text:
# “Soft” Anharmonic Vortex Glass in Ferromagnetic Superconductors

## Abstract

Ferromagnetic order in superconductors can induce a spontaneous vortex (SV) state. For external field $`𝐇=0`$, rotational symmetry guarantees a vanishing tilt modulus of the SV solid, leading to drastically different behavior than that of a conventional, external-field-induced vortex solid. We show that quenched disorder and anharmonic effects lead to elastic moduli that are wavevector-dependent out to arbitrarily long length scales, and non-Hookean elasticity. The latter implies that for weak external fields $`H`$, the magnetic induction scales universally like $`B(H)B(0)+cH^\alpha `$, with $`\alpha 0.72`$. For weak disorder, we predict the SV solid is a topologically ordered vortex glass, in the “columnar elastic glass” universality class.

Rare-earth borocarbide materials exhibit a rich phase diagram that includes superconductivity, antiferromagnetism, ferromagnetism and spiral magnetic order. In particular, there is now ample experimental evidence that, at low temperatures, superconductivity and ferromagnetism competitively coexist in ErNi2B2C compounds. Other possible examples of such ferromagnetic superconductors (FS) are the recently discovered high temperature superconductor Sr2Y Ru1-xCuxO6 and the putative $`p`$-wave triplet strontium ruthenate superconductor, Sr2Ru O4, which spontaneously breaks time reversal symmetry. For sufficiently strong ferromagnetism, such FS’s have been predicted to exhibit a spontaneous vortex (SV) state driven by the spontaneous magnetization, rather than by an external magnetic field $`𝐇`$. The novel phenomenology of the associated SV solid is the subject of this Letter.

Here we will show that for $`𝐇=0`$, the elastic properties of the resulting SV solid differ dramatically and qualitatively from those of a conventional Abrikosov lattice. The key underlying difference is the vanishing of the tilt modulus, which is guaranteed by the underlying rotational invariance (but see below). Although this invariance is broken by the magnetization, $`𝐌`$, the tilt modulus remains zero because this breaking is spontaneous. This contrasts strongly with a conventional vortex solid, where the rotational symmetry is explicitly broken by the applied field $`𝐇`$. All of our conclusions, e.g., the unusual $`B(H)`$ relation, illustrated in Fig.1 are a direct consequence of this important observation.

In particular, we find that this “softness” (i.e., vanishing tilt modulus) of the SV lattice drastically enhances the effects of quenched disorder. As in conventional vortex lattices, any amount of disorder $`\mathrm{\Delta }_V`$, however weak, is sufficient to destroy translational order in SV lattices. Here the finite ordered domains are divergently anisotropic, with dimensions $`\xi _{}^L1/\mathrm{\Delta }_V^{2/3}`$ and $`\xi _z^L1/\mathrm{\Delta }_V^{1/3}`$. These lengths are measurable in scattering and transport measurements. Unlike conventional lattices, however, in SV lattices the disorder also qualitatively alters the elastic behavior at long distances, leading to “anomalous elasticity”: a universal scaling of elastic moduli with wavevector $`𝐤`$ out to arbitrarily long length scales, with some elastic moduli vanishing, and others diverging, as wavevector $`𝐤0`$. This behavior is characteristic of a new kind of topologically ordered “columnar elastic glass”(CEG) phase of vortices, which is stable, for weak disorder, against proliferation of dislocations.

The best way to experimentally probe a spontaneously broken symmetry is to break it directly with an external field. We predict that as a consequence of the anomalous elasticity, the increase in the magnetic induction, $`\delta B(H)B(H)B(0)`$ over the spontaneous induction $`B(0)`$, due to a weak applied field $`𝐇`$ along $`𝐌`$ obeys a universal “non-Hookean” scaling law:

$$\delta B(H)|H|^\alpha ,$$
(1)
with the universal exponent $`\alpha =0.72\pm 0.04`$, a prediction that should be experimentally testable.

Whatever the microscopic origin of the novel FS state, general symmetry principles dictate that the long length scale phenomenology is described by an effective Landau-Ginzburg free energy functional

$`F_{GL}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^3r[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}|(\mathbf{}i{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\varphi _0}}𝐀)\psi |^2+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}|\psi |^2+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{4}}|\psi |^4`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K}{2}}|\mathbf{}𝐌|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{t}{2}}|𝐌|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{4}}|𝐌|^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}|𝐁4\pi 𝐌|^2`$ (3)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}𝐁𝐇],`$ (4)
where $`\psi `$ is the superconducting order parameter and $`𝐀`$ is the electromagnetic vector potential with $`𝐁=\mathbf{}\times 𝐀`$. The constants $`m,a,b,K,t`$, and $`u`$ are experimentally measurable phenomenological parameters, with $`a`$ and $`t`$ changing their signs at the superconducting and ferromagnetic decoupled transition temperatures respectively, and $`\varphi _0=hc/2e`$ the elementary magnetic flux quantum.

The above model displays rich phenomenology. It has been shown in detail by Greenside, et al., that for a range of physically realistic parameters (e.g., $`\lambda _L/\xi `$, $`\lambda _L/\sqrt{K/|t|}O(10)`$, with the large Abrikosov ratio required for a robust mixed state, and large exchange $`K`$ necessary to suppress the competing spiral phase, relative to the SV state), systems described by $`F_{GL}`$, Eq.4, exhibit a thermodynamically stable phase consisting of a spontaneous (i.e. $`𝐇=0`$) vortex state, in which superconducting vortices are generated by the spontaneous magnetization of the ferromagnetic component.

Deep within this state, both $`\psi (𝐫)`$ and $`𝐌(𝐫)`$ are large, and therefore the London approximation applies. We take $`𝐌(𝐫)=M_0\widehat{𝐧}(𝐫)`$ to be of approximately uniform magnitude $`M_0`$ and fluctuating direction $`\widehat{𝐧}(𝐫)`$. We also take $`|\psi (𝐫)|`$ to be a constant $`\psi _00`$, everywhere except at the locations of the vortices (where $`\psi =0`$) and allow its phase $`\theta (𝐫)`$ to vary subject to the circulation condition that it increases by an amount $`2\pi `$ along a closed path enclosing a vortex. The magnetic induction $`𝐁(𝐫)`$ is confined to thin flux filaments defined by the zeros of $`\psi `$. Using the circulation condition and the minimizing above free energy $`F_{GL}`$ with respect to $`\psi _0`$, $`\theta `$ and $`𝐀`$, we eliminate $`\mathbf{}\theta `$ and $`𝐁`$ in favor of vortex line conformational degrees of freedom and obtain:

$`F_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _0^2}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle d^3rd^3r^{}𝐭(𝐫)𝐭(𝐫^{})V(|𝐫𝐫^{}|)}`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3r\left[\frac{1}{2}KM_0^2|\mathbf{}\widehat{𝐧}|^2\varphi _0M_0𝐭(𝐫)\widehat{𝐧}\right]},`$ (6)
where we have dropped unimportant constant pieces. $`𝐭(𝐫)=_n𝑑s\frac{d𝐫_n}{ds}\delta ^3(𝐫𝐫_n(s))`$ is the directed vortex line density, with magnitude given by the local flux density (in units of $`\varphi _0`$) and with direction tangent to the local vorticity; $`𝐫_n(s)`$ is the locus of the $`n`$-th vortex line, parameterized by an arc length $`s`$. The vortex interaction $`V(r)`$ is approximately given by the standard expression $`V(r)=e^{r/\lambda _L}/(4\pi \lambda _L^2r)`$, with $`\lambda _L^2=m\varphi _0^2/(16\pi ^3\mathrm{}^2|\psi _0|^2)`$, cut off at scales smaller than the coherence length $`\xi `$.

At low temperature $`T`$ and in the clean limit the vortex lines freeze into a lattice (as has been observed), directed on average along a spontaneously chosen magnetization direction $`\widehat{𝐧}_0`$, which we choose to be the $`\widehat{𝐳}`$ axis, and with the lattice constant determined by the average magnetization $`M_0`$. Vortex lattice fluctuations are described by the 2d phonon displacement vector field $`𝐮(z,𝐑_n)`$, defined by $`𝐫_n(z)=(X_n+u_x(z,𝐑_n),Y_n+u_y(z,𝐑_n),z)`$, where $`𝐑_n=(X_n,Y_n)`$ spans the vortex lattice, and we chose $`s=z`$, and by a small 2d vector $`\delta 𝐧\widehat{𝐳}`$ defined by $`\widehat{𝐧}=(1\delta 𝐧\delta 𝐧)^{1/2}\widehat{𝐳}+\delta 𝐧`$.

Integrating out $`\delta 𝐧`$ and going to the continuum, we obtain the effective elastic Hamiltonian:

$$H_{el}=\frac{1}{2}d^3r\left[\kappa |_z^2𝐮|^2+2\mu u_{ij}^2+\lambda u_{ii}^2\right],$$
(7)
where $`\kappa `$ is the vortex line curvature modulus and $`\mu `$ and $`\lambda `$ are the Lamé coefficients. $`\mu `$, $`\lambda `$ and $`\kappa `$ are all expressible in terms of the parameters of the original model Eq.4, and $`u_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}(_iu_j+_ju_i_zu_i_zu_j)`$ is the rotationally invariant nonlinear strain tensor, with $`i,jx,y`$. This form of $`H_{el}`$ is strictly dictated by general symmetry considerations, specifically: the underlying rotational symmetry of the SV solid about any arbitrary axis guarantees that only the fully rotationally invariant combination $`u_{ij}`$, given above, appears and that the vortex line tilt modulus ($`c_{44}`$) vanishes identically (but see below).

Although the softness of the SV lattice suggests, via the Lindemann criterion, a lower melting temperature, our long wavelength description cannot directly predict the melting temperature, because thermal fluctuations are dominated by short distance modes (near the Brillouin zone boundary). Instead, here we focus on the much more interesting, robust and universal effects of quenched disorder, all of which (at long wavelengths) can be incorporated into our model by adding to $`H_{el}`$

$$H_{dis}=d^3r\left[e\underset{𝐆}{}V_𝐆(𝐫)e^{i𝐆𝐮(𝐫)}+𝐡(𝐫)_z𝐮\right].$$
(8)
The first term accounts for the random positional pinning (at reciprocal lattice vectors $`𝐆`$) of the vortex lattice, with $`V_𝐆(𝐫)`$ a complex random pinning potential, whose statistics can be accurately represented by zero-mean, short-ranged, Gaussian correlations: $`\overline{V_𝐆(𝐫)V_𝐆^{}^{}(𝐫^{})}=\mathrm{\Delta }_V\delta _{\mathrm{𝐆𝐆}^{}}^{}\delta ^d(𝐫𝐫^{})`$. The second term reflects the presence of an additional orientational, tilt disorder. The tilt field $`𝐡(𝐫)`$ is a random vector with short-ranged isotropic spatial correlations, whose statistics can also be taken zero-mean Gaussian, with $`\overline{h_i(𝐫)h_j(𝐫^{})}=\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _{ij}\delta ^d(𝐫𝐫^{})`$. In the case of magnetic impurities, it is the random local fields, acting on $`𝐌`$, i.e., $`𝐡(𝐫)\widehat{𝐧}`$, which via the Higg’s mechanism, $`\delta 𝐧_z𝐮`$ lead to the tilt disorder piece of $`H_{dis}`$. In the case of nonmagnetic impurities, it is the short-scale anisotropy in the spatial distribution of vortex line pinning centers, together with lack of rotational symmetry in the SV state, that leads to the tilt disorder in Eq.8, as can be easily illustrated by short-scale modes thinning procedure. (As in conventional vortex lattices, in $`d>2`$, the pinning of the long-scale vortex density distortions is irrelevant at long scales).

Adapting Larkin’s calculation to the “soft” elasticity of the SV lattice we find that in $`d`$ dimensions and at short length scales, mean-squared lattice distortions (in domains of size $`L_{}(L_z)`$) grow as $`u_{rms}^2L_{}^{9/2d}`$. Hence, translational order is destroyed for $`d=3<d_c^{\mathrm{\Delta }_V}=9/2`$, implying (in the weak disorder limit) divergently anisotropic Larkin domains spanned by 3d Larkin lengths $`L_{}^L\left(a^2(\kappa B_s^7)^{1/4}/\mathrm{\Delta }_V\right)^{2/3}`$ and $`L_z^L\left(a^2\kappa B_s/\mathrm{\Delta }_V\right)^{1/3}`$, with $`a`$ the vortex spacing, $`sL,T`$, and $`B_L=2\mu +\lambda `$, $`B_T=\mu `$. Beyond these Larkin length scales, the Larkin approximation breaks down and the full nonlinear nature of the random-field pinning potential must be taken into account, leading to much more weakly (specifically, logarithmically) divergent lattice fluctuations as in conventional vortex lattices. This weak divergence is completely overwhelmed for $`d<d_{uc}=7/2`$ by the far stronger fluctuations induced by the tilt disorder, which diverge algebraically: $`u_{rms}^2L_{}^{7/2d}`$ (ignoring nonlinear elastic effects) out to arbitrarily long length scales .

Ignoring nonlinear elastic terms, we obtain the disorder-averaged phonon correlation function $`\overline{C_s(𝐫)}\text{Max}[\mathrm{\Delta }/(\kappa ^3B_s^5)^{1/4}r_{}^{7/2d},\mathrm{\Delta }/(\kappa ^{5d}B_s^{d1})^{1/2}z^{72d}]\times O(1)`$. The spatial (Larkin-like) correlation lengths, measurable in neutron scattering experiments, are defined by $`C_s(\text{Min}[\xi _{},\xi _z])=a^2`$ and are given by $`\xi _{}\left[a^2(\kappa ^3B_s^5)^{1/4}/\mathrm{\Delta }\right]^{1/(7/2d)}`$, $`\xi _z\xi _{}^{1/2}(\kappa /B_s)^{1/4}`$. Hence, in 3d, in the presence of arbitrarily weak disorder $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, on length scales longer than $`\xi _{,z}`$ the translational order of SV solid decays rapidly, that is, it is short-ranged. This, however, does not imply that the system is equivalent to the SV liquid state, or to a fully disordered vortex glass as it would be if dislocation loops unbound. Using duality methods, introduced recently by two of the authors, we have shown that a translationally disordered, but topologically ordered “columnar elastic glass” (CEG) phase is in fact possible in 3d. This is analogous to our recent results in the context of randomly pinned smectic liquid crystals and columnar phase of discotic liquid crystals confined in aerogel, as well as the Bragg glass conjecture for conventional vortex lattices and the random field XY model.

In this topologically ordered phase the anharmonic elastic terms in the Hamiltonian lead to drastically modified elastic scaling on length scales longer than the nonlinear crossover length scales $`\xi _{NL}^z=8\pi ^2\kappa ^2/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\xi _{NL}^{}=(\xi _{NL}^z)^2(B_s/\kappa )^{1/2}`$. In renormaliztion group (RG) language, on scales longer than $`\xi _{NL}^{z,}`$, our system flows away from a zero-disorder Gaussian fixed point and approaches a nontrivial $`T=0`$ anharmonic, disordered fixed point. This new fixed point can be studied using standard RG analysis, and we predict that at scales longer than $`\xi _{NL}^{z,}`$, out to an arbitrary length scale (but see below), the elastic moduli $`\kappa `$, $`\mu `$, $`\lambda `$, and the disorder variance $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ become singular functions of wavevector $`𝐤`$:

$`\kappa (𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _0\left(k_z\xi _{NL}^z\right)^{\eta _\kappa }f_\kappa (k_{}\xi _{NL}^{}/(k_z\xi _{NL}^z)^\zeta ),`$ (10)
$`\mu (𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _0\left(k_z\xi _{NL}^z\right)^{\eta _\mu }f_\mu (k_{}\xi _{NL}^{}/(k_z\xi _{NL}^z)^\zeta ),`$ (11)
$`\lambda (𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`g_{}\mu _0\left(k_z\xi _{NL}^z\right)^{\eta _\mu }f_\mu (k_{}\xi _{NL}^{}/(k_z\xi _{NL}^z)^\zeta ),`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\left(k_z\xi _{NL}^z\right)^{12\eta _\kappa }f_\mathrm{\Delta }(k_{}\xi _{NL}^{}/(k_z\xi _{NL}^z)^\zeta ),`$ (13)
where $`f_{\kappa /\mu /\mathrm{\Delta }}(x)`$ is independent of $`x`$ if $`x1`$ and goes like $`x`$ to the power $`\eta _\kappa /\zeta `$, $`\eta _\mu /\zeta `$ and $`(12\eta _\kappa )/\zeta `$, respectively, when $`x1`$, so that, e.g., $`\kappa (𝐤)k_{}^{\eta _\kappa /\zeta }`$ for $`k_{}\xi _{NL}^{}(k_z\xi _{NL}^z)^\zeta `$. $`\kappa _0`$, $`\mu _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ are the bare values of the elastic constants and the anomalous exponents are universal, and to leading order in $`ϵ=\frac{7}{2}d`$ are given by $`\eta _\kappa =1.478ϵ=0.74`$ and $`\eta _\mu =0.6919ϵ=0.346`$, where the second equalities are their values in 3d. The constant $`g_{}`$ is also universal, and to leading order in $`ϵ`$ $`g_{}=0.03272+O(ϵ)`$. The anisotropy exponent $`\zeta =2(\eta _\kappa +\eta _\mu )/2`$, and therefore the two independent exponents $`\eta _\kappa `$ and $`\eta _\mu `$ completely characterize the anomalous elasticity, with $`\kappa (𝐤)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)`$ diverging with linearly-related exponents, and $`\mu (𝐤)`$ and $`\lambda (𝐤)`$ both vanishing in exactly the same way as $`𝐤\mathrm{}`$. The negative universal amplitude ratio $`g_{}`$ implies that the SV glass exhibits a negative universal Poisson ratio $`\sigma _p=0.0338+O(ϵ)`$.

For length scales longer than $`\xi _{NL}`$ this strong, power-law anomalous elasticity will alter the behavior of all physical observables of the SV solid, such as, e.g., the width of the structure function peak $`S(𝐤)`$ measured in neutron scattering and the behavior in its tails. It also leads to a non-Hookean, i.e., nonlinear, stress-strain relation even for arbitrarily small applied stress $`\sigma `$.

To see this, consider a purely compressive stress, $`\sigma _{ij}=\sigma \delta _{ij}`$, which adds a term $`\sigma \mathbf{}𝐮=\sigma u_{ii}+\frac{1}{2}|_z𝐮|^2`$ to the Hamiltonian. In Fourier space, the second, symmetry breaking, term becomes $`\sigma k_z^2|𝐮(𝐤)|^2`$ and begins to dominate over the $`\kappa (𝐤)k_z^4|𝐮(𝐤)|^2`$ term once $`\sigma k_z^2\kappa (𝐤)k_z^4`$. This clearly happens for $`k_z`$’s less than a critical $`k_c`$ given by $`\sigma k_c^2=\kappa (k_z=k_c,𝐤_{}=0)k_c^4`$. Using Eq.10 for $`\kappa (𝐤)`$ in this expression and solving for $`k_c`$, we find $`k_c(\sigma )=(\sigma /\kappa _0)^{1/(2\eta _\kappa )}(\xi _{NL}^z)^{\eta _\kappa /(2\eta _\kappa )}`$.

Now, for sufficiently weak stress $`\sigma `$, $`1/\xi _{NL}^zk_c(\sigma )`$, the stress-induced rotational symmetry breaking term is subdominant to the vortex curvature energy $`\kappa (𝐤)k_z^4|𝐮(𝐤)|^2`$ for wavevectors $`k_zk_c(\sigma )`$. Consequently, on intermediate length scales, $`k_c(\sigma )<k_z<k_{NL}^z`$, the SV glass exhibits anomalous elasticity summarized by Eqs.“Soft” Anharmonic Vortex Glass in Ferromagnetic Superconductors. However, on longer length scales, $`k_zk_c(\sigma )`$, the applied stress energy dominates, suppressing fluctuations and cutting off the anomalous elasticity at $`k_c(\sigma )`$. Therefore, the elastic moduli saturate, for $`k_zk_c(\sigma )`$, at their values at $`k_z=k_c(\sigma )`$, $`k_{}=0`$ given by Eq.“Soft” Anharmonic Vortex Glass in Ferromagnetic Superconductors, i.e., $`\mu (𝐤0)\mu (k_z=k_c,𝐤_{}=0)k_c^{\eta _\mu }`$ and $`\lambda (𝐤0)\lambda (k_z=k_c,𝐤_{}=0)k_c^{\eta _\mu }`$. This implies that the Young’s modulus $`Y(\sigma )=4\mu (\mu +\lambda )/(2\mu +\lambda )=4\mu _0(1+g_{})/(2+g_{})(k_c\xi _{NL}^z)^{\eta _\mu }2\mu _0(k_c\xi _{NL}^z)^{\eta _\mu }=2\mu _0(\sigma /\sigma _{NL})^\beta `$, with $`\sigma \sigma _{NL}`$, $`\beta =\eta _\mu /(2\eta _\kappa )`$, and $`\sigma _{NL}=\kappa _0\xi _{NL}^2`$. Hence, we find for stress $`\sigma \sigma _{NL}`$, a nonlinear (non-Hookean) strain-stress relation: $`ϵ_c(\sigma )\mathbf{}𝐮=\sigma /Y(\sigma )\sigma ^\alpha `$, with $`\alpha =1\beta =1\eta _\mu /(2\eta _\kappa )0.72`$.

Now, it is easy to see that $`𝐇=H\widehat{z}`$, applied along the direction of the SV lattice, acts as a compressive stress, $`\sigma =HB(0)`$, and the induced $`\delta B(H)=B(H)B(0)`$ plays the role of the compressive strain, $`ϵ_c=\delta B/B(0)`$. Hence $`H`$ allows us to directly probe the anomalous elasticity, with the non-Hookean elasticity leading to the nonlinear and universal $`B(H)`$ relation, for $`H<H_{NL}=\sigma _{NL}/B(0)`$, given in Eq.1 and Fig.1.

Of course, as with all crystalline ferromagnets, crystalline symmetry breaking fields will explicitly break rotational invariance, even in the absence of $`𝐇`$. They will lead to a non-zero tilt modulus, i.e., a term $`\frac{1}{2}V_{cr.}|_z𝐮|^2`$ in the Hamiltonian, which will cut off the anomalous elasticity on length scales longer than $`\xi _{cr.}^z=(\frac{\kappa _0}{V_{cr.}})^{1/(2\eta _\kappa )}(\xi _{NL}^z)^{\eta _\kappa /(2\eta _\kappa )}`$. For weak $`V_{cr.}`$, our predictions will apply over a wide range of length scales $`L_{z,}`$ satisfying $`\xi _{cr.}^{z,}L_{z,}\xi _{NL}^{z,}`$. On longer length scales the SV solid elasticity will cross over to the conventional “tension” elasticity of vortex lattices, exhibiting a linear relation $`\delta BH`$, for $`H<H_{cr.}=V_{cr.}/B(0)`$.

The crystal anisotropy also leads to metastability for $`|H|<H_{cr.}`$, thereby allowing experimental studies of $`𝐇`$ applied in the direction opposite to that of $`𝐌`$. In the limit $`|H|H_{cr.}`$, the vortex solid becomes “soft” again, with the crystal-field generated tilt modulus vanishing as $`H_{cr.}|H|`$, and the system exhibiting anomalous elasticity out to arbitrary length scale at this finely field-tuned point. However, because the rotational symmetry is nevertheless broken (with restoration only at the quadratic $`(_z𝐮)^2`$ level), we expect that the universality class and therefore the anomalous exponents will be distinct from that of the CEG studied here.

As argued in the case of vanishing crystal anisotropy, here too, the anomalous elasticity leads to a non-trivial field dependence of the Young’s modulus. We find $`Y(H)(H_{cr.}|H|)^\beta ^{}`$, with $`\beta ^{}>0`$ a universal exponent analogous to, but distinct from the $`\beta `$ of the CEG. However, in contrast to the rotationally invariant case, here the flux density $`\delta B(H)=H/Y(H)=H(H_{cr}|H|)^\beta ^{}`$ diverges as $`|H|`$ approaches $`H_{cr.}`$ from below. This signals a breakdown of the analysis, which assumes $`\delta B(H)B(0)`$, and suggests that the metastability limit occurs at fields $`H_{ms}`$ determined by $`\delta B(H_{ms})B(0)`$.

Finally, we note that ErNi2B2C has a strong uniaxial anisotropy, with $`𝐌`$ preferentially lying in a nearly isotropic xz-plane. The appropriate model in this case resembles that given by Eq.7, except that in the strain tensor $`u_{ij}`$, $`u_iu_x`$, and $`u_y`$ has a conventional quadratic, tension elasticity. A similar model has recently been considered by us in the context of the columnar phase of discotics confined in an anisotropic random medium, such as, e.g., strained aerogel. The resulting “$`m=1`$ elastic glass” phase is also topologically stable with anomalous elasticity, and has additional interesting features, most notably, that it exhibits short-ranged translational order in one direction ($`x`$) and quasi-long-ranged translational order in the other ($`y`$), a prediction that should be testable via neutron scattering and decoration experiments. We conclude by noting that the “soft” elasticity of the SV solid should also manifest itself in many other physical observables, most notably in dynamics, exhibiting novel current-voltage characteristics and enhanced critical currents, sensitive to and with nontrivial dependence on $`H`$.

We thank Anton Andreev and Tom Lubensky for discussions and acknowledge financial support by the NSF through DMR99-80123 (JT,KS), DMR96-25111, MRSEC DMR-9809555, and the A.P. Sloan and The David and Lucile Packard Foundations (LR,ME).


format: text

text:
# On the multiplicativity conjecture for quantum channels

## Abstract

A multiplicativity conjecture for quantum communication channels is formulated, validity of which for the values of parameter $`p`$ close to 1 is related to the solution of the fundamental problem of additivity of the channel capacity in quantum information theory. The proof of the conjecture is given for the case of natural numbers $`p`$.

1. Let $`()`$ be the $``$ -algebra of all operators in a finite dimensional unitary space $``$. We denote the set of states, i.e. positive operators with unit trace (density operators) in $`()`$ by $`𝒮()`$. As is well known, $`𝒮()`$ is a compact convex subset of $`()`$, extreme points of which are pure states, described by one-dimensional projectors in $``$. The degree of “purity” of arbitrary state $`S𝒮()`$ can be defined with the help of noncommutative $`\mathrm{}_p`$-norms

$$S_p=\left(\mathrm{Tr}|S|^p\right)^{\frac{1}{p}},p1,$$

with the operator norm $`S`$ corresponding naturally to the case $`p=\mathrm{}`$. The closer is the value of any norm to the identity, the more “pure” is the state $`S`$.

A quantum channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a completely positive trace preserving linear map of $`()`$, i.e. a map admitting the representation

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(S)=\underset{k}{}A_kSA_k^{},$$
(1)
where $`A_k`$ are operators satisfying $`_kA_k^{}A_k=I`$ (see e. g.  for motivation and background). The channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ maps input state $`S`$ into output state $`\mathrm{\Phi }(S)`$. In the present paper we consider the multiplicativity problem for the measures of the “highest purity” of outputs of a channel

$$\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi })=\underset{S}{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{\Phi }(S)_p,$$
(2)
where the maximum is taken with respect to all input density operators $`S`$. By convexity of the norms, the maximum in the above definition is attained on pure states.

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ be a collection of arbitrary channels in the unitary spaces $`_i;i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$. In  the following multiplicativity property

$$\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_n)=\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi }_1)\mathrm{}\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi }_n)$$
(3)
was conjectured. As noticed in , validity of this conjecture for values of $`p`$ close to 1 implies solution of the fundamental problem of additivity of the channel capacity for one important class of quantum channels. For the formulation of the and some partial results see , , . In the classical case where $`()`$ is replaced by a commutative algebra of diagonal operators, the states are given by probability distributions, and channels – by transition probabilities, the analog of the formulated additivity/multiplicativity problems has obvious positive solution. The difficulty in the noncommutative case is due to the unusual from a classical viewpoint properties of combined quantum systems described by tensor rather than Cartesian products, and by existence of entangled states in the combined system.

2. We denote by $`\mathrm{}_p()`$ the Schatten class of Hermitian operators $`A`$ in $``$ with the norm $`A_p.`$

Lemma. The quantity $`\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is equal to the norm $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{1p}`$ of the mapping $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ acting from the Schatten class $`\mathrm{}_1()`$ to $`\mathrm{}_p().`$

Proof. We have

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{1p}=\underset{A0}{\mathrm{max}}\frac{\left(\mathrm{Tr}|\mathrm{\Phi }(A)|^p\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}}{\mathrm{Tr}|A|},$$

so obviously $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{1p}\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi }).`$ Conversely, let $`A=A_+A_{}`$ be the decomposition of $`A`$ into positive and negative parts, then $`\mathrm{Tr}|A|=\mathrm{Tr}`$($`A_++A_{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(A_++A\mathrm{\_})\mathrm{\Phi }(A)\mathrm{\Phi }(A_++A\mathrm{\_})`$ by positivity of $`\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ From convexity of the function $`x^p,\mathrm{Tr}|\mathrm{\Phi }(A)|^p\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }(A_++A_{})^p,`$ indeed, denoting $`\left\{e_j\right\}`$ the basis of eigenvectors of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(A),`$ we have

$$\mathrm{Tr}|\mathrm{\Phi }(A)|^p=\underset{j}{}\left|e_j|\mathrm{\Phi }(A)|e_j\right|^p\underset{j}{}e_j|\mathrm{\Phi }(|A|)|e_j^p$$

$$\underset{j}{}e_j|\mathrm{\Phi }(|A|)^p|e_j=\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }(|A|)^p,$$

and the converse inequality follows.$`\mathrm{}`$

Generalizing hypothesis (3), we conjecture that the norms $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{qp}`$ have a similar multiplicative property for $`1qp`$ for completely positive maps $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }_n.`$ Note that the classical (commutative) counterpart of this conjecture indeed holds for arbitrary (bounded) $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ (, Lemma 2).

In  relation (3) was proved for the special case of depolarizing channels $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ (see the definition in n.3) and $`p=2,\mathrm{}.`$ Here this property will be established for the depolarizing channels and arbitrary natural number $`p.`$

3. Let us consider a collection of unitary spaces $`_i;i=1,2,\mathrm{},n,`$ with $`\mathrm{dim}_i=d_i.`$ Let $`=_{i=1}^n_i`$, $`d=_{i=1}^nd_i.`$ In what follows we shall use symbols $`I_i`$ and $`I=_{i=1}^nI_i`$ for the identity operators in $`_i`$ and $``$, respectively. For a nonempty subset $`L\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ we denote

$$_L=_{iL}_i,I_L=_{iL}I_i,d_L=\underset{iL}{}d_i=\mathrm{dim}_L.$$

We also let $`d_{\mathrm{}}=1.`$

Let $`L_1,\mathrm{},L_m`$ be a collection of nonempty subsets of $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\},`$ and let $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_m`$ be a collection of operators in $``$ such that $`A_k=B_kI_{L_k},`$ where $`B_k`$ is an operator in $`_{L_k^c}.`$

Lemma.

$$|\mathrm{Tr}A_1\mathrm{}A_m|d_{_kL__k}B_1_1\mathrm{}B_m_1.$$
(4)
Proof. By using the singular value decomposition of the operators $`B_k,`$ we can reduce the problem to the case where $`B_k`$ are the rank one operators, $`B_k=|a_kb_k|`$ with unit vectors $`|a_k,|b_k.`$ Moreover, by excluding the common factor $`I_{_{_kL__k}},`$ we can reduce to the case $`_{k=1}^mL_k=`$ $`\mathrm{}.`$ Then (4) reduces to

$$|\mathrm{Tr}A_1\mathrm{}A_m|1.$$
(5)
Pick an orthonormal basis $`\left\{e_{j_s}\right\}`$ in $`_s,`$ and form the factorizable basis $`\left\{e_J\right\}`$ in the space $``$ such that

$$e_J=e_{j_1}e_{j_2}\mathrm{}e_{j_n},$$

where $`J=(j_1,j_2,\mathrm{},j_n)`$. Denote $`J_L=(j_s)_{sL}.`$ Then by decomposing the unit vectors $`|a_k,|b_k,`$ we have

$$|a_k=\underset{J_{L_k^c}}{}\alpha _{J_{L_k^c}}^k|e_{J_{\overline{L}_k}},|b_k=\underset{J_{L_k^c}}{}\beta _{J_{L_k^c}}^k|e_{J_{\overline{L}_k}},$$

where $`_{J_{L_k^c}}|\alpha _{J_{L_k^c}}^k|^2=_{J_{L_k^c}}|\beta _{J_{L_k^c}}^k|^2=1,`$ so that

$$A_k=\underset{J_{L_k^c}}{}\alpha _{J_{L_k^c}}^k|e_{J_{L_k^c}}\underset{J_{L_k^c}^{}}{}\beta _{J_{L_k^c}^{}}^ke_{J_{L_k^c}^{}}|\underset{J_{L_k}}{}|e_{J_{L_k}}e_{J_{L_k}}|.$$
(6)
Now consider the multiindex $`𝔍=\left(J_{L_k^c}\right)_{k=1,\mathrm{},m},`$ the components of which are labeled by pairs $`(k,p),`$ where $`k\{1,\mathrm{}m\}`$ and $`pL_k^c,`$ and put

$$\alpha _𝔍=\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}\alpha _{J_{L_k^c}}^k,\beta _𝔍=\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}\beta _{J_{L_k^c}}^k.$$

Then

$$\underset{𝔍}{}|\alpha _𝔍|^2=\underset{𝔍}{}|\beta _𝔍|^2=1.$$
(7)
We are going to show that substituting (6) into the left side of (5), we obtain

$$\mathrm{Tr}A_1\mathrm{}A_m=\underset{𝔍}{}\overline{\beta }_𝔍\alpha _{𝒫𝔍},$$
(8)
where $`𝒫𝔍`$ is a permutation of the components of the multiindex $`𝔍,`$ and hence by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and (7) we have the inequality (5).

The permutation $`𝒫`$ arises as follows: let us take $`A_k`$ of the form (6) in the expression $`\mathrm{Tr}`$ $`A_1\mathrm{}A_m,`$ and let $`sL_k^c.`$ Then the covectors $`e_{j_s}|`$ are present in the decomposition of $`b_k|.`$ Let us go right cyclically under the trace starting from $`A_k,`$ passing through the identity operators, and watch when $`s`$ will first again appear in $`\overline{L}_{kl},`$ where $``$ denotes addition $`\mathrm{modm}.`$ Then the vectors $`|e_{j_s}`$ will be present in the decomposition of $`|a_{kl},`$ giving rise to the summation over $`j_s`$ in (8).

More precisely, let us denote by $`𝒜`$ the set of all the pairs $`(k,s),`$ where $`k\{1,\mathrm{}m\}`$ and $`s\overline{L}_k.`$ Thus the components of $`𝔍`$ can be written as $`j(k,s),`$ where $`(k,s)𝒜`$. Let $`l`$ be the minimal $`\mathrm{mod}`$ $`m`$ positive integer such that $`(kl,s)𝒜`$. The mapping $`(k,s)(kl,s)`$ is a bijection of the set $`𝒜`$, therefore it induces a permutation $`𝒫`$ of the multiindex $`𝔍`$, resulting in the formula (8).$`\mathrm{}`$

4. Let us consider a collection of depolarizing channels

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_i(S)=(1p_i)S+\frac{p_i}{d_i}(\text{Tr}S)I_i,S(_i),0<p_i<1,$$
(9)
in the unitary spaces $`_i,`$ with parameters $`p_i,d_i;i=1,2,\mathrm{},n,`$ and denote $`\mathrm{\Phi }=_{i=1}^n\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$. It is easy to see that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ are indeed channels, i.e. can be represented in the form (1). If $`S`$ is pure state (one-dimensional projection) then operator (9) has the simple eigenvalue $`(1\frac{d_i1}{d_i}p_i)`$ and $`d_i1`$ eigenvalues $`\frac{p_i}{d_i}.`$ Hence

$$\nu _k(\mathrm{\Phi }_i)=\left[\left(1(d_i1)\frac{p_i}{d_i}\right)^p+(d_i1)\left(\frac{p_i}{d_i}\right)^p\right]^{\frac{1}{p}}.$$

Let $`ϵ_L`$ be the conditional expectation onto the subalgebra $`_{L^c}`$, generated by operators of the form $`A_1\mathrm{}A_n,`$ where $`A_i=I_i`$ for $`iL,`$ and arbitrary otherwise. It is normalized partial trace with respect to $`_L`$:

$$ϵ_L(A)=\mathrm{Tr}__LAd_L^1I_L.$$
(10)
In the following we shall use the expansion

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\underset{L}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}p_i^{\theta _L(i)}(1p_i)^{1\theta _L(i)}ϵ_L,$$
(11)
where $`\theta _L(i)=1`$ if $`iL`$ and $`\theta _L(i)=0`$ otherwise. Note that $`d_L=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}d_i^{\theta _L(i)}`$.

Theorem. For $`p𝐍`$

$`\nu _k(\mathrm{\Phi })=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\nu _k(\mathrm{\Phi }_i)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\left(1(d_i1)\frac{p_i}{d_i}\right)^p+(d_i1)\left(\frac{p_i}{d_i}\right)^p\right]^{\frac{1}{p}}.`$

Proof.  Let $`S`$ $`𝒮()`$, then by (10) and by (4)

$$|\mathrm{Tr}ϵ_{L_1}(S)\mathrm{}ϵ_{L_p}(S)|\frac{d_{_iL_i}}{_id_{L_i}}.$$

The obtained inequality and the expansion (11) imply

$$\text{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }(S)^p=\mathrm{Tr}(\underset{L}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}p_i^{\theta _L(i)}(1p_i)^{1\theta _L(i)}ϵ_L(S))^p=$$

$$\underset{L_1,L_2,\mathrm{},L_p}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}p_i^{\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}\theta _{L_j}(i)}(1p_i)^{\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}(1\theta _{L_j}(i))}\text{Tr}ϵ_{L_1}(S)\mathrm{}ϵ_{L_p}(S)$$

$$\underset{L_1,L_2,\mathrm{},L_p}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\frac{p_i}{d_i}\right)^{\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}\theta _{L_j}(i)}(1p_i)^{\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}(1\theta _{L_j}(i))}d_i^{\theta _{_{j=1}^pL_j}(i)}.$$

The number $`\theta _{_{j=1}^pL_j}(i)`$ is equal to $`\mathrm{min}\{\theta _{L_1}(i),\mathrm{},\theta _{L_p}(i)\}`$ and is equal to 1 if and only if all $`\theta _{L_j}(i);j=1,\mathrm{},p,`$ are equal to 1. By using the formula

$$\underset{L_1,L_2,\mathrm{},L_p}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}f_i(\theta _{L_1}(i),\mathrm{},\theta _{L_p}(i))=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{\theta _1,\theta _2,\mathrm{},\theta _p=0,1}{}f_i(\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _p),$$

we obtain that the last expression is equal to

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}[(1(d_i1)\frac{p_i}{d_i})^p+(d_i1)\left(\frac{p_i}{d_i}\right)^p].\mathrm{}$$