversion determines the $`\sigma _{es+h}^1`$. Moreover, increment in $`\sigma _{ab}^1`$ further blocks $`e`$ $``$ $`s`$ \+ $`h`$ that leads to a larger $`\sigma _{es+h}^1`$ hence, $`\sigma _{es+h}^1`$ $``$ $`\sigma _{ab}^1`$. This proportionality can be interpreted as the additional scattering for the electrons to pass across $`ab`$-planes. If $`e`$ $``$ $`s`$ \+ $`h`$ is spontaneous then $`\sigma _{es+h}^1`$ or the magnitude of the corresponding blockage equals 0. The term $`\sigma _{s+he}^1`$ in Eq. 12 is defined to be the resistivity caused by the process $`s`$ \+ $`h`$ $``$ $`e`$ occuring in the $`ab`$-planes. Alternatively, it is the resistivity caused by the electrons in $`ab`$-planes. If $`s`$ \+ $`h`$ $``$ $`e`$ is completely blocked in $`ab`$-planes then $`\sigma _{s+he}^1`$ = 0. Any increment in $`\sigma _e^1`$ also increases $`\sigma _{s+he}^1`$ therefore $`\sigma _{s+he}^1`$ $``$ $`\sigma _e^1`$. This latter interesting effect will be discussed further in Sec. III with experimental proofs in term of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$, $`T^{}`$ and doping. Consequently, by employing the above arguments, Eq. 11 and Eq. 12 can be written as

$`\rho _c^{(t)}(T)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _e^1+\beta [\sigma _h^1+\sigma _s^1]=\rho _c+\beta \rho _{ab}`$ (13)
$`\rho _{ab}^{(t)}(T)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _s^1+\sigma _h^1+\gamma \sigma _e^1=\rho _{ab}+\gamma \rho _c`$ (14)
$`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are constants of proportionality, which are tightly related to the degree of contribution from $`ab`$-planes and $`c`$-axis respectively. Assume that, if $`s`$ and $`h`$ in $`ab`$-planes of HTSC are independent of $`e`$ in $`c`$-axis ($`s`$ \+ $`h`$ $``$ $`e`$ is invalid), then there will be no contribution of $`c`$-axis conduction into $`ab`$-planes or vice versa as a result of 2D confinement, in which $`\beta `$ = $`\gamma `$ = 0. However this is not so in actual HTSC, where $`\rho _e`$ is dominant in $`c`$-axis with minor contribution from $`ab`$-planes and $`\rho _{s+h}`$ is dominant in $`ab`$-planes with minor contribution from $`c`$-axis due to 2D confinement and also as a result of $`s`$ \+ $`h`$ $``$ $`e`$. If $`s`$ \+ $`h`$ $``$ $`e`$ exists in 3D system, meaning $`s`$, $`h`$ and $`e`$ can conduct in any directions then $`\rho `$ = $`\rho _s`$ \+ $`\rho _h`$ \+ $`\rho _e`$ where $`\beta `$ = $`\gamma `$ = 1. Parallel to this, one has $`\rho (T)`$ at $`T`$ $`<`$ $`T^{}`$ for HTSC in the form of

$`\rho (T)`$ $`=`$ $`ATexp\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}}{T}}\right]+BT[1C(T^{}T)^d],`$ (15)
subsequently, at $`T`$ $`>`$ $`T^{}`$, $`\rho (T)`$ can be written as

$`\rho (T)`$ $`=`$ $`ATexp\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}}{T}}\right]+BT.`$ (16)
Note that $`A`$ as in Eq. 15 and Eq. 16 are also a function of $`\gamma `$ with $`\gamma `$ $`<`$ 1 whereas $`\beta `$ incorporated in $`B`$ equals 1 if $`\rho (T)`$ = $`\rho _{ab}^{(t)}(T)`$. If $`\rho (T)`$ = $`\rho _c^{(t)}(T)`$, then $`\beta `$ is less than 1 and $`\gamma `$ = 1. $`\rho ^{(t)}(T)`$ in $`c`$-axis or $`ab`$-planes or in pure thin films is only valid in CSS region. In non-CSS region, Eq. 10 is solely for $`c`$-axis and $`\rho _{ab}(T)`$ = $`BT`$, assuming the system is still 2D. In other words, the process $`s`$ \+ $`h`$ $``$ $`e`$ is invalid in non-CSS region and gives $`\beta `$ = $`\gamma `$ = 0 if the system is still 2D (charge carriers in $`ab`$-planes are independent of charge carriers in $`c`$-axis). In 3D, regardless of $`s`$ \+ $`h`$ $``$ $`e`$, $`\rho (T)`$ = $`\rho _c(T)`$ = $`\rho _{ab}(T)`$ that suggests resistivities in all directions are identical as long as 2D confinement is invalid. In both $`ab`$-planes and $`c`$-axis, $`T`$-linear metallic behavior will recover at $`T`$ $`>`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$. It is stressed that the analysis of the coupled Eq. 13 and Eq. 14 in term of $`\delta `$, $`T_{crossover}`$ and $`T^{}`$ are to further enhance the viability of these models to capture various $`\rho ^{thinfilms}(T)`$, $`\rho _c^{(t)}(T)`$ and $`\rho _{ab}^{(t)}(T)`$ curves in the normal state reported thus far apart from studying the transition in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ and conduction dimensionalities.

## III Discussion

It is clear that slightly underdoped Y123 sample (A1) as shown in Fig. 1 exposes $`T`$-linear metallic normal state at $`T`$ $`>`$ $`T^{}`$ with $`T^{}`$ = 196.5 K ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ $`<`$ $`T_c`$ $`<`$ $`T^{}`$) whereas sample B2 (YBa2Cu3O7-δ, $`\delta `$ = 0.39) from Carrington et al. has $`T^{}`$ (275.8 K) above $`T_c`$ and also shows a prior indication of $`T_{crossover}`$ since $`\rho (T)`$’s slope decreases near $`T_c`$ where $`T_{crossover}`$ is probably below $`T_c`$ hence, the upturn is not observed. Sample C3 of Bi2Sr2Ca1-xYxCu2O8 ($`x`$ = 0.05) is metallic with $`T^{}`$ = 201.0 K whereas D4 ($`x`$ = 0.11) has both linear-metallic above $`T^{}`$ (246.4 K) and semiconducting below $`T_{crossover}`$ (72.0 K) behaviors as depicted in Fig. 2 ($`T_c`$ $`<`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ $`<`$ $`T^{}`$). I.e., sample D4 is equivalent to MSS with $`T^{}`$. The plots in Fig. 1 for A1 and B2 and Fig. 2 for C3 and D4 are fitted using Eq. 9, Eq. 15 and Eq. 16 in order to accurately distinguish and identify the discrepancies between 2D and 3D conductions. However, fitting of Eq. 9 ($`\mathrm{}`$) is only shown for sample C3 for the sake of clarity. Note also that $`A_2`$ from Eq. 9 equals $`(A_2/2e^2)(2\pi \mathrm{}^2/k_B)^{3/2}(m_e^{}m_h^{})^{3/4}`$ and $`A`$ from Eq. 15 and Eq. 16 equals $`A\gamma \pi \mathrm{}^2/e^2k_B`$ for the sake of convenience. All $`T^{}`$ were determined from calculated fittings due to its uncertainty from $`\rho (T,\delta ,x)`$ curves. The fitted parameters are as follows: sample A1; $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$(2D) = 30 K, $`A`$ = 1.4, $`B`$ = 9.9 $`\times `$ $`10^8`$, $`C`$ = 10, $`d`$ = 2.75, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$(3D) = $``$85.2 K, $`A_2`$ = 35.62, sample B2; $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$(2D) = 40 K, $`A`$ = 1.4065, $`B`$ = 2.5 $`\times `$ $`10^8`$, $`C`$ = 100/3, $`d`$ = 2.68, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$(3D) = $``$110 K, $`A_2`$ = 40.2, sample C3; $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$(2D) = 55 K, $`A`$ = 2.545 $`\times `$ $`10^3`$, $`B`$ = 1.9 $`\times `$ $`10^{11}`$, $`C`$ = 25, $`d`$ = 3.0, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$(3D) = $``$57 K, $`A_2`$ = 6.39 $`\times `$ $`10^2`$, sample D4; $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ (2D) = 65 K, $`A`$ = 4.2 $`\times `$ $`10^3`$, $`B`$ = 9.9 $`\times `$ $`10^{11}`$, $`C`$ = 125, $`d`$ = 2.4, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$(3D) = $``$213 K, $`A_2`$ = 20.2 $`\times `$ $`10^2`$. Fittings in $`T`$ $`>`$ $`T^{}`$ region give $`AT`$ $``$ $`BT`$ hence, the latter term of Eq. 16 is neglected. The readers are referred to Ref. for a detailed discussion on the ionic substitution effect on $`\rho (T)`$ and $`T_{crossover}`$. Calculated values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ (3D) is $`<`$ 0 for all samples (A1, B2, C3 and D4) where it does not hold any physical meaning and could indicate a non-3D conduction. Basically, these negative values are necessary for fittings of Eq. 9 (3D) to compensate small $`d\rho /dT`$ due to $`\rho (T)`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{T}`$, which is less than $`d\rho /dT`$ ($`\rho (T)`$ $``$ $`T`$) from Eq. 16 (2D). As such, Eq. 9 (3D) is unsuitable for $`T`$-linear curves’ characterizations as in HTSC. In addition, fittings with Eq. 9 are not exactly $`T`$-linear metallic above $`T^{}`$ that also can be easily verified from Eq. 9 ($`\rho (T)`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{T}`$; this non-$`T`$-linear proportionality from Eq. 9 itself is the main criterion that invalidates 3D conduction). It is also important to realize that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ obtained via resistivity measurements or charge carriers’ dynamics always gives a relatively low value since conduction’s path are as such where the carriers path are along low $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$. On the contrary ARPES or any other tunneling techniques probe the 2D area throughout the materials without any discrimination of high or low $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ and in average, it is always higher than one obtained from resistivity measurements. It seems that reduction in oxygen content and Y3+ substitution increases $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$. As anticipated, $`\rho _c(T)`$ for crystalline Y123 HTSC as given in Ref. cannot be fitted with Eq. 9 (3D) even with reasonable accuracy whereas it can be easily fitted with Eq. 10 (2D) that could somewhat proves 2D conduction in the normal state of HTSC. Separately, resistivity curve of MgB2 as given in Ref. cannot be fitted with both Eq. 16 and Eq. 9 that could suggest the normal state of MgB2 is neither in CSS state nor in a gapped fermion state respectively. This is somehow expected since there are no $`T^{1/2}`$ and metallic $`T`$-linear behaviors, $`T^{}`$ or $`T_{crossover}`$ and the measured gap also closes at $`T`$ $`=`$ $`T_c`$ without any indication of a $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ in the normal state. Furthermore, $`\rho (T)`$’s curve for MgB2 has been fitted with Bloch-Gruneisen equation  with rather good fitting by Tu et al. that suggests the normal state of this material is identical to conventional superconductors. It is found that Eq. 15 and Eq. 16 account very well for changes occuring in $`\rho (T)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$, oxygen content, $`T^{}`$, $`T_{crossover}`$ and ionic substitutions ($`x`$). Apart from that, it also points out that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ has an independent origin from $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SCG}`$ in accordance with recent experimental evidences. However, there are also contradicting evidences that claim $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ evolves from $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SCG}`$ in which, this issue will be tackled in the following paragraph.

Two of the unique properties of the normal state $`\rho _{ab}(T)`$ and $`\rho _c(T)`$ are gapless behavior of charge-carriers in $`ab`$-planes and a $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ induced conduction in $`c`$-axis. Recall that the former generalization was partly interpreted from ref.. The two completely conflicting-to-each-other conduction has enabled one to distinguish and break down those two resistivities in two separate axes that may lead one to suggest that $`c`$-axis $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ is indeed 2D. It is believed that certain ionic substitution or reduction in oxygen content in MS sample would increase $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ and as a consequence, extends to $`ab`$-planes i.e., the conduction and gap become 3D (NS). According to RVB theory, this dimensionality transition is possible if a large number of spinons and holons ceased to become real electrons in $`c`$-axis since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ is too large for tunneling. Therefore, accumulation of spinons and holons could now lead to electrons’ formation in $`ab`$-planes ($`s`$ \+ $`h`$ $``$ $`e`$), that would eventually leads to the transition of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$’s dimensionality from 2D $``$ 3D since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ develops with the formation of electrons in $`ab`$-planes. This electrons’ formation in $`ab`$-planes at low $`T`$ below $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ could be interpreted as superconducting fluctuations. It has been shown experimentally that reduction in oxygen content or certain ionic substitution leads 2D HTSC $``$ 3D non-superconducting semiconductors. Initial accumulation of spinons and holons would give rise to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SG}`$ and $`T^{}`$ prior to electrons’ formation in $`ab`$-planes. Interestingly, one should carefully note that initial reduction of oxygen content as reported in Refs. for BSCCO8+δ and YBCO7-δ single crystals respectively increases the magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ therefore, less electrons are able to conduct in $`c`$-axis and as a consequence more spinons and holons are being formed in $`ab`$-planes. This signifies that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SG}`$ increases initially with increasing of $`s`$ and $`h`$ concentrations ($`n_s`$ and $`n_h`$), hence this explains the increment of $`T^{}`$ accordingly. Further reduction in oxygen content however, would lead to semiconductor behavior at a certain $`T_{crossover}`$ since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ is too large for electrons to conduct in $`c`$-axis. This effect give rise to over-accumulation of spinons and holons and subsequently leads to the formation of electrons ($`s`$ \+ $`h`$ $``$ $`e`$) in $`ab`$-planes that could be interpreted as superconducting fluctuations as mentioned previously. Simultaneously $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ (originally existed in $`c`$-axis) opens up in $`ab`$-planes due to $`s`$ \+ $`h`$ $``$ $`e`$ in $`ab`$-planes as pointed out by the 3rd term in Eq. 12. This can be clearly seen in sample D4 below $`T_{crossover}`$ (72.0 K) due to Y3+ substitution where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ have increased from 55 K for $`x`$ = 0.05 to 65 K for $`x`$ = 0.11. Specifically, one can evaluate the average $`E_I`$ of Y3+ and Ca2+ as 1260 KJmol-1 $`>`$ 867 KJmol-1 respectively for Bi2Sr2Ca1-xYxCu2O8 (sample C3 and D4). In short, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ and conduction dimensionalities increase towards a 3D with decreasing oxygen content and increasing Y3+ or with certain ionic substitution that has higher ionization energy relatively. Add to that, development of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ in $`ab`$-planes also accounts for the disappearance of $`T^{}`$ since electrons formation reduces $`n_s`$ and $`n_h`$. Simply put, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SG}`$ that varies with spinon pairing is independent of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ that varies with $`E_I`$. This may indicate the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SG}`$ that closes at $`T^{}`$ could also evolve from $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SCG}`$ when the temperature is raised above $`T_c`$ ($``$ $`T^{}`$). In contrast, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ as a different entity could exist at all temperature range.

## IV Conclusions

Consistent with above arguments, one may conclude that 2D normal state conduction with charge-carriers’ confinement in separate axes namely, $`ab`$-planes and $`c`$-axis is vital as far as HTSC are concerned. I.e., this confinement leads to 2D conduction (MS and MSS) and gaps ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SG}`$) where the transition to 3D (NS) with certain ionic doping or reduction in oxygen content suppresses the superconducting characteristics. As such, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SG}`$ could be different entities where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SG}`$ that tied to spinon-pairing may evolve or scales with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SCG}`$. Besides, the respective total resistivities in $`c`$-axis and $`ab`$-planes are given by $`\rho _c^{(t)}(T)`$ = $`\rho _c(T,E_I)`$ \+ $`\beta \rho _{ab}(T)`$ and $`\rho _{ab}^{(t)}(T)`$ = $`\rho _{ab}(T)`$ \+ $`\gamma \rho _c(T,E_I)`$. $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ represents partial contribution from $`ab`$-planes and $`c`$-axis respectively or due to coupling effect ($`e`$ $``$ $`s`$ \+ $`h`$) in CSS state. Resistivities in these forms are able to characterize both $`T^{}`$ and $`T_{crossover}`$ in $`ab`$-plane as well as $`T_{crossover}`$ in $`c`$-axis. It has been shown both quantitatively and qualitatively that the effect of oxygen doping and ionic substitution on the total resistivities are in accordance with FL-RVB-GFT framework. It is also found that doping increases $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ in such a way that it extends to $`ab`$-planes and leads to the transition of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ and conduction dimensionalities from 2D $``$ 3D. On the other hand, these models (Eq. 9, Eq. 15 and Eq. 16) via fittings suggest that MgB2’s normal state characteristics could not be identical to cuprate based HTSC or at least not similar to Y123 or Bi2212.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

ADA would like to thank the National University of Singapore and Physics department for the financial assistance. The author is also grateful to A. Innasimuthu, I. Sebastiammal, A. Das Anthony and Cecily Arokiam for their partial financial assistances and also to P. C. Ong and M. T. Ong for sharing their unpublished experimental data and matlab program respectively.


text:
# Surface Half-Metallicity of CrAs in the Zinc-Blende Structure

## Abstract

The development of new techniques such as the molecular beam epitaxy have enabled the growth of thin films of materials presenting novel properties. Recently it was made possible to grow a CrAs thin-film in the zinc-blende structure. In this contribution, the full-potential screened KKR method is used to study the electronic and magnetic properties of bulk CrAs in this novel phase as well as the Cr and As terminated (001) surfaces. Bulk CrAs is found to be a half-metallic ferromagnet for all three GaAs, AlAs and InAs experimental lattice constants with a total spin magnetic moment of 3 $`\mu _B`$. The Cr-terminated surface retains the half-metallic character of the bulk, while in the case of the As-termination the surface states destroy the gap in the minority-spin band.

preprint: submitted to RPB

The mainstream charged electronics has ignored the electron spin but recently a new field, the so called magnetoelectronics or spintronics, has emerged that combines magnetic elements with the existing conventional electronics to produce devices with new or enhanced properties.Review  The interest in this field has increased after the simultaneous discovery of giant magneto-resistance (GMR) by the groups of FertFert88  and Grünberg.Grunberg88  Although the achieved progress, there are still central problems that have not been well solved. The injection of spin polarized current from a ferromagnet into a semiconductor remains still an open challenge.Datta90  The most successful attempts concern the injection of spin-current from a dilute magnetic semiconductor like GaMnAs, where Mn atoms have substituted Ga atoms. Ohno et al.Ohno99  and Fiederling et al.Fiederling  have used such contacts to inject spin-polarized electrons and holes, respectively, into GaAs obtaining an efficiency of 90% spin-polarized current in GaAs. The advantage of dilute magnetic semiconductors is their coherent growth on semiconductors and their half-metallicity, i.e. the minority band presents a gap at the Fermi level, and thus electrons at the Fermi level are 100% spin-polarized.Akai98  But existing magnetic semiconductors have very low Curie temperature, $`T_c`$, and thus are unattractive for industrial applications. Other known half-metallic materials are CrO2 and La0.7Sr0.3MnO3,Soulen98  thin films of which have been found to present practically 100% spin-polarization at the Fermi level at low temperaturesSoulen98 ; Park98  but they also have low $`T_c`$. Finally the half-metallic Heusler alloys like NiMnSbGroot83 ; iosif1  present a $`T_c`$ far above the room temperature, but their surfaces are not half-metallicGroot01  and experimentally it is difficult to control the stoichiometry of their surfaces.Ristoiu00

Akinaga and collaborators have managed to grow thin films of CrAs on GaAs(100) substrates by molecular-beam epitaxy.Akinaga  They have found that CrAs is ferromagnetic at room temperature with a $`T_c`$ larger than 400 K and they have deduced a total spin-magnetic moment of 3 $`\mu _B`$. Bulk CrAs adopts either the MnP-type structure showing a helimagnetic-paramagnetic transition at 256 K, or it crystallizes as Cr2As which is an antiferromagnet with a Néel temperature of 393 K. So the structure of the thin film cannot be one of the two stable bulk structures. Akinaga et al. have made the assumption that CrAs adopts the zinc-blende (zb) structure of GaAs, presented in Fig. 1, and using the full-potential linearized augmented-plane-wave (FLAPW) method they have shown that in the ferromagnetic case zb-CrAs would be a half-metal with a total spin magnetic moment of 3 $`\mu _B`$ in agreement with the experiment. Afterwards, ShiraiShirai01  continued the theoretical study of the $`3d`$-transitional monoarsenides and showed that the ferromagnetic phase for zb-CrAs should be more stable than the antiferromagnetic solution. He also calculated the theoretical equilibrium lattice constant and found a value of 0.58nm, which lies inbetween the experimental lattice constants of GaAs (0.565nm), AlAs (0.566nm) and InAs (0.606nm). Due to the existence of two vacant sites per unit cell in the zb structure, CrAs can adopt the lattice constant of all GaAs, AlAs or InAs for the first few monolayers without deforming due to strain. So CrAs in the zinc-blende structure combines the advantages of a very high $`T_c`$ with the coherent growth on GaAs or InAs. In this contribution I will study the electronic and magnetic properties of bulk CrAs and its (001) surfaces taking into account both possible terminations, Cr or As, for different lattice constants using an ab-initio technique. I will show that the surface terminated at Cr keeps the half-metallic character of the bulk CrAs, making it a serious candidate for an “ideal” spin-injection into GaAs, AlAs or InAs.

To perform the calculations, I used the Vosko, Wilk and Nusair parameterizationVosko  for the local density approximation (LDA) to the exchange-correlation potential to solve the Kohn-Sham equations within the full-potential screened Korringa-Kohn-Rostoker method.Papanikolaou  I have used the experimental lattice constants of GaAs and InAs for all the calculations; I do not present the results for the AlAs lattice constant since the latter one is practically the same as the GaAs lattice parameter. I simulated the surface by a slab consisting of 15 CrAs layers, so that I have two equivalent surfaces. For the screening I took for all compounds interactions up to the sixth neighbors into account leading to a tight-binding (TB) cluster around each atom of 65 neighbors. To calculate the charge density, I integrated along a contour on the complex energy plane, which extends from the bottom of the band up to the Fermi level,Zeller82  using 42 energy points. For the Brillouin zone (BZ) integration I have used a k-space grid of 30$`\times `$30$`\times `$30 in the full BZ for the bulk calculations and a k-space grid 30$`\times `$30 in the two-dimensional full BZ for the surface calculations. In addition I used a cutoff of $`\mathrm{}_{max}`$=6 for the mutlipole expansion of the charge density and the potential and a cutoff of $`\mathrm{}_{max}`$=3 for the wavefuctions.

In the zb structure there is a gap in the paramagnetic materials which is separating the bonding from the antibonding states. While in a semiconductor like GaAs only the bonding states are occupied and the semiconducting phase is stable, in the case of CrAs there are also occupied antibonding states. Due to the very high DOS at the Fermi level the paramagnetic phase is not stable and the ferromagnetic state is stabilized. This stabilization is not followed by a change in the charge transfer. For the GaAs lattice constant the Cr atom looses about 0.9 electrons and the As atom about 0.8 electrons for both the paramagnetic and ferromagnetic phases and this charge is gained by the vacant sites. The KKR calculated ferromagnetic DOS presented in the left panel of Fig. 2 is similar to the one obtained using the FLAPW by Akinaga et al.Akinaga  for the same lattice constant but the Fermi level in the FLAPW calculation was at the middle of the gap while in my calculations it is at the right edge of the gap. In the ferromagnetic phase the Cr moments are well localized due to the exclusion of the spin-down electrons at the Cr site, similar to the localized Mn moments in the Heusler alloys,Kubler83  and the Cr spin moment is more than 3 $`\mu _B`$ as can be seen in Table 1. The As atom possesses a small induced spin magnetic moment that is antiferromagnetically coupled to the Cr spin moment, while the contribution of the two vacant sites to the total moment is negligible.

GaAs is not the only possible buffer for the growth of CrAs as InAs is also widely used in experiments. In Fig. 2 I have drawn the atomic and spin-projected DOS for CrAs for the case of the experimental GaAs and InAs lattice constants (left and right panel, respectively). In both cases the system remains half-metallic with a pretty large band gap (a width of $``$2 eV) compared to the NiMnSb that has a band gap that is only $``$ 0.5 eV wide.Groot83 ; iosif1  The $`d`$ states of Cr are well localized and in the case of the GaAs lattice constant it is mainly the $`p`$ states of As which are squeezed compared to the larger InAs lattice constant. As they are squeezed they move higher in energy pushing also the the Fermi level higher in energy and this is clearly seen in Fig. 2 where the Fermi level for the InAs lattice constant is at the middle of the gap while for the smaller GaAs lattice constant is is at the right edge of the gap. The theoretical lattice constant is inbetween these two values.Shirai01  So bulk CrAs is a stable half-metallic ferromagnet over a large range of lattice constants.

It is interesting also to mention that the total spin magnetic moment in a half-metallic material should be an integer number as the total number of spin-down occupied states is an integer number. As shown in Table 1 the total spin-moment of bulk CrAs should be 3 $`\mu _B`$. In the KKR method the charge density is calculated by integrating on the complex energy plane. The numerical accuracy of this integration combined with the finite $`\mathrm{}`$-cutoff are responsible for the non-integer value of the total bulk spin moments presented in Table 1. The explanation of why there are exactly 3 uncompensated spin states is similar to the one for the half-metallic Heusler alloys which is discussed in detail in Ref. iosif2, . The As atom in the minority band offers one $`s`$ band and three $`p`$ bands that lie low in energy and can accommodate 4 electrons. There are practically no occupied minority $`d`$ states. The total number of uncompensated spins should be just the total number of valence electrons, 11, minus two times the number of occupied minority states, 2$`\times `$4=8, and the total spin moment in $`\mu _B`$ would be also (11$``$8) $`\mu _B`$= 3 $`\mu _B`$. In the case of the InAs lattice constant the Cr spin moment is larger than for the GaAs lattice constant. When the lattice is expanded, the Cr electronic structure becomes more atomiclike and its spin-magnetic moment increases. This is also reflected on the charge transfer which is smaller for the InAs lattice parameter (the Cr atom looses 0.8 electrons and the As atom 0.6). Although this means that the hybridization with As states should decrease, the larger Cr moment induces a larger spin-polarization of the As $`p`$ states, so that the total magnetic moment remains 3 $`\mu _B`$.

As the last part of this contribution I have studied the (001) surfaces of CrAs taking into account both the Cr- and As-terminations. I present in Fig. 2 the atomic projected DOS for the Cr atom at the surface and the As atom at the subsurface layer for the Cr-terminated surface and for both the GaAs and InAs lattice constants. There are no surface states within the gap, so this surface is half-metallic. To my knowledge this is the first case that electronic structure calculations predict a surface of an intermetallic compound to present 100% spin-polarization at the Fermi level. The As-atom at the subsurface layer has the same tetrahedral environment as in the bulk and the amount of electronic charge, which it looses, is similar to the bulk case. The DOS of the surface atoms is slightly different than the bulk DOS. The Cr atoms at the surface loose electronic charge towards the vacuum and their magnetic moment increases considerably by about $``$ 0.95 $`\mu _B`$ for both the GaAs and InAs lattice constants as can be seen in Table 1. On the other hand the absolute value of the magnetic moment of the As atom at the subsurface layer decreases compared to the bulk case. Note that in agreement with the half-metallicity of this surface also the total spin moment remains an integer number. If the total spin moments of the atoms in the surface and subsurface layers are added the total spin moment is slightly larger than 4 $`\mu _B`$, but if also the negative moment of the vacuum is added then the total moment is exactly 4 $`\mu _B`$ for both the GaAs and InAs lattice constants.

In the case of the As-terminated (001) surface the situation is not as ideal as in the case of the Cr terminated surface as can be seen in Fig. 3. Now there are states within the gap that destroy the half-metallic character. In the case of the InAs lattice constant the gap is only partially destroyed but the Fermi level is below the remaining fully spin-polarized region. Contrary to the Cr-termination the DOS of both the As surface atom and the Cr subsurface atom present large deviations from the bulk case. The As atom at the surface looses $``$ 0.4 more electrons than in the bulk CrAs. Its spin magnetic moment is practically doubled. Although the Cr atoms at the subsurface layer present a charge transfer comparable to the bulk calculations, the changes in their DOS are pronounced, the spin imbalance decreases and their magnetic moment is 0.3-0.4 $`\mu _B`$ lower than in the bulk CrAs.

The different behavior of the two terminated surfaces is possibly arising from the different origin of surface states in the 3$`d`$ transition metals and the $`sp`$ elements. The As atoms have mainly $`s`$ and $`p`$ type electrons which can participate in directional bonding similar to what happens in a semiconductor like GaAs. In a simple model we can assume that As atoms interact through directional bonds made up of some kind of $`sp`$ hybrids. When we open the As terminated surface an As atom at the surface looses 4 from its 12 nearest As neighbors (note that the As atoms sit on a fcc lattice) and so dangling bonds are created. These dangling bonds create a surface band within the minority spin-down gap. In the case of a transition metal, the surface states arise from $`d`$-type atomiclike states, which are pinned near the Fermi level acting like a virtual bound state.DesjSpan  These states, except in the case of the most close-packed surfaces, are not enough broadened by the interaction between the surface atom and its neighbors and they form a surface band. In the case of Cr in CrAs the exchange splitting of its $`d`$ states is very large and thus when we open the Cr-terminated surface there is no $`d`$-like atomic state that can be found within the minority gap and the surface remains half-metallic. Contrary to Cr, the Ni terminated (001) surface in the case of the NiMnSb compound looses its half-metallicityGroot01  because both the gap and the exchange splitting of the Ni $`d`$ states are very small and when the Ni surface is opened there is a $`d`$-like state of the Ni atom at the surface that is slightly shifted in energy compared to the continuum of the $`d`$ states and is pinned at the Fermi level.

I have shown using first-principles calculations that the Cr-terminated (001) surface of CrAs in the zinc-blend structure should be half-metallic for both the GaAs and InAs experimental lattice constants. Contrary to the Cr-terminated, the As-terminated surface looses its half-metallicity due to surface states within the gap. The bulk CrAs shows a total spin magnetic moment of 3 $`\mu _B`$ and its properties can be explained similarly to the ones of the half-metallic Heusler alloys.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author acknowledges financial support from the RT Network of Computational Magnetoelectronics (contract RTN1-1999-00145) of the European Commission.


text:
# A Mini-Survey of X-Ray Point Sources in Starburst and Non-Starburst Galaxies

## 1 Introduction

The study of X-ray point source populations in external galaxies may permit insights into the evolution of various stellar populations within galaxies (Fabbiano, 1989). Since most luminous X-ray point sources are related to objects produced at the end-point of the evolution of massive stars, the population of bright X-ray point sources should be related to the history of massive star formation. With the recent launch of the Chandra and XMM-Newton X-ray observatories, we can finally study the X-ray point source populations in a sample of galaxies with a variety of star formation histories with high angular resolution and good sensitivity. This may permit insights into the relation of the X-ray point source populations to the stellar evolutionary history of each galaxy.

There is evidence to suggest that galaxies with high star formation rates contain a greater number of ultra-luminous X-ray sources ($`L_x>10^{39}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$). For example, there are several such sources in each of the starburst galaxies M82 (Zezas et al., 2001), the Antennae (Fabbiano et al., 2001), NGC 3256 (Lira et al., 2001). By contrast, none are found in the non-starburst/normal spiral galaxies IC 5332 or NGC 3184 (see Fig. 1). However, several biases must be considered that could affect such “anecdotal” evidence. More massive galaxies may have more ultra-luminous X-ray sources because there is a greater likelihood of finding rare sources in larger systems. Nearby galaxies (e.g. Local Group galaxies) have such large angular extents that Chandra surveys have been incomplete, and sources in unexplored regions may have been missed. The most important biases are probably source confusion and higher source detection thresholds in more distant galaxies.

Here we study the X-ray point source luminosity functions (LFs) in a “mini-survey” of Chandra observations of four spiral and three starburst galaxies. Our sample covers a range of Hubble types and concentrates on nearby galaxies to reduce problems with confusion and incompleteness. We describe our sample of galaxies and data analysis procedures in §2. Our results on the X-ray luminosity functions are presented in §3 and compared with previous results in §4. In §5, we describe a simple model which attempts to relate the luminosity function to the age of the X-ray binary population in each galaxy. We present our conclusions in §6.

## 2 Sample Selection and Data Analysis

We chose a sample of nearby galaxies representing many different Hubble types in an attempt to reduce the intrinsic biases and study the dependence of the LF parameters on star formation activity. For the spirals, we selected relatively nearby galaxies with favorable inclinations in order to minimize problems with source confusion, incompleteness, and obscuration. We obtained new Chandra observations for NGC 1291 and IC 5332 and used archival data for NGC 3184 and M83. An analysis of NGC 1291 has also been presented by Irwin et al. (2001). The paucity of nearby starbursts forces us to relax our standards. We selected the two nearby starbursts with available Chandra data M82 (Griffiths et al. 2001; Zezas et al. 2001; Ward et al., in preparation) and NGC 253 (Strickland et al., 2000). To increase the sample, we also include the more distant Antennae galaxies (Fabbiano et al., 2001; Zezas and Fabbiano, 2001). More than 70% of the $`D_{25}`$ ellipse of each galaxy, except one, was in the Chandra field of view. The exception was NGC 253 where the field of view covered only 45% of the $`D_{25}`$ ellipse, but did include the entire starburst region.

We note that M83 has a starburst in the nuclear and bar region (e.g. Telesco et al. (1993)), but the star formation rate is low compared to classic starbursts (Rieke and Lebofsky, 1978) and confined to a small part of the galaxy. Most of our detected X-ray sources are outside the starburst region (approximately 30 arcsecs around the nucleus; Alton et al. (1998)) and are representative of the disk population rather than the starburst population. M83 is probably best characterized, in general, as a composite object. However, our luminosity function for this galaxy is dominated by the disk population and we group it together with the spirals. The 60 µm luminosity plotted in figure 2 is an upper limit to the luminosity from the area over which we detect the most X-ray sources.

Observations of all galaxies (except M82) were performed on the back-illuminated ACIS-S3 CCD. M82 was observed on the ACIS-I3 front-illuminated CCD, which has lower sensitivity below 2 keV than ACIS-S3. However, the difference in sensitivity is not significant compared with the uncertainties in distances and assumed source spectra.

All analyses were performed using the Chandra Interactive Analysis of Observations software package (CIAO) v2.1.2 and the Chandra Calibration Database v2.6. Data were screened for times of high background, as many of the observations occurred near periods of solar activity. Exposure times of the screened observations are in Table 1. Source lists were constructed using wavdetect (Freeman et al., 2002), the Mexican-hat wavelet source detection routine which is part of CIAO. We ran wavdetect on 0.3-6.5 keV band images using wavelet scales of 2, 4, 8, and 16 pixels. This combination of energy band and wavelet scales yielded the fewest spurious detections and found all visually obvious point sources. The output source regions were visually inspected to remove the artifacts that sometimes occur with wavdetect: regions where the ellipse minor axis is zero, regions containing 2 sources, and sources detected twice. Nuclear sources, when present, were removed from the source lists, as were sources outside the $`D_{25}`$ ellipses.

Source regions were taken to be 4 times the standard deviation of the distribution. This over-estimates the source size, but the contribution from background is negligible. For each source, PHA spectra were extracted and RMFs and ARFs were constructed. Corresponding background spectra were extracted for each source. The region for each background spectrum was taken to be an ellipse with radii equal to 4 times the source radii and excluding the source regions and any other overlapping source regions. To limit contamination from any diffuse emission, the background ellipse radii were not allowed to exceed 50 pixels (about 25″). We estimated fluxes for the 0.3-8 keV band from the spectrum of each source using Sherpa and assuming two standard models: a 5 keV thermal bremsstrahlung model with photoelectric absorption and a power-law with photon index of 1.5 and photoelectric absorption. In both cases, the n(H) was fixed at the Galactic value. Since most of the sources do not have enough counts for spectral analysis, all model parameters were frozen except for the normalizations. The 0.3-8 keV fluxes were used to calculate luminosities, using distances from the Nearby Galaxies Catalog (Tully, 1988) which assumes $`H_o=75`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 coupled with a Virgo infall model. Below, we present results using the thermal bremsstrahlung model; however, the results are essentially unchanged if the power-law model is used. A more detailed description of the data analysis, discussing the relevant biases and presenting source lists with spectral and timing results will be presented in a future publication (Kilgard et al., in preparation).

## 3 Luminosity Functions of Spiral and Star Forming Galaxies

The cumulative luminosity functions for all galaxies are shown in Figure 1. In order to avoid incompleteness, we consider only the high luminosity range of the luminosity functions. For the nearest galaxies in our sample, we set an overall conservative completeness limit at the luminosity corresponding to a detection limit of 10 counts for NGC 1291, $`L>3\times 10^{37}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. In the case of the Antennae, this detection limit translates to $`L>9\times 10^{37}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. We derived power-law fits to the high luminosity range of the unbinned differential luminosity function using a maximum likelihood statistic following Crawford et al. (1970). The slopes range between 0.50 and 1.30; the fitted slopes, $`\gamma `$, are shown in Table 1. We evaluated the goodness of fit using a binned differential luminosity distribution and calculating the $`\chi ^2`$ statistic with errors computed following Gehrels (1986). The reduced $`\chi ^2`$ is between 0.2 and 1.0 for all galaxies except M83, which has a value of 1.6. M83 shows evidence for a break in the LF at $`9\times 10^{37}`$ ergs s-1. We therefore refit the power-law including only data above this break and use this value in Table 1. The reduced $`\chi ^2`$ for the new fit is 0.96, indicating that a single power-law is an adequate model in this luminosity range.

Since the objects in our sample extend over large areas, the effect of interlopers in the LFs may be important. In order to assess this effect, we estimated the distribution of background sources using the logN-logS relation of Giacconi et al. (2001). Scaling the function according to the exposure time for each of our observations, we modeled the luminosity distribution of the sources with a power-law. We used this component as background for our LFs and we performed the fits again. There was little difference (less than $`1\sigma `$) in the results of these fits and those presented above.

The early-type spiral NGC 1291 has been studied in detail by Irwin et al. (2001), who considered only bulge sources and found no sources above $`L=2.5\times 10^{38}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$. We include all sources in the galaxy within the S3 chip (which covers $`>`$80% of the total area of the galaxy), which adds some higher luminosity sources. It is possible that in NGC 1291 we are seeing two populations (bulge and disk) with the disk sources becoming more prominent at higher luminosities. However, there are only 2 disk sources brighter than $`L>3\times 10^{38}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$, so this suggestion must be treated with caution. Finally, we note that the LF of NGC 3184 may hint at a cut-off at $`1.7\times 10^{38}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$, with a couple of higher luminosity sources skewing the high end of the fit, but the statistics are limited. A detailed study of the LF of the Antennae has been presented in Zezas and Fabbiano (2001). The parameters of the LF they derive are very similar to those presented here. Also, a study of the LF of M82 has been presented in Zezas et al. (2001). Their slope, although somewhat flatter is consistent with our results.

The most striking feature of the results in Fig. 1 and Table 1 is that the three starburst galaxies (NGC 253, M82 and NGC 4038/9) have flatter luminosity distributions than do the spirals. This implies that the starbursts have a larger fraction of higher luminosity sources relative to the total than do the spirals. This can most naturally be explained if systems with ongoing star formation have a population of X-ray binaries that dominate the high end of the luminosity function. Due to the short time scales of the starbursts, 10-100 Myr, the high luminosity sources are most likely high-mass X-ray binaries, as the latency period for HMXBs becoming X-ray luminous is much shorter than for LMXBs. The hypothesis that the LF slope is related to star formation rate is supported by the plot in Figure 2, which shows the slopes of the luminosity functions of the galaxies discussed here plotted against the integrated 60$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ luminosity from the IRAS faint source catalog (Moshir et al., 1992). There is a clear correlation (above the 99% confidence level) between the 60$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ luminosity – a measure of the star formation rate (Kennicutt, 1998) – and the slope of the X-ray luminosity function, in the sense that flatter slopes have higher star formation rates. The outlier is M83, which has a steep slope (deficit of high luminosity sources) relative to its 60 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ luminosity. It is worth noting that there are several bright sources within $`D_{25}`$ but off the S3 chip which may well be associated with M83. The slope is therefore an upper limit.

## 4 Comparison with Results from Literature

These results can be compared to studies of early-type systems in the literature, which are summarized in table 2. The elliptical galaxy NGC 4697 has been studied by Sarazin et al. (2000), the S0 galaxy NGC 1553 by Blanton et al. (2001), and the bulge of M31 by Shirey et al. (2001). The luminosity distributions for NGC 4697, NGC 1553, and the bulge of M31 are not adequately described by single power-laws, but instead require broken power-laws. The exponents for the high luminosity parts of the cumulative distributions are $`\gamma =1.79\pm 0.26`$ for M31 (Shirey et al., 2001; Primini et al., 1993), $`\gamma =1.76_{0.39}^{+1.81}`$ for NGC 4697 (Sarazin et al., 2000), and $`\gamma =1.7_{0.4}^{+0.7}`$ for NGC 1553 (Blanton et al., 2001). For all three galaxies, the exponent is consistent with the range $`\gamma =1.52.1`$, steeper than the spirals and starbursts discussed above. This suggests that the trend of steeper slopes correlating with less star formation extends to early-type spirals and ellipticals. Two of these galaxies (NGC 4697 and NGC 1553) are of comparable distance to the Antennae and therefore confusion is potentially a problem. The effect of confusion on the luminosity function is complicated and depends on the clustering and luminosity properties of the sources. While a complete analysis of the effects of confusion is beyond the scope of this paper, we note that a similarly steep slope is observed in the bulge of M31 (Shirey et al., 2001; Primini et al., 1993), lending support to the hypothesis that early type systems have steeper luminosity functions.

## 5 Model Luminosity Distributions

As a first step in understanding the luminosity distributions, we adopt a simple model in which all of the X-ray sources are members of a single population with uniform properties except for luminosity and lifetime. Our goal is to show that this simple model provides an adequate framework for understanding the difference in luminosity function slopes between the various types of galaxies and the breaks in the luminosity functions of individual galaxies. More detailed modeling involving the distinctions between high-mass and low-mass X-ray binaries, and potentially including a distinct source class for the ultraluminous sources, should be done in the future. However, the basic results concerning the luminosity function derived here will remain true for each individual population of X-ray binaries in a more complex model.

The number of X-ray point sources is described at each instant in time, $`t`$, by the number of sources, $`n(t,L,T)`$, of luminosity, $`L`$, and of age, $`T`$. The source birth rate is specified by a function $`b(L,t)`$ which is, in general, time dependent. The death rate should be proportional to the number of sources with the constant of proportionality given by a function $`f(L,T)`$ which depends on the source properties, but not explicitly on time. In general, the evolution of sources after birth may include luminosity evolution as well as a luminosity dependent lifetime. For simplicity, we assume that each source has a constant luminosity through its lifetime. The time evolution of $`n`$ is then

$$\frac{d}{dt}n(t,L,T)=b(L,t)\delta (T)f(L,T)n(t,L,T)$$
(1)
where the Dirac delta function $`\delta (T)`$ enforces the condition that sources are born with zero age.

The function $`f(L,T)`$ determines the shape of the source lifetime distribution. We choose $`f=\delta (T\tau (L))`$. In this case, each source of luminosity $`L`$ lives a time $`\tau (L)`$ and then promptly dies. To specify the lifetime $`\tau (L)`$, we note that the lifetime of an X-ray binary is determined by the time required to accrete the companion star onto the compact object. Since the luminosity is proportional to the accretion rate, $`L=\eta \dot{M}c^2`$ where $`\eta 0.10.4`$ is the efficiency for conversion of accreted matter to luminosity, the lifetime will depend on the luminosity as $`\tau =\eta \overline{M}_2c^2/ϵL`$, where $`\overline{M}_2`$ is the average mass of the companion stars and $`ϵ`$ is the duty cycle of emission (King et al., 2001). We assume that $`\overline{M}_2`$ and $`ϵ`$ are the same for all members of the population.

We note that Wu (2001) presented a model in which the source population is described only by the number of sources as a function of $`L`$ and $`t`$, $`n(t,L)`$, i.e. no information is retained concerning the age of the sources. This is equivalent to choosing a constant for the function $`f`$ in our model. This choice leads to a source lifetime distribution which is a decaying exponential. Such a lifetime distribution has a great spread in ages at fixed luminosity, with many sources dying immediately after birth and some having extremely long lifetimes. Our more general model allows a narrower lifetime distribution.

We assume a power-law form for the birth rate distribution, $`b(L)L^\alpha `$. The power-law form is purely empirical, and provides an adequate fit to the data as discussed below. Further, we assume that the binaries turn on in X-rays instantaneously after they are formed.

If the star formation is dominated by a recent impulsive event, then the cumulative luminosity distribution shortly after the burst will be determined by the birth rate distribution,

$$N(>L)L^{1\alpha }.$$
(2)
If the population is allowed to evolve with no subsequent X-ray binary formation, then the high end of the luminosity distribution will be truncated as the highest luminosity sources, with the shortest lifetimes, die. The sharpness of the cutoff is determined by the sharpness of the age distribution. With the form chosen above for $`f`$, the luminosity cutoff will be extremely sharp. More realistic age distributions would produce more gradual cutoffs. Due to the limited statistics available in constraining such cutoffs, we expect that our choice for the age distribution is adequate for present data. In this case, the differential luminosity distribution is $`n(L)L^\alpha `$ for $`L<L_B`$ and $`n(L)=0`$ for $`LL_B`$, where the break luminosity, $`L_B`$, is determined by the time since the burst, $`t_B`$, as $`L_B=\eta \overline{M}_2c^2/ϵt_B`$. The cumulative luminosity distribution is

$$\begin{array}{cc}N(>L)\left(\frac{L}{L_B}\right)^{1\alpha }1\hfill & \mathrm{for}L<L_B\hfill \\ N(>L)=0\hfill & \mathrm{for}LL_B\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
Now consider the case of gradual and long-term star formation, leading to an equilibrium between X-ray binary formation and death. If the lifetimes of the longest lived members of the X-ray point source population are significantly shorter than interval over which star formation has been proceeding steadily, then equilibrium will have been reached. The death rate at a given $`L`$ will be proportional to the number of sources divided by the lifetime $`\tau (L)`$ and must equal the birth rate. Since $`\tau `$ is inversely proportional to $`L`$ (King et al., 2001), the equilibrium luminosity distribution must be proportional to the birth rate distribution divided by $`L`$. The cumulative luminosity distribution is then

$$N(>L)L^\alpha .$$
(4)
This luminosity distribution is steeper than that of the impulsive case with an exponent that differs by one due to the (inverse) linear dependence of lifetime on luminosity.

At sufficiently low luminosities, the source lifetimes will be longer than the interval over which star formation has been proceeding steadily $`t_S`$. In general, the luminosity function will have the form of Eq. 2 for source luminosities corresponding to source lifetimes longer than $`t_B`$ and the form of Eq. 4 for higher luminosities. This leads to a broken power-law form for the luminosity distribution with the break luminosity, $`L_S`$, determined by the time since the burst, $`t_S`$, with the same relation as between $`L_B`$ and $`t_B`$. The differential distribution below the break will have the same slope as that of the birth distribution, while above the slope will be steeper by one. The cumulative luminosity distribution is then

$$\begin{array}{cc}N(>L)=\frac{N_0L_S}{\alpha 1}\left[\left(\frac{L}{L_S}\right)^{1\alpha }1\right]+\frac{N_0L_S}{\alpha }\hfill & \mathrm{for}L<L_S\hfill \\ N(>L)=\frac{N_0L_S}{\alpha }\left(\frac{L}{L_S}\right)^\alpha \hfill & \mathrm{for}LL_S\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
where $`N_0`$ is the normalization of the different luminosity distribution at $`L_S`$. Plots of this distribution for several values of $`t_S`$ are shown in Fig. 3. The older systems have a steep slope in the high luminosity range. The younger systems, analogous to the starbursts, have a flatter slope over the same luminosity range and distributions extending to higher luminosities. The break luminosity depends on the duration over which X-ray binary formation has been occurring.

If X-ray binary formation proceeds continuously for some interval and then shuts off, the resulting distribution will be sharply truncated at high luminosities with the cutoff luminosity determined by the time since the shut off of X-ray binary formation. If the duration of the continuous formation interval is longer than the time since the shut off of formation, then the (differential) distribution will consist of two power-laws and a sharp high luminosity cutoff. If the opposite situation holds, the luminosity distribution will be as in Eq. 3.

As noted above, we have assumed that all of the X-ray sources are members of a single population with uniform properties except for luminosity and lifetime. In reality two types of X-ray binaries are known, low-mass and high-mass systems, which have different evolutionary paths. High-mass X-ray binaries (HMXBs) are the progeny of rapidly evolving high mass stars, while low-mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs) are descendants of slowly evolving low mass stars leading to a long latency period between star formation and the turn on in X-rays of the binaries. In the impulsive star formation case described above, the long latency of the LMXBs precludes any significant contribution from LMXBs to the luminosity distribution. Hence, the X-ray sources in starbursts are likely HXMBs, as noted above. There is also likely to be some delay between the onset of star formation and the appearance of the first HMXBs, due to time required for the first stars to go supernova. However, this can be as short as few million years, so the assumption made above of instantaneous turn on of the X-ray binaries is reasonable for star formation episodes with durations in excess of 10 Myr.

Conversely, the luminosity distribution for old systems is likely to be dominated by LMXBs because of the much longer lifetimes of the low-mass companions. For the equilibrium distributions, LMXBs and HMXBs will likely have different formation rates, companion masses, and duty cycles. This would lead to different luminosity distributions for each populations, each of which taken individually would be described by the equations presented above. The observed distribution would then be the sum of the distributions for each population.

## 6 Conclusions

Recent Chandra observations show that the X-ray source luminosity distributions of the early-type galaxies are steeper than those of the starburst galaxies with an exponent that differs by approximately one. This is similar to the difference between the slopes for our models of a burst of star formation and steady-state star formation. We suggest that the luminosity distribution of the starburst galaxies directly reflects the birth luminosity distribution, while the other galaxies have a similar birth luminosity distribution and an observed luminosity distribution modified by the effects of an aging X-ray binary population. The slopes of the spirals are intermediate between the two cases, which may arise from a combination of the two components, as suggested above for NGC 1291.

For galaxies where the LF is measured over a broad luminosity range, it may be possible to detect breaks in the luminosity function and relate them to the galaxy’s star formation history (Wu, 2001). Shirey et al. (2001) reports a break in the LF for M31’s bulge near $`3\times 10^{37}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Applying the relation found above between the break luminosity and age of the X-ray binary population, we find $`t_B`$ of the order of 10 Gyr for $`ϵ=0.02`$, $`\eta =0.1`$, and $`\overline{M}_2=2M_{}`$. The difference in slope above and below the break is $`1.32\pm 0.26`$, close to the difference of 1 predicted in our simple model. The breaks in NGC 4697 and NGC 1553 are at higher luminosities, suggesting shorter $`t_B`$. However, the break luminosities are uncertain due to the distance uncertainties. There are suggestions of breaks at even higher luminosities, above $`10^{39}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$ in the starbursts M82 and the Antennae. In the context of the model presented above, this would be consistent with the rather short ($`\text{ }<100\mathrm{Myr}`$) durations of the starburst events in these galaxies.

An alternate explanation of the luminosity function breaks is that they are due to the transition between neutron star and black hole X-ray binaries (Sarazin et al., 2000). This suggestion is motivated by the observation that the break luminosity in the elliptical galaxies is close to the Eddington limit of a 1.4 $`M_{}`$ neutron star (Sarazin et al., 2000). However, the lower break luminosity found in M31 and the higher, although only marginally detected, break luminosities in the starbursts would argue against this interpretation. Additional X-ray luminosity function measurements are required to determine whether the break luminosity is the related to the Eddington luminosity or to the star-formation history of each galaxy as suggested here.

The striking differences in the luminosity functions and the progress that can be made in understanding the distributions with a simple model indicate that X-ray point source luminosity distributions should prove to be a powerful tool in understanding the evolutionary history of massive star populations in external galaxies. New Chandra observations of a large sample of galaxies across the full Hubble sequence coupled with detailed stellar evolution models should provide new insights into the compact object populations of external galaxies.

## 7 Acknowledgements

We thank the CXC DS and SDS teams for providing the software used in analysis and Harvey Tananbaum and Vinay Kashyap for valuable comments on the text and discussions. This work was partially supported by NASA contract NAS 8-39073 (CXC) and grant GO1-2092A. PK acknowledges partial support from NASA grant NAG5-7405.