text:
# Spin glass versus superconductivity

## I Introduction

The theory of superconducting alloys with paramagnetic impurities was developed long ago by Abrikosov and Gor’kov.  They have shown that the superconducting transition temperature was suppressed by magnetic impurities. At some critical impurity concentration, the transition temperature was suppressed down to zero, which gives an example of a quantum critical point.  The critical concentration can be determined from the condition: $`\tau _sT_{c0}=2\gamma /\pi `$, where $`T_{c0}`$ is the superconducting transition temperature in a sample without impurities and $`\tau _s`$ is the spin-flip scattering time, which is inverse proportional to the concentration of magnetic impurities $`n_s`$. Let us note that the effect of magnetic impurities on superconductivity is, in many aspects, similar to the one of an external magnetic field.

In the Abrikosov-Gor’kov’s model, the magnetic impurities did not interact. Indeed, in any real system, one can not avoid having interactions between the impurities. Friedel oscillations in the electron density give rise to the similar oscillations in the spin-spin coupling which is well-known as Ruderman-Kittel-Kasuya-Yoshida (RKKY) interaction. The interaction may change the nature of the transition both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Interactions between impurities can significantly change the physical picture only if the typical energy of this interaction is of the order of temperature or higher. At a high temperature, one can take into account only those impurity clusters in which the typical distance between spins is small enough. The probability of having such a cluster containing three or more spins is small. Thus, virial expansion (or cluster expansion) coincides with the high-temperature expansion in the problem under discussion. The corresponding expansion parameter is $`J_0n_\mathrm{s}/T`$, where $`J_0`$ is the amplitude of the RKKY interaction.

Let us note that constant $`J_0`$ and spin-flip scattering time $`\tau _s`$ both follow from the same exchange Hamiltonian. Parametrically, they are of the same order. However, due to the numerical smallness of the two-particle statistical weight in the three-dimensional case, the amplitude of the RKKY interaction is numerically much smaller than the spin-flip scattering rate: $`J_0\tau _sn_s=1/4\pi ^2S\left(S+1\right)`$, where $`S`$ is the spin of a magnetic impurity.

The high-temperature corrections to the Abrikosov-Gor’kov’s result were derived in the paper of Larkin, Melnikov and Khmelnitskii.  It was shown that the superconducting transition temperature was higher in the presence of the spin-spin interactions compared to the non-interacting case. However, the corresponding change was noticeable only at extremely low temperatures due to the small numerical factor mentioned above. Thus, in a very wide range of temperatures, the Abrikosov-Gor’kov’s theory was quantitatively correct. Let us mention that there have been a number of experiments in which deviations from the Abrikosov-Gor’kov’s picture were observed at low temperatures (see e.g. Ref. ).

Since the RKKY interaction is random in sign, it introduces a frustration into the spin system. It may result in a spin glass transition at a low enough temperature $`T_gJ_0n_s`$. This makes the physical picture much more puzzled compared to the high-temperature case. A wide-spread distribution of energy barriers exists in the glassy phase. The typical time of classical and quantum tunneling is comparable with the observation time in real experiments. Thus, the state of the system depends not only on the temperature and external magnetic field, but also on the history. Moreover, all physical quantities slowly depend on time.

In the present paper, we show that superconducting properties, transition temperature $`T_c`$ in particular, depend on the properties of the spin system. Thus, superconducting parameters are expected to depend on the history and real time if the spin system is in the ageing regime.

Although the dynamical properties of the spin glasses have been the subject of extensive studies in the recent years, the theoretical understanding of the effect is far from being impressive yet. However, it is clear that, in general, the dynamics of a glassy system consists of two parts: one is a fast quasiequilibrium dynamics and the other is a slow dynamics or ageing. One can expect that in the system under consideration different superconducting parameters should acquire similar behavior.

Studying the out-of-equilibrium dynamics in a quantum system requires using a nonequilibrium formalism such as quantum transport equation or Keldysh technique. The Keldysh technique in superconductors was developed by Larkin and Ovchinnikov  and by Feigel’man et al. . In the theory of quantum spin glasses, Keldysh formalism was recently used by Kennett et al. In the theory of classical spin glasses, Keldysh technique is replaced by so-called Doi-Peliti techniques,  in which dynamics is generated via the Langevin noise introduced in the stochastic equation of motion. This kind of technique was used by Ioffe et al. who considered dynamics of a classical spin glass.

Our paper is structured as follows:
In Section II, which is necessarily quite technical, we derive general equations on the superconducting Green functions taking into account a possible non-equilibrium dynamics in the spin system. The corresponding calculations are done with the help of the Keldysh technique. We reconsider the Abrikosov-Gor’kov’s theory, taking into account inelastic exchange electron scattering on magnetic impurities. Technically speaking, impurity lines, i.e. spin-spin correlators, carry frequency in this case. We show that all superconducting parameters, including the transition temperature, should depend on the properties of the spin system via the spin-spin autocorrelation function. In a non-equilibrium state, the spin system is described with the help of three correlators (retarded, advanced and Keldysh). In the quasiequilibrium case, these correlators are connected via the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. At the end of Sec. II, using analytical continuation on the discrete Matsubara frequencies, we rederive a relatively simple equation on the superconducting transition point in the quasiequilibrium case.

In Sec. III, we address the question of calculating spin-spin autocorrelation function in the spin-glass state. We propose a method which combines ideas of Thouless, Anderson, and Palmer (TAP)  and virial expansion method. In the framework of this approximation, the $`N`$-spin problem is solved exactly while the other spins are replaced by a mean value, which plays the role of a random mean field. A distribution function for the random mean-field is derived analytically for the case of the three-dimensional Heisenberg model with the RKKY interactions. Let us note that despite the high-temperature asymptotics developed in Ref. , in the glass phase, such an expansion does not contain any small parameter. One can expect, however, that at large enough $`N`$ this expansion gives a quantitatively correct result. At low $`N`$, we may expect to derive qualitatively acceptable results and get some insight into the complicated problem. To illustrate how the method works, we analytically derive the spin-spin autocorrelation function in the first virial approximation.

In Sec. IV, we derive a correction to the superconducting quantum critical point. We show that the shift of the Abrikosov-Gor’kov’s result is quite small (the critical concentration of magnetic impurities increases about 10% compared to the non-interacting case). We also discuss the back effect of the superconductivity on the spin system. The phase diagram for the system under consideration is given.

In Sec. V, we study a non-equilibrium or ageing dynamics in the superconducting transition point. We propose an experiment which should provide an explicit manifestation of the ageing dynamics in the superconducting quantum critical point. If an external magnetic field is switched off below $`T_g`$, the magnetization does not disappear immediately. Spins magnetize the electrons and this effect leads to a stronger suppression of superconductivity compared to the case of arbitrarily oriented spins. The remanent magnetization logarithmically slowly decreases and drives the system towards superconductivity.

## II Nonequilibrium Gor’kov equations

### A The model

The starting point for the problem is the following Abrikosov-Gor’kov’s Hamiltonian:

$$_{\mathrm{AG}}=_{\mathrm{BCS}}+_{\mathrm{eS}},$$
(1)
where the first term is the usual BCS Hamiltonian:

$$_{\mathrm{BCS}}=\left\{\psi _\alpha ^{}\left(\frac{𝐩^2}{2m}\epsilon _\mathrm{F}\right)\psi _\alpha \lambda \psi _\alpha ^{}\psi _\beta ^{}\psi _\beta \psi _\alpha \right\}d^3𝐫$$
(2)
and the second one is the exchange interaction:

$$_{\mathrm{eS}}=\left\{\psi _\alpha ^{}\underset{a}{}u\left(𝐫𝐫_a\right)\left(𝐒_a\sigma _{\alpha \beta }\right)\psi _\beta \right\}d^3𝐫.$$
(3)
We neglect finite-size effects and consider the following form of the exchange potential:

$$u(𝐫)=u_0\delta \left(𝐫\right).$$
(4)
The effective spin-spin interactions are described by the following Hamiltonian:

$$_{\mathrm{SS}}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{ab}{}J\left(𝐫_a𝐫_b\right)𝐒_a𝐒_b.$$
(5)
In Eq.(5), $`J(𝐫)`$ is the RKKY interaction:

$$J(r)=J_0\frac{\mathrm{cos}\left(2p_\mathrm{F}r\right)}{r^3}.$$
(6)
The amplitude of this interaction reads:

$$J_0=\frac{mp_\mathrm{F}}{4\pi ^3}u_0^2.$$
(7)
This quantity is connected with the spin-flip scattering time as follows:

$$J_0n_s\tau _s=\left[4\pi ^2S\left(S+1\right)\right]^1.$$
(8)
Let us emphasize that the number in the right-hand side of Eq.(8) is very small.

### B Keldysh Green functions

In order to find the superconducting transition point, we should first derive Gor’kov’s equation for the Green functions. To treat a possible non-equilibrium dynamics, we use the Keldysh technique. Below we recall the basic definitions and notations:

The electron Green functions are defined as follows:

$$\widehat{G}^>(1,2)=i\left(\begin{array}{cc}\psi _{}(1)\psi _{}^{}(2)& \psi _{}(1)\psi _{}(2)\\ \psi _{}^{}(1)\psi _{}^{}(2)& \psi _{}^{}(1)\psi _{}(2)\end{array}\right)$$
(9)
and

$$\widehat{G}^<(1,2)=i\left(\begin{array}{cc}\psi _{}^{}(2)\psi _{}(1)& \psi _{}(2)\psi _{}(1)\\ \psi _{}^{}(2)\psi _{}^{}(1)& \psi _{}(2)\psi _{}^{}(1)\end{array}\right).$$
(10)
Retarded, advanced and Keldysh Green functions are then constructed in the following way:

$$\widehat{G}^R(1,2)=\theta \left(t_1t_2\right)\left[\widehat{G}^>(1,2)\widehat{G}^<(1,2)\right],$$
(11)
$$\widehat{G}^A(1,2)=\theta \left(t_2t_1\right)\left[\widehat{G}^>(1,2)\widehat{G}^<(1,2)\right],$$
(12)
and

$$\widehat{G}^K(1,2)=\widehat{G}^>(1,2)+\widehat{G}^<(1,2).$$
(13)
It is convenient to introduce a compact notation for the 4x4 matrix (here we use the Larkin-Ovchinnikov representation ):

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{G}(1,2)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{G}^R(1,2)& \widehat{G}^K(1,2)\\ 0& \widehat{G}^A(1,2)\end{array}\right).$$
(14)
The Green function satisfies the following matrix equation:

$$\left[\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_0^1\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right]\stackrel{ˇ}{G}=\stackrel{ˇ}{1}.$$
(15)
where $`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_0`$ is the Green function of a normal metal without impurities and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is the self-energy.

In the case under consideration, we have to find the self-energy associated with the scattering on magnetic impurities. In the leading approximation on the impurity concentration, the self-energy has the form shown on Fig. 1, where $`\gamma `$’s are the vertex matrices (see below). In this section, we will consider the case of zero-field cooling, so that there is no remanent magnetization in the spin system and no external magnetic field. In this case, we can average Green functions out over the spin degree of freedom. In the absence of the RKKY interaction, the electron scattering on magnetic impurities is elastic in the Born approximation. If we switch on the interactions between spins, self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ becomes non-elastic and in some sense analogous to the self-energy due to the electron scattering off the phonons. As a result we obtain the following expression for the self-energy:

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4\tau _sS(S+1)}\gamma _{\mu \sigma }^\lambda \left(\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau _z}\stackrel{ˇ}{g}\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau _z}\right)_{\sigma \rho }\widehat{C}_{\lambda \eta }\gamma _{\rho \nu }^\eta ,$$
(16)
where the Greek indexes label matrix elements in the Keldysh space. The structure of the self-energy in the Nambu-Gor’kov space is determined by the product $`\left(\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau _z}\stackrel{ˇ}{g}\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau _z}\right)`$ with

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau _z}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{1}& 0\\ 0& \widehat{1}\end{array}\right).$$
(17)
In Eq. (16), we have introduced quasiclassical Green function:

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{g}(t_1,t_2)=\frac{i}{\pi }\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\xi _𝐩\stackrel{ˇ}{G}(𝐩;t_1,t_2),\xi _𝐩=v_\mathrm{F}\left(pp_\mathrm{F}\right),$$
(18)
and the following spin-spin correlators:

$$C^>(t_1,t_2)=C^<(t_2,t_1)=i𝐒(t_1)𝐒(t_2).$$
(19)
The corresponding Keldysh matrix is defined as

$$\widehat{C}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}C^K& C^R\\ C^A& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(20)
with $`C^R`$, $`C^A`$, and $`C^K`$ defined via Eqs.(1113). Indeed, the spin-spin correlators are proportional to the unit matrix in the Nambu space. The vertex matrices has the following explicit form in the Larkin-Ovchinnikov representation:

$$\gamma ^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\text{and}\gamma ^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(21)
### C Gor’kov equations

Since we are not interested in the momentum dependence of the Green function, it is convenient to integrate out the corresponding redundant degree of freedom. Using Eq.(15), we obtain:

$$𝑑\xi _𝐩\left\{\left[\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_0^1\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right]\stackrel{ˇ}{G}\stackrel{ˇ}{G}\left[\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_0^1\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right]\right\}=\stackrel{ˇ}{0}.$$

As a result, we obtain the following equation which involves quasiclassical Green function only:

$`\left[\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau _z}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{ˇ}{g}(t_1,t_2)}{t_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{ˇ}{g}(t_1,t_2)}{t_2}}\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau _z}\right]`$ (22)
$``$ $`i\left[\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(t_1)\stackrel{ˇ}{g}(t_1,t_2)\stackrel{ˇ}{g}(t_1,t_2)\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(t_2)\right]=`$ (23)
$``$ $`i\left[\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\stackrel{ˇ}{g}\stackrel{ˇ}{g}\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right](t_1,t_2).`$ (24)
where symbol “$``$” means convolution with respect to the time variable.

Note that each element of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}`$ is a 2x2 matrix in the Nambu space:

$$\widehat{g}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \beta _1\\ \beta _2^{}& \alpha \end{array}\right),$$
(25)
where $`\alpha `$ is the normal electron Green function and $`\beta `$ is the Gor’kov (anomalous) function. In the absence of the external currents and/or magnetic field, $`\beta _1=\beta _2`$. Note also that matrix (14) is a matrix in the direct product of independent Keldysh (time-reversal) and Nambu spaces. It is a question of convention how to construct this matrix. One can use either form (14) or another way:

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{g}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{\alpha }& \widehat{\beta }\\ \widehat{\beta }^{}& \widehat{\alpha }\end{array}\right),$$
(26)
with $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ and $`\widehat{\beta }`$ being matrices in the Keldysh space. Since we are looking for the transition point, we should first derive equation linear on the superconducting Green function $`\widehat{\beta }`$. Thus, form (26) is more convenient for our purposes. Using the notations introduced above, the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(t)=\pi \left|\lambda \right|\nu \beta ^K(t,t+0),$$
(27)
where $`\nu `$ is the density of states per spin at the Fermi-surface. In the matrix notations, the order parameter takes on the form:

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(t)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{\Delta }(t)\\ \mathrm{\Delta }^{}(t)& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(28)
In the Keldysh space, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is proportional to the unit matrix (we neglect superconducting fluctuations).

To find the superconducting transition point we have first to extract the equation on the Gor’kov Green function $`\beta `$. After some algebra, we obtain:

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{t_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t_2}}\right]\beta _{\mu \nu }(t_1,t_2)+i\left[\mathrm{\Delta }(t_1)+\mathrm{\Delta }(t_2)\right]\alpha _{\mu \nu }(t_1,t_2)`$ (29)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{4\tau _sS(S+1)}}\left\{\gamma _{\mu \sigma }^\lambda \gamma _{\rho \delta }^\eta \left[\alpha _{\sigma \rho }C_{\lambda \eta }\beta _{\delta \nu }+\beta _{\sigma \rho }C_{\lambda \eta }\alpha _{\delta \nu }\right](t_1,t_2)+\left[\alpha _{\mu \delta }C_{\lambda \eta }\beta _{\sigma \rho }+\beta _{\mu \delta }C_{\lambda \eta }\alpha _{\sigma \rho }\right](t_1,t_2)\gamma _{\delta \sigma }^\lambda \gamma _{\rho \nu }^\eta \right\},`$ (30)
Although, the spin system may be out of the equilibrium state, the electron system may be considered in equilibrium. This yields:

$$g^K=g^Rffg^A,$$

where $`f`$ is the Fermi-distribution \[$`f(\epsilon )=\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{\epsilon }{2T}\right)`$ in the energy representation.\]

Let us now separate slow and fast dynamics in the spin correlator by performing Wigner transformation:

$`\widehat{C}(\omega ,\overline{t})={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}d\left(t_1t_2\right)\widehat{C}(t_1t_2,\overline{t})e^{i\omega \left(t_1t_2\right)}.`$ (31)
In Eq.(31), parameter $`\overline{t}=(t_1+t_2)/2`$ describes slow dynamics and, in some sense, is similar to the waiting time. From Eqs.(14,16,17,20,21,26,28,30), we obtain the following equations:

$`\epsilon \beta ^R(\epsilon )\left[\mathrm{\Delta }(\overline{t})\alpha ^R(\epsilon )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Delta }^{\prime \prime }(\overline{t}){\displaystyle \frac{^2\alpha ^R(\epsilon )}{\epsilon ^2}}+\mathrm{}\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\tau _sS(S+1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}`$ (32)
$`\times \left\{C^K(\omega )\left[\alpha ^R(\epsilon )\beta ^R(\epsilon \omega )+\beta ^R(\epsilon )\alpha ^R(\epsilon \omega )\right]+C^R(\omega )\left[\alpha ^R(\epsilon )\beta ^K(\epsilon \omega )+\beta ^R(\epsilon )\alpha ^K(\epsilon \omega )\right]\right\}`$ (33)
and

$`\epsilon \beta ^A(\epsilon )+\left[\mathrm{\Delta }(\overline{t})\alpha ^A(\epsilon )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Delta }^{\prime \prime }(\overline{t}){\displaystyle \frac{^2\alpha ^A(\epsilon )}{\epsilon ^2}}+\mathrm{}\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\tau _sS(S+1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}`$ (34)
$`\times \left\{C^K(\omega )\left[\alpha ^A(\epsilon )\beta ^A(\epsilon \omega )+\beta ^A(\epsilon )\alpha ^A(\epsilon \omega )\right]+C^A(\omega )\left[\alpha ^A(\epsilon )\beta ^K(\epsilon \omega )+\beta ^A(\epsilon )\alpha ^K(\epsilon \omega )\right]\right\}.`$ (35)
The corresponding Keldysh function reads:

$$\beta ^K(\epsilon )=\left[\beta ^R(\epsilon )\beta ^A(\epsilon )\right]\mathrm{tanh}\left[\frac{\epsilon }{2T}\right].$$
(36)
Note, that all quantities in Eqs.(33,35) weakly depend on the “waiting time.” Together with Eq.(27), Eqs.(33,35) form a closed equation system, which contains all the information about the superconducting properties of the physical system under consideration. The spin system is completely described by the three functions: $`C^R`$, $`C^A`$, and $`C^K`$. These functions are not necessarily connected with each other in an out-of-equilibrium state and depend upon the details of the state and history.

At the superconducting transition point, Eqs.(33,35) can be simplified with the aid of the following relations:

$$\alpha ^R(\epsilon )=\alpha ^A(\epsilon )=1$$
(37)
and, thus,

$$\alpha ^K(\epsilon )=2\mathrm{tanh}\left[\frac{\epsilon }{2T}\right].$$
(38)
### D Quasiequilibrium regime

Let us consider a regime when the dynamics of the spin glass state has two well separated time scales: The first one is “waiting time” $`\overline{t}`$, which is comparable with the typical time of an experiment. At these time scales, large energy barriers change. The second typical time is $`\mathrm{}/T_g`$. At these time scales, a quasiequilibrium state is reached within the large energy barriers. Tunneling processes through the large barriers are supposed to be very rare at such a time-scale. In this approximation, the waiting time can be considered as an independent external parameter and equilibrium techniques can be used. In this equilibrium regime the fluctuation-dissipation theorem holds and it significantly simplifies the calculation.

In the equilibrium, Keldysh, retarded and advanced spin-spin correlators are not independent functions anymore. They are connected via the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, which follows directly from the Gibbs’s distribution and in our language can be formulated as follows:

$`C^K(\omega )=`$ $`\left[C^R\left(\omega \right)C^A\left(\omega \right)\right]\mathrm{coth}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2T}}\right]`$ (39)
$``$ $`2\pi i\delta \left(\omega \right)\left[{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}e^{\frac{ϵ_k}{T}}\right]^1{\displaystyle \underset{ϵ_k=ϵ_j}{}}\left|k|𝐒|j\right|^2e^{\frac{ϵ_k}{T}},`$ (40)
where $`|k`$ is a quantum state in the spin system and $`ϵ_k`$ is the corresponding energy level. Note, that for spin correlators, the last “static” term in Eq.(39) does not vanish.

In the equilibrium, it is convenient to introduce Matsubara Green functions $`\beta (\epsilon _n)`$ and $`\alpha (\epsilon _n)`$ which depend on the fermion frequency $`\epsilon _n=\pi (2n+1)T`$ and the Matsubara spin-spin correlator:

$`𝒞\left(\omega _m\right)={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1/T}{}}}𝑑\tau T_\tau \left[𝐒(\tau )𝐒(0)\right]e^{i\omega _m\tau },`$ (41)
where

$$𝐒(\tau )=e^\tau 𝐒(0)e^\tau $$

and $`\omega _m=2\pi mT`$ is the bosonic Matsubara frequency.

Using the contour shown on Fig.2, one can perform analytical continuation on the discrete Matsubara frequencies. To do this we first note that Keldysh spin-spin correlator consists of two different parts: one is proportional to $`\delta (\omega )`$ and the other, we denote it as $`\stackrel{~}{C}^K`$, satisfies the relation $`\stackrel{~}{C}^K(\omega )=\left[C^R(\omega )C^A(\omega )\right]\mathrm{coth}\left[\frac{\omega }{2T}\right]`$. The former part gives an elastic contribution to the self-energy. It is very easy to treat this term, we just replace $`\delta (\omega )`$ by a delta symbol $`\frac{1}{T}\delta _{\omega _m\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}`$ and the integral (33) by the sum over $`\omega _m`$. The latter part is more complicated. As an example, let us consider the first and third terms in the right-hand side of Eq.(33). After analytical continuation on discrete Matsubara frequencies $`\epsilon _n>0`$, we get for these terms:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}\{.\beta ^R(i\epsilon _n\omega )[\stackrel{~}{C}^R(\omega )\stackrel{~}{C}^A(\omega )]\mathrm{coth}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2T}}\right]`$ (42)
$`+\stackrel{~}{C}^R(\omega )[\beta ^R(i\epsilon _n\omega )\beta ^A(i\epsilon _n\omega )]\mathrm{tanh}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i\epsilon _n\omega }{2T}}\right].\}`$ (43)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}\stackrel{~}{C}^R(\omega )\beta ^A(i\epsilon _n\omega )\mathrm{coth}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2T}}\right]`$ (44)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}\stackrel{~}{C}^R(\omega )\beta ^R(i\epsilon _n\omega )\mathrm{coth}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2T}}\right]`$ (45)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }_3}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}\stackrel{~}{C}^A(\omega )\beta ^R(i\epsilon _n\omega )\mathrm{coth}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2T}}\right].`$ (46)
We have used Eqs.(37,38) valid at the transition point and also the relation $`\mathrm{tanh}\left[\frac{i\epsilon _n\omega }{2T}\right]=\mathrm{coth}\left[\frac{\omega }{2T}\right]`$. It is easy to see, that in Eq.(46), all $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ and $`\beta `$ functions involved are analytical inside the contours of integration. Thus, the total integral is determined by the poles of the cotangent function only. As a result, the whole expression (46) can be rewritten as a sum over the bosonic Matsubara frequencies:

$$2T\underset{\omega _m}{}\stackrel{~}{𝒞}(\omega _m)\beta (\epsilon _n\omega _m)$$

Similar procedure can be done with the second and forth terms in Eq.(33). Summarizing, we recover the quasiequilibrium equation on the superconducting transition point.

$`\left|\epsilon _n\right|\beta (\epsilon _n)\mathrm{\Delta }={\displaystyle \frac{T}{2\tau _sS\left(S+1\right)}}{\displaystyle \underset{\omega _m}{}}𝒞(\omega _m)`$ (47)
$`\times \left\{\beta (\epsilon _n\omega _m)+\beta (\epsilon _n)\mathrm{sgn}\epsilon _n\mathrm{sgn}\left(\epsilon _n\omega _m\right)\right\}`$ (48)
Note that the equilibrium expression is the same in paramagnetic and spin-glass phases. However, the spin-spin autocorrelation functions are different in these phases.

## III Spin-spin autocorrelation function

### A Random mean-field

To find the superconducting transition point, we have to solve Eqs.(33,35) or Eq.(48), which requires knowing the spin-spin autocorrelation function(s). Calculation of this correlator for the quantum Heisenberg spin-glass is a very hard problem even in the quasiequilibrium case. To get some insight into the problem under consideration, we propose a method of calculating this correlator which introduces the concept of a random mean field. This idea is similar to the one used by Thouless, Anderson and Palmer.  We combine the random mean-field method with the virial or cluster expansion \[see e.g. Ref. \].

Let us consider a spin in the mean-field of the other spins $`𝐡=\underset{a}{}J_{ab}𝐒_a`$. The distribution function for this random magnetic field can be naturally defined as follows:

$$P[𝐡]=\delta \left(𝐡\underset{a}{}J_{ab}𝐒_a\right)_{J,𝐒}$$
(49)
or, equivalently,

$$P[𝐡]=\frac{d^3\lambda \lambda \lambda }{\left(2\pi \right)^3}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\lambda \lambda \lambda \left(𝐡\underset{a}{}J_{ab}𝐒_a\right)\right]_{J,𝐒},$$
(50)
where the averaging over the random spin-spin interaction and over spin orientations is implied. For the RKKY interaction (6), averaging means:

$$f(J)_J=:\frac{1}{V}d^3𝐫\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}\frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }f\left(\frac{J_0\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{r^3}\right),$$
(51)
where $`V`$ is the volume of the system and $`f`$ is an arbitrary function.

From Eqs.(50,51), we obtain:

$$P[𝐡]=\frac{d^3\lambda \lambda \lambda }{\left(2\pi \right)^3}e^{i\lambda \lambda \lambda 𝐡}\underset{a}{}\left(1\frac{4\pi }{3}\frac{J_0}{V}\left|\lambda \lambda \lambda 𝐒_a\right|\right)_𝐒.$$
(52)
Performing averaging over the spin orientations and evaluating the corresponding elementary integral we get the distribution function for the random mean field:

$$P[𝐡]=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}\frac{a}{\left(a^2+h^2\right)^2},a=\frac{2\pi }{3}J_0n_sS,$$
(53)
where $`n_s`$ is the concentration of magnetic impurities and $`S`$ is their spin.

Let us note that for a different model of spin-spin interactions the distribution function (49) would be different. For example, if we start with the Gaussian distribution of spin-spin couplings in the Sherrington-Kirpatrick model, the distribution function of the mean field is necessarily Gaussian as well.

In the non-equilibrium case, the simple calculation presented above is not valid. The distribution function of the mean-field should depend on time and on the type of the non-equilibrium state. For example if we study a non-equilibrium dynamics due to a slowly decaying remanent magnetization, one should modify the definition of the distribution function as follows:

$$P[𝐡,t]=\delta \left(𝐡\underset{a}{}J_{ab}𝐒_a\right)\times \delta \left(𝐦(t)\underset{a}{}𝐒_a\right)_{J,𝐒},$$
(54)
where $`𝐦(t)`$ is the remanent magnetization.

### B Virial expansion

Now, let us consider the following set of Hamiltonians:

$$_1=\mathrm{𝐒𝐡},$$
(55)
$$_2=J_{12}𝐒_1𝐒_2+𝐒_1𝐡_1+𝐒_2𝐡_2,$$
(56)
$$\mathrm{},$$

$$^{(k)}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{a,b}{\overset{k}{}}^{}J_{ab}𝐒_a𝐒_b+\underset{a}{}𝐒_a𝐡_a,$$
(57)
where both $`J`$’s and $`𝐡`$’s are random and distributed according to Eq.(51) and Eq.(53), correspondingly.

In principal, one can calculate any quantity using Hamiltoninans (55) (one spin), (56) (cluster of two spins), etc. and than average out the quantities of interest using Eq.(51) and distribution (53). This procedure generates a series which can be called virial or cluster expansion. It is similar to the virial expansion in the theory of liquids and gases. Let us also note, that comparison with the Sherrington-Kirpatrick Ising model shows that the first virial term is equivalent to the replica symmetric solution of the model. After a simple calculation one can obtain the equation for the Edwards-Anderson order parameter in the replica symmetric case. It is well known that the corresponding solution is not stable. The usual practice is to apply the mechanism of replica symmetry breaking. However, replica technique hardly can lead to some explicit results especially in the dynamical problems. Moreover, it involves a procedure of analytical continuation on replica indexes. This procedure is usually poorly justified, since, the behavior of functions to be analytically continued is typically not known at large replica indexes. It is not clear whether the virial expansion can help to solve the underlying problems. Technically it is quite straightforward and physically very transparent. Even though, the expansion does not contain any small parameter at low temperatures, one can try to calculate a quantity of interest up to some large $`N`$ (number of spins in the cluster) in order to sum up the series. Even if the series is not convergent, one can use Padé-Borel technique to do the summation.

If we are interested in studying a system in a non-equilibrium regime, the Hamiltonian language described above is not appropriate. One has to reformulate the problem using the corresponding action on the Keldysh closed time contour and do the virial expansion within this formalism. This idea will be developed elsewhere.

### C Matsubara spin-spin correlator. Equilibrium case.

To give an example of how this method works, let us calculate the spin-spin autocorrelation function in the first virial approximation. We will consider quasiequilibrium regime only. For the Matsubara correlator, we obtain:

$`𝒞(\omega _m,h)=\left[{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}e^{\beta ϵ_k}\right]^1{\displaystyle \underset{k_1,k_2}{}}|k_1|𝐒(0)|k_2|^2\times `$ (58)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{k_2}ϵ_{k_1}}{\omega _m^2+\left(ϵ_{k_2}ϵ_{k_1}\right)^2}}\left[e^{\beta ϵ_{k_1}}e^{\beta ϵ_{k_2}}\right].`$ (59)
For spin $`S=1/2`$, in the first virial approximation, we get:

$$𝒞(\omega _m,h)=\frac{1}{4T}\delta _{\omega _m,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}+\frac{h}{\omega _m^2+h^2}\mathrm{tanh}\left[\frac{h}{2T}\right].$$
(60)
Note, that for an arbitrary spin value $`S`$, the tangent factor is replaced by the corresponding Brillouin function. We have to average out quantity (60) with respect to the distribution function (53):

$$\overline{𝒞}(\omega _m)=d^3𝐡P[𝐡]𝒞(\omega _m,h).$$
(61)
Evaluating the corresponding integral, we obtain

$$\overline{𝒞}(\omega _m)=\frac{1}{4T}\delta _{\omega _m,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}+\overline{\delta 𝒞}(\omega _m),$$
(62)
where

$`\overline{\delta 𝒞}(\omega _m)=`$ $`4ai\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{{\scriptscriptstyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{res}}{z=ia}}}}+{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{{\scriptscriptstyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{res}}{z=i\left|\omega _m\right|}}}}\right]g(z)+`$ (65)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2a}{\pi }}\left[I(a,\omega _m)+2a{\displaystyle \frac{I(a,\omega _m)}{a}}\right],`$
with

$$g(z)=\frac{z^3}{\left(z^2+\omega ^2\right)\left(z^2+a^2\right)^2}\mathrm{tanh}\left[\frac{z}{2T}\right]$$

and

$$I(a,\omega _m)=\frac{1}{\omega _m^2a^2}\mathrm{Re}\left[\psi \left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{i\omega _m}{2\pi T}\right)\psi \left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{ia}{2\pi T}\right)\right]$$

At a low temperature $`TaT_g`$, Eq.(65) can be simplified and we obtain the following zero-temperature result:

$$\overline{\delta 𝒞}(\omega )=\frac{2a}{\pi }\frac{a^2\omega ^2+\omega ^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\omega }{a}\right)^2}{\left(\omega ^2a^2\right)^2}.$$
(66)
Let us emphasize the following property of correlators (62) and (66):

$$\underset{a0}{lim}\overline{𝒞}(\omega _m)=\frac{1}{T}S\left(S+1\right)\delta _{\omega _m\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}},$$
(67)
which can be verified by a straightforward calculation. This property means that if we switch off the interactions between the spins, the corresponding autocorrelation function turns into the time-independent correlation function of a free spin.

In the second virial approximation we should calculate correlator (59) using eigenfunctions of Hamiltonian (56). There are four quantum states possible in this case. Even at zero temperature, finding the ground state energy requires solving spectral problem which turns out to be an equation of the fourth order. Moreover we should average out correlator (59) over the random fields and coupling constant:

$$\overline{C}(\omega _m)=d^3𝐡_1d^3𝐡_2P[𝐡_1]P[𝐡_2]C(\omega _m;J,𝐡_1,𝐡_2)_J$$
(68)
This is hard to handle this analytically. Numerical work is required in this case.

## IV Superconducting transition point

### A Quantum critical point. Equilibrium case.

To find the superconducting transition point, we have to solve Eqs.(33, 35) or Eq.(48) in the quasiequilibrium regime. Let us first consider the latter case. At a finite temperature, Eq.(48) is an infinite system of coupled equations corresponding to different Matsubara frequencies. As temperature goes to zero, the picture is simplified and Eq.(48) turns into an integral equation:

$`\left[\left|\epsilon \right|+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _s}}\right]\beta (\epsilon )\mathrm{\Delta }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\tau _sS(S+1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}`$ (69)
$`\times \left[\overline{𝒞}(\omega )S\left(S+1\right)\delta (\omega )\right]`$ (70)
(71)
$`\times \left[\beta (\epsilon +\omega )+\beta (\epsilon )\mathrm{sgn}\epsilon \mathrm{sgn}\left(\epsilon +\omega \right)\right].`$ (72)
In the absence of spin-spin interactions the anomalous Green function $`\beta `$ reads:

$$\beta ^{(0)}(\epsilon )=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\tau _s^1+\left|\epsilon \right|}.$$
(73)
Using definition (27), multiplying Eq.(72) on $`\beta ^{(0)}(\epsilon )`$, and integrating it over $`\epsilon `$, we get:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi \nu \left|\lambda \right|}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\epsilon }{2\pi }}\beta ^{(0)}(\epsilon )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\tau _sS\left(S+1\right)}}`$ (74)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}[\overline{𝒞}(\omega )S(S+1)\delta (\omega )]`$ (75)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\epsilon }{2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }}}[\beta (\epsilon +\omega )+\beta (\epsilon )\mathrm{sgn}\epsilon \mathrm{sgn}(\omega +\epsilon )]\beta ^{(0)}(\epsilon ).`$ (76)
As it will be shown below, this equation can be solved using the perturbation theory. Due to numerical reasons, the term in the right-hand side can be treated as a small perturbation. Thus, one can use expression (73) for the Green functions in Eq.(75). In this case, the integral over $`\epsilon `$ in the right-hand side of (75) can be easily evaluated and we get the following expression for the integral:

$`2\tau _sI(\omega \tau _s)=2\tau _s\{`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+|\omega |\tau _s}}.`$ (77)
$`+`$ $`.{\displaystyle \frac{1+|\omega |\tau _s}{|\omega |\tau _s\left(1+|\omega |\tau _s/2\right)}}\mathrm{ln}(1+|\omega |\tau _s)\}`$ (78)
Correlator $`\overline{𝒞}`$ follows from Hamiltonian (6) and distribution function defined by relation (51). There is only one dimensional parameter upon which it can depend: $`aJ_0n_s`$. Thus, in the equilibrium, the correlator is bound to have the following form:

$$\overline{𝒞}(\omega )=\frac{1}{a}\stackrel{~}{𝒞}\left(\frac{\omega }{a}\right)$$

This statement is true both in the high-temperature and low-temperature regions. Let us make the following change of variables in the integral over $`\omega `$ in Eq.(75): $`\omega x=\omega /a`$. Then, this equation can be rewritten as follows:

$`\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\gamma }}T_{c0}\tau _s\right]=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi S\left(S+1\right)}}`$ (79)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑x\left[\stackrel{~}{𝒞}\left(x\right)S\left(S+1\right)\delta (x)\right]I(\sigma x),`$ (80)
where function $`I(x)`$ is defined in (78) and $`\sigma =a\tau _s`$. The latter quantity is just a number. From, Eq.(7) and Eq.(53), we find

$$\sigma =\frac{1}{6\pi \left(S+1\right)}1.$$

One can see that this number is very small. If, formally, we put $`\sigma =0`$, we will get zero in the right-hand side of Eq.(80) \[see also (67)\] and recover the Abrikosov-Gor’kov’s formula for the quantum critical point:

$$T_{c0}\tau _{s0}^{(\mathrm{AG})}=\frac{2\gamma }{\pi }1.13.$$

If we keep $`\sigma `$ finite, the right-hand side term in Eq.(80) will give a correction to the quantum critical point due to the spin-spin interactions. For example, we can use correlator (66) calculated in the previous section. Evaluating the corresponding integral numerically we get correction to the critical concentration of magnetic impurities concentration:

$$\frac{\delta n_{s0}^{(1)}}{n_{s0}^{(\mathrm{AG})}}=0.073.$$

Similarly, we can obtain the shift corresponding to the second virial approximation (68). This has been done numerically. The corresponding result is

$$\frac{\delta n_{s0}^{(2)}}{n_{s0}^{(\mathrm{AG})}}=0.085.$$

We see that these corrections are quite small. This smallness is connected with the parameter $`T_g\tau _s`$ present in the theory and should exist in any order of the virial expansion. Thus, we conclude that the shift of the Abrikosov-Gor’kov quantum critical point is about $`10\%`$.

### B Equilibrium phase diagram

Another interesting question which is worth discussing is the effect of the superconductivity on the effective spin-spin interactions. This questions has been addressed long ago by Abrikosov. Recently it was revisited by Aristov et al. The effective spin-spin coupling is determined by the following expression:

$$J(𝐫)=2u_0^2T\underset{\epsilon _n}{}\left[\left|\alpha (\epsilon _n,𝐫)\right|^2+\left|\beta (\epsilon _n,𝐫)\right|^2\right],$$
(81)
where $`\alpha (\epsilon _n,𝐫)`$ and $`\beta (\epsilon _n,𝐫)`$ are Green functions in the real space. A straightforward calculation yields the following form of the effective RKKY interaction below the superconducting transition point:

$$J(𝐫)=\left[J_0\frac{\mathrm{cos}\left(2k_\mathrm{F}r\right)}{r^3}+\frac{1}{r^2}J_{\mathrm{AF}}\right]e^{2r/\xi },$$
(82)
where $`\xi =v_\mathrm{F}/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and antiferromagnetic contribution $`J_{\mathrm{AF}}\mathrm{\Delta }/ϵ_\mathrm{F}`$ is quite small.

At the transition line, $`\xi =\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, so we recover the usual RKKY formula. However, well below the transition the interaction becomes screened. This fact has a very transparent physical explanation. The RKKY interactions appears due to the fact that a spin polarizes the normal electrons around it. The Friedel’s oscillations in the electron density lead to the Ruderman-Kittel oscillations in the spin-spin coupling. In a superconductor, the spins are not polarized in the ground state. Thus at the distances larger than Cooper pair size $`\xi `$, the indirect spin-spin coupling must be suppressed.

In the absence of superconductivity, we expect the spin glass state to survive even at very low concentrations of magnetic impurities if $`T=0`$. In a superconductor, the spin glass state should disappear at

$$n_s\xi ^3\left(\frac{T_{c0}}{v_\mathrm{F}}\right)^3.$$

We see that not only spin-spin interactions change the superconducting phase diagram, superconductivity in turn suppresses magnetic ordering at low temperatures and spin concentrations.

Combining these results with the ones obtained in the previous sections, we can plot the phase diagram for the physical system under consideration (see Fig. 3). Let us note that the high-temperature asymptotics  matches the low-temperature one at a temperature $`T^{}2J_0n_s`$, which is approximately the temperature of the spin-glass transition.

## V Ageing in the superconducting quantum critical point

Let us study the following experiment. Consider a superconductor at a low temperature with the concentration of magnetic impurities $`n_s<n_{s0}`$, where $`n_{s0}`$ is the equilibrium critical concentration found in the previous section. Now, let us switch on a large magnetic field. This field polarizes the magnetic impurities and electrons and destroys superconductivity. Then, we switch off the magnetic field. The electron system equilibrate very quickly. However, in the system of magnetic impurities, one finds a remanent magnetization which decays very slowly with time. This magnetization acts on the electrons as an external magnetic field, which affects only the spin degree of freedom but not the orbital one. In some sense the effect due to the remanent magnetization on the electron system is equivalent to the effect of an external magnetic field applied parallel to a two-dimensional superconducting sample. This leads to the further suppression of superconductivity. Thus, even after the external magnetic field is switched off, the superconductivity may be absent in such an experiment due to the ageing effects in the system of magnetic impurities.

To get some qualitative insight into the non-equilibrium case, let us consider a small enough remanent magnetization and neglect corrections to the Abrikosov-Gor’kov form of the spin-spin correlator. In this case, we obtain the following set of equations which describes the superconducting transition and determines the order parameter:

$$\left[\epsilon i\delta \mu \right]\beta (\epsilon )=\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha (\epsilon )\frac{1}{\tau _s}\alpha (\epsilon )\beta (\epsilon ),$$
(83)
where $`\alpha (\epsilon )`$ and $`\beta (\epsilon )`$ are superconducting Green functions subject to the following constraint:

$$\alpha ^2(\epsilon )+\left|\beta (\epsilon )\right|^2=1$$
(84)
and the order parameter is defined as usual:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\pi \nu \left|\lambda \right|T\underset{\epsilon _n}{}\beta (\epsilon _n).$$
(85)
In Eq.(83), we have introduced the splitting of the Fermi-surface due to the remanent magnetization:

$$\delta \mu =u_0m(t),$$
(86)
where $`u_0`$ is the integral over the exchange potential \[see Eq.(3)\] and $`𝐦(t)=n_s𝐒`$ is the remanent magnetization which slowly depends on time. Let us note, that upon $`m(t)`$, all superconducting quantities in Eq.(83) acquire similar slow time-dependence.

From Eqs.(8385), it follows that for large enough values of remanent magnetization $`\delta \mu \tau _s^1`$, the superconducting transition becomes of the first order. The order parameter jumps from the zero value up to a finite value. Let us consider smaller values of the magnetization and find the corresponding second-order superconducting transition point. From Eqs.(8385), we get:

$$1=\pi \nu \left|\lambda \right|T_c\underset{\epsilon }{}\frac{1}{\left|\epsilon \right|i\left(\delta \mu \right)\mathrm{sgn}\epsilon +\tau _s^1}.$$
(87)
At zero temperature, the corresponding integral can be easily evaluated and we get:

$$1=\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\pi }{2\gamma }\frac{T_{c0}}{\sqrt{\delta \mu ^2+\tau _s^2}}\right].$$

Finally, we obtain the following time-dependent critical concentration:

$$n_s(t)=\sqrt{n_{s0}^2cm^2(t)},$$
(88)
where constant $`c`$ has the form:

$$c=\left[\frac{\pi }{S\left(S+1\right)}\frac{u_0^2}{mp_\mathrm{F}}\right]^2.$$
(89)
The dynamics of the remanent magnetization in the spin-glass state can be usually well-fitted via the following formula:

$$m(t)=m_0v\mathrm{ln}t.$$

Where $`m_0`$ is of the order of the remanent magnetization just after the magnetic field is turned off and quantity $`v`$ is called magnetic viscosity. Thus, the superconducting critical point is slowly flowing towards its equilibrium value:

$$n_s(t)=n_{s0}\frac{c}{2}\left[m_0v\mathrm{ln}t\right]^2.$$
(90)
We see that after some time, which can be macroscopically large, the superconductivity should appear again.

Let us note that non-equilibrium effects at the superconducting transition point does not necessarily have to be connected with the dynamics of remanent magnetization. Another possible experiment could be done as follows. Let us consider a superconductor with the concentration of magnetic impurities such as $`n_{s0}^{(\mathrm{AG})}<n_s<n_{s0}`$, where again $`n_{s0}^{(\mathrm{AG})}`$ is the Abrikosov-Gor’kov’s critical concentration at zero temperature and $`n_{s0}`$ is the real critical concentration at zero temperature with the account of interactions. Consider large enough initial temperature so that no superconductivity is present at the beginning. Then, let us cool a sample down very quickly at zero field. One should expect that superconductivity appears only some time after the sample was cooled down due to the slow relaxation processes in the spin subsystem.

## VI Conclusion

We have considered a superconductor with interacting magnetic impurities. The central result of this paper is the dependence of the superconducting properties in such a system upon the spin-spin autocorrelation function. At low temperatures, one can expect to observe ageing effects in the superconducting transition point. The limiting manifestation of the ageing would be the observation of the spontaneous appearance of superconductivity after some macroscopic waiting time due to a slow change in the remanent magnetization in the spin subsystem.

In the equilibrium, we predict that the Abrikosov-Gor’kov’s critical line shifts towards higher temperatures and impurity concentrations due to the spin-spin interactions. Let us note that the high-temperature expansion diverges as $`T0`$ and, formally, predicts very large shift of the critical point. The two asymptotics match at a temperature $`T^{}2J_0n_s`$. This gives a good estimate for the temperature of the spin-glass transition $`T_g`$. At $`T=T_g`$, a crossover from the high-temperature (paramagnetic) asymptotics to the low-temperature (spin-glass) one takes place. We have shown that the actual shift of the superconducting transition due to the RKKY interactions is small at any temperatures. This is connected with the small parameter $`T_g\tau _s`$ which exists in the theory.

Let us also mention that our calculations are valid only for temperatures $`TT_K`$, where $`T_K`$ is the Kondo temperature. In this case we can neglect higher order processes in the electron scattering off the impurities. At $`TT_K`$ the magnetic impurities become screened, which presumably should lead to the further enhancement of superconductivity.

Let us note that some deviations from the Abrikosov-Gor’kov’s curve have been observed experimentally. The measurements showed some increase in the critical concentration at low temperatures. Except the effects discussed in the present paper, this increase can also be connected with the phenomena similar to the ones discussed in Refs. . Namely, optimal fluctuations in the distribution of magnetic impurities may lead to the formation of superconducting islands coupled via the Josephson effect. This effect may also lead to some increase in the critical concentration. However, we do not expect this increase to be very large due to the suppression of the Josephson coupling by quantum fluctuations. To identify which effect is dominant at low temperatures, additional experiments are highly desirable. In either case, we expect that some interesting non-equilibrium phenomena (hysteresis, ageing, etc.) should reveal themselves at low temperatures.

###### Acknowledgements.

V. Galitski wishes to thank Dmitry Aristov for a valuable advice. This work was supported by NSF grant DMR-0120702.


format: text

text:
# On the Computational Complexity of Consistent Query Answers

## 1 Introduction

It is nowadays common to build databases integrating information from multiple, autonomous, distributed data sources. The problem of data integration is nevertheless very complex . In this paper, we consider a specific issue arising in data integration; how to obtain reliable, consistent information from inconsistent databases – databases that do not have to satisfy given integrity constraints. Such databases occur in a natural way in data integration, since there is typically no global monitor that could guarantee that the integrated database satisfies the constraints. The data sources are independent and even if they separately satisfy the constraints, the integrated database may fail to do so. For example, different data sources may contain different, locally unique addresses for the same person, leading to the violation of the global uniqueness constraint for people’s addresses. Inconsistent databases occur also in other contexts. For instance, integrity constraints may fail to be enforced for efficiency reasons, or because the inconsistencies are temporary. Or, there may be not enough information to resolve inconsistencies, while the database may have to continue being used for real-time decision support.

To formalize the notion of consistent information obtained from a (possibly inconsistent) database in response to a user query, we proposed in  the notion of a consistent query answer. A consistent answer is, intuitively, true regardless of the way the database is fixed to remove constraint violations. Thus answer consistency serves as an indication of its reliability. The different ways of fixing an inconsistent database are formalized using the notion of repair: another database that is consistent and minimally differs from the original database.

###### Example 1

Consider the following instance of a relation Person

| Name | City | Street |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Brown | Amherst | 115 Klein |
| Brown | Amherst | 120 Maple |
| Green | Clarence | 4000 Transit |

and the functional dependency $`\mathrm{𝑁𝑎𝑚𝑒}\mathrm{𝐶𝑖𝑡𝑦}\mathrm{𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑡}`$. Clearly, the above instance does not satisfy the dependency. There are two repairs: one is obtained by removing the first tuple, the other by removing the second. The consistent answer to the query $`\mathrm{𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛}(n,c,s)`$ is just the tuple (Green,Clarence,4000 Transit). On the other hand, the query $`s[\mathrm{𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛}(n,c,s)]`$ has two consistent answers: (Brown,Amherst) and (Green,Clarence). Similarly, the query

$$\mathrm{𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛}(\mathrm{Brown},\mathrm{Amherst},115\mathrm{Klein})\mathrm{𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛}(\mathrm{Brown},\mathrm{Amherst},120\mathrm{Maple})$$

has true as the consistent answer. Notice that for the last two queries the approach based on removing all inconsistent tuples and evaluating the original query using the remaining tuples gives different, less informative results.

In , in addition to a formal definition of a consistent query answer, a computational mechanism for obtaining such answers was presented in the context of first-order queries. In , the same problem was studied for scalar aggregation queries. In  some cases were identified where consistent query answers are tractable (in PTIME). In the present paper, we provide a complete classification of the computational complexity of computing consistent query answers to first-order queries. We consider functional dependencies (FDs) and their generalization: denial constraints. Denial constraints allow an arbitrary number of literals per constraint and arbitrary built-in predicates. They also relax the typedness restriction of FDs. Denial constraints are particularly useful for databases with interpreted data, e.g., numbers. Their implication problem was studied in .

###### Example 2

The constraint that no employee can have a salary greater than that of her manager is the denial constraint

$$n,s,m,s^{},m^{}.\neg [\mathrm{𝐸𝑚𝑝}(n,s,m)\mathrm{𝐸𝑚𝑝}(m,s^{},m^{})s>s^{}].$$

The results of  imply that for binary denial constraints consistent answers can be computed in PTIME for queries that are conjunctions of literals. In the present paper we strengthen that result to arbitrary quantifier-free queries and arbitrary denial constraints. We also identify a class of restricted existentially quantified queries (consisting of single literals), for which consistent query answers can be computed in PTIME. In general, we show how the complexity depends on the type of the constraints considered, their number, and the size of the query. Related work is discussed in depth in . Other papers that adopt our notion of consistent query answer include .

## 2 Basic Notions

In this paper we assume that we have a fixed database schema containing only one relation schema $`R`$ with the set of attributes $`U`$. We will denote elements of $`U`$ by $`A,B,\mathrm{}`$, subsets of $`U`$ by $`X,Y,\mathrm{}`$, and the union of $`X`$ and $`Y`$ by $`XY`$. We also have two fixed, disjoint infinite database domains: $`D`$ (uninterpreted constants) and $`N`$ (numbers). We assume that elements of the domains with different names are different. The database instances can be seen as first order structures that share the domains $`D`$ and $`N`$. Every attribute in $`U`$ is typed, thus all the instances of $`R`$ can contain only elements either of $`D`$ or of $`N`$ in a single attribute. Since each instance is finite, it has a finite active domain which is a subset of $`DN`$. As usual, we allow the standard built-in predicates over $`N`$ ($`=,,<,>,,`$) that have infinite, fixed extensions.

Integrity constraints are typed, closed first-order formulas over the vocabulary consisting of $`R`$ and the built-in predicates over $`N`$.

###### Definition 1

Given a database instance $`r`$ of $`R`$ and a set of integrity constraints $`F`$, we say that $`r`$ is consistent if $`rF`$ in the standard model-theoretic sense; inconsistent otherwise.

We consider the following classes of integrity constraints:

* denial constraints: formulas of the form $`\overline{x}_1,\mathrm{}\overline{x}_k.\neg [R(\overline{x}_1)\mathrm{}R(\overline{x}_m)\varphi (\overline{x}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{x}_m)]`$ where $`\overline{x}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{x}_m`$ are tuples of variables and constants, and $`\varphi `$ is a conjunction of atomic formulas referring to built-in predicates;
* functional dependencies (FDs) $`XY`$ over the set $`U`$ (key FDs if $`X`$ is a key of $`R`$).

Clearly, functional dependencies are a special case of denial constraints.

###### Definition 2

For the instances $`r,r^{},r^{\prime \prime }`$, $`r^{}_rr^{\prime \prime }`$ if $`rr^{}rr^{\prime \prime }`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Definition 3

Given a set of integrity constraints $`F`$ and database instances $`r`$ and $`r^{}`$, we say that $`r^{}`$ is a repair of $`r`$ w.r.t. $`F`$ if $`r^{}F`$ and $`r^{}`$ is $`_r`$-minimal in the class of database instances that satisfy $`F`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We denote by $`\mathrm{𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑠}_F(r)`$ the set of repairs of $`r`$ w.r.t. $`F`$. For any set of denial constraints, all the repairs are obtained by deleting tuples from the table.

###### Definition 4

 Given a set of integrity constraints $`F`$ and a database instance $`r`$, we say that a (ground) tuple $`\overline{t}`$ is a consistent answer to a query $`Q(\overline{x})`$ w.r.t. $`F`$ in $`r`$, and we write $`r_FQ(\overline{t})`$ if for every $`r^{}\mathrm{𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑠}_F(r)`$, $`r^{}Q(\overline{t})`$. If $`Q`$ is a sentence, then $`\mathrm{𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒}`$ ($`\mathrm{𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑒}`$) is a consistent answer to $`Q`$ w.r.t. $`F`$ in $`r`$, and we write $`r_FQ`$ ($`r_F\neg Q`$), if for every $`r^{}\mathrm{𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑠}_F(r)`$, $`r^{}Q`$ ($`r^{}Q`$). $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Data Complexity of Consistent Query Answers

Assume a class of databases $`𝒟`$, a class of queries $``$ and a class of integrity constraints $`𝒞`$ are given. We study here the data complexity  of consistent query answers, i.e., the complexity of (deciding the membership of) the sets $`D_{F,\varphi }=\{r:r𝒟r_F\varphi \}`$ for a fixed sentence $`\varphi `$ and a fixed finite set $`F𝒞`$ of integrity constraints.

###### Proposition 1

 For any set of denial constraints $`F`$ and sentence $`\varphi `$, $`D_{F,\varphi }`$ is in co-NP.

It is easy to see that even under a single key FD, there may be exponentially many repairs and thus the approach to computing consistent query answers by generating and examining all repairs is not feasible.

###### Example 3

Consider the functional dependency $`AB`$ and the following family of relation instances $`r_n`$, $`n>0`$, each of which has $`2n`$ tuples (represented as columns) and $`2^n`$ repairs:

$$\begin{array}{cccccccc}r_n& & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & \\ A& a_1& a_1& a_2& a_2& \mathrm{}& a_n& a_n\\ & & & & & & & \\ B& b_0& b_1& b_0& b_1& \mathrm{}& b_0& b_1\end{array}$$

Given a set of denial constraints $`F`$ and an instance $`r`$, all the repairs of $`r`$ with respect to $`F`$ can be succinctly represented as the conflict hypergraph. This is a generalization of the conflict graph defined in  for FDs only.

###### Definition 5

The conflict hypergraph $`𝒢_{F,r}`$ is a hypergraph whose set of vertices is the set of tuples in $`r`$ and whose set of edges consists of all the sets $`\{\overline{t}_1,\overline{t}_2,\mathrm{}\overline{t}_l\}`$ such that $`\overline{t}_1,\overline{t}_2,\mathrm{}\overline{t}_lr`$, and there is a constraint

$$\overline{x}_1,\overline{x}_2,\mathrm{}\overline{x}_l\neg [R(\overline{x}_1)R(\overline{x}_2)\mathrm{}R(\overline{x}_l)\varphi (\overline{x}_1,\overline{x}_2,\mathrm{}\overline{x}_l)]$$

in $`F`$ such that $`\overline{t}_1,\overline{t}_2,\mathrm{}\overline{t}_l`$ violate together this constraint, which means that there exists a substitution $`\rho `$ such that $`\rho (\overline{x}_1)=\overline{t}_1,\rho (\overline{x}_2)=\overline{t}_2,\mathrm{}\rho (\overline{x}_l)=\overline{t}_l`$ and that $`\varphi (\overline{t}_1,\overline{t}_2,\mathrm{}\overline{t}_l)`$ is true.

By an independent set in a hypergraph we mean a subset of its set of vertices which does not contain any edge.

###### Proposition 2

Each repair of $`r`$ w.r.t. $`F`$ corresponds to a maximal independent set in $`𝒢_{F,r}`$.

### 3.1 Positive results

###### Theorem 1

For every set $`F`$ of denial constraints and quantifier-free sentence $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`D_{F,\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ is in PTIME.

Proof. We assume the sentence is in CNF, i.e., of the form $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_l`$, where each $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ is a disjunction of ground literals. $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is true in every repair of $`r`$ if and only if each of the clauses $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ is true in every repair. So it is enough to provide a polynomial algorithm which will check if for a given ground clause true is a consistent answer.

It is easier to think that we are checking if for a ground clause true is not  a consistent answer. This means that we are checking, whether there exists a repair $`r^{}`$ in which $`\neg \mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ is true for some $`i`$. But $`\neg \mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ is of the form $`R(\overline{t}_1)R(\overline{t}_2)\mathrm{}R(\overline{t}_m)\neg R(\overline{t}_{m+1})\mathrm{}\neg R(\overline{t}_n)`$, where $`\overline{t}_j`$ are tuples of constants. Thus it is enough to check two conditions:

1. whether for every $`j`$, $`m+1jn`$, $`\overline{t}_jr`$ or there exists an edge $`E_j𝒢_{F,r}`$ such that $`\overline{t}_jE_j`$, and
2. there is no edge $`E𝒢_{F,r}`$ such that $`Er^{}`$ where

$$r^{}=\{\overline{t}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{t}_m\}\underset{m+1jn,\overline{t}_jr}{}(E_j\{\overline{t}_j\}).$$

If the conditions are satisfied, then a repair in which $`\neg \mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ is true can be built by adding to $`r^{}`$ new tuples from $`r`$ until the set is maximal independent. The conditions can be checked by a nondeterministic algorithm that needs $`nm`$ nondeterministic steps, a number which is independent of the size of the database, and in each of its nondeterministic steps selects one possibility from a set whose size is polynomial in the size of the database. So there is an equivalent PTIME deterministic algorithm.

Note that the above result holds also for constraints and queries involving more than one relation. The notion of conflict hypergraph needs to be appropriately generalized in this case.

###### Theorem 2

Let $`F`$ consist of a single FD. Then for each sentence $`Q`$ of the form $`\overline{t}[R(\overline{t})\varphi (\overline{t})]`$ (where $`\varphi `$ is quantifier-free and only built-in predicates occur there), there exists a sentence $`Q^{}`$ such that for every database instance r, $`r_FQ`$ iff $`rQ^{}`$. Consequently, $`D_{F,Q}`$ is in PTIME.

Proof. The FD is $`A_1\mathrm{}A_lA_{l+1},\mathrm{}A_{l+m}`$, where $`l+m`$ is not greater than the arity $`k`$ of $`R`$. Let $`\overline{x}`$ be a vector of distinct variables of length $`l`$, $`\overline{y}`$ and $`\overline{y}_1`$ vectors of distinct variables of length $`m`$, and $`\overline{z}`$, $`\overline{z}_1`$ and $`\overline{z}_2`$ vectors of distinct variables of length $`k(l+m)`$. Then, the query $`Q^{}`$ is as follows:

$$\overline{x},\overline{y},\overline{z}\overline{y}_1,\overline{z}_1\overline{z}_2[R(\overline{x},\overline{y},\overline{z})\varphi (\overline{x},\overline{y},\overline{z})[R(\overline{x},\overline{y}_1,\overline{z}_1)[R(\overline{x},\overline{y}_1,\overline{z}_2)\varphi (\overline{x},\overline{y}_1,\overline{z}_2)]]].$$

We show now that the above results are the strongest possible, since relaxing any of the restrictions leads to co-NP-completeness. This is the case even though we limit ourselves to key FDs.

### 3.2 One key dependency, two query literals

###### Theorem 3

There exist a key FD $`f`$ and a query $`Qx,y,z[R(x,y,c)R(z,y,c^{})]`$, for which $`D_{\{f\},Q}`$ is co-NP-data-complete.

Proof. Reduction from MONOTONE 3-SAT. The FD is $`ABC`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi _1\mathrm{}\varphi _m\psi _{m+1}\mathrm{}\psi _l`$ be a conjunction of clauses, such that all occurrences of variables in $`\varphi _i`$ are positive and all occurrences of variables in $`\psi _i`$ are negative. We build a database with the facts $`R(i,p,c)`$ if the variable $`p`$ occurs in the clause $`\psi _i`$ and $`R(i,p,c^{})`$ if the variable $`p`$ occurs in the clause $`\varphi _i`$. Now, there is an assignment which satisfies $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ if and only if there exists a repair of the database in which $`Q`$ is false. To show the $``$ implication, select for each clause $`\varphi _i`$ one variable $`p_i`$ which occurs in this clause and whose value is 1 and for each clause $`\psi _i`$ one variable $`p_i`$ which occurs in $`\psi _i`$ and whose value is 0. The set of facts $`\{R(i,p_i,c):im\}\{R(i,p_i,c^{}):m+1il\}`$ is a repair in which the query $`Q`$ is false. The $``$ implication is even simpler.

### 3.3 Two key dependencies, one query literal

By a bipartite edge-colored graph we mean a tuple $`𝒢=V,E,B,G`$ such that $`V,E`$ is an undirected bipartite graph and $`E=BG`$ for some given disjoint sets $`B,G`$ (so we think that each of the edges of $`𝒢`$ has one of the two colors).

###### Definition 6

Let $`𝒢=V,E,B,G`$ be a bipartite edge-colored graph, and let $`FE`$. We say that $`F`$ is maximal $`𝒱`$-free if:

1. $`F`$ is a maximal (w.r.t. inclusion) subset of $`E`$ with the property that neither $`F(x,y)F(x,z)`$ nor $`F(x,y)F(z,y)`$ holds for any $`x,y,z`$.
2. $`FB=\mathrm{}`$.

We say that $`𝒢`$ has the max-$`𝒱`$-free property if there exists $`F`$ which is maximal $`𝒱`$-free.

###### Lemma 1

Max-$`𝒱`$-free is an NP-complete property of bipartite edge-colored graphs.

Proof. Reduction from 3-COLORABILITY. Let $`=U,D`$ be some undirected graph. This is how we define the bipartite edge-colored graph $`𝒢_{}`$:

1. $`V=\{v_\epsilon ,v_\epsilon ^{}:vU,\epsilon \{m,n,r,g,b\}\}`$, which means that there are 10 nodes in the graph $`𝒢`$ for each node of $``$;
2. $`G(v_m,v_r^{}),G(v_m,v_b^{}),G(v_n,v_b^{}),G(v_n,v_g^{})`$ and $`G(v_r,v_m^{})`$,$`G(v_b,v_m^{})`$,$`G(v_b,v_n^{})`$,$`G(v_g,v_n^{})`$ hold for each $`vU`$;
3. $`B(v_ϵ,v_\epsilon ^{})`$ holds for each $`vU`$ and each pair $`ϵ,\epsilon \{r,g,b\}`$ such that $`ϵ\epsilon `$;
4. $`B(v_\epsilon ,u_\epsilon ^{})`$ holds for each $`\epsilon \{r,g,b\}`$ and each pair $`u,vU`$ such that $`D(u,v)`$.

Suppose that $``$ is 3-colorable. We fix a coloring of $``$ and construct the set $`F`$. For each $`vU`$: if the color of $`v`$ is Red, then the edges $`G(v_m,v_b^{}),G(v_n,v_g^{})`$ and $`G(v_b,v_m^{}),G(v_g,v_n^{})`$ are in $`F`$. If color of $`v`$ is Green, then the edges $`G(v_m,v_r^{}),G(v_n,v_b^{})`$ and $`G(v_r,v_m^{}),G(v_b,v_n^{})`$ are in $`F`$, and if the color of $`v`$ is Blue, then the edges $`G(v_m,v_r^{}),G(v_n,v_g^{})`$ and $`G(v_r,v_m^{}),G(v_g,v_n^{})`$ are in $`F`$. It is easy to see that the set $`F`$ constructed in this way is maximal $`𝒱`$-free.

For the other direction, suppose that a maximal $`𝒱`$-free set $`F`$ exists in $`𝒢_{}`$. Then, for each $`vU`$ there is at least one node among $`v_r,v_g,v_b`$ which does not belong to any $`G`$-edge in $`F`$. Let $`v_ϵ`$ be this node. Also, there is at least one such node (say, $`v_\epsilon ^{}`$) among $`v_r^{},v_g^{},v_b^{}`$. Now, it follows easily from the construction of $`𝒢_{}`$ that if $`F`$ is maximal $`𝒱`$-free then $`ϵ=\epsilon `$. Let this $`ϵ`$ be color of $`v`$ in $`𝒢`$. It is easy to check that the coloring defined in this way is a legal 3-coloring of $`𝒢`$.

###### Theorem 4

There is a set $`F`$ of 2 key dependencies and a query $`Qx,y[R(x,y,b)]`$, for which $`D_{F,Q}`$ is co-NP-data-complete.

Proof. The 2 dependencies are $`ABC`$ and $`BAC`$. For a given bipartite edge-colored graph $`𝒢=V,E,B,G`$ we build a database with the tuples $`(x,y,g)`$ if $`G(x,y)`$ holds in $`𝒢`$ and $`(x,y,b)`$ if $`B(x,y)`$ holds in $`𝒢`$. Now the theorem follows from Lemma 1 since a repair in which the query $`x,yR(x,y,b)`$ is not true exists if and only if $`𝒢`$ has the max-$`𝒱`$-free property.

### 3.4 One denial constraint

By an edge-colored graph we mean a tuple $`𝒢=V,E,P,G,B`$ such that $`V,E`$ is a (directed) graph and $`E=PGB`$ for some given pairwise disjoint sets $`P,G,B`$ (which we interpret as colors). We say that the edge colored graph $`𝒢`$ has the $`𝒴`$ property if there are $`x,y,z,tE`$ such that $`E(x,y),E(y,z),E(y,t)`$ hold and the edges $`E(y,z)`$ and $`E(y,t)`$ are of different colors.

###### Definition 7

We say that the edge-colored graph $`V,E,P,G,B`$ has the max-$`𝒴`$-free property if there exists a subset $`F`$ of $`E`$ such that $`FP=\mathrm{}`$ and :

1. $`V,F,PF,GF,BF`$ does not have the $`𝒴`$-property;
2. $`F`$ is a maximal (w.r.t. inclusion) subset of $`E`$ satisfying the first condition;

###### Lemma 2

Max-$`𝒴`$-free is an NP-complete property of edge-colored graphs.

Proof. By a reduction of 3SAT. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi _1\varphi _2\mathrm{}\varphi _l`$ be conjunction of clauses. Let $`p_1,p_2,\mathrm{}p_n`$ be all the variables in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. This is how we define the edge-colored graph $`𝒢_\mathrm{\Phi }`$:

1. $`V=\{a_i,b_i,c_i,d_i:1in\}\{e_i,f_i,g_i:1il\}`$, which means that there are 3 nodes in the new graph for each clause in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and 4 nodes for each variable.
2. $`P(a_i,b_i)`$ and $`P(e_j,f_j)`$ hold for each suitable $`i,j`$;
3. $`G(b_i,d_i)`$ and $`G(e_j,g_j)`$ hold for each suitable $`i,j`$;
4. $`B(b_i,c_i)`$ holds for each suitable $`i`$;
5. $`G(d_i,e_j)`$ holds if $`p_i`$ occurs positively in $`\varphi _j`$;
6. $`B(d_i,e_j)`$ holds if $`p_i`$ occurs negatively in $`\varphi _j`$;
7. $`E=BGP`$.

Now suppose that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is satisfiable, and that $`\mu `$ is the satisfying assignment. We define the set $`FE`$ as follows. We keep in $`F`$ all the $`G`$-colored edges from item 3 above. If $`\mu (p_i)=1`$ then we keep in $`F`$ all the $`G`$ edges leaving $`d_i`$ (item 5). Otherwise we keep in $`F`$ all the $`B`$ edges leaving $`d_i`$ (item 6). Obviously, $`FP=\mathrm{}`$. It is also easy to see that $`F`$ does not have the $`𝒴`$-property and that it is maximal.

In the opposite direction, notice that if an $`F`$, as in Definition 7 does exist, then it must contain all the $`G`$-edges from item 2 above - otherwise a $`P`$ edge could be added without leading to the $`𝒴`$-property. But this means that, for each $`i`$, $`F`$ can either contain some (or all) of the $`B`$-edges leaving $`d_i`$ or some (or all) of the $`G`$-edges. In this sense $`F`$ defines a valuation of variables. Also, if $`F`$ is maximal, it must contain, for each $`j`$, at least one edge leading to $`e_j`$. But this means that the defined valuation satisfies $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

###### Theorem 5

There exist a denial constraint $`f`$ and a query of the form $`Qx,y[R(x,y,p)]`$, for which $`D_{\{f\},Q}`$ is co-NP-data-complete.

Proof. The denial constraint $`f`$ is:

$`x,y,z,s,s^{},s^{\prime \prime }\neg [R(x,y,s)R(y,z.s^{})R(y,w,s^{\prime \prime })s^{}s^{\prime \prime }]`$

For a given edge-colored graph $`𝒢=V,E,P,G,B`$ we build a database with the tuples $`R(x,y,g)`$ if $`G(x,y)`$ holds in $`𝒢`$, with $`R(x,y,p)`$ if $`P(x,y)`$ holds in $`𝒢`$ and with $`R(x,y,b)`$ if $`B(x,y)`$ holds in $`𝒢`$. Now the theorem follows from Lemma 2 since a repair in which the query $`Q`$ is not true exists iff $`𝒢`$ has the max-$`𝒴`$-free property.

## 4 Acknowledgment

Work supported in part by NSF grant IIS-0119186.


text:
# Structures and Transitions in Light Unstable Nuclei

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Recently, the study of unstable nuclei is one of the hot subjects. In the light unstable nuclei, the experimental informations near the drip lines increase rapidly and many interesting phenomena are found. The exotic structures such as the halo, the skin structures, and the clustering structures are suggested in some light unstable nuclei. Are the features of the clusters in unstable nuclei similar to those in the stable nuclei ? The shift of the magic number and the deformations of unstable nuclei are the concerned problems.

Our aim is to research on the excited states of unstable and to study systematically the various structures of unstable nuclei. We apply a theoretical method of antisymmetrized molecular dynamics (AMD). The method of variation after projection(VAP) in the framework of AMD has been already proved to be useful to investigate the excited states of light unstable nuclei  as well as stable nuclei . AMD is a powerful approach which is applicable to the excited states of general nuclei. The wave function of AMD can represent various clustering structures as well as shell-model-like structures, because there is no inert core in the framework.

In the previous study on the excited states of 10Be with AMD , we found that the molecule-like structures may coexist in the low-energy region with the ordinary shell-model-like states. The data of the transitions such as $`E2`$ and Gamow-Teller transitions are so helpful to classify the excited levels into rotational bands. The reader is referred to the paper  for the detailed discussions.

## 2 FORMULATION

In this section we explain the formulation of AMD for the study of the nuclear structure of the excited states.

### 2.1 Wave function

The wave function of a system is written by AMD wave functions,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=c\mathrm{\Phi }_{AMD}+c^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{AMD}^{}+\mathrm{}.$$
(1)
An AMD wavefunction of a nucleus with mass number $`A`$ is a Slater determinant of Gaussian wave packets;

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{AMD}(𝐙)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{A!}}}𝒜\{\phi _1,\phi _2,\mathrm{},\phi _A\},`$ (2)
$`\phi _i=\varphi _{𝐗_i}\chi _{\xi _i}\tau _i:\{\begin{array}{c}\varphi _{𝐗_i}(𝐫_j)\mathrm{exp}\left[\nu \left(𝐫_j\frac{𝐗_i}{\sqrt{\nu }}\right)^2\right],\hfill \\ \chi _{\xi _i}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}+\xi _i\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}\xi _i\hfill \end{array}\right),\hfill \end{array}`$ (7)
where the $`i`$th single-particle wave function $`\phi _i`$ is a product of the spatial wave function, the intrinsic spin function and the iso-spin function. The spatial part $`\varphi _{𝐗_i}`$ is presented by complex parameters $`X_{1i}`$, $`X_{2i}`$, $`X_{3i}`$, of the centers of Gaussians, and $`\chi _{\xi _i}`$ is the intrinsic spin function parameterized by $`\xi _i`$. $`\tau _i`$ is the iso-spin function which is fixed to be up(proton) or down(neutron) in the present calculations. Thus an AMD wave function is parameterized by a set of complex parameters $`𝐙\{X_{ni},\xi _i\}(n=1,3\text{and }i=1,A)`$ which determine the centers of Gaussians of the spatial parts and the directions of the intrinsic spins for all single-particle wave functions.

If we consider a spin-parity eigen state projected from a AMD wave function, the total wave function is linear combinations of Slater determinants,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐙)=P_{MK^{}}^{J\pm }\mathrm{\Phi }_{AMD}(𝐙)=(1\pm P)𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }D_{MK^{}}^J(\mathrm{\Omega })R(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{\Phi }_{AMD}(𝐙),$$
(8)
where $`P`$ is a parity projection operator. The integrations for the Euler angles are numerically calculated by a summation of mesh points on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

In principal the total wave function can be a superposition of independent AMD wave functions,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=cP_{MK^{}}^{J\pm }\mathrm{\Phi }_{AMD}(𝐙)+c^{}P_{MK^{}}^{J\pm }\mathrm{\Phi }_{AMD}(𝐙^{})+\mathrm{}.$$
(9)
### 2.2 Energy variation

We make variational calculations to find the state which minimizes the energy of the system; $`\mathrm{\Phi }|H|\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ by the method of frictional cooling , one of the imaginary time methods. The time development of the wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐙)`$ is given by the equations,

$$\frac{dX_{nk}}{dt}=(\lambda +i\mu )\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}\frac{}{X_{nk}^{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐙)|H|\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐙)}{\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐙)|\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐙)},(n=1,3k=1,A)$$
(10)
$$\frac{d\xi _k}{dt}=(\lambda +i\mu )\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}\frac{}{\xi _k^{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐙)|H|\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐙)}{\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐙)|\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐙)},(k=1,A)$$
(11)
with arbitrary real numbers $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu <0`$. It is easily proved that the energy of the system decreases with time. After sufficient time steps of cooling, we obtain the optimum parameters for the minimum-energy state.

### 2.3 Lowest $`J^\pm `$ states

In order to obtain the wave function for the lowest $`J^\pm `$ state, we perform the energy variation for the spin parity eigenstates projected from an AMD wave function. In this case the trial function is $`\mathrm{\Phi }=P_{MK^{}}^{J\pm }\mathrm{\Phi }_{AMD}(𝐙)`$. For the preparation of VAP calculations, first we make variational calculations before the spin projection in order to choose an initial wave function for each parity and an appropriate $`K^{}`$ quantum for each spin-parity state. Then we perform VAP calculation for

$$P_{MK^{}}^{J\pm }\mathrm{\Phi }_{AMD}(𝐙)|H|P_{MK^{}}^{J\pm }\mathrm{\Phi }_{AMD}(𝐙)/P_{MK^{}}^{J\pm }(𝐙)|P_{MK^{}}^{J\pm }(𝐙)$$

with the adopted $`K^{}`$ quantum from the initial state. In the VAP procedure, the $`3`$-axis of Euler angle in the total-angular momentum projection is not necessarily same as the principal $`z`$-axis. The direction of the intrinsic deformation in the body-fixed frame is automatically determined in the energy variation depending on the adopted $`K^{}`$ quantum. However, in many cases, the approximately principal axis $`z`$ obtained by a VAP calculation is found to be almost equal to the $`3`$-axis.

### 2.4 Higher excited states

As mentioned above, with the VAP calculation for $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐙)=P_{MK^{}}^{J\pm }\mathrm{\Phi }_{AMD}(𝐙)`$, we obtain the set of parameters $`𝐙=𝐙_1^{J\pm }`$ which presents the wave function for the first $`J^\pm `$ state. To search the parameters $`𝐙`$ for the higher excited $`J^\pm `$ states, we make the energy variation for the orthogonal component of a spin-parity projected AMD wave function to the lower states by superposing the wave functions. If the AMD wave functions for the higher excited states have energetically local minimums, we do not need orthogonalization in VAP calculations.

### 2.5 Expectation values

After VAP calculations for various $`J_n^\pm `$ states, we obtain many intrinsic states $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{AMD}^1`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{AMD}^2`$,$`\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{AMD}^m`$. Finally we improve the wave functions by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian matrix $`P_{MK^{}}^{J\pm }\mathrm{\Phi }_{AMD}^i|H|P_{MK^{\prime \prime }}^{J\pm }\mathrm{\Phi }_{AMD}^j`$ and the norm matrix $`P_{MK^{}}^{J\pm }\mathrm{\Phi }_{AMD}^i|P_{MK^{\prime \prime }}^{J\pm }\mathrm{\Phi }_{AMD}^j`$ simultaneously with regard to ($`i,j`$) for all the intrinsic states and ($`K^{},K^{\prime \prime }`$). In comparison with the experimental data, the theoretical values are calculated with the final states after the diagonalization.

## 3 RESULTS

We calculate the excited states of 12Be and 11Be. The adopted interactions are the MV1 case3 (the finite two-body and the zero-range three-body interactions ) for the central force, and G3RS for the spin-orbit force . The coulomb interaction is approximated by a sum of seven Gaussians. In the present calculations, we adopt the Majorana parameter $`m=0.65`$ and omit the Bartlett and Heisenberg terms in the two-body central force. As for the strength of the spin-orbit force, we try two cases of the parameter, $`u_{ls}`$=3700 MeV and $`u_{ls}`$=2500 MeV.

The resonance states are treated as a bound-state approximation in AMD, because the restriction of the Gaussian forms of the wave functions makes an artificial barrier for outgoing particles.

### 3.1 12Be

The energy levels of 12Be are displayed in Figure 1. The theoretical results are calculated with the stronger spin-orbit force as $`u_{ls}=3700`$ MeV which can reproduce the abnormal parity of the ground $`1/2^+`$ state in 11Be. Many excited states are seen in the low-energy region. Even though the 12Be has the neutron magic number 8, it is surprising that the calculated ground state is not the ordinary state with the neutron closed $`p`$-shell, but a 2 particle 2 hole state with the developed clustering structure. As the evidence of the breaking of the closed $`p`$-shell, the calculations reproduce well the small value of the Gamow-Teller(GT) transition strength from 12Be($`0^+`$) to 12B($`1^+`$). The experimental $`B(GT)`$ is about one third as small as the value expected for the closed $`p`$-shell 12Be($`0^+`$). In other words, the weak GT transition is one of the proofs for the disappearance of the neutron magic number 8 in neutron-rich Be isotopes. It is consistent with the shell model analysis by T. Suzuki et al. . We also find many excited states with the developed molecule-like structures which construct the rotational bands $`K^\pi =0_1^+`$, $`K^\pi =1_1^{}`$, $`K^\pi =0_3^+`$ in the low-energy region. Since the ground state has the large deformation in the present calculations, The predicted $`B(E2;2_1^+0_1^+)`$ in the ground band is 14 e2fm4 and is much larger than the value 7 e2fm4 of $`B(E2;2_2^+0_2^+)`$ in the second $`K^\pi =0^+`$ band which consists of the closed $`p`$-shell states.

### 3.2 11Be

In this subsection, we discuss the excited states of 11Be. In Fig 2, the calculated energy levels are shown with the experimental data. We use the rather strong spin-orbit force in case (1) and the weaker LS force in case (2). The binding energies are underestimated as 58 MeV in case (1) and as 54 MeV in case (2). It is not difficult to fit to the experimental binding energy by choosing a smaller value for the Majorana parameter.

In the case (1) with the stronger LS force, the abnormal spin-parity $`1/2^+`$ state comes down lower than the normal negative parity states, which is consistent with the experimental data. In both cases, we found some rotational bands $`K^\pi =1/2^{}`$, $`K^\pi =1/2^+`$ and $`K^\pi =3/2^{}`$, although the order of the levels depends on the adopted interaction. The $`K^\pi =3/2^{}`$ band has a large moment of inertia and reaches to the high spin states. The highest spin is $`15/2^{}`$ in case(1) and $`13/2^{}`$ in case (2). It is expected that the $`K^\pi =3/2^{}`$ band may reach to the further high spin such as a $`17/2^{}`$ state in the calculations with a smaller value of the Majorana parameter.

Next we analyze the intrinsic wave functions of the obtained rotational bands. In the results of 11Be, 2$`\alpha `$ clustering structures appear very often in many states. The schematic figures are presented in Fig. 3. Two alpha cores are found in the states of the lowest negative parity band $`K^\pi =1/2^{}`$ (Fig.3(a)). In the positive parity states, one neutron is in the $`sd`$ orbit and the 2$`\alpha `$ clustering develops (Fig.3(b)). We think that one of the reason of the energy gain of the positive parity states is considered to be the clustering development. The interesting point is that the $`K^\pi =3/2^{}`$ band comes from the well-developed molecule-like structure with 2 neutrons in the $`sd`$ orbit (Fig.3(c)). The large moment of inertia results from the largely deformed intrinsic structure. At about 10 MeV, we found another characteristic state where one of the 2 $`\alpha `$-clusters completely breaks (Fig.3(d)). In this state the intrinsic spins of 2 protons couple up to be totally a unit. As mentioned above, various structures coexist in the low energy region in 11Be. It is expected that the valence neutrons play important roles in these excited states.

We discuss the Gamow-Teller(GT) transitions in order to analyze the level structures of 11Be. First we consider $`\beta `$ decay from 11B. The experimental data of GT-type transitions from the ground state of 11B are deduced from the $`0^{}`$ cross sections of the charge exchange reactions . Comparing the calculated log ft values with experimental data (Fig.4), the observed three levels well correspond to the excited states in the lowest $`K^\pi =1/2^{}`$ band. It is natural that the GT transitions from 11B to these levels are reasonably strong because both the parent and the daughter states are ordinary $`p`$-shell states.

The beta decays from 11Li are shown in Fig.4. We notice that the ideal 2$`\alpha `$-cluster structures in the daughter 11Be states forbid any GT transitions from 11Li because of the Pauli forbidden. In other words, the GT transitions from 11Li are allowed only if the daughter states of 11Be have the component with the breaking of the $`\alpha `$ clusters. The calculations well agree with the experimental log ft values. According to the calculated results, the lowest $`3/2^{}`$ and $`5/2^{}`$ states in the $`K^\pi =1/2^{}`$ band have the more than 10 % breaking of the clusters. One of the reason for the weak GT transition to the lowest $`1/2^{}`$ state is the clustering structure of 11Be. Another reason is suggested by Suzuki et.al  as the halo structure of the parent 11Li state, which may not be described enough in the present AMD calculations. In the calculations, transitions for the higher excited states in the $`K^\pi =3/2^{}`$ band are suppressed because of the $`\alpha `$ clusters in the developed molecule-like structures. The strong transition to the excited state at 8 MeV well fits to the calculated $`3/2^{}`$ state ($``$10 MeV ) where one of the two $`\alpha `$ clusters completely breaks.

As for the $`E1`$ transitions, the $`B(E1;1/2^{}1/2^+)`$ of the present calculations is much smaller than the experimental data. We should describe the wave function more precisely to reproduce the strength $`B(E1)`$.

## 4 SUMMARY

We studied the structure of the excited states of 12Be and 11Be and analyzed the level structure with the help of the data of Gamow-Teller transitions.

In 12Be, it is found that the ground state has the developed clustering structure instead of the neutron $`p`$-shell closed state. The main component of the ground state is the $`2p`$-$`2h`$ state in terms of a simple shell model. That is to say the neutron magic number 8 disappears in 12Be. It is consistent with the small GT strength to 12Be. Many molecule-like states make rotational bands in low energy regions.

In the case of 11Be, various structures are seen in the excited states. In the results rotational bands with the the developed clustering states are suggested. We discuss the Gamow-Teller transitions comparing the AMD calculations with the experimental data. The experimental data of GT transitions from 11B well agree with the theoretical results of the decay to the ordinary $`p`$-shell states of 11Be. With the help of the log ft values for the transitions from 11Li, we can estimate the dissociation of $`\alpha `$ clusters in the daughter 11Be nucleus. The observed strong GT transitions from 11Li to 11Be at 8 MeV comes from the breaking of the one of the 2 $`\alpha `$ clusters in the excited state of the daughter nucleus 11Be.