text:
# Extended states in a one-dimensional generalized dimer model

## Abstract

The transmission coefficient for one dimensional systems is given in terms of Chebyshev polynomials using the tight binding model. This result is applied to a system composed of two impurities located between $`N`$ sites of a host lattice. It is found that the system has extended states for several values of the energy. Analytical expressions are given for the impurity site energy in terms of the electron’s energy. The number of resonant states grow like the number of host sites between the impurities. This property makes the system interesting since it is a simple task to design a configuration with resonant energy very close to the Fermi level $`E_F`$.

Since the seminal paper of Anderson anderson , the problem of localization has been fundamental for the understanding of electronic transport in one dimensional disordered systems. The discovery of extended or delocalized states in systems with correlated disorder has renewed the interest in the transport properties of electrons for particular configurations of the lattice. Different types of systems \[2-10\] have been demonstrated to have extended states either with diagonal, or non-diagonal disorder or both.

One of the first systems studied was the so-called random dimer model (RDM) flores ; dunlap , in which a certain number of dimers (two adjacent impurities) were introduced randomly into the host lattice. Extended states with resonant energies equal to the site energy of the impurity were found.

In this paper, we describe a system consisting of two impurities hosted in a regular lattice and separated by $`N`$ lattice sites. This system is studied using the tight-binding Hamiltonian and the transfer matrix method. In addition, we use the Cayley-Hamilton theorem to express the transmission coefficient in terms of the Chebyshev polynomials of the second kind arfken . The transmission coefficient can be related to the conductance of the system through the Landauer formula landauer .

Consider a general $`n\times n`$ matrix $`M`$ whose characteristic equation can always be written as

$$\lambda ^n=C_{n1}\lambda ^{n1}+C_{n2}\lambda ^{n2}+\mathrm{}C_0.$$
(1)
We can write

$`\lambda ^{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^n\lambda `$ (2)
$`=`$ $`(C_{n1}^2+C_{n2})\lambda ^{n1}`$
$`+(C_{n1}C_{n2}+C_{n3})\lambda ^{n2}+\mathrm{}`$
and so on for higher powers of $`\lambda `$. In general the above equation will have the form

$$\lambda ^{n+m}=p_{n+m1}\lambda ^{n1}+p_{n+m2}\lambda ^{n2}+\mathrm{}+p_m\lambda ^0,$$
(3)
where the $`p_j`$ are polynomials in the trace and the minors of $`M`$. Now recall the Cayley-Hamilton theorem ma : if $`p(\lambda )=0`$ is the characteristic equation of $`M`$, then $`p(M)=0`$, that is, the matrix $`M`$ is also a “root” of the characteristic equation. The implication of this is that we can always write powers $`M^{n+N}`$ in terms of simpler expressions involving $`M^{n1}`$ and the polynomials $`p_j`$.

In the case of a rank 2 transfer matrix with determinant equal to one, the characteristic equation is

$$\lambda ^2=2x\lambda 1,$$
(4)
where $`2x=\text{Tr}M`$. It is easy to verify that higher powers of $`\lambda `$ are

$`\lambda ^3`$ $`=`$ $`(4x^21)\lambda 2x,`$ (5)
$`\lambda ^4`$ $`=`$ $`(8x^34x)\lambda (4x^21),`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{}`$ $`\mathrm{}`$ (7)
$`\lambda ^n`$ $`=`$ $`p_{n1}\lambda p_{n2},`$ (8)
and by virtue of the Cayley-Hamilton theorem, we can conclude

$$M^n=p_{n1}Mp_{n2}.$$
(9)
Note that the above formalism applies to a general matrix whose only requirement is to have a unit determinant. In the case of rank two matrices, the polynomials coincide with the second kind Chebyshev polynomials. The above results can be applied to either continuous pp1 ; sanchez  as well to discrete type lattices.

In the following we consider the discrete one dimensional chain in the tight-binding approximation eco ; marder , for which we have the Hamiltonian

$$H=\underset{n}{}ϵ_n|nn|+V\underset{n}{}\left[|nn+1|+|nn1|\right]$$
(10)
where $`ϵ`$ is the site energy and $`V`$ is the hopping amplitude between nearest sites. The resultant Schrödinger equation is

$$i\dot{c}_n(t)=ϵ_nc_n(t)+c_{n+1}(t)+c_{n1}(t),$$
(11)
where $`c_n(t)`$ is the probability amplitude for an electron to be at site $`n`$. After the substitution $`c_n(t)=C_n\mathrm{exp}(iEt)`$, where $`E`$ is the energy of the electron, we get the equation

$$C_{n+1}+C_{n1}=\left(\frac{Eϵ_n}{V}\right)C_n,$$
(12)
with the equivalent matrix representation

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}C_{n+1}\\ C_n\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2x_n& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}C_n\\ C_{n1}\end{array}\right),$$
(13)
where $`x_n=\frac{Eϵ_n}{2V}`$. The above matrix is called the transfer matrix $`M`$ of the site $`n`$. If we define

$$X_{n+1}=\left(\begin{array}{c}C_{n+1}\\ C_n\end{array}\right),$$
(14)
equation (12) takes the more compact form

$$X_{n+1}=M_nX_n,$$
(15)
and we will have

$$X_{N+1}=\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}M_i\right)X_1.$$
(16)
Consider an electron impinging an a sample that begins at site $`n=1`$ and ends at site $`n=N`$. The electron amplitudes will be given by

$$c_n=\{\begin{array}{ccc}Ae^{ikn}+Be^{ikn}& ;& n1\\ Ce^{ikn}+De^{ikn}& ;& nN\end{array}$$
(17)
The transmission coefficient $`T`$ will be given by $`|C/A|^2`$ and we obtain

$`T(N,x)`$ $`=`$ $`4(1x^2)([(m_{21}m_{12})+(m_{22}m_{11})x]^2`$ (18)
$`+(m_{11}+m_{22})^2(1x^2))^1,`$
where the $`m_{ij}`$ are the elements of the total transfer matrix given in (16) and $`x=E/2=\mathrm{cos}k`$, so we are taking $`V=1`$. Note that the $`m_{ij}`$ matrix elements contain all the physical information about the system that we are considering as a sample.

If we consider a piece of a chain with $`N`$ sites of equal energy $`ϵ_0`$ embedded in a host lattice of site energy 0, sometimes referred in the literature as an $`N`$-mer, equation (15) becomes

$$X_{N+1}=M_0^NX_1,$$
(19)
and we can apply the Cayley-Hamilton theorem to get

$$M^N=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2x_0U_{N1}U_{N2}& U_{N1}\\ U_{N1}& U_{N2}\end{array}\right).$$
(20)
where the Chebyshev polynomials depend on $`x_0=(Eϵ_0)/2`$. Equation (18) becomes

$`T(N,x,x_0)`$ $`=`$ $`(1x^2)[U_{N1}^2(1xx_0)^2`$ (21)
$`+(x_0U_{N1}U_{N2})^2(1x^2)]^1.`$
If we take the limit $`ϵ_0=0`$, then $`x=x_0`$ and we get a regular system (all site energies are the same). It is easy to see that in this case the above equation gives $`T=1`$. As an example of use of the above result, we consider a trimer with site energy $`ϵ_0=1.8`$. In Fig. (1) we plot the transmission as a function of the energy. We can see that $`T=1`$ at an energy of 0.8. These resonant values of energy are giving explicitly in izrailev  as $`E=ϵ_0+2\mathrm{cos}\mu `$, where $`\mu =(i+1)\pi /N`$ and $`i=0,1\mathrm{}N2`$. In our example we have $`N=3`$, therefore we have two resonances at $`E=0.8`$ and $`E=2.8`$, the latter lies outside the band width.

Recently, there has been much attention devoted to the RDM. In this model, two adjacent impurities are put in an otherwise regular chain. The result is that we have extended states present in the chain when the energy of these states is equal to the site energy of the impurities. The extended states are still there when the dimer is placed randomly in the chain.

As another application of Eq. (18), we consider an example which consists in introducing two impurities not necessarily adjacent in a regular lattice. We call this system a “generalized dimer”.

In this system we have two impurities with equal site energies separated by a linear chain of $`N`$ sites with energy equal to zero (The fact that the site energy is set to zero is not relevant since the site energy differences is what really matters). Then $`x=E/2`$ and $`x_1=(Eϵ_1)/2`$. The total transfer matrix for the system will be of the form

$$M_T=M_1(M_0)^NM_1,$$
(22)
where $`M_1`$ is the transfer matrix corresponding to the impurity site and $`M_0`$ corresponds to the regular sites. We can now use result (20) and obtain

$$M_T=\left(\begin{array}{cc}4x_1^2F_02x_1U_{N1}F1& U_{N1}2x_1F_0\\ U_{N1}+2x_1F_0& F_0\end{array}\right).$$
(23)
where $`x=E/2`$, $`x_1=(Eϵ_1)/2`$, $`F_0=2xU_{N1}U_{N2}`$ and $`F_1=2x_1U_{N1}U_{N2}`$. Now that we know the total transfer matrix elements, we can substitute them in equation (18) in order to obtain the transmission through the whole sample. It is clear that the polynomials are evaluated at $`x`$ since they describe the regular part of the sample.

Using the transfer matrix (23), we can apply equation (18) to get the transmission coefficient for this system. Since the presence of the generalized dimers in the chain introduce correlations in it, it is expected that particular values of the energy will produce transparent states. Unlike the RDM, where any site energy equal to the resonant energy produces a transparent states, we find that for this system, only certain values are allowed.

A relevant feature of this system is that, aside for this set of energies, there are also other values of $`E`$ for which the transmission is also equal to one. For any value of the impurity energy, one can always find one or more resonant energies. The number of resonant energies increases as the number of host sites between the impurities. This can be seen in Fig. (2), where we have plotted pairs of values of energy and site energy that produce a transparent state. Only the cases for 1 to 3 host sites are shown. Even though the figure shows a blank space between the points, the real data is continuous. For example, the relationship between $`ϵ_1`$ and $`E`$ is

$`ϵ_1={\displaystyle \frac{E^22}{E}}`$ for $`N=1,`$ (24)
$`ϵ_1={\displaystyle \frac{E^33E}{E^21}}`$ for $`N=2\text{and}`$ (25)
$`ϵ_1={\displaystyle \frac{E^44E^2+2}{E^32E}}`$ for $`N=3.`$ (26)
Similar expressions can be found for other values of $`N`$. The horizontal line is the case of zero site energy (regular lattice) for which we know that a continuous set of resonant energies exist. The diagonal line across the figure has been added to show those cases for which $`E=ϵ_1`$ (see also table 1). From the crossing of this line with the curves we notice that the case of $`N=3`$ has two values of energy (-1 and 1). Apart from the trivial case $`E=0`$, the $`N=1`$ and $`N=2`$ cases have no extended states when $`E=ϵ_1`$. Cases of $`N3`$ will always have resonant energies, but only for very particular values.

| N | $`ϵ_1`$ |
| --- | --- |
| 1 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 3 | 0, $`\pm 1`$ |
| 4 | 0, $`\pm \sqrt{2}`$ |
| 5 | 0, $`\pm \frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}`$, $`\pm \frac{1\sqrt{5}}{2}`$ |
| 6 | 0, $`\pm 1`$, $`\pm \sqrt{3}`$ |

Table 1. Resonant energies for the case $`E=ϵ_1`$. Only systems with $`N`$ smaller than 7 are shown.

In Table 1, the resonant energies when $`E=ϵ_1`$ are given for $`N=1`$ to $`N=6`$. Other values for $`N>6`$ can be easily found. The important point here is to notice the following two observations: 1) the number of resonant states is twice the number of the host sites in the generalized dimer ($`2N`$). 2) The resonant energy for $`N`$ host sites is also a resonant energy for any multiple of $`N`$. For example, for $`N=3`$, we have $`E=1`$, which is also a resonant energy for $`N=6,9,12\mathrm{}`$. Likewise, $`E=\sqrt{2}`$ is a resonant energy for $`N=4,8,12\mathrm{}`$, and so on.

Aside for this set of energies, there are also other values of $`Eϵ_1`$ for which the transmission is also equal to one. In fact, for any value of the impurity energy, one can always find one or more resonant energies. The number of resonant energies increases as the number of host sites between the impurities. It is not exactly equal to $`N`$ in all cases because it will depend on the crossing of the line of constant $`ϵ_1`$ with the curves in Fig. (2). As we can see, there is a minimum value for which we will have $`N+1`$ states. This is shown in Fig. (3). Notice, also from Fig. 3 that, given the Fermi energy of the system, one can find a resonant energy close enough to it for a relatively small $`N`$.

In conclusion, we obtained the formula for the transmission coefficient in a compact and straightforward way, making use of the Cayley-Hamilton theorem and the transfer matrix method. We applied this formula in two cases: 1) for the $`n`$-dimer system and obtained previous results and 2) for a new system that we called a generalized dimer, consisting of two impurities embedded in the host lattice. This system was found to have resonant energies for $`E=ϵ_1`$ and also for values of $`Eϵ_1`$. The number of these energies grows like the number of host sites between the impurities, $`N`$. This is an important feature of the system, since, by varying $`N`$, one can find a resonant energy close enough to the Fermi energy level. We believe that these kind of systems will be good candidates for the design of actual physical devices.


format: text

text:
# An unusual interplay among disorder, Kondo-effect and spin-glass behavior in the Kondo lattices, Ce2Au1-xCoxSi3

## Abstract

We report the results of magnetic measurements for the solid solution Ce2Au1-xCoxSi3. The results reveal that this solid solution is characterized by a magnetic phase diagram (plot of magnetic transition temperature versus $`x`$) unusual for Kondo lattices. In particular, the spin-glass freezing induced by disorder is observed only for the compositions at the weak coupling limit; as one approaches the quantum critical point by a gradual replacement of Au by Co, this disorder effect is surprisingly suppressed in favor of long range antiferro-magnetic ordering in contrast to expectations. This unusual interplay between disorder, spin-glass freezing and the Kondo-effect calls for further refinement of theories on competition between magnetism and the Kondo effect.

The study of the consequences of the competition between the Kondo effect and magnetic ordering in rare-earth and actinide systems continues to be an active topic of research. While the observation of long range magnetic ordering in some Kondo lattices itself is a subject of great theoretical interest considering that the Kondo effect should quench magnetism, one also observes disorder-induced spin-glass anomalies in the vicinity of quantum critical point (QCP) in some U and Ce systems (see, for instance, Refs. 1 and 2). This made this topic of research more fascinating and new theoretical ideas have been initiated in the recent literature under the assumption that such disorder effects are operative only at QCP. In this Letter, we bring out a counter-example, $`viz.,`$ the recently discovered solid solution, Ce2Au1-xCoxSi3, in which spin-glass behavior in fact is observed only when one approaches the weak coupling limit, that is, as one moves towards larger unit-cell volume. In otherwords, this glassy behavior surprisingly gets suppressed with increasing chemically-induced disorder as one approaches QCP, as though increasing Kondo interaction strength plays an unusual role of favoring long-range magnetic order at the expense of spin-glass behavior. This finding adds a new dimension to this direction of research, demanding further refinement of the theories on this subject.

These alloys, crystallizing in a AlB2-derived hexagonal structure, have been found to exhibit many interesting magnetic characteristics. While the parent Au compound orders magnetically below about 3 K, Ce2CoSi3 is a non-magnetic Kondo lattice. As Au is progressively replaced by Co, the magnetic ordering temperature (To) goes through a maximum (to about 8 K) as a function of $`x`$. This observation indicated that this compound lies at the left hand side of the Doniach’s magnetic phase diagram. This alloy series is one of the few solid solutions spanning a wide range of Doniach’s magnetic phase diagram thus serving an ideal series to test a theory for a large variation in the 4f exchange interaction strength. It is also to be noted that, for some intermediate compositions before the maximum, two magnetic transitions were observed with the previous data revealing interesting changes in magnetic structure both as a function of $`x`$ and T. This prompted us to investigate exact nature of these transitions in all these alloys to unravel the mysteries behind the competition between the Kondo effect and magnetism. We have therefore performed ac susceptibility ($`\chi _{ac}`$) measurements on many compositions of this alloy series at low temperatures. In addition, in order to augment the line of arguments of these alloys, we carried out low temperature isothermal magnetization (M) (in addition to that reported in Ref. 7) and low temperature heat-capacity (C(T)) of Ce2Au0.2Co0.8Si3. The knowledge thus gained viewed together with the findings reported in Ref. 7 enables us to construct a magnetic phase diagram.

The samples employed were synthesized as discussed in Ref. 7. The x ray diffraction patterns reveal that all the samples are single phases, though there could be a small amount of an impurity phase for x= 0.0 if interpreted within AlB2 structure. The $`x`$= 0.0 sample is a single phase, if the pattern is analysed in an orthorhombic structure. For many alloys ($`x`$= 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8), $`\chi _{ac}`$ (1.8-15 K) was probed employing a commercial magnetometer at various frequencies (1, 10, 100, 1000 Hz). Isothermal dc M data were also collected below 12 K for some compositions at the Au rich end with the same magnetometers. We have also taken C data down to 1.2 K to resolve the question whether the composition $`x`$= 0.8 close to the QCP is a spin-glass.

In Fig. 1, we show $`\chi _{ac}`$ data, both for the real ($`\chi `$) and the imaginary ($`\chi `$) components, as a function of (logarithmic) T below 12 K for $`x`$= 0.0. There is a peak at about 3 K due to the onset of magnetic ordering consistent with the observation in the C and dc $`\chi `$ data. There is an additional peak at about 2.2 K (which could not be resolved in earlier studies due to non-accessibility of this T range), establishing the existence of another magnetic transition. In fact two transitions could in principle be expected from two crystallographically inequivalent Ce sites for an ordered arrangement of Au and Si ions, for which there is an evidence from the doubling of $`a`$ parameter of the unit-cell. Therefore, at present, we cannot resolve whether the double transition arises from these two sites or whether the same Ce ions undergo spin-reorientation as T is lowered from 3 to 2.2 K. Our main conclusions are however not affected by actual reasoning of these two transitions.

We now address the question whether the disordered alloys are spin-glasses and if so whether this changes with composition. For this purpose, we show in Fig. 1 the frequency dependence of $`\chi _{ac}`$ for several compositions ordering magnetically in the covered temperature range. It is a well known fact that the peak of $`\chi _{ac}`$ should not exhibit a frequency dependence for long range ordering at the transition temperature, but spin glasses, however, are characterized by a peak shift of the order of a few percent. This essentially means a shift of the peak by about 0.1 K in our alloys for a change of frequency from 1 Hz to 1 kHz, which can easily be missed if the peak is broad as it appears to be the case in the present series. However, we can draw an inference on the frequency dependence if the left part of the curve moves to a higher temperature with increasing frequency. Also, in spin glasses, $`\chi `$ shows a sharp and prominent anomaly near the transition. If one looks for these two features, it follows that both the transitions for $`x`$= 0.0 interestingly could be due to spin-glass freezing. It is therefore clear that the broad C(T) anomaly spreading over a wide temperature range is associated with such a disordered magnetism.

With respect to the $`x`$ = 0.1 and 0.2 compositions, magnetic transitions are observed in the vicinity of 7-8 K as well as close to 4.5 K, manifesting as a broad shoulder and a peak (or a sharp upturn) in $`\chi `$ respectively; the 4.5 K-transition is of a spin-glass-type within the scope of the criteria stated above, but the 8 K-transition is not. This interpretation is consistent with the ZFC-FC dc $`\chi `$ behavior reported earlier. Incidentally, there is also a prominent peak in C(T) (see Fig. 3 of Ref. 7) around 7 K confirming the existence of another magnetic transition around this temperature. Correspondingly, inverse dc $`\chi `$(T) also exhibits a flattenning below this temperature (see Fig. 4 inset in Ref. 7). The fact that the 7K-transition arises from magnetic ordering only is established further from the isothermal M behavior discussed (in figures 6 and 7) in Ref. 7. We have taken additional M data at various temperatures at the Au rich end to strengthen our conclusions. The behavior of M for x= 0.1 below 15 K is shown in Fig. 2a to highlight the following point: while the plot is linear at 10 K typical of paramagnets, there is a sharp upturn of M beyond 2.5 kOe at 5 K. This feature becomes broader as one increases temperature, say, to 6.5 K. However, such a feature is absent at 2 K. The behavior is the same for x= 0.2. These observations suggest that there is a metamagnetic transition in a narrow temperature interval above 4.5 K. This establishes that the zero-field magnetic ordering in this narrow temperature range is of an antiferromagnetic type. We may add that the observation of such spin-reorientation effects in M data is not characteristic of Schottky anomaly, but only of antiferromagnetism, thereby conclusively ruling out any explanation of the 7K-peak in the C data in terms of Schottky anomalies. It may be recalled that, the isothermal M behavior at 5 K for $`x`$= 0.0 does not exhibit such an effect, thereby ruling out antiferromagnetic state for this end member.

Spin glass features are seen for $`x`$= 0.3 with a transition close to 5.3 K (with another feature at 2.7 K). It appears that the 7K-transition seen for x= 0.2 has moved down to a lower temperature (close to 6 K) and now it appears as a tail above the peak in the $`\chi `$ data. For $`x`$= 0.4, however, there is only one magnetic transition at 5 K which nicely agrees with C(T) and dc $`\chi `$ data, with a frequency dependence of the curve below the peak, classifying this composition also as a spin-glass. Interestingly, for x= 0.6, not only the peak temperature (4.5 K) but also the values are frequency independent throughout the T range of measurement, as if this alloy cannot be classified as a spin-glass; in support of this, the $`\chi `$ anomaly at the magnetic transition is negligible. Therefore, ZFC-FC dc $`\chi `$ bifurcation reported earlier for this composition does not arise from spin glass freezing and it should be noted that such features have been observed in the past even in some long range magnetically ordered systems.

In short, judged by the frequency dependence of $`\chi `$ below the peak as well as by distinct $`\chi `$ features, we conclude that all the compositions below $`x`$= 0.6 are spin-glasses at very low temperatures (typically below 4.5 K). However, long range magnetic ordering sets in at slightly higher temperatures for $`x`$= 0.1-0.3.

We now turn to the magnetism of the Co-rich end. In order to probe this aspect, the C measurements were performed down to 1.2 K for the composition x= 0.8 and the results are shown in Fig. 2b. It is distinctly clear that there is a prominent peak at 2 K. In spin-glass systems, the corresponding feature in C is broadened significantly and the observation of a well-defined peak therefore rules out spin-glass freezing for this composition (which is close to QCP, given that the end Co member is non-magnetic). The $`\chi `$ data (Fig. 1) tends to show a flattening below 2 K (without any frequency dependence of absolute values) as though there is an onset of magnetic order very close to this T; the absence of $`\chi `$ feature at 2 K also rules out spin glass freezing for this composition.

We would like to mention that we have also measured MR (= \[$`\rho `$(H)-$`\rho `$(0)\]/$`\rho `$(0)) as a function of H down to 0.6 K primarily to support our conclusions for the compositions close to QCP ($`x`$= 0.6 and 0.8). The MR of these alloys is found to be positive (typically close to 2%) even for reasonably large values of H (say till 40 to 60 kOe) well below their respective To, characterizing that these alloys are antiferromagnets without magnetic Brillouin-zone gap effects at temperatures as low as 0.6 K. If the low temperature state is a spin-glass, the sign of MR should be negative even in the low field range. We also observed a sign reversal at higher fields establishing the field-induced spin-flipping in these alloys. Above the respective ordering temperatures, MR is negative in the entire field range typical of paramagnets.

By consistently interpreting the features observed in all these data as well as dc $`\chi `$ and C features reported in Ref. 7, we have sketched a magnetic phase diagram (see Fig. 3) for the present solid solution. For this purpose, the onset of spin-glass freezing marked in Fig. 3 is inferred from the temperature at which $`\chi `$ exhibits a sharp upturn, while the T in the vicinity of which long range magnetic ordering sets in is inferred from the shoulder/peak temperatures in the $`\chi `$ plots (Fig. 1). The additional spin-glass transition (around 2.5 K) seen in the ac $`\chi `$ data for the compositions x= 0.0 to 0.3 is not marked in the figure separately for the sake of simplicity of the figure, particularly noting that these phases are also anyway spin-glasses. This transition must be intrinsic to the samples considering that the materials are essentially single phase and future investigations may focus on the exact origin of this phase. It may also be added that the absolute values of To determined from different techniques slightly (to the extent of 0.5 K) vary, which is attributed to some degree of ambiguity in locating the actual transition point from different experimental techniques. Therefore, the values plotted are representative of the transition regions. In spite of these deficiencies, this pictorial representation serves as an useful guide to bring out the main points. To demonstrate the novelty of the magnetic phase diagram of this series, we compare our findings with that for a well-studied system, CeCu1-xNix (compare with Fig. 3 in Ref. 2): (1) The magnetic phase diagram is reversed for both these two series of alloys, CeCu1-xNix and the present one. (2) The ones that exhibit spin glass behavior in our solid solution fall in the low coupling regime (that is, close to or below the maximum of the Doniach’s magnetic phase diagram as inferred from the $`x`$ dependence of To), whereas the compositions close to QCP are not spin glasses. This observation is in sharp contrast to expectations based on previous knowledge in the field. (3) In some of the alloys with more than one magnetic transition, that is, in the range $`x`$= 0.1 to 0.3, long range magnetic ordering precedes spin glass freezing as T is lowered, in sharp contrast to the reverse behavior observed in the Ce-Cu-Ni series. To our knowledge, this kind of magnetic phase diagram has not been reported for any Kondo alloy in the past.

We like to add that, in the neutron diffraction data at 2 K for all compositions classified here as spin glasses, no additional sharp lines appear when compared with the data at 10 K. However, for $`x`$= 0.6, distinct evidence for long range magnetic ordering is found in the neutron data. These neutron data thus endorse the main findings (summarised below) in this article.

To conclude, we have identified a Ce based solid solution in which increasing chemical disorder surprisingly suppresses spin glass behavior in favor of long range magnetic order as one moves towards Kondo-dominated state. It is intriguing to note that the disorder-induced spin-glass behavior is realised only at the weak coupling limit, but not close to QCP, in contrast to the hitherto observed, predicted or assumed behavior. Absence of this disorder effect at QCP is surprising, particularly considering that a stoichiometric end of the solid solution is by itself a spin-glass. It is therefore a real theoretical challenge to understand this unusual interplay among the disorder, spin-glass ordering and the Kondo effect.

One of us (EVS) would like thank C. Laubschat for a visit to Dresden under SFB463, during which this collaboration with Augsburg group was initiated. He also thanks Sarojini Damodaran Foundation for supporting the visit of Subham Majumdar to TU Vienna. Research in Vienna is supported by the Austrian FWF, project P 12899. We thank A. Szytula for bringing us to our attention the results of his neutron diffraction measurements before publication. We thank Kartik Iyer for his help in sample characterization and magnetization measurements.


text:
# Electric Dipole Moments in The Limit of Heavy Superpartners

\[

## Abstract

Supersymmetric loop corrections induce potentially large CP-violating couplings of the Higgs bosons to nucleons and electrons that do not vanish in the limit of heavy superpartners. The Higgs-mediated CP-odd four-fermion operators are enhanced by $`\mathrm{tan}^3\beta `$ and induce electric dipole moments of heavy atoms which exceed the current experimental bounds for the electroweak scale Higgs masses and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >10`$. If only the first two sfermion generations are heavy, the Higgs-mediated contributions typically dominate over the Barr-Zee type two-loop diagrams at $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >30`$.

\] Non–observation of the electric dipole moments (EDMs) of the neutrons  and heavy atoms  poses a serious problem for low–energy supersymmetry. This is because generically the EDMs are induced already at the one loop level and their predicted values exceed the experimental limits by orders of magnitude (see  for recent analyses). The most straightforward way to circumvent this problem is to assume that the superpartner mass scale is rather high (over a few TeV) which leads to the suppression of all effective one-loop-generated CP-odd operators of dimension five and higher, and seemingly allows for arbitrary CP-violating phases. The arising Higgs mass fine–tuning problem can be alleviated if the third generation sfermions are kept light.

In this work, we consider sources of the EDMs which survive the decoupling of the superpartners while the Higgs masses are kept fixed. In this limit, the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) degenerates into a two-Higgs doublet model (2HDM) with an important one-loop-induced modification of the Yukawa sector compared to the usual type II models . We show that the Higgs-mediated four-fermion operators induce potentially large electric dipole moments of heavy atoms that grow as $`\mathrm{tan}^3\beta `$, and that supersymmetric models with large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ face the SUSY CP problem even in the limit of heavy SUSY particles. We further compare the Higgs-mediated contributions with the two-loop induced contributions  which are significant if the masses of the third generation squarks are near the electroweak scale.

At the tree level, the down type quarks and charged leptons obtain their masses from the interaction with the first Higgs doublet $`H_1`$. The finite one loop SUSY corrections induce considerable couplings of the second Higgs doublet $`H_2`$ to the $`D`$-quarks and charged leptons, that are absent in the limit of unbroken supersymmetry:

$`_Y`$ $`=`$ $`Y_D^{(0)}H_1\overline{D}_LD_R+𝒴_DH_2^{}\overline{D}_LD_R`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`Y_E^{(0)}H_1\overline{E}_LE_R+𝒴_EH_2^{}\overline{E}_LE_R+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$ (2)
where $`Y_{D,E}^{(0)}`$ are the tree level Yukawa couplings and $`𝒴_{D,E}`$ are the loop induced couplings. The typical representatives of important threshold diagrams are given in Figs.1a and 1b. Ignoring flavor changing effects, we relate $`Y_{D,E}^{(0)}`$ and $`𝒴_{D,E}`$ by:

$$𝒴_D=J_DY_D^{(0)},𝒴_E=J_EY_E^{(0)}.$$
(3)
The loop functions $`J_D`$ and $`J_E`$ are complex and contain the dependence on the CP phases in the soft-breaking sector, which leads to the CP-odd interactions of the physical Higgses with the $`D`$-quarks and leptons. When one redefines the phase of the right-handed $`D`$ and $`E`$ fields, $`D_Re^{i\delta _D}D_R`$ and $`E_Re^{i\delta _E}E_R`$ such that the mass term in Eq.(2) becomes real, the induced CP–phase in the Higgs interaction gets enhanced by $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_2/v_1`$: $`\delta _{D,E}=\mathrm{Arg}(1+J_{D,E}\mathrm{tan}\beta )`$. Thus, large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ can compensate the loop smallness of $`J_{D,E}`$ so that the phases $`\delta _{D,E}`$ can be order one. An exchange by physical Higgses will then produce CP–odd four–fermion interactions, Fig.2a. The relevant interactions are induced by the exchange of a CP–odd Higgs boson $`A`$ and CP–even Higgs boson $`H`$ between the $`D`$-quarks and the electron, and between the $`D`$-quarks:

$`_{4f}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }{2m_A^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=e,d,s,b}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{Y_i^{SM}Y_j^{SM}(\mathrm{sin}\delta _i\mathrm{sin}\delta _j)}{|1+J_i\mathrm{tan}\beta ||1+J_j\mathrm{tan}\beta |}}`$ (4)
$`\times \overline{\psi }_i\psi _i\overline{\psi }_ji\gamma _5\psi _j.`$ (5)
Here $`Y_f^{SM}`$ denote the Standard Model values for the Yukawa couplings, $`Y_f^{SM}\sqrt{2}m_f/v`$ ($`v`$=246 GeV), and the CP–phases are understood modulo $`\pi `$. In the derivation of (5), we have used the relations $`m_Am_H`$, $`\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha 1`$, where $`\alpha `$ is the neutral Higgs mixing angle, and dropped all $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$-suppressed terms. This approximation works well even for moderately large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

CP–odd contact interactions can also be induced via $`AH`$ mixing, Fig.2b, which appears due to CP–violating Higgs couplings to the third generation squarks  (Fig.1c):

$`_{AH}{\displaystyle \frac{AH\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }{2m_A^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=e,d,s,b}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{Y_i^{SM}Y_j^{SM}\overline{\psi }_i\psi _i\overline{\psi }_ji\gamma _5\psi _j}{|1+J_i\mathrm{tan}\beta ||1+J_j\mathrm{tan}\beta |}},`$ (6)
Here we have used $`m_H^2m_A^2AH`$. Such effects were studied previously in the context of 2HDMs with spontaneous breaking of CP by Barr .

Inspection of Eq.(5) reveals that the CP-odd coupling grows as $`\mathrm{tan}^3\beta `$ because $`\mathrm{sin}\delta _i`$Im$`J_i\mathrm{tan}\beta /|1+J_i\mathrm{tan}\beta |`$, until the radiative corrections become comparable to the tree-level values. Here we treat $`m_A`$ as an independent variable (it is proportional to the SUSY $`B\mu `$ parameter). The cubic growth is different from a $`\mathrm{tan}^2\beta `$-behavior in 2HDMs with spontaneous CP violation . Thus, generally Eq.(6) represents a $`subleading`$ effect, as $`AH`$ contains a loop smallness not compensated by large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. We note that the $`QCD`$ renormalization group flow for the electron–quark interactions from $`m_A`$ to $`1`$GeV is trivial at one loop and one can simply take $`Y_i^{SM}`$ normalized at 1GeV.

Using Eq.(5), we calculate the EDMs of paramagnetic atoms and estimate the EDMs of diamagnetic atoms and neutrons. The semi-leptonic operators in (5) induce two types of $`T`$-odd nucleon-electron interaction

$$_{CP}=C_S\overline{N}N\overline{e}i\gamma _5e+C_P\overline{N}i\gamma _5N\overline{e}e$$
(7)
with possible isospin dependence. $`C_S`$ and $`C_P`$ are severely constrained by the recently improved experimental bounds on the EDM of the thallium and mercury atoms . With the use of the standard technique for the $`QCD`$ matrix elements  of a heavy quark over a nucleon state, the isospin-singlet coupling $`C_S`$ can be expressed as

$`C_S{\displaystyle \frac{5.5\times 10^{10}\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }{m_A^2|1+J_e\mathrm{tan}\beta |}}[{\displaystyle \frac{(10.25\kappa )(\mathrm{sin}\delta _b\mathrm{sin}\delta _e)}{|1+J_b\mathrm{tan}\beta |}}`$ (8)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3.3\kappa (\mathrm{sin}\delta _s\mathrm{sin}\delta _e)}{|1+J_s\mathrm{tan}\beta |}}+{\displaystyle \frac{0.5(\mathrm{sin}\delta _d\mathrm{sin}\delta _e)}{|1+J_d\mathrm{tan}\beta |}}].`$ (9)
Here we have used $`(m_u+m_d)N|\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d|N/2=45`$ MeV and $`(m_um_d)N|\overline{u}u\overline{d}d|N/90`$ MeV$`1`$. The coefficient $`\kappa N|m_s\overline{s}s|N/220`$ MeV parametrizes the uncertainty in the value of $`N|m_s\overline{s}s|N`$ matrix element. Its “best” value $`\kappa =1`$ is inferred from the leading order flavour $`SU(3)`$ analysis of the baryon octet mass splittings. An assumption that the strange quark behaves as a heavy quark would lead to a smaller value, $`\kappa =0.3.`$ It is important to note that a significant source of uncertainty – the poorly known masses of the light quarks – does not affect Eq.(9)! Using (9), and the results of the atomic calculation that relates $`d_{\mathrm{Tl}}`$ and $`C_S`$ ,

$$d_{\mathrm{Tl}}8.5\times 10^{17}e\mathrm{cm}\times C_S(100\mathrm{GeV})^2,$$
(10)
one can express the thallium EDM in terms of the SUSY parameters. Comparison of (10) with the experimental data provides the bound $`C_S<1.1\times 10^8(100\mathrm{GeV})^2.`$

The dimensionless loop functions $`J_i`$’s depend on the pattern of the soft masses. To get an idea of the size of the induced EDMs, let us first consider a toy model with $`m_{\mathrm{sfermion}}=m_{\mathrm{gaugino}}=|\mu |=|A_i|=MM_Z`$. The dominant contribution comes from the squark-gluino and stop-Higgsino exchange:

$`J_e`$ $`=0;J_d=J_s={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\{i\varphi _\mu +i\varphi _3\};`$ (11)
$`J_b`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\{i\varphi _\mu +i\varphi _3\}+{\displaystyle \frac{(Y_t^{SM})^2}{32\pi ^2}}\mathrm{exp}\{i\varphi _\mu +i\varphi _{A_t}\},`$ (12)
where $`\varphi _\mu ,\varphi _3,\varphi _{A_t}`$ are the phases of the $`\mu `$-parameter, the gluino mass, and the $`A_t`$ parameter, respectively. In the case of general soft terms, the gluino contribution to $`J_i`$ should be multiplied by $`|\mu M_3|I(m_{i1}^2,m_{i2}^2,|M_3|^2)`$ and the Higgsino contribution by $`|\mu A_t|I(m_{t1}^2,m_{t2}^2,|\mu |^2)`$ , where $`m_{i1,2}`$ are the squark mass eigenvalues, $`M_3`$ is the gluino mass, and the loop function is defined by

$$I(a,b,c)=2\frac{ab\mathrm{ln}(a/b)+bc\mathrm{ln}(b/c)+ac\mathrm{ln}(c/a)}{(ab)(bc)(ac)}$$
(13)
such that $`I=1/M^2`$ for $`a=b=c=M^2`$. In the same limit, the CP-odd Higgs mixing is given by

$`AH={\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{64\pi ^2}}[(Y_t^{SM})^4\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi _\mu +2\varphi _{A_t})`$ (14)
$`+(Y_b^{SM})^4\mathrm{tan}^4\beta \mathrm{sin}(2\varphi _\mu +2\varphi _{A_b})].`$ (15)
Obviously, both $`J_i`$’s and $`AH`$ are independent of the superpartner mass scale $`M`$. An expression for $`AH`$ in a more general case can be found in . As we will see, the effect of the $`AH`$ mixing does not impose significant constraints for $`m_A150`$ GeV, so henceforth we will mainly concentrate on the effect of the vertex corrections.

The Higgs–quark vertex corrections lead to the following thallium EDM normalized to the current 90% C.L. experimental bound $`[d_{\mathrm{Tl}}]_{\mathrm{exp}}9.4\times 10^{25}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{cm}`$ :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d_{\mathrm{Tl}}}{[d_{\mathrm{Tl}}]_{\mathrm{exp}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}^3\beta }{350\times m_{100}^2}}\left[\mathrm{sin}\varphi _\mu +0.04\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _\mu +\varphi _{A_t})\right],`$ (16)
where we have set $`\varphi _3=0`$, $`|1+J_i\mathrm{tan}\beta |1`$, and $`\kappa =1`$. $`m_{100}`$ is $`m_A`$ measured in the units of $`100`$ GeV. Already at $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 7`$ the r.h.s. of (16) may reach 1 (while the standard EDM contributions are suppressed for the SUSY masses of 10 TeV).

We conclude that even for arbitrarily heavy superpartners, the SUSY CP problem reappears if $`\mathrm{tan}\beta (m_A/100\mathrm{GeV})^{2/3}>10`$. For instance, with $`\varphi _\mu 1`$, $`m_A`$100 GeV, and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 60`$ the induced EDM exceeds the experimental bound by almost three orders of magnitude! It is important to note that these calculations are free of large nuclear uncertainties .

The CP-odd constant $`C_S`$ also induces EDMs of diamagnetic atoms through the mixing with the hyperfine interaction . Our prediction for the mercury EDM is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d_{\mathrm{Hg}}(C_S)}{[d_{\mathrm{Hg}}]_{\mathrm{exp}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}^3\beta }{900\times m_{100}^2}}\left[\mathrm{sin}\varphi _\mu +0.04\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _\mu +\varphi _{A_t})\right],`$ (17)
where the current experimental bound is $`[d_{\mathrm{Hg}}]_{\mathrm{exp}}2\times 10^{28}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{cm}`$ . This imposes a slightly weaker bound that the thallium EDM. However, in the case of diamagnetic atoms there are two additional classes of contributions, induced by $`C_P`$ and the nuclear Schiff moment. To evaluate $`C_P`$, we follow the strategy of Ref.. Unlike the previous case, there is a strong dependence of the result on $`m_u/m_d`$, and within the error bars for this ratio the matrix elements of $`\overline{s}i\gamma _5s`$ and $`\overline{b}i\gamma _5b`$ over the neutron are compatible with zero. The $`d`$-quark contribution gives

$`C_P(n){\displaystyle \frac{6.3\times 10^9}{m_A^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta (\mathrm{sin}\delta _d\mathrm{sin}\delta _e)}{|1+J_e\mathrm{tan}\beta ||1+J_d\mathrm{tan}\beta |}},`$ (18)
where we have used $`m_u/m_d=0.55`$. Using the results of the atomic calculation , we convert this into the bound

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d_{\mathrm{Hg}}(C_P)}{[d_{\mathrm{Hg}}]_{\mathrm{exp}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}^3\beta }{3500\times m_{100}^2}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _\mu .`$ (19)
This is clearly a subleading contribution, compared to (17). Finally, the $`\overline{q}i\gamma _5q\overline{q}q`$ interactions in (5) induce $`d_{\mathrm{Hg}}`$ via the nuclear Schiff moment. It is known that a $`T`$-odd one pion exchange between nucleons is the dominant source of the Schiff moment. We estimate the $`T`$-odd pion-nucleon coupling $`\overline{g}_{\pi NN}`$ following the approach of . Since $`\mathrm{sin}\delta _s=\mathrm{sin}\delta _d`$ in our case, there are cancellations in the sum (5) and the dominant contribution comes from the operator $`\overline{d}i\gamma _5d\overline{b}b`$. The resulting isospin-triplet coupling $`\overline{g}_{\pi NN}\pi ^0\overline{N}N`$ is

$`\overline{g}_{\pi NN}2.7\times 10^{13}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }{m_{100}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{sin}\delta _d\mathrm{sin}\delta _b)(10.25\kappa )}{|1+J_b\mathrm{tan}\beta ||1+J_d\mathrm{tan}\beta |}}.`$ (20)
Skipping a long chain of nuclear and atomic matrix elements that relate $`\overline{g}_{\pi NN}`$ and $`d_{\mathrm{Hg}}`$ (see Ref. for details), we get:

$$\frac{d_{\mathrm{Hg}}(\mathrm{Schiff})}{[d_{\mathrm{Hg}}]_{\mathrm{exp}}}\frac{\mathrm{tan}^3\beta }{1.1\times 10^4m_{100}^2}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _\mu +\varphi _{A_t}).$$
(21)
Remarkably, Eq.(21) has the same sensitivity to $`\varphi _\mu +\varphi _{A_t}`$ as Eq.(16), yet this calculation involves considerable uncertainties. A combination of $`d_{\mathrm{Tl}}`$ and $`d_{\mathrm{Hg}}`$ constrains both phases, $`\varphi _\mu `$ and $`\varphi _{A_t}`$, once again exemplifying the complementarity of the two measurements .

Let us now consider a popular scenario where only the first two sfermion generations are assumed to be heavy ($`>10`$ TeV). We further assume the most conservative case when the gluinos are also heavy such that the leading term in Eq.(16) disappears. Then we have

$`J_d=J_s=J_e=0;J_b{\displaystyle \frac{(Y_t^{SM})}{32\pi ^2}}^2A_t\mu I(m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2,|\mu |^2).`$ (22)
We note, however, that in order to suppress the contribution of the gluino exchange diagram in $`J_b`$ one would have to require $`M_3>60\mu `$!

Fig.3 shows a $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ dependence of $`C_S/[C_S]_{\mathrm{exp}}=d_{\mathrm{Tl}}/[d_{\mathrm{Tl}}]_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ in this model. We use the parameters of Ref., namely $`|A_{t,b}|=|\mu |=1`$ TeV, Arg$`(A_{t,b}\mu )=\pi /2`$, and $`m_{\mathrm{sq}}=0.6`$ TeV (assuming that the left and right stop and sbottom mass parameters are given by $`m_{\mathrm{sq}}`$ while other squarks are decoupled), and treat the Higgs masses as $`independent`$ parameters. The three curves v1,v2,v3 correspond to $`d_{\mathrm{Tl}}`$ induced by the Higgs vertex corrections with $`m_A=100,200,300`$ GeV, respectively, while the curve m1 corresponds to $`d_{\mathrm{Tl}}`$ induced by the $`AH`$ mixing with $`m_A=100`$ GeV (for $`m_A150`$ GeV this effect does not impose any considerable constraints). At $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 15`$ the generated EDM is comparable to the experimental limit and at $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 60`$ it exceeds the experimental limit by up to two orders of magnitude. We observe that for this choice of the parameters, the sensitivity to $`\varphi _\mu +\varphi _{A_t}`$ is better than that in Eq.(16) by a factor of a few. The sensitivity to $`\varphi _\mu +\varphi _3`$ will be as good or better if $`M_3<60\mu `$. We remark that the considered parameter space is constrained by the observed $`Bs\gamma `$ branching ratio. When the effect of the SUSY threshold corrections is taken into account, the constraints become rather weak .

We further compare the Higgs-mediated EDMs with the two-loop effects considered in Ref.. The strongest constraint was obtained from the electron or, equivalently, the thallium atom EDM (the neutron EDM imposes weaker constraints, at least in the naive quark model). At low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the two-loop diagrams are more important than the ones considered here, while at $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 35`$ the Higgs induced four–fermion operators provide stronger constraints (see Fig.2 of Ref. subject to the factor of two correction). This statement, of course, depends on $`m_A`$ and the soft masses. Concerning the $`m_A`$ dependence, the EDM due to the Higgs vertex scales as $`1/m_A^2`$ and the EDM due to the $`AH`$ mixing falls off faster than $`1/m_A^4`$. The Barr–Zee contribution scales down roughly linearly with $`m_A`$  and therefore is more significant at heavier $`m_A`$. On the other hand, the Higgs-mediated EDMs become dominant in the case of heavier superpartners.

In Fig.4 we present the behavior of different EDM contributions in this “decoupling” limit, which leads us basically to the pattern of SUSY breaking considered before. In order to observe a cross-over from the two-loop contributions to the Higgs mediation in $`d_{\mathrm{Tl}}`$, we fix $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$ and scale the SUSY mass parameters by the common factor $`X`$: $`|A_{t,b}|=|\mu |=1X`$ TeV, Arg$`(A_{t,b}\mu )=\pi /2`$, and $`m_{\mathrm{sq}}=0.6X`$ TeV.

While the Barr–Zee contributions decouple rather quickly, the effects we consider stay constant in the limit of heavy superpartners. Finally, we note that there are the original Barr-Zee contributions to the EDMs with the top and bottom quarks in the loop. In SUSY models, these are 3-loop effects and do not lead to significant constraints (see  for the analysis in general 2HDMs).

To summarize, we have considered the EDMs of heavy atoms induced by the Higgs exchange in SUSY models with CP violation in the supersymmetric sector. The mechanism of Higgs-mediation is insensitive to an overall scale of the superpartner masses and grows as $`\mathrm{tan}^3\beta `$ for fixed values of $`m_{A,H}`$. It provides significant and free of large hadronic and nuclear uncertainties constraints on the SUSY CP-phases for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >10`$ and electroweak scale $`m_{A,H}`$.


text:
# Classification of log Enriques surfaces with 𝛿=2

## Introduction

Let $`S`$ be a projective surface with klt singularities and with numerically trivial canonical class $`K_S0`$. Then $`S`$ is called a log Enriques surface.

Let us consider the following invariant

$`\delta (S)=\mathrm{\#}\{E|E\text{is exceptional divisor with discrepancy}`$
$`a(E,0){\displaystyle \frac{6}{7}}\}.`$
By theorem \[7, 5.1\] we have $`0\delta (S)2`$. In this paper the classification of such surfaces with $`\delta =2`$ is given (see theorems 2.5 and 2.6).

The log Enriques surfaces often appear in many problems. Such of them are the following ones: the study of surface degeneration, the study of $`K3`$ surfaces (in particular, see the last section of §2), the study of Calabi–Yao varieties and the problem of inductive classification of strictly log canonical singularities.

In the latter problem the log Enriques surfaces can be realized as the exceptional divisors of purely log terminal blow-ups of three-dimensional strictly log canonical singularities. For example, in the case of hypersurface singularities we have $`K_S0`$ and $`S`$ is a $`K3`$ surface with Du Val singularities or $`S`$ is a surface obtained by the contraction of section of elliptic surface .

The method applied in this paper was developed by V.V. Shokurov in . It works in any dimension for the classification of the varieties with Kodaira dimension $`\mathrm{}`$ or $`0`$, extremal contractions and singularities.

The number of different log Enriques surfaces with $`\delta =2`$ is more then 1000 and hence (for example) to enumerate their minimal resolutions is difficult. This approach allows to obtain the short and complete classification.

The other methods of log Enriques surface study were given in ,  and . In many papers the automorphisms of $`K3`$ surfaces were investigated and hence some results about the structure of log Enriques surfaces were obtained (for example, see , ).

In this paper we can also see that the classification of the ”models” of exceptional log Del Pezzo surfaces (see definitions of exceptionality and model in , see also theorem 1.3) implies the classification of log Enriques surface.

The research was partially supported by a grant 02-01-00441 from the Russian Foundation of Basic Research and a grant INTAS-OPEN 2000#269.

## 1. Preliminary facts and results

All varieties are algebraic and are assumed to be defined over $``$, the complex number field. The main definitions, terminology and notations used in the paper are given in , .

###### Definition 1.1.

Let $`X`$ be a normal variety and let $`D=S+B`$ be a subboundary on $`X`$ such that $`B`$ and $`S`$ have no common components, $`S`$ is an effective integral divisor and $`\mathrm{}B\mathrm{}0`$. Then we say that $`K_X+D`$ is $`n`$-complementary if there is a $``$-divisor $`D^+`$ such that

1. $`n(K_X+D^+)0`$ (in particular, $`nD^+`$ is an integral divisor);
2. $`K_X+D^+`$ is lc;
3. $`nD^+nS+\mathrm{}(n+1)B\mathrm{}`$.

In this situation the $`n`$-complement of $`K_X+D`$ is $`K_X+D^+`$. The divisor $`D^+`$ is called $`n`$-complement too.

###### Theorem 1.2.

\[7, 3.1\] Let $`(X/ZP,D)`$ be a log surface of local type (i.e. $`Z`$ is not point), where $`f:XZP`$ is a contraction. Assume that $`(K_X+D)`$ is $`f`$-nef and $`K_X+D`$ is lc. Then there exists an 1,2,3,4 or 6-complement of $`K_X+D`$ near $`f^1(P)`$.

###### Theorem 1.3.

\[7, §5\] Let $`S`$ be a log Enriques surface with $`\delta =2`$. Denote the exceptional curves with discrepancy $`a(\stackrel{~}{C}_i,0)\frac{6}{7}`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_2`$. Let $`f:\stackrel{~}{S}S`$ be an extraction of $`\stackrel{~}{C}_i`$ $`(`$i.e. $`f`$ is a birational contraction such that $`\mathrm{Exc}f=\stackrel{~}{C}_1\stackrel{~}{C}_2)`$.

Then there exists a birational contraction $`g:\stackrel{~}{S}\overline{S}`$ with the following properties: $`\rho (\overline{S})=1`$, $`g`$ doesn’t contract the curves $`\stackrel{~}{C}_i`$. Put $`C_i=g(\stackrel{~}{C}_i)`$. Moreover, the pair $`(\overline{S},a(\stackrel{~}{C}_1,0)C_1+a(\stackrel{~}{C}_2,0)C_2)`$ is one of the following ones:

1. $`\overline{S}=(1,2,3)`$, $`a(\stackrel{~}{C}_1,0)=a(\stackrel{~}{C}_2,0)=\frac{6}{7}`$, $`C_1`$ is a line $`\{x_1=0\}`$, $`C_2|K_X|`$. The curve $`C_2`$ must have an ordinary double point.
2. $`\overline{S}=(1,2,3)`$, $`a(\stackrel{~}{C}_1,0)=a(\stackrel{~}{C}_2,0)=\frac{6}{7}`$, $`C_1=\{x_3=0\}`$, $`C_2=\{x_2^2+a_1x_1^4+a_2x_1^2x_2+x_1x_3=0\}`$, $`a_1,a_2`$, $`(a_1,a_2)(0,0)`$.

###### The main steps of proof.

The divisor $`K_{\stackrel{~}{S}}a(\stackrel{~}{C}_1,0)\stackrel{~}{C}_1a(\stackrel{~}{C}_2,0)\stackrel{~}{C}_2`$ is klt. Therefore by theorem 1.2 there exists an 1,2,3,4 or 6-complement near any point of $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$. Hence $`K_{\stackrel{~}{S}}+\stackrel{~}{C}_1+\stackrel{~}{C}_2`$ is lc by the definition of complement. It is clear that $`(K_{\stackrel{~}{S}}+\stackrel{~}{C}_1+\stackrel{~}{C}_2)`$ is not nef.

Then there exists an extremal ray $`R`$ such that $`(K_{\stackrel{~}{S}}+\stackrel{~}{C}_1+\stackrel{~}{C}_2)R>0`$. The contraction of this ray is birational and the curves $`\stackrel{~}{C}_i`$ are not contracted. To prove these statements the theorem 1.2 is used. We get a required model $`\overline{S}`$ by repeating such procedure.

Then such models are classified. Taking into account the condition $`K_{\overline{S}}+a(\stackrel{~}{C}_1,0)C_1+a(\stackrel{~}{C}_2,0)C_20`$ we obtain only two cases for $`\overline{S}`$.

Since klt singularities are rational then the curves $`C_i`$ must be rational. Hence in the case $`(\mathrm{A}_2^6)`$ the curve $`C_2`$ must have an ordinary double point. ∎

###### Definition 1.4.

Let $`S`$ be a log Enriques surface. The minimal index of complementary $`I`$ is called a canonical index of $`S`$, i.e. $`I=\mathrm{min}\{n_{>0}nK_S0\}`$. It is known that $`I21`$ , .

###### Corollary 1.5.

Let $`S`$ be a log Enriques surface with $`\delta =2`$. Then $`I=7`$.

So, the problem of classification of log Enriques surface with $`\delta =2`$ is to describe the following procedures. At first we consider the extraction $`\stackrel{~}{S}\overline{S}`$ such that every exceptional divisor $`E`$ has the discrepancy $`a(E,\frac{6}{7}C_1+\frac{6}{7}C_2)=0`$. Then we contract the proper transforms of $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$. The number of such procedures is finite by the following easy fact.

Let $`(X,D)`$ be a klt pair. Then the number of divisors $`E`$ of the function field $`𝒦(X)`$ with $`a(E,D)0`$ is finite \[6, lemma 3.1.9\].

## 2. Classification of log Enriques surfaces with $`\delta =2`$

###### Proposition 2.1.

1. Let us consider the pair $`(X,\frac{6}{7}C)(^2,\frac{6}{7}\{x=0\})/_2(1,1)`$. Then the extraction of all exceptional curves with discrepancies $`0`$ is shown in the following figure.

The proper transform of $`C`$ is denoted by $`\overline{C}`$. The numbers over vertexes denote the self-intersection indexes of corresponding curves. The numbers under vertexes denote the discrepancies with opposite sign of corresponding curves. The empty circle denotes the required exceptional curve with discrepancy $`0`$. Its self-intersection index is always equal to $`1`$ (on a minimal resolution). Note that $`\overline{C}^2=C^2\frac{7}{2}`$.
2. Let us consider the pair $`(X,\frac{6}{7}C)(^2,\frac{6}{7}\{x=0\})/_3(1,2)`$. Then the extraction of all exceptional curves with discrepancies $`0`$ is shown in the following figure.

The notations are as in the point $`(1)`$. Note that $`\overline{C}^2=C^2\frac{14}{3}`$.
3. Consider the pair $`(X,\frac{6}{7}C_1+\frac{6}{7}C_2)(^2,\frac{6}{7}\{xy=0\})`$. Then the extraction of all exceptional curves with discrepancies $`0`$ is shown in the following figure.

The notations are as in the point $`(1)`$. Notice that $`\overline{C}_i^2=C_i^26`$ if $`C_1+C_2`$ is a (globally) reducible curve and $`\overline{C}^2=C^214`$ if $`C=C_1+C_2`$ is an (globally) irreducible curve with an ordinary double point.

###### Proof.

In the cases (1) and (2) at first we consider the minimal resolution of singularity $`f:YX`$. Then $`K_Y+d_iD_i=f^{}(K_X+\frac{6}{7}C)`$, where $`D_i`$ are the irreducible divisors. If $`D_iD_j0`$ for some $`ij`$ and $`d_i+d_j1`$ then let us blow-up their intersection point. After the finite number of such blow-ups we will extract all exceptional divisors with discrepancies 0. Note also that the exceptional divisor with discrepancy 0 appears if and only if $`d_i+d_j=1`$. ∎

This proposition trivially implies the next two corollaries.

###### Corollary 2.2.

Let us consider the case $`(\mathrm{A}_2^6)`$ of theorem 1.3. Then the extraction of all exceptional curves with discrepancies $`0`$ for the pair $`(\overline{S},\frac{6}{7}C_1+\frac{6}{7}C_2)`$ is shown in the following figure.

The notations are as in proposition 2.1. Every curve with discrepancy $`0`$ has a number between 1 and 15. Their self-intersection indexes (on a minimal resolution) are equal to $`1`$.

###### Corollary 2.3.

Let us consider the case $`(\mathrm{I}_2^2)`$ of theorem 1.3. Then the extraction of all exceptional curves with discrepancies $`0`$ for the pair $`(\overline{S},\frac{6}{7}C_1+\frac{6}{7}C_2)`$ is shown in the following figure.

The notations are as in proposition 2.1. Every curve with discrepancy $`0`$ has a number between 1 and 15. Their self-intersection indexes (on a minimal resolution) are equal to $`1`$.

### Classification of log Enriques surfaces in the case $`(𝐀_\mathrm{𝟐}^\mathrm{𝟔})`$

Let $`S`$ be a log Enriques surface with $`\delta =2`$. Assume that its model has the type $`(\mathrm{A}_2^6)`$ (see theorem 1.3). Then $`S`$ can be constructed by the following way: at first we extract some set $`𝒯`$ of exceptional curves with discrepancy 0. After it we contract the proper transforms of $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$. So, the classification of log Enriques surfaces with $`\delta =2`$ is reduced to the description of sets $`𝒯`$.

###### Definition 2.4.

Let us extract some set $`𝒯`$ of exceptional curves with discrepancy 0. Then $`𝒯=𝒯_1𝒯_2𝒯_3`$, where $`𝒯_1\{1,2,3\}`$, $`𝒯_2\{4,5,6,7,8,9\}`$ and $`𝒯_3\{10,11,12,13,14,15\}`$. Every number denotes the corresponding exceptional curve with discrepancy 0 (see the figure in corollary 2.2). Let $`T_i=|𝒯_i|`$ be a number of elements of set $`𝒯_i`$ and $`\overline{T_i}=\mathrm{max}\{tt𝒯_i\}`$, $`\underset{¯}{T_i}=\mathrm{min}\{tt𝒯_i\}`$.

In the following first classification theorem the set $`𝒯_3`$ is considered up to symmetry. For example, if $`10𝒯_3`$ then $`15𝒯_3`$

###### Theorem 2.5.

In the case $`(\mathrm{A}_2^6)`$ the set $`𝒯`$ must satisfy the condition $`(1)`$ and be one of the following sets:

1. Always $`T_1+T_21`$ and $`T_31`$. If $`T_1=0`$ then $`𝒯_2\{9\}`$.
2. Let $`T_2=0`$ and $`T_3=1`$. Then $`10𝒯_3`$.
3. Let $`T_21`$ and $`T_3=1`$. If $`\overline{T}_26`$ then $`10𝒯_3`$. If $`\overline{T}_2=7`$ then $`\{10,11\}𝒯_3\mathrm{}`$. If $`\overline{T}_2=8\text{or}9`$ then $`𝒯_3\mathrm{}`$ is arbitrary.
4. Let $`T_2=0`$ and $`T_3=2`$. Then either $`10𝒯_3`$, or $`𝒯_3=\{11,14\}`$ and $`𝒯_1\{3\}`$.
5. Let $`T_21`$ and $`T_3=2`$. Then either $`10𝒯_3`$, or $`𝒯_3=\{11,14\}`$, or $`𝒯_3=\{11,13\}`$ and $`\overline{T}_25`$, or $`𝒯_3=\{11,12\}`$ and $`\{7,8,9\}𝒯_2\mathrm{}`$, or $`𝒯_3=\{12,13\}`$ and $`\{8,9\}𝒯_2\mathrm{}`$.
6. Let $`T_2=0`$ and $`T_3=3`$. Then either $`10𝒯_3`$, or $`𝒯_3=\{11,12,14\}`$ and $`𝒯_1\{3\}`$.
7. Let $`T_21`$ and $`T_3=3`$. Then $`10𝒯_3`$, or $`𝒯_3=\{11,12,14\}`$, or $`𝒯_3=\{11,12,13\}`$ and $`\overline{T}_25`$.
8. Let $`T_2=0`$ and $`T_4=4`$. Then either $`10𝒯_3`$, or $`𝒯_3=\{11,12,13,14\}`$ and $`𝒯_1\{3\}`$.
9. If either $`T_21`$ and $`T_34`$, or $`T_35`$ then $`𝒯`$ is arbitrary $`(`$of course, taking into account the condition $`(1))`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`f:YX`$ be an extraction of some set $`𝒯`$. The proper transforms of $`C_i`$ are denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{C}_i`$. We have $`C_1^2=\frac{1}{6}`$ and $`C_2^2=6`$. The obvious requirement for the set $`𝒯`$ is $`\stackrel{~}{C}_i^2<0`$. Therefore $`T_1+T_21`$ and $`T_31`$. Hence, always $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1^2<0`$, except one case $`T_1=0`$ and $`𝒯_2=\{9\}`$. For this case $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1^2=0`$.

The remaining cases are written taking into account the requirements $`\stackrel{~}{C}_2^2<0`$. We can contract $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_2`$ except one case, which appears in the conditions 4, 6, 8.

For this case $`T_2=0`$, $`2T_34`$, $`𝒯_1=\{3\}`$, $`10𝒯_3\{11,14\}`$. Consider the minimal resolution. Then our configuration is illustrated in the following figure.

Indeed, the determinant of intersection matrix is equal to 0, although $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1^2=\stackrel{~}{C}_2^2=1`$. ∎

### Classification of log Enriques surfaces in the case $`(𝐈_\mathrm{𝟐}^\mathrm{𝟐})`$

We have the same notations as in definition 2.4. The corresponding figure is given in corollary 2.3. The case $`T_2=0`$, $`T_31`$ is symmetric to the case $`T_21`$, $`T_3=0`$ and therefore it isn’t considered.

###### Theorem 2.6.

In the case $`(\mathrm{I}_2^2)`$ the set $`𝒯`$ must satisfy the condition $`(1)`$ and be one of the following sets:

1. $`T_2+T_31`$.
2. Let $`T_3=0`$ and $`T_1=0`$. Then $`\underset{¯}{T_2}5`$ and $`9𝒯_2`$.
3. Let $`T_3=0`$ and $`T_1=1`$. Then either $`𝒯_1=\{1\}`$ and $`9𝒯_2`$, or $`𝒯_1=\{2\}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{T_2}5`$, or $`𝒯_1=\{3\}`$ and $`4𝒯_2\{8,9\}\mathrm{}`$, or $`𝒯_1=\{3\}`$ and $`\{5,9\}𝒯_2`$.
4. Let $`T_3=0`$ and $`T_1=2`$. Then either $`𝒯_1=\{1,2\}`$, or $`𝒯_1=\{1,3\}`$ and $`𝒯_2\{8,9\}`$, or $`𝒯_1=\{2,3\}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{T_2}5`$.
5. Let $`T_3=0`$ and $`T_1=3`$. Then $`𝒯`$ is arbitrary.
6. Let $`T_2,T_31`$ and $`T_1=0`$. Then the set $`𝒯`$ must satisfy the following two conditions $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_2`$.
Condition $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_1`$. $`(\underset{¯}{T_2}5,𝒯_3\text{is arbitrary})`$, or $`(\underset{¯}{T_2}=6,\underset{¯}{T_3}14)`$, or $`(7\underset{¯}{T_2}8,\underset{¯}{T_3}12)`$, or $`(\underset{¯}{T_2}=9,\underset{¯}{T_3}11)`$.
Condition $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_2`$. $`(\overline{T_2}=4,T_3=15)`$, or $`(5\overline{T_2}7,\overline{T_3}14)`$, or $`(\overline{T_2}=8,\overline{T_3}11)`$, or $`(\overline{T_2}=9,𝒯_3\text{is arbitrary})`$.
7. Let $`T_2,T_31`$ and $`𝒯_1=\{1\}`$. Then the set $`𝒯`$ must satisfy the condition $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_2`$.
8. Let $`T_2,T_31`$ and $`2𝒯_1`$. Then the set $`𝒯`$ must satisfy the condition $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_1`$.
9. Let $`T_2,T_31`$ and $`𝒯_1=\{3\}`$. Then the set $`𝒯`$ must satisfy the condition $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_1`$ and the next condition $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_3`$.
Condition $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_3`$. $`(\overline{T_2}=4,\overline{T_3}14)`$, or $`(5\overline{T_2}6,\overline{T_3}13)`$, or $`(\overline{T_2}=7,\overline{T_3}11)`$, or $`(\overline{T_2}8,𝒯_3\text{is arbitrary})`$.
10. Let $`T_2,T_31`$ and $`\{1,2\}𝒯_1`$. Then $`𝒯`$ is arbitrary.
11. Let $`T_2,T_31`$ and $`𝒯_1=\{1,3\}`$. Then the set $`𝒯`$ must satisfy the condition $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_3`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`f:YX`$ be an extraction of some set $`𝒯`$. The proper transforms of $`C_i`$ are denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{C}_i`$. We have $`C_1^2=\frac{3}{2}`$ and $`C_2^2=\frac{8}{3}`$. If $`T_2=T_3=0`$ then $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1^2<0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_2^2<0`$ in the case $`\{1,2\}𝒯_1`$ only. Consider the minimal resolution. Then our configuration is illustrated in the following figure.

The determinant of intersection matrix is equal to 0 and therefore always $`T_2+T_31`$. The rest cases are written taking into account the requirements $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1^2<0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_2^2<0`$. We can contract $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_2`$ except one case: $`T_3=0`$, $`𝒯_1=\{3\}`$, $`\underset{¯}{T_2}=5`$, $`\overline{T_2}=8`$. Consider the minimal resolution. Then our configuration is illustrated in the figure of theorem 2.5 proof. It appears in the case (3). ∎

By theorems 2.5 and 2.6 we get the following corollary.

###### Corollary 2.7.

Let $`S`$ be a log Enriques surface with $`\delta =2`$. Then $`1\rho (S)14`$.

### Log Enriques surfaces and $`K3`$ surfaces

Let $`S`$ be a log Enriques surface with $`\delta =2`$. Consider its canonical cover $`\phi :\widehat{S}=\mathrm{Spec}_{𝒪_S}(_{i=0}^{I1}𝒪_S(iK_S))S`$, where $`I`$ is an index of $`S`$. Since $`I=7`$ (see corollary 1.5) then $`\widehat{S}`$ is a $`K3`$ surface with at worst Du Val singularities ,  and

1. $`\phi `$ is cyclic Galous cover of degree 7, which is etale over $`S\backslash \mathrm{Sing}S`$.
2. There exists a generator $`g`$ of $`\mathrm{Gal}(\widehat{S}/S)_7`$ such that $`g^{}\omega _{\widehat{S}}=\epsilon _7\omega _{\widehat{S}}`$, where $`\epsilon _7=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \sqrt{1}/7)`$ is a primitive root and $`\omega _{\widehat{S}}`$ is a nowhere vanishing regular 2-form on $`\widehat{S}`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }(S)`$ be an exceptional set of $`\chi `$, where $`\chi `$ is a minimal resolution of $`\widehat{S}`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }(S)`$ is a disconnected sum of divisors of Dynkin’s type $`𝔸_i`$, $`𝔻_j`$, $`𝔼_k`$. So $`\mathrm{\Delta }(S)=(𝔸_\alpha )(𝔻_\beta )(𝔼_\gamma )`$. Let us define $`\mathrm{rank}\mathrm{\Delta }(S)=\alpha +\beta +\gamma `$.

###### Theorem 2.8.

Let $`S`$ be a log Enriques surface with $`\delta =2`$. Then $`\mathrm{rank}\mathrm{\Delta }(S)+\rho (S)=16`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`𝒯=\{1,2,\mathrm{},15\}`$. The surface corresponding to this set is denoted by $`S^{}`$. In the cases $`(\mathrm{A}_2^6)`$ and $`(\mathrm{I}_2^2)`$ the set $`\mathrm{\Delta }(S^{})`$ has the same type $`𝔸_1𝔸_1`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{rank}\mathrm{\Delta }(S^{})+\rho (S^{})=2+14=16`$. Every surface $`S`$ can be obtained from $`S^{}`$ by the contractions of some curves in $`𝒯`$. If we contract any curve in $`𝒯`$ then $`\mathrm{rank}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is increased by 1. Therefore the required equality is reserved. ∎

###### Example 2.9.

Let $`𝒯=\{8,12\}`$ then $`\rho (S)=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(S)=𝔼_7𝔼_8`$ in both cases $`(\mathrm{A}_2^6)`$ and $`(\mathrm{I}_2^2)`$.

###### Remark 2.10.

Other approach to the classification was given in . In particular, see \[9, §5\] in the case of surfaces with index 7.