PHYSICAL REVIEW 8 VOLUME 39, NUMBER 7 1 MARCH 1989

Superconducting classes of heavy-fermion materials

Masa-aki Ozaki
Department of Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto, 606 Japan

Kazushige Machida*
Department of Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto, 606 Japan
and Laboratory of Atomic and Solid State Physics, Clark Hall, Cornell Uniuersity, Ithaca, 1Vew York, 14853 2501-
(Received 20 June 1988)
Stimulated by recent remarkable findings which lead to a common feature of all four known
heavy-fermion superconductors — UPt3, (U, Th)Be», URu2Siz, and CeCu2Siz, namely, a close prox-
—
imity between the magnetism and unconventional superconducting pairing state we present a gen-
eral framework on how to identify the superconducting classes. Taking into account the existence
of the spin-density wave (SDW) above T, in UPt3 and URu2Si2 and below T, in (U, Th)Be» and
CeCu&Si2, we enumerate group theoretically the pairing states compatible with given space-group
symmetry according to the Landau subordination scheme for the second-order phase transition.
This enables us to eftectively narrow down the possible states. These enumerated states are quite
general, independent of particular models or pairing interaction forms. Then we give some physical
arguments on the relative stability among the allowed states. Maximally utilizing experimental and
theoretical data available at present, we attempt to decrease the number of the possible states and
obtain the most plausible candidates for each material. To confirm the emerging universal feature
that the ground state in heavy-fermion superconductors is the coexisting phase with the magnetism,
further experiments are proposed, based on our results.

I. INTRODUCTION then narrow down the possible states by picking up the

Much attention has been focused on the so-called
heavy-fermion materials, in particular, their heavy-
fermion superconductors (HFS's) recently. Precise
identification of superconducting classes, which are ap-
parently nontrivial ones, has been debated and is an un-
solved problem in this field. '
Recently, much progress has been advanced mainly in
the experimental side: In UPt3 the antiferromagnetism at
T~ —5 K is found above T,
irnent.
-0.
The muon-spin-resonance
5 K by the neutron exper-
(@SR) experiment
detects a static magnetic ordering at T~-0. 7 K just
" the point-group symmetry, but in order to consider the
above or almost the same temperature with T, -0.6 K in
CeCu2Si2. Since these two systems have long been re-
garded as a typical HFS whose ground state is supercon-
ducting, these results are a great surprise to the physics
community, as we already knew that URu2Si2 is an anti-
ferromagnetic superconductor ' ' (Ttt —17 K, T, —1 K),
)
and that (U, „Th„)Be,3 (x 0. 017) exhibits some
magnetism at low temperatures, evidenced by the devel-
opment of the internal magnetic field through @SR.
Thus, all the four known heavy-fermion superconductors
listed previously exhibit a magnetism in common with su-
perconductivity. This is in accord with a more general
trend toward magnetic phenomena in heavy-fermion sys-
tems; for example, the typical "nonordering" materials
CeA13 (Refs. 8 and 9) and CeCu6 (Ref. 10) dilutely doped
with Ag finally show a magnetic ordering.
The purpose of this paper is to narrow down possible
pairing states in each HFS. Our basic strategy is the fol-
lowing: we first enumerate the possible states in the pres-
ence of the spin-density wave (SDW) group theoretically
for the cases; UPt3 and URu2Si2 in which T~) T, and
states favorable" ' to the SDW among them. In the
)
cases (U, „Th„)Be» with x x,„=0.017 by identifying
the second transition T, 2 below T, as the SDW transition
and by anticipating a SDW vector Q, we narrow down
the possible states enumerated group theoretically, which
should include certain symmetry elements as a subgroup,
according to the subordination scheme of the general
second-order phase transition. Here we emphasize that
all the previous group-theoretic works' are based on
existence of the SDW properly, we must take into ac-
count the lattice translational symmetry too, namely, the
space group which turns out to be important to select
possible states among the enumerated states.
The arrangement of the paper is as follows: we give
general group-theoretic arguments to construct the possi-
ble pairing states compatible with the underlying SDW
which breaks certain symmetries under a given crystal
symmetry. In order to choose the plausible pairing states
among the enumerated states, we examine several condi-
tions under which the superconductivity (SC) and SDW
can coexist, classifying the states into three groups, (I)
favorable, (II) unfavorable to the SDW, and (III) inter-
mediate between them. Each material, UPt3,
(U, Th)Be, 3,URuzSiz and CeCuzSiz is treated in Secs.
III —VI separately. We try to decrease the number of the
possible pairing functions as much as we can, maximally
utilizing the available data from the experimental side,
such as thermodynamic and transport measurements, and
also from the theoretical side, such as the band-structure
calculations, which are known to be remarkably accurate,
at least for Fermi-surface topology. In the final section,
we will consider some common features seen in these four

39 4145 1989 The American Physical Society

4146 MASA-AKI OZAKI AND KAZUSHIGE MACHIDA 39

HFS's by summarizing our work and examining other' s the space (P), spin rotation (S), gauge (@) and time re-
work in the context of our work. versal (t ) group
The notation used in this paper are the same as those
used in our previous papers. ' ' We use the SchonAies G, =PXSXR, (2. 1)
notation for point groups and their elements, and refer to where R =N+tN.
a book by Bradley and Cracknell for the general group The presence of the SDW lowers this symmetry and
theory. the system acquires the invariance group G C: Gp.
Generally, the invariapce group 6
can be obtained '
II. ENUMERATION AND CLASSIFICATION from the irreducible representation over real number field
OF PAIRING STATES (from now on we denote it as "rep") of Go such that

In this section we explain how to enumerate possible Gp=Pg S 'g R (2.2)

pairing states group theoretically, which are compatible ' is the three-dimensional
with certain symmetry requirements according to the
where G denotes a rep of 6, S
scheme of a second-order phase rep such that
general subordination
transition. The enumerated states are characterized as to S '(u(e, 8)) =D(u(e, 8)), (2.3)
whether those are favorable or unfavorable to the SDW,
based on the microscopic model Hamiltonian. where u(e, 8) HS is a spin rotation around the e axis by 8
rad, D(u(e, 8)) is a 3X 3 orthogonal matrix satisfying
A. Group-theoretical consideration
ucr;u = gD; o, i,j =1,2, 3, (2.4)
J
I. The superconducting states bifurcating from the SDW
where cr;(i =1,2, 3) are the Pauli matrices. R is the
In order to list the pairing states bifurcating from a rep of R such that R '(y)=1, R '(tg)= —1 with
SDW state, we first have to know the invariance group pEN denoting an element of the gauge-transformation
G of the SDW. The space group P in the absence of group. The repP is specified by a vector g in reciprocal
the SDW can be written as P =Gp hL(t„tz, t3) where Gt space which characterizes the SDW ordering, and thus
is the point group of the system; R, denotes the semi- by the rep of the little cogroup P(Q)=H. Let us con-
direct product with L(t&, tz, t3). Let us consider the case sider the uniaxial spin-density wave characterized by a
where the spin-orbit coupling is absent. The overall sym- one-dimensional rep of H. Then the invariant group
metry group Gp of the system is given by the product of G can be written ' by
I

G =(1+tju2„)(1+bu2 )KL(n, t„nzt2, n3t3)A(e, )R(e )@, (2.5)

where t is a translational basis vector such that n =2 by the rep of 6'

[u2;=u(e;, m)], K is the kernel of the rep of H, b is an
element of H such that H=K+bK [in the case of the 6 t sDw H(3) SD (SR 2
(2.7)
identity rep of H, K =H and b =0, n; =1 or 2 (i =1,2, 3),
A(e, )= Iu(e„8)~0~8~2~], and R(er )=1+tu(e~, m)]. sD consists of X+, X, and H with the bases 'Tp 7„and
The superconducting states coming out from the SDW (r„,r ) where 7o=io~ and
via a second-order transition are classified according to
the rep of G
Now let us consider only the translationally invariant
7~ =EOyO)) J =X)g)X
pairing function: The rep R relevant to 6 &(k ) is given by
b p(k)=(Cg C kp), cosy —sing
R (y)= sinqo cosy
that is t;A~&(k)=0 for i =1,2, 3. (We will mention the (2.8)
nontranslationally invariant one in the last section. ) cosy —since
Then, the rep of 6 is reduced to the rep of R (tqr) = — —cosy
sing
G' =H XsD XR, (2.6) The basis of R is (l,i ). By the Pauli principle, the rep of
even parity in H couples with X+, and that of odd parity
where couples with X and II. Then, using the same method as
sD„=A(e, )+u~ A(e, ) . in the previous papers, we can enumerate the inert
phases by finding the maximal little groups. We note that
We have assumed that the magnetization of the SDW is the irredicuble basis function lr(k) of the rep y of H
parallel to z axis. Thus the pairing state is characterized which satisfies the lattice translational symmetry
39 SUPERCONDUCTING CLASSES OF HEAVY-FERMION MATERIALS 4147

lr(k+K) =lr(k), with K being a reciprocal vector
whose fundamental vectors are g; (i =1,2, 3) is obtained
by projecting the periodic function
exp[2~i(n&k, +nzk 2+n3k3)]
on the irreducible component of -the rep y of H where'
is an integer and
k k )g$ + k2g2+ k3g3 ~ field theory (we will discuss some phenomena deviated
2. The superconducting states from which the SDW bifurcates
We consider the superconducting states which allow a
certain SDW to bifurcate via a second-order transition.
Below Tz ( & T, ) two orderings coexist. The enumera-
tion of the pairing states is much the same except that we
now consider the space group P in the normal state. If
we consider the translationally invariant pairing function
only, then the overall group Gp is given by
CeCuzSiz) or by the linear specific-heat behavior. Al-
though no one has succeeded in describing correctly this
transforation, once the coherent state is established we
can start out with the renormalized normal Fermi liquid
(2.9) where the quasiparticle masses have become very heavy
by the mass renormalization. The residual interactions
n,
between the quasiparticles are also expected to be rela-
tively weak, permitting us to treat it in terms of a mean-
from this behavior in Sec. VII), namely, we start with the
following mean-field Hamiltonian with two kinds of in-
teractions; the intra-atomic Coulomb interaction U, re-
sponsible for SDW, and the attractive interaction
g „„(k, ) for SC, which are minimum ingredients to
. k
discuss the interplay between them:
H =Hp+Hsow+Hsc (2. 12)
Ho g E„C„C„ (2. 13)

Gp=G~XSXR . (2. 10) HsDw ——g aM(Ck+g Ck +H. c. ), (2. 14)

ko
The rep of Gp is
GO=GpS 'R (i =0, 1), (2. 11) Hsc g 6 (k)(Ck C „~+H c ), (2. 15)
k, a, o''
where S is the identity representation of S, and S ' is the
where M and 6 (k ) are the SDW and SC order parame-
rep given by (2.3). S and S ' correspond to singlet and
ters to be determined self-consistently by
triplet superconducting states, respectively. The gerade
(ungerade) rep of G~ couples with S (S '). In the same
method as in our previous papers, we can enumerate
M=-,'U y ~(c„',~.c„.&,
k, cr
(2. 16)

the inert phases by finding the maximal little group.

In order to select the states among these enumerated
(k)= g g „„(k,k')(Ck„C k„}. (2. 17)
states from which a given SDW state can bifurcate via a
second-order transition, first we have to know the group The band is assumed to have some nesting feature
structure of the SDW, which is characterized by the little characterized by the SDW vector Q commensurate with
cogroup P(Q) of the SDW vector Q. Then we construct the underlying lattice:
the invariant group GsDw of this SDW.
Now let us consider a superconducting state character-
Ek+g yk+~k (Ek =3 k+~k)
ized by the invariance group G(y );
the mth state bifur-
cating through the instability of the rep y of Gp This ~
Because of the presence of 5k, the nesting is incomplete
as always in realistic systems. '
state allows the SDW in which G(y) symmetry is spon- It is easy to diagonalize Eq. (2. 12) and to obtain the
taneously broken. Therefore if G(y) contains all ele- equation for T, by using (2. 17):
ments of the group symmetry of the SDW, this SDW can
bifurcate from the superconducting state characterized 1=gT, g & I~'+(yk —&k)'
tel k
by G(y)
+M [li(k) —lii(k)]J /D(co„, k), (2. 18)
B. Model considerations
D(co„,k)=(co„+y +k5 +kM ) 45k(yk+M ) .—(2. 19)
Here we recapitulate our previous calculations" ' on
the relationship between SDW and SC to facilitate the We have assumed that the pairing function b, (k )
—
= b, l(k ),
selection of possible states. with
f
Our basic standpoint lies in the fact that the localized
electrons at high temperatures transform into a coherent
l(k ) = l, (k )+ l, i(k ),
state, or a Fermi-liquid state, at low temperatures where has such a property that
the f electrons begin to move and participate in forming
heavy-fermion quasiparticles. Since this transformation l(k+ Q ) = —l, (k )+l„(k ), (2.20)
is rather gradual, it is hard to define a transition tempera- for the even-parity pairing [I( —k }= l(k }], and the
ture T, h. However, it is signaled by, for example, the separable form of the pairing interaction:
Korringa relaxation behavior (T, T=const. ) characteris- g(k, k'}=gl(k)l(k'). It is seen from (2. 18) that T, for
tic in a normal metal in NMR (T„h —1. 5 K for UPt3, l, (k)~0, and l„(k)=0 (class I) is higher than that for
1— 2 K for UBe», 60 K for Ulu2Si2, and —10 K for li(k)=0, and l«&0 (class II), and that for T, for
4148 MASA-AKI OZAKI AND KAZUSHIGE MACHIDA 39

l&(k )&0, and l&&(k )&0 (class III) is intermediate between
them.
The complete classification scheme which includes the
odd-parity states is as follows:
class I: (E, O), (0~~, 0), and (Oj, E),
class II: (E, E ), ( 01,E ), and (0~, 0 ),
class III: (E, E+0), (O~~~, E+0), and (O„E+0),
in which (x, y ) denotes that the parity is x (odd or even)
and the translational symmetry by Q is y (odd, even, or
l
mixed). And and mean whether the spin-quantization
~~
axis is perpendicular or parallel to the magnetization M.
Under the presence of SDW, the pairing states in class I
should be chosen because their T, 's are highest among
these classes, and always coexist with the SDW below T, .
By solving the coupled self-consistent Eqs. (2. 16) and
(2. 17) for each class, it is found that among the states in
class I the states, whose SC nodes maximally overlap
with the SDW gap in reciprocal space, are stabilized be-
cause the condensation energies of two orderings are
gained most effectively. (Actually, we have done it nu-
merically' '"
for a two-dimensional model system. The
quantitative conclusion referred to here does not change
for the three-dimensional case. ) Apparently this con-
clusion is model independent. Note that the magnetiza-
tion M, as a function of temperature, is strongly
(moderately) suppressed below T, in class II (I), yielding
a good indicator to distinguish between the two classes.
So far we consider the case Tz T„ the converse is )
also true. Namely, in T& & T„ in order that the two or-
derings coexist, the states should belong to class I and the
SDW gap and SC nodes on the Fermi surface (FS) should
maximally overlap to minimize the destructive interfer-
ence.
Apart from the relationship between two orderings, the
pairing state itself is required to have some properties
from physical reasons; pairing states with the lesser num-
ber of the nodal points, or lines of the pairing function
within the first Brillouin zone (1 BZ), should be chosen.
This is analogous to the situation in spherical symmetry
like He where the pairing states with the lesser angular
momentum (s, p, d, etc. ) are considered a priori as a can-
didate.
odd. The previous group-theoretic classifications' ' in
the strong spin-orbit coupling limit based on point group
symmetry do not allow the odd-parity state with the line
node, and this conclusion hardly changes even if we ex-
tend it to space-group symmetry, as will be seen. These
experimental facts sharply contradict with the
classification scheme. Furthermore, according to Scala-
pino et al. and Miyake et al. , antiferromagnetic Auc-
tuations as a pairing mechanism which are observed ex-
perimentally, directly by inelastic neutron scatterings
and indirectly by specific-heat measurement, favor the
even-parity d-wave-like state over the odd-parity states.
This also leads us to a puzzle.
Quite recently a totally unexpected discovery has been
reported by Aeppli et al. via the neutron diffraction that
UPt3 exhibits an antiferromagnetic transition at Tz =5 K
with the saturation moment -0.
02pz/U atom. The
superconductivity coexists with the SDW below
T & T, -0. 5 K. We notice that the SDW pattern is ex-
actly the same as in the dilutely doped systems (U, Th)Pt3
(Ref. 29) and U(Pt, Pd)3 (Refs. 30 and 31), except that the
-0.
moments are 6pz/Uatom in the latter two materi-
als. This finding inevitably urges us to reexamine the pre-
vious thoughts on the UPt3 problem, particularly on the
nature of the pairing to resolve the preceding puzzles.
Here we point out that we could narrow down the can-
didates of the possible pairing states because the presence
of the SDW greatly lowers symmetry compared to that in
the paramagnetic state, severely restricting the forms of
the pairing functions allowed. We fully utilize the advan-
tage that we now have the detailed knowledge of the
Fermi-surface topology obtained by the band calcula-
tions. These are known to be in excellent agreement
with the de Haas —van Alphen experiments.
B. Group theoretical classification
We enumerate possible pairing states compatible with
the crystal symmetry of UPt3 (hcp structure, space group
P63/mmc) and also with the SDW symmetry observed.
The positions of the U atoms in the unit cef1 are given
by (a/v 3, 0, — c/2) and (a/v 3, a/2, c/2), and the
equivalent points. The lattice translational vectors are
v'3 a
a, ——, 0, tz=(O, a, O), t3=(0, 0, c) . (3. 1)

The corresponding reciprocal vectors are

A. Preliminaries
= 4a—,
0, 0,
2' 2m
, 0, g3= 0, 0,
2'
UPt3 is one of the most thoroughly studied HFS's. As gl
3a
g2
v3a Q C
for the gap structure, the power-law temperature (T)
dependences in physical quantities such as thermal con- (3.2)
ductivity, ultrasonic attenuation and NMR relaxation
rate below T, -0.
5 K are consistently described' by Figure 1 shows the coordinate system in reciprocal space.
the line node of the SC gap on FS. From the recent The SDW ordering vector is Q = g& /2 and the SDW mo-
Knight-shift experiment on Pt NMR, which shows ment M is parallel to Q.
essentially no change below T, down to the lowest tern- Let us consider the case where the spin-orbit coupling
perature (-60 mK) and cannot be explained by the is absent. The overall symmetry G of the system is given
even-parity state in the strong spin-orbit scattering limit, by G=D6I, XSXR, which is lowered by the SDW. The
it is concluded that the parity of the pairing function is little group P(Q) of Q is found to be
39 SUPERCONDUCTING CLASSES OF HEAVY-FERMION MATERIALS 4149

P(Q)= g(S;Iw;)T (3.3) ]M(S;, S~)=exp( —

iK; w )=1 .
Then it becomes an ordinary vector representation.
where S; ED2&. w; =0 for S; =E, C2~, I, and IC2~ and Thus, the rep of P(Q) can be written by

T=L(t„t2, t3) is the three-dimensional translation group. P(Q)(s;Iw;+t)=exp[ —iQ (w;+t)]D2h(s;) . (3.4)
Since K; w. =0 for all i and j, where K; =S; 'Q — Q, the
ray representation of the little cogroup P(Q) has the fac- The observed SDW state is derived by the rep B3„of
tor system D2h. We have

G =[(C2„+Iu2 C2„)+It,(C2, +Iu2 C 2)]L(2t ]t 2t )3A(e„)R( e)N, (3.5)

where l„(k ) =cos(n3k3) I cos(n] k, +n2k2)

C2, = [(E I0)+ (C2. It, n)+ (IC2. t3&2)+ (IC2y I0) ],
I
+ cos[n, k, + (n, n2 )k—
2] j,
(3.6)
ll] (k)=cos(n3k3 Icos nlk]+n2k2)
and A the spin-rotation group about the x axis and
(e„) is
R (e, ) = I E, tu 2, j. Note. that the magnetization of the
—cos[n, k, +(n, n2)—
k2] j,(3.9)
SDW is parallel to the x axis. The superconducting ll] (k)=sin(n3k3)Isin(n, k, +n2k2)
states coming out from the SDW via a second-order tran-
sition are classified according to the rep of 6
the translationally invariant pairing function,
. For
the
+sin[n]k, +(n] n2)k2— ]j,
relevant rep is reduced to the rep of lB
3g
(k ) s]n(n3k3 )ls]n(n ]k]+ n2k2)
G'D" =D, „X,D'„R (e, )e, (3.7) —sin[n, k, +(n, 2]j .
n2)k—
where The odd-parity states are
D' =A(e )+u2yA(e ) (3.8)
l~ (k)=sin(n3k3)Icos(n]k, +n, k, )
Using the character table for Dzh and knowing the
transformation properties of k ky and k, under D2I„ —cos[n, k, +(n, n2)k2]— j,
we can construct the basis function or pairing function
l(k), each corresponding to the four one-dimensional 1]] (k)=sin(n3k3)Icos(n, k]+n2k2)
representations 3, B, , Bz, and 83 of D2&. The even- +cos[n]k] +(n] —n2)k2] j
parity states are (3.10)
1]] ( k ) = cos( n, k 3 ) I sin( n ]k + n 2 k 2 )
1

—sin[n, k, +(n] n2 )k2] j—

,

ll] ( k ) = COS( ll 3 k 3 ) I S]n( ll k + n 2 k 2 )

1 1

+sin[n, k, +(n, n2)k2] j—,

where

k] + k ky k2 aky k3 (3.11)

and n;(i=1, 2, 3) is an integer. From the physical re-

ky
quirement mentioned earlier, we restrict the following
4K consideration to In = 1 whose sector includes the desired
I

3a
functions as will be seen shortly. Table I indicates the
states thus obtained. Combining these orbital functions
l(k) with the spin functions (l . =io o ), we get a com-
plete list of the pairing functions, b, (k), both with even
and odd parity.
Similarly, we can enumerate the states in the strong
FIG. 1. The upper half of the first Brillouin zone of the hcp spin-orbit coupling limit where the space and spin sym-
crystal. metries are coupled. The relevant space group becomes
4150 MASA-AKI OZAKI AND KAZUSHIGE MACHIDA 39

TABLE I. The odd- and even-parity states in the absence of the spin-orbit coupling within the sector
in~ = I for UPt, . The pairing function b(k) with even parity is given by h, (k) =I, ro and that with odd
parity is l, 7„,lj- 7, and l, „(7y+i 7, ), where = A1, B1, B„and B3. j
Sector
(n1 n2 n3 ) even Qdd

v'3 — V3 —
(+1,0, 0) lg = cos ak cos
a
k lg = sin ak cos
a
k
2 2 3M 2 2

l~ = sin &3
ak
.
sin —
a
k lg = cos V3
ak sin —
a
k
1g 2 2 2Q 2 2
(0, +1,0) l& =cos(ak ) l~ 2Q =sin(ak )

(0, 0, +1) lg cos( ckz ) l~ 1Q =sin(ck, )

g

the double group»D6I„and the invariance group G II B, the following states belong to I for odd parity:
of the SDW state is given by
b, '"(k ) =l~ (k )r„
G =[( D+rI D)
=sin(v'3ak /2)cos(ak» /2)r„,
+I ti n(D 2+&nD2)]L(2t„t2, t3)4 (3. 12)
b, '
'(k)=lq (k)r„
where
=cos(&3ak /2)sin(ak» /2)r„,
nDQ [Ey ( C2zu2z ~t3/2), (C~~ u2„~t3/2), (C~»u2» ~0)] (3. 15)
'(k ) =I~ (k )r, =sin(ak )r
(3. 13)
By considering only the translationally invariant pair- bi '(k)=l~ (k)r =sin(ck, )r
ing function, the relevant rep of G is reduced to the
rep of and for even parity:

G' = »D 2A XR . (3. 14) 6, "'= I „(k )ro = cos(&3ak„/2)cos(ak» /2)ro,

(3. 16)
Then we obtain the basis functions corresponding to 3, 6' '=lz (k)ro=sin(&3ak /2)sin(ak»/2)ro,
8 „B„and representations of »D» which are given
8, 1g

in Table II. in the absence of the spin-orbit coupling (Table I). This
choice is reasonable because (1) under the SDW the states
C. Possible states in I are more stable than those in II, and (2) the suppres-
Having enumerated the possible states in Tables I and sion of M(T) below T, is rather moderate (see Fig. 3 tn
II, we now classify these into states, less competitive Ref. 5), indicating that the pairing state should belong to
(class I) and competitive (class II) with the SDW. Ac- I rather than II (compare Figs. 6 and 8 in Ref. 14). We
cording to our classification scheme introduced in Sec. notice that the Knight-shift experiment points to the pos-

TABLE II. The odd- and even-parity states in th strong spin-orbit limit within the sector ~n~ = I for
UPt3. The pairing function b (k ) with even parity is A, (k ) = lj 7p and that with odd parity is given by
the linear combination of the form: 5& (k) =C1l& 7, +c2lg 7y+C3lg 7g) Ag (k) =c, lg 7,
Q 1M 2M 3M 1M M

+c21~2M 7„+C3lJp 3Q 7yp eel+

2M
(k) clip 7y+c2lp 3Q'7z+c3lg 1M
7~ j and Az 3M (k) =clip 1Q
7z+c2/p 1M
7y
7„where c; ( i = 1, 2, 3 ) are arbitrary constants.
M

+ c3 lp 2M

Sector
(n1 n2 n3 ) even odd

v'3 — —
(+1,0, 0) l = cos ak X cos
a
k l = cos —
3
ak
.
sin
a
k
2

l =sin &3
ak
.
sin —
a
k l = cos —
a
k
.
sin
&3
ak
2 2 2 2
(0, +1,0) l~ =cos(ak ) l~
2Q
=sin(ak )

(0, 0, +1) l~ =cos(ck, ) l& = sin(ck, )

1M
39 SUPERCONDUCTING CLASSES OF HEAVY-FERMION MATERIALS
FIG. 2. The Fermi surface sheets calculated by Wang et al.
(Ref. 33). The shaded area 4' is the Fermi surface 4 around I
point shifted by the SDW wave vector Q, showing the nesting
between the two electron Fermi surfaces 4' around M and 3
around K.
sibility of odd-parity states. Hereafter we only consider
the states in (3. 15), disregarding the states in (3.16).
We illustrate the first Brillouin zone (1 BZ) of the hcp
structure in Fig. 1 and quote the FS structure calculated
by Wang et al. in Fig. 2 where the bands 1 and 2 are the
hole surfaces, and 3, 4, and 5 are the electron surfaces re-
sponsible for the heavy electron masses observed, ' evi-
dencing itinerancy of 5f electrons. We obtained the
shaded electron surface 4' around the M point by shifting
the surface 4 by the observed SDW vector Q=g, /2, re-
sulting in a rather nice nesting with the FS 3 around the
K point. (However, the nesting is not perfect. This is
partly responsible for the small observed moment. ) Since
the nesting occurs along MK line, the SDW energy gap
appears on LHKM plane.
Now all the listed states 5"' —6' ' turn out to have line
nodes which run parallel to k, axis (within k„-k plane)
"'
for b, —b, ' ' (b, ' '). (Note that the odd-parity states in
the strong spin-orbit limit have point nodes, coinciding
with the general argument. ' ' Those do not match
with the experimental facts. ) These states are equally
possible. However, 5'"(k)=0 occurs at k„=O, +2m. /
&3a and k =+ir/a. Its intersection with the Fermi sur-
faces yields a line node along MK line. This node maxi-
mally overlaps with the SDW gap, minimizing the loss of
the condensation energy due to the coexistence relative to
and thus making 6'" more favorable than
6' ' —6'"'. We conclude that
b. '"(k)=l~ r =sin(&3ak /2)cos(ak~/2)~
3Q
is the most probable state coexisting with the SDW in
UPt3 among the sector ~n~ = l. As is mentioned, the node
lines in b. "'(k) run parallel to the hexagonal axis. This
coincides with the recent observation of tunneling experi-
ments by Batlogg.
D. Supplementary remarks
(1) As mentioned earlier, the odd-parity states in the
strong spin-orbit limit have point nodes on the Fermi sur-
4151
faces and contradict with experiments. The usual argu-
ment readily leads to the even-parity d-wave-like state as
an alternative, which is also in contraction with the
Knight-shift experiment. In order to resolve this puzzle,
we have proposed the odd-parity states in the weak spin-
orbit case which satisfies the preceding two criteria. Here
we refer to Miyake's work, arguing that the e6'ective
spin-orbit coupling felt by a Cooper pair is not necessari-
ly in the strong coupling limit, although the individual
heavy electrons (quasiparticles) are subjected under
strong spin-orbit interactions.
(2) As for the origin of the pairing interaction, Scalapi-
no et al. and Miyake et al. show that the SDW fluc-
tuations induce a d-wave-like pairing state, suppressing a
p-wave one. It can be shown by the same type of argu-
ment, however, that some odd-parity states in class I in
our terminology are indeed induced. (Also see other
works" for various discussions on pairing mecha-
nisms in UPt3).
IV. (U, „Th„)Be&3
A. Preliminaries
Apart from the general normal-state properties of
UBe» (space group: Jim 3c, Oi, ) which are discussed in
detail in various review articles, ' we summarize here
mainly superconducting properties relevant to our fol-
lowing arguments.
The thermodynamic properties' in UBe&3, such as
the specific heat at low temperatures, are still much de-
bated on what the power law is exactly obeyed (T, T,
or other). On the other hand, the transport coefficients
such as thermal conductivity ( —T), the nuclear relaxa-
tion rate ( —T ), and the ultrasonic attenuation ( —T )
clearly indicate that the SC gap vanishes at lines on the
FS. There is, however, no consensus on the parity of the
pairing function because the two Knight-shift measure-
ments by @SR (Ref. 45) and by NMR (Ref. 46) are con-
tradictory;
In (U, Th, )Be,3 (Refs. 1 and 2), as x increases T,
rapidly decreases, while beyond x ~x„=0.017 it stays
rather constant, and- simultaneously there appears the
second transition (T, z) below T, as evidenced by a large
specific-heat anomaly and ultrasonic attenuation peak.
The @SR (Ref. 7) detects the growth of the internal mag-
netic field below T, 2, suggesting that some kind of magne-
tism appears. As for this low-temperature phase in
x ~x,„, we have predicted prior to the @SR (Ref. 7) that
unconventional pairing states are always unstable against
the SDW formation, and some pairing states necessarily
coexist with the SDW at low temperatures. Although
others regard T, 2 as the phase change between
dift'erent classes of pairing states, we believe that our as-
sertion is more plausible in view of the universal behavior
of HFS; namely, close proximity between the SDW and
unconventional pairing state. We put forth our theory
further. (The neutron experiment can easily distinguish
between them if feasible. )
In order to identify the pairing state in x x,„, we
must specify the SDW pattern whose symmetry has to be
4152 MASA-AKI OZAKI AND KAZUSHIGE MACHIDA 39

ky [001] direction. On the other hand, according to the

W dispersion curves, coinciding with the observed antiferro-
FIG. 3. The section of the Fermi surface sheets in k -k~
plane which is constructed by shifting the Fermi level in the cal-
culated dispersion curves (Ref. 58) by —10 meV. The dotted
curves are ones shifted from I to X points by Q=(0, 0, 2'/a),
showing a nesting feature between the Fermi surface at I and
pillbox at X.
a subgroup of the group of that pairing state as men-
tioned in Sec. IIA. The inelastic neutron experiment on
UBe&3 by Mook et al.
' observes the antiferromagnetic
band calculation, there indeed exists a nesting feature
between an object centered at I point and a pillbox at X
point if we lower the Fermi level by —10 meV in their
magnetic correlation. We show this in Fig. 3. Note that
there is no nesting along the [111]direction because the
reciprocal space is quite empty in this direction. Since
Th-doping effect in (U, Th)Be, 3 can be regarded to act as
decreasing the electron number as a first approximation,
it is natural to consider that the doping induces the SDW
with Q=(2~/a)(0, 0, 1) which corresponds to the I X
vector in reciprocal space.
B. Group-theoretical classification
I.et us first enumerate the possible pairing states com-
patible with the crystal structure of the normal state ac-
cording to the prescription in Sec. IIA. The lattice
translation vectors are
tt= '(O, a, a ), tz= —,'(a, O, a ), t3= —,'(a, a, O) . (4. 1)
—,

Auctuations at the zone-boundary positions along the The corresponding reciprocal vectors are
I

g, =
=2" ( — 1 1 1), g~=
=2~ (1 1, —1) .
=2K (1, —1 1), g3= (4.2)

The space group P can be written by the SDW characterized by Q=(2'/a )(0, 0, 1); the [001]
instability (D4 case), or the SDW by Q=(7r/a)(1, 1, 1);
P= g(S, ~w, )L(t„t„t,), (4.3) the [111]instability (D3 case). The fifth column denotes
the types of the gap nodes; plane, line, or none. The actu-
where S,. EO&, w; =(0, 0, 0) for S,. HO, and al topology of the gap node is determined by the intersec-
tion of the above node and the Fermi surface. We have
Wj 2 (t]+t2+ t3) also constructed the explicit forms of the order parame-
ters, where only selected l(k) are shown such that the
for 5, EIO. The overall symmetry group Go of the nor-
number of the nodes is the smallest ones within 1 BZ.
mal state is given by

G, =PxSxR, (4.4)
C. Possible pairing states
when the spin-orbit coupling is absent. The pairing states
are characterized by the rep of Go Having enumerated the possible states compatible with
G =PS 'R, i =0, 1 . (4.5) crystal symmetry, we now go on to the next step. As
mentioned before, the SC gap vanishes at lines on FS for
When the pairing function is translationally invariant, UBe, 3 and probably also for Th-doped systems. We can
this reduces to eliminate the states with nodes vanishing at points in
Tables III and IV. This also excludes the odd-parity
G O=Oq(3S'g R 2, (4.6) states in the strong-orbit-coupling case. In order that the
SDW characterized by Q=(2'/a )(0, 0, 1) occurs via a
where 0& consists of 3,
, A2, E, T, , and T2 representa- second-order transition, the pairing state must have D4
tions. We obtain the pairing functions with even parity as a subgroup. These requirements leave the states with
in Table III and with odd parity in Table IV. Note that even parity and with odd parity as shown in Table V. We
in the even-parity case the states are equivalent to ones have characterized these remaining states as regarding
listed by Volovik and Gor'kov, ' and the results in the the classes I, II, or III (third column) and the matching
odd-parity T]„case are those listed by us. The fourth condition between the SDW gap and the line nodes
column in Tables III and IV indicates explicitly whether (fourth column) where F ( U) denotes a good (bad) overlap
each invariance group contains the symmetries D3 or D4. between them. As for the even-parity states, under the
This provides the information on whether each order pa- conditions we imposed, the following three states are
rameter can exhibit, via a second-order phase transition, most plausible:
39 SUPERCONDUCTING CLASSES OF HEAVY-FERMION MATERIALS 4153

~l)' (k) =cos sin(ak )sin —sin(ak, )sin 7p

1g

b, "' (k) =sin ak„

sin
ak,
7p (4.7)
2g 2 2

ak, ak ak
a'T2'
2g
(k) =sin
2
sin
2
+i sin 7p e

Even-parity pairing functions and their invariance groups for O„jn (IJ,Th)Be/3 (x Qk /2 y ak /2 and
z =ak, /2).

Representation Order parameter' Invariance group Subgroup Type of node

A)g OxR' D3, D4 none or plane

l: cosx cosy+cyclic, cos(2x)+cyclic, cos(2x)cosy cosz+cyclic, cos(2x)cos(2y)cos(2z)

Azg 0(T)xR D3D4 plane

1: cos(3x) [cos(2y)cosz —cos(2z)cosy]+cyclic

l] ~p D, xR D4 line
lz&p D4(Dz }XR D4 plane
(l]+ilz) jP O(D2 )' D3, D4 line

(lI, lz): (cosx cosz+cosz cosy —2cosx cosy, &3(cosx cosz —cosy cosz))
(cos2x + cos2y —2 cos2z, &3(cos2y — cos2x ) )
(2cos(2z)cosx cosy —cos(2x)cosy cosz —cos(2y)cosz cosx, ~3[cos(2x)cosy cosz —cos(2y)cosx cosz])

Tfg l, ~p D4(C4) XR D4 plane

(l] + lz+ l3 )~p D, (C, }xRg D3 plane
i(l ] + elz+ 6 13 )~p D3(E)' D3 plane
(l] +ilz )7p D4(E )' D4 plane

1, : cosx [sin(2y)sinz —sin(2z)siny]

l~: cosy[sin(2z)sinx —sin(2x)sinz]
1, : cosz[sin(2z)siny —sin(2y)sinx]

2g l~~p D, (D,') xR" D4 plane

(l ] + lz+ l3 )7p D, XR' D3 line
{l ] + &l 2 + &'l3 )~p D3(E) D3 line
(l ] +ilz)jp D4(E) D4 plane

(l], lzl3 ): (siny sinz, sinz sinx, sinx siny )

(cos(2x )sin(2y )sin(2z ), cos(2y )sin(2z )sin(2x ), cos(2z )sin(2x )sin{ 2y ) )
(cosx'[sin(2y)sinz+sin(2z)siny], cosy[sin(2z)sinx+sin(2x)sinz], cosz[sin(2x)siny+sin(2y)sinx])
'Within the same representation the linear combination of l(k }'s is also allowed.
R is the group of the time reversal (E, t). In these singlet superconducting states, all states are invariant for the element Im
[w=(t, +tz+t&)/2] translation L(t, , t2, t, ) and the spin rotation S. Thus, in this column (1+Iw)L(t, , t2, t&) XS is omitted for brevi-
ty. Thus, 0 XR denotes (0+IwO)L(t&, tz, t3) XS XR as the invariance group.
'0{T}= T+ Cz, y T.
( )=
'O(Dz)
=
D'+ Cq+, (2m/3)Dz+ C— „(—2n/3)D2+ tC»[Dz+ C'+, (25/3)Dz+ C~, ( —2~/3)D21.
D4( C4 ) C4+ Cz ~C4.
D3{C3) —C3+ Czb7TC3j C3 E+ C3+] + C3 f.
"e = exp(2~i /3).
D3(E ) = C3(E )+ Czb tC3(E }, C3(E }=E+ Cg& (25/3 }+C3] ( 25/3 }.
"D4 ( E ) = C4( E ) + C 2 t C ( E ), C ( E }= E + C+, ( 25./4) + C, ( —2% /4) + Cz, Fr.
D4(D2 ) — D2+ C4z~D2&D2 —E+ C2a+ Czb+ C2z.
'D3 C3+ Czb C3.
4154 MASA-AKI OZAKI AND KAZUSHIGE MACHIDA 39

TABLE IV. Odd-parity pairing functions and their invariance groups for OI, in (U, Th)Be» (x = ak, /2, y = aky /2, z = ak, /2).
Representation Order parameter Invariance group Subgroup Type of node
A1„ IP (1+Iu )OA(e, ) XR" D3, D4 plane
I(~ +i~y} (1+Iu „)(1+tu 2 ) OA (e, )' D3, D4 plane

I: sin(3x )[sin(2y )sinx —sin(2z )siny ]+cyclic terms

A2„ I~, (1+C,u )T A(e, ) XR D3, »4 plane

I(~„+E~y ) (1+Iu2, ){1+tu2 )Td A(e„) »3, D4 plane

I: sin(2x )siny sinz+ cyclic

sin(2x )sin(2y )sin(2z )
sin(3x ) [sin(2y )sinz+ sin(2z )siny ]+cyclic
l, ~, (1+Iu )D A (e, ) X R D4 plane
12~, (1+Iu }D „A(e, }XR D4 plane
I 1(~„+iwy ) (1+Iu2, )(1+tu2 )D4 A (e, ) D4 plane
12{~ +ivy) {1+Iu2, )(1+tu 2x )D2d A (e, } D4 plane
{I]+il2 )~, (1+Iu2 )O(D2)A{e, ) D3, D4 line
{II+iI2){~ +i~y ) (1+Iu2, )O '(D2 ) A (e, ) D3, D4 line
117x + I2%y (1+u„)IIO(D2) XR' D3, D4 line
11~ +il2~ (1+ Iu 2z }(1 + tu 2x }(1 + C4z u 2x )D2 D4 line

I, : 2 sin(3z)[sin(2x )siny — sin(2y )sinx ] — sin(3x )[sin(2y )sinz —sin(2z)siny ]

sin(3y)[sin(2z)sinx — sin(2x )sinz]
lz. &3 [ sin3x [sin(2y )sinz —sin(2z )siny ] —sin(3y ) [sin(2z )sinx —sin(2x )sinz] I

Tl u I, ~ +12' +13%, OXR D3, D4 line

11~„+I2~y (1+C2, Fr)„»4 X R D4 line
&3(11 12)vx +(11+12 213 )7y ( 1 + C2b u2y&)IIC3 X R D3 line
137' (1+ C 5.)(1+C u „)C4 x A (e, ) x R D4 plane
(11+12)~, (1+C,m)(1+C u )C, X A(e, )XRg D4 plane
(11+12+13)~, (1+C2bFr)(1+C2bu2 )C3 X A(e, ) XR D3 plane
I[v. +el2~ +e'13~, {1+ t 2bu2b }II 31 II»2 D3, D line
I, ~x +i 12' (1+tu2 )IID2, C4' D4 line
(I, +il2)~, (1+u ~}D (E}A{e ) D4 line
{11+@12+6 13 )7z (1+ „)D {E)A(, ) D3 line
13(~ +is.y) (1+tu2 )D4(C4) A(e, ) D4 plane
(11+12){7 +lay ) (1+tu2 )D 2(C2, ) A {e }' D4 plane
{I,+I, +I, )(~, +i~, ) ( 1 + tu 2 )»3( C3 ) A (e ) D3 plane
(l]+il2){~ +i~y ) (1+tC, u, x)C4(E}A(e, ) D4 line
(I, +@12+A I3)(7x+l~y) (1+tC2bu2 )C3(E)A(e, ) D3 line

(1„12,13}: (sinx(cosy+cosz), siny(cosz+cosx), sinz(cosx+cosy))

( sin(2x ), sin(2y ), sin(2z ) )
(sinx [cos(2y )cosz+ cos(2z )cosy ], siny[cos(2z )cosx + cos(2x )cosz], sinz[cos(2x )cosy +cos(2y )cosx ])
(sin(2x )cos(2y )cos(2z ), sin(2y)cos{ 2z) cos(2x), sin(2z)cos(2x) cos(2y ) )

2u I I ~„+12m. +13~, (1+C2, u2, 5.}IITXR D3, D4 line

11~ — 12' (1+C2, N ) IID4 XR D4 line
~3(I I —12 )Wx + (11+12 —213 )iy (1+u2, ~)IID3 " D3 line
(1+C2x u2x )D4(D2 ) A (e, )'
13~,
(I I + l2 )~,
(11+12+13 )T,
.
(1+C„w)(1+C, u, )C,', x A{e, ) xR
(1+u2, Fr}»3 A(e, ) XR
. D4
D4
D3
plane
plane
plane
I I &x+ el2~y +e 13' {1+ tC2b u2b }IIC3 II»2 »3»4 line
I, ~. —II2~y {1+»2 )IIC4 II»2 D4 line
(11 —il2 )~, (1+u „5.)D (E)A(e, ) D4 line
(I, +@12+A 13)~, ( 1 +u2 7T}D3(E)A(e, ) D3 line
l3(w +i'Ty } (1+tu2„)»4(»2) A(e, ) D4 plane
(11+12)(V„+i~y ) (1 + tu2 )D 2( C2b }A {e D4 plane
39 SUPERCONDUCTING CLASSES OF HEAVY-FERMION MATERIALS 41S5

TABLE IV. (Continued).

Representation Order parameter Invariance group Subgroup Type of node

(l, +t, +l, )(&. +i&, ) {1+tu2 )D3A(e, } D3 plane
(l, —il, }(~„+i~,) 1+tC2 u2 )C4(E) A(e, ) D4 line
(l, +~l, +e'l, )(~. +i&, ) (1+tC2bu2„}C3{E)A(e, ) D3 11ne

(I1 l2& l3 ): (s1nx (cosz cosy ), slny {cosx cosz ), slnz{ cosy cosx ) )
(sinx [cos(2y )cosz — —cos(2y )cosx ] )
&

cos(2z )cosy ], siny [cos(2z )cosx —cos(2x )cosz ], sinz [cos(2x )cosy
'within the same representation the linear combination of l(k )'s is also allowed.
In these triplet superconducting states all states are invariant for Iw%. and I.(t], t2, t3). Thus in this column (1+IwFr}L(t1,t2, t3) is
omitted for brevity.
'A(e, ) = [u(e„8)9~0 ~ 8~2m j.
0 '(D2) = T(D2)+ C2bu2xtT(D2), T(D2) =D2+ C31(25./3)D2+ C31( —2'/3)D2.
IIO{D2 ) IIT{D2 )+ C2b u2 IIT{D2 ) IIT{D2 ) D2+ C31u (e 2~/3)D2 + C31u {e 2~/3)D2'
IIC3 = E+ C3+1u (e„2m./3)+ C31u (e„— 2m/3).
~C2, =E+ C2, .
IIC31 — E+ C3+1u ( C3+1 )(25./3)+ C31u {C» )( —2m/3).
q C4 = E + C4z u 2a {n/2 ) + C4z u 2a ( /2 ) + C2z ~ FT
D 2{C2a ) C2a C2b ~C2a +
II 3 IIC3+ C2bu2y I C3
D4(D 2 ) =D 2 + C4zFTD 2s D 2 = E + C2a + C2b + C2z ~

C2b E+ C2b.
"IIC31 =E+ C3+1u (C3+1 )(2m/3}+ C31u (C31)( — 2m/3).
'IIC 4=E+ C4+, u2, (5./2)+ C4, u2, ( —S./2)+ C2, %..
D 2( C2b ) C2b + C2a ~C2b C2b E + C2b &

TABLE V. Favorable states among the enumerated states in Tables III and IV, which have node planes and D4 as a subgroup
(x =ak„/2, y =aky/2, and z =ak, /2). The "matching" column denotes the matching between the SDW gap and the SC node; favor-
able (F) or unfavorable ( U).
Representation States l(k) Class Matching
A1g cos(2x )cos(2y )cos(2z ) II F
A2g cos( 3x ) [cos( 2y ) cosz —cos(2z) cosy ]+cyclic III U
cosz( cosx — cosy ) I U
cos(2x ) —cos(2y ) II U
T1g cosx [sin(2y )sinz — sin(2z)siny ] I F
cosx [sin(2y)sinz — sin(2z )siny ]
+i cosy [sin(2z )sinx —sin(2x )sinz] III F
T2g siny sinz I
sinz{siny+i sinx ) I F
cos(2x )sin(2y )sin(2z ) II F
sin(2z )[cos(2x )sin(2y )+i sin(2x )cos(2y )] F
A, „ sin(3x ) [sin(2y )sinz — sin(2z )siny ]+cyclic III F
A2„ sin(2z )sinx siny + cyclic III F
sinx siny sinz I&II F
sin( 3x ) [sin(2y )sinz + sin( 2z) siny ] + cyclic III F
T1u sinz(cosx + cosy ) I&II F
sinx (cosz+ cosy )+ siny(cosx + cosz ) III U
sin(2z ) I&II F
sin(2x )+ s1n(2y ) III U
sin(2z )cos(2x )cos(2y ) I&II F
sin(2x )cos{2y )cos(2z ) + sin(2y )cos(2x ) cos{2z ) I&II U
T2. sinz(cosx — cosy ) I&II F
sinz [cos(2x )cosy — cos(2y )cosx ] I&II F
4156 MASA-AKI OZAKI AND KAZUSHIGE MACHIDA 39

It is worthwhile to mention that since, for example, we can provide a possible phase diagram which should be
a"' checked experimentally as shown in Fig. 4: Since there is
T2 (k+Q x
)=aI"
T2 (k), no second transition observed so far in x &x, 017, „=0.
(4.8) the pairing state should belong to Class II which
suppresses T& to quite a low value. As x increases, the
with Q„=(2m. /a )(1,0, 0), Q =(2m/a )(0, 1, 0), and nesting becomes improved. Then in x the pairing )x„
state changes into Class I and induces the SDW at T, 2
Q, =(2m/a )(0, 0, 1), the pairing state which breaks cubic
below in which the two orderings coexist to effectively
symmetry restricts the SDW pattern to appear below T, 2,
minimize the two kinds of the condensation energies.
that is, in this example the SDW vector should be Q or
Therefore, there must exist a phase boundary between
Q, . We note that b, 'T'2g (k) is most possible because the Class II in x & x,„and the coexisting phase: I + SDW in
node planes within 1 BZ are least among the three states.
As for the odd-parity states, the following six states are
)
x x,„. In fact, as demonstrated by Maple, the pairing
states in both regions behave quite differently under Gd
equally plausible among Table V: doping. As x increases, (E, E)H (Class II) transforms
ak ak ak, into (E, O) H (Class I) in the even-parity case, or (O~~~, O)
b, ~ (k ) =sin Sln sin +z into (Oi, 0 ) in the odd-parity case.
2 2 2

ak, ak„ ak V. URu2Si2

(k ) = sill COS + COS 7z
lu 2 2
A. Preliminaries
b'T' (k ) =sin(ak, )(i.
1M
„+ii.~ ), This system exhibits SC at T, —1. 5 K below the SDW
6'T' (k)=cos(ak, )cos(ak )sin(ak, )(r, +ir ), (4.9) transition (T~ —17. 5 K). ' Although at high tempera-
1Q
tures a localized-moment behavior evidenced by the
ak ak, Curie-Weiss law in the magnetic susceptibility is observed
b, '"
T2"
(k)= cos COS Sln 7 as in other heavy-fermion materials, below a certain tem-
2 2
perature (T„„-60 K) the system enters into a Fermi-
liquid state as inferred from the Korringa-like NMR re-
b, 'T ' (k )
= cos(ak, )cos
ak
2
laxation. The specific-heat '
and NMR (Ref. 60)
measurements indicate that the FS area removed by the
ak ak, SDW gap formation amounts to 30 —40% of the total FS
COS cos(ak ~ ) sin area. The SDW is commensurate with the underlying
2 2
crystal lattice and the saturation moment is extremely
'
where we have assumed that M is parallel to the z axis.
However, 6'T'1tt and 6'T'1M may not be stabilized because
small (
tropy '-0.
03ps /U atom). ' The small transition en-
and a BCS-like speci6c-heat jump at T~ are
the spin of a pair is ferromagnetically coupled. consistent with the itinerant electron magnetism picture.
The crystal structure of URu2Si2 is a body-centered
D. Phase diagram tetragonal (space group I4/mmm, D4&) whose lattice-
translation vectors are
The T versus x phase diagram in (U& Th )Belz is an
intriguing aspect in the UBeI3 problem. Based on the t, = —,' ( —a, a, c ), t2 = ' (a, —a, c ),
—, t3 = ' ( a, a, —c ),
—,

band calculations, ' we pointed out in Sec. IV A that

(5. 1)
the Th doping improves the SDW nesting. Although we
cannot explain the nonmonotonic T, variation against x, with a & c, and the corresponding reciprocal vectors are

a' 0,'c—
—, —,
a' —
a' 0,
1 1 1 1 1 1
g, =2~ 0 'a' c
go=2m g3=2~ (5.2)

The SDW ordering vector Q is given by line nodes of the SC gap on FS. The Knight shift of Si
NMR below T, does not change a.ppreciably, implying ei-
Q=-,'(gi+g2+g3) (5.3)
ther an odd-parity or even-parity state in a large impurity
which corresponds to I Z vector in 1 BZ. The magneti- scattering limit. The determination of the parity is still
zation M is parallel to the tetragonal axis (c axis). an open question. In the following we seek both possibili-
As for the superconducting state coexisting with the ties in this system.
SDW, the power-law behaviors of the temperature depen- According to Norman et ah. , who have done the band
dences characterize the NMR relaxation rate ( —T ) structure calculation on this system, there indeed exists a
found by Kohara et al. and ultrasonic attenuation nesting feature between the electron Fermi surface at I
(— T ) by Fukase et al. , 5 both being consistent with the and hole Fermi surface at Z along the I Z line, coinciding
39 SUPERCONDUCTING CLASSES OF HEAVY-FERMION MATERIALS 4157

should occur on the two small enclosed Fermi surfaces

centered at I and at Z points. As we will see, this cer-
tainly excludes some of the pairing states.

B. Group-theoretic enumeration

The little cogroup P(Q) of

Q=(gi+g2+g3) ~2
is P(Q) =D~i, . Since the
observed SDW state63 is derived
by the rep 3& of D4I„ the overall group symmetry of
G is given by
Th concentration x
G =( I+t, u2 )D4&L(2t„2t2, 2t3) 2 (e, )R (e )4&,
FIG. 4. Possible schematic phase diagram T vs x in
(U1 Th„)Be13. The shaded area is the coexistence phase of the (5.4)
superconducting class I and the SDW. It is possible, for exam-
ple, that the class I corresponds to D4(D2) XR and class II to
where R(e )=I+tube . According to the procedure in
D4(&). Sec. IIA, it is easy to construct the basis functions by
projecting the periodic function of g&, g2, and g3 on the
with the observed Q vector in (5.3). Although it is rather irreducible component
dificult to locate the SDW gap exactly in reciprocal exp[2in(n, k, +nzk2+n3k3 )] (5.5)
space because of the limited band structure information
available so far, it can be said at least that the SDW gap with
I

k, = (
—ak +ak 3 +ck, ),' k2=
2 (ak, —ak +ck, ), k3=
3
1
(ak +ak —ck ), (5.6)
4 3
4

where n; is an integer. Since the irreducible representa- ak„ ak ck,

tions of D4& consist of A, , A 2, B, , B2, and E, we obtain bii (k ) =sin sin sin
1M 2 2 2
the basis functions or pairing functions, which satisfy the
lattice translation symmetry in Table VI, where we have has five node planes at k, =0, k =0, and k, =0, +2ir/c
confined our consideration to the sector in 1 BZ. The intersection of the two enclosed FS's at I
~n;=I, i=1, 2, 3 . and Z gives rise to the line nodes. When these two FS's
are nested by the SDW vector Q, there is a good chance
It is to be noted that the odd-parity states in the strong that the SDW gap coincides with the preceding line
spin-orbit limit are not listed because they have point nodes, leading this state to a favorable state (F) in Table
nodes on the FS, which contradict the experiments men- VI. Similar consideration has been done for all
tioned previously. enumerated states as shown in the fifth column of Table
VI.
C. Possible pairing states Within our criteria mentioned earlier, in the even-
Let us now characterize these enumerated states from parity case the following three states are equally prob-
the following two aspects: The combined symmetries of able:
the parity and the translation by Q classify these states = '[cos(ak„) —cos(ak )]ro,
into class I and class II. This characterization is given in bli 1g (k ) —,

the fourth column of Table VI, which eliminates certain ak ak,

numbers of the listed states. The second criterion is the
matching condition with the SDW and the SC gap nodes
~,"' (k) =sin
2g
S1n
2
. cos
2
ro , (5.7)

which should be maximally overlapped in order to save

b'ii' (k)=sin(ak )sin(ak )ro .
both condensation energies. For example, the state 2g

ak ak ak, It is noted, however, that b, z ' (k) is the least number of

b, „(k)=cos cos
2
cos TO 2g
the node planes in 1 BZ, making this the best choice
among them.
has node planes at k =+a/a, k =+~/a, and k, =+a/e
In the odd-parity case
in 1 BZ which hardly intersect with the small-size Fermi
surfaces at I and Z, making this a nodeless state. This ak„ ak ak,
leads this state to an unfavorable state (U) in the fifth b, ii (k ) =sin sin sin 7z (5.8)
column of Table VI. On the other hand,
1M 2
4158 MASA-AKI OZAKI AND KAZUSHIGE MACHIDA 39

TABLE VI. Possible states with even and odd parity for URu2Si2. The pairing function is given by (1) 17p, (2) 17„17„,and
l(7 +i 7y ) for one-dimensional representations with even and odd parity, respectively. The two-dimensional representations (l&, 12);
1, 7p, (1] +il2 )7p and (1 +12 )7p for even Parity, and I [7„(l +il2 )7„1&7„,I 7 +127y (1[+1/2 )7z) 1& (7 + l 7y ), and 1]7 +il~7y for odd
& & &

parity.
Sector
(n] n2 n3 ) Representation States l(k) class Matching

ak„ ak ck,
(1,0,0) cos cos cos
2 2 2
ak ak ck,
(0, 1,0) cos cos sin I&II
2 2 2
ak„ aky ak,
(0,0, 1) B,„ sin sin sin I&II
2 2 2
ak ak ck,
B2g sin sin cos
2 2 2

l
sin —(k —k
a
2
) sin,
. «.
2
' sin
. —(k + k
2
a
) sin
ck,
2
U

E„ sin —
a
2
(k —k ) cos,
«,
2
.
' sin
—
a
2
(k„+k ) cos
ck,
2
I&II

(1,1,0) cos(ck, ) II
sin(ck, ) I&II

(0, 1, 1) A[g cos(ak„+cos(ak ) II F

(1,0, 1) B]g cos(ak ) — cos(ak ) II F
E„ [sin(ak ), sin(ak )] I&II U

(1, —1,0) A]g cos(ak„)cos(aky ) II

B2g sin(ak )sin(aky ) II
E„ [sin[a(k„+k )], sin[a(k, —k )]J I&II

[cos(ak, )+cos(ak )]cos(ck, )

[cos(ak„)+cos(ak )]sin(ck, ) I&II
B]g [cos(ak„—cos(ak» ) ]cos(ck, ) II F
B2u [cos(ak„) —cos(ak» )]sin(ek, ) I&II
Eg [sin(ak, )sin(ck, ), sin(ak )sin(ck, )] F
E„ [sin(ak„)cos(ek, ), sin(ak» )cos(ck, ) ] F

is distinctly the best choice because (1) the number of the
node planes is the smallest, (2) it belongs to class I, (3) the
SDW gap and the SC nodes are maximally overlapped,
and (4) the intersection with the FS s gives rise to line
nodes, which is consistent with the experiments.
VI. CeCu2Si2
A. Preliminaries
This material is the first heavy-fermion superconductor
which opened a new branch of physics. Yet it keeps giv-
ing us surprises. The recent finding of the static magnetic
ordering by the zero-field p, SR [Ref. 6(a)] urges us to
reconsider the physics of this system from the outset.
This is a first attempt toward this direction for these im-
portant materials.
The pSR experiment on CeCu2 &Siz points to two possi-
bilities to explain the appearance of the internal field
below T-0. 8 K, roughly the same temperature of the SC
transition (T, -0.
7 K); SDW or spin-glass transition.
The independent Si NMR experiments ' detect a sud-
den broadening of the distribution of the internal fields at
a certain temperature T~ under an applied field. The
zero-field extrapolation of T& in the NMR results
smoothly comes to T~ -0.
8 K, indicating that both
probes are seeing the same phenomenon. In addition, ac-
cording to Kitaoka et al. , there exists further evidence
for static SDW order competing the SC order: (1) The T
dependence of the nuclear relaxation rate (T, ' ) shows a
39 SUPERCONDUCTING CLASSES OF HEAVY-FERMION MATERIALS 4159

board peak at around T-0. 8 K under zero field. (2) Un-
der an applied field the internal field probed by the NMR
ceases to grow below T, . (3) The material CeCu, 9Siz
which exhibits no SC does not show the magnetic transi-
tion either. In view of the close proximity between the
SC and SD%' which is a common characteristic in the
HFS family, we regard it as a SDW transition.
The superconducting properties have been investigated
extensively for a long time. There is, however, little con-
sensus as to the precise nature of the pairing function, al-
though it is certainly unconventional. As T decreases,
the system becomes a Fermi-liquid state around T — = 1 —2
K below which T& T= const is obeyed. At T„T, ' does
not exhibit enhancement characteristics in an ordinary
BCS superconductor, indicative of unconventional pair-
ing. At lower temperatures, T, ' ~ T,which is con-
sistent with line nodes on FS. The thermal conductivity
( — T) is also consistent with the line node. The system
shows a substantial Knight shift ' below T, for both com-
ponents parallel and perpendicular to an external field,
implying that the parity of the pairing function is
definitely-even, not odd parity pinned to the crysta11ine
axis.
There is unfortunately neither the band structure cal-
culation available to examine a nesting feature, nor in-
formation of the SDW pattern in this system.
B. Group-theoretical classi6cation and possible states
The possible pairing states both for even and odd pari-
ty, which occur from the normal state and are compatible
with the given space group (I4/mmm, D~s ), are listed in
Tables VII and VIII. They are obtained from
exp[2iri(n&k, +nzk~+n3k3)]
within the sector ~n;~ ~ l. (Note that the space group is
the same as in URuzSiz, thus keeping the same rotations. )
Since the experiments strongly point to the even-parity
state, we consider only this possibility hereafter. We
have enumerated twelve even-parity states in Table VII.
We can reduce this number if we suppose that the SD%'
vector Q is commensurate with the underlying lattices:
namely, Q =(2ir/a, 0, 0) or Q, =(0, 0, 2ir/c), then we
can specify the operation
b, (k+Q) =+A.(k ) .
Under this assumption, only a few states remain which
belong to class I, all others belong to class II unfavorable
to the SDW. Namely, we obtain

TABLE VII. Superconducting states with even parity from the normal state in D4&. The states are enumerated within the sector
~n;~ 1. The classification in the fourth co1umn is done according to l(k+ Q ) =+l(k ) where Q=(2ir/a, 0 0) or (0 0 2ir/c ).
~

Representation Order parameter Irreducible basis l(k) Class

A»gS l(k )~o

cos
ak„aky
cos cos
ck,
2 2 2
cos(ak„)+ cos(aky )
cos(ck, )
cos(ak )cos(aky )
[cos(ak„) + cos(ak» ) ]cos(ck, )
AqgS none

B,gS —cos(aky )
cos(ak
)
—
[cos(ak„) cos(ak» )]cos(ck, )

ak aky ck,
BpgS sin
2
sin cos
2 2
sin(ak„)sin(aky )

Eg S l, (k )~o (l» lz)

[l, (k)+I~(k)]ro (sin(ak„)sin(ck, ), sin(aky )sin(ck, ))

[l, (k )+i1,(k)]r() sin —

a
(k +k
X y ) sin,
~
ck,
2
—a
' sin
2
{k„—
k ) sin
ck,
2
4160 MASA-AKI OZAKI AND KAZUSHIGE MACHIDA 39

TABLE VIII. Superconducting states with odd parity from the norma1 state in D&I, . The states are enumerated within the sector
fn, ]~i.
Representation Order parameter Irreducible basis l(k)
A, „gS' l(k)r, none
l(k )(z„+i~y )
t'

ak~
A, „gS' akim akim
l(k )~, cos cos cos
2 2 2
l(k )(w +i ~y ) sin(ck, )

[cos(ak, )+ cos(ak» )]sin(ck, )

ak ck,
B,„S '
l(k)~, sin
2
sin(ak~ )sin ' 2
l(k)(~ +i~ )

B,„gs' l(k)~, [cos(ak„) —cos(ak, )]sin(ck, )

l(k)(~ +i~ )

E„g S' l [(k )g, (l), l2)

[1,(k )+ 12(k ) ]r, (sin(ak ), sin(ak ))
[l, (k)+il, (k)]r, (sina(k„+ k~ ), sina(k —k ) )
l& (k)(w +i ~~ ) (sin(ak„)cos(ck, ), sin(akim )cos(ck, ) )
[1)(k )+ l, (k ) ](r„+1ry )

[1,(k )+ il~(k ) ](r„+1ry ) sin —(k +k

2
) cos, ck.
2
.
' sin —
a
2
(k —k ) cos
ck,
2
l](k )7 + l2(k )7y
l] (k )w + il2(k )~y

ak ak ck,
b, „(k =cos
[g
)
2
cos
2
cos
2
&p

b, s (k)=sin
ak
sin
gk„ck,
cos &p p
2g 2 2 2

= sin —( k + k ck,
g'E" ( k ) ) sin 7p (6. 1)
2 2

ck,
b, '~'(k )
= sin —
a
(k + +k y ) +1 sin —
a
(k X —k ) sin 7p
2 2

—(kx +ky ) —(k x —k ek,

g /g3 (k)= sin +sin ) sin 7p
2 2 2

We cannot proceed further to narrow down the possible superconductors; UPt3, (U, Th)Be», URuzSi~, and
states without the detailed band. calculation or informa- CeCu2Si2, namely, a close proximity between the magne-
tion on the Fermi surface topology and the structure of tism and unconventional pairing state, we gave a general
the SDW. framework on how to identify the superconducting
classes, compatible with given space-group symmetry.
VII. DISCUSSIONS AND SUMMARY We took into account the existence of the SDW above T,
Stimulated by recent remarkable findings which lead to in UPt3 and URuzSiz and below T, in (U, Th)Be» and
a common feature of all four known heavy-fermion CeCu2Si2 to enumerate the pairing states. The Landau
39 SUPERCONDUCTING CLASSES OF HEAVY-FERMION MATERIALS
subordination scheme for the second-order phase transi-
tion effectively narrows down the possible states. The
enumerated states are quite general, independent of par-
ticular models or pairing interaction forms. Then we
gave some physical arguments on the relative stability
among the allowed states. Within the limited data avail-
able at present, we attempted to reduce the number of the
possible pairing states and pointed out the most plausible
candidates for each material.
Here we give supplementary discussions for some of
the materials and propose possible experiments.
A. Upt,
The ultrasonic-attenuation measurements, under an
applied field by Muller et al. and gian et al. , detect a
sharp anomaly well below H, 2, indicative of a field-
induced phase transition. Volovik interprets it as aris-
ing from the phase transition associated with vortex-
lattice structure change. He assumes that a pairing state
belonging to the two-dimensional E representation
among D6(E) at zero field is split into the states belong-
ing to the one-dimensional representation due to the hex-
agonal symmetry breaking in the basal plane under a
field. This interesting interpretation, however, does not
match with our identification in Sec. III. In our
classification scheme there are no states belonging to E
representation because the hexagonal symmetry is al-
ready broken by the preexisting SDW as shown in Sec.
III B. In our opinion, these experiments deserve further
theoretical investigation.
g. (U, „Th„)Bel3
The origin of the second transition at T, 2 for x & 0. 017
is much debated and actively discussed from various as-
pects. There are two opinions; one is due to the SDW
which is to coexist with the SC as ours, and the other is
due to the phase change between different classes of pair-
ing states. The most thorough study on the latter point
of view is done by Sigrist and Rice, who account for the
appearance of the internal field below T, 2 by identifying
the low-temperature phase as some nonunitary state. A
crucial difference between ours and their theory lies in
the different interpretation on the origin of the static
internal field; whether it is a static long-range order
(SDW) as ours, or randomly distributed internal fields
carried by individual Cooper pairs as othe''s. This could
be distinguished by the neutron diffraction experiment.
An interesting aspect of the phase diagram in T versus
x of these materials is the possible existence of the quar-
ternary critical point at x,„-=0.017, where the four
second-order transition lines meet as shown in Fig. 4.
The missing fourth line, which separates the states in
Class I coexisting with SDW and the states in Class II,
might run nearly vertically, making its detection hard.
We believe that much physics can be explored near this
concentration region.
chschwalbe et al. , '
Here we comment on the experiment by Rau-
who observe an enhancement of
4161
the lower critical field Hc& below T,2, which leads them to
propose the phase transition between different pairing
states where the lower-temperature phase gains an addi-
tional SC condensation energy by opening an energy gap
of a different state on a different part of the FS. It is pos-
sible, however, to gain additional condensation energy by
inducing the anomalous pairing state:
~Q ~ (Ck+Qtc —kL ~
which is allowed under the coexistence phase between SC
and SDW because a coupling term 6Mb & in the free en-
ergy expression is always possible on symmetry reason,
and this coupling inevitably induced 6& which is not
translationally symmetric.
C. URu2Siz
According to the specific-heat and NMR experiments,
30 —40% of the total Fermi surface is annihilated by the
formation of the SDW below Tz. A.s mentioned in Sec.
V, the nesting does not seem to be so good since only a
small portion of the FS is gapped by the SDW. We point
out, however, that to evaluate the portion of the gapped
region on the FS, we must consider the effective masses in
that region, which are dynamically enhanced, in addition
to the topology of the Fermi-surface shape.
D. Theoretical issues
Here we like to discuss some controversial issues on
the theoretical side of the heavy-fermion superconduc-
tivity: Although we have assigned an odd-parity state as
a most possible state in UPt3, a prevailing idea contra-
dicts this choice in favor of an even-parity state for the
following two reasons: (a) All the odd-parity states in the
strong spin-orbit limit have point nodes. (s) The attrac-
tive interaction arising from the SDW fluctuations
favors even parity d-wave-like states over odd-parity
states.
Concerning (1), we have already given detailed argu-
ments in Sec. IIID in connection with UPt3. We only
point out here the experimental fact that all four HFS's
show line nodes of the SC gap in common, and refer the
argument by Miyake again that the effective spin-orbit-
coupling field by a Cooper pair is not necessarily the
strong limit.
Concerning (2), as pointed out in Sec. III D already,
the RPA type calculation done by Scalapino et al. can
lead to an attractive interaction for some of the odd-
parity states. The important factor here is the com-
bined symmetry; parity symmetry and the translation
symmetry by Q.
As for the origin of the pairing mechanism, the spin-
Auctuation theory proposed by Scalapino et al. should
be extended to the case where the SDW is ordered. The
spectrum of the dynamical spin susceptibility, which
plays an important role of mediating the attractive in-
teraction, is certainly modified by the long-range order.
This would show up in a more delicate interplay between
two long-range orderings beyond our mean-field picture,
although the overall picture gained does not alter.
4162 MASA-AKI OZAKI AND KAZUSHIGE MACHIDA
In this connection we should mention that the SDW in
these HFS's itself is very anomalous, reAecting the
dynamical nature of the so-called Kondo coherent state
in the normal state. The saturation moments (po) are ex-
tremely small compared to the high-temperature effective
moment p, s. (CeCuzSi2' pp 0, 1/p ft 2 68' UPt3..
0.02/2. 6-2. 9; and URu2Si2. 0.02/3. 51). The remark-
able example is that dilute doping of the Th or Pd in
UPt3 increases po by a factor of 30, yet the SDW patterns
are exactly the same. The T dependence of the SDW or-
der parameter in UPt3 deviates from the mean-field be-
havior.
All experiments on the four HFS's point to line nodes
of the SC gap in common ' except for the specific-heat
measurements' on CeCu2Siz ( —T )and'UBe&3
(— T ) and the London-penetration-depth measure-
ment on UBe» indicative of point nodes. As pointed
out by Varma, these thermodynamic quantities might
not reAect the topology of the gap node because the
asymptotic Fermi-liquid state is not reached even below
T„making the identification of the node topology from
equilibrium properties unreliable compared to transport
properties. Although we do not have a definite answer
why the line node is common, we do observe that the
pairing states in which we take into account the lattice
periodicity often have periodically placed node planes
perpendicular to the translation vector whose intersec-
tion with multisheeted Fermi surfaces easily gives rise to
the line nodes of the SC gap.
We propose the following experiments to identify the
pairing states:
(1) The electron tunneling experiment helps to locate
*Present address: Department of Physics, Kyoto University,
Kyoto, 606 Japan.
'T. M. Rice, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 26, Suppl. 26-3, 1865 (1987); A.
I. Goldman, ibid. 26, 1887 (1987); Z. Fisk, H. R. Ott, and G.
Aeppli, ibid. 26, 1882 (1987).
~Z. Fisk, D. W. Hess, C. J. Pethick, D. Pines, J. L. Smith, J. D.
Thompson, and J. O. Willis, Science 239, 33 (1988).
C. M. Varma, Physica 148B, 17 (1987).
4K. Miyake, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 63dk64, 411 (1987).
5G. Aeppli, E. Bucher, C. Broholm, J. K. Kjems, J. Baumann,
and J. Hufnagl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 615 (1988).
(a) Y. J. Uemura, W. J. Kossler, X. H. Yu, H. E. Schone, J. R.
Kempton, C. E. Stronach, S. Barth, F. N. Gygax, B. Hitti, A.
Schenck, C. Baines, W. F. Lank ford, Y. Onuki, and T.
Komatsubara (unpublished); (b) C. Broholm, J. K. Kjems, W.
J. L. Buyers, P. Matthews, T. T. Palstra, A. A. Menovsky,
and J. A. Mydosh. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1467 (1988).
R. H. HeA'ner, D. W. Cooke, and D. E. MacLaughlin, in
Theoretical and Experimental Aspects of Valence Flucutations
and Heavy Fermions, edited by L. C. Gupta and S. K. Malik
(Plenum, New York, 1987).
8S. Barth, H. R. Ott, F. N. Gygax, B. Hitti, E. Lippelt, A.
Schenck, C. Baines, B. van den Brandt, T. Konter, and S.
Mango, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2991 (1987) ~
H. Nakamura, Y. Kitaoka, K. Asayama, and J. Flouquet, The
Annual Meeting of Japan Physical Society at Koriyama,
April, 1988.
ioA. K. Gangopadhyay, J. S. Schilbling, E. Schubert, P.
39
the position of the gap node. (We only know preliminary
results on UPt3. ) The doping experiments in (U, Th), Pt3
and U(Pt, Pd)3 should be done for small doping regions to
see the relationship between the suppression of T, and
rapid growth of the spontaneous moment.
(2) (U, Th )Be,3 is an extremely interesting system.
To establish the phase diagram T versus x, the experi-
ment near x -0. 017 is waited. We believe that there is a
good chance to hit the missing fourth transition line. We
also like to see the specific-heat behavior in UBe, 3 and
)
also the system with x 0. 017 at very low temperatures
to confirm the line nodes in both regions.
(3) The detailed neutron diffraction in URu2Si2 should
be done to see the subtle change of M below T, associated
with the coexistence. The existing data '"' available are
too coarse to see this interplay.
(4) The elastic neutron diffraction experiment on
CeCuzSi2 is highly required to confirm the long-range na-
ture of the SDW below T&-0. 7 K under zero field and
also under applied field. The change of the magnetic ex-
citation spectrum below T„which can be observed by
the inelastic neutron experiment, might help to identify
the origin of the pairing mechanism.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank M. Kato for collaboration on some of the
present work, and M. Norman and T. Oguchi for provid-
ing their results prior to publication. We are grateful to
Y. Kitaoka, K. Asayama, Y. Onuki, T. Komatsubara, G.
Aeppli, J. L. Smith, and D. E. MacLaughlin for discus-
sions on their experiments.
Gutsmiedl, F. Gross, K. Andres, H. D. Yang, and R. N. Shel-
ton, Bull. Amer. Phys. Soc. 33, 363 (1988).
' K. Machida and M. Kato, Phys. Rev. Lett.
58, 1986 (1987).
M. Kato and K. Machida, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 56, 2136 (1987).
~3M. Kato, K. Machida, and M. Ozaki, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 26,
Suppl. 26-3, 1245 {1987).
M. Kato and K. Machida, Phys. Rev. B 37, 1510 (1988).
K. Machida and M. Kato, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 1, 277 (1988).
6K. Machida and M. Ozaki, Physica C 157, 53 (1989).
'"G. E. Volovik and L. P. Gor'kov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 88,
1412 (1985) [Sov. Phys.— JETP 61, 843 (1985)].
K. Ueda and T. M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B 31, 7114 (1985).
i E. I.
Blount, Phys. Rev. B 32, 2935 (1985).
M. Ozaki, K. Machida, and T. Ohmi, Prog. Theor. Phys. 74,
221 (1985); 75, 442 (1986).
M. Ozaki, J. Math. Phys. 26, 1514 (1985); 26, 1521 (1985); and
also see Prog. Theor. Phys. 62, 1183 (1979); 67, 83 (1982); 67,
415 (1982).
C. J. Bradley and A. P. Cracknell, The Mathematical Theory
of Symmetry in Solids (Clarendon, Oxford, 1972).
Y. Kohori, T. Kohara, H. Shibai, Y. Oda, T. Kaneko, Y. Ki-
taoka, and K. Asayama, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 56, 2263 (1987); 57,
395 {1988).
"D. J. Scalapino, E. Loh, Jr. , and J. E. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. B 34,
8190 (1986).
K. Miyake, S. Schmitt-Rink„and C. M. Varma, Phys. Rev. B
34, 6554 (1986), and also see M. T. Beal-Monod, C. Bourbon-
nais, and V. J. Emery, Phys. Rev. B 34, 7716 (1986).
39 SUPERCONDUCTING CLASSES OF HEAVY-FERMION MATERIALS
G. Aeppli, A. Goldman, G. Shirane, E. Bucher, and M. -Ch.
Lux-Steiner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 808 (1987)
~
G. E. Brodale, R. A. Fisher, N. E. Phillips, G. R. Stewart, and
A. L. Giorgi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 234 (1986).
The previous muon experiment already suggests a magnetic
phenomenon in UPt3. D. W. Cooke, R. H. Heffner, R. L.
Hutson, M. E. Schillaci, J. L. Smith, J. O. Willis, D. E. Mac-
Laughlin, C. Boekema, R. L. Lichti, A. B. Denison, and J.
Oostens, Hyperfine Interact. 31, 425 (1986).
A. I. Goldman, G. Shirane, G. Aeppli, B. Batlogg, and E.
Bucher, Phys. Rev. B 34, 6564 (1986); A. P. Ramirez, B.
Batlogg, E. Bucher, and A. S. Cooper, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57,
1072 (1986).
3 P. Frings, B. Renker, and C. Vettier, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.
63464, 202 (1987).
J. J. M. Franse, K. Kadowaki, A. A. Menovsky, M. van
Sprang, and A. de Visser, J. Appl. Phys. 61, 3380 (1987).
T. Oguchi, A. J. Freeman, and G. W. Crabtree, Phys. Lett. A
117, 428 (1986).
C. S. Wang, M. R. Norman, R. C. Albers, A. M. Boring, W.
E. Pickett, H. Krakauer, and N. E. Christensen, Phys. Rev. B
35, 7260 (1987).
3~M. R. Norman, R. C. Albers, A. M. Boring, and N. E.
Christensen, Solid State Commun. 68, 245 (1988).
L. Taillefer, R. Newbury, G. G. Lonzarich, Z. Fisk, and J. L.
Smith, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 63&64, 372 (1987).
L. Taillefer and G. G. Lonzarich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1570
(1988).
B. Batlogg (private communication).
3sK. Miyake, in Theory of Heavy Fermions and Valence Fluctua
tions, edited by T. Kasuya and T. Saso (Springer-Verlag, New
York, 1985), p. 256.
M. Kato and K. Machida {unpublished).
4oF. C. Zhang and T. K. Lee, Phys. Rev. B 35, 3651 (1987).
W. Putikka and R. Joynt, Phys. Rev. B 37, 2372 (1988).
4~M. R. Norman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 232 (1987); Phys. Rev. B
37, 4987 (1988).
43C. J. Pethick, D. Pines, K. F. Quader, K. S. Bedall, and G. E.
Brown, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 1955 (1986).
44E. Bucher, J. P. Maita, G. W. Hull, R. C. Fukton, and A. S.
Cooper, Phys. Rev. B 11, 440 (1975).
45R. H. Heffner, D. W. Cooke, Z. Fisk, R. L. Hutson, M. E.
Schillaci, J. L. Smith, J. O. Willis, D. E. MacLaughlin, C.
Boekema, R. L. Lichti, A. B. Denison, and J. Oostens, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 57, 1255 (1986).
D. E. MacLaughlin, C. Tien, W. G. Clark, M. D. Lan, Z. Fisk,
J. L. Smith, and H. R. Ott, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 1853 (1984).
47R. Joynt, T. M. Rice, and K. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 1412
(1986).
G. E. Volovik and D. E. Khmel'nitskii, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor.
Fiz. 40, 469 (1984) [JETP Lett. 40, 1299 (1984)].
L. P. Gor'kov and P. A. Kalugin, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.
41, 208 (1985) [JETP Lett. 41, 253 (1985)].
V. V. Moshchalkov and K. Svozil, Phys. Lett. A 120, 356
(1987).
5'U. Rauchschwalbe, C. D. Bredel, F. Steglich, K. Maki, and P.
Fulde, Europhys. Lett. 3, 757 (1987).
U. Rauchschwalbe, F. Steglich, G. R. Stewart, A. L. Giorgi,
P. Fulde, and K. Maki, Europhys. Lett. 3, 751 (1987).
P. Kumar and P. Wolfe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 1954 (1987).
54I. A. Lukyanchuk and V. P. Mineev, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor.
Fiz. 47, 460 (1988) [JETP Lett. 47, 543 (1988)].
5~M. Sigrist and T. M. Rice (unpublished).
4163
56H. A. Mook, B. D. Gaulin, G. Aeppli, Z. Fisk, and J. L.
Smith, Bull. Amer. Phys. Soc. 32, 594 {1987).
57K. U. Neumann, H. Cappelman, Z. Fisk, J. L. Smith, and K.
R. A. Ziebeck, Solid State Commun. 60, 641 (1986). They
claim antiferromangetic Auctuations at different positions
along [111] direction in reciprocal space, but their result
seems less accurate. [See Goldman's article (Ref. 1) on this
point. ]
M. R. Norman, W. E. Pickett, H. Krakauer, and C. S. Wang,
Phys. Rev. B 36, 4058 (1987).
M. B. Maple (unpublished).
T. Kohara, Y. Kohori, K. Asayama, Y. Kitaoka, M. B. Ma-
ple, and M. S. Torikachvili, Solid State Commun. 59, 603
(1986).
T. T. M. Palstra, A. A. Menovsky, J. van den Berg, A. J. Dirk-
maat, P. H. Kes, G. J. Nieuwenhuys, and J. A. Mydosh,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2727 (1985).
6~M. B. Maple, J. W. Chen, Y. Dalichaouch, T. Kohara, C.
Rossel, M. S. Torikachvili, M. W. McElfresh, and J. D.
Thompson, Phys, Rev. Lett. 56, 185 (1986).
D. E. MacLaughlin, D. W. Cooke, R. H. Heffner, R. L. Hut-
son, M. W. McElfresh, M. E. Schillaci, C. Boekema, R. L.
Lichti, and J. Oostens, Phys. Rev. B 37, 3153 (1988).
T. Kohara, Y. Kohori, K. Asayama, Y. Kitaoka, M. B. Ma-
ple, and S. Torikachvili, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 26, Suppl. 26-3,
1247 (1987).
65T. Fukase, Y. Koike, T. Nakanomyo, Y. Shiokawa, A. A.
Menovsky, J. A. Mydosh, and P. H. Kes, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys.
26, Suppl. 26-3 1249 (1987).
Y. Kitaoka, K. Ueda, Y. Kohori, T. Kohara and K. Asayama,
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. (to be published).
M. R. Norman (private commuriication).
8Y. Kitaoka and K. Asayama (private communication).
Y. Kitaoka, K. Ueda, K. Kohori, K. Asayama, Y. Onuki, and
T. Karnatsubara, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 52, 341 (1985).
7oG. Spam, W. Lieke, U. Gottwick, F. Steglich, and N. Grewe,
J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 47448, 521 (1985).
K. Ueda, Y. Kitaoka, H. Yamada, Y. Kohori, T. Kohara, and
K. Asayama, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 56, 867 (1987).
There exists a band calculation on CeCu&Si~: J. Sticht, N.
d'Ambrumenil, and J. Kubler, Z. Phys. B 65, 149 (1986).
However, it is hard to see the FS topology from their calcula-
tion.
V. Muller, Ch. Roth, D. Mauer, E. W. Scheidt, K. Luders, E.
Bucher, and H. E. Bornrnel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1224 (1987).
74Y. J. Qian, M. -F. Xu, A. Schenstrom, H. -P. Baum, J. B. Ket-
terson, D. Hinks, M. Levy, and B. K. Sarma, Solid State
Commun. 63, 599 {1987).
75G. E. Volovik, J. Phys. C 21, L221 (1988).
K. Machida, K. Nokura, and T. Matsubara, Phys. Rev. Lett.
44, 821 (1980).
This point is also stressed by several authors in connection
with high-T, oxide superconductors: K. Machida and M.
Kato, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 26, Suppl. 26-3, 1150 (1987); M.
Sigrist and T. M. Rice, Z. Phys. B 68, 9 (1987); J. F. Annett,
M. Randeria, and S. R. Renn, Phys. Rev. B 38, 4660 (1988);
M. Ozaki and K. Machida, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 57, 398 {1988);
M. Kato, Y. Suzmura, Y. Okabe, and K. Machida, J. Phys.
Soc. Jpn. 57, 726 (1988).
D. Einzel, P. J. Hirschfeld, F. Gross, B. S. Chandrasekhar, K.
Andres, H. R. Ott, J. Beuers, Z. Fisk, and J. L. Smith, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 56, 2513 (1986).