SciPost Physics (Jun 2025)
The asymmetric Fermi surface of Bi2201
Abstract
High-resolution angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) performed on the single-layered cuprate (Pb$_{1-y}$,Bi$_y$)$_2$Sr$_{2-x}$La$_x$CuO$_{6+\delta}$ (Bi2201) reveals a 6-10% difference in the nodal $k_F$ vectors along the $\Gamma$Y and $\Gamma$X directions. This asymmetry is notably larger than the 2% orthorhombic distortion in the CuO$_2$ plane lattice constants determined using X-ray crystallography from the same samples. First principles calculations indicate that crystal-field splitting of the bands lies at the root of the $k_{F}$ asymmetry. Concomitantly, the nodal Fermi velocities for the $\Gamma$Y quadrant exceed those for $\Gamma$X by 4%. Momentum distribution curve widths for the two nodal dispersions are also anisotropic, showing identical energy dependencies, bar a scaling factor of $\sim$ 1.17$± 0.05$ between \GY and $\Gamma$X. Consequently, the imaginary part of the self-energy is found to be 10-20% greater along $\Gamma$Y than $\Gamma$X. These results emphasize the need to account for Fermi surface asymmetry in the analysis of ARPES data on Bi-based cuprate high temperature superconductors such as Bi2201. To illustrate this point, an orthorhombic tight-binding model (with twofold in-plane symmetry) was used to fit ARPES Fermi surface maps spanning all four quadrants of the Brillouin zone, and the ARPES-derived hole-doping (Luttinger count) was extracted. Comparison of the Luttinger count with one assuming four-fold in-plane symmetry strongly suggests the marked spread in previously-reported Fermi surface areas from ARPES on Bi2201 results from the differences in $k_F$ along $\Gamma$Y and $\Gamma$X. Using this analysis, a new, linear relationship emerges between the hole-doping derived from ARPES ($p_{\text{ARPES}}$) and that derived using the Presland ($p_{\text{Presland}}$) relation such that $p_{\text{ARPES}} = p_{\text{Presland}}+0.11$. The implications for this difference between the ARPES- and Presland-derived estimates for $p$ are discussed and possible future directions to elucidate the origin of this discrepancy are presented.