1: %\documentclass[aps,prl,preprint,superscriptaddress,draft]{revtex4}

2: \documentclass[aps,prb,twocolumn,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}

3: \usepackage{amsmath}

4: \usepackage{graphicx}

5: % You should use BibTeX and apsrev.bst for references

6: % Choosing a journal automatically selects the correct APS

7: % BibTeX style file (bst file), so only uncomment the line

8: % below if necessary.

9: %\bibliographystyle{apsrev}

10: 

11: \begin{document}

12: \title{Finite Temperature Dynamical Correlations using\\

13: the Microcanonical Ensemble and the Lanczos Algorithm}

14: \author{M.W. Long}

15: \affiliation{School of Physics, Birmingham University, Edgbaston, 

16: Birmingham, B15 2TT, England}

17: \author{P. Prelov\v sek}

18: \author{S. El Shawish}

19: \affiliation{Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, University of Ljubljana,\\

20: and J. Stefan Institute, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia}

21: \author{J. Karadamoglou}

22: \author{X. Zotos}

23: \affiliation{Institut Romand de Recherche Num\'erique en Physique des 

24: Mat\'eriaux (IRRMA),\\

25: EPFL, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland}

26: \date{\today}

27: 

28: \begin{abstract}

29: We show how to generalise the zero temperature Lanczos method for 

30: calculating dynamical correlation functions to finite temperatures. 

31: The key is the microcanonical ensemble, which allows us to

32: replace the involved canonical ensemble with a single appropriately 

33: chosen state; in the thermodynamic limit it provides the same physics 

34: as the canonical ensemble but with the evaluation of a single expectation 

35: value. We can employ the same system sizes as for zero

36: temperature, but whereas the statistical fluctuations present in small 

37: systems are prohibitive, the spectra of the largest system sizes are 

38: surprisingly smooth. 

39: We investigate, as a test case, the spin conductivity of the spin-1/2 

40: anisotropic Heisenberg model and in particular we present a comparison 

41: of spectra obtained by the canonical and microcanonical ensemble methods.

42: \end{abstract}

43: 

44: % insert suggested PACS numbers in braces on next line

45: \pacs{02.70.-c, 05.30.Ch, 72.10Bg, 75.10Pq}

46: 

47: \maketitle

48: 

49: \section{Introduction}

50: The study of lattice quantum many body systems by the exact diagonalisation 

51: technique has proven popular at zero temperature ($T=0$) where only the 

52: ground state is required, but it is of less use at finite temperature. The

53: reason can be attributed to the different system sizes applicable, where for

54: spin-1/2 the ground state can be found for up to {\it N}$\sim $30 

55: lattice sites, but the entire spectrum can readily be achieved for systems 

56: only up to {\it N}$\sim $16. 

57: The intrinsic difficulties associated with applying the finite-size scaling 

58: method on such small 

59: systems severely limit finite temperature applications. At $T=0$

60: the continued fraction technique \cite{cfe1,cfe2} 

61: allows accurate calculations

62: of dynamical correlations using only the machinery of the Lanczos algorithm,

63: but unfortunately this technique has not been extended to finite $T$

64: where mostly full diagonalisation has been employed. As well as direct

65: applications of the canonical ensemble, there is also a 

66: hybrid method which employs the canonical representation of dynamical

67: correlation functions but uses a Lanczos basis to provide a set of

68: orthogonal states \cite{ftlm}. 

69: This method allows access to larger systems than are

70: accessible to full diagonalisation techniques but to smaller systems than the

71: current proposal, which does not need details of all the states even in the

72: Lanczos basis.  In this article we extend the $T=0$ formalism to

73: finite temperature by applying a {\it microcanonical ensemble} 

74: approach combined 

75: with the Lanczos method (MCLM) that provides smooth predictions 

76: for dynamical correlation functions at least at high temperatures.

77: 

78: The physical advance is to appreciate that in the thermodynamic limit the

79: microcanonical ensemble is equivalent to the canonical one \cite{ll,leb}, 

80: but for finite systems this is much easier to work with. The statistical

81: fluctuations engendered by the microcanonical choice are a drawback for

82: small systems but become controllable for large systems. In practice, as 

83: the finite $T$ calculations are much smoother, it is more natural to

84: contemplate applying finite-size scaling than for their $T=0$ counterparts.

85: The exponentially dense nature of a many particle spectrum in the bulk

86: is the property that smoothes our calculations, a characteristic that is lost

87: near the ground state where the spectrum is sparse.

88: 

89: Besides the computational interest of this proposal it is worth pointing 

90: out that, to our knowledge, no studies of the fundamental equivalence between 

91: the microcanonical and canonical ensemble for quantum dynamic correlations 

92: exist in the literature. Thus this work is a step in numerically 

93: exploring this basic postulate of nonequilibrium statistical mechanics;  

94: clearly, analytical studies are needed to clarify, for instance, the 

95: meaning of the microcanonical ensemble for a quantum system with dense 

96: spectrum as an average over a single quantum state (or a narrow window of 

97: states) and the finite size corrections inherent in this ensemble.

98: 

99: \section{Thermodynamic ensembles}

100: 

101: In this section we will discuss how an arbitrary probability distribution 

102: can be used, under reasonable assumptions, to represent the canonical 

103: ensemble in the thermodynamic limit.

104: The choice of a (unnormalized) distribution $\rho(\epsilon)$ in the 

105: thermodynamic limit 

106: can be examined by considering its Laplace transform, 

107: 

108: \begin{eqnarray}

109: e^{f(\tau)}=\int^{\infty}_0 d\epsilon~ e^{\epsilon \tau} \rho(\epsilon),

110: ~~~\Re \tau < 0 \nonumber\\

111: \rho (\epsilon)=\int _{-i\infty-\eta}^{+i\infty -\eta}

112: \frac{d\tau }{2\pi i}

113: e^{-\tau \epsilon+f(\tau )},

114: \end{eqnarray}

115: 

116: \noindent

117: where $f(\tau)$ controls the properties of a distribution designated by

118: $\rho (\epsilon)$. As examples, the following choices of $f(\tau)$

119: lead to,

120: 

121: \begin{equation}

122: e^{f(\tau)}=\frac{1}{\beta - \tau} \mapsto 

123: \rho(\epsilon)=e^{-\beta\epsilon}

124: \end{equation}

125: 

126: \noindent

127: the canonical ensemble,

128: 

129: \begin{equation}

130: e^{f(\tau)}=e^{\lambda \tau} \mapsto 

131: \rho(\epsilon)=\delta(\lambda - \epsilon)

132: \end{equation}

133: 

134: \noindent

135: the microcanonical ensemble at energy $\lambda$,

136: 

137: \begin{equation}

138: e^{f(\tau)}=

139: e^{\lambda \tau+ \sigma^2(\tau -\beta)^2/2}

140: \mapsto 

141: \rho(\epsilon)=e^{-(\epsilon -\lambda)^2/2\sigma^2}

142: \end{equation}

143: 

144: \noindent

145: the ``Gaussian" ensemble at energy $\lambda$ and width $\sigma$.

146: 

147: If we examine the partition function $Z_{\rho}$, then,

148: 

149: \begin{equation}

150: Z_{\rho }=Tr \rho (\epsilon)=\int _{+i\infty }^{-i\infty }\frac{d\tau }

151: {2\pi i}e^{f(\tau )+\ln Z(\tau )}, 

152: \label{z}

153: \end{equation}

154: 

155: \noindent

156: where $Z(\tau )$ is the canonical partition function.  The physical idea

157: behind the thermodynamic limit is that the partition function becomes

158: immensely sharp when considered as a function of state space and becomes

159: dominated by the large number of states with the correct thermodynamics; in

160: practice fluctuating quantities can be replaced by their thermodynamic average

161: with negligible error. Mathematically, an integral such as (\ref{z}) may be

162: approximated in the asymptotic thermodynamic limit using the idea of `steepest

163: descents' with negligible error,

164: 

165: \begin{equation}

166: Z_{\rho }\propto e^{f(\beta ^*)} Z(\beta ^*).

167: \end{equation}

168: 

169: \noindent

170: Here $\beta ^*$ is chosen so that,

171: \begin{equation}

172: \frac{\partial f}{\partial \tau}(\beta ^*)=-\frac{1}{Z}

173: \frac{\partial Z}{\partial \tau}(\beta ^*)=\langle H\rangle 

174: \end{equation}

175: 

176: \noindent

177: and the average energy at the desired temperature is crucial.  For the

178: particular case of the microcanonical distribution 

179: $\lambda =\langle H\rangle $ 

180: and we need to employ states whose energy is the thermodynamic average as one

181: might naively guess.  Provided that $f(\tau)$ has only a weak dependence on

182: the system parameters, then the two partition functions are essentially

183: equivalent.  It is also clear that provided $f(\tau)$ has the required

184: properties that the `steepest descents' is a good approximation, then any

185: appropriate ensemble will provide the thermodynamic limit, for a particular

186: temperature.  It is quite natural to employ 

187: $f(\tau )=\lambda \tau +F(\tau)$ where $\lambda $ is extrinsic 

188: and $F(\tau )$ is intrinsic, in order to

189: limit towards the microcanonical ensemble.

190: 

191: \section{Dynamical correlations in the microcanonical and canonical ensemble}

192: The usually studied quantities of direct physical interest are the dynamic 

193: structure function,

194: 

195: \begin{equation}

196: S({\bf q},\omega )=\int _{-\infty }^{+\infty} dte^{i\omega t}

197: \langle X_{\bf q}(t) X_{-{\bf q}}(0)  \rangle,

198: \label{s}

199: \end{equation}

200: 

201: \noindent

202: and dynamic susceptibility,

203: \begin{eqnarray}

204: \chi({\bf q},\omega )&=&i\int _{0}^{+\infty} dte^{iz t}

205: \langle [  X_{\bf q}(t), X_{-{\bf q}}(0) ] \rangle,

206: \label{chi}

207: \end{eqnarray}

208: 

209: \noindent

210: where $z=\omega+i\eta$, the angle brackets denote a canonical ensemble 

211: thermal average and the 

212: commutator plays a central role in the linear response theory (or Kubo) 

213: formulation of transport.

214: 

215: The two quantities are related by the fluctuation-dissipation relation,

216: 

217: \begin{equation}

218: \chi''({\bf q},\omega)=\frac{1-e^{-\beta\omega}}{2}S({\bf q},\omega),

219: \label{fd}

220: \end{equation}

221: 

222: \noindent

223: where $\beta=1/k_BT$ is the inverse temperature. 

224: Note that $S({\bf q}, \omega)$ satisfies the symmetry relation 

225: $S (-{\bf q},-\omega )=e^{-\beta\omega}S ({\bf q},\omega )$ while the 

226: sum-rule,

227: 

228: \begin{eqnarray}

229: \frac{1}{2\pi}\int _{-\infty }^{+\infty} d\omega S ({\bf q},\omega )

230: =\langle  X_{\bf q} X_{-{\bf q}}\rangle,

231: \label{sr}

232: \end{eqnarray}

233: 

234: \noindent

235: makes it natural to consider the normalised to a unit area 

236: correlation function,

237: 

238: \begin{equation}

239: \hat S ({\bf q},\omega )\equiv \frac{S({\bf q},\omega )}{\langle

240: X_{\bf q} X_{-{\bf q}}\rangle }.

241: \label{norm}

242: \end{equation}

243: 

244: We have presented the dynamical correlation functions in the canonical

245: ensemble and now we will establish their form in the microcanonical one.

246: Starting from equation (\ref{s}) and employing solely the idea that

247: our distribution has a restricted energy $\lambda$ 

248: we can generate a correlation function 

249: $s({\bf q},\omega )$ in the microcanonical ensemble,

250: 

251: \begin{equation}

252: s({\bf q},\omega )=\int _{-\infty }^{+\infty} dte^{i\omega t}

253: \sum _m\langle X_{\bf q}\mid m\rangle \langle m\mid X_{-{\bf q}}\rangle 

254: e^{i(\lambda -\epsilon _m)t}.

255: \label{sm}

256: \end{equation}

257: 

258: \noindent

259: Here, we have used the relation, 

260: 

261: \begin{equation}

262: \langle  O U(H)\rangle \mapsto \langle O\rangle U(\lambda)

263: \end{equation}

264: 

265: \noindent

266: ($U(H)$ a function of $H$) and a decomposition using the 

267: eigenbasis $\mid m\rangle$. 

268: The expression (\ref{sm}) integrates to provide,

269: 

270: \begin{equation}

271: s({\bf q},\omega )=2\pi\sum _m \langle X_{\bf q}\mid

272: m\rangle \langle m\mid X_{-{\bf q}}\rangle 

273: \delta (\omega +\lambda -\epsilon _m), 

274: \end{equation}

275: 

276: \noindent

277: that can be re-represented as the basic correlation in the microcanonical 

278: ensemble,

279: 

280: \begin{equation}

281: s ({\bf q},\omega )= - 2\lim _{\eta \mapsto 0}\Im 

282: \langle X_{\bf q}\left[ z -H+\lambda \right] ^{-1} X_{-{\bf q}}\rangle. 

283: \label{basic}

284: \end{equation}

285: 

286: \noindent

287: Notice that this expression is exact in the zero temperature limit 

288: where the expectation value is to be taken over the ground state wavefunction.

289: 

290: Now let us imagine that we could find a single eigenstate at will, with an 

291: energy arbitrarily close (in the thermodynamic limit) to a target energy, 

292: $\lambda$ say. It is in principle straightforward then to determine

293: 

294: \begin{equation}

295: s^*({\bf q},\omega )=-2\lim _{\eta \mapsto 0}\Im 

296: \langle *\mid X_{\bf q}\left[ z -H+\epsilon_* \right] ^{-1} 

297: X_{-{\bf q}}\mid * \rangle,

298: \end{equation}

299: 

300: \noindent

301: exactly as before, where $H\mid *\rangle =\epsilon _*\mid *\rangle $ is

302: the known eigenstate with $\epsilon _*\mapsto \lambda $. 

303: If the microcanonical 

304: ensemble is equivalent to the canonical ensemble and if a single eigenstate

305: is representative of the microcanonical one, then provided that

306: $\lambda =\langle H\rangle $ for the desired temperature, 

307: we can expect that

308: 

309: \begin{equation}

310: s^*({\bf q},\omega )\mapsto S ({\bf q},\omega )

311: \end{equation}

312: 

313: \noindent

314: in the thermodynamic limit. This amounts to the physical idea behind our

315: calculations.  

316: 

317: Furthermore, from (\ref{fd}), it follows that

318: 

319: \begin{equation}

320: \chi''({\bf q},\omega )=\frac{1-e^{-\beta\omega}}{2}s({\bf q},\omega)

321: \end{equation}

322: 

323: \noindent

324: and from the symmetry of $S({\bf q},\omega)$ in the canonical ensemble 

325: we can deduce that,

326: 

327: \begin{equation}

328: \ln \frac{s({\bf q},\omega )}{s(-{\bf q},-\omega )}

329: \mapsto \beta \omega;

330: \end{equation}

331: 

332: \noindent

333: this relation then provides an alternative, cross-checking technique 

334: for determining the temperature for a particular value of $\lambda $.

335: Although we might like to believe that a single eigenstate

336: corresponds to the microcanonical ensemble, based on a putative

337: ergodicity assumption for the eigenstate, in practice it is not possible 

338: to find such an eigenstate. So we relax the eigenstate hypothesis and go

339: back to a distribution of eigenstates close to the desired value $\lambda$.

340: We simply use the formalism as though we had such an eigenstate.

341: 

342: \section{The Lanczos method}

343: 

344: In principle we must construct a particular eigenstate with  

345: energy $\lambda$ that equals the canonical expectation 

346: value of the energy, $<H>=\lambda$, at the desired temperature. 

347: In practice, we employ the well known Lanczos algorithm that 

348: is an efficient way of diagonalising large Hamiltonians 

349: using as variational subspace (truncated basis) the set of states,

350: 

351: \begin{equation}

352: \big\{ \mid 0\rangle , H\mid 0\rangle ,...,H^{M_1}\mid 0\rangle \big\},

353: \end{equation}

354: 

355: \noindent

356: where $\mid 0\rangle $ is a (usually random) initial state and 

357: $M_1+1$ the number of Lanczos steps. 

358: To obtain an eigenstate close to energy $\lambda $ one might expect to use

359: the closest eigenstate to $\lambda $ in the truncated basis, but this is

360: totally incorrect. In practice, only the states at the edge of the

361: spectrum converge and the other `eigenstates' in the truncated subspace have

362: the suggested energies but are usually far from eigenstates. 

363: 

364: In order to apply the Lanczos method idea, one can simply push the energetic 

365: region of interest to the edge of the spectrum by choosing an appropriate 

366: new operator. One natural choice is to use,

367: 

368: \begin{equation}

369: K\equiv (H-\lambda )^2

370: \label{k}

371: \end{equation}

372: 

373: \noindent

374: which is positive definite and pushes the eigenstates with energy close to

375: $\lambda $ towards the minimal, zero, eigenvalue of $K$. 

376: Another way to understand this technique is

377: to consider expanding the ground state of $K$, that we will call 

378: $\mid\lambda \rangle$, as a probability distribution over

379: eigenstates. Choosing $\lambda$ establishes the appropriate mean for this

380: distribution but minimising $K$ corresponds to minimising the variance of the

381: distribution, and consequently localising the distribution near $\lambda $.

382: 

383: One can perform a Lanczos calculation based upon the operator 

384: $K$ or, more efficiently, one can evaluate the operator 

385: $K$ (now a pentadiagonal matrix) in a previously constructed Lanczos basis 

386: using $H$ (``L-projection" method). Note that,  

387: 

388: \begin{equation}

389: \langle (H-\langle H\rangle )^2\rangle =\langle (H-\lambda )^2\rangle

390: -\left( \langle H\rangle -\lambda \right) ^2\ge 0,

391: \end{equation}

392: 

393: \noindent

394: (the expectation value is over $\mid\lambda \rangle$) and so 

395: a small variance guarantees a narrow distribution of energies 

396: around $\lambda$.

397: 

398: In any Lanczos calculation the mathematical orthogonality between states

399: becomes lost at some stage as numerical errors build up.  In practice

400: only the well-separated converged states suffer from this disease and for us

401: these states, which are at the edge of the spectrum, do not gain any

402: significant weight in the correlation functions and so do not manifest in our

403: results.  The states at low frequency are all well behaved and maintain their

404: orthogonality.

405: 

406: It is straightforward to implement these ideas numerically, with a 

407: `double-Lanczos'

408: calculation; the first run through a Lanczos procedure of $M_1$ steps is 

409: employing the operator $K$ starting from a random state and

410: it is used to find the state $\mid\lambda\rangle$ which plays the 

411: role of the microcanonical distribution. 

412: The second run of $M_2$ steps through Lanczos is made using

413: $X_{\bf q}\mid\lambda\rangle$ as the initial state and then the resulting

414: tridiagonal matrix can be diagonalised to form the dynamical correlations

415: directly or by employing the continued fractions method which is numerically

416: more efficient but introduces a loss of resolution.

417: 

418: All the analysis so far has been subject to several caveats; firstly, that

419: the microcanonical ensemble is equivalent to the canonical one 

420: in the thermodynamic limit and in the context of quantum dynamic 

421: correlations. Secondly, that a single eigenstate is equivalent to the 

422: microcanonical ensemble and

423: thirdly that we can find such an eigenstate at will. 

424: The first two assumptions, as we have mentioned in the introduction, 

425: should be the focus of analytical studies as fundamental issues 

426: of nonequibrium statistical mechanics. 

427: 

428: Regarding the third assumption, it is clearly problematic as 

429: it is well known that although the Lanczos method 

430: converges quite easily at the sparse edges of the spectrum, in the denser 

431: inner regions of the spectrum, of interest at finite temperature, 

432: it takes the Lanczos procedure an

433: exponentially large number of iterations to converge.  A many-body spectrum has

434: an exponential number of states, e.g. for spin-1/2 the \# (States)$\sim 2^N$, 

435: and for a bounded Hamiltonian the eigenstates are compressed into an energy 

436: region that grows only linearly with system size. 

437: Although the low energy region maintains a

438: sparse density of states, the eigenstates become exponentially close

439: together in the area of interest and essentially become unattainable. 

440: 

441: At first sight this appears an insurmountable difficulty, but in practice 

442: this issue allows the technique its success. The first Lanczos procedure 

443: provides a single quantum state $\mid\lambda\rangle$, 

444: that is not an eigenstate, but which when decomposed in an 

445: eigenstate basis, it is represented by a narrow distribution 

446: $|a_n|^2$ around $\lambda$; 

447: 

448: \begin{eqnarray}

449: &&\mid \lambda \rangle=\sum_n a_n \mid n\rangle,

450: ~~~ H\mid n \rangle =\epsilon_n \mid n \rangle

451: \nonumber\\

452: &&\langle \lambda \mid H \mid \lambda \rangle=\lambda,

453: \end{eqnarray}

454: 

455: \noindent

456: gives for the expectation value of an operator $O$,

457: 

458: \begin{eqnarray}

459: \langle \lambda \mid O \mid \lambda  \rangle&=&

460: \sum_n  \mid a_n \mid ^2 \langle n \mid O \mid n \rangle\nonumber\\

461: &+&\sum_{n\ne m} a_m^* a_n  \langle m \mid O \mid n \rangle.

462: \label{rpa}

463: \end{eqnarray}

464: 

465: This state, used in the evaluation of expectation values, acts as a 

466: statistical average over an energy window. It is important to notice, 

467: that by employing a single quantum state (not eigenstate) 

468: for evaluating an expectation value (as a substitute for a statistical average 

469: over a narrow energy window of eigenstates), we assume that the appearing 

470: off-diagonal terms (second term in eq.(\ref{rpa})) cancel each other.

471: This assumption can be justified (and numerically verified) by invoking 

472: a random phase decomposition of the used quantum state.

473: 

474: From this discussion we can expect two types of fluctuations in the 

475: obtained spectra; first, intrinsic fluctuations due to the finite size of 

476: the system, present even when a single eigenstate is used for the evaluation 

477: of the expectation value. Second, statistical fluctuations entering by  

478: the off-diagonal terms in eq. (\ref{rpa}) due to the use of a single 

479: pure state that is not an eigenstate; this type of fluctuations 

480: can be reduced by averaging over orthogonal states $\mid\lambda\rangle$ 

481: (e.g. corresponding to different translational symmetry $k-$ subspaces as 

482: we will show below).

483: 

484: \section{Convergence of projection}

485: In the following we present a test on the rate of convergence of the 

486: projection to a single quantum state with energy close to $\lambda$. 

487: Due to the innate complexity of an implicit scheme like Lanczos, we develop 

488: the theory of a simpler technique briefly to exhibit the ideas. 

489: 

490: A rather simple

491: method of numerically solving for the ground state is by an iterative

492: sequence of applications of the scaled Hamiltonian. For us this amounts to

493: iterative applications of the operator,

494: 

495: \begin{equation}

496: P=1-\left( \frac{H-\lambda }{\mu}\right) ^2,

497: \label{p}

498: \end{equation}

499: 

500: \noindent

501: where $\mu$ is chosen to be large enough so that $\mu ^2>

502: (\epsilon _n-\lambda)^2$ for the full spectrum. 

503: Repeated applications of this operator

504: exponentially suppresses all states except those for which $\epsilon _n\sim

505: \lambda $ which remain unaffected.  We can start out with a set of random

506: states and then for $M$ applications of our operator we can build a

507: distribution,

508: 

509: \begin{equation}

510: \rho _M(H)=\sum _\psi P^M\mid \psi \rangle

511: \theta \left[ P \right] \langle \psi \mid P^M

512: \end{equation}

513: 

514: \noindent

515: ($\theta(P)$ is the step function) and if we were to perform an average over 

516: an orthogonal basis, $\mid \psi \rangle $, then this would converge to,

517: 

518: \begin{equation}

519: \rho _M(H)\mapsto \theta \left[P\right] P^{2M}.

520: \end{equation}

521: 

522: \noindent

523: Elementary analysis provides:

524: \begin{widetext}

525: \begin{equation}

526: \rho _M(H)=\int _{i\infty }^{-i\infty }\frac{d\beta }{2\pi i}

527: \exp\left[ \lambda \beta -\beta H\right] (2M)!2^{2M}2\mu 

528: \left[\frac{1}{x}\frac{d}{dx}\right]^{2M}

529: \frac{\sinh x}{x}\vert _{x=\beta \mu }.

530: \end{equation}

531: \end{widetext}

532: 

533: \noindent

534: In the limit that $M\mapsto \infty $ we find that,

535: 

536: \begin{equation}

537: f(\beta )\mapsto \lambda \beta +\frac{\mu ^2\beta ^2}{2(4M+3)}

538: +O\left(\frac{1}{M^2}\right)

539: \end{equation}

540: 

541: \noindent

542: and we converge to a narrow Gaussian probability distribution,

543: 

544: \begin{equation}

545: \rho _M(H)\sim \exp \left[ -\frac{(H-\lambda)^2}{2\mu ^2}(4M+3)

546: \right]. 

547: \end{equation}

548: 

549: \noindent

550: The width of this distribution is under our control,

551: 

552: \begin{equation}

553: \langle (H-\lambda)^2\rangle \sim \frac{\mu ^2}{4M+3}\sim 

554: \frac{W^2N^2}{4M+3},

555: \end{equation}

556: 

557: \noindent

558: where $W$ is the natural energy scale for the model and we see that $M$ needs

559: to scale with the square of the system size $N$ to maintain resolution.

560: 

561: The Lanczos method is clearly much more sophisticated and provides a much

562: narrower distribution.  We have examined the distribution obtained in a

563: Lanczos calculation and we find that it is well represented by a Gaussian

564: distribution with a variance controlled by the `eigenvalue' of $K$ attained

565: by the calculation.  In practice this is about two orders of magnitude better

566: in energy than the result obtained from the projection analysis 

567: (eq.(\ref{p})), which however it is analytically controllable; indeed,

568: we find that the Lanczos method scales 

569: as $\langle K\rangle \propto {M_1}^{-2}$ so that 

570: the intrinsic resolution, $\sigma=\sqrt{\langle K \rangle}$,  

571: is inversely proportional to the number of

572: iterations. The convergence properties of the three schemes we discussed 

573: are depicted in Figure \ref{fig1} for a representative calculation of the 

574: study that we present in the next section.

575: 

576: \begin{figure}

577: \includegraphics[width=8.0 cm]{fig1.eps}

578: \caption{Convergence properties of different Lanczos projection procedures: 

579: (i) dashed line, using eq.(\ref{p}), 

580: (ii) dotted line, using $K=(H-\lambda)^2$, 

581: (iii) continuous line, ``L-projection" (see text).}

582: \label{fig1}

583: \end{figure} 

584: 

585: The application of the technique should now be transparent; employing a single

586: random state, or averaging over a sequence of orthogonal random states, one

587: performs a first Lanczos calculation of $M_1$ steps to find the approximate 

588: ground state $\mid\lambda \rangle$ for

589: the operator $K=(H-\lambda )^2$. The value of $\lambda$ must be pre-selected

590: so that $\lambda =\langle H\rangle $ for the chosen temperature; 

591: several techniques are available for reliably determining this energy versus 

592: temperature relation as the Bethe Ansatz (for integrable 

593: systems), the finite temperature Lanczos (FTLM) \cite{ftlm}, the 

594: Transfer Matrix Renormalization Group (TMRG) or Quantum Monte Carlo method.

595: The degree of

596: convergence can be measured using the eventual `eigenvalue' of $K$;  

597: it plays the role of the variance of the chosen distribution

598: and its square-root is an intrinsic energy resolution $\sigma$. This

599: scale, $\sigma $, can never drop below the distance to the nearest eigenvalue. 

600: For a usual size system, e.g. $N>16$, and temperature, this limit is

601: unattainable but a resolution of $\sigma \sim 0.01$ 

602: ($\langle K \rangle \sim 0.0001$) is readily

603: available with a thousand or so $M_1$ iterations. 

604: 

605: Once one has found this state $\mid \lambda \rangle$,  

606: that plays the role of the state 

607: $\mid * \rangle$, a second Lanczos projection sequence is generated 

608: employing the state $X_{\bf q} \mid \lambda \rangle$ as the initial state. 

609: The resolution of the eventual result is controlled by the intrinsic

610: dependence on the microcanonical ensemble and the degree of convergence

611: measured by $\sigma$. This can be seen from relation 

612: (\ref{basic}) as the eigenstates over which the state $\mid \lambda\rangle$ 

613: is decomposed 

614: have a spread in energy $\sigma$ with respect to the reference energy 

615: $\lambda$. The resolution also depends on the convergence achieved in the

616: 2nd Lanczos procedure  where the number of iterations $M_2$ denotes the

617: finite number of poles which are used to try to represent the dynamical

618: correlations. At the sparse edges of the spectrum these poles denote the

619: eigenvalues of the system but in the bulk of the spectrum, when grouped into 

620: bins of a given frequency width, they are fairly uniformly spread and 

621: offer a further natural energy resolution for the calculation.  

622: 

623: More Lanczos steps provide more poles and a finer spectral `grid' for the

624: correlation functions, until the graininess of the real system is achieved.

625: We have elected to use a few thousand poles in our calculations with very

626: little improvement obtained by increasing this number as we 

627: shall see. The final resolution is self-imposed and is the $\eta$ of 

628: (\ref{basic}) which we choose to be of order of the spectral grid in order 

629: to smooth our calculations.

630: 

631: \section{Application on the spin-1/2 Heisenberg model}

632: We are now in a position to test our proposed technique and uncover its

633: strengths and weaknesses.  We have chosen to investigate the finite 

634: temperature dynamics of the prototype spin-1/2 Heisenberg model (equivalent to 

635: the fermionic ``$t-V$" model). This choice was

636: dictated by its central role in low dimensional quantum magnetism; 

637: an exact solution of the thermodynamics and 

638: elementary excitations is known using the Bethe Ansatz method \cite{korepin}, 

639: the spin dynamics probed by NMR is of current experimental interest 

640: \cite{takigawa,thurber} and several numerical and analytical studied have 

641: been devoted to the study of finite temperature dynamic correlations 

642: \cite{zp,mccoy,nma,z,gros}. The Hamiltonian is given by,

643: 

644: \begin{equation}

645: H=\sum_{l} h_l=J\sum_{l=1}^{N} (S_l^x S_{l+1}^x +

646: S_l^y S_{l+1}^y + \Delta S_l^z S_{l+1}^z),

647: \label{heis}

648: \end{equation}

649: where $S_l^{\alpha}~~(\alpha=x,y,z)$ are spin-1/2 operators on site $l$ 

650: and we take $J$ as the unit of energy and frequency ($\hbar=1$).

651: 

652: In particular, we will look at the high temperature spin conductivity in the 

653: antiferromagnetic regime, $J,~\Delta >0$, for which several studies exist 

654: and some exact results are known \cite{z}.

655: To discuss magnetic transport, we first define the relevant spin

656: current, $j^z$, by the continuity equation of the

657: corresponding local spin density $S^z_l$ (provided the total $S^z$

658: component is conserved),

659: 

660: \begin{equation}

661: S^z=\sum_l S_l^z,~~~~

662: \frac{\partial S_l^z}{\partial t}+\nabla j_l^z=0.

663: \label{contjs}

664: \end{equation}

665: 

666: \noindent

667: Thus, we obtain for the spin current $j^z$, 

668: (that plays the role of the operator $X_{\bf q}$), 

669: \begin{equation}

670: j^z=\sum_l j^z_l=J\sum_{l} (S_l^x S_{l+1}^y-S_l^y S_{l+1}^x).

671: \end{equation}

672: 

673: \noindent

674: The real part of the ``spin conductivity" $\sigma'(\omega)$ 

675: (corresponding to the charge conductivity of the fermionic model)  

676: includes two parts, the Drude weight $D$ and the 

677: regular part $\sigma_{reg}(\omega)$ \cite{zp,znp},

678: 

679: \begin{equation}

680: \sigma'(\omega)=2\pi D \delta(\omega)+\sigma_{reg}(\omega).

681: \label{real}

682: \end{equation}

683: 

684: \noindent

685: The regular contribution is given by,

686: 

687: \begin{equation}

688: \sigma_{reg}(\omega)=\frac{1-e^{-\beta\omega}}{\omega}\frac{\pi}{N}

689: \sum_{n\neq m} p_n |<n|j^z|m>|^2\delta(\omega-\omega_{mn})

690: \label{sigma}

691: \end{equation}

692: 

693: \noindent

694: where $p_n$ are the Boltzmann weights and 

695: $\omega_{mn}=\epsilon_m-\epsilon_n$. 

696: 

697: To compare the presented data on the 

698: conductivity we normalize them using the well known optical sum-rule that 

699: in the $\beta\rightarrow 0$ limit takes the form,

700: 

701: \begin{equation}

702: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d\omega \sigma_{reg}(\omega)+2\pi D=

703: \beta\frac{\pi}{N}\langle {j^z}^2 \rangle.

704: \end{equation}

705: 

706: \noindent

707: The normalized conductivity, $\sigma(\omega)$, in this high temperature 

708: limit is given by,

709: 

710: \begin{equation}

711: \sigma(\omega)=

712: \frac{\sum_{n\neq m} |<n|j^z|m>|^2\delta(\omega-\omega_{mn})}

713: {\langle {j^z}^2 \rangle},

714: \end{equation}

715: 

716: \noindent 

717: that can be calculated using our microcanonical ensemble procedure by,

718: 

719: \begin{equation}

720: \sigma(\omega) \mapsto 

721: -\lim _{\eta \mapsto 0}\frac{\Im

722:  \langle \lambda\mid j^z \frac{1}{z -H+\lambda} j^z \mid \lambda \rangle }

723: {\pi \langle \lambda \mid {j^z}^2 \mid \lambda \rangle}.

724: \end{equation}

725: 

726: \noindent

727: In principle this expression includes also the contribution from the zero 

728: frequency Drude weight $\delta-$function, but in practice as the second 

729: Lanczos procedure cannot fully converge, the Drude peak appears as a low 

730: frequency contribution. As we will discuss below, sorting out this low 

731: frequency part, in general allows us to reliably extract the Drude 

732: weight value. 

733: 

734: \begin{figure}

735: \includegraphics[width=8.0 cm]{fig2.eps}

736: \caption{

737: Microcanonical calculations for $N=26$, $\Delta =2$,

738: $\eta =0.02$; (a) $T=0$, (b) $\beta \rightarrow 0$.} 

739: \label{fig2}

740: \end{figure} 

741: 

742: In general, we can employ the translational 

743: symmetry of the Hamiltonian and study spectra in a given pseudomomentum 

744: $k-$ subspace or average the results over different $k-$ subspaces;

745: in the following we typically employ $M_1=1000$ and $M_2=4000$ Lanczos  

746: iterations at $\beta \rightarrow 0$ unless otherwise stated.

747: In Figure \ref{fig2} we compare a zero temperature \cite{cfe2} 

748: with an infinite temperature ($\beta\rightarrow 0$) 

749: calculation for a fairly large system in the $k=0$ subspace. 

750: The zero temperature calculation finds a few poles with exact weights 

751: whereas the infinite temperature

752: calculation provides a much smoother result.

753: 

754: There is clear

755: structure in the infinite temperature result but also apparently some noise.

756: To interpret this result we must consider the issue of the veracity 

757: of the microcanonical ensemble for such

758: small systems namely the extent to which the microcanonical ensemble is 

759: equivalent to the canonical one. 

760: 

761: \begin{figure}

762: \includegraphics[width=8.0 cm]{fig3a.eps}

763: \includegraphics[width=8.0 cm]{fig3b.eps}

764: \caption{

765: Microcanonical versus Canonical calculations; 

766: (a) $N=20$, $\Delta =0.5$, $\eta =0.01$,  

767: (b) $N=18$, $\Delta =1$, $\eta =0.01$.} 

768: \label{fig3}

769: \end{figure} 

770: 

771: In Figure \ref{fig3} we present a comparison, extremely encouraging, 

772: of some microcanonical calculations with the analogous canonical ones.

773: There is `noise' in all calculations, the origin and magnitude of which we will 

774: now discuss.

775: The canonical calculations are essentially a direct

776: evaluation of expression (\ref{sigma}), where we applied a ``binning" 

777: procedure on the $\delta-$function weights over an energy scale of about 0.01.

778: The number of contributing matrix elements are of the order of the dimension 

779: $\cal D$ of the Hilbert space squared, ${\cal D}^2$, 

780: e.g. $10^6-10^8$ $\delta-$ functions, 

781: with no continuity in the weights. The results are not smooth and the

782: resulting intrinsic fluctuations are heavily smoothed by 

783: our binning procedure. In the microcanonical calculations we 

784: employ our scheme, further averaging over translational symmetry $k-$subspaces.

785: Now, only of $O(\cal D)$ $\delta-$functions 

786: are essentially contributing, multiplied by the number of states 

787: involved in the decomposition of the state $\mid \lambda \rangle$ (a few 

788: thousand depending on the convergence) and the number of $k-$subspaces.

789: We could average over initial random states, but we find that this has 

790: only a small smoothing effect, because the underlying poles are at the same 

791: energies. 

792: Notice that the observed fluctuations are not associated with any of our 

793: different resolution processes which are much smaller than the observed 

794: scale of fluctuations; they are due to the finite size of our system and thus 

795: to the effective smaller number of matrix 

796: elements contributing to the construction of the spectra.  

797: This seemingly new problem associated with our technique turns out

798: to be dominant for small system sizes; very soon however 

799: it becomes negligible as  larger systems are achieved, specially 

800: considering that the dimension of Hilbert space grows exponentially fast 

801: with the system size $N$. 

802: 

803: In order to

804: assess these fluctuations and simultaneously the role of our smoothing

805: parameter $\eta$, we performed some basic calculations involving only a

806: single $k-$subspace state $\mid \lambda \rangle $. In Figure \ref{fig4} 

807: we offer a comparison of calculations involving just the poles evaluated 

808: using the 2nd Lanczos procedure eigenstates

809: against smoothed versions of the same data but

810: employing the continued fraction technique. 

811: 

812: \begin{figure}

813: \includegraphics[width=8.0 cm]{fig4a.eps}

814: \includegraphics[width=8.0 cm]{fig4b.eps}

815: \caption{

816: Microcanonical finite-size effects for $\Delta $=2; (a) N=22, (b) N=28.}

817: \label{fig4}

818: \end{figure} 

819: 

820: The fluctuations clearly decay with system size with the final system 

821: being surprisingly smooth. The limitations of the

822: smoothing process are clear, the sharper features are slightly washed out

823: although the ease of assessing the data makes such a smoothing advisable.

824: The weights for these microcanonical calculations are truly quite continuous

825: in comparison to the intrinsic properties of the canonical calculation

826: which is necessarily ragged.  Obviously for our largest calculations

827: we are nowhere near converged to the true spectrum which is a possible

828: explanation for the observed continuity.

829: 

830: We can now fairly safely conclude that our technique is a viable way to

831: calculate dynamical correlation functions at high temperature for the same

832: systems accessible by the Lanczos method at $T=0$. By its very

833: nature, the finite $T$ correlations are much smoother and more regular

834: to interpret.  Our technique introduces new statistical fluctuations

835: which make small system sizes ragged but appear to leave large system sizes

836: essentially unaffected.

837: 

838: Although we can now investigate finite temperature dynamic correlations 

839: using the Lanczos method,

840: we are still restricted to $N \sim 30$ for a spin-1/2 system. The key to making

841: useful physical deductions is the procedure of finite-size scaling, the

842: attempt to deduce the properties of the infinite size system using assumed

843: properties of the size, $N$, dependence. This method has been widely 

844: and succesfully applied in the evaluation of ground state energies or gap 

845: values using data provided by the exact diagonalization, Lanczos or  

846: Density Matrix Renormalization Group technique.

847: But to extract information on finite temperature dynamic correlations 

848: one would need to know the form of the curves before

849: fitting and scaling could take place mathematically.

850: As it is clear from Figure \ref{fig5} this might be a challenging task 

851: considering the statistical fluctuations inherent in the 

852: spectra \cite{future1}; 

853: however, from ongoing studies on other systems using 

854: this method, we find that the behavior of the spectra might greatly depend 

855: on the model Hamiltonian and correlations under study (e.g. it is far more 

856: structurless for energy current dynamic correlations). 

857: Note that the high frequency behavior is generally rather weakly 

858: size dependent while the low frequency one is 

859: the most subtle to determine. The last however is the most physically 

860: interesting as it determines, for instance, the diffusive or ballistic 

861: behavior of the conductivity.

862: 

863: \begin{figure}

864: \includegraphics[width=8.0 cm]{fig5.eps}

865: \caption{

866: Finite-size scaling for $\Delta =2$}

867: \label{fig5}

868: \end{figure} 

869: 

870: The basic properties of the $\beta\rightarrow 0$ current-current correlations

871: are now available and so we provide in Figure \ref{fig6} a few examples 

872: of the frequency dependence of the conductivity at $\beta \rightarrow 0$ 

873: as a function of $\Delta$. 

874: 

875: \begin{figure}

876: \includegraphics[width=8.0 cm]{fig6.eps}

877: \caption{

878: Microcanonical ensemble evaluation of the normalized conductivity 

879: $\sigma(\omega)$ for $\beta \rightarrow 0,~~~N=28 $;

880: (a) $\Delta =0.5, 1.0$, (b) $\Delta =2.0, 4.0$}

881: \label{fig6}

882: \end{figure} 

883: 

884: Although we have devoted most of our effort to infinite temperature 

885: ($\beta\rightarrow 0$), our technique is valid at essentially any 

886: temperature (provided that we remain at a dense region of the spectrum). 

887: Analysing the pure Heisenberg model, we look at a couple of finite 

888: temperature $k-$averaged calculations in Figure \ref{fig7}.

889: The temperature has been deduced from a least-squares fit of the quantity,

890: 

891: \begin{equation}

892: \ln \frac{s(\omega )}{s(-\omega )}\sim \alpha +\beta_{micro} \omega 

893: \end{equation}

894: 

895: \noindent

896: to a linear Ansatz, and although the statistical fluctuations are compounded,

897: an almost vanishing intercept and a clear slope indicate the feasibility of the

898: strategy. The obtained $\beta_{micro}$ values compare favorably with those 

899: corresponding to the canonical ensemble in the thermodynamic limit, 

900: evaluated using $\lambda=< H >_{\beta}$; 

901: for $\lambda=-3$, $\beta_{micro} \sim 0.14$ vs. $\beta_{canonical}\sim 0.15$, 

902: for $\lambda=-6$, $\beta_{micro} \sim 0.28$ vs. $\beta_{canonical}\sim 0.3$. 

903: 

904: \begin{figure}

905: \includegraphics[width=8.0 cm]{fig7a.eps}

906: \includegraphics[width=8.0 cm]{fig7b.eps}

907: \caption{

908: Finite temperature calculations for $N=24$, $\Delta $=1,

909: $\eta=0.01$; (a) $s(\omega)$, $\lambda=-3$, (b)

910: Temperature fit $\beta_{micro}\simeq 0.14$,

911: (c) $s(\omega)$, $\lambda=-6$, (d) Temperature fit $\beta_{micro}\simeq 0.28$.}

912: \label{fig7}

913: \end{figure} 

914: 

915: Although we have compared numerical evaluation of dynamic correlations 

916: obtained by a canonical and microcanonical method, we have

917: yet to compare with an exact solution. Recently even non-zero

918: temperature dynamical correlations have become partially accessible, with a

919: calculation of the Drude weight for the $0 < \Delta < 1$ Heisenberg model 

920: at finite temperature \cite{z}. In particular, the 

921: Drude weight in the $\beta \rightarrow 0$ limit is given 

922: analytically \cite{kluemperpc} by,

923: 

924: \begin{equation}

925: D/\beta=\frac{1}{2}\frac{(\pi/\nu -0.5\sin (2\pi/\nu))}{8\pi/\nu},~~~

926: \Delta=\cos(\pi/\nu).

927: \label{cjj}

928: \end{equation}

929: 

930: \noindent

931: The Drude weight, strictly speaking, is defined as the weight of a zero 

932: frequency $\delta-$function, eq.(\ref{real}); 

933: it is a particularity of the Heisenberg model that  

934: it appears as a narrow 

935: peak at low frequencies, of the order of the inverse lattice size \cite{nz},  

936: in contrast to the fermionic ``t-V" version where it is accounted for 

937: only by the diagonal energy elements ($\omega=0$). 

938: 

939: In extracting the Drude weight by the above described procedure 

940: we must take into account the 

941: problem caused by the intrinsic resolution of our calculations, which is of

942: order $\sigma=\sqrt{\langle K\rangle}$. Although our chosen

943: resolution of $\sigma \sim 0.01 $ is almost invisible for the smooth 

944: background, for the Drude weight the resolution is essentially limited by

945: that of our `microcanonical' distribution, viz $\sigma $.  An example of these

946: ideas is provided in Figure \ref{fig8},

947: from which it is clear that the Drude peak is the only contribution for which

948: the change in resolution is relevant. These calculations involve a single

949: state and are much improved by $k-$averaging, also the energy window is

950: so small that the individual poles in the 2nd Lanczos procedure are visible 

951: and have been smoothed out with an $\eta $=0.005 which adds to the observed 

952: resolution. In the inset, the scale of the conductivity clearly 

953: signals a low frequency peak (notice the difference in scale between 

954: Figure \ref{fig8} and its inset); still in order to extract the Drude weight 

955: from the smooth background, we must integrate the peak up to at least

956: as far as it is resolved and that necessitates the inclusion of some of the

957: background.  We have elected to err on the side of inclusion and tend to

958: integrate past where the Drude peak appears to become small.

959: 

960: \begin{figure}

961: \includegraphics[width=8.0 cm]{fig8.eps}

962: \caption{

963: A comparison of three `microcanonical' distributions

964: $\langle K\rangle =0.002 (M_1=500), 0.0005 (M_1=1000), 0.0012 (M_1=2000)$, 

965: for $N=26$ and $\Delta=0.5$; inset, low frequency range.}

966: \label{fig8}

967: \end{figure} 

968: 

969: In Figure \ref{fig9} we offer a comparison of the analytical and 

970: numerically extracted Drude weights in the $\beta\rightarrow 0$ limit. 

971: The quantitative agreement is reasonably satisfactory,  

972: becoming rather poor near $\Delta \sim 1$ because of 

973: our technique for extracting the Drude weight; due to the finite

974: resolution of our calculation we need to sample a finite width around

975: $\omega =0$.  For the case $\Delta =1$ there is no Drude weight but there does

976: appear to be a power-law like divergence which we pick up in our finite window

977: leading to the observed corrupted behaviour.

978: 

979: \begin{figure}

980: \includegraphics[width=8.0 cm]{fig9.eps}

981: \caption{

982: Comparison of $\beta \rightarrow 0$ Drude weight, $D/\beta$;

983: numerical evaluation (points) vs analytical expression 

984: eq. (\ref{cjj}) (continuous line).}

985: \label{fig9}

986: \end{figure} 

987: 

988: \section{Discussion}

989: 

990: Our investigation appears to validate the use of the Lanczos algorithm to

991: analyse finite temperature dynamical properties of strongly correlated

992: systems; the crucial step is to employ the microcanonical ensemble,

993: which essentially allows the thermodynamic average to be replaced by an

994: elementary expectation value.  All the simplicity of the zero temperature

995: formalism can then be taken over to the finite temperature calculation. The

996: comparison of canonical with microcanonical procedures 

997: indicates that the thermodynamic

998: limit is reached with quite modest system sizes and consequently there appears

999: to be little systematic error coming from our choice of ensemble. 

1000: There are intrinsic statistical fluctuations in our calculations but these

1001: are severely curtailed by increasing the system size and are an implicit 

1002: difficulty with canonical calculations too. We believe that we

1003: can calculate the high enough temperature dynamical correlations for a finite

1004: system with an excellent tolerance.

1005: 

1006: The statistical fluctuations in our results require to be

1007: controlled if an error analysis is to be contemplated.  Although we have not

1008: got analytical control, we do have experience at various approaches to

1009: reducing the statistical fluctuations. The crucial point is that,

1010: when taking a statistical average, one should use ``orthogonal" states 

1011: ($\mid \lambda \rangle$'s decomposed into different 

1012: sets of eigenstates $\mid n\rangle$). 

1013: Averaging over random starting vectors in

1014: the same subspace is not very effective, even if they are originally

1015: orthogonal, because the resulting distribution involves the same states and

1016: consequently an overlap.  Performing a $k-$ average, 

1017: over translational symmetry subspaces, is an excellent

1018: procedure, since the states are automatically orthogonal and intellectually

1019: one is reverting back towards the real physical statistical average.  Another

1020: possibility is to use several of the eigenstates of the first 

1021: Lanczos procedure; although the orthogonality is guaranteed, there is an 

1022: induced loss in resolution due to the larger $\sigma $'s of the higher 

1023: Lanczos states. A final possibility is to employ the parameter $\lambda$, 

1024: where the average over different $\lambda$'s must be limited within a 

1025: window that corresponds to the energy fluctuations at the studied 

1026: temperature in the given size system. Providing

1027: that the $\lambda$'s are further apart than the chosen $\sigma$, the

1028: orthogonality is essentially guaranteed. 

1029: 

1030: Although we believe we have access to the temperature behaviour of 

1031: finite-size systems, this does not give immediate access to the dynamics 

1032: in the thermodynamic limit because finite-size scaling must be performed; 

1033: Figure 6 exhibits clear peaks of unknown form,

1034: plausible `cusps' and regions where the correlations vanish.  Unless we can

1035: guess or deduce the form of these structures, finite-size scaling appears

1036: problematic. We should note however from our experience, that not 

1037: all models and dynamic correlations exhibit so involved spectra;  

1038: in forthcoming works we will present analysis of charge/spin/energy current 

1039: correlations for other (non-) integrable systems of current interest  

1040: (higher spin, ladder models) where the obtained spectra are far more 

1041: structrurless.

1042: Finally, besides the finite frequency behavior, our method allows the 

1043: reliable study of scalar quantities as the Drude weight. 

1044: 

1045: %\appendix

1046: 

1047: \begin{acknowledgments}

1048: Part of this work was done during visits of (P.P.) and (M.L.) at IRRMA as

1049: academic guests of EPFL.

1050: J.K. and X.Z acknowledge support by the Swiss National Foundation, 

1051: the University of Fribourg and the University of Neuch\^atel.

1052: \end{acknowledgments}

1053: 

1054: \begin{references}

1055: 

1056: \bibitem{cfe1} R. Haydock, V. Heine and M.J. Kelly, 

1057: J. Phys. C{\bf 5}, 2845 (1972).

1058: \bibitem{cfe2} E.R. Cagliano and C.A. Balseiro, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 59}, 

1059: 2999 (1987).

1060: \bibitem{ftlm} J. Jakli\v c, P. Prelov\v sek, Phys. Rev. B{\bf 49}, 

1061: 5065 (1994); Adv. Phys. {\bf 19}, 1 (2000).

1062: \bibitem{ll} L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, ``Course of Theoretical Physics:

1063: Statistical Mechanics", {\bf 5}, 377 (footnote), 

1064: Pergamon Press, London - Paris (1959).

1065: \bibitem{leb} J.L. Lebowitz, J.K. Percus and L. Verlet, Phys. Rev. 

1066: {\bf 153}, 250 (1967).

1067: \bibitem{korepin} ``Quantum Inverse Scattering Method and Correlation

1068: Functions", V.E. Korepin, N.M. Bogoliubov and A.G. Izergin,

1069: Cambridge Univ. Press (1993).

1070: \bibitem{takigawa} M. Takigawa et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 76}, 4612 (1996).

1071: \bibitem{thurber} K.R. Thurber et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 247202 (2001).

1072: \bibitem{zp} X. Zotos and P. Prelov\v sek, Phys. Rev. B{\bf 53}, 983 (1996).

1073: \bibitem{znp} X. Zotos, F. Naef and P. Prelov\v sek,

1074: Phys. Rev. B{\bf 55} 11029 (1997).

1075: \bibitem{mccoy} K. Fabricius and B.M. McCoy,

1076: Phys. Rev. B{\bf 57}, 8340 (1998) and references therein.

1077: \bibitem{nma} B.N. Narozhny, A.J. Millis and N. Andrei, Phys. Rev. B{\bf 58},

1078: 2921 (1998).

1079: \bibitem{z} X. Zotos, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 1764 (1999).

1080: \bibitem{gros} J. V. Alvarez and C. Gros, Phys. Rev. Lett.

1081: {\bf 88}, 077203 (2002).

1082: \bibitem{future1} The low frequency behavior of the spin-1/2 

1083: Heisenberg model, in particular the finite-size dependence  

1084: as extracted from such a microcanonical study, will be adressed 

1085: in a forthcoming publication.

1086: \bibitem{nz} {F. Naef and X. Zotos, J. Phys. C. {\bf 10}, L183 (1998);

1087: F. Naef, Ph. D. thesis no.2127, EPF-Lausanne (2000).}

1088: \bibitem{kluemperpc} A. Kl\"umper, private communication.

1089: \bibitem{fk} S. Fujimoto  and N. Kawakami, J. Phys. A. {\bf 31}, 465 (1998).

1090: \end{references}

1091: 

1092: \end{document}

1093: