No Arabic abstract
The heavy-fermion metal YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ realizes a field-induced quantum critical point with multiple vanishing energy scales $T_{rm N}(B)$ and $T^ast(B)$. We investigate their change with partial non-isoelectronic substitutions, chemical and hydrostatic pressure. Low-temperature electrical resistivity, specific heat and magnetic susceptibility of Yb(Rh$_{1-x}$T$_x$)$_2$Si$_2$ with T=Fe or Ni for $xleq 0.1$, magnetic fields $Bleq 0.3$~T (applied perpendicular to the c-axis) and hydrostatic pressure $pleq 1.5$~GPa are reported. The data allow to disentangle the combined influences of hydrostatic and chemical pressure, as well as non-isoelectronic substitution. In contrast to Ni- and Co-substitution, which enhance magnetic order, Fe-substitution acts oppositely. For $x=0.1$ it also completely suppresses the $T^ast$ crossover and eliminates ferromagnetic fluctuations. The pressure, magnetic field and temperature dependences of $T^ast$ are incompatible with its interpretation as Kondo breakdown signature.
In Ref. 1, Schubert et al. [Phys. Rev. Research 1, 032004 (2019)] reported measurements of the isothermal magnetoresistance of Fe- and Ni-substituted YbRh$_2$Si$_2$, based on which they raised questions about the Kondo destruction description for the magnetic field-induced quantum critical point (QCP) of pristine YbRh$_2$Si$_2$. Here we make three points. Firstly, as shown by studies on pristine YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ in Paschen et al. and Friedemann et al., isothermal crossed-field and single-field Hall effect measurements are necessary to ascertain the evolution of the Fermi surface across this QCP. Because Schubert et al. did not carry out such measurements, their results on Fe- and Ni-substituted YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ cannot be used to assess the validity of the Kondo destruction picture neither for substituted nor for pristine YbRh$_2$Si$_2$. Secondly, when referring to the data of Friedemann et al. on the isothermal crossover of YbRh$_2$Si$_2$, they did not recognize the implications of the crossover width, quantified by the full width at half maximum (FWHM), being linear in temperature, with zero offset, over about $1.5$ decades in temperature, from 30 mK to 1 K. Finally, in claiming deviations of Hall crossover FWHM data of Friedemann et al. from the above linear-in-$T$ dependence they neglected the error bars of these measurements and discarded some of the data points. The claims of Schubert et al. are thus not supported by data, neither previously published nor new (Ref. 1). As such they cannot invalidate the evidence that has been reported for Kondo destruction quantum criticality in YbRh$_2$Si$_2$.
Previously, we reported that the doping and pressure dependence of the $T^ast(B)$ crossover in YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ is incompatible with its interpretation as signature of a Kondo breakdown [M.-H. Schubert et al., Phys. Rev. Research 1, 032004(R) (2019)]. The comment by S. Wirth et al. [arXiv:1910.04108] refers to Hall measurements on undoped YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ and criticizes our study as incomplete and inconclusive. We thoroughly inspect these data and rebut the arguments of the comment.
We have used specific heat and neutron diffraction measurements on single crystals of URu$_{2-x}$Fe$_x$Si$_2$ for Fe concentrations $x$ $leq$ 0.7 to establish that chemical substitution of Ru with Fe acts as chemical pressure $P_{ch}$ as previously proposed by Kanchanavatee et al. [Phys. Rev. B {bf 84}, 245122 (2011)] based on bulk measurements on polycrystalline samples. Notably, neutron diffraction reveals a sharp increase of the uranium magnetic moment at $x=0.1$, reminiscent of the behavior at the hidden order (HO) to large moment antiferromagnetic (LMAFM) phase transition observed at a pressure $P_xapprox$ 0.5-0.7~GPa in URu$_2$Si$_2$. Using the unit cell volume determined from our measurements and an isothermal compressibility $kappa_{T} = 5.2 times 10^{-3}$ GPa$^{-1}$ for URu$_2$Si$_2$, we determine the chemical pressure $P_{ch}$ in URu$_{2-x}$Fe$_x$Si$_2$ as a function of $x$. The resulting temperature $T$-chemical pressure $P_{ch}$ phase diagram for URu$_{2-x}$Fe$_x$Si$_2$ is in agreement with the established temperature $T$-external pressure $P$ phase diagram of URu$_2$Si$_2$.
Structural phase transitions in $f$-electron materials have attracted sustained attention both for practical and basic science reasons, including that they offer an environment to directly investigate relationships between structure and the $f$-state. Here we present results for UCr$_2$Si$_2$, where structural (tetragonal $rightarrow$ monoclinic) and antiferromagnetic phase transitions are seen at $T_{rm{S}}$ $=$ 205 K and $T_{rm{N}}$ $=$ 25 K, respectively. We also provide evidence for an additional second order phase transition at $T_{rm{X}}$ = 280 K. We show that $T_{rm{X}}$, $T_{rm{S}}$, and $T_{rm{N}}$ respond in distinct ways to the application of hydrostatic pressure and Cr $rightarrow$ Ru chemical substitution. In particular, hydrostatic compression increases the structural ordering temperature, eventually causes it to merge with $T_{rm{X}}$ and destroys the antiferromagnetism. In contrast, chemical substitution in the series UCr$_{2-x}$Ru$_x$Si$_2$ suppresses both $T_{rm{S}}$ and $T_{rm{N}}$, causing them to approach zero temperature near $x$ $approx$ 0.16 and 0.08, respectively. The distinct $T-P$ and $T-x$ phase diagrams are related to the evolution of the rigid Cr-Si and Si-Si substructures, where applied pressure semi-uniformly compresses the unit cell and Cr $rightarrow$ Ru substitution results in uniaxial lattice compression along the tetragonal $c$-axis and an expansion in the $ab$-plane. These results provide insights into an interesting class of strongly correlated quantum materials where degrees of freedom associated with $f$-electron magnetism, strong electronic correlations, and structural instabilities are readily controlled.
In a recent paper, Custers {it et al.} cite{custers} argue for the existence of a new metallic quantum critical phase at 0 K in the Ge-doped heavy-fermion system YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ in the presence of magnetic frustration. In here we discuss the consequences of this identification for the (more standard) field induced quantum critical phase.