\section{Introduction}

Common bulk materials present emerging properties when isolated as atom thick 2D crystals \cite{PhysRevB.79.115409,NovoselovPNAS}, having in graphene an undoubtful landmark example\cite{NovoselovPNAS,novoselov2004electric}. However recent development on other 2D materials has shown that feasible electronics involving graphene will include the integration of different materials\cite{britnellScience} among which silicene, germanene\cite{VogtSilicenePRL},  BN honeycomb sheets \cite{NovoselovPNAS,DeanNNano}, III-V binary compounds, metallic oxides and 2D transition-metal dichacogenides (2D--MX$_2$) have attracted attention in the filed, with their existence facilitated by different experimental techniques as mechanical exfoliation\cite{OsadaJMC,NovoselovPNAS}, chemical vapor deposition (CVD)\cite{RuoffScience,LiAdvMat} or liquid exfoliation\cite{ColemanScience,NicolosiScience}.

The last of the former materials, 2D--MX$_2$, is obtained from transition-metal dichalcogenides\cite{Wilson, Mattheis} which are 3D versatile layered compounds with a wide range of electrical and optical properties of the narrow \textit{d} band type. As graphite, composed by graphene layers, transition-metal dichalcogenides are composed by layers of sandwich-type basic building blocks consisting of a sheet of hexagonal close-packed transition-metal atoms between two sheets of hexagonal close-packed chalcogen atoms\cite{ataca2012stable}. MoS$_2$ and MoSe$_2$ single layers have been successfully isolated attracting much attention due to their direct band gaps of 1.90 eV\cite{mak2010atomically} and 1.55 eV\cite{tongay2012thermally} respectively. Recent studies show that these systems could be promising for novel optoelectronics devices, such as two-dimensional light detectors and emitters\cite{sundaram2012electroluminescence}.

More importantly, Lukowski\textit{et al.}\cite{Lukowski} and Voiry \textit{et al.}\cite{Voiry} have recently shown that both MoS$_2$ and WS$_2$ exfoliated nanosheets in the strained metallic centered honeycomb T structure, are highly effective as electrocatalists in the hydrogen evolution reaction. This effect is due to the high density of active sites at the edges of the nanosheets in the T structure, representing the first application of the metallic T polymorph of layered metal chaccogenides in catalysts\cite{Lukowski,Voiry}.

As for graphene and other 2D materials\cite{novoselov2004electric} that can be cut as quasi one-dimensional (1D) structures in the form of nanoribbons\cite{Han2007PRL, son2006PRL, Nakada1996PRB}, some 2D- MX$_2$ and metal oxides also exist as 1D structures or nanoribbons\cite{botello2009metallic}. Due to quantum confinement effects, particularly at the edges\cite{Nakada1996PRB, son2006PRL},  1D compounds present different properties compared with bulk MX$_2$ and 2D-MX$_2$, and thus, it is important to study the electronic properties of nanoribbons\cite{Lukowksi}.

Some properties of 1D-MX$_2$ have been recently studied. For example, MoS$_2$ nanoribbons and their defects have been explored to give different functionalizations depending on the edge, pressure and electric field\cite{yue2012bandgap, PhysRevB.87.144105, ataca2011mechanical}. Other metallic-chalcogenide nanoribbons have been experimental obtained, such as Bi$_2$Se$_3$\cite{koski2012chemical} and CuTe\cite{she2008template}.

According to density functional theory (DFT), several of these 2D-MX$_2$ compounds are stable or metastable in one of two possible crystallographic structures; honeycomb (H) and centered honeycomb (T)\cite{podberezskaya2001crystal, ataca2012stable, Ding, YunPRB2012}.

Up to now, most of the studies on 2D-MX$_2$ and their ribbons are on H-structure compounds. However, according to Ataca {\it et al.}      \cite{ataca2012stable}, SeO$_2$, SeS$_2$, ScSe$_2$, ScTe$_2$, TiS$_2$, TiSe$_2$, TiTe$_2$, VS$_2$, VSe$_2$, VTe$_2$, MnO$_2$, MnS$_2$, MnSe$_2$, MnTe$_2$, NiO$_2$, NiS$_2$, NiSe$_2$, NiTe$_2$, NbS$_2$, NbSe$_2$, NbTe$_2$ are stable in the T-structure. In fact, the prediction indicates that some of them do not exist in the commonly reported H-structure but only in the T one.

To the best of our knowledge, we report the first ever DFT structure and electronic study of 1D-MX$_2$ ribbons with stable T-structure. Here we focus on a representative MX$_2$ compound, the NiSe$_2$. Theoretically, 2D-NiSe$_2$ can occur in both the T and H structure, with the T-structure being $\sim$0.5 eV energetically more favorable\cite{ataca2012stable}. Whereas NiSe$_2$ is a nonmagnetic metal in the H structure, the same compound is a narrow  indirect-band-gap semiconductor in the T-structure\cite{ataca2012stable}, making it more attractive to possible electronic applications.

Although 1D-T-NiSe$_2$ ribbons have not yet been experimentally produced, other nickel-selenide nanocompounds have. Moloto {\it et al.} had synthesized nickel selenide nanoparticles of different sizes and shapes using a modified solvothermal method\cite{moloto2011synthesis}, also Sobhanbi {\it et al.}  had prepared nanoparticles using simple hydrothermal reduction process\cite{sobhani2012shape}. Hankare {\it et al.} had  deposited Ni-Se thin films using chemical bath method on non-conducting glass substrates in a tartarate bath containing nickel sulphate octahydrate, hydrazine hydrate, sodium seleno-sulphate in an aqueous alkaline medium \cite{hankare2010synthesis}. The direct optical band gap of the thin film was 1.61 eV and electrical resistivity of thin film was in the order of 103 ($\Omega$cm) with a p-type conduction mechanism. Recently, the Qian group \cite{fan2009hydrothermal,zhao2005synthesis} reported the existence of  NiSe$_2$ hexagonal tubular nanocrystals, nanotubes and nanocables using
hydrothermal growth and procedure that combines self-sacrificing template and hydrothermal methods. The experimental production of 1D-T-NiSe$_2$ or other 1D-T-MX$_2$ ribbons is just a matter of time, thus the relevance of our present work.

The layout of this manuscript is the following.  We start with the reproduction of the centered honeycomb NiSe$_2$ single layer. We demonstrate the stability of ribbons of NiSe$_2$ with widths from 9 to 35\AA. Our ribbons present 6 different edge terminations for zigzag like edges and two for armchair edges. The electronic properties of these 8 families are presented. All these families were hydrogen passivated. For the semiconductor ribbons we present the variation in band gap with the ribbon width.  Electron densities and specific orbitals are also analyzed.

\section{Methodology}

In this work, we perform {\it ab initio} calculations with the Quantum ESPRESSO\cite{giannozzi2009quantum}  plane wave DFT and density functional perturbation theory (DFPT) code, available under the GNU Public License\cite{GNU}.

Scalar relativistic, spin polarized and non-spin polarized calculation were performed. A plane-wave basis set with kinetic energy of  612 eV was used. Also, a ultrasoft pseudo-potential\cite{PhysRevB.41.7892} from the standard distribution generated using a modified RRKJ\cite{ PhysRevB.41.1227} approach , and the generalized gradient approximation \cite{PhysRevB.46.6671} (GGA) for the exchange-correlation functional in its PBE parametrization \cite{PhysRevLett.77.3865} was used.

Calculations were done for 2D structures and both nanoribbons, bare and hydrogen passivated. All atomic positions and lattice parameters were optimized using the conjugate gradient method. The convergence for energy was chosen as 10$^{-7}$ eV between two consecutive steps and the maximum forces acting are smaller than 0.05 eV/\AA. The stress in the periodic direction is lower than 0.01GPa in all cases.

Rectangular supercells were build for the zigzag and armchair nanoribbons, periodic in the $x-$direction, with lattice parameters of $a$=3.51 and $a$=6.08 \AA\ respectively.
To simulate isolated ribbons, the inplane and perpendicular distances between ribbons in adjacent supercells have to be larger than 10\AA.
In the case of ribbons, the cell optimizations were just in the x-direction.
The Brillouin zones of the GNR unit cells are sampled by Monkhorst-Pack\cite{Monkhorst} grids of the form $16\times16\times1$,  in the 2D structures and $16\times1\times1$ for the 1D structures.

Depending on their width, ribbons present different edge terminations, defining ribbon's \textit{families}. Six possible edge terminations are found for the zigzag ribbons and two for the armchair, therefore here we studied 6 zigzag families and 2 armchair families. All ribbons were also hydrogen passivated.

\begin{figure}
 \subfigure[T-NiSe$_2$ structure]{\label{Fig1a}\includegraphics[width=0.20\textwidth,height=0.15\textheight]{./Fig1a}}
 \subfigure[Zigzag ribbon]{\label{Fig1b}\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth,height=0.15\textheight]{./Fig1b}}
 \subfigure[Armchair Ni-centered-Se]{\label{Fig1c}\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth,height=0.15\textheight]{./Fig1c}}
 \subfigure[Armchair Ni-aligned-Ni]{\label{Fig1d}\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth,height=0.15\textheight]{./Fig1d}}
 \caption{(Color online)  Large (blue) and  small (yellow) circles represent Ni and Se atoms. \subref{Fig1a} $xy$ and $zx$ planes of the 2D systems in the stable T configuration. \subref{Fig1b}, \subref{Fig1c} and \subref{Fig1d} represent the structure of 1D-T-NiSe$_2$ zigzag and armchair nanorribons respectively. In \subref{Fig1b}, the $n$'s indicates the three outer atomic rows at each ribbon edge, with $z$ the total number of atomic rows. Black solid lines indicate the unit cells of the 2D, zigzag and armchair ribbons. $a$ is the periodic lattice parameter of the supercell in the corresponding ribbons. For the armchair ribbons, dotted lines guides the identification of the two possible edge configurations, the Ni-centered-Se and the Ni-aligned-Ni}\label{Fig1}
\end{figure}

 \ref{Fig1}\subref{Fig1a} shows the structure in the $xy$ and $zx$ views of the T configuration. We classified the zigzag terminations according to the three bottom atomic lines and the three top atomic lines ( \ref{Fig1b}). The ribbon that starts with three $n_1-n_2-n_3$ atoms lines ($y$-direction as reference) and ends with three $n_{z-2}-n_{z-1}-n_{z}$ atoms lines is called $n_1n_2n_3$--$n_{z-2}n_{z-1}n_{z}$ ribbon, where $n_1$,$n_2$, $n_3$, $n_{z-2}$, $n_{z-1}$, $n_{z}$ could be Se or Ni, $z$ is the total number of rows in the nanorribon. Zigzag ribbons have the restriction that $n_1n_2n_3$ and $n_{z-2}n_{z-1}n_{z}$ occurs in the cyclic order NiSeSe due to the periodicity. The six representative zigzag edge terminations are shown in (\ref{Fig2}).

\begin{figure*}
\subfigure[Bare NiSeSe--SeSeNi]{\label{NiSeSe-SeSeNi}\includegraphics[width=0.15\textwidth]{./Fig2a1}
\includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{./Fig2a2}}
\subfigure[Passivated NiSeSe--SeSeNi]{\label{HNiSeSe-SeSeNi}
\includegraphics[width=0.15\textwidth]{./Fig2a3}
\includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{./Fig2a4}}\\
\subfigure[Bare NiSeSe--SeNiSe]{\label{NiSeSe-SeNiSe}
\includegraphics[width=0.15\textwidth]{./Fig2b1}
\includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{./Fig2b2}}
\subfigure[Passivated NiSeSe--SeNiSe]{\label{HNiSeSe-SeNiSe}\includegraphics[width=0.15\textwidth]{./Fig2b3}
\includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{./Fig2b4}}\\
\subfigure[Bare NiSeSe--NiSeSe]{\label{NiSeSe-NiSeSe}
\includegraphics[width=0.15\textwidth]{./Fig2c1}
\includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{./Fig2c2}}
\subfigure[Passivated NiSeSe--NiSeSe]{\label{HNiSeSe-NiSeSe}
\includegraphics[width=0.15\textwidth]{./Fig2c3}
\includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{./Fig2c4}}\\
\subfigure[Bare SeNiSe--SeNiSe]{\label{SeNiSe-SeNiSe}\includegraphics[width=0.15\textwidth]{./Fig2d1}
\includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{./Fig2d2}}
\subfigure[Passivated SeNiSe--SeNiSe]{\label{HSeNiSe-SeNiSe}
\includegraphics[width=0.15\textwidth]{./Fig2d3}
\includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{./Fig2d4}}\\
\subfigure[Bare SeNiSe--NiSeSe]{\label{SeNiSe-NiSeSe}
\includegraphics[width=0.15\textwidth]{./Fig2e1}
\includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{./Fig2e2}}
\subfigure[Passivated SeNiSe--NiSeSe]{\label{HSeNiSe-NiSeSe}\includegraphics[width=0.15\textwidth]{./Fig2e3}
\includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{./Fig2e4}}\\
\subfigure[Bare SeSeNi--NiSeSe]{\label{SeSeNi-NiSeSe}
\includegraphics[width=0.15\textwidth]{./Fig2f1}
\includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{./Fig2f2}}
\subfigure[Passivated SeSeNi--NiSeSe]{\label{HSeSeNi-NiSeSe}
\includegraphics[width=0.15\textwidth]{./Fig2f3}
\includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{./Fig2f4}}

\caption{(color online) Six {\it root} ribbons of the 6 zigzag families, bare (left column) and H passivated (right column). The corresponding band structure and DOS are included in the right of each structure. \subref{HSeNiSe-SeNiSe} and \subref{HSeNiSe-NiSeSe} are  indirect semiconductors with band gaps of 0.25 and 0.30 eV respectively. Large (blue), medium (yellow) and small (aqua) circles represent Ni, Se and H atoms.}\label{Fig2}

\end{figure*}

In the case of armchair nanoribbons two representative families appear; we call them Ni-aligned-Ni (Fig. \ref{Fig1c}) and Ni-centered-Se (Fig. \ref{Fig1d}). We chose this nomenclature according to the atomic symmetry of the opposite edges as shown by the dotted lines in the lower panels of  \ref{Fig1}.

Eight \textit{root} ribbons were build as case studies to characterize the edge structure and electronic properties of each family; 6 for the zigzag families and 2 for the armchair families (\ref{Fig2} and \ref{Fig3} respectively). Throughout this work we will mainly work with these 8 ribbons.

After structure relaxation of the \textit{root} ribbons, their electronic properties were investigated. All {\it root} nanoribbons were hydrogen passivated to satisfy the surface dangling bonds. The hydrogen passivated ribbons were also relaxed and their electronic properties were also investigated.  The semiconductor ribbons are expanded to $\sim$35 \AA\ in order to find the variation of the electronic band gap with the ribbon's width.

\section{Results and discussion}

\subsection{Structure and stability}

The 2D-NiSe$_2$ sheets were built and geometry optimized in the T and H configurations with a total energy for the T-structure 0.45 eV lower than for the metastable H structure.  In the T-structure the Ni-Se and Se-Se interatomic distances were 2.39 and 3.25 \AA\ respectively with a band gap of 0.11 eV. Metastable H-NiSe$_2$ presents Ni-Se and Se-Se interatomic distances of 2.41 and 2.63 \AA\ respectively, with a metallic behavior.  Phonon modes for both structures were calculated in order to guarantee the stability. Any negative frequency was found in both cases, an indication of the stability for both structures.  All these results are in good agreement with those reported by Ataca \textit{et al.}\cite{ataca2012stable}, validating our calculations and the starting system from where to build our nanoribbons.

The cohesive energy of T and H systems relative to free constituent atoms was calculated as  $E_C[NiSe_2]=E_T[Ni]+2E_T[Se]-E_T[NiSe_2]$, in terms of the total energy of NiSe$_2$, E$_T$[NiSe$_2$], and total energies of free Ni and Se atoms, E$_T$[Ni] and E$_T$[Se], respectively. The cohesive energies are 12.51 eV and 12.06 eV  for T and H structures respectively; indicating a strong cohesion relative to free atoms of the constituents.

A high cohesion energy is important and required for stability of the compound, but more important for the synthesis is the formation energy ($E_F$) with respect to bulk systems, calculated with the expression $E_F= E_C[NiSe_2]-E_C[Ni]-2E_C[Se]$

Natural references for the formation energy of this compound are the corresponding Ni and Se.  The formation energy for T- and H-NiSe$_2$ systems are 0.81 and 0.36 eV respectively; the higher the value, the more stable the system.

Formation energies were also calculated with the experimental values of cohesive energies from Kittel {\it et al.} \cite{kittel2005introduction} as 3.20 and 2.74 eV for T and H, respectively. Both $E_F$'s are positive, implying that T-NiSe$_2$ and H-NiSe$_2$ are stable and metastable respectively, as previously reported in by Ataca {\it et al.} \cite{ataca2012stable}.

We built our \textit{root} nanoribbons by cutting them from a 2D sheet of the relaxed T-2D-NiSe$_2$ 2D sheet in the zigzag and armchair directions (\ref{Fig2} and \ref{Fig3}).

Their $E_B$ and $E_F$ energies were calculated using the expressions
$E_C=(nE_T[Ni]+mE_T[Se]+pE_T[H]-E_T[NiSe_2])/(n+m)$ and
$E_F=(E_C[NiSe_2]-nE_C[Ni]-mE_C[Se]-pE_C[H])/(n+m)$, with $n$, $m$ and $p$ the number of Ni, Se and H atoms; $p >0$ only for H passivated ribbons. For the $E_F$ of hydrogen terminated ribbons, we use our calculated binding energy for H$_2$ of 3.25 eV/atom.

Bare ribbons present positive $E_{C}$ ranging from 3.92-4.07 eV/atom, which indicates strong cohesion relative to the constituents free atoms (\ref{Table1}). The three bare \textit{root} systems with lower cohesive energies are NiSeSe-NiSeSe, SeNiSe--NiSeSe and SeNiSe--NiSeSe, all characterized by two consecutive lines of semiconductor atoms at one or both of the edges. \ref{Table1} also includes the $E_F$ per atom for all bare ribbons. Bare SeNiSe--SeNiSe, SeNiSe--NiSeSe and Ni-centered-Se nanoribbons present an $E_F$ with values between the range of the T- and H-2D structures.

\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccrr}
\hline & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Cohesive energy} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{Formation energy} \\
Ribbon name& \multicolumn{2}{c}{per atom (eV)} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{per atom (meV)} \\
  &Bare & Passivated  &Bare & Passivated \\ \hline
  T-NiSe$_2$      & 4.17 &  --  & 270.0& --    \\
  H-NiSe$_2$      & 4.02 &  --  & 120.0& --    \\
   NiSeSe--SeSeNi & 4.07 & 5.90 & 24.5 & -93.7 \\
   NiSeSe--SeNiSe & 4.06 & 5.48 & 94.2 &  37.0 \\
   NiSeSe--NiSeSe & 3.97 & 5.59 & 78.1 &  67.1 \\
   SeNiSe--SeNiSe & 4.05 & 5.13 & 152.0& 147.8 \\
   SeNiSe--NiSeSe & 4.00 & 5.21 & 154.1& 121.3 \\
   SeSeNi--NiSeSe & 3.92 & 5.28 & 119.4& 101.3 \\
   Ni-aligned-Ni  & 4.01 & 5.69 & 107.2&  60.6 \\
   Ni-centered-Se & 4.04 & 5.44 & 135.4& 101.2 \\
   \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}\caption{Cohesive and formation energies for 2D systems, bare and H-passivated zigzag and armchair nanoribbons}\label{Table1}
\end{table}

Relaxation of the armchair ribbon edges results in an increment of the edge Ni-Se distance in 1.67 \% with respect the bulk Ni-Se distance, while the edge Se-Ni-Se angle is reduced in 24\%.

As mentioned before, all \textit{root} ribbons were hydrogen passivated. In the T-NiSe$_2$ 2D structure, each Ni atom is bonded to 6 Se atoms and each Se atom is bonded to 3 Ni atoms. In contrast, ribbons edges present dangling bonds that were satisfied with hydrogens for passivation. We call \textit{natural} passivation the one shown in \ref{Fig2} and \ref{Fig3} for zigzag and armchair ribbons, with a hydrogen atom added to the system to complete the 6 and 3 bonds for each Se or Ni edge atoms.

\begin{figure}
 \subfigure[Bare Ni-aligned-Ni]{\label{ArmNi-a-Ni}\includegraphics[width=0.15\textwidth]{./Fig3a1}
 \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{./Fig3a2}}

 \subfigure[Passivated Ni-aligned-Ni]{\includegraphics[width=0.15\textwidth]{./Fig3a3}
 \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{./Fig3a4}}

 \subfigure[Bare Ni-centered-Se]{\label{ArmNi-c-Se}\includegraphics[width=0.15\textwidth]{./Fig3b1}
 \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{./Fig3b2}}

 \subfigure[Passivated Ni-centered-Se]{\includegraphics[width=0.15\textwidth]{./Fig3b3}
 \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{./Fig3b4}}

 \caption{(color online) The two different families for the armchair nanoribbons based on T-NiSe$_2$. Large (blue), medium (yellow) and small (aqua) circles are Ni, Se and H atoms. }\label{Fig3}
\end{figure}

After H passivation and geometry relaxation of the ribbons, H-Se and H-Ni distances are $\sim$1.49 \AA\ and $\sim$1.47 \AA\ respectively.

\subsection{Electronic Properties}

Band structures of all {\it root} systems were obtained with the same results for spin polarized and non-spin-polarized calculations, which indicates that the systems are non-magnetic in all cases; \textit{i.e.} all the structures present perfect spin degeneration.

We find that all \textit{root} zigzag bare-terminated nanoribbons are metallic. After \textit{natural} hydrogen passivation, only two of them have an energy band gap, the SeNiSe--SeNiSe and SeNiSe--NiSeSe. Contrary to the results in zigzag  MoS$_2$  nanoribbons\cite{botello2009metallic}, where bare and hydrogenated zigzag nanoribbons were metallic. The main difference between MoS$_2$ zigzag nanoribbons and our systems is the base 2D structure metal-chalcogenide. In zigzag nanoribbons based on H-like, there is no possibility that two consecutive chalcogenide atomic lines can exist at the same edge. While in zigzag nanoribons based on T-like structures, it is possible to have two consecutive chalcogenide (Se) atomic lines, even more, the geometry allows to have the last line of atoms in both edges composed of chalcogenides with one and two edge lines of Se atoms.

Zigzag nanoribbons are divided in two groups: those with an outermost Ni atomic line (NiSeSe--SeSeNi, NiSeSe--SeNiSe and NiSeSe--NiSeSe, figures \ref{Fig2}\subref{NiSeSe-SeSeNi}, \subref{NiSeSe-SeNiSe} and \subref{NiSeSe-NiSeSe} and their corresponding H passivations: \ref{Fig2}\subref{HNiSeSe-SeSeNi}, \subref{HNiSeSe-SeNiSe} and \subref{HNiSeSe-NiSeSe}), and those with all outermost Se atomic lines (SeNiSe--SeNiSe, SeNiSe--NiSeSe and SeSeNi--NiSeSe, figures \ref{Fig2}\subref{SeNiSe-SeNiSe},\subref{SeNiSe-NiSeSe} and \subref{SeSeNi-NiSeSe} and their corresponding passivations:  \ref{Fig2}\subref{HSeNiSe-SeNiSe},\subref{HSeNiSe-NiSeSe} and \subref{HSeSeNi-NiSeSe}). Surprisingly all bare and hydrogen passivated zigzag nanoribbons of the former group were metals, unlike the common finding that  semiconductor nanostructures always have a larger band gap than their 2D values \cite{deng2012effect}.  Recent studies \cite{Lukowski, Voiry}  show that centered honeycomb nanostructures enhance electrocatalytic activity due to the high concentration of metallic edges, this suggest that, NiSeSe--SeSeNi will be the best candidate as catalyst for hydrogen evolution, but also NiSeSe--SeNiSe and NiSeSe--NiSeSe will be used for the same process.
In the latter group, two of the H passivated \textit{root} ribbons are semiconductors (\textit{i.e.} the \textit{natural} H passivated SeNiSe--SeNiSe and SeNiSe--NiSeSe ribbons). The variation ribbon's width versus the band gap value is shown in  \ref{Fig4}. According to \ref{Table1}, the stablest zigag ribbon is the SeNiSe--SeNiSe, which is found to have a semiconductor behavior for all calculated widths ( \ref{Fig4}). In contrast, we found that, as the width of the SeNiSe--NiSeSe ribbon increases, the system presents a semiconductor-metal transition at $\sim$23.55 \AA.

We also explored other possible edge hydrogen passivation densities for all \textit{root} zigzag ribbons.  The hydrogen binding energy ($E_B$) was used as an indicator of higher or lower stability, see \ref{Table2}. For example: NiSeSe--SeSeNi was hydrogen passivated with 3 (\textit{i. e.} the \textit{natural} full passivation of the dangling bonds), 2 and 1 hydrogens per edge Ni atom (H6, H3, and H2). In the case of the NiSeSe--SeNiSe ribbon, one edge was fixed with one hydrogen attached to the outermost Se atom and one hydrogen to its neighboring Ni atom, while on the other edge, the hydrogenation varied from 3, 2 and 1 H for the edge Ni atom (H5, H4, and H3). For the NiSeSe--NiSeSe ribbon, four hydrogenations were studied; one, where all dangling bonds are satisfied (the so called \textit{natural} hydrogenation with 6 H in total, H6), two, where one hydrogen is attached to the outermost Se edge atoms (H5), three, where one H atom is attached to the outermost Se edge atom and two to the outermost Ni
edge atom (H4), and four, where the outermost Se and Ni edge atom in opposited edges are only passivated with one hydrogen each one (H3).

The \textit{natural} hydrogenation for the SeNiSe--SeNiSe ribbon is the following: Ni atoms and outermost Se atoms were passivated with one hydrogen p/atom, satisfying the dangling bonds. Alternative passivations were: 1. Remove the H passivation of the Ni atoms, leaving it with one dangling bond (H2-Se). 2. Removing the H passivation of the Se atom,  leaving it with one dangling bond (H2-Ni).
The latter case of the unpassivated Se atom is a clear example of a non stable system with $E_B = $  2.78 eV, which is almost 0.5 eV below the energy for H$_2$, turning the electronic properties of the fully passivated semiconductor ribbon to a metallic behavior. This means that in presence of H$_2$ any ribbon with edge Se atoms should always be H passivated.

In ribbons with two consecutive atomic rows of Se at any of the two edges, the \textit{natural} passivation includes two hydrogens attached to the outermost Se atoms and one hydrogen attached to the neighbor Se atom. The SeNiSe--NiSeSe ribbon was passivated with two (H5) and one (H4) H in the outer Se for the consecutive Se rows, while the others Se remained with one bonded hydrogen atom. Similarly, the SeSeNi--NiSeSe ribbon was passivated with two (H6) and one (H4) hydrogen atoms in the outer Se for the consecutive Se rows.

Metallic ribbons from the  SeSeNi--NiSeSe  family were build with widths from 17.08 to 33.17 \AA, with all the outer Se atoms passivated with two hydrogens, \textit{i. e.} fully satisfying the dangling bonds.  In some cases, relaxation of these ribbons resulted in the separation of SeH$_2$ molecules from both edges, and a final configuration of a SeNiSe--SeNiSe ribbon. This is a strong suggestion that if ribbons are experimentally formed by cutting 2D T-NiSe$_2$,  ribbons from the  SeNiSe--SeNiSe family are much more probable to be found than those from the SeSeNi--NiSeSe family. Also, during experiments SeH$_2$ molecules are prone to desorb from the ribbon's edges.

\begin{figure}
 \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./Fig5}
 \caption{(color online) The variation of band gaps of bare and hydrogen passivated ribbons as a funtion of width. The dotted line represents the asymptotic fitting of the passivated armchair.  }\label{Fig4}
\end{figure}

\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|r|r|}
   \hline
   \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{Average binding energy of hydrogen (eV)}\\
   \hline
    & H6   &H4  &  H2 &\\
    NiSeSe--SeNiSe& 3.05 & 3.09 & 3.06 &\\
   \hline
    & H5   &H4  &  H3 &\\
    NiSeSe--SeNiSe & 3.12 & 3.15 & 3.18 &\\
   \hline
    & H6   &H5  & H4 &H3 \\
   NiSeSe--NiSeSe & 3.23 & 3.34 & 3.38 &3.30 \\
   \hline
     & H4   &H2-Ni  & H2-Se &  \\
   SeNiSe--SeNiSe & 3.24 & 2.78 &  3.47&\\
   \hline
    & H5   &H4  & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{} \\
   SeNiSe--NiSeSe & 3.16 & 3.26 & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{}\\
   \hline
    & H6   &H4  &  \multicolumn{2}{c|}{}\\
   SeSeNi--NiSeSe & 3.21 & 3.42 & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{}\\

   \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center} \caption{Average binding energy for H passivation of different passivation densities for the six zigzag nanoribbons.}\label{Table2}
\end{table}

Several of the $E_B$s are higher than the $E_B$ in H$_2$, and in general the energy increases as the density decreases.

It is worth mentioning that all metallic systems remained metallic and the two semiconductors became metallic when reducing the hydrogenation densities.

Our \textit{root} armchair bare-termination nanoribbons are semiconductors with a very small band gap; 0.045 eV and 0.061 eV for Ni-aligned-Ni and Ni-centered-Se, respectively. Bare terminated armchair ribbons were built with widths from 10 \AA\ to 30 \AA\ and only the \textit{root} ribbons are semiconductors. In this work, the largest electronic band gap is for hydrogen passivated armchair nanoribbons with gaps of 0.59 and 0.38 eV, for passivated \textit{root} Ni-aligned-Ni and passivated Ni-centered-Se nanoribbons respectively. In figure \ref{Fig4}, the variation of electronic band gap for hydrogen passivated is reported. The tendency of the band gap for the armchair follows the expression $E(w)=0.11+ae^{-w/\lambda}$, where a= 2.59 eV, $\lambda=$5.33 \AA\ and $w$ is the ribbon's width.

 \ref{Fig5}  shows the band structure of the semiconductor \textit{root} systems with the highest occupied and the lowest unoccupied bands highlighted in red and blue respectively. The  highest occupied and lowest unoccupied orbitals are also illustrated in the figure with the same color code. The SeNiSe--SeNiSe \textit{root} ribbon presents a symmetrical distribution of both orbitals with respect of the $x$ axis. In contrast the SeNiSe--NiSeSe system present an accumulation of the top valence orbital on the ribbon's bottom SeNiSe edge while the bottom conduction orbital localizes on the ribbon's top NiSeSe edge. Both systems are indirect semiconductors.

Regarding the armchair ribbons, the band structure and highest occupied and lowest unoccupied orbitals are also shown. In this case all the ribbons present symmetry of the orbitals with respect of the $x$ axis and the band gaps are also indirects.

\begin{figure*}
 \subfigure[Passivated SeNiSe--SeNiSe]{\label{HSeNiSe-SeNiSeC}
 \includegraphics[width=0.20\textwidth]{./Fig4BS12}
 \includegraphics[width=0.15\textwidth]{./Fig4a1}
 \includegraphics[width=0.09\textwidth,height=0.15\textheight]{./Fig4a2}}
 \subfigure[Passivated SeNiSe--NiSeSe]{ \label{HSeNiSe-NiSeSeC}
 \includegraphics[width=0.20\textwidth]{./Fig4BS13}
 \includegraphics[width=0.15\textwidth]{./Fig4a3}
 \includegraphics[width=0.09\textwidth,height=0.15\textheight]{./Fig4a4}}
 \subfigure[Bare Ni-aligned-Ni]{\label{Ni-aligned-Ni}
 \includegraphics[width=0.20\textwidth]{./Fig4BSBANi}
 \includegraphics[width=0.15\textwidth]{./Fig4b1}
 \includegraphics[width=0.09\textwidth,height=0.15\textheight]{./Fig4b2}}
 \subfigure[Passivated Ni-aligned-Ni]{ \label{HNi-aligned-Ni}
 \includegraphics[width=0.20\textwidth]{./Fig4BSPANi}
 \includegraphics[width=0.15\textwidth]{./Fig4b3}
 \includegraphics[width=0.09\textwidth,height=0.15\textheight]{./Fig4b4}}
 \subfigure[Bare Ni-centered-Se]{ \label{Ni-centered-Se}
 \includegraphics[width=0.20\textwidth]{./Fig4BSBASe}
 \includegraphics[width=0.15\textwidth]{./Fig4c1}
 \includegraphics[width=0.09\textwidth,height=0.15\textheight]{./Fig4c2}}
 \subfigure[Passivated Ni-centered-Se]{  \label{HNi-centered-Se}
 \includegraphics[width=0.20\textwidth]{./Fig4BSPASe}
 \includegraphics[width=0.15\textwidth]{./Fig4c3}
 \includegraphics[width=0.09\textwidth,height=0.15\textheight]{./Fig4c4}}
\caption{(color online) In each panel we present: the band structure with the maximum valance band (MVB) (red solid) and minimum conduction band (MCB) (blue solid), MVB (red) and MCB (blue) charge density in plane {\it xy} and plane {\it yz}. The isovalue for the surface is taken as 0.01 electron/\AA$^3$.  Large (blue), medium (yellow) and small (aqua) circles are Ni, Se and H atoms.}\label{Fig5}
\end{figure*}

\section{Summary}

This work pioneers the \textit{ab-initio} studies of centered honeycomb nanoribbons, defining the representative ribbon's families and opening the filed to study other systems in the T structure.
In this work, we use first principles calculations to explore the different atomic arrangements for NiSe$_2$ nanoribbons in the stable T crystalline structure. Zigzag bare-nanoribbons geometrical reconstruction leads to metallic systems, while just two hydrogen passivated nanoribbons are semiconductors. NiSeSe--SeSeNi has the largest metallic edge, suggesting that this ribbon will be the perfect candidate as catalyst for hydrogen evolution. SeNiSe--SeNiSe is the stablest zigzag nanoribon. Studies of edge  H passivation densities reveals that SeSeNi- edges are prone to convert to SeNiSe by a SeH$_2$ desorption mechanism.
Only thin bare-armchair nanoribbon are semiconductors with a very small band gap (0.045 and 0.061 eV), thicker ones are metals. When armchair ribbons are hydrogen passivated, the band gaps increase considerably to values up to $\sim$0.6 eV. The study of the variation in electronic band gap with the width was done and we report the asymptotic tendency to T-NiSe$_2$ band gap (0.11 eV) for armchair passivated nanoribbons.

\acknowledgement
The authors thank DGTIC-UNAM. JARR acknowledges support from DGAPA-UNAM. GGN acknowledges support from DGAPA-UNAM project number 102513. This work was done under the support of FICSAC with the program: \textit{Atraction of visiting academics 2012} and by the Physics and Mathematics Department of UIA.


\section{Introduction}\label{sec_1}
In recent years, physics emerging from anomalous dispersion relations, such as
a complete flat band or the Dirac cone, have attracted much attention in
condensed matter physics.\cite{kane,pesin,guo,zhao} For example when the Fermi
energy coincides with the flat band, a macroscopic degeneracy in the single
electron spectrum allows valence electrons to flip their spins freely without
losing extra kinetic energy. In a naive sense, therefore, a ferromagnetism is
achieved so as to minimize the Coulomb repulsion energy, unless other
instabilities are developed with increasing of the Coulomb interaction. Such a
mechanism, so called the flat-band ferromagnetism, is occasionally realized in
tight-binding models on geometrically frustrated lattices, generalized line
graphs,\cite{lieb,mielke,kusakabe,yanagi,miyahara} and cell-construction
networks.\cite{tasaki,mielke2}

The Dirac cone in material science is frequently discussed for the dispersion
around the K and K' points of the honeycomb lattice in
graphene,\cite{neto,fujita} where the chiral symmetry prohibits the crossing
linear dispersion to be massive.\cite{slonczewski,hatsugai} Lately, such Dirac
electrons are demonstrated to play an important role in the two-dimensional
(2D) organic zero-gap semiconductor $\alpha$-ET$_2$I$_3$\cite{katayama,tajima}
or in the surface states of 3D topological
insulators.\cite{hasen,moore} Experimentally, the Dirac-cone electronic
dispersion is really observed in the Fe-based superconductor $\rm BaFe_2As_2$
by ARPES.\cite{richard} For the theoretical side, empirically, the Dirac-cone
system seems to be commonly found in the nearest-neighbor (NN) tight binding
models on regularly depleted lattices. The honeycomb\cite{neto} and
kagom\'{e}\cite{guo} lattices are typical examples of such a system, being
regarded as the 1/3- and 1/4-depleted triangular lattices, respectively.
The half-filled honeycomb-lattice Hubbard model is recently studied intensively
in connection with the M-I transition at low temperature.\cite{meng,sorella}
The stabilities of charge-ordered states are also investigated for a spinless
fermion model on the kagom\'{e} lattice at 1/3 filling,\cite{nishimoto}
which is commensurate due to the lattice depletion.
As for square-lattice systems, it is known that the 1/4-depleted square lattice,
so called the Lieb model,\cite{lieb} has flat-band and Dirac-cone dispersions
at the same time.

\begin{figure}[bp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8.7cm]{fig1_re.eps}
\caption{(Color online)
(a) The 1/5-depleted square lattice with the intrasquare ($t_1$, thick solid
  lines) and the intersquare ($t_2$, thin solid lines) hoppings. The unit
  cell, including four distinct sites A, B, C, and D, is enclosed by the
  dashed-line square connecting four vacant sites. (b) Deformed 1/5-depleted
  square lattice or decorated square lattice with C$_{\rm 4v}$ symmetry.
  (c) Dispersion relations $\varepsilon _{\bm k}$ at $t_1=t_2=1$ for
  $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ bands, forming the Dirac cone. (d) $\varepsilon _{\bm k}$
  for $\beta$ band, intersecting the apex of the Dirac cone at the $\Gamma$ point.
\label{fig_lattice}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In the present paper, we study the Hubbard model on the 1/5-depleted square
lattice, shown in Fig. {\ref{fig_lattice}}(a), with two different NN hoppings
of $t_1$ and $t_2$, representing the intra- and intersquare hoppings,
respectively. The original point-group symmetry of this lattice is C$_4$,
though, as long as the NN hoppings are concerned; one can deform the lattice
into the square lattice of diamonds shown in Fig. \ref{fig_lattice}(b). Thus,
the point-group symmetry is enlarged into C$_{\rm 4v}$. In the symmetric case
of $t_1=t_2=1$, diagonalizing the single-electron part of the Hamiltonian, we
find that the lowest $\alpha$ band and the third $\gamma$ band form the
characteristic Dirac cone at the $\Gamma$ point [Fig. \ref{fig_lattice}(c)]. The
apex of the cone is just located at the 1/4-filling Fermi energy and,
moreover, the second band of $\beta$ intersects this apex at the same time. In
this model, therefore, such exotic dispersions emerge simultaneously and, at
1/4 filling, the interplay of them is expected to induce intriguing physics
with the inclusion of Coulomb interaction.

At 1/2 filling with strong electron correlations, this model is reduced to the
spin-1/2 Heisenberg model on the 1/5-depleted square lattice which describes
the spin-gap phase of $\rm CaV_4O_9$ where the plaquette spin-singlet ground
state is realized.\cite{ueda,troyer} The ratio of $J_1/J_2$ ($\propto
t_1^2/t_2^2$) controls the spin gap, and quantum phase transitions take place
between the plaquette (small $J_2$), classical AF ($J_1\sim J_2$), and dimer
(small $J_1$) phases. Also at 1/4 filling of the present study, electronic
states of plaquette or dimer structures give us an intuitive perspective to
understand the ground-state phase diagram with respect to $U$ and $t_1/t_2$,
as we will see later.
It may be worth mentioning that Fe ions in $\rm K_{0.8}Fe_{1.6}Se_2$ are known
to form the 1/5-depleted square lattice, referred to as the
$\sqrt{5}\times\sqrt{5}$ iron-vacancy structure, with $\bm{Q}=(\pi,\pi)$
block-AF magnetic ground state.\cite{bao}

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \ref{sec_2} we discuss single
electron properties focusing on the physics of the SU(3) Dirac cone. In
particular, it will become clear that the ways of symmetry lowering from the
SU(3) are crucial to give rise to M-I and magnetic transitions as a
consequence.
After characterizing possible ordered phases in Sec. \ref{sec_2}, the
mean-field phase diagram at low temperature is presented in Sec.
\ref{sec_3}. The NI and AFI phases are further characterized by using the
Berry phase in the latter part of this section. Finally we summarize the
conclusions and make some remarks in Sec. \ref{sec_4}.

\section{Single electron properties}\label{sec_2}
First of all, let us investigate the noninteracting model in search of
possible metallic, insulating, and magnetic phases after including external
staggered and uniform magnetic fields. Since the Coulomb interaction is mainly
treated by the mean-field approximation in the present work, these external
fields work as the self-consistent fields reduced from the Hubbard $U$ term in
Sec. \ref{sec_3}.
\subsection{Model and dispersion relations}
The NN tight-binding model on the 1/5-depleted square lattice is given by
${\cal H}^{(0)}=\sum_{\bm k\sigma}H^{(0)\alpha\beta}_{\bm k\sigma}c_{\bm
  k\alpha\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{\bm k\beta\sigma}$ with
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{H}_{\bm k\sigma}^{(0)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0&t_1&t_2e^{-ik_x}&t_1\cr
t_1&0&t_1&t_2e^{-ik_y}\cr
t_2e^{+ik_x}&t_1&0&t_1\cr
t_1&t_2e^{+ik_y}&t_1&0
\end{array}\right),
\label{eq_H0}
\end{eqnarray}
where $c_{\bm k\alpha\sigma}^{\dagger}$ creates a spin-$\sigma(=\pm 1)$
electron at $\alpha(=A-D)$ sublattice with the momentum $\bm k=(k_x,k_y)$. The
eigenvalue equation for Eq. (\ref{eq_H0}) is given by $F_{\bm
  k}(\varepsilon)=0$ with
\begin{eqnarray}\hskip-1pc
F_{\bm{k}}(\varepsilon)=
\left(\varepsilon^2-t_2^2\right)^2
\!\!-\!4t_1^2
\left(\varepsilon+t_2\cos{k_x}\right)
\left(\varepsilon+t_2\cos{k_y}\right).
\label{eq_ev0}
\end{eqnarray}
The sign reversal of $t_1$ or $t_2$ is irrelevant, though the latter shifts
the momentum by $(\pi,\pi)$, therefore, we assume that $t_1$ and $t_2$ are
positive definite. For $t_1\ll t_2$ and thus $\varepsilon\simeq \pm t_2$, at
1/4 filling an electron occupies an antibonding orbital on every $t_2$ bond,
which means the PM ground state. On the other hand, for $t_1\gg t_2$ and
$\varepsilon \simeq -2t_1, 0, 0, 2t_1$, two electrons are confined within a
single $t_1$ square and the B$_1$ orbital of Eq. (\ref{eq_B1}) is doubly
occupied, resulting in the NI ground state. When $t_1=t_2$, around the $\Gamma$
point the functional forms of the Dirac cone ($\alpha$ and $\gamma$ bands) and
the $\beta$ band are, respectively, given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\varepsilon^{(\alpha/\gamma)}_{\bm k}&\simeq& -t_1\left(1\pm \sqrt{\frac{k_x^2+k_y^2}{2}}\right),\\
\varepsilon^{(\beta)}_{\bm k}&\simeq& -t_1\left\{1-\frac{k_x^2k_y^2}{2\left(k_x^2+k_y^2\right)}\right\},
\end{eqnarray}
as shown in Figs. \ref{fig_lattice}(c) and \ref{fig_lattice}(d). In particular, the bottom of
the $\beta$ band along the $k_x$ and $k_y$ axes is completely flat and the system is
metallic at 1/4 filling. This is in strong contrast to the standard SU(2)
Dirac cone which is a zero-gap semiconductor in a 2D system.

For general $(t_1,t_2)$'s, the dispersion relations along
$\Gamma$-X$(\pi,0)$-M$(\pi,\pi)$-$\Gamma$ are displayed in
Fig. {\ref{fig_disp}}. As shown in Fig. \ref{fig_disp}(c), the Dirac cone
appears also at the M point, since the relation
\begin{eqnarray}
F_{\bm k+(\pi,\pi)}(-\varepsilon)=F_{\bm k}(\varepsilon)
\end{eqnarray}
holds due to the chiral symmetry. Along the $\Gamma$X line, putting $k_y=0$ in
Eq. (\ref{eq_ev0}), a completely flat dispersion emerges at
$\varepsilon=-t_2$. When the 1/4-filling Fermi energy hits this flat
dispersion, for $t_1\le t_2$ as shown in Figs. \ref{fig_disp}(c)-\ref{fig_disp}(f), the
ground state is PM. On the other hand, for $t_1>t_2$, a finite band gap is
open at the $\Gamma$ point as shown in Figs. \ref{fig_disp}(a) and \ref{fig_disp}(b). Lifting of
the degeneracy at the $\Gamma$ point seems to be the key to understanding the M-I
transition.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{fig2_re.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Dispersion relations for spin-up (dashed lines) and
  -down (solid lines) electrons along symmetry lines for various
  $(t_1,t_2)$'s. In the metallic cases of (c), (d), (e), and (f), the
  flat bands along $\Gamma$-X match the Fermi energy, depicted by the dotted
  line. The densities of states are also displayed.
\label{fig_disp}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{fig3_re.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Dispersion relations for $(t_1,t_2)=(1,0.8)$ with
  increasing $B_s$ from 0 to 1.5, where symbols and lines are the same as in
  Fig. \ref{fig_disp}. At $\bm k=(k_c,0)$, as shown in (d), the flat band is
  intersected by another band.
\label{fig_disp_Bs}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsection{SU(3) effective theory}
At the $\Gamma$ point, when $t_1=t_2$, Eq. (\ref{eq_H0}) is diagonalized into
diag($3t_1,-t_1,-t_1,-t_1$) by using the C$_{\rm 4v}$ basis representation of
\begin{eqnarray}
|{\rm A_1}\rangle&=&\frac{1}{2}(c_{A}^{\dagger}+c_{B}^{\dagger}+c_{C}^{\dagger}+c_{D}^{\dagger})|0\rangle,\\
{\rm \left(|E_x\rangle,|E_y\rangle\right)}&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(c_{A}^{\dagger}-c_{C}^{\dagger}, c_{B}^{\dagger}-c_{D}^{\dagger}\right)|0\rangle,\\
{\rm |B_1\rangle}&=&\frac{1}{2}(c_{A}^{\dagger}-c_{B}^{\dagger}+c_{C}^{\dagger}-c_{D}^{\dagger})|0\rangle,\label{eq_B1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\bm k$ and $\sigma$ indices are abbreviated.
The $\rm |A_1\rangle$ state is energetically separated from the degenerate
SU(3) multiplet. Therefore, expanding Eq. (\ref{eq_H0}) for small $\bm k$ and
$\mu=t_2/t_1-1$, transforming it into the C$_{\rm 4v}$ basis, and tracing out
the $\rm |A_1\rangle$ state, the effective SU(3) Hamiltonian is constructed
for fixed $\bm k$ and $\sigma$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal H}^{(0)}_{\rm eff}=
-\left(1+\frac{\mu}{3}\right)I_3-\frac{2\mu}{\sqrt{3}}\lambda_8+\frac{k_x}{\sqrt{2}}\lambda_5-\frac{k_y}{\sqrt{2}}\lambda_7
\label{eq_Heff}
\end{eqnarray}
in the unit of $t_1$. Here, $I_3$ and $\lambda$'s are, respectively, the
identity and the Gell-Mann matrices of the SU(3) subspace spanned by $\rm
(|E_x\rangle, |E_y\rangle, |B_1\rangle)$.

In the absence of $\mu$, ${\cal H}^{(0)}_{\rm eff}$ can be viewed as the
massless Dirac equation embedded in the SU(3) space.
From the C$_{\rm 4v}$ point group symmetry, E and B$_1$ states are always
degenerate to form the Dirac point.
Including the mass term
proportional to $\lambda_8=(\rm|E_x\rangle\langle E_x|+|E_y\rangle\langle
E_y|-2|B_1\rangle\langle B_1|)/\sqrt{3}$, the accidental degeneracy between E-
and B$_1$-symmetric states at the $\Gamma$ point is lifted, and a positive
(negative) $\mu$ increases the energy of B$_1$(E) state. As a result, Lifshitz
transition\cite{lifshitz} separates the nonmagnetic phase into NI ($t_1>t_2$)
and PM ($t_1\le t_2$) phases, which is consistent with the simple M-I
transition picture between the isolated-square ($t_2=0$, insulating) and
isolated-bond ($t_1=0$, metallic) limits.

\subsection{Phase diagram under a staggered magnetic field}
In order to lift the degeneracy within the E states at the $\Gamma$ point, we need
a $\lambda_3=\rm|E_x\rangle\langle E_x|-|E_y\rangle\langle E_y|$ term besides
${\cal H}^{(0)}_{\rm eff}$, which can open the charge gap for $t_2/t_1\ge1$ or
close it for $t_2/t_1<1$. For that purpose, we apply the $\bm Q= \bm 0$
staggered magnetic field defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal H}^{(B_s)}=\sum_{{\bm k}\sigma}\sigma B_s\left(n_{kA\sigma}-n_{kB\sigma}+n_{kC\sigma}-n_{kD\sigma}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $n_{k\alpha\sigma}=c^{\dagger}_{k\alpha\sigma}c_{k\alpha\sigma}$. For
small $B_s$, tracing out the $|\rm A_1\rangle$ state in the same way, we can
easily show that the effective SU(3) model for ${\cal H}^{(B_s)}$, with fixed
$\bm k$ and $\sigma$, is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal H}^{(B_s)}_{\rm eff}=
\sigma B_s\lambda_3^{(\sigma)},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\lambda_3^{(\sigma)}$ is the similarly defined Gell-Mann matrix in the
spin-$\sigma$ sector. Therefore the $B_s$ term breaks the E symmetry at
the $\Gamma$ point, which induces M-I phase transitions accompanied by the $\bm
Q=\bm 0$ AF spin order.

The eigenvalue equation for ${\cal H}^{(0)}+{\cal H}^{(B_s)}$ is now written
as $F^{(+)}_{\bm k}(\varepsilon)\cdot F^{(-)}_{\bm k}(\varepsilon)=0$ with
\begin{eqnarray}\hskip-1pc
F^{(\sigma)}_{\bm{k}}(\varepsilon)=
\left\{\left(\varepsilon-\sigma B_s\right)^2-t_2^2\right\}
\left\{\left(\varepsilon+\sigma B_s\right)^2-t_2^2\right\}\nonumber\\
-4t_1^2
\left(\varepsilon-\sigma B_s+t_2\cos{k_x}\right)
\left(\varepsilon+\sigma B_s+t_2\cos{k_y}\right).
\label{eq_ev}
\end{eqnarray}
Solving Eq. (\ref{eq_ev}), we find the M-I phase diagram\cite{comment4}
in the $B_s-t_1$ or $B_s-t_2$ plane as shown in Fig. \ref{fig_MI_Bs}.
For $B_s\ne 0$, there are two kinds of insulating phases: AFI' (for small
$t_2$) and AFI (small $t_1$). In the AFI' phase, like
Fig. {\ref{fig_disp_Bs}}(b), the charge gap $\Delta^{(c)}_{\bm k}$ opens at
$\Gamma$, which is estimated from Eq. (\ref{eq_ev}) to be
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta^{(c)}_{\Gamma}=-2t_2-B_s+\sqrt{4t_1^2+B_s^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
As shown in Fig. {\ref{fig_disp_Bs}(c), the charge gap closes at
$\Delta^{(c)}_{\Gamma}=0$, which determines the I-M transition line;
\begin{eqnarray}
B_{s1}(t_1,t_2)={\left(\frac{t_1^2}{t_2}-t_2\right)}\theta(t_1-t_2).\label{eq_Bs1}
\end{eqnarray}
Once entering the metallic phase, like Fig. {\ref{fig_disp_Bs}}(d), the
complete flat band along $\Gamma$-X is intersected by the dispersive band at
$k_x=k_c$. The flat band is a localized antibonding orbital of B and D sites
with $\varepsilon=-t_2-B_s$, which must be the double root of
Eq. (\ref{eq_ev}) at $\bm k=(k_c,0)$ to give,
\begin{eqnarray}
\hskip-1pc k_c(t_1,t_2,B_s)=2\arcsin{\sqrt{\frac{B_s}{t_2}\left\{\frac{t_2^2}{t_1^2}\left(1+\frac{B_s}{t_2}\right)-1\right\}}}.\label{eq_kc0}
\end{eqnarray}
In Fig. \ref{fig_disp_Bs}(d) of $(t_1,t_2,B_s)=(1,0.8,1)$, for instance,
$k_c$ is calculated to be
\begin{eqnarray}
k_c(1,0.8,1)=2\arcsin{\sqrt{0.55}}\simeq 0.53\pi. \label{eq_kc}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the dispersive band has even parity with respect to exchanging B and
D sites. That's why there is no band splitting at $\bm k=(k_c,0)$.

With increasing $B_s$ above $B_{s1}$, $k_c$ travels from 0
[Fig. {\ref{fig_disp_Bs}}(c)] to $\pi$ [Fig. {\ref{fig_disp_Bs}}(e)], and
finally the charge gap of the AFI phase opens at the X point
[Fig. \ref{fig_disp_Bs}(f)] with
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta^{(c)}_{\rm X}=t_2+B_s-\sqrt{4t_1^2+(t_2-B_s)^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
Again, $\Delta^{(c)}_{\rm X}=0$ defines the M-I transition line of
\begin{eqnarray}
B_{s2}(t_1,t_2)=\frac{t_1^2}{t_2},\label{eq_Bs2}
\end{eqnarray}
as depicted in Fig. \ref{fig_MI_Bs}.
Namely, in the shaded AFM region in Fig. \ref{fig_MI_Bs}, $k_c$ ranges from 0
to $\pi$ consistent with the relations, $k_c(t_1,t_2,B_{s1})=0$ and
$k_c(t_1,t_2,B_{s2})=\pi$, as shown by using Eqs. (\ref{eq_Bs1}),
(\ref{eq_kc0}), and (\ref{eq_Bs2}).
$B_{s1}$ and $B_{s2}$ transition lines are of Lifshitz type, which are similar
to the PM-NI phase transition at $B_s=0$. Although
these M-I transitions are peculiar in that Fermi surfaces of line shape along
the $k_x$ and $k_y$ axes vanish at the transition.\cite{lifshitz}

\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7.6cm]{fig_MI_Bs.eps}
\caption{(Color online) M-I phase diagram\cite{comment4} under the external staggered
  magnetic field ${\cal H}^{(B_s)}$.
  All transition lines are of Lifshitz
  type, where only Fermi surface geometry changes and no other symmetry is
  broken. At the points marked by the crosses ($\times$) and open circles
  ($\circ$), respectively, the dispersion relations are shown in
  Figs. \ref{fig_disp} and \ref{fig_disp_Bs}. Along the horizontal dashed
  arrows at $B_s=t_1$ and $2t_1$, the Berry phase is calculated in
  Fig. \ref{fig_gamma}.
\label{fig_MI_Bs}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Phase diagram under a uniform magnetic field}
Figure {\ref{fig_MI_Bu}} shows the similarly derived M-I phase diagram\cite{comment4}
under the external uniform magnetic field;
\begin{eqnarray}
\hskip-.5pc{\cal H}^{(B_u)}=\sum_{{\bm k}\sigma}\sigma B_u\left(n_{kA\sigma}+n_{kB\sigma}+n_{kC\sigma}+n_{kD\sigma}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
In the NI phase for $t_2/t_1<1$, the charge gap is given by
$\Delta^{(c)}_{\Gamma}=2(t_1-t_2-B_u)$. With increasing $B_u$ from zero,
therefore, the NI-FM phase transition takes place at $B_{u1}=t_1-t_2$. On the
other hand, in the FM phase for $t_1/t_2\le 0.5$, the phase transition to the
fully saturated FI phase occurs at $B_{u2}=2t_1$, where $4t_1$ is the
bandwidth of the majority-spin band.

When $B_u$ is large enough compared with $t_1$ and $t_2$, the present model at
1/4 filling is reduced to the spinless 1/2-filled problem. In that case, Fermi
energy is zero because of the bipartite symmetry, and the Fermi surface, if
it exists, is defined by the equation $F_{\bm k}(\epsilon=0)=0$ resulting in
\begin{eqnarray}
\cos{k_x}\cos{k_y}=\frac{t_2^2}{4t_1^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, $t_1/t_2=0.5$ determines the FM-FI phase transition line, as shown
in Fig. {\ref{fig_MI_Bu}} for large $B_u$. At this Lifshitz transition,
electron and hole pockets at $\Gamma$ and M points, respectively, vanish
simultaneously, see Figs. \ref{fig_disp}(d)-\ref{fig_disp}(f) at 1/2 filling of
$\varepsilon=0$.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7.6cm]{fig5_re.eps}
\caption{(Color online) M-I phase diagram\cite{comment4} under the external uniform magnetic
  field ${\cal H}^{(B_u)}$. All transition lines are of Lifshitz type. The
  dotted line in the FM phase indicates the lower boundary of the
  complete ferromagnetic region. The ferromagnetic moment in FI is fully
  saturated.
\label{fig_MI_Bu}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[bp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7.0cm,angle=0]{fig6_re.eps}
\caption{Mean-field phase diagram in the $U-t_2$ or $U-t_1$ plane, where
  thick-solid and dashed lines represent discontinuous and continuous magnetic
  phase boundaries, respectively. The symbol AF stands for the $\bm Q=\bm 0$
  antiferromagnetic order. The ferromagnetic moment in the FM and FI is fully
  saturated. The M-I phase transition lines shown by thin solid lines are of
  Lifshitz type.
\label{fig_pd}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\section{Effects of the Coulomb interaction}\label{sec_3}
\subsection{Mean-field phase diagram}
Next we consider the effect of the on-site Coulomb interaction within the
Hartree-Fock approximation, where the external fields of $B_s$ and $B_u$
discussed so far are replaced by the self-consistent fields. For numerical
stabilities, all calculations have been done at a finite temperature of
$T=0.03\times\textrm{max}(t_1,t_2)$ for the typical system size of
$200\times200$. By comparing the free energies of the nonmagnetic,
ferromagnetic, and $\bm
Q={\bf 0}$ antiferromagnetic states, we obtain the ground-state phase diagram
as shown in Fig. {\ref{fig_pd}}. Note that temperature and the system-size
dependence of the phase boundaries are already very weak for the present
calculations.

We have also checked the paramagnetic susceptibility $\chi_0(\bm q)$ for
$t_1<t_2$, which shows that the leading instability within the random phase
approximation (RPA) occurs at $\bm q={\bf 0}$ and the staggard moments develop
within the unit cell consistent with the $\bm Q={\bf 0}$ AF order assumed
in Fig. \ref{fig_MI_Bs}. From the largest eigenvalue of $\chi_0$, the RPA
instability is determined to be consistent with the PM-AFM transition line
shown in Fig. \ref{fig_pd}. The other simple order parameter, like $\bm
Q=(\pi,\pi)$ AF order, which is similar to the standard classical AF order in
the square lattice, is always high in energy. The other $\bm Q=(\pi,\pi)$ mode
with the ferromagnetic unit cell, that is the block-AF structure observed in
$\rm K_{0.8}Fe_{1.6}Se_2$,\cite{bao} has higher energy in this model.

For $t_1\simeq t_2$ and small $U$, the self-consistent field does not develop
and the NI-PM Lifshitz transition at $t_1=t_2$ is straight in this region. For
$U\gg t_1$ and $t_2$, fully saturated FM and FI compete with each other,
separated by the Lifshitz transition at $t_1/t_2=0.5$ consistent with
Fig. \ref{fig_MI_Bu}.

On the right half of the phase diagram ($t_1/t_2\le 1$) with modest $U$, the
antiferromagnetic phases prevail over the para- and ferromagnetic
phases. Starting from the small $t_1$ limit, an electron resides on the
antibonding orbital of the $t_2$ bond, labeled by $i$, where only the spin degree
of freedom $\bm S_i$ is left.\cite{comment1} The second-order perturbation by
super-exchange processes via $t_1$ hoppings derives the effective pairwise
spin Hamiltonian,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal H}_{ij}^{(2)} =\frac{t_1^2}{2}\left(\frac{1}{2t_2+U}+\frac{4}{U}\right)\bm S_i\cdot\bm S_j+\textrm{const.}
\label{eq_h2}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, the ground state for the small-$t_1$ region should be the AF bond
spin-density wave (SDW) which is consistent with the ${\bm Q=\bm 0}$ AFI of
Fig. \ref{fig_pd}. This is because, in both ordered states, the staggard
spin order in the unit cell stretches over the entire lattice uniformly. Once
self-consistent fields are developed, there is a one-to-one correspondence
between the phase diagrams of Figs. \ref{fig_MI_Bs}, \ref{fig_MI_Bu}, and
\ref{fig_pd} by reading $B_s$ or $B_u$ as $U$ multiplied by spin
densities. Accordingly, the M-I phase boundary in the AF region in
Fig. \ref{fig_pd} is nothing but the Lifshitz transition discussed in
Fig. \ref{fig_MI_Bs}. In addition we have observed a faint trace of the AFI' phase
in a narrow region just below the NI-AFM boundary around $t_2/t_1=0.7$-1.0
(not shown in Fig. \ref{fig_pd}).

At $t_2=0$, the model is reduced to the 4-site $t_1$-ring+$U$ problem, in
which exact FM and mean-field NI energies of $E_{\rm FM}$ and $E_{\rm NI}^{\rm
  (MF)}$, respectively, are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
E_{\rm FM}&=&-2t_1,\\
E_{\rm NI}^{\rm (MF)}&=&-4t_1+\frac{U}{4}.
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, $U_c=8t_1$ is found at $t_2=0$ consistent with the left end of
Fig. \ref{fig_pd}, where the finite $T$, $0.03t_1$ in the present calculation,
decreases the FM free energy and $U_c$ is slightly reduced. On the other end
of Fig. \ref{fig_pd} where $t_1$ is much smaller than $t_2$ and $U$, expanding
the FI and AFI mean-field energies as a function of $t_1$ up to the second
order, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
E_{\rm FI}^{(2)}&=&-2t_2-\frac{t_1^2}{t_2},\\
E_{\rm {AFI}}^{(2)}&=&-2t_2-4t_1^2\left(\frac{1}{U}+\frac{1}{U+4t_2}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
Comparing $E_{\rm F}^{(2)}$ and $E_{\rm AFI}^{(2)}$, the mean-field $U_c$
converges to $2(1+\sqrt{5})t_2\simeq 6.47t_2$ as $t_1$ approaches zero. The
mean-field staggered moment in the AFI is estimated for small $t_1$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{\rm AFI}^{(2)}=1-8t_1^2\left\{\frac{1}{U^2}+\frac{1}{\left(U+4t_2\right)^2}\right\}.
\end{eqnarray}
For small $t_1/t_2$, in reality, the AFI region extends over $U=\infty$
because of the super-exchange interaction [Eq. (\ref{eq_h2})], as mentioned above.

The mean-field analysis
is qualitatively justified for the Coulomb interaction $U$ smaller than the noninteracting
bandwidth of $W=4t_1+2t_2$. When $U$ exceeds the maximum bandwidth of around
$6t_1$ or $6t_2$, it seems that the first order transitions to fully saturated
ferromagnetic states take place mostly irrespective of $t_1/t_2$.
This may be
an artifact due to neglecting electron correlations, though electron kinetic
energy is favorable for the spin to be aligned in parallel at 1/4 filling,
generally speaking.

\subsection{Calculations of the Berry phase}
The AFI' (including the NI as a special case of $B_s=0$) and AFI phases are
also distinguished by using the bulk properties of Berry
phase\cite{berry,zak,resta} as a function of $k_x$, which is defined for
$L_x\times L_y$ lattice under periodic boundary conditions as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma^{(\alpha)}_{k_x\sigma}
&=&-i\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}dk_y\langle \Phi^{(\alpha)}_{\bm k\sigma}|\frac{\partial}{\partial k_y}|\Phi^{(\alpha)}_{\bm k\sigma}\rangle\\
&=&\sum_{k_y}{\rm Im}\langle \Phi^{(\alpha)}_{\bm k\sigma}|\Phi^{(\alpha)}_{\bm k+(0,\frac{2\pi}{L_y}),\sigma}\rangle,\label{eq_gamma}
\end{eqnarray}
where $|\Phi^{(\alpha)}_{\bm k\sigma}\rangle$ is the eigenvector of the lowest
$\alpha$ band with spin $\sigma$. In the numerical calculations, we take the
unit cell as shown in Fig. \ref{fig_lattice}(b) and $L_x=L_y=512$.

Figure \ref{fig_gamma} displays the numerically evaluated
$\gamma_{k_x,+}^{(\alpha)}$ as a function of $t_2/t_1$ for fixed values of
$B_s=t_1$ and $2t_2$. In the $B_s-t_2$ plane, $\gamma_{k_x,+}^{(\alpha)}$'s
are calculated along the dashed arrows as shown in the left-hand side of
Fig. \ref{fig_MI_Bs}. With increasing $t_2/t_1$ for a fixed $B_s$, we find
that $\gamma_{k_x,+}^{(\alpha)}$ for $k_x=0 (\pi)$ jumps from zero to $\pi$,
like a step function, when $t_1/t_2$ crosses $B_s=B_{s1} (B_{s2})$. Solving
$B_s=B_{s1}$ or $B_{s2}$ with respect to $t_2/t_1$ using Eqs. (\ref{eq_Bs1})
and (\ref{eq_Bs2}), the critical values of $t_1/t_2$ for $k_x=0$ and $\pi$ are
given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(\frac{t_2}{t_1}\right)_{c1}&=&\sqrt{1+\left(\frac{B_s}{2t_1}\right)^2}-\frac{B_s}{2t_1},\\
\left(\frac{t_2}{t_1}\right)_{c2}&=&\left(\frac{B_s}{t_1}\right)^{-1},
\end{eqnarray}
respectively. These critical values are indicated by the vertical arrows in
Fig. \ref{fig_gamma} for $B_s=t_1$ and $2t_1$. Eventually, we can reproduce
the MI phase diagram shown in Fig. \ref{fig_MI_Bs} by looking at
$\gamma^{(\alpha)}_{k_x\sigma}$ for $k_x=0$ and $\pi$.

When $k_x$ is fixed at an intermediated value between 0 and $\pi$, we have
numerically found that $\gamma^{(\alpha)}_{k_x,+}=0$ for a given parameter set
of $(t_1,t_2,B_s)$, satisfying $k_x<k_c(t_1,t_2,B_s)$ and
$\gamma^{(\alpha)}_{k_x,+}=\pi$ otherwise. At $(t_1,t_2,B_s)=(1,0.8,1)$, for
example, $k_c(t_1,t_2,B_s)\simeq 0.53\pi$, see Eq. (\ref{eq_kc}) and
Fig. \ref{fig_disp_Bs}(d). Therefore, $\gamma^{(\alpha)}_{0.53\pi,+}$ behaves
like $\pi\cdot\theta(t_2/t_1-0.8)$ as a function of $t_2/t_1$ for $B_s=t_1$ or
like $\pi\cdot\theta(B_s/t_1-1)$ as a function of $B_s/t_1$ for $t_2/t_1=0.8$,
where $\theta(x)$ is a step function. In other words, the AFI' (including the
NI at $B_s=0$) and AFI phases are, respectively, characterized by
$\gamma_{k_x\sigma}^{(\alpha)}=0$ and $\pi$ for any value of $k_x$.

The bulk-edge correspondence\cite{halperin,hatsugai2} tells us that the
nontrivial Berry phase $\gamma$ in the AFI suggests an existence of the
zero-energy edge state when making a cut on $t_2$ bonds. Since the wave
function in NI(AFI') and AFI phases are mainly confined within the $t_1$
squares and the $t_2$ bonds, respectively, then different types of edge state
are expected to characterize these two insulating phases. Physics of the
edge state lies in the fact that the antibonding orbitals on $t_2$ bonds are
occupied in the AFI phase and, when making a cut, the dangling bonds
remain. This is a 2D analog of polyacetylene where the cut on a double
covalent bond produces an edge state.\cite{su,ryu}

\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig_gamma.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Berry phase $\gamma_{k_x,+}^{(\alpha)}$ for
  $L_x=L_y=512$ as a function of $t_2/t_1$ for $B_s=t_1$ and $2t_1$ with
  $k_x=0$ and $\pi$. We have checked that $\gamma_{k_x,+}^{(\alpha)}$
  converges to a step function as the system size increases. The positions of
  critical $(t_2/t_1)_c$ are indicated by vertical arrows.
\label{fig_gamma}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\section{summary and concluding remarks}\label{sec_4}
In summary, we have revealed a rich variety of magnetic and M-I phase diagrams
of the 1/5-depleted square-lattice Hubbard model at 1/4 filling within the
mean field approximation. The mean-field phase diagram in $U-t_1$ or $U-t_2$
plane consists of three magnetic phases of nonmagnetic, $\bm Q=\bm 0$ antiferromagnetic, and
completely ferromagnetic type.  The phase transition between nonmagnetic and
antiferromagnetic phases is continuous, which is consistent with the RPA instability
for $t_1<t_2$; the other magnetic transitions to ferromagnetic states are
discontinuous. The SU(3) effective theory and the spectrum analyses under the
external staggered or uniform magnetic fields elucidate the properties of
Lifshitz-type M-I phase transitions in each magnetic phase, which separate the
phase diagram into $3\times2=6$ parts. In particular, the existence of the AF
bond SDW order is shown based on the perturbation theory for small $t_1$,
which corresponds to an extension of the AFI phase for $t_1<t_2$ and $t_1\ll
U$ in the mean-field phase diagram.
When $U=0$ and $t_1\ll t_2$, the model is
reduced to the 1/2-filled square-lattice tight-binding model of the antibonding
orbitals on the $t_2$ bonds. Then the weak-coupling theory tells us that the perfect
nesting leads to the AF SDW insulating order at infinitesimal $U$, which corresponds
to the very small onset of $U/t_2$ toward the AFI phase shown in Fig. \ref{fig_pd}.
This AFI phase may be regarded as the two-dimensional analog of the $4k_F$
charge order discussed in the one-dimensional 1/4-filled Hubbard model
for the organic conductor (TMTTF)$_2$X.\cite{jerome,ung}
In this sense, despite the Hartree-Fock treatment of the present study,
we can say that the emergence of the four distinct phases for the small $U$ region and
the hidden symmetry in the AFI phase, which is characterized by the nontrivial
Berry phase, should be robust.

One of the most interesting issues to be addressed is whether the FM and FI
phases appearing in the large $U$ region survive or not after including
effects of electron correlation beyond the Hartree-Fock approximation. As
mentioned for $t_1\ll t_2$ and $U$, the answer is no. In the opposite limit of
$t_2=0,t_1\ll U$, unfortunately, $E_{\rm NI}=-2\sqrt{2}t_1 < E_{\rm FM}=-2t_1$
always holds by solving a 4-site Hubbard model with two electrons for no double
occupancy. Then what about the case of $t_1\simeq t_2\ll U$? To partly answer
this question, we have applied numerical exact diagonalization for the 16-site
cluster shown in Fig. \ref{fig_lattice}(a) with eight electrons. For any of open,
periodic, and antiperiodic boundary conditions, as a result, the
ground-state energy is always found in the spin-singlet sector for $U$ at
least smaller than 20 at $t_1=t_2=1$. We need much more sophisticated
treatments to settle this issue, which is beyond the scope of this paper.

The Dirac-cone and flat-band dispersions are characteristic of the present
model, and the lifting degeneracy of the SU(3) multiplet rules the physics
around the SU(3) point. The SU(3) effective Hamiltonian can be constructed
solely by the symmetry arguments and, therefore, the present peculiar band
structure may be relevant to some realistic cases. For example, complex
hopping matrices, like the Haldane model\cite{haldane} (due to a magnetic flux) or
Kane-Mele model\cite{kane} (spin-orbit couplings), introduce a $\lambda_2$ term
and a staggered modulation in $t_1$'s, due to a lattice symmetry lowering from
the original $\rm C_4$ to $\rm C_2$, bringing a $\lambda_3$ term in the SU(3)
model.

The AFM phase is rather specific in that the flat band along $\Gamma$-X does
not hybridize with the crossing band at $k_x=k_c$ because of the different
parity symmetry of these two states with respect to exchanging B and D
sites.\cite{tsunetsugu} This parity protected AFM phase separates the NI and
AFI phases, which are classified according to the different Berry phases. This
is the manifestation of the fact that topologically different insulating
phases can not be connected unless the charge gap closes at the junction.

\begin{acknowledgments}
The authors would like to thank H. Tsunetsugu, M. Oshikawa, I. Maruyama, and
K. Ohgushi for valuable comments and discussions. This work has been supported
by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Innovative Areas ``Heavy
Electrons'' (Grant No. 20102008) and (C) (Grant No. 25400357)
from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan.
This work was carried out
by the joint research in the Institute for Solid State Physics, the University
of Tokyo.
\end{acknowledgments}