text:
# The Ubiquity of Order Domains for the Construction of Error Control Codes

## 1. Introduction

The notion of an order domain was introduced by Høholdt, van Lint, and Pellikaan in  to simplify and extend the theory of error control codes using ideas from algebraic geometry. The definition (see Definition 1 below for the formulation we will use) is largely motivated by the structures utilized in the Berlekamp-Massey-Sakata (BMS) decoding algorithm for one-point geometric Goppa codes constructed from curves, the Feng-Rao bound on the minimum distance for those codes, and the majority voting process for unknown syndromes. All of these coding theoretic constructions are based on the properties of the ring of rational functions with poles only at one smooth $`𝔽_q`$-rational point $`Q`$ on a curve, $`R=_{m=0}^{\mathrm{}}L(mQ)`$. These rings are the prototypical examples of order domains, and they furnish all the examples whose fields of fractions have transcendence degree 1 over the field of constants.

Geil and Pellikaan (,) and O’Sullivan () have studied the structure of order domains whose fields of fractions have arbitrary transcendence degree. Moreover, O’Sullivan () has shown that the Berlekamp-Massey-Sakata decoding algorithm (abbreviated as the BMS algorithm in the following) and the Feng-Rao procedure extend in a natural way to suitable classes of evaluation and dual evaluation codes constructed in this much more general setting. (See also , Chapter 10 for an introduction to this topic.)

Order domains can be constructed either intrinsically or extrinsically, that is, by means of the algebra of the field $`K=QF(R)`$, or by means of explicit presentations (e.g. as affine algebras $`𝔽_q[X_1,\mathrm{},X_s]/I`$ with $`I`$ of a special form).

From the intrinsic point of view, the most important fact is the observation exploited by O’Sullivan that order functions come from valuations on $`K`$. (See  or , Chapter VI for general discussions of valuations on fields.) This is clear in a sense from the definition (see Definition 1 below). The examples of order domains in function fields of curves also make this transparent. Indeed, let $`𝒳`$ be a smooth projective curve defined over $`𝔽_q`$, and let $`Q`$ be an $`𝔽_q`$-rational point on $`𝒳`$. Then for $`R=_{m=0}^{\mathrm{}}L(mQ)`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is equal to the Weierstrass semigroup of $`𝒳`$ at $`Q`$ (the sub-semigroup of $`_0`$ consisting of all pole orders of rational functions on $`𝒳`$ with poles only at $`Q`$), and $`\rho (f)=v_Q(f)`$, where $`v_Q`$ is the discrete valuation at $`Q`$ on the function field of $`𝒳`$.

O’Sullivan extends this valuation-theoretic point of view to the case of function fields of transcendence degree $`2`$ over $`𝔽_q`$ (function fields of surfaces and higher-dimensional varieties) in . He shows that every function field of transcendcence degree 2 contains order domains of several different types, corresponding to some of the possible valuation rings in these fields in a complete classification due originally to Zariski, and reworked in modern language by Spivakovsky (see  and ).

The valuation-theoretic interpretation of order domains also makes connections with earlier work of Sweedler, , Beckman and Stückrad, , and work of Mosteig and Sweedler, , where filtrations of rings arising from valuations are used as the foundation for a theory of normal forms and generalized Gröbner bases.  and  also discuss an extension of the theory of Gröbner bases to ideals in order domains.

From the extrinsic point of view, the following result of Geil and Pellikaan is also extremely useful, though it applies only in the case that the value semigroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is finitely generated, hence isomorphic to a sub-semigroup of $`_0^r`$ for some $`r`$. In the following statement, $`M`$ is an $`r\times s`$ matrix with entries in $`_0`$ with linearly independent rows. For $`\alpha _0^s`$ (written as a column vector), the matrix product $`M\alpha `$ is a vector in $`_0^r`$. We will call this the $`M`$-weight of the monomial $`x^\alpha `$. We write $`M`$ for the subsemigroup of $`_0^r`$ generated by the columns of $`M`$, ordered by any convenient monomial order $``$ on $`_0^r`$ (for instance the $`lex`$ order as in Robbiano’s characterization of monomial orders by weight matrices). We will make use of the monomial orders $`>_{M,\tau }`$ on $`𝔽_q[X_1,\mathrm{},X_s]`$ defined as follows: $`X^\alpha >_{M,\tau }X^\beta `$ if $`M\alpha M\beta `$, or if $`M\alpha =M\beta `$ and $`X^\alpha >_\tau X^\beta `$, where $`\tau `$ is another monomial order used to break ties.

###### Theorem 1 (Geil-Pellikaan, ).

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=M_0^r`$ be a semigroup.

1. Let $`I𝔽_q[X_1,\mathrm{},X_s]`$ be an ideal, and let $`G`$ be the reduced Gröbner basis for $`I`$ with respect to a weight order $`>_{M,\tau }`$ as above (abbreviated as $`>`$ below). Suppose that every element of $`G`$ has exactly two monomials of highest $`M`$-weight in its support, and that the monomials in the complement of $`LT_>(I)`$ (the “standard monomials” or monomials in the “footprint of the ideal”) have distinct $`M`$-weights. Then $`R=𝔽_q[X_1,\mathrm{},X_s]/I`$ is an order domain with value semigroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and order function $`\rho `$ defined as follows: Writing $`f`$ in $`R`$ as a linear combination of the monomials in the complement of $`LT_>(I)`$, $`\rho (f)=\mathrm{max}_{}\{M\beta :X^\beta supp(f)\}`$.
2. Every order domain with finitely-generated semigroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=M`$ has a presentation $`R𝔽_q[X_1,\mathrm{},X_s]/I`$ such that the reduced Gröbner basis of $`I`$ with respect to $`>_{M,\tau }`$ and the standard monomials are as in part 1.

Our main goals in this article are to begin to indicate just how general the order domain construction is, and to show how the intrinsic and extrinsic characterizations of order domains can be used to construct codes from a number of interesting classes of higher-dimensional algebraic varieties.

After some preliminaries on order functions and valuations in §2, we will begin in §3 by proving some general results on the relation between order domains and valuation rings in function fields, along the lines of . We will discuss several types of valuations on general function fields that are suitable for the construction of order domains, extending O’Sullivan’s work for the case of the function fields of surfaces from . We will concentrate mainly on identifying the order domains rather than on describing the corresponding valuation rings, as is done in .

In rough terms, we will show that the function field of any projective variety $`𝒳`$ over a finite field $`𝔽_q`$ satisfying some relatively mild conditions (for instance, the existence of a collection of suitable subvarieties of $`𝒳`$ defined over $`𝔽_q`$) contains order domains $`R`$ of several different types. See Theorems 2 and 3 below for more precise, detailed statements.

We have chosen to concentrate on the cases that lead to order domains with finitely generated value semigroups, since these are the ones likely to be of most interest in coding theory. We note, though, that order domains with value semigroups that are not finitely generated (see , §5, and , Example 9.6) will also exist in these function fields.

Because of the possibility of blowing up subvarieties in varieties of dimension $`2`$ (see for instance Chapter II, §7 of ), the theory of valuations on function fields of transcendence degree $`2`$ is necessarily significantly more subtle than in the case of transcendence degree 1. In particular, to describe a certain valuation on the function field of a variety $`𝒳`$ of dimension $`2`$, it may be necessary to pass to a blow-up of $`𝒳`$.  discusses this in detail for valuations related to monomial orders on $`𝔽_q[X,Y]`$. In order to keep the prerequisites in birational geometry to a minimum, though, we will concentrate on the case where valuations and order domains can be described directly from a given projective model $`𝒳`$, without any blow-ups. This will suffice for our applications.

Following this, in §4, we will turn to the extrinsic approach and study the relation of order domains with the toric (monomial) algebras that appear as coordinate rings of affine toric varieties. The connection is that the conditions in Geil and Pellikaan’s theorem are equivalent to saying that the order domain $`R`$ has a flat deformation to a toric algebra. See Theorem 4 below for a more precise statement. This point of view shows that there are intriguing connections between order domains and techniques of current interest in combinatorics, the theory of singularities, mirror symmetry, and other areas.

Next, in §5 and §6 we will present several new explicit examples of order domains obtained from varieties such as Hermitian hypersurfaces of arbitrary dimension, Grassmannians, and flag varieties. These varieties have been studied with other tools in this context by S. Hansen in , Rodier in , (also see the references in those papers for earlier work). These particular varieties are interesting in this connection because they are examples of higher-dimensional varieties with large numbers of rational points over finite fields. By our results, they can be used to construct long codes for which the BMS algorithm, the Feng-Rao bound, and majority voting for unknown syndromes apply.

The treatment of Hermitian hypersurfaces in §5 will use the intrinsic approach to construct valuations of one of the types studied in §3. We will then produce presentations of the corresponding order domains as in Geil and Pellikaan’s theorem (Theorem 1). A different construction based on the result of §4 will yield a second class of order domains whose properties even more closely parallel the order domains from Hermitian curves.

In §6, on the other hand, we will study order domains from Grassmannians and flag varieties via the extrinsic approach. Our results here depend on work of Sturmfels () and Gonciulea and Lakshmibai () establishing the existence of toric deformations of these varieties. These examples can also be treated using the theory of Hodge algebras, or algebras with straightening laws (ASL); see . We note that these algebras also give a sort of generalization of Gröbner basis theory. While there is a large overlap, the classes of Hodge algebras and order domains are distinct; neither class contains the other.

The author would like to thank Ed Mosteig and Mike O’Sullivan for enlightening conversations. Work reported in this article was begun while the author was visiting MSRI during the Commutative Algebra program in Spring 2003.

## 2. Preliminaries on Order Domains and Valuations

Essentially following , we will use the following formulation of the definition of order domains.

###### Definition 1.

Let $`R`$ be a $`𝔽_q`$-algebra and let $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },+,)`$ be a well-ordered commutative semigroup. An order function on $`R`$ is a surjective mapping $`\rho :R\{\mathrm{}\}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ satisfying:

1. $`\rho (f)=\mathrm{}f=0`$,
2. $`\rho (cf)=\rho (f)`$ for all $`fR`$, all $`c0`$ in $`𝔽_q`$,
3. $`\rho (f+g)\mathrm{max}_{}\{\rho (f),\rho (g)\}`$ for all $`f,gR`$,
4. if $`\rho (f)=\rho (g)\mathrm{}`$, then there exists $`c0`$ in $`𝔽_q`$ such that $`\rho (f)\rho (fcg)`$, and
5. $`\rho (fg)=\rho (f)+\rho (g)`$.

We will call $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the value semigroup of $`\rho `$.

Axioms 1 and 5 in this definition imply that $`R`$ is an integral domain. In many cases, we will see that a ring $`R`$ with one order function has many others besides. For this reason an order domain is formally defined as a pair $`(R,\rho )`$ where $`R`$ is an $`𝔽_q`$-algebra and $`\rho `$ is an order function on $`R`$. However, we will only use one particular order function on $`R`$ at any one time. Hence we will often omit it in referring to the order domain, and we will refer to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as the value semigroup of $`R`$.

Let $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be arbitrary. The subsets $`R_\alpha =\{fR:\rho (f)\alpha \}`$ or $`R_{<\alpha }=\{fR:\rho (f)<\alpha \}`$ form filtrations of $`R`$ by $`𝔽_q`$-vector subspaces. Axiom 4 implies that for each $`\alpha `$, $`R_\alpha /R_{<\alpha }`$ is a one-dimensional $`𝔽_q`$-vector space. The terminology “order function” is supposed to suggest the existence of $`𝔽_q`$-bases of $`R`$ whose elements have distinct $`\rho `$-values, and are hence ordered by $`\rho `$. This is a consequence of the one-dimensional quotients axiom 4.

 and  contain a number of examples of order domains; we will provide additional examples in §5 and §6.

At this point a comment concerning the relation of this definition to the one used in  and  is probably in order. In those papers an order function is defined as a mapping $`o:R\{1\}`$ satisfying the properties that for all $`a`$, the set $`L_a=\{fR:o(f)a\}`$ is an $`𝔽_q`$-vector space of dimension $`a+1`$, and $`o(f)<o(g)`$ implies $`o(fz)<o(gz)`$ for all $`f,g,zR`$. It can be seen that this formulation satisfies all the axioms in Definition 1, but it is less general than our definition. It excludes, for instance, $`R`$ such as $`𝔽_q[X,Y]`$ with order function induced by a lexicographic monomial order (that is, the order function $`\rho (X^nY^m)=(m,n)\mathrm{\Gamma }=_0^2`$, ordered lexicographically). Note for instance that the lexicographic order does not satisfy Proposition 1.2 of . Nevertheless, lexicographic and similar orders on polynomial rings do furnish examples of order domains as in our definition. In particular the well-ordering property does hold, even though there is no power $`Y^n`$ satisfying $`\rho (Y^n)>\rho (X)`$.

We will follow the notation and terminology of  for Krull valuations on function fields. Let $`K`$ be a field. A valuation $`v`$ of $`K`$ is a mapping from $`K`$ to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\{+\mathrm{}\}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a totally ordered abelian group satisfying

1. $`v(f)=+\mathrm{}`$ if and only if $`f=0`$,
2. $`v(fg)=v(f)+v(g)`$ for all $`f,gK`$,
3. $`v(f+g)\mathrm{min}\{v(f),v(g)\}`$ for all $`f,gK`$.

Given any valuation on $`K`$, the corresponding valuation ring is $`S_v=\{fK:v(f)0\}`$, a local ring with maximal ideal $`M_v=\{fK:v(f)>0\}`$. The residue field of $`v`$ is the quotient $`k_v=S_v/M_v`$.

We will always consider function fields $`K`$ with a constant subfield $`k`$ equal to a finite field $`𝔽_q`$. All valuations will be trivial on $`k`$ (i.e. $`v(c)=0`$, if $`ck`$). The dimension of $`v`$ is the transcendence degree of $`k_v`$ over $`k`$. We will be concerned only with valuations of dimension 0, so the residue field will be at most an algebraic extension of the constant field.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be the value group of a valuation. A subset $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is said to be a segment if whenever $`\beta \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is between $`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma `$ (in the order) for some $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, then $`\beta \mathrm{\Sigma }`$. An isolated subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a proper subgroup that is also a segment. The rank of a valuation $`v`$ is the number of isolated subgroups of the value group (or $`\mathrm{}`$ if that number is not finite).

The rational rank of $`v`$ is the dimension of the $``$-vector space $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}`$.

The valuation $`v`$ is said to be discrete if its value group is a discrete group of finite rank, that is, isomorphic to a subgroup of $`^n`$ for some $`n`$, ordered by the lexicographic order.

Let $`K`$ be the function field of a variety $`𝒳`$. We say a valuation $`v`$ is centered at a (closed) point $`Q𝒳`$ if we have the containment of local rings $`𝒪_{𝒳,Q}S_v`$, and the maximal ideals satisfy $`M_v𝒪_{𝒳,Q}=M_{𝒳,Q}`$.

## 3. Constructing Order Domains from Valuations

As shown in  and , every order function $`\rho `$ on $`R`$ determines a valuation $`v`$ on $`K=QF(R)`$, defined by:

(1)
$$v(f/g)=\rho (g)\rho (f).$$

Note the signs; it follows that $`\rho =v|_R`$. The value group of this $`v`$ is the group of differences $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and the ordering is induced by the ordering on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

From (1), it can be seen that the order domain $`R`$ and the valuation ring $`S_v`$ for the valuation corresponding to $`\rho `$ are in a special relative position in $`K=QF(R)=QF(S_v)`$. Namely, we have the following statement.

###### Proposition 1.

Let $`R`$ be an order domain, and $`S_v`$ be the corresponding valuation ring of $`K=R`$ as above. Then $`S_v=(RS_v)+M_v`$ and $`RS_v=𝔽_q`$.

###### Proof.

Both claims follow from the definitions. We have $`S_v=\{f/g:f,gR,v(f)v(g)0\}`$ and $`M_v=\{f/g:f,gR,v(f)v(g)>0\}`$, while $`v(h)=\rho (h)0`$ for all $`hR`$. So $`RS_v=\{hR:\rho (h)=0\}`$. By axioms 2 and 5 in Definition 1, if $`\rho (h)=0`$, then $`h`$ must be constant (an element of $`𝔽_q`$), and conversely. So $`RS_v=𝔽_q`$, and $`S_v=𝔽_q+M_v`$. ∎

In other words, the valuation $`v`$ has dimension $`dim(v)=0`$, according to the terminology from §2, since $`S_v/M_v=𝔽_q`$. Moreover, the valuation ring $`S_v`$ is an $`𝔽_q`$-complementary valuation ring to $`R`$ in the terminology of . (Note that the definition of a valuation considered in that article is essentially the extension of our order function $`\rho `$ to $`K`$: $`v(f/g)=\rho (f)\rho (g)`$, rather than the negative as in (1).) In , the connection between valuations and filtrations is considered in detail, and in Theorem 4.4, Lemmas 4.7 and 4.8, and Proposition 4.9 it is shown that there is a one-to-one correspondence between $`𝔽_q`$-complementary valuation rings to a subring $`R`$ in $`K`$ and regular, normalized filtrations on $`R`$. The properties of these regular, normalized filtrations, in particular the one-dimensionality over $`𝔽_q`$ of the graded quotients, are equivalent to the axioms defining an order domain as in Definition 1.

We now want to turn the tables and show how to produce examples of order domains starting from valuations. The following theorem gives a general class of valuations on function fields $`K=K(𝒳)`$ for which there are corresponding order domains $`RK`$. We restrict to $`R`$ of this special form because this seems to be the most important case for applications in coding theory.

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`R`$ be an affine domain over $`𝔽_q`$, that is

$$R𝔽_q[X_1,\mathrm{},X_s]/I$$

where $`I`$ is a prime ideal. Let $`𝒳`$ be the projective closure of $`V(I)`$ in $`^s`$, and let $`H_0`$ (with reduced scheme structure) be the intersection of $`𝒳`$ with the hyperplane at infinity. Assume $`H_0`$ is an irreducible divisor on $`𝒳`$. Let $`v`$ be any valuation on the function field $`K(𝒳)`$ such that

1. the rational rank of $`v`$ is $`d=dim𝒳`$, and
2. $`v`$ is centered at a smooth point $`QH_0𝒳`$.
3. $`v(f)0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for all $`fR`$.

Then $`\rho =v|_R`$ is an order function on $`R`$.

(Note that we can view $`R`$ as a subring of $`K`$ consisting of functions with poles on $`H_0`$.)

###### Proof.

Hypothesis 1 implies that the Abhyankar inequality for $`v`$:

$$rat.rank(v)+tr.deg._{𝔽_q}(k_v)dim(𝒳)$$

(see , Théorème 9.2) is an equality. Hence, by part b of that theorem, the valuation group of $`v`$ is isomorphic (as a group) to $`^d`$. The rank of $`v`$ may be any integer $`r`$ with $`1rd`$, though, so the ordering may be any one of a number of different possibilities. For example, we may have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ discrete (the case $`r=d`$), $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ a subgroup of $``$ generated by $`d`$ $``$-linearly independent real numbers (the case $`r=1`$), or an intermediate case.

Axioms 1, 2, 3, and 5 in the definition of an order function follow immediately from the definition of a valuation, and show that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\rho (R)`$ is a semigroup contained in the value group $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of $`v`$.

To show that the one-dimensional quotients axiom 4 holds, we will use Theorem 4.4, vii from . We must show that $`S_vR=𝔽_q`$ (that is, that $`S_v`$ and $`R`$ are in $`𝔽_q`$-complementary position in $`K`$). This follows from the irreducibility of $`H_0`$ and hypothesis 2. The nonconstant $`fR`$ are not contained in $`S_v`$ by hypothesis 3.

What remains to be proved is that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\rho (R)=v(R)`$ is well-ordered. We will use the following criterion.

###### Lemma 1.

Let $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },+)`$ be any finitely generated inverse-free semigroup. If $``$ is any total order on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ compatible with the addition operation (in the sense that $`\alpha \beta `$ implies $`\alpha +\gamma \beta +\gamma `$ for all $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$), then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is well-ordered under $``$.

A proof of the Lemma is sketched on page 371 of .

Our $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is clearly inverse-free, since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is contained in the set of elements of the value group $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that are $`0`$. The order on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is induced from that on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, so is compatible with addition. So we are reduced to showing that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is finitely generated. This follows, for instance, from the Noether Normalization theorem (see , Chapter VII, §7, Theorem 35, or , Theorem 3.4.1, and Exercises 3.4.1 and 3.4.2). There exists a transcendence basis $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_d\}`$ in $`R`$ such that $`R`$ is a finite, integral extension of the polynomial ring $`𝔽_q[z_1,\mathrm{},z_d]`$. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is generated by the values $`\rho (z_i)`$ and the $`\rho `$-values for the elements of a basis of $`R`$ over $`𝔽_q[z_1,\mathrm{},z_d]`$. Indeed, we obtain from the Gröbner basis algorithm for Noether Normalization described in  a monomial $`𝔽_q`$-basis for $`R`$ consisting of products of arbitrary monomials in the $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_d`$ with a finite list of monomials in the remaining variables. The values of $`\rho `$ on these basis monomials are distinct. Otherwise, we would have an algebraic dependence because of the one-dimensional quotients property. ∎

The $`\rho `$ given by this theorem are all monomial order functions as defined in . To construct one class of valuations as in Theorem 2 in a simple fashion, starting from the geometry of the variety $`𝒳`$, we can use the well-known composite divisorial valuations described, for instance, in , Example 9 and the following remark (see also  for relations between these valuations and monomial orderings in the theory of Gröbner bases).

Let $`𝒳`$ be a projective variety of dimension $`d`$ defined over a finite field $`𝔽_q`$, and let

(2)
$$:𝒳=V_0V_1V_2\mathrm{}V_d$$

be a flag of subvarieties of $`𝒳`$ satisfying the following conditions:

1. Each $`V_i`$ is irreducible and defined over $`𝔽_q`$.
2. The dimension of $`V_i`$ is $`ri`$ for each $`i`$ (so $`i`$ is the codimension in $`𝒳`$).
3. For each $`0id1`$, $`V_i`$ is smooth at the generic point of $`V_{i+1}`$.

Since each $`V_{i+1}`$ is an irreducible divisor in $`V_i`$, each rational function $`g`$ on $`V_{i+1}`$ has a well-defined (vanishing or pole) order along $`V_{i+1}`$, denoted $`ord_{V_{i+1}}(g)`$. By definition, $`ord_{V_{i+1}}(g)`$ is positive if $`g`$ vanishes along $`V_{i+1}`$, and negative if $`g`$ has a pole along $`V_{i+1}`$. We note that it also follows from these hypotheses that $`V_d`$ is a smooth $`𝔽_q`$-rational point on the irreducible curve $`V_{d1}`$.

Any such flag $``$ defines a valuation $`v_{}`$ on the function field $`K=K(𝒳)`$ as follows. For each $`i`$, fix some function $`g_i`$ on the subvariety $`V_{i1}`$ with a zero of order 1 along $`V_i`$. Given any $`fK`$, we define a sequence of integers (the notation $`F|_{V_i}`$ means the function $`F`$, restricted to the variety $`V_i`$)

$`v_1`$ $`=ord_{V_1}(f)`$
$`v_2`$ $`=ord_{V_2}\left((f/g_1^{v_1})|_{V_1}\right)`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`v_d`$ $`=ord_{V_d}\left((f/(g_1^{v_1}\mathrm{}g_{d1}^{v_{d1}}))|_{V_{d1}}\right),`$
and let

(3)
$$v_{}(f)=(v_1,\mathrm{},v_d)^d.$$

Then $`v_{}`$ is a discrete valuation of $`K`$ with rational rank $`d`$, rank $`d`$, and value group $`^d`$, ordered lexicographically. The values $`v_{}(f)`$ depend on the choice of the auxiliary functions $`g_i`$. However all choices of $`g_i`$ will lead to equivalent orderings. Indeed, note that the auxiliary functions are unnecessary for comparing valuations of two functions $`f`$ and $`f^{}`$; the comparison can be made using only the orders $`ord_{V_1}(f/f^{})`$, $`ord_{V_2}((f/f^{})|_{V_1})`$ and so on.

For example, it is easy to see that the lexicographic order on $`R=𝔽_q[X_1,\mathrm{},X_s]`$ (the affine coordinate ring of a standard affine subset of $`𝒳=^s`$) with $`X_1>X_2>\mathrm{}>X_s`$ is obtained from the composite divisorial valuation $`v_{}`$ with

$$:^sV(X_1)V(X_1,X_2)\mathrm{}V(X_1,\mathrm{},X_s).$$

The center is the origin in the affine plane, and this shows that lexicographic order functions on the polynomial ring $`R`$ do not come from the construction of Theorem 2. Similarly, it is not difficult to see that graded reverse lexicographic monomial orders on this $`R`$ come from composite divisorial valuations constructed from subvarieties on a blow-up of $`^s`$ (see , §1, for example). In the following, if we wanted to consider order functions like the graded reverse lexicographic order, in effect, $`𝒳`$ would be the blow-up of $`^s`$.

###### Theorem 3.

Let $`𝒳`$ be any projective variety over $`𝔽_q`$ which has a flag $``$ of subvarieties defined over $`𝔽_q`$ satisfying the hypotheses above, and such that $`V_1`$ is ample on $`𝒳`$ (that is, the complete linear system $`|\mathrm{}V_1|`$ defines a projective embedding of $`𝒳`$ for some $`\mathrm{}1`$). Let $`v_{}`$ be the corresponding valuation of the function field $`K=K(𝒳)`$ defined in (3). Let $`R`$ be the subring $`R=_{m=0}^{\mathrm{}}L(mV_1)`$ (the subring of $`K`$ consisting of functions with poles only along the subvariety $`V_1`$). Let

$$\rho (f)=v_{}|_R(f)$$

if $`f0`$, and $`\rho (f)=\mathrm{}`$ if $`f=0`$. Then $`\rho `$ is an order function on $`R`$.

###### Proof.

This follows from Theorem 2 on reembedding $`𝒳`$ so that the divisor $`\mathrm{}V_1`$ becomes the hyperplane section $`H_0`$. The center of the valuation is the point $`Q=V_d`$. The $`v_{}`$ valuations have rational rank $`d=dim𝒳`$ by construction.

The well-ordering property of the image of $`\rho `$ also follows by a direct argument in this case. Suppose we had an infinite strictly descending chain:

(4)
$$\rho (f_1)>\rho (f_2)>\rho (f_3)>\mathrm{},$$

where $`f_iR`$ for all $`i`$ and $`>`$ denotes the lexicographic order in $`^r`$. The $`f_i`$ must be non-constant, so by the definition of $`R`$ the first components of $`\rho (f_i)`$ (that is, the integers $`ord_{V_1}(f_i)`$) are strictly positive. This follows since there are no nonconstant functions in $`R`$ with a pole of order $`0`$ along $`V_1`$ (recall that functions in $`R`$ can have poles only along $`V_1`$). Hence the first components stabilize after a finite number of steps in the chain (4): There exists $`i_01`$ such that $`ord_{V_1}(f_j)=ord_{V_1}(f_{i_0})=n`$ for all $`ji_0`$ and some $`n1`$. The set of rational functions on $`𝒳`$ with a pole of order at most $`n`$ along $`V_1`$ and no other poles (together with the zero function) forms a finite-dimensional vector space over the field of constants (this follows, for example from , Chapter II, Theorem 5.19). Hence the orders of poles and zeroes of the $`f_j/(g_1^n\mathrm{}g_{k1}^{v_{k1}})|_{V_k}`$, $`ji_0`$ along the $`V_k`$, $`k2`$ are bounded. As a result, the chain (4) must eventually stabilize. (It would also be possible to find a sub-semigroup of $`_0^d`$ isomorphic to the image of $`\rho `$. An example of this is given in §4 below.) ∎

Note that when $`r2`$, the choice of $`V_1`$ determines the ring $`R`$, but the choice of rest of the flag $``$ still possibly yields many different order functions on $`R`$. Moreover, the rest of the flag is necessary because the pole order $`ord_{V_1}(f)`$ alone gives a filtration of $`K`$ too coarse to satisfy the one-dimensional quotients axiom 4 in the definition of an order function. As noted before, $`V_d`$ is a smooth point of the irreducible curve $`V_{d1}`$. Hence $`ord_{V_d}`$ is a discrete, rank 1 valuation on the function field of $`V_{d1}`$ and the one-dimensional quotients property in axiom 4 also follows directly for these valuations from this observation.

Even if a given variety $`𝒳`$ defined over $`𝔽_q`$ does not have any suitable flags of subvarieties defined over the field $`𝔽_q`$, they always exist over the algebraic closure $`\overline{𝔽_q}`$, hence over some finite extension of $`𝔽_q`$.

Another way to frame what Theorem 3 says is the following. If we think of the divisor $`V_1`$ in the flag used in the proof as the intersection of the image of $`𝒳`$ under this new embedding with the hyperplane at infinity, then the coordinate ring of the affine variety $`𝒳\backslash V_1`$ will have order functions.

For a very simple example, consider the ring $`R=𝔽_q[X,Y]/XY1`$ cited in  as a ring with no order functions as in Definition 1. In geometric terms, this is the coordinate ring of an affine subset of the projective conic $`V(XYZ^2)`$, which is birationally isomorphic to $`𝒳=^1`$ (the function field is isomorphic to the field of rational functions in one variable). There are many ways to embed $`^1`$ to yield examples of order domains. In fact in this case, a simple linear change of coordinates to make the hyperplane at infinity tangent to the curve will produce a conic curve that does yield an order domain: $`R^{}=𝔽_q[X,Y]/XY^2`$.

###### Corollary 1.

Any projective variety $`𝒳`$ which has a suitable flag of subvarieties defined over $`𝔽_q`$ can be used to construct evaluation and dual evaluation codes for which the BMS algorithm and the Feng-Rao procedure are applicable.

Though we have considerable freedom in the choice of the flag $``$, the composite divisorial valuations $`v_{}`$ in no way exhaust the valuations described in Theorem 2.

## 4. Order Domains from Toric Deformations

This section is devoted to the observation that the extrinsic characterization of order domains from Theorem 1 can be reinterpreted in another way giving a way to generate additional examples of order domains.

Given a semigroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^r`$, let $`R_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the subring of $`𝔽_q[T_1,\mathrm{},T_r]`$ generated by the monomials $`T^\gamma `$ for $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. By , Proposition 4.8, $`R_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an order domain with value semgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Moreover, the graded algebra $`Gr(R)`$ of any order domain $`R`$ with value semigroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is isomorphic to $`R_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by , Proposition 6.5.

A first connection with the extrinsic characterization in Theorem 1 is given by , Proposition 10.6. Let $`M`$ be the $`r\times s`$ matrix whose columns are $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _s`$ in some generating set for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We define $`I_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to be the binomial ideal generated by the $`X^\alpha X^\beta `$ such that $`M\alpha =M\beta `$. In the literature, $`I_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is also known as the toric ideal corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The variety $`V(I_\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is toric (but is not necessarily a normal variety, as is sometimes required in the study of toric varieties).

In this section we will prove the following complement of these results.

###### Theorem 4.

Let $`R`$ be an order domain with a given finitely-generated value semigroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^r`$. Let

$$R_\mathrm{\Gamma }=𝔽_q[\mathrm{\Gamma }]𝔽_q[X_1,\mathrm{},X_s]/I_\mathrm{\Gamma }$$

as above. Then $`R`$ has a flat deformation to $`R_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Conversely, every flat deformation of $`R_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the form given in Theorem 1 is an order domain with value semigroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`R`$ be an order domain with value semigroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. By part 2 of Geil and Pellikaan’s theorem, we have a presentation

$$R𝔽_q[X_1,\mathrm{},X_s]/I,$$

where $`I`$ has a Gröbner basis of the form described in part 1 of Theorem 1. The deformation can be seen explicitly as follows. Let $`\omega `$ be a general linear combination of the rows of the matrix $`M`$ in Theorem 1. Then we get a one-parameter family of varieties over $`𝔸_t^1`$ by mapping $`X_it^{\omega _i}X_i`$ in the Gröbner basis elements for $`I`$. Clearing denominators, the terms of non-maximal $`M`$-weight in the generators of $`I`$ vanish on letting $`t0`$, and the limiting ideal is the binomial ideal $`I_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Flatness follows from the requirement in Theorem 1 that the specified generators of $`I`$ form a Gröbner basis. (See, for instance, , section 7.5. In our case, the deformation is to the binomial ideal $`I_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ rather than a monomial ideal, but the idea is the same.) The converse is just a restatement of Geil and Pellikaan’s theorem. ∎

The corresponding affine varieties $`V(I)`$ defined by the ideals $`I`$ in Theorem 1 are flat deformations of the toric variety $`V(I_\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

In the next sections, we will consider several examples of the way order domains can be identified from explicit varieties of interest in coding theory. We will show the existence of order functions both by using Theorem 3 and by using Theorem 4.

## 5. Order Domains and Codes from Hermitian Hypersurfaces

In this section, we will begin by considering order domains associated to Hermitian hypersurfaces in $`^{r+1}`$ over a field $`𝔽_{q^2}`$, for any $`r1`$. These varieties have a number of properties that make them interesting for the construction of codes, such as large numbers of $`𝔽_{q^2}`$-rational points, large automorphism groups, and so forth. The case of Hermitian curves in the plane has, of course, been extensively studied by many coding theorists over the past 15 years. Hermitian hypersurfaces have been considered by S. Hansen () and Rodier ().

We will take the following as the standard projective embedding of the Hermitian hypersurface:

(5)
$$_r=V(X_0^{q+1}+X_1^{q+1}+\mathrm{}+X_r^{q+1}+X_{r+1}^{q+1})^{r+1}.$$

###### Example 1.

We will begin by constructing an explicit order domain from the Hermitian surface $`_2`$ in $`^3`$. If we use the standard form (5) for the defining equation, then the hyperplane section $`V_1=V(X_0)_2`$ is a smooth Hermitian curve in the plane $`V(X_0)`$. We can then select any $`𝔽_{q^2}`$-rational point on $`V_1`$ to be the point $`V_2`$ in a flag $`:_2V_1V_2`$ as in §2. For example, consider $`V_2=(0:1:\delta :0)`$, where $`\delta ^{q+1}=1`$ in $`𝔽_{q^2}`$. The corresponding ring $`R=_{m=0}^{\mathrm{}}L(mV_1)`$ thus has the structure of an order domain, where $`\rho `$ is constructed from a composite divisorial valuation as in Theorem 3.

To work explicitly with $`R`$, note that the rational functions that are contained in $`R`$ (in which the denominators can only contain powers of $`X_0`$) can be identified with polynomials in $`X_1,X_2,X_3`$, after dehomogenizing with respect to $`X_0`$. We have the following results by easy computations:

$`\rho (X_1)`$ $`=(1,0)`$
$`\rho (X_2)`$ $`=(1,0)`$
$`\rho (X_3)`$ $`=(1,1)`$
Moreover, by axiom 4 in Definition 1, we expect some linear combination of $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ to have smaller $`\rho `$-value than $`\rho (X_1)=\rho (X_2)`$. This linear combination comes from the equation of the tangent line to the curve $`V_1`$ at the point $`V_2`$:

$$\rho (\delta X_1X_2)=\rho (X_1+\delta ^qX_2)=(1,(q+1)).$$

We will write $`U=\delta X_1X_2`$ in the following.

Since there are no linear polynomials in $`X_1,X_2,X_3`$ on $`V_1`$ vanishing to order higher than $`q+1`$ at $`V_2`$, we can also obtain an order-preserving linear mapping from the value group of $`\rho `$ to a sub-semigroup of $`_0^2`$ (with the lexicographic order) by mapping $`(a,b)(a,(q+1)a+b)`$. Composing with $`\rho `$ gives a new order function $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }:R\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^2`$ as in Geil and Pellikaan’s extrinsic characterization of order domains. We have

$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(X_1)`$ $`=(1,q+1)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(X_2)`$ $`=(1,q+1)`$
(6) $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(X_3)`$ $`=(1,q)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(U)`$ $`=(1,0)`$
To put $`R`$ into Geil and Pellikaan’s form, we will make a linear change of coordinates, substituting $`X_2=\delta X_1U`$ and writing the equation in terms of $`X_1,U,X_3`$. (From Theorem 1, recall that the columns of the weight matrix $`M`$ should generate the value semigroup of $`R`$, so from (1) we see that $`U`$ should be used to replace $`X_2`$.) The result is the equation:

(7)
$$F(X_1,U,X_3)=X_3^{q+1}+\delta ^qX_1^qU+\delta X_1U^qU^{q+1}1=0.$$

We use the monomial order $`>_{M,lex}`$, where

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ q+1& 0& q\end{array}\right)$$

comes from the $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$-values above. Note that the columns of $`M`$ correspond to $`X_1,U,X_3`$ in that order, but the variables are ordered $`X_1>X_3>U`$ according to $`>_{M,lex}`$. We see that $`F`$ has exactly two terms of highest $`M`$-weight (with the monomials $`X_3^{q+1}`$ and $`X_1^qU`$). Moreover, the leading term is $`X_3^{q+1}`$, and the monomials in the complement of the initial ideal are

(8)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\{X_1^aU^bX_3^c:a,b0;0cq\}.$$

If two monomials $`X_1^aU^bX_3^c`$ and $`X_1^a^{}U^b^{}X_3^c^{}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ have the same $`M`$-weight, then $`a+b+c=a^{}+b^{}+c^{}`$ and $`(q+1)a+qc=(q+1)a^{}+qc^{}`$. The second equation says $`cc^{}`$ is divisible by $`q+1`$. But this is only possible if $`c=c^{}`$, and $`a=a^{}`$ and $`b=b^{}`$ follow. Thus, we have verified the hypotheses of Geil and Pellikaan’s extrinsic characterization in Theorem 1, so we have proved that $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ is an order function.

The Hermitian surface $`_2`$ has $`(q^2+1)(q^3+1)`$ $`𝔽_{q^2}`$-rational points, of which $`q^3+1`$ lie on $`V(X_0)`$. Hence evaluation and dual evaluation codes of length $`n=q^2(q^3+1)`$ can be constructed by this method from $`R`$, using the ordering induced by $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ on the monomials in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ from (8). We will discuss the analogous codes constructed from all $`_r`$ in more detail below. The BMS algorithm applies for decoding the dual of the evaluation code with basis formed by evaluation of the first $`\mathrm{}`$ monomials in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (in the $`>_{M,lex}`$ order), for any $`\mathrm{}1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The construction in this example can be extended by a natural inductive procedure to define order domains from all the Hermitian hypersurfaces.

###### Proposition 2.

Let $`_r`$ be the Hermitian hypersurface in $`^{r+1}`$. We can construct an order domain from $`_r`$ with value semigroup in $`^r`$ generated by

$`(1,0,0,0\mathrm{},0)`$
$`(1,1,0,0,\mathrm{},0)`$
$`(1,0,1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`(1,0,0,0,\mathrm{},1)`$
$`(1,0,0,0,\mathrm{},(q+1)),`$
and presentation of the form

$$R𝔽_{q^3}[X_1,\mathrm{},X_{r1},X_{r+1},U]/F$$

where

$$F=X_{r+1}^{q+1}+\delta ^qX_{r1}^qU+\delta X_{r1}U^q+\underset{j=1}{\overset{r2}{}}X_j^{q+1}U^{q+1}1.$$

###### Proof.

Let $`\delta ^{q+1}=1`$ in $`𝔽_{q^2}`$. We construct a flag $``$ of subvarieties of $`_r`$ as follows. $`V_0=_r`$, $`V_i=V(X_0,\mathrm{},X_{i1})_r`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},r1`$, and

$$V_r=V(X_0,\mathrm{},X_{r2},\delta X_{r1}X_r)_r.$$

It is easy to see that the hypotheses for Theorem 3 are satisfied, because for $`0ir1`$, $`V_i`$ is a smooth $`(ri)`$-dimensional Hermitian variety in the linear space $`V(X_0,\mathrm{},X_{i1})`$, and $`V_r=\{(0,0,\mathrm{},1,\delta ,0)`$ is a smooth point of $`V_{r1}`$. We choose the auxiliary functions $`g_i=X_{i1}/X_{r1}`$, and define $`\rho =v_{}|_R`$ as in §3. (We view $`V_1`$ as the intersection of $`_r`$ with the hyperplane at infinity and dehomogenize by setting $`X_0=1`$.) Then

$`\rho (X_1)`$ $`=(1,1,0,0,\mathrm{},0)`$
$`\rho (X_2)`$ $`=(1,0,1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`\rho (X_{r2})`$ $`=(1,0,0,0,\mathrm{},1,0)`$
$`\rho (X_{r1})`$ $`=\rho (X_r)=(1,0,0,0\mathrm{},0)`$
$`\rho (X_{r+1})`$ $`=(1,0,0,0,\mathrm{},1)`$
$`\rho ((\delta X_{r1}X_r))`$ $`=(1,0,0,0,\mathrm{},(q+1))`$
(The last comes from the linear combination $`U=\delta X_{r1}X_r`$ defining the tangent line to $`V_{r1}`$ at the point $`V_r`$). The extrinsic form of the corresponding order domain $`R`$ is directly parallel to (7). The first two monomials have the largest, and equal weights. ∎

We now present some more detailed information concerning some codes constructed from these Hermitian hypersurfaces. So that we will be in the setup for O’Sullivan’s generalized BMS algorithm, we will consider codes obtained by evaluation of polynomials in $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_{r1},U,X_{r+1}`$ at the affine $`𝔽_{q^2}`$-rational points on $`_r`$. Let $`C_a`$, $`a1`$, denote the code defined by the monomials of total degree $`a`$. (Note that since the first component of $`\rho (X_j)`$ is $`1`$ for all $`j`$, the orders $`>_{M,\tau }`$ are all graded orders, so if $`aq`$, the $`C_a`$ code is spanned by the evaluations of the first $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a+r+1}{a}\right)`$ monomials in this order and has the form needed for BMS.)

###### Theorem 5.

The $`C_1`$ code over $`𝔽_{q^2}`$ defined in this way from $`_r^{r+1}`$ has the following parameters:

$`n`$ $`=q^{2r+1}(1)^{r+1}q^r`$
$`k`$ $`=r+2`$
$`d`$ $`=\{\begin{array}{cc}q^{2r+1}q^{2r1}\hfill & \text{if }r\text{ is even}\hfill \\ q^{2r+1}q^{2r1}q^rq^{r1}\hfill & \text{if }r\text{ is odd}\hfill \end{array}`$
###### Proof.

We use the results from . The number of $`𝔽_{q^2}`$-rational points of the Hermitian hypersurface $`_r`$ is

(9)
$$|_r(𝔽_{q^2})|=\frac{(q^{r+2}+(1)^{r+1})(q^{r+1}(1)^{r+1})}{q^21}$$

The intersection of $`_r`$ with the hyperplane $`X_0=0`$ at infinity is isomorphic to the Hermitian variety $`_{r1}`$. Hence by (9), the number of affine $`𝔽_{q^2}`$-rational points is

$$|_r(𝔽_{q^2})||_{r1}(𝔽_{q^2})|=q^{2r+1}(1)^{r+1}q^r.$$

This yields the blocklength $`n`$ of the $`C_a`$ codes for all $`a1`$. The dimension of $`C_1`$ is $`k=r+2`$ since the codewords obtained by evaluation of $`1,X_1,\mathrm{},X_{r1},X_{r+1},U`$ are linearly independent.

To determine the minimum distance $`d`$, we must determine the largest possible number of affine $`𝔽_{q^2}`$-rational points in an intersection $`_rL`$ where $`L`$ is the hyperplane in $`^{r+1}`$ defined by a linear form. By  again, there are exactly two cases for $`L`$ defined over $`𝔽_{q^2}`$. Either $`L`$ intersects $`_r`$ transversely and $`_rL`$ is isomorphic to $`_{r1}`$ as in the case of the hyperplane at infinity above, or else $`L`$ is the tangent hyperplane to $`_r`$ at an $`𝔽_{q^2}`$-rational point $`p`$ and in that case $`_rL`$ is isomorphic to the cone over $`_{r2}`$ with vertex at $`p`$.

If $`r`$ is even, using (9) above, it is easily checked that the largest number of affine $`𝔽_{q^2}`$-rational points on $`L`$ is attained when $`L`$ is tangent to $`_r`$ at a point $`p`$ in $`X_0=0`$. This number is $`z=q^{2r1}+q^r`$ and $`d=nz`$ gives the desired result. On the other hand, if $`r`$ is odd, then the maximum is attained when $`L,_r,`$ and the hyperplane $`X_0`$ intersect transversely. We have $`z=q^{2r1}+q^{r1}`$ in this case. ∎

For example, with $`q=2`$, the Hermitian hypersurfaces yield $`C_1`$ codes as follows over $`𝔽_4`$:

$`r=2`$ $`[n,k,d]=[36,4,24]`$
$`r=3`$ $`[n,k,d]=[120,5,84]`$
$`r=4`$ $`[n,k,d]=[528,6,384]`$
For large $`q`$, in an asymptotic sense the $`C_1`$ codes come close to achieving the Griesmer bound on $`n`$ for the given $`k`$ and $`d`$. For instance, with $`r=5`$, the Griesmer bound gives

$$nq^{11}q^5q^4q^3q^2q1$$

for a code with $`k=r+2=7`$ and $`d=q^{11}q^9q^5q^4`$ over $`𝔽_{q^2}`$. The actual $`n`$ for our $`C_1`$ code is $`q^{11}q^5`$. The ratio of the bound and the actual $`n`$ tends to $`1`$ as $`q\mathrm{}`$.

The minimum distances of the $`C_a`$ codes for $`a2`$ can be estimated by the tools in  and , but determining the exact $`d`$ is somewhat subtle in these cases because of the many cases that must be considered.

As noted in  and , there is also a close connection between Hermitian hypersurface codes and codes from the Deligne-Lusztig varieties from one class of algebraic groups over finite fields. Deligne-Lusztig varieties are a class of varieties with many rational points over finite fields. Indeed they often attain the maximum number for varieties with their invariants. For instance, the Deligne-Lusztig variety of type $`{}_{}{}^{2}A_{2}^{}`$ is just the Hermitian curve $`_1`$ in $`^2`$, which has the maximum possible number of points for a curve of its genus allowed by the Hasse-Weil bound. The variety of type $`{}_{}{}^{2}A_{3}^{}`$ is the blow-up of the Hermitian surface $`_2`$ at its $`𝔽_{q^2}`$-rational points and is again maximal. The variety of type $`{}_{}{}^{2}A_{4}^{}`$ is obtained from the complete intersection of the Hermitian 3-fold $`_3`$ in $`^4`$ and the hypersurface

$$X_0^{q^3+1}+X_1^{q^3+1}+\mathrm{}+X_4^{q^3+1}=0,$$

a surface with singularities precisely at the $`(q^5+1)(q^2+1)`$ $`𝔽_{q^2}`$-rational points of $`_3`$. Each of those singular points blows up to a Hermitian curve on the Deligne-Lusztig variety. In each case, some of the more accessible Deligne-Lusztig codes “come from” $`C_a`$ evaluation codes on the Hermitian hypersuface (see Proposition 4.1 and Remark 4.1 of ).

To conclude this section, we note that there is a different way to construct order domains from the Hermitian hypersurfaces which gives a direct parallel to another form of the equation of the Hermitian curve. In the case $`r=1`$, it is also common to consider a linear change of coordinates (see , Example VI.4.3):

$$(X,Y,Z)=(\delta X_2,\delta (\gamma +1)X_0+\gamma X_1,\delta X_0+X_1),$$

where $`\delta ,\gamma 𝔽_{q^2}`$ satisfy $`\delta ^{q+1}=\gamma ^q+\gamma =1`$. In geometric terms, this has the effect of making the line at infinity tangent to the curve $`_1`$ at an $`𝔽_{q^2}`$-rational point. The intersection multiplicity of the tangent line with the curve at the point of tangency is $`q+1`$. The corresponding equation has the familiar form

$$X^{q+1}=Y^qZ+YZ^q.$$

From this, we can see easily that the hypotheses of Theorem 1 are satisfied if we define an order function on the affine coordinate ring

(10)
$$R=𝔽_{q^2}[X,Y]/X^{q+1}Y^qY$$

by $`\rho (X)=q`$, $`\rho (Y)=q+1`$. The value semigroup is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=q,q+1_0`$, and as in §4, we can view the usual order domain associated to the Hermitian curve as a deformation of the monomial algebra $`𝔽_{q^2}[t^q,t^{q+1}]`$ (the coordinate ring of a singular monomial curve).

###### Example 2.

For the Hermitian surface, we can perform exactly the same change of coordinates used in the curve case in the variables $`X_0,X_2,X_3`$, leaving the other variable $`X_1`$ unchanged. (There is an analogous transformation, of course, for the Hermitian hypersurface of any dimension.)

The result for the Hermitian surface, for instance, is an equation of the form

$$X^{q+1}+X_1^{q+1}=Y^qZ+YZ^q.$$

As compared with the first construction above, this form puts a tangent plane to the surface rather than a plane meeting the surface transversely as the plane at infinity. If we dehomogenize by setting $`Z=1`$, then we claim that the corresponding affine algebra

(11)
$$R^{}=𝔽_{q^2}[X,X_1,Y]/X^{q+1}+X_1^{q+1}Y^qY$$

has an order function $`\rho `$ defined by the matrix

$$M^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}q& 0& q+1\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right)$$

(for example). The $`>_{M^{},lex}`$ order makes the leading term $`X^{q+1}`$ and there are exactly two terms of maximal $`M^{}`$-weight. The monomials in the complement of the initial ideal are

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=\{X^aX_1^bY^c:0aq;b,c0\}.$$

An easy argument parallel to the one above shows that the monomials $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ have distinct $`M`$-weights. Hence the hypotheses of Geil and Pellikaan’s theorem are satisfied here too, and we get an order function on $`R^{}`$. The corresponding valuation on the function field of the Hermitian surface is not of the form used in Theorem 3, however. Indeed, the easiest way to describe this order domain seems to be as a deformation of the product of order domains of the curve (10) and a line (see , Proposition 7.5).

By the facts used in the proof of Theorem 5, the tangent planes to the Hermitian surface at all $`𝔽_{q^2}`$-rational points intersect the surface $`_2`$ in reducible curves, each consisting of $`q+1`$ distinct lines passing through the point of tangency. This reduces the number of affine $`𝔽_{q^2}`$-rational points on the variety defined by (11) to $`q^5`$ (from $`q^5+q^2`$ as in Theorem 5). But this loss may be compensated to an extent by some of the other properties of the resulting codes.

For example, we observe that all the evaluation and dual evaluation codes constructed from $`R^{}`$ in (11) have the same sort of quasicyclic structure studied in . Namely, this affine piece of the Hermitian surface has a large automorphism group containing a cyclic subgroup $`H`$ of order $`q^21`$ generated by the automorphism

$$\sigma :(X,X_1,Y)(\alpha X,\alpha X_1,\alpha ^{q+1}Y)$$

where $`\alpha `$ is any primitive element of $`𝔽_{q^2}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 3.

The $`q^5`$ affine $`𝔽_{q^2}`$-rational points decompose into $`q^3+q`$ orbits of size $`q^21`$, one orbit of size $`q1`$ and one orbit of size $`1`$ under the action of $`H`$.

###### Proof.

The point $`(0,0,0)`$ is clearly the only fixed point of $`H`$. The other $`q1`$ points on the line $`X=X_1=0`$ form the orbit of size $`q1`$. The orbit of each other $`𝔽_{q^2}`$-rational point has size $`q^21`$. ∎

As in , this gives all of the evaluation and dual evaluation codes constructed from $`R^{}`$ the structure of modules over $`𝔽_{q^2}[t]`$, and compact representations for encoding.

## 6. Order Domains from Grassmannians and Flag Varieties

The codes from Grassmannians and flag varieties that come from the construction we will describe have been studied by Rodier in , but the connection with order domains was not studied in that work. Geil has constructed order domains from the Grassmannians $`G(2,n)`$ (see below for the notation) in  (see Example 9.4 of ). The new observation here is that all of these Grassmannians and flag varieties, and the codes constructed from them, can be studied within the context of order domains.

Theorem 4 shows that any known explicit flat deformation of a variety to a toric variety (toric deformations for short) can be used to produce examples of order domains, using the extrinsic characterization in Theorem 1. In this section, we will see that this is true in particular for Grassmannians, and for flag varieties. The fact that toric deformations exist in these cases has been established in algebraic geometry (because of connections with combinatorics, mirror symmetry, and the theory of singularities).

The book  is an excellent general reference for the aspects of the theory of toric varieties of greatest relevance here. We will use several results presented in Chapter 11 of  to construct our examples. We will begin with the case of Grassmannians and furnish an answer to a question posed in , Example 9.4, concerning the varieties defined by minors of arbitrary size of generic matrices. The Grassmannians correspond to the case of the maximal minors of a rectangular matrix.

Recall that the Grassmannian $`G(k,n)`$ is a projective variety whose points are in one-to-one correspondence with the $`k`$-dimensional vector subspaces of an $`n`$-dimensional vector space (or the ($`k1`$)-dimensional linear subvarieties in $`^{n1}`$). We will not use the projective case here. We very briefly recall the construction, since it shows that the $`𝔽_q`$-rational points of $`G(k,n)`$ correspond to linear subspaces defined over $`𝔽_q`$, it explains the connection with minors of matrices, and it also shows how to find toric deformations of Grassmannians.

We write $`\overline{𝔽}`$ for an algebraic closure of our field. Given any basis $`\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_k\}`$ for a $`k`$-dimensional vector subspace $`W`$ of $`\overline{𝔽}^n`$, we form the $`k\times n`$ matrix with rows $`v_i`$. The $`k\times k`$ (maximal) minors of this matrix are components of the Plücker coordinate vector of $`W`$ in $`^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)1}`$. This is a well-defined invariant of $`W`$ because a change of basis multiplies all components of the Plücker coordinate vector by a nonzero constant (the determinant of the change of basis matrix). Hence any choice of basis in $`W`$ yields the same point in $`^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)1}`$. The locus of all such points (for all $`W`$) forms the Grassmannian $`G(k,n)`$.

Our extrinsic construction of order domains from Grassmannians relies on the following fact from .

###### Proposition 4 (, Proposition 11.10).

There exists a toric deformation taking $`G(k,n)`$ to the projective toric variety defined by the semigroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k,n}`$ defined as follows: Let $`N=(t_{ij})`$ be a generic $`k\times n`$ matrix (the $`t_{ij}`$ are independent indeterminates). Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k,n}`$ is the semigroup in $`_0^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)}`$ generated by the columns of the $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)\times kn`$ matrix $`_{k,n}`$, whose $`\mathrm{}`$th row has 1’s in the positions corresponding to the $`t_{ij}`$ in the diagonal of the $`\mathrm{}`$th minor of $`N`$, and zeroes in all other positions.

This is deduced from properties of canonical (“SAGBI”) bases for subalgebras of polynomial rings (like the monomial algebra $`𝔽_q[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ above) in .

###### Corollary 2.

For all $`k,n`$, the Grassmannians $`G(k,n)`$ yield order domains with value semigroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k,n}`$.

###### Proof.

This follows immediately from Theorem 4 and Proposition 4. ∎

We will illustrate the conclusion by considering the case of $`G(3,5)`$ here. This is one of the simplest cases not covered by results in  quoted in Example 9.4 of , and shows how the general proof of Theorem 4 works.

###### Example 3.

Let

$$N=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}t_{11}& t_{12}& \mathrm{}& t_{15}\\ t_{21}& t_{22}& \mathrm{}& t_{25}\\ t_{31}& t_{32}& \mathrm{}& t_{35}\end{array}\right)$$

be the generic $`3\times 5`$ matrix. There are $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{5}{3}\right)=10`$ maximal minors of $`N`$. The diagonal terms are

(12)
$$t_{11}t_{22}t_{33},t_{11}t_{22}t_{34},\mathrm{},t_{13}t_{24}t_{35}.$$

The corresponding matrix $`_{3,5}`$ as in the statement of Proposition 4 is the following (columns are indexed by the entries of $`N`$, listed row-wise):

$$_{3,5}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccc}1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$

The columns of $`_{3,5}`$ generate the semigroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{3,5}`$. Write $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_{10}`$ for the coordinates in $`^{10}`$. The toric variety corresponding to $`𝔽_q[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{3,5}]`$ is given by the parametrization

$$X_1=t_{11}t_{22}t_{33},X_2=t_{11}t_{22}t_{34},\mathrm{},X_{10}=t_{13}t_{24}t_{35}$$

(using (12)). Eliminating the $`t_{ij}`$, we find the graded reverse lex Gröbner basis of $`I_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{3,5}}`$ equals

$`G_T=\{X_8X_6`$ $`X_9X_5,`$
$`X_7X_6`$ $`X_4X_9,`$
(13) $`X_7X_5`$ $`X_8X_4,`$
$`X_7X_3`$ $`X_8X_2,`$
$`X_4X_3`$ $`X_5X_2\}`$
(the positive term is the leading term in each case). The corresponding projective toric variety has dimension 6 and degree 5 in $`^9`$; the equations above can also be viewed as defining the affine cone over that projective variety, which has dimension 7 in $`𝔸^{10}`$.

The ideal of the Grassmannian $`G(3,5)`$ is generated by quadratic polynomials called the Plücker relations between the Plücker coordinate vectors of 3-planes $`W`$. We have the following Gröbner basis for this ideal with respect to the same graded reverse lex order as in (3):

$`G_G=\{X_8X_6`$ $`X_9X_5+X_3X_{10},`$
$`X_7X_6`$ $`X_4X_9+X_2X_{10},`$
(14) $`X_7X_5`$ $`X_8X_4+X_1X_{10},`$
$`X_7X_3`$ $`X_8X_2+X_1X_9,`$
$`X_4X_3`$ $`X_5X_2+X_1X_6.\}`$
To understand the order domain structure here, we need to introduce the weight matrix $`M=_{3,5}^t`$, a $`15\times 10`$ matrix of rank $`7`$. In our discussion of the weight orders in Geil and Pellikaan’s theorem (Theorem 1), note that we used only matrices where the number of rows equals the rank of the corresponding valuation of the function field. That is not necessary, though. It would be perfectly legal to define a matrix weight order using the full matrix $`M`$; the value semigroup is then a sub-semigroup in $`_0^{15}`$ whose rank is 7.

Note that in each polynomial in (3), the same two terms as in the corresponding polynomial in (3) appear. These are the terms of maximum $`M`$-weight in each case. The remaining terms in (3) have smaller $`M`$-weight. So the ideal in (3) is indeed a toric deformation of the ideal in (3).

Moreover by the construction here, two monomials in the $`X_i`$, say $`X^\alpha `$ and $`X^\beta `$, have the same weight if and only if $`M\alpha =M\beta `$. But that implies $`X^\alpha X^\beta `$ is in the toric ideal $`I_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{3,5}}`$, so one of the monomials is divisible by one of the leading terms of $`G_G`$ or $`G_T`$. This shows that (3) satisfies all the hypotheses of Theorem 1. Hence we have constructed an order domain from the Grassmannian $`G(3,5)`$ (or more properly, the affine cone over the Grassmannian) with the homogeneous ideal given by (3). We could also set $`X_1=1`$ to obtain an affine algebra corresponding to an affine subset of the Grassmannian itself if we wish, and the corresponding weight matrix $`M^{}`$ would be the rank 6 matrix obtained by transposing the submatrix of $`_{3,5}`$ formed by omitting the first row. $`\mathrm{}`$

Just as the Grassmannian $`G(k,n)`$ is a projective variety whose points correspond to the $`k`$-dimensional vector subspaces of $`n`$-space, the partial flag variety $`F(n_1,\mathrm{},n_{\mathrm{}};n)`$ is a variety whose points correspond to partial flags of vector subspaces:

$$V_1V_2\mathrm{}V_{\mathrm{}}$$

in $`n`$-space, where $`dim(V_i)=n_i`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$. By considering the Plücker embeddings, we have a natural inclusion

$$F(n_1,\mathrm{},n_{\mathrm{}};n)^{N_11}\times \mathrm{}\times ^{N_{\mathrm{}}1},$$

where $`N_i=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{n_i}\right)`$. The flag variety is then defined in this product of projective spaces by the conditions that $`V_1V_2\mathrm{}V_{\mathrm{}}`$. If desired, the product of projective spaces can also be embedded in a single projective space by the usual Segre mapping.

The existence of toric deformations of all $`F(n_1,\mathrm{},n_{\mathrm{}};n)`$ is known from work of Gonciulea and Lakshmibai (, Theorem 10.6). A more combinatorial description similar to that provided by Sturmfels for the Grassmannians has appeared in . We review this and indicate how to derive explicit order domains from $`F(n_1,\mathrm{},n_{\mathrm{}};n)`$.

The flag variety $`F(n_1,\mathrm{},n_{\mathrm{}};n)`$ can be identified with the quotient $`SL(n)/Q`$, where $`Q=_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}P_{n_i}`$, and $`P_{n_i}`$ is the parabolic subgroup of $`SL(n)`$ consisting of matrices of the form $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}& \\ 0& \end{array}\right)`$ with $`0`$ an $`(nn_i)\times n_i`$ zero matrix. Let $`H=_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}W^{n_i}`$, where

$$W^{n_i}=\{(j_1,\mathrm{},j_{n_i}):1j_1<j_2<\mathrm{}<j_{n_i}n\}.$$

Note that the elements of $`H`$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the Plücker coordinates on

$$G(n_1,n)\times G(n_2,n)\times \mathrm{}\times G(n_{\mathrm{}},n).$$

Given $`\pi H`$, we will write $`p_\pi `$ for the corresponding Plücker coordinate.

The following construction defines a partial order $``$ on $`H`$. Let $`\pi =(i_1,\mathrm{},i_a)`$ and $`\pi ^{}=(j_1,\mathrm{},j_b)`$ in $`H`$. Let

$$\pi \pi ^{}ab\text{ and }i_sj_s,s=1,\mathrm{},a.$$

The set $`H`$ is a distributive lattice under the partial order relation $``$.

For each pair of elements $`\pi ,\pi ^{}`$ that are incomparable in the ordering on $`H`$, there is a quadratic (Grassmann-Plücker) relation

(15)
$$p_\pi p_\pi ^{}=c_{\lambda \mu }p_\lambda p_\mu .$$

Gonciulea and Lakshmibai show that the monomial $`p_{\mathrm{max}(\pi ,\pi ^{})}p_{\mathrm{min}(\pi ,\pi ^{})}`$ appears with coefficient 1 on the right hand side of (15) and the other terms are smaller with respect to a suitable monomial order. Moreover, the relations (15) are a Gröbner basis for the ideal of $`F(n_1,\mathrm{},n_{\mathrm{}};n)`$ in $`^{N_11}\times \mathrm{}\times ^{N_{\mathrm{}}1}`$. The equations

$$p_\pi p_\pi ^{}p_{\mathrm{max}(\pi ,\pi ^{})}p_{\mathrm{min}(\pi ,\pi ^{})}=0$$

define a toric subvariety $`X=X(n_1,\mathrm{},n_{\mathrm{}};n)`$ of $`G(n_1,n)\times \mathrm{}G(n_{\mathrm{}},n)`$ and the flag variety has a flat deformation to $`X`$.

###### Example 4.

We consider the flag varieties $`F(1,n1;n)`$ studied in . In particular, that article shows the corresponding codes compare very favorably with projective Reed-Muller codes. The same techniques would be applicable to all these flag varieties. In this case the set $`H`$ defined above reduces to

$$H=\{(1),(2),\mathrm{},(n),(\widehat{1}),(\widehat{2}),\mathrm{},(\widehat{n})\},$$

where $`\widehat{j}=(1,\mathrm{},j1,j+1,\mathrm{},n)`$. Using the definition of the partial order $``$, we have

$$(n)(n1)\mathrm{}(1),$$

and

$$(2)(\widehat{1})\mathrm{}(\widehat{n}).$$

There is exactly one pair of incomparable elements: $`(1)`$ and $`(\widehat{1})`$, and $`\mathrm{max}((1),(\widehat{1}))=(2)`$, $`\mathrm{min}((1),(\widehat{1}))=(\widehat{2})`$. The corresponding relation (15) is

$$p_{(1)}p_{(\widehat{1})}=p_{(2)}p_{(\widehat{2})}p_{(3)}p_{(\widehat{3})}+\mathrm{}+(1)^{n1}p_{(n)}p_{(\widehat{n})}.$$

(This equation, obtained from the obvious determinant expansion, expresses the condition $`V_1V_2`$ where $`dim(V_1)=1`$ and $`dim(V_2)=n1`$.) The toric deformation is defined by

$$p_{(1)}p_{(\widehat{1})}=p_{(2)}p_{(\widehat{2})}$$

in the product $`^{n1}\times ^{n1}`$. We could also embed $`F(1,n1;n)`$ in $`^{n^21}`$ via the standard Segre mapping. There seems to be little advantage in doing that, however, because of the large number of additional equations needed to define the ideal of the Segre image. $`\mathrm{}`$


format: text

text:
# Electronic States in Silicon Quantum Dots: Multivalley Artificial Atoms

## I Introduction

Quantum dots fabricated on semiconductor heterostructures, e.g., GaAs/AlGaAs, are called artificial atoms. The electronic states in such quantum dots have been elucidated by examining the Coulomb oscillation; a peak structure of the current as a function of gate voltage which changes the number of electrons in the dots, $`N`$, one by one. In disk-shaped quantum dots, discrete energy levels show an atomic-like shell structure.Ta  They are filled consecutively with increasing $`N`$. When a shell is partly filled, electrons occupy degenerate energy levels with parallel spins (Hund’s rule), as seen in the periodic table of atoms.Ta ; Kouwenhoven  These properties of the artificial atoms have been quantitatively explained by theoretical studies including the electron-electron Coulomb interaction exactly.qd1 ; qd2 ; qd3 ; qd4 ; Eto1 ; Eto2 ; Eto3

Compared with the electronic states in GaAs quantum dots, those in silicon (Si) quantum dots have been poorly understood. A combination of microfabrication and oxidation techniques on Si enables to fabricate so small quantum dots as $`10`$ nm.Tak ; Ho ; Hi ; Sa ; Ro1 ; Ro2 ; On  The Si quantum dots are being extensively studied for their application to single-electron devices working at room temperature. However, the lack of information on the precise shape of individual dots has prevented fundamental researches of the electronic states. Particularly, there have been few theoretical studies which consider the effects of a multivalley structure of the conduction band on the electronic states in Si quantum dots.Na  The multivalley structure should lead to different properties of electronic states from those in GaAs quantum dots with single valley at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point.

Recently some experiments of the Coulomb oscillation have been reported for Si quantum dots.Ro1 ; Ro2 ; On  The magnetic-field dependence of the current peaks indicates various spin states in the quantum dots. Another experiment has implied the observation of the Kondo effect, which might be due to degenerate energy levels by the multivalley structure of the conduction band.Ro3  The explanation for these phenomena requires the understanding of the electronic states in Si quantum dots. The study of spin states is also important for the application of the quantum dots to “spintronics,” quantum computers,Loss  etc.

The purpose of the present paper is to elucidate fundamental characters of the electronic states and spin configurations in Si dots, “multivalley artificial atoms,” for the first time. We adopt the effective mass approximation,Lu  assuming that the size of quantum dots is sufficiently larger than the lattice constant, to consider the following properties of Si; (i) more than one valley of the conduction band (two equivalent valleys in Si-MOS systems and six in the bulk), (ii) anisotropy of the effective mass at a valley ($`m_l^{}=0.98m_0`$, $`m_t^{}=0.19m_0`$), and (iii) large Zeeman effect (effective g-factor is $`g^{}2`$ in Si, whereas $`g^{}0.4`$ in GaAs). We determine the electronic configuration of the ground state, considering Coulomb and exchange interactions. We show that the exchange interaction hardly works between electrons in different valleys. In consequence electrons occupy the lowest level in different valleys in the absence of Hund’s coupling when the dot size is less than 10 nm. High-spin states are easily realized by applying a small magnetic field. This is quite different from the case of single-valley artificial atoms of GaAs quantum dots, where high spins appear due to the exchange interaction only in the case of orbital degeneracy (Hund’s rule). When the dot size is much larger than 10 nm, the electron-electron interaction becomes relevant in determining the electronic states. Electrons are accommodated in a valley, making the highest spin, to gain the exchange energy.

We also investigate the effects of anisotropic shape of quantum dots and intervalley scattering. The former tends to make higher spins, whereas the latter could make lower spins. These spin states in multivalley artificial atoms should be observed by looking at the magnetic-field dependence of the peak positions in the Coulomb oscillation. We calculate the addition energies, as functions of the magnetic field, which correspond to the peak positions in the Coulomb oscillation.

The organization of the present paper is as follows. In the next section (Sec. II), we explain our model for Si quantum dots and calculation method using the effective mass approximation. In Sec. III, we present the calculated results for the electronic states in isotropic Si quantum dots. We discuss the fundamental properties of multivalley artificial atoms, with changing the size of the dots. In Sec. IV, we examine anisotropic Si quantum dots. In Sec. V, effects of intervalley scattering on the electronic states are considered. The last section (Sec. VI) is devoted to our conclusions and discussion.

## II Model and calculation method

For the multivalley structure of conduction band in Si, we assume that two valleys at $`𝒌=(0,0,\pm k_0)`$, where $`k_0=0.85\times 2\pi /a`$ ($`a`$ is the lattice constant, $`0.543`$ nm), are equivalent and located below the other valleys at $`𝒌=(\pm k_0,0,0)`$ and $`(0,\pm k_0,0)`$ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{valley}}`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{valley}}=100`$ meV, considering the effect of oxidation-induced strain.Ho ; Shi  The valleys of $`𝒌=(0,0,\pm k_0)`$, $`(\pm k_0,0,0)`$, and $`(0,\pm k_0,0)`$ are denoted by $`\pm k_z`$, $`\pm k_x`$, and $`\pm k_y`$ hereafter.

As a model for the confinement potential of quantum dots, we adopt a three-dimensional harmonic potential $`V(x,y,z)`$. We examine an isotropic confinement

$$V(x,y,z)=\frac{1}{2}K(x^2+y^2+z^2),$$
(1)
to focus on generic properties of electronic states in Si dots, for a while. An anisotropic confinement is studied later (Sec. IV).

First, we calculate one-electron states and energy levels in the absence of electron-electron interaction. In the effective mass approximation,Lu  the wavefunction for electrons around a valley, e.g., $`\pm k_z`$, is described by a product of the Bloch wave at the valley and the envelope function $`F_{\pm k_z}`$

$`\psi _{\pm k_z}(𝒓)=F_{\pm k_z}(𝒓)e^{\pm i𝒌_z𝒓}u_{\pm k_z}(𝒓),`$ (2)
where $`𝒌_z=(0,0,k_0)`$ and $`u_{\pm k_z}(𝒓)`$ is a function with the periodicity of the Bravais lattice. The envelope function $`F_{\pm k_z}`$ satisfies the effective mass equation

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_t^{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{y^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_l^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{z^2}}+V(x,y,z)\right]F_{\pm k_z}(𝒓)`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`\epsilon F_{\pm k_z}(𝒓),`$
where the energy $`\epsilon `$ is measured from the bottom of conduction band at $`\pm k_z`$. \[In the effective mass equation around the valley of $`\pm k_x`$ ($`\pm k_y`$), $`m_l^{}`$ appears in the differential term with respect to $`x`$ ($`y`$).\] We disregard the interband scattering on the assumption that the confinement potential $`V(x,y,z)`$ is so smooth that its Fourier components with $`k1/a`$ are negligibly small. (The effect of interband scattering, which may stem from impurities within the dots, sharp edges of the dots, etc., is discussed in Sec. V.) Using $`V(x,y,z)`$ in Eq. (1), Eq. (3) yields the eigenvalues of

$`\epsilon (\pm k_z;n_x,n_y,n_z)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{K}{m_t^{}}}}(n_x+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+\mathrm{}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{K}{m_t^{}}}}(n_y+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+\mathrm{}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{K}{m_l^{}}}}(n_z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}),`$
(4)
with $`n_x`$, $`n_y`$, $`n_z=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. \[For valleys of $`\pm k_x`$ ($`\pm k_y`$), $`m_l^{}`$ appears in the first (second) term.\] The eigenfunction for the lowest level with $`(n_x,n_y,n_z)=(0,0,0)`$ is given by

$`F_{\pm k_z}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},0,0}(𝒓)`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{}}})^{\frac{3}{4}}(m_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}m_l^{}K^3)^{\frac{1}{8}}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}}(\sqrt{m_t^{}K}x^2+\sqrt{m_t^{}K}y^2+\sqrt{m_l^{}K}z^2)\right].`$
(5)
The size of the confinement potential is given by

$`l=2\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m_t^{}\omega _t},`$ (6)
where $`\omega _t=\sqrt{K/m_t^{}}`$, using the smaller effective mass $`m_t^{}`$. Three cases of $`l=`$5 nm, 10 nm, and 15 nm are examined.

Many-body states are simply represented by single configuration of the occupation of the one-electron levels by $`N`$ electrons, for semi-quantitative discussion. The Coulomb and exchange interactions between electrons $`(k_i;n_x,n_y,n_z)`$ and $`(k_j;n_x^{},n_y^{},n_z^{})`$ are written as

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒓_1𝑑𝒓_2|\psi _{k_i}^{n_x,n_y,n_z}(𝒓_1)|^2\frac{e^2}{4\pi \epsilon 𝒓_1𝒓_2}|\psi _{k_j}^{n_x^{},n_y^{},n_z^{}}(𝒓_2)|^2}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒓_1𝑑𝒓_2|F_{k_i}^{n_x,n_y,n_z}(𝒓_1)|^2\frac{e^2}{4\pi \epsilon 𝒓_1𝒓_2}|F_{k_j}^{n_x^{},n_y^{},n_z^{}}(𝒓_2)|^2}`$
(7)
and

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒓_1𝑑𝒓_2\psi _{k_i}^{n_x,n_y,n_z}{}_{}{}^{}(𝒓_1)\psi _{k_j}^{n_x^{},n_y^{},n_z^{}}{}_{}{}^{}(𝒓_2)}`$ (8)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4\pi \epsilon 𝒓_1𝒓_2}}\psi _{k_j}^{n_x^{},n_y^{},n_z^{}}(𝒓_1)\psi _{k_i}^{n_x,n_y,n_z}(𝒓_2)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒓_1𝑑𝒓_2e^{i(𝒌_j𝒌_i)𝒓_1}e^{i(𝒌_i𝒌_j)𝒓_2}\frac{e^2}{4\pi \epsilon 𝒓_1𝒓_2}}`$
$`\times F_{k_i}^{n_x,n_y,n_z}{}_{}{}^{}(𝒓_1)F_{k_j}^{n_x^{},n_y^{},n_z^{}}{}_{}{}^{}(𝒓_2)F_{k_j}^{n_x^{},n_y^{},n_z^{}}(𝒓_1)`$
$`\times F_{k_i}^{n_x,n_y,n_z}(𝒓_2)u_{k_i}^{}(𝒓_1)u_{k_j}^{}(𝒓_2)u_{k_j}(𝒓_1)u_{k_i}(𝒓_2),`$
respectively, with dielectric constant $`\epsilon =11.9\epsilon _0`$. These terms are evaluated numerically. We calculate the total energy for all possible configurations and determine the ground state.

In a magnetic field $`𝑩=(0,0,B)`$, we consider the Zeeman energy

$`E_{\mathrm{Zeeman}}=g^{}\mu _\mathrm{B}S_{\mathrm{tot},z}B,`$ (9)
where $`g^{}=2`$, $`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$ is the Bohr magneton, and $`S_{\mathrm{tot},z}`$ is the $`z`$ component of the total spin. The orbital magnetization effect is disregarded because of large effective mass in Si.orbital

## III Electronic states in Si quantum dots

In this section, we clarify the basic properties of electronic states in Si quantum dots, considering an isotropic confinement, Eq. (1).

### III.1 Electronic states

We begin with the one-electron energy levels. As shown in Eq. (4), the one-electron levels are labeled by valley index and quantum numbers $`(n_x,n_y,n_z)`$ for the orbital motion. The lowest levels belong to the valleys of $`+k_z`$ or $`k_z`$ with $`(n_x,n_y,n_z)=(0,0,0)`$ (see horizontal lines in Fig. 1). The next levels are $`(\pm k_z;0,0,1)`$, which are lower than levels $`(\pm k_z;1,0,0)`$ and $`(\pm k_z;0,1,0)`$ in spite of the isotropic confinement. This is due to the anisotropy of the effective mass \[$`\epsilon (\pm k_z;1,0,0)\epsilon (\pm k_z;0,0,1)=\mathrm{}(\sqrt{K/m_t^{}}\sqrt{K/m_l^{}})`$\]. We find that all the electrons are accommodated in valleys of $`\pm k_z`$ for $`N=1`$ to $`5`$ in all the cases of the dot size.

Regarding the electron-electron interaction between different valleys, we obtain two significant results. (i) The Coulomb interaction between $`(\pm k_z;n_x,n_y,n_z)`$ and $`(\pm k_z;n_x^{},n_y^{},n_z^{})`$ is the same as that between $`(\pm k_z;n_x,n_y,n_z)`$ and $`(k_z;n_x^{},n_y^{},n_z^{})`$. This is because the envelope functions are equivalent for the valleys of $`+k_z`$ and $`k_z`$ in Eq. (7). (ii) The exchange interaction is negligibly small between electrons in different valleys, owing to the integration of rapidly oscillating factors in Eq. (8). Therefore, there is no spin coupling (Hund’s coupling) between different valleys.

When the dot size is $`l=5`$ nm or $`10`$ nm, two electrons occupy the lowest level in different valleys in the absence of Hund’s coupling. In consequence, the energies of different spin states are degenerate. The configuration in Fig. 1(a1) has the total spin of $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=0`$, whereas that in Fig. 1(a2) has $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=1/21/2=01`$. These configurations have the same energy. In a small magnetic field, the Zeeman effect, Eq. (9), makes the largest spin of $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=1`$ with $`S_{\mathrm{tot},z}=1`$.

When the dot size is $`l=15`$ nm, the ground state with $`N=2`$ has another configuration; one electron occupies an upper level to gain the exchange energy with the other electron with parallel spin in a valley \[Fig. 1(b)\]. Note that the exchange interaction, Eq. (8), works effectively between electrons only in the same valley. In general, the electronic states are determined by the competition between the electron-electron interaction and spacing of one-electron energy levels. When the dot size is $`l`$, the former is characterized by $`E_{\mathrm{int}}=e^2/(4\pi \epsilon l)`$, whereas the latter is by $`E_{\mathrm{levels}}=\mathrm{}^2/(m_t^{}l^2)`$. The ratio of these energies, $`E_{\mathrm{int}}/E_{\mathrm{levels}}=m_t^{}e^2l/(4\pi \epsilon \mathrm{}^2)`$, is $`1.52`$, $`3.04`$, and $`4.56`$ for $`l=5`$ nm, $`10`$ nm, and $`15`$ nm, respectively. When the ratio is larger, more electrons are accommodated in a valley with parallel spins to gain the exchange energy.

The ground state with $`N=3`$, shown in Fig. 2, can be understood in a similar way. For the smallest dot ($`l=5`$ nm), three electrons occupy the lowest levels \[$`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=1/2`$; Fig. 2(a)\]. For the largest dot ($`l=15`$ nm), they occupy upper levels in a valley, making $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=3/2`$, to gain the exchange energy \[Fig. 2(b)\]. For the intermediate case ($`l=10`$ nm), two electrons make a spin triplet, occupying two levels in a valley, while an electron is accommodated in the lowest level in the same valley (c1) or in the other equivalent valley (c2). These configurations have the same energy but different spin, (c1) $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=1/2`$ and (c2) $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=11/2=1/23/2`$, the largest spin of which is realized in a magnetic field.

With increasing magnetic field, the Zeeman effect, Eq. (9), makes larger spin states more favorable. For $`N=3`$, the ground state could change from configuration Fig. 2(a) ($`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=1/2`$) at $`B<B_\mathrm{c}`$ to configuration Fig. 2(b) ($`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=3/2`$) at $`B>B_\mathrm{c}`$. Such a transition is observed at $`B_\mathrm{c}=9.47`$ T when the dot size is $`l=7.5`$ nm. (The same transition takes place at much larger $`B_\mathrm{c}`$ when $`l=5`$ nm.) We find a similar transition with $`N=4`$, from $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=1`$ to $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=2`$ at $`B_\mathrm{c}=3.44`$ T, when the dot size is $`l=7.5`$ nm.

### III.2 Addition energies

For the comparison with the experimental results, we calculate addition energies which correspond to peak positions of the Coulomb oscillation.Ta ; Kouwenhoven  The addition energy of the $`N`$th electron on the dot is given by

$`\mu _N=E_NE_{N1},`$ (10)
where $`E_N`$ is the ground-state energy with $`N`$ electrons. Figure 3 shows $`\mu _N`$ ($`N=1`$ to 5), as functions of magnetic field $`B`$. The slope of $`\mu _N(B)`$ is given by

$$g^{}\mu _\mathrm{B}[S_{\mathrm{tot}}(N)S_{\mathrm{tot}}(N1)],$$

which reflects the total spin $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}(N)`$ with $`N`$ electrons.

In Fig. 3(a), the dot size is the smallest ($`l=5`$ nm). The one-electron levels are consecutively occupied with increasing the number of electrons $`N`$. For $`N=2`$, the electrons are accommodated in different valleys with parallel spins in a magnetic field, as discussed previously. In consequence, $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}(N)=1/2`$, $`1`$, $`1/2`$, $`0`$, and $`1/2`$ for $`N=1`$ to $`5`$, respectively. This results in the slope of $`g^{}\mu _\mathrm{B}/2`$ for $`\mu _1(B)`$, $`\mu _2(B)`$, $`\mu _5(B)`$, and $`+g^{}\mu _\mathrm{B}/2`$ for $`\mu _3(B)`$, $`\mu _4(B)`$.

In Fig. 3(b), the dot is the largest ($`l=15`$ nm). To gain the exchange energy, the electrons occupy upper levels in a valley, making the highest spin, $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}(N)=N/2`$. Accordingly, $`\mu _N(B)`$ ($`N=1`$ to $`5`$) are parallel to each other, with the same slope of $`g^{}\mu _\mathrm{B}/2`$. When the dot size is $`l=10`$ nm, the highest spin of $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}(N)=N/2`$ is also realized. The slopes of $`\mu _N(B)`$ ($`N=1`$ to $`5`$) are the same as those in Fig. 3(b).

In Fig. 3(c), the dot size is $`l=7.5`$ nm. $`\mu _3(B)`$ shows a kink at $`B_\mathrm{c}=9.47`$ T, which is due to the transition of the ground state with $`N=3`$ from $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}(3)=1/2`$ to $`3/2`$. Since $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}(2)=1`$, the slope of $`\mu _3(B)`$ is $`g^{}\mu _\mathrm{B}/2`$ and $`g^{}\mu _\mathrm{B}/2`$ at $`B<B_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`B>B_\mathrm{c}`$, respectively. This transition results in a kink of $`\mu _4(B)`$ at the same magnetic field \[with $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}(4)=2`$, the slope of $`\mu _4(B)`$ is $`3g^{}\mu _\mathrm{B}/2`$ at $`B<B_\mathrm{c}`$, $`g^{}\mu _\mathrm{B}/2`$ at $`B>B_\mathrm{c}`$\]. Similarly, the transition of the ground state with $`N=4`$ makes a pair of kinks on $`\mu _4(B)`$ and $`\mu _5(B)`$ at $`B_\mathrm{c}=3.44`$ T. Such pairs of kinks of adjacent addition energies have been observed in the Coulomb oscillation.Ro1

At $`3.44`$ T$`<B<9.47`$ T in Fig. 3(c), $`\mu _4(B)`$ has a slope of $`3g^{}\mu _\mathrm{B}/2`$ (indicated by dotted line). Then the conductance through the quantum dot should be suppressed since the addition of the fourth electron is forbidden by the spin selection rule: $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=1/2`$ with $`N=3`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=2`$ with $`N=4`$. This is called spin blockade.Weinmann  The spin blockade in Si quantum dots has been found experimentally.Ro1

## IV Anisotropic confinemnet

In the previous section, we have examined the isotropic confinement to illustrate the basic properties of Si quantum dots. In this section, we investigate an anisotropic confinement. Quantum dots, which are fabricated in the middle of Si wires with oxidation technique,Tak ; Ho ; Hi ; Ro1 ; Ro2 ; On  may be elongated along the wires. We adopt an elliptical potential, elongated in  direction of the lattice,Ho

$$V(x,y,z)=\frac{1}{2}\left[K^{}\left(\frac{x+y}{\sqrt{2}}\right)^2+K\left(\frac{x+y}{\sqrt{2}}\right)^2+Kz^2\right].$$
(11)
with $`K^{}<K`$. By the transformation of the axes to $`X=(x+y)/\sqrt{2}`$, $`Y=(x+y)/\sqrt{2}`$, and $`z`$, it is rewritten as $`V(X,Y,z)=(1/2)(K^{}X^2+KY^2+Kz^2)`$. For valleys of $`\pm k_z`$, the one-electron energy levels are given by

$`\epsilon (\pm k_z;n_X,n_Y,n_z)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{K^{}}{m_t^{}}}}(n_X+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+\mathrm{}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{K}{m_t^{}}}}(n_Y+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+\mathrm{}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{K}{m_l^{}}}}(n_z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}).`$
(12)
We change the size of the confinement potential in $`[110]`$ direction, $`l_X=2\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m_t^{}\omega _{Xt}}`$ where $`\omega _{Xt}=\sqrt{K^{}/m_t^{}}`$, as 5 nm, 10 nm, and 15 nm. The size in $`[\overline{1}10]`$ and $`[001]`$ directions is fixed at $`l_Y=l_z=5`$ nm, where $`l_Y=2\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m_t^{}\omega _{Yt}}`$, and $`l_z=2\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m_t^{}\omega _{zt}}`$ with $`\omega _{Yt}=\omega _{zt}=\sqrt{K/m_t^{}}`$.

Figure 4 shows the electronic configuration of the ground state with $`N=4`$ when (a) $`l_X=5`$ nm (isotropic dot), (b) $`l_X=10`$ nm, and (c) $`15`$ nm. As the shape of the dot is more elongated in  direction, the energy levels $`(n_X,0,0)`$ ($`n_X=1,2,3\mathrm{}`$) are lowered \[see Eq. (12) with smaller $`K^{}`$\]. Electrons begin to occupy these levels: (a) $`(\pm k_z;0,0,0)`$ only, (b) $`(\pm k_z;0,0,0)`$ and $`(\pm k_z;1,0,0)`$, and (c) $`(0,0,0)`$ to $`(3,0,0)`$ in a valley. This means that the electrons tend to be populated in the elongated direction. Reflecting small level spacings between $`(n_X,0,0)`$, high-spin states are realized more often: (a) $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=0`$, (b) $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=11=012`$, and (c) $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=2`$. We find that the ground state has the largest spin of $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}(N)=N/2`$ for $`N=1`$ to $`5`$ in elongated dots with $`l_X=10`$ nm and $`15`$ nm ($`l_Y=l_z=5`$ nm) in a magnetic field. The magnetic-field dependence of addition energies $`\mu _N`$ shows the same slope of $`g^{}\mu _\mathrm{B}/2`$, which is similar to the situation in Fig. 3(b).

## V Intervalley Scattering

In the present section, we discuss the effects of intervalley scattering. The intervalley scattering is not relevant when the size of the dots is much larger than the lattice constant and confinement potential is sufficiently smooth. However, the scattering by impurities within the dots, sharp edges of the dots, etc., mixes the electronic states in different valleys. As an example, let us consider an impurity potential at $`𝑹`$ inside a quantum dot,

$$V_{\mathrm{imp}}(𝒓)=V_0\delta (𝒓𝑹),$$

to the lowest order of the perturbation. The degenerate levels of $`(\pm k_z;n_x,n_y,n_z)`$ are split into two by this potential,

$$\epsilon (a;n_x,n_y,n_z)=\epsilon (\pm k_z;n_x,n_y,n_z),$$

and

$$\epsilon (b;n_x,n_y,n_z)=\epsilon (\pm k_z;n_x,n_y,n_z)+\mathrm{\Delta }_{n_x,n_y,n_z},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{n_x,n_y,n_z}=2V_0|F_{\pm k_z}^{n_x,n_y,n_z}(𝑹)|^2|u_{\pm k_z}(𝑹)|^2`$, as shown in Fig. 5(a). The corresponding wavefunctions are expressed as

$`\psi _a^{n_x,n_y,n_z}(𝒓)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\{\psi _{+k_z}^{n_x,n_y,n_z}(𝒓)e^{i\theta }\psi _{k_z}^{n_x,n_y,n_z}(𝒓)\},`$
$`\psi _b^{n_x,n_y,n_z}(𝒓)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\{\psi _{+k_z}^{n_x,n_y,n_z}(𝒓)+e^{i\theta }\psi _{k_z}^{n_x,n_y,n_z}(𝒓)\},`$
with $`\theta =\mathrm{arg}+k_z;n_x,n_y,n_z|V_{\mathrm{imp}}|k_z;n_x,n_y,n_z`$. For the electron-electron interactions, we find that (i) the Coulomb interaction between $`(a;n_x,n_y,n_z)`$ and $`(a;n_x^{},n_y^{},n_z^{})`$ is identical to that between $`(b;n_x,n_y,n_z)`$ and $`(b;n_x^{},n_y^{},n_z^{})`$, and also to that between $`(a;n_x,n_y,n_z)`$ and $`(b;n_x^{},n_y^{},n_z^{})`$. (ii) The exchange interaction is negligibly small between $`(a;n_x,n_y,n_z)`$ and $`(b;n_x^{},n_y^{},n_z^{})`$.

The intervalley scattering influences the spin states in a spherical dot of $`l=5`$ nm. In the absence of intervalley scattering, the first two electrons occupy the degenerate levels of $`(\pm k_z;0,0,0)`$ with parallel spins \[$`S_{\mathrm{tot}}(2)=1`$\] in a small magnetic field \[Fig. 1(a2)\]. In the presence of intervalley scattering, the two electrons occupy the lowest level of $`(a;0,0,0)`$ with anti-parallel spins \[$`S_{\mathrm{tot}}(2)=0`$\], as shown in Fig. 5(a). For $`N=1`$ to 5, the spin states become $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}(N)=1/2`$, $`0`$, $`1/2`$, $`0`$, and $`1/2`$, respectively.

The addition energies are shown in Fig. 5(b), as functions of magnetic field, in the case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{0,0,0}=2`$ meV. The slopes of $`\mu _N`$ are $`g^{}\mu _\mathrm{B}/2`$ or $`+g^{}\mu _\mathrm{B}/2`$ alternately with increasing $`N`$, reflecting the above-mentioned spin states. In the case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{0,0,0}=0.4`$ meV, the transition of the ground state with $`N=2`$ is observed at the magnetic field of $`B_\mathrm{c}=3.45`$ T, where $`g^{}\mu _\mathrm{B}B_\mathrm{c}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{0,0,0}`$. For $`B<B_\mathrm{c}`$, two electrons occupy level $`(a;0,0,0)`$, making $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}(2)=0`$, as shown in Fig. 5(a). For $`B>B_\mathrm{c}`$, one electron occupies level $`(a;0,0,0)`$ and the other occupies level $`(b;0,0,0)`$ with parallel spins \[$`S_{\mathrm{tot}}(2)=1`$\], to gain the Zeeman energy. This transition makes a pair of kinks on $`\mu _2`$ and $`\mu _3`$ \[see Fig. 5(c)\].

When the dot size is much larger than 10 nm, the intervalley scattering never changes the spin states. Electrons occupy the levels of $`(a;0,0,0)`$, $`(a;0,0,1)`$, $`(a;1,0,0)`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, consecutively with parallel spins to gain the exchange energy \[not the levels of $`(b;n_x,n_y,n_z)`$ owing to the absence of exchange interactions between $`(b;n_x,n_y,n_z)`$ and $`(a;n_x^{},n_y^{},n_z^{})`$\]. Then the largest spins of $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}(N)=N/2`$ are realized. The addition energies $`\mu _N(B)`$ ($`N=1`$ to $`5`$) have the same slope of $`g^{}\mu _\mathrm{B}/2`$, in the same way as in Fig. 3(b).

## VI Conclusions and Discussion

We have theoretically examined the electronic states in Si dots, multivalley artificial atoms. (i) In spherical quantum dots smaller than $`10`$ nm, the one-electron levels in equivalent valleys are occupied consecutively with increasing the number of electrons $`N`$. High-spin states are attributable to the absence of spin couplings between different valleys. This is quite different from the case of GaAs quantum dots, where high spins appear due to the exchange interaction in exceptional cases with orbital degeneracy (Hund’s rule). (ii) In quantum dots much larger than $`10`$ nm, the electrons tend to occupy upper levels in a valley, making the largest spin of $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=N/2`$, to gain the exchange energy. (iii) In elliptical quantum dots, the electrons tend to be populated in the elongated direction. High-spin states often appear. (iv) In the presence of intervalley scattering, the degenerate energy levels in different valleys are split. In small dots, this results in the lowest spin states ($`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=0`$ or $`1/2`$). The spin states in large dots, $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=N/2`$, are not influenced by the intervalley scattering.

In the present study, the electronic states are represented by single configurations of the occupation of one-electron levels by $`N`$ electrons, for semi-quantitative discussion. We have neglected the configuration interaction, or correlation effect. (It should be noted that the configuration interaction vanishes between electrons in different valleys for the same reason as the exchange interaction vanishes.) In this approximation, the energy of low-spin states is overestimated compared with the energy of high-spin states. Hence we should have underestimated the dot size where the highest spins appear. The correlation effect becomes more important as the dot size is larger ($`E_{\mathrm{int}}/E_{\mathrm{levels}}`$ is larger) for quantitative discussion.Eto3  The consideration of the correlation effect with multivalley structure in Si dots requires further study.

The spin states in Si quantum dots depend on both their size and shape. Our calculated results cannot be compared directly with experimental results of the Coulomb oscillationRo1 ; Ro2 ; On  since the exact shape of quantum dots is not known. Roughly speaking, the magnetic-field dependence of peak positions in the observed Coulomb oscillation is similar to that in Figs. 5(b), (c) rather than that in Figs. 3(a)-(c), which might imply that low-spin states are realized in small dots and in the presence of intervalley scattering. Qualitatively, pairs of kinks have been observed,Ro1  which indicate the transitions of the ground state. The spin blockade with $`|S_{\mathrm{tot}}(N+1)S_{\mathrm{tot}}(N)|3/2`$ has also been reported.Ro1  We have shown that the spin states can be changed by the intervalley scattering. If the strength of the intervalley scattering were tuned, e.g., using STM tips, the spin states in Si dots could be controlled.

Recently, quantum computing devices have been proposed, utilizing electron spins in quantum dots.Loss  For the devices, the decoherence time of electron spins must be much longer than the gate operation time. Main origins of the decoherence are spin-orbit interaction and hyperfine interaction with nuclear spins in the dots. In Si, the spin-orbit interaction is much weaker than in GaAs. The hyperfine interaction is also weaker due to smaller isotope ratio with nuclear spins (29Si of 4.7% only). Hence a longer decoherence time is expected in Si quantum dots than in GaAs quantum dots. Therefore, Si dots may be advantageous to the quantum computing devices. In Si dots, high-spin states are realized easily, which could be utilized for the devices.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was partially supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research in Priority Areas “Semiconductor Nanospintronics” (No. 14076216) of The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan.