Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Physical review. B, Condensed matter

Exact diagonalization study of the frustrated Heisenberg model: A new disordered phase

Elbio R. Dagotto, Adriana Moreo

Published Mar 1, 1989• 90 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The spin-(1/2 frustrated Heisenberg model is studied on a square lattice using the modified Lanczos technique. Frustration is introduced in the system through an additional coupling along the diagonals of the plaquettes. On a 4\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}4 lattice the ground state smoothly interpolates between two asymptotic N\'eel-like limits. However, on a narrow region of parameter space we find that the lowest-lying levels above the ground state are singlets rather than triplets, suggesting the existence of a new phase in the thermodynamic limit.

DOI
10.1103/physrevb.39.4744

Related papers

Phase diagram of the frustrated spin-1/2 Heisenberg antiferromagnet in 2 dimensions

Elbio R. Dagotto, Adriana Moreo

Using a Lanczos technique we study the frustrated spin-(1/2 Heisenberg model on square lattices of 16 and 20 sites. Frustration is introduced by an interaction along the diagonals of the plaquettes with coupling ${J}_{2}$\ensuremath{\ge}0. For large ${J}_{2}$ we found that the ground state breaks (spontaneously) the lattice rotational symmetry. For intermediate values of ${J}_{2}$, the squares of order parameters associated with spin-Peierls and ``twisted'' states have a peak while a similar quantity for a chiral state shows no interesting structure.

Physical Review Letters•Nov 6, 1989•329 citations

Ground-state phase diagram of the spin- 12 square-lattice J1 - J2 model with plaquette structure

Oliver Götze, Sven E. Krüger, F. Fleck +2 more

Using the coupled-cluster method for high orders of approximation and Lanczos exact diagonalization we study the ground-state phase diagram of a quantum spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ ${J}_{1}$-${J}_{2}$ model on the square lattice with plaquette structure. We consider antiferromagnetic (${J}_{1}>0$) as well as ferromagnetic (${J}_{1}<0$) nearest-neighbor interactions together with frustrating antiferromagnetic next-nearest-neighbor interaction ${J}_{2}>0$. The strength of interplaquette interaction $\ensuremath{\lambda}$ varies between $\ensuremath{\lambda}=1$ (which corresponds to the uniform ${J}_{1}$-${J}_{2}$ model) and $\ensuremath{\lambda}=0$ (which corresponds to isolated frustrated 4-spin plaquettes). While on the classical level ($s\ensuremath{\rightarrow}\ensuremath{\infty}$) both versions of models (i.e., with ferro- and antiferromagnetic ${J}_{1}$) exhibit the same ground-state behavior, the ground-state phase diagram differs basically for the quantum case $s=1/2$. For the antiferromagnetic case (${J}_{1}>0$) N\'eel antiferromagnetic long-range order at small ${J}_{2}/{J}_{1}$ and $\ensuremath{\lambda}\ensuremath{\gtrsim}0.47$ as well as collinear striped antiferromagnetic long-range order at large ${J}_{2}/{J}_{1}$ and $\ensuremath{\lambda}\ensuremath{\gtrsim}0.30$ appear which correspond to their classical counterparts. Both semiclassical magnetic phases are separated by a nonmagnetic quantum paramagnetic phase. The parameter region, where this nonmagnetic phase exists, increases with decreasing $\ensuremath{\lambda}$. For the ferromagnetic case (${J}_{1}<0$) we have the trivial ferromagnetic ground state at small ${J}_{2}/|{J}_{1}|$. By increasing ${J}_{2}$ this classical phase gives way for a semiclassical plaquette phase, where the plaquette block spins of length $s=2$ are antiferromagnetically long-range ordered. Further increasing of ${J}_{2}$ then yields collinear striped antiferromagnetic long-range order for $\ensuremath{\lambda}\ensuremath{\gtrsim}0.38$, but a nonmagnetic quantum paramagnetic phase $\ensuremath{\lambda}\ensuremath{\lesssim}0.38$.

arXiv:1205.0681•Physical Review B•Jun 21, 2012•16 citations

Generalized quantum dimer model applied to the frustrated Heisenberg model on the square lattice: Emergence of a mixed columnar-plaquette phase

Arnaud Ralko, Matthieu Mambrini, Didier Poilblanc

Aiming to describe frustrated quantum magnets with nonmagnetic singlet ground states, we have extended the Rokhsar-Kivelson (RK) loop expansion to derive a generalized quantum dimer model containing only connected terms up to arbitrary order. For the square-lattice frustrated Heisenberg antiferromagnet (${J}_{1}\text{\ensuremath{-}}{J}_{2}\text{\ensuremath{-}}{J}_{3}$ model), an expansion up to eighth order shows that the leading correction to the original RK model comes from dimer moves on length-6 loops. This model free of the original sign problem is treated by advanced numerical techniques. The results suggest that a rotationally anisotropic plaquette phase [A. Ralko, D. Poilblanc, and R. Moessner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 037201 (2008)] is the ground state of the Heisenberg model in the parameter region of maximum frustration.

arXiv:0905.2039•Physical Review B•Nov 30, 2009•39 citations

Ground state phases of the spin-1/2 J1–J2 Heisenberg antiferromagnet on the square lattice: A high-order coupled cluster treatment

R. Darradi, Oleg Derzhko, Ronald Zinke +3 more

Using the coupled cluster method for high orders of approximation and complementary exact diagonalization studies we investigate the ground state properties of the spin-1/2 ${J}_{1}--{J}_{2}$ frustrated Heisenberg antiferromagnet on the square lattice. We have calculated the ground state energy, the magnetic order parameter, the spin stiffness, and several generalized susceptibilities to probe magnetically disordered quantum valence-bond phases. We have found that the quantum critical points for both the N\'eel and collinear orders are ${J}_{2}^{c1}\ensuremath{\approx}(0.44\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.01){J}_{1}$ and ${J}_{2}^{c2}\ensuremath{\approx}(0.59\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.01){J}_{1}$, respectively, which are in good agreement with the results obtained by other approximations. In contrast to the recent study by [Sirker et al. Phys. Rev. B 73, 184420 (2006)], our data do not provide evidence for the transition from the N\'eel to the valence-bond solid state to be first order. Moreover, our results are in favor of the deconfinement scenario for that phase transition. We also discuss the nature of the magnetically disordered quantum phase.

arXiv:0806.3825•Physical Review B•Dec 11, 2008•183 citations

Plaquette valence-bond crystal in the frustrated Heisenberg quantum antiferromagnet on the square lattice

Matthieu Mambrini, Andreas Martin Läuchli, Didier Poilblanc +1 more

Using both exact diagonalizations and diagonalizations in a subset of short-range valence-bond singlets, we address the nature of the groundstate of the Heisenberg spin-$1∕2$ antiferromagnet on the square lattice with competing next-nearest and next-next-nearest neighbor antiferromagnetic couplings (${J}_{1}\ensuremath{-}{J}_{2}\ensuremath{-}{J}_{3}$ model). A detailed comparison of the two approaches reveals a region along the line $({J}_{2}+{J}_{3})∕{J}_{1}=1∕2$, where the description in terms of nearest-neighbor singlet coverings is excellent, therefore providing evidence for a magnetically disordered region. Furthermore, a careful analysis of dimer-dimer correlation functions, dimer structure factors and plaquette-plaquette correlation functions provides striking evidence for the presence of a plaquette valence bond crystal order in part of the magnetically disordered region.

arXiv:cond-mat/0606776•Physical Review B•Oct 23, 2006•213 citations

Ground-state phases of the frustrated spin- 12 J1 – J2 – J3 Heisenberg ferromagnet ( J1<0 ) on the honeycomb lattice with J3=J2>0

P. H. Y. Li, R. F. Bishop, DAMIAN J. J. FARNELL +2 more

We study the ground-state (GS) properties of the frustrated spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ ${J}_{1}$--${J}_{2}$--${J}_{3}$ Heisenberg model on the two-dimensional honeycomb lattice with ferromagnetic nearest-neighbor (${J}_{1}=\ensuremath{-}1$) exchange and frustrating antiferromagnetic next-nearest-neighbor (${J}_{2}>0$) and next-next-nearest-neighbor (${J}_{3}>0$) exchanges, for the case ${J}_{3}={J}_{2}$. We use the coupled-cluster method implemented to high orders of approximation, complemented by the Lanczos exact diagonalization of a large finite lattice with 32 sites, in order to calculate the GS energy, magnetic order parameter, and spin-spin correlation functions. In one scenario we find a quantum phase transition point between regions characterized by ferromagnetic order and a form of antiferromagnetic (``striped'') collinear order at ${J}_{2}^{c}\ensuremath{\approx}0.1095\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.0005$, which is below the corresponding hypothetical transition point at ${J}_{2}^{\mathrm{cl}}=\frac{1}{7}$ ($\ensuremath{\approx}0.143$) for the classical version of the model, in which we momentarily ignore the intervening noncollinear spiral phase in the region $\frac{1}{10}<{J}_{2}<\frac{1}{5}$. Hence we see that quantum fluctuations appear to stabilize somewhat the collinear antiferromagnetic order in preference to the ferromagnetic order in this model. We compare results for the present ferromagnetic case (with ${J}_{1}=\ensuremath{-}1$) to previous results for the corresponding antiferromagnetic case (with ${J}_{1}=+1$). The magnetic order parameter is found to behave similarly for the ferromagnetic and the antiferromagnetic models for large values of the frustration parameter ${J}_{2}$. However, there are considerable differences in the behavior of the order parameters for the two models for ${J}_{2}/|{J}_{1}|\ensuremath{\lesssim}0.6$. For example, the quasiclassical collinear magnetic long-range order for the antiferromagnetic model (with ${J}_{1}=+1$) breaks down at ${J}_{2}^{{c}_{2}}\ensuremath{\approx}0.60$, whereas the ``equivalent'' point for the ferromagnetic model (with ${J}_{1}=\ensuremath{-}1$) occurs at ${J}_{2}^{c}\ensuremath{\approx}0.11$. Unlike in the antiferromagnetic model (with ${J}_{1}=+1$), where a plaquette valence-bond crystal phase intrudes between the two corresponding quasiclassical antiferromagnetic phases (with N\'eel and striped order) for ${J}_{2}^{{c}_{1}}<{J}_{2}<{J}_{2}^{{c}_{2}}$, with ${J}_{2}^{{c}_{1}}\ensuremath{\approx}0.47$, we find no clear indications at all in the ferromagnetic model for an intermediate magnetically disordered phase between the corresponding phases exhibiting ferromagnetic and striped order. Instead the evidence for the ferromagnetic model (with ${J}_{1}=\ensuremath{-}1$) points to one of two scenarios: either there is a direct first-order transition between the two magnetically ordered phases, as mentioned above; or there exists an intervening phase between them in the very narrow range $0.10\ensuremath{\lesssim}{J}_{2}\ensuremath{\lesssim}0.12$, which is probably a remnant of the spiral phase that exists in the classical counterpart of the model over the larger range $\frac{1}{10}<{J}_{2}<\frac{1}{5}$.

arXiv:1109.6229•Physical Review B•Feb 21, 2012•31 citations
The spin-(1/2 frustrated Heisenberg model is studied on a square lattice using the modified Lanczos technique. Frustration is introduced in the system through an additional coupling along the diagonals of the plaquettes. On a 4\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}4 lattice the ground state smoothly interpolates between two asymptotic N'eel-like limits. However, on a narrow region of parameter space we find that the lowest-lying levels above the ground state are singlets rather than triplets, suggesting the existence of a new phase in the thermodynamic limit.
Using a Lanczos technique we study the frustrated spin-(1/2 Heisenberg model on square lattices of 16 and 20 sites. Frustration is introduced by an interaction along the diagonals of the plaquettes with coupling J2{J}_{2}J2​\ensuremath{\ge}0. For large J2{J}_{2}J2​ we found that the ground state breaks (spontaneously) the lattice rotational symmetry. For intermediate values of J2{J}_{2}J2​, the squares of order parameters associated with spin-Peierls and ``twisted'' states have a peak while a similar quantity for a chiral state shows no interesting structure.
Using the coupled-cluster method for high orders of approximation and Lanczos exact diagonalization we study the ground-state phase diagram of a quantum spin-12\frac{1}{2}21​ J1{J}_{1}J1​-J2{J}_{2}J2​ model on the square lattice with plaquette structure. We consider antiferromagnetic (J1>0{J}_{1}>0J1​>0) as well as ferromagnetic (J1<0{J}_{1}<0J1​<0) nearest-neighbor interactions together with frustrating antiferromagnetic next-nearest-neighbor interaction J2>0{J}_{2}>0J2​>0. The strength of interplaquette interaction $\ensuremath{\lambda}$ varies between $\ensuremath{\lambda}=1$ (which corresponds to the uniform J1{J}_{1}J1​-J2{J}_{2}J2​ model) and $\ensuremath{\lambda}=0$ (which corresponds to isolated frustrated 4-spin plaquettes). While on the classical level ($s\ensuremath{\rightarrow}\ensuremath{\infty}$) both versions of models (i.e., with ferro- and antiferromagnetic J1{J}_{1}J1​) exhibit the same ground-state behavior, the ground-state phase diagram differs basically for the quantum case s=1/2s=1/2s=1/2. For the antiferromagnetic case (J1>0{J}_{1}>0J1​>0) N\'eel antiferromagnetic long-range order at small J2/J1{J}_{2}/{J}_{1}J2​/J1​ and $\ensuremath{\lambda}\ensuremath{\gtrsim}0.47$ as well as collinear striped antiferromagnetic long-range order at large J2/J1{J}_{2}/{J}_{1}J2​/J1​ and $\ensuremath{\lambda}\ensuremath{\gtrsim}0.30$ appear which correspond to their classical counterparts. Both semiclassical magnetic phases are separated by a nonmagnetic quantum paramagnetic phase. The parameter region, where this nonmagnetic phase exists, increases with decreasing $\ensuremath{\lambda}$. For the ferromagnetic case (J1<0{J}_{1}<0J1​<0) we have the trivial ferromagnetic ground state at small J2/∣J1∣{J}_{2}/|{J}_{1}|J2​/∣J1​∣. By increasing J2{J}_{2}J2​ this classical phase gives way for a semiclassical plaquette phase, where the plaquette block spins of length s=2s=2s=2 are antiferromagnetically long-range ordered. Further increasing of J2{J}_{2}J2​ then yields collinear striped antiferromagnetic long-range order for $\ensuremath{\lambda}\ensuremath{\gtrsim}0.38$, but a nonmagnetic quantum paramagnetic phase $\ensuremath{\lambda}\ensuremath{\lesssim}0.38$.
Aiming to describe frustrated quantum magnets with nonmagnetic singlet ground states, we have extended the Rokhsar-Kivelson (RK) loop expansion to derive a generalized quantum dimer model containing only connected terms up to arbitrary order. For the square-lattice frustrated Heisenberg antiferromagnet (${J}_{1}\text{\ensuremath{-}}{J}_{2}\text{\ensuremath{-}}{J}_{3}$ model), an expansion up to eighth order shows that the leading correction to the original RK model comes from dimer moves on length-6 loops. This model free of the original sign problem is treated by advanced numerical techniques. The results suggest that a rotationally anisotropic plaquette phase [A. Ralko, D. Poilblanc, and R. Moessner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 037201 (2008)] is the ground state of the Heisenberg model in the parameter region of maximum frustration.
Using the coupled cluster method for high orders of approximation and complementary exact diagonalization studies we investigate the ground state properties of the spin-1/2 J1−−J2{J}_{1}--{J}_{2}J1​−−J2​ frustrated Heisenberg antiferromagnet on the square lattice. We have calculated the ground state energy, the magnetic order parameter, the spin stiffness, and several generalized susceptibilities to probe magnetically disordered quantum valence-bond phases. We have found that the quantum critical points for both the N\'eel and collinear orders are ${J}_{2}^{c1}\ensuremath{\approx}(0.44\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.01){J}_{1}$ and ${J}_{2}^{c2}\ensuremath{\approx}(0.59\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.01){J}_{1}$, respectively, which are in good agreement with the results obtained by other approximations. In contrast to the recent study by [Sirker et al. Phys. Rev. B 73, 184420 (2006)], our data do not provide evidence for the transition from the N\'eel to the valence-bond solid state to be first order. Moreover, our results are in favor of the deconfinement scenario for that phase transition. We also discuss the nature of the magnetically disordered quantum phase.
Using both exact diagonalizations and diagonalizations in a subset of short-range valence-bond singlets, we address the nature of the groundstate of the Heisenberg spin-1∕21∕21∕2 antiferromagnet on the square lattice with competing next-nearest and next-next-nearest neighbor antiferromagnetic couplings (${J}_{1}\ensuremath{-}{J}_{2}\ensuremath{-}{J}_{3}$ model). A detailed comparison of the two approaches reveals a region along the line (J2+J3)∕J1=1∕2({J}_{2}+{J}_{3})∕{J}_{1}=1∕2(J2​+J3​)∕J1​=1∕2, where the description in terms of nearest-neighbor singlet coverings is excellent, therefore providing evidence for a magnetically disordered region. Furthermore, a careful analysis of dimer-dimer correlation functions, dimer structure factors and plaquette-plaquette correlation functions provides striking evidence for the presence of a plaquette valence bond crystal order in part of the magnetically disordered region.
We study the ground-state (GS) properties of the frustrated spin-12\frac{1}{2}21​ J1{J}_{1}J1​--J2{J}_{2}J2​--J3{J}_{3}J3​ Heisenberg model on the two-dimensional honeycomb lattice with ferromagnetic nearest-neighbor (${J}_{1}=\ensuremath{-}1$) exchange and frustrating antiferromagnetic next-nearest-neighbor (J2>0{J}_{2}>0J2​>0) and next-next-nearest-neighbor (J3>0{J}_{3}>0J3​>0) exchanges, for the case J3=J2{J}_{3}={J}_{2}J3​=J2​. We use the coupled-cluster method implemented to high orders of approximation, complemented by the Lanczos exact diagonalization of a large finite lattice with 32 sites, in order to calculate the GS energy, magnetic order parameter, and spin-spin correlation functions. In one scenario we find a quantum phase transition point between regions characterized by ferromagnetic order and a form of antiferromagnetic (``striped'') collinear order at ${J}_{2}^{c}\ensuremath{\approx}0.1095\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.0005$, which is below the corresponding hypothetical transition point at J2cl=17{J}_{2}^{\mathrm{cl}}=\frac{1}{7}J2cl​=71​ ($\ensuremath{\approx}0.143$) for the classical version of the model, in which we momentarily ignore the intervening noncollinear spiral phase in the region 110<J2<15\frac{1}{10}<{J}_{2}<\frac{1}{5}101​<J2​<51​. Hence we see that quantum fluctuations appear to stabilize somewhat the collinear antiferromagnetic order in preference to the ferromagnetic order in this model. We compare results for the present ferromagnetic case (with ${J}_{1}=\ensuremath{-}1$) to previous results for the corresponding antiferromagnetic case (with J1=+1{J}_{1}=+1J1​=+1). The magnetic order parameter is found to behave similarly for the ferromagnetic and the antiferromagnetic models for large values of the frustration parameter J2{J}_{2}J2​. However, there are considerable differences in the behavior of the order parameters for the two models for ${J}_{2}/|{J}_{1}|\ensuremath{\lesssim}0.6$. For example, the quasiclassical collinear magnetic long-range order for the antiferromagnetic model (with J1=+1{J}_{1}=+1J1​=+1) breaks down at ${J}_{2}^{{c}_{2}}\ensuremath{\approx}0.60$, whereas the ``equivalent'' point for the ferromagnetic model (with ${J}_{1}=\ensuremath{-}1$) occurs at ${J}_{2}^{c}\ensuremath{\approx}0.11$. Unlike in the antiferromagnetic model (with J1=+1{J}_{1}=+1J1​=+1), where a plaquette valence-bond crystal phase intrudes between the two corresponding quasiclassical antiferromagnetic phases (with N\'eel and striped order) for J2c1<J2<J2c2{J}_{2}^{{c}_{1}}<{J}_{2}<{J}_{2}^{{c}_{2}}J2c1​​<J2​<J2c2​​, with ${J}_{2}^{{c}_{1}}\ensuremath{\approx}0.47$, we find no clear indications at all in the ferromagnetic model for an intermediate magnetically disordered phase between the corresponding phases exhibiting ferromagnetic and striped order. Instead the evidence for the ferromagnetic model (with ${J}_{1}=\ensuremath{-}1$) points to one of two scenarios: either there is a direct first-order transition between the two magnetically ordered phases, as mentioned above; or there exists an intervening phase between them in the very narrow range $0.10\ensuremath{\lesssim}{J}_{2}\ensuremath{\lesssim}0.12$, which is probably a remnant of the spiral phase that exists in the classical counterpart of the model over the larger range 110<J2<15\frac{1}{10}<{J}_{2}<\frac{1}{5}101​<J2​<51​.