format: text

text:
# Hyperon polarization in 𝜈_𝜇 charged current interaction at the NOMAD energies

We show that, in $`\nu _\mu N\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }X`$ at the NOMAD energies, it is impossible to separate the products of the fragmentation of the struck quark from those of the nucleon remnant. The latter has a large contribution even in the current fragmentation region and has to be taken into account in calculating $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization using different pictures. Based on this, we make a rough estimation for the longitudinal $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization in $`\nu _\mu N\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }X`$ at the NOMAD energies. A comparison with the data is given and predictions for $`\nu _\mu N\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+X`$ are presented.

Longitudinal hyperon polarizations in lepton induced reactions have attracted much attention recently (See, e.g., \[References-References\] and the references given there) since they provide an important tool to study the spin transfer in high energy fragmentation processes. Spin transfer in fragmentation is defined as the probability for the polarization of the fragmenting quark to be transferred to the produced hadron. It is one of the important issues in the spin effects in the fragmentation processes. The study is of particular interest because it is still unclear whether the SU(6) or the DIS picture is suitable for the description of this problem. Hyperon polarization in lepton induced reactions is an ideal place to study this problem since here the polarization of the fragmenting quark can easily be calculated and the hyperon polarization can easily be measured by measuring the angular distribution of its decay products. At sufficiently high energies the hadrons produced in the current fragmentation region of the deeply inelastic lepton-nucleon scattering can be regarded as being completely from the struck quark fragmentation. Therefore it can be used to study the spin transfer from the fragmenting quark to the produced hadron. Theoretical calculations using different models have been made and predictions have been given.

It is encouraging to see that measurements of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization in deeply inelastic scattering have been carried out by HERMES at HERA and NOMAD at CERN. They respectively measured the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization in $`e^+pe^+\mathrm{\Lambda }X`$ at $`E_e=27.6`$ GeV and in $`\nu _\mu N\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }X`$ at, on the average, $`E_\nu =44`$ GeV. In particular, NOMAD has measured it with rather high accuracy and has obtained the $`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s for both target and current fragmentation regions, hence also its $`x_F`$ dependence. \[Here, $`x_F2p_{}/W`$, $`p_{}`$ and $`W`$ are respectively the momentum component of the produced hyperon parallel to the virtual boson direction and the total energy of the produced hadronic system in the center of mass (c.m.) frame of the system\]. However, if we compare the NOMAD data with the theoretical predictions in \[References,References-References\], we see the following distinct difference: While all the theoretical results go to zero when $`x_F`$ goes to zero, the data show that $`|P_\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$ rises monotonically when $`x_F`$ decreases from positive to negative. It does not go to zero when $`x_F`$ goes to zero. What does this tell us? Does it imply that none of the pictures in \[References,References-References\] for spin transfer in high-energy fragmentation processes is applicable in $`\nu _\mu N\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }X`$?

In this note, we show that the answer to the question should be “No!” This is because, in all of the above-mentioned calculations, only the struck quark fragmentation has been taken into account and the influence from the fragmentation of the remnant of the scattered nucleon was neglected. This is a good approximation only at high energies. In contrast, in the NOMAD or HERMES energy region, the influence of the fragmentation of the nucleon remnant is usually very large. We have to take them into account in particular in the region near $`x_F=0`$. We will show our results from a Monte-Carlo calculation using the event generator lepto and make a rough estimation of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization by taking the fragmentation of the nucleon remnant into account using a valence quark model.

We recall that, in deeply inelastic lepton-nucleon scattering, we are usually envisaged with the following picture: During the collision, a quark (or an anti-quark) was struck by the exchanged virtual boson. Viewed in the c.m. frame of the hadronic system, the struck quark (anti-quark) flies in the opposite direction as the nucleon remnant. The system, which consists of the struck quark and the nucleon remnant, then fragments into the produced hadrons. At sufficiently high $`W`$, the hadronization products which contain the struck quark and those which contain one or more of the valence quarks of the nucleon remnant are usually the leading particles in the two opposite directions. Their $`x_F`$’s are usually large in magnitude and opposite in sign so that they are well separated from each other. When we study the hyperon polarization in the large and positive $`x_F`$ region, i.e. in the current fragmentation region, we need only to take the fragmentation of the struck quark into account but the influence of the nucleon remnant can be neglected. However, in e.g. the NOMAD experiments, where $`\nu _\mu N\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }X`$ is studied, the incident energies of $`\nu _\mu `$ lies between $`10`$ and $`50`$ GeV, and $`W`$ is only several GeV. In this case, the number of the produced hadrons is usually very small. The $`|x_F|`$ for the hadrons which contain the struck quark or one or more of the valence quarks of the nucleon remnant can also be very small. It is even possible that they move in the opposite direction as the quark did before the fragmentation. As a consequence, it is impossible to separate the fragmentation products of the struck quark and those of the nucleon remnant from each other, even at relatively large $`x_F`$. In particular, in the region of $`x_F0`$, the contributions from the nucleon remnant can be very important.

To study this effect explicitly, we now take $`\nu _\mu p\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }X`$ as an example. At the relatively low energies, we consider only the valence quarks of proton thus are envisaged with the following picture: In the collision, a $`d`$-quark in proton is knocked out and converted to a $`u`$-quark, which flies in the opposite direction as the remaining $`(uu)`$-diquark. This $`u`$-$`(uu)`$ system then fragments into hadrons. There are following possibilities to produce a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which contains one of the three $`u`$-quarks:

* directly produced and contains the struck $`u`$;
* directly produced and contains one of the $`u`$ from the $`(uu)`$-diquark;
* decay product of a directly produced hyperon resonance that contains the struck $`u`$;
* decay product of a directly produced hyperon resonance that contains the two $`u`$’s or one of them from the $`(uu)`$-diquark.

In the cases (1) and (3), the vacuum excitation of a diquark-anti-diquark pair is needed. There should be at least one more baryon and an anti-baryon produced, i.e., there should be at least two baryons and one anti-baryon produced in the reaction. In the cases (2) and (4), there is no need for such vacuum excitation and there can be only one baryon produced. Since the total c.m. energy of the $`u`$-$`(uu)`$-system $`W`$ is only several GeV, the probabilities for the cases (1) and (3) should be much more suppressed compared with those for the cases (2) and (4). Also because the energy of any one of the $`u`$’s in the $`(uu)`$-diquark is quite low, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ produced in case (2) and (4) may not necessarily fly in the same direction as the original $`u`$-quark. It can also be in the opposite direction. In particular in the $`x_F0`$ region, the contributions from the cases (2) and (4) can dominate.

Since whether the cases (2) and (4) dominate and, if yes, how strongly they dominate the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ production in $`\nu _\mu p\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }X`$, are questions independent of the spin transfer in fragmentation process, we can study them using a hadronization model which give a good description of the properties of the hadrons produced in unpolarized reactions. We thus use the event generator lepto based on Lund model to make the numerical estimations. We generated about $`10^7`$ $`\nu _\mu p\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }X`$ events, analyzed the origins of the produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s and obtained the results shown in Fig.1. From the figure, we see clearly that the contributions from the cases (2) and (4) are important. They are much higher than those from the cases (1) and (3) in the region near $`x_F=0`$. Hence, to calculate the polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in $`\nu _\mu p\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }X`$ at such energies, in particular for $`x_F0`$, we have to take the fragmentation of the nucleon remnant into account.

Having seen that the contributions from the nucleon remnant are indeed very important in the NOMAD energy region, we now calculate the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization in $`\nu _\mu N\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }X`$ by taking them into account. Apparently, the detailed results should depend very much on the polarizations of the quarks in the nucleon remnant, which are unclear yet. It is thus impossible to make a detailed calculation at present. However, since the energies are relatively low, the characteristic features of the results should be mainly determined by the valence quarks. We therefore make a rough estimation using a valence quark model to calculate the polarizations of the quarks in the nucleon remnant in the following.

Since we take only the valence quarks in the nucleon into account, the leading order hard subprocess in $`\nu _\mu N\mu ^{}HX`$ can only be $`\nu _\mu d\mu ^{}u`$. According to the standard model for electro-weak interaction, the polarization of the outgoing struck quark is $`P_u^{(stru)}=1`$. We neglect the mass of the quarks, hence the helicity of the quark is conserved in the process $`\nu _\mu d\mu ^{}u`$. So the $`d`$-quark was also in the helicity “$``$” state before the scattering. For the reaction $`\nu _\mu p\mu ^{}HX`$, the nucleon remnant is a $`(uu)`$-diquark. If the proton was in the helicity “+” state, the remaining $`(uu)`$-diquark has to be in $`(uu)_{1,1}`$ state. (Here we use the subscripts to denote the spin and its component along the moving direction of the outgoing struck quark in the c.m. frame of the hadronic system. The minus sign is because the moving direction of the outgoing struck quark is opposite to that of the diquark.) The relative probability, obtained from the SU(6) wave function, is $`2/3`$. If the proton is in the helicity “$``$” state, the remaining $`(uu)`$-diquark has to be in $`(uu)_{1,0}`$ state, and the relative probability is $`1/3`$. Hence, the $`u`$-quark in the nucleon remnant is polarized and the polarization is $`P_u^{(di,p)}=2/3`$. For the reaction $`\nu _\mu n\mu ^{}HX`$, the nucleon remnant is a $`(ud)`$-diquark. Similarly, we obtain that this $`(ud)`$-diquark can be in the $`(ud)_{1,1}`$, $`(ud)_{1,0}`$ or $`(ud)_{0,0}`$ state, and the relative probability is $`1/6`$, $`1/12`$ or $`3/4`$ respectively. Hence, the polarization of the $`u`$\- or $`d`$-quark in the neutron remnant is $`P_u^{(di,n)}=P_d^{(di,n)}=2/3`$ if it is from the spin-1 $`(ud)`$-diquark or $`P_u^{(di,n)}=P_d^{(di,n)}=0`$ if it is from the spin-0 $`(ud)`$-diquark.

All these polarizations can be transferred to the hyperons produced in the hadronization. We calculate the polarizations for the hyperons of the different origins in the following ways: For those which are directly produced and contain the struck quark or one of the quarks in the nucleon remnant, we calculate in the same way as we did in \[References,References,References,References\] for $`qHX`$ using two different pictures, i.e. the SU(6) and the DIS pictures. For those which are directly produced and contain the diquark, we calculate using the SU(6) wave-function. The polarization of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the final state in $`\nu _\mu p\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }X`$ is given by,

$$P_\mathrm{\Lambda }=[P_u^{(stru)}t_{\mathrm{\Lambda },u}^Fn_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}+P_u^{(di,p)}t_{\mathrm{\Lambda },u}^Fn_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}+\underset{j}{}t_{\mathrm{\Lambda },Hj}^DP_{Hj}n_{\mathrm{\Lambda },Hj}]/n_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(total)}.$$
(1)
where $`n_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}`$ and $`n_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}`$ are the average numbers of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s of the origins (1) and (2) mentioned above respectively, and $`n_{\mathrm{\Lambda },H_j}`$ is that from the decay of $`H_j`$’s; $`P_{H_j}`$ is the polarization of $`H_j`$; $`n_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(total)}`$ is the total number of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s. These average numbers are determined by the hadronization mechanisms, and we just use the results obtained from lepto. $`t_{\mathrm{\Lambda },u}^F`$ is the fragmentation polarization transfer factor, which is the probability for the polarization of $`u`$-quark to be transferred to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ if the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ contains this $`u`$-quark. It is different in the SU(6) or the DIS picture. $`t_{H_i,H_j}^D`$ is the decay polarization transfer factor determined by the decay process. For details of $`t_{\mathrm{\Lambda },u}^F`$ and $`t_{H_i,H_j}^D`$, see e.g. \[References\] and the references given there.

After the calculations, we obtain the longitudinal polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in $`\nu _\mu p\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }X`$ and $`\nu _\mu n\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }X`$ at $`E_\nu =44`$GeV as shown in Figs.2a and 2b. To show the influence of the nucleon remnant fragmentation, in the figures, we show also the results in the case when only the struck quark fragmentation is taken into account. From Fig.2a, we see that the contributions from the $`(uu)`$-diquark fragmentation are indeed very large, even at $`x_F>0`$. In fact, the characteristic features of the results in the region around $`x_F0`$ are mainly determined by the $`(uu)`$-diquark fragmentation. E.g., we see that, in this region, $`P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(L)}`$ is negative and $`|P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(L)}|`$ increases with decreasing $`x_F`$. This is determined by the decay contribution of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$’s which contain the $`(uu)`$ diquarks. It contributes negatively to $`P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(L)}`$ and the contribution increases with the decreasing $`x_F`$. Compare the results in Fig.2a with those in Fig.2b, we see that, $`P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(L)}`$ for $`\nu _\mu n\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }X`$ differs greatly from that for $`\nu _\mu p\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }X`$. It is very small in the whole $`x_F`$ region. This is because the contributions from the decay of the heavier hyperons which contain the $`(ud)_1`$ or a $`u`$\- or a $`d`$-quark from $`(ud)_1`$ are different in sign and cancel with each other. Since NOMAD has approximately an isobar target, the NOMAD data corresponds approximately to a mixture of $`(2/3)`$ n- and $`(1/3)`$ p-targets. We add the results with these weights and compare the obtained results with the data in Fig.2c. We see that the qualitative features of the results agree with the data.

We also made similar calculations for $`P_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(L)}`$ in $`\nu _\mu N\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+X`$ and obtained the results in Fig.3. The advantage to study $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ instead of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is that the decay contributions to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ are much smaller. The major contribution to $`\nu _\mu p\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+X`$ is from the $`(uu)`$ fragmentation. The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$’s which contain the $`(uu)`$-diquark dominate for most $`x_F`$. This is why we see that the obtained $`P_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(L)}`$ is negative and its absolute value is very large for $`\nu _\mu p\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+X`$. These can be checked by future experiments.

It should be noted that, almost at the same time, another group has carried out the similar calculations as presented in this paper independently using a different model for the spin transfer in the fragmentation of diquarks. The aim of the authors was to use $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization in such process to study the polarization of the strange sea in nucleon. Assuming that there is a correlation between the polarization of the strange sea and that of the struck quark (which was not included in our calculations), they obtained a good fit to the NOMAD data. The authors also found similar effect which confirms the conclusion that we present above and briefly reported earlier in the conference talks. We also note that, in our calculations, we used the default set of parameters in jetset, and such set of parameters may not, as pointed out in \[References\], reproduce the data on the average numbers of the strange baryons produced in the process. However, since we are interested in the relative contributions of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ from the different sources (1) to (4) mentioned above, this may be not very sensitive to our results in particular the qualitative conclusions we reached above. More precisely, there should be little influence from the parameters such as the overall strange suppression etc. But there can be some influence from the parameters such as decuplet baryon production suppression etc since a large part of the contribution from the diquark fragmentation come from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ decay. To see whether this is true, we tuned the related parameters and repeated the calculations. We found out that there are indeed some influence on the quantitative results but the qualitative features remain.

In summary, we show that the products from the fragmentation of the struck quark and those of the nucleon remnant can not be separated from each other in the NOMAD energy region. The latter gives the dominant contribution in the region around $`x_F0`$ and the characteristic features of the hyperon polarization in this region are determined by this contribution. We made a rough estimation of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarizations by taking the fragmentation of the nucleon remnant into account and the results are consistent with the NOMAD data. Further predictions for $`\nu _\mu N\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+X`$ are made.

We are in debt to Dr. D. Naumov, who suggested us to make the research in the target fragmentation region and continuously communicated with us on different aspects. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation of China (NSFC), the Education Ministry of China under Huo Ying-dong Foundation, and the Postdoctoral Science Foundation of China.


text:
# SELF-COLLIMATION AND MAGNETIC FIELD GENERATION OF ASTROPHYSICAL JETS

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Now, there still exist some challenging problems unsolved on astrophysical jets: these include the acceleration (Blandford & Payne 1982), collimation, and stability (Benford 1978; Appl & Camenzind 1992). For the past decades, substantial studies have been devoted to investigating the directional mass acceleration based on the magnetohydrodynamics (MHD; Shibata & Uchida 1986, 1990; Cao & Spruit 1994; Bell 1994; Matsumoto et al. 1996; Kudoh & Shibata 1997a, 1997b) and radiative (Tajima & Fukue 1996, 1998; Fukue, Tojyo, & Hirai 2001) mechanism around the central engine of the accretion disk. Koide, Nishikawa, & Mutel (1996) have performed the numerical simulation of a relativistic MHD (RMHD) jet injected into a poloidal magnetic field. The three-dimensional RMHD simulations are in progress worldwide (Nishikawa et al. 1997; Aloy et al. 1999). In addition, Carilli & Barthel (1996) have proposed the ballistic, pressure-matched jets whose internal pressure was assumed to be comparable to or even less than the external one.

On the other hand, one can find observational evidence that the energy density of jets is larger than that of the cocoon or intergalactic medium (e.g., 4C 32.69; Pottash & Wardle 1980). Recent rotation measures using very long baseline interferometry (VLBI) also reveal that the direction of magnetic field vectors is likely to be transverse to the jet axis (e.g., 1803+784; Gabuzda 1999). In some cases, the transverse fields are so smooth that one can barely discriminate the knots, and it seems difficult to wholly understand such polarization properties by invoking a trail of oblique compressional shocks. A puzzling question is, therefore, how to demonstrate the orientation of magnetic fields as well as the related self-collimation mechanism, which must sustain the large-scale structure as observed. Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, there is no publication that proposes such a coherent scenario in the context of astrophysical jets, especially active galactic nucleus (AGN) jets, which extend up to megaparsec scales (Mpc $`3\times 10^{24}\mathrm{cm}`$) with narrow opening angles $`(\mathrm{}\varphi 1^{})`$ in some objects (e.g., NGC 6251: Bridle & Perley 1984; Cyg A: Carilli et al. 1998; M87, PKS 0637-752: Hirabayashi 2001).

We address in this Letter that the toroidal (transverse) magnetic field induced by electron-positron flow is a favored candidate for the collimation force of the AGN jets. We find that the screening effects of electron-positron-ion plasmas play a significant role in the self-organization of the filament envelopes, whose radii exceedingly stretch in the positron-rich regimes. The screening by the pairs and the diffuse envelope prevent jets from the snakelike distortion. A scaling law of the maximum possible magnetic fields is displayed as a matter of convenience. We expect that the present model is also applicable to Galactic jets, except for neutral flows from protostars, and so on (Tajima & Shibata 1997).

The key issue discussed here is the recurrence of the ”plasma universe” model proposed by Alfvén (1981), which is relevant to cosmic ray generation and transport involving pinches (Trubnikov 1991). So far, the present plasma configuration itself has been considered to be notoriously unstable, but we attempt to rewrite that scenario. The new points, going beyond the pioneering work by Benford (1978), are mainly (1) the pairs are introduced, (2) the scaling of jet radius and field strength is presented, and (3) detailed kinetic theory is applied to the instability analysis. We also mention that the underlying physics is ubiquitous. Regarding recent laboratory experiments, the high power fusion lasers up to a petawatt ($`10^{15}\mathrm{W}`$) reproduce the collimated relativistic electron jets (Key et al. 1998), several tens MeV ions (Snavely et al. 2000), and even the Bethe-Heitler pair productions triggered by the bremsstrahlung $`\gamma `$-ray photons (Cowan et al. 1999). These experiments are now opening door to the high-field laboratory astrophysics.

As ordinarily expected, in fully a relativistic regime of $`T>10^{10}\mathrm{K}`$, ejecta could consist of electrons, positrons, and a small portion of ions, i.e., $`n_en_{e+}n_i`$, where $`n_e`$, $`n_{e+}`$, and $`n_i`$ are the number densities of electrons, positrons, and ions, respectively. Recently, the ASCA satellite has also detected X-ray emissions of various ion species, such as Fe, Ni, Mg, Si, S, Ne, and Ar, from the SS 433 jets (Kotani et al. 1996). In optically thick regions, the electron-positron photoplasmas may establish the quasi-Wien equilibria (Iwamoto & Takahara 2002). Anyhow, around central engines, fast electron-positron flows relative to ion motions can be easily organized owing to the difference of their inertia. Namely, the electron-positron clouds are primarily accelerated by, e.g., the Lorentz force: $`|e(v_e/c)\times B|/m_e|Z^{}e(v_{ion}/c)\times B|/(Am_p)`$, where $`m_p/m_e=1836`$, and $`Z^{}`$ and $`A`$ are the averages of charge state and mass number of the multispecies ions, respectively.

The most important point is that the stream along the jet axis $`z`$ with the excess electrons $`n_e^{}=n_en_{e+}=Z^{}n_i`$ generates the toroidal ”self”-magnetic field $`B_\theta ^s`$, which participates in self-pinching the electron-positron gas and in assembling the ions radially inwards on the hydrodynamical timescale (Honda, Meyer-ter-Vehn, & Pukhov 2000a, 2000b). Since the plasma holds a quite high conductivity, a closed current system including a return current inside and/or outside the jets is self-organized without delay. It is noted is that the toroidal magnetic fields act as a defocusing force for the forward-running beam positrons and backward return electrons, whereas such deflections tend to be immediately restored by the electrostatic fields due to microscopic charge separations, to avoid unphysical charge-up. Therefore, one can treat the electron-positron flow as the negatively charged fluid, which partially compensates for the positive ion background, as shown below.

## 2 THE ELECTRON-POSITRON FLUID EQUATIONS

We start with a relativistic electron-positron beam-plasma equilibrium, invoking that the nonrelativistic equation of state of ideal gas $`p=nT`$ is valid for the relativistic bulk motion (Rindler 1982). Taking the return components into account, radial force balance on the electron-positron fluid elements can be expressed as $`p_j/r=q_{}n_j(E_r+v_j\times B_\theta ^s/c)`$, where $`j=b,r`$ indicate the beam and return components, respectively. For electrons and positrons, we set $`q_{}=|e|`$ and $`q_+=|e|`$, respectively. The photon pressure is omitted, and the optically thin jet is sufficiently distant from the central engine. All physical quantities are in the ion rest (jet) frame throughout this Letter; this frame is chosen even in the case of $`n_en_{e+}>2\times 10^3An_i`$. The force balance equations can be then cast to

$$\frac{}{r}\left(\begin{array}{cc}f_bn_e(r)T_b& \\ (1f_b)n_e(r)T_r& \\ f_bn_{e+}(r)T_{b+}& \\ (1f_b)n_{e+}(r)T_{r+}& \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}ef_bn_e(r)& e\beta _bf_bn_e(r)\\ e(1f_b)n_e(r)& e\beta _r(1f_b)n_e(r)\\ ef_bn_{e+}(r)& e\beta _{b+}f_bn_{e+}(r)\\ e(1f_b)n_{e+}(r)& e\beta _{r+}(1f_b)n_{e+}(r)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}E_r(r)& \\ B_\theta ^s(r)& \end{array}\right),$$
(1)
$$E_r(r)=\frac{4\pi }{r}\left[\underset{j,}{}q_{}_0^r𝑑r^{}r^{}n_j(r^{})+Z^{}e_0^r𝑑r^{}r^{}n_i(r^{})\right],$$
(2)
$$B_\theta ^s(r)=\frac{4\pi }{r}\underset{j,}{}q_{}_0^r𝑑r^{}r^{}\beta _jn_j(r^{}),$$
(3)
where $`n_b(r)=f_bn_e(r)`$ and $`n_r(r)=(1f_b)n_e(r)`$ reflect the portions of the forward beam and backward return flows, respectively. Furthermore, we introduce the ratio of positron/electron densities, $`0f_pn_{e+}/n_e=\mathrm{const}<1`$ and the fractional charge neutrality of ion/electron charge densities, $`0<f_cZ^{}n_i/(n_en_{e+})=\mathrm{const}1`$. Assuming $`\beta _j(r)v_j(r)/c=\overline{\beta }_j`$ and $`T_j(r)=\overline{T}_j`$ (isothermally) without loss of generality, we obtain,

$$[f_b\overline{T}_b+(1f_b)\overline{T}_r](1+f_p)n_e(r)/r=(4\pi e^2/r)\times $$

$$\{(1f_c)[f_b\overline{\beta }_b+(1f_b)\overline{\beta }_r]^2\}(1f_p)^2n_e(r)_0^r𝑑r^{}r^{}n_e(r^{}),$$
(4)
which can be applied to the cold plasma (electron-ion) jets for $`f_p1`$, electron-positron-ion jets for $`f_p1`$, and electron-positron jets for $`f_p1`$.

## 3 ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS: JET COLLIMATION AND TOROIDAL MAGNETIC FIELD

The master equation (4) can be self-consistently solved for the total electron density $`n_e(r)`$. In the case of $`[f_b\overline{\beta }_b+(1f_b)\overline{\beta }_r]^2>1f_c`$, implying that the confinement force of the self-generated magnetic field exceeds the repulsive force due to the space charge, we find the solution in the form of the newly modified Bennett equilibrium: $`n_e(r)=n_e(r=0)/[1+(r/r_J)^2]^2`$. Here $`r_J`$ characterizes the radius of a filament of jet, which is given by

$$r_J\sqrt{\frac{2\pi (1+f_p)\overline{\lambda }_D^2}{(1f_p)^2\{[f_b\overline{\beta }_b(1f_b)|\overline{\beta }_r|]^2(1f_c)\}}},$$
(5)
where $`\overline{\lambda }_D\{[f_b\overline{T}_b+(1f_b)\overline{T}_r]/4\pi \overline{n}_ee^2\}^{1/2}`$ stands for the effective Debye sheath of electrons. For $`f_c1`$ and $`f_p1`$, the effective diameter of the charge-neutralized filament is approximated by $`d_J=2r_J\delta \overline{\beta }^1\delta f_p^1(4\overline{T}/\overline{n}_ee^2)^{1/2}`$. This scales as

$$d_J1.5\times 10^{12}\frac{10^3}{\delta f_p}\frac{10^1}{\delta \overline{\beta }}\left(\frac{\overline{T}}{10^{10}\mathrm{K}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{10^3\mathrm{cm}^3}{\overline{n}_e}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{cm},$$
(6)
where $`\delta f_p^1(1f_p)^1`$, $`\delta \overline{\beta }^1[f_b\overline{\beta }_b(1f_b)|\overline{\beta }_r|]^1`$, and $`\overline{T}f_b\overline{T}_b+(1f_b)\overline{T}_r`$ are the pair production rate, the current-neutral rate, and the effective thermal spread, respectively. When the return currents flow outside the filaments, i.e., their envelope and/or ambient medium, the current-neutral rate reduces to $`\delta \overline{\beta }^1\overline{\beta }_b^1`$.

In Figure 1 for $`f_c=1`$, we show that the diameter of a filament swells as the pair production rate and return current increase and as the average density of the filament decreases. Physically, the increase of positron density leads to the seeming decrease of electron density, because only a small portion of electrons can take part in screening ions effectively, viz., $`\delta f_pn_e=Z^{}n_i/f_cZ^{}n_i`$, and this results in significantly stretching the sheath radius. Moreover, the return current inside the filaments enforces to screen the magnetic fields, so that the filaments with the lower energy density of the magnetic fields prefer to be spread, to arrange the required magnetic confinement force against the thermal expansion and electrostatic repulsion.

According to self-consistent analysis of particle orbits, the larger radius does not link with the larger current capacity (Honda 2000). The net current inside the filament sheaths will be strongly limited because of the orbital migration of electrons embedded in self-generated magnetic fields. That is, $`i_J4e\delta \overline{\beta }c\delta f_p\overline{n}_er_J^21.65\overline{\beta }_b\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_bm_ec^3/e=28.2\overline{\beta }_b\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_b\mathrm{kA}i_0`$, where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_b=(1\overline{\beta }_b^2)^{1/2}`$. This allows the parameter region of $`1\delta \overline{\beta }\delta f_p2.4\overline{T}/\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_bm_ec^2`$. We conjecture that ejecta with the huge current $`I_J>i_0`$ (Appl & Camenzind 1992) necessarily split into many filaments, each carrying one ”unit” current of $`i_0`$, so that the number of the filaments is of the order of magnitude of $`N_fI_J/i_0`$ (Honda et al. 2000b). Note that the forward currents must be almost compensated with the backward return currents. The morphology seems to be consistent with filamentary structure including a backward flow discovered by the Highly Advanced Laboratory for Communications and Astronomy VLBI Space Observatory Programme survey (e.g., NGC 1275/3C 84; Asada et al. 2000), still one needs further study.

Substituting the diffuse density profile into equation (3), we obtain the radial profile of magnetic field $`|B_\theta ^s(r)|=2\pi e\delta \overline{\beta }\delta f_pn_e(r=0)r/[1+(r/r_J)^2]`$. At $`r=r_J`$, the field takes the maximum value, to give for $`f_c1`$

$$B_{\theta ,\mathrm{max}}^s0.33\left(1+f_p\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{\overline{n}_e}{10^4\mathrm{cm}^3}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{\overline{T}}{10^{10}\mathrm{K}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{G}.$$
(7)
Concerning the slowly decaying property of $`|B_\theta ^s(r)|r^1`$, the actual diameter of a jet (i.e., a bundle of the numerous filaments) can be envisaged as $`D_J4(N_f/\pi )^{1/2}(B_{\theta ,\mathrm{max}}^{s}{}_{}{}^{2}/8\pi ϵ_a)^{1/2}d_Jd_J`$, where $`ϵ_a`$ is the energy density of the ambient medium. In contrast with the diameter $`D_J`$, the maximum field estimated in equation (7) does not depend on $`\delta \overline{\beta }`$ and $`N_f`$. It is instructive to notice the relation of $`\overline{n}_e(\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_b1)m_ec^2B_{\theta ,\mathrm{max}}^{s}{}_{}{}^{2}/8\pi (2/\pi )\overline{n}_e\overline{T}`$, namely, $`\beta 8\pi p_{\mathrm{th}}/B^2\mathrm{O}(1)`$ (Tajima & Shibata 1997), consistent with equipartition of excess kinetic energy of the jet which serves as a free energy source.

In Figure 2, for $`f_c=1`$, we plot the range of possible magnetic fields for a given temperature and density of jets. The maximum by equation (7) may be a theoretical restriction to the field strength of the astrophysical jets, and close to the value required from the synchrotron self-Compton (SSC) model, which explains a double-humped appearance on spectral energy distributions (e.g., Mrk 501; Kataoka et al. 1999). On the other hand, from the spectral fitting by the modified synchrotron proton blazar (SPB) model, we expect a somewhat larger value (Mücke & Protheroe 2001), which is required from the strong synchrotron radiation, relating to stochastic acceleration of ultra-high energy cosmic rays. Quasi-perpendicular shocks, whose configurations are favorably set up in accordance with the present mechanism, can probably accelerate particles up to $`10100\mathrm{EeV}`$ ($`10^{19}10^{20}\mathrm{eV}`$). The parameter regions of other AGN jets (e.g., M87, 3C 273, Cyg A), which are still being argued at the moment, are also shown in Figure 2. More detailed and comprehensive observations are required in order to clarify the detailed activities in the tips and main bodies of jets (see e.g. Zavala & Taylor 2002).

## 4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Finally, we remark that the present model is tolerant for the synchrotron cooling and the beam-plasma–type instability, which could be the major competitive processes.

1. Let us suppose that beam electrons with a terminal energy of $`0.11`$ GeV launched from a central engine lose their energies, by the synchrotron radiation due to their own magnetic fields, to $`110`$ MeV, comparable to the transverse thermal spread. In this case, the synchrotron cooling time is of the order of $`\tau _{\mathrm{syn}}(10^210^4)(0.1\mathrm{gauss}/\overline{B})^2`$ yr, which corresponds to the propagation distance up to $`10`$kpc for $`\overline{n}_e10^4\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and about a megaparsec for $`\overline{n}_e10^2\mathrm{cm}^3`$. In addition, reacceleration processes of the electrons, if they work, further lengthen the propagation distance.

2. Mutual coupling between beam and return currents as well as dissipation processes can cause various beam-plasma instabilities. Below we briefly explain the possible mechanism of the growth rate reduction in terms of the resistive hose instability as an example. For the square radial profile, single frequency seen by a beam particle can be resonant with the surface perturbation when $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega kc\overline{\beta }_b(\overline{\beta }_b\delta \overline{\beta }\delta f_p/\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_b)^{1/2}\overline{\omega }_{pe}`$, where $`\overline{\omega }_{pe}(4\pi \overline{n}_ee^2/m_e)^{1/2}`$ denotes the mean plasma frequency. However, for the diffuse profile presented above, the growth rate is bounded, and there is no such single frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for which the entire beam is resonant with the wave (Uhm & Lampe 1980). According to the self-consistent Vlasov-Maxwell analysis, the ”off-resonant” dispersion yields the most dominant wavenumber in the complex form of $`k^{}=i\mathrm{Im}(k_i)\pm \mathrm{Re}(k_r)`$. We finally get the growth distance of $`L_i2\pi /\mathrm{Im}(k_i)\pi c\tau _d\overline{\beta }_b\delta \overline{\beta }/[0.7f_b\overline{\beta }_b+(1f_b)|\overline{\beta }_r|]`$, where $`\tau _d\pi r_J^2\sigma /c^2`$ stands for the magnetic diffusion time and $`\sigma `$ is the electrical conductivity, and the oscillation wavelength of $`\lambda _r2\pi /\mathrm{Re}(k_r)(15c/\overline{\omega }_{pe})[\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_b\overline{\beta }_b/(\delta \overline{\beta }\delta f_p)]^{1/2}`$. Note the relation of $`L_i\lambda _r`$, in contrast to $`L_i\lambda _r`$ for the resonant case. When assuming the relativistic Spitzer conductivity $`\sigma 10^{12}(T/10^{10}K)\mathrm{s}^1`$ for $`Tm_ec^2`$ (Braams & Karney 1989), the distance $`L_i`$ can be expressed as

$$L_i10^{22}\left(\frac{10^3}{\delta f_p}\right)^2\frac{10^1}{f_b}\frac{10^3}{\delta \overline{\beta }}\left(\frac{\overline{T}}{10^{11}\mathrm{K}}\right)^2\frac{10^3\mathrm{cm}^3}{\overline{n}_e}\mathrm{cm},$$
(8)
for $`\overline{\beta }_b1`$ and $`\delta f_p1`$. The pairs expand the radius $`r_J`$, to significantly increase the phase lag $`\tau _d`$. Evidently, the screening effects by the pairs lower the growth rate. We also note that if there exist poloidal (longitudinal) magnetic fields superposed on the transverse fields (Gabuzda & Gómez 2001), the shear structure of the helical fields could be well established (Miyamoto 1989). They will play significant roles in stabilizing and guiding the jets (Davidson 1990) and be able to further stretch the distance $`L_i`$.

In conclusion, we have newly developed a generic model for collimation and transport of relativistic electron-positron-ion jets. A jet as a bundle of many filaments can be sustained owing to toroidal magnetic fields self-generated by the negatively charged stream. The magnetic field pressure balances with the gas pressure of the jet. The pair-screening effects and return currents expand the filament widths, and such expansion and the diffuse envelope of the filaments lead to strong suppression of the instabilities. In order to fully demonstrate observational results, three-dimensional relativistic Vlasov-Maxwell or electromagnetic particle-in-cell simulations with the larger spatiotemporal scale should be promoted in future.

We acknowledge useful discussions with M. Kusunose, Y. Sentoku, and A. Mizuta. M.H. thanks the RIST and APR-JAERI for their hospitalities. This work was supported in part by the Grants-in-Aid of ITBL-Japan.


text:
# Proximity effect in multiterminal hybrid structures

## I Introduction

The manipulation of entangled states of electrons in condensed matter devices has focussed an important interest recently. The ground state of a superconductor is a condensate of Cooper pairs that form singlet states. Entangled states of electrons can thus be manipulated in transport experiments by extracting Cooper pairs out of a superconductor. Several experiments using a superconductor as a source of entangled states of electrons have been proposed recently. For instance it was shown in Ref.  that entangled states of electrons can be manipulated in a double dot experiment. A quantum teleportation experiment using three quantum dots has been proposed recently . Another possible experiment has also been proposed in Ref.  in which a “beam splitter” is connected to a superconductor. In this situation noise correlations can reveal information about electronic entanglement . Other possible experiments in which several ferromagnetic electrodes are connected to a superconductor have been investigated theoretically in Refs. .

There is a rich physics occurring at a single ferromagnet / superconductor (FS) interface. For instance Andreev reflection is suppressed if the spin polarization of the ferromagnetic metal increases. This is because the incoming electron and the reflected hole belong to different spin bands. As a consequence Andreev reflection can occur only in the channels having both a spin-up and a spin-down Fermi surface . This theoretical prediction was well verified in experiments  and it was shown that with high transparency interfaces the suppression of Andreev reflection by spin polarization can be used to probe the Fermi surface polarization . The results of the Andreev reflection experiments compare well with another method based on spin polarized tunneling in the presence of Zeeman splitting . Another phenomenon taking place at FS interfaces is that the pair amplitude induced in a ferromagnetic metal can oscillate in space. This gives the possibility of fabricating $`\pi `$ junctions in which the Josephson relation changes sign . It is also well established that FS multilayers present oscillations of the superconducting critical temperature as the thickness of the ferromagnetic layer is varied . Other new phenomena related to the proximity effect have also been investigated in diffusive FS heterostructures .

Multiterminal hybrid structures consist of systems in which several spin polarized electrodes are connected to a superconductor and are controlled by crossed Andreev reflection processes in which the spin-up and spin-down electrons making the Cooper pair can tunnel in different ferromagnetic electrodes. Several theoretical predictions have been made. For instance the current circulating in one of the electrodes can be controlled by the voltage applied on another electrode . The conductance can be described in terms of a conductance matrix  that can be calculated from Keldysh formalism . Other predictions concern the proximity effect in FSF trilayers . It was shown in Ref.  that the two ferromagnetic electrodes of the FSF trilayer are coupled by pair correlations and that the superconducting order parameter in the ferromagnetic alignment can be larger than the superconducting order parameter in the antiferromagnetic alignment ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{F}>\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AF}}`$). One goal of our article is to find out the range of validity of this result and to bridge the gap with other predictions based on Usadel equations . It was shown in the context of Usadel equations that the critical temperature (and therefore the superconducting order parameter) is larger in the antiferromagnetic alignment ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AF}}>\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{F}`$. We show that the ballistic models that we consider can lead also to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AF}}>\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{F}`$ if one takes into account the existence of a finite exchange field in the superconductor, in the spirit of Ref. . There are thus two competing mechanisms for the proximity effect in FSF trilayers. The mechanism based on the exchange field involves the “11” and “22” diagonal elements of the Green’s function of the superconductor connected to the ferromagnetic electrodes. The other mechanism based on pair correlations involves the “12” extra diagonal element. To understand in detail the mechanism based on pair correlations we investigate a device in which three ferromagnetic electrodes are coupled to a superconductor. As a simplifying assumption we suppose that the three electrodes are coupled to the same site in the superconductor. The fabrication of three contacts within a coherence length is not possible with present time state of the art technology. Nevertheless these systems with three electrodes provide idealized situations that are useful for understanding theoretically how the value of the superconducting order parameter depends on pair correlations induced in the ferromagnetic electrodes.

From the point of view of the method we use two complementary approaches: (i) an analytical evaluation of the high energy behavior of the Gorkov function; (ii) exact diagonalizations of the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations. The analytical approach is based on the simplest ballistic models and can be a useful guideline for understanding more realistic systems in the future, such as multichannel systems or diffusive systems. An important difference between the analytical and numerical approaches lies in the fact that in the analytical calculation we suppose that the band-width of the superconductor is much larger than the superconducting gap like in realistic systems for which $`\mathrm{\Delta }/D10^5`$. As a consequence of this assumption the integral appearing in the self-consistency relation is dominated by the high frequencies. By contrast in the numerical simulation the band-width of the superconductor is not small compared to the superconducting gap (typically the ratio between the bandwidth and the gap is $`\mathrm{\Delta }/D1/5`$). The analytical calculation and the numerical simulation correspond to different regimes and this is why all the analytical results cannot be confirmed by the numerical simulation. The numerical simulation is useful to discuss the behavior of the local density of states (LDOS), the case of a partial spin polarization and the spatial variation of the pair amplitude.

The article is organized as follows. Necessary technical preliminaries are given in section II. The mechanism based on the exchange field induced in the superconductor is investigated in sections III and IV. The remaining of the article is devoted to the other mechanism based on pair correlations. In section V we discuss the proximity effect in FSF heterostructures and generalize the results obtained in Ref. . Namely we show that the superconducting order parameter is larger if the ferromagnetic electrodes have a parallel spin orientation. Multiterminal structures in which three electrodes are connected to a superconductor are discussed in section VI. Friedel oscillations in the Gorkov function are analyzed in section VII. Concluding remarks are given in section VIII.

## II Preliminaries

### A Green’s function formalism

In this section we provide the technical details on Green’s function formalism that is used throughout the article.

#### 1 The models

The superconductor is described by a BCS lattice model

$$_{\mathrm{BCS}}=\underset{\alpha ,\beta ,\sigma }{}t\left(c_{\alpha ,\sigma }^+c_{\beta ,\sigma }+c_{\beta ,\sigma }^+c_{\alpha ,\sigma }\right)+\underset{\alpha }{}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha c_{\alpha ,}^+c_{\alpha ,}^++\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha ^{}c_{\alpha ,}c_{\alpha ,}\right),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha `$ is the pairing interaction. The brackets indicate that hopping is between nearest neighbors. The ferromagnetic electrodes are described by a lattice Stoner model

$$_{\mathrm{Stoner}}=\underset{i,j,\sigma }{}t\left(c_{i,\sigma }^+c_{j,\sigma }+c_{j,\sigma }^+c_{i,\sigma }\right)h\underset{i}{}\left(c_{i,}^+c_{i,}c_{i,}^+c_{i,}\right),$$

where $`h`$ is the exchange field. An exchange field smaller than the bandwidth corresponds to a partially polarized ferromagnet and an exchange field larger than the bandwidth corresponds to a half-metal ferromagnet in which only majority spins are present. We note $`\rho _0^S`$ the normal state density of states of the superconductor and $`\rho _\sigma ^F`$ the spin-$`\sigma `$ density of states in the ferromagnetic electrodes. We use Greek symbols $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$ for the sites in the superconductor and Latin symbols $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ for the sites in the ferromagnetic electrodes. The tunnel Hamiltonian coupling the superconductor and the ferromagnetic electrodes takes the form

$$\widehat{𝒲}=\underset{k,\sigma }{}t_{a_k,\alpha _k}\left(c_{a_k,\sigma }^+c_{\alpha _k,\sigma }+c_{\alpha _k,\sigma }^+c_{a_k,\sigma }\right),$$
(1)
where the sum over $`k`$ runs over all contacts between the superconductor and the ferromagnetic electrodes.

#### 2 Green’s functions

The Green’s functions of a connected system are obtained by solving the Dyson equation in the Nambu representation:

$$\widehat{G}^{R,A}=\widehat{g}^{R,A}+\widehat{g}^{R,A}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\widehat{G}^{R,A},$$
(2)
where the self-energy $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ contains all couplings of the tunnel Hamiltonian given by (1). The Green’s functions $`g`$ correspond to the “disconnected” system in which $`t_{a_k,\alpha _k}=0`$ (see Eq. 1). The Dyson equation (2) is used to calculate the Green’s functions of the connected system in which an electron in the superconductor can make excursions in the ferromagnetic electrodes.

We use the following notation for the Nambu representation of the advanced and retarded propagators of the disconnected system:

$$\widehat{g}^{A,R}(t,t^{})=\left(\begin{array}{cc}g^{A,R}(t,t^{})& f^{A,R}(t,t^{})\\ f^{A,R}(t,t^{})& g^{A,R}(t,t^{})\end{array}\right),$$

with

$`g^A(t,t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`i\theta (tt^{})\{c_{i,}(t),c_{j,}^+(t^{})\}`$ (3)
$`f^A(t,t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`i\theta (tt^{})\{c_{i,}(t),c_{j,}(t^{})\},`$ (4)
and we use the following notation for the Nambu representation of the density of states:

$$\widehat{\rho }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\rho _g& \rho _f\\ \rho _f& \rho _g\end{array}\right),$$

with $`\rho _g=\frac{1}{\pi }\text{Im}(g^A)`$ and $`\rho _f=\frac{1}{\pi }\text{Im}(f^A)`$. The Keldysh Green’s function is obtained through the Dyson-Keldysh equation

$$\widehat{G}^{+,}=\left[\widehat{I}+\widehat{G}^R\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right]\widehat{g}^{+,}\left[\widehat{I}+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\widehat{G}^A\right],$$
(5)
where $`\widehat{g}_{i,j}^{+,}=2i\pi n_F(\omega \mu _{i,j})\widehat{\rho }_{i,j}`$.

#### 3 Superconducting order parameter and transport properties

In equilibrium the Keldysh Green’s function defined by Eq. (5) simplifies into

$$\widehat{G}_{\mathrm{eq}}^{+,}=n_F(\omega \mu _0)\left(\widehat{G}^A\widehat{G}^R\right),$$
(6)
where $`\mu _0`$ is the chemical potential, identical in all conductors. The form (6) of the Keldysh Green’s function at equilibrium can be used to obtain the superconducting order parameter in the superconductor via the self-consistency equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta =U\frac{d\omega }{2i\pi }G_{\beta ,\beta }^{+,,1,2}(\omega ).$$
(7)
#### 4 Green’s function of an isolated normal metal

Evaluating the spectral representation for a normal metal leads to

$$g_{\alpha ,\beta }^A(\omega )=\frac{ma_0^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{a_0}{2\pi R_{\alpha ,\beta }}exp\left(ik_FRi\frac{\omega R_{\alpha ,\beta }}{v_F}\right).$$
(8)
The local density of states is given by

$$\rho _{\mathrm{loc}}(\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }\text{Im}\left[g^A(\omega )\right]=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}\frac{ma_0^3}{\mathrm{}^2}\left(k_F+\frac{\omega }{v_F}\right).$$
(9)
#### 5 Green’s function of an isolated insulator

We consider a semi-conductor model having a valence band at energy $`ϵ(k)=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}^2k^2/(2m^{})`$ and a conduction band at energy $`ϵ(k)=\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{}^2h^2/(2m^{})`$. This model behaves like a band insulator if $`|\omega |<\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The Green’s functions in the energy range $`|\omega |<\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are given by

$$g_{\alpha ,\beta }(\omega )=\frac{m^{}a_0^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{a_0}{2\pi R_{\alpha ,\beta }}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\sqrt{2m^{}a_0^2}}{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }+\omega }R\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\sqrt{2m^{}a_0^2}}{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega }R\right)\right].$$
(10)
#### 6 Green’s functions of an isolated superconductor

The Green’s function of an isolated superconductor with a uniform superconducting order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is obtained by evaluating the spectral representation :

$$\widehat{g}_{\alpha ,\beta }(\omega )=\frac{2ma_0^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{a_0}{2\pi R}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{R_{\alpha ,\beta }}{\xi (\omega )}\right]\left\{\frac{\mathrm{sin}\phi _{\alpha ,\beta }}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2\omega ^2}}\left[\begin{array}{cc}\omega & \mathrm{\Delta }_0\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_0& \omega \end{array}\right]+\mathrm{cos}\phi _{\alpha ,\beta }\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right]\right\}.$$
(11)
Above the superconducting gap the retarded Green’s function takes the form

$$\widehat{g}_{\alpha ,\beta }^R=\frac{2ma_0^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{a_0}{2\pi R}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\frac{\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2}R_{\alpha ,\beta }}{v_F}\right]\left\{\frac{i\mathrm{sin}\phi _{\alpha ,\beta }}{\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2}}\left[\begin{array}{cc}\omega & \mathrm{\Delta }_0\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_0& \omega \end{array}\right]+\mathrm{cos}\phi _{\alpha ,\beta }\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right]\right\}.$$
(12)
The phase variable in Eqs. (11) and (12) is $`\phi _{\alpha ,\beta }=k_FR_{\alpha ,\beta }`$. The “local” propagators corresponding to $`\alpha =\beta `$ are described by $`\phi _{\alpha ,\beta }=k_FR_0=\pi /2`$ :

$$\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{loc}}(\omega )=\frac{2ma_0^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{a_0}{2\pi R_0}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2\omega ^2}}\left[\begin{array}{cc}\omega & \mathrm{\Delta }_0\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_0& \omega \end{array}\right].$$
(13)
#### 7 Dyson matrix

In this section we provide a derivation of the Dyson matrix in the simple case of three half-metal ferromagnetic electrodes connected to a superconductor (see Fig. 1). If $`\lambda `$ is an arbitrary site in the superconductor, the Dyson equation (2) becomes

$$\widehat{G}^{a_n,\lambda }=\left[\begin{array}{cc}K_{1,1}^{a_n,\lambda }& K_{1,2}^{a_n,\lambda }\\ K_{2,1}^{a_n,\lambda }& K_{2,2}^{a_n,\lambda }\end{array}\right]+\underset{m}{}\left[\begin{array}{cc}K_{1,1}^{a_n,\alpha _m}& K_{1,2}^{a_n,\alpha _m}\\ K_{2,1}^{a_n,\alpha _m}& K_{2,2}^{a_n,\alpha _m}\end{array}\right]t_{\alpha _m,a_m}\widehat{G}^{a_m,\lambda },$$
(14)
with $`K_{i,j}^{a_n,\alpha _m}=g_{i,i}^{a_n,a_n}t_{a_n,\alpha _n}g_{i,j}^{\alpha _n,\alpha _m}`$, and

$$\widehat{G}^{a_n,\lambda }=\left[\begin{array}{cc}G_{1,1}^{a_n,\lambda }& G_{1,2}^{a_n,\lambda }\\ G_{2,1}^{a_n,\lambda }& G_{2,2}^{a_n,\lambda }\end{array}\right].$$
(15)
Eqs. (14) and (15) are valid for an arbitrary spin polarization. In the case of the heterostructure on Fig. 1 the explicit form of the Dyson matrix is the following:

$$\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1K_{1,1}^{a,\alpha }t_{\alpha ,a}& K_{1,1}^{a,\beta }t_{\beta ,b}& K_{1,1}^{a,\gamma }t_{\gamma ,c}\\ K_{1,1}^{b,\alpha }t_{\alpha ,a}& 1K_{1,1}^{b,\beta }t_{\beta ,b}& K_{1,1}^{b,\gamma }t_{\gamma ,c}\\ K_{1,1}^{c,\alpha }t_{\alpha ,a}& K_{1,1}^{c,\beta }t_{\beta ,b}& 1K_{1,1}^{c,\gamma }t_{\gamma ,c}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}G_{1,1}^{a,\lambda }\\ G_{1,1}^{b,\lambda }\\ G_{1,1}^{c,\lambda }\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}K_{1,1}^{a,\lambda }\\ K_{1,1}^{b,\lambda }\\ K_{1,1}^{c,\lambda }\end{array}\right].$$

In sections IV and V and in the Appendices we invert a similar form of the Dyson matrix in models involving four channels.

### B Exact diagonalizations of the Bogoliubov-de Gennes Hamiltonian

In the numerical simulations based on exact diagonalizations of the Bogoliubov-de Gennes Hamiltonian we use a lattice Hubbard model

$$=\underset{\alpha ,\beta ,\sigma }{}t\left(c_{\alpha ,\sigma }^+c_{\beta ,\sigma }+c_{\beta ,\sigma }^+c_{\alpha ,\sigma }\right)+\mu \underset{\alpha ,\sigma }{}n_{\alpha ,\sigma }+\underset{\alpha ,\sigma }{}\mu _\alpha ^In_{\alpha ,\sigma }+\underset{\alpha ,\sigma }{}h_{\alpha ,\sigma }n_{\alpha ,\sigma }+V_0\underset{\alpha }{}n_{\alpha ,}n_{\alpha ,}.$$
(16)
In Eq. (16) $`n_{\alpha ,\sigma }=c_{\alpha ,\sigma }^+c_{\alpha ,\sigma }`$ is the electron number operator at site $`\alpha `$, $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential, $`h_{\alpha ,\sigma }=h\sigma _z`$ is the exchange field in the ferromagnetic region and $`\sigma _z=\pm 1`$ is the eigenvalue of the $`z`$ component of the Pauli matrix. $`V_0`$ is the on-site interaction. We use negative values of $`V_0`$ corresponding to attractive interaction. To simulate the effect of depletion of the carrier density at the surface the site-dependent impurity potential $`\mu _\alpha ^I`$ is set to a sufficiently large value at the surface sites. This prohibits electron tunneling over these sites. Within a mean field approximation Eq. (16) reduces to the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations :

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{\xi }& \widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}\\ \widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}& \widehat{\xi }\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u_{n,}(r_\alpha )\\ v_{n,}(r_\alpha )\end{array}\right)=ϵ_{n,\gamma _1}\left(\begin{array}{c}u_{n,}(r_\alpha )\\ v_{n,}(r_\alpha )\end{array}\right),$$
(17)
and

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{\xi }& \widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}\\ \widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}& \widehat{\xi }\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u_{n,}(r_\alpha )\\ v_{n,}(r_\alpha )\end{array}\right)=ϵ_{n,\gamma _2}\left(\begin{array}{c}u_{n,}(r_\alpha )\\ v_{n,}(r_\alpha )\end{array}\right),$$
(18)
such that

$`\widehat{\xi }u_{n,\sigma }(r_\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{\widehat{\delta }}{}}u_{n,\sigma }(r_\alpha +\widehat{\delta })+\left(\mu ^I(r_\alpha )+\mu \right)u_{n,\sigma }(r_\alpha )+h_\alpha \sigma _zu_{n,\sigma }(r_\alpha )`$ (19)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}u_{n,\sigma }(r_\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(r_\alpha )u_{n,\sigma }(r_\alpha ),`$ (20)
and where the pair potential is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_0(r_\alpha )=V_0c_{}(r_\alpha )c_{}(r_\alpha ).$$

In Eq. (19) $`\widehat{\delta }=\widehat{x},\widehat{x},\widehat{y},\widehat{y}`$ denotes the four directions of the square lattice. $`\widehat{\delta }=\widehat{z},\widehat{z}`$ corresponds to the two directions in the ferromagnetic electrodes. The self-consistency equation takes the form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_0(r_\alpha )=\frac{V_0(r_\alpha )}{2}F(r_\alpha )=\frac{V_0(r_\alpha )}{2}\underset{n}{}\left[u_{n,}(r_\alpha )v_{v,}^{}(r_\alpha )\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{\beta ϵ_{n,\gamma _1}}{2}\right)+u_{n,}(r_\alpha )v_{n,}^{}(r_\alpha )\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{\beta ϵ_{n,\gamma _2}}{2}\right)\right],$$
(21)
where $`\beta `$ is the inverse temperature. We start from an approximate solution for the gap profile $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(r_\alpha )`$. After exact diagonalizations of Eqs. (17) and (18) we obtain $`u_{n,\sigma }(r_\alpha )`$ and $`v_{n,\sigma }(r_\alpha )`$. The quasiparticle amplitudes are inserted into Eq. (21) and a new gap function is evaluated which is then inserted into Eq. (20) and we iterate until a sufficient precision has been obtained. Although the pair potential $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(r_\alpha )`$ is zero in the ferromagnet the pair amplitude $`F(r_\alpha )`$ is non zero. The LDOS at site $`\alpha `$ is given by

$$\rho _\alpha (E)=\underset{n,\sigma }{}\left[|u_{n,\sigma }(r_\alpha )|^2f^{}(Eϵ_n)+|v_{n,\sigma }(r_\alpha )|^2f^{}(E+ϵ_n)\right],$$
(22)
where $`f^{}`$ is the derivative of the Fermi function $`f(ϵ)=\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{exp}(ϵ/k_BT)}`$.

## III Friedel oscillations at a single NF interface

We start by considering a single interface between a normal metal and a spin polarized ferromagnet. We calculate the exchange field at site $`\beta `$ in the normal metal, induced by the proximity of the ferromagnet (see Fig. 2).

To order $`t^2`$ the Green’s function at site $`\beta `$ is given by

$$G_{\beta ,\beta }=g_{\beta ,\beta }+g_{\beta ,\alpha }t_{\alpha ,a}g_{a,a}t_{a,\alpha }g_{\alpha ,\beta }.$$
(23)
$`g_{\alpha ,\beta }^A`$ is given by Eq. (8) and $`g_{a,a}^A`$ is decomposed in a real and imaginary part: $`g_{a,a}^A=g_{a,a}^{(R)}+ig_{a,a}^{(I)}`$. If the exchange field is small compared to the typical energy scales (being the energy band-width for a metal or the charge gap for an insulator) then the spin-up and spin-down Green’s functions take the form

$$g_{a,a}^{(\sigma )}(\omega )=g_{a,a}^{(0)}(\omega )+\sigma h_{\mathrm{ex}}\frac{g_{a,a}^{(0)}(\omega )}{\omega },$$

where $`g_{a,a}^{(0)}(\omega )`$ is the Green’s function in the absence of an exchange field. We deduce the existence of Friedel oscillations in the spin polarization at the Fermi surface:

$$P_\beta =\frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\beta ,\beta }^{()}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\beta ,\beta }^{()}}{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\beta ,\beta }^{()}+\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\beta ,\beta }^{()}}=2\pi t_\alpha ^2\frac{1}{v_F}\left(\frac{1}{2\pi R}\right)^2h_{\mathrm{ex}}\left[\mathrm{sin}(2k_FR)\frac{g_{a,a}^{(R)}}{\omega }(0)+\mathrm{cos}(2k_FR)\frac{g_{a,a}^{(I)}}{\omega }(0)\right].$$
(24)
For an insulating ferromagnet we obtain from Eq. (10) that $`g_{a,a}^{(R)}/\omega (0)`$ is negative which leads to a positive spin polarization at site $`\alpha `$. For a metallic ferromagnet we obtain from Eq. (9) that $`g_{a,a}^{(I)}/\omega (0)`$ is positive. Since we use $`k_FR_0=\pi /2`$ we deduce that spin polarization at site $`\alpha `$ is negative. As far as the magnitude of the effective exchange field $`h_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is concerned we see that $`h_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is of order $`\left(t_{a,\alpha }/ϵ_F\right)^2h_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ in the metallic case and of order $`t_{a,\alpha }^2\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}\left(m^{}a_0^2/\mathrm{}^2\right)^{3/2}h_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ in the insulating model.

We note that in the insulating case the limit $`R0`$ is well-defined and the value of spin polarization at site $`\alpha `$ does not depend on the value of the ultraviolet cut-off $`R_0`$ introduced at short length scale. In the metallic model the value of the spin polarization is diverging if one takes the limit $`R0`$. Therefore the sign of spin polarization at site $`\alpha `$ depends on the value of the short distance cut-off $`R_0`$. In the analytical approaches we use a regularization in which we introduce a cut-off equal to $`k_FR_0=\pi /2`$ that is chosen similarly to Ref. . The justification of this choice of $`R_0`$ is that it leads to a physically acceptable value of the local density of states. The value of the density of states at the Fermi energy for $`R=R_0`$ is given by

$$\rho _{a,a}(R_0)=\frac{ma_0^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{a_0}{2\pi R_0}\mathrm{sin}(k_FR_0).$$

With the choice $`k_FR_0=\pi /2`$ of the short distance cut-off the local density of state is equal to $`\rho _{a,a}(R_0)=ma_0^3k_F/(\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2)`$, a positive value that is not far from the exact density of states obtained for $`R_0=0`$ (see Eq. (9)).

## IV Proximity effect at a single FS interface

### A Local density of states

We first use exact diagonalizations of the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations (see section II B) to describe the proximity effect at a single FS interface. This constitutes a test of the numerical method and we recover some of the results for the LDOS obtained recently by means of a recursion method (see Ref. ).

We consider a two-dimensional superconducting system of $`30\times 30`$ sites and we suppose fixed boundary conditions by setting the impurity potential $`\mu ^I=100t`$ at the surface. The temperature is $`k_BT=0.1t`$ and the local attractive interaction in the superconducting region is $`V_0=3.5t`$. On top of the superconductor is attached a one-dimensional superconducting electrode of $`50`$ sites (see Fig. 3). The transparency of the interface is controlled by changing the hopping element $`t_c`$ connecting sites on both sides of the interface and we restrict here to the case where the transparency of the interface is the same as inside the superconductor. In this case the pair amplitude in the superconducting system is not really modified as seen in Fig. 4(a) while in the ferromagnetic region the pair amplitude oscillates around zero and the period of oscillations decreases with increasing the exchange field (see Fig. 4(b)). In the case of a zero exchange field the pair amplitude is decaying monotonically in the normal metal.

Due to the proximity effect the LDOS shows a gap structure even for the sites within the ferromagnet (see Fig. 5(b)). The conductance peaks within the gap are due to Andreev bound states  and have been discussed recently for a three dimensional FS interface using a recursion method . The residual values of the LDOS are reduced by the increase of the exchange field. The Andreev bound states move towards the Fermi level and cross the Fermi level with increasing the exchange field.

### B Exchange field in the superconductor

From the discussion in section III we deduce that a finite exchange field is induced in the superconductor . The effect was also found in recent numerical simulations in Ref. . In the metallic case and in the tunnel limit the magnitude of the exchange field is of order $`(t_{a,\alpha }/ϵ_F)^2h_{\mathrm{ex}}`$.

An exchange field in a superconductor is a pair-breaking perturbation that tends to dissociate Cooper pairs . In this situation we expect that Cooper pairs couple to the exchange field averaged over a length scale equal to the BCS coherence length. A qualitative argument can be made from the NF model in section III. Since the discussion is similar in the two cases of metallic and insulating ferromagnets we consider a metallic ferromagnet model only. We obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\beta ,\beta }^{()}(\omega )\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\beta ,\beta }^{()}(\omega )=\frac{t_{a,\alpha }^2h_{\mathrm{ex}}}{4\pi ^4k_Fa_0}\left(\frac{ma_0^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\right)^4\left(\frac{a_0}{R}\right)^2\mathrm{cos}\left[3(k_F+\omega /v_F)\right],$$

from what we deduce

$$_{R_0}^+\mathrm{}4\pi R^2𝑑R_0^D\left[\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\beta ,\beta }^{()}(\omega )\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\beta ,\beta }^{()}(\omega )\right]𝑑\omega =\frac{t_{a,\alpha }^2h_{\mathrm{ex}}}{3\pi ^3}\left(\frac{ma_0^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\right)^3_{3k_FR_0}^{3\left(k_F+\frac{D}{v_F}\right)R_0}\frac{\mathrm{sin}u}{u}𝑑u.$$

With $`k_FR_0=\pi /2`$ the spin polarization induced at long distance in the superconductor is positive but the local spin polarization at the contact is negative.

The reduction of the superconducting order parameter due to pair-breaking effects was observed in FSF trilayers with insulating ferromagnets in Refs. . The effect is not visible in the point contact experiments in Ref.  even though one might expect a reduction of the superconducting gap at the interface that would increase with increasing the exchange field. It is likely that the point contact geometry used in Ref.  plays a role and that the effect should be more pronounced for extended contacts.

## V Proximity effect in FSF heterostructures: local models

Now we reconsider the proximity effect in a FSF heterostructure in which two ferromagnetic electrodes are connected to a superconductor. In this section as well as in section VI we consider “local” models in which two or three ferromagnetic electrodes are connected to the same site in the superconductor (see Figs. 6-(a) and 7-(a)).

### A Motivation

Two effects can play a role in the determination of the self-consistent order parameter:

* The proximity effect that takes place already at a single NS interface. A pair amplitude is generated in the normal metal and there is a reduction of the order parameter on the superconducting side of the interface . For the models on Fig. 6 the two electrodes ending at sites “a” and “b” are coupled by pair correlations only in the antiferromagnetic alignment. The case of an antiparallel spin orientation is thus qualitatively similar to a NS interface in which case the order parameter in the superconductor is reduced at the interface. On the other no pair correlations are generated among the ferromagnetic electrodes in the parallel alignment if we consider half-metal ferromagnets. The case of parallel magnetization is thus similar to an isolated superconductor, from what we deduce that the superconducting order parameter is larger in the ferromagnetic alignment.
* Pair breaking effects due the finite exchange field in the superconductor. The exchange field is a pair-breaking perturbation that tends to reduce the superconducting order parameter.

A relevant question is to determine which effect would control real experiments on metallic FSF trilayers. It is likely that the answer depends on the geometry of the devices. For small interface transparencies the exchange field in the superconductor is of order $`(t/ϵ_F)^2`$ (see section IV). For a thin film in a parallel field the pair breaking parameter is equal to $`\alpha =De^2H^2d^2/(6\mathrm{}c^2)`$ with $`D`$ the diffusion constant, $`H`$ the magnetic field in Tesla, $`d`$ the width of the superconductor. The difference between the critical temperatures in the ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic alignments is given by $`k_B\mathrm{\Delta }T_c=\pi \alpha /4`$  which is proportional to $`t^4`$ because $`H`$ is proportional to $`t^2`$. On the other hand if the physics is dominated by the proximity effect we deduce from Ref.  that the difference between the superconducting order parameters in the ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic alignments is of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{F}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AF}}=t^4\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}/(Uϵ_F^3)`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}=D\mathrm{exp}[1/(U\rho _N)]`$ the BCS superconducting order parameter. We see that $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c`$ due to pair-breaking effects is proportional to $`d^2`$ and we deduce that pair-breaking effects are reduced if the width of the superconducting layer is reduced.

In the following we focus on the effect of pair correlations induced in the ferromagnetic electrodes and we take for granted that the width of the superconductor is small enough so that pair-breaking effects can be neglected. We make the further simplifying assumption of considering that all ferromagnetic electrodes are connected to the same site and we calculate the superconducting order parameter at this site. The case of two electrodes at a finite distance will be considered in section VII. The qualitative physics occurring in the schematic model with all electrodes connected to the same site can be described the following rule: increasing pair correlations in the ferromagnetic electrodes tends to reduce the value of the self-consistent order parameter in the superconductor.

To illustrate this let us first consider the case of two ferromagnetic electrodes connected to a superconductor (see Fig. 6-(a)). Pair correlations among the two ferromagnets are stronger in the antiferromagnetic alignment than in the ferromagnetic alignment. As a consequence of the rule given above the superconducting order parameter is larger in the ferromagnetic alignment. To make a more refined test of this rule we consider in section VI a system in which three electrodes are connected to a superconductor (see Fig. 7-(a)). For simplicity we consider that the three ferromagnetic electrodes are half-metal ferromagnets. Electrode $`c`$ is supposed to have a spin-down orientation. Electrode $`a`$ has a spin-up orientation. Electrode $`b`$ can have a spin-up orientation (ferromagnetic alignment) or a spin-down orientation (antiferromagnetic alignment). If we consider first that $`t_{c,\gamma }`$ is small we see that pair correlations are formed mainly among electrodes $`a`$ and $`b`$ if electrodes $`a`$ and $`b`$ have an opposite spin orientation. We deduce that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{F}>\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AF}}`$ if $`t_{c,\gamma }`$ is small. We consider now that $`t_{c,\gamma }`$ is large and electrode $`c`$ has a spin-down orientation. If electrodes $`a`$ and $`b`$ have a spin-up orientation we see that pair correlations are formed mainly among electrode $`a`$ and $`c`$ and among electrodes $`b`$ and $`c`$. If electrode $`a`$ has a spin-up orientation and electrode $`b`$ has a spin-down orientation we see that pair correlations are formed mainly among electrodes $`a`$ and $`c`$. As a consequence the proximity effect is stronger if electrodes $`a`$ and $`b`$ have a parallel orientation. We deduce from the rule given above that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{F}<\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AF}}`$ if $`t_{c,\gamma }`$ is large.

### B Two ferromagnetic electrodes connected to the same site

#### 1 Sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{F}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AF}}`$

Let us start with the situation where two ferromagnetic electrodes are connected to the same site (see Fig. 6-(a)). We suppose that each ferromagnetic electrode is partially spin polarized and contains two spin channels. The model is thus solved in a $`4\times 4`$ formalism. The Green’s function $`G_{\alpha ,\alpha }^{A,1,2}`$ is found to be

$`G_{\alpha ,\alpha }^{A,1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`i\pi \rho _0^S{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\omega }}i\pi \rho _0^S{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒟}}\{f(x_{a,})f(x_{a,})f(x_{b,})f(x_{b,})+2f(x_{a,})f(x_{b,})+2f(x_{a,})f(x_{b,})`$ (25)
$`+`$ $`f(x_{a,})f(x_{a,})+f(x_{a,})f(x_{b,})+f(x_{a,})f(x_{b,})+f(x_{b,})f(x_{b,})f(x_{a,})f(x_{a,})f(x_{b,})`$ (26)
$``$ $`f(x_{a,})f(x_{a,})f(x_{b,})f(x_{a,})f(x_{b,})f(x_{b,})f(x_{a,})f(x_{b,})f(x_{b,})f(x_{a,})f(x_{a,})f(x_{b,})f(x_{b,})\},`$ (27)
with

$$𝒟=\left(1f(x_{a,})f(x_{b,})\right)\left(1f(x_{a,})f(x_{b,})\right).$$
(28)
The interface transparencies are parametrized by $`f(x_i)=x_i/(1+x_i)`$, with $`x_{a,}=\pi ^2t_{a,\alpha }^2\rho _{a,}^F\rho _0^S`$, $`x_{a,}=\pi ^2t_{a,\alpha }^2\rho _{a,}^F\rho _0^S`$, $`x_{b,}=\pi ^2t_{b,\beta }^2\rho _{b,}^F\rho _0^S`$, $`x_{b,}=\pi ^2t_{b,\beta }^2\rho _{b,}^F\rho _0^S`$. The values of $`f(x_i)`$ are such that $`0<f(x_i)<1/2`$. We do not consider the regime $`1/2<f(x_i)<1`$ for which we find that the self-consistency relation is unstable.

We suppose that the two ferromagnets have an identical density of states and that the two contacts have identical transparencies. In the ferromagnetic alignment we use the notation $`f(x_{a,})=f(x_{b,})=T`$ and $`f(x_{a,})=f(x_{b,})=t`$. In the antiferromagnetic alignment we use the notation $`f(x_{a,})=f(x_{b,})=T`$ and $`f(x_{a,})=f(x_{b,})=t`$. To second order in $`T`$ and $`t`$ we obtain

$$G_{\alpha ,\alpha }^{1,2,F}G_{\alpha ,\alpha }^{1,2,AF}=i\pi \rho _0^S\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\omega }(Tt)^2.$$
(29)
As a consequence in the regime of small interfaces transparencies we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{F}>\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AF}}`$. The regime of a large interface transparencies can be treated by evaluating numerically the difference between the Gorkov functions $`G_{\alpha ,\alpha }^{1,2,F}G_{\alpha ,\alpha }^{1,2,AF}=i\pi \rho _0^S\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\omega }F(T,t)`$. It is visible on Fig. 8 that $`F(T,t)`$ is positive for any value of $`T<1/2`$ and $`t<T`$ so that the ferromagnetic superconducting order parameter is larger than the antiferromagnetic superconducting order parameter, in agreement with Ref. .

### C Local density of states and pair amplitude

We calculated the LDOS for a partial spin polarization by means of exact diagonalizations of the Bogoliubov-de Gennes Hamiltonian. The geometry of the simulation is represented on Fig. 9. It is visible on Fig. 10 that the low energy LDOS is larger in the ferromagnetic alignment than in the antiferromagnetic alignment.

The variation of the difference $`F_\mathrm{F}F_{\mathrm{AF}}`$ between the pair amplitudes in the ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic alignments as a function of the exchange field is shown on Fig. 11. The numerical simulation coincides with the analytical model for a large exchange field in the sense that the pair amplitude is larger in the ferromagnetic alignment. However for small values of the exchange field we obtain $`F_\mathrm{F}>F_{\mathrm{AF}}`$ or $`F_\mathrm{F}<F_{\mathrm{AF}}`$ depending on which lattice site is considered. The possible origin of the discrepancies between the numerical simulation and the analytical model are analyzed in the concluding section.

## VI Proximity effect in multiterminal hybrid structures: local models

In this section we consider an heterostructure in which three electrodes are connected at the same site to a superconductor. Electrodes $`a`$ and $`b`$ on Fig. 7 will be considered to be half-metal ferromagnets so that the models are solved in a $`4\times 4`$ formalism. Using partially polarized ferromagnets would require to solve a $`6\times 6`$ formalism for which we could not carry out the analytical calculation in the regime of large interface transparencies. The case of partially polarized ferromagnets will be treated numerically within exact diagonalizations of the Bogoliubov de Gennes equations.

### A Three electrodes connected at the same site

We consider a model in which three electrodes are connected to the same site $`\alpha `$ (see Fig. 7-(a)). We determine the variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{F}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AF}}`$ as a function of the transparency $`t_c`$ of the contact with electrode $`c`$. We show that there is no change in the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{F}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AF}}`$ as $`t_c`$ increases if electrode $`c`$ is a normal metal. There is a change of sign in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{F}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AF}}`$ as $`t_c`$ increases if electrode $`c`$ is a ferromagnet with a spin-down orientation. This is in agreement with the qualitative discussion in section V A.

### B Sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{F}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AF}}`$

In the ferromagnetic alignment the inversion of the $`4\times 4`$ Dyson matrix leads to

$`G_{\alpha ,\alpha }^{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`i\pi \rho _0^S{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\omega }}i\pi \rho _0^S{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒟_\mathrm{F}}}\{f(x_a)f(x_b)f(x_{c,})f(x_{c,})+2f(x_a)f(x_b)+2f(x_a)f(x_{c,})`$ (30)
$`+`$ $`2f(x_b)f(x_{c,})+f(x_a)f(x_{c,})+f(x_b)f(x_{c,})+f(x_{c,})f(x_{c,})3f(x_a)f(x_b)f(x_{c,})f(x_a)f(x_b)f(x_{c,})`$ (31)
$``$ $`f(x_a)f(x_{c,})f(x_{c,})f(x_b)f(x_{c,})f(x_{c,})+f(x_a)f(x_b)f(x_{c,})f(x_{c,})\},`$ (32)
with

$$𝒟_\mathrm{F}=1f(x_a)f(x_b)f(x_a)f(x_{c,})f(x_b)f(x_{c,})+2f(x_a)f(x_b)f(x_{c,}).$$

In the antiferromagnetic alignment we find

$`G_{\alpha ,\alpha }^{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`i\pi \rho _0^S{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\omega }}i\pi \rho _0^S{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒟_{\mathrm{AF}}}}\{f(x_a)f(x_b)f(x_{c,})f(x_{c,})+2f(x_a)f(x_{c,})+2f(x_b)f(x_{c,})`$ (33)
$`+`$ $`f(x_a)f(x_b)+f(x_a)f(x_{c,})+f(x_b)f(x_{c,})+f(x_{c,})f(x_{c,})f(x_a)f(x_b)f(x_{c,})`$ (34)
$``$ $`f(x_a)f(x_b)f(x_{c,})f(x_b)f(x_{c,})f(x_{c,})f(x_a)f(x_{c,})f(x_{c,})f(x_a)f(x_b)f(x_{c,})f(x_{c,})\},`$ (35)
with

$$𝒟_{\mathrm{AF}}=1f(x_b)f(x_{c,})f(x_a)f(x_{c,})+f(x_a)f(x_b)f(x_{c,})f(x_{c,}).$$

The variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha ,\alpha }^F\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha ,\alpha }^{AF}`$ as a function of the transparency of the contact with electrode $`c`$ is shown on Fig. 12. It is visible on this figure that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{F}>\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AF}}`$ for all values of the transparency $`f(x_c)`$ with interface $`c`$.

We also evaluated $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{F}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AF}}`$ in the case where electrode $`c`$ is a half-metal ferromagnet with a spin-down orientation. We obtain a change of sign in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha ,\alpha }^F\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha ,\alpha }^{AF}`$ as the transparency of the interface with the ferromagnetic electrode $`c`$ is increased (see Fig. 13). This change of sign can be described by expanding the Gorkov functions to second order in $`f(x_a)`$ and $`f(x_b)`$:

$`G_{\alpha ,\alpha }^{1,2,\mathrm{Ferro}}`$ $`=`$ $`i\pi \rho _0^S{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\omega }}i\pi \rho _0^S{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\omega }}[f(x_a)f(x_b)f(x_{c,})f(x_{c,})+2f(x_a)f(x_b)+2f(x_a)f(x_{c,})`$ (36)
$`+`$ $`2f(x_b)f(x_{c,})+f(x_a)f(x_{c,})+f(x_b)f(x_{c,})+f(x_{c,})f(x_{c,})]`$ (37)
$`G_{\alpha ,\alpha }^{1,2,\mathrm{Antiferro}}`$ $`=`$ $`i\pi \rho _0^S{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\omega }}i\pi \rho _0^S{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\omega }}[f(x_a)f(x_b)f(x_{c,})f(x_{c,})+2f(x_a)f(x_{c,})+2f(x_b)f(x_{c,})`$ (38)
$`+`$ $`f(x_a)f(x_b)+f(x_a)f(x_{c,})+f(x_b)f(x_{c,})+f(x_{c,})f(x_{c,})],`$ (39)
from what we deduce that the difference between the ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic superconducting order parameters changes sign if $`f(x_{c,})=f(x_a)+f(x_{c,})`$, in agreement with Fig. 13.

### C Three node circuit model

The presence or absence of sign changes in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha ,\alpha }^F\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha ,\alpha }^{AF}`$ discussed in section VI B can also be obtained in the framework of a phenomenological circuit model . In this model the superconducting order parameter is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=D\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{U\rho _N}\left(1+\pi \rho _N\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\right)\left(1+\pi \rho _N\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\right)\right],$$

where $`\rho _N`$ is the density of states in the normal state, and where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma `$ is the total spectral line-width of spin-$`\sigma `$ electrons, obtained as the sum of the spectral line-widths associated to each electrode :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma =\underset{k}{}|t_{S,\alpha _k}|^2\rho _{k,\sigma },$$

where $`t_{S,\alpha _k}`$ is the tunnel amplitude connecting the superconductor and the ferromagnetic electrode $`\alpha _k`$.

Electrodes $`a`$ and $`b`$ are supposed to have the same spin polarization. We denote by $`\gamma =|t_{S,a}|^2\rho _{a,}`$ the spectral line-width associated to majority-spin electrons in electrode $`a`$ and by $`\lambda \gamma =|t_{S,a}|^2\rho _{a,}`$ the spectral line-width associated to minority-spin electrons in electrode $`a`$. The spin polarization of the ferromagnetic electrodes is $`P=(1\lambda )/(1+\lambda )`$.

We first suppose that electrode $`c`$ is a ferromagnet having a spin-down orientation with a spectral line-width $`\gamma _0`$ associated to majority-spin electrons and a spectral line-width $`\lambda \gamma _0`$ associated to minority-spin electrons. If the ferromagnets $`a`$ and $`b`$ have a parallel spin orientation the total spectral line-widths are given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}=2\gamma +\lambda \gamma _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}=2\lambda \gamma +\gamma _0`$. If the ferromagnets $`a`$ and $`b`$ have an antiparallel spin orientation the total spectral line-widths are given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}=(1+\lambda )\gamma +\lambda \gamma _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}=(1+\lambda )\gamma +\gamma _0`$. We obtain

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{F}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AF}}}=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\pi ^2\rho _N}{U}(1\lambda )^2(\gamma ^2\gamma _0^2)\right],$$

from what we deduce that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{F}>\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AF}}`$ if $`\gamma _0<\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{F}<\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AF}}`$ if $`\gamma _0>\gamma `$, in agreement with the microscopic model discussed in section VI B. A similar calculation in the case where electrode $`c`$ is a spin-up ferromagnet shows that there is no sign change in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{F}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AF}}`$.

The presence of a sign change in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{F}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AF}}`$ as $`\gamma `$ increases was anticipated in section V A. The value $`\gamma =\gamma _0`$ at which the change of sign takes place can be understood from the following symmetry argument. In the ferromagnetic alignment of electrodes $`a`$ and $`b`$, electrodes $`a`$ and $`b`$ have a spin-up orientation and electrode $`c`$ has a spin-down orientation. In the antiferromagnetic alignment electrode $`a`$ has a spin-up orientation and electrodes $`b`$ and $`c`$ have a spin-down orientation. Therefore if the three contacts have the same transparency (namely if $`\gamma =\gamma _0`$) we see that the case of a ferromagnetic alignment of electrode $`a`$ and $`b`$ can be deduced from the case of an antiferromagnetic alignment just by reversing the spin of the three ferromagnetic electrodes. As a consequence we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{F}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AF}}=0`$ if $`\gamma =\gamma _0`$ and therefore a sign change in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{F}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AF}}`$ if $`\gamma =\gamma _0`$. This argument is also in agreement with the fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{F}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AF}}`$ changes sign for $`f(x_c)=f(x_a)=f(x_b)`$ in the microscopic model in which three electrodes are connected to the same site (see Fig. 13).

We suppose now that electrode $`c`$ is a normal metal with a spectral line-width $`\gamma _0`$ associated to spin-up and spin-down electrons. We obtain

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{F}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AF}}}=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\pi ^2\rho _N}{U}(1\lambda )^2\gamma ^2\right]$$

which leads to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{F}>\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AF}}`$ for all values of $`\gamma _0`$, in agreement with section VI B.

### D Diagonalizations of the Bogoliubov-de Gennes Hamiltonian

We consider exact diagonalizations of the Bogoliubov-de Gennes Hamiltonian in a situation where a two-dimensional superconducting system is connected to two one-dimensional ferromagnetic electrodes and to a one-dimensional normal metal electrode (see Fig. 14). The proximity effect in the normal metal electrode can be controlled by the spin orientation of the two ferromagnetic electrodes in the sense that the LDOS in the normal metal electrode depends on the relative spin orientation of the ferromagnetic electrodes.

The LDOS at site $`c`$ is shown on Figs. 15(a) and 15(b) in the cases of antiparallel and parallel spin orientation of electrodes $`a`$ and $`b`$. It is visible that for a sufficiently large exchange field the LDOS in the normal metal electrode depends on the relative spin orientation of the ferromagnetic electrodes. As a consequence it may be possible to control the proximity effect in the normal metal by changing the spin orientation of the ferromagnetic electrodes. This may be of interest in view of STM experiments similar to Ref. .

## VII Friedel oscillations in the Gorkov function

Sections V and VI were devoted to the analysis of “local” models in which several electrodes are connected to the same site in the superconductor. Now we consider the same problem but with a finite distance between the ferromagnetic electrodes. As discussed in section V A we suppose that the width of the superconductor is small enough so that pair-breaking effects due to the finite exchange field can be disregarded. We consider the geometry on Fig. 6 in which a superconductor is in contact with two ferromagnetic electrodes $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$. Compared to Fig. 6 we use the notation $`\alpha ^{}`$ and $`a^{}`$ rather than $`\beta `$ and $`b`$ for the second electrode. We keep the notation $`\beta `$ for an arbitrary site in the superconductor at which we calculate the superconducting order parameter . We suppose that the two electrodes $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ are at a distance much larger than the Fermi wave-length.

### A Form of the Gorkov function

Electrodes $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ are characterized by the microscopic propagators $`\widehat{g}_{a,a}`$ and $`\widehat{g}_{a^{},a^{}}`$. To order $`t^4`$ the Green’s function at site $`\beta `$ is given by

$`\widehat{G}_{\beta ,\beta }`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{g}_{\beta ,\beta }+\widehat{g}_{\beta ,\alpha }\widehat{t}_{\alpha ,a}\widehat{g}_{a,a}\widehat{t}_{a,\alpha }\widehat{g}_{\alpha ,\beta }+\widehat{g}_{\beta ,\alpha ^{}}\widehat{t}_{\alpha ^{},a^{}}\widehat{g}_{a^{},a^{}}\widehat{t}_{a^{},\alpha ^{}}\widehat{g}_{\alpha ^{},\beta }`$ (40)
$`+`$ $`\widehat{g}_{\beta ,\alpha }\widehat{t}_{\alpha ,a}\widehat{g}_{a,a}\widehat{t}_{a,\alpha }\widehat{g}_{\alpha ,\alpha }\widehat{t}_{\alpha ,a}\widehat{g}_{a,a}\widehat{t}_{a,\alpha }\widehat{g}_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ (41)
$`+`$ $`\widehat{g}_{\beta ,\alpha }\widehat{t}_{\alpha ,a}\widehat{g}_{a,a}\widehat{t}_{a,\alpha }\widehat{g}_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}\widehat{t}_{\alpha ^{},a^{}}\widehat{g}_{a^{},a^{}}\widehat{t}_{a^{},\alpha ^{}}\widehat{g}_{\alpha ^{},\beta }`$ (42)
$`+`$ $`\widehat{g}_{\beta ,\alpha ^{}}\widehat{t}_{\alpha ^{},a^{}}\widehat{g}_{a^{},a^{}}\widehat{t}_{a^{},\alpha ^{}}\widehat{g}_{\alpha ^{},\alpha }\widehat{t}_{\alpha ,a}\widehat{g}_{a,a}\widehat{t}_{a,\alpha }\widehat{g}_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ (43)
$`+`$ $`\widehat{g}_{\beta ,\alpha ^{}}\widehat{t}_{\alpha ^{},a^{}}\widehat{g}_{a^{},a^{}}\widehat{t}_{a^{},\alpha ^{}}\widehat{g}_{\alpha ^{},\alpha ^{}}\widehat{t}_{\alpha ^{},a^{}}\widehat{g}_{a^{},a^{}}\widehat{t}_{a^{},\alpha ^{}}\widehat{g}_{\alpha ^{},\beta }.`$ (44)
To lowest order the information about the exchange field in the superconductor is contained in the “11” and “22” components of the two terms in Eq. (40). The “12” component of the two terms in Eq. (40) contains the information about the effect of a single interface on the Gorkov function at order $`t^2`$. The two terms in Eqs. (41) and (44) describe a single interface to order $`t^4`$ and are not directly relevant to our discussion since they are just a small correction of the terms in Eq. (40) obtained at order $`t^2`$. The “12” component of the two terms (42) and (43) describe the modification of the Gorkov function due to processes coupling the two interfaces. Each of the two terms (42) and (43) gives rise to three terms in the Gorkov function when the summation over spin indexes is made explicit:

$`(\text{42})`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{g}_{\beta ,\alpha }^{1,2}t_{\alpha ,a}\widehat{g}_{a,a}^{2,2}t_{a,\alpha }\widehat{g}_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}^{2,2}t_{\alpha ^{},a^{}}\widehat{g}_{a^{},a^{}}^{2,2}t_{a^{},\alpha ^{}}\widehat{g}_{\alpha ^{},\beta }^{2,2}`$ (45)
$`+`$ $`\widehat{g}_{\beta ,\alpha }^{1,1}t_{\alpha ,a}\widehat{g}_{a,a}^{1,1}t_{a,\alpha }\widehat{g}_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}^{1,2}t_{\alpha ^{},a^{}}\widehat{g}_{a^{},a^{}}^{2,2}t_{a^{},\alpha ^{}}\widehat{g}_{\alpha ^{},\beta }^{2,2}`$ (46)
$`+`$ $`\widehat{g}_{\beta ,\alpha }^{1,1}t_{\alpha ,a}\widehat{g}_{a,a}^{1,1}t_{a,\alpha }\widehat{g}_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}^{1,1}t_{\alpha ^{},a^{}}\widehat{g}_{a^{},a^{}}^{1,1}t_{a^{},\alpha ^{}}\widehat{g}_{\alpha ^{},\beta }^{1,2}`$ (47)
$`(\text{43})`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{g}_{\beta ,\alpha ^{}}^{1,2}t_{\alpha ^{},a^{}}\widehat{g}_{a^{},a^{}}^{2,2}t_{a^{},\alpha ^{}}\widehat{g}_{\alpha ^{},\alpha }^{2,2}t_{\alpha ,a}\widehat{g}_{a,a}^{2,2}t_{a,\alpha }\widehat{g}_{\alpha ,\beta }^{2,2}`$ (48)
$`+`$ $`\widehat{g}_{\beta ,\alpha ^{}}^{1,1}t_{\alpha ^{},a^{}}\widehat{g}_{a^{},a^{}}^{1,1}t_{a^{},\alpha ^{}}\widehat{g}_{\alpha ^{},\alpha }^{1,2}t_{\alpha ,a}\widehat{g}_{a,a}^{2,2}t_{a,\alpha }\widehat{g}_{\alpha ,\beta }^{2,2}`$ (49)
$`+`$ $`\widehat{g}_{\beta ,\alpha _k^{}}^{1,1}t_{\alpha ^{},a^{}}\widehat{g}_{a^{},a^{}}^{1,1}t_{a^{},\alpha ^{}}\widehat{g}_{\alpha ^{},\alpha }^{1,1}t_{\alpha ,a}\widehat{g}_{a,a}^{1,1}t_{a,\alpha }\widehat{g}_{\alpha ,\beta }^{1,2}.`$ (50)
### B Friedel oscillations in the Gorkov function

Now we use a single channel model to discuss Friedel oscillations in the Gorkov function. The terms of order $`t^2`$ are discussed in section VII B 1 and the terms of order $`t^4`$ are discussed in section VII B 2.

#### 1 Terms of order $`t^2`$

Let us start with the terms of order $`t^2`$. Since these terms do not couple the two interfaces we consider a single interface only. We obtain easily the expression of the Gorkov function to order $`t^2`$:

$`G_{\beta ,\beta }^{1,2,A}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{2ma_0^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_0}{2\pi R_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}}`$ (51)
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2ma_0^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_0}{2\pi R}}\right)^2\pi t_\alpha ^2\left[\rho _{a,}e^{ik_FR}\rho _{a,}e^{ik_FR}\right]\mathrm{sin}\left[k_FR\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2i\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}R}{v_F}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}}.`$ (52)
If site $`\beta `$ is equal to site $`\alpha `$ we use the regularization $`k_FR_0=\pi /2`$ discussed in section III to obtain the self-consistent order parameter at the interface:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha =2D\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{U}\left\{\frac{2ma_0^2}{\pi \mathrm{}^2}\frac{a_0}{2\pi R_0}\left[1\frac{2ma_0^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{a_0}{2\pi R_0}\pi t_\alpha ^2\left(\rho _{a,}+\rho _{a,}\right)\right]\right\}^1\right].$$

As expected the superconducting order parameter at the interface is reduced because of the proximity effect.

To discuss the proximity effect in the bulk of the superconductor we write the pair amplitude under the form

$$_\mathrm{\Delta }^D\text{Im}\left[G_{\beta ,\beta }^{1,2,A}\right]𝑑\omega =\frac{2ma_0^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{a_0}{2\pi R_0}_\mathrm{\Delta }^D\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}𝑑\omega +\left(\frac{2ma_0^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\right)^2\left(\frac{a_0}{2\pi }\right)^2\pi t_\alpha ^2F(R),$$

with

$$F(R)=\frac{\mathrm{sin}[k_FR]}{R^2}_\mathrm{\Delta }^D\left[\rho _{a,}\mathrm{sin}\left\{\left[k_F+\frac{2\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{v_F}R\right]\right\}+\rho _{a,}\mathrm{sin}\left\{\left[k_F\frac{2\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{v_F}R\right]\right\}\right]\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}𝑑\omega .$$
(53)
The variations of $`F(R)`$ as a function of $`R`$ are shown on Fig. 16. It is visible that $`F(R)`$ oscillates in space but is always positive which means that the superconducting order parameter is reduced in the bulk of the superconductor and shows Friedel oscillations.

#### 2 Terms of order $`t^4`$

Now we consider the terms of order $`t^4`$ that couple the two interfaces, namely the terms (42) and (43). Using Eqs. (45) – (50) we obtain

$$\text{Im}\left[(\text{42})+(\text{43})\right]=\frac{1}{2}\pi ^2t_\alpha ^2t_\alpha ^{}^2\left(\frac{2ma_0^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\right)^3\left(\frac{a_0}{2\pi }\right)^3G(R),$$
(54)
with

$`G(R)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_{\alpha ,\beta }R_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}R_{\alpha ^{},\beta }}}\times \{2\rho _{a,}\rho _{a^{},}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Delta }^D}d\omega {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}}\mathrm{sin}\left\{[k_F{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{v_F}}][R_{\alpha ,\beta }+R_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}+R_{\alpha ^{},\beta }]\right\}`$ (55)
$`+`$ $`2\rho _{a,}\rho _{a^{},}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Delta }^D}𝑑\omega {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}}\mathrm{sin}\left\{\left[k_F+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{v_F}}\right]\left[R_{\alpha ,\beta }+R_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}+R_{\alpha ^{},\beta }\right]\right\}`$ (56)
$`+`$ $`\left(\rho _{a,}+\rho _{a,}\right)\rho _{a^{},}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Delta }^D}𝑑\omega {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}}\mathrm{sin}\left\{\left[k_F+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{v_F}}\right]R_{\alpha ,\beta }\left[k_F{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{v_F}}\right]\left[R_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}+R_{\alpha ^{},\beta }\right]\right\}`$ (57)
$`+`$ $`\left(\rho _{a,}+\rho _{a,}\right)\rho _{a^{},}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Delta }^D}𝑑\omega {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}}\mathrm{sin}\left\{\left[k_F{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{v_F}}\right]R_{\alpha ,\beta }\left[k_F+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{v_F}}\right]\left[R_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}+R_{\alpha ^{},\beta }\right]\right\}`$ (58)
$`+`$ $`\rho _{a,}\left(\rho _{a^{},}+\rho _{a^{},}\right){\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Delta }^D}𝑑\omega {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}}\mathrm{sin}\left\{\left[k_F+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{v_F}}\right]\left[R_{\alpha ,\beta }+R_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}\right]+\left[k_F{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{v_F}}\right]R_{\alpha ^{},\beta }\right\}`$ (59)
$`+`$ $`\rho _{a,}(\rho _{a^{},}+\rho _{a^{},}){\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Delta }^D}d\omega {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}}\mathrm{sin}\{[k_F{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{v_F}}][R_{\alpha ,\beta }+R_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}]+[k_F+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{v_F}}]R_{\alpha ^{},\beta }\}\}.`$ (60)
The variations of $`G(R)`$ are shown on Fig. 17. It is visible that $`G(R)`$ is larger in the antiferromagnetic alignment and therefore in the bulk of the superconductor the superconducting order parameter is larger in the ferromagnetic alignment. This shows that the effect is not a specificity of the local models analyzed in sections V and VI in which all electrodes are connected to the same site. On the contrary the effect occurs also in the models on Figs. 6-(b) and 7-(b) in which the distance between the ferromagnetic electrodes is large compared to the Fermi wave-length.

## VIII Conclusion

To conclude we have provided a detailed investigation of the proximity effect in multi-connected hybrid structures in which several electrodes are connected to a superconductor. We have pointed out the existence of two mechanisms involved in the determination of the superconducting order parameter . One is related to the existence of an exchange field in the superconductor that was first pointed out in Ref. . The other mechanism takes place already at a single NS interface. We have first reconsidered FSF heterostructures in which two ferromagnetic electrodes are connected to a superconductor at a distance smaller than the superconducting coherence length. We have found that within a “local” model the superconducting order parameter in the ferromagnetic alignment is larger than the superconducting order parameter in the antiferromagnetic alignment, in agreement with a different model discussed in Ref. . We have shown that the zero-energy LDOS in the ferromagnetic alignment is larger than the zero-energy LDOS in the antiferromagnetic alignment. In the case where two ferromagnetic and a normal metal electrode are connected to a superconductor we have found that the LDOS in the normal metal depends on the spin orientation in the ferromagnetic electrodes. If the normal metal is replaced by a ferromagnetic metal with a spin-down orientation we have found that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AF}}>\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{F}`$ for high transparencies and we have provided two analytical models for this behavior (an inversion of the $`4\times 4`$ Dyson matrix for half-metal ferromagnets and another approach based on a circuit model for partially polarized ferromagnets). We have pointed out that this behavior could be understood from a simple rule stating that for this model the increase of pair correlations in the ferromagnetic electrodes generates a reduction of the superconducting order parameter at the interface. This behavior is confirmed by the exact diagonalizations of the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations for large values of the exchange field but not for small values of the exchange field.

One explanation to the discrepancy between the two models is that in the Green’s function approach only the contribution of energies far above the superconducting gap has been taken into account. This is legitimate if the band-width $`D`$ of the superconductor is much larger than the superconducting gap (in real systems one has typically $`D/\mathrm{\Delta }10^5`$). This is justified by the fact that the integral in Eq. (7) is dominated by the high-energy behavior of the Gorkov function $`G_{\beta ,\beta }^{+,,1,2}(\omega )1/\omega `$. On the other hand in the exact diagonalizations of the Bogoliubov-de Gennes Hamiltonian we used small system sizes and replaced the right hand side of Eq. (7) by a sum over all energy levels. It is thus not surprising that the two procedures (namely the high-energy behavior for large systems and a sum over all energy levels for small systems) can lead to different results in some cases. Another possible source of discrepancy between the two approaches lies in the fact that the ferromagnetic electrodes are one-dimensional and have a finite size in the exact diagonalizations whereas the ferromagnetic electrodes are described by the local density of states of a three dimensional metal in the Green’s function approach.

## Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge fruitful discussions with H. Courtois, D. Feinberg, M. Giroud.