text:
# Soliton excitations as emitted clusters on nuclear surfaces

## I Introduction

There are different theoretical models which describe cluster formation and emission from nuclei, and most of them use nonlinear partial differential equations. A fundamental understanding of nonlinear terms in a nuclear model reveals new phenomena and shapes more complicated than linear theory suggests. In this paper we introduce a model for the cluster emission, based on soliton solutions of nonlinear equation.

Soliton structures have been analyzed within the frameworks of hydrodynamics, nonlinear optics, solid state and plasma physics. Experimental and theoretical results  suggest that solitons are non-dispersive, localized waves executing uniform motion that can be described by three interrelated parameters: amplitude $`A`$, half-width $`L`$, and velocity $`V`$. Furthermore, these structures arise as analytical solutions of non-linear dynamical systems, like the Korteweg de Vries (KdV) or Nonlinear Schrödinger (NLS) equations. Soliton theory has been applied many times in nuclear physics, so far. For exemple, it provided very good descriptions of some localized stable surface excitations , of spectroscopic factors in cluster and $`\alpha `$ emission , and of quasimolecular spectra for $`\alpha `$ plus heavy nuclei collisions, . Also, the cubic and quintic NLS equations were used in three-dimensional models for cluster emission , providing results in very good agreement with TDHF simulations.

In order to look for the possibility of describing nuclear phenomena such as cluster emission  by soliton formation on the nuclear surface, it is necessary to assign a microscopic structure to the parent heavy nucleus and the emitted soliton cluster. The microscopic substructure further allows one to add shell corrections to the usual macroscopic liquid drop energy and thus give a complete descripton of the system, from the initial nucleus with no soliton substructure to one with a soliton-like structure on its surface and on out to possible cluster emission.

A straightforward way to accomplish this is to calculate shell effects obtained from the single-particle levels of an asymmetric two-center shell model. One of the centers is placed in the middle of a small emitted sphere and the other is the center of the heavy fragment. This approach allows a microscopic description of the nuclear evolution from one to two independent quantum systems.

The procedure involves calculating the total potential energy as the sum of the macroscopic energy and shell corrections which is then minimized, which yields a barrier that increases as a function of the amplitude of the soliton. Calculations have been performed for two possible reactions:

248No $``$ 208Pb +40Ca

224Th $``$ 208Pb +16O

We select spherical daughters and emitted clusters, in order to fit the asymmetric two-center shell model we have constructed, which goes from one sphere (parent) to two necked spheres and then to separation.

In the present model, we describe cluster emission processes by using such soliton-like shapes on the nuclear surface of the heavy fragment. For a given cluster geometry, we calculate the corresponding soliton parameters ($`A`$, $`L`$, $`V`$) as functions of the separation parameter, that is along the static path of the cluster emission process.

Solitary waves have been shown recently to exist on liquid drops, bubbles, and shells . The non-linear hydrodynamic equations are related with the KdV and mKdV equation generating localized patterns ranging from small oscillations to nonlinear ones, including solitons. This model has a Hamiltonian structure, and such soliton-like excitations were observed experimentally when the shape oscillations of a droplet became nonlinear. It is therefore natural to extend that this model to other drop-like systems, from neutron stars to hyperdeformed nuclei and fission.

In the first section we define the deformation space we that we work with and the shapes that can be obtained therein. In the second section we give a short description of the macroscopic-microscopic model we used in the calculations. Emphazis has been given on the asymmetric two-center shell model we constructed in order to approach solitonic shapes. Results for the two reactions given above are presented in the third section.

## II Space of deformation

The problem of describing cluster emission (or nuclear fission) by a convenient parametrization of the shape is not new, and it is a decisive factor determining the amount of calculations. In the present model we use a new type of parametrization, described by soliton shapes. As well as the other parametrizations are in relation with the nuclear system and its quantization, the soliton parametrization is related to the KdV and mKdV dynamics of the soliton. Moreover, the soliton model takes profite from the high stability in time of such shapes. While in general one associates solitons with macroscopic pictures, it is nevertheless true that the soliton dynamics can be quantized  and the KdV (or mKdV) equations can be related to quantum systems like those described by Schrödinger equations, , as we noted above.

Solitons on the surface are described by two asymmetrical spheres smoothly joined one to another through a neck region (Fig. 1). There are three independent geometrical parameters which form the space of deformation: the distance $`R`$ between the centers of the two fragments, the emitted small sphere radius $`R_2`$ and the neck sphere radius $`R_3`$. The neck region is obtained by rolling a sphere of radius $`R_3`$ around the symmetry axis. Such shapes are generated by the following equation written in cylindrical coordinates:

$$\rho (z)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{R_1^2(zz_1)^2},& z_1R_1zz_{c1}\\ \rho _3\sqrt{R_3^2(zz_3)^2},& z_{c1}zz_{c2}\\ \sqrt{R_2^2(zz_2)^2},& z_{c2}zz_2+R_2\end{array}$$
(1)
where the quantities not shown in Fig. 1 are: $`z_3`$–the position of the center of the neck sphere on the symmetry axis, $`z_{c1}`$ and $`z_{c2}`$–the positions of the intersection planes of the two fragements spheres with the neck sphere, and $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$–the positions of the two spherical fragment centers. The heavy fragment radius $`R_1`$ is obtained from total nuclear volume conservation. The soliton solution along the $`\theta `$ direction

$$r_{surface}(\varphi ,\theta ,t)=A(\varphi ,t)\left[sech\frac{\theta Vt}{L}\right]^2$$
(2)
is characterized by the amplitude $`A`$, or the relative amplitude $`a=A/R_1`$, the half-width $`L`$, and the angular velocity $`V`$. The soliton solutions have a special shape–kinematic dependence, $`VA`$ and $`L1/\sqrt{A}`$, that is, a higher soliton is narrower and travels faster . This relation can be used to experimentally distinguish solitons from other normal modes of excitations (for example by calculating the reciprocal moment of inertia) . The amplitude of the soliton is related to the two-center shell model by the relation with $`A=RR_1+R_2`$. The halfwidth of the soliton is approximated with $`2\rho (z_{c2})`$, or with the diameter of the circular surface within the separation plane between the emitted sphere and the rest of the shape

$$L=\frac{2R_2A}{(1+a)(R_1R_2)}.$$
(3)
We mention that the cubic and quartic NLS equations are related to the mKdV equation by a very simple exponential transform, and actually there is no essential difference between the NLS and the mKdV solitons . As an example, we notice the connection between the KdV equation and the nuclear potential in the Schrödinger equation , or the relation between NLS solitons and coherent states . Some applications of the KdV or mKdV-solitons are macroscopic, but the soliton solutions can be quantified by standard procedures .

## III Macroscopic energy

The deformation energy $`E_{def}`$ is calculated in a macroscopic-microscopic approach:

$$E_{def}=E_{macro}+\delta E_{shell}+\delta P.$$
(4)
The macroscopic part $`E_{macro}`$ includes the shape-dependent components of the charged liquid drop:

$$E_{macro}=E_C+E_{Y+E},$$
(5)
where $`E_C`$ is the Coulomb energy and $`E_{Y+E}`$ is the surface or nuclear energy calculated within the Yukawa-plus-exponential model .

The Coulomb energy general form is the double-volume integral:

$$E_C=\frac{1}{2}_V_V\frac{\rho _e(r_1)\rho _e(r_2)d^3r_1d^3r_2}{r_{12}},$$
(6)
which is split into four parts, two of them being equal to one another :

$$E_C=\frac{\rho _{1e}^2}{2}_{V_1}d^3r_1_{V_1}\frac{d^3r_2}{r_{12}}+\rho _{1e}\rho _{2e}_{V_1}d^3r_1_{V_2}\frac{d^3r_2}{r_{12}}+\frac{\rho _{2e}^2}{2}_{V_2}d^3r_1_{V_2}\frac{d^3r_2}{r_{12}}$$
(7)
where $`r_{12}=|r_1r_2|`$. The first and the last terms represent the self-energies of the two fragments, and the middle term is the Coulomb interaction between the two fragments.

In cylindrical coordinates the three terms are given by:

$`E_c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _e^2}{10}}{\displaystyle _z^{}^{z^{\prime \prime }}}dz{\displaystyle _z^{}^{z^{\prime \prime }}}dz_1{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\phi {\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\phi _1(\rho ^2{\displaystyle \frac{z}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{z}})[\rho _1^2`$ (10)
$`\rho \rho _1\mathrm{cos}(\phi \phi _1)+\rho {\displaystyle \frac{\rho _1}{\phi _1}}\mathrm{sin}(\phi \phi _1)+{\displaystyle \frac{(zz_1)}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _1^2}{z_1}}][\rho ^2+`$
$`\rho _1^22\rho \rho _1\mathrm{cos}(\phi \phi _1)+(zz_1)^2]^{1/2},`$
where $`\rho =\rho (z,\phi )`$ is the nuclear surface equation, and $`z^{}`$ and $`z^{\prime \prime }`$ are the intersections of the surface with $`Oz`$ axis.

The general form of the Yukawa-plus-exponential energy is:

$$E_{Y+E}=\frac{a_2}{8\pi ^2r_0^2a^4}_V_V\left(\frac{r_{12}}{a}2\right)\frac{\mathrm{exp}(r_{12}/a)}{r_{12}/a}d^3r_1d^3r_2,$$
(11)
where $`r_{12}=|𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐}|`$, $`a`$=0.68 fm accounts for the finite range of nuclear forces, and $`a_2=a_s(1\kappa I^2)`$. $`\kappa `$ is the asymmetry energy constant, and the surface energy constant is $`a_s`$=21.13 MeV. In a similar way to the Coulomb part, one obtains three terms:

$`E_{Y+E}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_{2i}}{8\pi ^2r_0^2a^4}}{\displaystyle _{V_1}}d^3r_1{\displaystyle _{V_1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_{12}}{a}}2\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(r_{12}/a)}{r_{12}/a}}d^3r_2`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{a_{21}a22}}{8\pi r_0^2a^4}}{\displaystyle _{V_1}}d^3r_1{\displaystyle _{V_2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_{12}}{a}}2\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}r_{12}/a}{r_{12}/a}}d^3r_2`$
where $`a_{2i}=a_s(1KI_i^2)`$, $`I_i=(N_iZ_i)/A_i`$. For shapes with axial symmetry, each of these terms involving a double-folded integration over the nuclear volume can be reduced to a three-dimensional integral.

## IV The asymmetric two-center shell model

The two-center shell model was developed by the Frankfurt school for symmetric splitting  and for low asymmetry . Here we present the main steps of the two-center shell model we developed for large asymmetry starting from another symmetrical two-center model .

The general Hamiltonian describing the evolution of the level scheme of the two-center shell model is based on two oscillators which split from an initial common oscillator. The usual spin-orbit interaction and the $`𝐥^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ term are constructed as depending on the mass asymmetry. Thus, the total Hamiltonian reads:

$$H=H_{osc}+V(𝐥𝐬)+V(𝐥^\mathrm{𝟐})$$
(14)
where $`H_{osc}`$ is the two-oscillator Hamiltonian, and $`V(𝐥𝐬)`$ and $`V(𝐥^\mathrm{𝟐})`$ are the spin-orbit and the $`𝐥^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ potentials.

### A The diagonalization basis

The oscillator part of the Hamiltonian, $`H_{osc}`$, is given in cylindrical coordinates by:

$$H_{osc}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_0}\left[\frac{^2}{\rho ^2}+\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{}{\rho }+\frac{1}{\rho ^2}\frac{^2}{\varphi ^2}+\frac{^2}{z^2}\right]+V(\rho ,z),$$
(15)
where the asymmetric two-center oscillator potential has the form:

$$V(\rho ,z)=\frac{1}{2}m_0\{\begin{array}{ccc}\omega _{\rho _1}^2\rho ^2+\omega _{z_1}^2(z+z_1)^2& ,\hfill & z<z_0\\ \omega _{\rho _2}^2\rho ^2+\omega _{z_2}^2(zz_2)^2& ,\hfill & zz_0.\end{array}$$
(16)
Here $`z_0`$ is the separation plane coordinate between the two asymmetric systems on the symmetry axis Oz. Since we consider the case of two asymmetric spheres, $`\omega _{\rho _1}=\omega _{z_1}=\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _{\rho _2}=\omega _{z_2}=\omega _2`$.

To obtain an appropiate basis for this system, we consider the intermediate case when $`\omega _{\rho _1}=\omega _{\rho _2}=\omega _1`$. Then the potential is:

$$V(\rho ,z)=\frac{1}{2}m_0\{\begin{array}{ccc}\omega _1^2\rho ^2+\omega _1^2(z+z_1)^2& ,\hfill & z<0\\ \omega _1^2\rho ^2+\omega _2^2(zz_2)^2& ,\hfill & z0.\end{array}$$
(17)
At this point the intermediate Hamiltonian is separable, and one gets the eigenfunctions :

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_m(\varphi )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\mathrm{exp}(im\varphi )$$
(18)
for the axial degree of freedom and

$$R_{n_\rho |m|}(\rho )=\sqrt{\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(n_\rho +1)\alpha _1^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n_\rho +|m|+1)}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\alpha _1^2\rho ^2}{2}\right)(\alpha _1^2\rho ^2)^{\frac{|m|}{2}}L_{n_\rho }^{|m|}(\alpha _1^2\rho ^2)$$
(19)
for describing radial motion where $`\alpha _i=(m\omega _i/\mathrm{})`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$ is the gamma function, and $`L_{n_\rho }^{|m|}(x)`$ is the Laguerre polynomial. As one knows, the oscillator energy for oscillations in the plane perpendicular on the symmetry axis is:

$$E_{\rho ,\varphi }=\mathrm{}\omega _\rho (2n_\rho +|m|+1)$$
(20)
where $`\omega _\rho =\omega _1`$.

Solving the third equation which accounts for oscillations along the symmetry axis, we have different solutions for the two regions of the nuclear shape. According to the $`z`$-dependent potential,

$$V(z)=\frac{1}{2}m_0\{\begin{array}{ccc}\omega _1^2(z+z_1)^2& ,\hfill & z<0\\ \omega _2^2(zz_2)^2& ,\hfill & z0\end{array}$$
(21)
where $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ are the centers of the heavy and light spherical fragments, respectively, one obtains the differential equations

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dz^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2m_0E_z}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2\omega _1^2(z+z_1)^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}\right]Z_{\nu _1}(z)=0`$ $`,z<0`$ (22)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dz^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2m_0E_z}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2\omega _2^2(zz_2)^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}\right]Z_{\nu _2}(z)=0`$ $`\text{, z}\text{ 0 }.`$ (23)
At this point it is important to mention that the $`z=0`$ plane is the intersection plane between the two systems with $`\omega _{\rho _1}=\omega _{\rho _2}`$, whereas the “real” intersection between the asymmetric spherical systems is at $`z=z_0`$. The solution for the $`z`$-dependent Hamilton equation will be:

$$Z_\nu (z)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}C_{\nu _1}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\alpha _1^2(z+z_1)^2}{2}\right]H_{\nu _1}[\alpha _1(z+z_1)]& ,\hfill & z<0\\ C_{\nu _2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\alpha _2^2(zz_2)^2}{2}\right]H_{\nu _2}[\alpha _2(zz_2)]& ,\hfill & z0\end{array}$$
(24)
where $`C_{\nu _1}`$ and $`C_{\nu _2}`$ are normalization constants, and $`H_\nu (z)`$ are the Hermite functions.

As can be seen from these results, four quantities need to be determined: the two quantum numbers $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ and the two normalization constants $`C_{\nu _1}`$ and $`C_{\nu _2}`$. These quantities can be calculated from a system of four equations. From the normalization condition

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}|Z_\nu (z)|^2𝑑z=1,$$
(25)
from the continuity of the $`z`$-wave function and its derivative at $`z`$=0

$$Z_{\nu _1}(z=0)=Z_{\nu _2}(z=0),$$
(26)
$$Z_{\nu _1}^{}(z=0)=Z_{\nu _2}^{}(z=0),$$
(27)
and from the energy matching condidtion along the Oz axis

$$\mathrm{}\omega _1(\nu _1+0.5)=\mathrm{}\omega _2(\nu _2+0.5).$$
(28)
From these, a basis for diagonalization of the potential differences to obtain the real energy values can be calculated.

### B The asymmetric oscillator system

Once we have total wave functions, we have to determine differences between the diagonal Hamiltonian and the real one. First, the oscillator Hamiltonian has to provide the initial oscillator potential when there is only one heavy sphere (starting point). For this initial configuration the difference that needs to be diagonalized is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V^{sphere}(z)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{2}m_0[\omega _1^2(z+z_1)^2\omega _2^2(zz_2)^2]& ,\hfill & z0\\ 0& ,\hfill & z<0.\end{array}$$
(29)
For the next stages of deformation, the difference between the $`z`$-dependent oscillator potentials that needs to be diagonalized is:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V(z)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0& ,\hfill & z<0\\ \frac{1}{2}m_0[\omega _1^2(z+z_1)^2\omega _2^2(zz_2)^2& ,\hfill & 0zz_0\\ 0& ,\hfill & z>z_0.\end{array}$$
(30)
As for the difference in the $`\rho `$-dependent oscillator potential, this only exists for intersecting spheres and is given by:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V(\rho )=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0& ,\hfill & zz_0\\ \frac{1}{2}m_0(\omega _1^2\omega _2^2)\rho ^2& ,\hfill & z>z_0\end{array}$$
(31)
or, if written as an operator, the quantity to be diagonalized is given by:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V(\rho )=\frac{1}{2}m_0(\omega _1^2\omega _2^2)\rho ^2\mathrm{\Theta }(zz_0)$$
(32)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(z)`$ is the Heaviside function. The difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }V(\rho )`$ is zero for the initial spherical configuration.

Once $`\mathrm{\Delta }V(z)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V(\rho )`$ are diagonalized and added to the oscillator energy of the sphere + ellipsoid system, which is

$$E=\mathrm{}\omega _1[2n_\rho +|m|+\nu _1+1.5],$$
(33)
the level schemes of the two intersecting asymmetric oscillators with frequencies $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ are obtained.

### C Spin-orbit and orbit-orbit interactions

The spin-orbit ($`𝐥𝐬`$) and orbit-orbit ($`𝐥^\mathrm{𝟐}`$) interaction terms generate the necessary single-particle level splitting to obtain the correct schemes of the individual fragments after separation.

The use of deformation dependent form of these operators has been introduced in  for the Nilsson model and in  for the two center shell model; instead of the $`𝐥`$ operator one introduces:

$$𝐥=\frac{V\times 𝐩}{m_0\omega ^2}$$
(34)
where $`V`$ is the asymmetric two-center oscillator potential. The usual expression for the two operators are:

$`V(𝐥𝐬)`$ $`=`$ $`2\kappa \mathrm{}\omega 𝐥𝐬`$ (35)
$`V(𝐥^\mathrm{𝟐})`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa \mu \mathrm{}\omega 𝐥^\mathrm{𝟐}.`$ (36)
Since one obtains the level schemes of two nuclei which lie in different mass regions, the strength parameters of the interactions $`\kappa `$ and $`\mu `$ will be different. The values we use for these parameters are:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\kappa _n=0.0588& & \kappa _p=0.0592\\ \mu _n=0.328& & \mu _p=0.335\end{array}$$
(37)
for actinide region, and for light nuclei region:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\kappa _n& =& \kappa _p=0.0601\\ \mu _n& =& \mu _p=0.448.\end{array}$$
(38)
Since the strength parameters are different for the asymmetric regions of the nuclear shape, they become $`z`$-dependent operators as follows:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\kappa \mathrm{}\omega (z)=\kappa _1\mathrm{}\omega _1+(\kappa _2\mathrm{}\omega _2\kappa _1\mathrm{}\omega _1)\mathrm{\Theta }(zz_0)& & \\ \kappa \mu \mathrm{}\omega (z)=\kappa _1\mu _1\mathrm{}\omega _1+(\kappa _2\mu _2\mathrm{}\omega _2\kappa _1\mu _1\mathrm{}\omega _1)\mathrm{\Theta }(zz_0).& & \end{array}$$
(39)
To obtain a Hermitian operator for $`V(𝐥𝐬)`$ and $`V(𝐥^\mathrm{𝟐})`$ one has to use the anticommutator :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}V(𝐥𝐬)=[\kappa \mathrm{}\omega (z),\frac{V\times 𝐩}{m_0\omega ^2}𝐬],& & \\ V(𝐥^\mathrm{𝟐})=\frac{1}{2}[\kappa \mu \mathrm{}\omega (z),\left(\frac{V\times 𝐩}{m_0\omega ^2}\right)^2].& & \end{array}$$
(40)
For the dependence of $`\kappa `$ and $`\mu `$ with respect to the elongation, we choose a linear dependence for the oscillator frequency along the $`z`$-axis:

$$\kappa _i=\kappa _0+\frac{\omega _i\omega _0}{\omega _{if}\omega _0}(\kappa _{if}\kappa _0)$$
(41)
and the same law of variation for $`\mu `$. Here $`i`$=1,2, $`\kappa _0`$ is the value for the initial nucleus and $`\kappa _{if}`$ for the final one.

Finally one has to diagonalize the potential:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V(\rho ,z)=\mathrm{\Delta }V(z)+\mathrm{\Delta }V(\rho )+V(𝐥𝐬)+V(𝐥^\mathrm{𝟐})$$
(42)
together with the diagonal term of the two-center oscillator potential. The model provides the evolution from an initial level scheme toward two asymptotically independent single-particle schemes. With the introduction of large asymmetry between fragments, the shapes can simulate the existence of a soliton on the nuclear surface and assign it a microscopic structure.

## V Shell corrections

The level scheme of a soliton shape is used to obtain the shell corrections of the system. As the soliton is assimilated with an emerging fragment, it will provide the shell correction value of the independent nucleus of similar shape. Shell corrections are obtained by means of the Strutinsky procedure . One defines the shell correction energy as the difference between the total sum of the energy levels and a smoothed part of the spectrum:

$$\delta E=\underset{\nu }{}2E_\nu \stackrel{~}{U}.$$
(43)
One calculates the smoothed part $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ with the help of a smoothed level density function $`\stackrel{~}{g}(ϵ)`$, which is obtained by averaging the real distribution $`g(ϵ)`$ over the whole energy spectrum:

$`\stackrel{~}{g}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\zeta \left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵϵ^{}}{\gamma }}\right)g(ϵ^{})𝑑ϵ^{}`$ (44)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma }}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\zeta \left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵϵ^{}}{\gamma }}\right),`$ (45)
where $`\gamma =\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{}\omega `$ and $`\zeta (x)`$ is the smoothing function. A common smoothing function is provided by

$$\zeta (x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}e^{x^2}\underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}a_{2k}H_{2k}(x),$$
(46)
where $`H_n(x)`$ are the Hermite polynomials. The coefficients $`a_{2k}`$ are

$$a_{2k}=\frac{H_{2k}(0)}{2^{2k}(2k)!}.$$
(47)
The Fermi energy $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ of the smoothed level distribution is calculated as a solution of the particle number conservation:

$$N_p=2_{\mathrm{}}^{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}\stackrel{~}{g}(ϵ)𝑑ϵ.$$
(48)
Then, the total energy of the uniform level distribution $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$, reproducing the microscopic part which is not subjected to local fluctuations of the spectrum, is obtained as:

$$\stackrel{~}{U}=2\mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{}}^{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}\stackrel{~}{g}(ϵ)ϵ𝑑ϵ.$$
(49)
After performing the calculations, one obtains the following formula, which can be used directly

$`\delta U`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}\{ϵ_\nu [1erf(x_{F_\nu })]`$ (51)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{x_{F_\nu }^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}[2ϵ_\nu {\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}}a_{2k}H_{2k1}+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }a_{2m}H_{2m}]\},`$
where $`erf(x)`$ is the error function. Usually one chooses the upper order of the Hermite polynomials to be $`m`$=3. The variable $`x_{F_\nu }`$ is given by

$$x_{F_\nu }=\frac{ϵ_\nu ϵ_F}{\gamma },$$
(52)
Shell corrections are calculated separately for protons and neutrons, and the results are added.

## VI Results

A first look at the energetic behavior of an emerging soliton is given in Fig. 2 in terms of the macroscopic energy surfaces. The LHS macroscopic energy surface corresponds to the formation of 40Ca on the surface of 248No, whereas the RHS represents the 16O-like soliton on the surface of 224Th. Variation along the elongation $`R`$ corresponds to the increment in the soliton amplitude along the symmetry axis. A larger neck radius $`R_3`$ corresponds to a larger half-width $`L`$. The rear plane at $`R`$=0 is the spherical state of the system. Then the energy increases monotonously with a higher slope for small values of the neck radius. As $`R_3`$ increases, the energy increase is smoothed by the necking. With the enhancement of the kinetic energy of the soliton the half-width becomes larger, except in the first stages of the process where the neck radius is very small. The ridge in energy has a maximum at the near touching spheres configuration for both reactions. The slope continues to increase for large $`R_3`$, beyond the touching point value of the elongation $`R`$.

The addition of shell corrections yields the total deformation energy shown in Fig. 3. As a first observation note the pronounced deformed ground state of 248No as the first minimum in energy moves to $`R>`$0, and a much less but still deformed ground state for 224Th. For both emerging solitons it is obvious that the energy path corresponds to large half-width values up to the top of the energy ridge; then they abruptly turn towards rupture point shapes ($`R_3`$=0). Hence, these potential energy surfaces suggest a three-dimensional curve as the path of minimum energy in the cluster emission. The potential barrier formed along the path of minimum energy values is obtained by minimization of the total energy in the multi-dimensional deformation space.

The static paths, which a soliton with the internal structure of an emitted cluster has to follow, have been plotted on the contour maps of the energy surface in ($`R`$,$`R_3`$) coordinate space in Fig. 4. Again the LHS plot is the 40Ca emission, and the RHS one corresponds to 16O. Apart from the first $`R`$ values, where $`R_3`$ is small, the solitons bypass the first energy peak by taking large neck radius values, i.e. large half-widths. As the energy increases on the large $`R_3`$ side, the static path for both cases changes direction reaching the scission point where the clusters are emitted.

The two barriers are plotted in Fig. 5 with a full line, together with the macroscopic energy (dotted line) and the shell corrections (dashed line). One can see how the deformed ground state of 248No is formed (LHS plot): due to shell corrections, the first minimum is at about 6.8 MeV of the total energy. This point becomes the ground state and the whole barrier in front of the emerging soliton is shifted with respect to this value. A two-humped barrier no higher than about 1.2 MeV blocks the 40Ca emission.

The situation is different for the emission of 16O from 224Th. The ground state is only slightly deformed. A rather high one-hump barrier of about 11 MeV extends along the whole range of elongation $`R`$ up to the scission point. Shell corrections decrease slightly the macroscopic energy values. The decrease is mainly due to the double-magic character of 208Pb which forms as the cluster emerges.

One can state that 40Ca-like solitons are energetically favored to form on the nuclear surface of a very heavy nucleus as 248No. The formation of 16O-like soliton on 224Th is not energetically favored due to the high and large potential barrier it has to penetrate.

The relative velocity distribution $`V`$ of the two presumed solitons along the minimum energy path, together with the scaled values of the halfwidth $`L`$ and the relative amplitude $`a=A/R_1`$, are plotted in Figs. 6. We investigated the evolution of these soliton parameters (as defined in section I), which are a function of the static energy evolution, parametrized by the distance between centers $`R`$.

In the first stages, the tendency is that the amplitude and half-width increase with the elongation parameter, when the emitted cluster is emerging out from the parent nucleus (since their non-overlaping sector is increasing). During the formation of the cluster the half-width remains practically constant, since the surface energy controls this stage. When the two nuclei are well separated, the soliton envelope hardly fits the two spheres, and in this limit, the half-width approaches zero value. This gives the limiting configuration for this soliton model. These values of the half-width $`L`$ (solid line) are compared with those obtained analyticaly in  directly from the soliton amplitude, within the frame of the nonlinear liquid drop model ($`L`$-dashed line). We notice a good agreement for the half-widths within the range $`R4.514`$ Fm. The hydrodynamic soliton model is not valid anymore for separation parameter $`R`$ smaller than 4-5 Fm, because of the dominating shell effects in this range. This can be noticed in a comparison between Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 for $`R45`$ Fm. For the first $`R`$ values, the static paths follow the first energy peak, and jump from small toward large values for $`R_3`$, Fig. 4, providing small half-widths (Figs. 6, $`L`$-solid line), while a pure hydrodynamic soliton would have larger half-widths for this range ($`L`$-dashed line). In the above range of validity of the soliton model, we calculate the relative velocity of the soliton ($`V`$-dashed line), . The velocity is increasing with the amplitude of the soliton, hence with the elongation of the cluster-like emission shape. Fig. 6a displays the 40Ca emission, and Fig. 6b represents the 16O emission. Soliton shapes at the begining and the end of the process are also shown. For lighter nuclei (like 16O) the evolution of the parameters is smooth and monotonic. In the case of heavier nuclei (40Ca) we obtained some oscillations in width and velocity, during the first half of the emission process, which can be related with the oscillations produced by the shell effects in the $`R_3`$ parameter.

This work was supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation through a regular grant, No. 9970769, and a Cooperative Agreement, No. EPS-9720652, that includes matching from the Louisiana Board of Regents Support Fund. RAG is grateful to Prof. J. P. Draayer for a postdoctoral appointment in the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

Figure captions

Fig.1 Deformation space for two-center shell-model calculations. The neck radius $`R_3`$ can vary from zero (intersecting spheres) to infinity (compact shapes). $`R`$ (the distance between the two centers) and $`R_2`$ (radius of the emitted fragment) are also independent coordinates.

Fig.2 Macroscopic potential energy surfaces for 40Ca emission from 248No (left-hand-side plot) and for 16O emission from 224Th (right-hand-side plot), as function of elongation $`R`$ and neck radius $`R_3`$. First maximum appears close to the touching point configuration in both cases ($`R_3`$=0).

Fig.3 Total potential energy surfaces (macroscopic plus shell corrections) for 40Ca emission from 248No (left-hand-side plot) and 16O from 224Th (right-hand-side plot). The deformed ground state of 248No is revealed as a minimum along $`R_3`$ axis at its origin. For both surfaces the closest energy maximum occurs at the tangent sphere configuration. The maximum energy value for larger $`R_3`$ is not reached in the figure.

Fig. 4 Contour plot of Fig. 3 with static path (dashed line) for 40Ca emission (left-hand-side plot) and 16O emission (right-hand-side plot). As the elongation increases the amplitude of the soliton increases together with the half-width which is proportional to the neck radius $`R_3`$. Once the touching point maximum is bypassed, both shapes decrease rather abruptly through necking towards scission.

Fig. 5 The barriers along the static path for 40Ca emission (left-hand-side plot) and 16 (right-hand-side plot), together with macroscopic energy (dotted lines) and shell corrections (dashed lines). Shell corrections increase the total energy of the first energy minimum for 248No, thus the two-humped barrier is not higher than about 1.2 MeV. 16O emission from 224Th has a barrier of about 11 MeV.

Figs. 6 The evolution of $`a=A/R_1`$, $`L`$ (with shell corrections solid line, and without shell corrections dashed line) and $`V`$ parameters in relative units, versus the elongation $`R`$ in fm. The corresponding nuclear configurations are plotted for two situations: for the initial stage when the emitted cluster is only slightly displaced off the common center, and the final stage when the two nuclei are almost separated. Fig. 6a displays the 40Ca emission and Fig. 6b the 16O emission. In the later case, oscillations can be seen in the soliton parameters related to the shell corrections.


format: text

text:
# Kondo effect in multielectron quantum dots at high magnetic fields.

## I Introduction

Kondo effect has been recently observed in quantum dots (QD) coupled to leads by analyzing the temperature dependence of the conductance . Kondo physics has been mainly detected for an odd number of electrons $`N`$ in the QD while for even $`N`$, the temperature dependence of the conductance is usually that corresponding to a normal system. This is interpreted in terms of the formation of singlets by pairs of electrons so that only when $`N`$ is odd a single electron remains unpaired. This last electron, in a state doubly degenerate by spin, is responsible for the Kondo behavior proposed long time ago . However, some recent experiments  suggests a more complicated situation because Kondo effect is also observed for even $`N`$ in some situations. A particularly interesting experimental feature is the appearance, for a given $`N`$, of alternating high and low conductance valleys as a function of an external magnetic field $`B`$. When $`N`$ is varied in $`\pm 1`$, the high and low conductance valleys are interchanged. Therefore, the representation of the conductance (in a grey scale) as a function of both $`B`$ and a gate potential which allows to vary $`N`$, takes the aspect of a chess board.

Three models  have been already proposed for understanding how Kondo effect might be possible for states of two electrons. In these approaches, the authors consider the situation of double degeneracy that a magnetic field can create between the singlet ($`S_z=0`$) and the triplet ($`S_z=1`$) states of the electronic pair. However, as shown below, the actual situation is, in general, rather more complicated due to correlation and tunneling amplitude effects.

In this paper we present a general description of the Kondo effect in a QD in the presence of a high magnetic field such that the filling factor is $`1<\nu <2`$. This is a regime in which experiments clearly show Kondo effect. The description is valid for any number of electrons (even or odd without restriction to 1 or 2) and any value of the QD spin $`S_z`$ (not restricted to 0, 1 for even $`N`$ or 1/2 for odd $`N`$). Instead of describing spin-flip scattering in terms of spin-ladder operators $`S^{(\pm )}`$, we find a set of spin-flip Hubbard operators describing a collective spin effect of all the $`N`$ electrons contained in the QD. Despite both $`N`$ and $`S_z`$ can be very large, the scattering of carriers only produces transitions between two many-body states of the QD with $`S_z`$ differing in $`\pm 1`$. These many-body states are well characterized theoretically in the regime $`1<\nu <2`$, and we find that the spin-flip process can be described by a Kondo Hamiltonian with antiferromagnetic couplings which depend on both tunneling amplitudes and correlation effects. As a consequence, the system presents a Kondo behavior with a Kondo temperature $`T_K`$ which we analyze in various limiting cases.

In section II we discuss the ground state (GS) of an isolated QD in the regime $`1<\nu <2`$. in Section III an effective Kondo Hamiltonian is obtained, by means of a scattering description of tunneling through the QD. Section IV contains a discussion on the exchange couplings and the Kondo temperature in the regime $`1<\nu <2`$. Section V is devoted to the explanation of the chess board aspect of the experimental conductance. A summary is given in section VI.

## II QD spectrum

We consider $`N`$ electrons in the presence of a magnetic field and confined in a QD coupled to leads. The Hamiltonian is

$`H=H_{QD}+H_L+H_{TUN}.`$ (1)
Within a lowest Landau level approach, an isolated parabolic QD with magnetic field and interaction between the electrons is described by (hereafter we take $`\mathrm{}=1`$)

$`H_{QD}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{N\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _c)M}{2}}+g\mu _BBS_z+`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_i,\sigma _i}{}}V_{m_1m_2m_3m_4}d_{m_1,\sigma _1}^{}d_{m_2,\sigma _2}^{}d_{m_3,\sigma _3}d_{m_4,\sigma _4}.`$
The first two terms describe a single particle contribution depending on both the QD confinement $`\omega _0`$ and cyclotron $`\omega _c`$ frequencies through $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\sqrt{\omega _c^2+4\omega _0^2}`$. $`M`$ is the third component of the total angular momentum. The third term is the Zeeman energy, depending on the Landé $`g`$-factor. In the last term, describing electron-electron repulsion, $`d_{m,\sigma }^{}`$ creates an electron with angular momentum $`m`$ and spin $`\sigma `$ in the QD. The Coulomb interaction matrix elements $`V_{m_1m_2m_3m_4}`$ have a typical energy scale $`e^2/\epsilon l_B`$, where $`\epsilon `$ is the dielectric constant and $`l_B=1/\sqrt{m\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ the magnetic length. These interactions decrease with the increasing width $`w`$ of the quantum well in which the QD has been built up.

$`H_L=_{k,\sigma }\epsilon _{k,\sigma }c_{k,\sigma }^{}c_{k,\sigma }`$ describes, in a single-particle approach, the leads having electrons with quantum numbers $`k,\sigma `$ occupying states up to the Fermi energy $`\epsilon _F`$.

A crucial role is going to be played by the tunneling part of the Hamiltonian

$`H_{TUN}={\displaystyle \underset{k,m,\sigma }{}}V_m\left(d_{m,\sigma }^{}c_{k,\sigma }+c_{k,\sigma }^{}d_{m,\sigma }\right)`$ (4)
in which we neglect any dependence on $`k`$ of the tunneling amplitudes $`V_m`$ (taken as real positive) but we retain the dependence on $`m`$ because is going to produce physical consequences.

$`H_{QD}`$ can be numerically diagonalized for a significantly broad range of $`N`$, as discussed in many theoretical papers. An example (similar results are obtained for an odd number of electrons) is shown in Fig. 1 and 2, for $`N=8`$, which is the regime in which some experiments  have been performed, although some others  involve a larger number of electrons. In order to have access to all the possibilities for the GS, it is convenient to discuss a case with strong interaction effects, so that we present results for a QD with $`w=0`$. The case of an arbitrary finite width $`w`$ can be qualitatively discussed from these results: correlated GS tend to disappear when $`w`$ increases. Fig. 1 shows the phase diagram of the possible GS between $`\nu =1`$ and $`\nu =2`$. The wider regions of the upper part of the phase diagram correspond to compact states which are favored by large Zeeman coupling

$`|C_{NK}^K={\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{K1}{}}}d_{m,}^{}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{NK1}{}}}d_{m,}^{}|0`$ (5)
where $`|0`$ is the vacuum state. In going from left to right, one finds successively the states $`|C_4^4`$ ($`\nu =2`$), $`|C_5^3`$, $`|C_6^2`$, $`|C_7^1`$ and $`|C_8^0`$ ($`\nu =1`$). Strong interaction effects are manifested in the appearance, lower in the phase diagram, of the narrower regions corresponding to different skyrmion-like states

$`|SK_{N,K,\pm }^P=𝒩_{P,\pm }\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\pm 1}^{}\right)^P|C_{NK}^K`$ (6)
of topological charge 1. $`𝒩_{P,\pm }`$ is a normalization constant and

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\pm 1}^{}={\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}(m+1)^{1/2}d_{m+1,}^{}d_{m,}.`$ (7)
Adjacent regions correspond to values of $`P`$ which differ in one unit and, as a consequence, their spins also differ in 1. Dashed lines in Fig. 1 depict, for two different values of $`\omega _0`$, the evolution of the GS for a GaAs QD within the range of magnetic fields (perpendicular to the QD) given at the edges of the lines.

Fig. 2 shows the evolution of the GS properties from $`\nu =2`$ to $`\nu =1`$ for the system of Fig. 1 with $`\omega _0=5.4`$meV. The GS energy $`E_{GS}`$ has a kink any time a crossing of states occurs. Since these kinks are not obvious in Fig.2(b), we represent, in part (a), the energy splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=E_{exc}E_{GS}`$ between the lowest excited state and the GS. The spin $`S_z`$ and the third component $`M`$ of the total angular momentum of the GS are also given in (c) and (d) respectively.

Independently of the particular details, there is a general trend for any $`N`$: when the magnetic field increases from $`\nu =2`$ to $`\nu =1`$, the GS changes many times (at least $`N/2`$ changes corresponding to electrons $`N/2`$ flipping their spins one by one). In other words, for $`2>\nu >1`$ there are several crossings of the lowest energy states. This means that, for many values of the field, the GS is doubly degenerated (or non degenerated but having an excited state with extremely low excitation energy). Moreover, in almost all the cases, these two states have spins differing in 1 while they have different $`M`$.

## III Kondo Hamiltonian

As a consequence of the above numerical result, the main physics of the problem is captured by a two level system approach . One considers the QD in the regime $`2>\nu >1`$ as having two degenerate (or almost degenerate) GS’s $`|GS_{}^N`$ and $`|GS_{}^N`$ with $`M_{}M_{}`$ and spins differing in 1, i.e. $`GS_{}^N|S_z|GS_{}^N=GS_{}^N|S_z|GS_{}^N+1`$. $`H_{TUN}`$ mixes these GS’s with states $`|N\pm 1`$ in which $`N\pm 1`$ electrons are in the QD. In our two level system description, the tunneling Hamiltonian is projected on the subspaces subtended by the two GS’s for $`N`$ electrons and the connecting $`|N\pm 1`$ electron states. In this process, we consider the connecting $`|N\pm 1`$ states as non-degenerate. Using the notation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\{,\}`$, we introduce the tunneling spectral amplitudes

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{,\mathrm{\Sigma }}={\displaystyle \underset{m,\sigma }{}}V_mN1|d_{m,\sigma }|GS_\mathrm{\Sigma }^N`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{+,\mathrm{\Sigma }}={\displaystyle \underset{m,\sigma }{}}V_mN+1|d_{m,\sigma }^{}|GS_\mathrm{\Sigma }^N`$ (9)
and the spin-flip Hubbard operators

$`X_{\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}=|GS_\mathrm{\Sigma }^NGS_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}^N|.`$ (10)
From projected tunneling Hamiltonian $`\overline{H}_{TUN}`$, the interaction between the QD with $`N`$ electrons and the leads is studied by a standard scattering description . An effective coupling is obtained by summing up to all the possible intermediate states $`|I`$, in a second order perturbation approach:

$`H_{eff}={\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{H}_{TUN}|II|\overline{H}_{TUN}}{E_{GS}^NE_I}}`$ (11)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{k,k^{},\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{,\mathrm{\Sigma }}^2\delta _{k,k^{}}X_{\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Sigma }}}{E_{GS}^NE^{N1}\epsilon _F}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{+,\mathrm{\Sigma }}^2c_{k^{},\sigma }^{}c_{k,\sigma }}{E_{GS}^NE^{N+1}+\epsilon _F}}+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}{}}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{+,\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Delta }_{+,\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}}{E^{N+1}\epsilon _FE_{GS}^N}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{,\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Delta }_{,\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}}{E^{N1}+\epsilon _FE_{GS}^N}})X_{\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}c_{k^{},\sigma ^{}}^{}c_{k,\sigma }\right],`$ (12)
where, due to spin conservation, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has the same direction than $`\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ the same than $`\sigma ^{}`$. The first term is simply a constant. The second term (involving $`c_{k^{},\sigma }^{}c_{k,\sigma }`$) represents a potential scattering which does not involve any spin flip. These two terms are identical to the ones appearing when building up an $`sd`$ Hamiltonian from the Anderson Hamiltonian in the case of $`N=1`$. As it is usually done in that case, one can forget about these two terms which do not contain anything important for the physics we want to address.

The interesting physics is included in the third term of (12) which is a Kondo Hamiltonian

$`H_K={\displaystyle \underset{k,k^{}}{}}`$ $`\left[J\left(X_,c_k^{}^{}c_{k,}+X_,c_{k^{},}^{}c_{k,}\right)+J_{}X_,c_{k^{},}^{}c_{k,}+J_{}X_,c_{k^{},}^{}c_{k,}\right].`$ (13)
with exchange couplings

$`J={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{+,}\mathrm{\Delta }_{+,}}{E^{N+1}\epsilon _FE_{GS}^N}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_,\mathrm{\Delta }_,}{E^{N1}+\epsilon _FE_{GS}^N}};J_\mathrm{\Sigma }={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{+,\mathrm{\Sigma }}^2}{E^{N+1}\epsilon _FE_{GS}^N}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{,\mathrm{\Sigma }}^2}{E^{N1}+\epsilon _FE_{GS}^N}}.`$ (14)
$`H_K`$ is a spin-flip scattering Hamiltonian in which the GS of the scatterer flips its spin by means of $`X_,`$ and $`X_,`$ (as shown in Fig. 3) and, at the same time, changes its total angular momentum. Both the difference between $`M_{}`$ and $`M_{}`$, and the correlation effects included in the tunneling spectral amplitudes, are the reason why one must use spin-flip Hubbard operators instead of the usual spin-ladder operators $`S^{(\pm )}`$.

A crucial question is the sign of the exchange couplings (14). With our definitions (9), all the tunneling spectral amplitudes are positive. Therefore, the signs of the exchange couplings are determined by the denominators. As, in the considered situation, the lowest energy corresponds to having $`N`$ electrons in the QD, all the intermediate states $`|I`$, with $`N\pm 1`$ electrons in the QD and $`1`$ electron at the Fermi level of the leads, have higher energy. Therefore, we have a very important result: $`H_K`$ has positive effective exchange couplings. So, a Kondo Hamiltonian (13) with antiferromagnetic couplings (14) has been obtained. The conclusion is: for any values of both $`N`$ and spin, the QD in the regime $`2>\nu >1`$ presents Kondo physics.

## IV Exchange couplings and Kondo temperature

Since the Hamiltonian (13) is formally equivalent to the standard Kondo Hamiltonian for $`N=1`$, the temperature dependence of the conductance (as any other measurable property) presents now characteristics similar to the one found in those experiments  which have been interpreted in terms of only one electron. The important issue to be discussed is the characteristic energy scale, $`T_K`$, which is determined by the antiferromagnetic couplings.

$`J`$ and $`J_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ depend on both the energy difference $`E_{GS}^NE^{N\pm 1}\epsilon _F`$, and tunneling spectral amplitudes $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{,\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$. The former is practically independent on both $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Therefore, it does not imply any significant difference with respect to the well known case of $`N=1`$. However interesting physical differences appear due to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{,\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$. Let us analyze the different situations in which the QD can be found:

i) (Upper part of Fig. 1) When the Zeeman interaction is large (for instance having a large inplane component of the magnetic field), the GS’s are always compact states

$`|GS_{}^N=|C_{NK}^K;|GS_{}^N=|C_{NK1}^{K+1}.`$ (15)
This is the simplest case in which

$`X_,=(1)^Kd_{NK1,}^{}d_{K,}`$ (16)
and similarly for the other Hubbard operators. We have also assumed, $`|N1=|C_{NK1}^K`$ and $`|N+1=|C_{NK}^{K+1}`$ (in other case the quantum numbers of the $`d^{}`$ operators must be changed accordingly) and the signs are taken according with definitions (10). Due to the lack of correlation effects in the GS’s, the tunneling spectral amplitudes are

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_,=\mathrm{\Delta }_{+,}=V_{NK1};\mathrm{\Delta }_,=\mathrm{\Delta }_{+,}=V_K.`$ (17)
There is a difference between the antiferromagnetic couplings $`J`$, $`J_{}`$ and $`J_{}`$ due to the fact that $`NK1>K`$. It is easier to tunnel from the leads to spin up states ($`m=NK1`$) within the QD because they are in the outer region of the QD while the first available spin down state ($`m=K`$) is in the inner region of the QD. This tunneling amplitude effect is not described by previous models of Kondo at finite B , but has long been more broadly recognized both experimentally and theoretically for QD with $`2>\nu >1`$.

Although in this regime the QD does not present any correlation effects, the antiferromagnetic couplings are still a function of total energies and tunneling amplitudes. Since the Kondo temperature depends exponentially on $`J`$, it is a very sensitive magnitude with respect to many parameters as $`w`$, $`\omega _0`$, $`B`$, $`V_m`$ etc. However, this is not different from the case of just one electron in the QD in which experiments  show $`T_K`$ to be in the range of 1K. In any case, one can predict variations in $`T_K`$ when the regime changes as discussed below.

ii) (Lower part of Fig. 1) When the Zeeman interaction is small enough, the GS’s are skyrmion-like states of topological charge one :

$`|GS_{}^N=|SK_{N,K,\pm }^P;|GS_{}^N=|SK_{N,K,\pm }^{P+1}`$ (18)
The Hubbard operators $`X_{\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}`$ have complicated, but analytical, expressions in terms of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\pm 1}^{}`$.

When $`N`$ is very large, correlation effects provoke that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{,\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ tends to zero (for instance $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{,\mathrm{\Sigma }}[NlnN]^{1/2}`$ for $`P=0`$) implying a quenching of the antiferromagnetic couplings due to the orthogonalization catastrophe. As a consequence, Kondo effect should not be observed when the number of electrons within the QD is large because the Kondo temperature is extremely small in this case.

Even more interesting is the effect for a reduced number of electrons, for instance $`N=8`$ as both in Fig. 1, 2 and in the experiment . In this case, correlation effects do not destroy Kondo effect but reduce $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{,\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ up to a factor of two . The reduction of $`J`$ and $`J_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ implies that Kondo temperatures are significantly smaller than for the case i) of compact states. In practice, one can move from the skyrmions regime ii) (lower part of Fig 1) to the compact regime i) (upper part of Fig 1) by increasing an inplane component of the magnetic field. As a consequence of the above analysis, one should detect a clearly measurable increase of $`T_K`$ during this process.

iii) There is a rather unusual case, in which, for intermediate Zeeman interaction and only for a few values of the magnetic field, the degenerate GS’s are one skyrmion and one compact state, i. e.:

$`|GS_{}^N=|SK_{N,K,+}^P;|GS_{}^N=|C_{NK+1}^{K1}.`$ (19)
This happens, for instance, in the last step to the right in Fig. 2. In this case, the two GS have spins differing in more than 1. Therefore, they can not be obtained from the same $`|N1`$ by creating one electron with spin either up or down. In other words, one of the two GS’s has a tunneling spectral amplitude equal to zero so that, for tunneling effects there is only a non degenerate GS and Kondo effect does not occur.

A practical difference between the compact and skyrmion cases resides in the probability of finding two degenerate (or almost) GS’s. As shown in Fig. 1, the crossing regions are much closer to each other for skyrmions (lower part of Fig. 1) than for compact states (upper Fig. 1). To work with a magnetic field in which Kondo effect exists is more probable in the skyrmion regime than in the compact one. However, once Kondo regime is found in the compact regime, the effect is more robust because its $`T_K`$ is higher than the one for skyrmions.

## V Chess board behavior of the conductance

A very characteristic feature of some experiments  is an alternating high-low conductance sequence as a function of $`B`$ for a given temperature and number of electrons. When $`N`$ is varied in $`\pm 1`$, the high and low conductance valleys are interchanged. Since a common way of representing the experimental results is to use a color-intensity scale for the conductance as a function of both $`B`$ and a gate potential which varies $`N`$, the data present a chess board aspect. This occurs in a broad range of filling factors and number of electrons.

In order to understand such an experimental behavior, let us start by applying our description for the regime $`1<\nu <2`$. Since the chess board is observed  in samples with large $`w`$, skyrmion-like states are high energy excitations. GS’s are restricted to be given just by one configuration, i. e. $`[S^{()}]^j|C_{NK}^K`$ states, where $`j`$ is an integer (for practical purposes one can concentrate in the cases $`j=0`$ and $`1`$). At first sight, the consideration of both $`|C_{NK}^K`$ and $`S^{()}|C_{NK}^K`$ seems unnecessary because these states have an energy difference equal to the Zeeman coupling so that they are never degenerate. However, in a broad range of magnetic fields, these two states are precisely the two lowest energy states (see e.g. Fig. 2).

In the two level system approach in which the two lowest states are separated by an energy splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, Kondo-like behavior appears only when the experimental temperature is between $`(\mathrm{\Delta }E)^2/T_K`$ and $`T_K`$ (provided $`\mathrm{\Delta }E<T_K`$) in order to have significant occupation of the two states. The quantitative application of the model would require the computation of both the energy splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and $`T_K`$ which, as mentioned above, are very sensitive to many experimental parameters. Instead, a general understanding of the chess board is obtained from the following qualitative explanation depicted schematically in Fig. 4: when magnetic field is varied, the two lowest levels are in two alternating situations depending whether the system is around or far from a crossing of GS’s. Around a crossing, the two lowest levels correspond to states $`|C_{NK1}^{(K+1)}`$ and $`|C_{NK}^K`$ while far from the crossing they are $`|C_{NK}^K`$ and $`S^{()}|C_{NK}^K`$. In the former case, the two lowest levels can be connected by the tunneling Hamiltonian through low energy states $`|N\pm 1`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\pm ,\mathrm{\Sigma }}=V_KV_{NK1}`$. In this case, the system presents high Kondo-like conductance. In the second case of being far from the crossings, the two lowest states are $`|C_{NK}^K`$ and $`S^{()}|C_{NK}^K`$. The coupling $`J`$ between the two states is very weak for two reasons: first, the connecting states $`|N\pm 1`$ are highly excited states implying very large denominators in $`J`$ and, second, since $`S^{()}|C_{NK}^K`$ is a linear combination of different configurations, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\pm ,\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is significantly reduced by factors proportional to $`1/N`$. These two effects produce, in this region, a very small $`J`$ and, consequently, an exponentially negligible $`T_K`$ so that the measured conductance is not Kondo-like but instead is quenched. This originates the alternating behavior experimentally observed for fix gate voltage (i. e. number of electrons in the QD) and varying magnetic field. The chess board aspect also implies alternating low-high conductance regions for fix $`B`$ and varying gate voltage, which is due to the fact that crossings for $`N\pm 1`$ electrons occur for magnetic fields roughly midway from crossings for $`N`$ electrons.

Since Kondo-like behavior only occurs when the experimental temperature is in the range between $`(\mathrm{\Delta }E)^2/T_K`$ and $`T_K`$, a clear prediction of our scheme is that the highly conducting regions of the chess board would become narrower for decreasing temperature due to the lower limit condition.

The sequence of alternating high-low conductance has been observed also at very low magnetic field ($`B0.5`$T) and large number ($`N50`$) of electrons. So, a complete understanding of the experimental situation requires the extension of our framework to $`\nu >2`$. We are currently involved in this task which implies to take into account GS’s more complicated than simple compact states in the lowest Landau level.

## VI Summary

We have presented a general description of the Kondo effect for any number of electrons in a QD at filling factor $`1<\nu <2`$. Collective spin effects of the $`N`$ electrons are described in terms of a set of spin-flip Hubbard operators which also change the third component of the total angular momentum. Our conclusion is that, for any number of electrons within the QD, the spin-flip scattering of carriers only produces transitions between two (either compact or skyrmion-like) states of the QD with spins differing in 1. This process can be described by a Kondo Hamiltonian with exchange couplings that, we show, are antiferromagnetic and depend on both correlation and tunneling amplitude effects. As a consequence, the system presents a Kondo behavior with an experimentally accessible $`T_K`$. The increase of $`T_K`$ with an inplane component of the magnetic field should allow the detection of the transition from a skyrmion-like regime to a compact state regime. Finally, we present a qualitative explanation for the chess board aspect of the experimental conductance when represented in a grey scale as a function of both the magnetic field and the gate potential affecting the quantum dot.

## VII Acknowledgements

We are grateful to J. Weis and L. P. Kouwenhoven for providing us with experimental information before its publication. This work was supported in part by MEC of Spain under contract No. PB96-0085, Fundacion Ramon Areces and CAM under contract No. 07N/0026/1998.


text:
# On 𝛼⁺⁺-Stable Graphs

## 1 Introduction

All the graphs considered in this paper have at least two vertices. For such a graph $`G=(V,E)`$ we denote its vertex set by $`V=V(G)`$ and its edge set by $`E=E(G).`$ If $`XV`$, then $`G[X]`$ is the subgraph of $`G`$ spanned by $`X`$. By $`GW`$ we mean the subgraph $`G[VW]`$ , if $`WV(G)`$. By $`GF`$ we denote the partial subgraph of $`G`$ obtained by deleting the edges of $`F`$, for $`FE(G)`$, and we use $`Ge`$, if $`W`$ $`=\{e\}`$. If $`A,B`$ $`V`$ and $`AB=\mathrm{}`$, then $`(A,B)`$ stands for the set $`\{e=ab:aA,bB,eE\}`$. The neighborhood of a vertex $`vV`$ is the set $`N(v)=\{w:wV`$ and $`vwE\}`$, and $`N(A)=\{N(v):vA\}`$, for $`AV`$. If $`\left|N(v)\right|=\left|\{w\}\right|=1`$, then $`v`$ is a pendant vertex and $`vw`$ is a pendant edge of $`G`$. By $`C_n`$, $`K_n`$, $`P_n`$ we denote the chordless cycle on $`n`$ $`4`$ vertices, the complete graph on $`n2`$ vertices, and respectively the chordless path on $`n3`$ vertices.

A stable set of maximum size will be referred as to a maximum stable set of $`G`$. The stability number of $`G`$, denoted by $`\alpha (G)`$, is the cardinality of a maximum stable set in $`G`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$ denotes $`\{S:S`$ is a maximum stable set of $`G\}`$ and $`\xi (G)=\left|\{S:S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)\}\right|`$. We call $`\{\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2\}`$ a cover of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$ if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2=\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$; by $`\xi (\mathrm{\Omega }_i),i=1,2`$, we mean the number $`\left|\{S:S\mathrm{\Omega }(G_i)\}\right|`$.

A matching is a set of non-incident edges of $`G`$; a matching of maximum cardinality $`\mu (G)`$ is a maximum matching, and a perfect matching is a matching covering all the vertices of $`G`$. $`G`$ is a König-Egerváry graph provided $`\alpha (G)+\mu (G)=\left|V(G)\right|`$, , .

A graph $`G`$ is $`\alpha ^+`$-stable if $`\alpha (G+e)=\alpha (G)`$, for any edge $`eE(\overline{G})`$, where $`\overline{G}`$ is the complement of $`G`$, . Haynes et al. have characterized the $`\alpha ^+`$-stable as follows:

###### Theorem 1.1

 A graph $`G`$ is $`\alpha ^+`$-stable if and only if $`\xi (G)1`$.

Theorem 1.1 implies that for an $`\alpha ^+`$-stable graph either $`\xi (G)=0`$ or $`\xi (G)=1`$. This motivates the following definition. A graph $`G`$ is called ($`i`$) $`\alpha _0^+`$-stable whenever $`\xi (G)=0`$, and ($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖}`$) $`\alpha _1^+`$-stable provided $`\xi (G)=1`$, . For instance, $`C_4`$ is $`\alpha _0^+`$-stable, while the graphs $`K_3+e,K_4+e`$ in Figure 1 are $`\alpha _1^+`$-stable.

In  it was shown that an $`\alpha ^+`$-stable tree can be only $`\alpha _0^+`$-stable, and this is exactly the case of trees possessing a perfect matching. This result was generalized to bipartite graphs in . Nevertheless, there exist both $`\alpha _1^+`$-stable König-Egerváry graphs (e.g., the graph $`K_3+e`$ in Figure 1), and $`\alpha _0^+`$-stable König-Egerváry graphs (e.g., all $`\alpha ^+`$-stable bipartite graphs). A necessary (but not sufficient, e.g., $`K_4e`$) condition for $`\alpha ^+`$-stability is:

###### Proposition 1.2

 Any $`\alpha ^+`$-stable König-Egerváry graph has a perfect matching.

Let define a graph $`G`$ as $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable whenever $`\alpha (G+e_1+e_2)=\alpha (G)`$, for any $`e_1,e_2E(\overline{G})`$, and $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable provided $`\alpha (G+e_1+e_2)=\alpha (G)`$, for any $`e_1,e_2E(\overline{G})`$ that have a common endpoint. Gunther et al., , studied the structure of $`\alpha ^+`$-stable trees, and in , , some of their results were extended to bipartite graphs and König-Egerváry graphs.

In this paper we characterize $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable graphs. We settle a number of connections between $`\alpha ^+`$-stable graphs, $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable and $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable graphs. In particular, we show that any $`\alpha _0^+`$-stable graph is $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable. We also give a necessary and sufficient condition for a graph to be $`\alpha _1^+`$-stable and $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable at the same time.

We prove that a König-Egerváry graph is $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable if and only if it has a perfect matching consisting of only pendant edges and contains no cycle on $`4`$ vertices. Using this result we describe $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable bipartite graphs and $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable trees. For instance, it is shown that a bipartite graph is $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable if and only if it is well-covered and $`C_4`$-free.

## 2 $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable graphs

Notice that any $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable graph is $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable, but the converse is not generally true. For instance, $`C_4`$ is $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable but not $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable. Let us also observe that for $`n2,`$ the graph $`K_ne`$ is $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable, but it is not $`\alpha ^+`$-stable.

###### Proposition 2.1

If $`GK_ne,n2`$ is $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable, then it is also $`\alpha ^+`$-stable.

Proof. Assume that $`\alpha (G)=2`$. Since $`GK_ne`$, it follows that $`\left|\mathrm{\Omega }(G)\right|2`$, and consequently $`G`$ is $`\alpha ^+`$-stable, as well. For $`\alpha (G)3`$, suppose, on the contrary, that $`G`$ is not $`\alpha ^+`$-stable, and let $`x,y\{S:S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)\}`$. Hence, for $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$ and $`zS\{x,y\}`$, we obtain that $`\alpha (G+xy+xz)<\alpha (G)`$, in contradiction with the fact that $`G`$ is $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable. Therefore, $`G`$ must be $`\alpha ^+`$-stable.

It is worth observing that an $`\alpha ^+`$-stable graph is not necessarily $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable. For instance, $`K_3+e`$ is $`\alpha ^+`$-stable, in fact it is $`\alpha _1^+`$-stable, but it is not $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable. However, there exist graphs that are both $`\alpha _1^+`$-stable and $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable; e.g., the graph $`K_4+e`$ in Figure 1.

###### Proposition 2.2

Any $`\alpha _0^+`$-stable graph is also $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable.

Proof. Suppose, on the contrary, that some $`\alpha _0^+`$-stable graph $`G`$ is not $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable, i.e., there are $`x,y,zV`$ such that $`\alpha (G+xy+xz)<\alpha (G)`$. Hence, it follows that $`x\{S:S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)\}`$, in contradiction with the fact that $`G`$ is $`\alpha _0^+`$-stable.

Combining Theorem 1.1 and Propositions 2.1, 2.2, we get:

###### Corollary 2.3

If $`GK_ne`$ has $`\alpha (G)=2`$, then $`G`$ is:

($`i`$) $`\alpha ^+`$-stable if and only if $`\left|\mathrm{\Omega }(G)\right|2`$;

($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖}`$) $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable if and only if either it is $`\alpha _0^+`$-stable or it is $`\alpha _1^+`$-stable and $`\left|\mathrm{\Omega }(G)\right|3`$;

($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖𝑖}`$) $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable if and only if $`\left|\mathrm{\Omega }(G)\right|3`$;

($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑣}`$) $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable if and only if it is $`\alpha ^+`$-stable and $`GP_3(K_1,K_m,K_2)`$, where $`P_3(K_1,K_m,K_2)`$ is the graph obtained by substituting the vertices of $`P_3`$ respectively, by $`K_1,K_m,K_2`$, and joining all the vertices of $`K_m`$ with the two vertices of $`K_2`$ and the single vertex of $`K_1`$.

###### Proposition 2.4

If $`G=(V,E)`$ has $`\alpha (G)3`$, then the following assertions are equivalent:

($`i`$) $`G`$ is $`\alpha ^+`$-stable;

($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖}`$) either $`G`$ is $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable, or there exist three vertices $`x,y,zV`$ such that $`\left|\{x,y\}S\right|\left|\{x,z\}S\right|2`$ holds for any $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$, and $`x`$ is the unique vertex of $`G`$ with this property.

Proof. ($`i`$) $``$ ($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖}`$) Let $`G`$ be $`\alpha ^+`$-stable, but not $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable. Hence, there are $`x,y,zV`$ such that $`\alpha (G+xy+xz)<\alpha (G)`$. Therefore, we get that $`x\{S:S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)\}`$, because otherwise, any $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$ not containing $`x`$ is still stable in $`G+xy+xz`$, and consequently, we obtain $`\alpha (G+xy+xz)=\alpha (G)`$, in contradiction with the assumption on $`G`$. In addition, each $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$ satisfies $`\left|S\{y,z\}\right|1`$, since otherwise, if some $`S_0\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$ has $`S_0\{y,z\}=\mathrm{}`$, then $`S_0`$ is stable in $`G+xy+xz`$ and this yields $`\alpha (G+xy+xz)=\alpha (G)`$, again in contradiction with the assumption on $`G`$. Finally, $`x`$ is unique, because otherwise $`\xi (G)2`$, which contradicts the $`\alpha ^+`$-stability of $`G`$.

($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖}`$) $``$ ($`i`$) If $`G`$ is $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable and $`\alpha (G)3`$, then by Proposition 2.1, $`G`$ is $`\alpha ^+`$-stable. Further, if there are $`x,y,zV`$ such that $`\left|\{x,y\}S\right|\left|\{x,z\}S\right|2`$ holds for any $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$, and $`x`$ is unique with this property, it follows that $`G`$ is not $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable, because $`\alpha (G+xy+xz)<\alpha (G)`$, but it is $`\alpha _1^+`$-stable, since $`\{x\}=\{S:S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)\}`$.

###### Lemma 2.5

If for any $`x,yV(G)`$ there exists $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$ such that $`x,yV(G)S`$, then $`G`$ is both $`\alpha _0^+`$-stable and $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable.

Proof. Suppose, on the contrary, that there exists $`x\{S:S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)\}`$. Then, for any $`yV(G)\{x\}`$ and $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$, we get $`\{x,y\}S\mathrm{}`$, in contradiction with the premises on $`G`$. Therefore, $`G`$ is $`\alpha _0^+`$-stable. According to Proposition 2.2, it follows that $`G`$ is $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable, too. Assume that $`G`$ is not $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable. Hence, since $`G`$ is $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable, we infer that there are $`x,y,u,vV(G)`$, pairwise distinct, such that $`\alpha (G+xy+uv)<\alpha (G)`$. Let $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$ be such that $`x,uV(G)S`$. Then $`S`$ is stable in $`G+xy+uv`$, in contradiction with the assumption on $`G`$. Consequently, $`G`$ is $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable.

As an example, $`C_{2k+1},k2`$ and $`K_n,n3`$ are both $`\alpha _0^+`$-stable and $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable, according to Lemma 2.5. Notice that the converse of Lemma 2.5 is not generally true; see, for instance, the graphs $`C_{2k},k3`$. There exist $`\alpha _0^+`$-stable graphs that are not $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable (e.g., $`C_4`$), and vice-versa, there are $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable that are not $`\alpha _0^+`$-stable (e.g., $`K_4+e`$).

###### Proposition 2.6

Let $`G`$ be $`\alpha _1^+`$-stable, $`\{v\}=\{S:S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)\}`$ and $`G_0=GN[v]`$. If $`G`$ is not $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable, then there are $`x`$ and $`y`$ belonging to the same connected component of $`G_0`$, such that $`\alpha (G+xv+yv)<\alpha (G)`$. In other words, there exists a path connecting $`x`$ and $`y`$, which avoid the neighborhood of $`v`$.

Proof. Let $`\{H_k:1ks\},s2`$, be the connected components of $`G_0`$, and suppose that there are $`x`$ and $`y`$ belonging to different connected components of $`G_0`$, (say respectively $`H_i,H_j`$), such that $`\alpha (G+xv+yv)<\alpha (G)`$. Since $`G_0`$ is $`\alpha _0^+`$-stable, it follows that all its connected components are $`\alpha _0^+`$-stable, as well. Let $`S_k`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }(H_k),1ks`$, and $`S_i`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }(H_i),S_j`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }(H_j)`$ be such that $`xS_i,yS_j`$, which exist, because all $`H_k`$ are $`\alpha _0^+`$-stable. Hence, we get that $`\{v\}(\{S_k:1ks\})`$ is stable in $`G+xv+yv`$, in contradiction with $`\alpha (G+xv+yv)<\alpha (G)`$.

###### Theorem 2.7

Let $`G`$ be $`\alpha _1^+`$-stable, $`\{v\}=\{S:S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)\}`$ and $`G_0=GN[v]`$. Then $`G`$ is $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable if and only if for every pair $`x,yV(G_0)`$ there exists $`S_0\mathrm{\Omega }(G_0)`$ such that $`x,yV(G_0)S_0`$.

Proof. Let $`x,yV(G_0)`$. By definition of $`G_0`$, it follows that $`x,yN[v]`$, and since $`G`$ is $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable, we get that $`\alpha (G+xv+yv)=\alpha (G)`$. Therefore, there is $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$ such that $`x,yV(G)S`$. Hence, $`x,yV(G_0)S_0`$, where $`S_0=S\{v\}\mathrm{\Omega }(G_0)`$.

Conversely, $`G`$ is $`\alpha _1^+`$-stable, and for every pair $`x,yV(G_0)`$ there exists $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(G_0)`$ with $`x,yV(G_0)S_0`$. Assume that $`G`$ is not $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable. Hence, there are $`x,yV(G)`$ such that $`\alpha (G+xv+yv)<\alpha (G)`$, since $`G`$ is $`\alpha _1^+`$-stable. Let $`S_0\mathrm{\Omega }(G_0)`$ be such that $`x,yV(G_0)S_0`$. Then, it follows that $`S_0\{v\}\mathrm{\Omega }(G)\}`$, in contradiction with the assumption on $`G`$. Therefore, $`G`$ is also $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable.

###### Proposition 2.8

A graph $`G`$ is not $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable if and only if $`\xi (G)1`$ and there exists a cover $`\{\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2\}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$, such that $`\xi (\mathrm{\Omega }_i)2,i=1,2`$.

Proof. If $`G`$ is not $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable, then $`\alpha (G+e_1+e_2)<\alpha (G)`$ holds for some $`e_1,e_2E(\overline{G})`$ that have a common endpoint. Suppose $`e_1=xy,e_2=yz`$. Let us define

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_1=\{S:x,yS\mathrm{\Omega }(G)\}and\mathrm{\Omega }_2=\{S:y,zS\mathrm{\Omega }(G)\}.$$

Hence, it follows that $`\xi (G)1`$ and $`\xi (\mathrm{\Omega }_i)2,i=1,2`$.

Conversely, assume that $`\xi (G)1`$, i.e., there exists at least one vertex belonging to $`\{S:S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)\}`$, say $`y`$, and that there is some cover $`\{\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2\}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$, such that $`\xi (\mathrm{\Omega }_i)2,i=1,2`$. If $`x\{S:S\mathrm{\Omega }_1\}\{y\}`$ and $`v\{S:S\mathrm{\Omega }_2\}\{y\}`$, then $`\alpha (G+xy+uv)<\alpha (G)`$, because any $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$ contains at least one of the pairs $`\{x,y\}`$ or $`\{y,v\}`$. Therefore, $`G`$ can not be $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable.

###### Proposition 2.9

A graph $`G`$ is not $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable if and only if there exists a cover $`\{\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2\}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$, such that $`\xi (\mathrm{\Omega }_i)2,i=1,2`$.

Proof. If $`G`$ is not an $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable graph, then $`\alpha (G+e_1+e_2)<\alpha (G)`$ holds for some $`e_1,e_2E(\overline{G})`$. Suppose $`e_1=xy,e_2=uv`$. Let us define $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1=\{S:x,yS\mathrm{\Omega }(G)\}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=\{S:u,vS\mathrm{\Omega }(G)\}`$. Hence, it follows that $`\xi (\mathrm{\Omega }_i)2,i=1,2`$. Suppose that there exists $`S\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2\right)`$. Then $`S\mathrm{\Omega }\left(G+e_1+e_2\right)`$, that contradicts the inequality $`\alpha (G+e_1+e_2)<\alpha (G)`$. Hence, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2=\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which means that $`\{\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2\}`$ is a cover we were supposed to find.

Conversely, assume that there is a cover $`\{\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2\}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$ with $`\xi (\mathrm{\Omega }_i)2,i=1,2`$. If $`x,y\{S:S\mathrm{\Omega }_1\}`$ and $`u,v\{S:S\mathrm{\Omega }_2\}`$, then $`\alpha (G+xy+uv)<\alpha (G)`$, because any $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$ contains at least one of the pairs $`\{x,y\}`$ or $`\{u,v\}`$. Therefore, $`G`$ is not $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable.

Combining Propositions 2.4 and 2.9, we deduce the following:

###### Theorem 2.10

For a graph $`G`$ the following assertions are equivalent:

($`i`$) $`G`$ is $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable;

($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖}`$) $`G`$ is $`\alpha ^+`$-stable and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(G+e_1)\mathrm{\Omega }(G+e_1)\mathrm{}`$ for any $`e_1,e_2E(\overline{G})`$;

($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖𝑖}`$) $`\mathrm{\Omega }(G)\mathrm{\Omega }(G+e_1)\mathrm{\Omega }(G+e_1)\mathrm{}`$ for any $`e_1,e_2E(\overline{G})`$;

($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑣}`$) $`G`$ is $`\alpha ^+`$-stable and $`|\{S:S\mathrm{\Omega }(G+e)|1`$ for any $`eE(\overline{G})`$;

($`v`$) $`G`$ is $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable and there are no $`e_1,e_2E(\overline{G}),e_1=xy,e_2=uv`$, such that:

$$\{x,y\}\{u,v\}=\mathrm{},andforanyS\mathrm{\Omega }(G),\mathrm{max}\{\left|S\{x,y\}\right|,\left|S\{u,v\}\right|\}=2;$$

($`\mathrm{𝑣𝑖}`$) for any cover $`\{\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2\}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$ either $`\xi (\mathrm{\Omega }_1)1`$ or $`\xi (\mathrm{\Omega }_2)1`$ holds.

## 3 $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable König-Egerváry graphs

According to a well-known result of König, , and Egerváry, , any bipartite graph is a König-Egerváry graph. This class includes also non-bipartite graphs (see, for instance, the graph $`K_3+e`$ in Figure 1). If $`G_i=(V_i,E_i),i=1,2`$, are two disjoint graphs, then $`G=G_1G_2`$ is defined as the graph with $`V(G)=V(G_1)V(G_2)`$, and

$$E(G)=E(G_1)E(G_2)\{xy:forsomexV(G_1)andyV(G_2)\}.$$

###### Proposition 3.1

 The following assertions are equivalent:

($`i`$) $`G`$ is a König-Egerváry graph;

($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖}`$) $`G=H_1H_2`$, where $`V(H_1)=S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$ and $`\left|V(H_1)\right|\mu (G)=\left|V(H_2)\right|`$;

($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖𝑖}`$) $`G=H_1H_2`$, where $`V(H_1)=S`$ is a stable set in $`G,`$ $`\left|S\right|\left|V(H_2)\right|`$ and $`(S,V(H_2))`$ contains a matching $`M`$ with $`\left|M\right|=\left|V(H_2)\right|`$.

It it easy to see that a König-Egerváry graph $`G`$ has a perfect matching if and only if $`\alpha (G)=\mu (G)`$. The edges of any maximum matching of a König-Egerváry graph have a specific position with respect to the maximum stable sets.

###### Lemma 3.2

 If $`G`$ is a König-Egerváry graph, then for any $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$ every maximum matching of $`G`$ is contained in $`(S,V(G)S)`$.

###### Proposition 3.3

If $`M`$ is a maximum matching in a graph $`G`$ and $`H`$ is a subgraph of $`G`$ such that $`M=(ME(H))(ME(GH))`$, then $`\mu (G)=\mu (H)+\mu (GH)`$.

Proof. Clearly, $`ME(H)`$ and $`ME(GH)`$ are matchings in $`H`$ and $`GH`$, respectively. Let $`M_1,M_2`$ be maximum matchings in $`H`$ and $`GH`$, respectively. If $`\mu (H)=\left|M_1\right|>\left|ME(H)\right|`$, or $`\mu (GH)=\left|M_2\right|>\left|ME(GH)\right|`$, then $`M_1M_2`$ is a matching in $`G`$ of cardinality larger than $`\left|M\right|`$, in contradiction with $`\left|M\right|=\mu (G)`$. Therefore, $`\mu (G)=\mu (H)+\mu (GH)`$.

###### Proposition 3.4

If $`M`$ is a maximum matching in a König-Egerváry graph $`G`$, and $`H`$ is a subgraph of $`G`$ such that $`M=(ME(H))(ME(GH))`$, then

($`i`$) $`H`$ and $`GH`$ are König-Egerváry graphs;

($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖}`$) $`\alpha (G)=\alpha (H)+\alpha (GH)`$.

Proof. Let $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(G),S_1=SV(H)`$ and $`S_2=SV(GH)`$. By Lemma 3.2, $`M(S,V(G)S)`$, and according to Proposition 3.1($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖}`$), $`G=H_1H_2`$, where $`V(H_1)=S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$ and $`\left|V(H_1)\right|\mu (G)=\left|M\right|=\left|V(H_2)\right|`$. Hence, we infer that: $`V(H)=S_1(V(H_2)V(GH)),S_1`$ is stable in $`H,ME(H)`$ is a matching in $`H`$ of size $`\left|V(H_2)V(GH)\right|`$, and $`\left|S_1\right|\left|V(H_2)V(GH)\right|`$, i.e., $`H`$ is a König-Egerváry graph, according to Proposition 3.1($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖𝑖}`$). Similarly, $`GH`$ is also a König-Egerváry graph. Since, by Proposition 3.3, $`\mu (G)=\mu (H)+\mu (GH)`$ and all $`G,H,GH`$ are König-Egerváry graphs, we may conclude that $`\alpha (G)=\alpha (H)+\alpha (GH)`$.

###### Lemma 3.5

If $`H`$ is a subgraph of $`G`$, such that $`\alpha (G)=\alpha (H)+\alpha (GH)`$ and $`G`$ is $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable, then $`H`$ is $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable, as well.

Proof. Since $`\alpha (G)=\alpha (H)+\alpha (GH),`$ it follows that any $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$ satisfies $`\left|SV(H)\right|=\alpha (H)`$. So, if $`\alpha (H+e_1+e_2)<\alpha (H)`$, for some $`e_1,e_2E(\overline{H})`$, it follows that $`\alpha (G+e_1+e_2)<\alpha (G)`$, as well.

###### Lemma 3.6

If $`G`$ is of order $`6`$, has a Hamiltonian path and $`\alpha (G)=3`$, then $`G`$ is not $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable.

Proof. Suppose that $`V(G)=\{v_i:1i6\}`$ and $`(v_i,v_{i+1})E(G)`$ for any $`i\{1,\mathrm{},5\}`$. Then $`H=G+v_1v_3+v_4v_6`$ has $`\alpha (H)=2`$, i.e., $`G`$ is not $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable.

###### Proposition 3.7

If $`GK_ne,n=2,3`$ is an $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable König-Egerváry graph, then $`G`$ has a perfect matching consisting of only pendant edges.

Proof. If $`G`$ is $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable then, clearly, $`G`$ is $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable too. Hence, by Proposition 2.1 if $`GK_ne`$ then it is also $`\alpha ^+`$-stable. It is not difficult to check that $`K_ne`$ can be a König-Egerváry graph only for $`n=2,3`$. Therefore, if a König-Egerváry graph $`GK_ne,n=2,3`$ is $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable, then it is also $`\alpha ^+`$-stable. Now Proposition 1.2 ensures that $`G`$ has a perfect matching, say $`M=\{a_ib_i:1i\alpha (G)\}`$. According to Proposition 3.1 and Lemma 3.2, we may assume that $`S=\{a_i:1i\alpha (G)\}\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$. We show that $`M`$ consists of only pendant edges. Suppose, on the contrary, that some $`a_kb_kM`$ is not pendant.

Case 1. There exists some $`b_i`$ such that $`a_kb_i,b_ib_kE(G)`$ (see Figure 2(a)). If $`H=G[\{a_k,b_i,a_i,b_k\}]`$, then Proposition 3.4($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖}`$) implies that $`\alpha (G)=\alpha (H)+\alpha (GH)`$. Since $`H`$ is not $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable, it follows, by Lemma 3.5, that $`G`$ could not be $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable, in contradiction with the premises on $`G`$.

Case 2. There exist $`a_ib_iM`$ with $`a_kb_i,a_ib_kE(G)`$ (see Figure 2($`b`$)). If $`H=G[\{a_k,b_i,a_i,b_k\}]`$, then Proposition 3.4($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖}`$) ensures that $`\alpha (G)=\alpha (H)+\alpha (GH)`$. Since $`H`$ is not $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable, it follows, by Lemma 3.5, that $`G`$ could not be $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable, in contradiction with the premises on $`G`$.

Case 3. There exist $`a_i,b_i,a_j,b_j`$, such that $`a_ib_i,a_jb_jM`$ and $`a_kb_i,a_jb_kE(G)`$. In addition, we can assume that $`b_ib_k,b_kb_jE(G)`$, otherwise we return to Case 1. Hence, $`H=G[\{a_i,a_k,a_j,b_i,b_k,b_j\}]`$ contains a path on $`6`$ vertices (see Figure 2($`c`$)). Since $`\alpha (H)=\left|\{a_i,a_k,a_j\}\right|=3`$, Lemma 3.6 implies that $`H`$ is not $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable, and because $`\alpha (G)=\alpha (H)+\alpha (GH)`$ is true according to Proposition 3.4($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖}`$), we get, by Lemma 3.5, that $`G`$ cannot be $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable, in contradiction with the premises on $`G`$.

Thus, $`M`$ must consist of only pendant edges.

It is worth observing that : ($`a`$) Proposition 3.7 fails for non-König-Egerváry graphs; e.g., $`C_5`$ is $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable and has no perfect matching; ($`b`$) the converse of Proposition 3.7, within the class of König-Egerváry graphs, is not generally true. For instance, the graph $`G_1`$ in Figure 3 has a perfect matching consisting of only pendant edges and it is not $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable (because $`\alpha (G_1+ad+bc)<\alpha (G_1)`$), while the graph $`G_2`$ in the same figure has a perfect matching consisting of only pendant edges, and it is also $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable.

However, we can show that:

###### Proposition 3.8

Any graph that has a perfect matching consisting of only pendant edges is $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable.

Proof. Let $`G`$ be a graph that has a perfect matching $`M=\{a_ib_i:1i\mu (G)\}`$, consisting of only pendant edges, and suppose that $`S_0=\{a_i:1i\mu (G)\}\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$. Let denote $`H=G+e_1+e_2`$, where $`e_1,e_2E(\overline{G})`$ are such that they have a common endpoint, say $`e_1=uv,e_2=vw`$. We distinguish between the following cases:

Case 1. If $`u,v,wS_0`$, then $`S_0\mathrm{\Omega }(H)`$, and $`\alpha (H)=\alpha (G)`$.

Case 2. If $`u,vS_0`$ or $`u,wS_0`$, then $`S_0\mathrm{\Omega }(H)`$, and $`\alpha (H)=\alpha (G)`$.

Case 3. If $`uS_0`$ and $`v=a_i,w=a_j`$, then $`S_0\{b_j\}\{a_j\}\mathrm{\Omega }(H)`$, and $`\alpha (H)=\alpha (G)`$.

Case 4. If $`vS_0`$ and $`u=a_i,w=a_j`$, then $`S_0\mathrm{\Omega }(H)`$, and $`\alpha (H)=\alpha (G)`$.

Case 5. If $`u=a_i,v=a_j,w=a_k`$, then $`S_0\{b_j\}\{a_j\}\mathrm{\Omega }(H)`$, and $`\alpha (H)=\alpha (G)`$.

Consequently, $`G`$ is $`\alpha _{P_3}^+`$-stable.

###### Theorem 3.9

A graph $`G`$ that has a perfect matching consisting of only pendant edges is $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable if and only if $`G`$ contains no cycle on $`4`$ vertices.

Proof. Let $`M=\{a_ib_i:1i\mu (G)\}`$ be the perfect matching of $`G`$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that $`S_0=\{a_i:1i\mu (G)\}\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$.

Suppose, on the contrary, that there is

$$D=\{b_i,b_j,b_k,b_m\}withb_ib_j,b_jb_k,b_kb_m,b_mb_iE(G),$$

i.e., $`G[D]`$ contains a Hamiltonian cycle. If $`H=G[\{a_i,a_j,a_k,a_m\}D]`$, then $`\alpha (G)=\alpha (GH)+\alpha (H)`$, since any $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$ satisfies $`\left|S\{a_q,b_q\}\right|=1`$ for each $`a_qb_qM`$. On the one hand, by Lemma 3.5, $`H`$ should be $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable. On the other hand, $`\alpha (H+a_ia_k+a_ja_m)=3<\alpha (H)=4`$, which brings a contradiction. Therefore, $`G`$ has no cycle on $`4`$ vertices.

Conversely, let $`G`$ be such that no $`4`$ vertices span a cycle. Assume, on the contrary, that $`G`$ is not $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable, i.e., there are $`e_1,e_2E(\overline{G})`$ such that $`H=G+e_1+e_2`$ has $`\alpha (H)<\alpha (G)`$. If at least one of $`e_1,e_2`$ joins two vertices from $`\{b_i:1i\mu (G)\}`$, or one from $`\{a_i:1i\mu (G)\}`$ and the second from $`\{b_i:1i\mu (G)\}`$, then $`\alpha (H)=\alpha (G)`$. According to Proposition 3.8, the same result follows if $`e_1,e_2`$ have a common endpoint. Suppose that $`e_1=a_ia_j,e_2=a_ka_m`$ and $`a_i,a_j,a_k,a_m`$ are pairwise distinct. Hence, we get:

* $`b_ib_kE(G)`$, otherwise any $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$ containing $`\{a_j,a_m,b_i,b_k\}`$ is stable in $`H`$;
* $`b_jb_mE(G)`$, otherwise any $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$ containing $`\{a_i,a_k,b_j,b_m\}`$ is stable in $`H`$;
* $`b_ib_mE(G)`$, otherwise any $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$ containing $`\{a_j,a_k,b_i,b_m\}`$ is stable in $`H`$;
* $`b_jb_kE(G)`$, otherwise any $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$ containing $`\{a_i,a_m,b_j,b_k\}`$ is stable in $`H`$.

It follows that $`b_ib_k,b_jb_k,b_jb_m,b_ib_mE(G)`$, i.e., $`\{b_i,b_j,b_k,b_m\}`$ spans a $`4`$-cycle in $`G`$, in contradiction with the premises on $`G`$. Consequently, $`G`$ is $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable.

Combining Proposition 3.7 and Theorem 3.9, we obtain the following characterization of $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable König-Egerváry graphs.

###### Theorem 3.10

A König-Egerváry graph is $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable if and only if it has a perfect matching consisting of only pendant edges and contains no cycle on $`4`$ vertices.

Recall that a graph $`G`$ is called: ($`a`$) well-covered if every maximal stable set of $`G`$ is also a maximum stable set, i.e., it is in $`\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$, ; ($`b`$) very well-covered provided $`G`$ is well-covered and $`\left|V(G)\right|=2\alpha (G)`$, . The following result extends the characterization that Finbow, Hartnell and Nowakowski give in  for well-covered graphs having the girth $`6`$.

###### Proposition 3.11

Let $`G`$ be a graph of girth $`6`$, which is isomorphic to neither $`C_7`$ nor $`K_1`$. Then the following assertions are equivalent:

($`i`$) $`G`$ is well-covered;

($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖}`$) $`G`$ has a perfect matching consisting of pendant edges;

($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖𝑖}`$) $`G`$ is very well-covered;

($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑣}`$) $`G`$ is a König-Egerváry $`\alpha _0^+`$-stable graph with exactly $`\alpha (G)`$ pendant vertices;

($`v`$) $`G`$ is a König-Egerváry $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable graph.

Proof. The equivalences ($`i`$) $``$ ($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖}`$) $``$ ($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖𝑖}`$) are done in . In  it has been proved that ($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖𝑖}`$) $``$ ($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑣}`$). Finally, ($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖}`$) $``$ ($`v`$) is true by Theorem 3.10.

###### Corollary 3.12

For a bipartite graph $`G`$ the following assertions are equivalent:

($`i`$) $`G`$ is $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable;

($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖}`$) $`G`$ is $`C_4`$-free and has a perfect matching consisting of only pendant edges;

($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖𝑖}`$) $`G`$ is $`C_4`$-free and well-covered.

###### Corollary 3.13

$`C_n`$ is $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable if and only if $`n`$ is odd.

Proof. For any $`n2,C_{2n}`$ is not an $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable graph according to Corollary 3.12.

Assume, on the contrary, that $`C_{2n+1}`$ is not an $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable graph. Hence, there are $`e_1,e_2E(\overline{C_{2n+1}}),e_1=xy,e_2=uv`$ such that $`\alpha (C_{2n+1}+e_1+e_2)<\alpha (C_{2n+1})`$. We may suppose, without loss of generality, that $`x=v_1u`$. Now, if $`u=v_{2i+1}`$ (for some $`i0`$), then $`x,uS=\{v_{2i}:1in\}\mathrm{\Omega }(C_{2n+1})`$, and if $`u=v_{2i}`$ (for some $`i0`$), then $`x,yS=\{v_2,v_4,\mathrm{},v_{2i2}\}\{v_{2i+1},v_{2i+3},\mathrm{},v_{2n+1}\}\mathrm{\Omega }(C_{2n+1})`$. Hence, we infer that $`S`$ is stable in $`C_{2n+1}+e_1+e_2`$, as well, in contradiction with $`\alpha (C_{2n+1}+e_1+e_2)<\alpha (C_{2n+1})`$. Therefore, $`C_{2n+1}`$ is $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable.

Combining Corollary 3.12 and Proposition 3.11 we get the following extension of one Ravindra’s theorem, , where he proved the first three equivalences.

###### Corollary 3.14

For a tree $`T`$ the following assertions are equivalent:

($`i`$) $`T`$ is well-covered;

($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖}`$) $`T`$ has a perfect matching consisting of pendant edges;

($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖𝑖}`$) $`T`$ is very well-covered;

($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑣}`$) $`T`$ is $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable.

## 4 Conclusions

In this paper we keep investigating graphs whose stability number is invariant with respect to some natural operations on graphs. While in ,  we were interested in measuring the influence of adding one edge to a graph, here we define a class of graphs whose stability number is unaffected by two edges addition.

Further we concentrate on König-Egerváry graphs, which is one of the most attractive generalizations of bipartite graphs. One the one hand, Proposition 3.11 claims that for girth $`6`$, $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable König-Egerváry graphs and well-covered graphs are the same. On the other hand, Theorem 3.10 shows that an $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable König-Egerváry graph contains no cycle on $`4`$ vertices. It leaves an interesting open question concerning interconnections between well-covered graphs and $`\alpha ^{++}`$-stable König-Egerváry graphs of girth $`3`$ or $`5`$.