
2
FIG. 2. (Color Online) Density of states ρ(ω) for various
doping. The exceptional van Hove singularity manifests as a
peak which is at negative energies ωfor low doping. The peak
height diminishes as the pseudogap potential decreases with
doping. The peak crosses ω= 0 at pev ≈0.185.
is the electron dispersion, ˜
t(p) = t[1 −4(0.2−p)] is a
hopping parameter modified by the interaction, t= 1,
t′=−0.15, pis the hole doping, and µis the chemi-
cal potential. We take ξk= 2˜
t(cos kx+ cos ky), where
the equation ξk=−ωdefines the points on the Bril-
louin zone where the electron’s spectral weight is sup-
pressed due to the pseudogap. We model the pseudogap
by Pk(p) = θ(p∗−p)P0(1 −p/p∗)(cos kx−cos ky), where
θ(x) is the Heaviside step function, P0= 0.4 is the pseu-
dogap energy at half filling (p= 0), and which decreases
linearly with hole doping, and terminates at p∗= 0.2.
All energy scales are in unit of t, which we take to be
about 300 meV [32] for later estimates.
Superficially, Eq. (1) is reminiscent of two hybridizing
bands, namely the physical electrons with dispersion ϵk
and pseudofermions with dispersion ξk. Thus, it can be
written as
Gk(iωn) = A1k/(iωn−ω1k) + A2k/(iωn−ω2k),(2)
where ω1k,2k= [ϵk+ξk±p(ϵk−ξk)2+ 4P2
k]/2. The
weight factors A1k= (ω1k−ξk)/(ω1k−ω2k), and A2k=
(ξk−ω2k)/(ω1k−ω2k). For the doping range studied here
only the lower band ω2kcontributes to the Fermi surface
in the form of hole pockets that evolves with doping,
see Fig. 1 and Fig. S4 in the Supplementary Information
(SI) [33].
Exceptional van Hove singularity.— As shown in
Fig. 1, with increasing doping the hole pockets grow and
eventually, at a doping pev ≈0.185, the pockets touch
at the van Hove points (0,±kev) and (±kev,0), where
kev ̸=π, see arrows in Fig. 1(b). The resulting Lifshitz
transition describes hole pockets merging to form hole
rings, see Fig. 1(c).
In the vicinity of such saddle points, say, the one
at (0, kev), the dispersion can be expressed as ω2k≈
αk2
x−βk2
y−γkyk2
x, where (α, β, γ) are parameters with
dimension of energy, and γ̸= 0 indicates that the saddle
point is not on a high symmetry location. The peak in
the density of states ρ(ω)≡ −(1/π)PkImGk(ω+iΓ)
near the singularity is given by ρ(ω)≈4ρsp(ω), where
ρsp(ω) = 1
2π2√αβ Re 1
(1 + u)1/4K(r1)
−Im 1
(1 + u)1/4K(r2).(3)
Here, u= (ω+iΓ)/E0,E0=α2β/γ2,r2
1,2= [1 ±1/(1 +
u)1/2]/2, and K(r)≡Rπ/2
0dθ/p1−r2sin2θis the com-
plete elliptic integral of the first kind, and Γ = 0.01tis a
frequency independent inverse lifetime.
In Fig. 2 we show the evolution of the peak in the den-
sity of states with doping. As p→pev, the peak position
moves from negative energies ω < 0, and approaches the
chemical potential ω= 0. However, for the cuprates, in-
creasing doping also implies a reduction in the pseudogap
strength Pk(p). Therefore, the strength of the singularity
decreases upon approaching the Lifshitz transition. This
is seen as diminishing peak height of ρ(ω) with doping in
Fig 2.
Proximity to second order van Hove singularity.— This
is a consequence of γ̸= 0. In Fig. 3(a) we plot the cur-
vature αk≡∂2ω2k/∂k2
xalong the (0,0) −(0, π) direction
for various doping. We notice that, when the pseudogap
is sufficiently small (p≥0.16), α(0,ky)has positive values
at ky∼0, and it has negative values at ky∼π, implying
it goes through zero at ky=k2∼α/γ.
If αk=vk= 0 is simultaneously satisfied, the system
has a second order van Hove singularity [37–42]. The
density of states has a power law singularity, obtained by
taking α→0 in Eq.(3), instead of the usual log singu-
larity. In our case these two points are located close by
on the same high symmetry lines, i.e. kev ∼k2, implying
that the system is close to the second order singularity,
and therefore, the pre-factor of the log is large. Indeed,
we find that as p→p∗, the wavevectors kev and k2come
closer, as shown in Fig. 3(b). As shown in Figs. S1 and
S2 of the SI [33], the conversion to second order singu-
larity can be readily achieved by varying a third nearest
neighbor hopping parameter which, a priori, is feasible
in cold atom systems.
Note, for a single band system with a simply connected
Fermi surface, no such proximity to a second order van
Hove singularity is expected. Thus, in such systems,
this proximity distinguishes an interaction induced ex-
ceptional van Hove singularity from a weakly interacting
ordinary one. In multiband systems, however, higher or-
der van Hove singularities can arise from noninteracting
physics alone [37–42].
Exceptional van Hove singularity near pseudogap end-
point.— In the rest of this work we examine the relevance
of exceptional van Hove singularities for the cuprates in