format: text

text:
# Strain enhancement of superconductivity in CePd2Si2 under pressure

## Abstract

We report resistivity and calorimetric measurements on two single crystals of CePd2Si2 pressurized up to 7.4 GPa. A weak uniaxial stress induced in the pressure cell demonstrates the sensitivity of the physics to anisotropy. Stress applied along the $`c`$-axis extends the whole phase diagram to higher pressures and enhances the superconducting phase emerging around the magnetic instability, with a 40% increase of the maximum superconducting temperature, $`T_c`$, and a doubled pressure range. Calorimetric measurements demonstrate the bulk nature of the superconductivity.

By varying an external control parameter, such as magnetic field, composition or pressure, many heavy-fermion systems may be pushed through a quantum critical point (QCP), where their magnetic ordering temperature goes to zero. In the immediate vicinity of this point, transport and thermodynamic measurements show striking deviations from standard Fermi-liquid behavior Lohneysen94 ; Kambe96 ; Braithwaite98 ; Cambridge ; Sheikin01 ; Demuer01 ; Raymond99 . In particular, the low temperature resistivity, $`\rho (T)`$, exhibits a $`T^n`$ behavior with 1$`<`$$`n`$$``$1.5 over a wide temperature range. The nature of this non-Fermi-liquid (NFL) behavior remains an open question Schroder00 . Is the spin-fluctuation description Kambe96  appropriate, with itinerant magnetism developing below a characteristic temperature such as the Kondo temperature, $`T_K`$? Alternatively, this characteristic temperature may collapse at the QCP, leading to localized magnetism down to the lowest temperatures Lohneysen94 ; Schroder00 . Particular attention has been paid to the case of stoichiometric compounds, whose weak disorder permits the observation of superconductivity around the magnetic instability. Due to the enhancement of low-lying magnetic excitations in this region, it is commonly believed that Cooper pairs are magnetically formed. In one of these systems, CePd2Si2, superconductivity was discovered in a window of about 1 GPa around the QCP at a critical pressure $`P_c2.8`$GPa. Simultaneously, NFL behavior was found in resistivity measurements with a $`T^{1.21.3}`$ law over two decades in temperature Cambridge ; Sheikin01 ; Demuer01 ; Raymond99 . As an exponent $`d/2`$ is predicted for a d-dimensional antiferromagnet by spin-fluctuation theory Millis ; Moriya95 ; Lonzarich , it has been suggested that the magnetic excitation spectrum has an effective dimension close to 2. This assumption is supported by the quasi-linear pressure dependence of the Néel temperature, $`T_N`$, predicted to be $`(P_cP)^{2/d}`$, by the tetragonal symmetry ($`I`$4$`/mmm`$) and by the magnetic structure containing a frustrated moment in the center of the elementary cell Cambridge .

The results quoted above were obtained in hydrostatic conditions using a “liquid” pressure transmitting medium. Another investigation Raymond99  was carried out in a Bridgman anvil cell, using a soft solid (steatite) as a pressure transmitting medium Eremets96 . This showed a rather different phase diagram: around a higher critical pressure $`P_c3.6`$GPa, a strikingly expanded superconducting region was found, lying from 2 to 7 GPa with a maximum of $`T_c`$ apparently disconnected from $`P_c`$, casting doubt upon spin fluctuations as the only mediation mechanism for superconductivity. As this pressure technique is suspected to provide higher pressure gradients, a residual stress along the cell axis could be at the origin of these differences. Our motivation was thus to demonstrate and understand the effect of uniaxial stress under pressure.

In this letter, we report resistivity and calorimetric measurements performed on two samples in a Bridgman anvil cell up to 7.4 GPa. The samples were set in the pressure cell with the force load direction perpendicular and parallel to the $`c`$-axis (ref. Raymond99  being the latter). These measurements demonstrate the high sensitivity of the physics in CePd2Si2 to pressure conditions, and the crucial influence of anisotropy on the emerging superconductivity. The differences between the previously observed phase diagrams can be explained by the results from these two samples, with an enhancement of superconductivity when uniaxial stress is applied along the $`c`$-axis. Calorimetric measurements demonstrate the bulk nature of this superconductivity; a combination of both types of measurement leads to further insight into the quantum critical point and its associated energy scale.

The samples were extracted from the same single crystalline platelet used in refs. Sheikin01 ; Demuer01 ; Raymond99 . A parallepiped sample (510$`\times `$75$`\times `$60$`\mu `$m3), with a residual resistivity ratio $`RRR`$62, was cut into two pieces of length 250$`\mu `$m. These were polished to a small cross-section $`(`$70$`\times `$20$`\mu `$m2), and spot-welded with $`5\mu `$m diameter gold wires, giving $`\rho (293`$K)$`=45\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$cm to within 10% for both samples and $`RRR`$ values of 48 and 103. The corresponding residual resistivities, $`\rho _0`$, were respectively 1 and $`0.48\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$cm. The samples will be referred to as $`//`$(higher $`\rho _0`$) and $``$ (lower $`\rho _0`$) in relation to the orientation of their $`c`$-axis with respect to the force load direction (and the additive uniaxial stress). Both samples were connected for four-point DC resistivity measurements, with sample $``$ having additional connections for a constantan resistive heater and a thermocouple Au/Au-0.07 at.% Fe suitable for AC calorimetric measurements Bouquet00 . The pressure was determined by the superconducting transition of a lead manometer.

Sample $``$ gave rise to a phase diagram similar to that obtained in hydrostatic conditions (Fig. 1). The superconductivity was limited to the range 2.14-3.25 GPa around $`P_c2.7`$GPa, with $`T_c`$ having a maximum of 375 mK (mid-point criterion). In contrast, the phase diagram of sample $`//`$ seems to be stretched towards higher pressures. $`T_N`$ collapses at $`P_{c//}=3.9`$GPa with a critical behavior $`(PP_c)^\alpha `$, $`\alpha =0.60\pm 0.05`$, as distinct from the quasi-linear dependence in the hydrostatic case. Superconductivity occured between 2.14 and 5.0 GPa (using a mid-point criterion). As in the previous investigation in a Bridgman cell Raymond99 , $`T_c`$ reached a higher value, 520 mK in our case. This maximum of $`T_c`$ coincides with $`P_c`$, suggesting that this extended superconductivity is still related to the QCP. The apparent discrepancy between $`P_c`$ and the maximum of $`T_c`$ in ref. Raymond99  can be explained by the criterion chosen (onset), sensitive to the large transition widths at extremes pressures.

Fig. 2 shows $`\rho (T)`$ curves from sample $`//`$ for selected pressures with a phononic linear contribution ($`0.1T\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$cm/K) subtracted. The first pressure, 0.1 GPa, corresponds mainly to a small uniaxial stress along the force load direction. With increasing temperature, one can distinguish a clear kink at $`T_N11`$K, a maximum at $`T_{max}`$ attributed to the Kondo effect and a “shoulder” reflecting the influence of excited crystal-field (CF) levels. At high temperature, the $`\mathrm{ln}T`$ dependence is characteristic of Kondo scattering. As the pressure rises, $`T_{max}`$ increases continuously whereas the excited CF anomaly is rather pressure independent. This latter progressively merges with the Kondo peak around 1.5 GPa and seems to collapse at higher pressures. $`T_{max}(P)`$ shows no anomaly at $`P_c`$ and identical values $`T_{max}(P_c)`$ in both samples (Fig. 1).

The resistivity was analyzed at low temperature in terms of a power law $`\rho (T)=\rho _0+AT^n`$. Such dependencies are not stable over a wide temperature range except for pressures close to $`P_c`$, where these power laws extend up to 30 K. The fits were therefore limited to a window of 0.5-2 K, in order to compare data over the entire pressure range. Fig. 3 shows the pressure dependence of the coefficient $`A`$ and the exponent $`n`$ (inset). $`A`$ behaves as $`(d\rho /dT^2)_{T0}`$ and may be interpreted as a Fermi-liquid contribution prefactor. As expected from the spin-fluctuation model SCR Moriya95 , $`A(P)`$ shows a sharp maximum at $`P_c`$. This maximum is similar in both samples with $`A(P_c)/A(0)5`$. At 7.4 GPa, the $`A`$ coefficient of sample $``$ has fallen by a factor of 100 compared to its value at $`P_c`$. A small anomaly was found in $`A(P)`$ at about 1 GPa in sample $``$, and 2 GPa in sample $`//`$, possibly corresponding to a pressure induced magnetic phase transition. Such an anomaly seems to be present in the isoelectronic compound CePd2Ge2 at about 12 GPa just below $`P_c13.8`$GPa Wilhelm02 .

An additional curve in Fig. 3 shows the pressure dependence of $`\gamma ^2=(C/T)_{T0}^2`$ in sample $``$; this also has a maximum at $`P_c`$. For each pressure, $`\gamma ^2`$ was estimated at 100 mK by subtraction of 1/$`V^2`$ taken at two frequencies (16 and 256 Hz) where $`V`$ is the thermocouple voltage amplitude Bouquet00 . To obtain a reliable pressure dependence, the same working parameters were used for all pressures. Far from the instability, $`A`$ and $`\gamma `$, both related to the square of the effective mass of quasi-particles, $`m^2`$, are expected to follow the Kadowaki-Woods relation, $`A\gamma ^2`$ Kadowaki86 . The peak in $`\gamma ^2`$ at $`P_c`$ is less pronounced than in $`A(P)`$ with $`\gamma ^2(P_c)/\gamma ^2(7.4`$GPa)$`18`$, but $`\gamma `$ may well include a contribution from the pressure transmitting medium, reducing the relative size of the peak.

In both samples, a sharp dip in the resistivity exponent $`n(P)`$ (inset of Fig. 3) is associated with the magnetic instability, reaching values lower than the 2 expected for Fermi-liquid behavior. The minimum values obtained were 1.32 and 1.42 ($`\pm `$0.03) for samples $``$ and $`//`$ respectively. As in the $`A(P)`$ curves, a small anomaly appears around 1 and 2 GPa.

The superconducting transition appears in the calorimetric measurement only at 2.68 GPa, the closest pressure to $`P_c`$. Fig. 4 shows a comparison between superconducting transitions in $`\rho (T)`$ and the calorimetric signal 1/$`V`$ ($`C_p/T`$). The onset of the calorimetric transition occurs at the temperature for which $`\rho `$ reaches zero. In sample $``$ at 2.68 GPa$`P_c`$, we studied the effect of an external magnetic field on the superconductivity using the two types of measurement. The large initial slope of the upper critical magnetic field in the basal plane, $`dH_c^a/dT6`$T/K, indicates that heavy quasi-particles are involved in superconductivity. The size of the calorimetric anomaly collapses rapidly with increasing field and becomes undetectable above 0.5 T. If the calorimetric anomaly at $`H`$=0 indicates a bulk transition, one cannot rule out the magnetic field revealing a non-homogeneous situation in the sample, as suggested by the large transition widths in $`\rho (T)`$ and disappearance of the anomaly in calorimetric measurement for pressures away from $`P_c`$. The inset in Fig. 4 shows the superconducting transition in $`\rho (T)`$ for sample $`//`$ close to its $`P_c`$. A striking point is that the highest value of $`T_c`$ is obtained in the sample with the larger residual resistivity, demonstrating that the superconductivity enhancement is not related to the crystal purity.

The following discussion is supported by the unprecedented quality of our samples, with $`RRR`$ values as high as 130 at $`P_c`$. Bearing this in mind, one should be aware that variations on a submillimetric scale exist even within a single crystal - the present samples and those of ref. Sheikin01 ; Demuer01  were cut from the same tiny single-crystalline platelet with $`RRR`$ values varying by a factor of 3 at $`P=0`$. Furthermore, we claim to have an accurate value for the resistivity, with a well-defined geometric factor enabling the determination of the absolute resistivity to within 10%. As suggested earlier, the temperature $`T_{max}`$ of the maximum in the magnetic contribution to the resistivity should be related to the Kondo temperature, $`T_K`$. $`T_{max}`$ takes the same value at $`P_c`$ for both samples, supporting the idea that $`T_{max}`$ is a reliable characteristic energy for the QCP. Its pressure dependence allows us to take part in the heated debate about the nature of the QCP illustrated by another heavy-fermion system, CeCu6-xAux. While neutron measurements on the substituted compound CeCu5.9Au0.1 seem to reveal localized magnetism at the lowest temperature Lohneysen94 , measurements under pressure on the stoichiometric compound CeCu5Au Wilhelm00  showed no anomaly in $`T_K`$ at $`P_c`$, suggesting that the magnetism remains itinerant around the QCP. As the latter behavior is observed in our investigation, spin-fluctuation theory should also apply in the vicinity of the QCP of CePd2Si2. In both of our samples, the QCP occurred in a pressure domain where the characteristic Kondo energy $`k_BT_K`$ ($`T_KT_{max}`$) typically reaches the crystal-field splitting energy (see Fig. 1). Furthermore, $`\mathrm{ln}A`$ is found to behave as $`\alpha \mathrm{ln}T_{max}`$ with a slope $`\alpha 4`$, instead of the value of 2 expected for a normal heavy-fermion regime. This indicates the entrance into an intermediate valence regime, probably leading to deviations from the simple spin-fluctuation model. The fact that $`\gamma ^2(P)`$ decreases slower than $`A(P)`$ above $`P_c`$ might tempt us to invoke the predictions of ref. Takimoto96 , but our calorimetric measurement is not quantitative enough. It does allows us to demonstrate clearly a relationship between $`A`$ and $`\gamma `$, showing in both a peak at $`P_c`$, but the $`\gamma `$ value extracted probably includes undefined addenda obscuring the physics.

As in previous measurements, NFL behavior was observed in $`\rho (T)`$ at $`P_c`$ in both samples over more than one decade in temperature. The stability of this behavior in temperature has been proposed to result from a crossover between “clean” and “dirty” limit regimes for a specific amount of disorder Rosch99 . However, this explanation disagrees with the systematic observation of power laws in $`\rho (T)`$ at $`P_c`$ over a large temperature range for samples with residual resistivities spread over almost one decade Cambridge ; Sheikin01 ; Demuer01 ; Raymond99 . The exponent in $`\rho (T)=\rho _0+AT^n`$ in all cases reaches remarkably low values with $`n1.21.3`$, a value generally attributed to a non 3D spin-fluctuation spectrum. However, let us recall that in other compounds such as CeCu2Ge2, a minimum of $`n`$ close to 1 was found only for $`P>P_c`$, in a pressure domain where $`k_BT_K`$ reaches the CF splitting energy Jaccard99 . As this happens for $`PP_c`$ in CePd2Si2, one may wonder if the low exponent observed is not a consequence of this change of regime.

Hydrostatic pressure reduces both lattice parameters $`a`$ and $`c`$. At a given pressure, an additional uniaxial stress, $`\sigma `$, along one axis further reduces that lattice parameter while expanding the others. A description of the physical properties as a function only of the cell volume fails in this system, as shown by the various phase diagrams obtained on samples $``$ and $`//`$. Whereas the situation remains mostly unchanged when $`\sigma `$ is applied in the basal plane, the clear extension of the phase diagram for $`\sigma `$ along the $`c`$-axis shows that the ratio $`c/a`$, reflecting the anisotropy of the system, is also a key parameter. Considering the spin-fluctuation prediction $`T_N(P)(P_cP)^{2/d}`$, the exponent $`0.60\pm 0.05`$ obtained for sample $`//`$ suggests that applying $`\sigma `$ along the $`c`$-axis restores a 3D spin-fluctuation spectrum. With the same theoretical approach, the minimum value of the exponent in the $`\rho (T)`$ power law at $`P_c`$, predicted to be $`T^{d/2}`$, should be different in the two samples. However, the differences observed in $`n(P_c)`$ and in $`A(P_c)`$ (Fig. 3) are smaller than we might expect. The most striking consequence of this change in anisotropy is the apparent enhancement of superconductivity for $`\sigma `$ applied along the $`c`$-axis with a 40% higher maximum value of $`T_c`$ and a doubling of its pressure range. This enhancement is not related to a larger electronic mean free path due to reduced disorder, since the sample with a higher $`T_c`$ also has the higher $`\rho _0`$. As spin fluctuations are thought to be at the origin of the Cooper pairing, one may attribute the enhancement of superconductivity to different features of the spin-fluctuation spectrum. The values of the critical exponents in $`T_N(P)`$ suggests that 3D spin fluctuations would be more favorable for superconductivity, though many scenarios such as an increase in carriers density associated with a band modification under uniaxial stress remain possible.

Our measurements demonstrate the complexity of the physics in CePd2Si2 in the vicinity of its quantum critical point. At this pressure $`P_c2.72.8`$GPa, several energy scales such as the Kondo and excited crystal-field energies interact, leading to a complex ground state. While the other archetypical system for a superconducting phase induced around its critical point, the cubic CeIn3, is insensitive to pressure conditions Cambridge ; Knebel01 , the physical properties of the tetragonal CePd2Si2 are strongly affected by modification of anisotropy resulting from additional uniaxial strain along the $`c`$-axis. The quasi 2D-behavior evoked for spin-fluctuations seems to be destroyed and superconductivity is enhanced around $`P_c3.9`$GPa. As pure uniaxial stress experiments are extremely difficult to perform under pressure, the effect of the anisotropy on superconductivity around a quantum critical point should be checked on a compound close to its instability at ambient pressure. CeNi2Ge2, where traces of superconductivity as well as quasi-2D behavior for spin fluctuations were found Braithwaite98 ; Fak00 , appears as one of the best candidates.


text:
# Classification of Finite Alexander Quandles

## 1. Introduction

In , D. Joyce defined the fundamental quandle, an algebraic invariant of knots which classifies classical knots. The set of quandles forms a category whose axioms are algebraic versions of the three Reidemeister moves. Quandles are useful both for defining new knot invariants (as in ) and for improving our understanding of old ones (see , for example).

The ability to distinguish quandles would allow us to distinguish knots. While there is not yet a complete classification theorem for general quandles, there are classification results for quandles of prime order  and for indecomposable quandles of prime squared order . In this paper we classify finite Alexander quandles by reducing the problem of comparing finite Alexander quandles to comparing certain $`[t^{\pm 1}]`$-submodules.

###### Definition 1.1.

A quandle is a set $`X`$ with a binary operation written as exponentiation satisfying

* For every $`a,bX`$ there exists a unique $`cX`$ such that $`a=c^b`$,
* For every $`a,b,cX`$ we have $`a^{bc}=a^{cb^c}`$, and
* For every $`aX`$ we have $`a^a=a`$.

Any module over $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=[t^{\pm 1}]`$ is a quandle under the operation $`a^b=ta+(1t)b`$. Quandles of this form are called Alexander quandles. To obtain finite Alexander quandles, we typically consider $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(h)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n=_n[t^{\pm 1}]`$ and $`h`$ is a monic polynomial in $`t`$. In an earlier version of , the questions of when two Alexander quandles of the form $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(ta)`$ with $`\mathrm{gcd}(n,a)=1`$ (we call Alexander quandles of this form linear) are isomorphic and of when two linear quandles are dual were posed.

To answer these questions, we first consider the general case of when two arbitrary Alexander quandles of finite cardinality are isomorphic. We obtain a result which reduces the problem of comparing Alexander quandles to comparing certain $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-submodules. We then apply this result, obtaining a pair of simple conditions on $`a`$ and $`b`$ which are necessary and sufficient for two linear Alexander quandles $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(ta)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(tb)`$ to be isomorphic.

In the course of answering the question of classifying linear quandles, we also answer the question of when linear quandles are dual and we obtain results on when Alexander quandles are connected.

## 2. Alexander quandles and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-modules

Since the quandle structure of an Alexander quandle is determined by its $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-module structure, any isomorphism of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-modules is also an isomorphism of Alexander quandles. The converse is not true, however: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_9/(t4)`$ is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_9/(t7)`$ as an Alexander quandle but not as a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-module.

Nonetheless, an isomorphism of Alexander quandles is in a sense almost an isomorphism of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-modules; in fact, (after applying a shift if necessary) the restriction of a quandle isomorphism $`f:MN`$ to the submodule $`(1t)M`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-module isomorphism onto the image of the restriction. Theorem 2.1 says that the converse is true as well; that is, we can determine whether two Alexander quandles of the same finite cardinality are isomorphic simply by comparing these $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-submodules. This reduces the problem of classifying finite Alexander quandles to comparing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-modules of the form $`(1t)M`$.

###### Theorem 2.1.

Two finite Alexander quandles $`M`$ and $`N`$ of the same cardinality are isomorphic as quandles iff there is an isomorphism of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-modules $`h:(1t)M(1t)N`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`M`$ and $`N`$ be finite Alexander quandles and $`f:MN`$ a quandle isomorphism. We may assume without loss of generality that $`f(0)=0`$ since $`f^{}:MN`$ defined by $`f^{}(x)=f(x)+c`$ is also an isomorphism of Alexander quandles for any $`cN`$. Then $`f(tx+(1t)y)=tf(x)+(1t)f(y)`$ implies

$$f(tx)=f(tx+(1t)0)=tf(x)+(1t)f(0)=tf(x)$$

and

$$f((1t)y)=f(t0+(1t)y)=tf(0)+(1t)f(y)=(1t)f(y)$$

so that

(2.1)
$$f(tx+(1t)y)=f(tx)+f((1t)y).$$

Denote $`M^{}=(1t)M`$ and $`N^{}=(1t)N`$. Since $`t^1\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, every element of $`M`$ is $`tx`$ for some $`xM`$, and since $`f(0)=0`$, $`f`$ takes the coset $`0+M^{}`$ of $`M^{}`$ in $`\overline{M}=M/M^{}`$ to the coset $`0+N^{}`$ of $`N^{}`$ in $`\overline{N}=N/N^{}`$, so we have that $`h=f|_M^{}:M^{}N^{}`$ is a homomorphism of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-modules. Since $`f`$ is injective, its restriction $`h`$ is a bijection onto its image $`0+N^{}=N^{}`$, and hence $`h`$ is an isomorphism of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-modules.

Conversely, suppose $`h:M^{}N^{}`$ is an isomorphism of finite $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-modules with $`|M|=|N|`$. Let $`AM`$ be a set of representatives of cosets of $`M^{}`$ in $`\overline{M}`$. Then every $`mM`$ has the form $`m=\alpha +\omega `$ for a unique $`\alpha A`$ and $`\omega M^{}`$. We will show that there exists a bijection $`k:AB`$ onto a set $`B`$ of representatives of cosets of $`N^{}`$ in $`\overline{N}`$ such that the map $`f:MN`$ defined by

$$f(\alpha +\omega )=k(\alpha )+h(\omega )$$

is an isomorphism of Alexander quandles (though typically not of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-modules).

Let $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2A`$ and $`\omega _1,\omega _2(1t)M`$. For any $`\alpha _1A`$ we have $`t\alpha _1=\alpha _1(1t)\alpha _1`$, so that

$`f(t(\alpha _1+\omega _1)+(1t)(\alpha _2+\omega _2))`$
$`=`$ $`f(\alpha _1+t\omega _1+(1t)(\alpha _2\alpha _1+\omega _2))`$
$`=`$ $`k(\alpha _1)+h(t\omega _1+(1t)(\alpha _2\alpha _1+\omega _2))`$
$`=`$ $`k(\alpha _1)+th(\omega _1)+h((1t)\alpha _2)`$
$`h((1t)\alpha _1)+(1t)h(\omega _2).`$
On the other hand,

$`tf(\alpha _1+\omega _1)+(1t)f(\alpha _2+\omega _2)`$
$`=`$ $`t(k(\alpha _1)+h(\omega _1))+(1t)(k(\alpha _2)+h(\omega _2))`$
$`=`$ $`tk(\alpha _1)+th(\omega _1)+(1t)k(\alpha _2)+(1t)h(\omega _2)`$
so for $`f`$ to be a homomorphism of quandles it is sufficient that

(2.2)
$$(1t)k(\alpha _1)h((1t)\alpha _1)=(1t)k(\alpha _2)h((1t)\alpha _2)$$

for all $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2A`$. We will show that given a set of coset representatives $`AM`$ we can choose a set $`BN`$ of coset representatives and a bijection $`k:AB`$ so that $`(1t)k(\alpha )=h((1t)\alpha )`$ for all $`\alpha A`$, which satisfies (2.2) and thus yields a homomorphism $`f:MN`$ of Alexander quandles. Since this $`f`$ is setwise the Cartesian product $`k\times h`$ of the bijections $`k:AB`$ and $`h:M^{}N^{}`$, $`f`$ is bijective and hence an isomorphism of quandles.

Denote $`M^{\prime \prime }=(1t)^2M`$, $`\overline{\overline{M}}=M^{}/M^{\prime \prime }`$ and similarly for $`N`$. The isomorphism $`h:M^{}N^{}`$ induces an isomorphism $`\overline{h}:\overline{\overline{M}}\overline{\overline{N}}`$. There are surjective maps $`\psi :\overline{M}\overline{\overline{M}}`$ and $`\varphi :\overline{N}\overline{\overline{N}}`$ induced by multiplication by $`(1t)`$. Then $`|M^{}|=|N^{}|`$ and $`|M|=|N|`$ imply that $`|\overline{M}|=|\overline{N}|`$, and in turn $`|\overline{\overline{M}}|=|\overline{\overline{N}}|`$.

Then $`|\psi ^1(y)|=|\psi ^1(y^{})|`$ for all $`y,y^{}\overline{\overline{M}}`$, since $`\psi (y)=\psi (0)+\psi (y)`$ implies that for each element of $`\psi ^1(0)`$ there is an element of $`\psi ^1(y)`$, that is, $`|\psi ^1(y)||\psi ^1(0)|`$, and similarly $`\psi (0)=\psi (0)+\psi (y)+\psi (y)`$ implies that $`|\psi ^1(0)||\psi ^1(y)|`$. Hence $`|\psi ^1(y)|=|\overline{M}|/|\overline{\overline{M}}|`$ for all $`y\overline{\overline{M}}`$, and similarly $`|\varphi ^1(h(y))|=|\overline{N}|/|\overline{\overline{N}}|=|\overline{M}|/|\overline{\overline{M}}|`$ for all $`y\overline{\overline{M}}`$. Thus there is a bijection of sets $`g:\overline{M}\overline{N}`$ such that the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& \overline{M}& \stackrel{g}{}& \overline{N}& \\ \hfill \psi & & & & \varphi \hfill \\ & \overline{\overline{M}}& \stackrel{\overline{h}}{}& \overline{\overline{N}}& \end{array}$$

commutes.

Let $`B`$ be a set of coset representatives for $`\overline{N}`$. Then there is a unique bijection $`k:AB`$ such that

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& A& \stackrel{k}{}& B& \\ & & & & \\ & \overline{M}& \stackrel{g}{}& \overline{N}& \\ \hfill \psi & & & & \varphi \hfill \\ & \overline{\overline{M}}& \stackrel{\overline{h}}{}& \overline{\overline{N}}& \end{array}$$

commutes. In particular, $`\overline{h}\psi (\alpha )=\varphi k(\alpha )`$, that is,

(2.3)
$$\overline{h}((1t)\alpha +(1t)^2M)=(1t)k(\alpha )+(1t)^2N.$$

Define $`\gamma :M^{}\overline{\overline{M}}`$ and $`ϵ:N^{}\overline{\overline{N}}`$ by $`\gamma ((1t)m)=(1t)m+(1t)^2M\overline{M}`$ and $`ϵ((1t)n)=(1t)n+(1t)^2N\overline{N}`$, the classes of $`(1t)m`$ and $`(1t)n`$ in $`\overline{\overline{M}}`$ and $`\overline{\overline{N}}`$ respectively. We then have commutative diagrams

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& A& \stackrel{(1t)}{}& M^{}& \\ & & & & \gamma \hfill \\ & \overline{M}& \stackrel{\psi }{}& \overline{\overline{M}}& \end{array}\mathrm{and}\begin{array}{ccccc}& B& \stackrel{(1t)}{}& N^{}& \\ & & & & ϵ\hfill \\ & \overline{N}& \stackrel{\varphi }{}& \overline{\overline{N}}.& \end{array}$$

Equation (2.3) then says that outside rectangle of the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& A& \stackrel{k}{}& B& \\ \hfill (1t)& & & & (1t)\hfill \\ & M^{}& \stackrel{h}{}& N^{}& \\ \hfill \gamma & & & & ϵ\hfill \\ & \overline{\overline{M}}& \stackrel{\overline{h}}{}& \overline{\overline{N}}& \end{array}$$

commutes. The bottom square commutes by definition of $`\overline{h}`$, and thus we have $`ϵ(h((1t)\alpha ))=ϵ((1t)k(\alpha ))`$, that is,

$$h((1t)\alpha )+(1t)^2N=(1t)k(\alpha )+(1t)^2N.$$

In particular, there is a $`\xi N`$ so that

$$h((1t)\alpha )=(1t)k(\alpha )+(1t)^2\xi =(1t)(k(\alpha )+(1t)\xi ).$$

Then for each $`\alpha A`$ with $`\xi 0`$ we may replace $`k(\alpha )`$ with the coset representative $`k^{}(\alpha )=k(\alpha )+(1t)\xi `$ to obtain a new set $`B^{}`$ of coset representatives for $`\overline{N}`$ and a bijection $`k^{}:AB^{}`$ with $`(1t)k^{}(\alpha )=h((1t)\alpha )`$ so that (2.2) is satisfied. Then $`f:MN`$ by $`f(\alpha +\omega )=k^{}(\alpha )+h(\omega )`$ for all $`\alpha A`$ is an isomorphism of Alexander quandles, as required.

As a consequence, we obtain Corollary 2.2, which gives specific conditions on $`a`$ and $`b`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(ta)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(tb)`$ to be isomorphic Alexander quandles when $`a`$ and $`b`$ are coprime to $`n`$.

Denote $`N(n,a)=\frac{n}{\mathrm{gcd}(n,1a)}`$ for any $`a_n`$. We will use the symbol $``$ to denote an isomorphism of quandles and $``$ to denote an isomorphism of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-modules.

###### Corollary 2.2.

Let $`a`$ and $`b`$ be coprime to $`n`$. Then the Alexander quandles $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(ta)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(tb)`$ are isomorphic iff $`N(n,a)=N(n,b)`$ and $`ab(\mathrm{mod}N(a,b))`$.

###### Proof.

By theorem 2.1,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(ta)\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(tb)(1t)[\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(ta)](1t)[\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(tb)].$$

As a $``$-module, $`(1t)[\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(ta)]`$ is $`(1a)_n`$ and $`(1t)[\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(tb)]`$ is $`(1b)_n`$ with the action of $`t`$ given by multiplication by $`a`$ in $`(1a)_n`$ and by $`b`$ in $`(1b)_n`$.

The $``$-module $`(1a)_n`$ is isomorphic to $`_n/\mathrm{Ann}(1a)`$, so

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(ta)\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(tb)`$ $``$ $`_n/\mathrm{Ann}(1a)_n/\mathrm{Ann}(1b)`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{Ann}(1a)=\mathrm{Ann}(1b)`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{Ord}__n(1a)=\mathrm{Ord}__n(1b)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{\mathrm{gcd}(n,1a)}}={\displaystyle \frac{n}{\mathrm{gcd}(n,1b)}}`$
$``$ $`N(n,a)=N(n,b).`$
Denote $`n^{}=N(n,a)=N(n,b)`$. Then $`(1t)[\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(ta)]`$ is $`_n^{}`$ with $`t`$ acting by multiplication by $`a`$, and if $`N(n,a)=N(n,b)=n^{}`$ then $`(1t)[\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(tb)]`$ is $`_n^{}`$ with $`t`$ acting by multiplication by $`b`$.

Multiplication by $`a`$ agrees with multiplication by $`b`$ on $`_n^{}`$ iff $`ab(\mathrm{mod}n^{})`$, so the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-module structures on $`_n^{}`$ determined by $`a`$ and $`b`$ agree iff $`ab(\mathrm{mod}n^{})`$.

###### Definition 2.3.

A quandle $`M`$ is connected if it has only one orbit, i.e. if the set $`\{a^b:bM\}=M`$ for all $`aM`$. In particular, an Alexander quandle is connected if $`(1t)M=M`$.

###### Corollary 2.4.

Two finite connected Alexander quandles are isomorphic iff they are isomorphic as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-modules.

###### Proof.

This follows from the proof of theorem 2.1. Specifically, if $`M`$ and $`N`$ are connected and $`f:MN`$ is an isomorphism of quandles with $`f(0)=0`$, then $`f`$ is an isomorphism of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-modules.

###### Corollary 2.5.

A linear Alexander quandle $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(ta)`$ is connected iff $`\mathrm{gcd}(n,1a)=1`$.

###### Proof.

An Alexander quandle is connected iff $`M=(1t)M`$. Since $`(1t)[\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(ta)]`$ is $`_{n_a}`$ with t acting by multiplication by $`a`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(ta)`$ is connected iff $`n_a=n`$, that is, iff $`\mathrm{gcd}(n,1a)=1`$.

###### Corollary 2.6.

No linear Alexander quandle $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(ta)`$ with $`n`$ even is connected.

###### Proof.

To have a linear quandle $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(ta)`$ with $`n`$ elements, we must have $`\mathrm{gcd}(n,a)=1`$, so if $`n`$ is even, $`a`$ must be odd. But then $`1a`$ is even and $`\mathrm{gcd}(n,1a)1`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(ta)`$ is not connected.

For each $`yX`$ we can define a map of sets $`f_y:XX`$ by $`f_y(x)=x^y`$. Quandle axiom (i) then says that $`f_y`$ is a bijection for each $`yX`$. We may then define a new quandle structure on $`X`$ by $`x^{\overline{y}}=f_y^1(x)`$; this is the dual quandle of $`X`$.

###### Lemma 2.7.

The dual of an Alexander quandle $`X`$ is the set $`X`$ with quandle operation given by $`x^{\overline{y}}=t^1x+(1t^1)y`$.

###### Proof.

If $`f_y(x)=c=tx+(1t)y`$ then $`t^1c=x+(t^11)yx=t^1c+(1t^1)y`$; thus $`f_y^1(x)=t^1x+(1t^1)y`$.

###### Corollary 2.8.

Let $`a,b`$ be coprime to $`n`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(ta)`$ is dual to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(tb)`$ iff $`n_a=n_b`$ and $`ab1(\mathrm{mod}n_a)`$. In particular, a linear Alexander quandle $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(ta)`$ is self-dual iff $`a`$ is a square mod $`n_a`$.

###### Proof.

If $`n`$ and $`a`$ are coprime, then $`a`$ is invertible in $`_n`$ and the dual of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(ta)`$ is given by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(ta^1)`$ by lemma 2.7. Then corollary 2.2 says that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(tb)`$ is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(ta^1)`$ iff $`n_b=n_{a^1}`$ and $`ba^1(\mathrm{mod}n_b)`$.

Since $`\mathrm{gcd}(n,a)=1`$ we have $`\mathrm{gcd}(n,1a)=\mathrm{gcd}(n,a(1a^1))=\mathrm{gcd}(n,1a^1)`$ so that $`n_a=n_{a^1}`$ as required.

## 3. $``$-automorphisms and Computations

Let $`X`$ be a finite Alexander quandle and let $`X_A`$ denote $`X`$ regarded as an Abelian group, called the underlying Abelian group of $`X`$. The map $`\varphi :X_AX_A`$ defined by $`\varphi (x)=tx`$ is a homomorphism of $``$-modules. Since $`t^1\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the map $`\psi :X_AX_A`$ defined by $`\psi (x)=t^1x`$ is a two-sided inverse for $`\varphi `$ as $`\psi (\varphi (x))=t^1tx=x`$ and $`\varphi (\psi (x))=tt^1x=x`$, and $`\varphi `$ is in fact a $``$-automorphism.

Conversely, if $`A`$ is a finite Abelian group and $`\varphi :AA`$ is a $``$-module automorphism, we can give $`A`$ the structure of an Alexander quandle by defining $`tx=\varphi (x)`$. This yields a general strategy for listing all finite Alexander quandles of a given size $`n`$: first, list all Abelian groups $`A`$ of order $`n`$; then, for each element of $`\mathrm{Aut}_{}(A)`$ find $`(1t)A=\mathrm{Im}(1\varphi )`$ and compare these as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-modules. In practice, for low order (i.e., $`|A|15`$) Alexander quandles this procedure in its full generality is necessary only for one case, namely Alexander quandles with underlying Abelian group isomorphic to $`_4_2`$. We shall see that Alexander quandles with $`X_A_4_2`$ are isomorphic to linear Alexander quandles (in six cases) or to Alexander quandles with underlying group $`(_2)^3`$ (in two cases).

We first obtain a few simplifying results:

###### Lemma 3.1.

If the underlying Abelian group $`X_A`$ of $`X`$ is cyclic, then $`X`$ is linear.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`X_A=_n`$. Then for any $`x_n`$ and any $`\varphi \mathrm{Aut}_{}(_n)`$, we must have $`\varphi (x)=\varphi (x1)=x\varphi (1)`$, so the action of $`t`$ agrees with multiplication by $`a=\varphi (1)`$ on $`_n`$. Further, we must have $`\mathrm{gcd}(n,a)=1`$ since $`\varphi `$ is surjective. Hence $`X`$ is $`_n`$ with $`t`$ acting by multiplication by $`a`$, that is, $`X\mathrm{\Lambda }_n/(ta)`$.

###### Remark 3.2.

Lemma 3.1 was also noted in .

###### Corollary 3.3.

For any prime $`p`$, there are exactly $`p1`$ distinct Alexander quandles with $`p`$ elements, namely $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p/(ta)`$ for $`a=1,\mathrm{},p1`$. Further, every Alexander quandle of prime order is either trivial ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p/(t1)T_p`$, the trivial quandle of $`p`$ elements) or connected.

###### Proof.

If $`p`$ is prime, $`n_a=\frac{n}{\mathrm{gcd}(p,1a)}=1`$ for each $`a1,\mathrm{},p1`$. Then by corollary 2.2, these are all distinct. By lemma 3.1, every quandle of order $`p`$ is linear, so these are all of the Alexander quandles of order $`p`$.

Since $`\mathrm{gcd}(p,1a)=1`$ for $`a=2,\mathrm{},p1`$, corollary 2.5 gives us that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p/(ta)`$ is connected.

###### Corollary 3.4.

Let $`n=p_1^{e_1}p_2^{e_2}\mathrm{}p_k^{e_k}`$ be a product of powers of distinct primes. Then there are exactly $`N_{p_1}N_{p_2}\mathrm{}N_{p_k}`$ distinct Alexander quandles of order $`n`$, where $`N_{p_i}`$ is the number of distinct Alexander quandles of order $`p_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{e_i}`$.

###### Proof.

Since any $``$-automorphism must respect order, any Alexander quandle structure on a direct sum of Abelian groups $`A_{p_1^{e_1}}\mathrm{}A_{p_k^{e_k}}`$ with order $`p_1^{e_1},\mathrm{},p_k^{e_k}`$ must respect this direct sum structure. Hence we may obtain a complete list of Alexander quandles of order $`n`$ by listing all direct sums of Alexander quandles of orders $`p_1^{e_1},\mathrm{},p_k^{e_k}`$.

###### Corollary 3.5.

If the order of an Alexander quandle $`n2(\mathrm{mod}4)`$, the quandle is not connected.

###### Proof.

If $`n2(\mathrm{mod}4)`$, then the underlying Abelian group of the quandle has a summand of $`_2`$. Hence the quandle has a summand isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/(t+1)T_2`$, and therefore is not connected.

In light of corollary 3.4, to classify finite Alexander quandles it is sufficient to consider Alexander quandles of prime power order. Alexander quandles with prime order are cyclic as Abelian groups and hence are linear quandles, and so are classified by corollary 3.3. Alexander quandles with order a product of distinct primes are classified by corollary 3.4.

If the underlying Abelian group of $`X`$ is $`(_p)^n`$, then $`X`$ is not only a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-module but also a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p`$-module, so we may use the classification theorem for finitely generated modules over a PID. Thus any Alexander quandle $`X`$ with $`X_A=(_p)^n`$ must be of the form $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p/(h_1)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_p/(h_k)`$ with $`h_1|h_2|\mathrm{}|h_k`$, $`h_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_p`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}(h_i)=n`$. We may further assume without loss of generality that each $`h_i_p[t]`$, is monic, and has nonzero constant term.

###### Proposition 3.6.

An Alexander quandle $`M=\mathrm{\Lambda }_p/(h)`$, $`p`$ a prime, is connected iff $`(1t)h`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`M`$ is finite, $`(1t)M=M`$ iff $`(1t):MM`$ is bijective. If $`(1t)|h`$ then $`h=(1t)g`$ for some nonzero $`gM`$, and hence $`\mathrm{ker}(1t)\{0\}`$, so $`(1t)`$ fails to be injective.

Conversely, $`(1t)`$ is prime in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, so $`(1t)`$ coprime to $`h`$ implies that every $`l\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ may be written as $`a(1t)+bh`$ for some $`a,b\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Hence every $`mM`$ is $`a(1t)`$ for some $`aM`$.

###### Proposition 3.7.

The Alexander quandle $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p^n}/\left(t^n+_{i=0}^{n1}a_it^i\right)`$ is connected iff $`_{i=0}^{n1}a_i=1`$.

###### Proof.

By 3.6, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p^n}/(t^n+_{i=0}^{n1}a_it^i)`$ is connected iff $`(t1)|t^n+_{i=0}^{n1}a_it^i`$. That is, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p^n}/(t^n+_{i=0}^{n1}a_it^i)`$ is connected iff there are $`b_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_p`$, $`0in2`$ such that

$$(t1)\left(t^{n1}+\underset{i=0}{\overset{n2}{}}b_it^i\right)=t^n+\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}a_it^i.$$

Comparing coefficients, we must have that $`a_{n1}+b_{n2}=1`$, $`b_i=a_i+b_{i1}`$ for all $`1in2`$, and $`b_0=a_0`$. Then $`_{i=0}^{n1}a_i=1`$. Conversely, if $`_{i=0}^{n1}a_i=1`$, define $`b_0=a_0`$, $`b_i=a_i+b_{i1}`$ for all $`1in2`$, and $`a_{n1}+b_{n2}=1`$.

###### Proposition 3.8.

There are $`2p^23p1`$ connected Alexander quandles of order $`p^2`$ where $`p`$ is prime.<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1This agrees with the result of Graña in .

###### Proof.

Every Alexander quandle of order $`p^2`$ has underlying Abelian group $`_{p^2}`$ or $`_p_p`$. A linear quandle $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p^2}/(ta)`$ of order $`p^2`$ is connected iff $`\mathrm{gcd}(1a,p)=1`$, and there are $`p(p2)`$ such quandles.

An Alexander quandle $`M`$ with underlying Abelian group $`_p_p`$ is a module over the PID $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p`$, so we have either $`M\mathrm{\Lambda }_p/(ta)\mathrm{\Lambda }_p/(ta)`$ or $`M\mathrm{\Lambda }_p/(t^2+at+b)`$ where $`b0`$. There are $`p2`$ connected quandles of the first type and $`(p1)^2`$ of the second type, so in total there are $`2p^23p1`$ connected Alexander quandles of order $`p^2`$.

For arbitrary values of $`n`$ and $`p`$ we may classify Alexander quandles with underlying Abelian group $`(_p)^n`$ listing all possible $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-modules with underlying group $`(_p)^n`$ and comparing the submodules $`\mathrm{Im}(1t)`$.

Results of applying this procedure to Alexander quandles with underlying Abelian group $`(_2)^2`$, $`(_2)^3`$ and $`(_2)^2`$ are collected in Table 1. As we expect, these results agree with proposition 3.8.

Note that by theorem 2.1 and corollary 2.2, the results in table 1 show that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/(t^2+1)\mathrm{\Lambda }_4/(t3)`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/(t+1))^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_4/(t1)T_4`$, the trivial quandle of order 4, while $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/(t^2+t+1)`$ is the only connected Alexander quandle of order 4.

Alexander quandles with underlying Abelian group $`(_2)^3`$ include $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/(t+1)\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/(t^2+1)\mathrm{\Lambda }_8/(t5)`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/(t+1))^3T_8`$. Also, theorem 2.1 yields an isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_8/(t3)\mathrm{\Lambda }_8/(t7)`$; otherwise, the order eight quandles listed are all distinct. Of these, only $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/(t^3+t^2+1)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/(t^3+t+1)`$ are connected. Note that none of the linear Alexander quandles of order eight are connected.

Among Alexander quandles with Abelian group $`(_3)^2`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_9/(t4)\mathrm{\Lambda }_9/(t7)\mathrm{\Lambda }_9/(t^2+t+1)`$ (the first isomorphism was noted in  and the second also follows from proposition 4.1 of ); otherwise, the linear quandles of order nine and the quandles listed in table 1 are all distinct. Note that five of the eight listed quandles of order nine are connected; of the linear quandles of order nine, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_9/(t2)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_9/(t5)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_9/(t8)`$ are connected.

To count distinct Alexander quandles whose underlying Abelian group is neither cyclic nor a direct sum of $`n`$ copies of $`_p`$, the following observation is useful.

###### Lemma 3.9.

The number of conjugacy classes in $`\mathrm{Aut}_{}(X_A)`$ is an upper bound on the number of distinct Alexander quandles $`X`$ with underlying Abelian group $`X_A`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\varphi _1,\varphi _2\mathrm{Aut}_{}X_A`$. Then if $`t_1=\varphi _1(1)`$ and $`t_2=\varphi _2(1)`$, we have $`\varphi _2^1\varphi _1\varphi _2`$ acting by multiplication by $`t_2^1t_1t_2=t_1`$ since multiplication in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is commutative. Thus any two conjugate automorphisms define the same Alexander quandle structure.

To complete the classification of Alexander quandles with up to fifteen elements, we now only need to consider the case $`X_A=_4_2`$.

###### Proposition 3.10.

There are three distinct Alexander quandle structures definable on the Abelian group $`_4_2`$, given by $``$-automorphisms $`\varphi _1=\mathrm{id}`$, $`\varphi _2\left((1,0)\right)=(1,1)`$, $`\varphi _2\left((0,1)\right)=(0,1)`$, $`\varphi _3\left((1,0)\right)=(1,1)`$ and $`\varphi _3\left((0,1)\right)=(2,1)`$. Further, these quandles are isomorphic to previously listed quandles, namely $`(_4_2,\varphi _1)T_8`$, $`(_4_2,\varphi _2)\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/(t+1)\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/(t^2+1)`$, and $`(_4_2,\varphi _3)\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/(t^3+t^2+t+1)`$.

###### Proof.

Direct calculation shows that $`\mathrm{Aut}_{}(_4_2)D_8`$, the dihedral group of order eight, so by lemma 3.9 there are at most five Alexander quandle structures on $`_4_2`$. Of the eight $``$-automorphisms of $`_4_2`$, one is the identity, yielding the trivial quandle structure; five have $`\mathrm{Im}(1t)\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/(t+1)`$ (including $`\varphi _2`$) and hence yield quandles isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/(t+1)\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/(t^2+1)`$, and two have $`\mathrm{Im}(1t)\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/(t^2+1)`$ (including $`\varphi _3`$), yielding quandles isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/(t^3+t^2+t+1)`$.

We now have enough information to determine all Alexander quandles with up to fifteen elements. In light of corollaries 3.3 and 3.4, we list in table 2 only the numbers of distinct and connected Alexander quandles of each order.


text:
# Two-loop corrections to Light-by-Light scattering in Supersymmetric QED11footnote 1Work supported in part by the UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, by the EU Fifth Framework Programme ‘Improving Human Potential’, Research Training Network ‘Particle Physics Phenomenology at High Energy Colliders’, contract HPRN-CT-2000-00149 and by the DFG-Forschergruppe Quantenfeldtheorie, Computeralgebra und Monte-Carlo Simulation. We thank the British Council and German Academic Exchange Service for support under ARC project 1050. PM acknowledges the support of the German Academic Exchange Service.

## 1 Introduction

Light-by-light scattering is a paradigm process in quantum field theory even if it is not yet of experimental relevance.222See the nice review of the current experimental situation in Ref. . The calculation of the process at the one-loop level, the first non vanishing order, was accomplished quite some time ago . Gauge invariance and IR/UV finiteness leads to enormous cancellation mechanisms when individual Feynman graphs are summed up. As such the study of light-by-light scattering is an ideal testing ground for new methods relevant for loop calculations.

The computation of the higher order corrections to this process has been plagued by the difficulty of evaluating two-loop four point functions with four on-shell legs. At present it is not possible to include the mass of the particles circulating inside the loops. However, the complete set of integrals for planar on-shell two-loop graphs with massless internal particles is now known  together with a set of algorithms for reducing the tensor integrals down to the basis set of master integrals . This technology has recently been applied to calculate the two-loop matrix elements for a wide range of $`22`$ scattering processes .

Recently the two-loop corrections for light-by-light scattering were calculated  by applying the helicity formalism at the two-loop level. The helicity formalism, which is strictly defined only in 4-dimensions greatly simplifies the calculation on the one-loop level. The generalisation to the two-loop case was done only recently . In other cases  the interference between two-loop and tree level amplitudes directly relevant for next-to-next-to-leading order calculations has been computed by working with $`n`$-dimensional kinematics only. This approach is not applicable in the case of four-photon scattering as a tree level operator simply does not exist.

In the present paper we follow another approach to calculate helicity amplitudes which in a certain sense interpolates between both methods. Namely by analysing the tensorial structure of the amplitude , valid to all orders in perturbation theory, we define projectors to isolate the coefficients of particular tensor structures. These projectors are defined in $`n`$-dimensions and therefore allow for a completely $`n`$-dimensional treatment of the computation of the tensor coefficients. The symmetry of the process dictates that there are only three independent coefficients. By fixing the helicity of the external photons, it is then straightforward to apply helicity methods to extract specific helicity amplitudes from the general tensor in terms of the three $`n`$-dimensional coefficients. The relation between the helicity amplitude and the tensor coefficients is independent of the order that the coefficients are computed at. It is also independent of whether or not the particles circulating in the loops are massive. As an explicit example, we focus on the circularly polarised amplitudes. Similar techniques can be applied to obtain linear polarised amplitudes. Note that in defining the helicity amplitudes the external states are four-dimensional, however, the tensor coefficients are fully $`n`$-dimensional.

We apply the method to a fairly general class of Lagrangians containing photons, charged and neutral scalars and charged and neutral fermions with prescribed couplings. There are several gauge invariant classes and we list these contributions separately. We give explicit results for the $`N=1`$ and $`N=2`$ SUSY QED Lagrangians . Although these unbroken supersymmetric theories have no direct phenomenological relevance, they have a theoretical interest of their own and have led to new insights in the possibilities of quantum field theory, in particular regarding its divergences. The presence of a supersymmetry leads to important cancellations between the bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom. One of the best known consequences is the disappearance of quadratic divergences in $`N=1`$ supersymmetric theories. These divergences generally appear in renormalization constants and have no direct physical consequences. More interesting are cancellations or simplifications for physical quantities. These can be analysed on the basis of supersymmetric Ward identities . In the case at hand these lead to the prediction that two of the independent helicity amplitudes vanish, a fact that we will verify in our calculation. The general analysis of supersymmetric Ward identities is a rather involved affair, due to the fact that there is no easily implementable supersymmetric regularization. The identification of a supersymmetry preserving regulator is beyond the scope of this paper. We therefore work in conventional dimensional regularisation which explicitly breaks supersymmetry by keeping $`n2`$ polarizations for internal photons while the photino has only 2 degrees of freedom. However, because the quantities we calculate are infrared and ultraviolet finite, they are supersymmetric in the four-dimensional limit. There may be violations of supersymmetry of $`𝒪(n4)`$, but they are not relevant in the four-dimensional limit.

While the simplifications in $`N=1`$ supersymmetry are already very interesting, stronger results are possible in the case of $`N=2`$ supersymmetry. For instance it is known that the beta function in $`N=2`$ super Yang-Mills theories is fully determined at the one-loop level. Since the infinite contributions that determine the beta function satisfy such strong non-renormalization theorems, one can also expect large cancellations for finite quantities. In order to check for such cancellations in the photon-photon scattering amplitude it is necessary to work at the two-loop level, since at the one-loop level there is no difference between $`N=1`$ and $`N=2`$ supersymmetry. We will indeed find an interesting pattern of simplifications taking place going up in the number of supersymmetries. Similar simplifications for certain supersymmetric higher loop amplitudes were already reported in the case of $`N=4`$ Super-Yang-Mills  and $`N=8`$ Supergravity .

Our paper is organised as follows. In Sec. 2 we recall the Lagrangian for Supersymmetric QED and review the particle content of the theory. The relevant Feynman rules are collected in Appendix A. The general tensor structure for light-by-light scattering is detailed in Sec. 3, together with the constraints from transversality of the external polarisation vectors, Bose symmetry and the gauge Ward identities that reduce the number of independent tensor coefficients to three. The general tensor is mapped onto circularly polarised helicity amplitudes in Sec. 3.1. We explicitly show how each of the three independent helicity amplitudes can be written in terms of the three $`n`$-dimensional tensor coefficients. In Sec. 3.2 we introduce projection operators that can be applied to the full tensor to isolate any of the tensor coefficients. A discussion of the Supersymmetric Ward identities is given in Sec. 4.1 while the results of an explicit calculation of the one- and two-loop helicity amplitudes are given in Secs. 4.2 and 4.3 respectively. The individual contributions to the two-loop amplitudes from the gauge invariant sub-classes of diagrams are listed in Appendix B. Finally our findings are summarised in Sec. 5.

## 2 The SUSY QED Lagrangian

$`N=1`$ Supersymmetric QED  is an abelian gauge theory containing a vector multiplet $`(A^\mu ,\lambda _\alpha ,\overline{\lambda }^{\dot{\alpha }})`$ containing the vector photon field and the Majorana photino and two chiral multiplets $`(\psi _L^\alpha ,\varphi _L^{})`$ and $`(\psi _R^\alpha ,\varphi _R^+)`$ with charge $`Q_L=1`$ and $`Q_R=+1`$, each consisting of a Weyl spinor and a scalar field representing the electron and scalar electron matter fields. The $`N=1`$ SUSY QED Lagrangian with massless matter fields is given by,

$`_{\mathrm{SQED}}^{N=1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1}i\gamma ^\mu _\mu \stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1`$ (1)
$`+|D_\mu \varphi _L^{}|^2+|D_\mu ^{}\varphi _R^+|^2+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}i\gamma ^\mu D_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }`$
$`+\sqrt{2}e(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}P_R\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1\varphi _L^{}\varphi _R^+\overline{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1}P_R\mathrm{\Psi }+h.c.)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^2\left(|\varphi _L^{}|^2|\varphi _R^+|^2\right)^2,`$
where

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\psi _{L\alpha }}{\overline{\psi }_R^{\dot{\alpha }}}\right),\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i\lambda _\alpha }{i\overline{\lambda }^{\dot{\alpha }}}\right),$$
(2)
and where $`D_\mu `$ is the gauge covariant derivative and $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is the field strength of the photon. This Lagrangian corresponds to the Wess-Zumino gauge where all unphysical fields are removed by gauge transformations.

$`N=2`$ Supersymmetric QED  contains in addition a chiral multiplet, a Majorana gaugino and a complex scalar photon, $`(\psi _\alpha ^0,\overline{\psi }^{0\dot{\alpha }},\varphi ^0)`$. The $`N=2`$ SUSY QED Lagrangian with massless matter fields is given by,

$`_{\mathrm{SQED}}^{N=2}`$ $`=`$ $`_{\mathrm{SQED}}^{N=1}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2}i\gamma ^\mu _\mu \stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2+|_\mu \varphi ^0|^2`$ (3)
$`+\sqrt{2}e(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}P_L\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2\varphi _L^{}+\varphi _R^+\overline{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2}P_L\mathrm{\Psi }+h.c.)`$
$`+\sqrt{2}e\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}P_L\mathrm{\Psi }\varphi ^0+\varphi ^0\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}P_R\mathrm{\Psi }\right)`$
$`2e^2\left(|\varphi _L^{}|^2+|\varphi _R^+|^2\right)^2|\varphi ^0|^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^2\left(|\varphi _L^{}|^2+|\varphi _R^+|^2\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^2\left(|\varphi _L^{}|^2|\varphi _R^+|^2\right)^2,`$
where

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _{0\alpha }\\ \overline{\psi }_0^{\dot{\alpha }}\end{array}\right)$$

Note that the $`N=2`$ supersymmetry leads to a $`SU(2)`$ symmetry under which the photinos and scalar electrons transform nontrivially. By writing them as doublets

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\varphi _L^+& \\ \varphi _R^+& \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1& \\ \stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2& \end{array}\right),$$

the photino–electron–selectron interactions can then be written as

$`_{\gamma e\stackrel{~}{e}}=\sqrt{2}e(\varphi _L^{},\varphi _R^{})\left[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}P_R\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}P_L\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1\\ \stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2\end{array}\right)+h.c.`$ (10)
which is equivalent to the manifestly SU(2) invariant form presented in .

For completeness, the Feynman rules for these Lagrangians are given in Appendix A.

## 3 The tensor structure of the four photon amplitude

We consider the process where all particles are incoming

$$\gamma (p_1,\lambda _1)+\gamma (p_2,\lambda _2)+\gamma (p_3,\lambda _3)+\gamma (p_4,\lambda _4)0,$$
(11)
and photon $`i`$ carries momentum $`p_i`$ and has helicity $`\lambda _i`$. The amplitude has the form

$`=\epsilon _{1,\mu _1}\epsilon _{2,\mu _2}\epsilon _{3,\mu _3}\epsilon _{4,\mu _4}^{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3\mu _4}(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4),`$ (12)
where the scattering tensor $`^{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3\mu _4}`$ has the following general decomposition

$`^{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3\mu _4}`$ $`=`$ $`A_1g^{\mu _1\mu _2}g^{\mu _3\mu _4}+A_2g^{\mu _1\mu _3}g^{\mu _2\mu _4}+A_3g^{\mu _1\mu _4}g^{\mu _2\mu _3}`$ (13)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j_1,j_2=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(B_{j_1j_2}^1g^{\mu _1\mu _2}p_{j_1}^{\mu _3}p_{j_2}^{\mu _4}+B_{j_1j_2}^2g^{\mu _1\mu _3}p_{j_1}^{\mu _2}p_{j_2}^{\mu _4}+B_{j_1j_2}^3g^{\mu _1\mu _4}p_{j_1}^{\mu _2}p_{j_2}^{\mu _3}`$
$`+B_{j_1j_2}^4g^{\mu _2\mu _3}p_{j_1}^{\mu _1}p_{j_2}^{\mu _4}+B_{j_1j_2}^5g^{\mu _2\mu _4}p_{j_1}^{\mu _1}p_{j_2}^{\mu _3}+B_{j_1j_2}^6g^{\mu _3\mu _4}p_{j_1}^{\mu _1}p_{j_2}^{\mu _2})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j_1,j_2,j_3,j_4=1}{\overset{3}{}}}C_{j_1j_2j_3j_4}p_{j_1}^{\mu _1}p_{j_2}^{\mu _2}p_{j_3}^{\mu _3}p_{j_4}^{\mu _4}.`$
Terms such as $`ϵ^{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3\mu _4}`$ are forbidden on the grounds of parity invariance. The functions $`A_i`$, $`B_{jk}^i`$ and $`C_{ijkl}`$ are functions of the Mandelstam variables, $`s=(p_1+p_2)^2`$, $`t=(p_2+p_3)^2`$, $`u=(p_1+p_3)^2`$ and the spacetime dimension $`n`$. They also depend on the mass of the electron and any other particles that may be involved in the scattering process. This decomposition is valid for arbitrary loop order since it is based solely on the Lorentz structure of the external particles. Altogether, there are 138 coefficients. However, many coefficients are irrelevant since they drop out when contracted with the photon polarisation vectors due to the transversality condition,

$$\epsilon _jp_j=0,\text{for }j\{1,2,3,4\}.$$
(14)
This reduces the number of coefficients to 57.

Bose symmetry of the external photons means that these coefficients are not independent. Requiring invariance under the exchange of any index pair $`(j,\mu _j)`$ where the first labels the external vector and the second is the Lorentz index of the corresponding polarisation vector reduces the number of independent functions to 11.

The number of independent functions is further reduced by gauge symmetry. The related Ward identities read in an obvious notation,

$$^{p_1\epsilon _2\epsilon _3\epsilon _4}=^{\epsilon _1p_2\epsilon _3\epsilon _4}=^{\epsilon _1\epsilon _2p_3\epsilon _4}=^{\epsilon _1\epsilon _2\epsilon _3p_4}=0.$$
(15)
Applying the gauge symmetry reduces the number of independent functions to three which we take to be,

$`A_1(s,t,u),B_{11}^1(s,t,u),C_{2111}(s,t,u).`$ (16)
Once these functions are known, the full tensor can be reconstructed.

### 3.1 Helicity amplitudes

It is often convenient to express the amplitude in terms of the helicity structure of the scattering process. This can straightforwardly be achieved using the Lorentz structure of the tensor. In principle there are 16 helicity amplitudes - two polarisations for each photon. However, parity, time-reversal and Bose symmetry reduce this number to four which is further reduced to three by crossing symmetry. Note that the number of independent helicity amplitudes matches the number of independent functions describing the tensor. We take

$$_{++++},_{+++},_{++},$$
(17)
to be a basis from which the other helicity amplitudes can be reconstructed.

By specifying polarisation vectors for the external photons and applying them to the full tensor, we can derive the helicity amplitudes in terms of the three independent functions $`A_1`$, $`B_{11}^1`$ and $`C_{2111}`$. We find that, up to overall phases,

$`_{++++}`$ $`=`$ $`A_1(s,t,u)+A_1(t,u,s)+A_1(u,t,s)`$ (18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{4t}}B_{11}^1(s,t,u){\displaystyle \frac{t(2s+t)}{4u}}B_{11}^1(s,u,t){\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{4s}}B_{11}^1(t,s,u)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{s(tu)}{4u}}B_{11}^1(t,u,s)+{\displaystyle \frac{(2st)t}{4s}}B_{11}^1(u,s,t){\displaystyle \frac{s(s2t)}{4t}}B_{11}^1(u,t,s)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{s(s2t)u}{8t}}C_{2111}(s,t,u)+{\displaystyle \frac{st(tu)}{8u}}C_{2111}(s,u,t)+{\displaystyle \frac{t^2u}{8s}}C_{2111}(t,s,u)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{st^2}{8u}}C_{2111}(t,u,s)+{\displaystyle \frac{tu^2}{8s}}C_{2111}(u,s,t)+{\displaystyle \frac{su^2}{8t}}C_{2111}(u,t,s),`$
$`_{+++}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{4t}}B_{11}^1(s,t,u){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{4u}}B_{11}^1(s,u,t)+{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{4s}}B_{11}^1(t,s,u)`$ (19)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{s(tu)}{4u}}B_{11}^1(t,u,s)+{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{4s}}B_{11}^1(u,s,t)+{\displaystyle \frac{s(t+u)}{4t}}B_{11}^1(u,t,s)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{s(tu)u}{8t}}C_{2111}(s,t,u){\displaystyle \frac{st(tu)}{8u}}C_{2111}(s,u,t){\displaystyle \frac{t^2u}{8s}}C_{2111}(t,s,u)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{st^2}{8u}}C_{2111}(t,u,s){\displaystyle \frac{tu^2}{8s}}C_{2111}(u,s,t)+{\displaystyle \frac{su^2}{8t}}C_{2111}(u,t,s),`$
and

$`_{++}`$ $`=`$ $`A_1(s,t,u)+A_1(t,u,s)+A_1(u,t,s)`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{4t}}B_{11}^1(s,t,u){\displaystyle \frac{t(2s+t)}{4u}}B_{11}^1(s,u,t){\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{4s}}B_{11}^1(t,s,u)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{s(tu)}{4u}}B_{11}^1(t,u,s)+{\displaystyle \frac{(2st)t}{4s}}B_{11}^1(u,s,t){\displaystyle \frac{s(s2t)}{4t}}B_{11}^1(u,t,s)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{s(s2t)u}{8t}}C_{2111}(s,t,u)+{\displaystyle \frac{st(tu)}{8u}}C_{2111}(s,u,t)+{\displaystyle \frac{t^2u}{8s}}C_{2111}(t,s,u)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{st^2}{8u}}C_{2111}(t,u,s)+{\displaystyle \frac{tu^2}{8s}}C_{2111}(u,s,t)+{\displaystyle \frac{su^2}{8t}}C_{2111}(u,t,s).`$
Amplitudes for linearly polarised light can also be straightforwardly obtained from the general tensor and are given in terms of $`A_1`$, $`B_{11}^1`$ and $`C_{2111}`$.

Note that in deriving the helicity amplitudes, we have made no assumptions about how the functions $`A_1`$, $`B_{11}^1`$ and $`C_{2111}`$ are calculated. In the conventional approach to computing loop helicity amplitudes one has to define a description to deal with scalar products between loop momenta and polarisation vectors. Furthermore, we have made no assumptions about the masses of particles in the loops.

### 3.2 Projection operators

To calculate the independent functions $`A_1`$, $`B_{11}^1`$ and $`C_{2111}`$ it is convenient to define projection operators that (a) isolate the function and (b) saturate the free Lorentz indices. This latter point is important for practical calculations since it allows for the cancellation of reducible scalar products between loop momenta and external vectors in the Feynman diagram integrals. These reducible scalar products can be expressed in terms of inverse propagators and many cancellations already happen at this level. For example at the one-loop level, no tensor box integral needs to be evaluated since any loop momentum appearing in the numerator will immediately cancel one of the propagators. This reduces the complexity of the one-loop calculation enormously. For higher-loop or multi-leg applications such simplifications are highly appreciated.

To invert Eq. (13) and isolate the independent functions, it is useful to define the following tensors,

$`𝒫^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`g^{\mu \nu }2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}p_j^\mu H_{jk}p_k^\nu ,`$ (21)
$`_j^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}H_{jk}p_k^\nu ,`$ (22)
where $`H=G^1`$ is the inverse of the 3 by 3 Gram matrix defined by the momenta $`p_1`$, $`p_2`$, $`p_3`$. In terms of Mandelstam variables, these matrices are given by

$`G=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& s& u\\ s& 0& t\\ u& t& 0\end{array}\right),`$ $`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1/s+1/u& 1/s& 1/u\\ 1/s& 1/s+1/t& 1/t\\ 1/u& 1/t& 1/t+1/u\end{array}\right).`$ (29)
$`𝒫`$ is a projector onto the $`(n3)`$ dimensional subspace perpendicular to the 3 dimensional space spanned by the vectors $`p_1`$, $`p_2`$, $`p_3`$, $`p_4`$. $`_{j,\nu }`$ is the dual vector to $`p_j^\nu `$ relative to this 3 dimensional space. One may easily check the following relations for the objects $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`_j^\mu `$,

$`𝒫^{\mu \rho }𝒫_\rho ^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`𝒫^{\mu \nu },`$ (30)
$`𝒫_\nu ^\mu p_j^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (31)
$`𝒫_\mu ^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`tr(𝒫)=tr(𝒫𝒫)=n3,`$ (32)
$`𝒫_\nu ^\mu _j^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (33)
$`_{j,\nu }p_k^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{jk},`$ (34)
$`_{j,\nu }_l^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`2H_{jl}.`$ (35)
To determine the tensor coefficients, $`A_j`$, we define the following linear operators

$`\stackrel{~}{A}_1()`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(n1)(n3)}}𝒫_{\mu _1\mu _2}𝒫_{\mu _3\mu _4}^{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3\mu _4},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_2()`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(n1)(n3)}}𝒫_{\mu _1\mu _3}𝒫_{\mu _2\mu _4}^{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3\mu _4},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_3()`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(n1)(n3)}}𝒫_{\mu _1\mu _4}𝒫_{\mu _2\mu _3}^{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3\mu _4}.`$ (36)
One finds by direct calculation that

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{A}_1()\\ \stackrel{~}{A}_2()\\ \stackrel{~}{A}_3()\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{tr(𝒫)}{(n1)(n3)}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}tr(𝒫)& 1& 1\\ 1& tr(𝒫)& 1\\ 1& 1& tr(𝒫)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}A_1(s,t,u)\\ A_2(s,t,u)\\ A_3(s,t,u)\end{array}\right).`$ (46)
Staying in $`n`$-dimensions and inverting the system of equations yields,

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}A_1(s,t,u)\\ A_2(s,t,u)\\ A_3(s,t,u)\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(n4)}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(n2)& 1& 1\\ 1& (n2)& 1\\ 1& 1& (n2)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{A}_1()\\ \stackrel{~}{A}_2()\\ \stackrel{~}{A}_3()\end{array}\right).`$ (56)
We see that the right hand side appears to introduce an additional factor of $`1/(n4)`$. On the other hand, the sum

$$A_1(s,t,u)+A_2(s,t,u)+A_3(s,t,u)=\stackrel{~}{A}_1()+\stackrel{~}{A}_1()+\stackrel{~}{A}_1()$$

is free of spurious poles. We will discuss how these apparent extra poles cancel each other directly in the helicity amplitudes below.

It is straightforward to define projectors for the coefficients $`B_{lk}^\alpha `$,

$`\stackrel{~}{B}_{kl}^1()`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(n3)}}𝒫_{\mu _1\mu _2}_{k\mu _3}_{l\mu _4}^{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3\mu _4}`$ (57)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(n4)}}H_{kl}\left((n2)\stackrel{~}{A}_1()\stackrel{~}{A}_2()\stackrel{~}{A}_3()\right),`$
where the last term is proportional to $`A_1`$. The other $`B^\alpha `$’s are found by permuting the Lorentz indices in (57) and subtracting the respective $`A`$’s. Acting with Eq. (57) on the general tensor one finds the desired property,

$$\stackrel{~}{B}_{kl}^\alpha ()=B_{kl}^\alpha (s,t,u),$$

by using relations (3035).

In the same spirit one can construct projectors for the coefficients $`C_{jklm}`$,

$`\stackrel{~}{C}_{jklm}()`$ $`=`$ $`_{j\mu _1}_{k\mu _2}_{l\mu _3}_{m\mu _4}^{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3\mu _4}`$ (58)
$`2[H_{jk}\stackrel{~}{B}_{lm}^1()+H_{jl}\stackrel{~}{B}_{km}^2()+H_{jm}\stackrel{~}{B}_{kl}^3()`$
$`+H_{kl}\stackrel{~}{B}_{jm}^4()+H_{km}\stackrel{~}{B}_{jl}^5()+H_{lm}\stackrel{~}{B}_{jk}^6()]`$
$`4[{\displaystyle \frac{H_{jk}H_{lm}}{(n4)}}((n2)\stackrel{~}{A}_1()\stackrel{~}{A}_2()\stackrel{~}{A}_3())`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{H_{jl}H_{km}}{(n4)}}\left((n2)\stackrel{~}{A}_2()\stackrel{~}{A}_3()\stackrel{~}{A}_1()\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{H_{jm}H_{kl}}{(n4)}}((n2)\stackrel{~}{A}_3()\stackrel{~}{A}_1()\stackrel{~}{A}_2())],`$
where the last three terms are proportional to $`A_1`$, $`A_2`$ and $`A_3`$ respectively and which again satisfies,

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_{ijkl}()=C_{ijkl}(s,t,u).$$

The linear operators acting on the amplitude defined in Eqs. (3.2), (57) and (58) are sufficient to determine any of the coefficients on the right hand side of the general tensor decomposition of the amplitude in Eq. (13). The linear nature ensures that one can apply these projectors on a graph by graph basis.

All of the tensor coefficients are linearly related to the basis set of Eq. (16) by gauge invariance and permutation symmetry. An important and non-trivial check of a full diagrammatic calculation is to evaluate each of the tensor coefficients and to verify the relations amongst them imposed by the Ward identities.

It remains to be shown that the poles present in Eq. (56) cancel. This is seen by focussing on the dangerous $`\stackrel{~}{A}_j`$ terms only. For $`C_{2111}`$ one finds that the $`1/(n4)`$ pole drops out directly,

$`C_{2111}(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{2111}()`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}+4H_{11}H_{12}\left[A_1(s,t,u)+A_2(s,t,u)+A_3(s,t,u)\right].`$
For $`B_{11}^1`$ one has,

$$B_{11}^1(s,t,u)=\stackrel{~}{B}_{11}^1()=\mathrm{}+\frac{t}{su}A_1(s,t,u).$$
(59)
Using the Bose symmetry relations,

$$A_1(s,t,u)=A_1(s,u,t),A_2(s,t,u)=A_1(u,t,s),A_3(s,t,u)=A_1(t,s,u),$$

a short calculation shows that in Eqs. (18), (19) and (20) only the sum of the $`A_j`$’s is present so that the helicity amplitudes are free of spurious poles. This ensures that the projector method can be applied on a graph by graph basis without the need to expand one order higher in $`ϵ`$.

## 4 Light-by-light scattering in SUSY QED

### 4.1 The SUSY Ward Identity

Supersymmetric amplitudes are expected to satisfy the Supersymmetric Ward identity ,

$$0=0|[Q,a_1^{}\mathrm{}a_n^{}]|0,$$
(60)
where $`Q`$ is the Supersymmetry generator that satisfies $`Q|0=0`$ and $`a_i^{}`$ are the creation operators for particles in the initial state. Application of Eq. (60) to states with three photons and a photino yields the following identities,

$`_{++++}`$ $``$ $`0,`$ (61)
$`_{+++}`$ $``$ $`0.`$ (62)
At tree level these identities are trivially satisfied due to the abelian nature of the photon. Beyond tree-level, couplings with the matter multiplet give rise to non-trivial interactions, that we investigate in the subsequent subsections. As mentioned in the introduction, we work in conventional dimensional regularisation and treat all momenta and Lorentz indices as $`n`$-dimensional. This breaks supersymmetry because the fermionic and bosonic degrees of freedom for the gauge multiplet are no longer equivalent. We therefore expect that there will be non-trivial corrections to the SUSY Ward identity that vanish in the 4-dimensional limit.

For convenience we decompose the helicity amplitudes perturbatively as

$$_{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4}=\alpha ^2\left(_{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4}^{(1)}+\frac{\alpha }{\pi }_{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4}^{(2)}+𝒪(\alpha ^2)\right).$$
(63)
### 4.2 One-loop SUSY QED helicity amplitudes

Because of the abelian nature of QED, there is no quartic photon coupling at tree level. At one-loop a four-point contribution is generated by the interaction of the photon with the matter multiplet. The one-loop amplitude can be decomposed according to gauge invariant subsets of graphs. There are two such groups at one-loop so that

$$^{(1)}=^{(1),S}+^{(1),F},$$
(64)
where the dependence on the helicities has been suppressed. These two contributions, $`^{(1),S}`$ and $`^{(1),F}`$, denote the scalar electron and electron loops respectively. In the Standard Model, only the electron loops, $`^{(1),F}`$, contribute. We find

$`_{++++}^{(1),S}`$ $`=`$ $`8+𝒪(ϵ),`$
$`_{++++}^{(1),F}`$ $`=`$ $`8+𝒪(ϵ),`$
$`_{+++}^{(1),S}`$ $`=`$ $`8+𝒪(ϵ),`$
$`_{+++}^{(1),F}`$ $`=`$ $`8+𝒪(ϵ),`$
$`_{++}^{(1),S}`$ $`=`$ $`42\left((XY)^2+\pi ^2\right)+4\left((XY)^2+\pi ^22(XY)\right){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{s^2}}`$
$`+\{ut\}+𝒪(ϵ),`$
$`_{++}^{(1),F}`$ $`=`$ $`44\left((XY)^2+\pi ^22(XY)\right){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{s^2}}`$ (65)
$`+\{ut\}+𝒪(ϵ),`$
where

$$X=\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{t}{s}\right),Y=\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{u}{s}\right).$$
(66)
Combining all graphs together, the one-loop light-by-light scattering amplitudes in SUSY QED are rather compact and are given by,

$`_{++++}^{(1)}`$ $``$ $`0`$
$`_{+++}^{(1)}`$ $``$ $`0`$
$`_{++}^{(1)}`$ $``$ $`4s(n4)\left(\mathrm{Box}^6(s,t)+\mathrm{Box}^6(s,u)\right)4s(n2)\mathrm{Box}^6(t,u)`$ (67)
$`=`$ $`4\left((XY)^2+\pi ^2\right)+𝒪(ϵ),`$
where $`\mathrm{Box}^6(s,t)`$ is the (infrared and ultraviolet finite) one-loop box graph in $`62ϵ`$ dimensions. At one-loop there is no contribution from the gauge multiplet and this is therefore the result for both $`N=1`$ and $`N=2`$ SUSY QED.

The fact that $`_{++++}^{(1)}`$ and $`_{+++}^{(1)}`$ both vanish is directly attributable to the SUSY Ward identity. The zeroes for $`_{++++}^{(1)}`$ and $`_{+++}^{(1)}`$ occur at the level of the master integrals, i.e. to all orders in $`n4`$. This is perhaps not surprising since although dimensional regularisation breaks the supersymmetry for the gauge multiplet, the photon and photino are not present as internal particles in any of the one-loop graphs. At this order, we are not sensitive to the SUSY breaking engendered by dimensional regularisation.

At one-loop we expect that amplitudes contain terms of weight 0, 1 and 2 (counting logarithms and $`\pi `$ as weight 1, squares of logarithms as weight 2 and constants (excluding $`\pi `$) as weight 0). By inspection of Eq. (65), we see that all such terms are present in the fermion and scalar contributions. However, the supersymmetric cancellation is such that only terms of weight 2 remain in Eq. (4.2), all weight 0 and weight 1 contributions are eliminated. We also note that terms proportional to ratios of the kinematic scales $`t^2/s^2`$ in the individual contributions (65) completely cancel in the supersymmetric result of Eq. (4.2).

### 4.3 Two-loop SUSY QED helicity amplitudes

Unlike the one-loop case, the chiral photino-electron-selectron coupling is present and it is necessary to address the issue of how to treat $`\gamma _5`$. Because of the parity invariance of the process, the scattering amplitude contains no antisymmetric part, indicating that the $`\gamma _5`$ contributions drop out. We can see this by considering a typical pair of diagrams with a photino exchange that are related by charge conjugation as shown in Fig. 1. Up to overall factors, the contribution from the first diagram is given by

$$I_1\frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{d^n\mathrm{}}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{Tr(P_R/\mathrm{}P_L/k\epsilon _1/k_1\epsilon _2/k_{12}\epsilon _3/k_{123}\epsilon _4/k)}{(k^2)^2(k_1)^2(k_{12})^2(k_{123})^2\mathrm{}^2(k\mathrm{})^2}$$
(68)
where $`k_{i\mathrm{}j}=k+p_i+\mathrm{}+p_j`$ and

$$P_L=\left(\frac{1\gamma _5}{2}\right),P_R=\left(\frac{1+\gamma _5}{2}\right).$$
(69)
Similarly the second graph is

$$I_2\frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{d^n\mathrm{}}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{Tr(P_R/\mathrm{}P_L/k\epsilon _4/k_4\epsilon _3/k_{34}\epsilon _2/k_{234}\epsilon _1/k)}{(k^2)^2(k_4)^2(k_{34})^2(k_{234})^2\mathrm{}^2(k\mathrm{})^2}.$$
(70)
Relabelling $`kk`$, $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ and using charge conjugation to reverse the trace, we find that,

$$I_2\frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{d^n\mathrm{}}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{Tr(P_L/\mathrm{}P_R/k\epsilon _1/k_1\epsilon _2/k_{12}\epsilon _3/k_{123}\epsilon _4/k)}{(k^2)^2(k_1)^2(k_{12})^2(k_{123})^2\mathrm{}^2(k\mathrm{})^2}$$
(71)
so that, up to common factors

$$I_1+I_2[P_R/\mathrm{}P_L+P_L/\mathrm{}P_R]\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{2}[/\mathrm{}\gamma _5/\mathrm{}\gamma _5]\mathrm{}.$$
(72)
As expected, traces with single $`\gamma _5`$ factors drop out entirely. Since the amplitudes are finite, we therefore use an anti-commuting $`\gamma _5`$ such that,

$$\frac{1}{2}[/\mathrm{}\gamma _5/\mathrm{}\gamma _5]=/\mathrm{}.$$
(73)
Similar arguments apply to the chiral couplings of the scalar photon with the electron.

#### 4.3.1 $`N=1`$ SUSY QED

As in the one-loop case, it is convenient to break the amplitude up according to the different gauge-invariant pieces so that

$$^{(2)}=^{(2),S}+^{(2),F}+^{(2),P}+^{(2),V},$$
(74)
where the dependence on the helicities has been suppressed. At two-loops there are contributions from photino exchange, $`^{(2),P}`$, and the four scalar vertex, $`^{(2),V}`$, as well as graphs where the electron or scalar electron couple directly to the photons, $`^{(2),F}`$ and $`^{(2),S}`$. Altogether there are 1902 Feynman graphs which we generate using QGRAF. Figures 2345 and 6 show the types of Feynman graphs relevant for the various contributions. Tadpole graphs and self-energies of external legs are not shown since they vanish in dimensional regularisation. We note that all of the possible diagrams are planar.

Explicit evaluation of the two-loop graphs yields rather lengthy results for the individual gauge invariant subsets, and we list them in Appendix B. Combining the various components according to Eq. (74) gives the following two-loop $`N=1`$ SUSY QED helicity amplitudes,

$`_{++++}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`0+𝒪(ϵ),`$
$`_{+++}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`0+𝒪(ϵ),`$
$`_{++}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`+(16\mathrm{Li}_4(y)+8(Y+2)\mathrm{Li}_3(y)+8Y\mathrm{Li}_3(x)`$ (75)
$`+8\left(XYY+X\right)\mathrm{Li}_2(y)16\zeta _3+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{45}}\pi ^4{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left(6Y+11+2XY\right)\pi ^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(X^4+6X^2Y^2+4XY^3+12XY4X^3+8Y^3))`$
$`+(16\mathrm{Li}_4(z)8(YX)\mathrm{Li}_3(y)8(YX)\mathrm{Li}_3(x)8XY\mathrm{Li}_2(y)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\pi ^28XY\right)\mathrm{Li}_2(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{15}}\pi ^4{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left(Y+2X\right)\left(YX\right)\pi ^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(4X^3+12X^3Y+12XY^212X^2Y4XY^3+Y^43X^4`$
$`30X^2Y^24Y^3)){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{s^2}}+8X^2{\displaystyle \frac{t}{u}}`$
$`+i\pi \{16X{\displaystyle \frac{t}{u}}+({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(YX)\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(YX){}_{}{}^{3}){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{s^2}}`$
$`+(16\mathrm{Li}_3(x)+8X\mathrm{Li}_2(y)+8X\mathrm{Li}_2(x)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(2Y1)\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}Y(6X6Y+Y^29XY12))\}`$
$`+\{ut\}+𝒪(ϵ),`$
where we have used the standard polylogarithm identities  to express our results in terms of a basis set of constants (where $`\zeta _n`$ is the Riemann Zeta function, $`\zeta _2=\pi ^2/6`$, $`\zeta _3=1.202056\mathrm{}`$), logarithms and polylogarithms $`\mathrm{Li}_n(w)`$ defined by

$`\mathrm{Li}_n(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^w}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}\mathrm{Li}_{n1}(t)\mathrm{for}n=2,3,4`$
$`\mathrm{Li}_2(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^w}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}\mathrm{log}(1t).`$ (76)
with arguments $`x`$, $`1x`$ and $`(x1)/x`$, where

$$x=\frac{t}{s},y=\frac{u}{s}=1x,z=\frac{u}{t}=\frac{x1}{x}.$$
(77)
In the physical region $`s>0`$ and $`t,u<0`$, our basis set of functions are all real.

As expected from the SUSY Ward identities, Eqs. (61) and (62), two of the helicity amplitudes vanish in the $`n4`$ limit. However, the identities are violated by terms of $`𝒪(ϵ)`$ which can be traced back to the SUSY breaking nature of dimensional regularisation.

The SUSY Ward identity does not require that $`_{++}`$ vanishes, but, as in the one-loop case, there are still significant cancellations and the full amplitude is somewhat more compact than the individual contributions (which are listed in Appendix B): In fact, at two-loops we expect that amplitudes contain terms up to weight 4 (counting $`\mathrm{Li}_n`$, $`\mathrm{ln}^n`$ and $`\zeta _n`$ as weight $`n`$, $`\mathrm{ln}^m\mathrm{Li}_n`$ as weight $`n+m`$ and so on). Each of the individual contributions for $`_{++}`$ listed in Appendix B, and in particular the fermion contribution $`_{++}^{(2),F}`$ that corresponds to the Standard Model ($`N=0`$ SUSY), demonstrates that all possible weights, $`0,\mathrm{},4`$, are present. However, we see that the $`N=1`$ SUSY amplitude of Eq. (75) contains terms of weight 2, 3 and 4 and that, as in the one-loop case, terms of weight 0 and 1 cancel. We also note that the individual contributions contain terms proportional to the dimensionless ratios, $`t^4/u^2s^2`$, $`t^2/s^2`$, $`t/u`$ (and $`tu`$), while in the combination selected by $`N=1`$ SUSY, (75), the terms proportional to $`t^4/u^2s^2`$ drop out.

#### 4.3.2 $`N=2`$ SUSY QED

For $`N=2`$ SUSY, there are additional contributions from the gaugino, the scalar photon and the modified quartic scalar electron interactions. In terms of the different gauge-invariant pieces we find that

$$^{(2)}=^{(2),S}+^{(2),F}+2^{(2),P}+3^{(2),V}+^{(2),X},$$
(78)
where again the dependence on the helicities has been suppressed. Here, $`^{(2),X}`$ denotes the 144 graphs involving the scalar photon while the factors of 2 and 3 multiplying the photino and four-point scalar electron contributions respectively reflect the aditional photino and the modified scalar electron interactions of the $`N=2`$ SUSY theory.

Combining the individual gauge invariant contributions listed in Appendix B according to Eq. (78), we find the $`N=2`$ SUSY QED helicity amplitudes are rather compact and are given by,

$`_{++++}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`0+𝒪(ϵ),`$
$`_{+++}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`0+𝒪(ϵ),`$
$`_{++}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`(16\mathrm{Li}_4(y)+8Y\mathrm{Li}_3(x)+8Y\mathrm{Li}_3(y)+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{45}}\pi ^4{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}XY\pi ^2`$ (79)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}Y^3(Y4X))`$
$`+i\pi \left\{\left(16\mathrm{Li}_3(x){\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}Y\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}Y^2\left(Y3X\right)\right)\right\}`$
$`+\{ut\}+𝒪(ϵ).`$
As expected, two of the helicity amplitudes vanish as $`n4`$ due to the SUSY Ward identity. The remaning non-trivial helicity amplitude is considerably simpler than that obtained in either pure QED  (see the fermion loop contributions in Appendix B) or the $`N=1`$ SUSY QED helicity amplitudes of Eq. (75). In particular, we note that only terms of weight 4 remain, the contributions of weight 2 and 3 (that were present in the $`N=1`$ case) have cancelled. Furthermore, all terms depending on the ratios of kinematic scales have dropped out.

## 5 Summary

We have demonstrated that the method based on $`n`$-dimensional projections is able to generate helicity amplitudes in an efficient way. We have been able to confirm the previous results for photon-photon scattering via a charged fermion loop obtained by helicity methods in the high energy limit where the fermion mass can be ignored. The method can, in principle, be used for more complicated processes, involving massive particles in the loop, non-abelian fields and/or more external vertices. The method is constructed such that one can use standard $`n`$-dimensional Lorentz covariant reduction techniques for tensor-integrals not only for squared matrix elements, but also for helicity amplitudes.

As an application we studied photon-photon scattering in the theoretically interesting cases of $`N=1`$ and $`N=2`$ supersymmetric QED. Because the process is both ultraviolet and infrared convergent, the results are explicitly supersymmetric in $`n=4`$, which is sufficient to draw conclusions regarding SUSY cancellations. We have not addressed the question of whether the method can be used to define supersymmetric amplitudes also at higher order in $`(n4)`$. However, we expect that the situation here will be similar to that found using other techniques, where explicit terms proportional to $`(n4)`$ have to be added in order to preserve the SUSY Ward identities at all orders in $`(n4)`$.

The results we found have an interesting pattern of simplification as one increases the number of supersymmetries. In normal QED, corresponding to $`N=0`$ supersymmetries, one finds three independent amplitudes. For supersymmetric theories, two of these helicity amplitudes vanish. This is well understood on the basis of the supersymmetric Ward identity. An intricate pattern of cancellations occurs in the remaining (non-trivial) amplitude, $`_{++}`$, as $`N`$ is increased, both in terms of the dimensionless ratios of kinematic scales and in the weights of the functions present in the amplitude.

First, considering the one-loop level, one finds in normal ($`N=0`$) QED terms proportional to the dimensionless ratios $`t^2/s^2`$ and $`u^2/s^2`$ together with weights of logarithm of 0,1, 2 (see Eq. (65). In the supersymmetric case (4.2), there are no dimensionless ratios and there is a uniform weight of 2 for the logarithms.

At the two-loop level, the pattern is similar, see Tables 1 and 2. Normal ($`N=0`$) QED contains powers of $`t/s`$ up to 4 and all weights of logarithm from 0 to 4. The $`N=1`$ case shows some simplifications, powers of $`t/s`$ exist only up to squares and the logarithmic terms have weights 2, 3, 4. Finally in the $`N=2`$ theory there are no powers of $`t/s`$ in the amplitudes and the logarithms are uniformly of weight 4. We see therefore, that increasing the number of supersymmetries reduces the complexity of the amplitudes and that the $`N=2`$ theory is maximally simplified. A conjecture would be that this pattern persists in higher orders of perturbation theory, where one would expect no powers and a weight of two times the level of loops in the logarithms. This pattern might be explainable by performing similar calculations in superspace.

## Acknowledgements

We thank Valya Khoze, Adrian Signer, Bas Tausk and Georg Weiglein for helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by the UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, by the EU Fifth Framework Programme ‘Improving Human Potential’, Research Training Network ‘Particle Physics Phenomenology at High Energy Colliders’, contract HPRN-CT-2000-00149 and by the DFG-Forschergruppe Quantenfeldtheorie, Computeralgebra und Monte-Carlo Simulation. We thank the British Council and German Academic Exchange Service for support under ARC project 1050. PM acknowledges the support of the German Academic Exchange Service.

## Appendix A The SUSY QED Feynman Rules

The Feynman rules for the SUSY QED Lagrangians of Eqs. (1) and (3) with all momenta incoming are given by,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{}\hfill & ie\gamma ^\mu \hfill \\ \text{}\hfill & ie(p_1^\mu p_2^\mu )\hfill \\ \text{}\hfill & 2ie^2g^{\mu \nu }\hfill \\ \text{}\hfill & \{\begin{array}{cc}2ie^2i=j\hfill & \\ ie^2ij,\hfill & N=1\\ +ie^2ij,\hfill & N=2\end{array}\hfill \\ \text{}\hfill & \{\begin{array}{cc}ie\sqrt{2}P_R\stackrel{~}{e}=\varphi _L^{},\hfill & \stackrel{~}{\gamma }=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1\\ ie\sqrt{2}P_L\stackrel{~}{e}=\varphi _L^{},\hfill & \stackrel{~}{\gamma }=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2\\ +ie\sqrt{2}P_L\stackrel{~}{e}=\varphi _R^+,\hfill & \stackrel{~}{\gamma }=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1\\ ie\sqrt{2}P_R\stackrel{~}{e}=\varphi _R^+,\hfill & \stackrel{~}{\gamma }=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2\end{array}\hfill \\ \text{}\hfill & \{\begin{array}{cc}ie\sqrt{2}P_L\stackrel{~}{e}=\varphi _L^{},\hfill & \stackrel{~}{\gamma }=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1\\ ie\sqrt{2}P_R\stackrel{~}{e}=\varphi _L^{},\hfill & \stackrel{~}{\gamma }=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2\\ +ie\sqrt{2}P_R\stackrel{~}{e}=\varphi _R^+,\hfill & \stackrel{~}{\gamma }=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1\\ ie\sqrt{2}P_L\stackrel{~}{e}=\varphi _R^+,\hfill & \stackrel{~}{\gamma }=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2\end{array}\hfill \\ \text{}\hfill & \{\begin{array}{c}ie\sqrt{2}P_L\mathrm{\Phi }^0=\varphi ^0\hfill \\ ie\sqrt{2}P_R\mathrm{\Phi }^0=\varphi ^0\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(80)
where the photon, electron, scalar electron, photino and scalar photon are denoted by wavy, solid, dashed, overlaid solid and wavy and overlaid dashed and wavy lines respectively.

## Appendix B Two-loop contributions to the helicity amplitudes

In this appendix we list the individual contributions to the two-loop helicity amplitudes. There are five separate gauge invarariant contributions, loops with scalar particles coupling to photons, electron loops, photino exchange graphs, diagrams with the four scalar vertex and graphs involving the scalar photon. We find that individual two-loop contributions are given by,

$`_{++++}^{(2),S}`$ $`=`$ $`6`$
$`_{++++}^{(2),F}`$ $`=`$ $`12`$
$`_{++++}^{(2),P}`$ $`=`$ $`+24`$
$`_{++++}^{(2),V}`$ $`=`$ $`6`$
$`_{++++}^{(2),X}`$ $`=`$ $`12`$ (81)
$`_{+++}^{(2),S}`$ $`=`$ $`4X^2{\displaystyle \frac{t^4}{u^2s^2}}+\left(\pi ^22\left(2Y+XY3X^2\right)\right)4X\left(2+3X\right){\displaystyle \frac{t}{u}}`$
$`+\left(2\pi ^22\left(2Y2X2XY3X^2+3Y^2\right)\right){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{s^2}}`$
$`+i\pi \left\{8\left(1+3X\right){\displaystyle \frac{t}{u}}+4\left(1+2X\right)8\left(2X+Y\right){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{s^2}}8X{\displaystyle \frac{t^4}{u^2s^2}}\right\}`$
$`+\{ut\}`$
$`_{+++}^{(2),F}`$ $`=`$ $`2X^2{\displaystyle \frac{t^4}{u^2s^2}}\left(X^2+2Y\right)2X\left(2+3X\right){\displaystyle \frac{t}{u}}`$
$`+\left(\pi ^2\left(2Y2X2XY3X^2+3Y^2\right)\right){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{s^2}}`$
$`+i\pi \left\{4\left(1+3X\right){\displaystyle \frac{t}{u}}+2\left(X1\right)4\left(2X+Y\right){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{s^2}}4X{\displaystyle \frac{t^4}{u^2s^2}}\right\}`$
$`+\{ut\}`$
$`_{+++}^{(2),P}`$ $`=`$ $`6X^2{\displaystyle \frac{t^4}{u^2s^2}}+\left(\pi ^2+\left(6Y7X^2+2XY\right)\right)+6X\left(2+3X\right){\displaystyle \frac{t}{u}}`$
$`+\left(3\pi ^2+3\left(2Y2X2XY3X^2+3Y^2\right)\right){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{s^2}}`$
$`+i\pi \left\{12\left(1+3X\right){\displaystyle \frac{t}{u}}2\left(5X3\right)+12\left(2X+Y\right){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{s^2}}+12X{\displaystyle \frac{t^4}{u^2s^2}}\right\}`$
$`+\{ut\}`$
$`_{+++}^{(2),X}`$ $`=`$ $`_{+++}^{(2),P}`$
$`_{+++}^{(2),V}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (82)
$`_{++}^{(2),S}`$ $`=`$ $`4X^2{\displaystyle \frac{t^4}{u^2s^2}}8X\left(X+1\right){\displaystyle \frac{t}{u}}`$
$`+(16\mathrm{Li}_4(x)8(Y2)\mathrm{Li}_3(y)8\mathrm{Li}_3(x)Y8(XY+XY)\mathrm{Li}_2(x)`$
$`16\zeta _3{\displaystyle \frac{31}{45}}\pi ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\left(3Y3X^2+2XY\right)\pi ^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(24X^2318X^2Y^248X+8Y^3+24XY))`$
$`+(16\mathrm{Li}_4(z)32\mathrm{Li}_4(y)32\mathrm{Li}_4(x)`$
$`+8\left(2+Y+3X\right)\mathrm{Li}_3(y)+8\left(Y+3X+2\right)\mathrm{Li}_3(x)+8\mathrm{Li}_2(y)XY`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\pi ^2+8\left(2Y2X+XY\right)\right)\mathrm{Li}_2(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{112}{45}}\pi ^4`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\left(6XY+4Y+Y^2+32X+X^2\right)\pi ^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(9X^2+X^4+6X^2Y9X^2Y^24X^3Y+6XY^26Y2X^3+2Y^3`$
$`+6X+6XY)){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{s^2}}`$
$`+i\pi \{8(1+2X){\displaystyle \frac{t}{u}}8X{\displaystyle \frac{t^4}{u^2s^2}}`$
$`+(16\mathrm{Li}_3(y)8X\mathrm{Li}_2(y)8\mathrm{Li}_2(x)X+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\pi ^2Y`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(6Y^2126XY9XY^2+Y^3))`$
$`+(32\mathrm{Li}_3(y)+32\mathrm{Li}_3(x)+32Y\mathrm{Li}_2(y)+32(Y1)\mathrm{Li}_2(x)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\left(2+5Y+3X\right)\pi ^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(9X^2Y+6Y^227XY^2+12XY+6Y12X6X^2+Y^3+3X^3)){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{s^2}}\}`$
$`+\{ut\}`$
$`_{++}^{(2),F}`$ $`=`$ $`2X^2{\displaystyle \frac{t^4}{u^2s^2}}`$ (83)
$`+(16\mathrm{Li}_3(y)+8(YX)\mathrm{Li}_2(x)16\zeta _3{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(5+6Y)\pi ^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(6Y^2+12XY+4Y^3312Y))4X{\displaystyle \frac{t}{u}}`$
$`+(16\mathrm{Li}_4(z)16\mathrm{Li}_4(y)16\mathrm{Li}_4(x)+8(1+2X)\mathrm{Li}_3(y)`$
$`+8\left(1+2X\right)\mathrm{Li}_3(x)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\pi ^28\left(X+Y\right)\right)\mathrm{Li}_2(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{9}}\pi ^4`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(Y^2+2XYYX3+X^2)\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(5X^46XY^212Y10X^3+Y^4`$
$`18X^24XY^320X^3Y+6X^2Y^2+12XY+12X+10Y^3+30X^2Y)){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{s^2}}`$
$`+i\pi \{4{\displaystyle \frac{t}{u}}+({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\pi ^2+8(XY+Y1+Y^2))4X{\displaystyle \frac{t^4}{u^2s^2}}`$
$`+(16\mathrm{Li}_3(y)+16\mathrm{Li}_3(x)+16Y\mathrm{Li}_2(y)+16(Y1)\mathrm{Li}_2(x)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\left(1+2Y+2X\right)\pi ^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(12XY^23Y+6X^2Y3Y^22X^3+6X+3X^26XY)){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{s^2}}\}`$
$`+\{ut\}`$
$`_{++}^{(2),P}`$ $`=`$ $`6X^2{\displaystyle \frac{t^4}{u^2s^2}}+4X\left(4X+3\right){\displaystyle \frac{t}{u}}`$
$`+(32\mathrm{Li}_4(x)+16\mathrm{Li}_3(y)Y+16(Y1)\mathrm{Li}_3(x)+8(YX)\mathrm{Li}_2(y)`$
$`+16\mathrm{Li}_2(x)YX+16\zeta _3+{\displaystyle \frac{47}{45}}\pi ^4{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left(6XY2X^26X5\right)\pi ^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(15X^2Y^218Y^2+12XY636Y4X^3Y+Y^4+4Y^3))`$
$`+(16\mathrm{Li}_4(z)+48\mathrm{Li}_4(y)+48\mathrm{Li}_4(x)8(3+2Y+4X)\mathrm{Li}_3(y)`$
$`8\left(2Y+4X+3\right)\mathrm{Li}_3(x)16\mathrm{Li}_2(y)XY`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\pi ^28\left(3Y+2XY3X\right)\right)\mathrm{Li}_2(x){\displaystyle \frac{16}{5}}\pi ^4`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left(11Y+2Y^216XY5X+9+2X^2\right)\pi ^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(18Y+3X^4+15XY^227X^27X^3+Y^430X^2Y^24XY^3`$
$`12X^3Y+18XY+18X+7Y^3+21X^2Y)){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{s^2}}`$
$`+i\pi \{4(3+8X){\displaystyle \frac{t}{u}}+12X{\displaystyle \frac{t^4}{u^2s^2}}`$
$`+(32\mathrm{Li}_3(x)+16X\mathrm{Li}_2(y)+16\mathrm{Li}_2(x)X{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(4Y+1)\pi ^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}(3Y9XY^23XY+Y^3+3X^29))`$
$`+(48\mathrm{Li}_3(y)48\mathrm{Li}_3(x)48Y\mathrm{Li}_2(y)48(Y1)\mathrm{Li}_2(x)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(3+8Y+4X)\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(2Y^3+9Y+9Y^218X`$
$`12X^2Y42XY^2+4X^39X^2+18XY)){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{s^2}}\}`$
$`+\{ut\}`$
$`_{++}^{(2),X}`$ $`=`$ $`6X^2{\displaystyle \frac{t^4}{u^2s^2}}12X\left(2X+1\right){\displaystyle \frac{t}{u}}`$
$`+(32\mathrm{Li}_4(y)16X\mathrm{Li}_3(x)16X\mathrm{Li}_3(y){\displaystyle \frac{47}{45}}\pi ^4{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(1+2X^2)\pi ^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(34X^3Y18Y^23X^2Y^2+Y^436Y))`$
$`+(48\mathrm{Li}_4(y)48\mathrm{Li}_4(x)+24(1+Y+X)\mathrm{Li}_3(x)+24(Y+X1)\mathrm{Li}_3(y)`$
$`24\left(Y+X\right)\mathrm{Li}_2(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{47}{15}}\pi ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left(13Y+3X^2+97X+3Y^212XY\right)\pi ^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(12X^3Y36Y+36X10X^3+3X^454X^2+30X^2Y+3Y^4`$
$`+10Y^312XY^3+42XY^2+36XY18X^2Y^2)){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{s^2}}`$
$`+i\pi \{12(1+4X){\displaystyle \frac{t}{u}}12X{\displaystyle \frac{t^4}{u^2s^2}}`$
$`+\left(32\mathrm{Li}_3(y)+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}X\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\left(9+Y^33X^2Y9Y\right)\right)`$
$`+(48\mathrm{Li}_3(x)+48\mathrm{Li}_3(y)48\mathrm{Li}_2(x)4(Y+X1)\pi ^2`$
$`4(6XY+X^33X^23XY^26X3X^2Y+3Y^2+3Y+Y^3)){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{s^2}}\}`$
$`+\{ut\}`$
$`_{++}^{(2),V}`$ $`=`$ $`1`$ (84)
The contribution from fermion exchange $`^{(2),F}`$ has previously been computed in Ref.  and we find complete agreement with the results presented there once the different definitions of the helicity amplitudes are taken into account.