\section{Introduction }

The MeV domain is one of the most underexplored windows on the Universe. This has not resulted from a paucity of interesting science, but from technology
constraints that have limited advances detection sensitivity in recent decades. Thanks to currently available technology that makes sensitive observations in this band feasible, we can address this tantalizing gap in our knowledge pertaining to critical astrophysical questions. Known science that can be addressed at these energies is much too broad for any realizable single mission. Hence we plan to focus on a large field of view instrument with moderate angular and energy resolution optimized for continuum sensitivity. We have chosen to optimize our instrument  in this energy range, one we call ComPair, to use both Compton scattering and pair production as detection techniques,
for a compelling, high scientific return design. Such design can be achieved at reasonable cost with technologies that are currently in a high state of readiness.

Measurement at these energies is challenging. This is mainly due to specifics of photon detection: it is a range where two processes of photon interaction, Compton scattering and pair production, compete, with a crossover at around 10 MeV depending on the material. These two interaction processes require different approaches in both detection and data analysis, and consequently in the instrument concept. The ideal would be to have two separate instruments, each optimized for a particular photon interaction. However, we believe that it is possible, though challenging, to design a cost-saving single instrument that will be capable to detect both kinds of photon interaction processes and provide accurate results in the extended energy range 0.2  -  500 MeV, optimizing its performance in the 0.5 - 100 MeV span. An additional advantage of such an approach is that the Compton and pair-production events will be treated separately, and the results will be compared in the overlapping energy range. This will significantly increase the confidence in the results obtained, and improve the assessment of systematic errors.

\section{ComPair Instrument Concept}
 The instrument concept is based on the traditional scheme of previous gamma-ray telescopes (e.g. EGRET \cite{egret}, Fermi-LAT  \cite{glast}, AGILE  \cite{agile}), as well as on the engineering studies for the European-led MEGA \cite{mega} and GRIPS  \cite{grips} projects  and utilizes well-known detectors without any consumables \cite{compair}.  It consists of a multi-layer silicon-strip Tracker in which the gamma-rays interact and the resulting charged particles have directions and energy measured; a Calorimeter to measure deposited energy and position of photon absorption, consisting of a novel combination of solid-state detectors CdZnTe-strip (CZT), and inorganic scintillators CsI(Tl); and a surrounding plastic scintillator anticoincidence detector (ACD), to discriminate the photons from the vastly more numerous charged particles in the space environment (Fig. 1).

\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{Paper_Fig_1.png}
\caption{Conceptual design of ComPair}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{Paper_Fig_2.pdf}
\caption{Event types for Compton-Pair telescopes.}
\end{figure}

For pair-production events, ComPair is similar in design to AGILE and Fermi-LAT, but optimized for lower energy. This goal can be achieved by eliminating the passive tungsten converters used in both these instruments. This approach reduces gamma-ray conversion efficiency (roughly proportional to the tracker layer thickness), but it improves the instrument point-spread function (PSF) by reducing absorption and multiple Coulomb scattering of the electron and positron.
The broad PSF is a primary limiting factor in the science that can be done at energies below 100 MeV by AGILE and Fermi-LAT. In addition to improving the PSF, the use of low-mass tracker planes also enables photon polarization measurements.

Detecting gamma-rays by Compton scattering (the dominant process below about 10 MeV) is more complicated than using pair production, because the scattered photon carries a significant amount of the information about the incident photon and so needs to be detected too. In practice, a Compton telescope requires two separate photon interactions in order to have a clear detection. In the ComPair concept, the first Compton scattering of the incident photon occurs in one of the Tracker planes, creating an electron and a scattered photon. The Tracker measures the interaction location, the electron energy, and in some cases the electron direction. The scattered photon can be absorbed in the Calorimeter or scattered a second time in the Tracker before being absorbed in the Calorimeter where its energy and absorption position are measured.

The basic principle of the Compton mode of operation is illustrated in Figure 2, left. An incident gamma-ray Compton scatters by an angle $\Theta$ in one layer of the Tracker, transferring energy $E_{1}$ to an electron. The scattered photon is then absorbed in the Calorimeter, depositing energy $E_{2}$, and
the scattering angle is given by $\cos\Theta = \frac{m_{e}c^{2}}{E_2} + \frac{m_{e}c^{2}}{E_1+E_2} $, where $m_ec^2$ is the rest mass energy of the electron.
With this information, we derive an "event circle" from which the original photon arrived. We will call this sort of Compton events "untracked" events. The uncertainty in the "event circle" reconstruction is reflected in its width and is due to the uncertainties in direction reconstruction of the scattered photon and the energy measurements of the scattered electron $(E_1)$ and the scattered photon $(E_2)$. If the scattered electron direction is measured, the event circle reduces to an event arc with length due to the uncertainty in the electron direction reconstruction, allowing improved source localization. This event is called a "tracked" event, and its direction reconstruction is somewhat similar to that for pair event: the primary photon direction is reconstructed from the direction and energy of two secondary particles: scattered electron and photon.

\subsection{Si-strip Tracker}
Silicon strips have become the standard particle tracking technology on the ground and in space.  Double-sided silicon detectors (DSSD) are necessary for measuring both x- and y-coordinates of Compton event starting points (low-energy Compton electrons may not penetrate two single-sided detectors) and for measuring polarization for pair-production events:

\begin{itemize}
\item Analog readout is necessary for measurement of the energy of the scattered Compton electron, as well as for measuring energies of pair-production events at low energy.
\item The thickness of Si needs to be optimized between conversion efficiency (affects instrument effective area) and multiple scattering (affects PSF).
\item Si-strip pitch needs to be optimized between PSF (for Compton events, and for pair-production events at higher energy) and number of electronics channels (cost, power).
\item Si-strip plane spacing needs to be optimized between PSF for pair-production events at higher energy and the instrument field of view.
\end{itemize}

The Tracker is a stack of 50 double-sided 0.5 mm thick Si-strip detector planes, with an area of 1m x 1m and strip pitch 0.25mm. The planes are separated by 1 cm, which we currently consider optimal in terms of the PSF/field-of-view trade-off. Each plane is made of 10 x 10 DSSD wafers, 9.5cm x 9.5cm each, divided in four 5 x 5 wafer segments with daisy-chained strips in each direction (within one segment). In this layout the readout is arranged on the Tracker sides (tentatively by IdEAS VATA4560.3), without the need to have mechanically separated "towers" (Fig. 3).

\begin{figure}[ht]
\hspace{1cm}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.4\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Paper_Fig_3.png}
\caption{Si Tracker single plane, divided in 4 segments, with 5 x 5 wafers in each (25 x 25 for CZT plane)}
\label{fig:figure1}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{2mm}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,trim=0 0 30 0 ,clip=true]{Paper_Fig_4.pdf}
\caption{Direction reconstruction for normal incidence 800 keV photons. Red line shows distribution for tracked events, and black line -  both tracked and untracked events (see explanation in the text).  }
\label{fig:figure2}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}

 \subsection{Calorimeter}
In order to provide necessary information for both Compton and pair-production events over a broad energy range, the Calorimeter needs to have both good spatial and energy resolution over a broad energy range.
 For the parts closest to the Tracker, where knowing the positions of the interacting low-energy Compton-scattered photons is important, the Calorimeter should be position sensitive with $\sim$5mm position resolution in all 3 dimensions and have energy detection threshold less than 50 keV,
 In order to measure the higher-energy pair-production particles, a deeper Calorimeter is needed. Potentially it can be made less expensive with coarser position resolution (1-2 cm) with a higher energy detection threshold of  $>$100 keV. However, the thicker a precise coordinate-sensitive section of the calorimeter is (but more expensive), the better the instrument performance for Compton events (see Section 3 and Fig. 5, right panel).

The ComPair calorimeter is divided into 3 sections (Fig. 1). CZT-strip calorimeters at the bottom and sides detect low-energy Compton-scattered photons, while below the bottom-most CZT detector is a Fermi LAT-like CsI hodoscopic log calorimeter to provide energy measurement and reconstruction of longitudinal and latitudinal shower profiles for higher-energy pair-production events. The total thickness of the bottom section of the calorimeter
is $\sim$4.5 radiation lengths.
The CZT calorimeters are made of 4 planes of 5mm thick double-sided CZT-strip detectors. Each plane is made of 2cm x 2cm x 0.5cm individual CZT detectors, with four orthogonal readout strips on both sides. The strip pitch is 5mm, and strip width is 2.5mm. In the bottom section each plane is divided in 4 segments, similarly to the Tracker plane (Fig. 3). Each segment contains 25 x 25 individual daisy-chained CZT detectors, read out from two adjacent sides (tentatively by IdEAS VATA).

The CsI calorimeter consists of 5 planes (or trays) of 1.2cm x 1.2cm x 32cm CsI(Tl) logs, with each log read out from both ends by Silicon Photomultiplier (tentatively Hamamatsu S12572-010P). In the top-most plane (tray) the logs are arranged along the X-axis, in the next one - along the Y-axis, and so on alternatively. The physical location of each CsI(Tl) log provides two spatial coordinates for the "hit", or center of gravity of energy deposition in this log. The one is the number of the plane, or Z-coordinate, and the other is the Y-position of the log in the X-tray, or alternatively X-position for the the Y-tray. The third coordinate along the log length is obtained from the asymmetry in light collection from each end of the log, with expected accuracy of $<$5 mm.
An important feature of the ComPair calorimeter is the ability to reconstruct the shower profile using measured deposited energy in each log and its coordinates, similarly to how it is done in Fermi-LAT \cite{glast}. This improves energy measurement at higher energies by providing the ability to correct for energy leaking through the bottom and sides of the calorimeter. The shower shape is also an important discriminant between the electromagnetic showers produced by gamma-rays and hadronic showers produced by cosmic-ray background.

\subsection{Anti-Coincidence Detector and Trigger}
The entire upper part of the instrument is covered by a plastic scintillator ACD, similar to that successfully used in Fermi-LAT. The main distinctive feature of the Fermi-LAT ACD is that it is divided in 89 segments in order to reduce a "back-splash" effect at high energy (above 100 GeV). It will not be a problem for ComPair due to the lower energy of interest, so the ACD design is significantly easier.
The baseline trigger is a five-fold coincidence of the hits in two consecutive Si planes (both sides in each plane) and the presence of a signal from the calorimeter, either CZT or CsI section, with no veto signal in the ACD within the triggering time window of a few microseconds. This trigger configuration allows detection of both Compton and pair-production events. The requirement of hits in two consecutive Si planes assumes the detection of the scattered electron for Compton events. The trigger can be re-configured to require a hit in only one Si plane and in the calorimeter (three-fold coincidence), subject to the orbital event data rate. This trigger configuration allows for the detection of "untracked" Compton events (see next Section).

\begin{figure}
\hspace{1cm}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.88\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Paper_Fig_5.pdf}
 \caption{Left panel: Effective area. Right panel:  Angular resolution, FWHM for Compton events and 68\% containment radius for pair events. Line 1: Compton tracked events; line 2: Compton untracked events; line 3: Compton tracked events with deeper CZT calorimeter; line 4: pair events with ComPair; line 5: pair events with Fermi-LAT, front.}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}

\section{Instrument Performance}
Instrument performance was simulated with MEGAlib - the Medium-Energy Gamma-ray Astronomy library \cite{megalib}  and cross-checked with MGEANT  \cite{mgeant}. MEGAlib is based on GEANT4 and has been successfully used for numerous simulations, including projects similar to ComPair: MEGA, GRIPS and ASTROGAM. It consists of two main logical parts: one simulates the events, and the other one reconstructs the events and analyzes the results.
Event reconstruction for the pair events is rather straightforward, but it is more difficult  for the Compton events. As was stated in the instrument trigger description, we will mainly use Compton "tracked" events with a scattered electron detected in at least two Si planes. Using such events we will have smaller effective area and higher detection threshold than for "untracked" events without detected Compton electron, but the direction reconstruction is more reliable (Fig.4). The sample of "untracked" events has many events with misreconstructed directions (seen on the right from the central peak in this figure) which constitutes a significant source of background. Example of such background is atmospheric gamma-radiation arriving mainly from the horizon. However, for some specific observations, e.g. study of spatial structure of a source, the use of untracked events can be useful. Simulation results for effective area and angular resolution for normal incidence events, separately for Compton and pair events, are shown in Fig. 5, reflecting the effect of tracked and untracked events, along with characteristics for Fermi-LAT shown for comparison. We also investigated the effect of the thicker section of CZT calorimeter with better spatial resolution on the ComPair angular resolution. The dotted line (3) on the right panel of Fig. 5 shows angular resolution for the instrument with the CZT calorimeter section consisting of 10 planes, to be compared with the baseline design with 4 planes (solid blue line 1). The effect is visible, but the cost of such a calorimeter would be  significantly higher.

Fig. 6 shows the ComPair energy resolution. Clearly seen is the worsening of the resolution  at around 3-5 MeV  due to the events with a 511 keV annihilation photon escaping from the calorimeter. We have not implemented yet any shower shape reconstruction to improve energy reconstruction, so this is the conservative estimate of ComPair ability to measure the photon energy. The summary of ComPair expected performance and some technical parameters is shown in Table 1. \

\begin{figure}[ht]
\hspace{1cm}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth,trim=0 0 30 0 ,clip=true]{Paper_Fig_6.pdf}
\caption{Energy Resolution for ComPair}
\label{fig:figure1}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth,trim=0 0 30 0 ,clip=true]{Paper_Fig_7.pdf}
\caption{The sensitivity of ComPair mission to detect polarization from the Crab (see explanation in the text)}
\label{fig:figure2}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}

The source sensitivity  for the ComPair instrument compared with existing results is shown in Fig.8 (data for this figure are taken from  \cite{grips}  with added ComPair sensitivity). For Compton events we used only "tracked" events. For the energy below 30 MeV we expect an improvement in sensitivity by a factor of 20-50 compared with that of COMPTEL, and by a factor of 5-10 over EGRET in the energy range 30-100 MeV.

In this paper we estimated the ComPair source sensitivity, assuming only isotropic Extra-Galactic Background, or EGB (\cite{gruber}, \cite{weiden}, \cite{fermi}).
However, the "natural" background such as  EGB for high latitude, and Galactic diffuse radiation for low latitude observations is not the main limiting factor in the instrument sensitivity. Compton events are also affected by the atmospheric and environmental (created in the instrument and spacecraft material) backgrounds. Accurate study of these, and possibly other sources of background, is the subject of a future work.  However we  estimated the systematic uncertainty, assuming five times higher background, to account for that sources. It is shown in Fig. 8 as a shadowed area above the ComPair line.  This is a preliminary estimate of the ComPair sensitivity, subject to future revision by adding more fidelity to the simulations and adding untracked events.

\begin{figure}
\hspace{1cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{Paper_Fig_8.pdf}
\caption[width=\textwidth]{Point source sensitivity of previous gamma-ray measurements. The simulated sensitivity of ComPair mission is shown by the blue line, and shaded area shows systematic uncertainty}
\end{figure}

  \begin{table}[ht]
\centering
     \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
   Energy Range & 0.5 - 100 MeV ( 0.2 - 500 MeV) \\
Energy Resolution & 2 - 5\% below 20 MeV, $\sim$ 12\% at 100 MeV \\
Effective Area & 50 - 250 $cm^2$ below 10 MeV, 200-1200 $cm^2$ above 10 MeV \\
Field of View & $\sim$ 3 sr \\
Angular Resolution & $\sim \; 6^{\circ} $ (1 MeV), $\sim \; 10^{\circ} $ ( 10 MeV), $\sim \; 1.5^{\circ} $ (100 MeV)  \\
Mass &  $< 1000$ kg \\
Power & $< 1000$ W \\
Overall dimensions & Diameter $\sim$ 200 cm, height $\sim$ 120 cm \\
    \hline
    \end{tabular}
     \caption{Summary of ComPair parameters}
     \label{tab1}
     \end{table}

The ComPair capability to detect radiation polarization from bright sources has been estimated (for pair events only) for the Crab pulsar based on calculations in \cite{kkl}. The major factor affecting the polarization measurement for pair events by pair-converter telescopes is the multiple scattering of the electron and positron in the converter, which is a Si-strip plane in ComPair. Although the Si-strip plane thickness of 0.5mm is not optimal, it still allows for such measurements. We estimated the ComPair sensitivity to measure linear polarization from the Crab, assuming measured asymmetry parameter $\lambda = 0.2$ (corresponding to the converter thickness). Red line in Fig. 7 shows how many events with energy greater than 10 MeV need to be detected to measure the source polarization with 30\% accuracy, and blue dash lines show the expected statistics to be collected by ComPair from the Crab for different observation time. For instance, if the Crab polarization is 20\%, it will be detected by ComPair in 1 month of observation time with 30\% accuracy. \

 \section{Summary}
We have developed a concept for a medium-energy gamma-ray space telescope, focused on accurate measurements in the energy range 500 keV - 100 MeV, with capability to perform measurements in an extended range from 200 keV to 500 MeV and higher. It inherits from predecessors such as Fermi-LAT, AGILE and MEGA. The ComPair concept assumes detecting capability for both Compton and pair production gamma-ray events and exceeds the currently achieved sensitivity of COMPTEL by a factor of $\sim$100 at energy around 1 MeV. The design presented in this paper can be considered as a concept with the possibility to scale it up or down depending on the available mission resources.
The authors would like to thank Robert Johnson, Bill Atwood, Eric Grove, Eric Wulf, Igor Moskalenko and Steve Sturner for valuable discussions and suggestions. Also the authors are grateful to the MEGA team, and especially to Andreas Zoglauer for the wonderful simulation package MEGAlib and very valuable comments.


\section{INTRODUCTION}

The demand for new materials with interesting and useful physical properties has led to a fast development in material science.
Properties such as superconductivity, magnetic ordering, nearly ferromagnetic Fermi-liquid and heavy fermion behavior have been observed in many materials, including the family of complex intermetallic compounds $RT_2$Zn$_{20}$ ($R$ = rare earth, $T$ = transition metal).\cite{Torikachvili_PNAS_2007,Jia_Nature_2007,Jia_PRB_2008, Jia_PRB_2009, onimaru2010superconductivity}
This family, first reported two decades ago by Nasch $et~al$.\cite{nasch1997ternary}, has been extensively used as a model system due to its rather unique structure which features a complex but well ordered crystal structure.
The $RT_2$Zn$_{20}$ compounds have a cubic structure with $F d \bar{3} m$ (No. 227) space group in which the $R$ and $T$ ions occupy the crystallographic sites 8$a$ and 16$d$, respectively.
Moreover, these ions are each encapsulated in quasi-spherical cages formed exclusively by Zn ions, which occupy three inequivalent Wyckoff positions given by 16$c$, 48$f$, and 96$g$ as can be viewed in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig0}.
Two particular properties observed in these materials have attracted great attention: a remarkably high magnetic ordering temperature observed in the $R$Fe$_2$Zn$_{20}$ series (although it contains less than $5\%$ of $R$ ion) and a nearly ferromagnetic Fermi-liquid behavior in YFe$_2$Zn$_{20}$.\cite{Jia_Nature_2007,Jia_PRB_2009}

\begin{figure}[!b]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=0.0cm 0.00cm 0.0cm 0.0cm, clip=true, totalheight=0.2 \textheight, angle=0]{Fig_1_jrlm.eps}
\caption{(Color online) $RT_2$Zn$_{20}$ structural representation. The Zn ions are shown at the three sites (label Zn1-3) and the Zn cages are shown in detail in which there is a $R$ atom inside. }
\label{fig:fig0}
\end{figure}

Several works have argued, based on macroscopic measurements and band structure calculations, that the elevated magnetic ordering temperatures and the type of magnetic ordering are attributed to a high density of states (DOS) at the Fermi level.\cite{Jia_Nature_2007,Jia_PRB_2008, Jia_PRB_2009, tian2010magnetic, Ni_PRB_2011}
For instance, the Co based compounds GdCo$_2$Zn$_{20}$ and TbCo$_2$Zn$_{20}$ present an antiferromagnetic (AFM) ordering below $\sim$ 5.7~K and 2.5~K, respectively, in which the larger $R$-$R$ distance ($\sim$ 6 \AA{}) supports an indirect interaction and a low transition temperature.
When the Co ions are replaced by Fe ions (GdFe$_2$Zn$_{20}$ and TbFe$_2$Zn$_{20}$) the compounds exhibit ferromagnetic (FM) ordering with the transition temperatures drastically raised to 86~K and 66~K, respectively.
The relatively long distance between rare earth ions in the structure weakens the Ruderman-Kittel-Kasuya-Yosida (RKKY) exchange interaction, while the high density of Fe 3$d$ bands at the Fermi level directly affects the conduction electrons.

Recently, a detailed study of the magnetic structure of TbCo$_2$Zn$_{20}$ and TbFe$_2$Zn$_{20}$ through magnetic neutron scattering at low temperature was reported.\cite{tian2010magnetic}
Although the Tb-based compounds present similar magnetic properties as compared to GdCo$_2$Zn$_{20}$ and GdFe$_2$Zn$_{20}$, the absence of crystalline electric field (CEF) at first order and a strong RKKY interaction in the Gd-compounds affect the electronic and magnetic interactions between the rare earth ions and the surrounding matrix.
In particular, the investigation of the compounds with half-filled 4$f^7$ shell (Gd-based materials) at low temperature can provide information about the physical properties and are very important as reference compounds due to their lack of orbital momentum, i.e., $S = 7/2$ and $L = 0$, which leads to magnetic properties that are unaffected by spin-orbit coupling.
In order to understand the implications of such interactions we have used spectroscopy and magnetic scattering techniques to probe in detail the electronic and magnetic properties of the Gd$T_2$Zn$_{20}$ family.
The large Gd neutron absorption cross section leaves X-ray measurements as the ideal option to probe of the magnetic and electronic properties in these materials.
Furthermore, the incoming beam energy can be tuned to the absorption edge, thus providing chemical and atomic selectivity, i.e., the magnetic response of each element can be probed separately.

Here we report the magnetic and electronic structure at low temperature of the Gd$T_2$Zn$_{20}$ ($T$ = Fe, Co) compounds using X-ray resonant magnetic scattering (XRMS), X-ray absorption near-edge structure (XANES) and X-ray magnetic circular dichroism (XMCD) techniques.
The XRMS measurements performed on GdCo$_2$Zn$_{20}$ reveal a commensurate antiferromagnetic ordering with a magnetic propagation vector $\vec{\tau} = (\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})$ below $T_N = 5.72(6)$ K in which the Gd magnetic moments are aligned following the magnetic representation $\Gamma_6$.
The XMCD measurements performed below the Curie Temperature ($T_C = 85(2)$ K) in GdFe$_2$Zn$_{20}$ display a dichroic signal of 12.5~$\%$ and 9.7~$\%$ of the absorption jump for Gd $L_{2}$ and $L_3$ edges, respectively.
Surprisingly, a magnetic signal of about 0.06~$\%$ is detected at the Zn $K$-edge which suggests that the Zn ions are spin polarized.
This magnetic signal might originate from the hybridization between the extended Gd 5$d$ bands with the empty Zn 4$sp$ states.
Absorption measurements performed at the Fe $K$-edge do not reveal any magnetic contribution coming from the iron ions above the background level.

\section{EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS}

High quality single crystals of GdFe$_2$Zn$_{20}$ and GdCo$_2$Zn$_{20}$ were grown at UFABC by Zn self flux method\cite{Canfield_PhilMag_1992,Ribeiro_PhilMag_2012} similar to that reported in previous studies on the family.\cite{Jia_Nature_2007, Jia_PRB_2008,  Jia_PRB_2009}
In order to perform the absorption measurements at the Gd $L_{2,3}$, Fe and Zn $K$ edge, selected single crystals of GdFe$_2$Zn$_{20}$ were ground and sieved, resulting in fine powders with grain sizes around $3$-$5~\mu m$.
The magnetic diffraction measurements were done on a high quality GdCo$_2$Zn$_{20}$ single crystal cut to dimensions of approximately 2 x 2 x 0.5 mm$^3$.
The crystalline piece was carefully polished to achieve a flat surface perpendicular to the $[111]$ direction, yielding a mosaic width of approximately 0.02$^{\circ}$.
The phase purity of the samples was confirmed by powder diffraction using conventional laboratory X-ray sources.
Temperature dependent magnetic susceptibility measurements (not shown here) were performed using a commercial superconducting quantum interference device (Quantum Design MPMS-SQUID) to verify the magnetic ordering temperatures, the effective magnetic moments and the Curie-Weiss constants.

The resonant diffraction measurements were performed at beamline 6-ID-B at the Advanced Photon Source (APS), Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne, IL/USA), whereas the absorption measurements were conducted at 4-ID-D (APS)\cite{Freeland_RSI_2002} and at beamline P09 at PETRA III (DESY, Hamburg/Germany).\cite{Strempfer_JSR_2013}

\subsection{Absorption experiment}
XANES and XMCD spectra obtained at low temperature for the Gd $L_{2,3}$, Fe and Zn $K$-absorption edges were performed in transmission geometry on powdered GdFe$_2$Zn$_{20}$ samples.
The samples were cooled down by a displex cryostat with base temperature around 7~K.
XMCD spectra were performed in helicity switching mode in which the left and right circular polarization was obtained by means of diamond phase plates.\cite{Hirano_JJAP_1991}
The degree of circularly polarized beam was higher than 95~$\%$ for both beamlines (P09 and 4-ID-D).\cite{Francoual_JPCS_2013, Lang_RSI_1995}
An external magnetic field of H = 2.0~T (at APS) and 0.8~T (at DESY) was applied in the GdFe$_2$Zn$_{20}$ samples along and opposite to the incident beam wave vector $\hat{k}$ to align the ferromagnetic domains and to correct for non-magnetic artifacts in the XMCD data.
Those external magnetic fields were enough to reach the saturation magnetization according to the macroscopic measurements.

\subsection{Scattering experiment}
XRMS measurements were performed at T = 4.5~K on GdCo$_2$Zn$_{20}$ single crystal, mounted inside the closed-cycle displex cryostat in a six-circle diffractometer at the 6-ID-B beamline.
The single crystal was oriented with the $[111]$ direction parallel to the vertical diffraction plane.
Several magnetic superlattice reflections of the type $(\frac{L}{2}, \frac{L}{2}, \frac{L}{2})$ with $L = (2n+1)$ were measured and their integrated intensities were compared to the simulated intensities to determine the magnetic structure below $T_N$.
To enhance the magnetic Bragg peak intensities, the energy of the incident beam was tuned near the Gd $L_2$ or $L_3$ absorption edges.
In addition, in order to investigate any magnetic contribution from Co and Zn ions, the energy of the incident beam was also tuned to the Co (7709~eV) and Zn (9659~eV) $K$-edges and a search for superlattice reflections was performed.
The charge and magnetic contributions present in the scattered beam were separated by a pyrolytic graphite [C$(006)$] analyzer crystal installed on the 2$\theta$ arm of the diffractometer.
Since the incident beam presents the polarization perpendicular to diffraction plane ($\sigma$ polarization), by rotation of the analyzer crystal around the scattered beam wave vector $\vec{k'}$ we were able to select the two polarization channels ($\sigma-\sigma'$ and $\sigma-\pi'$) in this experimental geometry.\cite{hill1996}

\section{EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS}

The experimental results are organized into two sections: The first part is dedicated to the absorption measurements on powdered GdFe$_2$Zn$_{20}$ in its FM state.
The subsequent section shows the results obtained by the XRMS technique on the GdCo$_2$Zn$_{20}$ single crystal in its AFM state.

\subsection{Absorption measurements: GdFe$_2$Zn$_{20}$}

\begin{figure}[!b]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=0.0cm 0.00cm 0.0cm 0.0cm, clip=true, totalheight=0.3 \textheight, angle=0]{Fig_2_jrlm.eps}
\caption{(Color online) XANES and XMCD spectra obtained at the Gd $L_{2,3}$ edges performed at $T = 7$~K and $H$ = 2~T.}
\label{fig:fig1}
\end{figure}

XANES and XMCD measurements performed at the Gd $L_{2,3}$ edges in GdFe$_2$Zn$_{20}$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1}.
Dipolar selection rules make the dichroic signal at the $L_{2,3}$ absorption edges sensitive to the spin polarization of the intermediate 5$d$ level.
The Gd XANES reported in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1} are normalized to one at the $L_3$ and half at the $L_2$ edge to reflect the 2:1 ratio of the initial state at these edges (2$p_{3/2}$ and 2$p_{1/2}$, respectively).
Figure~\ref{fig:fig1} also shows the XMCD spectra at the Gd $L_{2,3}$ edges in which each spectrum is normalized to the corresponding edge jump of the absorption spectrum.
The XMCD signal obtained across the two edges show different intensities with a strong dichroic magnetic signal around 12.5~$\%$ at the $L_2$ and 9.7~$\%$ at the $L_3$ absorption edges, which is consistent with Gd-based compounds.\cite{Galera_JPCM_2008}

The size and the shape of the magnetic contribution obtained by fitting the XMCD signals with Lorentzian function can describe additional properties of this system.
The widths of the dipolar contributions (E1) contributions observed at the $L_2$ and $L_3$ absorption edges are 4.3(2)~eV and 4.5(2)~eV, respectively, which reflects a short 2$p$ core hole lifetime.
Using the integrated intensities, the $L_3/L_2$ ratio (or Branching Ratio value - BR)\cite{Thole_PRB_1988, Laan_PRB_1990, Laan_PRB_1991, Laan_PS_1990, Veenendaal_PRL_1997} obtained experimentally is $-0.77(4)$.

\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=0.0cm 0.00cm 0.0cm 0.0cm, clip=true, totalheight=0.3 \textheight, angle=0]{Fig_3_jrlm.eps}
\caption{(Color online) X-ray absorption measurements at 7~K and in 2~T at the Fe $K$-absorption edge for the GdFe$_2$Zn$_{20}$. The inset shows the XMCD data for the Fe-foil sample.}
\label{fig:fig1_n}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[!b]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=0.0cm 0.00cm 0.0cm 0.0cm, clip=true, totalheight=0.3 \textheight, angle=0]{Fig_4_jrlm.eps}
\caption{(Color online) X-ray absorption measurements at 7~K and in 2~T for Zn $K$-absorption edge.}
\label{fig:fig2}
\end{figure}

Absorption measurements at the Fe and Zn $K$ edges were also carried out on powdered samples.
The absorption measurement near the $K$ edge, in which the dipolar transition is probed (1$s \rightarrow$ 4$p$), is crucial towards understanding the magnetic and electronic properties due to the delocalized character of the $p$ states.\cite{Antonov2007}.
Since the probed $p$ states are very delocalized, a strong influence of the surrounding matrix can be expected due to the hybridization between the rare earth and the transition metal ions.
As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fig1_n}, the measurements performed near the Fe $K$ edge do not reveal any magnetic contribution from the Fe ions higher than the background level ($\sim$ 0.07 $\%$).
The inset in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1_n} exhibits the XMCD measurements obtained for a 5 $\mu$m Fe-foil in the same experimental conditions: a clear dichroic signal can be observed near the edge.

However, the spectroscopy measurement at the Zn $K$ edge manifests an interesting behavior.
Figure~\ref{fig:fig2} shows the absorption and dichroism results at the Zn $K$ edge in which an induced magnetic signal around 0.06~$\%$ is detected.
This magnetic signal is due to a hybridization with the rare earth 5$d$ orbitals.
The XMCD spectrum exhibits the main positive feature located at 9665~eV with a width around 2.5~eV, surrounded by two negative peaks 6.5~eV away.
The broad feature localized around 9680~eV ($\sim$ 20~eV above the edge) is likely due to magnetic EXAFS.\cite{Rueff_PRB_1998}

\begin{figure}[!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=0.0cm 0.00cm 0.0cm 0.0cm, clip=true, totalheight=0.45 \textheight, angle=0]{Fig_5_jrlm.eps}
\caption{(Color online) (a) Temperature dependence and (b) XMCD hysteresis loops obtained at the Gd $L_3$ and Zn $K$ - absorption edges. }
\label{fig:fig2tdep}
\end{figure}

A clear evidence of the Zn 4$p$ states polarization due to the Gd ions can be found in the temperature and field dependence reported in panels \ref{fig:fig2tdep}(a) and \ref{fig:fig2tdep}(b), respectively.
The magnetic intensities for both Gd and Zn ions follow the same temperature evolution and disappear around the critical temperature (T$_C \sim$ 85~K).
In addition, the two hysteresis loops obtained at the maximum XMCD intensity shows clearly the Zn magnetism dependence in relation to the Gd ions and therefore it suggests a spin polarization of the Zn 4$p$ bands by the Gd sub-lattice.

\subsection{Magnetic scattering measurements: GdCo$_2$Zn$_{20}$}

\begin{figure}[!b]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=0.0cm 0.0cm 0.0cm 0.0cm, clip=true, totalheight=0.3 \textheight, angle=0]{Fig_6_jrlm.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Temperature dependence of the integrated intensity measured with a rocking scan through the superlattice peak $(\frac{7}{2},\frac{7}{2},\frac{3}{2})$. The inset shows $T_N$ and the critical exponent $\beta$ obtained from a critical power-law fitting $(1-T/T_N)^{2\beta}$ of the intensities near $T_N$ (dashed red curve).}
\label{fig:fig3}
\end{figure}

Figure~\ref{fig:fig3} shows the evolution of the integrated intensity for the magnetic Bragg reflection $(\frac{7}{2},\frac{7}{2},\frac{3}{2})$ as a function of temperature for the GdCo$_2$Zn$_{20}$ compound fitted by a Lorentzian-Squared function.
The magnetic peak intensity decreases smoothly to zero as the temperature approaches $T_N$, indicating a standard second order phase transition from an AFM to a paramagnetic state.
A dashed red line in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig3} displays a fitting using a critical power-law expression, $(1-T/T_N)^{2\beta}$, above 5.0 K.
The fitting around the N\'eel temperature yields a $T_N$ = 5.72(6) K and a critical exponent $\beta$ = 0.36(3).
The value of $T_N$ is in good agreement with bulk magnetic susceptibility measurements and previous works.\cite{Jia_PRB_2008,  Jia_PRB_2009}
The critical exponent $\beta$ close to 0.367 suggests a three-dimensional (3D) Heisenberg magnetic model.~\cite{Collins_Book_1989, Blundell_book_magnetism}
In blue symbol (Fig.~\ref{fig:fig3}) is also reported the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the magnetic superlattice peak $(\frac{7}{2},\frac{7}{2},\frac{3}{2})$ as a function of temperature.
This figure clearly shows a peak broadening and a decrease in intensity near the phase transition temperature characteristic of a loss of long-range order.

\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=0.25cm 0.0cm 0.0cm 0.0cm, clip=true, totalheight=0.3 \textheight, angle=0]{Fig_7_jrlm.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Energy dependences obtained across the Gd-$L_3$ and $L_2$ edges at 4.5~K. The upper pictures [(a) and (c)] display the absorption coefficients ($\mu$) obtained from fluorescence emission. The lower pictures [(b) and (d)] exhibit the energy dependences along the superlattice position $(\frac{7}{2}, \frac{7}{2},\frac{7}{2})$ in the $\sigma-\pi'$ polarization channel. The vertical dashed lines correspond to the position of the absorption edge inflection. NR and R stand for non-resonant and resonant sections in the (b) and (c) panels, respectively.}
\label{fig:fig4}
\end{figure}

Energy dependences across the Gd-$L_2$ and $L_3$ edges performed at 4.5~K are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig4}.
The top panels [Fig.~\ref{fig:fig4}(a) and \ref{fig:fig4}(c)] show the normalized absorption coefficients ($\mu$) obtained from the fluorescence yield, while the bottom panels [Fig.~\ref{fig:fig4}(b) and \ref{fig:fig4}(d)] exhibit the energy profile obtained at the magnetic superlattice position $(\frac{7}{2},\frac{7}{2},\frac{7}{2})$ with the analyzer crystal set to the $\sigma-\pi'$ polarization channel.
A resonant enhancement of over two orders of magnitude at both absorption edges can be seen.
In addition, the maximum intensities are observed about 2-3 eV above the absorption edge (defined by the vertical dashed lines), which is a characteristic signature of a dipole electronic transition.
The same energy dependence was performed in the $\sigma-\sigma'$ polarization channel, and no significant contribution was observed.
The strong resonant enhancement in the spectra [Fig.~\ref{fig:fig4}(b) and \ref{fig:fig4}(d)] indicates a significant overlap between the initial 2$p$ and 5$d$ states, and a strong exchange interaction between the 4$f$-5$d$ orbitals.
This magnetic polarization of the 5$d$ bands via 4$f$ states helps shed light on the magnetic structures of these rare earth based materials using the $L$ absorption edge measurements, i.e., 2$p \rightarrow$ 5$d$ transitions.
Moreover, the asymmetric peak shape expressed as a long tail below the absorption edges arises from the interference between the resonant and non-resonant magnetic scattering contributions.\cite{Gibbs_1991, Kim_PRB_2005, Kim_EJP_2012}

\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=0.1cm 0.0cm 0.0cm 0.2cm, clip=true, totalheight=0.4 \textheight, angle=0]{Fig_8_jrlm.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Energy dependence of the X-ray resonant magnetic scattering intensities for magnetic Bragg peaks of type $(\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2})$ with $L = (2n+1)$ after absorption correction. (a)-(f): at the Gd $L_3$-absorption edge; (g)-(l): at the Gd $L_2$ edge. Both measurements were done in the $\sigma-\pi'$ polarization channel. }
\label{fig:fig5}
\end{figure}

The normalized energy line shape dependence after absorption correction for selected magnetic Bragg peaks $(\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2})$ with $L = (2n+1)$ performed at Gd-$L_2$ and $L_3$ edges are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig5}.
The magnetic reflections show a narrow resonant line shape at the $L_2$ ($w \le $ 4.9 eV) and $L_3$ ($w \le $ 5.9 eV) edges.
The smaller energy broadening for the $L_2$ edge is associated with a relatively short lifetime compared with the $L_3$ edge.
The magnetic reflections were only observed in the $\sigma-\pi'$ polarization channel; in the $\sigma-\sigma'$ channel, no intensity was detected.
The integrated intensities of the magnetic reflections were used to extract the $L_3/L_2$ ratio and to determine the direction of magnetic moment.
The BR values show an unusual behavior in which the values varies between $0.9$ - $1.2$ for different magnetic reflections.
For XRMS, the branching ratio is expected to be equal to 1.
The exact value for the BR ratio is difficult to obtain due to the various corrections that must be applied to the experimental data, such as self-absorption and angular corrections, and therefore, we cannot affirm that $\langle L^{5d}_z\rangle \not= 0$ for this AFM compound.

\subsection{Magnetic structure of GdCo$_2$Zn$_{20}$}

The magnetic structure of the Gd spins are determined comparing the experimental integrated intensities in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig5} with simulated data from selected magnetic reflections.
The program SARA{\it h}~\cite{wills2000new} was run to determine the possible magnetic arrangements that the Gd ion can adopt inside the unit cell, i.e., the magnetic representation ($\Gamma_{Mag} $).
In addition, we assumed that only the Gd ions carry magnetic moments in this compound.
For this material, whose magnetic propagation vector is $(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})$, the space group is $F d \bar{3} m$, and the Gd ions occupy the 8$a$ crystallographic site, the magnetic representation (MR) can be decomposed into four non-zero irreducible representations (IRs): two one-dimensional (1D - $\Gamma_{2,3}^{1}$) and two two-dimensional (2D - $\Gamma_{5,6}^{2}$) IRs.
The four possible magnetic representations for the GdCo$_2$Zn$_{20}$ compound are summarized in~\autoref{tab:gamma_ir_bv}, where the labeling of the propagation vector and the magnetic representation follows the Kovalev notation.\cite{Kovalev_1993}

\begin{table}[!t]
\caption{Basis vectors (BV) for the space group $F d \bar{3} m$:2 with ${\bf k}_{9}=(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})$. The decomposition of the magnetic representation (MR) for the Gd site can be written like $\Gamma_{Mag} =   \Gamma_{2}^{1} + \Gamma_{3}^{1} + \Gamma_{5}^{2} + \Gamma_{6}^{2}$. The two rare earth atoms positions of the nonprimitive basis are defined according to 1: $(0.125, 0.125, 0.125)$ and 2: $(0.875, 0.875, 0.875)$.}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccccccccccc}
\hline
\hline \noalign{\smallskip}
  IR  &  BV  &  Atom && \multicolumn{13}{c}{BV components}\\
 \cline{5-17}
      &      &            &&&$m_{\|a}$ && $m_{\|b}$ && $m_{\|c}$ &&&$im_{\|a}$ && $im_{\|b}$ && $im_{\|c}$ \\
\hline \noalign{\smallskip}
$\Gamma_{2}$     & $\psi_{1}$ &      1 &&&                            1 &&                         1 &&      1 &&&      0 &&      0 &&      0  \\
                         &                &      2 &&&                            1 &&                          1 &&      1 &&&      0 &&      0 &&      0  \\
$\Gamma_{3}$    & $\psi_{2}$ &       1 &&&                            1 &&                         1 &&      1 &&&      0 &&      0 &&      0  \\
                         &                &      2 &&&                            -1 &&                        -1 &&     -1 &&&      0 &&      0 &&      0  \\
$\Gamma_{5}$    & $\psi_{3}$ &      1 &&&          $\nicefrac{1}{2}$ &&   -$\nicefrac{1}{2}$ &&        -1 &&&      0 &&      0 &&      0  \\
                        &                &       2 &&&         -$\nicefrac{1}{2}$ &&    $\nicefrac{1}{2}$ &&          1 & &&      0 &&      0 &&      0  \\
                        & $\psi_{4}$ &       1 &&&  0.866 &&  -0.866 &&     0 &&&      0 &&      0 &&      0  \\
                        &               &        2 &&&  -0.866&&   0.866 &&      0 & &&      0 &&      0 &&      0  \\
$\Gamma_{6}$ & $\psi_{5}$ &        1 &&&            $\nicefrac{1}{2}$ &&      $\nicefrac{1}{2}$ &&        -1 &&&      0 &&      0 &&      0  \\
                       &                &        2 &&&           $\nicefrac{1}{2}$ &&       $\nicefrac{1}{2}$ &&         -1 &&&      0 &&      0 &&      0  \\
                       & $\psi_{6}$ &        1 &&&  -0.866 &&   0.866 &&      0&&&      0 &&      0 &&      0  \\
                       &                &        2 &&&  -0.866 &&    0.866 &&      0&&&      0 &&      0 &&      0  \\
\hline
\hline \noalign{\smallskip}
\label{tab:gamma_ir_bv}
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

To determine the magnetic structure, the intensities were calculated assuming only dipole transition (E1) and hence, the X-ray magnetic scattering cross section model can be written as:\cite{hannon1988, hill1996, adriano2007magnetic, detlefs1997determination, nandi2011strong, mardegan2014}

\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:eq2}
I_{RES} \propto  A * \left| \sum_{n} f^{E1}_{n}e^{i\vec{Q} \cdot \vec{R}_n}\right|^{2},
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:eq3}
 A = \frac{\sin(\theta+\alpha)\sin(\theta-\alpha)}{\sin \theta \cos \alpha \sin(2\theta)},
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:eq4}
\begin{split}

 f^{E1}_{n} & =  [ (\hat{\varepsilon}'\cdot \hat{\varepsilon})F^{(0)} - i(\hat{\varepsilon}'\times \hat{\varepsilon}) \cdot \hat{z}_n F^{(1)} \\
& + (\hat{\varepsilon}'\cdot \hat{z}_n )(\hat{\varepsilon} \cdot \hat{z}_n)F^{(2)}  ] .
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}

\noindent The term $A$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:eq3})] contains the absorption correction and the Lorentz factor.
$\alpha$ is the angle between the wave-vector transfer $\vec{Q} (=\vec{k'}-\vec{k})$ and the $[111]$ crystal direction, and $\theta$ is half of the 2$\theta$ scattering angle.
The Eq.~(\ref{eq:eq4}) shows the resonant term.
It carries information about the $\vec{k}$ ($\hat{\varepsilon}$) and $\vec{k'}$ ($\hat{\varepsilon}'$), i.e., the incident and scattered wave (polarization) vectors, respectively, and the magnetic moment direction at \textit{n}th site ($\hat{z}_{n}$).
The terms $F^{(0,1,2)}$ are related to the dipole matrix transition and by atomic properties.\cite{hannon1988}
The exponential function in Eq.~\ref{eq:eq2} is a function of the wave-vector transfer $\vec{Q}$, and the position $\vec{R}_{n}$ of the \textit{n}th Gd ion inside the unit cell.
For the XRMS technique probing AFM materials, we assumed that the magnetic intensity at the first harmonic satellites are due to only dipole contribution comes from the linear term on magnetic moment direction [$-i(\hat{\varepsilon}'\times \hat{\varepsilon}) \cdot \hat{z}_n$] displayed in Eq.~(\ref{eq:eq4})

The simulated intensities obtained using Eq.~(\ref{eq:eq2})-(\ref{eq:eq4}) and the experimental intensities obtained at the Gd $L_2$ edge [Fig.~\ref{fig:fig4}(g-l)] are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig6}.
Comparing the intensities, the best agreement between experimental (symbol, $\blacktriangle$) and simulated data (curves) is obtained for the magnetic representation $\Gamma_{6}$.

\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=0.0cm 0.0cm 0.0cm 0.0cm, clip=true, totalheight=0.35 \textheight, angle=0]{Fig_9_jrlm.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Simulated and experimental integrated intensities for magnetic reflections $(\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2})$ with $L = (2n+1)$ performed at the Gd-$L_2$ absorption edge for GdCo$_2$Zn$_{20}$. The simulated intensities were obtained through Eq.~\ref{eq:eq2} supposing the four magnetic representations $\Gamma_{2}$, $\Gamma_{3}$, $\Gamma_{5}$ and $\Gamma_{6}$  summarized in~\autoref{tab:gamma_ir_bv}. The error bars for the experimental data were extracted from the fitting function.}
\label{fig:fig6}
\end{figure}

To identify different magnetic propagation vectors, such as $(0, \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})$ and $(0, 0, \frac{1}{2})$, a systematic search for commensurate and incommensurate magnetic reflections in the reciprocal space was performed below $T_N$.
However, only magnetic Bragg reflections of the type $(\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})$ were observed.
In addition, to probe a possible presence of AFM magnetic moments in the Co and Zn ions, the beam energy was tuned to the Co and Zn $K$ edges.
Search for magnetic superlattice reflections were performed below $T_N$, and no measurable magnetic reflection at 4.5 K could be observed.

\section{DISCUSSION}

The nature of the electronic and magnetic properties of the intermetallic $RT_2$Zn$_{20}$ systems depends strongly on the interactions between the rare earth and the transition metals ions.
Since the Gd 5$d$ states participate on the conduction bands, the resonant absorption and diffraction measurements at the Gd $L_{2,3}$ edges provide valuable information.
As reported in susceptibility measurements and band structure calculations\cite{Jia_Nature_2007,Jia_PRB_2008}, the replacement of the transition metal affects the electronic density of states at the Fermi level ($\rho_{E_F}$) and the conduction band without changing significantly the lattice parameters.\cite{lattice}
Doping studies of Gd(Fe$_x$Co$_{1-x})_2$Zn$_{20}$ compounds shows a monotonic increase of the magnetic ordering temperature when $x$ increases to 1 which indicates that there is an increase in the coupling between the rare earth magnetic moments.\cite{Jia_Nature_2007}

Absorption measurements performed in powdered samples of FM GdFe$_2$Zn$_{20}$ compound below $T_C$ reveal interesting behaviors.
As can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1}-\ref{fig:fig2tdep}, only at the Gd $L$ and Zn $K$-edges a dichroic signal is observed above the background level whilst an unexpected lack of magnetic intensity is observed at the Fe $K$-edge.
The intense magnetic signal at the rare earth $L$-edges occurs mainly due to the overlap between the Gd 2$p$ and 5$d$ states and a strong energy splitting of the 5$d$ sub-bands as a result of a 4$f$-5$d$ exchange interaction.\cite{Harmon1974spin,Harmon1974spin2, Koenig_JAP_1994, Book_MSR_2006}
In addition, the splitting of the $d$ state into 5$d$ spin-up and spin-down wave function has considerable influence in the magnetism observed at the Zn $K$-edge.
The Zn 3$d$ orbitals are completely filled (3$d^{10}$) and henceforth, a magnetic moment due to an overlap between the 3$d$ and 4$sp$ orbitals in the Zn ion is not expected to occur due to the filled 3$d$ orbitals being more contracted.
Therefore, the magnetic signal observed in the 4$p$ states is due to hybridization with the extended Gd 5$d$ orbitals and not from the exchange interaction with the Zn 3$d^{10}$ orbitals.\cite{Rueff_PRB_1998, Galera_JPCM_2008}
Following Hund's rule, the Gd ion has the 4$f$ state filled by seven spin-up electrons in which it pulls the 5$d$ sub band spin-up function towards the inner core due to a positive exchange interaction.
The short distances between the first Gd-Zn ions ($\sim$ 3 \AA{}) drives a small hybridization between the broad Zn 4$p$ and Gd 5$d$ states, inducing a small amount of magnetic moment in 4$p$ states.

Theoretical works have suggested that the orbital moment should be almost zero for the 5$d$ band ($\langle L^{5d}_z\rangle = 0 $), i.e., a quenching of the angular momentum, so the 5$d_{3/2}$ and 5$d_{5/2}$ sub-bands should display the same polarization and thereby the dichroism at the $L_3$ and $L_2$ edges should have equal magnetic intensity.\cite{Harmon1974spin,Veenendaal_PRL_1997, Imada_RMP_1998}
For the GdCo$_2$Zn$_{20}$ compound, the BR ratio vary between 0.9 - 1.2, i.e., close to the theoretical value and therefore we cannot suggest any orbital moment for this compound.
However, as showed in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1} for the FM compound, the intensity recorder at the $L_2$ is higher than the $L_3$ edge, where we observe a $L_3/L_2$ ratio of approximately $-0.77(4)$.\cite{SO_minus}
This slightly different value from the theoretical branching ratio expected for XMCD (BR $= -1$) suggests that the Gd ions may carry a small orbital moment at the 5$d$ orbitals in the FM compound.

M\"{o}ssbauer spectroscopy measurements\cite{Tamura2013study} and simulations\cite{Isikawa2013enhancement} for the DyFe$_2$Zn$_{20}$ compound reported that the Fe ions align AFM with the Dy magnetic moments in which the iron ions exhibit a very small magnetic moment $\sim$ $0.2~\mathrm{\mu_B}$/Fe.
Neutron diffraction measurements\cite{tian2010magnetic} performed in TbFe$_2$Zn$_{20}$ compound also reported that a small magnetic moment at the Fe ions ($< 1~\mathrm{\mu_B}$) would improve the refinement.
In addition, recently M\"{o}ssbauer measurement\cite{Budko_2015} in GdFe$_2$Zn$_{20}$ also reported the presence of a small magnetic contribution at the Fe site.
In order to verify the quality of our XMCD data at the Fe $K$ edge, dichroic measurements at low temperature and under magnetic field in a 5 $\mu$m Fe-foil was also carried out.
A magnetic signal around $0.3~\%$ which, according to the literature\cite{Stahler_PRB_1993, Iota_APL_2007}, corresponds to a magnetic moment around $2.2~\mathrm{\mu_B}$/Fe was observed.
Assuming that Fe spins order ferromagnetically in GdFe$_2$Zn$_{20}$ with a magnetic signal below 0.07 $\%$ (noise level), it would result in a magnetic moment lower than $\mathrm{\mu_{Fe}} \sim 0.5~\mathrm{\mu_B}$, i.e., the same order of magnitude as reported by band structure calculation\cite{Jia_Nature_2007} and comparable with the DyFe$_2$Zn$_{20}$ compound.
Therefore, if the Fe ions carry magnetic contribution in the GdFe$_2$Zn$_{20}$ materials, we can suggest that this magnetic moment must be lower than $ 0.5~\mathrm{\mu_B}$.
One possible explanation for the difficulty in identifying the magnetic signal at the Fe $K$-edge (7112 eV) would be due to contamination coming from the Gd $L_3$ edge (7243 eV).
Despite the fact that the two edges are apart by around 130 eV, the Gd $L_3$ pre-edge increases the background around the Fe $K$-edge which, as a consequence may hide the small magnetic signal.
An AFM ordering state for the Fe ions cannot be ruled out, but is less likely to occur.

Field dependent magnetization measurements\cite{Jia_Nature_2007} show that the GdFe$_2$Zn$_{20}$ compound reaches a saturation magnetization of 6.5 $\mathrm{\mu_B}$/f.u. at low temperature.
Assuming that the Gd ions contribute with 7.94 $\mathrm{\mu_B}$/Gd for the total magnetic moment (theoretical value), and that the transition metals are coupling antiferromagnetically with the rare earth elements, the transition metals are found to carry a magnetic moment around 1.44 $\mathrm{\mu_B}$/f.u. opposite to the Gd ions.
Supposing that the Fe ions have a total magnetic moment $\mathrm{\mu_{Fe}} \sim 0.5~\mathrm{\mu_B}$, consequently the Zn ions present in this material would present an induced magnetic moment of approximately 0.05 $\mathrm{\mu_B}$/Zn.
Therefore, it strongly suggests that the interaction between the rare earth ions affects the environment around the atoms and consequently spin polarizes the transition metal ion.
The rough estimate of magnetic moment for the Zn ions based on spectroscopy and macroscopic measurements has to be further investigate by density functional theory calculation.

To provide further information about these systems, the magnetic properties of the AFM compound GdCo$_2$Zn$_{20}$ were also investigated, using the XRMS technique rather than neutron scattering, due to the high neutron absorption cross-section of Gd ions.
The transition to the magnetically ordered phase driven by temperature is characterized by the appearance of superlattice magnetic reflections with a magnetic propagation vector $\tau = (\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})$.
This $\tau$ magnetic vector indicates that the magnetic unit cell is represented by a doubled chemical unit cell in all three crystallographic directions.
As displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig5}, the Gd spins follow the magnetic representation $\Gamma_{6}$ which is different when compared with the isostructural TbCo$_2$Zn$_{20}$ compound.\cite{tian2010magnetic}
Since there is a large separation ($\sim$ 6 \AA{}) between the rare earth ions in this system, the magnetic properties will be mainly mediated via the conduction electrons.
The large distance between the first $R$-$R$ ions explains quite well a weakening of the $J_{\mathrm{RKKY}}$ exchange interaction and thus a very low representative magnetic transition temperature, i.e., approximately 5.7~K (GdCo$_2$Zn$_{20}$) and 2.5~K (TbCo$_2$Zn$_{20}$).
As a consequence of a poor $J_{\mathrm{RKKY}}$ coupling, the surrounding matrix or the Zn cages around the $R$ ions are weakly affected and hence it is not possible to induce magnetic moment in the transition metal ions.
The absence of magnetism in the transition metal ions are also observed in the TbCo$_2$Zn$_{20}$ compound, in which the best refinement of the magnetic structure was obtained with null magnetic moment in the Co and Zn ions.
Although GdCo$_2$Zn$_{20}$ and TbCo$_2$Zn$_{20}$ compounds display the same magnetic propagation vector $(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})$, their magnetic structures are different, which is mainly related to the competition between the RKKY and CEF interactions.
For the Tb-based materials the crystalline electric field splitting can affect the $J_{\mathrm{RKKY}}$ constant and therefore influence the magnetic coupling and the temperature transition.
It is well known that an energy level CEF splitting induces magnetic anisotropies in the ground state and it may influence the total angular momentum.
Several Tb-based intermetallics have exhibited distinct magnetic properties in relation to the Gd counterparts as shown in the layered family $R_nT_mM_{3n+2m}$ ($R$ = rare earth; $T$ and $M$ = transition metal; $n$ = 1,2 and $m$ = 0,1). \cite{Thompson2012,Thompson2001,Coleman2008}
Although GdCo$_2$Zn$_{20}$ and TbCo$_2$Zn$_{20}$ compounds display the same magnetic propagation vector $(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})$, their magnetic structures are different, which is mainly related to the competition between the RKKY and CEF interactions.
The modification in the magnetic structure for different rare earth ions but with the same propagation vector has already been extensively investigated and it is mainly related to the RKKY and CEF interactions.
Jia \textit{et al}.[\onlinecite{Jia_PRB_2009}] evaluated the CEF parameters from the thermodynamic measurements for the entirely $R$Co$_2$Zn$_{20}$ series ($R$ = Tb-Tm) and they observe small energy scales (small $W$ parameter) and a large $B_6^0$ CEF parameter for the complete series.
This finding suggests a small energy level splitting and a strong influence of the Zn cage on the rare earth ions, i.e., guest-framework interaction.
Therefore, we can suggest that the rare earth ions located in this large polarized environment are strongly affected by the Zn cages, which has direct influence in the electronic and magnetic properties.
This can be seen in the different magnetic structures for the AFM compounds and the spin polarization of the Zn ions only for the GdFe$_2$Zn$_{20}$ compound.
Hence, the CEF effect has an important role in this class of compound.
A detailed investigation for different rare earth elements would allow a better understanding of the $R$Co$_2$Zn$_{20}$ family.
Nevertheless macroscopic measurements up to 1.8 K only report magnetic ordering for the compounds with $R$ = Gd and Tb.

\section{SUMMARY}

We have investigated the intermetallic Gd$T_2$Zn$_{20}$ system with $T =$ Co and Fe at low temperature using the XRMS and XANES/XMCD techniques, respectively.
The XRMS measurements performed in GdCo$_2$Zn$_{20}$ compound reveal a commensurate antiferromagnetic ordering with a magnetic propagation vector $(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})$ in which only the Gd ions carry magnetic moments.
Selected magnetic reflections were measured in the polarization channel $\sigma-\pi'$ and we identified that the Gd spins follow the magnetic representation $\Gamma_6$, which is different from the isostructural compound TbCo$_2$Zn$_{20}$, mainly due to the CEF effects in the latter.
The evolution of magnetic signal showed a magnetic phase transition below T$_N$ = 5.72(6)~K with a critical exponent $\beta$ = 0.36(3), suggesting a three-dimensional (3D) Heisenberg magnetic model.
The XANES and XMCD measurements performed at the Gd $L_{2,3}$ edges in GdFe$_2$Zn$_{20}$ compound reveal a strong magnetic signal ($\sim$ 12.5~$\%$ - $L_2$ and 9.7~$\%$ - $L_3$) indicating a splitting of the 5$d$ orbitals and a strong Gd-Gd exchange interaction as well as a non zero orbital moment.
In addition, we observed a presence of a small magnetic dichroic signal at the Zn $K$ edge due to the spin polarization of the Gd 5$d$ orbitals.
This indicates a large RKKY exchange interaction between the Gd-Gd ions which polarizes the surrounding matrix.

\section*{acknowledgments}
This work was supported by FAPESP (SP-Brazil) under Contracts No. 2009/10264-0, 2011/19924-2, 2011/24166-0, 2012/10675-2 and 2012/17562-9.
Parts of this research were carried out at the light source PETRA III at DESY, a member of the Helmholtz Association (HGF).
Work at Argonne is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, under Contract No. DE-AC-02-06CH11357.
We would like to thank R. D. Reis and C. S.B. Dias for their assistance in macroscopic measurements and J. W. Kim for his assistance at beamline 6-ID-B.
We are indebted to D. Reuther, R. Kirchhof  and H.-C. Wille for their assistance with the electromagnet at P09/DESY.