\section{Details of the Model of the Vacancy}

  We  next describe the derivation of the model that is analyzed in the main text.  In establishing a minimal model for a
 reconstructed single-atom vacancy in graphene, we shall rely on existing first-principle calculations (e.g. Refs.~\onlinecite{Zunger1978b,Nanda2011b,dosSantos2011b,PalaciosYndurainb}). The results of those calculations can be summarized as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Removing one carbon atom (i.e. creating a vacancy) leaves three dangling $\sigma$-bonds behind.
The latter manifest themselves as three impurity levels splitting off the sigma band.
 %
\item
From a tight-binding perspective, the  vacancy $\sigma$-levels can be regarded as essentially the
dangling $\sigma$ bonds of the atoms around the vacancy plus some admixture of $\sigma$
states away from the vacancy~\cite{Nanda2011b}.
\item
In an unrelaxed lattice, where all carbon atoms around the vacancy site remain at the same distance as
the perfect graphene lattice, the crystal field effects, which correspond to  the
nearest neighbor hopping between $\sigma$-orbitals in the original lattice) split the
tree dangling-bond levels into one lower energy level (the symmetric combination)
and two degenerate excited levels (cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:fig3}).
\item \label{jahnteller}
The  situation described in the previous point is energetically unstable
against a Jahn-Teller distortion, which breaks the $D_{3h}$ symmetry
of the unrelaxed lattice and draws two of the three carbon atoms surrounding the vacancy
closer to each other (cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1} in the main text and and Fig.~\ref{fig:fig4}).
\item
Further \emph{ab initio} calculations~\cite{dosSantos2011b} suggest that, in the presence of isotropic
compression, the three atoms around the impurity are no longer coplanar.  This is possible if e.g. the apical atom
(which contains a dangling $\sigma$--bond~\cite{Nanda2011b}) is lifted slightly above (or below) the plane of the two atoms
opposite to it (i.e. those that form a reconstructed $\sigma$ bond as a result of the Jahn-Teller distortion), see Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1}
in the main text. This non-coplanarity is made it possible by  sp$^2$-sp$^3$ hybridization of the
atoms around the vacancy. In the model below, we  assume that such hybridization is particularly
important in the case of the apical atom (cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1} in the main text). This allows the electrons to hop in and out of
the  dangling $\sigma$ orbital at the apical site. This  effect can be also achieved by rippling that occurs at any
finite temperature.
\end{enumerate}

 Given the above considerations, we propose the following model of the vacancy:~\footnote{We assume that the atom
that has been removed belongs to the $A$ sublattice. In other words, that $B$ is the majority sublattice.}
\begin{align}
H &= H_{\pi + V} + H_{\sigma} + H_{V} + H_{\mathrm{hyb}} + H_{d\pi},  \label{eq:ham1} \\
H_{\pi + V} &= - t \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle, \alpha} \left[ a^{\dag}_{\alpha i} b^{\alpha}_j  + b^{\dag}_{\alpha j} a^{\alpha}_{j} \right]
+ \epsilon_0  \sum_{\alpha} a^{\dag}_{\alpha 0} a_{\alpha 0}, \label{eq:hampi}\\
H_{V} &=   \epsilon_{\sigma} \sum_{\alpha,i=1}^3 \tilde{d}^{\dag}_{\alpha i} \tilde{d}^{\alpha}_i - T \sum_{\alpha}
 \left[ \tilde{d}^{\dag}_{\alpha 2} \tilde{d}^{\alpha}_3 + \tilde{d}^{\dag}_{\alpha 3} \tilde{d}^{\alpha}_2 \right]
  - T^{\prime} \sum_{\alpha} \left[  \tilde{d}^{\dag}_{\alpha 1} \tilde{d}^{\alpha}_2 +  \tilde{d}^{\dag}_{\alpha 2} \tilde{d}^{\alpha}_{1}
  +  \tilde{d}^{\dag}_{\alpha 1} \tilde{d}^{\alpha}_3 +  \tilde{d}^{\dag}_{\alpha 3} \tilde{d}^{\alpha}_{1} \right]
 + H_{V-\mathrm{int}}, \\
H_{\mathrm{hyb}} &=   \tilde{V}_{\pi\sigma} \sum_{\alpha} \left[ b^{\dag}_{\alpha 0} \tilde{d}^{\alpha}_1 +
 b^{\dag}_{\alpha 0} \tilde{d}^{\alpha}_1  \right]  + \tilde{V}_{\pi \sigma} \sum_{\alpha}  b^{\dag}_{\alpha 0}
 \left[ b^{\dag}_{\alpha 0} s^{\alpha}_{1} +  b^{\dag}_{\alpha 0}  s^{\alpha}_{2} +
 s^{\dag}_{\alpha 1} b^{\alpha}_{0} +  s^{\dag}_{\alpha 2}  b^{\alpha}_{2}   \right],\label{eq:hyb}
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[b]
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{vacancy_orbitals.pdf}
\caption{Labeling of the relevant orbitals around the vacancy. We make the approximation that the vacancy $\sigma$-orbitals
correspond essentially to the dangling bonds around the vacancy site (empty circle). See Eq.~\eqref{eq:ham1} for details.}
\label{fig:fig4}
\end{figure}
where $T > T^{\prime}$ is the hopping between the vacancy $\sigma$-orbitals and
$\tilde{V}_{\pi \sigma}$ describes the sp$^2$-sp$^3$ hybridization~\cite{CastroNetoGuineab}
of the apical atom (see Fig.~\ref{fig:fig4} for details about the labeling of the different orbitals):
\begin{equation}
\tilde{V}_{\sigma\pi} = A \sqrt{\frac{1-A^2}{3}} (\epsilon_{s}-\epsilon_{p}),
\end{equation}
where $\sin \theta = A/\sqrt{A^2+2}$,  $\theta$ being the angle between the $\sigma$ orbitals at the apical
atom site (cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:fig4}) and the Graphene plane, and $\epsilon_s-\epsilon_p = -8.31 eV$ is the atomic
s-p splitting. The above model neglects the local
modifications of the hopping parameters around the vacancy site, both resulting from the Jahn-Teller
distortion and from the sp$^2$-sp$^3$ hybridization caused by an isotropic compression.
In Eq.~\eqref{eq:hyb} $H_{d\pi}$ describes the Coulomb interaction between the
$\sigma$ and the $\pi$ orbitals, which is particularly strong for the $\pi$ and $\sigma$  orbitals localized
around the vacancy (see Sec.~\ref{sec:twolevel}).

Furthermore, In Eq.~\eqref{eq:ham1}, the term $H_{V-\mathrm{int}}$ describes the interactions
between the electrons localized at the  vacancy-$\sigma$ orbitals, which we will specify below.
In the above equation, the limit  $\epsilon_0\to +\infty$ is implicitly assumed in order to remove
the site  at $\mathbf{R} = (0,0)$ of the $A$ sublattice.

 As discussed in point~\ref{jahnteller} above, two of the dangling bonds bind when the lattice
 undergoes a Jahn-Teller distortion. If we diagonalize the subspace spanned by the vacancy $\sigma$
 orbitals by means of the transformation:
\begin{align}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
d^{\alpha}_1\\
d^{\alpha}_{2}\\
d^{\alpha}_{3}
\end{array}
 \right) =
 \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
u_{11} & u_{12} & u_{13}\\
u_{21} & u_{22} & u_{23}\\
u_{31} & u_{32} & u_{33}
 \end{array}
 \right)
 \left(\begin{array}{c}
\tilde{d}^{\alpha}_{1}\\
\tilde{d}^{\alpha}_{2}\\
\tilde{d}^{\alpha}_{3}
\end{array}
 \right)
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{u}_{1} = (u_{11},u_{12},u_{13}) =  \mathcal{N}_1 (-\frac{1 + \sqrt{1+ 8 r^2}}{2 r},1,1)$,
$\mathbf{u}_{2} = (u_{21},u_{22},u_{23}) =  \mathcal{N}_2 (\frac{1 - \sqrt{1+ 8 r^2}}{2 r},1,1)$,
$\mathbf{u}_{3} = (u_{31},u_{32},u_{33}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}  (0,1,-1)$,  with $r = T^{\prime}/T$ and
$\mathcal{N}_{i}$ the normalization constants. The energies of the levels resulting from the
previous diagonalization are given by first term in
\begin{equation}
H_{V} = \sum_{\alpha, i=1}^3 \epsilon_{i} d^{\dag}_{\alpha i} d^{\alpha}_{i} + H_{\mathrm{V-int}},
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_1 =\epsilon_{\sigma} +  \frac{1}{2}T \left(\sqrt{1+8r^2}-1\right)$, $\epsilon_2 =\epsilon_{\sigma} -  \frac{1}{2}T \left(\sqrt{1+8r^2}+1\right)$, $\epsilon_3 = \epsilon_{\sigma} + T$ (According to the fitting to DFT-LDA calculations carried out by
Nanda \emph{et al.} in Ref.~\onlinecite{Nanda2011b}, $T = 1.85$ eV and $T^{\prime} = 1.30$ eV).
Thus, the level number $3$ corresponds
to an excited state, which lies above the Dirac point,~\cite{Nanda2011b} and  the level $2$ corresponds to a deep
level describing the  reconstructed bond at the basis of the pentagon opposite to the apical atom (cf.
Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1} in the main text and \ref{fig:fig4}).

 The remaining electron from the vacancy $\sigma$ orbitals  occupies
the orbital with energy $\epsilon_1$, and in flat graphene it cannot not hybridize with the $\pi$-band although it has a
very large amplitude at the apical atom (see expression for $\mathbf{u}_1$ above).
However, in rippled graphene (as in the presence of isotropic compression) there is hybridization,
 through the term $H_{\mathrm{hyb}}$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:ham1}.
In the following, we shall investigate whether such hybridization could lead to a Kondo effect.  Thus, we shall focus
on the orbital $1$ and, to lighten the notation, henceforth we shall drop the orbital index (the other two orbitals, $2$ and $3$,
will be treated as inert). Furthermore, we shall neglect the last  term in Eq.~\eqref{eq:hyb}, that is, the sp$^2$-sp$^3$
hybridization with the $s_1$ and $s_2$ $\sigma$-orbitals of the apical atom (cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:fig4}). Such terms are
expected to lead to a renormalization of the hybridization of the vacancy level $1$ with the $\pi$ band. These
considerations lead to the following  Anderson model:
\begin{equation}
H_{\mathrm{AM}} = \epsilon_d \sum_{\alpha} d^{\dag}_{\alpha}d_{\alpha} + V\sum_{\alpha} \left[ b^{\dag}_{\alpha 0} d^{\alpha} +
d^{\dag}_{\alpha} b^{\alpha}_{0} \right] + U d^{\dag}_{\uparrow} d^{\dag}_{\downarrow} d^{\downarrow} d^{\uparrow} + H_{\pi + V}\label{eq:hamam} + H_{d\pi}
\end{equation}
where $H_{\pi+V}$ is given by Eq.~\eqref{eq:hampi} with $\epsilon_0\to +\infty$;
$\epsilon_d = \epsilon_1 = \epsilon_{\sigma} + \frac{1}{2}T \left(\sqrt{1+8r^2}-1\right)\simeq -0.75$ eV,~\cite{Nanda2011b,PalaciosYndurainb} and $V = |\varphi_{d}(\boldsymbol{0})|^2 V_{\sigma \pi}(\theta)$, where $|\varphi_{d}(\boldsymbol{0})|^2 \approx 0.7$, according to the above tight-binding model, and $U \approx 10$ eV~\cite{hubbardUb}.

The novelty of \eqref{eq:hamam} lies in the fact that it is a
single-impurity Anderson model in the presence of a strong scattering potential that induces a resonance
at the Dirac point. Note that in the above model we have neglected any interactions between
the electrons in the $\pi$-band.

\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{vacancy_levels.pdf}
\caption{Vacancy $\sigma$-levels and evolution when different perturbations are taken into account.  For left
to right: i) Crystal field splitting (i.e. nearest neighbor hopping $T=T^{\prime}$ and ii) Jahn-Teller distortion with $T > T^{\prime}$.
The lowest level, which has equal weight in the three atoms surrounding the vacancy has lowest energy and it is assumed
to be doubly occupied, thus forming a (stretched) $\sigma$ bound at the basis of a pentagon (cf. figure~\ref{fig:fig1} in the
main text). The intermediate level is below the Fermi energy $\epsilon_F$ (assumed to be at the Dirac point) and we shall assume
it to be singly occupied as $U \approx 10$ eV~\cite{hubbardUb}}.
\label{fig:fig3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[hb]
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{hybvsangle.pdf}
\caption{sp$^2$-sp$^3$ hybridization of the dangling $\sigma$  orbital in the apical atom (cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1} in the main text)
with the $\pi$ orbitals on the same atom vs. angle between the dangling orbital and the Graphene plane.}
\label{fig:fig5}
\end{figure}

\section{Two level Anderson model}\label{sec:twolevel}

 Let us return to the above Hamiltonian and consider first the scattering problem of the $\pi$ band
 electrons with the vacancy. Let us assume that we have  diagonalized the Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:hampi}
 and therefore we can write:
 %
 \begin{equation}
 H_{\pi + V} = \varepsilon_0 \pi^{\dag}_{\alpha 0} \pi^{\alpha}_{0} + \sum_{\alpha,p,\mathbf{n}} \epsilon_{p \mathbf{n}} \:
 \pi^{\dag}_{p \alpha \mathbf{n}} \pi^{\alpha}_{p\mathbf{n}},
 \end{equation}
 %
where the index $p = c, v$ describes the valence and conduction band scattering channels and $\alpha = \uparrow,\downarrow$.
The other quantum numbers have been collectively denoted by $\mathbf{n}$. We have explicitly separated the zero mode,
whose energy coincides with the Dirac point energy ($\varepsilon_0 = 0 $ for a particle-hole symmetric case where we neglect
next nearest neighbor hopping),  and  it described by $\pi^{\dag}_{\alpha}, \pi^{\alpha}$. The original lattice operators can be
expressed in terms of the eigenmodes of $H_{\pi+V}$ as follows:
\begin{align}
a^{\alpha}_{i} &=   \sum_{p,\mathbf{n}} \varphi_{A p\mathbf{n}}(\mathbf{R}_i) \: \pi^{\alpha}_{p\mathbf{n}},\\
b^{\alpha}_{i} &= \varphi_{0}(\mathbf{R}_i) \pi^{\alpha}_0 + \sum_{p, \mathbf{n}} \varphi_{B p\mathbf{n}}(\mathbf{R}_i)\: \pi^{\alpha}_{p\mathbf{n}}.
 \end{align}
In the last expression above, we have used the fact that the zero-mode wavefunction is (within the tight-biding nearest-neighbor
hopping approximation) is fully contained within the majority $B$ sublattice (see e.g. Ref.~\onlinecite{Nanda2011} and references therein).

 In this eigenmode basis, the minimal Anderson Hamiltonian, Eq.~\eqref{eq:hamam}, introduced in previous section reads:
\begin{align}
H_{\mathrm{AM}} &= H_{\pi + V} +  \epsilon_d  \sum_{\alpha} d^{\dag}_{\alpha} d^{\alpha} + U d^{\dag}_{\uparrow} d^{\dag}_{\downarrow}
d^{\downarrow} d^{\uparrow} + V \sum_{\alpha} \left[ \varphi_{0}(\boldsymbol{0}) d^{\dag}_{\alpha} \pi^{\alpha}_{0} + \varphi^{*}_{0}(\boldsymbol{0})    \pi^{\dag}_{\alpha 0} d^{\alpha} \right]\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad + V \sum_{p,\mathbf{n}} \left[  \varphi_{Bp\mathbf{n}}(\boldsymbol{0})  \: d^{\dag}_{\alpha} \pi^{\alpha}_{p\mathbf{n}} +
\varphi^*_{B p \mathbf{n}}(\boldsymbol{0}) \pi^{\dag}_{\alpha p \mathbf{n}}  d^{\alpha} \right] + H_{d\pi}\\
\end{align}
Note that the zero-mode wavefunction is not normalizable since (neglecting oscillatory terms)
$|\varphi_{0}(\mathbf{R})|^2 \sim  \frac{N_0^2}{|\mathbf{R}|^2}$, which
implies that
\begin{equation}
 \sum_{\mathbf{R}}  |\varphi_{0}(\mathbf{R})|^2  \simeq  N_0^2 \int d\mathbf{R}\,  \frac{1}{|\mathbf{R}|^2} \sim 2\pi N_0^2 \, \ln L,
\end{equation}
diverges as the linear size of the system $L \to +\infty$. If we insist in normalizing the zero-mode wavefunction  to unity, the normalization  constant $N_0\simeq (2\pi \ln L)^{-1/2} \to 0$ as $L\to +\infty$. This implies that the hybridization of the zero-mode with the localized
$\sigma$ level  scales as $\sim  (\ln L)^{-1/2}$. Though this vanishes in the thermodynamic limit, it does so very slowly.
For instance, for a typical experimental device $a_0\times L~ 1000$ nm. Since $a_0 \simeq 0.25$ nm, $L \simeq 4000$,which
implies that $N_0^2\simeq 1/50 = 0.02$ (i.e. $N_0\simeq 0.1$).

 At this point, it is worth considering also the interaction terms between the electrons in the dangling $\sigma$ level  and the
electrons in the $\pi$ band. Those terms result from the Coulomb interaction,
\begin{equation}
H_C = \frac{e^2}{2\epsilon}\int d\mathbf{r} d\mathbf{r}^{\prime} \,  \frac{\rho(\mathbf{r}) \rho(\mathbf{r}^{\prime})}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime}|},\label{eq:coul}
\end{equation}
where $\rho(\mathbf{r}) = \Psi^{\dag}_{\alpha}(\mathbf{r}) \Psi^{\alpha}(\mathbf{r})$. If we restrict ourselves to the subspace
spanned by the $\sigma$ level and the $\pi$  and zero mode, then we can approximate:
\begin{equation}
\Psi^{\alpha}(\mathbf{r}) \approx \varphi_{d}(\mathbf{r}) d^{\alpha} + \varphi_{0}(\mathbf{r}) \pi^{\alpha}_0.
\end{equation}
Hence,
\begin{equation}
\rho(\mathbf{r}) =  |\varphi_d(\mathbf{r})|^2 d^{\dag}_{\alpha} d^{\alpha} +  |\varphi_0(\mathbf{r})|^2 \pi^{\dag}_{\alpha} \pi^{\alpha}_0
+ \varphi^{*}_d(\mathbf{r}) \varphi_0(\mathbf{r}) d^{\dag}_{\alpha} \pi^{\alpha}_0
+ \varphi^{*}_0(\mathbf{r}) \varphi_d(\mathbf{r}) \pi^{\dag}_{\alpha} d^{\alpha}_0
\end{equation}
Upon substitution of the above  in Eq.~\eqref{eq:coul}, and upon neglecting terms that involve inter-level transitions, we obtain:
\begin{equation}
H_{\mathrm{int}} =  \tilde{U}_{\sigma\pi} n_d n_0  + U_{\pi\pi} n^2_0 - J_H d^{\dag}_{\alpha} \pi^{\dag}_{\beta 0} \pi^{\alpha}_{0} d^{\beta},
\end{equation}
where we have subtracted the self-interaction (i.e. Hubbard-$U$) term for the $\sigma$ level ($\sim U n^2_d$).
\begin{align}
\tilde{U}_{\sigma\pi} &= \frac{e^2}{\epsilon} \int d\mathbf{r}\,  |\varphi_{d}(\mathbf{r})|^2 |\varphi_{0}(\mathbf{r^{\prime}})|^2 \frac{1}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime}|}, \label{eq:usp}\\
U_{\pi\pi} &= \frac{e^2}{\epsilon} \int d\mathbf{r}\,  |\varphi_{0}(\mathbf{r})|^2 |\varphi_{0}(\mathbf{r^{\prime}})|^2 \frac{1}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime}|},\label{eq:upp}\\
J_H &=  \frac{e^2}{\epsilon} \int d\mathbf{r}  \, \varphi^*_{d}(\mathbf{r}) \varphi^*_{0}(\mathbf{r})  \varphi_{0}(\mathbf{r^{\prime}}) \varphi_{d}(\mathbf{r}^{\prime}) \frac{1}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime}|}.\label{eq:jh}
\end{align}
We also recall that, on dimensional grounds,
\begin{equation}
U \sim \frac{e^2}{\epsilon a_0}
\end{equation}
Before trying to estimate the above Coulomb integrals, we note that, by using the following identity for the Pauli matrices
\begin{equation}
\sum_{a=x,y,z} \, \left( \sigma^a\right)^{\alpha}_{\beta} \left(\sigma^a \right)^{\mu}_{\nu} = 2\delta^{\alpha}_{\nu} \delta^{\mu}_{\beta} -
\delta^{\alpha}_{\beta} \delta^{\mu}_{\nu},\label{eq:sigmaiden}
\end{equation}
we can recast
\begin{equation}
d^{\dag}_{\alpha} \pi^{\dag}_{\beta 0} \pi^{\alpha}_{0} d^{\beta} =  2\mathbf{S}_{d}\cdot \mathbf{S}_0  + \frac{1}{2} n_d n_0,
\end{equation}
where $S^a_0 = \pi^{\dag}_{0\alpha} \left( \frac{\sigma^a}{2}\right)^{\alpha}_{\beta} \pi^{\beta}_0$ and $S^a_V = d^{\dag}_{0\alpha} \left( \frac{\sigma^a}{2}\right)^{\alpha}_{\beta} d^{\beta}_0$. Thus,
\begin{equation}
H_{d\pi} =   U_{d\pi} n_d n_0  + U_{\pi\pi} n^2_0 - J_H  \mathbf{S}_{d} \cdot \mathbf{S}_0,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
U_{\sigma\pi} = \tilde{U}_{d\pi} - \frac{J_H}{2}
\end{equation}
Let us next find the scaling of the different couplings  $U_{\pi\pi}, \tilde{U}_{\sigma d}$, and $J_{H}$ with the system size.
To this end, we recall that (see e.g. Ref.~\onlinecite{Nanda2011}):
\begin{align}
\varphi_0(\mathbf{r}) &= N_0 \frac{1}{|\mathbf{r}|} \cos ((\mathbf{K}+\mathbf{K}^{\prime})\cdot \mathbf{r})  \sin ((\mathbf{K}-\mathbf{K}^{\prime})\cdot \mathbf{r} + \theta_{\mathbf{r}}),\\
\varphi_d(\mathbf{r}) &= N_d \frac{e^{-\lambda_d |\mathbf{r}|}}{|\mathbf{r}|},
\end{align}
where $\lambda_d \simeq a^{-1}_0$. We shall not perform the integrals in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:usp},\ref{eq:upp},\ref{eq:jh}) explicitly but merely note that, from the dependence on $\varphi_0(\mathbf{r})$ (i.e. on $N_0$) and, on
dimensional grounds,
\begin{align}
U_{\pi\pi} &\sim \frac{e^2}{\epsilon a_0} \left(\frac{1}{2\pi \ln L} \right)^2,\\
J_H &\sim  \frac{e^2}{\epsilon a_0}  \frac{1}{2\pi \ln L},\\
U_{\sigma\pi}\sim \tilde{U}_{d\pi} &\sim  \frac{e^2}{\epsilon a_0}  \frac{1}{2\pi \ln L},
\end{align}
Note that $U_{\pi\pi}$ scales faster to zero as $L\to +\infty$ than the other couplings because the zero-mode self-interaction
is strongly suppressed by the fact that its wave-function is only marginally localized.
Taking $\frac{e^2}{\epsilon a_0} \simeq10 $ eV, and
$L^1\simeq 10^7$, we obtain:
\begin{align}
U_{\pi\pi} &\sim 1\, \mathrm{meV},\\
U_{\sigma \pi} &\sim 100 \, \mathrm{meV},\\
J_{H} &\sim 100 \, \mathrm{meV},\\
U &\sim 10 \, \mathrm{eV}.
\end{align}
However, the hybridization energy of the dangling $\sigma$ orbital with the zero mode is given by $V N_0$.
For an angle $\theta \simeq 2$ degrees, $|V|\simeq 200$ meV, and $N_0 = 0.1$ for $L \simeq 4000$, $|V| N_0 \simeq 20$ meV.
Indeed, whereas the Hund interaction $-J_{H} \mathbf{S}_d \cdot \mathbf{S}_{0}$ tends to align the spins of the $\sigma$ level
and the $\pi$ zero mode ferromagnetically, the hybridization $V N_0$ favors  an anti-ferromagnetic alignment, but since
$J_H \gg V^2/|\epsilon_d + U_{\sigma\pi}| \simeq 1$ meV, we can safely assume that the triplet (i.e. the ferromagnetism) is favored
provided the  each level is singly occupied, i.e. $n_d + n_0 = 2$. On the other hand, the interaction term $\propto U_{\pi\sigma}$ tends to favor  the emptiness of one of the levels, i.e. $n_d + n_0 = 1$, which implies that a spin doublet  is favored. In the following
section, we analyze the different possibilities for the total spin of the vacancy.

 The above estimates account for the contribution from the direct Coulomb interaction between the  levels localized at the
vacancy. However, other contributions may also exist. For example, the hybridization with the conduction band of both levels
resulting from a next-nearest neighbor hopping $t^{\prime}$  may also lead to an additional (RKKY-type)
contribution to the Hund's rule  coupling $J_H$~\cite{Galpin}. Furthermore, a large enough $t^{\prime}$ also
shifts energy and broadens the zero-mode, which lead to its disappearance into the continuum of scattering states.
For the above reasons, in the main text we have explored the possible magnetic phases treating $J_H$ and $U_{\sigma \pi}$
as unknown parameters.

\section{The `Atomic' limit of the vacancy} \label{sec:atomlimit}

 Let us momentarily set the hybridization with the rest of the $\pi$ band to zero and consider the spectrum of the
coupled $\sigma$ and $\pi$ (zero-mode) levels. The latter are described by the following Hamiltonian:
\begin{equation}
H_{\pi\sigma} = \varepsilon_0 n_d + \epsilon_d n_d + U n_{d\uparrow} n_{d\downarrow} + U_{\sigma \pi} n_d n_0
- J_{H} \mathbf{S}_d \cdot \mathbf{S}_{0} + \left[ V_{\sigma\pi} d^{\dag}_{\alpha} \pi^{\alpha}_0 + V^*_{\sigma\pi}
\pi^{\dag}_{\alpha 0} d^{\alpha} \right],\label{eq:hamat}
\end{equation}
where we have introduced
\begin{equation}
V_{\sigma \pi} = V \varphi_0(\mathbf{0}) \simeq V N_0 \simeq  V \left( \frac{1}{2\pi \ln L} \right)^{1/2}.
\end{equation}

 In what follows, we are going to determine the ground state of the two level `atom' described by the Hamiltonian
 in Eq.~\eqref{eq:hamat}. To this end, we shall rely on the fact that both $n_{T} = n_0 + n_d$ and $\mathbf{S}^2_T = \left(
 \mathbf{S}_{0} + \mathbf{S}_d\right)^2 = S_T (S_T +1)$ and $S^z_T = S^z_d + S^z_o$ are good quantum numbers.

 %
 \begin{enumerate}
 %
 \item  {\bf Doublet:}  For $n_T = n_d + n_0 = 1$, $S_T = \frac{1}{2}$, $S^{z}_T = \pm \frac{1}{2}$, the Hilbert (sub)space of the system is spanned by:
 %
 \begin{align}
 |1,S_z = \pm\frac{1}{2}\rangle &=  d^{\dag}_{\alpha} |0\rangle,\\
 |2,S_z = \pm\frac{1}{2}\rangle &=  \pi^{\dag}_{\alpha} |0 \rangle,\\
 \end{align}
 %
 with $\alpha = \uparrow$  ($\alpha = \downarrow$) for $S^z_T = \frac{1}{2}$ ($S^z_T = -\frac{1}{2}$).
 The eigen energies are $ \epsilon_{\pm}= \frac{\epsilon_d + \varepsilon_0 \pm \sqrt{(\epsilon_d - \varepsilon_0)^2- 4 |V_{\sigma \pi}|^2}}{2}$.  Since $|\epsilon_d - \varepsilon_0| \gg 2 |V_{\sigma \pi}|$, we find that the lowest energy state in th sector has an energy
 %
 \begin{equation}
 E_0(n_T = 1, S_T = \frac{1}{2}) \simeq \epsilon_d - \frac{|V_{\sigma \pi}|^2}{|\epsilon_d - \varepsilon_0|}
 \end{equation}
 %
 \item
{\bf Singlet:}  For $n_T = n_d + n_0 = 2$, with $S_T  = S^z_T = 0$. In this case, the Hilbert space of the system is spanned by the following three states:
 %
 \begin{align}
 |1\rangle &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left[ d^{\dag}_{\uparrow} \pi^{\dag}_{0\downarrow}  - d^{\dag}_{\downarrow} \pi^{\dag}_{0\uparrow}\right]
 |0\rangle,\\
 |2 \rangle &= d^{\dag}_{\uparrow} d^{\dag}_{\downarrow} |0\rangle, \\
 |3\rangle  &= \pi^{\dag}_{0 \uparrow} \pi^{\dag}_{0\downarrow} |0\rangle.
 \end{align}
 In this subspace the Hamiltonian $H_V$ becomes a $3\times3$ matrix:
 %
 \begin{align}
 H_{\sigma \pi}(n_T = 2, S_T= 0) = \left(
 \begin{array}{ccc}
 \epsilon_{d} + \varepsilon_0 + U_{\sigma \pi} + \frac{3J_{H}}{4} & \sqrt{2} V_{\sigma \pi} & \sqrt{2} V^*_{\sigma\pi}\\
 \sqrt{2} V^*_{\sigma\pi} & 2\epsilon_d + U + \frac{3J_{H}}{4}  & 0 \\
 \sqrt{2} V_{\sigma \pi} & 0 & 2\varepsilon_0 + \frac{3 J_{H}}{4}
 \end{array}
 \right)
 \end{align}
 %
 where we have used that $\mathbf{S}_d \cdot \mathbf{S}_0 = \frac{1}{2} \left[ \mathbf{S}^2_T - \mathbf{S}^2_d - \mathbf{S}^2_0 \right] =
\frac{1}{2} \mathbf{S}^2_T - \frac{3}{4}$. The diagonalization of the above Hamiltonian is not possible explicity, but under the assumptions
that $\varepsilon_0 > \epsilon_d$ and $U\gg  |\epsilon_d|, |\varepsilon_d|$, the energy of the lowest state in this sector is:
\begin{equation}
E_0(n_T = 2, S_T=0, S^z_T = 0) \simeq \epsilon_d + \varepsilon_0 - 2 |V_{\sigma \pi}|^2 \left[ \frac{1}{|\epsilon_d  + U - \varepsilon_0 - U_{\sigma \pi}|} + \frac{1}{|\epsilon_d + U_{\sigma\pi} - \varepsilon_0|} \right]
\end{equation}
\item
{\bf Triplet:} For $n_T = 2$, $S = 1$, this space is spanned by (note that the states in this case have different values of $S_z$, since
$H_V$ commutes with $S_z$, it  automatically becomes diagonal in this subspace):
\begin{align}
| S_T =  1, S^z_T = +1 \rangle &= d^{\dag}_{\uparrow} \pi^{\dag}_{0\uparrow} |0\rangle, \\
 | S_T = 1, S^z_T = 0\rangle &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left[ d^{\dag}_{\uparrow} \pi^{\dag}_{0\downarrow}  + d^{\dag}_{\downarrow} \pi^{\dag}_{0\uparrow}\right]  |0\rangle,\\
 | S_T = 1, S^z_T = -1 \rangle  &= d^{\dag}_{\downarrow} \pi^{\dag}_{0\downarrow} |0\rangle.
\end{align}
 \begin{equation}
\langle S_T = 1, m |  H_{\sigma \pi} | S_T = 1, m^{\prime} \rangle =
\delta_{m,m^{\prime}}   \left( \epsilon_d + \varepsilon_0 + U_{\sigma\pi} - \frac{J_{H}}{4}\right)
 \end{equation}
Thus, the triplet consists of three degenerates states with energy:
\begin{equation}
E_0(n_T = 2, S_T = 1) = \epsilon_d + \varepsilon_0 + U_{\sigma\pi} - \frac{J_{H}}{4}.
\end{equation}
 %
\item {\bf Triply occupied doublet}:
For $n_T = 3$, $S = \frac{1}{2}$,  and $S^z = \pm \frac{1}{2}$ the Hilbert (subspace) is spanned by:
 %
 \begin{align}
 |1,\alpha\rangle &=  d^{\dag}_{\alpha} \pi^{\dag}_{\uparrow 0}\pi^{\dag}_{\downarrow 0 } |0\rangle,\\
 |2,\alpha\rangle &=  d^{\dag}_{\uparrow} d^{\dag}_{\downarrow} \pi^{\dag}_{0 \alpha} |0 \rangle\\
 \end{align}
 %
 To leading order, the energy of these states is given by:
 %
 \begin{align}
 E_1 &= \langle 1, \alpha | H_{\sigma\pi} | 1, \alpha \rangle = 2\varepsilon_0 + \epsilon_d + 2 U_{\sigma \pi},\\
 E_2 &=\langle 2, \alpha | H_{\sigma\pi} | 2, \alpha \rangle = \varepsilon_0 + 2\epsilon_d + 2 U_{\sigma \pi} + U,
 \end{align}
 %
 As in the double case, these energies are corrected by terms of order $|V_{\sigma \pi}|^2/|E_1-E_2|$ in the next leading order.

 \item {\bf Full vacancy singlet:} For $n_T = 4$, $S_T = S^z_T = 0$,  it is described by the state:
 %
 \begin{equation}
 |\mathrm{Full}\rangle =  d^{\dag}_{\uparrow} d^{\dag}_{\downarrow} \pi^{\dag}_{\uparrow 0}\pi^{\dag}_{\downarrow 0 } |0\rangle,
 \end{equation}
 %
 with energy $E_{\mathrm{full}} = 2\epsilon_d + 2\varepsilon_0 + 4 U_{\sigma \pi} + U$.
 %
 \end{enumerate}

  Under the assumption that $U \simeq 10 \: \mathrm{eV} \gg \varepsilon_0, |\epsilon_d| \gg V_{\sigma\pi}$,  we must compare the spin doublet energy with the triplet energy in order to determine the spin state of the vacancy:
\begin{equation}
\Delta E_{\mathrm{triplet}-\mathrm{doublet}} = E_0(n_T = 2, S_T = 1) - E_0(n_T = 1, S_T = \frac{1}{2}) =   \varepsilon_0  + U_{\sigma \pi} - \frac{J_H}{4} + \frac{|V_{\sigma \pi}|^2}{|\epsilon_d  - \varepsilon_0|}
\end{equation}
For example, if we choose the position of the chemical potential at the Dirac point and measure the energies
with respect to it,  $\mu = \varepsilon_0 = 0$,
\begin{equation}
\Delta E_{\mathrm{triplet}-\mathrm{doublet}} = U_{\sigma\pi} - \frac{J_{H}}{4} + \frac{|V_{\sigma \pi}|^2}{|\epsilon_d + U_{\sigma\pi}|}
\simeq  U_{\sigma\pi} - \frac{J_{H}}{4},
\end{equation}
since $\frac{|V_{\sigma \pi}|^2}{|\epsilon_d|}\sim 1$ meV is much smaller than $U_{\sigma \pi} \sim J_{H} \sim 100$ meV, according to the
estimates made in Sect.~\ref{sec:twolevel}. However, since  $U_{\sigma \pi} \sim J_{H}$ we cannot decide whether
the triplet or the doublet are favored as the ground state of the dangling $\sigma$-$\pi$ zero-mode system. Thus,
in the following we shall analyze both possibilities.

\section{Schrieffer-Wolf-like projection}\label{sec:swt}

In order to integrate out the charge fluctuations, we shall project the Anderson model introduced above
onto the subspace where the vacancy  dangling $\sigma$-level and the $\pi$ zero-mode are
either in the triplet or doublet state. This requires that
$\langle n_d \rangle \simeq 1$ and that $\langle n_0\rangle \simeq 1$ for the triplet case and $\langle n_0\rangle = 0$ for the doublet
case (see Sec.~\ref{sec:atomlimit} for a discussion of the validity of these approximations).
To this end, we introduce a projection operator, $P$,
 onto the subspace where $n_d = 1$ and either $n_0 = 1$ (triplet) or $n_0 = 0$ (doublet); $Q = 1 - P$  projects states onto the orthogonal subspace where either $n_d = 0$ or
$n_d = 2$. The effective  Hamiltonian projected onto the $P$-invariant subspace can be obtained from the expression:
\begin{equation}
H_{\mathrm{eff}}(E) = PHP + PHQ \frac{1}{E-QHQ} QHP, \label{eq:heff}
\end{equation}
 which we can use to perturbatively powers of $V$ integrate out the fluctuations in the occupancy of the dangling $\sigma$
level. However, the results, depend on whether the  ground state of the dangling $\sigma$ level $\pi$ zero-mode complex
is a doublet or a triplet.
\subsection{Doublet case}\label{subsec:swdoublet}
Let us assume that the ground state of the the dangling $\sigma$ level $\pi$ zero-mode complex is a doublet (i.e.
 $U_{\sigma\pi} > J_H/2$).  In that case $P$ is the projection operator onto the doublet state of the vacancy level system.
 To carry out the calculation, we first note that
\begin{align}
PHP &= H_c  + P H_{\sigma\pi} P + PH_{\mathrm{hyb}}P, \\
QHQ &= H_c  + Q H_{\sigma\pi} Q + QH_{\mathrm{hyb}}Q,\\
PHQ &= PH_{\mathrm{hyp}}Q + PH_{\sigma\pi}Q.
\end{align}
Upon neglecting retardation effects (i.e. setting $E = \mathcal{E}_0 + E_0(n_T = 1, S_T = \frac{1}{2}) \simeq \mathcal{E}_0 + \epsilon_d$, where  $\mathcal{E}_0$ is the ground state of the chain)  as well constant terms and using the identity \eqref{eq:sigmaiden},
we arrive at
\begin{align}
H_{K} &=  H_c
+\frac{|V_0|^2 }{\epsilon_d}   P d^{\dag}_{\alpha} c^{\alpha}_{0} c^{\dag}_{0\beta} d^{\beta} P
 - \frac{|V_0|^2}{U +\epsilon_d}  P c^{\dag}_{0\alpha} d^{\alpha} d^{\dag}_{\beta} c^{\beta}_0 P  \\
&= H_c      + J_K \mathbf{S}_d\cdot \mathbf{s}_0
 + V_0 c^{\dag}_{0\alpha} c^{\alpha}_{0} + \frac{|V_0|^2 }{\epsilon_d},\label{eq:sdd}
\end{align}
where, to leading order in $V_0$,
\begin{align}
J_K &= 2 |V_0|^2 \left[ -\frac{1}{\epsilon_d} + \frac{1}{U+\epsilon_d} \right] = 2 |V_0|^2 \left[ \frac{1}{|\epsilon_d|} + \frac{1}{U+\epsilon_d} \right]  > 0,\\
V_K &= - \frac{1}{2} |V_0|^2  \left[ \frac{1}{\epsilon_d}  + \frac{1}{U+\epsilon_d} \right] =   \frac{1}{2} |V_0|^2  \left[ \frac{1}{|\epsilon_d|}  - \frac{1}{U+\epsilon_d} \right] > 0
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
\mathbf{S}_{d} &= Pd^{\dag}_{\alpha} \left(\frac{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}{2}  \right)^{\alpha}_{\beta}  d^{\beta} P,\\
\mathbf{s}_0 &= c^{\dag}_{\alpha 0}    \left(\frac{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}{2}  \right)^{\alpha}_{\beta}  c^{\beta}_0
\end{align}

 \subsection{Triplet case}\label{subsec:swtriplet}

   We can repeat the same calculation as above by assuming that the ground state of the vacancy is a triplet
state. In this case, $P$ projects onto the triplet state of the vacancy dangling $\sigma$ and $\pi$ zero-mode levels.
Thus, neglecting retardation $E = \mathcal{E}_0 + E_0(n_T = 2, S_T = 1) = \mathcal{E}_0 + \epsilon_d + \varepsilon_0 + U_{\sigma\pi}- \frac{J_H}{4}$. Acting upon with the operator $H_{\mathrm{hyb}}$ then produces two kinds of excited states where  either $n_d = 0$ (having energy
$\simeq \mathcal{E}_0 + \varepsilon_0$ to leading order in $V$) or $n_d = 2$ (having energy $\simeq \mathcal{E}_0 + 2\epsilon_d + U + \varepsilon_0 + 2 U_{\sigma\pi}$ to leading order in $V$). Thus,
\begin{equation}
H_K =  H_c   - J_H P_t \mathbf{S}_d \cdot \mathbf{S}_0 P_t  + 2J_K P_t \mathbf{S}_d\cdot \mathbf{s}_0 P_t
 + V_0 c^{\dag}_{0\alpha} c^{\alpha}_{0} \label{eq:hkt}
\end{equation}
In the above expression, $P_t$ is the projection operator onto the triplet state.
This results holds for temperatures below the double-triplet energy splitting $\simeq \frac{J_H}{4}- U_{\sigma\pi}$.
 As a consequence of rotational invariance,
\begin{equation}
P_t \mathbf{S}_d P_t = \frac{1}{2} \mathbf{S}_T,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{S}_{T} = \mathbf{S}_{d} + \mathbf{S}_0$ and $\mathbf{S}^2_T = S_T (S_T +1)$ being $S_T = 1$.
Thus, we can write Eq.~\eqref{eq:hkt} as a $S=1$-impurity Kondo Hamiltonian:
\begin{equation}
H_K = H_c + J_K \mathbf{S}_T \cdot \mathbf{s}_0 + V_K c^{\dag}_{\alpha 0} c^{\alpha}_0, \label{eq:sdt}
\end{equation}
where (recall that $U_{\sigma\pi} - \frac{J_H}{4} < 0$ for the triplet to be the ground state):
\begin{align}
J_K &=  |V_0|^2 \left[ \frac{1}{|\epsilon_d + U_{\sigma\pi} - \frac{J_H}{4}|} + \frac{1}{U+\epsilon_d +U_{\sigma\pi}
- \frac{J_H}{4}} \right] > 0,\\
V_0 &= \frac{1}{2} |V_0|^2  \left[ \frac{1}{|\epsilon_d + U_{\sigma\pi} - \frac{J_H}{4}|}  - \frac{1}{U+\epsilon_d + U_{\sigma\pi}
- \frac{J_H}{4}} \right] > 0.
\end{align}
In the above derivation, we have used that $P_t \mathbf{S}_d \cdot \mathbf{S}_0P_t = \frac{1}{2}
 P_t  \left[ \mathbf{S}^2_T - \mathbf{S}^2_0 - \mathbf{S}^2_d \right] P_t = \frac{1}{4}$ and dropped the resulting
 constant term.

\section{Solution of the Scaling Equations for the Kondo coupling}

 Let us next consider the  solution of the scaling equations  for  Kondo coupling:
 %
 \begin{equation}
\frac{d j_K}{d \ln D} =  \frac{d \ln \Delta(\epsilon)}{d\ln \epsilon} \Big|_{\epsilon=D} j_K - j_K^2. \label{eq:arg}
 \end{equation}

To find the solution to this equation, let us use the ansatz:
\begin{equation}
j_K(D) = f(D) g(D), \quad \frac{dj(D)}{d\ln D} = \frac{df(D)}{d\ln D} g(D)  + f(D) \frac{dg(D)}{d\ln D},
\end{equation}
and require that our choice of $f(D)$ cancels the first term on the right hand-side of \eqref{eq:arg}, which leads to
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{d \ln D} \left( \frac{f(D)}{\Delta(\epsilon = D)}\right) = 0,
\end{equation}
and therefore $f(D) = C \Delta(\epsilon = D)$, where $C$ is a constant. Upon choosing $C = 1$, without loss of
generality,  we find that $g(D)$ obeys the following equation:
\begin{equation}
\frac{d g(D)}{d \ln D} = -\Delta(\epsilon = D) g^2(D),
\end{equation}
which can be integrated from $D = D_0$ to $D = T$ to  yield ($g(0) = g(D_0)$):
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{g(T)} - \frac{1}{g(0)} = \int^{T}_{D_0} \frac{\Delta(\epsilon)}{\epsilon}
\end{equation}
Next we recall that $j(T) = \Delta(\epsilon = T) g(T)$ and therefore,
\begin{equation}
g(T) = \frac{j(T)}{\Delta(T)}.
\end{equation}
Hence,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Delta(T)}{j(T)} - \frac{\Delta(D_0)}{j(0)} =  \int^{T}_{D_0} \frac{\Delta(\epsilon)}{\epsilon},
\end{equation}
which, when solved for $j(T)$ yields:
\begin{equation}
j(T) = \frac{\Delta(T) j(0)/\Delta(D_0)}{1 -  \frac{j(0)}{\Delta(D_0)}\int^{T}_{D_0} \frac{\Delta(\epsilon)}{\epsilon}, }
\end{equation}
Again, we can define the Kondo temperature as the value of $T$ where $j(T) = C^{-1}\sim 1$, which form the previous
expression leads to:
\begin{equation}
\int^{T_K}_{D_0} \frac{\Delta(\epsilon)}{\epsilon} - C\Delta(T_K)  = \frac{\Delta(D_0)}{j(0)} \propto \frac{1}{J_K}.
\end{equation}
Introducing $\Delta(\epsilon) \sim \left[ |\epsilon| \ln^2(\epsilon/D_0) \right]$~\cite{Pereira2006Nunob} in the above equation leads to
to the condition that $T_K \ln^2 (T_K/D_0) \sim J_K$ quoted in the main text.

\section{Slave-boson Mean-field Solution}

In the present study we employ the slave bosons technique combined with the large -$N$ mean field treatment of the resulting action. The slave bosons technique aims at enlarging the Hilbert space of the impurity by introducing a slave boson creation operator $b^\dagger$ and a new fermion $f^\dagger_{\sigma}$  that act on a new vacuum state $\vert\textrm{vac}\rangle$ such that the physical empty and singly occupied physical states of the impurity orbital are represented as
\begin{align}
\vert0\rangle&=b^{\dagger}\vert\text{vac}\rangle,\\
\vert\sigma\rangle&=f_{\sigma}^{\dagger}\vert\text{vac}\rangle.
\end{align}
In terms of the slave boson and the new fermion the original impurity creation operator reads $d_{\sigma}^{\dagger}=f_{\sigma}^{\dagger}b$, which satisfies canonical anti-commutation relations provided the Hilbert space is restricted to the physical space. The spin degeneracy is generalized from SU(2) to SU($N$), with $\sigma=1,\ldots N$, and we shall consider the $U=\infty$ limit with a constraint of no double occupancy (for $N=2$) generalized to
\begin{equation}
b^{\dagger}b+\sum_{\sigma}f_{\sigma}^{\dagger}f_{\sigma}=\frac{N}{2}
\end{equation}
for arbitrary $N$. The resulting effective action is:
\begin{multline}
S_{\mathrm{eff}}=\int_{0}^{\beta}d\tau\left\{ \sum_{\sigma}f_{\sigma}^{\dagger}(\partial_{\tau}+\varepsilon_{d})f_{\sigma}+b^{\dagger}\partial_{\tau}b  + i\lambda(\tau)\left[b^{\dagger}b+\sum_{\sigma}f_{\sigma}^{\dagger}f_{\sigma}-\frac{N}{2}\right]\right\} \\
-\frac{2|V|^2}{N}\int_{0}^{\beta}d\tau\int_{0}^{\beta}d\tau'\sum_{\sigma}f_{\sigma}^{\dagger}(\tau)b(\tau)g(\tau-\tau')b^{\dagger}(\tau')f_{\sigma}(\tau')
\end{multline}
where the Lagrange multiplier $\lambda$ is a dynamical variable introduced to impose the constraint.

In the large $N$ limit, the partition function can be approximated by means of a saddle point evaluation of its defining functional integral. At the saddle point, the Lagrange multiplier becomes static $i\lambda(\tau)\to\langle i\lambda\rangle = \lambda_0$ and the boson field is replace by its average $b\to \langle b\rangle = \sqrt{N/2} r_0$ and $b^\dagger\to\langle b^\dagger \rangle = \sqrt{N/2}r_0$. The values of $r_0$ and $\lambda_0$ at the saddle point are determined by minimizing of the free energy, which leads to the following mean field equations
\begin{align}
\frac{r_{0}^{2}}{2}+\frac{1}{\beta}\sum_{\omega_{n}}G_{f}(i\omega_{n})e^{i\omega_{n}0^{+}}&=\frac{1}{2}\label{eq:1_slave_boson_mean_field}\\
\lambda_{0}+\frac{2|V|^2}{\beta}\sum_{\omega_{n}}G_{f}(i\omega_{n})g(i\omega_{n})e^{i\omega_{n}0^{+}}&=0\label{eq:2_slave_boson_mean_field},
\end{align}
where $G_f$ is the fermion propagator, which reads:
\begin{equation}
G_{f}(i\omega_{n})=\langle f_{\sigma}^{\dagger}(i\omega_{n})f_{\sigma}(i\omega_{n})\rangle  =\frac{1}{i\omega_{n}-\varepsilon_{d}-\lambda_{0}-r_{0}^{2}V^2g(i\omega_{n})}.
\end{equation}
We fix the Kondo temperature $T_K$ at the onset of condensation of the slave boson, $r_0=0$. $G_{f}$ reduces to the standard Green's function for a free fermion, and therefore Eq. (\ref{eq:1_slave_boson_mean_field}) leads to
\begin{equation}
f_{F}\left(\frac{\varepsilon_{d}+\lambda}{T}\right)=\frac{1}{2}
\end{equation}
where $f_{F}(u)=1/(e^{u}+1)$ is the Fermi factor. Its solution is given by $\lambda_0=-\varepsilon_{d}$. Thus,  Eq. (\ref{eq:2_slave_boson_mean_field}) becomes:
\begin{equation}
\frac{2}{\beta}\sum_{\omega_{n}}\frac{1}{i\omega_{n}}g(i\omega_{n})e^{i\omega_{n}0^{+}}=\frac{\varepsilon_{d}}{|V|^{2}},
\end{equation}
which we have solved numerically by first computing the local Green's function a the tight-binding model of the graphene
including nearest neigbor $t$ and next-nearest neighbor hopping $t^{\prime}$.


\section{Introduction}
In this paper, we consider a conjecture of Douglas and Arveson that implies a correspondence between algebraic varieties and C*-algebras of essentially normal operators. In the papers \cite{Sha11} and \cite{Ken12}, we showed that this conjecture can be viewed as a problem of finding certain nice decompositions of submodules of $\mathbb{C}[z_1,\ldots,z_d]$. In the present paper, we take a slightly different perspective, and relate the conjecture to the geometry of the variety in question.

Let $d$ be a fixed positive integer, and let $\mathbb{C}[z]=\mathbb{C}[z_{1},\ldots,z_{d}]$
denote the algebra of complex polynomials in $d$ variables. The Drury-Arveson space $H_{d}^{2}$ is
the reproducing kernel Hilbert space on the unit ball $\mathbb{B}_{d}$
generated by the kernel functions
\[
k_{\lambda}(z)=\frac{1}{1-\langle z,\lambda\rangle},\quad\lambda\in\mathbb{B}_{d}.
\]
Equivalently, $H_d^2$ is the completion of $\mathbb{C}[z]$ with respect to the inner product
\[
\langle z^\alpha,z^\beta\rangle = \delta_{\alpha,\beta}\frac{\alpha_1! \cdots \alpha_d!}{(\alpha_1+\ldots +\alpha_d)!}, \quad \alpha, \beta\ \in \mathbb{N}_0^d,
\]
where we have used the notation $z^\alpha = z_1^{\alpha_1} \cdots z_d^{\alpha_d}$ for $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_d)$ in $\mathbb{N}_0^d$.

The $d$-shift $S=(S_{1},\ldots,S_{d})$  is the $d$-tuple of multiplication operators on $H_d^2$ corresponding to the coordinate functions $z_1,\ldots,z_d$. They act by
\[
(S_{i}f)(z)=z_{i}f(z),\quad f\in H_{d}^{2}.
\]
We will be particularly interested in these operators, which were introduced and extensively studied in \cite{Arv98}. Together with the $d$-shift $S$, the space $H_d^2$ forms a Hilbert module over
$\mathbb{C}[z]$, with the module action given by
\[
pf = p(S_1,\ldots,S_d)f, \quad p \in \mathbb{C}[z],\ f \in H_d^2.
\]
Endowed with this module structure, $H_d^2$ is known as the {\em $d$-shift Hilbert module}.

For an ideal $I$ of $\mathbb{C}[z]$, we define
\[
\mathcal{F}_{I}=H_{d}^{2}\ominus I.
\]
Note that since the closure of $I$ in $H_d^2$ is an invariant subspace for each $S_j$, the space $\mathcal{F}_I$ is coinvariant for each $S_j$.
We let $S_{j}^{I}$ denote the compression of $S_{j}$ to $\mathcal{F}_{I}$, i.e.,
\[
S_{j}^{I}=P_{\mathcal{F}_{I}}S_{j}\mid_{\mathcal{F}_{I}}.
\]
Then as a Hilbert module, $\mathcal{F}_{I}$ is equivalent to the quotient of $H_{d}^{2}$ by the closure of $I$ in $H_{d}^{2}$.

We will require the following correspondence between ideals of $\mathbb{C}[z]$ and subsets of the unit ball $\mathbb{B}_d$  of $\mathbb{C}^d$. For an ideal $I$ of $\mathbb{C}[z]$, we define
\[
V(I)=\{z\in\mathbb{B}_{d}\mid p(z)=0\ \forall p\in I\},
\]
and for a subset $V$ of $\mathbb{B}_{d}$, we define
\[
I(V)=\{p\in\mathbb{C}[z]\mid p(z)=0\ \forall z\in V\}.
\]
For a homogeneous ideal $I$ we shall call the set $V(I)$ a {\em homogeneous variety in $\mathbb{B}_d$}. All the varieties in this paper will be homogeneous varieties in $\mathbb{B}_d$.

If the ideal $I$ is radical, then the space $\mathcal{F}_{I}$ is a reproducing kernel Hilbert space over $V(I)$. More generally, it was established in \cite[Lemma 5.5]{DRS11} that in this case we have the equality
\[
\mathcal{F}_{I}=\overline{\mathrm{span}}\{k_{\lambda}\mid\lambda\in V(I)\}.
\]

Arveson's conjecture is that for every homogeneous ideal $I$ of $\mathbb{C}[z]$, the quotient operators $S_1^I,\ldots,S_d^I$ satisfy
\begin{equation}
[S_{i}^{I},S_{j}^{I*}]:=S_{i}^{I} S_{j}^{I*} - S_{j}^{I*} S_{i}^{I} \in\mathcal{L}^{p},\quad p>d,\ 1 \leq i,j \leq d, \label{eq:trace}
\end{equation}
where for $1\leq p \leq \infty$, $\mathcal{L}^p$ denotes the set of Schatten $p$-class operators on $H_d^2$.
The general version of Arveson's conjecture includes multiplicity, but we are not worrying about that for now, and in fact, by \cite[Section 5]{Sha11}, the full conjecture is equivalent to the scalar case (up to a small modification of the range of $p$).

Douglas conjectured further that (\ref{eq:trace}) should hold for all $p>\dim I$. Note that $\dim I$ is defined in the following way. It
is known that there is a polynomial $h_{I}(x)$, called the {\em Hilbert polynomial}, such that for sufficiently large $n$, the dimension of $\mathbb{H}_{n}\ominus I_{n}$ is equal
to $h_{I}(n)$. The dimension $\dim I$ is defined to be $\deg(h_{I}(x))+1$ (see, e.g., \cite[Chapter 9]{CLS92}). If
$V$ is the affine variety determined by $I$ then $\dim I = \dim V$. For example, when the variety $V$ is a union of subspaces this is
just the maximal dimension of the subspaces.

In this note we will be concerned with the Arveson-Douglas conjecture
for radical homogeneous ideals. To express our ideas in the clearest way, we are
led to introduce the following notation. If $X$ is a subspace of $\mathbb{C}^{d}$,
then we write $X^{n}$ for the $n$-th symmetric tensor power of $X$ with itself. If $V\subseteq X$ is a homogeneous variety in the ball, i.e. if $V$ is of the form $V = V(I)$, for some radical homogeneous ideal $I$ of $\mathbb{C}[z]$, then we define $V^{n}$ to be the subspace of $X^{n}$ spanned by elements of the form
\[
\lambda^{n}=\underbrace{\lambda\otimes\cdots\otimes\lambda}_{n\textrm{ times }}, \quad \lambda \in V.
\]
Thus, if $V=V_{1}\cup\ldots\cup V_{k}$ is a union of varieties, then we have that
\[
V^{n}=\sum_{i=1}^{k}V_{i}^{n}.
\]
Using the natural identification of $\mathbb{C}[z]$ with symmetric Fock space gives the decomposition
\[
\mathcal{F}_{I}=\oplus_{n=0}^{\infty}V^{n}.
\]
With this identification, the kernel functions $k_\lambda$ of $\mathcal{F}_I$ are of the form
\[
k_{\lambda}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\overline{\lambda}^{n}, \quad \lambda \in V.
\]
We remark that (for sufficiently large $n$) the dimension of $V^{n}$
is bounded by $n^{d-1}$, because it is a subspace of $(\mathbb{C}^{d})^{n}$,
which has dimension $\frac{(n+d-1)!}{n!(d-1)!}$.

When we consider $\mathcal{F}_{I}$ as a reproducing kernel Hilbert space over $V(I)$, then the operators $S_{i}^{I}$
correspond to multiplication operator $M_{f_i}$ defined by
\[
(M_{f_i} g)(z) = (f_{i}g)(z), \quad g \in \mathcal{F}_I,
\]
where $f_i = z_{i}\big|_{V(I)}$. The algebra $\mathcal{A}_{I}$ is defined to be the normed closed
unital algebra generated by $(S_{1}^{I},\ldots,S_{d}^{I})$. This algebra is a normed closed subalgebra of the multiplier algebra of
$\mathcal{F}_{I}$. If $p$ belongs to $\mathbb{C}[z]$, then it will be convenient to identify $p(S^I_1, \ldots, S^I_d)$ with the multiplication operator $M_p$.

For $p \geq 1$, we will say that the quotient module $\mathcal{F}_{I}$ is \emph{$p$-essentially normal }if
\[
[S_{i}^{I},S_{j}^{I*}]\in\mathcal{L}^{p},\quad \ 1 \leq i,j \leq d.
\]
Recall that this is equivalent to $|[S_{i}^{I},S_{j}^{I*}]|^p$ being trace class for $1 \leq i,j \leq d$.

If $V=V(I)$ and $I=I(V)$, which is the case whenever $I$ is a radical ideal, then we will write $S_1^V, \ldots ,S_d^V$ for $S_1^I, \ldots, S_d^I$.
Similarly, we will write $\mathcal{F}_{V}$ for $\mathcal{F}_{I}$, and $\mathcal{A}_V$ for $\mathcal{A}_I$. Using this notation, we now state for reference the form of the Arveson-Douglas conjecture that we consider in this paper.

\begin{conjecture}[Geometric Arveson-Douglas Conjecture] \label{conj}
Let $V$ be a homogenous variety in $\mathbb{B}_{d}$. Then the submodule $\mathcal{F}_{V}$
is $p$-essentially normal for every $p>\dim V$.
\end{conjecture}

Note that the essential normality of $\mathcal{F}_{V}$ is independent of the ambient space $\mathbb{C}^{d}$ (and in particular of the
dimension $d$) in which we choose to (isometrically) embed $V$ (see \cite[Remark 8.1]{DRS11}).

Conjecture \ref{conj} originated with Arveson's investigation of the curvature invariant of a commuting $d$-tuple \cite{Arv00, Arv02}. In the past decade, it has drawn a lot of attention, for example in the papers \cite{Arv05,Arv07,Dou06a,Dou06b,DS11,DW12,Esc11,GW08,Ken12,Sha11}, which deal directly with this conjecture. We also wish to mention two recent papers, \cite{DW11} and \cite{FX12}, which treat the essential normality of a principal ideal generated by a (not necessarily homogeneous) polynomial. These papers are worth mentioning, not only because the problem they treat is closely related, but also because they introduce promising analytic techniques that are quite different from previous approaches to the general problem of essential normality.

The main result of \cite[Section 7.3]{DRS11} is that if $V$ and $W$ are
``tractable" homogeneous varieties, and if
$A$ is an invertible linear map that maps $W$ onto $V$ that is
isometric on $W$, then the map $f\mapsto f\circ A$ is an isomorphism between the algebras
$\mathcal{A}_{V}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{W}$ \cite[Theorem 7.17]{DRS11}.
Furthermore, it was shown that this isomorphism is implemented by
a similarity $\tilde{A}^{*}$, i.e.
\[
\varphi(M_{f})=\tilde{A}^{*}M_{f}(\tilde{A}^{*})^{-1},
\]
where $\tilde{A}:\mathcal{F}_{W}\to\mathcal{F}_{V}$ is an invertible
bounded linear map satisfying
\[
\tilde{A}k_{\lambda}=k_{A\lambda}.
\]
Recently, in \cite{Har12}, Hartz was able to prove a stronger version of this result that does not require the varieties to be tractable. We will require this result for what follows.

In this paper, we study the Arveson-Douglas conjecture for submodules of the form $\mathcal{F}_V$, where $V$ is a homogeneous variety in $\mathbb{B}_d$.
In Section \ref{sec:maps}, we prove that if $W$ is a homogeneous variety in $\mathbb{B}_{d'}$, for some positive integer $d'$, and if $\mathcal{A}_V$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{A}_W$, then $\mathcal{F}_V$ is $p$-essentially normal if and only if  $\mathcal{F}_W$ is $p$-essentially normal. We also establish a similar result for maps between varieties that are not necessarily isomorphic.

In Section \ref{sec:decomposability}, we consider when it is possible to decompose $V$ as $V=V_1\cup \ldots \cup V_n$, where $V_1,\ldots,V_n$ are homogeneous varieties in $\mathbb{C}^d$ with the property that the algebraic sum $\mathcal{F}_{V_1} + \ldots + \mathcal{F}_{V_n}$ is closed. This is a geometric analogue of the notion of the decomposability of a submodule that was introduced in \cite{Ken12}. We relate this geometric notion of decomposability to the problem of establishing the $p$-essential normality of the submodule $\mathcal{F}_V$.

Finally, in Section \ref{sec:applications}, we apply the results from Section 2 and Section 3 to establish the Arveson-Douglas conjecture for two new classes of examples. Using Hartz's result from \cite{Har12}, we prove that  $\mathcal{F}_V$ satisfies the Arveson-Douglas conjecture when $V$ decomposes as the union of linear subspaces. We also prove that $\mathcal{F}_V$ satisfies the Arveson-Douglas conjecture when $V$ decomposes into varieties $V_1,\ldots,V_n$ such that each $\mathcal{F}_{V_i}$ satisfies the conjecture, and $\mathrm{span}(V_i) \cap \mathrm{span}(V_j) = {0}$ whenever $i \ne j$. These are perhaps the simplest classes of examples for which the conjecture was not previously known to be true.

\section{Linear maps between varieties and essential normality} \label{sec:maps}

\subsection{Invertible maps}\label{subsec:invertible}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:isomorphism}
Let $V$ and $W$ be homogeneous varieties in $\mathbb{B}_{d}$ and
$\mathbb{B}_{d'}$ respectively. Suppose the algebras $\mathcal{A}_{V}$
and $\mathcal{A}_{W}$ are algebraically isomorphic. Then for $p\geq1$, $\mathcal{F}_{V}$
is $p$-essentially normal if and only if $\mathcal{F}_{W}$ is $p$-essentially
normal.\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Since $\mathcal{A}_{V}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{W}$ are isomorphic, by
results of \cite{DRS11} (Proposition 7.1, Theorem 7.4 and Proposition 8.3) there is a linear transformation $A:\mathbb{C}^{d}\to\mathbb{C}^{d'}$ that maps $V$ bijectively onto $W$. It now follows from \cite{Har12} (Proposition 2.5 and Corollary 5.8) that there is an invertible linear map $\tilde{A}:\mathcal{F}_{V}\to\mathcal{F}_{W}$
defined by
\[
\tilde{A}k_{\lambda}=k_{A\lambda} , \quad \lambda \in V.
\]
It follows that if $f$ is a polynomial in $\mathcal{F}_V$ then
\[
\tilde{A}f=f\circ A^{*}.
\]
The adjoint $\tilde{A}^{*}:\mathcal{F}_{W}\to\mathcal{F}_{V}$
is defined by
\[
\tilde{A}^{*}f=f\circ A,\quad f\in\mathcal{F}_{W}.
\]
Note that for a polynomial $f$ in $\mathcal{F}_{V}$, $\tilde{A}M_{f}=M_{f\circ A^{*}}\tilde{A}$,
and similarly for a  polynomial $f$ in $\mathcal{F}_{W}$, $\tilde{A}^{*}M_{f}=M_{f\circ A}\tilde{A}^{*}$.

Fix polynomials $f$ and $g$ in $\mathcal{F}_{V}$. Then using the
identities $M_{g\circ A^{*}}=\tilde{A}M_{g}\tilde{A}^{-1}$, $M_{f\circ A^{*}}^{*}\tilde{A}=\tilde{A}M_{f\circ A^{*}A}^{*}$
 and $M_{f\circ A^{*}}^{*}=\tilde{A}M_{f\circ A^{*}A}^{*}\tilde{A}^{-1},$
we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
M_{f\circ A^{*}}^{*}M_{g\circ A^{*}} & = & M_{f\circ A^{*}}^{*}\tilde{A}M_{g}\tilde{A}^{-1}\\
 & = & \tilde{A}M_{f\circ A^{*}A}^{*}M_{g}\tilde{A}^{-1}\\
 & = & \tilde{A}M_{g}M_{f\circ A^{*}A}^{*}\tilde{A}^{-1}+\tilde{A}[M_{f\circ A^{*}A},M_{g}]\tilde{A}^{-1}\\
 & = & \tilde{A}M_{g}\tilde{A}^{-1}\tilde{A}M_{f\circ A^{*}A}^{*}\tilde{A}^{-1}+\tilde{A}[M_{f\circ A^{*}A},M_{g}]\tilde{A}^{-1}\\
 & = & M_{g\circ A^{*}}M_{f\circ A^{*}}^{*}+\tilde{A}[M_{f\circ A^{*}A},M_{g}]\tilde{A}^{-1}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore,
\[
[M_{f\circ A^{*}}^{*},M_{g\circ A^{*}}]=\tilde{A}[M_{f\circ A^{*}A},M_{g}]\tilde{A}^{-1}.
\]
and hence $[M_{f\circ A^{*}}^{*},M_{g\circ A^{*}}]$ belongs to $\mathcal{L}^{p}$
if and only if $[M_{f\circ A^{*}A}^{*},M_{g}]$ belongs to $\mathcal{L}^{p}$.
Letting $f$ and $g$ be suitable linear combinations of the coordinate functions one sees that $\mathcal{F}_W$ is $p$-essentially normal if and only if $\mathcal{F}_V$ is $p$-essentially normal.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Maps that are not necessarily invertible}\label{subsec:not_invertible}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:quantitative}
Let $V$ and $W$ be homogeneous varieties in $\mathbb{B}_{d}$ and $\mathbb{B}_{d'}$, respectively, with decompositions into (not necessarily irreducible)
subvarieties $V=V_{1}\cup\ldots\cup V_{k}$ and $W=W_{1}\cup\ldots\cup W_{k}$ with the property that $\mathrm{span}(W_{i})\cap\mathrm{span}(W_{j})=\{0\}$
whenever $i\ne j$. Suppose that there is a linear map $A:\mathbb{C}^{d}\to\mathbb{C}^{d'}$
such that $A(V_{i})=W_{i}$ and such that the
restriction of $A$ to $\mathrm{span}(V_{i})$ is isometric for all $i$,  $1\leq i\leq k$. Then the map
defined by\textup{
\[
\tilde{A}k_\lambda  =k_{A\lambda},\quad \lambda\in V
\]
} extends to a bounded linear map $\tilde{A}:\mathcal{F}_{V}\to\mathcal{F}_{W}$. Moreover, $\tilde{A}$ is the sum of a unitary operator and a trace class operator.
\end{prop}

\begin{rem*}
If $V_{i}$ is irreducible, and if $A$ is {\em isometric} on  $V_{i}$, then it follows from \cite[Proposition 7.6]{DRS11} that the restriction of $A$ to $\mathrm{span}(V_{i})$ is automatically isometric.\end{rem*}

\begin{proof}
It suffices to prove the lemma for the case when $V$ and $W$ are
unions of nontrivial subspaces (see the first paragraph of \cite[Theorem 7.16]{DRS11}). Hence we can suppose that $\{0\}\ne V_{i}=\mathrm{span}(V_{i})$
and $\{0\}\ne W_{i}=\mathrm{span}(W_{i})$.

The fact that the operator $\tilde{A}$ is bounded follows from the
results in \cite{Har12}. However, in order to prove that $\tilde{A}$
is the sum of a unitary operator and a trace class operator, we will
need to obtain quantitative estimates. If $M$ and $N$ are two subspaces of a Hilbert space then we denote (following \cite{Fri37})
\[
\cos(M,N) = \sup \{|\langle x, y \rangle | : x \in M \ominus (M\cap N), y \in N \ominus (M \cap N), \|x\|=\|y\|=1\}.
\]
By the finite-dimensionality of $V_{1},\ldots,V_{n}$, $\mathrm{cos}(V_{i},V_{j})<1$ and  $\mathrm{cos}(W_{i},W_{j})<1$ whenever $i\ne j$. Let
\[
c=\max(\{\cos(V_{i},V_{j})\mid i\ne j\}\cup\{\cos(W_{i},W_{j})\mid i\ne j\}).
\]
Then $0\leq c<1$. For $v$ in $V^{n}$ and $w$ in $W^{n}$, write
$v=\sum_{i=1}^{k}v_{i}$ and $w=\sum_{i=1}^{k}w_{i}$, where each
$w_{i}$ belongs to $W_{i}^{n}$. Then as in the proof of \cite[Lemma 7.10]{DRS11}, for sufficiently large $n$,
\begin{equation}
(1-kc^{n})\|v\|^{2}\leq\sum_{i=1}^{k}\|v_{i}\|^{2}\leq(1+kc^{n})\|v\|^{2}\label{eq:est-V}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
(1-kc^{n})\|w\|^{2}\leq\sum_{i=1}^{k}\|w_{i}\|^{2}\leq(1+kc^{n})\|w\|^{2}.\label{eq:est-W}
\end{equation}

The space $\mathcal{F}_{V}$ decomposes as $\mathcal{F}_{V}=\oplus_{n=0}^{\infty}V^{n}$,
and $\tilde{A}$ is defined on $V^{n}$ by setting
\[
\tilde{A}\lambda^{n}=(A\lambda)^{n},\quad\lambda\in V,
\]
and extending by linearity. Since $W^{n}=W^{\otimes n}$, the operator
$\tilde{A}$ can also be realized as
\[
\tilde{A}=\oplus_{n=0}^{\infty}A^{\otimes n}.
\]
Therefore, by the hypothesis that $A$ is isometric on each $V_{i}$,
the restriction of $\tilde{A}$ to $V_{i}^{n}$ is a unitary from
$V_{i}^{n}$ to $W_{i}^{n}$.

As above, for $v$ in $V^{n}$ write $v=\sum_{i=1}^{k}v_{i}$, where
each $v_{i}$ belongs to $V_{i}^{n}$. Then by (\ref{eq:est-V}) and
(\ref{eq:est-W}), for sufficiently large $n$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\|\tilde{A}v\|^{2} & = & \|\sum_{i=1}^{k}A^{\otimes n}v_{i}\|^{2}\label{eq:est2}\\
 & \leq & \frac{1}{1-kc^{n}}\sum_{i=1}^{k}\|A^{\otimes n}v_{i}\|^{2}\nonumber \\
 & = & \frac{1}{1-kc^{n}}\sum_{i=1}^{k}\|v_{i}\|^{2}\nonumber \\
 & \leq & \frac{1+kc^{n}}{1-kc^{n}}\|v\|^{2},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
By a similar argument, for sufficiently large $n$,
\begin{equation}
\|\tilde{A}v\|^{2}\geq\frac{1-kc^{n}}{1+kc^{n}}\|v\|^{2}.\label{eq:est3}
\end{equation}

Let $\tilde{A}=U|\tilde{A}|$ be the polar decomposition of $\tilde{A}$.
Since $\tilde{A}$ is graded, i.e. $\tilde{A}(V^{n})=W^{n}$, it follows
that $U$ and $|\tilde{A}|$ are also graded. Write $\tilde{A}=U+U(|\tilde{A}|-I)$.
Since $A$ (and hence $\tilde{A}$) is not necessarily invertible,
the partial isometry $U$ is not necessarily a unitary. However, by
(\ref{eq:est3}), the restriction of $\tilde{A}$ to $V^{n}$ is invertible
for sufficiently large $n$, so $U$ is a finite rank perturbation
of a unitary. Hence we will be done once we show that $|\tilde{A}|-I$
is a trace class operator.

The inequalities (\ref{eq:est2}) and (\ref{eq:est3}) are equivalent
to the existence of a constant $M>0$ such that for $v$ in $V^{n}$,
\[
(1-Mc^{n})\|v\|\leq\||\tilde{A}|v\|\leq(1+Mc^{n})\|v\|.
\]
Hence the eigenvalues of the restriction of $|\tilde{A}|$ to $V^{n}$
are contained in the interval $[1-Mc^{n},1+Mc^{n}]$, and it follows
that the eigenvalues of the restriction of $|\tilde{A}|-I$ to $V^{n}$
are contained in the interval $[-Mc^{n},Mc^{n}]$. Therefore, since
the dimension of $V^{n}$ is less than $n^{d-1}$, it follows that
$|\tilde{A}|-I$ is a trace class operator.
\end{proof}

\begin{thm}\label{thm:linear_map}
Let $V$ and $W$ be homogeneous varieties in $\mathbb{B}_{d}$ and $\mathbb{B}_{d'}$, respectively, with decompositions into (not necessarily irreducible)
subvarieties $V=V_{1}\cup\ldots\cup V_{k}$ and $W=W_{1}\cup\ldots\cup W_{k}$ with the property that $\mathrm{span}(W_{i})\cap\mathrm{span}(W_{j})=\{0\}$
whenever $i\ne j$. Suppose that there is a linear map $A:\mathbb{C}^{d}\to\mathbb{C}^{d'}$
such that $A(V_{i})=W_{i}$ and such that the
restriction of $A$ to $\mathrm{span}(V_{i})$ is isometric for all $i$,  $1\leq i\leq k$. Then for $p\geq1$, $\mathcal{F}_{W}$ is $p$-essentially
normal if and only if $\mathcal{F}_{V}$ is.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
Let $\tilde{A}:\mathcal{F}_{V}\to\mathcal{F}_{W}$ be as in Proposition
\ref{prop:quantitative}, so that we can write $\tilde{A}=U+T$, where
$U:\mathcal{F}_{V}\to\mathcal{F}_{W}$ is a unitary operator and $T:\mathcal{F}_{V}\to\mathcal{F}_{W}$
is a trace class operator. Then the identity $\tilde{A}M_{f}=M_{f\circ A^{*}}\tilde{A}$
implies that for every polynomial $f$ in $\mathcal{F}_{V}$,
\[
M_{f\circ A^{*}}(U+T)=(U+T)M_{f},
\]
and hence that
\[
M_{f\circ A^{*}}=UM_{f}U^{*}+TM_{f}U^{*}-M_{f\circ A}TU^{*}.
\]
Therefore, for polynomials $f$ and $g$ in $\mathcal{F}_{V}$, we
can write
\[
[M_{f\circ A^{*}}^{*},M_{g\circ A^{*}}]=U[M_{f}^{*},M_{g}]U^{*}+R,
\]
where $R$ is a trace class operator. Letting $f$ and $g$ be coordinate functions, it immediately follows that $\mathcal{F}_V$ is $p$-essentially normal if $\mathcal{F}_W$ is. To obtain the converse, assume without loss of generality that $\mathbb{C}^{d'} = \mathrm{span}(W)$. Then $A$ is surjective, hence $A^*$ is left invertible. Let $B$ be a left inverse of $A^*$. Put $f = z_i \circ B$ and $g = z_j \circ B$, where $z_i$ and $z_j$ are considered as coordinate functions in $\mathbb{C}^{d'}$. Then $f$ and $g$ are linear combinations of coordinate function in $\mathbb{C}^d$. Now if $\mathcal{F}_V$ is $p$-essentially normal then $[M^*_f, M_g] \in \mathcal{L}^p$, whence $[M^*_{z_i}, M_{z_j}] = [M_{f\circ A^{*}}^{*},M_{g\circ A^{*}}]  \in \mathcal{L}^p$. Thus $\mathcal{F}_W$ is $p$-essentially normal.
\end{proof}

\section{Decompositions of varieties and essential normality}\label{sec:decomposability}

\subsection{A refinement of a lemma} \label{subsec:refinement}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:refinement}Let $I$ be a homogeneous ideal of $\mathbb{C}[z]$
and let $P$ denote the projection onto $\mathcal{F}_{I}$. Then
for $p>\dim I$, $\mathcal{F}_{I}$ is $p$-essentially normal if
and only if the commutator $[S_i,P]$ belongs to $\mathcal{L}^{2p}$
for each $1\leq i\leq d$.\end{lem}
\begin{rem}
A slightly weaker form of this conjecture, holding only for $p>d$ instead of $p>\dim I$, is well known (see, e.g., \cite[Proposition 4.2]{Arv07}).
\end{rem}
\begin{proof}
In \cite{Arv98}, it is shown that
\begin{equation}
\|[S_{i}^{*},S_{j}]\mid_{\mathbb{H}_{n}}\|\leq2/(n+1).\label{eq:p-ineq-1}
\end{equation}
It follows that $\mathrm{trace}(|[S_{i}^{*},S_{j}]|^{p})<\infty$
for all $p>d$, since
\[
\mathrm{trace}(|[S_{i}^{*},S_{j}]|^{p})\leq\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{2^{p}\dim\mathbb{H}_{n}}{(n+1)^{p}},
\]
and this is finite for $p>d$, since $\dim\mathbb{H}_{n}=O(n^{d-1}).$

Write $T_i = S^I_i = P S_i P$, $i=1, \ldots, d$. Since $\mathcal{F}_{I}^{\perp}$ is an invariant subspace for the
$d$-shift,
\[
[T_{i}^{*},T_{j}]-P[S_{i}^{*},S_{j}]P=-P S_i^{*} (I-P) S_{j}P=-[P,S_{i}]^{*}[P,S_{j}],
\]
which we can rewrite as
\begin{equation}
[T_{i}^{*},T_{j}]= P[S_{i}^{*},S_{j}]P - [P,S_{i}]^{*}[P,S_{j}].\label{eq:p-ineq-2}
\end{equation}
By (\ref{eq:p-ineq-1}) we know that $\|[S_{i}^{*},S_{j}]\mid_{\mathbb{H}_{n}}\|=O(n^{-1})$,
so it follows that there is a constant $M>0$ such that
\[
\mathrm{trace}(|P[S_{i}^{*},S_{j}]P|^{p})\leq M\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{\dim(\mathbb{H}_{n}\ominus I_{n})}{n^{p}},
\]
and this is finite for $p>\dim I$. Therefore, $P[S_{i}^{*},S_{j}]P$
belongs to $\mathcal{L}^{p}$ for every $p>\dim I$. Furthermore,
for every $p\geq1$, $[P,S_{i}]$ belongs to $\mathcal{L}^{2p}$ for all $i$
if and only if $[P,S_{i}]^{*}[P,S_{i}]$ belongs to $\mathcal{L}^{p}$ for all $i,j$. The desired result now follows from (\ref{eq:p-ineq-2}).
\end{proof}

\subsection{Decomposability and essential normality}\label{subsec:decomposability}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:sum-closed-comm}Let $M_{1},\ldots,M_{k}$ be subspaces
of a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. For $p\geq1$, suppose that the
projections $P_{M_{1}},\ldots,P_{M_{k}}$ each commute modulo $\mathcal{L}^{p}$
with an operator $T$ in $\mathrm{B}(\mathcal{H})$. If the algebraic
sum $M_{1}+\ldots+M_{k}$ is closed, then the projection $P_{M_{1}+\ldots+M_{k}}$
onto the subspace $M_{1}+\ldots+M_{k}$ also commutes modulo $\mathcal{L}^{p}$
with $T$.\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The proof of this result follows the outline of the proof of \cite[Theorem 3.3]{Ken12} or \cite[Theorem 4.4]{Arv07}.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}
\label{prop:ideals}Let $I_{1},\ldots,I_{k}$ be homogeneous ideals of $\mathbb{C}[z_{1},\ldots,z_{d}]$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\mathcal{F}_{I_{1}},\ldots,\mathcal{F}_{I_{k}}$ are $p$-essentially
normal for $p>\max\{\dim I_{1},\ldots,\dim I_{k}\}$, and the algebraic
sum $\mathcal{F}_{I_{1}}^{\perp}+\ldots+\mathcal{F}_{I_{k}}^{\perp}$
is closed, then $\mathcal{F}_{I_{1}+\ldots+I_{k}}$ is also $p$-essentially
normal.
\item If $\mathcal{F}_{I_{1}},\ldots,\mathcal{F}_{I_{k}}$ are $p$-essentially
normal for $p>\dim I_{1}\cap\ldots\cap I_{k}$, and the algebraic
sum $\mathcal{F}_{I_{1}}+\ldots+\mathcal{F}_{I_{k}}$ is closed, then
$\mathcal{F}_{I_{1}\cap\ldots\cap I_{k}}$ is also $p$-essentially
normal.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
First, note that the submodule $\mathcal{F}_{I_{1}+\ldots+I_{k}}$
is the orthogonal complement of the algebraic sum $\mathcal{F}_{I_{1}}^{\perp}+\ldots+\mathcal{F}_{I_{k}}^{\perp}$,
and the submodule $\mathcal{F}_{I_{1}\cap\ldots\cap I_{k}}$ is the
closure of the algebraic sum $\mathcal{F}_{I_{1}}+\ldots+\mathcal{F}_{I_{k}}$.

If $\mathcal{F}_{I_{1}},\ldots,\mathcal{F}_{I_{k}}$ are $p$-essentially
normal for $p>\max\{\dim I_{1},\ldots,\dim I_{k}\}$, then by Lemma
\ref{lem:refinement}, each of the commutators $[S_{i},P_{\mathcal{F}_{I_{j}}}^{\perp}]$
belongs to $\mathcal{L}^{2p}$ for $1\leq i\leq d$ and $1\leq j\leq k$.
If the algebraic sum $\mathcal{F}_{I_{1}}^{\perp}+\ldots+\mathcal{F}_{I_{k}}^{\perp}$
is closed, then since
\[
\mathcal{F}_{I_{1}}^{\perp}+\ldots+\mathcal{F}_{I_{k}}^{\perp}=\mathcal{F}_{I_{1}+\ldots+I_{k}}^{\perp},
\]
Lemma \ref{lem:sum-closed-comm} implies that the commutators $[S_{i},P_{\mathcal{F}_{I_{1}+\ldots+I_{k}}^{\perp}}]$
also belong to $\mathcal{L}^{2p}$, and hence that the commutators
$[S_{i},P_{\mathcal{F}_{I_{1}+\ldots+I_{k}}}]$ belong to
$\mathcal{L}^{2p}$ for $1\leq i\leq d$. Therefore, since $\dim(I_{1}+\ldots+I_{k}) \leq \max\{\dim I_{1},\ldots,\dim I_{k}\}$,
it follows from Lemma \ref{lem:refinement} that $\mathcal{F}_{I_{1}+\ldots+I_{k}}$
is also $p$-essentially normal.

If $\mathcal{F}_{I_{1}},\ldots,\mathcal{F}_{I_{k}}$ are $p$-essentially
normal for $p>\dim I_{1}\cap\ldots\cap I_{k}$, and the algebraic
sum $\mathcal{F}_{I_{1}}+\ldots+\mathcal{F}_{I_{k}}$ is closed, then
the proof that $\mathcal{F}_{I_{1}\cap\ldots\cap I_{k}}$ is also
$p$-essentially normal follows in the same way after noting that
\[
\mathcal{F}_{I_{1}}+\ldots+\mathcal{F}_{I_{k}}=\mathcal{F}_{I_{1}\cap\ldots\cap I_{k}},
\]
and that $\dim(I_{1}\cap\ldots\cap I_{k})\geq\max\{\dim I_{1},\ldots,\dim I_{k}\}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}
\label{prop:varieties}Let $V_{1},\ldots,V_{k}$ be homogeneous varieties
in $\mathbb{B}_{d}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For $p>\max\{\dim V_{1},\ldots,\dim V_{k}\}$, if $\mathcal{F}_{V_{1}},\ldots,\mathcal{F}_{V_{k}}$
are $p$-essentially normal and the algebraic sum $\mathcal{F}_{V_{1}}^{\perp}+\ldots+\mathcal{F}_{V_{k}}^{\perp}$
is closed, then $\mathcal{F}_{V_{1} \cap \ldots \cap V_{k}}$is also $p$-essentially
normal.
\item For $p>\dim V_{1}\cup\ldots\cup V_{k}$, if $\mathcal{F}_{V_{1}},\ldots,\mathcal{F}_{V_{k}}$
are $p$-essentially normal and the algebraic sum $\mathcal{F}_{V_{1}}+\ldots+\mathcal{F}_{V_{k}}$
is closed, then $\mathcal{F}_{V_{1}\cup\ldots\cup V_{k}}$ is $p$-essentially
normal.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The proof of this result follows immediately from Proposition \ref{prop:ideals}
using the correspondence between ideals of $\mathbb{C}[z_{1},\ldots,z_{d}]$
and varieties in $\mathbb{C}^{d}$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Some decomposable varieties} \label{subsec:examples}

The following theorem was proved by Michael Hartz in \cite{Har12}. We shall say that $V$ is a {\em linear subspace} in $\mathbb{B}_d$ if $V = L \cap \mathbb{B}_d$ where $L \subseteq \mathbb{C}^d$ is a subspace.
\begin{thm}[Hartz]
\label{thm:sum-subspaces}
Let $V_{1},\ldots,V_{k}$ be linear subspaces in
$\mathbb{B}_{d}$. Then the algebraic sum $\mathcal{F}_{V_{1}}+\ldots+\mathcal{F}_{V_{k}}$
is closed.
\end{thm}

We can also handle the following additional case.

\begin{thm}
\label{thm:disjoint-varieties}
Let $V_{1},\ldots,V_{n}$ be homogeneous varieties in $\mathbb{B}_{d}$.
Suppose that $\mathrm{span}(V_{i})\cap\mathrm{span}(V_{j})=\{0\}$
whenever $i\ne j$. Then the algebraic sum $\mathcal{F}_{V_{1}}+\ldots + \mathcal{F}_{V_{n}}$
is closed.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
We can suppose that each of the varieties $V_1,\ldots,V_n$ are nonempty. For $1\leq i\leq d$, let $L_{i}=\mathrm{span}(V_{i})$.
Then, as in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:quantitative}, since $L_{1},\ldots,L_{n}$ are finite dimensional and disjoint, if we let
\[
c=\max\{\cos(L_{i},L_{j})\mid i\ne j\},
\]
then $0\leq c<1$. Following the proof of \cite[Lemma 7.11]{DRS11}, this implies that
\[
\cos(V_{i}^{k},V_{j}^{k})\leq c^{k},
\]
which we can rewrite as
\begin{equation}
\sup\{|\langle x_{i},x_{j}\rangle|/(\|x_i\|\|x_j\|) \mid 0 \ne x_{i}\in V_{i}^{k},\ 0 \ne  x_{j}\in V_{j}^{k},\ i\ne j\}\leq c^{k}\label{eq:small-angle} .
\end{equation}
Let $V=V_{1}\cup\ldots\cup V_{n}$, and define an operator $T:\mathcal{F}_{V_{1}}\oplus\ldots\oplus\mathcal{F}_{V_{n}}\to\mathcal{F}_{V}$
by
\[
T(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})=x_{1}+\ldots+x_{n},\quad(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})\in\mathcal{F}_{V_{1}}\oplus\ldots\oplus\mathcal{F}_{V_{n}}.
\]
Then the range of $T$ is precisely $\mathcal{F}_{V_{1}}+\ldots+\mathcal{F}_{V_{n}}$,
and hence we will be done if we can prove that $T$ has closed range.

Note that $T$ is graded, in the sense that it maps $V_{1}^{k}\oplus\ldots\oplus V_{n}^{k}$
to $V^{k}$. For $(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})$ in $V_{1}^{k}\oplus\ldots\oplus V_{n}^{k}$, the inequality (\ref{eq:small-angle}) implies that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|T(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})\|^{2} & = & \|x_{1}+\ldots+x_{n}\|^{2}\\
 & = & \sum_{i=1}^{n}\|x_{i}\|^{2}+\sum_{i\ne j}\langle x_{i},x_{j}\rangle\\
 & \geq & \sum_{i=1}^{n}\|x_{i}\|^{2}-\sum_{i\ne j}|\langle x_{i},x_{j}\rangle|\\
 & \geq & \sum_{i=1}^{n}\|x_{i}\|^{2}-c^{k}\sum_{i\ne j}\|x_{i}\|\|x_{j}\|\\
 & \geq & (1-c^{k}(n-1))\sum_{i=1}^{n}\|x_{i}\|^{2}\\
 & = & (1-c^{k}(n-1))\|(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})\|^{2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore, for sufficiently large $k$, $T$ is uniformly bounded below on the
subspaces $V_{1}^{k}\oplus\ldots\oplus V_{n}^{k}$. Since each of these subspaces is finite dimensional, it follows that $T$ has closed range.
\end{proof}

\section{Applications} \label{sec:applications}

We now present two classes of examples for which our results imply the Arveson--Douglas conjecture.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:disjoint}
Let $V_{1},\ldots,V_{k}$ be homogeneous varieties in $\mathbb{B}_{d}$
such that $\mathrm{span}(V_{i})\cap\mathrm{span}(V_{j})=\{0\}$ whenever
$i\ne j$, and let $V = V_1 \cup \ldots \cup V_k$. Let $p > \dim V$, and suppose that $\mathcal{F}_{V_{1}},\ldots,\mathcal{F}_{V_{k}}$ are all $p$-essentially normal. Then $\mathcal{F}_{V}$ is also $p$-essentially normal.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
This result follows immediately from (2) of Proposition \ref{prop:varieties} and Theorem \ref{thm:disjoint-varieties}. However, we will present a different and more constructive proof as an application of Proposition \ref{prop:quantitative} and Theorem \ref{thm:linear_map}.

Let $L_j = \mathrm{span}(V_j)$ for $j=1, \ldots, k$ and define $d_j = \dim L_j$. Put $D = d_1 + \ldots + d_k$, and let $\{e_1, \ldots, e_D\}$  be some orthonormal basis in $\mathbb{C}^D$. Consider the subspaces of $\mathbb{C}^D$ given by $K_1 = \mathrm{span}\{e_1, \ldots, e_{d_1}\}$, $K_2 = \mathrm{span}\{e_{d_1 + 1}\ldots, e_{d_2}\}$, etc., up to $K_k$. Let $A: \mathbb{C}^D \rightarrow \mathbb{C}^d$ be a linear map that takes $K_j$ isometrically onto $L_j$ for all $j=1, \ldots, k$. Now define a homogeneous variety $W$ by
\[
W = (A\big|_{K_1})^{-1}(V_1) \cup \ldots \cup (A\big|_{K_k})^{-1}(V_k) .
\]
For $j=1, \ldots, k$, the variety $W_j := (A\big|_{K_j})^{-1}(V_j)$ is unitarily equivalent to $V_j$, and therefore the Hilbert module $\mathcal{F}_{W_j}$ is unitarily equivalent to $\mathcal{F}_{V_j}$. It follows from the assumptions that $\mathcal{F}_{W_j}$ is $p$-essentially normal for all $j$. If we show that $\mathcal{F}_{W}$ is $p$-essentially normal, then Theorem \ref{thm:linear_map} will imply that so is $\mathcal{F}_{V}$. But in the situation where the components $W_j$ all lie in mutually orthogonal subspaces it is straightforward to check directly that $\mathcal{F}_{W}$ is essentially normal, so we are done.
\end{proof}

Finally, let us observe that the Arveson--Douglas conjecture holds for any variety which is a union of subspaces.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:subspaces}
Let $V_{1},\ldots,V_{k}$ be linear subspaces in $\mathbb{B}_{d}$. Then $\mathcal{F}_{V_{1}\cup\ldots\cup V_{k}}$ is $p$-essentially
normal for all $p>\dim V_1 \cup \ldots \cup V_k = \max \{\dim V_1, \ldots, \dim V_k\}$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
This follows from (2) of Proposition \ref{prop:varieties}, from Theorem \ref{thm:sum-subspaces}, and from the known result that, for a subspace $V$, $\mathcal{F}_V$ is $p$-essentially normal for $p>\dim V$ (this last fact is \cite[Proposition 5.3]{Arv98}, together with the observation theat $\mathcal{F}_V$ is unitarily equivalent to $H^2_{\dim V}$).
\end{proof}

\begin{rem}
A very special case of Theorems \ref{thm:disjoint} and \ref{thm:subspaces}  is that every quotient module associated with a $1$-dimensional homogeneous variety is $p$-essentially normal
for all $p>1$. This special case is a known result, and was obtained
by different techniques in \cite[Proposition 4.1]{GW08}. \end{rem}

\subsection*{Acknowledgment} The authors would like to thank the anonymous referee for helpful comments.