Abstract
In this paper we address Lifshitz transition induced by applied external magnetic field in a case of ironbased superconductors, in which a difference between the Fermi level and the edges of the bands is relatively small. We introduce and investigate a twoband model with intraband pairing in the relevant parameters regime to address a generic behaviour of a system with holelike and electronlike bands in external magnetic field. Our results show that two Lifshitz transitions can develop in analysed systems and the first one occurs in the superconducting phase and takes place at approximately constant magnetic field. The chosen sets of the model parameters can describe characteristic band structure of ironbased superconductors and thus the obtained results can explain the experimental observations in FeSe and Codoped BaFe_{2}As_{2} compounds.
Introduction
The Lifshitz transition (LT) is an electronic topological transition^{1}. A consequence of this transition is a change of the Fermi surface (FS) topology of a metal due to the variation of the Fermi energy and/or the band structure. The LT can by induced by external pressure, doping or external magnetic field and has been experimentally observed in many real systems, such as e.g. heavyfermion systems^{2,3,4,5}, ironbased superconductors^{6,7,8,9,10,11,12}, cuprate hightemperature superconductors^{13,14,15}, or other strongly correlated electrons system^{16}.
In particular, the LT induced by doping has been found in ironbased superconductors. This family of materials is characterized by the existence of FeX layers in their crystal structure (where X is As, P, S, Se or Te). The consequence of this feature is a specific band structure as well as the occurrence of FSs created by hole and electronlike pockets near the Γ and M points of the first Brillouin zone (FBZ), respectively. In general, these systems are very sensitive to doping^{17} and the LT induced by doping can be observed e.g. in angleresolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) experiments. For example, in the Ba_{1−x}K_{x}FeAs compounds^{7,8,9,10,11}, a partial vanishing of the FS at the M point can be observed as well as changes of its shape with potassium doping. Other possibility is a realisation of the LT induced by magnetic filed, which we will call the magnetic Lifshitz transition (MLT) below. The MLT in multiband systems is interesting in the case of relatively small FS pockets, observed e.g. in FeSe^{18}, where relatively large external magnetic field can lead to disappearance of the FS for one of spin types. This situation has been also discussed widely in the context of heavyfermion systems, e.g. in CeIn_{3}, where the reconstruction of the FS inside the Néel longrange order phase has been observed^{19}. In this case, the small FS pockets collapse in relatively large external magnetic field and become depopulated^{20}, while the changes in the FS topology occur at approximately constant value of the magnetic field. In CeRu_{2}Si_{2} the behaviour is different and only onespin FS pocket disappears^{2}. As we can see, one can expect a realisation of two types of the MLT: entire or partial. For the former, as in a typical LT induced by doping, the magnetic field changes the band structure for electrons with both spins, while for the latter only one type of the electron spin band (FS) disappears at the Fermi level. In addition, this type of the LT can be important in the case where a small FS exists and it is very sensitive to the magnetic field^{2}.
The iron based superconductors belong to systems with strong electron correlations^{21,22}. In such systems, the unconventional superconductivity with a nontrivial Cooper pairing lay down one of the most important directions of studies in the theory of condensed matter and ultracold quantum gases. There are indications that the properties of unconventional superconductors place them between two regimes: BCS and BEC^{23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31}. In a case of a singleband attractive Hubbard model the tightly bound local pairs of fermions behave as hardcore bosons and they can exhibit a superfluid state similar to that of ^{4}He II. The evolution from the weak attraction (BCSlike) to that of the strong attraction (BEClike) limit takes place when the interaction is increased or the electron concentration is decreased at moderate fixed attraction^{29,30,31}. According to the Leggett criterion^{32}, the Bose regime begins when the chemical potential μ drops below the lower band edge. Strong renormalization of the chemical potential μ and the possibility of the complete condensation of all the electrons of the subband in which the chemical potential is close to its energy bottom, give rise to the coexistence of BCSlike and BEClike pairs^{33}. However, formally BCSBEC crossover regime exist, when the size of interacting pairs (coherence length ζ) becomes comparable to the average distance between particles (≈1/k_{F}), i.e. k_{F}ζ ≈ 1, where k_{F} is a the Fermi momentum. In this regime, the character of a Fermi superfluid continuously change from the weakcoupling BCS type to the BEC of tightly bound molecules with increasing the strength interaction, and there is no distinct phase boundary between the weakcoupling BCS regime and the strongcoupling BEC regime. The BCS to BEC evolution in a twoband system is much richer than the oneband case and have been discussed in several papers in the context of two electronlike bands^{34,35,36,37}. Also, in iron based superconductors BCSBEC crossover regime has been reported, e.g. FeSe^{18}. In this case, a superconducting gap is comparable to the Fermi level E_{F}, e.g. in FeSe compound, the ratio between gap and the Fermi level are estimated as 1 (0.3) in the electron (hole) like band^{18}, while in Tedoped FeSe as 0.5 in hole band^{38}. Because the gap energy is comparable with the Fermi level of the electron band, the system can be treated as a material in the BCSBEC crossover regime^{39}. This property is a generic feature of all ironbased superconductors^{40}, with the consequence that the transition from the BCS to the BEC limit can have important influence on the value of T_{c}^{41}.
The recent results report an additional phase transition in a highly polarized superconducting state phase of FeSe in the BCSBEC crossover regime for an approximately constant value of the magnetic field^{18}. This result is very interesting due the fact that relatively large Maki parameter α_{M}^{42}, describing the ratio of the critical magnetic fields related with the orbital and diamagnetic effects, has been measured for these materials and has been estimated in the range 3–7^{18,43,44,45}. As consequence the orbital effects of magnetic fields are negligible in these systems. Then, the external magnetic field can lead to unconventional behaviour, such like the emergence of a superconducting state with Cooper pairs with nonzero total momentum. Such a state is called the FuldeFerrellLarkinOvchinnikov (FFLO) phase^{46,47} This phase is a partiallypolarized superconducting state^{48} and could be stable in ironbased superconductors^{49}. However, our main motivation to a study of the influence of the MLT on the stability of the unconventional superconducting phase is the better theoretical understanding of relevant physical systems in close relation with forefront experiments, mentioned above.
The behaviour can be even more complex in the case of two (or more) bands, especially if the system is e.g. superconducting, because the correlation effects (in a general case, the interactions can be different in every band) can modify the band structure regardless of the magnetic field. For one band system cases, one can indicate only one MLT limit corresponding to the maximal/minimal value of band energy. This band energy condition is also true in the case of a bigger number of bands, while the number of MLTs can be bigger. This can lead to unconventional properties of the system, e.g. only FS for one type of spin survives. Consequently, if superconductivity can exist in the system, such a state needs to be the FFLO phase due to the fact that electrons in one band are fully spin polarized while the partial spin polarization occurs in the second one.
Model and Method
First, let us describe the main idea of the MLT in a single band system. In the absence of magnetic field, there is only one FS with spindegeneracy in the system. When an external magnetic field is applied, the densities of states are different for the electrons with spin down and spin up and the population imbalance introduces a mismatch between the Fermi surfaces. Hence, there are two FSs in the system. With increasing magnetic field, the FS for the minority spin species disappears while the other one still exists. The MLT takes place at the critical value of magnetic field for which one of FSs vanishes in the system.
The situation can be more complicated in a case of a multiband system. Now, we will discuss qualitatively the MLT in a twoband case, using a band structure similar to the ironbased band structures, in which one electronlike and one holelike bands can be observed (left and right band respectively in each panel of Fig. 1). In the absence of an external magnetic field, there are two FSs with doublespindegeneracy (solid dark line in panel a of Fig. 1). The application of the relatively small magnetic field leads to the splitting of the FSs in both bands. As a consequence, four FSs, corresponding to each spin component, can be observed in the system (panel b). However, for higher values of the magnetic field, one can find the MLT, which leads to the vanishing of one FS (panel c or d). Further increase of the magnetic field can lead to the second MLT (panel e). For the magnetic field values between these two MLT, we can find three FSs at Fermi level, while above the second MTL only two FSs appear for partly filled subbands. The transition from four to two FSs always occurs in a sequence of situations shown in panels b→c→e or b→d→e with increasing field and the particular sequence (one of both mentioned) is a consequence of the relation between widths of both bands. Only for equal band widths, we can expect the transition b→e, while the MLT arise in both bands at the same field.
To describe the characteristic band structure of ironbased superconductors we introduce the effective twoband model without hybridization (t_{2g} orbital favour is conserved due to the orbital symmetry). The noninteracting Hamiltonian H_{K} considered here has the following form:
Here, (c_{αkσ}) denotes creation (annihilation) electron operators with spin σ and twodimensional (2D) momentum k in band α, where E_{1k} (E_{2k}) describes the holelike (electronlike) band dispersion around Γ (M) point in the FBZ, respectively. Total number of particles in the system is given by the chemical potential μ, while the influence of the external magnetic field h is expressed by the Zeeman term:
Because the FSs of ironbased superconductors have a cylindric shape^{50}, such threedimensional systems can be approximately described by a 2D model, which is equivalent to a small influence of the zcomponent of momentum on the band structure. Notice that in ironbased superconductors the FS can be created by more than two bands, but top/bottom of these bands can be located far from Fermi level. Thus, the twoband description of the MLT in these materials is sufficient, at least qualitatively. For a sake of simplicity and without a loss of generality, we take the dispersion relations in the form:
where E_{α} is the shift of the center of α band (α = 1, 2) with respect to the chemical potential μ (the Fermi level in absence of interaction and magnetic field) determining the band filling , while μ defines the global filling of the system . Such a form of dispersion relations leads to holelike behaviour for (−μ − E_{α}) < 0 and to electronlike behaviour for (−μ − E_{α}) > 0. Here, n_{ασ} describes the average number of particles with spin σ in band α. Because in the general case the band widths can be different, we take an additional parameter κ = t_{2}/t_{1} > 0 as the ratio between band widths in our model. Moreover, we treat as the energy unit in the system.
In the following we assume that α = 1 band is holelike band whereas α = 2 band is electronlike. This assumption helps us to reproduce the effective band structure of ironbased superconductors with holelike and electronlike bands at Γ and M points of the FBZ, respectively (a case shown in Fig. 1a). κ parameter describes the relation between the effective hole and electron effective masses (and it helps in the realization of the situation shown in Fig. 1 (panels c and d)). Moreover, adjusting κ parameter leads to consideration of a model with a band structure corresponding to realmaterial band structure reported in ARPES experiment, where bottom (top) of the electron (hole) band are closer to the Fermi level than that of the second band^{17}. This can correspond to band structure of real systems, such as FeSe system^{18} (for κ < 1) or KFe_{2}As_{2}^{51} (for κ > 1).
In the absence of coupling or at extremally weak coupling between bands, the interaction term can be written separately in the superconducting state for both bands^{52,53}, in the phenomenological BCSlike form:
where U_{α} is intraband pairing interaction in band α. In our analyses we do not consider a possibility of an occurrence of the the FFLO phase, what is a consequence of an existence of only intraband pairing^{49,54}. All other possible interactions between particles are neglected^{55}. If intersite pairing had existed the FFLO could be expected to occur in an absence of magnetic field. There is no experimental evidences for such a behaviour. Here, denotes the superconducting order parameter (SOP) in bands α = 1, 2, respectively, and Δ_{α} is an amplitude of the SOP. η_{α}(k) is a form factor^{49,54}, which describes a symmetry of the SOP and, for example, it equals 1 for swave symmetry or (cos k_{x} − cos k_{y}) for dwave symmetry. This picture describes the intraband pairing, while it can also be shown^{56} that such a formulation describes an existence of the inter and intraorbital pairing in the system. One should notice that in this paper formally two independent bands are considered, but because we treat both bands as one (twoband) system, they are coupled by the chemical potential μ and constant value of filling n.
Numerical Results
The results for a given (global) filling n are obtained by mapping of the ground state which is found by the minimization of the grand canonical potential, with respect to the SOP amplitude Δ_{0} for a fixed value of an external magnetic field h and the chemical potential μ, using the procedure described in ref. 57. Numerical calculations have been performed on the square lattice with N_{x} × N_{y} = 200 × 200 sites, what makes the finitesize effects negligible^{58}. The additional parameters E_{α} are found from the following conditions: n = 2 (corresponding to μ/t_{1} = 0) and n − n_{1} = n_{2} = 0.1, in an absence of superconductivity (i.e., for the normal state). It corresponds to the situation of almost fullyfilled holelike band and almost empty electronlike band. We choose two sets of parameters {κ, E_{1}/t_{1}, E_{2}/t_{1}} listed in Table 1, which we will denote as and in the following sections of the paper.
To study the MLT we can define the function :
where θ(ω) is the Heaviside step function, while () is the minimum (maximum) value of energy in α band for the electrons with spin σ. This function is equal 1 for energy and zero otherwise. It provides information about the existence of the FSs for a given spinband index (ασ), while the derivative,
gives the peaks of the energy ω at the MLT. Thus, the total number of the FSs in a multiband system, in a state with the Fermi level E_{F} is given as:
while a peak of at ω = E_{F} denotes the MLT.
In our case, in the absence of the interaction, the MLT limit is defined by the state with spin ↓ and maximal energy in the first band and the state with spin ↑ and minimal energy in the second band, which can be changed by parameters κ and E_{α} (α = 1, 2). It is important to emphasize that the value of E_{F} in the system with a constant value of particle filling n is a function of the magnetic field h. Moreover, E_{F} can be also modified by correlation effects (e.g. by the superconducting state), what will be discussed in the paragraph below.
In the absence of interactions, the number of free electrons with spin σ in band α is given by the simple formula,
where is the FermiDirac distribution, and σh = ±h depending on the spin direction σ. The electron densities {n_{ασ}} (7) are displayed in Fig. 2. With increasing magnetic field, the number of particles with parallel spin ↑ increases in both bands (red lines). Simultaneously, the number of particles with antiparallel spin ↓ decreases (blue line). At relatively large magnetic field, the number of particles with spin ↑ increases in the first (holelike) band and the band becomes fully filled (arrow A), while the number of particles with spin ↓ decreases and the second (electronlike) band is fully empty (arrow B). In such a case, two MLTs occur (denoted by arrows A and B). As one can notice, the sequences of MLTs depends on the ratio κ. The MLT at the narrower band occurs in lower fields than the MLT in the other band. Note that the MLT in α = 1 (2) band is related with this subband becoming completely filled by (empty for) electrons with spin ↓ (↑) at the transition.
As mentioned above, the Fermi level can be also modified by electron interactions. For the present twoband model (1) the chemical potential μ depends on U_{α} and is calculated from global condition n = 2. Notice that filling in the bands (n_{1} and n_{2}) can also be changed by interactions U_{α} (α = 1, 2) and they can differ from the values in the normal state. The consequence of this is a change of the MLT limit by U_{α}. To keep this analysis general we assume different pairing interactions U_{α} in each band. Thus, the superconductivity can vanish in each band at different magnetic fields. In other words, the system exhibits two different critical magnetic fields which are defined as the magnetic field, where SOP in band α becomes equal zero. However, critical magnetic field of the whole system is given as a bigger value from the set . The numerical results for different values of U_{α} and previously chosen parameter sets and are shown in Figs 3 and 4, respectively.
Let us describe first the results for set of the model parameters (Table 1) which are shown in Fig. 3. In the absence of the magnetic field (h = 0), relatively large interaction U_{2} leads to the standard LT, where the FS related to one of twospindegenerated bands disappears. In the presence of the magnetic field, two independent MLT occur on the phase diagram (for small h, the lower part of all panels). With increasing h the distance between these two MLT increases (the characteristic Vshape on the phase diagrams for weak h). For weak interaction U_{2}, e.g. in nonsuperconducting phase (left side of diagrams), two MLTs occur for increasing h. The fields at the MLTs are independent of U_{2} (black horizontal lines in panels a–c). The occurrence of the superconductivity in the system (in one or both bands) leads to changes of the value of magnetic field at which the MLTs take place. It is clearly seen that the MLT occurs in the neighbourhood of the upper critical field (solid dashed lines, e.g. panel e). In the central part of the phase diagrams (i.e., in the presence of strong interaction), we can observe mutual influence of the magnetic field and electron pairing interactions on the MLT. As its consequence, the MLT line strongly depends on the parameters of the model (compare with e.g. Fig. 4d). Notice that all transitions related to the disappearance of superconductivity at each band are associated with a discontinuous change of the SOP in the corresponding band. As a consequence of that fact we can observe sharp corners of the MLT lines occurring in the neighbourhood of these discontinuous transitions.
One observes that the results for set of the model parameters, see Table 1, shown in Fig. 4 are qualitatively the same. In that case the electronlike band (i.e., the second band α = 2) is wider. Notice that in Fig. 4 the parameters U_{1} and U_{2} are interchanged and values of U_{1}/t are on the horizontal axes of the diagrams.
The most important problem related to the experimental results is the location of MLT on magnetic field h versus temperature T phase diagram. Such diagrams for set of the model parameters and fixed values of pairing interactions (U_{1}/t_{1}, U_{2}/t_{1}) are shown in Fig. 5. The choice of particular values of (U_{1}/t_{1}, U_{2}/t_{1}) in Fig. 5 are motivated by the existence of the same critical magnetic field for both bands. Such a choice of parameters leads to the same critical temperatures for both bands approximately^{56}. For relatively weak interactions (panels a and b) one can find only one MLT in the superconducting phase. This transition, associated with a change of the number of FSs in the system from 4 to 3, exists near critical magnetic field. Increasing the interactions (panels c and d) leads to the shift of that MLT to lower magnetic fields and an occurrence of second MLT slightly above (panel c) or in the superconducting region itself (panel d). The second MLT transition is associated with a change of the number of FSs in the system from 3 to 2. It should be stressed that temperature has a relatively small influence on the location of the first MLT in the superconducting phase. However, in the presence of strong interactions the second MLT can be strongly modified due to the interplay of superconducting state, high magnetic field, and temperature effects. One should remark that the transitions related to the disappearance of superconductivity change their order from firstorder (at lower temperatures) into secondorder (at higher temperatures) at the points denoted by starsymbols in Fig. 5, located approximately at temperature equal to a half of the critical temperature for each band in an absence of magnetic field (also cf. ref. 48).
Notice that the choice of concentration n_{1} and n_{2} in both bands as well as total concentration n were arbitrary and in the general case it can be different. If n_{1} were chosen smaller, the magnetic field at which the MLT occurs would also be smaller.
Discussion and Summary
In this paper, we have studied the specific type of the Lifshitz transition induced by the external magnetic field, which we call the magnetic Lifshitz transition (MLT). We have discussed the mutual enhancement of the MLT and superconductivity in a twoband system, using the effective description of the ironbased materials in the twoband model with electronlike and holelike bands. The effective band model is simplified here in order to gain a transparent physical insight and to avoid complicated details which would not be relevant for the MLT. Analysis of a more, complex orbital model of ironbased superconductors, including the hybridization and Hund’s coupling, is possible but it would complicate the description of the studied system, not giving an advantage to the understanding of the phenomenon. Our results show that in this system, for the well defined model parameters, we can identify two MLTs. They depend strongly on the band widths ratio. The limit of the MLT can be modified by the pairing interaction in both bands but there is small influence of the temperature on the MLT occurrence. Notice that values of magnetic field at which MLTs occur depend on the distance between top/bottom of the bands and on the total electron number (Fermi level).
We have shown that the MLT can be realised in the systems, where bottom (top) of the electron (hole) band are placed near the Fermi level. The model considered here reproduces characteristic band structure of the ironbased superconductors^{17}, where holelike and electronlike bands form around the Γ and M points, respectively (in the first Brillouin zone). The chosen sets of the model parameters in Table 1 can be connected with FeSe^{18} (in case of set ) or Codoped BaFe_{2}As_{2}^{51} compounds (for set ). Moreover, our resulting magnetic field versus temperature phase diagrams show rather weak influence of the temperature on the first MLT in the superconducting regime. This result can be explicitly connected with the experimental observations for FeSe, where at low temperatures and high magnetic fields the additional phase transition within the superconducting dome can be observed^{18}. On the other hand, both classes of iron based superconductors (11 and 122 family) show properties typical for a realisation the FuldeFerrellLarkinOvchinnikov phase^{59}. In this context, further studies concerning possibilities of the occurrence of the FuldeFerrellLarkinOvchinnikov phase and the MLT (as well as the interplay of these two phenomena) are important.
It should be noted that HartreeFock mean field approximation used in this work in general case overestimates critical temperatures and can give an incorrect description of the phases with a longrange order. However, the approximation gives at least qualitative description of the system in the ground state, even in the strong coupling limit^{29}. Our results are obtained for three dimensional system in which the cylindrical dispersion relation are present. As a result, effective system consists of noninteracting two dimensional planes. In such a two dimensional system the upper boundary for superconductivity is the KosterlitzThouless temperature, which is about ≈75% of the critical temperatures obtained in the meanfield approximation (in the range of model parameters considered)^{60}. In real layered materials between weak but finite coupling between planes the real value of the temperature, where superconductivity vanishes is located between these two limits. However, it does not change the qualitative behaviour of the magnetic Lifshitz transition inside the region of superconducting phases occurrence, which is presented in this study.
In this paper, we have discussed the role of pairing interactions on the magnetic Lifshitz transition. Although, the interactions between orbitals cannot be tuned in condensed matter systems, a realisation of MLT and investigation of its properties can be performed experimentally with ultracold atomic Fermi gases in optical lattices^{61,62,63}. However, at this time it is still an experimental challenge.
Additional Information
How to cite this article: Ptok, A. et al. Magnetic Lifshitz transition and its consequences in multiband ironbased superconductors. Sci. Rep. 7, 41979; doi: 10.1038/srep41979 (2017).
Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
 1.
Lifshitz, I. M. Anomalies of electron characteristics of a metal in the high pressure region. Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 38, 1569 (1960), Sov. Phys. JETP 11, 1130–1135 (1960).
 2.
Daou, R., Bergemann, C. & Julian, S. R. Continuous evolution of the Fermi surface of CeRu_{2}Si_{2} across the metamagnetic transition. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 026401, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.026401, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.026401 (2006).
 3.
Bercx, M. & Assaad, F. F. Metamagnetism and Lifshitz transitions in models for heavy fermions. Phys. Rev. B 86, 075108, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.86.075108, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.86.075108 (2012).
 4.
Pfau, H. et al. Interplay between Kondo suppression and Lifshitz transitions in YbRh_{2}Si_{2} at high magnetic fields. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 256403, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.256403, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.256403 (2013).
 5.
Aoki, D. et al. Fieldinduced Lifshitz transition without metamagnetism in CeIrIn_{5}. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 037202, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.037202, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.037202 (2016).
 6.
Liu, C. et al. Evidence for a Lifshitz transition in electrondoped iron arsenic superconductors at the onset of superconductivity. Nat. Phys. 6, 419, doi: 10.1038/nphys1656, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys1656 (2010).
 7.
Nakayama, K. et al. Universality of superconducting gaps in overdoped Ba_{0.3}K_{0.7}Fe_{2}As_{2} observed by angleresolved photoemission spectroscopy. Phys. Rev. B 83, 020501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.83.020501, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.83.020501 (2011).
 8.
Malaeb, W. et al. Abrupt change in the energy gap of superconducting Ba_{1−x}K_{x}Fe_{2}As_{2} single crystals with hole doping. Phys. Rev. B 86, 165117, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.86.165117, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.86.165117 (2012).
 9.
Xu, N. et al. Possible nodal superconducting gap and Lifshitz transition in heavily holedoped Ba_{0.1}K_{0.9}Fe_{2}As_{2}. Phys. Rev. B 88, 220508, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.88.220508, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.88.220508 (2013).
 10.
Khan, S. N. & Johnson, D. D. Lifshitz transition and chemical instabilities in Ba_{1−x}K_{x}Fe_{2}As_{2} superconductors. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 156401, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.156401, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.156401 (2014).
 11.
Liu, Y. & Lograsso, T. A. Crossover in the magnetic response of singlecrystalline Ba_{1−x}K_{x}Fe_{2}As_{2} and Lifshitz critical point evidenced by hall effect measurements. Phys. Rev. B 90, 224508, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.90.224508, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.224508 (2014).
 12.
Rodriguez, J. P. Collective mode at Lifshitz transition in ironpnictide superconductors. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 28, 375701, doi: 10.1088/0953–8984/28/37/375701, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/09538984/28/37/375701 (2016).
 13.
Norman, M. R., Lin, J. & Millis, A. J. Lifshitz transition in underdoped cuprates. Phys. Rev. B 81, 180513, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.81.180513, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.81.180513 (2010).
 14.
LeBoeuf, D. et al. Lifshitz critical point in the cuprate superconductor Yba_{2}Cu_{3}O_{y} from highfield Hall effect measurements. Phys. Rev. B 83, 054506, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.83.054506, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.83.054506 (2011).
 15.
Benhabib, S. et al. Collapse of the normalstate pseudogap at a Lifshitz transition in the Bi_{2}Sr_{2}CaCu_{2}O_{8+δ} cuprate superconductor. Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 147001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.147001, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.147001 (2015).
 16.
Okamoto, Y., Nishio, A. & Hiroi, Z. Discontinuous Lifshitz transition achieved by bandfilling control in Na_{x}CoO_{2}. Phys. Rev. B 81, 121102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.81.121102, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.81.121102 (2010).
 17.
Kordyuk, A. A. Ironbased superconductors: Magnetism, superconductivity, and electronic structure (Review Article). Low Temp. Phys. 38, 888, doi: 10.1063/1.4752092, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4752092 (2012).
 18.
Kasahara, S. et al. Fieldinduced superconducting phase of FeSe in the BCSBEC crossover. PNAS 111, 16309, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1413477111, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1413477111 (2014).
 19.
Harrison, N. et al. Fermi surface of CeIn_{3} above the Néel critical field. Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 056401, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.056401, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.056401 (2007).
 20.
Schlottmann, P. Lifshitz transition with interactions in high magnetic fields. Phys. Rev. B 83, 115133, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.83.115133, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.83.115133 (2011).
 21.
Dagotto, E. Colloquium: The unexpected properties of alkali metal iron selenide superconductors. Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 849, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.85.849, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.85.849 (2013).
 22.
de’Medici, L., Giovannetti, G. & Capone, M. Selective Mott physics as a key to iron superconductors. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 177001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.177001, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.177001 (2014).
 23.
Robaszkiewicz, S., Micnas, R. & Chao, K. A. Hartree theory for the negativeU extended Hubbard model: Ground state. Phys. Rev. B 24, 4018, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.24.4018, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.24.4018 (1981).
 24.
Robaszkiewicz, S., Micnas, R. & Chao, K. A. Hartree theory for the negativeU extended Hubbard model. II. Finite temperature. Phys. Rev. B 26, 3915, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.26.3915, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.26.3915 (1982).
 25.
Robaszkiewicz, S., Micnas, R. & Ranninger, J. Superconductivity in the generalized periodic Anderson model with strong local attraction. Phys. Rev. B 36, 180, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.36.180, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.36.180 (1987).
 26.
Domański, T. & Ranninger, J. Nonlinear feedback effects in coupled bosonfermion systems. Phys. Rev. B 63, 134505, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.63.134505, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.63.134505 (2001).
 27.
Domański, T. & Ranninger, J. Interplay between singleparticle and collective features in the boson fermion model. Phys. Rev. B 70, 184503, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.70.184503, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.70.184503 (2004).
 28.
Chen, Q., Stajic, J., Tan, S. & Levin, K. BCSBEC crossover: From high temperature superconductors to ultracold superfluids. Physics Reports 412, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.02.005, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2005.02.005 (2005).
 29.
Micnas, R., Ranninger, J. & Robaszkiewicz, S. Superconductivity in narrowband systems with local nonretarded attractive interactions. Rev. Mod. Phys. 62, 113, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.62.113, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.62.113 (1990).
 30.
Kapcia, K., Robaszkiewicz, S. & Micnas, R. Phase separation in a lattice model of a superconductor with pair hopping. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 24, 215601, doi: 10.1088/0953–8984/24/21/215601, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/09538984/24/21/215601 (2012).
 31.
Kapcia, K. & Robaszkiewicz, S. The magnetic field induced phase separation in a model of a superconductor with local electron pairing. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 25, 065603, doi: 10.1088/0953–8984/25/6/065603, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/09538984/24/21/215601 (2013).
 32.
Leggett, A. J. Cooper pairing in spinpolarized Fermi systems. Le Journal de Physique Colloques 41, C7–19, doi: 10.1051/jphyscol:1980704, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/jphyscol:1980704 (1980).
 33.
Bianconi, A., Valletta, A., Perali, A. & Saini, N. L. Superconductivity of a striped phase at the atomic limit. Physica C 296, 269, doi: 10.1016/S0921–4534(97)01825–X, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S09214534(97)01825X (1998).
 34.
Iskin, M. & Sá de Melo, C. A. R. Twoband superfluidity from the BCS to the BEC limit. Phys. Rev. B 74, 144517, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.74.144517, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.74.144517 (2006).
 35.
Iskin, M. & Sá de Melo, C. A. R. Evolution of twoband superfluidity from weak to strong coupling. J. Low Temp. Phys. 149, 29, doi: 10.1007/s10909–007–9494–7, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s1090900794947 (2007).
 36.
Guidini, A. & Perali, A. Bandedge BCSBEC crossover in a twoband superconductor: physical properties and detection parameters. Supercond. Sci. Tech. 27, 124002, doi: 10.1088/0953–2048/27/12/124002, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/09532048/27/12/124002 (2014).
 37.
Guidini, A., Flammia, L., Milošević, M. V. & Perali, A. BCSBEC crossover in quantum confined superconductors. J. Supercond. Nov. Magn. 29, 711, doi: 10.1007/s10948–015–3308–y, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s109480153308y (2016).
 38.
Lubashevsky, Y., Lahoud, E., Chashka, K., Podolsky, D. & Kanigel, A. Shallow pockets and very strong coupling superconductivity in FeSe_{x}Te_{1−x}. Nat. Phys. 8, 309, doi: 10.1038/nphys2216, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys2216 (2012).
 39.
Chubukov, A. V., Eremin, I. & Efremov, D. V. Superconductivity versus boundstate formation in a twoband superconductor with small fermi energy: Applications to Fe pnictides/chalcogenides and doped SrTiO_{3}. Phys. Rev. B 93, 174516, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.93.174516, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.93.174516 (2016).
 40.
Bianconi, A. Quantum materials: Shape resonances in superstripes. Nat. Phys. 9, 536, doi: 10.1038/nphys2738, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys2738 (2013).
 41.
Kagan, M. Y. Unconventional superconductivity in low density electron systems and conventional superconductivity in hydrogen metallic alloys. JETP Letters 103, 728, doi: 10.1134/S0021364016110059, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S0021364016110059 (2016).
 42.
Maki, K. Effect of Pauli paramagnetism on magnetic properties of highfield superconductors. Phys. Rev. 148, 362, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.148.362, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.148.362 (1966).
 43.
Kida, T. et al. Upper critical fields of the 11system ironchalcogenide superconductor FeSe_{0.25}Te_{0.75}. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 78, 113701, doi: 10.1143/JPSJ.78.113701, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.78.113701 (2009).
 44.
Lei, H. et al. Iron chalcogenide superconductors at high magnetic fields. Sci. Tech. Adv. Mater. 13, 054305, doi: 10.1088/1468–6996/13/5/054305, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/14686996/13/5/054305 (2012).
 45.
Audouard, A. et al. Quantum oscillations and upper critical magnetic field of the ironbased superconductor FeSe. EPL 109, 27003, doi: 10.1209/0295–5075/109/27003, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1209/02955075/109/27003 (2015).
 46.
Fulde, P. & Ferrell, R. A. Superconductivity in a strong spinexchange field. Phys. Rev. 135, A550–A563, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.135.A550, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.135.A550 (1964).
 47.
Larkin, A. I. & Ovchinnikov, Y. N. Nonuniform state of superconductors. Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 47, 1136 (1964), Sov. Phys. JETP 20, 762 (1965).
 48.
Matsuda, Y. & Shimahara, H. FuldeFerrellLarkinOvchinnikov state in heavy fermion superconductors. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 76, 051005, doi: 10.1143/JPSJ.76.051005, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.76.051005 (2007).
 49.
Ptok, A. & Crivelli, D. The FuldeFerrellLarkinOvchinnikov state in pnictides. J. Low Temp. Phys. 172, 226, doi: 10.1007/s10909–013–0871–0, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s1090901308710 (2013).
 50.
Liu, X. et al. Electronic structure and superconductivity of FeSerelated superconductors. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 27, 183201, doi: 10.1088/0953–8984/27/18/183201, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/09538984/27/18/183201 (2015).
 51.
Terashima, K. et al. Fermi surface nesting induced strong pairing in ironbased superconductors. PNAS 106, 7330, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0900469106, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900469106 (2009).
 52.
Barzykin, V. Magneticfieldinduced gapless state in multiband superconductors. Phys. Rev. B 79, 134517, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.79.134517, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.79.134517 (2009).
 53.
Hirschfeld, P. J., Korshunov, M. M. & Mazin, I. I. Gap symmetry and structure of febased superconductors. Rep. Prog. Phys. 74, 124508, doi: 10.1088/0034–4885/74/12/124508, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/00344885/74/12/124508 (2011).
 54.
Ptok, A., Crivelli, D. & Kapcia, K. J. Change of the sign of superconducting intraband order parameters induced by interband pair hopping interaction in ironbased hightemperature superconductors. Supercond. Sci. Technol. 28, 045010, doi: 10.1088/0953–2048/28/4/045010, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/09532048/28/4/045010 (2015).
 55.
Nicholson, A. et al. Competing pairing symmetries in a generalized twoorbital model for the pnictide superconductors. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 217002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.217002, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.217002 (2011).
 56.
Ptok, A. Influence of s_{±} symmetry on unconventional superconductivity in pnictides above the Pauli limit  twoband model study. Eur. Phys. J. B 87, 2, doi: 10.1140/epjb/e2013–41007–2, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjb/e2013410072 (2014).
 57.
Januszewski, M., Ptok, A., Crivelli, D. & Gardas, B. GPUbased acceleration of free energy calculations in solid state physics. Comput. Phys. Commun. 192, 220, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.02.012, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2015.02.012 (2015).
 58.
Ptok, A. & Crivelli, D. Influence of finite size effects on the FuldeFerrellLarkinOvchinnikov state. Communications in Computational Physics, 21, 748, doi: 10.4208/cicp.OA20160041, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.4208/cicp.OA20160041 (2017).
 59.
Ptok, A. Multiple phase transitions in Paulilimited ironbased superconductors. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 27, 482001, doi: 10.1088/0953–8984/27/48/482001, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/09538984/27/48/482001 (2015).
 60.
Denteneer, P. J. H., An, G. & van Leeuwen, J. M. J. Helicity modulus in the twodimensional Hubbard model. Phys. Rev. B 47, 6256, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.47.6256, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.47.6256 (1993).
 61.
Köhl, M., Moritz, H., Stöferle, T., Günter, K. & Esslinger, T. Fermionic atoms in a three dimensional optical lattice: Observing fermi surfaces, dynamics, and interactions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 080403, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.080403, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.080403 (2005).
 62.
Ospelkaus, S., Ospelkaus, C., Humbert, L., Sengstock, K. & Bongs, K. Tuning of heteronuclear interactions in a degenerate FermiBose mixture. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 120403, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.120403, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.120403 (2006).
 63.
Dutta, O. et al. Nonstandard Hubbard models in optical lattices: A review. Rep. Prog. Phys. 78, 066001, doi: 10.1088/0034–4885/78/6/066001, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/00344885/78/6/066001 (2015).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Large Infrastructures for Research, Experimental Development and Innovations project “IT4Innovations National Supercomputing Center — LM2015070” of the Czech Republic Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports. The support by Narodowe Centrum Nauki (NCN, National Science Centre, Poland), Project No. 2016/20/S/ST3/00274 (A.P.) and Project No. 2012/04/A/ST3/00331 (A.M.O. and P.P.) is also kindly acknowledged.
Author information
Affiliations
Institute of Physics, Maria CurieSkłodowska University, Plac M. SkłodowskiejCurie 1, PL20031 Lublin, Poland
 Andrzej Ptok
Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, ul. E. Radzikowskiego 152, PL31342 Kraków, Poland
 Andrzej Ptok
 & Przemysław Piekarz
Institute of Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Aleja Lotników 32/46, PL02668 Warsaw, Poland
 Konrad J. Kapcia
Institut für Physik, Johannes GutenbergUniversität Mainz, Staudingerweg 9, D55099 Mainz, Germany
 Agnieszka Cichy
Marian Smoluchowski Institute of Physics, Jagiellonian University, ul. prof. S. Łojasiewicza 11, PL30348 Kraków, Poland
 Andrzej M. Oleś
Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research, Heisenbergstrasse 1, D70569 Stuttgart, Germany
 Andrzej M. Oleś
Authors
Search for Andrzej Ptok in:
Search for Konrad J. Kapcia in:
Search for Agnieszka Cichy in:
Search for Andrzej M. Oleś in:
Search for Przemysław Piekarz in:
Contributions
A.P. arranged the project and performed numerical calculation. All authors analysed and discussed the results. A.C. consulted the results in the context of the BCSBEC crossover. The first version of the manuscript was prepared by A.P. and K.J.K. All authors reviewed and contributed to the final manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Andrzej Ptok.
Rights and permissions
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
About this article
Further reading

Lifshitz transition in new doped 112 superconductors
Intermetallics (2019)

Orbital selective bandwidth renormalization, Lifshitz transition in Rare Earth doped 112 iron based superconductors
Computational Materials Science (2019)

Particle–Hole Transformation in StronglyDoped IronBased Superconductors
Symmetry (2019)

Evolution of the lowtemperature Fermi surface of superconducting FeSe1−xSx across a nematic phase transition
npj Quantum Materials (2019)

Orbital Symmetry and Orbital Excitations in HighTc Superconductors
Condensed Matter (2019)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.