Abstract
It is notoriously difficult to make quantitative theoretical predictions of the superconducting transition temperature, T_{c}, either from firstprinciples or even from a knowledge of normal state properties. Ultimately, this reflects the fact that the energy scales involved in the superconducting state are extremely small in natural units, and that T_{c} depends exponentially on a subtle interplay between different interactions so that small uncertainties in microscopic processes can lead to order one effects on T_{c}. However, in some circumstances, it may be possible to determine (approximate) bounds on T_{c}. Here we propose such a bound for the conventional phononmediated mechanism of pairing with strongly retarded interactions, i.e. in the case in which \(\hbar \bar \omega \ll E_F\), where \(\bar \omega\) is an appropriate characteristic phonon frequency and E_{F} is the Fermi energy. Specifically, drawing on both empirical results (shown in Fig. 2 below) and recent results^{1} of determinant quantum Monte Carlo (DQMC) studies of the paradigmatic Holstein model, we propose that \(k_BT_c \le A_{\max }\hbar \bar \omega\), where A_{max} is a dimensionless number of order one that we estimate to be A_{max} ≈ 1/10.
Introduction
In general, T_{c} is a function of the phonon spectrum, the electron spectrum, the electronphonon coupling and the electron–electron interactions. Given that the bare interactions between electrons are repulsive, it is something of a miracle that the effective interactions at low energies can be effectively attractive, i.e. produce pairing. In conventional superconductors, this miracle is a consequence of the retarded character of the phononinduced interactions, \(\hbar \bar \omega \ll E_F\). (In unconventional superconductors, it is rather the strong \(\vec k\) dependence of the screened but still largely repulsive effective interactions that allows pairing to occur.) As we are focusing here on the case of conventional superconductors, it is reasonable to write a general expression for T_{c} as the product of a dimensional factor \(\hbar \bar \omega /k_B\) times a dimensionless function of the various dimensionless parameters that characterize the particular system in question,
where \(w \equiv \hbar \bar \omega /E_F\), λ is the (conventionally defined) dimensionless electronphonon coupling, μ is the dimensionless electron–electron repulsion, and … represents other things, such as the form of the electron dispersion (e.g. the ratio of second to first neighbor hopping matrix elements), the phonon dispersion, etc.
Given that in typical metals, the Fermi energy is large compared to all other energies, it is reasonable to evaluate A in the w → 0 limit. In this same limit, μ is highly renormalized downward, so that μ → 0; we will therefore consider A in the limit μ = 0. Thus, the most significant parametric dependence of A concerns λ.
Results and discussion
Various approximate theoretical treatments of this problem based on MigdalEliashberg (ME) theory have long served as the basis for the accepted wisdom on this subject. As nominally ME theory is valid so long as \(w\lambda \ll 1\), it is generally believed that it can be applied even to the strongcoupling regime in which \(w^{  1} \gg \lambda \gg 1\). Moreover, various approximate evaluations of the resulting selfconsistency equations produce an expression for A that is a monotonically increasing function of λ; if correct, this would imply that, barring other instabilities i.e. lattice instabilities or chargedensity wave (CDW) formation, the larger λ the larger T_{c}.
We have recently shown^{1}, on the basis of exact DQMC studies of the Holstein model (defined below), that this expectation is incorrect. Specifically, for a given small value of w we find that the ME approximation is extremely accurate for λ smaller than a characteristic value \(\lambda ^ \ast \sim 1\), while for \(\lambda > \lambda ^ \ast\) (even if \(\lambda \ll w^{  1}\)) ME theory is both quantitatively and qualitatively incorrect. In particular, λ^{*} marks a crossover to a strongcoupling regime characterized by bipolaron formation, growth of commensurate CDW correlations unrelated to Fermi surface nesting, and incipient phase separation.
The Holstein model consists of a single electronic band, and a nondispersing optical phonon coupled by the most local possible interaction to the onsite electron density. In relating model calculations with experiment, it is important to distinguish “bare parameters” (i.e., the parameters that appear in the model, such as the bare phonon frequency, ω_{0} and the bare dimensionless electronphonon coupling, λ_{0}) from “physical” quantities, such as the actual phonon dispersion, \(\omega _{\vec q}\), and the renormalized electronphonon coupling, λ. The tendency to phonon softening with increasing λ_{0} implies that \(\omega _{\vec q} < \omega _0\) and λ > λ_{0}. Indeed, in the context of ME theory, λ diverges upon approach to a lattice instability. The breakdown of ME theory we have identified is distinct from any such lattice instability, and occurs when λ and λ_{0} are both of order one. The crossover at λ^{*} is associated with a complete rearrangement of the important low energy degrees of freedom.
To quantify this crossover, we show in Fig. 1 the T → 0 occupancy of the single particle state at the bottom of the band (\(n_{\vec k}\) for \(\vec k = \vec 0\)), measured in DQMC and computed within ME theory. This state is far below the Fermi energy and hence, for noninteracting electrons \(n_{\vec 0} = 2\). On the other hand, in the strongcoupling polaronic limit, electrons are essentially localized on a lattice site, so \(n_{\vec 0}\) approaches the average electron density per site. For \(0 < \lambda \ll 1\) the electronic spectrum is perturbatively rearranged and \(n_{\vec 0}\) is slightly depressed. This behavior is apparent in both the ME approximation and from the DQMC results for \(\lambda < \lambda ^ \ast\). However, for \(\lambda > \lambda ^ \ast\), the DQMC results show a rapid decrease of \(n_{\vec 0}\), consistent with a crossover to the polaronic limit. Moreover, even though we are not able to directly compute T_{c} (due to the difficulty in obtaining convergence of the DQMC results at low temperatures), by a series of indirect arguments, we^{1} inferred that T_{c} is maximal near the point of this crossover, \(\lambda = \lambda ^ \ast\), and decreases dramatically when λ is either decreased or increased further. This leads us to the conclusion that there is a welldefined maximal value \({\mathrm{Max}}[A] \equiv A_{{\rm max}} = A(0,\lambda ^ \ast ,0, \ldots )\).
It turns out that a careful numerical evaluation of the full (\(\vec k\) and \(\omega\) dependent) selfconsistent ME equations also leads to a nonmonotonic behavior of A, which leads to a vanishing T_{c} for λ > λ^{*}. However, in contrast to what is found in the DQMC, in the ME treatment the depression of T_{c} for λ > λ^{*} is associated with the onset of a competing incommensurate CDW order. This distinction is important, since if it were only the competition with CDW order that prevented high T_{c}s, one could “engineer” interactions^{2} that suppress CDW order so as to enhance T_{c}.
Combining the results from the ME theory (where valid) with the DQMC results, we obtained estimates of A_{max} for the Holstein model on the square lattice. For the range of parameters we have explored, the highest value of T_{c} we have inferred is 0.08 times the bare phonon frequency, but because significant phonon softening occurs for \(\lambda \sim \lambda ^ \ast\), this value of T_{c} is 0.12 times the maximal renormalized phonon frequency. Many physically realistic generalizations of this model are possible—either by modifying the lattice structure, the electron band structure (further neighbor hopping matrix elements), the number of phonon modes and their dispersion, and the structure of the electronphonon coupling—all features represented by the … in A. There is no reason that the value of A_{max}(…) obtained by optimizing with respect to λ, should not depend somewhat on these various features, although we have already found it to be relatively insensitive to small changes of the band structure. Still, it is an interesting exercise (which we are currently undertaking) to determine what microscopic features of the electronphonon problem can increase A_{max}.
For now, however, we will adopt an estimate of A_{max} ≈ 1/10 as suggested by results for the simple Holstein model, and see how it compares with experiment in real materials.
Experimental determination of \(k_BT_c/\hbar \bar \omega\)
In Fig. 2 we plot the superconducting T_{c} vs. the Debye temperature, Θ_{D} for various elemental superconductors and compounds for which data are available. In most of the data shown, Θ_{D} is computed on the basis of the measured low temperature lattice contribution to the specific heat and the number of atoms per unit cell in the crystal structure, while in others it is inferred from e.g. low temperature resistivity. It thus represents a specific, unambiguously defined (although somewhat crude) estimate of the characteristic maximal phonon frequency \(\hbar \bar \omega \sim k_B\Theta _D\). Also shown in the figure is the proposed bound T_{c} ≤ Θ_{D}/10.
Not only do we see that the bound is satisfied by all the data we have found (which is not, unfortunately, an exhaustive set), but in some cases the materials come quite close to saturating the bound, meaning that the bound may have some real significance. Specifically, for Pb (T_{c} = 7.2 K), Nb (T_{c} = 9.25 K), and Hg (T_{c} = 4.15 K), three elemental superconductors known for their relatively strong electronphonon couplings, T_{c}/Θ_{D} takes on the values 0.069, 0.034, and 0.058, respectively. The A15 family of old fashion “high temperature superconductors,” Nb_{3}Sn (T_{c} = 17.9 K), Nb_{3}Ga (T_{c} = 19.8 K), and Nb_{3}Ge (T_{c} = 21.8 K) have T_{c}/Θ_{D} equal to 0.066, 0.071, and 0.072, respectively.
At ambient pressure, the highest temperature superconductivity of a clearly conventional sort (with \(w \ll 1\)) is MgB_{2}, which does not appear in the figure because it has such a high Θ_{D} = 884 K, and thus has T_{c}/Θ_{D} = 0.04.^{3} This suggests that if a way can be found to increase the value of λ in this material, it could lead to as much as a factor of 2 enhancement of T_{c}. The highest T_{c} of all conventional superconductors is T_{c} = 203 K in H_{3}S at 155 GPa.^{4} As far as we know, the Debye temperature has not been measured; however, if we identify \(\bar \omega\) with the largest phonon frequencies found in DFT calculations of the phonon band structure we obtain the estimate \(\hbar \bar \omega = 0.23\) eV.^{5} If we accept this theoretical value, then \(k_BT_c/\hbar \bar \omega = 0.08\), i.e. it comes very close to saturating our bound.
An especially interesting material from our perspective is Ba_{1−x}K_{x}BiO_{3} (BKBO), which has an optimal T_{c} = 32 K (T_{c}/Θ_{D} ≈ 0.09) for x ≈ 0.4.^{6} Various features^{7,8} of BKBO near optimal T_{c}—softening of an optic phonon mode, diamagnetism above T_{c}, proximity to a commensurate CDW phase—indicate this material may be especially relevant for studying the crossover from conventional superconductivity to strongcoupling, polaronic physics.
Further remarks
The idea of bounding T_{c} is not new. For instance, an absolute bound for an electronphonon mechanism T_{c} < 30 K was proposed in ref. ^{9}. The loopholes in this analysis were recently summarized in ref. ^{10}. Conversely, a remarkable and highly influential analysis^{11} of ME theory suggested that T_{c} grows without bound with increasing λ, and can even be larger than \(\hbar \bar \omega /k_B\). It has long been recognized that this proposal was subject to the caveat that at large λ, a system may be prone to other instabilities, which could compete with superconductivity. It was shown^{10} that the effect of phonon softening—still assuming the validity of ME theory—leads to a reduced prefactor in the T_{c} expression, and thus to a bound on T_{c} given by the bare phonon frequency, which is approached asymptotically as λ → ∞. Arguments for a bound within the context of ME theory have also been presented in refs. ^{12,13,14}. The breakdown of ME theory due to spontaneous breaking of translation symmetry has also been analyzed.^{15,16}
As the analysis in the present paper shares some features with these earlier studies, there are important ways in which it is different, both conceptually and practically. Our DQMC results show that deviations from the predictions of ME theory occur even in ranges of temperatures and λ in which no other form of order has arisen; in this range, ME theory always overestimates the superconducting susceptibility. The nonmonotonic λ dependence of T_{c} that leads to our proposed bound is associated with a crossover at λ ~ λ^{*} from a regime in which ME theory is extraordinarily accurate to a strongcoupling regime where the ME approximation breaks down entirely. This leads to a sharp drop of T_{c}, even if the system in question has been carefully engineered to have no competing chargeordering instabilities. The existence of an optimal λ^{*} independent of competing instabilities, as far as we know, is inconsistent with all analysis based on ME theory, but not in conflict with any experimental observation.
Recently, it has been found that superconductivity in SrTiO_{3} persists to such low electron densities that the Fermi energy is less than the typical phonon frequency, i.e. into a regime in which \(w \gg 1\). In this limit, it is far from clear that the effects of a bare repulsion, μ > 0, can still be neglected. However, as a problem in model physics, it is possible to ask whether a more general bound exists on A(w, λ, μ = 0,…). In the large w limit, it is possible to integrate out the phonons to obtain an instantaneous attractive interaction with a magnitude proportional to λ. In particular, the Holstein model in the limit w → ∞ maps onto the negative U Hubbard model with \(U\sim  E_F\lambda\). It is well known that this model has an optimal T_{c} at an intermediate value of \(U\sim E_F\), where the maximal T_{c} is bounded by a scale that is a fraction of E_{F}.^{17} Thus, at least in the artificial limit μ = 0, there exists a more general bound of the form \(A(w,\lambda ,\mu = 0, \ldots ) \le A(w,\lambda ^ \ast (w),\mu = 0, \ldots )\) where \(A(w,\lambda ^ \ast (w),\mu = 0, \ldots )\sim 1/w\) as w → ∞.
There is another class of bounds on T_{c} that can be inferred in a different manner; rather than taking normal state data, one can start with measured properties of the superconducting groundstate, from which one can attempt to bound the actual T_{c}. Ideally, these bounds should apply to both conventional and unconventional superconductors.
For a simple BCS swave superconductor in the weak coupling limit, T_{c} = BΔ_{0} where Δ_{0} is the zerotemperature gap and B = e^{γ}/π ≈ 0.567. Strongcoupling effects, even in the context of BCS meanfield theory, have a tendency to decrease the value of B, and certainly fluctuational effects beyond meanfield theory will likewise decrease the value of B. Thus, taking into account the fact that the gap function can vary along the Fermi surface, one would generally expect that
where (with the case of unconventional superconductors in mind) Δ_{max} is the largest value of the T = 0 gap on the Fermi surface. As far as we know, this inequality is satisfied (and often very nearly saturated) by all known crystalline superconductors. (In the presence of disorder it is, of course, possible to have gapless superconductors.)
In a similar vein, a bound was proposed in ref. ^{18} based on the measured value of the zerotemperature superfluid stiffness, \(\rho _s(T = 0)/m^ \ast\) (or equivalently from the zerotemperature value of the London penetration depth)
where in a layered (quasi2D) superconductor, a is the interlayer separation while in a 3D superconductor, \(a = \sqrt \pi \xi _0\), where ξ_{0} is the zerotemperature coherence length, and C ≈ 2.2. (2.2 is the ratio of T_{c} to the zerotemperature phase stiffness of the 3D XY model on a cubic lattice.) Most superconductors satisfy this inequality but come nowhere near saturating it. However, certain high temperature superconductors, especially holedoped cuprates, come within a factor of two or three of saturating this inequality.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Esterlis, I., Nosarzewski, B., Huang, E. W., Moritz, B., Devereaux, T. P., Scalapino, D. J. & Kivelson, S. A. Breakdown of the MigdalEliashberg theory: a determinant quantum Monte Carlo study. Phys. Rev. B 97, 140501 (2018).
Pickett, W. E. Design for a roomtemperature superconductor. J. Supercond. Nov. Magn. 19, 291–297 (2006).
Buzea, C. & Yamashita, T. Review of the superconducting properties of MgB_{2}. Supercond. Sci. Technol. 14, R115–R146 (2001).
Drozdov, A., Eremets, M., Troyan, I., Ksenofontov, V. & Shylin, S. Conventional superconductivity at 203 Kelvin at high pressures in the sulfur hydride system. Nature 525, 73–76 (2015).
Errea, I., Calandra, M., Pickard, C. J., Nelson, J., Needs, R. J., Li, Y., Liu, H., Zhang, Y., Ma, Y. & Mauri, F. Highpressure hydrogen sulfide from first principles: a strongly anharmonic phononmediated superconductor. Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 157004 (2015).
Collocott, S. J., Savvides, N. & Vance, E. R. Specific heat of polycrystalline Ba_{0:6}K_{0:4}BiO_{3} from 0.5 to 20 K. Phys. Rev. B 42, 4794–4796 (1990).
Hundley, M., Thompson, J. & Kwei, G. Specific heat of the cubic highT _{c} superconductor BaO_{0:6}K_{0:4}BiO_{3}. Solid State Commun. 70, 1155–1158 (1989).
Baumert, B. A. Barium potassium bismuth oxide: a review. J. Supercond. 8, 175–181 (1995).
Cohen, M. L. & Anderson, P. W. Comments on the maximum superconducting transition temperature. AIP Conf. Proc. 4, 17–27 (1972).
Moussa, J. E. & Cohen, M. L. Two bounds on the maximum phononmediated superconducting transition temperature. Phys. Rev. B 74, 094520 (2006).
Allen, P. B. & Dynes, R. C. Transition temperature of strongcoupled superconductors reanalyzed. Phys. Rev. B 12, 905–922 (1975).
Varma, C. Considerations on the mechanisms and transition temperatures of superconductivity induced by electronic fluctuations. Rep. Progress. Phys. 75, 052501 (2012).
Leavens, C. A least upper bound on the superconducting transition temperature. Solid State Commun. 17, 1499–1504 (1975).
Carbotte, J. P. Properties of bosonexchange superconductors. Rev. Mod. Phys. 62, 1027–1157 (1990).
Aleksandrov, A. & Mazur, E. Electronphonon system with strong coupling and violation of the MigdalEliashberg theory. Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 96, 1773–1782 (1989).
Alexandrov, A. Breakdown of the MigdalEliashberg theory in the strongcoupling adiabatic regime. EPL (Europhysics Letters) 56, 92–98 (2001).
Paiva, T., dos Santos, R. R., Scalettar, R. T. & Denteneer, P. J. H. Critical temperature for the twodimensional attractive Hubbard model. Phys. Rev. B 69, 184501 (2004).
Emery, V. J. & Kivelson, S. A. Superconductivity in bad metals. Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3253–3256 (1995).
Webb, G., Marsiglio, F. & Hirsch, J. Superconductivity in the elements, alloys and simple compounds. Phys. C: Supercond. Appl. 514, 17–27 (2015).
Campanini, D., Diao, Z., & Rydh, A., Raising the superconducting T _{c} of gallium: insitu characterization of the transformation of αGa into βGa, arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.06743, (2018).
Stewart, G. Superconductivity in the A15 structure. Phys. C: Supercond. Appl. 514, 28–35 (2015).
Sato, H., Sugawara, H., Aoki, Y. & Harima, H. Chapter one magnetic properties of filled skutterudites. Handb. Magn. Mater. 18, 1–110 (2009).
Venkateshwarlu, D., Samatham, S. S., Gangrade, M. & Ganesan, V. Superconductivity in partially filled skutterudite Pr_{0:5}Pt_{4}Ge_{12}. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 534, 012040 (2014).
Juraszek, J., Henkie, Z. & Cichorek, T. Specific heat of the filled skutterudite superconductor LaOs_{4}As_{12}. Acta Phys. Pol. A 130, 597–599 (2016).
Jobiliong, E., Zhou, H. D., Janik, J. A., Jo, Y.J., Balicas, L., Brooks, J. S. & Wiebe, C. R. Anisotropic superconductivity in bulk CaC_{6}. Phys. Rev. B 76, 052511 (2007).
Acknowledgements
We thank T. Geballe and M. Beasley for bringing up the case of BKBO and A. Chubukov for useful discussions. I.E. was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Materials Sciences and Engineering, under Contract No. DEAC0276SF00515. S.A.K. and I.E. were supported, in part, by NSF grant # DMR1608055 at Stanford. D.J.S. acknowledges support from SciDAC, U.S. Department of Energy, Advanced Scientific Computing Research and Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Materials Sciences and Engineering.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All three authors have contributed equally to the development of the ideas in this work and to the writing of the paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Esterlis, I., Kivelson, S.A. & Scalapino, D.J. A bound on the superconducting transition temperature. npj Quant Mater 3, 59 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s4153501801330
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s4153501801330
This article is cited by

Superconductivity in (Ba,K)SbO3
Nature Materials (2022)

Degenerate plaquette physics as key ingredient of hightemperature superconductivity in cuprates
npj Quantum Materials (2022)

Paramagnons and hightemperature superconductivity in a model family of cuprates
Nature Communications (2022)

Heuristic bounds on superconductivity and how to exceed them
npj Quantum Materials (2022)

Physics of Superconducting Transition Temperatures
Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism (2020)