1: %==============================================================================

2: % the above line has 79 characters in width

3: %

4: %

5: %==============================================================================

6: %\documentclass[aps,preprint,tightenlines,showpacs,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

7: \documentclass[aps,prb,tightenlines,showpacs,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

8: %\documentclass[aps,prb,preprint,showpacs,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

9: %\documentclass[aps,twocolumn,floats,showpacs]{revtex4}

10: %\documentclass[aps,floats,showpacs,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

11: \usepackage{graphicx}

12: \usepackage{amsmath}

13: \usepackage{amsfonts}

14: \usepackage{amssymb}

15: \usepackage{bm}

16: %\documentstyle[prb,aps,epsf]{revtex4}

17: %\documentclass[12pt]{article}

18: %\usepackage{amstex, amssymb}

19: %\documentstyle[preprint,prb,aps]{revtex}

20: %\textheight=4.3truein\textwidth=6.0truein

21: %\voffset=-0.7truein\hoffset=-0.6truein

22: %\baselineskip=12pt

23: %\parindent=0pt

24: %\parskip=4pt

25: \begin{document}

26: 

27: %\input amssymb.dtx

28: %\draft

29: \title{Simultaneous Charge Ordering and Spin Dimerization

30: in Quasi-Two-Dimensional Quarter-Filled Ladders}

31: \author{Gennady Y. Chitov}

32: \affiliation{Department 7.1-Theoretical Physics,

33: University of Saarland, Saarbr\"ucken 66041, Germany}

34: \author{Claudius Gros}

35: \affiliation{Department 7.1-Theoretical Physics,

36: University of Saarland, Saarbr\"ucken 66041, Germany}

37: \date{\today}

38: \begin{abstract}

39: We study the spin-pseudospin Hamiltonian of

40: the Ising Model in Transverse Field (IMTF) for pseudospins, coupled

41: to the $XY$-spins on a triangular lattice. This model appears from

42: analyses of the quarter-filled ladder compound $\rm NaV_2O_5$, and

43: pseudospins represent its charge degrees of freedom.

44: In the molecular-field approximation we find that the model

45: possesses two phases: charge-disordered

46: without spin gap; and a low-temperature phase containing both the

47: anti-ferroelectric (zigzag) charge order and spin dimerization

48: (spin gap). The phase transition is of the second kind, and the

49: calculated physical quantities are

50: as those one expects from the Landau theory.

51: One of particular features of the phase diagram is that the

52: inter-ladder spin-pseudospin coupling, responsible

53: for the spin gap generation, also destroys the IMTF

54: quantum critical point, resulting in the exponential behavior of

55: $T_c$ in the region of Ising's coupling where the IMTF is always

56: disordered.

57: We conclude that our mean-field results give a qualitatively correct

58: description of the phase transition in $\rm NaV_2O_5$, while a

59: more sophisticated analysis is warranted in order to take into account

60: the thermal fluctuations  and, probably, the

61: proximity of the IMTF quantum critical point.

62: \end{abstract}

63: \pacs{ 71.10.Fd, 71.10.Hf, 75.30.Et, 64.60.-i}

64: %\pacs{05.30.Fk, 71.10Pm, 11.10.Hi, 05.10.Cc}

65: 

66: \maketitle

67: %

68: %

69: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

70: \section{Introduction}\label{Intro}

71: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

72: %

73: %

74: Properties of the models with coupled spin and orbital degrees of freedom

75: have been actively studied from early 70-th, mostly in the context of the

76: Jahn-Teller transition metal compounds.\cite{Kugel82}

77: In recent years it has been a growing theoretical

78: effort\cite{Arovas95,Ners97,Pati98,Kolezh98,Azaria,Orign00,Itoi00,

79: Martins00,Zhang03}

80: in order to understand the ground-state properties and excitation spectra

81: of a particular (high-symmetric) class of one-dimensional spin-orbital

82: models. The latter can also be viewed (up to some slight modifications at

83: most) as two spin-$\frac12$ Heisenberg chains coupled via a bi-quadratic

84: exchange. This interest is motivated by various unusual states, occurring

85: in many kinds of low-dimensional magnetic systems:

86: e.g., TDAE-$\rm C_{60}$;\cite{Arovas95} two-leg

87: spin-$\frac12$ ladder compounds (for a review, see Ref.[\onlinecite{Dag96}]);

88: recently discovered spin-gapped materials

89: $\rm Na_2Ti_2Pn_2O$ ($\rm Pn=As,Sb)$\cite{Pn2O}

90: and $\rm NaV_2O_5$,\cite{Isobe96} which do not fit into the standard

91: spin-Peierls scenario.

92: 

93: 

94: For the one-dimensional (1D) spin-orbital model there is a

95: special point (i.e., coupling's values) where the effective Hamiltonian

96: has an extra $SU(4)$ symmetry, and the exact solution has been known

97: for quite a long time.\cite{SU4exact} Another exactly solvable special point

98: for the $SU(2) \otimes SU(2)$-symmetric Hamiltonian was found recently by

99: Kolezhuk and Mikeska.\cite{Kolezh98} Apart of these

100: special values of couplings, the available results on the 1D-spin-orbital

101: models are known from mean-field analyses,

102: renormalization group, bosonization, conformal field theory, numerics,

103: and/or their combinations.

104: 

105: As was re-emphasized recently,\cite{Pati00}

106: from the view point of application to real materials we are mostly

107: interested in, high symmetry

108: of a spin-orbital Hamiltonian is rather artificial.

109: Even if the total spin is conserved from physical grounds,

110: i.e., the symmetry of the Hamiltonian's spin sector is indeed $SU(2)$,

111: the symmetry of the orbital sector is usually lower (e.g., Ising or

112: $XY$-type). So, applicability of the results obtained from

113: high-symmetric Hamiltonians (e.g., $SU(2) \otimes SU(2)$) to the cases

114: of low-symmetric Hamiltonians following from microscopic considerations

115: of a given problem, is not so straightforward.\cite{ZamNote}

116: 

117: It has been argued that the spin-gapped compounds

118: $\rm Na_2Ti_2Pn_2O$\cite{Pati98} and $\rm NaV_2O_5$\cite{Smo98}

119: can be modeled by a two-band quarter-filled Hubbard Hamiltonian.

120: In the regime of strong on-site Coulomb repulsion such

121: Hamiltonian can be mapped onto a spin-orbital model,\cite{Kugel82}

122: so the appearance of a spin gap is due to

123: interplay between the charge and orbital degrees of freedom.

124: Instead, one can work directly with the electronic Hamiltonian.

125: Phase diagram of the 1D quarter-filled two-band Hubbard model

126: (Hubbard ladder) has been recently studied both

127: numerically\cite{Vojta01} and analytically.\cite{Orign03}

128: 

129: 

130: In this paper we will explore a particular scenario for the

131: spin gap mechanism in a spin-orbit model, where the orbital

132: (``pseudospin'') degree of freedom corresponds physically to the

133: ordering charge displacement (disproportionation). Such a

134: model appears in the applications to $\rm NaV_2O_5$.\cite{PnNote}

135: The quarter-filled ladder-system\cite{Smo98} $\rm NaV_2O_5$ is up-to-date

136: the only well-established  transition-metal compound with a localized

137: spin-$\frac12$ moment distributed, in the high-temperature phase, equally

138: over two transition-metal

139: ions in a mixed valence state. This unique situation of

140: two $V^{4.5}$ ions sharing one spin $s=\frac12$ leaves room

141: for the charge disproportionation

142: $2V^{4.5}\rightarrow V^4+V^5$ occurring below the critical temperature of

143: $T_c=34\,{\textrm K}$, together with the opening of a spin-gap

144: (without a long-range order for spins). At $T_c$ the unit cell doubles both

145: along the ladders ($b$-direction) and along the rungs ($a$-direction),

146: see Ref.[\onlinecite{Lem03}] for a review.

147: 

148: There have been several mechanisms proposed for the driving force

149: of this phase transition:

150: the spin-phonon coupling like in a spin-Peierls system,\cite{Isobe96}

151: the electron-phonon coupling, the intra-ladder Coulomb repulsion

152: between $V^{4}$ and $V^{5}$-ions on the neighboring

153: rungs\cite{Most98,Thal98,Seo98,Most02},

154: or a combination of those interaction terms.\cite{Riera99}

155: The experiments seem however to rule out\cite{Most98,Most02,Lem03}

156: the original proposal\cite{Isobe96} for the spin-Peierls scenario,

157: while the zigzag charge ordering pattern predicted by the

158: Coulomb-driven scenarios of this phase

159: transition,\cite{Most98,Seo98,Most02} is now established

160: crytallographically.\cite{Smaalen02}

161: Another argument in favor of the key role played by the charge

162: ordering at this phase transition, comes from the fact that

163: the coupling between spins and zigzag-ordered charge

164: leads to\cite{Gros99} the observed dispersion\cite{Yosi98}

165: along the $a$-direction (perpendicular to the ladders) of the

166: gapped magnon mode in the low-temperature phase.

167: 

168: 

169: 

170: Since $\rm NaV_2O_5$ is an insulator, one can model the charge

171: degrees of freedom in $\rm NaV_2O_5$ on a given rung by a pseudospin

172: $\bm{\mathcal T}$. The system of quarter-filled coupled ladders can be

173: mapped onto a triangular lattice where one spin and one pseudospin reside

174: on the same site\cite{Most98,Deb00,Most02}, compare Fig.\ \ref{LatFig}.

175: Mostovoy and Khomskii in their study

176: of $\rm NaV_2O_5$ proposed the following mechanism for the

177: spin dimerization driven by charge ordering (i.e., spin gap generation

178: in the \textit{charge ordered phase}):\cite{Most98,Most02}

179: the antiferroelectric (AFE) in-ladder ordering (i.e., zigzag charge

180: ordering) is due to the inter-rung Coulomb repulsion. The ordering

181: pattern is shifted by a half of the inter-rung distance from ladder to

182: ladder (see Fig.\ref{LatFig}), and it

183: results in alternation of the spin-exchange coupling along

184: the ladder induced by its left and right neighbors. Then, as a

185: consequence of the spin-exchange dimerization, the systems acquires a

186: spin gap. Mostovoy and Khomskii\cite{Most98} also pointed out that

187: for this effect to occur,

188: it suffices for the dimerization term of the spin-exchange coupling

189: (i.e, the inter-ladder spin-pseudospin coupling) to

190: be linear over the charge order parameter. This mechanism resembles

191: so the familiar spin-Peierls scenario, with the proviso that

192: phonons are replaced by the charge order parameter.

193: 

194: 

195: Going deeper into this suggestion for the coupling which could be

196: a key to the problem of $\rm NaV_2O_5$, we perform a detailed

197: analysis of such a phase transition starting from a simplest possible

198: Hamiltonian compatible with symmetry restrictions.

199: The effective Hamiltonian is that of the Ising Model in Transverse Field

200: (IMTF) for pseudospins $\bm{\mathcal T}$, coupled to the spin-$\frac12$

201: $XY$-chains. Since the phase transition in $\rm NaV_2O_5$ is

202: \textit{thermal} in nature,

203: we treat the charge (pseudospin) sector of the Hamiltonian in the

204: molecular-field approximation, while retaining in our analysis the

205: experimentally observed 1D nature of the spin excitations.

206: Recent x-ray\cite{Ravy99,Gaulin00} and NMR\cite{Fagot00}

207: experiments showed large fluctuation regions on the both sides of

208: $T_c$ in $\rm NaV_2O_5$, and the order parameter critical index is

209: found to be $\beta \approx 0.17-0.19$. It is close to $\beta = 1/8$

210: of the 2D Ising model, indicating along with the correlation lengths

211: measurements\cite{Ravy99} on the 2D-Ising universality class of

212: this phase transition. According to Ref.[\onlinecite{Ravy99}] the

213: 1D character of structural fluctuations manifests itself only

214: at $T \agt 60$K. This allows us to expect the mean-field treatment

215: to be a qualitatively reasonable approximation for the problem

216: we are dealing with.

217: 

218: 

219: We find that our spin-pseudospin model has a phase diagram with

220: two phases: the disordered one without charge order or

221: spin gap; and the ordered low-temperature phase with both the

222: anti-ferroelectric (zigzag) charge order and spin gap.

223: One of our most important findings is that the model

224: \textit{always} orders (continuously, via a second-order

225: transition) into that phase at low temperatures. The critical

226: temperature of this phase transition shows various regimes of

227: dependence on model's parameters, but it never vanishes as far

228: as the inter-ladder spin-pseudospin coupling is non-zero.

229: Physically, it means that the role of the inter-ladder coupling

230: is twofold: this coupling not only creates the spin gap when

231: the phase transition is driven by the charge (pseudospin)

232: ordering in the IMTF, but it also destroys the quantum

233: critical point of the IMTF and generates the charge-ordered and

234: spin-gapped phase in the case when charge

235: ordering in the pure IMTF is impossible.

236: 

237: 

238: 

239: The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{MoFo} we

240: define the model Hamiltonian and describe the methods employed to handle

241: it. In Section \ref{MF} we present the mean-field equations which govern

242: the critical behavior of the system. Section \ref{Tcr} presents the analysis

243: of the phase diagram, i.e., the critical temperature of the

244: anti-ferroelectric phase transition as a function of the Hamiltonian's

245: couplings. The results for the order parameter, spin and pseudospin

246: susceptibilities, specific heat capacity calculated in the vicinity of the

247: anti-ferroelectric phase transition are given in Section \ref{AFE}.

248: The summary of our results and the discussion on their application for

249: $\rm NaV_2O_5$ are presented in the final Section \ref{Concl}.

250: %

251: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

252: \section{Model and Formalism}\label{MoFo}

253: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

254: %

255: %

256: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

257: \subsection{Model}\label{Model}

258: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

259: %

260: We choose the following effective Hamiltonian:

261: \begin{eqnarray}

262: \label{Ham}

263: H= &-& \Omega \sum_{m,n} \mathcal T^z_{mn} +\frac12 J_{\textsc I} \sum_{m,n}

264: \mathcal T^x_{mn} \mathcal T^x_{m,n+1}

265: + J_{\textsc H} \sum_{m,n} {\textbf S}_{mn} {\textbf S}_{m,n+1}

266: \\ \nonumber

267: &+&  \sum_{m,n} {\textbf S}_{mn}  {\textbf S}_{m,n+1}

268: \big[ J_{\textsc ST} \mathcal T^z_{mn} \mathcal T^z_{m,n+1}+

269:  \tilde \varepsilon

270:  \big( \mathcal  T^x_{m+1,n+1}- \mathcal T^x_{m-1,n}\big)

271: \big]

272: \end{eqnarray}

273: where the spin operators for a given site are defined as $S^i=\frac12 \sigma^i$

274: ($i=x,y,z$) via the Pauli matrices $\sigma^i$. The pseudospin operators

275: are related in the same way to the Pauli matrices $\tau^i$:

276: $\mathcal T^i=\frac12 \tau^i$. 

277: We use the distinct notations for the Pauli matrices $\sigma, \tau$ in order

278: to emphasize the fact that they operate in different spaces (spin, pseudospin).

279: So the components, e.g.,  $\sigma^x$ and $\tau^x$ do not have the same

280: quantization axis. By labelling the two sets of Pauli's matrices

281: $\sigma, \tau$ with $x,y,z$ we mean only their conventional

282: representation and commutation relations. The subscript

283: $1 \leq m \leq \mathcal M$ stands for the number of ladder, while

284: $1 \leq n \leq \mathcal N$ numbers the rung.

285: We assume the Hamiltonian coupling constants to be positive.

286: Note in making comparison with the microscopic Hamiltonians derived for

287: $\rm NaV_2O_5$,\cite{Most98,Most02,Deb00} that in our Hamiltonian

288: (\ref{Ham}) we made the $\frac{\pi}{2}$-rotation

289: in the pseudospin space $\mathcal T^x \mapsto \mathcal T^z$,

290: $\mathcal T^z \mapsto -\mathcal T^x$. 

291: 

292: The first two terms on the right

293: hand side of Eq.(\ref{Ham}) correspond to the Ising Model in Transverse

294: Field (IMTF), the third term to the Heisenberg Hamiltonian, and in the last

295: one which describes the spin-pseudospin interaction

296: $\propto \tilde \varepsilon$,

297: we retain only linear term over the rung charge displacement operator

298: $\mathcal T^x$. This inter-ladder coupling term is allowed by the point

299: symmetry group $D_{2h}$ (the $\rm NaV_2O_5$ space group is

300: $D_{2h}^{13}-Pmmn$).\cite{Smo98}

301: Note that a similar intra-ladder spin-pseudospin coupling

302: $\sum_{mn}

303: {\textbf S}_{mn} {\textbf S}_{m,n+1}

304:  \big( \mathcal  T^x_{m,n+1}- \mathcal T^x_{m,n}\big)

305: $ would be odd with respect to the mirror-plane through the

306: bridging-oxygen (the $bc$-plane), therefore it is forbidden by

307: symmetry.

308: 

309: In the following we will work with the dimensionless Hamiltonian

310: ${\mathcal H}=H/ \Omega$

311: \begin{eqnarray}

312: \label{Hamdls}

313: {\mathcal H}=&-& \sum_{m,n} \mathcal T^z_{mn} +

314: \frac12 g \sum_{m,n} \mathcal T^x_{mn} \mathcal T^x_{m,n+1}

315: \\ \nonumber

316: &+&  \sum_{m,n}D_{mn}

317: \big[ J +\lambda \mathcal T^z_{mn} \mathcal T^z_{m,n+1}+

318: \varepsilon \big( \mathcal T^x_{m+1,n+1}- \mathcal T^x_{m-1,n}\big)

319: \big]~,

320: \end{eqnarray}

321: dimensionless temperature $T  \rightarrow T/\Omega$,

322: and dimensionless couplings

323: \begin{eqnarray}

324: \label{Coupdls}

325: g=J_{\textsc I}/\Omega~,~~

326: J=J_{\textsc H}/\Omega~, \\ \nonumber

327: \lambda=J_{\textsc ST}/ \Omega~,~~

328: \varepsilon= \tilde \varepsilon / \Omega~,

329: \end{eqnarray}

330: where the dimerization operator

331: $D_{mn} \equiv {\textbf S}_{mn}\cdot{\textbf S}_{m,n+1}$.

332: For the applications we have in mind, the range of

333: the model's parameters under consideration will be restricted to the cases

334: \begin{equation}

335: \label{parange}

336: (J, \lambda) \alt  g, ~~ \varepsilon \ll (g, \textrm{max} \{J, \lambda \})

337: \end{equation}

338: In the present

339: study we consider the Hamiltonian with the $XY$ spin-spin

340: interaction, i.e.,

341: \begin{eqnarray}

342: \label{Sint}

343: D_{mn}=D_{mn}^{\textsc XY} &\equiv&

344: S_{mn}^x S_{m,n+1}^x+S_{mn}^y S_{m,n+1}^y \\ \nonumber

345:  &=& \frac12 \Big(

346:  S_{mn}^+ S_{m,n+1}^- +S_{mn}^- S_{m,n+1}^+

347: \Big)

348: \end{eqnarray}

349: where we used the conventional definition

350: $S^\pm \equiv S^x \pm i S^y$.

351: %

352: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

353: \subsection{Molecular Field Approximation}\label{MFA}

354: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

355: %

356: We proceed with the approximate treatment of our model in the following

357: way: The model Hamiltonian (\ref{Hamdls}) can be viewed as

358: $\mathcal H = \mathcal H_{\textrm{IMTF}} + \mathcal H_{\textrm{XY}}$.

359: $\mathcal H_{\textrm{IMTF}}$ is the Hamiltonian of the IMTF

360: in terms of the pseudospin operators $\mathcal T$

361: which is exactly solvable by its own. Dependence of the effective coupling

362: $J^{\textrm{eff}}_{mn}$ on $\mathcal T$ in the $XY$ spin Hamiltonian

363: $\mathcal H_{\textrm{XY}}= \sum J^{\textrm{eff}}_{mn} D_{mn}$

364: precludes the total Hamiltonian from being exactly solvable.

365: 

366: We apply a version of the Mean Field Approximation (MFA) which is

367: rather known as the Molecular Field method (Approximation) in the

368: theory of phase transitions\cite{Blinc74}. This approximation assumes

369: separability of the total Hamiltonian

370: density matrix $\rho$ over $S$ and $\mathcal T$, i.e.,

371: \begin{equation}

372: \label{STsep}

373: \rho=\rho^S \otimes \rho^{\mathcal T}

374: \end{equation}

375: and the following single particle (operator)

376: ansatz for the pseudospin density matrix

377: \begin{eqnarray}

378: \label{rhoT}

379: \rho^{\mathcal T} &=& \prod_{m,n}\rho^{\mathcal T}_{mn}, ~\\

380: \label{rhoTsing}

381: \rho^{\mathcal T}_{mn} &=& \frac{1}{Z_{mn}^{\mathcal T}}

382: \textrm{exp}(-\beta \textbf h_{mn} \bm{\mathcal T}_{mn})

383: \end{eqnarray}

384: Here $\textbf h_{mn}$ is the on-site vector of the molecular field to be

385: defined self-consistently, $\beta$ is inverse temperature (we set the Boltzmann

386: constant $k_B=1$),  and

387: \begin{equation}

388: \label{Zmn}

389: Z_{mn}^{\mathcal T}=2 \cosh \frac{\beta |\textbf h_{mn}|}{2}

390: \end{equation}

391: in the on-site partition function.

392: 

393: Since the independent spin-pseudospin averaging (\ref{STsep}) with the

394: single-particle density matrix (\ref{rhoTsing}) makes $J_{\textrm{eff}}$

395: a function of the average values of $\mathcal T$, no further approximation

396: is needed for the density matrix $\rho^S$.

397: The statistical mechanical problem with

398: \begin{equation}

399: \label{rhoS}

400: \rho^S = \frac{1}{Z_{\textrm{S}}} e^{-\beta \mathcal H_{\textrm{S}}}~,

401: \quad Z_{S}= \textrm{Tr} e^{-\beta \mathcal H_{\textrm{S}}},

402: \end{equation}

403: $ \mathcal H_{\textrm{S}}=\mathcal H_{\textrm{XY}}$ (here Tr includes

404: only spin-operator states) is exactly solvable,\cite{Lieb61} and will be

405: dealt with in the next subsection. To summarize more

406: qualitatively, we solve exactly the problem of independent spin $XY$

407: chains with their exchange constants determined by the molecular fields of

408: quasi-two-dimensional pseudospins.

409: %

410: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

411: \subsection{Spin Hamiltonian}\label{Hxy}

412: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

413: %

414: The standard Jordan-Wigner transformation\cite{Lieb61,Chak96} (JWT) when applied

415: independently to one-dimensional spin operators on a given ladder, results in

416: fermionic operators which commute on different ladders (see, e.g.,

417: Ref.[\onlinecite{Tsvelik95}]). Strictly speaking this does not cause

418: problems for our choice of Hamiltonian (\ref{Hamdls}), since its spin

419: part does not couple different ladders. However we find this situation

420: with the 1D JWT somehow unpleasant, especially keeping in mind possible

421: generalizations of the present Hamiltonian for future work. There are

422: generalizations of the JWT for $d>1$ available in the literature (see, e.g.,

423: Ref.[\onlinecite{GenJW,Azz93}]).

424: 

425: 

426: We will employ a version of the 2D JWT proposed by Azzouz\cite{Azz93},

427: particularly convenient for our model. We also include to

428: the spin Hamiltonian a term generated by the uniform external magnetic

429: field

430: \begin{equation}

431: \label{Hext}

432: \mathcal H_{\textrm ext} = \sum_{m,n} h_{M} S^z_{mn}

433: \end{equation}

434: The transformation is given by the following

435: equations:\cite{Azz93}

436: \begin{subequations}

437: \label{2DJW}

438: \begin{eqnarray}

439: S_{mn}^-  &=& \textrm{exp} \big(

440: -i \pi \sum_{k,l \in \mathfrak A_{mn}} n_{kl}

441: \big) c_{mn} \\

442: S_{mn}^+  &=& c_{mn}^\dagger

443: \textrm{exp} \big(

444:  i \pi \sum_{k,l \in \mathfrak A_{mn}} n_{kl}

445: \big)

446: \end{eqnarray}

447: \end{subequations}

448: where $n_{mn}=c_{mn}^\dagger c_{mn}$ is the fermionic number operator,

449: and the above summations include all rungs and ladders lying on the left

450: from the $m$-th ladder plus rungs lying below $n$-th rung at the $m$-th

451: ladder, i.e.,

452: \begin{equation}

453: \label{Amn}

454: k,l \in \mathfrak A_{mn} \Leftrightarrow

455: \{1 \leq k \leq m-1, 1 \leq l  \leq \mathcal N \} \cup

456: \{ k= m, 1 \leq l \leq n-1 \}

457: \end{equation}

458: The fermionic operators satisfy the canonical anticommutation relations

459: \begin{subequations}

460: \label{anticom}

461: \begin{eqnarray}

462: \{c_{mn}^\dagger, c_{kl} \} &=&\delta_{mk} \delta_{nl} \\

463: \{c_{mn}, c_{kl}         \} &=& 0

464: \end{eqnarray}

465: \end{subequations}

466: and

467: \begin{eqnarray}

468: \label{XYmap}

469: D_{mn}^{\textsc XY} &=& \frac12 (

470: c_{mn}^\dagger c_{m,n+1}+ c_{m,n+1}^\dagger c_{mn} ) \\

471: \label{Zmap}

472: S_{mn}^z &=& c_{mn}^\dagger c_{mn}- \frac12

473: \end{eqnarray}

474: For the effective coupling $J^{\textrm{eff}}_{mn}$ determined by the mean-field

475: values of the pseudospin operators we take a dimerized ansatz, so

476: \begin{equation}

477: \label{HxyMF}

478: \mathcal H_{\textrm{XY}}^{\textrm{MF}}=

479: \sum_{m,n} J^{\textrm{eff}}_{mn} D_{mn}^{\textsc XY}~, \quad

480: J^{\textrm{eff}}_{mn}= A_m+(-1)^nB_m

481: \end{equation}

482: Applying then the JWT defined above and a Bogolyubov

483: transformation,\cite{Lieb61} we obtain

484: \begin{equation}

485: \label{Hs}

486: \mathcal H_{\textrm{S}} \equiv

487: \mathcal H_{\textrm{XY}}^{\textrm{MF}} +\mathcal H_{\textrm ext}

488: =- \frac12 \mathcal{MN} h_{M} +\sum_{m,q,\nu} E_{m \nu}(q)

489: d_{mq \nu}^\dagger d_{mq \nu}

490: \end{equation}

491: where the new fermionic operators $d_{mq \nu}$ also satisfy the canonical

492: anticommutation relations, and their spectrum is

493: \begin{equation}

494: \label{E}

495: E_{m \nu}(q)=h_{M}+\nu \sqrt{ A_m^2 \cos^2qa+ B_m^2 \sin^2qa}

496: \end{equation}

497: The extra index $\nu = \pm 1$ is due to dimerization, i.e.,

498: doubling of fermion species, summation over $q$ includes the

499: reduced Brillouin zone $[-\frac{\pi}{2a},\frac{\pi}{2a}]$,

500: and $a$ is the distance between rungs (we will set $a=1$ in

501: the following). For more details, see, e.g.,

502: Refs.[\onlinecite{Heeger88,Holi01}]. The operator of the

503: total $z$-component of spin per rung reads

504: \begin{equation}

505: \label{sz}

506: s_z \equiv \frac{1}{\mathcal{MN}}\sum_{m,n}S_{mn}^z=

507: - \frac12 +

508: \frac{1}{\mathcal{MN}} \sum_{m,q,\nu} d_{mq \nu}^\dagger d_{mq \nu}

509: \end{equation}

510: The spin contribution to

511: the free energy per

512: rung from the Hamiltonian $\mathcal H_{\textrm{S}}$ (\ref{Hs})

513: [cf. Eqs.(\ref{rhoS})] is

514: \begin{eqnarray}

515: \label{fs}

516: f_{\textrm{S}} &\equiv&  - \frac{1}{\beta \mathcal{MN}}

517: \ln Z_{\textrm{S}} \\ \nonumber

518:  &=& - \frac{\ln 2}{\beta}- \frac{1}{\pi \beta \mathcal M}

519: \sum_{m,\nu} \int_0^{\frac{\pi}{2}}

520: dq \ln \cosh \frac{\beta E_{m \nu}(q)}{2}

521: \end{eqnarray}

522: %

523: %

524: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

525: \section{Mean-Field Equations }\label{MF}

526: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

527: The molecular fields are defined from the condition that they

528: minimize the mean-field free

529: energy $\mathcal F =\langle \mathcal H \rangle+

530: T \langle \ln \rho \rangle$.

531: The angular brackets stand for

532: averaging with the mean-field density matrix (\ref{STsep}), and the

533: Hamiltonian $\mathcal H$ is given by Eq.(\ref{Hamdls}). We consider

534: the case when the external magnetic field $h_M$ is absent. (Note

535: that contrary to $f_{\textrm{S}}$ (\ref{fs}), the quantity

536: $f_{\mathcal T}$ defined in the same fashion via $Z^{\mathcal T}$ (\ref{Zmn})

537: is not the pseudospin free energy).

538: 

539: We take the following ansatze for the Ising pseudospin magnetizations

540: (i.e., the charge ordering parameters in terms of the real physical

541: quantities)

542: \begin{eqnarray}

543: \label{mz}

544: \langle \mathcal T_{mn}^z \rangle &=& m_z \\

545: \label{mx}

546: \langle \mathcal T_{mn}^x \rangle &=&(-1)^{m+n}m_x

547: \end{eqnarray}

548: So, similar to the case of the IMTF ($g>0$) we assume the possibility

549: of the anti-ferroelectric (AFE) in-ladder charge ordering (i.e., the

550: zigzag ordering\cite{Most98}), alternating however from ladder to ladder.

551: It is easy to see from the Hamiltonian (\ref{Hamdls}) that ansatz

552: (\ref{mx}) creates a dimerization in the spin sector, so a natural

553: assumption for the dimerization operator average is

554: \begin{equation}

555: \label{Dmn}

556: \langle D_{mn} \rangle =-[t+(-1)^{m+n} \delta]

557: \end{equation}

558: Then the average mean-field energy per rung in the thermodynamic limit

559: $\mathcal{MN} \to \infty$ is

560: \begin{equation}

561: \label{Emf}

562: {\mathcal E}_{\textrm{MF}}

563:  \equiv \frac{\langle \mathcal H \rangle}{\mathcal{MN}}=

564: -m_z-\frac12 g m_x^2

565: -\big( Jt+\lambda t m_z^2+2 \varepsilon \delta m_x \big)

566: \end{equation}

567: The molecular Weiss fields $h_{mn}^z=-h_z$; $h_{mn}^x=(-1)^{m+n+1}h_x$;

568: $J^{\textrm{eff}}_{mn}=a+(-1)^{m+n}b$ are defined by the following

569: equations:

570: \begin{subequations}

571: \label{MolF}

572: \begin{eqnarray}

573: h_z &=&- \frac{\partial \mathcal E_{\textrm{MF}}}{\partial m_z}

574: = 1+ 2\lambda t m_z \\

575: h_x &=&- \frac{\partial \mathcal E_{\textrm{MF}}}{\partial m_x}=

576: g m_x+ 2\varepsilon \delta \\

577: a   &=&- \frac{\partial \mathcal E_{\textrm{MF}}}{\partial t}=

578:  J+\lambda m_z^2 \\

579: b   &=&- \frac{\partial \mathcal E_{\textrm{MF}}}{\partial \delta}=

580: 2 \varepsilon m_x

581: \end{eqnarray}

582: \end{subequations}

583: The order parameters (\ref{mz},\ref{mx},\ref{Dmn}) obtained as

584: partial derivatives of the corresponding quantities

585: $f_S,f_{\mathcal T}$ with

586: respect to their conjugate Weiss fields (\ref{MolF}), should

587: be determined from the system of four coupled equations

588: \begin{subequations}

589: \label{EqMF}

590: \begin{eqnarray}

591: m_z

592: &=&\frac12

593: \frac{1+2\lambda t m_z}{\mathfrak h} \tanh\frac{\beta \mathfrak h}{2} \\

594: m_x

595: &=&\frac{m_x}{2}

596: \frac{g+2\varepsilon \eta}{\mathfrak h} \tanh\frac{\beta \mathfrak h}{2} \\

597: t &=& \frac{1}{\pi} \int_0^{\frac{\pi}{2}}

598: d \varphi \frac{\cos^2 \varphi}{\xi(\varphi)}

599: \tanh  \tilde \beta \xi(\varphi)

600: \equiv \frac{1}{\pi}t_n(\Delta, \tilde \beta) \\

601: \eta &=& \frac{\Delta}{\pi m_x} \int_0^{\frac{\pi}{2}}

602: d \varphi \frac{\sin^2 \varphi}{\xi(\varphi)}

603: \tanh \tilde \beta \xi(\varphi)

604: \equiv \frac{\Delta}{\pi m_x} \eta_n(\Delta, \tilde \beta)

605: \end{eqnarray}

606: \end{subequations}

607: where $\mathfrak h =\sqrt{h_x^2+h_z^2}$ is the absolute value of the Ising

608: molecular field, and instead of $\delta$ we use the new parameter $\eta$

609: \begin{equation}

610: \label{eta}

611: \delta \equiv m_x \eta

612: \end{equation}

613: We also introduced the auxiliary parameters

614: \begin{subequations}

615: \label{Param}

616: \begin{eqnarray}

617: \xi(\varphi) &\equiv& \sqrt{ \cos^2 \varphi+\Delta^2 \sin^2 \varphi  } \\

618: \Delta       &\equiv& \frac{2 \varepsilon m_x}{J+\lambda m_z^2} \\

619: \tilde \beta   &\equiv& \frac{\beta}{2}(J+\lambda m_z^2)

620: \end{eqnarray}

621: \end{subequations}

622: The following useful relationship holds at any temperature

623: \begin{equation}

624: \label{mabs}

625: m_x^2+m_z^2=\frac14 \tanh^2 \frac{\beta \mathfrak h}{2}

626: \end{equation}

627: 

628: Alternatively, the mean-field equations (\ref{EqMF}) can be derived from

629: the free energy (per rung, $h_M=0$)

630: \begin{eqnarray}

631: \label{FE}

632: f &=& 2 \lambda t m_z^2 +\frac12 g m_x^2+

633: 2\varepsilon \delta m_x -T\ln4\\ \nonumber

634:   &-& T \Big(

635: \ln \cosh\frac{\beta \mathfrak h}{2}

636: +\frac{2}{\pi} \int_0^{\frac{\pi}{2}}

637: d \varphi \ln \cosh \tilde \beta \xi(\varphi) \Big)~,

638: \end{eqnarray}

639: understood as $f(m_z,m_x,t,\delta)$, by minimization

640: over its variables. [$ \mathfrak h$ is

641: defined according to Eqs.(\ref{MolF}).] Thus, $f$ plays a role of the Landau

642: functional, defining parameters $m_z,m_x,t,\delta$.

643: 

644: 

645: Before presenting the analysis of Eqs.(\ref{EqMF}), let us describe

646: their main properties more qualitatively. The system of these four

647: coupled equations determines four unknown mean-field parameters

648: $m_z, m_x, t, \eta~(\delta)$ as functions of the effective Hamiltonian

649: couplings and temperature. The first couple of Eqs.(\ref{EqMF})

650: in the case $\lambda=\varepsilon=0$ is familiar from the mean-field

651: treatment of the pure IMTF (see, e.g, Ref.[\onlinecite{Blinc74}]),

652: and has some similar properties with the pure case even for non-zero

653: $\lambda$ and $\varepsilon$.

654: There is always a non-trivial solution  $0 < m_z \leq \frac12$ for

655: the field-induced magnetization

656: (the lower bound value $m_z=0$ is attained in the limit $g \to \infty$).

657: Below certain critical temperature $T_c$  a non-trivial

658: solution $m_x \neq 0$ appears. $m_z$ varies continuously across $T_c$,

659: contrary to the case of the IMTF ($\lambda=\varepsilon=0$) when it stays

660: constant ($=1/g$) for all $T <T_c$. Non-zero $m_x$ results in generation of

661: the alternating term $b$ in the exchange interaction

662: $J^{\textrm{eff}}_{mn}$ and the non-zero dimerization parameter $\delta$.

663: Consequence of $b \neq 0$ is a spin gap.

664: Note that in the disordered phase ($m_x=0$),

665: Eq.(\ref{EqMF}d) is an empty statement at $T \neq 0$, since  $\delta =0$

666: as well. The parameter $t$ is non-critical: it is some continuous

667: non-negative function.

668: 

669: At $T \leq T_c$ one equation from the pair (\ref{EqMF}a,b) can be written

670: in the form

671: \begin{equation}

672: \label{mzbe}

673: m_z^{-1} = g+ \frac{4 \varepsilon^2}{\pi(J+\lambda m_z^2)} \eta_n

674:  -\frac{2\lambda }{\pi} t_n , ~~T \leq T_c

675: \end{equation}

676: more convenient for further analyses.

677: %

678: %

679: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

680: \section{Critical Temperature}\label{Tcr}

681: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

682: %

683: %

684: At $T=T_c$ we have Eqs.(\ref{EqMF}a) as

685: \begin{equation}

686: \label{mzTc}

687: m_z = \frac12 \tanh\frac{\beta_c }{2}

688: \big(1+\frac{2\lambda m_z}{\pi}t_n \big)~,

689: \end{equation}

690: another equation for $m_z$ (\ref{mzbe}), and

691: parameters $t_n,\eta_n$ are given by Eqs.(\ref{EqMF}c,d) with $\Delta=0$.

692: The latter two functions have the following expansions:

693: \begin{equation}

694: \label{tnas}

695: t_n(0,x) \approx  \left\{

696:                 \begin{array}{ll}

697:  \frac{\pi}{4} x(1-\frac14 x^2) + \mathcal O (x^5 ) , & x <1\\

698:   1-\frac{\pi^2}{24} \frac{1}{x^2}, & x >1

699:                 \end{array}

700:        \right.

701: \end{equation}

702: and

703: \begin{equation}

704: \label{etanas}

705: \eta_n(0,x) \approx \left\{

706:                 \begin{array}{ll}

707:   \frac{\pi}{4} x(1-\frac{1}{12}x^2) + \mathcal O(x^5 ) , & x <1 \\

708:  \ln \mathbb A x+ \mathcal O(\frac{1}{x^2}), & x >1

709:                 \end{array}

710:        \right.

711: \end{equation}

712: where $\mathbb A \equiv\frac{8}{\pi \textrm{e}^{1- \gamma}} \approx 1.6685$,

713: and\ $\gamma \approx 0.5772$ is Euler's constant.

714: %

715: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

716: \subsection{Case $\varepsilon=0$: re-entrance}\label{eps0}

717: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

718: %

719: In order to better understand the model, let us start with the analysis of the

720: mean-field equations for the case when the dimerization coupling

721: is absent, i.e, $\varepsilon=0$. Then from Eqs.(\ref{mzbe},\ref{mzTc}) we

722: find the critical temperature $T_c \equiv 1/\beta_c$

723: \begin{equation}

724: \label{Tceps0}

725: T_c=\frac{m_zg}{\ln \frac{1+2m_z}{1-2m_z}}

726: \end{equation}

727: where $m_z$ is the solution of the following equation

728: \begin{equation}

729: \label{mzeps0}

730: m_z^{-1}=g-\frac{2 \lambda}{\pi}

731: t_n \bigg(0, \frac{J+\lambda m_z^2}{2m_zg}\ln \frac{1+2m_z}{1-2m_z}

732:   \bigg).

733: \end{equation}

734: It can be shown from Eqs.(\ref{mzbe},\ref{mzTc},\ref{tnas}) that

735: for large Ising coupling $g\gg g_{\lambda}$ where

736: \begin{equation}

737: \label{glam}

738: g_{\lambda} \equiv 2 \Big(1+ \frac{\lambda}{\pi} \Big),

739: \end{equation}

740: the critical temperature $ T_c \approx g/4$ is large , while

741: $m_z \approx 1/g$ is small. So, the behavior of these parameters is the

742: same as in the pure IMTF.\cite{Blinc74}

743: It can also be shown that at $g=g_{\lambda}$ the critical temperature

744: $T_c$ becomes zero ($m_z=\frac12$). Thus $g_{\lambda}$ plays a role of the

745: renormalized (due to the coupling $\lambda$) mean-field critical point

746: $g^*=g_{\lambda}(\lambda=0)=2$ of the pure IMTF, where $T_c$ vanishes

747: and no ordering in

748: $m_x$ occurs for $g <g^*$.\cite{Blinc74} (The mean-field $g^*$

749: is two times less than the value known for the exactly

750: solvable 1D IMTF. For 2D and 3D IMTF the values of $g^*$ are known only

751: from approximations and/or numerics, but they are bigger

752: then the mean-field predictions.\cite{Chak96})

753: 

754: 

755: 

756: However, the role of $\lambda$ is more subtle than a simple

757: shift in the parameters comparatively to the pure IMTF.

758: The critical line $T_c(g)$ manifests re-entrant behavior in

759: the region $g \alt g_{\lambda}$ or, to state it differently,

760: the function $g(T_c)$ is non-monotonic, contrary to the case

761: $\lambda =0$. (See Fig.\ \ref{TcFig}). Also, $T_c(g_{\lambda})=0$

762: does not mean that  $g_{\lambda}$ is the minimal coupling

763: $g_{\textrm{min}}$ at which $m_x$-ordering can occur.

764: How pronounced the re-entrance is, i.e., the width

765: of the re-entrance region

766: \begin{equation}

767: \label{reentr}

768: g_{\textrm{min}} <g<g_{\lambda},

769: \end{equation}

770: depends

771: on the relative values of model's couplings $J,\lambda, g$. A

772: more detailed analysis of the re-entrance in

773: this model will be presented in a separate paper.\cite{CGlet03}

774: At this time, we say that any value of the coupling $\lambda \neq 0$

775: always generates the re-entrance on the phase diagram $g(T_c)$,

776: i.e., $g_{\textrm{min}} \to g_{\lambda} \to 2$ only when

777: $\lambda \to 0$.

778: Characteristic results of

779: the numerical solution of our equations are given in Fig.\ \ref{TcFig}.

780: At $J \ll \lambda$ this feature is pronounced most [the

781: case $J=0, \lambda=1$ shown in this figure], while at $J \sim \lambda$

782: it is more smeared [see the curve at $J=\lambda=1$].

783: Notice that when $g \to g_{\lambda}$,  the curve $T_c(g)$ approaches zero

784: normally to the $g$-axis.

785: 

786: 

787: More qualitatively, the origin of the re-entrance

788: can be understood from the free energy (\ref{FE}) which is

789: minimized by our mean-filed equations.

790: First two terms on the r.h.s. of Eq.(\ref{FE}) augment the

791: free energy $f$ with the increase of $m_z$ and/or $m_x$, while

792: at the same time the last two terms on the r.h.s. of that equation,

793: explicitly proportional to the temperature, decrease $f$ via

794: the parameters $\mathfrak h, \tilde \beta, \Delta$. The interplay

795: of this contributions to $f$ involves, apart of the temperature,

796: the couplings $g, J, \lambda$. The latter possess a range

797: [the re-entrance region (\ref{reentr})] wherein the minimal free

798: energy is achieved by re-distribution of the values of

799: $m_z(T)$ and $m_x(T)$. In particular, within this region, upon say,

800: decreasing $T$, the system goes smoothly from the disordered phase

801: $m_x(T)=0$ to the ordered one $m_x(T) \neq 0$, and back to

802: $m_x(T)=0$. Note also from Eq.(\ref{mzTc}), that $\lambda$ creates a

803: self-consistent renormalization of the external field [$\Omega$,

804: in terms of the dimensionful Hamiltonian (\ref{Ham})], resulting

805: in, particularly,  the temperature dependence of $m_z$ in the ordered

806: phase. (Compare to the pure IMTF where at $T<T_c$ it is frozen

807: at $m_z=1/g$). According to Eq.(\ref{tnas}) the effective external field

808: $1+2 \lambda t_n m_z/ \pi$ grows at low temperature,

809: bringing $m_z$ closer to its maximal value $1/2$ and in the same time,

810: forcing $m_x$ to decrease [cf. Eq.(\ref{mabs})]. This is another

811: argument in the way to qualitatively explain why the system can re-enter

812: the disordered phase upon decreasing the temperature. However, we should

813: point out that these results and arguments are based on the mean-field

814: analysis, so whether or not the re-entrance survives a more sophisticated

815: treatment of the model, is not clear at this time.

816: %

817: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

818: \subsection{Case $\varepsilon \neq 0$: double re-entrance}\label{epsnon0}

819: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

820: %

821: An important qualitative change in the critical behavior of the model

822: occurs upon switching on the dimerization coupling $\varepsilon$.

823: At any $\varepsilon \neq 0$ the critical temperature is never zero,

824: even if $g \ll g_{\lambda}$.

825: Let us note first that when $\{ \Delta, T \} \to 0$ then

826: $\eta_n \sim -\ln (\textrm{min}\{\Delta,T \})$ is divergent, so this limit

827: should be treated with care. When $g \gg g_{\lambda}$ [cf. also conditions

828: (\ref{parange})] the behavior of the critical temperature and magnetization

829: $m_z$ is the same as in the case $\varepsilon =0$.

830: Upon decreasing $g$, the critical temperature $T_c$ decreases,

831: and according to Eq.(\ref{mzTc})

832: $m_z \approx \frac12$, while from Eqs.(\ref{mzbe},\ref{tnas},\ref{etanas})

833: $m_z^{-1} \approx c_1 -c_2 \cdot\ln T_c$, where $c_1,c_2$ are some constants.

834: From the consistency of those equations we conclude that for any finite

835: $\varepsilon$ the critical temperature never vanishes. To put it

836: differently, coupling $\varepsilon$ destroys the quantum critical

837: point of the IMTF. This constitutes a very important feedback effect of the

838: spin chains on the charge degrees of freedom.

839: 

840: Characteristic numerical results for $T_c(g)$ are shown in Fig.\ \ref{TcFig}.

841: Similar to the case $\varepsilon =0$, the critical temperature shows the

842: re-entrance in the region $g \alt g_{\lambda}$. Moreover, instead of going to

843: zero at $g = g_{\lambda}$ as for $\varepsilon =0$, the curve $T_c(g)$ turns

844: left, and $T_c$ remains finite even at $g=0$, albeit exponentially small in

845: $\varepsilon$. For the two curves discussed above in the case

846: $\varepsilon =0$, we show in Fig.\ \ref{TcFig} their counterparts at

847: $\varepsilon =0.1$. As one can see from the whole curve $T_c(g)$, at

848: bigger values of $\lambda$ the system manifests a well-pronounced

849: double re-entrance.

850: 

851: It follows from Eqs(\ref{mzbe},\ref{mzTc},\ref{tnas},\ref{etanas}) that

852: the left turn of the critical temperature and its failure to vanish

853: at $g=g_{\lambda}$ can be analytically

854: described as a BCS-type solution for $T_c(g)$, generated by finite

855: $\varepsilon$.

856: Approximate solutions for $T_c(g)$ found in two regions of $g$

857: are

858: \begin{equation}

859: \label{Tcas}

860:  T_c \approx  \left\{

861:                 \begin{array}{ll}

862:   \frac{g}{4}, & g \gg g_{\lambda} \\[0.2cm]

863:  \frac{\mathbb A \tilde J }{2} \textrm{exp}

864:  \big[- \frac{\pi \tilde J}{4 \varepsilon^2}(g_{\lambda}-g) \big]

865:   , &\textrm{BCS regime}

866:                 \end{array}

867:        \right.

868: \end{equation}

869: where

870: \begin{equation}

871: \label{Jbar}

872: \tilde J \equiv J +\frac{\lambda}{4}

873: \end{equation}

874: The boundary where the low-temperature BCS regime sets in and the related

875: formulas are applicable, is given by the condition

876: \begin{equation}

877: \label{BCScond}

878: \textrm{BCS regime}:~

879: g < g_{\lambda} +\frac{4 \varepsilon^2}{\pi \tilde J}

880: \end{equation}

881: The field-induced magnetization $m_z$ in these regions is

882: \begin{equation}

883: \label{mzas}

884:  m_z \approx  \left\{

885:                 \begin{array}{ll}

886:   \frac{1}{g}, & g \gg g_{\lambda} \\[0.2cm]

887:   \frac12 , & \textrm{BCS regime}

888:                 \end{array}

889:        \right.

890: \end{equation}

891: %

892: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

893: \subsection{Case $\varepsilon \neq 0$, $\lambda=0$: no

894: re-entrance}\label{epsnon0lambda0}

895: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

896: %

897: The analytical treatment in the intermediate regime when

898: $g \sim g_{\lambda}$ is involved due to re-entrance. The

899: situation simplifies when $\lambda =0$ and the re-entrance is absent

900: (see the curve for $J=1,\lambda=0, \varepsilon=0.1$ in Fig.\ \ref{TcFig}).

901: Then both the intermediate $g \agt g^*$ ($g^*=2$) and

902: the BCS regimes are well described by the approximate

903: equation

904: \begin{equation}

905: \label{eqapr}

906: g-g^* +\frac{4\varepsilon^2}{\pi J} \ln \frac{\mathbb A J}{2 T_c}

907: =4 e^{-1/T_c}

908: \end{equation}

909: In particular, at the IMTF quantum critical point

910: on finds that it is destroyed by

911: the inter-ladder dimerization coupling $\varepsilon$, resulting in

912: \begin{equation}

913: \label{TcCP}

914: T_c \approx \ln ^{-1} \Big(\frac{\pi J}{\varepsilon^2} \Big),~g=g^*

915: \end{equation}

916: So when the re-entrance is absent, upon decreasing $g$ the critical

917: temperature $T_c$ monotonically decreases from the IMTF linear regime

918: $T_c \propto g$ via the logarithmic dependence (\ref{TcCP}) towards

919: the exponential BCS regime (\ref{Tcas}). It is

920: interesting to note that a similar inverse-log dependence

921: of the transition temperature near quantum criticality has been found

922: in a recent molecular-field study of $\rm Cu_2Te_2O_5Br_2$,

923: a spin-system containing coupled spin-tetrahedra \cite{Gros03}.

924: %

925: %

926: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

927: \section{Properties of the AFE Phase}\label{AFE}

928: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

929: %

930: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

931: \subsection{AFE order parameter}\label{OrdPar}

932: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

933: %

934: In the ordered phase we can derive from Eqs.(\ref{MolF},\ref{EqMF},\ref{mabs})

935: the following equation

936: \begin{equation}

937: \label{EqSt}

938: \frac12 \frac{1}{\sqrt{m_x^2+m_z^2}}

939: \tanh \Big( \frac{\beta g_{\varepsilon}}{2}\sqrt{m_x^2+m_z^2} \Big)

940: =1

941: \end{equation}

942: where

943: \begin{equation}

944: \label{geps}

945: g_{\varepsilon} \equiv

946: g+ \frac{4 \varepsilon^2}{\pi(J+\lambda m_z^2)} \eta_n

947: \end{equation}

948: To determine the temperature behavior of the AFE order parameter $m_x$

949: in the immediate vicinity of the critical temperature where

950: \begin{equation}

951: \label{tau}

952:  \tau \equiv  \frac{T_c-T}{T_c} \ll 1~,

953: \end{equation}

954: we need to expand Eq.(\ref{EqSt}) near $T_c$, taking into account that all

955: parameters $m_x,m_z,g_{\varepsilon}$ entering this equation are

956: temperature-dependent and related via the mean-field equations.

957: 

958: It can be shown that to leading order

959: \begin{eqnarray}

960: \label{tnEx}

961: t_n(\Delta, \tilde \beta) &\approx& t_n(0, \tilde \beta)

962: +\Delta^2 \dot{t}_{n,\Delta^2} \\

963: \label{etanEx}

964: \eta_n(\Delta, \tilde \beta) &\approx& \eta_n(0, \tilde \beta)

965: +\Delta^2 \dot{\eta}_{n,\Delta^2}

966: \end{eqnarray}

967: with the partial derivatives given by the following equations

968: \begin{eqnarray}

969: \label{tnD}

970: \dot{t}_{n,\Delta^2} &=&

971: \frac{\partial t_n(\Delta,\tilde \beta)}{\partial \Delta^2}

972: \Big \vert_{\Delta=0}=-\Big[ a(\tilde \beta)-t_n(0, \tilde \beta)

973: \Big]\\

974: \label{etanD}

975: \dot{\eta}_{n,\Delta^2} &=&

976: \frac{\partial \eta_n(\Delta,\tilde \beta)}{\partial \Delta^2}

977: \Big \vert_{\Delta=0}=-\Big[ \frac12 a(\tilde \beta)+

978: \frac14 b(\tilde \beta) -\eta_n(0, \tilde \beta) \Big]

979: \end{eqnarray}

980: and

981: \begin{subequations}

982: \label{ab}

983: \begin{eqnarray}

984: a(\beta) &\equiv& \frac12 \int_0^1 \frac{\beta dz}{\cosh^2 \beta z}

985: \ln \frac{1+\sqrt{1-z^2}}{z} \\

986: b(\beta) &\equiv& \int_0^1 \frac{\beta dz}{\cosh^2 \beta z}

987: \bigg[ \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-z^2}}+2\beta\sqrt{1-z^2} \frac{\tanh\beta z}{z}

988: \bigg]

989: \end{eqnarray}

990: \end{subequations}

991: Using the above equations in the leading-order expansion of

992: Eqs.(\ref{mzbe},\ref{EqSt}) near $T_c$, we can show that

993: \begin{equation}

994: \label{SecOrd}

995:  m_x^2 \propto \tau

996: \end{equation}

997: along the whole line of the critical temperature depicted in Fig.\ \ref{TcFig},

998: i.e., $T_c$ defines a second-order phase transition, and the order parameter

999: has the mean-field critical index $1/2$. In general, the coefficient of

1000: proportionality in the above relationship has to be defined numerically.

1001: For the regimes of strong Ising coupling and BCS, the

1002: order parameter can be calculated analytically.

1003: 

1004: For the functions defined by Eqs.(\ref{ab}) the following expansions are

1005: obtained:

1006: \begin{equation}

1007: \label{aas}

1008: a(x) \approx  \left\{

1009:                 \begin{array}{ll}

1010:  \frac{\pi}{4} x(1-\frac16 x^2) + \mathcal O (x^5 ) , & x <1\\[0.2cm]

1011:   \frac12 \ln \mathbb A e x +  \mathcal O (\frac{1}{x^2}), & x >1

1012:                 \end{array}

1013:        \right.

1014: \end{equation}

1015: and

1016: \begin{equation}

1017: \label{bas}

1018: b(x) \approx \left\{

1019:                 \begin{array}{ll}

1020:   \frac{\pi}{2} x(1+\frac12 x^2) + \mathcal O(x^5 ) , & x <1 \\[0.2cm]

1021:   \frac12 +\frac{14 \zeta(3)}{\pi^2}x^2 +

1022:   \mathcal O(\frac{1}{x^2}), & x >1

1023:                 \end{array}

1024:        \right.

1025: \end{equation}

1026: where $\mathbb A$ is defined below Eq.(\ref{etanas}), $e$ is the exponential

1027: constant and $\zeta(x)$ - Riemann's

1028: zeta-function. Combining these asymptotics with those given by

1029: Eqs.(\ref{tnas},\ref{etanas}), we find

1030: \begin{equation}

1031: \label{mxExpas}

1032:  m_x^2 \approx  \left\{

1033:                 \begin{array}{ll}

1034:  \frac{g^2-4}{2g^2} \tau

1035:   , & g \gg g_{\lambda} \\[0.2cm]

1036:  \frac{2 \pi^2}{7 \zeta(3)} \frac{T_c^2}{\varepsilon^2} \tau

1037:   , &~\textrm{BCS regime}

1038:                 \end{array}

1039:        \right.

1040: \end{equation}

1041: Notice that $m_z$ is continuous across $T_c$, however as follows from

1042: Eqs.(\ref{mzbe},\ref{tnEx},\ref{etanEx}) in the AFE phase

1043: $m_z(T,m_x)=m_z(T,0)+\mathcal O(m_x^2)$, so its

1044: derivative with respect to  temperature has a finite

1045: discontinuity at $T_c$.

1046: %

1047: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1048: \subsection{$T=0$}\label{T0}

1049: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1050: %

1051: At zero temperature the parameters $t_n$ and $\eta_n$ are given in terms of the

1052: complete elliptic integral of the first and second kind, such that

1053: \begin{eqnarray}

1054: \label{tn0}

1055: t_n &=& \frac{E(1-\Delta^2)-\Delta^2K(1-\Delta^2)}{1-\Delta^2}       \\

1056: \label{etan0}

1057: \eta_n &=& \frac{K(1-\Delta^2)-E(1-\Delta^2)}{1-\Delta^2}

1058: \end{eqnarray}

1059: According to Eq.(\ref{mabs}) at $T=0$: $m_x^2+m_z^2=\frac14$, so we can

1060: establish the range within which $\Delta$ can lie [cf. Eq.(\ref{Param}b)]

1061: \begin{equation}

1062: \label{DeltaRange}

1063: 0 \leq m_x \leq \frac12 \quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad

1064: 0 \leq \Delta \leq \frac{\varepsilon}{J} \ll 1

1065: \end{equation}

1066: where the last strong inequality is just the condition for Hamiltonian's

1067: couplings we are implying from physical grounds. Note that

1068: $\Delta_{\textrm{max}} \equiv \varepsilon / J $

1069: is the absolute maximum $\Delta$ can reach.

1070: Then we can safely make

1071: expansions up to terms $\mathcal O (\Delta^2 \ln \Delta)$

1072: \begin{eqnarray}

1073: \label{tn0as}

1074: t_n &\approx& 1          \\

1075: \label{etan0as}

1076: \eta_n &\approx& \ln \frac{4}{e \Delta}

1077: \end{eqnarray}

1078: which can be used in Eq.(\ref{mzbe}) for any $g$.

1079: At large Ising couplings $g \gg g_{\lambda}$, $m_z$ is small, while

1080: $m_x$ is close to its maximal value ($\Delta \approx 2 \varepsilon m_x/J$):

1081: \begin{eqnarray}

1082: \label{mz0P}

1083: m_z^{-1}  &\approx& g- \frac{2\lambda}{\pi} +\frac{4\varepsilon^2}{\pi J}

1084: \ln \frac{4J}{e \varepsilon}          \\

1085: \label{mx0P}

1086: m_x &\approx& \frac12 -m_z^2

1087: \end{eqnarray}

1088: For smaller couplings $g \leq g_{\lambda}$ the order parameter $m_x$ is small

1089: ($\Delta \approx \frac{2 \varepsilon m_x}{\tilde J}$):

1090: \begin{equation}

1091: \label{mx0asy}

1092:  m_x \approx  \left\{

1093:                 \begin{array}{ll}

1094:  \frac{\varepsilon}{  \sqrt{2 \pi \tilde J} }

1095: \ln ^{\frac12} \Big(\frac{8 \pi \tilde J^3 }{e^2 \varepsilon^4 }

1096:  \Big),

1097:  & g = g_{\lambda} \\[0.3cm]

1098:  \frac{2 \tilde J}{ e \varepsilon} \textrm{exp}

1099:  \big[- \frac{\pi \tilde J}{4 \varepsilon^2}(g_{\lambda}-g) \big]

1100:   , &\textrm{BCS regime}

1101:                 \end{array}

1102:        \right.

1103: \end{equation}

1104: while

1105: \begin{equation}

1106: \label{mz0asy}

1107: m_z \approx \frac12 -m_x^2

1108: \end{equation}

1109: is close to its maximal value. The dimerization parameter $\delta$

1110: to leading order reads

1111: \begin{equation}

1112: \label{delta0asy}

1113:  \delta \approx  \left\{

1114:                 \begin{array}{ll}

1115: \big( \frac12 -\frac{1}{g^2} \big) \ln \frac{4J}{e \varepsilon},

1116: & g \gg g_{\lambda} \\[0.3cm]

1117: \frac{\varepsilon}{\sqrt{2 \pi \tilde J} }

1118: 

1119: \ln ^{\frac32} \Big(\frac{8 \pi \tilde J^3 }{e^2 \varepsilon^4 }

1120:  \Big),

1121:  & g = g_{\lambda} \\[0.3cm]

1122: \frac{\pi \tilde J^2  (g_{\lambda}-g)  }{2 e \varepsilon^3} \textrm{exp}

1123:  \big[- \frac{\pi \tilde J }{4 \varepsilon^2}(g_{\lambda}-g) \big]

1124:   , &\textrm{BCS regime}

1125:                 \end{array}

1126:        \right.

1127: \end{equation}

1128: %

1129: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1130: \subsection{Spin susceptibility}\label{chiSpin}

1131: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1132: %

1133: The zero-field spin susceptibility per rung (i.e., per spin)

1134: is given by

1135: \begin{equation}

1136: \label{chiS}

1137: \chi_s \equiv -\frac{\partial \langle s_z \rangle}{ \partial h_M}

1138: \Big \vert_{h_M=0}

1139: =-\frac{\partial^2 f_{\textrm{S}} }{ \partial h_M^2}

1140: \Big \vert_{h_M=0} =

1141: \frac{\beta}{2 \pi} \int_0^{\frac{\pi}{2}}

1142: \frac{d \varphi}{\cosh^2 \tilde \beta \xi(\varphi) }

1143: \end{equation}

1144: Its temperature dependence is similar to that of the dimerized

1145: Heisenberg or $XY$ spin chains.\cite{Bulaev63,Holi01}.

1146: In the ordered AFE phase it shows the spin-gap behavior. At low

1147: temperatures the asymptotics of the integral (\ref{chiS})

1148: is given by the following expression

1149: \begin{equation}

1150: \label{chiSas}

1151: \chi_s = \frac{1}{J+\lambda m_z^2} \Big(

1152: \frac{2 \Delta_{\textrm{SG}}}{\pi T}

1153: \Big)^{\frac12}

1154: \textrm{exp} \Big[ -\frac{\Delta_{\textrm{SG}}}{T} \Big]

1155: \Big\{ 1+\frac38 \frac{T}{\Delta_{\textrm{SG}}}+

1156: \mathcal O \Big( \frac{T^2}{\Delta_{\textrm{SG}}^2} \Big) \Big\}

1157: \end{equation}

1158: The characteristic energy scale parameter $\Delta_{\textrm{SG}}$

1159: defined as

1160: \begin{equation}

1161: \label{DeltaSG}

1162: \Delta_{\textrm{SG}} \equiv 2 \varepsilon m_x~,

1163: \end{equation}

1164: is natural to call the spin gap. Such definition coincides with

1165: the one stated in terms of a magnon.\cite{Bulaev63}

1166: The latter is equal to the minimal energy needed to flip one spin,

1167: and according to Eqs.(\ref{E},\ref{sz}), to the one-particle

1168: fermion gap.

1169: The simple relation (\ref{DeltaSG}) between the spin

1170: gap and the alternating part of the exchange $b=2 \varepsilon m_x$

1171: [cf. Eq.(\ref{MolF}d)] holds because the $XY$ model is

1172: a free-fermion problem. Accounting for fermionic interactions

1173: in the $XYZ$ model breaks (\ref{DeltaSG}) already at the mean-field

1174: level.\cite{Bulaev63} Bosonization treatment of the

1175: interacting Jordan-Wigner fermions\cite{CF79} reveals the power-law

1176: relationship $\Delta_{\textrm{SG}} \propto b^{2/3}$ times

1177: some log correction.\cite{BE81}

1178: 

1179: 

1180: It is interesting to compare the ratio of the zero-temperature

1181: spin gap $\Delta_{\textrm{SG}}^{\circ}$ and the critical temperature

1182: in different regimes of couplings.

1183: At large $g \gg g_{\lambda}$ this ratio

1184: [cf. Eqs.(\ref{mz0P},\ref{mx0P},\ref{Tcas})]

1185: \begin{equation}

1186: \label{RatIs}

1187: \frac{\Delta_{\textrm{SG}}^{\circ}}{T_c} \approx

1188: \frac{4 \varepsilon}{g}

1189: \end{equation}

1190: is small according to the assumption (\ref{parange}) on the range of the

1191: model parameters we are working with. Upon decreasing $g$ the ratio

1192: increases. It subtly involves interplay of the model couplings,

1193: and it is not easy to get its analytic form. At the critical coupling

1194: $g=g^*$ (when $\lambda =0$) it can be found from

1195: Eqs.(\ref{TcCP},\ref{mx0asy}), and roughly

1196: \begin{equation}

1197: \label{RatCr}

1198: \frac{\Delta_{\textrm{SG}}^{\circ}}{T_c}

1199: \sim \Big(\frac{8}{\pi J} \Big)^\frac12

1200: \varepsilon^2 \vert \ln \varepsilon \vert^\frac32

1201: \end{equation}

1202: More accurate evaluations of Eqs.(\ref{TcCP},\ref{mx0asy}), as well as

1203: direct numerical calculations show that within the parameter range

1204: (\ref{parange}) the ratio $\Delta_{\textrm{SG}}^{\circ}/T_c$ does not

1205: exceed 1.

1206: In the BCS region ($g < g_{\lambda}$) the ratio is maximal, and

1207: moreover, it is the universal constant

1208: [cf. Eqs.(\ref{Tcas},\ref{mx0asy})]

1209: \begin{equation}

1210: \label{BCSratio}

1211: \frac{\Delta_{\textrm{SG}}^{\circ}}{T_c}=\frac{\pi}{e^{\gamma}}

1212: \approx 1.76, \quad \textrm{BCS regime}~

1213: \end{equation}

1214: of any BCS-type theory.\cite{AGD} Also, as we can see from

1215: Eq.(\ref{mxExpas}), the temperature dependence of the spin gap in this

1216: regime is exactly as that of the superconductivity gap provided by

1217: the BCS theory:\cite{AGD}

1218: \begin{equation}

1219: \label{BCSgap}

1220: \Delta_{\textrm{SG}} \approx 3.06 T_c \tau^{\frac12}

1221:  ~~\tau \ll 1,~\textrm{BCS regime}~.

1222: \end{equation}

1223: %

1224: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1225: \subsection{Charge (pseudospin) susceptibilities}\label{chiCha}

1226: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1227: %

1228: We will be interested in the pseudospin (i.e., charge) susceptibilities

1229: with respect to two external (electric) fields which have the same spatial

1230: dependence as the Weiss fields $h^{i}_{mn}$. Namely, the field along

1231: $z$ pseudospin ``direction" is constant $E^z_{mn}=-E_z$, while the field

1232: $E^x_{mn}=(-1)^{m+n+1}E_x$ is staggered. We define the charge

1233: susceptibilities as

1234: \begin{equation}

1235: \label{chiChaDef}

1236: \chi^c_{ij} \equiv \frac{\partial m_i }{ \partial E_j}

1237: \Big \vert_{E_j=0}~: ~(i,j)=x~\textrm{or}~z

1238: \end{equation}

1239: These quantities can be calculated from equations of

1240: Section \ref{MF} with the Weiss fields shifted as $h_i \mapsto h_i+E_i$.

1241: %

1242: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1243: \subsubsection{$T>T_c$}

1244: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1245: %

1246: After a straightforward but somehow lengthy algebra we obtain for the

1247: disordered paraelectric (PE) phase $T>T_c$:

1248: \begin{subequations}

1249: \label{chiCPE}

1250: \begin{eqnarray}

1251: \chi^c_{xz} &=& \chi^c_{zx}=0 \\

1252: \chi^c_{zz} &=& \frac{\beta}{4}

1253: \frac{1-4m_z^2}{1- \frac{\lambda \beta}{2 \pi}

1254: (1-4m_z^2)(t_n+\lambda \beta m_z \dot{t}_{n,\tilde \beta}) }\\

1255: \chi^c_{xx} &=&\frac{m_z}{1-m_z \big(

1256:  g+ \frac{4 \varepsilon^2}{\pi(J+\lambda m_z^2)} \eta_n

1257:  -\frac{2\lambda }{\pi} t_n \big) }

1258: \end{eqnarray}

1259: \end{subequations}

1260: where

1261: \begin{equation}

1262: \label{tnbe}

1263: \dot{t}_{n,\tilde \beta} \equiv

1264: \frac{\partial t_n(\Delta,\tilde \beta)}{\partial \tilde \beta}~.

1265: \end{equation}

1266: Note that even in the limit $E_z \to 0$, $\chi^c_{zz}$ is in

1267: fact the susceptibility under the applied field $\Omega$

1268: [cf. Eq.(\ref{Ham})] along this direction. It does not show

1269: critical behavior. On the contrary, from the comparison

1270: of Eqs.(\ref{mzbe},\ref{chiCPE}c) we immediately see

1271: that $\chi^c_{xx}$ diverges when $T \to T_c^{+}$.

1272: At large $g \gg g_{\lambda}$ from Eqs.(\ref{Tcas},\ref{mzas})

1273: we find

1274: \begin{subequations}

1275: \label{chiCPEasIs}

1276: \begin{eqnarray}

1277: \chi^c_{zz} &\approx& \frac{1}{4T} \\

1278: \chi^c_{xx} &\approx&  \frac{4T_c}{g^2-4} \frac{1}{|\tau|}

1279: \end{eqnarray}

1280: \end{subequations}

1281: so $\chi^c_{xx}$ diverges with the mean-field value of the critical index.

1282: The same divergence can be obtained from the analytical

1283: treatment in the BCS regime $g < g_{\lambda}$ for $T \agt T_c \ll 1$

1284: where

1285: \begin{subequations}

1286: \label{chiCPEasBCS}

1287: \begin{eqnarray}

1288: \chi^c_{zz} &\approx& \frac{1}{T}

1289: \textrm{exp}\big[ -\frac{\Delta_{\textrm{CG}}}{T}  \big] \\

1290: \chi^c_{xx} &\approx&

1291: \frac{\pi \tilde J }{4 \varepsilon^2 \ln \frac{T}{T_c} }

1292:  \approx \frac{\pi \tilde J }{4 \varepsilon^2} \frac{1}{|\tau|}

1293: \end{eqnarray}

1294: \end{subequations}

1295: At these low temperatures one probes the $\Omega$-generated

1296: charge gap $\Delta_{\textrm{CG}}=1+\lambda /\pi \equiv g_{\lambda}/2 $

1297: in $\chi^c_{zz}$, renormalized (comparatively to its bare value 1)

1298: via the coupling $\lambda$ by the dimer operator average $t$

1299: [cf. Eq.(\ref{Dmn})].

1300: %

1301: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1302: \subsubsection{$T<T_c$}

1303: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1304: %

1305: We will not give here the closed expressions for the four susceptibilities

1306: below $T_c$, since there are too cumbersome. The important properties of

1307: these quantities are the following: $\chi^c_{zz}$ is continuous across the

1308: transition, and $\chi^c_{xx} \propto 1/\tau$ is divergent when approaching

1309: $T_c$ from below. In the regimes of strong Ising coupling and BCS,

1310: $\chi^c_{xx}$ can be calculated analytically, showing that

1311: \begin{equation}

1312: \label{chixxBe}

1313: \chi^c_{xx}(T \to T_c^-) = \frac12 \chi^c_{xx}(T \to T_c^+)

1314: \end{equation}

1315: as one should have expected in the mean-field theory. The transverse

1316: pseudospin susceptibilities are ``diamagnetic" (indicating that the system

1317: tends to preserve the psedospin vector's length) and show weaker

1318: divergence:

1319: \begin{equation}

1320: \label{offdiag}

1321:  \chi^c_{xz}= \chi^c_{zx} \approx  \left\{

1322:                 \begin{array}{ll}

1323: -\frac{1}{g} \Big( \frac{2}{g^2-4} \Big)^{\frac12}

1324: \tau^{-\frac12},& g \gg g_{\lambda} \\[0.3cm]

1325: -\frac{\pi^2}{2 \sqrt{14 \zeta(3)}}\frac{\tilde J T_c}{\varepsilon^3}

1326: \tau^{-\frac12},

1327:    &\textrm{BCS regime}

1328:                 \end{array}

1329:        \right.

1330: \end{equation}

1331: %

1332: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1333: \subsection{Specific heat capacity}\label{heat}

1334: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1335: %

1336: The easiest way to obtain the specific heat capacity in our approach, is

1337: to calculate it directly from the mean-field energy

1338: (\ref{Emf})

1339: \begin{equation}

1340: \label{cv}

1341: c=\frac{\partial {\mathcal E}_{\textrm{MF}}}{\partial T}

1342: \end{equation}

1343: (here, in fact $c=c_v$). As usual, at the second-order phase transition

1344: temperature the specific heat undergoes a finite jump. For two regimes

1345: of couplings $c$ can be easily calculated analytically.

1346: At high temperatures $T \gg 1$ above $T_c$

1347: \begin{equation}

1348: \label{cbigT}

1349: c \approx \frac{1}{4T^2}\big( 1+\frac{J^2}{2} \big)

1350: \end{equation}

1351: As one can see from the above equation, spins and pseudospins ($m_z$)

1352: contribute to the specific heat in the same fashion. At large

1353: $g \gg g_\lambda$, $T_c$ is also large. For this regime we find

1354: \begin{equation}

1355: \label{delcIs}

1356: c^- -c^+ \approx \frac{g^2-4}{4gT_c}, ~g \gg g_{\lambda}

1357: \end{equation}

1358: where $c^\pm \equiv c(T\to T_c^\pm)$. Low temperatures ($T \ll 1$) within

1359: the disordered PE phase are attainable only at smaller couplings

1360: $g \alt g_{\lambda}$. In the BCS regime ($T > T_c$) we get

1361: \begin{equation}

1362: \label{cBCS}

1363: c \approx \frac{\pi T}{3 \tilde J}+\mathcal O (T^3), ~\textrm{BCS regime}

1364: \end{equation}

1365: Since pseudospins $m_z$ are gapped, at these low temperatures their

1366: contribution to the specific heat is exponentially suppressed as

1367: $\mathcal O(\exp[-\Delta_{\textrm{CG}}/T])$, thus only spins contribute.

1368: The latter contribution is equivalent to the one

1369: of a degenerate free electron gas. Eqs.(\ref{mabs})

1370: for the AFE phase in the BCS regime gives

1371: \begin{equation}

1372: \label{dmz}

1373: \frac{\partial m_z}{\partial T} =-\frac{\partial m_x^2}{\partial T}

1374: +\mathcal O(e^{-1/T})

1375: \end{equation}

1376: Using it along with asymptotics

1377: (\ref{tnas},\ref{etanas},\ref{Tcas},\ref{aas},\ref{bas},\ref{mxExpas}),

1378: we obtain

1379: \begin{equation}

1380: \label{delcBCS}

1381: c^- -c^+ \approx \frac{4 \pi}{7 \zeta(3)} \frac{T_c}{\tilde J},

1382: \quad \textrm{BCS regime}

1383: \end{equation}

1384: Then the ratio

1385: \begin{equation}

1386: \label{cRat}

1387: \frac{c^-}{c^+}=1 + \frac{12}{7 \zeta(3)} \approx 2.43

1388: \end{equation}

1389: is another universal constant known from the BCS theory.\cite{AGD}

1390: Note that the origin of this universality can be traced from

1391: Eq.(\ref{dmz}), which results in that only gapped fermions contribute

1392: to the heat capacity in the vicinity of $T_c$ in the BCS regime.

1393: 

1394: Since the specific heat jump is positive at any regime of couplings,

1395: it indicates the free energy (\ref{FE}) decrease in the ordered AFE

1396: phase $f_{\textrm{AFE}} -f_{\textrm{PE}} \propto -m_x^2$.

1397: 

1398: Upon approaching zero temperature the specific heat capacity decreases

1399: exponentially for any coupling $g$. The decay scale is defined

1400: by $\Delta_{\textrm{SG}}$ which is the smallest gap in the model

1401: (the zero temperature charge gap varies from

1402: $\Delta_{\textrm{CG}}=g_{\lambda}/2$ in the BCS regime to

1403: $\Delta_{\textrm{CG}}=g/2$ in the regime of large $g$),

1404: so $c \propto \exp [ -\Delta_{\textrm{SG}}/T ]$ similar to the

1405: spin susceptibility.

1406: %

1407: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1408: \section{Summary and Discussion}\label{Concl}

1409: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1410: %

1411: We study the spin-pseudospin model comprised from the Ising Model in Transverse

1412: Field (IMTF) Hamiltonian for pseudospins coupled

1413: to the spin-$\frac12$ $XY$-Hamiltonian, on a triangular lattice.

1414: The effective Hamiltonian, similar to ours, appears from analyses of

1415: the quarter-filled ladder compound $\rm NaV_2O_5$, which can be described

1416: by a set of spin and pseudospin variables, the latter representing

1417: the charge degrees of freedom.

1418: Following the proposal of Mostovoy and Khomskii\cite{Most98,Most02}

1419: for the scenario of the phase transition in $\rm NaV_2O_5$,

1420: we include into the Hamiltonian a specific inter-ladder spin-pseudospin

1421: coupling term  allowed by symmetries, linear over the pseudospin

1422: operators.

1423: 

1424: 

1425: In the framework of the molecular-field approximation we explore

1426: the phase diagram of the model and find that it

1427: possesses two phases: the disordered phase without charge order or

1428: spin gap; and the low-temperature phase containing both the

1429: anti-ferroelectric (zigzag) charge order and spin gap

1430: (without long-range spin order). Such ordered phase

1431: is experimentally observed below the transition temperature

1432: $T_c=34\,{\textrm K}$ in $\rm NaV_2O_5$.

1433: The phase transition in our model is of the second kind.

1434: We calculate various physical quantities, as

1435: the order parameter, spin and pseudospin (charge) susceptibilities,

1436: specific heat, and find their (mean-field) temperature behavior near

1437: $T_c$.

1438: 

1439: Our analysis reveals an important property of the phase diagram,

1440: not envisaged in the original Mostovoy-Khomskii proposal: the

1441: inter-ladder spin-pseudospin coupling ($\varepsilon$) not only

1442: creates the spin dimerization (spin gap)

1443: triggered by the charge ordering in the region of Ising's coupling

1444: where the IMTF can order ($g>g_{\lambda}$), but it also generates

1445: simultaneous appearance of the charge order and spin gap in the case

1446: when the IMTF is always disordered ($g<g_{\lambda}$).

1447: So, the coupling $\varepsilon$ destroys the IMTF quantum critical

1448: point at $g=g_{\lambda}$ and results in a

1449: continuous evolution of $T_c(g) \neq 0$ into the region

1450: $g<g_{\lambda}$. In that region $T_c$ has the exponential BCS-like

1451: dependence on model's couplings.

1452: 

1453: 

1454: An interesting feature of model's phase diagram is that near the IMTF

1455: critical coupling $g_{\lambda}$ it shows regimes with a re-entrance

1456: (for couplings $\lambda \neq 0$, $\varepsilon=0$) or with

1457: a double re-entrance (for couplings $\lambda \neq 0$,

1458: $\varepsilon \neq 0$). How pronounced the re-entrant behavior is,

1459: depends on the interplay of couplings, but the re-entrance is absent

1460: when $\lambda =0$. Usually, re-entrance is due either to disorder

1461: effects,\cite{Kir00} or due to the stabilization of the ordered phase

1462: via the release of entropy by secondary degrees of

1463: freedom.\cite{Pietig99}

1464: The IMTF does not show any re-entrance at the mean-field

1465: level,\cite{Blinc74,Chak96} but accounting for the first-order

1466: fluctuation corrections revealed some re-entrance in the

1467: 2D IMTF.\cite{Stratt86} In that study it was assumed to be an

1468: artifact of poor approximation. In our case, we have given

1469: some qualitative arguments on how the re-entrant behavior

1470: can be understood from the competition of model's energy

1471: scales. However, we cannot exclude that the found re-entrance

1472: is a mean-field artifact. A more detailed study on this

1473: re-entrance will be presented elsewhere.\cite{CGlet03}

1474: 

1475: 

1476: 

1477: Now we proceed with the discussion on the applications of our results

1478: to $\rm NaV_2O_5$.

1479: For $\rm NaV_2O_5$ we take the following data:\cite{Smo98,Fagot00,Lem03}

1480: $\Omega =700$ meV, $T_c=34$ K,

1481: $\Delta_{\rm SG}=106$ K ($\Delta_{\textrm{SG}}^{\circ}/T_c \approx 3$),

1482: $J_H+\frac14 J_{ST}=50$ meV. The microscopic calculations\cite{GrosEps}

1483: give $\tilde \varepsilon= 15$ meV. Using these data as

1484: model's dimensionless parameters [cf. notations (\ref{Coupdls})]

1485: $\varepsilon=0.021$, $J=0.065$,

1486: $\lambda=0.026$ we find that $T_c=0.004$ lies on the curve $T_c(g)$

1487: in the BCS-regime region with $g=1.99$ ($J_I=1.4$ eV),

1488: close to the critical coupling $g_{\lambda}=2.02$. The estimates for

1489: $J_I$ in $\rm NaV_2O_5$ which is proportional to the in-ladder Coulomb

1490: repulsion between neighboring rungs, vary,\cite{Smo98,Most98,Deb00}

1491: but do not exceed $J_I=1.5$ eV.\cite{Ohta03} The whole curve $T_c(g)$

1492: with the above parameters $J,\lambda,\varepsilon$ looks very much

1493: similar to that shown in Fig. \ref{TcFig} for $J=1,\lambda=0,

1494: \varepsilon=0.1$, without appreciable re-entrance. (In any case

1495: $g=1.99<g_{\textrm{min}}$.) We would not insist that our mean-field

1496: analysis gives the quantitatively correct evaluation of $T_c$ in

1497: terms of the microscopic parameters for $\rm NaV_2O_5$, since the

1498: uncertainties in their values left us with a freedom to make this

1499: reasonable fit. However, we think we have grasped the qualitatively

1500: correct physics. The question why $T_c$ is so low in $\rm NaV_2O_5$,

1501: or what is the scale that gives such a low $T_c$, can be answered

1502: as follows: $g$ for $\rm NaV_2O_5$ lies in the proximity of

1503: the quantum critical point of the IMTF (most likely on the ``disordered

1504: side, i.e., $g< g_{\lambda}$). $T_c$ is determined by the two

1505: scales: $g-g_{\lambda}$ and the inter-ladder dimerization coupling

1506: $\varepsilon$. The latter destroys the IMTF quantum critical point

1507: and makes the ordering possible at $g< g_{\lambda}$.

1508: 

1509: A flaw of the present study is that we cannot account for the large

1510: BCS ratio $\Delta_{\textrm{SG}}^{\circ}/T_c$ observed in

1511: $\rm NaV_2O_5$.

1512: The small value of $T_c$ indicates that we are either in the

1513: BCS regime described by the analytical result (\ref{Tcas}), or very

1514: close to it, so the ratio cannot exceed the universal BCS value

1515: (\ref{BCSratio}). This gives the spin gap almost two times smaller

1516: than the experimental value.  This clearly indicates that

1517: for more realistic calculations the spin part of the Hamiltonian

1518: should be modified, and instead of the $XY$ spin model the full

1519: three component Heisenberg Hamiltonian should be considered.

1520: As we have already explained it in Section \ref{chiSpin},

1521: this will change results for the BCS ratio. At this

1522: point we cannot say whether this will be enough in order

1523: to explain the experimentally observed magnitude of the

1524:  ratio.

1525: Another possibility

1526: is of course, the role of modes, neglected in our model,

1527: like, e.g., phonons, which can affect the BCS ratio. However,

1528: we will not speculate more on this point.

1529: 

1530: 

1531: Experiments of various kinds\cite{Lem03} unequivocally

1532: demonstrate that what occurs in $\rm NaV_2O_5$ at $T_c =34$ K

1533: is a (thermal) continuous structural phase transition.

1534: Also rather large regions of structural (charge-ordering)

1535: two-dimensional fluctuations are seen\cite{Gaulin00} on the both

1536: sides of $T_c$. The order parameter critical

1537: index\cite{Ravy99,Gaulin00,Fagot00}

1538: $\beta \approx 0.17-0.19$ is close to what one expects for a

1539: two-dimensional phase transition with a one-component order parameter.

1540: So we conclude that the universality class of this transition is

1541: the 2D Ising. In order to obtain a more complete description

1542: of the transition in $\rm NaV_2O_5$,

1543: thermal fluctuations in the IMTF-sector

1544: of the spin-pseudospin Hamiltonian must be taken into account.

1545: According to what we said above, we expect the Ising coupling

1546: for the $\rm NaV_2O_5$-Hamiltonian to lie near the quantum

1547: critical point of the 2D IMTF. From the experimental results

1548: we expect that physics of $\rm NaV_2O_5$ near $T_c$ is controlled

1549: by the region of the 2D IMTF phase diagram,\cite{Friedman78}

1550: where 2D Ising (thermal) fluctuations dominate. Although

1551: at lower temperatures the change of the nature of these fluctuations

1552: into 3D Ising (quantum),\cite{Friedman78} may also become

1553: important. We believe that apart from the applications to

1554: $\rm NaV_2O_5$, a study of the fluctuations in proximity

1555: of this quantum critical point is a very interesting problem

1556: of its own.

1557: 

1558: It is worth pointing out that

1559: the pseudospin sector of our Hamiltonian is only \textit{quasi}

1560: two-dimensional, in the sense that pseudospins on neighboring

1561: ladders are coupled only via the dimerization coupling $\varepsilon$.

1562: Accounting for the Ising coupling between ladders, as one can see

1563: from the triangular lattice mapping shown in Fig.\ref{LatFig},

1564: will cause a frustration. The neglect of this coupling for the

1565: applications to $\rm NaV_2O_5$ is justified from microscopic

1566: grounds, but from a general point of view it would be interesting

1567: to study a Hamiltonian, similar to ours, with a truly two-dimensional

1568: IMTF part.

1569: %

1570: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1571: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1572: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1573: \begin{acknowledgments}

1574: %\acknowledgements

1575: We are grateful to E. Orignac and R. Valent\'\i\ for helpful discussions.

1576: We are also thankful to F. Capraro and K. Pozgajcic for their

1577: help with the software and numerical calculation.

1578: This work is supported by the German Science Foundation.

1579: \end{acknowledgments}

1580: %

1581: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1582: % REFERENCES

1583: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1584: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1585: %

1586: \bibitem{Kugel82} K.I. Kugel and D.I. Khomskii,

1587: Usp. Fiz. Nauk \textbf{136}, 621 (1982);

1588: [Sov. Phys. Usp. \textbf{25}(4), 231 (1982)].

1589: %

1590: \bibitem{Arovas95} D.P. Arovas and A. Auerbach,

1591: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{52}, 10114 (1995).

1592: %

1593: \bibitem{Ners97} A.A. Nersesyan and A.M. Tsvelik,

1594: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{78}, 3939 (1997);

1595: \textit{Erratum} in: \textit{ibid}, \textbf{79},

1596: 1171 (1997).

1597: %

1598: \bibitem{Pati98} S.K. Pati, R.R.P. Singh, and D.I. Khomskii,

1599: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{81}, 5406 (1998).

1600: %

1601: \bibitem{Kolezh98} A.K. Kolezhuk and H.-J. Mikeska,

1602: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{80}, 2709 (1998).

1603: %

1604: \bibitem{Azaria} P. Azaria, A.O. Gogolin, P. Lecheminant,

1605: and A.A. Nersesyan,

1606: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{83}, 624 (1999);

1607: P. Azaria, P. Boulat, and P. Lecheminant,

1608: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{61}, 12112 (2000).

1609: %

1610: \bibitem{Orign00} E. Orignac, R. Citro, and N. Andrei,

1611: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{61}, 11533 (2000).

1612: %

1613: \bibitem{Itoi00} C. Itoi, S. Qin, and I. Affleck,

1614: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{61}, 6747 (2000).

1615: %

1616: \bibitem{Martins00} M.J. Martins and B. Nienhuis,

1617: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{85}, 4956 (2000).

1618: %

1619: \bibitem{Zhang03} G.-M. Zhang, H. Hu, and Lu Yu,

1620: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{67}, 064420 (2003).

1621: %

1622: \bibitem{Dag96} E. Dagotto and T.M. Rice,

1623: Science \textbf{271}, 618 (1996).

1624: %

1625: \bibitem{Pn2O} E.A. Axtell, III, T. Ozawa, S.M. Kauzlarich, and

1626: R.R.P. Singh,

1627: J. Solid State Chem. \textbf{134}, 423 (1997);

1628: T.C. Ozawa \textit{et al},\textit{ibid} \textbf{153}, 275 (2000);

1629: T.C. Ozawa, S.M. Kauzlarich, M. Bieringer, and J.E. Greedan,

1630: Chem. Mater. \textbf{13}, 1804 (2001).

1631: %

1632: \bibitem{Isobe96} M. Isobe and Y. Ueda,

1633: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \textbf{65}, 1178 (1996).

1634: %

1635: \bibitem{SU4exact}G.V. Uimin, ZhETF Pis. Red.

1636: \textbf{12}, 322 (1970) [Sov. JETP Lett. \textbf{12}, 225 (1970)];

1637: B. Sutherland, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{12}, 3795 (1975).

1638: %

1639: \bibitem{Pati00} S.K. Pati and R.R.P. Singh,

1640: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{61}, 5868 (2000).

1641: %

1642: \bibitem{ZamNote} Note that even for an $SU(2) \otimes SU(2)$-symmetric

1643: model there is no continuous (in the renormalization-group sense)

1644: flow over the spin-orbital coupling from two weakly coupled

1645: spin-$\frac12$ Heisenberg chains towards the $SU(4)$-symmetric

1646: integrable Hamiltonian, due to Zamolodchikov's $c$-theorem:

1647: A.B. Zamolodchikov, ZhETF Pis. Red.

1648: \textbf{43}, 565 (1986) [Sov. JETP Lett. \textbf{43}, 730 (1986)].

1649: This puts additional limitations on the analytical tools and

1650: implications in analyses of the

1651: spin-orbital models at various regimes of couplings.

1652: For more details see Ref.[\onlinecite{Azaria}].

1653: %

1654: \bibitem{Smo98} H. Smolinski  \textit{et al},

1655: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{80}, 5164 (1998).

1656: %

1657: \bibitem{Vojta01} M. Vojta, A. H\"ubsch, and R.M. Noack,

1658: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{63}, 045105 (2001).

1659: %

1660: \bibitem{Orign03} E. Orignac and R. Citro,

1661: Eur. Phys. J. B \textbf{33}, 419 (2003).

1662: %

1663: \bibitem{PnNote} Contrary to $\rm NaV_2O_5$, the quasi-2D compound

1664: $\rm Na_2Ti_2Pn_2O$ is less studied experimentally and less

1665: understood,\cite{Pn2O} so in the following we will restrict our

1666: discussion to the former.

1667: %

1668: \bibitem{Lem03} P. Lemmens, G. G\"untherodt, and C. Gros,

1669: Phys. Reports \textbf{375}, 1 (2003).

1670: %

1671: \bibitem{Most98} M.V. Mostovoy and D.I. Khomskii, Solid St. Comm.

1672: \textbf{113}, 159 (1999); cond-mat/9806215.

1673: %

1674: \bibitem{Thal98} P. Thalmeier and P. Fulde,

1675: Europhys. Lett. \textbf{44}, 242 (1998).

1676: %

1677: \bibitem{Seo98} H. Seo and H. Fukuyama,

1678: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \textbf{67}, 2602 (1998).

1679: %

1680: \bibitem{Most02} M.V. Mostovoy, D.I. Khomskii, and J. Knoester,

1681: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{65}, 064412 (2002).

1682: %

1683: \bibitem{Riera99} J. Riera and D. Poilblanc,

1684: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{59}, 2667 (1999).

1685: %

1686: \bibitem{Gros99} C. Gros and R. Valent\'\i,

1687: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{82}, 976 (1999).

1688: %

1689: \bibitem{Deb00} D. Sa and C. Gros,

1690: Eur. Phys. J. B \textbf{18}, 421 (2000).

1691: %

1692: \bibitem{Yosi98} T. Yosihama \textit{et al.},

1693: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \textbf{67}, 744 (1998).

1694: %

1695: \bibitem{Smaalen02} S. van Smaalen, P. Daniels, L. Palatinus,

1696: and R.K. Kremer, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{65}, 060101 (2002).

1697: %

1698: \bibitem{Ravy99} S. Ravy, J. Jegoudez, and A. Revcolevschi,

1699: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{59}, 681 (1999).

1700: %

1701: \bibitem{Gaulin00} B.D. Gaulin \textit{et al},

1702: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{84}, 3446 (2000).

1703: %

1704: \bibitem{Fagot00} Y. Fagot-Revurat, M. Mehring, and R.K. Kremer,

1705: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{84}, 4176 (2000).

1706: %

1707: \bibitem{Blinc74} R. Blinc and B. \v{Z}ek\v{s},

1708: \textit{Soft Modes in Ferroelectrics and Antiferroelectrics},

1709: (North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1974).

1710: %

1711: \bibitem{Lieb61} E. Lieb, T. Schultz, and D. Mattis,

1712: Ann. of Phys. \textbf{16}, 407 (1961).

1713: %

1714: \bibitem{Chak96} B.K. Chakrabarti, A. Dutta, and P. Sen,

1715: \textit{Quantum Ising Phases and Transitions in Transverse Ising Models}

1716: (Springer, Berlin, 1996).

1717: %

1718: \bibitem{Tsvelik95} A.M. Tsvelik,

1719: \textit{Quantum Field Theory in Condensed Matter Physics}

1720: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995).

1721: %

1722: \bibitem{GenJW} E. Fradkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{63}, 322 (1989);

1723: J. Ambjorn and G.W. Semenoff, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{226}, 107 (1989);

1724: Y.R. Wang, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{43}, 3786 (1991);

1725: L. Huerta and J. Zanelli, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{71}, 3622 (1993).

1726: %

1727: \bibitem{Azz93} M. Azzouz, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{48}, 6136 (1993).

1728: %

1729: \bibitem{Heeger88} A.J. Heeger, S. Kivelson, J.B. Schrieffer,

1730: and W.-P. Su,  Rev. Mod. Phys. \textbf{60}, 781 (1988).

1731: %

1732: \bibitem{Holi01} A recent pedagogical derivation of similar results

1733: is given by

1734: M. Holicki and H. Fehske, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.

1735: \textbf{226-230}, 397 (2001).

1736: %

1737: \bibitem{CGlet03} G.Y. Chitov and C. Gros, in preparation.

1738: %

1739: \bibitem{Gros03}  C. Gros  \textit{et al.},

1740: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{67} 174405 (2003).

1741: %

1742: \bibitem{Bulaev63} L.N. Bulaevskii, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.

1743: \textbf{44}, 1008 (1963) [Sov. Phys. JETP \textbf{17}, 684 (1963)].

1744: %

1745: \bibitem{CF79} M.C. Cross and D.S. Fisher,

1746: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{19}, 402 (1979).

1747: %

1748: \bibitem{BE81} J.L. Black and V.J. Emery,

1749: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{23}, 429 (1981).

1750: %

1751: \bibitem{AGD} See, e.g.,

1752: A.A. Abrikosov, L.P. Gorkov, and I.E. Dzyaloshinski, 1963,

1753: {\it Methods of Quantum Field Theory in Statistical Physics} (Dover, New York).

1754: %

1755: \bibitem{Kir00} V. Kiryukhin \textit{et al.},

1756: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{61}, 9527 (2000).

1757: %

1758: \bibitem{Pietig99} R. Pietig, R. Bulla, and S. Blawid,

1759: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{82}, 4046 (1999).

1760: %

1761: \bibitem{Stratt86} R.M. Stratt,

1762: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{33}, 1921 (1986).

1763: %

1764: \bibitem{GrosEps} C. Gros, unpublished.

1765: %

1766: \bibitem{Ohta03} In a recent study of a similar one-dimensional

1767: spin-pseudospin model by

1768: Y. Ohta, T. Nakaegawa, and S. Ejima, cond-mat/0309433

1769: the estimates were such that $J_I=3.2$ eV. At this coupling the 1D IMTF

1770: has a phase transition at $T=0$, and this is how the charge ordering

1771: occurs in their scenario. We however find their value of $J_I$ being too

1772: overestimated.

1773: %

1774: \bibitem{Friedman78} Z. Friedman,

1775: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{17}, 1429 (1978).

1776: %

1777: \end{thebibliography}

1778: %xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1779: %xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1780: 

1781: \begin{figure*}

1782: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{LatFig.eps}

1783: \caption{

1784: Two-dimensional triangular lattice of coupled ladders. A vertical line

1785: denotes a single ladder where a dot denotes its rung. At each rung $(m,n)$

1786: there is pseudospin $\bm{\mathcal T}_{mn}$ and spin $\mathbf S_{mn}$ (not

1787: shown). In the region encirled by the dashed line we show four sites

1788: involved in each term of the sum in the Hamiltonian (\ref{Hamdls}). Spins

1789: and pseudospins residing on two sites of the same $m$-th ladder are coupled

1790: via the exchange interaction terms, while two pseudospins from $(m-1)$-th

1791: and $(m+1)$-th ladders are coupled via the dimerization interaction

1792: constant $\varepsilon$. The pseudospin $\mathcal T_{mn}^x$

1793: ordering pattern shown in the

1794: figure corresponds to the ordered anti-ferroelectric (zigzag) phase.

1795: }

1796: \label{LatFig}

1797: \end{figure*}

1798: %xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1799: %xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1800: \begin{figure*}

1801: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{Tc4.eps}

1802: \caption{

1803: Critical temperature of the AFE phase transition as a function of the Ising

1804: coupling $g$ at different

1805: values of $\lambda, \varepsilon$. The critical couplings $g^*=2$ and

1806: $g_{\lambda}=2.6366$. Large empty circles on the curves at

1807: $\varepsilon =0.1$ indicate the right boundary for the BCS-region

1808: described by the exponential dependence (\ref{Tcas}).

1809: At large values of $g$ (not shown) all curves $T_c(g)$

1810: approach the asymptotic line $T_c =g/4$.

1811: }

1812: \label{TcFig}

1813: \end{figure*}

1814: %xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1815: \end{document}

1816: %xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1817: %xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1818: %xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1819: %xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1820: %xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1821: %xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1822: %xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1823: %xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1824: 

1825: 

1826: 

1827: 

1828: 

1829: