1: \newif\ifpdf
2: \ifx\pdfoutput\undefined
3: \pdffalse
4: \else
5: \pdfoutput=1
6: \pdftrue
7: \fi
8:
9: \ifpdf
10: \documentclass[pdftex]{ws-rv9x6}
11: \else
12: \documentclass{ws-rv9x6}
13: \fi
14:
15: \ifpdf
16: \usepackage[pdftex]{graphicx}
17: \pdfcompresslevel=9
18: \usepackage{color}
19: \usepackage[pdftex,
20: pdftitle={Two-dimensional quantum antiferromagnets},
21: pdfauthor={Gregoire Misguich and Claire Lhuillier},
22: breaklinks=true,
23: colorlinks=false,
24: ]{hyperref}
25: \else
26: %\usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
27: \usepackage[hypertex,breaklinks=true,colorlinks=false]{hyperref}
28: \fi
29:
30:
31: \usepackage{rotating_rv}
32:
33: %______________________________________________________________________________
34: \newcommand{\La}{\line (1,0 ){12}}
35: \newcommand{\Lb}{\line (3,5 ){6}}
36: \newcommand{\Lc}{\line (-3,5 ){6}}
37: \newcommand{\Ld}{\line (-1,0){12}}
38: \newcommand{\Le}{\line (-3,-5){6}}
39: \newcommand{\Lf} {\line(3,-5){6}}
40: \newcommand{\C} {\circle*{4}}
41:
42: \newcommand{\pA}{\put(-6,-10)}
43: \newcommand{\pB}{\put(6,-10)}
44: \newcommand{\pC}{\put(12,0)}
45: \newcommand{\pD}{\put(6,10)}
46: \newcommand{\pE}{\put(-6,10)}
47: \newcommand{\pF}{\put(-12,0)}
48: \newcommand{\pZ}{\put(0,0)}
49:
50: \newcommand{\Hex}{\pA{\C}\pB{\C}\pC{\C}\pD{\C}\pE{\C}\pF{\C}}
51:
52: \newcommand{\pG}{\put( 18,-10)}
53: \newcommand{\pH}{\put( 18,10)}
54: \newcommand{\pI}{\put(0,20)}
55: \newcommand{\pJ}{\put(-18,10)}
56: \newcommand{\pK}{\put(-18,-10)}
57: \newcommand{\pL}{\put(0,-20)}
58:
59: \newcommand{\pM}{\put(24,20)}
60:
61: \newcommand{\KagHex}{\pA{\C}\pB{\C}\pC{\C}\pD{\C}\pE{\C}\pF{\C}}
62: \newcommand{\KagStar}{\KagHex\pG{\C}\pH{\C}\pI{\C}\pJ{\C}\pK{\C}\pL{\C}}
63:
64: \newcommand{\Z}{\mathbb{Z}_2}
65: %______________________________________________________________________________
66:
67: \begin{document}
68: %______________________________________________________________________________
69:
70: %\title{Two-dimensional quantum antiferromagnets}
71:
72: \chapter*{TWO-DIMENSIONAL QUANTUM ANTIFERROMAGNETS}
73: \markboth{G. Misguich and C. Lhuillier}{Two-dimensional
74: quantum antiferromagnets}
75:
76:
77: \author{Gr\'egoire {\sc Misguich}}
78: \address{Service de Physique Th\'eorique, CEA/DSM/SPhT\\
79: Unit\'e de recherche associ\'ee au CNRS\\
80: CEA/Saclay 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette C\'edex, France\\
81: E-mail: gmisguich@cea.fr}
82:
83: \author{Claire {\sc Lhuillier}}
84: \address{Laboratoire de Physique Th\'eorique des Liquides\\
85: Universit\'e P. et M. Curie and UMR 7600 of CNRS\\
86: Case 121, 4 Place Jussieu, 75252 Paris C\'edex, France\\
87: E-mail: claire.lhuillier@lptl.jussieu.fr}
88:
89: \date{October 17$^{\rm th}$, 2003}
90: \setcounter{tocdepth}{4} % Pour avoir les subsubsections dans la TOC
91: \tableofcontents
92:
93:
94: %______________________________________________________________________________
95: %______________________________________________________________________________
96:
97: \section{Introduction}
98:
99: In this review we present some theoretical advances in the field of
100: quantum magnetism in two-dimensional (2D) systems. The
101: spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ next neighbor 2-dimensional Heisenberg model on
102: Bravais lattices (square, triangular) is N\'eel ordered\footnote{This
103: generic kind of order, with a macroscopic sublattice magnetization is
104: called in the following {\it magnetic } long-ranged order (LRO), in
105: contrast to other ordered phases where the long-ranged ordered
106: correlations concern $S=0$ scalar observables (on dimers,
107: quadrumers...)} at $T=0$.\cite{manousakis91,bllp94} Frustration,
108: small coordination number, competition between interactions can lead
109: to specific quantum phases without magnetic long-ranged order. Since
110: a decade this subject is a highly debated issue in the field of
111: quantum magnetism. It was revived by the discovery of high-$T_c$
112: superconductivity in the doped cuprates and fueled by numerous
113: experimental studies of 2D antiferromagnetic insulators.\cite{HFM2000}
114:
115: Section~\ref{sec:j1j2} is devoted to the first academic model of
116: quantum frustration: the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ Heisenberg model on the
117: square lattice with first- and second-neighbor interactions
118: ($J_1$--$J_2$ model). This model is one of the most studied in the
119: field and this section is a short guide to the literature, with a
120: special emphasis on the various methods used for this problem.
121:
122: Section~\ref{sec:VBC} deals with general properties of valence-bond
123: crystals (VBC) and related states, the simplest phase which is
124: commonly realized in frustrated spin systems without magnetic LRO.
125:
126: In section~\ref{sec:largeN} we present large-$N$ generalizations of
127: the Heisenberg model. This approach was extensively developed by Read
128: and Sachdev from the early 90's and has been the first to give an
129: insight into the alternative between VBC and related phases, which
130: have long ranged order in local singlet patterns (whence the name of
131: crystals), and resonating valence-bond (RVB) spin-liquids (SL) which
132: are translationally invariant phases where the quantum coherence is a
133: central issue.
134:
135: Section~\ref{sec:QDM} presents some results of quantum dimer models
136: (QDM). These models are effective approaches to the quantum phases of
137: antiferromagnets which are dominated by short-range valence-bonds (or
138: singlets). They have received recently some special attention and provide
139: useful insights onto the phenomenology of VBC and RVB SL.
140:
141: In Section~\ref{sec:MSE} we review some results concerning models with
142: multiple-spin exchange (MSE) (also called ring exchange)
143: interactions. These interactions are now recognized to be present in
144: several physical systems and appear to play an important role in the
145: stabilization of RVB liquid ground-states.
146:
147: The last section is devoted to the Heisenberg model on the kagome
148: lattice (and related models). Despite of an important activity on
149: this subject, the understanding of the low-energy physics of the
150: spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ kagome antiferromagnet remains a challenging
151: problem and we discuss some of the important results and questions.
152:
153: We should warn the readers that this review is quite ``inhomogeneous''
154: and cannot, of course, replace textbooks.\cite{fradkinbook,auerbachbook,tsvelikbook,sachdevbook}
155: While some parts deal with some rather recent works (QDM or MSE for
156: instance), some others are devoted to older results which we think are
157: still of importance for current research (beginning of the section
158: $J_1$--$J_2$, large-$N$). The final part devoted to kagome reflects
159: our own views and some unpublished material
160: on still unsettled issues. Some parts are intended to be
161: more pedagogical and concrete (QDM and beginning of large-$N$ section)
162: while some others contain more qualitative discussions of the physical
163: issues (end of the section $J_1$--$J_2$, VBC, kagome).
164:
165:
166: %______________________________________________________________________________
167: \section{$J_1$--$J_2$ model on the square lattice}
168: \label{sec:j1j2}
169:
170: We consider the following Heisenberg model on the square lattice:
171: \begin{equation}
172: {\cal H} = 2 J_1 \sum_{\langle ij\rangle} {\vec S}_i\cdot{\vec S}_j
173: + 2 J_2 \sum_{\langle\langle ij \rangle\rangle} {\vec S}_i\cdot{\vec S}_j
174: \label{J1J2}
175: \end{equation}
176: where $\langle ij\rangle$ and $\langle\langle ij \rangle\rangle$ denote
177: pairs of nearest and next-nearest neighbors respectively.
178: Although quite simple in appearance, this spin model realizes several
179: interesting phenomena which are relevant to a large class of
180: 2D frustrated quantum magnets: classical degeneracy,
181: order by disorder, destruction of some long-ranged order by quantum
182: fluctuations, break down of the spin-wave expansion, opening of a spin
183: gap and (possibly ?) spontaneous translation symmetry breaking, etc.
184: For this reason we start with a general overview of some important
185: results concerning this system. We will focus on the properties
186: related to {\em frustration}. A review on the non-frustrated model
187: ($J_2=0$) can be found in Ref.\cite{manousakis91}
188:
189: \subsection{Classical ground-state and spin-wave analysis}
190: It is easy to find {\em some} classical ground-state of a
191: translation invariant Heisenberg model on a Bravais lattice
192: because the energy can always be minimized by a planar helix
193: \begin{equation}
194: \vec{S}_{\bf r}=
195: \vec{e}_1 \cos ({\bf q} \cdot {\bf r})
196: + \vec{e}_2 \sin ({\bf q}\cdot {\bf r})
197: \end{equation}
198: provided that the pitch ${\bf q}$ minimizes the Fourier transform
199: $J({\bf q})$ of the coupling.\cite{lt47} In the case of the $J_1$--$J_2$
200: model one has
201: \begin{equation}
202: J({\bf q})=2J_1\left(\cos(q_x)+\cos(q_y)\right)
203: +2J_2\left(\cos(q_x+q_y)+\cos(q_x-q_y)\right)
204: \end{equation}
205:
206: \begin{itemize}
207:
208: \item $J_2<0.5J_1$:
209: $J({\bf q})$ has a single minimum at $(\pi,\pi)$. It corresponds to the
210: ``usual'' N\'eel state.
211:
212: \item $J_2>0.5J_1$:
213: $J({\bf q})$ has two isolated minima at $(0,\pi)$ and $(\pi,0)$. They
214: correspond to ferromagnetic lines (resp. columns) arranged in an
215: antiferromagnetic way. These states are sometimes called {\em
216: collinear} (in {\em real} space). From these planar helix states one
217: can build many other ground-states by rotating globally all the spins
218: of one sublattice with respect to the other. Although this costs no
219: energy for classical spins at zero temperature, it is known (order
220: from disorder, see below) that configurations where both sublattices
221: have their staggered magnetization {\em collinear in spin space} are
222: selected by thermal or quantum fluctuations.
223:
224: \item $J_2=0.5J_1$:
225: $J({\bf q})$ has lines of minima around the edges of the Brillouin
226: zone. At this point the classical ground-state is highly degenerate :
227: We can write $\mathcal{H}={\rm cst}+J_2 \sum
228: \left(S_1+S_2+S_3+S_4\right)^2$ where the sum runs over all square
229: plaquettes and any state where each plaquette has a vanishing total
230: spin minimizes the classical energy.
231: \end{itemize}
232:
233: Even at the lowest order in $1/S$, zero-temperature quantum
234: corrections to the sublattice magnetization (order parameter) diverge
235: around $J_2=0.5J_1$ (Chandra and Dou{\c c}ot\cite{cd88}). Such
236: large-$S$ approximation usually tends to overestimate the stability of
237: magnetic phases, therefore this breakdown around $J_2\sim 0.5J_1$ is a
238: strong evidence for the existence of quantum disordered phase(s) in
239: this region of parameter space.
240:
241: \subsection{Order by disorder ($J_2>J_1/2$)}
242:
243: The concept of ``order by disorder'' was introduced in 1980 by Villain
244: and co-workers\cite{vbcc80} in the study of a frustrated Ising model
245: on the square lattice. In this model the next neighbor couplings along
246: the rows are ferromagnetic as well as those on the odd columns (named
247: $A$ in the following). The couplings on the even columns (named $B$)
248: are antiferromagnetic. At $T=0$ the ground-state has no average
249: magnetization and is disordered. This changes when thermal
250: fluctuations are introduced: a $B$-chain sandwiched between two A
251: chains with parallel spins has {\em lower excitations} than a $B$
252: chain between two $A$-chains with anti-parallel spins. This gives a
253: larger Boltzmann weight to ferrimagnetically ordered states. Villain
254: {\it et al.} have exactly shown that the system is indeed
255: ferrimagnetic at low temperature. They were also able to show that
256: site dilution (non-magnetic sites) selects the same ordered pattern,
257: whence the name of ``order by disorder''.
258:
259: A somewhat less drastic phenomenon has been observed in quantum
260: systems. It is the selection of particular long-ranged ordered
261: quantum states among a larger family of ordered solutions which are
262: classically degenerate at $T=0$.
263: \footnote{In Villain's model
264: the system is truly disordered at $T=0$ and an ordered solution is
265: entropically selected at finite temperature. In the quantum
266: $J_1$--$J_2$ model above, the classical solutions can adopt various
267: ordered patterns: quantum fluctuations select among these patterns
268: the most ordered one, that is the situation with the highest symmetry
269: and the smallest degeneracy. The ultimate effect of these quantum
270: fluctuations can be the destruction of the N\'eel order in favor of a
271: fully quantum ground-state with $\mathcal{O}(1)$ degeneracy.}
272: Consider a spin system in which the
273: molecular field created by the spins of one sublattice on the other
274: cancels, which is the case when $J_2>0.5J_1$. Shender\cite{shender82}
275: showed that if fluctuations are included, the system will select
276: states in which all spins are collinear to each other. This follows
277: from the fact that (moderate) fluctuations at one site are orthogonal
278: to the mean value of the magnetization at that site and the system can
279: gain some magnetic exchange energy by making such fluctuations
280: coplanar on neighboring sites, that is to making the spins collinear.
281: Such a selection of order by quantum fluctuations (and dilution)
282: was discussed by Henley\cite{h89} and appears also quite straightly
283: in a spin-wave expansion.\cite{mdjr90}
284:
285: This selection of the $(\pi, 0)$ or $(0,\pi)$ order spontaneously
286: breaks a four-fold lattice symmetry. An Ising order parameter is thus
287: generated. It takes two values depending whether the ferromagnetic
288: correlations are locally arranged horizontally or vertically. Chandra
289: and co-workers\cite{ccl90a} have studied this mechanism and predicted
290: the existence of a finite temperature Ising phase transition
291: independent of the subsequent development of a sublattice
292: magnetization. This result has been questioned recently\cite{szosh03}
293: and the transition has not been observed so far in the
294: spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ model.\cite{mbp03,szosh03} It has however been
295: confirmed by some recent Monte Carlo simulations of the {\em
296: classical} Heisenberg model.\cite{wm03} Very similar phenomena are
297: present in the $J_1$--$J_2$ quantum Heisenberg model on the {\em
298: triangular} lattice.\cite{jdgb90,cj92,k93,lblp95}
299:
300: Melzi {\it el a.}\cite{melzi00,melzi01} have studied a quasi
301: 2D spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ system which is believed to be a
302: $J_1$--$J_2$ square lattice Heisenberg antiferromagnet. They found some
303: evidence (splitting of NMR lines) for a collinear ($(\pi,0)$ or
304: $(0,\pi)$) magnetic ordering. Several
305: estimates\cite{melzi01,rosner02,rosner03,mbp03} indeed point to $J_2>J_1$ in
306: this compound.
307:
308: \subsection{Non-magnetic region ($J_2\simeq J_1/2$)}
309:
310: Consider the two classical ``Ising states'' corresponding to the wave
311: vectors $(\pi,\pi)$ and $(\pi,0)$. They can be taken as (crude)
312: variational states for the Hamiltonian Eq.~\ref{J1J2}. Their energies
313: (per site) are $E_{\pi,\pi}=-J_1+J_2$ and $E_{\pi,0}=-J_2$. As
314: discussed above, these states cross at $J_2=\frac{1}{2}J_1$. However,
315: one can also consider any first-neighbor singlet (or valence-bond)
316: covering of the lattice as another variational state. In such a
317: completely dimerized state the expectation value of the energy per
318: site is $E_{dimer}=-\frac {3}{4}J_1$, which is below the two Ising
319: states around $J_2\simeq J_1/2$. Of course this very simple argument
320: does not prove anything since ``dressing'' these classical states
321: with quantum fluctuations (spin flips in the N\'eel-like states or
322: valence-bond motions in the dimerized wave-functions) will lower the
323: energies of all these trial states and it is absolutely not clear
324: which one may eventually win. Nevertheless, this shows in a simple
325: way why non-magnetic states ({\it i.e} rotationally invariant or spin
326: singlet) such as dimerized states can be a route to minimize the energy in
327: a frustrated magnet.\footnote{Klein\cite{klein82} introduced a
328: general procedure to generate local and $SU(2)$ symmetric Hamiltonians
329: for which any first-neighbor dimerized state is an exact ground-state.
330: These Hamiltonians are simply defined as sums of projectors which
331: annihilate all dimer coverings. The Majumdar-Gosh\cite{mg69} chain
332: is the simplest example of a ``Klein model''.}
333:
334:
335: \subsubsection{Series expansions}
336:
337: High-order series expansions can be a powerful technique to
338: investigate frustrated quantum magnets. The general method to generate
339: zero-temperature perturbation expansions in quantum many-body systems
340: was described by Singh {\it et al.}\cite{sgh88} and Gelfand {\it et
341: al.}\cite{gsh90} For instance, one can consider the following
342: anisotropic model:
343: \begin{eqnarray}
344: {\cal H}(\lambda) = &&2 J_1 \sum_{<ij>}
345: \left[
346: S^z_i S^z_j
347: + \lambda \left(S^x_i S^x_j + S^y_i S^y_j \right)
348: \right] \nonumber \\
349: && + 2 J_2 \sum_{<<ij>>}
350: \left[
351: S^z_i S^z_j
352: + \lambda \left(S^x_i S^x_j + S^y_i S^y_j \right)
353: \right]
354: \end{eqnarray}
355: ${\cal H}(\lambda=0)$ is a classical Ising model which ground-state is
356: known. The series expansion about the Ising limit amounts to compute
357: expectation values in the ground-state $\left|\lambda\right>$ of ${\cal
358: H}(\lambda)$ in powers of $\lambda$:
359: \begin{equation}
360: \frac{
361: \left<\lambda\right| {\hat O} \left|\lambda\right>
362: }{
363: \left<\lambda | \lambda\right>}=\sum_n a_n \lambda^n,
364: \end{equation}
365: (energy gaps, dispersion relations and susceptibilities can also be
366: computed in the same approach). The calculation of $a_n$ requires the
367: enumeration and evaluation of the {\em connected clusters} of size
368: $\sim n$, whose number grows exponentially with $n$. Depending on the
369: quantity ${\hat O}$ and on the model, orders from 7 to 20 can
370: typically be obtained on present computers. The series is then
371: extrapolated to $\lambda=1$ by standard Pad\'e, Dlog Pad\'e or
372: integrated differential approximations. Such a series expansion about
373: the Ising limit was done by Weihong~{\it et al.}\cite{woh91} for the
374: first neighbor square-lattice antiferromagnet. Oitmaa and
375: Weihong\cite{ow96} extended the series to the $J_1$--$J_2$ model,
376: where each $a_n$ is now a polynomial in $J_1$ and $J_2$. The
377: disappearance of N\'eel order in the Heisenberg model manifests itself
378: by a vanishing sublattice magnetization as well as some singular
379: behavior of the series for $\lambda_c<1$. The results indicate the
380: absence of N\'eel long-ranged order in the strongly frustrated region
381: $0.4\le J_2/J_1\le 0.6$. Such an expansion can locate with a
382: reasonable accuracy the phase boundary of the N\'eel ordered regions
383: but provides no direct information on the nature of the non-magnetic
384: phase.
385:
386: To study the model around $J_2\simeq J_1/2$, several other expansions
387: have been carried out. A dimer expansion about an exactly dimerized
388: model was done by Gelfand~{\it et al.},\cite{gsh89}
389: Gelfand,\cite{gelfand90} Singh {\it et al.}\cite{swho99} and Kotov
390: {\it et al.}.\cite{kosw00} In this approach $J_1$ and $J_2$ are set
391: to zero everywhere except on isolated bonds arranged in a columnar way
392: and all the other couplings are treated perturbatively. At zeroth
393: order the ground-state is simply a product of singlets. In these
394: calculations the dimerized phase remains stable in the intermediate
395: region. Singh {\it et al.}\cite{swho99} also performed a different
396: kind of zero-temperature series expansion. They started from a model
397: of isolated 4-spin plaquettes in order to check a prediction made by
398: Zhitomirsky and Ueda\cite{zu96} that such plaquettes could
399: spontaneously form around $J_2\simeq J_1/2$ to produce a state which
400: is invariant under $\pi/4$ lattice rotations. Although the
401: ground-state energy they obtained is very close to the one obtained
402: from the dimerized limit (within error bars of the extrapolation
403: procedure) they observed an instability in the plaquette scenario (the
404: triplet gap vanishes before reaching the isotropic square-lattice
405: model) which suggests that plaquette order is not the issue (the
406: analysis of the exact numerical spectra for 36 sites confirmed this
407: result\cite{cbps01}).
408:
409:
410: Sushkov {\it et al.}\cite{sow02} (improved numerical results compared
411: to Ref.\cite{sow01}) computed the susceptibility $\chi_D$ associated
412: with the appearance of columnar dimer order in the $(\pi,\pi)$ N\'eel
413: phase by a series expansion about the Ising limit. Such a
414: susceptibility seems to diverge at $J_2/J_1=g_{c1}\simeq
415: 0.405\pm0.04$. On the other hand the disappearance of the magnetic
416: LRO is observed (through the N\'eel order parameter or through the
417: anisotropy in spin space of the spin-spin correlations) at
418: $J_2/J_1=g_{c2}\simeq 0.39\pm0.02$. This point could a priori be {\em
419: different} from $g_{c1}$. In such a case the system would first break
420: the $\pi/4$ lattice rotation symmetry at $g_{c1}$, while magnetic LRO
421: remains (gapless spin waves). Only at $g_{c2}>g_{c1}$ the $SU(2)$
422: rotation symmetry is restored and the magnetic excitations acquire a
423: gap. From field theoretical arguments based on effective actions
424: valid close to the critical points, Sushkov {\it et al.}\cite{sow02}
425: argue that the proximity (or possible equality) of $g_{c1}$ and
426: $g_{c2}$ is a general feature in frustrated magnets which originate
427: from the coupling of triplet and singlet excitations.
428:
429: Sushkov {\it et al.}\cite{sow01} computed susceptibility $\chi_P$
430: associated to plaquette order by an expansion around the dimerized
431: limit, assuming that the system has columnar dimer LRO. The result
432: shows a divergence of $\chi_P$ when $J_2/J_1\to g_{c3}=0.5\pm0.02$.
433: From these results Sushkov {\it et al.} suggested that the translation
434: symmetry along the columns is broken down at $g_{c3}$ (giving rise to
435: an eight-fold degenerate ground-state in the thermodynamic limit)
436: before the $(\pi,0)-(0,\pi)$ magnetically ordered phase appears at
437: $g_{c4}\simeq0.6$. This picture is qualitatively consistent with the
438: spin-spin correlations computed in a $10\times10$ system with a
439: density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) algorithm.\cite{cls00}
440:
441: Due to the relatively short series (typically of order 7) involved and
442: the uncertainties in the extrapolation procedures, such results should
443: be confirmed by other methods but this succession of quantum phase
444: transitions represents a very interesting scenario. We note that if
445: the model has a fully symmetric liquid ground-state in some parameter
446: range, it should be difficult to capture from series expansions about
447: limits where some lattice symmetries are explicitly broken.
448:
449: \subsubsection{Exact diagonalizations}
450: Exact diagonalizations have a priori no bias, and were used very early
451: in this field.\cite{dm89,fkksrr90,pgbd91} Large-size computations and
452: sophisticated finite size scaling analysis are nevertheless needed to
453: extract significant information. Schulz {\it et
454: al.}\cite{schulz} performed extensive exact diagonalizations
455: of the $J_1$--$J_2$ model for system sizes up to $36$ sites. They
456: analyzed the behavior of several quantities such as structure factors
457: (N\'eel order parameter), ground-state energy, spin-wave velocities
458: (obtained from the finite size corrections to the ground-state
459: energy), spin stiffness and uniform susceptibility. Their analysis,
460: including quantitative comparisons with non-linear sigma model
461: predictions,\cite{nlsm} concluded to the absence
462: of N\'eel long-ranged order in the strongly frustrated region $0.4\le
463: J_2/J_1\le0.6$. There, they show enhanced columnar dimer-dimer
464: correlations as well as chiral ones but the size effects were not
465: clear enough to discriminate between short or long-ranged order for
466: these order parameters.
467:
468:
469:
470: \subsubsection{Quantum Monte Carlo}
471:
472: Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) methods have been extensively applied to the
473: $J_1$--$J_2$ model in the low frustration regime giving an highly
474: accurate description of the N\'eel phase (Sandvik\cite{s97} and Refs.
475: therein). In the non-magnetic and highly frustrated regime a simple
476: QMC approach is ineffective due to the so-called sign problem. The
477: fixed node approach is the first answer to this problem: the exact
478: imaginary time propagator $e^{-\tau\mathcal{H}}$ used to filter out
479: the ground-state from a variational guess $|\psi_g\rangle$ is replaced
480: by an approximate propagator, which has the same nodes as
481: $|\psi_g\rangle$. The quality of the result depends on the quality of
482: the nodal regions of $|\psi_g\rangle$. Various schemes have been used
483: to try to go beyond this limitation: stochastic reconfiguration
484: (Sorella\cite{s98}), eventually associated to a few Lanczos
485: iterations.\cite{s01,cbps01} An alternative method has been devised by
486: du Croo de Jongh {\it et al.},\cite{cls00} where the guiding function
487: is replaced by the result of a DMRG calculation.\cite{w92,w93} Both
488: methods have their own bias. Using the first of them, Capriotti and
489: Sorella\cite{cbps01} concluded that for $J_2/J_1\sim 0.45$ a
490: Gutzwiller-projected BCS wave-function $|p\;BCS\rangle$ was an
491: excellent guiding wave-function:
492: \begin{eqnarray}
493: |p\;BCS\rangle&=&\hat\Pi\left|BCS\right> \\
494: |BCS\rangle&=&\exp{\left(
495: \sum_{i,j}f_{i,j}
496: c^\dag_{i\uparrow}c\dag_{j\downarrow}
497: \right)}|0\rangle
498: \end{eqnarray}
499: where $\left|0\right>$ is the fermion vacuum,
500: $c^\dag_{i\uparrow}c\dag_{j\downarrow}$ creates a valence-bond on
501: sites ($i,j$) and $\hat\Pi$ projects out states with double
502: occupancy. The pairing amplitude $f_{i,j}$ (often called gap function
503: $\Delta_k$)\footnote{After the Gutzwiller projection $\Delta_k$ is no
504: longer the observable gap.\cite{gl91}} is optimized with a Monte Carlo
505: algorithm in order to minimize the energy. Capriotti and Sorella gave
506: convincing indications that their wave-function is quite accurate. The
507: best variational energies are obtained in the frustrated region with a
508: pairing amplitude which mixes $d_{x^2-y^2}$ and $d_{xy}$
509: symmetries. In particular it reproduces the correct nodal structure of
510: the ground-state in the frustrated region at least for moderate system
511: sizes where the variational result can be checked against the exact
512: result. This is a subtle and non-trivial information for systems
513: which do not obey the Marshall's sign rule as this frustrated model.
514: They concluded from these results that the system probably had no
515: long-ranged order neither in dimer-dimer correlations nor in four-spin
516: plaquette correlations. On the other hand, du Croo de Jongh {\it et
517: al.} argued in favor of columnar dimerized phase which also break the
518: translation symmetry along the columns (plaquette-like correlations
519: similar to those found by series expansions\cite{sow01}).
520:
521: The comparison of the results of these different approaches shows that
522: this problem remains a very challenging one. The model in the
523: frustrated regime is probably never very far from a quantum critical
524: point and in these conditions none of the available methods seems able
525: to discriminate between a VBC with tiny gaps both in the singlet and
526: triplet sectors, a critical phase with a quasi order in dimers and
527: gapless singlet excitations, or a true SL with gaps in any sector of
528: spin but no long ranged order in any observable. As we will explain in
529: the following sections some other frustrated models are happily deeper
530: in the strong coupling regime and exhibit quantum phases which are
531: easier to characterize.
532:
533: %______________________________________________________________________________
534:
535: \section{Valence-bond crystals}\label{sec:VBC}
536: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
537: %______________________________________________________________________________
538: \subsection{Definitions}
539: Among the different quantum solutions to overcome frustration the VBC
540: is the simplest scenario. In this phase, neighboring spins arrange
541: themselves in a regular pattern of singlets: dimers,\footnote{whence
542: the name Spin Peierls phase sometimes given to the VBC phase.}
543: quadrumers or 2$n$-mers $S=0$ plaquettes. The stability of this phase
544: comes from the extreme stability of small $S=0$ clusters (recall that
545: the energy of a singlet of two spins $\frac{1}{2}$ is -3/4 to be
546: compared to the energy of two classical (or Ising) spins which is only
547: -1/4), and eventually from the fact that frustrated bonds between two
548: different singlets do not contribute to the total energy.
549:
550: In a VBC phase there is no $SU(2)$ symmetry breaking, no long-ranged
551: order in spin-spin correlations, but long-ranged order in dimer-dimer
552: or larger singlet units. Except at a quantum critical point, all
553: excitations of a VBC are gapped. Depending on the lattice geometry,
554: such a wave function can spontaneously break some lattice symmetry
555: ({\em spontaneous VBC}) or can remain fully symmetric ({\em explicit
556: VBC}). In a strict sense, the name VBC should be reserved for
557: systems with a spontaneous lattice symmetry breaking. However, since
558: these two kinds of systems share many similarities we will discuss
559: both in this section.
560:
561: When the Hamiltonian has some inequivalent bonds and an integer spin
562: in the unit cell (even number of spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ for instance) the
563: system can take full advantage of the strong bonds and minimize the
564: effects of the frustrating ones. In that case the {\em explicit} VBC
565: is the ``natural'' strong coupling solution. One can build a simple
566: Hamiltonian in which the bonds which are not occupied by the singlet
567: objects are turned off. The resulting model is a set of small
568: decoupled clusters (dimers or larger plaquettes) and the ground-state
569: is a trivial product of singlets. Importantly, this strong coupling
570: limit has the same lattice symmetry as the original one. Going back
571: to the original Hamiltonian {\em no quantum phase transition is
572: encountered when going from the trivial singlet product up to real
573: interacting ground-state}. Models with an half-odd-integer spin in the
574: unit cell cannot realize a VBC unless they {\em spontaneously} enlarge
575: their unit cell. In these situations there is no unique elected
576: position for the 2$n$-mers and a symmetry breaking must take place in
577: order to form a VBC. Examples of these two kinds of VBC will be given
578: below.
579:
580:
581: %______________________________________________________________________________
582:
583: \subsection{
584: One-dimensional and quasi one-dimensional examples (spin-$\frac{1}{2}$
585: systems)}
586:
587:
588: One of the simplest example of (spontaneous) VBC is observed in the
589: $J_1$--$J_2$ model on the chain for $J_2/J_1 > (J_2/J_1 )_c \sim
590: 0.24$.\cite{mg69,ss81,h82,a89,ys97} For $J_2/J_1=0.5$ the doubly
591: degenerate ground-states are exact products of
592: dimers:\cite{mg69,auerbachbook}
593: \begin{equation}
594: |MG_{\pm}> =\prod_{n=1}^{N/2} |(2n, 2n \pm 1)>.
595: \label{mg}
596: \end{equation}
597: Here and in the following we call ``dimer'' a pair of spins in a
598: singlet state, and note it:
599: \begin{equation}
600: |(i,j)> =\frac{1}{\sqrt2} \left[ |i, +>|j, -> - |i, -> |j, +>\right].
601: \label{dimere}
602: \end{equation}
603:
604: For all $J_2/J_1 > (J_2/J_1 )_c $,
605: the ground-states are products
606: of dimers, dressed by fluctuations of valence bonds, dimer long-ranged
607: order persists in all the range of parameters. This model has gapful
608: excitations which can be described as pairs of scattering
609: spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ solitons separating the two exact
610: ground-states\cite{ss81} (these fractionalized excitations are
611: specific of the 1D chain).
612:
613: The Heisenberg chain with alternating strong and weak bonds (Spin
614: Peierls instability), has indeed a unique ground-state where the
615: dimers are mainly located on the strong bonds. In that case, the
616: spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ excitations are confined by the underlying
617: potential and the true excitations are gapful integer
618: magnons~(\cite{nt97a,asrp99} and refs. therein). It is an explicit VBC.
619:
620: A two-leg ladder with AF rung exchange has also a unique VBC
621: ground-state and gapped magnons as excitations.\cite{dr96} On the
622: other hand Nersesyan and Tsvelik\cite{nt97,km98} have proposed an
623: example of frustrated ladder, with a spontaneously dimerized
624: ground-state, and gapful excitations. Excitations of this last model
625: are identified as pairs of singlet and triplet domain walls connecting
626: the two ground-states, they form a continuum.
627:
628: As can be seen from this rapid and non exhaustive enumeration, VBC
629: ground-states are relatively frequent in frustrated one-dimensional
630: spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ models. All these systems are gapful but the
631: excitations could be of different nature emerging as modes (associated
632: to integer spin excitations) or continuum of pairs of excitations that
633: could be fractionalized (it is then specific of one dimensional
634: systems) or not.
635: %______________________________________________________________________________
636:
637: \subsection{Valence Bond Solids}
638: \label{ssec:VBS}
639: The VBS wave-function was introduced by Affleck, Kennedy, Lieb and
640: Tasaki (AKLT).\cite{aklt87,aklt88} It can be constructed whenever the
641: spin $S$ on a site is a multiple of one half the coordination number
642: $z$: $2S=0$ mod $z$. Let us consider the simplest case $2S=z$. In
643: that case the local spin $S$ can be seen as the symmetric combination
644: of $2S$ (fictitious) spin-$\frac{1}{2}$. Now on each bond of the
645: lattice one can make a singlet between two fictitious
646: spins-$\frac{1}{2}$. Such a product of singlets does not belong to
647: the physical Hilbert space of the original spin-$S$ model but to a
648: much larger space. The VBS wave-function is defined as the projection
649: of the singlet-product state onto the physical space. This projection
650: amounts to symmetrize (for all lattice sites) the wave-function with
651: respect to the fictitious spins to force them into a physical spin-$S$
652: state. A VBS can be viewed as an {\em explicit VBC of the fictitious
653: spins}. Simple Hamiltonians with short ranged and $SU(2)$-symmetric
654: interactions for which the VBS is an exact ground-state can be
655: constructed (sum of projectors\cite{aklt87,aklt88}). By construction
656: the VBS wave-function is a spin singlet and {\em breaks no lattice
657: symmetry}. By extension we may say that a system is in a VBS {\em
658: phase} if its ground-state can be adiabatically transformed into the
659: VBS wave-function without crossing a phase transition. As the VBC,
660: models in the VBS phase have a gap to all excitations\footnote{This
661: may however not always be true when the coordination number of the
662: lattice is large.\cite{aklt87} In such cases the VBS wave-function is
663: still a spin singlet but has long-ranged spin-spin correlations. We
664: do not consider such cases here.} but their wave-functions are
665: slightly more complex and their order parameter is non-local. The
666: order of VBS is associated to long-ranged singlet-singlet correlations
667: in the {\em fictitious spins}. Expressing such observable in terms of
668: the physical spins leads to a non-local quantity called {\em string
669: order parameter}.\cite{nr89,kt92} Contrary to explicit VBC, VBS have
670: fractionalized degrees of freedom at the edges of the system with
671: open boundary conditions. These are simply associated to the unpaired
672: fictitious spins. To our knowledge these properties have not been
673: explored in quantum 2D systems.
674:
675: The spin-1 Heisenberg chain is the prototype of VBS in 1D.\footnote{In
676: 1D, some authors call ``Haldane systems'' all the spin-gapped phases,
677: whatever their true nature: VBC or VBS.} Such a state has a unique
678: ground-state, a gap in the excitations and exponentially decreasing
679: spin-spin and dimer-dimer\cite{j02} correlations. See the chapter by
680: P.~Lecheminant in this volume for more details about the VBS phase of
681: the spin-1 chain.
682:
683: A spin-$\frac{3}{2}$ specific $SU(2)$-invariant model on the honeycomb
684: lattice\cite{aklt87,aklt88} is another example of 2D VBS. The spin-1
685: Heisenberg model on the kagome lattice was proposed to realize a
686: VBS-like ground-state\cite{h00} in which singlets form on every
687: hexagon without any spontaneous symmetry breaking
688: (hexagonal singlet solid).\footnote{Each kagome site belongs to two
689: hexagons. Each physical spin-1 can be split into two
690: spin-$\frac{1}{2}$, each of them being involved in the formation of a
691: singlet on one neighboring hexagon.} A similar approach was carried
692: out for the spin-1 pyrochlore Heisenberg model.\cite{yk00} In that
693: case a lattice distortion was invoked to lift the degeneracy between
694: the two singlet states of each tetrahedron.
695:
696:
697: %______________________________________________________________________________
698:
699: \subsection{Two-dimensional examples of VBC}
700: \subsubsection{Without spontaneous lattice symmetry breaking}
701:
702:
703: Two spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ experimental examples of 2D (explicit) VBC have
704: recently attracted attention:
705: CaV$_4$O$_9$\cite{CaV4O9,uksl96,am96b,tku96,sr96,szksu96,wgsoh97}
706: and
707: SrCu$_2$(BO$_3$)$_2$.\cite{k99,nkoum99,mu99,k00,kk00,msku00,tmu01,lws02,kthb02,mu03}
708: Both of them have a lattice derived from the square lattice: in
709: CaV$_4$O$_9$ the V$^{4+}$ ions are on a 1/5 depleted square lattice and
710: SrCu$_2$(BO$_3$)$_2$ is an illustration of the Shastry Sutherland
711: model\cite{ss81a} . A lattice embedding the main couplings of these two physical problems
712: is drawn in Fig.~\ref{qss}. Interactions are of the
713: Heisenberg type.\footnote{Small Dzyaloshinsky-Moriya interactions have
714: been identified in SrCu$_2$(BO$_3$)$_2$.\cite{cz02}}
715:
716: \begin{figure}
717: \begin{center}
718: \includegraphics[height=4cm]{QSS}
719: \end{center}
720: \caption[99]{
721: The $\frac{1}{5}$-depleted lattice and the
722: Shastry Sutherland lattice. The
723: strong bonds of the Shastry Sutherland model are the bonds $J'$
724: (dotted dashed lines): they can accommodate orthogonal dimers ($J=K$
725: acts as a perturbation in the real SrCu$_2$(BO$_3$)$_2$). The
726: lattice formed by the strongest exchanges in CaV$_4$O$_9$ is obtained
727: with $J=0$. The phase diagram of this model\cite{lws02} contains
728: collinear N\'eel phases, dimer and 4-spin plaquette VBC.}
729: \label{qss}
730: \end{figure}
731:
732: VBC are obvious ground-states in the strong coupling limits of each
733: problem.
734:
735: The exact ground-state of the Shastry Sutherland model is built from
736: singlets on the $J'$ bonds.\cite{ss81a,mu99} For $J'/J\gtrsim
737: 1.55\pm0.05 $ the model has a gap in the spectrum of excitations and
738: is in a dimerized VBC phase.
739: \footnote{
740: Consider a decomposition of the Shastry-Sutherland lattice as edge-
741: and corner-sharing triangles. For $J'=2J$ the Hamiltonian is
742: accordingly written as a sum of $J(\vec{S}_1+\vec{S}_2+\vec{S}_3)^2$
743: terms for each triangle ($J'$-bonds are shared by two triangles) and
744: each such term is minimized by the dimerized state. This shows
745: rigorously that the dimerized state is the ground-state as soon as
746: $J'/J\gtrsim 2$.} For $J'/J\lesssim 1.15\pm0.05$ the system is in the
747: $(\pi,\pi)$ N\'eel state of the square lattice~(results of
748: zero-temperature series expansion\cite{zoh02}). The possibility of an
749: intermediate phase, possibly with helical short-ranged correlations,
750: has been actively discussed in the literature.\cite{am96a,kk00,cms01}
751: S.~Miyahara and K.~Ueda have recently written a review of the theory
752: of the orthogonal dimer Heisenberg spin model for
753: SrCu$_2$(BO$_3$)$_2$.\cite{mu03}
754:
755: The $\frac{1}{5}$-depleted Heisenberg square lattice model ($J=0$) has
756: been studied as a function of the ratio of the two different
757: couplings: bonds within a plaquette ($K$) and dimer bonds ($J'$)
758: between plaquettes. At isotropic coupling ($J'=K$) collinear
759: long-ranged N\'eel order survives the depletion, (the decrease in the
760: order parameter is roughly $50\%$\cite{tku96}). A small unbalance in
761: couplings drives the system either in a 4-spin plaquette VBC ($K>J'$)
762: or in a dimer VBC ($K<J'$). Both (explicit) VBC phases have a spin
763: gap. A recent generalization of these models by L\"auchli {\em et al}
764: encompasses both the
765: $\frac{1}{5}$-depleted Heisenberg square lattice model and the Shastry
766: Sutherland model\cite{lws02} (see Fig.~\ref{qss}). Its phase diagram
767: exhibits collinear N\'eel phases ($(\pi, \pi)$ or $(0, \pi)$)
768: separated from the VBC phases by second order phase transitions.
769: Transition between the two VBC phases which have different symmetries
770: occurs via a first order phase transition.\footnote{A recent $Sp(N)$
771: study of the Shastry Sutherland model\cite{cms01} suggests that a spin
772: liquid phase with deconfined spinons might appear in such a model. No
773: evidence of such a phase has emerged from the $SU(2)$ studies.}
774:
775: Excitations in these models come from the promotion of local singlets
776: to triplet excitations. In 2D the ordered dimer background provides a
777: confining force for the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ excitations. Indeed,
778: separating two unpaired spins (that is two {\em spinons}) creates
779: disruption in the ordered pattern all the way from the first to the
780: second. The energy cost is thus proportional to the length of the
781: string of defaults and both spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ excitations remains in
782: fact confined. Only integer spin excitations are expected. On the
783: other hand in these strongly coupled models single-triplet hoppings
784: can be difficult and correlated motions might be important, leading to
785: a large zoology of excited modes (see Ref.\cite{tmu01} and Refs.
786: therein). This potential frustration of the triplet motion favors the
787: appearance of magnetization plateaus in VBC
788: models.\cite{fo99,k99,mt00,mt00b,mu00,mjg01} This aspect was briefly
789: discussed in the lecture notes published by the authors.\cite{lm02}
790:
791: %______________________________________________________________________________
792:
793: \subsubsection{With spontaneous lattice symmetry breaking}
794:
795: In the previous models the (explicit) VBC phases do not break any
796: lattice symmetry. They can be directly related to the geometry and
797: relative strength of the couplings. In more symmetric situations with
798: frustration, spontaneously symmetry breaking VBC can appear as a way
799: to overcome this frustration by taking full advantage of the quantum
800: fluctuations. This is probably the case in the $J_1$--$J_3$ model on
801: the square lattice for intermediate $J_3/J_1 \sim 0.6$,\cite{ll96} in
802: the $J_1$--$J_2$ model on the hexagonal lattice for intermediate
803: $J_2/J_1\sim 0.4$,\cite{fsl01} and in the Heisenberg model on the
804: checker-board lattice.\cite{canals02,fsl03,sfl02,bh02,baa03,tsma03} In the
805: two first cases the ground-states are dressed columnar VBC of
806: dimers. Translation and $C_4$ (resp. $C_3$ only) symmetries of the
807: lattice are spontaneously broken. The ground-state is 4 (resp. 3)
808: times degenerate. Spin-spin correlations decrease exponentially with
809: the system size. All excitations are gapped. Contrary to the
810: $J_1$--$J_2$ model on the square lattice, exact
811: diagonalizations\cite{ll96,fsl01,fsl03} give a rather straightforward
812: information on these systems where the correlation lengths are small enough
813: (far enough from the critical points which limit the boundary of the
814: VBC phases).
815:
816: The spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ Heisenberg model on the checker board lattice,
817: which can also be seen as a planar lattice of corner sharing
818: tetrahedrons (see Fig.~\ref{ckb}), has received the largest attention
819: for different reasons.\cite{mts01,pc02,canals02,bh02,sfl02,fsl03,baa03,tsma03}
820: \begin{figure}
821: \begin{center}
822: \includegraphics[height=4cm]{checkerboard2}
823: \hspace*{0.5cm}
824: \includegraphics[height=4cm]{checkerboard}
825: \end{center}
826: \caption[99]{Left: the checkerboard lattice. The spins sit at the
827: vertices shown by bullets, all couplings are identical, ${\bf u}_1$,
828: ${\bf u}_2$ are the unit vectors of the Bravais lattice. Right: the
829: ground-states of the Heisenberg model on the checker board lattice are
830: translational symmetry breaking VBC of 4-spin plaquettes on the
831: uncrossed squares.}
832: \label{ckb}
833: \end{figure}
834: The problem has classically a continuous local degeneracy: the
835: Hamiltonian can be rewritten as the sum of the squares of the total
836: spin of each tetrahedron, and every configuration with a zero spin on
837: each tetrahedron is a ground-state. Classically this problem shares
838: this property with the Heisenberg model on the kagome,
839: pyrochlore\cite{mc98,mc98a}, garnet\cite{pp01} and pyrochlore
840: slab\cite{ka02} lattices (these lattices made of corner sharing
841: ``simplexes'' with 2, 3 or 4 spins each were dubbed ``bisimplex''
842: lattices by Henley\cite{henley2000}).
843:
844: The quantum spin-$\frac{1}{2}$
845: antiferromagnet on the kagome lattice has been found to be quite
846: specific with a small gap (if any) toward triplet excitations and an
847: anomalous density of gapless low-lying singlets excitations (see
848: \S\ref{sec:kagome}).
849:
850: The quantum scenario on the checkerboard lattice is quite different.
851: The ground-state is a (dressed) product of 4-spin $S=0$ plaquettes on
852: uncrossed squares: this state breaks translational symmetry but not
853: $C_4$ (the point group being defined at the center of an empty
854: plaquette). It has a two fold degeneracy in the thermodynamic limit:
855: this is easily seen in the symmetries and finite size scaling of the
856: low lying levels of exact spectra.\cite{fsl03} The choice of the
857: 4-spin $S=0$ states on the uncrossed squares corresponds to the most
858: stable local configuration. The product of $S=0$ quadrumers is only
859: weakly renormalized in the exact ground-state.\cite{fsl03}
860:
861:
862: Excitations of this model have been studied in different approaches,
863: exact diagonalizations\cite{f03}, series expansions,\cite{bh02} real
864: space renormalization transformation.\cite{baa03} All the excitations
865: (singlet and triplet) are gapped. The triplet excitations originate
866: from the triplet excitation of an uncrossed plaquette, they are weakly
867: dispersive with a large gap. The singlet excitations cannot be
868: described so simply: from exact diagonalizations data one can suspect
869: that some of these excitations come from the reorganization of two
870: adjacent triplet on crossed squares. The Contractor Renormalization
871: (CORE) method of Berg {\it et al.}\cite{baa03} on the other hand
872: suggests that these excitations are domain walls between the two
873: translated plaquette-VBC ground-states.
874:
875: %______________________________________________________________________________
876:
877: \subsection{Methods}
878:
879: Spin waves\cite{uksl96} and Schwinger bosons\cite{am96a,am96b} are
880: simple approximations to study the phase diagram of a quantum
881: frustrated magnet. But the first method only gives an approximate
882: knowledge on the range of existence of the N\'eel phases, and it is
883: rather difficult to include the effect of fluctuations beyond the
884: mean-field approximation within the Schwinger-Boson formulation. As
885: discussed in the section devoted to large-$N$ approaches
886: (\S\ref{sec:largeN}), spontaneous lattice symmetry breaking are very
887: likely to be due to topological effects (Berry phase of instantons)
888: which cannot be captured by the mean-field state. This probably
889: explains why no spontaneous VBC has ever been found (to our knowledge)
890: in Schwinger-Boson calculations.\footnote{It seems however that
891: spontaneous VBC naturally arise in large-$N$ approaches with fermionic
892: representation of $SU(N)$ when $1/N$ corrections are considered (see
893: section
894: \ref{ssec:spin2QDM}).} For unfrustrated problems, as the Heisenberg
895: model on the $\frac{1}{5}$-depleted square lattice,\cite{tku96}
896: QMC is considered as the method which can give
897: benchmarks for other approaches.
898:
899: Although VBC are naturally described with the help of
900: spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ valence-bonds, the appearance of such states in the
901: low-spin limit can sometimes be anticipated from an appropriate
902: large-$S$ approach. An example is given in the work of Tchernyshyov
903: {\it et al.}\cite{tsma03} (see also a previous paper by
904: Henley\cite{henley2000}) on the checkerboard Heisenberg model. In
905: this model, when both couplings (square lattice bonds and diagonal
906: bonds) are equal, ground-state has a continuous local
907: degeneracy. However leading $1/S$ corrections select collinear states
908: out of this huge manifold.\cite{henley2000} There remains an
909: exponential number of such states and they do not have any magnetic
910: order. However they exhibit long-ranged {\em bond} order and a
911: spontaneous symmetry breaking\cite{tsma03} which is analogous to the
912: one observed numerically in the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ case.
913:
914: For frustrated problems, exact diagonalizations can be useful tools in
915: situations where the system is not too close from a critical point,
916: that is when the correlations length is not too large. Successful
917: applications of exact diagonalizations methods to 2D Heisenberg
918: magnets realizing a VBC include studies of the $J_1$--$J_3$ model on the
919: square lattice,\cite{ll96} $J_1$--$J_2$ model on the hexagonal
920: lattice,\cite{fsl01} Heisenberg model on the checkerboard
921: lattice.\cite{fsl03} In such situations analysis of the quasi
922: degeneracy of the low-lying levels of the spectra and of their
923: finite-size scaling gives an unbiased and direct informations on the
924: symmetry breakings in the thermodynamic limit.\cite{fsl03} However the
925: boundaries of the phases and the quantum critical points cannot be
926: accurately determined with this method. The series expansions
927: described in the previous section appears to be a powerful approach to
928: determine phase boundaries.\cite{gwsoh96,wgsoh97} If the spin-spin
929: correlation length is not very short, as it is the case in the
930: $J_1$--$J_2$ model on the square lattice for
931: $J_2/J_1\sim0.5$,\cite{cbps01} it is very difficult to decide from
932: exact diagonalizations between a VBC, a critical phase or an RVB SL.
933:
934: Concerning excitations, exact diagonalizations give the gaps in each
935: sector and provide a crude approximation of the dispersion laws of the
936: first excitations. The large-scale nature of the excitations (as for
937: examples domain walls excitations) can escape this method. The
938: semi-analytical approaches which can be used for the study of the
939: excitations of the VBC, all use as a basic departure point the
940: excitations of a local cluster of spins conveniently renormalized by
941: perturbation\cite{szksu96,bh02} or effective renormalization
942: technique.\cite{baa03} Contrary to exact diagonalizations these
943: methods are not limited by finite-size effects but the results can be
944: biased by the departure point.\cite{bh02,baa03}
945:
946: %______________________________________________________________________________
947:
948: \subsection{Summary of the properties of VBC phases}
949: The generic features of VBC (whatever the dimensionality of the
950: lattice) are:
951:
952: \begin{itemize}
953: \item A spin gap, no $SU(2)$ symmetry breaking and
954: short-ranged spin-spin correlations,
955:
956: \item Long-ranged order in dimer-dimer and/or larger $S=0$
957: plaquettes. The coupling of this order to lattice distortions
958: is probable in experimental realizations of spontaneous VBC.
959:
960: \item In {\em spontaneous} VBC phases the ground-state is
961: degenerate. From the theoretical point of view the discrete
962: symmetry of the order parameter of the VBC which spontaneously
963: breaks a lattice symmetry may give birth to a finite
964: temperature Ising-like transition.\cite{ccl90a} Simultaneity
965: between this transition and a possible structural transition
966: is likely when the couplings of the spins to the lattice
967: degrees of freedom (phonons) is considered.\cite{bm02}
968:
969: \item VBC have gapped excitations, in the $S=0$ sector as well
970: as in other $S$ sectors. A wide zoology of modes is to be
971: expected as well as continua associated to multi-particle
972: excitations or scattering of domain walls (in the case of a
973: spontaneous symmetry breaking of the ground-state). In two
974: dimensions all these excitations have integer spins (the
975: ordered back-ground inducing a confinement of the
976: spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ excitations)
977: \end{itemize}
978:
979: Frustration on the square lattice or more generally on bipartite
980: lattices is often overcome by
981: VBC phases. No theorem forbids the appearance of VBC in
982: triangular geometries but there is up to now no examples of such
983: phases in pure spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ models (in Sec.~\ref{sec:QDM}
984: examples will be given within the framework of quantum dimer models).
985:
986: It has been advocated in the large-$N$ approaches (see
987: section~\ref{sec:largeN}) that, at least in two dimensions, collinear
988: spin-spin correlations generically lead to VBC or VBS and only
989: non-collinear spin-spin correlations can give birth to RVB SL with
990: unconfined spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ excitations. The present knowledge of
991: $SU(2)$ phase diagrams supports this prediction. The VBC found so far
992: numerically in $SU(2)$ spin models appear to be in regions of
993: parameter space where the spin-spin correlations are characterized by
994: some short-ranged collinear order in the large-$S$ limit. The
995: $J_1$--$J_2$ model on the honeycomb lattice has a classical
996: incommensurate phase in the regime of high frustration and there are
997: some evidences that in the quantum phase diagram the collinear phase
998: is separated from the columnar VBC phase by a RVB SL.\cite{fsl01} The
999: multiple-spin exchange (MSE) model on the triangular lattice is also
1000: believed to be a RVB SL\cite{mlbw99} and the corresponding classical
1001: ground-states generically have non-coplanar spin configurations.
1002: Capriotti {\it et al.}\cite{cbps01} argued that the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$
1003: square lattice $J_1$-$J_2$ model could be a RVB SL. If confirmed,
1004: this would be the first counter-example to the general rule explained
1005: above (The Heisenberg model on the pyrochlore lattice might be an
1006: other counter-example\cite{baa03}).
1007:
1008: %_____________________________________________________________________
1009:
1010: \section{Large-$N$ methods}\label{sec:largeN}
1011: %_____________________________________________________________________
1012:
1013: Introduced by Affleck,\cite{a85} Affleck and Marston,\cite{am88}
1014: Arovas and Auerbach\cite{aa88} and Read and
1015: Sachdev\cite{rs89,rs90,rs91} in the context of spin models, large-$N$
1016: approaches are powerful methods to investigate quantum
1017: antiferromagnets. When $N$ is taken to infinity many of these models
1018: can be solved by saddle point methods and finite-$N$ corrections can
1019: be, at least in principle, explored in a controlled way. A success of
1020: these approaches is that they can describe the phenomenology of a
1021: large variety of phases encountered in quantum magnets : Magnetic LRO
1022: (possibly with order by disorder selection) as well as phases
1023: dominated by short-ranged valence-bonds: VBC, VBS and RVB liquids.
1024: One crucial result (due to Read and
1025: Sachdev\cite{rs89,rs90,rs91,sr91,s93}) concerning these three later
1026: phases is that the analysis of finite-$N$ corrections to some
1027: large-$N$ formulations ($Sp(N)$ for instance, see below) provides a
1028: general criterion to decide which of these three phase should appear
1029: in a given model.
1030:
1031: This criterion is the following in 2D: if the (large-$N$ equivalent of
1032: the) ``spin'' $S$ at each site matches the lattice coordination number
1033: $z$ by $2S=0$~mod~$z$ a VBS is to be expected. If it is not the case
1034: (as for a spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ model on the square lattice) one should
1035: look at the local spin-spin correlations. If they are reminiscent of
1036: a collinear order, a VBC with spontaneous translation symmetry
1037: breaking is expected whereas non-collinear short-ranged correlation
1038: generically give rise to a RVB phase without any broken symmetry and
1039: deconfined spinon excitations. These results are of course based on a
1040: large-$N$ generalization of the original spin model and there is no
1041: guaranty at all that these rules should always apply to $SU(2)$ models.
1042: To our knowledge they have however not been manifestly found in error
1043: up to now.\footnote{The spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ kagome antiferromagnet
1044: might however be such an example. See section~\ref{sec:kagome}.} In
1045: the following we will present some of the important reasoning steps
1046: leading to this result.
1047:
1048:
1049: \subsection{Bond variables}
1050: The $SU(2)$ algebra of a spin $S$ at one site
1051: can be represented by $2$ species of particles $a^\dag_\sigma$ (with
1052: $\sigma=\uparrow,\downarrow$), provided that the total number of
1053: particles on one site is constrained to be $a^\dag_\uparrow a_\uparrow
1054: + a^\dag_\downarrow a_\downarrow=2S$. The raising operator $S^+$
1055: (resp. $S^-$) is simply represented by $a^\dag_\uparrow a_\downarrow$
1056: (resp. $a^\dag_\downarrow a_\uparrow$). These particles can be chosen
1057: to be fermions (Abrikosov fermions) or bosons (Schwinger
1058: bosons). These particles carry a magnetization $\pm\frac{1}{2}$ since
1059: $S^z=\frac{1}{2}(a^\dag_\uparrow a_\uparrow-a^\dag_\downarrow
1060: a_\downarrow)$. For this reason they are often called {\em spinons}.
1061: The Heisenberg interaction is a quartic interaction for these
1062: particles:
1063: \begin{equation}
1064: {\vec S}_i\cdot{\vec S}_j =
1065: S^2 - \frac{1}{2} A_{ij}^\dagger A_{ij}
1066: \label{eq:SSAij}
1067: \end{equation}
1068: with the bond operator $A_{ij}$ defined by:
1069: \begin{equation}
1070: A_{ij} = a_{j\downarrow} a_{i\uparrow}
1071: - a_{j\uparrow} a_{i\downarrow}
1072: \label{eq:ASU2}
1073: \end{equation}
1074: Acting on the vacuum, $A_{ij}^\dagger$ creates a spin singlet on the
1075: bond $(ij)$. Physically $A_{ij}^\dagger A_{ij}$ measures the number of
1076: singlets on that bond and Eq.~\ref{eq:SSAij} shows that the
1077: antiferromagnetic Heisenberg interaction just tries to maximize that
1078: number.
1079:
1080: The idea of large-$N$ methods is to generalize the $SU(2)$ symmetry of
1081: the spin$-S$ algebra to a larger group $SU(N)$ (or $Sp(N)$) by letting
1082: the index $\sigma$ go from $1$ to $N$ (or $2N$). The $SU(N)$ (or
1083: $Sp(N)$) generalization of the Heisenberg model is solved by a saddle
1084: point calculation of the action. The $N=\infty$ limit is very similar
1085: to a mean-field decoupling of the four-body interaction of the
1086: physical $SU(2)$ model: $A_{ij}^\dagger A_{ij}\simeq
1087: A_{ij}^\dagger\left<A_{ij}\right>+\left<A_{ij}^\dagger\right>A_{ij}-\left|\left<A_{ij}\right>\right|^2$.
1088:
1089: \subsection{$SU(N)$}
1090: The generalization of the Heisenberg model to such a symmetry group
1091: depends only on the choice of the irreducible representation of
1092: $SU(N)$ according to which the ``spin'' operators transform (and not
1093: on the choice of fermions or bosons to implement the
1094: representation). For $SU(2)$ this amounts to specify the magnitude $S$
1095: of the spin. For $SU(N)$ irreducible representations are labeled by
1096: Young tableaux. The case of a general rectangular tableau with $n_c$
1097: columns and $m$ rows was discussed by Read and Sachdev\cite{rs89b} and
1098: $n_c$ appears to continue to play a role similar to $2S$ in the
1099: large-$N$ phase diagrams.\footnote{Taking the limit $N\to\infty$ with
1100: $m$ fixed of order 1 and $n_c\sim N$ is most conveniently done with
1101: bosons $b^\dagger_{\alpha p}$ where $\alpha=1\cdots N$ is the $SU(N)$
1102: index, while $p=1\cdots m$ label the different ``colors''. There are
1103: therefore $N m$ kinds of bosons. On the other hand it is convenient to
1104: use $n_c$ ``colors'' of fermions (still with an $SU(N)$ index) to deal
1105: with the case $n_c\sim\mathcal{O}(1)$ and $m\sim N$. Bosonic
1106: representations with $n_c\sim N$ are appropriate to describe
1107: magnetically ordered phases\cite{aa88} but cannot be used for
1108: frustrated models (such a representation is not self-conjugate). On
1109: the other hand fermionic representations, such as the $m=N/2$ and
1110: $n_c=1$ one,\cite{am88,rokhsar90} can be used on any lattice but they
1111: do not display magnetically ordered phases and tend to favor dimerized
1112: states.\cite{am88,rs89b,rokhsar90}} In this review we will focus on a
1113: slightly different large-$N$ generalization of the $SU(2)$ model which
1114: is both able to deal with frustration and magnetic states.
1115:
1116: \subsection{$Sp(N)$}
1117: To perform a large-$N$ extension of {\em frustrated} Heisenberg models
1118: one has to use either fermions\cite{am88} or bosons with an $Sp(N)$
1119: symmetry. The latter seems to produce phase diagrams that closely
1120: resemble the $SU(2)$ problems and we will focus on this representation
1121: which was introduced by Read and Sachdev.\cite{rs91} The presentation
1122: below is largely inspired from their
1123: papers.\cite{rs89,rs90,rs91,sr91,s93}
1124:
1125: We now have $2N$ flavors of bosons at each site: $b_{i,\sigma}$ with
1126: $\sigma=1..2N$ and we define an $Sp(N)$-invariant bond operator:
1127: \begin{equation}
1128: A_{ij} = \sum_{\sigma,\sigma'=1..2N}
1129: \mathcal{J}_{\sigma,\sigma'} \;b_i^\sigma \;b_j^{\sigma'}
1130: \end{equation}
1131: where the $2N\times2N$ antisymmetric tensor $\mathcal{J}$ is block
1132: diagonal
1133: \begin{equation}
1134: \mathcal{J}=\left[
1135: \begin{array}{ccc}
1136: \begin{array}{cc}
1137: 0&1\\-1&0
1138: \end{array}& &\\
1139: &\ddots &\\
1140: & &\begin{array}{cc}0&1\\-1&0\end{array}
1141: \end{array}
1142: \right]
1143: \end{equation}
1144: and generalizes the $SU(2)$ antisymmetric tensor $\epsilon_{ij}$
1145: ($SU(2)$ is identical to $Sp(1)$). Up to some constant the $Sp(N)$
1146: Hamiltonian is
1147: \begin{equation}
1148: \mathcal{H}=-\frac{1}{N} \sum_{ij} J_{ij} A_{ij}^\dagger A_{ij}
1149: \end{equation}
1150: with the constraints
1151: \begin{equation}
1152: \forall i\;\;
1153: \sum_{\sigma=1}^{2N} b^{\dag}_{i\sigma}\;b_{i\sigma}=n_c
1154: \label{eq:constraint}
1155: \end{equation}
1156: $n_c=2S$ in the $SU(2)$ case and $n_c/N=\kappa$ will be kept constant
1157: when taking the large-$N$ limit. The partition function can be
1158: represented by an imaginary time functional integral:
1159: \begin{equation}
1160: Z = \int \mathcal{D}[\lambda_i,b_i^\sigma,b_i^{\dag\sigma}]
1161: \exp{\left(-\int_0^\beta (L_0+\mathcal{H})d\tau\right)}
1162: \label{eq:Z}
1163: \end{equation}
1164: \begin{eqnarray}
1165: L_0&=&\sum_{i \sigma}
1166: b^{\dag\sigma}_i ( \partial_\tau+i\lambda_i) b_{i\sigma}
1167: -iN\kappa\sum_i \lambda_i
1168: \label{eq:lL0}
1169: \end{eqnarray}
1170: The $\lambda_i(\tau)$ are Lagrange multipliers that enforce the
1171: constraint Eq.~\ref{eq:constraint} at every site. Bond degrees of
1172: freedom $Q_{ij}$ are introduced in order to decouple the bosons
1173: (Hubbard-Stratonovitch). The partition function is now
1174: \begin{equation}
1175: Z = \int \mathcal{D}[Q_{ij},\bar{Q}_{ij},\lambda_i,b_i^\sigma,b_i^{\dag\sigma}]
1176: \exp{\left(-\int_0^\beta ( L_0 + L_1) d\tau\right)}
1177: \label{eq:ZQ}
1178: \end{equation}
1179: with
1180: \begin{equation}
1181: L_1 = \sum_{ij} \left[
1182: N \frac{ | Q_{ij} |^2}{J_{ij}}
1183: - (A_{ij}^\dagger Q_{ij} + {\rm h.c})
1184: \right]\;,
1185: \end{equation}
1186: so that a Gaussian integration of the $Q_{ij}$ gives back
1187: Eq.~\ref{eq:Z}. The bond variable are $Sp(N)$ invariant and they can
1188: take non-zero expectation values at a mean-field level without
1189: breaking the $Sp(N)$ symmetry. As we explain below, they are however
1190: not {\em gauge-invariant}.
1191:
1192: \subsubsection{Gauge invariance}
1193: An important property of Eq.~\ref{eq:ZQ} is the $U(1)$ gauge
1194: invariance associated to the following transformations:
1195: \begin{eqnarray}
1196: b_{i\sigma}&\to&b_{i\sigma}e^{i\phi_i} \label{eq:phi}\\
1197: Q_{ij} &\to& Q_{ij} e^{i(\phi_i+\phi_j)} \label{eq:Qtheta}\\
1198: \lambda_i &\to& \lambda_i -\partial_\tau \phi_i \label{eq:lambdatheta}
1199: \end{eqnarray}
1200: where $\phi_i(\tau)$ are arbitrary site- and imaginary-time-dependent
1201: angles. This gauge invariance comes from the the conservation of the
1202: local boson number and reflects the fact the magnitude of the spin
1203: is constant at each site. If we focus on the phase degrees of freedom
1204: of the bond variables, the Eq.~\ref{eq:ZQ} describes a system of
1205: charge-1 bosons coupled to a $U(1)$ lattice gauge
1206: theory.\cite{wilson74,bdi74} These gauge degrees of freedom play a
1207: crucial role in the analysis of the fluctuations about mean-field
1208: solutions.
1209:
1210: {\em Effective action for the bond variables} --- The boson degrees of
1211: freedom can be integrated out to give an effective action for the bond
1212: variables:
1213: \begin{equation}
1214: Z = \int \mathcal{D}[Q_{ij},\bar{Q}_{ij},\lambda_i]
1215: \exp{\left(-S^{\rm eff} \right)}
1216: \end{equation}
1217: \begin{equation}
1218: S^{\rm eff}=N \int_0^\beta \left[
1219: \sum_{ij} \frac{ | Q_{ij} |^2}{J_{ij}}
1220: -i\kappa \sum_i \lambda_i
1221: \right]
1222: - N {\rm Tr} \log G
1223: \label{eq:Seff}
1224: \end{equation}
1225: where $G^{-1}$ is the quadratic form which couples the bosons in
1226: Eq.~\ref{eq:ZQ} (propagator). It depends on the bond variables and on
1227: $\lambda_i$. We may write formally
1228: $G^{-1}=\partial_\tau-i\lambda-Q$. The term $N {\rm Tr} \log G$ is the
1229: free energy of the bosons in presence of the bond fields. By
1230: construction the action $S^{\rm eff}$ is gauge-invariant with respect
1231: to the transformations of Eqs.~\ref{eq:phi}--\ref{eq:lambdatheta}.
1232: So far this is an exact formulation of the original model for
1233: arbitrary $N$.
1234:
1235:
1236: \subsubsection{Mean-field ($N=\infty$ limit) } Since $N$ factorizes (no
1237: flavor index is left in Eq.~\ref{eq:Seff}), $Z$ is dominated by the
1238: saddle point of $S^{\rm eff}$ when $N$ is large. For simple models
1239: such as the first-neighbor antiferromagnet on the cubic lattice (any
1240: space dimension), the saddle point can be determined analytically. The
1241: $N=\infty$ limit is almost equivalent to the Schwinger-boson
1242: mean-field theory.\cite{schwingerboson,ceccatto} This can otherwise be
1243: done numerically.\footnote{To our knowledge, all the saddle points
1244: considered so far are static (expectation values of the $Q_{ij}$ are
1245: time-independent) and the corresponding $\left<Q_{ij}\right>$ could
1246: all be made real with an appropriate gauge transformation. There is
1247: no chiral order and the time-reversal symmetry is unbroken. The
1248: (oriented) sum of the complex phases of the bond variables around a
1249: plaquette defines a $U(1)$ flux. This flux is related to the solid
1250: angle formed by the spins and it vanishes in collinear as well as in
1251: coplanar states. In such cases the phases can be therefore be gauged
1252: away and the $\left<Q_{ij}\right>$ can be made real. For this reason
1253: complex bond variables are usually not observed.\cite{ot03} } In this
1254: large-$N$ limit, two kinds of mean-field solutions can appear. For
1255: large enough $\kappa$ the bosons condense at some wave-vector, the
1256: spectrum of the mean-field Hamiltonian is gapless. This corresponds
1257: physically to N\'eel long-range order. On the other hand, for smaller
1258: $\kappa$ (smaller ``spin'') the mean field Hamiltonian is gapped and
1259: the ground-state preserves the $Sp(N)$ symmetry. Fluctuations around
1260: the saddle point are not expected to change drastically the N\'eel
1261: ordered phases but they play an important role in the physics of
1262: $Sp(N)$ symmetric phases. The following is a brief discussion of the
1263: effects of fluctuations in these non-magnetic phases.
1264:
1265:
1266: \subsubsection{Fluctuations about the mean-field solution} At the mean-field
1267: level described above some $Q_{ij}$ acquire a (static in all known
1268: cases) non-zero expectation value: $\left<Q_{ij}\right>=\bar{Q}_{ij}$.
1269: For this reason such a state spontaneously breaks the local gauge
1270: invariance of Eqs.~\ref{eq:phi},\ref{eq:Qtheta} and
1271: \ref{eq:lambdatheta}. However this does not mean that the gauge
1272: degrees are all gapped and do not play any role at low energy. In
1273: fact, as remarked by Read and Sachdev, depending on the {\em geometry}
1274: of the lattice defined by the bonds where $Q_{ij}\ne0$, some
1275: long-wavelength gapless gauge excitations survive and the associated
1276: fluctuations must be taken into account. More precisely, the
1277: fluctuations of the bond variables about the saddle point are
1278: decomposed into an amplitude and a phase
1279: \begin{eqnarray}
1280: Q_{ij}=\left(\bar{Q}_{ij} + q_{ij}\right)\exp(i\theta_{ij})
1281: \label{eq:qtheta}
1282: \end{eqnarray}
1283: and we expand $S_{\rm eff}$ with these new variables. Two cases must
1284: then be considered:
1285: \begin{itemize}
1286: \item[i)] The lattice made of the sites connected by non-zero
1287: $\bar{Q}_{ij}$ bonds is bipartite. This is automatically the case if
1288: the original lattice defined by bonds where the exchange $J_{ij}\ne0$
1289: is bipartite. This can also be true if the original lattice is a
1290: non-bipartite lattice but some bonds have $\bar{Q}_{ij}=0$ so that the
1291: remaining lattice is bipartite. This is the case, for instance, in
1292: the $J_1$--$J_2$ model on the square lattice,\cite{rs91} in some
1293: regions of the phase diagram of the Shastry-Sutherland
1294: model\cite{cms01} and in on the checkerboard Heisenberg
1295: model.\cite{mts01} Such configurations of the bond variables give {\em
1296: collinear} spin structures: spin-spin correlations can either be
1297: long-ranged (large $\kappa$, N\'eel phase) or short-ranged but in both
1298: cases the magnetic structure factor is peaked at a simple wave-vector
1299: ${\bf k}_0$ such that $2{\bf k}_0$ is a reciprocal lattice vector
1300: ($k_0=(\pi,0)$, $k_0=(0,\pi)$ or $k_0=(\pi,\pi)$ in square
1301: geometries).
1302: \item[ii)]
1303: The lattice made of the sites connected by non-zero $\bar{Q}_{ij}$
1304: bonds is not bipartite. This happens in some phases of the
1305: $J_1$--$J_2$--$J_3$ model on the square lattice,\cite{rs91} on the
1306: triangular or kagome lattices\cite{sachdev92}, in the
1307: Shastry-Sutherland model for some values of the exchange
1308: parameters\cite{cms01} and on an anisotropic triangular
1309: lattice.\cite{cmm01} Such mean-field states generically have planar
1310: but non-collinear spin-spin correlations.
1311: \end{itemize}
1312: It is simple to check that case i) preserve a {\em global} continuous
1313: symmetry while such a symmetry is absent in ii). Consider the
1314: following {\em global} gauge transformation in case i) :
1315: \begin{eqnarray}
1316: b_{i\sigma}\to b_{i\sigma}e^{i\phi} \;&&\;
1317: b_{j\sigma}\to b_{j\sigma}e^{-i\phi} \label{eq:phiij} \\
1318: Q_{ii'} \to Q_{ii'} e^{2i\phi} \;&&\;
1319: Q_{jj'} \to Q_{jj'} e^{-2i\phi}\label{eq:Q2}\\
1320: Q_{ij} &\to& Q_{ij} \label{eq:Qij}
1321: \end{eqnarray}
1322: where $i,i'$ belongs to sublattice $A$ and $j,j'$ belongs to
1323: sublattice $B$. This transformation does not change the mean-field
1324: parameters $\bar{Q}_{ij}$. The only fields affected by this
1325: transformation are those connecting two sites on the same
1326: sublattice.\footnote{In a gauge theory language the fields $Q_{ii'}$
1327: (resp. $Q_{jj'}$) of Eq.~\ref{eq:Q2} transform like a charge-2 scalar
1328: for the $U(1)$ gauge field. Instead, from Eq.~\ref{eq:phiij}, the
1329: bosons (spinons) carry a charge 1.} They have a zero expectation
1330: values in case i) (or do not even exist if the physical lattice is
1331: itself bipartite). For this reason it is possible to make low-energy
1332: (and long-wavelength) gapless gauge excitations about the saddle-point
1333: by replacing the global staggered phase shift $\phi$ of
1334: Eq.~\ref{eq:phiij} by a slowly varying (staggered) $\theta_{ij}$
1335: (Eq.~\ref{eq:qtheta}). A gradient expansion of the effective action
1336: performed at the appropriate points in the Brillouin zone for the
1337: phase fluctuations only involves gradients of $\theta$. The
1338: corresponding action is that of $U(1)$ lattice gauge theory coupled to
1339: charge-1 boson (spinons).
1340:
1341:
1342: \subsubsection{Topological effects - instantons and spontaneous dimerization}
1343: So far only small fluctuations around the saddle point were considered
1344: and the contribution of topologically non-trivial gauge-field
1345: configurations were ignored. Consequently, the magnitude of the
1346: ``spin'' $n_c/2$ was a continuous parameter and {\em the information
1347: about the integer or half-integer (for instance) character of $S$ as
1348: disappeared}. From Haldane's work on quantum spin chains and
1349: non-linear sigma models\cite{haldane83} it is well known that Berry
1350: phases in spin systems give rise to topological terms in the
1351: low-energy effective action which can play a crucial role depending on
1352: the parity of $2S$.
1353:
1354: In non-linear sigma models in 2+1 dimensions the Berry phase vanishes
1355: for configurations which are smooth on the scale of the lattice
1356: spacing\cite{haldane88,noHopfTerm2D88} (unlike the 1+1 dimensional
1357: case). However ``hedgehog'' space-time singularities\cite{haldane88}
1358: give non-trivial Berry phases. Read and Sachdev found that the
1359: closely related instantons of the effective $U(1)$ gauge theory
1360: described before\footnote{In that gauge theory associated to the
1361: phases of the link variables an instanton corresponds to a tunneling
1362: event during which the total magnetic field piercing the lattice is
1363: changed by $\pm2\pi$.} also play a crucial role in the physics of the
1364: $Sp(N)$ (as well as $SU(N)$) spin models.
1365:
1366: The Berry phase associated to such a singular configuration depends on
1367: details of the lattice geometry. In the short-range ordered
1368: $(\pi,\pi)$ phase of the square lattice antiferromagnet this Berry
1369: phase is a multiple of $in_c\pi/2$. Although dealing with a gas of
1370: interacting ($1/r$ Coulomb-like potential) instantons is a difficult
1371: problem (see Ref.~\cite{rs90} and references therein), we can guess
1372: that the physics will depend on $n_c\;{\rm mod}\;4$. A detailed
1373: analysis\cite{rs90} shows that when $n_c\ne0\;{\rm mod}\;4$ the
1374: instantons condense and {\em spontaneously break the lattice
1375: translation symmetry}. This generates a static electric field for the
1376: $U(1)$ gauge field. Since the electric field is coupled to the
1377: difference of amplitudes of the bond variables, such state acquires
1378: spatially inhomogeneous expectation values of the bond variables, {\em
1379: it is a VBC and spinons are confined in pairs}. In the $J_1$--$J_2$
1380: model around $J_2/J_1\simeq0.5$ the mean-field state is short-range
1381: ordered with correlations peaked at $(\pi,\pi)$. A columnar dimerized
1382: state is predicted by Read and Sachdev from this analysis of the
1383: fluctuations, in agreement with a number of numerical works on the
1384: $SU(2)$ $J_1$--$J_2$ spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ model.
1385:
1386: In a recent work by Harada, Kawashima and Troyer\cite{hkt03} the phase
1387: diagram of the (first neighbor - unfrustrated) $SU(N)$ antiferromagnet
1388: on the square lattice with $n_c=1$ was found to be in complete
1389: agreement with Read and Sachdev's predictions. They showed by quantum
1390: Monte Carlo simulations that for $N\leq4$ the systems is N\'eel
1391: ordered whereas it is a columnar VBC for $N>5$. This provides an
1392: additional support to the field theory arguments described above. It
1393: also underlines that the mechanism of spontaneous symmetry breaking
1394: and formation of a VBC may come from quantum fluctuations only and
1395: that frustration is not always required (although it clearly enhances
1396: quantum fluctuations).
1397:
1398: On the other hand when $n_c=0\;{\rm mod}\;4$ the analysis of Read and
1399: Sachdev shows that fluctuations should not bring any broken lattice
1400: symmetry. Spinons are also confined and this state closely resembles
1401: the valence-bond solid (VBS) proposed by Affleck {\it et
1402: al.}\cite{aklt87} as a possible ground-state when the spin $S$ matches
1403: the coordination number $z$ according to $2S=0$ mod $z$ (see
1404: \S\ref{ssec:VBS}).
1405:
1406:
1407: \subsubsection{Deconfined phases}
1408: Now we suppose that, starting from a mean-field solution with
1409: collinear correlations (case i), a parameter of the original spin
1410: model is varied so that the mean field solution is changed and some
1411: bonds $Q_{ii'}$ ($i$ and $i'$ belong to the same sublattice) acquire a
1412: non zero expectation value (case ii). In the framework of square
1413: lattice antiferromagnets, a finite third-neighbor coupling ($J_3$)
1414: would be needed.\cite{rs91} From the point of view of the
1415: long-wavelength gauge fluctuations (related to the continuum limit of
1416: the phases $\theta_{ij}$) discussed above, the appearance of
1417: $\bar{Q}_{ii'}\ne0$ is equivalent to the condensation of a (Higgs)
1418: boson of charge 2. This is a spontaneous break down of the global
1419: $U(1)$ staggered symmetry of Eqs.~\ref{eq:phiij}--\ref{eq:Qij} down to
1420: a $\Z$ one since the field $Q_{ii}$ is not invariant under
1421: Eq.~\ref{eq:Q2} except if $\phi=0$ or $\pi$. Based on results of
1422: Fradkin and Shenker\cite{fs79} concerning confinement in compact
1423: lattice gauge theories coupled to matter, Read and Sachdev argued that
1424: this Higgs mechanism suppresses the low-energy gauge fluctuations and
1425: liberate the spinons. This confinement transition is described by a
1426: $\Z$ gauge theory. The suppression of the $U(1)$ gauge fluctuations
1427: also forbids the condensation of instantons discussed above and the
1428: ground-state remains unique\footnote{Except for a discrete topological
1429: degeneracy.} and {\em bond variables have uniform expectation
1430: values. It is a genuine SL without any broken symmetry and
1431: deconfined spinons.}
1432:
1433: %_____________________________________________________________________
1434:
1435: \section{Quantum Dimer Models}\label{sec:QDM}
1436: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
1437: %_____________________________________________________________________
1438:
1439: In a previous section (\S\ref{sec:VBC}) we showed that pairing
1440: spins-$\frac{1}{2}$ into singlets at short distances is a rather
1441: natural way to overcome frustration in Heisenberg
1442: antiferromagnets. QDM are defined in the Hilbert space of
1443: nearest-neighbor valence-bond (or dimer) coverings of the lattice. By
1444: construction these models focus on the dynamics in the singlet space
1445: and ignore magnetic (gapped magnons or gapped spinons)
1446: excitations. For this reason they are (a priori) not appropriate to
1447: describe the physics of spin systems where magnetic excitations are
1448: gapless.
1449:
1450: The Hamiltonian of a QDM usually contains kinetic as well as potential
1451: energy terms for these dimers. Such Hamiltonians can often be simpler
1452: than their spin parents and are amenable to several analytic
1453: treatments because of their close relations to classical dimer
1454: problems,\cite{k61,f61,k63} Ising models and $\Z$ gauge
1455: theory.\cite{msf02,msp02,ms02} These models can offer simple
1456: descriptions of VBC\cite{rk88} as well as RVB
1457: liquids.\cite{ms01,msp02} It is in particular possible to write down
1458: some QDM that have a simple and exact VBC ground-state with
1459: spontaneous broken symmetries (such as Rokhsar and Kivelson's model on
1460: the square lattice\cite{rk88} with attractive potential energy only -
1461: in which case the exact ground-state is very simple). Simple solvable
1462: QDM which have a dimer-liquid ground-state can also be
1463: constructed.\cite{msp02}
1464:
1465: \subsection{Hamiltonian}
1466:
1467: \newcommand{\hh}{\begin{picture}(13,9)(-2,2)
1468: \put (0,0) {\line (1,0) {8}}
1469: \put (8,8) {\line (-1,0) {8}}
1470: \put (0,0) {\circle*{3}}
1471: \put (0,8) {\circle*{3}}
1472: \put (8,0) {\circle*{3}}
1473: \put (8,8) {\circle*{3}}
1474: \end{picture}
1475: }
1476: \newcommand{\vv}{\begin{picture}(13,9)(-2,2)
1477: \put (0,0) {\line (0,1) {8}}
1478: \put (8,8) {\line (0,-1) {8}}
1479: \put (0,0) {\circle*{3}}
1480: \put (0,8) {\circle*{3}}
1481: \put (8,0) {\circle*{3}}
1482: \put (8,8) {\circle*{3}}
1483: \end{picture}
1484: }
1485:
1486: The first QDM was introduced by Rokhsar and Kivelson.\cite{rk88} It is
1487: defined by an Hamiltonian acting in the Hilbert space of
1488: first-neighbor dimer (valence-bonds) coverings of the square lattice
1489: and reads:
1490: \begin{equation}
1491: \mathcal{H}=\sum_{\rm Plaquette}
1492: \left[
1493: -J\left(\left|\vv\right>\left<\hh\right| +{\rm H.c.}\right)
1494: +V\left(\left|\vv\right>\left<\vv\right|+\left|\hh\right>\left<\hh\right|\right)
1495: \right]
1496: \label{eq:sQDM}
1497: \end{equation}
1498:
1499: Flipping two parallel dimers around a square plaquette is the simplest
1500: dimer move on the square lattice and the $J$ terms precisely represent
1501: such dynamics. The $V$ terms are diagonal in the dimer basis and
1502: account for an attraction or repulsion between nearest-neighbor
1503: dimers. These are the two {\em most local} terms (respecting all
1504: lattice symmetries) which can be considered.\footnote{They were
1505: originally derived\cite{rk88} as the lowest order terms of a formal
1506: overlap expansion (see \S\ref{ssec:spin2QDM} below) of the
1507: Heisenberg. In that calculation $J\sim x^4$ and $V\sim x^8$. Notice
1508: that a three-dimer kinetic term (extending over two neighboring
1509: plaquettes) is generated at order $x^6$ and is not included in
1510: Eq.~\ref{eq:sQDM}.}
1511:
1512:
1513: \subsection{Relation with spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ models}
1514: \label{ssec:spin2QDM}
1515:
1516: There exists different interesting mappings between frustrated Ising
1517: models and QDM.\cite{msc00,ms02} Here, however, we focus on the
1518: relations between QDM and $SU(N)$ (or $Sp(N)$) spin models in which
1519: dimers are related to singlet valence-bonds.
1520:
1521: {\em Overlap expansion}. --- A valence-bond state (product of two-spin
1522: singlets - belongs to the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ Hilbert space) can be
1523: associated to any dimer covering.\footnote{There is however a sign
1524: ambiguity (a valence-bond is antisymmetric under the exchange of both
1525: spins) that can be fixed by choosing an orientation on every bond.}
1526: Two such valence-bond states $\left|a\right>$ and $\left|b\right>$ are
1527: not orthogonal but, as first discussed by Sutherland\cite{s88} their
1528: overlap decays exponentially with the length $L$ of the loops of their
1529: transition graphs (defined in \S\ref{sssec:trgr}) as
1530: $|\left<a|b\right>|=2^{1-L/2}$. Rokhsar and Kivelson\cite{rk88}
1531: introduced a formal expansion parameter $x$ and replaced
1532: $|\left<a|b\right>|$ by $2x^{L}$. Their idea is that although
1533: $x=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$ for physical $SU(2)$ spins, the physics of some
1534: models may be captured by the first orders of a small $x$
1535: expansion. Truncating this expansion to order $x^n$ gives an effective
1536: Hamiltonian which contains {\em local} terms involving at most $n$
1537: dimers.\footnote{The {\em signs} of the non-diagonal (kinetic) terms
1538: of the effective QDM obtained by such small $x$ expansion depends on
1539: the sign convention which was chosen to map valence-bonds to
1540: dimers. An important question is to know whether, at least at the
1541: lowest non-trivial order, a sign convention giving the same sign for
1542: all kinetic terms exists (as in Eq.~\ref{eq:sQDM}). This is the case
1543: on the square\cite{rk88} and triangular lattices.\cite{ms01}} In this
1544: approach the dimer states of the QDM are in one-to-one correspondence
1545: with {\em orthogonalized} valence-bonds in the spin Hilbert
1546: space.\footnote{This implicitly assumes that the valence-bond states
1547: are linearly independent. This can be demonstrated on the square
1548: lattice and appears to be the case on the triangular and kagome
1549: lattices for large enough sizes. The operator which orthogonalizes the
1550: valence-bond basis into the dimer basis is $\Omega^{-1/2}$ where
1551: $\Omega_{a,b}=\left<a|b\right>$ is the overlap matrix.}
1552:
1553: {\em Fluctuations about large-$N$ saddle points}.--- From the argument
1554: above it could seem that the connection between spin-$\frac{1}{2}$
1555: models and QDM relies on a variational approximation: the spin Hilbert
1556: space is restricted to the nearest-neighbor valence-bond
1557: subspace. This connection is in fact probably deeper, as some theories
1558: describing fluctuations about some large-$N$ saddle points ($1/N$
1559: corrections) are equivalent to (generalized) QDM. This mapping was
1560: discussed by Read and Sachdev\cite{rs89b} for representation with
1561: $m=1$ (number of rows in the Young tableau of the $SU(N)$
1562: representation), $N\to\infty$ and $n_c\sim\mathcal{O}(1)$, it leads to
1563: a {\em generalized} QDM where $n_c$ dimers emanate from each site. A
1564: QDM also describes $1/N$ corrections in the case of the
1565: fermionic\footnote{Young tableau with $n_c=1$ column and $m=N/2$
1566: rows.} $SU(N)$ generalization\cite{am88,rokhsar90} of the Heisenberg
1567: model:
1568: \begin{eqnarray}
1569: \mathcal{H}&=&\frac{1}{N}\sum_{ij} J_{ij}:B_{ij}^\dagger B_{ij}: \nonumber \\
1570: &=& -\frac{1}{N}\sum_{ij} J_{ij}\; B_{ij}^\dagger B_{ij} +{\rm cst}
1571: \label{eq:HSUNf} \\
1572: {\rm where}\;\;B_{ij}&=& \sum_{\sigma=1}^N c_{j\sigma}^\dagger c_{i\sigma}
1573: \end{eqnarray}
1574: and where the $c_{i\sigma}$ are $N$ flavors of fermions satisfying
1575: a constraint similar to Eq.~\ref{eq:constraint} :
1576: \begin{equation}
1577: \sum_{\sigma=1}^N c_{i\sigma}^\dagger c_{i\sigma}=N/2
1578: \label{eq:constraintF}
1579: \end{equation}
1580: Rokhsar showed\cite{rokhsar90} that in the $N\to\infty$ limit
1581: ``dimerized states'' (or Peierls states) becomes exact ground-states
1582: of Eq.~\ref{eq:HSUNf} for a large class of models.\footnote{ Let $J_0$
1583: be the largest value of the $J_{ij}$. Each dimerization (no site is
1584: left empty) where only bonds where $J_{ij}=J_0$ are occupied is a
1585: ground-state. Here a ``dimer'' between to neighbors $i$ and $j$
1586: consists of a $SU(N)$ singlet made with $N$ fermions (one of each
1587: flavor) hoping back and forth between $i$ and $j$. It is constructed
1588: from $\prod_{\sigma=1}^N \left(c_{i\sigma}^\dagger
1589: +c_{j\sigma}^\dagger\right) \left|0\right>$. by projecting out the
1590: components which do not satisfy Eq.~\ref{eq:constraintF}. Notice
1591: however that in the $N\to\infty$ limit the relative fluctuations of
1592: the total number of fermion on each site are of order $1/\sqrt{N}$ and
1593: can be neglected.} Quite naturally, $1/N$ corrections will induce a
1594: dynamics into this subspace of dimerized states; it can be described
1595: by a QDM (with kinetic energy terms only at this order). At lowest
1596: order, on the square lattice, a kinetic term identical to the $J$ term
1597: in Eq.~\ref{eq:sQDM} is generated and naturally favors a columnar or
1598: resonating-plaquette crystal (in agreement with a number of works on
1599: the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ model). The same arguments were discussed for
1600: the kagome lattice.\cite{mz91} In that case the leading $1/N$
1601: corrections to the fermionic saddle point generate three-dimer moves
1602: around hexagons and stabilize a crystal of resonating
1603: hexagons.\footnote{To our knowledge however there is no clear evidence
1604: of such ordering in the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ case.} This formalism was
1605: also applied to the checkerboard model\cite{canals02} to conclude to
1606: the presence of a VBC phase.
1607:
1608: \subsection{Square lattice}
1609:
1610: The phase diagram of the Rokhsar and Kivelson's square lattice QDM is
1611: shown Fig.~\ref{fig:sQDM}. Since a change in the signs of the basis
1612: dimer configurations can change $J$ into $-J$ (see
1613: Ref.~\cite{rk88}) we will choose $J>0$ without lost of
1614: generality.
1615: \begin{figure}
1616: \begin{center}
1617: \includegraphics[height=3cm]{QDMsquare}
1618: \caption[99]{Schematic phase diagram of the the square lattice
1619: QDM. The possible location of an intermediate plaquette phase
1620: is taken from the work of Leung {\it et al}.\cite{lcr96}}
1621: \label{fig:sQDM}
1622: \end{center}
1623: \end{figure}
1624:
1625: \subsubsection{Transition graphs and topological sectors}
1626: \label{sssec:trgr}
1627:
1628: In order to understand the particularities of QDM on bipartite
1629: lattices it is useful to describe how the set of dimer coverings
1630: splits into {\em topological sectors}. To do so we first have to
1631: define transition graphs: the transition graph of two dimer coverings
1632: $c$ and $c'$ is obtained by superimposing $c$ and $c'$ on the top of
1633: each other; it defines a set of non-intersecting loops covering the
1634: lattice. On each bond where the dimers of $c$ and $c'$ match, a
1635: trivial loop of length 2 is obtained. When the lattice is bipartite
1636: (two sublattices $A$ and $B$) these loops can be {\em oriented} in the
1637: following way: any dimer belonging to $c$ is oriented from $A$ to $B$
1638: and dimers of $c'$ are oriented $B\to A$. The transition graph is
1639: then made of loops of the type $A\to B\to A\to B\cdots$. With
1640: periodic boundary conditions two winding numbers\cite{rk88}
1641: $-L/2\leq\Omega_x,\Omega_y\leq L/2$ are associated to such a
1642: transition graph ($L\times L$ sites). $\Omega_x$ (resp. $\Omega_y$)
1643: is the net number of topologically non-trivial loops (clockwise minus
1644: counterclockwise) encircling the torus in the $x$ (resp. $y$)
1645: direction.
1646:
1647: Dimer coverings can be grouped into different {\em topological
1648: sectors}. By definition two dimer coverings belong to the same sector
1649: if they can be transformed into each other by repeated actions of {\em
1650: local} dimer moves (the transition graph associated to each movement
1651: does not wind around the whole system if it has periodic boundary
1652: conditions). On the square lattice two-dimer moves are sufficient to
1653: connect any two states in the same sector; that is the Hamiltonian
1654: Eq.~\ref{eq:sQDM} is ergodic within each topological sector. In a
1655: torus geometry, $c$ and $c'$ belongs to the same sector if and only if
1656: their transition graph has winding numbers $\Omega_x=\Omega_y=0$. The
1657: different topological sectors can be labeled by their winding numbers
1658: with respect to some reference columnar configuration. Their number
1659: is of order $\mathcal{O}(L^2)$ for a system of linear size $L$.
1660:
1661:
1662: \subsubsection{Staggered VBC for $V/J> 1$}
1663: When $V$ is sufficiently large the system tries to minimize the number
1664: of parallel dimers. The staggered configuration shown
1665: Fig.~\ref{fig:sQDM} has no such {\em flippable plaquette}. It is
1666: always a zero-energy eigenstate of Eq.~\ref{eq:sQDM} and becomes a
1667: ground-state for $J\geq V$. It breaks several lattice symmetries
1668: (four-fold degenerate) and is a VBC.
1669:
1670: The expectation value of the energy per plaquette satisfies ${\rm
1671: min}(0,V-J)\leq E_0/N_p\leq {\rm max}(0,V+J)$. For $V/J>1$ this gives
1672: $0 \leq E_0/N_p$ and any zero-energy state saturates this lower bound
1673: and is a therefore a ground-state. One should however notice that it
1674: is possible to make zero-energy domain walls in this VBC since the
1675: state shown Fig.~\ref{fig:stagg2} is also annihilated by the
1676: Hamiltonian. No local dimer movement can take place in the staggered
1677: VBC (with or without domain walls). Each of these states form a
1678: topological sector with a single configuration which has
1679: $\left|\Omega_x\right|+\left|\Omega_y\right|=L/2$ with respect to a
1680: columnar state.
1681:
1682: \begin{figure}
1683: \begin{center}
1684: \includegraphics[height=3cm]{stagg2}
1685: \caption[99]{Domain wall in a staggered VBC.}
1686: \label{fig:stagg2}
1687: \end{center}
1688: \end{figure}
1689:
1690: \subsubsection{Columnar crystal for $V<0$}
1691:
1692: When parallel dimers attract each other the system tries to maximize
1693: the number of flippable plaquettes. Columnar configurations as shown
1694: on the left side of Fig.~\ref{fig:sQDM} do maximize this number. Such
1695: a VBC is exactly realized for $V<0$ and $J=0$. Elementary excitations
1696: consist of a pair of (say) vertical dimers in a background of vertical
1697: columns of horizontal dimers. Such excitations are gapped ($\Delta
1698: E=2|V|$) and this VBC phase will survive to the inclusion of a finite
1699: $J$ term. Notice that unlike the staggered VBC presented in the
1700: previous paragraph the columnar dimer configuration is not an exact
1701: eigenstate when $J\ne0$. The exact diagonalizations data of Leung
1702: {\it et al}\cite{lcr96} suggest that the columnar phase may disappear around
1703: a critical value $V/J\simeq -0.2$.
1704:
1705: \subsubsection{Plaquette phase}
1706:
1707: When the kinetic energy dominates ($|V|\ll J$) the system will try to
1708: maximize the number of resonating plaquettes $\left| \|
1709: \right>+\left|=\right>$. This can be achieved through the resonating
1710: plaquette crystal shown Fig.~\ref{fig:sQDM} and the numerical work
1711: (exact diagonalizations up to $8\times8$ sites) of Leung {\it et
1712: al}\cite{lcr96} suggest that this phase is realized in an interval
1713: $-0.2\leq V/J \leq 1$. Although this model would not suffer from the
1714: fermion sign problem we are not aware of any QMC simulation on this
1715: model.
1716:
1717: \subsubsection{Rokhsar-Kivelson point}
1718:
1719: The point $J=V$ (Rokhsar-Kivelson (RK) point) plays a special role. As
1720: remarked by Rokhsar and Kivelson\cite{rk88} the equal-amplitude
1721: superposition of all dimerizations in a given topological sector is an
1722: exact ground-state. When $J=V$ the Hamiltonian can be written as a sum
1723: of projectors:
1724: \begin{eqnarray}
1725: \mathcal{H}_{J=V=1}&=&\sum_{p} \left|\Psi_p\right>\left<\Psi_p\right| \label{eq:sRK}\\
1726: \left|\Psi_p\right>&=&\left|\vv\right> - \left|\hh\right>
1727: \end{eqnarray}
1728: The linear superposition of all dimer coverings belonging to a given
1729: sector $\Omega$
1730: \begin{equation}
1731: \left|0\right>=\sum_{c\in\Omega}\left| c\right>
1732: \label{eq:RK}
1733: \end{equation}
1734: is annihilated by Eq.~\ref{eq:sRK} and is therefore a ground-state.
1735: The argument is the following. Consider a plaquette $p$ and a
1736: configuration $\left| c\right>$. If $\left| c\right>$ has one or no
1737: dimer at all on the edges of $p$ we have $\left<\Psi_p |c\right>=0$.
1738: If two dimers are present, then there exists a configuration $\left|
1739: c'\right>$ in the same sector which only differ from $\left| c\right>$
1740: by a two-dimer flip on $p$. In such a case the combination $\left|
1741: c\right>+\left|c'\right>$ is again orthogonal to
1742: $\left|\Psi_p\right>$. This shows that $H\left| 0\right>=0$.
1743:
1744: When open boundary conditions are considered (this restricts the
1745: topological sector to $\Omega_x=\Omega_y=0$) the RK state is the
1746: linear combination of an exponential number of
1747: configurations.\footnote{This is also true for periodic boundary
1748: conditions provided the two winding numbers do not scale like the
1749: linear size $L$.} This is very different from the crystalline states
1750: considered so far where some periodic configurations were favored and
1751: it closely resembles Anderson's RVB picture. As we shall see this RK
1752: state is not a ``true'' liquid on the square lattice since dimer-dimer
1753: correlations are not short-ranged but algebraically decaying
1754: ($\sim1/r^2$) with distance. The calculation of dimer-dimer
1755: correlations in the RK state (Eq.~\ref{eq:RK}) maps onto a {\em
1756: classical } dimer problem solved by Kasteleyn,\cite{k61,k63}
1757: Fisher\cite{f61} and Fisher and Stephenson.\cite{fs63} From this
1758: Rokhsar and Kivelson\cite{rk88} constructed gapless excitations (in
1759: single-mode approximation) which dispersion relation vanishes as ${\bf
1760: k}^2$ at small momentum (the origin is taken at $(\pi,\pi)$).
1761: Quoting Rokhsar and Kivelson,\cite{rk88} these excitations (dubbed
1762: ``resonons'') are the {\em Goldstone mode of the gauge symmetry which
1763: allows the phases of the different topological sectors to be varied
1764: without changing the energy}. Another mode of gapless excitations
1765: (around $(\pi,0)$ and $(0,\pi)$ in the Brillouin zone), specific to
1766: the fact that the ground-state has critical (algebraic) dimer-dimer
1767: correlations, was recently discovered.\cite{ms03}
1768:
1769: The QDM on the square lattice is thus believed to be ordered (VBC)
1770: everywhere except at the RK point ($J=V$) where it has quasi
1771: long-ranged (critical) dimer-dimer correlations.
1772:
1773: \subsection{Hexagonal lattice}
1774:
1775: The QDM on the honeycomb lattice was studied by Moessner, Sondhi and
1776: Chandra,\cite{msc01} in particular with Monte Carlo simulations. The
1777: phase diagram is very similar to the square lattice-case discussed
1778: above. It possesses three crystalline phases (Fig.~\ref{fig:hQDM})
1779: and has algebraically decaying dimer-dimer correlations at the Rokhsar
1780: Kivelson point (where the ground-state in each sector has the same
1781: form as Eq.~\ref{eq:RK}).
1782: The absence of liquid phase (with
1783: exponentially decaying 2$n$-mer-2$n$-mer correlations) is believed to
1784: prevail in bipartite lattices.
1785: This relation between the absence of a
1786: deconfined dimer liquid phase
1787: \footnote{
1788: Bipartiteness seems to forbid deconfinement but not short-ranged
1789: dimer-dimer correlations. The 4-8 lattice (squares and octogons) is an
1790: example where dimer-dimer correlations are short-ranged. We thank
1791: R.~Moessner for pointing this to us. On this lattice the
1792: equal-amplitude superposition of all coverings would be similar to an
1793: explicit VBC wave-function (thus confining). Such situations are only
1794: possible when the number of sites is even in the unit cell.}
1795: and the bipartite character of the lattice as been discussed by
1796: several authors\cite{hkms03} and is related to the possibility of a
1797: {\em height representation}\cite{height_representation} of dimer
1798: coverings when the lattice is bipartite.\footnote{Consider a bipartite
1799: lattice with coordination number $z$. For each dimer covering we can
1800: associate integers (heights) on the dual lattice by the following
1801: rule. Set the height to be zero on a plaquette at the origin. The
1802: height is then defined on the whole lattice by turning clockwise
1803: (resp. counterclockwise) around sites of the $A$-sublattice
1804: (resp. $B$-sublattice) and changing the height by $z-1$ when crossing
1805: a dimer and by $-1$ when crossing an empty bond. It is simple to
1806: check the difference of heights $\delta h(x)=h_1(x)-h_2(x)$ between
1807: two dimerizations is constant inside each loop of their transition
1808: graph. Notice that the loops of a transition graph can be naturally
1809: oriented on a bipartite lattice. Then, $\delta h(x)$ changes by $+z$
1810: (resp. $-z$) when crossing a clockwise (resp. counterclockwise) loop
1811: of the transition graph. Columnar dimerizations have an averaged
1812: height which is flat and staggered ones have the maximum tilt. The
1813: winding numbers $(\Omega_x,\Omega_y)$ correspond to the average height
1814: difference between both sides of the sample. The kinetic energy terms
1815: of Eqs.~\ref{eq:sQDM} and \ref{eq:hQDM} change the height of the
1816: corresponding plaquette by $\pm z$ and the potential terms ($V>0$)
1817: favor tilted configurations.}
1818:
1819: \newcommand{\ha}{
1820: \begin{picture}(32,14)(-16,-2)
1821: \Hex\pA{\La}\pC{\Lc}\pE{\Le}
1822: \end{picture}
1823: }
1824: \newcommand{\hb}{
1825: \begin{picture}(32,14)(-16,-2)
1826: \Hex
1827: \pB{\Lb}\pD{\Ld}\pF{\Lf}
1828: \end{picture}
1829: }
1830:
1831: \begin{eqnarray}
1832: \mathcal{H}=&-J&\sum_h \left(
1833: \left|\ha\right>\left<\hb\right| +{\rm H.c.}
1834: \right) \nonumber \\
1835: &+V&\sum_h\left(
1836: \left|\ha\right>\left<\ha\right|+\left|\hb\right>\left<\hb\right|
1837: \right)
1838: \label{eq:hQDM}
1839: \end{eqnarray}
1840:
1841: Fouet {\it et al.}\cite{fsl01} studied the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$
1842: $J_1$--$J_2$--$J_3$ model on the hexagonal lattice by exact
1843: diagonalizations and found evidences of a staggered VBC of the type
1844: predicted for $V/J>1$ by Moessner {\it et al.}\cite{msc01} in the
1845: QDM. Other phases (N\'eel ordered phase and a possible short-range RVB
1846: SL) are also present in the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ model.\cite{fsl01}
1847:
1848:
1849:
1850: \begin{figure}
1851: \begin{center}
1852: \includegraphics[height=3cm]{QDMhex}
1853: \caption[99]{ Phase diagram of the hexagonal QDM obtained by
1854: Moessner {\it et al.}\cite{msc01} Although the VBC shown for
1855: $V<0$ do not have all dimers parallel to the same direction it
1856: is equivalent to the columnar VBC found in the square lattice
1857: QDM because it maximizes the number of flippable plaquettes. It
1858: also corresponds to the ordering pattern predicted in the
1859: large-$N$ theory of Ref.~\cite{rs90} As for the VBC obtained for
1860: $V/J>1$, it is the hexagonal counterpart of the {\em staggered}
1861: VBC of the square lattice (no flippable plaquette, exact
1862: eigenstate and maximum tilt in a height representation).}
1863: \label{fig:hQDM}
1864: \end{center}
1865: \end{figure}
1866:
1867: \subsection{Triangular lattice}
1868: \label{ssec:QDMTri}
1869:
1870: \newcommand{\rhomb}{
1871: \pA{\C}\pB{\C}\pZ{\C}\pC{\C}
1872: }
1873: \newcommand{\rhombF}{
1874: \begin{picture}(18,10)(-5,-6)
1875: \rhomb
1876: \pA{\La}\pB{\Lb}\pZ{\Le}\pC{\Ld}
1877: \end{picture}
1878: }
1879: \newcommand{\rhombH}{
1880: \begin{picture}(22,10)(-8,-6)
1881: \rhomb
1882: \pA{\La}\pC{\Ld}
1883: \end{picture}
1884: }
1885: \newcommand{\rhombV}{
1886: \begin{picture}(22,10)(-8,-6)
1887: \rhomb
1888: \pB{\Lb}\pZ{\Le}
1889: \end{picture}
1890: }
1891:
1892: The most local dimer Hamiltonian on the triangular lattice contains
1893: kinetic and potential two-dimer terms on each rhombus; it was studied
1894: by Moessner and Sondhi:\cite{ms01}
1895: \begin{eqnarray}
1896: \mathcal{H}=&-J&\sum_r \left(
1897: \left|\rhombV\right>\left<\rhombH\right| +{\rm H.c.}
1898: \right) \nonumber \\
1899: &+V&\sum_r\left(
1900: \left|\rhombV\right>\left<\rhombV\right|+\left|\rhombH\right>\left<\rhombH\right|
1901: \right)
1902: \label{eq:tQDM}
1903: \end{eqnarray}
1904: where the sums run over all rhombi $r$ of the lattice (with three
1905: possible orientations). This model was shown to possess (at least)
1906: three crystalline phases, including a columnar and staggered one
1907: (Fig.~\ref{fig:QDMtri}) as in the two previous examples. An additional
1908: VBC (with resonating diamonds plaquettes) with a large unit cell (12
1909: sites) was also predicted around $V=0$. When $V<0$ and $J=0$ the
1910: ground-state is highly degenerate since it is possible, from an
1911: ordered columnar configuration, to shift all the dimers along any
1912: straight line without changing the number of flippable plaquettes
1913: (contrary to the square lattice case). However, an infinitesimal $J$
1914: is expected to lift this degeneracy and to order the ground-state in a
1915: columnar way.
1916:
1917: The phenomenology of these ordered phases is that of usual VBC and we
1918: refer to the original paper\cite{ms01} for details.
1919:
1920: \begin{figure}
1921: \begin{center}
1922: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{QDMTri}
1923: \caption[99]{Phase diagram of the triangular lattice QDM
1924: obtained by Moessner and Sondhi.\cite{ms01}}
1925: \label{fig:QDMtri}
1926: \end{center}
1927: \end{figure}
1928:
1929: \subsubsection{RVB liquid at the RK point}
1930:
1931: The new physics of this model appears through the existence of a {\em
1932: liquid} phase in the interval $0.7\lesssim V/J \leq 1$. As for the two
1933: previous QDM the ground-states are exactly known at the RK point
1934: $J=V$. As before dimer-dimer correlations are obtained exactly at this
1935: point by a Pfaffian calculation\cite{ms01,fms02,iif02} but the result
1936: shows a {\em finite} correlation length. From their Monte Carlo
1937: simulations Moessner {\it et al.}\cite{ms01} argued that the spectrum
1938: is gapped at the RK point and that this gap persists down to
1939: $V/J\simeq 2/3$, that is over a finite range of coupling. This
1940: picture is consistent with the exact diagonalizations performed on
1941: this model.\cite{ifiitb02,mlms02}
1942:
1943: \subsubsection{Topological order}
1944:
1945: When the lattice is not bipartite the loops of a transition graph can
1946: no longer be oriented. The winding numbers $\Omega_x$ and $\Omega_y$
1947: are now defined as the (positive) number of non-trivial loop around
1948: $x$ and $y$ in the transition graph with a reference configuration
1949: (say columnar). These two integers are not conserved by local dimer
1950: moves. They are however {\em conserved modulo two}, which leaves only
1951: four sectors.\footnote{The two-dimer moves included in
1952: Eq.~\ref{eq:tQDM} are not sufficient to guaranty ergodicity with each
1953: of the four sectors. Staggered states (12-fold degenerate - not
1954: $\mathcal{O}(L)$ like on the square lattice) have no flippable
1955: plaquette but can be connected to other states with four-dimer
1956: moves.\cite{ms01}} Consequently {\em the dimer liquid ground-state is
1957: four-fold degenerate} at the RK point. This degeneracy holds exactly
1958: at the RK point even on finite-size samples but it is expected to hold
1959: in the thermodynamic limit in the whole liquid phase ($0.7\lesssim V/J
1960: \leq 1$).
1961:
1962: Conventional orders are often associated to a spontaneously broken
1963: symmetry and lead to ground-state degeneracies in the thermodynamic
1964: limit. The four-fold degeneracy discussed above is the signature of
1965: some kind of order, called topological
1966: order.\cite{wen91} The peculiarity of this order is that it is not
1967: associated to any local order parameter: a local observable cannot
1968: decide whether a given dimerization is in one sector or another. The
1969: existence of topological order is intimately associated to the
1970: fractionalized nature of the elementary excitations (see below). In
1971: the case of a RVB dimer liquid these excitations have been known to be
1972: {\em Ising vortices} for a long time\cite{k89,rc89} (dubbed {\em
1973: visons} in the recent literature\cite{sf00,sf01}). We will now
1974: discuss these excitations in more details in the framework of a QDM
1975: which realizes the same dimer liquid phase but for which not only the
1976: ground-state but all the eigenstates are known exactly.
1977:
1978:
1979: \subsection{Solvable QDM on the kagome lattice}
1980: \label{ssec:QDMKag}
1981:
1982: An exactly solvable QDM on the kagome lattice was introduced by
1983: D.~Serban, V.~Pasquier and one of us\cite{msp02}. It offers a very
1984: simple and explicit realization of the ideas discussed above (visons,
1985: topological order etc.).
1986:
1987: \subsubsection{Hamiltonian}
1988: The kagome lattice QDM introduced in Ref.~\cite{msp02} contains only
1989: kinetic terms and has no external parameter. The Hamiltonian reads:
1990: \begin{eqnarray}
1991: \mathcal{H}&=&-\sum_h \sigma^x(h) \label{eq:kQDM}\\
1992: {\rm where }\;\;
1993: \sigma^x(h)&=&\sum_{\alpha=1}^{32}
1994: \left|d_\alpha(h) \right>\left< \bar{d}_\alpha(h)\right|
1995: +
1996: {\rm H.c}
1997: \label{eq:sigmax}
1998: \end{eqnarray}
1999: The sum runs over the 32 loops on the lattice which enclose a single
2000: hexagon and around which dimers can be moved (see
2001: Table~\ref{tab:kloops} for the 8 inequivalent loops). The shortest
2002: loop is the hexagon itself, it involves 3 dimers. 4, 5 and 6-dimers
2003: moves are also possible by including 2, 4 and 6 additional triangles
2004: (the loop length must be even). The largest loop is the star. For
2005: each loop $\alpha$ we associate the two ways dimers can be placed
2006: along that loop: $\left|d_\alpha(h)\right>$ and
2007: $\left|\bar{d}_\alpha(h)\right>$. Notice that $\sigma^x(h)$ measures
2008: the relative phases of dimer configurations displaying respectively
2009: the $d_\alpha(h)$ and $\bar{d}_\alpha(h)$ patterns in the wave
2010: function.
2011:
2012:
2013: \begin{table}
2014: \tbl{
2015: The 8 different classes of loops which can surround an hexagon of the
2016: kagome lattice. Including all possible symmetries we find 32 possible
2017: loops. The first column indicates the number of dimers involved in the
2018: coherent motion around the hexagon. \label{tab:kloops}}
2019: { \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
2020: \hline%_______________________________
2021: 3&
2022: \begin{picture}(50,34)(-24,-15)
2023: \pA{\La}\pB{\Lb}\pC{\Lc}\pD{\Ld}\pE{\Le}\pF{\Lf}\KagHex
2024: \end{picture} & & \\
2025: \hline %_______________________________
2026: 4&
2027: \begin{picture}(50,34)(-24,-13)
2028: \pA{\La}\pB{\La}\pG{\Lc}\pC{\Lc}\pD{\Ld}\pE{\Ld}\pJ{\Lf}\pF{\Lf}
2029: \KagHex\pG{\C}\pJ{\C}
2030: \end{picture} &
2031: % - - - -
2032: \begin{picture}(50,34)(-24,-13)
2033: \pA{\La}\pB{\La}\pG{\Lc}\pC{\Lc}\pD{\Ld}\pE{\Le}\pF{\Le}\pK{\La}
2034: \KagHex\pG{\C}\pK{\C}
2035: \end{picture} &
2036: % - - - -
2037: \begin{picture}(50,34)(-24,-13)
2038: \pA{\La}\pB{\La}\pG{\Lc}\pC{\Lb}\pH{\Ld}\pD{\Ld}\pE{\Le}\pF{\Lf}
2039: \KagHex\pG{\C}\pH{\C}
2040: \end{picture}\\
2041: \hline %_______________________________
2042: 5&
2043: \begin{picture}(50,34)(-24,-13)
2044: \pA{\La}\pB{\La}\pG{\Lc}\pC{\Lb}\pH{\Ld}\pD{\Ld}
2045: \pE{\Ld}\pJ{\Lf}\pF{\Le}\pK{\La}
2046: \KagHex\pG{\C}\pJ{\C}\pK{\C}\pH{\C}
2047: \end{picture} &
2048: % - - - -
2049: \begin{picture}(50,44)(-24,-23)
2050: \pA{\Lf}\pB{\Lb}\pL{\Lb}\pC{\Lb}\pH{\Ld}\pD{\Ld}
2051: \pE{\Ld}\pJ{\Lf}\pF{\Le}\pK{\La}
2052: \KagHex\pL{\C}\pJ{\C}\pK{\C}\pH{\C}
2053: \end{picture} &
2054: % - - - -
2055: \begin{picture}(50,44)(-24,-23)
2056: \pA{\Lf}\pB{\La}\pL{\Lb}\pC{\Lc}\pG{\Lc}\pD{\Ld}
2057: \pE{\Ld}\pJ{\Lf}\pF{\Le}\pK{\La}
2058: \KagHex\pL{\C}\pJ{\C}\pK{\C}\pG{\C}
2059: \end{picture}\\
2060: \hline %_______________________________
2061: 6&
2062: \begin{picture}(50,50)(-24,-23)
2063: \pA{\Lf}\pB{\La}\pL{\Lb}\pC{\Lb}\pG{\Lc}\pD{\Lc}
2064: \pE{\Ld}\pJ{\Lf}\pF{\Le}\pK{\La}\pH{\Ld}\pI{\Le}
2065: \KagStar
2066: \end{picture}& & \\
2067: \hline %_______________________________
2068: \end{tabular}
2069: }
2070: \end{table}
2071:
2072: \subsubsection{RK ground-state}
2073: As for the QDM discussed previously the ground-state of this
2074: Hamiltonian is the equal amplitude superposition of all dimer
2075: coverings belonging to a given topological sector (as on the
2076: triangular lattice there are four sectors). This can be
2077: readily shown by writing $\mathcal{H}$ as a sum of projectors:
2078: \begin{eqnarray}
2079: \mathcal{H}&=&-N_h+\sum_h \sum_{\alpha=1}^{32}
2080: \left[\;\left|d_\alpha(h) \right>-\left| \bar{d}_\alpha(h)\right>\;\right]
2081: \left[\;\left<d_\alpha(h) \right|-\left< \bar{d}_\alpha(h)\right|\;\right]
2082: \end{eqnarray}
2083: where $N_h$ is the number of hexagons on the lattice. When expanding
2084: the products the diagonal terms give a simple constant since
2085: \begin{equation}
2086: \sum_{\alpha=1}^{32} \left|d_\alpha \right>\left<d_\alpha\right|
2087: +
2088: \left| \bar{d}_\alpha\right>\left<\bar{d}_\alpha\right| = 1
2089: \end{equation}
2090: This reflects the fact that, for any dimerization, the dimers on
2091: hexagon $h$ match {\em one and only one} of the $2\times32$ patterns
2092: $\left\{d_\alpha,\bar{d}_\alpha\right\}$.
2093:
2094: Unlike the square or triangular case, the RK ground-states
2095: $|0\rangle=\sum_{c\in\Omega}|c\rangle$ are not degenerate with some
2096: staggered VBC.\footnote{Because resonances loops of length up to 12
2097: are present the dynamics is ergodic in each of the four topological
2098: sectors.\cite{msp02}} This means that the Hamiltonian of
2099: Eq.~\ref{eq:kQDM} is not at a phase transition to a VBC. As we will
2100: explain it is {\em inside} a liquid RVB phase.
2101:
2102: The RK wave-function can be viewed as dimer condensate. It is similar
2103: to the ground-state of liquid $^4$He which has the same positive
2104: amplitude for any configuration and its permuted
2105: images.\cite{feynman52-53} An important difference, however, is that
2106: the QDM state is incompressible and cannot sustain acoustic phonons.
2107: This can be related to the fact that the $U(1)$ symmetry of the Bose
2108: liquid is absent in the QDM on non-bipartite lattices. It is replaced
2109: instead by a discrete $\Z$ gauge symmetry (see \S\ref{sssec:Z2}
2110: below).
2111:
2112:
2113: \subsubsection{Ising pseudo-spin variables}
2114:
2115: The kinetic energy operators $\sigma^x$ defined in Eq.~\ref{eq:sigmax}
2116: commute with each other. This is obvious when two such operators act
2117: on remote hexagons but it also holds for neighboring ones. This
2118: property can easily be demonstrated with the help of the arrow
2119: representation of dimer coverings introduced by Zeng and
2120: Elser.\cite{ez93} This mapping of kagome dimerizations to arrows on
2121: the bonds of the honeycomb lattice is illustrated
2122: Fig.~\ref{fig:arrow}. Each arrow has two possible directions: it
2123: points toward the interior of one of the two neighboring triangles.
2124: If site $i$ belongs to a dimer $(i,j)$ its arrow must point toward the
2125: triangle the site $j$ belongs to. A dimer covering can be constructed
2126: from any arrow configuration provided that the number of outgoing
2127: arrows is odd (1 or 3) on every triangle.
2128:
2129: \begin{figure}
2130: \begin{center}
2131: \includegraphics[height=4.5cm,width=6cm]{KagArrow}
2132: \caption[99]{A dimer covering on the kagome lattice and the
2133: corresponding arrows. Dashed lines: honeycomb lattice.}
2134: \label{fig:arrow}
2135: \end{center}
2136: \end{figure}
2137:
2138: The operators $\sigma^x$ have a particularly simple meaning in terms
2139: of the arrow degrees of freedom: $\sigma^x(h)$ flips the 6 arrows
2140: sitting on $h$.\footnote{Flipping all the arrows around any closed
2141: loop (such as around an hexagon) preserves the local constraint
2142: imposed on arrow configurations. Flipping the arrows around a
2143: topologically non-trivial loop changes the topological sector.} It is
2144: then clear that the $\sigma^x$ commute and that $\sigma^x(h)^2=1$. In
2145: fact these operators can be used as Ising pseudo-spin variables and
2146: the Hamiltonian now describes non-interacting pseudo-spins in a
2147: uniform magnetic field pointing in the $x$ direction. In the
2148: ground-state we have $\sigma^x(h)=1$ on every hexagon.
2149:
2150: \subsubsection{Dimer-dimer correlations}
2151: The ground-state is the most possible disordered dimer liquid as the
2152: dimer-dimer correlations strictly vanish beyond a few lattice
2153: spacings. Such correlations can be computed by the Pfaffian
2154: method. On the kagome lattice the determinant of the Kasteleyn matrix
2155: (which is directly related to the partition function of the classical
2156: dimers problem) is exactly constant in Fourier space.\cite{hw88} Since
2157: dimer-dimer correlations are obtained from the Fourier transform of
2158: the inverse of this determinant, they turn out to be strictly zero
2159: beyond a few lattice spacings (as soon as the two bonds do not touch a
2160: common triangle).\cite{msp02} This result can also be obtained by a
2161: simpler argument\cite{msp02,msp03b} using the $\sigma^x$ operators.
2162: This result is related to the kagome geometry.\footnote{The model of
2163: Eq.~\ref{eq:kQDM} can be generalized to any lattice made of
2164: corner-sharing triangles.\cite{msp02}} This absence of long-ranged
2165: dimer-dimer correlations demonstrates that the RK state is a dimer
2166: liquid and that it breaks no lattice symmetry.
2167:
2168: On the triangular lattice, even at high temperature, dimer-dimer
2169: correlations decay exponentially with distance but these correlations
2170: remain {\em finite} at any distance. On the square lattice such
2171: correlations are even larger because they decay only as a power
2172: law. This means that the infinite hard-core dimer repulsion makes QDM
2173: non-trivial even at infinite temperature; dimers cannot be free when
2174: they are fully-packed. From this point of view we see that the kagome
2175: lattice is particular: it is as close as possible to a free dimer gas,
2176: except for non-trivial correlations over a few lattice spacings. This
2177: is a reason why dimer coverings on the kagome lattice can be handled
2178: with independent pseudo-spin variables and why the RK state on this
2179: lattice is the most possible disordered RVB liquid.
2180:
2181: \subsubsection{Visons excitations}
2182: \label{sssec:vison}
2183:
2184: The $\sigma^x$ operators can be simultaneously diagonalized but they
2185: must satisfy the global constraint $\prod_h \sigma^x(h)=1$ since this
2186: product flips every arrow {\em twice}. It must therefore leave all
2187: dimerizations unchanged. The lowest excitations have therefore an
2188: energy $4$ above the ground-state and they are made of a {\em pair} of
2189: hexagons $a$ and $b$ in a $\sigma^x(a)=\sigma^x(b)=-1$ state. $a$ and
2190: $b$ are the locations of two Ising vortices (or {\em
2191: visons}\cite{sf00,sf01}). As remarked before this means that the
2192: relative phases of the configurations with $d_\alpha(h)$ and
2193: $\bar{d}_\alpha(h)$ patterns have now changed sign. The corresponding
2194: wave-function is obtained in the following way. Consider a string
2195: $\Omega$ which goes from $a$ to $b$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:Vison}) and let
2196: $\Omega(a,b)$ be the operator which measures the parity $\pm1$ of the
2197: number of dimers crossing that string. $\Omega(a,b)$ commutes with
2198: all $\sigma^x(h)$, except for the ends of the string:
2199: $\sigma^x(a)\Omega(a,b)=-\Omega(a,b)\sigma^x(a)$. A dimer move changes
2200: the sign of $\Omega(a,b)$ if and only if the associated loop crosses
2201: the string an odd number of times, which can only be done by
2202: surrounding one end of the string. This shows that $\Omega(a,b)$
2203: flips the $\sigma^x$ in $a$ and $b$.\footnote{Up to a global sign
2204: (reference dependent) $\Omega(a,b)$ is equal to
2205: $\sigma^z(a)\sigma^z(b)$ where the $\sigma^z$ operators are those
2206: introduced by Zeng and Elser.} As the RK ground state $|0\rangle$,
2207: $\Omega(a,b)|0\rangle$ is a linear combination of all dimer
2208: configurations belonging to one sector. However the amplitudes are now
2209: $1$ and $-1$ depending on the number of dimers crossing $\Omega$. This
2210: wave-function therefore has nodes, it is an excited state of energy
2211: $4$ with two vortices in $a$ and $b$. It is easy to see that a
2212: different choice $\Omega'$ for the string connecting $a$ and $b$ gives
2213: the same state up to a global sign which depends on the parity of the
2214: number of kagome sites enclosed by $\Omega\cup\Omega'$.
2215:
2216: These vortex excitations carry a $\Z$ charge since attempting to put
2217: two vortices on the same hexagon does not change the state. Such
2218: excitations are not local in terms of the dimer degrees of freedom.
2219: Indeed, determining the sign of a given dimerization in a state with
2220: two visons which are far apart requires the knowledge of the dimer
2221: locations along the whole string connecting the two vortex cores. In
2222: this model the visons appear to be static and non-interacting. This is
2223: a particularity of this solvable model but the existence of gapped
2224: vison excitations is believed to be a robust property of RVB
2225: liquids. In more realistic models the visons will acquire a dynamics
2226: and a dispersion relation but will remain gapped.\footnote{It is
2227: possible to add potential energy terms to Eq.~\ref{eq:kQDM} to drive
2228: the system outside of the liquid phase and this transition corresponds
2229: to a vison condensation.} They will also have some interactions with
2230: each other but should remain {\em deconfined}. This property is
2231: particularly clear in the kagome QDM: visons are necessarily created
2232: by pairs but the energy is independent of their relative distances.
2233:
2234: \begin{figure}
2235: \begin{center}
2236: \includegraphics[height=2.5cm]{VisonPairA}
2237: \includegraphics[height=2.5cm]{VisonPairB}
2238:
2239: \caption[99]{A pair of visons (located in $a$ and $b$) is created by
2240: applying to the RK wave-function a factor $(-1)$ for each dimer
2241: crossing the string $\Omega$. The dimerization shown there on the left
2242: appears in the linear superposition of the two-vison state
2243: with the sign $-1$ whereas the one on the right has the sign $+1$.}
2244:
2245: \label{fig:Vison} \end{center}
2246: \end{figure}
2247:
2248: The Ising vortices also offer a simple picture of the topological
2249: degeneracy. Consider a ground-state $|+\rangle$ of the model which
2250: lives in the sector where the winding number $\Omega_y$ (with respect
2251: to some arbitrary but fixed dimerization) is even. Another
2252: ground-state $|-\rangle$ is obtained in the odd-$\Omega_y$ sector. Now
2253: consider the combination $|0\rangle=|+\rangle+|-\rangle$ and apply the
2254: operator $\Omega(0,L_x)$ corresponding to a closed loop surrounding
2255: the torus in the $x$ direction. This amounts to creating a pair of
2256: nearby visons at the origin, taking one of them around the torus in
2257: the $x$ direction and annihilating them. This can also be viewed as
2258: the creation of a vison in one hole of the torus (with no energy
2259: cost). It is simple to check that
2260: $\Omega(0,L_x)|0\rangle=|+\rangle-|-\rangle$ (up to an irrelevant
2261: global sign). This provides a simple relation between the vison-pair
2262: creation operator and the existence of two topologically distinct
2263: ground-states $|+\rangle+|-\rangle$ and $|+\rangle-|-\rangle$.
2264:
2265: \subsubsection{Spinons deconfinement}
2266: \label{sssec:QDMdeconf}
2267:
2268: We assume that dimers represent ``dressed'' singlet valence-bonds, as
2269: in the overlap expansion (\S\ref{ssec:spin2QDM}). Since the Hilbert
2270: space is made of fully-packed dimer coverings the model of
2271: Eq.~\ref{eq:kQDM} only describes spin-singlet states. However, as any
2272: QDM, it can be extended to include static holes or spinons.
2273: Configurations with unpaired sites (spinon or holon) are now allowed
2274: but the kinetic terms of the original Hamiltonian which loop passes on
2275: an empty site gives zero. Consider a system with two static spinons
2276: in $x$ and $y$. As on the square\cite{rk88} and triangular
2277: lattices\cite{ms01} at the RK point the exact ground-state
2278: $\left|x,y\right>$ remains the sum of all dimer coverings and the
2279: ground-state energy is independent of the distance between the two
2280: spinons (except at very short distance if they belong to a common
2281: hexagon). This is a first indication that RVB {\em spin} liquid has
2282: deconfined spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ excitations (spinons). In the QDM
2283: language these excitations are simply unpaired sites in a dimer liquid
2284: background. Such unpaired sites are necessarily created by pairs but
2285: they can then propagate freely (no attractive potential) when they are
2286: sufficiently far apart.
2287:
2288: Another calculation allows to test the deconfinement properties of a
2289: dimer liquid. We consider the state $\left|\psi\right>=\sum_{{\bf
2290: r}\ne0}\left|0,{\bf r}\right>$ where $\left|0,{\bf r}\right>$ is the
2291: (un-normalized) state with two spinons in $0$ and ${\bf r}$. The
2292: probability to find a spinon in ${\bf r}$ in the $\left|\psi\right>$
2293: can be obtained by the relatively involved calculation of the monomer
2294: correlation\footnote{Ratio of number of dimer coverings with two holes
2295: in $0$ and ${\bf r}$ to the number without hole.} with Pfaffians.
2296: One the square lattice this probability goes to zero as
2297: $1/\sqrt{r}$.\cite{fs63} This shows that the second spinon is (quasi-)
2298: confined in the vicinity of the first one on the square lattice
2299: because escaping far away represents a large ``entropy'' cost in the
2300: dimer background. On the triangular lattice it goes exponentially to
2301: a constant.\cite{fms02} This result is a signature of deconfinement.
2302: In fact the same signature can be obtained on the kagome lattice
2303: without any technical calculation since the monomer correlation is
2304: exactly $1/4$ at any distance.\cite{msp03c}
2305:
2306: If unpaired sites are allowed one can describe spinons or holons.
2307: Unfortunately in the presence of simple kinetic energy terms for these
2308: objects the model can no longer be solved. However one can consider a
2309: static spinon and its interaction with visons: when the spinon is
2310: adiabatically taken around a vison the dimers are shifted along a path
2311: encircling the vison. Because the vison wave-function is particularly
2312: simple in this model it is easy to check that this multiplies the
2313: wave-function by a factor $-1$. This is the signature of a
2314: long-ranged statistical interaction\cite{rc89,k89} between visons and
2315: spinons (or holons). In more realistic models, as long as the visons
2316: are gapped excitations the spinons are expected to be deconfined. On
2317: the other hand if the visons condense their long-ranged statistical
2318: interaction with spinons frustrates their motion. This is no longer
2319: true if they propagate in {\em pairs}, in which case they are not
2320: sensitive any more to visons (see Ref.~\cite{msp02} for an extension
2321: of the present QDM with a vison condensation). This simple physical
2322: picture illustrates the relation between vison condensation and spinon
2323: confinement.
2324:
2325: \subsubsection{$\Z$ gauge theory}
2326: \label{sssec:Z2}
2327:
2328: The forces responsible for confinement are usually associated to gauge
2329: fields and their fluctuations. Whereas $U(1)$ compact gauge theories
2330: are generically confining in $2+1$ dimensions,\cite{polyakov87,fs79}
2331: $\Z$ gauge theories are known to possess deconfined
2332: phases.\cite{kogut79} For this reason some attention has been paid to
2333: the connexions between $\Z$ theories and fractionalized phases in
2334: 2D electronic systems.\cite{sf00}
2335:
2336: It is known\cite{msf02} that QDM can be obtained as special limits of
2337: $\Z$ gauge theories, the gauge variable being the dimer number on a
2338: bond. However, on the kagome lattice this connexion can be made exact
2339: and completely explicit since there is a one to one correspondence
2340: between dimer coverings and physical states ({\it i.e.}
2341: gauge-invariant) of a $\Z$ gauge theory.\cite{msp02} In this mapping
2342: the gauge fields are Ising variables living on the link of the
2343: honeycomb lattice ({\it i.e.} kagome sites) and are constructed from
2344: the arrows described previously. As for the constraints of gauge
2345: invariance they correspond to the odd parity of the number of outgoing
2346: arrows on every triangles. The $\sigma^x$ operator used to define a
2347: solvable QDM translate into a gauge-invariant plaquette operator for
2348: the gauge degrees of freedom (product of the Ising gauge variables
2349: around an hexagon). With this mapping the visons appear to be vortices
2350: in the $\Z$ gauge field and the solvable model of Eq.~\ref{eq:kQDM}
2351: maps to the deconfined phase of the gauge theory.
2352:
2353: \subsection{A QDM with an extensive ground-state entropy}
2354: \label{ssec:QDMmu}
2355:
2356: So far we have discussed QDM that realize either spontaneous VBC,
2357: critical states or RVB liquids. We wish to mention here that these
2358: three scenarios may not be the only possible ground-states for
2359: QDM. In particular, a QDM on the kagome lattice with an extensive
2360: ground-state entropy was recently discussed.\cite{msp03} This model
2361: was introduced from the observation that the dimer kinetic energy
2362: terms arising from an overlap expansion (\S\ref{ssec:spin2QDM})
2363: generally have non trivial {\em signs} as soon as resonance loops of
2364: {\em different lengths} are considered. It was then realized that such
2365: signs (which make the QDM no longer appropriate for QMC simulations) can lead to qualitatively new phases, different
2366: from VBC or RVB liquids. The Hamiltonian introduced in
2367: Ref.~\cite{msp03} is similar to that of
2368: Eqs.~\ref{eq:kQDM}-\ref{eq:sigmax} except that each resonance loop
2369: $\alpha$ is now included with a {\em sign} $(-1)^{n_\alpha}$ where
2370: $n_\alpha=3,\cdots,6$ is the number of dimers involved:
2371: \begin{equation}
2372: \mathcal{H}=\sum_h (-1)^{n_\alpha} \left[
2373: \left|d_\alpha(h) \right>\left< \bar{d}_\alpha(h)\right|
2374: +
2375: \left| \bar{d}_\alpha(h)\right>\left<d_\alpha(h)\right|
2376: \right]
2377: \label{eq:muQDM}
2378: \end{equation}
2379: These signs are precisely those appearing in the overlap expansion (at
2380: the order of one hexagon) of the Heisenberg model on the kagome
2381: lattice. This expansion was carried out by Zeng and Elser\cite{ze95}
2382: in an insightful paper which laid the basis of the analysis of the
2383: kagome antiferromagnet in the first neighbor valence-bonds subspace.
2384:
2385: Although not exactly solvable, the Hamiltonian of Eq.~\ref{eq:muQDM}
2386: was shown to be a dimer liquid (short-ranged dimer-dimer correlation)
2387: and to have a huge ground-state degeneracy $\sim 2^{N/6}=1.122^N$ ($N$
2388: is the number of kagome sites). In addition, several numerical
2389: indications pointed to a critical behavior of this system,\cite{msp03}
2390: with a possible algebraic decay of energy-energy
2391: correlations.\footnote{Notice that a one-dimensional analog of
2392: Eq.~\ref{eq:muQDM} can be defined and exactly maps onto the Ising chain
2393: in transverse field at its critical point.} It was argued that the
2394: effective QDM describing the singlet dynamics of the
2395: spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ Heisenberg antiferromagnet on the kagome lattice
2396: could be {\em close} (in parameter space) to Eq.~\ref{eq:muQDM}. If
2397: correct, this sheds light on the very large density of singlet states
2398: observed at low energy in the numerical spectra of that spin model
2399: (see Sec.~\ref{sec:kagome}).
2400:
2401:
2402:
2403:
2404: %_______________________________________________________________________________
2405: \section{Multiple-spin exchange models}\label{sec:MSE}
2406:
2407: %_______________________________________________________________________________
2408:
2409: \subsection{Physical realizations of multiple-spin interactions}
2410:
2411: \subsubsection{Nuclear magnetism of solid $^3$He}
2412:
2413: Solid $^3$He was the first magnetic system in which the importance of
2414: MSE interactions was recognized.\cite{thouless65,rhd83,cf85} Due to
2415: the large zero-point motion of the atoms about their mean positions,
2416: tunneling events during which 2, 3 or 4 atoms exchange their positions
2417: in a cyclic way are frequent. These processes generate an effective
2418: interaction between the (nuclear) spins which can be written
2419: \begin{equation}
2420: \mathcal{H}=\sum_P -J_P (-1)^P\left( P_{spin} + P_{spin}^{-1}\right)
2421: \end{equation}
2422: where the sum runs over permutations $P$, $J_P>0$ is the exchange
2423: frequency of the associated tunneling process (in real space) and
2424: $P_{spin}$ acts on the Hilbert space of spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ located on
2425: the site of the crystal. The sign $-(-1)^P$ depends of the signature
2426: of the permutation $P$ and is a consequence of the Pauli principle.
2427: For a {\em cyclic} permutation involving $n$ spins this sign is just
2428: $(-1)^n$ and is responsible for the ferromagnetic character of
2429: processes involving an odd number of spins. For spin-$\frac{1}{2}$
2430: particles, two and three-spin exchange terms reduce to the familiar
2431: Heisenberg interaction:
2432: \begin{eqnarray}
2433: P_{12}=2\vec{S}_1\cdot\vec{S}_2+\frac{1}{2} \label{eq:P2} \\
2434: P_{123}+P_{321}=P_{12}+P_{23}+P_{31}-1 \label{eq:P3}
2435: \end{eqnarray}
2436: but this is no longer true for $n\geq4$:
2437: \begin{equation}
2438: P_{1234}+P_{4321}=P_{12}P_{34}+P_{14}P_{23}-P_{13}P_{24}+P_{13}+P_{24}-1
2439: \end{equation}
2440: which can be expressed (thanks to Eq.~\ref{eq:P2}) as a sum of terms
2441: with two and four Pauli matrices.
2442:
2443: $^3$He can form solid atomic mono-layers with a triangular geometry
2444: when adsorbed on a graphite substrate at ultra low temperatures (milli
2445: Kelvin range). This 2D magnet has been studied for a long time (see
2446: Refs.~\cite{greywall,gr95} and references therein) and the importance
2447: of MSE interactions involving up to six atoms has now been
2448: recognized.\cite{roger84,rbbcg98} The exchange frequencies of the most
2449: important processes have been computed by Path Integral Monte Carlo
2450: (PIMC)\cite{cj87,bcl92,ceperley95,bc99} (analytic WKB calculations
2451: have also been carried out\cite{roger84,ah00}) as a function of the
2452: density. The proposed MSE Hamiltonian describing the magnetic
2453: properties of this 2D quantum crystal reads
2454: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Hmulti}
2455: \mathcal{H}=(J_2-2J_3) \sum_{
2456: \begin{picture}(17,10)(-2,-2)
2457: \put (0,0) {\line (1,0) {12}}
2458: \put (0,0) {\circle*{5}}
2459: \put (12,0) {\circle*{5}}
2460: \end{picture}
2461: } P_{12}
2462: +J_4 \sum_{
2463: \begin{picture}(26,15)(-2,-2)
2464: \put (0,0) {\line (1,0) {12}}
2465: \put (6,10) {\line (1,0) {12}}
2466: \put (0,0) {\line (3,5) {6}}
2467: \put (12,0) {\line (3,5) {6}}
2468: \put (6,10) {\circle*{5}}
2469: \put (18,10) {\circle*{5}}
2470: \put (0,0) {\circle*{5}}
2471: \put (12,0) {\circle*{5}}
2472: \end{picture}
2473: } \left( P_{1\ldots 4}+{\rm H.c}\right)\\
2474: -J_5 \sum_{
2475: \begin{picture}(26,15)(-2,-2)
2476: \put (0,0) {\line (1,0) {24}}
2477: \put (6,10) {\line (1,0) {12}}
2478: \put (0,0) {\line (3,5) {6}}
2479: \put (18,10) {\line (3,-5) {6}}
2480: \put (6,10) {\circle*{5}}
2481: \put (18,10) {\circle*{5}}
2482: \put (0,0) {\circle*{5}}
2483: \put (12,0) {\circle*{5}}
2484: \put (24,0) {\circle*{5}}
2485: \end{picture}
2486: } \left( P_{1\ldots 5}+{\rm H.c}\right) \nonumber
2487: +J_6 \sum_{
2488: \begin{picture}(26,30)(-2,-15)
2489: \put (6,10) {\line (1,0) {12}}
2490: \put (6,-10) {\line (1,0) {12}}
2491: \put (0,0) {\line (3,5) {6}}
2492: \put (0,0) {\line (3,-5) {6}}
2493: \put (18,10) {\line (3,-5) {6}}
2494: \put (18,-10) {\line (3,5) {6}}
2495: \put (6,10) {\circle*{5}}
2496: \put (6,-10) {\circle*{5}}
2497: \put (18,10) {\circle*{5}}
2498: \put (18,-10) {\circle*{5}}
2499: \put (0,0) {\circle*{5}}
2500: \put (12,0) {\circle*{5}}
2501: \put (24,0) {\circle*{5}}
2502: \end{picture}
2503: } \left( P_{1\ldots 6}+{\rm H.c}\right)
2504: \label{eq:H26}
2505: \end{eqnarray}
2506: where Eq.~\ref{eq:P3} was used to absorb the three-spin terms into an
2507: effective first-neighbor Heisenberg exchange $J_2^{\rm
2508: eff}=J_2-2J_3$. At high density the hard-core potential between Helium
2509: atoms only leaves three-body exchanges possible ($J_3\gg J_{n\ne3}$)
2510: and Eq.~\ref{eq:H26} reduces to a first neighbor Heisenberg {\em
2511: ferromagnet},\cite{drh80} as observed experimentally for the first
2512: time by Franco {\it et al.}\cite{frg86} in high-density layers. On the
2513: other hand the second layer solidifies at lower density and higher
2514: order exchange terms cannot be ignored.\footnote{The first layer is
2515: then so dense that exchange is strongly suppressed. The first layer
2516: can also be replaced by an $^4$He or HD mono-layer.} PIMC
2517: simulations\cite{bc99} and high-temperature fits of the experimental
2518: data\cite{rbbcg98} showed that the relative strength of two- and
2519: four-spin terms if roughly $J_2^{\rm eff}/J_4\sim -2$ in the
2520: low-density second layer solid. The $J_2$--$J_4$ model was studied by
2521: exact diagonalizations in this region of parameter space and evidences
2522: for a short-ranged RVB SL phase with no broken symmetry were
2523: obtained.\cite{mblw98,mlbw99,lmsl00} The ultra-low temperature
2524: measurements of specific heat\cite{kmyf97} and uniform
2525: susceptibility\cite{cthrbbg01} are not incompatible with such a spin
2526: liquid phase but the spin gap, if any, has not yet been observed
2527: and should be smaller than 100$\mu$K.
2528:
2529:
2530: \subsubsection{Wigner crystal}
2531:
2532: The Wigner crystal is another fermionic solid with a triangular
2533: geometry where MSE interactions can play an important role. At very
2534: low density the Coulomb energy dominates, the crystal is almost
2535: classical and MSE interactions are very small. Exchange frequencies
2536: $J_P$ can be computed in this regime by a semi-classical (WKB)
2537: approximation\cite{roger84,kh00,hk01} and, as for the high density
2538: solid of $^3$He, three-body exchanges dominate and give rise to
2539: ferromagnetism. However, at higher density and close to melting, PIMC
2540: calculations of the exchange frequency\cite{bcc01} showed that the
2541: magnetism may be described by a MSE model with parameters ($J_2^{\rm
2542: eff}$ and $J_4$) close to those where the triangular MSE model is
2543: expected to be a RVB SL. Unlike the $^3$He case, the particles
2544: (electrons) are charged and an external magnetic field has also an
2545: orbital effect, it introduces complex phases in the exchange energies:
2546: $P+P^{-1}\to e^{i\alpha}P+e^{-i\alpha}P^{-1}$ where the angle
2547: $\alpha=2\pi
2548: \phi/\phi_0$ is proportional to the magnetic flux $\phi$ passing
2549: through the area enclosed by the exchange trajectory and $\phi_0$ is
2550: the unit flux quantum. This can give rise to very rich phase
2551: diagrams\cite{bcc01,hk01} where complex MSE terms compete with the
2552: Zeeman effect (see Ref.~\cite{ok98} for some early experimental
2553: attempts to explore this physics).
2554:
2555: \subsubsection{Cuprates}
2556:
2557: The possibility of significant four-spin exchange around square Cu
2558: plaquettes in copper oxide compounds was first suggested by Roger and
2559: Delrieu.\cite{rd89} They interpreted the anomalously large width of
2560: Raman scattering spectra as a signature of four-spin exchange in this
2561: copper oxide superconductor. The importance of these MSE interactions
2562: in CuO$_2$ planes ($J_4\sim 0.25 J_2$) has then been emphasized by a
2563: number of groups and in different materials and by different
2564: experimental and theoretical
2565: approaches.\cite{sugai90,coldea01,mr02,kk03} Four-spin plaquette ring
2566: exchange also plays a significant role in ladder
2567: compounds.\cite{mkebm00,bmmnu99,sku01,gkt03} For instance, exchange
2568: parameters with values $J_{rung}=J_{leg}=110$~meV and
2569: $J_{ring}=16.5$~meV were proposed for La$_6$Ca$_8$Cu$_{24}$O$_{41}$
2570: based on the dispersion relation of magnetic
2571: excitations.\cite{mkebm00,bmmnu99}
2572:
2573: \subsection{Two-leg ladders}
2574: \label{ssec:ladderMSE}
2575:
2576: Numerous works were devoted to ladder models with four-spin
2577: interactions. These include general bi-quadratic interactions as well
2578: as models with ring-exchange terms. We will only discuss here the
2579: simplest of these MSE models:
2580: \begin{eqnarray}
2581: \mathcal{H}=&J&\sum_n \left(
2582: \vec{S}_{n,1}\cdot \vec{S}_{n,2}
2583: +\vec{S}_{n,1}\cdot \vec{S}_{n+1,1}
2584: +\vec{S}_{n,2}\cdot \vec{S}_{n+1,2}
2585: \right) \nonumber \\
2586: +&K&\sum_\Box \left(
2587: P_{1234} +H.c
2588: \right)
2589: \label{eq:ladder}
2590: \end{eqnarray}
2591: Thanks to several studies\cite{bmmnu99,mvm02,hmh03,lst03} the phase
2592: diagram of this Hamiltonian is now rather well understood and five
2593: different phases were identified.
2594: \begin{itemize}
2595:
2596: \item {\bf Ferromagnetic phase}. The ground-state is fully
2597: polarized. This phase includes the $(J=-1,K=0)$ and the $(J=0,K=-1)$
2598: points.
2599:
2600: \item {\bf Rung-singlet phase}. This phase includes the ground-state of
2601: the ladder without MSE term $(J=1,K=0)$. The spectrum is gapped and
2602: the ground-state is unique. A moderate $K/J\gtrsim0.23\pm0.03$
2603: destroys this phase\cite{bmmnu99,hh01,hn02,lst03} in favor of the VBC
2604: below.
2605:
2606: \item {\bf Staggered VBC} with dimers on the legs. In one of the two
2607: degenerate ground-states the dimerized bonds are $(2n,1)-(2n+1,1)$ and
2608: $(2n+1,2)-(2n+2,2)$. The VBC disappears for
2609: $K/J\gtrsim0.5$.\cite{lst03} Such a staggered VBC was first predicted
2610: in the framework of a ladder with bi-quadratic interaction by
2611: Nersesyan and Tsvelik.\cite{nt97} Using Matrix-Product Ansatz,
2612: Kolezhuk and Mikeska\cite{km98} constructed models which are
2613: generalizations of Eq.~\ref{eq:ladder} and which have exact
2614: ground-state with long-ranged staggered dimer correlations. In this
2615: phase the magnetic excitations are very different from the magnon
2616: excitations of the rung-singlet phase above. Here the excitations do
2617: not form well-defined quasi-particles but a continuum made of pairs of
2618: domain walls connecting two dimerized ground-states.\cite{nt97,km98}
2619:
2620: \item {\bf Scalar chirality phase}. The order parameter is
2621: $\langle\vec{S}_{n,1}\cdot(\vec{S}_{n,2}\times\vec{S}_{n+1,2})\rangle$
2622: and it spontaneously breaks the time-reversal symmetry and translation
2623: invariance. The ground-state is two-fold degenerate up to the next
2624: transition at $K/J\simeq2.8\pm0.3$.\cite{lst03} There exists a duality
2625: transformation\cite{hmh03,mhnh03} which maps the scalar chirality
2626: order parameter onto the dimer order parameter of the VBC
2627: above.\footnote{The Hamiltonian of Eq.~\ref{eq:ladder} is self-dual at
2628: $2K=J$.} Applying such a transformation to the exact VBC
2629: ground-states mentioned above, models with an exactly known
2630: ground-state and scalar chirality LRO can be
2631: constructed.\cite{hmh03,mhnh03} Although chiral SL have been much
2632: discussed in the literature, this is to our knowledge the first
2633: realization of such a phase in a SU(2) symmetric spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ model.
2634:
2635:
2636: \item {\bf Short-ranged ordered phase with vector-chirality}
2637: correlations. The strongest correlations are
2638: $\langle(\vec{S}_{n,1}\times\vec{S}_{n,2})\cdot(\vec{S}_{n',1}\times\vec{S}_{n',2})\rangle$
2639: but they remain short-ranged. The spectrum is gapped and the
2640: ground-state is unique. This phase includes the pure $K=1$ model
2641: where $J=0$. This phase is related by the duality transformation
2642: discussed above to the rung-singlet phase.\cite{mhnh03} This
2643: transformation indeed relates the N\'eel correlations $\langle
2644: (\vec{S}_{n,1}-\vec{S}_{n,2})\cdot(\vec{S}_{n',1}-\vec{S}_{n',2})\rangle$
2645: (which are the strongest ones in the rung-singlet phase) to the
2646: vector-chirality correlations. Close to the ferromagnetic phase
2647: ($J<0$) one observes a crossover to a region where the strongest
2648: correlations are ferromagnetic spin-spin correlations along the legs
2649: and antiferromagnetic along the rungs.\cite{lst03}
2650: \end{itemize}
2651: \subsection{MSE model on the square lattice}
2652: The phase diagram of the Hamiltonian \ref{eq:ladder} on the {\em
2653: two-dimensional square-lattice} has been recently studied by
2654: L\"auchli\cite{lauchli03} by exact diagonalizations. N\'eel,
2655: ferromagnetic, columnar VBC and staggered VBC phases were identified,
2656: as in the ladder model above. In addition, a nematic phase
2657: characterized by long-ranged vector chirality correlations (alternating
2658: spin currents) was found around the $K=1$, $J=0$ point. To our
2659: knowledge this is the first microscopic realization of a nematic order
2660: in a two-dimensional spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ model.
2661:
2662: \subsection{RVB phase of the triangular $J_2$--$J_4$ MSE}
2663: \label{ssec:RVBMSE}
2664:
2665: Because of its relevance to solid $^3$He films and Wigner crystals,
2666: the MSE model on the triangular lattice has been the subject of many
2667: studies.\cite{km97,mkn97,mbl98,ksmn98,mblw98,mlbw99,lmsl00} We will
2668: discuss here some properties of the simplest MSE model with up to
2669: four-spin cyclic exchange interactions ($J_2 -2J_3$ and $J_4$ only in
2670: Eq.~\ref{eq:H26}). The classical phase diagram
2671: (Fig. \ref{fig:phasediagMSE}) of this model has been studied by Kubo
2672: and collaborators\cite{km97,mkn97} and the quantum one has been
2673: roughly scanned in Ref.\cite{lmsl00}: we will mainly focus on the
2674: short-ranged RVB spin liquid (see Fig.~\ref{fig:phasediagMSE}), which
2675: is probably {\it the first RVB SL encountered in an SU(2)-symmetric
2676: spin model}.
2677:
2678: \begin{figure}
2679: \begin{center}
2680: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{MSE}
2681: \end{center}
2682: \caption[99]{
2683: Classical (top) and quantum (bottom) phases of the $J_2-J_4$ MSE
2684: Hamiltonian. The classical model was studied by Kubo and
2685: Momoi\cite{km97} and is based on a variational approach. The quantum
2686: phase diagram is the simplest scenario compatible with the exact
2687: diagonalizations data of Refs.~\cite{mblw98,mlbw99,lmsl00}. While not
2688: completely understood, in the type-II spin-liquid region the spectra
2689: are characterized by a very large number of singlet excitations below
2690: the first triplet state. This is not the case in the RVB phase.}
2691: \label{fig:phasediagMSE}
2692: \end{figure}
2693:
2694: \subsubsection{Non-planar classical ground-states}
2695:
2696: It is well-known that an Heisenberg model (with possible
2697: second-neighbors, third-neighbors, ... interactions) on a Bravais
2698: lattice always admits a planar helical ground-state at the classical
2699: level. This is no longer true when MSE are present and finding the
2700: classical ground-state for arbitrary $J_2$ and $J_4$ is an unsolved
2701: problem. A mean-field phase diagram was obtained for the classical
2702: model\cite{km97} but very few exact results are known. In the
2703: neighborhood of $J_4=1$ $J_2=0$ the classical ground-state is known to
2704: be a four-sublattice configurations with magnetizations pointing
2705: toward the vertices of a regular tetrahedron.\cite{km97} This is a
2706: quite interesting model where the ground-state spontaneously breaks a
2707: discrete Ising symmetry associated to the sign of the triple product
2708: $\vec{S}_1\cdot(\vec{S}_2\times\vec{S}_3)$ around a triangle. This
2709: broken symmetry gives rise to a finite-temperature phase transition
2710: which has been observed in Monte Carlo simulations.\cite{mkn97} This
2711: phenomena is similar to the transition predicted in the $(\pi,0)$
2712: phase of the $J_1$--$J_2$ model on the square lattice.\cite{ccl90a}
2713:
2714: \subsubsection{Absence of N\'eel LRO}
2715:
2716:
2717: The classical ground-states at $J_4=1,J_2=0$ are tetrahedral
2718: configurations. Although this phase appears to be stable within the
2719: framework of linear spin-wave calculations\cite{mkn97} or
2720: Schwinger-Boson mean-field theory,\cite{mbl98} exact diagonalizations
2721: indicate that the magnetic LRO is washed out by quantum
2722: fluctuations.\cite{mkn97,mlbw99} The chiral order predicted to
2723: survive at long distances and finite temperatures\cite{mkn97} in the
2724: classical system for $J_2=0$ is also likely to be washed out by
2725: quantum fluctuations.\cite{mlbw99}
2726:
2727: When $J_2=1$ a relatively small amount of $J_4\sim 0.1$ is sufficient
2728: to destroy the three-sublattice N\'eel LRO realized by the
2729: first-neighbor Heisenberg model.\cite{lmsl00} The nature of the phase
2730: on the other side of this transition is not settled but the
2731: finite-size spectra display a large density of singlet excitations at
2732: low energy which could be reminiscent of the kagome
2733: situation.\cite{lmsl00}
2734:
2735: From exact diagonalizations (up to 36 sites) no sign of N\'eel LRO
2736: could be found at $J_4=1,J_2=-2$.\cite{mblw98,mlbw99} In addition, the
2737: finite-size analysis showed that the spin-spin correlation length is
2738: quite short at $J_2=-2$ and $J_4=1$ and a spin gap of the order of
2739: $\Delta\sim 0.8$ exists at this point. Much of the numerical effort
2740: to elucidate the nature of the MSE ground-state was concentrated on
2741: this point because it is close to the parameters realized in
2742: low-density $^3$He films (when higher order exchanges are neglected).
2743:
2744:
2745: \subsubsection{Local singlet-singlet correlations -
2746: absence of lattice symmetry breaking}
2747:
2748: Having excluded the possibility of a N\'eel ordered ground-state at
2749: $J_4=1,J_2=-2$ it is natural to look for a possible VBC. Because of
2750: the complexity of the MSE Hamiltonian it is not clear what kind of
2751: spatial order should be favored. From the analysis of dimer-dimer
2752: correlations (see Fig.~\ref{fig:ddcorrel}) it appears that parallel
2753: valence-bonds repel each-other at short distance. This is similar to
2754: what is observed in the staggered phase of the $J_2$--$J_4$ MSE ladder
2755: and square-lattice models. For this reason it appears that a
2756: plausible VBC would be the staggered VBC encountered in the triangular
2757: QDM for $V>J$ (\S\ref{ssec:QDMTri}). However this scenario seems
2758: difficult to reconcile with the weakness of dimer-dimer
2759: correlations.\cite{mlbw99} In addition, the low-energy singlet states
2760: and their quantum numbers\cite{StagVBC} do not reflect the 12-fold
2761: quasi-degeneracy that should be present if the system was to
2762: spontaneously break some lattice symmetry according to a staggered VBC
2763: pattern. Small systems usually {\em favor} ordered phases because
2764: low-energy and long-wavelength fluctuations that could destabilize an
2765: ordered state are reduced compared to larger systems. From the fact
2766: that the finite-size spectra do not show the signatures of a staggered
2767: VBC symmetry breaking it is unlikely that the MSE model could develop
2768: a VBC of this kind in the thermodynamic limit.
2769:
2770:
2771: \begin{figure}
2772: \begin{center}
2773: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{DD28_m210}
2774: \end{center}
2775: \caption[99]{Dimer-dimer correlations in the ground-state
2776: of the $J_2$--$J_4$ MSE model on the triangular lattice (28 sites) at
2777: $J_2=-2$, $J_4=1$ (from Ref.~\cite{mlbw99}). Numbers are proportional
2778: to $\langle\hat{d}_0\hat{d}_x\rangle -\langle\hat{d}_0
2779: \rangle\langle\hat{d}_x\rangle$ where the operator $\hat{d}_x$
2780: projects onto the singlet space of the bond $x$ and $\hat{d}_0$ refers
2781: to the reference bond $(1,28)$. These results shows a clear tendency
2782: for repulsion between parallel dimers.}
2783: \label{fig:ddcorrel}
2784: \end{figure}
2785:
2786: \subsubsection{Topological degeneracy and Lieb-Schultz-Mattis Theorem}
2787:
2788: Because no VBC phase could be identified in the MSE model at
2789: $J_4=1,J_2=-2$ the numerical data were compared with the predictions
2790: of an RVB liquid scenario.
2791:
2792: In one dimension a famous theorem due to Lieb, Schultz and
2793: Mattis\cite{lsm61} (LSM) states that in a one-dimensional spin system
2794: with an half-integer spin in the unit cell there is at least on excited
2795: state collapsing to the ground-state in the thermodynamic limit
2796: (periodic boundary conditions).
2797: There are in fact several arguments suggesting that this theorem might,
2798: at least to some extent,
2799: also apply to higher dimensions.\cite{al86,o00,mlms02,hastings03,o03}
2800: If that is the case a gapped system with an odd integer spin in the
2801: unit cell must have a degenerate ground-state. The simplest scenario
2802: to explain this degeneracy is a translation symmetry breaking. One
2803: could think that this would rule out the possibility of any
2804: (translation invariant) RVB liquid in such models. This is incorrect
2805: because a ground-state degeneracy can have a topological origin on a
2806: system with periodic boundary conditions, as we discussed in the
2807: framework of QDM (\S\ref{sec:QDM}). Such a phase is characterized by
2808: a four-fold topological ground-state degeneracy when the system is on
2809: a torus. That degeneracy allows the system to fulfill LSM's
2810: requirement without any spontaneous translation symmetry
2811: breaking.\cite{mlms02}
2812:
2813: On a finite-size system the topological degeneracy is only approximate
2814: but some constraints exist for the quantum numbers (momentum in
2815: particular) of the quasi-degenerate multiplet.\cite{mlms02} A system
2816: with periodic boundary conditions with an even number of sites but an
2817: {\em odd number of rows} is expected to have two ground-states with
2818: differ by a momentum $\pi$ in the direction parallel to the rows, in
2819: close analogy to the the LSM theorem in dimension one. The numerical
2820: spectra of the MSE model exhibit a set of three singlet energy levels
2821: collapsing onto the ground-state when the system size is
2822: increased\cite{mlbw99} and their quantum number turn out to be
2823: consistent with the constraints derived from the general RVB
2824: picture.\cite{mlms02}
2825:
2826: \subsubsection{Deconfined spinons}
2827:
2828: The SL phase described above is expected to have deconfined spinons
2829: ($S=\frac{1}{2}$ excitations). These excitations should show up as an
2830: incoherent continuum in the spin-spin dynamical structure
2831: factor. However such a feature would probably be rather difficult to
2832: observe on small 2D lattices, in particular due to the small number of
2833: inequivalent ${\bf k}$-vectors in the Brillouin zone. On the other
2834: hand, the binding energy of two spinons can be evaluated by comparing
2835: the ground-state energy and the first magnetic excitation energy on
2836: even and odd samples. In the case of the MSE model at $J_4=1,J_2=-2$
2837: the results show the existence of a bound-state (it is more favorable
2838: to put two spinons in the same small sample than in separate ones,
2839: which is not surprising) but this {\em does not mean that the spinons
2840: are confined} (contrary to the conclusions of Ref.~\cite{mlbw99}).
2841: Interestingly this binding energy seems to go to zero for the largest
2842: available sizes~(Fig.~\ref{spinon}): this might indicate the absence
2843: of attraction between spinons for large enough separation and an
2844: asymptotic deconfinement.
2845:
2846: \begin{figure}
2847: \begin{center}
2848: \includegraphics[height=4cm,clip=true]{spinonmse}
2849: \caption[99]{Spinons binding energy as a function of the system size in
2850: the MSE model at $J_2=-2$ and $J_4=1$. The vertical bars correspond to
2851: the range of values found for different sample shapes.
2852: }\label{spinon}
2853: \end{center}
2854: \end{figure}
2855:
2856: It is important to stress here that the RVB SL phase discussed here
2857: (and its QDM counterparts of \S\ref{ssec:QDMTri} and
2858: \S\ref{ssec:QDMKag}) is not the only way to spinon deconfinement in
2859: 2D. There is at least another scenario, inherited from one
2860: dimension, which is the {\em sliding Luttinger liquid}. Indeed, the
2861: Luttinger liquid behavior and the one-dimensional critical behavior of
2862: magnetic chains seem to be robust to small (or moderate) {\em
2863: frustrating transverse couplings between chains}, as observed both in
2864: theoretical\cite{nge98,ahllt98,efkl00,be01,vc01,sp02,ssl02} and
2865: numerical approaches.\cite{sfl02} This regime between one and two
2866: dimensions which may have been observed in Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$\cite{cttt01}
2867: is the subject of a number of recent studies.\cite{be01,vc01}
2868:
2869:
2870: \subsection{Other models with MSE interactions}
2871:
2872: Multiple-spin interactions are present in a number of models that were
2873: found to exhibit fractionalization or an RVB liquid ground-state.
2874: Well known examples of MSE interactions with an Ising symmetry are $\Z$
2875: gauge theories, where the gauge invariant plaquette term is a product
2876: of Pauli matrices $\prod_i \sigma^z_i$. Such theories have a
2877: deconfined phase in 2+1 dimension\cite{kogut79} and their relevance to
2878: fractionalized phases of 2D electronic systems has been
2879: pointed out by Senthil and Fisher.\cite{sf00} The connexion between
2880: $\Z$ gauge theories and QDM was mentioned in
2881: \S\ref{sssec:Z2}. Some MSE spin models with an Ising symmetry and a
2882: fractionalized ground-state were discussed by Kitaev,\cite{kitaev97}
2883: Nayak and Shtengel.\cite{ns01} In the other limit of a $U(1)$ (or
2884: $XY$) symmetry several models have been studied. Recent examples are
2885: based upon the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ four-spin XY ring exchange
2886: interaction\cite{bfg02,pbf02,sdss02,sm02}
2887: \begin{equation}
2888: \mathcal{H}=-K\sum_{\langle ijkl\rangle} \left(
2889: S_i^+S_j^-S_k^+S_l^- + {\rm H.c}
2890: \right)
2891: \label{eq:4XY}
2892: \end{equation}
2893: which is the $XY$ analog of the $SU(2)$ MSE interaction $P_{1234}+{\rm
2894: H.c}$.
2895:
2896: %______________________________________________________________________________
2897:
2898: \section{Antiferromagnets on the kagome (and related) lattices}
2899: \label{sec:kagome}
2900:
2901:
2902: In RVB SL phases described in \S\ref{ssec:QDMTri}, \S\ref{ssec:QDMKag}
2903: and \S\ref{ssec:RVBMSE} {\em singlet excitations (visons) are gapped}.
2904: In the $\Z$ gauge theory approach this gap is essential for the
2905: consistency of the theory.\cite{sf00,sf01} The gauge-field quasi
2906: particles are vortices of the gauge field and carry a unit
2907: $\mathbb{Z}_2$ gauge flux but no spin. As illustrated in
2908: \S\ref{sssec:QDMdeconf} in the framework of a simple QDM, visons have
2909: long-ranged interaction with spinons. If the spectrum of these
2910: visons has a gap then the spinons are unconfined and the phase is
2911: ``fractionalized''. If they condense, the long range interaction
2912: between them and the spinons frustrate the motions of the latter which
2913: remained confined. The gap in the singlet sector (above the
2914: topological degeneracy) is thus a crucial ingredient of these RVB
2915: SL. At the end of this section we will show how the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$
2916: first-neighbor Heisenberg model on the kagome lattice represents an
2917: enigma with respect to this scheme (as well as the QDM described in
2918: Sec.~\ref{ssec:QDMmu}). We begin the section by a review of the
2919: properties of various models on the kagome lattice, which topology is
2920: the source of an extreme frustration, and, in many models, source of
2921: an extensive degeneracy of the ground-state.
2922:
2923: \subsection{Miscellaneous models on the kagome lattice}
2924:
2925: There has been a large number of studies devoted to different
2926: antiferromagnetic models on the kagome lattice. The next neighbor
2927: Ising model on such a lattice is disordered, its entropy per site is
2928: very large $S_{\rm kag}^{\rm Ising}= 0.502$, more than half the
2929: independent spin value, much larger than the triangular lattice value
2930: $S_{\rm tri}^{\rm Ising}= 0.323$ and of the order of Pauling
2931: approximation for independent triangles $S_{\rm
2932: Pauling}=0.501$.\cite{p38} This suggests that the correlations in this
2933: system are very weak: the model remains disordered at all
2934: temperatures.\cite{kn53,hr92} Moessner and Sondhi have studied this
2935: Ising model in a transverse magnetic field (the simplest way to
2936: include some quantum fluctuations in the model): the model fails to
2937: order for any transverse field, at any temperature.\cite{msc00,ms01b}
2938:
2939: The nearest neighbor classical Heisenberg model on the kagome lattice
2940: has also a huge ground-state degeneracy. This property is easy to
2941: understand and holds on different lattices with corner sharing units
2942: such as the checkerboard lattice or the three dimensional pyrochlore
2943: lattice (Moessner and Chalker\cite{mc98,mc98a}). On all these lattices
2944: the nearest neighbor Heisenberg Hamiltonian can be written as the sum
2945: of the square of the total spin $\vec{S}_{\alpha}$ of individual units
2946: $\alpha$ (a tetrahedron in the 2-d and 3-d pyrochlore cases and a
2947: triangle for the kagome lattice), which share only one
2948: vertex. Classical ground-states are obtained whenever $\forall\alpha\;
2949: \vec{S}_{\alpha}=\vec{0}$. This condition fixes the relative
2950: positions of the three classical spins of a triangle at $120$ degrees
2951: from each other in a plane. But it does not fix the relative
2952: orientation of the plane of a triad with respect to the planes of
2953: triads on corner sharing triangles: the model has a continuous local
2954: degeneracy\cite{chs92,hr92} at $T=0$.\footnote{ Counting the {\em
2955: planar} ground-states amounts to determine in how many ways one can
2956: associate one of the three letters $A$, $B$ and $C$ to each site so
2957: that each triangle has spins along the three different orientations.
2958: This already represents an extensive entropy.\cite{baxter70,hr92}}
2959: Thermal fluctuations select coplanar
2960: configurations.\cite{chs92,hr92,rcc93} The possibility of long-range
2961: order in spin-spin correlations at very low temperature has been
2962: discussed without any definitive conclusion.\cite{hr92,rb93} The order
2963: parameter of the planar phase is defined by the local helicity
2964: (sometimes called vectorial chirality)~:
2965: \begin{equation}
2966: \vec{\zeta}=
2967: \vec{S}_1\times\vec{S}_2
2968: +\vec{S}_2\times\vec{S}_3
2969: +\vec{S}_3\times\vec{S}_1
2970: \end{equation}
2971: where the three sites define a triangle. This kind of order is
2972: sometimes called {\em nematic} by analogy to liquid crystals. The
2973: existence of such an order parameter might be related to the
2974: instability of the classical Heisenberg model on the kagome lattice to
2975: Dzyaloshinsky-Moriya interactions.\cite{e02,ecl02} The classical model
2976: has a large density of low-lying excitations at low
2977: temperature.\cite{k94}
2978:
2979:
2980: \subsection{
2981: Spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ Heisenberg model on the kagome lattice: an extreme
2982: play-ground for ``quantum fluctuations''}
2983:
2984: The nearest neighbor spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ quantum Heisenberg model on the kagome
2985: lattice has equally been the object of many
2986: studies\cite{e89,ce92,s92,le93,ze95,lblps97,web98,m98,smlbpwe00,mm01,dmnm03}
2987: From these studies the following important facts have emerged :
2988:
2989: \subsubsection{Ground-state energy per spin}
2990: The Heisenberg model on the kagome lattice has an extremely low energy
2991: per bond ($\langle{\bf S}_i.{\bf S}_j\rangle\simeq -0.44)$ $ \sim
2992: 87\%$ of the energy per bond in an isolated triangle. On this lattice
2993: the energy per bond of the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ system is much lower than the
2994: classical energy $\frac {E_{qu.}}{E_{cl.}} \sim 1.74$, a ratio much
2995: larger than in any other 2D magnet, that can only be
2996: compared to the value obtained for the Bethe chain (1.77). The kagome
2997: lattice is the 2D lattice which offers the largest
2998: stabilization due to quantum fluctuations.
2999:
3000: \subsubsection{Correlations}
3001:
3002: The ground-state is disordered.\cite{ze90} Within accuracy of the
3003: finite-size numerical computations, spin-spin correlations,\cite{le93}
3004: dimer-dimer correlations (Fig.~\ref{dim-dimkagMSE}),
3005: chirality-chirality correlations\cite{ce92} are short-ranged, which is
3006: consistent with the previous point and series expansion
3007: results.\cite{sh92}
3008: \begin{figure}
3009: \begin{center}
3010: \includegraphics[height=6cm]{dimer-dimerMSEKAG}
3011: \caption[99]{Dimer-dimer correlations in the ground-state of the
3012: kagome Heisenberg model (black triangles) and in the MSE model
3013: discussed in \S\ref{ssec:RVBMSE} (open symbols) versus
3014: distance. Although the decrease of these correlations is weaker in the
3015: KH model than in the MSE model, it seems nevertheless roughly
3016: exponential in the first two decades, as the spin-spin correlations
3017: are.\cite{ce92,le93}}\label{dim-dimkagMSE}
3018: \end{center}
3019: \end{figure}
3020:
3021: \subsubsection{Spin-gap}
3022: There is plausibly a spin-gap of the order of 1/20$^{\rm th}$ of the
3023: coupling constant.\cite{web98} In view of the smallness of this
3024: spin-gap with regards to the available sizes caution is necessary. The
3025: above conclusion was drawn from the value of the {\em microscopic}
3026: spin gap $E_0(S=S_{min} +1)-E_0(S=S_{min})$ on exact spectra of
3027: samples with up to 36 spins,\cite{web98} where $E_0(S)$ is the lowest
3028: energy in the $S$ sector, and $S_{min}=$ 0 or $\frac{1}{2}$ depending
3029: on the parity of the total number of spins. The finite-size effects
3030: on these results are an order of magnitude smaller than in a N{\'e}el
3031: ordered antiferromagnet. Nevertheless they are still not negligible
3032: for these sizes. An alternative determination of the spin-gap can be
3033: obtained along the following line. The lowest exact eigenstate in
3034: each total spin sector $S$ of a $N$ spins sample defines the energy
3035: per spin $e$ at $T=0$ as a function of its magnetization $m =
3036: S/(N/2)$. For low positive values of the magnetization, one can fit
3037: $e(m)$ to the phenomenological law:\footnote{This phenomenological
3038: form cannot extend below $m=0$ and beyond $m=1/3$ because at both
3039: magnetizations an angular point appears in $e(m)$ with a discontinuity
3040: of the first derivative signaling a magnetization
3041: plateau.\cite{h01,cghp02} This is discussed in more details in our
3042: lectures notes.\cite{lm02}}
3043: \begin{equation}
3044: e(m) = e(0) + a m + b m^2/2 +{\cal O}(m^3)
3045: \label{eofm}
3046: \end{equation}
3047: $a$ and $b$ are intensive quantities which depend on $N$ but should
3048: converge to some (possibly zero) value when $N\to\infty$. This point
3049: of view is important because for an infinite system the thermodynamic
3050: function $e(m)=\lim_{N\to\infty}E(S=mN/2)/N$ can be measured (through
3051: the zero temperature magnetization curve), but not
3052: $E(S\sim\mathcal{O}(1))$. The physical significance of Eq.~\ref{eofm}
3053: is clear: $a$ measures half the spin gap (in a thermodynamic sense,
3054: that is the magnetic field $H_c$ required to magnetize the system at
3055: zero temperature) and
3056: \begin{equation}
3057: b=\frac{\partial^2 e}{\partial m^2} = \chi^{-1}
3058: \end{equation}
3059: where $\chi$ is the homogeneous susceptibility of the medium for
3060: fields larger than the critical field $H_c=a$. This determination of
3061: the {\em thermodynamic} spin gap leads to a renormalization of the raw
3062: data\cite{web98} for small sizes (see Fig.~\ref{gapkago}). A linear
3063: extrapolation versus $1/N$ (which should give a lower bound of the
3064: spin-gap) leads to the value $0.06$ for the spin gap
3065: ($e_{\infty}=-0.4365$ and $\chi_{\infty}=0.34$). This determination
3066: is in agreement with the direct extrapolation of the microscopic gap
3067: $E_0(S=S_{min} +1)-E_0(S=S_{min})$. For $N=36$ at the smallest
3068: non-zero magnetization, the linear term of equation~(\ref{eofm}) is
3069: $90\%$ of the quadratic term: this is an estimate of the degree of
3070: confidence on the existence of a spin-gap.
3071:
3072: \begin{figure}
3073: \begin{center}
3074: \includegraphics[height=5cm]{gapkago}
3075: \caption[99]{Finite size scaling of the spin gap in the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$
3076: Heisenberg model ${\cal H} = \sum_{<i,j>} {\bf S}_i.{\bf S}_j$ on the
3077: kagome lattice. Triangles (resp. squares) are the raw results of the
3078: microscopic spin gap in the even (resp. odd) samples. Bullets
3079: represent the ``thermodynamic'' spin gap, they are obtained by the
3080: procedure described in the text (errors bars come from the rms
3081: uncertainty in the fits).}\label{gapkago}
3082: \end{center}
3083: \end{figure}
3084:
3085:
3086:
3087: \subsubsection{An exceptional density of low lying excitations
3088: in the singlet sector}
3089:
3090: Whatever the ultimate fate of the spin gap a big surprise emerges from
3091: the exact spectra: the probable absence of gap in the singlet sector
3092: and the anomalous density of low energy states adjacent to the
3093: ground-state. Let us first comment the second point in details: even
3094: on the smallest size spectra the low lying states appear contiguous to
3095: the ground-state and the spectra are extremely dense. The number of
3096: singlet levels in the spin-gap (taken as a natural energy band-width
3097: of the problem) increases exponentially fast with $N$ as $\sim 1.15^N$
3098: as far as the $N\leq36$ systems are concerned (see
3099: Fig.~\ref{numberostate}). This property remains (and can be checked on
3100: larger systems) when the Hilbert space is restricted to that of
3101: first-neighbor valence-bond coverings.\cite{mm01,msp03}
3102:
3103: \begin{figure}
3104: \begin{center}
3105: \includegraphics[height=5cm]{numberostate1}
3106: \caption[99]{Logarithm of the number of singlet states in the spin
3107: gap versus sample size (black squares). The short dashed and long
3108: dashed curves display the theoretical law (Eq.~\ref{law} with $d=2$)
3109: (short dashes: $p=1$, long dashes: $p=2$). }\label{numberostate}
3110: \end{center}
3111:
3112: \end{figure}
3113:
3114:
3115: Some remarks are necessary to fully appreciate this property. The
3116: $2^N$ states of the system are stretched on an energy scale of the
3117: order of $NJ$ where $J$ is the coupling constant of the
3118: Hamiltonian. This implies that on most of the spectrum the density of
3119: states increases exponentially with $N$. If we specialize to the $S=0$
3120: sector as we will do below, the picture is not very different: the
3121: number of states is $ C^N_{\frac{N}{2}}-C^N_{\frac{N}{2}-1} \sim {\cal
3122: O}(\frac{2^N}{N})$ and here too, in most of the spectrum the density
3123: is exponentially increasing with $N$. But in all the phases that we
3124: have studied up to now, the nature of the ground-state and of the low
3125: lying excitations leads to a different behavior at the bottom of the
3126: spectrum. The ground-state degeneracy is ${\cal O}(1)$ in
3127: VBC, VBS and in the RVB SL (of the type discussed in
3128: \S\ref{ssec:QDMKag} and \S\ref{ssec:RVBMSE} for instance) and it is
3129: ${\cal O}(N^p)$ in N{\'e}el ordered states with $p$ sublattices. In
3130: all these situations the low-lying excitations are described as modes
3131: or quasi-particles.
3132: %In an energy range of order $\mathcal{O}(J)$ one counts $N^{\beta}$
3133: %levels associated with single-particle excitations. This always leads
3134: %to density of states increasing as a power law as a function of $N$.
3135: %Inclusion of multi-particle excitations can be done in an average way:
3136: Let us
3137: suppose that single-particle excitations have a dispersion law:
3138: \begin{equation}
3139: \omega({\bf k}) \sim k^p.
3140: \label{dispersionlaw}
3141: \end{equation}
3142: In a d-dimensional system the total internal energy increases with
3143: temperature as $E \sim N T^{(p+d)/p}$, the specific heat as $C_v\sim N
3144: T^{d/p}$ as well as the entropy ${\cal S}\sim N T^{d/p}$. In a
3145: micro-canonical point of view the density of states $\rho(E)$ or a
3146: large enough system is simply related to the entropy by ${\cal
3147: S}=\log(\rho(E))$. Since ${\cal S}\sim N T^{d/p}=N (E/N)^{d/(p+d)}$ we
3148: obtain
3149: \begin{equation}
3150: \log (\rho(E)) \propto N^{\frac{p}{p+d}}
3151: \label{law}
3152: \end{equation}
3153:
3154: As an example, let us consider the Rokhsar Kivelson QDM on the square
3155: lattice at the quantum critical point (Sec.~\ref{sec:QDM}): the
3156: dispersion law of the so-called resonons is quadratic
3157: around ${\bf Q}= (\pi,\pi)$, the logarithm of the number of states
3158: increases as $N^{1/2}$ (long dashes of Fig.~\ref{numberostate}).
3159:
3160: Even with such many-particle excitations one would expect a number of
3161: levels increasing more slowly than in the numerical spectra.
3162: Infinitely soft low-energy modes ($p \rightarrow \infty$), are
3163: necessary to recover a density of low-lying levels growing as $\sim
3164: \alpha^N$. It is still unclear if we can do a connection between the
3165: ``zero modes'' of the classical model at $T=0$ and this picture. And
3166: we cannot completely indulge ourselves in saying that quantum
3167: fluctuations are unable to lift the classical degeneracy as quantum
3168: fluctuations seem to open a spin gap.
3169:
3170: A physical consequence of this exceptional density of low lying
3171: singlets can be observed in the specific heat: at low temperature the
3172: specific heat of this spin system is unusually large, with a double
3173: peak structure,\cite{ze90,ey94,nm95,tr96} insensitive to relatively
3174: large magnetic fields.\cite{smlbpwe00} This is easily understood if we
3175: suppose that in this energy range there is a large density of singlet
3176: states.\cite{smlbpwe00} This result is to be compared to the
3177: experimental results of Ramirez {\it et al.}\cite{rhw00} on
3178: SrCr$_{9p}$Ga$_{12-9p}O_{19}$ (notice however that it is a
3179: spin-$\frac{3}{2}$ compound and that numerical calculations were
3180: performed on the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ model) where the specific heat
3181: around $5$~K has an extremely low sensitivity to magnetic fields up to
3182: $10\;$~Tesla, whereas the homogeneous susceptibility in this range of
3183: temperature is probably very low if we notice that it turns down
3184: around $50 K$.\cite{mklmch00}
3185:
3186: \subsubsection{Absence of gap in the singlet sector}
3187:
3188: Up to $N=36$ sites there is no evidence of a possible gap in the
3189: singlet spectrum: this is an exceptional phenomenon in quantum
3190: mechanics of small systems where discretization is usually the rule.
3191:
3192: It has been advocated in recent papers\cite{sma02,ns03} that the
3193: ground-state of this model could break the translational symmetry and
3194: be a VBC. The first proposed crystal\cite{sma02} is made of resonating {\em
3195: stars} with 6 dimers. The corresponding unit cell has 12 spins. The
3196: second VBC\cite{ns03} is made of resonating (trimerized) {\em
3197: hexagons} and was already discussed as the most reasonable crystal (if
3198: any is realized in this system, which we think is not clear at all) by
3199: Marston and Zeng\cite{mz91} and Zeng and Elser.\cite{ze95} This later
3200: VBC has a unit cell with 36 sites. In both scenarios it is the energy
3201: gain obtained by {\em local resonances} (involving respectively 6 and
3202: 3 valence-bonds) which drives the system toward a VBC. From the energy
3203: point of view the star VBC is (by far) less realistic since it
3204: involves a much longer resonance loop.\footnote{Notice also that the
3205: gap associated to the star VBC is predicted to be of the order of 1/10
3206: of $J$,\cite{sma02} which is 10 times larger than the largest distance
3207: between two consecutive levels in the spectrum of the $N=36$ sample.}
3208: This resonance loop involving 6 valence-bonds around a star has a
3209: vanishing amplitude at the lowest non-trivial order of the overlap
3210: expansion in the RVB subspace, as was shown by Zeng and
3211: Elser\cite{ze95}.
3212: To our opinion there is no reason to think that the physics of the
3213: kagome model can be described from the limit of weakly coupled stars.
3214: On the other hand, in the approximation where only the shortest
3215: resonance loops are present, the model was indeed found to be in the
3216: {\em hexagon} VBC phase, as re-discovered recently from a different
3217: point of view.\cite{ns03} A crucial (numerical) result of Zeng and
3218: Elser\cite{ze95} is however that this VBC {\em melts} when higher
3219: order resonances loops are included.
3220:
3221:
3222: We have studied the 36-sites sample which can accommodate these two
3223: VBC: the low-lying levels of the spectrum do not give a clear picture
3224: of the supposed to be VBC. The eigenstates with the quantum numbers
3225: corresponding to these two VBC are not the lowest energy levels in the
3226: spectrum. No gap is seen in the spectrum, the largest distance
3227: between two consecutive states is $10^{-2}$ and seems distributed at
3228: random, whereas the average distance between two consecutive states in
3229: the 50 first states is: $2.5 10^{-3}$. It has been argued that long
3230: wave-length quantum fluctuations (almost absent in the $N=36$ sample
3231: which contains only two resonating hexagons or three stars) could
3232: eventually restore the order. We think that this is incorrect. In a
3233: VBC it is {\em local resonances} which favor the crystal and longer
3234: resonances which tend to reduce the order parameter and which could
3235: eventually destabilize it. Long-wavelength will tend to restore a
3236: larger ground-state symmetry (reducing the degeneracy). From this
3237: point of view it is unlikely that a VBC pattern will appear in larger
3238: systems if it is not apparent in the smallest systems (provided that
3239: boundary conditions do not frustrate the corresponding VBC). We thus
3240: consider that up to now numerical results do not support the claims of
3241: a star or hexagon VBC ground-state in this model.
3242:
3243: If the hexagon VBC was however realized the important question would
3244: probably be why the associated gap is so tiny, certainly smaller than
3245: $10^{-3}$. A natural scenario would be that of a very close proximity
3246: to a quantum critical point, but that critical point remains to be
3247: identified. A third possibility would be that of a system with a true
3248: extensive entropy at zero temperature. This is less likely in our
3249: opinion since (up to now) only models with simple (if not trivial)
3250: local symmetries were found to have such ground-state entropy (Ising
3251: antiferromagnet on the triangular lattice for instance or the QDM of
3252: \S\ref{ssec:QDMmu}) and this entropy is usually sent to (possibly
3253: small but) finite temperatures by almost any perturbation.
3254:
3255: \subsubsection{Anomalous density of states in other spin sectors}
3256: An anomalous density of low lying states is equally observed in the
3257: spin $\frac{1}{2}$ sector (where the law could be fitted to $N 1.15^N$), in the
3258: spin 1 sector as well as in other sectors with larger total spin. It
3259: should be noticed that such a density of states implies the absence of
3260: an intrinsic energy scale for the low lying excitations: a phenomenon
3261: that has been observed in inelastic neutron scattering
3262: (Ref.~\cite{mmpfa00} and Refs. therein) and theoretically in the
3263: imaginary part of the dynamic susceptibility calculated within the
3264: dynamical mean field theory (Georges {\it et al.}\cite{gsf01}). A
3265: high spin susceptibility just above the spin gap is not excluded
3266: in the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$.\cite{ls02}
3267:
3268: The global picture of this phase is thus that of a SL with
3269: no long-ranged correlations in any local observable, and an large
3270: entropy of singlets at $T\ll J$, which is a manifestation of the
3271: extraordinary large density of states in each $S$ subspace.
3272:
3273: \subsection{
3274: Next-neighbor RVB description of the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ kagome
3275: antiferromagnet} Considering a supposed-to-be large spin-gap, Zeng and
3276: Elser\cite{ze95} proposed a description of the ground-state and
3277: low-lying excitations of the kagome model in the basis of next
3278: neighbor valence bonds. They analyzed in this context the dimer
3279: dynamics and showed on a $N=36$ sample that the hexagon VBC --favored
3280: by the shortest (three-)dimer moves-- melts when introducing higher
3281: order tunneling. Mila and Mambrini\cite{m98,mm01} confirmed that this
3282: reduced Hilbert space of next neighbor valence bonds captures some of
3283: the most perplexing features of this magnet and specifically the
3284: absence of (measurable) gap in the singlet sector and the exponential
3285: number of singlets. One of us, D.~Serban and V.~Pasquier\cite{msp03}
3286: have elaborated on this work and on Zeng and Elser's approach and
3287: proposed a QDM with an extensive zero-point entropy and critical
3288: (energy-energy\footnote{Dimer-dimer correlations are short-ranged in
3289: this model.}) correlations (see \S\ref{ssec:QDMmu}). All these
3290: results point to an absence of an intrinsic low-energy scale. This
3291: feature is typical of a critical state, but as seen in the above
3292: discussion, the simple RK picture does not seem to fit nicely to the
3293: exact diagonalization data: may be the available sizes are too small
3294: or the behavior of this quantum system corresponds to something
3295: completely new. Some recent numerical results\cite{dmnm03} (in the
3296: full spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ Hilbert space as well as in the RVB subspace)
3297: showed that (static) non-magnetic impurities (holes) experience an
3298: unexpected {\em repulsion} in this system and that no significant
3299: magnetic moment is created in the vicinity of the impurities. It has
3300: been argued\cite{sv00} that static non-magnetic impurities are useful
3301: to detect a possible spinon deconfinement in two-dimensional
3302: antiferromagnets. From this point of view the results mentioned above
3303: suggest such a deconfinement.
3304:
3305:
3306: \subsection{Experiments in compounds with kagome-like lattices}
3307:
3308: The low temperature specific heat of SrCr$_9$Ga$_{12}$0$_{19}$ (the
3309: magnetic chromium ion has a spin 3/2) is apparently dominated by
3310: singlet states.\cite{rhw00} The magnetic excitations of this compound
3311: as seen by muons can be described as spins $\frac{1}{2}$ itinerant in
3312: a sea of singlets.\cite{ukkll94} The non-linear spin susceptibility of
3313: SrCr$_9$Ga$_{12}$0$_{19}$ exhibits a very large increase at about 5 K,
3314: reminiscent of spin glasses,\cite{rec90} but neutrons and muons show
3315: that a very significant fraction of the spins are not frozen below
3316: this temperature and exhibit still very rapid
3317: fluctuations.\cite{lbar96} The same phenomena have been observed in
3318: two jarosites that are equally good models of kagome antiferromagnets
3319: with half-odd-integer spin per unit cell.\cite{kklllwutdg96,whmmt98}
3320:
3321: \subsection{ "Haldane's conjecture"}
3322: Whereas the classical Heisenberg model on the kagome, checkerboard and
3323: pyrochlore lattices share the properties of local continuous
3324: degeneracy and disorder at $T=0$, their quantum counterparts are quite
3325: different. As it has been explained in Sec.~\ref{sec:VBC}, the
3326: Heisenberg model on the checkerboard lattice has an ordered VBC with
3327: gaps to all excitations. In contrast to the case of the
3328: $S=\frac{1}{2}$ Heisenberg model on the kagome lattice, recent results
3329: from Hida\cite{h00} show that there is a large gap to all excitations
3330: in the $S=1$ Heisenberg model on this same lattice, in agreement with
3331: experiments.\cite{aoyhimw94,wkyoya97,wwyoaonn98}
3332:
3333: Less is known on the ground-state of the Heisenberg model on the
3334: three-dimensional pyrochlore lattice: Canals and Lacroix\cite{cl98}
3335: have shown that the spin-spin correlations are short ranged and they
3336: have observed that on a 16-sites spectrum the first excitations are
3337: singlet ones. Fouet {\it et al.} have computed the spectrum of a
3338: 32-sites pyrochlore sample~\cite{fsl03}, this work confirms that the
3339: first excitations are still singlets for this size. There is
3340: plausibly a degeneracy of the ground-state in the thermodynamic limit
3341: but no evidence of a closing of the gap above: the system may
3342: therefore be a VBC. A first description of the singlet sector was
3343: proposed by Harris, Berlinsky and Bruder\cite{hbb91} and was developed
3344: further by Tsunetsugu\cite{t01,t02}. It starts from the limit of
3345: weakly-coupled tetrahedron (and thus breaks some spatial symmetries).
3346: The ground-state of an isolated tetrahedron is two-fold degenerate and
3347: can be described by an Ising pseudo-spin. An effective Hamiltonian
3348: describing the interactions between these pseudo-spins was
3349: written\cite{hbb91} and analyzed in a semi-classical approximation.
3350: It was concluded that the system maybe a VBC. It was argued by
3351: Tsunetsugu that a soft mode could exist in the singlet
3352: sector.\cite{t02}. The CORE approach of Berg {\it et al.}\cite{baa03}
3353: seems more appropriate to deal with these systems where dimerization
3354: is probably the dominant phenomenon. They treated larger units (block
3355: of four tetrahedron) and concludes to the existence of a VBC with a
3356: larger unit cell than the one predicted before\cite{hbb91,t01,t02} and
3357: a small singlet gap.
3358:
3359:
3360: All these results seem to confirm a 2D version of Haldane's
3361: conjecture: among these frustrated systems with local continuous
3362: degeneracies in the classical limit, the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ kagome
3363: antiferromagnet is the only system to have an half-odd integer spin in
3364: the unit cell. It is maybe not by chance that it is the only one with
3365: gapless excitations.\footnote{The SCGO compound with 7 spins 3/2 by
3366: unit cell belongs to the same category and as also gapless
3367: excitations.\cite{rhw00}} The spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ Heisenberg model on
3368: the checkerboard lattice or on the pyrochlore lattice and the spin-1
3369: Heisenberg model on the kagome lattice have integer spins in the unit
3370: cell and quantum fluctuations lead to gapful excitations. It is also
3371: interesting to note that these results are consistent with a
3372: generalization of the LSM theorem in dimension
3373: two.\cite{al86,o00,mlms02,hastings03,o03}
3374:
3375: An interesting analysis of Von Delft and Henley\cite{vdh92-93}
3376: supports this conjecture. These authors studied the collective
3377: tunneling of a small cluster of spins between two spin configurations
3378: that are degenerate in the classical limit. They found that for
3379: half-odd-integer spins the tunneling amplitude for a cluster of six
3380: spins around an hexagon (and on other larger loops) is exactly zero
3381: because of destructive interferences between different
3382: symmetry-related instantons. For small integer spins the interference
3383: is constructive and the tunnel amplitude and the tunnel splitting are
3384: large: this is consistent with numerical results which gives a large
3385: gap for the $S=1$ kagome antiferromagnet, and small gaps (if any) in
3386: the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ system.
3387: %_____________________________________________________________________
3388: %_____________________________________________________________________
3389: \section{Conclusions}
3390: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
3391: We conclude by summarizing some properties --and related open
3392: questions-- of the different phases discussed in this review.
3393:
3394: The properties of these phases are summarized in
3395: Table~\ref{tab:conclusion}. Semi-classical phases with N\'eel long
3396: ranged order, magnons as gapless excitations, do exist in spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ 2D
3397: systems with moderate frustration: the Heisenberg model on the
3398: triangular lattice is the most explicit example, with a sublattice
3399: magnetization about one half of the classical value.\cite{bllp94} The
3400: ground-state degeneracy is in the thermodynamic limit a power of $N$.
3401:
3402: An increased frustration, lower coordination number or smaller spin
3403: lead to quantum phases, with a ground-state of higher symmetry, no
3404: long ranged order in spin-spin correlations, a spin gap and the
3405: restored $SU(2)$ symmetry. Two main alternatives are then opened: the
3406: VBC or VBS phases on one hand, the RVB SL on the other. RVB SL and
3407: VBC (as well as VBS) first requires the formation of local
3408: singlets. When a particular local resonance pattern dominates the
3409: dynamics of the Hamiltonian the system will try to maximize the number
3410: of occurrence of this pattern. This is usually achieved by a regular
3411: arrangement, that is a VBC. When no such pattern dominates the system
3412: may form a translation invariant RVB SL. In the first case the
3413: ground-state can be qualitatively described by one ordered
3414: configuration of singlets dressed by small fluctuations. In the RVB SL
3415: the amplitudes of the wave-function are distributed over an
3416: exponentially large number of configurations. These ground-states lead
3417: to very different excitations: $\Delta S=1$ gapped magnons in the
3418: first case (and $\Delta S=0$ domain-wall excitations), gapped $\Delta
3419: S=0$ visons and gapped $\Delta S=\frac{1}{2}$ unconfined spinons in
3420: the second case.
3421:
3422: In agreement with the large-$N$ results
3423: (Sec.~\ref{sec:largeN}), VBC or VBS phases appear in general
3424: in quantum situations where the large-$S$ classical limit displays collinear order
3425: \footnote{We have discussed some possible counter examples in section 3. 6},
3426: whereas up to
3427: now RVB SL phases have only be encountered in range of parameters were
3428: the classical solutions are non collinear (MSE\cite{mblw98,mlbw99}
3429: and $J_1$--$J_2$ on the
3430: honeycomb lattice\cite{fsl01}).
3431:
3432: These states obey the 2D extension of LSM theorem: if $2S$ is odd in
3433: the unit cell and if excitations are gapped there is a ground-state
3434: degeneracy in the thermodynamic limit (with periodic boundary
3435: conditions). However the origin of the degeneracy differs in the two
3436: types of quantum phases. In the VBC phases the degeneracy is
3437: associated to spontaneously broken translation symmetry whereas in the
3438: RVB SL the degeneracy has a topological origin. In the VBS (or
3439: explicit VBC) the ground-state is unique but $2S$ is even in the unit
3440: cell. As in one dimension the LSM theorem seems to play an important
3441: role and a formal proof of its validity in 2D is perhaps very close,
3442: if
3443: not achieved.\cite{hastings03} A RVB SL may have been observed
3444: numerically in a spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ model on the hexagonal
3445: lattice.\cite{fsl01} From the point of view of large-$N$ and QDM
3446: approaches a topological degeneracy is expected in such a
3447: SL. Interestingly that degeneracy is not imposed by the 2D extension
3448: of LSM's theorem and has not been detected.\cite{fsl01}
3449:
3450:
3451: These paradigms are relatively well understood, at least on the
3452: qualitative level. They also appear naturally in the broader context
3453: of the classification of Mott insulators.\cite{sachdev03} However
3454: several kinds of 2D frustrated magnets do not fall in these simple
3455: classes and many open questions remain.
3456:
3457: %As a first example, we mention the possibility of a state RVB SL with
3458: %an {\em integer spin} in the unit cell.\footnote{Such a state may have
3459: %been observed numerically in the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ $J_1$--$J_2$ model
3460: %on the hexagonal lattice.\cite{fsl01}} The 2D extension of the LSM
3461: %argument fails to predict a (topological) degeneracy in that case.
3462:
3463:
3464: This review was restricted to $SU(2)$ invariant Hamiltonians. Whereas
3465: the Ising limit has been much studied, the differences between quantum
3466: XY and Heisenberg models have received much less attention.
3467:
3468: Chiral SL have not been discussed in this review. They are
3469: characterized by a broken time-reversal symmetry. This possibility has
3470: been studied intensely since the
3471: 80's\cite{wwz89,kl87-89,ywg93,fradkinbook}. To the best of our
3472: knowledge it has not yet been identified in a realistic 2D
3473: model.\footnote{An example was recently discovered in one dimension:
3474: the scalar-chirality phase of the spin ladder model with 4-spin MSE
3475: interactions (see \S\ref{ssec:ladderMSE}).}
3476:
3477: The issue of quantum phase transitions in frustrated antiferromagnet
3478: is also an active topic that is not presented in this review. Many
3479: properties of these critical points are still unknown, not to mention
3480: the fascinating problems associated with (quenched) disorder.
3481:
3482: Limited by place (and competence) we have not discussed in details the
3483: works done on spatially anisotropic models. This field which is in
3484: between one (review by P.~Lecheminant in this book) and 2D is
3485: extremely flourishing tackled by bosonization and large-$N$ methods.
3486:
3487: To conclude we would like to emphasize that new analytical and/or
3488: numerical methods are highly desirable to proceed in the analysis of
3489: the two emblematic problems by which we have opened and closed this
3490: review: the $J_1$--$J_2$ model on the square lattice and the
3491: spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ Heisenberg model on the kagome (and pyrochlore)
3492: lattices. In both of these problems a consensus remains to be
3493: obtained.
3494:
3495:
3496: \begin{sidewaystable}
3497: \tbl{Different phases encountered in $SU(2)$-symmetric frustrated models in 2D
3498: \label{tab:conclusion}
3499: }{
3500: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
3501: \hline %__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3502: & & & & & & & \\
3503: Phase & $2S$/cell & Order & Degeneracy & Broken sym. & Excitations & Thermo. & Examples \\
3504: & & & & & & & \\
3505: \hline %__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3506: N\'eel AF & & & & $SU(2)$ &Gapless magnons& $C_v\sim T^2$ & Spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ triangular \\
3507: p-sublattice & any & spin-spin LRO &$\mathcal{O}(N^p)$ & Translations &(spin waves) & $\chi\sim {\rm cst}$ & Heisenberg AF \\
3508: & & & & Point group & & & \\
3509: \hline %__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3510: VBC
3511: (\S\ref{sec:VBC})& odd & singlet-singlet LRO & $>1$ & Translations &Gapped magnons & $C_v$ and $\chi$ & Honeycomb $J_1$--$J_2$\\
3512: (spontaneous) & & {\tiny colli.
3513: spin-spin SRO} & & Point group & & activated & Checkerboard \\
3514: & & & & & & & Square $J_1$--$J_2$ ? \\
3515: \hline %__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3516: VBC (\S\ref{sec:VBC})
3517: & even & None & 1 & None &Gapped magnons & $C_v$ and $\chi$ & SrCu$_2$(BO$_3$)$_2$ \\
3518: (explicit) & & & & & & activated & CaV$_4$O$_9$ \\
3519: \hline
3520: VBS (\S
3521: \ref{ssec:VBS}) & even & ``String'' LRO & 1 & None &Gapped magnons & $C_v$ and $\chi$ & AKLT Hamiltonians \\
3522: & & & & &Edge excitations& activated & $S=1$ kagome AF ? \\
3523: \hline %__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3524: & & Topological & 4 & &Gapped spinons & $C_v$ and $\chi$ & MSE (\S\ref{sec:MSE})\\
3525: RVB SL & odd & {\tiny non-colli. SRO}& (torus) & None &Gapped visons & activated & QDM on triangular \\
3526: (\S\ref{ssec:QDMTri}
3527: \S\ref{ssec:QDMKag},
3528: \S\ref{ssec:RVBMSE})
3529: & & & & & & & and kagome lattices \\
3530: %\hline
3531: %RVB SL & even & & 1 & None &Gapped spinons & $C_v$ and $\chi$ & \\
3532: % & & {\tiny non-colli. SRO}& & &Gapped visons & activated & \\
3533: \hline %__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3534: Kagome (\S\ref{sec:kagome})
3535: & 3 & None ? & $\sim 1.15^N$ ? & None ? &Gapped
3536: triplets ? & $C_v\sim T^\alpha$ ? & \\
3537: Heisenberg AF & & & & &Gapless
3538: singlets & $\chi$ activated & \\
3539: \hline %__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3540: \end{tabular}}
3541: \begin{tabnote}
3542: This table summarizes the properties of some important phases
3543: encountered in 2D frustrated magnets. $S$ is the value of the spin on
3544: each site. ``Order'' refers to the nature of the long-ranged
3545: correlations (if any). The ground-state degeneracy in the limit of an
3546: infinite system (with periodic boundary conditions) is indicated in
3547: the fourth column, except for RVB SL it is related to the
3548: spontaneously broken symmetries mentioned in the next column.
3549: Elementary excitations and the low-temperature behavior of the
3550: specific heat ($C_v$) and uniform susceptibility ($\chi$) are given in
3551: column six. The last column gives some examples of theoretical or
3552: experimental realizations of these phases. The six families of systems
3553: presented here of course do not exhaust all possibilities. The results
3554: which are plausible but still debated (concerning the
3555: spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ Heisenberg antiferromagnet on the kagome lattice in
3556: particular) are indicated by question marks. Some authors classify
3557: all the systems with gapped excitations in a loose category of
3558: ``quantum disordered systems'', alluding to the absence of N\'eel
3559: long-ranged order. It is a rather unhappy appellation for VBC (which
3560: obviously have some order) and in fact for most of the quantum systems
3561: with a gap. In classical statistical physics ``disorder'' is
3562: associated to entropy, which is not the case in these gapped systems
3563: at $T=0$.
3564: \end{tabnote}
3565: \end{sidewaystable}
3566: %_____________________________________________________________________
3567: %_____________________________________________________________________
3568: \section{Acknowledgments}
3569:
3570: It would have been difficult to thank individually many of our
3571: colleagues cited in references with whom we had numerous and fruitful
3572: discussions -- many thanks to all of them. It is also a pleasure to
3573: thank our close collaborators B.~Bernu, V.~Pasquier, D.~Serban and
3574: P.~Sindzingre, this review owes much to them. We are also grateful to
3575: C.~Henley, A.~Honecker, R.~Moessner and O.~Tchernyshyov for their
3576: insightful comments on the manuscript.
3577:
3578: %_____________________________________________________________________
3579: %_____________________________________________________________________
3580:
3581: \begin{thebibliography}{100}
3582:
3583: \bibitem{manousakis91}
3584: E. Manousakis,
3585: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v63/p1}{Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 63}, 1 (1991)}.
3586: %The spin-1/2 Heisenberg antiferromagnet on a square lattice and its
3587: %application to the cuprous oxides
3588:
3589: \bibitem{bllp94}
3590: B. Bernu, P. Lecheminant, C. Lhuillier and L. Pierre,
3591: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v50/e10048}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 50}, 10048 (1994)}.
3592:
3593: \bibitem{HFM2000}
3594: Proceedings of the {\em Highly Frustrated Magnetism 2000} conference,
3595: published in J. Can. Phys {\bf 79}, (2001).
3596:
3597:
3598: \bibitem{fradkinbook}
3599: E. Fradkin, {\em Field Theories of Condensed Matter Systems},
3600: Addison-Wesley (1998).
3601:
3602: \bibitem{auerbachbook}
3603: A. Auerbach, {\em Interacting electrons and Quantum Magnetism},
3604: Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1994.
3605:
3606: \bibitem{tsvelikbook}
3607: A.~M.~Tsvelik, {\em Quantum Field Theory in Condensed Matter Physics}
3608: Cambridge University Press (1996).
3609:
3610: \bibitem{sachdevbook}
3611: S.~Sachdev, {\em Quantum Phase Transitions}, Cambridge U. Press, New
3612: York (1999).
3613:
3614: \bibitem{lt47}
3615: %Errata: Theory of Dipole Interaction in Crystals
3616: J. M. Luttinger and L.~Tisza, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PR/v70/e954}{Phys. Rev. {\bf 70}, 954 (1946)}.
3617:
3618: \bibitem{cd88}
3619: P. Chandra and B. Dou{\c c}ot, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v38/e9335}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 38}, 9335 (1988)}.
3620:
3621:
3622: \bibitem{vbcc80}
3623: J. Villain, R. Bidaux, J. P. Carton and R. Conte,
3624: J. Phys. (Paris) {\bf 41}, 1263 (1980).
3625:
3626:
3627: \bibitem{shender82}
3628: E.~Shender, Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 56}, 178 (1982).
3629: %Antiferromagnetic garnets with fluctuationally interacting sublattices.
3630:
3631: \bibitem{h89}
3632: C.~L. Henley, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v62/e2056}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 62}, 2056 (1989)}.
3633: %Ordering due to disorder in a frustrated vector antiferromagnet
3634:
3635: \bibitem{mdjr90}
3636: A. Moreo, E. Dagotto, T. Jolic{\oe}ur and J. Riera,
3637: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v42/e6283}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 42}, 6283 (1990)}.
3638:
3639: \bibitem{ccl90a}
3640: P. Chandra, P. Coleman, and A. Larkin,
3641: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v64/e88}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 64}, 88 (1990)}.
3642:
3643: \bibitem{szosh03}
3644: R.~R.~P.~Singh, W.~Zheng, J.~Oitmaa, O.~P.~Sushkov, C.~J.~Hamer,
3645: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0303075}{cond-mat/0303075}.
3646:
3647: %A closer look at symmetry breaking in the collinear phase of the
3648: %$J_1-J_2$ Heisenberg Model
3649:
3650: \bibitem{mbp03}
3651: G.~Misguich, B.~Bernu and L.~Pierre,
3652: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v68/e113409}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68}, 113409 (2003)}.
3653: %Determination of the exchange energies in Li2VOSiO4 from a
3654: %high-temperature series analysis of the square lattice J1-J2
3655: %Heisenberg model
3656:
3657: \bibitem{wm03}
3658: C. Weber and F. Mila, private communication.
3659:
3660: \bibitem{jdgb90}
3661: T. Jolic{\oe}ur, E. Dagotto, E. Gagliano and S. Bacci,
3662: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v42/e4800}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 42}, 4800 (1990)}.
3663:
3664: \bibitem{cj92}
3665: A. Chubukov and T. Jolic{\oe}ur, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v46/e11137}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 46}, 11137 (1992)}.
3666:
3667: \bibitem{k93}
3668: S.~E.~Korshunov, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v47/e6165}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 47}, 6165 (1993)}.
3669:
3670: \bibitem{lblp95}
3671: P.~Lecheminant, B.~Bernu, C.~Lhuillier and L.~Pierre,
3672: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v52/e6647}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 52}, 6647 (1995)}.
3673:
3674: %$J_1-J_2$ quantum Heisenberg antiferromagnet on the triangular
3675: %lattice: A group-symmetry analysis of order by disorder.
3676:
3677:
3678: \bibitem{melzi00}
3679: %R.~Melzi, P.~Carretta, A.~Lascialfari, M.~Mambrini, M.~Troyer,
3680: %P.~Millet and F.~Mila, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v85/e1318}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 1318 (2000)}.
3681: R.~Melzi {\it et al.}, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v85/e1318}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 1318 (2000)}.
3682:
3683: %Li$_2$VO(Si, Ge)O$_4$, a Prototype of a Two-Dimensional
3684: %Frustrated Quantum Heisenberg Antiferromagnet
3685:
3686: \bibitem{melzi01}
3687: R. Melzi {\it et al.}, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v64/e024409}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 64}, 024409 (2001)}.
3688:
3689: %Magnetic and
3690: %thermodynamic properties of Li2VOSiO$_4$: A two-dimensional S = 1/2
3691: %frustrated antiferromagnet on a square lattice
3692:
3693: \bibitem{rosner02}
3694: H. Rosner {\it et al.},
3695: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v88/e186405}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 186405 (2002)}.
3696:
3697: %Realization of a Large $J_2$ Quasi-2D Spin-Half Heisenberg System:
3698: %Li2VOSiO$_4$.
3699:
3700: \bibitem{rosner03}
3701: H. Rosner {\it et al.}, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v67/e014416}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 67}, 014416 (2003)}.
3702:
3703: %High-temperature expansions for the $J_1$-$J_2$ Heisenberg models:
3704: %Applications to ab initio calculated models for Li$_2$VOSiO$_4$ and
3705: %Li$_2$VOGeO$_4$.
3706:
3707: \bibitem{klein82}
3708: D. J. Klein,
3709: \href{http://stacks.iop.org/0305-4470/15/661}
3710: {J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. {\bf 15}, 661 (1982)}.
3711:
3712: %Exact ground states for a class of antiferromagnetic Heisenberg models
3713: %with short-range interactions.
3714:
3715: \bibitem{mg69}
3716: C.~K.~Majumdar and D.~K.~Ghosh, J. Math. Phys. {\bf 10}, 1399 (1969).
3717: %On next-nearest-neighbor interaction in linear chain. II.
3718:
3719:
3720: \bibitem{sgh88}
3721: R.~R.~P.~Singh, M.~P.~Gelfand and D.~A.~Huse,
3722: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v61/e2484}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 61}, 2484 (1988)}.
3723:
3724: %Ground States of Low-Dimensional Quantum Antiferromagnets.
3725:
3726: \bibitem{gsh90}
3727: M.~P.~Gelfand, R.~R.~P.~Singh and D.~A.~Huse, J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 59},
3728: 1093 (1990).
3729:
3730: %Perturbation expansions for quantum many-body systems.
3731:
3732: \bibitem{woh91}
3733: Zheng Weihong, J. Oitmaa, and C. J. Hamer,
3734: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v43/e8321}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 43}, 8321 (1991)}.
3735:
3736: %Square-lattice Heisenberg antiferromagnet at T=0.
3737:
3738: \bibitem{ow96}
3739: J. Oitmaa and Zheng Weihong, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v54/e3022}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 54}, 3022 (1996)}.
3740:
3741: %Series expansion for the $J_1-J_2$ Heisenberg antiferromagnet on a
3742: %square lattice.
3743:
3744: \bibitem{gsh89}
3745: M. P. Gelfand, R. R. P. Singh and D. A. Huse,
3746: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v40/e10801}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 40}, 10801 (1989)}.
3747:
3748: %Zero-temperature ordering in two-dimensional frustrated quantum
3749: %Heisenberg antiferromagnets.
3750:
3751: \bibitem{gelfand90}
3752: M. P. Gelfand. \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v42/e8206}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 42}, 8206 (1990)}.
3753:
3754: %Series investigations of magnetically disordered ground states in
3755: %two-dimensional frustrated quantum antiferromagnets.
3756:
3757: \bibitem{swho99}
3758: R.~R.~P.~Singh, Zheng Weihong, C.~J.~Hamer, and J.~Oitmaa,
3759: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v60/e7278}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 60}, 7278 (1999)}.
3760:
3761: %Dimer order with striped correlations in the $J_1-J_2$ Heisenberg
3762: %model.
3763:
3764: \bibitem{kosw00}
3765: V.~N.~Kotov, J.~Oitmaa, O.~Sushkov and Zheng Weihong,
3766: Phil. Mag. B {\bf 80}, 1483 (2000).
3767:
3768: %\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/9912228}{cond-mat/9912228}
3769: %Spontaneous dimer order, excitation spectrum, and quantum phase
3770: %transitions in the $J_1$--$J_2$ Heisenberg model.
3771:
3772: \bibitem{zu96}
3773: M. E. Zhitomirsky and K. Ueda,
3774: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v54/e9007}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 54}, 9007 (1996)}.
3775:
3776: %Valence-bond crystal phase of a frustrated spin-1/2 square-lattice
3777: %antiferromagnet.
3778:
3779: \bibitem{cbps01}
3780: L. Capriotti, F. Becca, A. Parola, and S. Sorella,
3781: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v87/e097201}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 097201 (2001)}.
3782:
3783: %Resonating Valence Bond Wave Functions for Strongly Frustrated Spin
3784: %Systems.
3785:
3786: \bibitem{sow02}
3787: O.~P.~Sushkov, J.~Oitmaa, and Zheng Weihong,
3788: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v66/e054401}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 66}, 054401 (2002)}.
3789:
3790: % Critical dynamics of singlet and triplet excitations
3791: %in strongly frustrated spin systems
3792:
3793: \bibitem{sow01}
3794: O. P. Sushkov, J. Oitmaa, and Zheng Weihong,
3795: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v63/e104420}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 63}, 104420 (2001)}.
3796:
3797: %Quantum phase transitions in the two-dimensional $J_1-J_2$ model.
3798:
3799: \bibitem{cls00}
3800: M.~S.~L. du~Croo~de Jongh, J.~M.~J.~Van Leeuwen, and W.~Van Saarloos,
3801: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v62/e14844}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 62}, 14844 (2000)}.
3802:
3803: \bibitem{dm89}
3804: E. Dagotto and A. Moreo, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v39/e4744}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 39}, 4744 (1989)},
3805: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v63/e2148}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 63}, 2148 (1989)}.
3806:
3807: \bibitem{fkksrr90}
3808: %F.~Figueirido, A.~Karlhede, S.~Kivelson, S.~Sondhi, M.~Rocek and D.~S.~Rokhsar
3809: F.~Figueirido {\it et al.}, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v41/e4619}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 41}, 4619 (1990)}.
3810:
3811:
3812: \bibitem{pgbd91}
3813: %Static and dynamical correlations in a spin-1/2 frustrated
3814: %antiferromagnet.
3815: D.~Poilblanc, E.~Gagliano, S.~Bacci and E.~Dagotto,
3816: Phys. Rev. B, {\bf 43} 10970 (1991).
3817:
3818: \bibitem{schulz}
3819: %\bibitem{sz92}
3820: H.~J.~Schulz, T.~A.~L.~Ziman, \href{http://publish.edpsciences.com/abstract/EPL/v18/p355}{Europhys. Lett. {\bf 18}, 355 (1992)}.
3821: %\bibitem{es95}
3822: T.~Einarsson and H.~J.~Schulz, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v51/e6151}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 51}, 6151 (1995)}.
3823:
3824: %Direct Calculation of the Spin Stiffness in the $J_1$--$J_2$
3825: %Heisenberg Antiferromagnet.
3826:
3827: %\bibitem{szp96}
3828: H.~J.~Schulz, T.~A.~L.~Ziman, D.~Poilblanc, J. Physique I {\bf 6}, 675
3829: (1996).
3830:
3831: %Magnetic order and disorder in the frustrated quantum Heisenberg
3832: %antiferromagnet in two dimensions.
3833:
3834:
3835: \bibitem{nlsm}
3836: %\bibitem{chn89}
3837: S. Chakravarty, B.~I.~Halperin and D.~R.~Nelson,
3838: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v39/e2344}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 39}, 2344 (1989)}.
3839: %Two-dimensional quantum Heisenberg antiferromagnet at low temperatures.
3840: %\bibitem{nz89}
3841: H.~Neuberger and T.~Ziman, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v39/e2608}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 39}, 2608 (1989)}.
3842: %\bibitem{f89}
3843: D.~Fisher, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v39/e11783}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 39}, 11783 (1989)}.
3844: %\bibitem{ej91}
3845: T.~Einarsson and H.~Johannesson, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v43/e5867}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 43}, 5867 (1991)}.
3846: %Effective-action approach to the frustrated Heisenberg antiferromagnet
3847: %in two dimensions.
3848: %\bibitem{hn93a}
3849: P. Hasenfratz and F.~Niedermayer,
3850: Z. Phys. B. Condens. Matter {\bf 92}, 91 (1993).
3851:
3852: \bibitem{s97}
3853: A.~W. Sandvik, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v56/e11678}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 56}, 11678 (1997)}.
3854:
3855: \bibitem{s98}
3856: S. Sorella, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v80/e4558}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 4558 (1998)}.
3857:
3858: \bibitem{s01}
3859: S. Sorella, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v64/e024512}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 64}, 024512 (2001)}.
3860:
3861: \bibitem{w92}
3862: S. White, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v69/e2863}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 69}, 2863 (1992)}.
3863:
3864: \bibitem{w93}
3865: S. White, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v48/e10345}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 48}, 10345 (1993)}.
3866:
3867: \bibitem{gl91}
3868: T. Giamarchi and C. Lhuillier, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v43/e12943}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 43}, 12943 (1991)}.
3869:
3870: %Phase diagrams of the two-dimensional Hubbard and t-J models by a
3871: %variational Monte Carlo method
3872:
3873: \bibitem{ss81}
3874: B. Shastry and B. Sutherland, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v47/e964}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 47}, 964 (1981)}.
3875:
3876: \bibitem{h82}
3877: F. Haldane, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v25/e4925}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 25}, 4925 (1982)}.
3878:
3879: \bibitem{a89}
3880: I. Affleck, J. Phys. Cond. Matt. {\bf 1}, 3047 (1989).
3881:
3882: \bibitem{ys97}
3883: H. Yokoyama and Y. Saiga, \href{http://jpsj.ipap.jp/link?JPSJ/66/3617}{J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 66}, 3617 (1997)}.
3884:
3885: \bibitem{nt97a}
3886: T. Nakamura and S. Takada, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v55/e14413}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 55}, 14413 (1997)}.
3887:
3888: \bibitem{asrp99}
3889: D. Augier, E. Sorensen, J. Riera, and D. Poilblanc,
3890: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v60/e1075}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 60}, 1075 (1999)}.
3891:
3892: \bibitem{dr96}
3893: E. Dagotto and T.~M. Rice, Science {\bf 271}, 618 (1996).
3894:
3895: %\bibitem{nt97}
3896: %A.~A. Nersesyan and A.~M. Tsvelick, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v78/e3939}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 3939 (1997)}.
3897:
3898: %\bibitem{km98}
3899: %A.~K. Kolezhuk and H.-J. Mikeska, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v80/e2709}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 2709 (1998)}.
3900:
3901: \bibitem{nt97}
3902: A.~A.~Nersesyan and A.~M.~Tsvelik,
3903: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v78/e3939}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 3939 (1997)}.
3904: %One-Dimensional Spin-Liquid without Magnon Excitations.
3905:
3906: \bibitem{km98} A.~K.~Kolezhuk and H.-J. Mikeska,
3907: Int. J. Mod. Phys. B {\bf 12}, 2325 (1998).
3908: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v80/e2709}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 2709 (1998)}.
3909: %Non-Haldane Spin-Liquid Models with Exact Ground States
3910: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v56/e11380}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 56}, 11380 (1997)}.
3911: %Models with exact ground states connecting smoothly the S=1/2 dimer
3912: %and S=1 Haldane phases of one-dimensional spin chains
3913:
3914:
3915: \bibitem{aklt87}
3916: I.~Affleck, T.~Kennedy, E.~Lieb, and H.~Tasaki,
3917: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v59/e799}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 59}, 799 (1987)}.
3918:
3919: \bibitem{aklt88}
3920: I. Affleck, T. Kennedy, E.~H. Lieb, and H. Tasaki,
3921: Commun. Math. Phys. {\bf 115}, 477 (1988).
3922:
3923: \bibitem{nr89}
3924: M. den Nijs and K. Rommelse, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v40/e4709}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 40}, 4709 (1989)}.
3925:
3926: \bibitem{kt92}
3927: T. Kennedy and H. Tasaki, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v45/e304}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 45}, 304 (1992)}.
3928:
3929: \bibitem{j02}
3930: T. Jolic{\oe}ur, private communication.
3931:
3932: \bibitem{h00}
3933: K. Hida, \href{http://jpsj.ipap.jp/link?JPSJ/69/4003}{J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 69}, 4003 (2000)}.
3934:
3935: \bibitem{yk00}
3936: %Spin-Driven Jahn-Teller Distortion in a Pyrochlore System
3937: Y.~Yamashita and K.~Ueda,
3938: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v85/e4960}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 4960 (2000)}.
3939:
3940: \bibitem{CaV4O9}
3941: %\bibitem{ki94}
3942: N.~Katoh and M.~Imada, \href{http://jpsj.ipap.jp/link?JPSJ/63/4529}{J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 63}, 4529 (1994)}.
3943: %\bibitem{ttw94}
3944: M.~Troyer, H.~Tsunetsugu, and D.~Wuertz, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v50/e13515}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 50}, 13515 (1994)}.
3945: %\bibitem{tnyk95}
3946: S.~Taniguchi {\it et~al.}, \href{http://jpsj.ipap.jp/link?JPSJ/64/2758}{J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 64}, 2758 (1995)}.
3947: %\bibitem{khst96}
3948: K.~Kodama {\it et~al.}, \href{http://jpsj.ipap.jp/link?JPSJ/65/1941}{J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 65}, 1941 (1996)}.
3949: %\bibitem{fo96}
3950: Y.~Fukumoto and A.~Oguchi, \href{http://jpsj.ipap.jp/link?JPSJ/65/1440}{J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 65}, 1440 (1996)}.
3951: %\bibitem{khsk97}
3952: K.~Kodama {\it et~al.}, \href{http://jpsj.ipap.jp/link?JPSJ/66/793}{J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 66}, 793 (1997)}.
3953: %\bibitem{my96}
3954: T.~Miyasaki and D.~Yoshioka, \href{http://jpsj.ipap.jp/link?JPSJ/65/2370}{J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 65}, 2370 (1996)}.
3955: %\bibitem{oyiu97}
3956: T.~Ohama, H.~Yasuoka, M.~Isobe, and Y.~Ueda,
3957: \href{http://jpsj.ipap.jp/link?JPSJ/66/23}{J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 66}, 23 (1997)}.
3958:
3959: \bibitem{uksl96}
3960: K. Ueda, H. Kontani, M. Sigrist, and P.~A. Lee, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v76/e1932}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 76}, 1932 (1996)}.
3961:
3962: \bibitem{am96b}
3963: %Spin gap in CaV4O9: A large-S approach
3964: M.~Albrecht and F. Mila, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v53/e2945}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 53}, 2945 (1996)}.
3965:
3966: \bibitem{tku96}
3967: M. Troyer, H. Kontani, and K. Ueda, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v76/e3822}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 76}, 3822 (1996)}.
3968:
3969:
3970:
3971: \bibitem{sr96}
3972: S. Sachdev and N. Read, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v77/e4800}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 4800 (1996)}.
3973:
3974: \bibitem{szksu96}
3975: O.~A. Starykh {\it et~al.}, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v77/e2558}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 2558 (1996)}.
3976:
3977:
3978:
3979: \bibitem{wgsoh97}
3980: Zheng Weihong {\it et~al.}, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v55/e11377}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 55}, 11377 (1997)}.
3981:
3982: \bibitem{k99}
3983: H. Kageyama {\it et~al.}, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v82/e3168}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 3168 (1999)}.
3984:
3985: \bibitem{nkoum99}
3986: H. Nojiri {\it et~al.}, \href{http://jpsj.ipap.jp/link?JPSJ/68/2906}{J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 68}, 2906 (1999)}.
3987:
3988: \bibitem{mu99}
3989: S. Miyahara and K. Ueda, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v82/e3701}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 3701 (1999)}.
3990:
3991: \bibitem{k00}
3992: H. Kageyama {\it et~al.}, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v84/e5876}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 5876 (2000)}.
3993:
3994: \bibitem{kk00}
3995: A. Koga and N. Kawakami, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v84/e4461}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 4461 (2000)}.
3996:
3997: \bibitem{msku00}
3998: E. M\"uller-Hartmann, R.~R.~P. Singh, C. Knetter, and G.~S. Uhrig,
3999: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v84/e1808}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 1808 (2000)}.
4000:
4001: \bibitem{tmu01}
4002: K. Totsuka, S. Miyahara, and K. Ueda, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v86/e520}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 520 (2001)}.
4003:
4004: \bibitem{lws02}
4005: A. L\"auchli, S. Wessel, and M. Sigrist, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v66/e014401}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 66}, 014401 (2002)}.
4006:
4007: \bibitem{kthb02}
4008: %K. Kodama, M. Takigawa , M. Horvatic, C.
4009: %Berthier, H. Kageyama, Y. Ueda, S. Miyahara, F. Becca
4010: %and F. Mila
4011: K. Kodama {\it et al.}, Science {\bf 298},395 (2002).
4012:
4013: \bibitem{mu03}
4014: S.~Miyahara and K.~Ueda, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter {\bf 15}, R327-R366 (2003).
4015:
4016: \bibitem{ss81a}
4017: B. Shastry and B. Sutherland, Physica B (Amsterdam) {\bf 108}, 1069 (1981).
4018:
4019: \bibitem{cz02} O.~Cepas, T.~Ziman, Proceedings of the conference in
4020: Fukuoka, Nov. 2001, to appear in Fukuoka University Press
4021: [\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0207191}{cond-mat/0207191}]. O.~Cepas, T.~Sakai, T.~Ziman,
4022: Progr. Theor. Phys. Suppl. {\bf 145}, 43 (2002).
4023:
4024: \bibitem{zoh02}
4025: W. Zheng, J. Oitmaa, and C. J. Hamer
4026: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v65/e014408}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 65}, 014408 (2002)}.
4027:
4028: \bibitem{am96a}
4029: %First-order transition between magnetic order and valence bond order
4030: %in a 2D frustrated Heisenberg model
4031: M.~ Albrecht and F. Mila, \href{http://publish.edpsciences.com/abstract/EPL/v34/p145}{Europhys. Lett. {\bf 34}, 145 (1996)}.
4032:
4033: \bibitem{cms01}
4034: C.~H.~Chung, J.~B.~Marston, and S.~Sachdev,
4035: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v64/e134407}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 64}, 134407 (2001)}.
4036:
4037: %Quantum phases of the Shastry-Sutherland antiferromagnet: Application
4038: %to SrCu2(BO3)2
4039:
4040:
4041: \bibitem{fo99}
4042: Y. Fukumoto and A. Oguchi, \href{http://jpsj.ipap.jp/link?JPSJ/68/3655}{J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 68}, 3655 (1999)}.
4043:
4044: \bibitem{mt00}
4045: T. Momoi and K. Totsuka, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v61/e3231}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 61}, 3231 (2000)}.
4046:
4047: \bibitem{mt00b}
4048: T. Momoi and K. Totsuka, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v62/e15067}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 62}, 15067 (2000)}.
4049:
4050: \bibitem{mu00}
4051: S. Miyahara and K. Ueda, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v61/e3417}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 61}, 3417 (2000)}.
4052:
4053: \bibitem{mjg01}
4054: G. Misguich, T. Jolic{\oe}ur, and S.~M.~Girvin,
4055: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v87/e097203}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 097203 (2001)}.
4056:
4057: \bibitem{lm02}
4058: C. Lhuillier and G. Misguich, in {\em High Magnetic Fields}, edited by
4059: C. Berthier, L. Levy, and G. Martinez (Springer, Berlin, 2002),
4060: pp.~161--190, \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0109146}{cond-mat/0109146}.
4061:
4062: \bibitem{ll96}
4063: P.~W. Leung and N. Lam, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v53/e2213}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 53}, 2213 (1996)}.
4064:
4065: \bibitem{fsl01} J.-B.~Fouet, P.~Sindzingre, and C.~Lhuillier,
4066: \href{http://publish.edpsciences.com/abstract/EPJB/v20/p241}{Eur. Phys. J. B {\bf 20}, 241 (2001)}.
4067:
4068: %An investigation of the quantum $J_1-J_2-J_3$ model on the honeycomb
4069: %lattice
4070:
4071: \bibitem{canals02}
4072: B.~Canals, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v65/e184408}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 65}, 184408 (2002)}.
4073:
4074: \bibitem{fsl03}
4075: J.-B.~Fouet, M.~Mambrini, P.~Sindzingre, and C.~Lhuillier,
4076: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v67/e054411}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 67}, 054411 (2003)}.
4077:
4078: \bibitem{sfl02}
4079: P. Sindzingre, J.~B. Fouet, and C. Lhuillier,
4080: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v66/e174424}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 66}, 174424 (2002)}.
4081:
4082: \bibitem{bh02}
4083: W. Brenig and A. Honecker,
4084: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v65/e140407}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 65}, 140407R (2002)}.
4085:
4086: \bibitem{baa03}
4087: E.~Berg, E.~Altman, and A.~Auerbach,
4088: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v90/e147204}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 147204 (2003)}.
4089:
4090: \bibitem{tsma03}
4091: %Bond order from disorder in the planar pyrochlore magnet
4092: O.~Tchernyshyov, O.~A.~Starykh, R.~Moessner and A.~G.~Abanov,
4093: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0301303}{cond-mat/0301303}.
4094:
4095: \bibitem{mts01}
4096: R. Moessner, Oleg Tchernyshyov and S.~L.~Sondhi,
4097: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0106286}{cond-mat/0106286}.
4098: %Planar pyrochlore, quantum ice and sliding ice
4099:
4100: \bibitem{pc02}
4101: S. Palmer and J.~.T.~Chalker, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v64/e094412}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 64}, 094412 (2002)}.
4102:
4103: \bibitem{mc98}
4104: R. Moessner and J.~T. Chalker, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v58/e12049}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 58}, 12049 (1998)}.
4105:
4106: \bibitem{mc98a}
4107: R. Moessner and J.~T. Chalker, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v80/e2929}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 2929 (1998)}.
4108:
4109:
4110: \bibitem{pp01}
4111: %Classical Heisenberg antiferromagnet on a garnet lattice: A Monte
4112: %Carlo simulation
4113: O.~A.~Petrenko and D.~McK.~Paul,
4114: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v63/e024409}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 63}, 024409 (2001)}.
4115:
4116:
4117: \bibitem{ka02}
4118: %Chiral Kosterlitz-Thouless transition in the frustrated Heisenberg
4119: %antiferromagnet on a pyrochlore slab
4120: Hikaru Kawamura and Takuya Arimori,
4121: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v88/e077202}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 077202 (2002)}
4122:
4123: \bibitem{henley2000}
4124: %Effective Hamiltonians and dilution effects in Kagome and related
4125: %anti-ferromagnets
4126: C.~L.~Henley, Can. J. Phys. (Canada) {\bf 79}, 1307 (2001).
4127: [\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0009130}{cond-mat/0009130}]
4128:
4129: \bibitem{f03}
4130: J.-B.~Fouet, Ph.D. thesis, Universit\'e Cergy Pontoise, 2003.
4131:
4132: \bibitem{gwsoh96}
4133: M.~P.~Gelfand {\it et~al.}, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v77/e2794}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 2794 (1996)}.
4134:
4135:
4136: \bibitem{bm02}
4137: %Peierls-Like Transition Induced by Frustration in a Two-Dimensional
4138: %Antiferromagnet
4139: F. Becca and F. Mila, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v89/e037204}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 037204 (2002)}.
4140:
4141: \bibitem{mlbw99}
4142: %Spin-Liquid phase of the Multiple-Spin Exchange Hamiltonian on the
4143: %Triangular Lattice.
4144: G. Misguich, C. Lhuillier, B. Bernu and C. Waldtmann,
4145: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v60/e1064}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 60}, 1064 (1999)}.
4146:
4147:
4148: \bibitem{a85}
4149: I. Affleck, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v54/e966}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 54}, 966 (1985)}.
4150: %Large-n Limit of SU(n) Quantum "Spin" Chains
4151:
4152: \bibitem{am88}
4153: I. Affleck and J. Marston, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v37/e3774}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 37}, 3774 (1988)}.
4154:
4155:
4156: \bibitem{aa88}
4157: D. Arovas and A.~Auerbach, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v38/e316}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 38}, 316 (1988)}.
4158:
4159: \bibitem{rs89}
4160: N. Read and S. Sachdev, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v62/e1694}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 62}, 1694 (1989)}.
4161:
4162: \bibitem{rs90}
4163: N.~Read and S.~Sachdev,
4164: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v42/e4568}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 42}, 4568 (1990)}.
4165:
4166: \bibitem{rs91}
4167: N. Read and S. Sachdev,
4168: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v66/e1773}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 66}, 1773 (1991)}.
4169: %Large-$N$ expansion for frustrated quantum antiferromagnets.
4170:
4171: \bibitem{sr91}
4172: S. Sachdev and N. Read, Int. J. Mod. Phys. {\bf 5}, 219 (1991).
4173: % Large-N Expansion for frustrated and doped quantum antiferromagnets
4174:
4175: \bibitem{s93} S. Sachdev in {\it Low Dimensional Quantum Field
4176: Theories for Condensed Matter Physicists} edited by Y. Lu,
4177: S. Lundqvist, and G. Morandi, World Scientific, Singapore, 1995.
4178: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/9303014}{cond-mat/9303014}.
4179:
4180:
4181: \bibitem{rs89b}
4182: N. Read and S. Sachdev, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 316}, 609 (1989).
4183:
4184: \bibitem{rokhsar90}
4185: D. Rokhsar, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v42/e2526}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 42}, 2526 (1991)}.
4186: %Quadratic quatum antiferromagnets in the fermionic large-N limit
4187:
4188: \bibitem{wilson74}
4189: K. G. Wilson,
4190: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v10/e2445}{Phys. Rev. D {\bf 10}, 2445 (1974)}.
4191:
4192: %Confinement of quarks
4193:
4194: \bibitem{bdi74}
4195:
4196: R. Balian, J. M. Drouffe, and C. Itzykson,
4197: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v10/e3376}{Phys. Rev. D {\bf 10}, 3376 (1974)},
4198: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v11/e2098}{Phys. Rev. D {\bf 11}, 2098 (1975)},
4199: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v11/e2098}{Phys. Rev. D {\bf 11}, 2098 (1975)}.
4200:
4201: % Gauge fields on a lattice. I. General outlook
4202:
4203: \bibitem{schwingerboson}
4204: D.~P.~Arovas and A.~Auerbach, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v38/e316}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 38}, 316 (1988)}.
4205: A.~Auerbach and D.~P.~Arovas, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v61/e617}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 61}, 617 (1988)}.
4206: J.~E.~Hirsch and S.~Tang, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v39/e2850}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 39}, 2850 (1989)}.
4207:
4208: \bibitem{ceccatto}
4209: H.~A.~Ceccatto, C.~J.~Gazza, and A.~E.~Trumper,
4210: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v47/e12329}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 47}, 12329 (1993)}.
4211: A.~E.~Trumper, L.~O.~Manuel, C.~J.~Gazza, and
4212: H.~A.~Ceccatto \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v78/e2216}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 2216 (1997)}.
4213:
4214: \bibitem{ot03}
4215: We thank O.~Tchernyshyov for pointing us this physical interpretation
4216: of the $U(1)$ flux.
4217:
4218:
4219: \bibitem{sachdev92}
4220: S. Sachdev, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v45/e12377}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 45}, 12377 (1992)}.
4221:
4222: \bibitem{cmm01}
4223: C.~H.~Chung and J.~B.~Marston and Ross H.~McKenzie,
4224: J. Phys.: Condens. Matter {\bf 13}, 5159 (2001).
4225: [\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0012216}{cond-mat/0012216}]
4226:
4227: \bibitem{haldane83}
4228: F.~D.~M.~Haldane, Phys. Lett. {\bf 93A}, 464 (1983);
4229: %Continuum dynamics of the 1-D Heisenberg antiferromagnet:
4230: %identification with the O(3) nonlinear sigma model
4231: %
4232:
4233: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v50/e1153}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 50}, 1153 (1983)}.
4234: %Nonlinear Field Theory of Large-Spin Heisenberg Antiferromagnets:
4235: %Semiclassically Quantized Solitons of the One-Dimensional Easy-Axis
4236: %N?el State
4237: %
4238:
4239: \bibitem{haldane88}
4240: F.~D.~M.~Haldane, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v61/e1029}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 61}, 1029 (1988)}.
4241:
4242: %O(3) Nonlinear sigma Model and the Topological Distinction between
4243: %Integer- and Half-Integer-Spin Antiferromagnets in Two Dimensions
4244:
4245:
4246: \bibitem{noHopfTerm2D88}
4247: X.~G.~Wen and A.~Zee, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v61/e1025}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 61}, 1025 (1988)}.
4248: E.~Fradkin and M.~Stone, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v38/e7215}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 38}, 7215 (1988)}.
4249: T.~Dombre and N.~Read, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v38/e7181}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 38}, 7181 (1988)}.
4250:
4251:
4252: \bibitem{hkt03}
4253: K.~Harada, N.~Kawashima, and M.~Troyer,
4254: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v90/e117203}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 117203 (2003)}.
4255:
4256: %N\'el and Spin-Peierls Ground States of Two-Dimensional SU(N) Quantum
4257: %Antiferromagnets
4258:
4259:
4260: \bibitem{fs79}
4261: E. Fradkin and S. H. Shenker, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v19/e3682}{Phys. Rev. D {\bf 19}, 3682 (1979)}.
4262: %Phase diagram of lattice gauge theories with Higgs fields
4263:
4264: \bibitem{k61}
4265: P. W. Kasteleyn, Physica {\bf 27}, 1209 (1961).
4266:
4267: \bibitem{f61}
4268: M. E. Fisher, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PR/v124/e1664}{Phys. Rev. {\bf 124}, 1664 (1961)}.
4269: %Statistical Mechanics of Dimers on a Plane Lattice
4270:
4271:
4272: \bibitem{k63}
4273: P.~W.~Kasteleyn,
4274: %Dimer statistics and phase transitions.
4275: J. of Math. Phys. {\bf 4}, 287 (1963).
4276:
4277: \bibitem{msf02}
4278: R. Moessner, S.~L. Sondhi, E.~Fradkin,
4279: %Short-ranged RVB physics, quantum dimer models and Ising gauge theories.
4280: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v65/e024504}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 65}, 024504 (2002)}.
4281:
4282: \bibitem{msp02}
4283: G. Misguich, D.~Serban, V.~Pasquier,
4284: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v89/e137202}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 137202 (2002)}.
4285:
4286: \bibitem{ms02}
4287: %Ising and dimer models in two and three dimensions
4288: R. Moessner, S. L. Sondhi, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v68/e054405}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68}, 054405 (2003)}.
4289:
4290: \bibitem{rk88}
4291: D. S. Rokhsar and S. A. Kivelson,
4292: %Superconductivity and the quantum hard-core dimer gas.
4293: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v61/e2376}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 61}, 2376 (1988)}.
4294:
4295:
4296: \bibitem{ms01}
4297: R. Moessner and S.~L. Sondhi, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v86/e1881}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 1881 (2001)}.
4298: %Resonating Valence Bond Phase in the Triangular Lattice Quantum Dimer Model
4299:
4300:
4301: \bibitem{msc00}
4302: R. Moessner, S.~L. Sondhi, and P. Chandra,
4303: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v84/e4457}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 4457 (2000)}.
4304:
4305:
4306: \bibitem{s88}
4307: B. Sutherland, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v37/e3786}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 37}, 3786 (1988)}.
4308:
4309: \bibitem{mz91} J. B. Marston, C. Zeng,
4310: %Spin-Peierls and spin-liquid phases of kagome quantum antiferromagnets.
4311: J. Appl. Phys. {\bf 69}, 5962 (1991).
4312:
4313: \bibitem{lcr96}
4314: P. W. Leung, K. C. Chiu and K. J. Runge,
4315: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v54/e12938}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 54}, 12938 (1996)}.
4316:
4317: %Columnar dimer and plaquette resonating-valence-bond orders in the
4318: %quantum dimer model
4319:
4320:
4321: \bibitem{fs63}
4322: %Statistical Mechanics of Dimers on a Plane Lattice. II. Dimer
4323: %Correlations and Monomers
4324: M. E. Fisher and J. Stephenson \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PR/v132/e1411}{Phys. Rev. {\bf 132}, 1411 (1963)}.
4325:
4326: \bibitem{ms03}
4327: R. Moessner and S.~L. Sondhi, \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0307592}{cond-mat/0307592}. See Appendix B
4328: concerning the square-lattice QDM .
4329:
4330: \bibitem{msc01}
4331: R.~Moessner, S.~L.~Sondhi and P.~Chandra,
4332: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v64/e144416}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 64}, 144416 (2001)}.
4333:
4334: %Phase diagram of the hexagonal lattice quantum dimer model
4335:
4336: \bibitem{hkms03}
4337: D.~A.~Huse, W.~Krauth, R.~Moessner and S.~L.~Sondhi, \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0305318}{cond-mat/0305318}
4338: and references therein.
4339:
4340: \bibitem{height_representation}
4341:
4342: L.~S.~Levitov, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v64/e92}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 64}, 92 (1990)},
4343: %Equivalence of the dimer resonating-valence-bond problem to the
4344: %quantum roughening problem
4345:
4346: %-------
4347: C.~L.~Henley, J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 89}, 483 (1997).
4348:
4349: %Relaxation time for a dimer covering with height representation
4350:
4351: \bibitem{fms02}
4352: P. Fendley, R.~Moessner and S.~L.~Sondhi,
4353: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v66/e214513}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 66}, 214513 (2002)}.
4354:
4355: %Classical dimers on the triangular lattice
4356:
4357: \bibitem{iif02}
4358: A. Ioselevich, D.~A.~Ivanov and M.~V.~Feigelman,
4359: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v66/e174405}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 66}, 174405 (2002)}.
4360: %Ground-state properties of the Rokhsar-Kivelson dimer model on the
4361: %triangular lattice
4362:
4363: \bibitem{ifiitb02}
4364: L.~B.~Ioffe, M.~V.~Feigel'man, A.~Ioselevich, D.~Ivanov, M.~Troyer,
4365: G.~Blatter, Nature {\bf 415}, 503 (2002).
4366:
4367: \bibitem{mlms02}
4368: G.~Misguich, C.~Lhuillier, M.~Mambrini, P.~Sindzingre,
4369: \href{http://publish.edpsciences.com/abstract/EPJB/v26/p167}{Eur. Phys. J. B {\bf 26}, 167 (2002)}.
4370:
4371: %Degeneracy of the ground-state of antiferromagnetic spin-1/2
4372: %Hamiltonians
4373:
4374:
4375: \bibitem{wen91}
4376: X. G. Wen, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v44/e2664}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 44}, 2664 (1991)}.
4377:
4378: %Mean-field theory of spin-liquid states with finite energy gap and
4379: %topological orders
4380:
4381: \bibitem{k89}
4382: S. Kivelson, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v39/e259}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 39}, 259 (1989)}.
4383:
4384: \bibitem{rc89}
4385: N. Read and B. Chakraborty, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v40/e7133}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 40}, 7133 (1989)}.
4386:
4387: \bibitem{sf00}
4388: T. Senthil and M.~P.~A.~Fisher,
4389: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v62/e7850}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 62}, 7850 (2000)}.
4390: %Z2 gauge theory of electron fractionalization in strongly correlated
4391: %systems
4392:
4393: \bibitem{sf01}
4394: T. Senthil and M. P. A. Fisher,
4395: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v86/e292}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 292 (2001)};
4396: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v63/e134521}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 63}, 134521 (2001)}.
4397:
4398: \bibitem{feynman52-53}
4399: R.~P.~Feynman, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PR/v90/e1116}{Phys. Rev. {\bf 90}, 1116 (1952)},
4400: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PR/v91/e1291}{Phys. Rev. {\bf 91}, 1291 (1953)}.
4401:
4402: \bibitem{ez93}
4403: V. Elser and C. Zeng.
4404: %kagome spin-1/2 antiferromagnets in the hyperbolic plane.
4405: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v48/e13647}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 48}, 13647 (1993)}.
4406:
4407: \bibitem{hw88}
4408: A.~J.~Phares and F.~J.~Wunderlich,
4409: Nuovo Cimento B {\bf 101}, 653 (1988).
4410: \bibitem{msp03b}
4411: See {\S}V.E.6 of Ref.\cite{msp03}
4412:
4413: \bibitem{msp03c} This follows from the independence of the arrow
4414: variables, see {\S}V.B of Ref.\cite{msp03}
4415:
4416: %Quantum dimer model with extensive ground-state entropy on the kagome
4417: %lattice
4418:
4419: \bibitem{polyakov87}
4420: A.~M.~Polyakov, {\it Gauge Fields and Strings}, (Harwood Academic, New York, 1987).
4421:
4422:
4423:
4424: \bibitem{kogut79}
4425: %An introduction to lattice gauge theory and spin systems
4426: J. B. Kogut, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v51/p659}{Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 51}, 659 (1979)}.
4427:
4428: \bibitem{msp03} G.~Misguich, D.~Serban and V.~Pasquier,
4429: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v67/e214413}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 67}, 214413 (2003)}.
4430:
4431: \bibitem{ze95}
4432: C.~Zeng and V.~Elser.
4433: %Quantum dimer calculations on the
4434: %spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ kagome Heisenberg antiferromagnet.
4435: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v51/e8318}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 51}, 8318 (1995)}.
4436:
4437: \bibitem{thouless65}
4438: D. J. Thouless, Proc. Phys. Soc. London {\bf 86}, 893 (1965).
4439: %Exchange in solid 3He and the Heisenberg Hamiltonian.
4440:
4441: \bibitem{rhd83} M. Roger, J. H. Hetherington, and J. M. Delrieu,
4442: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v55/p1}{Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 55}, 1 (1983)}.
4443: %Magnetism in solid 3He.
4444:
4445: \bibitem{cf85} M. C. Cross and D. S. Fisher,
4446: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v57/p881}{Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 57}, 881 (1985)}.
4447: %Magnetism in solid 3He: Confrontation between theory and experiment.
4448: \bibitem{greywall} D.~S.~Greywall and P.~A.~Busch,
4449: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v62/e1868}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 62}, 1868 (1989)}.
4450: %Heat capacity of 3He adsorbed on graphite at millikelvin temperatures
4451: %and near third-layer promotion.
4452: D.~S.~Greywall, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v41/e1842}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 41}, 1842 (1990)}.
4453: %Heatcapacity of multilayers of 3He adsorbed on graphite at low
4454: %millikelvin temperatures.
4455: \bibitem{gr95}
4456: H. Godfrin and R.~E.~Rapp, Adv. Phys. {\bf 44}, 113 (1995).
4457: %Two-dimensional nuclear magnets.
4458:
4459: \bibitem{roger84}
4460: M.~Roger, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v30/e6432}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 30}, 6432 (1984)}.
4461: %Multiple exchange in 3He and in the Wigner solid.
4462:
4463: \bibitem{rbbcg98} M. Roger, C. B\"auerle, Yu.~M.~Bunkov, A.-S.~Chen, and
4464: H.~Godfrin, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v80/e1308}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 1308 (1998)}.
4465:
4466: %Multiple-Spin Exchange on a Triangular Lattice: A Quantitative
4467: %Interpretation of Thermodynamic Properties of Two-Dimensional Solid
4468: %3He.
4469:
4470:
4471: \bibitem{cj87}
4472: D.~M.~Ceperley and G. Jacucci, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v58/e1648}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 58}, 1648 (1987)}.
4473:
4474: %Calculation of exchange frequencies in bcc 3He with the path-integral
4475: %Monte Carlo method.
4476:
4477: \bibitem{bcl92} B. Bernu, D. Ceperley, and C. Lhuillier, J. Low
4478: Temp. Phys. {\bf 89}, 589 (1992).
4479:
4480:
4481: \bibitem{ceperley95}
4482: D.~M.~Ceperley, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v67/p279}{Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 67}, 279 (1995)}.
4483: %Path integrals in the theory of condensed helium.
4484:
4485: \bibitem{bc99} B. Bernu and D. Ceperley, in {\it Quantum Monte Carlo
4486: Methods in Physics and Chemistry}, edited by M. P. Nightingale and
4487: C. J. Umrigar (Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1999).
4488:
4489: \bibitem{ah00}
4490: H.~Ashizawa and D.~S.~Hirashima, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v62/e9413}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 62}, 9413 (2000)}.
4491: %WKB calculation of multiple spin exchange in monolayer solid 3He.
4492:
4493: \bibitem{drh80} J.~M.~Delrieu, M.~Roger, J.~H.~Hetherington, J. Low
4494: Temp. Phys. {\bf 40}, 71 (1980).
4495:
4496: %Exchange and magnetic order in hcp helium-3 and adsorbed helium-3 with
4497: %triangular lattice.
4498:
4499: \bibitem{frg86} H.~Franco, R.~E.~Rapp and H.~Godfrin,
4500: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v57/e1161}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 57}, 1161 (1986)}.
4501:
4502: %Nuclear Ferromagnetism of Two-Dimensional 3He.
4503:
4504: \bibitem{mblw98} G.~Misguich, B.~Bernu, C.~Lhuillier, and
4505: C.~Waldtmann, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v81/e1098}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 1098 (1998)}.
4506:
4507: \bibitem{lmsl00}
4508: W.~LiMing, G.~Misguich, P.~Sindzingre, and C.~Lhuillier,
4509: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v62/e6372}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 62}, 6372 (2000)}.
4510:
4511:
4512: %From N\'eel long-range order to spin liquids in the multiple-spin
4513: %exchange model.
4514:
4515: \bibitem{kmyf97} K.~Ishida, M.~Morishita, K.~Yawata, and H.~Fukuyama,
4516: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v79/e3451}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79}, 3451 (1997)}.
4517:
4518: %Low Temperature Heat-Capacity Anomalies in Two-Dimensional Solid 3He.
4519:
4520: \bibitem{cthrbbg01}
4521: %E.~Collin, S.~Triqueneaux, R.~Harakaly, M.~Roger, C.~B\"auerle,
4522: %Yu.~M.~Bunkov, and H.~Godfrin
4523: E.~Collin {\it et al.}, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v86/e2447}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 2447 (2001)}.
4524:
4525: %Quantum Frustration in the "Spin Liquid" Phase of Two-Dimensional
4526: %$^3$He.
4527:
4528: \bibitem{kh00}
4529: M. Katano and D.~S.~Hirashima, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v62/e2573}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 62}, 2573 (2000)}.
4530: %Multiple-spin exchange in a two-dimensional Wigner crystal.
4531:
4532: \bibitem{hk01} D.~S.~Hirashima and K.~Kubo,
4533: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v63/e125340}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 63}, 125340 (2001)}.
4534:
4535: \bibitem{bcc01} B. Bernu, L. Candido, and D. M. Ceperley
4536: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v86/e870}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 870 (2001)}.
4537:
4538: %Exchange Frequencies in the 2D Wigner Crystal.
4539:
4540: \bibitem{ok98} T. Okamoto and S. Kawaji,
4541: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v57/e9097}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 57}, 9097 (1998)}.
4542:
4543: %Magnetism in a Wigner solid and the Aharonov-Bohm effect: Experiment
4544: %and theory.
4545:
4546: \bibitem{rd89} M. Roger and J. M. Delrieu,
4547: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v39/e2299}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 39}, 2299 (1989)}.
4548:
4549: %Cyclic four-spin exchange on a two-dimensional square lattice:
4550: %Possible applications in high-T$_c$ superconductors.
4551:
4552: \bibitem{sugai90}
4553: S.~Sugai {\it et al.},
4554: %M.~Sato, T.~Kobayashi, J.~Akimitsu,
4555: %T.~Ito, H.~Takagi, S.~Uchida, S.~Hosoya, T.~Kajitani and T.~Fukuda,
4556: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v42/e1045}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 42}, 1045 (1990)}.
4557:
4558: %High-energy spin excitations in the insulating phases of high-T$_c$
4559: %superconducting cuprates and La$_2$NiO$_4$.
4560:
4561: \bibitem{coldea01}
4562: R.~Coldea {\it et al.},
4563: %S.~M.~Hayden, G.~Aeppli, T.~G.~Perring, C.~D.~Frost, T.~E.~Mason,
4564: %S.-W.~Cheong, and Z.~Fisk,
4565: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v86/e5377}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 5377 (2001)}.
4566:
4567: %Spin Waves and Electronic Interactions in La$_2$CuO$_4$.
4568:
4569: \bibitem{mr02}
4570: E.~M\"uller-Hartmann and A.~Reischl,
4571: \href{http://publish.edpsciences.com/abstract/EPJB/v28/p173}{Eur. Phys. J. B {\bf 28}, 173 (2002)}.
4572:
4573: %Derivation of effective spin models from a three band model for
4574: %CuO$_2$-planes.
4575:
4576: \bibitem{kk03} A.~A.~Katanin, and A.~P.~Kampf,
4577: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v67/e100404}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 67}, 100404R (2003)}.
4578:
4579: %Theoretical analysis of magnetic Raman scattering in La$_2$CuO$_4$:
4580: %Two-magnon intensity with the inclusion of ring exchange.
4581:
4582: \bibitem{mkebm00}
4583:
4584: M. Matsuda {\it et al.},
4585: %K. Katsumata, R.~S.~Eccleston,
4586: %S. Brehmer and H.-J.~Mikeska,
4587: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v62/e8903}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 62}, 8903 (2000)}.
4588: %Magnetic excitations and exchange interactions in the spin-($\frac{1}{2}$)
4589: %two-leg ladder compound La$_6$Ca$_8$Cu$_{24}$O$_{41}$.
4590:
4591: \bibitem{bmmnu99}
4592: S.~Brehmer {\it et al.},
4593: %H.-J.~Mikeska, M.~M\"uller, N.~Nagaosa and S.~Uchida,
4594: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v60/e329}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 60}, 329 (1999)}.
4595:
4596: %Effects of biquadratic exchange on the spectrum of elementary
4597: %excitations in spin ladders.
4598:
4599: \bibitem{sku01} K. P. Schmidt, C. Knetter and G. S. Uhrig,
4600: \href{http://publish.edpsciences.com/abstract/EPL/v56/p877}{Europhys. Lett. {\bf 56}, 877 (2001)}.
4601:
4602: %Raman response in antiferromagnetic two-leg S=1/2 Heisenberg ladders.
4603:
4604: \bibitem{gkt03}
4605: A.~G\"oßling {\it et al.},
4606: %U.~Kuhlmann, C.~Thomsen A.~L\"offert, C.~Gross, and W.~Assmus,
4607: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v67/e052403}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 67}, 052403 (2003)}.
4608: %Magnetic excitations
4609:
4610: \bibitem{mvm02}
4611: M. M\"uller, T. Vekua, and H.-J. Mikeska,
4612: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v66/e134423}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 66}, 134423 (2002)}.
4613: %Perturbation theories for the S=1/2 spin ladder with a four-spin
4614: %ring exchange
4615:
4616: \bibitem{hmh03}
4617: T. Hikihara, T. Momoi, and X. Hu,
4618: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v90/e087204}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 087204 (2003)}.
4619:
4620: %Spin-Chirality Duality in a Spin Ladder with Four-Spin Cyclic Exchange.
4621:
4622: \bibitem{lst03} A. L\"auchli, G. Schmid, and M. Troyer,
4623: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v67/e100409}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 67}, 100409R (2003)}.
4624: %Phase diagram of a spin ladder with cyclic four-spin exchange.
4625:
4626: \bibitem{hh01}
4627: Y. Honda and T. Horiguchi, \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0106426}{cond-mat/0106426}.
4628:
4629: %Quantum phase transition by cyclic four-spin exchange interaction for
4630: %S=1/2 two-leg spin ladder.
4631:
4632: \bibitem{hn02}
4633: K. Hijii and K. Nomura \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v65/e104413}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 65}, 104413 (2002)}.
4634:
4635: %Universality class of an S=$\frac{1}{2}$ quantum spin ladder system with
4636: %four-spin exchange
4637:
4638: \bibitem{mhnh03} T. Momoi, T.~Hikihara, M.~Nakamura,
4639: Xiao Hu, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v67/e174410}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 67}, 174410 (2003)}.
4640: %Scalar chiral ground states of spin ladders with four-spin exchanges.
4641:
4642:
4643: \bibitem{lauchli03}
4644: A. L\"auchli, talk given at the {\em Highly Frustrated Magnetism
4645: 2003} conference, Grenoble, France (August 2003).
4646:
4647:
4648: \bibitem{km97} K. Kubo and T. Momoi, Z. Phys. B {\bf 103}, 485 (1997).
4649: %Ground state of a spin system with two- and four-spin exchange
4650: %interactions on the triangular lattice
4651:
4652: \bibitem{mkn97}
4653: T. Momoi, K. Kubo, and K. Niki,
4654: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v79/e2081}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79}, 2081 (1997)}.
4655:
4656: %Possible Chiral Phase Transition in Two-Dimensional Solid 3He.
4657:
4658: \bibitem{mbl98} G.~Misguich, B.~Bernu, and C.~Lhuillier,
4659: \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022249501044}{J. Low Temp. Phys.
4660: {\bf 110}, 327 (1998)}.
4661:
4662: %The multiple-spin exchange phase diagram on the triangular lattice:
4663: %Schwinger-boson analysis
4664:
4665: \bibitem{ksmn98} K. Kubo, H. Sakamoto, T.~Momoi, and K.~Niki,
4666: \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022249501044}{J. Low
4667: Temp. Phys. {\bf 111}, 583 (1998)}.
4668:
4669: %A Possible Magnetic Phase with Scalar Chirality in Solid 3He Layers.
4670:
4671:
4672: \bibitem{StagVBC}
4673: A 16- and a 32-site triangular lattices which do not frustrate the
4674: staggered VBC were investigated. In both cases some of the
4675: irreducible representations of the space group required to break the
4676: appropriate lattice symmetries are very high in the
4677: spectrum. C. Lhuillier and G. Misguich (unpublished).
4678:
4679: \bibitem{lsm61}
4680: E.~H.~Lieb, T.~D.~Schultz, D.~C.~Mattis., Ann. Phys. (N.Y) {\bf 16},
4681: 407 (1961).
4682:
4683: \bibitem{al86}
4684: I. Affleck and E. Lieb, Lett. Math. Phys. {\bf 12}, 57 (1986).
4685:
4686: \bibitem{o00}
4687: M. Oshikawa, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v84/e1535}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 1535 (2000)}.
4688:
4689: \bibitem{hastings03}
4690: M.~B.~Hastings, \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0305505}{cond-mat/0305505}.
4691:
4692: \bibitem{o03}
4693: M.~Oshikawa,
4694: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v90/e236401}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 236401 (2003)}.
4695:
4696: \bibitem{nge98}
4697: A.~A. Nersesyan, A.~O. Gogolin, and F.~H.~L. Essler,
4698: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v81/e910}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 910 (1998)}.
4699:
4700: \bibitem{ahllt98}
4701: P. Azaria {\it et ~al.}, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v81/e1694}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 1694 (1998)}.
4702:
4703: \bibitem{efkl00}
4704: V.~J.~Emery, E. Fradkin, S.~A.~Kivelson and T.~C.~Lubensky,
4705: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v85/e2160}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 2160 (2000)}.
4706:
4707: \bibitem{be01}
4708: M. Bocquet, F. Essler, A.~M.~Tsvelik and A.~O.~Gogolin,
4709: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v64/e094425}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 64}, 094425 (2001)},
4710: M.~Bocquet, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v65/e1884415}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 65}, 1884415 (2001)}.
4711:
4712:
4713: \bibitem{vc01}
4714: A. Vishwanath and D. Carpentier, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v86/e676}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 676 (2001)}.
4715:
4716: \bibitem{sp02}
4717: S. Sachdev and K. Park, Annals of Physics (N.Y.), {\bf 58}, 298 (2002).
4718:
4719: \bibitem{ssl02}
4720: O.~A. Starykh and R.~R.~P. Singh and G.~C. Levine,
4721: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v88/e167203}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 167203 (2002)}.
4722:
4723: \bibitem{cttt01}
4724: R. Coldea, D.~A. Tennant, A.~M. Tsvelik, and Z. Tylczynski,
4725: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v86/e1335}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 1335 (2001)}.
4726:
4727: \bibitem{kitaev97}
4728: A. Kitaev, Annals Phys. {\bf 303}, 2 (2003).
4729: [\href{http://arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9707021}{quant-ph/9707021}]
4730:
4731: \bibitem{ns01} C. Nayak and K. Shtengel,
4732: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v64/e064422}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 64}, 064422 (2001)}.
4733:
4734: %Microscopic models of two-dimensional magnets with fractionalized
4735: %excitations
4736:
4737: \bibitem{bfg02}
4738: L. Balents, M. P. A. Fisher, and S. M. Girvin,
4739: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v65/e224412}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 65}, 224412 (2002)}.
4740:
4741: %Fractionalization in an easy-axis kagome antiferromagnet
4742:
4743: \bibitem{pbf02} A.~Paramekanti, L.~Balents, and M.~P.~A.~Fisher
4744: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v66/e054526}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 66}, 054526 (2002)}.
4745:
4746: %Ring exchange, the exciton Bose liquid, and bosonization in two
4747: %dimensions
4748:
4749: \bibitem{sdss02} A.~W.~Sandvik, S.~Daul, R.~R.~P.~Singh, and
4750: D.~J.~Scalapino, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v89/e247201}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 247201 (2002)}.
4751:
4752: %Striped Phase in a Quantum XY Model with Ring Exchange
4753:
4754: \bibitem{sm02} T. Senthil and O. Motrunich,
4755: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v66/e205104}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 66}, 205104 (2002)}.
4756: %Microscopic models for fractionalized phases in strongly correlated
4757: %systems.
4758:
4759: \bibitem{p38}
4760: L. Pauling, in {\em The nature of the chemical bond} (Cornell University
4761: Press, Ithaca, 1938).
4762:
4763: \bibitem{kn53}
4764: K. Kano and S. Naya, Prog. in Theor. Phys. {\bf 10}, 158 (1953).
4765:
4766: \bibitem{hr92}
4767: D. Huse and A. Rutenberg, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v45/e7536}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 45}, 7536 (1992)}.
4768:
4769: \bibitem{ms01b}
4770: R. Moessner and S.~L. Sondhi, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v63/e224401}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 63}, 224401 (2001)}.
4771:
4772: \bibitem{chs92}
4773: J. Chalker, P.~C.~W.~Holdsworth, and E.~F.~Shender,
4774: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v68/e855}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 68}, 855 (1992)}.
4775:
4776: \bibitem{baxter70}
4777: R. J. Baxter, J. Math. Phys. {\bf 11}, 784 (1970).
4778:
4779: \bibitem{rcc93}
4780: I. Richtey, P.~Chandra, and P.~Coleman, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v47/e15342}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 47}, 15342 (1993)}.
4781:
4782: \bibitem{rb93}
4783: J. Reimers and A.~Berlinsky, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v48/e9539}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 48}, 9539 (1993)}.
4784:
4785: \bibitem{e02}
4786: M. Elhajal, Ph.~D. thesis, Universit\'e Joseph
4787: Fourier. Grenoble. France, 2002.
4788:
4789: \bibitem{ecl02}
4790: M.~Elhajal, B.~Canals, and C.~Lacroix,
4791: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v66/e014422}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 66}, 014422 (2002)}.
4792:
4793: \bibitem{k94}
4794: A. Keren, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v72/e3254}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 72}, 3254 (1994)}.
4795:
4796: \bibitem{e89}
4797: V. Elser, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v62/e2405}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 62}, 2405 (1989)}.
4798:
4799: \bibitem{ce92}
4800: J. Chalker and J. Eastmond, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v46/e14201}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 46}, 14201 (1992)}.
4801:
4802: \bibitem{s92}
4803: S. Sachdev, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v45/e12377}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 45}, 12377 (1992)}.
4804:
4805: \bibitem{le93}
4806: P. Leung and V. Elser, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v47/e5459}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 47}, 5459 (1993)}.
4807:
4808:
4809: \bibitem{lblps97}
4810: P. Lecheminant {\it et~al.}, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v56/e2521}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 56}, 2521 (1997)}.
4811:
4812: \bibitem{web98}
4813: C. Waldtmann {\it et~al.}, \href{http://publish.edpsciences.com/abstract/EPJB/v2/p501}{Eur. Phys. J. B {\bf 2}, 501 (1998)}.
4814:
4815: \bibitem{m98}
4816: F. Mila, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v81/e2356}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 2356 (1998)}.
4817:
4818: \bibitem{smlbpwe00}
4819: P. Sindzingre {\it et~al.}, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v84/e2953}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 2953 (2000)}.
4820:
4821: \bibitem{mm01}
4822: M. Mambrini and F. Mila, \href{http://publish.edpsciences.com/abstract/EPJB/v17/p651}{Eur. Phys. J. B {\bf 17}, 651 (2001)}.
4823:
4824: \bibitem{dmnm03}
4825: S.~Dommange, M.~Mambrini, B.~Normand and F.~Mila, \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0306299}{cond-mat/0306299}.
4826:
4827: \bibitem{ze90}
4828: C. Zeng and V. Elser, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v42/e8436}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 42}, 8436 (1990)}.
4829:
4830: \bibitem{sh92}
4831: R. Singh and D. Huse, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v68/e1766}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 68}, 1766 (1992)}.
4832:
4833: \bibitem{h01}
4834: K. Hida, \href{http://jpsj.ipap.jp/link?JPSJ/70/3673}{J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 70}, 3673 (2001)}.
4835:
4836: \bibitem{cghp02}
4837: D.~C.~Cabra, M.~D.~Grynberg, P.~C.~W.~Holdsworth, P.~Pujol,
4838: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v65/e094418}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 65}, 094418 (2002)}.
4839:
4840: \bibitem{ey94}
4841: N. Eltsner and A.~P. Young, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v50/e6871}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 50}, 6871 (1994)}.
4842:
4843: \bibitem{nm95}
4844: T. Nakamura and S. Miyashita, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v52/e9174}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 52}, 9174 (1995)}.
4845:
4846: \bibitem{tr96}
4847: P.~Tomczak and J.~Richter, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v54/e9004}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 54}, 9004 (1996)}.
4848:
4849: \bibitem{rhw00}
4850: A.~P. Ramirez, B. Hessen, and M.~Winkelmann, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v84/e2957}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 2957 (2000)}.
4851:
4852: \bibitem{mklmch00}
4853: P. Mendels {\it et~al.}, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v85/e3496}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 3496 (2000)}.
4854:
4855: \bibitem{sma02}
4856: A.~V.~Syromyatnikov and S.~V.~Maleyev,
4857: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v66/e132408}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 66}, 132408 (2002)}.
4858:
4859: \bibitem{ns03}
4860: P. Nikolic and T. Senthil, \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0305189}{cond-mat/0305189}.
4861:
4862: \bibitem{mmpfa00}
4863: T. Mondelli {\it et~al.}, Physica B {\bf 284}, 1371 (2000).
4864:
4865: \bibitem{gsf01}
4866: A. Georges, R. Siddhartan and S. Florens, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v87/e277203}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 277203 (2001)}.
4867:
4868: \bibitem{ls02}
4869: C. Lhuillier and P. Sindzingre, in {\em Quantum properties of Low dimensional
4870: antiferromagnets}, edited by Y.~Ajiro and J.~P.~Boucher (Kyushu University
4871: Press, Fukuoka, Japan, 2002), p.\ 111.%, iSBN 4 87378 740 8.
4872:
4873: \bibitem{sv00}
4874: S.~Sachdev and M.~Vojta,
4875: Proceedings of the XIII International Congress on Mathematical Physics, July 2000, London.
4876: A.~Fokas, A.~Grigoryan, T.~Kibble, and B.~Zegarlinski eds, International Press, Boston (2001)
4877: [\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0009202}{cond-mat/0009202}].
4878:
4879: \bibitem{ukkll94}
4880: Y. Uemura {\it et~al.}, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v73/e3306}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73}, 3306 (1994)}.
4881:
4882: \bibitem{rec90}
4883: A. Ramirez, G.~P. Espinosa, and A.~S.~Cooper,
4884: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v64/e2070}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 64}, 2070 (1990)}.
4885:
4886: \bibitem{lbar96}
4887: S.-H. Lee {\it et~al.}, \href{http://publish.edpsciences.com/abstract/EPL/v35/p127}{Europhys. Lett. {\bf 35}, 127 (1996)}.
4888:
4889: \bibitem{kklllwutdg96}
4890: A. Keren {\it et~al.}, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v53/e6451}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 53}, 6451 (1996)}.
4891:
4892: \bibitem{whmmt98}
4893: A.~S. Wills {\it et~al.}, \href{http://publish.edpsciences.com/abstract/EPL/v42/p325}{Europhys. Lett. {\bf 42}, 325 (1998)}.
4894:
4895: \bibitem{aoyhimw94}
4896: K. Awaga {\it et~al.}, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v49/e3975}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 49}, 3975 (1994)}.
4897:
4898: \bibitem{wkyoya97}
4899: N. Wada {\it et~al.}, \href{http://jpsj.ipap.jp/link?JPSJ/66/961}{J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 66}, 961 (1997)}.
4900:
4901: \bibitem{wwyoaonn98}
4902: I. Watanabe {\it et~al.}, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v58/e2438}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 58}, 2438 (1998)}.
4903:
4904: \bibitem{cl98}
4905: B. Canals and C. Lacroix, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v80/e2933}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 2933 (1998)}.
4906:
4907: \bibitem{hbb91}
4908: A.~B.~Harris, A.~J.~Berlinsky and C.~Bruder,
4909: \href{http://link.aip.org/link/?JAP/69/5200/1}{J. Appl. Phys. {\bf 69},
4910: 5200 (1991)}.
4911:
4912: \bibitem{t01}
4913: H. Tsunetsugu, \href{http://jpsj.ipap.jp/link?JPSJ/70/640}{J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 70}, 640 (2001)}.
4914:
4915: \bibitem{t02}
4916: H. Tsunetsugu, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v65/e024415}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 65}, 024415 (2002)}.
4917:
4918: \bibitem{vdh92-93}
4919: J.~V. Delft and C.~L. Henley, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v69/e3236}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 69}, 3236 (1992)},
4920: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v48/e965}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 48}, 965 (1993)}.
4921:
4922: \bibitem{sachdev03}
4923: S.~Sachdev, Annals Phys. {\bf 303}, 226 (2003) [\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0211027}{cond-mat/0211027}]
4924: and Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 75}, 913 (2003) [\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0211005}{cond-mat/0211005}].
4925:
4926: \bibitem{wwz89}
4927: X. Wen, F. Wilczek, and A. Zee, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v39/e11413}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 39}, 11413 (1989)}.
4928:
4929: \bibitem{kl87-89}
4930: V. Kalmeyer and R. Laughlin, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v59/e2095}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 59}, 2095 (1987)},
4931: \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v39/e11879}{Phys. Rev. B {\bf 39}, 11879 (1989)}.
4932:
4933: \bibitem{ywg93}
4934: K. Yang, L. Warman, and S.~M.~Girvin, \href{http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v70/e2641}{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 70}, 2641 (1993)}.
4935:
4936:
4937: \end{thebibliography}
4938: \end{document}
4939:
4940: