text:
# Spin Susceptibility and Superexchange Interaction in the Antiferromagnet CuO

## I Introduction

CuO is one of the materials closely related to the high-$`T_c`$ cuprate superconductors, especially in light of the strong antiferromagnetic correlation in the Cu-O-Cu bonds. It may be surprising that unusual magnetic properties are found in CuO which consists only of the essence of cuprates, copper and oxygen ions, and has a nearly 3D structure from the viewpoint of chemical bonding. A close inspection of the magnetic properties in CuO may give us an insight into the underlying physics in the magnetism and superconductivity of the cuprate family.

Extensive studies including magnetic susceptibility, specific heat, photoemission, neutron scattering and NMR measurements on CuO have revealed that (1) successive magnetic transitions are occurred at $`T_{N1}=212`$ K and $`T_{N2}=231`$ K Forsyth et al. (1988); Yang et al. (1989); Loram et al. (1989), (2) a Néel state with the easy axis of  direction Tsuda et al. (1988); Yang et al. (1989); Brown et al. (1991) is achieved below $`T_{N1}=212`$ K with the superexchange coupling of $`J=67\pm 20`$ meV Yang et al. (1988, 1989); Brown et al. (1991) which is an order of magnitude larger than that expected from the Néel temperature, suggesting a strongly correlated and low dimensional spin system Itoh et al. (1990); Ziolo et al. (1990); Graham et al. (1991), (3) the significantly reduced Cu2+ spin moment $`0.65\mu _B`$ compared with $`1\mu _B`$ expected for a Cu2+ ion is observed Yang et al. (1988, 1989); Loram et al. (1989); Brown et al. (1991) at $`T=4`$ K due either to quantum spin fluctuations in low dimensional system or to covalent effect, (4) the temperature dependence of paramagnetic susceptibility O’Keeffe and Stone (1962); Roden et al. (1987); Kondo et al. (1988); Köbler and Chattopadhyay (1991); Chandrasekhar Rao and Sahni (1994) shows a broad peak at around 540 K O’Keeffe and Stone (1962), reminiscent of quasi 1D or 2D antiferromagnet, and (5) CuO belongs to the charge-transfer gap insulators Eskes et al. (1990).

All the $`3d`$ transition metal monoxides, with the only exception of CuO, are 3D antiferromagnets. It may be unexpected to find a low dimensional magnetism in such a chemically 3D structure as the monoxide CuO. In fact, many experimental data of CuO have been explained in the scheme of quasi 1D antiferromagnet. It has been assumed that the strongest antiferromagnetic coupling may reside on a particular Cu-O-Cu bond O’Keeffe and Stone (1962); Yang et al. (1989) by invoking the Anderson model of superexchange interactions which tells the larger bond angle preferred for the stronger antiferromagnetic coupling Anderson (1964); Hay et al. (1975).

The proposed picture of spin 1D chain, however, would not be obvious, because the intra-chain bond is even longer than the inter-chain ones. We note a close competition present among the bond angles as well as bond lengths in CuO. The 1D picture may be conceivable but still only a speculation unless quantitative evidence for the bond angle scheme is presented.

We will find below that making a distinction between 1D and 2D involves a delicate problem. No investigation, to our knowledge, has been performed yet to make a comparison between 1D and 2D in CuO. The following questions are still open: (1) Which is the better model to describe the paramagnetic state of CuO, 1D or 2D? (2) If it turns out to be a 1D antiferromagnet as has been believed so far, what is the cause for a particular bond to be magnetically active and others less active?

In this paper, we present evidence for a quasi 1D antiferromagnetism in CuO beyond 2D antiferromagnetism. We carried out the 63Cu-NMR shift measurement to obtain an absolute value of the spin susceptibility which provides us an opportunity to make direct comparison with theoretical predictions. The theories we refer to in the present work are those studied in a framework of the Heisenberg model. Although the earlier studies about susceptibility have shown an experimental indication being consistent with the prediction of 1D AFH, a lack of the knowledge about absolute value of spin susceptibility prevents quantitative comparison between experiment and theory. We will find below that the absolute value is crucial to make a distinction between the 1D and 2D antiferromagnet.

A susceptibility measurement gives us only a total susceptibility which consists of the three contributions from the spin, orbital and ionic-core. Only the spin contribution $`\chi _{spin}`$ is required to be compared with a quantum spin theory. A direct measurement of spin contribution can in principle be made by neutron experiment, but the measurement would be difficult because of poor signal intensity in case of weak paramagnetism like CuO. Ionic-core contribution $`\chi _{core}`$ can be estimated from the ionic data-base or theoretical calculation. Orbital contribution $`\chi _{orb}`$ arises from second-order excitations between crystal field levels, being material dependent and thus to be measured by an experiment like NMR.

In the absence of experimental information of orbital contribution, as is common, its contribution would be treated as an adjustable parameter to make a qualitative comparison in the temperature dependence of spin contribution between experiment and theory. The aim of our study is to present the experimental absolute values of the orbital and spin contributions in CuO to make a quantitative comparison possible.

## II Crystal Structure and Sample Preparation

CuO crystallizes in a monoclinic structure with a space group of $`Cc`$ Åsbrink and Waslowska (1991). The crystal structure, shown in Fig. 1 and Table 1, is a unique one among the transition metal monoxides, rather than the cubic rock salt structure of the most. The unit cell contains four copper ions which are all crystallographically equivalent, as well as four equivalent oxygens.

A significant feature can be seen from Table 2 and Fig. 2 that the bond Cu(1)-O(2)-Cu(2) (abbreviated as B122 in the following) has a noticeably larger bond angle compared with all others. This is the reason why this bond has been assumed to carry the strongest superexchange interaction O’Keeffe and Stone (1962); Yang et al. (1989). This assumption seems conceivable, but still only a speculation which needs evidence to specify the bond angle and bond length dependences of the superexchange interaction.

We began our sample preparation by initializing the stoichiometry of commercially obtained CuO, in which the powder sample of the nominal CuO was annealed at 540 C in air for a day. We have found that the annealing process is crucial to have the Cu NQR/NMR signal visible at any temperatures including 4 K and 300 K, provably because a possible oxygen deficiency may be removed by the annealing process.

The annealed sample was pulverized to be fine powder with 5 $`\mu `$m in typical diameter, and then to be mixed with epoxy resin and finally exposed in a magnetic field (7 T) to prepare a magnetically aligned sample. The X-ray diffraction data on the aligned sample indicates the  direction preferably oriented along the magnetic field. The degree of alignment is estimated to be $`42\pm 10`$ % by a method described later. The other crystal axis directions may be randomly oriented in the plane perpendicular to the magnetic field.

## III Susceptibility and NMR Measurements

The susceptibility measurement has been made by a SQUID magnetometer with an applied magnetic field of 4 T. Fig. 3 shows the polycrystal susceptibility of the epoxy-free sample. Among the literatures of susceptibility measurement, Ref. O’Keeffe and Stone, 1962 is the only work which has reported the high temperature data beyond the susceptibility maximum. The small discrepancy found between (A) and (B) is unknown. We will use below the data of Ref. O’Keeffe and Stone, 1962 to make a comparison in the isotropic part of spin susceptibility between the experiment and theory.

We need an anisotropic susceptibility data to get an orbital susceptibility which is primarily anisotropic. The uniaxially anisotropic susceptibility of the present magnetically-aligned sample has been obtained as is shown in Fig. 4. Single crystal data by Ref. Köbler and Chattopadhyay, 1991 shows a larger anisotropy than the present sample, provably because the present magnetic alignment is only partial. The temperature range of the single crystal data by Ref. Köbler and Chattopadhyay, 1991, unfortunately, is limited below 264 K, too narrow to meet the following analysis together with NMR data we measured. Thus we use two types of susceptibility data in the following analysis to get the orbital susceptibility; one is the raw data (a) as is measured, another is the corrected data (c) given by a method described below. It can be seen later that the main conclusion drawn from the following analysis turns out to be independent of which susceptibility data are used.

The corrected data have been taken as follows. We assume the present sample is a sum of crystallites oriented perfectly and polycrystalites oriented randomly, then we can write,

$$\chi _p^{}=p\chi _s^{}+\frac{1}{3}(1p)(\chi _s^{}+2\chi _s^{}),$$
(1a)
$$\chi _p^{}=p\chi _s^{}+\frac{1}{3}(1p)(\chi _s^{}+2\chi _s^{}),$$
(1b)
where $`p`$ is the degree of alignment, $`\chi _p`$ and $`\chi _s`$ are the susceptibilities of partially aligned sample and single crystal one, respectively, measured in a field parallel ($`\chi ^{}`$) and perpendicular ($`\chi ^{}`$) to the  direction. Comparing the anisotropy of the raw data (a) with that of the single crystal data (b) at 264 K gives $`p=0.42\pm 10`$. The degree of alignment estimated in this manner is found nearly temperature independent in the paramagnetic region, as is expected. We can estimate the fully aligned susceptibility in the temperature range of $`231400`$ K by substituting the $`p`$ and raw data to the inverse of Eqs. (1). The result is shown in Fig. 4 (c).

Paramagnetic 63Cu-NMR shift $`K`$ is obtained by measuring a frequency dependence of the spectrum (Fig. 5), and the result is plotted in Fig. 6. In order to deduce the magnetic contribution of $`K`$ separately from the quadrupolar one in the spectrum, we have eliminated the quadrupole effect Carter et al. (1977) by taking a frequency dependence of the particular resonance positions indicated by arrows in Fig.5.

The orbital susceptibility is deduced, as is listed in Tab. 3, by a well-known method Clogston et al. (1964) of analyzing the $`K`$-$`\chi `$ plot diagram (Fig. 7) together with the following relations between the total shift $`K`$ and total susceptibility $`\chi `$ written as,

$$K=K_{spin}(T)+K_{orb},$$
(2a)
$$\chi =\chi _{spin}(T)+\chi _{orb}+\chi _{core},$$
(2b)
and

$$K_{spin}(T)=\frac{A_{spin}}{N_A\mu _B}\chi _{spin}(T),$$
(3a)
$$K_{orb}=\frac{2r^3\xi ^2}{N_A}\chi _{orb},$$
(3b)
where we use the usual notations as the hyperfine coupling tensor $`A_{spin}`$ including the Fermi contact and dipole interaction, the Avogadro’s number $`N_A`$, the Bohr magneton $`\mu _B`$, expectation value $`r^3`$ within the $`3d^9`$ radial wave function and the covalence reduction factor $`0\xi ^21`$.

The orbital susceptibility $`\chi _{orb}`$ tells us the $`g`$ factor, as listed in Table 3, by using the following relations as Abragam and Bleaney (1970),

$$\chi _{orb}^{}=\frac{8N_A\mu _{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\xi ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0},$$
(4a)
$$\chi _{orb}^{}=\frac{2N_A\mu _{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\xi ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_1},$$
(4b)
and

$$g^{}=2\frac{8\lambda _{so}\xi ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0},$$
(5a)
$$g^{}=2\frac{2\lambda _{so}\xi ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_1},$$
(5b)
where we denote the spin-orbit coupling $`\lambda _{so}`$ of the $`3d^9`$ state, and the crystal field splittings $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ of Cu2+ ions in a tetragonal crystal field.

In Table 3 we assume the following values, as commonly expected for cuprates Abragam and Bleaney (1970), that the total ionic core susceptibility of Cu2+ and O2- is $`0.23\times 10^4`$ emu/mol Hellwege and Hellwege (1966), the hyperfine radius parameter $`r^3=8.25`$ a.u., covalence reduction factor $`\xi ^2=0.75`$ Shimizu (1993) and spin-orbit coupling $`\lambda _{so}=0.095`$ eV Shimizu et al. (1993).

## IV Spin Susceptibility and Superexchange Interaction

The experimental spin susceptibility $`\chi _{spin}`$ can be obtained by subtracting the orbital and ionic core susceptibilities from the observed total susceptibility. For the total susceptibility to be subtracted, we use here the data of Ref. O’Keeffe and Stone, 1962 rather than the present data, in order to show the whole behavior including the susceptibility maximum. We take the isotropic component of orbital susceptibility from Table 3 as $`\chi _{orb}^{iso}=\frac{1}{3}(\chi _{orb}^{}+2\chi _{orb}^{})=0.31\times 10^4`$emu/mol and the literature value of $`\chi _{core}=0.23\times 10^4`$emu/mol Hellwege and Hellwege (1966) for the subtraction. We note here that the difference in the orbital susceptibility between the column (a) and (c) in Table 3 is about 3 % of the observed total susceptibility, being small enough to make only a negligible difference in the result of spin susceptibility. This is also related with the principle that the spin susceptibility of a $`S=1/2`$ system is primarily isotropic.

In Fig. 8, the dotted curves are theoretical predictions for 1D Eggert et al. (1994) and 2D Okabe et al. (1988) $`S=1/2`$ Heisenberg antiferromagnet. Since the theoretical predictions are given in a scale normalized by the coupling constant $`J`$ for both temperature and susceptibility axes, we need a particular value of $`J`$ to make a comparison possible between experiment and theory. Each theory predicts a relation between $`J`$ and $`T_{max}`$ given by,

$$J=k_BT_{max}/d,$$
(6)
where $`T_{max}`$ is the temperature showing susceptibility maximum, $`d`$ is the numerical factor given by $`d=`$0.64 and 0.9 for 1D and 2D, respectively, and $`J`$ is defined in a spin Hamiltonian expressed by,

$$=JS_1S_2.$$
(7)
Putting the experimental value $`T_{max}=540\pm 20`$ K O’Keeffe and Stone (1962) into Eq. 6, we get $`J=73\pm 3`$ and $`52\pm 2`$ meV for 1D and 2D, respectively, and correspondingly the experimental curves “1D” and “2D” , respectively, as shown in Fig. 8. The $`g`$ factor used in the normalized susceptibility axis is given by substituting the values listed in Tab. 3 into the isotropic component expressed as $`g=\frac{1}{3}(g^{}+2g^{})=2.09`$.

We can find from Fig. 8 that the 1D theory reproduces nicely the experimental 1D curve above the Néel temperature $`T_{N2}`$. The 2D case shows a poorer agreement between the 2D theory and the experimental 2D curve at all temperatures. This gives a support for the hypothesis that a quasi 1D AFH model is a good approximation of CuO.

We emphasize here that the discrepancy between the 2D theory and the experimental 2D curve is near the isotropic component of orbital susceptibility, which suggests that estimating orbital susceptibility is crucial to make a comparison in the absolute value of spin susceptibility. If the orbital susceptibility is taken as an adjustable parameter, as is often assumed, it would be hard to make a distinction between 1D and 2D spin susceptibility.

The earlier result of $`J=69\pm 20`$ meV by neutron measurement Yang et al. (1989) is in better agreement with the present value of $`73\pm 3`$ meV (1D), than that of 52$`\pm 2`$ meV (2D). This yields another support for the quasi 1D antiferromagnetism of CuO. The present agreement may be sufficient to argue that the effect of 1D quantum spin fluctuations Eggert et al. (1994) is responsible for the reduction of the spin moment 0.65 $`\mu _B`$ compared with 1 $`\mu _B`$ expected for a Cu2+ ion.

The chain direction of \[10$``$1\] may be most promising from the viewpoint of the bond angle of the bond B122. The advantage by the bond angle of B122 would, nevertheless, trade off the disadvantage by the bond length of itself. A careful explanation for the roles of bond angle and bond length in magnetic coupling $`J`$ is required. We will be focused to this point in the followings.

Table 4 summarizes the typical examples of $`J`$ obtained experimentally for the series of cuprates, together with the bond angle and bond length. We plot them in Fig. 9, in which a systematic correlation is found between $`J`$ and $`\theta `$, but no straightforward correlation between $`J`$ and $`L`$. The $`\theta `$ and $`L`$ of CuO refer to the bond B122. If we take the inter-chain bonds Bijk rather than B122, no correlation was found in both the plots.

It can, in principle, be expected that the superexchange coupling $`J`$ would be given by a function of both bond angle and bond length. Fig. 9 implies that the bond angle is effectively of a prime importance in the magnetic coupling of cuprates, and the variable range allowed for bond length in the cuprates may be narrower than that of bond angle, the latter being capable of a full range from 90 degree through 180 degree.

A bond angle dependence of $`J`$ in the ferromagnetic cuprates has also been found in Ref. Mizuno et al., 1998 in which they have reproduced theoretically the bond angle dependence of the ferromagnetic $`J`$ in the vicinity of $`\theta =90`$ degree by a close inspection into the contribution from the charge-transfer gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to the superexchange coupling $`J`$. This tempts us to believe that the bond angle dependence of antiferromagnetic $`J`$ found in the present study is conceivable.

We can find from Fig. 9 a reason why CuO is a quasi 1D antiferromagnet. The $`\theta `$ dependence of $`J`$ tells us that all the inter-chain bonds Cu-O-Cu, having the bond angles ranging from 94.6 to 108.5 degree (see Table 2), can be expected to have the $`J`$ values smaller than 15 meV. The ratios of the inter-chain $`J`$ values (15 meV or less) with the intra-chain $`J`$ value (73 meV) are 0.2 or less, which may be sufficient to make CuO a quasi 1D antiferromagnet.

## V Discussion

We have assumed during the present study that the Heisenberg model is a good approximation for the spin system. It could be a possible issue to examine to what extent the 2nd nearest neighbor Cu2+ ion comes into magnetic interaction. This may be investigated in a future work, but we can note at the present time that a possible 2nd nearest superexchange coupling in the spin chain seems negligible, as far as the susceptibility is concerned.

This gives a contrast to the case of the 1D antiferromagnet CuGeO3 where the spin susceptibility is considerably reduced, compared to the 1D Heisenberg model, provably by the Majumdar-Ghosh type of a spin-gap due to the significant contribution from the 2nd nearest superexchange interaction in the chain Yokoyama and Saiga (1997); Fabricius et al. (1998). The crystal structure may be responsible for the difference between CuO and CuGeO3. The latter has a edge sharing spin chain in which a possible overlap integral between the two oxygens locating along the chain may increase the 2nd nearest superexchange interaction.

We do not think the bond angle dependence shown in Fig. 9 to be an absolute relation, but expect it to be an empirical relation valid in some cases. For example, considering the mirror and inversion symmetry of the Cu-O-Cu bond, the bond angle dependence of $`J`$ would have a zero gradient at $`\theta =180`$ degree, being not consistent with the present result in Fig. 9. A broken-symmetry caused by the surrounding ions such as alkaline-earth and rare-earth metals in YBa2Cu3O6 and La2CuO4, which are located at sites without mirror symmetry on the CuO2 layer, may be responsible for the singular behavior found near $`\theta =180`$ degree.

One of the authors (TS) expresses his thanks to Masashi Hase, Sadamichi Maekawa, Russell E. Walstedt, Noriaki Hamada, Takami Tohyama, Hisatoshi Yokoyama and Masayuki Itoh for their valuable discussions.


format: text

text:
# Rhombic embeddings of planar graphs with faces of degree 4

## 1 Introduction

###### Definition 1.1.

Given a planar graph $`G`$ all of whose faces (except possibly for the outer face if $`G`$ is finite) have degree $`4`$, a rhombic embedding is an embedding of $`G`$ in $`^2`$ with the property that all edges are line segments and have length $`1`$ (and hence each bounded face is a rhombus).

Such embedding arise in discrete complex analysis  and in statistical mechanics . Here we study the spaces of such embeddings.

Our main results are the following.

1. We give a simple necessary and sufficient condition (Theorem 3.1) for a planar graph to have a rhombic embedding in $`^2`$.
2. We show that the space of rhombic embeddings of an infinite graph (with no unbounded faces) is a convex set when parametrized by the rhombus angles. There is a simple description of the extreme points of the closure of this convex set. (Section 4.1 and Theorem 4.10.)
3. We consider the space of periodic rhombic embeddings of a periodic planar graph. It is the interior of a convex polyhedron. The area of the fundamental domain provides a strictly convex functional on this polyhedron; we give a geometric description of the unique critical point (Theorem 5.2).

## 2 Background and motivations

### 2.1 Discrete complex analysis and statistical mechanics

Rhombic embeddings first appeared in Duffin , in the context of discrete complex analysis. Indeed, as Duffin shows, there is a natural way to define discrete analytic functions on graphs with rhombic embeddings, which does not appear to generalize to arbitrary embeddings.

Duffin’s ideas were rediscovered by Mercat  who used them to build up an extended theory of discrete holomorphy in one complex dimension.

In , the closely related concept of isoradial embeddings (see the next section) was shown to be useful in the study of the so-called dimer model of statistical mechanics. By choosing edge interactions to be a particular function of the corresponding edge lengths in the isoradial embedding, certain simplifications (commutation relations) appear which do not appear for more general energies. These allow one to give explicit solutions to correlation functions in the dimer model on isoradial graphs.

Other statistical mechanical models such as the Ising model and more generally the random cluster model also become simpler on isoradial graphs . In fact, even the simple random walk behaves nicely, as is evidenced by an explicit formula for the Green’s function .

### 2.2 Isoradial embeddings

An isoradial embedding (see ) of a planar graph $`G`$ is a locally finite embedding in $`^2`$ with the property that each bounded face $`f`$ is a cyclic polygon (inscribable in a circle) with circumcircle of radius $`1`$. The center of the circumcircle $`C`$ is also called the center of $`f`$. The embedding is said to be convex if the center of a face is contained in the closure of the face. It is strictly convex if the center is in the interior of the face.

Given a planar graph $`G`$, the diamond graph $`G^{\mathrm{}}`$ associated to $`G`$ is the graph whose vertices are the union of the vertices and faces of $`G`$, and with an edge between each face and vertex on that face. The faces of $`G^{\mathrm{}}`$ are the edges of $`G`$. The faces of $`G^{\mathrm{}}`$ are of degree $`4`$.

It is clear that a strictly convex isoradial embedding of a graph $`G`$ gives a rhombic embedding of $`G^{\mathrm{}}`$. Conversely, a rhombic embedding of $`G^{\mathrm{}}`$ defines a strictly convex isoradial embedding of $`G`$. Furthermore every planar graph with faces of degree $`4`$ arises as the diamond graph of another planar graph. So the study of strictly convex isoradial embeddings and rhombic embeddings is equivalent.

## 3 Rhombic embeddings

In this paper a planar graph will mean a graph with a preferred isotopy class of embeddings in the plane. An embedding of such a graph will always mean an embedding in the same isotopy class.

We will only deal with either finite graphs, all of whose faces except the outer face have degree $`4`$, or with infinite graphs with no unbounded faces, that is, all of whose faces have degree $`4`$. In either case we refer to such graphs as graphs with faces of degree $`4`$, with the understanding that we exclude the outer face from this restriction in the case of a finite graph. Although the results in this section apply in greater generality, for simplicity we deal only with these cases.

In a planar graph $`G`$ with faces of degree four, a train track is a path of faces (each face being adjacent along an edge to the previous face) which does not turn: on entering a face it exits across the opposite edge. We assume that the train tracks extend in both directions as far as possible, that is, they are not embedded in a longer train track. This means they are either periodic, or extend infinitely far in both directions, or extend until they enter the outer face of $`G`$ if $`G`$ is finite. Let $`\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G})`$ denote the set of train tracks of $`G`$. In a rhombic embedding, each rhombus in a train track has an edge parallel to a fixed unit vector $`u`$. In an oriented train track we choose the direction of $`u`$ so that when the train runs down the track $`u`$ points from the right to the left. The vector $`u`$ is called the transversal of the oriented train track.

###### Theorem 3.1.

A planar graph $`G`$ with faces of degree $`4`$ has a rhombic embedding in the plane if and only if the following two conditions are satisfied

1. No train track path crosses itself or is periodic.
2. Two distinct train tracks cross each other at most once.

The conditions are clearly necessary: in a rhombic embedding each train track is a monotone path (in the direction perpendicular to its common parallel). Therefore a train track cannot cross itself. If two oriented train tracks with transversals $`u`$ and $`v`$ cross (with the first crossing from right to the left of the second), the rhombus on which they cross has edges $`u`$ and $`v`$ and $`uv>0`$; if they crossed again the first would cross from the left to the right of the second and the rhombus would have the same two edges but in the reverse orientation, that is, it would have negative area.

It remains to construct a rhombic embedding for any graph satisfying the conditions. Enumerate the distinct train tracks $`\{t_1,t_2,\mathrm{}\}`$. Let $`G_k`$ be the union of the faces contained in the first $`k`$ train tracks $`\{t_1,\mathrm{},t_k\}`$. The $`G_k`$ are subgraphs of $`G`$ and $`G=_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}G_k`$. Similarly let $`G_k^{}`$ be the subgraph of the dual $`G^{}`$ which is the union of the edge paths comprising the first $`k`$ train tracks.

###### Lemma 3.2.

There exists a topological embedding $`\rho `$ of $`G^{}`$ in the unit disk $`𝔻`$, such that the image of each path of $`G^{}`$ (which corresponds to a train track in $`G`$) is a smooth path connecting distinct boundary points of the disk.

###### Proof.

Since $`G^{}`$ is planar, first choose a topological embedding of $`G^{}`$ in the disk. For each $`k`$, by removing all but the first $`k`$ train tracks from this embedding, we get topological embeddings of $`G_1^{},G_2^{},\mathrm{}`$, in which the embedding of $`G_k^{}`$ is an extension of that of $`G_{k1}^{}`$.

To make a sequence of smooth embeddings, with appropriate boundary behavior of the train tracks, proceed inductively as follows. Choose any nontrivial chord for $`G_1^{}`$. Suppose now that the smooth embedding of $`G_k^{}`$ has been defined, isotopic to the original topological embedding. The graph $`G_{k+1}^{}`$ is obtained from $`G_k^{}`$ by adding a single line $`t_{k+1}`$ which has a finite number of intersections with the lines present in $`G_k^{}`$. On top of the smooth embedding of $`G_k^{}`$ draw in the train track $`t_{k+1}`$ as a smooth path, respecting its intersections (and their order) with each of the $`t_j`$ for $`jk`$, that is, so that the resulting embedding of $`G_k^{}t_{k+1}=G_{k+1}^{}`$ is topologically equivalent to the original topological embedding of $`G_{k+1}^{}`$. Since $`t_{k+1}`$ has only a finite number of intersections with $`G_k^{}`$, it can be chosen so that its endpoints are distinct points on the boundary of the disk. This defines the smooth embedding of $`G_{k+1}^{}`$. The union of these embeddings over all $`k`$ is a planar embedding of $`G^{}`$: the image of any finite piece of $`G^{}`$ is fixed after a finite number of steps of this algorithm. ∎

To each oriented train track $`t_j`$ we associate the unit vector $`u_j`$ which is perpendicular to the chord joining its two endpoints in the above embedding. We construct the rhombic embedding of $`G`$ as follows. Each face of $`G`$ is crossed by exactly two train tracks $`t_j`$ and $`t_k`$. To this face associate the rhombus with edges $`u_j`$ and $`u_k`$. Glue two rhombi together along an edge if they are adjacent faces in $`G`$; this defines a simply connected locally Euclidean surface. It remains to show that it is isometric to a subset of the plane.

This surface has a natural projection $`\varphi `$ to the plane, which clearly is locally injective. We have to prove that $`\varphi `$ is injective.

###### Lemma 3.3.

Let $`v,w`$ be two vertices of $`G`$, and let $`t_{k_1},\mathrm{},t_{k_n}`$ be the train-tracks separating $`v`$ and $`w`$; assume these tracks are oriented so that $`v`$ is on the right and $`w`$ is on the left. Then:

$$\varphi (w)\varphi (v)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}u_{k_j}.$$
(1)
###### Proof.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be any path going from $`v`$ to $`w`$ in the 1-skeleton of $`G`$. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a sequence of edges of $`G`$, each corresponding to a train track. Each of the train tracks $`t_{k_1},\mathrm{},t_{k_n}`$ appears an odd number of times, and is crossed once more from right to left than from left to right. All the other train tracks are crossed the same number of times in both directions. So the total translation vector of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a sum of terms which pairwise cancel, except those in (1). ∎

Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be two distinct faces of $`G`$. We will show that their $`\varphi `$-images have disjoint interiors. $`X`$ and $`Y`$ correspond to vertices $`x`$ and $`y`$, respectively, in the graph $`G^{}`$. We choose $`k`$ so large that the train tracks containing $`X`$ and $`Y`$, as well as the train-tracks which go between $`X`$ and $`Y`$, are in $`\{t_1,\mathrm{},t_k\}`$.

###### Lemma 3.4.

There exists an embedded path $`\gamma :[0,1]𝔻^2`$, with endpoints on the boundary of the disk, which goes through $`\rho (x)`$ and $`\rho (y)`$, and crosses each $`\rho (t_j),1jk`$, at most once.

###### Proof.

Consider the restriction of the embedding $`\rho `$ to $`G_k^{}`$. We continuously deform it so that the path corresponding to each $`t_j`$ becomes a chord of the circle with the same endpoints. Under this deformation some topological changes may take place: a path may move past an intersection of two other paths as in Figure 1.

As a result the deformed graph $`\stackrel{~}{G}_k^{}`$ is not necessarily isomorphic to $`G_k^{}`$, but can be obtained from $`G_k^{}`$ by a finite sequence of these triple-crossing moves. Moreover there is a natural bijection between the vertices of $`\stackrel{~}{G}_k^{}`$ and those of $`G_k^{}`$. In $`\stackrel{~}{G}_k^{}`$ draw $`\gamma `$ as a chord passing through $`\rho (x)`$ and $`\rho (y)`$. By a general position argument we can assume that no three chords meet at a point, and $`\gamma `$ does not meet any other chord intersections. Now undo the deformation, passing from $`\stackrel{~}{G}_k^{}\gamma `$ to $`G_k^{}`$, undoing the triple-crossing moves in sequence. It is clear how to deform $`\gamma `$ at the same time, keeping the property of $`\gamma `$ passing through $`\rho (x)`$ and $`\rho (y)`$, so that $`\gamma `$ never crosses any path more than once: see Figure 2 which shows how $`\gamma `$ may be deformed at each triple crossing. This completes the construction of $`\gamma `$.

The fact that $`X`$ and $`Y`$ have disjoint images, and therefore the proof of Theorem 3.1, follows from the next lemma.

###### Lemma 3.5.

Let $`v`$ and $`w`$ be vertices of $`X`$ and $`Y`$, respectively. The orthogonal projection of $`\varphi (w)\varphi (v)`$ on the oriented line $`(\gamma (0)\gamma (1))`$ has positive orientation.

###### Proof.

Let $`t_{k_1},\mathrm{},t_{k_n}`$ be the oriented train tracks which have $`v`$ on their right and $`w`$ on their left. By the choice of $`k`$ above, $`t_{k_j}k`$ for all $`j\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. By lemma 3.3:

$$\varphi (w)\varphi (v)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}u_{k_j}.$$

But, for all $`j\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, $`t_{k_j}`$ intersects $`\gamma `$, so it has $`\gamma (0)`$ on its right and $`\gamma (1)`$ on its left. By construction of $`u_{k_j}`$, it implies that the orthogonal projection on $`(\gamma (0)\gamma (1))`$ of $`u_{k_j}`$ is positively oriented, and the result follows. ∎

## 4 The space of rhombic embeddings

In this section we suppose that $`G`$ is infinite.

### 4.1 Linear parametrization

A wedge in a planar graph is a pair consisting of a face and a vertex on that face. We let $`W`$ denote the set of wedges of a graph $`G`$.

A rhombic embedding determines an angle in $`(0,\pi )`$ for each wedge of $`G`$, satisfying some simple linear conditions. The converse is also true.

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`\alpha :W(0,\pi )`$ be a map such that:

* adjacent wedges on the same face have angles summing to $`\pi `$.
* the sum of the angles around each vertex is $`2\pi `$.

Then $`\alpha `$ is obtained on a unique rhombic embedding $`\varphi `$ of $`G`$ in $`^2`$, up to an isometry. The image of $`\varphi `$ is either the plane, a half-plane, or an infinite strip.

Note that $`\varphi (G)`$ can indeed be a half-plane or a strip: it is easy to find examples of this when $`G=^2`$ (see Figure 3). The proof of this theorem will be given after the next lemmas.

###### Lemma 4.2.

Let $`G_0`$ be a finite graph with faces of degree $`4`$. Let $`v_0`$ be a vertex of $`G_0`$ which is at (combinatorial) distance $`k`$ from the outer face. For each $`ϵ>0`$, there exists $`\alpha >0`$ such that, if $`\varphi `$ is a rhombic immersion of $`G`$ in $`^2`$ and each face has area at most $`\alpha `$, then:

* $`\varphi (G_0)`$ is $`ϵ`$-close to a line $`L`$ containing $`\varphi (v_0)`$.
* there exists a segment of $`L`$ of length $`2k`$, centered at $`\varphi (v_0)`$, which is $`ϵ`$-close to $`\varphi (G)`$.

###### Proof.

$`\varphi `$ is uniquely determined (up to translation) by the transverse directions of the train-tracks in $`G_0`$. Moreover, if two intersecting train-tracks have transverse directions which are neither close nor almost opposite, the area of the faces can not all be small. Therefore, the transverse directions of all train-tracks in $`G_0`$ are close to either $`u`$ or to $`u`$, for some $`uS^1`$.

This already shows that $`\varphi (G_0)`$ remains close to the line containing $`\varphi (x_0)`$ and of direction $`u`$. In addition, if $`v`$ is a vertex of $`G_0`$ which is not adjacent to the outer face, then the edges starting from $`v`$ can not be all pointing in directions close to $`u`$ or all in the directions close to $`u`$ – there must be some pointing in both directions. Since $`v_0`$ is at distance at least $`k`$ from the outer face, the segment of length $`2k`$ centered at $`\varphi (v_0)`$ and directed by $`u`$ is close to $`\varphi (G_0)`$. ∎

###### Lemma 4.3.

Let $`(\varphi _t)_{t[0,1]}`$ be a 1-parameter family of rhombic immersions of $`G`$ (i.e. not necessarily globally injective). Suppose that, for all $`t[0,1)`$, $`\varphi _t`$ is an embedding. Then $`\varphi _1`$ is an embedding, and $`\varphi _1(G)`$ is either a plane, a half-plane or a strip.

###### Proof.

Define a boundary point of $`\varphi _1`$ as a point $`x^2`$ such that any neighborhood of $`x`$ intersects an infinite set of rhombi of $`\varphi (G)`$. If $`\varphi _1`$ has no boundary point, then it is a local homeomorphism and it is proper, so that it is a global homeomorphism; thus it is an embedding, with image $`^2`$. So we suppose that $`\varphi _1`$ has a boundary point $`x_0`$.

Since the $`\varphi _t`$ are embeddings for $`t<1`$, for any $`k`$, the sum of the areas of the rhombi of $`\varphi _1(G)`$ which are within distance at most $`k`$ from $`x_0`$ is finite (bounded by the area of the disk of radius $`k+1`$). However, by definition of a boundary point, there is a sequence of vertices $`v_n`$ of $`G`$, $`n`$ such that $`(\varphi _1(v_n))x_0`$ and that the disks $`D_n`$ of (combinatorial) radius $`k`$ centered on the $`v_n`$ are disjoint in $`G`$. Then the area of the $`\varphi _1(D_n)`$ go to $`0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$.

By the lemma above, for $`n`$ large enough, the $`\varphi _1(D_n)`$ are each close to a line going through $`x_0`$. By construction of $`t_0`$, they are disjoint, so they are all close to a fixed line $`Lx_0`$. Moreover, still by the lemma, there is a segment $`\sigma `$ of $`L`$ of length $`2k`$ centered at $`x_0`$ which is arbitrarily close to the $`\varphi _1(D_n)`$ for $`n`$ large enough.

Therefore, all points of $`\sigma `$ are boundary points of $`\varphi _1`$. This is true for all $`k`$, so the line $`L`$ is made up completely of boundary points of $`\varphi _1`$. What is more, $`\varphi _1(G)`$ can not be on both sides of $`L`$, since otherwise $`G`$ could not be connected. Since the same can be said of all the boundary points of $`\varphi _1`$, we have that $`\varphi _1(G)`$ is bounded by disjoint lines. There can be either one or two of those lines; in the first case $`\varphi _1(G)`$ is a half-plane, in the second case it is a strip. This description shows that $`\varphi _1`$ is globally injective, so it is an embedding. ∎

It is now possible to prove Theorem 4.1.

###### Proof.

Given a set of angles satisfying these two linear conditions, there corresponds at most one rhombic embedding up to global isometry. Conversely, it is clear that such a choice of angles determines a locally injective map from $`G`$ to $`^2`$, but it remains to show that it is globally injective.

The space of maps $`\alpha :W(0,\pi )`$ satisfying the two linear conditions is convex. We know from Theorem 3.1 that there exists a choice of angles, say $`\alpha _0`$, giving an embedded graph. We call $`(\alpha _t)_{t[0,1]}`$ the affine parametrized segment of maps $`\alpha _t:W(0,\pi )`$ between $`\alpha _0`$ and $`\alpha _1=\alpha `$, and $`(\varphi _t)_{t[0,1]}`$ the associated 1-parameter family of rhombic immersions of $`G`$.

We will show that $`\varphi _t`$ is an embedding — i.e. is globally injective — for all $`t[0,1)`$. Lemma 4.3 then shows that $`\varphi _1`$ is an embedding, with image a plane, half-plane or strip. Suppose $`\varphi _t`$ is not an embedding for all $`t`$; let $`t_0`$ be the infimum of the $`t[0,1]`$ such that $`\varphi _t`$ is not globally injective, and we suppose that $`t_0<1`$.

Lemma 4.3, applied to the 1-parameter family $`(\varphi _t)_{t[0,t_0]}`$, shows that $`\varphi _{t_0}`$ is an embedding, and that its image is either a plane, a half-plane or a strip. Moreover, the definition of $`(\varphi _t)`$ from the affine segment $`(\alpha _t)_{t[0,1]}`$ shows that no rhombus angle goes to $`0`$ as $`tt_0`$. Therefore $`\varphi _{t_0}`$ can not have boundary points, and its image is a plane. For $`tt_0`$ close enough to $`t_0`$, each of the rhombus angles remains bounded from below, so $`\varphi _t`$ is still proper, and thus an embedding. This contradicts the definition of $`t_0`$. So $`\varphi _t`$ is an embedding for all $`t[0,1]`$. ∎

### 4.2 Convexity

Theorem 4.1 proves that the space of rhombic embeddings is parametrized by the choice of an angle for each wedge, satisfying the above linear conditions. Thus the space of rhombic embeddings is the intersection of a cube $`(0,\pi )^W`$ with the set of linear subspaces defined by these constraints. Thus it is a convex set, which we denote $`\mathrm{Rh}(\mathrm{G})`$.

Given a graph $`G`$ with faces of degree $`4`$, we will call $`\mathrm{Tr}_+(\mathrm{G})`$ the set of oriented train-tracks. So $`\mathrm{Tr}_+(\mathrm{G})`$ has two elements for each train track $`t\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G})`$, one for each choice of orientation of $`t`$. For each $`t\mathrm{Tr}_+(\mathrm{G})`$, we call $`t`$ the oriented train-track which is the same as $`t`$ but with the opposite orientation.

We consider now only graphs which satisfy the hypothesis of Theorem 3.1. In particular, two oriented train-tracks $`t,t^{}`$ with $`t\pm t^{}`$ intersect at most once. Given two distinct oriented train-tracks $`t,t^{}\mathrm{Tr}_+(\mathrm{G})`$, with $`t^{}\pm t`$, we will say that $`t^{}`$ has positive intersection with $`t`$ if $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$ intersect, and the intersection has positive orientation, that is, if $`t^{}`$ crosses $`t`$ from right to left.

Let $`𝒟`$ be the directed graph whose vertices are the oriented train tracks, with an edge going from $`t`$ to $`t^{}`$ if and only if $`t^{}`$ intersects $`t`$ positively. In particular, if $`t^{}`$ intersects $`t`$ positively, then $`𝒟`$ has a cycle $`tt^{}tt^{}t`$.

Let $`\varphi \mathrm{Rh}(\mathrm{G})`$ be a rhombic embedding of $`G`$. Then each oriented train-track has a transversal, which is a unit vector, i.e. an element of $`S^1`$. Thus $`\varphi `$ induces a map $`\mathrm{Tr}_+(\mathrm{G})\mathrm{S}^1`$, with the property that $`\varphi (t)=\varphi (t)+\pi `$. We will see below that this map is strictly order-preserving in the following sense.

###### Definition 4.4.

1. We call $`F(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$ the space of maps $`\theta `$ from $`\mathrm{Tr}_+(\mathrm{G})`$ to $`S^1`$ such that, for all $`t\mathrm{Tr}_+(\mathrm{G})`$, $`\theta (t)=\theta (t)+\pi `$.
2. A map $`\theta F(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$ is strictly order preserving if, for each $`t,t^{}\mathrm{Tr}_+(\mathrm{G})`$ such that $`t^{}`$ has positive intersection with $`t`$, $`\theta (t^{})(\theta (t),\theta (t)+\pi )`$. We call $`F_>(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$ the space of strictly order-preserving elements of $`F(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$.
3. A map $`\theta F(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$ is order-preserving if:

* For each $`t,t^{}\mathrm{Tr}_+(\mathrm{G})`$ such that $`t^{}`$ intersects $`t`$ positively, $`\theta (t^{})[\theta (t),\theta (t)+\pi ]`$.
    * Each subgraph of $`𝒟`$ consisting of train tracks having a fixed $`\theta `$-value is acyclic (has no oriented cycles).

We call $`F_{}(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$ the space of order-preserving elements of $`F(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$.

###### Lemma 4.5.

A map $`\theta F(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$ determines a rhombic embedding of $`G`$ if and only if it is strictly order-preserving.

###### Proof.

Given a rhombic embedding of $`\varphi `$ of $`G`$, we have already mentioned that it induces a map $`uF(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$. If two oriented train-tracks $`t,t^{}\mathrm{Tr}_+(\mathrm{G})`$ intersect, then the intersection rhombus has positive orientation and this means that, if $`t^{}`$ has positive intersection with $`t`$, then $`u(t^{})(u(t),u(t)+\pi )`$. Thus $`u`$ is strictly order-preserving.

Conversely, let $`uF_>(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$. Let $`w=(f,v)`$ be a wedge in $`G`$, where $`f`$ is a face and $`v`$ is a vertex of $`f`$. Let $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ be the two oriented train-tracks such that the oriented edges $`e_1`$ and $`e_2`$ of $`f`$ starting from $`v`$ are the oriented transverse directions of $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$, respectively. Define a map $`\alpha :W`$ by setting $`\alpha (w)`$ equal to the oriented angle between $`u(t_1)`$ and $`u(t_2)`$. Since $`u`$ is strictly order-preserving, $`\alpha `$ takes its values in $`(0,\pi )`$. It is clear that $`\alpha `$ satisfies the two linear conditions in Theorem 4.1.

Thus Theorem 4.1 shows that $`\alpha :W(0,\pi )`$ is obtained on a rhombic embedding of $`G`$, for which — up to an isometry in $`^2`$ — the transverse direction of each oriented train-track $`t`$ is given by $`u(t)`$. ∎

Clearly two maps $`\theta ,\theta ^{}F_>(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$ determine the same rhombic embedding, up to a global isometry, if and only if there exists a constant $`\theta _0`$ such that, for all $`t\mathrm{Tr}_+(\mathrm{G})`$, $`\theta ^{}(t)=\theta (t)+\theta _0`$. Therefore, $`\mathrm{Rh}(\mathrm{G})`$ is the quotient of $`F_>(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$ by $`S^1`$.

###### Lemma 4.6.

The closure of $`F_>(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$ is $`F_{}(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\theta F(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$. We want to show that the following statements are equivalent:

1. $`\theta `$ is order-preserving.
2. for all $`ϵ>0`$, there exists $`\theta ^{}F_>(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$ which is strictly order-preserving and such that, for all $`t\mathrm{Tr}_+(\mathrm{G})`$, $`|\theta ^{}(t)\theta (t)|<ϵ`$.

It is clear that (2) implies (1), so we only have to prove the converse. Let $`\theta F(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$ be order-preserving.

We can partition the set of train tracks into sets which are the maximal components of $`𝒟`$ having the same $`\theta `$-value. Without loss of generality we assume that the value of $`\theta `$ is different on each component. Enumerate the components $`C_1,C_2,\mathrm{}`$; we can further assume by perturbing $`\theta `$ slightly (keeping the value constant on each $`C_i`$) that for $`i<j`$ the $`\theta `$ values of $`C_i`$ and $`C_j`$ are at least $`ϵ/2^j`$ apart.

We now perturb the $`\theta `$-values within each $`C_i`$ so that the new values lie in $`(\theta ϵ/2^{i+1},\theta +ϵ/2^{i+1})`$. But $`𝒟`$ restricted to $`C_i`$ is an acyclic connected graph; as such it represents a partial order of its (at most countably many) vertices. Assign values in $`(\theta ϵ/2^i,\theta +ϵ/2^i)`$ to the train tracks in a way which is compatible with this (strict) partial order. This completes the construction. ∎

###### Lemma 4.7.

The natural map from $`F_>(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$ to $`\mathrm{Rh}(\mathrm{G})`$ extends continously to a map from $`F_{}(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$ to the closure of $`\mathrm{Rh}(\mathrm{G})`$ (for its affine structure). The induced map from $`F_{}(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)/\mathrm{S}^1`$ to $`\overline{\mathrm{Rh}(\mathrm{G})}`$ is one-to-one.

###### Proof.

It is clear that the map from $`F_>(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$ to $`\mathrm{Rh}(\mathrm{G})`$ extends continously to a map from $`F_{}(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$ to $`\overline{\mathrm{Rh}(\mathrm{G})}`$, which is surjective by construction.

Given $`uF_>(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$, $`u`$ is uniquely determined — up to an isometry in $`^2`$ — by the angles at the wedges, which are now in $`[0,\pi ]`$, i.e. by the image of $`u`$ in $`\overline{\mathrm{Rh}(\mathrm{G})}`$. So the induced map from $`F_{}(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)/\mathrm{S}^1`$ to $`\overline{\mathrm{Rh}(\mathrm{G})}`$ is injective. ∎

As a consequence, the affine structure on $`\mathrm{Rh}(\mathrm{G})`$ can be obtained from the parametrization by the wedge angles, but also from the affine structure on $`F_>(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$ through the quotient by $`S^1`$. This second description will be useful below to understand the extreme points of this convex set.

### 4.3 The group of circle homeomorphisms

A consequence of the definitions of $`F(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1),\mathrm{F}_{}(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$ and $`F_>(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$ is that, for each $`G`$, there is a canonical action on each of those convex sets of the group of homeomorphisms of the circle.

###### Definition 4.8.

We call $``$ the group of homeomorphisms $`\varphi :S^1S^1`$ such that, for all $`xS^1`$, $`\varphi (x)=\varphi (x)`$.

There is a natural action of $``$ on $`F(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$, defined as follows. Let $`\varphi `$. For each $`\theta F(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$ and each $`t\mathrm{Tr}_+(\mathrm{G})`$, let $`\varphi ^{}(\theta )(t):=\varphi (\theta (t))`$. It is clear that this defines an action of $``$ on $`F(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$. Moreover, given $`\varphi `$, it is also clear that an element $`\theta F(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$ is (strictly) order-preserving if and only if $`\varphi (\theta )`$ is (strictly) order-preserving, and therefore $``$ also acts on $`F_{}(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$ and $`F_>(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$. Note that the action of $`\varphi `$ on $`F(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$ is not affine.

By lemmas 4.5 and 4.6, $`F_{}(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$ is a closed convex set. Thus it has a natural stratifications, with one codimension $`0`$ cell corresponding to $`F_>(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$, and higher-dimensional stratums corresponding to some intersecting train-tracks having the same image in $`S^1`$.

###### Lemma 4.9.

The action of $``$ preserves each stratum of $`F_{}(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$.

###### Proof.

This is again a consequence of the definitions. ∎

### 4.4 Vertices

###### Theorem 4.10.

The extreme points of $`\mathrm{Rh}(\mathrm{G})`$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the maps $`\theta :\mathrm{Tr}_+(\mathrm{G})\{1,1\}`$ satisfying $`\theta (t)=\theta (t)`$, such that the subgraphs $`𝒟_1`$ and $`𝒟_1`$ of $`𝒟`$, consisting of vertices with values $`\pm 1`$ respectively, are acyclic.

This theorem is a direct consequence (through the quotient by $`S^1`$) of the following lemma on the geometry of $`F_{}(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$. To state it, we introduce a simple notation. Let $`T\mathrm{Tr}_+(\mathrm{G})`$ be a subset such that, for each $`t\mathrm{Tr}_+(\mathrm{G})`$, either $`tT`$ or $`tT`$, but not both ($`T`$ is a choice of orientation for each train track). Then, for $`\alpha S^1`$, define:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\theta _{T,\alpha }:& \mathrm{Tr}_+(\mathrm{G})& & S^1\hfill \\ & t& & \{\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \text{ if}tT\\ \alpha +\pi & \text{if}tT\end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

Clearly, for all $`T`$ and $`\alpha `$, $`\theta _{T,\alpha }F(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$.

###### Lemma 4.11.

If $`\theta _{T,\alpha }F_{}(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$, then the set of $`\theta _{T,\beta }`$ for $`\beta S^1`$ is a $`1`$-dimensional stratum of $`F_{}(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$. Moreover, all $`1`$-dimensional stratums of $`F_{}(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$ are of this form.

###### Proof.

The first point is obvious. Given $`\theta F_{}(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$, the orbit $`\theta `$ is one-dimensional if and only if $`\theta `$ takes only two values, $`\beta `$ and $`\beta +\pi `$ for some $`\beta S^1`$. Therefore the stratum is one-dimensional only in this case. This proves the second point. ∎

### 4.5 Extreme points when $`G`$ is periodic

In this subsection we consider a graph $`G`$ embedded in the torus (with faces of degree $`4`$) and its lift $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ to a periodic graph in $`^2`$. The extreme points of the space of rhombic embeddings of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ are described by Theorem 4.10 above. Associated to an extreme point $`\theta _{T,0}`$ is a map from the vertices of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ to $``$ with the property that the difference between the values at the endpoints of each edge differ by either $`1`$ or $`1`$: the difference of the map along an edge $`e`$ which is the transversal of train track $`tT`$ is $`1`$ (and $`1`$ if $`tT`$).

Let $`\pm t_1,\mathrm{},\pm t_k`$ be the train tracks of $`G`$. Let $`𝒟(G)`$ be the finite directed graph of positive intersections.

###### Theorem 4.12.

The extreme points $`T`$ of $`\mathrm{Rh}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}})`$ can be described as follows. Assign elements of $`\{+,,0\}`$ to vertices of $`𝒟(G)`$ so that the subgraph consisting of $`\{0,+\}`$ has no directed cycle and the subgraph consisting of $`\{0,\}`$ has no directed cycle. To each such assignment is associated a collection of extreme points of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ where $`T`$ is the union of the set of train tracks projecting to $`+`$-train tracks of $`𝒟(G)`$ and an arbitrary subset of the train tracks projecting to $`0`$-train tracks of $`𝒟(G)`$. Conversely any extreme point of $`\mathrm{Rh}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}})`$ arises in this fashion.

###### Proof.

The graph $`𝒟(\stackrel{~}{G})`$ is obtained by replacing each vertex of $`𝒟(G)`$ by a copy of $``$ and each edge from $`v`$ to $`v^{}`$ by the collection of all edges from the copy of $``$ at $`v`$ to that at $`v^{}`$. To a subset $`T`$ of vertices of $`𝒟(\stackrel{~}{G})`$, assign elements of $`\{0,+,\}`$ to $`𝒟(G)`$ as follows: if every vertex of $`𝒟(\stackrel{~}{G})`$ over $`v𝒟(G)`$ is in $`T`$, assign $`+`$ to $`v`$. If no vertex is in $`T`$, assign $``$. In the remaining case assign $`0`$. Then a “$`+`$” component of $`𝒟(\stackrel{~}{G})`$ contains a cycle if and only if a $`\{0,+\}`$-component of $`𝒟(G)`$ contains a cycle, and similarly a “$``$” component of $`𝒟(\stackrel{~}{G})`$ contains a cycle if and only if a $`\{0,\}`$-component of $`𝒟(G)`$ contains a cycle. ∎

This result can be formulated differently in terms of the directions of the train tracks with image $`1`$ or $`1`$ in an extreme point of $`\mathrm{Rh}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}})`$.

###### Corollary 4.13.

The extreme points of $`\mathrm{Rh}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}})`$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the couples $`(T_0,\stackrel{~}{T}_0)`$, where $`T_0`$ is a maximal subset of $`\mathrm{Tr}_+(\mathrm{G})`$ of non-intersecting train-tracks with the same orientation, and $`\stackrel{~}{T}_0`$ is an arbitrary non-empty subset of $`\mathrm{Tr}_+(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}})`$ of train-tracks projecting to the elements of $`T_0`$. The correspondence is achieved by sending $`(T_0,\stackrel{~}{T}_0)`$ to the map $`\theta :\mathrm{Tr}_+(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}})\{1,1\}`$ such that $`\theta (t)=1`$ if and only if either $`t\stackrel{~}{T}_0`$, or $`t`$ has positive intersection with a train-track projecting to $`T_0`$.

#### Example: $`^2.`$

The graph $`𝒟(^2)`$ has 4 vertices, corresponding to $`\pm t_h`$, the left- and right-oriented horizontal train track and $`\pm t_v`$, the up- and down-oriented vertical train track; and four edges, $`t_ht_vt_ht_vt_h`$. In an extreme point $`T`$, either $`t_h=\pm `$ and $`t_v`$ is arbitrary, or $`t_v=\pm `$ and $`t_h`$ is arbitrary.

## 5 Periodic rhombic embeddings

### 5.1 Existence

For graphs on a torus we have the following analog of Theorem 3.1.

###### Theorem 5.1.

Suppose $`G`$ is a finite graph embedded on a torus, and each face has degree $`4`$. Then $`G`$ has a rhombic embedding on a torus if and only if the following two conditions are satisfied:

1. Each train track is a simple closed curve.
2. The lift of two train tracks to the universal cover intersect at most once.

###### Proof.

The conditions are clearly necessary. The sufficiency is proved by construction: let $`(p_i,q_i)`$ be the integer homology class of $`t_i`$. Define $`u_i`$ to be the unit vector perpendicular to $`(p_i,q_i)`$. To see that this defines an embedding, it suffices to show that each rhombus has positive area. However if oriented train tracks $`t_i`$ and $`t_j`$ intersect, with $`t_i`$ crossing $`t_j`$ from right to left, then $`p_iq_jp_jq_i>0`$ since it counts the algebraic intersection number. This implies that $`u_iu_j>0`$. ∎

### 5.2 Asymptotic directions

Consider a graph $`G`$ with faces of degree $`4`$ embedded on a torus, satisfying the conditions of Theorem 5.1. Each train track $`t`$ is a simple closed curve on the torus; the homology class of this curve is denoted $`[t]^2`$. Two train tracks of homology classes $`(p_1,q_1)`$ and $`(p_2,q_2)`$ intersect $`|p_1q_2p_2q_1|`$ times.

Given a rhombic embedding of $`G`$ on a torus, the lift of an oriented train track $`t`$ to the universal cover $`^2`$ is a periodic curve and hence has an asymptotic direction $`a(t)S^1`$. It also has an asymptotic vector $`v(t)`$, which is the difference in $`^2`$ between two consecutive lifts of a point of $`t`$. The asymptotic vector of a train track $`t`$ is of course the sum of the transverse vectors of all rhombi comprising $`t`$. That is, we have

$$v(t_i)=\underset{j}{}b_{i,j}u_j,$$

where the sum is over all train tracks, $`u_j`$ is the transversal of oriented train track $`j`$, and $`b_{i,j}`$ is the number of intersections of train track $`j`$ with train track $`i`$: $`b_{i,j}=p_iq_jp_jq_i`$. The asymptotic direction is the unit vector $`a(t_i)=v(t_i)/v(t_i)`$.

### 5.3 The space of periodic rhombic embeddings

Let $`\mathrm{Rh}(\mathrm{G})`$ be the space of rhombic embeddings of $`G`$ on a torus (the flat metric on the torus may be a function of the embedding). The argument of section 4.1 can still be used, but we now have to consider only the finite set of train-tracks on the torus. The proof of Theorem 3.1 — in a simplified form — shows that $`\mathrm{Rh}(\mathrm{G})`$ is convex when parametrized by the rhombus angles, but it is now finite-dimensional, of dimension $`|\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G})|1`$.

The characterization of its extreme points can be done just as in Theorem 4.10 and lemma 4.11 above. We can still consider $`\mathrm{Rh}(\mathrm{G})`$ as the quotient of $`F_>(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$ by the action of $`S^1`$, and the argument using the action of $``$ still shows that the $`1`$-dimensional stratums of $`F_{}(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G}),\mathrm{S}^1)`$ correspond to its elements which take only two values $`\beta `$ and $`\beta +\pi `$.

In particular $`\overline{\mathrm{Rh}(\mathrm{G})}`$ is a convex polyhedron of dimension $`|\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{G})|1`$.

### 5.4 Canonical embedding

On a torus, there is a “best” rhombic embedding of any given graph; it has a simple geometric characterization but is also obtained as the rhombic embedding maximizing the area.

###### Theorem 5.2.

On $`\mathrm{Rh}(\mathrm{G})`$ the area function of the torus is a strictly concave function of the rhombus angles. There is a unique point maximizing the area, it is characterized by the fact that the transverse direction of each train track is orthogonal to its asymptotic direction.

###### Proof.

The area of a rhombus of angle $`\theta `$ is $`\mathrm{sin}\theta `$, which is a strictly concave function of $`\theta (0,\pi )`$. This implies that the total area, which is the sum of the areas of the individual rhombi, is concave as a function of the angles. To show strict concavity, it suffices to show strict concavity under any one-parameter perturbation. But any perturbation must change the angle of some rhombus, and the contribution from the area of this rhombus is strictly concave. So the area has at most one critical point on $`\mathrm{Rh}(\mathrm{G})`$.

Let $`R`$ be a rhombic embedding of graph $`G`$. The area of $`R`$ is:

$$A(R)=\underset{1ijt}{}b_{i,j}u_iu_j=\underset{1ijt}{}b_{i,j}\mathrm{sin}(\theta _j\theta _i),$$
(2)
where $`t`$ is the number of train-tracks in $`G`$, $`u_i=e^{i\theta _i}`$ and the sum runs over all train-tracks in $`G`$, with an orientation chosen for each. As a function of $`u_i`$ it is a constant plus $`u_i(_jb_{i,j}u_j)=u_ia(t_i)`$. In particular since $`u_i`$ is a unit vector this quantity is critical if and only if, for each $`i`$, $`u_i`$ is orthogonal to $`a(t_i)`$. So, if the area does have a critical point on $`\mathrm{Rh}(\mathrm{G})`$, it is as described in the theorem.

For each $`1it`$, let $`\alpha _i`$ be the angle of the asymptotic direction of $`t_i`$. We define a vector field $`V`$ on $`\mathrm{Rh}(\mathrm{G})`$ by:

$$i\{1,\mathrm{},t\},d\theta _i(V)=\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _i\theta _i).$$

Clearly $`V`$ vanishes exactly at the critical points of the area. In fact, $`A`$ is increasing along the integral curves of $`V`$:

$$dA(V)=\underset{i}{}du_i(V)\underset{j}{}b_{i,j}u_j=\underset{i}{}(\mathrm{cos}(\theta _i\alpha _i)Ju_i)v(t_i),$$

$$dA(V)=\underset{i}{}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _i\alpha _i)u_i,v(t_i)=\underset{i}{}v(t_i)\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _i\alpha _i)0.$$

To prove that $`\mathrm{Rh}(\mathrm{G})`$ contains a critical point of $`V`$, it is therefore sufficient to prove that, at any point of $`\mathrm{Rh}(\mathrm{G})`$ where the area is positive, $`V`$ points towards the interior of $`\mathrm{Rh}(\mathrm{G})`$. Let $`\theta ^0=(\theta _i^0)_{1it}\mathrm{Rh}(\mathrm{G})`$; the face of $`\mathrm{Rh}(\mathrm{G})`$ containing $`\theta ^0`$ is characterized by a set of equalities of the form $`\theta _{i_p}=\theta _{j_p}`$ for different values of $`p`$, where — without loss of generality — $`t_{j_p}`$ has positive intersection with $`t_{i_p}`$.

For each $`1it`$, let $`\alpha _i^0`$ be the angle of the asymptotic direction of $`t_i`$ for $`\theta ^0`$. Then $`\alpha _{i_p}^0,\alpha _{j_p}^0(\theta _{i_p}^0\pi ,\theta _{i_p}^0)`$ and $`\alpha _{j_p}^0>\alpha _{i_p}^0`$ (because $`t_j`$ has positive intersection with $`t_i`$ and $`A>0`$). Therefore $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{j_p}^0\alpha _{j_p}^0)>\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{i_p}^0\alpha _{i_p}^0)`$, and thus $`V`$ points towards the interior of $`\mathrm{Rh}(\mathrm{G})`$. ∎

###### Corollary 5.3.

A rhombic graph on a torus has maximal area if and only if, for each train track $`t`$, the transverse direction of $`t`$ is orthogonal to its asymptotic direction $`a(t)`$.

## 6 Parallelogram embeddings

A generalization of rhombic embeddings is parallogram embeddings, wherein each face is mapped to a parallelogram. Given a parallelogram embedding, a unique rhombic embedding can be obtained by replacing each edge with the unit length vector in the same direction. Conversely, the set of parallelogram embeddings associated to a given rhombic embedding is obtained simply by replacing each edge in a train track with a real multiple (a different real multiple for each train track). Thus the combinatorial and topological behavior of parallelogram embeddings can be understood from the underlying rhombic embedding.

## Acknowledgements

The second author would like to thank Gilbert Levitt for some remarks related to this work.


text:
# On the existence of a finite-temperature transition in the two-dimensional gauge glass

## Abstract

Results from Monte Carlo simulations of the two-dimensional gauge glass supporting a zero-temperature transition are presented. A finite-size scaling analysis of the correlation length shows that the system does not exhibit spin-glass order at finite temperatures. These results are compared to earlier claims of a finite-temperature transition.

The existence of a finite-temperature spin-glass transition in the two-dimensional gauge glass has been a source of great controversy. While the existence of a transition in three dimensions is undisputed,Olson and Young (2000) several different approachesFisher et al. (1991); Reger and Young (1993); Hyman et al. (1995); Kosterlitz and Simkin (1997); Granato (1998); Choi and Park (1999); Kim (2000); Katzgraber and Young (2002a); Holme et al. (2003) have been made to determine the spin-glass ordering temperature $`T_c`$ in two dimensions with different results. As the gauge glass in two dimensions is a model commonly used to describe the vortex-glass transition in dirty high-temperature superconductor thin films,Blatter et al. (1994) it is important to settle the question of whether the system exhibits spin-glass order at finite temperatures or not. Experimental results on YBCO thin filmsDekker et al. (1992) show no vortex-glass order, whereas bulk materials do exhibit a transition to a glassy phase. A brief summary of the different approaches used to determine $`T_c`$ is presented, followed by results from a novel techniqueBallesteros et al. (2000) that strongly supports the absence of a glassy phase at finite temperatures in the two-dimensional gauge glass.

Early work by Fisher et al.Fisher et al. (1991) who study the size-dependence of domain-wall energies with a zero-temperature domain-wall renormalization group method, shows evidence of a zero-temperature transition in the two-dimensional gauge glass. Gingras,Gingras (1992) as well as Akino and Kosterlitz,Akino and Kosterlitz (2002) who also study the stiffness exponent of the model, find agreeing results.

In the aforementioned work,Fisher et al. (1991) Fisher et al. also analyze the scaling of Binder ratiosBinder (1981) of the order parameter and obtain further evidence of a zero-temperature transition. These results are in agreement with Monte Carlo simulations by Reger and YoungReger and Young (1993) who conclude that the transition temperature is not finite by studying the scaling of the currents induced by a twist in the boundary conditions. Katzgraber and YoungKatzgraber and Young (2002a) find evidence of a zero-temperature transition for the two-dimensional gauge-glass Hamiltonian with periodic boundary conditions by studying the scaling of the currents and the spin-glass susceptibility. They also conclude that one can scale data for the susceptibility well for any positive $`T_c`$, probably due to the extra fitting parameter $`\eta `$, the anomalous dimension of the spin-glass order parameter $`q`$, and show that studying the scaling of the spin-glass susceptibility alone is not enough to obtain evidence of a finite-temperature transition. This may explain why similar simulations by Choi and Park,Choi and Park (1999) who study the susceptibility only, find a finite-temperature transition with $`T_c=0.22\pm 0.02`$.

Furthermore, KimKim (2000) has studied the gauge glass with fluctuating twist boundary conditionsOlsson (1992) by means of resistively shunted junction (RSJ) dynamics and finds a finite $`T_c`$ in agreement with the work of Choi and Park,Choi and Park (1999) and with early results by LiLi (1992) (challenged later by SimkinSimkin (1996)). Surprisingly, Granato,Granato (1998) who also uses RSJ dynamics but with periodic boundary conditions, obtains $`T_c=0`$.

More recently Holme et al.Holme et al. (2003) have studied the two-dimensional gauge glass by means of Monte Carlo simulations with fluctuating twist boundary conditions. By introducing an extra anomalous exponent $`b`$ they are able to scale data for the currents and the helicity modulus and so obtain a finite transition temperature close to $`0.20`$.

As there are diverging opinions on the spin-glass transition temperature of the two-dimensional gauge glass, the issue is reconsidered in the present work using a different approach. The scaling of the finite-system correlation lengths is studied, giving compelling evidence that $`T_c0`$, at least for the system sizes studied here. These results are supported by data for the spin-glass susceptibility.

The gauge-glass Hamiltonian,Shih et al. (1984) which describes a disordered granular superconductor, is given by

$$=J\underset{i,j}{}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _i\varphi _jA_{ij}),$$
(1)
where the sum ranges over nearest neighbors on a square lattice of size $`N=L^2`$ and $`\varphi _i`$ represent the angles of the $`XY`$ spins. The $`A_{ij}`$ are quenched random variables uniformly distributed between $`[0,2\pi ]`$ with the constraint that $`A_{ij}=A_{ji}`$. In this work $`J=1`$ and periodic boundary conditions are applied.

PreviouslyKatzgraber and Young (2002a) we estimated the critical temperature of the two-dimensional gauge glass by studying the scaling of the currentsReger et al. (1991) induced by a twist in the boundary conditions. This has an advantage over studying the crossing of Binder ratiosBinder (1981) because the latter will not splay enough for $`XY`$ systemsOlson and Young (2000) at $`T<T_c`$, making it almost impossible to accurately determine the crossing point. Studying the currents requires some care as well, as these have different finite-size scaling formsKatzgraber and Young (2002a) depending on a finite or zero transition temperature. Finally, the currents show strong statistical fluctuations and so require a large amount of disorder realizations. Therefore in this work the scaling of the correlation lengths is studied as these show little statistical fluctuations, have a simple finite-size scaling form and splay out well for $`T<T_c`$.

This method has been applied with success to Ising,Ballesteros et al. (2000) as well as vector spin glasses.Lee and Young (2003) The spin-glass order parameter for the gauge glass is given by

$$q=\frac{1}{N}\underset{j}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{exp}[i(\varphi _j^\alpha \varphi _j^\beta )],$$
(2)
where “$`\alpha `$” and “$`\beta `$” represent two replicas of the system with the same disorder. Equation (2) is generalized to finite wave vectors $`𝐤`$:

$$q(𝐤)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{j}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{exp}[i(\varphi _j^\alpha \varphi _j^\beta )+i𝐤𝐑_j].$$
(3)
The wave vector dependent spin-glass susceptibility $`\chi _{_{\mathrm{SG}}}(𝐤)`$ is then given by

$$\chi _{_{\mathrm{SG}}}(𝐤)=N[|q(𝐤)|^2]_{\mathrm{av}}.$$
(4)
Here, $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes a thermal and $`[\mathrm{}]_{\mathrm{av}}`$ a disorder average. The finite-system correlation length $`\xi _L`$ is determined from an expansionCooper et al. (1982); Ballesteros et al. (2000); com (a) of the spin-glass susceptibility for small $`𝐤\xi _L`$ in the framework of an Ornstein-Zernicke approximationMartín-Mayor et al. (2002)

$$[\chi _{_{\mathrm{SG}}}(𝐤)/\chi _{_{\mathrm{SG}}}(\mathrm{𝟎})]^1=1+(𝐤\xi _L)^2+O[(𝐤\xi _L)^4].$$
(5)
Keeping only the leading term in the expansion and taking into account the lattice periodicity as well as corrections to scaling, we obtain

$$\xi _L=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{sin}(|𝐤_{\mathrm{min}}|/2)}\left[\frac{\chi _{_{\mathrm{SG}}}(\mathrm{𝟎})}{\chi _{_{\mathrm{SG}}}(𝐤_{\mathrm{min}})}1\right]^{1/2},$$
(6)
where $`𝐤_{\mathrm{min}}=(2\pi /L,0,0)`$ is the smallest nonzero wave vector. In Eq. (6), $`\chi _{_{\mathrm{SG}}}(\mathrm{𝟎})`$ is the standard spin-glass susceptibility.

The finite-size scaling of $`\xi _L`$ can be understood by studying the finite-size scaling of the spin-glass susceptibility extended to finite wave vectors $`k`$

$$\chi _{_{\mathrm{SG}}}(T,L,k)=L^{2\eta }\stackrel{~}{C}[L^{1/\nu }(TT_c),kL].$$
(7)
From Eq. (5) $`k_{\mathrm{min}}^2\xi _L^2\chi _{_{\mathrm{SG}}}(0)/\chi _{_{\mathrm{SG}}}(k_{\mathrm{min}})`$ up to an additive constant, and so the $`L`$-dependent prefactor in Eq. (7) cancels. The dependence of $`\chi _{_{\mathrm{SG}}}`$ on $`kL`$ drops out as well, as in Eq. (6) $`k=k_{\mathrm{min}}=2\pi /L`$. We therefore obtain the simple finite-size scaling form

$$\xi _L/L=\stackrel{~}{X}[L^{1/\nu }(TT_c)],$$
(8)
and so, the introduction of an anomalous exponentHolme et al. (2003) is not plausible. This has also the advantage that the finite-size scaling has few parameters. From Eq. (8) we see that data for different system sizes $`L`$ will cross at $`T=T_c`$. If $`T_c=0`$, one expects that data for different $`L`$ will decrease with increasing $`L`$ and not cross for any finite temperature.

For the simulations the parallel tempering Monte Carlo methodHukushima and Nemoto (1996); Marinari (1998) is used. Because the equilibration test for short-range spin glasses introduced by Katzgraber et al.Katzgraber et al. (2001); Katzgraber and Young (2002b); Lee and Young (2003) does not work for the gauge glassKatzgraber and Young (2002b) as the disorder is not Gaussian, equilibration is tested by the traditional technique of requiring that different observables are independent of the number of Monte Carlo steps. By doubling the number of Monte Carlo sweeps between each measurement until the last three agree within error bars, equilibration is ensured. The equilibration times used for the different system sizes are listed in Ref. Katzgraber and Young, 2002a, Table I. For the largest size studied, $`L_{\mathrm{max}}=16`$, $`10^3`$ disorder realizations are performed, whereas for the smaller sizes $`L`$, $`10^3(L_{\mathrm{max}}/L)`$ realizations. The lowest temperature studied is $`T=0.13`$, well below the claimedHolme et al. (2003); Choi and Park (1999); Kim (2000) transition at $`T0.20`$. Here, 30 temperature replicas are used with the highest temperature being $`T=1.058`$.

Figure 1 shows data for $`\xi _L/L`$ for different system sizes $`L`$. The data decrease with increasing $`L`$ for all temperatures. In particular, there is no crossing of the data around $`T0.20`$ (shaded area) where the spin-glass transition is supposed to take place.Holme et al. (2003); Choi and Park (1999); Kim (2000) The inset of Fig. 1 shows a finite-size scaling plot of the data according to Eq. (8). One can see that the data scale very well for $`T_c=0`$ and $`1/\nu =0.39\pm 0.02`$, values found in Ref. Katzgraber and Young, 2002a by scaling the currents and the spin-glass susceptibility. The error bar in $`1/\nu `$ is determined by varying its value until the data do not scale well. An attempt to scale the data in Fig. 1 to any value of a finite $`T_c`$, in particular $`0.20`$, fails for any choice of $`\nu `$.

Standard finite-size scaling predicts that the spin-glass susceptibility scales ascom (b); Carter et al. (2003)

$$\chi _{_{\mathrm{SG}}}=L^{2\eta }\stackrel{~}{C}[L^{1/\nu }(TT_c)],$$
(9)
which means that at $`T=T_c`$ it should scale as a power law $`L^{2\eta }`$. In Fig. 2 data for $`\mathrm{ln}(\chi _{_{\mathrm{SG}}}/L^2)`$ vs $`\mathrm{ln}(L)`$ is shown. If the data were at $`T_c`$, one would expect a straight line. In particular, $`T=0.20`$ shows a strong downward curvature indicating that the system is above the critical transition temperature. A fit of the data in Fig. 2 to a straight line for the different temperatures yields quality of fit probabilitiesPress et al. (1995) between $`10^9`$ for the lowest, and $`10^{20}`$ for the highest temperature, respectively. A second-order polynomial fit to the data, instead, has quality of fit probabilities $`0.9`$. The curvature of the second-order fits is determined and shown in the inset of Fig. 2. Because at $`T<T_c`$ \[$`T>T_c`$\] one expects $`\chi _{_{\mathrm{SG}}}(L)`$ to bend upward \[downward\], the curvature has to go through zero at $`T_c`$. The data in the inset of Fig. 2 do not cross the horizontal axis for the temperature range studied and extrapolate within error bars to $`T_c0`$. This is in agreement with results by Katzgraber and YoungKatzgraber and Young (2002a) who obtain good scaling of the susceptibility at low temperatures for $`T_c=0`$, $`\eta =0`$, and $`1/\nu =0.39`$.

To conclude, evidence of a zero-temperature transition in the two-dimensional gauge glass with periodic boundary conditions is presented by studying the finite-size scaling of the correlation lengths. This approach is better than previous methods used because the correlation lengths show small statistical fluctuations and have a simple finite-size scaling form. In addition, the curvature of the spin-glass susceptibility as a function of system size indicates that there is no spin-glass transition at $`T0.20`$, at least for the system sizes studied. Moreover the curvature extrapolates within error bars to $`T_c0`$. These results are in agreement with experimental data on YBCO thin films,Dekker et al. (1992) where a finite-$`T`$ is absent, and different numerical approaches.Fisher et al. (1991); Reger and Young (1993); Akino and Kosterlitz (2002); Katzgraber and Young (2002a) In particular, it is shown that the system does not exhibit a spin-glass transition at $`T0.20`$, as claimed in Refs. Choi and Park, 1999, Kim, 2000, and Holme et al., 2003. It is noteworthy that Refs. Kim, 2000 and Holme et al., 2003 find the aforementioned finite temperature transition by studying the gauge glass with fluctuating twist boundary conditions instead of the commonly used periodic boundary conditions. Could this be one source of the discrepancies?

Finite-size effects can influence the data, and so an analysis with larger system sizes is desirable. Nevertheless, the data presented here strongly support the absence of a transition at $`T0.20`$, although a transition at $`T<0.13`$, the lowest temperature studied, while unlikely the case, cannot be ruled out completely.

I would like to thank G. Blatter, I. Campbell, M. Troyer, and A. P. Young for helpful discussions and to K. Tran for carefully reading the manuscript. The simulations were performed on the Asgard cluster at ETH Zürich.