> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Report of the First Referee -- BN13654/Kent-Dobias > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The work deals with a purely phenomenological model for the “hidden” > order parameter if URu2Si2, with particular emphasis on the expected > elastic properties. The work might eventually be suitable for Phys. > Rev. B, but some aspects are not clear to me. > > The main result is Fig. 2, where the behavior around TN is difficult > to see. I suggest to add zooms on that crucial T-range, where it seems > to me that there is a qualitative difference between model and > experiments. The justification given by the Authors (“mean field > theory—which is based on a small-eta expansion—will not work > quantitatively far below the transition where eta has a large nonzero > value and higher powers in the free energy become important”) does not > look plausible as the disagreement does not appear to develop slowly > as T decreases, but appears immediately below TN, where eta is small. The gross disagreement between the data and theory below the transition is resolved by the addition of another interaction in the mean-field free energy of the form ε²η². In a new appendix, we have worked through the mean field modulus implied with this new interaction and a fit is now shown in Fig. 2 as a dashed black line. Though fine features of the low-temperature behavior are not reproduced, the addition of further terms in the mean-field free energy supply finer corrections. For instance, another correction at order η_*² (roughly linear in ΔT) is produced by a term of the form ε⁴, while myriad terms at yet higher order provide corrections of order η_*⁴ and up (quadratic and up in ΔT). Higher order corrections to the mean-field free energy produce arbitrary analytic corrections to the low-temperature behavior, but do not influence predictions above the transition. Those can only be further fit by more complicated dependence of the present free-energy parameters on temperature and pressure. An inset with a zoom on the critical region has been added to the figure. > Is it not clear how discriminatory is the agreement above TN in 2a, 2b > and 2c. Are calculation results robust over a wide range of fitting > parameters, or does the agreement result from a fine-tuning? (e.g., > the presence of a maximum at 120 K in 2b). In order to check the agreement in our fit, we preformed the fit with a moving temperature window that cuts off at T_max. Our fit's parameters are x_i for i = 1, …, 5 for C₀ = x₁ - x₂ (T / K), x₃ = a/b², x₄ = b²/Dq⁴, and x₅ = b √(-g/u). The variation of these parameters as a function of T_max are shown in referee_response_cutoff_parameters.pdf. The parameter x₁ is fairly stable at all temperature cutoffs, while the rest vary by 2—5x their 275K value down to cutoffs of ~90K. More insight into the consistency of the fit comes from examining the linear combinations of parameters that form eigenvectors of the fit covariance matrix, since—unlike the natural parameters of the mean field theory—these have uncorrelated uncertainties. For the fit including all temperatures (up to 275K), these are (in order of fit uncertainty): y₁ = -0.0016 x₁ + 1.6 10⁻⁶ x₂ - 1.0 x₃ - 0.0020 x₄ - 0.0044 x₅ y₂ = -0.017 x₁ + 0.000043 x₂ - 0.0043 x₃ - 0.023 x₄ + 1.0 x₅ y₃ = -0.62 x₁ + 0.0018 x₂ + 0.0027 x₃ - 0.78 x₄ - 0.029 x₅ y₄ = -0.78 x₁ + 0.0068 x₂ + 0.000041 x₃ + 0.62 x₄ + 0.0012 x₅ y₅ = 0.0064 x₁ + 1.0 x₂ - 3.3 10⁻⁶ x₃ - 0.0028 x₄ - 4.4 10⁻⁷ x₅ The variation of these parameter combinations as a function of T_max are shown in referee_response_cutoff_eigenvectors.pdf. The parameter y₁, which is principally x₃ = a/b², varies the most with the cutoff, at most around 5x its value until ~90K. The parameter y₂, which is principally x₅ = b √(-g/u), varies at most around 1.5x its value until ~90K. The other three parameters are stable at any cutoff, and are mixed combinations of x₁, x₂, and x₄. Notably, x₁ and x₂ are the only parameters involved in transforming the experimental data in Figure 2(d), and their stability as a function of the data window means that transformation is likewise stable. Plots of the fits performed between 90 and 275 K are shown in referee_response_cutoff_curves.pdf. > Is it possible to say something about the c/a ratio, which displays a > non-trivial T-dependence? The behaviour of c/a is indeed interesting, but our model only considers the coupling to the two in-plane shear strains, since it is one of these that shows the anomalous behaviour. To talk about the c/a ratio we would have to introduce coupling between the order parameter and the A1g strains (\epsilon_xx + \epsilon_yy, and \epsilon_zz). Because the order parameter we consider breaks both translational and (locally) point-group symmetries, this coupling would be quadratic-in-order-parameter, linear-in-strain, and would thus be generic to any order parameter. Put more simply - our model has special coupling to a particular shear strain, whereas the c/a ratio is related to compresisonal strains, which couples to our order parameter in the same way as it does to any other (non-A_1g) order parameter. > At last, I understand that the model is meant to be purely > phenomenological, but given the plethora of publications on URu2Si2 > over 30 years, where any conceivable order parameter has been proposed > as candidate, the Authors should make a connection between their > abstract OP and possible physical realizations. For instance, in the > simplest framework of localized f-electrons, what ionic moments would > fit the present proposal? In a picture of localized U-5f electrons this This is a consistent with hexadecapolar order [Mike, can you help with this?] [Yes I think he can! And it's a good point] > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Report of the Second Referee -- BN13654/Kent-Dobias > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > In this paper, possible elastic properties of URu2Si2 are studied with > focusing on the long-standing hidden order (HO) problem. The authors > introduce a generic form of the free energy density for the elastic > energy, a modulated order parameter, and their mutual coupling, and > analyze the temperature dependences of the elastic constants by > minimizing the free energy. It is shown that the B1g component > exhibits a remarkable softening with decreasing temperature and a cusp > singularity at the HO transition point, and these results are compared > with recent ultrasound experiments. From the comparison, the authors > conclude that the HO phase of URu2Si2 originates from the modulated > B1g order parameter. > > In the course of evaluation, the referee does not recommend the paper > to be published in PRB, mainly based on the following reason. > > 1) The scheme for the coupled strains in this paper is quite standard > within the mean-field treatment and does not provide a novel > theoretical advance. What our manuscript provides is a new way of interpreting a very clear experimental signature - that is, nearly perfect Curie-Weiss 1/(T-T_0) in (c11-c12)/2. We show that a staggered nematic order parameter explains this behaviour. We agree that coupling strains and order parameters is not new, but we do not believe that every scientific advance has to be accompanied by new mathematical machinery for its own sake. Mean-field-theory happens to work quite well here, and allows us to make clear symmetry-based statements. In addition, the incorporation of gradient terms into the mean-field free energy in the context of interpreting ultrasound data appears novel. > 2) One can generically expect several sources for softening elastic > constants. For example, the authors in ref.25 also succeeded in the > quantitative fits in the framework of a 4f crystal field model for T > > T_HO. Thus, the fitting is not regarded as the decisive evidence on > the validity of the model. There are a couple of very important distinctions to be made between our work and the work of ref. 25 (K. Kuwahara et al.), which as the referee points out, also identified softening in (c11-c12)/2. First, the data in ref. 25 (figure 2c) appear to be contaminated by the c66 mode, based on the fact that the peak in c66 appears around 60 K. In the work of T. Yanagisawa et al (Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 82 (2013) 013601), the peak is at 130 K, and the elastic constant softens back down to its room-temperature value by T_HO. The data we show in figure 2b, obtained with resonant ultrasound, also shows a maximum at around 130 K, and also softens to its room-temperature value by T_HO. The contamination in ref. 25 is likely an artifact of the pulse-echo ultrasound technique, which can mix between c66 and (c11-c12)/2 when the crystal is not perfectly aligned. Perhaps more importantly, the fit shown in figure 4 of ref 25 does not show very good agreement with the data at any temperature. The model used is one for thermally-populated crystal field levels, and has nothing to do with the phase transition at T_HO. This model does not produce the sharp change in slope of (c11-c12)/2 at T_HO, which is an essential singularity in the thermodynamic free energy and must appear in the elastic moduli, and it does not produce 1/(T-T_0) strain susceptibility above T_HO, which is a signature of strain and order parameter coupling. > 3) The agreement of C[B1g] in the region T the cusp at T_HO seems qualitatively consistent with the experiment. > Moreover, the referee expects that even a cusp structure in the > elastic constants is not unique to this model; it can be obtained from > more general models beyond the linear coupling (4), within the > mean-field level. Therefore, the referee thinks that this analysis > does not lead uniquely to the authors' arguments on the realization of > the B1g order parameter. The gross disagreement between the data and theory below the transition is resolved by the addition of another interaction in the mean-field free energy of the form ε²η². In a new appendix, we have worked through the mean field modulus implied with this new interaction and a fit is now shown in Fig. 2 as a dashed black line. Though fine features of the low-temperature behavior are not reproduced, the addition of further terms in the mean-field free energy supply finer corrections. For instance, another correction at order η_*² (roughly linear in ΔT) is produced by a term of the form ε⁴, while myriad terms at yet higher order provide corrections of order η_*⁴ and up (quadratic and up in ΔT). Higher order corrections to the mean-field free energy produce arbitrary analytic corrections to the low-temperature behavior, but do not influence predictions above the transition. Those can only be further fit by more complicated dependence of the present free-energy parameters on temperature and pressure. While terms that modify the behavior below the transition provide cusp-like features in the modulus for each strain symmetry, they cannot explain the 1/ΔT softening seen in the high-temperature phase, since their contribution to the response function is zero above T_c. Likewise, mean field theories with a uniform order parameter cannot explain the finite value of the modulus at the transition. > 4) The most important point in the HO problem is the microscopic > identification of symmetry breaking and the order parameter. In spite > of the long history in research over almost 40 years, there is no > experimental evidence of the formation of any superlattice structure > at least at ambient pressure. So, the proposed modulated order is not > consistent with the absence or identification of symmetry breaking. > The authors do not provide any resolution on that point which is the > most relevant in this problem. The articles below, also cited in our work, all provide experimental evidence for the formation of superlattice structure along the c-axis at ambient pressure. [I pulled these from our citation on the estimate for q_*. Do they actually provide the evidence we need? Can someone who knows more about these techniques elaborate?] https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.127002 https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.43.12809 https://journals.jps.jp/doi/10.1143/JPSJ.79.064719 https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys522