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

2: %

3: \usepackage{amsmath}

4: \usepackage{amsfonts}

5: \usepackage{amssymb}

6: %

7: \usepackage{graphicx}

8: %

9: \begin{document}

10:   %

11:   \title{Classical and quantum two-dimensional anisotropic Heisenberg antiferromagnets}

12:   \author{M.~Holtschneider}

13:   \affiliation{Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik,

14:     RWTH Aachen,

15:     52056 Aachen, Germany}

16:   \author{S.~Wessel}

17:   \affiliation{Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik III,

18:     Universit\"at Stuttgart,

19:     70550 Stuttgart, Germany}

20:   \author{W.~Selke}

21:   \affiliation{Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik,

22:     RWTH Aachen,

23:     52056 Aachen, Germany}

24:   %

25:   \begin{abstract}

26:     The classical and the quantum, spin~$S=\frac{1}{2}$, versions of the 

27:     uniaxially anisotropic Heisenberg antiferromagnet on a square lattice in a 

28:     field parallel to the easy axis are studied using Monte Carlo techniques. 

29:     For the classical version, attention is drawn to biconical

30:     structures and fluctuations at low 

31:     temperatures in the transition region between the antiferromagnetic and 

32:     spin-flop phases. For the quantum version, the previously 

33:     proposed scenario of a first-order transition between the 

34:     antiferromagnetic and spin-flop phases with a critical endpoint and a 

35:     tricritical point is scrutinized.    

36:   \end{abstract}

37:   %

38:   \pacs{75.10.Hk, 75.10.Jm, 75.40.Mg, 05.10.Ln}

39:   %

40:   \maketitle

41:   %

42:   %

43: \section{Introduction}

44: \label{sec_in}

45: 

46: Uniaxially anisotropic Heisenberg antiferromagnets in an external field along 

47: the easy axis have attracted much interest, both theoretically and 

48: experimentally, due to their interesting structural and critical properties. 

49: In particular, they display a spin-flop phase, and multicritical behavior 

50: occurs at the triple point of the antiferromagnetic (AF), spin-flop (SF) and 

51: paramagnetic phases.\cite{fnk,ro,lb,tk,gj,cab,kst,chl,ou,cu}

52: 

53: A prototypical model for such antiferromagnets is the XXZ model, with the 

54: Hamiltonian

55: \begin{equation}

56:   \mathcal{H} \; = \; 

57:   J \sum\limits_{(i,j)}\left[ \, \Delta (S_i^x S_j^x + S_i^y S_j^y) + S_i^z S_j^z \, \right] \; - \; 

58:   H \sum\limits_{i} S_i^z \quad \text{,}

59:   \label{eq_ham}

60: \end{equation}

61: where the sum runs over neighboring spins of a cubic, dimension~$d=3$, or 

62: square lattice, $d=2$. The coupling constant~$J$ and the field~$H$ are 

63: positive; the anisotropy parameter~$\Delta$ may range from zero to one. 

64: Furthermore, 

65: $S_i^x$, $S_i^y$, and~$S_i^z$ denote the spin components at lattice site~$i$.

66: 

67: For the three-dimensional case, early renormalization group 

68: arguments\cite{fnk} and Monte Carlo simulations\cite{lb} suggested that the 

69: triple point is a bicritical point with $O(3)$~symmetry. Only a few years ago, 

70: this scenario has been questioned, based on high-order perturbative 

71: renormalization group calculations.\cite{cbv} It has been predicted that there 

72: may be either a first order transition, or that the 'tetracritical 

73: biconical' \cite{fnk} fixed point, due to an intervening 'mixed' or

74: 'biconical' phase in between the AF and SF phases \cite{gor,pt,lf}, may

75: be stable.

76: 

77: In two dimensions, conflicting predictions on the nature of the triple point 

78: have been put forward recently \cite{ho,zl,pv,st}, when analyzing the

79: classical version of the 

80: above model with spin vectors of unit length, and the quantum version with 

81: spin~$S=\frac{1}{2}$.

82: 

83: Indeed, in the classical case, simulational evidence for a

84: narrow (disordered) phase between the AF and SF phases has

85: been presented \cite{ho}, extending presumably

86: down to zero temperature. \cite{zl} On the other hand, in

87: the quantum case, based on simulations as well, a direct transition

88: of first order between the AF and SF phases has been argued

89: to occur at low temperatures. \cite{st,koh,yun}

90: 

91: Obviously, experimental data have to be viewed with care because deviations 

92: from the XXZ Hamiltonian, Eq.~(\ref{eq_ham}), such as crystal field 

93: anisotropies or longer-range interactions, may affect relevantly the critical 

94: behavior of the triple point.\cite{gj,lf,lsk,gor,pt,ba}

95: 

96: In the following, we present results from large-scale Monte Carlo 

97: simulations of the XXZ model on a square lattice for both the classical and 

98: the quantum variant. In the quantum Monte Carlo simulations, the method of 

99: the stochastic series expansion (SSE)\cite{sk} is used, and the standard 

100: Metropolis algorithm is applied for the classical case. The simulations are 

101: augmented by a ground-state analysis of the classical model, showing the 

102: significance of biconical structures. The outline of the paper is as follows: 

103: First we shall discuss our findings on the classical model, followed by a 

104: section on the quantum version of the XXZ model. A summary concludes the paper.

105: 

106: \section{Classical model}

107: \label{sec_cl}

108: %

109: \begin{figure}

110:   \includegraphics{figure1}

111:   \caption{Ground state configurations of the classical model sketched by 

112:     the directions of spins on the two sublattices (i.\,e. at neighboring 

113:     sites), from left to right: AF, SF, and biconical state. The circles 

114:     denote the trivial degeneracy in the $xy$-plane.}

115:   \label{fig_gstate}

116: \end{figure}

117: 

118: The ground states of the classical model on a square lattice, see 

119: Hamiltonian~(\ref{eq_ham}), can be determined exactly. The AF structure is 

120: stable for magnetic fields below the critical value

121: \begin{equation}

122:   H_{\text{c}1} \; = \; 4 J \sqrt{1-\Delta^2} \quad \text{,}

123:   \label{eq_hc1}

124: \end{equation}

125: while for larger fields the SF state is energetically favorable. 

126: At~ $H_{\text{c1}}$, the tilt angle~$\theta_{\text{SF}}$ of the SF structures, 

127: see Fig.~\ref{fig_gstate}, is given by

128: \begin{equation}

129:   \theta_{\text{SF}} \; = \; \arccos \sqrt{\frac{1-\Delta}{1+\Delta}} \quad \text{.}

130:   \label{eq_sfangle}

131: \end{equation}

132: Increasing the field beyond \mbox{$H_{\text{c}2} = 4J(1+\Delta)$}, all spins 

133: perfectly align in the $z$-direction.

134: %

135: \begin{figure}

136:   \includegraphics{figure2}

137:   \caption{Detail of the phase diagram of the XXZ model on a square lattice 

138:     with~$\Delta=\frac{4}{5}$, see Ref.~\onlinecite{ho}. Squares refer to the 

139:     boundary of the SF, circles to that of the AF phase. The solid line refers 

140:     to the magnetic field~$H/J=2.41$, where the probability 

141:     distribution~\mbox{$P(\theta_m,\theta_n)$}, depicted in 

142:     Fig.~\ref{fig_2dhisto}, has been obtained.

143:     Here and in the following figures error bars are shown only if the errors 

144:     are larger than the symbol size and dotted lines are guides to the eye.}

145:   \label{fig_clpdiag}

146: \end{figure}

147: 

148: At the critical field~$H_{\text{c}1}$, see Eq.~(\ref{eq_hc1}), the ground 

149: state is degenerate in the AF, the SF, and biconical structures, as 

150: illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig_gstate}. This degeneracy in the biconical 

151: configurations, following from straightforward energy considerations, seems to 

152: have been overlooked in the previous analyses. The structures may be described 

153: by the tilt angles, $\theta_1$~and~$\theta_2$, formed between the directions 

154: of the spins on the two sublattices of the antiferromagnet and the easy axis. 

155: For a given value of~$\theta_1$, the other angle~$\theta_2$ is fixed by

156: \begin{equation}

157:   \theta_2 \; = \; \arccos 

158:   \left( \frac{ \sqrt{1-\Delta^2} \; - \; \cos\theta_1 }{ 1 \; - \; \sqrt{1-\Delta^2} \cos\theta_1 } \right) 

159:   \quad \text{.}

160:   \label{eq_bic}

161: \end{equation}

162: Obviously, the biconical configurations transform the AF into the SF 

163: state: The spins on the "up-sublattice" of the AF structure, with the

164: spins pointing into the direction of the field, may be thought of to vary 

165: from~$\theta_1=0$ to $\pm\theta_{\text{SF}}$, while the spins on the 

166: "down-sublattice" vary simultaneously from~$\theta_2=\pi$ 

167: to~$\mp\theta_{\text{SF}}$. Accordingly, $\theta_1$~determines 

168: uniquely~$\theta_2$ and vice versa. Apart from this continuous degeneracy 

169: in~$\theta_1$ (or~$\theta_2$), there is an additional rotational degeneracy of 

170: the biconical configurations in the spin components perpendicular to the easy 

171: axis, the $xy$-components, as for the SF structure, see 

172: Fig.~(\ref{fig_gstate}). These components are, of course, 

173: antiferromagnetically aligned at neighboring sites.

174: %

175: \begin{figure}

176:   \includegraphics{figure3}

177:   \caption{Joint probability distribution~\mbox{$P(\theta_m,\theta_n)$} 

178:     showing the correlations between the tilt angles~$\theta_m$ 

179:     and~$\theta_n$ on neighboring sites~$m$ and~$n$ for a system of 

180:     size~$L=80$ at~$H/J=2.41$, $k_BT/J=0.255$, and~$\Delta=\frac{4}{5}$. 

181:     \mbox{$P(\theta_m,\theta_n)$}~is proportional to the gray scale. The 

182:     superimposed black line depicts the relation between the two angles in the 

183:     biconical ground state, see Eq.~(\ref{eq_bic}).}

184:   \label{fig_2dhisto}

185: \end{figure}

186: 

187: To study the possible thermal relevance of the biconical structures at~$T>0$,

188: we performed Monte Carlo simulations analyzing the joint probability 

189: distribution~\mbox{$P(\theta_m,\theta_n)$} for having tilt 

190: angles~$\theta_m$ and~$\theta_n$ at neighboring sites, $m$~and~$n$. For 

191: comparison with the previous studies\cite{lb,ho,zl} we 

192: set~$\Delta=\frac{4}{5}$, leading to the phase diagram depicted in 

193: Fig.~\ref{fig_clpdiag}. For example, fixing the field at~$H=2.41J$, we 

194: observed at~\mbox{$k_BT/J\approx 0.255$} an Ising-type transition on approach 

195: from higher temperatures and a Kosterlitz-Thouless-type transition on approach 

196: from the low-temperature side, extending our corresponding previous 

197: findings\cite{ho} to even lower temperatures, and in agreement with recent 

198: results.\cite{zl} Indeed, as depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig_2dhisto}, in that part 

199: of the phase diagram, being in the vicinity of the very narrow intervening, 

200: supposedly disordered phase, the joint 

201: probability~\mbox{$P(\theta_m,\theta_n)$} exhibits a line of local maxima 

202: following closely Eq.~(\ref{eq_bic}), obtained for the ground state. That 

203: behavior is largely independent of the size of the lattices we 

204: studied. Similar signatures of the biconical structures are observed in the 

205: simulations at nearby temperatures, when fixing the field at~$H=2.41J$, as 

206: well as in the vicinity of the entire transition region between the AF and 

207: SF phases, see Fig.~\ref{fig_clpdiag}, at higher fields and temperatures.

208: 

209: Accordingly, we tend to conclude that biconical fluctuations are dominating in 

210: the narrow intervening phase. Whether that phase exists as a disordered phase 

211: down to the ground state or whether there is a stable biconical phase in two 

212: dimensions, remain open questions, being beyond the scope of this article.

213: 

214: Note that our additional Monte Carlo simulations for the anisotropic XY 

215: antiferromagnet in a field on a square lattice show that the analogues

216: of 'biconical' structures (the orientation of the spins being now given

217: by the two tilt angles only) and fluctuations play an important role

218: near the transition regime between the AF 

219: and SF phases in that case as well. In fact, Eq.~(\ref{eq_bic}) provides an 

220: excellent guidance for interpreting our simulational data similar to

221: the ones presented in Fig. 3.

222: 

223: \section{Quantum XXZ model}

224: \label{sec_qu}

225: %

226: \begin{figure}

227:   \includegraphics{figure4}

228:   \caption{Phase diagram of the XXZ Heisenberg antiferromagnet with 

229:     spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ and~$\Delta=\frac{2}{3}$. The straight solid lines 

230:     denote the choices of parameters where our very extensive

231:     simulations, discussed in the text, have 

232:     been performed. The arrows mark the previously\cite{st} 

233:     suggested locations of the tricritical point~($T_{\text{t}}$) and 

234:     the critical endpoint~($T_{\text{ce}}$).}

235:   \label{fig_phdg}

236: \end{figure}

237: 

238: The aim of the study on the quantum version, $S=\frac{1}{2}$, of the XXZ 

239: model, Eq.~(\ref{eq_ham}), has been to check the previously suggested scenario 

240: of a first-order phase transition between the AF and SF phases extending up to 

241: a critical endpoint and with a tricritical point on the AF phase boundary, 

242: see Fig.~\ref{fig_phdg}.

243: 

244: We performed quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) simulations in the framework of the 

245: stochastic series expansion (SSE)\cite{sk} using directed loop 

246: updates~\cite{su}. We consider square lattices of $L\times L$~sites with the 

247: linear dimension~$L$ ranging from~$2$ to~$150$, employing full periodic 

248: boundary conditions. Defining, as usual,\cite{sk} a single QMC step as one 

249: diagonal update followed by the construction of several operator-loops, each 

250: individual run typically consists of~$10^6$ steps and is preceded by at 

251: least~$2\cdot10^5$ steps for thermal equilibration. Averages and error bars 

252: are obtained by taking into account results of several, ranging 

253: from~$8$ to~$32$, Monte Carlo runs, choosing different initial configurations 

254: and random numbers. Especially for large systems and low temperatures we 

255: additionally utilize the technique of parallel tempering (or exchange Monte 

256: Carlo)\cite{pt1,se} to enable the simulated systems to overcome the large 

257: energy barriers between configurations related to different phases more 

258: frequently. We typically work with a chain of $16$~to $32$~configurations in 

259: parallel which are simulated at different equally spaced temperature or 

260: magnetic field values allowing for an exchange of neighboring configurations 

261: after a constant number of QMC steps. The achieved reduction of the 

262: autocorrelation times, e.g. of the different magnetizations discussed

263: below, amounts up to several orders of magnitude and therefore results in 

264: significantly smaller correlations between subsequent measurements which, in 

265: turn, allows for shorter simulation times.

266: 

267: To determine the phase diagram and to check against previous work\cite{st}, we 

268: calculated various physical quantities including the $z$-component of the 

269: total magnetization,

270: \begin{equation}

271:   M^z \; = \; \frac{1}{L^2} \sum_i \langle S_i^z \rangle \quad \text{,}

272: \end{equation}

273: and the square of the $z$-component of the staggered magnetization,

274: \begin{equation}

275:   (M^z_{\text{st}})^2 \; = \; \frac{1}{L^2} 

276:   \left[ \sum_{i_a} \langle S_{i_a}^z \rangle \; - \; \sum_{i_b}

277:   \langle S_{i_b}^z \rangle \right]^2 

278:   \quad \text{,}

279: \end{equation}

280: summing over all sites, $i_a$ and $i_b$, of the two sublattices of the 

281: antiferromagnet. A useful quantity in studying the SF phase is the 

282: spin-stiffness~$\rho_s$ which is related to the change of the free-energy on 

283: imposing an infinitesimal twist on all bonds in one direction of the lattice. 

284: In QMC simulations the spin-stiffness can conveniently be measured by the 

285: fluctuations of the winding numbers~$W_x$ and~$W_y$,\cite{sk}

286: \begin{equation}

287:   \rho_s \; = \; \frac{k_B T}{2} \left( W_x^2 + W_y^2 \right) \quad \text{.}

288: \end{equation}

289: The winding numbers themselves are given by

290: \begin{equation}

291:   W_{\alpha} \; = \; \frac{1}{L} \left( N^+_{\alpha} \; - \; N^-_{\alpha} \right),

292: \end{equation}

293: where~$N^+_{\alpha}$ and~$N^-_{\alpha}$ denote the number of 

294: operators~$S^+_iS^-_j$ and~$S^-_iS^+_j$ in the SSE operator sequence with a 

295: bond~$\langle i,j \rangle$ in the $\alpha$-direction, $\alpha\in\{x,y\}$.

296: 

297: All data for the quantum model presented here are obtained at an anisotropy 

298: parameter of~$\Delta=\frac{2}{3}$ to allow for comparison with previous 

299: findings\cite{st,ho}. The phase diagram in the region of interest, where all 

300: three phases, the AF, the SF, and the paramagnetic phase 

301: occur, is displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig_phdg}.

302: %

303: \begin{figure}

304:   \includegraphics{figure5}

305:   \caption{Positions of the maxima of the magnetization histograms as a 

306:     function of the inverse system size. The inset exemplifies two histograms 

307:     for systems of size $L=32$~(circles) and $L=150$~(squares) 

308:     at~$k_BT/J=0.13$ and the coexistence fields~$H/J=1.23075$ 

309:     and~$H/J=1.232245$.}

310:   \label{fig_hist}

311: \end{figure}

312: 

313: The earlier study\cite{st} asserted a phase diagram with a tricritical point 

314: at~\mbox{$k_B T_{\text{t}}/J\approx 0.141$} and a direct first-order 

315: transition between the SF and AF phases below the critical endpoint 

316: at~\mbox{$k_B T_{\text{ce}}/J\approx 0.118$}, see Fig.~\ref{fig_phdg}. In 

317: detail the authors identified a first-order AF to paramagnetic transition 

318: at~$k_BT/J=0.13$ by means of an analysis of the magnetization 

319: histograms~$p(M^z)$. We studied that case, improving the statistics and 

320: considering even larger lattice sizes. Indeed, as expected for a discontinuous 

321: change of the magnetization, the histograms of finite systems are confirmed to 

322: display two distinct maxima corresponding to the ordered and the disordered 

323: phase in the vicinity of the AF phase boundary (see inset of 

324: Fig.~\ref{fig_hist}). Note however, that such a two-peak structure can also be 

325: found for small systems at a continuous transition, with a single peak in the 

326: thermodynamic limit. Thence, a careful finite-size analysis is needed to, 

327: possibly, discriminate the two different scenarios. We simulated lattice sizes 

328: with up to~\mbox{$150\times 150$} spins adjusting the magnetic field such that 

329: coexistence of the phases, i.e. equal weight of the two peaks, is provided. As 

330: depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig_hist} the positions of the maxima as a function of 

331: the inverse system size exhibit a curvature, which becomes more pronounced for 

332: larger lattices. In contrast, in the previous analysis\cite{st} at the same 

333: temperature, linear dependences of the peak positions as a function of~$1/L$ 

334: had been presumed, leading to distinct two peaks in the thermodynamic limit. 

335: We conclude, that the previous claims of a first-order transition 

336: at~$k_BT/J=0.13$ and of the existence of a tricritical point 

337: at~\mbox{$k_BT_{\text{t}}/J\approx 0.141$} needs to be viewed with care. 

338: Indeed, the tricritical point seems, if it exists at all, to be shifted 

339: towards lower temperatures.

340: 

341: In the previous work\cite{st} a direct transition of first order 

342: between the AF and SF phases has been suggested to take place at 

343: lower temperatures, \mbox{$k_BT/J\leq k_BT_{\text{ce}}/J\approx 0.118$}. To 

344: check this suggestion we studied the system at constant field~$H/J = 1.225$, 

345: where such a direct transition would occur, see Fig.~\ref{fig_phdg}. 

346: Calculating the expectation values of the different magnetizations as well as 

347: the corresponding histograms we obtain an estimate of the critical temperature 

348: of the AF phase, \mbox{$k_BT_{\text{AF}}=0.09625\pm 0.0005$}.

349: %

350: \begin{figure}

351:   \includegraphics{figure6}

352:   \caption{Doubly logarithmic plot of the staggered 

353:     magnetization~$(M^z_{st})^2$ vs. the system size~$L$ at~$H/J=1.225$ for 

354:     the temperatures $k_BT/J = 0.095$, $0.0955$, $0.096$, $0.0965$, $0.097$, 

355:     and~$0.0975$ (from bottom to top). The straight line proportional 

356:     to~$L^{\frac{1}{4}}$ illustrates the expected finite-size behavior close 

357:     to a continuous transition of Ising type.}

358:   \label{fig_stmz}

359: \end{figure}

360: 

361: Surprisingly, approaching the transition from the AF phase, the finite-size 

362: behavior of the squared staggered magnetization~$(M^z_{\text{st}})^2$, 

363: being the AF order parameter, is still consistent with a continuous transition 

364: in the Ising universality class: As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig_stmz} the 

365: asymptotic region is very narrow, similar to the observations in the classical 

366: model.\cite{ho,zl} The dependence on the system size seems to 

367: obey~\mbox{$(M^z_{\text{st}})^2 \propto L^{1/4}$} right at the transition, as 

368: expected for the Ising universality class.\cite{on}

369: 

370: Furthermore, approaching the transition from the SF phase, an analysis 

371: of the spin-stiffness~$\rho_s$  at 

372: the same field value of~$H/J=1.225$ results in about the same transition 

373: temperature, \mbox{$k_BT_{\text{SF}}/J=0.09625\pm 0.001$}. Thence, there may 

374: be either a unique transition between the SF and AF phases, or, as observed 

375: in the classical case, an extremely narrow intervening phase, with phase 

376: boundaries of Ising and Kosterlitz-Thouless (KT) type.

377: 

378: To determine, whether a KT transition describes the disordering of the SF 

379: phase, we check the theoretical prediction\cite{kt,nk} that for the infinite 

380: system the spin-stiffness is finite within the SF phase, 

381: takes on a universal value at the KT transition related to~$T_{\text{KT}}$ by

382: \begin{equation}

383:   \rho_s(T=T_{\text{KT}},L=\infty) \; = \; \frac{2}{\pi} \; k_B T_{\text{KT}} \quad \text{,}

384:   \label{eq_ktstif}

385: \end{equation}

386: and discontinuously vanishes in the disordered phase. As depicted in 

387: Fig.~\ref{fig_stif}, the spin-stiffness~$\rho_s$ at~$T = T_{\text{SF}}$ seems 

388: to be, at first sight, significantly larger than the KT-critical value given 

389: by Eq.~(\ref{eq_ktstif}). Indeed, in the earlier study\cite{st} it has been 

390: argued, based on similar observations, that there is a direct first order AF to SF 

391: transition. However, the finite-size effects close to the 

392: transition deserve a careful analysis: For the KT scenario, renormalization 

393: group calculations\cite{wm,wm1} predict the asymptotic size dependence 

394: at~$T=T_{\text{KT}}$ to obey 

395: \begin{multline}

396:   \rho_s(T=T_{\text{KT}},L) \quad = \\

397:   \quad \rho_s(T=T_{\text{KT}},L=\infty) \; \left( 1 \; + \; \frac{1}{2\ln L \; - \; C_0} \right) \quad \text{,}

398:   \label{eq_stifffs}

399: \end{multline}

400: where~$C_0$ denotes an apriorily unknown, non-universal, parameter. By 

401: studying the quantity\cite{hk}

402: \begin{equation}

403:   C(L) \; = \; -2 \left[ \left( \frac{\pi \rho_s}{k_B T} - 2 \right)^{-1} \; - \; \ln L \,\right] \quad \text{,}

404:   \label{eq_stifcl}

405: \end{equation}

406: which, according to Eqs.~\ref{eq_ktstif} and~\ref{eq_stifffs}, converges 

407: for~$L\rightarrow\infty$ and~$T=T_{\text{KT}}$ to the value~$C_0$ at a KT 

408: transition, we obtain a rough estimate of $C_0 \approx 5$. A prediction of the 

409: finite-size behavior at~$T_{\text{SF}}$ is obtained by inserting this value, 

410: $C_0=5$, into Eq.~(\ref{eq_stifffs}). Comparing the data of the 

411: spin-stiffness~$\rho_s$ in the direct vicinity of the boundary of the SF phase 

412: with the prediction according to the KT theory, see Fig.~\ref{fig_stif} b), 

413: one may conclude that the lattice sizes accessible by simulations, 

414: \mbox{$L\leq 64$}, seem to be too small to capture the asymptotic finite-size 

415: behavior. In any event, in case of a KT transition, the 

416: spin-stiffness~$\rho_s$ drops asymptotically very rapidly to its universal 

417: critical value as a function of system size, being consistent with the 

418: relatively large values for the simulated finite lattices. Thus, a scenario 

419: with a KT transition between the SF and a narrow intervening disordered phase 

420: cannot be ruled out by the present large-scale simulations down to 

421: temperatures as low as\mbox{~$k_BT/J=0.09625 \pm 0.001$}.

422: %

423: \begin{figure}

424:   \includegraphics{figure7}

425:   \caption{a) Spin stiffness~$\rho_s/J$ vs. temperature~$k_BT/J$ for the 

426:     different system sizes $L=8$~(circles), $16$~(squares), $32$~(diamonds), 

427:     and $64$~(triangles). The straight line denotes the critical value of the 

428:     spin-stiffness according to the formula of Nelson and Kosterlitz\cite{nk}, 

429:     see Eq.~(\ref{eq_ktstif}).\\

430:     b) Finite-size behavior of the spin-stiffness~$\rho_s/J$ at $H/J=1.225$ as 

431:     a function of the inverse system size,~$1/L$ for the 

432:     temperatures~$k_BT/J=0.0955$, $0.096$, $0.0965$, $0.097$, and~$0.0975$ 

433:     (from top to bottom). The dashed curve illustrates the estimated 

434:     asymptotic behavior according to Eq.~(\ref{eq_stifffs}) 

435:     with~$k_BT_{\text{KT}}/J=0.09625$ and~$C_0=5$, the corresponding critical 

436:     value~\mbox{$\rho_s(T_{\text{KT}},L=\infty)\approx 0.0613$} is marked by 

437:     the filled circle.}

438:   \label{fig_stif}

439: \end{figure}

440: 

441: Of course, it is desirable to quantify the role of biconical fluctuations in 

442: the quantum case as well. However, accessing the probability distributions of 

443: the tilt angles studied in Sect.~\ref{sec_cl} for the quantum case is beyond 

444: the scope of the present numerical analysis.

445: 

446: \section{Summary}

447: \label{sec_ds}

448: 

449: We studied the classical and quantum, $S=\frac{1}{2}$, versions of the XXZ 

450: Heisenberg antiferromagnet on the square lattice in an external field along 

451: the easy axis. The model is known to display ordered AF and SF as well as 

452: disordered, paramagnetic phases. Here we focused attention to the region of 

453: the phase diagram near and below the temperature where the two boundary lines 

454: between the AF and the SF phases and the disordered phase approach 

455: each other, meeting eventually at a triple point. We performed Monte Carlo 

456: simulations, augmented, in the classical case, by a ground state analysis. 

457: 

458: In the classical version, we presented first direct evidence for the 

459: importance of biconical structures in the XXZ model. Indeed, such 

460: configurations do exist already as ground states at the critical 

461: field~$H_{\text{c}1}$, separating the AF and SF phases. The interdependence of 

462: the two tilt angles, characterizing the biconical ground states, persists

463: at finite temperatures, in the region where the narrow phase between the AF 

464: and SF phases is expected to occur. Indeed, the joint probability distribution 

465: of the tilt angles at neighboring sites demonstrates the thermal significance 

466: of those configurations. Previous arguments on $O(3)$~symmetry in that 

467: region and down to zero temperature thus have to be viewed with care.

468: The results of the present simulations suggest that, if the biconical 

469: configurations do not lead to a stable biconical phase in two dimensions, the 

470: narrow intervening phase is a disordered phase characterized by biconical 

471: fluctuations. In this sense the "hidden bicritical point" at~$T=0$ may then be 

472: coined into a "hidden tetracritical point."

473: 

474: In the quantum version, previous simulations suggested, on lowering the 

475: temperature, the existence of a tricritical point on the boundary line between 

476: the AF and disordered phases, followed by a critical endpoint being the triple 

477: point of the AF, SF and disordered phases, and eventually by a first-order 

478: transition between the AF and SF phases at sufficiently low temperatures. The 

479: present simulations, considering larger system sizes and improved statistics, 

480: provide evidence that this scenario, if it exists at all, has to be shifted 

481: to lower temperatures than proposed before. Of course, simulations on even 

482: larger lattices and lower temperatures would be desirable, but are extremely 

483: time consuming. 

484: 

485: A clue on possible distinct phase diagrams for the classical and quantum 

486: versions may be obtained from an analysis of biconical fluctuations in the 

487: quantum case. Experimental studies on signatures of those fluctuations are 

488: also encouraged.

489: 

490: \acknowledgments

491: Financial support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under grant 

492: No.~SE~324/4 is gratefully acknowledged. We thank A.~Honecker,

493: B.~Kastening, R.~Leidl, A.~Pelissetto, M.~Troyer, and E.~Vicari for

494: useful discussions and 

495: information.

496: 

497: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

498: %

499: \bibitem{fnk} M.\ E.\ Fisher and D.\ R.\ Nelson,

500:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{32}, 1350 (1974);

501:   D.\ R.\ Nelson, J.\ M.\ Kosterlitz, and M.\ E.\ Fisher,

502:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{33}, 813 (1974);

503:   J.\ M.\ Kosterlitz, D.\ R.\ Nelson, and M.\ E.\ Fisher,

504:   Phys.\ Rev.\ B\ \textbf{13}, 412 (1976).

505: \bibitem{ro} H.\ Rohrer,

506:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{34}, 1638 (1975).

507: \bibitem{lb} K.\ Binder and D.\ P.\ Landau,

508:   Phys.\ Rev.\ B\ \textbf{13}, 1140 (1976);

509:   D.\ P.\ Landau and K.\ Binder,

510:   Phys.\ Rev.\ B\ \textbf{24}, 1391 (1981).

511: \bibitem{tk} K.\ Takeda and K.\ Koyama, J.\ Phys.\ Soc.\ Jpn.\

512:   \textbf{52}, 648 (1983);  J.\ Phys.\ Soc.\ Jpn.\ \textbf{52}, 656 (1983).

513: \bibitem{gj} H.\ J.\ M.\ de Groot and L.\ J.\ de Jongh,

514:   Physica B\ \textbf{141}, 1 (1986).

515: \bibitem{cab} R.\ A.\ Cowley, A.\ Aharony, R.\ J.\ Birgeneau, R.\ A.\ Pelcovits, G.\ Shirane, and T.\ R.\ Thurston,

516:   Z.\ Phys.\ B\ \textbf{93}, 5 (1993).

517: \bibitem{kst} R.\ van de Kamp, M.\ Steiner, and H.\ Tietze--Jaensch,

518:   Physica B\ \textbf{241-243}, 570 (1997).

519: \bibitem{chl} R.\ J.\ Christianson, R.\ L.\ Leheny, R.\ J.\ Birgeneau, and R.\ W.\ Erwin,

520:   Phys.\ Rev.\ B\ \textbf{63}, 140401(R) (2001).

521: \bibitem{ou} K.\ Ohgushi and Y.\ Ueda,

522:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{95}, 217202 (2005).

523: \bibitem{cu} A.\ Cuccoli, G.\ Gori, R.\ Vaia, and P.\ Verrucchi,

524:   J.\ Appl.\ Phys.\ \textbf{99}, 08H503 (2006).

525: \bibitem{cbv} P.\ Calabrese, A.\ Pelissetto, and E.\ Vicari,

526:   Phys.\ Rev.\ B\ \textbf{67}, 054505 (2003).

527: \bibitem{gor} C.\ J.\ Gorter and T.\ Van\ Peski-Tinbergen,

528:   Physica\ \textbf{22}, 273 (1956).

529: \bibitem{pt} H.\ Matsuda and T.\ Tsuneto,

530:   Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.,\ Supp.\ \textbf{46}, 411 (1970).

531: \bibitem{lf} K.-S.\ Liu and M.\ E.\ Fisher,

532:   J.\ Low.\ Temp.\ Phys.\ \textbf{10}, 655 (1973).

533: \bibitem{ho} M.\ Holtschneider, W.\ Selke, and R.\ Leidl,

534:   Phys.\ Rev.\ B\ \textbf{72}, 064443 (2005).

535: \bibitem{zl} C.\ Zhou, D.\ P.\ Landau, and T.\ C.\ Schulthess,

536:   Phys.\ Rev.\ B\ \textbf{74}, 064407 (2006).

537: \bibitem{pv} A.\ Pelissetto and E.\ Vicari,

538:   cond-mat/0702273 (2007).

539: \bibitem{st} G.\ Schmid, S.\ Todo, M.\ Troyer, and A.\ Dorneich,

540:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{88}, 167208 (2002).

541: \bibitem{koh} M.\ Kohno and M.\ Takahashi, Phys.\ Rev.\ B\

542:   \textbf{56}, 3212 (1997).

543: \bibitem{yun} S.\ Yunoki, Phys.\ Rev.\ B\ \textbf{65}, 092402 (2002).

544: \bibitem{ba} A.\ D.\ Bruce and A.\ Aharony, Phys.\ Rev.\ B\

545:   \textbf{11}, 478 (1975); D.\ Mukamel, Phys.\ Rev.\ B\

546:   \textbf{14}, 1303 (1976); E.\ Domany and M.\ E.\ Fisher, Phys.\ Rev.\

547:   B\ \textbf{15}, 3510 (1977).

548: \bibitem{lsk} R.\ Leidl and W.\ Selke,

549:   Phys.\ Rev.\ B\ \textbf{70}, 174425 (2004);

550:   R.\ Leidl, R.\ Klingeler, B.\ B{\"u}chner, M.\ Holtschneider, and W.\ Selke,

551:   Phys.\ Rev.\ B\ \textbf{73}, 224415 (2006).

552: \bibitem{sk} A.\ W.\ Sandvik and J.\ Kurkij{\"a}rvi,

553:   Phys.\ Rev.\ B\ \textbf{43}, 5950 (1991);

554:   A.\ W.\ Sandvik,

555:   J.\ Phys.\ A\ \textbf{25}, 3667 (1992).

556: \bibitem{su} O.\ F.\ Sylju{\aa}sen and A.\ W.\ Sandvik,

557:   Phys.\ Rev.\ E\ \textbf{66}, 046701 (2002).

558: \bibitem{pt1} K.\ Hukushima and K.\ Nemoto,

559:   J.\ Phys.\ Soc.\ Jpn.\ \textbf{65}, 1604 (1996).

560: \bibitem{se} P.\ Sengupta, A.\ W.\ Sandvik, and D.\ K.\ Campbell,

561:   Phys.\ Rev.\ B\ \textbf{65}, 155113 (2002).

562: \bibitem{on} L.\ Onsager,

563:   Phys. Rev.\ \textbf{65}, 117 (1944).

564: \bibitem{kt} J.\ M.\ Kosterlitz and D.\ J.\ Thouless,

565:   J.\ Phys.\ C\ \textbf{6}, 1181 (1973).

566: \bibitem{nk} D.\ R.\ Nelson and J.\ M.\ Kosterlitz,

567:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{39}, 1201 (1977).

568: \bibitem{wm} P.\ Minnhagen and H.\ Weber,

569:   Physica\ B\ \textbf{152}, 50 (1988).

570: \bibitem{wm1} H. Weber and P. Minnhagen,

571:   Phys.\ Rev.\ B\ \textbf{37}, 5986 (1988).

572: \bibitem{hk} K.\ Harada and N.\ Kawashima,

573:   Phys.\ Rev.\ B\ \textbf{55}, R11949 (1997).

574:   %

575: \end{thebibliography} 

576: 

577: \end{document}

578: