text:
# DESY 03-020 A recurrence scheme for least-square optimized polynomials

## 1 Introduction

High quality polynomial approximations of inverse powers near zero are needed, for instance, in multi-bosonic algorithms for numerical Monte Carlo simulations of fermionic quantum field theories . Least-square optimization offers an effective and flexible framework, in particular in two-step multi-boson algorithms , where the functions to be approximated are typically of the form $`x^\alpha \overline{P}(x)`$ with $`\alpha >0`$ and some given polynomial $`\overline{P}(x)`$. The approximation has to be optimized in an interval covering the spectrum of a positive matrix, that is for $`x[ϵ,\lambda ],\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}ϵ<\lambda `$. The polynomial $`\overline{P}(x)`$ can be just a constant or another cruder approximation of $`x^\alpha `$.

The required precision of the approximation is rather high, it should be preferably near machine precision. Since the condition number $`\lambda /ϵ`$ can be as high as $`10^6`$ or more, the required polynomial degrees can be in the multi thousand range. This is due to the fact that – with $`\lambda =𝒪(1)𝒪(10)`$ – the lower limit is of the order $`ϵ=(am_f)^2`$ where $`am_f`$ is the mass of the elementary fermion in lattice units. Interesting values for the fermion mass are, for instance in QCD or in supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory, $`am_f=𝒪(10^3)`$ or smaller. (For examples of recent TSMB applications with light fermions see  and .) Other possible applications of high degree least-square optimized polynomial approximations are, for instance, in fermionic simulation algorithms for improved actions  or the evaluation of the matrix elements of Neuberger’s overlap fermion action .

Least-square optimized polynomials in the context of the TSMB algorithm have been considered previously in . (For a general introduction see, for instance, .) In the present paper the recurrence scheme proposed in  is worked out in detail and an optimized C code is provided which is suitable to deliver the required polynomials with an acceptable amount of computer time.

The plan of this paper is as follows: in the next section some basic definitions are briefly summarized and the notations are introduced. In section 3 the recurrence scheme for the numerical determination of the least-square optimized polynomials is presented in detail. Section 4 is devoted to the explanation of the C code which can be used to perform the recurrence.

## 2 Definitions

In this section the basic definitions and notations are introduced which will be needed later. For more formulas and discussion see  and especially  where a rather complete collection of formulas is given (and a few misprints in  are also corrected).

In the general case one wants to approximate the real function $`f(x)`$ in the interval $`x[ϵ,\lambda ]`$ by a polynomial $`P_n(x)`$ of degree $`n`$. The aim is to minimize the deviation norm

$$\delta _n\left\{N_{ϵ,\lambda }^1_ϵ^\lambda 𝑑xw(x)^2\left[f(x)P_n(x)\right]^2\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(1)
Here $`w(x)`$ is an arbitrary real weight function and the overall normalization factor $`N_{ϵ,\lambda }`$ can be chosen by convenience, for instance, as

$$N_{ϵ,\lambda }_ϵ^\lambda 𝑑xw(x)^2f(x)^2.$$
(2)
For optimizing the relative deviation one takes a weight function $`w(x)=f(x)^1`$.

As discussed in detail in ref. , obtaining the optimized polynomial $`P_n(x)`$ in case of $`x[ϵ,\lambda ]`$ with small positive $`ϵ`$ and $`f(x)=x^\alpha /\overline{P}(x)`$ ($`\alpha >0`$ and polynomial $`\overline{P}(x)`$) is equivalent to the inversion of an ill-conditioned matrix with a very large condition number. As a consequence, the problem can only be solved by using high precision arithmetics.

Another place where rounding errors may be disturbing is the evaluation of the polynomials – once the polynomial coefficients of $`P_n(x)`$ are known. Fortunately, this second problem can be solved without the need of high precision arithmetics by applying a suitable orthogonal expansion. In fact, after the optimized polynomials are obtained with high precision arithmetics, their evaluation can be performed even with 32-bit arithmetics if this orthogonal expansion is used. The orthogonal polynomials $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu (x)(\mu =0,1,2,\mathrm{})`$ are defined in such a way that they satisfy

$$_ϵ^\lambda 𝑑xw(x)^2\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu (x)\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu (x)=\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\nu .$$
(3)
The polynomial $`P_n(x)`$ can be expanded in terms of them according to

$$P_n(x)=\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{n}{}}d_{n\nu }\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu (x).$$
(4)
Besides the normalization factor $`q_\nu `$ let us also introduce, for later purposes, the integrals $`p_\nu `$ and $`s_\nu `$ ($`\nu =0,1,\mathrm{}`$) by

$`q_\nu `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _ϵ^\lambda }𝑑xw(x)^2\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu (x)^2,`$
$`p_\nu `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _ϵ^\lambda }𝑑xw(x)^2\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu (x)^2x,`$
$`s_\nu `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _ϵ^\lambda }𝑑xw(x)^2x^\nu .`$ (5)
It can be easily shown that the expansion coefficients $`d_{n\nu }`$ minimizing $`\delta _n`$ are independent of $`n`$ and are given by

$$d_{n\nu }d_\nu =\frac{b_\nu }{q_\nu },$$
(6)
where

$$b_\nu _ϵ^\lambda 𝑑xw(x)^2f(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu (x).$$
(7)
The minimum of the deviation norm with normalization defined in (2) is:

$$\delta _n^{min}=\left\{1N_{ϵ,\lambda }^1\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{b_\nu ^2}{q_\nu }\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(8)
The orthogonal polynomials satisfy three-term recurrence relations . The first two of them with $`\mu =0,1`$ are given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0(x)=1,\mathrm{\Phi }_1(x)=x\frac{s_1}{s_0}.$$
(9)
The higher order polynomials $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu (x)`$ for $`\mu =2,3,\mathrm{}`$ can be obtained from the recurrence relation

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu +1}(x)=(x+\beta _\mu )\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu (x)+\gamma _{\mu 1}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu 1}(x),(\mu =1,2,\mathrm{}),$$
(10)
where the recurrence coefficients are given by

$$\beta _\mu =\frac{p_\mu }{q_\mu },\gamma _{\mu 1}=\frac{q_\mu }{q_{\mu 1}}.$$
(11)
## 3 Recurrence scheme

A recurrence scheme is defined as a sequential algorithm for building up the system of orthogonal polynomials and determining the expansion coefficients of the optimized polynomial approximation starting from the function $`f(x)`$ to be approximated and from the weight function $`w(x)`$. The necessary ingredients are, in fact, the moments of the weight function $`s_\nu `$ defined in (2) and the moments of $`w(x)^2f(x)`$:

$$t_\nu _ϵ^\lambda 𝑑xw(x)^2f(x)x^\nu ,(\nu =0,1,\mathrm{}).$$
(12)
Since the calculations have to be performed in high precision arithmetics, these moments are needed to high precision which is easily reached if the integrals can be analytically performed. Otherwise the moments themselves have to be numerically calculated with high precision arithmetics.

In case of the TSMB applications we typically have to consider the function $`f(x)=x^\alpha /\overline{P}(x)`$. In this case, if one chooses to optimize the relative deviation, the basic integrals defined in (2) and (12) are, respectively,

$`s_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _ϵ^\lambda }𝑑x\overline{P}(x)^2x^{2\alpha +\nu },`$
$`t_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _ϵ^\lambda }𝑑x\overline{P}(x)x^{\alpha +\nu }.`$ (13)
These integrals can be simplified if, instead of choosing the weight factor for relative deviation $`w(x)^2=\overline{P}(x)^2x^{2\alpha }`$, one takes its square root:

$$w(x)^2=\overline{P}(x)x^\alpha ,$$
(14)
In practice this leads to similarly good approximations as the previous choice and the basic integrals become simpler:

$`s_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _ϵ^\lambda }𝑑x\overline{P}(x)x^{\alpha +\nu },`$
$`t_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _ϵ^\lambda }𝑑xx^\nu .`$ (15)
One can devise recurrence schemes differently, for instance, based on the polynomial coefficients of the orthogonal polynomials. A good scheme can be built on the moments

$`r_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle _ϵ^\lambda }𝑑xw(x)^2\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu (x)x^\nu ,`$
$`\mu =0,1,\mathrm{},n;\nu =\mu ,\mu +1,\mathrm{},2n\mu ,`$ (16)
using also the coefficients of the next-to-leading order term of the orthogonal polynomials. According to the recurrence relation in (10) we have for $`\mu =1,2,\mathrm{}`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu (x)=x^\mu +f_\mu x^{\mu 1}+\mathrm{}$$
(17)
where the next-to-leading order coefficient $`f_\mu `$ satisfies

$$f_1=\frac{s_1}{s_0},f_{\mu +1}=f_\mu +\beta _\mu (\mu =1,2,\mathrm{}).$$
(18)
The recurrence coefficients $`\beta _\mu ,\gamma _{\mu 1}`$ can be expressed from

$$q_\mu =r_{\mu \mu },p_\mu =r_{\mu ,\mu +1}+f_\mu r_{\mu \mu }$$
(19)
and eq. (11) as

$$\beta _\mu =f_\mu \frac{r_{\mu ,\mu +1}}{r_{\mu \mu }},\gamma _{\mu 1}=\frac{r_{\mu \mu }}{r_{\mu 1,\mu 1}}.$$
(20)
It follows from the definition (3) that

$`r_{0\nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _ϵ^\lambda }𝑑xw(x)^2x^\nu =s_\nu ,`$
$`r_{1\nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _ϵ^\lambda }𝑑xw(x)^2(x^{\nu +1}+f_1x^\nu )=s_{\nu +1}+f_1s_\nu =s_{\nu +1}{\displaystyle \frac{s_1s_\nu }{s_0}}.`$ (21)
The recurrence relation (10) for the orthogonal polynomials implies

$$r_{\mu +1,\nu }=r_{\mu ,\nu +1}+\beta _\mu r_{\mu \nu }+\gamma _{\mu 1}r_{\mu 1,\nu }.$$
(22)
This completes a closed recurrence scheme for calculating $`\beta _\mu `$ and $`\gamma _{\mu 1}`$ which can then be used to determine the orthogonal polynomials by (10).

In order to see how this recurrence scheme works let us display a few steps explicitly. Let us assume that we want to obtain the orthogonal polynomials up to degree $`n`$ and we know already the basic integrals $`s_\nu `$ for $`\nu =0,1,\mathrm{},2n`$. According to (3) we then have

$$r_{0\nu }=s_\nu (\nu =0,1,\mathrm{},2n1),r_{1\nu }=s_{\nu +1}\frac{s_1s_\nu }{s_0}(\nu =1,2,\mathrm{},2n1).$$
(23)
Using (18) and (20) we obtain

$$f_1=\frac{s_1}{s_0},\beta _1=f_1\frac{r_{12}}{r_{11}},\gamma _0=\frac{r_{11}}{r_{00}}.$$
(24)
Now (22) gives

$$r_{2\nu }=r_{1,\nu +1}+\beta _1r_{1\nu }+\gamma _0r_{1\nu }(\nu =2,3,\mathrm{},2n2).$$
(25)
This can be used for calculating

$$f_2=\beta _1+f_1,\beta _2=f_2\frac{r_{23}}{r_{22}},\gamma _1=\frac{r_{22}}{r_{11}},$$
(26)
and so on. At the end there is

$$r_{n1,\nu }=r_{n2,\nu +1}+\beta _{n2}r_{n2,\nu }+\gamma _{n3}r_{n3,\nu }(\nu =n1,n,n+1)$$
(27)
which gives

$$f_{n1}=\beta _{n2}+f_{n2},\beta _{n1}=f_{n1}\frac{r_{n1,n}}{r_{n1,n1}},\gamma _{n2}=\frac{r_{n1,n1}}{r_{n2,n2}}.$$
(28)
Finally one calculates for $`q_n`$

$$r_{nn}=r_{n1,n+1}+\beta _{n1}r_{n1,n}+\gamma _{n2}r_{n2,n}.$$
(29)
After determining the orthogonal polynomials one can also perform a similar recurrence for the expansion coefficients of the least-square optimized polynomials given in (6). Now one assumes the knowledge of the moments $`t_\nu `$ in (12) and considers

$`b_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle _ϵ^\lambda }𝑑xw(x)^2f(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu (x)x^\nu ,`$
$`\mu =0,1,\mathrm{},n;\nu =0,1,\mathrm{},n\mu .`$ (30)
From this one obtains $`b_\nu =b_{\nu 0}`$. For starting the iteration one has

$$b_{0\nu }=t_\nu ,b_{1\nu }=t_{\nu +1}+f_1t_\nu ,$$
(31)
and then one uses

$$b_{\mu +1,\nu }=b_{\mu ,\nu +1}+\beta _\mu b_{\mu \nu }+\gamma _{\mu 1}b_{\mu 1,\nu }.$$
(32)
The basic recurrence relation in (10) can also be used for the evaluation of integrals of least-square optimized polynomials. Examples are $`t_\nu `$ in (3) and $`s_\nu `$ in (14) if $`\overline{P}(x)`$ is expanded in the corresponding orthogonal basis.

## 4 C code for polynomials needed in TSMB

The implementation of the presented recurrence scheme has to be done with a sufficiently high numerical precision. We have found that the required number of digits increases linearly with the polynomial order parameter. Since this polynomial degree can be in the multi thousand range one has to carefully choose a way to implement this. In particular it is obvious that the standard 32-bit or 64-bit precision, corresponding to roughly $`𝒪(10)`$ digits of precision, is insufficient for this task.

Possible environments are computer algebra systems like Maple or more low-level computer programming languages like C or Fortran combined with a suitable library for multiprecision arithmetics. Since runtime performance is important we have opted for the programming language C.

There are several freely available libraries for multiprecision arithmetics . These libraries vary in usability and performance. For very large numbers, i. e. more than 12000 decimal digits, these libraries use the Schönhage-Strassen multiplication, an asymptotically optimal algorithm. However, most of the time we need polynomial orders of $`𝒪(1000)`$, for which less than 5000 digits are needed. Therefore other algorithms like the $`𝒪(n^2)`$ standard algorithm for smaller numbers or the $`𝒪(n^{1.6})`$ Karatsuba multiplication for intermediate large numbers should be used where applicable. This is done by the gmp and the CLN libraries, where the latter comes with easy to use functions for the calculation of sine, cosine and logarithm. Furthermore it can be configured to use the low-level routines of gmp, so it can be considered as a nice interface for that library. A comparison of different environments and libraries is shown in figure 1. The polynomial degree was fixed for this performance test, while only the number of used digits was changed. Runtime measurements are for the computer algebra system Maple, and for the programming language C using the libraries hfloat and CLN. In this example the library CLN was used without support for the faster low-level routines of gmp. When interpreting the results of this comparison it has to be kept in mind that no guarantee for a similar level of optimization for the different programs can be given (although it should be roughly true). Let us also note that in Maple one could switch the precision to lower values when sufficient, while this would not be so easy for the C libraries. This would allow to gain in performance for the Maple program but it would make a comparison with the other programs complicated.

The source code for the program that uses the CLN library is quadropt.C. It can be compiled with the g++ compiler111 To be precise, the program indeed has to be compiled with a C++ compiler, because it uses C++ features like streams. The structure of the program is, however, very C-like, i. e. it is based on usual function calls instead of calls to an objects member function. and it has to be linked to the previously installed library CLN. The executable needs one parameter as an argument, a filename. This file is usually quadropt.dat, from which the options like polynomial degrees and interval are read. These options will be explained in the next subsections. The parameter file quadropt.dat is organized to have a line of comments and then a line of corresponding arguments. This structure is repeated for all arguments (see figure 2).

### 4.1 The polynomial $`P^{(1)}`$

The polynomial $`P_{n_1}^{(1)}`$ is supposed to be a polynomial approximation to the function $`f(x)=x^\alpha `$, i. e. $`\overline{P}(x)1`$. As weight function $`\omega (x)^2`$ the squared inverse of $`f(x)`$ is taken. The parameter $`\alpha `$ is given by the first value in the second line of arguments (i. e. the fourth line altogether) of the parameter file. In case of the TSMB applications this is $`\alpha =\frac{N_f}{2}`$, where $`N_f`$ is originally the number of fermionic flavours. However, $`N_f`$ does not have to be integer valued, for instance, in the case of Majorana fermions or if determinant breakup is applied. In general any real value of $`\alpha `$ will work with the code. However, the necessary number of digits for a precise determination of the recurrence coefficients might differ if $`\alpha `$ is drastically different from those in the applications of the TSMB algorithm.

In the first line of arguments the requested degrees for the different polynomials have to be given. The first value $`n_1`$ is for the polynomial degree of $`P^{(1)}`$. Although at least five numbers have to be specified it is possible to set the other values to zero. In this way only the first polynomial is calculated.

Another important input is the approximation interval $`[ϵ,\lambda ]`$. The borders of this interval have to be given in the second line of arguments after $`\alpha `$.

We have found that the required number of digits for the calculation of the necessary integrals and coefficients does only depend on the polynomial order. For the first polynomial $`P^{(1)}`$ it is sufficient to set the number of digits to $`(40+1.6n_1)`$. One can further benefit by recognizing that some intermediate integrals need to be calculated with a lower precision of roughly $`(30+0.9n_1)`$. Furthermore, the roots can be calculated with an even lower precison of roughly $`(30+0.5n_1)`$. The situation might be different if the parameters $`\alpha `$, $`ϵ`$ and $`\lambda `$ are drastically different from those used in TSMB applications.

In the C program as presented here the value of the number of digits is chosen according to the above rules. We do not exploit the possibility to use less digits at places where it would be in principle possible. The program might even use more digits if this is required by another calculated polynomial. Usually the necessary number of digits is determined by the fourth or fifth polynomial order. This is a drawback of the implementation in C where changing the number of digits is not really supported by the CLN library. In Maple one can set the number of digits as appropriate for each integral. Our C program uses a single fixed precision for all computations. The only exception is the ordering of the polynomial roots according to ref. . For this the calculation of a logarithm is needed roughly $`𝒪(n^3)`$ times. Since the computation of logarithms scales much worse than a simple multiplication, the ordering of the first polynomial roots could consume more than $`90\%`$ of the runtime already for modest values of $`n_1`$. Therefore the ordering is calculated by an appropriate lower precision, which is sufficient for this purpose.

The default choice of the number of digits can be overruled by changing the two values in the fourth line of arguments from their default values of $`1`$. With the first value the number of digits for the integrals can be specified. The second value gives the number of digits for the ordering of roots. If some value is set, then this is taken as the number of digits. If, however, this number starts with a $`+`$ character, e. g. as in $`+10`$, then that number is added to the default number of digits. While $`1`$ leads to the default number of digits, values smaller than $`2`$ reduce the number of digits from their default value. A value of $`2`$ as the second value sets the number of digits for the roots equal to the number of digits for the other integrals (this is highly not recommended).

Of course one can compute the polynomials at a much higher precision than needed, e. g. by giving $`+150`$ as a first value for the number of digits. In this way one can be sure that the result is good enough. A better way is to compute the polynomials twice, once with the default precision ($`1`$), and once with a slightly better precision ($`+10`$). One can then compare the results which is printed after conversion to the internal 64-bit floating point datatype. The results should agree.222 The ordering of the roots might change slightly. This is due to the fact that different orderings fullfil the same optimal ordering condition and it is just by chance which one of them is printed. However, the orderings should only differ by flips of root pairs with the same absolute value.

The output is written to files in the subdirectory specified by the last line of arguments. The file for the roots is named starting with Coef, and first in this file there are the coefficients of the polynomial and then the real and imaginary parts of the roots. The file for the recurrence coefficients of this first polynomial is named starting with Cort. If further polynomials are calculated there will be several files starting like that. Among these files the one for the first polynomial is the one not having a -4 nor a -5 near the end of the filename. In this file $`(n+1)`$ coefficients $`d_\nu `$ are given first, then $`n`$ values of $`\beta _\mu `$ and finally $`(n1)`$ values of $`\gamma _\mu `$.

### 4.2 The polynomials $`P^{(2)}`$ and $`P^{(4)}`$

In TSMB applications $`P_{n_1}^{(1)}`$ is only a crude approximation to $`f(x)=x^\alpha `$, i. e. the polynomial order $`n_1`$ is quite small. This is corrected by a polynomial $`P_{n_2}^{(2)}`$ of higher degree $`n_2`$, which is defined such that $`P^{(1)}P^{(2)}f(x)`$ to a better precision. This means that we set $`\overline{P}=P^{(1)}`$ and repeat the calculation as for $`P^{(1)}`$.

In a reweighting step the remaining deviation of $`P^{(1)}P^{(2)}`$ can be further corrected by a fourth polynomial $`P_{n_4}^{(4)}`$, defined similarly, which is computed by setting $`\overline{P}=P^{(1)}P^{(2)}`$. The polynomial degrees for $`P_{n_2}^{(2)}`$ and $`P_{n_4}^{(4)}`$ are given as the second and fourth argument in the first line of arguments. The weight function is set to the inverse itself.

While the required number of digits for the first polynomial scales with a relatively small slope according to $`(40+1.6n_1)`$, the corresponding slope is larger for the second and fourth polynomials because of the nested integrals introduced by setting $`\overline{P}(x)`$ to more complicated functions. In our cases $`(70+2.2n_{2,4})`$ gives a good estimate for the necessary number of digits.

The recurrence coefficients $`d_\nu `$, $`\beta _\mu `$ and $`\gamma _\mu `$ for the second polynomial are appended to the output file containing the recurrence coefficients of the first polynomial. The ones for the fourth polynomial are written to a separate file with a name ending with -4.c++.

### 4.3 The polynomial $`P^{(3)}`$

For the TSMB algorithm, besides the before mentioned polynomials, one also needs an approximation $`P_{n_3}^{(3)}`$ of the inverse square root of $`P_{n_2}^{(2)}`$. This again is given by a polynomial labelled as the third one:

$$P_{n_3}^{(3)}\left(P_{n_2}^{(2)}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(33)
Since any error made in this polynomial approximation is uncorrectable in the TSMB updating algorithm, it is important that this approximation is good, especially at the lower end of the interval. To improve that part this polynomial is optimized for the interval $`[ϵ^{},\lambda ]`$, with $`ϵ^{}=\frac{1}{10}ϵ`$. Furthermore one can adjust the weight function to $`w(x)^2=x^{\omega _3}`$. The polynomial degree $`n_3`$ for $`P_{n_3}^{(3)}`$ is read from the third argument in the second line of arguments, nominator and denominator of $`\omega _3`$ are given by the first two integer numbers in the third line of arguments.

The calculation of the third polynomial can be based on Neuberger’s formula . The third value in the third line of arguments gives the number of terms taken in Neuberger’s formula. For $`K`$ terms this polynomial is defined as:

$$P^{(3)}\frac{1}{K}\underset{s=1}{\overset{K}{}}\frac{1}{P^{(2)}\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\pi }{2K}(s\frac{1}{2})+\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\pi }{2K}(s\frac{1}{2})}.$$
(34)
For large values of $`K`$ the computation using (34) becomes slow. In this case one can use another method to obtain a good polynomial $`P^{(3)}`$ faster. This is implemented by a series of fifth polynomials $`P_{n_5}^{(5)}`$ which are approxiamtions to a good $`P^{(3)}`$ with increasing precision. The same weight function as for the third polynomial is used. The members of this series are calculated iteratively. Each polynomial in the series may have a different polynomial degree, typically in a non-decreasing sequence. With this method it is also possible to further reduce the systematic error at some fixed polynomial order because the program uses a smaller lower bound for the approximation interval $`ϵ^{\prime \prime }=\frac{1}{100}ϵ`$. The polynomial degrees ($`n_5`$) of the $`P_{n_5}^{(5)}`$ sequence have to be given one after the other as the last arguments in the first line of arguments.

The starting point for this iteration is some known approximation to the third polynomial $`P_{(0)}^{(3)}`$. From $`P_{(0)}^{(3)}`$ better approxiamtions can be obtained by the following Newton-type iteration:

$$P_{(k+1)}^{(3)}=\frac{1}{2}\left(P_{(k)}^{(3)}+\frac{1}{P_{(k)}^{(3)}P^{(2)}}\right)k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(35)
The implementation of this iteration calculates the term $`\frac{1}{P_{(k)}^{(3)}P^{(2)}}`$ in the same way as the fourth polynomial is calculated, i. e. there is a polynomial approximation there.

After a few iterations, typically two or three, the quality of $`P_{(k)}^{(3)}`$ (also called “fifth polynomial”) loses any dependence on the starting point of the iteration. Therefore it is also possible to replace the costly computation based on (34) by some cruder approximation. One possibility is to take for $`P_{(0)}^{(3)}`$ a second polynomial $`P_{}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}`$ for a first polynomial of $`P_{}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{}`$, which approximates $`f^{}(x)=x^{+\frac{\alpha }{2}}`$ with the order $`n_1`$. Although this is not sufficient for using it elsewhere, it is very useful as a cheap starting point for the Newton iteration. This method is applied by the program if the specified number of terms for Neuberger’s formula is negative.

Present experience shows that using this crude estimate as a starting point is sufficient. One should then first create two or three fifth polynomials of lower order than the desired order for the final $`P^{(5)}`$. At the end one can increase the polynomial orders by larger steps. Usually a good approximation is achieved if the last polynomial order of $`P_{n_5}^{(5)}`$ is roughly $`20\%`$ larger than $`n_2`$. After the computation is done, the parameters of each fifth polynomial are stored in a seperate file.


format: text

text:
# Geometrical edge barriers and magnetization in superconducting strips with slits

## I Introduction

Superconducting flat strips subjected to a perpendicular magnetic field show magnetic hysteresis, even when the strips have no bulk pinning. The magnetic hysteresis of strips without bulk pinning arises from geometrical edge barriers, i.e., barriers for magnetic-flux penetration at the strip edges. Indenbom94 ; Shuster94 ; Zeldov94a ; Benkraouda96 ; Maksimov98 ; Doyle97  Current-carrying strips have finite critical currents arising from the edge barriers, Benkraouda98  and the critical current becomes larger when slits are fabricated near the edges of the strips. Mawatari01  The critical-current increase is due to the enhancement of edge-barrier effects; in other words, making slits increases the number of edges that prevent flux penetration into the inner strips. The reversible magnetic response of two strips (i.e., a strip with a slit) in the Meissner state was considered in Refs. Zhelezina02,  and Brojeny02, . When an applied magnetic field exceeds a certain value, magnetic flux penetrates into the strips and the magnetic response becomes irreversible and hysteretic. Zhelezina02

In this paper, we present a theoretical investigation of the magnetic hysteresis of bulk-pinning-free strips with slits in the presence of an applied magnetic field $`H_a`$. The hysteretic behavior of the magnetic moment $`m_y`$ as a function of $`H_a`$ shown in this paper is due solely to the geometrical edge barriers. In Sec. II we outline our theoretical approach and establish notation. In Sec. III we briefly review published results of the $`m_y`$-$`H_a`$ curves of a single strip without slits. In Sec. IV we investigate field distributions and $`m_y`$-$`H_a`$ curves of two strips (i.e., a strip with a slit), and in Sec. V we study three strips (i.e., a strip with two slits). We briefly summarize our results in Sec. VI.

## II Complex field and magnetic moment

We investigate coplanar superconducting strips (i.e., strips in which slits are fabricated parallel to the edges) in a perpendicular magnetic field but carrying no net transport current. The strips under consideration have total width $`2a`$, thickness $`d2a`$, and infinite length along the $`z`$ axis (i.e., $`|x|<a`$ and $`|y|<d/2`$), as shown in Fig. 1. We assume that magnetic flux penetrates and escapes along the $`x`$ axis, assuming that there is no flux penetration from the ends at $`|z|\mathrm{}`$. (We may think of the strip ends as being connected by superconducting shunts.)

The Biot-Savart law for the complex field Zeldov94a ; Clem73 ; Mawatari01 ; Brojeny02  $`(\zeta )=H_y(x,y)+iH_x(x,y)`$ as a function of $`\zeta =x+iy`$ in the thin-strip limit, $`d/a0`$, is expressed as

$$(\zeta )=H_a+\frac{1}{2\pi }_a^{+a}𝑑u\frac{K_z(u)}{\zeta u},$$
(1)
where the magnetic field $`H_a`$ is applied parallel to the $`y`$ axis, and $`K_z(x)=_{d/2}^{+d/2}j_z(x,y)𝑑y`$ is the sheet current along the $`z`$ axis. In Secs. IV and V we show distributions of magnetic field $`H_y(x,0)=\text{Re}[(x)]`$ and current $`K_z(x)/2=H_x(x,\pm 0)=\text{Im}[(x\pm i0)]`$. The multipole expansion of Eq. (1) for $`|\zeta |/a\mathrm{}`$ is expressed as

$`(\zeta )`$ $``$ $`H_a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _a^{+a}}𝑑uK_z(u)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{\zeta ^2}}+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (2)
$``$ $`H_a+{\displaystyle \frac{I_z}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_y}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta ^2}}+\mathrm{},`$
where $`I_z=_a^{+a}𝑑xK_z(x)`$ is the transport current along the $`z`$ axis and $`m_y=_a^{+a}𝑑x(x)K_z(x)`$ is the magnetic moment in the $`y`$ direction per unit length. In this paper we consider the hysteretic relationship between $`m_y`$ and $`H_a`$ of strips carrying no net current ($`I_z=0`$).

The complex field for symmetrically arranged strips has the general form \[e.g., Eqs. (6), (14), and (34)\]

$$(\zeta )=H_a\sqrt{\underset{n}{}\frac{\zeta ^2\alpha _n^2}{\zeta ^2a_n^2}},$$
(3)
where the strip edges are at $`x=\pm a_n`$. Equation (3) may be expanded as

$$(\zeta )H_a+\frac{H_a}{2\zeta ^2}\underset{n}{}\left(a_n^2\alpha _n^2\right)+\mathrm{}.$$
(4)
Comparing Eq. (4) with Eq. (2), we obtain a general expression for the magnetic moment per unit length \[e.g., Eqs. (7), (15), and (35)\],

$$m_y=\pi H_a\underset{n}{}\left(a_n^2\alpha _n^2\right).$$
(5)
When $`H_a`$ is small enough, such that the local magnetic fields at the strip edges are all less than the flux-entry field $`H_s`$Benkraouda96 ; Benkraouda98 ; Mawatari01  the superconducting strips are in the Meissner state and no magnetic flux penetrates into the strips. References Zhelezina02,  and Brojeny02,  describe the linear reversible magnetic response of two strips in the Meissner state. On the other hand, when $`H_a`$ is sufficiently large to make the edge fields reach $`H_s`$, magnetic flux penetrates into the strips, and the magnetic response becomes irreversible and hysteretic. In Secs. III-V we determine the parameters $`\alpha _n`$ and the magnetic moment $`m_y`$ as functions of $`H_a`$ in ascending ($`H_a`$) and descending ($`H_a`$) fields.

## III Single strip without slits

### III.1 Complex field for a single strip

In this section we consider a single strip of width $`2a`$, as shown in Fig. 1(a). The complex field $`(\zeta )`$ and the magnetic moment per unit length $`m_y`$ for a single strip are given by Benkraouda96

$`(\zeta )`$ $`=`$ $`H_a\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2\alpha ^2}{\zeta ^2a^2}}},`$ (6)
$`m_y`$ $`=`$ $`\pi H_a\left(a^2\alpha ^2\right).`$ (7)
For convenience we introduce $`a_\pm =a\pm \delta `$, where $`\delta `$ is a cutoff length on the order of the thickness $`d`$ when the penetration depth $`\lambda `$ is small ($`\lambda <d`$) or the two-dimensional screening length $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=2\lambda ^2/d`$ when $`\lambda `$ is large ($`\lambda >d`$); i.e., $`\delta \mathrm{max}(d,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$.

### III.2 Single strip in an ascending field

#### Step (0) for $`0<H_a<H_0`$

When a magnetic field $`H_a`$ is increased after zero-field cooling, the superconducting strips are initially in the Meissner state. The magnetic field at the edges is less than the flux-entry field $`H_s`$ \[i.e., $`H_y(a_+,0)<H_s`$\], and the edge barriers near $`x\pm a`$ prevent penetration of magnetic flux. In this step (0), the parameter in Eq. (6) is $`\alpha =0`$, and the magnetic moment is given by

$$m_y/\pi =H_aa^2.$$
(8)
Magnetic flux cannot penetrate into the strips so long as $`H_y(a_+,0)<H_s`$ for $`H_a<H_0`$, but step (0) terminates when $`H_y(a_+,0)=H_s`$ at $`H_a=H_0`$,

$$\frac{H_0}{H_s}=\frac{\sqrt{a_+^2a^2}}{a_+}\sqrt{\frac{2\delta }{a}},$$
(9)
where the second equality is valid for $`\delta /a1`$.

#### Step (i) for $`H_0<H_a<H_{\mathrm{irr}}`$

When $`H_a>H_0`$, magnetic flux nucleates at $`x\pm a`$ and penetrates into the strip. A domelike distribution of magnetic flux exists for $`|x|<\alpha _1`$ and grows as $`H_a`$ increases. The parameter $`\alpha =\alpha _1`$ in Eq. (6) is determined by $`H_y(a_+,0)=H_s`$,

$`\alpha _1^2`$ $`=`$ $`a_+^2(H_s/H_a)^2(a_+^2a^2)`$ (10)
$``$ $`a^22\delta a[(H_s/H_a)^21].`$
The magnetic moment is given by

$$m_y/\pi =H_a(a^2\alpha _1^2)2(H_aH_s^2/H_a)a\delta .$$
(11)
Step (i) terminates when $`\alpha _1=a_{}`$ at $`H_a=H_{\mathrm{irr}}`$, where

$$\frac{H_{\mathrm{irr}}}{H_s}=\sqrt{\frac{a_+^2a^2}{a_+^2a_{}^2}}=\sqrt{\frac{2a+\delta }{4a}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}.$$
(12)
#### Step (ii) for $`H_a>H_{\mathrm{irr}}`$

The domelike distribution of magnetic flux expands to include almost all of the strip, and the strip’s magnetic response is reversible for $`H_a>H_{\mathrm{irr}}`$. The edge field at $`H_a=H_{\mathrm{irr}}`$ is given by $`H_y(a_+,0)H_s`$.

### III.3 Single strip in a descending field

#### Step (iii) for $`0<H_a<H_{\mathrm{irr}}`$

In a descending field, magnetic flux escapes from the strip, but a domelike distribution of magnetic flux remains in the strip. The detailed behavior of the field distributions and $`m_y`$ in descending fields depends upon the treatment of edges of a strip. Zeldov94a ; Benkraouda96 ; Doyle97  Here we adopt a simple model and put $`\alpha =a_{}`$, which results in a domelike distribution of magnetic flux for $`|x|<a_{}`$ and a small but sharply peaked current density flowing in the vicinity of the edges, $`a_{}<|x|<a`$. The magnetic moment is given by

$$m_y/\pi =H_a(a^2a_{}^2)2H_aa\delta ,$$
(13)
which qualitatively agrees with that predicted by more detailed investigations. Zeldov94a ; Benkraouda96 ; Doyle97

Note that $`m_y`$ takes a very small negative value (i.e., $`0<m_yH_sa^2`$), because a single strip cannot trap any magnetic flux in a descending field. Geometric edge barriers in a single strip without slits do not prevent escape of magnetic flux. At $`H_a=0`$ magnetic flux is entirely removed from a single strip, resulting in zero remanent magnetic moment, $`m_y=0`$ at $`H_a=0`$. For strips with slits, on the other hand, magnetic flux is trapped in the slits, and $`m_y`$ becomes positive in descending fields, as we show in Secs. IV and V.

## IV Two strips (strips with a slit)

### IV.1 Complex field for two strips

In this section we consider two strips (i.e., a strip with a single slit) of total width $`2a`$, as shown in Fig. 1(b). The superconducting strips are at $`b<|x|<a`$, and the slit is centered between the strips, $`|x|<b`$. We assume that the two strips are connected at the ends ($`|z|\mathrm{}`$) by superconducting shunts, such that an applied magnetic field $`H_a`$ induces a circulating current in the two strips, $`_a^bK_z𝑑x=_{+b}^{+a}K_z𝑑x0`$. General expressions for the complex field and the magnetic moment per unit length for two strips are given by Brojeny02

$`(\zeta )`$ $`=`$ $`H_a\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(\zeta ^2\alpha ^2)(\zeta ^2\beta ^2)}{(\zeta ^2a^2)(\zeta ^2b^2)}}},`$ (14)
$`m_y`$ $`=`$ $`\pi H_a\left(a^2+b^2\alpha ^2\beta ^2\right).`$ (15)
In this section we use parameters $`a_\pm =a\pm \delta `$ and $`b_\pm =b\pm \delta `$ \[where $`\delta \mathrm{max}(d,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$\], and define the function $`f_2(x)=(x^2a^2)(x^2b^2)`$ for convenience.

### IV.2 Two strips in an ascending field

#### Step (0) for $`0<H_a<H_0`$

When a magnetic field $`H_a`$ is applied after zero-field cooling, the superconducting strips are initially in the Meissner state. The magnetic fields at the edges are less than the flux-entry field, $`0<H_y(b_{},0)<H_y(a_+,0)<H_s`$, and no magnetic flux penetrates into the strips. Figure 2(a) shows distributions of the perpendicular field $`H_y(x,0)`$ and current $`K_z(x)/2=H_x(x,\pm 0)`$ in step (0). The parameters in Eq. (14) are given by $`\alpha =\beta =\alpha _0<b`$. Because the total magnetic flux in the slit is zero, $`_b^{+b}H_y(x,0)𝑑x=0`$, the parameter $`\alpha _0`$ is determined as

$$\alpha _0^2=a^2\left[1E(b/a)/K(b/a)\right],$$
(16)
where $`K(k)`$ and $`E(k)`$ are the complete elliptic integrals of the 1st and 2nd kind, respectively. The magnetic moment is given by

$$m_y/\pi =H_a(a^2+b^22\alpha _0^2).$$
(17)
Step (0) terminates when $`H_y(a_+,0)=H_s`$ at $`H_a=H_0`$, where

$$\frac{H_0}{H_s}=\frac{\sqrt{f_2(a_+)}}{a_+^2\alpha _0^2}\frac{\sqrt{2\delta a(a^2b^2)}}{a^2\alpha _0^2}.$$
(18)
#### Step (i) for $`H_0<H_a<H_1`$

During this step, magnetic flux nucleates at the outer edges ($`x=\pm a`$), flows inward across the strips, and penetrates into the slit. Thus, we have $`H_y(a_+,0)=H_s`$ and $`_b^{+b}H_y(x,0)𝑑x>0`$. The field distributions in step (i) are similar to those in Fig. 2(a). The parameter $`\alpha =\beta =\alpha _1`$ is determined by $`H_y(a_+,0)=H_s`$,

$`\alpha _1^2`$ $`=`$ $`a_+^2(H_s/H_a)\sqrt{f_2(a_+)}`$ (19)
$``$ $`a^2(H_s/H_a)\sqrt{2\delta a(a^2b^2)}.`$
The magnetic moment $`m_y`$ is given by

$`m_y/\pi `$ $`=`$ $`H_a(a^2+b^22\alpha _1^2)`$ (20)
$``$ $`H_a(a^2b^2)2H_s\sqrt{2\delta a(a^2b^2)}.`$
Step (i) terminates when $`\alpha _1=b_+`$ at $`H_a=H_1`$, where

$$\frac{H_1}{H_s}=\frac{\sqrt{f_2(a_+)}}{a_+^2b_+^2}\sqrt{\frac{2\delta a}{a^2b^2}}.$$
(21)
The field distribution at $`H_a=H_1`$ is shown in Fig. 2(b).

#### Step (ii) for $`H_1<H_a<H_{\mathrm{irr}}`$

During this step, magnetic flux penetrates from $`x=\pm a`$, because $`H_y(a_+,0)=H_s`$. Domelike distributions of magnetic flux appear in the strips at $`b_+<|x|<\alpha _2`$ \[Fig. 2(c)\], and grow as $`H_a`$ increases. Magnetic flux simultaneously exits the superconducting strips at $`x=\pm b`$ and enters the slit. Current spikes occur near $`x\pm b`$ in Fig. 2(c) because a finite current $`K_z0`$ flows in the vicinity of the inner edges, $`b<|x|<b_+`$, whereas $`K_z=0`$ for $`b+<|x|<\alpha _2`$. In our theory, such current spikes, which produce wiggles in the local magnetic field distribution, always occur where magnetic flux is exiting from a dome in a superconducting strip.

The parameters are given by $`\alpha =\alpha _2`$ and $`\beta =b_+`$, where $`\alpha _2`$ is determined by $`H_y(a_+,0)=H_s`$,

$`\alpha _2^2`$ $`=`$ $`a_+^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{H_s}{H_a}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{f_2(a_+)}{a_+^2b_+^2}}`$ (22)
$``$ $`a^22\delta a[(H_s/H_a)^21].`$
The magnetic moment $`m_y`$ is given by

$`m_y/\pi `$ $`=`$ $`H_a(a^2+b^2\alpha _2^2b_+^2)`$ (23)
$``$ $`2(H_s^2/H_a)a\delta +2H_a(a+b)\delta .`$
Step (ii) terminates when $`\alpha _2=a_{}`$ at the irreversibility field $`H_a=H_{\mathrm{irr}}H_s/\sqrt{2}`$, when domelike flux distributions essentially fill the strips. The domes occupy the regions $`b_+<|x|<a_{}`$.

#### Step (iii) for $`H_a>H_{\mathrm{irr}}`$

When $`H_a=H_{\mathrm{irr}}`$, domelike flux distributions fill the regions $`b_+<|x|<a_{}`$, and the magnetic response becomes reversible. At $`H_aH_{\mathrm{irr}}`$, the magnetic fields at the strip edges are $`H_y(a_+,0)H_y(b_{},0)H_s`$, and the parameters are given by $`\alpha =a_{}`$ and $`\beta =b_+`$. The magnetic moment $`m_y`$, which is due to currents flowing in the narrow regions near the edges ($`b<|x|<b_+`$ and $`a_{}<|x|<a`$), is given by

$`m_y/\pi `$ $`=`$ $`H_{\mathrm{irr}}(a^2+b^2a_{}^2b_+^2)`$ (24)
$``$ $`2H_{\mathrm{irr}}(ab)\delta .`$
When $`H_a>H_{\mathrm{irr}}`$, the magnitude of $`m_y`$ is reduced below that given in Eq. (24), because the current-carrying regions near the edges become narrower. However, a more detailed theory beyond the scope of the present approach would be required to calculate $`m_y`$ for $`H_a>H_{\mathrm{irr}}`$.

### IV.3 Two strips in a descending field

#### Step (iv) for $`H_4<H_a<H_{\mathrm{irr}}`$

If the applied field $`H_a`$ has been above $`H_{\mathrm{irr}}`$ and now decreases through $`H_{\mathrm{irr}}`$, magnetic flux is expelled from the slit and penetrates into the strips from the inner edge at $`x=\pm b`$, because the inner-edge field $`H_y(b_{},0)`$ is equal to the flux-entry field $`H_s`$. Magnetic flux in the strips escapes from the outer edges at $`x=\pm a`$. The domelike flux distributions at $`\beta _4<|x|<a_{}`$ shrink as $`H_a`$ decreases \[Fig. 2(d)\]. Current spikes occur near $`x\pm a`$ in Fig. 2(d) because a finite current $`K_z0`$ flows in the vicinity of the outer edges, $`a_{}<|x|<a`$, whereas $`K_z=0`$ at $`\beta _4<|x|<a_{}`$. The parameters are given by $`\alpha =a_{}`$ and $`\beta =\beta _4`$, where $`\beta _4`$ is determined by $`H_y(b_{},0)=H_s`$,

$`\beta _4^2`$ $`=`$ $`b_{}^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{H_s}{H_a}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{f_2(b_{})}{a_{}^2b_{}^2}}`$ (25)
$``$ $`b^2+2\delta b[(H_s/H_a)^21].`$
The magnetic moment $`m_y`$ is given by

$`m_y/\pi `$ $`=`$ $`H_a(a^2+b^2a_{}^2\beta _4^2)`$ (26)
$``$ $`2(H_s^2/H_a)b\delta 2H_a(a+b)\delta .`$
Step (iv) terminates and the domelike field distributions in the strips disappear when $`\beta _4=a_{}`$ at $`H_a=H_4`$ \[Fig. 2(e)\], where

$$\frac{H_4}{H_s}=\frac{\sqrt{f_2(b_{})}}{a_{}^2b_{}^2}\sqrt{\frac{2b\delta }{a^2b^2}}.$$
(27)
#### Step (v) for $`H_5<H_a<H_4`$

During this step, positive magnetic flux exits from the slit, penetrates into the strips from the inner edges at $`x=\pm b`$, flows outward entirely across the strips, and annihilates at the outer edges ($`x=\pm a`$), where $`H_y(a_+,0)<0`$. The field distribution is shown in Fig. 2(f).

The parameter $`\alpha =\beta =\alpha _5`$ is determined by $`H_y(b_{},0)=H_s`$,

$`\alpha _5^2`$ $`=`$ $`b_{}^2+(H_s/H_a)\sqrt{f_2(b_{})}`$ (28)
$``$ $`b^2+(H_s/H_a)\sqrt{2\delta b(a^2b^2)}.`$
Note that $`\alpha _5`$ is real (and $`\alpha _5>a_{}`$) for $`0<H_a<H_4`$, that $`\alpha _5\mathrm{}`$ for $`H_a+0`$, and that $`\alpha _5`$ is imaginary (i.e., $`\alpha _5^2<0`$) for $`H_5<H_a<0`$. The magnetic moment $`m_y`$ is given by

$`m_y/\pi `$ $`=`$ $`H_a(a^2+b^22\alpha _5^2)`$ (29)
$``$ $`H_a(a^2b^2)+2H_s\sqrt{2\delta b(a^2b^2)}.`$
Even when $`H_a<0`$, positive magnetic flux is still trapped in the slit, and the magnetic moment is positive.

Step (v) terminates when $`H_y(a_+,0)=H_s`$ at $`H_a=H_5<0`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{H_5}{H_s}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_+^2b_{}^2}}\left[\sqrt{f_2(a_+)}\sqrt{f_2(b_{})}\right]`$ (30)
$``$ $`\left(\sqrt{a}\sqrt{b}\right)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\delta }{a^2b^2}}}.`$
#### Step (vi) for $`H_1<H_a<H_5`$

During this step, negative magnetic flux (i.e., flux lines aligned along the $`y`$ axis) penetrates into the strips from the outer edges ($`x=\pm a`$), flows inward entirely across the strips, and annihilates at the inner edges ($`x=\pm b`$), where $`H_y(b_{},0)>0`$. The parameter $`\alpha =\beta =\alpha _6`$ is determined by $`H_y(a_+,0)=H_s`$, and is given by $`\alpha _6(H_a)=\alpha _1(H_a)`$, where $`\alpha _1(H_a)`$ is defined in Eq. (19). Note that $`\alpha _6`$ is imaginary (i.e., $`\alpha _6^2<0`$) for $`H^{}<H_a<H_5`$, and that $`0<\alpha _6<b_+`$ for $`H_1<H_a<H^{}`$, where $`H_1`$ is defined in Eq. (21) and

$$\frac{H^{}}{H_s}=\frac{\sqrt{f_2(a_+)}}{a_+^2}\sqrt{\frac{2(a^2b^2)\delta }{a^3}}.$$
(31)
The magnetic field at the center of the slit, $`(0)=H_y(0,0)=H_a\alpha \beta /ab`$, obeys $`(0)>0`$ for $`H_a>H^{}`$, and $`(0)<0`$ for $`H_a<H^{}`$.

#### Behavior for $`H_a<H_1`$

The magnetic response of two strips for $`H_a<H_1`$ in descending fields is very similar to the response for $`H_a>H_1`$ in ascending fields. The complex field $`(\zeta ,H_a)`$ and magnetic moment $`m_y(H_a)`$ in descending field can be determined from the ascending-field results with the help of the symmetries $`(\zeta ,H_a)=(\zeta ,H_a)`$ and $`m_y(H_a)=m_y(H_a)`$, respectively.

### IV.4 Magnetization curves of two strips

Figure 3 shows hysteretic $`m_y`$ versus $`H_a`$ curves for two strips. In ascending fields $`H_a`$, the sheet current $`K_z(x)`$ concentrates near the outer edges of the strips at $`x\pm a`$ \[Figs. 2(b) and (c)\], and therefore, even for large $`b/a`$, the $`m_y`$ for two strips is almost the same as that for a single strip except at low fields, $`H_a/H_s0.2`$.

In descending magnetic fields $`H_a`$, we see in Fig. 3 a striking difference between $`m_y>0`$ for two strips and $`m_y0`$ (i.e., $`0<m_yH_sa^2`$) for a single strip. The inner edges of the two strips at $`x=\pm b`$ are responsible for the large positive magnetic moment. The edge barriers near $`x=\pm b`$ prevent magnetic-flux penetration from the slit region $`|x|<b`$ into the superconducting region $`b<|x|<a`$. Magnetic flux is therefore trapped in the slit as shown in Figs. 2(d)-(f), and the magnetic moment becomes positive ($`m_y>0`$).

The remanent magnetic moment $`m_{\mathrm{rem}}`$ is given by Eq. (29) with $`H_a=0`$,

$$m_{\mathrm{rem}}/\pi 2H_s\sqrt{2\delta b(a^2b^2)},$$
(32)
which is maximized when $`b/a=1/\sqrt{3}0.577`$. If the slit is made wider, $`m_{\mathrm{rem}}`$ increases as $`b/a`$ increases for $`0<b/a<1/\sqrt{3}`$, because the slit can trap a larger amount of magnetic flux. If the slit is too wide, however, $`m_{\mathrm{rem}}`$ decreases for $`1/\sqrt{3}<b/a<1`$, because the superconducting strips (i.e., the current-carrying region) become too narrow. A similar behavior occurs for the peak of the magnetic moment, $`m_{\mathrm{peak}}`$, which occurs at $`H_a=H_5`$. Equations (29) and (30) yield

$$m_{\mathrm{peak}}/\pi H_s\left(\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{b}\right)\sqrt{2(a^2b^2)\delta },$$
(33)
which is maximized when $`b/a0.403`$.

## V Three strips (strips with two slits)

### V.1 Complex field for three strips

In this section we consider three strips (i.e., strips with two slits) of total width $`2a`$, as shown in Fig. 1(c). The outer strips are at $`b<|x|<a`$, the inner strip is at $`|x|<c`$, and the slits are at $`c<|x|<b`$. The strips are connected at the ends, $`|z|\mathrm{}`$, so that a circulating current flows in the outer strips, $`_a^bK_z𝑑x=_{+b}^{+a}K_z𝑑x0`$. The inner strip carries no net current, $`_c^{+c}K_z𝑑x=0`$. The general expressions for the complex field and the magnetic moment per unit length for three strips are

$`(\zeta )`$ $`=`$ $`H_a\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(\zeta ^2\alpha ^2)(\zeta ^2\beta ^2)(\zeta ^2\gamma ^2)}{(\zeta ^2a^2)(\zeta ^2b^2)(\zeta ^2c^2)}}},`$ (34)
$`m_y`$ $`=`$ $`\pi H_a\left(a^2+b^2+c^2\alpha ^2\beta ^2\gamma ^2\right).`$ (35)
In this section we use parameters, $`a_\pm =a\pm \delta `$, $`b_\pm =b\pm \delta `$, and $`c_\pm =c\pm \delta `$, where $`\delta \mathrm{max}(d,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. We also define a function $`f_3(x)=(x^2a^2)(x^2b^2)(x^2c^2)`$ for convenience.

### V.2 Three strips in an ascending field

#### Step (0) for $`0<H_a<H_0`$

When a magnetic field $`H_a`$ is applied after zero-field cooling \[step (0)\], the superconducting strips are initially in the Meissner state. Figure 4(a) shows the distributions of $`H_y(x,0)`$ and $`K_z(x)/2=H_x(x,\pm 0)`$. The parameters in Eq. (34) are $`\alpha =\beta =\alpha _0`$ and $`\gamma =0`$, where $`c<\alpha _0<b`$. Because the net magnetic flux in the slits is zero, $`_c^bH_y(x,0)𝑑x=0`$, we find that

$$\alpha _0^2=a^2(a^2c^2)\frac{E(k)}{K(k)},k=\sqrt{\frac{b^2c^2}{a^2c^2}}.$$
(36)
The magnetic moment is

$$m_y/\pi =H_a(a^2+b^2+c^22\alpha _0^2).$$
(37)
Step (0) terminates when $`H_y(a_+,0)=H_s`$ at $`H_a=H_0`$, where

$$\frac{H_0}{H_s}=\frac{\sqrt{f_3(a_+)}}{a_+(a_+^2\alpha _0^2)}\frac{\sqrt{2\delta a(a^2b^2)(a^2c^2)}}{a(a^2\alpha _0^2)}.$$
(38)
#### Step (i) for $`H_0<H_a<(H_{1\mathrm{A}}\text{ or }H_{1\mathrm{B}})`$

In this step, magnetic flux nucleates at the outer edges, $`x=\pm a`$, flows inward across the outer strips, and penetrates into the slits; that is, $`H_y(a_+,0)=H_s`$ and $`_c^bH_y(x,0)𝑑x>0`$. However, no magnetic flux penetrates into the inner strip because $`H_y(c_+,0)<H_s`$. The parameters are given by $`\alpha =\beta =\alpha _1`$ and $`\gamma =0`$, where $`c<\alpha _1<b_+`$. The value of $`\alpha _1`$ is determined from $`H_y(a_+,0)=H_s`$,

$`\alpha _1^2`$ $`=`$ $`a_+^2(H_s/H_a)\sqrt{f_3(a_+)}/a_+`$ (39)
$``$ $`a^2(H_s/H_a)\sqrt{2(a^2b^2)(a^2c^2)\delta /a}.`$
The magnetic moment $`m_y`$ is given by

$`m_y/\pi `$ $`=`$ $`H_a(a^2+b^2+c^22\alpha _1^2)`$ (40)
$``$ $`+H_a(a^2b^2c^2)`$
$`2H_s\sqrt{2(a^2b^2)(a^2c^2)\delta /a}.`$
The sign of $`dm_y/dH_a=\pi (a^2b^2c^2)`$ can be either positive or negative, depending upon the relative widths of the strips.

Step (i) terminates when either $`\alpha _1=b_+`$ at $`H_a=H_{1\mathrm{A}}`$ or $`H_y(c_+,0)=H_s`$ at $`H_a=H_{1\mathrm{B}}`$. The characteristic fields $`H_{1\mathrm{A}}`$ and $`H_{1\mathrm{B}}`$ are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{H_{1\mathrm{A}}}{H_s}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{f_3(a_+)}}{a_+(a_+^2b_+^2)}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2(a^2c^2)\delta }{a(a^2b^2)}}},`$ (41)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{H_{1\mathrm{B}}}{H_s}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_+^2c_+^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{f_3(a_+)}}{a_+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{f_3(c_+)}}{c_+}}\right]`$ (42)
$``$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\delta }{a^2c^2}}}\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{a^2b^2}{a}}}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{b^2c^2}{c}}}\right).`$
When $`b^2<a^2ac+c^2`$, step (i) terminates at $`H_a=H_{1\mathrm{A}}<H_{1\mathrm{B}}`$, whereas when $`b^2>a^2ac+c^2`$, step (i) terminates at $`H_a=H_{1\mathrm{B}}<H_{1\mathrm{A}}`$.

#### Step (ii-A) for $`H_{1\mathrm{A}}<H_a<H_{2\mathrm{A}}`$ and $`b^2<a^2ac+c^2`$

During this step, domelike distributions of magnetic flux are present at $`b_+<|x|<\alpha _{2\mathrm{A}}`$ in the outer strips, whereas no magnetic flux penetrates into the inner strip \[Fig. 4(b)\]. The parameters are given by $`\alpha =\alpha _{2\mathrm{A}}`$, $`\beta =b_+`$, and $`\gamma =0`$, where $`b_+<\alpha _{2A}<a_{}`$, and $`\alpha _{2\mathrm{A}}`$ is determined by $`H_y(a_+,0)=H_s`$,

$`\alpha _{2\mathrm{A}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`a_+^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{H_s}{H_a}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{f_3(a_+)}{a_+^2(a_+^2b_+^2)}}`$ (43)
$``$ $`a^22(H_s/H_a)^2(a^2c^2)\delta /a.`$
The magnetic moment $`m_y`$ is given by

$`m_y/\pi `$ $`=`$ $`H_a(a^2+b^2+c^2\alpha _{2\mathrm{A}}^2b_+^2)`$ (44)
$``$ $`H_ac^22(H_s^2/H_a)(a^2c^2)\delta /a.`$
Step (ii-A) terminates when $`H_y(c_+,0)=H_s`$ at $`H_a=H_{2\mathrm{A}}`$, where

$`{\displaystyle \frac{H_{2\mathrm{A}}}{H_s}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_+^2c_+^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{f_3(a_+)}{a_+^2(a_+^2b_+^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{f_3(c_+)}{c_+^2(b_+^2c_+^2)}}\right]}`$ (45)
$``$ $`\sqrt{2(a+c)\delta /ac}.`$
#### Step (ii-B) for $`H_{1\mathrm{B}}<H_a<H_{2\mathrm{B}}`$ and $`b^2>a^2ac+c^2`$

In this step, a domelike distribution of magnetic flux is present for $`|x|<\gamma _{2\mathrm{B}}`$ in the inner strip, whereas no magnetic flux is present in the outer strips. The parameters are given by $`\alpha =\beta =\alpha _{2\mathrm{B}}`$ and $`\gamma =\gamma _{2\mathrm{B}}`$, where $`0<\gamma _{2\mathrm{B}}<c_{}`$, $`c<\alpha _{2\mathrm{B}}<b`$, and $`\alpha _{2\mathrm{B}}`$ and $`\gamma _{2\mathrm{B}}`$ are determined by the coupled equations $`H_y(a_+,0)=H_s`$ and $`H_y(c_+,0)=H_s`$, which yield

$`H_s/H_a`$ $`=`$ $`(a_+^2\alpha _{2\mathrm{B}}^2)\sqrt{(a_+^2\gamma _{2\mathrm{B}}^2)/f_3(a_+)}`$ (46)
$`=`$ $`(\alpha _{2\mathrm{B}}^2c_+^2)\sqrt{(c_+^2\gamma _{2\mathrm{B}}^2)/f_3(c_+)}.`$
The magnetic moment $`m_y`$ is given by

$$m_y/\pi =H_a(a^2+b^2+c^22\alpha _{2\mathrm{B}}^2\gamma _{2\mathrm{B}}^2),$$
(47)
where $`\alpha _{2\mathrm{B}}`$ and $`\gamma _{2\mathrm{B}}`$ must be determined numerically from Eq. (46).

Step (ii-B) terminates when $`\alpha _{2\mathrm{B}}=b_+`$ at $`H_a=H_{2\mathrm{B}}`$, where

$`{\displaystyle \frac{H_{2\mathrm{B}}}{H_s}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_+^2c_+^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{f_3(a_+)}{(a_+^2b_+^2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_3(c_+)}{(b_+^2c_+^2)^2}}\right]}`$ (48)
$``$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2(a+c)(b^2ac)\delta }{(a^2b^2)(b^2c^2)}}}.`$
#### Step (iii) for $`(H_{2\mathrm{A}}\text{ or }H_{2\mathrm{B}})<H_a<H_{\mathrm{irr}}`$

During this step, domelike distributions of magnetic flux are present both for $`|x|<\gamma _3`$ in the inner strip and $`b_+<|x|<\alpha _3`$ in the outer strips \[Fig. 4(c)\]. The parameters are given by $`\alpha =\alpha _3`$, $`\beta =b_+`$, and $`\gamma =\gamma _3`$, where $`0<\gamma _3<c_{}`$, $`b_+<\alpha _3<a_{}`$, and $`\alpha _3`$ and $`\gamma _3`$ are determined by the coupled equations $`H_y(a_+,0)=H_s`$ and $`H_y(c_+,0)=H_s`$, which yield

$`H_s/H_a`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{(a_+^2\alpha _3^2)(a_+^2\gamma _3^2)(a_+^2b_+^2)/f_3(a_+)}`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{(\alpha _3^2c_+^2)(c_+^2\gamma _3^2)(b_+^2c_+^2)/f_3(c_+)}.`$
The magnetic moment is given by

$`m_y/\pi `$ $`=`$ $`H_a(a^2+b^2+c^2\alpha _3^2b_+^2\gamma _3^2)`$ (50)
$``$ $`2H_a(a+b+c)\delta 2(H_s^2/H_a)(a+c)\delta .`$
Step (iii) terminates when $`\alpha _3a_{}`$ and $`\gamma _3c_{}`$ at $`H_a=H_{\mathrm{irr}}H_s/\sqrt{2}`$.

#### Step (iv) for $`H_a>H_{\mathrm{irr}}`$

The magnetic response is reversible for $`H_a>H_{\mathrm{irr}}`$. At $`H_a=H_{\mathrm{irr}}`$ the parameters are $`\alpha =a_{}`$, $`\beta =b_+`$, and $`\gamma =c_{}`$, and the magnetic fields at the edges are $`H_y(a_+,0)H_y(b_{},0)H_y(c_+,0)H_s`$. The magnetic moment at $`H_a=H_{\mathrm{irr}}`$ is given by

$`m_y/\pi `$ $`=`$ $`H_{\mathrm{irr}}(a^2+b^2+c^2a_{}^2b_+^2c_{}^2)`$ (51)
$``$ $`2H_{\mathrm{irr}}(ab+c)\delta .`$
### V.3 Three strips in a descending field

#### Step (v) for $`H_5<H_a<H_{\mathrm{irr}}`$

During this step, domelike distributions of magnetic flux are present for $`\beta _5<|x|<a_{}`$ in the outer strips and for $`|x|<c_{}`$ in the inner strip \[Fig. 4(d)\]. These domelike flux distributions shrink as $`H_a`$ decreases. Magnetic flux escapes from the inner strip and penetrates into the slits. In turn, magnetic flux exits from the slits, penetrates into the outer strips, flows outward along the outer strips, and finally escapes from the strips at the outer edges, $`x=\pm a`$. The parameters are given by $`\alpha =a_{}`$, $`\beta =\beta _5`$, and $`\gamma =c_{}`$, where $`\beta _5`$ is determined by $`H_y(b_{},0)=H_s`$,

$`\beta _5^2`$ $`=`$ $`b_{}^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{H_s}{H_a}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{f_3(b_{})}{(a_{}^2b_{}^2)(b_{}^2c_{}^2)}}`$ (52)
$``$ $`b^2+2\delta b[(H_s/H_a)^21].`$
The magnetic moment $`m_y`$ is given by

$`m_y/\pi `$ $`=`$ $`H_a(a^2+b^2+c^2a_{}^2\beta _5^2c_{}^2)`$ (53)
$``$ $`2H_a(a+b+c)\delta +2(H_s^2/H_a)b\delta .`$
Step (v) terminates when $`\beta _5=a_{}`$ at $`H_a=H_5`$, where

$$\frac{H_5}{H_s}=\frac{1}{a_{}^2b_{}^2}\sqrt{\frac{f_3(b_{})}{b_{}^2c_{}^2}}\sqrt{\frac{2b\delta }{a^2b^2}}.$$
(54)
#### Step (vi) for $`H_6<H_a<H_5`$

Throughout this step, no magnetic flux remains in the outer strips, but a domelike distribution of magnetic flux is still present for $`|x|<c_{}`$ in the inner strip \[Fig. 4(e)\]. Magnetic flux at $`|x|<b`$ penetrates into the outer strips from $`x=\pm b`$, flows outward entirely across the outer strips, and annihilates at $`x=\pm a`$, because $`H_y(a_+,0)<0`$. The parameters are given by $`\alpha =\beta =\alpha _6`$ and $`\gamma =c_{}`$, where $`\alpha _6`$ is determined by $`H_y(b_{},0)=H_s`$,

$`\alpha _6^2`$ $`=`$ $`b_{}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{H_s}{H_a}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{f_3(b_{})}{b_{}^2c_{}^2}}}`$ (55)
$``$ $`b^2+(H_s/H_a)\sqrt{2\delta b(a^2b^2)}.`$
Note that $`\alpha _6`$ is real (and $`\alpha _6>a`$) for $`0<H_a<H_5`$, that $`\alpha +\mathrm{}`$ for $`H_a+0`$, and that $`\alpha _6`$ is imaginary (i.e., $`\alpha _6^2<0`$) for $`H_6<H_a<0`$. The magnetic moment $`m_y`$ is given by

$`m_y/\pi `$ $`=`$ $`H_a(a^2+b^2+c^22\alpha _6^2c_{}^2)`$ (56)
$``$ $`H_a(a^2b^2)+2H_s\sqrt{2\delta b(a^2b^2)}.`$
In the thin-strip limit $`d/a0`$, the remanent magnetic moment $`m_{\mathrm{rem}}`$, given by Eq. (56) with $`H_a=0`$, is the same as for two strips, Eq. (32).

Step (vi) terminates when $`H_y(a_+,0)=H_s`$ at $`H_a=H_6<0`$, where

$`{\displaystyle \frac{H_6}{H_s}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_+^2b_{}^2}}\left[\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{f_3(a_+)}{a_+^2c_{}^2}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{f_3(b_{})}{b_{}^2c_{}^2}}}\right]`$ (57)
$``$ $`\left(\sqrt{a}\sqrt{b}\right)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\delta }{a^2b^2}}}.`$
#### Step (vii) for $`H_7<H_a<H_6<0`$

During this step (not shown in Fig. 4), the magnetic field at the outermost edges is equal to the negative flux-entry field, $`H_y(a_+,0)=H_s`$. Negative magnetic flux penetrates into the outer strips at $`x=\pm a`$ and flows entirely across the outer strips into the slits, resulting in a reduction of magnetic flux in both the slits and the center strip. The parameter $`\gamma =c_{}`$ is fixed, and $`\alpha =\beta =\alpha _7`$ is imaginary (i.e., $`\alpha _7^2<0`$), where $`\alpha _7`$ is determined by $`H_y(a_+,0)=H_s`$,

$`\alpha _7^2`$ $`=`$ $`a_+^2+{\displaystyle \frac{H_s}{H_a}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{f_3(a_+)}{a_+^2c_{}^2}}}`$ (58)
$``$ $`a^2+(H_s/H_a)\sqrt{2\delta a(a^2b^2)}.`$
The magnetic moment is given by

$`m_y/\pi `$ $`=`$ $`H_a(a^2+b^2+c^22\alpha _7^2c_{}^2)`$ (59)
$``$ $`+H_a(a^2b^2)+2H_s\sqrt{2\delta a(a^2b^2)}.`$
Step (vii) terminates when $`\alpha _7=0`$ at $`H_a=H_7<0`$, where

$$\frac{H_7}{H_s}=\frac{1}{a_+^2}\sqrt{\frac{f_3(a_+)}{a_+^2c_{}^2}}\sqrt{\frac{2(a^2b^2)\delta }{a^3}}.$$
(60)
The magnetic field at the center, $`(0)=H_y(0,0)`$, is positive for $`H_a>H_7`$, but becomes zero at $`H_a=H_7`$.

#### Step (viii) for $`H_8<H_a<H_7<0`$

During this step, domelike distributions of magnetic flux are present at $`\beta _8<|x|<c_{}`$ in the inner strip, whereas no magnetic flux is present in the inner region, $`|x|<\beta _8`$ \[Fig. 4(f)\]. The parameters are given by $`\alpha =0`$, $`\beta =\beta _8`$, and $`\gamma =c_{}`$, where $`\beta _8`$ is determined by $`H_y(a_+,0)=H_s`$,

$`\beta _8^2`$ $`=`$ $`a_+^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{H_s}{H_a}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{f_3(a_+)}{a_+^2(a_+^2c_{}^2)}}`$ (61)
$``$ $`a^22(H_s/H_a)^2(a^2b^2)\delta /a.`$
The magnetic moment is given by

$`m_y/\pi `$ $`=`$ $`H_a(a^2+b^2+c^2\beta _8^2c_{}^2)`$ (62)
$``$ $`H_ab^22(H_s^2/H_a)(a^2b^2)\delta /a.`$
Step (viii) terminates when $`\beta _8=c_{}`$ at $`H_a=H_8<0`$, where

$$\frac{H_8}{H_s}=\frac{\sqrt{f_3(a_+)}}{a_+(a_+^2c_{}^2)}\sqrt{\frac{2(a^2b^2)\delta }{a(a^2c^2)}}.$$
(63)
At $`H_a=H_8`$, no magnetic flux is present in either the inner or outer strips.

#### Step (ix) for $`H_1<H_a<H_8<0`$

During this step, no magnetic flux is present in the strips, and the parameters are given by $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\beta =\gamma =\beta _9`$. The parameter $`\beta _9`$, determined by $`H_y(a_+,0)=H_s`$, is given by $`\beta _9(H_a)=\alpha _1(H_a)`$, where $`\alpha _1`$ is defined in Eq. (39).

#### Behavior for $`H_a<H_1<0`$

The magnetic response of two strips for $`H_a<H_1`$ in a descending field is very similar to that for $`H_a>H_1`$ in an ascending field. The complex field and magnetic moment as functions of the applied field can be determined with the help of the symmetries $`(\zeta ,H_a)=(\zeta ,H_a)`$ and $`m_y(H_a)=m_y(H_a)`$, respectively.

### V.4 Magnetization curves of three strips

Figure 5 shows hysteretic $`m_y`$-$`H_a`$ curves for three strips. In ascending magnetic fields at $`H_a=(H_{2\mathrm{A}}\text{or}H_{2\mathrm{B}})`$, the $`m_y`$-$`H_a`$ curves of three strips have additional kinks \[see arrow in Fig. 5(a)\] or peaks \[see arrow in Fig. 5(b)\]. Such kink or peak structures do not appear in the $`m_y`$-$`H_a`$ curves for a single strip or two strips. They arise in three strips because the the edge barrier at the edges of the center strip ($`x\pm c`$) impede the entry of magnetic flux. In descending fields $`H_a`$, on the other hand, the $`m_y`$-$`H_a`$ curves for three strips are almost the same as those for two strips; the similarity occurs because the edges of the center strip do not impede the exit of magnetic flux.

In three strips, the edge barriers near $`x\pm a`$ and $`\pm c`$ are effective in preventing the entry of magnetic flux in $`H_a`$, but are not effective in stopping the exit of magnetic flux in $`H_a`$. On the other hand, while the edges at $`x\pm b`$ do not impede entering magnetic flux in $`H_a`$, the edge barriers there are responsible for impeding flux exit in $`H_a`$.

## VI Conclusion

We investigated field distributions and the magnetic moment $`m_y`$ of bulk-pinning-free strips with slits in applied magnetic fields $`H_a`$, and we studied these in detail for increasing fields $`H_a`$ and decreasing fields $`H_a`$.

For two strips in decreasing fields $`H_a`$, the edge barriers near the inner edges at $`x\pm b`$ impede the exit of magnetic flux from the slit at $`|x|<b`$ into the strip at $`b<|x|<a`$. The trapping of magnetic flux in the slit in $`H_a`$ results in a positive remanent magnetic moment, $`m_y>0`$ at $`H_a=0`$, rather than a zero remanent moment, which occurs for a single strip without slits. For two strips, the remanent magnetic moment at $`H_a=0`$ is maximized when $`b/a=1/\sqrt{3}`$.

For three strips (i.e., strips at $`|x|<c`$ and $`b<|x|<a`$) the edge barriers at $`x\pm b`$ in $`H_a`$ are effective in trapping magnetic flux as in two strips. In the thin-strip limit $`d/a0`$, the remanent magnetic moment for three strips at $`H_a=0`$ is the same as for two strips. In $`H_a`$, the edge barriers at $`x\pm c`$ impede the penetration of magnetic flux into the inner strip. As a consequence, the $`m_y`$ of three strips in $`H_a`$ exhibits kink or peak structures that are not present for two strips.

The above arguments for three strips can be extended to an arbitrary number of strips. Consider a symmetric array of $`N`$ coplanar strips of total width $`2a_0`$ ($`N1`$ slits), in which the strip edges are at $`x=\pm a_n`$, where $`a_{N1}<a_{N2}<\mathrm{}<a_1<a_0`$. Superconducting strips occupy the regions $`a_{n+1}<|x|<a_n`$ with $`n`$ even, and slits are at $`a_{n+1}<|x|<a_n`$ with $`n`$ odd. The region spanning the centerline, $`|x|<a_{N1}`$ corresponds to a superconducting strip for odd $`N`$ and a slit for even $`N`$. The even edges at $`x=\pm a_n`$ for $`n=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4},\mathrm{}`$ impede flux entry in increasing applied fields $`H_a`$, and the odd edges at $`x=\pm a_n`$ for $`n=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5},\mathrm{}`$ impede flux exit in decreasing fields $`H_a`$.

By considering narrow slit widths, one may further extend the above approach to model grain-boundary pinning in thin films. The resulting model would be the thin-film analog of the bulk-pinning model discussed in Ref. Clem74, .

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank H. Yamasaki for stimulating discussions. This work was done as a part of the Super-ACE project (a project for the R&D of fundamental technologies for superconducting ac power equipment) of the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry of Japan. This manuscript has been authored in part by Iowa State University of Science and Technology under Contract No. W-7405-ENG-82 with the U.S. Department of Energy.


text:
# Vertical Confinement and Evolution of Reentrant Insulating Transition in the Fractional Quantum Hall Regime

## Abstract

We have observed an anomalous shift of the high field reentrant insulating phases in a two-dimensional electron system (2DES) tightly confined within a narrow GaAs/AlGaAs quantum well. Instead of the well-known transitions into the high field insulating states centered around $`\nu =1/5`$, the 2DES confined within an 80Å-wide quantum well exhibits the transition at $`\nu =1/3`$. Comparably large quantum lifetime of the 2DES in narrow well discounts the effect of disorder and points to confinement as the primary driving force behind the evolution of the reentrant transition.

The prospect for a quantum Wigner crystal has driven the study of two-dimensional electron system (2DES) under the conditions of low temperature and high magnetic fieldWignerCrystal . Experiments on high mobility GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures have shown that in the limit of zero temperature the $`\nu =p/(2p\pm 1),p=1,2,3\mathrm{}`$ series of incompressible quantum liquid states of fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE) terminates with a transition into a field-induced insulator at low fillings. A dramatic sequence of transitions involving a reentrant insulating phase, a $`\nu =1/m`$ primary FQHE state, and the final insulating phase can be realized in the highest quality samples. Initially observed in 2DES around the $`\nu =1/5`$ FQHEJiang90 , the reentrant insulating phase has been also detected adjacent to the $`\nu =1/3`$ FQHE state in two-dimensional hole system (2DHS)Santos92 . Reentrant insulating behavior is also seen in high quality silicon MOSFET and $`p`$-SiGe heterostructures in the integer quantum Hall regimeD'Iorio92 ; Kravchenko95 ; Sakr01 . Because of the correlated nature of the FQHE, the insulating states above and below the FQHE states at $`\nu =1/3`$ and 1/5 are expected to be driven by electron-electron correlation rather than disorder, enhancing the likelihood of formation of a Wigner crystal. This has given impetus for various electrical, acoustic, microwave, and optical investigations of the high field insulating phasesGoldman90 ; Li91 ; Williams91 ; Buhmann91 ; Paalanen92 ; Goldys92 ; Manoharan94 ; Li97 ; Pan02 .

For an ideal, disorder-free 2DES, the ground state in the limit of zero temperature is an ordered electron crystal at small Landau level fillings. However, a positive confirmation of the Wigner crystalline order has remained controversial and somewhat elusive. This is partly due to absence of scattering experiments that can directly probe the crystalline order of the insulating phases. In addition, interpretation of various experiments in the Wigner crystalline regime is complicated by general lack of understanding of the effects of disorder in presence of strong interaction. Even the highest quality samples presently available possess non-negligible disorder at low fillings, and the competition of disorder and interaction is thought to modify the ground state of 2D systems in some fundamental way. At short distances, the ground state is conjectured to evolve into a partially ordered Wigner crystal consisting of finite-size domains that are pinned by the disorder potentialWignerCrystal . In presence of strong disorder, the ground state evolves into a disorder-driven correlated insulator called Hall insulatorKivelson92 ; Shahar95 ; Wong96 .

In this paper we present an unexpected observation of reentrant insulating phase around the $`\nu =1/3`$ FQHE state in a two-dimensional electron system. The 2DES in question is found in a GaAs/AlGaAs quantum well whose narrow width produces a tight vertical confinement of the electronic wave function. In spite of its relatively low mobility, we observe a clear sequence transitions to an insulator, a FQHE, and back to an insulating phase in the vicinity of $`\nu =1/3`$ filling in a fashion reminiscent of the Wigner crystalline regime in high mobility $`n`$ and $`p`$-type GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructure. Tilted magnetic field study shows that the insulating phases are found to be insensitive to the presence of parallel magnetic field. We also compare the properties of the 2DES in the NQW with a wider quantum well and the conventional heterostructure. We find that the single particle lifetime of the 2DES in NQW is comparable to other higher mobility specimen and conclude that confinement within the NQW may be responsible for the shift in the reentrant transition.

The experiment was performed using a modulation doped AlGaAs/GaAs quantum well of 80-Å in width. The density of the sample was $`n=1.1\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ with a low temperature mobility of $`2.56\times 10^5\mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{V}\mathrm{sec}.`$ The transport in narrow quantum well (NQW) is dominated by interfacial fluctuationsMotohisa92 , yielding a substantially lower mobility than comparable heterostructure samples. Samples in Hall bar and van der Pauw configurations were studied inside a dilution refrigerator with a 14 tesla superconducting magnet. Tilted-field study was performed up to 40 tesla using the hybrid magnet at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory. A light emitting diode was used to illuminate the sample at low temperatures. Depending on the illumination conditions and the thermal cycling history, small variation in the data was detected. This, however, does not alter our conclusions.

Fig. 1 illustrates the magnetoresistance $`R_{xx}`$ of a NQW sample at a temperature of 35 mK. The most striking feature of the data is the sharp increase of longitudinal resistance between $`\frac{1}{3}<\nu <0.45`$. Slightly after $`\nu =1/2`$ $`R_{xx}`$ increases dramatically by more than 2 orders of magnitude, completely overwhelming other transport features. The peak resistance at $`\nu =0.38`$ exceeds $`900\mathrm{k}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ before dropping precipitously as it enters the $`\nu =1/3`$ FQHE state. $`R_{xx}`$ subsequently diverges upon entering a high field insulating phase. The inset of Fig. 1 illustrates longitudinal and Hall resistances of the same sample under a different illumination condition. The $`R_{xy}`$ is quantized at $`3h/e^2`$ at $`\nu =1/3`$, demonstrating the formation of the $`\nu =1/3`$ FQHE state. The $`\nu =3/7`$ FQHE state is found as a weak $`R_{xx}`$ minimum prior to the reentrant insulating phase.

Fig. 2 shows the temperature dependence of the insulating state at a slightly higher density ($`n=1.2\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^2`$). As temperature is raised, $`R_{xx}`$ decreases sharply with the insulating features largely disappearing above T = 300 mK. The inset of Fig. 2 shows an Arrhenius plot of peak resistance at $`\nu =0.38`$. The resistance at the peak is activated with an activation energy of $`E_g0.26`$K. At lower temperatures, there is a saturation of the resistivity. Measurement of I-V characteristics shows that the transport in the insulating regime is highly nonlinear, similar to previously observed reentrant insulating phasesJiang90 ; Santos92 ; Goldman90 ; Li91 ; Williams91 ; D'Iorio92 ; Kravchenko95 ; Sakr01 .

Fig. 3 shows the effect of parallel magnetic field in the insulating regime above and below the $`\nu =1/3`$ FQHE state. Comparison of magnetoresistance for the tilt angle of $`\theta =0^{}`$ and $`\theta =58^{}`$ at T = 50 mK shows that there is no appreciable change in both $`\nu =1/3`$ FQHE state and the insulating states above and below $`\nu =1/3`$ even though the total magnetic field was nearly double of the perpendicular magnetic field. This shows that neither the increase in the Zeeman energy nor the deformation of the wave function due to strong parallel magnetic field appears to play a large role in the insulating phase.

In Fig. 4 we explore the role of vertical confinement by comparing the transport between quantum well samples with different widths. Fig. 4a illustrates magnetoresistance of our 80Å wide NQW. Fig. 4b illustrates the magnetoresistance of a quantum well sample that is 300Å wide and possessing a mobility of $`\mu =7.8\times 10^6cm^2/Vs`$ and a density of $`n=6.2\times 10^{10}cm^2.`$ In the wider quantum well specimen, magnetoresistance at 30 mK shows a well-developed sequence of FQHE states centered around $`\nu =1/2`$ and $`\nu =1/4`$ followed by the reentrant insulating phase prior to the $`\nu =1/5`$ FQHE state. This contrasts sharply with the 80 Å -wide NQW which only exhibits a weakly developed FQHE state at $`\nu =2/3`$ prior to the reentrant insulating state above $`\nu =1/3`$. These results suggest strongly that narrow confinement is likely to be important in altering the properties of 2DES in the insulating regime.

The prevailing view on the high field reentrant transitions in various 2DES involves either an entry into the Wigner crystalline regimeWignerCrystal  or an approach based on the global phase diagram of quantum Hall effectKivelson92 . Consideration of the former scenario follows from the importance of the electron-electron interaction in the limit of low fillings. Since the Laughlin states at $`\nu =1/m,m=3,5\mathrm{}`$ occur from strong electronic correlationLaughlin83 , it follows that the interaction should also play an important role in the adjacent insulating states. The reentrance is explained in terms of competition between the FQHE liquid and Wigner solid. In this point of view, the insulating phases seen in the NQW is likely to be some kind of strongly correlated ground state driven by interaction. Alternatively, the insulating phases in NQW may occur due to some electron localization effect associated with disorder as suggested by its modest mobility. In this context, the global phase diagram picture of quantum Hall transitionsKivelson92  is relevant as a transition from an insulator into a FQHE state at $`\nu =1/3`$ is permitted.

However, in either pictures, there is no obvious explanation for the shift in the reentrant insulating transition to $`\nu =1/3`$ for the 2DES in the NQW. This feature is particularly puzzling since the reentrant behavior is always found near $`\nu =1/5`$ in 2DES based on GaAs/AlGaAs structuresWignerCrystal ; Jiang90 . In fact, the observed sequence of transitions in NQW resembles the reentrant insulating transitions near $`\nu =1/3`$ in 2DHS in GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructureSantos92 . In the reentrant insulating transitions seen in Si MOSFET and p-SiGe heterostructure, the reentrant insulating phases are found in the integer quantum Hall regime and spin is thought to play an important roleD'Iorio92 ; Kravchenko95 ; Sakr01 . In our NQW, tilted field experiment appears to rule out the role of spin in the reentrant insulating phase.

Theoretically the transition into a Wigner crystal in 2DES is predicted for $`\nu 1/6.5`$Lam84 ; Levesque84 ; Zhu95 . In the case of 2DHS in GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures, the stability of the insulating phases near $`\nu =1/3`$ is explained in terms of increased Landau level mixing associated with its heavier effective mass ($`m_h^{}=0.3m_{}`$) compared to that of electrons ($`m_e^{}=0.067m_{}`$)Santos92 ; Zhu93 ; Price93 . Since the effective mass of electrons in narrow quantum wells has been shown to be comparable to heterostructuresHuant92 , Landau level mixing does not appear to play a significant role in NQW. As there is no universally accepted explanation for the reentrant transitions observed in various two-dimensional semiconductor systems, understanding of the shift in the reentrant behavior in the NQW is likely to be important in clarifying the nature of the associated insulating phases.

The role of disorder remains an important question as the mobility of 2DES in NQW is modest compared to other 2DES based on GaAs/AlGaAs quantum structures. However, previous experiments on GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures with mobilities comparable to that of our NQW have not found reentrant behavior next to the $`\nu =1/3`$ FQHE stateShahar95 ; Wong96 . While this appears to discount the importance of disorder associated with the reentrant behavior in the NQW, interfacial roughness serves to restrict the transport in narrow quantum wellsMotohisa92  and a more quantitative measure of disorder is necessary. This is particularly important since electronic transport under magnetic field is largely determined by large angle scattering instead of the small angle scattering which dominates the zero field transport. The single particle relaxation time, $`\tau _s`$, in semiconductors is consequently substantially smaller than the transport scattering time, $`\tau _t`$DasSarma85 ; Coleridge91 .

In Table 1 we summarize the properties of 2DES derived from 3 different GaAs/AlGaAs structures that exhibit reentrant insulating phase in the lowest Landau level. In addition to the 80Å quantum well, 2DES from a heterostructure and 300Å quantum well with mobilities that are respectively 10 and 30 times larger were compared. $`\tau _t`$ was deduced from zero field mobility, $`\mu =e\tau _t/m^{}`$, and $`\tau _s`$ was determined from the Dingle analysis of the Shubnikov-de Haas (SDH) oscillations as suggested by ColeridgeColeridge91 . In contrast to the large differences in $`\tau _t`$, we found that $`\tau _s`$’s determined from different structures were surprisingly close. The $`\tau _s`$ in the high mobility 300 Å wide quantum well was 8.5 $`ps`$ with the 80 Å NQW yielding a $`\tau _s`$ of 3.7 $`ps`$. The heterostructure sample was found to possess a $`\tau _s`$ comparable to other 2DES samples.

The proximity of $`\tau _s`$’s is also reflected in the onset of SDH oscillations, $`B_{onset}`$. In the insets of Fig. 4 we show the SDH oscillations for 80 Å NQW and 300 Å quantum well. A $`B_{onset}`$ of $``$ 60 mT for the NQW and $`30`$mT for other samples were obtained. The comparable $`\tau _s`$ and $`B_{onset}`$ suggest that in spite of its low mobility, the electronic lifetime in NQW is not adversely affected by the tight confinement, increasing the likelihood that the reentrant behavior around $`\nu =1/3`$ is driven by interaction rather than disorder. On the other hand, the larger resistivity at $`\nu =1/2`$ and the absence of high order FQHE states is consistent with presence of stronger disorder in the NQW than the wider well. However, coexistence of the $`\nu =1/3`$ FQHE state next to the insulating phases indicates that disorder is not enough to suppress the electron correlation in the limit of low fillings.

Since the most distinguishing characteristic of the 2DES in a NQW involves its vertical confinement, the physics of reentrance may potentially occur from a confinement-induced evolution of the Coulomb interaction. The ground state energy and the interaction parameters of 2DES depends on the finite vertical extent of the electronic wave functionZhang86 ; Morf02 . A thicker 2DES consequently experiences a softer Coulomb potential and thereby possesses a reduced FQHE energy gap compared to a thinner 2DES. Our estimate of the thickness of electrons based on the interaction parameters in quantum wellsDasSarma85a  points to a substantial reduction in its thickness compared to the 2DES found in heterostructuresMorf02 . For the 2DES in Table 1, we obtain a thickness of 128Å in the heterostructure specimen which contrasts sharply against the estimated thickness of 19Å and 67Å for the 80Å and 300Å quantum wells. The role of thickness in the insulating phases in 2DES remains unknown and further theoretical investigation is necessary to clarify the effect of confinement in relation to the enhancement of $`r_s`$ in the insulating regime.

In summary, we have observed a puzzling shift in the reentrant insulating phases in a 2DES confined within a NQW. The apparent shift in the reentrant transition to $`\nu =1/3`$ cannot be reconciled in terms of disorder and points to importance of confinement. Understanding the shift in the reentrant transition may be important in uncovering the physics behind the reentrant insulating phases in the NQW as well as other two-dimensional electron and hole systems. While the confinement within a NQW is expected to produce a thinner 2DES, its effect in the high field insulating states remains to be clarified.

We would like to thank H. Fertig, H.W. Jiang, A.H. MacDonald, H.L. Stormer, and D.C. Tsui for useful discussions. A portion of this work was performed at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory which is supported by NSF Cooperative Agreement No. DMR-9527035. The work at the University of Chicago is supported by NSF DMR-9808595 and DMR-0203679.


text:
# Serendipitous discovery of seven new southern L-dwarfs

## 1 Introduction

Recent near-infrared surveys, most notably 2MASS (Skrutskie et al. (1997)) and DENIS (Epchtein (1997)) are an invaluable resource for finding and characterising the reddest existing objects. Among galactic objects, one can mention the cool AGB stars, which may be deeply embedded in circumstellar dust, and the L/T dwarf population. The latter such objects, when observed in the field, are likely to have ages of a few Gyr and, with reference to theoretical models (Burrows et al. (1997)Baraffe et al. (1998)), to be substellar. As such, ever since the discovery of the first such objects in the solar neighbourhood, GD 165B (Becklin & Zuckerman (1988)) and Gliese 229 B (Nakajima et al. (1995)), they have been the subject of intense observational scrutiny. Current and recent studies include Delfosse et al. (1997); Delfosse et al. (1999); Kirkpatrick et al. (1999); Martín et al. (1999); Reid et al. (2000); Fan et al. (2000) and Schneider et al. (2002) and references therein.

It is interesting to note that during a survey devoted to the search for L and T-dwarfs, four dusty AGB carbon stars were discovered at high galactic latitude ($`|b|`$$``$ 25), as reported by Liebert et al. (2000). Such luminous AGB stars are invaluable probes of the distant halo (see for example Totten & Irwin (1998)). In this paper, we report the inverse case: the discovery of seven new L-dwarfs found during a systematic spectroscopic survey of AGB candidates.

Our program to search for high latitude AGB stars is still in progress and will be described fully elsewhere (Mauron et al. 2003, in prep. ). Briefly, AGB candidates are selected either from objective prism plates (Gigoyan et al. (2001)) or by using a combination of near-infrared and optical colours. The majority of them have $`R`$$``$ 13 – 19. However, a subset of ten candidates which are invisible on POSS R-plates, but relatively bright in the 2MASS $`K_s`$-band ($`K_s`$ = 11–14) were immediately selected for further examination using deeper $`R`$ and $`I`$-band imaging, to attempt to detect the object in the $`R`$-band. Subsequently, low resolution (30 Å) grism spectroscopy was carried out (see below).

Of the ten objects followed up in this way, seven are shown to be hitherto unknown L-dwarfs. Two were found to be in the Kirkpatrick database (version 6 December 2002)111http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/davy/ARCHIVE, hereafter K02, which now contains 250 objects classified as spectral type L. These are DENIS-P J0205.4-1159 (Delfosse et al. 1997) and 2MASS J0144353-071614 (Liebert et al. 2003). A further one was found in recent literature by searching the object coordinates in SIMBAD: this is SDSS J042348.57-041403.5, listed by Schneider et al. (2002)Geballe et al. (2002), classified T0.

## 2 Observations and Data Reduction

The observations were carried out with the 1.54 m Danish telescope at the European Southern Observatory in La Silla (Chile), from August 29 to Sept. 3, 2002. The weather was good and the seeing varied from 0.9 to 2″.

We used the DFOSC focal reducer which is designed to permit both direct imaging onto a 2048$`\times `$2048 CCD through a variety of filters and slit spectroscopy with grisms. For each program source, 2 min exposure images in Bessell $`R`$ and Gunn $`i`$ bands were first achieved for source identification. This step is necessary to see whether the source is point-like or extended (and hence discarded) and to see rapidly if the counterpart is also red in $`RI`$. This imaging is also useful to note if there is a possible confusion with another close object, which is the case for 2 new objects where a faint galaxy was found to be within a few arcsec of the target (see Figs. 7 and 9). Pre-imaging also permits a rough estimate of the source counts in the $`R`$-band filter to decide whether low or medium resolution spectroscopy should be attempted.

Spectroscopy was then performed with the source positioned on a 1.5″ slit and DFOSC grisms 8 or 12, which provide dispersions of 1 Å pix-1 and 12 Å pix-1 respectively, i.e. 2.5 pixel resolutions of 2.5 and 30Å. Exposure times ranged between 10 min and 1 hr. The intermediate resolution spectra cover 5850 – 8400 Å, while the observed range at low resolution is 5600 – 10000 Å.

Imaging flat-fields in $`R`$ and $`I`$-bands were achieved on the telescope dome, as well as spectroscopic dome flats with the slit and the grisms present in the optical beam.

Spectra of the photometric standard white dwarf GD50 were secured with the same 1.5″ slit as for the targets and were used to flux calibrate the final target spectra. These fluxes are of uncertain absolute accuracy, possibly not better than a factor of 2, although for a few objects comparison of two spectra taken on different conditions and on two different dates suggests agreement to within $``$ 20%. Nevertheless, when comparing fluxes from wavelength to wavelength, the quality of the spectra is quite sufficient to allow comparison with calibrated templates and derive spectrophotometric indices (see below).

Data reduction was performed with the MIDAS software installed at Montpellier. After bias subtraction and flat-field correction of the 2-D spectra, a one-dimensional spectrum of the source was extracted and the sky spectrum measured close to the source location was subtracted. Cosmic ray hits were removed manually. No correction for telluric absorption has been performed.

For wavelength calibration of the low resolution spectra, it was found necessary to select and use the few strong and isolated (unblended at low resolution) lines provided by the sky spectrum, together with several of the lines provided by separate He-Ne lamp exposures. Only sky lines were used for the medium-resolution spectrum of 2MJ0144. The residuals in the dispersion relation were found to be $`<`$1/3 pixel ($``$ 1/6 of a resolution element).

The main defect of the low resolution spectra is the presence of interference fringes for wavelengths beyond $``$ 8500 Å. These fringes do not cancel out easily by flat fielding: they are not a spatially stable pattern in CCD spectral frames and vary from exposure to exposure due to mechanical flexure of the instrument. Therefore, the spectra which are displayed here could not be completely corrected. However, our conclusions do not rely heavily on fringe-affected regions.

## 3 Results and Discussion

Table 1 gives details of all 10 objects. We include 2MASS photometry for all the objects, and $`I`$ magnitudes found by searching the SuperCosmos Sky Surveys database (Hambly et al. 2001a Hambly et al. 2001b ; Hambly et al. 2001c ), which consists of digitised data derived from ESO and UKST Schmidt plates. For the new objects, we draw attention to the high galactic latitude (col. 7 in Table 1) and include spectral types and distances, for which details of the derivation will be given below.

In Fig. 1, we have plotted our seven new objects (filled squares) and 161 objects with errors in $`JH`$ and $`HK_s`$ $`\pm `$ 0.1 mag from K02 (crosses) in the near-infrared colour-colour diagram. It is clear that the new objects occupy the same region in this diagram as known L-dwarfs. Note that the new object 2MJ0428 is one of the $``$30 L-dwarfs brighter than $`K_s`$ 12.2. In Fig. 2 we compare the new L-dwarfs (filled squares) to a sample from previous literature (for details see the caption) in the $`IJ`$, $`HK_s`$ diagram. Note that here we exclude DENIS-P J0205.4-1159 from the sample of Delfosse et al. (1999) (open triangles) and instead plot our data for this object, together with the other 2 previously known objects of Table 1 (filled triangles). $`IJ`$ has been shown to be a good diagnostic of spectral type, increasing monotonically from late M to late T, although with more scatter than the $`Iz^{}`$ SDSS index (Dahn et al. (2002)). Our new objects occupy the region between $``$ 3 $``$$`IJ`$$``$$``$ 3.7 which would be expected for objects with spectral types between approximately L0 and L5, although one new object 2MJ0443 (L5) seems anomalously blue for this spectral type. It is possible that the SuperCosmos $`I`$ photometry has been contaminated by the presence of a faint galaxy (see Fig. 9).

### 3.1 Spectral type determinations

The low resolution of our spectra (30 Å), intended only to allow differentiation between M and C-type AGB stars, precludes the observation of narrow atomic lines in our L-dwarf spectra. However, as can be seen in Fig. 10, the spectra do exhibit broad K i and features of CrH and FeH which immediately show an L spectral type. The low resolution, and relatively poor signal-to-noise ratio of at least one of the spectra (2MJ0443), preclude the use of spectral typing indices based on ratios of molecular and atomic features. Instead, we have compared our spectra directly with those of L-type standards in the Kirkpatrick et al. (1999) sample. In Fig. 10, the spectra of the seven new L-dwarfs are overplotted with a representative standard star (dotted lines) of the spectral-type indicated in the upper left corner of each panel. This spectral type is the one adopted for the new objects. The spectra of the known T0 and L7 objects SDSS J042348.57-041403.5 and DENIS-P 0205.4-1159 are also included in this figure for comparison.

When deriving the spectral types, each target spectrum was compared to at least one, and in many cases 3 or 4 standards, including the representative standard we have chosen to plot. The main typing criteria at this resolution were the width of the K i resonance line, the strength of the TiO band at 8432Å, and the relative strengths of the CrH and FeH bandheads at 8611 and 8692 Å. These features are marked in Fig. 10 by vertical bars (together with the broad band near 9300 Å which is due to H2O, but which includes a significant telluric component). An additional diagnostic of spectral type is the slope of the spectrum near 8000 Å, which changes rapidly through very early L-types owing to the disappearance of VO. The spectral typing criteria used here are identical to the major ones used by Kirkpatrick et al. (1999). The excellent agreement between the shape of our new spectra and the chosen standards in Fig. 10 suggests the spectral types for the new objects are accurate to $`\pm `$ 1 subclass.

Additionally, we have performed experiments using the pseudocontinuum index PC3 of Martín et al. (1999), which increases between early-M and late-L dwarf types but only rather slowly in the early-L regime. The PC3 index compares the slope of the pseudocontinuum over 40 Å ranges centred at 8240 Å and 7560 Å, and the relations between it and spectral type for the ranges M2.5 to L1 and L1 to L6 are given by Martín et al. (1999). For the known T0 dwarf SDSS J042348.57-041403.5 (2MJ0423) these calibrations are not appropriate. However, for the other two late L-dwarfs with previously published types (2MJ0144 and 2MJ0205 in Table 1), we find agreement to within 1 subclass from our spectra using the PC3 index.

For one object, 2MASS J014435.3-071614 (2MJ0144, classified L5 (Liebert et al. 2003), a higher resolution (2 Å) spectrum was obtained (see Fig. 11), which does not include the hydride bands of FeH and CrH or the 8432 Å TiO feature. After rebinning to 8 Å resolution to obtain a sufficient signal-to-noise ratio, we obtain a type of L4 (PC3 = 6.54).

For the earlier L-type objects, to mitigate against of the very low resolution and moderate signal-to-noise ratio of the spectra, and the fact that the PC3 index is very slowly varying in this range, we increased the width of the 2 PC3 ranges to 100 Å. Spectral types of L1 were found for 2MJ0125, 2MJ0006, 2MJ0428 and 2MJ0032 (PC3 =2.81, 2.69, 2.58 and 2.74 respectively). For 2MJ0034 we found L2 (PC3 = 3.34), and L3 for the remaining new objects 2MJ0013 and 2MJ0443 (PC3 = 4.39 and 4.74). In most cases the spectral types obtained using PC3 are systematically $``$ 1 subclass bluer than those found by direct visual comparison with standards. The exception is the lowest signal-to-noise ratio spectrum 2MJ0443, where PC3 suggests L3 instead of L5. These discrepancies suggest that in order to use the PC3 index for these data, it would need to be recalibrated by observing spectral standards with the same instrumental setup. We note that, while the PC3 index is not satisfactory for classification here, it indicates the consistency of the relative spectrophotometric calibration of the data. We adopt the spectral types given by direct comparison with standards for the remainder of this discussion.

### 3.2 Distance derivations and proper motions

We have used the MJ \- spectral type relations of Hawley et al. (2002) to derive distances, given in Table 1. Two objects, 2MJ0428 (L0.5) and 2MJ0443 (L5) are rather nearby ($``$ 30 pc or less), as close as the 3 L-dwarfs discovered in the proper motion study of Lodieu et al. (2002). We note here that the Hawley et al. (2002) calibrations suggest the L7 object DENIS-P 0205.4-1159 (2MJ0205) is very close (11 pc). The T0 object SDSS J042348.57-041403.5 (2MJ0423) would also be nearby (12 pc), but we caution that the MJ \- spectral type relation is non-monotonic in the late-L to mid-T regime, as shown by Dahn et al. (2002), so may not be applicable to this object. Importantly, for the case of DENIS-P 0205.4-1159, the distance is known via a trigonometric parallax determination to be 19.8 pc, and the discrepancy between this and the 11 pc distance derived from the spectral type is a result of this object being an equal magnitude binary (Dahn et al. (2002)). Given that our present sample is magnitude-limited, it is biased towards finding such binaries: one object especially, 2MJ0428, which our results suggest to be rather close ($``$ 22 pc) may also be a good candidate to investigate for duplicity.

In Table 2, we have computed proper motions using the positional differences in $`\alpha `$ and $`\delta `$ between SuperCosmos and 2MASS images taken at different epochs. Col. 4 gives the timeline over which the proper motions were derived, and for three objects, we consider that it is too small for the proper motion to be reliable, and for one of these cases (2MJ0443) an anomalously large proper motion is derived. On examination of the SuperCosmos UKST $`I`$ image for this case, we find that the image, which is resolved into the L-dwarf and a faint galaxy in the Danish $`I`$-band image of Fig. 9, is clearly non-stellar and very indistinct, and it is possible that the SuperCosmos position we have used is that of the nearby faint galaxy.

Moreover, we have derived transverse velocities using the spectroscopic distances of Table 1 and the proper motion determinations. For the 2 cases in Table 2 for which $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{epoch}}`$ is perhaps unreliably small, we derive $``$ 60 and $``$ 20 km s-1. However for the remaining four objects, we find $``$ 20, 25, 40 and 45 km s-1, which are quite consistent with the kinematics of disk stars.

## 4 Conclusions

We have discovered seven new southern L-dwarfs at high galactic latitude serendipitously in a systematic survey for distant halo AGB stars. We have derived spectral types in the range L0.5 – L5 for the new objects by direct comparison to L-type spectral standards listed by Kirkpatrick et al. (1999). The seven new L-dwarfs have spectroscopic distances between $``$ 20 and 50 pc. Together with the proper motions we have derived by comparing 2MASS and SuperCosmos positions at different epochs, we have determined transverse velocities consistent with the kinematics of disk stars. Follow-up observations at higher spectral resolution are required to assess spectral types, and hence distances, more accurately by using a larger number of spectral features and indices, and also to address the question of the new objects’ masses, and potential substellarity, via observations of the Li i 6708 Å line (Rebolo et al. (1996)).

###### Acknowledgements.

TRK acknowledges financial assistance from the European Union Research Training Network ‘The Formation and Evolution of Young Stellar Clusters’ (RTN1-1999-00436). NM thanks the ESO staff, in particular John Pritchard, for help in making the observations. KG thanks the Jumelage 18 ”Astrophysique France-Arménie” for support. TRK thanks the referee, J. Davy Kirkpatrick, and Eduardo Martín, for their comments and assistance. Part of this work was carried out during a visit of TRK to the Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii, funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) grant AST-0205862. This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the national Science Foundation. This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France.