text:
# Anisotropy of the superconducting state properties and phase diagram of MgB2 by torque magnetometry on single crystals

## 1 Introduction

Superconducting MgB2 exhibits a number of rather peculiar properties, originating from the involvement of two sets of bands of different anisotropy and different coupling to the most relevant phonon mode . Among them are pronounced deviations of the upper critical field, $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$, from predictions of the widely used anisotropic Ginzburg-Landau theory (AGLT).

Apart from two-band superconductivity, MgB2 provides a link between low and high $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ superconductors on a phenomenological level, particularly concerning vortex physics. In both high and low $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ superconductors, for example, a phase transition of vortex matter out of a quasi-ordered “Bragg glass” have been identified, with rather different positions in the $`H`$-$`T`$ plane. Studying the intermediate MgB2 may help establishing a “universal vortex matter phase diagram”.

Here, we present a torque magnetometry study of the anisotropic upper critical field, equilibrium magnetization, and the vortex matter phase diagram of single crystalline MgB2 . We will show direct evidence of a temperature dependence of the $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ anisotropy, discuss strong indications of a difference between the anisotropies of the penetration depth and $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$, and present the $`H`$-$`T`$ phase diagram for $`Hc`$.

Single crystals were grown with a cubic anvil high pressure technique, described in this issue . Three crystals were used in this study, labeled A, B, and C. Sharp transitions to the superconducting state indicate a high quality of the crystals. An $`M(T)`$ curve of crystal B with $`T_\mathrm{c}=38.2\mathrm{K}`$ can be found in Ref. .

The torque $`\stackrel{}{\tau }=\stackrel{}{m}\times \stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{m}\times \stackrel{}{H}`$, where $`\stackrel{}{m}`$ is the magnetic moment of the sample, was recorded as a function of the angle $`\theta `$ between the applied field $`\stackrel{}{H}`$ and the $`c`$axis of the crystal in various fixed fields . For measurements close to $`T_\mathrm{c}`$, in fields up to $`14\mathrm{kOe}`$, a non-commercial magnetometer with very high sensitivity was used . For part of these measurements, a vortex-shaking process was employed to speed up the relaxation of the vortex lattice . Crystal A was measured in this system. Crystals B and C were measured in a wider range of temperatures down to $`14\mathrm{K}`$, in a Quantum Design PPMS with torque option and a maximum field of $`90\mathrm{kOe}`$. For crystals B and C, $`\tau (H)`$ measurements at fixed angles were performed in addition to $`\tau (\theta )`$ measurements in fixed $`H`$.

## 2 Upper critical field and it’s anisotropy

Early measurements on polycrystalline or thin film MgB2 samples with various methods and single crystals by electrical transport yielded values of the anisotropy parameter of the upper critical field $`\gamma _H=H_{\mathrm{c2}}^{ab}/H_{\mathrm{c2}}^c`$ in a wide range of values of $`1.1\gamma _H9`$ . More recently, several papers reported a temperature dependence of the $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ anisotropy, ranging between about $`58`$ at $`0\mathrm{K}`$ and $`23`$ close to $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ . In this section, we present direct evidence of a temperature dependence of the $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ anisotropy $`\gamma _H`$ and discuss details of it’s behaviour, comparing the torque data with numerical calculations .

Four angular torque dependences are shown in Fig. 1. Panels a) and b) correspond to measurements at $`22\mathrm{K}`$. For fields nearly parallel to the $`c`$-axis, both curves are flat, apart from a small background visible in panel b). Only when $`H`$ is nearly parallel to the $`ab`$plane there is an appreciable torque signal. The curve can be interpreted in a straight-forward way: for $`H`$ parallel to the $`c`$axis the sample is in the normal state, while for $`H`$ parallel to the $`ab`$plane it is in the superconducting state. The crossover angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{c2}}`$ between the normal and the superconducting state is the angle for which the fixed applied field is the upper critical field. From the existence of both superconducting and normal angular regions follows immediately that $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}^c(22\mathrm{K})<19\mathrm{kOe}`$ and $`85\mathrm{kOe}<H_{\mathrm{c2}}^{ab}(22\mathrm{K})`$. In panel c), on the other hand, the crystal is seen to be in the superconducting state for all values of the angle $`\theta `$, and therefore $`4\mathrm{kOe}<H_{\mathrm{c2}}^c(34\mathrm{K})`$. Finally, the data in panel d) show only a small background contribution $``$ form and angular regime of the deviation from a straight line are incompatible with a superconducting signal. Therefore, the crystal is here in the normal state for any $`\theta `$, and we have $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}^{ab}(34\mathrm{K})<14\mathrm{kOe}`$.

From figure 1 we therefore have two limitations for the upper critical field anisotropy, hereafter called $`\gamma _H`$, without any detailed $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ criterion, and without any model fits :

$$\gamma _H(22\mathrm{K})>\frac{85}{19}4.47;\gamma _H(34\mathrm{K})<\frac{14}{4}=3.5.$$
(1)
These relations show that the upper critical field anisotropy $`\gamma _H`$ of MgB2 cannot be temperature independent. As an immediate implication, the anisotropic Ginzburg-Landau theory (AGLT) in it’s standard form does not hold for MgB2. The deviation is strong, within a change of temperature of about $`0.3T_\mathrm{c}`$, $`\gamma _H`$ changes, at least, by a fifth of it’s value.

Although it is clear that AGLT with it’s effective mass anisotropy model cannot describe the data measured at different temperatures consistently, the detail analysis of the $`\theta `$ dependence of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ we used is based on AGLT. We will show that as long as we stay at a fixed temperature, AGLT is able to describe $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}(\theta )`$ remarkably well . Although the location of $`\theta _{\mathrm{c2}}`$, for example in Fig. 1a), seems clear at first sight, this clarity disappears, when examining the transition region in a scale necessary for the precise determination of $`\theta _{\mathrm{c2}}`$ (see Fig. 1 in Ref. ). For an strict analysis, it is necessary to take into account that the transtion at $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ is rounded off by fluctuations.

In sufficiently high fields, $`H>H_{\mathrm{LLL}}`$, the so-called “lowest Landau level” (LLL) approximation was used successfully to describe the effects of fluctuations around $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ . In the case of the cuprates, the value of $`H_{\mathrm{LLL}}`$, and thus of the regime of applicability of the LLL approximation, is a controversial issue (see, e.g., Ref.  for a theoretical discussion of the limits of the LLL approximation). However, in the case of MgB2, even using the theoretical criterion of Ref. , which led to the high estimation $`H_{\mathrm{LLL}}200\mathrm{kOe}`$ in the case of YBa2Cu3O7-δ, we obtain an upper limit of $`H_{\mathrm{LLL}}5\mathrm{kOe}`$. We therefore used a LLL scaling analysis for the determination of $`\theta _{\mathrm{c2}}(H)`$ or $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}(\theta )`$ .

From the resulting $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}(\theta )`$ curve, the anisotropy parameter $`\gamma _H`$ is then extracted by an analysis with AGLT, which predicts the angular dependence of the upper critical field to be

$$H_{\mathrm{c2}}(\theta )=H_{\mathrm{c2}}^c\left(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\mathrm{sin}^2\theta /\gamma _H^2\right)^{1/2}.$$
(2)
We note that in the rescaling of the torque according to the LLL fluctuations theory, the target parameter $`\gamma _H`$ is used, which is obtained only later with Eq. (2). Therefore, scaling analysis and determination of $`\gamma _H`$ with Eq. (2) had to be performed iteratively in order to self consistently find $`\gamma _H`$. However, the $`\theta _{\mathrm{c2}}(H)`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}(\theta )`$ points obtained with the scaling analysis depend not very strongly on the value of $`\gamma _H`$ used in the scaling and the procedure converges rather fast.

Figure 2 shows the angular dependence of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ of crystal B and C. The curves shown in the figure are fits of Eq. (2) to the data, showing that the angular dependence of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ is well described by AGLT at both temperatures. On the other hand, the anisotropy parameter $`\gamma _H`$ needed to describe the data with Eq. (2) is temperature dependent, as is best seen in the inset.

The irreversible properties of the two crystals (B and C) are different in a pronounced way (see Secs. 3 and 4), showing that they have a rather different defect structure. The good agreement both in value and angular dependence of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ of crystals B and C that is observable in Fig. 2 indicates that such differences in the defect structure do not influence the upper critical field much, at least in the region between $`22`$ and $`34\mathrm{K}`$, and therefore cannot influence our conclusion of a $`T`$ dependent $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ anisotropy.

Small, but systematic, deviations from the angular dependence of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ according to Eq. (2) were observed only at temperatures close to $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. It may indicate that we are approaching $`H_{\mathrm{LLL}}`$ in this region and the values of $`\theta _{\mathrm{c2}}(H)`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}(\theta )`$ obtained from the LLL scaling analysis (see above) start to deviate from the mean field values. The good general approximation of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}(\theta )`$ by Eq. (2) is in agreement with recent calculations . However, the calculations predict small deviations at low temperatures , rather than close to $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. Our experimental limitation of fields up to $`90\mathrm{kOe}`$ may prevent the observation of deviations from Eq. (2) at low temperatures.

The upper critical fields parallel and perpendicular to the layers obtained with the scaling analysis and Eq. (2) are shown in Fig. 3a). Results obtained for two crystals measured in two magnetometers are depicted as different symbols. The $`T`$dependence of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}^c`$ is in agreement with (isotropic) calculations by Helfand et al. , with $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}^c(0)31\mathrm{kOe}`$. On the other hand, $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}^{ab}(T)`$ exhibits a slight positive curvature near $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. These features are common to highly anisotropic (layered) superconductors. Although MgB2 as a whole is rather isotropic, superconductivity is dominant on the quasi-2D bands, which may well account for the different $`T`$ dependence of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}^c`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}^{ab}`$. This may also be the origin of the positive curvature of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ observed in other measurements of bulk, thin film and single crystal MgB2 . Due to the lack of low $`T`$ data and the $`\gamma _H(T)`$ dependence, only an estimation $`180\mathrm{kOe}H_{\mathrm{c2}}^{ab}(0)230\mathrm{kOe}`$ can be given.

The anisotropy data \[Fig. 3b)\] show that $`\gamma _H`$ systematically decreases with increasing temperature, from $`\gamma _H6`$ at $`15\mathrm{K}`$ to $`2.8`$ at $`35\mathrm{K}`$. From the experimental data shown in Fig. 3 we estimate $`\gamma _H(T_\mathrm{c})=2.32.7`$, while at zero temperature, $`\gamma _H`$ may become as large as $`8`$.

Comparing our data with the data reported by other authors , we note that electrical transport measurements  yield too high values of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}^c`$ . All bulk measurements (torque , magnetization , thermal conductivity , and specific heat ) agree well on the $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}^c(T)`$ dependence and value. Concerning $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}^{ab}(T)`$, and consequently $`\gamma _H(T)`$, however, reported values differ from each other. Exchanging the samples between different groups could help clarifying, whether the discrepancies of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}^{ab}(T)`$ values are mainly due to sample differences or due to differences in the experimental methods employed.

Very recently, $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}^{ab}(T)`$, $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}^c(T)`$, and $`\gamma _H(T)`$, have been calculated for MgB2 . The Fermi surface was modeled as consisting of two separate sheets, approximated as simple spheroids, but with average characteristics taken from first principles calculations. The result of these calculations are compared with our experimental data in Fig. 3. Very good agreement is seen for the upper critical field perpendicular to the layers ($`c`$). Qualitatively, calculations and experiment also agree well for the upper critical field parallel to the layers ($`ab`$). This shows that the essential source of the deviations of the upper critical field from AGLT predictions is captured with a simple effective two band model, while further details of the Fermi surface and superconducting gap are negligible. In Fig. 3, we see good quantitative agreement between experimental data and the theoretical curve between $`20`$ and $`25\mathrm{K}`$.

The deviations at lower $`T`$ may, on the one hand, be due to a decreased the accuracy of our analysis because the field limitation of $`90\mathrm{kOe}`$ restricts the angular range where $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ data could be obtained. This can lead to deviations larger than the estimated error bars, especially since the theoretical calculations indicate deviations of the $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}(\theta )`$ dependence from the prediction of Eq. (2) at low $`T`$ . On the other hand, $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ at low temperatures depends on the shape of the Fermi surface in rather subtle manner, and the model Fermi surface used for the calculations  may be too simple for a quantitatively correct description at low $`T`$. The deviations at higher $`T`$ may be due to the limitations of the LLL scaling approach in low fields, and or due to the influence of disorder, which is not accounted for in the calculations.

Close to $`T_\mathrm{c}`$, non-locality is not important, and consequently, AGLT is expected to hold even if this is not the case at lower $`T`$. Despite of this, Fig. 3 clearly indicates that the variation of $`\gamma _H`$ with temperature is the strongest close to $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. Therefore, in MgB2, AGLT seems to have a very limited range of applicability indeed.

## 3 Reversible and irreversible torque below $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$

An alternative method to obtain the anisotropy parameter $`\gamma `$ of a superconductor, used often and with success in the case of cuprates , consists of measuring the torque, as a function of angle, well below $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$, and analyzing the data with a formula developed by Kogan :

$$\tau =\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{}HV}{64\pi ^2\lambda _{ab}^2}\left(1\frac{1}{\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}^2}\right)\frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta }{ϵ(\theta )}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{\eta H_{\mathrm{c2}}^c}{ϵ(\theta )H}),$$
(3)
where $`ϵ(\theta )=(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\mathrm{sin}^2\theta /\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}^2)^{1/2}`$, $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}=(m_c^{}/m_{ab}^{})^{1/2}`$ is the effective mass anisotropy, $`\lambda _{ab}`$ is the in-plane penetration depth, $`V`$ is the volume of the crystal, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ is the flux quantum, and $`\eta `$ is a constant of the order of unity depending on the vortex lattice structure. Equation (3) is valid in the limits of fields $`H_{c1}HH_{c2}`$ and not too close to $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. A further restriction is that Eq. (3) describes the reversible torque only. To obtain the true reversible torque, we employed a vortex-shaking process . In the investigated field and temperature region, the shaked torque was found to be well reversible.

In Fig. 4, normalized torque $`\tau /\tau _{\mathrm{max}}`$ vs angle $`\theta `$ curves, measured in different fields at $`34\mathrm{K}`$, are compared. Increasing $`H`$ from $`2`$ \[panel a)\] to $`5\mathrm{kOe}`$ \[panel b)\] leads to an unexpectedly large shift of the maximum torque towards $`90\mathrm{deg}`$, which may indicate an increase of the anisotropy $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ with increasing $`H`$. This is confirmed by the analysis of the data with Eq. (3). The best agreements of the equation with the data are obtained for $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}=2.4`$ in $`2\mathrm{kOe}`$ and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}=3.0`$ in $`5\mathrm{kOe}`$ (full curves in Fig. 4). Although descriptions with $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}=3.0`$ in $`2\mathrm{kOe}`$ or $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}=2.4`$ in $`5\mathrm{kOe}`$ are also possible without obvious discrepancies to the data, the corresponding qualities of the fit as expressed by the parameter $`\chi ^2`$ are worse by more than an order of magnitude in both cases.

From the analysis of reversible torque data for crystal A measured in the range of fields and temperatures from $`1`$ to $`10\mathrm{kOe}`$ and from $`27`$ to $`36\mathrm{K}`$ , a few points are worth to be emphasized: 1.) $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is field dependent, increasing nearly linearly from $`2`$ in zero field to $`3.7`$ in $`10\mathrm{kOe}`$. 2.) No clear $`T`$ dependence is visible between $`27`$ and $`36\mathrm{K}`$. 3.) The effective anisotropy $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}`$, as obtained from the analysis with Eq. (3) is different from the $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ anisotropy $`\gamma _H`$.

Especially concerning point 3.), it is important to recognize that, also theoretically, the anisotropy $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is not necessarily the same as the $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ anisotropy $`\gamma _H`$. When AGLT is not applicable, the anisotropies of the penetration depth, $`\gamma _\lambda `$, and of the upper critical field, $`\gamma _H`$, differ in general. Calculations of $`\gamma _\lambda `$ of MgB2  indeed found values much lower than the upper critical field anisotropy values. There is also experimental support for a low $`\gamma _\lambda `$ .

In Eq. (3), $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ appears twice, and in a first approximation , the appearance outside of the logarithm can be thought of as due to the $`\lambda `$ anisotropy, while the appearance in the logarithm is linked to the $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ anisotropy. A corresponding calculation with different (fixed) $`\gamma _\lambda `$ and $`\gamma _H`$ yields  a field dependent (common) effective anisotropy $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ similar to the experimental observations.

Field dependent point-contact spectroscopy  and specific heat  measurements indicate that the small gap disappears in fields of the order of $`45\mathrm{kOe}`$, i.e., superconductivity in the (3D) $`\pi `$ Fermi sheets is rapidly suppressed by even low fields, whereas it persists in the (2D) $`\sigma `$ sheets up to much higher fields. This should result in an increase of the effective (bulk) anisotropy with increasing $`H`$. Further studies are needed for a complete understanding of the detailed interplay of the effects described above.

In the “unshaked” torque data of crystals A and B, a pronounced peak in the irreversible torque for field alignments close to $`Hab`$, was observed (see, e.g., upper inset of Fig. 5 of Ref. ). It is tempting to ascribe this feature, also observed by other authors , to “intrinsic pinning”, in analogy to observations on strongly anisotropic cuprate superconductors. However, the observation of such “intrinsic pinning” in MgB2 is rather counter-intuitive, since the “intrinsic pinning” is mostly determined by the ratio of the $`c`$-axis coherence length to the separation of the superconducting layers, which is much larger in MgB2 than in the case of cuprates in the region where “intrinsic pinning” is commonly observed by torque magnetometry (see, e.g., ). The apparent paradox is resolved by further measurements: torque measurements on crystal C with the same conditions show no sign of “intrinsic” pinning for $`Hab`$ , indicating the extrinsic origin of the feature. The most likely cause of the peak in the irreversible torque for $`Hab`$ is a small amount of stacking faults. It may indicate the presence of some stacking faults in crystals A and B, while they would seem to be absent in crystal C .

## 4 Peak effect and vortex matter phase diagram

In low $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ superconductors, such as NbSe2, the order-disorder transition is signified experimentally by a peak effect (PE) in the critical current density . We observed such a PE by torque measurements on MgB2 single crystals B and C, both in $`\tau (\theta )`$ and $`\tau (H)`$ measurements, as can be seen in Fig. 5. In Sec. 3, we have noticed that crystals B and C behave quite differently for $`Hab`$, which may be due to the presence of a small number of stacking faults in the former one. The presence of the PE in two crystals with such pronounced differences strongly indicates that the PE, or rather it’s underlying mechanism, is an intrinsic feature of MgB2. A study with a “minor hysteresis loop” technique on crystal B  revealed a history dependent critical current density in the PE region, compatible with and expected for the behaviour at the order-disorder transition.

Figure 6 shows the irreversible part $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau (H)=\tau (H^{})\tau (H^{})`$ of the torque, scaled by $`H\mathrm{sin}2\theta `$, vs field, at $`18\mathrm{K}`$ for various angles. The scaling was chosen to minimize the angle and field dependence intrinsic to the torque. Since the peak is not visible at all temperatures and angles as well as in Fig. 5, onsets and maxima were determined from irreversible torque curves as those shown in Fig. 6. $`H_{\mathrm{on}}`$ was defined as the field, where the irreversible torque starts to deviate from a straight line behaviour, as indicated in the figure for the curve measured at $`71.5\mathrm{deg}`$. $`H_{\mathrm{on}}`$, defined in this way, is close to $`H_{\mathrm{on}}^{}`$ as indicated in Fig. 5b). However, we note that with the determination of onsets and maxima from the irreversible torque, the fine details of the differences in the field increasing and decreasing branch of the hysteresis loops are lost.

It can be seen in Fig. 6 that the height of the peaks varies in a pronounced way with the angle $`\theta `$. One possible explanation for this behaviour is an interaction of the peak effect with stacking faults . Although the presence and the location of the peak effect are not affected by stacking faults, the extent of hysteresis may be. The difference of how pronounced the peaks of crystals B and C are \[see Fig. 5b)\] supports such a scenario. The location in higher fields of the peak effect in crystal C indicates that there is less point-like disorder present in this crystal than in crystal B. However, the smaller ratio $`\tau _{\mathrm{irr}}(H_{\mathrm{max}})/\tau _{\mathrm{irr}}(H_{\mathrm{on}})`$ in crystal C, compared to crystal B, is difficult to explain with only one sort of disorder. Individual strong pinning, e.g., by sparse stacking faults, should be much more efficient in the disordered phase than in the Bragg glass with it’s nearly perfect ordered lattice . If the peak height observed in crystal B is affected by stacking faults, a more pronounced PE close to $`Hab`$ is natural, since the pinning efficiency of stacking faults, similar to twin boundary pinning, is strongly direction-dependent .

On the other hand, the peak height can be influenced by the natural angle dependence of the torque, despite the scaling made. This is because the $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta `$ is only an approximation, which is not appropriate for all angles $`\theta `$, in a superconductor with pronounced anisotropy (see also Ref. ).

The angular dependence of the onsets and maxima of the PE tracks the one of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$, i.e., it follows Eq. (2) . This indicates that the PE (or rather it’s underlying mechanism) is a feature for all directions of the applied field, and not just of the angular region where it is readily discernible. To directly check the situation for $`Hc`$ and $`Hab`$, where torque measurements are not possible, SQUID and ac susceptibility  measurements were performed.

In Fig. 7, we compare measurement curves obtained on crystal B at $`20\mathrm{K}`$, using different experimental techniques. Torque measurements performed at an angle of $`77.5\mathrm{deg}`$ show \[Fig. 7a)\] a clearly discernible PE located in a field of about $`60\mathrm{kOe}`$. Scaled with Eq. (2) to $`Hc`$, this corresponds to $`15`$ to $`20\mathrm{kOe}`$. As can be seen in Fig. 7b), there is no sign of a PE observable in SQUID data in this field region. Generally, no sign of a peak effect was observed by SQUID magnetometry at any temperature, for both field directions. This is likely due to insufficient sensitivity of the SQUID. In ac susceptibility data \[Fig. 7c)\], on the other hand, a PE is visible for $`Hc`$ in the appropriate field region. A report of the ac susceptibility results will be published elsewhere . A PE in MgB2 was also reported recently by other authors, in the case of $`Hc`$ from transport data  and ac susceptibility with a local Hall probe , in the case of $`Hab`$ from transport data .

The phase diagram for $`Hc`$ obtained from torque magnetometry, based on both $`\tau (\theta )`$ and $`\tau (H)`$ measurements and the angular scaling of Eq. (2) is presented in Fig. 8. The magnitude of the peaks is reduced quickly by increasing the temperature, and above $`27\mathrm{K}`$, the PE is no longer discernible in the torque data. This is due to the decreased sensitivity of the torque magnetometer in lower fields and due to thermal smearing of the effective pinning potential. In a recent report of low frequency ac susceptibility measurements , the peak effect was observed for $`Hc`$ at temperatures up to about $`25\mathrm{K}`$, and interpreted in terms of the order-disorder transition as well. In Ref. , the transformation of the PE into a “step-like” ac susceptibility is reported for the temperature interval between $`25`$ and $`27.5\mathrm{K}`$, and interpreted as a signature of thermal melting. In our case, no step-like feature in the reversible torque was observed in the continuation of the PE. It should be emphasized, that thermal melting so far below $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ would be at odds  with theoretical expectations .

The equilibrium order-disorder transition, which corresponds to $`H_{\mathrm{max}}`$ , is located in fields of about $`0.85H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ in crystal B and in about $`0.9H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ in crystal C. The peak effect observed in other crystals by transport was reported to be located even closer to $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ . These differences are natural for a disorder-induced phase transition in crystals with varying degrees of disorder. Form and location of the PE observed in MgB2 resembles results obtained on NbSe2 single crystals with varying degrees of disorder , but are rather different from the order-disorder transition in cuprate superconductors .

## 5 Conclusions

In summary, studying the anisotropic superconducting state properties of MgB2 revealed a strong temperature dependence of the upper critical field anisotropy $`\gamma _H`$, and indicated a difference of the anisotropies of the penetration depth and the upper critical field. These findings, which imply a breakdown of the standard form of the widely used anisotropic Ginzburg-Landau theory in MgB2, can be explained by superconductivity in this compound involving two band systems of different dimensionality, in accordance with microscopic studies.

A pronounced peak effect in the magnetic hysteresis is a signature of an “order-disorder” transition of vortex matter, similar to transitions in both high $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ cuprate and low $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ superconductors. Despite the intermediate importance of thermal fluctuations in MgB2, the phase diagram resembles quite closely the one of the low $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ superconductor NbSe2. On the other hand, chances of a proper identification of mainly thermally induced melting at higher temperatures are better in MgB2, due to the increased thermal fluctuations.

## Acknowledgements

We thank V. G. Kogan and B. Batlogg for enlightening and stimulating discussions. This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation, by the European Community (contract ICA1-CT-2000-70018), by the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research (5 P03B 12421), and by the Swiss federal office BBW (02.0362).


format: text

text:
# Ultracold collision properties of metastable alkaline-earth atoms

## Abstract

Ultra-cold collisions of spin-polarized $`{}_{}{}^{24}\mathrm{Mg}`$,$`{}_{}{}^{40}\mathrm{Ca}`$, and $`{}_{}{}^{88}\mathrm{Sr}`$ in the metastable $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}`$ excited state are investigated. We calculate the long-range interaction potentials and estimate the scattering length and the collisional loss rate as a function of magnetic field. The estimates are based on molecular potentials between $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}`$ alkaline-earth atoms obtained from ab initio atomic and molecular structure calculations. The scattering lengths show resonance behavior due to the appearance of a molecular bound state in a purely long-range interaction potential and are positive for magnetic fields below 50 mT. A loss-rate model shows that losses should be smallest near zero magnetic field and for fields slightly larger than the resonance field, where the scattering length is also positive.

preprint: UNR Feb 2002-

Exploring ultracold collision physics with metastable $`(nsnp)^3P_2`$ alkaline-earth atoms Derevianko (2001); Katori et al. (2001); Killian ; Loftus et al. ; Grünert and Hemmerich (2002) promises insights that complement those obtained from the more conventional atomic species used in laser cooling. Unlike alkali-metal atoms Bur ; Alk  the most-common alkaline-earth atoms have no nuclear spin, which greatly simplifies a theoretical descriptionMachholm et al. (2001). Furthermore, in contrast to metastable noble-gas collisionsnob  the low electronic energy of the alkaline-earth metastable states ensures the absence of collisionally induced Penning or associative ionization.

Atomic collisions in the ultracold regime play a crucial role on the road toward quantum degenerate gases. We show here that polarized metastable $`(nsnp)^3P_2`$ alkaline earth systems with projection $`m=2`$ along the magnetic field might satisfy the key requirements for this quest: a positive scattering length and a favorable ratio of elastic to inelastic collision rates for certain magnetic field strengths. In addition, we show how a new type of pure long range molecular states can allow the resonant magnetic field control of the scattering length. These states arise due to an interplay of an anisotropic (quadrupole) interaction and the magnetic field. Similar anisotropy has been predicted to exist for polar molecule collisions in an electric fieldAvd . Many-body systems with anistropic interactions might now be exploredYou .

Trapping of metastable alkaline-earths in magneto-optical Katori et al. (2001); Killian ; Loftus et al. ; Grünert and Hemmerich (2002) and magnetic traps Katori et al. (2001); Loftus et al. (2002); Killian ; Loftus et al.  has been demonstrated. A $``$1 s magnetic trap lifetime for densities near $`10^{10}`$ atoms/cm3 is observed with metastable 88Sr in experiments at Rice and Tokyo universityKillian ; Tok . These trap lifetimes are limited by background collisions rather than by the radiative lifetime, which is on the order of minutesDerevianko (2001).

Molecular potentials — We have calculated short-range adiabatic potentials correlating to two 3P2 atoms using a molecular ab initio relativistic valence bond method, as previously describedTiesinga et al. (2002). A variety of attractive and repulsive potentials, and a number of short-range avoided crossings appear among them. Strong collisional loss processes are likely Machholm et al. (2001) if the atoms approach one another on the attractive curves. The section below shows how a magnetic field can be used to manipulate long-range properties in such a way as to create pure long-range molecular states and prevent some of these losses.

Atomic structure calculations and Rayleigh-Schrödinger perturbation theory allow us to express the long-range adiabatic potentials in terms of multipole moments of the atomsDalgarno and Davison (1966). The matrix elements of the Hamiltonian for two $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}`$ atoms up to order $`1/R^6`$, where $`R`$ is the internuclear separation, are Derevianko and Dalgarno (2000)

$`x|H_{lr}|y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x|V_{QQ}|y}{R^5}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j,j^{}=1}{\overset{3}{}}}x|A_{jj^{}}|y{\displaystyle \frac{C_6^{jj^{}}}{R^6}}.`$ (1)
Here $`|x`$ and $`|y`$ are product states $`|^3P_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_1|^3P_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha `$ is the projection of the total electron angular momentum $`j_\alpha =2`$ of atom $`\alpha `$ on the internuclear axis, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_1+\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$, which is a good quantum number in the Hund’s case (c) coupling scheme. The two terms on the right hand side of Eq. 1 describe the quadrupole-quadrupole (QQ) and the second-order dipole-dipole (DD) interaction.

Matrix elements of the QQ interaction are expressed in terms of the quadrupole moment $`𝒬`$ of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}`$ stateDerevianko (2001). For this paper the value of $`𝒬`$ is recalculated using a more accurate many-body techniquePorsev et al. (2001). The values are 8.46(8) $`E_ha_0^5`$, 12.9(4) $`E_ha_0^5`$, and 15.6(5) $`E_ha_0^5`$ for metastable Mg, Ca, and Sr, respectively. Here $`E_h`$ is a Hartree, 1 $`a_0`$ is 0.0529 nm, and one-standard deviation uncertainties, based on convergence studies of the many-body theory, are given in parenthesis. The $`C_6^{jj^{}}`$ are intermediate dipole-dipole dispersion coefficients, calculated following Ref. Porsev and Derevianko (2002), and tabulated in Table 1. The $`x|A_{jj^{}}|y`$ only depend on angular momentum algebra and are given in Ref. Derevianko and Dalgarno (2000).

The Hund’s case(c) adiabatic potentials that connect to our short-range valence-bond calculation are obtained by diagonalizing Eq. 1 within the $`|^3P_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_1|^3P_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ basis (See for examle Ref. Derevianko (2001).).

Magnetic field — A magnetic field $`𝐁`$ modifies the long-range interaction of two metastable alkaline-earth atoms profoundly. For each atom $`\alpha `$ the approximate Zeeman Hamiltonian $`H_{Z\alpha }=\mu _B\left(𝐣_\alpha +𝐬_\alpha \right)𝐁`$ has been added to the other terms in the molecular Hamiltonian. Here, $`𝐬_\alpha `$ is the electron spin of atom $`\alpha `$, $`\mu _B`$ is the Bohr magneton, and we have assumed that the atomic gyromagnetic ratio of the electron orbital angular momentum and spin are one and two, respectively. The magnetic field lifts the degeneracy with respect to the projection $`m_\alpha `$ of $`𝐣_\alpha `$ along the space-fixed magnetic field direction. Forces due to the interatomic interaction break this space-fixed quantization, and align the molecular angular momentum along the internuclear axis. This results in loss of polarization of the angular momentum.

The long-range adiabatic molecular potentials in the presence of a magnetic field are found by diagonalizing $`H_{Z1}+H_{Z2}+H_{lr}`$ within the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}`$+$`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}`$ product basis. These potentials $`U(R,\theta _B)`$ not only depend on the field strength but also on the angle $`\theta _B`$ between the internuclear axis and $`𝐁`$. Figure 1 shows all Sr2 gerade adiabatic potentials for a 10 mT field and $`\theta _B=45^{}`$. The nine dissociation limits are separated by about $`E/k_B=`$10 mK and are labeled by $`M=m_1+m_2`$, where $`M=+4`$($`4`$) for the highest(lowest) dissociation limit. $`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant.

Figure 1 shows a multitude of avoided crossings for internuclear separations where the Zeeman splitting is comparable to the quadrupole-quadrupole interactions, that is, avoided crossings appear for $`RR_B\sqrt[5]{𝒬^2/(\mu _BB)}`$. For Sr and $`B=10`$ mT, $`R_B`$ is $`100`$ $`a_0`$. For $`R<R_B`$ the QQ interactions dominate and the Hund’s case (c) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_g^\pm `$ molecular potentials correlating to two $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}`$ atoms are recovered.

Experiments trap the “low-field seeking” spin-polarized $`m_\alpha =+2`$ state Killian ; Loftus et al. . The top-most potential in Fig. 1 dissociates to this limit. The radial and angular dependence of this potential $`U_{m_1=2,m_2=2}(R,\theta _B)`$ is shown in Fig. 2. Four long-range hills and valleys are visible for $`R>R_B`$ and a repulsive hard core that is nearly independent of angle appears for $`RR_B`$.

The behavior of $`U_{2,2}(R,\theta _B)`$ is further illuminated when it is expanded in terms of Legendre polynomials $`P_L(x)`$,

$$U_{2,2}(R,\theta _B)=\underset{L=0,2,4,\mathrm{}}{}U_L(R)P_L(x),$$
(2)
where $`x=\mathrm{cos}\theta _B`$. The $`U_L(R)`$ of Sr2 are shown in Fig. 3. For $`RR_B`$, $`U_4`$ is largest and is dominated by the QQ interaction. In Fig. 2 it gives rise to the hills and valleys. For $`RR_B`$, contributions of other components are appreciable, while for $`R\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}60}a_0`$ the repulsive $`U_0(R)`$ dominates. The inset of Fig. 3 shows that $`U_0(R)`$ has a shallow attractive region for large $`R`$, that becomes deeper and wider for increasing $`B`$. This so-called “Zeeman-van der Waals” well is a consequence of an interplay between Zeeman and anisotropic quadrupole-quadrupole interactions.

For $`RR_B`$, an analytical expression for $`U_{2,2}`$ can be derived based on perturbation theory around $`|^3P_2,m_1|^3P_2,m_2`$ with the quantization axis along $`𝐁`$. We find for the contribution of the QQ interaction

$$U_{2,2}^{(QQ)}=\frac{3}{2}\frac{𝒬^2}{R^5}P_4(x),$$
(3)
and for the DD interaction

$`U_{2,2}^{(DD)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^6}}\left[C_6^{(0)}+C_6^{(2)}P_2(x)+C_6^{(4)}P_4(x)\right].`$ (4)
The monopole coefficient $`C_6^{(0)}`$ is independent of $`B`$ and is 1000 $`E_ha_0^6`$, 3300 $`E_ha_0^6`$, and 6200 $`E_ha_0^6`$ for $`\mathrm{Mg}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{Ca}^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{Sr}^{}`$ respectively. Consequently, the long-range behavior of $`U_0(R)`$ is given by an attractive $`1/R^6`$ potential that is independent of $`B`$.

Scattering lengths — A rigorous description of elastic collisions between spin polarized metastable $`{}_{}{}^{3}Pj=2,m=2`$ atoms should start from $`B=0`$ theoriescol  and extend those to include the Zeeman interactionAlk . Such a model is beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, we take advantage of our understanding of the adiabatic potentials in a magnetic field. Nuclear motion couples the electronic potentials via so-called non-adiabatic couplings. These couplings are strongest near avoided crossings between adiabatic electronic potentials and lead to inelastic losses. For example, a transition from the $`M=4`$ to $`M=3`$ curves in Fig. 1 results in depolarization and conversion of internal energy to kinetic energy.

First we will assume that adiabaticity holds. We relax this assumption below. The zero-energy $`s`$-wave ($`l=0`$) scattering length of polarized metastable $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}`$ $`m=2`$ atoms is then given by the scattering length of the $`U_0(R)`$ component of $`U_{2,2}(R,\theta _B)`$. This length for three alkaline-earth species as a function of magnetic field is shown in Fig. 4. For $`B<40`$ mT the scattering lengths are large and positive and a Bose condensate would be stable against collapse. Uncertainties in QQ and DD coefficients do not change the picture significantly.

For $`B>`$ 70 mT the scattering lengths exhibit singularities, where $`a`$ is infinite. These resonances are due the appearance of the first bound state in $`U_0(R)`$. The inset of Fig. 3 shows that for increasing $`B`$ the well becomes wider and deeper, supporting an increasingly larger number of bound states and thus extra resonances.

Magnetic field control of the sign and magnitude of the scattering length near the resonances appears likely for these systems. Magnetic field-induced resonance behavior in scattering lengths has been observed for alkali-metal atoms. There, however, the singularity is a consequence of Feshbach resonances rather than through the appearance of extra bound states in an adiabatic potential.

Inelastic processes — The scattering lengths have been determined assuming that nonadiabatic couplings and thus losses are negligible. We verify the applicability of the adiabatic approximation by estimating loss rates from a two-channel curve-crossing model. The model has an attractive van-der-Waals potential in an incoming channel, $`|i`$, of two spin polarized atoms and $`l=0`$ that crosses a repulsive $`C_5/R^5`$ exit channel, $`|e`$, of two atoms with $`m_1+m_2<4`$ and $`l=4`$. The coupling, $`C_5^{}/R^5`$, is due to the QQ interaction. More precisely,

$`V_{2\mathrm{c}\mathrm{h}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}C_6^{(0)}/R^6& C_5^{}/R^5\\ C_5^{}/R^5& C_5/R^5+20\mathrm{}^2/2\mu R^2\mathrm{\Delta }\end{array}\right),`$ (7)
where $`\mu `$ is the reduced mass of the dimer, $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$ is the difference in dissociation energy of the two states, the exit state has a $`l=4`$ centrifugal potential, and $`C_6^{(0)}`$ is defined in Eq. 4. The two states cross at near $`R_B`$.

The $`R`$-dependent eigenvalues of $`V_{2\mathrm{c}\mathrm{h}}`$ are our model adiabatic potentials. In fact, the top-most adiabat plays the role of the $`L=0`$ component of the $`U_{22}`$ adiabat. It has an attractive van der Waals tail and a repulsive wall that is to be compared to the “Zeeman-van der Waals” well of Fig. 3.

Loss can occur when the atoms reach short-range $`R`$ on the incoming channel or when the atoms are reflected into the repulsive exit channel. We numerically solved the two coupled Schrödinger equations assuming a hard-wall placed inside $`R_B`$ and parameter values valid for strontium. This approach has no losses due to short-range inelastic processes. Nevertheless, we feel that the model gives an order of magnitude estimate of the loss rate. The calculations show that for $`B`$ from 1 mT to 5 mT the loss rate $`K`$ into the exit channel rapidly rises from $`10^{13}`$ cm3/s to $`10^{11}`$ cm3/s due to Wigner-threshold effects in the exit channel. For large fields the rate decreases slowly and exponentially with $`B`$ and for $`B500`$ mT has dropped to $`10^{12}`$ cm3/s.

The loss rate and the scattering length show a resonance similar to the resonances shown in Fig. 4 when an extra bound state appears in the upper adiabat. For collision energies below 1 $`\mu `$K the loss rate approaches zero in a narrow $`1`$ mT region above the resonance location where the scattering length is large and positive. For collision energies above 100 $`\mu `$K the resonance is broadened and will be hard to observe. The position of the resonance and the corresponding loss rate will change when all coupled channels are included. However, the resonance and a (partial) drop in the loss rate is expected to survive.

Consequently, we have identified magnetic field regions where losses are smaller than or on the order of $`10^{13}`$ cm3/s, i.e. for $`B<1`$ mT and for magnetic field strengths just above the resonance. For several Tesla fields the loss rate will be small as well. At a rate constant of $`10^{13}`$ cm3/s the imaginary part of the scattering length $`hK/(2\mu )`$Balakrishnan et al. (1997), is orders of magnitude smaller than the real part of the scattering length shown in Fig. 4. The collision is adiabatic for these field regions and the scattering length is meaningful. Moreover, these rates lead to sample lifetimes of 1 s at densities of $`10^{13}`$ cm-3.

Conclusion — We have calculated the interaction potentials of metastable alkaline-earth dimers in the presence of a magnetic field. A purely long-range interaction potential is found to determine the scattering length between two spin polarized $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}`$ alkaline-earth atoms. A magnetic-field-induced resonance is observed, where the interaction potential supports an extra bound state. Reference Avd  predicts similar long-range states for polar molecules in an electric field. Existence of such molecular states should be a general property of colliding atoms or molecules with an anisotropic interaction potential in an external field that split a degeneracy.

Although full-scale multi-channel calculations of magnetic trap losses and scattering lengths are desirable, a two channel model indicates that the inelastic loss rate of the collision between two spin polarized atoms are small for small magnetic field strengths and above the field-induced resonance, where the scattering length is positive. We uncovered several unique features of collisions between metastable alkaline-earths, which may offer new insights into the physics of ultracold quantum gasses.

This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation and the office of Naval Research.


text:
# References

On the Chekhov-Fock coordinates of dessins d’enfants.
G. Shabat and V.Zolotarskaia

Introduction

There are several ways to associate a complex structure to a ribbon graph. The examples are provided by the construction of Kontzevich , the construction of Penner , the construction of dessins d’enfants . In the first two constructions the ribbon graph is considered with the additional structure - a number is associated to each edge. Varying these parametres we obtain different riemann surfaces. The statement is that this way we cover a cell of the corresponding moduli space. In the construction of dessins d’enfants a single riemann surface is associated to each graph. (Usually we say dessin d’enfants, which in this paper means exactly the same as ribbon graph). We call it the Grothendieck model of a ribbon graph.

The problem is: which parametres for the edges of graph in the first two constructions should be chosen to obtain its Grothendiek model? This problem was solved in ,  and it turns out that these parameters should all be equal to $`1`$.

The goal of the present paper is to discuss one more such construction - that of Chekhov-Fock and to prove that putting all parametres of the edges of the graph in this construction equal to $`0`$, we obtain the Grothendieck model of this graph.

Cartography

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be any trivalent ribbon graph, that is a graph with the valencies of all the vertices equal to $`3`$ and with the given cyclic order on the origins of the edges in each vertice. Let $`E`$ be the set of the oriented edges of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We have the so-called cartography group $`C_2^+`$ acting on $`E`$. This group is generated by the elements $`\rho _0`$ and $`\rho _1`$. The element $`\rho _0`$ turnes the current edge contraryclockwise around the origin of the edge, $`\rho _1`$ changes the orientation of the edge (see ). Formally we can write

$$C_\mathit{2}^+:=<\rho _\mathit{0},\rho _\mathit{1}|\rho _\mathit{1}^\mathit{2}=\mathit{1}>.$$

Having in mind the trivalency of our graph we define

$$C_\mathit{2}^+\left[\mathit{3}\right]=<\rho _\mathit{0},\rho _\mathit{1}|\rho _\mathit{1}^\mathit{2}=\rho _\mathit{0}^\mathit{3}=\mathit{1}>$$

also acting on $`E`$.

Fix $`ϵE`$. Let $`B(E,ϵ)`$ be the borel subgroup of $`C_\mathit{2}^+[\mathit{3}]`$ corresponding to the edge $`ϵ`$ (see ), that is

$$B(E,ϵ)=\left\{wC_\mathit{2}^+\left[\mathit{3}\right]\right|wϵ=ϵ\}.$$

The Chekhov-Fock construction

We also have the additional structure:

$$z:E,z\left(\rho _\mathit{1}\gamma \right)=z\left(\gamma \right)\gamma \Gamma .$$

Now given $`\mathrm{\Gamma },z,ϵ`$ we define the map

$$CHF:C_\mathit{2}^+\left[\mathit{3}\right]\mathrm{𝑃𝑆𝐿}_\mathit{2}\left(\right)$$

inductively, setting

$$CHF\left(1\right)=1,$$

$$CHF\left(\rho _0w\right)=L\times CHF\left(w\right)$$

$$CHF\left(\rho _1w\right)=X_{z\left(wϵ\right)}\times CHF\left(w\right)$$

where
$`X_a=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& e^{a/2}\\ e^{a/2}& 0\end{array}\right)`$
$`L=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right)`$
Notation. $`chf:=CHF|_{B(E,ϵ)}`$
Statement 1. The map $`chf`$ is a homomorphism.

This statement, as most of the other statements of present paper, becomes obvious after thinking about it for a while, but here is the formal
Proof: We should prove that

$$\mathrm{𝑐ℎ𝑓}\left(w_\mathit{2}w_\mathit{1}\right)=\mathrm{𝑐ℎ𝑓}\left(w_\mathit{2}\right)\mathrm{𝑐ℎ𝑓}\left(w_\mathit{1}\right)$$

for any $`w_\mathit{1},w_\mathit{2}B(E,ϵ)`$.
It is sufficient to show that

$$\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w_\mathit{2}w_\mathit{1}\right)=\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w_\mathit{2}\right)\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w_\mathit{1}\right)$$

for any $`w_\mathit{2}C_\mathit{2}^+[\mathit{3}],w_\mathit{1}B(E,ϵ)`$.
We will do it using induction over length of $`w_\mathit{2}`$.
If the length of $`w_\mathit{2}`$ is $`1`$ then either $`w_\mathit{2}=\rho _\mathit{0}`$,
or $`w_\mathit{2}=\rho _\mathit{1}`$.
In the first case we have

$$\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w_\mathit{2}w_\mathit{1}\right)=$$

$$\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(\rho _\mathit{0}w_\mathit{1}\right)=\left(\mathrm{𝑏𝑦}\mathrm{𝑡ℎ𝑒}\mathrm{𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛}\mathrm{𝑜𝑓}\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\right)$$

$$L\times \mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w_\mathit{1}\right)=\left(\mathrm{𝑏𝑦}\mathrm{𝑡ℎ𝑒}\mathrm{𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛}\mathrm{𝑜𝑓}\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\right)$$

$$\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(\rho _\mathit{0}\right)\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w_\mathit{1}\right)=$$

$$\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w_\mathit{2}\right)\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w_\mathit{1}\right)$$

In the second case we have

$$\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w_\mathit{2}w_\mathit{1}\right)=$$

$$\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(\rho _\mathit{1}w_\mathit{1}\right)=\left(\mathrm{𝑏𝑦}\mathrm{𝑡ℎ𝑒}\mathrm{𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛}\mathrm{𝑜𝑓}\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\right)$$

$$X_{z\left(w_\mathit{1}ϵ\right)}\times \mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w_\mathit{1}\right)=\left(\mathrm{𝑏𝑦}\mathrm{𝑡ℎ𝑒}\mathrm{𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛}\mathrm{𝑜𝑓}B(E,ϵ)\right)$$

$$X_{z\left(ϵ\right)}\times \mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w_\mathit{1}\right)=\left(\mathrm{𝑏𝑦}\mathrm{𝑡ℎ𝑒}\mathrm{𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛}\mathrm{𝑜𝑓}\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\right)$$

$$\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(\rho _\mathit{1}\right)\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w_\mathit{1}\right)=$$

$$\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w_\mathit{2}\right)\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w_\mathit{1}\right)$$

In the general case if $`w_\mathit{2}=\rho _\mathit{0}w_\mathit{3}`$ we have

$$\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w_\mathit{2}w_\mathit{1}\right)=$$

$$\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(\rho _\mathit{0}w_\mathit{3}w_\mathit{1}\right)=\left(\mathrm{𝑏𝑦}\mathrm{𝑡ℎ𝑒}\mathrm{𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛}\mathrm{𝑜𝑓}\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\right)$$

$$L\times \mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w_\mathit{3}w_\mathit{1}\right)=\left(\mathrm{𝑏𝑦}\mathrm{𝑡ℎ𝑒}\mathrm{𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛}\right)$$

$$L\times \mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w_\mathit{3}\right)\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w_\mathit{1}\right)=\left(\mathrm{𝑏𝑦}\mathrm{𝑡ℎ𝑒}\mathrm{𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛}\mathrm{𝑜𝑓}\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\right)$$

$$\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(\rho _\mathit{0}w_\mathit{3}\right)\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w_\mathit{1}\right)=$$

$$\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w_\mathit{2}\right)\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w_\mathit{1}\right)$$

Finaly if $`w_\mathit{2}=\rho _\mathit{1}w_\mathit{3}`$ we have

$$\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w_\mathit{2}w_\mathit{1}\right)=$$

$$\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(\rho _\mathit{1}w_\mathit{3}w_\mathit{1}\right)=\left(\mathrm{𝑏𝑦}\mathrm{𝑡ℎ𝑒}\mathrm{𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛}\mathrm{𝑜𝑓}\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\right)$$

$$X_{z\left(w_\mathit{3}w_\mathit{1}ϵ\right)}\times \mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w_\mathit{3}w_\mathit{1}\right)=\left(\mathrm{𝑏𝑦}\mathrm{𝑡ℎ𝑒}\mathrm{𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛}\mathrm{𝑜𝑓}B(E,ϵ)\right)$$

$$X_{z\left(w_\mathit{3}ϵ\right)}\times \mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w_\mathit{3}\right)\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w_\mathit{1}\right)=\left(\mathrm{𝑏𝑦}\mathrm{𝑡ℎ𝑒}\mathrm{𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛}\mathrm{𝑜𝑓}\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\right)$$

$$\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(\rho _\mathit{1}w_\mathit{3}\right)\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w_\mathit{1}\right)=$$

$$\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w_\mathit{2}\right)\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w_\mathit{1}\right)$$

which finishes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

The Chekhov-Fock net

Let us denote the image of $`chf`$ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Gamma },z,ϵ)`$. To explain the properties of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Gamma },z,ϵ)`$ we need the notion of Chekhov-Fock net. It is some ideal triangulation of the upper plane $``$ with the numbers associated to the edges of its dual trivalent graph.

Here is the construction of Chekhov-Fock net, associated to the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The first triangle of Chekhov-Fock net will be the ideal triangle $`T_0`$ with the vertices in $`1,0`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$. Denote $`[x,y]`$ the Lobachevsky line joining $`x`$ and $`y`$. Let us call $`ϵ^{}`$ the edge of the trivalent graph, intersecting the edge $`[0,\mathrm{}]`$ of the triangle (we need the orientation of the edges, so let us say that the origin of $`ϵ^{}`$ which is situated inside $`T_0`$ is its ”beginning”. The number, associated to this edge of the graph, will be $`z^{}(ϵ^{})=z(ϵ)`$. Now (using the fact that $`C_2^+[3]`$ acts on our trivalent graph and that this action is transitive) all the numbers associated to all the edges of the graph can be determined in the following way: $`z^{}(wϵ^{})=z(wϵ)`$, where $`wC_\mathit{2}^+[\mathit{3}]`$. Now we have to explain, how to obtain inductively all the other triangles. For example we have constructed the triangle $`T`$ with the edges $`a,b`$ and $`c`$ and we want to construct the triangle, which will also contain edge $`c`$. Let $`\alpha PSL_2()`$ be a transformation of $``$, which takes triangle $`T`$ to the triangle $`T_0`$, so that $`\alpha (c)=[0,\mathrm{}]`$. Then the $`(\alpha ^1X_{z^{}(c)}\alpha )T`$ is the desired triangle.
Fact. $`wC_\mathit{2}^+[\mathit{3}]z^{}((\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}(w))^\mathit{1}ϵ^{})=z(wϵ)`$
Statement 2. For any $`wC_\mathit{2}^+[\mathit{3}]`$ $``$ triangle $`T`$ of Fock-Chehov net such that $`(CHF(w))^1T_0=T`$.
Proof: Let us use the induction over the length of $`w`$. if this length is $`0`$ then the statement is trivial. Now if $`w=\rho _\mathit{0}w_\mathit{1}`$,

$$\left(\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w\right)\right)^\mathit{1}T_\mathit{0}=\left(\mathrm{𝑏𝑦}\mathrm{𝑡ℎ𝑒}\mathrm{𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛}\mathrm{𝑜𝑓}\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\right)$$

$$\left(L\times CHF\left(w_1\right)\right)^1T_0=$$

$$\left(CHF\left(w_1\right)\right)^1L^1T_0=$$

$$\left(CHF\left(w_1\right)\right)^1T_0=T.$$

Now consider the case $`w=\rho _\mathit{1}w_\mathit{1}`$, let $`(CHF(w))^1T_0=T`$.

$$\left(\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\left(w\right)\right)^\mathit{1}T_\mathit{0}=\left(\mathrm{𝑏𝑦}\mathrm{𝑡ℎ𝑒}\mathrm{𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛}\mathrm{𝑜𝑓}\mathrm{𝐶𝐻𝐹}\right)$$

$$\left(X_{z\left(wϵ\right)}\times CHF\left(w_1\right)\right)^1T_0=$$

$$\left(CHF\left(w_1\right)\right)^1\left(X_{z\left(wϵ\right)}\right)^1T_0=$$

$$\left(\left(CHF\left(w_1\right)\right)^1\left(X_{z\left(wϵ\right)}\right)^1CHF\left(w_1\right)\right)\left(CHF\left(w_1\right)\right)^1T_0=$$

$$\left(\left(CHF\left(w_1\right)\right)^1\left(X_{z\left(wϵ\right)}\right)^1CHF\left(w_1\right)\right)T=\left(see\mathrm{𝐍𝐨𝐭𝐞}\right)$$

$$\left(\left(CHF\left(w_1\right)\right)^1\left(X_{z^{}\left(\left(CHF\left(w\right)\right)^1ϵ^{}\right)}\right)^1CHF\left(w_1\right)\right)T$$

And the last expression by the definition gives us the next triangle of Chekhov-Fock net. $`\mathrm{}`$
Corollary: $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Gamma },z,ϵ)`$ is a fuchsian group.

Triangle $`T_0`$ is its fundamental domain.

The Chekhov-Fock coordinates of dessins d’enfants

Now let us put $`z0`$.
Statement 3: The riemann surface $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Gamma },0,ϵ)`$ is equivalent to the Grothendieck model of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.
Proof: If $`z0`$ then $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Gamma },z,ϵ)=\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Gamma },0,ϵ)`$ is the subgroup of $`PSL_2[]`$ Let us first consider the case of normal $`B(E,ϵ)`$, (we call such dessin regular). Consequently $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Gamma },0,ϵ)`$ is normal in $`PSL_2[Z]`$. So we can factorize $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Gamma },0,ϵ)`$ by $`PSL_2[]`$. Now if identify $`/PSL_2[]`$ and Riemann sphere, we get the function $`\beta _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ defined on $`/\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Gamma },0,ϵ)`$ with the only critical values $`0,1`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$, that is Belyi function corresponding to this dessin.

Now if we take any graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and if $`D`$ is the corresponding dessin d’enfant, there exists regular dessin d’enfant $`D^{}`$ and the covering $`\chi :D^{}D`$. Let us denote the graph corresponding to this dessin by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. Now we can define function $`\beta _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ defined on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Gamma },0,ϵ)`$ such that $`\beta _\mathrm{\Gamma }\chi =\beta _\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$

Examples.

Notation By the case $`<a_1,\mathrm{},a_nb_1,\mathrm{},b_m>`$ we denote graph with the valences of vertices equal to $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_n`$ and the valences of vertices of dual graph equal to $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_m`$.
Example 1. Case$`3,3|2,2,2`$ Let the numbers, corresponding to the edges $`A,B,C`$, be $`a,b,c`$, the chosen oriented edge be B with the orientation, so that edge $`A`$ is to the left of the end of $`B`$ and edge $`C`$ \- to the right. Then the generators of the corresponding fuchsian group are
$`\gamma _1=X_bRX_cR`$
$`\gamma _2=RX_aRX_b`$
$`\gamma _3=LX_cRX_aL`$
with the relation $`\gamma _3\gamma _2\gamma _1=1`$.

Using the fact that $`\gamma _i`$ are parabolic we get $`\{\begin{array}{ccc}a+b\hfill & =& 0\hfill \\ a+c\hfill & =& 0\hfill \\ b+c\hfill & =& 0\hfill \end{array}`$

This system has the only solution $`\{\begin{array}{ccc}a\hfill & =& 0\hfill \\ b\hfill & =& 0\hfill \\ c\hfill & =& 0\hfill \end{array}`$

So we get the subgroup of $`PSL_2(𝐑)`$ with generators:

$`\gamma _1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 2& 1\end{array}\right)`$ , the invariant point is $`0`$.

$`\gamma _2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 2\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ , the invariant point is $`\mathrm{}`$.

$`\gamma _3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 2\\ 2& 3\end{array}\right)`$ , the invariant point is $`1`$.
with the relation $`\gamma _3\gamma _2\gamma _1=1`$.

Example 2. Case$`3,3,3,3|3,3,3,3tetrahedron`$.

Let the edges $`A,B,C`$ follow clockwise around some vertice, edge $`D`$ be the opposite to the edge $`A`$, $`E`$ to $`B`$, $`F`$ to $`C`$. Taking $`a,b,c,d,e,f`$ by numbers, corresponding to the edges $`A,B,C,D,E,F`$ and using the fact that all elements of fuchsian group are parabolic we get the system $`\{\begin{array}{ccc}a+e+c\hfill & =& 0\hfill \\ b+d+c\hfill & =& 0\hfill \\ a+f+b\hfill & =& 0\hfill \\ e+f+d\hfill & =& 0\hfill \end{array}`$

The solution of this system is $`\{\begin{array}{ccc}a\hfill & =& d\hfill \\ b\hfill & =& e\hfill \\ c\hfill & =& f\hfill \\ a+b+c\hfill & =& 0\hfill \end{array}`$

So we get the family of riemann surfaces with two parameters. The riemann surface coresponding to the dessin can be obtained putting $`a=b=c=0`$, because of its symmetry.

So we get the following matrices
$`\gamma _1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 3\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ , the invariant point is $`\mathrm{}`$
$`\gamma _2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 3\\ 3& 4\end{array}\right)`$ , the invariant point is $`1`$
$`\gamma _3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 3& 1\end{array}\right)`$ , the invariant point is $`0`$
$`\gamma _4=\left(\begin{array}{cc}4& 3\\ 3& 2\end{array}\right)`$ , the invariant point is $`1`$
with the relation $`\gamma _4\gamma _3\gamma _2\gamma _1=1`$.

Example 3. Case$`3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3|4,4,4,4,4,4`$ Using the usual technique of Fock-Chehov we get the generators of the fuchsian group
$`\gamma _1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 4& 1\end{array}\right)`$ , the invariant point is $`0`$
$`\gamma _2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}5& 4\\ 4& 3\end{array}\right)`$ , the invariant point is $`1`$
$`\gamma _3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 4\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ , the invariant point is $`\mathrm{}`$
$`\gamma _4=\left(\begin{array}{cc}7& 16\\ 4& 9\end{array}\right)`$ , the invariant point is $`2`$
$`\gamma _5=\left(\begin{array}{cc}3& 4\\ 4& 5\end{array}\right)`$ , the invariant point is $`1`$
$`\gamma _6=\left(\begin{array}{cc}7& 4\\ 16& 9\end{array}\right)`$ , the invariant point is $`1/2`$
with the relation $`\gamma _6\gamma _5\gamma _4\gamma _3\gamma _2\gamma _1=1`$.
Also we can find the automorfism of this picture: $`\alpha =\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$

Factorizing this child’s picture by this automorfism we get the another picture:
Example 4. Case$`3,3|4,1,1`$ with generators
$`\gamma _1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ , the invariant point is $`\mathrm{}`$
$`\gamma _2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 4& 1\end{array}\right)`$ , the invariant point is $`0`$