LOW TEMPERATURE PHYSICS

VOLUME 40, NUMBER 4

APRIL 2014

ARPES experiment in fermiology of quasi-2D metals (Review Article)

A. A. Kordyuka)
G.V. Kurdyumov Institute of Metal Physics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,
36 Vernadsky St., Kiev 03142 Ukraine

(Submitted November 23, 2013)

Fiz. Nizk. Temp. 40, 375388 (2014)
Angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) enables direct observation of the Fermi
surface and underlying electronic structure of crystals, which are the basic concepts necessary to
describe all the electronic properties of solids and to reveal the nature of key electronic interactions involved. ARPES proved to be the most efficient for studies of quasi-2D metals, to which
the most challenging and hence exciting compounds belong. This stimulated tremendously the development of ARPES in the recent years. The aim of this paper is to introduce the reader to the
state-of-the-art ARPES experiment and to review the results of its application to such highly topical problems in solid state physics as high temperature superconductivity in cuprates and ironbased superconductors and electronic ordering in the transition metal dichalcogenides and manC 2014 AIP Publishing LLC. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4871745]
ganites. V
Photoelectron spectroscopy is based on the photoelectric
effect, which has been known for more than a century.10
Einstein has received the Nobel Prize for its explanation.11 If
the surface of a crystal is irradiated with monochromatic
light of certain energy, then it will emit electrons of different
kinetic energy in different directions. The flux of electrons
as a function of energy is called photoemission spectrum,12
and if scanning over the emission angle is added, than it is
called ARPES-spectrum.
Fig. 1 (left) shows the photoemission spectrum of
Bi2Se3, known today as the topological insulator. The
observed peaks correspond to localized electronic levels.
However, to relate the electronic structure and the electronic
properties of crystals, it is of utmost interest to study the
states in the vicinity of the highest occupied levelthe
Fermi level. This region is called the valence band (enlarged
in the inset above) and, when the spectra are acquired upon
scanning the emission angle of electrons, reveals a complex
structure, which, as can be seen from a comparison with
band calculations,4 reflects the structure of dispersive bands.
Looking ahead, it is worth mentioning that the ARPESspectrum is not just a set of one-electron bands, but, in fact,
the single-particle spectral function, which is the imaginary
part of the Greens function for one-electron excitations (quasiparticles): Ax; k p1 ImGx; k.7,8 In the absence of
interaction between the electrons, one-particle states are well
defined, G0 1=x  e  i0 and Ax; k dx  ek,
where e(k) is the dispersion of bare (i.e., non-interacting)
electrons. Taking into account the interaction in the normal
(gapless) state, the Greens function also has a simple form
G0 1=x  e  R, and

1. Introduction

In the last century the electronic band structure and, in

particular, the Fermi surface were extremely valuable, but
purely theoretical concepts introduced in order to explain
many physical properties of solids, such as electrical conductivity, magnetoresistance, and magnetization oscillations
upon varying magnetic field.1 Nowadays, thanks to the development of appropriate experimental methods, these concepts have been verified through the directly observable
manifestations of the quantum nature of electrons in crystals.
Notable among these new methods is the Angle-Resolved
Photoemission SpectroscopyARPES,2,3 which allows to
directly observe both the Fermi surface and the underlying
electronic structure of the samples (see, e.g., Figs. 13).
Certainly, seeing does not mean understanding and the
apparent simplicity of interpretation does not guarantee validity of the conclusions. However, it can be argued that due
to the visual character and enormous volume of experimental
data, the modern ARPES-experiment provides exactly the
type of everyday experience that the founders of quantum
mechanics lacked so much. The purpose of this review is to
show how the new opportunity to see the spatial electronic
states, which is provided by this method, helps to resolve the
most challenging problems of solid state physics.
2. Modern ARPES-experiment
2.1. ARPES-spectrum

It can be said that ARPES allows to see the actual distribution of electrons in the energymomentum space of the
crystal. This distribution is determined by the electronic
band structure (the interaction of electrons with a periodic
crystal potential) as well as by the interaction of the electrons with inhomogeneities of the crystal lattice (defects,
impurities, thermal vibrations) and with each other. In other
words, in addition to the band structure, which is a consequence of the single-particle approximation, the results of
the field-theory methods in the many-body problemthe
quasiparticle spectral function and self-energyhave
become directly observable.79
1063-777X/2014/40(4)/11/$32.00

00

Ax; k 
0

1
R x
;
p x  ekR0 x2 R00 x2

(1)

00

where R R iR is the quasiparticle self-energy, which

reflects all the interaction of electrons in the crystal. Thus,
not only the structure of one-electron bands, but also the
structure of basic interactions in the electronic system might
be expected to reflect in ARPES-spectrum.
286

C 2014 AIP Publishing LLC

V

Low Temp. Phys. 40 (4), April 2014

A. A. Kordyuk

287

FIG. 1. ARPES-spectra and electronic band structure of the topological insulator Bi2Se3:4 the integral spectrum (left) recorded at h 110 eV, the valence
band with angular resolution (lower row, center) recorded at h 100 eV, and the surface states in the shape of the Dirac cone5 recorded at h 20 eV. Band
calculations were performed by Krasovskii.6

Comparison between experiment and calculation is a

key point of this article. Since there is anyway no rigorous
explanation of photoemission (commonly used three-step
and one-step models12 are, respectively, more and less
rough approximations9), the path from experiment to model
is the most consistent. To paraphrase an English proverb
about duck: if ARPES-spectrum looks like a spectral function and behaves like a spectral function, then it is the spectral function. Moreover, a huge amount of experimental data
makes such empirical approach extremely convincing.
Nevertheless, to link the experimental space of angles and
kinetic energy with the energymomentum space of the crystal, explain in laymans terms why this refers to spectral
function, and name other components of the spectrum, let us
consider the process of photoemission in more detail, using
some of the ideas of the above three-stage model.

A typical ARPES setup consists of an electron lens, a

hemispherical analyzer, and a multichannel detector (Fig. 2,
left). In the angular-resolved mode, a spot of focused UV excitation on the surface of the sample (typically of the order
of hundreds micrometers in diameter) coincides with the
focal point of the electron lens, which projects the photoelectrons onto the entrance slit of the analyzer. Thus, the lens
translates the angular space of photoelectrons into the coordinate space by forming along the slit an angular sweep of
electrons which fly within the plane formed by the axis of
the lens and the slit. Upon further passage through the analyzer the electron beam also spreads in energy in a plane perpendicular to the slit. As a result, a two-dimensional
spectrum is formed on the 2D-detector (e.g., a microchannel
plate): the intensity of photoelectron emission as a function
of the energy and the emission angle.

FIG. 2. Detector of a modern photoelectron analyzer (left) acts as a window into the 3D energy-momentum space of a 2D metal (center). By moving this
window in (x, k)-space, a full distribution of electrons and its cross-section at the Fermi levelthe Fermi surface (right) can be obtained. Shown are the
electronic structure and spectra of high-temperature superconductor Bi-2212.

288

Low Temp. Phys. 40 (4), April 2014

A. A. Kordyuk

FIG. 3. Example of the Fermi surface of Bi-2212 obtained in the pioneering work of Aebi14 in 1994 (upper left) using a single-channel analyzer and 10 yr later
by us15 (bottom) using a SES 100 analyzer with a multichannel detector. Top right: both data sets are shown on the same momentum scale for comparison.

To relate this spectrum to the band picture, it is assumed

that when an electron escapes from the crystal, it retains its
momentum and energy. More rigorously: Upon escaping the
crystal, the electron quasi-momentum hk becomes real momentum in free space p hk hG, where G is any
reciprocal-lattice vector. The law of conservation of energy
takes the form: 
h Ek Eb /, i.e., the energy of an incident photon 
h is spent on overcoming the binding energy
Eb of an electron in the crystal and the work function /
for escaping from the sample to the analyzer, and the
remainder is converted into the kinetic energy of the photoelectron Ek p2/2m.
These conservation laws can be applied to an ARPESexperiments with the following reservations: (1) the law of
conservation of momentum (transformation of quasi-momentum) applies to the component of momentum parallel to
the surface of the crystal kk along which there exists a translational symmetry; (2) the component of the photon momentum along the surface is, as a rule, neglected; (3) it is
assumed that the sample (with metallic conductivity) has the
same potential as that of the analyzer, and therefore / does
not depend on the sample and is the work function of the analyzer. Moreover, the momentumpthat
an electron had in the

crystal is defined as hkk hG 2mEk sin h, where h is the

electron emission angle with respect to the normal to the surface, and the energy x Eb Ek /  h.
From this we can assume that the ARPES-spectrum
reflects the probability of finding an electron in the crystal
with a certain energy and momentum kk (hereafter k) and
put it into an excited state. The first process is determined by
the density of occupied states, or spectral function, multiplied by the Fermi distribution: A(x,k)f(x). The second process is related to the probability of photon absorption, or the
direct transition to the free level (in the three-step model of
photoemission, which is commonly called matrix elements
M(h, n, k)). Thus, the structure of an ARPES-spectrum consisting of n bands can be written in the coordinates (x,k) as
follows:

ARPESx; k /

Mh; n; kAx; kf x:

(2)

This equation is written for the two-dimensional case, when

the bare bands can be represented as surfaces in the 3D
(x,k)-space, and the Fermi surface can be represented as the
contours at the Fermi level, the (0,k)-plane (see Figs. 2, 3,
and 5). The experimental factors, such as the resolution13
and the efficiency of the detector channels5 are also omitted
here. This is done for the sake of simplicity and also because
the notion of modern ARPES includes a set of procedures
for dealing with these factors.5,13 Nevertheless, it is worth
remembering that the underestimation of experimental factors often led to wrong conclusions, as will be exemplified in
Sec. 3 by the case of cuprates.
2.2. Matrix elements

Particularly, we should turn our attention to the matrix

elements. In the current definition, M(h, n, k) better corresponds to the probability of the one-step transition of an
electron from its initial state in the crystal to the final one on
its way to of the spectrometer.16,17 For better clarity, it is
separated into the probability of photoionization of an
electron in the crystal12 (classical photoemission matrix elements, the first stage of the three-stage model) and the probability of the subsequent interaction of the photoelectron with
the crystal and its surface (the other two stages). However,
the majority of studies still consider only the photoionization
probability since it is easier to understand which parameters
it depends on and to evaluate the nature of this dependence.18 In the process of photoionization, due to the interaction with an electromagnetic wave, an electron passes from
an initial state, which is determined by the momentum k and
the band number n, to a final state, which differs from the
initial one by the energy h. Accordingly, it is expected that
the probability of photoionization depends on these parameters and the experimental geometry, namely, the polarization
and orientation of the light wave with respect to the crystal

Low Temp. Phys. 40 (4), April 2014

A. A. Kordyuk

289

FIG. 4. ARPES-spectruman image from the two-dimensional detector of a photoelectron analyzer, which represents, in fact, the one-electron spectral function A(x, k) (a). Relation of the experimental distribution of electrons with the bare dispersion of non-interacting electrons e(k) and the self-energy of quasiparticles (one-electron excitations) R R0 iR00 (b).

planes of the sample. In this case the characteristic scale of

changes of M with respect to h and k is determined by the
broadening of the final state and the dispersion of the respective bands. In the three-stage model, this broadening can be
deduced from the lifetime of the final state, while in the
single-stage model it can be found from the decay depths of
the final-state wave function in the crystal.16 Both
approaches lead to the same estimate of the characteristic
scale of variation of M(h, k) (the minimum peak width) of
25 eV in terms of energy and some fraction of the Brillouin
zone in terms of momentum,19,20 which agrees well with the
experimental data.21,22
Therefore, in the case of a single or isolated band, the
influence of matrix elements can be, as a rule, neglected or
compensated through a certain renormalization. For instance,
this has been possible for determining the Fermi surface,23,24
studying the shape of ARPES-spectra,13 determining the
self-energy,25 and evaluating of relevant interactions.26
However it is not uncommon, that the variation of the matrix
elements with momentum is mistaken for an unusual
behavior of A(x,k).2730 On the other hand, it is only the

dependence of M on the band number that allows to separate

the contributions from the neighboring bands15,21,31 and to
unravel complex electronic structures3237 by varying the
energy and/or polarization of light. The latter requires using
the synchrotron radiation with variable energy and
polarization.38
2.3. Surface or volume?

A frequently discussed issue is the surface sensitivity of

ARPES: From what depth are the electrons emitted? The
mean free path of an electron in the crystal as a function of
its energy is described by a universal curve with a mini at 50100 eV (Ref. 12). In reality this
mum of about 25 A
dependence is neither universal, nor smooth, i.e., the escape
depth is strongly dependent on the material and changes rapidly and non-monotonously upon small variation in energy.39
Moreover, what is more important is not the escape depth,
but how the ARPES-spectrum reflects the electronic structure of the bulk crystal under study. In most cases, the
answers to both questions can be obtained from an experiment. Let us consider the examples of specific compounds.

FIG. 5. Experimentally obtained electronic structure of untwinned YBCO (Tc 90 K).42 The Fermi surface (left) is represented by two scans (maps) along the
perpendicular crystallographic directions overlaid by the tight-binding model. Arrows indicate the positions of cross-sections (a-h) of the underlying electronic
structure; ARPES-spectra are shown on the right; h 50 (a-d) and 55 (e-h) eV, T 18 K.

290

Low Temp. Phys. 40 (4), April 2014

Among the HTSC cuprates, Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8d (BSCCO

or Bi-2212) is the undisputed leader in terms of the sheer
number of ARPESstudies devoted to this material.2,3 Figs.
24 show the spectra of this particular compound. This popularity is due to the presence in its structure of BiO planes
bound together by weak van der Waals forces. When a
Bi-2212 crystal is cleaved in ultrahigh vacuum, the top plane
is BiO, followed by SrO, and only afterwards follows the
first conductive double-layer CuO2, where the superconductivity appears.40 Apparently, it is this double protection that
leads to the fact that the observed electronic structure is fully
consistent with the bulk one. This can be best judged by the
magnitude and temperature dependence of the superconducting gap.2,41
The depth from which the photoelectrons are emitted in
cuprates can be judged from the data on another compoundYBa2Cu3O7-d (YBCO).42 Excellent surface quality
of the cleaved crystals enables high quality ARPES-spectra
(Fig. 5). However, the superconducting gap is not observed
in these spectra. YBCO crystals are cleaved between the
BaO- and chains-containing CuO-planes, hence changing
the number of carriers in the latter as well as in the nearest
double CuO2 layer, which becomes strongly overdoped and
by now non-superconducting, as can be judged from the area
of the Fermi surface.18,42 It turned out that the superconducting component related to the second bilayer of CuO2, can be
seen in some spectra42 and even extracted by using circular
polarized light.18 This suggests that the photoemission in
cuprates occurs from the depth of about two unit cell length,
.
i.e., 15 A
Despite these difficulties of observing the bulk electronic structure of YBCO, it can be expected that with the
exception of a larger two-layer splitting and chain states,42
the Fermi surfaces of BSCCO and YBCO are very similar.
That is why the discovery in 2007 of quantum oscillations43
with a frequency corresponding to a small Fermi surface was
perceived as a contradiction between the surface photoemission and bulk oscillation methods. However, it soon
became clear that it was originated from an electronic pocket
of the Fermi surface centered around (0,p),44 which may be
a simple consequence of either magnetic45 or crystalline (as
in BSCCO) 22 superstructure.14,23 At the moment, considering the number of both new frequencies detected46 and
possible superstructures,47 the situation with the oscillations
in YBCO seems to be too complicated to talk about their
contradiction with the ARPES-data for BSCCO.
Another example of a compound in which both the surface and bulk are visible in the spectra is Sr2RuO4. Fig. 6
shows a map of the Fermi surface,48 where the splitting of
certain sheets can be clearly seen (see the inset). It is interesting that for this compound the observed Fermi surface is
in excellent agreement with both the band calculations49 and
the measurements of the de Haasvan Alphen oscillations.50
Three-dimensionality (kz-dispersion) in ferropnictides is
much greater than in cuprates. This can be inferred from the
observed dependence of the electronic band structure (the
size of the Fermi surface) on the photon energy.33,51 The
three-dimensionality greatly complicates the analysis of the
shape of spectra, however the fact that kz-dispersion can be
observed and even estimated from an ARPES-experiment
suggests that the escape depth here is significantly larger

A. A. Kordyuk

FIG. 6. Experimentally obtained Fermi surface of Sr2RuO4, which is composed of surface and bulk components.48

than two elementary cells. Thus, for the majority of compounds (including the most studied 122 and 111 families34)
as well as for the BSCCO, the gaps determined using
ARPES are in excellent agreement with bulk methods.52
Thus, there is no clear answer to the question surface or
volume. There are compounds where ARPES sees volume and those where this is prevented by the surface layer
(polar surface) and extremely shallow emission depth.
However, most often we can confidently say what type this
particular compound belongs to, especially when it comes to
superconductors with a gap in the one-electron spectrum.
Concluding this section, we can say that an ARPESspectrum is, in fact, the one-electron spectral function modulated by the matrix elements. The main proof for this statement is the extensive experience comparing the ARPESspectra with the electronic structure calculations by selfconsistent procedures for the self-energy25 or by comparison
with the results of other methods that can also be derived
from the electron spectrum.52,53 Next, we consider some
examples of this experience.
3. ARPES on cupratesthe story of enlightenment

In 1987, shortly after the discovery of HTCS, Anderson

published a landmark paper in Science,54 in which he has
defined as the main features of the new superconductors their
quasi-two-dimensional character and the fact that their
superconductivity is formed by doping a Mott insulator.55
He has predicted that the combination of these features
should lead to the fundamentally new physics that goes
beyond the existing theory of metals.56 This prediction has
been enthusiastically accepted by a number of researchers,
and for a long time it was considered indecent to mention
such concepts of the solid-state theory as one-particle electronic structure1 or the Fermi liquid7 in reference to HTSC.57
3.1. Fermi surface

However, already the first ARPES-experiments on

YBCO,58 BSCCO,59 and Nd2-xCexCuO4 (Ref. 60) revealed

Low Temp. Phys. 40 (4), April 2014

A. A. Kordyuk

291

FIG. 7. Fermi surfaces defined in early (early 90s) ARPES-experiments on YBCO (Ref. 58) (left) and BSCCO (Ref. 59) (right) using the spectra measured at
the indicated points of the Brillouin zone. Center: An alternative61 interpretation of the data of Ref. 58.

the dispersion and the Fermi surface very similar to those

obtained by single-particle calculations (Fig. 7). Although
the experimental resolution at that time and other problems24
did not allow to resolve the Fermi surface splitting61 or even
to argue about its topology,59 these data allowed to speak
about the electronic structure of cuprates as a renormalized
(twice) one-electron conduction band formed predominantly
by Cu 3d(x2  y2) and O 2p(x, y) orbitals.62
Further studies, thanks to the rapid development of the
method (switching to 2D detectors and improving the energy
and angular resolution) and improvement in the quality of
single crystals, have significantly advanced visualization of
the Fermi surface leaving little room for the fundamentally
new physics. In particular, starting from a certain point,63,64
most of ARPES-groups began to observe the splitting of the
conduction band in bilayer cuprates into the sheets corresponding to the bonding and anti-bonding orbitals, which
contradicts the idea of spatial isolation of electrons in separate layers (electronic confinement).54,65 Later, the bilayer
splitting was found even along the nodal direction in
BSCCO (see Fig. 3),15 where it is minimal.
It has been also shown24 that the Fermi surface satisfies
the Luttinger theorem, i.e., its volume corresponds to the
number of conduction electrons per unit cell and is proportional to (1  x), where x is the hole concentration.
Moreover, the relative hopping integrals66 have been determined from the Fermi surface geometry, which defines the
geometry of the conduction band and suggests that the onset
of the superconducting region in the phase diagram in the
direction of reducing the hole concentration starts immediately after the Lifshitz topological transition of the Fermi
surface described by the anti-bonding wave function.3
Determining the Fermi surface in a broad range of
momenta allowed to understand the nature of the shadow
band.14,55,67,68 It turned out that this band has a structural origin67 and is a consequence of the orthorhombic distortions
of the tetragonal symmetry of BiO-planes, in the bulk and on
the surface of BSCCO.68 Furthermore, it was shown that
another 51 modulation of the BiO layer69 might easily
lead to erroneous conclusions.70 For example, in the analysis
of the temperature evolution of ARPES-spectra without
detailed mapping of the Fermi surface, it has been concluded
about the existence of circular dichroism.71 On the other

hand, in BSCCO doped with Pb, in which this modulation is

effectively suppressed, this effect has not been observed.22,72
3.2. Spectral function

If there are several neighboring bands, as was noted in

Sec. II C, than the easiest and most effective tool to analyze
the structure of ARPES-spectra or to determine the components of the spectral function is the variation of matrix elements by changing the energy and polarization of light.3,73 A
good illustration of this approach is the explanation for the
shape of the energy distribution curve (EDC) from the antinodal region around (0,p), known as peak-dip-hump.22
Due to the influence of the theory Ref. 54 and early
ARPES-experiments,65 it was assumed that the bilayer splitting in cuprates is absent, and the corresponding doublehump EDC structure is related exclusively to the strong
interaction of electrons with a particular mode. However,
the observed strong dependence of this structure on the photon energy21 has indicated that the main reason is specifically a bilayer splitting. Soon these two bands have been
directly observed in ARPES-spectra.74 It has been found that
there is indeed an interaction with a mode, but it is much
weaker,74 and its strength depends on the doping level,
increasing with decreasing the concentration of holes and
disappearing upon overdoping.75 A so-called magnetic resonance,76 which is a divergence in the spectrum of spin fluctuations,77 has been initially considered as the mode in
question. However, the same effect was expected from the
phonon optical modes.78 In this respect, an important consequence of elucidating the role of the bilayer splitting was a
strong dependence of the interaction with the mode on the
doping level, which allowed to argue in favor of the spinfluctuation mechanism in terms of proximity to the antiferromagnetism of the undoped compound.3,79 However, the
application of the concepts of quasiparticles, spectral function, and self-energy to cuprates has been often contested
and therefore requires experimental validation.
Ideal for studying the applicability of the Greens function formalism to HTSC cuprates is the nodal direction in
BSCCO. The reason is the absence of the superconducting
gap and pseudogap, i.e., the possibility to restrict ourselves
to the normal component of the spectral function, and a

292

Low Temp. Phys. 40 (4), April 2014

A. A. Kordyuk

FIG. 8. (left) Fermi surface of 2H-TaSe2. (right) Details of the electronic structure in the normal state (top row), incommensurate (middle row), and commensurate (bottom row) states (a); single EDC (b); Schematics of the Fermi surface with the respective sections shown90 (c).

simple, similar to parabolic one-electron dispersion, which is

almost degenerate in the case of multi-layer splitting.15
Moreover, there is a moderate renormalization (1 k 
2),80 leading to the 70 meV kink,8184 the origin of which
has also caused heated debates, most of which can also be
attributed to the phonons or spin fluctuations dilemma.
As can be seen in Fig. 4,25 which illustrates the structure
of the spectral function Eq. (1), the real and imaginary parts
of the self-energy at a given frequency x are related to the
parameters (full width at half maximum) of the momentum
distribution curve (MDC)81 through one-electron dispersion.
0
00
Thus, in order to determine R x and R x independently
from the MDC analysis, we need to know e(k). Since Rx
0
00
is an analytical function, all three functions, R x, R x,
and e(k), can be determined experimentally. The algorithm
0
involves finding the parameters e(k) such that R x and
00
R x can be expressed in terms of each other using
Kramers-Kronig transformation.25 It turned out25,80 that this
procedure does not always work, but only when the ARPESspectrum comes from one area and is clean from experimental artifacts, i.e., really well described by the spectral function (1). This can be regarded as empirical evidence of
applicability of the concept of quasiparticles and Greens
function method to superconducting cuprates.79
As a result of such self-consistent analysis, it has been
found25,80 that for the nodal direction the key interaction
strength also correlates with proximity to the antiferromagnet. This suggests that the spin fluctuations are the main contributors to the quasiparticle self-energy throughout the
Brillouin zone.79 A direct comparison of a single-particle
ARPES-spectrum with a two-particle spectrum of spin fluctuations obtained by inelastic neutron scattering for the same
YBCO crystals has fully confirmed this hypothesis.85
Thus, the HTSC cuprates with the carrier density in the
superconducting region of the phase diagram are quasi-twodimensional metals, which are well described on the basis of
one-electron band structure within the quasiparticle approach,
but with a strong electron-electron interaction, the main mediator of which is apparently spin fluctuations. From the

ARPES point of view, the HTSC cuprates were a system that

helped to unlock the potential of the method to the fullest
extent and contributed to its extremely rapid development.

4. Pseudogap and electronic ordering

In the previous section we purposely chose not to raise

the issue of pseudogap. With respect to cuprates, this phenomenon has been considered in numerous reviews,86,87 but
despite the existence of a sufficiently workable two-slit scenario,88,89 it has not lost its aura of mystery.86,87 We therefore consider the manifestations of pseudogap in other
compounds, dichalcogenides of transition metal, briefly
mentioning the possible analogy with the cuprates.
Fig. 8 shows the Fermi surface of 2H-TaSe2,90 a compound in which there are two phase transitions into the states
with incommensurate (122 K) and commensurate 33
(90 K) charge-density wave. Moreover, it is the first transition at which a jump in the heat capacity and a kink in the resistance are observed, while the second transition has almost
no effect on these properties.91 From the viewpoint of
ARPES, the situation is opposite. The Fermi surface, shown
above, remains virtually unchanged up to 90 K, and a new
order appears just below the commensurate transition.
The explanation for this paradox is the behavior of the
spectral weight near the Fermi level on the surface, centered
around K (Fig. 8(c)). The spectral weight starts to decrease
sharply below 122 K, i.e., a pseudogap opens (see the crosssection 5-6 in Figs. 8(a) and 9). When passing through 90 K,
the pseudogap is transformed into a band gap in the new
Brillouin zone, but this transition is not accompanied by the
gain in kinetic energy.
These data: (1) Empirically prove that the formation of
incommensurate charge density wave leads to a redistribution
of the spectral weight at the Fermi level and below, while the
transition from incommensurate to commensurate order leads
rather to a redistribution of the spectral weight in momentum
and (2) show that the photoemission intensity depends not

Low Temp. Phys. 40 (4), April 2014

FIG. 9. Temperature dependences of the commensurate band gap/incommensurate pseudogap in 2H-TaSe2 (left) and the superconducting gap/pseudogap in BSCCO (right).94

only on the photoemission matrix elements but also on the

type and magnitude of the new order parameter.92
It is interesting to note that the incommensurate gap in
dichalcogenides90,93 is completely analogous to the pseudogap in cuprates, both in terms of their spectroscopic manifestations (magnitude and anisotropy) and the temperature
dependence94 (Fig. 9). Therefore a similar scenario can be
assumed for cuprates, when a pseudogap in the antinodal
area appears due to the formation of the incommensurate
spin order (the same argument as the proximity to an antiferromagnet), which, in turn, is determined by nesting of the
straight sections of the Fermi surface.94
5. Lifshitz Topological transition

Iron-based superconductors (FeSP) is a new numerous

class of superconductors, which offer interesting physics and
look promising in terms of possible applications. It is

A. A. Kordyuk

293

expected, mainly due to their diversity and similarity to the

cuprates, that these compounds somehow will help to solve
the mystery of high-temperature superconductivity.
Nevertheless, while the pairing mechanism and even the
symmetry of the order parameter still remain the subject of
active debate,34 it is certainly the complexity of the electronic structure (five conduction bands instead of a single
one in cuprates) that can hold the key to understanding the
mechanism of superconductivity in this class of substances
and increasing the transition temperature.35
Although the electronic structure of FeSP is complex,
it is common to all these compounds. The differences consist
of small (of the order of a fraction of an eV, but critical for
the geometry of the Fermi surface35) relative shifts of individual bands and changes in the chemical potential with doping. Thus, there is a unique opportunity to establish
correlations between the characteristics of the electronic
structure and various properties (primarily, the transition
temperature). For example, Fig. 10 on the left-hand side
shows the experimental Fermi surface Ba0.6K0.4Fe2As2
(BKFA)95,96 (top row) and LiFeAs (Ref. 96) (bottom row),
and, on the right, the Fermi surface constructed from the experimental data and labelled according to their primary orbital character (see Fig. 11). It turned out that for all
compounds investigated by ARPES, the maximum Tc is
observed in the vicinity of the Lifshitz transition, when the
top or bottom of one of the bands with the symmetry dxz or
dyz is aligned to the Fermi level34,35 (see Fig. 11).
The observed correlation indicates that in order to
explain the mechanism of pairing in FeSP, the standard
BCS model is clearly not sufficient, because the superconducting transition temperature correlates primarily with the
geometry of the Fermi surface,34,35 rather than with the density of states at the Fermi level. Since the density of states is

FIG. 10. Experimentally obtained Fermi surfaces of Ba0.6K0.4Fe2As2 (BKFA)95 (top row) and LiFeAs (Ref. 97) (bottom row). Right: Fermi surfaces constructed from the experimental data35 and labeled in accordance with the main orbital character (see Fig. 11).

294

Low Temp. Phys. 40 (4), April 2014

A. A. Kordyuk

FIG. 11. Generalized electronic band structure (left) and phase diagram for iron-based superconductors (right). Maximum Tc is observed in the vicinity of the
Lifshitz transition, when the top or bottom of one of the bands with dxz or dyz symmetry aligns to the Fermi level.35

certainly important for superconductivity, the obtained correlation indicates a way to increase Tcoverdoping of
KFe2As2 and LiFeAs with holes.
6. Conclusion

Modern ARPES-experiment allows to directly observe

the electronic structure (the structure of single-particle excitations) in quasi-two-dimensional crystals. This shifts fermiology to the domain of day-to-day experience of researchers
and contributes to the empirical (in a positive sense) understanding of the mechanisms that determine the electronic
properties of solids. In this paper, it is illustrated by several
examples, including HTSC cuprates, where the study of the
structure of ARPES-spectra and their relation to the spectrum of spin fluctuations have made possible to distinguish
the latter as the main mechanism of scattering and superconducting pairing. The example of dichalcogenides of transition metals shows most clearly the relation between the
Fermi surface geometry and the manifestation of instability
of the electronic system with respect to the formation of
charge-density waves. In the example of iron-based superconductors, the complexity of their electronic structure has
allowed to establish an empirical correlation between this
structure and superconductivity.
a)

Email: [email protected]

N. W. Ashcroft and N. D. Mermin, Solid State Physics (Holt, Rinehart &

Winston, New York, 1976).
2
A. Damascelli, Z. Hussain, and Z.-X. Shen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 473
(2003).
3
A. A. Kordyuk and S. V. Borisenko, Fiz. Nizk. Temp. 32, 401 (2006)
[Low Temp. Phys. 32, 298 (2006)].
4
A. A. Kordyuk, T. K. Kim, V. B. Zabolotnyy, D. V. Evtushinsky, M.
Bauch, C. Hess, B. B
uchner, H. Berger, and S. V. Borisenko, Phys. Rev. B
83, 081303 (2011).
5
A. A. Kordyuk, V. B. Zabolotnyy, D. V. Evtushinsky, T. K. Kim, B.
Buchner, I. V. Plyushchay, H. Berger, and S. V. Borisenko, Phys. Rev. B
85, 075414 (2012).
6
S. Kim, M. Ye, K. Kuroda, Y. Yamada, E. E. Krasovskii, E. V. Chulkov, K.
Miyamoto, M. Nakatake, T. Okuda, Y. Ueda, K. Shimada, H. Namatame,
M. Taniguchi, and A. Kimura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 056803 (2011).

A. A. Abrikosov, L. P. Gorkov, and I. E. Dzyaloshinski, Methods of

Quantum Field Theory in Statistical Physics (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice
Hall, 1963).
8
R. D. Mattuck, A Guide to Feynman Diagrams in the Many-Body Problem
(Dover Publications, 1992
9
L. Hedin, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 11, R489 (1999).
10
H. Hertz, Ann. Phys. Chem. 267, 983 (1887).
11
A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. 17, 132 (1905).
12
S. H
ufner, Photoelectron Spectroscopy: Principles and Applications
(Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg, 2003).
13
D. V. Evtushinsky, A. A. Kordyuk, S. V. Borisenko, V. B. Zabolotnyy, M.
Knupfer, J. Fink, B. B
uchner, A. V. Pan, A. Erb, C. T. Lin, and H. Berger,
Phys. Rev. B 74, 172509 (2006).
14
P. Aebi, J. Osterwalder, P. Schwaller, L. Schlapbach, M. Shimoda, T.
Mochiku, and K. Kadowaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 2757 (1994).
15
A. A. Kordyuk, S. V. Borisenko, A. N. Yaresko, S.-L. Drechsler, H.
Rosner, T. K. Kim, A. Koitzsch, K. A. Nenkov, M. Knupfer, J. Fink, R.
Follath, H. Berger, B. Keimer, S. Ono, and Y. Ando, Phys. Rev. B 70,
214525 (2004).
16
E. E. Krasovskii, W. Schattke, P. Jircek, M. Vondracek, O. V. Krasovska,
V. N. Antonov, A. P. Shpak, and I. Bartos, Phys. Rev. B 78, 165406 (2008).
17
E. E. Krasovskii, K. Rossnagel, A. Fedorov, W. Schattke, and L. Kipp,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 217604 (2007).
18
V. B. Zabolotnyy, S. V. Borisenko, A. A. Kordyuk, D. S. Inosov, A.
Koitzsch, J. Geck, J. Fink, M. Knupfer, B. B
uchner, S.-L. Drechsler, V.
Hinkov, B. Keimer, and L. Patthey, Phys. Rev. B 76, 024502 (2007).
19
M. Lindroos, S. Sahrakorpi, and A. Bansil, Phys. Rev. B 65, 054514
(2002).
20
V. Arpiainen, V. Zalobotnyy, A. A. Kordyuk, S. V. Borisenko, and M.
Lindroos, Phys. Rev. B 77, 024520 (2008).
21
A. A. Kordyuk, S. V. Borisenko, T. K. Kim, K. A. Nenkov, M. Knupfer, J.
Fink, M. S. Golden, H. Berger, and R. Follath, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89,
077003 (2002).
22
S. V. Borisenko, A. A. Kordyuk, S. Legner, T. K. Kim, M. Knupfer, C. M.
Schneider, J. Fink, M. S. Golden, M. Sing, R. Claessen, A. Yaresko, H.
Berger, C. Grazioli, and S. Turchini, Phys. Rev. B 69, 224509 (2004).
23
S. V. Borisenko, A. A. Kordyuk, S. Legner, C. Durr, M. Knupfer, M. S.
Golden, J. Fink, K. Nenkov, D. Eckert, G. Yang, S. Abell, H. Berger, L.
Forro, B. Liang, A. Maljuk, C. T. Lin, and B. Keimer, Phys. Rev. B 64,
094513 (2001).
24
A. A. Kordyuk, S. V. Borisenko, M. S. Golden, S. Legner, K. A. Nenkov,
M. Knupfer, J. Fink, H. Berger, L. Forro, and R. Follath, Phys. Rev. B 66,
014502 (2002).
25
A. A. Kordyuk, S. V. Borisenko, A. Koitzsch, J. Fink, M. Knupfer, and H.
Berger, Phys. Rev. B 71, 214513 (2005).
26
A. A. Kordyuk, S. V. Borisenko, A. Koitzsch, J. Fink, M. Knupfer, B.
B
uchner, H. Berger, G. Margaritondo, C. T. Lin, B. Keimer, S. Ono, and
Y. Ando, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 257006 (2004).
27
T. Valla, T. E. Kidd, W. G. Yin, G. D. Gu, P. D. Johnson, Z. H. Pan, and
A. V. Fedorov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 167003 (2007).
28
J. Graf, G.-H. Gweon, K. McElroy, S. Y. Zhou, C. Jozwiak, E. Rotenberg,
A. Bill, T. Sasagawa, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, H. Takagi, D.-H. Lee, and A.
Lanzara, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 067004 (2007).

Low Temp. Phys. 40 (4), April 2014

29

D. S. Inosov, J. Fink, A. A. Kordyuk, S. V. Borisenko, V. B. Zabolotnyy,

R. Schuster, M. Knupfer, B. B
uchner, R. Follath, H. A. D
urr, W.
Eberhardt, V. Hinkov, B. Keimer, and H. Berger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99,
237002 (2007).
30
D. S. Inosov, R. Schuster, A. A. Kordyuk, J. Fink, S. V. Borisenko, V. B.
Zabolotnyy, D. V. Evtushinsky, M. Knupfer, B. B
uchner, R. Follath, and
H. Berger, Phys. Rev. B 77, 212504 2008
31
S. V. Borisenko, A. A. Kordyuk, A. Koitzsch, J. Fink, J. Geck, V.
Zabolotnyy, M. Knupfer, B. B
uchner, H. Berger, M. Falub, M. Shi, J.
Krempasky, and L. Patthey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 067001 (2006).
32
D. V. Evtushinsky, D. S. Inosov, G. Urbanik, V. B. Zabolotnyy, R.
Schuster, P. Sass, T. Hanke, C. Hess, B. B
uchner, R. Follath, P. Reutler,
A. Revcolevschi, A. A. Kordyuk, and S. V. Borisenko, Phys. Rev. Lett.
105, 147201 (2010).
33
D. V. Evtushinsky, V. B. Zabolotnyy, T. K. Kim, A. A. Kordyuk, A. N.
Yaresko, J. Maletz, S. Aswartham, S. Wurmehl, A. V. Boris, D. L. Sun, C.
T. Lin, B. Shen, H. H. Wen, A. Varykhalov, R. Follath, B. B
uchner, and
S. V. Borisenko, arXiv:1204.2432 (2012).
34
A. A. Kordyuk, Fiz. Nizk. Temp. 38, 1119 (2012) [Low Temp. Phys. 38,
888 (2012)].
35
A. A. Kordyuk, V. B. Zabolotnyy, D. V. Evtushinsky, A. N. Yaresko, B.
Buchner, and S. V. Borisenko, J. Supercond. Novel Magn. 26, 2837
(2013).
36
S. Thirupathaiah, D. V. Evtushinsky, J. Maletz, V. B. Zabolotnyy, A. A.
Kordyuk, T. K. Kim, S. Wurmehl, M. Roslova, I. Morozov, B. B
uchner,
and S. V. Borisenko, Phys. Rev. B 86, 214508 (2012).
37
D. V. Evtushinsky, V. B. Zabolotnyy, L. Harnagea, A. N. Yaresko, S.
Thirupathaiah, A. A. Kordyuk, J. Maletz, S. Aswartham, S. Wurmehl, E.
Rienks, R. Follath, B. B
uchner, and S. V. Borisenko, Phys. Rev. B 87,
094501 (2013).
38
S. V. Borisenko, V. B. Zabolotnyy, A. A. Kordyuk, D. V. Evtushinsky, T.
K. Kim, E. Carleschi, B. P. Doyle, R. Fittipaldi, M. Cuoco, A. Vecchione,
and H. Berger, J. Vis. Exp. 68, e50129 (2012).
39
M. P. Seah and W. A. Dench, Surf. Interface Anal. 1, 2 (1979).
40
S. H. Pan, E. W. Hudson, J. Ma, and J. C. Davis, Appl. Phys. Lett. 73, 58
(1998).
41
A. V. Fedorov, T. Valla, P. D. Johnson, Q. Li, G. D. Gu, and N.
Koshizuka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2179 (1999).
42
V. B. Zabolotnyy, S. V. Borisenko, A. A. Kordyuk, J. Geck, D. S. Inosov,
A. Koitzsch, J. Fink, M. Knupfer, B. B
uchner, S.-L. Drechsler, H. Berger,
A. Erb, M. Lambacher, L. Patthey, V. Hinkov, and B. Keimer, Phys. Rev. B
76, 064519 (2007).
43
N. Doiron-Leyraud, C. Proust, D. LeBoeuf, J. Levallois, J.-B.
Bonnemaison, R. Liang, D. A. Bonn, W. N. Hardy, and L. Taillefer,
Nature 447, 565 (2007).
44
D. LeBoeuf, N. Doiron-Leyraud, J. Levallois, R. Daou, J.-B.
Bonnemaison, N. E. Hussey, L. Balicas, B. J. Ramshaw, R. Liang, D. A.
Bonn, W. N. Hardy, S. Adachi, C. Proust, and L. Taillefer, Nature 450,
533 (2007).
45
W.-Q. Chen, K.-Y. Yang, T. M. Rice, and F. C. Zhang, Europhys. Lett.
82, 17004 (2008).
46
A. Audouard, C. Jaudet, D. Vignolles, R. Liang, D. A. Bonn, W. N.
Hardy, L. Taillefer, and C. Proust, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 157003 (2009).
47
M. R. Norman, Physics 3, 86 (2010).
48
V. B. Zabolotnyy, E. Carleschi, T. K. Kim, A. A. Kordyuk, J. Trinckauf, J.
Geck, D. Evtushinsky, B. P. Doyle, R. Fittipaldi, M. Cuoco, A.
Vecchione, B. Buchner, and S. V. Borisenko, New J. Phys. 14, 063039
(2012).
49
M. W. Haverkort, I. S. Elfimov, L. H. Tjeng, G. A. Sawatzky, and A.
Damascelli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 026406 (2008).
50
C. Bergemann, A. P. Mackenzie, S. R. Julian, D. Forsythe, and E.
Ohmichi, Adv. Phys. 52, 639 (2003).
51
S. Thirupathaiah, S. de Jong, R. Ovsyannikov, H. A. D
urr, A. Varykhalov,
R. Follath, Y. Huang, R. Huisman, M. S. Golden, Y.-Z. Zhang, H. O.
Jeschke, R. Valent, A. Erb, A. Gloskovskii, and J. Fink, Phys. Rev. B 81,
104512 (2010).
52
D. V. Evtushinsky, D. S. Inosov, V. B. Zabolotnyy, M. S. Viazovska, R.
Khasanov, A. Amato, H.-H. Klauss, H. Luetkens, Ch. Niedermayer, G. L.
Sun, V. Hinkov, C. T. Lin, A. Varykhalov, A. Koitzsch, M. Knupfer, B.
Buchner, A. A. Kordyuk, and S. V. Borisenko, New J. Phys. 11, 055069
(2009).
53
D. V. Evtushinsky, A. A. Kordyuk, V. B. Zabolotnyy, D. S. Inosov, B.
Buchner, H. Berger, L. Patthey, R. Follath, and S. V. Borisenko, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 100, 236402 (2008).
54
P. W. Anderson, Science 235, 1196 (1987).
55
M. Imada, A. Fujimori, and Y. Tokura, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 1039 (1998).

A. A. Kordyuk
56

295

J. Orenstein and A. J. Millis, Science 288, 468 (2000).

E. Dagotto, Rev. Mod. Phys. 66, 763 (1994).
58
R. Liu, B. W. Veal, A. P. Paulikas, J. W. Downey, P. J. Kostic, S.
Fleshler, U. Welp, C. G. Olson, X. Wu, A. J. Arko, and J. J. Joyce, Phys.
Rev. B 46, 11056 (1992).
59
D. S. Dessau, Z.-X. Shen, D. M. King, D. S. Marshall, L. W. Lombardo,
P. H. Dickinson, J. DiCarlo, C.-H. Park, A. G. Loeser, A. Kapitulnik, and
W. E. Spicer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 2781 (1993).
60
D. M. King, Z.-X. Shen, D. S. Dessau, B. O. Wells, W. E. Spicer, A. J.
Arko, D. S. Marshall, J. DiCarlo, A. G. Loeser, C. H. Park, E. R. Ratner, J.
L. Peng, Z. Y. Li, and R. L. Greene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 3159 (1993).
61
Z.-X. Shen and D. S. Dessau, Phys. Rep. 253, 1 (1995).
62
O. K. Andersen, A. I. Liechtenstein, O. Jepsen, and F. Paulsen, J. Phys.
Chem. Solids 56, 1573 (1995).
63
D. L. Feng, N. P. Armitage, D. H. Lu, A. Damascelli, J. P. Hu, P.
Bogdanov, A. Lanzara, F. Ronning, K. M. Shen, H. Eisaki, C. Kim, Z.-X.
Shen, J.-I. Shimoyama, and K. Kishio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5550 (2001).
64
Y.-D. Chuang, A. D. Gromko, A. Fedorov, Y. Aiura, K. Oka, Y. Ando, H.
Eisaki, S. I. Uchida, and D. S. Dessau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 117002 (2001).
65
H. Ding, A. F. Bellman, J. C. Campuzano, M. Randeria, M. R. Norman, T.
Yokoya, T. Takahashi, H. Katayama-Yoshida, T. Mochiku, K. Kadowaki,
G. Jennings, and G. P. Brivio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 1533 (1996).
66
A. A. Kordyuk, S. V. Borisenko, M. Knupfer, and J. Fink, Phys. Rev. B
67, 064504 (2003).
67
A. Koitzsch, S. V. Borisenko, A. A. Kordyuk, T. K. Kim, M. Knupfer, J.
Fink, M. S. Golden, W. Koops, H. Berger, B. Keimer, C. T. Lin, S. Ono,
Y. Ando, and R. Follath, Phys. Rev. B 69, 220505 (2004).
68
A. Mans, I. Santoso, Y. Huang, W. K. Siu, S. Tavaddod, V. Arpiainen, M.
Lindroos, H. Berger, V. N. Strocov, M. Shi, L. Patthey, and M. S. Golden,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 107007 (2006).
69
S. V. Borisenko, M. S. Golden, S. Legner, T. Pichler, C. Durr, M.
Knupfer, J. Fink, G. Yang, S. Abell, and H. Berger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84,
4453 (2000).
70
S. V. Borisenko, A. A. Kordyuk, A. Koitzsch, M. Knupfer, J. Fink, H.
Berger, and C. T. Lin, Nature 431, 1 (2004).
71
A. Kaminski, S. Rosenkranz, H. M. Fretwell, J. C. Campuzano, Z. Li, H.
Raffy, W. G. Cullen, H. You, C. G. Olson, C. M. Varma, and H. H
ochst,
Nature 416, 610 (2002).
72
S. V. Borisenko, A. A. Kordyuk, A. Koitzsch, T. K. Kim, K. A. Nenkov,
M. Knupfer, J. Fink, C. Grazioli, S. Turchini, and H. Berger, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 92, 207001 (2004).
73
A. A. Kordyuk, S. V. Borisenko, A. Koitzsch, J. Fink, M. Knupfer, B.
B
uchner, and H. Berger, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 67, 201 (2006).
74
S. V. Borisenko, A. A. Kordyuk, T. K. Kim, A. Koitzsch, M. Knupfer, J.
Fink, M. S. Golden, M. Eschrig, H. Berger, and R. Follath, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 90, 207001 (2003).
75
T. K. Kim, A. A. Kordyuk, S. V. Borisenko, A. Koitzsch, M. Knupfer, H.
Berger, and J. Fink, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 167002 (2003).
76
M. Eschrig and M. R. Norman, Phys. Rev. B 67, 144503 (2003).
77
I. Eremin, D. K. Morr, A. V. Chubukov, K. H. Bennemann, and M. R.
Norman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 147001 (2005).
78
T. Cuk, F. Baumberger, D. H. Lu, N. Ingle, X. J. Zhou, H. Eisaki, N.
Kaneko, Z. Hussain, T. P. Devereaux, N. Nagaosa, and Z.-X. Shen, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 93, 117003 (2004).
79
A. A. Kordyuk, V. B. Zabolotnyy, D. V. Evtushinsky, D. S. Inosov, T. K. Kim,
B. B
uchner, and S. V. Borisenko, Eur. Phys. J.: Spec. Top. 188, 153 (2010).
80
A. A. Kordyuk, S. V. Borisenko, V. B. Zabolotnyy, J. Geck, M. Knupfer,
J. Fink, B. B
uchner, C. T. Lin, B. Keimer, H. Berger, A. V. Pan, S.
Komiya, and Y. Ando, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 017002 (2006).
81
T. Valla, A. V. Fedorov, P. D. Johnson, B. O. Wells, S. L. Hulbert, Q. Li,
G. D. Gu, and N. Koshizuka, Science 285, 2110 (1999).
82
A. Kaminski, M. Randeria, J. C. Campuzano, M. R. Norman, H. Fretwell,
J. Mesot, T. Sato, T. Takahashi, and K. Kadowaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86,
1070 (2001).
83
P. V. Bogdanov, A. Lanzara, S. A. Kellar, X. J. Zhou, E. D. Lu, W. J.
Zheng, G. Gu, J.-I. Shimoyama, K. Kishio, H. Ikeda, R. Yoshizaki, Z.
Hussain, and Z.-X. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2581 (2000).
84
A. Lanzara, P. V. Bogdanov, X. J. Zhou, S. A. Kellar, D. L. Feng, E. D.
Lu, T. Yoshida, H. Eisaki, A. Fujimori, K. Kishio, J.-I. Shimoyama, T.
Noda, S. Uchida, Z. Hussain, and Z.-X. Shen, Nature 412, 510 (2001).
85
T. Dahm, V. Hinkov, S. V. Borisenko, A. A. Kordyuk, V. B. Zabolotnyy,
J. Fink, B. B
uchner, D. J. Scalapino, W. Hanke, and B. Keimer, Nat. Phys.
5, 217 (2009).
86
M. R. Norman, D. Pines, and C. Kallin, Adv. Phys. 54, 715 (2005).
87
G. Hufner, M. A. Hossain, A. Damascelli, and G. A. Sawatzky, Rep. Prog.
Phys. 71, 062501 (2008).
57

296
88

Low Temp. Phys. 40 (4), April 2014

K. Tanaka, W. S. Lee, D. H. Lu, A. Fujimori, T. Fujii, Risdiana, I.

Terasaki, D. J. Scalapino, T. P. Devereaux, Z. Hussain, and Z.-X. Shen,
Science 314, 1910 (2006).
89
T. Kondo, R. Khasanov, T. Takeuchi, J. Schmalian, and A. Kaminski,
Nature 457, 296 (2009).
90
S. V. Borisenko, A. A. Kordyuk, A. N. Yaresko, V. B. Zabolotnyy, D. S.
Inosov, R. Schuster, B. B
uchner, R. Weber, R. Follath, L. Patthey, and H.
Berger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 196402 (2008).
91
J. A. Wilson, F. J. di Salvo, and S. Mahajan, Adv. Phys. 24, 117 (1975).
92
V. B. Zabolotnyy, A. A. Kordyuk, D. S. Inosov, D. V. Evtushinsky, R.
Schuster, B. Buchner, N. Wizent, G. Behr, S. Pyon, T. Takayama, H.
Takagi, R. Follath, and S. V. Borisenko, Europhys. Lett. 86, 47005 (2009).
93
S. V. Borisenko, A. A. Kordyuk, V. B. Zabolotnyy, D. S. Inosov, D.
Evtushinsky, B. B
uchner, A. N. Yaresko, A. Varykhalov, R. Follath, W.
Eberhardt, L. Patthey, and H. Berger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 166402 (2009).

A. A. Kordyuk
94

A. A. Kordyuk, S. V. Borisenko, V. B. Zabolotnyy, R. Schuster, D. S.

Inosov, D. V. Evtushinsky, A. I. Plyushchay, R. Follath, A. Varykhalov,
L. Patthey, and H. Berger, Phys. Rev. B 79, 020504 (2009).
95
V. B. Zabolotnyy, D. S. Inosov, D. V. Evtushinsky, A. Koitzsch, A. A.
Kordyuk, G. L. Sun, J. T. Park, D. Haug, V. Hinkov, A. V. Boris, C. T.
Lin, M. Knupfer, A. N. Yaresko, B. B
uchner, A. Varykhalov, R. Follath,
and S. V. Borisenko, Nature 457, 569 (2009).
96
V. B. Zabolotnyy, D. V. Evtushinsky, A. A. Kordyuk, D. S. Inosov, A.
Koitzsch, A. V. Boris, G. L. Sun, C. T. Lin, M. Knupfer, B. B
uchner, A.
Varykhalov, R. Follath, and S. V. Borisenko, Physica C 469, 448 (2009).
97
A. A. Kordyuk, V. B. Zabolotnyy, D. V. Evtushinsky, T. K. Kim, I. V.
Morozov, M. L. Kulic, R. Follath, G. Behr, B. B
uchner, and S. V.
Borisenko, Phys. Rev. B 83, 134513 (2011).
Translated by L. Gardt