text:
# Elastic interaction between “hard” or “soft” pointwise inclusions on biological membranes

## I Introduction

In a recent paper misbah02 , Marchenko and Misbah have revisited the calculation of the long-range, membrane-mediated interaction acting between inclusions embedded in biological or surfactant membranes. Using a method inspired from electrostatics, they calculated an “induced interaction”, which they compared with the results of several works previously published on the subject goulian93 ; park96 ; kim98 ; dommersnes99 ; dommersnes02 . They pointed out two major discrepancies: (i) their result is proportional to $`1/\kappa ^2`$ ($`\kappa `$ being the bending rigidity of the membrane) while the induced interaction calculated in Refs. goulian93 ; park96 ; kim98 ; dommersnes99 ; dommersnes02  is directly proportional to $`\kappa `$, (ii) the result of Refs. goulian93 ; park96 ; kim98 ; dommersnes99 ; dommersnes02  involves the size of the inclusion (either directly or through a cutoff in the case of pointwise descriptions) whereas the size of the inclusion does not appear in the result of Ref. misbah02 .

In this contribution, we show that there are no discrepancies between the approaches of Refs. goulian93 ; park96 ; kim98 ; dommersnes99 ; dommersnes02  and that of Ref. misbah02 , neither in the spirit of the model nor in the results. We demonstrate that the different expressions obtained for the induced interaction correspond to different limits of a common, more general model. We do so by solving a pointwise quadratic interaction model similar to the one used in Ref. misbah02 , exactly, instead of perturbatively, and without the need to introduce a high-wavector cutoff. According to the rigidity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the quadratic interaction potential, we find either the standard prefactor first obtained by Goulian et al. goulian93 ; park96 ; kim98 ; dommersnes99 ; dommersnes02 , in the large $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ limit corresponding to “hard” inclusions, or the result of Marchenko and Misbah misbah02 , in the small $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ limit corresponding to “soft” inclusions.

In the second part of the paper we discuss the role of the cutoff (introduced e.g. in Refs. dommersnes99 ; dommersnes02 ) in relation with a coarse-graining procedure of the pointwise description. We determine how the effective quadratic interaction potential depends on the coarse-graining scale, and we discuss the distinction between hard and soft inclusions in the light of this analysis.

## II Induced interaction

Here, we calculate the induced interaction between pointwise “defects”, or inclusions. We describe the inclusions using the same formalism as in Ref. misbah02 . We use, however, a more general Hamiltonian to describe the elasticity of the membrane, and, in addition, we perform our calculations exactly, whereas the result of Ref. misbah02  was obtained at lowest-order in a perturbative expansion. We emphasize that we shall not introduce any cutoff during our calculation.

The generalized membrane elastic Hamiltonian helfrich73  we use is

$$F_\mathrm{m}=\frac{1}{2}𝑑x𝑑y\left[\gamma h^2+\sigma \left(h\right)^2+\kappa \left(^2h\right)^2+\kappa _6\left(^2h\right)^2+\kappa _8\left(^4h\right)^2\right],$$
(1)
where $`h(x,y)`$ describes the normal displacement of the membrane. Being quadratic in $`h(x,y)`$, this Hamiltonian is accurate only for small membrane deformations. We have assumed that the membrane has no physical boundary except at infinity, which allowed us to discard all the terms that could be written as the divergence of a vector field (e.g., the Gaussian curvature energy helfrich73 ). The parameters $`\gamma `$ and $`\sigma `$ describe a confining potential and a membrane tension, respectively. In most cases they are negligibly small, and they play no role except at very large scales. The parameter $`\kappa `$ is the usual bending constant helfrich73  and $`\kappa _6`$, $`\kappa _8`$ are higher-order bending elasticity constants helfrich96 . We may rewrite the membrane Hamiltonian in the reciprocal space as

$$F_\mathrm{m}=\frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{\kappa }{2}\left[\mathrm{}_\gamma ^4+\mathrm{}_\sigma ^2q^2+q^4\left(1+b_6^2q^2+b_8^4q^4\right)\right]|h(𝐪)|^2.$$
(2)
Here $`L`$ is the lateral extension of the membrane; $`b_6=(\kappa _6/\kappa )^{1/2}`$, $`b_8=(\kappa _8/\kappa )^{1/4}`$ are nanometric lengths of the order of the thickness of the membrane, and $`\mathrm{}_\gamma =(\kappa /\gamma )^{1/4}`$, $`\mathrm{}_\sigma =(\kappa /\sigma )^{1/2}`$ are very large lengths in the case of free membranes with a vanishing tension.

To describe the coupling of the membrane with a pointwise isotropic inclusion labeled $`i`$, situated in $`𝐫=𝐫_i`$, we generalize the expression used in Ref. misbah02  (in which the term proportional to $`\overline{D}`$ below was omitted):

$$U_i=𝑑x𝑑y\delta (𝐫𝐫_i)\left[A^2h(𝐫)\frac{D}{2}_\alpha _\beta h(𝐫)_\alpha _\beta h(𝐫)\frac{\overline{D}}{2}_\alpha _\alpha h(𝐫)_\beta _\beta h(𝐫)\right],$$
(3)
where $`\alpha ,\beta \{1,2\}`$ stand for the $`x`$ and $`y`$ coordinates and $`\delta (𝐫)`$ is the Dirac distribution. Summation over repeated indices will be implied throughout. For a membrane containing two isotropic inclusions, the total energy functional is $`F_\mathrm{m}+U_1+U_2`$. To proceed, we rewrite the interaction terms $`U_i`$, up to a constant, as

$$U_i=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}\left(H_{\alpha \beta }^{(i)}C_{\alpha \beta }^{(i)}\right)^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }ϵ}{2}H_{\alpha \alpha }^{(i)}H_{\beta \beta }^{(i)},$$
(4)
where $`H_{\alpha \beta }^{(i)}_\alpha _\beta h(𝐫_i)`$, and $`C_{\alpha \beta }^{(i)}=c_0\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$ for an isotropic inclusion. The constants $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`ϵ`$ and $`c_0`$ are given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=D`$, $`ϵ=\overline{D}/D`$ and $`c_0=A/D`$. Note that the condition $`ϵ>\frac{1}{2}`$ has to be satisfied, overwise the membrane would be locally unstable. In order to give a simple interpretation of the interaction, we can also write Eq. (4) in term of the principal values $`H_1^{(i)}`$ and $`H_2^{(i)}`$ of the local curvature tensor $`H_{\alpha \beta }^{(i)}`$, i.e.,

$$U_i=\frac{1}{2}(1+2ϵ)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\left(H_1^{(i)}c\right)^2+\left(H_2^{(i)}c\right)^2\right]\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }ϵ\left(H_1^{(i)}H_2^{(i)}\right)^2.$$
(5)
The first two terms show that the inclusion locally promote an isotropic curvature $`c`$, and the third term distinguishes conformations for which the deviation of $`H_1^{(i)}`$ and $`H_2^{(i)}`$ from $`c`$ have identical or opposite signs. Note that it has been implicitely assumed that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>0`$.

In order to calculate the interaction energy between the two inclusions, we must minimize $`F_\mathrm{m}+U_1+U_2`$ with respect to the shape of the membrane. We do this in two steps: (i) first, we minimize $`F_\mathrm{m}`$ with respect to the membrane shape while setting prescribed values of $`H_{\alpha \beta }^{(i)}`$, which yields $`F_{\mathrm{min}}(H_{\alpha \beta }^{(1)},H_{\alpha \beta }^{(2)})`$, (ii) next, we minimize $`F_{\mathrm{tot}}=F_{\mathrm{min}}(H_{\alpha \beta }^{(1)},H_{\alpha \beta }^{(2)})+U_1+U_2`$ with respect to $`H_{\alpha \beta }^{(1)}`$ and $`H_{\alpha \beta }^{(2)}`$.

The first step was performed in Ref. dommersnes02 . The result is

$$F_{\mathrm{min}}(H_{\alpha \beta }^{(1)},H_{\alpha \beta }^{(2)})=\frac{1}{2}\kappa 𝖪^𝗍𝖬^1𝖪.$$
(6)
In this expression, the subscript $`𝗍`$ means transpose,

$$𝖪^𝗍=(H_{11}^{(1)},H_{12}^{(1)},H_{22}^{(1)},H_{11}^{(2)},H_{12}^{(2)},H_{22}^{(2)}),$$
(7)
$`𝖬`$ is the $`6\times 6`$ matrix:

$$𝖬=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}G_{1111}(0)& G_{1112}(0)& G_{1122}(0)& G_{1111}(𝐫)& G_{1112}(𝐫)& G_{1122}(𝐫)\\ G_{1112}(0)& G_{1122}(0)& G_{1222}(0)& G_{1112}(𝐫)& G_{1122}(𝐫)& G_{1222}(𝐫)\\ G_{1122}(0)& G_{1222}(0)& G_{2222}(0)& G_{1122}(𝐫)& G_{1222}(𝐫)& G_{2222}(𝐫)\\ G_{1111}(𝐫)& G_{1112}(𝐫)& G_{1122}(𝐫)& G_{1111}(0)& G_{1112}(0)& G_{1122}(0)\\ G_{1112}(𝐫)& G_{1122}(𝐫)& G_{1222}(𝐫)& G_{1112}(0)& G_{1122}(0)& G_{1222}(0)\\ G_{1122}(𝐫)& G_{1222}(𝐫)& G_{2222}(𝐫)& G_{1122}(0)& G_{1222}(0)& G_{2222}(0)\end{array}\right)$$
(8)
in which $`𝐫=𝐫_1𝐫_2`$, and $`G_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }(𝐫)=_\alpha _\beta _\gamma _\delta G(𝐫)`$, where

$$G(𝐫)=\frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{e^{i𝐪𝐫}}{\mathrm{}_\gamma ^4+\mathrm{}_\sigma ^2q^2+q^4\left(1+b_6^2q^2+b_8^4q^4\right)}$$
(9)
is the Green function associated with the elastic Hamiltonian. Note that no cutoff is required for the convergence of $`G_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }(0)`$ thanks to terms of order $`q^6`$ and $`q^8`$. The question of the high-wavevector cutoff will be raised later.

To perform the second step of the minimization, we rewrite the interaction term as

$$U_1+U_2=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}\left(𝖪𝖢\right)^𝗍𝖭\left(𝖪𝖢\right),$$
(10)
where

$$𝖢^𝗍=(C_{11}^{(1)},C_{12}^{(1)},C_{22}^{(1)},C_{11}^{(2)},C_{12}^{(2)},C_{22}^{(2)}),$$
(11)
contains the curvatures attempted to be set by the inclusions, and N is the $`6\times 6`$ block-diagonal matrix:

$$𝖭=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1+ϵ& 0& ϵ\\ 0& 2ϵ& 0\\ ϵ& 0& 1+ϵ\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(12)
where $``$ stands for the matrix direct product.

The resulting total energy $`F_{\mathrm{tot}}=F_{\mathrm{min}}+U_1+U_2`$ is quadratic in $`𝖪`$, and its minimization yields

$$F_{\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{min}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{2}𝖢^𝗍𝖭\left[\kappa 𝖬^1+\mathrm{\Gamma }𝖭\right]^1\mathrm{𝖭𝖢}+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}𝖢^𝗍\mathrm{𝖭𝖢}.$$
(13)
After some algebra, this expression can be recast in the simpler form, similar to that of Eq. (6):

$$F_{\mathrm{tot},\mathrm{min}}=\frac{1}{2}\kappa 𝖢^𝗍\left(𝖬+\frac{\kappa }{\mathrm{\Gamma }}𝖭^1\right)^1𝖢.$$
(14)
Equation (14) is very general and corresponds to our central result: it describes the interaction between two pointwise inclusions to all orders in their inverse separation $`1/r`$ (as long as the Hamiltonian $`F_m`$ is fit to describe the membrane distortion energy at the scale $`r`$), for any value of the rigidities $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }ϵ`$, and actually for isotropic or anisotropic inclusions, since the above derivation does not assume any form for the components of $`𝖢`$. For anisotropic inclusions, $`𝖢`$ should contain the components of the curvature tensor favored by the inclusions dommersnes02 .

To proceed further, we must first determine the components of the matrix $`𝖬`$. In the large $`r`$ limit, i.e., $`rb_6,b_8`$ (recall that $`b_6`$ and $`b_8`$ are nanoscopic lengths), and assuming also $`r\mathrm{}_\gamma ,\mathrm{}_\sigma `$ (i.e., taking $`\mathrm{}_\gamma \mathrm{}`$ and setting strictly $`\mathrm{}_\sigma ^1=0`$ for the sake of simplicity), Eq. (9) yields

$$G(𝐫)C_1+\frac{1}{16\pi }r^2\mathrm{ln}(\frac{r^2}{C_2}).$$
(15)
The constants $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ depend on $`\mathrm{}_\gamma `$, but they actually disappear in the calculation of $`G_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }(𝐫)`$, leaving $`1/(16\pi )(x^2+y^2)\mathrm{ln}(x^2+y^2)`$ as the only relevant contribution in $`G(𝐫)`$. To calculate the components of the matrix $`𝖬`$ in the large $`r`$ limit defined above, we set $`x=r`$ and $`y=0`$, yielding, $`G_{1111}=G_{1122}1/(4\pi r^2)`$, $`G_{2222}3/(4\pi r^2)`$, and $`G_{1112}=G_{1222}=0`$. Next, we have

$$G_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }(0)=n_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }\times \frac{dq}{16\pi }\frac{q^5}{\mathrm{}_\gamma ^4+\mathrm{}_\sigma ^2q^2+q^4\left(1+b_6^2q^2+b_8^4q^4\right)}b^2n_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta },$$
(16)
where $`n_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$ contains the angular part of the integration on $`𝐪`$. Simple calculations yield $`n_{1111}=n_{2222}=3`$, $`n_{1122}=1`$, and $`n_{1112}=n_{1222}=0`$. For $`b_6b_8\mathrm{}_\gamma ,\mathrm{}_\sigma `$, as previously specified, the constant $`b`$ is a nanometric length comparable to $`b_6`$ or $`b_8`$. Therefore, without loss of generality, we have (still in the large $`r`$ limit):

$$𝖬\frac{1}{b^2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}3& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 3\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)+\frac{1}{4\pi r^2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 3\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(17)
To calculate the interaction $`F_{\mathrm{int}}(r)`$ between two identical isotropic inclusions, we set

$$𝖢^𝗍=(c,0,c,c,0,c),$$
(18)
and, using Eq. (14), we obtain:

$$F_{\mathrm{int}}(r)=\frac{\kappa \mathrm{\Gamma }^3c^2(1+2ϵ)^2}{2\pi ^2\left(\kappa +2\mathrm{\Gamma }b^2\right)\left[\kappa +4\mathrm{\Gamma }b^2\left(1+2ϵ\right)\right]^2}\frac{1}{r^4}+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{r^6}\right).$$
(19)
We now consider two limits: hard inclusions, corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/\kappa b^2`$, and soft inclusions, corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/\kappa b^2`$ (note that we keep $`ϵ`$ of order unity for the sake of simplicity). In the former case, the inclusions strongly set their preferred curvature; in the latter case, they only weakly tend to establish it.

For hard inclusions, we let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ go to infinity, and to leading order in $`1/r`$, we obtain

$$F_{\mathrm{int},\mathrm{hard}}(r)\frac{\kappa b^2c^2}{64\pi ^2}\left(\frac{b}{r}\right)^4.$$
(20)
We thus recover the form obtained in Refs. goulian93 ; park96 ; kim98 ; dommersnes99 ; dommersnes02 , with $`\kappa `$ appearing in the numerator. Here the microscopic length $`b`$ arising from the membrane Hamiltonian plays the role of the cutoff introduced in Refs. park96 ; kim98 ; dommersnes99 ; dommersnes02 , or the role of the radius of the disk modeling the inclusion in the case of Ref. goulian93 .

For soft inclusions, we obtain to leading order in $`1/r`$ and at lowest-order in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (like in Ref. misbah02 ):

$$F_{\mathrm{int},\mathrm{soft}}(r)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^3c^2}{2\pi ^2\kappa ^2r^4}(1+2ϵ)\frac{2A^2D}{4\pi ^2\kappa ^2r^4}(1+2ϵ),$$
(21)
where $`\kappa `$ appears now to the second power in the denominator. This expression coincides exactly with the Eq. (37) of Ref. misbah02 , in which $`ϵ=0`$ was implicitely assumed. Contrary to the case of hard inclusions, the microscopic length $`b`$ does not appear in the interaction, it would however reappear in the next order term $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Gamma }^4)`$. We recall that $`1+2ϵ`$ is positive, hence the interaction is always repulsive in the present case of isotropic inclusions.

We have therefore shown that there is no fundamental discrepancy between the recent result of Marchenko and Misbah misbah02  and the earlier results published in Refs. goulian93 ; park96 ; kim98 ; dommersnes99 ; dommersnes02 . The result of Ref. misbah02  applies to soft inclusions, i.e., to inclusions that weakly tend to curve the membrane, while the result of Refs. goulian93 ; park96 ; kim98 ; dommersnes99 ; dommersnes02  is valid for hard inclusions that strongly enforce their preferred membrane curvature.

## III The role of the cut-off

Let us now comment on the role of the high-wavevector cutoff. Of course, any well-defined elastic theory does involve a coarse-graining cutoff $`a^1`$, and the elastic constants $`\kappa (a)`$, $`\kappa _6(a)`$, and $`\kappa _8(a)`$ depend on it. Thanks to the high-order bending elastic constants $`\kappa _6`$ and $`\kappa _8`$, there was no need to introduce a cutoff to calculate the interaction between the quadratic pointwise inclusions considered here. This is however somewhat arbitrary, since the microscopic length $`b`$ arising from this procedure is expected to compare with the natural cutoff $`a`$. This simply means that reintrocuding the cutoff would merely redefine $`b`$, leaving its order of magnitude unchanged. It is therefore unimportant to specify whether the cutoff was introduced or not in the procedure defining the microscopic length $`b`$ that appears in the interaction.

## IV Coarse-Graining of the membrane–inclusion system

Describing an inclusion by a pointwise potential is of course a mathematical approximation hiding some physical microscopic length-scale. One may actually choose the “resolution” of the pointwise description, i.e., the high-wavevector cutoff, by using a renormalization procedure. For instance, one may choose a “microscopic” cutoff comparable with the inverse inclusion size, or a much smaller cutoff corresponding to an elementary point size much larger than the inclusion. The question then naturally arises of how the constants of the pointwise quadratic potential will depend on the coarse-graining scale.

Let us therefore consider a membrane described with an upper wavevector cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=a^1`$. The membrane hosts a single pointwise inclusion located at $`𝐫=𝐫_1`$. We shall perform a coarse-graining of this system in order that the new wavevector cutoff becomes $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=(\mu a)^1<\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We assume the whole system to be in thermal equilibrium at the temperature $`T`$, however, since all energies are quadratic, the renormalization will be athermal and we can set $`k_\mathrm{B}T=1`$ without loss of generality. The partition function can then be written as

$$𝒵=𝒟h\mathrm{exp}\left(F_\mathrm{m}\left[h\right]U_1\left[h\right]\right),$$
(22)
where the inclusion’s pointwise potential can be written as $`U_1=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝖪_1𝖢_1)^𝗍𝖭_1(𝖪_1𝖢_1)`$, as in Eq. (10). Here, $`𝖭_1`$ is the $`3\times 3`$ uper-left block of the matrix $`𝖭`$ of Eq. (12), and $`𝖪_\mathrm{𝟣}^𝗍=(H_{11}^{(1)},H_{12}^{(1)},H_{22}^{(1)})`$, $`𝖢_\mathrm{𝟣}^𝗍=(c,0,c)`$. It is convenient to write $`\mathrm{exp}(U_1)`$ as the result of a Gaussian integral (Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation chaikinlubensky ):

$$\mathrm{exp}(U_1)d^3\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }^𝗍𝖭_1^1\mathrm{\Phi }+i\mathrm{\Phi }^𝗍\left(𝖢_1\frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}𝖪_1(𝐪)e^{i𝐪𝐫_1}\right)\right],$$
(23)
where $`𝖪_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝗍}(𝐪)=(q_1^2h(𝐪),q_1q_2h(𝐪),q_2^2h(𝐪))`$. Then, going to the variables $`h(𝐪)`$, Eq. (22) becomes (up to a multiplicative constant):

$$𝒵=d^3\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }^𝗍𝖭_1^1\mathrm{\Phi }+i\mathrm{\Phi }^𝗍𝖢_1\right)\underset{q<1/a}{}dh(𝐪)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{\kappa }{2}q^4|h(𝐪)|^2+i\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{t}𝖪_1(𝐪)e^{i𝐪𝐫_1}\right]$$
(24)
Since the argument of the second exponential in the above equation is a quadratic function of $`h(𝐪)`$, it is straightforward to integrate over the $`h(𝐪)`$ with wavevectors in the range $`(\mu a)^1<|𝐪|<a^1`$. Once this integration is performed, the resulting integral over $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is Gaussian, and yields, after some elementary algebra,

$$𝒵=𝒟h^<\mathrm{exp}\left(F_m[h^<]U_1^{\mathrm{eff}}[h^<]\right),$$
(25)
where $`h^<(𝐫)=(2\pi )^2_{q<1/(\mu a)}d^2qh(𝐪)e^{i𝐪𝐫}`$, and

$`U_1^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{eff}}}{2}}\left(_\alpha _\beta h^<(𝐫_1)C_{\alpha \beta }^{(1)}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{eff}}ϵ^{\mathrm{eff}}}{2}}_\alpha _\alpha h^<(𝐫_1)_\beta _\beta h^<(𝐫_1),`$ (26)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa b_0^2}{\kappa b_0^2+2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1\mu ^2\right)}},`$ (27)
$`ϵ^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ\kappa b_0^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+2ϵ\right)\left(\mu ^21\right)}{\kappa b_0^2\mu ^24\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+2ϵ\right)\left(\mu ^21\right)}},`$ (28)
where we have defined $`b_0=4\sqrt{2\pi }a`$. This set of exact equations is our second main result. It describes the effective quadratic coupling between the inclusion and the membrane in the coarse-grained pointwise description corresponding to the new cutoff $`(\mu a)^1`$. Note that the inclusion’s preferred curvature $`𝖢_1`$ is unaffected by the coarse-graining procedure. This result may seem surprising, however one should realize that the actual curvature set by the inclusion will naturally be smaller in the coarse-grained description due to the fact that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{eff}}<\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

In principle, the interaction between two inclusions should be independent of the level of coarse-graining chosen to describe the inclusions (as long as their separation is larger than the length-scale of the cutoff). One can indeed check that the interaction Eq. (19) is unchanged under the substitutions $`bb_0\mu b_0`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`ϵϵ^{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

Now, since the rigidities $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`ϵ`$ are scale-dependent, an inclusion may be hard or soft depending on the coarse-graining level. Indeed, according to the invariance of the interaction mentioned above, the criterion for the hardness or softness of the inclusion is to compare $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{eff}}/\kappa `$ to $`(\mu b_0)^2`$. For $`\mu 1`$, the “rigidity” $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/(\kappa b_0^2)`$, which becomes $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{eff}}/(\kappa \mu ^2b_0^2)`$ after coarse-graining, is reduced by a factor $`\mu ^2[1+2\mathrm{\Gamma }/(\kappa b_0^2)]1`$. Hence all inclusions effectively become soft at large coarse-graining scales.

Is this in contradiction with the fact that hard inclusions have an interaction proportional to $`\kappa `$ while soft inclusions have an interaction inversely proportional to $`\kappa ^2`$? The answer is no, because the effective constants $`D`$ and $`A`$ introduced by Misbah et al. misbah02  actually depend on $`\kappa `$. (This is another way to see that there is no discrepancy between the results of Ref. misbah02  and those of the previous works.) Indeed, starting from a hard inclusion ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }\kappa b_0^2`$), we obtain, in the limit $`\mu 1`$ where all inclusions become soft, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{eff}}\frac{1}{2}\kappa b_0^2`$ and $`ϵ^{\mathrm{eff}}\frac{1}{4}`$, while the preferred curvature $`c_0`$ is unchanged. With the correspondance $`D^{\mathrm{eff}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`A^{\mathrm{eff}}=c_0\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{eff}}`$, we obtain $`(A^{\mathrm{eff}})^2D^{\mathrm{eff}}\kappa ^3`$, hence Eq. (21) indeed yields an interaction proportional to $`\kappa `$.

We therefore conclude that the correct procedure to determine whether a given inclusions is fundamentally hard or soft is to estimate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at the coarse-graining level where the cutoff $`a`$ compares with the inclusion size. The corresponding “microscopic” value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$ must then, according to the discussion at the end of Sec. II, be compared with $`\kappa a^2`$ (since $`b`$ and $`a`$ are expected to be of the same order of magnitude). An inclusion will be fundamentally hard if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\kappa a^2`$ or fundamentally soft if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\kappa a^2`$.

## V Proteins as “hard” inclusion

We now argue that integral proteins of conical shape should be fundamentally considered as hard inclusions. First, it is very likely that the membrane elasticity is too weak to alter the conical shape of the protein, because of the strong dipolar interactions within the bundles of $`\alpha `$-helices in the transmembrane domain. Beside, a significant change in the protein shape would most probably alter its function. We can therefore assume that the protein behaves as a rigid conical body and that the weakness of the curvature potential embodied in the parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$ arises from the tilt degree of freedom of the lipids. Let us consider a conical protein having a circular section of radius $`R`$ in the membrane plane and an aperture angle $`2\theta `$. An estimate of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$ can be obtained by calculating the energy stored in the lipid tilt when one assumes that the membrane midplane remains perfectly flat. The latter is $`WB\theta ^2\times 2\pi R\times \xi `$, where $`B`$ is the elastic constant associated with the tilt and $`\xi (\kappa /B)^{1/2}`$ the tilt relaxation length. With $`c_0=\theta /R`$, which corresponds to the membrane curvature that the protein attempts to set, this energy can be rewritten as $`W\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_mc_0^2`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m4\pi \kappa R^3/\xi `$. Hence we obtain

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_m}{\kappa a^2}4\pi \frac{R^3}{a^2\xi }.$$
(29)
Interestingly, this quantity is independent of $`\kappa `$ and it grows as $`R^3`$. With typically $`R6\mathrm{nm}`$, $`a\xi 3\mathrm{nm}`$, we obtain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m/(\kappa a^2)100`$, which justifies treating conical proteins as a hard inclusion.

## VI Conclusion

We have calculated the induced interaction acting between pointwise membrane inclusions that locally interact up to quadratic order with the membrane curvature tensor. According to the rigidity of the potential constraining the local membrane curvature, inclusions can be viewed as hard or soft. The interaction between hard inclusions is proportional to $`\kappa `$ while the interaction between soft inclusions is inversely proportional to $`\kappa ^2`$ (both are also inversely proportional to the fourth power of the separation in the case of isotropic inclusions). This reconciliates the recent view of Marchenko and Misbah misbah02  with those of earlier works.

To discriminate whether a given inclusion is fundamentally hard or soft, one should however consider the coupling constants defined at the microscopic level, i.e., defined in a pointwise description in which the elementary point-size (the cutoff of the model) compares with the inclusion size. Indeed, we have shown that coarse-graining the pointwise description to length-scales much larger that the inclusion’s size transforms any hard inclusion into a soft one, however with coupling constants depending on $`\kappa `$ in such a way that the global interaction remains proportional to $`\kappa `$ if the inclusions was fundamentally hard. In the light of this analysis we have shown that transmembrane proteins should be considered as fundamentally hard inclusions.

###### Acknowledgements.

Helpful interactions with Paolo Galatola are gratefully acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# Dynamic Scaling and Two-Dimensional High-𝐓_𝐜 Superconductors

## I Introduction

There have been many reports of a two-dimensional (2D) Kosterlitz-Thouless-Berezinskii (KTB) phase transition  in the cuprate superconductors.  Repaci *et al.*  studied the “most two dimensional” high temperature superconducting sample possible, a single unit cell thick film of $`\mathrm{YBa}_2\mathrm{Cu}_3\mathrm{O}_{7\delta }`$. They concluded that there was no phase transition because a population of unbound vortices exists in this system well below the temperature where a conventional KTB transition would occur. This conclusion was shown to be in agreement with theory because the requirement that the sample be much smaller than the perpendicular penetration depth was not met.

In contradiction, Pierson *et al.*  and Ammirata *et al.*  re-analyzed Repaci *et al.*’s data (along with those from others) by using the general scaling ideas of Fisher, Fisher, and Huse (FFH)  and concluded that finite-size effects do not obscure the KTB transition. They further concluded that important details of the KTB dynamics were not included in its original formulation for superconductors by Halperin and Nelson.  In this paper we will refer to this Pierson and Ammirata analysis as the modified KTB scaling analysis.

Later theoretical work by Colonna-Romano *et al.* Medvedyeva *et al.* and Holzer *et al.*  suggests that the KTB transition *can* be obscured by finite-size effects. This work, in distinction from the earlier scaling analysis,  seems to support Repaci *et al.*’s original conclusions. That being said, all of these theoretical works do however find it intriguing that the modified KTB scaling analysis produces the large value of $`z6`$ for a variety of 2D systems.

In addition, Medvedyeva *et al.*  have proposed a finite-size scaling form that is also based on FFH-scaling applied to 2D superconductors. They argue that it is this finite-size scaling, as opposed to the modified KTB scaling, that is the correct scaling form for the data of Repaci *et al.* They further argue that under certain conditions their finite-size scaling is of the same form as the modified KTB scaling analysis of Pierson and Ammirata. Since this would mean that the modified KTB transition only appears to occur while their finite-size scaling is the correct physical description, Medvedyeva *et al.* label this a “ghost”  transition.

The question is: Does the reoccurring large value of $`z6`$ suggest a common origin; possibly resulting from a modified KTB transition or perhaps from a “ghost” transition based on finite-size scaling features in the vicinity of a KTB transition?

The work we present here indicates that the results of $`z6`$ from the modified KTB scaling analysis are not linked to fundamental aspects of a KTB transition. This is due to the fact that an opposite concavity criterion, similar to one proposed for 3D transitions in magnetic fields by Strachan *et al.* is not satisfied by the experimental data. Instead, we argue that the agreement between the many systems analyzed by Pierson *et al.* and Ammirata *et al.* in Refs.  and  (having $`z6`$) stems from the fact that a single experimental data set has a tremendous amount of flexibility when analyzed through modified KTB scaling.

In our work, we have carefully re-analyzed Repaci’s data. We are able to successfully collapse the experimental data to the modified KTB scaling theory  using a wide range of critical temperatures and exponents; something discussed in the theoretical work of Medvedyeva *et al.*  only above the transition but which we investigate in depth on experimental measurements at all temperatures. In fact, we find that this modified KTB scaling is still achievable when the critical temperature is defined to lie well outside of the temperature range of the measurements and for $`z`$ values much larger than $`6`$. This indicates that a single data set could be found to agree with any sufficiently large $`z`$ value, which could easily explain the agreement amongst the various 2D systems. We also find that the modified KTB scaling analysis is further weakened by its strong dependence on the voltage resolution limit of the experiment, as was theoretically demonstrated by Holzer *et al.*  and in much the same way that the conventional vortex glass scaling is.

In distinction from modified KTB scaling, we find that a “ghost” transition based on the finite-size scaling of Medvedyeva *et al.*  does not contain the same flexibility in determining the $`z`$. Despite this possible success of dynamic-scaling applied to a 2D superconductor, we find that the Medvedyeva *et al.* finite-size scaling theory entails its own flexibility and we argue that the experimental data fall within this realm of flexibility.

In a related issue, Medvedyeva *et al.*  argue that Repaci *et al.*’s measurements show vestiges of a conventional KTB transition; one that would have occurred in the film had finite-size effects not obscured it. They determine this obscured KTB transition to be at a temperature 10K higher than the modified transition temperature of Pierson *et al.*  and Ammirata *et al.* , a view that is in accord with the original conclusions of Repaci *et al.*

We address this issue in Sec. VI, where we use our opposite concavity criterion to motivate a criterion for determining a universal jump in the super-electron density at a conventional KTB transition. We demonstrate the need for our criterion by showing how one might be led to determine that a KTB transition exists, surprisingly, directly between the modified $`T_{KT}`$ (of Pierson *et al.*  and Ammirata *et al.* ) and the higher-temperature obscured $`T_{KT}`$ (of Medvedyeva *et al.* ). We argue that this perplexing predicament can be clarified by using our KTB concavity criterion. We conclude by reviewing theoretical and experimental results to see if they satisfy our KTB criterion. We find intriguing agreement with only one experimental data set  in the literature on a high-$`\mathrm{T}_\mathrm{c}`$ film and we compare this to the measurements of Repaci *et al.*

## II Scaling Applied to the Kosterlitz-Thouless-Berezinskii transition

The dynamic scaling approach of Pierson *et al.*  and Ammirata *et al.*  is based on work by Fisher, Fisher, and Huse (FFH).  FFH predict that the voltage, $`V`$, across a superconductor with an applied current, $`I`$, at temperature, $`T`$, should vary as

$$V=I\xi ^{D2z}\chi _\pm \left(\frac{I\xi ^{D1}}{T}\right),$$
(1)
where $`\xi `$ is the superconducting coherence length, $`D`$ is the dimensionality, and $`z`$ is the dynamic exponent. The two unspecified functions, $`\chi _\pm `$, apply above ($`+`$) and below ($``$) the transition temperature $`T_c`$.

Repaci’s $`12\mathrm{\AA }`$ thick film is two dimensional; for two dimensions Eq. (1) becomes

$$V=I\xi ^z\chi _\pm \left(\frac{I\xi }{T}\right)=I\xi ^z\chi _\pm \left(x\right).$$
(2)
If a factor of $`\left(I\xi /T\right)^z`$ is factored out of $`\chi _\pm `$ and the remaining function is named $`\epsilon _\pm `$, we can rewrite Eq. (2) as

$$\frac{I}{T}\left(\frac{I}{V}\right)^{1/z}=\epsilon _\pm (I\xi /T).$$
(3)
Eq. (3) is sometimes preferred for analysis  of data because $`\xi `$, which is expected to diverge at $`T_c`$, is present only in the argument to the scaling function, $`\epsilon _\pm `$.

At $`T_c`$ the right-hand side of Eq. (3) becomes $`\epsilon _\pm (\mathrm{})`$ since $`\xi `$ diverges. For an applied $`I`$ the measured $`V`$ should be some non-zero finite value at $`T_c`$, so that the left-hand side of Eq. (3) is a non-zero finite value at $`T_c`$. Therefore, $`\epsilon _\pm (\mathrm{})`$ must also be non-zero and finite at $`T_c`$. Furthermore, for a non-zero applied current the left-hand side of Eq. (3) should be continuous and smooth since non-analytic points, *i.e.*, critical points, are only approached as $`I0`$. This requires that $`\epsilon _+(\mathrm{})=\epsilon _{}(\mathrm{})=A`$, where $`A`$ is a non-zero finite constant. By setting $`T=T_c`$ and substituting $`A`$ in for the right-hand side of Eq. (3) we can solve for the $`IV`$ relation

$$VI^{z+1},$$
(4)
valid at $`T_c`$ It is important to note that Eq. (4) is also valid at temperatures and currents which make the argument, $`x`$, of $`\epsilon _\pm \left(x\right)`$ large since this causes Eq. (3) to go to the same limiting form. Above $`T_c`$, $`\chi _+`$ is expected to be constant in the $`x0`$ limit of Eq. (2). In this limit, Eq. (2) becomes

$$\frac{V}{I}=R_L\xi ^z.$$
(5)
Having reviewed the well-known FFH scaling results for $`D=2`$, we now discuss a proposed connection between them and the KTB transition.

According to KTB theory one expects power law $`IV`$ relations for $`T<T_{KT}`$ of the form $`VI^{a(T)}`$ due to current induced unbinding of vortex pairs. This occurs because vortex pairs with size greater than $`r_c`$ and under the influence of an applied 2D current density, $`j_{2D}`$, are repelled rather than attracted, where (in SI units)

$$r_c=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{2\pi (\frac{ϵ_{\mathrm{}}}{ϵ_0})\mu _0j_{2D}\lambda _{}}.$$
(6)
In the above relation, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the flux quantum, $`\lambda _{}`$ is the bare (unrenormalized) penetration depth for a thin film, $`\mu _0`$ is the permeability of vacuum, $`ϵ_0`$ is the permitivity of vacuum, and $`ϵ_{\mathrm{}}ϵ(r_c)`$ is the dielectric constant which takes into account screening of pairs of size $`r_c`$ by other much smaller pairs. As long as $`r_c`$ is large enough such that $`ϵ(r_c)`$ is approximately constant, *i.e.*, $`ϵ_{\mathrm{}}`$, one expects $`VI^{a(T)}`$.

Harris *et al.*  and, recently, Pierson *et al.*  and Ammirata *et al.*  have proposed using the KTB correlation length,

$$\xi e^{\sqrt{b/(\left|TT_{KT}\right|/T_{KT})}},$$
(7)
in FFH’s results with $`T_{KT}`$ replacing $`T_c`$. This is a surprising proposition because the KTB correlation length only has the form of Eq. (7) above $`T_{KT}`$ $`\left(\xi _+e^{\sqrt{b/(\left|TT_{KT}\right|/T_{KT})}}\right)`$. Below $`T_{KT}`$ the KTB correlation length, $`\xi (T<T_{KT})`$, is infinite,  which implies that the scaling relations (Eqs. (1-3)) should not be used below $`T_{KT}`$. (Note that $`\xi (T<T_{KT})=\mathrm{}`$ implies that Eq. (4) holds for all $`TT_{KT}`$.) This has been countered through a careful renormalization group study by Pierson and Valls,  where they argue that a physically relevant correlation length can be defined below $`T_{KT}`$. They define this physically motivated $`\xi (T<T_{KT})`$ as the point where the dielectric constant is essentially at its asymptotic value, determined as the length scale yielding an arbitrarily-chosen small fugacity.

However, our following derivation demonstrates the inconsistency between FFH scaling and KTB theory regardless of the physical interpretation of the correlation length below $`T_{KT}`$. Our argument is based on the fact that the $`IV`$ relations below $`T_{KT}`$ are of the form $`VI^{a(T)}`$ as $`I0`$ regardless of the physical interpretation of the correlation length.

We demonstrate this inconsistency by taking $`\left(logV/logI\right)_T`$ of Eq. (2) which yields

$$\left(\frac{logV}{logI}\right)_T=1+\frac{log\chi _\pm (x)}{x}x=F_\pm (x).$$
(8)
This says that $`\left(logV/logI\right)_T`$ should also scale as a function of $`I\xi /T`$. In this regime Eq. (8) becomes

$$a(T)=\left(\frac{logV}{logI}\right)_T=F_{}\left(\frac{I\xi }{T}\right).$$
(9)
The left-hand side of Eq. (9) depends only on temperature whereas the right side depends on both $`I`$ and $`T`$ together as $`\frac{I\xi }{T}`$. This is impossible for non-trivial choices of $`F_{}`$ and thus FFH scaling and KTB theory are inconsistent below $`T_{KT}`$.

Although Eq. (9) demonstrates inconsistency between Eq. (1) and KTB theory, we point out that making $`z=z(T)`$, via Eq. (4), and $`\xi (T<T_{KT})=\mathrm{}`$, scaling still applies below $`T_{KT}`$ This is the premise of the finite-size scaling of Medvedyeva *et al.*  One of the main points of that work is the apparent existence of the scaling form

$$\frac{V}{IR(T)}=h(IL\mathrm{g}_L(T)),$$
(10)
for smaller values of $`IL\mathrm{g}_L(T)`$. In this relation, $`R(T)`$ is the linear resistance of the low current ohmic tail at temperature $`T`$, $`L`$ is the size of the 2D sample, and $`\mathrm{g}_L(T)`$ is an unspecified function of $`T`$ and $`L`$ that permits a data collapse.

Having outlined the pertinent theory and shown the incompatibility between KTB theory and FFF scaling through Eq. (9), we will now demonstrate how the modified KTB scaling analysis may lead one to believe that the two theories are compatible.

## III The Modified KTB Scaling Analysis

Fig. 1 shows a $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}`$ plot of Repaci *et al.*’s  $`IV`$ isotherms from a 12Å thick laser ablated $`\mathrm{YBa}_2\mathrm{Cu}_3\mathrm{O}_{7\delta }`$ film. Straight lines on this plot indicate power law behavior, with the power equal to the slope of the line. The dashed line on the left has a slope of 1, characteristic of ohmic response. Note that at low currents many isotherms have ohmic tails.

Following the analysis of Pierson *et al.*  and Ammirata *et al.* , the solid line labelled “$`T_{KT}^M`$” (Modified $`T_{KT}`$) in Fig. 1 is a fit to the isotherm which seems to separate those curves with ohmic tails from those without. Pierson *et al.* and Ammirata *et al.* define this isotherm to be the critical temperature, $`T_{KT}^M17.6\mathrm{K}`$.

We note that $`T_{KT}^M`$ occurs when $`VI^{6.9}`$ in the data. This disagrees with the conventional KTB analysis,  where the critical isotherm is cubic, $`VI^3`$, assuming that the length probed by the applied current is large enough so that $`ϵ(r)`$ is completely renormalized. The only isotherm of Fig. 1 which is cubic at high currents is near 27K, denoted as $`T_{KT}^H`$, which we demonstrate with the solid line fit (at high currents) with $`\mathrm{slope}=3`$. However, this isotherm has an ohmic tail at low currents, a signature of free vortices. Medvedyeva *et al.*  have recently suggested that a conventional KTB transition would have occurred near this $`T_{KT}^H`$ if finite-size effects had not obscured it; a view in accord with the original arguments of Repaci *et al.*

Repaci *et al.* originally argued  that the finite 2D penetration depth caused these free vortices below $`T_{KT}^H`$. This is supported by Eq. (6), assuming that the finite penetration depth becomes important once $`r_c\lambda _{}`$. The ohmic tails of Fig. 1 set in roughly when $`I1\times 10^4\mathrm{A}`$, which corresponds to $`j_{2D}=\frac{I}{W}\frac{1\times 10^4\mathrm{A}}{2\times 10^4\mathrm{m}}`$, where $`W`$ is the $`200\mu m`$ width of the film. A low density of vortex pairs implies $`ϵ(r_c)ϵ_{\mathrm{}}ϵ_0`$, so that we can use Eq. (6) with $`ϵ_0`$ replacing $`ϵ_{\mathrm{}}`$. Substituting $`\lambda _{}`$ for $`r_c`$ in Eq. (6), we find $`\lambda _{}23\mu m`$, which is a reasonable (order of magnitude) value for a unit cell thick YBCO film.

Pierson *et al.*  and Ammirata *et al.*  however, proposed that this same data is well described by their modified KTB scaling theory. Since this modified analysis relaxes the constraint on the power of the critical isotherm (*i.e.* the $`z`$ exponent), their modified $`T_{KT}`$ ($`T_{KT}^M`$) can occur at much lower temperatures. Thus, Pierson *et al.*  and Ammirata *et al.*  argued that the ohmic tails below 27K result from $`T`$ being above their modified $`T_{KT}^M`$, rather than a finite-size effect.

A close look at the $`IV`$ curves in Fig. 1 reveals that at high currents the isotherms near $`T_{KT}^M`$ bend away from power law dependence towards ohmic behavior. Pierson *et al.*  and Ammirata *et al.*  argued that the sample is driven normal at these high currents and so they omit these data (denoted as smaller symbols in Fig. 1) in their analysis. This could be a reasonable assumption if the critical current density, $`J_c`$, for Repaci’s film is assumed equal to the value for a 12Å thick single crystal  ($`J_c10^{10}\frac{\mathrm{A}}{\mathrm{m}^2}`$). This gives $`I_c2\times 10^3\mathrm{A}`$, which is approximately where the high current down turn takes place. Following Pierson’s and Ammirata’s prescription, we will also omit these data from the analysis of this paper.

To find $`b`$ (Eq. (7)) from theory one uses Eq. (5) in the form

$$\mathrm{log}_{10}(R_L)=\{z\sqrt{b}\mathrm{log}_{10}(e)\}\sqrt{T_{KT}^M/\left|TT_{KT}^M\right|}+C,$$
(11)
with $`C`$ a constant. $`\mathrm{Log}_{10}(R_L)`$ vs. $`\sqrt{T_{KT}^M/\left|TT_{KT}^M\right|}`$ with $`T_{KT}^M=17.6\mathrm{K}`$ is plotted in the inset of Fig. 2(a). According to modified KTB scaling theory this should be linear, which it is, with slope $`z\sqrt{b}\mathrm{log}_{10}(e)`$.

Using the three parameters, $`T_{KT}^M`$, $`b`$, and $`z`$, Refs.  and  demonstrated that Repaci’s data collapse to Eq. (3). \[They also allowed for slight variation of these parameters in order to optimize the scaling collapse. This accounts for the slight deviation of the power-law fit (using their $`z`$ exponent) from the data in Fig. 1.\]

The scaling collapse is shown in Fig. 2(a), where the higher current data is towards the right and the lower temperatures are higher along the vertical axis. All measurements taken below 17.6K fall on the higher of the two curves ($`\epsilon _{}`$), while the rest are described by $`\epsilon _+`$.

There are two regions where the data seem to deviate slightly from the scaling functions; these are indicated with arrows in Fig. 2(a). The solid arrow points to data which seem to bend away from the scaling function at high currents. It is possible to argue that not enough of the high current data (where, presumably, the sample is driven normal) have been discarded from the analysis, as discussed above. The same may be argued for the region indicated in Fig. 2(a) by the dashed arrow. Thus, one might conclude that there is good agreement with a modified KTB scaling theory since the low current data seems to scale. This was the conclusion in Refs.  and .

## IV Further Analysis

When the data of Fig. 1 are examined closely, a problem with the modified scaling analysis becomes apparent. $`T_{KT}^M`$ occurs at the beginning of the region where the voltmeter’s sensitivity is no longer adequate to follow the $`IV`$ curves down to currents sufficiently low for detecting the ohmic tail. Since this ohmic tail is taken as evidence for being above $`T_{KT}^M`$ in the modified KTB theory, its detection is crucial in determining the critical temperature.

To quantify this, we determine the current, $`I_{co}`$, at which the crossover from non-ohmic to ohmic behavior occurs as a function of temperature. $`I_{co}`$ is defined as the point where the slope is a fraction, $`f`$, between the maximum slope of the isotherm and the minimum. (The minimum is 1 for isotherms with an ohmic tail.) We chose $`f=0.9`$ although other choices, such as $`f=0.7`$, do not make significant changes (with $`I_{co}`$ lowering only by a factor of about 1.7).

The solid diamonds in Fig. 1 are these crossover currents. The $`I_{co}`$ below 32K are roughly constant and slightly greater than $`10^4\mathrm{A}`$. This is important because it is the current where Pierson *et al.*’s  and Ammirata *et al.*’s  critical isotherm of Fig. 1 meets the $`1\mathrm{n}\mathrm{V}`$ resolution level of the voltmeter. A straight line through these points intersects the critical isotherm of Refs.  and  *at the resolution limit of the experiment.* (Repaci *et al.*  realized this as well, which they demonstrated through $`\left(\frac{logV}{logI}\right)_T`$ plots in their Fig. 3.)

There are two possible explanations for this. The first is that $`T_{KT}^M`$ is, by remarkable coincidence, precisely the temperature where the voltmeter runs out of resolution, and the $`IV`$ curves below 17.6K do not have ohmic tails. The second is that the curves below 17.6K have ohmic tails *beyond the voltmeter’s resolution.* The latter implies that there is no phase transition at 17.6K, and the agreement between Repaci *et al.*’s data and the modified KTB transition is due to the modified scaling analysis being much too flexible.

### A Further analysis for $`T_{KT}^M<17.6\mathrm{K}`$

To distinguish between these two possibilities, we re-analyze the data using several lower values of modified $`T_{KT}^M`$. We find the $`z`$ value at each $`T_{KT}^M`$ by setting the slope of the steepest portion of that isotherm equal to $`z+1`$ (Eq. (4)). Once $`z`$ is found for a modified $`T_{KT}^M`$, we determine a value for $`b`$ exactly as is done in Sec. III. As with Pierson *et al.*’s  and Ammirata *et al.*’s  analysis, we allow for a slight change in $`b`$ and $`z`$ in order to optimize the data collapse.

Starting with a $`T_{KT}^M`$ of 13.5K, we find $`z=8.5`$ and $`b=14.5`$. For this $`T_{KT}^M`$ all the data that scales in Fig. 2(a) also scales in Fig. 2(b). The only difference in the scaling collapse is that some data from $`\epsilon _{}`$ have shifted to $`\epsilon _+`$. As $`T_{KT}^M`$ is further lowered, more data is shifted. When $`T_{KT}^M`$ reaches the low temperature limit of the experiment, at about 10K (Fig. 2(c)), there ceases to be anything falling on the scaling function $`\epsilon _{}`$, which is expected since there is no further data below this temperature.

We can lower $`T_{KT}^M`$ still further and still obtain a data collapse. These scaling collapses are accompanied by much larger $`z`$ and $`b`$ values, as is noted in Fig. 2.

### B Further analysis of ohmic tails

The inset of Fig. 2(b) shows the $`R_L`$ plot for $`T_{KT}^M=13.5\mathrm{K}`$. In this plot $`\mathrm{log}_{10}(R_L)`$ deviates from linearity at about 33K, denoted $`T_d`$. (Note that higher temperatures are located towards the upper left.) Since linear dependence of $`\mathrm{log}_{10}(R_L)`$ vs. $`(T_{KT}^M/(TT_{KT}^M))^{1/2}`$ is only expected near $`T_{KT}^M`$ where critical fluctuations become important, this does not imply a deviation from the modified KTB scaling theory. In fact, the region of temperature ($`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{KT}=T_dT_{KT}^M`$) where critical fluctuations are important according to the $`\mathrm{log}_{10}(R_L)`$ plots in Fig. 2 is relatively independent of the choice of $`T_{KT}^M`$.

We will denote the lowest temperature at which $`R_L`$ is measurable as $`T_{cut}`$, which is 23K for Repaci’s measurements. Although Eq. (11) is non-analytic about $`T_{KT}^M`$, it *is* analytic at $`T_{cut}>T_{KT}^M`$. Thus, we can Taylor expand Eq. (11) about $`T_{cut}`$ as

$`\mathrm{log}_{10}(R_L)`$ $`=`$ $`Ca_0(T_{cut}T_{KT}^M)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (14)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{a_0}{2}}(T_{cut}T_{KT}^M)^{\frac{3}{2}}(TT_{cut})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3a_0}{8}}(T_{cut}T_{KT}^M)^{\frac{5}{2}}(TT_{cut})^2+\mathrm{}`$
$`a_0`$ $`=`$ $`z\sqrt{bT_{KT}}\mathrm{log}_{10}(e).`$ (15)
Given any arbitrary analytic function of temperature for the linear $`IV`$ behavior, $`f_L(T)`$, of the form

$`\mathrm{log}_{10}(f_L(T))=c_0+c_1(TT_{cut})`$ (17)
$`+c_2(TT_{cut})^2+\mathrm{},`$
this can be recast into the form of Eq. (14), as follows.

First we note that regardless of the values of $`T_{KT}^M`$, $`z`$, $`T_{cut}`$, and $`b`$, we can always find a $`C`$ such that $`c_0=Ca_0(T_{cut}T_{KT})^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Likewise, for any $`T_{KT}^M`$, z, and $`T_{cut}`$ we can always find a $`b`$ which permits $`c_1=\frac{a_0}{2}(T_{cut}T_{KT})^{\frac{3}{2}}`$. Since this agreement will exist only close to $`T_{KT}^M`$, which is the theoretical expectation, this test will always confirm KTB scaling, modified or conventional. (This is the flexibility in this analysis implied in the discussion by Mooij. )

The other three parameters are nominally determined directly through the measurements, as is the case for $`T_{KT}^M`$ and $`z`$, or its limits, as with $`T_{cut}`$. However, these three parameters have some flexibility, especially when selecting only certain cuts of the data (as was done at high currents with Pierson *et al.*’s and Ammirata *et al.*’s analysis of Repaci’s data) or when performing “eye ball” data collapses where $`T_{KT}^M`$ and $`z`$ can both be varied independently. This flexibility allows for better apparent agreement with scaling theory over an even larger temperature range.

Having demonstrated the large flexibility of the modified scaling analysis for $`T_{KT}^M<17.6\mathrm{K}`$, we now examine higher transition temperatures, $`T_{KT}^M>17.6\mathrm{K}`$.

### C Further analysis for $`T_{KT}^M>17.6\mathrm{K}`$

Fig. 3(a) shows the results of scaling for $`T_{KT}^M=21K`$. The collapse is much worse than those presented in Fig. 2. As the modified $`T_{KT}^M`$ is increased the data collapse becomes even worse, as is seen in Fig. 3(b) for $`T_{KT}^M=24\mathrm{K}`$. The deviations shown in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b) cannot be attributed to driving the sample normal since these departures all occur for the lowest currents. These data clearly do not scale for higher modified $`T_{KT}^M`$.

However, when we remove the lowest voltage data shown in Fig. 1, to mimic a less sensitive experiment, and repeat the scaling analysis, we find that the highest transition temperature for which collapse occurs increases. This is shown in Figs. 3(c) and 3(d) where the measurement floors are set to $`100\mathrm{n}\mathrm{V}`$ and $`10\mu \mathrm{V}`$, respectively. For the $`100\mathrm{n}\mathrm{V}`$ cutoff, the highest $`T_{KT}^M`$ which gives good collapse is about 21K while for the $`10\mu \mathrm{V}`$ cutoff it is raised up to 24K. Measurements with even worse sensitivity would allow us to define still higher transition temperatures.

### D Implications of further analysis

The preceding discussion in this section shows that the modified scaling analysis alone is insufficiently restrictive. Any trial value of $`T_{KT}^M`$ below 17.6K yields a good scaling collapse, and higher $`T_{KT}^M`$ would also work if the voltmeter were less sensitive. This has important implications because it could easily account for the apparent universal result of $`z6`$ that Pierson *et al.*  and Ammirata *et al.*  have determined on various systems, and in which there has been much recent interest.

These implications can be understood if we consider a comparison of several hypothetical measurements of the same sample made with varying sensitivities. If one would attempt to attribute a low universal value of $`z`$ to all these measurements it would be found that the less sensitive ones would show good agreement with scaling (like those of Figs. 2(a-d), 3(c), and 3(d)) while the more sensitive measurements would not (like those of Figs. 3(a), and 3(b)). However, as the value of $`z`$ is increased, one would arrive at values that could collapse all the measurements and universality could be claimed amongst the various measurements. If various 2D-superconducting systems have the same flexibility of analysis that we find for the Repaci *et al.* data (a completely reasonable assumption) then the same arguments could be applied amongst measurements made on the various systems. Thus, by choosing a sufficiently large $`z`$ value, our analysis implies that one should always be able to obtain universal agreement amongst different measurements and systems.

Our analysis in this paper investigates in depth the single measurement of Repaci *et al.* It would therefore be an interesting test of our hypothesis to see the results of other groups rigorously examining the flexibility in analysis of their data.

Having demonstrated that relying on the modified KTB scaling alone is clearly unsatisfactory, we now investigate the alternative finite-size scaling method of Medvedyeva *et al.* Eq. (10); a scaling method that also applies FFH ideas to the KTB transition.

### E Finite-size scaling

To examine the data through Medvedyeva *et al.*’s  theory we will ignore the size dependance of the scaling since the measurements are made on the same sample. We thus rewrite Eq. (10) as

$$\frac{V}{IR(T)}=h(I\mathrm{g}(T)),$$
(18)
with $`\mathrm{g}(T)`$ unspecified by the theory. In the work of Medvedyeva *et al.* they determine that a $`\mathrm{g}(T)`$ given by

$$\mathrm{g}(T)R(T)^\alpha ,$$
(19)
with $`\alpha 1/6`$ provides a good collapse of the Repaci data in the low current regime. We have reproduced this scaling collapse in Fig. 4(a), where the solid lines are Repaci *et al.*’s data at 23.0K and above.

Although this seems to show good agreement with the scaling theory, there is intrinsic flexibility in this analysis. To demonstrate this flexibility, we suppose we have any group of non-linear $`IV`$ isotherms made on the same sample which may or may not be applicable to the scaling theory of Medvedyeva *et al.* The simplest scenario would be that the $`IV`$ curves at any single temperature are analytic and can be expanded in the form

$$V=R(T)I+R_3(T)I^3+R_5(T)I^5+\mathrm{},$$
(20)
where we have kept only odd terms in the expansion since the simplest behavior is to assume the voltage changes sign upon reversing the applied current. (We further point out that the measurement techniques of Repaci *et al.* assume this antisymmetry.)

We can recast Eq. (20) into the form of Eq. (18) by dividing by $`R(T)I`$, which yields

$$\frac{V}{IR(T)}=1+\left(I\sqrt{\frac{R_3(T)}{R(T)}}\right)^2+\left(\frac{R_5(T)}{R(T)}\right)I^4+\mathrm{}$$
(21)
The above relation will always satisfy the Medvedyeva *et al.* scaling requirements at low currents up to the second term in the expansion by identifying $`\sqrt{\frac{R_3(T)}{R(T)}}`$ as $`\mathrm{g}(T)`$. Since the form of $`\mathrm{g}(T)`$ is completely unspecified by the scaling, it can always be determined by $`\sqrt{\frac{R_3(T)}{R(T)}}`$ and thus this finite-size scaling should always hold for analytic $`IV`$ behavior.

To test whether this is the sort of trivial agreement being seen in the data collapse of Fig. 4(a), we superimpose a function of the form $`\frac{V}{IR(T)}=1+cI^2`$, which is simply the first two terms of the expansion of Eqs. (20) and (21); with $`c`$ a constant fitting parameter that determines the unspecified $`\mathrm{g}(T)`$. Clearly, this function fits the data collapse well and indicates that the apparent success of this scaling could be due to the intrinsic flexibility of the analysis.

A better test of the Medvedyeva *et al.* scaling is to subtract one from $`\frac{V}{IR(T)}`$. Since the low current region of the data collapse is expected to be one this should give a more sensitive examination of the data at small currents, *i.e.*, the only region where the Medvedyeva *et al.* finite-size scaling is expected to be valid. This is plotted in Fig. 4(b), where we find that the region over which the collapse is achieved goes approximately as $`I^2`$; *i.e.*, parallel to the solid line. This means that we are essentially just collapsing the the second (*i.e.*, quadratic) term of the expansion in Eq. (21). This is further indication that the successful scaling is due to trivial analytic behavior as in Eq. (20) or Eq. (21).

Having noted that, we point out that Medvedyeva *et al.*  originally proposed that their scaling is essentially the same as the modified KTB scaling analysis under certain conditions, most notably that $`R(T)`$ behaves according to Eq. (19) with $`\alpha `$ a temperature independent constant equal to $`1/z`$. (This analogy is of course only valid experimentally in the low current and high temperature regime due to the need for a low current linear resistance value in Eq. (10).) Under these conditions Medvedyeva *et al.*  argue that their finite-size scaling behavior can appear to have a transition. They call this a “ghost” transition because it should only appear to occur whereas they argue that their finite-size scaling is actually the correct physical description.

The fact that we find no significant agreement between the Medvedyeva *et al.* finite-size scaling and the measurements analyzed here means support for a “ghost” transition is also lacking experimentally; since the latter depends on the existence of the former. That said, we find however that the parameters of an assumed “ghost” transition are not flexible when we analyze the measurements. By using the various scaling tests discussed in Ref.  on the Repaci data, we find that the value of $`1/\alpha `$ in Eq. (19) is well restricted to lie between five and eight. The fact that the second term in the Taylor expansion of Eq. (21) has this restricted behavior may indicate some sort of underlying physical basis. Further studies on experiments with varying sizes might be suitable for investigating this possibility, as one could utilize the full finite-size scaling form of Eq. (10), as has been done for the simulations of Refs.  and .

If the Medvedyeva *et al.* scaling had succeeded in Fig. 4 over regions that the simple analytic behavior could not have described, then this would have been evidence for non-trivial agreement with theory. Thus, this is a sort of criterion that could be used to determine whether the finite-size scaling of Medvedyeva *et al.* is non-trivial.

Having motivated a criterion for the finite-size scaling, in the next section we will address the subtle issue of a criterion for determining a non-trivial modified KTB transition. This criterion will later be used in Sec. VI to motivate a different criterion for determining the existence of a conventional KTB transition.

## V An Experimental Criterion for Observing The Modified KTB Transition

In the previous section we showed that data collapses and $`R_L`$ fits alone are not sufficient to indicate a modified KTB phase transition. It remains a possibility that such a phase transition is present, but the scaling analysis does not uniquely determine it. What is needed is an unambiguous signature for a phase transition–something to differentiate between true and false scaling agreements.

Each isotherm in Fig. 1 collapses onto only a small portion of $`\epsilon _\pm `$ in Fig. 2(a). In the low current direction of the collapses the isotherms are cut off by the sensitivity floor of the experiment. For the region below the sensitivity floor, one of two possibilities would occur if more sensitive measurements were made. These measurements would either collapse onto the scaling function, indicating a real transition, or deviate, indicating that the original collapse was simply a product of the experimental resolution limit.

To see what a real transition would look like, we can use the scaling functions obtained from higher-voltage data to predict behavior at voltages smaller than the experimental resolution. We do this by choosing a temperature $`T`$, which specifies the appropriate scaling function to use from a data collapse, like the one in Fig. 2(a). Since $`T_{KT}^M`$ and $`b`$ are found from the previous fits, choosing a value of $`I`$ determines $`I/\xi T`$, and thus specifies a point on the $`xaxis`$. This $`x`$ value and the scaling function determine a $`y`$ value. The only unknown in $`y`$ is $`V`$, which is thus determined. We emphasize that if $`I`$ is large enough, this procedure just returns the measured value of $`V`$, but if $`I`$ is small enough, it gives an extrapolated small value for $`V`$ which is beyond the resolution of the voltmeter. To perform this extrapolation we used a data collapse with $`z=6`$, which is the value suggested by Pierson *et al.*  The other two parameters which collapse the data for this $`z`$ are $`T_{KT}^M=18.183\mathrm{K}`$ and $`b=5.37`$.

The results of the extrapolation are shown in Fig. 5(a). Our first observation is that the extrapolated data from a modified KTB scaling analysis do not show the $`VI^{a(T)}`$ behavior expected below $`T_{KT}^M`$ down to $`10^{20}\mathrm{V}`$. Instead, we find that the voltage goes to zero faster than a power of $`I`$ as $`I0`$, clearly apparent in the negative concavity for $`T<T_{KT}`$. This is further testament to the incompatibility of conventional KTB theory and FFH scaling, as outlined earlier in this paper.

Following the arguments of Ref. , we observe next that the extrapolated curves display a signature not seen in the measured data. Isotherms with equal $`\left|(TT_{KT}^M)/T_{KT}^M\right|`$ have opposite concavities *at the same current level*. We demonstrate this in Fig. 5(a): The dashed vertical line (constant current) is drawn between isotherms 1.5K on either side of the critical temperature. The lines tangent to these isotherms clearly show the opposite concavity. Two other pairs of isotherms are also shown in Fig. 5(a) with opposite concavities at the same current levels. Fig. 5(b) clearly demonstrates that a true data collapse should show this property whether the voltage resolution is $`10^{20}`$ or at $`10^{12}V`$. In either case $`T_{KT}^M`$ would be restricted to lie well within the two inner curves at 16.7K and 19.7K, and would thus be independent of the resolution limit of the experiment.

Repaci *et al.*’s data in Fig. 1 has positive concavity in all the $`IV`$ isotherms above 19.5K (and over a 12.5K range) at approximately $`1.5\times 10^4\mathrm{A}`$. For a transition to exist, this trend must cease since, below $`T_{KT}^M`$, isotherms are not expected to have ohmic tails. To show that this trend ceases it is necessary to see negative concavity for an isotherm below $`T_{KT}^M`$, while one above, at the same current, and with equal $`\left|(TT_{KT}^M)/T_{KT}^M\right|`$ has a positive concavity. We require that the relevant temperature scale of the transition, $`\left|(TT_{KT}^M)/T_{KT}^M\right|`$, be equal since both isotherms must be in the critical region, excluding the possibility of comparing critical to non-critical behavior.

Repaci *et al.*’s data shows no evidence of this necessary signature about $`T_{KT}^M`$. We conclude that the measurements are not consistent with scaling.

Having proposed a criterion for determining a modified KTB transition, we use it in the next section to help motivate a criterion for determining a conventional KTB transition.

## VI Applicability of analysis to conventional KTB transition.

The quintessential characteristic of a KTB transition is the universal jump in the fully renormalized superfluid density from

$$\frac{\rho _{s0}}{(ϵ_{\mathrm{}}/ϵ_o)}=\frac{m^{}n_{s0}^{}}{(ϵ_{\mathrm{}}/ϵ_o)}=\frac{2m_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_BT_{KT}}{\mathrm{}^2}$$
(22)
at $`T_{KT}^{}`$ to zero at $`T_{KT}^+`$ (see for example Ref. ). In the above equation, $`n_{s0}^{}`$ is the bare Cooper pair density per area while $`m^{}`$ is the Cooper pair mass.

This jump has been reported in many superconducting systems for both finite frequency and DC $`IV`$ measurements.  However, the jump is only expected in the limit of $`\omega 0`$ and $`I0`$. At finite frequencies and currents the jump is somewhat rounded which makes determination of the KTB transition less obvious. In fact, it has recently been suggested  that many reports of the KTB transition do not show the universal jump or transition at all.

### A Motivating a KTB concavity criterion

To address this concern, we propose a criterion for determining whether this jump exists (as opposed to a possible finite size effect ) in DC $`IV`$ measurements.

We motivate a criterion by employing the one developed in the last section with one change. Since a KTB transition predicts $`VI^{a(T)}`$ below $`T_{KT}`$, we expect that the below $`T_{KT}`$ isotherms have *zero* concavity on a $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}`$ plot at the same applied currents, while ones above have positive concavity.  We will refer to this criterion as the “KTB concavity criterion,” to distinguish it from the “opposite concavity criterion,” of the last section and Ref. . This KTB concavity criterion is further supported by a consideration of the important length scales of the problem, as we will show below in Sec VI C.

### B What is the need for the KTB criterion?

First we will consider the case of a finite-size effect at temperatures much below $`T_{KT}`$. In this regime there should not be a cubic $`IV`$ power law because we are far below the real $`T_{KT}`$ for an infinite 2D sample. However, we will now argue that evidence for a cubic $`IV`$ power law will always be found in this finite size dominated regime despite the fact that a KTB transition does not exist here.

In this low temperature regime we would expect $`VI^{a(T)}`$ at all finite applied currents such that $`\lambda _{}>r_c>\xi _{GL}`$ where $`\xi _{GL}`$ is the approximate normal core size and also the smallest separation for a bound pair. $`VI^{a(T)}`$ because, as $`T`$ is lowered below $`T_{KT}`$, renormalization effects due to fluctuating vortex pairs diminishes quite rapidly  and so $`ϵ(r_c)ϵ_{\mathrm{}}ϵ_0`$.

At sufficiently low temperatures, as the current is lowered the measurement floor is reached before $`r_c`$ becomes comparable in size to $`\lambda _{}`$ or the sample size. Therefore, in this regime we only expect to find the power-law dependence expected below $`T_{KT}`$. As higher temperature $`IV`$ curves are investigated, but still below the true $`T_{KT}`$, lower currents produce measurable voltages.  According to Eq. (6), this means that larger length scales could be probed, *i.e.*, larger $`r_c`$. When $`r_c`$ becomes comparable to $`\lambda _{}`$ or the sample size we would expect ohmic tails due to the existence of free vortices. Since these finite-size induced ohmic tails will emerge smoothly (due to the statistical nature of unbinding) from isotherms with $`a(T)>3`$, one must necessarily pass an $`IV`$ curve which seems to have the power of 3. Thus, one would conclude that a rounded jump in $`\frac{\rho _{s0}}{(ϵ_{\mathrm{}}/ϵ_o)}`$ is measured; the sort typical of a true KTB transition, even though no true transition occurs.

#### 1 Illustrating need for criterion with example

This is illustrated in Fig. 1 by fitting the power of 2.9 (*i.e.*, approximately 3) to the low-current regime of the curve at 22.5K ($`T_{KT}^L`$). In Fig. 6 we show a blow up of Fig. 1 with power law fits to the low current portions of the $`IV`$ curves. Over three decades in voltage we *seem* to have very good power-law fits, as expected for the KTB transition. We draw further connection with the conventional KTB analysis by plotting in Fig. 7 the $`a(T)`$ derived from these power-law fits. Remarkably, both plots seem to indicate, in the usual way, that a universal jump in the superconducting electron density occurs.

This is a significant observation in that the temperature where we have just determined a conventional KTB transition to lie (22.5K) is midway between 17.6K ($`T_{KT}^M`$) where Pierson *et al.*  and Ammirata *et al.*  argue for a modified KTB transition, and 27K ($`T_{KT}^H`$) where Medvedyeva *et al.* argue that a conventional KTB transition would have existed had finite-size effects not obscured it. Furthermore, according to Repaci *et al.* and Medvedyeva *et al.* the regime we focus on in Fig. 6 is dominated by finite size effects and should not support a conventional KTB transition.

Thus, despite the fact that various scenarios have been proposed that are incompatible with a KTB transition at 22.5K, we do in fact find very good agreement with theory for one. In light of this perplexing situation we ask if there are other criterions that we could use to determine whether our agreement with KTB theory is in fact valid?

#### 2 How about other criterions?

To start with, the universal jump condition shown in Fig. 7 is clearly not sufficient as we have just seen. Another possibility is the fit of the linear resistive tails; however, we have already explained in Sec. IV B that these fits are far too flexible. A third possibility is the square root cusp of the super-electron density just below the transition.  However, this square root cusp is typically very difficult to determine experimentally (see for example the fits in Fig. 2 of Ref. ). This may be due to the functional form of the super-electron density being highly dependant on the experimental length scale probed. For example, the recent theoretical work of Pierson *et al.*  and the analysis of Kaden *et al.*  show a stark change in the shape of the super-electron density near $`T_{KT}`$ for different characteristic length scales, while the super-electron density at $`T_{KT}`$ remains relatively unchanged.

Considering this lack of an adequate criterion, we will now give further justification for our KTB concavity criterion. Since two of the three conflicting interpretations of the Repaci *et al.* data claim that the regime of Fig. 6 is dominated by finite-size effects, we will focus on differentiating between size effects and true KTB behavior.

### C A further argument in support of the KTB concavity criterion

Since finite-size effects should dominate when $`r_c`$ is roughly of size $`\lambda _{}`$, we can substitute $`\lambda _{}`$ into Eq. (6) and solve for the current where we cross over to these effects, *i.e.*

$$j_{co}^\lambda _{}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{2\pi \mu _0\lambda _{}^2}.$$
(23)
Typically we should expect $`\lambda _{}`$ to be only weakly temperature dependent in this regime and, thus, we should also expect $`j_{co}^\lambda _{}`$ to be roughly constant as a function of temperature. In the case where $`\lambda _{}`$ is temperature dependent, $`\lambda _{}`$ should grow as temperature increases. Thus, we conclude that $`j_{co}^\lambda _{}`$ will decrease or remain constant as $`T`$ increases for finite-size induced unbinding.

For a true KTB transition, where the ohmic tails are due to a finite correlation length when $`T>T_{KT}`$, $`j_{co}^{KT}`$ should have the completely opposite temperature dependence, *i.e.*, increasing as $`T`$ grows. A rough argument supporting this goes as follows:

At temperatures sufficiently close to and above $`T_{KT}`$ we expect changes to occur at large length scales determined by the diverging $`\xi _+`$. That is, the largest pairs are the first to unbind in going up through $`T_{KT}`$. Thus, when probing at sufficiently small scales, *i.e.*, with sufficiently large $`j_{2D}`$ and for $`TT_{KT}`$, we should not expect large deviations from the $`Ej_{2D}^3`$ behavior expected at $`T_{KT}`$. We approximate this behavior near $`T_{KT}`$ for large driving currents as

$$EC_{Ej}j_{2D}^3,$$
(24)
where $`C_{Ej}`$ is a constant and $`E`$ is the electric field. However, we also expect the temperature dependence of the ohmic tails to vary as

$$\frac{E}{j_{2D}}=\rho \frac{\rho _0}{\xi _+^2}=\rho _0e^{2\sqrt{bT_{KT}/(TT_{KT})}},$$
(25)
according to Eq. (5) with $`z=2`$. Eliminating $`E`$ between Eqs. (24) and (25), we obtain a rough estimate for the crossover current between power law and ohmic behavior very close to $`T_{KT}`$, *i.e.*,

$$j_{co}^{KT}\sqrt{\frac{\rho _0}{C_{Ej}}}e^{\sqrt{bT_{KT}/(TT_{KT})}}.$$
(26)
This equation says that this crossover should occur at increasing values of current as the temperature is raised above $`T_{KT}`$. In the crossover regime between power law and ohmic $`\mathrm{log}V\mathrm{log}I`$ curves we expect positive concavity. Since the extent of this regime will increase with temperature there should be some isotherms with $`T<T_{KT}`$ which have zero concavity at the same applied current. This is the extension of the concavity criterion applied to a true KTB transition discussed earlier in this section.

On the other hand, the crossover and its associated positive concavity due to finite size effects would occur at either a constant applied current or a decreasing current as temperature is raised above $`T_{KT}`$. This implies that we would *not* see positive concavity for higher temperature isotherms while lower ones maintain zero concavity. The occurrence of either behavior can be used to determine the cause of the ohmic tails. Again, since the relevant temperature scale is $`\left|\frac{TT_{KT}}{T_{KT}}\right|`$ we should be comparing isotherms above and below $`T_{KT}`$ with this value equal, not to confuse critical with non-critical behavior.

Despite our rough arguments, it is instructive to take another look at the $`I_{co}`$ plotted on Fig. 1. At low temperatures we see that the crossover current is roughly constant as a function of temperature. According to our arguments this would indicate that this results from a finite size effect, in agreement with Repaci *et al.*’s conclusion. Furthermore, as temperature is raised above about 32K, we begin to clearly see that this crossover current increases. Interestingly, the increase in $`I_{co}`$ sets in roughly where the high current regime of the $`IV`$ curves has a power of approximately 3, *i.e.*, $`TT_{KT}^H27.5K`$. These observations give further support to Repaci *et al.*’s  and Medvedyeva *et al.*’s  view that finite-size effects obstruct the KTB transition from occurring.

### D Putting the KTB concavity criterion to the test

As a test of our criterion we review a theoretical work and three simulations which report $`IV`$ isotherms near a KTB transition. First we consider the renormalization-group analysis of current induced vortex pair unbinding by Sujani *et al.*  The results of their analysis, which is based on a model without finite-size effects included, clearly demonstrates a positive concavity for higher temperature isotherms (see Fig. 5(b) in Ref. ), while isotherms below $`T_{KT}`$ and with equal $`\left|\frac{TT_{KT}}{T_{KT}}\right|`$ do not show concavity.

We next consider the simulations of $`IV`$ curves by Holzer *et al.* which contain both a true KTB transition plus finite size effects.  At higher currents their $`IV`$ curves are dominated by characteristics of a true KTB transition. In this regime we see that our KTB concavity criterion is clearly satisfied. However, at lower currents their $`IV`$ characteristics are dominated by size effects and the concavity criterion is no longer satisfied.

A third test is the numerical simulations of Colonna-Romano *et al.*  Like the $`IV`$ curves of Holzer *et al.*, they too show true KTB behavior at high currents and finite-size effects at lower currents. Again, in the KTB regime our criterion is satisfied while in the finite-size dominated region it is not.

Our final check uses the $`IV`$ simulations of Medvedyeva *et al.*  Like the simulations of Colonna-Romano *et al.* and Holzer *et al.*, these demonstrate finite-size effects at low currents which do not satisfy the KTB concavity criterion. At high currents, there is a slight opposite concavity which may be due to the saturation of pair unbinding.  That is, all the pairs tend to be unbound at high currents, which should cause $`IV`$s to become ohmic in this regime and thus have negative concavity.

Based on these four works, it seems that evidence of a KTB transition is found when the KTB concavity criterion is satisfied. Having motivated the KTB concavity criterion and found support for it from theoretical studies and simulated $`IV`$ curves, we now review the literature to see if it is satisfied experimentally.

#### 1 Testing experimental results with criterion

First we review those reports of a KTB transition in conventional 2D superconductors and Josephson junction arrays. In this case we find that the criterion is clearly satisfied for the superconductors in Refs.  and  and for the arrays in Ref. , while for many other reports the criterion is not satisfied. Thus, our criterion is consistent with a KTB transition in at least some conventional type II superconductors and arrays.

Having shown that the KTB concavity criterion can be experimentally satisfied, we now address the cuprate superconductors.

Whether a KTB transition exists in 2D cuprates has been an unresolved issue (see discussion in Ref. ). Furthermore, many papers report $`IV`$ critical isotherms with $`a(T_{KT})`$ greater than 6, which is essentially the basis for Pierson *et al.*’s proposal  that $`z>5`$. However, we find only one report of $`IV`$ measurements of a 2D cuprate superconductor, Ref. , which satisfies our criterion.

To demonstrate the difference between the data of Ref.  and the those of Repaci *et al.* we plot $`d\mathrm{log}V/d\mathrm{log}I`$ vs current  for both sets in Fig. 8. In Fig. 8(a) we make this plot for the $`IV`$ regime of Repaci *et al.*’s data shown in Fig. 6. Despite the fact that the typical KTB analysis shown in Fig. 7 indicates there is a transition, these data fail our KTB concavity criterion. This is evident from Fig. 8(a) where all the $`d\mathrm{log}V/d\mathrm{log}I`$ have positive slope (*i.e.*, positive concavity for $`IV`$ curves) both above and below the $`T_{KT}`$ determined through Figs. 6 and 7. This is in contrast to a similar plot for the data of Ref.  in Fig. 8(b). Here we see that the low-temperature $`d\mathrm{log}V/d\mathrm{log}I`$ plots level off between three and four; a value in reasonable accord with the conventional KTB theory.  This could explain the poor fit of this data to the modified KTB scaling analysis (see Ref. ) which had been analyzed using the unusually large power at the critical isotherm of approximately 7, as opposed to 3.

We also emphasize that the axes of Figs. 8(a) and 8(b) have the same span; $`d\mathrm{log}V/d\mathrm{log}I`$ goes from one to six while $`\mathrm{log}_{10}I`$ spans 1.8. The only difference in the two plots is that the range of Matsuda *et al.*’s data (Ref. ) is centered at higher applied currents. Since one generally expects the length scale probed to be smaller for larger applied current densities, this may may simply indicate that the data of Matsuda *et al.* is in a regime where finite-size effects are not probed.

## VII Summary

We find that the modified KTB scaling analysis  gives inconclusive results when applied to measurements of a $`12\mathrm{\AA }`$ thick $`\mathrm{YBa}_2\mathrm{Cu}_3\mathrm{O}_{7\delta }`$ film. The choice of a modified critical temperature and exponents is arbitrary to within factors of 3 or more and the results depend significantly on experimental sensitivities. We argue that this flexibility in analysis could be the source for the large and apparently universal $`z`$ exponent values.

We propose a criterion necessary to ensure that a scaling analysis is not afflicted with the same problems as the modified KTB scaling analysis. We use this to motivate a different criterion for determining a conventional KTB transition. We find that some two-dimensional superconductors satisfy our criterion; however, many, in particular most of those in the cuprates, do not.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank S. M. Anlage, A. Biswas, R. L. Greene, H.-J. Kwon, P. Minnhagen, M. C. Sullivan, and Huizhong Xu for useful discussions on this work. We also acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation through Grant Nos. DMR-9732800 and DMR-9801825.