format: text

text:
# Generalized additive bases, König’s lemma, and the Erdős-Turán conjecture11footnote 12000 Mathematics Subject Classification: 11B13, 11B34, 11B05. Key words and phrases. Additive bases, sumsets, representation functions, Erdős-Turán conjecture, König’s lemma.

## 1 Representation functions and the Erdős-Turán conjecture

Let $`𝐍_0`$ and $`𝐙`$ denote the nonnegative integers and integers, respectively. Let $`A`$ be a finite set of integers. We denote the largest element of $`A`$ by $`\mathrm{max}(A)`$ and the cardinality of $`A`$ by $`\mathrm{card}(A)`$. For any real numbers $`a`$ and $`b`$, we denote by $`[a,b]`$ the finite set of integers $`n`$ such that $`anb.`$

For any set $`A`$ of integers, we denote by $`r_A(n,h)`$ the number of representations of $`n`$ in the form $`n=a_1+a_2+\mathrm{}+a_h,`$ where $`a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_hA`$ and $`a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_h.`$ The function $`r_A`$ is called the unordered representation function of the set $`A`$, or, simply, the representation function of $`A`$.

The set $`A`$ of nonnegative integers is called a basis of order $`h`$ if every nonnegative integer can be represented as the sum of $`h`$ not necessarily distinct elements of $`A`$. If $`A`$ is a basis of order $`h`$ with representation function $`r_A,`$ then

$$1r_A(n,h)<\mathrm{}$$

for all nonnegative integers $`n`$. We call $`A`$ an asymptotic basis of order $`h`$ if $`r_A(n,h)=0`$ for only finitely many $`n𝐍_0.`$ If $`h2`$ and $`f:𝐍_0𝐍_0`$ is any function such that $`\mathrm{card}(f^1(0))<\mathrm{}`$, then the representation function problem is to determine if there exists a set $`A`$ of nonnegative integers such that $`r_A(n,h)=f(n)`$ for all $`n0`$.

In the case of additive bases for the set of all integers, Nathanson  proved that every function is a representation function, that is, if $`f:𝐙𝐍_0\{\mathrm{}\}`$ satisfies the condition $`\mathrm{card}(f^1(0))<\mathrm{}`$, then for every $`h2`$ there exists a set $`A`$ of integers such that $`r_A(n,h)=f(n)`$ for every integer $`n`$.

A special case of the representation function problem for nonnegative integers with $`h=2`$ is the conjecture of Erdős and Turán  that the representation function $`r_A(n,2)`$ of an asymptotic basis $`A`$ of order 2 must be unbounded, that is,

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}r_A(n,2)>0\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}r_A(n,2)=\mathrm{}.$$

This is an important unsolved problem in additive number theory.

Dowd  and Grekos, Haddad, Helou, and Pikho  have given various equivalent formulations of the Erdős-Turán conjecture. In particular, Dowd proved that there exists a set $`A`$ of nonnegative integers and a number $`c`$ such that $`r_A(n,2)[1,c]`$ for all nonnegative integers $`n`$ if and only if for every $`N`$ there exists a finite set $`A_N`$ of nonnegative integers with $`\mathrm{max}(A_N)N`$ and $`r_A(n,2)[1,c]`$ for all $`n=0,1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{max}(A_N).`$ In this paper we apply Dowd’s method to obtain similar results for a new class of generalized additive bases.

## 2 Generalized additive bases

We extend the idea of an additive basis of order $`h`$ as follows: Let $`=\{H_n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a sequence of nonempty finite sets of positive integers. For any set $`A`$ of nonnegative integers, we define the representation function

$$r_A(n,H_n)=\underset{h_nH_n}{}r_A(n,h_n).$$

The set $`A`$ of nonnegative integers will be called a basis of order $``$ if

$$r_A(n,H_n)1$$
(1)
for all $`n0,`$ and an asymptotic basis of order $``$ if the representation function satisfies (1) for all sufficiently large $`n`$.

Let $`=\{R_n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a sequence of nonempty finite sets of positive integers. If

$$r_A(n,H_n)R_n$$
(2)
for every nonnegative integer $`n`$, then $`A`$ will be called an $``$-basis of order $``$. Since each $`R_n`$ is a nonempty set of positive integers, it follows that every $``$-basis of order $``$ is a basis of order $``$. We shall call the set $`A`$ an asymptotic $``$-basis of order $``$ if (2) holds for all sufficiently large $`n`$.

For any sequences $`=\{H_n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`=\{R_n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of nonempty finite sets of positive integers, we can ask if there exists an $``$-basis of order $``$ or an asymptotic $``$-basis of order $``$. This is the generalized representation function problem. The original Erdős-Turán conjecture corresponds to the special case $`H_n=\{2\}`$ and $`R_n=[1,c]`$ for all $`n0`$. It is an open problem to determine the number of distinct $``$-bases of order $``$ and asymptotic $``$-bases of order $``$ for a given pair of sequences $``$ and $`.`$

Let $`h2`$ and let $`f`$ be a function such that $`f(n)`$ is a positive integer for every nonnegative integer $`n.`$ We introduce the sets $`H_n=\{h\}`$ and $`R_n=\{f(n)\}`$ for all $`n`$, and the sequences $`=\{H_n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`=\{R_n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$. Then an $``$-basis of order $``$ is a basis $`A`$ of order $`h`$ whose representation function satisfies $`r_A(n,h)=f(n)`$ for all $`n𝐍_0`$, and so the representation function problem for bases of order $`h`$ is a special case of the generalized representation function problem.

An $``$-basis of order $``$ is not necessarily infinite. For example, if $`H_0=R_0=\{1\}`$ and if $`H_n=\{n\}`$ and $`1R_n`$ for all $`n1,`$ then the set $`\{0,1\}`$ is an $``$-basis of order $``$.

###### Theorem 1

Let $`=\{H_n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a sequence of nonempty finite sets of positive integers. There exists a finite set $`A`$ that is a basis of order $``$ or an asymptotic basis of order $``$ if and only if

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\frac{\mathrm{max}(H_n)}{n}>0.$$

Proof. Let $`h_n^{}=\mathrm{max}(H_n).`$ Let $`A`$ be a finite set of nonnegative integers that is a basis of order $``$. Then $`0,1A`$ and so $`\mathrm{max}(A)1.`$ Every positive integer $`n`$ can be represented as the sum of $`h_n`$ elements of $`A`$ for some $`h_nH_n,`$ and so

$$nh_n\mathrm{max}(A)h_n^{}\mathrm{max}(A).$$

It follows that

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\frac{h_n^{}}{n}\frac{1}{\mathrm{max}(A)}>0.$$

Conversely, if $`lim\; inf_n\mathrm{}h_n^{}/n>0,`$ then there exists a positive integer $`m`$ such that

$$h_n^{}\frac{n}{m}$$

for all $`n0`$. Consider the finite set $`A=[0,m].`$ By the division algorithm, every positive integer $`n`$ can be written in the form $`n=qm+r,`$ where $`q`$ and $`r`$ are nonnegative integers and $`0rm1.`$ If $`r=0,`$ then $`q=n/mh_n^{}`$ and

$$n=qm+(h_n^{}q)0h_n^{}A.$$

If $`1rm1,`$ then $`q=(nr)/m<h_n^{}`$. Since $`h_n^{}`$ and $`q`$ are integers, it follows that $`h_n^{}q+1`$ and

$$n=qm+1r+(h_n^{}q1)0h_n^{}A.$$

In both cases, $`r_A(n,H_n)r_A(n,h_n^{})1`$, and the finite set $`A`$ is a basis of order $``$.

If $`A`$ is an asymptotic basis of order $`,`$ then $`r_A(n,H_n)=0`$ for only finitely many $`n𝐍_0,`$ and so there is a finite set $`F`$ of nonnegative integers such that $`AF`$ is a basis of order $``$. Therefore, there exists a finite set that is a basis of order $``$ if and only if there exists a finite set that is an asymptotic basis of order $``$. This completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`=\{H_n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`=\{R_n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be sequences of nonempty finite sets of positive integers. A nonempty finite set $`A`$ of nonnegative integers will be called a finite basis of order $``$ if

$$r_A(n,H_n)1$$

for all $`n[0,\mathrm{max}(A)]`$, and a finite $``$-basis of order $``$ if

$$r_A(n,H_n)R_n$$

for all $`n[0,\mathrm{max}(A)]`$.

###### Theorem 2

Let $`=\{H_n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`=\{R_n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be sequences of nonempty finite sets of positive integers.

1. If $`A`$ is a basis of order $``$, or if $`A`$ is a finite basis of order $``$ with $`\mathrm{max}(A)1,`$ then $`0,1A.`$
2. If $`A`$ is an $``$-basis of order $``$ or if $`A`$ is a finite $``$-basis of order $``$ with $`\mathrm{max}(A)1,`$ then $`\mathrm{card}(H_0)R_0`$ and $`\mathrm{card}(H_1)R_1`$.
3. If $`A`$ is an $``$-basis of order $``$, then $`A_N=A[0,N]`$ is a finite $``$-basis of order $``$ for every $`N0.`$
4. If $`A\{0\}`$ is a finite $``$-basis of order $``$, then $`F^{}=F\{\mathrm{max}(F)\}`$ is also a finite $``$-basis of order $``$.

Proof. To prove (i) and (ii), we observe that if $`r_A(0,H_0)1`$, then $`0A.`$ If $`r_A(1,H_1)1`$, then $`1A.`$ Since, for every $`h1,`$ both 0 and 1 have unique representations as sums of exactly $`h`$ nonnegative integers, it follows that if $`r_A(0,H_0)R_0,`$ then

$$r_A(0,H_0)=\underset{h_0H_0}{}r_A(0,h_0)=\underset{h_0H_0}{}1=\mathrm{card}(H_0)R_0.$$

Similarly, if $`r_A(1,H_1)R_1,`$ then

$$r_A(1,H_1)=\mathrm{card}(H_1)R_1.$$

The statements (iii) and (iv) follow immediately from the definition of a finite basis. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 König’s lemma

The principal tool in this paper is König’s lemma on the existence of infinite paths in trees. For completeness, we include a short proof below.

A graph $`G`$ consists of a nonempty set $`\{v\}`$, whose elements are called vertices, and a set $`\{e\}`$, whose elements are called edges. Each edge is a set $`e=\{v,v^{}\}`$, where $`v`$ and $`v^{}`$ are vertices and $`vv^{}.`$ Thus, we are considering only graphs without loops or multiple edges.

We use the following terminology. The vertices $`v`$ and $`v^{}`$ are called adjacent if $`\{v,v^{}\}`$ is an edge. The degree of a vertex $`v`$ is the number of edges $`e`$ with $`ve`$. A path in $`G`$ from vertex $`v`$ to vertex $`v^{}`$ is a sequence of vertices $`v_0,v_1,v_2,\mathrm{},v_n`$ such that $`v_0=v`$, $`v_n=v^{}`$, and $`v_{i1}`$ is adjacent to $`v_i`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. We define the length of this path by $`n`$. The graph $`G`$ is connected if for every two vertices $`v`$ and $`v^{}`$ with $`vv^{}`$ there is a path from $`v`$ to $`v^{}.`$ A graph is connected if and only if, for some vertex $`v_0`$, there is a path from $`v_0`$ to $`v`$ for every vertex $`vv_0`$.

A simple path in $`G`$ is a path whose vertices are pairwise distinct. A simple circuit is a sequence of vertices $`v_0,v_1,v_2,\mathrm{},v_n`$ such that $`n3`$, $`\{v_{i1},v_i\}`$ is an edge for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, $`v_iv_j`$ for $`0i<jn1`$, and $`v_0=v_n`$. A graph $`G`$ has no simple circuits if and only, for every pair of distinct vertices $`v`$ and $`v^{}`$, there is at most one simple path from $`v`$ to $`v^{}`$. An infinite simple path is an infinite sequence of pairwise distinct vertices $`v_0,v_1,v_2,\mathrm{}`$ such that $`v_{i1}`$ is adjacent to $`v_i`$ for all $`i1`$.

A tree is a connected graph with no simple circuits. A rooted tree is a tree with a distinguished vertex, called the root of the tree. In a rooted tree, for every vertex $`v`$ different from the root, there is a unique simple path in the tree from the root to $`v`$.

###### Theorem 3 (König’s lemma)

If $`T`$ is a rooted tree with infinitely many vertices such that every vertex has finite degree, then $`T`$ contains an infinite simple path beginning at the root.

Proof. Let $`v_0`$ be the root of the tree. We use induction to prove that for every $`n`$ there is a simple path $`v_0,v_1,\mathrm{},v_n`$ such that the tree $`T`$ contains infinitely many vertices $`v`$ for which the unique simple path from the root $`v_0`$ to $`v`$ begins with the vertices $`v_0,v_1,\mathrm{},v_n.`$ Since $`T`$ has infinitely many vertices, the root $`v_0`$ satisfies this condition.

Let $`n1,`$ and assume that we have constructed a simple path $`v_0,v_1,\mathrm{},v_{n1}`$ of vertices of the tree $`T`$ with the property that $`T`$ contains an infinite set $`I_{n1}`$ of vertices such that, for every $`vI_{n1}`$, the unique simple path from $`v_0`$ to $`v`$ passes through vertex $`v_{n1}.`$ Since the degree of $`v_{n1}`$ is finite, the set $`F_n`$ of vertices $`vv_{n2}`$ that are adjacent to $`v_{n1}`$ is a finite set. For every vertex $`vI_{n1}`$, there is a unique simple path in $`T`$ that begins at $`v_0`$, passes through $`v_{n1}`$ and exactly one of the vertices in $`F_n`$, and ends at $`v`$. By the pigeonhole principle, since $`I_{n1}`$ is infinite, there is a vertex $`v_nF_n`$ and an infinite set $`I_nI_{n1}`$ of vertices such that, for every $`vI_n`$, the unique path from $`v_0`$ to $`v`$ passes through $`v_n.`$ This completes the induction. The vertices $`v_0,v_1,v_2,\mathrm{}`$ are pairwise distinct, and $`v_0,v_1,v_2,\mathrm{}`$ is an infinite simple path in $`T`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 The generalized representation function problem

In this section we prove that there exists an infinite $``$-basis of order $``$ if and only if there exist arbitrarily large finite $``$-bases of order $``$.

###### Theorem 4

Let $`=\{R_n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`=\{H_n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be sequences of nonempty finite sets of positive integers such that

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{max}(H_n)}{n}=0.$$
(3)
There exists an $``$-basis $`A`$ of order $``$ if and only if for every $`N`$ there exists a finite $``$-basis $`A_N`$ of order $``$ with $`\mathrm{max}(A_N)N.`$

Proof. If $`A`$ is a $``$-basis of order $``$, then, by (3) and Theorem 1, the set $`A`$ is infinite, hence for every $`N`$ there is an integer $`a(N)A`$ with $`a(N)N.`$ By Theorem 2, the set $`A_N=A[0,a(N)]`$ is a finite $``$-basis of order $``$ with $`\mathrm{max}(A_N)N.`$

Conversely, suppose that for every $`N`$ there exists a finite $``$-basis $`A_N`$ of order $``$ with $`\mathrm{max}(A_N)N.`$ If $`N1,`$ then $`0,1A_N`$ and the sets $`\{0\}`$ and $`\{0,1\}`$ are finite $``$-bases of order $``$.

We construct the graph $`T`$ whose vertices are the finite $``$-bases of order $``$. This graph has infinitely many vertices, since there are finite $``$-bases of order $``$ with arbitrarily large maximum elements.

Vertices $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ will be called adjacent in this graph if $`V^{}V`$ and $`VV^{}=\{\mathrm{max}(V)\}.`$ The sets $`\{0\}`$ and $`\{0,1\}`$ are adjacent vertices of this graph, and $`\{0,1\}`$ is the only vertex adjacent to $`\{0\}.`$ If $`V`$ is a vertex and $`\mathrm{card}(V)2,`$ then it follows from Theorem 2 that $`V^{}=V\{\mathrm{max}(V)\}`$ is a vertex. Moreover, $`V^{}`$ is the unique vertex adjacent to $`V`$ in $`T`$ such that $`\mathrm{card}(V^{})=\mathrm{card}(V)1`$. If $`V^{\prime \prime }`$ is adjacent to $`V`$ and $`V^{\prime \prime }V^{}`$, then $`V=V^{\prime \prime }\{\mathrm{max}(V^{\prime \prime })\}`$ and $`\mathrm{card}(V^{\prime \prime })=\mathrm{card}(V)+1.`$

We shall prove that $`T`$ is a rooted tree with root $`V_0=\{0\}`$. Let $`V=\{a_0,a_1,\mathrm{},a_n\}`$ be a vertex, where $`0=a_0<a_1<\mathrm{}<a_n.`$ For every $`k=0,1,\mathrm{},n,`$ the set $`V_k=\{a_0,a_1,\mathrm{},a_k\}`$ is a finite $``$-basis of order $``$, hence is a vertex of $`T`$. Then $`V_0=\{0\}`$, $`V_n=V,`$ and $`V_0,V_1,\mathrm{},V_n`$ is a simple path in $`T`$ from the root $`V_0`$ to $`V`$. It follows that the graph $`T`$ is connected.

Suppose that $`n3`$ and $`V_0,V_1,\mathrm{},V_{n1},V_n`$ is a simple circuit in $`T`$, where $`V_n=V_0.`$ Let $`V_{n+1}=V_1.`$ Since each vertex is a finite set of integers, we can choose $`k[1,n]`$ such that $`V_k`$ is a vertex in the circuit of maximum cardinality. Vertices $`V_{k1}`$ and $`V_{k+1}`$ are adjacent to $`V_k,`$ hence $`\mathrm{card}(V_k)\mathrm{card}(V_{k1})=\pm 1`$ and $`\mathrm{card}(V_k)\mathrm{card}(V_{k+1})=\pm 1`$ . The maximality of $`\mathrm{card}(V_k)`$ implies that $`\mathrm{card}(V_k)\mathrm{card}(V_{k1})=\mathrm{card}(V_k)\mathrm{card}(V_{k+1})=1`$, and so $`V_{k1}=V_k\{\mathrm{max}(V_k)\}=V_{k+1},`$ which is impossible. Therefore, $`T`$ contains no simple circuit, and so $`T`$ is a tree.

To apply König’s lemma, we must prove that every vertex of this tree has finite degree. The only vertex adjacent to the root $`\{0\}`$ is $`\{0,1\}`$, hence $`\{0\}`$ has finite degree. Let $`V\{0\}`$ be a vertex of $`T`$. Then $`1V`$ and so $`\mathrm{max}(V)1.`$ Suppose that the $`V`$ is adjacent to infinitely many vertices $`V^{}`$. The only subset of $`V`$ that is a vertex adjacent to $`V`$ is $`V\{\mathrm{max}(V)\}.`$ Every other vertex $`V^{}`$ adjacent to $`V`$ is a superset of $`V`$ of the form $`V^{}=V\{\mathrm{max}(V^{})\}.`$ For each such $`V^{}`$, the integer $`n=\mathrm{max}(V^{})1`$ must be an element of the sumset $`h_nV`$ for some $`h_nH_n`$, and so

$$nh_n\mathrm{max}(V)\mathrm{max}(H_n)\mathrm{max}(V).$$

Since $`nh_nV`$ for infinitely many integers $`n`$, it follows that

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{\mathrm{max}(H_n)}{n}\frac{1}{\mathrm{max}(V)}>0,$$

which contradicts (3). Thus, every vertex of the infinite tree $`T`$ has finite degree. By König’s lemma, the tree must contain an infinite simple path $`\{0\}=V_0,V_1,V_2,\mathrm{}.`$ For each nonnegative integer $`n`$, let $`a_n=\mathrm{max}(V_n).`$ Then $`V_n=\{a_0,a_1,\mathrm{},a_n\}`$ for all $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.`$ Let

$$A=\{a_n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}V_n.$$

Since $`a_nn,`$ it follows that

$$r_A(n,H_n)=\underset{h_nH_n}{}r_A(n,h_n)=\underset{h_nH_n}{}r_{V_n}(n,h_n)=r_{V_n}(n,H_n)R_n,$$

and so $`A`$ is a $``$-basis of order $``$. This completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 5

Let $`h2`$ and let $`f`$ be a function such that $`f(n)`$ is a positive integer for every nonnegative integer $`n.`$ There exists a basis $`A`$ of order $`h`$ with representation function $`r_A(n,h)=f(n)`$ if and only if for every $`N`$ there exists a finite set $`A_N`$ of nonnegative integers with $`\mathrm{max}(A_N)N`$ and $`r_A(n,h)=f(n)`$ for all $`n=0,1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{max}(A_N).`$

Proof. This follows immediately from Theorem 4 with $`H_n=\{h\}`$ and $`R_n=\{f(n)\}`$ for all nonnegative integers $`n`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Applying Theorem 4 to the classical Erdős-Turán conjecture, we obtain the following result of Dowd \[1, Theorem 2.1\].

###### Theorem 6

Let $`c1`$ and $`h2`$. There exists a basis $`A`$ of order $`h`$ such that

$$r_A(n,h)c\text{for all }n0$$

if and only if, for every $`N`$, there exists a finite set $`A_N`$ of nonnegative integers such that $`\mathrm{max}(A_N)N`$ and

$$1r_{A_N}(n,h)c$$

for all $`n=0,1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{max}(A_N).`$

Proof. This follows immediately from Theorem 4 with $`H_n=\{h\}`$ and $`R_n=[1,c]`$ for all $`n0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 Ordered representation functions

There are other important representation functions in additive number theory. For example, for any set $`A`$ of integers, the ordered representation function $`r_A^{}(n,h)`$ counts the number of $`h`$-tuples $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_h)A^h`$ such that $`a_1+\mathrm{}+a_h=n`$. Nathanson  proved the following uniqueness theorem for ordered representation functions: For any function $`f:𝐍_0𝐍_0`$ and for any positive integer $`h`$, there exists at most one set $`A`$ of nonnegative integers such that $`r_A^{}(n,h)=f(n)`$ for all $`n𝐍_0`$. He also showed that uniqueness does not hold if ordered representation functions only eventually coincide, and he described all pairs of sets $`A`$ and $`B`$ of nonnegative integers such that $`r_A^{}(n,2)=r_B^{}(n,2)`$ for all sufficiently large integers $`n`$.

We can define basis of order $``$ and $``$-basis of order $``$ in terms of the ordered representation function. Theorem 4 is also true for ordered representation functions.


text:
# Entanglement Cost of Three-Level Antisymmetric States

## Acknowledgement

The author is grateful to T. Shimono, K. Matsumoto and H. Fan for helpful discussions on related their works and seminars.

## Appendix: Proof of Lemma 2

It is well known that the entanglement of pure states is defined by von Neumann entropy of the reduced density matrix $`\rho _A=\text{Tr}_B|\psi \psi |=\alpha \alpha ^{}`$, where $`\alpha `$ is $`3^n\times 3^n`$ matrix, which is defined in (Entanglement Cost of Three-Level Antisymmetric States). Let $`\lambda _i`$ be the eigenvalues of $`\rho _A`$ and its elementary symmetric functions

$`s_1`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i=\text{Tr}\rho _A=1`$
$`s_2`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\lambda _i\lambda _j`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`s_{3^n}`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i=\text{det}\rho _A,`$
the power sum $`I_k(\rho _A)=_i\lambda _i^k=\text{Tr}\rho _{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}`$, respectively. Notice that $`\sqrt{s_2}`$ is the generalized concurrence. As we will see later, the value of this generalized concurrence is closely related to the entanglement of formation in our case.

###### Proposition 1

Let $`\alpha `$ be the coefficient of $`|\psi _{}^n`$ and $`\rho _A=\alpha \alpha ^{}`$. Then,

$$I_2(\rho _A)\frac{1}{2^n}.$$
(5)
Proof The calculation of $`I_2(\rho _A)`$ is lengthy but straightforward. First, let us choose two rows $`J:=(j_1,j_2,\mathrm{},j_n),J^{}:=(j_1^{},j_2^{},\mathrm{},j_n^{})`$ and two columns $`K:=(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_n),K^{}:=(k_1^{},k_2^{},\mathrm{},k_n^{})`$ for a $`2\times 2`$ minor of matrix $`\alpha `$. Since $`s_k(\rho _A)`$ is equal to the square sum of all $`k\times k`$ minors of $`\alpha `$ or Gramian, we therefore obtain (see, e.g., )

$`s_2(\rho _A)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}j_1,j_2,\mathrm{},j_n=0\\ j_1^{},j_2^{},\mathrm{},j_n^{}=0\\ k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_n=0\\ k_1^{},k_2^{},\mathrm{},k_n^{}=0\end{array}}{\overset{2}{}}}\left|\begin{array}{c}\alpha _{j_1,\mathrm{},j_n;k_1,\mathrm{},k_n}\alpha _{j_1^{},\mathrm{},j_n^{};k_1^{},\mathrm{},k_n^{}}\\ \alpha _{j_1,\mathrm{},j_n;k_1^{},\mathrm{},k_n^{}}\alpha _{j_1^{},\mathrm{},j_n^{};k_1,\mathrm{},k_n}\end{array}\right|^2`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^n}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{JJ^{}KK^{}}{}}`$
$`|\left({\displaystyle \underset{p_1,\mathrm{},p_n=0}{\overset{2}{}}}a_{p_1,\mathrm{},p_n}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}ϵ_{p_mj_mk_m}\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{p_1^{},\mathrm{},p_n^{}=0}{\overset{2}{}}}a_{p_1^{},\mathrm{},p_n^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m^{}=1}{\overset{n}{}}}ϵ_{p_m^{}^{}j_m^{}^{}k_m^{}^{}}\right)`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{p_1,\mathrm{},p_n=0}{\overset{2}{}}}a_{p_1,\mathrm{},p_n}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}ϵ_{p_mj_mk_m^{}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{p_1^{},\mathrm{},p_n^{}=0}{\overset{2}{}}}a_{p_1^{},\mathrm{},p_n^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m^{}=1}{\overset{n}{}}}ϵ_{p_m^{}^{}j_m^{}^{}k_m^{}}\right)|^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{2n+2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{JJ^{}KK^{}}{}}|{\displaystyle \underset{PP^{}}{}}a_{p_1,\mathrm{},p_n}a_{p_1^{},\mathrm{},p_n^{}}`$
$`\times ({\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}ϵ_{p_mj_mk_m}{\displaystyle \underset{m^{}=1}{\overset{n}{}}}ϵ_{p_m^{}^{}j_m^{}^{}k_m^{}^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}ϵ_{p_mj_mk_m^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m^{}=1}{\overset{n}{}}}ϵ_{p_m^{}^{}j_m^{}^{}k_m^{}})|^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{2n+1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{JJ^{}KK^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{PP^{}QQ^{}}{}}a_{p_1,\mathrm{},p_n}a_{p_1^{},\mathrm{},p_n^{}}a_{q_1,\mathrm{},q_n}^{}a_{q_1^{},\mathrm{},q_n^{}}^{}`$
$`\times ({\displaystyle \underset{m_1}{}}ϵ_{p_{m_1}j_{m_1}k_{m_1}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_2}{}}ϵ_{p_{m_2}^{}j_{m_2}^{}k_{m_2}^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_3}{}}ϵ_{q_{m_3}j_{m_3}k_{m_3}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_4}{}}ϵ_{q_{m_4}^{}j_{m_4}^{}k_{m_4}^{}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{m_1}{}}ϵ_{p_{m_1}j_{m_1}k_{m_1}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_2}{}}ϵ_{p_{m_2}^{}j_{m_2}^{}k_{m_2}^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_3}{}}ϵ_{q_{m_3}j_{m_3}k_{m_3}^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_4}{}}ϵ_{q_{m_4}^{}j_{m_4}^{}k_{m_4}}),`$
where we denote $`{\displaystyle \underset{P}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_n=0}{\overset{2}{}}}`$ and $`a_Pa_{p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_n}`$, etc., for simplicity. Let us divide (9) into two parts:

1. First Term

$`{\displaystyle \underset{JJ^{}KK^{}}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{m_1=1}{\overset{n}{}}}ϵ_{p_{m_1}j_{m_1}k_{m_1}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_2=1}{\overset{n}{}}}ϵ_{p_{m_2}^{}j_{m_2}^{}k_{m_2}^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_3=1}{\overset{n}{}}}ϵ_{q_{m_3}j_{m_3}k_{m_3}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_4=1}{\overset{n}{}}}ϵ_{q_{m_4}^{}j_{m_4}^{}k_{m_4}^{}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j_2,\mathrm{},j_n=0}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{J^{}KK^{}}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{j_1=0}{\overset{2}{}}}ϵ_{p_1j_1k_1}ϵ_{q_1j_1k_1}\right)`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \underset{m_1=2}{\overset{n}{}}}ϵ_{p_{m_1}j_{m_1}k_{m_1}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_2=1}{\overset{n}{}}}ϵ_{p_{m_2}^{}j_{m_2}^{}k_{m_2}^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_3=2}{\overset{n}{}}}ϵ_{q_{m_3}j_{m_3}k_{m_3}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_4=1}{\overset{n}{}}}ϵ_{q_{m_4}^{}j_{m_4}^{}k_{m_4}^{}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{K}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left(\delta _{k_mk_m}\delta _{p_mq_m}\delta _{k_mp_m}\delta _{k_mq_m}\right)\right]`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{K^{}}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(\delta _{k_m^{}k_m^{}}\delta _{p_m^{}q_m^{}}\delta _{k_m^{}p_m^{}}\delta _{k_m^{}q_m^{}})\right]`$
$`=`$ $`2^{2n}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\delta _{p_mq_m}\delta _{p_m^{}q_m^{}},`$
where we use the relation $`{\displaystyle \underset{j_1=0}{\overset{2}{}}}ϵ_{p_1j_1k_1}ϵ_{q_1j_1k_1}=\delta _{k_1k_1}\delta _{p_1q_1}\delta _{k_1p_1}\delta _{k_1q_1}`$.
2. Second Term

$`{\displaystyle \underset{JJ^{}KK^{}}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{m_1=1}{\overset{n}{}}}ϵ_{p_{m_1}j_{m_1}k_{m_1}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_2=1}{\overset{n}{}}}ϵ_{p_{m_2}^{}j_{m_2}^{}k_{m_2}^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_3=1}{\overset{n}{}}}ϵ_{q_{m_3}j_{m_3}k_{m_3}^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_4=1}{\overset{n}{}}}ϵ_{q_{m_4}^{}j_{m_4}^{}k_{m_4}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j_2,\mathrm{},j_n=0}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{J^{}KK^{}}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{j_1=0}{\overset{2}{}}}ϵ_{p_1j_1k_1}ϵ_{q_1j_1k_1^{}}\right)`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \underset{m_1=2}{\overset{n}{}}}ϵ_{p_{m_1}j_{m_1}k_{m_1}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_2=1}{\overset{n}{}}}ϵ_{p_{m_2}^{}j_{m_2}^{}k_{m_2}^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_3=2}{\overset{n}{}}}ϵ_{q_{m_3}j_{m_3}k_{m_3}^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_4=1}{\overset{n}{}}}ϵ_{q_{m_4}^{}j_{m_4}^{}k_{m_4}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{KK^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left(\delta _{k_mk_m^{}}\delta _{p_mq_m}\delta _{k_mp_m}\delta _{k_m^{}q_m}\right)\left(\delta _{k_m^{}k_m}\delta _{p_m^{}q_m^{}}\delta _{k_m^{}p_m^{}}\delta _{k_mq_m^{}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left(\delta _{p_mq_m}\delta _{p_m^{}q_m^{}}+\delta _{p_m^{}q_m}\delta _{p_mq_m^{}}\right).`$

We summarize these terms and obtain the following.

$`s_2(\rho _A)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{2n+1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{PP^{}QQ^{}}{}}a_Pa_P^{}a_Q^{}a_Q^{}^{}`$
$`\times \left[2^{2n}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\delta _{p_mq_m}\delta _{p_m^{}q_m^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left(\delta _{p_mq_m}\delta _{p_m^{}q_m^{}}+\delta _{p_m^{}q_m}\delta _{p_mq_m^{}}\right)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{2n+1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{PP^{}QQ^{}}{}}a_Pa_P^{}a_Q^{}a_Q^{}^{}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left(\delta _{p_mq_m}\delta _{p_m^{}q_m^{}}+\delta _{p_m^{}q_m}\delta _{p_mq_m^{}}\right),`$
and

$`I_2(\rho _A)`$ $`=`$ $`s_1(\rho _A)^22s_2(\rho _A)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{2n}}}{\displaystyle \underset{PP^{}QQ^{}}{}}a_Pa_P^{}a_Q^{}a_Q^{}^{}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left(\delta _{p_mq_m}\delta _{p_m^{}q_m^{}}+\delta _{p_m^{}q_m}\delta _{p_mq_m^{}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{2n}}}{\displaystyle \underset{PP^{}QQ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left(\delta _{p_mq_m}\delta _{p_m^{}q_m^{}}+\delta _{p_m^{}q_m}\delta _{p_mq_m^{}}\right)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\left|a_Pa_P^{}a_Qa_Q^{}\right|^2+\left|a_Pa_P^{}\right|^2+\left|a_Qa_Q^{}\right|^2\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^n}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{2n+1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{PP^{}QQ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left(\delta _{p_mq_m}\delta _{p_m^{}q_m^{}}+\delta _{p_m^{}q_m}\delta _{p_mq_m^{}}\right)\left|a_Pa_P^{}a_Qa_Q^{}\right|^2`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^n}}.`$
We have thus proved the proposition 5. ∎

The following theorem is important:

###### Theorem 2 (Furuta; Special case of )

Let $`A`$ be invertible positive operator. Then for any positive $`x`$

$$A\mathrm{log}_2A(1\mathrm{log}_2x)A\frac{1}{x}A^2.$$

For hermitian matrix $`A`$, zero eigenvalues do not affect the above theorem due to $`0\mathrm{log}0=0`$.

###### Corollary 4

Let $`S(A)=\text{Tr}(A\mathrm{log}_2A)`$ and $`\rho _A`$ a normalized density matrix (i.e. $`\text{Tr}\rho _A=1`$). Then

$$S(\rho _A)\mathrm{log}_2I_2(\rho _A).$$

Hence, $`S(\rho _A)n`$ and this ends the proof of Lemma 2. ∎


text:
# Electronic states around a vortex core in high-𝑇_𝑐 superconductors based on the 𝑡-𝐽 model

## Abstract

Electronic states around vortex cores in high-$`T_c`$ superconductors are studied using the two-dimensional $`t`$-$`J`$ model in order to treat the $`d`$-wave superconductivity with short coherence length and the antiferromagnetic (AF) instability within the same framework. We focus on the disappearance of the large zero-energy peak in the local density of states observed in high-$`T_c`$ superconductors. When the system is near the optimum doping, we find that the local AF correlation develops inside the vortex cores. However, the detailed doping dependence calculations confirm that the experimentally observed reduction of the zero-energy peak is more reasonably attributed to the smallness of the core size rather than to the AF correlation developed inside the core. The correlation between the spatial dependence of the core states and the core radius is discussed.

There are several experimental results in high-$`T_c`$ superconductors which have not been explained in the conventional BCS $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave superconductivity. The electronic structure inside the vortex core is one of the most interesting issues among them. The conventional theory for $`d`$-wave vortices based on Bogoliubov-de Gennes (BdG) mean-field theory predicts a large and broad peak at the Fermi energy in the local density of states (LDOS), so-called zero-energy peak (ZEP), at the vortex corewang . However, scanning tunneling spectroscopy (STS) spectrum in one of the high-$`T_c`$ materials, BSCCO, giving directly the LDOS around the vortex core, shows only a small-double peak structure at energies $`\pm 7`$ meVpan . A similar situation was also observed in YBCO compoundsmaggio .

To resolve this discrepancy, there have been proposed several theoretical attempts, that is, a $`d_{x^2y^2}+s`$ statehimeda , a $`d_{x^2y^2}+id_{xy}`$ statedxy2 ; dxy3 , an antiferromagnetic (AF) vortex coreso5 ; ogata ; andersen , a staggered flux statekishine , and a vortex core with small $`k_\mathrm{F}\xi _0`$morita ; kita  where $`k_\mathrm{F}`$ is the Fermi wave number and $`\xi _0`$ is the coherence length. These theories are, in greater or lesser degree, based on strongly correlation effects. Among them, we consider the AF vortex core and the effects of small $`k_\mathrm{F}\xi _0`$ (the small vortex core) because they have some experimental grounds mentioned below.

The AF vortex core was first predicted using a phenomenological Ginzburg-Landau theoryso5  assuming the SO(5) symmetrysczhang . Later this possibility was confirmed in a microscopic calculationsogata ; andersen . In the $`t`$-$`J`$ model, it was shown that the AF core is stabilized near the doping rate $`\delta 0.1`$, where the system is close to the AF instabilityhimeda2 . Simultaneously it was observed that the electron density approaches half-filling inside the AF coreogata . After these calculations, there are several experimental studies suggesting the existence of the enhancement of AF correlations or AF vortex core, such as neutron scattering experiments in LSCO compounds near optimal dopinglake1 ; lake2 ; khay , $`\mu `$SRmuSR  and NMRmitro1 ; kumagai  experiments in underdoped or near-optimally doped YBCO. Therefore it seems natural that the AF vortex core is also realized in the BSCCO samplepan  which is optimum doped or slightly overdoped, and that the absence of the large ZEP is due to the mean-field AF gap (or Mott gap) developed inside the core. Actually some theoretical studies for the AF vortex core have predicted the LDOS without the ZEPogata ; andersen , or at least, large-double peak structurezhu ; berlin .

The double peak structure is also found in the small vortex cores (small $`k_F\xi _0`$) by using the BdG equations for continuum $`d`$-wave modelmorita ; kita . In fact, the STM/S data has revealed that a radius for the vortex core in BSCCO is on the order of 10$`\AA `$pan , which is consistent with the short coherence length. Therefore, the small vortex core is also a possible explanation for the absence of the ZEP, but the lattice effects, which play an important role when $`k_F\xi _0`$ is small, need to be clarified.

Motivated by these backgrounds, in this paper we perform a detailed study on the electronic states around vortex cores in high-$`T_c`$ superconductors, taking account of the discrete lattice effects, smallness of the vortex core, and the AF instability. To investigate their effects within the same framework, we use the $`t`$-$`J`$ model which has a phase diagram consistent with experimentsyoko-ogata  and enables us to study the reasonable doping dependence. We find that the reduction of ZEP is more reasonably attributed to the smallness of the core size rather than to the AF correlation developed inside the core. It is remarkable that a simple-minded picture of AF core does not play important roles in the suppression of LDOS.

The Hamiltonian of the $`t`$-$`J`$ model is written as

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,\sigma }{}}P_G(t_{ij}c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)P_G`$ (1)
$`+J{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}𝑺_𝒊\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒋\mu {\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma }`$
in the standard notation where $`i,j`$ means the summation over nearest-neighbor pairs. The Gutzwiller’s projection operator $`P_G`$ is defined as $`P_G=\mathrm{\Pi }_i(1n_in_i)`$. The uniform magnetic field is introduced in terms of Peierls phase of the hopping term as $`t_{ij}=t\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{ie}{\mathrm{}c}_i^j𝑨\mathbf{}𝒅𝒓\right)`$wang ; himeda . The BdG equation based on the extended Gutzwiller approximation is

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}H_{ij}^{}& F_{ij}\\ F_{ji}^{}& H_{ji}^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u_j^\alpha \\ v_j^\alpha \end{array}\right)=E^\alpha \left(\begin{array}{c}u_i^\alpha \\ v_i^\alpha \end{array}\right),$$
(2)
with

$`H_{ij}^\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\tau }{}}\left(t_{ij}^{\mathrm{eff}}+J_{ij}^{\mathrm{eff}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{ji}\right)\delta _{j,i+\tau }`$
$`+\sigma \delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \underset{\tau }{}}h_{i,i+\tau }^{\mathrm{eff}}\mu \delta _{ij},`$
$`F_{ij}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\tau }{}}J_{ij}^{\mathrm{eff}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ij}\delta _{j,i+\tau },`$ (3)
where $`i+\tau `$ represents the nearest neighbor sites of the site $`i`$, and $`\sigma =\pm 1`$. The renormalized parameters $`t_{ij}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`J_{ij}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`h_{ij}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ are determined from cluster calculationsega  which reproduce the variational Monte Carlo resultshimeda2 . They have the following forms:

$`t_{ij}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`g_t(i,j)t_{ij},J_{ij}^{\mathrm{eff}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_s^{xy}(i,j)J+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_s^z(i,j)J,`$
$`h_{ij}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_s^z(i,j)Jm_j+{\displaystyle \frac{H_{ij}}{m_i}},`$ (4)
where $`g_t(i,j),g_s^{xy}(i,j)`$ and $`g_s^z(i,j)`$ depend on the local expectation values $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}c_i^{}c_j^{}c_i^{}c_j^{}`$, $`\chi _{ij}=c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }`$, and $`m_i=\frac{1}{2}n_in_i`$foot . For example,

$$g_s^{xy}(i,j)=\left(\frac{2(1\overline{\delta }_{ij})}{1\overline{\delta }_{ij}^2+4\overline{m}_{ij}^2}\right)^2a_{ij}^7,$$
(5)
where $`\overline{\delta }_{ij}`$ ($`\overline{m}_{ij}`$) is an average of hole density (AF moment) for the corresponding bond and $`a_{ij}`$ is a factor close to one which depends on $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij},\chi _{ij},\overline{\delta }_{ij}`$ and $`\overline{m}_{ij}`$ega . These somewhat complicated renormalized parameters are necessary for treating the AF and d-wave superconductivity in the same framework. If one uses simple slave-boson mean-field theoriesinaba , the AF order parameter is overestimated and thus one cannot discuss the AF vortex core because the AF order exists even in the bulk. In the present method, AF order does not exist away from the core for $`\delta 0.10`$, which is consistent with the numerical resultshimeda2 .

To make the Peierls phase compatible with vortex lattice symmetry, we need a magnetic unit cell with $`2N\times N`$ sites including two vortices. In this case, by the appropriate choice of gaugewang ; himeda , the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}`$ has a translational symmetry with respect to the magnetic unit cell. Here we take $`N=`$22-26. We solve numerically the BdG equation and carry out an iteration until $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ij},\chi _{ij},\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{ij},n_{i\sigma }`$ are determined self-consistently. We take $`J/t=0.3`$ and examine the various values of the doping rates $`\delta =0.10`$-$`0.15`$, that is, from near optimum doped to overdoped region.

First, let us look at the results for the overdoped region. Figure 1 shows the superconducting order parameters, the hole density, and the LDOS obtained around the vortex core for $`\delta =0.15`$. We can see the common features found in several theoretical studies within the weak-coupling $`d`$-wave superconductivitywang , that is, fairly large vortex cores, slightly induced $`s`$-wave componenthimeda , the increase of the hole density inside the core, and the ZEP in the LDOS. We note that the local AF order inside the core does not exist in this case.

The situation drastically changes when the system approaches the optimum doping. Figure 2 shows the results for $`\delta =0.11`$ in the same manner as in Fig. 1. Similar results for $`\delta =0.10`$ have been shown beforeogata , but here much larger system-size is achieved. From Fig. 2, we can see that the size of the vortex core is fairly small, that is, the core having a radius of about 3 lattice spacings is realized. The magnitude of the induced $`s`$-wave component is also small as in the case of $`\delta =0.15`$. Figure 2(b) shows the spatial dependences of the local AF moment $`|m_i|`$ and of the hole density $`n_i^h`$. It is found that AF correlation develops and the hole density decreases inside the vortex core, in sharp contrast with the $`\delta =0.15`$ case shown in Fig. 1. We should note here that the AF moment extends outside the core, which is consistent with experiments.

The LDOS obtained at the center of the vortex core is shown in Fig. 2(c). We can see that the LDOS shows neither the ZEP nor an explicit double-peak structure.

To clarify the effect of the local AF moment on the LDOS, we solve the BdG equations without AF order parameter for the same doping rate $`\delta =0.11`$, as shown in Fig. 3. The LDOS obtained here (Fig. 3(b)) is quite similar to that shown in Fig. 2(c), but at this time, a small peak can be found at $`E0`$. This peak is regarded as a trace of the ZEP. The only effect of the presence of AF order parameter is to annihilate the small peak at $`E0`$. We have confirmed that the spatial dependence of the amplitude of $`d`$\- and $`s`$-wave components, and the hole density (Fig. 3(a)) are quite similar to those shown in Fig. 2(a) and (b).

From this comparison, we speculate as follows. The overall reduction of the spectral weight inside the vortex core already occurs without AF order parameters. Therefore this reduction is not due to the presence of the AF moment but due to the smallness of the core. For this doping rate ($`\delta =0.11`$), the hole density inside the core decreases. This causes the appearance of the AF vortex core found in Fig. 2(b), but the effect of the AF core is subsidiary for the LDOS.

In order to clarify the origin of the reduced spectral weight of ZEP due to the smallness of the core, we study the spatial dependence of the LDOS for several hole dopings. Figure 4 shows the LDOS at $`\delta =0.15,0.12`$ and $`0.11`$ as a function of energy $`E/t`$ and distance $`r/a`$ from the vortex core center, with $`a`$ being the lattice constant. Here the distance dependence is plotted from the vortex core center ($`r=0`$) along the (1,0) direction of the square lattice. First we look at the result for $`\delta =0.15`$ shown in Fig. 4(a). As $`r/a`$ increases from 0, the ZEP first becomes broader and smaller, then split into two peaks for $`r/a3`$. This kind of behavior of the LDOS, that is, the splitting of the ZEP away from the vortex core center, has been reported for $`s`$-wave vortex cores by Gygi and Schlütergygi . They have shown that, in the $`s`$-wave case, the two peaks found away from the vortex core center correspond to the electronic bound states (core states) having higher angular momentum $`\mu `$. The angular momentum is quantized such that $`\mu =m+\frac{1}{2}`$ where $`m`$ is an integer. For small $`\mu `$, the energy eigenvalues of the core states are known to have the approximate dispersion relation $`E_\mu \omega _0\mu `$ where $`\omega _0`$ is an energy quantumcaroli . In a semiclassical sense, the vortex core states have maximum amplitude at a distance $`r\mu /p_\mathrm{F}`$ from the vortex core center. Of course in $`d`$-wave superconductors, the angular momentum is not conserved in a strict sense because axial symmetry is broken. Quite recently, however, it has been pointed out that there is an alternative quantum number in $`d`$-wave superconductors which corresponds to the angular momentumkoyama . Therefore the distance dependence of the splitting amplitude of ZEP shown in Fig. 4 indicates the dispersion relation of the core states: i.e., $`E_\mu \omega _0\mu `$. At $`\delta =0.12`$ shown in Fig. 4(b), the splitting of the ZEP exists even at $`r/a=1`$, that is, the ZEP can be seen only at the vortex core center. Note that the AF moment is not induced for this case. Comparing the results in Fig. 4(a) and (b), we find that the slope of the dispersion relation becomes greater as the doping rate $`\delta `$ decreases. This greater slope corresponds to larger $`\omega _0`$ or larger interlevel spacing of the core states, which is probably caused by the decrease of the core size. As the doping rate decreases further ($`\delta =0.11`$), the LDOS around $`E0`$ is significantly reduced as shown in Fig. 4(c)foot2 .

Finally let us comment on the effects of the next-nearest-neighbor hopping $`t^{}`$. The critical value of $`\delta `$ where the AF core appears depends on the value of $`t^{}`$ which reinforces our viewpoint. For some values of $`t^{}`$, the AF core is realized even when the size of the vortex core is not so small. In this case, the spectral weight of the ZEP is not reduced owing to the large size of the vortex core, and there appears a large double peak structure in the LDOS caused by the presence of the AF momentzhu ; berlin . This, however, does not explain the reduction of the spectral weight inside the core observed in YBCO or BSCCO.

In summary, we have investigated the electronic states around vortex cores in high-$`T_c`$ superconductors based on the $`t`$-$`J`$ model. The induced local AF moment and the LDOS without ZEP are found inside the vortex cores. However, the origin of the absence of ZEP is mainly due to the smallness of the vortex core sizes, which can be understood within the conventional BdG theory with short coherence length. We find that the doping dependence is very important and thus it is quite interesting to study the overdoped region or low-$`T_c`$ superconductors experimentally, in which the vortex core size is large and the ZEP with the spatial dependence as shown in Fig. 4(a) will be observed.

The authors wish to thank J. Inoue and H. Ito for their useful discussions.