1: %&latex
2: \documentclass[10pt,prl,aps,twocolumn,showpacs,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4:
5: \begin{document}
6:
7: \title{Nature of the antiferromagnetic to valence-bond-solid quantum phase
8: transition \\ in a 2D XY-model with four-site interactions}
9:
10: \author{Anders W. Sandvik}
11: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Boston University,
12: 590 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02215}
13:
14: \author{Roger G. Melko}
15: \affiliation{Materials Science and Technology Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
16: Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831}
17:
18: \date{\today}
19:
20: \pacs{75.10.-b, 75.10.Jm, 75.40.Mg}
21:
22: \begin{abstract}
23: We report large-scale quantum Monte Carlo calculations at the $T=0$ antiferromagnetic
24: to valence-bond-solid (VBS) transition of a two-dimensional $S=1/2$ XY model with
25: four-spin interactions. Finite-size scaling suggests a discontinuous spin stiffness,
26: but a continuous VBS order-parameter. We propose that this is a continuous VBS
27: transition without critical spin fluctuations. We also argue that the system is close
28: to a point, in an extended parameter space, where both the magnetic and VBS fluctuations
29: are critical---possibly a deconfined quantum-critical point.
30: \end{abstract}
31:
32: \maketitle
33:
34: Senthil {\it et al.}~recently proposed a class of generic {\it deconfined
35: quantum-critical points} describing phase transitions between $O(2)$ or $O(3)$
36: antiferromagnetic (AF) and four-fold degenerate valence-bond-solid (VBS) ground
37: states in two dimensions (2D) \cite{sen04}. These critical points fall outside the
38: standard Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson framework, where order--order transitions are
39: generically first-order (except at fine-tuned multi-critical points). A continuum
40: field theory of spinons interacting with a $U(1)$ gauge field was proposed in which
41: the critical point is not explicitly described in terms of order parameters.
42: Instead, AF or VBS order is a consequence of confinement of spinons. This
43: remarkable, but so far untested, theory calls for numerical studies of lattice
44: models that could potentially exhibit deconfined quantum-criticality. It was
45: suggested \cite{sen04} that such a transition may already have been observed
46: in a quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) study \cite{san02a} of an XY-model including
47: four-site interactions. Such a model should also from a theoretical perspective
48: be among the most natural candidates for the proposed physics \cite{sac02a,sen04}.
49:
50: The J-K model studied in \cite{san02a} is defined by
51: \begin{equation}
52: H = J\sum\limits_{\langle ij\rangle} B_{ij}
53: -K\sum\limits_{\langle ijkl\rangle} P_{ijkl},
54: \label{ham}
55: \end{equation}
56: where $B_{ij}$ and $P_{ijkl}$ are, respectively, operators acting on
57: nearest-neighbor sites and four sites on the corners of a plaquette
58: on a 2D square lattice;
59: \begin{eqnarray}
60: B_{ij} & = & S^+_iS^-_j + S^-_iS^+_j = 2(S^x_iS^x_j + S^y_iS^y_j),
61: \label{bond} \\
62: P_{ijkl} & = & S^+_iS^-_jS^+_kS^-_l + S^-_iS^+_jS^-_kS^+_l.
63: \label{plaquette}
64: \end{eqnarray}
65: This $S=1/2$ model is equivalent to a half-filled lattice of hard-core bosons.
66: It was found to undergo a continuous AF-VBS transition at $K/J \approx 7.9$,
67: with no intervening coexistence region. However, recent simulations
68: of related bosonic current models have instead shown weakly first-order transitions
69: \cite{kuk04}. This motivates us to revisit the J-K model and analyze the
70: transition in greater detail.
71:
72: Using a stochastic series expansion (SSE) QMC algorithm \cite{syl02a,mel05},
73: we have carried out extensive simulations of the J-K model in the vicinity of
74: the AF-VBS transition. We have performed ground-state ($T \to 0$ converged) finite-size
75: scaling for $L \times L$ lattices with $L$ up to $\approx 100$. Although the spin
76: stiffness shows signs of a discontinuity, we argue that the transition is not
77: necessarily first-order. We propose a scenario in which VBS order can emerge continuously
78: in a state where AF order is not suppressed by diverging VBS fluctuations. The spin
79: correlations change continuously from long-ranged to exponentially decaying at the
80: transition, while the stiffness is discontinuous because the VBS formation is associated
81: with the opening of a spin gap. While our results show that the theory of
82: deconfined quantum-criticality does not apply, we argue that such a transition
83: may be located nearby in an extended parameter space.
84:
85: \begin{figure}
86: \includegraphics[width=6.5cm, clip]{fig1.eps}
87: \caption{(Color online) (a) Dependence of the size-scaled stiffness on the coupling
88: $K/J$ of the J-K model, using $z=0.4$. (b) The size-scaled stiffness of the anisotropic
89: Heisenberg model versus the Ising anisotropy $\Delta$, using $z=0.3$.}
90: \label{fig1}
91: \end{figure}
92:
93: The spin stiffness $\rho_s$ is calculated with the the SSE method in the standard
94: way \cite{mel05,pol87} in terms of winding number fluctuations. At a quantum phase
95: transition with dynamic exponent $z$, it should scale with size as \cite{fis89}
96: \begin{equation}
97: \rho_s \sim L^{2-D-z} = L^{-z}.
98: \label{rhoscaling}
99: \end{equation}
100: We also compute the squared VBS order parameter $\langle m_P^2\rangle$ and the
101: associated susceptibility $\chi_P$;
102: \begin{eqnarray}
103: \langle m_P^2\rangle & = & \frac{1}{N^2}
104: \sum_{a,b} \langle P_aP_b \rangle (-1)^{x_a+x_b}, \\
105: \chi_P & = & \frac{1}{N^2}\sum_{a,b} \int_0^\beta d\tau
106: \langle P_a(\tau) P_b(0) \rangle (-1)^{x_a+x_b}.
107: \end{eqnarray}
108: Here $P_a \equiv P_{ijkl}$ and the sums are over all plaquettes. The expected
109: quantum-critical scaling is \cite{fis89}
110: \begin{eqnarray}
111: \langle m^2_P\rangle & \sim & L^{-(z+\eta)}, \label{mscale} \\
112: \chi_P & \sim & L^{-\eta}, \label{xscale}
113: \end{eqnarray}
114: where $\eta$ is the correlation function exponent.
115: \goodbreak
116: Analyzing the stiffness according to Eq.~(\ref{rhoscaling}), we obtain $z\approx 0.4$.
117: In Fig.~\ref{fig1}(a) we show how $L^{0.4}\rho_s$ versus $K/J$ graphed for different
118: lattice sizes produces a crossing point at $K/J \approx 7.915$ (with $z=1$ the crossing
119: points move significantly with $L$). As we will show below, this unusual value of the dynamic
120: exponent is not consistent with the $T>0$ behavior of the spin susceptibility. The
121: discrepancy could be interpreted as a quantum-critical point violating hyperscaling,
122: but a more plausible scenario is that the observed scaling is an
123: artifact of the limited range of system sizes available. We therefore explore
124: an alternative scenario.
125:
126: Consider the anisotropic 2D Heisenberg model;
127: \begin{equation}
128: H_{\rm Heisenberg} = J \sum_{\langle ij\rangle}
129: (S^x_iS^x_j + S^y_iS^y_j + \Delta S^z_iS^z_j ).
130: \end{equation}
131: Its $xy$ spin stiffness is non-zero at $T=0$ for $\Delta \le 1$ and vanishes in the
132: thermodynamic limit for $\Delta > 1$. This is not due to a phase transition, but a
133: consequence of the order parameter flipping from the $xy$-plane to the $z$-axis.
134: Exactly at the isotropic point the stiffness should approach a constant value;
135: $2/3$ of the stiffness of the symmetry-broken state (reflecting rotational averaging).
136: However, numerical results do not show a point at which $\rho_s$
137: becomes obviously size independent. Instead, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1}(b), we find
138: curve crossings for $L^{0.3}\rho_s$ very close to $\Delta=1$, reminiscent of the results
139: for the J-K model in Fig.~\ref{fig1}(a). This shows that a discontinuity in the
140: thermodynamic limit can easily be mistaken for a continuous transition with an
141: anomalously small $z$---going to very large lattices we would eventually find $z=0$.
142: We therefore believe that the stiffness of the J-K model is also discontinuous. This
143: does not have to imply a point with enhanced symmetry. A similar behavior can
144: be expected also if $\rho_s$ is discontinuous for other reason (except in the case
145: of a real level crossing).
146:
147: The dynamic exponent can also be extracted from the
148: temperature dependence of the uniform susceptibility; $\chi_u = {J}T^{-1}\langle
149: ( \sum_i S^z_i )^2 \rangle/N$. For a 2D quantum-critical system it should scale as
150: \citep{chu94a}
151: \begin{equation}
152: \chi_u = a + bT^{2/z-1},
153: \label{qcsusc}
154: \end{equation}
155: where $b$ is a constant related to the spin-wave velocity and $a=0$ at the
156: critical coupling. Away from the critical coupling $a\not=0$ and there is
157: low-$T$ cross-over to a different form. The earlier results \cite{san02a}
158: were consistent with a $z=1$ quantum-critical point; $\chi_u \propto T$
159: at $K_c/J \approx 7.91$. We now have higher precision at lower temperatures.
160: Results for $L=256$ (infinite-size converged) are shown in
161: Fig.~\ref{fig2}. We observe a
162: linear behavior over an extended range of temperatures, but a line fitted to the
163: data has a small but clearly non-zero intercept, suggesting AF order up to
164: $K_c/J = 7.915 \pm 0.005$ [note the consistency with the stiffness crossing
165: point in Fig.~\ref{fig1}(a)]. Thus the AF order-parameter is not critical at the
166: transition, in accord with a stiffness jump. However, the linearity of $\chi_u (T)$
167: suggests that {\it the system is close to a quantum-critical point with $z=1$ in an
168: extended parameter space}. The deviations from linearity seen in Fig.~\ref{fig2}
169: at low temperature are consistent with gapped spin fluctuations (exponentially
170: decaying $\chi_u$) for $K > K_c$ and an expected \cite{has93} cross-over
171: to $T$-independence for $K \le K_c$.
172:
173: \begin{figure}
174: \includegraphics[width=6.5cm, clip]{fig2.eps}
175: \caption{(Color online)
176: Temperature dependence of the spin susceptibility for values of $K/J$ in the vicinity
177: of the $T=0$ AF-VBS transition. Error bars are not shown but are at most
178: the same size as the symbols.}
179: \label{fig2}
180: \end{figure}
181:
182: Considering the discontinuities we found above, one might conclude that the
183: transition should be first-order. We do not find any signs of this in the
184: VBS correlations, however, and will therefore consider the possibility of
185: critical VBS fluctuations. Fig.~\ref{fig3} shows log-log plots of
186: $\langle m_P^2\rangle$ and $\chi_P$ versus $L$ in the vicinity of the transition.
187: The behaviors are typical of quantum-critical scaling. From the slope of
188: $\langle m_P^2\rangle$ we get $z+\eta \approx 0.98 \pm 0.04$ (taking into account
189: our estimated accuracy of $K_c$) using (\ref{mscale}). The uncertainty in
190: $\eta$ extracted from (\ref{xscale}) is much higher, however, due to the
191: significant changes in $\chi_P$ close to $K_c$. We can only give a rough estimate,
192: $\eta \in -(0.5,1.0)$, which gives $z \in (1.5,2.0)$. Since $z$ is normally
193: integer, this would suggest $z=2$, but clearly further work is needed to confirm
194: this. A negative $\eta$ is unusual, but the combination $z + \eta \approx 1$,
195: corresponding to $\sim 1/r$ VBS correlations, is not unusual. We note that unusually
196: large lattices, $L\approx 40$, are required before the (likely) asymptotic behavior
197: of $\langle m_P^2\rangle$ and $\chi_P$ commences. This could be explained as a
198: cross-over due to another critical point, located nearby in an extended parameter
199: space, which we have already argued for above. For a first-order transition, one might
200: expect such a cross-over for $K < K_c$ to be followed by a rather sharp change
201: to an $1/L^2$ behavior for both $\langle m_P^2\rangle$ and $\chi_P$
202: (reflecting short-range correlations), because the cross-over should then
203: correspond the size of a typical VBS droplet. Instead, $\langle m_P^2\rangle$
204: for both $K < K_c$ and $K > K_c$ approaches an $\approx 1/L$ scaling, and the
205: drop in $\chi_P$ occurs only for much larger $L$, well inside the AF phase.
206: Although we can still not completely exclude a first-order transition, the
207: intriguing possibility of critical VBS fluctuations but discontinuities in
208: the spin sector at the same point deserves further analysis
209:
210: \begin{figure}
211: \includegraphics[width=6.5cm, clip]{fig3.eps}
212: \caption{(Color online)
213: Finite-size scaling of the squared VBS order parameter (a), and susceptibility
214: (b). In (a) the line has slope $-1$, and the ones in (b) have slopes
215: $1/2$ and $1$.}
216: \label{fig3}
217: \end{figure}
218:
219: A discontinuous $\rho_s$ can be accounted for if the VBS would be associated with
220: a continuously opening spin gap, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig4}(a)---the stiffness
221: must vanish once an infinitesimal gap opens. In this scenario the spin correlations
222: would still change continuously, in a non-critical manner, from long-ranged to
223: exponentially decaying. To argue for the possibility of such an exotic transition,
224: we first discuss the conditions for symmetry breaking in the AF and VBS phases in terms
225: of quantum levels for finite system size $N$. We then assume a continuous onset
226: of VBS order and investigate the consequences of this on the relevant
227: quantum states.
228:
229: AF order is associated with a ``tower" of quantum-rotor states (global spin-rotation
230: excitations) that become degenerate with the ground state as $1/N$ when $N \to \infty$.
231: In a spin-isotropic system the ground state has spin $S=0$ and the rotor states
232: $S=1,2,...$ \cite{has93}. The XY model does not conserve total spin, but we will use
233: the notation $S=0,1,...$ also for its rotor states. For simplicity we restrict the
234: discussion to the $S^z=0$ sector. The ground state has momentum $k=0$ and the $k>0$
235: spin wave excitations all have their own rotor towers.
236:
237: A columnar VBS state is a quadruplet corresponding to the $Z_4$ symmetry
238: of a columnar dimer pattern. We refer to the lattice-symmetry related
239: quantum numbers with a single label, $p=0,1,2,3$, and call the states
240: with $p=1,2,3$ VBS states. Like the ground state ($p=0$), the VBS states have
241: $S=0$, and, due to the discrete VBS order parameter, the level spacing
242: within the quadruplet vanishes exponentially with $N$.
243:
244: We now explore an AF-VBS transition involving only the states discussed above,
245: i.e., those states are assumed to
246: stay at low energy and no other states descend from higher energies. We will follow
247: the evolution of the levels $|S\rangle_p$ ($S=0,1,\ldots$; $p=0,1,2,3$) as we vary
248: $K$. Although the character of the states changes as they evolve, we continue to call them
249: rotor and VBS states also in their ``wrong" phase. We assume that the ground state
250: $|0\rangle_0$ evolves continuously and is not crossed by any other level.
251:
252: \begin{figure}
253: \includegraphics[width=5.25cm, clip]{fig4.eps}
254: \caption{(Color online)
255: (a) Conjectured behavior of the spin stiffness and the spin gap at the AF-VBS transition.
256: (b),(c) Possible phase diagrams in an extended parameter space where a point with
257: continuous $\rho_s$ can be reached. On the solid (blue) curves, the transition is of
258: the type shown in (a), with a stiffness jump. The dashed (red) curve in (b) could
259: be a line of deconfined quantum-critical points. In (c) there is an
260: intervening coexistence phase.}
261: \label{fig4}
262: \end{figure}
263:
264: For $\delta = K_c - K >0$ the VBS correlation length grows as $\delta^{-\nu}$,
265: corresponding to a gap $\Delta \sim \delta^{z\nu}$ between $|0\rangle_0$ and $|0\rangle_1$.
266: Thus, for all $K < K_c$ there is some $N$ above which there are rotor
267: states $|1,2,\ldots\rangle_0$ below the first VBS state $|0\rangle_1$.
268: As $N \to \infty$ a tower builds up and AF order can form. There is no apparent
269: reason why the AF order has to vanish as $K \to K_c^-$. Accounting for a
270: generic critical point at which both the AF and VBS orders vanish is in
271: fact highly non-trivial---accomplished in the theory of deconfined
272: quantum-criticality \cite{sen04}. For the J-K model, our QMC results suggest
273: instead that the spin stiffness remains non-zero as $K \to K_c^-$, and hence
274: that AF order is robust in the presence of diverging VBS correlations.
275:
276: For $K > K_c$ the VBS states $|0\rangle_{123}$ approach the ground state
277: exponentially as $N \to \infty$. There is thus an $N$ above which the
278: VBS quadruplet falls below the lowest rotor state $|1\rangle_0$. The rotor
279: states $|1,2,\ldots\rangle_0$ should also develop VBS correlations as $K \to K_c^-$,
280: breaking the $Z_4$ symmetry for $K > K_c$. Therefore, the
281: rotor states should be approached by VBS-like states $|1,2,\ldots\rangle_{123}$,
282: which become degenerate at $K_c$. The tower of rotor states, along with the
283: states joining them in quadruplets, thus evolve into a series of VBS-like
284: states. This will also apply to the $k\not=0$ towers. What we propose
285: is that these are the elementary excitations of the VBS, which hence cannot
286: be regarded as ``pure VBS" excitations but involve spin as well. Clearly there
287: will also be $S=0$ excitations of the VBS---these are the pure VBS
288: excitations, which in our scenario would be at higher energy and irrelevant
289: at the transition [in contrast to deconfined quantum-criticality,
290: where there are gapless $S=0$ excitations due to an emergent $U(1)$ symmetry].
291: The key aspect of our scenario is that all the rotor states change qualitatively
292: (but continuously) in a manner similar to the ground state, turning into gapped
293: VBS/spin excitations. No other low-energy states emerge. With no tower of
294: degenerate rotor states as $N \to \infty$ there can be no long-range AF order
295: and hence the stiffness jumps to zero when the gap opens.
296:
297: What is the nature of such spinful gapped VBS excitations and, specifically,
298: why should they be gapped? Regarding a VBS dimer as two spins $i,j$ in a
299: singlet $(\uparrow_i \downarrow_j - \downarrow_i \uparrow_j)$, the state
300: $|1\rangle_{0}$ can be obtained by exciting a dimer into a state
301: $(\uparrow_i \downarrow_j + \downarrow_i \uparrow_j)$. This pair state can
302: separate spatially into two spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ degrees of freedom---spinons---between
303: which a string of out-of-phase dimers forms \cite{sachdevrmp}. The string provides
304: a linear confining potential for the spinons and hence there should be a
305: discrete set of gapped excitations. This singlet-triplet picture is strictly based on
306: $SU(2)$ symmetry, but even in the XY case, where an excited dimer is not a triplet
307: state, there should be analogous confining string states. At the critical point the spinons
308: will become deconfined, and hence our scenario shares some features with deconfined
309: quantum-criticality. There are major differences, however; the absence of emergent $U(1)$
310: symmetry and AF correlations that are not critical but $\sim e^{-a\Delta r}$, where
311: $\Delta$ is the gap and a is a constant. The AF correlation length is thus divergent
312: as $K \to K_c$ from above, but at $K_c$ the correlations are long-ranged, not power-law.
313:
314: We have not explained why the VBS forms, but we have argued that if it does form
315: continuously a simultaneous AF transition of the type we have found numerically
316: is not an unlikely consequence. We also cannot predict the universality class, because
317: our mechanism does not require a particular scaling of the gap at the critical
318: point (related to the dynamic exponent).
319:
320: We have argued for the existence, in an extended parameter space, of an AF-VBS
321: transition in which also the spin stiffness vanishes continuously. In Fig.~\ref{fig4}(b)
322: we consider the evolution of the transition point when a suitable coupling $V$ is added to
323: the J-K model. A line of critical points---which would presumably be in the deconfined
324: class---could extend from the point at which the stiffness first becomes continuous. Another
325: possibility is that the transition is first-order beyond this point. Fig.~\ref{fig4}(b) shows
326: a scenario where there is coexisting AF and VBS order, which requires a different mechanism
327: than the one we have discussed.
328:
329: In principle we cannot rule out a weakly first-order AF-VBS transition \cite{kuk04,spa05}
330: in the J-K model, but our results do not require this. Our simulations, in combination
331: with general arguments of symmetry-breaking and adiabatic evolution of quantum states,
332: instead point to a new potential route to quantum phase transitions beyond the
333: Ginzburg-Landau-Wilson framework. To confirm this scenario, it would clearly be
334: important to identify a field theory exhibiting this type of transition.
335:
336: We thank I. Affleck, L. Balents, M. P. A. Fisher, E. Fradkin, O. Motrunich, N. Prokof'ev,
337: S. Sachdev, D. Scalapino, T. Senthil, B. Svistunov, and A. Vishwanath for stimulating
338: discussions. AWS is supported by NSF Grant No.~DMR05-13930. We also acknowledge
339: support by the NSF under Grant No.~PHY99-07949 at the KITP in Santa Barbara.
340:
341: \null\vskip-10mm
342: \begin{thebibliography}{00}
343:
344: \bibitem{sen04}
345: T. Senthil, A. Vishwanath, L. Balents, S. Sachdev, and M. P. A. Fisher,
346: Science {\bf 303}, 1490 (2004).
347:
348: \bibitem{san02a}
349: A. W. Sandvik, S. Daul, R. R. P. Singh, and D. J. Scalapino,
350: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 247201 (2002).
351:
352: \bibitem{sac02a}
353: S. Sachdev and K. Park, Annals of Physics (N.Y.) {\bf 298}, 58 (2002).
354:
355: \bibitem{kuk04}
356: A. Kuklov, N. Prokof'ev, and B. Svistunov, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93},
357: 230402 (2004); cond-mat/0501052.
358:
359: \bibitem{syl02a}
360: A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 59}, R14157 (1999);
361: O. F. Sylju{\aa}sen and A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 66}, 046701 (2002).
362:
363: \bibitem{mel05}
364: R. G. Melko and A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 72}, 026702 (2005).
365:
366: \bibitem{pol87}
367: E. L. Pollock and D. M. Ceperley, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 36}, 8343 (1987).
368:
369: \bibitem{fis89}
370: M. P. A. Fisher, P. B. Weichman, G. Grinstein, and D. S. Fisher,
371: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 40}, 546 (1989).
372:
373: \bibitem{chu94a}
374: A. V. Chubukov, S. Sachdev and J. Ye,
375: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 49}, 11919 (1994).
376:
377: \bibitem{has93}
378: P. Hasenfratz and F. Niedermayer, Z. Phys. B {\bf 92}, 91 (1993).
379:
380: \bibitem{spa05}
381: L. Spanu, F. Becca, and S. Sorella, cond-mat/0512272.
382:
383: \bibitem{sachdevrmp}
384: S. Sachdev, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 75}, 913 (2003).
385:
386:
387: \end{thebibliography}
388:
389: \end{document}
390:
391:
392:
393:
394:
395:
396:
397:
398: