1: % Template article for preprint document class `elsart'

2: % SP 2001/01/05

3: 

4: %\documentclass{cpcauth}

5: \documentclass[aps,twocolumn]{revtex4}

6: 

7: % Use the option doublespacing or reviewcopy to obtain double line spacing

8: % \documentclass[doublespacing]{elsart}

9: 

10: % if you use PostScript figures in your article

11: % use the graphics package for simple commands

12: % \usepackage{graphics}

13: % or use the graphicx package for more complicated commands

14: % \usepackage{graphicx}

15: % or use the epsfig package if you prefer to use the old commands

16: % \usepackage{epsfig}

17: 

18: % The amssymb package provides various useful mathematical symbols

19: \usepackage[final]{graphics}

20: \usepackage{amssymb}

21: \usepackage{amsfonts}

22: \usepackage{epsfig}

23: 

24: \begin{document}

25: 

26: %\begin{frontmatter}

27: 

28: % Title, authors and addresses

29: 

30: % use the thanksref command within \title, \author or \address for footnotes;

31: % use the corauthref command within \author for corresponding author footnotes;

32: % use the ead command for the email address,

33: % and the form \ead[url] for the home page:

34: % \title{Title\thanksref{label1}}

35: % \thanks[label1]{}

36: % \author{Name\corauthref{cor1}\thanksref{label2}}

37: % \ead{email address}

38: % \ead[url]{home page}

39: % \thanks[label2]{}

40: % \corauth[cor1]{}

41: % \address{Address\thanksref{label3}}

42: % \thanks[label3]{}

43: 

44: \title{Dynamic critical behavior of the classical anisotropic BCC Heisenberg antiferromagnet}

45: 

46: % use optional labels to link authors explicitly to addresses:

47: % \author[label1,label2]{}

48: % \address[label1]{}

49: % \address[label2]{}

50: 

51: %\author[label1,label2]{Shan-Ho Tsai\corauthref{label3}}

52: %\author[label1]{Alex Bunker}

53: %\author[label1]{D.P. Landau}

54: 

55: %\address[label1]{Center for Simulational Physics, University of Georgia, Athens GA 30602 USA}

56: %\address[label2]{Enterprise Information Technology Services, University of Georgia, Athens GA 30602 USA}

57: %\address[label3]{current address: .......}

58: %\thanks[label3]{(706)542-6222, (706)542-2492 (FAX), shtsai@uga.edu}

59: 

60: \author{Shan-Ho Tsai$^{a,b}$, Alex Bunker$^a$, and D. P. Landau$^a$}

61: \affiliation{

62: $^a$ Center for Simulational Physics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602\\

63: $^b$ Enterprise Information Technology Services, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602}

64: 

65: \begin{abstract}

66: % Text of abstract

67: Using a recently implemented integration method [Krech {\it et. al.}] based 

68: on an iterative second-order Suzuki-Trotter decomposition scheme, we have 

69: performed spin dynamics simulations to study the critical dynamics of the 

70: BCC Heisenberg antiferromagnet with uniaxial anisotropy. This technique allowed

71: us to probe the narrow asymptotic critical region of the model and estimate 

72: the dynamic critical exponent $z=2.25\pm 0.08$. Comparisons with 

73: competing theories and experimental results are presented.

74: 

75: \end{abstract}

76: 

77: %\begin{keyword}

78: % keywords here, in the form: keyword \sep keyword

79: %Heisenberg antiferromagnet \sep uniaxial anisotropy \sep spin dynamics \sep Suzuki-Trotter decomposition

80: % PACS codes here, in the form: \PACS code \sep code

81: %\PACS 75.10.Hk \sep 75.40.Gb \sep 75.40.Mg 

82: %\end{keyword}

83: %\end{frontmatter}

84: 

85: \maketitle

86: % main text

87: \section{Introduction}

88: %\label{}

89: 

90: Despite their relative simplicity, classical Heisenberg models can be used 

91: to describe the dynamic critical behavior of magnetic materials whose ions 

92: have large effective spin values. For example, RbMnF$_3$ is

93: well modeled by an isotropic Heisenberg antiferromagnet, whereas MnF$_2$ and 

94: FeF$_2$ are good physical realizations of the Heisenberg antiferromagnet with

95: weak and strong uniaxial anisotropies, respectively.

96: 

97: The effect of uniaxial anisotropy on the critical dynamics has been the subject

98: of many theoretical \cite{dynscal,modecpg,rngt} and experimental studies 

99: \cite{fef2,mnf2}. Although both indicate that the 

100: dynamic structure factor has a dominant purely diffusive longitudinal 

101: component and a suppressed propagative transverse component, there is still

102: controversy about the dynamic critical exponent $z$. While a dynamic scaling 

103: argument \cite{dynscal} and mode-coupling theory \cite{modecpg} indicate 

104: that $z=2$, a combination of renormalization group theory and 

105: $\epsilon$-expansion \cite{rngt} predicts that 

106: $z=2+\alpha/\nu$. Using the Ising value $\nu=0.6289(8)$ from a high 

107: resolution Monte Carlo 

108: study \cite{FL} and $\alpha=0.110(5)$ from field theory \cite{GZJ}, the latter 

109: prediction is $z=2.175(10)$. Experiments on FeF$_2$ \cite{fef2} have not had

110: enough resolution to distinguish between these two predictions, and on MnF$_2$

111: \cite{mnf2}

112: the exponent obtained was that of the isotropic antiferromagnet, $z=1.5$. Presumably this very low value is due

113: to crossover effects resulting from the weak anisotropy in MnF$_2$.

114: 

115: Our approach to this problem is to use spin dynamics simulations with 

116: an efficient integration scheme. The dynamic critical exponent is estimated

117: using a dynamic finite-size scaling theory and compared with the predictions

118: by the different theories and with experiments.

119: 

120: \section{Model and Methods}

121: 

122: The Hamiltonian of the model is given by

123: \begin{equation}

124: \mathcal{H}=J\sum_{<{\bf r},{\bf r}'>}{\bf S_r}\cdot {\bf S_{r'}} - 

125: D\sum_{\bf r}({S_{\bf r}}^z)^2

126: \end{equation}

127: where ${\bf S_r}=(S_{\bf r}^x,S_{\bf r}^y,S_{\bf r}^z)$ is a 

128: three-dimensional classical spin of unit length, 

129: $<{\bf r},{\bf r}'>$ denotes nearest-neighbor pairs of spins coupled by 

130: the antiferromagnetic exchange interaction $J>0$, and $D$ is the uniaxial 

131: single-site anisotropy. We use $D=0.0591J$ and the inverse critical temperature

132: $1/T_c=0.478k_B/J$ appropriate for MnF$_2$ \cite{LBC}.

133: We consider body-centered-cubic lattices with linear sizes $12\le L\le 60$, 

134: corresponding to $2L^3$ sites, and periodic boundary conditions. 

135: 

136: The time evolution of the spins is governed by coupled equations of motion, 

137: and the dynamic structure factor $S({\bf q},\omega)$, for momentum transfer

138: ${\bf q}$ and frequency $\omega$, observable in neutron scattering

139: experiments, is the Fourier transform of the space-displaced, time-displaced 

140: spin-spin correlation function $C^k({\bf r} - {\bf r'},t)$, defined as

141: $$

142: C^k({\bf r} - {\bf r'},t) =\langle S_{{\bf r}}^k(t)S_{{\bf r'}}^k(0)\rangle-\langle S_{{\bf r}}^k(t)\rangle\langle S_{{\bf r'}}^k(0)\rangle.

143: $$

144: with $k=x, y,$ or $z$. Because of the periodic boundary conditions, we can

145: only access a set of discrete values of momentum transfer given by 

146: $q=2\pi n_q/L$, where $n_q=\pm 1,\pm 2,..., \pm L/2$.

147: 

148: Equilibrium configurations at $T_c$ were generated using a hybrid Monte Carlo 

149: method where each hybrid step consisted of two Metropolis 

150: sweeps through the lattice and eight Wolff cluster spin flips. Typically 3000 

151: hybrid Monte Carlo steps were used to generate each equilibrium configuration, 

152: which was then used as an initial spin configuration in the integration of 

153: the coupled equations of motion. We use $2040$ initial configurations to 

154: compute the averages. For the largest lattice used ($L=60$), there are 

155: 432,000 coupled equations to integrate. 

156: These numerical integrations were performed to a maximum time of 

157: $t_{max}=400/J$, using an iterative second-order Suzuki-Trotter 

158: decomposition method implemented by Krech {\it et al} \cite{krech}, with 

159: two iterations and a time step of $\delta t=0.04/J$. 

160: This method consists of performing explicit rotations of a spin about its 

161: local effective field. The lattice is divided into two sublattices 

162: $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$, and a formal solution of the equations of 

163: motion yields 

164: $y(t+\delta t)=e^{({\rm A + B})\delta t}y(t)$, where $y=(y_A,y_B)$ denotes

165: collectively all the spins, and the matrices A and B are the infinitesimal 

166: generators of rotation of the spin configurations $y_A$ on sublattice 

167: $\mathcal{A}$ at fixed $y_B$ and of the spin configurations $y_B$ on 

168: $\mathcal{B}$ at fixed $y_A$, respectively. The spin configurations on 

169: sublattices $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ are updated in succession, 

170: using the second-order Suzuki-Trotter 

171: decomposition of the exponential operator \cite{SU}, given by 

172: $e^{({\rm A + B})\delta t}=e^{{\rm A}\delta t/2}e^{{\rm B}\delta t}

173: e^{{\rm A}\delta t/2} + O(\delta t^3)$. A similar scheme using a 

174: fourth-order decomposition of the 

175: exponential operator has also been tested in Ref.\cite{krech}. The iterative

176: procedure is necessary because of the single-site anisotropy\cite{krech}.

177: 

178: The finite integration time introduces oscillations when the Fourier transform

179: of $C^k({\bf r} - {\bf r'},t)$ is taken to produce $S({\bf q},\omega)$ 

180: and we smooth them out by convoluting the spin-spin

181: correlation function with a Gaussian resolution function in frequency, with

182: characteristic width $\delta_{\omega}$. The dynamic structure factor thus

183: obtained is denoted as $\bar S^k({\bf q},\omega)$.

184: 

185: The dynamic critical exponent $z$ can be determined from 

186: dynamic finite-size relations \cite{kun}, given by

187:  ${\omega\bar S_L^k({\bf q},\omega)}/{{\bar{\chi}_L}^k({\bf q})}=

188: G(\omega L^z,qL,\delta_{\omega}L^z)$

189:  and 

190: \begin{equation}

191: \bar\omega_m=L^{-z}\bar\Omega(qL,\delta_{\omega}L^z),

192: \label{omegam}

193: \end{equation}

194: where ${\bar{\chi}_L}^k({\bf q})=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\bar S_L^k({\bf q},\omega){d\omega}/{2\pi}$ is the momentum dependent susceptibility

195:  and $\bar\omega_m$ is a characteristic frequency, given by

196:  $\int_{-\bar\omega_m}^{\bar\omega_m}\bar S_L^k({\bf q},\omega){d\omega}/{2\pi}$ $={\bar{\chi}_L}^k({\bf q})/2.$

197: To estimate $z$ we choose the width of the resolution function to be 

198: $\delta_{\omega}=0.015(60/L)^z$

199: so that the function $\bar\Omega(qL,\delta_{\omega}L^z)$ in Eq. (\ref{omegam})

200:  is a constant if $qL$ is fixed, yielding

201: \begin{equation}

202: \bar\omega_m\sim L^{-z}.

203: \label{omegamLz}

204: \end{equation}

205: Because $\delta_{\omega}$ depends on $z$, this exponent had to be determined 

206: iteratively. The coefficient $0.015$ of $\delta_{\omega}$ was chosen 

207: empirically as a compromise between effectively reducing the oscillations in

208: $S({\bf q},\omega)$ and not excessively broadening its structure.

209: 

210: \section{Results and Discussion}

211: Our simulations, performed at the critical temperature for MnF$_2$ \cite{LBC},

212:  show that while the transverse component $S^T({\bf q},t)$ of 

213: the space-Fourier-transformed correlation function $S({\bf q},t)$ has a short

214: relaxation time, the longitudinal component $S^z({\bf q},t)$ decays extremely

215: slowly [see Fig.(\ref{sqt})], and this requires that the equations of motion

216: be integrated to very long times. Although our $t_{max}$  

217: is still not large enough for the longitudinal component to 

218: decay to a value that is close to zero, it is a significant improvement over

219: the maximum time we could reach with more standard integration methods, 

220: such as the fourth-order predictor-corrector method, with our current 

221: computing resources. Whenever not shown, error bars are smaller than the 

222: symbol sizes in the figures.

223: \begin{figure}[ht]

224: \centering

225: \leavevmode

226: \includegraphics[clip,angle=0,width=7.3cm]{sqtLTar.eps}

227: \caption{Longitudinal and transverse components of the space-Fourier-transformed correlation function. A few characteristic error bars are shown.}

228: \label{sqt}

229: \end{figure}

230: 

231: The longitudinal component of the dynamic structure factor, 

232: $S^z({\bf q},\omega)$, shown in Fig.(\ref{sqw}a), has a purely dissipative

233: behavior, as indicated by the single central peak. In contrast, the 

234: transverse component $S^T({\bf q},\omega)$ contains a propagative mode, 

235: indicated by the spin wave peak in Fig.(\ref{sqw}b), with a possible 

236: small central peak as well. 

237: A comparison between Figs.(\ref{sqw}a) and (\ref{sqw}b) 

238: shows that the longitudinal component has a much larger intensity. 

239: \begin{figure}

240: \centering

241: \leavevmode

242: \includegraphics[clip,angle=0,width=7.5cm]{sqw_q2zr.eps}

243: \includegraphics[clip,angle=0,width=7.5cm]{sqw_q2xyr.eps}

244: \caption{(a) Longitudinal and (b) transverse components of the dynamic 

245: structure factor, with $\delta_{\omega}=0.015$.}

246: \label{sqw}

247: \end{figure}

248: \begin{figure}

249: \centering

250: \leavevmode

251: \includegraphics[clip,angle=0,width=7.0cm]{dispersion0.eps}

252: \caption{Dispersion relation for the spin wave excitation in 

253: $S^T({\bf q},\omega)$ for small values of $q$.}

254: \label{disp}

255: \end{figure}

256: \begin{figure}

257: \centering

258: \leavevmode

259: \includegraphics[clip,angle=0,width=7.5cm]{zqnq7.eps}

260: \caption{Estimate of the dynamic critical exponent for different $n_q$. 

261: Analysis done with $L=30,36,48$ and $60$.}

262: \label{zqnq}

263: \end{figure}

264: The dispersion curve $\omega(q)$ of the spin waves along the [100]

265: direction is shown in Fig.(\ref{disp}), where the solid line represents

266: a fit to the function $\omega=\omega_0+cq^x$. The non-zero value of the

267: frequency in the limit as $q\to 0$ is characteristic of an anisotropic

268: model. These results for the dynamic structure factor are in qualitative

269: agreement with theory and experimental results. 

270: 

271: An estimate for the dynamic critical exponent $z$ was obtained iteratively

272: using Eq.(\ref{omegamLz}) for different values of $n_q$. 

273: Such estimates are denoted as $z_q$ and are shown in Fig.(\ref{zqnq}). 

274: For the weakly 

275: anisotropic system considered here, the onset of the asymptotic critical 

276: region occurs at very low values of $q$, accessible only with very large 

277: lattice sizes (and not accessible to experiments yet). 

278: Therefore, a better estimate for $z$ is given by $z_0$,

279: obtained by extrapolating $z_q$ to the limit $q\to 0$. We fitted $z_q$ with

280:  the function $z_q=z_0 + a{n_q}+b{n_q}^c$, using $n_q=1,2,...,{n_q}^{\rm max}$,

281: where $z_0$, $a$, $b$, and $c$ are fitting parameters. To check the 

282: robustness of the extrapolated $z_0$, we have also performed fittings with

283:  fixed $c=2$. The systematic change in the value of $z_0$ for both types of 

284: fittings was studied as the number of points included in the 

285: fittings increased, from ${n_q}^{\rm max}=4$ and $5$, for the fittings with

286: $c=2$ and variable $c$, respectively, to ${n_q}^{\rm max}=15$. For  

287: ${n_q}^{\rm max}$ up to 7, the $\chi^2$ of the fittings is reasonable, and 

288: there is no clear systematic change in the value of $z_0$; hence, the 

289: average $z_0$ from these fittings yields $z=2.25\pm 0.08$, which is the first

290: numerical estimate of the dynamic critical exponent for this model.  

291: 

292: \section{Summary and Conclusions}

293: Because of difficulties for 

294: experiments to probe the critical region, experimental data have not yet 

295: been able to distinguish between competing theories. While limited by 

296: finite lattice size and finite integration time, simulations offer the 

297: hope of shedding light on the differences between theories and experiment. 

298: Although not yet conclusive, our estimate of $z=2.25\pm 0.08$ is slightly

299: larger than, but consistent with, the prediction 

300: by the renormalization group theory. It is not consistent with

301:  mode-coupling theory and the dynamic scaling prediction.

302: 

303: \vspace{0.2cm}

304: 

305: This work was partially supported by NSF grant DMR-0094422.

306: Simulations were performed on the Cray T90 and IBM SP (Blue Horizon) at SDSC.

307: %San Diego Supercomputing Center.

308: 

309: \begin{thebibliography}{00}

310: 

311: % \bibitem{label}

312: % Text of bibliographic item

313: 

314: % notes:

315: % \bibitem{label} \note

316: 

317: % subbibitems:

318: % \begin{subbibitems}{label}

319: % \bibitem{label1}

320: % \bibitem{label2}

321: % If there is a note, it should come last:

322: % \bibitem{label3} \note

323: % \end{subbibitems}

324: 

325: 

326: \bibitem{dynscal}E. Riedel and F. Wegner, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 24} (1970) 730

327: \bibitem{modecpg}S.W. Lovesey and E. Balcar, J. Phys. Condens. Matter {\bf 7} 

328: (1995) 2147 

329: \bibitem{rngt}P.C. Hohenberg and B.I. Halperin, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 49} (1977) 435

330: \bibitem{fef2} M.T. Hutchings, M.P. Schulhof, and H.J. Guggenheim, Phys. Rev.

331: B {\bf 5} (1972) 154

332: \bibitem{mnf2} M.P. Schulhof, R. Nathans, P. Heller, and A. Linz, Phys. Rev.

333: B {\bf 4} (1971) 2254

334: \bibitem{FL}A.M. Ferrenberg and D.P. Landau, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 44} (1991) 5081

335: \bibitem{GZJ}J.C. Le Guillou and J. Zinn-Justin, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 21} (1980) 

336: 3976

337: \bibitem{LBC}D.P. Landau, A. Bunker, and K. Chen, J. Magn. Magn. Mat. {\bf 177-181} (1998) 161

338: \bibitem{krech} M. Krech, A. Bunker, and D.P. Landau, Comput. Phys. Commun. 

339: {\bf 111} (1998) 1

340: \bibitem{SU}

341:  M. Suzuki and K. Umeno in {\em Computer Simulation Studies in

342:  Condensed Matter Physics VI}, edited by D.P. Landau, K.K. Mon, and

343:  H.B. Sch\"uttler (Springer, Berlin, 1993).

344: \bibitem{kun}K. Chen and D.P. Landau, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 49} (1994) 3266

345: 

346: \end{thebibliography}

347: 

348: \end{document}

349: 

350: