1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{graphics}
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: \usepackage{latexsym}
5: \newcommand{\ra}{\rightarrow} % rightarrow, limi
6: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al.}} % et al. Use \_ to get interword space
7: \newcommand{\re}{\mbox{Re} \,} % Re
8: \newcommand{\im}{\mbox{Im} \,} % Im
9: \newcommand{\onehalf}{\frac{1}{2}} % 1/2
10: \newcommand{\Sp}{\ \ } % space in formula
11: \newcommand{\sect}[1]{{\em #1.} ---} % New section in PRL-style
12: \newcommand{\bsigma}{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}} % bold sigma
13: %\newcommand{\ch}{{\cal H}}
14: %\newcommand{\cV}{{\cal V}}
15: \newcommand{\bfl}{{\bf l}}
16: \newcommand{\bfn}{{\bf n}}
17: \newcommand{\bfk}{{\bf k}}
18: \newcommand{\bfm}{{\bf m}}
19: \newcommand{\bfR}{{\bf R}}
20: \newcommand{\bfS}{{\bf S}}
21: \newcommand{\dpd}{\Delta_{pd}} % Zus"atzliche {} entfernt
22: \newcommand{\pd}{{\phantom{\dagger}}}
23: \newcommand{\cuotwo}{$C\!uO_2$}
24:
25: \begin{document}
26: \thispagestyle{empty}
27: \begin{titlepage}
28: \centerline{\Large\bf Derivation of effective spin models}
29: \centerline{\Large\bf from a three band model for
30: ${\hbox{CuO}}_{\hbox{2}}$--planes
31: %\footnote{Research performed
32: %within the program of the Sonderforschungsbereich 341 supported by the
33: %Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.\hfil}
34: }
35: \vskip1cm
36: \centerline{E. M\"uller--Hartmann and A. Reischl}\smallskip
37: \centerline{Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Cologne,}\par
38: \centerline{Z\"ulpicher Str 77, D-50937 Cologne, Germany}
39: \vskip1cm
40:
41: {\bf Abstract.} The derivation of effective spin models describing the low
42: energy magnetic properties of undoped \cuotwo--planes is reinvestigated.
43: Our study aims at a {\it quantitative} determination of the parameters of
44: effective spin models from those of a multi--band model and is supposed to be
45: relevant to the analysis of recent improved experimental data on the spin
46: wave spectrum of $La_2CuO_4$. Starting from a conventional three--band model
47: we determine the exchange couplings for the nearest and next--nearest neighbor
48: Heisenberg exchange as well as for 4-- and 6--spin exchange terms via a direct
49: perturbation expansion up to 12th (14th for the 4--spin term) order with
50: respect to the copper--oxygen hopping $t_{pd}$. Our results demonstrate that
51: this perturbation expansion does not converge for hopping parameters of the
52: relevant size. Well behaved extrapolations of the couplings are derived,
53: however, in terms of Pad\'e approximants. In order to check the significance
54: of these results from the direct perturbation expansion we employ the
55: Zhang--Rice reformulation of the three band model in terms of hybridizing
56: oxygen Wannier orbitals centered at copper ion sites. In the Wannier notation
57: the perturbation expansion is reorganized by an exact treatment of the strong
58: site--diagonal hybridization. The perturbation expansion with respect to the
59: weak intersite hybridizations is calculated up to 4th order for the
60: Heisenberg coupling and up to 6th order for the 4--spin coupling. It shows
61: excellent convergence and the results are in agreement with the Pad\'e
62: approximants of the direct expansion. The relevance of the 4--spin coupling as
63: the leading correction to the nearest neighbor Heisenberg model is emphasized.
64: \\ \\
65: {\bf Keywords:} \cuotwo--planes; three--band model; Heisenberg model;
66: four spin interactions; quantum antiferromagnets.
67:
68: \end{titlepage}
69:
70:
71: \section{Introduction}
72:
73: After the discovery of the high--$T_c$ superconducting oxides \cite{bednorz}
74: it soon became clear that a minimum model for describing their electronic
75: properties had to contain at least three bands \cite{emery} derived from the
76: copper crystal field state $3d_{x^2-y^2}$ and from oxygen $2p_x$ and $2p_y$
77: orbitals \cite{andersen}. In a seminal paper Zhang and Rice showed
78: \cite{zhang1} that the low energy physics of the three-band model is in fact
79: contained in an effective single--band model, the type of model which was
80: envisaged initially by Anderson \cite{anderson}.
81:
82: The work presented here is concerned with a reinvestigation of the derivation
83: of effective single--band models from three-band models for \cuotwo--planes.
84: The present paper will be confined to the study of undoped \cuotwo--planes
85: where the effective models contain spin degrees of freedom only.
86: Effective low energy models are derived from high energy parent models via
87: perturbative expansions \cite{takahashi}. The focus of this work is placed on
88: how to obtain {\it high precision coupling constants} for the effective spin
89: models and what are the leading corrections to the familiar nearest neighbor
90: Heisenberg model. For the system of strongly correlated electrons considered
91: here the copper-oxygen hopping $t_{pd}$ is the expansion parameter of choice.
92: The expansion in powers of $t_{pd}$ is, however, not straightforward due to
93: its rather small radius of convergence. Therefore, expansions beyond the
94: leading order are required for obtaining reliable results. This is probably
95: the reason why in existing derivations of the magnetic Hamiltonian of
96: \cuotwo--planes the couplings are usually off by a factor of up to 2
97: \cite{stein,yildirim}.
98: The dominant term in the effective Hamiltonian is the Heisenberg
99: nearest neighbor exchange obtained in fourth order which is substantially
100: corrected by higher order contributions which we will present up to twelfth
101: order. In eighth order ring exchange processes start to contribute four--spin
102: terms to the effective Hamiltonian which turn out to be not at all small
103: \cite{schmidt}.
104: Our results are consistent with the recent interpretation \cite{katanin} of
105: improved experimental data on the spin wave spectrum of $La_2CuO_4$ in terms
106: of sizable four--spin exchange terms \cite{coldea}. In comparison to these
107: four--spin terms second and third neighbor Heisenberg terms which also first
108: appear in eighth order turn out to be rather tiny. We have calculated all
109: these terms up to twelfth order (four--spin term up to fourteenth order). It
110: is evident from the results of these series expansions that physically
111: relevant values of $t_{pd}$ are larger than the radius of convergence. We
112: find, however, that Pad\'e approximants of these series expansions provide
113: consistent extrapolations to the range of physically relevant model parameters.
114:
115: There is an alternative approach to the perturbative treatment of three band
116: models which shows a much better behavior of convergence and which we have also
117: applied to obtain an independent check of the significance of the Pad\'e
118: approximants derived from the direct expansion. This approach has been
119: introduced in the paper of
120: Zhang and Rice on the three band model in which this model was reformulated
121: in terms of hybridizing oxygen Wannier orbitals centered at the copper ion
122: sites \cite{zhang1}. In this notation the hopping Hamiltonian contains a large
123: site--diagonal hybridization $t_0$ which is easily treated exactly for each
124: copper ion site and small intersite hybridizations which are then treated
125: safely in a perturbative fashion. Along these lines Zhang and Rice achieved
126: not only a clever rearrangement of the $t_{pd}$ perturbation series, but also a
127: particularly transparent formulation of the physics of doped \cuotwo--planes
128: in terms of ``spin'' and ``hole'' states the latter of which are known as
129: Zhang--Rice singlets. In the effective low energy model (``$t$--$J$ model'')
130: obtained this way neighboring ``spins'' experience an exchange interaction $J$
131: and ``holes'' interchange their position with neighboring ``spins'' via a
132: hopping parameter $t$ \cite{dagotto}. We will show that the leading
133: contribution to the nearest neighbor Heisenberg exchange obtained in second
134: order in the intersite hopping is sufficient to reproduce the major features
135: found from the direct expansion up to realistic values of $t_{pd}$, but is not
136: sufficient for perfect agreement. Gided by sum rules for the hopping
137: amplitudes in the Wannier representation we will then demonstrate how the
138: agreement is systematically improved by including corrections of third and
139: fourth order in the intersite hopping. The four--spin (up to sixth order) and
140: further neighbor Heisenberg exchange terms will also be discussed in this
141: context.
142:
143: The paper is organized as follows. In the following section the three band
144: model used in this work is briefly reviewed together with its transformation
145: into the Wannier representation. Section III describes the principles of the
146: perturbative derivation of effective Hamiltonians as we will use it. Section
147: IV is devoted to the direct expansion with respect to $t_{pd}$ and section V to
148: the expansion in the Wannier representation. The results are summarized and
149: conclusions are drawn in connection with the experimental evidence in section
150: VI.
151: %\newpage
152:
153: \section{\bf The three--band model}
154:
155: In this section we will briefly present the three--band model \cite{emery}
156: from which our investigation is going to start and fix the notations used.
157: For the purpose of this paper which is focusing on the feasibility of high
158: precision determination of the parameters of effective spin models we will
159: use a minimum three-band model with the Hamiltonian
160: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
161: \begin{equation}\label{hamil}
162: H=H_\epsilon+H_U+H_{pd}
163: \end{equation}
164: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
165: where the first term
166: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
167: \begin{equation}\label{heps}
168: H_\epsilon=\sum_{\bfl,\sigma}\bigl[\epsilon_dd^\dagger_{\bfl,\sigma}
169: d^\pd_{\bfl,\sigma}+\epsilon_p(p^\dagger_{x,\bfl+\bfn_x/2,\sigma}
170: p^\pd_{x,\bfl+\bfn_x/2,\sigma}+
171: p^\dagger_{y,\bfl+\bfn_y/2,\sigma}p^\pd_{y,\bfl+\bfn_y/2,\sigma})\bigr]
172: \end{equation}
173: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
174: describes the energies of the $3d$-- and $2p$--holes involved, the second
175: term
176: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
177: \begin{equation}\label{hu}
178: H_U=U\sum_{\bfl}d^\dagger_{\bfl,\uparrow}
179: d^\pd_{\bfl,\uparrow}d^\dagger_{\bfl,\downarrow}
180: d^\pd_{\bfl,\downarrow}
181: \end{equation}
182: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
183: describes the Coulomb repulsion of holes on the $Cu^{3+}$ ions and the third
184: term
185: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
186: \begin{equation}\label{htpd}
187: H_{pd}=t_{pd}\sum_{\bfl,\sigma}\bigl[d^\dagger_{\bfl,\sigma}
188: (p^\pd_{x,\bfl+\bfn_x/2,\sigma}+p^\pd_{y,\bfl+\bfn_y/2,\sigma}
189: -p^\pd_{x,\bfl-\bfn_x/2,\sigma}-
190: p^\pd_{y,\bfl-\bfn_y/2,\sigma})+h.c.\bigr].
191: \end{equation}
192: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
193: describes the hopping of holes between $3d$-- and neighboring $2p$--sites.
194: Copper $3d_{x^2-y^2}$--orbitals are placed on a square lattice in the
195: $(x,y)$--plane which is spanned by unit vectors $\bfn_x$ and $\bfn_y$ and the
196: vertices of which are labeled by the integer vector $\bfl$. Oxygen $2p_x$-- and
197: $2p_y$--orbitals are placed at the center of $x$-- and $y$--bonds,
198: respectively, between neighboring lattice sites.
199:
200: Typical parameters for the three-band model (\ref{hamil}) being used to model
201: \cuotwo--planes are \cite{mcmahan,hybertsen}
202: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
203: \begin{equation}\label{param}
204: \dpd\doteq\epsilon_p-\epsilon_d=3.6\,{\rm eV},\quad U=8\,{\rm eV},
205: \quad t_{pd}=1.3\,{\rm eV}.
206: \end{equation}
207: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
208: For a direct expansion with respect to the hopping parameter $t_{pd}$ the
209: Hamiltonian (\ref{hamil}) is decomposed into
210: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
211: \begin{equation}\label{decomp}
212: H=H_0^p+V^p\quad{\rm with}\quad H_0^p=H_\epsilon+H_U\quad{\rm and}
213: \quad V^p=H_{pd}.
214: \end{equation}
215: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
216: Although the hopping amplitude $t_{pd}$ is smaller than the charge transfer
217: energy $\dpd$ and than the Coulomb energy $U$ it turns out that a
218: direct expansion of the parameters of an effective low energy model with
219: respect to $t_{pd}$, i.e. an expansion in powers of $V^p$, does not work for
220: the parameter set (\ref{param}). We will demonstrate this later explicitly and
221: we will estimate the radius of convergence of such a direct expansion as
222: $t_{pd}^c\approx U/16=0.5\,{\rm eV}$. We will therefore work out this expansion
223: to higher orders and will extract useful information from this expansion via
224: Pad\'e approximants.
225:
226: Zhang and Rice \cite{zhang1} found an elegant way to reorganize the
227: perturbation expansion by reformulating the three--band model in terms of
228: hybridizing oxygen Wannier orbitals centered at the copper ion sites.
229: The reformulated model is obtained after transforming the hopping term into
230: momentum space re\-pre\-sentation using the Fourier transformed operators
231: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
232: \begin{equation}\label{fourd}
233: d^\dagger_{\bfl,\sigma}={1\over\sqrt{L}}\sum_{\bfk\in BZ}e^{-i\bfk\bfl}
234: d^\dagger_{\bfk,\sigma}
235: \end{equation}
236: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
237: and
238: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
239: \begin{equation}\label{fourp}
240: p^\dagger_{\alpha,\bfl+\bfn_\alpha/2,\sigma}=
241: {1\over\sqrt{L}}\sum_{\bfk\in BZ}e^{-i\bfk(\bfl+\bfn_\alpha/2)}
242: p^\dagger_{\alpha,\bfk,\sigma}\quad(\alpha=x,y),
243: \end{equation}
244: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
245: where $L$ denotes the number of unit cells. With the form factor
246: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
247: \begin{equation}\label{formf}
248: f(\bfk)\doteq2\sqrt{\sin^2{k_x\over2}+\sin^2{k_y\over2}}=
249: 2\sqrt{1-{\cos k_x+\cos k_y\over2}}
250: \end{equation}
251: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
252: and the normalized hybridizing Wannier orbital in momentum space representation
253: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
254: \begin{equation}\label{wannier}
255: w^\pd_{\bfk,\sigma}\doteq2i
256: (\sin{k_x\over2}\cdot p^\pd_{x,\bfk,\sigma}+
257: \sin{k_y\over2}\cdot p^\pd_{y,\bfk,\sigma})/f(\bfk)
258: \end{equation}
259: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
260: the hopping term reads
261: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
262: \begin{equation}\label{htwk}
263: H_{pd}=t_{pd}\sum_{\bfk,\sigma}f(\bfk)(d^\dagger_{\bfk,\sigma}
264: w^\pd_{\bfk,\sigma}+w^\dagger_{\bfk,\sigma}d^\pd_{\bfk,\sigma}).
265: \end{equation}
266: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
267: Applying the Fourier transform (\ref{fourd}) to the Wannier operators
268: $w^\dagger_{\bfk,\sigma}$ mutually orthogonal real space Wannier orbitals
269: $w^\dagger_{\bfl,\sigma}$ centered at the copper sites are obtained. In terms
270: of these the hopping Hamiltonian finally takes the form
271: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
272: \begin{equation}\label{htwl}
273: H_{pd}=t_{pd}\sum_{\bfl,\bfm,\sigma}\bigl[T_{\bfl-\bfm}\,
274: d^\dagger_{\bfl,\sigma}w^\pd_{\bfm,\sigma}+h.c.\bigr],
275: \end{equation}
276: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
277: where the Fourier coefficients
278: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
279: \begin{equation}\label{tr}
280: T_\bfR\doteq{1\over L}\sum_\bfk f(\bfk)\,e^{i\bfk\bfR}=
281: \int_{BZ}{d^2\bfk\over(2\pi)^2}f(\bfk)\,e^{i\bfk\bfR}
282: \end{equation}
283: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
284: of the form factor (\ref{formf}) have the full symmetry of the square lattice.
285: Numerical values of these coefficients are given in Table 1.
286: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
287: \begin{center}
288: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}\hline
289: \bfR & $T_\bfR$\\ \hline \hline
290: $(0,0)$ & 1.916183\\ \hline
291: $(\pm1,0)$,$(0,\pm1)$ & -0.280186\\ \hline
292: $(\pm1,\pm1)$ & -0.047013\\ \hline
293: $(\pm2,0)$,$(0,\pm2)$ & -0.027450\\ \hline
294: $(\pm2,\pm1)$,$(\pm1,\pm2)$ & -0.013703\\ \hline
295: \end{tabular}\\[0.5ex]
296: Table 1. Numerical values for $T_\bfR$
297: \end{center}
298: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
299: The coefficients $T_\bfR$ satisfy the sum rules
300: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
301: \begin{eqnarray}\label{sumrule}
302: s_\bfl\doteq\sum_\bfm T_\bfm T_{\bfl-\bfm}
303: &=&\langle f^2(\bfk)e^{i\bfk\bfl}\rangle_\bfk\nonumber\\
304: &=&\cases{4&($\bfl=(0,0)$)\cr-1&($\bfl=(\pm1,0)$ or $(0,\pm1)$)\cr0&(else).}
305: \end{eqnarray}
306: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
307: which we are going to use later. Obviously, the site--diagonal amplitude
308: $T_{(0,0)}$ is much larger than all the other amplitudes and satisfies by
309: itself the sum rule $s_{(0,0)}=4$ already to $91.8\%$. The amplitudes to the 4
310: first neighbors are almost 7 times smaller than $T_{(0,0)}$ and including them
311: the sum rule $s_{(0,0)}=4$ is missed by only $0.35\%$. The amplitudes to further
312: neighbors are much smaller again. One can show that in the limit of large
313: distances the amplitudes drop asymptotically like
314: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
315: \begin{equation}\label{asymp}
316: T_\bfR\sim\frac{-1}{2\pi R^3}\quad(R\to\infty).
317: \end{equation}
318: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
319: To write the Hamiltonian (\ref{heps}) also in terms of Wannier states
320: non--hybridizing $2p$--orbitals orthogonal to the Wannier orbitals $w$ have to
321: be introduced. In momentum space representation they are given by
322: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
323: \begin{equation}\label{nonhyb}
324: v^\pd_{\bfk,\sigma}\doteq2i
325: (\sin{k_y\over2}\cdot p^\pd_{x,\bfk,\sigma}-
326: \sin{k_x\over2}\cdot p^\pd_{y,\bfk,\sigma})/f(\bfk)
327: \end{equation}
328: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
329: and since the $2p$--basis sets $(p_x,p_y)$ and $(w,v)$ are unitarily
330: equivalent one obtains
331: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
332: \begin{equation}\label{hepsw}
333: H_\epsilon=
334: \sum_{\bfl,\sigma}\bigl[\epsilon_dd^\dagger_{\bfl,\sigma}
335: d^\pd_{\bfl,\sigma}+\epsilon_p(w^\dagger_{\bfl,\sigma}
336: w^\pd_{\bfl,\sigma}+v^\dagger_{\bfl,\sigma}
337: v^\pd_{\bfl,\sigma})\bigr].
338: \end{equation}
339: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
340: The Wannier representation in (\ref{htwl}) and (\ref{hepsw}) allows a
341: decomposition of the total Hamiltonian (\ref{hamil}) into
342: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
343: \begin{equation}\label{decomw}
344: H=H_0^w+V^w
345: \end{equation}
346: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
347: where a major part of the
348: hopping term (\ref{htpd}) is incorporated in the unperturbed Hamiltonian.
349: Using the shorthand notation
350: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
351: \begin{equation}\label{t0}
352: t_0\doteq T_{(0,0)}t_{pd}\approx1.916\,t_{pd}
353: \end{equation}
354: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
355: the unperturbed Hamiltonian is chosen as \cite{zhang1}
356: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
357: \begin{eqnarray}\label{h0}
358: H_0^w&=&\sum_{\bfl}h_\bfl\nonumber\\
359: h_\bfl&=&\sum_{\sigma}
360: \bigl[\epsilon_dd^\dagger_{\bfl,\sigma}d^\pd_{\bfl,\sigma}+
361: \epsilon_p w^\dagger_{\bfl,\sigma}w^\pd_{\bfl,\sigma}+
362: t_0(d^\dagger_{\bfl,\sigma}w^\pd_{\bfl,\sigma}+
363: w^\dagger_{\bfl,\sigma}d^\pd_{\bfl,\sigma})\bigr]\\
364: &&\quad
365: +Ud^\dagger_{\bfl,\uparrow}d^\pd_{\bfl,\uparrow}d^\dagger_{\bfl,\downarrow}
366: d^\pd_{\bfl,\downarrow}.\nonumber
367: \end{eqnarray}
368: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
369: The non--hybridizing orbital $v$ can be ignored altogether in the minimum
370: three--band model considered here since it is always completely filled.
371: The local Hamiltonians $h_\bfl$ act independently at each site $\bfl$. They are
372: easily diagonalized exactly. The perturbative part of the total Hamiltonian
373: is then given by the intersite hopping terms in Wannier representation
374: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
375: \begin{equation}\label{hv}
376: V^w=t_{pd}\sum_{\bfl,\bfm,\sigma}^{\bfl\ne\bfm}T_{\bfl-\bfm}\bigl[
377: d^\dagger_{\bfl,\sigma}w^\pd_{\bfm,\sigma}+
378: w^\dagger_{\bfl,\sigma}d^\pd_{\bfm,\sigma}\bigr]
379: \end{equation}
380: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
381: which are so small that they can safely be treated perturbatively for model
382: parameters as given by (\ref{param}). The separation of energy scales between
383: $H_0^w$ and $V^w$ achieved through the use of the Wannier representation
384: is so substantial that it is hard to understand why a controversy about the
385: scenario proposed by Zhang and Rice \cite{zhang1} arose early on
386: \cite{reiter1,reiter2,zhang2,reiter3,pang} which was still quoted as
387: unsettled in the review by Dagotto \cite{dagotto}. Leading order perturbative
388: calculations using the Wannier representation were performed by many authors
389: (see, e.g., \cite{zaanen,lovtsov,schuettler,jefferson,hayn,belinicher,feiner}).
390:
391: \section{\bf Perturbative derivation of effective Hamiltonians}
392:
393: The perturbative derivation of effective Hamiltonians for correlated electron
394: systems has a long history the early stages of which were summarized by
395: Takahashi in 1977 \cite{takahashi}. In this paper Takahashi
396: presents a particularly transparent description of the method and gives an
397: explicit solution for the effective Hamiltonian to arbitrary order. We will
398: briefly recall Takahashi's approach here, because we are going to perform the
399: perturbation expansions in this paper using his formulation and because we wish
400: to avoid controversies about the proper use of the method like in
401: \cite{oles,macdonald}.
402:
403: It is assumed that the total Hamiltonian of a system is decomposed into
404: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
405: \begin{equation}\label{ham}
406: H=H_0+V.
407: \end{equation}
408: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
409: In the case of interest $H_0$ has a degenerate subspace $U_0$ of ground states
410: with energy $E_0$. On switching on the perturbation $V$ continuously the
411: subspace $U_0$ evolves continuously into the subspace $U$ of the corresponding
412: low energy eigenspace of $H$. Takahashi presents an explicit perturbative
413: formula to all orders in $V$ for an isometric linear transformation $\Gamma$:
414: $U_0\to U$ describing the mapping of $U_0$ onto $U$. In terms of $\Gamma$
415: the effective Hamiltonian is then given by
416: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
417: \begin{equation}\label{hameff}
418: H_{\rm eff}=\Gamma^\dagger H\Gamma.
419: \end{equation}
420: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
421: It acts in the subspace $U_0$ of unperturbed eigenstates of $H_0$ and has the
422: same spectrum as the perturbed Hamiltonian $H$. In view of the explicit
423: perturbation series of $\Gamma$ it is a pure problem of book--keeping to set up
424: the perturbation series for $H_{\rm eff}$ to any required order. In terms of
425: the projection operator $P_0$ onto the ground state subspace $U_0$ and the
426: resolvent operator
427: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
428: \begin{equation}\label{resolv}
429: S\doteq-\frac{1-P_0}{H_0-E_0}
430: \end{equation}
431: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
432: the full perturbation expansion up to fourth order is given by
433: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
434: \begin{eqnarray}\label{perturb}
435: H_{\rm eff}&=&E_0P_0+P_0V\!P_0+P_0V\!SV\!P_0\nonumber\\
436: &&+P_0V\!SV\!SV\!P_0-\frac{1}{2}P_0V\!P_0V\!S^2V\!P_0
437: -\frac{1}{2}P_0V\!S^2V\!P_0V\!P_0\nonumber\\
438: &&+P_0V\!SV\!SV\!SV\!P_0-\frac{1}{2}P_0V\!S^2V\!P_0V\!SV\!P_0
439: -\frac{1}{2}P_0V\!SV\!P_0V\!S^2V\!P_0\nonumber\\
440: &&+\frac{1}{2}P_0V\!P_0V\!P_0V\!S^3V\!P_0
441: +\frac{1}{2}P_0V\!S^3V\!P_0V\!P_0V\!P_0\\
442: &&-\frac{1}{2}P_0V\!P_0V\!S^2V\!SV\!P_0
443: -\frac{1}{2}P_0V\!SV\!S^2V\!P_0V\!P_0\nonumber\\
444: &&-\frac{1}{2}P_0V\!P_0V\!SV\!S^2V\!P_0
445: -\frac{1}{2}P_0V\!S^2V\!SV\!P_0V\!P_0.\nonumber
446: \end{eqnarray}
447: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
448: For the purposes of the calculations in this paper we had to list this
449: expansion up to twelfth order. The number of terms in the series grows
450: exponentially with the order. To twelfth order the perturbation series
451: contains 363721 terms.
452:
453: For useful applications of the formal series of $H_{\rm eff}$ the unperturbed
454: Hamiltonian $H_0$ has to be easily diagonalized such that matrix elements of
455: the resolvent (\ref{resolv}) can be calculated explicitly. In this paper we
456: will apply the perturbation expansion to the two Hamiltonian decompositions
457: (\ref{decomp}) and (\ref{decomw}) were this condition on $H_0$ is satisfied.
458: We also will confine the analysis to undoped systems which implies that all
459: terms in $H_{\rm eff}$ containing $P_0VP_0$ don't contribute. This reduces
460: the number of twelfth order terms in $H_{\rm eff}$ to 12341. In the direct
461: expansion based on (\ref{decomp}) ground states can only be connected by an
462: even number of hopping processes such that all terms with any odd number of
463: $V$ between two $P_0$ don't contribute. This reduces the number of twelfth
464: order terms to 3180. For the Wannier decomposition (\ref{decomw}) our
465: analy\-sis will be confined to sixth order. In this case, of the terms given
466: in (\ref{perturb}) only the second order term, the first third order term and
467: the first three fourth order terms will contribute and up to sixth order 30
468: terms have to be taken into account. Notice that in the Wannier
469: decomposition (\ref{decomw}) odd order terms do contribute since $H_0^w$ mixes
470: $d$-- and $w$--orbitals.
471:
472: \section{\bf Direct perturbation expansion}
473:
474: In this section we are going to discuss the direct expansion with respect to
475: $t_{pd}$ on the basis of the decomposition (\ref{decomp}). In the undoped
476: case that we are considering here the subspace of ground states $U_0$ of the
477: unperturbed Hamiltonian $H_0^p$ contains all states without any $p$--holes and
478: with a single $d$--hole on each copper site. The effective Hamiltonian acting
479: on $U_0$ is thus a pure spin Hamiltonian acting on the spins $S=1/2$ of the
480: $d$--sites. Due to the symmetry properties of the three band model
481: (\ref{hamil}) this Hamiltonian has got to be invariant under global spin
482: rotations and under the space group of the square lattice. Only terms with an
483: even number of spins are possible due to time reversal symmetry. The excited
484: states of $H_0^p$ are very simple and the excitation energies contain a
485: Coulomb energy $U$ for each $d$--site with two holes and a charge transfer
486: energy $\dpd$ for each $p$--hole. For a contribution of order n to the
487: effective Hamiltonian one has to consider all sets of n hopping processes
488: each of which defines a certain cluster of sites involved. Due to the linked
489: cluster theorem (which is bound to hold to keep the effective Hamiltonian
490: extensive) only connected clusters are known to contribute. It is therefore
491: sufficient to evaluate the various orders of $H_{\rm eff}$ on certain finite
492: clusters. We have implemented the purely symbolic evaluation of the series
493: expansion with a $C\!\!+\!\!+$ program.
494:
495: For simplicity we will disregard any constant energy shift in $H_{\rm eff}$
496: since we want to focus on the effective spin Hamiltonian. The leading term in
497: $H_{\rm eff}$ is then a fourth order nearest neighbor Heisenberg exchange
498: $J_1\,\bfS_1\cdot\bfS_2$ with the well known exchange coupling (see e.g.
499: \cite{zaanen})
500: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
501: \begin{equation}\label{jdir}
502: J^{(4)}_{1,\rm dir}
503: =\frac{2\,t_{pd}^4}{\dpd^2}\bigl(\frac{4}{2 \dpd} + \frac{2}{U}\bigr)
504: =\frac{4\,t_{pd}^4\,\left( U + \dpd \right) }{U\,\dpd^3}.
505: \end{equation}
506: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
507: In order to determine this coupling it is sufficient to calculate the amplitude
508: of a spin flip process on a three--site cluster consisting of two neighboring
509: $d$--sites and the $p$--site in between. In view of the identity
510: $\bfS_1\cdot\bfS_2=S_1^zS_2^z+\frac{1}{2}(S_1^+S_2^-+S_1^-S_2^+)$ the coupling
511: is given by twice the spin flip amplitude.
512:
513: In sixth order processes the six additional $p$--sites adjacent to the two
514: $d$--sites can be visited by a hole. Therefore a nine site cluster would be
515: sufficient to calculate $J^{(6)}_{1,\rm dir}$. Since in each individual
516: exchange process at most one of the additional $p$--sites is visited the
517: actual calculation can be confined to clusters of up to no more than four
518: sites. Each of the six four--site clusters gives the same contribution to the
519: sixth order coupling. In one such contribution either all four sites or only
520: the three sites of the fourth order cluster will be involved in the exchange
521: process. Therefore, the sixth order spin flip amplitude is given by six times
522: the spin flip amplitude of the four--site cluster minus 5 times the spin flip
523: amplitude of the three--site cluster. This type of reasoning would be
524: dispensable in the sixth order case for which it was examplified here, but it
525: is absolutely essential to make the higher order calculations feasible. It
526: allows to reduce the maximum cluster size for the calculation of the nearest
527: neighbor exchange from 17 to 8 in eighth order, from 31 to 9 in tenth order
528: and from 43 to 12 in twelfth order.
529:
530: In eighth order ring exchange processes on an eight--site plaquette visiting
531: four $d$--sites are possible. These processes produce four--spin exchange terms
532: in $H_{\rm eff}$. In cases where multi--spin terms are present the fewer--spin
533: exchange terms can be inferred in the following way. Partial traces (i.e.
534: traces over some of the spins) of any multi--spin term vanish. By forming the
535: trace over some of the spins belonging to a cluster all exchange terms
536: containing these spins are therefore projected out. Applying this reasoning
537: to the eight--site plaquette one obtains the two--spin exchange of a pair of
538: spins by averaging over all configurations of the other spins contained in the
539: plaquette. From time reversal invariance and hermiticity of $H_{\rm eff}$ one
540: can infer that the amplitude of a spin flip process remains unchanged if all
541: unflipped spins of a cluster are inverted. This allows to reduce by a factor of
542: 2 the number of configurations needed for the averaging.
543:
544: Along the lines described above we have calculated the nearest neighbor
545: exchange coupling $J_{1,{\rm dir}}^{\vphantom{4}}$ up to twelfth order in
546: $t_{pd}$. The full formula of the twelfth order result is given by
547: Eq.~(\ref{J1Ordn10}) in Appendix A. Fig.~1 shows how the ratio
548: $J_{1,{\rm dir}}^{\vphantom{4}}/J_{1,{\rm dir}}^{(4)}$ varies with increasing
549: $t_{pd}$ if the sixth, eighth, tenth and twelfth order terms are
550: included (see the thick lines in Fig.~1). It is
551: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
552: \begin{figure}[h]
553: \begin{center}
554: \epsfxsize=12cm
555: \epsfbox{J1dir.eps}
556: %\includegraphics{J1dir.eps}
557: \end{center}
558: \caption{Variation of $J_{1,{\rm dir}}/J_{1,{\rm dir}}^{(4)}$ with $t_{pd}$.}
559: \label{fig1}
560: \end{figure}
561: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
562: obvious from this plot that
563: for the physically relevant values of $t_{pd}$ as given in (\ref{param}) $J_1$
564: is smaller than simple estimates from $J_{1,{\rm dir}}^{(4)}$ would suggest,
565: but it is also obvious that the radius of convergence of the direct
566: perturbation series considered here is much smaller than
567: $t_{pd}=1.3\,{\rm eV}$. The direct series determines $J_1$ accurately only up
568: to $t_{pd}\approx0.5\,{\rm eV}$. Extrapolations beyond the radius of
569: convergence can be obtained, however, via Pad\'e approximants of the series
570: for $J_{1,{\rm dir}}^{\vphantom{4}}/J_{1,{\rm dir}}^{(4)}$. We denote as
571: m-n~Pad\'e the approximant with an ${\rm m^{th}}$ order numerator polynomial
572: and an ${\rm n^{th}}$ order denominator polynomial in the variable
573: $x=t_{pd}^2$. We have also constructed extrapolations via analogous Pad\'e
574: approximants for the logarithmic derivative of
575: $J_{1,{\rm dir}}^{\vphantom{4}}/J_{1,{\rm dir}}^{(4)}$ which we denote by
576: m-n~DlogPad\'e. The 1-1 and 2-2~Pad\'es and the 1-1~DlogPad\'e shown by the
577: thin lines in Fig.~1 demonstrate the excellent convergence of this
578: extrapolation procedure. The 0-1, 1-3 and 1-2~Pad\'es and the 1-2 and
579: 2-1~DlogPad\'es are not shown because they all differ from the 2-2~Pad\'e by
580: less than $3\%$ for $t_{pd}\le1.3\,{\rm eV}$ and less than $4\%$ for
581: $t_{pd}\le1.5\,{\rm eV}$. From this observation we derive the estimate that
582: they determine the nearest neighbor exchange coupling with an accuracy of
583: better than $4\%$. Note the substantial reduction of the coupling in the
584: range of physical interest, $J_1=0.33\,J_{1,{\rm dir}}^{(4)}$ for
585: $t_{pd}=1.3\,{\rm eV}$, in comparison to the lowest order result.
586:
587: The four--spin exchange terms which first appear in eighth order can be
588: inferred from considering processes in which all four spins are flipped. Let us
589: label the spins on the four $d$--sites of a square plaquette in cyclic order by
590: numbers 1 to 4. There are 3 independent four--spin invariants,
591: $(\bfS_1\cdot\bfS_2)(\bfS_3\cdot\bfS_4)$,
592: $(\bfS_2\cdot\bfS_3)(\bfS_4\cdot\bfS_1)$ and
593: $(\bfS_1\cdot\bfS_3)(\bfS_2\cdot\bfS_4)$ from which the four--spin exchange
594: terms have to be formed. Due to the square point symmetry of our model the
595: first two invariants always get the same exchange coupling in the
596: effective Hamiltonian. This common coupling is given by twice the
597: amplitude of the process which flips all spins of the initial state
598: $|1\!\uparrow,2\!\downarrow,3\!\uparrow,4\!\downarrow\rangle$, since the third
599: invariant doesn't contribute to this process. The exchange coupling of the
600: third invariant can be inferred from considering an alternative four--spin flip
601: process starting from the initial state
602: $|1\!\uparrow,2\!\downarrow,3\!\downarrow,4\!\uparrow\rangle$. The sum
603: of the couplings of the first invariant and the third invariant is given by
604: four times the amplitude of this process. It turns out that this amplitude
605: vanishes in eighth and tenth order. This implies that up to tenth order the
606: four--spin exchange term has the form
607: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
608: \begin{equation}\label{squareex}
609: J_{\Box}\,\Big[(\bfS_1\cdot\bfS_2)(\bfS_3\cdot\bfS_4)+
610: (\bfS_2\cdot\bfS_3)(\bfS_4\cdot\bfS_1)-
611: (\bfS_1\cdot\bfS_3)(\bfS_2\cdot\bfS_4)\Big]
612: \end{equation}
613: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
614: in analogy to what is known for the one band Hubbard model in fourth order
615: \cite{takahashi}.
616:
617: The vanishing of the
618: $|1\!\uparrow,2\!\downarrow,3\!\downarrow,4\!\uparrow\rangle$ spin flip process
619: up to tenth order can be easily understood as resulting from the linked
620: cluster theorem, because for these processes the plaquette (1,2,3,4) decomposes
621: into two unlinked clusters, one of them containing the $d$--sites 1 and 2, the
622: other containing sites 3 and 4. In twelfth order there are processes linking
623: these two clusters and producing another four--spin term
624: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
625: \begin{equation}\label{timesex}
626: J_{\times}\,(\bfS_1\cdot\bfS_3)(\bfS_2\cdot\bfS_4)
627: \end{equation}
628: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
629: in addition to (\ref{squareex}). It has to be noted that in twelfth order
630: clusters containing 6 $d$--sites are created which produce six--spin terms in
631: the effective Hamiltonian. In the calculation of the four--spin terms these
632: six--spin terms have to be properly eliminated by the averaging procedure
633: described above.
634:
635: The eighth order coupling constant of the four--spin term (\ref{squareex}) is
636: found to be
637: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
638: \begin{equation}\label{jsquare}
639: J_{\Box,{\rm dir}}^{(8)}=\frac
640: {80\,t_{pd}^8\,( U + \dpd) \,( U^2 + U\,\dpd + \dpd^2)}{U^3\,\dpd^7}.
641: \end{equation}
642: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
643: Corrections up to fourteenth order are shown by Eq.~(\ref{JsqOrdn12}) in
644: Appendix A together with the leading order contribution for $J_\times$ in
645: Eq.~(\ref{JxOrdn12}). The variation of
646: $J_{\Box,{\rm dir}}^{\vphantom{4}}/J_{\Box,{\rm dir}}^{(8)}$ with increasing
647: $t_{pd}$ is shown in Fig.~2. Here, the 0-3~Pad\'e (not shown) and the 1-2 and
648: the 2-1~Pad\'es as well as the 1-1~DlogPad\'e seem to provide a rather accurate
649: estimate with an uncertainty of about $\pm6\%$ for $t_{pd}=1.3\,{\rm eV}$ and
650: an uncertainty of about $\pm15\%$ for $t_{pd}=1.5\,{\rm eV}$. For
651: $t_{pd}=1.3\,{\rm eV}$ the coupling $J_\Box$ is about 10 times smaller than
652: suggested by the leading order term. We will consider the 1-1~DlogPad\'e the
653: most probable estimate of
654: $J_{\Box,{\rm dir}}^{\vphantom{4}}/J_{\Box,{\rm dir}}^{(8)}$.
655: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
656: \begin{figure}[h]
657: \begin{center}
658: \epsfxsize=12cm
659: \epsfbox{Jsquaredirnorm.eps}
660: %\includegraphics{Jsquaredirnorm.eps}
661: \end{center}
662: \caption{Variation of $J_{\Box,{\rm dir}}/J_{\Box,{\rm dir}}^{(8)}$ with
663: $t_{pd}$.}
664: \label{fig2}
665: \end{figure}
666: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
667:
668: The leading contributions to second neighbor Heisenberg exchange terms like
669: $J_2\,\bfS_{(0,0)}\cdot\bfS_{(1,1)}$ and to third neighbor Heisenberg exchange
670: terms like $J_3\,\bfS_{(0,0)}\cdot\bfS_{(0,2)}$ are also obtained in eighth
671: order. These couplings are given by
672: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
673: \begin{equation}\label{jtwo}
674: J_{2,{\rm dir}}^{(8)}=\frac{4\,t_{pd}^8\,
675: \left( 11\,U^3 + 4\,U^2\,\dpd + 2\,U\,\dpd^2 + \dpd^3 \right)}
676: {U^3\,\dpd^7}
677: \end{equation}
678: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
679: and
680: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
681: \begin{equation}\label{jthree}
682: J_{3,{\rm dir}}^{(8)}=\frac{4\,t_{pd}^8\,\left( 3\,U^3 + 2\,U^2\,\dpd + 2\,U\,
683: \dpd^2 + \dpd^3 \right) }{U^3\,\dpd^7},
684: \end{equation}
685: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
686: respectively. Corrections to these leading order expressions which we have
687: calculated to twelfth order are given by Eqs. (\ref{J2Ordn12}) and
688: (\ref{J3Ordn12}) in Appendix A.
689:
690: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
691: \begin{figure}[h]
692: \begin{center}
693: \epsfxsize=12cm
694: \epsfbox{J2dirnorm.eps}
695: \end{center}
696: \caption{Variation of $J_{2,{\rm dir}}/J_{2,{\rm dir}}^{(8)}$ with $t_{pd}$.}
697: \label{fig3}
698: \end{figure}
699: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
700:
701: Figs.~3 and 4 show the variation of
702: $J_{2,{\rm dir}}^{\vphantom{4}}/J_{2,{\rm dir}}^{(8)}$ and
703: $J_{3,{\rm dir}}^{\vphantom{4}}/J_{3,{\rm dir}}^{(8)}$, respectively, with
704: increasing $t_{pd}$. The radii of convergence appear to be even smaller than
705: in the case of $J_1$. The 1-1~Pad\'e in Fig.~3 might indicate that $J_2$
706: changes sign slightly below $t_{pd}=1\,{\rm eV}$, but the scattering of the
707: various approximants doesn't allow definite conclusions on a change of sign.
708: Since the 0-1~DlogPad\'e (not shown in Fig.~3) coincides to high precision with
709: the 0-2~Pad\'e we will consider this approximant as the most probable estimate
710: for $J_2$. The 0-2~Pad\'e for $J_3$ shown in Fig.~4 turns upwards and has a
711: pole at $t_{pd}\approx2.1{\rm eV}$. The other three approximants shown appear
712: to behave consistently and we will consider the 0-1~DlogPad\'e as the most
713: probable estimate for $J_3$. Altogether, the Pad\'e approximants for $J_2$ and
714: $J_3$ scatter much more than those for $J_1$ and $J_\Box$ and provide less
715: accurate estimates for $J_2$ and $J_3$. We do, however, learn from these
716: extrapolations that for $t_{pd}=1.3\,{\rm eV}$ both $J_2$ and $J_3$ also are
717: reduced substantially in comparison to the leading order results (\ref{jtwo})
718: and (\ref{jthree}), $J_2$ probably by a factor of as much as 10 and $J_3$
719: probably by a factor of 5. As we will see later $J_2$ and $J_3$ are so small in
720: absolute size that their accurate determination is less urgent for practical
721: purposes.
722: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
723: \begin{figure}[h]
724: \begin{center}
725: \epsfxsize=12cm
726: \epsfbox{J3dirnorm.eps}
727: \end{center}
728: \caption{Variation of $J_{3,{\rm dir}}/J_{3,{\rm dir}}^{(8)}$ with $t_{pd}$.}
729: \label{fig4}
730: \end{figure}
731: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
732:
733: To describe the six--spin term resulting from twelfth order ring exchange
734: processes on a double plaquette we label the six spins involved cyclically by
735: numbers 1 to 6. Since the oxygen ion at the center of the double plaquette is
736: not visited in twelfth order the six--spin term has the full symmetry of the
737: hexagon formed by the six spins. The 15 independent invariants obtained by all
738: pairings of the six spins into three scalar products \cite{spat} group into
739: the 5 operators with hexagonal symmetry $O_1$ to $O_5$ given by
740: Eq.~(\ref{opsix}) in Appendix A.
741: With the same type of arguments which led to (\ref{squareex}) we conclude that
742: the twelfth (and fourteenth) order six--spin term has the form
743: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
744: \begin{equation}\label{sixex}
745: J_{\sqsubset\!\sqsupset}(O_1+O_2-O_3+O_4-O_5).
746: \end{equation}
747: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
748: The exchange coupling $J_{\sqsubset\!\sqsupset}^{(12)}$ given by
749: Eq.~(\ref{Jsix}) in Appendix A was calculated from ring exchange processes
750: which flip all spins of the state
751: $|1\!\uparrow,2\!\downarrow,3\!\uparrow,4\!\downarrow,5\!\uparrow,
752: 6\!\downarrow\rangle$.
753: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
754: \begin{figure}[h]
755: \begin{center}
756: \epsfxsize=12cm
757: \epsfbox{AlleJidir.eps}
758: \end{center}
759: \caption{Comparison of the leading order terms of the various couplings.}
760: \label{fig5}
761: \end{figure}
762: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
763:
764: For a comparison of the relative sizes of the various couplings we first show
765: in Fig.~5 the leading perturbative contributions of all couplings determined,
766: in units of $J_{1,{\rm dir}}^{(4)}$. In the range of physically relevant model
767: parameters the four--spin coupling $J_\Box$ is by far the largest correction to
768: the nearest neighbor two--spin coupling $J_1$. The second and third neighbor
769: Heisenberg couplings $J_2$ and $J_3$ are much smaller and are in fact
770: comparable to the six--spin coupling $J_{\sqsubset\!\sqsupset}$. This scenario
771: agrees with what is known from perturbation expansions for the single band
772: Hubbard model \cite{takahashi,macdonald} and from cluster calculations for the
773: three band model \cite{schmidt}.
774:
775: A quantitative comparison of the best approximants for the various
776: couplings with $J_1$ (represented by its 2-2~Pad\'e) is shown in Fig.~6
777: where we have denoted the m-n~Pad\'e for the coupling $J_i$ by $J_i\,[m,n]$.
778: For the model parameters (\ref{param}), $J_\Box$ is almost one order of
779: magnitude smaller than $J_1$ and the couplings $J_2$ and $J_3$ are almost
780: another order of magnitude smaller. The four--spin coupling $J_\Box$ therefore
781: has to be considered an important modification of the simple nearest neighbor
782: Heisenberg model, whereas the second and third neighbor Heisenberg couplings
783: $J_2$ and $J_3$ (as well as the six--spin coupling $J_{\sqsubset\!\sqsupset}$)
784: may be ignored as correction at the level of about $3\%$.
785: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
786: \begin{figure}[h]
787: \begin{center}
788: \epsfxsize=12cm
789: \epsfbox{AlleJiPade.eps}
790: \end{center}
791: \caption{Comparison of the best Pad\'e approximants.}
792: \label{fig6}
793: \end{figure}
794: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
795:
796: \section{\bf Expansion in the Wannier representation}
797:
798: In this section we are going to discuss the alternative perturbation expansion
799: based on the decomposition (\ref{decomw}) of the three band Hamiltonian.
800: The unperturbed Hamiltonian (\ref{h0}) consists of independent local
801: Hamiltonians $h_\bfl$ for each site which are easily diagonalized. In the one
802: hole sector the local Hamiltonian has two $S=1/2$ eigenstates where mutually
803: orthogonal linear combinations of $d$--hole and $w$--hole orbitals are
804: occupied. The two hole sector contains a non--hybridized $S=1$ triplet and
805: three hybridized singlets the lowest one of which is the Zhang--Rice singlet.
806: In the three hole sector again two $S=1/2$ doublets are found. The four hole
807: sector and the zero hole sector each contain one trivial $S=0$ state. The
808: lower doublet in the one hole sector acts as the local ground state doublet
809: of the undoped system. All the other states will show up as intermediate
810: excited states at sufficiently high orders of the expansion with respect to
811: the perturbation (\ref{hv}). We have diagonalized the local Hamiltonian
812: numerically. A simple analytic formula cannot be obtained in the general case
813: since for the three singlets in the two hole sector a (3$\times$3)--matrix has
814: to be diagonalized. Simple analytic expressions for the solution in this sector
815: would be available only in the symmetric case $\dpd=U/2$. The perturbation
816: expansion with respect to (\ref{hv}) was performed using a combination of
817: symbolic and numerical routines.
818:
819: It is instructive to analyse the radius of convergence $t_{pd}^c$ of the
820: local Hamiltonian $h_\bfl$ which does depend on $t_{pd}$ via (\ref{t0}).
821: This radius of convergence can be determined from studying the branch points of
822: the eigenvalues of the local Hamiltonian in the complex $t_{pd}$--plane.
823: Without going into any details we wish to summarize this analysis here by
824: stating that $t_{pd}^c=0.469\,{\rm eV}$ for the values of $U$ and $\dpd$ given
825: in (\ref{param}). This value agrees well with the values estimated from the
826: Pad\'e approximants. This is not surprising since the expansion with respect to
827: the small perturbation (\ref{hv}) is expected to converge well and should not
828: much modify $t_{pd}^c$ as defined above from the local Hamiltonian.
829:
830: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
831: \begin{figure}[h]
832: \begin{center}
833: \epsfxsize=12cm
834: \epsfbox{J1w.eps}
835: \end{center}
836: \caption{Variation of $J_{1,w}/J_{1,{\rm dir}}^{(4)}$ with $t_{pd}$.}
837: \label{fig7}
838: \end{figure}
839: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
840: In what follows we will plot the variation of the various coupling constants
841: with the hopping $t_{pd}$ in analogy to the presentations in the previous
842: figures by measuring all couplings in units of their lowest order term in the
843: direct expansion (if not otherwise stated).
844: Fig.~7 shows our results for the nearest neighbor exchange $J_{1,w}$.
845: In the present context the leading contribution to $J_{1,w}$ is obtained
846: from the simple second order hopping process described by the term
847: $P_0V\!SV\!P_0$ of (\ref{perturb}). This second order contribution is depicted
848: by the thick dotted line in Fig.~7. It is satisfying that this simple second
849: order result reproduces quite nicely the decrease of
850: $J_{1}/J_{1,{\rm dir}}^{(4)}$ with increasing $t_{pd}$ as given by the Pad\'e
851: approximants of Fig.~1. On the other hand, there is, however, a systematic
852: deviation in the overall size of the coupling; even for small $t_{pd}$ the
853: coupling $J_{1,w}^{(2)}$ is too large by about $15\%$. The discrepancy
854: at small $t_{pd}$ is largely reduced by taking into account the third order
855: terms derived from $P_0V\!SV\!SV\!P_0$ and, finally, $J_{1,w}^{(4)}$ is
856: in satisfying agreement with the 2-2~Pad\'e of the direct expansion.
857: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
858: \begin{figure}[t]
859: \begin{center}
860: \epsfxsize=12cm
861: \epsfbox{Jsquarewnorm.eps}
862: \end{center}
863: \caption{Variation of $J_{\Box,w}/J_{\Box,{\rm dir}}^{(8)}$ with $t_{pd}$.}
864: \label{fig8}
865: \end{figure}
866: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
867: The deviation of $J_{1,w}^{(2)}$ from $J_{1,{\rm dir}}^{(4)}$ for small
868: $t_{pd}$ is explained quantitatively by re--expanding $J_{1,w}^{(2)}$
869: to second order with respect to $t_0$. Referring to (\ref{t0}) we obtain
870: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
871: \begin{equation}\label{j1wasy}
872: J_{1,w}^{(2)}\sim(2T_{(0,0)}T_{(1,0)})^2J_{1,{\rm dir}}^{(4)}\qquad
873: (t_{pd}\to0)
874: \end{equation}
875: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
876: which explains the $15\%$ deviation because $(2T_{(0,0)}T_{(1,0)})^2=1.153$.
877: Since $J_{1,w}^{(4)}$ collects all fourth order terms it has to coincide
878: with $J_{1,{\rm dir}}^{(4)}$ after re--expanding it to $t_{pd}^4$. How this
879: happens becomes particularly clear if one looks at the sum rule $s_{(1,0)}$ of
880: (\ref{sumrule}). This sum rule states that $2T_{(0,0)}T_{(1,0)}+r_{(1,0)}=-1$
881: if we denote by $r_{(1,0)}$ the sum of all terms in $s_{(1,0)}$ (infinitely
882: many) which don't contain $T_{(0,0)}$. Squaring this sum rule we obtain the
883: relation
884: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
885: \begin{equation}\label{sqsr}
886: (2T_{(0,0)}T_{(1,0)})^2+2(2T_{(0,0)}T_{(1,0)})r_{(1,0)}+r_{(1,0)}^2=1
887: \end{equation}
888: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
889: from which we can read off the contributions of various orders of the Wannier
890: expansion to $J_{1,{\rm dir}}^{(4)}$ in the limit of small $t_{pd}$. The first
891: term represents the contribution of $J_{1,w}^{(2)}$ discussed above.
892: The second term contains only one factor of $T_{(0,0)}$ and results from third
893: order terms in $V^w$ which due to $r_{(1,0)}=0.073775$ exhaust the
894: relation (\ref{sqsr}) to $1-r_{(1,0)}^2=0.994557$; this explains why
895: $J_{1,w}^{(3)}$ is slightly smaller than $J_{1,{\rm dir}}^{(4)}$ in the
896: limit of small $t_{pd}$ (see Fig.~7). Finally, the term $r_{(1,0)}^2$ comes
897: from fourth order terms in $V^w$ which contribute only about $0.5\%$ for
898: small $t_{pd}$ but change sign and get more important as $t_{pd}$ increases.
899:
900: In our calculation of third and fourth order contributions to $J_{1,w}$
901: we have made extensive use of the sum rule $s_{(1,0)}$. In third order terms
902: the exchange path for a spin flip process involves an arbitrary third copper
903: ion site whose spin is not flipped. The sum of the spin flip amplitudes over
904: all these third sites contains a lattice sum which is simply $r_{(1,0)}$. The
905: calculation of the fourth order is more involved since one has to discriminate
906: between spin flip processes which don't visit another site and those which
907: visit one or two more sites. The lattice sums appearing in this order cannot be
908: completely determined from sum rules, but sum rules considerably simplify
909: their calculation. Four--spin terms which here appear in fourth order are
910: eliminated by averaging as described in the previous section.
911:
912: Results for the four--spin coupling $J_{\Box,w}$ are shown in Fig.~8.
913: The leading fourth order contribution again nicely reproduces qualitatively
914: the decrease with increasing $t_{pd}$ known from Fig.~2. After the above
915: discussion the deviation observed in the small $t_{pd}$ limit is not
916: surprising. In fact, a quantitative understanding of this deviation follows
917: from looking at the fourth power of the $s_{(1,0)}$ sum rule:
918: $(2T_{(0,0)}T_{(1,0)}+r_{(1,0)})^4=1$. With $(2T_{(0,0)}T_{(1,0)})^4=1.329$
919: we understand why $J_{\Box,w}^{(4)}$ is about $33\%$ too large for small
920: $t_{pd}$. The substantial reduction of the deviation by the fifth order
921: contributions are also understood quantitatively from the identity
922: $(2T_{(0,0)}T_{(1,0)})^4+4(2T_{(0,0)}T_{(1,0)})^3r_{(1,0)}=0.964$ (see Fig.~8).
923: Including the sixth order terms we find the almost negligible deviation of
924: $(2T_{(0,0)}T_{(1,0)})^4+4(2T_{(0,0)}T_{(1,0)})^3r_{(1,0)}+
925: 6(2T_{(0,0)}T_{(1,0)})^2r_{(1,0)}^2=1.0017$ and the overall agreement with
926: the 1-1~DlogPad\'e is quite satisfying.
927:
928: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
929: \begin{figure}[h]
930: \begin{center}
931: \epsfxsize=11.5cm
932: \epsfbox{J2wrel.eps}
933: \end{center}
934: \caption{Variation of $J_{2,w}/J_{1,{\rm dir}}^{(4)}$ with $t_{pd}$.}
935: \label{fig9}
936: \end{figure}
937: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
938: The analysis of the second and third neighbor exchange $J_2$ and $J_3$ is more
939: complicated in the Wannier representation since there are low order
940: contributions which have to be cancelled completely by higher order terms
941: before results of any significance emerge. We therefore show these couplings
942: in Figs.~9 and 10 not in units of their eighth order counterparts from the
943: direct expansion but in units of $J_{1,{\rm dir}}^{(4)}$. It is quite obvious
944: that for any lattice vector $\bfl$ there is a second order contribution
945: $J_{\bfl,w}^{(2)}$ to the Heisenberg coupling between two spins separated
946: by $\bfl$ which in analogy to (\ref{j1wasy}) behaves like
947: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
948: \begin{equation}\label{jlwasy}
949: J_{\bfl,w}^{(2)}\sim(2T_{(0,0)}T_\bfl)^2J_{1,{\rm dir}}^{(4)}\qquad
950: (t_{pd}\to0).
951: \end{equation}
952: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
953: The cancellation of this contribution by higher order terms is understood by
954: invoking the sum rule $2T_{(0,0)}T_\bfl+r_\bfl=0$ for further neighbors which
955: squared gives the relation
956: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
957: \begin{equation}\label{sqsrl}
958: (2T_{(0,0)}T_\bfl)^2+2(2T_{(0,0)}T_\bfl)r_\bfl+r_\bfl^2=0.
959: \end{equation}
960: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
961:
962: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
963: \begin{figure}[h]
964: \begin{center}
965: \epsfxsize=12cm
966: \epsfbox{J3wrel.eps}
967: \end{center}
968: \caption{Variation of $J_{3,w}/J_{1,{\rm dir}}^{(4)}$ with
969: $t_{pd}$.}
970: \label{fig10}
971: \end{figure}
972: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
973:
974: The numbers $(2T_{(0,0)}T_{(1,1)})^2=0.0325$ and
975: $(2T_{(0,0)}T_{(2,0)})^2=0.0111$ coincide perfectly with the behavior of
976: $J_{2,w}^{(2)}$ and $J_{3,w}^{(2)}$ for small $t_{pd}$ as shown in
977: Figs.~9 and 10. We also understand from (\ref{sqsrl}) why the inclusion of the
978: third order doesn't reduce the deviation from 0 but just changes its sign.
979: In fourth order Fig.~9 shows that in agreement with (\ref{sqsrl}) the
980: terms proportional to $t_{pd}^4$ in $J_{2,w}$ vanish. This is, however,
981: only a partial solution of the cancellation problem since there are still
982: terms proportional to $t_{pd}^6$ which according to Fig.~9 even have the wrong
983: sign and cancellation of which would only be achieved by extending the
984: $V^w$ expansion to sixth order. For $t_{pd}>0.8\,{\rm eV}$ the third and
985: fourth order results shown in Figs.~9 and 10 at least have the right sign and
986: the same order of magnitude as the Pad\'e estimates from the previous section.
987: We have to conclude that the accurate determination of the further neighbor
988: couplings $J_2$ and $J_3$ in the Wannier representation would be very
989: demanding. This points at definite limitations of this approach.
990:
991: \section{\bf Conclusions}
992:
993: In the present paper we have discussed the derivation of high precision
994: effective spin Hamiltonians for the low energy sector of a three band model
995: for \cuotwo--planes. By two methods we have demonstrated that it is possible
996: to overcome the convergence problems of the $t_{pd}$ perturbation series. Using
997: the direct expansion with respect to $t_{pd}$ we have derived precise values
998: for the most important couplings via Pad\'e approximants. The direct expansion
999: has the advantage of a particularly simple unperturbed Hamiltonian and a very
1000: nicely localized perturbative Hamiltonian which makes high order symbolic
1001: expansions feasible. Using the Wannier representation we have confirmed the
1002: results from the direct expansion by a method with much better convergence
1003: properties. The expansion in the Wannier representation is, however, rendered
1004: more difficult by a more complicated unperturbed Hamiltonian and a less well
1005: localized perturbative Hamiltonian and by the necessity of a non--symbolic
1006: (i.e. numerical) series expansion. We have also shown that for precise values
1007: of the coupling constants the leading orders of the Wannier expansion are not
1008: sufficient.
1009:
1010: The work in the present paper was confined to the most rudimentary three band
1011: model since our main goal was to demonstrate the feasibility of the derivation
1012: of accurate effective Hamiltonians. Nevertheless we will use our results here
1013: for a fit of the couplings $J_1=151.9\,{\rm meV}$ and $J_\Box/J_1=0.24$
1014: extracted recently from a fit to the experimental dispersion of $La_2CuO_4$
1015: \cite{coldea} using self consistent spin--wave theory \cite{katanin}.
1016: Assuming the typical (though somewhat arbitrary) model parameters
1017: $U=8\,{\rm eV}$ and $\dpd=3.6\,{\rm eV}$ from (\ref{param}) we obtain from
1018: the value $J_1=151.9\,{\rm meV}$ the estimate
1019: $1.422\,{\rm eV}\le t_{pd}\le1.454\,{\rm eV}$ for the hopping parameter of
1020: the minimum model showing an uncertainty in $t_{pd}$ of $2\%$ due to the
1021: uncertainty of our Pad\'e extrapolations. With $t_{pd}$ in this range our
1022: estimate for $J_\Box$ results in $0.19 \le J_\Box/J_1 \le 0.25$ which is in
1023: good agreement with the result from \cite{katanin}.
1024:
1025: For proper applications to cuprate materials this work will have to be
1026: extended to more realistic three band models including, in particular, a
1027: direct oxygen--oxygen hopping $t_{pp}$ \cite{mcmahan,hybertsen}. The relevance
1028: of four--spin exchange has been stressed also for the two--leg ladder system
1029: $La_6Ca_8Cu_{24}O_{41}$ \cite{matsuda} to which the analysis presented here
1030: can be applied as well.
1031:
1032: \section*{Acknowledgement}
1033: The authors gratefully acknowledge useful discussions with Christian Knetter
1034: and Kai Schmidt. This work was performed within a research project supported
1035: by the German--Israeli Foundation.
1036: \newpage
1037:
1038: \begin{appendix}
1039: \renewcommand\thesection{Appendix \Alph{section}}
1040: \renewcommand\theequation{\Alph{section}\@.{\arabic{equation}}}
1041: \makeatletter
1042: \@addtoreset{equation}{section}
1043: \makeatother
1044: \section{}
1045:
1046: This Appendix contains the more voluminous formulae from the direct expansion
1047: of section IV. These formulae can be easily used to derive the Pad\'e
1048: approximants discussed in section IV.
1049:
1050: With (\ref{jdir}) the Taylor series for the nearest neighbor exchange coupling
1051: is
1052: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1053: \begin{eqnarray}\label{J1Ordn10}
1054: J_{1,{\rm dir}}^{\vphantom{4}}
1055: &=&J_{1,{\rm dir}}^{(4)}\Big[\,1-t_{pd}^2\,
1056: \frac{4\,\left( 5\,U + 2\,\dpd \right) }
1057: {\dpd^2\,\left( U + \dpd \right)}+\nonumber\\
1058: &&\,t_{pd}^4\,
1059: \frac{801\,U^3 + 164\,U^2\,\dpd - 24\,U\,\dpd^2 - 12\,\dpd^3}
1060: {2\,U^2\,\dpd^4\,\left( U + \dpd \right) }-\nonumber\\
1061: &&\,t_{pd}^6\,
1062: \frac{8505\,U^4 + 9602\,U^3\,\dpd + 908\,U^2\,\dpd^2 - 240\,U\,\dpd^3
1063: - 48\,\dpd^4}{U^2\,\dpd^6\,{\left( U + \dpd \right) }^2}+\nonumber\\
1064: &&\,t_{pd}^8(758199\,U^7 + 1587453\,U^6\,\dpd + 890808\,U^5\,\dpd^2
1065: + 52603\,U^4\,\dpd^3 \nonumber\\
1066: &&- 6611\,U^3\,\dpd^4 + 4566\,U^2\,\dpd^5 + 2559\,U\,\dpd^6 + 483\,\dpd^7)
1067: /\nonumber\\
1068: &&(4\,U^4\,\dpd^8\,{\left( U + \dpd \right) }^3)
1069: +O(t_{pd}^{10})\,\Big].
1070: \end{eqnarray}
1071: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1072: The series for the four--spin coupling with the leading contribution
1073: (\ref{jsquare}) is given by
1074: %square
1075: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1076: \begin{eqnarray}\label{JsqOrdn12}
1077: J_{\Box,{\rm dir}}^{\vphantom{4}}
1078: &=&J_{\Box,{\rm dir}}^{(8)}\Big[\,1-t_{pd}^2\frac
1079: {4\,\left( 11\,U^3 + 14\,U^2\,\dpd + 8\,U\,\dpd^2 + 2\,\dpd^3 \right)}
1080: {\dpd^2\,\left( U + \dpd \right) \,\left( U^2 + U\,\dpd +
1081: \dpd^2 \right) }+\nonumber\\
1082: &&t_{pd}^4(56569\,U^7 + 161892\,U^6\,\dpd + 168480\,U^5\,\dpd^2
1083: + 76092\,U^4\,\dpd^3 \nonumber\\
1084: && + 9096\,U^3\,\dpd^4 - 7008\,U^2\,\dpd^5 - 3960\,U\,\dpd^6
1085: - 792\,\dpd^7)/\nonumber\\
1086: &&(40\,U^2\,\dpd^4\,( U + \dpd)^3\,( U^2 + U\,\dpd +\dpd^2))\nonumber\\
1087: &&-t_{pd}^6
1088: (410565\,U^8 + 1487797\,U^7\,\dpd + 2034672\,U^6\,\dpd^2 \nonumber\\
1089: &&+ 1264452\,U^5\,\dpd^3 + 296152\,U^4\,\dpd^4 - 48240\,U^3\,\dpd^5
1090: \nonumber\\
1091: &&- 49264\,U^2\,\dpd^6 - 13464\,U\,\dpd^7 - 1584\,\dpd^8)/\nonumber\\
1092: &&(10\,U^2\,\dpd^6\,( U + \dpd)^4\,( U^2 + U\,\dpd + \dpd^2 ))
1093: +O(t_{pd}^8)\,\Big].
1094: \end{eqnarray}
1095: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1096: The leading contribution to the four--spin coupling (\ref{timesex}) is
1097: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1098: \begin{eqnarray}\label{JxOrdn12}
1099: \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!J_\times^{(12)}
1100: &=&2\,t_{pd}^{12}\,\big(\,
1101: ( 489\,U^7 + 1016\,U^6\,\dpd - 72\,U^5\,\dpd^2 -
1102: 2232\,U^4\,\dpd^3 \nonumber\\
1103: && - 3392\,U^3\,\dpd^4 - 2784\,U^2\,\dpd^5 - 1280\,U\,\dpd^6 -
1104: 256\,\dpd^7 ) \big)/\nonumber\\
1105: &&\big(U^5\,\dpd^{11}\,( U + \dpd)^2\big)
1106: \end{eqnarray}
1107: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1108: With (\ref{jtwo}) and (\ref{jthree}) the series for the second and third
1109: neighbor two--spin couplings are given by
1110: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1111: \begin{eqnarray}\label{J2Ordn12}
1112: J_{2,{\rm dir}}^{\vphantom{4}}
1113: &=&J_{2,{\rm dir}}^{(8)}\Big[\,1-\nonumber\\
1114: &&t_{pd}^2\frac{4\,( 142\,U^4 + 169\,U^3\,\dpd + 36\,U^2\,\dpd^2 +
1115: 10\,U\,\dpd^3 + 2\,\dpd^4 ) }{\dpd^2\,( U + \dpd) \,
1116: ( 11\,U^3 + 4\,U^2\,\dpd + 2\,U\,\dpd^2 + \dpd^3) }+\nonumber\\
1117: &&t_{pd}^4\big(82083\,U^7 + 171784\,U^6\,\dpd + 99154\,U^5\,\dpd^2 +
1118: 10848\,U^4\,\dpd^3 \nonumber \\
1119: &&+ 1420\,U^3\,\dpd^4 + 290\,U^2\,\dpd^5 +
1120: 120\,U\,\dpd^6 + 24\,\dpd^7\big)/\nonumber\\
1121: &&\big(4\,U^2\,\dpd^4\,( U + \dpd)^2\,
1122: ( 11\,U^3 + 4\,U^2\,\dpd + 2\,U\,\dpd^2 + \dpd^3 ) \big)\nonumber\\
1123: &&+O(t_{pd}^6)\,\Big]
1124: \end{eqnarray}
1125: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1126: and
1127: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1128: \begin{eqnarray}\label{J3Ordn12}
1129: J_{3,{\rm dir}}^{\vphantom{4}}
1130: &=&J_{3,{\rm dir}}^{(8)}\Big[\,1-\nonumber\\
1131: &&t_{pd}^2\frac{2\,( 72\,U^4 + 94\,U^3\,\dpd + 39\,U^2\,\dpd^2 +
1132: 20\,U\,\dpd^3 + 4\,\dpd^4) }{\dpd^2\,( U + \dpd) \,
1133: ( 3\,U^3 + 2\,U^2\,\dpd + 2\,U\,\dpd^2 + \dpd^3) }+\nonumber\\
1134: &&t_{pd}^4\big(47947\,U^7 + 111156\,U^6\,\dpd + 90704\,U^5\,\dpd^2 +
1135: 43130\,U^4\,\dpd^3 \nonumber\\
1136: &&+ 21424\,U^3\,\dpd^4 + 8174\,U^2\,\dpd^5 + 2632\,U\,\dpd^6 +
1137: 440\,\dpd^7\big)/\nonumber\\
1138: &&\big(8\,U^2\,\dpd^4\,( U + \dpd)^2\,
1139: ( 3\,U^3 + 2\,U^2\,\dpd + 2\,U\,\dpd^2 + \dpd^3) \big)\nonumber\\
1140: &&+O(t_{pd}^6)\,\Big].
1141: \end{eqnarray}
1142: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1143: The 5 six--spin invariants for a hexagonal plaquette are
1144: % sechsspin
1145: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1146: \begin{eqnarray}\label{opsix}
1147: O_1&=&(\bfS_1\cdot\bfS_2)(\bfS_3\cdot\bfS_4)(\bfS_5\cdot\bfS_6)+
1148: (\bfS_2\cdot\bfS_3)(\bfS_4\cdot\bfS_5)(\bfS_6\cdot\bfS_1)\nonumber\\
1149: O_2&=&(\bfS_1\cdot\bfS_4)(\bfS_2\cdot\bfS_6)(\bfS_3\cdot\bfS_5)+
1150: (\bfS_2\cdot\bfS_5)(\bfS_3\cdot\bfS_1)(\bfS_4\cdot\bfS_6)\nonumber\\
1151: &&+(\bfS_3\cdot\bfS_6)(\bfS_4\cdot\bfS_2)(\bfS_5\cdot\bfS_1)\nonumber\\
1152: O_3&=&(\bfS_1\cdot\bfS_4)(\bfS_2\cdot\bfS_5)(\bfS_3\cdot\bfS_6)\nonumber\\
1153: O_4&=&(\bfS_1\cdot\bfS_2)(\bfS_3\cdot\bfS_6)(\bfS_4\cdot\bfS_5)+
1154: (\bfS_2\cdot\bfS_3)(\bfS_4\cdot\bfS_1)(\bfS_5\cdot\bfS_6)\nonumber\\
1155: &&+(\bfS_3\cdot\bfS_4)(\bfS_5\cdot\bfS_2)(\bfS_6\cdot\bfS_1)\nonumber\\
1156: O_5&=&(\bfS_1\cdot\bfS_2)(\bfS_3\cdot\bfS_5)(\bfS_4\cdot\bfS_6)+
1157: (\bfS_2\cdot\bfS_3)(\bfS_4\cdot\bfS_6)(\bfS_5\cdot\bfS_1)\nonumber\\
1158: &&+(\bfS_3\cdot\bfS_4)(\bfS_5\cdot\bfS_1)(\bfS_6\cdot\bfS_2)+
1159: (\bfS_4\cdot\bfS_5)(\bfS_6\cdot\bfS_2)(\bfS_1\cdot\bfS_3)\nonumber\\
1160: &&+(\bfS_5\cdot\bfS_6)(\bfS_1\cdot\bfS_3)(\bfS_2\cdot\bfS_4)+
1161: (\bfS_6\cdot\bfS_1)(\bfS_2\cdot\bfS_4)(\bfS_3\cdot\bfS_5).
1162: \end{eqnarray}
1163: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1164: The leading contribution to the six--spin coupling in Eq.~(\ref{sixex}) is
1165: found to be
1166: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1167: \begin{equation}\label{Jsix}
1168: J_{\sqsubset\!\sqsupset}^{(12)}=
1169: \frac{336\,t_{pd}^{12}\,( U + \dpd) \,( 3\,U^4 + 6\,U^3\,\dpd +
1170: 8\,U^2\,\dpd^2 + 6\,U\,\dpd^3 + 3\,\dpd^4)}{U^5\,\dpd^{11}}.
1171: \end{equation}
1172: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1173:
1174: \end{appendix}
1175:
1176: \begin{thebibliography}{99999999}
1177:
1178: \bibitem{bednorz} {J.G. Bednorz and K.A. M\"uller, Z. Phys. B {\bf 64}, 189
1179: (1986).}
1180: \bibitem{emery} {V.J. Emery, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 58}, 2794 (1987).}
1181: \bibitem{andersen} {Band structure calculations imply that a quantitative
1182: description of the electronic structure requires as many as eight bands, see
1183: e.g.: O.K. Andersen et al., J. Phys. Chem. Solids {\bf 56}, 1573 (1995).}
1184: \bibitem{zhang1} {F.C. Zhang and T.M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 37},
1185: 3759 (1988).}
1186: \bibitem{anderson} {P.W. Anderson, Science {\bf 235}, 1196 (1987).}
1187: \bibitem{takahashi} {For a nice presentation of the method, see: M. Takahashi,
1188: J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. {\bf 10}, 1289 (1977).}
1189: \bibitem{stein} {J. Stein, O. Entin--Wohlman and A. Aharony, Phys. Rev. B
1190: {\bf 53}, 775 (1996); J. Stein, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 53}, 785 (1996).}
1191: \bibitem{yildirim} {T. Yildirim et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73}, 2919 (1994);
1192: T. Yildirim et al., Phys. Rev. B {\bf 52}, 10239 (1995); O. Entin--Wohlman,
1193: A.B. Harris and A. Aharony, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 53}, 11661 (1996).}
1194: \bibitem{schmidt} {see also: H.J. Schmidt and Y. Kuramoto, Physica B {\bf 163},
1195: 443 (1990), and more recently: Y. Mizuno et. al., J. Low Temp. Ph. {\bf 117},
1196: 389 (1999); analogous results for the single band Hubbard model are obtained
1197: in \cite{macdonald}.}
1198: \bibitem{katanin} {A.A. Katanin and A.P. Kampf, cond-mat/0111533.}
1199: \bibitem{coldea} {R. Coldea et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 5377 (2001).}
1200: \bibitem{dagotto} {For a review on the modeling of $CuO_2$--planes, see:
1201: E. Dagotto, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 66}, 763 (1994).}
1202: \bibitem{mcmahan} {A.K. McMahan, R.M. Martin and S. Satpathy, Phys. Rev. B
1203: {\bf 38}, 6650 (1988).}
1204: \bibitem{hybertsen} {M.S. Hybertsen, M. Schl\"uter and N.E. Christensen,
1205: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 39}, 9028 (1989).}
1206: \bibitem{reiter1} {V.J. Emery and G. Reiter, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 38},
1207: 4547 (1988).}
1208: \bibitem{reiter2} {V.J. Emery and G. Reiter, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 38},
1209: 11938 (1988).}
1210: \bibitem{zhang2} {F.C. Zhang and T.M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 41},
1211: 7243 (1990).}
1212: \bibitem{reiter3} {V.J. Emery and G. Reiter, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 41},
1213: 7247 (1990).}
1214: \bibitem{pang} {H.B. Pang, T. Xiang, Z.B. Su and L. Yu, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 41},
1215: 7209 (1990).}
1216: \bibitem{zaanen} {J. Zaanen and A.M. Ole\'s, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 37}, 9423
1217: (1988).}
1218: \bibitem{lovtsov} {S.V. Lovtsov and V.Y. Yushankhai, Physica C {\bf 179},
1219: 159 (1991).}
1220: \bibitem{schuettler} {H.B. Sch\"uttler and A.J. Fedro, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 45},
1221: 7588 (1992)}
1222: \bibitem{jefferson} {J.H. Jefferson et al., Phys. Rev. B {\bf 45}, 7959
1223: (1992).}
1224: \bibitem{hayn} {R. Hayn, V. Yushankhai and S. Lovtsov, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 47},
1225: 5253 (1993).}
1226: \bibitem{belinicher} {V.I. Belinicher and A.L. Chernyshev, Phys. Rev. B
1227: {\bf 49}, 9746 (1994).}
1228: \bibitem{feiner} {L.F. Feiner et al., Phys. Rev. B {\bf 53}, 8751 (1996).}
1229: \bibitem{oles} {A.M. Ole\'s, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 41}, 2562 (1990).}
1230: \bibitem{macdonald} {A.H. MacDonald, S.M. Girvin and D. Yoshioka,
1231: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 41}, 2565 (1990).}
1232: \bibitem{spat} {Products of two triple products like
1233: $[(\bfS_1\times\bfS_2)\cdot\bfS_3][(\bfS_4\times\bfS_5)\cdot\bfS_6]$ don't
1234: represent additional invariants since they can be expressed by scalar
1235: products.}
1236: \bibitem{matsuda} {M. Matsuda et al., J. Appl. Phys. {\bf 87}, 6271 (2000);
1237: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 62}, 8903(2000).}
1238:
1239: \end{thebibliography}
1240:
1241: \end{document}
1242: