text:
# Alexander duality in subdivisions of Lawrence polytopes

## 1. Introduction

The aim of this note is to show that oriented matroid duality can be seen as an instance of Alexander duality of simplicial complexes (see e.g. ). We represent an affine oriented matroid $`(,f)`$ on the ground set $`\{1,\mathrm{},n,f\}`$ by a simplicial complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }(,f)`$ on the vertex set $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,`$ $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_n\}`$ as follows. The facets of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(,f)`$ are the complements of the sets

$$\{x_i:iC^+\}\{y_j:jC^{}\},$$

where $`C=(C^+,C^{})`$ runs over all signed cocircuits of $`(,f)`$ such that the distinguished element $`f`$ lies in $`C^+`$. We have the following result:

###### Theorem 1.

The Alexander dual of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(,f)`$ is the simplicial complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }(_f^{},f)`$ associated with the affine oriented matroid $`(_f^{},f)`$. Here $`{}_{f}{}^{}_{}^{}`$ denotes the oriented matroid dual to $``$ with the element $`f`$ reoriented.

This duality can be expressed geometrically in terms of Lawrence polytopes. Suppose that the contraction $`/f`$ is represented by a $`d\times n`$-matrix $`𝐃`$ of rank $`d`$. Then the associated Lawrence polytope (see e.g. \[11, §6.6\]) is the convex hull of the columns of the $`(d+n)\times 2n`$-matrix

(1)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐃)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝐃& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ 𝐈& 𝐈\end{array}\right).$$

Here $`𝐈`$ is the $`n\times n`$-identity matrix, $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is the $`d\times n`$-zero matrix, and the columns are indexed by $`\{x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n,y_1,y_2,\mathrm{},y_n\}`$. Recall that $`\{x_i,y_i\}`$ is the complement of a facet of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐃)`$, for all $`i`$. It turns out that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(,f)`$ is a polyhedral subdivision of the Lawrence polytope $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐃)`$, where each maximal face in the subdivision is represented by the simplex on its set of vertices. This subdivision is a triangulation if and only if the matroid $`\backslash f`$ is uniform. The Lawrence polytope $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐃)`$ itself is called uniform if all $`d\times d`$-minors of $`𝐃`$ are nonzero, or, in the non-realizable case, if the matroid $`/f`$ is uniform.

The following is our main result:

###### Theorem 2.

The following families of simplicial complexes on the $`2n`$-element set $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,y_1,\mathrm{},y_n\}`$ are closed under Alexander duality:

* Regular triangulations of uniform Lawrence polytopes,
* regular subdivisions of Lawrence polytopes,
* triangulations of uniform Lawrence matroid polytopes,
* subdivisions of Lawrence matroid polytopes.

Moreover, Alexander duality gives a bijection between regular triangulations of Lawrence polytopes and regular subdivisions of uniform Lawrence polytopes. These two families are not closed under Alexander duality.

The families (3) and (4) in Theorem 2 refer to the case when the oriented matroid $`/f`$ cannot be represented by a matrix $`𝐃`$. For the relevant definitions and notations used here we refer to the books  and . In particular, see \[4, §9.3\] for Lawrence (matroid) polytopes and \[4, §9.6\] for subdivisions of (matroid) polytopes. The first author proved in \[10, Theorem 4.14\] that every subdivision of a Lawrence (matroid) polytope is induced by a lifting of oriented matroids $`/f`$.

Our presentation is organized as follows. In Section 2 we prove Theorem 1 and we interpret $`\mathrm{\Delta }(,f)`$ in terms of hyperplane arrangements. The proof of Theorem 2 is given in Section 4. Examples of Alexander dual pairs of subdivided Lawrence polytopes are given in Section 3. The smallest non-trivial example is the pair of triangular prisms in Figure 1.

Section 5 concerns the Alexander duals of simplicial balls and spheres in general. This section was added after we received the very helpful comments of an anonymous referee. He or she pointed us to the work of Dong  and proposed the extension stated in part 2 of Theorem 9.

The original motivation for this project came from commutative algebra and hyperkähler geometry. The simplicial complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }(,f)`$ is represented algebraically as a squarefree monomial ideal in $`k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,y_1,\mathrm{},y_n]`$. The minimal free resolution of this ideal constructed in  can be interpreted as a (suitably homogenized) coboundary complex on the Alexander dual $`\mathrm{\Delta }(_f^{},f)`$. In particular, part (1) in Theorem 2 furnishes a large class of Stanley-Reisner rings which are Cohen-Macaulay and have an explicit linear resolution. The quotient of such a Stanley-Reisner ring modulo a linear system of parameters was shown in  to equal the cohomology ring of a toric hyperkähler variety. These varieties are complete intersections in the toric variety whose fan is a cone over $`\mathrm{\Delta }(,f)`$. It would be interesting to explore the duality of toric hyperkähler varieties arising from our results.

## 2. Oriented Matroid Duality is Alexander Duality

We recall the combinatorial definition of Alexander duality. Let $`K`$ be a simplicial complex on the vertex set $`V`$. Then the Alexander dual of $`K`$ is the simplicial complex

$$K^{}:=\{V\backslash \sigma :\sigma K\}$$

The Alexander Duality Theorem states that the $`i`$-th reduced homology group $`\stackrel{~}{H}_i(K,𝐙)`$ of $`K`$ equals the $`(|V|3i)`$-th reduced cohomology group $`\stackrel{~}{H}^{|V|3i}(K^{},𝐙)`$ of $`K^{}`$. See, e.g., \[2, equation (2)\] or \[1, (9.17)\]. In particular, the Alexander dual of an acyclic simplicial complex is acyclic, although the Alexander dual of a contractible simplicial complex need not be contractible. See Section 5 for a discussion of this and related topological issues.

###### Proof of Theorem 1.

The statement can be rephrased as the following claim: given an oriented matroid $``$ on the ground set $`\{1,\mathrm{},n,f\}`$, for any pair of subsets $`\sigma _1,\sigma _2\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ one and only one of the following happens:

* There is a cocircuit $`(C^+,C^{})`$ in $``$ with $`C^{}\sigma _1`$, and $`fC^+\sigma _2\{f\}`$, or
* There is a cocircuit $`(D^+,D^{})`$ in $`^{}`$ (that is, a circuit in $``$) with $`fD^{}\{1,\mathrm{},n,f\}\backslash \sigma _1`$ and $`D^+\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\backslash \sigma _2`$.

Indeed, condition (1) above is equivalent to

$$\{x_i:i\sigma _2\}\{y_j:j\sigma _1\}\mathrm{\Delta }(,f),$$

and condition (2) is equivalent to

$$\{x_i:i\sigma _2\}\{y_j:j\sigma _1\}\mathrm{\Delta }(_f^{},f).$$

The claim follows from Lemma 3 below, taking $`e=f`$ and color classes $`B=(\sigma _2\backslash \sigma _1)\{f\}`$, $`W=\sigma _1\backslash \sigma _2`$, $`R=\sigma _1\sigma _2`$, and $`G=\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\backslash (\sigma _1\sigma _2)`$. We also set $`(C^+,C^{})=(Y^+,Y^{})`$ and $`(D^+,D^{})=(X^{},X^+)`$.

Lemma 3 is just a rephrasing of the 4-painting axiom of oriented matroid circuits and cocircuits. The notation in the lemma is chosen to exactly match the axiom as it appears in \[4, Theorem 3.4.4\]. This is the reason why we have $`X=D`$ above rather than reorienting $`X`$ in the lemma. ∎

###### Lemma 3.

Let $`B`$, $`W`$, $`G`$ and $`R`$ be a partition of the ground set of an oriented matroid $``$. Let $`eBW`$ be one of the elements. Then, exactly one of the following happens:

1. There is a circuit $`(X^+,X^{})`$ with $`X^{}WG`$ and $`eX^+BG`$, or
2. There is a cocircuit $`(Y^+,Y^{})`$ with $`eY^+BR`$ and $`Y^{}WR`$.

We now interpret $`\mathrm{\Delta }(,f)`$ in terms of hyperplane arrangements. By the Topological Representation Theorem \[4, §4\], an affine oriented matroid $`(,f)`$ of rank $`d`$ on $`\{1,\mathrm{},n,f\}`$ represents an affine arrangement $`(,f)`$ of $`n`$ pseudo-hyperplanes in $`^{d1}`$, with the distinguished element $`f`$ playing the role of the hyperplane at infinity. We can regard $`(,f)`$ as a cover of $`^{d1}`$ by $`2n`$ closed half-spaces $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,y_1,\mathrm{},y_n\}`$, where $`x_i`$ and $`y_i`$ label respectively the positive and negative sides of the $`i`$-th oriented hyperplane. It is straightforward to check that a subset of these half-spaces has a non-empty intersection in $`^{d1}`$ if and only if the corresponding subset of $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,y_1,\mathrm{},y_n\}`$ is a simplex in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(,f)`$. In other words:

###### Remark 4.

The simplicial complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }(,f)`$ is the nerve of the cover of $`^{d1}`$ consisting of the $`2n`$ closed half-spaces in the arrangement $`(M,f)`$.

The facets of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(,f)`$ are maximal intersecting families of closed half-spaces. They correspond to the vertices of the arrangement $`(,f)`$. The face poset of $`(,f)`$ appears as a subposet in the face poset of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(,f)`$. A simplex $`\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }(,f)`$ is called *full* if $`\sigma \{x_i,y_i\}\mathrm{}`$ for all $`i`$.

###### Remark 5.

If $`\backslash f`$ is uniform, then the face poset of $`(,f)`$ is anti-isomorphic to the poset of full simplices of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(,f)`$. If $`\backslash f`$ is not uniform, then the former is a strict subposet of the latter.

This implies that the oriented matroid $``$ can be recovered from the simplicial complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }(,f)`$ provided $``$ is uniform. The same statement is not true for general oriented matroids. For instance, consider an arbitrary arrangement of hyperplanes which intersect in a line, and then adjoin two parallel hyperplanes transverse to that line. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }(,f)`$ consists of two simplices of the same dimension which share a common facet, regardless of which arrangement we started with.

## 3. Lawrence Polytopes in Dimension Three, Four and Five

In Section 4 we are going to prove Theorem 2 by translating Theorem 1 into the language of subdivisions of Lawrence (matroid) polytopes. As a preparation for that we describe in this section all the Lawrence polytopes which exist in dimensions up to 5, and an example of our Alexander duality result involving two Lawrence polytopes of respective dimensions 4 and 5.

We first recall the construction of Lawrence polytopes in oriented matroid language, and then we discuss low-dimensional Lawrence polytopes. Let $``$ be an oriented matroid of rank $`d`$ on $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, and let $`^{}`$ be its dual. Let $`^{}(^{})`$ be the oriented matroid on $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,y_1,\mathrm{},y_n\}`$ defined by labeling the $`i`$-th element of $`^{}`$ as $`x_i`$ and extending $`^{}`$ by an element $`y_i`$ opposite to each $`x_i`$. The dual of $`^{}(^{})`$ is called the *Lawrence oriented matroid* (or *Lawrence polytope*, since it is a matroid polytope) of $``$, and denoted $`\mathrm{\Lambda }()`$. It has $`2n`$ elements and rank $`d+n`$. Lawrence (matroid) polytopes are studied in Section 9.3 of  and in Chapter 4 of . For example, \[4, Lemma 4.11(ii)\] implies that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }()`$ has $`nl+2c`$ facets, where $`c`$ is the number of cocircuits of $``$ and $`l`$ the number of coloops.

Since all the oriented matroids with $`d+n11`$ are realizable, all Lawrence matroid polytopes of dimension at most $`10`$ are honest polytopes, that is, they can be realized by $`(d+n)\times 2n`$-matrices of the form $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐃)`$ as in (1). In what follows we describe all Lawrence polytopes of dimension $`d+n15`$.

Let us first discuss the degenerate cases when $``$ has a loop or coloop. If $`x_i`$ is a coloop in $``$ (i.e. if the $`i`$-th column of $`𝐃`$ is linearly independent of all others), then it becomes a loop in $`^{}`$. Then, $`x_i`$ and $`y_i`$ are loops in $`^{}(^{})`$ and coloops in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }()`$. Geometrically, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐃)`$ is an iterated pyramid over the Lawrence polytope $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐃\backslash \{x_i\})`$. If $`x_i`$ is a loop in $``$ (i.e. if the $`i`$-th column of $`𝐃`$ is zero), then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }()`$ is obtained from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\backslash \{x_i\})`$ by adjoining a pair of parallel elements which forms a positive cocircuit. Geometrically, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐃)`$ is a pyramid over $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐃\backslash \{x_i\})`$ with apex at a pair of identified points $`x_i`$ and $`y_i`$. The right picture of Figure 2 represents this situation. The apex of the pyramid corresponds to the identified points $`y_3`$ and $`x_3`$. Note that the triangulation uses $`x_3`$ and not $`y_3`$ as a vertex. This is indicated in the diagram with a filled dot for $`x_3`$ and an empty dot for $`y_3`$.

We now consider only Lawrence polytopes that are not pyramids over other Lawrence polytopes, which is the same as allowing only oriented matroids without loops or coloops. There are eight combinatorial types of such Lawrence polytopes having dimension at most five. The corresponding parameters $`(n,d)`$ are $`(2,1),(3,1),(4,1),(5,1),(3,2),(4,2),(4,2),(4,2)`$:

* If $`d=1`$, then the Lawrence polytope of $``$ equals the product $`\mathrm{\Delta }^1\times \mathrm{\Delta }^{n1}`$ of a segment and a simplex of dimension $`n1`$. The polytope $`\mathrm{\Delta }^1\times \mathrm{\Delta }^{n1}`$ has $`n!`$ triangulations each isomorphic to the well-known staircase triangulation. The case $`n=2`$ is featured in Figure 1. The case $`n=3`$ appears in (4) below.
* If $`nd=1`$, then $`^{}`$ and $`^{}(^{})`$ have rank 1, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }()`$ has corank 1, i.e., it has a unique circuit. Assuming without loss of generality that all the elements of $``$ have the same orientation, this unique circuit is $`(\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\},\{y_1,\mathrm{},y_n\})`$. The polytope $`\mathrm{\Lambda }()`$ can be realized as the convex hull of the union of two $`(n1)`$-simplices in $`^{2n2}`$ whose relative interiors intersect in a unique point. This Lawrence polytope is the cyclic $`(2n2)`$-polytope with $`2n`$ vertices.
* Up to reorientation, there are three oriented matroids $`_1,_2,_3`$ of rank $`2`$ on $`4`$ elements. They are represented by $`2\times 4`$-matrices

$$𝐃_1=(v_1,v_1,v_2,v_2),𝐃_2=(v_1,v_1,v_2,v_3),𝐃_3=(v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4).$$

Here the $`v_i`$ are pairwise linearly independent vectors in the plane. In each case, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐃_i)`$ is a five-dimensional Lawrence polytope with eight vertices and with $`6+2i`$ facets. For instance, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐃_1)`$ is the join of two squares.

We shall examine the Lawrence polytope $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐃_3)`$ by computing one of its triangulations along with its Alexander dual. We start out with the $`2\times 5`$-matrix

$$A=\begin{array}{cccccccc}& & x_1& x_2& x_3& x_4& f& \\ & (\mathrm{}& 1& 1& 1& 1& 1& )\mathrm{}\\ & 4& 3& 2& 1& 0\end{array},$$

and we fix the following Gale dual $`3\times 5`$-matrix, with last column reoriented:

$$B=\begin{array}{cccccccc}& & x_1& x_2& x_3& x_4& \overline{f}& \\ & (\mathrm{}& 1& 2& 1& 0& 0& )\mathrm{}\\ & 0& 1& 2& 1& 0\\ & 0& 0& 1& 2& 1\end{array}.$$

Thus $`A`$ and $`B`$ represent uniform matroids. Let $`A^{}=A/f`$ and $`B^{}=B/\overline{f}`$ denote the matrices gotten from $`A`$ and $`B`$ by contracting the last column. Contracting $`f`$ means projecting every vector $`vA\backslash \{f\}`$ along the direction of $`f`$ to a linear hyperplane not containing $`f`$. In our case:

$$A^{}=\begin{array}{ccccccc}& & x_1& x_2& x_3& x_4& \\ & (\mathrm{}& 4& 3& 2& 1& )\mathrm{}\end{array},B^{}=\begin{array}{ccccccc}& & x_1& x_2& x_3& x_4& \\ & (\mathrm{}& 1& 2& 1& 0& )\mathrm{}\\ & 0& 1& 2& 1\end{array}.$$

The $`2\times 4`$-matrix $`B^{}`$ has the form of $`𝐃_3`$ in the previous paragraph and will play the role of $`𝐃`$ in the big matrix $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐃)`$ of equation (1). The polytopes $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(A^{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(B^{})`$ are $`4`$-dimensional and $`5`$-dimensional, both with eight vertices. As we saw above, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(A^{})`$ is (affinely isomorphic to) the product of a segment and a tetrahedron.

There are precisely six signed cocircuits of $`B`$ (or circuits of $`A`$) in which the element $`\overline{f}`$ is positive:

(2)
$$\{y_1,x_2,\overline{f}\},\{y_1,x_3,\overline{f}\},\{y_1,x_4,\overline{f}\},\{y_2,x_3,\overline{f}\},\{y_2,x_4,\overline{f}\},\{y_3,x_4,\overline{f}\}.$$

There are precisely four signed cocircuits of $`A`$ (or circuits of $`B`$) in which the element $`f`$ is positive:

(3)
$$\{x_2,x_3,x_4,f\},\{y_1,x_3,y_4,f\},\{y_1,y_2,x_4,f\},\{y_1,y_2,y_3,f\}.$$

Taking complements in (2) we obtain the maximal simplices in a regular triangulation of the $`5`$-dimensional Lawrence polytope $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(B^{})`$:

$`\{x_1,x_2,x_3,y_1,y_2,y_4\},\{x_1,x_2,x_3,y_1,y_3,y_4\},\{x_1,x_2,x_4,y_1,y_3,y_4\},`$
$`\{x_1,x_2,x_3,y_2,y_3,y_4\},\{x_1,x_2,x_4,y_2,y_3,y_4\},\{x_1,x_3,x_4,y_2,y_3,y_4\}.`$
Taking complements in (3) we obtain the maximal simplices in a staircase triangulation of the $`4`$-dimensional Lawrence polytope $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(A^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }^1\times \mathrm{\Delta }^3`$:

(4)
$$\{x_1,y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4\},\{x_1,x_2,y_2,y_3,y_4\},\{x_1,x_2,x_3,y_3,y_4\},\{x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,y_4\}.$$

These two simplicial complexes are Alexander dual to each other. The Stanley-Reisner ideals of the two triangulations are gotten from (2) and (3) by deleting $`f`$ and $`\overline{f}`$ and regarding each set as square-free monomial. Namely, the Stanley-Reisner ideal of our triangulation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(B^{})`$ is

(5)
$$y_1x_2,y_1x_3,y_1x_4,y_2x_3,y_2x_4,y_3x_4,$$

and the Stanley-Reisner ideal of our triangulation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(A^{})`$ is

(6)
$$x_2x_3x_4,y_1x_3x_4,y_1y_2x_4,y_1y_2y_3.$$

## 4. Duality of Subdivided Lawrence Polytopes

The proof of Theorem 2 is based on the non-trivial fact that all subdivisions of a Lawrence matroid polytope are lifting subdivisions. This fact is one of the main results in the monograph .

We recall the definition of lifting subdivisions. Let $`(,f)`$ be an affine oriented matroid on the ground set $`\{1,\mathrm{},n,f\}`$, and assume that $`f`$ belongs to some positive cocircuit. Consider the sets $`\{x_i:iC^+\}`$ where $`C`$ runs over all *positive* cocircuits of $``$ with $`fC^+`$. These sets form (the maximal cells of) a subdivision of the oriented matroid $`/f`$. Subdivisions of an oriented matroid obtained in this manner are called lifting subdivisions. For the general definition of subdivisions of oriented matroids see \[4, §9.6\] or .

If $`/f`$ is realized by a vector configuration, then subdivisions of $`/f`$ are the same as polyhedral subdivisions (also called polyhedral fans) of it. If not only $`/f`$ but also $``$ is realized by a vector configuration $`A`$, then the lifting subdivision induced by $`(,f)`$ is the regular subdivision of $`A/f`$ corresponding to the lifting $`A/fA`$. Some lifting subdivisions of vector configurations are not regular, and some polyhedral subdivisions are not lifting. See \[4, Corollary 9.6.8\]. By \[4, Proposition 9.1.1\], every lifting subdivision is either a $`(d1)`$-ball or a $`(d1)`$-sphere, where $`d`$ is the rank of $`/f`$, and the latter happens exactly when $``$ is acyclic and $`/f`$ totally cyclic. The topological type, or even the homotopy type, is not known for general subdivisions of non-realizable oriented matroids.

###### Proposition 6.

Let $`S`$ be a lifting subdivision of a rank $`d`$ oriented matroid on $`n`$ elements. If $`S`$ is not a triangulation we consider it as a simplicial complex whose facets are the maximal faces of $`S`$. Then, the Alexander dual $`S^{}`$ of $`S`$ is either contractible or homotopy equivalent to an $`(nd2)`$-sphere, depending on whether $`S`$ itself is contractible or a $`(d1)`$-sphere.

###### Proof.

A subset $`\sigma \{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ is in $`S^{}`$ if and only if $``$ has no positive cocircuit with $`fC^+\sigma `$. By Lemma 3 (with $`W=R=\mathrm{}`$, $`B=\sigma `$ and $`G=\{1,\mathrm{},n,f\}\backslash \sigma `$) this happens if and only if $``$ has a circuit $`(D^+,D^{})`$ with $`fD^+`$ and $`D^{}\sigma =\mathrm{}`$. Equivalently, if the closed positive half-spaces labeled by $`\sigma `$ have non-empty intersection in the arrangement $`(^{},f)`$.

In other words, $`S^{}`$ is the nerve of the family of closed positive half-spaces of $`(^{},f)`$. By the Nerve Theorem (see \[1, §11\]) $`S^{}`$ has the homotopy type of the union of these half-spaces, which equals the complement of the (open) cell of $`(^{},f)`$ corresponding to the covector $`(f,\{1,\mathrm{},n\})`$, or the entire affine space if that covector does not appear in $`^{}`$. This complement is contractible unless the covector exists and the corresponding cell is bounded, in which case it is an $`(nd2)`$-sphere. The cell $`(f,\{1,\mathrm{},n\})`$ exists and is bounded if and only if $`^{}\backslash f`$ is acyclic and $`^{}`$ totally cyclic. ∎

We now shift gears and replace $`/f`$ by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(/f)`$. It was proved in \[10, Theorem 4.14\] that every subdivision of a Lawrence matroid polytope $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(/f)`$ is a lifting subdivision. See also \[7, §4\] for the realizable case. Moreover, lifts of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(/f)`$ and lifts of $`/f`$ are essentially the same thing. In particular, $`(,f)`$ represents a lift of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(/f)`$ and a lifting subdivision of it. We denote this subdivision by $`S(,f)`$. Its maximal faces are the sets

$$\{x_i:iC^+\}\{y_i:iC^{}\}$$

where $`C`$ runs over all cocircuits of $``$ with $`fC^+`$. Hence $`S(,f)`$ coincides with $`\mathrm{\Delta }(,f)`$ if we regard $`S(,f)`$ as a simplicial complex as in the statement of Proposition 6. Observe that $`S(,f)`$ is a triangulation if and only if $`\backslash f`$ is uniform. Theorem 1 can be rephrased as:

###### Corollary 7.

Let $`(,f)`$ be an affine oriented matroid. Let $`(_f^{},f)`$ be its dual, reoriented at $`f`$. The subdivisions $`S(,f)`$ and $`S(_f^{},f)`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(/f)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(^{}/f)`$ are Alexander dual to one another. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 2.

Part (4) follows from Corollary 7. Part (3) corresponds to the case where both $`/f`$ and $`\backslash f`$ are uniform and part (2) is the case where both $`/f`$ and $`\backslash f`$ are realizable. Part (1) is the intersection of both cases. Observe that $`\backslash f`$ is uniform or realizable if and only if $`^{}/f=(\backslash f)^{}`$ has that property. ∎

Triangulations of Lawrence matroid polytopes and subdivisions of uniform Lawrence matroid polytopes, intermediate between cases (3) and (4) of Theorem 2, correspond respectively to $`\backslash f`$ and $`/f`$ being uniform. Hence they are not self-dual classes of simplicial complexes $`\mathrm{\Delta }(,f)`$, but classes dual to one another. Adding the attribute “regular” to both sides gives another two dual classes. Figure 2 was an example of this. Figure 3 below summarizes Theorem 2 and this remark, showing how Alexander duality acts on the following eight families of simplicial complexes on $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,y_1,\mathrm{},y_n\}`$:

* $`𝚂=\{`$Subdivisions of matroid Lawrence polytopes$`\}`$.
* $`𝚁=\{`$Regular subdivisions of Lawrence polytopes$`\}`$.
* $`𝚃=\{`$Triangulations of matroid Lawrence polytopes$`\}`$.
* $`𝚄=\{`$Subdivisions of uniform matroid Lawrence polytopes$`\}`$.
* $`\mathrm{𝚁𝚃}=𝚁𝚃`$, $`\mathrm{𝚁𝚂}=𝚁𝚂`$, $`\mathrm{𝚃𝚄}=𝚃𝚄`$, $`\mathrm{𝚁𝚃𝚄}=𝚁𝚃𝚄`$.

This is a Hasse diagram: thin lines represent set-theoretic inclusions among the eight families. Thick arrows indicate the action of Alexander duality.

###### Remark 8.

When we say “$`\mathrm{\Delta }(,f)`$ is a regular triangulation of a Lawrence polytope” we mean “there is a realization $`𝐃`$ of $`/f`$ for which the subdivision corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Delta }(,f)`$ is regular”. A stronger meaning would be “in every realization $`𝐃`$ of $`/f`$ the subdivision corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Delta }(,f)`$ is regular”. Theorem 2 is not true with this stronger meaning, as the following example shows. Let $``$ be the oriented matroid realized by

$$A=\begin{array}{cccccccccc}& & x_1& x_2& x_3& x_4& x_5& x_6& f& \\ & (\mathrm{}& 1& 2& ϵ& 0& ϵ1& 2& 0& )\mathrm{}\\ & ϵ& 0& 1& 2& 1& 2& 0\\ & 1& 1& 1& 1& 1& 1& 1\end{array},$$

where $`ϵ`$ is sufficiently small and positive. Let $`A_1=A\backslash f`$ and let $`A_2=\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_6\}`$ be a realization of $`\backslash f`$ in which the planes spanned by $`\{v_1,v_2\}`$, $`\{v_3,v_4\}`$ and $`\{v_5,v_6\}`$ meet in a line. Let $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$ be Gale transforms of $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$, respectively. Since $`A_2`$ cannot be extended to a realization of $``$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(_f^{},f)`$ is a regular triangulation of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(B_1)`$ but not of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(B_2)`$, even though both represent the same matroid polytope $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(^{}/f)`$. On the other hand, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(,f)`$ is a regular triangulation of any realization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(/f)`$, because any realization of $`/f`$ is the contraction of one of $``$. ∎

In closing we relate our discussion to zonotopal tilings, which is the geometric model for oriented matroids featured prominently in . Suppose that $`/f`$ can be realized as a vector configuration $`𝐃=\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_n\}^{d1}`$. The Bohne-Dress Theorem (see \[11, §7.5\]) says that the cell-complex dual to the arrangement $`(,f)`$ is a zonotopal tiling $`𝒵(,f)`$ of the zonotope $`Z(𝐃)=_{i=1}^n[O,v_i]`$. The exact relation between $`𝒵(,f)`$ and $`S(,f)`$ is as follows. Let $`\pi :\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐃)\mathrm{\Delta }^{n1}`$ be the projection sending the pair of vertices $`x_i`$ and $`y_i`$ to the $`i`$-th vertex of the standard $`(n1)`$-simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{n1}`$. In coordinates, this projection just forgets the first $`d`$ rows in the matrix $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐃)`$ given in (1). Let $`P`$ be the centroid of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{n1}`$. Then, $`\pi ^1(P)`$ is a scaled copy of the zonotope $`Z(𝐃)`$. The Cayley Trick  states that the zonotopal tiling $`𝒵(,f)`$ is the intersection of the subdivision $`S(,f)`$ with that zonotope.

## 5. The topology of Alexander duals.

We start by showing that the Alexander dual of a contractible simplicial complex need not be contractible, with the following reasoning suggested to us by Anders Björner. Let $`K`$ be any acyclic but not contractible simplicial complex with at least $`5`$ more vertices than its dimension. Small such complexes, with dimension $`2`$ and $`10`$ vertices, are described in \[3, p. 284\]. By the assumption on dimension, every three vertices form a triangle in $`K^{}`$, and hence $`K^{}`$ is simply connected. It is also acyclic by the Alexander Duality Theorem. By standard algebraic topology results, acyclic and simply connected simplicial complexes are contractible.

This fact contrasts the following result, pointed out to us by an anonymous referee. Part 1 is taken from . The proof of the second part is due to the referee.

###### Theorem 9 (Dong ).

Let $`S`$ be a simplicial complex of dimension $`d`$ with $`n`$ vertices. Then:

1. If $`S`$ is a $`d`$-sphere then $`S^{}`$ has the homotopy type of the $`(nd3)`$-sphere.
2. If $`S`$ is a $`d`$-ball then $`S^{}`$ is contractible.

###### Proof.

If $`nd+5`$, the argument above gives that $`S^{}`$ is simply connected. This, together with the fact that it has the homology groups of the $`(nd3)`$-sphere (respectively, of a contractible space) implies that it is homotopy equivalent to the $`(nd3)`$-sphere (resp., it is contractible).

Let us now assume that $`nd+4`$. In part 1, this implies that $`S`$ is actually polytopal, by a classical result of Mani . Corollary 22 in  implies that the Alexander dual of a simplicial $`d`$-polytope with $`n`$ vertices is homotopy equivalent to the $`(nd3)`$-sphere.

In part 2, the case $`nd+3`$ is proved by similar arguments: Coning the boundary of $`S`$ to a new vertex we get a simplicial $`d`$-sphere with at most $`d+4`$ vertices, hence a polytopal one. This implies that $`S`$ is a shellable ball, hence collapsible (see Lemma 17 in ). The Alexander dual of a collapsible space is contractible, by \[5, Corollary 12\].

We still have to deal with the case $`n=d+4`$ in part 2. We will prove that in this case $`S^{}`$ is simply connected. Hence, the same arguments as in the case $`nd+5`$ apply. The complex $`S^{}`$ has a complete 1-skeleton, but not a complete 2-skeleton. The triangles missing are precisely the complements of the maximal simplices in $`S`$, and our task is to show that they all produce null-homotopic loops. To see this, let $`\sigma `$ be a $`d`$-simplex in $`S`$, with complement $`\{p,q,r\}`$. If $`\sigma `$ has a boundary facet $`\sigma \backslash \{s\}`$, then $`\{p,q,s\}`$, $`\{p,r,s\}`$, and $`\{q,r,s\}`$ are triangles in $`S^{}`$, hence the loop $`\{p,q,r\}`$ is null-homotopic. If $`\sigma `$ has no boundary facet, let $`\sigma ^{}`$ a $`d`$-simplex of $`S^{}`$ adjacent to $`\sigma `$. Suppose the complement of $`\sigma ^{}`$ is $`\{p,q,s\}`$. Then the triangles $`\{p,r,s\}`$ and $`\{q,r,s\}`$ are in $`S^{}`$ and prove that the loops $`\{p,q,r\}`$ and $`\{p,q,s\}`$ are homotopic. In other words, missing triangles of $`S^{}`$ corresponding to adjacent $`d`$-simplices of $`S`$ are homotopic. Any maximal simplex in the ball $`S`$ can be connected to one incident to the boundary. This proves that every missing triangle is homotopic to a null-homotopic one. ∎

This result in particular implies Proposition 6 for lifting triangulations. But actually Dong’s paper  contains the ingredients needed to generalize it to arbitrary subdivisions. Indeed, his Theorem 27 (together with his Lemma 25) states that the Alexander dual of every polyhedral decomposition of a $`d`$-sphere, considered as a simplicial complex as we did in Proposition 6, is homotopy equivalent of a $`(nd3)`$-sphere. But the three properties of polyhedral complexes that he uses are also satisfied by subdivisions of oriented matroids. Namely: (1) they are regular cell complexes, (2) the intersection of any two closed cells is a closed cell (Dong calls this the meet property) and (3) they can be refined to triangulations without the addition of new vertices by the so-called pulling construction (for the pulling refinement of oriented matroid subdivisions see \[4, Section 9.6\] or \[10, Remark 4.4\]). Hence, we can generalize Proposition 6 as follows:

###### Theorem 10.

Let $`S`$ be a subdivision of a rank $`d`$ oriented matroid on $`n`$ elements. If $`S`$ is not a triangulation we consider it as a simplicial complex whose facets are the maximal faces of $`S`$. Then,

1. If $`S`$ (as a cell complex) is a $`(d1)`$-sphere, then $`S^{}`$ is homotopy equivalent to a $`(nd2)`$-sphere.
2. If $`S`$ (as a cell complex) is a $`(d1)`$-ball, then $`S^{}`$ is contractible.

###### Proof.

Let $`T`$ be a triangulation obtained by pulling refinement of $`S`$. As mentioned in , $`S`$ (considered as a simplicial complex) collapses to $`T`$ and this implies that $`T^{}`$ collapses to $`S^{}`$. Since $`T`$ is homeomorphic to (the cell complex) $`S`$, the homotopy type of $`T^{}`$ is given by Theorem 9. ∎

It is not known whether cases (1) and (2) of Theorem 10 cover all subdivisions of oriented matroids. They cover, at least, all subdivisions of realizable ones and all lifting subdivisions of non-realizable ones.


format: text

text:
# Critical behaviour in QCD at finite isovector chemical potential

## Abstract

We report an investigation of criticality in QCD at finite isovector chemical potential, $`\mu _3`$, and at zero temperature. At the critical point, $`\mu _3^cm_\pi `$, we find that an uncharged scalar and pseudoscalar and a charged pseudoscalar meson become massless within the resolution of our measurement. The effective long distance theory therefore breaks $`O(4)`$ symmetry by charged pion condensation. This results in a rising quark number susceptibility. The baryon remains massive, as indicated by a vanishing baryon number susceptibility.

preprint: TIFR/TH/02-04, hep-lat/0202005

In the last few years there has been a resurgence of interest in the phase diagram of QCD wilczek . Perturbation theory and effective chiral models have been used to uncover a rich phase structure at finite chemical potential and low temperatures litt . This region of non-vanishing baryon chemical potential remains out of reach of present lattice computations, due to the Fermion sign problem hands . However, the same techniques, namely effective chiral models and perturbation theory, have also been used to investigate the phase structure for non-vanishing isovector chemical potential son . This new direction in coupling space is amenable to lattice computations, which can therefore test the various methods applied to computations at finite baryon chemical potential.

It is clear that the Dirac operator, $`M`$, is non-negative if $`M^{}=QMQ^1`$ for some operator $`Q`$. For two-flavour QCD with isovector chemical potential,

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}D(\mu _3)& 0\\ 0& D(\mu _3)\end{array}\right)\mathrm{and}Q=\gamma _5\tau _2,$$
(1)
the action is positive definite provided each flavour satisfies $`\gamma _5`$-hermiticity ($`D^{}=\gamma _5D\gamma _5`$) and the quark masses are degenerate isov . The phase diagram of this model was investigated by chiral perturbation theory and by perturbative QCD and a second order phase transition in the $`O(4)`$ universality class was found at $`\mu _3=m_\pi `$ due to the condensation of charged pions son . A first quenched lattice investigation of this model has been reported recently sinclair  and a phase transition due to pion condensation has indeed been found. When $`detM`$ is real and positive, quenching does not produce the pathologies which can otherwise arise.

We show here that it is possible to determine the symmetry of the problem, and through universality then predict the critical exponents, by investigating the spin-flavour content of the massless particles in the theory. Our quenched computations verify that a second order phase transition occurs at $`\mu _3=m_\pi `$. At, and above, the critical point the scalar $`\sigma `$, the neutral pion and one linear combination of charged pions becomes effectively massless. This lends support to the idea that the effective field theory should have an $`O(4)`$ symmetry broken down by giving mass to a charged pion, i.e., by pion condensation. If one is so inclined, this can be further tested by the usual, more expensive, method of finite-size scaling. However, as pointed out in sinclair , this is non-trivial since higher dimensional operators in the lattice theory are important at the cutoffs which are presently accessible. These could easily influence the effective exponents seen. Scaling studies become then many-fold more difficult due to the necessity of taking finer lattices before investigating finite volume effects.

The partition function of two-flavour QCD is

$$Z=𝒟U\mathrm{e}^{S_W}detM(m_u,\mu _u)detM(m_d,\mu _d),$$
(2)
where $`S_W`$ is the Wilson gauge action and each determinant corresponds to one flavour of quarks. At the moment we are interested in the case when $`m_u=m_d=m`$. The chemical potentials for each flavour can be combined into the baryon and isovector chemical potentials $`\mu _0=3(\mu _u+\mu _d)/2`$ and $`\mu _3=(\mu _u\mu _d)/2`$ respectively. It is instructive to invert these relations and write

$$\mu _u=\frac{\mu _0}{3}+\mu _3,\mu _d=\frac{\mu _0}{3}\mu _3.$$
(3)
We shall work with $`\mu _0=0`$ and $`\mu _3>0`$. Since the identification of $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks is arbitrary in the absence of electroweak interactions, the difference between positive and negative $`\mu _3`$ is purely conventional. A flip in the sign of $`\mu _3`$, as preferred in son , can be accomplished by just interchanging our definitions of $`u`$ and $`d`$ quark flavours.

Quantum number densities are defined as

$$n_i\left(\frac{T}{V_3}\right)\frac{\mathrm{ln}Z}{\mu _i},$$
(4)
for $`i=0`$ and $`3`$. These are linear combinations of the quark number densities. The quantity $`n_3`$ is an order parameter for pion condensation. Other order parameters are the quark condensates $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$ and $`\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\tau _2\psi `$. At the expected phase transition $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$ would depart from its vacuum value and $`\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\tau _2\psi `$ would become non-zero. The added advantage in using $`n_3`$ is that it also flags the value of $`\mu _3`$ at which saturation sets in, with every site of the lattice being filled to capacity with quarks, and continuum physics can no longer be extracted.

The quark number susceptibilities qsdef , $`\chi _{ij}=n_i/\mu _j`$ can also be used to probe the transition. The flavour off-diagonal susceptibility is given by

$`\chi _{ud}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{V_3}}\right)[\mathrm{tr}M_u^{}M_u^1\mathrm{tr}M_d^{}M_d^1.`$ (5)
$`.\mathrm{tr}M_u^{}M_u^1\mathrm{tr}M_d^{}M_d^1].`$
This differs from the usual $`\mu _f=0`$ expression pushan  through the subtraction of the last term, corresponding to non-vanishing quark densities. When a charged pion condensate forms, $`\chi _{ud}`$ must become non-zero and negative. Expressions for the flavour diagonal susceptibilities can be read off from pushan  and modified by appropriate subtraction of the non-vanishing quark number densities. As long as the baryon remains massive, $`\chi _0=n_0/\mu _0`$ should remain zero. $`\chi _3`$ is a combination of $`\chi _0`$ and $`\chi _{ud}`$ and hence gives no extra information.

We explicitly use two staggered quark fields— one for each component of the Fermion matrix in eq. (1). We adopt and extend the usual “cure” for Fermion doubling, and write the two-flavour (one up and one down) determinant as

$$detM=\left(detM_uM_d\right)^{1/4}.$$
(6)
Consequently, each trace in eqs. (4,5) comes with a factor of $`1/4`$ multiplying it. There are two ways in which quark masses enter the problem— the sea quark mass appears in the determinants in eq. (2) and influence the path integral measure, while the valence quark mass enters into the operators such as in eq. (5). In the quenched approximation the determinants are set to unity, so the sea quarks drop out of the problem but not the valence quarks.

It might seem that the use of staggered quarks is a needless complication since the number of mesons of any given spin is much larger than that expected in two flavour QCD. However, only four of these are Goldstone pions at $`T=\mu =0`$. The others are split from them at any finite lattice spacing. This trick gives us the ability to bypass some of the problems seen at coarse lattice spacing. On finer lattices the number of Goldstone modes for staggered quarks is in any case a problem in defining two staggered flavours and some other formulation of lattice quarks is probably better suited to the problem. One other advantage to using two independent staggered quark fields is that it allows us to give them unequal masses if we so wish.

The partition function of eq. (2) can be expressed through a transfer matrix— $`Z=\mathrm{Tr}T^N(T,\mu _0,\mu _3)`$. The transfer matrix $`T`$ propagates field information from one slice of the lattice to another, and $`N`$ is the number of slices. There may be several inequivalent ways to slice the lattice, giving rise to possibly inequivalent transfer matrices, but the partition function is unique. The eigenvalues of $`T`$, $`\lambda _0\lambda _1\mathrm{}`$, define masses (or screening masses) through the formula $`1/m_i=\mathrm{log}(\lambda _0/\lambda _i)`$. A critical point implies massless modes for all the transfer matrices. We utilise the transfer matrix in the time direction and determine the spin-flavour content of massless mesons which propagate in the time direction.

Since the theory at finite chemical potential has a conjugate quark stephanov , the symmetries of the transfer matrices must take this into account. In the problem at hand, there are two staggered quark fields which are conjugate to each other. The symmetry group at $`T=\mu =0`$ therefore contains an extra $`SU(2)`$ factor corresponding to arbitrary rotations between these two fields. This symmetry is broken at finite $`\mu `$. Recall that a chemical potential enters the lattice Dirac operator, $`M`$, through the time component of the covariant derivative because every temporal gauge field is multiplied by the fugacity, $`\mathrm{exp}(a\mu )`$. As a result, for finite $`\mu _3`$, the $`Z(2)`$ group generated by $`tt`$ does not commute with the new $`SU(2)`$. The symmetry of the transfer matrix can be constructed by flipping the roles of the two quarks when flipping the sign of time. The irreps can be constructed by taking $`Z_2`$ invariant combinations such as $`\pi _\pm ^0=\overline{u}\gamma _5u\pm \overline{d}\gamma _5d`$ and $`\pi ^{}=\overline{u}\gamma _5d`$ or $`\pi ^+=\overline{d}\gamma _5u`$. When electroweak corrections are neglected, as is the case here, one can also use the linear combinations $`\pi _\pm =\overline{u}\gamma _5d\pm \overline{d}\gamma _5u`$. The irrep labels of golterman  can be retained with a reinterpretation of the old time-reversal quantum number as the product of time-reversal and the $`Z_2`$ flip of the up and down quarks above note1 .

The importance of identifying the irreps of the transfer matrix follows from an observation made in lombardo : on any finite lattice an unphysical mode of propagation for a meson is that a quark and an antiquark travel in opposite directions around the lattice. This finite size effect is rendered innocuous at $`\mu =0`$ by proper importance sampling. However, a chemical potential exacerbates this problem by encouraging forward propagation of the quark and backward propagation of the same flavour of the anti-quark. The correlation function of a pure flavour state is no longer symmetric in $`t`$, but has the form

$$C(t)=A\mathrm{e}^{mt}+A^{}\mathrm{e}^{m^{}(N_tt)},$$
(7)
with $`mm^{}`$, which seems to indicate the absence of a transfer matrix. However, by recombining flavours into the irreps of the symmetries of the transfer matrix we recover the correct symmetric form.

In Figure 1 we show an example of this. Note that masses fitted to such pure flavour correlators by the formula in eq. (7) are still useful, since the transfer matrix eigenstates (which are linear combinations of flavours) have the same masses. Tests of mass fits therefore include the check that the roles of the parameter pairs ($`A,m`$) and ($`A^{},m^{}`$) are flipped when fitting the $`\overline{u}u`$ and $`\overline{d}d`$ correlators, and that the eigenstates of the transfer matrix do, in fact, give the lower of these two masses. Figure 1 does, in fact, show one such test, since the correlation functions plotted are the $`\overline{d}d`$ type, and the fits shown are plotted using parameters obtained from the $`\overline{u}u`$ type and flipped. We have further checked that local masses also show a plateau close to this mass.

We have simulated quenched QCD on $`8^4`$ and $`12^4`$ lattices at $`\beta =5.8941`$, which is the critical coupling for the finite temperature transition in quenched QCD with 6 time slices. The lattice spacing is then fixed to be $`a=1/6T_c`$. In the quenched theory, since $`T_c/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}=1.15\pm 0.05`$ scale , the lattice cutoff is $`a^1=(6.9\pm 0.3)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}`$. The two lattice sizes differ by 50% in linear extent. This is necessary to see and control gross finite volume distortions, but not sufficient to perform a study with the finesse required to extract critical indices from finite size effects. We have generated 40 stored configurations for analysis on the smaller lattice and 70 on the larger. These are obtained with a Cabbibo-Marinari pseudo-heatbath algorithm where each $`SU(2)`$ subgroup imbedded in $`SU(3)`$ is touched thrice during every link update. An initial 5000 sweeps are discarded for thermalisation and each subsequent stored configuration is separated from the previous one by 1000 sweeps. The successive stored configurations are therefore fully decorrelated from each other, rendering the analysis of measurement errors fairly simple.

Our methods for measuring the number densities and susceptibilities are the same as in pushan . The chiral condensate is measured from the same matrix inversions. Correlators are obtained with a point source and projected on to zero 3-momentum by summing over the sink. The spectrum measurements use standard techniques for staggered quarks, including fitting to and extracting local masses from spin-projected parts of the correlators. Since we work on finite lattices, we have a finite resolution for the identification of massless modes. When a mass reaches the value $`1/aN_t`$, the corresponding particle becomes effectively massless and contributes to the long-distance effective theory.

Since this is a first survey, we chose to work with a reasonably heavy valence quark mass— $`ma=1/6`$. At $`T=\mu _3=0`$ this gave $`m_\pi a=1.065\pm 0.003`$ and $`m_\rho a=1.323\pm 0.007`$. The baryon mass was $`m_pa=1.59\pm 0.05`$. These measurements are compatible with previous computations at nearby couplings gottlieb . Since $`m_\pi L12`$ on our larger lattice, we expect finite volume distortions to be small at this quark mass except in the neighbourhood of any critical point, where, in any case, we expect to see other physics as already explained.

Measurements of the order parameters as functions of $`\mu _3`$ are shown in Figure 2. We draw attention to two salient facts. First, $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$ and $`n_3`$ both depart from their vacuum value at the same $`a\mu _3^c1am_\pi `$, and, second, the two lattice sizes yield identical results for the critical $`\mu _3^c`$. From the flattening of $`n_3`$ at $`a\mu _32`$ it is clear that saturation sets in and continuum physics can no longer be extracted. The critical point is reached far before this. The susceptibility $`\chi _{ud}`$ is zero at $`T=\mu _3=0`$ pushan . It begins to depart from this value, becoming negative, soon after $`\mu _3^c`$. Its behaviour is closely related to the massless combination of charged pions. Throughout this range of $`\mu _3`$, $`n_0`$ is consistent with zero, indicating that the baryon remains massive birse .

Figure 3 shows the $`\mu _3`$-dependence of masses of the $`\pi _+^0`$ and $`\sigma _+`$ obtained from zero-momentum correlators. The masses of the $`\sigma _+`$ and $`\pi _+^0`$ drop rapidly from their $`T=0`$ values and become nearly massless close to $`a\mu _3^c`$. They remain massless till saturation sets in. The $`\pi _+`$ mass is the most interesting. It is non-zero at $`\mu _3=0`$ due to the finite quark mass and degenerate with the $`\pi _+^0`$. It does not change appreciably till $`\mu _3^c`$, at which point it drops rapidly and becomes effectively massless soon after. The higher of the two masses in the flavour projected charged pion sector, corresponds to $`\pi _{}`$. This remains non-zero in the whole range of $`\mu `$ studied here. All the critical behaviour seen in the order parameters is driven by this. The rise in meson masses in the unphysical region $`a\mu _3>2`$ is easy to understand: propagation of mesons is hard on a saturated lattice. This is also observed in a free field theory computation at large $`\mu _3`$.

A few caveats need to be stated. At the resolution available at these lattice sizes, $`a\mu _3^c`$ can be observed to lie between 1 and 1.25, as seen in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows that the mass resolution available on the $`12^4`$ lattice makes it unnecessary to improve the bounds on $`\mu _3^c`$ on this lattice. If one wants to nail down the critical isovector chemical potential with higher precision, then one must go to larger lattices, as always. We are presently exploring the pion-condensed phase in more detail with smaller quark masses and larger lattice volumes. These results, and the consequently more precise determination of $`\mu _3^c`$ will be presented elsewhere.

There are three notional regions of $`\mu _3`$. Here we have explored the vicinity of $`\mu _3m_\pi `$ where we found that a chiral effective theory can be written. The region $`\mu _3m_p`$ is supposed to be the domain of validity of perturbation theory. This can be reached at either smaller lattice spacing or quark mass. The region $`\mu _3m_\rho `$ is not accessible to either effective theories or perturbative expansions, and a lattice computation is the only possible tool to explore this region. The extraction of the phase diagram in these qualitatively different regions of $`\mu _3`$ is a major task, which we leave to the future.

I would like to thank D. T. Son, M. Stephanov and R. Gavai for discussions.


text:
# Magnetic properties of exactly solvable doubly decorated Ising-Heisenberg planar models

## I Introduction

The quantum Heisenberg model (QHM)  and its simplified Ising version  remain to be one of the most actively studied subjects in statistical mechanics. In particular, the low-dimensional antiferromagnetic QHM has recently attracted a lot of attention since it represents a very useful model for the investigation of interesting quantum phenomena. Among the most fascinating problems that are of current interest in this field one should mention: the investigation of Haldane gaps in the 1D antiferromagnetic QHM with integer spins , quantum phase transitions , spin-Peierls instabilities , dimerization and other related phenomena , quantum entanglement , magnetization plateau , and so on. In addition to the above mentioned works, a number of the studies has been devoted to the investigation of the role of magnetic ordering in high-$`T_c`$ superconducting cuprates consisting of two-dimensional Cu-O networks . In fact, the magnetic properties of these materials can be well-described by means of a spin-$`1/2`$ antiferromagnetic 2D QHM.

Despite of extensive studies, the QHM has been exactly solved in one dimension only , thus for higher dimensions only more or less accurate approximate methods are available . In general, the main difficulties of a rigorous treatment of the QHM are closely associated with the noncommutability of the spin operators involving the Hamiltonian of the system. This principal mathematical intractability of the QHM has motivated us to introduce a class of interesting exactly solvable models, consisting both of the Ising- and Heisenberg-type atoms. For this purpose, we utilize the well known decoration-iteration procedure that has been originally introduced by Syozi  and later remarkably generalized by Fisher . In the spirit of the Syozi’s and Fishers’s papers, we use in this work the decoration procedure to put a couple of the Heisenberg atoms on each bond of the regular Ising lattice. In this way we obtain a doubly decorated model consisting of two interpenetrating sublattices occupied by the Ising- and Heisenberg-type atoms, respectively, and such a model can be of interest both theoretically and experimentally. Theoretically, the most outstanding feature of this model is the fact that it enables to investigate, by an exact calculation, how the quantum Heisenberg atoms modify the magnetic properties of the pure Ising systems. On the other hand, from the experimental point of view, the model can be inspiring in the preparation of new magnetic materials with similar topological structure as the system under investigation. Actually, some of recently synthesized compounds represent a progressive step in this direction .

The outline of the present paper is as follows. In Sec. II, the main points of the mathematical formulation of the decoration-iteration procedure for the Ising-Heisenberg models are explained and the exact equation for the phase diagrams and basic physical quantities are derived. The most interesting numerical results are presented and discussed in detail in Sec. III and finally, some concluding remarks are given in Sec. IV.

## II Formulation

In this work we will study a spin-$`1/2`$ doubly decorated Ising-Heisenberg model on planar lattices described by the Hamiltonian:

$`\widehat{}_d={\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}J\left[\mathrm{\Delta }(\widehat{S}_i^x\widehat{S}_j^x+\widehat{S}_i^y\widehat{S}_j^y)+\widehat{S}_i^z\widehat{S}_j^z\right]{\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{}}J_1\widehat{S}_k^z\widehat{\mu }_l^z,`$ (1)
where $`\widehat{S}_i^\alpha `$ and $`\widehat{\mu }_l^z`$ are the well-known components of spin-1/2 operators, the parameters $`J`$ and $`J_1`$ represent the nearest-neighbor exchange interactions that couple the pairs of Heisenberg atoms or Ising and Heisenberg atoms, respectively (see Fig. 1). As usual, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ describes the spatial anisotropy in the Heisenberg exchange interaction. In fact, this parameter allows one to control the behavior of the system between the Ising-regime for $`\mathrm{\Delta }<1`$ (easy-axis like anisotropy) and the XY-regime for $`\mathrm{\Delta }>1`$ (easy-plane anisotropy). In view of further manipulations, it is useful to rewrite the total Hamiltonian of the system in the form $`\widehat{}_d=_k\widehat{}_k`$, where the summation is carried out over all the pairs of Heisenberg atoms. The bond Hamiltonian $`\widehat{}_k`$ involves all the interaction terms associated with $`k`$th couple of Heisenberg atoms (see Fig. 1) and it is given by

$`\widehat{}_k=J\left[\mathrm{\Delta }(\widehat{S}_{k1}^x\widehat{S}_{k2}^x+\widehat{S}_{k1}^y\widehat{S}_{k2}^y)+\widehat{S}_{k1}^z\widehat{S}_{k2}^z\right]J_1(\widehat{S}_{k1}^z\widehat{\mu }_{k1}^z+\widehat{S}_{k2}^z\widehat{\mu }_{k2}^z).`$ (2)
The most important point of our treatment is the calculation of the partition function for the system under investigation. Taking into account the standard commutation relation for the bond Hamiltonians (i. e., $`[\widehat{}_i,\widehat{}_k]=0,ik`$), we can express the partition function $`𝒵_d`$ of decorated system in the form

$`𝒵_d`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr}\mathrm{exp}(\beta \widehat{}_d)=\text{Tr}\mathrm{exp}(\beta {\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{Nq/2}{}}}\widehat{}_k)`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`\text{Tr}_{\{\mu \}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{Nq/2}{}}}\text{Tr}_{S_{k1}}\text{Tr}_{S_{k2}}\mathrm{exp}(\beta \widehat{}_k),\beta =1/k_BT,`$ (4)
where $`k_B`$ being Boltzmann constant and $`T`$ the absolute temperature. $`N`$ represents the total number of Ising atoms and $`q`$ is the coordination number of the original (undecorated) lattice. The symbol $`\text{Tr}_{\{\mu \}}`$ means a trace over all degrees of freedom of Ising spins and finally, $`\text{Tr}_{S_{k1}}\text{Tr}_{S_{k2}}`$ denotes a trace over a couple of Heisenberg spins residing on the $`k`$th bond. To proceed further, it is useful to introduce the following extended decoration-iteration transformation ,

$`\text{Tr}_{S_{k1}}\text{Tr}_{S_{k2}}\mathrm{exp}(\beta \widehat{}_k)=2\mathrm{exp}(\beta J/4)\{\mathrm{cosh}[\beta J_1(\mu _{k1}^z`$ $`+`$ $`\mu _{k2}^z)/2]`$ (5)
$`+\mathrm{exp}(\beta J/2)\mathrm{cosh}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}\sqrt{J_1^2(\mu _{k1}^z\mu _{k2}^z)^2+J^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\right]\}`$ $`=`$ $`A\mathrm{exp}(\beta R\mu _{k1}^z\mu _{k2}^z).`$ (6)
The unknown transformation parameters $`A`$ and $`R`$ can be easily obtained following the standard procedures (see  and references therein), namely,

$$A=2\mathrm{exp}(\beta J/4)(V_1V_2)^{1/2},\beta R=2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{V_1}{V_2}\right),$$
(7)
where we have introduced the functions $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ as follows

$`V_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cosh}(\beta J_1/2)+\mathrm{exp}(\beta J/2)\mathrm{cosh}(\beta J\mathrm{\Delta }/2),`$ (8)
$`V_2`$ $`=`$ $`1+\mathrm{exp}(\beta J/2)\mathrm{cosh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}\sqrt{J_1^2+J^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\right).`$ (9)
Now, after substituting Eq. (4) into Eq. (3) one obtains the equation

$`𝒵_d=A^{Nq/2}𝒵_0,`$ (10)
which relates the partition function of doubly decorated Ising-Heisenberg model ($`𝒵_d`$) to that of the original undecorated spin-1/2 Ising model ($`𝒵_0`$.) From this simple relation, we can directly calculate some physical quantities (for example, the free and internal energy or specific heat) on the basis of well-known thermodynamic relations. However, to understand the behavior of the system, we have to analyze also some other quantities (for instance the magnetization and pair-correlation functions) that cannot be obtained from the partition function in a straightforward manner. Fortunately, we can avoid this complication by exploiting the following exact identities

$$f_1(\widehat{\mu }_i^z,\widehat{\mu }_j^z,\mathrm{},\widehat{\mu }_k^z)_d=f_1(\widehat{\mu }_i^z,\widehat{\mu }_j^z,\mathrm{},\widehat{\mu }_k^z)_0,$$
(11)
$$f_2(\widehat{S}_{k1}^\alpha ,\widehat{S}_{k2}^\gamma ,\widehat{\mu }_{k1}^z,\widehat{\mu }_{k2}^z)_d=\frac{\text{Tr}_{S_{k1}}\text{Tr}_{S_{k2}}f_2(\widehat{S}_{k1}^\alpha ,\widehat{S}_{k2}^\gamma ,\widehat{\mu }_{k1}^z,\widehat{\mu }_{k2}^z)\mathrm{exp}(\beta \widehat{}_k)}{\text{Tr}_{S_{k1}}\text{Tr}_{S_{k2}}\mathrm{exp}(\beta \widehat{}_k)}_d,$$
(12)
from which the relevant quantities can be calculated. In the above equations, $`f_1`$ represents a function depending only on the Ising spin variables and $`f_2`$ denotes a function which depends on the spin variables located on the $`k`$th bond only. The superscripts $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ denote $`x,y`$ or $`z`$ components of the spin operators and the symbols $`\mathrm{}_d`$ and $`\mathrm{}_0`$ mean the standard ensemble average related to the decorated and original lattice, respectively. Now, applying one of the standard methods , we simply derive the following equations for sublattice magnetization

$$m_A^z\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{\mu }_{k1}+\widehat{\mu }_{k2}_d)=\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{\mu }_{k1}+\widehat{\mu }_{k2}_0)=m_0,$$
(13)
$$m_B^z\frac{1}{2}\widehat{S}_{k1}^z+\widehat{S}_{k2}^z_d=8(\widehat{\mu }_{k1}_d+\widehat{\mu }_{k2}_d)K_0$$
(14)
$$m_B^x\frac{1}{2}\widehat{S}_{k1}^x+\widehat{S}_{k2}^x_d=0,$$
(15)
$$m_B^y\frac{1}{2}\widehat{S}_{k1}^y+\widehat{S}_{k2}^y_d=0,$$
(16)
where $`m_0`$ is the magnetization per one site of the original lattice and the coefficient $`K_0`$ is given in the Appendix. Similarly, the various pair correlations can be expressed with the help of Eqs. (11) and (12) in the following simple form:

$$q_{ii}^{zz}\widehat{\mu }_{k1}^z\widehat{\mu }_{k2}^z_d=\widehat{\mu }_{k1}^z\widehat{\mu }_{k2}^z_0\epsilon ,$$
(17)
$$q_{hh}^{xx}\widehat{S}_{k1}^x\widehat{S}_{k2}^x_d=K_1+K_2+4q_{ii}^{zz}(K_1K_2),$$
(18)
$$q_{hh}^{yy}\widehat{S}_{k1}^y\widehat{S}_{k2}^y_d=q_{hh}^{xx},$$
(19)
$$q_{hh}^{zz}\widehat{S}_{k1}^z\widehat{S}_{k2}^z_d=K_3+K_4+4q_{ii}^{zz}(K_3K_4),$$
(20)
$$q_{ih}^{zz}\frac{1}{2}\widehat{S}_{k1}^z\widehat{\mu }_{k1}^z+\widehat{S}_{k2}^z\widehat{\mu }_{k2}^z=K_0+K_5+4q_{ii}^{zz}(K_0K_5).$$
(21)
Here, $`\epsilon \widehat{\mu }_{k1}^z\widehat{\mu }_{k2}^z_0`$ denotes the nearest neighbor correlation of the original lattice that is well known and the coefficients $`K_0K_5`$ are listed in the Appendix.

Finally, the internal energy and specific heat of the system can be also easily calculated from the relations

$$U_d=\frac{Nq}{2}\left[J\mathrm{\Delta }(q_{hh}^{xx}+q_{hh}^{yy})+Jq_{hh}^{zz}+2J_1q_{ih}^{zz}\right],$$
(22)
$$C_d=U_d/T.$$
(23)
## III Numerical Results and Discussion

In this section we will show the most interesting numerical results of the system under investigation. For the sake of simplicity, we restrict our attention to case of the doubly decorated square lattice (see Fig. 1) in which all characteristic properties can be illustrated.

Before discussing the results, it is worth noticing that the phase diagrams for the ferromagnetic $`(J>0,J_1>0)`$ and ferrimagnetic $`(J>0,J_1<0)`$ case will be the same, since the relevant equation for the critical temperature is invariant under the transformation $`J_1J_1`$. On the other hand, the antiferromagnetic system $`(J<0`$ and arbitrary $`J_1)`$ exhibits many different features and will be discussed in a separate work.

In order to find possible ground state phases and to investigate their properties, we have to analyze the internal energy, magnetization and correlation functions at $`T=0`$. Depending on whether the anisotropy parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is less, equal or greater then the boundary value $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c=\sqrt{2|J_1|/J+1}`$ one finds three different regions. Namely,

i) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }<\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$

$`U_d={\displaystyle \frac{Nq}{8}}\left(2|J_1|+J\right),`$ (24)
$`q_{ii}^{zz}=q_{hh}^{zz}=0.25,q_{ih}^{zz}=\pm 0.25,q_{hh}^{xx}=q_{hh}^{yy}=0.0`$ (25)
ii) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }>\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$

$`U_d={\displaystyle \frac{Nq}{8}}\left(J+2\sqrt{J_1^2+(J\mathrm{\Delta })^2}\right),`$ (26)
$`q_{ii}^{zz}=q_{hh}^{zz}=0.25,q_{ih}^{zz}=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{J_1}{4\sqrt{J_1^2+(J\mathrm{\Delta })^2}}},`$ (27)
$`q_{hh}^{xx}=q_{hh}^{yy}={\displaystyle \frac{J\mathrm{\Delta }}{4\sqrt{J_1^2+(J\mathrm{\Delta })^2}}}`$ (28)
iii) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$

$`U_d={\displaystyle \frac{Nq}{8}}\left(2|J_1|+J\right),`$ (29)
$`q_{ii}^{zz}=q_{hh}^{zz}=0.0,q_{ih}^{zz}=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{2|J_1|+J}{8(|J_1|+J)}},q_{hh}^{xx}=q_{hh}^{yy}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{J(|J_1|+J)}}{8(|J_1|+J)}}`$ (30)
where the plus or minus sign one applies for the ferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic case, respectively. From these relations, we have obtained the ground-state phase diagram in the $`|J_1|\mathrm{\Delta }`$ space which is depicted in Fig. 2. Taking into account Eqs. (25)-(30), one easily identifies the standard ferromagnetic (ferrimagnetic) phase (FP) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }<\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$. However, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }>\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ an unexpected quantum phase occurs in the system. This phase (to be referred to as a quantum antiferromagnetic phase (QAP)) requires more detailed description since it differs from standard phases in the pure Ising or Heisenberg models and, as far as we know, such a phase has not been described in the literature before. In fact, from the relevant equations we find that in the QAP the Ising spins (that are the nearest neighbors on the original lattice) are aligned antiparallel with respect to each other. Consequently, we have the classical Néel long-range ordering on the Ising sublattice with $`m_A=0.0`$ and $`q_{ii}^{zz}=0.25`$. On the other hand, the nearest-neighboring Heisenberg spins create dimers, thus we also have $`m_B=0.0`$ and $`q_{hh}^{zz}=0.25`$. However, the alignment of these dimers with respect to their nearest-neighboring Ising spins is random, hence, the relevant correlation function $`q_{ih}^{zz}`$ does not reach its saturated value ($`\pm 0.25`$). Moreover, one easily observes that the degree of randomness increases with the increasing in anisotropy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This behavior apparently appears due to the competition between strong in-plane anisotropy ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) that supports short-range ordering and the exchange interactions ($`J,J_1`$) preferring the long-range ordering along the easy axis. It is also clear from the aforementioned arguments that despite of some disorder introduced by random orientation of the dimers, the QAP will exhibit the long-range Néel ordering captured to the Ising spins. Thus, one can expect the appearance of the second-order phase transition in the system at finite temperatures, even for very strong values of the anisotropy parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Nevertheless, the QAP also differs from the standard Néel phase (both the classical and quantum one) due to the ferromagnetic in-plane short-range order of the Heisenberg spins. Another unusual feature of the QAP is the perfect antiparallel alignment of the Ising spins (that are not directly coupled via exchange), despite of some disorder present between the nearest-neighboring Ising and Heisenberg atoms. Furthermore, we would like to emphasize that the existence of the QAP by itself is very surprising, since we have the system with the ferromagnetic exchange interactions $`J`$ and $`J_1`$, only.

Finally, one should notice that the FP and QAP are separated by the first-order phase transition line that is given by the condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_c=\sqrt{2|J_1|/J+1}`$. At arbitrary point of this line there coexist two of the above mentioned phases (FP, QAP) together with a disordered phase (DP) in which we have $`m_A^z=m_B^z=q_{ii}^{zz}=q_{hh}^{zz}=0.0`$ and the nonvanishing short-range ordering both in the $`xy`$ plane and along the easy axis $`(q_{hh}^{xx}=q_{hh}^{yy}0,q_{ih}^{zz}0)`$. The coexistence of these three phases follows from the fact that the relevant ground-state energies take the same value (in fact, $`lim_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_c^{}}U_d(\text{FP})=lim_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_c^+}U_d(\text{QAP})=U_d(\text{DP})_{\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_c}`$).

Next, in order to demonstrate the overall dependences of the correlation functions on the anisotropy parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we have depicted in Fig. 3 the relevant pair correlations for the case $`J_1/J=1.0`$. In agreement with the arguments given above, we find the FP for $`\mathrm{\Delta }<\sqrt{3}`$ and the QAP for $`\mathrm{\Delta }>\sqrt{3}`$. Moreover, Fig. 3 indicates that for $`\mathrm{\Delta }>\sqrt{3}`$, the correlations $`q_{ih}^{zz}`$ decreases with the increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and vanishes in the limit of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}`$. On the other hand, the correlation $`q_{hh}^{xx}`$ increases with the parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and approaches its saturation value for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}`$. Contrary to this behavior, the correlations $`q_{ii}^{zz}`$ and $`q_{hh}^{zz}`$ take the saturation value independently of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, excepting the special point $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ where they jump to zero. Thus, the antiparallel orientation of the relevant Ising and Heisenberg spin pairs is not affected at all even by the very strong anisotropy. Finally, to complete the ground-state analysis, we have shown in Fig. 4 the internal energy of different phases as a function of the anisotropy parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for $`|J_1|/J=1.0`$. In this figure, the full and dashed lines represent the stable and unstable parts of the relevant energies, respectively. The black point is the energy of the DP. This dependence apparently supports our previous statements and clearly illustrates the occurrence of the first-order phase transition at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_c=\sqrt{3}`$.

Now, let us proceed to study the finite-temperature phase diagrams for $`q=4`$ that can be easily obtained by putting $`\beta _cR=\pm 2\mathrm{ln}(1+\sqrt{2})`$ into Eq. (7). Solving the relevant equation numerically for some characteristic values of $`J_1`$, we have obtained the phase boundaries in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c`$ plane that are plotted in Fig. 5. As one can see, the critical temperature decreases gradually from its Ising value at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ and vanishes for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_c=\sqrt{2|J_1|/J+1}`$. On the other hand, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }>\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ the transition temperature at first rapidly increases, then passes through a local maximum value and finally tends to zero for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}`$. It is clear that for $`\mathrm{\Delta }<\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ the phase boundary separates the FP and the DP, and similarly for $`\mathrm{\Delta }>\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ separates QAP and DP. As one can expect, the relevant thermal phase transition is of the second order and belongs to the same universality class as that of the usual 2D Ising model. Of course, the thermal variations of physical quantities can differ from the standard behaviors in the Ising model. To illustrate the case, we have shown in Fig. 6 the temperature dependences of the specific heat for $`J_1/J=0.5`$. As we can see, in the isotropic case ($`\mathrm{\Delta }=1.0`$) we have the standard dependence usually observed in the Ising models. On the other hand, for the values of the exchange anisotropy close to the critical value ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_c=\sqrt{2}`$), the specific heat may in addition to the familiar Schottky-type maximum exhibit another maxima. These maxima appear equally bellow (see the case $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1.3`$) and above (see the insert in Fig. 6) the critical temperature, as a consequence of the thermal excitations of the Heisenberg spins that basically influence the ordering in the system. The influence of the thermal excitations on the behavior of the system is really of great importance and can be understood from the temperature dependences of the correlation functions. For this purpose, we have plotted in Fig. 7, 8 and 9 thermal variations of the correlations $`q_{ih}^{zz}`$, $`q_{hh}^{zz}`$ and $`q_{hh}^{xx}`$ for the same values of $`J_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as in Fig. 6. It is clear from these figures (see the case $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1.3`$) that the occurrence of the maximum bellow the critical temperature require to satisfy two conditions: i) the relevant correlations must increase (decrease) rapidly enough with the increasing temperature in the low-temperature region (for example, in the case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1.0`$ the additional maximum does not appear due to the relatively slow excitation process in comparison with the case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1.3`$). ii) the critical temperature of the system must be relatively high (for instance, in the case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1.4`$ we have $`k_BT_c/J0.0075`$ that is very low for the occurrence of the maximum below $`T_c`$, in spite of the very strong thermal excitations).

In addition to this behavior, the double-peak specific heat curve can be also observed here. The origin of the relevant maxima above the critical temperature can be understood from the thermal dependences of the correlation functions, as it is clearly displayed in Fig. 6-9 for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1.42`$. As one can see, the correlation function $`q_{ih}^{zz}`$ rapidly increases in the relevant region, though the short-range ordering of Heisenberg atoms in the $`xy`$ plane as well as in the $`z`$ direction is rapidly destroyed. Very similar behavior appears above $`T_c`$ also for $`\mathrm{\Delta }<\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ excepting the fact that in this case the correlations in the $`xy`$ plane abruptly increases, although all the other correlations rapidly decreases as it is apparent from Figs. 7-9 for the case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1.4`$. Hence, the appearance of the multiple peaks in the specific heat curve arises due to the relevant thermally induced short-range ordering or disordering in the system. Finally, one should also mention that all pair-correlation function exhibit at critical temperature weak energy-type singularity known from the usual Ising models.

Although, the numerical calculation have been presented for the square lattice $`q=4`$, we can on the basis of our formulation draw some general conclusions about the behavior of the doubly decorated Ising-Heisenberg systems. However, one should emphasize that our next statements do not concern the one-dimensional case that exhibits quite different behavior, as result of the fact that no long-range order is possible in the system at nonzero temperatures.

Firstly, it is clear from Eqs. (25)-(30) that the ground-state phase diagram does not depend on the coordination number and spatial dimensionality of the system. This implies that the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ is also independent of the coordination number and dimension, although our preliminary investigation of the other systems has revealed that it depends on the spin value of the Heisenberg atoms. In general one can say that the QAP exists in many two- and three-dimensional lattices in the region of $`\mathrm{\Delta }>\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$. However, it is necessary to emphasize the fact, that the above statement is valid only in the case when the Néel order is possible on the relevant original lattice. Apparently, this not the case, for example, of the doubly decorated triangular or Kagomé lattices for which much more complicated phases will occur for $`\mathrm{\Delta }>\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$.

It is also interesting to note that the QAP, as well as the standard FP may exist at finite temperatures and the temperature region of their stability is clearly enlarged with the increasing coordination number and dimensionality of the system. This is a consequence of the fact that the critical temperature increases with the increasing coordination number and dimensionality of the system. Of course, the thermal fluctuations gradually destroy the long-range order (both for the FP and QAP) in the system and if the temperature reaches its critical value, then the system undergoes the second-order phase transition sharing the same universality class as the standard spin-1/2 Ising planar model.

## IV Conclusion

In this work we have studied the doubly decorated Ising-Heisenberg model on planar lattices. Applying the standard decoration-iteration transformation, we have obtained the simple relation between the partition function of the decorated model and its corresponding standard spin-1/2 Ising model. On the basis of this relation, we have derived the exact results for basic physical quantities that have been subsequently discussed for $`J>0`$ in Sec. III.

In our opinion, the prediction of the QAP is the most important finding of this work and it illustrates how the magnetic properties of the pure Ising systems can be essentially modified by introducing the quantum Heisenberg atoms on the bonds of the original lattice. The origin of the QAP consists in the quantum fluctuations arising in the system, hence the QAP itself provides a clear manifestation of the quantum phenomena in the macroscopic scale.

Although at the present time we are not aware of any experimental system which can be directly described by the considered doubly decorated Ising-Heisenberg model, we hope that the recent progress in molecular engineering will result in the preparation of such materials. In fact, recently synthesized compound K<sub>3</sub>Co$`^{\text{III}}`$(CN)<sub>6</sub>.2Rh$`{}_{}{}^{\text{II}}{}_{2}{}^{}`$(CH<sub>3</sub>COO)<sub>4</sub> (see Ref. ), which has the magnetic structure of the doubly decorated square lattice (Fig. 1), seems to be the most promising from this point of view. Unfortunately, the Co<sup>3+</sup> ions (located at the corners of each square) are in this compound due to the very strong ligand field of the cyanide groups in the low-spin state (i.e. they are diamagnetic). Nevertheless, tuning the ligand field around the Co<sup>3+</sup> ions by the choice of other ligands, represents a possible way how to prepare the compounds with high-spin Co<sup>3+</sup> paramagnetic ions. Another possibility to obtain the compounds of desired magnetic structure consists in the chemical replacement of the Co<sup>3+</sup> ions by other transition metal ions, such as Fe<sup>3+</sup> and Cr<sup>3+</sup> ions. Because the corner atoms of each square would possess spin 1/2 (in case of Fe<sup>3+</sup> ion) or 3/2 (for Cr<sup>3+</sup> ion), the present theory could be applied to describe the behavior of these materials. Since the most of the real materials have $`\mathrm{\Delta }1`$, it is also worth noticing that in the case of very weak exchange interaction $`J_1`$ ($`|J_1|<<J`$), the QAP appears in our system near $`\mathrm{\Delta }1`$ regardless of the coordination number and spatial dimensionality. This supports our hope that the experimental confirmation of this phase would be possible in some materials.

Finally, we would like to remark that the present formalism can be extended to investigate many other interesting systems. Indeed, we have succeeded in solving some interesting generalization of the system studied in this paper and we have found very rich and interesting behavior that will be discussed in forthcoming works.

Acknowledgment: This work has been supported by the Ministry of Education of Slovak Republic under VEGA grant No. 1/9034/02.

Appendix

$`K_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\beta J_1/2)}{\mathrm{cosh}(\beta J_1/2)+\mathrm{exp}(\beta J/2)\mathrm{cosh}(\beta J\mathrm{\Delta }/2)}},`$ (31)
$`K_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\beta J\mathrm{\Delta }/2)}{\mathrm{cosh}(\beta J\mathrm{\Delta }/2)+\mathrm{exp}(\beta J/2)\mathrm{cosh}(\beta J_1/2)}},`$ (32)
$`K_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{J\mathrm{\Delta }}{\sqrt{J_1^2+J^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\left(\beta \sqrt{J_1^2+J^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}/2\right)}{\mathrm{cosh}\left(\beta \sqrt{J_1^2+J^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}/2\right)+\mathrm{exp}(\beta J/2)}},`$ (33)
$`K_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cosh}(\beta J_1/2)\mathrm{exp}(\beta J/2)\mathrm{cosh}(\beta J\mathrm{\Delta }/2)}{\mathrm{cosh}(\beta J_1/2)+\mathrm{exp}(\beta J/2)\mathrm{cosh}(\beta J\mathrm{\Delta }/2)}},`$ (34)
$`K_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(\beta J/2)\mathrm{cosh}\left(\beta \sqrt{J_1^2+J^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}/2\right)}{\mathrm{exp}(\beta J/2)+\mathrm{cosh}\left(\beta \sqrt{J_1^2+J^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}/2\right)}},`$ (35)
$`K_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{J_1}{\sqrt{J_1^2+J^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\left(\beta \sqrt{J_1^2+J^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}/2\right)}{\mathrm{cosh}\left(\beta \sqrt{J_1^2+J^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}/2\right)+\mathrm{exp}(\beta J/2)}}.`$ (36)
The detailed derivation of the coefficients given above requires lengthy calculation, thus is not presented here but it can be obtained by the authors on the request.

Figure captions

* The fragment of the doubly decorated square lattice. The black (grey) circles denote the positions of the Ising (Heisenberg) atoms, respectively. The ellipse demarcates a typical bond described by the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{}_k`$ (see Eq. (2)).
* Ground-state phase diagram of the doubly decorated Ising-Heisenberg model. The full lines represents the line of first-order phase transitions that separates the ferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic phase (FP) from the quantum antiferromagnetic phase (QAP)
* Dependences of the pair-correlation functions at the frond state on the anisotropy parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for the doubly decorated square lattice ($`q=4`$) and $`|J_1|/J=1.0`$.
* Ground-state energy $`U_d`$ v.s. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for $`q=4`$ and $`|J_1|/J=1.0`$. The full and dashed lines represent, respectively, the stable and unstable parts of the energies of relevant phases. The black circle denotes the ground-state energy of the disordered phase (DP).
* Phase boundaries in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c`$ plane for the doubly decorated square Ising-Heisenberg lattice ($`q=4`$) when the exchange interaction $`J_1`$ is changed. FP, QAP and DP denote the ferromagnetic (or ferrimagnetic), quantum antiferromagnetic and disordered phase, respectively.
* Temperature dependences of the reduced specific heat of the doubly decorated square lattice ($`q=4`$) for $`J_1/J=0.5`$ and different values of the anisotropy parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The dashed (full) lines represent the cases corresponding to the FP (QAP) ground-state phases, respectively. The insert shows the detail of the behavior when the anisotropy parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ takes the value close to the boundary value $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c=\sqrt{2}`$.
* Temperature variations of the correlation function $`q_{ih}^{zz}`$ between Ising and Heisenberg atoms for $`q=4`$, $`J_1/J=0.5`$ and different values of the anisotropy parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.
* The same as in Fig. 7 but for the correlation $`q_{hh}^{zz}`$ between nearest-neighboring Heisenberg atoms.
* The same as in Fig. 7 but for the correlation $`q_{hh}^{xx}=q_{hh}^{yy}`$ between nearest-neighboring Heisenberg atoms.