text:
# Linear energy bounds for Heisenberg spin systems

## 1 Introduction

For ferromagnetic spin systems the ground–state $`|\mathrm{}`$ and the first few excited states, called magnon states, are well–known and extensively investigated, see e. g. . For anti–ferromagnetic (AF) coupling the state $`|\mathrm{}`$ will be the state of highest energy, and could be called the ”anti–ground–state”. Also the magnon states which have a large total spin quantum number $`S`$ are still eigenstates of the Heisenberg Hamiltonian, but seem to be of less physical importance at first glance, since in thermal equilibrium they are dominated by the low–lying eigenstates. However, these states will become ground–states if a sufficient strong magnetic field H is applied, since the Zeeman term in the Hamiltonian will give rise to a maximal energy shift of $`\mu _BgS\text{H}`$. Hence the magnon states are yet important for the magnetization curve $`(\text{H})`$, especially at low temperatures.
What can then be said about the energies of the magnon states in general? The anti–ground state (or ”magnon vacuum”) has the energy $`E_0=Js^2`$ and the total magnetic quantum number $`M=Ns`$. Here $`N`$ denotes the number of spins with individual spin quantum number $`s`$ and $`J`$ denotes the sum of all exchange parameters of the spin system, see section 2 for details. The $`1`$–magnon states ly in the subspace with $`M=Ns1`$. Their energies can be calculated, up to a constant shift and a factor $`2s`$, as the eigenvalues of the symmetric $`N\times N`$–matrix of exchange parameters, which can be done exactly in most cases. Let $`E_1^{\mathrm{min}}`$ denote the smallest of these energies. More generally, we will write $`E_a^{\mathrm{min}}`$ for the minimal energy within the subspace with total magnetic quantum number $`M=Nsa`$. It turns out that typically the graph of $`aE_a^{\mathrm{min}}`$ will be an approximate parabola with positive curvature, see . However, there are exceptions to this rule, see , one exception being given by the recently discovered ”independent magnon states” . Here, for some small values of $`a`$, we have

$$E_a^{\mathrm{min}}=(1a)E_0+aE_1^{\mathrm{min}},$$
(1)
i. e. $`aE_a^{\mathrm{min}}`$ is locally an affine function. The existence of states satisfying (1) is not just a curiosity but has interesting physical consequences with respect to magnetization: Since the Zeeman term is also linear in $`a`$, the independent magnon states simultaneously become ground–states at the saturation value of the applied magnetic field. One would hence observe a marked jump in the magnetization curve $`(\text{H})`$ at zero temperature, see the discussion in . Other examples of spin systems exhibiting jumps in the magnetization curve due to linear parts of the energy spectrum are known, see  and .
The independent magnon states which satisfy (1) can be analytically calculated. In order to rigorously prove that their energy eigenvalues are minimal within the subspaces with $`M=Nsa`$, one could try to prove a general inequality of the form

$$E_a^{\mathrm{min}}(1a)E_0+aE_1^{\mathrm{min}}$$
(2)
for all $`a=0,\mathrm{},2Ns`$ and AF-coupling. Geometrically, (2) means that energies in the plot of $`E`$ versus $`a`$ ly on or above the line joining the first two points with $`E_0`$ and $`E_1`$.
A proof of (2) is given in  only for the special case of $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$ and certain homogeneous coupling schemes. This is an unsatisfying situation since the independent magnon states constructed in  can be defined for any $`s`$ and their minimal energy property is numerically established without any doubt.
Thus this article is devoted to the generalization of the quoted proof to arbitrary $`s`$ and coupling schemes. The only assumption we need is that the exchange parameters $`J_{\mu \nu }`$ have equal signs. For AF–coupling, i. e. $`J_{\mu \nu }0`$, we obtain (2). The ferromagnetic case $`J_{\mu \nu }0`$ is completely analogous and yields

$$E_a^{\mathrm{max}}(1a)E_0+aE_1^{\mathrm{max}},$$
(3)
with self-explaining notation. Hence it will not be necessary to consider the ferromagnetic case separately in the rest of this article.
As remarked before, it is an obvious benefit of the generalisation of the quoted proof to rigorously establish the minimal energy property of the independent magnon states for arbitrary $`s`$. Moreover, it is now easy to extend the construction of independent magnon states to coupling schemes with different exchange parameters. For example, one could consider a cuboctahedron with two different exchange constants: $`J_1>0`$ for the bonds within two opposing squares and $`J_2`$ satisfying $`0<J_2<J_1`$ for the remaining bonds. This coupling scheme would admit the same independent magnon states as those considered in .
The technique of the proof of the generalized inequality is essentially the same as that of the old one. The generalization to arbitrary $`s`$ is achieved by replacing every spin $`s`$ by a group of $`2s`$ spins $`\frac{1}{2}`$ and the coupling between two spins by a uniform coupling between the corresponding groups. The energy eigenvalues of the new system include the eigenvalues of the old one. In this way the proof can be reduced to the case of $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$.
In the next step we embed the Hilbert space of the spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ system into some sort of bosonic Fock space for magnons and compare the Heisenberg Hamiltonian with that for the ideal magnon gas. The difference of these two Hamiltonians has two components of different origin: First, there occurs some (positive definite) term due to a kind of ”repulsion” between magnons. Only here the AF-coupling assumption is needed. Second, the ”kinetic energy” part (or XY–part) of the magnon gas Hamiltonian produces some unphysical states, due to the fact that the magnon picture is only an approximation of the real situation. The necessary projection onto the physical states further increases the ground state energy. Both components introduce a $`>`$–sign in (2). As far as the Heisenberg spin system can be exactly viewed as an ideal magnon gas, we have an $`=`$–sign in (2) as for independent magnons. The analogy of a antiferromagnet in a strong magnetic field with a repulsive Bose gas is well-known, see for example .
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 contains the pertinent notation and definitions, section 3 the main theorem together with its proof in two steps (sections 3.1 and 3.2) and section 4 a short discussion.

## 2 Notation and Definitions

We consider systems with $`N`$ spin sites, individual spin quantum number $`s`$ and Heisenberg Hamiltonian

$$H=\underset{\mu ,\nu =1}{\overset{N}{}}J_{\mu \nu }𝐬_\mu 𝐬_\nu .$$
(4)
Here $`𝐬_\mu =(𝐬_\mu ^{(1)},𝐬_\mu ^{(2)},𝐬_\mu ^{(3)})`$ is the (vector) spin operator at site $`\mu `$ and $`J_{\mu \nu }`$ is the exchange parameter determining the strength of the coupling between sites $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$. $`J_{\mu \nu }`$ will be considered as the entries of a real $`N\times N`$-matrix $`𝐉`$. As usual,

$$𝐒^{(i)}\underset{\mu }{}𝐬_\mu ^{(i)}(i=1,2,3)$$
(5)
and

$$𝐬_\mu ^\pm 𝐬_\mu ^{(1)}\pm i𝐬_\mu ^{(2)},\mu =1,\mathrm{},N.$$
(6)
The Hilbert space which is the domain of definition of the various operators considered will be denoted by $`(N,s)`$. It can be identified with the $`N`$–fold tensor product

$$(N,s)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}(1,s).$$
(7)
Note that the exchange parameters $`J_{\mu \nu }`$ are not uniquely determined by the Hamiltonian $`H`$ via (4). Different choices of the $`J_{\mu \nu }`$ leading to the same $`H`$ will be referred to as different “gauges”.
First, the anti–symmetric part of $`𝐉`$ does not enter into (4) and could be chosen arbitrarily. However, throughout this article we will choose $`J_{\mu \nu }=J_{\nu \mu }`$, i. e. consider $`𝐉`$ as a symmetric matrix. Second, the diagonal part of $`𝐉`$ is not fixed by (4). Since $`𝐬_\mu 𝐬_\mu =s(s+1)\stackrel{\text{1}\text{ }}{}`$ we may choose arbitrary diagonal elements $`J_{\mu \mu }`$ without changing $`H`$, as long as their sum vanishes, $`\text{Tr}𝐉=0`$. The usual gauge chosen throughout the literature is $`J_{\mu \mu }=0,\mu =1,\mathrm{},N,`$ which will be called the “zero gauge”. In this article, however, we will choose another gauge, called “homogeneous gauge”, which is defined by the condition that the row sums

$$J_\mu \underset{\nu }{}J_{\mu \nu }$$
(8)
will be independent of $`\mu `$. Of course, there exist spin systems which admit both gauges simultaneously, e. g. homogeneous spin rings. These systems will be called “weakly homogeneous”. We will see that the condition of weak homogeneity used in previous articles   is largely superfluous and can be replaced by the homogeneous gauge (but see section 4).
Note that the eigenvalues of $`𝐉`$ may non–trivially depend on the gauge. The homogeneous gauge has the advantage that energy eigenvalues in the 1–magnon–sector are simple functions of the eigenvalues of $`𝐉`$, see below. The quantity

$$J\underset{\mu \nu }{}J_{\mu \nu }$$
(9)
is gauge–independent. If exchange parameters satisfying $`\stackrel{~}{J}_{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{~}{J}_{\nu \mu }`$ are given in the zero gauge, the corresponding parameters $`J_{\mu \nu }`$ in the homogeneous gauge are obtained as follows:

$$J_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{J}_{\mu \nu }\text{ for }\mu \nu ,$$
(10)
$$J_{\mu \mu }\frac{1}{N}J\stackrel{~}{J}_\mu .$$
(11)
It follows that

$$jJ_\mu =\underset{\nu }{}\stackrel{~}{J}_{\mu \nu }+J_{\mu \mu }=\frac{J}{N}.$$
(12)
Since $`H`$ commutes with $`𝐒^{(3)}`$, the eigenspaces $`_a`$ of $`𝐒^{(3)}`$ with eigenvalues $`M=Nsa,a=0,1,\mathrm{},2Ns,`$ are invariant under the action of $`H`$. $`_a`$ will be called the $`a`$–magnon–sector. Let $`𝒫_a`$ denote the projection onto $`_a`$ and

$$H_a𝒫_aH𝒫_a.$$
(13)
An orthonormal basis of $`_a`$ is given by the product states $`m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_N`$ satisfying

$$𝐬_\mu ^{(3)}m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_N=m_\mu m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_N,$$
(14)
where $`m_\mu `$ can assume the $`2s`$ values

$$m_\mu =s,s1,\mathrm{},s.$$
(15)
In the case of $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$, $`m_\mu \{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\}\{,\}`$ and the state (14) can be uniquely specified by the ordered set $`|n_1,\mathrm{},n_a`$ of $`a`$ spin sites $`\mu `$ with $`m_\mu =\frac{1}{2}`$. We will use both notations equivalently:

$$|n_1,\mathrm{},n_am_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_N.$$
(16)
For example,

$$|1,3,4=,a=3,N=5.$$
(17)
We now consider again arbitrary $`s`$. The subspace $`_1`$ is $`N`$–dimensional and, similarly as above, its basis vectors $`m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_N`$ may be denoted by $`|n,n=1,\mathrm{},N,`$ if $`n`$ denotes the site with lowered spin, i. e. $`m_\mu =s\delta _{\mu n},\mu =1,\mathrm{},N.`$
Consider

$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`𝒫_1\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mu \nu }{}}J_{\mu \nu }𝐬_\mu ^{(3)}𝐬_\nu ^{(3)}+\frac{1}{2}_{\mu \nu }J_{\mu \nu }(𝐬_\mu ^+𝐬_\nu ^{}+𝐬_\mu ^{}𝐬_\nu ^+)\right)𝒫_1`$ (18)
$``$ $`H_1^Z+H_1^{XY},`$ (19)
and

$`H_1^Z|n`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mu \nu }{}}J_{\mu \nu }(s\delta _{\mu n})(s\delta _{\nu n})\right)|n`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`\left(s^2Nj2sj+J_{nn}\right)|n.`$ (21)
Similarly, we obtain after some calculation

$$H_1^{XY}|n=2s\underset{m,mn}{}J_{nm}|m+(2s1)J_{nn}|n.$$
(22)
Hence

$$H_1=(s^2Nj2sj)\underset{_a}{\overset{\text{1}\text{ }}{}}+2s𝐉$$
(23)
and the eigenvalues of $`H_1`$ are

$$E_\alpha =s^2Nj+2s(j_\alpha j),$$
(24)
if $`j_\alpha ,\alpha =1,\mathrm{},N,`$ are the eigenvalues of $`𝐉`$. This simple relation between $`H_1`$ and $`𝐉`$ only holds in the homogeneous gauge. Note further that, due to the homogeneous gauge, $`j`$ is one of the eigenvalues of $`𝐉`$, the corresponding eigenvector having constant entries.
We denote by $`j_{\mathrm{min}}`$ the minimal eigenvalue of $`𝐉`$ and by $`E_1^{\mathrm{min}}`$ the corresponding minimal eigenvalue of $`H_1`$.

## 3 The Main Result

###### Theorem 1

Consider a spin system with AF-Heisenberg coupling scheme and homogeneous gauge, i. e.

$$j\underset{\nu }{}J_{\mu \nu }$$
(25)
being independent of $`\mu `$ and

$$J_{\mu \nu }0\text{ for }\mu \nu .$$
(26)
Then the following operator inequality holds:

$$H_a\left(Njs^22sa(jj_{\mathrm{min}})\right)\underset{_a}{\overset{\text{1}\text{ }}{}}$$
(27)
for all $`a=0,1,\mathrm{},2Ns`$.

The rest of this section is devoted to the proof of this theorem.

### 3.1 Reduction to the case $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$

We will construct another Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}=\underset{\alpha ,\beta =1}{\overset{\widehat{N}}{}}\widehat{J}_{\alpha \beta }\widehat{𝐬}_\alpha \widehat{𝐬}_\beta $$
(28)
acting on the Hilbert space $`\widehat{}=(2Ns,\frac{1}{2})`$, i. e. $`\widehat{N}=2Ns`$ and $`\widehat{s}=\frac{1}{2}`$. Intuitively, every spin site with spin $`s`$ is replaced by a group of $`2s`$ spin sites with spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ and the coupling between spin sites is extended to a uniform coupling between groups, see figure 1.

Formally, we set

$$\alpha (\mu ,i),i=1,\mathrm{},2s$$
(29)
and

$$\widehat{J}_{\alpha \beta }=\widehat{J}_{(\mu ,i)(\nu ,j)}J_{\mu \nu },i,j=1,\mathrm{},2s.$$
(30)
The new matrix $`\widehat{𝐉}`$ satisfies the homogeneous gauge condition if $`𝐉`$ does.
According to the well–known theory of the coupling of angular momenta or spins the tensor product spaces

$$(2s,\frac{1}{2})=_{i=1}^{2s}(1,\frac{1}{2})$$
(31)
can be decomposed into eigenspaces of $`\left(_{i=1}^{2s}𝐬_i\right)^2`$ with eigenvalues
$`S(S+1),S=s,s1,\mathrm{},\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0\text{if}& 2s\text{ even }\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}\text{if}& 2s\text{ odd }\hfill \end{array}`$ The eigenspace with the maximal $`S=s`$ will be denoted by $`𝒦_s`$ and the projector onto this eigenspace by $`𝐏_s`$. $`𝒦_s`$ is isomorphic to $`(1,s)`$. This isomorphism can be chosen such that the following isometric embedding

$$𝗃_s:(1,s)𝒦_s(2s,\frac{1}{2})$$
(32)
satisfies

$$𝗃_s𝐬𝗃_s^{}=𝐏_s\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{2s}{}}𝐬_i\right)𝐏_s.$$
(33)
Let $`𝗃`$ denote the tensor product of the $`𝗃_s`$

$$𝗃:(N,s)(2Ns,\frac{1}{2})$$
(34)
and $`𝐏=_{\nu =1}^N𝐏_s`$ the corresponding projector onto $`_{\nu =1}^N𝒦_s`$ which commutes with $`\widehat{H}`$. Then it follows from (33) that

$$𝗃H𝗃^{}=𝐏\widehat{H}𝐏.$$
(35)
In other words, $`H`$ may be viewed as the restriction of $`\widehat{H}`$ onto the subspace of states with maximal spin $`S=s`$ within the groups. The eigenvalues of $`H`$ form a subset of the eigenvalues of $`\widehat{H}`$.

The relation (30) between the exchange parameters may be written in matrix form as

$$\widehat{𝐉}=𝐉𝐄,$$
(36)
where $`𝐄`$ is the $`2s\times 2s`$–matrix completely filled with $`1`$’s. The eigenvalues of $`𝐄`$ are $`2s`$ and $`0`$, the latter being $`(2s1)`$-fold degenerate, hence the eigenvalues of the $`\widehat{𝐉}`$–matrix satisfy

$$\widehat{j}_\alpha =2sj_\alpha \text{ or }0.$$
(37)
It will be illustrative to check the spectral inclusion property for some known eigenvalues of Heisenberg Hamiltonians.
The eigenvalue of $`H`$ for the magnon vacuum state $`|\mathrm{}`$ is

$$E_0=Njs^2.$$
(38)
For $`\widehat{H}`$ we analogously have

$$\widehat{E_0}=(2sN)\widehat{j}(\frac{1}{2})^2,$$
(39)
which is identical with (38) by $`\widehat{j}=2sj`$. Similarly, the eigenvalues of $`H`$ in the $`1`$–magnon–sector $`M=Ns1`$ are

$$E_\alpha =jNs^2+2s(j_\alpha j),$$
(40)
cf. (24), hence

$$\widehat{E_\alpha }=\widehat{j}2sN\frac{1}{4}+2\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{j_\alpha }\widehat{j}),$$
(41)
which is identical with (40) because of (37).
Analogously to the cases considered it is easy to see that the bounds of the rhs of (27) are the same for $`H`$ and $`\widehat{H}`$: Since $`\widehat{j}`$ and $`\widehat{j}_{\mathrm{min}}`$ cannot be zero, they must satisfy

$$\widehat{j}=2sj,\widehat{j}_{\mathrm{min}}=2sj_{\mathrm{min}},$$
(42)
according to (37).
Further, the spectrum of $`H_a`$ is contained in the spectrum of $`\widehat{H_a}`$. Thus it suffices to prove (27) for $`\widehat{H}`$, i. e. $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$.

### 3.2 Embedding into the magnon Fock space

Throughout this section we set $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$. Recall that

$$(N,\frac{1}{2})=_{a=0}^N_a$$
(43)
denotes the decomposition of the Hilbert space of the system into eigenspaces of $`𝐒^{(3)}`$ with eigenvalues $`M=\frac{1}{2}Na`$.
Let

$$_a(_1)\underset{i=1}{\overset{a}{}}_1$$
(44)
denote the completely symmetric subspace of the $`a`$–fold tensor product of $`1`$–magnon–spaces and

$$_a(T):_a(_1)_a(_1)$$
(45)
be the corresponding restriction of $`T\stackrel{\text{1}\text{ }}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{\text{1}\text{ }}{}+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{\text{1}\text{ }}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{\text{1}\text{ }}{}T`$ if $`T:_1_1`$ is any linear operator.
Recall that a basis of $`_a`$ is given by the states

$$|n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_a,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}n_1<n_2<\mathrm{}<n_aN$$
(46)
where the $`n_i`$ denote the lowered spin sites. Let

$$𝒮_a:\underset{i=1}{\overset{a}{}}_1_a(_1)$$
(47)
denote the “symmetrizator”, i. e. the sum over all permuted states divided by the square root of its number. The assignement

$$|n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_a𝒮_a|n_1|n_2\mathrm{}|n_a$$
(48)
can be extended to an isometric embedding denoted by

$$𝒥_a:_a_a(_1).$$
(49)
It satisfies $`𝒥_a^{}𝒥_a=\underset{_a}{\overset{\text{1}\text{ }}{}}`$. Hence $`𝖯_a𝒥_a^{}𝒥_a`$ will be a projector onto a subspace of $`_a(_1)`$ denoted by $`_a(_1)`$. Obviously,

$$𝒥_a^{}=𝒥_a^{}𝖯_a.$$
(50)
The states contained in $`_a(_1)`$ are called “physical states” since they are in $`1:1`$–correspondence with the states in $`_a`$. The orthogonal complement of $`_a(_1)`$ contains “unphysical states” like $`|n|n`$. More general, it is easy to see that any superposition of product states is orthogonal to $`_a(_1)`$ iff all product states of the superposition contain at least one factor twice or more.
We define

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_a𝒥_a^{}_a(_1)𝒥_a.$$
(51)
Recall that $`_1`$ was defined as the Hamiltonian in the $`1`$–magnon sector.
The main part of the remaining proof will consist of comparing $`\stackrel{~}{H}_a`$ with $`H_a`$. To this end, $`H`$ will be split into a “$`Z`$–part” and an “$`XY`$–part” according to

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu \nu }{}}J_{\mu \nu }𝐬_\mu ^{(3)}𝐬_\nu ^{(3)}+\frac{1}{2}_{\mu \nu }J_{\mu \nu }(𝐬_\mu ^+𝐬_\nu ^{}+𝐬_\mu ^{}𝐬_\nu ^+)`$ (52)
$``$ $`H^Z+H^{XY},`$ (53)
and, analogously, $`H_a=H_a^Z+H_a^{XY}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_a=\stackrel{~}{H}_a^Z+\stackrel{~}{H}_a^{XY}`$.

###### Proposition 1

$$H_a^{XY}=\stackrel{~}{H}_a^{XY}.$$
(54)
Proof: Let $`|n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_a`$ be an arbitrary basis vector of $`_a`$. It suffices to consider a Hamiltonian of the form

$$H^{XY}=\frac{1}{2}(𝐬_\mu ^+𝐬_\nu ^{}+𝐬_\mu ^{}𝐬_\nu ^+).$$
(55)
Morover we need only consider the case $`\mu <\nu `$ since for $`\mu =\nu `$ the basis vectors are eigenvectors both of $`H_a^{XY}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_a^{XY}`$ with eigenvalues $`\frac{1}{2}`$. We have to distinguish between four cases:

1. $`\mu ,\nu \{n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_a\}`$:

$`H_a^{XY}|n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(𝐬_\mu ^+𝐬_\nu ^{}+𝐬_\mu ^{}𝐬_\nu ^+)|n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_a`$ (56)
$`=`$ $`0`$ (57)
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{H}_a^{XY}|n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_a,`$ (58)
since $`|n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_a`$ is annihilated by $`𝐬_\mu ^+`$ and $`𝐬_\nu ^+`$.
2. $`\mu \{n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_a\}`$, but $`\nu \{n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_a\}`$:

$`H_a^{XY}|n_1,\mathrm{},\mu \mathrm{},n_a`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}𝐬_\mu ^+𝐬_\nu ^{}|n_1,\mathrm{},\mu \mathrm{},n_a`$ (59)
$`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\text{Sort}|n_1,\mathrm{},\nu ,\mathrm{},n_a.`$
$`\stackrel{~}{H}_a^{XY}|n_1,\mathrm{},\mu \mathrm{},n_a=𝒥_a^{}_a(H_1^{XY})𝒥_a|n_1,\mathrm{},\mu \mathrm{},n_a`$
$`=𝒥_a^{}_a(H_1^{XY})𝒮_a|n_1\mathrm{}|n_a`$
$`=\frac{1}{2}𝒥_a^{}𝒮_a(𝐬_\mu ^+𝐬_\nu ^{}|n_1\mathrm{}|n_a`$
$`+\mathrm{}+|n_1\mathrm{}𝐬_\mu ^+𝐬_\nu ^{}|\mu \mathrm{}|n_a`$
$`+\mathrm{}+|n_1\mathrm{}𝐬_\mu ^+𝐬_\nu ^{}|n_a)`$
$`=\frac{1}{2}𝒥_a^{}𝒮_a|n_1\mathrm{}|\nu \mathrm{}|n_a`$
$`=\frac{1}{2}\text{Sort}|n_1,\mathrm{},\nu ,\mathrm{},n_a.`$ (60)
Hence $`H_a^{XY}|n_1,\mathrm{},\mu \mathrm{},n_a=\stackrel{~}{H}_a^{XY}|n_1,\mathrm{},\mu \mathrm{},n_a`$.
3. The case $`\nu \{n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_a\}`$, but $`\mu \{n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_a\}`$ is completely analogous.
4. $`\mu ,\nu \{n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_a\}`$:
In this case $`H_a^{XY}|n_1,\mathrm{},\mu ,\mathrm{},\nu ,\mathrm{},n_a=0`$, since the state is annihilated by $`𝐬_\mu ^{}`$ as well as by $`𝐬_\nu ^{}`$. On the other side $`\stackrel{~}{H}_a^{XY}=\frac{1}{2}𝒥_a^{}𝒮_a\left(|n_1\mathrm{}|\nu \mathrm{}|\nu \mathrm{}|n_a+|n_1\mathrm{}|\mu \mathrm{}|\mu \mathrm{}|n_a\right)=0,`$ since $`𝒥_a^{}=𝒥_a^{}𝖯_a`$ and $`𝒮_a(\mathrm{})`$ is orthogonal to the subspace $`_a(_1),`$ see the remark after (50).

###### Proposition 2

$$H_a^Z\stackrel{~}{H}_a^Z+\frac{1a}{4}Nj.$$
(61)
Proof: It turns out that the $`|n_1,\mathrm{},n_a`$ are simultaneous eigenvectors for $`H_a^Z`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_a^Z`$: First consider $`H_a^Z`$ and rewrite $`|n_1,\mathrm{},n_a`$ in the form $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_N`$ satisfying

$$𝐒_\mu ^{(3)}m_1,\mathrm{},m_N=m_\mu m_1,\mathrm{},m_N.$$
(62)
It follows that

$`H_a^Zm_1,\mathrm{},m_N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu \nu }{}}J_{\mu \nu }m_\mu m_\nu m_1,\mathrm{},m_N`$ (63)
$``$ $`ϵm_1,\mathrm{},m_N.`$ (64)
We set

$$a_\mu \frac{1}{2}m_\mu \{0,1\}$$
(65)
and obtain

$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu \nu }{}}J_{\mu \nu }m_\mu m_\nu `$ (66)
$`=`$ $`\frac{1}{4}\left(_{\mu \nu }J_{\mu \nu }\right)_{\mu \nu }J_{\mu \nu }a_\nu +_{\mu \nu }J_{\mu \nu }a_\mu a_\nu +_\mu J_{\mu \mu }(a_\mu )^2`$ (67)
$`=`$ $`\frac{1}{4}Njja+_\mu ^{}J_{\mu \mu }+\alpha ,`$ (68)
where

$$\alpha \underset{\mu \nu }{}J_{\mu \nu }a_\mu a\nu 0,$$
(69)
since $`J_{\mu \nu }0`$ for $`\mu \nu `$ by the assumption of AF-coupling. $`_\mu ^{}`$ denotes the summation over all $`\mu `$ with $`a_\mu =1`$.
Now consider

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_a^Zm_1,\mathrm{},m_N`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{H}_a^Z|n_1,\mathrm{},n_a`$ (71)
$`=`$ $`𝒥_a^{}𝒮_a(H_1^Z|n_1|n_2\mathrm{}|n_a+\mathrm{}`$
$`+|n_1|n_2\mathrm{}H_1^Z|n_a).`$
The terms $`H_1^Z|n_i`$ are special cases of (63),(66) for $`a=1`$, hence

$$H_1^Z|n_i=\frac{1}{4}Njj+J_{n_i,n_i},$$
(72)
since $`\alpha =0`$ in this case. We conclude

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_a^Zm_1,\mathrm{},m_N`$ $`=`$ $`(aj(\frac{N}{4}1)+_\mu ^{}J_{\mu \mu })m_1,\mathrm{},m_N`$ (73)
$``$ $`\delta m_1,\mathrm{},m_N.`$ (74)
Combining (63),(66) and (73) yields

$$ϵ\delta =\frac{1a}{4}Nj+\alpha \frac{1a}{4}Nj$$
(75)
or

$$H_a^Z\stackrel{~}{H}_a^Z\frac{1a}{4}Nj\stackrel{\text{1}\text{ }}{}.$$
(76)
The rest of the proof is straight forward. Combining proposition 1 and 2 we obtain

$$H_a\stackrel{~}{H}_a+\frac{1a}{4}Nj\stackrel{\text{1}\text{ }}{}.$$
(77)
Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a normalized eigenvector of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_a`$ with minimal eigenvalue $`\stackrel{~}{E}_a`$. Then

$$\stackrel{~}{E}_a=\mathrm{\Phi }|\stackrel{~}{H}_a\mathrm{\Phi }=𝒥_a\mathrm{\Phi }|_a(H_1)|𝒥_a\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{E}}_a,$$
(78)
where $`\overline{E}_a`$ is the minimal eigenvalue of $`_a(H_1)`$. Since the ground state energy of non–interacting bosons is additive, we obtain further

$$\overline{E}_a=aE_{min}(1)=a(\frac{1}{4}jN+j_{min}j)$$
(79)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_a\stackrel{~}{E}_a\stackrel{\text{1}\text{ }}{}a(\frac{1}{4}jN+j_{min}j)\stackrel{\text{1}\text{ }}{}.$$
(80)
Using (77) the final result is

$$H_a\left(\frac{1}{4}Nja(jj_{min})\right)\stackrel{\text{1}\text{ }}{}.$$
(81)
## 4 Discussion

In the above proof the two parts of the Hamiltonian acoording to $`H=H^Z+H^{XY}`$ are considered separately. Thus this part of the proof could be immediately generalized to the $`XXZ`$-model given by

$$H(\mathrm{\Delta })=\mathrm{\Delta }H^Z+H^{XY},\mathrm{\Delta }>0,$$
(82)
similarly as in . However, the considerations in section 2 concerning the homogeneous gauge and in section 3.1 concerning the reduction to the case $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$ presuppose an isotropic Hamiltonian. Hence an immediate generalisation to the $`XXZ`$-model on the basis of the above proof is only possible for weakly homogeneous systems and $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$. Compared with the result in  this means that the condition $`J_{\mu \nu }\{0,J\},J>0`$ appearing in  can be weakened to $`J_{\mu \nu }0`$.

As already pointed out, the above inequality (81) is intended to apply for small values of $`a`$, i. e. large values of $`M=Nsa`$. For small $`M`$ much better estimates are known . However, for small $`a`$ the inequality cannot be improved since there are examples where equality holds in (81) for a couple of values of $`a`$, e. g. $`a=0,\mathrm{},\frac{N}{9}`$, see  and .

Notwithstanding the construction of independent magnon states in particular examples, the proof of (27) anew establishes that the Heisenberg Hamiltonian is only equivalent to the Hamiltonian of a Bose gas of magnons if additional interaction terms are considered, see also . Apart from the repulsion term (69) in the case of AF-coupling an infinite repulsion term would have to be introduced which guarantees that no site is occupied by more than one magnon (in the case $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$). Thus magnons appear as bosons additionally satisfying the Pauli exclusion principle. The reader may ask why magnons are not rather considered as fermions, for which the exclusion principle is automatically satisfied. The reason not to do this is that the interchange of fermions at different sites would sometimes produce factors of $`1`$ which cannot be controlled, at least generally. For special topologies, e. g. spin rings or chains the independent fermion concept works well and yields the exact solution of the spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ $`XY`$-model, see .

## Acknowledgement

The author is indepted to A. Honecker for carefully reading a draft of the present manuscript and giving valuable hints.

## References


format: text

text:
# One-dimensional Nonequilibrium Kinetic Ising Models with local spin-symmetry breaking: N-component branching annihilating random-walk transition at zero branching rate

## I  Introduction

The Ising model is a well known static, equilibrium model. Its dynamical generalizations, the kinetic Ising models, were originally intended to study relaxational processes near equilibrium states . Glauber introduced the single spin-flip kinetic Ising model, while Kawasaki constructed a spin-exchange version for studying the case of conserved magnetization. Nonequilibrium kinetic Ising models, in which the steady state is produced by kinetic processes in connection with heat baths at different temperatures, have been widely investigated and results have shown that various phase transitions are possible under nonequilibrium conditions, even in one dimension (1d) (for a review see the article by Rácz in Ref. ). Most of these studies, however, have been concerned with the effects the nonequilibrium nature of the dynamics might exert on phase transitions driven by temperature.

A different line of investigating nonequilibrium phase transitions has been via branching annihilating random walk (BARW) processes. The parity conservation of particles is decisive in determining the universality class of the phase transition. A coherent picture of this scenario is provided from a renormalization point of view in . The first example of a BARW model with an even number of offsprings exhibiting the so called PC (parity conserving) transition was reported by Grassberger et al..

A class of general nonequilibrium kinetic Ising models (NEKIM) with combined spin flip dynamics at $`T=0`$ and Kawasaki spin exchange dynamics at $`T=\mathrm{}`$ has been proposed by one of the authors  in which, for a range of parameters of the model, PC-type transition takes place. This model has turned out to be very rich in several respects, for a review see.

Absorbing transitions have been, however mostly studied in particle-type models. The N-BARW2 model is a classical stochastic system of $`N`$ types of particles with branching annihilating random walk and two offsprings. For $`N=1`$ the model exhibits, at finite branching rate $`p`$, PC type transition \[8-14\]. For $`N>1`$ $`N`$ types of particles $`A_i`$ perform diffusion, pairwise annihilation of the same species and branching $`A_iA_i+2A_j`$ with rate $`p`$ for $`i=j`$ and with rate $`p^,/(N1)`$ for $`ij`$. In case of $`p=0`$ this model is always active except for the annihilation fixed point at zero branching rate. According to field theory  the coarse-grained, bosonic version of the model forms a different universality class, the so called N-BARW2 with exponents in one dimension as follows: $`\nu _{}=1`$, $`z=2`$, $`\alpha =1/2`$, $`\beta =1`$ Here the exponents are defined as follows.:

$$\xi p^\nu _{},\tau \xi ^z$$
(1)
$$\rho (t)t^\alpha ,\rho _{\mathrm{}}p^\beta $$
(2)
$`\tau `$ is the characteristic time, $`\xi `$ is the correlation length and $`\rho (t)`$, $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}`$ are the particle densities at time $`t`$ and in the steady state, respectively.

Hard core interactions have proven to be relevant in case of the N-BARW2 model by drastically changing the universality class . The arrangement of the offsprings relative to the parent turns out to be a relevant factor and causes two robust classes that are insensitive to parity conservation  or the binary nature of the production process .

In this paper we present an asymmetric spin-model (NEKIMA) with asymmetry both in the annihilation and spin-flip rate as a generalization of NEKIM. On the level of kinks, however, this model corresponds to a process of A and B particles with $`AABA`$ and $`BBAB`$ -type branching and $`AB0`$ annihilation and $`BABA`$ exclusion. Nevertheless, as will be presented below using computer simulations, the critical properties near the zero branching limit are the same as for the N-BARW2 model cited above with no sign of exclusion effects since alternating sequences of $`A`$-s and $`B`$-s occur like in , hence hard core interactions can not play an important role. Moreover, at finite branching rate of the kinks a line of directed percolation (DP) -type transition  occurs which is well described by $`N=6`$ level cluster mean-field calculations.

## II The model

The general form of the Glauber spin-flip transition rate in one-dimension for spin $`s_i`$ sitting at site $`i`$ is  ($`s_i=\pm 1`$):

$$w(s_i,s_{i1},s_{i+1})=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}(1+\delta s_{i1}s_{i+1})[(1\frac{1}{2}s_i(s_{i1}+s_{i+1})]$$
(3)
at zero temperature. Usually the Glauber model is understood as the special case $`\delta =0`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1`$.

The Kawasaki spin-exchange transition rate of neighbouring spins  at $`T=\mathrm{}`$ reduces to an unconditional nearest neighbour exchange:

$$w_{ex}(s_i,s_{i+1})=\frac{p_{ex}}{2}(1s_is_{i+1})$$
(4)
where $`p_{ex}`$ is the probability of spin exchange. The quantities in Eqs. (3) and (4) conserve spin symmetry, of course. Concerning spin exchanges, which act only at domain boundaries, the process of main importance here is that a kink can produce two offsprings at the next time step with probability

$$p_{k3k}p_{ex}.$$
(5)
By changing $`p_{ex}`$ for negative values of $`\delta `$ this model displays phase transitions in the parity conserving universality class .

In the following we will be interested in investigating an extended version of the above model. Instead of (3) we will prescribe the rates for the case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1`$, $`\delta =0`$ as follows. The $`++++++`$ and $``$ processes remain as in (3) i.e. at zero temperature no kink-pair creations occur inside of domains. Further rates will be chosen in such a way that they break the symmetry of $`+`$ and $``$ spins locally. Such dynamically self-induced field was first investigated in a different context by Majumdar, Dean and Grassberger (MDG) , namely in studying the $`T=0`$ coarsening dynamics of an Ising chain in a local field which favors $``$ spins as compared to $`+`$ ones dynamically.

In addition to the choice in  concerning the asymmetry in the annihilation rate

$`w(+;)=1`$ (6)
$`w(;++)=0`$ (7)
further spin symmetry breaking will be introduced here, namely, in the spin-flip part of the Glauber transition rate the strength of which will be measured by a further parameter $`p_+`$. While the transition rate

$$w(;+)=w(;+)=1/2$$
(8)
is unchanged, the two rates flipping $`+`$ spins will be reduced as

$$w(+;+)=w(+;+)=p_+<1/2$$
(9)
in order to balance the effect of the other dynamically induced field arising from (6) and (7) by locally favoring $`+`$ spins. The spin-exchange part of the model remains as in the the spin-symmetric case, (4).

In the terminology of domain walls or particles the following reaction-diffusion picture arises. There are two kinds of domain walls: $`+A`$ and $`+B`$ which can only occur alternately because of the spin background. Upon meeting $`AB0`$ while in the opposite sequence, $`BA`$, the two domain-walls are repulsive due to (7).

The absorbing states in the extreme situation $`p_+=0`$ when spin flipping maximally favors $`+`$ spins, are states with single frozen $``$ spins like $`+++++++++`$. By increasing $`p_+`$, a slow random walk of these lonely $``$\- spins starts and by annihilating random walk only one of them survives and performs RW. The all $`+`$ and all $``$ states are, of course, also absorbing.

The inclusion of nearest neighbor spin exchange, (4), changes the picture drastically. Spin exchange leads to $`AABA`$ and $`BBAB`$ type kink production, which, together with $`AB0`$ annihilation ($`BA0`$ is forbidden due to the annihilation-asymmetry, eqs.(6) and (7)) and diffusion of $`A`$ and $`B`$ leads to a kind of two-component, coupled branching and annihilating random walk. The phase diagram and the nature of the transitions will be reported and discussed in the following.

## III phase diagram of the NEKIMA model

### A The line of DP transitions

#### 1 Simulation results

Given three independent parameters $`\delta `$, $`p_+`$ and $`p_{ex}`$ (or rather $`p_{ex}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ ) with the restriction eq. (9) it is hard to explore the whole phase diagram. In the original (spin-symmetric) case of NEKIM  we have investigated the phase boundary in the parameter space $`(\delta ,p_{ex})`$. For negative values of $`\delta `$ a line of PC transitions was found. We are not going to investigate the $`\delta <0`$ case in the following and only make the remark that spin-asymmetry as introduced above (with a trivial generalization for $`\delta <0`$), changes the parity conserving character of the transitions to directed percolation \- type (of two species), as could be expected. The case $`\delta 0`$ (including the Glauber case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1,\delta =0`$) was found to be Ising-like, for all values of $`p_{ex}`$.

Introducing spin-asymmetry, however, makes the Glauber case also richer in phases. The phase diagram in the plane of parameters $`p_{ex}`$ and $`p_+<1/2`$ as obtained by computer simulations is shown on Fig.1.

In fixing the phase boundary the quantity measured was the density of kinks, $`\rho (t)`$, as a function of time starting from a random initial distribution of up and down spins. The chain size $`L`$ varied between $`L=20005000`$ and up to $`t=5\times 10^5`$ Monte Carlo steps (MCS) were reached. The way of updating was as in ref.. A line of DP transitions has been found by the power-law behaviour of $`\rho (t)t^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha =.160\pm .005`$, the value characteristic of DP transition. This was, of course, the expected kind of order-disorder transition on the basis of spin-asymmetry.

The point $`p_+=1/2`$, $`p_{ex}=0`$ is a particular one, at this point our model goes over to the one investigated by Majumdar et al. . For these parameter values a very high precision computer measurement has given the result $`\rho (t)=t^{1/2}/ln(t/\tau )`$ supporting an analytic independent interval approximation by these authors. In an equivalent model, however, the deviation from the $`t^{1/2}`$ law has shown up as an initial density-dependent power function with a power of $`\rho (t)`$ slightly deviating from $`1/2`$ . This problem, however, is not the subject of the present investigation.

Concerning the phase diagram, Fig. (1), the parameter values in the vicinity of $`p_+=1/2`$ for $`p_{ex}0`$ are hard from the computational point of view as long transients show up in the time evolution. It is apparent, however, that the phase line ends up here tangentially. At $`p_+=1/2`$ the effect of the exchange term is such that for all $`p_{ex}>0`$ the absorbing phase is entered: due to the choice in eqs.(6) and (7), the all $`s_i=1`$ phase (one of the absorbing phases) is reached exponentially fast.

As to the other limiting situation $`p_+=0`$, for $`p_{ex}=0`$ the initial spin distribution freezes in. As a matter of fact, the line of phase transitions reaches the $`p_+=0`$ axis only by letting $`p_{ex}/\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}`$ by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$ ( $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is only fixing the rate of flips, see eq.(3), while here we fixed it to unity). This circumstance, however, is of no importance for the results.

#### 2 Cluster mean-field calculations for the phase diagram

Cluster mean-field approximation introduced for nonequilibrium models by  was applied for the present model. The $`N=1`$ mean-field equation for spin-up density is

$$\frac{\rho _1}{t}=2p_+(1\rho _1)\rho _1^2$$
(10)
independently form $`p_{ex}`$, which gives a $`\rho _1t^1`$ leading order decay to the $`\rho _1(\mathrm{})=0`$ solution for all $`p_+>=0`$, while it is constant (keeps the initial value) for $`p_+=0`$. Therefore this predicts a discontinuous transition along the $`p_+=0`$ axis. The corresponding steady state exponent is $`\beta =0`$. Similarly the kink density, $`\rho _1(1\rho _1`$), decays with a leading order singularity $`\rho _{kink}t^1`$ and exhibits a jump at the $`p_{in}=0`$ axis.

The $`N=2`$ pair approximation results in the following steady state solution for kinks

$$\rho _{kink}(\mathrm{})=\frac{4p_{ex}\left(12p_+\right)p_+}{1+2\left(4p_{ex}1\right)p_++8p_{ex}\left(2p_{ex}1\right)p_+^2}$$
(11)
This has absorbing states ( $`\rho _{kink}=0`$) along the $`p+=0`$, $`p_{ex}`$=0 and $`p_+=1/2`$ lines and active in the $`0<p_+<1/2`$, $`p_{ex}>0`$ region. The transitions, however are continuous with leading order singularity $`\beta =1`$ everywhere. As we can see the simple mean-field and higher order cluster mean-field approximations give different singular behavior similarly to cases treated earlier.

For higher order approximations $`N>2`$ we could solve the equations for the steady state numerically only. We could determine stable solutions up to the $`N=6`$ level from the coupled non-linear equations of 36 variables. By locating the phase transition lines we found that the $`p_+=0`$ and the $`p_{ex}=0`$ transitions do not change but the $`p_+=1/2`$ (DP) transition line shifts monotonically towards the $`p_+=0`$ axis as we increase the level of approximations (see Fig. (2). These solutions converge towards the phase transition line determined by simulations. We found that fairly good quadratic fitting can be applied for the $`N=3,4,5,6`$ level $`p_+^{}(p_{ex},N)`$ critical point solutions, so we extrapolated to $`N\mathrm{}`$ at $`p_{ex}=0.1,0.3,0.5,0.7,0.9`$. The corresponding $`p_+^{}(p_{ex},\mathrm{})`$ curve agrees well with the simulation data (see Table I.

### B The line of N-BARW2 transitions

As we have seen in the previous subsection, in the plane of $`(p_+,p_{ex})`$ the phase below the phase transition line is the active one and extends down to the $`p_{ex}=0`$ axis. The critical behavior at and in the neighborhood of this axis has turned out to be of N-BARW2 type. In this respect the absorbing states are fully ordered or consist of single $``$ -es performing random walk in the sea of $`+`$ spins.

The order parameter also in this case is the density of kinks $`\rho `$, the steady state value of it disappears when approaching the $`p_{ex}=0`$ axis as $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}p_{ex}^\beta `$. Simulations from random initial state in a system with size $`L=10^5`$ were run up to $`10^6`$ MCS. In the supercritical region the steady states have been determined for different $`p_{ex}`$ values. Following level-off the densities were averaged over $`10^4`$ MCS and $`1000`$ samples. By looking at the effective exponent defined as

$$\beta _{eff}(p_{ex}(i))=\frac{\mathrm{ln}\rho _{\mathrm{}}(p_{ex}(i))\mathrm{ln}\rho _{\mathrm{}}(p_{ex}(i1))}{\mathrm{ln}p_{ex}(i)\mathrm{ln}p_{ex}(i1)},$$
(12)
one can read-off: $`\beta _{eff}\beta `$. The result of computer simulations at $`p_+=0.1`$ is shown on Fig.(3). A linear extrapolation for $`p_{ex}<0.1`$ gives $`\beta =1.0\pm .01`$. The overshooting of $`\beta _{eff}`$ near the critical point is typical in case of logarithmic corrections to scaling. By plotting $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}/p_{ex}`$ as the function of $`\mathrm{ln}(p_{ex})`$ fairly good linear behavior could be observed in the $`0.02<p_{ex}<0.4`$ region.

The $`\rho (t)`$ simulation results at $`p_{ex}=0`$ and $`p_+=0.1,0.4`$ were analyzed by the local slopes

$$\alpha _{eff}(t)=\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left[\rho (t)/\rho (t/m)\right]}{\mathrm{ln}(m)}$$
(13)
(where $`m=8`$ is used). The asymptotic time evolution of the density of kinks $`\rho (t)t^\alpha `$ has proven to be, within error, that of annihilating random walk: $`\alpha =1/2`$ as shown on fig.(4). A $`t^{0.9}`$ correction to scaling gave best fit in both cases. We also tried to fit a logarithmic correction form $`((a+b\mathrm{ln}(t))/t)^{0.5}`$ for $`\rho (t)`$ but $`b`$ was found to go zero for $`t>6\times 10^5`$ MCS in both cases.

As to the remaining critical exponents when approaching $`p_{ex}=0`$ we checked the expected N-BARW2 behaviour by measuring the kink density in the active state (steady state) for several small values of $`p_{ex}`$ (between $`.1`$ and $`.001`$) for lattice size $`L`$ between $`50`$ and $`5000`$. The initial state was prepared in such a way that a cluster of $`{}_{}{}^{}_{}^{}`$-es was chosen of width and location randomly distributed between $`L/4`$ and $`3L/4`$. Finite size scaling theory  predicts the form

$$\rho (p_{ex},L)=L^{\beta /\nu _{}}F(p_{ex}L^{1/\nu _{}})$$
(14)
Using the value of $`\beta `$ as obtained above, we determine $`\nu _{}`$ by data-collapsing. With $`\beta /\nu _{}=1`$ on Fig.(5), we get $`\nu _{}=1.00\pm .06`$. Thus our result shows the critical exponent values by Cardy and Täuber .

## IV Summary

In this paper a new model has been presented by generalizing the nonequilibrium kinetic Ising model for the case when two kinds of spin anisotropies are present.In addition to the local kinetic bias introduced by Majumdar et al  first, by prescribing with probability equal to zero the annihilation of $``$ spins in the neighborhood $`{}_{}{}^{}++^{}`$, we introduce spin-anisotropy in the spin-flip rate. Namely, the $`{}_{}{}^{}+_{}^{}`$ spins are less likely to flip at domain boundaries (with probability $`p_+`$) than $`{}_{}{}^{}_{}^{}`$-es (probability $`1/2`$). Branching of kinks (domain boundaries) is the main effect of the spin-exchange part of the model. We have shown by cluster mean field calculations and computer simulations that for a given $`p_+<1/2`$ asymmetry the presence of spin exchange gives rise to two different types of phase transitions. While at $`p_{ex}^{}=0`$ an active phase emerges with an N-BARW2 type of transition, for $`p_{ex}^{}>0`$ this transforms back into an absorbing state with a DP class transition. The spin anisotropies result in a new type of two-component, coupled branching and annihilating random walk of kinks with parity conservation.

At $`p_+=1/2`$ the MDG point is reached, see Fig. 1. It is the endpoint of the DP transition line similarly to the compact directed percolation endpoint of the DP transition line in the Domany-Kinzel cellular automaton model . The absorbing phase is the same in the two models, the active phase, however, is different.

The question arises whether the $`1/\mathrm{ln}(t)`$ factor in the asymptotic behaviour found in  is to be expected to hold even in the present model for $`p_{ex}=0`$. If this were the case, the N-BARW2 behavior would also be affected. First, from the side of simulations, we have not found any sign of such behavior. Moreover, the physical picture behind the expected asymptotic behaviour of spins is also different in the two cases. While MDG argue that at late time the process $`+`$ with probability unity leads to $`{}_{}{}^{}+_{}^{}`$ domains sandwiched between much larger $`{}_{}{}^{}_{}^{}`$ ones the introduction of the local asymmetric spin-flip magnetic field with bias for $`{}_{}{}^{}+_{}^{}`$ spins will act against and feed up the $`{}_{}{}^{}+_{}^{}`$ phase to compensate for their biased annihilation via the MDG process. As a consequence there is no reason to expect a late time logarithmic relaxation of the kink density on the $`p_{ex}=0`$ line for $`p_+<1/2`$.

Finally it is worth noticing that while the PC transition is known to be sensitive to the $`Z_2`$ symmetry  and DP transition appears by destroying it, the N-BARW2 transition seems to be insensitive to this symmetry breaking.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the Hungarian research fund OTKA (Nos. T034784, T017493, T025386 and 4012) for support during this study. G. Ódor acknowledges support from research fund Bolyai (No. BO/00142/99) and from IKTA projekt (Project No. 00111/2000) The simulations were performed on the parallel cluster of SZTAKI and on the supercomputer of NIIF Hungary.