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 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 the coupled-cluster method for high orders of approximation and Lanczos exact diagonalization we study the ground-state phase diagram of a quantum spin-
21 J1-
J2 model on the square lattice with plaquette structure. We consider antiferromagnetic (
J1>0) as well as ferromagnetic (
J1<0) nearest-neighbor interactions together with frustrating antiferromagnetic next-nearest-neighbor interaction
J2>0. The strength of interplaquette interaction $\ensuremath{\lambda}$ varies between $\ensuremath{\lambda}=1$ (which corresponds to the uniform
J1-
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) exhibit the same ground-state behavior, the ground-state phase diagram differs basically for the quantum case
s=1/2. For the antiferromagnetic case (
J1>0) N\'eel antiferromagnetic long-range order at small
J2/J1 and $\ensuremath{\lambda}\ensuremath{\gtrsim}0.47$ as well as collinear striped antiferromagnetic long-range order at large
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) we have the trivial ferromagnetic ground state at small
J2/∣J1∣. By increasing
J2 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
J2 then yields collinear striped antiferromagnetic long-range order for $\ensuremath{\lambda}\ensuremath{\gtrsim}0.38$, but a nonmagnetic quantum paramagnetic phase $\ensuremath{\lambda}\ensuremath{\lesssim}0.38$.
For the quantum spin clusters of tens of sites, this paper calculates the total spin of ground state by exact diagonalization. In the non frustrated case, the ground state total spin takes not the lowest possible total spin but a higher value. It means the existence of Neel order in the ground state even for the clusters of nano scale. If introducing frustrations into clusters, it can induce a quantum phase transition from Neel order to spin disorder. This transition can be described and marked through the change of the ground state total spin. Calculations show that it should be the first order transition since the existence of level crossing at the critical J 2/J 1. From the numerical results of clusters, it can be inferred that for the infinite two dimensional J 1 J 2 model, the critical J 2/J 1 should be equal to 0 376 2 (±0.000 2). This result is more accurate than the previous data by analytical approximations and scaling analysis based on finite systems.
The ground entanglement and thermal entanglement in quantum mixed spin chains consisting of two integer spins 1 and two half-integer spins
21 arrayed as $\frac{1}{2}\text{\ensuremath{-}}\frac{1}{2}\text{\ensuremath{-}}1\text{\ensuremath{-}}1$ in a unit cell with antiferromagnetic nearest-neighbor couplings
J1 (J2) between the spins of equal (different) magnitudes are investigated by employing the logarithmic negativity as entanglement measure. The ground entanglement transition found here is closely related to the valence-bond-solid phase transition, and the thermal entanglement near the critical point is calculated and it is shown that two distinct behaviors exist in the nearest-neighbor same kind of spins and different kind of spins, respectively.
The coupled cluster method (CCM) is a well-known method of quantum many-body theory, and in this article we present an application of the CCM to the spin-half ${J}_{1}{\ensuremath{-}J}_{2}$ quantum spin model with nearest- and next-nearest-neighbor interactions on the linear chain and the square lattice. We present results for ground-state expectation values of such quantities as the energy and the sublattice magnetization. The presence of critical points in the solution of the CCM equations, which are associated with phase transitions in the real system, is investigated. Completely distinct from the investigation of the critical points, we also make a link between the expansion coefficients of the ground-state wave function in terms of an Ising basis and the CCM ket-state correlation coefficients. We are thus able to present evidence of the breakdown, at a given value of
J2/J1, of the Marshall-Peierls sign rule which is known to be satisfied at the pure Heisenberg point
(J2=0) on any bipartite lattice. For the square lattice, our best estimates of the points at which the sign rule breaks down and at which the phase transition from the antiferromagnetic phase to the frustrated phase occurs are, respectively, given by ${J}_{2}{/J}_{1}\ensuremath{\approx}0.26$ and ${J}_{2}{/J}_{1}\ensuremath{\approx}0.61.$
We use the coupled cluster method to study the zero-temperature quantum phase diagram of the spin-$\frac{1}{2}{J}_{1}\text{\ensuremath{-}}{J}_{2}\text{\ensuremath{-}}{J}_{1}^{\ensuremath{\perp}}$ model on the honeycomb bilayer lattice. In each layer, we include both nearest-neighbor and frustrating next-nearest-neighbor antiferromagnetic exchange couplings, of strength
J1>0 and ${J}_{2}\ensuremath{\equiv}\ensuremath{\kappa}{J}_{1}>0$, respectively. The two layers are coupled by an interlayer nearest-neighbor exchange, with coupling constant ${J}_{1}^{\ensuremath{\perp}}\ensuremath{\equiv}\ensuremath{\delta}{J}_{1}>0$. We calculate directly in the infinite-lattice limit both the ground-state energy per spin and the N\'eel magnetic order parameter, as well as the triplet spin gap. By implementing the method to very high orders of approximation we obtain an accurate estimate for the full boundary of the N\'eel phase in the $\ensuremath{\kappa}\ensuremath{\delta}$ plane. For each value $\ensuremath{\delta}<{\ensuremath{\delta}}_{c}^{>}(0)\ensuremath{\approx}1.70(5)$, we find an upper critical value ${\ensuremath{\kappa}}_{c}(\ensuremath{\delta})$, such that N\'eel order is present for $\ensuremath{\kappa}<{\ensuremath{\kappa}}_{c}(\ensuremath{\delta})$. Conversely, for each value $\ensuremath{\kappa}<{\ensuremath{\kappa}}_{c}(0)\ensuremath{\approx}0.19(1)$, we find an upper critical value ${\ensuremath{\delta}}_{c}^{>}(\ensuremath{\kappa})$, such that N\'eel order persists for $0<\ensuremath{\delta}<{\ensuremath{\delta}}_{c}^{>}(\ensuremath{\kappa})$. Most interestingly, for values of $\ensuremath{\kappa}$ in the range ${\ensuremath{\kappa}}_{c}(0)<\ensuremath{\kappa}<{\ensuremath{\kappa}}^{>}\ensuremath{\approx}0.215(2)$, we find a reentrant behavior such that N\'eel order exists only in the range ${\ensuremath{\delta}}_{c}^{<}(\ensuremath{\kappa})<\ensuremath{\delta}<{\ensuremath{\delta}}_{c}^{>}(\ensuremath{\kappa})$, with ${\ensuremath{\delta}}_{c}^{<}(\ensuremath{\kappa})>0$. These latter upper and lower critical values coalesce when $\ensuremath{\kappa}={\ensuremath{\kappa}}^{>}$, such that ${\ensuremath{\delta}}_{c}^{<}({\ensuremath{\kappa}}^{>})={\ensuremath{\delta}}_{c}^{>}({\ensuremath{\kappa}}^{>})\ensuremath{\approx}0.25(5)$.