text:
# Magneto-transport study of intra- and intergrain transitions in the magnetic superconductors RuSr2GdCu2O8 and RuSr2(Gd1.5Ce0.5)Cu2O10

## I INTRODUCTION

The ruthenate-cuprates systems RuSr2RCu2O8 \[Ru-(1212)\] and RuSr2(R,Ce)2Cu2O10 \[Ru-(1222)\], where R = Gd, Eu, are currently receiving a great deal of attention. The onset of bulk superconductivity in the presence of a ferromagnetic (FM) componentFelner97 ; Tallon  makes these compounds particularly suitable to study the interplay between these usually exclusive phenomena. Ru-(1212) is obtained from orthorhombic YBa2Cu3O7-δ (YBCO) by full replacement of Cu(1) sites at the chains for Ru ions, which add two oxygen atoms to their neighborhoods in such a way that the original square coordination of Cu(1) sites evolves to RuO6 octahedra and the structure becomes tetragonal.Cava  The Ru-(1222) structure is obtained from Ru-(1212) by inserting a fluorite type (R1-xCex)2 block instead of the R plane.Cava  In both Ru compounds only one distinct Cu site with fivefold pyramidal coordination exists \[corresponding to the Cu(2) site in YBCO\]. The result is a sequence of magnetic RuO2 planes between CuO2 superconducting bilayers. Long-range order of the Ru magnetic moments occurs at TM $``$133 K in Ru-(1212), followed by a resistive superconducting (SC) transition at TSC $``$45 K.Bernhard  For Ru-(1222), TM ranges between 125 and 155 K, depending on the Ce content, while TSC moves around 30 - 35 K.Felner2002  Since in these compounds, for the first time, TM $`>`$$`>`$ TSC, it has been proposed that the superconducting transition leads directly to the mixed state by spontaneous vortex phase (SVP) formation when the internal magnetization exceeds the first critical field.Bernhard2 ; Felner98

The detection of a sizeable Meissner signal in Ru-(1212) strongly depends on sample preparation conditions. When observed, it appears at about 15-30 K below the resistive superconducting transition. SVP formation, large magnetic penetration length and reduced effective grain size are claimed to account for this behavior.Bernhard2  The latter is related to the existence of intragrain domains, where the RuO6 octahedra are coherently rotated around the c-axis, being separated by sharp antiphase boundaries.McLaughlin  This characteristic is also observed in Ru-(1222).Knee

A major open issue is how the SC state is established in a grain in the presence of a well-developed long-range magnetic order with a FM contribution. Preliminary resistivity measurements for Ru-(1212) in zero external fields suggest that a single grain behaves as a disordered Josephson-junction array (JJA).Xue  Recent ac susceptibility experiments also support this idea.Lorenz  In these reports, phase separation into antiferromagnetic (AFM) and FM domains was suggested to be the source of such behavior. However, this conjecture does not provide a consistent explanation of the magneto-transport properties, as discussed below. Instead, we propose that the Josephson-like behavior of the intragrain transition has a structural nature in both ruthenate-cuprate systems, and that the results obtained from a careful study of the resistive SC transition in the presence of a dc magnetic field can be consistently explained with this approach.

Magnetotransport measurements are useful in order to understand the magnetic structure in the ruthenate-cuprates, which is still a controversial subject, by probing how the changes in the spin order of the Ru sub-lattice are reflected in the superconducting transition. This motivated our investigation of the magnetotransport of both ruthenate-cuprate systems. In this work we present a systematic study of the resistive superconducting transition in RuSr2GdCu2O8and RuSr2Gd1.5Ce0.5Cu2O10 in the presence of magnetic fields up to 9 T. In particular, the field dependence of the position, amplitude and width of the peaks observed in the derivative of the resistive curves is analyzed in detail. Also, ac magnetic susceptibility measurements were performed in Ru-(1212) with the same superimposed dc fields, looking for a correlation between transport and magnetic properties. For Ru-(1222), it was not possible to establish a clear correlation with ac magnetic susceptibility measurements, since this compound exhibits unique dynamic features and metastable magnetic states which complicate the interpretation.Ziv  Gd was chosen instead of Eu as the rare earth element because the phase composition of the Eu-based compounds is usually slightly poorer, exhibiting a small amount of ferromagnetic SrRuO3. The paramagnetic contribution of Gd does not affect the conclusions. An YBCO sample was included in the study not only as a conventional cuprate reference, but also because of its close structural relationship with the ruthenate-cuprates. Intra- and intergrain transitions were identified and their magnetic field dependence explained in terms of the effects of the changes in the internal Ru magnetization on the antiphase boundaries, which we propose to act as weak links between structural domains. The presence of the fluorite type (Gd1.5Ce0.5) block in Ru-(1222), which enhances the 2D character of both the vortex structure and the magnetic order in the RuO2 layers, is a relevant structural detail to explain the differences with Ru-(1212).

## II EXPERIMENTAL

Polycrystalline samples of RuSr2GdCu2O8 and RuSr2Gd1.5Ce0.5Cu2O10 were prepared by conventional solid-state reaction with high purity RuO2, SrCO3, Gd2O3, CeO2 and CuO powders. The initial mixtures were decomposed at 960 oC in air. After milling and pressing operations, the material was reacted in flowing nitrogen at 1000 oC for 12 hours to avoid SrRuO3 formation. Sintering was performed at 1050 oC for 4 days in flowing oxygen for Ru-(1212) and at 1060 oC for Ru-(1222), followed by cooling at a rate of 45 oC/ hour. All the samples show a density higher than 70 % the crystallographic one.

Room temperature x-ray diffraction patterns were collected to check phase composition in a Rigaku powder diffractometer in step-scanning mode ($`20^o2\theta 80^o`$). The microstructure of the samples was probed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Resistance and ac susceptibility measurements were performed in a Quantum Design PPMS system, with the following dc magnetic field values: H = 0. 0.01, 0.03, 0.1, 0.3, 1, 3, 6 and 9 T, with an ac amplitude hac = 0.1 Oe. The resistance was measured using a standard four-probe technique, with a polarization current of 0.1 mA. No temperature hysteresis effects were observed. The derivative of the resistive curves was obtained by conventional numerical calculations.Pureur

## III RESULTS

The room temperature x-ray diffraction patterns correspond to YBa2Cu3O7-δ, RuSr2GdCu2O8 and RuSr2Gd1.5Ce0.5Cu2O10, with no spurious lines being observed. The SEM images are shown in Fig. 1. For YBCO (top panel), a quite dense arrangement of parallelepiped-shaped grains with sharp edges ($``$5x10x10 $`\mu `$m3 in size) was observed. The microstructure of Ru-(1212) shows a relatively uniform size distribution with rounded grains of about 1-3 $`\mu `$m (middle panel). Some grains form compact agglomerates, which are well connected, leaving clearly distinguishable intergranular regions. For the Ru-(1222) sample (bottom panel), the microstructure exhibits a more dense packing due to the presence of a significant fraction of crystallites of $``$0.5-1 $`\mu `$m in size surrounding larger grains and filling the space between them. The larger grains are similar in average size to those observed for Ru-(1212). The small crystallites do not correspond to a secondary phase, since they are present in such extent that would become detectable in the x-ray diffraction measurements.

Figure 2 shows the temperature dependence of the resistance R(T, H) in the region of the superconducting transition for YBCO (a), Ru-(1212) (b), and Ru-(1222) (c); the values of the applied dc magnetic field are indicated. Their respective derivative curves, at constant field, are shown in Fig. 3 (note a more fine temperature scale for YBCO). Several features are relevant in the derivative curves: the number of peaks and their widths for H = 0 and the field dependence of their amplitudes, widths and positions. We first consider the reference YBCO sample. In this case, there is a sharp peak at T1 = 91 K for H = 0, with a full width-half maximum $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $``$0.3 K \[see Fig. 3(a)\]. On cooling, this peak is followed by a much broader and less intense one, located at T2 = 88.5 K. Both T1 and T2 are indicated by arrows in the inset of Fig. 3(a). Traditionally, the existence of two peaks has been interpreted as intra- and intergrain SC-transitions.Early  In the following, we denote the high (T1) and low (T2) temperature maxima as intragrain and intergrain peaks, respectively. With the increase in H up to 0.3 T, peak 1 slightly moves to lower temperatures at a rate of $``$0.8 K/T, with a small reduction in amplitude and little increase in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $``$0.7 K for H = 0.3 T). For H $``$1 T, shift and broadening become more evident, but the magnitude of these effects is still $``$1-2 K; also, a further reduction in amplitude is observed. The field dependence of the shift in T1 \[$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$T1(H) = T1(H) - T1(0)\] is shown in Fig. 4 for low fields (a) and for the whole field range (b). T2 continuously diminishes with the increase in H with an initial slope of $``$20 K/T; Fig. 5 shows the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$T2(H) = T2(H) - T2(0) behavior. Finally, the interval between the thermodynamic transition temperature Tth and T1 at zero field is $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$Tth,1 = Tth \- T1(0) $``$1 K. Tth is taken as the value at which the derivative curve departures from the high temperature baseline, yielding Tth = 93 $`\pm `$ 0.25 K. Although Tth is not sharply defined due to the smooth shape of the derivative curve, there is no doubt that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$Tth,1 is not greater than $``$ 2 K.

For Ru-(1212) two broad overlapped peaks in the H = 0 curve were observed at temperatures T1 and T2, as identified by arrows in Fig. 3(b), where Tth ($``$ 55 $`\pm `$ 1 K) is also indicated. At first sight, this feature is absent in the Ru-(1222) sample \[see Fig. 3(c)\], for which an apparently single broad asymmetric peak is observed. However, the evolution of the curves with the increase in H clearly reveals the presence of two peaks. The estimation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ Tth,1 for Ru-(1212) is $``$12 K and $``$17 K for Ru-(1222) (Tth $``$ 45 $`\pm `$ 1 K ), quite large in comparison to YBCO. As reported from heat capacity measurements,Tallon2  Tth does not diminish even for an applied field of 9 T.

The field dependence of the intragrain transition temperature T1 was found to be different in the Ru-based compounds. For Ru-(1212), the increase in H up to 0.1 T leaves peak 1 unchanged in position, width and amplitude. For H $``$ 0.3 T, T1 smoothly diminish with an initial slope of $``$7 K/T (one order of magnitude higher than for YBCO), while the peak strongly broadens \[Fig. 3(b)\]. For Ru-(1222), T1 diminishes as the field is increased even for a value as low as 100 Oe, with an initial slope of $``$35 K/T. These features are clearly evidenced in Fig. 4(a) \[low field range\]. For H $`>`$ 0.1 – 0.3 T, the suppression rate of T1 diminishes in the ruthenate-cuprates, as can be seen in Fig. 4(b) \[full range of field\].

The intergrain transition temperature T2 in the Ru-based systems rapidly decreases for increasing fields up to H $``$ 0.1 - 0.3 T, with a large initial slope of $``$180 K/T. For H $`>`$ 0.3 T it diminishes at a much lower rate ($``$0.5 K/T), as shown in Fig. 5. A relevant difference between the ruthenate-cuprate samples and YBCO is the steep increase in amplitude of peak 2, accompanied by narrowing, for H $`>`$ 0.3 T \[see Figs. 3 (b) and (c)\].

Figure 6(a) shows the temperature dependence of the ac magnetic susceptibility $`\chi `$(T,H) for Ru-(1212), with superimposed dc magnetic fields of the same magnitude for which the resistive curves were measured. A diamagnetic transition is very well defined for all H values at onset temperatures T, which match well with the zero resistance temperatures, as determined from the resistive curves. Figure 6(b) shows an enlarged section of the region of the superconducting transition. As T(H) is approached on cooling, the curves for H $``$ 0.1 T exhibit an upward deviation, which magnitude continuously increases with the increase in field. For H $``$ 0.3 T, the baseline of the curves is shifted to lower values, while the deviation continuously evolves to a smeared drop at high fields. The intragrain transitions temperatures, as determined from the peaks in the derivative of the resistive curves, are indicated by arrows for H = 6 and 9 T.

## IV DISCUSSION

The observed suppression rates for T1 in both Ru-based compounds are indicative that the intragrain superconductivity is due to a phase-lock transition of a nanoscale JJA. Additionally, we note that the shape of the T1(H) curves in Fig. 4(b) are quite different from that expected for a bulk superconductor, i.e., from Guinzburg-Landau theory. Phase separation into nanoscale AFM and FM domains has been proposedLorenz  as a possible scenario for the Josephson-like behavior. In particular, the peak of positive magnetoresistance observed for Ru-(1212)McCrone ; Chen  is qualitatively explained under this assumption. However, the absence of such a peak for Ru-(1222), a system for which magnetic phase separation has also been proposed to interpret thermal-magnetic memory effects,Xue2  indicates that this interpretation is questionable. It should also be mentioned that $`\mu `$SR experiments,Bernhard  which show that the internal magnetic field in the compounds is uniform, provide strong indication against the existence of magnetic domain segregation.

Alternatively, the Josephson-like behavior of the intragrain transition might be explained in terms of a phase-lock process that occurs between structural domains. As already mentioned, there are domains of coherently rotated RuO6 octahedra $``$14o around the c-axis, separated by sharp antiphase boundaries with local distortions in both Ru-(1212) (Ref. 8) and Ru-(1222) systems.Knee  It has been shown that these structural domains are relevant to explain the shift to lower temperatures of the Meissner drop in Ru-(1212) in comparison to the resistive SC transition,Bernhard2  as a consequence of SVP formation followed by flux expulsion from the structural domains. Also, the temperature dependence of the microwave resistance for Ru-(1212) in the region of the SC transition has been consistently interpreted in terms of SVP formation.Pozec  For Ru-(1222), this mechanism has been proposed to explain the dependence of the magnetic and transport properties on the Ce concentration.Williams  Thus, we believe that there is strong evidence to support the use of this approach to interpret our magneto-transport measurements.

The measured single-phase x-ray diffraction patterns and the SEM results allow us to rule out impurities or inhomogeneities effects as a possible cause for the the large interval between the thermodynamic and the intragrain transition temperatures, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$Tth,1, in zero external field, and therefore the results presented are essentially determined by intrinsic properties of the compounds. We interpret the large $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$Tth,1 values for both Ru-based compounds in zero external field in terms of SVP formation induced by the magnetization of the Ru-sub-lattice, followed by flux expulsion in the domains. For temperatures below and near TSC, the vortex lines created by the internal field of the Ru sub-lattice are weakly pinned, and the Lorentz force associated to the measuring current will drive a given fraction of them. On cooling, pinning increases in the intragrain domains and flux lines are gradually trapped. Also, the first critical field of the domains increases; when it becomes higher than the internal magnetization, Meissner effect occurs in the domains, with partial expulsion of the vortex lines, leading to flux compression at the antiphase boundaries. The value of the local field at the boundaries depends on the size of the neighboring domains and the amount of flux trapped. The result is a complex thread of magnetic field lines across the intragrain network, generating a variety of local effective fields. If the boundaries act as Josephson junctions, the domains will gradually become phase-locked as the temperature is decreased, until a maximum rate of the percolation process is reached at T1. The higher $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$Tth,1 by about 5 K for Ru-(1222) is attributed to the larger distance between the CuO2 planes. This structural feature enhances the 2D character of the vortex lattice, promoting a less pinned structure. Lower temperatures will be required to prevent dissipation associated to flux motion and to achieve a stationary flux distribution at the interdomain boundaries, through which the intragrain percolation may proceed. These effects in zero external field are absent for YBCO, since there is neither SVP formation nor a domain structure.

### IV.1 Intragrain transition in Ru-(1212)

In the scheme depicted above the magnetization of the Ru sub-lattice is essential in determining the details of the spontaneous vortex structure. The fact that T1 remains unchanged for Ru-(1212) up to H = 0.1 T suggests that a) an external field of this strength has a little effect on the magnetization of the RuO2 layers at temperatures around 40-50 K ($``$90 K below TM), and b) the effective internal field at the boundaries is considerably higher than the applied magnetic field. At first sight, point b) seems to be in contradiction with the fact that internal fields of only $``$700 Oe have been measured at the Gd site by electronic paramagnetic resonance (EPR) Fainstein  and at the so called apical site of the structure by $`\mu `$SR measurements.Bernhard  However, when the Meissner effect is established in the structural domains, a number of vortex lines are expulsed from them and compressed into the thin thickness of the antiphase boundaries, leading to a high local field. This is the actual value of field through which a coherent SC state has to nucleate between domains. External fields H $``$ 0.1 T make a negligible contribution to the interdomain field, and no shift in the intragrain peak is observed.

The effect of an external field on the intragrain transition is important for promoting a re-arrangement in the magnetic order of the Ru moments. The fact that the $`\chi `$(T,H) curves change their behavior just at H $``$ 0.1 - 0.3 T, supports this idea. We recall that for Ru-(1212) when a magnetic field H = 0.4 T is applied a change in the neutron diffraction pattern is observed, a result interpreted as due to a spin-flop transition.Lynn  Also, detailed magnetic measurements in this compound indicate that a spin-flop transition should occur at a critical field of $``$0.14 T for crystallites with the RuO2 layers oriented parallel to the applied field.Butera  These values are near to the fields at which we observed the decrease in T1 and the changes in the $`\chi `$(T, H) curves.

The features observed in the $`\chi `$(T, H) curves can also be explained in terms of a spin transition. The evolution from an upward deviation to a drop as the field is increased beyond 0.1 T implies that the relative contribution to the net magnetization from components of different sign changes. The main two contributions to the positive background are the FM component of the Ru sub-lattice and the paramagnetic signal of the Gd moments. The fact that the diamagnetic contribution becomes gradually detectable for H $``$ 0.1 T suggests that the FM component is reduced as a consequence of the spin re-orientation, possibly including a change of the Ru moments from c-axis alignment to planar, as proposed from neutron diffraction measurements.Lynn  According to this assumption, the magnetization at the CuO2 superconducting planes will be lowered, leading either to a mixed state with a lower density of vortex lines, i.e., with an increased fraction of the superconducting volume, or preventing SVP formation if the internal magnetization becomes lower than the first critical field of the domains. The boundaries will then be under the action of higher flux compression, as it is expulsed in a larger extent. If the intragrain transition is considered to be a phase-lock transition between structural domains, lower temperatures will be required to achieve intragrain percolation through a network of boundaries with an increased average local field. Also, under this approach, the number of screened Gd paramagnetic ions will be increased. Thus, the picture of a magnetic transition leading to a state with a reduced Ru magnetization diminishes the positive components to the net magnetization, increases the superconducting fraction in the domains, and depletes the intragrain transition temperature. It is worth mentioning that this analysis is independent of the actual order of the Ru moments below the spin-flop transition, and additional microscopic results are needed to interpret our magnetotransport measurements in terms of a well defined magnetic structure.

### IV.2 Intragrain transition in Ru-(1222)

The decrease of T1 in Ru-(1222) for a field as low as 100 Oe, as shown in Fig. 4(a), suggests a different magnetic response of the Ru sub-lattice in this compound. We believe that the enhancement of the 2D character of the magnetic order of the RuO2 layers due to the insertion of the (Gd, Ce)2O2 fluorite block instead of the Gd plane in Ru-(1212), is a key point to understand this behavior. The larger separation between the magnetic layers in Ru-(1222) leads to a weak superexchange coupling between the layers. In addition, differently than the case of Ru-(1212), any possible chains would be also affected by the fact that the nearest-neighbor Ru ions are not vertically aligned due to a shift induced by the fluorite block. Thus, other mechanisms are needed to attain a long-range order of the Ru moments along the c-axis. Recently, an interlayer coupling via dipole-dipole interaction has been proposed to explain the hysteretic behavior of Ru-(1222), leading to a spin-flop of the Ru moments for magnetic fields in the 0-100 Oe range,Ziv  a result which agrees with our interpretation. In addition, magnetic frustration effects and spin-glass behavior have been claimed to explain magnetic relaxation results in Ru-(1222), consistently with a weak magnetic coupling in this system.Cardoso

There is yet another important difference between the Ru-(1212) and Ru-(1222) systems in relation to the magnetism of the RuO2 layers which favors T1 suppression at low fields in the latter compound. For Ru-(1222), XANES measurementsFelner99  reveal the absence of a Ru4+/Ru5+ mixed valence state, as observed in Ru-(1212).Liu  This precludes the emergence of ferrimagnetic order in Ru-(1222). Ferrimagnetism in Ru-(1212) has been claimed to be the source of the high magnetization measured for this compound,Butera  which can not be explained only in terms of spin canting considerations. These results are relevant to the present study because they point to a state of low internal magnetization in Ru-(1222) at zero external field. Unfortunately, the long-range order of the Ru moments in Ru-(1222) is unknown; although neutron powder diffraction results were reported,Knee  the exact magnetic structure has not been unveiled.

The approximately five times larger suppression rate of T1 ($``$35 K/T) at low fields in comparison to Ru-(1212) can be understood upon the same considerations used to explain the larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$Tth,1 interval in Ru-(1222). As the external field is increased, the vortex structure in Ru-(1222), which has a higher 2D character, will be depinned more easily. Further cooling in comparison to Ru-(1212) would be required to attain a stable configuration of flux lines across the interdomain boundaries, shifting the intragrain transition to lower temperatures.

### IV.3 Intergrain transitions

Both compounds exhibit a rapid decrease of the intergrain transition temperature T2, for H $``$ 0.1- 0.3 T, with an initial slope which is one order of magnitude higher than for YBCO, followed by a much smaller suppression rate at higher fields (see Fig. 5). For Ru-(1212) it is possible to establish a clear correlation between the T2(H) behavior and the field dependence of T1. Since there are no changes in the intragrain transition up to H = 0.1 T, the contribution of the Ru magnetization in the grains to an effective field at the intergrain links remains essentially the same. Thus, the decrease in T2 in this interval is only due to the increase in the external field. For H $`>`$ 0.1 T, the magnetic transition towards the proposed state of lower internal magnetization gradually takes place in the polycrystalline sample with the increase in field. This reduces the contribution of a fraction of the grains to the local field at their neighboring intergrain junctions. The net effect of an increasing external field acting on an intergrain network which improves its connectivity as the intragrain magnetic transition proceeds is a lower suppression rate in T2. For Ru-(1222) the interpretation is less clear, since in this case there is not a well defined magnetic field value at which the re-arrangement of the Ru moments occurs, but instead a smooth decrease of T1. However, whatever the exact order of the Ru moments at low fields in this system might be, the T1(H) curve also shows a rapid variation in the H $``$ 0.1- 0.3 T interval, followed by a lower suppression rate \[see Fig. 4(b)\].

The field dependence of the amplitude of the intergrain peak in the Ru-based compounds has a distinctive difference as compared with YBCO. Although it regularly diminishes with the increase in field up to H = 0.1 T, accompanied with broadening, as in the conventional cuprates, a steep increase and narrowing are observed for H $`>`$ 0.3 T. In YBCO, the intergrain transition occurs over a wide distribution of link qualities, which become gradually phase-locked on cooling, leading to a broad peak. One possible explanation for the ruthenate-cuprates behavior in the high field range is that low quality links would be inactivated definitively due to the contribution of the magnetization in the grains to the effective field at the junctions. In this scheme, the intergrain transition would take place only through a fraction of high quality connections. This fraction of “available” links diminishes as the external field is increased, and so the range of temperatures in which percolation proceeds, leading to sharper transitions.

Another interesting feature of the field dependence of the intergrain transition is that the T2(H) curves, including YBCO, have a very similar slope for H $`>`$ 0.3 T, as can be seen in Fig. 5, suggesting that the curves are displaced due to the contribution of the magnetization in the grains to the effective field at the intergrain links. The fact that for Ru-(1222) the reduction of T2 for a given field is smaller than for Ru-(1212) is consistent with our previous considerations about a lower magnetization in the grains for the former compound. Additional studies are needed for a better understanding of the role of the grain magnetization in the intergrain transition.

## V CONCLUSIONS

We presented data indicating that the intragrain transition in both Ru-(1212) and Ru-(1222) exhibits a phase-lock behavior of a nanoscale Josephson-junction array. It is proposed that the presence of domains of coherently rotated RuO6 octahedra, a common structural feature of both compounds, is the source of such behavior. The differences in the field dependence of the intragrain transitions in these systems are interpret in terms of the magnetic response of the RuO2 layers. The addition of the (Gd, Ce)2 block in Ru-(1222) is a key point to explain why a spin-flop transition occurs in this material at a field one order of magnitude lower than for Ru-(1212), due to the enhancement of the 2D character of the magnetic order in the RuO2 layers. We argue also that this structural difference promotes a less pinned vortex lattice, leading to a five times larger suppression rate in the intragrain transition at low fields. The field dependence of the intergrain transition temperature is consistent with the changes in the intragrain magnetization in both compounds. The sharp intergrain peak at high fields suggests that intergrain percolation occurs only through a fraction of high quality junctions.

###### Acknowledgements.

S. García acknowledges financial support from FAPERJ, CAPES-Brazil, and CLAF (Latin American Centre of Physics). R.S. Freitas was supported by FAPERJ. We thank A. López and R. Cobas for help in sample preparation, and E.M. Baggio-Saitovitch for fruitful discussions.

## VI Figure Captions

Figure. 1. Scanning electron microscopy images of YBa2Cu3O7 (YBCO - top panel); RuSr2GdCu2O8 (Ru- - middle panel); and RuSr2Gd1.5Ce0.5Cu2O10 (Ru- - bottom panel).

Fig. 2. Temperature dependence of the resistance, measured with dc magnetic fields H = 0, 0.01, 0.03, 0.1, 0.3, 1, 3, 6, and 9 T: (a) YBCO, (b) Ru-(1212) and (c) Ru-(1222).

Fig. 3. Derivative dR/dT of the resistive curves shown in Fig. 1: (a) YBCO, (b) Ru-(1212) and (c) Ru-(1222). Inset in (a): an enlarged region of the derivative curve for YBCO at zero external field. The intragrain (T1) and intergrain (T2) peaks are identified in the inset and in panel (b) for H = 0 T. The thermodynamic transition temperature Tth is indicated for Ru-(1212). The lines are guides to the eyes.

Fig. 4. Field dependence of the shift in the intragrain transition temperature, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$T1(H) = T1(H) - T1(0), as determined from the derivative of the resistive curves of the studied samples: (a) an enlarged section of the low field interval, and (b) for the whole range of fields. The lines are guides to the eyes.

Fig. 5. Field dependence of the shift in the intergrain transition temperature, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$T2(H) = T2(H) - T2(0), as determined from the derivative of the resistive curves. The lines are guides to the eyes.

Fig. 6 (a) Temperature dependence of the ac magnetic susceptibility for Ru-(1212). The dc magnetic fields are the same used in the resistance measurements; (b) an enlarged section of the region of the superconducting transition. For H = 6 and 9 T the temperatures at which the corresponding intragrain peaks occur in the derivative of the resistive curves are indicated by arrows. The lines are guides to the eyes.


format: text

text:
# When shape matters: deformations of tiling spaces

## 1. Introduction and Statement of Results

A tiling is described by a combination of combinatorial data (which tiles meet which others) and by geometric data (the shape and location of each tile). Tilings with the same combinatorics may have different geometry. Compare figure 1, which shows a patch of a Penrose tiling, to figure 2, which shows a corresponding patch of a combinatorially identical but geometrically different tiling. The translation group acts on the continuous hulls of both tilings. How do the dynamics compare?

To avoid trivialities, we shall only consider *nonperiodic* tilings in this paper. Moreover, we shall assume that the tiles are polyhedra that meet full-face to full-face, and that there are only a finite set of tile types (a.k.a. prototiles) up to translation. Although these conditions may seem to be restrictive, any tiling that has finite local complexity with respect to translations is mutually locally derivable (MLD, see definition below) to a tiling meeting these conditions, via derived Voronoi tilings \[Pr\]. We also assume that our tiling spaces are minimal. This is equivalent to the condition that each patch of each tiling appear in all other tilings with bounded gaps.

Deformations of tiling spaces were considered in \[SW\]. As detailed there, to describe the shape and size of each tile, one must specify the displacement vector that corresponds to each edge of each prototile. If, somewhere in the tiling, translations of two prototiles meet along a common edge, then those two edges must have the same associated displacement vector. Moreover, the sum of the displacement vectors around each tile must be zero. Each deformation thus corresponds to a solution of a homogeneous linear system of equations subject to additional conditions which are open in the solution space: the sequence of edges around a tile does not cross itself and has winding number +1 and bounds a $`2`$-cell of a tile. If $`d>2`$ we also require the edges of a $`2`$-cell to be coplanar, and in general for all the edges of a $`k`$-cell of a tile to lie in a $`k`$-dimensional hyperplane of $`^d`$.

Put another way, the shapes of the prototiles are determined by a function $`f`$ from the set of prototile edges (modulo certain identifications) to $`^d`$. This function may be viewed as a 1-cochain on the CW-complex obtained by taking the disjoint union of all the prototiles, modulo the identification of edges (and other structures of dimension less than $`d`$) where tiles can meet. This is precisely the complex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ considered by Anderson and Putnam in their computation of topological invariants of substitution tiling spaces \[AP\]. (The Anderson-Putnam complex is defined for all translationally finite tilings, although it has been applied primarily to substitution tilings. See \[G\] for applications in a more general context.) That is, $`fC^1(\mathrm{\Gamma },^d)=Hom(C_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }),^d)`$, and we may think of “shape space” as a subset of $`C^1(\mathrm{\Gamma },^d)`$. (See, e.g., \[M\] for background on (co)homology.)

We denote vectors by bold-face roman letters, tiling spaces by $`𝒯`$ with appropriate subscripts, individual tilings by roman letters from the end of the alphabet (usually $`x`$ or $`y`$), and shape parameters by $`f`$ or $`g`$. The translate of the tiling $`x`$ by $`𝐳^d`$ is denoted $`x𝐳`$.

Fix a tiling space $`𝒯`$, and consider deformations of this space. For any choice $`f`$ of edge vectors meeting the above requirements, we can consider tilings whose tiles are described by these edge vectors, but whose combinatorics (which tiles meet and how) are the same as the original tilings in $`𝒯`$. Let $`𝒯_f`$ denote the space of such deformed tilings, on which $`^d`$ acts naturally by translation. The primary focus of this paper is the extent to which the dynamical system $`𝒯_f`$ depends on the function $`f`$. If all we care about is the topological space, a theorem of \[SW\] shows that it doesn’t:

###### Theorem 1.1.

\[SW\] Let $`f,gC^1(\mathrm{\Gamma },^d)`$ be admissible shape functions for a fixed tiling space. Then $`𝒯_f`$ and $`𝒯_g`$ are homeomorphic.

But what about dynamics? In a previous paper \[CS\] we showed how 1-dimensional substitution tiling space dynamics depend on the lengths of the tiles. Here we extend that analysis to higher dimensions, and also recast our 1-dimensional results in terms of topological invariants. One natural question is when two tiling spaces have topologically conjugate dynamics. Another is when they have dynamics that are intertwined by a local map. This involves the notion of mutual local derivability, first introduced in \[BSJ\].

Let $`x`$ and $`y`$ be two tilings, possibly with different sets of prototiles. The tiling $`y`$ is said to be locally derivable from $`x`$ if there exists a length $`R`$ such that, if $`𝐳_1,𝐳_2^d`$ and $`x𝐳_1`$ agrees with $`x𝐳_2`$ on a ball of radius $`R`$ around the origin, then $`y𝐳_1`$ agrees with $`y𝐳_2`$ on a ball of radius 1 around the origin. In other words, the type and exact placement of the tile at a point $`𝐳`$ in $`y`$ depends only on the patch of radius $`R`$ around $`𝐳`$ in $`x`$. If $`y`$ is locally derivable from $`x`$ and $`x`$ is locally derivable from $`y`$, then $`x`$ and $`y`$ are said to be mutually locally derivable (MLD) tilings.

The MLD concept extends to tiling spaces. If $`x`$ and $`y`$ are MLD tilings, then the closure of the translational orbit of $`x`$ is topologically conjugate to the closure of the translation orbit of $`y`$, via a conjugacy that takes $`x`$ to $`y`$, and thus depends only on local data. More generally, we say that two tiling spaces $`𝒯`$ and $`𝒯^{}`$ are MLD if there exists a topological conjugacy $`\varphi :𝒯𝒯^{}`$ such that, for some $`R`$, the patch of size 1 around the origin in $`\varphi (x)`$ can be determined exactly from the patch of size $`R`$ around the origin in $`x`$, and the patch of size 1 in $`x`$ can be determined exactly from the patch of size $`R`$ in $`\varphi (x)`$. This is a natural generalization of the concept of “sliding block codes” for subshifts. However, while all continuous maps of subshifts are sliding block codes (see, e.g., \[LM\]), there exist topologically conjugate tiling spaces that are not MLD \[RS, Pe, CS\].

In Section 2, we construct a natural map $``$ from the space of shape parameters to the Cech cohomology group $`H^1(𝒯,^d)`$ ($`=H^1(𝒯,)^d`$) and show that the dynamical properties of $`𝒯_f`$ depend only on $`(f)`$:

###### Theorem 1.2 (Theorem 2.1).

Suppose $`f`$ and $`g`$ are admissible shape parameters with $`(f)=(g)`$. Then $`𝒯_f`$ and $`𝒯_g`$ are mutually locally derivable.

Furthermore, we define a condition on $`H^1(𝒯,)`$ (and by extension, $`H^1(𝒯,^d)`$) called “asymptotic negligibility”. Roughly speaking, a deformation is asymptotically negligible if, up to an arbitrarily small error, it does not change the return vectors of large patches in a tiling. We then prove

###### Theorem 1.3 (Theorem 2.2).

Let $`f,gC^1(\mathrm{\Gamma },^d)`$ be admissible shape functions for a fixed tiling space. If $`(f)(g)`$ is asymptotically negligible, then there is a topological conjugacy between $`𝒯_f`$ and $`𝒯_g`$.

Rescaling a tiling, or more generally applying a linear transformation, does not change the qualitative dynamical properties of the tiling space, such as mixing, minimality, or diffractivity. We therefore consider when a tiling space $`𝒯_f`$ is topologically conjugate to a linear transformation of a tiling space $`𝒯_g`$. Since linear transformations act naturally on the $`^d`$ factor of $`H^1(𝒯,^d)`$ we have:

###### Corollary 1.4.

The tiling spaces $`𝒯_f`$ and $`𝒯_g`$ are conjugate up to linear transformation if, for some linear transformation $`L`$, $`(g)L((f))`$ is asymptotically negligible.

In Section 3 we specialize to nonperiodic tilings made from a primitive substitution, or a primitive substitution-with-amalgamation. The resulting spaces are orbit closures of self-similar or pseudo-self-similar tilings, respectively, in the terminology of \[So1, So2, PS\]. An essential object of study is the action of the substitution on the tiling space itself, and therefore on $`H^1(𝒯,^d)`$. We decompose $`H^1(𝒯,^d)`$ into (generalized) eigenspaces of the substitution operator. Let $`S(𝒯)`$ be the span of the (generalized) eigenvectors with eigenvalue strictly less than one in magnitude. We show that the set of asymptotically negligible classes is precisely $`S(𝒯)`$, and prove the following local converse to Theorem 1.3:

###### Theorem 1.5 (Theorem 3.3).

For each shape parameter $`f`$ there is a neighborhood $`U_f`$ of $`(f)`$ such that, if $`(g)U_f`$ and $`𝒯_f`$ and $`𝒯_g`$ are topologically conjugate, then $`(g)(f)S(𝒯)`$.

If there is a pseudo-self-similar tiling in $`𝒯_f`$, then $`(f)`$ is a Perron-Frobenius eigenvector of the substitution applied to $`H^1(𝒯,^d)`$. The Perron-Frobenius eigenspace, denoted $`PF(𝒯)`$, is $`d^2`$ dimensional, and precisely equals $`L(f)`$, where $`L`$ ranges over all linear transformations of $`^d`$. Corollary 1.4 has the following simple restatement for substitution tilings:

###### Corollary 1.6.

If $`𝒯_f`$ contains a pseudo-self-similar tiling, and if $`(g)PF(𝒯)S(𝒯)`$, then $`𝒯_g`$ is topologically conjugate to a linear transformation applied to $`𝒯_f`$.

In particular, if $`H^1(𝒯,^d)=PF(𝒯)S(𝒯)`$, then all choices of shape give rise to conjugate dynamics, up to linear transformation. This case is the natural generalization, to higher dimensions, of Pisot substitutions.

For the space of Penrose tilings, $`H^1(𝒯,)=^5`$ \[AP\], so $`H^1(𝒯,^2)`$ is 10-dimensional. The eigenvalues of the substitution are the golden mean $`\tau `$, with multiplicity 4, $`1\tau `$ with multiplicity 4, and $`1`$ with multiplicity 2. However, the $`1`$ eigenspace is odd under rotation by 180 degrees, while the $`\tau `$ and $`1\tau `$ eigenspaces are even \[ORS\]. Any choice of shapes that preserves the (statistical) 2-fold rotational symmetry of the Penrose tiling must not involve the $`1`$ eigenspace. As a result, the tiling space constructed from the tiling of figure 2 is topologically conjugate to a linear transformation applied to the undistorted Penrose tiling space.

The techniques of Section 3 require recognizability, and hence draw heavily on Solomyak’s generalization \[So2\] of the work of Mossé on 1-dimensional subshifts \[M1, M2\].

In Section 4 we study the spectra of substitution tilings and their deformations. We provide general criteria for the existence of point spectrum of translations acting on $`𝒯_f`$, similar in spirit to criteria found in \[So1\] for self-similar tilings and to criteria in \[CS\] for 1-dimensional substitution tiling spaces and their deformations. We also provide constraints on the form of that spectrum, in terms of the aforementioned decomposition of $`(f)`$ into eigenspaces of the substitution operator. In particular, we show:

###### Theorem 1.7 (Theorem 4.4).

If $`H^1(𝒯,^d)PF(𝒯)S(𝒯)`$, then for a generic choice of shape parameter $`f`$, $`𝒯_f`$ is topologically weakly mixing.

Finally, in Section 5 we revisit the problem in one dimension, and recast the results of \[CS\] in topological terms.

## 2. The Map $``$

To define the map $``$ we first recall the inverse limit structure of tiling spaces, developed by Anderson and Putnam \[AP\] for substitution tilings, and generalized by Gähler \[G\] to apply to all translationally finite tilings. (See \[BBG\] for an alternate approach, and \[ORS, Sa, BG\] for further generalizations).

We first construct a complex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by taking the disjoint union of prototiles in the tiling, modulo identification of edges where tiles can meet. If somewhere in a tiling, edge $`i`$ of a tile of type $`A`$ is coincident with edge $`j`$ of a tile of type $`B`$, then we identify edge $`i`$ of $`A`$ with edge $`j`$ of $`B`$ in the complex. (If $`d>2`$ we also identify coincident faces and other structures of dimension up to $`d1`$.)

We may also rewrite the tiling in terms of collared tiles, labeling each tile $`t`$ by the patch consisting of all tiles that touch $`t`$. Applying the construction of the previous paragraph to the collared tiles gives a complex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$. Collaring the collared tiles and applying the construction gives a complex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}`$, and more generally applying the construction to $`k`$-times collared tiles gives a complex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(k)}`$.

There is a natural “forgetful” map $`\alpha _0`$ from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ that simply ignores the collaring, and likewise a forgetful map $`\alpha _k:\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(k+1)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(k)}`$. The inverse limit of the sequence of maps and spaces

(1)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}\stackrel{\alpha _0}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}\stackrel{\alpha _1}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}\mathrm{}$$

is isomorphic to the tiling space $`𝒯`$ \[G\]. A point in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ tells how to place a tile around the origin. A point in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$ tells how to place a collared tile, i.e., a tile and its nearest neighbors. As $`k`$ increases, the points in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(k)}`$ tell how to place larger and larger patches around the origin, and the entire sequence $`(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{})`$ with $`x_i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(i)}`$ and $`x_i=\alpha _i(x_{i+1})`$ tells how to place a complete tiling.

We have already seen that the a shape parameter $`f`$ is a vector-valued 1-cochain in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In fact, for any tile, $`\delta f(t)=f(t)=0`$, since this is the sum of the edge vectors around the tile $`t`$. Thus $`f`$ is a cocycle, and defines a cohomology class $`[f]H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma },^d)`$. Let $`r_k:𝒯\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(k)}`$ be the projection of the tiling space to the $`k`$th approximant. Define $`(f)=r_0^{}[f]H^1(𝒯,^d)`$.

###### Theorem 2.1 (Theorem 1.2).

Suppose $`f`$ and $`g`$ are admissible shape parameters with $`(f)=(g)`$. Then $`𝒯_f`$ and $`𝒯_g`$ are mutually locally derivable.

Proof.  We show how to construct a tiling in $`𝒯_g`$ from the corresponding tiling in $`𝒯_f`$ by a process that is completely local. The reverse process is of course similar.

Let $`\pi _k=\alpha _0\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{k1}:\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(k)}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. If $`(f)=(g)`$, then for some finite $`k`$, $`\pi _k^{}[f]\pi _k^{}[g]=0`$, so $`\pi _k^{}f\pi _k^{}g=\delta \beta `$ for some $`\beta C^0(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(k)},^d)`$. Now each vertex $`𝐯`$ in a tiling in $`𝒯_f`$ maps to a unique vertex in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(k)}`$, the map being determined by a ball of size $`(k+1)A`$ around $`𝐯`$, where $`A`$ is the diameter of the largest prototile. Moving each vertex $`𝐯`$ by $`\beta (𝐯)`$, and linearly interpolating the edges between vertices, converts a tiling in $`𝒯_f`$ to a tiling in $`𝒯_g`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

For a tiling $`x𝒯`$, a recurrence is an ordered pair $`(𝐳_1,𝐳_2)`$ of points in $`x`$ such that $`𝐳_1`$ is a point in a tile and $`𝐳_2`$ is the corresponding point of a translate of that tile and such that there exist balls around $`𝐳_1`$ and $`𝐳_2`$ that agree (up to translation by $`𝐳_2𝐳_1`$, of course). If $`r`$ is the supremum of the radii of the balls around $`𝐳_1`$ and $`𝐳_2`$ that agree, then we say the recurrence has size $`r`$. Each path along edges from $`𝐳_1`$ to $`𝐳_2`$ projects to a closed loop in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and hence to a closed chain in $`C_1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Different paths from $`𝐳_1`$ to $`𝐳_2`$ correspond to homologous chains. The class in $`H_1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ of a recurrence is called a recurrence class. Note that recurrences of size greater than $`(k+1)A`$, where $`A`$ is the diamater of the largest prototile, also project to closed paths in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(k)}`$ and define classes in $`H_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(k)})`$. Since the tiling space $`𝒯`$ is assumed to be minimal, the set of recurrence classes is the same for every tiling in the space, and so we can speak of the recurrence classes of the tiling space.

An element $`\eta `$ of $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(k)},)`$, or of $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(k)},^d)`$, is said to be asymptotically negligible if, for each $`ϵ>0`$ there exists a constant $`R_ϵ`$ such that $`\eta `$, applied to any homology class that can be represented by a recurrence of size greater than $`R_ϵ`$, is less than $`ϵ`$ in magnitude. A class in $`H^1(𝒯,^d)`$ is asymptotically negligible if it is the pullback of an asymptotically negligible class in $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(k)},^d)`$ for some finite $`k`$. It is clear that any linear combination of asymptotically negligible classes is asymptotically negligible, so these classes form a subspace of $`H^1(𝒯,^d)`$, denoted $`N(𝒯)`$.

###### Theorem 2.2 (Theorem 1.3).

Let $`f,gC^1(\mathrm{\Gamma },^d)`$ be admissible shape functions for a fixed tiling space. If $`(f)(g)`$ is asymptotically negligible, then there is a topological conjugacy $`\varphi :𝒯_f𝒯_g`$.

Proof.  We construct the conjugacy $`\varphi `$ in stages. First pick a reference tiling $`x𝒯_f`$ that has a vertex at the origin.

For every vertex $`𝐯`$ in $`x`$ there is a path $`p_𝐯`$ from the origin to $`𝐯`$ along edges, and the location of $`𝐯`$ is precisely $`f(p_𝐯)`$. In $`\varphi (x)`$ we place the corresponding vertex at $`g(p_𝐯)`$. The path $`p_𝐯`$ is not uniquely defined, but different choices differ by boundaries, so the values of $`f(p_𝐯)`$ and $`g(p_𝐯)`$ are uniquely determined. Once the location of the vertices of $`\varphi (x)`$ are specified, constructing the edges and tiles is straightforward.

This defines $`\varphi (x)`$. For $`𝐳^d`$, let $`\varphi (x𝐳)=\varphi (x)𝐳`$. It remains to show that $`\varphi `$ is uniformly continuous on the orbit of $`x`$, and hence can be extended to all of $`𝒯`$.

Suppose that $`𝐳_1`$ and $`𝐳_2`$ are vertices in $`x`$ such that $`x𝐳_1`$ and $`x𝐳_2`$ agree on a large ball around the origin. Note that $`\varphi (x)g(p_{𝐳_1})`$ agrees exactly with $`\varphi (x)g(p_{𝐳_2})`$ on a large ball around the origin. Since $`fg`$ is asymptotically negligible, $`f(p_{𝐳_2})f(p_{𝐳_1})`$ is very close to $`g(p_{𝐳_2})g(p_{𝐳_1})`$, so $`\varphi (x𝐳_1)=\varphi (x)f(p_{𝐳_1})`$ agrees with $`\varphi (x𝐳_2)=\varphi (x)f(p_{𝐳_2})`$ on a large ball around the origin, up to a small translation, of size $`f(p_{𝐳_2})f(p_{𝐳_1})\left(g(p_{𝐳_2})g(p_{𝐳_1})\right)`$. Since this translation can be made arbitrarily small by making the recurrence of sufficiently large size (independent of the choice of $`𝐳_1`$ and $`𝐳_2`$), $`\varphi `$ is uniformly continuous on the orbit of $`x`$.

To see that $`\varphi `$ is invertible, construct a semi-conjugacy $`\varphi ^{}:𝒯_g𝒯_f`$ by the same procedure, with the roles of $`f`$ and $`g`$ reversed, and with $`\varphi (x)`$ as the reference tiling. Since $`\varphi ^{}(\varphi (x))=x`$, it is clear that $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$ are inverses. $`\mathrm{}`$

Note that $`𝒯_f`$ and $`𝒯_g`$ are typically not MLD. If two tilings in $`𝒯_f`$ agree on a large ball around the origin, the corresponding tilings in $`𝒯_g`$ agree on a large ball up to a small translation. Only if $`fg`$ vanishes on large recurrence classes do they agree without translation. In that case, however, the following theorem shows that $`(f)=(g)`$, and we are back in the situation of Theorem 1.2.

###### Theorem 2.3.

Let $`\beta H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma },)`$. If $`\beta `$ vanishes on all recurrence classes of size greater than a fixed value $`R`$, then the pullback of $`\beta `$ to $`H^1(𝒯,)`$ is zero.

Proof.  We use Kellendonk and Putnam’s P-equivariant cohomology \[K, KP\], which relates the real-valued cohomology of a tiling space to closed and exact forms on a single tiling $`x`$, meeting some equivariance conditions. A differential form on the tiling $`x`$ (viewed as a decorated copy of $`^d`$) is said to be P-equivariant if there is some radius $`r`$ such that the value of the form at each point depends only on the tiling in a ball of radius $`r`$ around that point. That is, if $`\rho =_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}f_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}dx_{i_1}\mathrm{}dx_{i_k}`$ is an equivariant form with radius $`r`$, and if $`x𝐳_1`$ and $`x𝐳_2`$ agree on a ball of radius $`r`$ around the origin, then $`f_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}(𝐳_1)=f_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}(𝐳_2)`$. Kellendonk and Putnam prove a version of the de Rham theorem: the closed P-equivariant $`k`$-forms on $`x`$, modulo $`d`$ of the P-equivariant $`(k1)`$-forms, is isomorphic to $`H^k(𝒯,)`$.

Now consider our class $`\beta `$, and represent it as a closed P-equivariant 1-form $`\rho `$. Let $`\gamma (𝐳)=_0^𝐳\rho `$. It is clear that $`\rho =d\gamma `$, and the condition that $`\beta `$ vanishes on large recurrence classes implies that $`\gamma `$ is P-equivariant with radius $`R`$. Thus $`\rho `$ represents the zero class in $`H^1(𝒯,)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3. Substitution Tiling Spaces

We now specialize to substitution tiling spaces, where we can obtain sharper results. In this section we identify the asymptotically negligible cohomology classes and prove Theorem 1.5.

A substitution tiling system is determined by a substitution $`\sigma `$ from the set of prototiles to the set of finite patches, such that for each prototile $`t`$, the tiles of $`\sigma (t)`$ do not overlap, and such that their union is the rescaled prototile $`\lambda t`$, where $`\lambda `$ is a fixed “stretching factor”. For example, in the “chair” tiling, there are four prototiles: One is the L-shaped tile of figure 3 and the others are this tile rotated by $`\pi /2`$, $`\pi `$ and $`3\pi /2`$. The substitution map is shown in figure 3. We extend the map $`\sigma `$ to patches, dilating the entire patch by a factor of $`\lambda `$ and replacing each dilated tile $`\lambda t_i`$ with $`\sigma (t_i)`$. For each prototile $`t`$ we have a sequence of patches $`t,\sigma (t),\sigma ^2(t),\mathrm{}`$. A tiling $`x`$ of $`^d`$ by prototiles is called admissible if for every finite patch $`P`$ of $`x`$, there exists a prototile $`t`$ and an integer $`n`$ such that $`P`$ is a translate of a subpatch of $`\sigma ^n(t)`$. The substitution tiling space $`𝒯`$ is then the set of all admissible tilings, and $`\sigma `$ extends to a continuous map $`𝒯𝒯`$.

We assume that the substitution is primitive. That is, there exists an integer $`n`$ such that, for any two (possibly identical) prototiles $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$, $`\sigma ^n(t_1)`$ contains a copy of $`t_2`$. This ensures that $`𝒯`$ is minimal. Furthermore, we assume that $`𝒯`$ is non-periodic. There does not exist a tiling $`x𝒯`$ and a nonzero $`𝐳^d`$ with $`x𝐳=x`$. By a theorem of Solomyak \[So2\], extending previous work by Mossé \[M1, M2\], this implies that $`\sigma :𝒯𝒯`$ is a homeomorphism. There then exists a “recognition length” $`D`$ such that, if $`x`$ and $`y`$ are tilings that agree on a ball of radius $`r>D`$ about a point $`𝐳^d`$, then $`\sigma ^1(x)`$ and $`\sigma ^1(y)`$ agree on the tile(s) containing the point $`𝐳/\lambda `$.

In every substitution tiling space there exists a fixed point of some power of the substitution. Replacing $`\sigma `$ with a power of $`\sigma `$ does not change the tiling space, so we can assume, without loss of generality, that there is a tiling $`x`$ with $`\sigma (x)=x`$. Such a tiling is called “self-similar”, and has the property that $`\lambda x`$ is a tiling by large tiles, each of which is a union of tiles of $`x`$. Some authors begin by defining self-similar tilings by this property, and then take $`𝒯`$ to be the closure of the translational orbit of $`x`$.

Closely related to self-similar tilings are pseudo-self-similar tilings. A tiling $`x`$ is pseudo-self-similar if, for some scaling factor $`\lambda `$, $`\lambda x`$ and $`x`$ are MLD. Natalie Priebe Frank and Boris Solomyak \[PS\] have shown that every pseudo-self-similar planar tiling with polygonal tiles is MLD to a self-similar tiling. However, the tiles of the self-similar tiling may not be polygonal; rather, they may have fractile boundaries. Conversely, Natalie Priebe Frank \[Pr\] showed (in arbitrary dimension) that each self-similar tiling (with tiles of arbitrary shape) is MLD to a pseudo-self-similar tiling with polyhedral tiles meeting full-face to full-face.

Orbit closures of pseudo-self-similar tilings may also be viewed as coming from a substitution-with-amalgamation. A substitution-with-amalgamation is the composition of a linear rescaling and a local map. The local map is a prescription for replacing each rescaled prototile $`\lambda t`$ by a collection of tiles, such that the resulting tiles do not overlap and do not leave any gaps. As with an ordinary substitution, $`\sigma `$ extends to a homeomorphism $`𝒯𝒯`$. In a (strict) substitution tiling, each rescaled prototile $`\lambda t`$ in $`\lambda x`$ is a union of tiles of $`\sigma (x)`$, but in a substitution-with-amalgamation, the tiles of $`\sigma (x)`$ may stick in and out of the tiles of $`\lambda x`$.

An example of a substitution-with-amalgamation, for a tiling by marked hexagonal tiles, is shown in figure 4. Each small hexagon is rescaled by a linear factor of two, and the resulting large hexagon is replaced by four small hexagons. The union of the four small hexagons is not the corresponding large hexagon, yet the small hexagons associated to all the large hexagons yield a tiling of the plane, without gaps or overlaps.

In this section we assume that $`𝒯`$ is a nonperiodic substitution tiling space derived from a substitution-with-amalgamation $`\sigma `$. Since $`\sigma `$ maps $`𝒯`$ to $`𝒯`$, it induces a pullback map: $`\sigma ^{}:H^1(𝒯,^d)H^1(𝒯,^d)`$. We decompose $`H^1(𝒯,^d)`$ into (generalized) eigenspaces of $`\sigma ^{}`$. The largest eigenvalue, denoted $`\lambda _{PF},`$ equals the stretching factor and has multiplicity $`d^2`$. (In terms of P-equivariant cohomology, a basis for this space is $`dz^ie_j`$, where $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_d`$ is the standard basis for $`^d`$ and $`z^1,\mathrm{}z^d`$ are Cartesian coordinates.) The corresponding eigenspace is denoted $`PF(𝒯)`$. The span of the (generalized) eigenvectors with eigenvalues of magnitude strictly less than 1 is denoted $`S(𝒯)`$.

Anderson and Putnam’s results \[AP\] were originally stated for substitutions without amalgamation, but apply also to substitutions with amalgamation. The substitution $`\sigma `$ induces a map from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$ to itself, and $`𝒯`$ is the inverse limit of the sequence of maps:

(2)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}\stackrel{𝜎}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}\stackrel{𝜎}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}\stackrel{𝜎}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}\mathrm{}$$

The cohomology $`H^1(𝒯,^d)`$ is then the direct limit of $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)},^d)`$ under $`\sigma ^{}:H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)},^d)H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)},^d)`$. Nonzero eigenspaces of $`\sigma ^{}`$ applied to $`H^1(𝒯,^d)`$ correspond to nonzero eigenspaces of $`\sigma ^{}`$ applied to $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)},^d)`$. The only difference between $`H^1(𝒯,^d)`$ and $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)},^d)`$ is that $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)},^d)`$ may contain a (generalized) zero-eigenspace of $`\sigma ^{}`$, while $`H^1(𝒯,^d)`$ does not.

This decomposition into eigenspaces of $`\sigma ^{}`$ makes it easy to identify the asymptotically negligible classes.

###### Theorem 3.1.

If $`𝒯`$ is a substitution tiling space, then $`N(𝒯)=S(𝒯)`$.

Proof.  For simplicity, suppose that the action of $`\sigma ^{}`$ on $`H^1(𝒯,^d)`$ is diagonalizable. First we show that $`N(𝒯)S(𝒯)`$. For $`\beta N(𝒯)`$, decompose $`\beta `$ as

(3)
$$\beta =\beta _1+\beta _2+\mathrm{}+\beta _k,$$

with all terms nonzero, and with each $`\beta _j`$ an eigenvector of $`\sigma ^{}`$ with eigenvalue $`\lambda _j`$, with $`|\lambda _1||\lambda _2|\mathrm{}|\lambda _k|`$. Since $`\beta _10`$, by Theorem 2.3 there exists a recurrence class $`[p_z]`$ such that $`\beta _1[p_z]0`$. The size of the recurrence $`\sigma ^n(p_z)`$ grows exponentially with $`n`$, so $`\beta (\sigma ^n(p_z))`$ goes to zero as $`n\mathrm{}`$. However,

(4)
$$\beta (\sigma ^n(p_z))=((\sigma ^{})^n\beta )p_z=\lambda _1^n\beta _1(p_z)+\lambda _2^n\beta _2(p_z)+\mathrm{}+\lambda _k^n\beta _k(p_z).$$

Since $`\beta _1(p_z)0`$, the only way this can converge to zero is if $`|\lambda _1|<1`$, hence $`\beta S(𝒯)`$.

To show that $`S(𝒯)N(𝒯)`$, note that every recurrence class $`[p_z]`$ can be written as a sum

(5)
$$[p_z]=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\sigma _{})^j[p_j],$$

with only a finite number of nonzero terms, and with all the $`[p_j]`$’s belonging to a fixed bounded subset $`U`$ of $`H_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)})`$. (The argument is essentially that found in \[So2, Proof of Lemma 3.2\] and is not repeated here.) If the recurrence has size greater than $`D(1+\lambda _{PF}+\mathrm{}+\lambda _{PF}^{n1})`$ where $`D`$ is the recognition length, then the first $`n`$ terms are zero.

Suppose that $`\beta `$ is an eigenvector of $`\sigma ^{}`$ with eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ of magnitude strictly less than 1. Let $`K`$ be larger than the greatest value that $`\beta `$ takes on $`U`$. Then for any recurrence class $`[p_z]`$, $`|\beta (p_z)|<K/(1|\lambda |)`$. If $`p_z`$ has size greater than $`D(1+\lambda _{PF}+\mathrm{}+\lambda _{PF}^{n1})`$, then $`|\beta (p_z)|<K|\lambda |^n/(1|\lambda |)`$. Thus $`\beta `$ is asymptotically negligible. Since linear combinations of asymptotically negligible classes are asymptotically negligible, $`S(𝒯)N(𝒯)`$.

When $`\sigma ^{}`$ is not diagonalizable, the analysis is only slightly more complicated. The expansion of $`\beta (\sigma ^n(p_j))`$ may involve $`n`$-th powers of eigenvalues times polynomials in $`n`$, rather than just $`n`$-th powers of eigenvalues. However, the conclusions are unchanged. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 3.2.

If, for some non-negative integer $`k`$, either $`(g)(\sigma ^{})^k(f)S(𝒯)`$ or $`(f)(\sigma ^{})^k(g)S(𝒯)`$, then $`𝒯_f`$ is topologically conjugate to $`𝒯_g`$.

Proof.  The case where $`k=0`$ was already proven by Theorems 1.3 and 3.1. All that remains is to prove conjugacy when $`(g)=\sigma ^{}((f))`$. Since the MLD class of $`𝒯_g`$ depends only on $`(g)`$, we can assume that $`g=\sigma ^{}(f)`$ as cochains on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$. \[Note: since we need to work with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$ rather than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}`$, we pull our shape parameters $`f`$ and $`g`$ from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ back to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$, and henceforth view them as closed cochains in $`C^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)},^d)`$.\] That is, a cluster of tiles $`\sigma (t_i)`$ in $`𝒯_g`$ has the same dispacements as the single tile $`t_i`$ in $`𝒯_f`$. To convert a tiling $`x𝒯_f`$ to a tiling $`\varphi (x)𝒯_g`$, replace each tile $`tx`$ by the cluster $`\sigma (t)`$, with shapes given by $`g`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Theorem 3.2 gives sufficient conditions for two tiling spaces to be conjugate. For infinitesimal deformations, these conditions are also necessary:

###### Theorem 3.3 (Theorem 1.5).

For each shape parameter $`f`$ there is a neighborhood $`U_f`$ of $`(f)`$ such that, if $`(g)U_f`$ and $`𝒯_f`$ and $`𝒯_g`$ are topologically conjugate, then $`(g)(f)S(𝒯)`$.

The remainder of this section is devoted to proving Theorem 3.3. To prove the theorem we must understand the extent to which patterns in $`𝒯`$ can repeat themselves. For each recurrence $`(𝐳_1,𝐳_2)`$, let the degree of the recurrence be its size divided by $`|𝐳_2𝐳_1|`$. For fixed $`p>0`$, we show that the recurrence classes corresponding to recurrences with degree $`p`$ or greater can be grouped into a finite number of families, and we construct a conjugacy invariant from the asymptotic displacements of these recurrences. Comparing these invariants for different shape parameters then gives necessary conditions for conjugacy.

It is convenient to work with explicit matrices. The set of integer linear combinations of recurrence classes of size at least $`2A`$ (where $`A`$ is the diameter of the largest tile) is a sub-lattice of $`H_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)})`$. Let $`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_s\}`$ be a basis for this sub-lattice. Since $`\sigma `$ maps recurrences to recurrences, it maps the lattice to itself. Let $`M`$ be the matrix of this map relative to the basis $`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_s\}`$. Note that the entries of $`M`$ are integers. The matrix $`M`$ will play a role similar to that of the substitution matrix in one-dimensional substitutions. For each recurrence class in $`H_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)})`$, the corresponding recurrence vector in $`^s`$ is the decomposition of the class in the $`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_s\}`$ basis. For any shape parameter $`f`$, let $`𝐋_f=(f(a_1),\mathrm{},f(a_s))`$ be the ($`^d`$-valued row) vector that gives the displacements, in $`^d`$, corresponding to lifts of the various loops. For a recurrence with vector $`𝐯`$, the corresponding displacement is $`𝐋_f𝐯`$. The Euclidean length of $`𝐋_f𝐯`$ is called the length of $`𝐯`$, and denoted $`|𝐯|_f`$. We call $`𝐋_f`$ the shape vector of $`𝒯_f`$.

Let $`𝒯_0`$ be a tiling space whose shape vector $`𝐋_0`$ is a left Perron-Frobenius eigenvector of $`M`$. This can be the original substitution tiling space, a linear transformation applied to the original space, or a space that is MLD to such a linear transformation. In all such cases, there exists a pseudo-self-similar tiling in the space, and we call the space itself pseudo-self-similar.

If $`𝐯`$ is a recurrence vector of degree $`p`$ in $`𝒯_0`$, corresponding to a recurrence $`(𝐳_1,𝐳_2)`$ in a tiling $`x`$, then $`M𝐯`$ is also a recurrence vector of degree at least $`p`$, corresponding to the recurrence $`(\lambda _{PF}𝐳_1,\lambda _{PF}𝐳_2)`$ in the tiling $`\sigma (x)`$. Both the size of the matching balls around $`𝐳_1`$ and $`𝐳_2`$ and the distance from $`𝐳_1`$ to $`𝐳_2`$ get stretched by the same factor $`\lambda _{PF}`$ in the substitution. Thus each recurrence vector of degree $`p`$ gives rise to a family of recurrence vectors $`M^k𝐯`$. The following theorem limits the number of such families.

###### Theorem 3.4.

Let $`𝒯_0`$ be any pseudo-self-similar tiling space and let $`p>0`$. There is a finite collection of vectors $`\{𝐯_1,\mathrm{},𝐯_N\}`$ such that every recurrence vector of degree at least $`p`$ for $`𝒯_0`$ is of the form $`M^k𝐯_i`$ for some pair $`(k,i)`$.

Proof.  As before, let $`D`$ be the recognition length of the substitution $`\sigma `$ acting on $`𝒯_0`$. Suppose $`𝐯`$ is a recurrence vector of degree at least $`p`$ for $`𝒯_0`$, where the radius $`R`$ of the matching balls is much greater than $`D`$. Then the supertiles within balls of radius $`RD`$ around $`𝐳_1`$ and $`𝐳_2`$ must also agree. Thus there is a recurrence vector $`𝐯_1`$ such that $`𝐯=M𝐯_1`$, and such that $`𝐯_1`$ is a recurrence vector of degree at least $`(RD)/(\lambda _{PF}|𝐯_1|_0)(p|𝐯|_0D)/(\lambda _{PF}|𝐯_1|_0)=p(D/|𝐯|_0)`$.

Repeating the process, we find recurrence vectors $`𝐯_i`$ such that $`M𝐯_i=𝐯_{i1}`$ and $`𝐯_i`$ is a recurrence vector of degree at least

(6)
$$p\frac{D}{|𝐯_i|_0}(\lambda _{PF}^1+\lambda _{PF}^2+\mathrm{}+\lambda _{PF}^i)p\frac{D}{|𝐯_i|_0}\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda _{PF}^{\mathrm{}}=p\frac{D}{|𝐯_i|_0(\lambda _{PF}1)}.$$

Now pick $`ϵ<p`$. We have shown that every recurrence vector of degree at least $`p`$ is of the form $`M^k𝐯_i`$, where $`𝐯_i`$ is a recurrence vector of degree at least $`pϵ`$, and where $`|𝐯_i|_0`$ is bounded by $`\frac{D\lambda _{PF}}{ϵ(\lambda _{PF}1)}`$. However, by finite local complexity, there are only a finite number of recurrence vectors of this length. $`\mathrm{}`$

As defined, the degree of a recurrence vector depends on the shape vector of the tiling space. Indeed, since linear transformations do not preserve lengths or ratios of lengths, the degree of a recurrence vector in two pseudo-self-similar tiling spaces may not be the same. However, for any tiling space $`𝒯_f`$, the degrees of large recurrence vectors are approximately the same as that of some pseudo-self-similar tiling space:

###### Lemma 3.5.

Let $`𝐋_f`$ be decomposed as $`𝐋_f=𝐋_0+𝐋_r`$, where $`𝐋_r`$ is a linear combination of (generalized) eigenvectors with eigenvalue less than $`\lambda _{PF}`$ in magnitude, and $`𝐋_0`$ is a Perron-Frobenius eigenvector. Let $`𝒯_0`$ be a pseudo-self-similar tiling space with shape vector $`𝐋_0`$. For each recurrence vector $`𝐯`$, let $`r_𝐯=|𝐯|_f/|𝐯|_0`$. For each $`ϵ>0`$ there exists a length $`R`$ such that all recurrence vectors $`𝐯`$ with $`|𝐯|_f>R`$ have $`|r_𝐯1|<ϵ`$.

If $`\lambda _2`$ is the second largest eigenvalue in magnitude, then in recurrences of the form $`M^n𝐯`$, $`|r_𝐯1|`$ goes to 0 as $`\left(\lambda _2/\lambda _{PF}\right)^n`$. Moreover, this convergence is uniform in $`n`$ for all recurrences, because all non-zero recurrences are longer than the diameter of a ball that can fit in each prototile. As indicated in the proof of theorem 3.1, given any $`N`$, all recurrences of sufficient length are sums of recurrences of the form $`M^n𝐯`$ with $`n>N`$, and so the result follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 3.6.

Let $`ϵ>0`$, and let $`f`$ be fixed. There is a self-similar tiling space $`𝒯_0`$ and a length $`R`$ such that every recurrence vector of degree at least $`p`$ in $`𝒯_f`$, of length greater than $`R`$, is a recurrence vector of degree at least $`pϵ`$ in $`𝒯_0`$. Furthermore, every recurrence vector of degree at least $`p+ϵ`$ in $`𝒯_0`$, of length greater than $`R`$, is a recurrence vector of degree at least $`p`$ in $`𝒯_f`$.

Proof.  Decompose $`𝐋_f=𝐋_0+𝐋_r`$ as above, and let $`𝒯_0`$ be the pseudo-self-similar tiling space with length vector $`𝐋_0`$. By Lemma 3.5, the ratio of lengths in $`𝒯_f`$ and $`𝒯_0`$ approaches 1 for large recurrences. Thus the ratio of the radii of the balls around $`𝐳_1`$ and $`𝐳_2`$ and the distance $`|𝐳_2𝐳_1|`$ are within $`ϵ`$ for large recurrences. $`\mathrm{}`$

Theorem 3.4 showed there there are only a finite number of families of recurrence vectors of a given degree for a self-similar tiling. Lemma 3.6 extends that result to all tiling spaces.

We now construct a topological invariant from the asymptotic displacements $`𝐋_f𝐯`$ of large recurrence vectors $`𝐯`$.

###### Theorem 3.7.

Suppose that $`\varphi :𝒯_f𝒯_g`$ is a topological conjugacy. Given any positive constants $`p,ϵ_1,ϵ_2`$, there exists a positive constant $`R`$ such that, for each recurrence vector $`𝐯`$ of degree at least $`p`$ for $`𝒯_g`$ with $`|𝐯|_f>R`$, there exists a recurrence vector $`𝐯^{}`$ of degree at least $`pϵ_1`$ for $`𝒯_g`$ with $`|𝐋_f𝐯𝐋_g𝐯^{}|<ϵ_2`$.

In other words, up to small errors in the degree and the displacement that vanish in the limit of large recurrence classes, the degrees and displacements of the recurrence classes are conjugacy invariants.

Proof.  Let $`A`$ be the diameter of the largest tile in the $`𝒯_g`$ system. Since $`\varphi `$ is uniformly continuous (being continuous with a compact domain), there exists a constant $`D_0`$ such that, if $`x`$ and $`y`$ are tilings in $`𝒯_f`$ that agree on a ball of radius $`D_0`$ around the origin, then $`\varphi (x)`$ and $`\varphi (y)`$ agree on a ball or radius $`A`$ around the origin, up to a small translation. Thus if $`x`$ and $`y`$ agree on a ball of radius $`R>D_0`$, then $`\varphi (x)`$ and $`\varphi (y)`$ agree on a ball of radius $`RD_0`$, up to a translation whose norm is bounded by a decreasing function $`h(R)`$, with $`lim_R\mathrm{}h(R)=0`$.

Now let $`𝐯`$ be a recurrence vector of degree $`p`$ for $`𝒯_f`$, representing a recurrence $`(𝐳_1,𝐳_2)`$ in a tiling $`x𝒯_f`$. Then $`x𝐳_1`$ and $`x𝐳_2`$ agree on a ball of radius $`p|𝐯|_f`$ about the origin, so $`\varphi (x)𝐳_1`$ and $`\varphi (x)𝐳_2`$ agree on a ball of radius $`p|𝐯|_fD_0`$, up to translation of size at most $`h(R)`$. Thus there exists a point $`𝐳_3`$, within $`h(D)`$ of $`𝐳_2`$, such that $`𝐯^{}=[(𝐳_1,𝐳_3)]`$ is a recurrence class of degree at least $`\frac{p|𝐯|_fD_0}{|𝐯|_f+h(D)}`$ in $`𝒯_g`$. For $`D`$ large enough, this is greater than $`pϵ_1`$ and $`|𝐋_f𝐯𝐋_g𝐯^{}|<h(R)`$ is less than $`ϵ_2`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Theorem 3.3.

Note that all recurrence vectors are recurrence vectors of some positive degree. We can therefore pick $`p_0`$ such that the integer span of the recurrence vectors of degree at least $`p_0`$ is an $`s`$-dimensional sublattice of $`^s`$. Pick $`ϵ`$ small enough (and adjust $`p_0`$ by up to $`ϵ`$, if necessary) so that all the families of recurrence vectors of degree at least $`p_0ϵ`$ are also families of recurrence vectors of degree at least $`p_0+ϵ`$. Let $`𝐯_1,\mathrm{},𝐯_k`$ be generating vectors of those families. By multiplying by appropriate powers of $`M`$, these can be chosen so that all of the magnitudes of the displacements $`|M^k𝐯_i|_f`$ are within a factor of $`\lambda _{PF}`$ of one another for large $`k`$.

Now pick a neighborhood $`U_ϵ`$ of $`f`$ in $`C^1(\mathrm{\Gamma },^d)`$ small enough that, if $`g^{}U_ϵ`$, then every recurrence class in $`𝒯_f`$ of degree at least $`p_0+ϵ`$ is also a recurrence class in $`𝒯_g^{}`$ of degree at least $`p_0`$, and such that every recurrence class in $`𝒯_g^{}`$ of degree at least $`p_0`$ is a recurrence class in $`𝒯_f`$ of degree at least $`p_0ϵ`$. This insures that the families of recurrence classes of degree at least $`p_0`$ in the two tiling spaces are exactly the same.

If $`𝒯_f`$ and $`𝒯_g^{}`$ are conjugate then, by Theorem 3.7, the displacements $`𝐋_fM^k𝐯_j`$ can be approximated by $`𝐋_g^{}M^k^{}𝐯_j^{}`$ for some $`k^{},j^{}`$, and the approximation get successively better as $`k\mathrm{}`$. However, if $`U_ϵ`$ is chosen small enough, the only values of $`k^{},j^{}`$ that come close to approximating are $`k^{}=k`$ and $`j^{}=j`$. Thus the limit of $`(𝐋_f𝐋_g^{})M^k𝐯_j`$ must be zero. By Theorem 2.3, this implies that $`(\sigma ^{})^k((f)(g^{}))`$ approaches zero as $`k\mathrm{}`$, and hence that $`(f)(g^{})S(𝒯)`$.

Finally, let $`U_f=(U_ϵ)`$. If $`(g)U_f`$, then $`𝒯_g`$ is MLD to a tiling space $`𝒯_g^{}`$ with $`g^{}U_ϵ`$ and $`(g^{})=(g)`$. Since $`𝒯_g^{}`$ is conjugate to $`𝒯_f`$, $`(f)(g)=(f)(g^{})S(𝒯)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4. Ergodic Properties

Now we turn to the topological point spectrum of substitution tiling spaces, by which we mean the eigenvalues of continuous eigenfuctions of the translation action. First we determine general criteria for a vector to be an eigenvalue for a continuous eigenfunction, and then we apply this criteria to some special cases, depending on the form of the matrix $`M`$ defined in Section 3. This eventually leads to criteria for topological weak mixing.

###### Theorem 4.1.

The vector $`𝐤^d`$ is in the point spectrum of $`𝒯_f`$ if and only if, for every recurrence vector $`𝐯`$,

(7)
$$\frac{1}{2\pi }(𝐤𝐋_f)M^m𝐯0\text{(mod 1) as }m\mathrm{},$$

where the convergence is uniform in the size of $`𝐯`$.

Proof.  Let $`x_0`$ be a tiling in $`𝒯_0`$ fixed by the substitution homeomorphism, let $`x`$ be its image in $`𝒯_f`$ under the homeomorphism of Theorem 1.1, and let $`E:𝒯_fS^1`$ be a continuous eigenfunction with eigenvalue $`𝐤`$. Let $`𝐯`$ be a recurrence vector, then there is a recurrence $`(𝐳_1,𝐳_2)`$ in $`x`$ with vector $`𝐯`$ of some size $`s_0`$. By applying the substitution homeomorphism $`m`$ times, we obtain a recurrence $`(𝐳_1^m,𝐳_2^m)`$ in $`x`$ with recurrence vector $`M^m𝐯`$, whose displacement is $`𝐳_2^m𝐳_1^m=𝐋_fM^m𝐯`$. Then $`x𝐳_1^m`$ and $`x𝐳_2^m`$ agree on patches of size $`s_m`$, where $`s_m\mathrm{}`$ as $`m\mathrm{}.`$ Hence

(8)
$$1=\text{lim}_m\mathrm{}\frac{E(x𝐳_2^m)}{E(x𝐳_1^m)}=\text{lim}_m\mathrm{}\frac{E(x)\text{exp}(i𝐤𝐳_2^m)}{E(x)\text{exp}(i𝐤𝐳_1^m)}=\text{lim}_m\mathrm{}\text{exp}(i𝐤(𝐳_2^m𝐳_1^m)).$$

Thus, we obtain Equation 7, and the uniform convergence follows from the uniform continuity of $`E`$.

Conversely, assume that we have the stated convergence for all recurrence vectors $`𝐯`$ for some $`𝐤^d`$. We construct a continuous eigenfunction $`E`$ by first assigning $`x`$ the value $`1`$. Then we necessarily have for any $`𝐳^d`$, $`E(x𝐳)=\text{exp}(i𝐤𝐳)`$. To show that $`E`$ extends as required to all of $`𝒯_f`$, it suffices to show that $`E`$ as so defined is uniformly continuous on the orbit of $`x`$. But, given an $`ϵ>0`$, by Equation 7 if $`x𝐳_1`$ and $`x𝐳_2`$ agree on patches of sufficiently large size up to a small translation, we have that $`E(x𝐳_1)`$ and $`E(x𝐳_2)`$ agree to within $`ϵ`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The application of this criterion depends on the eigenvalues of $`M`$ and on the possible forms of the recurrence vectors.

###### Theorem 4.2.

Suppose that all the eigenvalues of $`M`$ are of magnitude 1 or greater. If $`𝐤`$ is in the spectrum, then all elements of $`𝐤𝐋_f/2\pi `$ are rational.

Proof.  Let $`𝐤`$ be in the point spectrum, and consider the sequence of real numbers $`t_m=(𝐤𝐋_f)M^m𝐯/(2\pi )`$, where $`𝐯`$ is a fixed recurrence vector. Let $`p(\lambda )=\lambda ^n+a_{n1}\lambda ^{n1}+\mathrm{}+a_0`$ be the characteristic polynomial of $`M`$. Note that the $`a_i`$’s are all integers, since $`M`$ is an integer matrix. Since $`p(M)=0`$, the $`t_m`$’s satisfy the recursion:

(9)
$$t_{m+n}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}a_kt_{m+k}.$$

By Theorem 4.1, the $`t_m`$’s converge to zero $`(mod1)`$. That is, we can write

(10)
$$t_m=i_m+r_m$$

where the $`i_m`$’s are integers, and the $`r_m`$’s converge to zero as real numbers. By substituting the division (10) into the recursion (9), we see that both the $`i`$’s and the $`r`$’s must separately satisfy the recursion (9), once $`m`$ is sufficiently large. However, any solution to this recursion relation is a linear combination of powers of the eigenvalues of $`M`$ (or polynomials in $`m`$ times eigenvalues to the $`m`$-th power, if $`M`$ is not diagonalizable). Since the eigenvalues are all of magnitude one or greater, such a linear combination converges to zero only if it is identically zero. Therefore $`r_m`$ must be identically zero for all sufficiently large values of $`m`$.

Apply this procedure to $`s`$ linearly independent recurrence vectors $`𝐯_1,\mathrm{},𝐯_s`$, and pick $`m`$ large enough that the corresponding $`t_m(𝐯_i)`$ are integers for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},s.`$ Note that $`t_m`$ is an integer linear combination of the elements of the vector $`𝐤𝐋_f/(2\pi )`$. However,

(11)
$$(t_m(𝐯_1),\mathrm{},t_m(𝐯_s))=(𝐤𝐋_f/2\pi )M^m(𝐯_1,\mathrm{},𝐯_s)$$

The matrices $`M`$ and $`V=(𝐯_1,\mathrm{},𝐯_s)`$ are invertible and have integer entries, so by Cramer’s rule their inverses have rational entries. Thus the components of $`𝐤𝐋_f/(2\pi )`$ must all be rational. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 4.3.

Suppose all the eigenvalues of $`M`$ have magnitude 1 or greater. Let $`G^d`$ be the free Abelian group generated by the entries of $`𝐋_f`$. Let $`\overline{G}`$ be the closure of $`G`$ in $`^d`$, and let $`P`$ be the identity component of $`\overline{G}`$. The point spectrum of $`𝒯_f`$ lies in the orthogonal complement of $`P`$.

In dimension greater than 1, the assumptions of Theorem 4.2 are rarely met. When eigenvalues of magnitude less than 1 exist, the conclusions are somewhat weaker.

###### Theorem 4.4.

Let $`S`$ be the span of the (generalized left-) eigenspaces of $`M`$ with eigenvalues of magnitude strictly less than 1. If $`𝐤`$ is in the point spectrum, then $`𝐤𝐋_f/2\pi `$ is the sum of a rational vector and an element of $`S`$.

Proof.  Let $`V`$ be the matrix $`(𝐯_1,\mathrm{},𝐯_s)`$ as in the proof of Theorem 4.2. Construct the row vector

(12)
$$𝐭_m=\frac{1}{2\pi }(𝐤𝐋_f)M^mV=\frac{1}{2\pi }(𝐤𝐋_f)V(V^1MV)^m.$$

As in the proof of Theorem 4.2, each entry of $`𝐭_m`$ converges to zero (mod 1), so we can write $`𝐭_m=𝐢_m+𝐫_m`$, with each entry of $`𝐢_m`$ integral and $`𝐫_m`$ converging to zero, and with the eventual conditions

(13)
$$𝐢_{m+1}=𝐢_mV^1MV;𝐫_{m+1}=𝐫_mV^1MV.$$

Since the $`𝐫_m`$’s converge to zero, they must lie in the span of the small eigenvalues of $`V^1MV`$. Thus, by adding an element of $`S`$ to $`(𝐤𝐋_f)/2\pi `$, we can then get all the $`𝐫_m`$’s to be identically zero beyond a certain point. Since $`M`$ is invertible, the resulting value of $`𝐤𝐋_f/2\pi `$ must then be rational. $`\mathrm{}`$

Another way of stating the same result is to say that $`(𝐤𝐋_f)/2\pi `$, projected onto the span of the large eigenvectors, equals the projection of a rational vector onto this span.

This theorem can be used in two different ways. First, it constrains the set of shape parameters (that is, vectors $`𝐋_f`$) for which the system admits point spectrum. Let $`d_b`$ be the number of large eigenvalues, counted with (algebraic) multiplicity. There are only a countable number of possible values for the projection of $`𝐤𝐋_f/2\pi `$ onto the span of the large (generalized) eigenvectors. In other words, one must tune $`d_b`$ parameters to a countable number of possible values in order to achieve a point in the spectrum. Of course, $`𝐤`$ itself gives $`d`$ parameters. Thus we must tune at least $`d_bd`$ additional parameters to have any point spectrum at all. In particular, if $`d_b>d`$, then a generic choice of shape parameter gives topological weak mixing, proving Theorem 1.7. (Note that the Perron-Frobenius eigenvector always occurs with multiplicity $`d`$, so that $`d_bd`$ is never negative.)

A second usage is to constrain the spectrum for fixed $`𝐋_f`$. The rational points in $`^s`$, projected onto the span of the large eigenvalues, and then intersected with the $`d`$-plane defined by a fixed $`𝐋_f`$ (i.e., the set of all possible products $`(𝐤𝐋_f)/2\pi `$), forms a vector space over $``$ of dimension at most $`s+dd_b`$. As a result, the point spectrum tensored with $``$ is a vector space over $``$ whose dimension is bounded by $`d`$ plus the number of small eigenvalues. Below we derive an even stronger result, in which only the small eigenvalues that are conjugate to the Perron-Frobenius eigenvalue contribute to the complexity of the spectrum.

###### Theorem 4.5.

Let $`b_{PF}`$ be the number of large eigenvalues, counted without multiplicity, that are algebraically conjugate to the Perron-Frobenius eigenvalue $`\lambda _{PF}`$ (including $`\lambda _{PF}`$ itself), and let $`s_{PF}`$ be the number of small eigenvalues conjugate to $`\lambda _{PF}`$. For fixed $`𝐋_f`$, the dimension over $``$ of the point spectrum tensored with $``$ is at most $`d(s_{PF}+1)`$.

Proof.  As a first step we diagonalize $`M`$ over the rationals as far as possible. By rational operations we can always put $`M`$ in block-diagonal form, where the characteristic polynomial of each block is a power of an irreducible polynomial. Since the Perron-Frobenius eigenvalue $`\lambda _{PF}`$ has both geometric and algebraic multiplicity $`d`$, every eigenvalue algebraically conjugate to $`\lambda _{PF}`$ also has multiplicity $`d`$. Thus there are $`d`$ blocks whose characteristic polynomial has $`\lambda _{PF}`$ for a root. We consider the constraints on the spectrum that can be obtained from these blocks alone.

Consider the projection of $`𝐤𝐋_f/(2\pi )`$ onto the large eigenspaces of the Perron-Frobenius block. Since only $`d(b_{PF}+s_{PF})`$ components of $`𝐭`$ (expressed in the new basis) contribute, this is the projection of $`^{d(b_{PF}+s_{PF})}`$ onto $`^{db_{PF}}`$, whose real span is all of $`^{db_{PF}}`$. Intersected with the $`d`$-plane defined by a fixed $`𝐋_f`$, this gives a vector space of dimension at most $`d(s_{PF}+1)`$ in which $`𝐤`$ can live. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5. One dimensional substitutions revisited

When discussing 1-dimensional substitutions, with $`n`$ tile types $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_n`$, the conventional object of study is the substitution matrix, whose $`(i,j)`$ entry gives the number of times that $`t_i`$ appears in $`\sigma (t_j)`$. Indeed, in our previous study \[CS\] of one dimensional tilings, all the results were phrased in terms of eigenvalues and eigenspaces of the substitution matrix, rather than on the induced action of $`\sigma `$ on homology. These results become much simpler when viewed homologically. In this section, the substitution matrix will be denoted $`M_s`$, while the matrix that gives the action of $`\sigma `$ on a basis of recurrences will be denoted $`M_h`$.

In \[CS\] we defined, for each recurrence $`(z_1,z_2)`$, a vector in $`^n`$ that listed how many of each tile type appears in the (unique) path from $`z_1`$ to $`z_2`$. This vector $`𝐯`$ was called full if the vectors $`(M_s)^k𝐯`$, with $`k`$ ranging from 0 to $`n1`$, were linearly independent. Many of our theorems required the existence of a recurrence with a full vector. This is a strong condition, as it implies that $`H_1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is a lattice of rank $`n`$. This is true when $`n=2`$, or when the characteristic polynomial of $`M_s`$ is irreducible, but is typically false for more complicated substitutions. When $`H_1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ has rank less than $`n`$, there are deformations of tile lengths that have no effect on the lengths of recurrences, and so lead to MLD tilings. By looking at $`M_h`$ rather than $`M_s`$, we automatically avoid those extraneous modes.

Consider the difference between the following theorem, proved in \[CS\], and its restatement in terms of $`M_h`$:

###### Theorem 5.1 (CS).

Suppose that all the eigenvalues of $`M_s`$ are of magnitude 1 or greater, and that there exists a recurrence with a full vector. If the ratio of any two tile lengths is irrational, then the point spectrum is trivial.

###### Theorem 5.2 (Corollary of Theorem 4.2).

Suppose that all the eigenvalues of $`M_h`$ are of magnitude 1 or greater. If the ratio of the lengths of any two recurrences is irrational, then the point spectrum is trivial.

In addition to $`M_h`$ not containing irrelevant information found in $`M_s`$, $`M_h`$ may contain some relevant information not found in $`M_s`$. If $`H_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)})`$ has higher rank than $`H_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)})`$, then $`M_h`$ contains information about the dynamical impact of changing the sizes of the collared tiles, and not merely the effect of changing the original, uncollared tiles.

As an example, consider the Thue-Morse substitution $`(aab,bba)`$, in which $`M_s=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right)`$ has eigenvalues 2 and 0. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the wedge of two circles, one representing the tile $`a`$ and one representing the tile $`b`$, so $`H_1(\mathrm{\Gamma })=^2`$, and the action of $`\sigma `$ on $`H_1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is described by $`M_s`$. However, $`H_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)})`$ has rank 3 \[AP\], and the eigenvalues of $`M_h`$ are 2, $`1`$, and 0. The additional large eigenvalue $`1`$ shows that the dynamics of the Thue-Morse tiling space are in fact sensitive to changes in tile size. Changes in the size of the uncollared tiles have no qualitative effect, but changes in the size of the collared tiles (i.e., changes in tile size that depend on the local neighborhood of those tiles) can eliminate the point spectrum.

Acknowledgements. We thank Michael Baake, Charles Holton, Johannes Kellendonk, Brian Martensen, Charles Radin and Bob Williams for helpful discussions.