Arxiv:1404.2711V4 [Cond-Mat.Supr-Con] 14 Aug 2015 N Tt a Edsrbdi Em Fpedsisintroduce Pseudospins 1958

Home , Quasiparticle

arXiv:1404.2711v4 [cond-mat.supr-con] 14 Aug 2015 n tt a edsrbdi em fpedsisintroduce pseudospins 1958. superconduct- of in A terms Anderson in by control. described optical be can novel state a ing for look to ground aee ihafeuny2 frequency order a with superconducting rameter the of oscillation amplitude mode herent amplitude Higgs a represents pseudospins iain natraiedrcinw a usei olo a look to realized are is photoirradiation that pursue states can quantum we far-from-equilibrium direction to ex alternative pulse one an after enabled systems citation, quantum have of dynamics experiments devel- relaxation laser study recent ultrafast While in physics. opments matter central condensed a in becoming challenge is coherence quantum destroying without sacnesdmte nlgo h ig oo nelemen- in boson Higgs the physics, of particle analog tary matter condensed a is eu ymtybekn cusi ytm ope ogauge to coupled radial systems sponta fields in a the occurs when breaking along profile symmetry mode potential neous Mexican-hat massive the a in as direction emerges naturally This a enspoe ob di it be however, Usually, to supposed field. magnetic been a has for applying can does by one one like spins whether pseudospins real the is of then dynamics the question manipulate natural A spectroscopies. Raman by observed perimentally oa to ele regime). linear-response to the couple (in directly fields not tromagnetic do pseudospins the since dospins, atrculn,wihrslsi 2 a in results which Anderson’s coupling, of matter 2 precession frequency collective with a pseudospins generate indeed does ftesprodcigodrprmtr efrhrfidthat find further We parameter. a order superconducting the of resonance rmti iwon,sprodciiyi nintriguing an is superconductivity viewpoint, this From yaia oto fqatmmn-oysae fmatter of states many-body quantum of control Dynamical nti ae,w hoeial hwta,i eg over go we if that, show theoretically we paper, this In nonlinear 6–8,10 h ig oei uecnutr a enex- been has superconductors in mode Higgs The . hoyo nesnpedsi eoac ihHgsmd ns in mode Higgs with resonance pseudospin Anderson of Theory ewe h nue suopnpeeso and precession pseudospin induced the between ASnmes 42.- 44.h 71.10.Fd 74.40.Gh, 74.25.N-, numbers: PACS mode. Higgs the of lifetime the Th resona determines the fields. although electric correlations, ac electron against by robust driven model Hubbard applyin attractive by the resonance pseudospin the on scattering electron h H antb xlie yidvda uspril exc quasiparticle individual by ver explained and be one cannot bare THG the into the enhancem susceptibility divergent THG a the by decomposing accompanied is precession resonant sasoiggnfra dnicto ftecletv Higgs collective the of identification an for gun smoking a as h ig mltd oeo h uecnutra 2 in at the superconductor that the show of to mode formalism, amplitude mean-field Higgs the the on based theory, olciepeeso fAdro’ suopn,adhen 2 and frequency doubled pseudospins, a Anderson’s with parameter, of precession collective a eie na lcrcfil ihfrequency with field electric ac an regime, uecnutrilmntdb na lcrcfil ihfre with field electric ac an by illuminated superconductor A . .INTRODUCTION I. 6–8 1 ned olciepeeso fthe of precession collective a Indeed, n the and ∆ 1 ffi eateto hsc,Uiest fTko og,Tko11 Tokyo Hongo, Tokyo, of University Physics, of Department tesprodciggp,which gap), superconducting (the utt ht-oto h pseu- the photo-control to cult Ω σ hog h olna light- nonlinear the through 11,12 eo nncerphysics. nuclear in meson Ω n H pump-probe THz and mltd oscillation amplitude at Tsuji Naoto 1–5 Ω .. co- a i.e., , hog olna ih-atrculn.W rvd fun a provide We coupling. light-matter nonlinear a through Dtd uut1,2018) 10, August (Dated: during pa- c- Ω 13 1 d 9 - - t n ie Aoki Hideo and = Ω c it sbodnddet lcrnsatrn,which scattering, electron to due broadened is width nce eto,wihmksu p o irsoi hoyi later in this theory of microscopic a end for the sections. opt toward us stress makes which shall section, we resonance its as se- and superconductors a mode Higgs in has the theory describing GL in time-dependent problem rious the that mention to have e low-energy (and a ord macroscopic as superconducting parameter simple the a of gives description This phenomenological) Ginzbur theory. time-dependent (GL) the overview Landau first to instructive is fields electromagnetic to respond dynamically mode plitude cl.ARhsbe xeietlyosre eyrecently very experiment observed laser THz experimentally energy a same been by the has at APR lie which scale. of both processes, breaking individ pair from mode whic Higgs collective excitations, the of quasiparticle distinguishes hence enhancement by explained the be that cannot find THG harmo further [third We response (THG)]. optical generation nonlinear enhancement divergent third-order a the as of mode. appear should amplitude APR Higgs that the show We with resonance a as phenomenon 2 u P sdsic nta h e the that in distinct is (ESR), nuclear APR resonance but the spin electron to or analogous (NMR) resonance seem magnetic may APR pseudospin (APR). “Anderson phenomenon resonance” the call may We pressed. be ic hsoccurs this 2 since when able, emerges mode Higgs the h oeulbimdnmclma-edter to theory mean-field dynamical nonequilibrium the g ∆ oudrtn o h re aaee n h ig am- Higgs the and parameter order the how understand To e scnie h L“arnindniy safunctional a as density” “Lagrangian GL the consider us Let eutidctsta h suopnrsnneis resonance pseudospin the that indicates result e 2 eachrn mltd silto fteorder the of oscillation amplitude coherent a ce sba eie,weeqaiatceecttosaesup- are excitations quasiparticle where regime), (subgap ∆ n ftetidhroi eeain(H) By (THG). generation third-harmonic the of ent ttos(arbekn) ota h H serves THG the that so breaking), (pair itations oe efrhrepoetee the explore further We mode. e orcin efidta h nacmn of enhancement the that find we correction, tex I HNMNLGCLTIME-DEPENDENT PHENOMENOLOGICAL II. ih2 with ue suopnpeeso eoae with resonates precession pseudospin duced quency ∆ 1 en h uecnutn a.The gap. superconducting the being Ω IZUGLNA THEORY GINZBURG-LANDAU stertclyfudt generate to found theoretically is -03,Japan , 3-0033 not 14 at . ff uperconductors ciefil hoy lhuhwe although theory, field ective = Ω ff ff c sesnilya essentially is ect c felectron- of ect = Ω 2 ∆ damental 2 u at but ∆ hsi remark- is This . Ω elbelow well collective ual nic it , g- er h 2 of the complex order parameter Ψ(r, t) in a general form of A b 1 = a Ψ 2 + Ψ 4 + ( i e∗ A)Ψ 2 , L − | | 2| | 2m∗ | − ∇− | ∗ 2 † ∗ + c (i∂t e φ)Ψ + dΨ (i∂t e φ)Ψ (1) H | − | − where a, b, c and d are coefficients, φ and A are the scalar and vector potentials, and e∗ and m∗ are the effective electric charge and effective mass, respectively. The Lagrangian den- A sity (1) is invariant under the gauge transformation Ψ(r, t) ∗ ie χ(r,t) → e Ψ(r, t), φ(r, t) φ(r, t) ∂tχ(r, t), A(r, t) A(r, t) + χ(r, t). At temperatures→ T −< T , a = a (T→ T ) be- FIG. 1: The Feynman diagram for the interaction vertex that con- c 0 c nects the Higgs field H (dashed line) and electromagnetic field A comes∇ negative, and the global U(1) symmetry [−Ψ(r, t) ∗ (wavy lines). eie χΨ(r, t) with a constant χ] is spontaneously broken. The→ other coefficients are taken to be positive. To describe the dynamics of the order parameter, we have included the kinetic d(∂ θ)H in Eq. (2), and the Higgs mode is no longer con- terms, one with a coefficient c that represents the kinetic term t sidered to be an isolated excitation. Furthermore, there are of Klein-Gordon-type equations, and another with d that rep- interactions between H and θ via the terms proportional to resents the kinetic term of Gross-Pitaevskii-type equations. c(∂ θ)2H and ( θ)2H in Eq. (2), which causes the relaxation Now, we expand (1) around the ground state Ψ = t 0 of the Higgs into∇ lower energy NG bosons, which makes the √ a/b (the phase isL chosen as such without loss of gener- Higgs mode unstable. At this point, it has been often empha- ality).− There are two kinds of elementary excitations from sized that the particle-hole symmetry is important in forcing the ground state: the variation along the radial direction and d 0 to suppress such a mixing between the Higgs and NG another along the circumferential direction on the complex modes.∼ 4,5 In other words, the Higgs mode is to be protected plane of the order parameter. We write them as Ψ(r, t) = by the particle-hole symmetry. However, this argument for [Ψ + H(r, t)]eiθ(r,t), where H and θ denote the Higgs and 0 the stability of the Higgs mode is not needed in the case of Nambu-Goldstone (NG) fields, respectively. The expansion charged superconductors (although the particle-hole symme- gives us try is a good symmetry near the Fermi surface in supercon- 2 ductors), since the NG field decouples from the Higgs field 2 ∗2 1 2 = c(∂tH) + ce φ + ∂tθ (Ψ0 + H) [in Eq. (3)] due to the Anderson-Higgs mechanism as stated L e∗ above. ∗ 1 2 2 1 2 Equation (3) suggests that the interaction between the de φ + ∂tθ (Ψ0 + H) + 2aH ( H) 2 − e∗ − 2m∗ ∇ Higgs and gauge fields is given by φH, φ2H and A H. The ∗2 2 linear coupling φH is suppressed in superconductors due to e 1 2 A θ (Ψ0 + H) + (2) the inherent particle-hole symmetry (d 0). The leading in- − 2m∗ − e∗ ∇ ··· 2∼ 2 teraction is the second-order process φ H and A H, the latter of which, e.g., is represented by a Feynman diagram shown in which we have dropped total-derivative terms as well as in Fig. 1. The nonlinear Higgs-gauge coupling implies that higher-order interactions. H describes a scalar boson having no electric charge. These The terms proportional to φ∂ θ and A θ in Eq. (2) indi- t nonlinear couplings (φ2H and A2H) have indeed been used in cate that the NG phase mode turns into· a ∇ longitudinal com- the discovery of the Higgs particle at the LHC experiment15,16 ponent of the gauge field. As a result of the Anderson-Higgs (where A corresponds to the vector bosons W or Z). mechanism,6–8,10 the NG mode is absorbed to the gauge field, From Eq. (3) (with d = 0), we can derive the equation of and is pushed to very high energy scale of the plasma fre- motion for the Higgs field, quency ωp. We can thus regard θ in Eq. (2) to be an unphysi- cal degree of freedom, which one can eliminate by taking the 2 1 2 ∗2 2 1 2 unitary gauge, c∂ H = 2aH + e Ψ0 cφ A , (4) t − 2m∗ ∇ − 2m∗ = 2 + ∗2 2 ∗ Ψ2 + Ψ + 2 c(∂tH) (ce φ de φ)( 0 2 0H) 2aH L − which is “relativistic” (with an emergent Lorentz symmetry),5 1 e∗2Ψ2 e∗2Ψ ( H)2 0 A2 + 0 A2H + . (3) meaning that the first time-derivative is absent even though − 2m∗ ∇ − 2m∗ m∗ ··· we started from the non-relativistic GL Lagrangian (1). Let ∗ = = e 2Ψ2 us first look at the case of φ A 0. By putting H(r, t) ∗2 2 0 2 iq·r−iωt ∼ One can see that the terms ce φ and 2m∗ A represent the e , we obtain the dispersion relation for the Higgs mode, mass of the gauge field generated via the Anderson-Higgs mechanism. 2a q2 q2 ∗ = ω(q)2 = + = ω2 + , (5) In the case of electrically neutral superfluids (e 0), the − c 2m∗c H 2m∗c Anderson-Higgs mechanism does not occur, so that the Higgs field mixes with the NG field via the term proportional to where the mode is a gapped (massive) excitation with a char- 3 acteristic frequency (mass) Ω

2a quasiparticle continuum ωH = . (6) r− c 1/2 From this, one can see that ωH (Tc T) ∆. In fact, 1,3 ∝ − ∝ the microscopic calculation shows that ωH = 2∆, which Higgs mode exactly coincides with the lowest energy necessary to create a pair of Bogoliubov quasiparticles. Using the microscopic 17 2 result of b(Ψ0/∆) = 3/(4ǫF) (with ǫF the Fermi energy), ΩH=2D = ∆ 2 = Ψ2 ∆ 2 = we have c 2a/(2 ) 2b 0/(2 ) 3/(8ǫF). With this and m∗ = 2m,− we reproduce the well-known relation,3 1 ω(q)2 = (2∆)2 + v2 q2, (7) 3 F = q where vF √2ǫF/m is the Fermi velocity. From Eq. (2), it is 0 obvious that the dispersion for the NG mode (or Bogoliubov 2 = 2 ∗ = 2 2 mode) shares the same form ω(q) q /(2m c) vFq /3 with the Higgs mode besides the mass term. This agrees with FIG. 2: (Color online) Schematic excitation spectrum of s-wave the previously known result.18 superconductors. The red curve is the collective Higgs mode, while the shaded region represents the quasiparticle excitation continuum. Next, we turn to a situation where the system is driven by a continuous and homogeneous ac electric field A(t) = Ae−iΩt. The problem becomes equivalent to a forced oscillation of a harmonic oscillator, and the solution for Eq. (4) is given by theory (1). Apart from the fact that the characteristic frequency ω of the Higgs mode cannot be determined within 1 e∗2Ψ A2 H H(t) = 0 e−2iΩt. (8) GL theory,the problemofGL theoryis thatit doesnottake ac- (2Ω)2 ω2 2m∗c − H count of relaxations of the Higgs mode into quasiparticles. As shown in Fig. 2, the Higgs mode is degenerate with the lower This captures the fundamental aspect of the resonance phe- bound of the quasiparticle excitation continuum (ω = 2∆). nomenon discussed in the paper. Due to the nonlinear cou- H The coincidence of the two energies is known as the Nambu pling to the electric field, the elementary frequency of the relation.19,20 Since the Higgs mode lies at the same energy oscillation of the Higgs field is 2Ω (rather than Ω). When scale as the quasiparticle excitations, it can easily decay into 2Ω matches with the eigenfrequency of the Higgs field ω , H individual quasiparticles. Furthermore, at low temperatures the resonance occurs and the oscillation amplitude diverges as the relaxation time of quasiparticles becomes much longer (2Ω ω )−1. From a microscopic point of view, this phe- H than the time scale of the order-parameter variation in clean nomenon− can be understood as a resonant precession of An- superconductors. As a result, one cannot neglect quasiparticle derson pseudospins as we shall discuss in Sec. III. excitations, and the dynamics of the order parameter is neces- The current j = ∂ /∂A is expressed as L sarily entangled with those of quasiparticles. The low-energy ∗ ∗2 effective theory of the Higgs mode may not be expressed only = ie Ψ† Ψ Ψ† Ψ e Ψ†Ψ Ψ j ∗ [ ( ) ] ∗ A . in terms of , but may involve fermionic degrees of freedom. −2m ∇ − ∇ − m The crucial questions that arise are (i) whether the Higgs res- Expanding Ψ around Ψ0, we obtain the leading nonlinear cur- onance discussed here would survive or not after we take ac- rent response against A, count of the relaxation to quasiparticles (pair-breaking process), and (ii) if it would survive, then how one can distin- 2e∗2Ψ guish the collective Higgs mode from individual quasiparticle j (t) = 0 A(t)H(t). NL − m∗ excitations, both of which are energetically degenerate. These motivate us to move on to the underlying microscopic theory This takes the form of a London equation, where the current in the subsequent sections. is proportional to A(t). Remarkably, the nonlinear current is also proportional to the Higgs field H(t), so that the current can, and does indeed, sensitively reflect the temporal change of the Higgs field. Since A(t) oscillates with frequency Ω, while H(t) oscillates with 2Ω, the current [ A(t)H(t)] ends Ω ∝ III. MICROSCOPIC THEORY FOR ANDERSON up with oscillating with frequency 3 . This implies that a PSEUDOSPIN RESONANCE giant third harmonic generation (THG) is induced near the resonance (2Ω ωH ) with the Higgs mode. So far, we have∼ discussed the Higgs mode and its resonance Having identified the necessity of going beyond GL theory, with electromagnetic waves based on the time-dependent GL we start from the pairing Hamiltonian for an s-wave super- 4 conductor coupled to a dynamical electric field, which can be regarded as a spin system in an effective magnetic field, = † † † Hpair ǫk−eA(t)ckσckσ U ck↑c−k↓c−p↓cp↑, (9) + − ′ ′′ ǫk−eA(t) ǫk+eA(t) k,σ k,p bk = ∆ , ∆ , . (13) X X − − 2 where ǫk is the band dispersion measured from Fermi energy The z component of bk represents the light-matter coupling ǫF , e the elementary charge, A(t) = A sin Ωt the vector potential for the ac electric field E(t) introduced by Peierls substi- involving contributions from both the particle and hole sec- tors. Since b is a function even in A(t) if the system is parity tution (in the temporal gauge), c† the creation operator for k kσ symmetric (ǫ = ǫ ), we can readily recognize that the lin- electrons, and U(< 0) is the attractive pairing interaction. −k k ear coupling vanishes, so that the leading effect of the electric We consider a superconducting− thin film, into which the elec- field starts from O(A(t)2). The self-consistency condition (10) tric field can penetrate. For H (9), the BCS mean-field de- pair reads scription becomes exact. We define the superconducting gap function, ∆= x + y U (σk iσk) (14) k ∆ = ∆′ + i∆′′ = U c† c† , (10) X h k↑ −k↓i k in the pseudospin notation. While the dynamics cannot be X described by the conventional GL equation, which would be that serves as the order parameter in the BCS theory. We can ωD valid only when the time scale of the order-parameter motion replace the momentum sum with an integral D(ǫF) dǫ −ωD is much longer than that of quasiparticle relaxations, in the with D(ǫ ) the density of states at theFermi energyand ω the F D present formalism the time evolution is determined by a Bloch energy cut off (e.g., the Debye frequency of the bosonicR pair- equation for the pseudospins,2,21,22 ing glue such as phonons). The interaction strength is charac- = terized by a dimensionless λ UD(ǫF). In the following we ∂tσk = i[Hpair, σk] = 2bk σk. (15) set ℏ = 1, and use ωD as the unit of energy. × Anderson’s pseudospin1 is defined by Anderson pseudospins have been recently used to analyze the dynamics of charge fluctuations in a time-resolved Raman ex- σ = 1Ψ† τ Ψ periment for high-T cuprates.23,24 k k k, (11) c 2 · · We can analytically solve Eq. (15) up to the leading (sec- Ψ = † t τ = ond) order in A(t). This is achieved by linearizing Eq. (15) where k (ck↑, c−k↓) is the Nambu spinor, and (τx, τy, τz) are the Pauli matrices. The pseudospin satis- with the time-independentand time-dependentparts separated σ = σ + σ ∆ =∆+ ∆ fies the usual commutation relations for angular momentum, as k(t) k(0) δ k(t) and (t) δ (t). We assume [σ j , σk ] = iε σl . With this, the pairing Hamiltonian (9) is that the initial state is superconducting at zero temperature. k k jkl k ∆ recast in a form, The initial may be taken to be real positive without loss of x = ∆ generality. Thus the initial condition reads σk(0) /ωk and z = = 2 + ∆2 1/2 Hpair = 2 bk σk, (12) σ (0) ǫk/ωk with ωk 2(ǫk ) . The linearized · k − k equations of motion are X x y ∂tδσ (t) = 2ǫkδσ (t), (16) k − k Im s y = x + ∆ z ∂tδσk(t) 2ǫk δσk(t) 2 δσk(t) B+H∆L Γ+i¥ 1 2 + e ∆ ∂k ∂k ǫkAi(t)A j(t) 2ǫkδ∆(t) , (17) ´2iW ω i j − k i j C X - C z y + ∂tδσ (t) = 2∆ δσ (t). (18) k − k x z 2iD Note that ∂t(∆δσ ǫkδσ ) = 0. From this, along with the k − k initial condition δσk(0) = 0, it turns out that the relation ∆δσx = ǫ δσz holds all the time, which helps us to reduce ´ Re s k k k 0 the number of the equations. We solve the equations by a Laplace transformation, ∆ = ∆ -2iD [δ (t)](s) : δ (s), etc. Let us call the direction of L = the electric field x. Then we have i j ∂ki ∂k j ǫkAi(t)A j(t) ∂2 ǫ A(t) 2. When the crystallographic directions are equiv- kx k | | 2 −1 2 P ´-2iW alent, we have ∂ ǫk d ǫk with d the spatial dimen- kx → ∇k sion. If the band dispersion is isotropic with ǫk = ǫ( k ), B H∆L Γ-i¥ | | - we expand ǫk around the Fermi wave number kF as ǫk = ∞ n n=1 cn( k kF ) . With this, we can define a series expan- FIG. 3: (Color online) The integral contour (solid closed curve) that sion, | |− we take on the complex plane to evaluate the integral (22). Crosses P −1 2 2 and wavy lines represent poles and branch cuts, respectively. d ǫk = α0 + α1ǫk + α2ǫ + , (19) ∇k k ··· 5

5 where A = A and | | HaL Amplitude 4 ∞ 1 F(s) = dǫ 3 2 √ǫ2 + ∆2(s2 + 4ǫ2 + 4∆2) Z−∞

A 1 s 2 = sinh−1 . (21) s √s2 + 4∆2 2∆ 1 In the above, we have replaced the range of integration from 0 ωD ∞ to , which is allowed in the BCS regime (ωD Π −ωD −∞ ∆). F(s) can be analytically continued on the complex plane,≫ R R ±iδ HbL Phase where branch cuts ±(δ) = 2i∆ ire r [0, ) with δ small but nonzeroB are introduced{± (Fig.± 3). | ∈ ∞ } To obtain δ∆(t) with an inverse Laplace transformation, we Π need to evaluate a Bromwich integral,

j 2

+ 1 γ i∞ Ω2 I(t) = dsest , (22) 2πi s(s2 + 4Ω2)(s2 + 4∆2)F(s) 0 Zγ−i∞ 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2W2D where γ R is taken to be larger than any of the real parts of the poles∈ in the integrand. There are three first-order poles at s = 0, 2iΩ and two branching points at s = 2i∆ (Fig. 3) FIG. 4: (a) The amplitude A and (b) phase shift ϕ of the 2Ω oscilla- ± ± ∆ in the integrand, where s = 2i∆ corresponds to the Higgs tion of the superconducting order parameter δ (t) [Eq. (23)] against = ± Ω 2Ω/2∆. amplitude mode, while s 2i to the forced precession of the Anderson pseudospins driven± by the electric field. As one changes Ω, the poles merge with the branching points at 2Ω= = −1 + −1 −1 = −1 −1 + 2∆, which causes a resonance between the forced pseudospin where α0 2c2d c1(1 d )kF , α1 c1 [6c3d −1 −1 −2 − ffi precession and the Higgs mode. (1 d )(2c2kF c1kF )], etc., with each coe cient αn − 1−n − O(ǫF ). Since the α0 term just gives a trivial phase To make it more explicit, we evaluate the integral (22) by ∼ 2 t ′ ′ 2 ∆ exp(iα0e 0 dt A(t ) ) to (t), which can be gauged out, the taking the contour as depicted in Fig. 3, which surrounds the α1 term provides the leading contribution around the Fermi three poles but avoids the branch cuts. This kind of contour is R surface (with ωD ǫF ). For anisotropic band structures, 2 ≪ often used to calculate similar integrals (see, e.g., Ref. ). We the same expansion is still sometimes possible. For in- take δ> 0 so that the contours along the branch cuts ±(δ) do stance, the d-dimensional cubic lattice (with cosine bands not touch the poles s = 2iΩ when Ω > ∆. Since theB contri- = −1 2 = + ± ǫk 2 i cos ki ǫF ) has d kǫk α0 α1ǫk with butions from infinity vanish, we are left with the residues of = − −1 −= −1 ∇ α0 ǫF d and α1 d . the poles and the line integrals ( in Fig. 3 and their Hermi- − P − ± Thus, in most cases of our interest, we arrive at tian conjugates) along the branchC cuts. The asymptotic behavior of the integrals ± for t is evaluated by the saddle- δ∆(s) Ω2 1 C → ∞ = 1 , (20) point method. Finally we end up with long-time asymptotic α e2A2∆ s(s2 + 4Ω2) − λ(s2 + 4∆2)F(s) 1 forms of the order parameter,

Ω cos2Ωt Ω < ∆ ∆2 Ω2 −1 Ω δ∆(t) 1 2 Ω2 1 π 1 cos2Ωt 1 √ sin ∆ cos 2∆t + 1 + +  − , 2 2∆ 3/2 Ω2 ∆2 − Ω cos(2Ωt ϕ) α1e A ∼ 4λ π √∆t 4 − 4 4λ ×  − Ω > ∆ −  Ω2 ∆2 2  √ −1 Ω 2 + π − [cosh ∆ ] 2  q (23)  where ϕ is the phase shift given by The ﬁrst term in Eq. (23) can be interpreted as the Higgs

= −1 π/2 ϕ tan −1 Ω . (24) cosh ∆ ! 6 amplitude mode induced by an effective change of the in- IV. RESPONSE FUNCTION FOR ANDERSON teraction parameter due to the ac field, U Ueff = PSEUDOSPIN RESONANCE 1 2 2 25 → (1 α1e A )U. Indeed, it approaches the result for the − 2 interaction-quench problem26,27 in the limit of Ω . To reinforce our picture for APR phenomenon, we can ap- The Higgs mode is amplified by the ac electric field→ around ∞ proach it from an alternative, diagrammatic point of view. 2Ω= 2∆. The term decays algebraically as t−1/2,2 which sug- This allows one to decompose the THG susceptibility into the gests that the Higgs mode effectively has an infinite lifetime bare and vertex-correction diagrams, each of which contains within the BCS approximation. individual and collective excitations, respectively. Thus we In the long-time limit, the constant term and the term os- can unambiguously distinguish the Higgs mode from quasi- cillating with frequency 2Ω survive. The constant term in particle excitations that are degenerate at the superconducting −1 δ∆(t) is proportional to α1(1 λ ), which implies, intrigu- gap energy. To this end, we take the Nambu-Gor’kov Green’s ingly, that we can attain an amplification− of superconductivity function defined by on time average when this term is positive. The 2Ω oscil- † ′ ′ lation term represents the APR. If we write the last term in ′ i ck↑(t)ck↑(t ) i ck↑(t)c−k↓(t ) 1 Gˆ (t, t ) = , Eq. (23) as A cos(2Ωt ϕ), the amplitude A and the phase k − hT † † ′i − hT † ′i 4λ i c−k↓(t)ck↑(t ) i c−k↓(t)c−k↓(t ) ! shift ϕ are universal functions− that depend only on the ratio − hT i − hT i Ω ∆ A Ω ∆ −1/2 2 /2 (Fig. 4). The amplitude diverges as 2 2 where represents the time ordering. With this, the gap func- Ω = ∆ |ff − | at 2 2 (resonance condition). It clearly di ers from the tion isT expressed as result of the time-dependent GL (8), 2Ω 2∆ −1. The re- | − | duction of the power from 1 to 1/2 signifies that the Higgs i < ∆(t) = U Tr τ1Gˆ (t, t) , (27) mode is a bit less stable, where each pseudospin precession −2 k k gradually dephases. Physically we can interpret this as com- X ing from Landau damping; that is, the collective mode decays where Gˆ< is the lesser Green’s function, and ∆(t) is assumed into individual quasiparticle excitations even in the collision- k to be real. less equation (15). An anomaly is also found in the phase shift Now we take variations of both sides of Eq. (27) with re- ϕ: for 2Ω < 2∆, ϕ is locked to zero, i.e., the 2Ω oscillation 2 spect to the external field A(t). In this section, we consider of the order parameter is in-phase with E(t) . As soonas 2Ω Ω the monochromatic wave A(t) = Ae−i t. Since the leading exceeds 2∆, the ϕ discontinuously jumps to π/2 and starts to Ω change of the order parameter δ∆(t) = δ∆e−2i t is the second drift (Fig. 4). Along with the order-parameter oscillation, the order in A(t), we have pseudospin itself continues to precess around the axis parallel to σ (0), with two modes of frequencies ω and 2Ω surviving k k 2 i 2 < δ∆= δ ∆= U Tr τ1δ Gˆ , (28) in t (the former of which dephases). By numerically A −2 A k simulating→ ∞ Eq. (15), we also confirmed that APR generally oc- k X curs for finite-temperature initial states and for pulsed electric where δ represents the functional derivative with respect to fields that contain large enough number of oscillation cycles. A A. In the BCS theory, the Nambu-Gor’kov Green’s function APR appears in various physical quantities. What is readily −1 is given by the Dyson equation Gˆ k = (i∂t ξˆk + ∆τ1) with accessible experimentally is the electric current, ˆ − ξk ξk−eAτ3 τ3. Hence the variation of the order parameter reads≡ = † j e vk−eA(t)ckσckσ (25) 2 < k,σ δ ∆= iU Tr τ1Gˆ k(δAξˆk)Gˆ k(δAξˆk)Gˆ k X A − k = X (vk kǫk is the group velocity). The current is expressed in i ˆ 2 ˆ 2 ∆ ˆ < ∇ = z + U Tr τ1Gk(δAξk δA τ1)Gk . (29) the pseudospin notation as j e k[vk−eA(t) vk+eA(t)]σk − 2 − e † − k [v + v + ]c c . If we expandit in A(t), the X 2 kσ k−eA(t) k eA(t) kσ kσ P (1) = 2 z + Here the lesser componentof the productsof the Green’s func- linear response is given by j 2α1e A(t) k ǫkσk(0) P − < = e v c† c , which is irrelevant to APR. In fact, the tions should be understood by Langreth’s rule [e.g., (GG) kσ k kσ kσ P R < + < A ∆ = 2 ∆ linear-response optical conductivity does not show any diver- G G G G ]. Equation (29) determines δ δA self- genceP for Ω , 0.28 The leading term that reflects the change of consistently. This is diagrammatically represented in the first the order parameter is the third-harmonic generation (THG), line of Fig. 5. One can show that the first term on the right hand side of Eq. (29) vanishes in the BCS theory. By solving (3) 2 −1 Eq. (29) in the frequency domain, we end up with j (t) = 2α1e ∆U δ∆(t)A(t), (26) − < i α ξ τ ˆ ω + Ω τ ˆ ω z = ∆ x 2 1U k,ω kTr 1Gk( 2 ) 3Gk( ) where we have used ǫkδσ δσk. The consequence is re- δ∆= . (30) k i < markable: although the frequency Ω is below the energy gap, 1 U Tr τ1Gˆ k(ω + 2Ω)τ1Gˆ k(ω) − 2 P k,ω we do obtain the colossal nonlinear response due to diver- P gence of δ∆(t). It may be used as an efficient THz harmonic Note that τ1Gˆτ1Gˆ appearing in the denominator is the dy- emitter. namical pair-pairh correlationi function. 7

∆D = + ∆D H3L Τ Τ Τ Χ = + ∆D 1 Τ 1 1 Τ1 3 Τ3 Τ3 Τ3 H3L H3L Χ0 Χvc = Τ1 Τ 3 FIG. 6: Feynman diagram for the THG susceptibility of superconductors. The ﬁrst and second terms on the right-hand side correspond (3) (3) FIG. 5: The diagrammatic representation of the self-consistent to χ0 and χvc , respectively. Eq. (29) for δ∆ and its relation to the τ1 vertex. The wavy and dashed lines represent the gauge ﬁeld A and the interaction vertices, respectively. In the zero-temperature limit, R(Ω, T) is reduced to

Ω ∆ √∆2 Ω2 Ω The amplitude of the 2 oscillation of δ diverges (i.e., −1 Ω ∆ APR occurs) when the denominator of Eq. (30) vanishes due Ω− sin ∆ < Ω T→+0  to fluctuations in the τ1 channel. Thus the resonance sensi- R( , T) ∼  √Ω2 ∆2 Ω π tively reflects the structure of the pair-pair correlation func-  − cosh−1 i Ω > ∆. tion. We should emphasize that the τ fluctuation appears Ω ∆ − 2 1 without considering self-energy corrections beyond the mean-  (35)  field BCS formalism. Namely, the τ1 fluctuation is already present in the response to electromagnetic fields in the BCS Plugging this into Eq. (31), one can see that it precisely repro- regime before we further include fluctuations by, e.g., the ran- duces the result (23) derived in the previous section [note that ff 1 dom phase approximation. the seeming di erence of the factor 2 is due to the assumption As indicated in the second line of Fig. 5, δ∆ can also be of A(t) = Ae−iΩt in the present section and A(t) = A sin Ωt in expressed in terms of the τ1 vertex. Formally, the Higgs mode the previous section]. is defined as a pole of the τ1 vertex. Therefore, the divergence In the language of the Green’s function, the current is given of δ∆ can indeed be rephrased as a resonance with the Higgs by mode. The explicit calculation for the correlation functions within j(t) = ie Tr vˆ Gˆ<(t, t) , (36) the BCS theory enables one to write down δ∆ (30) analytically k k k as X

1 2 2 1 wherev ˆ k vk−eA(t)τ3 . IfwefocusontheTHGresponsethatis δ∆= α1e A ∆ 1 , (31) ≡ 2 λ R(Ω, T) − relevant to APR, we can take the third derivative with respect to A(t) to obtain where the resonance function R(Ω, T) is given by ∞ Ω2 ∆2 ω j(3) = ie Tr (δ3 vˆ )Gˆ< R(Ω, T) = dω − tanh A k k P ∆ (Ω2 ω2) √ω2 ∆2 2T k Z X − − + ˆ 2 ˆ 2 ∆ ˆ iπ √Ω2 ∆2 Ω ie Tr (δAvˆk)Gk(δAξk δA τ1)Gk . (37) θ(Ω ∆) − tanh (32) − − 2 − Ω 2T k X with denoting the principal value of the integral. Here we have used the fact that odd-order derivatives of P Ω ∆ Ω ∆ Ω ˆ< In the limit of 2 2 (i.e., ), R( , T) has an Gk (t, t) vanish as indicated by the pseudospin analysis [see asymptotic form of → → Eqs. (16)-(18)]. The first term in Eq. (37) is of higher order in (ω /ǫ ) than π √∆2 Ω2 ∆ D F − tanh Ω ∆ 0 the other terms, so that it is negligible. Then the leading con- 2 ∆ 2T → − (3) R(Ω, T)  tributions to j are the second and third terms, which we ∼  iπ √Ω2 ∆2 ∆ write as  − tanh Ω ∆+ 0. − 2 ∆ 2T → j(3) = χ(3)A3 = (χ(3) + χ(3))A3. (38)  (33) tot 0 vc  Hence δ∆ diverges in this limit as (3) | | χtot is the total THG susceptibility, which comprises the bare 2 2 2 (3) (3) α e A ∆ 1 susceptibility χ0 and vertex correction χvc . The Feynman δ∆ 1 . (34) | |∼ πλ tanh ∆ Ω2 ∆2 1/2 diagramfor these is depictedin Fig. 6. Here onecan single out 2T | − | the contribution of the 2Ω collective oscillation of the order (3) Remarkably, the divergence persists at arbitrary temperatures parameter to the THG signal, which is χvc . In other words, 1 ff T < Tc with the fixed critical exponent 2 , which indicates that we can distinguish the e ect of quasiparticle excitations from the APR is robust against thermal fluctuations. the contribution of the Higgs mode. 8

4 2 HaL Total THG Λ=0.5 1 HaL Λ=1 3 susceptibility Λ=2 0 L 3 H È -1 L Χ 3 H tot 2 Χ

È -2 Re -3 ΧH3L 1 tot -4 H3L Χ0 0 -5 8 5 HbL Without Higgs HbL H3L 4 Χtot 6 3 H3L Χ0 L 3 H È 2 L Χ 3 H 0 4 Χ

È 1 Im 0 2 -1

0 -2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2W2D 2W2D

FIG. 7: (Color online) The amplitude of (a) the full and (b) bare FIG. 8: (Color online) (a) The real and (b) imaginary parts of the = = THG susceptibility for superconductors at T = 0 with λ = 1 in units THG susceptibilities for superconductors at T 0 with λ 0.5, 1, 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 of α1e ωDD(ǫF ). in units of α1e ωDD(ǫF ).

We can evaluate the components of the susceptibility ex- plicitly in the BCS theory with the function R(Ω, T) (32) as λ > 1 or not. We also notice that the shape of the resonance ∆2 Ω = ∆ χ(3) = α2e4 [λ R(Ω, T) 1] , (39) peak is significantly asymmetric about 2 2 , which be- 0 1 U − comes more prominent for larger λ. The asymmetry origi- ∆2 [λ R(Ω, T) 1]2 nates from the mixing of the collective mode (discrete level) χ(3) = α2e4 − . (40) vc − 1 U λ R(Ω, T) with quasiparticle excitations (continuous levels). While this is reminiscent of the Fano resonance, the form of the reso- Taking the sum of the two susceptibilities, we obtain the total nance function is not identical with the Fano form. contribution, ∆2 1 If we look at the real and imaginary parts of the THG sus- χ(3) = χ(3) + χ(3) = α2 4 . tot 0 vc 1e Ω 1 (41) ceptibility in Fig. 8, the spectral features are again very dif- − U λ R( , T) − (3) (3) (3) (3) ferent between χtot and χ0 . Re χtot and Im χtot diverge as With Eqs. (31) and (41), we reproduce the previous relation Ω ∆ 0 and Ω ∆+ 0, respectively, whereas Re χ(3) re- (26). Note that the term λ R(Ω, T) appears in the denominator → − → 0 mains finite and Im χ(3) vanishes in these limits. Both χ(3) and for χ(3) and in the numerator for χ(3) in the opposite ways. 0 tot tot 0 χ(3) have zero imaginary parts at Ω < ∆. This simply reflects In Fig. 7, we plot χ(3) along with χ(3) for several values 0 tot 0 that photo-absorption is not allowed with frequencies below of λ at T = 0. When we change λ, we evaluate the gap by the energy gap even in the nonlinear-response regime. ∆ = (3) ωD/ sinh(1/λ). We can see that χtot diverges in a similar ∆ Ω= ∆ (3) manner as δ (Fig. 4) at 2 2 , while χ0 only shows kink If we turn to the temperature dependence of the THG sus- structures. This endorses that the resonance peak is indeed a (3) ceptibility in Fig. 9, χtot diverges for temperatures T < Tc, manifestation of the effect of the Higgs mode, and cannot be similarly to the behavior of δ∆ (34). The shape of the res- explained by quasiparticle excitations or pair breaking con- onance peak does not change significantly against tempera- (3) tained in χ0 . As one increases λ, the amplitude of the diver- ture. The insensitivity of the THG signal against tempera- (3) (3) gence becomes larger. For λ > 1, χtot and χ0 vanish at the ture should facilitate experiments where a scan of the pump value of 2Ω/2∆ at which λ R(Ω, T) = 1 is satisfied. Conse- frequency Ω is difficult: one can instead scan temperature to quently, the susceptibility spectrum shows a sharp dip struc- change ∆ for a fixed Ω. In Ref. 14, the THG resonance peak ture. This can be exploited to experimentally discern whether was in fact mapped out in this way. 9

0.25 4 Β=9.0 T=0.4 Β=7.5 T=0.3 3 0.20 Β=6.9 T=0.2 T=0

È Β=6.5 L 3 H tot 2 Χ

È 0.15 Β=6.2 L t H

1 F 0.10 Β=6.0 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2W2D 0.05 Β=5.8

FIG. 9: (Color online) The temperature dependence of the THG sus- 2 = 2 4 2 EHtL ceptibility for superconductors with λ 1 in units of α1e ωDD(ǫF ). 0.00 Here, Tc = 0.446. 0 10 20 30 40 50 t

V. EFFECT OF ELECTRON-ELECTRON SCATTERING FIG. 10: (Color online) Temporal evolution of the superconducting order parameter Φ(t) calculated with the nonequilibrium DMFT for So far, the argument has been based on the pairing Hamil- the attractive Hubbard model with the 1D density of states at half filling driven by an ac field with U = 3.5, A = 0.15, and Ω= 2π/25 tonian (9), which has the long-range interaction in real space. −1 For more realistic models of superconductivity with short- for several temperatures (β ) for the initial states. The sinusoidal curve represents E(t)2 ∝ cos2 Ωt. Dashed lines are a guide to the range interactions, the analysis above is considered to be a eye. static mean-field approximation, whose validity is restricted to the weak-coupling regime. Furthermore, the equation of 0.165 motion (15) does not involve thermalization processes, which 4 correspond to changes in the pseudospin length σk due to

| | F 3 correlation eﬀects. Thus let us go beyond the static mean ﬁeld 0.164 2 A by considering the attractive Hubbard model with a driving ac 2 2 e

ﬁeld, L

t 0.163 ∆F H fit 1 † † † F HHubbard = ǫk−eA(t)c ckσ U c ci↑c ci↓, (42) 0 kσ − i↑ i↓ 0.162 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 kσ i X X 2W2D where i labels the lattice sites and U is an attractive Hubbard 0.161 interaction. We take, as an example, a one-dimensional dis- 0 10 20 30 40 50 persion ǫk = 2cos k with the bandwidth W = 4 and α1 = 1 (later in this− section we also consider an infinite-dimensio−nal t lattice). We calculate the time evolution by means of the nonequilibrium dynamical mean-field theory (DMFT)29–31, FIG. 11: (Color online) Temporal evolution of the order parameter Φ → − = = = which is extended here to the Nambu formalism for treating (t) after a quench U U δU at t 0 with U 3.5 and δU 0.01 in the attractive Hubbard model at β = 6.4. The rapid oscillation superconductors. For an impurity solver for DMFT, we em- ff 32 comes from a band-edge e ect, while the slower one corresponds ploy the third-order perturbation theory , which is supposed to the Higgs mode. Thick (red) curve is a fit (see text). Inset: The to be reliable in the region U < W. The system is set at amplitude of the 2Ω oscillating component of the order parameter δΦ = half filling with U 3.5, which belongs to a strong-coupling for the attractive Hubbard model driven by an ac field with U = 3.5, regime (2∆T=0/Tc 5.0 well above the BCS value). Ω= 2π/25, and various ∆. The bar shows the width estimated from ≈ The time evolution of the local superconducting order pa- the lifetime of the Higgs mode. Φ = † † −1 rameter, (t) c↑c↓ , for various initial temperatures (β ) is shown in Fig.h 10.i With increased total energy due to the continuous excitation, the overall value of the order parame- energy gap 2∆ in equilibrium from the single-particle spectral ter gradually decreases. On top of that, the coherent oscilla- function A(ω), which is calculated by Fourier transformation tion of the order parameter with frequency 2Ω emerges [with of the real-time simulation. If we measure the amplitude of the same oscillation period of E(t)2 shown in Fig. 10]. The the 2Ω oscillation of the order parameter, δΦ, at the third cy- oscillation is particularly enhanced around β = 6.5, and be- cle, we can clearly see in the inset of Fig. 11 that a resonance comes invisible for β = 9.0. The phase-shift anomaly is not peak indeed emerges at 2Ω= 2∆ (the error bars represent in- clearly observed in this interaction regime. We evaluate the accuracy in measuring ∆). The peak position corresponds to 10

ally confirm that the result does not change qualitatively for 0.4 Β=24.0 the infinite-dimensional hypercubic lattice with the Gaussian 2 Β=16.0 density of states D(ǫ) = e−ǫ / √π, where the DMFT formalism is no longer an approximation but becomes exact. Let us Β=14.0 consider the hypercubic lattice with the electric field applied 0.3 along the diagonal direction, A(t) = A(t)(1, 1, 1,...). The en- Β=12.0 ergy dispersion reads30,34 L t H = + F 0.2 Β=11.0 ǫk−A(t) ǫk cos A(t) ǫ¯k sin A(t), (43)

= d = d where ǫk 1/ √d i=1 cos ki andǫ ¯k 1/ √d i=1 sin ki. This makes− the momentum summation of− the lattice Green’s 0.1 Β=10.5 function in the nonequilibriumP DMFT a double integralP with respect to ǫ andǫ ¯. The double integral becomes computation- ally very heavy, especially in the present case where we have EHtL2 0.0 to keep track of the system evolving over a long enough in- 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 terval to capture the slow order-parameter dynamics. To over- t come the difficulty here we make use of the following formula, FIG. 12: (Color online) Temporal evolution of the superconducting Φ order parameter (t) calculated with the nonequilibrium DMFT for G (t, t′) the attractive Hubbard model with the infinite-dimensional (Gaus- k k sian) density of states at half filling driven by the ac field with X − U = 2.25, A = 0.2, and Ω= 2π/37.5, for several temperatures (β 1) −1 = dǫdǫ¯D(ǫ)D(¯ǫ)(i∂t + µ ǫ cos A ǫ¯ sin A Σ) for the initial states. The sinusoidal curve represents E(t)2 ∝ cos2 Ωt. − − − Z Dashed lines are a guide to the eye. 1 1 −1 = dǫD(ǫ) i∂t + µ ǫ cos A sin A Σ 2 − − √2 − Z 1 −1 β 6.4. The result indicates that APR indeed exists beyond + dǫD(ǫ) i∂t + µ ǫ cos A + sin A Σ ≈ − √2 − the static mean-field level. Z However, we do notice a deviation from the BCS result; i.e., + O(A3), (44) the resonance has a finite width (the inset of Fig. 11). There are several factors that determine the resonance width. Be- to reduce the double integral to a single one, where µ is the sides extrinsic experimental factors such as the limited mea- chemical potential, Σ is the self-energy, and we have used surement time scale or energy dissipation to external environ- dǫ¯D(¯ǫ)¯ǫ2 = 1/2. The formula is valid up to the second ment (which is absent in our calculations), one intrinsic factor order in A, which is sufficient for the present purpose, since is the finite lifetime τ of the Higgs amplitude mode, which Rour interest is in the order-parameter oscillation arising from can decay into individual excitations [note that Higgs does the second-order nonlinear effect. An advantage of the above not decay into the Nambu-Goldstone (NG) mode in charged formula is that the first and second terms are in the form of superconductors, since the energy of the NG mode is lifted to the Green’s function withǫ ¯ replaced by 1/ √2, so that the the plasma frequency, at least away from the critical regime implementation is straightforward. We also± remark that keep- = near T Tc]. If the Higgs mode decays exponentially, the ing the form of the Green’s function is vital for maintaining poles s = 2i∆ acquire a real part on the complex plane ± the numerical stability. As an impurity solver for the nonequi- (Fig. 3), and are thus prevented from meeting the branch- librium DMFT for the hypercubic lattice, here we employ the ing points 2iΩ, resulting in broadening of the resonance 32 ± second-order iterative perturbation theory to further reduce peak. We can numerically evaluate the decay rate by gen- the computational cost. If we look at the time evolution of the erating the Higgs mode at β = 6.4 with a small perturbation order parameter in the infinite-dimensional hypercubic lattice 33 (here we use an interaction quench ), where Φ(t) is fitted with in Fig. 12, the 2Ω oscillation of the order parameter is promi- Φ −t/τ ∆ + 0e cos(2 t θ) on top of a linear drift (Fig. 11). A rapid nent around β = 14.0and16.0, which is close to the resonance oscillation in Fig. 11 comes from the divergence of the 1D condition 2Ω(= 4π/37.5 = 0.335) = 2∆( 0.32, evaluated density of states at band edges, and is irrelevant to the Higgs from the nonequilibrium DMFT calculation≈ for the spectral mode. From the derived τ, we estimate the resonance width function). Away from this, the oscillation tends to be sup- as indicated by the bar in the inset of Fig. 11, which roughly pressed and the oscillation becomes incoherent. This shows coincides with the peak width of APR with the background that APR also occurs in the nonequilibrium DMFT calcula- subtracted (Fig. 11). tion for the infinite-dimensional lattice where DMFT becomes While we have applied the nonequilibrium DMFT to a sys- exact. Thus the essential features of APR do not depend on a tem with 1D density of states for simplicity, we can actu- particular form of the density of states. 11

VI. SUMMARY provides an avenue offering information about dynamical as- pects of the order parameter and the Higgs mode in super- To summarize, we theoretically propose a phenomenon that conductors. Important future problems include whether APR may be called Anderson pseudospinresonance (APR) for a su- occurs for other pairing symmetries such as the anisotropic perconductordriven by an ac electric field, which is confirmed d-wave pairing. by solving the equation of motion analytically within the BCS We wish to thank R. Shimano, R. Matsunaga, H. Fu- approximation, and by solving the attractive Hubbard model jita, and A. Sugioka for stimulating discussions that mo- via the nonequilibrium DMFT. APR can be distinguished tivate the present project and providing their experimental from quasiparticle excitations or pair breaking processes near data. We were supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific the superconducting gap energy by looking at the divergent Research from MEXT (No. 26247057), and N.T. by Grant- enhancement of third harmonic generation. APR provides not in-Aid for Scientific Research from JSPS (No. 25104709 and only a new pathway of controlling superconductors, but also No. 25800192).

1 P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. 112, 1900 (1958). 21 R. A. Barankov, L. S. Levitov, and B. Z. Spivak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2 A. F. Volkov and S. M. Kogan, Sov. Phys. JETP 38, 1018 (1974). 93, 160401 (2004). 3 P. B. Littlewood and C. M. Varma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 811 (1981); 22 E. A. Yuzbashyan, B. L. Altshuler, V. B. Kuznetsov, and V. Z. Phys. Rev. B 26, 4883 (1982). Enolskii, Phys. Rev. B 72, 220503 (2005). 4 C. Varma, J. Low Temp. Phys. 126, 901 (2002). 23 B. Mansart, J. Lorenzana, A. Mann, A. Odeh, M. Scarongella, M. 5 D. Pekker and C. Varma, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Chergui, and F. Carbone, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110, 4539 (2013). Physics 6, 269 (2015). 24 J. Lorenzana, B. Mansart, A. Mann, A. Odeh, M. Chergui, and F. 6 F. Englert and R. Brout, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 321, (1964). Carbone, Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics 222, 1223 (2013). 7 P. W. Higgs, Phys. Lett. 12, 132 (1964); Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 508 25 N. Tsuji, T. Oka, and H. Aoki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 047403 (1964). (2009). 8 G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 26 R. A. Barankov and L. S. Levitov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 230403 13, 585 (1964). (2006). 9 Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. 122, 345 (1961). 27 E. A. Yuzbashyan and M. Dzero, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 230404 10 P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. 130, 439 (1963). (2006). 11 R. Sooryakumar and M. V. Klein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 660 (1980). 28 W. Zimmermann, E. Brandt, M. Bauer, E. Seider, and L. Genzel, 12 M.-A. Méasson, Y. Gallais, M. Cazayous, B. Clair, P. Rodière, Physica C: Supercond. 183, 99 (1991). L. Cario, and A. Sacuto, Phys. Rev. B 89, 060503 (2014). 29 J. K. Freericks, V. M. Turkowski, and V. Zlatić, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 R. Matsunaga, Y. I. Hamada, K. Makise, Y. Uzawa, H. Terai, 97, 266408 (2006). Z. Wang, and R. Shimano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 057002 (2013). 30 H. Aoki, N. Tsuji, M. Eckstein, M. Kollar, T. Oka, and P. Werner, 14 R. Matsunaga, N. Tsuji, H. Fujita, A. Sugioka, K. Makise, Y. Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 779 (2014). Uzawa, H. Terai, Z. Wang, H. Aoki, and R. Shimano, Science 31 Note that what essentially matters in the DMFT calculation here is 345, 1145 (2014). the density of states near the Fermi energy and the α1 parameter. 15 ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012). Thus, one may take our model adopted here as a certain infinite- 16 CMS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012). dimensional lattice model that has the corresponding density of 17 L. P. Gor’kov, Sov. Phys. JETP 9, 1364 (1959). states and α1, to which DMFT can be applied. 18 N. N. Bogoliubov, V. V. Tolmachev, and D. V. Shirkov, A New 32 N. Tsuji and P. Werner, Phys. Rev. B 88, 165115 (2013). Method in the Theory of Superconductivity (Achademy of Sci- 33 N. Tsuji, M. Eckstein, and P. Werner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 136404 ences of USSR, Moscow, 1958). (2013). 19 Y. Nambu, Physica 15D, 147 (1985). 34 V. Turkowski and J. K. Freericks, Phys. Rev. B 71, 085104 (2005). 20 G. E. Volovik and M. A. Zubkov, Phys. Rev. D 87, 075016 (2013); J. Low Temp. Phys. 175, 486 (2014).